誰(shuí)將是5G知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)贏家？

The consumer internet revolution of the past 20 years has brought us many amazing things, from online search engines to phones doubling as personal assistants. But as dramatic as that change was, it’s nothing compared with the coming evolution of 5G wireless and the internet of things, which will involve putting data mining chips in everything from your fridge to your car.

過去20年的消費(fèi)互聯(lián)網(wǎng)革命給我們帶來(lái)了很多驚喜，從在線搜索引擎到可以用作個(gè)人助理的手機(jī)。盡管這種變革具有戲劇性，但它根本比不上即將到來(lái)的第五代移動(dòng)通信(5G)和物聯(lián)網(wǎng)革命，這場(chǎng)革命將把數(shù)據(jù)挖掘芯片植入很多物件，從你家的電冰箱到你的汽車。

This will not only create entirely new businesses, but also allow advertisers to reach you in ever more targeted ways (they’ll know not only where you are, but if your garden needs watering or if you are running out of milk). The economic stakes are high. As rich as big tech companies are, there is exponentially more wealth to be created in this new 5G world. Yet the technology that underpins it all is being threatened by a battle over which businesses and industries will seize which slice of this juicy pie.

這不僅會(huì)締造全新的業(yè)務(wù)，還將讓廣告商得以用更具針對(duì)性的方式找到你(他們不僅知道你在哪里，而且還知道你的花園是否需要澆水或者冰箱里的牛奶是否快喝完了)。這其中的經(jīng)濟(jì)利益十分重大。盡管大型科技公司非常富有，但新的5G世界將會(huì)創(chuàng)造多出幾個(gè)指數(shù)級(jí)的財(cái)富。然而支撐這一切的技術(shù)正受到一場(chǎng)紛爭(zhēng)的威脅，癥結(jié)是哪些企業(yè)和行業(yè)將獲得這塊香甜大餅中的哪一塊。

Traditionally, companies such as Apple, Google, Samsung and others that make wireless devices have paid the developers of crucial wireless technologies — including Qualcomm, Nokia and Ericsson — a licence fee to use their chips and other essential patented intellectual property (IP). Standard-setting bodies in the US and Europe designated which technologies were essential to building the underlying system, and then allowed innovators to patent them provided they would offer “fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory” access to all market players.

傳統(tǒng)上，蘋果(Apple)、谷歌(Google)、三星(Samsung)等公司以及其他生產(chǎn)無(wú)線設(shè)備的公司向關(guān)鍵無(wú)線技術(shù)的開發(fā)商(包括高通(Qualcomm)、諾基亞(Nokia)和愛立信(Ericsson))支付專利許可費(fèi)，以使用它們的芯片和其他關(guān)鍵專利知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)(IP)。美國(guó)和歐洲的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)確定機(jī)構(gòu)指定哪些技術(shù)對(duì)于構(gòu)建基礎(chǔ)系統(tǒng)是關(guān)鍵的，然后允許創(chuàng)新者獲得這類技術(shù)的專利保護(hù)——只要他們會(huì)向所有市場(chǎng)參與者提供“公平、合理且非歧視性”的授權(quán)使用。

Of course, there are big disagreements about what’s “fair”, particularly as connectivity becomes more widespread across a greater variety of devices.

當(dāng)然，對(duì)于什么算是“公平”，各方存在巨大分歧，特別是在更多種類的設(shè)備之間相互連通之際。

One of the most contentious issues has been whether the value of essential patented technologies should be based on the price of a chip (which might only cost a few dollars) or the phone it powers (which could be hundreds of dollars). The tech giants, of course, want to locate the licence value in the chip, which would mean they pay less for IP.

最具爭(zhēng)議的問題之一是關(guān)鍵專利技術(shù)的價(jià)格是應(yīng)該基于芯片價(jià)格(其成本可能僅為幾美元)還是由芯片驅(qū)動(dòng)的手機(jī)(可能價(jià)值數(shù)百美元)?？萍季揠?dāng)然希望將專利許可的價(jià)值記在芯片上，那將意味著它們支付較低的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)費(fèi)用。

Companies such as Qualcomm want it based on the price of a finished product, a phone or even a car, for example. They argue that connectivity needs are very different for a device that, say, monitors water levels in soil once a week versus an always-on autonomous vehicle, and prices should reflect that.

高通等公司希望這個(gè)價(jià)格基于成品價(jià)格，例如一部手機(jī)甚至一輛汽車。他們辯稱，對(duì)于一臺(tái)設(shè)備而言，連通性需求非常不同，例如一款每周一次監(jiān)測(cè)土壤含水量的設(shè)備相對(duì)于一輛隨時(shí)保持連通狀態(tài)的自動(dòng)汽車，而價(jià)格應(yīng)該反映這類具體情況。

This is all part of a deep and growing divide between the largest consumer brands, such as Apple, which see their ability to put tens of thousands of bits of patented technology together in a beautifully finished product as the biggest contributor to value, versus US and European innovators that argue they have spent billions on research and development creating standards and technologies that actually make smartphones smart — and are now being bilked.

