When Steve Jobs unveiled the iPhone in 2007， he changed an industry. Apple’s brilliant new device was a huge advance on the mobile phones that had gone before： it looked different and it worked better. The iPhone represented innovation at its finest， making it the top-selling smartphone soon after it came out and helping to turn Apple into the world’s most valuable company， with a market capitalisation that now exceeds $630 billion.

Apple’s achievement spawned1） a raft of imitators. Many smartphone manufacturers now boast touch-screens and colourful icons. Among them is Samsung， the world’s biggest technology manufacturer， whose gadgets are the iPhone’s nearest rivals and closest lookalikes. The competition and the similarities were close enough for Apple to sue Samsung for patent infringement2） in several countries， spurring the South Korean firm to counterclaim that it had been ripped off3） by Apple as well. On August 24th an American jury found that Samsung had infringed six patents and ordered it to pay Apple more than $1 billion in damages， one of the steepest awards yet seen in a patent case.

Some see thinly disguised protectionism in this decision. That does the jury a disservice4）： its members seem to have stuck to5） the job of working out whether patent infringements had occurred. The much bigger questions raised by this case are whether all Apple’s innovations should have been granted a patent in the first place； and the degree to which technology stalwarts6） and start-ups alike should be able to base their designs on the breakthroughs of others.

It is useful to recall why patents exist. The system was established as a trade-off7） that provides a public benefit： the state agrees to grant a limited monopoly to an inventor in return for disclosing how the technology works. To qualify， an innovation must be novel， useful and non-obvious， which earns the inventor 20 years of exclusivity. “Design patents，” which cover appearances and are granted after a simpler review process， are valid for 14 years.

The dispute between Apple and Samsung is less over how the devices work and more over their look and feel. At issue8） are features like the ability to zoom9） into an image with a double finger tap10）， pinching11） gestures， and the visual “rubber band12）” effect when you scroll13） to the end of a page. The case even extends to whether the device and its on-screen icons are allowed to have rounded corners. To be sure， some of these things were terrific improvements over what existed before the iPhone’s arrival， but to award a monopoly right to finger gestures and rounded rectangles is to stretch the definition of “novel” and “non-obvious” to breaking-point14）.

A proliferation15） of patents harms the public in three ways. First， it means that technology companies will compete more at the courtroom than in the marketplace—precisely what seems to be happening. Second， it hampers16） follow-on17） improvements by firms that implement an existing technology but build upon18） it as well. Third， it fuels many of the American patent system’s broader problems， such as patent trolls19）（speculative20） lawsuits by patent-holders who have no intention of actually making anything）； defensive patenting （acquiring patents mainly to pre-empt21） the risk of litigation， which raises business costs）； and “innovation gridlock22）” （the difficulty of combining multiple technologies to create a single new product because too many small patents are spread among too many players）.

Some basic reforms would alleviate many of the problems exemplified by the iPhone lawsuit. The existing criteria for a patent should be applied with greater vigour. Specialised courts for patent disputes should be established， with technically minded judges in charge： the inflated patent-damage awards23） of recent years are largely the result of jury trials. And if patents are infringed， judges should favour monetary penalties over injunctions24） that ban the sale of offending products and thereby reduce consumer choice.

A world of fewer but more robust patents， combined with a more efficient method of settling disputes， would not just serve the interests of the public but also help innovators like Apple. The company is rumoured to be considering an iPad with a smaller screen， a format which Samsung already sells. What if its plans were blocked by a specious25） patent？ Apple’s own early successes were founded on enhancing the best technologies that it saw， notably the graphical interface and mouse that were first invented at Xerox26）’s Palo Alto Research Centre. “It comes down to27） trying to expose yourself to the best things that humans have done—and then try to bring those things in to what you’re doing，” said Jobs in a television documentary， Triumph of the Nerds， in 1996. “And we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas.”

