2023考研英語閱讀創智財富
Inventive warfare創智財富
THIS deal is all about patents. That was the near universal view of Googles announcementthis week that it was taking over Motorola Mobility, a maker of handsets and other devices, for acolossal $12.5 billion. Indeed, the purchase will provide Google with an awful lot of patents:around 17,000 of them issued and another 7,500 pending. They should help Google in itsefforts to get more smartphones and other mobile devices running on its Android operatingsystem. But it could also make the battles over patents nastier and more costly.
這筆交易也是徹頭徹尾關于專利的。谷歌本周宣布以高達125億美元收購手機及相關配件的制造商摩托羅拉移動部門的消息引起了全球關注。此外，此次交易將提供給谷歌大量的專利：大約17，000個已經獲得專利權，另外有7，500個正在申請中。這將有助于谷歌拓展其基業以使更多地智能手機和其它移動終端使用安卓操作系統。但這也會使得專利之爭更卑劣更燒錢。
A scramble for patents had already begun. In December four companies, including Microsoft andApple, paid $450m for around 880 patents and applications owned by Novell, an ailing softwarefirm. In July those two and four others, including Research in Motion, maker of the BlackBerry,spent $4.5 billion on 6,000 patents owned by Nortel, a bankrupt Canadian telecoms-equipmentmaker. Before its latest deal, Google bought 1,000 patents from IBM. Firms are also suing eachother. Apple claims its technology has been copied by Samsung and Motorola in their Androidphones. Oracle is suing Google for up to $6 billion, claiming that Android infringes its patents.Microsoft is suing Motorola over Android too. Nokia recently settled a similar quarrel withApple.
對專利權的爭奪已經開始了。12月，包括微軟和蘋果在內的四家企業為了大約880項專利向專利所用者一家面臨窘境的軟件企業諾勒支付了4.5億美元。7月，前述四家企業中的兩家和另外四家企業包括捷訊移動和黑莓手機制造商為了6000項專利向一個破產的加拿大電信設備供應商北電網絡支費了450億美元。在最新的一筆交易中，谷歌從國際商業機器公司購買了1000項專利。企業間也互相控訴。蘋果聲稱其技術被三星和摩托羅拉抄襲在其各自的安卓手機內。甲骨文訴谷歌侵害了其專利，并要求索賠高達60億美元。微軟也以安卓訴摩托羅拉。最近，諾基亞和蘋果也開始了專利權的紛爭。
What is going on? Some say companies areattaching more value to intellectual property.Indeed, the Google deal seems to have been pricedon a cost-per-patent basis, causing the share pricesof other firms with lots of patents to rise. Others,however, think the battles reflect deficiencies in thepatent system forcing firms to pay vast sums toprotect technologies they have developed. Theanswer is a bit of both.
接下來還將發生什么呢?有人說企業將繼續注重知識產權的價值。此外，谷歌的收購案似乎還提高了每單個專利的平均價格，引起其它擁有大量專利權企業的股價提高。總之，其它企業考慮專利之爭的缺點了迫使企業支付大量的資金去保護自主技術。答案是各自有點。
System failure 整體失敗
Kent Walker, one of Googles senior lawyers, grouses at being forced to spend a lot of moneydefending the company against frivolous lawsuits by rivals. Others counter that as computinggoes mobile, it favours information-technology firms that have invested in research for yearsand that Google was naiveor idealisticto broaden its IT business without having a stackof patents. There is a retort to that, too: that incumbents can use patents as barriers toentry, which is why Americas antitrust regulators are showing interest in them. In April theDepartment of Justice demanded changes to Novells patent sale to protect open-sourcesoftware.
谷歌的一個資深律師肯特沃克爾抱怨針對不必要的法律訴訟，將花去更多的資金捍衛其企業權利。其它的反對聲音認為隨著計算機的移動性能提升，這將有助于那些投資于研究多年的信息技術企業的發展，并使得沒有大量專利權的谷歌在拓展 IT業務時顯得缺乏經驗和空想主義。這里也有反駁他們的意見：行業主導者可以像跨越障礙一樣使用專利，這也是為什么美國反壟斷監管機構對專利之爭很感興趣的原因。四月，司法部為了開源軟件，要求諾勒改變專利權銷售政策。
Nowadays, innovations in IT usually rely on many small improvements involving numeroustechnologies, which means it is not always clear precisely which inventions a patent covers. Theopen secret is that everyone infringes everyone elses patents in some way. This creates anincentive for firms to build up their patent portfolios to strengthen their position innegotiations, leading to what some liken to an arms race. The legal tussles usually end incross-licensing deals, in which small sums of money change hands. This is consideredpreferable to a mutually destructive exchange of endless lawsuits.
