Google似乎暫時(shí)阻擋了甲骨文(Oracle)控告其侵權(quán)案可能對(duì) Android 操作系統(tǒng)帶來的毀滅性沖擊,但這場戰(zhàn)役還未結(jié)束。
收購了升陽(Sun Microsystems)的甲骨文向美國法院控告Google侵犯Java版權(quán)與專利權(quán),并要求至少10億美元的損害賠償金,以及對(duì) Android 的禁制令;這場官司也讓銷售Android系統(tǒng)的人們,擔(dān)心未來可能得支付權(quán)利金給甲骨文。
隨著近日陪審團(tuán)部分決議(partial decision)的提出,產(chǎn)業(yè)界對(duì)于Google可能會(huì)大幅修訂Android的恐懼看來已經(jīng)消散大半;陪審團(tuán)表示,Google確實(shí)侵害了37個(gè) Java應(yīng)用程序接口(API)的版權(quán),但無法認(rèn)定上述侵權(quán)是否在美國著作權(quán)法之公平使用原則(fair use term)的范圍中。
如同所有的法律訴訟案,未來還可能有更多壞消息;Google迫切要求法院重審,并期望能取得決定性的勝利,而甲骨文手上還有運(yùn)作中的專利權(quán)訴訟。不過有產(chǎn)業(yè)觀察家指出,現(xiàn)階段“仍未有任何最后決議已經(jīng)做成”,還有很多關(guān)鍵議題是有討論空間的。
陪審團(tuán)發(fā)現(xiàn),Google復(fù)制了Java中37個(gè)API的架構(gòu)、序列以及組織(structure, sequence, and organization,SSO),但“所有人都在等待法官判決一個(gè)最重要的問題,也就是一個(gè)API的SSO是否具備版權(quán)?”美國圣塔克拉拉大學(xué) (Santa Clara University)法學(xué)院教授Tyler T. Ochoa表示。
Ochoa補(bǔ)充指出:“甲骨文勝訴的唯一條件就是SSO具備版權(quán),以及Google對(duì)其的使用并不符合公平使用原則,但法官對(duì)這兩個(gè)議題都尚未做成決議?!?除此之外,陪審團(tuán)也指出Google復(fù)制了一小部分的甲骨文原始碼;對(duì)此Ochoa表示:“這部分的侵權(quán)損害應(yīng)該只有15萬美元左右,但如果法官判決SSO是具備版權(quán)的,損害金額可能就會(huì)高出許多?!?而Ochoa也表示,陪審團(tuán)的決議還包括,盡管升陽先前的相關(guān)行為可能會(huì)使人被誤導(dǎo),但Google使用其SSO的決定,與以上誤導(dǎo)行為無關(guān)。
像是Java與Android這樣的程序代碼本身的法律爭議是很復(fù)雜的,以筆者的觀點(diǎn)來看,法官要針對(duì)此案做陪審團(tuán)指示(instruction)就是件艱難的任務(wù),因?yàn)槟切枰獙?duì)科技與法律議題兩方面都有深刻的理解。
美聯(lián)社(Associated Press)對(duì)于陪審團(tuán)的決議做了不錯(cuò)的摘要報(bào)導(dǎo),不過要解釋那些決議的內(nèi)容,并理解接下來可能采取的法律步驟,會(huì)是更復(fù)雜的任務(wù)。
站在遠(yuǎn)一點(diǎn)的角度來看這個(gè)問題會(huì)比較清楚;就像是Java之父James Gosling所說的,Google確實(shí)看來復(fù)制了一部分的Java 。Google顯然是有冠冕堂皇的理由,認(rèn)為他們不需要取得授權(quán),但該公司與眾多Android追隨者在現(xiàn)階段恐怕還無法遠(yuǎn)離威脅。
歡迎對(duì)于這個(gè)訴訟案件有所了解的讀者提出在法律層面上的見解,我們也很想聽聽采用Android的原廠與應(yīng)用程序開發(fā)商的看法。
而在訴訟案繼續(xù)發(fā)展的同時(shí),筆者也想強(qiáng)調(diào),當(dāng)任何人開始揮舞著免費(fèi)開放源碼軟件大旗之前,別忘了“天下沒有白吃的午餐”這個(gè)道理;不同于微軟(Microsoft)與蘋果(Apple)的銷售模式,Google免費(fèi)提供操作系統(tǒng)的背后,是要讓其搜尋引擎與其它線上服務(wù)受到更多關(guān)注。
使用免費(fèi)軟件也是得付出代價(jià)的,甲骨文告Google的這場官司是否能證實(shí)這一點(diǎn)?讓我們拭目以待吧…
編譯:Judith Cheng
本文授權(quán)編譯自EE Times,版權(quán)所有,謝絕轉(zhuǎn)載
參考英文原文:Google lands punch in Round 1 of Oracle fight,by Rick Merritt
相關(guān)閱讀:
• 打造以智能電視為核心的多設(shè)備互動(dòng)應(yīng)用
• Android原生支援:這樣的MIPS君心動(dòng)了么?
