苹果战三星，站在中立者的角度看对错

苹果(Apple)跟三星(Samsung)都是对的──也都有错；笔者认为，在两家公司的诉讼案中，双方都有一些应该做的事，才能从过程中获得一些手机业务与专利策略的经营智能。 因为发明了 iPhone ，苹果是应该要获得某种程度的赞誉──该产品不仅外型出众，而且使用者只要带一支手机就能上网、听音乐，软件接口简单易用。同样的，苹果的平板装置产品 iPad 也透过专注于让消费者更方便进行网络浏览的简单易用软件，超越了其它竞争产品。 但是，为何要用艰涩的文字来撰写这些产品的专利？专利体系是由笨拙的程序与生硬、含糊的语言所构成，专利申请书的撰写需要有大师级的俐落写作与思考能力；而就像很多人说的，专利已经成为一种量化游戏，并不讲究品质。 苹果试图将所有包括产品外壳、软件…等等的很棒想法都写成专利，是合理的作法；但他们不应该把那些东西分散写成十数个不同的专利，应该把十数个专利技术纳入单一个有关iPhone的专利中。 试想，若有单一个iPhone专利是将该装置的外观、金属边框、大屏幕，以及其人机接口的特点都囊括在内，而且是用浅显的英文、不是那种陈腐的专利语言所撰写，对陪审团与法官来说应该会轻松许多。 接下来…对苹果迷很抱歉，笔者打算批判这家公司的自以为是；跟很多人一样，我也曾经被乔布斯(Steve Jobs)充满感情的言语打动过，但在亲眼目击苹果与三星诉讼案的法庭现场之后，我看到了另一个面向的事实。 乔布斯那种高来高去的说话风格，也成为诱使那些苹果菁英员工们自愿工作超时、过着非常人生活的毒药；苹果员工已经被洗 脑，认为自己就是比平凡人优秀一点── 但请面对现实吧！苹果…圆角长方形这种形状不是你们的，你们也没有发明智能手机、电容式触摸屏幕或是手机用的浏览器。 你们 也不是地球上所有美丽事物的唯一创造者；与三星比较，你在提供基础技术上所做的努力还没那么多，包括液晶显示器、电池、通讯网路、微处理器等等生产各种酷 电子玩意儿所需的元素。但是换句话说，你们很会使用那些零组件；所以你们应该对自己有信心，不要把芯片开发这种事看得太重。 而 且你们应该要更谦逊一点，让我们听到有关于电子产业利用低成本人力问题更公平一点的看法；在该问题上你们并非始作俑者，但也许你们可以利用自己的影响力与 充裕资金，为劳工现况带来一些有意义的改善。毕竟你们家的复杂产品设计就是需要很多人工，也得为那些劳工问题负起一点责任。 至 于三星，在法庭上曝光的该公司文件显示了未发表的S1手机与iPhone的逐项功能比较，每一页都几乎是对模仿苹果专利技术的详尽建议；这是很不道德的， 是一种太超过的竞争手段。这是抄袭专利技术，而且三星成功了；三星所取得的智能手机市场领导地位有部分是来自于此，而受到某种形式的处罚也是罪有应得。 我 们总是预期在iPhone上市之后不久，中国市场就会出现笨重的“山寨机”，而且屡试不爽；但是我们不会预期三星生产出这种盲从的专业复制品。虽然，对于 开发出先进芯片、显示器与电池等等技术的这家韩国公司，来自全球的瞩目是迟到了些；在这家公司辛勤工作的成千上百工程师，他们的努力应该要获得报偿。 藉 由成为三星最大的客户之一，苹果应该已经对该公司表达了某种形式的无声尊重。当两家公司的诉讼案告一段落，三星恐怕会欠苹果一张支票，只是金额应该不会到 25亿美元那么多；在法庭上，三星确实提供了一些非常具说服力的证据，反过来指控iPhone是如何违反了许多三星所拥有的手机专利。 而经历了这次法庭上的实地观察，有一件事情看来很清楚──是时候该把这桩让人抓狂的专利诉讼案件做个结束了！ 本文授权编译自EE Times，版权所有，谢绝转载 编译：Judith Cheng 参考英文原文：Apple v Samsung: Rights and Wrongs，by Rick Merritt

