MENU
 Economist Interpretation-3 |
 
|
| JungYeun-Do 2012-09-18 (화) 10:26 추천:0 조회:3008 192.xxx.41 | |
|
|
|
기사해석추가로올라온내용을보내드립니다.
읽어보시고On-line Interpretation , Article Interpreted게시판에답글,꼬리글형식으로많은의견보내주세요 Apple v Samsung
Swipe, pinch and zoom to the courtroom
Apple’s victory in its epic legal spat with Samsung has raised eyebrows among techies and lawyers alike
Sep 1st 2012 | from the print edition
NOT LONG after a jury in the Californian city of San Jose concluded on August 24th that Samsung should pay Apple just over $1 billion in damages for infringing six of the American firm’s software and design patents, stills from a year-old sitcom episode, in which a character demonstrates an absurd triangular tablet computer, began recirculating on the internet. The images were being used to poke fun at the jury’s ruling that the South Korean firm had copied the shape of Apple’s wildly popular iPhone, which (like most) is rectangular with curved corners.
The titanic tussle between the two giants, which has led to one of the biggest penalties for patent violations in legal history, is far from over. On August 28th Apple said it wanted Lucy Koh, the judge presiding over the case, to ban the sale in America of eight of Samsung’s smartphones. Samsung, which is trying to persuade the judge to overturn the jury’s overall verdict, said it would "take all necessary measures" to keep its products on sale. Judge Koh has scheduled a hearing for September 20th to review an existing ban on sales in America of a version of Samsung’s Galaxy Tab tablet computer. Another hearing is set for December to consider imposing a ban on the phones targeted by Apple.
In this section
� ≫Swipe, pinch and zoom to the courtroom
� Biting back at Apple
� Stuck in fifth gear
� Second life
� Suspiciously quiet
� And then there were three?
� Those bloody Scandinavians
Reprints Related topics
� Science and technology � Consumer electronics Even if these devices are blocked, the impact on Samsung’s bottom line should be modest because a ban will affect older devices, not the firm’s snazzy new Galaxy phones. But the case still has big implications for the tech industry, which is facing a tsunami of patent-related lawsuits. It shows how patents covering the look and feel of devices are increasingly being "weaponised"by their holders. It highlights the propensity of juries to award huge damages in intellectual-property disputes. And it will give added ammunition to those who feel that the current system of granting and policing tech patents in America needs to be overhauled. The legal battle between Samsung and Apple is also intriguing because the archenemies work closely together. Samsung is one of the biggest suppliers of components such as memory chips for Apple’s gadgets. But its phones and tablets, which so far have used Google’s Android operating system, compete head-on with Apple’s iPhones and iPad tablets. The tension between the two firms has grown as competition in the smartphone arena has intensified (seearticle). Gartner, a research firm, says that more than half of the smartphones shipped worldwide in the second quarter run on Android. Apple’s late boss, Steve Jobs, promised "thermonuclear war" against what he saw as Android’s systematic copying of Apple features. Samsung has been leading the charge of the Androids. To counter it, Apple has launched a bombardment of lawsuits against its rival around the world, claiming that Samsung’s devices breach various patents it holds. On the day that the jury in San Jose delivered its ruling, a court in South Korea hearing a similar case said both firms were guilty of patent violations against the other and banned some of their devices from sale in the country. But since America is the world’s largest market for consumer electronics, the Californian ruling will have a far greater impact.
The jury in San Jose concluded that Samsung had violated several of Apple’s utility patents covering things such as bounce-back scrolling, which makes such things as on-screen icons and web pages rebound if swiped too far, and tap-to-zoom functionality, which makes it easy to zero in on, say, an image or a map. It also said the South Korean company had copied the overall look of the iPhone, including the rounded corners of icons, thus breaching several of Apple’s design patents. To add insult to injury, the jurors tossed out the South Korean firm’s claims that Apple had ripped off some of its own innovations.
Samsung and other firms are likely to tweak the design of their devices to avoid further legal bombshells in America. Some patent lawyers say this is as it should be. "In many ways, the system is working well from an economic viewpoint,"says Wil Rao of McAndrews, Held &Malloy, a law firm. But other experts worry that design patents in particular are often drawn too broadly and granted too easily.
Whopping penalties imposed on patent infringers are also a cause for concern. Some experts blame these on the increased use of juries in patent cases. According to a study published last year by PWC, a consultancy, juries decided an average of 14% of such cases in America in the 1980s; since 2000 that figure has risen to 56%. The problem, says Brian Love, a law professor at Santa Clara University, is that jurors tend to have a gut reaction against patent violators and therefore often award damages that are vastly higher than the economic harm that has been done. Experienced judges tend to see things in a more nuanced light.
A well-known federal judge, Richard Posner, an outspoken critic of America’s patent system, has even suggested that the country’s Patent and Trademark Office be given the job of hearing patent disputes—and sufficient resources to handle a wider remit. Apple knows Judge Posner all too well. Earlier this year, he dismissed a lawsuit it brought against Motorola Mobility, mocking some of the claims Apple had made about the harm it had suffered. Samsung’s lawyers, trying to get the August ruling reversed, will be hoping Judge Koh looks closely at her colleague’s findings when battle resumes in San Jose.