現在，IT創新通常基于很小但包含大量技術的改善，這意味著這些專利權不總是恰如其分的明確，所以大量的創新總是被同一個專利涉及。公開的秘密是每一個人都在以某種方式侵害每一個人的專利權。這形成了企業建立他們自己的專利資產組合的激勵類似于軍備競賽使得其在談判中取得有利地位。這種合法的爭議通常以相互授權的方式結束，其中還有少量資金的轉手。這比相互毀滅性無休止法律訴訟更可取。
The patent battle has become more contentious than ever. One reason is the mobile phonehas provided a new platform of computing that firms want to dominate. Also, such a backlogof applications built up at Americas patent office that standards slipped. Dubious patents were granted, helped in part bycourt rulings that allowed patents to stand on some software and business methods thatmany thought no one could lay claim to. In Europe and Japan, where patentability standardsare higher, this is less of a problem.
專利之爭也逐漸變得更具爭議。其中之一的理由是手機提供了一個嶄新的被各個企業虎視眈眈的計算機平臺。此外，在美國專利辦公室內，積壓的申請將在新標準下逐漸獲得通過。得力于允許某些軟件和商業模式取得專利的法庭裁決，不靠譜的專利還在增長。許多人認為這類不應該獲得專利。在專利的標準更高的歐洲和日本，很少類似問題的發生。
Making things even more troublesome is that as lawsuits became particularly lucrative some companies entered the fray to feed off them. Non-practicing entities , which have intellectual property but no actual products, include such august bodies as the Harvard Medical School. But some NPEs are derided as trolls because their sole purpose seems to be to exploit the legal system by demanding licensing fees from companies, sometimes for questionable patents. Over the past 15 years, the median award to NPEs of damages for patent infringement has doubled while that for other firms has declined
制造東西甚至變得更棘手的原因在于隨著法律訴訟變得相對的有利可圖，企業進入了專利爭奪戰場去喂飽訟棍。不實施專利的實體只有知識產權但無實際生產包含了這些德高望重的實體比如哈佛醫學院。由于他們的核心理念是利用從企業之處收取高昂的許可費法律，很多NPEs被嘲笑為姜太公釣魚。某些專利甚至還有問題。在過去的15年，同意支付給NPEs的侵犯專利權的損害賠償金的中間值翻了一倍，與此同時給其它企業的賠償卻在降低。
注：Troll v. fish by drawing bait along in the water 用帶有魚餌的曳繩釣魚[perhaps related to French troller to quest]
Court rulings in America have begun to clip the trolls beards by making it harder to win injunctions and by strengthening the criteria for whether an invention is truly non-obvious. Microsoft has seen the number of suits filed in the famously plaintiff-friendly district court of Eastern Texas fall from 17 in 2007 to just two so far this year, says Brad Smith, Microsofts general counsel. However, as big companies have improved their defences, the trolls have changed their tactics and are now going after start-ups.
通過讓其很難贏得禁止令和加強是否發明確實非顯而易見的標準，美國法庭的裁決開始剪掉姜太公胡須。微軟的總顧問巴瑞德斯密斯說微軟最近的幾例訴訟在對原告極其友好的東德克薩斯州地方法庭失敗了。不管怎樣，隨著大企業逐漸改變他們的防御工事，姜太公們也在改變他們的策略手段，并且現在熱衷于欺負新出道的公司。
New legislation could change things. David Kappos,director of Americas patent office, says theAmerica Invents Act could amount to the mostsweeping reforms to the US patent system in 175years. It is expected to be passed this autumn,Barack Obama has indicated that he will sign it, andbig IT and drug companies support it. But manyentrepreneurs and venture capitalists do not,arguing that it does not fix any of the systems bigproblems and risks creating new ones.
