欧盟或作和事佬，调停苹果三星专利战

最近一段时间以来，苹果(Apple)与三星(Samsung)的专利战有愈演愈烈的趋势。据报导，这两家公司已经在全球逾10个国家提起了30多件诉讼──但截至目前，这些官司都还没有出现能猛烈打击对方的判决结果，看起来，除非这两家公司的其中一家出现了理智的领导者，否则专利战看来还会再持续好一段时间。 对大多数产业观察家来说，很明显，这两家公司都正在将对方以外的其它竞争对手赶离智能手机和平板电脑市场。苹果主宰着平板电脑市场，在智能手机领域也打下了 一片天；而三星采用Android和Windows操作系统的广泛手机产品线，则将该公司推向智能手机领域的主导地位。即使还没有任何一款平板电脑能获得 像iPad那样的成就，但三星是少数几家至今仍能在这个极度竞争领域存活下来的公司之一。 因此，我给苹果和三星的建议是：合作吧！仔细研究能互蒙其利的交叉授权协议细节，并达成共识后，快快将重心放回设计部份。 欧盟应该会赞成这个想法。欧盟担心苹果和三星可能会因为违反欧盟相关法规，而对当地消费者的产品选择造成限制。依照全球认可的规范──即公平、合理，以及非 歧视(Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory, FRAND)──在合理的授权条款下，企业通常可以使用竞争对手声称拥有的专利。而欧盟正在研究这两家公司所申请的专利。 业 界所面临的事实是，用于无线装置的技术量非常庞大：这些专利光从字面上来看就多达上千种，而其中绝大多数都无法被单一公司声称长期持有。这些专利之中，有很大一部份是掌握在像诺基亚(Nokia)和摩托罗拉移动(Motorola Mobility，已被Google买下)这类公司手中，而最近一段时间以来，这些大型企业及其竞争对手们已经找到了一种能共享基础技术的方法，能给创新 者较公平的补偿，但仍可对竞争者提供关键的可用专利。 在我看来，苹果和三星的目标是要行使他们所拥有的专利，或是藉提起专利诉讼来排挤市场上的其它竞争企业。如果这些专利技术本质上都代表了重大技术突破，那么，这种做法很合理。然而，许多专利并非如此。一些苹果的专利──包括 iPad的形状在内──在我看来是非常荒谬的。iPad的大小或外形并没有什么特殊，不过是个方形罢了。让iPad获得巨大成功的并不是它的外形，而是作 业系统以及支持它的生态系统。 类似的观点也可以套用在iPhone的‘移动滑杆来解锁’功能上。这个小功能无疑和其它产品不 大一样，很明显，这是有着丰富想象力的设计人员的产品。但要说它是一种革命？不！苹果拥有专利，苹果去使用这些专利设计产品，或许还能以合理的费用授权给 其它公司，这些都是正当的做法，但专利，不应该被用作为排挤市场上其它公司的工具。 欧盟的考量是正确的。但苹果和三星也很有可能跨越一个长期以来一直横亘在科技企业面前的门槛。 编译： Joy Teng 本文授权编译自EBN Online，版权所有，谢绝转载 参考英文原文： Can the EU End the Apple-Samsung Patent War?，by Bolaji Ojo, Editor in Chief

相关阅读：
• ＣＣＰＯ对与OPPO商标纠纷的一审结果不服，表示上诉
• 移动专利战，谁会笑到最后？
• 日系大厂合并LCD业务，苹果终于摆脱三星？HSvesmc

{pagination} Can the EU End the Apple-Samsung Patent War? Bolaji Ojo, Editor in Chief Apple Inc. (Nasdaq: AAPL) and Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (Korea: SEC), have been acting recently as if they were the first technology enterprises to engage in a patent war. The two companies, according to reports, are engaged in more than 30 lawsuits in 10 countries worldwide -- but so far neither has delivered a knockout blow, and the tussle could go on for years more unless sane heads prevail at the companies. It's obvious to most observers that neither company can right now take the other out of the smartphone and tablet PC markets. Apple is the dominant player in the tablet market and is well entrenched in its corner of the smartphone ring, while Samsung's wide range of Android OS and Windows-OS phones has catapulted the company to the top of that sector. Even though its tablet hasn't had the same success as the iPad, Samsung is one of the few companies that most likely will survive the eventual winnowing in that market segment. So, this is what I suggest to Apple and Samsung: Get together, hash out the details of a mutually beneficial cross-licensing agreement and go back to the design table. The European Commission seems to agree. It recently waded into the conflict, concerned Apple and Samsung may be throttling consumer choices in violation of EU regulations. Under a practice accepted worldwide -- known as Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) -- companies are typically allowed to use general patents held or claimed by competitors under reasonable licensing terms. Such agreements should not impose an onerous burden on rivals. The EU is now conducting a probe into the two companies' patent claims. The reality facing the industry is that the technologies used in wireless devices are extensive: The patents governing them run literally into the thousands, and most of these cannot be claimed any longer by a single company. Companies like Nokia and Motorola Mobility (and now Google, with its purchase of Motorola Mobility) hold many of these, and over the years they and other rivals have found ways to share the fundamental technologies in a way that fairly compensates innovators but still makes critical patents available to competitors. It seems to me both Apple and Samsung aim to use the patents they either own or have filed for to exclude other players from the market. That's a fair position if the technologies behind the patents represent significant breakthroughs. For most of these, though, that is not the case. Some of Apple's patents cover the shape of its iPad, which in my opinion is absurd, considering there isn't anything noteworthy about the size or format of the iPad -- it's a rectangle. What makes the iPad distinct and such a huge success isn't its shape but the operating system and the ecosystem it supports. A similar argument could be made about the "swipe-to-unlock" fixture on the iPhone. It is certainly different and quite clearly imaginative. But revolutionary? No. Apple has a patent for the concept and should enforce it -- or license the idea to competitors for a reasonable royalty rate -- but it shouldn't be used to exclude other players from the market. We have too many silly patent wars going on in the technology business for courts to continue agreeing with companies that their rights over such innovations should be upheld at a hefty cost to rivals. By the same token, rivals need to engage with patent holders early before using their innovation. The EU is right to be concerned. Both Apple and Samsung may be crossing a threshold long respected by technology companies.