ESP Wiki is looking for moderators and active contributors!

Difference between revisions of "Patent Absurdity/简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)"

(The transcript)
 
(27 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{Patent absurdity subtitles}}
 
{{Patent absurdity subtitles}}
  
原始字幕来自英文wiki页面,考虑到中文语句长短问题,翻译过程中请注意对时间进行调整。
+
/* 
==The transcript==
 
  
[0:02 - 0:06] [华盛顿特区 2009年11月9日]
+
* Translator: Ruan yifeng
  
[0:09- 0:15] [These people are lined up to hear the oral arguments in the first software patent case to be brought before the supreme court in almost 30 years 这些人是来排队聆听案件的口头辩论的,这是近30年来第一宗即将进入最高法院的软件专利案件]
+
* Date: 2010.4.24
  
[0:14 - 0:16] (记者): 你们能介绍一下自己并拼写一下名字么?
+
* License: CC-BY 3.0
  
[0:15 - 0:17] (记者): 你们的名字和拼写,以及头衔和所有good stuff.your names and spelling and titles and all the good stuff (?)?
+
* SRT file:http://www.ruanyifeng.com/blog/2010/04/Patent_Absurdity.chs.zip
  
[0:17 - 0:21] Bilski: 我叫 Bernie Bilski, B I L S K I
+
*/
  
[0:23 - 0:30] Warsaw: Rand, R A N D, Warsaw, W A R S A W
+
1
 +
00:00:08,776 --> 00:00:14,314
 +
这是30年来,第一起上诉至最高法院的软件专利纠纷。
 +
人们排队等候旁听。
  
[0:31 - 0:32] (Unidentified voice ?) Will you guys tell us in a nutshell what you invented?
+
2
 +
00:00:14,564 --> 00:00:16,990
 +
<i>- 你们的名字是什么?</i>
  
[0:33 - 0:36] Rand: The invention is a guaranteed energy bill
+
3
 +
00:00:17,882 --> 00:00:21,729
 +
- Bernie Bilski. B - I - L - S - K - I
  
[0:36 - 0:38] which is like a budget bill without a true-up [pension benefit],
+
4
 +
00:00:24,180 --> 00:00:30,302
 +
- Rand - R - A - N - D, Warsaw - W-A-R-S-A-W
  
[0:39 - 0:42] and it's a method of hedging both sides in the transaction.
+
5
 +
00:00:30,552 --> 00:00:33,268
 +
<i>- 你们发明了什么东西?</i>
  
[0:43 - 0:45] So behind giving consumers -- energy consumers --
+
6
 +
00:00:33,318 --> 00:00:39,498
 +
- 我们的发明是一种包月的能源账单,
 +
可以实现预付费,并且事后不用调整。
  
[0:46 - 0:49] a guaranteed energy bill, there's a lot of mechanics,
+
7
 +
00:00:39,748 --> 00:00:46,768
 +
- 它实际上是一种对冲交易的方法。
  
[0:50 - 0:52] and the mechanics involve financial transactions
+
8
 +
00:00:47,018 --> 00:00:50,518
 +
- 表面上,消费者拿到包月账单。
 +
背后则是许多复杂的机制。
  
[0:53 - 0:56] between energy consumption or any energy consumers
+
9
 +
00:00:50,768 --> 00:00:54,468
 +
这些机制涉及到能源消费领域的
 +
金融交易方法。
  
[0:57 - 0:58] and the energy providers.
+
10
 +
00:00:54,718 --> 00:00:58,218
 +
它同时涉及到消费者和能源提供者。
  
[0:59 - 1:03] [These men hope to gain a patent on a business method of hedging commodity risk]
+
11
 +
00:00:58,468 --> 00:01:03,830
 +
他们渴望以这种对冲风险的方法,去获得专利。
  
[1:03 - 1:07] Rand: And that's what the invention is in a nutshell. It's a method of generating guaranteed bills for consumers and also protecting energy company earnings.
+
12
 +
00:01:04,066 --> 00:01:08,994
 +
简单说,我们的发明就是这样。
 +
它实现了包月账单。
  
[1:13 - 1:16] [The outcome of the case will have profound implications for software]
+
13
 +
00:01:09,244 --> 00:01:12,744
 +
-既有利于消费者,又能保证能源公司的盈利。
  
[1:17 - 1:19] Dan Ravicher (Public Patent Foundation): The Bilski case itself is, someone applied for a patent on
+
14
 +
00:01:12,994 --> 00:01:16,743
 +
这起纠纷的结果,对于软件业有着深远的影响。
  
[1:20 - 1:24] a business method or software and the patent office rejected it.
+
15
 +
00:01:17,020 --> 00:01:22,190
 +
- Bilski案件的实质是,某人对一种方法或软件申请专利。
  
[1:25 - 1:27] And now this is that person suing the patent office, saying:
+
16
 +
00:01:22,440 --> 00:01:27,396
 +
-美国专利署拒绝了这个申请。
 +
他们就起诉专利署,
  
[1:28 - 1:29] "You have to grant me that patent."
+
17
 +
00:01:27,396 --> 00:01:30,390
 +
- 要求你必须授予我专利。
  
[1:30 - 1:33] This case is about what does it mean to be a patentable "process".
+
18
 +
00:01:30,640 --> 00:01:34,140
 +
这起纠纷的重要性在于,
 +
它关系到一种“处理方法”是否可以授予专利。
  
[1:34 - 1:37] And so, since software patents fall into the category of processes --
+
19
 +
00:01:34,390 --> 00:01:38,913
 +
软件业也属于“处理方法”的范畴。
  
[1:38 - 1:40] because they're not the machine, and not a composition of matter,
+
20
 +
00:01:39,163 --> 00:01:43,166
 +
软件不是机器,也不是某种化合物。
 +
机器和化合物都是可以申请专利的。
  
[1:41 - 1:43] which are some of the other categories of things that are patentable --
+
21
 +
00:01:43,413 --> 00:01:47,357
 +
这起案件将决定,什么样的“处理方法”可以获得专利。
  
[1:44 - 1:46] this case will define what it means to be a patentable process.
+
22
 +
00:01:52,257 --> 00:01:54,276
 +
<i>- 你对Roberts法官的话怎么看?</i>
  
[1:47 - 1:53] [Patent absurdity - how software patents broke the system...]
+
23
 +
00:01:54,468 --> 00:01:57,452
 +
<i>他说你们的发明,涉及到要求
 +
对人们接电话和打电话的动作授予专利。</i>
  
[1:52 - 1:54] (unidentified voice?): What about Justice Roberts? He said, you know, basically your patent involves
+
24
[1:55 - 1:57] people picking up the phone and calling other people.
+
00:01:57,770 --> 00:02:03,065
 +
- 一定要这么说也可以。
 +
发明中确实有这样的行为,但是它远远不止于此。
  
[1:57 - 1:58] J. Michael Jakes (Attorney for Bilski): It could be reduced to that level
+
25
 +
00:02:03,365 --> 00:02:08,438
 +
将商品以一个灵活的价格,售予一方,
 +
再以一个固定的价格
  
[1:59 - 2:00] as to certain acts that are performed,
+
26
 +
00:02:08,738 --> 00:02:12,706
 +
授予另一方,
 +
由此确定各方的风险头寸。
  
[2:01 - 2:02] but it's much more than that.
+
27
 +
00:02:12,956 --> 00:02:18,668
 +
你可以看一下,我们的《专利申请书》的第四点,
 +
里面描述了我们的发明是什么。
  
[2:03 - 2:05] It has to do with selling a commodity at a fixed price to one party,
+
28
 +
00:02:18,668 --> 00:02:25,318
 +
- 那里有一个很长的数学公式。
 +
这个公式在其他地方从来没有出现过。
  
[2:06 - 2:09] selling to a different party at a different fixed price,
+
29
 +
00:02:25,502 --> 00:02:28,110
 +
这属于我的委托人的创造发明。
  
[2:10 - 2:11] identifying counter-risk positions.
+
30
 +
00:02:28,352 --> 00:02:32,052
 +
<i>- 以前,数学公式是不能申请专利的。
 +
但是,现在我们看到像Bilski这样的人,</i>
  
[2:12 - 2:13] When you look at claim four in the patent --
+
31
 +
00:02:32,302 --> 00:02:37,812
 +
- 站出来说:“你知道吗?
 +
我在这些数学等式上,付出了这么大的努力。"
  
[2:14 - 2:17] we have a thing called claims which describe really what the invention is --
+
32
 +
00:02:38,012 --> 00:02:41,564
 +
"- 因此我理应对这些信息处理方法拥有专利。"
  
[2:18 - 2:19] there's a long mathematical formula in there --
+
33
 +
00:02:41,814 --> 00:02:45,249
 +
<i>- 你提到,申请专利的内容中,
 +
包括一个很长的数学公式。</i>
  
[2:20 - 2:23] that didn't exist in nature or anywhere in the literature -
+
34
 +
00:02:45,464 --> 00:02:50,710
 +
<i>你是否认为,数学公式可以申请专利?</i>
  
[2:24 - 2:28] that these very inventive folks came up with.
+
35
 +
00:02:50,910 --> 00:02:51,714
 +
- 完全可以。
  
[2:28 - 2:29 Ben Klemens - author, 'Math You Can't Use': Once upon a time, Math was not patentable, and now it is.
+
36
 +
00:02:51,964 --> 00:02:57,710
 +
- 开发软件的过程,就是采用某种算法,
  
[2:30 - 2:32] And we can have someone like Bilski coming in and saying:
+
37
 +
00:02:57,960 --> 00:03:01,760
 +
-也就是说,选择某种对抽象数据处理的方法,
 +
然后,你再把具体的变量加上去。
  
[2:33 - 2:36] "Yes, you know, I worked hard on this mathematical equation
+
38
 +
00:03:02,010 --> 00:03:05,910
 +
- 以一阶求导为例,我们可以先写出一个值的矩阵。
  
[2:37 - 2:41] and therefore I should have a patent on this information processing method here."
+
39
 +
00:03:06,160 --> 00:03:11,830
 +
然后算出每一列的平均值。
 +
mu 1,mu 2,mu 3.
  
[2:42 - 2:45] (unidentified voice?): You mentioned in your claim that there is a very long calculation showing that
+
40
 +
00:03:12,030 --> 00:03:21,184
 +
再定义Y等于x减去每一列的mu。
  
[2:45 - 2:46] Jakes: There is.
+
41
 +
00:03:21,434 --> 00:03:29,468
 +
我们还可以有一些其他的因子X,
 +
我们以X·S,表示X在这个空间上的投射。
  
[2:46 - 2:50] (Unidentified voice?): Do you think a strong calculation or good Math is a basis for a sof- for a patent?
+
42
 +
00:03:29,718 --> 00:03:31,950
 +
这叫做奇异值分解(SVD)。
  
[2:50 - 2:51] Jakes: It can be.
+
43
 +
00:03:32,200 --> 00:03:41,609
 +
现在,来玩个花招。
 +
大意是,我们可以说,第一列X1代表“你的性别”。
  
[2:51 - 3:02] Ben Klemens: The basic process of writing software is, you take a broad algorithm of some sort. Some means of doing something with abstract data and then you apply variable names.
+
44
 +
00:03:41,859 --> 00:03:45,359
 +
第二列X2代表“你是否养猫?”
  
[3:02 - 5:07] Ben Klemens: So for our first derivation, let's start with just a simple matrix, a matrix of values. We find the mean of each column: Mu 1, Mu 2, Mu 3. And we're gonna define Y to be X minus X - I'm sorry: X minus Mu for each column. Now, if we have some other factor X, we can take X dot S and find the projection of X onto this space. This is called the singular value decomposition. Now, here is the trick, here is the great part. Now let's say inst... let's say this first row, X1 equals sexuality. Let's say X2 equals: Do you own cats? And X3 equals, I don't know, affectionateness. Ok, so now, we'll also say that, let's take a vector J1 equals Jane, Jane's responses on this survey. Let's say J2 equals Joe's responses. Now let's do the same projection as we did before. We're going to take X dot S - we're going to take J1 dot S. We're going to take -- subtract that from J2 dot S. We're going to find the distance between these two points, and we're going to call that "compatibility". And in that simple step, we have we have derived patent number 6,735,568. The trick, the trick of our derivation was that before -- with the singular value decomposition -- we had abstract numbers. What the guys at eHarmony did to get this patent was to assign names to our variables. So instead of an abstract X1, we have "sexuality". Instead of an abstract X2, we have "a preference for cats". And by making those assignments, by setting variable names in this manner, they were able to take an abstract concept and turn it into a patentable device.
+
45
 +
00:03:47,126 --> 00:03:51,836
 +
第三列X3假定代表“你的感情生活”。
  
[5:07 - 5:46] Ben Klemens): What we want to do, according to the heads of our patent institutions, is take mathematics and slice it up into as many slices as possible and hand those slices out and say, well if you do a principal component analysis, if you multiply matrices for, uh, for dating sites, well ok, we give that to eHarmony. If it's for equities we'll give that to State Street. And so on and so forth. And uh, what we're giving out is basically exclusive rights to use mathematics, to use a law of nature, in whatever context. And what we're getting in return is basically nothing.
+
46
 +
00:03:55,022 --> 00:04:05,502
 +
那么,让我们以因子J1代表
 +
Jane对这个调查问卷的回答。
  
[5:46 - 5:48] [How did we get to this point?]
+
47
 +
00:04:05,752 --> 00:04:10,086
 +
J2代表Joe的回答。
  
