· Chapter ·

1

Introduction to Legal Protection for Software

I. Introduction

Congress appointed a commission in 1974 to study whether copyright law should protect software,1 and in 1980 Congress amended the Copyright Act to implement the commission’s recommendation that it should. At about the same time, the U.S. Supreme Court opened the door for patent protection for software in the Diamond v. Diehr case.2 A few decades seems like an eternity in the software industry, so you might expect that, by now, our legal system has resolved all the major questions about legal protection for software. But it hasn’t. In many ways the controversies today are sharper than ever before: Do the laws that we have in place now provide the right degree of protection for software? Do the laws give software developers enough protection so that they can receive a return sufficient to motivate them to produce more great software? Do the laws leave enough in the public domain so that software developers can build on prior software works?
美国国会于 1974 年任命了一个委员会，研究版权法是否应该保护软件，1 1980 年，国会修订了《版权法》，以落实委员会的建议。大约在同一时间，美国最高法院在 Diamond 诉 Diehr 一案中为软件专利保护打开了大门。2 几十年的时间在软件行业似乎是永恒的，因此你可能会认为，到现在为止，我们的法律体系已经解决了有关软件法律保护的所有重大问题。但事实并非如此。在许多方面，今天的争议比以往任何时候都尖锐：我们现有的法律是否为软件提供了适当程度的保护？法律是否为软件开发者提供了足够的保护，使他们能够获得足够的回报，从而激励他们开发出更多优秀的软件？法律是否为公共领域留出了足够的空间，使软件开发者可以在已有软件作品的基础上继续开发？

Today, there are two radically different answers to these questions: Some would say that there is not enough protection for software — not nearly enough. These people point to billions of dollars in software piracy and the prevailing attitude that copying software is not morally wrong. Others would say, however, that there is enough protection — far too much. These people point to intellectual property laws, technical protections, and licenses that stand in the way of legitimate and productive uses of software.
如今，对这些问题有两种截然不同的答案：有些人会说，对软件的保护不够--远远不够。这些人指出，盗版软件价值数十亿美元，而且人们普遍认为复制软件在道德上并无不妥。然而，其他人会说，保护已经足够了--太多了。这些人指出，知识产权法、技术保护和许可证阻碍了软件的合法和生产性使用。

This book places you in the middle of this important debate. To put the debate in perspective, the book begins with a brief history3 of the software industry, followed
本书让您置身于这场重要的辩论之中。为了正确看待这场争论，本书首先简要介绍了软件行业的历史3 ，然后3

2

by a parallel brief history of legal protection for software, with an overview of the forms of software and software development in between.
同时简要介绍软件法律保护的历史，并概述软件和软件开发的形式。

II. A Brief History of the Software Industry

Today, software seems as common as an automobile or an electric light. It is hard to believe that 60 years ago software was nearly invisible to us. In the early 1950s, Fortune magazine published an article titled “Office Robots,” which was one of the first pieces in the popular press to discuss computers. 4 The article focused on computer hardware, however, not software.5 At that time the term “software” did not even exist. The “software” nomenclature came into general usage around 19606 and the media finally began to recognize the emergence of a discrete software industry in the early 1980s. By 1984 a Business Week headline proclaimed software “The New Driving Force” of the U.S. economy.7
今天，软件就像汽车或电灯一样常见。很难相信，60 年前我们几乎看不到软件。20 世纪 50 年代初， 《财富》 杂志发表了一篇题为 "办公机器人 "的文章，这是大众媒体中最早讨论计算机的文章之一。4 然而，这篇文章关注的是计算机硬件，而不是软件。5 当时甚至还没有 "软件 "这个术语。1960 年左右，"软件 "这一术语开始被普遍使用6 ，到 20 世纪 80 年代初，媒体终于开始认识到独立软件产业的出现。到 1984 年， 《商业周刊》 的头条新闻宣称软件是美国经济的 "新驱动力"。

A. Software Industry Progress

How did the software industry grow from obscurity to prominence in such a short time? Software development began as merely one aspect of creating an overall computer system. Developing software was no more remarkable than developing the system’s processor, keyboard, storage, switches, or wires. Even though software did not seem remarkable, it was distinct and software programming services began to emerge by the mid-1950s as a separately valuable aspect of computer systems development when the U.S. government began to hire programmers for its SAGE air defense project and private firms followed suit albeit on a smaller scale.8 The Computer Sciences Corporation emerged in this era, for example, and continues to sell its programming services to this day.
软件产业是如何在如此短的时间内从默默无闻发展到崭露头角的？软件开发最初只是创建整个计算机系统的一个方面。开发软件并不比开发系统的处理器、键盘、存储设备、开关或电线更引人注目。即使软件看起来并不起眼，但它却是与众不同的，到 20 世纪 50 年代中期，软件编程服务开始作为计算机系统开发的一个独立的有价值的方面出现，当时美国政府开始为计算机系统开发雇用程序员。8 例如，计算机科学公司（Computer Sciences Corporation）就是在这个时代出现的，并一直销售其编程服务至今。

By the 1960s companies had begun to develop software programs that were packaged and sold in their own right, such as Autoflow and Mark IV from Applied Data Research. These programs appealed to corporate customers who acquired them as a more economical alternative to custom programming services. Today, software
到 20 世纪 60 年代，一些公司开始开发打包销售的软件程序，如应用数据研究公司的 Autoflow 和 Mark IV。这些程序吸引了企业客户，他们将其作为定制编程服务之外的一种更经济的选择。如今，软件

3

firms such as SAP and Oracle continue to focus on the corporate enterprise market.9 The market for separate software programs gained considerable momentum in 1970 when IBM, under antitrust litigation pressure, unbundled the pricing for its hardware and software. Indeed, many consider this the turning point in the establishment and explosive growth of the software industry.10
SAP 和 Oracle 等公司继续专注于公司企业市场。9 1970 年，IBM 在反垄断诉讼的压力下取消了硬件和软件的捆绑定价，独立软件程序市场获得了巨大的发展。事实上，许多人认为这是软件产业建立和爆炸式增长的转折点。10

The late 1970s saw the establishment of hundreds of software firms. Many of these companies provided their software products to consumers in the mass market. Application products such as the WordStar word processor and VisiCalc spreadsheet became well-known consumer products, replaced in short order by programs such as the Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet, WordPerfect word processor, and Ashton-Tate’s dBase database product. Microsoft’s MS-DOS operating system became popular for personal computers (PCs) and variations of the UNIX operating system predominated in high-end computer systems.11 At the same time, firms such as Broderbund, Nintendo, and Sega developed software primarily for recreational and educational purposes.
20 世纪 70 年代末，数百家软件公司相继成立。其中许多公司向大众市场的消费者提供软件产品。WordStar 文字处理程序和 VisiCalc 电子表格等应用产品成为众所周知的消费产品，并很快被 Lotus 1-2-3 电子表格、WordPerfect 文字处理程序和 Ashton-Tate 的 dBase 数据库产品等程序所取代。微软的 MS-DOS 操作系统开始在个人电脑（PC）上流行，而 UNIX 操作系统的变体则在高端计算机系统中占据主导地位。11 与此同时，Broderbund 、任天堂和世嘉等公司开发了主要用于娱乐和教育目的的软件。

In subsequent years, all aspects of the software industry grew. The demand for user-friendly products in the mass market led to the prominence of Apple’s Macintosh and Microsoft’s Windows graphical user interface-based software. 12 Graphical software is now deployed on a multitude of devices, with the adoption of tablet computers and smart phones outpacing PCs. Software licensed for all to use and modify, known as “open source” software, has become a key part of the software industry with Linux-based operating systems as the poster child.13 The emergence of the Internet and World Wide Web brought firms such as Netscape and Yahoo! to the fore, followed by Google and Facebook.14 All of these Web businesses are powered by software. And companies such as I.B.M re-emerged by selling programming services to companies doing business via the Internet — a business model that’s a throw-back to the dawn of the software industry.
随后几年，软件产业的各个方面都在发展。大众市场对用户友好型产品的需求促使苹果公司的 Macintosh 和微软公司的 Windows 图形用户界面软件大放异彩。12 图形化软件现在被部署在多种设备上，平板电脑和智能手机的采用率超过了个人电脑。允许所有人使用和修改的软件，即 "开放源码 "软件，已成为软件业的重要组成部分，基于 Linux 的操作系统就是其中的代表。13 互联网和万维网的出现使网景和雅虎等公司脱颖而出，随后谷歌和微软也相继推出了自己的软件！14 所有这些网络业务都由软件驱动。I.B.M等公司通过向通过互联网开展业务的公司销售编程服务而重新崛起，这种商业模式让人回想起软件行业的萌芽时期。

4

B. Another Lens: What Does the Software User Experience?
B.另一个视角：软件用户体验如何？

Another way to look at the history of the software industry is from the standpoint of the end user. Users first encountered software as they used large main frame computers. They interacted with the computer using dumb terminals and programmed the computer using stacks of punch cards. Even as computers became smaller (called mini and then micro-computers), the user interacted with the computer using arcane characters displayed on monochrome monitors and input was done by keyboard. Using these computers tethered users to their work space, creating islands of functionality unconnected to other users. Using computers not only was difficult, it was expensive and thus, computer use was not widespread.
从最终用户的角度来看软件产业的发展史，也是一种不错的选择。用户在使用大型主机时首次接触到软件。他们使用哑终端与计算机进行交互，并使用成堆的打孔卡对计算机进行编程。即使计算机变得越来越小（被称为迷你计算机和微型计算机），用户与计算机的交互也是使用单色显示器上显示的复杂字符，并通过键盘输入。使用这些计算机将用户束缚在自己的工作空间内，形成了一个个与其他用户无关的功能孤岛。使用计算机不仅困难，而且昂贵，因此计算机的使用并不普及。

Today, computing is radically different. Computers are small, personal, inexpensive, and plentiful. It’s not uncommon for a person to have a desktop computer, a laptop, a tablet, and a smartphone. Users interact with these computers using pointing devices, touch, gestures, and voice. The displays are colorful. It is common to see graphics and animation. Computing is mobile — users are no longer tethered to their desk. And users are connected to one another — islands of functionality have been replaced by a sea of connectivity. Devices of all kinds — phones, cameras, and televisions — are now converging with devices that we used to identify separately as computers. Works of all kinds — music, text, movies, and photos — are now converging with the thing we used to identify separately as software.
如今，计算机的发展已截然不同。计算机体积小、个人化、价格低廉、种类繁多。一个人拥有台式电脑、笔记本电脑、平板电脑和智能手机的情况并不少见。用户使用指向设备、触摸、手势和语音与这些电脑进行交互。显示屏色彩丰富。图形和动画十分常见。计算是移动的--用户不再受办公桌的束缚。用户之间相互连接--连接的海洋取代了功能的孤岛。各种设备--电话、照相机和电视机--现在正与我们过去单独称为计算机的设备融合在一起。各种作品--音乐、文字、电影和照片--现在正与我们过去单独称为软件的东西融合在一起。

Software has become so ubiquitous and normal that the user’s awareness of it is beginning to fade into the background. Now the user focuses on what he or she wants to do or see, not the software that makes it happen. We are on the verge of the computer revolution foreseen by World Wide Web creator Tim Berners-Lee where computers, the network, and the software that drives them should be invisible to the user. In an ironic twist of history, the software industry began as invisible because it blended into the computer hardware, but now it seems invisible because it blends into the services it provides. And it’s fair to say that the erstwhile invisible software has returned to invisible software because of the cleverness of the software itself.
软件已经变得无处不在、习以为常，以至于用户对软件的认识开始逐渐淡化。现在，用户关注的是自己想做什么或想看什么，而不是实现这些的软件。我们即将迎来万维网创造者蒂姆-伯纳斯-李（Tim Berners-Lee）所预见的计算机革命，在这场革命中，计算机、网络和驱动它们的软件都将不为用户所见。具有讽刺意味的历史转折是，软件业一开始是隐形的，因为它与计算机硬件融为一体，但现在似乎又是隐形的，因为它与所提供的服务融为一体。可以说，由于软件本身的聪明才智，昔日的隐形软件又回到了隐形软件的行列。

III. An Interlude: The Forms of Software and Software Development
III.插曲：软件和软件开发的形式

A. Forms of Software

Now that you have a sense of history of the software industry, we turn to an overview of the forms that software takes. As you will see throughout this book, these forms are relevant to both the business of software and its protection under the law (discussed next in Section IV).
在了解了软件产业的历史之后，我们将对软件的形式进行概述。正如你将在本书中看到的，这些形式与软件业务和软件的法律保护（将在第四部分讨论）都息息相关。

5

Software consists of statements or instructions that are executed by a computer to produce a certain result.15 Or, to put it another way, software is digital information that performs a function on a computer.16 A software developer would say that software comes in two primary forms: source code and object code. “Source code” refers to the code written by software programmers in a computer language such as BASIC, C/C++, or Java. Source code is human readable code — it can be understood by any programmer proficient in the language in which it is written. Here is some source code written in the C++ language:
15 或者换一种说法，软件是在计算机上执行某种功能的数字信息。16 软件开发人员会说，软件有两种主要形式：源代码和目标代码。"源代码 "是指软件程序员用 BASIC、C/C++ 或 Java 等计算机语言编写的代码。源代码是人类可读的代码--任何精通其编写语言的程序员都能理解它。以下是一些用 C++ 语言编写的源代码：

“Object code” is derived from source code using a software tool called a compiler. It consists of a series of ones and zeros, so it is sometimes called “binary code.”
"对象代码 "是使用一种称为编译器的软件工具从源代码中提取出来的。它由一系列的 1 和 0 组成，因此有时也被称为 "二进制代码"。

6

Object code is stored on a computer readable medium such as a hard drive or CD-ROM and executes (i.e., runs) on the computer hardware. Because of this, it is sometimes referred to as “executable code” or “machine readable code.” This is what object code looks like:
目标代码存储在计算机可读介质（如硬盘或光盘）上，并在计算机硬件上执行（即运行）。因此，它有时也被称为 "可执行代码 "或 "机器可读代码"。这就是目标代码的样子：

You may also think of software in terms of the visual displays that it generates — that is, by what a user sees when the software runs. Software developers call this the “user interface.” This is the way many non-technical people perceive software because they have little or no awareness of the source code or object code that generates the user interface. Programmers, on the other hand, often refer to a software program’s technical function in relation to the overall program. They may refer to software as a file system,17 a kernel,18 a directory,19 a library,20 an interface,21 or a device driver.22 These categories change over time; boundaries blur or vanish, and new categories often appear.
你也可以从软件产生的视觉显示来理解软件，即用户在软件运行时看到的东西。软件开发人员称之为 "用户界面"。这是许多非技术人员感知软件的方式，因为他们对生成用户界面的源代码或目标代码知之甚少或一无所知。另一方面，程序员通常将软件程序的技术功能与整个程序联系起来。他们可能将软件称为文件系统、17 内核、18 目录、19 一个库、20 一个接口、21 或设备驱动程序。22 这些类别会随着时间的推移而变化；界限会模糊或消失，而且经常会出现新的类别。

Another aspect of software is the user’s experience when using the software or the service it provides. Software publishers sometimes call this “software as a service.” Software in this sense remains largely invisible to the user, at least so long as the software is working properly (imagine the joys and frustrations associated with airline reservation and check-in software when it works or fails to work).
软件的另一个方面是用户在使用软件或软件提供的服务时的体验。软件出版商有时称之为 "软件即服务"。这种意义上的软件在很大程度上不为用户所见，至少在软件正常运行时是这样（想象一下航空公司的订票和值机软件在运行或失灵时给用户带来的喜悦和挫折）。

7

People often put software into categories such as applications, operating systems, and developer tools. Developer tools are used by software programmers to develop other software. Developer tools often relate to use of a particular computer language, such as Java, C/C++, or BASIC. An operating system controls the allocation and usage of computer hardware resources (such as disk space) and provides basic functionality to application software (such as drawing a window on the screen). Popular operating systems include the Mac OS, Windows, Android, and GNU/Linux.
人们通常将软件分为应用程序、操作系统和开发者工具等类别。开发者工具用于软件程序员开发其他软件。开发工具通常与特定计算机语言的使用有关，如 Java、C/C++ 或 BASIC。操作系统控制计算机硬件资源（如磁盘空间）的分配和使用，并为应用软件提供基本功能（如在屏幕上绘制窗口）。流行的操作系统包括 Mac OS、Windows、Android 和 GNU/Linux。

Application software helps people perform tasks, such as manipulating text, numbers, or graphics. Popular personal productivity applications include Microsoft Office, Norton Anti-Virus, TurboTax, and the Google search engine. Applications such as Angry Birds, Tetris, and World of Warcraft provide entertainment. Other applications, called server applications, work in the background to perform tasks such as routing email, organizing data, and hosting websites.
应用软件帮助人们执行任务，如操作文本、数字或图形。流行的个人生产力应用软件包括 Microsoft Office、Norton Anti-Virus、TurboTax 和 Google 搜索引擎。愤怒的小鸟、俄罗斯方块和魔兽世界等应用程序则提供娱乐功能。其他应用程序称为服务器应用程序，在后台执行路由电子邮件、组织数据和托管网站等任务。

B. A Description of the Software Development Process
B.软件开发过程说明

The fundamental processes utilized by a software program are called algorithms (mechanical computational procedures) and are at the heart of the program. The creation of a software program often takes place in several steps, moving from the general to the specific. Because software programs are intended to accomplish particular tasks, the first step in creating the program is identifying the problem that the computer programmer is trying to solve.
软件程序使用的基本过程称为算法（机械计算程序），是程序的核心。软件程序的创建通常分为几个步骤，从一般到具体。由于软件程序旨在完成特定任务，因此创建程序的第一步就是确定计算机程序员试图解决的问题。

As the programmer learns more about the problem, she or he may begin to outline a solution in the form of a flowchart, which will break down the solution into a series of smaller units called “subroutines” or “modules,” each of which deals with elements of the larger problem. A program’s efficiency depends in large part on the arrangements of its modules and subroutines. Efficiency is a prime concern in computer programs, so the clever arrangement of modules and subroutines is a critical factor for any programmer.
当程序员对问题有了更多了解后，就会开始以流程图的形式勾勒出解决方案，将解决方案分解成一系列称为 "子程序 "或 "模块 "的较小单元，每个单元处理较大问题的各个要素。程序的效率在很大程度上取决于模块和子程序的安排。效率是计算机程序的首要考虑因素，因此巧妙地安排模块和子程序对任何程序员来说都是至关重要的。

Once the detailed design of the program is completed, the coding begins. The programmer first writes the source code. Once the program is written in source code, it is compiled into object code. Finally, the software is tested over and over. The testing process is just as important as the coding process and often consumes more time as errors (called “bugs”) are identified and fixed.23
程序的详细设计完成后，编码工作就开始了。程序员首先编写源代码。程序写成源代码后，再编译成目标代码。最后，对软件进行反复测试。测试过程与编码过程同样重要，而且往往需要花费更多的时间来识别和修复错误（称为 "bug"）。 23

8

IV. Brief History of Legal Protection for Software
IV.软件法律保护简史

Lawmakers who began to see the need for legal protection for software faced a fundamental question: Should they create a legal scheme tailored to the special characteristics of software or should they simply apply preexisting laws such as copyright, patent, trade secret, trademark, and contract law? A sui generis law seemed appealing because software has both an inventive side (like inventions subject to patent law) and a creative side (like works of authorship subject to copyright law).24 In the end, legal protection for software came through existing laws. That is both good news and bad news. The problem with this approach, as we will see, is that legal protection for software often comes with both gaps and overlaps; but the approach also has advantages because the courts can apply the law flexibly as new technologies and business models arise. Ultimately, courts and legislators have been applying and adjusting the law in an attempt to create the optimal balance between protection and the public domain.
开始意识到需要对软件进行法律保护的立法者们面临着一个基本问题：他们是应该针对软件的特殊性制定法律制度，还是应该简单地适用现有的法律，如版权法、专利法、商业秘密法、商标法和合同法？sui generis 法律似乎很有吸引力，因为软件既有创造性的一面（就像受专利法保护的发明），也有创造性的一面（就像受版权法保护的著作）。这既是好消息，也是坏消息。正如我们将看到的，这种方法的问题在于，软件的法律保护往往存在空白和重叠；但这种方法也有优点，因为法院可以随着新技术和商业模式的出现灵活应用法律。最终，法院和立法者一直在应用和调整法律，试图在保护和公共领域之间建立最佳平衡。

The rest of this section provides a brief overview of each type of legal protection for software; in-depth treatment comes in the chapters that follow.
本节其余部分将简要介绍每种软件法律保护类型；深入讨论将在后面的章节中进行。

A. Copyright

The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to “promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts” by granting to authors and inventors exclusive rights in their works for a limited time. U.S. Const. art. I, §8, cl. 8. Using that power, Congress passed the Copyright Act. Copyright protection applies to “original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression.”25 Works of authorship include literary works; musical works; dramatic works; pantomimes and choreographic works; pictoral, graphic, and sculptural works; motion pictures and other audiovisual works; sound recordings; and architectural works. Certain things do not qualify for copyright protection: ideas, procedures, processes, systems, methods of operation, concepts, principles, or discoveries — regardless of the form in which they are described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in a work.26 To put it another way, copyright applies to the expression of an idea but never to the idea itself.27
《美国宪法》赋予国会 "促进科学和实用艺术的进步 "的权力，在有限的时间内授予作者和发明者对其作品的专有权。美国宪法》第 I 条第 8 款第 8 项。利用这一权力，国会通过了《版权法》。版权保护适用于 "固定在任何有形表达载体上的原创作品"。25 原创作品包括文学作品、音乐作品、戏剧作品、哑剧和舞蹈作品、图像、图形和雕塑作品、电影和其他视听作品、录音制品和建筑作品。某些事物没有资格获得版权保护：创意、程序、流程、系统、操作方法、概念、原则或发现--无论它们以何种形式被描述、解释、说明或体现在作品中。26 换一种说法，版权适用于思想的表达，但不适用于思想本身。

For each copyrighted work, the author receives a set of exclusive rights, namely: the right to reproduce, create derivative works, distribute copies, and publicly perform or display the work.28 It is often said that a copyright holder’s exclusive rights
28 人们常说，著作权人的专有权

9

can be thought of as a bundle of sticks.29 The author’s exclusivity lasts for a discrete, limited period of time.30 During the period of exclusivity, no one may exercise the author’s exclusive rights without the author’s permission (unless the use is a “fair use”).
29 作者的专有权持续一段不连续的有限时间。30 在专有权期间，未经作者许可，任何人不得行使作者的专有权（除非该使用属于 "合理使用"）。

The first question faced by courts was whether copyright would protect software in its basic forms from literal copying. The answer to this question was “yes.” The court in Apple Computer v. Franklin Computer31 held that software source and object code are protectable by copyright as literary works, and other courts made it clear that visual displays are protectable as audiovisual works.32
法院面临的第一个问题是，版权是否能保护基本形式的软件免遭文字复制。这个问题的答案是 "是"。在苹果电脑公司诉富兰克林电脑公司案31 中，法院认为软件源代码和目标代码可以作为文学作品受到版权保护，而其他法院则明确表示，视觉展示可以作为视听作品受到保护。32

Next the courts examined whether the non-literal aspects of software — its structure, sequence, and organization — were protectable by copyright. Again, cases such as Whelan Associates v. Jaslow Dental Laboratory33 answered “yes” but, after Whelan, that affirmative answer came with many caveats. Courts ruled that the non-literal aspects of software were potentially copyrightable but that, in any given case, some or all of the aspects might not be protected by copyright because they were ideas or functional elements protectable (if at all) by patent law.34 In other words, the courts in these cases focused carefully on the scope of copyright protection.
接下来，法院审查了软件的非文字方面--其结构、顺序和组织--是否可受版权保护。同样，Whelan Associates 诉 Jaslow Dental Laboratory33 等案件的答案是 "是"，但在Whelan 之后，这一肯定的答案附带了许多注意事项。法院裁定，软件的非文字方面有可能受到版权保护，但在任何特定案件中，部分或全部方面可能不受版权保护，因为它们属于受专利法保护（如果受专利法保护的话）的思想或功能元素。34 换句话说，法院在这些案件中谨慎地关注版权保护的范围。

Before we leave copyright protection, it is important to note that copyright does not protect some of the most valuable aspects of software. As already mentioned, it does not protect ideas or inventions, which means that many of the most functional aspects of software do not qualify for copyright protection or that the scope of protection is very limited. Copyright does not protect the work that goes into testing the software. It does not guard against reverse engineering the software in many instances. Nor does it protect the ultimate functional “service” that the software provides.
在离开版权保护之前，有必要指出，版权并不保护软件的某些最有价值的方面。如前所述，版权不保护创意或发明，这意味着软件中许多功能最强大的方面不符合版权保护的条件，或者说保护范围非常有限。版权不保护软件测试工作。在许多情况下，它不能防止软件的逆向工程。版权也不保护软件提供的最终功能性 "服务"。

B. Patents

The same authority in the U.S. Constitution that gives Congress the power to enact copyright protection also gives Congress the authority to enact patent protection. U.S. Const. art. I, §8, cl. 8. Using that power, Congress passed the Patent Act.35 Patents can be granted by the United States Patent and Trademark Office
《美国宪法》赋予国会制定版权保护的权力，同样也赋予国会制定专利保护的权力。U.S. Const.35 专利可由美国专利商标局授予。

10

(USPTO) for new, non-obvious, useful inventions. There are various types of patents: utility (including process and business method), plant, and design patents. Like a copyright, a patent gives the holder exclusive rights for a certain limited period of time.36 For the duration of the patent, the patent holder has the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering to sell, distributing, or importing things that practice the patented invention.
（美国专利商标局）申请新的、非显而易见的有用发明。专利有多种类型：实用专利（包括工艺和商业方法）、植物专利和外观设计专利。与版权一样，专利赋予持有人在一定期限内的专有权。36 在专利有效期内，专利持有人有权禁止他人制造、使用、销售、提供销售、分销或进口实施专利发明的物品。

Many software developers have looked to patent law for protection. This makes sense because the computer hardware industry has long relied on patents. However, software inventions have proven to be a difficult fit for the patent system. In the 1950s and 1960s the USPTO routinely rejected software as improper subject matter, and in 1972 the Supreme Court’s Gottschalk v. Benson decision seemed to agree.37 The door to software patents began to open, however, when the Court decided Diamond v. Diehr38 a decade later, and more recently, Bilski v. Kappos39 and Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International explored the contours of patentability.40
许多软件开发商都在寻求专利法的保护。这是有道理的，因为计算机硬件行业长期以来一直依赖专利。但事实证明，软件发明很难适应专利制度。在 20 世纪 50 年代和 60 年代，美国专利商标局通常将软件作为不适当的主题加以拒绝，1972 年，最高法院对 Gottschalk 诉 Benson 案的裁决似乎也同意了这一点。37 然而，当法院对 Diamond 诉 Diehr 案 作出裁决时，软件专利的大门开始打开。Diehr38 十年后，软件专利的大门开始敞开，而最近，Bilski v.Kappos39 和 Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International 案探讨了专利性的轮廓。

Like copyright protection, patent protection comes with many caveats. Post-Alice Corp., many software-related inventions may not qualify as patentable subject matter. In addition, other inventions will fail because they lack sufficient novelty or would be obvious to a person who is skilled in the art of computer programming.41
与版权保护一样，专利保护也有许多注意事项。在Alice Corp. 案之后，许多与软件相关的发明可能不符合可申请专利的条件。此外，其他发明也会因为缺乏足够的新颖性或对于熟练掌握计算机编程技术的人来说是显而易见的而失败。

C. Trade Secrets

A trade secret is any information that holds independent economic value because it is held in secrecy. The information must be guarded by measures reasonably calculated to protect its secrecy. Trade secret law protects the holder from unlawful use or disclosure of the information. Trade secrets are protected by state law; most states have passed a version of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA). Those states that have not passed the UTSA tend to apply principles set out in the Restatement of Torts §§757 and 758. In addition, federal protection comes about through the Economic Espionage Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016.42
商业秘密是指任何因保密而具有独立经济价值的信息。必须采取合理措施保护信息的机密性。商业秘密法保护信息持有者免受非法使用或披露。商业秘密受州法律保护；大多数州都通过了《统一商业秘密法》（UTSA）。那些没有通过《统一商业秘密法》的州则倾向于适用《侵权重申 §§757 和 758》中规定的原则。此外，《经济间谍法》、《计算机欺诈和滥用法》和《2016 年捍卫商业秘密法》也提供了联邦保护。

