谁将是5G知识产权赢家？

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.

过去20年的消费互联网革命给我们带来了很多惊喜，从在线搜索引擎到可以用作个人助理的手机。尽管这种变革具有戏剧性，但它根本比不上即将到来的第五代移动通信(5G)和物联网革命，这场革命将把数据挖掘芯片植入很多物件，从你家的电冰箱到你的汽车。

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.

这不仅会缔造全新的业务，还将让广告商得以用更具针对性的方式找到你(他们不仅知道你在哪里，而且还知道你的花园是否需要浇水或者冰箱里的牛奶是否快喝完了)。这其中的经济利益十分重大。尽管大型科技公司非常富有，但新的5G世界将会创造多出几个指数级的财富。然而支撑这一切的技术正受到一场纷争的威胁，症结是哪些企业和行业将获得这块香甜大饼中的哪一块。

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.

传统上，苹果(Apple)、谷歌(Google)、三星(Samsung)等公司以及其他生产无线设备的公司向关键无线技术的开发商(包括高通(Qualcomm)、诺基亚(Nokia)和爱立信(Ericsson))支付专利许可费，以使用它们的芯片和其他关键专利知识产权(IP)。美国和欧洲的标准确定机构指定哪些技术对于构建基础系统是关键的，然后允许创新者获得这类技术的专利保护——只要他们会向所有市场参与者提供“公平、合理且非歧视性”的授权使用。

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

当然，对于什么算是“公平”，各方存在巨大分歧，特别是在更多种类的设备之间相互连通之际。

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.

最具争议的问题之一是关键专利技术的价格是应该基于芯片价格(其成本可能仅为几美元)还是由芯片驱动的手机(可能价值数百美元)。科技巨擘当然希望将专利许可的价值记在芯片上，那将意味着它们支付较低的知识产权费用。

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.

高通等公司希望这个价格基于成品价格，例如一部手机甚至一辆汽车。他们辩称，对于一台设备而言，连通性需求非常不同，例如一款每周一次监测土壤含水量的设备相对于一辆随时保持连通状态的自动汽车，而价格应该反映这类具体情况。

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.

这些问题都是一种深层次且日益加剧的分歧的一部分：一方面是苹果等各大消费品牌，他们认为自己把数万种专利技术集成至一款精美制作的产品，这种能力才是最大的价值贡献者;另一方面是美欧创新者，他们辩称自己投入巨资进行研发，创建标准和技术，让智能手机变得真正智能，结果却被占了便宜。

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.

其结果是，根据最近一项调查，大约四分之三的无线技术知识产权持有者拒绝保证他们将授权使用自己的最新技术，这可能开始破坏连通性。苹果与高通之间没完没了的法律大战就反映了这种对峙。高通正拒绝将其芯片发运给苹果，而苹果拒绝为其已在使用的产品向高通支付费用。

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.

双方都有理由。批评者表示，高通对其技术索要的价格过高，但苹果拒付专利许可费也是不对的。总部位于旧金山的投行华利安(Houlihan Lokey)董事总经理、知识产权专家埃尔维尔•科塞维克(Elvir Causevic)表示：“现在有这么多诉讼意味着，美国或欧盟的监管机构没有履行好自己的职责。”的确，美欧发出的监管信号相互矛盾。

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，美国的标准制定组织——电气电子工程师学会(IEEE)采取了支持大型科技公司的立场。但在今年11月10日，美国司法部助理检察长马坎•德尔拉赫姆(Makan Delrahim)在发表演讲时表示，他认为，与那些索要更高费用、“要挟”整个体系的专利所有者相比，那些拒不支付专利许可费的参与者(例如苹果)问题更严重。

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.

与此同时，欧盟委员会(European Commission)走向相反的方向。你会认为，欧洲肯定希望保护自己的电信企业。然而，该委员会内部存在分歧，一方是支持电信企业的创新支持者，他们为诺基亚等公司开展的研究提供资助;另一方是反垄断部门的官员，他们把专利视为不应受到保护的垄断。

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，反垄断部门的官员可能有意保护一群完全不同的利益相关者。如果汽车真的变成车轮上的智能手机，那么法国、德国和意大利汽车制造商将需要获取廉价的无线技术，就像苹果和谷歌那样。欧盟委员会可能会抛弃电信企业(以及现有的专利制度)，让欧洲汽车制造商在智能汽车领域获得相对优势。

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.

他们还可能决定赌一把，先观察美国的走向，不仅是在无线标准上，还包括一般的专利权。本周将要举行针对总统提名的美国专利商标局(USPTO)局长人选的确认听证会，而最高法院将审理“Oil States”案，该案可能改变美国整个专利制度。全球的公司律师们，高兴起来吧：5G纷争只是刚刚开始。