2007年，史蒂夫·喬布斯揭開iPhone的面紗，從此讓一個產(chǎn)業(yè)改頭換面。相比此前的手機，蘋果公司這款卓越的新產(chǎn)品有著巨大的進步：外觀別致，性能出眾。iPhone體現(xiàn)了最完美的創(chuàng)新，這使它面市后不久即成為最暢銷的智能手機，而蘋果公司也由此變成世界上最有價值的公司，其市值現(xiàn)已超過6300億美元。

蘋果公司的成就引發(fā)了模仿潮。現(xiàn)在，許多智能手機制造商的產(chǎn)品中都含有觸摸屏和多彩圖標(biāo)。這其中就包括全球最大的科技產(chǎn)品制造商三星公司，其產(chǎn)品是iPhone最有力的競爭對手，在外觀上也與iPhone最為相似。三星產(chǎn)品的強競爭力和高相似度迫使蘋果公司在數(shù)個國家對三星提起了專利侵權(quán)訴訟。而這反倒促使這家韓國公司反戈一擊，訴蘋果公司剽竊了它的創(chuàng)意。今年8月24日，美國一個陪審團裁定三星公司侵犯了蘋果公司六項專利，要求其向蘋果公司支付超過十億美元的損害賠償，堪稱專利案史上賠款數(shù)額最大的案例之一。

一些人認(rèn)為此項裁決難以掩蓋美國的保護主義。這種觀點對于陪審團而言卻有失公允：陪審團成員看起來一直都兢兢業(yè)業(yè)，一心想查清是否存在專利侵權(quán)問題。此案引發(fā)的更大的問題是，起初蘋果公司所有的創(chuàng)新是否都應(yīng)被授予專利，而技術(shù)較為成熟的以及新成立的同類公司在借鑒其他公司的突破性成果進行產(chǎn)品設(shè)計時又應(yīng)當(dāng)把握怎樣的度。

我們有必要回顧一下專利是因何而誕生的。專利制度是為了保證公眾利益而建立起來的一種平衡機制：國家對發(fā)明者授予有限的專利權(quán)，作為交換，發(fā)明者需公開如何運用其專利技術(shù)。一項創(chuàng)新成果若想獲得專利，必須具備新穎性、實用性和非顯而易見性。獲得專利的發(fā)明者可享有20年的專有權(quán)。涵蓋外觀設(shè)計在內(nèi)的“設(shè)計專利”的有效期則是14年，其評審過程相對比較簡單。

蘋果和三星公司爭論的焦點并不是其產(chǎn)品的工作原理，而是產(chǎn)品外觀和用戶體驗。存在爭議的產(chǎn)品特性包括指尖雙擊放大圖片功能、聚攏手指（縮放圖片）功能以及頁面滾動到底部時產(chǎn)生的“橡皮筋式”回彈視覺特效。此案甚至還牽扯到產(chǎn)品及其屏顯圖標(biāo)是否可以采用圓角。誠然，其中的一些特性相比iPhone推出之前的產(chǎn)品確實有極大改進，但是如果連手勢和圓角都可被授予專利權(quán)，那么對“新穎性”和“非顯而易見性”的界定也可謂達到極致了。

專利的泛濫會對公眾造成三個方面的危害。其一，它意味著科技企業(yè)的“主戰(zhàn)場”將從市場轉(zhuǎn)向法庭——這種情況似乎已然成為現(xiàn)實。其二，它會阻礙那些使用某項現(xiàn)有技術(shù)但在其基礎(chǔ)上有所改進的公司對此項技術(shù)進行后續(xù)的完善。其三，它會引發(fā)美國專利制度更深層次的問題，比如專利釣餌（不以從事實際生產(chǎn)為目的的專利持有者進行的投機性訴訟）、防御性專利（獲取專利以預(yù)先防范訴訟風(fēng)險，這會增加企業(yè)成本）以及“創(chuàng)新僵局”（由于太多小專利為眾多不同的人所擁有，融合多項技術(shù)來開發(fā)新產(chǎn)品就成為難題）。

