Instruções para a Prova de INGLÊS:

• Confira se seu nome e RG estão corretos.

• Não se esqueça de assinar a capa deste caderno, no local indicado, com caneta azul ou preta.
• Você terá 4 horas para realizar as provas.
• Antes de iniciar a prova, verifique se o caderno contém 3 questões e se a impressão está legível.
• A prova de Inglês é composta por 3 questões. Atenção: A Questão 1 deve ser respondida em português; as Questões 2 e 3 devem ser respondidas
em inglês. As três questões desta prova valem, no total, 10 pontos, assim distribuídos:
• Questão 1 – 3 pontos.
• Questão 2 – 3 pontos.
• Questão 3 – 4 pontos.
• As respostas deverão ser redigidas nos espaços destinados a elas, com letra legível e, obrigatoriamente, com caneta de tinta azul ou preta.
• Não se identifique em nenhuma das folhas do corpo deste caderno, pois isso implicará risco de anulação.
• O candidato só poderá deixar definitivamente o local das provas a partir de 1 hora e meia após seu início.
• Não haverá substituição deste caderno.
• O candidato é responsável pela devolução deste caderno ao fiscal de sala.
• Adverte-se que o candidato que se recusar a entregar este caderno, dentro do período estabelecido para realização das provas, terá automaticamente
sua prova anulada.
• Estará automaticamente eliminado do processo seletivo o candidato que obtiver nota bruta inferior a 3,0 na prova de Inglês.

NOME:
IDENTIDADE: INSCRIÇÃO:
LOCAL:
DATA: 15/11/2019 SALA: ORDEM:

Assinatura do Candidato:

SALA 341 ORDEM 25 ID 004583

GRADUAÇÃO EM DIREITO SP | 15/11/2019

INGLÊS
HOW TO CUT BIG TECH DOWN TO SIZE
By James Ball

On each day of 2018 Apple sold almost 600,000 iPhones, Amazon made more than US$500 million in sales, some 1.47 billion people logged onto
Facebook, while there were 3.5 billion searches on Google. The oldest of these companies, Apple, was founded in 1976, and just a decade ago all four were
seen as scrappy [briguentas, de espírito lutador] – if fast-growing – outsiders. Today, even after Apple’s recent market problems, they are four of the
biggest companies on the planet.
Any set of companies growing so big this rapidly would be a cause for concern. But in the case of the technology giants, “concern” doesn’t quite
cut it [não chega a ser adequada]. Facebook is the world’s biggest platform and has been implicated in efforts from Russia and others to poison the
on-line information ecosystem. Both retailers and suppliers fear Amazon’s market power, while Google’s dominance of search feels all but unassailable
[incontestável] – and Apple has shown its ability to flex its power over app and music markets, not just the mobile phone market it most obviously plays in.
No surprise, then, that columnists, political campaigners, and multiple parliaments around the world are considering the idea that the tech giants
need to be broken up. But what might that look like? And is it even the right answer? We might, I suggest, do better to focus on something even bigger than
the scale of these companies themselves. Namely, the unimaginably vast scale of the data – terabytes and terabytes of it – on which the foundation of each
of these empires is built. This is data about us – our lives, our interests, our locations, and our connections. And it is the single thing we need to keep in mind
if we want to come up with a practical plan to keep the tech giants’ power in check.
The internet poses the biggest threat of monopoly in over a century, since the height of the Gilded Age. That period, from the 1870s to the early 1900s,
was born on the back of railways, a technological innovation that was not only at risk of monopoly itself, but which also created monopolies. By speeding
up, and making vastly more efficient, the transportation of materials – in much the same way that the web has facilitated the dissemination of information
– the railway economy hugely increased the potential for profit. And with the ability to offer different carriage fees to different companies, rail companies
could directly help build monopolies in steel, coal, and other industries.
These revolutionary changes encouraged concentration in all sorts of markets, but along with the growth of new industrial giants (and riches to
match) came a new suspicion of big business. The U.S. Congress passed the Sherman Anti-Trust Act in 1890; other legislation would follow in the early 20th
century, together with President Teddy Roosevelt’s pose as a trust buster [demolidor de trustes, monopólios] – using competition laws to bring to heel
[domar], and sometimes break up, the outsized corporations.
There are indeed many parallels in relation to the problems we face with the internet: not only do we need to be worried about who controls the
internet itself, but also how technological changes help the large-scale IT companies become even bigger and more entrenched and influential.

Adapted from Prospect, March 2019

 GRADUAÇÃO EM DIREITO SP | 15/11/2019

INGLÊS
Introduction

In this passage from an article in Prospect, James Ball analyzes some of the dangers inherent in Big Tech’s enormous size and power. He also compares our present
day with the Gilded Age, that period from the 1870s to the early 1900s when monopolistic behavior was also prevalent. Read the text and answer the questions
below. You are advised to read the questions carefully and give answers that are of direct relevance. Remember: Your answer to Question 1 must be written in
Portuguese, but your answers to Questions 2 and 3 must be written in English. With these last two questions, you may use American English or British English, but
you must be consistent throughout.