新的立法或將改變現狀。美國專利辦公室的主管大衛卡珀斯說：美國發明法案將成為175年來對美國專利系統最徹底的改革。該法案或將在今年秋天頒布巴拉克?奧巴馬已經表示他將簽署法案，此為大的IT和醫藥企業均支持這一法案。但是許多企業主和風險投資卻不同意，爭論的焦點在于這不適合所有的系統的大問題并且創造了新的風險。
The most contentious point is a change to determine who is the rightful inventor. Instead ofbeing the first to invent, the successful applicant would be the first to file, the standardused worldwide. Harmonising Americas rules with those in other countries would be a steptowards greater co-operation and efficiency in patent examinations globally. Big companieslike the proposal because it gives them more legal certainty that someone will not appearclaiming they came up with the idea first. But inventors like Steve Perlman, the founder ofWebTV and other firms, argue that it forces companies to file for patents before theirinventions are fully developed. That, says Mr Perlman, would lead to yet more incrementalimprovements rather than big innovative steps and put a toll on Americas competitiveness.
最有爭議的地方在于決定誰是真正的發明者的改變。與發明在先相反，成功申請的標準將采用世界廣泛使用的申請在先。美國的法則與其它國家的趨同是全球范圍內共同合作和有效審查專利的重要步驟。大企業喜歡這個提案因為該法案賦予他們更多的法律的確定性。此處的確定性就是某人不再出庭作證其第一個想出了這個方案。但是發明者比如網絡電視和其它企業的創始人史蒂文珀爾曼認為法案將迫使企業在他們的發明還沒得到完整發展之前就開始申請專利。珀爾曼先生認為那還將引起小修小補式的而不是巨大革新的跨越，并且為美國競爭力敲響了喪鐘。
For the moment, though, companies are amassing ever larger arsenals of patents. Google, forone, was hit by eight lawsuits in April alonemore than in the first five years of its 13-yearexistence, says Mr Walker. See how far we have strayed from the notion of innovation, thatwe need to acquire patents to fend off potential suits, he says of the firms overallstrategy. That money could have been spent on engineers, to much more productive use.
目前，企業正在積累專利的軍火庫。沃克先生說，其中一個例子是僅4月谷歌就被8個官司纏身大大超過有13年歷史的谷歌最早五年的總和。看看我們在發明這個概念的迷途中走了多遠。之所以迷途是我們需要獲取專利的目的是為了抵御潛在法律訴訟，他就企業的全局策略談論，錢就花在刀刃上，集中于生產性的花費。
Inventive warfare創智財富
THIS deal is all about patents. That was the near universal view of Googles announcementthis week that it was taking over Motorola Mobility, a maker of handsets and other devices, for acolossal $12.5 billion. Indeed, the purchase will provide Google with an awful lot of patents:around 17,000 of them issued and another 7,500 pending. They should help Google in itsefforts to get more smartphones and other mobile devices running on its Android operatingsystem. But it could also make the battles over patents nastier and more costly.
這筆交易也是徹頭徹尾關于專利的。谷歌本周宣布以高達125億美元收購手機及相關配件的制造商摩托羅拉移動部門的消息引起了全球關注。此外，此次交易將提供給谷歌大量的專利：大約17，000個已經獲得專利權，另外有7，500個正在申請中。這將有助于谷歌拓展其基業以使更多地智能手機和其它移動終端使用安卓操作系統。但這也會使得專利之爭更卑劣更燒錢。
A scramble for patents had already begun. In December four companies, including Microsoft andApple, paid $450m for around 880 patents and applications owned by Novell, an ailing softwarefirm. In July those two and four others, including Research in Motion, maker of the BlackBerry,spent $4.5 billion on 6,000 patents owned by Nortel, a bankrupt Canadian telecoms-equipmentmaker. Before its latest deal, Google bought 1,000 patents from IBM. Firms are also suing eachother. Apple claims its technology has been copied by Samsung and Motorola in their Androidphones. Oracle is suing Google for up to $6 billion, claiming that Android infringes its patents.Microsoft is suing Motorola over Android too. Nokia recently settled a similar quarrel withApple.
對專利權的爭奪已經開始了。12月，包括微軟和蘋果在內的四家企業為了大約880項專利向專利所用者一家面臨窘境的軟件企業諾勒支付了4.5億美元。7月，前述四家企業中的兩家和另外四家企業包括捷訊移動和黑莓手機制造商為了6000項專利向一個破產的加拿大電信設備供應商北電網絡支費了450億美元。在最新的一筆交易中，谷歌從國際商業機器公司購買了1000項專利。企業間也互相控訴。蘋果聲稱其技術被三星和摩托羅拉抄襲在其各自的安卓手機內。甲骨文訴谷歌侵害了其專利，并要求索賠高達60億美元。微軟也以安卓訴摩托羅拉。最近，諾基亞和蘋果也開始了專利權的紛爭。
What is going on? Some say companies areattaching more value to intellectual property.Indeed, the Google deal seems to have been pricedon a cost-per-patent basis, causing the share pricesof other firms with lots of patents to rise. Others,however, think the battles reflect deficiencies in thepatent system forcing firms to pay vast sums toprotect technologies they have developed. Theanswer is a bit of both.