[5:47 - 5:52] Mark Webbink - Central for Patent Innovations: A patent a is government grant, and in the U.S. it rises out of the constitution.
+
48
 +
00:04:10,336 --> 00:04:21,308
 +
再采用我们前面说过的投射。
 +
以J1·S减去J2·S。
  
[5:53 -6:08] Dan Ravicher: The Framers included a provision for granting exclusive rights to inventors in our constitution. The belief was that that was important in order to reward people who had made technological advances that would benefit society.
+
49
 +
00:04:21,558 --> 00:04:27,062
 +
这样我们就能发现,这两点之间的距离,
 +
我们把这叫做相容性。
  
[6:09 - 6:12] [Patent Act - Federal Hall - April 10, 1790, An act to promote the progress of useful Arts]
+
50
 +
00:04:28,414 --> 00:04:35,901
 +
就是这么简单的一步,结果申请到了一个专利。
 +
专利号是6 735 568。
  
[6:12 - 6:20] Webbink - New York Law School: The rights that are granted are not the rights to do the thing that they invented, but the right to exclude others from doing that thing.
+
51
 +
00:04:37,750 --> 00:04:44,286
 +
这种花招就是在奇异值分解之前,
 +
先有一些抽象的数字。
  
[6:20 - 6:35] Eben Moglen - Software Freedom Law Center: So the idea was, you have a machine or a thing, which is not previously described in any literature, and which no skilled mechanic could figure out how to make, given what is described in the literature, and for that you get a patent.
+
52
 +
00:04:44,536 --> 00:04:49,974
 +
eHarmony公司的那些人,对这些变量起了一些名字。
 +
然后就申请到了专利。
  
[6:35 - 6:45] Webbink: The basis for determining what is patentable subject matter has continued to evolve over the last 200 years of our national existence.
+
53
 +
00:04:50,224 --> 00:04:55,870
 +
X1不叫X1,叫做性别。
 +
X2不叫X2,叫做是否喜欢猫。
  
[6:46 - 6:56] Moglen: In 1953 the Patent Act was modified by Congress to add the words "or processes" to the word "product" in describing what could be patented.
+
54
 +
00:04:56,120 --> 00:04:59,948
 +
通过这样给变量起名字,
  
[6:56 - 6:58] [Patent Act - Federal Hall - April 10, 1790: An Act to promote the progress of useful Arts.]
+
55
 +
00:05:00,198 --> 00:05:05,390
 +
- 他们就能把一个抽象的概念,
 +
变成一种申请专利的设备。
  
[6:58 - 7:04] [Patent Act amendment - Capitol Building - July 19, 1952: Along with 'machine', 'manufacture' or 'composition of matter', a 'process' is included as patentable statutory subject matter.]
+
56
 +
00:05:06,440 --> 00:05:13,569
 +
- 根据那些专利机构的看法,
 +
正确的做法就是把数学,
  
[7:04 - 7:18] The Congress which did that was plainly thinking about processes of industrial manufacture, processes that produced something at the other end. Float glass on molten tin and it will become flat or whatever.
+
57
 +
00:05:13,819 --> 00:05:18,246
 +
分成尽可能小的小块。
 +
然后把每一块抽出来,
  
[7:19 - 7:35] Webbink: And it's unlikely that anybody thought of "process" at that time in terms of computer software because we didn't have applications on computer software for many years after that last revision of the Patent Act.
+
58
 +
00:05:18,496 --> 00:05:26,238
 +
对它们进行数学上的分量处理。
 +
如果eHarmony公司把这套做法用于约会网站,我们就把专利给它。
  
[7:36 - 7:37] [Patent Act amendment - Capitol Building - July 19, 1952: Along with 'machine', 'manufacture' or 'composition of matter', a 'process' is included as patentable statutory subject matter.]
+
59
 +
00:05:26,488 --> 00:05:31,532
 +
如果道富银行把这套做法用于债券交易,
 +
我们就把专利权给予道富银行,诸如此类。
  
[7:37 - 7:47] [Gottschalk v. Benson - Supreme Court - 1972: Respondents' method for hexadecimal conversion merely a series of mathematical calculations or mental steps does not constitute a patentable "process" within the meaning of the Patent Act]
+
60
 +
00:05:31,782 --> 00:05:39,718
 +
我们真正给出的,
 +
实际上是如何使用数学的某种专门权利。
  
[7:45 - 7:53] Dan Bricklin - the first PC spreadsheet: Back in the late 70s the patent law was interpreted such that you couldn't patent software. It was considered mathematical algorithm or law of nature.
+
61
 +
00:05:40,083 --> 00:05:44,883
 +
-不管怎么看,这都属于使用自然法则。
 +
我们对它授予专利,根本不会有任何的回报。
  
[7:53 - 7:54] [Gottschalk v. Benson - Supreme Court - 1972: Respondents' method for hexadecimal conversion merely a series of mathematical calculations or mental steps does not constitute a patentable "process" within the meaning of the Patent Act]
+
62
 +
00:05:45,733 --> 00:05:52,121
 +
- 专利属于一种政府准许,
 +
在美国,起源于美国《宪法》。
  
[7:55 - 8:01] [Parker v. Flook - Supreme Court - June 22, 1978: A mathematical algorithm is not patentable if its application is not novel]
+
63
 +
00:05:52,471 --> 00:05:58,721
 +
- 《宪法》的起草者,拟定条款对发明人授予专门的权利。
  
[8:01 - 8:10] Moglen: The legal world changed. The environment was quite different starting with some decisions by the Supreme Court like Diamond v. Diehr.
+
64
 +
00:05:58,971 --> 00:06:06,093
 +
他们的想法是,必须奖励那些做出技术进步的人们。
  
[8:11 - 8:36 ] Karen Sandler - Software Freedom Law Center: The patent applicant was coming in with a new process for curing rubber. The temperature and the preciseness of the temperature is essential in curing rubber well, and the innovation that was being patented in this case was an algorithm to monitor a thermometer that was basically in the process and determined when the rubber needed to be released and cooled.
+
65
 +
00:06:06,243 --> 00:06:09,343
 +
- 因为这使整个社会收益。
  
[8:37 - 8:47] Richard Stallman - Free Software Foundation:And they said processes for curing rubber are patentable, there's nothing new about that, the fact that they use a computer in implementing it shouldn't change anything.
+
66
 +
00:06:13,272 --> 00:06:18,156
 +
- 发明者因此获得的权力,
 +
并不是使用自己发明的权力。
  
[8:47 - 8:48] [Parker v. Flook - Supreme Court - June 22, 1978: A mathematical algorithm is not patentable if its application is not novel]
+
67
 +
00:06:18,406 --> 00:06:21,409
 +
- 而是排除他人使用自己发明的权力。
  
[8:48 - 8:55] [Diamond v. Diehr - Supreme Court - March 3, 1981: The working of a machine is patentable, whether it is controlled by a human or a computer]
+
68
 +
00:06:21,659 --> 00:06:28,345
 +
- 所以,这里的想法就是,
 +
如果你有一台机器或别的东西,以前的文献中没有提到过,
  
[8:56 - 9:17] Mishi Choudhary - Software Freedom Law Center: The Supreme Court makes it clear that you cannot patent software because it is only a set of instructions or algorithm and abstract laws of nature, algorithms aren't patentable in the U.S. itself. And, however, then there was the creation of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
+
69
 +
00:06:28,595 --> 00:06:34,449
 +
- 或者没有专家能够从现有的文献中,
 +
推断出这种东西,
  
[9:17 - 9:52] Moglen: The problem being solved, in some sense, begins with the fact that trial court judges always hate patent cases. And the reason trial court judges hate patent cases is for a single trial judge -- a lawyer who has spent his or her life doing litigation -- a patent case in which she or he is going to be required to find detailed facts about how paint is made or how computers work or how radio broadcasting operates is an opportunity just to be made into a fool.
+
70
 +
00:06:34,699 --> 00:06:36,457
 +
- 那么你就得到了一个专利。
  
[9:53 - 9:54] [Diamond v. Diehr - Supreme Court - March 3, 1981: The working of a machine is patentable, whether it is controlled by a human or a computer]
+
71
 +
00:06:36,707 --> 00:06:42,550
 +
- 决定可被授予专利权的东西,
 +
一直在不断变化。
  
[9:54 - 10:00] [Creation of US Court of Appeals - Federal Circuit - April 2, 1982: Creation of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit]
+
72
 +
00:06:42,800 --> 00:06:46,300
 +
- 过去200年,一直如此。
  
[9:59 - 11:04] Moglen: Congress is attempting to change the system in which patent cases are litigated. But instead of changing who tried patent cases, Congress left the non-specialist district judge in charge of the trial. And then created a new Court of Appeals called the Federal Circuit whose job it was to hear all appeals from patent cases. Rapidly of course this court filled up with patent lawyers. And the patent lawyers then made the law in the Court of Appeals that applied to all those district judges who where still making non-specialist decisions of which they were afraid. Naturally the Federal Circuit turned out to be a place which loved patents, and its chief judge Giles Rich, who lived to be very, very old and died in his late nineties, was a man who particularly loved patents on everything. The Federal Circuit court under Giles Rich sort of broke Diamond against Diehr loose from its original meaning and came to the conclusion that software itself could be patented.
+
73
 +
00:06:46,550 --> 00:06:54,588
 +
- 1953年,国会修改了《专利法》,
 +
加入了“处理方法”这个词。
  
[11:05 - 11:09] Choudhary: The Supreme Court left basically everything to this court to decide.
+
74
 +
00:06:54,838 --> 00:06:57,697
 +
- 此后,不仅是“产品”,
 +
而且“处理方法也可以被授予专利。
  
[11:09 - 11:19] Ravicher: The PTO actually used to reject patents on software, like in early 1990's. And they did not allow them, and the applicants would appeal those rejections to the Federal Circuit.
+
75
 +
00:07:04,760 --> 00:07:10,833
 +
国会这样做,主要是考虑到制造业的一些生产方法。
  
[11:19 - 11:20] [Creation of US Court of Appeals - Federal Circuit - April 2, 1982: Creation of the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit]
+
76
 +
00:07:11,083 --> 00:07:19,481
 +
- 也就是从投入到产出的处理方法,比如生产浮法玻璃。
  
[11:20 - 11:27] [In re Alappat - Federal Circuit - July 29, 1994: Installing software on a computer makes a "new machine", which is patentable]
+
77
 +
00:07:19,731 --> 00:07:25,065
 +
- 那时,不可能有人想到,
 +
计算机软件中也有“处理方法”。
  
[11:28 - 11:35] [In re Lowry - Federal Circuit - August 26, 1994: The data structure of a computer's hard drive constitutes a "machine" that is eligible for patentability]
+
78
 +
00:07:25,315 --> 00:07:33,748
 +
- 因为要过很多年,计算机应用程序才会问世。
 +
而《专利法》此后就没有被修订过。
  
[11:36 - 11:42] [State Street v. Signature Financial - Federal Circuit - July 23, 1998: A numerical calculation that produces a "useful, concrete and tangible result", such as a price, is patent-eligible]
+
79
 +
00:07:33,998 --> 00:07:36,998
 +
- 至今也没有修订。
  
[11:43 - 12:18] Moglen: In the world of machines, you show the patent office THE machine, and you got a patent office whose claims were "I claim this machine".  In the world of computer software, there was no way of defining what the unit was. I don't claim a program, I claim a technique that any number of programs doing any number of things could possibly use. The consequence of which is that very rapidly, we began to build up as real estate that somebody owned and could exclude other people from awhole lot of basic techniques in computer programming
+
80
 +
00:07:46,267 --> 00:07:52,282
 +
- 一直到70年代末,《专利法》都被解释为
 +
你不能对软件申请专利。
  
[12:19 - 12:40] James Bessen - author, 'Patent Failure': What happened was, starting in the mid 90's, the number of patents on softwares started soaring. And industry attitude started changing too. So you had Microsoft, which originally didn't deal with software patents much at all. I guess they got sued in the early '90's by Stac and lost a significant judgement against them - they started patenting.
+
81
 +
00:07:52,532 --> 00:07:55,449
 +
- 因为软件被认为属于数学算法的一部分,
 +
是一种自然法则。
  
[12:41 - 12:48] Webbink: They were going to have their own sets of patents, so that if a major patent holder threatens them, they can fire back.
+
82
 +
00:08:01,821 --> 00:08:09,430
 +
但是,从那以后,法律就变了,
 +
一切变得相当不同,
  
[12:49 - 13:00] Bessen: Gradually, companies like Oracle were forced to set up patent departments, just for defensive reasons. They had to patent their stuff, so that they had something to trade with the companies that had patents.
+
83
 +
00:08:09,649 --> 00:08:11,254
 +
- 起因是最高法院的几个裁决,其中一个是Diamond起诉Diehr一案。
  
[13:00 - 13:15] Webbink: And so the arsenal started to develop. By the year 2000-2001, Microsoft now holds thousands of software patents. Oracle was probably approaching a thousand software patents, Adobe...
+
84
 +
00:08:11,504 --> 00:08:17,905
 +
- 那是关于硫化橡胶的一种生产方法的专利申请纠纷。
  
[13:15 - 13:27] Bessen: You know, all of them have become more and more aggressive patenters and some of the ones who were against software patents ended up sueing other companies. And so what you had is an explosion of patenting first, and then an explosion of litigation.
+
85
 +
00:08:18,155 --> 00:08:23,873
 +
- 准确的温度对生产硫化橡胶非常重要。
  
