诺基亚和苹果专利战揭示制度弊病

　　Google and Apple are the most valuable companies in the world, and undoubted winners from the smartphone boom.
　　谷歌(Google)和苹果(Apple)是全球市值数一数二的两家公司，无疑也是智能手机大发展的赢家。
　　In their wake lies Nokia’s handset business, which was sold to Microsoft and later wound down.
　　在他们身后躺着诺基亚(Nokia)的手机业务，后者被出售给微软(Microsoft)，后来关闭了。
　　But, when it comes to defending themselves against the arsenal 1 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，在谈到对抗诺基亚在其巅峰时期累积的专利库的时候，这两家美国科技巨擘希望世界将它们视为不公平和反竞争行为的受害者。
　　That rather delicious irony 2 emerged this week, as Apple filed a private antitrust suit against two companies that have acted as enforcers of Nokia’s patent portfolio 3.
　　这种极具讽刺意味的事情发生在上周，苹果对代理诺基亚专利组合的两家公司提起了反垄断私人诉讼。
　　Apple claimed that Nokia was taking advantage of a legal system that is ripe for abuse by carving 4 up its patent holdings and passing them on to specialist firms.
　　苹果宣称，诺基亚将所持专利切割成几块、将其转移至专业公司，是在利用一个易于被滥用的法律制度。
　　In the heated rhetoric 5 of the intellectual property industry, Nokia had become that most detested 6 of animals: a patent troll.
　　在知识产权领域激烈的口水仗当中，诺基亚已成为最令人憎恶的专利流氓。
　　Google took aim at the same arrangement in a complaint to European regulators four years ago.
　　谷歌4年前在向欧洲监管机构提起的申诉中将矛头对准了同样的行为。
　　It accused the Finnish company and Microsoft of colluding to raise smartphone prices and sidestep patent concessions 7 that are essential to the smooth running of tech markets.
　　它指责诺基亚和微软合谋提高智能手机价格，回避科技市场平稳运转的关键——专利特许。
　　Today, it is tempting 8 to view all of this as a battle involving deep-pocketed companies that are more than capable of taking care of themselves.
　　如今，人们会忍不住将这一切视为那些财大气粗、完全有能力照顾自己的公司之间的一场战斗。
　　But it has thrown a spotlight 9 on an important question for the tech industry at large.
　　但它也突显出整个科技行业的一个重要问题。
　　At issue are patent assertion entities 10 — specialised companies set up to buy and enforce IP rights.
　　争议焦点是专利主张实体，即那些专门为了收购并行使知识产权而设立的公司。
　　According to critics, these mercenaries feel no qualms 11 about abusing a shaky legal system to demand excessive royalties 12, upsetting a delicate balance in the tech world between inventors and the companies that gain from their inventions.
　　批评者们表示，这些雇佣兵放肆地滥用一个漏洞百出的法律体系来要求过高的专利费，打乱了科技行业发明者和发明受益公司之间的微妙平衡。
　　Some aspects of the patent enforcers are more obnoxious 13 than others.
　　专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.
　　在最近的一项研究中，美国联邦贸易委员会(FTC)基本上支持其所称的组合式专利主张实体，即大量购买专利的公司，因为它们提供了有用的经济功能，而且其中逾半数公司与发明者分享了利润。
　　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 14 and risk capital to go to war.
　　的确，与需要考虑维护行业关系的科技公司相比，它们可能更愿意诉诸法律行动，而且它们有充足的专长和风险资本来发起诉讼战。
　　But this by itself does not make them evil.
　　但这本身并不让它们成为魔鬼。
　　A second, more serious question is whether PAEs engage in asymmetric 15 warfare 16.
　　第二个更为严肃的问题是，专利主张实体是否发起了不对称战争。
　　As off-the-shelf legal vehicles with no operating businesses of their own, they can sue without fear of a countersuit.
　　作为自己没有任何运营业务的现成法律实体，他们可以放心提起诉讼而不用担心反诉。
　　They might also act as shell companies for the original patent owners, making it harder for defendants 17 to press for legal discovery from the companies that first won the patent rights.
　　它们也可能作为专利初始所有人的壳公司，让被告方更难要求对最初赢得专利权的公司进行法律取证。
　　These less welcome side-effects seem acceptable if they are outweighed 18 by the benefits of outsourcing legal rights.
　　如果外包法律权利的收益超过这些不太受欢迎的副作用，那么这一点似乎还可以接受，
　　But there are other, more pernicious results that may be harder to swallow.
　　但还有其他更有害的结果更难以让人接受。
　　One is the secrecy 19 around some PAEs.
　　一是一些专利主张实体的神秘性。
　　When the ultimate beneficiary of a legal action is hidden, it is impossible for defendants to hit back with their own legal action.
　　当一起法律诉讼的最终受益人不明确的时候，被告方不可能发起自己的法律诉讼予以反击。
　　PAEs may also resort to dubious 20 tactics,
　　专利主张实体也可能使用一些阴招。
　　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.
　　比如将一系列专利转移至许多不同的法律实体，然后迫使苹果等公司为本质上相同的技术购买多项专利。
　　This practice is known in the industry as royalty 21 stacking.
　　这种做法在业内被称为专利费叠加(royalty stacking)。
　　Another valid 22 concern is whether some companies have used PAEs to escape their obligations to maintain open industry standards.
　　另一个站得住脚的担忧是，一些公司是否利用专利主张实体来逃避保持开放行业标准的义务。
　　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.
　　当拥有对行业标准有影响的技术专利时，对于其能够以多大力度行使权利，诺基亚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.
　　但一旦专利是由一家关联公司持有的，同样的限制可能不适用。
　　Apple’s claims would carry more weight if the company itself had not been accused of balking 23 at the industry’s usual methods for dealing 24 with technology standards.
　　如果苹果自身没有被指回避业内处理技术标准的通常做法，它的主张将更有分量。
　　But one of Nokia’s suits charges the iPhone maker 25 with refusing to license 26 a set of patents used in the H.264 video compression standard, even though many other tech companies have accepted the same terms.
　　但诺基亚在一起诉讼中指控苹果拒绝向H.264视频压缩标准中使用的一系列专利支付专利费，即便其他许多科技公司接受了同样的条款。
　　It is also questionable 27 whether European competition regulators would race to the defence of US tech companies that have come under other scrutiny 28 in Brussels.
　　同时还令人质疑的是，欧洲反垄断监管机构是否会急于捍卫在其它问题上受到布鲁塞尔审查的美国科技公司。
　　With the amounts at stake rising — and patent enforcers now an entrenched 29 part of the legal landscape — a closer look at their tactics appears overdue 30.
　　随着牵涉到的利益不断加大——专利行使公司如今是法律版图中根深蒂固的一部分——我们似乎早该密切关注它们的战术。