针对谷歌致信美国电气与电子工程师学会（IEEE）一事，科技新闻网站Techmeme的报道绕了一个大圈子。IEEE是一家非盈利组织，负责为各种电子、电气技术制定标准，其对象从交直流电转换器到Wi-Fi网络无所不包。

    凡IEEE成员在提交专利技术、以期被IEEE确立为行业标准时，均需承诺遵守苹果（Apple）和微软（Microsoft）倡导的“公平、合理、非歧视”（FRAND）许可条款。Techmeme起初的报道曾经对谷歌响应苹果和微软的号召表示赞许。

    直到专利事务博客网站“自由与开源软件专利”（FOSS Patents）的弗罗里恩•穆勒看到该信的原文，并且留意到了表达真实意图的第三段，相关报道才开始转换了基调。谷歌在第三段中借“不可撤回”一词表示，它准备在收购摩托罗拉（Motorola）及其1.7万个专利后，延续摩托罗拉的做法，从每部iPhone的销售额中，“每部手机最多收取2.25%的版税”。

    一直以来，苹果在欧洲各法庭曾多次抗议，指责摩托罗拉的要求不公平、不合理、而且充满歧视。

    穆勒赞同这种看法。他写道：“从产品总销售额中提取2.25%的版税不仅完全与‘公平、合理、非歧视’的理念背道而驰，而且也违反了行业实践。”

    在外人看来，也许2.25%的版税看似并不多，但我们不妨看看如下统计数字：欧洲电信标准协会（European Telecommunications Standards Institute）旗下的在线数据库共列入了4,956条技术标准，总计涵盖了由175家公司提交的117,964条专利。如果每当有竞争对手试图开发一款兼容设备时，这些公司都要求对方支付2.25%的版税，那整个电信行业势必将陷入瘫痪状态。

    如今，我们只能想象一下已故的史蒂夫•乔布斯对谷歌的这一最新策略会作何感想。他在世时认为，谷歌为开发安卓系统（Android）而从苹果“剽窃”（乔的原话）的专有技术属于原创性作品，而且苹果也并未要求将此技术树为行业标准。现在，谷歌把苹果使用所谓的基础专利开发iPhone与当初谷歌使用苹果的专利技术开发安卓相提并论，并欲借此收费，这种行径实乃对厚颜无耻一词的最新演绎。因为这些专利中至少有一项可以回溯到寻呼机时代，而且彼时摩托罗拉曾庄严承诺，要与所有行业同仁公平分享这些专利。

    It took a Techmeme news cycle for the import of Google's (GOOG) letter to the IEEE -- the nonprofit organization that sets technical standards for everything from AC/DC converters to Wi-Fi networks -- to sink in.

    Early reports praised the company for joining Apple (AAPL) and Microsoft (MSFT) in their calls for adherence to the "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory" licensing terms that IEEE members promise to honor when they submit their patented technology for consideration as an industry standard.

    It wasn't until FOSS Patents' Florian Mueller got his hands on the text and spotted the telling third paragraph that the tone of the news coverage changed. The paragraph states, in language it describes as "irrevocable," that when Google is through buying Motorola (MOT) and its 17,000 patents, it is prepared to ask for the same "maximum per-unit royalty of 2.25%" that Motorola is demanding of Apple for every iPhone sale

    Apple has complained in European courts that Motorola's demand is unfair, unreasonable and totally discriminatory.

    Mueller agrees. "2.25% of the selling price of the product as a whole," he wrote, "is absolutely out of step with the concept of FRAND and with industry practice."

    To outsiders, 2.25% may not seem like a lot, but consider this: The online database maintained by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute lists 4,956 standards covering 117,964 patents filed by 175 companies. If each of them demanded 2.25% every time a competitor tried to build a compatible device, the industry would grind to a halt.

    One can only imagine what Steve Jobs would say to Google's latest gambit. The proprietary technology he felt Google had "stolen" (his word) from Apple to build Android was original work, and not something Apple had asked to be made an industry standard. To try to create an equivalence with so-called essential patents -- at least one of which dates back to the age of the pager -- that Motorola promised at the time to share fairly with all comers may be the modern definition of chutzpah.