[13:32 - 13:52] Bessen (partly over stats graphics): By the late 90's, about a quarter of all patents granted were software patents, About a third of all litigation - patent litigation - involve software patents. About 40% of the cost of litigation is attributed to software patents. And those numbers have been going up.
+
86
 +
00:08:24,123 --> 00:08:30,753
 +
- 那起纠纷涉及的革新,
 +
是一种监控温度的算法。
  
[13:39 - 13:44] [Percent of patent lawsuits involving software patents]
+
87
 +
00:08:31,003 --> 00:08:37,038
 +
- 它决定了何时释放和冷却橡胶。
  
[13:45 - 13:51] [Probability patent is in a lawsuit within 4 years of issue - \ Software patents All patents - Patent Issue Year]
+
88
 +
00:08:37,288 --> 00:08:42,505
 +
- 最高法院说,“硫化橡胶的处理方法可以申请方法,
 +
但是问题是,纠纷中涉及的这种方法没有任何创新之处,
  
[13:52 - 15:28] Bessen: So Charles Freeney invented a kiosk that goes in retail stores. And the idea is you come in, you could select a music selection, swipe your credit card, put in a blank 9-track tape - and this is long ago, this patent was - and it would write that music selection onto the tape, and you could go away with it. The patent was drafted in a very vague language, so there were terms like "point of sale location" and "information manufacturing machine" and Freeny eventually sold this patent to somebody who wanted to interpret those terms very broadly, to basically cover e-commerce. So here was this very limited invention for this kiosk, and he wanted to interpret those terms in such a broad way that it would cover transactions that took place over the internet,. And you could - they could be - you could make them in your office, in your bedroom, in your house, anywhere. And so it covered virtually all of e-commerce. The courts, initially, didn't agree with that interpretation, but they appealed it, and the appellate court largely agreed with them, and they were able to extract some settlement of well over a 100 companies. But the significant thing is, here is this patent, you can't tell what its boundaries were until you get to the Appellate Court. What most people thought its boundaries were turned out to be wrong.
+
89
 +
00:08:42,755 --> 00:08:47,526
 +
"- 使用计算机监控生产过程,本身并不代表创新。
 +
因为本质上,你没有改变任何东西。"
  
[15:29 - 16:05] Timothy B. Lee - Princeton University: One of the key properties of program language is very, very precise. You can look at any program in any language, any C, python or, any language like that. And you know exactly what it's doing. And you can say, you can look at two pieces of source code, and you can say, you know, are these doing the same thing or different things? And we do this because computers are picky and we need to tell the compute exactly what we need to do in order to accomplish some task. The patent - the language the patent lawyers use is almost the opposite. There is an advantage in being vague and in being broad and being non specific, because the broader your language, the more things you're going to catch in your net.
+
90
 +
00:08:55,602 --> 00:09:00,070
 +
- 最高法院清楚地表明,你不能对软件申请专利。
 +
因为它仅仅是一套指令或者算法。
  
[16:05 - 16:26] Ravicher: So it is a large problem in our patent system, just defining something, what is the context or the borders of the patent. And, you know, what does it cover, what does it not cover. And that ambiguity causes a lot of chilling effects, because people are going to avoid doing anything that could possibly be covered by the patent, even if in reality, the patent wouldn't cover what they want to do.
+
91
 +
00:09:00,320 --> 00:09:09,300
 +
- 它属于对自然法则的抽象。
 +
而算法本身是不能在美国申请专利的。
  
[16.27 - 17:45] RMS: Let's imagine that in the 1700s the governments of Europe had decided to "promote" the progress of symphonic music (or as they thought promoted) with a system of musical idea patents, meaning that anyone who could describe a new musical idea in words could get a patent, which would be a monopoly on that idea, and then he could sue anybody else that implemented that idea in a piece of music. So, a rhythmic pattern could be patented or a sequence of chords or a.. a set of instruments to use together or any idea you could describe in words. Now, imagine that it is 1800 and you are Beethoven and you want to write a symphony. You are going to find that it is harder to write a symphony that you won't get sued for than write a symphony that sounds good. Because to write a symphony and not get sued, you are going to have to thread your way around thousands of musical idea patents. And if you complained about this, saying this was getting in the way of your creativity, the patent holders would say, "Oh, Beethoven, you are just jealous because we had these ideas before you. Why should you steal our ideas."
+
92
 +
00:09:09,550 --> 00:09:17,209
 +
但是后来,联邦巡回上诉法庭有不一样的看法。
  
[17:46 - 18:10] Ciaran O'Riordan, End Software Patents: People have been making music for thousands of years. There was never any need for patents in the field of music. And since the computer industry has made programming possible, people have been developing software as well, right since its beginning, there was never a need to have patents in this field in order for the activity to happen.
+
93
 +
00:09:17,459 --> 00:09:24,657
 +
- 这个问题的起源,在于一个简单的事实,
  
[18:11 - 18:49] Bricklin: Of course everything we were doing, back before 1980, 1981, in those things, patents played no role in it. Cut and paste the embedded ruler in word processing, word wrapping - a lot of the things that are really important and we take for granted and that are much, much more innovative in many ways than many patents that we have today, because patents can be on some very, very minute - minute things, and that's the way the law works. Those things happened, we had great advances without patents.
+
94
 +
00:09:24,907 --> 00:09:27,180
 +
- 法官总是不愿意审理专利案件。
  
[18:50 - 19:17] Robert Tiller - Red Hat: one of the world's most respected computer scientists Donald Knuth has said that if software patents had been available in the 1960' and 70's when he was doing his work, that is probably the case that computer science wouldn't be where it is today. There would be blockades on innovation that could seriously have prevented the kinds of technical solutions that we take for granted today.
+
95
 +
00:09:27,430 --> 00:09:35,310
 +
因为对于法官和以诉讼为生的律师来说,
  
[19:17 - 19:28] Moglen: The programmer writing a long program might conceivably need to check whether 500 or a 1000 different techniques are patented. Then there is no way that she possibly could.
+
96
 +
00:09:35,560 --> 00:09:43,914
 +
- 专利案件就意味着,他们必须了解许许多多的工业细节,
 +
比如油漆如何生产,计算机如何工作,无线电如何广播等等。
  
[19:28 - 19:43] Ravicher: The Patent Office issues hundreds of software patents all the time. Every Tuesday, they issue 3500 patents, and a large and a large number of those relate to software. It's just impossible to review all those patents every week, to make sure you're not doing something that could infringe them.
+
97
 +
00:09:44,164 --> 00:09:52,713
 +
- 对于外行来说,很容易就被细节搞糊涂。
  
[19:43 - 20:31] Sandler: So there is a provision in the US patent laws that, basically hold patent infringers at a..., I guess, imposes greater liability if they're shown to willfully infringe. So, basically, the idea is that if you knew about a patent and you infringed on it, you should have a stricter penalty than if you didn't know about them. But what this results in is this situation where there is a real disincentive to follow what patents have been made, and what new inventions there have been through the patent system. Because, if you read every patent, then - or there's evidence that you have read patents - then you are liable for willful infringement, then you knew about the patent and you infringed it anyway. And the penalty is treble damages.
+
98
 +
00:10:00,133 --> 00:10:05,369
 +
- 国会尝试改变这种审理方法。
  
[20:31 - 20:40] Unidentified voice (?): If a member of the (some words not understood (?)) suggested that software should be removed from the scope of patentability. Can you comment on that?
+
99
 +
00:10:05,619 --> 00:10:11,934
 +
但是,国会并没有换掉那些负责审理的法官,
 +
而是在地区法院里,创造了一个新的法庭,
  
[20:40 - 20.54] Jakes: Yes, well, I obviously disagree with that, and I don't believe that software should ever be removed. It's one of our great resouces of technical innovation in this country. And to come up with a test that would somehow eliminate software would, I think, be a disaster for the economy.
+
100
 +
00:10:12,184 --> 00:10:17,326
 +
-负责这类专利纠纷的审理。
  
[20:55 - 20:57] [Would it though?]
+
101
 +
00:10:17,576 --> 00:10:22,081
 +
- 它们叫做联邦巡回上诉法庭。
  
[20:55 - 21:40] James Bessen - author, 'Patent Failure': You know, Mike and I estimate from pharmaceuticals and chemicals, the patents sort of are acting like a 10 or a 20% tax. You know, so you can think of that - you know, the small developer is developing something - down the road he'll have to pay that tax. Then, you know, every small company I know in software, as long as they have been around a few years and hit the market, somebody is asserting a patent against them. They're running into some potential difficulties. They feel - very frequently feel obligated to get patents themselves for defensive purposes. So all of that activity is a tax. It's something that's not helping them innovate. It's - you know - an unnecessary activity.
+
102
 +
00:10:22,331 --> 00:10:25,313
 +
不出意料,没过多久,
 +
这个法庭里面,就挤满了专利律师。
  
[21:41 - 21:43] [Best practical]
+
103
 +
00:10:25,563 --> 00:10:32,622
 +
那些专利律师在上诉法庭里,创造出新的案例,
 +
适用于所有的地区法庭的法官。
  
[21:41 - 22:49] Jesse Vincent - Best Practical: The primary thing we do is an issue-tracking system called "RT" or Request Tracker. So it's customers' service, help desk, bug tracking, network operations. Everything where you've got a whole bunch of tasks that you need kept track of, and you need to know what happened, what didn't happen, who did it, who didn't do it, when. It's like a kind of to-do list on steroids, designed for a whole organization. Pretty much everything is Open Source or Free software, under one license or another, We will get consulting customers or support customers, who add indemnification language to our standard contract or need us to sign theirs. And it says that - you know: the standard legalese - it's going to say something like: we indemnify and hold them harmless and agree to pay their legal fees and sacrifice our first-born if something happens and someone discovers that our software is violating a patent, is violating somebody else's patent. It's very very rarely that we end up signing something that has that kind of language in it, but it eats up a lot of legal fees.
+
104
 +
00:10:32,872 --> 00:10:37,556
 +
- 地区法庭的法官,依然在做出那些
 +
一点也不专业的裁决。
  
[22:49 - 23:02] Michael Meurer - author, 'Patent Failure': Look at the innovative people in software, in ICT, and ask: "Would they be better off if the patent system was abolished?" The answer is probably "yes".
+
105
 +
00:10:37,806 --> 00:10:42,721
 +
很自然地,联邦上诉巡回法庭,
 +
是一个喜欢授予专利的地方。
  
[23:03 - 23:37] Bessen: Who's benefiting? Patent lawyers, number 1; number 2, you have a small number of so-called "trolls" who are benefiting, but it's not clear that even most of them make - are making much money. You see more recently, in the last 4-5 years, companies like intellectual ventures and hedge funds who are acquiring large volumes of these trash patents and using them to extract hundreds of millions of dollars from companies. They benefit, they may be the biggest beneficiaries.
+
106
 +
00:10:42,971 --> 00:10:49,537
 +
它的主审法官Giles Rich,
 +
活得特别久,一直到接近100岁才去世。
  
[23:38 - 23:51] Ravicher: You know, there is a lot of bad press in the last few years about the harm that's caused by software patents. And you'd think that's how the political influence on the PTO to get them to slow down their issuing and start rejecting. And that's what resulted in the Bilski case.
+
107
 +
00:10:49,787 --> 00:10:53,068
 +
- 他的爱好就是给每样东西发一个专利。
  
[23:52 - 23:59]  [In re Bilski - Federal Circuit -October 30, 2008: Inventions must be tied to a particular machine or transform something. "Useful, concrete and tangible result" of State Street is inadequate.]
+
108
 +
00:10:53,318 --> 00:11:00,273
 +
在Giles Rich的领导下,联邦巡回上诉法庭
 +
放宽了Diamond起诉Diehr一案的原始判决的解释。
  
[24:00 - 25:13] Ravicher: Well, the biggest first bad press story was the Blackberry patents, where all the Congressional representatives have their Blackberries, and there is a company called NTP that sued the manufacturer of Blackberry, saying that all Blackberries infringed its patent. Well, NTP was this company which is just a 1-person holding company. They didn't make any products or services themselves. And so, this got a lot of attention: it was in the Wall Street Journal, in the Washington Post. And Congress persons were really upset that they lose their Blackberry and they may not be able to communicate efficiently. And so that caused a lot of attention. Then you had all these patents on, like, banking methods and imaging for cheques that those patent holders have been asserting against the banking industry. And the banking industry had a lot of influence on Capitol Hill. So they've been going down there and saying: "Look, these kind of patents are causing us lots of harm." Then you add into that the whole "patent troll" phenomenon in Eastern District of Texas, with small patent holders suing large IT companies, like Google and Microsoft and IBM and Hewlett-Packard. All these companies also have legislative influence. And they've said, you know: "These kinds of patents are causing real harm to our business. They're costing us jobs, an increase in the price of products and services that we offer to our customers, and you need to do something about it.
+
109
 +
00:11:00,523 --> 00:11:05,068
 +
- 下结论说,软件本身可以被授予专利。
  
[25:13 - 25:14] [In re Bilski - Federal Circuit -October 30, 2008: Inventions must be tied to a particular machine or transform something. "Useful, concrete and tangible result" of State Street is inadequate.]
+
110
 +
00:11:05,318 --> 00:11:09,609
 +
- 而最高法院完全袖手旁观,
 +
把所有专利案件都推给那个法庭去决定。
  