Trade secret protection proved to be especially valuable in the early days of the software industry when patent and copyright protection was uncertain. It also fit comfortably with the programming services and corporate software business model
事实证明，在软件业发展初期，专利和版权保护尚不明确，商业秘密保护尤其有价值。它也与编程服务和企业软件业务模式相得益彰

11

that characterized that era. The mass market software of today may retain the secrecy of its source code if the software is distributed in object code form and accompanied by an enforceable license that prohibits reverse compiling of the object code.43
那个时代的特点。如果软件以目标代码的形式发布，并附有禁止反向编译目标代码的可强制执行的许可证，那么今天的大众市场软件可以保留其源代码的机密性。

Despite the availability of copyright and patent protection, trade secret protection remains important for certain purposes. Many software companies hold their source code as a trade secret. In addition, certain algorithms, development processes, and aspects of software that would not qualify for patent or copyright protection are protected as trade secrets. Moreover, software firms use trade secrecy to protect sales and marketing information just like other businesses.
尽管有版权和专利保护，商业秘密保护对于某些目的来说仍然很重要。许多软件公司将其源代码作为商业秘密。此外，某些算法、开发过程和软件的某些方面不符合专利或版权保护的条件，也作为商业秘密受到保护。此外，软件公司与其他企业一样，也会利用商业机密来保护销售和营销信息。

D. Trademarks and Trade Dress

A trademark is a name, symbol, or other device used to identify the source of a good (a service mark is a mark used to identify services).44 Trade dress refers to product packaging and configurations.45 Upon use in commerce, a mark or dress is protected under common law; federal protection (national in scope) may be acquired by registering with the USPTO.46 Unlike copyrights and patents, trademark and trade dress protection does not give the owner a bundle of exclusive rights. It gives the holder the right to exclude others from using confusingly similar marks and dress, as well as the right to control usage in conjunction with goods or services.
44 商业外观是指产品包装和配置。45 一旦在商业中使用，商标或外观即受普通法保护；可通过在美国专利商标局注册获得联邦保护（全国范围）。46 与版权和专利不同，商标和商业外观保护并不赋予所有者一系列专有权。它赋予持有人排除他人使用混淆性相似商标和外观的权利，以及控制与商品或服务结合使用的权利。

Today, software industry firms own some of the most prominent brands in the world — Apple, Google, Facebook, and Windows. Software firms use trademarks in many of the same ways as firms in other industries. For so-called “open source” software firms that give away many of their trade secret, copyright, and patent rights, trademark protection can be especially valuable. Trademarks may also be used to demonstrate compatibility with other software or compliance with industry standards. Some software firms have attempted to protect visual displays via trade dress, but these attempts have not proven to be successful because trade dress must not be functional.47
如今，软件业公司拥有世界上一些最著名的品牌--苹果、谷歌、Facebook 和 Windows。软件公司使用商标的许多方式与其他行业的公司相同。对于所谓的 "开放源码 "软件公司来说，他们会放弃许多商业秘密、版权和专利权，因此商标保护尤其有价值。商标还可用于证明与其他软件的兼容性或符合行业标准。一些软件公司曾试图通过商业外观来保护可视化显示，但事实证明这些尝试并不成功，因为商业外观必须是非功能性的。

E. Software Licensing

Intellectual property rights allow software developers to protect their software. Contracts can work in tandem with intellectual property protection in certain ways.
知识产权允许软件开发商保护其软件。合同可以在某些方面与知识产权保护相互配合。

12

For example, Non-Disclosure Agreements help protect software trade secrets. Most often, however, software contracts complement intellectual property by granting others the right to do something with it. We call this use of contracts “software licensing.” Software developers use licenses in all stages of software development and distribution.
例如，保密协议有助于保护软件商业秘密。但最常见的是，软件合同通过授予他人使用知识产权的权利来补充知识产权。我们称这种合同使用为 "软件许可"。软件开发者在软件开发和发布的各个阶段都会使用许可证。

In so-called “upstream licensing,” software developers license intellectual property in the course of their collaboration to build a software product. For example, code in both the Microsoft Windows and GNU/Linux operating systems was written and licensed by software developers other than (as the case may be) Microsoft employees or Linus Torvalds. Related to this, in upstream licensing, software developers license intellectual property so that their software works with other software and hardware to form a useful customer product. The typical personal computer, for instance, contains software licensed from and between a variety of software developers, such as Adobe, Google, Microsoft, Symantec, and the Linux Foundation.
在所谓的 "上游许可 "中，软件开发者在合作构建软件产品的过程中许可知识产权。例如，微软视窗和 GNU/Linux 操作系统中的代码都是由微软员工或 Linus Torvalds 之外的软件开发人员编写和授权的。与此相关的是，在上游许可中，软件开发商许可了知识产权财产，从而使其软件能够与其他软件和硬件配合使用，形成有用的客户产品。例如，典型的个人电脑中就包含了来自 Adobe、Google、Microsoft、Symantec 和 Linux 基金会等多家软件开发商的软件许可。

In so-called “downstream licensing,” software firms use licensing to distribute software to the market and enable use. One feature of the information economy is the innovative ways that software distributors get products to market. Software developers distribute through value added resellers (VARs), original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), distributors, and retailers (e.g., Wal-Mart and Costco). They distribute in boxes, jewel cases, and electronically. Software arrives via email and can be downloaded from websites and bulletin boards. Software even arrives in cereal boxes and with the morning newspaper.
在所谓的 "下游许可 "中，软件公司利用许可向市场分销软件，并使其得以使用。信息经济的一个特点是软件分销商以创新的方式将产品推向市场。软件开发商通过增值经销商 (VAR)、原始设备制造商 (OEM)、分销商和零售商（如沃尔玛和 Costco）进行分销。他们以包装盒、珠宝盒和电子方式进行分销。软件通过电子邮件发送，也可以从网站和公告栏下载。软件甚至可以装在麦片盒里或随晨报一起寄出。

Once an end user gets software, a license often describes the usage rights. End user licensing enables software licensors to provide users with a variety of software products at a variety of price points for a variety of uses. End user licensing allows software firms to offer packages of software and services; flexible client-server computing usage; and the same code to business users at one price, home users for a lower price, students for yet a lower price, and charitable organizations for free. Despite these positive aspects of end user licensing, it has been criticized on many grounds, including concerns about contract formation and whether licenses should be able to limit use and transfer rights that are part of a “first sale” of a copy of a work.
一旦最终用户获得软件，许可证通常会说明使用权。最终用户许可使软件许可人能够以各种价位为用户提供各种用途的软件产品。最终用户许可使软件公司可以提供软件和服务包；灵活的客户机-服务器计算使用；以及以一种价格向商业用户、以较低价格向家庭用户、以更低价格向学生、以免费向慈善机构提供相同的代码。尽管最终用户许可具有这些积极的方面，但它也受到了许多批评，包括对合同订立的关注，以及许可是否应能限制作为作品拷贝 "首次销售 "一部分的使用权和转让权。

F. Boundaries on Legal Protection

This section on legal protection for software ends on a cautionary note. Intellectual property protection has its limits. The power conferred by a copyright or patent monopoly may not be used to extend those monopolies behind the statutory limits — if a software developer attempts to do so, this “misuse” may result in the suspension of the right to enforce the intellectual property rights. And speaking of monopolies, software firms may run afoul of antitrust law by improper conduct in
本节关于软件法律保护的内容以警句结束。知识产权保护有其局限性。版权或专利垄断所赋予的权力不得用于在法定限制之外扩大这些垄断--如果软件开发商试图这样做，这种 "滥用 "可能会导致执行知识产权的权利被中止。说到垄断，软件公司可能会因为中的不当行为而触犯反垄断法。

13

the development or distribution of software. Furthermore, on occasion state law protection may be preempted by federal protection. And sometimes a software use may be defensible as a “fair” and non-infringing use even though it seems to violate an exclusive copyright or trademark right.
软件的开发或发行。此外，有时州法律保护可能会被联邦保护所取代。有时，即使软件的使用似乎侵犯了专有版权或商标权，但仍可作为 "合理 "和非侵权使用进行辩护。

V. Direction of the Book

The remaining chapters of this book provide an in-depth look at legal protection for software. Chapter 2 discusses copyright protection, including the protection of the non-literal elements of software. Chapter 3 looks at trade secret protection. Chapter 4 examines how trademarks and trade dress are used in the software industry. Chapter 5 delves into the patentability of software. Chapter 6 covers software licensing, including open source licensing. Chapter 7 addresses the most common question in software development — who owns the intellectual property that is created? Chapter 8 introduces interoperability and industry standards. Chapter 9 discusses the various boundaries around legal protection for software, including fair use, preemption, misuse, and antitrust. Chapter 10 looks at the significance of business models in the software industry.
本书其余各章深入探讨了软件的法律保护问题。第 2 章 讨论了版权保护，包括对软件非文字元素的保护。 第 3 章 介绍商业秘密保护。 第 4 章 探讨了商标和商业外观在软件行业中的应用。 第 5 章 深入探讨了软件的专利性。 第 6 章 涉及软件许可，包括开源许可。 第 7 章 解决了软件开发中最常见的问题--谁拥有创建的知识产权？ 第 8 章 介绍互操作性和行业标准。 第 9 章 讨论了围绕软件法律保护的各种界限，包括合理使用、优先权、滥用和反垄断。第 10 章 探讨了商业模式在软件行业中的重要性。

1. The commission was called the National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works or “CONTU” for short. See Chapter 2 for a discussion of CONTU’s final report.
1. 该委员会被称为版权作品新技术使用全国委员会，简称 "CONTU"。 有关 CONTU 最终报告的讨论，请参见 第 2 章。

2. 450 U.S. 175 (1981).
2. 450 U.S. 175 (1981).

3. Two excellent books provide a fuller history of the software industry: Martin Campbell-Kelly, From Airline Reservations to Sonic the Hedgehog: A History of the Software Industry (2004) (hereafter A History of THE Software Industry); and Michael A. Cusumano, The Business of Software (2004). Useful information on the economics of the information economy in which software plays a starring role can be found in CARL Shapiro & Hal R. Varian, Information Rules: A Strategic Guide to the Network Economy (1999). Thomas Haigh & Paul E. Ceruzzi, A New History of Modern Computing (2021) provides an outstanding general overview of the computer industry.
3. 两本出色的书籍更全面地介绍了软件产业的历史：Martin CampbellKelly、From Airline Reservations to Sonic the Hedgehog：一个H S 软件 I 行业 (2004) (hereafter A History of THE S 软件 I行业）；和 Michael A。Cusumano、The B business of Software (2004).CARL Shapiro & Hal R. Software(2004 年)。 Varian, IinformationRules：A S战略G指南NnetworkEconomy (1999).ThomasHaigh& PaulE.Ceruzzi、A NewHhistory ofM.uid="279">modernCcomputing (2021)对计算机行业进行了出色的概述。

4. Office Robots, Fortune, Jan. 1952, at 87.
4. Office Robots, FMortune, Jan.1952年，享年87岁。

5. See also Tracy Kidder, The Soul of A New Machine (1981) (Pulitzer Prize winning book).
5. 另见TracyKidder 、TheSsoul ofA N.ewMmachine (1981) (普利策奖获奖图书)。

6. See Fredrick P. Brooks, JR., The Mythical Man Month: Essays on Software Engineering 4 (1975) (this book is considered one of the classic works on software development).
6. SeeFredrickP.Brooks, J．TheMythicalManMmonth：Eessays onSoftwareEengineering4 (1975)（该书被认为是软件开发方面的经典著作之一）。

7. Software: The New Driving Force, Bus. Wk., Feb. 27, 1984, at 54.
7. Software：Software: The New Driving Force, Bus.Wk.27, 1984, at 54.

8. Campbell-Kelly, A History of the Software Industry, at 5.
8.CampbellKelly、A HSoftwareIindustry, at 5。

9. To learn more about Oracle Corporation and its founder Larry Ellison, see MIKE WILSON, THE Difference Between God and Larry Ellison: Inside Oracle Corporation (1997).
9.要了解有关甲骨文公司及其创始人拉里-埃里森的更多信息， 请参阅MIKE WILSON、DifferenceBbetweenGod 和LarryEllison 之间：InsideOracleCcorporation (1997)..

10. See Campbell-Kelly, A History of the Software Industry, at 6.
10. SeeCampbellKelly、A HHistory of theSoftwareIindustry, at 6。

11. To learn more about the UNIX operating system, see Peter H. Salus, A Quarter Century of UNIX (1994).
11. 要了解有关 UNIX 操作系统的更多信息，seePeterH.Salus, A QquarterCcentury ofUNIX (1994)..

12. Many interesting books about Microsoft and Apple have been written, including Randall E. Stross, The Microsoft Way (1996); and Walter Isaacson, Steve Jobs: The Man Who Thought Different (2011).
12. 关于微软和苹果的许多有趣的书籍已经写成，包括 RandallE.Stross、TheMicrosoftWay (1996)；和 WalterIsaacson、SteveJobs：TheManWho.dl-uid="414">ThoughtDdifferent(2011).

13. See generally Open Sources: Voices from the Open Source Revolution (DiBona, Ockmand, & Stone, eds., 1999); Open Sources 2.0: The Continuing Evolution (DiBona, Cooper, & Stone, eds., 2006). The story of the open source company Red Hat is told in Robert Young & Wendy Goldman Rohn, Under the Radar (1999).
13. 一般参见OpenSsources：V来自Open 的意见。uid="430">SsourceRevolution(DiBona、Ockmand, &；Stone, eds.,1999); OpenSsources2.0：TheCcontinuingEvolution (DiBona, Cooper, & Stone, eds., 2006)。RobertYoung&；WendyGoldmanRohn、Uunder theRadar (1999).（1999 年）。

14. Many interesting books have been written about Google, including Ken Aulleta, Googled: The End of the World AS WE Know IT (2010), and many people enjoyed the movie The Social Network, which depicts the founding of Facebook.
14. 关于谷歌有许多有趣的书籍、包括 Ken Aulleta, Googled：The End of the WWorld AS WE KNow IT (2010)、很多人喜欢电影《社交网络》，这部电影描述了 Facebook 的创建过程。

15. 17 U.S.C. §101.
15. 《美国法典》第 17 编第 101 条。

16. Software does not include digital content that may be manipulated by the software, such as documents, photos, or music in digital form.
16. 软件不包括可由软件处理的数字内容 ，例如数字形式的文档、照片或音乐。

17. The overall structure in which files are named, stored, and organized.
17. 文件命名、存储和组织的整体结构。

18. The core of an operating system that handles basic functions such as managing memory and files, launching applications, and allocating system resources.
18. 操作系统的核心，用于处理基本功能，如管理内存和文件、启动应用程序以及分配系统资源。

19. A catalogue of filenames.
19. 文件名目录。

20. A collection of programming routines stored in a file.
20. 存储在文件中的编程例程集合。

21. A point at which a connection is made between elements so that they can work together.
21. 元素之间的连接点，使它们能够协同工作。

22. A device-specific software program that enables the computer to work with the device.
22. 专用于设备的软件程序，可使计算机与设备协同工作。

23. See generally Myers, Sandler & Badgett, The Art of Software Testing (3d ed. 2012); Kaner, Falk & Nguyen, Testing Computer Software (2d ed. 1999). See also Pascal Zachery, Show Stopper!: The Breakneck RACE TO Create Windows NT and the NEXT Generation at Microsoft (1994) (describing Microsoft’s race against bugs in releasing its next generation operating system).
23. 一般参见 Myers 、Sandler &；Badgett、The Art of Software Testing （3d ed.2012 年）；Kaner, Falk &；Nguyen、Testing CComputer Software (2d ed., 1999).1999). 另见 Pascal Zachery 、Show Stopper！:TtheBreakneckRACE TO CreateWindowsNTand theNEXT Generation atMicrosoft (1994) (描述了微软在发布下一代操作系统时与错误赛跑的情况)。

24. See Peter S. Menell, Tailoring Legal Protection for Computer Software, 39 STAN. L. REV. 1329 (1987).
24. SeePeter S. Menell, Tailoring Legal Protection for Computer Software, 39 STAN.L. REV.1329 (1987).

25. 17 U.S.C. §§101 et seq.
25.17 U.S.C. §§101 et seq.§§101 et seq.

26. 17 U.S.C. §102(b).
26.17 U.S.C.§102(b)。

27. Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201, 217-218 (1954).
27.Mazer 诉 Stein，347 U.S.201，217-218（1954 年）。

28. 17 U.S.C. §106.
28.17 U.S.C.§106.

29. See New York Times Co. v. Tasini, 533 U.S. 483 (2001).
29. SeeNew York Times Co. v. Tasini, 533 U.S. 483 (2001)..

30. For works created on or after January 1, 1978, copyright lasts either: from the moment of the work’s creation for a term of the author’s life plus an additional 70 years; or for a “joint work” prepared by two or more authors, 70 years after the last surviving author’s death; or for “works made for hire” and anonymous and pseudonymous works, 95 years from first publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter. See 17 U.S.C. §302.
30. 对于 1978 年 1 月 1 日或之后创作的作品，版权期限为：自作品创作之时起，作者终生有效，另加 70 年；或者，对于两位或两位以上作者创作的 "共同作品"，自最后一位幸存作者去世后 70 年；或者，对于 "受雇作品 "以及匿名和假名作品，自首次出版起 95 年或自创作起 120 年，以时间较短者为准。 参见 17 U.S.C. §302.。

31. 714 F.2d 1240 (3d Cir. 1983).
31. 714 F.2d 1240 (3d Cir. 1983).

32. See, e.g., Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994).
32. See, e.g.., Apple Computer, Inc.

33. 797 F.2d 1222 (3d Cir. 1986).
33. 797 F.2d 1222 (3d Cir. 1986).

34. See, e.g., Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992); Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int’l, Inc., 49 F.3d 807 (1st Cir. 1996).
34. See, e.g., Computer Assocs.诉 Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693 (2d Cir. 1992)；Lotus Dev.Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc., 49 F.3d 807 (1st Cir. 1996)。

35. See 35 U.S.C. §§1 et seq.
35. See 35 U. S. C. §§1 et seq.S.C. §§1 et seq.

36. The term of a utility patent is 20 years from the date the inventor files the patent application. See 35 U.S.C. §154(a)(2). The term of a design patent is 15 years from the date the USPTO grants the patent. See 35 U.S.C. 173.
36. 实用专利的期限为 20 年，从发明人提交专利申请之日起计算。 参见 35 U.S.C. §154(a)(2)。外观设计专利的期限为 15 年，从美国专利商标局授予专利之日起计算。 参见 35 U.S.C. §173.。

37. 409 U.S. 63 (1972).
37. 409 U.S. 63（1972 年）。

38. 450 U.S. 175 (1981).
38. 450 U.S. 175（1981 年）。

39. 130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010).
39. 130 S. Ct. 3218 (2010).

40. 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
40. 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).

41. See generally KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007).
41. 一般参见 KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007).

42. 18 U.S.C. §§1831-1839.
42. 《美国法典》第 18 编第 1831-1839 条。

43. See Bowers v. Baystate Tech., Inc., 320 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
43. See Bowers v. Baystate Tech., Inc., 320 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2003)。

44. See generally Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S. 159 (1995). The Qualitex case provides a good general tutorial on trademark protection.
44. See generally Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods.Co., 514 U.S. 159 (1995)。Qualitex 案为商标保护提供了很好的一般性指导。

45. See generally Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., Inc., 529 U.S. 205 (2000). The Samara Bros. case provides a good general tutorial on trade dress protection.
45. 一般参见 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.诉 Samara Bros, Inc., 529 U.S. 205 (2000)。Samara Bros. 案为商业外观保护提供了很好的一般性指导。

46. See 15 U.S.C. §§1051 et seq.
46. See 15 U. S. C. §§1051 et seq.S.C. §§1051 et seq.

47. See TrafFix Devices, Inc. v. Marketing Displays, Inc., 532 U.S. 23 (2001).

15

· Chapter ·

3

Trade Secret Protection

I. INTRODUCTION

In many ways trade secret protection fits software more naturally than other forms of intellectual property protection. As we have seen in Chapter 2, the technical nature of software caused some to argue against copyright protection. And, as we will see later in Chapter 5, some have argued against patent protection because software appears to be nothing more than a series of mathematical algorithms. Trade secret law, on the other hand, protects any idea that has value because of its secrecy, no matter the nature of the idea. In the early days of the software industry when copyright and patent protection were in doubt, trade secret protection took on special importance. Today, trade secret protection remains important in many contexts. This chapter explores several of those contexts.
在许多方面，商业秘密保护比其他形式的知识产权保护更自然地适用于软件。正如我们在 第 2 章 中看到的，软件的技术性质导致一些人反对版权保护。而且，正如我们将在稍后的 第五章中看到的，一些人反对专利保护，因为软件似乎只不过是一系列数学算法。另一方面，商业秘密法保护任何因保密而具有价值的想法，无论该想法的性质如何。在软件业发展初期，版权和专利保护尚存疑问，商业秘密保护显得尤为重要。今天，商业秘密保护在许多情况下依然重要。本章将探讨其中的几种情况。

The chapter begins by examining the definitions of a “trade secret” as set forth in the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA), the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA), the first Restatement of Torts, and the Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition. Principles from the first Restatement of Torts have been adopted into the common law of states that have not enacted the UTSA. The chapter then addresses what measures a party must take to retain the secrecy of a trade secret. As you will see, the secrecy measures need only be reasonable under the circumstances, not ironclad. The chapter contains an exercise to explore what this might mean in the entrepreneurial culture of the software industry.
本章首先研究了《统一商业秘密法》（UTSA）、《2016年捍卫商业秘密法》（DTSA）中规定的 "商业秘密 "的定义、第一版 侵权法重述 和 不正当竞争法重述（第三版） 中对 "商业秘密 "的定义。第一次 侵权法重述 中的原则已被未颁布《UTSA》的州的普通法所采纳。本章接着讨论了当事人必须采取哪些措施来保守商业秘密的秘密。正如你将看到的，保密措施只需要在当时的情况下是合理的，而不是铁板一块。本章包含一个练习，以探讨这在软件行业的创业文化中可能意味着什么。

Then the chapter turns to the sharing of trade secrets. Software programmers share trade secrets with employees, partners, customers, and even competitors. This sharing is fundamental to innovation in the software industry. The chapter looks at the primary vehicle used to facilitate this sharing: the Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA). Without NDAs, software creators might hoard rather than share their secret information. 1 Software trade secrets are also shared in confidential source code
然后，本章转向商业机密的共享。软件程序员与员工、合作伙伴、客户甚至竞争对手共享商业机密。这种共享是软件行业创新的基础。本章探讨了促进这种共享的主要工具：保密协议（NDA）。如果没有 NDA，软件创作者可能会囤积而不是共享他们的秘密信息。1 软件商业机密也以机密源代码的形式共享。

88

licenses or released to the public via open source licenses. Chapter 6 explores these licenses. Finally, the chapter looks at when secret information might be acquired improperly, focusing on two contexts: Non-Compete Agreements (which some software firms use to supplement NDA protection) and common law tort protections against employee misappropriation of secrets; and contracts that restrict reverse engineering of software code.
许可证或通过开源许可证向公众发布。 第 6 章 探讨了这些许可。最后，本章以两种情况为重点，探讨了秘密信息可能被不当获取的情况：非竞争协议（一些软件公司用来补充 NDA 保护）和针对员工盗用机密的普通法侵权保护；以及限制软件代码反向工程的合同。

II. DEFINING TRADE SECRETS

The place to begin learning about the protection of trade secrets in the software industry is with the definition of a trade secret. Those who have studied trade secret law in a prior course will know that the definition can be found in the two primary sources of trade secret law: the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA) and the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA). Below, you will find the relevant sections from the UTSA and DTSA, as well as provisions from the first Restatement of Torts and the Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition, which also contain a definition of trade secret.
要了解软件行业的商业秘密保护，首先要从商业秘密的定义开始。在以前的课程中学习过商业秘密法的人都知道，商业秘密的定义可以在商业秘密法的两个主要来源中找到：《统一商业秘密法》（UTSA）和《维护商业秘密法》（DTSA）。以下是《统一商业秘密法》和《捍卫商业秘密法》的相关章节、以及 侵权法重述（第一版） 和 不正当竞争法重述（第三版） 中的条款，其中也包含商业秘密的定义。

Uniform Trade Secrets Act

Section 1. Definitions.

As used in this [Act], unless the context requires otherwise:
本[法案]中使用的术语，除非上下文另有要求：

(4) “Trade secret” means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that:
(4) "商业秘密 "是指以下信息，包括公式、模式、汇编、程序、装置、方法、技术或工艺： 1：

(i) derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use, and
(i) 其独立的、实际的或潜在的经济价值来自于其不为能够从其披露或使用中获得经 济价值的其他人所普遍知悉，也不容易被其他人通过适当手段加以确定，并且

(ii) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.
(ii) 在当时情况下已作出合理的保密努力。

* * *

Defend Trade Secrets Act

18 USC § 1839(3) [T]he term “trade secret” means all forms and types of financial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information, including patterns, plans, compilations, program devices, formulas, designs, prototypes, methods, techniques, processes, procedures, programs, or codes, whether tangible or intangible, and whether or how stored, compiled, or memorialized physically, electronically, graphically, photographically, or in writing if— (A) the owner thereof has taken reasonable measures to keep such information secret; and (B) the information derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable through proper means by, another person who can obtain economic value from the disclosure or use of the information.
美国法典》第 18 卷第 1839 条第(3)款 ["商业秘密 "一词是指所有形式和类型的金融、商业、科学、技术、经济或工程信息，包括模式、计划、汇编、程 序装置、公式、设计、原型、方法、技术、流程、程序、程序或代码，不论是有形的还是无形的，也不论是 否以物理、电子、图形、照片或书面形式存储、汇编或记录，条件是-- (A) 信息所有者已采取合理措施保守此类信息的秘密；(B) 该信息具有独立的经济价值，无论是实际价值还是潜在价值，因为该信息不为他人普遍知 晓，也不容易被他人通过适当手段查明，而他人可以通过披露或使用该信息获得经济价值。

89

* * *

Restatement of Torts

§757. Liability for Disclosure or Use of Another’s Trade Secret — General Principle Comment:
第 757 條。披露或使用他人商业秘密的法律责任--一般原则评论：

b. Definition of trade secret. A trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device, or compilation of information which is used in one’s business, and which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it. It may be a formula for a chemical compound, a process of manufacturing, treating, or preserving materials, a pattern for a machine or other device, or a list of customers. It differs from other secret information in a business in that it is not simply information as to single or ephemeral events in the conduct of the business, as, for example, the amount or other terms of a secret bid for a contract or the salary of certain employees, or the security investments made or contemplated, or the date fixed for the announcement of a new policy or for bringing out a new model or the like. A trade secret is a process or device for continuous use in the operation of the business. Generally it relates to the production of goods, as, for example, a machine or formula for the production of an article. It may, however, relate to the sale of goods or to other operations in the business, such as a code for determining discounts, rebates, or other concessions in a price list or catalogue, or a list of specialized customers, or a method of bookkeeping or other office management.
b.商业秘密的定义。 商业秘密可包括任何配方、模式、设备或信息汇编，这些信息用于一个人的业务中，并使他有机会比不知道或不使用这些信息的竞争者获得优势。它可以是化合物的配方，制造、处理或保存材料的工艺，机器或其他设备的样式，或客户名单。商业秘密不同于企业中的其他秘密信息，因为它不仅仅是企业经营过程中单一或短暂事件的信息，例如，合同秘密投标的金额或其他条款，或某些雇员的工资，或已进行或考虑进行的安全投资，或宣布新政策或推出新机型的固定日期或类似信息。商业秘密是指在企业经营中持续使用的工艺或设备。一般来说，商业秘密与商品生产有关，例如生产物品的机器或配方。然而，它也可能与商品的销售或企业的其他业务有关，如价格表或目录中用于确定折扣、回扣或其他优惠的代码，或专门客户名单，或簿记方法或其他办公室管理方法。

[Secrecy.] The subject matter of a trade secret must be secret. Matters of public knowledge or of general knowledge in an industry cannot be appropriated by one as his secret. Matters which are completely disclosed by the goods which one markets cannot be his secret.…An exact definition of a trade secret is not possible. Some factors to be considered in determining whether given information is one’s trade secret are: (1) the extent to which the information is known outside of his business; (2) the extent to which it is known by employees and others involved in his business; (3) the extent of measures taken by him to guard the secrecy of the information; (4) the value of the information to him and to his competitors; (5) the amount of effort or money expended by him in developing the information; (6) the ease or difficulty with which the information could be properly acquired or duplicated by others.
[秘密。]商业秘密的主题必须是秘密。公共知识或行业内的一般知识不能被某人用作其秘密。一个人销售的商品完全公开的事项不能成为他的秘密....，商业秘密的确切定义是不可能的。在确定给定信息是否属于自己的商业秘密时，应考虑以下一些因素：((3) 他为保守信息秘密而采取的措施的程度；(4) 信息对他和他的竞争者的价值；(5) 他为开发信息而花费的精力或金钱的数量；(6) 他人适当获取或复制信息的难易程度。

* * *

Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition

§39. Definition of Trade Secret

A trade secret is any information that can be used in the operation of a business or other enterprise and that is sufficiently valuable and secret to afford an actual or potential economic advantage over others.
商业秘密是指可用于商业或其他企业运营的任何信息，这些信息具有足够的价值和秘密性，可为他人提供实际或潜在的经济优势。

….

d. Subject matter. A trade secret can consist of a formula, pattern, compilation of data, computer program, device, method, technique, process, or other form or embodiment of
d.商业秘密可以由公式、模式、数据汇编、计算机程序、设备、方法、技术、流程或其他形式或体现的 d.

