最近一段時(shí)間以來，蘋果(Apple)與三星(Samsung)的專利戰(zhàn)有愈演愈烈的趨勢。據(jù)報(bào)導(dǎo)，這兩家公司已經(jīng)在全球逾10個(gè)國家提起了30多件訴訟──但截至目前，這些官司都還沒有出現(xiàn)能猛烈打擊對方的判決結(jié)果，看起來，除非這兩家公司的其中一家出現(xiàn)了理智的領(lǐng)導(dǎo)者，否則專利戰(zhàn)看來還會再持續(xù)好一段時(shí)間。 對大多數(shù)產(chǎn)業(yè)觀察家來說，很明顯，這兩家公司都正在將對方以外的其它競爭對手趕離智能手機(jī)和平板電腦市場。蘋果主宰著平板電腦市場，在智能手機(jī)領(lǐng)域也打下了 一片天；而三星采用Android和Windows操作系統(tǒng)的廣泛手機(jī)產(chǎn)品線，則將該公司推向智能手機(jī)領(lǐng)域的主導(dǎo)地位。即使還沒有任何一款平板電腦能獲得 像iPad那樣的成就，但三星是少數(shù)幾家至今仍能在這個(gè)極度競爭領(lǐng)域存活下來的公司之一。 因此，我給蘋果和三星的建議是：合作吧！仔細(xì)研究能互蒙其利的交叉授權(quán)協(xié)議細(xì)節(jié)，并達(dá)成共識后，快快將重心放回設(shè)計(jì)部份。 歐盟應(yīng)該會贊成這個(gè)想法。歐盟擔(dān)心蘋果和三星可能會因?yàn)檫`反歐盟相關(guān)法規(guī)，而對當(dāng)?shù)叵M(fèi)者的產(chǎn)品選擇造成限制。依照全球認(rèn)可的規(guī)范──即公平、合理，以及非 歧視(Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory, FRAND)──在合理的授權(quán)條款下，企業(yè)通?？梢允褂酶偁帉κ致暦Q擁有的專利。而歐盟正在研究這兩家公司所申請的專利。 業(yè) 界所面臨的事實(shí)是，用于無線裝置的技術(shù)量非常龐大：這些專利光從字面上來看就多達(dá)上千種，而其中絕大多數(shù)都無法被單一公司聲稱長期持有。這些專利之中，有很大一部份是掌握在像諾基亞(Nokia)和摩托羅拉移動(Motorola Mobility，已被Google買下)這類公司手中，而最近一段時(shí)間以來，這些大型企業(yè)及其競爭對手們已經(jīng)找到了一種能共享基礎(chǔ)技術(shù)的方法，能給創(chuàng)新 者較公平的補(bǔ)償，但仍可對競爭者提供關(guān)鍵的可用專利。 在我看來，蘋果和三星的目標(biāo)是要行使他們所擁有的專利，或是藉提起專利訴訟來排擠市場上的其它競爭企業(yè)。如果這些專利技術(shù)本質(zhì)上都代表了重大技術(shù)突破，那么，這種做法很合理。然而，許多專利并非如此。一些蘋果的專利──包括 iPad的形狀在內(nèi)──在我看來是非?；闹嚨?。iPad的大小或外形并沒有什么特殊，不過是個(gè)方形罷了。讓iPad獲得巨大成功的并不是它的外形，而是作 業(yè)系統(tǒng)以及支持它的生態(tài)系統(tǒng)。 類似的觀點(diǎn)也可以套用在iPhone的‘移動滑桿來解鎖’功能上。這個(gè)小功能無疑和其它產(chǎn)品不 大一樣，很明顯，這是有著豐富想象力的設(shè)計(jì)人員的產(chǎn)品。但要說它是一種革命？不！蘋果擁有專利，蘋果去使用這些專利設(shè)計(jì)產(chǎn)品，或許還能以合理的費(fèi)用授權(quán)給 其它公司，這些都是正當(dāng)?shù)淖龇?，但專利，不?yīng)該被用作為排擠市場上其它公司的工具。 歐盟的考量是正確的。但蘋果和三星也很有可能跨越一個(gè)長期以來一直橫亙在科技企業(yè)面前的門檻。 編譯： Joy Teng 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： Can the EU End the Apple-Samsung Patent War?，by Bolaji Ojo, Editor in Chief

相關(guān)閱讀：
• ＣＣＰＯ對與OPPO商標(biāo)糾紛的一審結(jié)果不服，表示上訴
• 移動專利戰(zhàn)，誰會笑到最后？
• 日系大廠合并LCD業(yè)務(wù)，蘋果終于擺脫三星？5cvesmc

{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.