這些問題都是一種深層次且日益加劇的分歧的一部分：一方面是蘋果等各大消費(fèi)品牌，他們認(rèn)為自己把數(shù)萬(wàn)種專利技術(shù)集成至一款精美制作的產(chǎn)品，這種能力才是最大的價(jià)值貢獻(xiàn)者;另一方面是美歐創(chuàng)新者，他們辯稱自己投入巨資進(jìn)行研發(fā)，創(chuàng)建標(biāo)準(zhǔn)和技術(shù)，讓智能手機(jī)變得真正智能，結(jié)果卻被占了便宜。

The result, according to one recent survey, is that roughly three-quarters of wireless tech IP holders are refusing to provide assurances that they’ll license their latest technologies, something that could start to undermine connectivity. The epic legal battle between Apple and Qualcomm reflects this stand-off. Qualcomm is refusing to ship its chips to Apple, while Apple is refusing to pay Qualcomm fees for what it is already using.

其結(jié)果是，根據(jù)最近一項(xiàng)調(diào)查，大約四分之三的無(wú)線技術(shù)知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)持有者拒絕保證他們將授權(quán)使用自己的最新技術(shù)，這可能開始破壞連通性。蘋果與高通之間沒完沒了的法律大戰(zhàn)就反映了這種對(duì)峙。高通正拒絕將其芯片發(fā)運(yùn)給蘋果，而蘋果拒絕為其已在使用的產(chǎn)品向高通支付費(fèi)用。

Both sides have a point. Critics say Qualcomm is charging too much for its technology but also that Apple is wrong to hold out on paying licence fees. “The fact that there’s so much litigation now means that neither regulators in the US or the EU are doing their jobs,” says Elvir Causevic, a managing director and IP specialist at Houlihan Lokey, the San Francisco-based investment bank. Indeed, the regulatory signals coming from either side of the Atlantic have been contradictory.

雙方都有理由。批評(píng)者表示，高通對(duì)其技術(shù)索要的價(jià)格過高，但蘋果拒付專利許可費(fèi)也是不對(duì)的?？偛课挥谂f金山的投行華利安(Houlihan Lokey)董事總經(jīng)理、知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)專家埃爾維爾•科塞維克(Elvir Causevic)表示：“現(xiàn)在有這么多訴訟意味著，美國(guó)或歐盟的監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)沒有履行好自己的職責(zé)。”的確，美歐發(fā)出的監(jiān)管信號(hào)相互矛盾。

In 2015, the US standards-setting body, the IEEE, moved towards a position that favours big tech companies. But on November 10, US assistant attorney-general Makan Delrahim, gave a speech indicating that he thought players who “hold out” and refuse to pay licence fees (such as Apple) were a bigger problem than patent owners who “hold up” the system by demanding higher fees.

2015年，美國(guó)的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)制定組織——電氣電子工程師學(xué)會(huì)(IEEE)采取了支持大型科技公司的立場(chǎng)。但在今年11月10日，美國(guó)司法部助理檢察長(zhǎng)馬坎•德爾拉赫姆(Makan Delrahim)在發(fā)表演講時(shí)表示，他認(rèn)為，與那些索要更高費(fèi)用、“要挾”整個(gè)體系的專利所有者相比，那些拒不支付專利許可費(fèi)的參與者(例如蘋果)問題更嚴(yán)重。

The European Commission, meanwhile, had been headed in the opposite direction. You’d think it would be a no-brainer for Europe to protect its own telecom players. Yet there is a battle within the commission, with innovation advocates (who fund the research conducted by companies such as Nokia) arguing for the telecoms businesses and those in antitrust seeing patents as a monopoly that should not be protected.

與此同時(shí)，歐盟委員會(huì)(European Commission)走向相反的方向。你會(huì)認(rèn)為，歐洲肯定希望保護(hù)自己的電信企業(yè)。然而，該委員會(huì)內(nèi)部存在分歧，一方是支持電信企業(yè)的創(chuàng)新支持者，他們?yōu)橹Z基亞等公司開展的研究提供資助;另一方是反壟斷部門的官員，他們把專利視為不應(yīng)受到保護(hù)的壟斷。

It’s also possible that the antitrust contingent is looking to protect an entirely different group of stakeholders. If cars become phones on wheels, then French, German and Italian automakers will need access to cheap wireless tech, just as Apple and Google do. It may be that the commission will throw telecoms (and the existing patent system) under the bus to give European carmakers a leg up with smart vehicles.

此外，反壟斷部門的官員可能有意保護(hù)一群完全不同的利益相關(guān)者。如果汽車真的變成車輪上的智能手機(jī)，那么法國(guó)、德國(guó)和意大利汽車制造商將需要獲取廉價(jià)的無(wú)線技術(shù)，就像蘋果和谷歌那樣。歐盟委員會(huì)可能會(huì)拋棄電信企業(yè)(以及現(xiàn)有的專利制度)，讓歐洲汽車制造商在智能汽車領(lǐng)域獲得相對(duì)優(yōu)勢(shì)。

They may also decide to punt and see which direction the US goes in, not only in terms of wireless standards but patent rights in general. This week, confirmation hearings will begin for the presidential nominee for director of the US Patent Office, and the Supreme Court will hear the “Oil States” case that could shift the entire patent system in the US. Corporate lawyers of the world, rejoice — the 5G battles are only just beginning.

他們還可能決定賭一把，先觀察美國(guó)的走向，不僅是在無(wú)線標(biāo)準(zhǔn)上，還包括一般的專利權(quán)。本周將要舉行針對(duì)總統(tǒng)提名的美國(guó)專利商標(biāo)局(USPTO)局長(zhǎng)人選的確認(rèn)聽證會(huì)，而最高法院將審理“Oil States”案，該案可能改變美國(guó)整個(gè)專利制度。全球的公司律師們，高興起來(lái)吧：5G紛爭(zhēng)只是剛剛開始。