[25:14 - 54:20] [Bilski v. Kappos - Supreme Court - 2010: Supreme Court may affirm their previous rejections of software patents, or decline to decide this issue.]
+
111
 +
00:11:09,859 --> 00:11:16,473
 +
- 在90年代初,美国专利署实际上一直拒绝
 +
对软件授予专利,就是不允许软件获得专利。
  
[25:21 - 26:06] Peter Brown - Free Software Foundation: The situation we find ourselves in is that the Lower Court, the Court of Appeal of the Federal Circuit, is essentially a court for patents, for hearing patent cases. And this is the first time that the Supreme Court has taken up that scope of "patentability". And specifically, this test that was implemented by the Lower Court does talk to software patents. And so, there is basically a 20-years history of software patents being granted due to the Lower Court. And so we are hoping that the Supreme Court will clear up the mess that the Lower Courts created and restamp its authority, which basically said that you cannot have software patents.
+
112
 +
00:11:16,723 --> 00:11:20,223
 +
于是,被拒绝的专利申请者,
 +
就向联邦巡回上诉法庭提起上诉。
  
[26:07 - 26:29] Joe Mullin - IP Law & Business Magazine: When you saw the arguments that were brought by Bilski's lawyer - the Patent Board is in some sense an organized lobby, and it expands its subject matter that's available to be patented: it's in their interest. And it's clear that this was frustrating for some of the justices. Some of them were frustrated by how expensive patentable subject matter has become.
+
113
 +
00:11:43,280 --> 00:11:46,798
 +
- 如果是机器的话,你向专利署展示这台机器,
  
[26:29 - 26:34] (Young man with spectacles (?)) I mean they seem somwhat dismissive of the idea that you could patent this particular idea.
+
114
 +
00:11:47,048 --> 00:11:51,697
 +
- 向一个工作人员,声明你对这台机器的专利主张。
  
[26:36 - 26:51] Jakes: I think people have a hard time getting over the idea that you can get a patent on hedging commodity risk. But if you actually look at the claims, and look at what's in there, it is a process, and it's no different than any other process. It just may be that it's not the way that they thought of patents in the past.
+
115
 +
00:11:52,946 --> 00:11:56,636
 +
但是对于软件,你没有办法定义专利主张的单位到底是什么。
  
[26:52 - 27:11] Peter Brown: We're encouraged by the comments by the justices, which showed that they were skeptical, and which suggested that they understood that software is little more than a series of steps that can be written out as mathematical formula or written out on a piece of paper or as - which was mentioned by one of the justices - typed out on a typewriter.
+
116
 +
00:11:56,886 --> 00:12:03,777
 +
你主张的其实不是一个程序,而是一种方法,
 +
这种方法,可以被无数别的程序,用来干无数别的事情。
  
[27:12 - 27:23] Mullin: Software patents, on a general purpose computer, have never been explicitly endorsed by this Court. And this Court has also shown no compunction about reversing rules that have held for a very long time.
+
117
 +
00:12:04,027 --> 00:12:11,492
 +
- 这样做的结果,就是我们快速地建立起无数个专有王国,
 +
少数人拥有这些王国,
  
[27:23 - 27:29] (off voice of Mullin ctd): They clearly thought that the petitioners here were trying to get a patent on something very basic, some basic forms of human activity.
+
118
 +
00:12:11,742 --> 00:12:19,014
 +
- 并且排斥其他人使用计算机编程的基本方法。
  
[27:29 - 27:35] [More than 200'000 software patents have been granted in the U.S.]
+
119
 +
00:12:19,314 --> 00:12:24,516
 +
- 从90年代中期开始,软件专利的数量出现了飙升。
  
[27:36 - 27:41] [Programmers find it increasingly difficult to write software they won't be liable to be sued for]
+
120
 +
00:12:24,766 --> 00:12:27,806
 +
业界的态度也随之发生改变。
  
[27:42 - 27:46] [Now imagine...]
+
121
 +
00:12:28,056 --> 00:12:32,558
 +
以微软为例,它本来对软件专利并不是太关注,
  
[27:44 - 27:57] [Beethoven's Vth symphony - from 27:46 with score]
+
122
 +
00:12:32,808 --> 00:12:36,885
 +
- 但是根据我的猜想,自从90年代早期,
 +
遭遇到Stac专利诉讼,并且败诉以后,
  
[27:58 - 28:00] [Patent labels on the score for "crescendo" and "group of 3 eight-notes]
+
123
 +
00:12:37,085 --> 00:12:40,817
 +
- 微软发现判决对它很不利,
 +
因此,它加快了申请专利的行动。
  
[28:00 - 28:04] [Beethoven's Vth symphony with score]
+
124
 +
00:12:41,067 --> 00:12:43,932
 +
- 现在,它拥有庞大数量的专利。
  
[28:04 - 28:08] [[Patent labels on the score for "Piano dynamics" "Quarter rest" "Quarter note in C3"]
+
125
 +
00:12:44,182 --> 00:12:49,116
 +
这样的话,如果某个主要对手以专利威胁它,
 +
它就能够以自己手中的专利进行反击。
  
[28:08 - 28:14] [Beethoven's Vth symphony with score]
+
126
 +
00:12:49,366 --> 00:12:55,382
 +
- 慢慢地,像Oracle那样的大公司被迫设立了专利部门,
 +
目的只是防止其他对手的专利诉讼。
  
[28:14 - 28:34] [[Patent labels on the score for "Sforzando", "Major third", "Tied half-note", "Tremolo", "horn in E-flat"
+
127
 +
00:12:55,632 --> 00:13:00,481
 +
它们对自己的软件申请专利,
 +
这样才能与其他拥有专利的公司进行交换。
  
[28:35 - 28:42] [Credits: Directed, shot and edited by: Luca Lucarini. Produced by Jamie King. Animations: Christopher Allan Webber. Sound mix: Matt Smith]
+
128
 +
00:13:00,731 --> 00:13:10,945
 +
<i>Mark Webbink:
 +
- 各大公司的专利武器库,一天天壮大了。
 +
到了2001年,微软拥有几千件的软件专利。</i>
  
[28:43 - 28:48] [Copyright 2010 Luca Lucarini. This film is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative works 3.0 license (or later version). http://patentabsurdity.com.
+
129
 +
00:13:11,195 --> 00:13:15,350
 +
<i>Oracle的专利数量接近1000件。Adobe...</i>
  
[28:49 - 28:54] [Supported by a grant from the Free Software Foundation and made possible by the associate membership of the Free Software Foundation http://www.fsf.org]
+
130
 +
00:13:15,600 --> 00:13:19,713
 +
<i>James Bessen:
 +
- 所有这些公司变得越来越激进。
 +
专利持有人和一些反对软件专利制度的人-</i>
  
{{footer}}
+
131
 +
00:13:19,963 --> 00:13:25,516
 +
<i>- 最终开始起诉别的公司。
 +
所以,最后的局面就是,首先,专利申请爆炸性增长,-</i>
 +
 
 +
132
 +
00:13:25,766 --> 00:13:27,729
 +
<i>- 然后,专利诉讼爆炸性增长。</i>
 +
 
 +
133
 +
00:13:32,484 --> 00:13:37,404
 +
到了90年代末,每年全美国授予的专利之中,
 +
四分之一是软件专利。
 +
 
 +
134
 +
00:13:38,551 --> 00:13:44,233
 +
每年全美国所有的专利诉讼中,
 +
三分之一是软件专利诉讼。
 +
 
 +
135
 +
00:13:44,483 --> 00:13:50,329
 +
审理专利诉讼,所花费的社会成本,
 +
40%与软件专利有关。
 +
 
 +
136
 +
00:13:50,579 --> 00:13:52,631
 +
这些数字还在不断上升。
 +
 
 +
137
 +
00:13:52,881 --> 00:13:59,270
 +
Charles Freeny有一个发明,他做了一个小亭子,
 +
放在零售商店里,你走进去,
 +
 
 +
138
 +
00:13:59,520 --> 00:14:05,306
 +
- 选择自己想听的音乐,然后刷一下信用卡,
 +
放进去一盒空白磁带,-
 +
 
 +
139
 +
00:14:05,556 --> 00:14:10,917
 +
- 过一会,磁带里就录进去了你选的歌。-
 +
 
 +
140
 +
00:14:11,167 --> 00:14:13,988
 +
- 你就可以拿着磁带离开了。
 +
 
 +
141
 +
00:14:14,238 --> 00:14:21,649
 +
这个专利的申请报告,写得非常模糊,
 +
使用了一些很模糊的词,-
 +
 
 +
142
 +
00:14:21,899 --> 00:14:25,060
 +
- 比如“销售所在的场所”、“处理信息的机器”等等。
 +
 
 +
143
 +
00:14:25,310 --> 00:14:32,902
 +
Charles Freeny把这个专利卖掉了,
 +
卖主想以非常宽泛的方式,解释这些专利。
 +
 
 +
144
 +
00:14:33,352 --> 00:14:36,652
 +
基本上,他打算用这个专利,涵盖所有电子商务的范畴。
 +
 
 +
145
 +
00:14:36,902 --> 00:14:44,956
 +
所以你看,原始专利不过是一个用途很有限的小亭子,
 +
却被人用宽泛的方式加以解释。
 +
 
 +
146
 +
00:14:45,206 --> 00:14:50,102
 +
- 目的是覆盖所有在Internet上发生的电子交易。-
 +
 
 +
147
 +
00:14:50,352 --> 00:14:56,228
 +
- 由于“销售所在的场所”可以被解释成
 +
你的办公室、你的卧室、你的房子等等,
 +
 
 +
148
 +
00:14:56,478 --> 00:15:00,817
 +
所以,它可以包含所有的电子商务。
 +
 
 +
149
 +
00:15:01,067 --> 00:15:08,382
 +
法庭最初不同意这种解释。
 +
但是,卖主上诉了,
 +
 
 +
150
 +
00:15:08,632 --> 00:15:16,254
 +
上诉法庭居然同意了他们,
 +
于是一百多家互联网公司,必须与他们达成和解了。
 +
 
 +
151
 +
00:15:16,504 --> 00:15:23,452
 +
这件事情的教训在于,你无法分辨专利的适用范围,
 +
直到你把官司打到上诉法院为止。
 +
 
 +
152
 +
00:15:23,702 --> 00:15:29,236
 +
- 大多数人认为的专利适用范围,
 +
其实都是错的。
 +
 
 +
153
 +
00:15:29,486 --> 00:15:32,644
 +
- 编程语言的一个关键特性,
 +
就是它们非常非常准确。
 +
 
 +
154
 +
00:15:32,894 --> 00:15:39,292
 +
你可以随便选一种语言,
 +
C、Python等等 -
 +
 
 +
155
 +
00:15:39,542 --> 00:15:43,910
 +
- 你能够明确地知道,用它们写出的某个程序是用来干什么的。
 +
你看了两段代码,你就可以说-
 +
 
 +
156
 +
00:15:44,160 --> 00:15:48,662
 +
“它们功能相同”,或者“它们功能不同”,
 +
我们能够如此断言,因为计算机是很挑剔的,
 +
 
 +
157
 +
00:15:48,912 --> 00:15:53,801
 +
- 我们需要准确地告诉计算机,
 +
我们想做什么,以及怎么做。
 +
 
 +
158
 +
00:15:54,051 --> 00:15:57,551
 +
但是,专利律师使用的语言正好相反。
 +
 
 +
159
 +
00:15:57,801 --> 00:16:03,001
 +
使用模糊、宽泛、非针对性的语言,
 +
会产生一种优势。-
 +
 
 +
160
 +
00:16:03,251 --> 00:16:06,751
 +
-那就是你的语言越不精确,
 +
能被你抓到网里的东西就越多。
 +
 
 +
161
 +
00:16:07,001 --> 00:16:12,361
 +
- 所以,这是专利体系的一个大问题,
 +
我们必须找出办法,去定义专利的范围或界限。
 +
 
 +
162
 +
00:16:12,611 --> 00:16:16,148
 +
- 什么是某个专利覆盖的,
 +
什么是某个专利不覆盖的。
 +
 
 +
163
 +
00:16:16,398 --> 00:16:21,658
 +
这种模糊引起了许许多多可怕的后果。
 +
因为人们会想避免做那些侵犯他人专利的事情。
 +
 
 +
164
 +
00:16:21,908 --> 00:16:27,013
 +
- 即使有些事情是专利根本没有覆盖到的,
 +
他们也会犹豫该不该做。
 +
 
 +
165
 +
00:16:27,263 --> 00:16:33,406
 +
- 请想像一下,如果18世纪时,
 +
欧洲政府决定要促进交响乐的发展,-
 +
 
 +
166
 +
00:16:33,656 --> 00:16:41,162
 +
- 于是给与音乐有关的想法颁发专利,-
 +
 
 +
167
 +
00:16:41,412 --> 00:16:48,306
 +
- 任何人只要能够用语言,描述一个与音乐有关的想法,
 +
就能获得一个专利,对这个想法的应用实施垄断,
 +
 
 +
168
 +
00:16:48,556 --> 00:16:54,998
 +
- 然后,他还能起诉任何以音乐形式实现这种想法的其他人。
 +
 
 +
169
 +
00:16:55,248 --> 00:17:09,121
 +
所以,一个曲式能够被授予专利,
 +
一个和弦、一种乐器的演奏组合都能被授予专利,-
 +
 