接下來還將發生什么呢?有人說企業將繼續注重知識產權的價值。此外，谷歌的收購案似乎還提高了每單個專利的平均價格，引起其它擁有大量專利權企業的股價提高。總之，其它企業考慮專利之爭的缺點了迫使企業支付大量的資金去保護自主技術。答案是各自有點。
System failure 整體失敗
Kent Walker, one of Googles senior lawyers, grouses at being forced to spend a lot of moneydefending the company against frivolous lawsuits by rivals. Others counter that as computinggoes mobile, it favours information-technology firms that have invested in research for yearsand that Google was naiveor idealisticto broaden its IT business without having a stackof patents. There is a retort to that, too: that incumbents can use patents as barriers toentry, which is why Americas antitrust regulators are showing interest in them. In April theDepartment of Justice demanded changes to Novells patent sale to protect open-sourcesoftware.
谷歌的一個資深律師肯特沃克爾抱怨針對不必要的法律訴訟，將花去更多的資金捍衛其企業權利。其它的反對聲音認為隨著計算機的移動性能提升，這將有助于那些投資于研究多年的信息技術企業的發展，并使得沒有大量專利權的谷歌在拓展 IT業務時顯得缺乏經驗和空想主義。這里也有反駁他們的意見：行業主導者可以像跨越障礙一樣使用專利，這也是為什么美國反壟斷監管機構對專利之爭很感興趣的原因。四月，司法部為了開源軟件，要求諾勒改變專利權銷售政策。
Nowadays, innovations in IT usually rely on many small improvements involving numeroustechnologies, which means it is not always clear precisely which inventions a patent covers. Theopen secret is that everyone infringes everyone elses patents in some way. This creates anincentive for firms to build up their patent portfolios to strengthen their position innegotiations, leading to what some liken to an arms race. The legal tussles usually end incross-licensing deals, in which small sums of money change hands. This is consideredpreferable to a mutually destructive exchange of endless lawsuits.
現在，IT創新通常基于很小但包含大量技術的改善，這意味著這些專利權不總是恰如其分的明確，所以大量的創新總是被同一個專利涉及。公開的秘密是每一個人都在以某種方式侵害每一個人的專利權。這形成了企業建立他們自己的專利資產組合的激勵類似于軍備競賽使得其在談判中取得有利地位。這種合法的爭議通常以相互授權的方式結束，其中還有少量資金的轉手。這比相互毀滅性無休止法律訴訟更可取。
The patent battle has become more contentious than ever. One reason is the mobile phonehas provided a new platform of computing that firms want to dominate. Also, such a backlogof applications built up at Americas patent office that standards slipped. Dubious patents were granted, helped in part bycourt rulings that allowed patents to stand on some software and business methods thatmany thought no one could lay claim to. In Europe and Japan, where patentability standardsare higher, this is less of a problem.
