來勢(shì)洶洶的平板專利戰(zhàn)正嚴(yán)重沖擊韓國三星電子公司(Samsung Electronics)。該公司繼先前在澳洲的訴訟敗給了蘋果公司(Apple)后，如今，德國地方法院也裁定──禁止三星Android版Galaxy Tab 10.1平板電腦在荷蘭以外的歐盟國家販?zhǔn)邸? 盡管三星公司很可能再提起上訴，但在德國的這次挫敗將延遲該公司在平板計(jì)算機(jī)市場上超越蘋果公司的計(jì)劃。同時(shí)，也可能因而減緩其它無線手機(jī)/平板制造商的Android采用率。 三星公司的競爭對(duì)手們必須特別注意了，千萬不要因?yàn)樵摴酒裨趯＠麘?zhàn)中的一點(diǎn)失敗而得意，因?yàn)檫@一專利戰(zhàn)已經(jīng)將各主要無線手機(jī)和平板市場的重要廠商都牽扯進(jìn)來了。蘋果公司在澳大利亞和歐洲用來牽制三星的相同策略手法也正等著他們，因?yàn)樘O果公司還鎖定了其它平板制造商。例如蘋果公司已經(jīng)對(duì)位于德國的摩托羅拉公司(Motorola Mobility Inc.)提出訴訟，想要透過法院禁制令來限制摩托羅拉銷售XOOM平板產(chǎn)品。 由于蘋果公司處心積慮地避免其所聲稱的設(shè)計(jì)侵權(quán)，使得像臺(tái)灣宏達(dá)電子(HTC)等多家公司也同樣出現(xiàn)在全球各地的法院被告席中。這場戰(zhàn)爭終將帶來更多長久的、曠日費(fèi)時(shí)的訴訟戰(zhàn)，而受理上訴的法院是否支持蘋果公司最近一連串的勝訴，目前也還不得而知。然而，可以肯定的是，這種情況已經(jīng)為產(chǎn)業(yè)帶來了一種“寒蟬效應(yīng)”──制造商們?cè)絹碓疥P(guān)注的是他們是否可繼續(xù)開發(fā)基于Google Android操作系統(tǒng)的產(chǎn)品。 成功限制三星Galaxy平板電腦銷售的禁制令是根據(jù)蘋果的共同設(shè)計(jì)專利號(hào)000181607。一些業(yè)界觀察家表示，這項(xiàng)專利經(jīng)確認(rèn)后，將可能限制業(yè)界其它廠商制造平板電腦。在檢視過基于蘋果專利保護(hù)的設(shè)計(jì)后，我也不得不認(rèn)同目前整個(gè)局勢(shì)已極度紛擾的看法。 顯然地，這項(xiàng)設(shè)計(jì)就類似于目前市場上的許多其它平板設(shè)計(jì)。如果蘋果公司最近封殺三星的官司勝利受到全球的認(rèn)可，它將可能接著成為適用于限制其它制造商的策略。如果真是這樣的話，這些公司們都應(yīng)該離開這一市場，直接投入蘋果公司就好了。 難道這真的是我們想要的開放市場空間嗎？而這就是我們的專利之所以存在的目的嗎？ 或許我的想法并不完全正確，但法院允許一家公司以一種通用設(shè)計(jì)概念的基礎(chǔ)，讓這么多的競爭廠商作不成生意，這似乎就是個(gè)錯(cuò)誤的判斷。如果蘋果公司的專利保護(hù)單單僅基于此或任何類似的概念，那么整個(gè)OEM產(chǎn)業(yè)可要擔(dān)心了。無線手機(jī)與平板市場的參與廠商們?nèi)绻胍〉酶偁巸?yōu)勢(shì)，他們就必須將眼光放遠(yuǎn)，跳脫那些愚蠢的策略計(jì)謀才是。 無論如何，蘋果公司已經(jīng)是這個(gè)領(lǐng)域的勝利者了，它并不需要在現(xiàn)有的專利戰(zhàn)中讓自己斗得鼻青眼腫。 編譯：Susan Hong 本文授權(quán)編譯自EBN Online，版權(quán)所有，謝絕轉(zhuǎn)載 參考英文原文：This Apple Win Should Not Stand，by Bolaji Ojo

相關(guān)閱讀：
• 三星Galaxy平板電腦在歐洲被禁賣
• Apple另控告HTC侵害5項(xiàng)專利權(quán)
• 2011年平板電腦將推動(dòng)移動(dòng)設(shè)備出貨達(dá)1.58億個(gè)NRaesmc

{pagination} This Apple Win Should Not Stand Bolaji Ojo The raging tablet patent war is going very badly for Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (Korea: SEC). It lost against Apple Inc. (Nasdaq: AAPL) in Australia, and now a German court has barred the sale of its Android Galaxy Tab 10.1. Although Samsung will likely appeal the ruling, the setback in Germany could delay the company's plans to overtake Apple in the tablet PC market. It also could slow down the adoption of Android by other wireless handset/tablet manufacturers. (See: Brawling OEMs & a Broken Patents System.) Samsung rivals need to pay attention and not rejoice over its losses so far in the patent war, which has pulled in combatants from all the major wireless handset and tablet markets. The same strategy Apple has used to tie up Samsung in Australia and Europe awaits them, too, because the company has other tablet makers in its sights. It has filed suit against Motorola Mobility Inc. (NYSE: MMI) in Germany and wants an injunction preventing the sale of the company's Xoom tablet. Companies like Taiwan's HTC are similarly in the dock in various courts globally as Apple fights to prevent what it alleges is the theft of its designs. The war will play out in many long, drawn-out battles, and it's not clear whether appellate courts will back up Apple's recent victories. What's certain, however, is that the situation is already having a chilling effect on the industry as manufacturers grow concerned about whether they can continue developing products based on Google's Android operating system. The successful injunction against Samsung's Galaxy is based on Apple's Community Design Patent No. 000181607. Several industry observers have said the patent -- if upheld -- could prevent other companies from making tablets. After reviewing the design on which Apple is basing its patent defense, I couldn't help but agree that the entire situation is deeply disturbing. (See the images and associated documents here.) Obviously, the design is similar to many other tablet designs currently in the marketplace. If Apple's latest court victory against Samsung is upheld globally, it should then be applicable against all other manufacturers. In that case, they should simply leave the market to the Cupertino, Calif., company. Is this really what we want in the marketplace, and is this the purpose patents are meant to serve? I might be wrong, but it seems wrongheaded that the courts would allow a company to put so many of its competitors out of business on the basis of a generic design concept. If Apple's patent defense is based solely on this or any similar concept, then the entire OEM world should be worried. If the participants in the wireless handset and tablet markets want to gain a competitive advantage, they need to look beyond silly tactical maneuverings. Apple is already a winner in this sector. It doesn't need the black eye it will likely get from the current patent war.