2016年12月30日
By 1月时特约编辑
专题文章

诺基亚和苹果的诉讼对流媒体行业意味着什么

On December 21, 2016, Nokia sued Apple for infringing eight patents related to H.264编码与解码. 根据诉状的条款，该诉状清楚地表明，苹果使用H.264 is generic, and that similar infringement claims could be made against any products with an H.264编码器或解码器没有许可与诺基亚. 尽管快速浏览一下之前的案例会发现风险很小, a more reasoned analysis leads to the conclusion that the costs to Apple, 其他人则使用H.264，可能非常重要.

By way of background, this suit is only one in a flurry between the parties. 根据诺基亚的新闻发布会, 在11个国家的行动中, 现在有40项专利在诉讼中, 哪些涵盖了显示等技术, 用户界面, 软件, 天线, 芯片组, 视频编码.“就它而言，苹果起诉诺基亚以及反垄断相关方, essentially alleging that Nokia is attempting to extract excessive fees from Apple. 显然是H.264相关诉讼对流媒体行业来说最为紧迫.

合理和非歧视的义务

在制定标准时，国际电联等标准机构要求所有贡献者同意免费使用该技术, 或以合理和非歧视(RAND)的条款和条件, which prevents any single contributor from blocking commercialization by demanding too high a price, 或针对竞争对手或其他方的不公平条款. If a contributor refuses to agree with either the royalty-free or RAND alternative, 它的技术不会包括在标准中.

In the complaint, Nokia declared that it had agreed to license on RAND terms. 如果法院认定诺基亚的专利是有效的, 苹果确实侵犯了, 其中一个关键问题是这些专利的RAND价值. 法院无疑会参考的一个案例是微软诉微软. Motorola, decided in 2013, where Microsoft alleged that Motorola breached its RAND obligations.

在那个案件中，摩托罗拉声称微软侵犯了3h.264-related patents and demanded RAND compensation, which they asserted equaled 2.Windows销售额的25%, 运行Windows操作系统的pc, Xbox, 以及其他产品, 总计超过40亿美元. 在事实的发现上, 法院在设定兰德公司版税费率时解释了这一点, 法院考虑专利对标准的价值, 以及标准对产品的价值. 这意味着每个RAND决定都是独立的.

在摩托罗拉案例中, 法院考虑了摩托罗拉签订的其他许可协议, 但也有类似的东西，比如0美元.20/unit royalty charged by MPEG LA for a pool that represents thousands of worldwide patents from 38 different companies. 法院将H.264 FRAND速率 at 0.每件555美分(合0.55美元).00555)，折合成美元约合74万美元.每年264版税. 请注意，报告的总奖励为1美元.每年800万美元，但其中约60%用于 802.本案还涉及11项专利 (见第207页). To add insult to injury, the court ruled that Motorola did breach its RAND obligations and 微软获赔14美元.500万美元的赔偿金. Correctly or incorrectly, this finding created the impression that the costs associated with H.264 patents not in the MPEG LA pool, such as the Nokia patents, would be very low.

摩托罗拉不受约束

我采访了David Long，他是一名执业专利律师，也是the 专利博客关于这个印象, and how much the facts of the Motorola case control the potential awards in this case. He responded that since all RAND calculations are unique the Motorola case “would not be binding as a data point. 虽然法院肯定会考虑MPEG LA特许权使用费, it would likely place a higher priority on actual licensing deals between Nokia and other independent third parties.”

这是因为在之前的案例中, plaintiffs have argued that royalties offered by patent pools are often poor benchmarks for the actual essential value of the patent. 在一篇名为分摊、专利使用费和类似许可. 友讯科技，作家J. Gregory Sidak解释了原因. (请注意，FRAND代表公平, 合理的, 和非歧视性的, 通常与RAND交替使用).

“第一, the royalties from a patent pool may provide an inadequate benchmark to calculate a FRAND royalty if the pool’s participants have a business model that significantly differs from the SEP holder’s business model. 例如, companies that are active in the downstream market might prefer to recover their investment in research and development through the services offered on a standard-compliant product, 比如智能手机上提供的视频点播应用, 而不是通过许可费...Patent pools are also not useful benchmarks for determining a FRAND royalty because they often reward contributors on the basis of the number of contributed patents, 而不是专利的相对价值.”

出于这些原因, Long expects Nokia to argue that actual commercial licensing arrangements with third parties are more relevant than MPEG LA rates. I sent an email to Nokia asking for financial details about these other agreements, 哪些是投诉中没有提供的, 但没有收到回复. If the case goes to trial expect these details to become absolutely central to Nokia’s award claims.

诺基亚的皱纹

除了诺基亚不受摩托罗拉案中设定的费率约束之外, 诺基亚还声称，因为H.264 standard defines a decoder and not an encoder RAND licensing limitations don’t apply to the encoding-related patents. 以下是诺基亚投诉的一个片段.

“H.264 Recommendation specifies the implementation of decoders and specifically defines the 'decoding process' as '[t]he process specified in this Recommendation | International Standard that reads a bitstream and derives decoded pictures from it.但是，它没有具体说明编码器的实现. 事实上, it specifically defines 'encoder' as 'an embodiment of an encoding process,，然后将“编码过程”定义为“一个过程”, 本建议书|国际标准中未规定的, that produces a bitstream conforming to this Recommendation | International Standard.' Id. 在6(强调添加)). As a result, since encoder implementations are not specified under the H.264标准, claims covering such encoders are not essential under the Common Patent Policy, and thus any such claims are not subject to a RAND commitment under that Policy.”

This distinction doesn’t appear to have been raised in the Motorola case which did involve encoding-related patents. 我向朗询问了诺基亚的与众不同之处, and he explained that RAND applies when a court finds patents “essential to the standard.“对诺基亚有利的是，H.264规范确实定义了解码过程，如上所述. 反驳这种说法的一个简单事实是，H.264 decoders would serve no essential purpose without encoded streams to decode. 不管怎样，这都是法院的事实认定.

Long确实指出，在通用(例如. 非rand)专利法, 所有版税必须合理, 但如果编码相关的专利不受兰德公司的限制, 诺基亚可以歧视苹果，提高价格, 也许是因为诺基亚计划重新进入智能手机市场苹果在哪些领域是主要竞争对手. This all could prove irrelevant if Nokia simply tries to recover the same rates paid by other parties, but could be used to claim a higher royalty if the court agrees that encoder-related patents are not limited by RAND restrictions.

Summary

那么这给我们带来了什么呢? 基本上, at the starting point of a long patent suit that could redefine how standard-based codecs are licensed, 并大幅增加H的成本.264 decoders and especially encoders included in hardware and 软件 products. 在MPEG LA发布第一个H.264 .相关价格表，预期成本H.264许可可能会被彻底修改. 因为诺基亚的部分或全部专利可能也适用于HEVC, 这里的许可成本也可能受到影响. 让我们希望不要花11年的时间来找到答案.

We’ll learn a lot from Apple’s response, which should take about a month or so.

Note: The author thanks David Long and Florian Mueller from the FOSS Patents website for sharing their perspectives on these issues.