애플대삼성
치고,집고,확대하여소송하기
(Swipe, pinch and zoom to the courtroom에서swipe는‘치다’의 뜻으로Tap을 뜻함. Tap to zoom과pinch-to-zoom은 모두 애플이 가진 특허들에 해당. Tap-to-zoom=멀티 터치 줌,화면 두드림으로 이미지 확대/ pinch-to-zoom=멀티 터치 줌,손가락으로 이미지 크기 변화 조절역주) 삼성과의장대한법정다툼에서애플이승리하면서기술자와변호사모두가우려하고있다.
지난8월24일 캘리포니아 산호세 시의 배심원단이 삼성이 애플의6개의 소프트웨어와 디자인 특허를 침해에 대한1억 달러 이상의 손해액을 애플에 지급해야 한다고 판결이 났다.그 후 얼마 뒤에,한 등장인물이 말도 안 되는 삼각형 태블릿 컴퓨터를 보여주는 일 년 전의 시트콤 에피소드 한 장면이 인터넷 상에서 다시 떠돌기 시작했다.이러한 이미지들은 삼성이 애플의 히트 상품인 아이폰의 외관 중 특히 둥근 모서리 형태의 사각형을 베꼈다고 판결한 배심원단의 결정을 조롱하기 위한 것이었다.
법 역사상 가장 대규모의 특허권 침해 벌금형으로 이어진 두 거인 간의 난투극이 아직 끝나려면 멀었다. 8월28일에 애플은 본 재판을 주재하고 있는 루시 고(Lucy Koh)판사가 미국에서 판매 중인 삼성의8종의 스마트폰에 대한 판매 금지를 내리기를 원했다고 언급했다.이러한 배심원단의 평결을 판사가 뒤집도록 설득해온 삼성 측은 삼성 제품을 계속 판매할 수 있도록 "필요한 모든 조치를 취할 것"이라고 언급했다.고 판사는 삼성의 갤럭시 탭 태블릿 컴퓨터의 한 모델에 대한 미국 내 현재 판매 금지 조치에 대한 검토를 위한 공판 일정을9월20일로 예정해두었다.애플이 표적으로 두고 있는 전화기들에 대한 판매 금지 조치 시행 검토를 위한 또 한 차례의 공판이12월에 열릴 예정이다.
이러한 삼성 제품들이 판매 금지가 된다 하더라도 구형 모델의 판매에 영향을 끼칠 뿐,삼성의 멋진 신형 갤럭시폰의 판매가 금지된 것이 아니기 때문에,삼성에 끼치는 실질적인 영향은 미미할 것이다.그러나 이번 사건은 쓰나미처럼 밀려들 특허 관련 소송을 직면하고 있는 기술 산업에 여전히 큰 영향을 끼치고 있다.또한 제품의 외관과 느낌에 관한 특허를 권리자가 앞으로 점점 더 "무기"처럼 쓸 수 있다는 것을 보여준다.이번 사건은 지적 재산권 분쟁에 대해 막대한 배상금을 부여하는 배심원의 성향을 단적으로 보여주는 예이다.아울러 미국 내에서 기술 특허를 부여하고 유지하는 현재 시스템이 전면 개편이 필요하다고 느끼는 사람들에게 추가적인 명분을 제공해 줄 것이다.
삼성과 애플의 법적 전쟁은 최대의 적들이 사실상 밀접하게 연결되어 있기 때문에 더욱 흥미롭다.삼성은 애플 기기에 메모리칩과 같은 부품의 최대 공급자 중 하나다.그러나 지금까지도 구글의 안드로이드 운영 체제를 사용하는 삼성의 휴대폰와 태블릿 컴퓨터는 애플의 아이폰과 아이패드에 정면으로 경쟁하고 있다.스마트폰 분야에서 경쟁이 점점 치열해지면서 두 회사 사이의 긴장은 점점 더 고조되었다.리서치 회사인 가트너(Gartner)는 지난2분기에 전 세계적으로 팔린 스마트폰의 반 이상이 안드로이드폰이라고 밝혔다.애플의 전 보스였던 고 스티브 잡스는 애플의 기능을 안드로이드가 조직적으로 카피했다고 보고 이에 대해 "핵 전쟁(thermonuclear war)"도 불사하겠다고 약속했다.
삼성은 안드로이드 진영의 공격을 지휘해왔다.이를 반격하기 위해 애플은 이 라이벌 회사를 상대로 전 세계적인 법적 소송으로 융단 폭격했고 삼성 제품들이 애플의 다양한 특허를 침해했다고 주장했다.산호세의 배심원단이 결정을 내린 날,한국에서도 이와 유사한 소송 건에 대한 선고 공판이 있었으며 한국 법정은 양 사 모두가 상대편의 특허 침해를 했다고 보면서 한국에서 판매 중인 일부 제품들에 대한 판매 금지 조치를 내렸다.그러나 미국이 소비가전의 최대 시장이기 때문에 캘리포니아 법정의 판결이 더욱 큰 영향을 끼칠 것이다.