Question 1 (to be answered in Portuguese)

(This question tests your understanding of the text, as well as your ability to identify and paraphrase the relevant pieces of information. Your answer should fill up
approximately 15 to 20 lines in the space provided.)

With respect to the four technology giants cited at the beginning of the passage, what was unique about each one in 2018? What did they have in common ten
years ago, and what do they have in common nowadays? Why is James Ball worried about these particular companies? What does he, as well as many experts,
propose as a way of dealing with them? Going further, why does he discuss the railways of the Gilded Age? How did the new railway technology affect American
society at that time? How did the U.S. government react?

In your opinion, are Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Google too big and therefore dangerous? Should governments take steps to control them or should they be
left alone? In supporting your point of view, you may take into account legal, ethical, commercial, and practical considerations, but please try to be as objective
as possible.

RESPOSTA

10

15

NOTA
20

VISTO CORRETOR
GRADUAÇÃO EM DIREITO SP | 15/11/2019

INGLÊS
Question 2 (to be answered in English)
(This question tests your ability to express yourself in a manner that is clear, precise, and relevant. Your answer should fill up approximately 15 to 20 lines in the
space provided.)

In 1890 the Sherman Anti-Trust Act became law in the United States. According to Barron’s Law Dictionary, this act “prohibits unreasonable restraints
[impedimentos] upon and monopolization of trade in interstate or foreign commerce. The statute [also] forbids two or more persons [pessoas físicas or pessoas
jurídicas] from engaging in monopolistic practices and price fixing.”

Nevertheless, according to the dictionary, the Act allows that “There can be ‘natural’ monopolies, where one company exercises monopoly power through no effort
on its part and over which the company has no power. Such natural monopolies are not unlawful.”

It is also important to emphasize that, as formulated in the 1970s by the jurist Robert Bork (1927-2012), the currently dominant anti-trust view in the U.S. focuses
strongly on benefiting consumers and on increasing competition to the largest extent possible between domestic and foreign companies, as well as between
small and large companies, etc.

Bork argued that anti-trust laws and jurisprudence exist to serve consumer welfare and competition. While the former goal [“consumer welfare”] is a vague and
debatable term, the latter goal [“competition”] definitely merits attention. Before Bork’s ideas were promulgated, anti-trust measures in the U.S. often aimed to
preserve competitors or industries, an objective that Bork found irrelevant.

He believed that individual companies do not matter, that they serve their purpose for as long as they survive competition. Therefore, anti-trust laws must
stimulate competition among companies, especially competition for markets and consumers. This highly dynamic process, which makes companies come and go
or win and lose, stimulates innovation and economic efficiency, and these in turn lead to better products and lower prices.

In short, we may conclude that, according to Bork and his followers, the purpose of anti-trust laws is not to attack big business or to protect small businesses, but
to promote economic efficiency, free markets, and consumer welfare.

And yet, it is unquestionable that Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and Google dominate their respective areas. Apple of course does have competent rivals – Samsung
and Nokia come to mind. But many people would find it hard to name even one strong competitor of Amazon, Facebook, or Google. Therefore, in examining each
of these three particular companies, explain why you think they are or are not guilty of monopolistic practices, as described either in the Sherman Anti-trust Act
or in Robert Bork’s more recent and more prevalent consumer-focused interpretation.

Your answer may take into account certain questions:

• What is the nature of each company’s business, i.e., do Amazon, Facebook, and Google sell a product or do they offer a service? How much do they charge
for that product or service?
• In your opinion, would you or other consumers benefit in any significant way if Amazon, Facebook, and Google each had several strong competitors?
Would technology and efficiency benefit from such competition? Or do you believe that those three companies are naturally so helpful and efficient that
the world doesn’t need more companies to compete with them? In other words, can any of these companies be considered a “natural monopoly”?
• Considering that Amazon, Facebook, and Google are so big and so powerful that they can influence the way we think and act (and in certain cases, vote),
do you think they should they be broken up even if they really aren’t monopolistic, as defined either by the Sherman Anti-trust Act or by Robert Bork?
Why or why not?
• In your opinion, since Amazon, Facebook, and Google are examples of a revolutionary technology that didn’t exist when the Sherman Anti-trust Act was
passed or when Robert Bork was developing his anti-trust theories, do we need to develop a new concept of anti-trust to deal with such companies? In
fact, considering how complex and international each of these companies is, is it desirable or even possible to break them up?

In answering, you should present clear, well-balanced, and specific reasons for your point of view.
 GRADUAÇÃO EM DIREITO SP | 15/11/2019

INGLÊS
QUESTÃO 2 (continuação)

RESPOSTA

10

15

NOTA
20

VISTO CORRETOR

NÃO
ESCREVA
NESSA ÁREA
GRADUAÇÃO EM DIREITO SP | 15/11/2019

INGLÊS
Question 3 (to be answered in English)
(This question tests your ability to construct a balanced, considered, and fluent argument in the form of a short composition. In the passage below (adapted
from the unpublished Brazilian academic paper “A New Approach to Social Media Regulation”) the author suggests a potentially effective and beneficial way to
curtail the power of Facebook and, by implication, other social media. Note that instead of advocating a government antitrust action or stronger government
regulations per se, he is proposing a new kind of relationship between Facebook and its users. Read the passage and answer the question. Your answer should fill
up approximately 15 to 20 lines in the space provided.)

