????美國司法部（the Justice Department）本周一批準(zhǔn)了谷歌（Google）以125億美元收購摩托羅拉移動(dòng)（Motorola Mobility）的交易。同時(shí)美國司法部也對(duì)谷歌發(fā)出了嚴(yán)厲警告，要求谷歌不得濫用從交易中獲得的17,000項(xiàng)專利?？梢?，谷歌只是極為勉強(qiáng)地通過了司法部的調(diào)查。同一天，歐盟（the European Union）也批準(zhǔn)了這筆收購。

????美國司法部在一份聲明中表示，將密切關(guān)注谷歌，看它是否存在將所購得的專利用于“潛在的反競(jìng)爭用途”的跡象。谷歌在申請(qǐng)專利時(shí)應(yīng)秉承“公平、合理和非歧視性條款”。針對(duì)這一點(diǎn)，司法部的聲明將谷歌的承諾與蘋果（Apple）和微軟（Microsoft）等公司進(jìn)行了客觀地對(duì)比，稱谷歌的承諾比后兩者更“含糊”。盡管如此，但美司法部并沒有找到駁回這次收購的理由，不過它警告道，如果谷歌膽敢越線，司法部將“毫不遲疑地采取適當(dāng)?shù)膹?qiáng)制措施。”

????這次收購的目的完全是為了專利，谷歌從一開始就沒有掩飾這一點(diǎn)?？萍脊就ㄟ^購買專利來避免競(jìng)爭對(duì)手利用手頭的專利向自己發(fā)起知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)訴訟的做法早已蔚然成風(fēng)?？萍季揞^們已經(jīng)圍繞著專利展開了一場(chǎng)混戰(zhàn)，各企業(yè)抓住一切機(jī)會(huì)向?qū)κ职l(fā)難。法官和企業(yè)高管們對(duì)科技創(chuàng)新的決定作用也變得越來越突出。

????美國司法部也批準(zhǔn)了微軟、蘋果和黑莓手機(jī)制造商RIM向已破產(chǎn)的電子通訊設(shè)備廠商北電網(wǎng)絡(luò)（Nortel）購買專利的交易。司法部還同意了微軟和蘋果購買Novell公司的專利。幾家公司均表示不會(huì)利用專利來阻止競(jìng)爭對(duì)手推出新產(chǎn)品，也不會(huì)為了排擠競(jìng)爭對(duì)手，而對(duì)自己的專利人為地收取高額專利費(fèi)。摩托羅拉移動(dòng)生產(chǎn)的手機(jī)和平板電腦安裝的是谷歌的安卓（Android）操作系統(tǒng)。因此等到這項(xiàng)交易結(jié)束后，谷歌將向摩托羅拉移動(dòng)的競(jìng)爭對(duì)手，也就是其他所有使用安卓系統(tǒng)的廠商征收專利費(fèi)。

????《21世紀(jì)的創(chuàng)新》（Innovation for the 21st Century）一書的作者、羅格斯大學(xué)（Rutgers University）法學(xué)院教授、反壟斷專家邁克爾?卡利爾指出，怎樣才叫“人為地索取高額專利費(fèi)”，這個(gè)問題很難界定，可能最終還是要訴諸法律才能找到答案。而且這還只是眾多專利問題之一，因?yàn)閷＠m紛還涉及反壟斷問題?？ɡ麪栐诮邮茈娮余]件采訪時(shí)表示：“法律并沒有現(xiàn)成的工具來分析一套專利組合的建立將帶來哪些妨礙競(jìng)爭的危害。目前為止，司法部門在專利糾紛上還沒有一個(gè)清晰的框架可以套用，”在審批專利交易時(shí)，“司法部很大程度上要依賴企業(yè)的自愿聲明?！?/p>

????The Justice Department on Monday gave Google (GOOG) the go-ahead to complete its $12.5 billion acquisition of Motorola Mobility (MMI). Judging by the stern warnings the DOJ issued, and its criticisms of Google's promises to not misuse any of the the 17,000 patents it is acquiring in the deal, it appears that the company might have just barely made it through the investigation. The European Union also approved the merger on Monday.

????The DOJ said in a statement that it would be watching Google for any signs of "potential anticompetitive use" of its patents. It must license its patents on "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms." The statement compared Google's commitments on that score unfavorably with those made by Apple (AAPL) and Microsoft (MSFT). Google's promises were "more ambiguous" than those made by the other companies, it said. Nevertheless, the DOJ couldn't find a basis on which to deny the merger. But it warned that if Google steps over the line, the agency "will not hesitate to take appropriate enforcement action."

????The acquisition is all about patents, as Google has said from the beginning. It's part of a trend of tech companies buying patents to defend themselves against intellectual property lawsuits filed by competitors with their own stash of patents. The whole thing is a huge mess, with companies suing each other left and right, and technological innovation increasingly being determined by officers of the court as well as by corporate officers.

????The DOJ also approved deals for Microsoft, Apple, and Blackberry maker Research In Motion (RIMM) to buy patents from Nortel, a bankrupt maker of telecommunications equipment. And it OK'd purchases by Microsoft and Apple of patents owned by Novell. The companies have agreed not to use patents to prevent competitors from introducing new products and to refrain from charging artificially high prices for patent licenses in order to keep competitors out of a market. Motorola Mobility makes phones and tablets that use Google's Android operating system, so when the deal is closed, Google will be licensing software to its competitors -- all the companies that use Android.

????The question of what constitutes artificially high prices is ambiguous, and might end up being worked out in court. That's just one issue in dealing with patents as they relate to antitrust matters, says Michael A. Carrier, author of "Innovation for the 21st Century" and a professor and antitrust expert at Rutgers University School of Law. The law "does not have a ready-made toolkit for analyzing anticompetitive harm from the creation of patent portfolios," he said in an email interview. "Collections of patent portfolios have not (yet) led to a clear framework that the agencies could apply." In approving the patent deals, "the DOJ put a lot of faith in the voluntary statements."