特朗普提出5G計(jì)劃,彼得·泰爾獲益最大
美國(guó)的無(wú)線互聯(lián)網(wǎng)接入的前景未明——不過(guò)局勢(shì)很快就會(huì)塵埃落定。隨著特朗普上個(gè)月在競(jìng)選連任活動(dòng)上宣布了對(duì)于一家政府控制的5G網(wǎng)絡(luò)公司的支持,爭(zhēng)論變得更加激烈。 正如5G理念的推廣者所樣,開放、標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化的無(wú)線網(wǎng)絡(luò)接入有許多優(yōu)勢(shì)。不過(guò)也存在一個(gè)大問(wèn)題:該計(jì)劃會(huì)給特朗普當(dāng)局選擇的公司帶來(lái)巨額收入,原因可能出人意料——專利費(fèi)。 特朗普在競(jìng)選中的提議本質(zhì)上就是分配一段無(wú)線頻譜,也就是手機(jī)和其他無(wú)線設(shè)備通信的無(wú)線電頻率,供5G網(wǎng)絡(luò)設(shè)備開放接入。這些設(shè)備需要遵循一系列決定何時(shí)通訊的協(xié)同規(guī)則,以免彼此干擾——就像人們?cè)趽頂D的晚宴上聊天一樣。這種協(xié)同技術(shù)是Rivada Networks的業(yè)務(wù)核心。該公司由彼得·泰爾投資,是開放接入5G計(jì)劃的公開支持者。 開放接入5G是否是個(gè)明智的構(gòu)想,這點(diǎn)存在爭(zhēng)議。的確,我的同事吉姆·貝克就撰文提出了一些關(guān)鍵的國(guó)家安全和實(shí)施問(wèn)題。不過(guò)Rivada這樣的公司不僅有構(gòu)想,它們還有與之對(duì)應(yīng)的專利。 Rivada在“動(dòng)態(tài)頻譜仲裁”(dynamic spectrum arbitrage)這項(xiàng)5G開放接入所需的協(xié)同技術(shù)上擁有至少40項(xiàng)全球?qū)@?。公司表示其“全面的”專利“全方位”涵蓋了“動(dòng)態(tài)無(wú)線網(wǎng)絡(luò)共享”。這些專利讓Rivada有了政府支持的獨(dú)到優(yōu)勢(shì),可以向任何使用公司開放接入技術(shù)的用戶收費(fèi),或阻止他們使用,還可以起訴那些拒絕付費(fèi)的用戶。 一方面,Rivada持有的這類技術(shù)在市場(chǎng)上取得了成功,讓公司通過(guò)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)獲取了專利回報(bào)。不過(guò),通過(guò)游說(shuō)特朗普當(dāng)局將其作為國(guó)家標(biāo)準(zhǔn),Rivada將會(huì)獲益更多。每部手機(jī)、平板電腦或其他無(wú)線設(shè)備都會(huì)被要求按照規(guī)定遵守開放接入標(biāo)準(zhǔn),也就是使用Rivada的專利。如此一來(lái),這家公司就能從規(guī)模高達(dá)3.9萬(wàn)億美元的移動(dòng)技術(shù)和服務(wù)市場(chǎng)中獲取幾乎每一家公司的專利費(fèi)用。更糟的是,它還能通過(guò)戰(zhàn)略性的專利訴訟來(lái)選擇市場(chǎng)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的勝者和敗者。 一家扮演5G守門人角色的專利所有者無(wú)益于競(jìng)爭(zhēng)市場(chǎng)或創(chuàng)新市場(chǎng),盡管那些必須贊美守門人的公司之間存在著表面的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)。聯(lián)邦貿(mào)易委員會(huì)(Federal Trade Commission)對(duì)高通(Qualcomm)的訴訟和近來(lái)國(guó)際貿(mào)易委員會(huì)(International Trade Commission)發(fā)布的決定已經(jīng)證明由壟斷性專利許可方主導(dǎo)的技術(shù)市場(chǎng)既低效又錯(cuò)綜復(fù)雜。而這些爭(zhēng)端涉及的只是自行研制的私有標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。很容易想到,一項(xiàng)由聯(lián)邦強(qiáng)制執(zhí)行的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)會(huì)在經(jīng)濟(jì)上造成更加嚴(yán)重的影響。 我們幾乎沒(méi)有理由相信政府可以在強(qiáng)制推行全國(guó)統(tǒng)一的5G標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的同時(shí)避免陷入專利泥潭。特哈斯·納雷查尼亞在2015年的一篇論文中詳細(xì)闡述了政府在公共衛(wèi)生或安全領(lǐng)域的目標(biāo)與專利之間多次發(fā)生沖突的情況。專利勝出的次數(shù)遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)多于政府。 Rivada這樣的公司像專利的操偶師一般控制著5G標(biāo)準(zhǔn),凸顯了一個(gè)籠罩在美國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)之上的更大隱患。過(guò)去幾十年里,專利所有者通過(guò)游說(shuō)國(guó)會(huì)、法院、白宮,成功提高了專利的勢(shì)力與強(qiáng)度。申請(qǐng)和使用專利變得更加簡(jiǎn)單,專利在訴訟中也更具價(jià)值。 對(duì)于在車庫(kù)實(shí)驗(yàn)室中需要法律幫助的弱小創(chuàng)新者而言,強(qiáng)大的專利權(quán)可能很有誘惑力。但現(xiàn)在的創(chuàng)新已不復(fù)重前。如今,專利是與核心技術(shù)、廣泛行業(yè)和政府規(guī)定交織在一起的復(fù)雜工具。在這樣的新環(huán)境下,看似無(wú)傷大雅的政策理念,例如開放無(wú)線網(wǎng)絡(luò)接入,可能會(huì)因?yàn)閷?duì)反競(jìng)爭(zhēng)專利的威脅而引發(fā)巨大影響。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)) 作者查爾斯·杜安是位于華盛頓特區(qū)的非營(yíng)利、無(wú)黨派智庫(kù)R Street Institute的技術(shù)與創(chuàng)新政策主管。 譯者:嚴(yán)匡正 |
The future of wireless Internet access in America is unclear—but it will be decided soon. The debate grew more serious last month, when the Trump re-election campaign announced its support for a government-controlled 5G network. There are many things to like about the idea of open, standardized access to the wireless airwaves, as promoters of the idea have argued. But there’s also a major problem: The plan would be a massive payout to a company hand-selected by the Trump administration, for a perhaps unexpected reason—patents. The Trump campaign proposal would essentially allocate a range of wireless spectrum, the radio frequencies by which mobile phones and all other