蘋果(Apple)在與三星(Samsung)的訴訟官司中大獲全勝， Android 陣營應(yīng)該都如坐針氈──現(xiàn)在，蘋果手里握有大把證實有效的武器，可隨時與Android陣營對手針對iPhone的工業(yè)設(shè)計以及iPhone 、 iPad的用戶界面，在法庭內(nèi)外拚個輸贏。 拜三星、HTC、Motorola以及其它廠商的成功， Android手機市占率已經(jīng)大幅超越 iPhone；有部分市場分析師認(rèn)為，由三星與Amazon、Google等廠商所推出的Android平板設(shè)備，出貨量終有一天也會超越 iPad 。然而，蘋果對三星的訴訟結(jié)果，可能成為扭轉(zhuǎn)市場平衡力道以及走向的新變量。 美國加州圣荷西法庭的陪審團決議，三星大多數(shù)的智能手機違反了三項iPhone的工業(yè)設(shè)計與應(yīng)用程序畫面設(shè)計專利(D 593,087、D 618, 677與D 604,305)，陪審團也指出，被告的三星智能手機以及其部分平板設(shè)備，違反了三項蘋果iPhone與iPad軟件界面外觀(look-and- feel)上的功能專利(utility patents，包括US 7,469,381、US 7,864,163與US 7,844,915)。 此外，盡管三星利用世界級專家出示多重案例，辯稱那些專利都是現(xiàn)有技術(shù)(prior art)，但陪審團則表示那些專利都是有效的；陪審團也支持蘋果對三星手機違反其第一代iPhone與iPhone 3GS的已注冊、未注冊產(chǎn)品外觀包裝(trade dress)之主張。 在蘋果的訴訟案中，圣荷西法庭陪審團只在一個顯著的小地方示弱，即判定三星并沒有違反蘋果iPad設(shè)計專利(D 504,889)，并指該專利雖然有效，卻相對較無說服力。陪審團還指出，蘋果無法證明其未注冊的iPad產(chǎn)品外觀包裝是受到保護的。 而 最終結(jié)果是，蘋果現(xiàn)在有三個證實可用來攻擊任一款A(yù)ndroid智能手機或平板設(shè)備的用戶界面專利，無論是上法庭訴訟或是私下和解，這三項強而有力的設(shè)計專利，能有效打擊所有的“類iPhone”產(chǎn)品。 “這對蘋果針對Android陣營的專利執(zhí)法行動是一大勝利；”手機專利戰(zhàn)專家Florian Mueller表示。 “Android 產(chǎn)業(yè)生態(tài)系的其它廠商，現(xiàn)在跟三星一樣有充分理由擔(dān)心這個問題；”Mueller表示：“訴訟案結(jié)果的立即性沖擊僅限于三星承受，但蘋果已經(jīng)證明該公司不 只能在法庭上主張其設(shè)計專利，還有多點觸控軟件專利。該判決結(jié)果也讓喬布斯(Steve Jobs)形容Android是“偷來的產(chǎn)品”說法，取得了正當(dāng)性?！? 判決結(jié)果可能也會讓蘋果CEO庫克(Tim Cook)誓言繼承喬布斯的遺志，集中火力針對Android陣營猛打?qū)＠麘?zhàn)?！斑@對蘋果來說是很大的勝利，但實際的問題在于這是否足夠削弱正不斷擴張市場版圖的Android陣營勢力。”史丹佛法學(xué)院(Stanford Law School)教授Mark A. Lemley評論指出。 本文授權(quán)編譯自EE Times，版權(quán)所有，謝絕轉(zhuǎn)載 本文下一頁：別轉(zhuǎn)臺，這出戲還沒演完！

相關(guān)閱讀：
• 蘋果戰(zhàn)三星：鷸蚌相爭，漁翁得利
• 蘋果戰(zhàn)三星：硅谷式愛國主義和創(chuàng)新精神
• 蘋果三星對簿公堂內(nèi)容揭秘：誰是抄襲者？g4Uesmc

{pagination} 還有一些有待確認(rèn)的事情，包括圣荷西法院的該案件主審法官Lucy H. Koh，是否會堅持需執(zhí)行禁止三星違反專利手機與平板設(shè)備進口美國的命令；她的決定將會讓陪審團的判決結(jié)果對手機市場版圖產(chǎn)生影響，至少在美國市場。 Koh還得決定是否在陪審團決議三星需支付的10.5億美元損害賠償金之外，再對三星施以懲罰性的賠償金要求；根據(jù)法律，法官得以根據(jù)陪審團對被告之“蓄意”的發(fā)現(xiàn)，將損害賠償金提高三倍。 高達10億美元──甚至30億美元的賠款，在消費大眾眼中所留下的印象，會超越蘋果與三星將取得/支付的實際金錢數(shù)目?！?0億美元是筆讓人震驚的大數(shù)目，也將吸引輿論與消費者的注意；”曾為RIM等智能手機供貨商服務(wù)的智財權(quán)律師Casey Hill表示。 訴訟結(jié)果還將帶來其它不為人知的沖擊；“其中一個問題包括，三星要避開專利重新設(shè)計手機產(chǎn)品將會有多么困難，而判決結(jié)果是否會打亂支持Android平臺的應(yīng)用程序開發(fā)工作?！笔返し鸱▽W(xué)院的Lemley繼續(xù)指出：“第二個問題是，其它Android手機制造商是否也需要重新設(shè)計自家產(chǎn)品，以避免侵犯蘋果專利？” 蘋果獲勝的武器包括兩項工業(yè)設(shè)計專利──包括描述iPhone大尺寸顯示器平坦、透明黑色接口設(shè)計的D’677，以及描述其圓角長方形外型與邊框設(shè)計的D ‘087；另一個獲勝的設(shè)計專利是描述在黑色背景上以格狀排列之應(yīng)用程序屏幕圖標(biāo)的D ‘305。 而蘋果取得勝利的軟件功能專利，還有描述當(dāng)使用者來到例如聯(lián)絡(luò)人清單的最底端、會自動反彈(bounce-back)的‘381號專利，描述雙點擊縮放功能 的‘163號專利，以及描述單指滑動滾動條/雙指縮放手勢(single-finger scroll/two-finger zoom gestures)的‘915號專利。 這些專利可能會成為蘋果最強大的武器，而且也可以合理化的假設(shè)，該公司可能有第二道專 利防線，準(zhǔn)備開始在全球各地打?qū)＠麘?zhàn)時使用。“蘋果已經(jīng)在美國針對Android設(shè)備供貨商，主張數(shù)十個不同專利的所有權(quán)，而在國外，大多數(shù)的相關(guān)訴訟都還沒判決?！睂＠麘?zhàn)專家Mueller表示。 他補充指出：“蘋果有權(quán)撤回在加州提出的任何一個專利訴訟，以縮小官司的規(guī)模；而且該公司與三星之間在加州法院轄區(qū)還有另一項未解決的訴訟，是在2月時提出，涉及8項專利?！暴ぉに詣e轉(zhuǎn)臺，這出戲還沒演完！ 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：After Apple win, Droids should feel afraid，by Rick Merritt

