蘋果(Apple)跟三星(Samsung)都是對的──也都有錯；筆者認(rèn)為，在兩家公司的訴訟案中，雙方都有一些應(yīng)該做的事，才能從過程中獲得一些手機(jī)業(yè)務(wù)與專利策略的經(jīng)營智能。 因為發(fā)明了 iPhone ，蘋果是應(yīng)該要獲得某種程度的贊譽(yù)──該產(chǎn)品不僅外型出眾，而且使用者只要帶一支手機(jī)就能上網(wǎng)、聽音樂，軟件接口簡單易用。同樣的，蘋果的平板裝置產(chǎn)品 iPad 也透過專注于讓消費(fèi)者更方便進(jìn)行網(wǎng)絡(luò)瀏覽的簡單易用軟件，超越了其它競爭產(chǎn)品。 但是，為何要用艱澀的文字來撰寫這些產(chǎn)品的專利？專利體系是由笨拙的程序與生硬、含糊的語言所構(gòu)成，專利申請書的撰寫需要有大師級的俐落寫作與思考能力；而就像很多人說的，專利已經(jīng)成為一種量化游戲，并不講究品質(zhì)。 蘋果試圖將所有包括產(chǎn)品外殼、軟件…等等的很棒想法都寫成專利，是合理的作法；但他們不應(yīng)該把那些東西分散寫成十?dāng)?shù)個不同的專利，應(yīng)該把十?dāng)?shù)個專利技術(shù)納入單一個有關(guān)iPhone的專利中。 試想，若有單一個iPhone專利是將該裝置的外觀、金屬邊框、大屏幕，以及其人機(jī)接口的特點(diǎn)都囊括在內(nèi)，而且是用淺顯的英文、不是那種陳腐的專利語言所撰寫，對陪審團(tuán)與法官來說應(yīng)該會輕松許多。 接下來…對蘋果迷很抱歉，筆者打算批判這家公司的自以為是；跟很多人一樣，我也曾經(jīng)被喬布斯(Steve Jobs)充滿感情的言語打動過，但在親眼目擊蘋果與三星訴訟案的法庭現(xiàn)場之后，我看到了另一個面向的事實。 喬布斯那種高來高去的說話風(fēng)格，也成為誘使那些蘋果菁英員工們自愿工作超時、過著非常人生活的毒藥；蘋果員工已經(jīng)被洗 腦，認(rèn)為自己就是比平凡人優(yōu)秀一點(diǎn)── 但請面對現(xiàn)實吧！蘋果…圓角長方形這種形狀不是你們的，你們也沒有發(fā)明智能手機(jī)、電容式觸摸屏幕或是手機(jī)用的瀏覽器。 你們 也不是地球上所有美麗事物的唯一創(chuàng)造者；與三星比較，你在提供基礎(chǔ)技術(shù)上所做的努力還沒那么多，包括液晶顯示器、電池、通訊網(wǎng)路、微處理器等等生產(chǎn)各種酷 電子玩意兒所需的元素。但是換句話說，你們很會使用那些零組件；所以你們應(yīng)該對自己有信心，不要把芯片開發(fā)這種事看得太重。 而 且你們應(yīng)該要更謙遜一點(diǎn)，讓我們聽到有關(guān)于電子產(chǎn)業(yè)利用低成本人力問題更公平一點(diǎn)的看法；在該問題上你們并非始作俑者，但也許你們可以利用自己的影響力與 充裕資金，為勞工現(xiàn)況帶來一些有意義的改善。畢竟你們家的復(fù)雜產(chǎn)品設(shè)計就是需要很多人工，也得為那些勞工問題負(fù)起一點(diǎn)責(zé)任。 至 于三星，在法庭上曝光的該公司文件顯示了未發(fā)表的S1手機(jī)與iPhone的逐項功能比較，每一頁都幾乎是對模仿蘋果專利技術(shù)的詳盡建議；這是很不道德的， 是一種太超過的競爭手段。這是抄襲專利技術(shù)，而且三星成功了；三星所取得的智能手機(jī)市場領(lǐng)導(dǎo)地位有部分是來自于此，而受到某種形式的處罰也是罪有應(yīng)得。 我 們總是預(yù)期在iPhone上市之后不久，中國市場就會出現(xiàn)笨重的“山寨機(jī)”，而且屢試不爽；但是我們不會預(yù)期三星生產(chǎn)出這種盲從的專業(yè)復(fù)制品。雖然，對于 開發(fā)出先進(jìn)芯片、顯示器與電池等等技術(shù)的這家韓國公司，來自全球的矚目是遲到了些；在這家公司辛勤工作的成千上百工程師，他們的努力應(yīng)該要獲得報償。 藉 由成為三星最大的客戶之一，蘋果應(yīng)該已經(jīng)對該公司表達(dá)了某種形式的無聲尊重。當(dāng)兩家公司的訴訟案告一段落，三星恐怕會欠蘋果一張支票，只是金額應(yīng)該不會到 25億美元那么多；在法庭上，三星確實提供了一些非常具說服力的證據(jù)，反過來指控iPhone是如何違反了許多三星所擁有的手機(jī)專利。 而經(jīng)歷了這次法庭上的實地觀察，有一件事情看來很清楚──是時候該把這樁讓人抓狂的專利訴訟案件做個結(jié)束了！ 本文授權(quán)編譯自EE Times，版權(quán)所有，謝絕轉(zhuǎn)載 編譯：Judith Cheng 參考英文原文：Apple v Samsung: Rights and Wrongs，by Rick Merritt

相關(guān)閱讀：
• 想成為蘋果供應(yīng)商？沒那么簡單
• 蘋果+三星，手機(jī)雙雄狂斂108%行業(yè)利潤
• iPhone曾經(jīng)讓三星陷入“設(shè)計危機(jī)”A3Uesmc

{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.