美最高法院審理三星侵權(quán)案 上百名頂尖設(shè)計(jì)師力挺蘋果

Star designers are being pitted against tech titans in the latest episode of Apple’s legal battle with Samsung. More than 100 design leaders, including Lord Norman Foster, Sir Paul Smith, Sir Terence Conran, Calvin Klein and Dieter Rams, have joined Apple’s side as the long-running patent case is considered by the US Supreme Court.

在蘋果(Apple)與三星(Samsung)法律訴訟的最新進(jìn)展中，知名設(shè)計(jì)師與科技巨擘針鋒相對(duì)。美國最高法院(US Supreme Court)受理這樁曠日持久的專利案后，100多名設(shè)計(jì)界領(lǐng)袖站在了蘋果一方，其中包括諾曼•福斯特勛爵(Lord Norman Foster)、保羅•史密斯爵士(Sir Paul Smith)、特倫斯•康蘭爵士(Sir Terence Conran)、卡爾文•克萊恩(Calvin Klein)以及迪特爾•拉姆斯(Dieter Rams)。

The move sets many of the most famous names in industrial design, fashion and architecture against some of the biggest tech companies in the world, including Google and Facebook, who have lined up behind Samsung in the case.

眾多大名鼎鼎的工業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)、時(shí)尚和建筑設(shè)計(jì)師由此與谷歌(Google)、Facebook等一些全球最大科技公司展開對(duì)壘，后者在此案中支持三星。

Samsung’s appeal to the Supreme Court hinges on what portion of a copied product’s profits can be awarded in damages to a patent holder. It is the first time in decades that the top US court in the US has considered an issue relating to design patents.

在三星向美國最高法院提起的上訴中，關(guān)鍵之處在于仿冒產(chǎn)品的哪部分利潤(rùn)應(yīng)該給予專利持有者作為賠償。這是幾十年來美國最高法院首次審理與設(shè)計(jì)專利相關(guān)的案件。

In an amicus brief filed on Thuryesterday, 111 international design professionals and academics urged the court to uphold the 129-year-old ruling by the US Congress that “it is the design that sells the article” and therefore patent infringement should incur damages equal to the whole of the profits generated by a copycat product.

在昨日提交的一份“法庭之友”意見陳述書(amicus brief)中，國際設(shè)計(jì)界111名專業(yè)人士和學(xué)者敦促美國最高法院維持美國國會(huì)一項(xiàng)有129年歷史的裁決：“使物品能夠銷售出去的是設(shè)計(jì)”，因此專利侵權(quán)導(dǎo)致的賠償金應(yīng)等于仿冒產(chǎn)品產(chǎn)生的全部利潤(rùn)。

The submission marks the first intervention by the design community in the high-profile case, after a jury in California handed what was originally more than $1bn in damages against Samsung to Apple four years ago.

這份意見書標(biāo)志著設(shè)計(jì)界首次介入這樁令人矚目的案件。4年前，加州一陪審團(tuán)初步判定三星應(yīng)向蘋果支付逾10億美元賠償金。

Samsung has argued that the 2012 ruling, if upheld, could “stifle competition” in the tech industry by awarding “excessive” damages to patent holders and arm so-called “patent trolls” who abuse the intellectual property system. It has already paid $548m to Apple after its earlier appeals failed.

三星辯稱，如果維持2012年的裁決，專利持有者將獲得“超額”賠償金，同時(shí)那些濫用知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)制度的“專利流氓”將獲得依據(jù)，這可能會(huì)壓制科技業(yè)的“競(jìng)爭(zhēng)”。在早先的上訴敗訴后，三星已向蘋果支付5.48億美元賠償金。

The designers’ filing follows Apple’s own response last week, which argued that Congress’s original ruling should stand and Samsung had failed to provide adequate evidence to support its case. The group of “friends to the court” was convened by Charles Mauro, founder of the New York design consultancy Mauro New Media, and law firm Orrick.

在設(shè)計(jì)師們提交意見書之前，蘋果自己在上周已作出了回應(yīng)，該公司辯稱，應(yīng)維持美國國會(huì)的最初裁決，而且三星未能提供充足證據(jù)支持其上訴理由。這個(gè)“法庭之友”群體由紐約設(shè)計(jì)咨詢公司Mauro New Media的創(chuàng)始人查爾斯•莫羅(Charles Mauro)以及律師事務(wù)所Orrick召集。

“It became very clear to leading designers in the US and design researchers globally that Samsung, should they prevail in their effort to remake the compensation methodology for infringement, would create an existential threat to design professionals who rely on intellectual property for value and protection,” Mr Mauro said. in an interview.

