90億美元Java糾紛案反轉：安卓中複製的代碼屬於合理使用

{"type":"doc","content":[{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null},"content":[{"type":"text","text":"一起曠日持久、在軟件領域具備里程碑意義的"},{"type":"link","attrs":{"href":"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/20pdf\/18-956_d18f.pdf","title":"xxx","type":null},"content":[{"type":"text","text":"案件"}]},{"type":"text","text":"終於落幕——美國最高法院於當地時間4月5日裁定，Alphabet旗下谷歌在開發其Android操作系統時並未侵犯Oracle的版權。最高法院表示，谷歌對一些Java API代碼的複製是合理使用。"}]},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null}},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null},"content":[{"type":"text","text":"最高法院在大法官斯蒂芬·佈雷耶（Stephen Breyer）的意見書中以6比2做出上述裁決，駁回了此前一家下級法院稱谷歌Android侵犯甲骨文Java軟件平臺版權的裁決。"}]},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null}},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null},"content":[{"type":"text","text":"斯蒂芬·佈雷耶稱，若允許甲骨文對其代碼實施版權保護，將成爲“限制新程序未來創造力”的枷鎖，而掌握鑰匙的人只有甲骨文，從而損害了公衆利益。"}]},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null}},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null},"content":[{"type":"text","text":"在判決公佈後，谷歌負責全球事務的高級副總裁肯特·沃克（Kent Walker）在Twitter上發文道，“今天最高法院對谷歌訴甲骨文案的判決是創新、互操作性和計算領域的一大勝利。”他還表示，感謝美國領先的創新者、軟件工程師和版權學者的支持。"}]},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null}},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null},"content":[{"type":"text","text":"甲骨文對此則表示，“他們（谷歌）偷走了Java，並花了10年時間打官司，只有壟斷者才能做到這一點。這就是爲什麼全球和美國的監管機構正在審查谷歌的商業行爲。”"}]},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null}},{"type":"heading","attrs":{"align":null,"level":2},"content":[{"type":"text","text":"十年糾纏，數次反轉"}]},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null}},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null},"content":[{"type":"text","text":"谷歌和甲骨文的這起版權糾紛官司已經打了十多年，起因是甲骨文訴訟谷歌安卓系統的Java源代碼侵權。"}]},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null}},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null},"content":[{"type":"text","text":"甲骨文於2010年收購Sun Microsystems公司時獲得了Java技術。同年，甲骨文起訴谷歌稱，谷歌在開發Android系統時非法複製了超過一萬行其子公司Sun Microsystems所編寫的Java API代碼，要求賠償近90億美元。而谷歌方面拒絕支付這筆賠償金，並表示對相關代碼的使用屬於合理使用範疇，無需承擔版權責任。"}]},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null}},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null},"content":[{"type":"text","text":"過去十年，甲骨文與谷歌就該版權紛爭已打了多個回合："}]},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null}},{"type":"bulletedlist","content":[{"type":"listitem","attrs":{"listStyle":null},"content":[{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null},"content":[{"type":"text","text":"2010 年，甲骨文起訴谷歌侵犯了與Java相關的專利和版權，索賠80億美元；"}]}]}]},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null}},{"type":"bulletedlist","content":[{"type":"listitem","attrs":{"listStyle":null},"content":[{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null},"content":[{"type":"text","text":"2012 年 5 月，加州北區聯邦法院裁定谷歌沒有侵犯Java版權，Java API不受版權保護；10 月，甲骨文上訴至聯邦巡迴上訴法院。"}]}]}]},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null}},{"type":"bulletedlist","content":[{"type":"listitem","attrs":{"listStyle":null},"content":[{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null},"content":[{"type":"text","text":"2014 年，美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院推翻了一審部分結論，稱必須尊重軟件的版權保護，甲骨文贏得上訴，此案被髮回重審。甲骨文此時提出了93億美元的索賠。同年10月，谷歌申請美國聯邦最高法院聽審此案。"}]}]}]},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null}},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null},"content":[{"type":"text","text":"隨後，聯邦最高法院拒絕了谷歌的調卷令申請。根據聯邦巡迴上訴法院的指令，案件重返加州北區法院，由該院審理谷歌另外提出的“合理使用”主張。"}]},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null}},{"type":"bulletedlist","content":[{"type":"listitem","attrs":{"listStyle":null},"content":[{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null},"content":[{"type":"text","text":"2016年5月，陪審團認定谷歌的行爲構成合理使用，不涉及專利侵權。10月，甲骨文再次上訴至聯邦巡迴上訴法院；11月，谷歌也提起了上訴。"}]}]}]},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null}},{"type":"bulletedlist","content":[{"type":"listitem","attrs":{"listStyle":null},"content":[{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null},"content":[{"type":"text","text":"2018年3月，甲骨文第二次贏得上訴，聯邦巡迴上訴法院推翻了陪審團的認定，認定谷歌侵權。"}]}]}]},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null}},{"type":"bulletedlist","content":[{"type":"listitem","attrs":{"listStyle":null},"content":[{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null},"content":[{"type":"text","text":"2019年1月，谷歌向聯邦最高法院上訴。2月，包括微軟、Mozilla、開發者聯盟、Python軟件基金會在內的谷歌盟友們陸續向聯邦最高法院遞交了法庭之友意見書，其中一份由78位計算機科學家聯合簽署的意見書打動了大法官們，該院終於同意複審本案。"}]}]}]},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null}},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null},"content":[{"type":"text","text":"在甲骨文看來，谷歌在沒協議的情況下抄襲了版權屬於甲骨文的 37 個Java API 段。