산호세의 배심원단은 삼성이 여러 건의 애플의 실용특허(utility patents)를 침해했다고 결론지었다.이러한 특허에는 화면상의 아이콘이나 웹페이지를 너무 많이 밀어낼 경우 되돌아오게 하는 바운스백 스크롤링(bounce-back scrolling)과 이미지나 지도를 확대하기 편하게 해주는 탭-투-줌(tap-to-zoom,화면을 두드려서 이미지 키우기-역주)기능들이 포함되어 있다.또한 배심원단은 삼성이 아이콘의 둥근 모서리 부분을 포함하여 아이폰의 전반적인 외관을 모방하여 애플의 몇몇 디자인 특허를 침해했다고 언급했다.그리고 한 술 더 떠서,배심원들은 애플이 자신의 혁신적 기술 일부를 표절했다는 삼성의 주장을 무시했다.
특허 침해자에게 부과되는 엄청난 처벌 또한 우려를 낳고 있다.일부 전문가들은 특허 소송에서 배심원단을 이용하는 비율이 높아지는 것이 원인이라고 비난하고 있다.컨설팅 업체인PWC가 작년에 발표한 자료에 따르면1980년대 미국에서 이루어진 특허 침해 소송은 평균14%선에서 판결이 이루어졌으나2000년 이후에는 그 비율이56%로 증가하였다.산타클라라 대학(Santa Clara University)의 브라이언 러브(Brian Love)법학 교수는 배심원들이 특허 침해자에 대해 감정적인 반응을 보이는 경향이 있으며,이로 인해 실제 끼친 경제적인 피해보다 훨씬 많은 손해액을 부여하려는 것이 문제라고 주장하고 있다.반면 경험 있는 판사는 좀 더 미묘한 관점에서 사안을 바라보는 경향이 있다. 저명한 연방 판사이자 미국 특허 시스템에 대해 거침없는 비판을 하는 리차드 포스너(Richard Posner)판사는 심지어 미국의 특허청이 넓은 범위의 소관 업무를 처리할 수 있는 충분한 자원을 부여 받아 특허 소송의 선고 공판의 업무를 맡아야 한다고 제안하였다.애플은 포스너 판사를 너무 잘 알고 있다.올해 초,애플이 모토롤라 모빌리티(Motorola Mobility)에 제기한 소송에 대하여 포스너 판사는 애플이 받은 피해만큼 애플도 같은 피해를 끼쳤다는 주장을 근거로 이를 기각하였다. 8월의 선고를 뒤집기 위해 노력중인 삼성 측의 변호사들은 산호세에서 다시 소송이 재개될 때 고 판사가 그의 동료(포스너 판사-역주)의 판결을 보다 면밀히 참고하기를 기대하고 있다.
tussle:몸싸움,난투
ammunition:탄약,무기,유리한 정보,공격 수단 overhauled:정밀 조사하다,따라붙다,추월하다 archenemies:최대의 적 President Obama
Four more years? A president who has had a patchy first term now needs to make a convincing case for a second one Sep 1st 2012 | from the print edition IN DENVER four years ago, an inspiring presidential candidate announced that he would change America. Barack Obama promised to put aside partisan differences, restore hope to those without jobs, begin the process of saving the planet from global warming, and make America proud again. Next week Mr Obama will address his fellow Democrats at their convention in Charlotte, North Carolina, with little of this hopeful agenda completed. Three million more Americans are out of work than four years ago, and the national debt is $5 trillion bigger. Partisan gridlock is worse than ever: health-care reform, a genuinely impressive achievement, has become a prime source of rancour. Businessfolk are split over whether he dislikes capitalism or is merely indifferent to it. His global-warming efforts have evaporated. America’s standing in the Muslim world is no higher than it was under George W. Bush, Iran remains dangerous, Russia and China are still prickly despite the promised resets, and the prison in Guantanamo remains open.
In this section
� ≫Four more years? � Slow boats Reprints
Related topics
� Election campaigns
� Mitt Romney
� Republican Party (United States)
� United States
� Barack Obama
So far, so underwhelming
The defence of Mr Obama’s record comes down to one phrase: it could all have been a lot worse. He inherited an economy in free fall thanks to thebanking crash and the fiscal profligacy that occurred under his predecessor; his stimulus measures and his saving of Detroit carmakers helped avert a second Depression; overall, he deserves decent if patchy grades on the economy (seearticle). Confronted by obstructionist Republicans in Congress, he did well to get anything through at all. Abroad he has sensibly recalibrated American foreign policy. And there have been individual triumphs, such as the killing of Osama bin Laden.
