甲骨文告Google侵权，或殃及Android

Google似乎暂时阻挡了甲骨文(Oracle)控告其侵权案可能对 Android 操作系统带来的毁灭性冲击，但这场战役还未结束。 收购了升阳(Sun Microsystems)的甲骨文向美国法院控告Google侵犯Java版权与专利权，并要求至少10亿美元的损害赔偿金，以及对 Android 的禁制令；这场官司也让销售Android系统的人们，担心未来可能得支付权利金给甲骨文。 随着近日陪审团部分决议(partial decision)的提出，产业界对于Google可能会大幅修订Android的恐惧看来已经消散大半；陪审团表示，Google确实侵害了37个 Java应用程序接口(API)的版权，但无法认定上述侵权是否在美国著作权法之公平使用原则(fair use term)的范围中。 如同所有的法律诉讼案，未来还可能有更多坏消息；Google迫切要求法院重审，并期望能取得决定性的胜利，而甲骨文手上还有运作中的专利权诉讼。不过有产业观察家指出，现阶段“仍未有任何最后决议已经做成”，还有很多关键议题是有讨论空间的。 陪审团发现，Google复制了Java中37个API的架构、序列以及组织(structure, sequence, and organization，SSO)，但“所有人都在等待法官判决一个最重要的问题，也就是一个API的SSO是否具备版权？”美国圣塔克拉拉大学 (Santa Clara University)法学院教授Tyler T. Ochoa表示。 Ochoa补充指出：“甲骨文胜诉的唯一条件就是SSO具备版权，以及Google对其的使用并不符合公平使用原则，但法官对这两个议题都尚未做成决议。” 除此之外，陪审团也指出Google复制了一小部分的甲骨文原始码；对此Ochoa表示：“这部分的侵权损害应该只有15万美元左右，但如果法官判决SSO是具备版权的，损害金额可能就会高出许多。” 而Ochoa也表示，陪审团的决议还包括，尽管升阳先前的相关行为可能会使人被误导，但Google使用其SSO的决定，与以上误导行为无关。 像是Java与Android这样的程序代码本身的法律争议是很复杂的，以笔者的观点来看，法官要针对此案做陪审团指示(instruction)就是件艰难的任务，因为那需要对科技与法律议题两方面都有深刻的理解。 美联社(Associated Press)对于陪审团的决议做了不错的摘要报导，不过要解释那些决议的内容，并理解接下来可能采取的法律步骤，会是更复杂的任务。 站在远一点的角度来看这个问题会比较清楚；就像是Java之父James Gosling所说的，Google确实看来复制了一部分的Java 。Google显然是有冠冕堂皇的理由，认为他们不需要取得授权，但该公司与众多Android追随者在现阶段恐怕还无法远离威胁。 欢迎对于这个诉讼案件有所了解的读者提出在法律层面上的见解，我们也很想听听采用Android的原厂与应用程序开发商的看法。 而在诉讼案继续发展的同时，笔者也想强调，当任何人开始挥舞着免费开放源码软件大旗之前，别忘了“天下没有白吃的午餐”这个道理；不同于微软(Microsoft)与苹果(Apple)的销售模式，Google免费提供操作系统的背后，是要让其搜寻引擎与其它线上服务受到更多关注。 使用免费软件也是得付出代价的，甲骨文告Google的这场官司是否能证实这一点？让我们拭目以待吧… 编译：Judith Cheng 本文授权编译自EE Times，版权所有，谢绝转载 参考英文原文：Google lands punch in Round 1 of Oracle fight，by Rick Merritt

相关阅读：
• 打造以智能电视为核心的多设备互动应用
• Android原生支援：这样的MIPS君心动了么？
• 别老拿用户体验说事，那多是厂商一家之言WBAesmc

{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.