 +
170
 +
00:17:09,371 --> 00:17:17,212
 +
- 任何你脑子里的音乐念头,只要能说得出来,都能得到专利。
 +
然后我们假定,你是生活在19世纪的贝多芬,
 +
 
 +
171
 +
00:17:17,462 --> 00:17:23,748
 +
- 你要写一部交响曲,
 +
那么你会发现,写一部不被起诉的交响曲,
 +
 
 +
172
 +
00:17:23,998 --> 00:17:29,102
 +
- 比写一部好听的交响曲还要难。
 +
因为如果你不想被别人起诉,你就必须小心翼翼,-
 +
 
 +
173
 +
00:17:29,302 --> 00:17:34,638
 +
- 穿过布满几千个音乐专利的地雷阵。
 +
 
 +
174
 +
00:17:34,888 --> 00:17:40,388
 +
如果你觉得这样不合理,认为它阻碍了你的创造性,
 +
 
 +
175
 +
00:17:40,638 --> 00:17:44,484
 +
- 专利持有人就会说,“嗨,贝多芬先生,
 +
请不要因为我们比你先想到那些旋律,而感到妒忌。”
 +
 
 +
176
 +
00:17:44,651 --> 00:17:46,873
 +
"你为什么一定要偷窃我们的念头呢?"
 +
 
 +
177
 +
00:17:47,123 --> 00:17:52,634
 +
- 人类创作音乐的历史长达几千年,
 +
不需要专利,人类也能拥有美妙的音乐。-
 +
 
 +
178
 +
00:17:52,884 --> 00:18:01,148
 +
- 计算机工业使得编程成为可能,
 +
从计算机诞生的一开始,人类就在编程,-
 +
 
 +
179
 +
00:18:01,398 --> 00:18:07,054
 +
- 那时根本没有专利,人类也在开发软件。
 +
由此可见,专利制度不是必需的。-
 +
 
 +
180
 +
00:18:07,304 --> 00:18:10,516
 +
- 不管有没有专利,都会有人编程。
 +
 
 +
181
 +
00:18:10,766 --> 00:18:20,582
 +
- 回到1980年、1981年的时候,我们做的所有事情,
 +
专利制度对我们几乎都没有影响。
 +
 
 +
182
 +
00:18:20,832 --> 00:18:30,324
 +
剪切、粘贴、字处理软件中的标尺、自动换行等等,
 +
这些我们今天习以为常的事情,-
 +
 
 +
183
 +
00:18:30,574 --> 00:18:37,566
 +
- 即使没有专利,也都被发明出来了。
 +
而且它们比我们今天的很多专利,都更富有创新性。-
 +
 
 +
184
 +
00:18:37,816 --> 00:18:44,198
 +
- 今天,许许多多的专利,不过是一些微不足道的革新。
 +
因为这是法律介入的必然结果。
 +
 
 +
185
 +
00:18:44,448 --> 00:18:49,841
 +
那些重要的革新,幸亏出现在专利制度还没有介入的时候。
 +
 
 +
186
 +
00:18:50,091 --> 00:18:54,100
 +
- Donald Knuth是全世界最著名的计算机科学家之一,
 +
 
 +
187
 +
00:18:54,350 --> 00:19:02,422
 +
他就说过,要是软件专利在60年代和70年代时出现,-
 +
 
 +
188
 +
00:19:02,672 --> 00:19:07,084
 +
- 今天的计算机科学可能就没有这么发达了。
 +
 
 +
189
 +
00:19:07,334 --> 00:19:15,164
 +
软件专利是创新的障碍,
 +
将严重阻碍新技术发展,-
 +
 
 +
190
 +
00:19:15,414 --> 00:19:17,942
 +
- 使得许多我们今天习以为常的做法,都不可能出现。
 +
 
 +
191
 +
00:19:18,192 --> 00:19:24,137
 +
- 每当程序员写完一个大型程序,
 +
他就必须去检查一下,他是否侵犯了上千种软件专利中的某一种。
 +
 
 +
192
 +
00:19:24,387 --> 00:19:28,622
 +
- 他根本没可能避免侵犯专利。
 +
 
 +
193
 +
00:19:28,872 --> 00:19:35,590
 +
- 美国专利署每次公布的软件专利数以百计。
 +
每周二,他们公布3500个专利,
 +
 
 +
194
 +
00:19:35,790 --> 00:19:41,032
 +
- 其中相当一部分与软件有关。
 +
你每周都去检查一遍,自己是否侵犯了这些专利,这是不可能的。-
 +
 
 +
195
 +
00:19:41,232 --> 00:19:43,580
 +
- 你总是发现,某个别人的专利与你有关。
 +
 
 +
196
 +
00:19:43,830 --> 00:19:53,505
 +
- 所以,美国专利法有一个条款,
 +
大意是,无意中侵犯到他人的专利,
 +
 
 +
197
 +
00:19:53,755 --> 00:20:01,117
 +
- 所受到的处罚会比较轻。
 +
也就是说,如果你明知故犯,
 +
 
 +
198
 +
00:20:01,367 --> 00:20:07,094
 +
- 才会受到更严厉的处罚。
 +
 
 +
199
 +
00:20:07,344 --> 00:20:14,356
 +
但是,这种条款产生了另一个结果。
 +
那就是人们故意漠视或者忽略,新颁发的专利。
 +
 
 +
200
 +
00:20:14,606 --> 00:20:21,228
 +
- 因为如果你阅读每份专利报告,
 +
 
 +
201
 +
00:20:21,478 --> 00:20:28,070
 +
- 这就成了你有意侵犯他人版权的证据。
 +
 
 +
202
 +
00:20:28,320 --> 00:20:32,737
 +
- 你属于明知故犯,罚金会加大三倍。
 +
 
 +
203
 +
00:20:32,987 --> 00:20:39,137
 +
<i>- 许多人建议,软件应该从可被授予专利的物品中去除。-</i>
 +
 
 +
204
 +
00:20:39,387 --> 00:20:40,760
 +
<i>- 你对此有何评论?</i>
 +
 
 +
205
 +
00:20:41,010 --> 00:20:45,894
 +
- 我显然不同意这种观点。
 +
我认为,软件专利不应该被移除。
 +
 
 +
206
 +
00:20:46,144 --> 00:20:51,441
 +
它是这个国家的技术革新动力的最大来源之一。
 +
如果软件没有专利,
 +
 
 +
207
 +
00:20:51,691 --> 00:20:55,230
 +
- 可能会使得软件消失,
 +
我想,对经济会是一个巨大灾难。
 +
 
 +
208
 +
00:20:55,480 --> 00:21:01,852
 +
会发生这种事吗?
 +
- Mike和我做过一个测算,制药业的专利,
 +
使得全民多付出全部税收的10%到20%。
 +
 
 +
209
 +
00:21:02,102 --> 00:21:10,454
 +
- 在软件业,这种损失最终要由那些较小的开发者承担。
 +
 
 +
210
 +
00:21:10,704 --> 00:21:18,892
 +
- 据我所知,每个小型软件公司,
 +
只要它们能够撑过前几年,能在市场上有所成绩,
 +
 
 +
211
 +
00:21:19,142 --> 00:21:26,950
 +
- 那么就有人会用某个专利来威胁它们,
 +
它们的生存和发展就会遇到困难。
 +
 
 +
212
 +
00:21:27,200 --> 00:21:31,609
 +
它们经常感到,必须被迫地使用专利,来保护自己。
 +
 
 +
213
 +
00:21:31,859 --> 00:21:40,646
 +
所以,专利制度实际上是一种对他人的税。
 +
它并不会真的帮助创新,是一种不必要的活动。
 +
 
 +
214
 +
00:21:40,896 --> 00:21:47,313
 +
- 我们主要做的,是一个叫做RT的追踪系统。
 +
它属于对客户的服务,-
 +
 
 +
215
 +
00:21:47,563 --> 00:21:53,506
 +
- 接受提问,追踪bug,网络操作等等。
 +
你面对的一大堆任务,都会得到追踪。
 +
 
 +
216
 +
00:21:53,756 --> 00:21:58,089
 +
- 你需要知道什么事情发生了,什么事情没发生,
 +
谁做了什么事,谁没做,何时做了等等。-
 +
 
 +
217
 +
00:21:58,339 --> 00:22:04,609
 +
- 它有点像为一个大型组织设计的任务管理系统。
 +
 
 +
218
 +
00:22:04,859 --> 00:22:10,297
 +
大部分的代码是来自开源软件或自由软件,
 +
它们都是这一类的许可证。
 +
 
 +
219
 +
00:22:10,547 --> 00:22:18,009
 +
我们找到客户以后,他们会在标准合同里面,
 +
加入赔偿条款,或者让我们签他们提供的合同文本。
 +
 
 +
220
 +
00:22:18,259 --> 00:22:27,038
 +
- 合同里面以标准的法律术语写明,
 +
如果我们的软件被发现侵犯了他人的专利,
 +
 
 +
221
 +
00:22:27,288 --> 00:22:34,324
 +
- 我们将保证不会损害客户的利益,不会使客户需要赔偿,-
 +
 
 +
222
 +
00:22:34,574 --> 00:22:41,468
 +
- 由此引发的法律费用,将由我们支付等等。
 +
 
 +
223
 +
00:22:41,718 --> 00:22:46,276
 +
我们很少会签这样的合同,
 +
只要合同里有这种语言,我们就不签。
 +
 
 +
224
 +
00:22:46,526 --> 00:22:48,476
 +
但是,大部分的法律费用都花在这种事情上了。
 +
 
 +
225
 +
00:22:48,726 --> 00:22:59,648
 +
- 如果你问ICT公司里的那些富有革新精神的人,
 +
“如果专利制度被废除,他们会不会觉得日子好过一些了?”
 +
 
 +
226
 +
00:22:59,898 --> 00:23:03,161
 +
- 回答很可能是“Yes”。
 +
 
 +
227
 +
00:23:03,411 --> 00:23:11,472
 +
- 谁从专利制度中受益?
 +
第一位肯定是专利律师,第二位是那些专门收购专利、从中牟利的掮客。
 +
 
 +
228
 +
00:23:11,722 --> 00:23:17,822
 +
- 我们知道他们获利,但是大多数人未必知道,
 +
他们从专利制度中获取了暴利。
 +
 
 +
229
 +
00:23:18,072 --> 00:23:25,580
 +
过去四五年中,你看到了像Intellectual Ventures那样的公司,
 +
 
 +
230
 +
00:23:25,830 --> 00:23:32,364
 +
- 还有一些对冲基金,他们大量收购垃圾专利,
 +
再利用它们,从其他公司敲诈上亿美元的专利使用费。-
 +
 
 +
231
 +
00:23:32,614 --> 00:23:38,129
 +
- 他们可能才是专利制度的最大受益者。
 +
 
 +
232
 +
00:23:38,379 --> 00:23:42,872
 +
- 过去几年中,新闻媒体报道了,
 +
由于软件专利造成社会损失的大量负面例子。
 +
 
 +
233
 +
00:23:43,122 --> 00:23:49,268
 +
我们觉得,这些报道可能对美国专利署产生了一些政治影响,
 +
使得他们放缓了授予专利的速度,
 +
 
 +
234
 +
00:23:49,518 --> 00:23:51,444
 +
- 并且也拒绝了一部分专利申请,
 +
这就是导致了类似Bilski这样的诉讼。
 +
 
 +
235
 +
00:24:00,270 --> 00:24:07,630
 +
- 在这些报道中,第一个、也是影响最大的报道,是Blackberry专利,
 +
因为每个众议员都拥有blackberry手机。
 +
 
 +
236
 +
00:24:07,880 --> 00:24:12,228
 +
- 有一家名叫NTP的公司,起诉黑莓制造商,
 +
 
 +
237
 +
00:24:12,478 --> 00:24:17,425
 +
- 声称所有的黑莓手机侵犯了他的专利。
 +
实际上,NTP是一家一人公司,只有一个人持股,
 +
 
 +
238
 +
00:24:17,675 --> 00:24:22,532
 +
- 本身不提供任何产品或服务。
 +
 
 +
239
 +
00:24:22,782 --> 00:24:29,764
 +
- 这件事引起了《华尔街日报》和《华盛顿邮报》的关注,
 +
国会议员也感到不安,
 +
 
 +
240
 +
00:24:30,014 --> 00:24:34,039
 +
- 因为如果黑莓出事了,他们就不能使用自己的黑莓手机了,
 +
也就是不能方便地通讯了。
 +
 
 +
241
 +
00:24:34,289 --> 00:24:40,950
 +
所以,这件事引起了普遍关注。-
 +
 
 +
242
 +
00:24:41,200 --> 00:24:44,188
 +
- 还有一些人,声称银行业侵犯了他们的专利。
 +
 
 +
243
 +
00:24:44,438 --> 00:24:47,686
 +
- 但是,银行家在国会山有很大影响力。
 +
于是,他们来到国会山,说:“这样类型的专利给社会带来许多损失。”
 +
 
 +
244
 +
00:24:47,936 --> 00:24:52,553
 +
- 这一类的专利钓鱼现象,还出现在德克萨斯州。-
 +
 
 +
245
 +
00:24:52,803 --> 00:24:58,457
 +
- 那里有一些小的专利持有人,起诉大型IT公司,
 +
比如Google、Microsoft、IBM和惠普。-
 +
 