But this does not amount to a compelling case for re-election, in the view of either this paper or the American people. More than 60% of voters believe their country to be on the wrong track. Mr Obama’s approval ratings are well under 50%; almost two-thirds of voters are unimpressed (however harshly) by how he has handled the economy. Worn down by the difficulties of office, the great reformer has become a cautious man, surrounded by an insular group of advisers. The candidate who promised bold solutions to the country’s gravest problems turned into the president who failed even to back his own commission’s plans for cutting the deficit.
Were he facing a more charismatic candidate than Mitt Romney or a less extremist bunch than the Republicans, Mr Obama would already be staring at defeat. The fact that the president has had to "go negative" so early and so relentlessly shows how badly he needs the election to be about Mr Romney’s weaknesses rather than his own achievements. A man who four years ago epitomised hope will arrive in Charlotte with a campaign that thus far has been about invoking fear.
Mr Obama must offer more than this, for three reasons. First, a negative campaign may well fail. The Republicans are a rum bunch with a wooden leader; but Mr Romney’s record as an executive and governor is impressive, and his running-mate, Paul Ryan, is a fount of bold ideas. Mr Obama’s strategy of blaming everything on Republican obstructionism will strike many voters as demeaning.
Second, even if negative campaigning works, a re-elected Mr Obama will need the strength that comes from a convincing agenda. Otherwise the Republicans, who will control the House and possibly the Senate too, will make mincemeat of him. And, third, it is not just Mr Obama who needs a plan. America does too. Its finances and its government require a drastic overhaul. Surely this charismatic, thoughtful man has more ideas about what must be done than he has so far let on?
A tempting option will be to galvanise his party base, with talk of more health reform and threats of higher taxes on business and the rich. Rather than redesigning government, he could suck up to the public-sector unions by promising that jobs will not be cut. Rather than cutting entitlement programmes, he could reassure the elderly that America can actually afford them.
Such an approach would fit the pattern of too much of his presidency, and his campaign so far; but it would do America a disservice, and it might not help Mr Obama either. His victory in 2008 relied on reaching beyond the groups that traditionally vote Democratic and bringing in young voters and wealthier whites. Many of them are centrists who are suspicious of Mr Romney, but since they have to foot the bill for government profligacy, they will not vote for a president who promises more of the same.
Reach for the radical centre
Appealing to the centre is not easy for Mr Obama. His allies on the left are powerful and, in a country so polarised, the middle ground can be a dangerous place. But there are plenty of things that many on both sides of the political aisle could agree on, including tax and immigration reform, investment in schools and aid to businesses that are creating jobs. Crucially, Mr Obama could explain how he intends to cut the still-soaring debt without pretending that taxing only the rich will help in any meaningful way. Mr Obama has a strong belief in social justice. It drove his health-care reform. But he needs to distinguish between a creditable desire to help the weak and a dangerous preference for the public over the private sector. The jobs that poor Americans need will be created by companies. Smothering firms in red tape is not the way to help them; Mr Obama should vow to stop adding to it, and to start cutting some of it away. The party faithful in Charlotte might not like centrist ideas much. But they would appeal to the voters Mr Obama needs to win over and, should he be re-elected, they will strengthen him in his dealings with the Republicans in Congress.
Incumbents tend to win presidential elections, but second-term presidents tend to be disappointing. Mr Obama’s first-term record suggests that, if re-elected, he could be the lamest of ducks. That’s why he needs a good answer to the big question: just what would you do with another four years?
오바마대통령 4년더하겠습니까? 4년전덴버에서고무적인한대통령후보가미국을변화시키겠다고선언하였다.버락오바마(Barack Obama)는당파적차이를제쳐두고실직자들에게희망을되돌려줄것이며,지구온난화로부터지구를지키는운동을시작할것과다시긍지에가득찬미국을만들겠노라고약속하였다. 이러한그의희망적인선거공약이그다지성사되지않은채,다음주에오바마대통령은노스캐롤라이나주샬럿(Chalotte)의민주당전당대회에서동료민주당당원들앞에서연설을할예정이다. 4년전과비교한다면, 300만이상의미국인들이실직했으며국가부채는5조억달러증가했다.당파적교착상태는최악으로치닫고있다.진정으로인상적인성취였던의료보험개혁은증오의주요원인으로변질되었다.사업가들은자본주의를싫어하는사람들과그저관심이없는사람들로나뉘었다.이슬람세계에대한미국의입장은조지W.부시집권때에비해더개선되지않았고,이란은여전히위험한국가로여기고있으며,러시아와중국은약속된재조정에도불구하고여전히민감한관계이며,관타나모(Guantanamo)의수용소는아직도운영되고있다.
지금까지는너무실망스럽다
오바마의방어적이력에대해서는한마디로요약하자면,더나빠질수있는상황을겨우막은정도라할수있다.전임대통령의집권아래일어난은행도산및재정낭비상황으로인해오바마대통령은집권하자마자추락하고있는경제를물려받은상황이었다.오바마의촉진적조치들과디트로이트자동차제조업자들구제조치로두번째공황은피할수있었다.전체적으로보자면,이미엉망이었던경제상황임을감안했을때그는제법잘한것이라고볼수있다.그는공화당의의회의사방해(obstructionist)에맞서면서모든일을잘처리했다.대외적으로는,그는미국의외교정책을재조정하는감각도있다.그리고오사마빈라덴(Osama bin Laden)을척결한개인의업적도있다.
