由於網路發達，許多資訊都可以直接從網路上獲得。但是在網路爆炸性的成長之下，content 的水準稱差不齊，對於事件的解析通常都止於表象，沒有深入探討。尤其是涉及專利或侵權的官司，通常都以單方向來思考。
以最近國內一家 IC 設計公司"瑞昱"侵犯了3COM的專利，而被判陪4,530萬美元為例。如果你只看一家媒體的報導，可能獲得的資訊很有限，而如果你又有投資這家IC設計公司，可能就會有資訊不足的疑慮。
我們先看看媒體是如何報導的：
一、鉅亨網的報導 瑞昱專利官司賠鉅款震驚外資圈 瑞信、高盛調降評等
瑞昱的侵權官司讓外資分析師也大吃一驚，由於未來可能要支付3Com公司高達4,530萬美元的賠償金，讓去年的獲利縮水 40%，因此瑞信證券直接建議「賣出」瑞昱，並一口氣將瑞昱的目標價由 118 元下修至77元；高盛證券則將瑞昱從「買進」名單中剔 除，評等降至「中立」，目標價為90元。根據 4/9北加州地方法院陪審團的決議，瑞昱應賠償3Com公司4,530萬美元，不過正式判決還需要 1-2個月 。瑞昱打算自去年獲利中提列4,530萬美元的賠償費用，若 最終官司敗訴，去年的 EPS將從7.39元減少為4.36元。
二、工商時報的報導
瑞昱侵權 判賠13.7億美國3COM公司控告瑞昱侵權官司，美國加州北區聯邦地方法院本月九日裁定瑞昱須賠償四五三○萬美元，相當於新台幣一三．七億元，影響每股獲利約三．○三元。
瑞昱財務長陳X忠昨日表示，目前並非最終判決，未來不排除繼續上訴，賠償金額部分，可能於去年財報中提列訴訟準備金，不過仍要與會計師討論。
美國3COM二○○三年一月，控告瑞昱客戶X訊旗下美國子公司D-Link System網路卡侵犯其乙太網路晶片技術專利權，隔年六月並進一步於美國加州北區聯邦地方法院，對瑞昱興訟指控侵權。
本月九日美國加州北區聯邦地方法院所組成的陪審團裁定，瑞昱須賠償3COM公司四五三○萬美元。
瑞昱表示，該裁定仍尚待加州北區聯邦地方法院認可為判決，對於陪審團所裁定結果，感到非常失望與遺憾，目前正探求所有可能的救濟途徑，包含請求法官對於陪審團裁定予以廢棄或修正，或請求重新審理、及上訴。
瑞昱去年一○/一○○M乙太網路晶片出貨量達一．四億顆，全年稅後盈餘三三．四六億元，每股稅後盈餘七．三九元，陳X忠表示，可能於去年財報中提列訴訟準備金，但仍要與會計師討論。
以此估算，瑞昱若認列四五三○萬美元賠償金，相當於新台幣一三．七億元，去年稅後獲利將縮水為一九．七億元，每股獲利將減少為四．三五元。
三、電子時報英文版的報導
Realtek 2007 profitability to take a hit after loss of 3Com lawsuit
Cage Chao, Taipei; Esther Lam, DIGITIMES [Friday 11 April 2008]
Realtek Semiconductor, following the recent loss in its network interface card (NIC) patent lawsuit with 3Com, is expected to take a sharp hit in its 2007 earnings after factoring in compensation payouts.
Realtek announced on April 10 that the US Northern District Court of California had ruled Realtek must pay 3Com compensation of US$45.3 million for patent infringement. Realtek company CFO XX Chen indicated that the loss will be included in the company's 2007 financials, meaning that its earnings per share (EPS) will shrink from NT$7.39 (US$0.24) to NT$4.36 accordingly.
Expressing disappointment in the verdict, Rxx said it believes the verdict in several respects is not supported by the evidence presented at trial.Realtek pointed out it is exploring all of its options, including the possibility of an appeal, but indicated that it would still recognize the compensation in last year's financial statement. The company stressed that first-quarter 2008 profitability will not be affected.
四、3COM本身的看法
原文出處
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/080410/20080410006324.html?.v=1MARLBOROUGH, Mass., Apr 10, 2008 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- 3Com Corporation (NASDAQ: COMS) today announced that on April 9, 2008, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California awarded the company $45.3 million for past patent infringement by Realtek Semiconductor Corporation . 3Com was represented in the case by Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, LLP.
3Com's successful lawsuit against Realtek involved several claims in four patents(在四項專利中的幾項請求，3COM訴訟獲勝). The four patents relate to 3Com's pioneering network interface technology, particularly its parallel processing technology, which improves the transfer of data between a host (such as a personal computer) and a network.
The jury found all asserted claims of the four 3Com patents valid and infringed. The jury also found that Realtek induced others to infringe the 3Com patents in the United States,
and that Realtek willfully infringed three of 3Com's patents(Realtek 蓄意侵犯3COM的專利).
3Com is now pursuing a final judgment from the Court consistent with the jury verdict. 3Com will request the Court in its final judgment to consider and include enhanced damages due to the finding of willfulness, pre-judgment interest, and all other appropriate relief.
"We are extremely pleased that the jury has found in favor of 3Com in this important case and recognized the damage caused to 3Com by Realtek's willful actions," said Neal Goldman, 3Com executive vice president, chief administrative and legal officer. "3Com has a very broad portfolio of networking technology patents and an active licensing program. We will continue to aggressively protect our valuable patents against any and all infringements."
Realtek's controller chip products that the jury found to infringe on 3Com patents are as follows
:(瑞昱的控制器晶片產品可能侵犯3COM專利有如下)
10M/100M Products:
RTL8139
RTL8139A(L)
RTL8139B(L)
RTL8139C(L)
RTL8139D(L)
RTL8102(L)
RTL8100(L)
RTL8100B(L)
RTL8100C(L)
RTL8101(L)
RTL8139C+ Product:
RTL8139C(L)+
Gigabit Gate-Level Products:
RTL8169
RTL8169S-32
RTL8110S-32
RTL8110S-64
RTL8169SB(L)
RTL8110SBL
RTL8169SC(L)
Gigabit RTL Product:
RTL8110SC(L)
10M/100M PCI-Express RTL Products:
RTL8100E
RTL8101E
前三則新聞報導都是以被告的角度來看事情的發展，而第四則新聞，是原告本身發佈的新聞，各位是否看出其中的差異了。最大的差異，就是第四則新聞，提出了被告侵犯專利所包括的產品，
以及蓄意侵犯。對於專利權的訴訟，這些訊息都是相當重要的。而前三則新聞，都附之闕如。所以在看這類的新聞時，如果能以不同的角度去搜尋資料來源，應該可以得到更寬廣的視野。
文章收藏：
圖來源:www.euphocafe.com/terms/photo_1/25a.jpg 