90

economically valuable information. A trade secret can relate to technical matters such as the composition or design of a product, a method of manufacture, or the know-how necessary to perform a particular operation or service. A trade secret can also relate to other aspects of business operations such as pricing and marketing techniques or the identity and requirements of customers. Although rights in trade secrets are normally asserted by businesses and other commercial enterprises, nonprofit entities such as charitable, educational, governmental, fraternal, and religious organizations can also claim trade secret protection for economically valuable information such as lists of prospective members or donors.
有经济价值的信息。商业秘密可以涉及技术问题，如产品的成分或设计、制造方法，或进行特定操作或服务所需的诀窍。商业秘密也可以涉及商业运作的其他方面，如定价和营销技巧或客户的身份和要求。尽管商业秘密权通常由企业和其他商业企业主张，但非营利实体，如慈善、教育、政府、兄弟会和宗教组织，也可以为具有经济价值的信息（如潜在成员或捐赠者名单）主张商业秘密保护。

e. Requirement of value. A trade secret must be of sufficient value in the operation of a business or other enterprise to provide an actual or potential economic advantage over others who do not possess the information. The advantage, however, need not be great. It is sufficient if the secret provides an advantage that is more than trivial.…The plaintiff’s use of the trade secret in the operation of its business is itself some evidence of the information’s value. Identifiable benefits realized by the trade secret owner through use of the information are also evidence of value.
e.商业秘密必须在商业或其他企业的运营中具有足够的价值，能够为不拥有该信息的其他人提供实际或潜在的经济优势。然而，这种优势不必很大。只要该秘密提供的优势不是微不足道的，就足够了....，原告在其业务经营中使用商业秘密本身就是该信息价值的一些证据。商业秘密所有人通过使用该信息而实现的可识别利益也是价值的证据。

* * *

Questions

1.

Is the scope of a trade secret broad or narrow? How does it compare to the scope of a copyright or patent? Is there a requirement of novelty or originality? Is independent development permitted?
商业秘密的范围是宽还是窄？与版权或专利的范围相比如何？是否要求新颖性或独创性？是否允许独立开发？

2.

Why has trade secret law taken the approach that it has with respect to the scope of information that qualifies as a trade secret?
为什么商业秘密法会对符合商业秘密条件的信息范围采取这种做法？

3.

Would you consider trade secret protection strong or weak protection in comparison to copyright or patent?
与版权或专利相比，您认为商业秘密保护是强保护还是弱保护？

Exercises

The following Exercise asks you to apply the various definitions of trade secret. The Exercise assumes that you are in-house counsel for Microsoft Corporation during the impending launch of Microsoft’s new Windows 95 operating system. In the days leading up to the product launch, the Windows marketing team has decided to call the product Windows 95 instead of Windows 4.0. They decided that pictures of a blue sky with clouds would be a compelling visual image to be used in advertising the product. Microsoft’s outside advertising firm developed the tag line “Where do you want to go today?” for the new product. To help draw attention to the new Start button feature in Windows 95, the marketing team secured permission to use the Rolling Stones “Start Me Up” song and, to add to the hype on launch day, it hired Jay Leno to serve as master of ceremonies.
下面的练习要求你应用商业秘密的各种定义。练习假定你是微软公司的内部法律顾问，正值微软即将推出新的 Windows 95 操作系统。在产品发布前的几天里，Windows 营销团队决定将产品命名为 Windows 95，而不是 Windows 4.0。他们决定在产品广告中使用蓝天白云的图片作为视觉形象。微软的外部广告公司为新产品制定了 "今天你想去哪里？"的标语。为了吸引人们对 Windows 95 中新的 "开始 "按钮功能的关注，营销团队获得了使用滚石乐队 "Start Me Up "歌曲的许可，并且为了在发布当天炒热气氛，还聘请杰伊-雷诺（Jay Leno）担任司仪。

91

For this Exercise, analyze whether or not the information listed below meets the definition of a “trade secret” under the UTSA, Restatement of Torts, and Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition.
针对本练习，分析下列信息是否符合《UTSA》中 "商业秘密 "的定义、 侵权法重述 和 不正当竞争法重述（第三版） 。

1.

Product launch date.

a.

Date product released to manufacturing

b.

Record of missed dates for various product development milestones
记录各种产品开发里程碑的错过日期

2.

New tag line for product, “Where do you want to go today?”
产品新标语："今天，你想去哪里？

3.

Alternative tag lines that were rejected.

4.

New “blue sky with clouds” background to be used on the product box.
在产品包装盒上使用新的 "蓝天白云 "背景。

5.

Contents of Bill Gates’s speech to be delivered at the product launch, and old drafts of Bill’s speech.
比尔-盖茨将在产品发布会上发表的演讲内容，以及比尔演讲稿的旧稿。

6.

The fact that the product will be called “Windows 95” rather than “Windows 4.0”.
事实上，该产品将被称为 "Windows 95"，而不是 "Windows 4.0"。

a.

Other names considered

b.

Email from Bill Gates saying use of date (‘95) is a stupid idea
比尔-盖茨发来电子邮件，称使用日期（95 年）是个愚蠢的想法

7.

The new “look and feel” of the user interface for Windows 95.
Windows 95 用户界面的新 "外观和感觉"。

8.

Other features considered but not included in the product.
其他已考虑但未纳入产品的功能。

9.

The fact that Windows 95 will use a “Start” button for the first time.
Windows 95 将首次使用 "开始 "按钮。

a.

Functionality of the Start button

b.

Usability testing on the Start button

10.

The names of the companies who will participate in the product launch event.
将参加产品发布活动的公司名称。

a.

Names of companies with speaking roles

b.

Names of competitors who would support the product
支持该产品的竞争对手名称

11.

The fact that the song “Start Me Up” will be used in marketing at the product launch.
事实上，"Start Me Up "这首歌将被用于产品发布会的营销活动。

a.

Scope of license for the song

b.

Royalty paid

12.

The fact that Jay Leno will serve as Master of Ceremonies at the product launch event.
杰伊-雷诺（Jay Leno）将担任产品发布会的司仪。

a.

Fact that Leno likes to be picked up in a town car, not a limo
莱诺喜欢别人用轿车而不是豪华轿车来接他

b.

Fact that Leno likes Diet Coke (not Pepsi)

c.

Fee paid to Leno

13.

Patent applications filed in the United States and Japan.
在美国和日本提交的专利申请。

14.

User feedback on the beta (pre-public release) versions of Windows 95.
用户对 Windows 95 测试版（公开发布前）的反馈意见。

III. REASONABLE MEASURES IN THE SOFTWARE INDUSTRY

For information to receive legal protection as a trade secret, the owner of the information must take precautions to maintain the secrecy of the information. This is articulated in the Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition excerpt that follows.
要使信息作为商业秘密得到法律保护，信息的所有者必须采取预防措施来维护信息的机密性。《不正当竞争重述（第三版）》摘录如下：《不正当竞争重述（第三版）》阐述了这一点。

92

RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF UNFAIR COMPETITION

§39. Definition of Trade Secret

f. Requirement of secrecy. To qualify as a trade secret, the information must be secret. The secrecy, however, need not be absolute. The rule stated in this Section requires only secrecy sufficient to confer an actual or potential economic advantage on one who possesses the information. Thus, the requirement of secrecy is satisfied if it would be difficult or costly for others who could exploit the information to acquire it without resort to the wrongful conduct proscribed under §40.
f. 要符合商业秘密的条件，信息必须是秘密的。但是，保密性不必是绝对的。本节所述规则仅要求保密性足以为拥有信息的人带来实际或潜在的经济利益。因此，如果可以利用该信息的其他人在不诉诸第 40 节所禁止的不法行为的情况下很难或很昂贵地获得该信息，那么就满足了保密的要求。

g. Precautions to maintain secrecy. Precautions taken to maintain the secrecy of information are relevant in determining whether the information qualifies for protection as a trade secret. Precautions to maintain secrecy may take many forms, including physical security designed to prevent unauthorized access, procedures intended to limit disclosure based upon the “need to know,” and measures that emphasize to recipients the confidential nature of the information such as nondisclosure agreements, signs, and restrictive legends. Such precautions can be evidence of the information’s value and secrecy. The prior Restatement of this topic included the precautions taken to maintain the secrecy of the information as one of a number of factors relevant in determining the existence of a trade secret. See Restatement of Torts §757, Comment b (1939). The Uniform Trade Secrets Act requires a trade secret to be “the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.” Section 1(4)(ii). Whether viewed as an independent requirement or as an element to be considered with other factors relevant to the existence of a trade secret, the owner’s precautions should be evaluated in light of the other available evidence relating to the value and secrecy of the information. Thus, if the value and secrecy of the information are clear, evidence of specific precautions taken by the trade secret owner may be unnecessary.
g. 为保守信息秘密而采取的预防措施与确定信息是否有资格作为商业秘密受到保护有关。保守秘密的预防措施可能有多种形式，包括旨在防止未经授权访问的实体安全、旨在根据 "需要知道 "限制披露的程序，以及向接收者强调信息保密性质的措施，如保密协议、标志和限制性图例。这些预防措施可以证明信息的价值和保密性。之前关于此主题的重述将为保持信息的机密性而采取的预防措施列为确定商业秘密是否存在的一系列相关因素之一。参见《侵权法重述》第 757 条，评论 b（1939 年）。统一商业秘密法》要求商业秘密必须是 "在当时情况下为保守其秘密而做出的合理努力的对象"。第 1(4)(ii)条。无论是作为一项独立的要求，还是作为与商业秘密存在相关的其他因素一起考虑的一个要素，所有者的预防措施都应根据与信息的价值和保密性相关的其他可用证据进行评估。因此，如果信息的价值和保密性是明确的，商业秘密所有人采取的具体预防措施的证据可能是不必要的。

The precautions taken by the trade secret owner are also relevant to other potential issues in an action for the appropriation of a trade secret. They can signal to employees and other recipients that a disclosure of the information by the trade secret owner is intended to be in confidence.
商业秘密所有人采取的预防措施也与商业秘密被盗用诉讼中的其他潜在问题有关。它们可以向雇员和其他接收者发出信号，表明商业秘密所有人披露信息的意图是保密的。

Questions

1.

How would you articulate the standard for adequate trade secret protection measures?
您如何阐述充分的商业秘密保护措施的标准？

2.

Do you think the law should be creating an incentive to maximize or minimize trade secret protection measures?
您认为法律是否应该激励人们最大限度地利用或减少商业秘密保护措施？

Exercises

This Exercise assumes a negotiation between two companies who would like to exchange trade secrets. Your assignment is to represent one of the parties in the negotiation of the measures that will be taken to protect trade secrets.
本练习假定两家希望交换商业秘密的公司进行谈判。你的任务是代表其中一方就保护商业秘密的措施进行谈判。

93

The Parties. Mellow is a small software company operating out of a block of rented apartments in North Bend, Washington. Most of its employees are recent college graduates. Mellow prides itself on its relaxed culture. Employees come and go as they please, often telecommute, and can be found brainstorming ideas and writing code at local pubs and coffee houses as well as at their quarterly off-site “think retreats.” Not only does this culture allow Mellow to attract bright employees in a competitive job market, Mellow’s management believes that it is one of the keys to its cutting-edge creativity and nimbleness.
双方。Mellow 是一家小型软件公司，位于华盛顿州北本德的一栋出租公寓内。公司的大部分员工都是刚毕业的大学生。Mellow 以其轻松的企业文化而自豪。员工来去自由，经常远程办公，可以在当地的酒吧和咖啡馆以及每季度一次的异地 "思考务虚会 "上集思广益、编写代码。这种文化不仅让 Mellow 公司在竞争激烈的就业市场上吸引到了聪明的员工，而且 Mellow 公司的管理层认为，这也是公司保持前沿创造力和灵活性的关键之一。

Best is a large corporation with headquarters in a tall office building in Boston, Massachusetts. Most of its employees have been with the company for more than 20 years. Best prides itself on its professional, organized, and efficient culture, symbolized by the blue blazer that each employee wears when on company business. All employees keep a black leather-bound copy of The Best Practices on their desks as a constant reminder of Best’s rigorous policies and procedures, including its trade secret protection policy.
贝斯特是一家大型企业，总部位于马萨诸塞州波士顿的一栋高大办公楼内。大多数员工已在公司工作 20 多年。百思特以其专业、有序、高效的企业文化为傲，每位员工在处理公司事务时都会穿上蓝色西装外套，这就是企业文化的象征。所有员工的办公桌上都摆放着一本黑色皮面装订的《 Best Practices》 ，时刻提醒自己遵守 Best 严格的政策和程序，包括商业秘密保护政策。

The Issues. The companies must agree on appropriate measures to protect trade secrets that might be exchanged in the course of their business relationship, namely: Issue #1, whether all materials must be marked “CONFIDENTIAL”; and Issue #2, whether all buildings must be limited to employee card key access only.
问题。两家公司必须商定适当的措施，以保护在业务关系中可能交换的商业秘密，即问题 1，是否所有材料都必须标明 "机密 "字样；问题 2，是否所有建筑物都必须仅限员工持卡进入。

The Exercise. Negotiate with another student over the two Issues described above. If you reach agreement, describe the nature of your agreement. If you cannot agree, describe the roadblocks that you could not overcome.
练习。就上述两个问题与另一名学生进行谈判。如果你们达成协议，请描述协议的性质。如果无法达成一致，请描述你们无法克服的障碍。

IV. NDAs IN THE SOFTWARE INDUSTRY

Software developers share trade secrets on a regular basis. They may share them with collaborators who are working on a program together, with customers who need to evaluate the code prior to purchase and maintain it following purchase, and competitors so that software can interoperate. Software developers often use a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) to facilitate this sharing. Paradoxically, the beneficial sharing of trade secrets jeopardizes the existence of the secrets. Thus, the NDA grants permission to share while securing a contractual obligation to keep secrets secret and to employ practical measures to maintain secrecy. Review the NDA below.
软件开发人员经常分享商业机密。他们可能会与共同开发程序的合作者、需要在购买前对代码进行评估并在购买后对代码进行维护的客户以及竞争对手共享商业秘密，以便软件能够互操作。软件开发人员通常使用保密协议（NDA）来促进这种共享。矛盾的是，商业机密的有益共享会危及机密的存在。因此，NDA 在允许共享的同时，也保证了保密的合同义务，并采取切实可行的保密措施。请查看下面的 NDA。

Non-Disclosure Agreement

This Non-Disclosure Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered into as of the later of the two signature dates below.
本保密协议（以下简称 "协议"）于以下两个签字日期中的较晚者签订。

1. Definition and Use of Confidential Information

(a)

“Confidential Information” means nonpublic information in any form that a party to this Agreement (“Disclosing Party”) designates as being confidential to the party that receives such information (“Receiving Party”) or that, under the circumstances surrounding disclosure, ought to be treated as confidential by Receiving Party. It may relate to, without limitation, information about released or pre-release software or hardware products, the marketing or promotion of products, business policies or practices, and information received from others that Disclosing Party is obligated to treat as confidential. Confidential Information shall not include any information, however designated, that (i) is or subsequently becomes publicly available without Receiving Party’s breach of any obligation owed Disclosing Party; (ii) became known to Receiving Party prior to Disclosing Party’s disclosure of such information to Receiving Party pursuant to the terms of this Agreement; (iii) became known to Receiving Party from a source other than Disclosing Party other than by the breach of an obligation of confidentiality owed to Disclosing Party; (iv) is independently developed by Receiving Party; or (v) constitutes Feedback (as defined in this Agreement).
"机密信息 "是指本协议一方（"披露方"）指定为对接收方（"接收方"）保密的任何形式的非 公开信息，或根据披露情况，接收方应将其视为机密信息的非公开信息。它可能涉及但不限于有关已发布或预发布软件或硬件产品、产品营销或推广、业务政策或惯例的信息，以及从其他方收到的、披露方有义务视为机密的信息。机密信息不包括以下任何信息，无论其名称为何：(i) 在接收方未违反对披露方的任何义务的情况下，已经公开或随后公开的信息；(ii) 在披露方根据本协议条款向接收方披露此类信息之前，接收方已经知晓的信息；(iii) 接收方从披露方以外的来源获知，但违反对披露方的保密义务除外； (iv) 接收方独立开发；或 (v) 构成反馈（定义见本协议）。

(b)

Receiving Party may use Confidential Information for [describe purpose]; otherwise, Receiving Party receives no right or license under any Disclosing Party patents, copyrights, trademarks, or trade secret information. Disclosing Party reserves without prejudice the ability to protect its rights under any such patents, copyrights, trademarks, or trade secrets except as expressly described above. All Confidential Information is and shall remain the property of Disclosing Party.
接收方可将机密信息用于 [ 描述目的] ；否则，接收方不会获得任何披露方专利、版权、商标或商业秘密信息的权利或许可。除上述明确描述的情况外，披露方保留保护其在任何此类专利、版权、商标或商业秘密下的权利的能力，但不影响其权利。所有机密信息均为披露方的财产，并应始终为披露方的财产。

(c)

The terms of confidentiality under this Agreement shall not be construed to limit either Disclosing Party’s or Receiving Party’s right to independently develop or acquire products without use of the other party’s Confidential Information. Further, Receiving Party shall be free to use for any purpose the residuals resulting from access to or work with the Confidential Information of Disclosing Party, provided that Receiving Party shall not disclose the Confidential Information except as expressly permitted pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. The term “residuals” means information in intangible form, which is retained in memory by persons who have had access to the Confidential Information, including ideas, concepts, know-how, or techniques contained therein. Receiving Party shall not have any obligation to limit or restrict the assignment of such persons or to pay royalties for any work resulting from the use of residuals. However, this sub-paragraph shall not be deemed to grant to Receiving Party a license under Disclosing Party’s copyrights or patents.
本协议项下的保密条款不得解释为限制披露方或接收方在不使用对方机密信息的情况下独立开发或获取产品的权利。此外，接收方可出于任何目的自由使用因访问或使用披露方机密信息而产生的剩余信息，但接收方不得披露机密信息，本协议条款明确允许的情况除外。术语 "残余 "是指无形形式的信息，由接触过保密信息的人保留在记忆中，包括其中包含的想法、概念、诀窍或技术。接收方没有义务限制或约束这些人的转让，也没有义务为使用残余信息所产生的任何作品支付版税。但是，本分段不应被视为向接收方授予披露方版权或专利的许可。

95

2. Disclosure to Affiliates

Except as otherwise indicated in this Agreement, the term “Disclosing Party” and the term “Receiving Party” also include all Affiliates. An “Affiliate” means any person, partnership, joint venture, corporation, or other form of enterprise, domestic or foreign, that directly or indirectly controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with a party. Prior to the time that any Confidential Information is shared with an Affiliate who has not signed this Agreement, Receiving Party that executed this Agreement (the “Signatory Receiving Party”) must enter into an appropriate written agreement with that Affiliate sufficient to enable Disclosing Party and/or the Signatory Receiving Party to enforce all of the provisions of this Agreement against such Affiliate.
除本协议另有说明外，术语 "披露方 "和术语 "接收方 "还包括所有关联方。关联方 "是指直接或间接控制一方、受其控制或 与一方处于共同控制下的任何个人、合伙企业、合资企业、公司或其他形式的国内外企业。在与未签署本协议的关联方共享任何机密信息之前，执行本协议的接收方（"签字接收方"）必须与该关联方签订适当的书面协议，该协议应足以使披露方和/或签字接收方能够对该关联方执行本协议的所有条款。

3. Obligations to Protect Confidential Information
3.保护机密信息的义务

(a)

Receiving Party shall:

(i)

Refrain from disclosing any Confidential Information of Disclosing Party to third parties for five (5) years following the date that Disclosing Party first discloses such Confidential Information to Receiving Party, except as expressly provided in Sections 3(b) and 1(c) of this Agreement;
自披露方首次向接收方披露披露方的任何机密信息之日起五 (5) 年内，不得向第三方披露披露方的任何机密信息，本协议第 3(b) 和 1(c) 条明确规定的情况除外；

(ii)

Take reasonable security precautions to keep confidential the Confidential Information of Disclosing Party, at least as great as the precautions it takes to protect its own confidential information, but no less than reasonable care;
采取合理的安全防范措施，对披露方的机密信息进行保密，至少应采取与其保护自身机密信息相同的防范措施，但不得低于合理的谨慎程度；

(iii) Refrain from disclosing, reproducing, summarizing, and/or distributing Confidential Information of Disclosing Party except in pursuance of Receiving Party’s business relationship with Disclosing Party, and only as otherwise provided hereunder; and
(iii) 不得披露、复制、概括和/或分发披露方的机密信息，除非是为了履行接收方与 披露方之间的业务关系，且仅在本协议另有规定的情况下；以及 (iv) 不得披露、复制、概括和/或分发接收方的机密信息，除非是为了履行接收方与 披露方之间的业务关系，且仅在本协议另有规定的情况下。

(iv)

Refrain from reverse engineering, decompiling, or disassembling any software code and/or pre-release hardware devices disclosed by Disclosing Party to Receiving Party under the terms of this Agreement, except as expressly permitted by applicable law.
除非适用法律明确允许，否则不得对披露方根据本协议条款向接收方披露的任何软件代码和/或预发布硬件设备进行反向工程、反编译或反汇编。

(b)

Receiving Party may disclose Confidential Information of Disclosing Party in accordance with a judicial or other governmental order, provided that Receiving Party either (i) gives Disclosing Party reasonable notice prior to such disclosure to allow Disclosing Party a reasonable opportunity to seek a protective order or equivalent, or (ii) obtains written assurance from the applicable judicial or governmental entity that it will afford the Confidential Information the highest level of protection afforded under applicable law or regulation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Receiving Party shall not disclose any computer source code that contains Confidential Information of Disclosing Party in accordance with a judicial or other governmental order unless it complies with the requirement set forth in subsection (i) of this Section 3(b).
接收方可根据司法命令或其他政府命令披露披露方的机密信息，条件是接收方 (i) 在披露前给予披露方合理的通知，使披露方有合理的机会寻求保护令或同等保护，或 (ii) 从适用的司法或政府实体获得书面保证，保证其将为机密信息提供适用法律或法规规定的最高级别的保护。尽管有上述规定，接收方不得根据司法或其他政府命令披露包含披露方机密信息的任何计算机源代码，除非接收方遵守本第 3(b) 条第 (i) 小节规定的要求。

(c)

Receiving Party may disclose Confidential Information only to Receiving Party’s employees and consultants on a need-to-know basis. Receiving Party will have executed
接收方只能在需要知情的基础上向接收方的员工和顾问披露机密信息。接收方将执行

96

or shall execute appropriate written agreements with its employees and consultants sufficient to enable Receiving Party to enforce all the provisions of this Agreement.
或应与其雇员和顾问签署适当的书面协议，足以使接收方执行本协定的所有条款。

(d)

Receiving Party shall notify Disclosing Party immediately upon discovery of any unauthorized use or disclosure of Confidential Information or any other breach of this Agreement by Receiving Party and its employees and consultants, and will cooperate with Disclosing Party in every reasonable way to help Disclosing Party regain possession of the Confidential Information and prevent its further unauthorized use or disclosure.
接收方在发现接收方及其员工和顾问未经授权使用或披露机密信息或违反本协议的任何其他行为时，应立即通知披露方，并以一切合理方式与披露方合作，帮助披露方重新获得机密信息的所有权，并防止其进一步未经授权的使用或披露。

(e)

Receiving Party shall, at Disclosing Party’s request, return all originals, copies, reproductions, and summaries of Confidential Information and all other tangible materials and devices provided to Receiving Party as Confidential Information, or at Disclosing Party’s option, certify destruction of the same.
接收方应根据披露方的要求，归还机密信息的所有原件、副本、复制品和摘要，以及作为机密信息提供给接收方的所有其他有形材料和设备，或者根据披露方的选择，证明已将其销毁。

4. Remedies

The parties acknowledge that monetary damages may not be a sufficient remedy for unauthorized disclosure of Confidential Information and that Disclosing Party shall be entitled, without waiving any other rights or remedies, to such injunctive or equitable relief as may be deemed proper by a court of competent jurisdiction.
双方承认，金钱赔偿可能不是对未经授权披露机密信息的充分补救，在不放弃任何其他权利或补救的情况下，披露方有权获得有管辖权的法院认为适当的禁令或衡平法救济。

5. Miscellaneous

(a)

The parties agree to comply with all applicable international and national laws that apply to (i) any Confidential Information, or (ii) any product (or any part thereof), process, or service that is the direct product of the Confidential Information, including the U.S. Export Administration Regulations, as well as end user, end use, and destination restrictions issued by U.S. and other governments. For additional information on exporting [my company] products, see http://www.[mycompany].com/[exportcontrol]/.
双方同意遵守适用于 (i) 任何机密信息，或 (ii) 作为机密信息直接产品的任何产品（或其任何部分）、流程或服务的所有适用国际和国内法律，包括《美国出口管理条例》，以及美国和其他国家政府发布的最终用户、最终用途和目的地限制。有关出口 [我公司] 产品的其他信息，请参见 http://www.[mycompany].com/[exportcontrol]/.