그러나본신문(이코노미스트지-역주)이나미국인들이보기에는그의이러한업적만으로는이번의격렬한대통령선거에서재선되기에충분하지않다.미국유권자의60%이상은현재미국이잘못된방향으로가고있다고생각하고있다.오바마대통령의지지율은50%에미치지못한다.전체유권자의2/3에달하는사람들이(아무리상황이가혹했을지라도)그의경제정책을탐탁하지않게여기고있다.위대한개혁자는편협한조력자집단에둘러싸인채집권의어려움에지쳐가며점점더소심해지고있다.그가대통령후보자였을때미국의심각한문제들을해결하기위해대담한정책들을내세웠고그로인해대통령이되 지만,그는재정결손을줄이겠다는당초의선거공약을지키지못했다. 만약그가미트롬니보다더카리스마틱한후보자나덜과격한공화당사람들과대결한다면,오바마는이미성공을거둘수있을지도모른다.그러나,오바마대통령은이번선거에서이기기위해서오바마자신의성취보다는롬니의약점을이용하여너무서둘러가차없이"비방적선거전"을펼치고있다. 4년전만해도희망의전형을보여주었던그는여태껏두려움만불러일으킨선거유세로조만간샬롯전당대회에참석하게된다.
오마바가지금의유세보다더나은것을보여줘야하는데에는세가지이유가있다.첫째,비방적선거유세는실패할수있다.공화당은경직된지도자를둔이상한집단이지만롬니후보자의경영주및의원으로서의경력은인상적이며롬니의런닝메이트인폴라이언(Paul Ryan)은대담한아이디어가많은사람이다.공화당의모든입장에대해비난하는오바마의전략은많은유권자들에게품위없게보일것이다.
두번째,설사이러한비방적선거유세가통한다하더라도,오바마가재선에승리하기위해서는확실한아젠다가필요하다.그렇지않고서는하원을장악하고상원마저장악할수있는공화당이그를가만히두지않을것이다.그리고세번째,계획이필요한것은오바마뿐만아니다.미국역시계획이필요하다.미국의재정과정부는과감한점검이필요하다.진정카리스마넘치고사려깊은오바마가지금까지벌인일보다더나은정책적아이디어를가지고있을까?
시도해볼만한한가지방법은오바마의집권당을의료개혁및기업과부유층을대상으로하는높은세제위협에대한논의로자극하는것이다.그는정부의구조조정대신일자리를보장하겠다고약속함으로써공공부문연합의비위를맞출수있다.또한재정지원혜택프로그램삭감대신에미국정부가실질적으로노년층을보조할수있다고안심시킬수도있다.
이와같은공약은오바마의집권체제와지금까지의그의선거캠페인패턴에서보자면현실적이지못하며,더욱이미국에게위해가될뿐더러오바마자신에게도도움이되지못할것이다. 2008년오바마의승리는기존의민주당지지율을넘어서젊은유권자와부유한백인들의지지를얻었기때문이다.그들대부분은롬니에대해회의적인중도주의자들이지만,정부재정결손비용을그들이부담해야하기때문에별반다르지않은공략을내세운대통령에게투표하지않을것이다.
정치적구심점으로다가가기
오바마가정치적구심점으로접근하는것은쉽지않다.그의왼편의적들은강력하고,미국은지나치게양극화되었으며,중간지대마저위험할수있다.그러나세금과이민정책개혁,교육투자및고용창출을위한기업보조정책등과같이양측의정치집단이함께동의할수있는일은아직충분히많다.특히,여전히심각한부채를줄이기위한정책으로아무런도움이되지않을부유세추가세금징수정책말고오바마에게어떤다른해결책이있는지설명하는것이매우중요하다.
오바마는사화적정의에대한강한신념이있다.이러한 신념으로의료개혁을추진했었다.그러나약자를돕고자하는훌륭한욕망과개인부문을가로막는위험한공공부문의특혜의차이에대해그가구별할필요가있다.가난한미국인들에게필요한일자리는기업에의해창출된다.기업들을정부규제로압박하는것은가난한미국인들을돕는길이아니다.오바마는 이제 선거 공략을 그만 추가하고,오히려 정부 규제 조치와 같은 일부 공약들을 줄여야 한다.샬롯전당대회의추종자들은이러한중도주의자적생각을좋아하지않을것이다.그러나이러한접근법은오바마의재선을가능하게할수있으며,재선된후의오바마가의회에서공화당과의협의시에든든한힘이될것이다.