專利之爭也逐漸變得更具爭議。其中之一的理由是手機提供了一個嶄新的被各個企業虎視眈眈的計算機平臺。此外，在美國專利辦公室內，積壓的申請將在新標準下逐漸獲得通過。得力于允許某些軟件和商業模式取得專利的法庭裁決，不靠譜的專利還在增長。許多人認為這類不應該獲得專利。在專利的標準更高的歐洲和日本，很少類似問題的發生。
Making things even more troublesome is that as lawsuits became particularly lucrative some companies entered the fray to feed off them. Non-practicing entities , which have intellectual property but no actual products, include such august bodies as the Harvard Medical School. But some NPEs are derided as trolls because their sole purpose seems to be to exploit the legal system by demanding licensing fees from companies, sometimes for questionable patents. Over the past 15 years, the median award to NPEs of damages for patent infringement has doubled while that for other firms has declined
制造東西甚至變得更棘手的原因在于隨著法律訴訟變得相對的有利可圖，企業進入了專利爭奪戰場去喂飽訟棍。不實施專利的實體只有知識產權但無實際生產包含了這些德高望重的實體比如哈佛醫學院。由于他們的核心理念是利用從企業之處收取高昂的許可費法律，很多NPEs被嘲笑為姜太公釣魚。某些專利甚至還有問題。在過去的15年，同意支付給NPEs的侵犯專利權的損害賠償金的中間值翻了一倍，與此同時給其它企業的賠償卻在降低。
注：Troll v. fish by drawing bait along in the water 用帶有魚餌的曳繩釣魚[perhaps related to French troller to quest]
Court rulings in America have begun to clip the trolls beards by making it harder to win injunctions and by strengthening the criteria for whether an invention is truly non-obvious. Microsoft has seen the number of suits filed in the famously plaintiff-friendly district court of Eastern Texas fall from 17 in 2007 to just two so far this year, says Brad Smith, Microsofts general counsel. However, as big companies have improved their defences, the trolls have changed their tactics and are now going after start-ups.
通過讓其很難贏得禁止令和加強是否發明確實非顯而易見的標準，美國法庭的裁決開始剪掉姜太公胡須。微軟的總顧問巴瑞德斯密斯說微軟最近的幾例訴訟在對原告極其友好的東德克薩斯州地方法庭失敗了。不管怎樣，隨著大企業逐漸改變他們的防御工事，姜太公們也在改變他們的策略手段，并且現在熱衷于欺負新出道的公司。
New legislation could change things. David Kappos,director of Americas patent office, says theAmerica Invents Act could amount to the mostsweeping reforms to the US patent system in 175years. It is expected to be passed this autumn,Barack Obama has indicated that he will sign it, andbig IT and drug companies support it. But manyentrepreneurs and venture capitalists do not,arguing that it does not fix any of the systems bigproblems and risks creating new ones.
新的立法或將改變現狀。美國專利辦公室的主管大衛卡珀斯說：美國發明法案將成為175年來對美國專利系統最徹底的改革。該法案或將在今年秋天頒布巴拉克?奧巴馬已經表示他將簽署法案，此為大的IT和醫藥企業均支持這一法案。但是許多企業主和風險投資卻不同意，爭論的焦點在于這不適合所有的系統的大問題并且創造了新的風險。
The most contentious point is a change to determine who is the rightful inventor. Instead ofbeing the first to invent, the successful applicant would be the first to file, the standardused worldwide. Harmonising Americas rules with those in other countries would be a steptowards greater co-operation and efficiency in patent examinations globally. Big companieslike the proposal because it gives them more legal certainty that someone will not appearclaiming they came up with the idea first. But inventors like Steve Perlman, the founder ofWebTV and other firms, argue that it forces companies to file for patents before theirinventions are fully developed. That, says Mr Perlman, would lead to yet more incrementalimprovements rather than big innovative steps and put a toll on Americas competitiveness.
最有爭議的地方在于決定誰是真正的發明者的改變。與發明在先相反，成功申請的標準將采用世界廣泛使用的申請在先。美國的法則與其它國家的趨同是全球范圍內共同合作和有效審查專利的重要步驟。大企業喜歡這個提案因為該法案賦予他們更多的法律的確定性。此處的確定性就是某人不再出庭作證其第一個想出了這個方案。但是發明者比如網絡電視和其它企業的創始人史蒂文珀爾曼認為法案將迫使企業在他們的發明還沒得到完整發展之前就開始申請專利。珀爾曼先生認為那還將引起小修小補式的而不是巨大革新的跨越，并且為美國競爭力敲響了喪鐘。
For the moment, though, companies are amassing ever larger arsenals of patents. Google, forone, was hit by eight lawsuits in April alonemore than in the first five years of its 13-yearexistence, says Mr Walker. See how far we have strayed from the notion of innovation, thatwe need to acquire patents to fend off potential suits, he says of the firms overallstrategy. That money could have been spent on engineers, to much more productive use.
目前，企業正在積累專利的軍火庫。沃克先生說，其中一個例子是僅4月谷歌就被8個官司纏身大大超過有13年歷史的谷歌最早五年的總和。看看我們在發明這個概念的迷途中走了多遠。之所以迷途是我們需要獲取專利的目的是為了抵御潛在法律訴訟，他就企業的全局策略談論，錢就花在刀刃上，集中于生產性的花費。