• 別老拿用戶體驗(yàn)說事,那多是廠商一家之言DWBesmc
{pagination}
Google blocks Oracle's punch in Round 1
Rick Merritt
SAN JOSE – Google appeared to block what could have been a devastating punch against its Android operating system in the legal suit brought by Oracle. But this battle is far from over.
Oracle is suing Google for violating the Java copyrights and patents it acquired with Sun Microsystems. Oracle is asking for at least a billion dollars in damages and an injunction against Android, and it is threatening people selling Android systems that they might owe royalties to Oracle.
Fears that Google might need to significantly revise Android appear to be abating following a partial decision rendered today in the first part of the case. The jury said Google did infringe copyright on 37 Java APIs, but could not decide whether or not that infringement was covered by fair use terms.
As with all court cases, plenty more shoes have yet to fall. Google is pressing for a retrial, hoping for a decisive win. Oracle still has a patent suit in play.
Indeed, one expert observer said at this point “nothing final has been decided yet,” and a number of key issues are still open.
The jury found Google copied the structure, sequence, and organization of 37 of the APIs in Java. But “everyone is still waiting for the judge to decide the most important question in the case, which is [whether] the structure, sequence, and organization (SSO) of an API [is] copyrightable,” said Tyler T. Ochoa, a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law.
“Oracle wins only if the SSO is copyrightable, and the use was not a fair use, and neither of those questions has been decided yet,” said Ochoa.
Among its other findings, the jury said Google copied a little bit of Oracle source code. “Damages for that copying would be limited to about $150,000 dollars, but if the SSO is copyrightable, then damages could still be much higher,” said Ochoa.
In addition, the jury decided that even though Sun engaged in conduct that might have misled people, Google's decision to use the SSO was not made in reliance on that conduct, he said.
If the judge decides APIs are copyrightable "it would be quite problematic," Ochoa said. "If the structure, sequence, and organization of APIs are copyrightable, then the copyright owner can demand royalties from anyone who wants to write a program that operates in the same way," he added.
Like Java and Android code itself, the legal arguments are complex. The judge’s instructions to the jury were in my view a daunting assignment requiring a relatively sophisticated understanding of both technical and legal issues.
The Associated Press did a good job summarizing the jury’s decisions on the multiple questions it was asked. However, interpreting those decisions and understanding what next legal steps may fall from them is a much more complex task.
At a 30,000-foot view the horizon seems somewhat clear. As James Gosling, the father of Java said, Google does appear to have copied parts of Java.
I’d love to hear cogent insights from any other legal or software experts following the case. I’d also like to hear what OEMs and developers using Android are feeling and doing at this point. So please chime in below.
Meanwhile, the case goes on.
By the way, before anyone starts waving the flag of the free open source software movement, let’s remember there’s no free lunch. Google is giving away an operating system that a Microsoft or Apple would otherwise sell so it can get more eyeballs in front of its search engine and many, many other online services.
There’s a price for that free software. But that may not be determined by the Oracle v Google case.