????4月3日早上，七大公司組成的團體聯(lián)合以一種大張旗鼓的方式傳達了一些人認為不言自明的觀點，基本意思無外乎是說：：專利是個好東西。

????這個團體自稱“美國創(chuàng)新聯(lián)盟”（Partnership for American Innovation）。它的成員覺得，目前美國媒體、國會及法院對專利體系抱有一種過分夸大的負面看法和敵意，因此它希望能遏制這個趨勢。

????這個聯(lián)盟的成員有蘋果公司（Apple）、杜邦公司（DuPont）、福特公司（Ford）、通用電氣公司（General Electric）、IBM公司、微軟公司（Microsoft）和輝瑞公司（Pfizer）。它的“資深顧問”是戴夫?卡波斯，他曾任美國專利商標局（U.S. Patent and Trademark Office）主管，現(xiàn)在是科瓦斯?斯懷恩?摩爾國際律師事務(wù)所（Cravath, Swaine & Moore）的合伙人。據(jù)這個聯(lián)盟的發(fā)言人稱，他們這個組織希望今后有更多成員加盟。

????卡波斯在新聞稿中說：“我們必須拋開那種所謂‘專利體系已經(jīng)分崩離析，專利流氓正讓專利業(yè)務(wù)徹底終結(jié)’的說法，轉(zhuǎn)而探討如何逐步優(yōu)化我們這個全球最好的專利體系?！?/p>

????聯(lián)盟的表態(tài)樸素得令人吃驚，它對目前正在國會懸而未決的專利改革法案或美國高等法院有待判決的專利案件既未支持也沒反對。聯(lián)盟成員只是對以下三大基本原則表示支持：

????? “（1）強有力的專利體系保護所有技術(shù)領(lǐng)域的高質(zhì)量創(chuàng)新成果，極大地促進了美國經(jīng)濟的發(fā)展；

????? （2）知識產(chǎn)權(quán)受到參與經(jīng)濟活動的各方充分尊重對于全球經(jīng)濟來說至關(guān)重要；并且

????? （3）美國專利商標局必須獲得有效資助，以便及時有效地處理各類專利申請并只為高質(zhì)量專利簽發(fā)許可。”

????盡管這個組織的成立并沒有和什么熱門議題掛鉤，但意味深長的是，在愛麗斯公司訴CLS國際銀行（Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International）這起熱門官司的口頭辯論結(jié)束后短短三天，它就宣告組建了。而這起官司是美國高等法院受理的案件，向各界提出了一個重大問題，也就是，軟件這類由電腦完成的發(fā)明是否能夠獲得專利。

????我在對卡波斯的采訪中所能獲得的最明確的信息是，這個組織的全體成員都明確表示，軟件一定是可以申請專利的。

????他頗為激動地反問道：“現(xiàn)在的汽車怎樣做到自動平行泊車的？是靠傳感器嗎？還是靠攝像頭？都不是。這些東西早就有了。只有軟件才能讓汽車做到這一點?！?/p>

????接著他繼續(xù)說“在聯(lián)盟成員看來，杰出的創(chuàng)新成果就應(yīng)該受到保護。這沒什么可多說的。軟件、驅(qū)動程序、生物科技、物理科學(xué)、藥品：杰出的創(chuàng)新就是杰出的創(chuàng)新，它們需要獲得巨額的獎勵和妥善的保護。”

????但在愛麗斯公司一案中，一群年輕的硅谷企業(yè)，包括領(lǐng)英公司（LinkedIn）、奈飛公司（Netflix）、Rackspace公司、Trulia公司和Twitter公司卻都向最高法院極力主張稱“軟件專利權(quán)與專利體系的法律目的不符”。這些公司在他們由斯坦福大學(xué)法學(xué)院（Stanford Law School）知識產(chǎn)權(quán)學(xué)者馬克?萊姆利起草的簡要聲明中堅稱：“我們之所以推出創(chuàng)新的軟件，是因為我們希望取悅客戶，而不是因為專利體系的存在……哪怕沒有軟件專利，我們照樣會開展創(chuàng)新，專利不是我們創(chuàng)新的原因?！?/p>

