90亿美元Java纠纷案反转：安卓中复制的代码属于合理使用

{"type":"doc","content":[{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null},"content":[{"type":"text","text":"一起旷日持久、在软件领域具备里程碑意义的"},{"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":"终于落幕——美国最高法院于当地时间4月5日裁定，Alphabet旗下谷歌在开发其Android操作系统时并未侵犯Oracle的版权。最高法院表示，谷歌对一些Java API代码的复制是合理使用。"}]},{"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·布雷耶（Stephen Breyer）的意见书中以6比2做出上述裁决，驳回了此前一家下级法院称谷歌Android侵犯甲骨文Java软件平台版权的裁决。"}]},{"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·布雷耶称，若允许甲骨文对其代码实施版权保护，将成为“限制新程序未来创造力”的枷锁，而掌握钥匙的人只有甲骨文，从而损害了公众利益。"}]},{"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":"在判决公布后，谷歌负责全球事务的高级副总裁肯特·沃克（Kent Walker）在Twitter上发文道，“今天最高法院对谷歌诉甲骨文案的判决是创新、互操作性和计算领域的一大胜利。”他还表示，感谢美国领先的创新者、软件工程师和版权学者的支持。"}]},{"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":"甲骨文对此则表示，“他们（谷歌）偷走了Java，并花了10年时间打官司，只有垄断者才能做到这一点。这就是为什么全球和美国的监管机构正在审查谷歌的商业行为。”"}]},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null}},{"type":"heading","attrs":{"align":null,"level":2},"content":[{"type":"text","text":"十年纠缠，数次反转"}]},{"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":"谷歌和甲骨文的这起版权纠纷官司已经打了十多年，起因是甲骨文诉讼谷歌安卓系统的Java源代码侵权。"}]},{"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":"甲骨文于2010年收购Sun Microsystems公司时获得了Java技术。同年，甲骨文起诉谷歌称，谷歌在开发Android系统时非法复制了超过一万行其子公司Sun Microsystems所编写的Java API代码，要求赔偿近90亿美元。而谷歌方面拒绝支付这笔赔偿金，并表示对相关代码的使用属于合理使用范畴，无需承担版权责任。"}]},{"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":"过去十年，甲骨文与谷歌就该版权纷争已打了多个回合："}]},{"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，甲骨文起诉谷歌侵犯了与Java相关的专利和版权，索赔80亿美元；"}]}]}]},{"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，加州北区联邦法院裁定谷歌没有侵犯Java版权，Java API不受版权保护；10 月，甲骨文上诉至联邦巡回上诉法院。"}]}]}]},{"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，美国联邦巡回上诉法院推翻了一审部分结论，称必须尊重软件的版权保护，甲骨文赢得上诉，此案被发回重审。甲骨文此时提出了93亿美元的索赔。同年10月，谷歌申请美国联邦最高法院听审此案。"}]}]}]},{"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":"随后，联邦最高法院拒绝了谷歌的调卷令申请。根据联邦巡回上诉法院的指令，案件重返加州北区法院，由该院审理谷歌另外提出的“合理使用”主张。"}]},{"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，陪审团认定谷歌的行为构成合理使用，不涉及专利侵权。10月，甲骨文再次上诉至联邦巡回上诉法院；11月，谷歌也提起了上诉。"}]}]}]},{"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，甲骨文第二次赢得上诉，联邦巡回上诉法院推翻了陪审团的认定，认定谷歌侵权。"}]}]}]},{"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，谷歌向联邦最高法院上诉。2月，包括微软、Mozilla、开发者联盟、Python软件基金会在内的谷歌盟友们陆续向联邦最高法院递交了法庭之友意见书，其中一份由78位计算机科学家联合签署的意见书打动了大法官们，该院终于同意复审本案。"}]}]}]},{"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":"在甲骨文看来，谷歌在没协议的情况下抄袭了版权属于甲骨文的 37 个Java API 段。但谷歌认为，它所复用的Java 函数接口（API，即应用程序接口）属于例外，版权的合理使用原则是允许这种复制的。"}]},{"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":"于是，这场漫长的诉讼焦点变成，API 是否也受版权法的保护，对它的复用是否可构成侵权，又或者，它在多大程度上获得版权保护。"}]},{"type":"paragraph","attrs":{"indent":0,"number":0,"align":null,"origin":null}},{"type":"heading","attrs":{"align":null,"level":2},"content":[{"type":"text","text":"软件代码的版权保护边界"}]},{"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":"针对该案，来自电影、音乐、出版等行业高度依赖版权保护的企业主要站在甲骨文一方。而软件行业的大多数人则认为，API不受版权的保护。"}]},{"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":"最高法院在裁决中称，该院明确选择"},{"type":"text","marks":[{"type":"strong"}],"text":"不对本案中最广泛的法律问题做出裁决，即API代码到底有无资格获得版权保护。"}]},{"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":"布雷耶代表最高法院写道：“考虑到技术、经济和商业环境的快速变化，我们认为，我们不应该回答超出解决双方纷争所必需范畴的问题。”"}]},{"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":"也就是说，虽然该院认为甲骨文的Java API有资格获得版权保护，但该院也表示，谷歌在合理使用原则方面有较佳论证，而这一概念旨在防止版权阻碍新产品和服务的开发。"}]},{"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":"计算机软件知识产权的保护边界一直是个很难判定的问题。在探讨API应不应该受版权保护的时候，需要理解API的含义和意义到底是什么，过程中伴随而来的是层出不穷的比喻。"}]},{"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，曾将谷歌对Java API的复制比作是足球队抄袭了对方的战术，让自己的球队获得成功。"}]},{"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，谷歌为Android系统复制的代码仅占Java API总共286万行代码的0.4%。布雷耶将这部分代码比喻为“汽车上的油门踏板，它可以告诉汽车更快地行驶，或者如同打字机上的QWERTY键盘，当你按下某个特定的键时，就会调用某个字母”。"}]},{"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":"也就是说，如果造车厂选择采用油门踏板的设计，它就得支付高昂的版权费用，如果不采用，那它得重新发明新的设计，同时也很难让用户对此买单。API的意义类似油门踏板，Google复用它以吸引开发者，继而让开发者能迅速上手进行创新，而API的使用若受到限制，则在某种程度上限制了创新。"}]},{"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":"“我们的结论是：在本案中，谷歌重新实现了一个用户界面，且只取所需，以允许用户将积累的才能用在一个新的、变革性程序中，谷歌对Sun Java API的复制在法律上是对该材料的一次合理使用。”布雷耶写道。"}]},{"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位计算机科学家联合签署的意见书中，曾回顾了软件发展的历史，展示了得益于API重新实现而诞生的影响深远的伟大软件：计算机制造商重新实现IBM BIOS API，从而有了DOS，并最终诞生了windows系统；苹果通过重新实现Unix API，创造了桌面端的OS X操作系统和iOS系统。即便是Java，也不是Sun公司纯粹白手起家的产物，也建立在重新实现其他编程语言API的基础之上（例如C语言math API、Perl语言的正则表达式API等）。科学家们亦进一步指出：谷歌所做的，是一种长期存在且广泛普及的实践方式，其对于实现计算的基本进步至关重要，并且已经在过去数十年间推动了整个软件行业的历史创新。"}]},{"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":"加州大学伯克利分校的法律和信息学教授Pamela Samuelson称，这一裁决让开发者感到宽慰，API已经成为这些开发者开发软件的核心。软件开发人员一直依赖既有的软件接口作为计算领域创新的基础，最高法院的裁决实际上再次肯定了这一做法。"}]},{"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":"参考："}]},{"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"}]}]}