采取一些基本的改革措施可以緩解iPhone訴訟案中暴露的諸多問題。我們應(yīng)當(dāng)采取更加有力的手段來實施現(xiàn)行的專利標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。我們應(yīng)當(dāng)建立專門用于處理專利糾紛的法庭，并且選派有科技背景的法官來負(fù)責(zé)：近年來數(shù)目不斷膨脹的專利損害賠償金額大部分都是陪審團做出的裁決。如果專利權(quán)受到侵害，法官最好對侵權(quán)方處以罰金，而非禁止銷售那些侵權(quán)產(chǎn)品——這樣會縮小消費者的選擇范圍。

如果世界上的專利數(shù)量更少但品質(zhì)更精，解決專利爭端的方法也更有效的話，這不但對大眾有益，對像蘋果公司這樣的創(chuàng)新者也有幫助。據(jù)傳蘋果公司正在考慮設(shè)計一款屏幕更小的iPad（編注：本文刊發(fā)于2012年9月1日，其時這款iPad 尚未發(fā)布），而這種款式三星公司已經(jīng)在售。如果蘋果公司的這項計劃被三星公司的一項似是而非的專利阻撓怎么辦？蘋果公司早期的成功都是通過對其所發(fā)現(xiàn)的先進技術(shù)加以改進取得的，尤其是圖形界面和鼠標(biāo)，它們均由施樂公司帕洛阿爾托研發(fā)中心首創(chuàng)?！皻w根結(jié)底就是要盡可能地接觸人類既有的最優(yōu)秀成果，然后再盡可能地將這些成果應(yīng)用到你的工作中去，”喬布斯在1996年的電視紀(jì)錄片《書呆子的勝利》中說，“我們從不為竊取奇思妙想感到羞愧?！?/p>

1.spawn [sp??n] vt. 引起，釀成

2.infringement [?n?fr?nd?m?nt] n. 侵權(quán)，違背

3.rip off：偷竊，竊取

4.disservice [d??s??（r）v?s] n. 損害，傷害，不親切的行為

5.stick to：堅持；履行；繼續(xù)做

6.stalwart [?st??lw?（r）t] n. 原指強壯的人，在文中指技術(shù)成熟的公司。

7.trade-off：平衡，協(xié)調(diào)

8.at issue：在審議（爭議）中

9.zoom [zu?m] vi. （攝影機）迅速接近（或離開）被攝對象；（用變焦距鏡頭）接近（或推遠）

10.tap [t?p] n. 輕敲，輕拍

11.pinch [p?nt?] n. 捏，擰

12.rubber band：橡皮筋，橡皮圈

13.scroll [skr??l] vi. （電腦屏幕上）從上到下移動（資料等）

14.breaking-point：極點，極限

15.proliferation [pr??l?f??re??（?）n] n. 激增，擴散

16.hamper [?h?mp?（r）] vt. 妨礙，限制

17.follow-on：后續(xù)的，隨后發(fā)生的

18.build upon：在……的基礎(chǔ)上繼續(xù)前進

19.troll [tr??l] n. （尤指曳繩釣魚用的）釣繩，釣餌

20.speculative [?spekj?l?t?v] adj. 投機性的

21.pre-empt [pri??empt] vt. 搶先行動，先發(fā)制人

22.gridlock [?ɡr?d?l?k] n. 僵局

23.award [??w??（r）d] n. （損害賠償金等的）裁定額

24.injunction [?n?d???k??n] n. （法院下的）強制令，禁制令

25.specious [?spi???s] adj. 似是而非的，貌似正確的

26.Xerox：美國施樂公司，全球最大的數(shù)字與信息技術(shù)產(chǎn)品生產(chǎn)商，是一家全球五百強企業(yè)。目前該公司的復(fù)印機和彩色打印機的占有率為全球第一。

27.come down to：歸根結(jié)底