What the Nokia-Apple Lawsuit Means for the Streaming Industry
2016年12月21日，诺基亚起诉苹果侵犯与H相关的8项专利.264编码与解码. By its terms, the complaint makes clear that Apple’s usage of H.264是通用的，类似的侵权索赔可以针对任何带有H的产品.264 encoder or decoder without a license with Nokia. Though a quick glance at prior cases make the stakes appear minor, a more reasoned analysis leads to the conclusion that the costs to Apple, 其他人则使用H.264, could be very significant.
顺便说一下，这起诉讼只是双方之间的一场混战. According to a Nokia press release, “Across actions in 11 countries, there are now 40 patents in suit, which cover technologies such as display, 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 and related parties for antitrust, 实质上是指控诺基亚试图向苹果收取过高的费用. 显然是H.264 related suit is most pressing for the streaming industry.
Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory Obligations
When standards are formulated, standards bodies like the ITU require all contributors to agree to license the technology royalty free, or on 合理的 和非歧视性的 (RAND) terms and conditions, 这样可以防止任何单个贡献者通过要求过高的价格来阻碍商业化, or unfair terms against a competitor or other party. 如果贡献者拒绝同意免版税或RAND替代方案, its technology won’t be included in the standard.
诺基亚在诉状中宣称，它已同意按照兰德公司的条款进行授权. If the Court finds Nokia’s patents are valid, 苹果确实侵犯了, one key issue becomes the RAND value of those patents. One case that the court will undoubtedly consult is Microsoft v. 2013年，微软指控摩托罗拉违反了对兰德公司的义务.
In that case, Motorola claimed that Microsoft infringed three H.264项相关专利，并要求兰德公司赔偿，他们声称赔偿金额相当于2美元.25 percent of sales of Windows, 运行Windows操作系统的pc, Xbox, 以及其他产品, amounting to over $4 billion dollars. 在事实的发现上, the court explained that when setting RAND royalty rates, courts consider the value of the patents to the standard, and the value of the standard to the product. This means every RAND determination is separate and distinct.
在摩托罗拉案例中, the court considered other licensing arrangements entered by Motorola, but also comparables like the $0.MPEG LA对代表来自38家不同公司的数千项全球专利的专利池收取20美元/单位的专利使用费. 法院将H.264 FRAND速率 at 0.每件555美分(合0.55美元).00555), which amounted to around $740,000 in H.每年264版税. Note that the total award was reported at $1.8 million per year, but about 60 percent of that was for 802.11 patents also considered in the case (见第207页). 雪上加霜的是，法院裁定摩托罗拉确实违反了对兰德公司的义务 微软获赔14美元.500万美元的赔偿金. 不管正确与否，这一发现给人的印象是，与H相关的成本.264项不在MPEG LA池中的专利，如诺基亚专利，将非常低.
摩托罗拉不受约束
I spoke with David Long, a practicing patent attorney and editor of the 专利博客 关于这个印象, 以及摩托罗拉案的事实在多大程度上控制了本案的潜在裁决. 他回应说，由于兰德公司的所有计算都是独一无二的，摩托罗拉的案例“不会作为一个数据点具有约束力”. While the court would certainly consider the MPEG LA royalty rate, 它可能会更优先考虑诺基亚和其他独立第三方之间的实际许可协议.”
That’s because in previous cases, 原告辩称，专利池提供的版税通常不能作为衡量专利实际基本价值的标准. 在一篇名为 Apportionment, FRAND Royalties, and comparable licenses after Ericsson v. 友讯科技，作家J. Gregory Sidak解释了原因. (Note that FRAND stands for fair, 合理的, 和非歧视性的, which is often used interchangeably with RAND).
“第一, 如果专利池参与者的商业模式与SEP持有人的商业模式明显不同，专利池的特许权使用费可能不能作为计算FRAND特许权使用费的基准. 例如, 活跃在下游市场的公司可能更愿意通过提供符合标准的产品的服务来收回他们在研发上的投资, such as an app for on-demand video streaming offered on a smartphone, rather than through licensing fees...专利池也不是确定专利使用费的有用基准，因为它们通常根据贡献的专利数量来奖励贡献者, rather than the patents’ relative value.”
出于这些原因, Long预计诺基亚会辩称，与第三方的实际商业许可协议比MPEG LA费率更重要. 我给诺基亚发了一封电子邮件，询问其他协议的财务细节, which are not provided in the complaint, 但没有收到回复. 如果案件进入审判阶段，预计这些细节将成为诺基亚索赔的绝对核心.
诺基亚的皱纹
Beyond Nokia not being bound by the rates set in the Motorola case, Nokia is also claiming that because the H.264标准定义了解码器而不是编码器，RAND许可限制不适用于编码相关专利. Here’s a snippet from the Nokia complaint.
“H.264建议书指定了解码器的实现，并特别将“解码过程”定义为“[t]本建议书|国际标准中指定的读取比特流并从中提取解码图像的过程”.' It does not, however, specify the implementation of encoders. 事实上, it specifically defines 'encoder' as 'an embodiment of an encoding process,' and then defines 'encoding process' as 'a process, not specified in this Recommendation | International Standard, 产生符合本建议|国际标准的比特流.' Id. 在6(强调添加)). As a result, since encoder implementations are not specified under the H.264标准, 根据共同专利政策，涵盖此类编码器的权利要求不是必需的, 因此，任何此类索赔均不受该政策项下兰德承诺的约束.”
在涉及编码相关专利的摩托罗拉案中，这种区别似乎并没有被提出. I asked Long about Nokia’s distinction, 他解释说，当法院认定专利“对标准至关重要”时，兰德公司就会提出申请.” In Nokia’s favor is the fact that the H.264 spec does define the decoding process, as noted above. Against the claim would be the simple fact that H.如果没有编码流来解码，264解码器就没有必要的作用. Either way, it’s a finding of fact for the court to make.
Long did point out that under general-purpose (eg. 非rand)专利法, all royalties must be 合理的, but that if the encoding-related patents were not limited by RAND, Nokia could discriminate against Apple and raise the price, 也许是因为 Nokia plans to re-enter the smartphone market where Apple is a prominent competitor. 如果诺基亚只是试图收回其他各方支付的相同税率，那么这一切可能都无关紧要, 但如果法院同意编码器相关专利不受RAND限制，则可以用来要求更高的版税.
Summary
那么这给我们带来了什么呢? 基本上, 一场漫长的专利诉讼可能会重新定义基于标准的编解码器的许可方式, and dramatically increase the cost of H.包括在硬件和软件产品中的264解码器，特别是编码器. Eleven years after MPEG LA released its first H.264-related price list, the expected cost of H.264 licensing may be completely revamped. Since some or all of Nokia’s patents might also apply to HEVC, licensing costs here may also be affected. Let’s hope it doesn’t take eleven years to find out.
我们将从苹果的回应中学到很多东西，这可能需要一个月左右的时间.
注:作者感谢自由/开源软件专利网站的David Long和Florian Mueller分享他们对这些问题的看法.
相关文章
The Nokia Technologies division will lose 310 of its 1,090名员工, while putting more resources into creating digital health products.
10十月2017
库德尔斯基集团及其子公司OpenTV在过去几年里起诉了流媒体领域的大牌. 现在，NFL也加入了这个行列.
17 Jan 2017