諾基亞和蘋果專利戰揭示制度弊病
Google and Apple are the most valuable companies in the world, and undoubted winners from the smartphone boom.
谷歌(Google)和蘋果(Apple)是全球市值數一數二的兩家公司，無疑也是智能手機大發展的贏家。
In their wake lies Nokia’s handset business, which was sold to Microsoft and later wound down.
在他們身後躺着諾基亞(Nokia)的手機業務，後者被出售給微軟(Microsoft)，後來關閉了。
But, when it comes to defending themselves against the arsenal of patents Nokia built up in its years at the top, the US tech heavyweights want the world to view them as victims of unfair and anti-competitive behaviour.
但是，在談到對抗諾基亞在其巔峯時期累積的專利庫的時候，這兩家美國科技巨擘希望世界將它們視爲不公平和反競爭行爲的受害者。
That rather delicious irony emerged this week, as Apple filed a private antitrust suit against two companies that have acted as enforcers of Nokia’s patent portfolio.
這種極具諷刺意味的事情發生在上週，蘋果對代理諾基亞專利組合的兩家公司提起了反壟斷私人訴訟。
Apple claimed that Nokia was taking advantage of a legal system that is ripe for abuse by carving up its patent holdings and passing them on to specialist firms.
蘋果宣稱，諾基亞將所持專利切割成幾塊、將其轉移至專業公司，是在利用一個易於被濫用的法律制度。
In the heated rhetoric of the intellectual property industry, Nokia had become that most detested of animals: a patent troll.
在知識產權領域激烈的口水仗當中，諾基亞已成爲最令人憎惡的專利流氓。
Google took aim at the same arrangement in a complaint to European regulators four years ago.
谷歌4年前在向歐洲監管機構提起的申訴中將矛頭對準了同樣的行爲。
It accused the Finnish company and Microsoft of colluding to raise smartphone prices and sidestep patent concessions that are essential to the smooth running of tech markets.
它指責諾基亞和微軟合謀提高智能手機價格，迴避科技市場平穩運轉的關鍵——專利特許。
Today, it is tempting to view all of this as a battle involving deep-pocketed companies that are more than capable of taking care of themselves.
如今，人們會忍不住將這一切視爲那些財大氣粗、完全有能力照顧自己的公司之間的一場戰鬥。
But it has thrown a spotlight on an important question for the tech industry at large.
但它也突顯出整個科技行業的一個重要問題。
At issue are patent assertion entities — specialised companies set up to buy and enforce IP rights.
爭議焦點是專利主張實體，即那些專門爲了收購併行使知識產權而設立的公司。
According to critics, these mercenaries feel no qualms about abusing a shaky legal system to demand excessive royalties, upsetting a delicate balance in the tech world between inventors and the companies that gain from their inventions.
批評者們表示，這些僱傭兵放肆地濫用一個漏洞百出的法律體系來要求過高的專利費，打亂了科技行業發明者和發明受益公司之間的微妙平衡。
Some aspects of the patent enforcers are more obnoxious than others.
專利行使公司的其中一些做法尤其令人反感。
In a recent study, the US Federal Trade Commission generally approved of what it termed portfolio PAEs — companies that buy large bundles of patents — as they provide a useful economic function, and more than half of them share profits with the inventors.
在最近的一項研究中，美國聯邦貿易委員會(FTC)基本上支持其所稱的組合式專利主張實體，即大量購買專利的公司，因爲它們提供了有用的經濟功能，而且其中逾半數公司與發明者分享了利潤。
True, they may be more willing to resort to legal action than tech companies with industry relationships to protect, and they are set up with the expertise and risk capital to go to war.
的確，與需要考慮維護行業關係的科技公司相比，它們可能更願意訴諸法律行動，而且它們有充足的專長和風險資本來發起訴訟戰。
But this by itself does not make them evil.
但這本身並不讓它們成爲魔鬼。
A second, more serious question is whether PAEs engage in asymmetric warfare.
第二個更爲嚴肅的問題是，專利主張實體是否發起了不對稱戰爭。
As off-the-shelf legal vehicles with no operating businesses of their own, they can sue without fear of a countersuit.
作爲自己沒有任何運營業務的現成法律實體，他們可以放心提起訴訟而不用擔心反訴。
They might also act as shell companies for the original patent owners, making it harder for defendants to press for legal discovery from the companies that first won the patent rights.
它們也可能作爲專利初始所有人的殼公司，讓被告方更難要求對最初贏得專利權的公司進行法律取證。
These less welcome side-effects seem acceptable if they are outweighed by the benefits of outsourcing legal rights.
如果外包法律權利的收益超過這些不太受歡迎的副作用，那麼這一點似乎還可以接受，
But there are other, more pernicious results that may be harder to swallow.
但還有其他更有害的結果更難以讓人接受。
One is the secrecy around some PAEs.
一是一些專利主張實體的神祕性。
When the ultimate beneficiary of a legal action is hidden, it is impossible for defendants to hit back with their own legal action.
當一起法律訴訟的最終受益人不明確的時候，被告方不可能發起自己的法律訴訟予以反擊。
PAEs may also resort to dubious tactics,
專利主張實體也可能使用一些陰招。
such as spreading a portfolio of patents through a number of different legal entities then forcing a company such as Apple to buy multiple licences to what amounts to the same technology.
比如將一系列專利轉移至許多不同的法律實體，然後迫使蘋果等公司爲本質上相同的技術購買多項專利。
This practice is known in the industry as royalty stacking.
這種做法在業內被稱爲專利費疊加(royalty stacking)。
Another valid concern is whether some companies have used PAEs to escape their obligations to maintain open industry standards.
另一個站得住腳的擔憂是，一些公司是否利用專利主張實體來逃避保持開放行業標準的義務。
When they own patents to technology that plays a part in industry standards, companies such as Nokia accept limits on how aggressively they can enforce their rights.
當擁有對行業標準有影響的技術專利時，對於其能夠以多大力度行使權利，諾基亞等公司接受一定的限制。
But, once the patents are held by an arm’s length company, the same restraints might not apply.
但一旦專利是由一家關聯公司持有的，同樣的限制可能不適用。
Apple’s claims would carry more weight if the company itself had not been accused of balking at the industry’s usual methods for dealing with technology standards.
如果蘋果自身沒有被指回避業內處理技術標準的通常做法，它的主張將更有分量。
But one of Nokia’s suits charges the iPhone maker with refusing to license a set of patents used in the H.264 video compression standard, even though many other tech companies have accepted the same terms.
但諾基亞在一起訴訟中指控蘋果拒絕向H.264視頻壓縮標準中使用的一系列專利支付專利費，即便其他許多科技公司接受了同樣的條款。
It is also questionable whether European competition regulators would race to the defence of US tech companies that have come under other scrutiny in Brussels.
同時還令人質疑的是，歐洲反壟斷監管機構是否會急於捍衛在其它問題上受到布魯塞爾審查的美國科技公司。
With the amounts at stake rising — and patent enforcers now an entrenched part of the legal landscape — a closer look at their tactics appears overdue.
隨着牽涉到的利益不斷加大——專利行使公司如今是法律版圖中根深蒂固的一部分——我們似乎早該密切關注它們的戰術。