 +
246
 +
00:24:58,707 --> 00:25:04,293
 +
- 而这些大公司对立法者都有影响力。-
 +
 
 +
247
 +
00:25:04,543 --> 00:25:08,612
 +
-他们说:“这样类型的专利,对行业没有任何好处。
 +
使得我们成本上升,增加了我们产品的价格。” -
 +
 
 +
248
 +
00:25:08,862 --> 00:25:13,881
 +
- “国会必须对这种现象采取行动。”
 +
 
 +
249
 +
00:25:21,620 --> 00:25:27,428
 +
- 目前的形势就是,较低级的法庭——联邦巡回上诉法庭,-
 +
 
 +
250
 +
00:25:27,678 --> 00:25:32,140
 +
- 是专利案件的主要审理法庭。
 +
 
 +
251
 +
00:25:32,390 --> 00:25:40,741
 +
现在,最高法院第一次决定出手,
 +
把确定专利权授予范围的权力接管过来。
 +
 
 +
252
 +
00:25:40,991 --> 00:25:47,852
 +
更明确地说,低级法庭持有的观点,确实偏向软件专利制度。
 +
 
 +
253
 +
00:25:48,102 --> 00:25:55,724
 +
过去20年来的软件专利历史,就是由这个低级法庭主导的。
 +
 
 +
254
 +
00:25:55,974 --> 00:26:01,286
 +
所以,我们希望最高法院能够纠正,
 +
目前这样由低级法庭造成的混乱局面。
 +
 
 +
255
 +
00:26:01,536 --> 00:26:06,065
 +
并且,最高法院能够重塑权威,
 +
重申软件是不能授予专利的。
 +
 
 +
256
 +
00:26:06,315 --> 00:26:12,078
 +
- 当你看到Bilski的律师的那些主张以后,
 +
你就知道,专利律师很大程度属于一种有组织的游说者。
 +
 
 +
257
 +
00:26:12,328 --> 00:26:21,238
 +
- 他们的兴趣,就是将专利制度不断扩张,
 +
将越来越多的东西都包括在内。
 +
 
 +
258
 +
00:26:21,488 --> 00:26:26,406
 +
我们很清楚,有些最高法院的法官有一种挫折感。-
 +
 
 +
259
 +
00:26:26,656 --> 00:26:28,685
 +
-他们中有些人,对于专利制度扩张得如此之大,
 +
倍感挫折。
 +
 
 +
260
 +
00:26:28,935 --> 00:26:34,553
 +
- 你说你可以用一个想法申请专利。某些人不认同你的说法。
 +
 
 +
261
 +
00:26:34,803 --> 00:26:40,169
 +
- 我想这些人必须自己设法克服这种观点,
 +
他们需要理解,对冲商品风险是可以得到专利的。-
 +
 
 +
262
 +
00:26:40,419 --> 00:26:45,580
 +
- 事实是,如果你仔细看我们的主张,
 +
你会发现,我们提出的是一种“处理方法”,-
 +
 
 +
263
 +
00:26:45,830 --> 00:26:50,080
 +
- 这种方法不同于其他的方法。-
 +
 
 +
264
 +
00:26:50,330 --> 00:26:51,817
 +
- 他们不应该把过去的专利法,用于我们的方法之上。
 +
 
 +
265
 +
00:26:52,067 --> 00:26:56,321
 +
- 我们听到了一些最高法院法官的言论,
 +
他们对目前的专利制度持怀疑态度,我们感到很鼓舞。-
 +
 
 +
266
 +
00:26:56,571 --> 00:27:02,630
 +
- 这表明,他们理解了软件的实质,-
 +
 
 +
267
 +
00:27:02,880 --> 00:27:08,441
 +
- 软件不过是数学公式的某种改写,它完全可以写在一张纸上,-
 +
 
 +
268
 +
00:27:08,659 --> 00:27:11,638
 +
- 或者如一个法官所说,用打字机打出来。
 +
 
 +
269
 +
00:27:11,809 --> 00:27:17,117
 +
- 针对普通程序的软件专利制度,从来没有被最高法院明确支持过。
 +
 
 +
270
 +
00:27:17,367 --> 00:27:23,798
 +
这个法庭也没有对推翻一个长期以来的信条,
 +
显示过懊悔。
 +
 
 +
271
 +
00:27:24,048 --> 00:27:27,662
 +
法官们非常清楚,上诉者试图得到一个专利,
 +
 
 +
272
 +
00:27:27,912 --> 00:27:29,924
 +
- 而这个专利针对的,是人类活动的一种非常基本的形式。
 +
 
 +
273
 +
00:27:30,174 --> 00:27:34,861
 +
美国已经授予了超过20万件的软件专利。
 +
 
 +
274
 +
00:27:35,611 --> 00:27:42,489
 +
程序员发现,写出不会被他人起诉的软件,
 +
已经变得越来越难了。
 +
 
 +
275
 +
00:27:42,739 --> 00:27:46,239
 +
未来会怎样...
 +
 
 +
276
 +
00:28:39,908 --> 00:28:46,257
 +
字幕翻译:阮一峰
 +
许可证:CC-BY 3.0

Latest revision as of 15:04, 23 June 2010

/*

  • Translator: Ruan yifeng
  • Date: 2010.4.24
  • License: CC-BY 3.0
  • /

1 00:00:08,776 --> 00:00:14,314 这是30年来,第一起上诉至最高法院的软件专利纠纷。 人们排队等候旁听。

2 00:00:14,564 --> 00:00:16,990 - 你们的名字是什么?

3 00:00:17,882 --> 00:00:21,729 - Bernie Bilski. B - I - L - S - K - I

4 00:00:24,180 --> 00:00:30,302 - Rand - R - A - N - D, Warsaw - W-A-R-S-A-W

5 00:00:30,552 --> 00:00:33,268 - 你们发明了什么东西?

6 00:00:33,318 --> 00:00:39,498 - 我们的发明是一种包月的能源账单, 可以实现预付费,并且事后不用调整。

7 00:00:39,748 --> 00:00:46,768 - 它实际上是一种对冲交易的方法。

8 00:00:47,018 --> 00:00:50,518 - 表面上,消费者拿到包月账单。 背后则是许多复杂的机制。

9 00:00:50,768 --> 00:00:54,468 这些机制涉及到能源消费领域的 金融交易方法。

10 00:00:54,718 --> 00:00:58,218 它同时涉及到消费者和能源提供者。

11 00:00:58,468 --> 00:01:03,830 他们渴望以这种对冲风险的方法,去获得专利。

12 00:01:04,066 --> 00:01:08,994 简单说,我们的发明就是这样。 它实现了包月账单。

13 00:01:09,244 --> 00:01:12,744 -既有利于消费者,又能保证能源公司的盈利。

14 00:01:12,994 --> 00:01:16,743 这起纠纷的结果,对于软件业有着深远的影响。

15 00:01:17,020 --> 00:01:22,190 - Bilski案件的实质是,某人对一种方法或软件申请专利。

16 00:01:22,440 --> 00:01:27,396 -美国专利署拒绝了这个申请。 他们就起诉专利署,

17 00:01:27,396 --> 00:01:30,390 - 要求你必须授予我专利。

18 00:01:30,640 --> 00:01:34,140 这起纠纷的重要性在于, 它关系到一种“处理方法”是否可以授予专利。

19 00:01:34,390 --> 00:01:38,913 软件业也属于“处理方法”的范畴。

20 00:01:39,163 --> 00:01:43,166 软件不是机器,也不是某种化合物。 机器和化合物都是可以申请专利的。

21 00:01:43,413 --> 00:01:47,357 这起案件将决定,什么样的“处理方法”可以获得专利。

22 00:01:52,257 --> 00:01:54,276 - 你对Roberts法官的话怎么看?

23 00:01:54,468 --> 00:01:57,452 他说你们的发明,涉及到要求 对人们接电话和打电话的动作授予专利。

24 00:01:57,770 --> 00:02:03,065 - 一定要这么说也可以。 发明中确实有这样的行为,但是它远远不止于此。

25 00:02:03,365 --> 00:02:08,438 将商品以一个灵活的价格,售予一方, 再以一个固定的价格

26 00:02:08,738 --> 00:02:12,706 授予另一方, 由此确定各方的风险头寸。

27 00:02:12,956 --> 00:02:18,668 你可以看一下,我们的《专利申请书》的第四点, 里面描述了我们的发明是什么。

28 00:02:18,668 --> 00:02:25,318 - 那里有一个很长的数学公式。 这个公式在其他地方从来没有出现过。

29 00:02:25,502 --> 00:02:28,110 这属于我的委托人的创造发明。

30 00:02:28,352 --> 00:02:32,052 - 以前,数学公式是不能申请专利的。 但是,现在我们看到像Bilski这样的人,

31 00:02:32,302 --> 00:02:37,812 - 站出来说:“你知道吗? 我在这些数学等式上,付出了这么大的努力。"

32 00:02:38,012 --> 00:02:41,564 "- 因此我理应对这些信息处理方法拥有专利。"

33 00:02:41,814 --> 00:02:45,249 - 你提到,申请专利的内容中, 包括一个很长的数学公式。

34 00:02:45,464 --> 00:02:50,710 你是否认为,数学公式可以申请专利?

35 00:02:50,910 --> 00:02:51,714 - 完全可以。

36 00:02:51,964 --> 00:02:57,710 - 开发软件的过程,就是采用某种算法,

37 00:02:57,960 --> 00:03:01,760 -也就是说,选择某种对抽象数据处理的方法, 然后,你再把具体的变量加上去。

38 00:03:02,010 --> 00:03:05,910 - 以一阶求导为例,我们可以先写出一个值的矩阵。

39 00:03:06,160 --> 00:03:11,830 然后算出每一列的平均值。 mu 1,mu 2,mu 3.

40 00:03:12,030 --> 00:03:21,184 再定义Y等于x减去每一列的mu。

41 00:03:21,434 --> 00:03:29,468 我们还可以有一些其他的因子X, 我们以X·S,表示X在这个空间上的投射。

42 00:03:29,718 --> 00:03:31,950 这叫做奇异值分解(SVD)。

43 00:03:32,200 --> 00:03:41,609 现在,来玩个花招。 大意是,我们可以说,第一列X1代表“你的性别”。

44 00:03:41,859 --> 00:03:45,359 第二列X2代表“你是否养猫?”

45 00:03:47,126 --> 00:03:51,836 第三列X3假定代表“你的感情生活”。

46 00:03:55,022 --> 00:04:05,502 那么,让我们以因子J1代表 Jane对这个调查问卷的回答。

47 00:04:05,752 --> 00:04:10,086 J2代表Joe的回答。

48 00:04:10,336 --> 00:04:21,308 再采用我们前面说过的投射。 以J1·S减去J2·S。

49 00:04:21,558 --> 00:04:27,062 这样我们就能发现,这两点之间的距离, 我们把这叫做相容性。

50 00:04:28,414 --> 00:04:35,901 就是这么简单的一步,结果申请到了一个专利。 专利号是6 735 568。

51 00:04:37,750 --> 00:04:44,286 这种花招就是在奇异值分解之前, 先有一些抽象的数字。

52 00:04:44,536 --> 00:04:49,974 eHarmony公司的那些人,对这些变量起了一些名字。 然后就申请到了专利。

53 00:04:50,224 --> 00:04:55,870 X1不叫X1,叫做性别。 X2不叫X2,叫做是否喜欢猫。

54 00:04:56,120 --> 00:04:59,948 通过这样给变量起名字,

55 00:05:00,198 --> 00:05:05,390 - 他们就能把一个抽象的概念, 变成一种申请专利的设备。

56 00:05:06,440 --> 00:05:13,569 - 根据那些专利机构的看法, 正确的做法就是把数学,

57 00:05:13,819 --> 00:05:18,246 分成尽可能小的小块。 然后把每一块抽出来,

58 00:05:18,496 --> 00:05:26,238 对它们进行数学上的分量处理。 如果eHarmony公司把这套做法用于约会网站,我们就把专利给它。