(b)

None of the provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed to have been waived by any act or acquiescence on the part of Disclosing Party, Receiving Party, their agents, or their employees, but only by an instrument in writing signed by an authorized employee of Disclosing Party and by an authorized employee of Receiving Party. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of any other provision(s) or of the same provision on another occasion.
披露方、接收方、其代理人或其员工的任何行为或默许均不得视为已放弃本协议的任何条款，而只能由披露方的授权员工和接收方的授权员工签署书面文书。对本协议任何条款的放弃均不构成对任何其他条款或在其他场合对同一条款的放弃。

(c)

If either Disclosing Party or Receiving Party employs attorneys to enforce any rights arising out of or relating to this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. This Agreement shall be construed and controlled by the laws of the State of [state], and the parties further consent to exclusive jurisdiction and venue in the federal courts sitting in [county] County, [state], unless no federal subject matter jurisdiction exists, in which case the parties consent to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue in the Superior Court of [county] County, [state]. [Company] waives all defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction and
如果披露方或接收方聘请律师强制执行因本协议引起或与之相关的任何权利，胜诉方有权收回合理的律师费和成本费。本协议应由 [州] 的法律解释和控制，双方还同意 [州] [县] 的联邦法院拥有专属管辖权和审判地，除非不存在联邦属事管辖权，在此情况下，双方同意 [州] [县] 的高等法院拥有专属管辖权和审判地。[公司]放弃所有缺乏属人管辖权的抗辩和

97

forum non conveniens. Process may be served on either party in the manner authorized by applicable law or court rule.
论坛不速之客。诉讼文件可以适用法律或法院规则授权的方式送达任何一方。

(d)

This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of each party’s respective successors and lawful assigns; provided, however, that neither party may assign this Agreement (whether by operation of law, sale of securities or assets, merger, or otherwise), in whole or in part, without the prior written approval of the other party. Any attempted assignment in violation of this Section shall be void.
本协议对双方各自的继承人和合法受让人具有约束力，并使其受益；但是，未经另一方事先书面批准，任何一方不得转让本协议的全部或部分内容（无论是通过法律运作、出售证券或资产、合并或其他方式）。任何违反本节规定的转让行为均属无效。

(e)

If any provision of this Agreement shall be held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect.
如果本协议的任何条款被有管辖权的法院认定为非法、无效或不可执行，则其余条款仍应完全有效。

(f)

This Agreement shall remain in effect perpetually, except either party may terminate this Agreement with or without cause upon ninety (90) days’ prior written notice to the other party sent to the address listed above. All sections of this Agreement relating to the rights and obligations of the parties concerning use and protection of Confidential Information disclosed during the term of the Agreement shall survive any such termination.
本协议永久有效，但任何一方均可在有理由或无理由的情况下终止本协议，但需提前九十 (90) 天以书面形式通知对方，并将通知发送至上述地址。本协议中与协议期间披露的机密信息的使用和保护相关的双方权利和义务有关的所有条款在协议终止后继续有效。

(g)

This Agreement shall not be modified except by a written agreement dated subsequent to the date of this Agreement and signed by both parties.
本协议不得修改，除非双方在本协议日期之后签署书面协议。

(h)

This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous nondisclosure agreements or communications. It shall not be modified except by a written agreement dated subsequent to the date of this Agreement and signed on behalf of the parties by their respective duly authorized representatives.
本协议构成双方关于本协议主题事项的完整协议，并取代所有先前和同期的保密协议或通信。除非双方正式授权代表在本协议日期之后签署书面协议，否则不得对本协议进行修改。

6. Suggestions and Feedback

Receiving Party may from time to time, in its sole discretion, provide suggestions, comments, or other feedback (“Feedback”) to Disclosing Party with respect to Confidential Information provided originally by Disclosing Party. Feedback, even if designated as confidential by the party offering the Feedback, shall not, absent a separate written agreement, create any confidentiality obligation for the receiver of the Feedback. The receiver of the Feedback shall be free to use, disclose, reproduce, license or otherwise distribute, and exploit the Feedback provided to it “AS IS” without obligation or restriction of any kind on account of intellectual property rights.
接收方可不时自行决定就披露方最初提供的保密信息向披露方提供建议、意见或其他反馈（以下称 "反馈"）。即使提供反馈的一方将反馈指定为机密信息，在没有单独书面协议的情况下，也不会对反馈接收方产生任何保密义务。反馈接收方应可 "按原样 "自由使用、披露、复制、许可或以其他方式分发和利用向其提供的反馈，而不会因知识产权而承担任何义务或受到任何限制。

* * *

98

Questions

1.

General Discussion Questions

1.1

Does the NDA cover more than statutory trade secrets? If so, why and what are the implications of this?
NDA 是否涵盖法定商业秘密以外的内容？如果是，原因是什么？

1.2

Which provisions of the NDA make up the “reasonable measures” required by trade secret law to maintain a trade secret? Would you describe these measures as robust? What are the advantages and disadvantages of and alternatives to this approach?
NDA 的哪些条款构成了商业秘密法所要求的维护商业秘密的 "合理措施"？你认为这些措施健全吗？这种方法的优缺点和替代方法是什么？

2.

Litigation Questions

2.1

What remedies are available for breach of an NDA? Which remedies are the most useful?
违反 NDA 有哪些补救措施？哪些补救措施最有用？

2.2

What types of injunctive relief would be available for breach of the NDA?
对于违反 NDA 的行为，可以采取哪些类型的禁令救济？

3.

Business Law Questions

3.1

Which sections of the NDA grant permission to use trade secrets? What is the scope of the permission?
NDA 的哪些部分允许使用商业秘密？许可的范围是什么？

3.2

Why does the NDA contain the so-called “residuals” clause in Section 1(c)? What are the pros and cons of this provision? Does it benefit large or small companies?
为什么 NDA 第 1(c)条包含所谓的 "剩余 "条款？该条款有何利弊？它有利于大公司还是小公司？

Exercises

Introduction. This Exercise assumes a negotiation between two companies who would like to exchange trade secrets. Your assignment is to represent one of the parties in the negotiation of an NDA.
简介。本练习假定两家公司就交换商业秘密进行谈判。你的任务是代表其中一方进行 NDA 谈判。

The Parties. Mellow is a small software company with headquarters in North Bend, Washington. Most of its employees are recent college graduates with lots of college loan debt. Consequently, Mellow likes to operate informally and abhors paying lawyers to do anything. Mellow has developed a new computer simulation game (code named “EcoSim”) that allows users to manage the energy resources of a fantasy world known as The North. EcoSim users can choose wind, solar, nuclear, coal, hydro, oil, natural gas, and other fuel options for The North, with all the attendant trade-offs. EcoSim includes a rich collection of technical information about energy resources and technology, powerful algorithms that present the user with realistic choices, and a unique user interface that guides the user through the game. Mellow has created a detailed marketing plan for EcoSim. The plan includes an analysis of competing products, advertising strategy, and potential trademarks for EcoSim.
双方。Mellow 是一家小型软件公司，总部位于华盛顿州北本德。公司的大多数员工都是刚毕业的大学生，欠下了很多大学贷款。因此，Mellow 公司喜欢以非正式的方式运作，不喜欢花钱请律师做任何事情。Mellow 开发了一款新的电脑模拟游戏（代号为 "EcoSim"），让用户管理一个名为 "北方 "的幻想世界的能源资源。生态模拟 "的用户可以为 "北方 "选择风能、太阳能、核能、煤炭、水力、石油、天然气和其他燃料，以及随之而来的各种权衡。EcoSim 包括有关能源资源和技术的丰富技术信息、为用户提供真实选择的强大算法以及指导用户完成游戏的独特用户界面。Mellow 为 EcoSim 制定了详细的营销计划。该计划包括对 EcoSim 的竞争产品、广告策略和潜在商标的分析。

Best is a large corporation with headquarters in Boston, Massachusetts. Best publishes several software simulation products that are used in industrial settings but no simulation games. Although Best has been successful in its niche, its markets are
贝斯特是一家总部位于马萨诸塞州波士顿的大型企业。贝斯特出版了几款用于工业环境的软件模拟产品，但没有模拟游戏。尽管百思特在其细分市场上取得了成功，但其市场仍

99

becoming saturated so it wants to diversify into simulation games. Best heard about Mellow from a venture capital firm that made a small investment in Mellow.
游戏已趋于饱和，因此它希望多元化发展，进军模拟游戏领域。贝斯特是从一家风险投资公司那里听说 Mellow 的，该公司对 Mellow 进行了小额投资。

The Issues. Both companies desire to agree on an NDA to discuss prospects for a business relationship. Best has proposed the NDA form shown above. Mellow and Best have agreed on all issues except two: Issue #1, whether the NDA should contain the “residuals” clause currently in Section 1(c); and Issue #2, which state law and venue should be chosen for Section 5(c).
问题。两家公司都希望签订一份保密协议，以讨论建立业务关系的前景。Best 公司提出了上图所示的 NDA 格式。Mellow 和 Best 已就所有问题达成一致，只有两个问题除外：问题 1，NDA 是否应包含目前第 1(c)条中的 "剩余 "条款；问题 2，第 5(c)条应选择哪个州的法律和地点。

The Exercise. Negotiate with another student over the two Issues described above. Describe the nature of the agreement that you reach or of the disagreement that you were unable to overcome.
练习。与另一名学生就上述两个问题进行谈判。描述你们达成的协议的性质或你们无法克服的分歧的性质。

V. Misappropriation of Trade Secrets

It is common practice, as described above, for programmers to share software secrets. However, sometimes a third party takes secrets without permission. This taking may be an illegal misappropriation that (depending on the source of trade secret law) may be a breach of the UTSA or a tort. Misappropriation is defined below. Then this chapter explores two potential misappropriation scenarios: reverse engineering of software and software firm employees who depart to work for another firm.
如上所述，程序员共享软件机密是一种常见做法。然而，有时第三方会未经许可而获取机密。这种窃取可能是非法盗用，（取决于商业秘密法的来源）可能违反《UTSA》或构成侵权。盗用的定义如下。然后，本章将探讨两种潜在的盗用情况：软件的逆向工程和软件公司员工离职后为另一家公司工作。

Uniform Trade Secrets Act

Section 1. Definitions.

As used in this [Act], unless the context requires otherwise:
本[法案]中使用的术语，除非上下文另有要求：

(1) “Improper means” includes theft, bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy, or espionage through electronic or other means;
(1) "不正当手段 "包括盗窃、贿赂、虚假陈述、违反或诱使违反保密义务，或通过电子或其他手段进行间谍活动；

(2) “Misappropriation” means:

(i) acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means; or
(i) 知道或有理由知道他人的商业秘密是通过不正当手段获得的；或

(ii) disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who
(ii) 任何人未经明示或默示同意，披露或使用他人的商业秘密，而该人

(A) used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret; or
(A) 使用不正当手段获取商业秘密知识；或

(B) at the time of disclosure or use, knew or had reason to know that his knowledge of the trade secret was
(B) 在披露或使用时，知道或有理由知道他对该商业秘密的了解是

(I) derived from or through a person who had utilized improper means to acquire it;
(I) 来自或通过某人以不正当手段获得；

(II) acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or
(II) 在引起保密或限制其使用的责任的情况下获得的；或

(III) derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or
(III) 源自或通过某人获得，而该人对寻求救济者负有保密或限制其使用的义务；或 (IV) 源自或通过某人获得，而该人对寻求救济者负有保密或限制其使用的义务。

100

(C) before a material change of his [or her] position, knew or had reason to know that it was a trade secret and that knowledge of it had been acquired by accident or mistake.
(C) 在其[或其]地位发生重大变化之前，知道或有理由知道这是商业秘密，而且是在意外或错误的情况下知道的。

* * *

Restatement of Torts

§757. Liability for Disclosure or Use of Another’s Trade Secret — General Principle
§757.披露或使用他人商业秘密的责任--一般原则

One who discloses or uses another’s trade secret, without a privilege to do so, is liable to the other if
在以下情况下，披露或使用他人商业秘密的一方在没有特权的情况下对另一方负有责任

(a) he discovered the secret by improper means, or
(a) 他以不正当手段发现了该秘密，或

(b) his disclosure or use constitutes a breach of confidence reposed in him by the other in disclosing the secret to him, or
(b) 他的披露或使用构成违反对方在向他披露该秘密时对他的信任，或

(c) he learned the secret from a third person with notice of the facts that it was a secret and that the third person discovered it by improper means or that the third person’s disclosure of it was otherwise a breach of his duty to the other, or
(c) 他从第三人处得知该秘密，并注意到该秘密是秘密的事实，而且该第三人是通过不正当手段发现该秘密的，或该第三人披露该秘密违反了他对另一人的义务，或 (d) 他从第三人处得知该秘密，并注意到该秘密是秘密的事实，而且该第三人是通过不正当手段发现该秘密的。

(d) he learned the secret with notice of the facts that it was a secret and that its disclosure was made to him by mistake.
(d) 他得知该秘密时已知道该秘密是秘密，而且该秘密是错误地披露给他的。

Comment:

f. Improper means of discovery. The discovery of another’s trade secret by improper means subjects the actor to liability independently of the harm to the interest in the secret. Thus, if one uses physical force to take a secret formula from another’s pocket, or breaks into another’s office to steal the formula, his conduct is wrongful and subjects him to liability apart from the rule stated in this Section. Such conduct is also an improper means of procuring the secret under this rule. But means may be improper under this rule even though they do not cause any other harm than that to the interest in the trade secret. Examples of such means are fraudulent misrepresentations to induce disclosure, tapping of telephone wires, eavesdropping or other espionage. A complete catalogue of improper means is not possible. In general they are means which fall below the generally accepted standards of commercial morality and reasonable conduct.
f。不正当的发现手段。通过不正当手段发现他人的商业秘密，行为人要承担责任，而与对秘密利益的损害无关。因此，如果某人使用武力从他人口袋中拿走秘密配方，或闯入他人办公室窃取配方，其行为是不正当的，应承担本节所述规则之外的责任。根据本条规则，这种行为也是获取秘密的不正当手段。但是，根据本规则，即使这些手段除了对商业秘密的利益造成损害外没有造成任何其他损害，也可能是不正当的。此类手段的例子包括为诱使披露而进行的欺诈性虚假陈述、窃听电话线、窃听或其他间谍活动。不可能对不正当手段进行完整的分类。一般来说，这些手段低于普遍接受的商业道德和合理行为标准。

* * *

A. Discussion of Departing Employees in the Software Industry
A.关于软件业离职员工的讨论

In the software industry, so-called “knowledge workers” are prized. Talented software programmers are the key ingredient to a successful software venture. Technology companies work hard to recruit and retain programming talent, often providing the kind of amenities that have made Google famous. These programmers bring their experience and skills to the job, but they also acquire their employer’s trade secrets. In addition to relying on a common law duty to protect confidences and NDAs to protect these trade secrets, software firms sometimes require employees to sign covenants not to compete. Many states enforce these covenants to
在软件行业，所谓的 "知识工作者 "备受推崇。优秀的软件程序员是软件企业成功的关键因素。科技公司努力招聘和留住编程人才，通常会提供让谷歌声名鹊起的便利条件。这些程序员为工作带来了他们的经验和技能，但他们也获得了雇主的商业秘密。除了依靠普通法中的保密义务和 NDA 来保护这些商业机密外，软件公司有时还会要求员工签署不竞争契约。许多州强制执行这些契约，以便

101

the extent they are reasonable as to subject matter, duration, and geographic scope as discussed below in the Systems and Software, Inc. v. Barnes case. Some states, such as California, have a public policy against enforcing them as discussed below in the Edwards v. Arthur Andersen LLP case.
系统和软件公司诉 Barnes 案中所讨论的那样，在主题、期限和地理范围方面都是合理的。某些州（如加利福尼亚州）的公共政策反对执行这些条款，如下文 Edwards 诉 Arthur Andersen LLP 案中所述。

Even if an employee did not agree to a non-compete via contract, some courts have enjoined an employee from joining a firm’s competitor if doing so would inevitably disclose the firm’s trade secrets. Some courts reject this so-called “inevitable disclosure doctrine,” see Whyte v. Schlage Lock Co., 125 Cal. Rptr. 2d 277, 101 Cal. App. 4th 1443 (2002), but others adopt it, as illustrated below in the Novell v. Timpanogos Research Group case. Finally, when former employers and departing employees enter litigation, they need a way to disclose trade secrets during the litigation that preserves secrecy. The Protective Order used in the Microsoft v. Kai-Fu Lee case provides a representative example.
即使雇员没有通过合同同意非竞争协议，如果雇员加入公司的竞争对手不可避免地会泄露公司的商业秘密，一些法院也会禁止雇员加入该竞争对手。一些法院拒绝接受这种所谓的 "不可避免的披露原则"，see Whyte v. Schlage Lock Co., 125 Cal.Rptr. 2d 277, 101 Cal.App.4th，1443 (2002)，但也有一些人采纳了这一观点，如下文 Novell 诉 Timpanogos Research Group 案所示。最后，当前雇主和离职员工提起诉讼时，他们需要一种在诉讼期间披露商业秘密的保密方式。微软诉李开复案中使用的保护令提供了一个具有代表性的例子。

Systems and Software, Inc. v. Barnes

178 Vt. 389, 886 A.2d 762 (2005)

REIBER, C.J.

Defendant Randy Barnes appeals the superior court’s order enjoining him from working for Utility Solutions, Inc. or any other direct competitor of his former employer, plaintiff Systems & Software, Inc., for a six-month period pursuant to the noncompetition agreement that he signed when he began working for plaintiff. He argues that the trial court should not have enforced the agreement. We affirm.
被告兰迪-巴恩斯（Randy Barnes）对高等法院禁止他在六个月内为公用事业解决方案公司（Utility Solutions）或其前雇主原告系统与软件公司（Systems & Software, Inc.他认为初审法院不应执行该协议。我们维持原判。

Plaintiff, a Vermont corporation located in Colchester, Vermont, is engaged in the business of designing, developing, selling, and servicing software that allows utility providers to organize data regarding customer information, billing, work management, asset management, and finance and accounting. In August 2002, plaintiff hired defendant as an at-will employee to become a regional vice-president of sales. At the time he commenced work for plaintiff, defendant signed a noncompetition agreement that, among other things, prohibited him — during his employment and for six months thereafter — from becoming associated with any business that competes with plaintiff. In April 2004, defendant voluntarily left his position with plaintiff and started a partnership with his wife called Spirit Technologies Consulting Group. Spirit Technologies’ only customer was Utility Solutions, Inc., which, like plaintiff, services municipalities and utilities nationwide with respect to customer-information-systems software.
原告是一家位于佛蒙特州科尔切斯特的佛蒙特公司，从事设计、开发、销售和服务软件的业 务，使公用事业提供商能够组织有关客户信息、账单、工作管理、资产管理以及财务和会计的 数据。2002 年 8 月，原告雇佣被告担任地区销售副总裁。在开始为原告工作时，被告签署了一份竞业禁止协议，除其他事项外，该协议禁止被告在受雇期间及其后六个月内与任何与原告存在竞争关系的企业建立联系。2004 年 4 月，被告自愿离开原告的职位，与妻子合伙成立了 Spirit Technologies Consulting Group。Spirit Technologies 的唯一客户是 Utility Solutions, Inc.

On April 27, 2004, plaintiff filed a complaint and a request for injunctive relief that sought enforcement of the parties’ noncompetition agreement. A hearing was held in June 2004, and on July 22, 2004, the superior court granted plaintiff an injunction. In its final judgment order dated August 6, 2004, the court enjoined defendant from working as a consultant or otherwise with Utility Solutions or any other direct competitor of plaintiff. Defendant appeals from that judgment. Pursuant to a provision of the parties’ noncompetition agreement, the six-month noncompetition period will not begin until a final nonappealable judgment is rendered.
2004 年 4 月 27 日，原告提起诉讼并请求禁令救济，要求执行双方的竞业禁止协议。2004 年 6 月举行了听证会，2004 年 7 月 22 日，高等法院批准了原告的禁令。在 2004 年 8 月 6 日的最终判决令中，法院禁止被告以顾问或其他身份与 Utility Solutions 或原告的任何其他直接竞争对手合作。被告对该判决提出上诉。根据双方的竞业禁止协议中的一项规定，六个月的竞业禁止期将在不可上诉的终审判决下达后才开始计算。

102

Like many other courts, this Court has adopted a position with respect to enforcement of noncompetition agreements similar to that set forth in §188(1) of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts (1981), which provides that a restrictive covenant “is unreasonably in restraint of trade if (a) the restraint is greater than is needed to protect the promisee’s legitimate interest, or (b) the promisee’s need is out-weighed by the hardship to the promisor and the likely injury to the public.” Cf. Restatement (Third) of Employment Law §6.05 (Preliminary Draft No. 2, May 17, 2004) (“A court will enforce a restrictive covenant in an employment agreement to the extent that enforcement is reasonably tailored to protect a legitimate interest of the employer.”).
与许多其他法院一样，本法院在执行竞业禁止协议方面采取了与《合同法重述（第二版）》（1981 年）第 188(1)条类似的立场，该条规定，如果(a)限制超过了保护承诺人合法利益的需要，或(b)承诺人的困难和可能对公众造成的伤害超过了承诺人的需要，则限制性约定 "不合理地限制了贸易"。参见《雇佣法重述（第三版）》第 6.05 条（2004 年 5 月 17 日第 2 号初步草案）（"法院将执行雇佣协议中的限制性约定，但以执行该约定能合理保护雇主的合法利益为限"）。

We have stated that “we will proceed with caution” when asked to enforce covenants against competitive employment because such restraints run counter to public policy favoring the right of individuals to engage in the commercial activity of their choice. Roy’s Orthopedic, Inc. v. Lavigne, 142 Vt. 347, 350, 454 A.2d 1242, 1244 (1982); accord Dicks v. Jensen, 172 Vt. 43, 51, 768 A.2d 1279, 1285 (2001). Nonetheless, we will enforce such agreements “unless the agreement is found to be contrary to public policy, unnecessary for protection of the employer, or unnecessarily restrictive of the rights of the employee, with due regard being given to the subject matter of the contract and the circumstances and conditions under which it is to be performed.” Vt. Elec. Supply Co. v. Andrus, 132 Vt. 195, 198, 315 A.2d 456, 458 (1974); accord Fine Foods, Inc. v. Dahlin, 147 Vt. 599, 603, 523 A.2d 1228, 1230 (1986).
我们曾指出，当被要求执行禁止竞争性就业的契约时，"我们将谨慎行事"，因为这种限制违背了支持个人有权从事自己选择的商业活动的公共政策。Roy's Orthopedic, Inc. v. Lavigne, 142 Vt.347, 350, 454 A.2d 1242, 1244 (1982); accord Dicks v. Jensen, 172 Vt.43, 51, 768 A.2d 1279, 1285 (2001)。尽管如此，我们仍将执行此类协议，"除非发现该协议违反了公共政策，对雇主的保护没有必要，或对雇员的权利造成了不必要的限制，同时适当考虑了合同的主题以及履行合同的情况和条件"。Vt.Vt.供应公司诉 Andrus，132 Vt.195, 198, 315 A.2d 456, 458 (1974); accord Fine Foods, Inc. v. Dahlin, 147 Vt.599, 603, 523 A.2d 1228, 1230 (1986)。

Here, in arguing that the trial court erred by enforcing the parties’ agreement, defendant first asserts that the agreement does not safeguard a legitimate interest of the employer because it was not needed to protect trade secrets or confidential customer information. This argument fails because it is based on a faulty premise — that noncompetition agreements may be enforced to protect only trade secrets or confidential customer information. Most jurisdictions do not limit the scope of noncompetition agreements to trade secrets or confidential customer information, which are often protected by other law even in the absence of such agreements. See 15 G. Giesel, Corbin on Contracts §80.16, at 141-42 (rev. ed. 2003) (explaining that employers may use non-competition agreements to protect goodwill of business in addition to trade secrets and other confidential information, which most jurisdictions protect even in absence of covenant not to compete); see also 9 V.S.A. §§46014609 (Cum. Supp. 2004). Indeed, the recent draft of the third restatement on employment law expressly states that noncompetition agreements may protect legitimate employer interests such as customer relationships and employee-specific goodwill that are “ significantly broader” than proprietary information such as trade secrets and confidential customer information. Restatement (Third) of Employment Law §6.05 cmt. b (“[Section] 6.05 sometimes allows an employer contractually to prevent all competition by a former employee, even competition that does not make use of the employer’s proprietary information.”).
在此案中，被告在辩称初审法院错误地执行了双方的协议时，首先声称该协议并未保障雇主的合法权益，因为该协议并非保护商业秘密或客户机密信息所必需。这一论点是失败的，因为它建立在一个错误的前提之上，即执行竞业禁止协议只能是为了保护商业秘密或客户机密信息。大多数司法管辖区并没有将竞业禁止协议的范围限制在商业秘密或客户机密信息上，即使没有此类协议，这些信息通常也受到其他法律的保护。参见 15 G. Giesel, Corbin on Contracts §80.16, at 141-42 (rev. ed. 2003)（解释了雇主可以使用竞业禁止协议来保护商业秘密和其他机密信息之外的goodwill业务，大多数司法管辖区即使在没有签订不竞争协议的情况下也会保护这些信息）；另见 9 V.S.A. §§46014609 (修订版)。§§46014609 (Cum. Supp. 2004)。事实上，最近关于雇佣法的第三次重述草案明确指出，竞业禁止协议可以保护合法的雇主利益，如客户关系和雇员特定的 goodwill，这些利益比商业秘密和客户机密信息等专有信息 "广泛得多"。就业法重述（第三版）》§6.05 cmt. b（"[第 6.05 条] 有时允许雇主以合同的形式阻止前雇员的所有竞争行为，即使是不使用雇主专有信息的竞争行为。）

It is not necessary in this case to establish the range of employer interests, beyond trade secrets and confidential customer information, that may be protected through noncompetition agreements. Here, the trial court found that plaintiff had a legitimate protectable interest, and the evidence supports the court’s finding. The trial court found that during his employment with plaintiff, defendant had acquired inside knowledge about the strengths and weaknesses of plaintiff’s products — knowledge that he could use to compete
在本案中，除了商业秘密和客户机密信息之外，没有必要确定通过竞业禁止协议可以保护的雇主利益的范围。在本案中，初审法院认定原告拥有合法的可保护利益，并且证据支持法院的认定。初审法院认为，被告在受雇于原告期间，获得了有关原告产品优缺点的内部知识--他可以利用这些知识进行竞争。

103

against plaintiff. As the court pointed out, both plaintiff and United Solutions, defendant’s only client, served a small market of customers; thus, the loss of even a single contract could deprive plaintiff of revenue for many years, especially considering the need for service and software updates. Given these circumstances, we find no basis for overturning the trial court’s conclusion that plaintiff had a legitimate protectable interest.
法院指出，原告和被告唯一的客户 United Solutions 的服务市场都很小。正如法院所指出的，原告和被告唯一的客户 United Solutions 服务的客户市场都很小；因此，即使失去一份合同也会使原告失去多年的收入，特别是考虑到服务和软件更新的需要。鉴于这些情况，我们认为没有理由推翻初审法院关于原告拥有合法可保护利益的结论。

Defendant argues, however, that even assuming the parties’ agreement protects a legitimate interest, the agreement is more restrictive than necessary to protect that interest. He contends that less drastic solutions were available to the trial court to fashion a more reasonable restraint on his employment. For example, he suggests that the court could have simply prohibited him from soliciting plaintiff’s current customers, or, at a minimum, prohibited him from dealing with non-cooperative utilities, given that plaintiff has not dealt with cooperatives for nearly twenty years. According to defendant, a complete ban on competition is not only unduly restrictive, but it effectively prevents him from working in his field of expertise for six months, thereby imposing a hardship that far outweighs any potential harm to plaintiff.
然而，被告辩称，即使假设双方的协议保护的是合法利益，该协议的限制性也超过了保护该利益所需的程度。他辩称，原审法院可以采取一些不那么激烈的解决方案，对他的就业进行更合理的限制。例如，他认为法院本可以简单地禁止他招揽原告的现有客户，或者至少禁止他与非合作的公用事业公司打交道，因为原告已经有近二十年没有与合作社打交道了。被告认为，完全禁止竞争不仅是不适当的限制，而且实际上阻止了他在自己的专业领域工作六个月，从而造成的困难远远超过了对原告的任何潜在伤害。

We do not find these arguments persuasive, particularly in the context of this case, which does not present any of the hallmarks of an unequal bargaining relationship between employer and employee. Defendant is a sophisticated consultant, who accepted employment with plaintiff after working for one of plaintiff’s competitors. At the time he was hired, plaintiff informed defendant that a condition of his employment was that he sign a covenant not to compete. Defendant signed the agreement, which explicitly provided that prohibiting him from competing with plaintiff for a six-month period following the parties’ separation would not prevent defendant from earning a living. Defendant now claims hardship based on nothing more than a bald statement that he will be unable to work for six months if the agreement is enforced. We find no error in the court’s decision not to invalidate the contract based on this unsupported claim.
我们认为这些论点没有说服力，特别是在本案中，本案不存在雇主与雇员之间不平等谈判关系的任何特征。被告是一名资深顾问，在为原告的一家竞争对手工作后接受了原告的聘用。原告在雇用被告时告诉他，雇用他的一个条件是让他签署一份不竞争协议。被告在协议上签了字，协议明确规定，在双方离职后的六个月内，禁止被告与原告竞争不会妨碍被告谋生。被告现在声称自己陷入困境，其依据不过是一句空话，即如果协议得到执行，他将在六个月内无法工作。我们认为，法院不以这一毫无根据的主张为由宣布合同无效的判决并无错误。