????目前成立的這個聯(lián)盟可能正反映了幾大巨頭的一種失望情緒，這種情緒在IBM公司針對CLS銀行一案的非當(dāng)事人意見陳述中表現(xiàn)得淋漓盡致。這份陳述一開始就大聲疾呼道：“軟件并不是什么新技術(shù)。半個多世紀以來，各類軟件一直層出不窮。在此期間，軟件已成為創(chuàng)新和技術(shù)進步的基石之一，也是美國經(jīng)濟的重要組成部分。從汽車制造到藥物研發(fā)，無論哪個產(chǎn)業(yè)領(lǐng)域，軟件都是創(chuàng)新的重要手段。而當(dāng)前——2014年——高等法院居然還要重審軟件這類由電腦協(xié)助完成的創(chuàng)新是否應(yīng)獲得專利保護這個基本問題，實在令業(yè)界深感困擾?！薄綢BM律師團的領(lǐng)銜律師是班克羅夫特（Bancroft）律所的保羅?克萊門特?！浚ㄘ敻恢形木W(wǎng)）

????譯者：清遠

????

????In a gesture that is most remarkable for the fact that someone thought it necessary at all, a diverse group of seven major corporations joined forces this morning to say little more than, basically: Patents are good.

????The group, which calls itself the Partnership for American Innovation, hopes to stem what their members see as overblown negativity and hostility toward the patent system in the media, Congress, and the courts.

????The group's charter members are Apple (AAPL), DuPont (DD), Ford (F), General Electric (GE), IBM (IBM), Microsoft (MSFT), and Pfizer (PFE), and its "senior advisor" is Dave Kappos, the former director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, who is now a partner with the law firm of Cravath, Swaine & Moore. The group expects additional members to be enlisting in the days ahead, according to a spokesperson.

????"We must move beyond rhetoric that 'the system is broken and trolls are bringing businesses to a complete halt,'" Kappos says in a press release, "to a discussion of calibrated improvements for what is actually the best patent system our planet has."

????The group's message is astoundingly basic, and not tied to support for, or opposition to, any particular patent reform bill now pending in Congress or to any one issue now being weighed by the U.S. Supreme Court. The group's members merely endorse three broad principles:

????? "(1) The American economy is best served by a strong patent system that protects high-quality innovation in all fields of technology;

????? (2) It is critical to our global economy that IP is respected by all participants in the system; and

????? (3) The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office must be properly funded to efficiently and effectively process patent applications and issue only high-quality patents."

????Though the formation of the group is tied to no topical hook, it does arrive tellingly just three days after oral argument in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, a U.S. Supreme Court case that poses the fundamental question of whether computer-implemented inventions like software are patentable at all.

????In an interview with Kappos, the most specific information I could wheedle out of him was that the new group's members all apparently agree that software is certainly patentable.

????"How is it cars can parallel park themselves today?" he asks, rhetorically. "Is it the sensors? Is it the cameras? No. Those existed before. It's the software."

????"In the view of the partnership," he continues, "great innovation should be protected. Full stop. Software; firmware; biotech-related; physical sciences; pharmaceuticals: Great innovation is great innovation, and needs to be strongly incentivized and protected."

????In contrast, in the Alice case, a number of younger Silicon Valley companies, including LinkedIn (LNKD), Netflix (NFLX), Rackspace (RAX), Trulia (TRLA), and Twitter (TWTR), urged the Court that "software patents do not serve the Constitutional purpose of the patent system." In their brief, authored by Stanford Law School intellectual property scholar Mark Lemley, the companies argued: "We create innovative software because of our desire to delight our customers and despite, not because of the patent system ... Innovation happens despite software patents, not because of them."

????Today's formation of the Partnership, then, may reflect a frustration comparable to that expressed in IBM's amicus brief in the CLS Bank case, which began with this cri de coeur: "Software is not a new technology. It has been around in various forms for well over half a century. During that time it has become one of the fundamental building blocks of innovation and technological advancement, and a critical part of our nation's economy. Software is the medium for innovation in every field, from automobile manufacturing to medicine. The fact that the Court is now -- in 2014 -- actively considering such a basic question as whether computer-implemented inventions such as software are even eligible for patent protection is deeply troubling." (IBM's attorneys were led by Paul Clement of the Bancroft law firm.)