wireless devices communicate, for open access to fifth-generation (5G) network devices. Those devices would need to follow a set of coordination rules for determining when to communicate, lest they end up interfering with each other—like people who talk over each other at a crowded dinner party. That coordination technology is at the heart of the business of Rivada Networks, the Peter Thiel-backed company that has been an outspoken supporter of the open-access 5G plan. There is debate over whether open-access 5G is a good idea; indeed, my colleague Jim Baker has written about some key national security and implementation issues. But companies like Rivada don’t just have ideas. They have patents on those ideas. Rivada has a sizable worldwide portfolio of at least 40 patents on “dynamic spectrum arbitrage,” the coordination technology needed for 5G open access. The company has described its patents as “sweeping” and covering the “full range” of “dynamic wireless network sharing.” Those patents give Rivada a government-backed privilege to demand payments from—or even stop—anyone using the company’s open-access technology, and to sue those who refuse. It would be one thing if technology like Rivada’s were successful in the market and the company reaped the rewards of its patents through competition. But by lobbying the Trump administration to adopt a national standard, Rivada stands to earn far more. Every phone, tablet, or other wireless device would be required by fiat to comply with open-access standards—and thus to use Rivada’s patents. That one company would be able to extract payments from potentially every player in the $3.9 trillion mobile technologies and services market. Even worse, it could choose winners and losers in that market through strategic patent litigation. A patent owner playing gatekeeper to 5G does not make for a competitive or innovative market, despite the superficial appearance of competition among those who must pay tribute to the gatekeeper. The Federal Trade Commission’s lawsuit against Qualcomm and recent decisions issued by the International Trade Commission attest to the inefficiencies and convolutions of technology markets dominated by monopolistic patent licensors. Those disputes involved voluntary, private standards; it is easy to imagine how a federally mandated standard could be far worse economically. There is little reason to believe that the government could sidestep a patent morass were it to impose a national 5G standard. A 2015 paper by Tejas Narechania details the many times that patents have come into conflict with government objectives like public health or safety. Far too often, the patents win. That a company like Rivada could play patent puppeteer over a national 5G standard illustrates a larger problem looming over the U.S. economy. Over the last few decades, patent owners have successfully lobbied Congress, the courts, and the White House to increase the power and strength of patents, making them easier to get, easier to use, and more valuable in lawsuits. For a small inventor in a garage lab who needs all the help the law can give, powerful patent rights can be attractive. But that is not innovation today. Now, patents are complex instruments intertwined with key technologies, ubiquitous industries, and government regulations. In this new environment, a seemingly innocuous policy idea, like open access to wireless networks, could have dramatic consequences because of the threat of an anticompetitive patent. Charles Duan is the director of technology and innovation policy at the R Street Institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank based in Washington, D.C. |