Nor do we find error based on the superior court’s refusal to rewrite the agreement to make it more favorable to defendant. Although a restraint on competition is easier to justify “if the restraint is limited to the taking of his former employer’s customers as contrasted with competition in general,” Restatement (Second) of Contracts §188 cmt. g, employers “may seek to protect the good will of the business with [either] a general covenant not to compete or with a specific prohibition on contact with customers,” 15 Giesel, supra, §80.16, at 141 (footnote omitted). “Determining which restraints are reasonable has not been an exact science.” Id. §80.6, at 68. The reasonableness of the restrictions “will vary by industry and will depend highly on the nature of the interest justifying the restrictive covenant.” Restatement (Third) of Employment Law §6.05 cmt. c. Generally, courts will uphold a contractual ban on an employee’s post-employment competition if it would be difficult for an employer to determine when an employee is soliciting its customers. Id. §§6.05 cmt. c, 6.06 cmt. c (“Because it is essentially impossible to monitor an employee’s ‘use’ of goodwill, this interest will support a complete ban on competition as long as it is reasonably limited temporally and geographically.”).
我们也不认为高等法院拒绝重写协议以使其更有利于被告是错误的。虽然 "如果限制仅限于抢夺其前雇主的客户，则与一般竞争相比"，限制竞争更容易证明合理，《合同重述（第二版）》第 188 节 g 小节，但雇主 "可以通过[或者]一般的不竞争契约或者具体的禁止与客户接触的规定来保护企业的良好意愿"，15 Giesel，同上，第 80.16 节，第 141 页（脚注省略）。"确定哪些限制是合理的并不是一门精确的科学。同上，第 80.6 节，第 68 页。同上，§80.6，第 68 页。限制的合理性 "因行业而异，并在很大程度上取决于证明限制性约定合理的利益的性质"。一般而言，如果雇主难以确定雇员何时在招揽客户，法院会支持通过合同禁止雇员离职后参与竞争。同上。§§6.05cmt.c、6.06 cmt.c（"由于基本上不可能监控雇员对 goodwill 的'使用'，因此只要在时间和地域上有合理限制，这种利益将支持完全禁止竞争。）

Here, the evidence demonstrates that plaintiff hired defendant to be a regional vice-president of sales and provided him access not only to existing customers but also to information concerning the strengths and weaknesses of plaintiff’s products, the individual

104

needs of the customers he served, and the prices paid by those customers for plaintiff’s products and services. The superior court found that in the course of his employment with plaintiff, defendant acquired knowledge of plaintiff’s software designs, customer base, marketing strategy, business practices, and other sensitive information revealing the strengths and weaknesses of plaintiff’s software products. Because of the nature of plaintiff’s business, which often involves customers initiating competitive bidding for contracts, it would be extremely difficult to monitor whether defendant was using the goodwill and knowledge he acquired while working for plaintiff to gain a competitive edge against plaintiff. Thus, the evidence supports the court’s findings and conclusions, which, in turn, support its decision to enforce the agreement to the extent that defendant is prohibited for a six-month period from working for Utility Solutions or any other direct competitor of plaintiff.
他所服务的客户的需求，以及这些客户为原告的产品和服务所支付的价格。高等法院认为，被告在受雇于原告期间，了解了原告的软件设计、客户群、营销策略、商业 惯例以及揭示原告软件产品优缺点的其他敏感信息。由于原告的业务性质（经常涉及客户发起合同竞标），要监控被告是否利用他在为原告工作期间获得的 goodwill 和知识来获得对原告的竞争优势极为困难。因此，证据支持法院的调查结果和结论，进而支持法院执行协议的裁决，即被告在六个月内不得为 Utility Solutions 或原告的任何其他直接竞争对手工作。

Defendant also claims that he has not competed with plaintiff or violated the covenant not to compete, but the evidence supports the court’s findings to the contrary. The only customer of defendant’s consulting firm was Utility Solutions, which directly competed against plaintiff for at least two different contracts. Further, shortly after defendant left plaintiff’s employ, he represented Utility Solutions at a trade fair in a booth near plaintiff’s booth and identified himself as Utility Solution’s sales director. Moreover, the superior court found “not credible” defendant’s claim that he was hired by Utility Solutions exclusively to market a new software product for two of the company’s existing cooperative clients. Under these circumstances, the superior court’s injunction was reasonable.
被告还声称，他没有与原告竞争，也没有违反不竞争契约，但证据支持法院的相反结论。被告咨询公司的唯一客户是 Utility Solutions 公司，该公司与原告直接竞争至少两份不同的合同。此外，在被告离开原告的工作岗位后不久，他代表 Utility Solutions 公司参加了一个交易会，在原告的展位附近摆摊，并自称是 Utility Solution 公司的销售总监。此外，高等法院认为被告关于 Utility Solutions 雇用他专门为该公司现有的两个合作客户推销新软件产品的说法 "不可信"。在这种情况下，高等法院的禁令是合理的。

Finally, we find no merit to defendant’s argument that plaintiff should be equitably estopped from seeking enforcement of the noncompetition agreement. In support of this argument, defendant contends that he accepted employment with plaintiff and signed the agreement based on plaintiff’s false representations that (1) its software products were suitable for cooperative electric and gas utilities; and (2) it would not seek to enforce the covenant not to compete unless defendant went to work for a major competitor of plaintiff. The trial court specifically found that defendant’s testimony regarding these alleged representations was not credible. The court found that plaintiff did not mislead defendant about the capability of its products before he signed the noncompetition agreement and did not suggest to defendant that it would selectively enforce the agreement. Thus, the court properly rejected defendant’s equitable estoppel claim.
最后，我们认为被告关于原告在寻求执行竞业禁止协议时应受到衡平法禁止的论点没有法律依据。为了支持这一论点，被告辩称，他接受原告的雇用并签署协议是基于原告的虚假陈述：(1) 原告的软件产品适用于合作电力和燃气公司；(2) 除非被告到原告的主要竞争对手处工作，否则原告不会寻求执行不竞争协议。初审法院特别认定，被告关于这些所谓陈述的证词不可信。法院认为，原告在签署竞业禁止协议之前并未就其产品的能力误导被告，也未向被告暗示会有选择地执行协议。因此，法院恰当地驳回了被告的衡平不容反悔主张。

Affirmed.

* * *

EDWARDS v. ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

44 Cal. 4th 937, 189 P.3d 285, 81 Cal. Rptr. 3d 282 (2008)
44 Cal.44 Cal. 4th 937, 189 P.3d 285, 81 Cal.3d 282 (2008)

CHIN, J.

We granted review to address the validity of noncompetition agreements in California. . . . We conclude that section 16600 prohibits employee noncompetition agreements unless the agreement falls within a statutory exception. . . . We therefore affirm in part the Court of Appeal judgment.
我们同意对加州竞业禁止协议的有效性进行复审。. . .我们的结论是，第 16600 条禁止员工竞业禁止协议，除非该协议属于法定例外情况。. . .因此，我们部分维持上诉法院的判决。

105

FACTS

In January 1997, Raymond Edwards II (Edwards), a certified public accountant, was hired as a tax manager by the Los Angeles office of the accounting firm Arthur Andersen LLP (Andersen). Andersen’s employment offer was made contingent upon Edwards’s signing a noncompetition agreement, which prohibited him from working for or soliciting certain Andersen clients for limited periods following his termination. The agreement was required of all managers, and read in relevant part: “If you leave the Firm, for eighteen months after release or resignation, you agree not to perform professional services of the type you provided for any client on which you worked during the eighteen months prior to release or resignation. This does not prohibit you from accepting employment with a client. [¶] For twelve months after you leave the Firm, you agree not to solicit (to perform professional services of the type you provided) any client of the office(s) to which you were assigned during the eighteen months preceding release or resignation. [¶] You agree not to solicit away from the Firm any of its professional personnel for eighteen months after release or resignation.” Edwards signed the agreement.
1997 年 1 月，注册会计师 Raymond Edwards II（Edwards）被会计师事务所 Arthur Andersen LLP（安达信）洛杉矶办事处聘为税务经理。安达信的聘用条件是爱德华兹必须签署一份竞业禁止协议，该协议禁止他在离职后的有限时间内为安达信的某些客户工作或招揽这些客户。该协议要求所有经理签署，相关部分如下"如果你离开公司，在离职或辞职后的 18 个月内，你同意不为你在离职或辞职前的 18 个月内所服务的任何客户提供与你所提供的类型相同的专业服务。这并不禁止您接受客户的聘用。[在你离开律所后的十二个月内，你同意不招揽你在离职或辞职前十八个月内被指派的办事处的任何客户(提供你所提供的专业服务)。[¶]你同意在离职或辞职后的 18 个月内，不招揽律所以外的任何专业人员"。爱德华兹在协议上签了字。

Between 1997 and 2002, Edwards continued to work for Andersen, moving into the firm’s private client services practice group, where he handled income, gift, and estate tax planning for individuals and entities with large incomes and net worth. Over this period he was promoted to senior manager and was on track to become a partner. In March 2002, the United States government indicted Andersen in connection with the investigation into Enron Corporation, and in June 2002, Andersen announced that it would cease its accounting practices in the United States. In April 2002, Andersen began selling off its practice groups to various entities. In May 2002, Andersen internally announced that HSBC USA, Inc. (a New York-based banking corporation), through a new subsidiary, Wealth and Tax Advisory Services (WTAS), would purchase a portion of Andersen’s tax practice, including Edwards’s group.
1997 年至 2002 年间，Edwards 继续为安达信工作，并进入公司的私人客户服务业务部，负责为收入和净资产较高的个人和实体进行所得税、赠与税和遗产税规划。在此期间，他晋升为高级经理，并有望成为合伙人。2002 年 3 月，美国政府因调查安然公司而起诉安达信，2002 年 6 月，安达信宣布停止在美国的会计业务。2002 年 4 月，安达信开始将其业务部门出售给各种实体。2002 年 5 月，安达信内部宣布，汇丰银行美国公司（一家总部设在纽约的银行公司）将通过一家新的子公司财富与税务咨询服务公司（WTAS）购买安达信税务业务的一部分，其中包括爱德华兹的团队。

In July 2002, HSBC offered Edwards employment. Before hiring any of Andersen’s employees, HSBC required them to execute a “ Termination of Non-compete Agreement” (TONC) in order to obtain employment with HSBC. Among other things, the TONC required employees to, inter alia, (1) voluntarily resign from Andersen; (2) release Andersen from “any and all” claims, including “claims that in any way arise from or out of, are based upon or relate to Employee’s employment by, association with or compensation from” defendant; (3) continue indefinitely to preserve confidential information and trade secrets except as otherwise required by a court or governmental agency; (4) refrain from disparaging Andersen or its related entities or partners; and (5) cooperate with Andersen in connection with any investigation of, or litigation against, Andersen. In exchange, Andersen would agree to accept Edwards’s resignation, agree to Edwards’s employment by HSBC, and release Edwards from the 1997 noncompetition agreement.
2002年7月，汇丰银行向爱德华兹提供了就业机会。在雇用任何安达信员工之前，汇丰要求他们签署一份 "终止竞业禁止协议"（TONC），以便获得汇丰的雇用。除其他事项外，TONC 还要求雇员：(1) 自愿从安达信辞职；(2) 免除安达信的 "任何及所有 "索赔，包括 "因雇员受雇于被告、与被告有关联或从被告处获得报酬而以任何方式产生或产生、基于雇员受雇于被告、与被告有关联或从被告处获得报酬或与被告有关联而提出的索赔"；(3) 继续无限期地保护机密信息和商业秘密，除非法院或政府机构另有要求；(4) 不得诋毁安达信或其相关实体或合作伙伴；以及 (5) 在针对安达信的任何调查或诉讼中与安达信合作。作为交换，安达信同意接受爱德华兹的辞呈，同意爱德华兹受雇于汇丰银行，并解除爱德华兹与 1997 年签订的竞业禁止协议。

HSBC required that Andersen provide it with a completed TONC signed by every employee on the “Restricted Employees” list before the deal went through. At least one draft of the Restricted Employees list contained Edwards’s name. Andersen would not release Edwards, or any other employee, from the noncompetition agreement unless that employee signed the TONC. Edwards signed the HSBC offer letter, but he did not sign the TONC. In response, Andersen terminated Edwards’s employment and withheld severance benefits. HSBC withdrew its offer of employment to Edwards.
汇丰银行要求安达信在交易完成前向其提供由 "受限制员工 "名单上的每名员工签署的完整的 TONC。至少有一份 "受限员工 "名单草案包含爱德华兹的名字。安达信不会解除爱德华兹或任何其他员工的竞业禁止协议，除非该员工在 TONC 上签字。爱德华兹签署了汇丰银行的聘书，但没有签署 TONC。作为回应，安达信终止了对 Edwards 的聘用，并扣留了离职福利。汇丰撤销了对 Edwards 的聘用。

106

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On April 30, 2003, Edwards filed a complaint against Andersen, HSBC and WTAS for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and anticompetitive business practices under the Cartwright Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, §16720 et seq.). Edwards alleged that the Andersen noncompetition agreement violated section 16600, which states “[e]xcept as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.”
2003年4月30日，Edwards根据《卡特赖特法》（Bus.）爱德华兹声称，安达信公司的竞业禁止协议违反了第 16600 条，该条规定："除本章规定外，限制任何人从事任何种类的合法职业、贸易或业务的任何合同在此范围内均属无效"。

Edwards settled with all parties except Andersen. [The trial court] denied Andersen’s subsequent motion for summary adjudication on Edwards’s intentional interference with prospective economic advantage cause of action, after concluding that triable issues of fact existed on the meaning of the agreements, and whether the agreements protected trade secrets. . . . The court dismissed all claims against Andersen, except for those relating to intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, which it concluded presented pure questions of law.
Edwards 与除安达信以外的所有各方达成和解。[初审法院]驳回了安达信随后就爱德华兹故意干扰预期经济利益的诉因提出的简易判决动议，并得出结论认为，在协议的含义以及协议是否保护商业秘密的问题上存在可争论的事实。. . .法院驳回了所有针对安达信的诉讼请求，但与蓄意干扰预期经济利益相关的诉讼请求除外，法院认为这些诉讼请求提出了纯粹的法律问题。

The trial court heard argument from both parties, but took no evidence. The court determined all issues of law in favor of Andersen on the merits, and entered judgment in its favor. The court specifically decided that (1) the noncompetition agreement did not violate section 16600 because it was narrowly tailored and did not deprive Edwards of his right to pursue his profession. . . . Edwards appealed the trial court’s decision. . . . In the published part of its opinion, the Court of Appeal held: (1) the noncompetition agreement was invalid under section 16600.
初审法院听取了双方的辩论，但未采纳任何证据。法院根据案情对所有法律问题做出了有利于安达信公司的裁决，并做出了有利于安达信公司的判决。法院具体裁定：(1) 竞业禁止协议没有违反第 16600 条，因为该协议的范围很窄，没有剥夺爱德华兹从事其职业的权利。. . .爱德华兹对初审法院的判决提出上诉。. . .上诉法院在其发表的意见中认为(1) 根据第 16600 条，竞业禁止协议无效。

DISCUSSION

A. Section 16600

Under the common law, as is still true in many states today, contractual restraints on the practice of a profession, business, or trade, were considered valid, as long as they were reasonably imposed. This was true even in California [where there was a relaxing of the original common law rule that all restraints on trade were invalid in recognition of increasing population and competition in trade]. However, in 1872 California settled public policy in favor of open competition, and rejected the common law “rule of reasonableness,” when the Legislature enacted the Civil Code, [currently] enacted as Bus. & Prof. Code, §16600. Today in California, covenants not to compete are void, subject to several exceptions discussed briefly below.
在普通法中，对职业、业务或贸易的合同限制只要是合理的，就被认为是有效的。即使在加利福尼亚也是如此[由于人口增加和贸易竞争加剧，加利福尼亚放宽了最初的普通法规则，即所有贸易限制均无效]。然而，1872 年，加利福尼亚州确定了有利于公开竞争的公共政策，并在立法机关颁布《民法典》（[目前]颁布为《商业与公共事业法典》（Bus. & Prof. Code）§16600）时摒弃了普通法的"合理性规则"。如今在加利福尼亚州，除下文简要讨论的几种例外情况外，不竞争契约均属无效。

Section 16600 states: “Except as provided in this chapter, every contract by which anyone is restrained from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business of any kind is to that extent void.” The chapter excepts noncompetition agreements in the sale or dissolution of corporations (§16601), partnerships (ibid.; §16602), and limited liability corporations (§16602.5). In the years since its original enactment as Civil Code section 1673, our courts have consistently affirmed that section 16600 evinces a settled legislative policy in favor of open competition and employee mobility. The law protects Californians and ensures “that every citizen shall retain the right to pursue any lawful employment and enterprise of their choice.” It protects “the important legal right of persons to engage in businesses and occupations of their choosing.”
第 16600 条规定"除本章规定外，限制任何人从事合法职业、贸易或任何种类业务的所有合同在此范围内均属无效。本章将公司（§16601）、合伙企业（同上；§16602）和有限责任公司（§16602.5）的出售或解散中的竞业禁止协议排除在外。自最初作为《民法典》第 1673 条颁布以来，我国法院多年来一直确认，第 16600 条体现了有利于公开竞争和雇员流动的既定立法政策。该法律保护加利福尼亚人，确保 "每个公民都有权从事自己选择的任何合法工作和企业"。它保护 "个人从事自己选择的企业和职业的重要合法权利"。

107

This court has invalidated an otherwise narrowly tailored agreement as an improper restraint under section 16600 because it required a former employee to forfeit his pension rights on commencing work for a competitor. In Muggill v. Reuben H. Donnelley Corp., 62 Cal. 2d 239, 398 P.2d 147, 42 Cal. Rptr. 107, the court reviewed an adverse judgment against a company’s retired employee whose pension plan rights were terminated after the former employee commenced work for a competitor. [The Court] held that, with exceptions not applicable here, section 16600 invalidates provisions in employment contracts and retirement pension plans that prohibit “an employee from working for a competitor after completion of his employment or imposing a penalty if he does so unless they are necessary to protect the employer’s trade secrets.”2 In sum, following the Legislature, this court generally condemns noncompetition agreements.
根据第 16600 条的规定，本法院曾宣布一项本来范围很窄的协议无效，因为该协议要求一名前雇员在开始为竞争对手工作时放弃自己的养老金权利。在 Muggill 诉 Reuben H. Donnelley Corp.（62 Cal. 2d 239, 398 P.2d 147, 42 Cal.107 案中，法院审查了一项对公司退休雇员不利的判决，该雇员的养老金计划权利在其开始为竞争对手工作后被终止。[法院]认为，除不适用此处的例外情况外，第 16600 条规定，雇用合同和退休养老金计划中禁止 "雇员在完成雇用后为竞争对手工作或在这样做时施加处罚 "的条款无效，除非这些条款是保护雇主的商业秘密所必需的。"2 总之，根据立法机构的规定，本法院一般谴责竞业禁止协议。

Under the statute’s plain meaning, therefore, an employer cannot by contract restrain a former employee from engaging in his or her profession, trade, or business unless the agreement falls within one of the exceptions to the rule. Andersen, however, asserts that we should interpret the term “restrain” under section 16600 to mean simply to “prohibit,” so that only contracts that totally prohibit an employee from engaging in his or her profession, trade, or business are illegal. It would then follow that a mere limitation on an employee’s ability to practice his or her vocation would be permissible under section 16600, as long as it is reasonably based.
因此，根据该法规的明确含义，雇主不能通过合同限制前雇员从事其职业、行业或业务，除非该协议属于该规则的例外情况之一。然而，安达信公司声称，我们应该将第 16600 条中的 "限制 "一词解释为 "禁止"，因此只有完全禁止雇员从事其职业、行业或业务的合同才是非法的。因此，根据第 16600 条的规定，仅仅限制雇员从事其职业的能力是允许的，只要这种限制有合理的依据。

Andersen contends that some California courts have held that section 16600 (and its predecessor statutes, Civil Code former sections 1673, 1674, and 1675) are the statutory embodiment of prior common law, and embrace the rule of reasonableness in evaluating competitive restraints. . . . Andersen claims that these cases show that section 16600 “prohibits only broad agreements that prevent a person from engaging entirely in his chosen business, trade or profession. Agreements that do not have this broad effect — but merely regulate some aspect of post-employment conduct, e.g., to prevent raiding [employer’s personnel] — are not within the scope of [s]ection 16600.”
安达信辩称，加利福尼亚州的一些法院认为，第 16600 条（及其前身法规，《民法典》原第 1673、1674 和 1675 条）是先前普通法的法定体现，在评估竞争限制时包含了合理性规则。. . .安达信公司声称，这些案例表明，第 16600 条 "只禁止阻止某人完全从事其所选择的业务、行业或职业的广泛协议。不具有这种广泛影响的协议--只是对雇用后行为的某些方面进行规范，例如，防止突袭[雇主的人员]--不属于第 16600 条的范围"。

As Edwards observes, however, the cases Andersen cites to support a relaxation of the statutory rule simply recognize that the statutory exceptions to section 16600 reflect the same exceptions to the rule against noncompetition agreements that were implied in the common law. For example, South Bay Radiology acknowledged the general prohibition against restraints on trade while applying the specific partnership dissolution exception of section 16602 to the facts of its case. In that case, the covenant not to compete was set forth in a partnership agreement to which appellant doctor was a party. When appellant’s partnership with several other doctors dissolved due to his inability to work following an accident, he challenged the noncompete clause. The court found the partnership exception to section 16600 applicable. . . . As the present Court of Appeal recognized, “Fairly read, the foregoing authorities suggest section 16600 embodies the original, strict common law antipathy toward restraints of trade, while the section 16601 and 16602 exceptions incorporated the later common law ‘rule of reasonableness’ in instances where those exceptions apply.”
然而，正如爱德华兹所观察到的，安达信公司为支持放宽法定规则而引用的案例只是承认第 16600 条的法定例外情况反映了与普通法中隐含的竞业禁止协议规则相同的例外情况。例如，South Bay Radiology 公司在承认普遍禁止贸易限制的同时，还将第 16602 条的特定合伙解散例外情况应用于其案件事实中。在该案中，不竞争的约定载于一份合伙协议中，上诉人医生也是该协议的一方。当上诉人与其他几位医生的合伙关系因其在一次事故后无法工作而解散时，他对非竞争条款提出了质疑。法院认为第 16600 条的合伙例外条款适用。. . .正如本上诉法院所承认的，"公平地解读，上述权威性文件表明第 16600 条体现了最初普通法对贸易限制的严格反感，而第 16601 条和第 16602 条的例外条款则在这些例外条款适用的情况下纳入了后来普通法的'合理性规则'"。

108

We conclude that Andersen’s noncompetition agreement was invalid. As the Court of Appeal observed, “The first challenged clause prohibited Edwards, for an 18-month period, from performing professional services of the type he had provided while at Andersen, for any client on whose account he had worked during 18 months prior to his termination. The second challenged clause prohibited Edwards, for a year after termination, from ‘soliciting,’ defined by the agreement as providing professional services to any client of Andersen’s Los Angeles office.” The agreement restricted Edwards from performing work for Andersen’s Los Angeles clients and therefore restricted his ability to practice his accounting profession. The noncompetition agreement that Edwards was required to sign before commencing employment with Andersen was therefore invalid because it restrained his ability to practice his profession.
我们的结论是，安达信公司的竞业禁止协议无效。正如上诉法院所指出的，"第一条被质疑的条款禁止爱德华兹在 18 个月内为任何客户提供他在安达信工作期间所提供的专业服务，而该客户在他被解雇前的 18 个月内是他的客户。第二个受到质疑的条款禁止爱德华兹在离职后一年内'招揽业务'，根据协议的定义，'招揽业务'是指向安达信洛杉矶办事处的任何客户提供专业服务"。该协议限制爱德华兹为安达信的洛杉矶客户工作，因此限制了他从事会计专业的能力。因此，爱德华兹在开始受雇于安达信公司之前必须签署的竞业禁止协议是无效的，因为该协议限制了他从事其专业的能力。

B. Ninth Circuit’s Narrow-Restraint Exception

Andersen asks this court to adopt the limited or “narrow-restraint” exception to section 16600 that the Ninth Circuit discussed in Campbell v. Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. Univ. (9th Cir. 1987) 817 F.2d 499 and that the trial court relied on in this case in order to uphold the noncompetition agreement. In Campbell, the Ninth Circuit acknowledged that California has rejected the common law “rule of reasonableness” with respect to restraints upon the ability to pursue a profession, but concluded that section 16600 “only makes illegal those restraints which preclude one from engaging in a lawful profession, trade, or business.” The court remanded the case to the district court in order to allow the employee to prove that the noncompetition agreement at issue completely restrained him from practicing his “profession, trade, or business within the meaning of section 16600.”
安德森（Andersen）要求本院采纳第16600条的有限或 "狭义限制 "例外条款，第九巡回法院在坎贝尔诉小利兰斯坦福大学受托人案（第九巡回法院，1987年）817 F.2d 499中讨论了该例外条款，而本案中的初审法院正是依据该例外条款维持了竞业禁止协议。在 Campbell 案中，第九巡回法院承认加利福尼亚州已经摒弃了普通法中关于限制从事职业能力的 "合理性规则"，但认为第 16600 条 "仅将那些阻止某人从事合法职业、贸易或业务的限制规定为非法"。法院将此案发回地区法院重审，以便让该雇员证明有争议的竞业禁止协议完全限制了他从事 "第 16600 条意义上的专业、行业或业务"。

The confusion over the Ninth Circuit’s application of section 16600 arose in a paragraph in Campbell, in which the court noted that some California courts have excepted application of section 16600 “‘where one is barred from pursuing only a small or limited part of the business, trade or profession.’” The Ninth Circuit cited two California cases that it believed may have carved out such an exception to section 16600. See Boughton v. Socony Mobil Oil Co. (1964) 231 Cal.App.2d 188, 41 Cal.Rptr. 714 (interpreting deed restriction on land use) and King v. Gerold (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 316, 240 P.2d 710 (rejecting manufacturer’s argument that clause not to produce its product after license expiration was not an illegal restraint under section 16600) Andersen relies on those cases, citing them as the underpinnings of the Ninth Circuit’s exception to section 16600, and urges the court to adopt their reasoning here.
坎贝尔案中的一个段落引起了第九巡回法院对第 16600 条适用问题的混淆，法院在该段中指出，加利福尼亚州的一些法院将第 16600 条的适用排除在外，"'如果一个人被禁止从事的业务、行业或职业只是一小部分或有限的一部分'"。第九巡回法院引用了两个加州案例，认为这两个案例可能已经为第 16600 条规定了这样的例外情况。参见 Boughton 诉 Socony Mobil Oil Co. (1964) 231 Cal.App.2d 188, 41 Cal.Rptr.714（解释土地使用的契约限制）和 King 诉 Gerold (1952) 109 Cal.App.2d 316, 240 P.2安达信以这些案例为依据，将其作为第九巡回法院对第 16600 条的例外规定的基础，并敦促法院在此采纳其推理。

As the Court of Appeal observed, however, the analyses in Boughton and King do not provide persuasive support for adopting the narrow-restraint exception. In Boughton, the restriction was not upon the plaintiff’s practice of a profession or trade, but took the form of a covenant in a deed to a parcel of land that specified the land could not be used as a gasoline service station for a specified time period. Because the case involved the use of the land, section 16600 was not implicated. Of note is the fact that Boughton relied on King, an unfair competition case in which the court applied a trade secret exception to the statutory rule against noncompetition clauses. In King, the plaintiff was not simply engaged in the manufacture and sale of goods (house trailers) but was allegedly using a trailer design substantially similar to his former employer’s, the inventor of the design.
然而，正如上诉法院所指出的，Boughton 和 King 案中的分析并没有为采用狭义限制例外提供有说服力的支持。在 Boughton 案中，限制并非针对原告从事的职业或行业，而是以地契契约的形式出现，其中规定该地块在特定期限内不得用作加油站。由于本案涉及土地的使用，因此不涉及第 16600 条。值得注意的是，Boughton 援引了 King 案，在这起不正当竞争案件中，法院对禁止竞业禁止条款的法定规则适用了商业秘密例外条款。在 King 案中，原告不仅仅是从事货物（房屋拖车）的生产和销售，而且据称他使用的拖车设计与其前雇主的设计（该设计的发明者）非常相似。

109

Andersen is correct, however, that Campbell has been followed in some recent Ninth Circuit cases to create a narrow-restraint exception to section 16600 in federal court. For example, International Business Machines Corp. v. Bajorek (9th Cir. 1999) 191 F.3d 1033, upheld an agreement mandating that an employee forfeits stock options if employed by a competitor within six months of leaving employment. General Commercial Packaging v. TPS Package (9th Cir. 1997) 126 F.3d 1131 held that a bargained-for contractual provision barring one party from courting a specific named customer was not an illegal restraint of trade prohibited by section 16600, because it did not “entirely preclude[ ]” the party from pursuing its trade or business.
不过，安达信的观点是正确的，坎贝尔案在最近的一些第九巡回法院案件中被沿用，在联邦法 院中对第 16600 条规定了一种狭义的限制例外。例如，International Business Machines Corp. v. Bajorek (9th Cir. 1999) 191 F.3d 1033 案支持一项协议，该协议规定，如果雇员在离职后六个月内被竞争对手雇用，则其股票期权将被没收。General Commercial Packaging 诉 TPS Package 案（第 9 巡回法院，1997 年）126 F.3d 1131 裁定，禁止一方追求特定客户的议定合同条款不属于第 16600 条所禁止的非法贸易限制，因为它并没有 "完全排除[]"一方从事其贸易或业务。

Contrary to Andersen’s belief, however, California courts have not embraced the Ninth Circuit’s narrow-restraint exception. Indeed, no reported California state court decision has endorsed the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning, and we are of the view that California courts “have been clear in their expression that section 16600 represents a strong public policy of the state which should not be diluted by judicial fiat.” 3 Section 16600 is unambiguous, and if the Legislature intended the statute to apply only to restraints that were unreasonable or overbroad, it could have included language to that effect. We reject Andersen’s contention that we should adopt a narrow-restraint exception to section 16600 and leave it to the Legislature, if it chooses, either to relax the statutory restrictions or adopt additional exceptions to the prohibition-against-restraint rule under section 16600.
然而，与安达信的想法相反，加州法院并没有接受第九巡回法院的狭义限制例外。事实上，加利福尼亚州法院的任何判决都没有认可第九巡回法院的推理，我们认为加利福尼亚州法院 "已经明确表示，第 16600 条代表了该州强有力的公共政策，不应被司法指令所淡化"。3 第 16600 条是明确无误的，如果立法机构希望该法规仅适用于不合理或过于宽泛的限制，那么它本可以包含大意如此的措辞。我们驳回安徒生公司的论点，即我们应当对第 16600 条采用狭义限制的例外规定，并将其留给立法机构，如果它选择放宽 法定限制或对第 16600 条下的禁止-反对-限制规则采用额外的例外规定。

DISPOSITION

We hold that the noncompetition agreement here is invalid under section 16600, and we reject the narrow-restraint exception urged by Andersen. Noncompetition agreements are invalid under section 16600 in California even if narrowly drawn, unless they fall within the applicable statutory exceptions of sections 16601, 16602, or 16602.5.
我们认为，根据第 16600 条的规定，本案中的竞业禁止协议无效，我们拒绝接受安达信公司主张的狭义限制例外。根据加利福尼亚州第 16600 条的规定，竞业禁止协议即使是狭义的，也是无效的，除非它们属于第 16601、16602 或 16602.5 条中适用的法定例外情况。

* * *

Novell Inc. v. Timpanogos Research Group Inc.