莫羅在一次采訪中表示：“美國領(lǐng)先設(shè)計(jì)師和全球設(shè)計(jì)研究人員非常明白，如果三星調(diào)整侵權(quán)補(bǔ)償方法的努力取得成功，將對(duì)依賴知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)實(shí)現(xiàn)價(jià)值和獲得保護(hù)的專業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)人員造成生死攸關(guān)的威脅。”

He added that Samsung was “dead wrong” to argue that consumers consider a wide variety of technical features, as well as the external design, when deciding which product to buy. “Modern marketing and cognitive science shows very clearly that visual design in consumer decision-making overrides underlying functionality,” he said.

他補(bǔ)充稱，三星認(rèn)為消費(fèi)者在決定購買哪種產(chǎn)品時(shí)會(huì)考慮各種各樣的技術(shù)特征和外部設(shè)計(jì)，這種觀點(diǎn)“大錯(cuò)特錯(cuò)”。他說：“現(xiàn)代營(yíng)銷和認(rèn)知科學(xué)明確表明，在影響消費(fèi)者決策方面，視覺設(shè)計(jì)勝過基本功能。”

Mr Mauro told the Financial Times that if Samsung prevailed in the Supreme Court, it could unleash a new wave of copycats and create a “massive problem” for US patent holders by making litigation much more complicated.

莫羅向英國《金融時(shí)報(bào)》表示，如果三星在最高法院勝訴，就可能帶來新一波抄襲潮，并讓訴訟變得更為復(fù)雜，給美國專利持有者帶來“巨大問題”。

“We would see the return of exact copyists and a flooding of the US market of copycat products because nobody would be afraid any more,” he said. “It would become a cost-benefit equation.”

他說：“我們將會(huì)看到真正的剽竊者回歸，以及山寨產(chǎn)品涌入美國市場(chǎng)，因?yàn)榉旅罢咴僖膊粫?huì)忌憚，他們將衡量成本與收益。”

Other signatories include executives at fashion houses Louis Vuitton, Dries Van Noten and Lanvin, tech groups including Microsoft, Dyson and McLaren Technology Group, as well as carmaker Bentley Motors, furniture designer Knoll and jeweller Georg Jensen.

其他簽署人包括眾多公司的高管，比如時(shí)尚集團(tuán)路易威登(Louis Vuitton)、德賴斯•范諾頓(Dries Van Noten)和朗萬(Lanvin)，科技公司微軟(Microsoft)、戴森(Dyson)和邁凱倫科技集團(tuán)(McLaren Technology Group)，以及汽車制造商賓利汽車(Bentley Motors)、家具設(shè)計(jì)公司諾爾(Knoll)和珠寶公司Georg Jensen。

The designers together have received hundreds of patents and have worked with tech companies including Apple, Samsung and Google as well as companies in other industries, such as American Airlines, Coca-Cola, Starbucks and Procter & Gamble.

這些設(shè)計(jì)師們總共獲得了數(shù)百項(xiàng)專利，并與許多公司合作，包括蘋果、三星和谷歌等科技公司以及其他行業(yè)的公司，比如美國航空(American Airlines)、可口可樂(Coca-Cola)、星巴克(Starbucks)和寶潔(Procter & Gamble)。

A Samsung spokesperson said: “We have received overwhelming support for overturning the ruling in favour of Apple, including from leading patent experts, numerous concerned companies, and the US government.

一位三星發(fā)言人表示：“許多人支持推翻有利于蘋果的判決，包括專利方面的頂尖專家、大量相關(guān)公司以及美國政府。

“If left uncorrected, the appeals court’s ruling could lead to diminished innovation, pave the way for design troll patent litigation and negatively impact the economy and consumers.”

“如果不推翻上訴法庭的判決，就可能導(dǎo)致創(chuàng)新減少，為‘專利流氓’開展訴訟鋪平道路，并對(duì)經(jīng)濟(jì)和消費(fèi)者造成負(fù)面影響。”