相关阅读：
• 想成为苹果供应商？没那么简单
• 苹果+三星，手机双雄狂敛108%行业利润
• iPhone曾经让三星陷入“设计危机”Cwmesmc

{pagination} Apple v Samsung: Rights and Wrongs Rick Merritt There’s enough greatness and pettiness to go around in the cramped courtroom of Judge Lucy Koh of San Jose Federal Court where Apple and Samsung are suing each other for patent infringement. Apple deserves some kind of acknowledgement for creating something unique with the iPhone, a distinctive looking handset that put Web access in your pocket along with a phone and music wrapped in easy to use software. In its own way, the equally distinctive iPad also was different from tablets that went before in its clear focus on consumer Web browsing with really easy-to-use software. But how do you express that in the arcane language of a patent? The patent system is encrusted with obtuse procedures and stiff, vague language. It needs a course with Strunk and White, the masters of crisp writing and thinking. As many have noted, patents have become a quantity game, not a quality metric. Apple did a reasonable job trying to write patents on all the neat little ideas it put into its casings and coded into software. But they should not have been written as a few dozen patents, rather they should have been written as a few dozen claims in one iPhone patent. Imagine an iPhone patent with claims on the shape of the device, the metal bezel, the big screen, the colorful, well-lit icons on a black background that bounce back and snap to the screen. Imagine them written in plain English rather than fusty patent-ese. There would be no problem for a jury of average San Jose Joes and Janes determining whether or not such a patent was violated. Excuse me, now, while I proceed to take Apple off its holier-than-thou pedestal. I am as touched by anyone by the emotional language of Steve Jobs that still lives on at Apple and has been invoked often in Judge Koh’s courtroom, but let’s tell the other side of that story. The lofty language of Steve Jobs also acts as a drug to dupe talented Apple employees into overworking and living unbalanced lives. It has been used to brainwash Apple employees into believing they are somehow better than other people that put their pants on one leg at a time. Get real, Apple! You don’t own the rectangle with rounded corners. You didn’t invent the smartphone, capacitive touch screen displays or browsers on handsets. You aren’t the only creators of beauty on Planet Earth. Compared to Samsung you don’t do much work on forwarding the fundamental technologies that give us the LCDs, batteries, communications networks and microprocessors we need to make cool gadgets of all kinds. That said, you used all those components damn well. So give yourself a pat on the back, and take that chip off your shoulder while you are doing it. And while you’re getting humble, let’s hear a little more candor about how the electronics industry uses low-cost labor. It didn’t start with you by any means, but maybe you can use your clout and fat bankroll to bring some meaningful reforms to labor practices. After all, your complex designs that require lots of hand assembly have certainly pushed the edge of this dark side of the Industrial Revolution 2.0. Samsung’s side of the street Samsung’s documents (displayed in court) showing feature-by-feature comparisons of its unreleased S1 handset and the iPhone are shameful. Each page makes nearly explicit recommendations for aping features on which Apple has patents. This is aggressive competition gone waaaay overboard. It is copying patented technology. You did it. You gained the lead in the smartphone market in part because you did it, and you deserve to be reined in with some sort of punishment. We expected to see clunky no-name clones of the iPhone come out of China a month after the iPhone was released, and we did. We didn’t expect this slavish professionalized copying from Samsung. Still, the lights stay on pretty late in Seoul where they develop some of the world’s finest chip technology, displays, batteries and much more. There are hundreds of hard working engineers in this company and they deserve their due. In becoming one of its largest customers, Apple has already paid Samsung a form of silent respect. When this trial is over, Samsung probably owes Apple a check, though it may not be for as much as $2.5 billion. Indeed, Samsung showed some pretty compelling evidence of how the iPhone appears to infringe some of pretty broad mobile patents it owns. Speaking of what’s owed in all this, Apple could write one to the diligent workers at Foxconn who help it amass its iFortune along with the Apple’s retail staff that reportedly works for an average of about $12 an hour. After observing the maneuvering in a San Jose court, one thing seems clear: It’s time to put an end to this patent madness.