1998 WL 177721, 46 U.S.P.Q.2d 1197 (D. Utah 1998)

SCHOFIELD, J.

This matter is before the court on plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Evidence was taken in several sessions spread over many months, with hearings on May 5, 1997, July 9, 1997, October 6-9, 1997, November 3-5, 1997 and December 15-16, 1997. In addition, the court received numerous affidavits and received certain testimony by deposition. Having considered the evidence introduced in the evidentiary hearing and the arguments of counsel, I now issue this ruling granting to Novell a preliminary injunction.
法庭正在审理原告提出的初步禁令动议。在几个月的时间里，法院分几次取证，分别于 1997 年 5 月 5 日、1997 年 7 月 9 日、1997 年 10 月 6 日至 9 日、1997 年 11 月 3 日至 5 日和 1997 年 12 月 15 日至 16 日举行了听证会。此外，法院还收到了许多书面证词，并通过宣誓作证获得了某些证词。在考虑了证据听证会上提出的证据和律师的论点之后，我现在发布本裁决，批准 Novell 公司的初步禁令。

110

FINDINGS OF FACT

I find that the following facts have been proven by a preponderance of the evidence:
我认为以下事实已由大量证据证明：

Novell is a corporation engaged in computer software development and sales.
Novell 是一家从事计算机软件开发和销售的公司。

For a long time prior to March 1997, defendants Merkey, Major and Angus were employees of Novell.
在 1997 年 3 月之前的很长一段时间里，被告 Merkey、Major 和 Angus 都是 Novell 的雇员。

Major was employed by Novell from 1984 through 1995. In 1995 he left Novell and went to work at Cheyenne, Inc.
从 1984 年到 1995 年，Major 一直受雇于 Novell 公司。1995 年，他离开 Novell，前往 Cheyenne 公司工作。

While employed by Cheyenne, for much of 1996 Major worked at Novell in the Wolf Mountain group through a partnering arrangement between Cheyenne and Novell.
在受雇于夏安公司期间，1996 年的大部分时间里，梅杰通过夏安公司与 Novell 公司之间的合作安排，在狼山集团的 Novell 公司工作。

On January 1, 1997, Major left Cheyenne and returned to full-time employment at Novell, working on the Wolf Mountain project.
1997 年 1 月 1 日，梅杰离开夏安，回到 Novell 担任全职工作，负责狼山项目。

Immediately prior to the happening of the events of March and April 1997, Merkey was a chief scientist at Novell and was the software engineer in charge of Novell’s Wolf Mountain project, which was engaged in the development of a clustering initiative.
就在 1997 年 3 月和 4 月事件发生之前，Merkey 是 Novell 公司的首席科学家，也是负责 Novell 公司狼山项目的软件工程师，该项目致力于集群计划的开发。

Immediately prior to the happening of the events of March and April 1997, Major was a software engineer working for Merkey in Novell’s Wolf Mountain project.
就在 1997 年 3 月和 4 月事件发生之前，梅杰是为 Merkey 工作的软件工程师，负责 Novell 的狼山项目。

Immediately prior to the happening of the events of March and April 1997, Angus was working for Merkey in Novell’s Wolf Mountain project.
就在 1997 年 3 月和 4 月事件发生之前，安格斯正在 Novell 的狼山项目中为 Merkey 工作。

At the time of his initial hire by Novell in 1993, Merkey signed an Agreement Respecting Trade Secrets, Inventions, Copyrights and Patents (Ex. 101).
Merkey 于 1993 年首次受雇于 Novell 时签署了一份《关于商业秘密、发明、版权和专利的协议》（Ex. 101）。

The agreement provided that during his employment he would have possession or access to materials which contained trade secrets, confidential technical or business information of Novell and that he agreed not to use any such information for himself or others and not to disclose any such information at any time during or after employment by Novell.
协议规定，在他受雇期间，他将拥有或接触到包含 Novell 商业秘密、机密技术或业务信息的材料，他同意在受雇于 Novell 期间或之后的任何时候，不为自己或他人使用任何此类信息，也不披露任何此类信息。

Major signed a similar agreement containing the same terms on February 9, 1988 (Ex. 80).
少校于 1988 年 2 月 9 日签署了一份包含相同条款的类似协议（Ex. 80）。

Angus signed a similar agreement containing the same terms on December 4, 1987 (Ex. 181).
安格斯于 1987 年 12 月 4 日签署了一份包含相同条款的类似协议（证据 181）。

In consequence of his decision to become reemployed by Novell on January 1, 1997, Major signed an Intellectual Property Agreement dated December 30, 1996 (Ex. 83).
由于决定于 1997 年 1 月 1 日重新受雇于 Novell 公司，Major 于 1996 年 12 月 30 日签署了一份知识产权协议（Ex. 83）。

In the agreement Major agreed that any breach by him of the agreement will result in “variable, and continuing damage to [Novell], for which there is no adequate remedy at law, and [Novell] will be entitled to injunctive relief. . . .”
在协议中，Major 同意他的任何违约行为都将导致 "对 [Novell] 造成可变的、持续的损害，而法律对此没有适当的补救措施，[Novell] 将有权获得禁令救济......"。. . ."

This agreement contained provisions preventing his use or disclosure to others of Novell’s proprietary information.
该协议包含防止他使用或向他人披露 Novell 专有信息的条款。

On January 3, 1997, Major signed an Individual Confirmation Form (Novell) by which he agreed that Novell had classified the Wolf Mountain project as top secret and that he would not disclose any Wolf Mountain information to any other person, party, or agency within Novell or outside Novell without the express written consent of a Novell Authorized Business Development Authority (Ex. 84).
1997 年 1 月 3 日，梅杰签署了一份《个人确认表》（Novell），同意 Novell 将 "狼山 "项目列为绝密，未经 Novell 授权业务开发机构的明确书面同意，他不会向 Novell 内部或外部的任何其他人、当事人或机构披露任何 "狼山 "信息（Ex. 84）。

On June 26, 1996, Angus also signed an Individual Confirmation Form (Ex. 17, 182).
1996 年 6 月 26 日，安格斯还签署了一份《个人确认表》（附件 17，182）。

111

Novell’s Wolf Mountain project was engaged in developing computer clustering.
Novell 的狼山项目致力于开发计算机集群。

Clustering is the ability to physically connect multiple, independent computers (“nodes”) together and for the multiple computers to work together as if one giant computer. The effect is to create a computer system which may have the computing capacity and power of a large main frame computer but to assemble it with off-the-shelf PC computers. It is expected this would provide significant computer power at a greatly reduced cost and with readily replaceable and upgradeable PC computers.
集群是将多台独立计算机（"节点"）物理连接在一起，并使多台计算机像一台巨型计算机一样协同工作的能力。其效果是创建一个计算机系统，该系统可能具有大型主机的计算能力和功率，但可以使用现成的PC 计算机进行组装。预计这将以大大降低的成本提供强大的计算机功能，而且PC计算机可随时更换和升级。

Because Novell is or has been the leader in computer networking, where many computers are hooked together to a common server, able to communicate together and share common application systems; clustering seemed to many at Novell as a logical next step for it to take.
Novell 是或一直是计算机网络领域的领导者，许多计算机连接到一个共同的服务器上，能够一起通信并共享共同的应用系统；在 Novell 的许多人看来，集群似乎是它下一步要做的合乎逻辑的事情。

Novell began its Wolf Mountain clustering project in March 1995.
Novell 于 1995 年 3 月开始实施狼山集群项目。

The goal of the Wolf Mountain group was to develop a clustering software package either as a stand alone product for sale by Novell or to be incorporated by it into its NetWare network operating system product.
狼山小组的目标是开发一个集群软件包，既可作为 Novell 的独立产品出售，也可纳入其 NetWare 网络操作系统产品。

From the inception of the Wolf Mountain project, Merkey was the chief scientist and the head engineer working on this project.
从狼山项目一开始，梅尔基就是该项目的首席科学家和首席工程师。

From its birth until October 1996, the Wolf Mountain project was under the direction of Dr. Glen Ricart, the Chief Technology Officer at Novell. In October 1996, it was placed in a newly formed division, the Scalable Server Division, under the direction of Vic Langford.
从诞生到 1996 年 10 月，狼山项目一直由 Novell 首席技术官 Glen Ricart 博士领导。1996 年 10 月，该项目被划归新成立的可扩展服务器部门，由 Vic Langford 领导。

Throughout all of this time Merkey remained the chief scientist on the project.
在此期间，默基一直是该项目的首席科学家。

By late fall 1996, Merkey envisioned Wolf Mountain as a stand alone operating system to replace the operating system used by Novell in its NetWare and IntranetWare products.
1996 年秋末，Merkey 设想将 Wolf Mountain 作为一个独立的操作系统，取代 Novell 在其 NetWare 和 IntranetWare 产品中使用的操作系统。

From its inception the Wolf Mountain project had been housed at the Orem campus of Novell while the long established group which developed Novell’s NetWare product (hereafter the “core operating group”) was housed at the Provo campus.
狼山项目从一开始就设在 Novell 公司的奥勒姆分部，而长期以来开发 Novell NetWare 产品的小组（以下简称 "核心运行小组"）则设在普罗沃分部。

During all of this time, Merkey felt that the Wolf Mountain group was treated much like a step-child by the core operating group. He endured this because he felt that Wolf Mountain constituted the first significant innovation at Novell in a long time and constituted a potential product which would return Novell to major importance in the computer industry.
在这段时间里，Merkey 认为狼山小组受到了核心操作小组的冷遇。他之所以能忍受这样的待遇，是因为他认为狼山是 Novell 长期以来的首次重大创新，也是 Novell 重返计算机行业重要地位的潜在产品。

Part of Merkey’s ability to deal with what he felt to be second class treatment of the Wolf Mountain group by Novell was the personal support he felt directly from Novell’s presidents.
Merkey 之所以能应对他认为 Novell 公司对狼山集团的二等待遇，部分原因是他直接从 Novell 公司总裁那里获得了个人支持。

At the time that the Wolf Mountain project was begun, Bob Frankenburg was president of Novell. Then, for a time, Joseph Marengi served as president of Novell.
狼山项目开始时，鲍勃-弗兰肯伯格是 Novell 的总裁。之后，约瑟夫-马伦吉（Joseph Marengi）曾一度担任 Novell 总裁。

While Marengi was president he had close contact with Merkey and assured Merkey of continued support by Novell of the Wolf Mountain project.
在 Marengi 担任总裁期间，他与 Merkey 保持着密切联系，并向 Merkey 保证 Novell 将继续支持狼山项目。

In December 1996, Novell did an internal roll-out of its Wolf Mountain technology. This roll-out was for the purpose of disclosing within Novell the nature of the proposed technology so that it could be evaluated by other computer engineers at Novell.
1996 年 12 月，Novell 公司在内部推广其 "狼山 "技术。这次推广的目的是在 Novell 内部公开所提议技术的性质，以便 Novell 的其他计算机工程师对其进行评估。

112

While Merkey and his team felt the roll-out went generally well, they received criticism from the core operating group at Novell.
虽然 Merkey 和他的团队认为推广工作总体上进展顺利，但他们还是受到了 Novell 核心运营团队的批评。

This criticism was as much evidence of the infighting between the Wolf Mountain group and the core operating group as it was a bona fide critique of the Wolf Mountain project.
这种批评既是对狼山项目的真诚批评，也是狼山集团与核心运营集团内讧的证据。

After the internal roll-out the level of internal criticism of Wolf Mountain increased.
内部推广之后，内部对狼山的批评声浪越来越大。

In early 1997, the Scalable Server Division was placed under the management of Denise Gibson, who also managed the core operating group.
1997 年初，可扩展服务器部门交由 Denise Gibson 管理，她还负责管理核心运营小组。

Merkey felt that placing Wolf Mountain under common management with the core operating group was a significant blow, if not the death knell for Wolf Mountain as a separate, distinguishable product to be offered by Novell. He doubted that with both the core operating group and Wolf Mountain under the direction of Gibson, Novell would ever be able to regain its position in the computer industry.
Merkey 认为，将 Wolf Mountain 与核心运营集团置于共同管理之下是一个重大打击，甚至可以说是 Novell 将 Wolf Mountain 作为一个独立的、与众不同的产品的丧钟。他怀疑，如果核心运营部门和 Wolf Mountain 都由 Gibson 领导，Novell 是否还能重新在计算机行业占据一席之地。

In early 1997, when Merkey realized that Novell was not going to proceed with the Wolf Mountain project in the manner which he wished, he began to devise a plan to take the Wolf Mountain project out of Novell.
1997 年初，当 Merkey 意识到 Novell 公司不会按照他所希望的方式继续实施狼山项目时，他开始制定一项计划，将狼山项目从 Novell 公司剥离出去。

Initially, Merkey sought to take Wolf Mountain from Novell in an amicable fashion, by agreement with Novell that a new spin out company would be formed.
最初，Merkey 试图通过与 Novell 达成协议，成立一家新的分拆公司，以友好的方式从 Novell 手中接管狼山公司。

He did this by lobbying Marengi for a spin out of the Wolf Mountain group into a separate, stand alone corporation, owned by Novell.
为此，他游说马伦吉将狼山集团分拆为一家独立的公司，归 Novell 所有。

Marengi entertained these suggestions because he claimed to still believe in the Wolf Mountain technologies and the Wolf Mountain project.
马伦吉接受了这些建议，因为他声称自己仍然相信狼山技术和狼山项目。

Marengi discussed with Novell’s counsel the possibility of creating a spin out company for Wolf Mountain.
Marengi 与 Novell 的律师讨论了为狼山公司成立一家分拆公司的可能性。

There is a kernel of truth in Merkey’s claim that he discussed the Wolf Mountain spin out with senior Novell executives.
Merkey 声称他曾与 Novell 高级管理人员讨论过狼山公司的分拆问题，这一说法有一定的真实性。

What is missing is Novell’s agreement. Though both discussed the issue with Merkey, neither Marengi, who was president of Novell until early April 1997, nor Eric Schmidt, who was president thereafter, approved the spin out.
缺少的是 Novell 的同意。虽然两人都与 Merkey 讨论过这个问题，但直到 1997 年 4 月初一直担任 Novell 总裁的 Marengi 和此后担任总裁的 Eric Schmidt 都没有批准分拆。

Major had no independent knowledge of Merkey’s discussions with Novell executives concerning the spin out. Rather, he relied on Merkey for any understanding which he had of those discussions.
对于 Merkey 与 Novell 高管就分拆事宜进行的讨论，梅杰并不知情。相反，他对这些讨论的任何了解都依赖于 Merkey。

By March 7, 1997, Merkey was so frustrated with Gibson’s supervision that he and Major each tendered resignations from Novell.
到 1997 年 3 月 7 日，Merkey 对 Gibson 的监管感到非常失望，于是他和 Major 分别向 Novell 提出辞职。

Major believed that the Wolf Mountain project was an industry leading processing system and he did not understand why Novell did not openly and vigorously embrace the new technology. Rather, he believed that Novell was shooting arrows at them rather than encouraging the new technology.
梅杰认为，狼山项目是业界领先的处理系统，他不明白 Novell 公司为什么不公开大力拥抱新技术。相反，他认为 Novell 是在向他们放箭，而不是在鼓励新技术。

When he resigned, Merkey told Stevenson he felt his dreams of building an industry leading information processing system could be best accomplished outside of Novell.
辞职时，Merkey 告诉史蒂文森，他认为在 Novell 之外最有可能实现他建立业界领先的信息处理系统的梦想。

Each year in the spring Novell hosts a gathering of computer scientists, experts and industry analysts in a symposium called Brainshare.
每年春季，Novell 都会举办名为 "Brainshare "的研讨会，邀请计算机科学家、专家和行业分析师参加。

113

The purpose of Brainshare is to advise Novell’s partners, other software engineers who want their programs to work in harmony with Novell’s Net Ware operating system and anyone else interested in Novell’s business what products it anticipates developing and shipping in the immediate future.
Brainshare 的目的是向 Novell 的合作伙伴、希望自己的程序与 Novell 的 Net Ware 操作系统协调工作的其他软件工程师以及对 Novell 业务感兴趣的其他任何人提供建议，说明 Novell 预计在不久的将来开发和推出哪些产品。

Although Gibson initially scotched the idea of featuring Wolf Mountain at Brainshare, Merkey lobbied hard for Novell to prominently display its Wolf Mountain technologies at Brainshare.
尽管吉布森最初打消了在 Brainshare 上展示狼山的想法，但默基极力游说诺维尔在 Brainshare 上突出展示其狼山技术。

Novell accepted Merkey’s urgings. As he had been the chief scientist on Wolf Mountain, Novell persuaded him to return to that position, which he did around March 10, 1997.
Novell 接受了 Merkey 的劝说。由于他曾是狼山的首席科学家，Novell 说服他回到那个位置，他在 1997 年 3 月 10 日左右回到了那个位置。

Upon his return to the Wolf Mountain project, Merkey told the Wolf Mountain team that he returned, that the status of Wolf Mountain as a separate division was undecided until after Brainshare, that Major was pursuing an outside venture, and that it was time for the Wolf Mountain group to perform (“For now, let’s get a kick-ass demo for Brainshare and show the world that Novell isn’t Braindead anymore.” Ex. 99).
回到狼山项目后，Merkey 告诉狼山团队，他回来了，狼山作为一个独立部门的地位要等到 Brainshare 之后才能决定，Major 正在寻求外部投资，狼山团队是时候表现一下了（"现在，让我们为 Brainshare 做一个出色的演示，向世界展示 Novell 不再是'死脑筋'了"）。Ex. 99）。

Brainshare was held during the week of March 24, 1997, at which time Merkey made a number of presentations in which he touted the Wolf Mountain technology. Also at Brainshare Novell demonstrated a 12-node computer cluster, giving clear credibility to the claim that Wolf Mountain was a well-developed, functioning set of technologies.
Brainshare 在 1997 年 3 月 24 日的一周内举行，Merkey 在会上做了多次演讲，大肆宣扬狼山技术。在 Brainshare 上，Novell 还展示了一个 12 节点的计算机集群，使 "狼山 "是一套完善的、可运行的技术的说法具有了明显的可信度。

Major, however, never returned to employment with Novell.
不过，梅杰再也没有回到 Novell 工作。

Despite Merkey’s desires, a spin out corporation never was created by Novell.
尽管 Merkey 有此愿望，但 Novell 从未成立过分拆公司。

When a spin out was not forthcoming, in mid-March Merkey asked Novell if he could form a new company to engage in various software development interests.
3 月中旬，Merkey 询问 Novell 是否可以成立一家新公司，从事各种软件开发业务。

Novell agreed that he could form such a corporation but asked that he coordinate with Novell’s lawyers so that Novell’s intellectual property rights would be preserved.
Novell 公司同意他成立这样一家公司，但要求他与 Novell 公司的律师协调，以保护 Novell 公司的知识产权。

On March 18, 1997, Novell and Merkey and Major entered into an agreement by which Merkey and Major were allowed to form a new corporation for the purpose of engaging in software development (Ex. 8).
1997年3月18日，Novell 与 Merkey 和 Major 签订了一份协议，允许 Merkey 和 Major 成立一家新公司，从事软件开发工作（Ex.8）。

One condition of the March 18 agreement is that Merkey and Major would respect Novell’s intellectual property rights.
3 月 18 日协议的一个条件是，Merkey 和 Major 将尊重 Novell 的知识产权。

In the March 18 agreement Merkey and Major also agreed that if the new corporation developed products which compete with Novell products, they would obtain required licenses for any of Novell technologies.
在 3 月 18 日的协议中，Merkey 和 Major 还同意，如果新公司开发出与 Novell 产品竞争的产品，他们将获得任何 Novell 技术所需的许可证。

Merkey personally agreed that, since he still was an employee of Novell, he would comply with the existing Novell employee confidentiality procedures.
Merkey 本人同意，由于他仍是 Novell 的员工，他将遵守 Novell 现有的员工保密程序。

David Stevenson, Merkey’s direct superior and one of Novell’s primary witnesses in this proceeding, even invested $500 in the new company.
David Stevenson 是 Merkey 的直接上司，也是 Novell 在本次诉讼中的主要证人之一，他甚至向新公司投资了 500 美元。

Stevenson invested in this company on the express assurance from Merkey that the company had the blessing of Novell’s management.
斯蒂文森投资这家公司时，Merkey 明确保证该公司得到了 Novell 管理层的支持。

This new company originally was named Wolf Mountain Group, Inc. Later, after this action was begun, it changed its name to Timpanogos Research Group, Inc.
这家新公司最初名为 Wolf Mountain Group, Inc.后来，在这项行动开始后，它更名为 Timpanogos Research Group, Inc.

114

Merkey, Major and Stevenson were the original investors in TRG.
Merkey、Major 和 Stevenson 是 TRG 的原始投资者。

Prior to April 17, 1997, Merkey transmitted to John Balciunas, via e-mail, a copy of a document entitled Tapestry for NT Architecture Overview (Ex. 26). This document originally was prepared by Merkey on a Novell computer server.
1997 年 4 月 17 日之前，Merkey 通过电子邮件向 John Balciunas 发送了一份题为 "Tapestry for NT 架构概述 "的文件副本（第 26 号证据）。这份文件最初是 Merkey 在 Novell 计算机服务器上编写的。

Also, in a draft press release issued by TRG on or about March 31, 1997, at a time that Merkey still was an employee of Novell, TRG announced plans to develop a product named Tapestry with the feature set described in the Wolf Mountain Architectural Over-view (Ex. 49).
此外，在 TRG 于 1997 年 3 月 31 日或该日前后发布的一份新闻稿中（当时 Merkey 仍是 Novell 的一名员工），TRG 宣布计划开发一款名为 "Tapestry "的产品，该产品具有《Wolf Mountain Architectural Over-view》（证据 49）中描述的功能集。

The Tapestry document is virtually identical to a document prepared by Merkey while at Novell entitled Scalable Server Division Wolf Mountain Architecture Overview (Ex. 10).
Tapestry 文件与 Merkey 在 Novell 工作时编写的一份题为 "可扩展服务器部门狼山架构概述 "的文件（证据 10）几乎完全相同。

A close comparison of the two documents reveals that virtually the entire text of the Tapestry document has been lifted verbatim from the Novell Wolf Mountain Architecture Overview document. A few names and acronyms have been changed, but nothing else.
仔细比较这两份文件可以发现，Tapestry 文件的全部内容几乎都是从 Novell Wolf Mountain Architecture Overview 文件中逐字摘录的。一些名称和首字母缩略词有所改动，但没有其他内容。

The Tapestry document is not the work of Merkey at TRG, but is the work of Novell which Merkey copied whole cloth.
Tapestry 文件不是 Merkey 在 TRG 的作品，而是 Merkey 全盘抄袭 Novell 的作品。

In an internal e-mail at Microsoft Balciunas noted on April 4, 1997, that it would take a couple of weeks for Microsoft to work out positioning of the Wolf Mountain software. From the face of the e-mail it is obvious he was in contact with Merkey (Ex. 51).
1997 年 4 月 4 日，Balciunas 在微软的一封内部电子邮件中指出，微软需要几周的时间来解决 Wolf Mountain 软件的定位问题。从这封电子邮件的内容来看，他显然是在与 Merkey 联系（证据 51）。

On April 7, 1997, Merkey sent Jim Allchin at Microsoft an e-mail concerning the creation of Wolf Mountain Group, Inc., indicating that Marengi had approved a patent cross license between Novell and Wolf Mountain Group and inviting Microsoft to buy a 30% ownership interest in Wolf Mountain Group, Inc.
1997 年 4 月 7 日，Merkey 向微软的 Jim Allchin 发送了一封电子邮件，内容涉及 Wolf Mountain Group, Inc.