partisan:당파적인,편파적인 Apple v Samsung iPhone, uCopy, iSue Not every innovation deserves a patent. Not every copycat deserves a punishment
Sep 1st 2012 | from the print edition
WHEN Steve Jobs unveiled the iPhone in 2007, he changed an industry. Apple’s brilliant new device was a huge advance on the mobile phones that had gone before: it looked different and it worked better. The iPhone represented innovation at its finest, making it the top-selling smartphone soon after it came out and helping to turn Apple into the world’s most valuable company, with a market capitalisation that now exceeds $630 billion. Apple’s achievement spawned a raft of imitators. Many smartphone manufacturers now boast touch-screens and colourful icons. Among them is Samsung, the world’s biggest technology manufacturer, whose gadgets are the iPhone’s nearest rivals and closest lookalikes. The competition and the similarities were close enough for Apple to sue Samsung for patent infringement in several countries, spurring the South Korean firm to counterclaim that it had been ripped off by Apple as well. On August 24th an American jury found that Samsung had infringed six patents and ordered it to pay Apple more than $1 billion in damages, one of the steepest awards yet seen in a patent case (seearticle).
In this section
� Four more years? Reprints
Related topics
� Communications � Civil trials Some see thinly disguised protectionism in this decision. That does the jury a disservice: its members seem to have stuck to the job of working out whether patent infringements had occurred. The much bigger questions raised by this case are whether all Apple’s innovations should have been granted a patent in the first place; and the degree to which technology stalwarts and start-ups alike should be able to base their designs on the breakthroughs of others.
It is useful to recall why patents exist. The system was established as a trade-off that provides a public benefit: the state agrees to grant a limited monopoly to an inventor in return for disclosing how the technology works. To qualify, an innovation must be novel, useful and non-obvious, which earns the inventor 20 years of exclusivity. "Design patents", which cover appearances and are granted after a simpler review process, are valid for 14 years.
The dispute between Apple and Samsung is less over how the devices work and more over their look and feel. At issue are features like the ability to zoom into an image with a double finger tap, pinching gestures, and the visual "rubber band" effect when you scroll to the end of a page. The case even extends to whether the device and its on-screen icons are allowed to have rounded corners. To be sure, some of these things were terrific improvements over what existed before the iPhone’s arrival, but to award a monopoly right to finger gestures and rounded rectangles is to stretch the definition of "novel" and "non-obvious" to breaking-point. A proliferation of patents harms the public in three ways. First, it means that technology companies will compete more at the courtroom than in the marketplace—precisely what seems to be happening. Second, it hampers follow-on improvements by firms that implement an existing technology but build upon it as well. Third, it fuels many of the American patent system’s broader problems, such as patent trolls (speculative lawsuits by patent-holders who have no intention of actually making anything); defensive patenting (acquiring patents mainly to pre-empt the risk of litigation, which raises business costs); and "innovation gridlock" (the difficulty of combining multiple technologies to create a single new product because too many small patents are spread among too many players). Some basic reforms would alleviate many of the problems exemplified by the iPhone lawsuit. The existing criteriafor a patent should be applied with greater vigour. Specialised courts for patent disputes should be established, with technically minded judges in charge: the inflated patent-damage awards of recent years are largely the result of jury trials. And if patents are infringed, judges should favour monetary penalties over injunctions that ban the sale of offending products and thereby reduce consumer choice.
Pinch and bloom
A world of fewer but more robust patents, combined with a more efficient method of settling disputes, would not just serve the interests of the public but also help innovators like Apple. The company is rumoured to be considering an iPad with a smaller screen, a format which Samsung already sells. What if its plans were blocked by a specious patent? Apple’s own early successes were founded on enhancing the best technologies that it saw, notably the graphical interface and mouse that were first invented at Xerox’s Palo Alto Research Centre. "It comes down to trying to expose yourself to the best things that humans have done—and then try to bring those things in to what you’re doing," said Jobs in a television documentary, "Triumph of the Nerds", in 1996. "And we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas."
애플대삼성
모든혁신이특허받아야하는것은아니다.모든모방범이처벌받아야만하는것도아니다. 2007년에스티브잡스가아이폰을공개하면서산업은달라졌다.애플의이천재적인새로운기기는기존휴대전화기에서엄청난발전을이룩한것이었다.이기기는모양도달랐고훨씬뛰어나게작동했다.아이폰은최상의혁신을대표했고출시되자마자최고판매를기록하는스마트폰이되었으며애플을시가총액6,300억달러를상회하는세계에서가장가치있는기업으로만드는데기여하였다. 애플의이러한성공은다수의모방자들을양산했다.많은스마트폰제조사들이이제는터치스크린과색감이풍부한아이콘들을자랑한다.세계에서가장큰기술제조사들중하나인삼성역시이같은스마트폰제조업체중하나다.삼성과의경쟁이치열해지고제품의유사성이심화됨에따라애플은몇몇국가에서삼성을특허침해로고소했고이에삼성도자신역시애플에게특허를도난당했다고맞고소를하였다.지난8월24일,미국법원의배심원단은삼성이애플의특허가운데6건을침해했다고밝히면서삼성에게10억달러이상의손해배상금을지급해야한다고평결을내렸다.이는지금까지있었던특허소송가운데가장큰규모의배상금이다.