相關(guān)閱讀：
• 蘋果戰(zhàn)三星：鷸蚌相爭，漁翁得利
• 蘋果戰(zhàn)三星：硅谷式愛國主義和創(chuàng)新精神
• 蘋果三星對簿公堂內(nèi)容揭秘：誰是抄襲者？g4Uesmc

{pagination} After Apple win, Droids should feel afraid Rick Merritt Apple is now armed with a handful of proven weapons it can wield against Android competitors in and out of court on the industrial design and user interface of the iPhone and iPad. SAN JOSE – The Android community should be very afraid in the wake of Apple’s clear win Friday in its case against Samsung in San Jose’s federal court. Apple is now armed with a handful of proven weapons it can wield against Android competitors in and out of court on the industrial design of its iPhone and the user interface of both the iPhone and iPad. Android handsets now significantly surpass the iPhone in market share, thanks to the success of HTC, Motorola, Samsung and others. Some market watchers believe Android tablets from Amazon, Google, Samsung and others also will surpass the iPad eventually. But the court decision suggests a new dynamic that could shift the balance of power and the market direction. The San Jose jury decided most of the Samsung smartphones in the case infringe three design patents on the iPhone’s industrial design and app screen (D 593,087; D 618, 677 and D 604,305). It also said most of the accused Samsung smartphones and some of its tablets infringe three Apple utility patents (US 7,469,381; US 7,864,163 and US 7,844,915) on the look-and-feel of the software on both the iPhone and iPad. In addition, the jury said those patents were valid despite Samsung’s attacks using world-class experts showing multiple examples of what it claimed were prior art. The jury also upheld Apple’s claims Samsung handsets violated its registered and unregistered trade dress on the original and 3GS iPhones. The San Jose jury weakened just one small but significant part of Apple’s case. It said Samsung did not infringe Apple’s design patent on the iPad (D 504,889), suggesting that patent was valid but relatively weak. It also said Apple did not prove its unregistered trade dress on the iPad was protectable. The net result is Apple now has three proven user interface patents that can attack any Android smartphone or tablet in court or in private negotiations and three strong design patents useful against any iPhone look alike. “This is a boost for Apple's patent enforcement efforts against Android worldwide,” said Florian Mueller, an expert following the mobile patent wars. “The rest of the Android ecosystem has just as much of a reason to be concerned about this as Samsung,” Mueller said. “The immediate impact will be limited to Samsung, but Apple has proven its ability to enforce not only its design patents but also its multi-touch software patents in federal court,” he said. “The verdict also lends credibility to Steve Jobs's characterization of Android as a ‘stolen product,’” he added. The San Jose decision also is likely to embolden Tim Cook to continue Jobs’ vow to “go thermonuclear” in a patent war against Android backers. Injunctions could "derail Android momentum" “This is a huge victory for Apple...