In an internal e-mail at Microsoft, Balciunas noted that Merkey was scheduled to meet with him on April 17, 1997, and that Balciunas had a copy of Merkey’s architectural overview of his product (Ex. 54).
Balciunas 在微软的一封内部电子邮件中指出，Merkey 计划于 1997 年 4 月 17 日与他会面，而且 Balciunas 有一份 Merkey 对其产品的架构概述（Ex. 54）。

On April 16, 1997, Merkey met with Schmidt in a lengthy meeting in Schmidt’s office. At Merkey’s request, Major joined part of that meeting.
1997 年 4 月 16 日，默基在施密特的办公室与施密特进行了一次长时间的会谈。在默基的要求下，梅杰参加了这次会议的一部分。

During this meeting Merkey advised Schmidt that he was proceeding forward with his company and that he planned to meet with Microsoft officials the next day to discuss areas where Microsoft and TRG could work together.
在这次会面中，默基告诉施密特，他将继续推进他的公司，并计划第二天与微软官员会面，讨论微软和 TRG 可以合作的领域。

As Merkey was still an employee of Novell, Schmidt told Merkey that he would prefer that the meeting with Microsoft not take place, that if he went he did not go with Novell’s approval or authorization, and that he should respect Novell’s proprietary and confidential information.
由于默基仍是 Novell 公司的员工，施密特告诉默基，他希望不要与微软公司举行会议，如果他去，也没有得到 Novell 公司的批准或授权，而且他应该尊重 Novell 公司的专有和保密信息。

At the conclusion of the meeting between Merkey, Major and Schmidt, Schmidt asked that Merkey and Major take no further action with respect to TRG for two weeks. Major committed that they would not.
在默基、梅杰和施密特的会谈结束时，施密特要求默基和梅杰在两周内不再对 TRG 采取进一步行动。梅杰承诺他们不会这样做。

With Schmidt’s admonition still ringing in their ears, on April 17, 1997, Merkey and Major met with John Balciunas and other employees of Microsoft at Microsoft’s offices in Redmond, Washington.
施密特的告诫言犹在耳，1997 年 4 月 17 日，默基和梅杰在微软位于华盛顿州雷德蒙德的办公室会见了约翰-巴尔丘纳斯和微软的其他员工。

115

Merkey told Balciunas that he had created the Tapestry document after he was authorized by Novell to form a new company. Balciunas understood this to be March 18, 1997.
Merkey 告诉 Balciunas，他是在获得 Novell 成立新公司的授权后创建 Tapestry 文件的。根据 Balciunas 的理解，这应该是 1997 年 3 月 18 日。

Merkey told Balciunas that the Tapestry document had been prepared “starting from ‘a clean piece of paper’”.
Merkey 告诉 Balciunas，Tapestry 文件是 "从'一张白纸'开始 "编写的。

Merkey advised Microsoft that he and Major were filing for 14 patents and that he was negotiating a patent cross-license agreement with Novell.
Merkey 告诉微软，他和 Major 正在申请 14 项专利，并正在与 Novell 谈判专利交叉许可协议。

Similarly, in a letter dated April 3, 1997, from Major to David Bradford, Novell’s general counsel, Major urged Novell to enter into patent cross-license agreements with TRG (Ex. 86).
同样，在 1997 年 4 月 3 日 Major 致 Novell 总法律顾问 David Bradford 的信中，Major 敦促 Novell 与 TRG 签订专利交叉许可协议（Ex. 86）。

During their meetings with Microsoft, Merkey spent two hours describing the Tapestry technology and he explained how Novell had invested $15 million in their new company. All aspects of this presentation were essentially dishonest as the technology was Novell’s Wolf Mountain technology not TRG’s and Novell had not invested any money in the new company.
在与微软的会谈中，Merkey 花了两个小时介绍 Tapestry 技术，并解释了Novell 如何向他们的新公司投资了 1500 万美元。这种介绍的所有方面基本上都是不诚实的，因为该技术是 Novell 的 Wolf Mountain 技术，而不是 TRG 的技术，而且 Novell 没有向新公司投入任何资金。

Though Major is portrayed in this litigation as an honest individual who has an eccentric and exaggerating partner, in fact, by his quiet during the Microsoft meeting, Major was a direct participant in the dishonesty.
虽然在这场诉讼中，梅杰被描绘成一个诚实的人，他有一个古怪而夸张的搭档，但事实上，从他在微软会议上的沉默来看，梅杰是不诚实行为的直接参与者。

In their meetings with Marty Albert the very next day, directly contrary to what they told Microsoft the day before, Merkey and Major told Albert that Novell had not made any investment in the new company. They looked to Albert to be their financier.
在第二天与马蒂-艾伯特（Marty Albert）的会面中，与他们前一天告诉微软的直接相反，默基和梅杰告诉艾伯特，Novell 没有对新公司进行任何投资。他们希望艾伯特成为他们的出资人。

While Merkey asserts that the April 18-19, 1997 meeting was his first with Albert on the subject, that seems highly unlikely as, by the end of a meeting which Merkey asserts was brief and no technical in-formation was disclosed, Albert had agreed to invest several million dollars in the new venture, hardly the prudence which would be expected from a successful businessman.
虽然 Merkey 声称 1997 年 4 月 18 日至 19 日的会议是他与 Albert 就这一主题进行的首次会面，但这似乎不太可能，因为在 Merkey 声称简短且未透露任何技术信息的会议结束时，Albert 已同意向新企业投资几百万美元，这几乎不符合一个成功商人应有的谨慎态度。

Following Merkey’s meeting with Balciunas on April 17, 1997, Merkey sent Balciunas an e-mail dated April 19, 1997, in which he advised that TRG was focusing on Tapestry and would have a product available for Microsoft to review in its laboratory by late July and would be shipping by December (Ex. 57).
在 Merkey 于 1997 年 4 月 17 日与 Balciunas 会晤之后，Merkey 向 Balciunas 发送了一封日期为 1997 年 4 月 19 日的电子邮件，在这封邮件中，他告知 TRG 正在集中精力开发 Tapestry，并将在 7 月下旬之前向微软实验室提供产品供其审查，并将在 12 月之前发货（57 号文件）。

As he had just met with Balciunas and Balciunas had a copy of the Tapestry architectural overview, it is clear Merkey was saying that he was going to build essentially the same product he had been developing while at Novell.
由于他刚刚与 Balciunas 见过面，而且 Balciunas 有一份 Tapestry 架构概述的副本，很明显，Merkey 说他要开发的产品与他在 Novell 时开发的产品基本相同。

Prior to leaving Novell Merkey told several Novell employees that he had intentionally under documented his work so that it would be in his head and not Novell’s. Some quote him as also saying that when he left Novell he would take with him “the crown jewels”, which they interpret to be the most sensitive technologies developed in Wolf Mountain.
在离开 Novell 之前，Merkey 告诉 Novell 的几名员工，他故意少记录自己的工作，以便这些工作只记录在他的脑子里，而不记录在 Novell 的脑子里。有些人还引用他的话说，当他离开 Novell 时，他会带走 "皇冠上的宝石"，他们认为这是在狼山开发的最敏感的技术。

Having spent considerable time in trial and error experimentation at Novell, Merkey and Major acquired negative knowledge while becoming intimate with what worked and did not work in the process of developing technology. From their experience at Novell, Merkey and Major knew where their starting point was and could thereby avoid “false paths” and “blind alleys” in developing any products for TRG.
Merkey 和 Major 在 Novell 花了大量时间进行试错实验，在获得负面知识的同时，也熟悉了技术开发过程中哪些可行，哪些不可行。根据在 Novell 的经验，Merkey 和 Major 知道他们的起点在哪里，因此在为 TRG 开发任何产品时都能避免 "错误的道路 "和 "盲区"。

116

This negative knowledge learned at Novell allowed Merkey and Major to cut corners in designing the Tapestry product for TRG. Because as Merkey stated, much of the information about Wolf Mountain was in his head, Merkey was able to save considerable time in testing and design research that was required at Novell.
在 Novell 学到的这些负面知识使 Merkey 和 Major 在为 TRG 设计 Tapestry 产品时能够少走弯路。正如 Merkey 所说，有关 Wolf Mountain 的许多信息都在他的脑海中，因此 Merkey 可以节省大量在 Novell 进行测试和设计研究的时间。

Because Merkey and Major announced the Tapestry for Microsoft Windows NT product so soon after their resignation from Novell, it is clear they used the negative knowledge learned at Novell.
由于 Merkey 和 Major 在从 Novell 辞职后不久就宣布推出 Tapestry for Microsoft Windows NT 产品，很明显他们使用了在 Novell 学到的负面知识。

Merkey also told Balciunas that “all of the information was ‘in his head’” and that he hadn’t written anything down in years.
Merkey 还告诉 Balciunas，"所有的信息都'在他的脑子里'"，他已经很多年没有写下任何东西了。

In an interview published in Lantimes magazine on May 12, 1997, less than a month after he left Novell, Merkey stated that TRG’s product, Tapestry for Microsoft Windows NT, was “fairly far along.”
Merkey 在离开 Novell 不到一个月后，于 1997 年 5 月 12 日接受了《Lantimes》杂志的采访，称 TRG 的产品 Tapestry for Microsoft Windows NT "进展相当顺利"。

In that same interview he stated that: One of the biggest problems is, when we were doing Wolf Mountain at Novell, we were running real quick and just cranking code out. None of the intellectual property is documented. None of the patents have been filed. The only place the knowledge exists is inside [my head] and [Major’s]. None of it has been written down. In terms of Novell attempting to sue us for intellectual property, I’m not sure they know what to sue us for.
在同一次采访中，他表示最大的问题之一是，当我们在 Novell 公司开发狼山项目时，我们跑得非常快，只顾着编写代码。所有的知识产权都没有记录在案。没有一项专利已经提交。知识只存在于[我]和[梅杰]的头脑中。这些知识都没有被写下来。如果 Novell 企图起诉我们侵犯知识产权，我不知道他们知道该起诉我们什么。

This interview was given at a time that Merkey was technically still an employee of Novell as he resigned by a letter dated April 20, 1997, but to be effective two weeks later, on May 4, 1997.
这次面谈时，Merkey 严格来说仍是 Novell 的雇员，因为他在 1997 年 4 月 20 日的一封信中提出辞职，但辞职于两周后，即 1997 年 5 月 4 日生效。

On April 20, 1997, the date of his second resignation from Novell, Merkey sent an email to the members of the Scalable Server Division/Wolf Mountain team at Novell in which he advised them that he and Major had acquired funding for TRG and that the new company was hiring.
1997 年 4 月 20 日，也就是 Merkey 第二次从 Novell 辞职的当天，他向 Novell 可扩展服务器部门/狼山团队的成员发送了一封电子邮件，告知他们他和 Major 已经为 TRG 获得了资金，新公司正在招聘人员。

On April 23, 1997, Merkey told Balciunas in an e-mail that he was on track for delivery of the Tapestry product by December 1997 (Ex. 59).
1997 年 4 月 23 日，Merkey 在一封电子邮件中告诉 Balciunas，他有望在 1997 年 12 月之前交付 Tapestry 产品（证据 59）。

In the April 23, 1997 e-mail Merkey told Balciunas that 70 senior architects and developers at Novell had resigned to join TRG. While TRG did hire some former Novell employees, it only hired a handful, not the 70 to which he alluded (Ex. 59).
在 1997 年 4 月 23 日的电子邮件中，Merkey 告诉 Balciunas，Novell 有 70 名高级架构师和开发人员辞职加入 TRG。虽然 TRG 确实雇用了一些 Novell 的前雇员，但只雇用了少数人，而不是他所说的 70 人（Ex. 59）。

In that same e-mail Merkey told Balciunas that TRG had “captured clustering mindshare, and shifted it to WolfPack and Windows NT.”
在同一封电子邮件中，Merkey 告诉 Balciunas，TRG 已经 "抓住了集群技术的核心，并将其转移到 WolfPack 和 Windows NT 上"。

This only could have meant that he was claiming to have taken the clustering initiative from Novell’s Wolf Mountain group to TRG for use by Microsoft which had a clustering initiative called “Wolfpack.”
这只可能意味着，他声称已将 Novell 的 Wolf Mountain 小组的集群计划转交给 TRG，供微软使用，微软有一个名为 "Wolfpack "的集群计划。

In a news story on the internet in a service entitled Info World Electric News dated April 28, 1997, Merkey is quoted as claiming to have taken 70 Novell employees with him when he left Novell (Ex. 142).
在 1997 年 4 月 28 日名为 Info World Electric News 的互联网新闻报道中，Merkey 声称他离开 Novell 时带走了 70 名 Novell 员工（证据 142）。

In that story Merkey describes his Tapestry product as software which works in conjunction with Microsoft’s Wolfpack to strengthen scalability and would enable the formation of heterogeneous clusters of Intel-based servers running Windows NT, Intranet Ware, and Unix (Ex. 142).
在这篇报道中，Merkey 将他的 Tapestry 产品描述为一种软件，它与微软的 Wolfpack 软件配合使用，可增强可扩展性，并能将运行 Windows NT、Intranet Ware 和 Unix 的基于英特尔的服务器组成异构集群（证据 142）。

117

For a company in which Merkey had been employed for only a week and Major only a month, it is inconceivable that TRG had any product other than the alleged Tapestry product which Merkey described to Microsoft by peddling it a slightly edited copy of the Wolf Mountain architectural overview which he prepared while at Novell.
对于 Merkey 受聘仅一周、Major 受聘仅一个月的公司来说，除了所谓的 Tapestry 产品之外，TRG 还拥有任何其他产品都是不可想象的，Merkey 向微软兜售的是他在 Novell 工作时编写的《狼山架构概述》略加修改的副本。

On April 29, 1997, the court issued a writ of replevin authorizing the constable to search the residences of Merkey, Major and Angus, to retrieve Novell documentation and computer equipment located at the residences.
1997 年 4 月 29 日，法院签发了重新授权令，授权警察搜查 Merkey、Major 和 Angus 的住所，以取回位于住所内的 Novell 文档和计算机设备。

At the time that the constables searched his home, Major had a copy of the following confidential Wolf Mountain documents at his home: (I) Clustered Network Operating System (this is the body of the patent application filed with the U.S. Government); (ii) Product Proposal for Wolf Mountain; (iii) Novell Corporate Architecture — Wolf Mountain Summit Summary Review; (iv) Wolf Mountain NDA briefing with META Group; and (v) Wolf Mountain: An Invited Analysis/Report. (Ex. 47). Other than item (I), each of these documents bore a legend that it was confidential. Each contained extended analysis and detailed information about the Wolf Mountain technologies
在警察搜查他家时，少校家中有一份以下狼山公司机密文件的副本：(I) 集群网络操作系统（这是向美国政府提交的专利申请正文）；(ii) 狼山公司产品建议书；(iii) Novell 公司架构--狼山峰会总结回顾；(iv) 与 META 集团的狼山公司 NDA 简报；以及 (v) 狼山公司：特邀分析/报告》。(Ex. 47）。除了第(I)项之外，每份文件都带有保密的说明。每份文件都包含有关狼山技术的扩展分析和详细信息

While the search was on at Major’s home, Major contacted Merkey by cell phone and advised him of the search. At that time Merkey was at Angus’ garage working on computer equipment for TRG.
在对梅杰家进行搜查时，梅杰用手机联系了默基，告诉他搜查一事。当时 Merkey 正在 Angus 的车库里为 TRG 处理电脑设备。

Though he has complained bitterly about the trauma inflicted upon his children by the search, Merkey was not present at his home when his home was searched and has no first hand knowledge of what happened then.
虽然 Merkey 曾痛诉搜查给他的孩子们造成的创伤，但搜查他家时他并不在场，也不知道当时发生了什么。

Merkey was aware that he was being looked for and that the Novell computers in his possession were being sought pursuant to the writ of replevin.
Merkey 知道自己正在被通缉，也知道他所拥有的 Novell 计算机是根据重获令被通缉的。

At the time that the constables searched his home, Merkey had a copy of the following confidential Wolf Mountain documents at his home: (I) Wolf Mountain: An Invited Analysis/Report; (ii) Wolf Mountain Architecture Overview-Draft-; (iii) IDC Commercial Systems & Servers — Short Report for Novell — Beyond Netware; (iv) Novell Corporate Architecture — Wolf Mountain Summit Summary Review; (iv) Novell Project 2000 Hand-Outs; (v) Novell Project 2000 Technical Information; (vi) IDC Systems Research — Proprietary Novell Report: Strategic Assessment of Wolf Mountain’s Market Space; and (vii) Wolf Mountain Architecture Overview. Other than items (iii and vi), each of these documents bore a legend that it was confidential or a Novell company secret. Each contained extended analysis and detailed information about the Wolf Mountain technologies.
警察搜查他家时，Merkey 家里有一份以下狼山公司机密文件的副本：(I) Wolf Mountain：(ii) Wolf Mountain Architecture Overview-Draft-; (iii) IDC Commercial Systems & Servers - Short Report for Novell - Beyond Netware; (iv) Novell Corporate Architecture - Wolf Mountain Summit Summary Review; (iv) Novell Project 2000 Hand-Outs; (v) Novell Project 2000 Technical Information; (vi) IDC Systems Research - Proprietary Novell Report：狼山市场空间战略评估》；以及 (vii) 《狼山架构概述》。除第（iii）和第（vi）项外，每份文件都标有保密或 Novell 公司机密的字样。每份文件都包含有关 Wolf Mountain 技术的扩展分析和详细信息。

Merkey explained at hearing that after learning that the constables had searched his home, he did not return to his home until he had returned the laptop computer (which later was discovered to have a smashed hard drive). This contradicts other testimony where he said the laptop was at his home by the docking station when the constables searched his home.
梅尔基在听证会上解释说，在得知警察搜查了他的家之后，他没有回家，直到他归还了笔记本电脑（后来发现笔记本电脑的硬盘被砸坏了）。这与他说警察搜查他家时笔记本电脑就在他家的扩展坞旁的其他证词相矛盾。

Late in the evening of April 29, 1997, Merkey returned a laptop computer to Novell. Upon inspection Novell discovered that the hard drive in the computer was
1997 年 4 月 29 日深夜，Merkey 将一台笔记本电脑退还给 Novell。Novell 在检查时发现，电脑中的硬盘驱动器是

118

smashed. That same computer and hard drive were offered as an exhibit and the court has personally inspected the computer.
被砸毁。同一台电脑和硬盘被作为证物提供，法庭也亲自检查了这台电脑。

The hard drive of the laptop is a modular unit, easily removable from the computer.
笔记本电脑的硬盘是一个模块化单元，可轻松从电脑上拆卸下来。

At trial the hard drive was removed and inspected by the court. It had the appearance of having been smashed with several blows from a hard object like a hammer.
在庭审中，法院取出并检查了硬盘。硬盘看起来像是被锤子之类的硬物砸了几下。

Merkey has offered no less than four different explanations of how the hard drive came to be smashed, pointing most of the blame to his children.
对于硬盘是如何被砸碎的，默基给出了不下四种不同的解释，并将大部分责任归咎于他的孩子们。

One of his explanations is that he was so angry at the replevin that he threw the computer at Novell’s door when he returned it. This explanation does not fly (like the computer allegedly did) for neither the computer carrying case nor the laptop bear any evidence of physical abuse or damage, though the hard drive, which ordinarily is mounted within the plastic shell of the computer, clearly has been smashed.
他的解释之一是，他对收回计算机的行为非常愤怒，因此在归还计算机时将其扔到了 Novell 公司的门口。这种解释站不住脚（就像据称的电脑一样），因为无论是电脑的手提箱还是笔记本电脑都没有任何物理滥用或损坏的证据，尽管通常安装在电脑塑料外壳内的硬盘驱动器明显被砸碎过。

Even if documents are deleted from a hard drive, experts often can retrieve material which has been deleted from a hard drive. As an expert in computer science, Merkey knew this.
即使硬盘中的文件被删除，专家通常也能找回被删除的资料。作为计算机科学专家，梅尔基深谙此道。

The only sure way to prevent recovery of deleted material from a hard drive is to physically damage the hard drive. That is what happened here.
防止恢复硬盘中已删除内容的唯一可靠方法就是对硬盘进行物理损坏。这就是这里发生的情况。

The fact that he returned the hard drive damaged while the rest of the computer appears in good shape demonstrates that Merkey intended to prevent the retrieval of any information from the hard drive.
他归还了损坏的硬盘驱动器，而计算机的其他部分却看起来完好无损，这表明 Merkey 有意阻止从硬盘驱动器中检索任何信息。

That he would tell different and conflicting stories of how the hard drive came to be damaged demonstrates Merkey did not want the truth of how it came to be damaged known.
他对硬盘是如何损坏的说法不一，自相矛盾，这表明 Merkey 并不想让人知道硬盘损坏的真相。

In their operation of TRG, Merkey and Major act much as partners.
在经营 TRG 的过程中，Merkey 和 Major 几乎是以合作伙伴的身份行事。

Major testified that even though he has such a close business relationship with Merkey, he has to falter what Merkey says to find the truth, he is unable to control Merkey, Merkey is able to create his own reality which may have no basis in fact, and Merkey is prone to exaggeration.
少校作证说，尽管他与 Merkey 有着如此密切的业务关系，但他必须对 Merkey 所说的话进行推敲才能找到真相，他无法控制 Merkey，Merkey 能够创造出自己的现实，而这些现实可能毫无事实根据，而且 Merkey 很容易夸大其词。

In fact, however, Merkey is not just prone to exaggeration, he also is and can be deceptive, not only to his adversaries, but also to his own partners, his business associates and to the court. He deliberately describes his own, separate reality.
然而，事实上，梅尔基不仅容易夸大其词，他还具有欺骗性，不仅欺骗对手，还欺骗自己的合伙人、商业伙伴和法庭。他故意描述自己的、独立的现实。

Major acknowledges that Merkey does not see boundaries; that if he feels strongly or wants to do something, he does it.
少校承认，梅尔基没有界限；如果他感觉强烈或想做什么，他就会去做。

Major has tried to distance his concept of where TRG is going from public statements and other actions taken by Merkey which demonstrate a contrary direction.
梅杰试图将他对 TRG 发展方向的理解与默基的公开声明和其他行动拉开距离，因为这些声明和行动表明了相反的方向。

All the while that Major made these attempts he was president of TRG.
在少校进行这些尝试期间，他一直是 TRG 的总裁。

For example, Major disavowed the business plan which Merkey prepared in September 1997.
例如，梅杰否认了 Merkey 于 1997 年 9 月制定的商业计划。

In a letter from Merkey to Albert on September 12, 1997, Merkey asserted that the “Utah Judicial Commission contacted me Thursday, and relayed that they had reviewed Judge Schofield in Court over video camera, and have initiated an investigation relative to the Court session of September 8, 1997.” (Ex. 107).
在 Merkey 于 1997 年 9 月 12 日写给 Albert 的一封信中，Merkey 声称 "犹他州司法委员会周四与我联系，转告我他们已通过摄像机审查了 Schofield 法官在法庭上的表现，并已开始对 1997 年 9 月 8 日的法庭开庭进行调查"（前证 107）。(Ex. 107）。

119

While it may be possible that the Utah Judicial Commission (Conduct Commission?) contacted Merkey, that commission has not obtained a copy of any video of the court session of September 8, 1997. That hearing was court-reported and the only video made was made in accord with Rule 4-201(2)(C), Utah Code of Judicial Administration, for the purpose of the judge’s private notes. No copy of that sole copy has been viewed by anyone other than the court. In short, this statement is another example of Merkey’s penchant for self-serving, separate reality, dishonesty.
儘管猶他州司法委員會（Conduct Commission）可能曾與 Merkey 聯絡，但該委員會並未取得 1997 年 9 月 8 日法庭聆訊的任何錄影帶副本。那次听证会是法庭报告的，唯一的录像是根据《犹他州司法管理法典》第 4-201(2)(C)条制作的，目的是法官的私人笔记。除法庭外，没有任何人查看过该唯一副本。简而言之，这一声明是 Merkey 喜欢自说自话、脱离实际、不诚实的又一例证。

While it is human nature for each of us to put our own spin on events which we observe — indeed the heart of most auto accident cases is the different perceptions of eye-witnesses — Merkey nonetheless regularly exaggerates or lies in his comments to others about events happening around him. It is as though he is creating his own separate reality. For example, his e-mail message to Balciunas of June 12, 1997, contains several clear misstatements or fabrications of what transpired in court (Ex. 72).
我们每个人都会对自己所观察到的事件做出自己的解释，这是人之常情--事实上，大多数车祸案件的核心就是目击者的不同看法。这就好像他在创造自己的独立现实。例如，他在 1997 年 6 月 12 日给巴尔丘纳斯（Balciunas）的电子邮件中，对法庭上发生的事情有几处明显的错误陈述或捏造（证据 72）。

Merkey also was dishonest in a number of the e-mail messages which he sent to Balciunas, either exaggerating or deliberately falsifying factual assertions which he made in those e-mails.
Merkey在发送给Balciunas的一些电子邮件中也不诚实，要么夸大他在这些电子邮件中的事实陈述，要么故意捏造事实。

There is an acknowledged tendency in the industry for software development companies to float deliberately false or exaggerated statements of prospective product offerings, a practice called “vapor-ware.”
业界公认的一种趋势是，软件开发公司故意虚假或夸大未来产品的声明，这种做法被称为 "蒸发软件"。

Merkey now alleges that all of his early commitments to Microsoft, which unquestionably were based upon pirated Novell technologies and information, were just vaporware.
Merkey 现在声称，他早期对微软的所有承诺都是虚无缥缈的，而这些承诺无疑都是建立在盗版 Novell 技术和信息的基础上的。

Given his penchant for creating a separate reality and for deliberate misrepresentation, I find Merkey’s claim that he was simply floating vaporware unreliable. Rather, he wanted to have the benefit of both worlds — his world actually working on a clustering model based upon the Novell architecture — but also a world in which he could claim that he was not using or misappropriating Novell confidential technical information.
鉴于 Merkey 喜欢制造不同的现实和故意歪曲事实，我认为他声称自己只是在虚构事实的说法并不可靠。相反，他希望获得两个世界的利益--他的世界实际上是在基于 Novell 架构的集群模型上工作，但同时他也可以声称自己没有使用或盗用 Novell 的机密技术信息。

Major also is not always truthful.