이를판단하기위해서는왜특허가존재하는지돌이켜보는것이좋을것이다.특허제도는공공의이익을가져다주는절충안(trade-off,트레이드오프)로서고안된것이다.즉,국가가개발된기술이어떻게작동하는지공개하는보상차원에서발명자에게제한된독점권을제공하도록동의한것이다.특허로인정받으려면혁신적기술은신규성(novel),유용성(useful),비자명성(non-obvious)의조건을만족해야하며,이로써발명가는20년동안해당특허를독점할수있다.외관과관련한“디자인특허”는기술특허에비해간단한심사과정을거쳐14년동안그권리가유지된다.
특허의확산은세가지측면에서대중들에게해를끼칠수있다.첫째,기술기업들이시장보다법정에서더많이경쟁할수있다는것을시사하며,현재이런일들이일어나고있다.둘째,현존하는기술을구현하는것뿐아니라이를기반으로기업들의후속적인혁신을저해하게된다.셋째,이것으로미국식특허시스템의광범위한문제를더욱악화시키게된다.이러한예로는특히특허괴물(patent trolls,실제제품을만들의향이전혀없고투기적소송을통해수익을내려는특허소유권자),방어적특허신청(주로소송의위험을미리예방하기위해특허를얻는것으로기업체에많은비용부담을일으킴),그리고“혁신정체(innovation gridlock)”(너무나많은소규모특허들이수많은참여자들사이에서확산되었기때문에새로운제품을창조하기위해다수의기술을조합하는것이어려워지는현상)이있다.
가지치기와꽃키우기
patent:특허권 trade-off: (서로대립되는요소사이의)균형.어느것을얻으려면반드시다른것을희생하여야하는경제관계. Not every innovation deserves a patent. Not every copycat deserves a punishment 모든기술 혁신이 특허를 받아야 할 가치가 있는것도 아니고, 모든 모방이 처벌을 받아야 하는 것도 아니다. Sep 1st 2012 | from the print edition 스티브 잡스가 2007년 iPhone을 처음 공개했을때, 그는 산업계를 변화시켰다. 애플의 훌륭한 신제품은 기존 이동전화의 거대한 진보를 이룩한 것이었다. 신제품은 달라 보였고 훨씬 잘 다루어졌다. iPhone은 최고의 혁신을 나타내었고, 출시되자마자 최고판매 스마트 폰을 기록했고, 지금 6천300억달러를 초과하는 시장 자본 총액과 함께 애플을 세계의 가장 비싼 기업으로 탈바꿈시켰다.
애플의 업적은 많은 모방자들을 낳았다. 지금 많은 스마트폰 제조업체들은 터치-스크린과 다채로운 아이콘을 자랑한다. 세계의 가장 큰 기술 제조업체인 삼성이 그들 중 하나로, 삼성 제품들은 iPhone의 가장 가까운 경쟁 제품이고 모양도 아주 딱 맞게 흡사하다. 이런 경쟁과 유사성은 애플이 삼성을 여러 나라에서 특허 침해로 소송을 제기할 만 했고, 삼성 또한 애플의 특허 침해로 맞고소했다. 8월 24일 미국 배심원은 삼성이 6개의 특허를 침해했다고 평결했으며, 삼성이 애플에게 10억 달러 이상을 손해 배상 하라고 명령했고, 이는 지금까지 특허 소송 중 가장 많은 것으로 보인다. Some see thinly disguised protectionism in this decision. That does the jury a disservice: its members seem to have stuck to the job of working out whether patent infringements had occurred. The much bigger questions raised by this case are whether all Apple’s innovations should have been granted a patent in the first place; and the degree to which technology stalwarts and start-ups alike should be able to base their designs on the breakthroughs of others.
It is useful to recall why patents exist. The system was established as a trade-off that provides a public benefit: the state agrees to grant a limited monopoly to an inventor in return for disclosing how the technology works. To qualify, an innovation must be novel, useful and non-obvious, which earns the inventor 20 years of exclusivity. "Design patents", which cover appearances and are granted after a simpler review process, are valid for 14 years.
The dispute between Apple and Samsung is less over how the devices work and more over their look and feel. At issue are features like the ability to zoom into an image with a double finger tap, pinching gestures, and the visual "rubber band"effect when you scroll to the end of a page. The case even extends to whether the device and its on-screen icons are allowed to have rounded corners. To be sure, some of these things were terrific improvements over what existed before the iPhone’s arrival, but to award a monopoly right to finger gestures and rounded rectangles is to stretch the definition of "novel" and "non-obvious" to breaking-point.