NOTE: Before reading, you would do well to reconsider this excerpt from paragraph 3 of James Ball’s article:

• “We might, I suggest, do better to focus on something even bigger than the scale of these companies themselves. Namely, the unimaginably vast scale
of the data – terabytes and terabytes of it – on which the foundation of each of these empires is built. This is data about us – our lives, our interests, our
locations, and our connections. And it is the single thing we need to keep in mind if we want to come up with a practical plan to keep the tech giants’ power
in check.”

Here follows the passage from “A New Approach to Social Media Regulation”:

“The phrase ‘You are the product,’ so often used in criticizing the social media, strikes me as inexact. If I were on Facebook, it wouldn’t peddle [mascatear, vender]
“me” to advertisers: it would peddle “my life,” that is, my history, personal data, likes and dislikes, and thoughts in general. Such an agglomeration derives from
the multitude of experiences, bio-physiological characteristics, and genetic content that were engendered at my conception or that I have built up over the years.
The possessive pronoun leaves no doubt: my life – and no one else’s. Whatever is in my mind, therefore, must fall into the realm of my intellectual and, why not,
emotional and psychological property. Yes, many have had a hand in creating this property – it has been nourished and stimulated, as well as rubbed [esfregada],
grated [ralada], and vexed [aborrecida, incomodada], by life’s countless interactions – but nonetheless it is wholly mine. To what other person could it belong?

“So, what I propose is to treat Facebook and others of its ilk [outras da sua laia] as what they really are: agents, brokers, sales representatives. If Facebook wants
me to use its free services for as long and as often as possible so it can sell my private data to merchants and other interested parties, fine. Depending on the size
of the transaction, the company gets a ten-to-fifteen percent cut; I get the rest. Fair enough? Facebook, you may now sell to your heart’s content.

“Now, some would argue that anyone joining Facebook signs a waiver allowing the company free use of personal information, which, as must be emphasized, is
its main source of income. But couldn’t that waiver, as worded, be considered misleading and even unconstitutional? In Brazil no one may willingly give up his or
her constitutional rights – e.g., you cannot of your own volition agree to become a slave or to be murdered. The right to private property and the right to privacy
itself come under this constitutional protection. In other words, redraft the waiver, and let’s make a new deal.

“Now, Facebook may protest that it has millions of users – how can it possibly channel small, traceable sums [quantias sujeitas ao rastreamento] daily or weekly
or monthly to all those people? But surely, by employing Artificial Intelligence and an army of lawyers, accountants, and IT engineers – and by cooperating with
governments worldwide – such a payment-and-reporting system could be implemented.

“This leads us to the socio-economic benefits: almost overnight, the exploited will become bosses, billions of dollars in global wealth will be efficiently
redistributed, and government income-tax revenues will soar [subir muito]. Meanwhile, Facebook et al. [e os demais] will soon boast [se gabar de] more than
seven billion loyal users who will prove that time – at least, time spent on social media – really is money.”

What do you think of the above proposal? Please keep in mind that the author is not criticizing Facebook’s size or power, or its allegedly unethical or monopolistic
business practices. Neither is he advocating new regulations to address those issues; nor is he suggesting that Facebook be broken up. The author is merely
recommending that Facebook “share the wealth” with its users, who, he believes, are giving away something for which they ought to be paid. Hence, discuss why
you think the proposal is either well reasoned or impractical. How would you modify it, if necessary? In short, explain why you are in favor or the proposal (either
all or in part) or against it (either all or in part).
 GRADUAÇÃO EM DIREITO SP | 15/11/2019

INGLÊS
QUESTÃO 3 (continuação)

In formulating your answer, you should consider the following:

• What, if anything, is Facebook giving its subscribers for their personal information? Why is that a fair deal or not?
• Do you think the potential socio-economic benefits cited by the author of the above passage are realistic? For example, if a friend of yours, as per
agreement, sold your car, would he keep the full amount of the sale or only a small percentage? Therefore, if Facebook kept only a small percentage of its
billions of dollars in yearly advertising revenues and distributed the rest to its users, what effect might that have on global economic inequality?
• Currently, there is some fear about the “addictive nature” of the social media. Thus, is it healthy to encourage people to spend even more time on Facebook,
even though they will earn money by doing so? What about the freedom to spend your time as you choose?
• If people are actually paid to use Facebook, is it possible they will they no longer care about fake news and socio-political manipulation? Will their ability
to think creatively and to reason be impaired? In the long run, could all these things be harmful to a democratic society?
• If the author’s proposal were implemented and Facebook became a less profitable and therefore weaker company, would that open the social media
market to more competitors? Would that encourage technological innovation and greater efficiency? Is it possible that Facebook might one day disappear?

In answering, you may take into account legal, ethical, commercial, and practical considerations, but please strive to be as clear-sighted and logical as possible,
supporting your point of view with specific arguments and examples.

RESPOSTA

10

15

NOTA
20

VISTO CORRETOR