科技公司該不該捍衛知識產權

Not every Silicon Valley company with rich intellectual property bothers to defend it. Altruistic, perhaps, but it is also a recipe for an activist attack. Unprotected IP is money on the table.

並非每家擁有豐富的知識產權的硅谷公司都會費神去捍衛它。大公無私？或許吧。但這麼做也會招來維權股東的攻擊。不受保護的知識產權就像擺在桌面上的錢。

Qualcomm, the mobile chipmaker, faced activist questions last year. Jana Partners argued that the company should consider spinning off its higher-margin licensing division. But the Jana idea, which was ultimately rejected, only came about because Qualcomm is already assertive, supplying the fruits of its research and development to other companies, and demanding fat royalties in return. Oracle, which last week lost a court battle with Google, also took an aggressive tack, accusing the search giant of violating its copyright to develop the Android operating system. Oracle’s defeat was applauded by software geeks prizing openness. But Oracle’s shareholders could have been $9bn better off.

移動芯片製造商高通(Qualcomm)去年就面臨了維權股東的質詢。大股東Jana Partners認爲高通應考慮剝離其利潤率較高的專利授權業務部門。但Jana提出這個主張（最終被否決了）只是因爲高通已經相當咄咄逼人：向其他公司提供自己的研發成果，收取高額專利費用作爲交換。上週打官司剛輸給谷歌(Google)的甲骨文公司(Oracle)也採取了激進手段，指控搜索巨擘谷歌在開發安卓(Android)操作系統時侵犯其專利。甲骨文的敗訴令看重開放性的軟件愛好者們鼓掌稱快。但甲骨文的股東們原來有望進賬90億美元。

Google itself is not known for its proactivity. It has sued only twice over patents — BT in 2013 and SimpleAir this week — but both were retaliatory. By contrast, since 2010 Microsoft has sued 13 times over patents and brought 191 copyright cases, according to data from Lex Machina. Google can point to its relative youth, but Intel also stays clear of courts and licensing despite being almost half a century old.

谷歌自身並不以積極主動著稱。它只發起過兩次專利侵權起訴——2013年起訴英國電信(BT)和本週起訴SimpleAir，但這兩次都屬報復行爲。相比之下，來自Lex Machina的數據顯示，微軟(Microsoft)自2010年以來提起了13宗專利訴訟和191宗版權訴訟。谷歌可以說是因爲相對年輕，但有半個世紀歷史的英特爾(Intel)也選擇遠離官司和專利糾紛。

There may be good reasons for inaction, beyond friendliness or indolence. Companies can be reluctant to sue their own customers, for example. But spinning off intellectual property into a separate company can work in some instances. The entities so created would be freer to monetise the technology — licensing it and suing infringers. As tech companies mature, they need to profit from their earlier innovation. Nortel Networks spun off its patents into a new vehicle; unfortunately only after it entered bankruptcy. AOL, under fire from activists, sold a patent portfolio to Microsoft in 2012. Less challenged companies might be forced to look at similar structures in future.

除了友好和懶惰，不採取行動也有很好的理由，例如，有的公司可能不願意起訴自己的客戶。但剝離知識產權成立一家單獨的公司，在某些情況下可能利大於弊。爲此設立的公司可以更自由地將技術商業化——通過專利授權或起訴侵權者。隨着科技公司逐漸成熟，他們需要從自己早期的創新中獲利。北電網絡(Nortel Networks)曾剝離其專利業務構成新的公司，不幸的是在其進入破產程序後才這麼做。美國在線(AOL)在維權股東的攻擊下，在2012年將其專利組合賣給了微軟。未來，那些面對的挑戰沒那麼嚴峻的企業也可能被迫求助於類似結構。