애플과 삼성의 분쟁은 제품이 어떻게 작동하는가에 관한 것이라기 보다는 오히려 모양과 감촉에 관한 것이다. 쟁점은 손가락 두개로 (화면을)미는 제스쳐로 확대/축소할 수 있는 특징들이고, 페이지 끝까지 화면이 이동 할때 눈에 보이는 '고무밴드' 효과에 관한 것이다. 이 소송 사건은 심지어 이 제품과 제품위의 스크린 아이콘이 모서리가 둥글다는 것을 허락할지에 대한것까지 이른다. 확실히 이런 기술 혁신들 중 몇 개는 iPhone출시 이전에 존재했던 것에 비해 대단한 발전들이지만, 손가락 제스쳐와 모서리가 둥근 직사각형에 독점권을 수여한다는 것은 '참신하고 눈에 거슬리지 않아야 한다.'는 정의의 한계점이 확대 해석될 가능성이 있다.
A proliferation of patents harms the public in three ways. First, it means that technology companies will compete more at the courtroom than in the marketplace—precisely what seems to be happening. Second, it hampers follow-on improvements by firms that implement an existing technology but build upon it as well. Third, it fuels many of the American patent system’s broader problems, such as patent trolls (speculative lawsuits by patent-holders who have no intention of actually making anything); defensive patenting (acquiring patents mainly to pre-empt the risk of litigation, which raises business costs); and "innovation gridlock"(the difficulty of combining multiple technologies to create a single new product because too many small patents are spread among too many players).
Some basic reforms would alleviate many of the problems exemplified by the iPhone lawsuit. The existing criteria for a patent should be applied with greater vigour. Specialised courts for patent disputes should be established, with technically minded judges in charge: the inflated patent-damage awards of recent years are largely the result of jury trials. And if patents are infringed, judges should favour monetary penalties over injunctions that ban the sale of offending products and thereby reduce consumer choice.
어떤 기초적인 (기술)혁신은 iPhone 소송으로 선례가 되어 많은 문제들을 해결해 줄 것이다. 특허를 위한 기존의 기준은 더 큰 유효성이 가해져야 한다. 기술적 지식을 가진 판사들의 지휘하에 특허분쟁을 위한 특별 법정이 설립되어야 한다. 최근의 부풀려진 특허 배상은 주로 배심원 심리 결과이다. 그리고 특허가 침해되었다면, 재판관들은 제품판매를 못하게 해서 소비자의 선택을 감소 시키는 이행명령 보다는 재정적인 패널티를 선호해야 한다.
Pinch and bloom위기와 전성기
A world of fewer but more robust patents, combined with a more efficient method of settling disputes, would not just serve the interests of the public but also help innovators like Apple. The company is rumoured to be considering an iPad with a smaller screen, a format which Samsung already sells. What if its plans were blocked by a specious patent? Apple’s own early successes were founded on enhancing the best technologies that it saw, notably the graphical interface and mouse that were first invented at Xerox’s Palo Alto Research Centre. "It comes down to trying to expose yourself to the best things that humans have done—and then try to bring those things in to what you’re doing," said Jobs in a television documentary, "Triumph of the Nerds", in 1996. "And we have always been shameless about stealing great ideas."
해외 관광여행 YANG RONGLIN, a teacher, usually spends his summer holidays in China. This year Mr Yang, who is 50, decided to venture abroad for the first time, booking a two-week coach tour of America. Mr Yang joins a multitude of Chinese tourists venturing overseas. Inthe first half of this year 38m Chinese took international trips, 18% more than in the same period last year. In 2011 they spent $73 billion while travelling abroad, third only to Germans and Americans.
양롱린은 교사로 중국 안에서 대개 자신의 여름휴가를 보낸다.올해 양 교사는,나이가50세인데,처음으로 과감하게 해외로 나가기로 결정하고2주간의 미국 단체버스여행을 예약하였다.양 교사는 과감히 해외로 나가는 수많은 중국 여행객들에 합류하였다.올해 상반기에3천8백만 명의 중국인들이 해외여행을 하였는데 이(수치)는 작년 같은 기간과 비교할 때18%증가한 것이다. 2011년에 중국인들은 해외여행을 하면서7백30억 달러를 소비하였는데 이(액수)는 독일인과 미국인 다음으로 세 번째에 해당한다.
Holidaying abroad is a recent luxury. Not until the early 1990s did the government approve foreign countries as holiday destinations, and a passport was hard for ordinary people to obtain. Now applying for a passport is easier and 140 countries are on the approved list. 해외에서 휴가를 보내는 것은 최근의 호사에 해당한다. 1990년대 초가 되어서야 중국정부는 휴가 행선지로 외국을 승인하였으며, (그 이전에는)평범한 사람들이 여권을 가지는 것이 힘들었다.현재는 여권을 신청하는 것이 이전보다 더 쉬워졌으며140개국이(여권이)승인된 목록에 들어있다.
중국 관광객들을 유혹하기 위한 경쟁이 점점 더 치열해지고 있다 라고Tourism Australia의 전무이사로 있는 앤드류 맥이보이씨는 말한다.중국인들에게 경쟁력있는 것을 제공하기 위하여 오스트레일리아의 호텔들은 중국TV채널 서비스를 도입하였으며 아침 메뉴에 콘지를 도입 |
| 
|