59 00:05:26,488 --> 00:05:31,532 如果道富银行把这套做法用于债券交易, 我们就把专利权给予道富银行,诸如此类。

60 00:05:31,782 --> 00:05:39,718 我们真正给出的, 实际上是如何使用数学的某种专门权利。

61 00:05:40,083 --> 00:05:44,883 -不管怎么看,这都属于使用自然法则。 我们对它授予专利,根本不会有任何的回报。

62 00:05:45,733 --> 00:05:52,121 - 专利属于一种政府准许, 在美国,起源于美国《宪法》。

63 00:05:52,471 --> 00:05:58,721 - 《宪法》的起草者,拟定条款对发明人授予专门的权利。

64 00:05:58,971 --> 00:06:06,093 他们的想法是,必须奖励那些做出技术进步的人们。

65 00:06:06,243 --> 00:06:09,343 - 因为这使整个社会收益。

66 00:06:13,272 --> 00:06:18,156 - 发明者因此获得的权力, 并不是使用自己发明的权力。

67 00:06:18,406 --> 00:06:21,409 - 而是排除他人使用自己发明的权力。

68 00:06:21,659 --> 00:06:28,345 - 所以,这里的想法就是, 如果你有一台机器或别的东西,以前的文献中没有提到过,

69 00:06:28,595 --> 00:06:34,449 - 或者没有专家能够从现有的文献中, 推断出这种东西,

70 00:06:34,699 --> 00:06:36,457 - 那么你就得到了一个专利。

71 00:06:36,707 --> 00:06:42,550 - 决定可被授予专利权的东西, 一直在不断变化。

72 00:06:42,800 --> 00:06:46,300 - 过去200年,一直如此。

73 00:06:46,550 --> 00:06:54,588 - 1953年,国会修改了《专利法》, 加入了“处理方法”这个词。

74 00:06:54,838 --> 00:06:57,697 - 此后,不仅是“产品”, 而且“处理方法也可以被授予专利。

75 00:07:04,760 --> 00:07:10,833 国会这样做,主要是考虑到制造业的一些生产方法。

76 00:07:11,083 --> 00:07:19,481 - 也就是从投入到产出的处理方法,比如生产浮法玻璃。

77 00:07:19,731 --> 00:07:25,065 - 那时,不可能有人想到, 计算机软件中也有“处理方法”。

78 00:07:25,315 --> 00:07:33,748 - 因为要过很多年,计算机应用程序才会问世。 而《专利法》此后就没有被修订过。

79 00:07:33,998 --> 00:07:36,998 - 至今也没有修订。

80 00:07:46,267 --> 00:07:52,282 - 一直到70年代末,《专利法》都被解释为 你不能对软件申请专利。

81 00:07:52,532 --> 00:07:55,449 - 因为软件被认为属于数学算法的一部分, 是一种自然法则。

82 00:08:01,821 --> 00:08:09,430 但是,从那以后,法律就变了, 一切变得相当不同,

83 00:08:09,649 --> 00:08:11,254 - 起因是最高法院的几个裁决,其中一个是Diamond起诉Diehr一案。

84 00:08:11,504 --> 00:08:17,905 - 那是关于硫化橡胶的一种生产方法的专利申请纠纷。

85 00:08:18,155 --> 00:08:23,873 - 准确的温度对生产硫化橡胶非常重要。

86 00:08:24,123 --> 00:08:30,753 - 那起纠纷涉及的革新, 是一种监控温度的算法。

87 00:08:31,003 --> 00:08:37,038 - 它决定了何时释放和冷却橡胶。

88 00:08:37,288 --> 00:08:42,505 - 最高法院说,“硫化橡胶的处理方法可以申请方法, 但是问题是,纠纷中涉及的这种方法没有任何创新之处,

89 00:08:42,755 --> 00:08:47,526 "- 使用计算机监控生产过程,本身并不代表创新。 因为本质上,你没有改变任何东西。"

90 00:08:55,602 --> 00:09:00,070 - 最高法院清楚地表明,你不能对软件申请专利。 因为它仅仅是一套指令或者算法。

91 00:09:00,320 --> 00:09:09,300 - 它属于对自然法则的抽象。 而算法本身是不能在美国申请专利的。

92 00:09:09,550 --> 00:09:17,209 但是后来,联邦巡回上诉法庭有不一样的看法。

93 00:09:17,459 --> 00:09:24,657 - 这个问题的起源,在于一个简单的事实,

94 00:09:24,907 --> 00:09:27,180 - 法官总是不愿意审理专利案件。

95 00:09:27,430 --> 00:09:35,310 因为对于法官和以诉讼为生的律师来说,

96 00:09:35,560 --> 00:09:43,914 - 专利案件就意味着,他们必须了解许许多多的工业细节, 比如油漆如何生产,计算机如何工作,无线电如何广播等等。

97 00:09:44,164 --> 00:09:52,713 - 对于外行来说,很容易就被细节搞糊涂。

98 00:10:00,133 --> 00:10:05,369 - 国会尝试改变这种审理方法。

99 00:10:05,619 --> 00:10:11,934 但是,国会并没有换掉那些负责审理的法官, 而是在地区法院里,创造了一个新的法庭,

100 00:10:12,184 --> 00:10:17,326 -负责这类专利纠纷的审理。

101 00:10:17,576 --> 00:10:22,081 - 它们叫做联邦巡回上诉法庭。

102 00:10:22,331 --> 00:10:25,313 不出意料,没过多久, 这个法庭里面,就挤满了专利律师。

103 00:10:25,563 --> 00:10:32,622 那些专利律师在上诉法庭里,创造出新的案例, 适用于所有的地区法庭的法官。

104 00:10:32,872 --> 00:10:37,556 - 地区法庭的法官,依然在做出那些 一点也不专业的裁决。

105 00:10:37,806 --> 00:10:42,721 很自然地,联邦上诉巡回法庭, 是一个喜欢授予专利的地方。

106 00:10:42,971 --> 00:10:49,537 它的主审法官Giles Rich, 活得特别久,一直到接近100岁才去世。

107 00:10:49,787 --> 00:10:53,068 - 他的爱好就是给每样东西发一个专利。

108 00:10:53,318 --> 00:11:00,273 在Giles Rich的领导下,联邦巡回上诉法庭 放宽了Diamond起诉Diehr一案的原始判决的解释。

109 00:11:00,523 --> 00:11:05,068 - 下结论说,软件本身可以被授予专利。

110 00:11:05,318 --> 00:11:09,609 - 而最高法院完全袖手旁观, 把所有专利案件都推给那个法庭去决定。

111 00:11:09,859 --> 00:11:16,473 - 在90年代初,美国专利署实际上一直拒绝 对软件授予专利,就是不允许软件获得专利。

112 00:11:16,723 --> 00:11:20,223 于是,被拒绝的专利申请者, 就向联邦巡回上诉法庭提起上诉。

113 00:11:43,280 --> 00:11:46,798 - 如果是机器的话,你向专利署展示这台机器,

114 00:11:47,048 --> 00:11:51,697 - 向一个工作人员,声明你对这台机器的专利主张。

115 00:11:52,946 --> 00:11:56,636 但是对于软件,你没有办法定义专利主张的单位到底是什么。

116 00:11:56,886 --> 00:12:03,777 你主张的其实不是一个程序,而是一种方法, 这种方法,可以被无数别的程序,用来干无数别的事情。

117 00:12:04,027 --> 00:12:11,492 - 这样做的结果,就是我们快速地建立起无数个专有王国, 少数人拥有这些王国,

118 00:12:11,742 --> 00:12:19,014 - 并且排斥其他人使用计算机编程的基本方法。

119 00:12:19,314 --> 00:12:24,516 - 从90年代中期开始,软件专利的数量出现了飙升。

120 00:12:24,766 --> 00:12:27,806 业界的态度也随之发生改变。

121 00:12:28,056 --> 00:12:32,558 以微软为例,它本来对软件专利并不是太关注,

122 00:12:32,808 --> 00:12:36,885 - 但是根据我的猜想,自从90年代早期, 遭遇到Stac专利诉讼,并且败诉以后,

123 00:12:37,085 --> 00:12:40,817 - 微软发现判决对它很不利, 因此,它加快了申请专利的行动。

124 00:12:41,067 --> 00:12:43,932 - 现在,它拥有庞大数量的专利。

125 00:12:44,182 --> 00:12:49,116 这样的话,如果某个主要对手以专利威胁它, 它就能够以自己手中的专利进行反击。

126 00:12:49,366 --> 00:12:55,382 - 慢慢地,像Oracle那样的大公司被迫设立了专利部门, 目的只是防止其他对手的专利诉讼。

127 00:12:55,632 --> 00:13:00,481 它们对自己的软件申请专利, 这样才能与其他拥有专利的公司进行交换。

128 00:13:00,731 --> 00:13:10,945 Mark Webbink: - 各大公司的专利武器库,一天天壮大了。 到了2001年,微软拥有几千件的软件专利。

129 00:13:11,195 --> 00:13:15,350 Oracle的专利数量接近1000件。Adobe...

130 00:13:15,600 --> 00:13:19,713 James Bessen: - 所有这些公司变得越来越激进。 专利持有人和一些反对软件专利制度的人-

131 00:13:19,963 --> 00:13:25,516 - 最终开始起诉别的公司。 所以,最后的局面就是,首先,专利申请爆炸性增长,-

132 00:13:25,766 --> 00:13:27,729 - 然后,专利诉讼爆炸性增长。

133 00:13:32,484 --> 00:13:37,404 到了90年代末,每年全美国授予的专利之中, 四分之一是软件专利。

134 00:13:38,551 --> 00:13:44,233 每年全美国所有的专利诉讼中, 三分之一是软件专利诉讼。

135 00:13:44,483 --> 00:13:50,329 审理专利诉讼,所花费的社会成本, 40%与软件专利有关。

136 00:13:50,579 --> 00:13:52,631 这些数字还在不断上升。

137 00:13:52,881 --> 00:13:59,270 Charles Freeny有一个发明,他做了一个小亭子, 放在零售商店里,你走进去,

138 00:13:59,520 --> 00:14:05,306 - 选择自己想听的音乐,然后刷一下信用卡, 放进去一盒空白磁带,-

139 00:14:05,556 --> 00:14:10,917 - 过一会,磁带里就录进去了你选的歌。-

140 00:14:11,167 --> 00:14:13,988 - 你就可以拿着磁带离开了。

141 00:14:14,238 --> 00:14:21,649 这个专利的申请报告,写得非常模糊, 使用了一些很模糊的词,-

142 00:14:21,899 --> 00:14:25,060 - 比如“销售所在的场所”、“处理信息的机器”等等。

143 00:14:25,310 --> 00:14:32,902 Charles Freeny把这个专利卖掉了, 卖主想以非常宽泛的方式,解释这些专利。

144 00:14:33,352 --> 00:14:36,652 基本上,他打算用这个专利,涵盖所有电子商务的范畴。

145 00:14:36,902 --> 00:14:44,956 所以你看,原始专利不过是一个用途很有限的小亭子, 却被人用宽泛的方式加以解释。

146 00:14:45,206 --> 00:14:50,102 - 目的是覆盖所有在Internet上发生的电子交易。-

147 00:14:50,352 --> 00:14:56,228 - 由于“销售所在的场所”可以被解释成 你的办公室、你的卧室、你的房子等等,

148 00:14:56,478 --> 00:15:00,817 所以,它可以包含所有的电子商务。

149 00:15:01,067 --> 00:15:08,382 法庭最初不同意这种解释。 但是,卖主上诉了,

150 00:15:08,632 --> 00:15:16,254 上诉法庭居然同意了他们, 于是一百多家互联网公司,必须与他们达成和解了。

151 00:15:16,504 --> 00:15:23,452 这件事情的教训在于,你无法分辨专利的适用范围, 直到你把官司打到上诉法院为止。

152 00:15:23,702 --> 00:15:29,236 - 大多数人认为的专利适用范围, 其实都是错的。

153 00:15:29,486 --> 00:15:32,644 - 编程语言的一个关键特性, 就是它们非常非常准确。

154 00:15:32,894 --> 00:15:39,292 你可以随便选一种语言, C、Python等等 -

155 00:15:39,542 --> 00:15:43,910 - 你能够明确地知道,用它们写出的某个程序是用来干什么的。 你看了两段代码,你就可以说-

156 00:15:44,160 --> 00:15:48,662 “它们功能相同”,或者“它们功能不同”, 我们能够如此断言,因为计算机是很挑剔的,

157 00:15:48,912 --> 00:15:53,801 - 我们需要准确地告诉计算机, 我们想做什么,以及怎么做。

158 00:15:54,051 --> 00:15:57,551 但是,专利律师使用的语言正好相反。

159 00:15:57,801 --> 00:16:03,001 使用模糊、宽泛、非针对性的语言, 会产生一种优势。-

160 00:16:03,251 --> 00:16:06,751 -那就是你的语言越不精确, 能被你抓到网里的东西就越多。

161 00:16:07,001 --> 00:16:12,361 - 所以,这是专利体系的一个大问题, 我们必须找出办法,去定义专利的范围或界限。

162 00:16:12,611 --> 00:16:16,148 - 什么是某个专利覆盖的, 什么是某个专利不覆盖的。

163 00:16:16,398 --> 00:16:21,658 这种模糊引起了许许多多可怕的后果。 因为人们会想避免做那些侵犯他人专利的事情。

164 00:16:21,908 --> 00:16:27,013 - 即使有些事情是专利根本没有覆盖到的, 他们也会犹豫该不该做。

165 00:16:27,263 --> 00:16:33,406 - 请想像一下,如果18世纪时, 欧洲政府决定要促进交响乐的发展,-

166 00:16:33,656 --> 00:16:41,162 - 于是给与音乐有关的想法颁发专利,-

167 00:16:41,412 --> 00:16:48,306 - 任何人只要能够用语言,描述一个与音乐有关的想法, 就能获得一个专利,对这个想法的应用实施垄断,

168 00:16:48,556 --> 00:16:54,998 - 然后,他还能起诉任何以音乐形式实现这种想法的其他人。

169 00:16:55,248 --> 00:17:09,121 所以,一个曲式能够被授予专利, 一个和弦、一种乐器的演奏组合都能被授予专利,-

170 00:17:09,371 --> 00:17:17,212 - 任何你脑子里的音乐念头,只要能说得出来,都能得到专利。 然后我们假定,你是生活在19世纪的贝多芬,

171 00:17:17,462 --> 00:17:23,748 - 你要写一部交响曲, 那么你会发现,写一部不被起诉的交响曲,

172 00:17:23,998 --> 00:17:29,102 - 比写一部好听的交响曲还要难。 因为如果你不想被别人起诉,你就必须小心翼翼,-

173 00:17:29,302 --> 00:17:34,638 - 穿过布满几千个音乐专利的地雷阵。

174 00:17:34,888 --> 00:17:40,388 如果你觉得这样不合理,认为它阻碍了你的创造性,

175 00:17:40,638 --> 00:17:44,484 - 专利持有人就会说,“嗨,贝多芬先生, 请不要因为我们比你先想到那些旋律,而感到妒忌。”

176 00:17:44,651 --> 00:17:46,873 "你为什么一定要偷窃我们的念头呢?"

