Communications World Network News (CWW) On September 5, the 8th China Patent Annual Conference with the theme of “Patents and Boosting the Development of the Real Economy†was opened in Beijing. However, it is worth mentioning that the "patent dialogue" between patent use and patent right, patent value, and patent nationality has caused some controversy. Apple's representative lawyer and the Chinese corporate patenter have met each other and the scene has been out of control. Although this incident has a chance, it can also reveal some clues.
Event Restoration: Apple's lawyers interact with Chinese corporate patentees
According to the author's understanding, the main thing of this matter is this: In the speech on the issue of patents by Cao Jun, the general manager of Xidian Express, Apple's attorney filed a “questioning†on the spot with the so-called “consumer†status.
Apple's attorney's point of view is that WAPI technology is written into national standards, but this technology is not used, and mobile phones need to pay for this unpatented patented technology. This is a very sad phenomenon.
In this regard, Cao Jun replied: Apple signed a patent licensing contract with Xidian Jietong, and the contract expired, but Apple refused to renew the contract. The two sides talked about this for two years, but they still have no result. In desperation, Xidian Jietong sued Apple.
But soon, Apple Inc. in turn sued Xidian Jietong. The appeal included anti-monopoly and requesting the court to determine the rate. In a very short period of time, because of "not trusting" China's judicial procedures, Apple has successively obtained illegal business secrets from Xidian Jietong and other partners in the United States twice through improper procedures. Apple on the other side asked the Shaanxi court not to issue a ban on infringement litigation, but on the other side it stated that it did not use Xidian Jietong's patent.
Afterwards, Cao Jun’s answer pointed out that there are thousands of patents used in a cell phone, and it is difficult for ordinary consumers to ascertain which ones are used and which are not used.
A preliminary analysis of this incident can be seen that Apple’s attorney has publicly questioned the general manager of Xidian Jietong in public, and although he said that he is in the capacity of an “ordinary consumer,†it is obvious to people that they can understand Event: Trying to create support for Apple and West Electric's lawsuit.
This kind of questioning has caused great concern on the spot and in the industry. But first of all, no matter who is right or wrong, this kind of questioning takes place in an open forum rather than a courtroom. Many people think that it is very impolite and obtrusive and does not meet the lawyer's professional ethics and basic conduct. This is probably not unrelated to Apple's usual arrogant gesture.
Apple's attorneys specifically questioned that WAPI technology was not used. The intention was actually not to pay royalties. A basic common sense is that as long as a certain technology is installed on a mobile phone, the patent standard of the technology is definitely used, and it does not have much to do with whether the user has opened the application. In addition, the patent fees for mobile phones are paid directly by mobile phone manufacturers. The payment of patent fees is also an internationally accepted standard and is a respect and protection of intellectual property rights.
Main reason: The rise of Chinese standards and awareness of intellectual property protection
Regarding the debate on WAPI patent issues, people in the industry generally believe that WAPI is China's own standard and technology and is formulated and promulgated by the national level (Ministry of Industry and Information Technology). Xidian Jietong has the right to apply for patents according to this standard and technology. Patent layout. Apple's attorneys have to question whether WAPI's standards are necessary. Instead, they can ask China's relevant departments to establish this standard.
Regarding the use and non-use of the WAPI standard, some industry insiders pointed out why WAPI is currently being installed in China, not because of bad (in contrast, its authentication is more confidential than Wi-Fi), but because of the IEEE 802.11 standard (Wi-Fi Standards) was developed by the U.S. industry standards organization. The Wi-Fi Alliance boycotts WAPI, claiming that the technology is insecure by China, and engages in the China threat theory. In actual use, wireless routers cannot transmit signals according to the WAPI protocol, leading to Chinese support for WAPI encryption. The terminal can only use Wi-Fi. It can be seen that the development of WAPI has been hindered by a foreign Wi-Fi interest group.
The sharp-eyed netizen said: “There is a story behind this mutual encounter, and we cannot judge who is wrong and who is in a bad state from this interaction. The lawyer is a professional scholar but the technical field is illiterate. The two are proficient in different things. The layer is that Apple has eaten Xidian Jietong's loss here and spatter it, regardless of Apple is not bad, this series of events is enough to show that our country's protection of intellectual property rights has increased, so the next two how to embarrass, We are ready for small benches and melon seeds. I support Chinese companies!"
Here, I would like to say, can we only allow certain developed countries to attach importance to intellectual property rights and establish barriers to intellectual property competition? In fact, our country is also increasingly focusing on the protection of intellectual property rights. WAPI supports the national security monitoring strategy. This is also a normal state behavior. It is more desirable than launching a commercial investigation.
Lawyer's Pick: Apple's overbearing “eats food alone†reflects the interests of Chinese patentees
Apple's overbearing for so many years is also increasing hatred in the industry. Just last month, a coalition of domestic lawyers and experts formally reported to the State Administration for Industry and Commerce and the National Development and Reform Commission the monopoly of Apple in the course of its operations. The action was strongly supported by about 30 Chinese application developers, many of whom are well-known Internet companies.
It is reported that during Apple's operation of the App Store, Apple was suspected of abusing its dominant position in the market and harming the legal rights of mobile application developers, operators, and consumers. Some of China's procedures should be treated differently, charging 30% of the "Apple tax."
In terms of patents on other people's homes, Apple implemented a "trick", that is, Apple did not pay royalties first, then sued each other for monopoly, and finally depended on Apple's strong legal support team to wait for the court's decision. What results does this bring? Many SMEs and patent holders do not have such a large team of lawyers to contend with the giant Apple, so students and students are “delayedâ€.
Not only for small companies, but also for big companies like Samsung, Nokia, Ericsson, and Qualcomm, Apple is not weak either. The high profit of Apple in the industry is obvious to all. Although Apple also invests a lot of money every year for technological innovation and R&D. However, the profits of these companies and Apple's industry are simply not of a magnitude.
In order to reduce costs and seek higher business returns, Apple has exhausted legal means to deal with these large and small companies that have changed patent fees. Through tactical procrastination, small companies are prone to being dragged down, big companies are dragged down, and after a few years they can only reach a settlement or nothing. This kind of behavior is a great harm to the industry's innovation and SMEs. Apple's behavior should definitely attract the attention of relevant Chinese government departments and the judicial system, and take action to prevent this “fat family†from harming the whole Industry behavior.
In terms of image, Apple's high profits are standing on the shoulders of giants, but they are unwilling to give a share to these shoulders, which makes the reasonable profit margins of relevant industry chains exploited by Apple. "Long-term arrears" and "many arrears" are Apple's "routines" for solving patent problems.
It is undeniable that Apple is a great company, but great companies cannot do whatever they want. Apple's attorney at a public office is the general manager of Xidian Jietong, which is essentially Apple's consistent overbearing attitude towards patent holders and contempt for Chinese patentees.
The long-term and orderly development of an industry and the respect for patents and intellectual property are basic principles. On the one hand, it is not required to pay “Apple Taxes†to others, extract and reward commissions, and on the other hand, it does not pay royalties in the industry chain. Profits and interests are important. As a big company, its responsibilities, attitude, and strength of character often affect people's hearts more.
Screw Terminal Connector,Pcb Screw Terminal,Screw Terminal Block Connector,Screw Type Terminal Blocks
Cixi Xinke Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. , https://www.cxxinke.com