但谷歌認爲，它所複用的Java 函數接口（API，即應用程序接口）屬於例外，版權的合理使用原則是允許這種複製的。"}]},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null}},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null},"content":[{"type":"text","text":"於是，這場漫長的訴訟焦點變成，API 是否也受版權法的保護，對它的複用是否可構成侵權，又或者，它在多大程度上獲得版權保護。"}]},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null}},{"type":"heading","attrs":{"align":null,"level":2},"content":[{"type":"text","text":"軟件代碼的版權保護邊界"}]},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null}},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null},"content":[{"type":"text","text":"針對該案，來自電影、音樂、出版等行業高度依賴版權保護的企業主要站在甲骨文一方。而軟件行業的大多數人則認爲，API不受版權的保護。"}]},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null}},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null},"content":[{"type":"text","text":"最高法院在裁決中稱，該院明確選擇"},{"type":"text","marks":[{"type":"strong"}],"text":"不對本案中最廣泛的法律問題做出裁決，即API代碼到底有無資格獲得版權保護。"}]},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null}},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null},"content":[{"type":"text","text":"佈雷耶代表最高法院寫道：“考慮到技術、經濟和商業環境的快速變化，我們認爲，我們不應該回答超出解決雙方紛爭所必需範疇的問題。”"}]},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null}},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null},"content":[{"type":"text","text":"也就是說，雖然該院認爲甲骨文的Java API有資格獲得版權保護，但該院也表示，谷歌在合理使用原則方面有較佳論證，而這一概念旨在防止版權阻礙新產品和服務的開發。"}]},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null}},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null},"content":[{"type":"text","text":"計算機軟件知識產權的保護邊界一直是個很難判定的問題。在探討API應不應該受版權保護的時候，需要理解API的含義和意義到底是什麼，過程中伴隨而來的是層出不窮的比喻。"}]},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null}},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null},"content":[{"type":"text","text":"站在甲骨文派的法官，曾將谷歌對Java API的複製比作是足球隊抄襲了對方的戰術，讓自己的球隊獲得成功。"}]},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null}},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null},"content":[{"type":"text","text":"最高法院表示，谷歌爲Android系統複製的代碼僅佔Java API總共286萬行代碼的0.4%。佈雷耶將這部分代碼比喻爲“汽車上的油門踏板，它可以告訴汽車更快地行駛，或者如同打字機上的QWERTY鍵盤，當你按下某個特定的鍵時，就會調用某個字母”。"}]},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null}},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null},"content":[{"type":"text","text":"也就是說，如果造車廠選擇採用油門踏板的設計，它就得支付高昂的版權費用，如果不採用，那它得重新發明新的設計，同時也很難讓用戶對此買單。API的意義類似油門踏板，Google複用它以吸引開發者，繼而讓開發者能迅速上手進行創新，而API的使用若受到限制，則在某種程度上限制了創新。"}]},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null}},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null},"content":[{"type":"text","text":"“我們的結論是：在本案中，谷歌重新實現了一個用戶界面，且只取所需，以允許用戶將積累的才能用在一個新的、變革性程序中，谷歌對Sun Java API的複製在法律上是對該材料的一次合理使用。”佈雷耶寫道。"}]},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null}},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null},"content":[{"type":"text","text":"此前，由78位計算機科學家聯合簽署的意見書中，曾回顧了軟件發展的歷史，展示了得益於API重新實現而誕生的影響深遠的偉大軟件：計算機制造商重新實現IBM BIOS API，從而有了DOS，並最終誕生了windows系統；蘋果通過重新實現Unix API，創造了桌面端的OS X操作系統和iOS系統。即便是Java，也不是Sun公司純粹白手起家的產物，也建立在重新實現其他編程語言API的基礎之上（例如C語言math API、Perl語言的正則表達式API等）。科學家們亦進一步指出：谷歌所做的，是一種長期存在且廣泛普及的實踐方式，其對於實現計算的基本進步至關重要，並且已經在過去數十年間推動了整個軟件行業的歷史創新。"}]},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null}},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null},"content":[{"type":"text","text":"加州大學伯克利分校的法律和信息學教授Pamela Samuelson稱，這一裁決讓開發者感到寬慰，API已經成爲這些開發者開發軟件的核心。軟件開發人員一直依賴既有的軟件接口作爲計算領域創新的基礎，最高法院的裁決實際上再次肯定了這一做法。"}]},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null}},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null},"content":[{"type":"text","marks":[{"type":"size","attrs":{"size":10}}],"text":"參考："}]},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null},"content":[{"type":"text","marks":[{"type":"size","attrs":{"size":10}}],"text":"https:\/\/www.wsj.com\/articles\/supreme-court-rules-for-google-in-multibillion-dollar-copyright-battle-with-oracle-11617632233"}]},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null},"content":[{"type":"text","marks":[{"type":"size","attrs":{"size":10}}],"text":"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/opinions\/20pdf\/18-956_d18f.pdf"}]},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null},"content":[{"type":"text","marks":[{"type":"size","attrs":{"size":10}}],"text":"https:\/\/www.cnbc.com\/2021\/04\/05\/supreme-court-rules-in-googles-favor-in-copyright-dispute-with-oracle-over-android-software.html"}]},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null},"content":[{"type":"text","marks":[{"type":"size","attrs":{"size":10}}],"text":"https:\/\/www.bloomberg.com\/news\/articles\/2021-04-05\/supreme-court-overturns-oracle-s-copyright-win-over-google"}]}]}