177 00:17:47,123 --> 00:17:52,634 - 人类创作音乐的历史长达几千年, 不需要专利,人类也能拥有美妙的音乐。-

178 00:17:52,884 --> 00:18:01,148 - 计算机工业使得编程成为可能, 从计算机诞生的一开始,人类就在编程,-

179 00:18:01,398 --> 00:18:07,054 - 那时根本没有专利,人类也在开发软件。 由此可见,专利制度不是必需的。-

180 00:18:07,304 --> 00:18:10,516 - 不管有没有专利,都会有人编程。

181 00:18:10,766 --> 00:18:20,582 - 回到1980年、1981年的时候,我们做的所有事情, 专利制度对我们几乎都没有影响。

182 00:18:20,832 --> 00:18:30,324 剪切、粘贴、字处理软件中的标尺、自动换行等等, 这些我们今天习以为常的事情,-

183 00:18:30,574 --> 00:18:37,566 - 即使没有专利,也都被发明出来了。 而且它们比我们今天的很多专利,都更富有创新性。-

184 00:18:37,816 --> 00:18:44,198 - 今天,许许多多的专利,不过是一些微不足道的革新。 因为这是法律介入的必然结果。

185 00:18:44,448 --> 00:18:49,841 那些重要的革新,幸亏出现在专利制度还没有介入的时候。

186 00:18:50,091 --> 00:18:54,100 - Donald Knuth是全世界最著名的计算机科学家之一,

187 00:18:54,350 --> 00:19:02,422 他就说过,要是软件专利在60年代和70年代时出现,-

188 00:19:02,672 --> 00:19:07,084 - 今天的计算机科学可能就没有这么发达了。

189 00:19:07,334 --> 00:19:15,164 软件专利是创新的障碍, 将严重阻碍新技术发展,-

190 00:19:15,414 --> 00:19:17,942 - 使得许多我们今天习以为常的做法,都不可能出现。

191 00:19:18,192 --> 00:19:24,137 - 每当程序员写完一个大型程序, 他就必须去检查一下,他是否侵犯了上千种软件专利中的某一种。

192 00:19:24,387 --> 00:19:28,622 - 他根本没可能避免侵犯专利。

193 00:19:28,872 --> 00:19:35,590 - 美国专利署每次公布的软件专利数以百计。 每周二,他们公布3500个专利,

194 00:19:35,790 --> 00:19:41,032 - 其中相当一部分与软件有关。 你每周都去检查一遍,自己是否侵犯了这些专利,这是不可能的。-

195 00:19:41,232 --> 00:19:43,580 - 你总是发现,某个别人的专利与你有关。

196 00:19:43,830 --> 00:19:53,505 - 所以,美国专利法有一个条款, 大意是,无意中侵犯到他人的专利,

197 00:19:53,755 --> 00:20:01,117 - 所受到的处罚会比较轻。 也就是说,如果你明知故犯,

198 00:20:01,367 --> 00:20:07,094 - 才会受到更严厉的处罚。

199 00:20:07,344 --> 00:20:14,356 但是,这种条款产生了另一个结果。 那就是人们故意漠视或者忽略,新颁发的专利。

200 00:20:14,606 --> 00:20:21,228 - 因为如果你阅读每份专利报告,

201 00:20:21,478 --> 00:20:28,070 - 这就成了你有意侵犯他人版权的证据。

202 00:20:28,320 --> 00:20:32,737 - 你属于明知故犯,罚金会加大三倍。

203 00:20:32,987 --> 00:20:39,137 - 许多人建议,软件应该从可被授予专利的物品中去除。-

204 00:20:39,387 --> 00:20:40,760 - 你对此有何评论?

205 00:20:41,010 --> 00:20:45,894 - 我显然不同意这种观点。 我认为,软件专利不应该被移除。

206 00:20:46,144 --> 00:20:51,441 它是这个国家的技术革新动力的最大来源之一。 如果软件没有专利,

207 00:20:51,691 --> 00:20:55,230 - 可能会使得软件消失, 我想,对经济会是一个巨大灾难。

208 00:20:55,480 --> 00:21:01,852 会发生这种事吗? - Mike和我做过一个测算,制药业的专利, 使得全民多付出全部税收的10%到20%。

209 00:21:02,102 --> 00:21:10,454 - 在软件业,这种损失最终要由那些较小的开发者承担。

210 00:21:10,704 --> 00:21:18,892 - 据我所知,每个小型软件公司, 只要它们能够撑过前几年,能在市场上有所成绩,

211 00:21:19,142 --> 00:21:26,950 - 那么就有人会用某个专利来威胁它们, 它们的生存和发展就会遇到困难。

212 00:21:27,200 --> 00:21:31,609 它们经常感到,必须被迫地使用专利,来保护自己。

213 00:21:31,859 --> 00:21:40,646 所以,专利制度实际上是一种对他人的税。 它并不会真的帮助创新,是一种不必要的活动。

214 00:21:40,896 --> 00:21:47,313 - 我们主要做的,是一个叫做RT的追踪系统。 它属于对客户的服务,-

215 00:21:47,563 --> 00:21:53,506 - 接受提问,追踪bug,网络操作等等。 你面对的一大堆任务,都会得到追踪。

216 00:21:53,756 --> 00:21:58,089 - 你需要知道什么事情发生了,什么事情没发生, 谁做了什么事,谁没做,何时做了等等。-

217 00:21:58,339 --> 00:22:04,609 - 它有点像为一个大型组织设计的任务管理系统。

218 00:22:04,859 --> 00:22:10,297 大部分的代码是来自开源软件或自由软件, 它们都是这一类的许可证。

219 00:22:10,547 --> 00:22:18,009 我们找到客户以后,他们会在标准合同里面, 加入赔偿条款,或者让我们签他们提供的合同文本。

220 00:22:18,259 --> 00:22:27,038 - 合同里面以标准的法律术语写明, 如果我们的软件被发现侵犯了他人的专利,

221 00:22:27,288 --> 00:22:34,324 - 我们将保证不会损害客户的利益,不会使客户需要赔偿,-

222 00:22:34,574 --> 00:22:41,468 - 由此引发的法律费用,将由我们支付等等。

223 00:22:41,718 --> 00:22:46,276 我们很少会签这样的合同, 只要合同里有这种语言,我们就不签。

224 00:22:46,526 --> 00:22:48,476 但是,大部分的法律费用都花在这种事情上了。

225 00:22:48,726 --> 00:22:59,648 - 如果你问ICT公司里的那些富有革新精神的人, “如果专利制度被废除,他们会不会觉得日子好过一些了?”

226 00:22:59,898 --> 00:23:03,161 - 回答很可能是“Yes”。

227 00:23:03,411 --> 00:23:11,472 - 谁从专利制度中受益? 第一位肯定是专利律师,第二位是那些专门收购专利、从中牟利的掮客。

228 00:23:11,722 --> 00:23:17,822 - 我们知道他们获利,但是大多数人未必知道, 他们从专利制度中获取了暴利。

229 00:23:18,072 --> 00:23:25,580 过去四五年中,你看到了像Intellectual Ventures那样的公司,

230 00:23:25,830 --> 00:23:32,364 - 还有一些对冲基金,他们大量收购垃圾专利, 再利用它们,从其他公司敲诈上亿美元的专利使用费。-

231 00:23:32,614 --> 00:23:38,129 - 他们可能才是专利制度的最大受益者。

232 00:23:38,379 --> 00:23:42,872 - 过去几年中,新闻媒体报道了, 由于软件专利造成社会损失的大量负面例子。

233 00:23:43,122 --> 00:23:49,268 我们觉得,这些报道可能对美国专利署产生了一些政治影响, 使得他们放缓了授予专利的速度,

234 00:23:49,518 --> 00:23:51,444 - 并且也拒绝了一部分专利申请, 这就是导致了类似Bilski这样的诉讼。

235 00:24:00,270 --> 00:24:07,630 - 在这些报道中,第一个、也是影响最大的报道,是Blackberry专利, 因为每个众议员都拥有blackberry手机。

236 00:24:07,880 --> 00:24:12,228 - 有一家名叫NTP的公司,起诉黑莓制造商,

237 00:24:12,478 --> 00:24:17,425 - 声称所有的黑莓手机侵犯了他的专利。 实际上,NTP是一家一人公司,只有一个人持股,

238 00:24:17,675 --> 00:24:22,532 - 本身不提供任何产品或服务。

239 00:24:22,782 --> 00:24:29,764 - 这件事引起了《华尔街日报》和《华盛顿邮报》的关注, 国会议员也感到不安,

240 00:24:30,014 --> 00:24:34,039 - 因为如果黑莓出事了,他们就不能使用自己的黑莓手机了, 也就是不能方便地通讯了。

241 00:24:34,289 --> 00:24:40,950 所以,这件事引起了普遍关注。-

242 00:24:41,200 --> 00:24:44,188 - 还有一些人,声称银行业侵犯了他们的专利。

243 00:24:44,438 --> 00:24:47,686 - 但是,银行家在国会山有很大影响力。 于是,他们来到国会山,说:“这样类型的专利给社会带来许多损失。”

244 00:24:47,936 --> 00:24:52,553 - 这一类的专利钓鱼现象,还出现在德克萨斯州。-

245 00:24:52,803 --> 00:24:58,457 - 那里有一些小的专利持有人,起诉大型IT公司, 比如Google、Microsoft、IBM和惠普。-

246 00:24:58,707 --> 00:25:04,293 - 而这些大公司对立法者都有影响力。-

247 00:25:04,543 --> 00:25:08,612 -他们说:“这样类型的专利,对行业没有任何好处。 使得我们成本上升,增加了我们产品的价格。” -

248 00:25:08,862 --> 00:25:13,881 - “国会必须对这种现象采取行动。”

249 00:25:21,620 --> 00:25:27,428 - 目前的形势就是,较低级的法庭——联邦巡回上诉法庭,-

250 00:25:27,678 --> 00:25:32,140 - 是专利案件的主要审理法庭。

251 00:25:32,390 --> 00:25:40,741 现在,最高法院第一次决定出手, 把确定专利权授予范围的权力接管过来。

252 00:25:40,991 --> 00:25:47,852 更明确地说,低级法庭持有的观点,确实偏向软件专利制度。

253 00:25:48,102 --> 00:25:55,724 过去20年来的软件专利历史,就是由这个低级法庭主导的。

254 00:25:55,974 --> 00:26:01,286 所以,我们希望最高法院能够纠正, 目前这样由低级法庭造成的混乱局面。

255 00:26:01,536 --> 00:26:06,065 并且,最高法院能够重塑权威, 重申软件是不能授予专利的。

256 00:26:06,315 --> 00:26:12,078 - 当你看到Bilski的律师的那些主张以后, 你就知道,专利律师很大程度属于一种有组织的游说者。

257 00:26:12,328 --> 00:26:21,238 - 他们的兴趣,就是将专利制度不断扩张, 将越来越多的东西都包括在内。

258 00:26:21,488 --> 00:26:26,406 我们很清楚,有些最高法院的法官有一种挫折感。-

259 00:26:26,656 --> 00:26:28,685 -他们中有些人,对于专利制度扩张得如此之大, 倍感挫折。

260 00:26:28,935 --> 00:26:34,553 - 你说你可以用一个想法申请专利。某些人不认同你的说法。

261 00:26:34,803 --> 00:26:40,169 - 我想这些人必须自己设法克服这种观点, 他们需要理解,对冲商品风险是可以得到专利的。-

262 00:26:40,419 --> 00:26:45,580 - 事实是,如果你仔细看我们的主张, 你会发现,我们提出的是一种“处理方法”,-

263 00:26:45,830 --> 00:26:50,080 - 这种方法不同于其他的方法。-

264 00:26:50,330 --> 00:26:51,817 - 他们不应该把过去的专利法,用于我们的方法之上。

265 00:26:52,067 --> 00:26:56,321 - 我们听到了一些最高法院法官的言论, 他们对目前的专利制度持怀疑态度,我们感到很鼓舞。-

266 00:26:56,571 --> 00:27:02,630 - 这表明,他们理解了软件的实质,-

267 00:27:02,880 --> 00:27:08,441 - 软件不过是数学公式的某种改写,它完全可以写在一张纸上,-

268 00:27:08,659 --> 00:27:11,638 - 或者如一个法官所说,用打字机打出来。

269 00:27:11,809 --> 00:27:17,117 - 针对普通程序的软件专利制度,从来没有被最高法院明确支持过。

270 00:27:17,367 --> 00:27:23,798 这个法庭也没有对推翻一个长期以来的信条, 显示过懊悔。

271 00:27:24,048 --> 00:27:27,662 法官们非常清楚,上诉者试图得到一个专利,

272 00:27:27,912 --> 00:27:29,924 - 而这个专利针对的,是人类活动的一种非常基本的形式。

273 00:27:30,174 --> 00:27:34,861 美国已经授予了超过20万件的软件专利。

274 00:27:35,611 --> 00:27:42,489 程序员发现,写出不会被他人起诉的软件, 已经变得越来越难了。

275 00:27:42,739 --> 00:27:46,239 未来会怎样...

276 00:28:39,908 --> 00:28:46,257 字幕翻译:阮一峰 许可证:CC-BY 3.0