[but] the real question is whether this is enough to derail the momentum the Android ecosystem has gained in the marketplace,” said Mark A. Lemley, a professor at the Stanford Law School. Factors still to be determined include whether Lucy H. Koh, the judge in the San Jose case, will uphold an injunction against importing the Samsung handsets and tablets found to be infringing. Such a decision quickly would translate the jury verdict into a market-share shift, at least in the U.S. Koh must also decide whether she will add punitive damages to the $1.05 billion in compensatory damages already awarded by the jury. Under the law, she could triple the damages award due to the jury’s finding of willfulness. A billion—or even three—is more significant in the eyes of the buying public than it is to the big bankrolls of Apple and Samsung. “A billion dollars is sensational and will certainly capture the attention of the media and the consumer,” said Casey Hill, an intellectual property lawyer who worked with smartphone makers such as Research in Motion. Other key factors are private. "One question is how hard it is for Samsung to redesign its phones to avoid the patents, and whether doing so messes up the apps written for the Android OS," said Lemley. "A second question is whether other Android phone makers feel the need to redesign to avoid these patents," he said. The winning Apple design patents include two on industrial design—the D ‘677 on the iPhone’s flat, black transparent face with large display and the D ‘087 on its rectangular shape with rounded corners and a bezel. The third winning design patent is D ‘305 on its app screen with colorful icons on a grid with a black background. The winning Apple utility patents include the ‘381 on the bounce-back feature when the user comes to the end of, for example, a contact list. They also include the ‘163 on the double-tap-to-zoom command and the ‘915 on the single-finger scroll/two-finger zoom gestures. The patents are likely Apple’s strongest. It is reasonable to assume the company has others forming a second tier it may now try to establish in other cases around the globe. "Apple has already asserted several dozen different patents against Android device makers in the US and abroad-most of these claims have not been adjudicated yet," said Mueller. "They have the right to reassert in California any patents they withdrew to narrow the case for trial, and they have a second lawsuit pending against Samsung in that district, which they filed in February over eight patents," he said. Hold on to your seats, this ride has just started.