Major resigned on March 7, 1997 and out processed on March 20, 1997. At the time that he resigned he knew that at out processing he would be required to return to Novell all of the Novell documents he had in his possession.
少校于 1997 年 3 月 7 日辞职，并于 1997 年 3 月 20 日办理离职手续。辞职时他知道，在离职处理时，他必须将他所持有的所有 Novell 文件归还 Novell。

Notwithstanding this understanding, during the two weeks after he resigned and before out processing, Major received a copy of the Wolf Mountain product proposal which was last edited on March 16, 1997. As such it only could have been obtained by him on or after March 16, 1997.
尽管有这一谅解，但在辞职后的两周内和出局处理之前，少校收到了一份狼山公司产品建议书的副本，该建议书的最后一次编辑是在 1997 年 3 月 16 日。因此，他只能在 1997 年 3 月 16 日或之后获得该副本。

Even though he had received a copy of the product proposal within four days of his out processing, Major did not return it to Novell at out processing. He claimed at court to have forgotten that he received it. This explanation does not wash. He is too bright to have forgotten receipt of such an important document just four days prior to out processing.
尽管他在离职处理后四天内收到了一份产品建议书副本，但 Major 在离职处理时没有将其退还 Novell。他在法庭上声称自己忘记收到过该副本。这一解释站不住脚。他太聪明了，不可能在出局处理前四天才忘记收到如此重要的文件。

This action by Major evidences an intent to hide from Novell his real purpose with respect to the document. He had no intent to return it. Nor did he even return it
少校的这一行为证明他有意向 Novell 公司隐瞒他对该文件的真实目的。他无意归还文件。他甚至没有归还

120

when the constables searched his home. Rather, his copy was returned by him through counsel a week or two later.
当警察搜查他的家时，他并没有拿到那份复印件。相反，他的副本是在一两周后通过律师归还的。

On April 23, 1997, Angus out processed after terminating his employment with Novell. At that time he certified that he had no Novell property at his home or in his possession (Ex. 184).
1997 年 4 月 23 日，Angus 在与 Novell 解除雇佣关系后出境。当时，他证明自己家中没有 Novell 公司的财产，也没有占有 Novell 公司的财产（第 184 号证据）。

This certification was inaccurate as he had a notebook in which he recorded, among other things, notes of problem areas encountered by the Wolf Mountain team in its development and implementation of the Wolf Mountain technology (Ex. 183).
这一证明是不准确的，因为他有一个笔记本，其中记录了狼山团队在开发和实施狼山技术过程中遇到的问题领域（证据 183）。

I do not accept Angus’ assertion that he simply had forgotten that he had his notebook at home. It was far too sensitive a document and the times were far too charged to accept his claim of forgetfulness.
我不接受安格斯的说法，即他只是忘了把笔记本放在家里。那是一份过于敏感的文件，而且当时的情况也过于紧张，我不能接受他所说的忘记了。

While I find that Merkey and Major are not fully trustworthy, they claim that neither is Novell. They assert that Novell acted out of improper motivations.
虽然我认为 Merkey 和 Major 并不完全可信，但他们声称 Novell 也不可信。他们断言 Novell 的行为是出于不正当的动机。

The decision by Novell to put the Scalable Server Division under the direction of Denise Gibson is a management decision which does not reflect any bias or antipathy toward Merkey, Major or the Wolf Mountain team.
Novell 将可扩展服务器部门交由 Denise Gibson 领导是一项管理决策，并不反映对 Merkey、Major 或 Wolf Mountain 团队有任何偏见或反感。

Merkey asserts that he did not fit in at Novell because he had a different ethnic or religious background than most of the Novell workers. This claim was not supported by any meaningful evidence.
Merkey 声称，他不适合 Novell 公司，因为他的种族或宗教背景与 Novell 公司的大多数员工不同。这一说法没有任何有意义的证据支持。

Merkey asserts that Gibson had a vendetta against him.
Merkey 声称 Gibson 与他有仇。

The record supports a conclusion that Gibson and Merkey did not get along and that Merkey chaffed while under Gibson’s supervision as he felt that being placed under her supervision was the death knell for Wolf Mountain as a project.
记录支持这样一个结论，即吉布森和默基并不和睦，默基在吉布森的监督下工作时感到很苦恼，因为他认为由她来监督狼山这个项目就等于敲响了丧钟。

During the hearing Novell introduced Exhibit 13 which purports to be a memo to Merkey from Vic Langford, the supervisor of the Scalable Server Division. Novell acknowledges that the memo was prepared for Langford’s signature but that Langford declined to sign it. Defendants assert this demonstrates dishonesty on the part of Novell. Though each of our business practices sometimes are subject to question, Novell was generally forthright in how it reacted to Merkey and Major and their actions. Certainly Novell was angered at Merkey and spent tremendous sums of money pursuing this litigation against him. But I do not accept the wrongful motives which defendants attribute to Novell.
在听证会上，Novell 公司出示了证据 13，该证据声称是可扩展服务器部门主管 Vic Langford 给 Merkey 的备忘录。Novell 承认该备忘录是为 Langford 签字而准备的，但 Langford 拒绝签字。被告声称这表明 Novell 不诚实。虽然我们的每项商业行为有时都会受到质疑，但 Novell 公司在如何应对 Merkey 和 Major 及其行为方面一般都很坦率。当然，Novell 对 Merkey 感到愤怒，并花费巨资对他提起诉讼。但我不接受被告归咎于 Novell 的错误动机。

At a court hearing on May 6, 1997, TRG was criticized for using the name Tapestry, which Novell claimed it had used internally in its Wolf Mountain project. As a result Merkey gave the TRG product a new name: “Replevin” which the press release noted was Latin for “to search”. In fact, however, with the new name selected and announced just a week after a writ of replevin had been served upon him and Major, the only fair conclusion is that he chose this new name as a direct affront to Novell.
在 1997 年 5 月 6 日的法庭听证会上，TRG 因使用 Tapestry 名称而受到批评，Novell 声称其内部曾在 Wolf Mountain 项目中使用过该名称。因此，Merkey 给 TRG 产品起了一个新名字："Replevin"，新闻稿指出，这个名字在拉丁语中是 "搜索 "的意思。然而，事实上，新名称的选定和公布仅仅是在向他和 Major 送达重诉令状一周之后，唯一公平的结论是，他选择这个新名称是对 Novell 的直接侮辱。

In a press release dated May 8, 1997, TRG announced that it was developing “a 32/64 bit, massively scalable, clustered, fault tolerant, journaled meta-directory storage and access technology for Windows NT, Unix and other industry platforms.” (Ex. 63).
在 1997 年 5 月 8 日的一份新闻稿中，TRG 宣布它正在为 Windows NT、Unix 和其他行业平台开发 "一种 32/64 位、大规模可扩展、集群、容错、日志元目录存储和访问技术"。(Ex. 63）。

Primary among the other platforms spoken of by TRG is Novell’s NetWare and IntranetWare products.
在 TRG 提及的其他平台中，最主要的是 Novell 的 NetWare 和 IntranetWare 产品。

121

This press release was issued only two weeks or so after Merkey left Novell and contains the same feature set which he designed and described in both the Novell Wolf Mountain Architectural Overview and his pirated Tapestry for Windows NT Architectural Overview. Given the extremely short time since he left Novell and the fact he had already pirated the Novell architectural overview, it is clear Merkey was building upon information, designs, and architecture which he developed at Novell and which belonged to Novell.
这份新闻稿是 Merkey 离开 Novell 后仅两周左右发布的，其中包含了他在《Novell Wolf Mountain Architectural Overview》和盗版的《Tapestry for Windows NT Architectural Overview》中设计和描述的相同功能集。鉴于他离开 Novell 的时间极短，而且他已经盗版了 Novell 的架构概述，很明显，Merkey 是在他在 Novell 开发的属于 Novell 的信息、设计和架构的基础上进行开发的。

In an e-mail from Merkey to Balciunas dated May 10. 1997, Merkey asserted that the “court stuff” has only delayed their development of a product by a couple of weeks. He asserted they were still on track to deploy a product by the first or second quarter of 1998 (Ex. 64).
在 Merkey 于 1997 年 5 月 10 日发给 Balciunas 的一封电子邮件中Merkey 在 1997 年 5 月 10 日写给 Balciunas 的电子邮件中声称，"法庭事件 "只是将他们的产品开发推迟了几个星期。他声称，他们仍将按计划在 1998 年第一或第二季度部署产品（Ex. 64）。

On May 15, 1997, Merkey sent an e-mail to Sharon Fisher, a journalist covering the computer industry, asking that she provide a copy of the “technical document” which he gave to her and other press folks at Brainshare. He told her he had been given permission by the court to use anything that was in the public domain and wanted to obtain a copy to prove that it was given to the press and now was in the public domain (Ex. 164).
1997 年 5 月 15 日，Merkey 向报道计算机行业的记者 Sharon Fisher 发送了一封电子邮件，要 求她提供一份他在 Brainshare 给她和其他媒体记者的 "技术文件 "的副本。他告诉她，法院允许他使用公共领域的任何东西，并希望获得一份副本，以证明该文件曾提供给新闻界，现在属于公共领域（第 164 号证据）。

In an internal e-mail at Microsoft, Microsoft noted that Merkey was going to provide a draft press release which differentiated between TRG’s Tapestry product and the Wolf Mountain technology developed by Novell (Ex. 56).
在微软的一封内部电子邮件中，微软指出，Merkey 将提供一份新闻稿草案，对 TRG 的 Tapestry 产品和 Novell 开发的 Wolf Mountain 技术进行区分（第 56 号证据）。

Merkey never provided such a differentiation to Microsoft (nor, so far as the court is aware, to anyone else).
Merkey 从未向微软公司（据法院所知，也未向其他任何人）提供过这种区分。

The depth of Merkey’s shift in feelings — an antipathy for Novell and a commitment to Microsoft — is reflected in a variety of e-mail messages to Microsoft sent shortly after he left Novell in which he signs off as “Your Loyal Servant.”
Merkey 对 Novell 的反感和对微软的承诺，从他离开 Novell 后不久发给微软的多封电子邮件中可见一斑，在这些邮件中，他署名为 "你忠诚的仆人"。

A computer operating system is the computer program which directs and controls the interface between computer hardware and any application programs such as word processors, accounting and spread sheet programs and internet browsers. Operating systems also are known generically as “platforms”.
计算机操作系统是指导和控制计算机硬件与任何应用程序（如文字处理器、会计和电子表格程序以及互联网浏览器）之间接口的计算机程序。操作系统也通称为 "平台"。

Novell’s NetWare program is an operating system as is Microsoft’s Windows NT and the Unix operating system.
Novell 的 NetWare 程序是一种操作系统，微软的 Windows NT 和 Unix 操作系统也是如此。

One of the design goals of Wolf Mountain was to create a single system image, with fault tolerance.
狼山的设计目标之一是创建一个具有容错功能的单一系统映像。

In the development of the Wolf Mountain technologies at Novell, Merkey and Major intended platform independence or neutrality, meaning that in the design of the Wolf Mountain technologies, Merkey and Major intended that the Wolf Mountain clustering program run on or be compatible with any of the three major operating systems just described.
在 Novell 开发 "狼山 "技术时，Merkey 和 Major 希望实现平台独立性或中立性，也就是说，在设计 "狼山 "技术时，Merkey 和 Major 希望 "狼山 "集群程序能在上述三大操作系统中的任何一个上运行或与之兼容。

The architecture of the Wolf Mountain project includes platform independence.
狼山项目的架构包括平台独立性。

At the time Merkey and Major left Novell they had not completed the intended platform independence. No source code had been written which would allow the Wolf Mountain program to run on the Microsoft NT or Unix platforms. Rather, the only source code which had been written was for the Wolf Mountain program on the Novell NetWare platform.
当 Merkey 和 Major 离开 Novell 时，他们还没有完成平台独立的计划。他们没有编写允许 Wolf Mountain 程序在 Microsoft NT 或 Unix 平台上运行的源代码。相反，编写的唯一源代码是用于 Novell NetWare 平台上的狼山程序。

122

At the time that Merkey and Major left Novell the source code for the Wolf Mountain project was not complete, though, as Dr. Head noted, the Novell Wolf Mountain code consisted of over 20,000 files containing 600 million bytes, or the equivalent of 150,000 singly-spaced typewritten sheets, the height of a five-story building.
Merkey 和 Major 离开 Novell 时，"狼山 "项目的源代码还没有完成，不过，正如 Head 博士指出的那样，Novell "狼山 "项目的代码由 2 万多个文件组成，包含 6 亿字节，相当于 15 万张单行距打字纸，有五层楼那么高。

There are three primary computer languages; machine language which usually consists of 0’s and 1’s and is machine readable; assembly language which is specific to a particular machine or computer processor; and a high level language, which is the language most application programs are written in, including Algol, Fortran, Basic, C and C++.
计算机语言主要有三种：机器语言，通常由 0 和 1 组成，机器可读；汇编语言，针对特定机器或计算机处理器；以及高级语言，即大多数应用程序使用的语言，包括 Algol、Fortran、Basic、C 和 C++。

C and C++ are not fully compatible.

All of the TRG code was written in C++, which is the most advanced of the current high-level languages.
TRG 的所有代码都是用 C++ 编写的，这是目前最先进的高级语言。

Novell’s NetWare program is written in an assembly language while the Novell Wolf Mountain code is written in C.
Novell 的 NetWare 程序是用汇编语言编写的，而 Novell Wolf Mountain 代码则是用 C 语言编写的。

Because TRG’s code is written in C++ while Novell’s Wolf Mountain code is written in C and the two are not fully compatible, Dr. Head asserts that TRG could not have copied or used any of Novell’s Wolf Mountain confidential information.
由于 TRG 的代码是用 C++ 编写的，而 Novell 的 Wolf Mountain 代码是用 C 编写的，两者不能完全兼容，因此 Head 博士断言 TRG 不可能复制或使用 Novell 的任何 Wolf Mountain 保密信息。

This conclusion is not correct. Even though TRG appears not to have actually used any Wolf Mountain code, it has used the Wolf Mountain architecture, structure and design.
这一结论并不正确。尽管 TRG 似乎没有实际使用任何狼山代码，但它使用了狼山的架构、结构和设计。

The Wolf Mountain project consists of the combination of many disparate technologies, the majority of which are in the public domain or are derivatives of well-known, public domain concepts.
狼山项目由许多不同的技术组合而成，其中大部分属于公共领域，或者是众所周知的公共领域概念的衍生品。

Even though the Wolf Mountain project was built primarily of known, public domain concepts, the manner in which Novell assembled and combined those technologies is unique.
尽管狼山项目主要是由已知的公共领域概念构建而成，但 Novell 组装和组合这些技术的方式却是独一无二的。

The Wolf Mountain technologies have independent value. First, Novell spent enormous sums of money developing these technologies and second, the technologies are sufficiently developed that significant parts are relatively portable, such as the UFOD and the CICP.
狼山技术具有独立价值。首先，Novell 斥巨资开发了这些技术；其次，这些技术已经得到充分开发，重要部分（如 UFOD 和 CICP）可以相对携带。

Novell always took reasonable steps to protect its trade secrets and confidential technical information.
Novell 始终采取合理措施保护其商业秘密和机密技术信息。

First, it required each employee to sign a confidentiality and non-disclosure agreement, agreeing that the trade secrets are confidential and belonged to Novell.
首先，它要求每位员工签署一份保密和不披露协议，同意商业机密是保密的，属于 Novell。

Second, Novell required that its technologies generally be kept on campus in a secure environment. Defendants make much of the fact that Novell allowed members of the Wolf Mountain team to take back up copies of the Wolf Mountain source code and documentation home for safekeeping, there is no evidence that any of these actions ever jeopardized the security and confidentiality of those documents. There is no credible evidence that Novell did not take reasonable steps to preserve its trade secrets.
其次，Novell 公司要求其技术一般在校园内的安全环境中保存。被告大肆宣扬 Novell 允许 Wolf Mountain 团队成员将 Wolf Mountain 源代码和文档的备份带回家保存的事实，但没有证据表明这些行为曾经危及这些文件的安全性和保密性。没有可信的证据表明 Novell 没有采取合理措施保护其商业秘密。

123

Third, Novell established rules and procedures concerning the public disclosure of its trade secrets. For example, Novell decided in advance what information could be publicly disclosed at Brainshare.
第三，Novell 制定了有关公开披露其商业秘密的规则和程序。例如，Novell 事先决定哪些信息可以在 Brainshare 公开披露。

At Brainshare, when Merkey distributed a copy of the Wolf Mountain architectural overview, his superiors including Dave Stevenson attempted to retrieve any such copies and reprimanded Merkey for making unauthorized disclosures. Merkey acknowledged his action was inappropriate.
在 Brainshare，当 Merkey 散发狼山建筑概览的副本时，包括戴夫-史蒂文森（Dave Stevenson）在内的他的上司试图收回任何此类副本，并斥责 Merkey 擅自披露信息。Merkey 承认他的行为是不恰当的。

Merkey cannot claim information is in the public domain if he made unauthorized disclosure of that information.
如果 Merkey 在未经授权的情况下披露信息，他就不能声称该信息属于公共领域。

One of the primary components of the Wolf Mountain project was the unified file object directory (UFOD). Major was the principal author of this technology.
狼山项目的主要组成部分之一是统一文件对象目录（UFOD）。梅杰是这项技术的主要发明人。

The function of the UFOD is to provide a system of directory services and file management, routing and data storage services.
UFOD 的功能是提供一个目录服务和文件管理、路由和数据存储服务系统。

UFOD largely is built upon known technologies.

Any computer program designed to accomplish what the UFOD was designed to accomplish would have common parts and technologies, including memory caching, disk caching and a hierarchical storage manager and would use well known techniques such as disk mirroring, segmenting, scatter-gather and mini-volumes as the primary unit of data storage, caching, replication and distribution.
任何旨在实现 UFOD 设计目标的计算机程序，都会有共同的部分和技术，包括内存缓存、磁盘缓存和分级存储管理器，并会使用众所周知的技术，如磁盘镜像、分段、分散收集和迷你卷，作为数据存储、缓存、复制和分发的主要单位。

Though these are public domain technologies and concepts, how Novell used and combined these well known component parts is unique.
尽管这些都是公共领域的技术和概念，但 Novell 如何使用和组合这些众所周知的组成部分却是独一无二的。

Major conceded that the UFOD was largely unique and likely was a trade secret.
少校承认，UFOD 在很大程度上是独一无二的，很可能是商业机密。

The UFOD technology has independent value because to a large extent it is portable.
UFOD 技术具有独立的价值，因为它在很大程度上是便携式的。

Another key component of the Wolf Mountain technology is the cluster interconnect protocol (CICP).
狼山技术的另一个关键组成部分是集群互连协议（CICP）。

The function of the CICP is to provide a communications subsystem so that the various computers in the cluster can communicate and function together.
CICP 的功能是提供一个通信子系统，以便集群中的各台计算机能够进行通信并共同运行。

The CICP also is based upon well known, public domain technologies.
此外，CICP 还基于众所周知的公共领域技术。

How Novell used, combined and applied these well known concepts is unique.
Novell 是如何使用、组合和应用这些众所周知的概念的？

Before he left Novell, Merkey frequently asserted that the Wolf Mountain technologies were unique and needed protection. For example, he told Eric Gardanier, a patent attorney hired by Novell to help it patent the Wolf Mountain technologies, that Microsoft would have to get its hands on the Wolf Mountain technology.
在离开 Novell 之前，Merkey 经常声称 "狼山 "技术是独一无二的，需要保护。例如，他告诉受 Novell 聘请帮助其申请狼山技术专利的专利律师 Eric Gardanier，微软必须获得狼山技术。

In an e-mail dated June 25, 1997, from Merkey to Balciunas, Merkey said that at that time he was developing a program like the CICP, which would have “identical functionality, and multi-fabric clustering capability.” (Ex 71).
在 Merkey 于 1997 年 6 月 25 日发给 Balciunas 的电子邮件中，Merkey 说他当时正在开发一个类似于 CICP 的程序，该程序将具有 "相同的功能和多结构集群能力"。(Ex 71）。

It is clear that from the time he left Novell until at least the date of this e-mail that Merkey was building upon the Tapestry architecture, claiming it as his own, even though he had pirated that architecture from Novell.
很明显，从他离开 Novell 到至少在这封电子邮件发出之前，Merkey 一直在 Tapestry 架构的基础上进行开发，并声称这是自己的架构，尽管他从 Novell 盗版了该架构。

Merkey repeatedly told Balciunas that he was “working on the stuff that they said they were going to be working on since the beginning of April.” Again this can only have been the Tapestry based document, which is based upon the pirated technology.
Merkey 再三告诉 Balciunas，他 "从 4 月初开始就在研究他们说要研究的东西"。同样，这只能是基于盗版技术的 Tapestry 文件。

124

These actions by Merkey and Major are in violation of the terms of the temporary restraining order previously issued by the court.
Merkey 和 Major 的这些行为违反了法院之前签发的临时限制令的规定。

The basic structure of the Wolf Mountain technology and of the UFOD and CICP each are unique and of great value to Novell. They represent a significant investment by it in the development of a new technology.
狼山技术以及 UFOD 和 CICP 的基本结构都是独一无二的，对 Novell 具有重大价值。它们代表了 Novell 在新技术开发方面的重大投资。

Because the manner in which the technologies were assembled and combined is unique, because they have independent value and because they have been protected by reasonable efforts to maintain their confidential status, the manner of combination is a trade secret.
由于这些技术的组装和组合方式是独一无二的，由于它们具有独立的价值，也由于它们一直受到合理的保护以维持其保密地位，因此其组合方式属于商业秘密。

Major concedes that the implementation of the CICP protocol is a Novell trade secret.
Major 承认 CICP 协议的实施是 Novell 的商业机密。

Major agreed that the method of journaling which he implemented in UFOD is a Novell trade secret.
梅杰同意，他在 UFOD 中实施的日志记录方法是 Novell 的商业机密。

Major agreed that the process of containing the history of an object within itself (self journaling) is unique to Novell.
梅杰同意，将对象的历史记录包含在自身中（自我日志）的过程是 Novell 独有的。

Major agreed that the format of how information is stored that is the object description used in UFOD is a Novell trade secret.
少校同意，如何存储信息的格式，即 UFOD 中使用的对象描述，是 Novell 的商业秘密。

Major agreed that the message format that UFOD used to communicate between nodes is a Novell trade secret.
少校同意，UFOD 用于节点间通信的信息格式是 Novell 的商业机密。

Major agreed that the implementation of the cache system in UFOD was a Novell trade secret.
梅杰同意，在 UFOD 中实施缓存系统是 Novell 的商业机密。

Major agreed that there are aspects of the kernel developed by Merkey at Wolf Mountain at Novell which are trade secrets.
梅杰同意，Merkey 在 Novell 的狼山开发的内核有一些方面属于商业机密。

Major agreed that the implementation of the memory management system at Wolf Mountain is proprietary to Novell.
少校同意，狼山内存管理系统的实施是 Novell 的专利。

Major agreed that some of the marketing strategies which Novell had for the Wolf Mountain project are trade secrets.
梅杰同意，Novell 为狼山项目制定的一些营销策略属于商业机密。

Under examination by Merkey, Major agreed that the CICP wire protocol and the UFOD message protocol each were Novell trade secrets.
在 Merkey 的询问下，Major 同意 CICP 线路协议和 UFOD 报文协议都是 Novell 的商业秘密。

Novell has a trade secret claim to its Wolf Mountain architecture, the UFOD and CICP.
Novell 对其 Wolf Mountain 架构、UFOD 和 CICP 拥有商业秘密。

I believe Novell may have trade secrets in its Wolf Mountain technology other than the grand scheme, the UFOD and the CICP. In this hearing, however, other than the secrets set forth above, it did not carry its burden of proving just what those other technologies are.
我相信 Novell 在其 Wolf Mountain 技术中可能拥有除宏伟计划、UFOD 和 CICP 之外的商业秘密。然而，在这次听证会上，除了上述秘密之外，Novell 并没有承担起证明其他技术是什么的责任。

As a result it is not entitled to protection by preliminary injunction of any other trade secrets.
因此，它无权通过初步禁令保护任何其他商业秘密。

Novell has long been a major player in the computer communications industry.
Novell 长期以来一直是计算机通信行业的主要参与者。

In order to preserve a leading role in any aspect of the computer software industry, a company such as Novell must remain forward thinking and innovative.
为了在计算机软件行业的任何方面保持领先地位，像 Novell 这样的公司必须保持前瞻性思维和创新精神。

In the development of its Wolf Mountain technologies, Novell was both forward thinking and innovative. What it now wishes is to protect and preserve that effort.
在开发狼山技术的过程中，Novell 具有超前意识和创新精神。它现在希望保护和传承这种努力。

At the outset of this litigation it appeared that the Wolf Mountain technology had the potential to be the next paradigm in the computer communications field.
在诉讼一开始，狼山技术似乎有可能成为计算机通信领域的下一个典范。

125

Merkey said as much in his in-fighting while at Novel and he said as much in his presentations at Brainshare.
Merkey 在 Novel 任职期间的内斗中如是说，他在 Brainshare 的演讲中也如是说。

Certainly Novell has not proceeded to develop Wolf Mountain in that way.
当然，Novell 并没有以这种方式开发 "狼山"。

In an article in PCWEEK Magazine dated July 7, 1997, Denise Gibson is quoted as saying: “You will never see Wolf Mountain as Wolf Mountain. It will be rolled into other products.” (Ex. 152).
PCWEEK 杂志 1997 年 7 月 7 日的一篇文章引用丹尼斯-吉布森（Denise Gibson）的话说："你永远不会看到狼山的狼山。它将被整合到其他产品中"。(Ex. 152）。

While Novell has not chosen to use the Wolf Mountain technologies in the fashion which Merkey and Major anticipated and desired, it is using aspects of these technologies in other areas.
虽然 Novell 并没有按照 Merkey 和 Major 所预期和希望的方式使用狼山技术，但它正在其他领域使用这些技术的某些方面。

Merkey repeatedly asserted while at Novell that Novell had a two year head start over the competition in developing clustering technology.
Merkey 在 Novell 工作期间曾多次断言，Novell 在开发集群技术方面比竞争对手领先两年。

Even though Novell has chosen not to develop a stand alone Wolf Mountain product, it nonetheless is using Wolf Mountain technologies and is entitled to protect those technologies which it developed.
尽管 Novell 选择不开发独立的 "狼山 "产品，但它仍在使用 "狼山 "技术，并有权保护其开发的这些技术。

Novell’s business is to develop and market computer software in the highly competitive field described above.
Novell 公司的业务是在上述竞争激烈的领域开发和销售计算机软件。

One of the principal assets which Novell has is its trade secrets and confidential technical information.
Novell 拥有的主要资产之一是其商业秘密和机密技术信息。

Novell protects this asset by requiring all of its employees to sign confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements as set forth above.
Novell 通过要求其所有员工签署上述保密和非披露协议来保护这一资产。

In this case two senior scientists left Novell, taking with them some of Novell’s trade secrets and other confidential information.
在这个案例中，两名高级科学家离开了 Novell，带走了 Novell 的一些商业机密和其他保密信息。

If these employees are permitted to take these secrets with impunity, Novell will be at the mercy of its other employees who may wish to take other of Novell’s trade secrets and confidential technical information and enter into competing businesses. Such a result is wholly unacceptable to Novell and places it at tremendous risk in the marketplace, a risk which money damages cannot remedy.
如果允许这些员工肆无忌惮地窃取这些机密，Novell 将任由其他员工摆布，而这些员工可能希望窃取 Novell 的其他商业秘密和机密技术信息，并进入竞争企业。这种结果是 Novell 完全不能接受的，它将在市场上面临巨大的风险，而这种风险是金钱赔偿无法弥补的。

Defendants assert that they will be harmed if Novell is entitled to an injunction protecting its trade secrets and confidential technical information. In fact, however, they have no legal claim to any of this information. Not having a legal claim to such information, they cannot demonstrate a greater harm than Novell will suffer if the requested injunction is not granted.
被告声称，如果 Novell 有权获得保护其商业秘密和机密技术信息的禁令，他们将受到损害。但事实上，他们对这些信息没有任何法律权利要求。由于没有对这些信息的法律权利要求，他们无法证明如果请求的禁令不被批准，他们将遭受比 Novell 更大的损害。

TRG is developing three products, Replevin 4.0, Replevin 5.0 and MAN 1.0.
TRG 正在开发三种产品：Replevin 4.0、Replevin 5.0 和 MAN 1.0。

Each of these three products is based upon and naturally flows from the Tapestry architecture which Merkey pirated from Novell.
这三个产品都基于 Merkey 从 Novell 盗版的 Tapestry 体系结构，并从中自然流出。

The Wolf Mountain group at Novell was building products that perform many of the same functions and operate much like the TRG products.
Novell 公司的 Wolf Mountain 小组正在开发与 TRG 产品具有许多相同功能和操作方式的产品。

Novell had not developed a product quite like MAN 1.0, but the Wolf Mountain architectural overview contemplated just such a product.
Novell 还没有开发出与 MAN 1.0 相似的产品，但《狼山架构概览》考虑开发这样的产品。

Having observed the actions and reactions of the parties from the date this case was filed through months of hearings, having observed them testify in court and seeing what it is that they told Microsoft they would do and what they now claim to be doing, and having received extensive evidence in this matter, I am convinced that
从本案立案之日起，通过几个月的听证，我观察到了双方的行动和反应，观察到了他们在法庭上的作证，看到了他们告诉微软他们会做的事情和他们现在声称正在做的事情，并在此事件中获得了大量证据，我确信

126

defendants have used Novell technology in developing their Repelvin and MAN products.
被告在开发 Repelvin 和 MAN 产品时使用了 Novell 技术。

At no time has TRG had any authorization from Novell to use any of the Novell technology.
TRG 从未从 Novell 获得任何使用 Novell 技术的授权。

I am further convinced that but for the interposition of this lawsuit, defendants would be well on the way to a product even more closely resembling the Wolf Mountain product which Novell demonstrated at Brainshare.
我还相信，如果没有本诉讼的介入，被告将很快推出与 Novell 在 Brainshare 上展示的 Wolf Mountain 产品更加相似的 产品。

While TRG’s Replevin and MAN products, at least in part, are based upon the Novell Wolf Mountain architecture, the actual coding of these products was done independent of Novell. The structure is Novell’s but the coding and full implementation were done by TRG.
尽管 TRG 的 Replevin 和 MAN 产品（至少部分产品）是基于 Novell Wolf Mountain 架构，但这些产品的实际编码工作是独立于 Novell 完成的。结构是 Novell 的，但编码和全面实施是由 TRG 完成的。

TRG’s Replevin and MAN products are designed to work in harmony with Microsoft’s NT platform.
TRG 的 Replevin 和 MAN 产品旨在与微软的 NT 平台协调工作。

As a result, many of the component parts included in the UFOD and the CICP are redundant as Microsoft has several analogous technologies.
因此，UFOD 和 CICP 中包含的许多组成部分都是多余的，因为微软公司有几种类似的技术。

Further, Novell is not now even building a product directly based upon this same technology.
此外，Novell 现在甚至没有直接基于这项技术开发产品。

As a result, Novell will not need a long lasting preliminary injunction.
因此，Novell 不需要长期的初步禁令。

Because of the great fluidity in the industry, because Novell is not even using the technologies in a stand alone product and because TRG’s Replevin and MAN products do not require many of the component technologies which were contained in the UFOD and in CICP, Novell will be adequately protected if defendants are restrained from any use of the Novell technologies for a period of nine months from the entry of this ruling.
由于该行业的流动性很大，Novell 甚至没有在独立产品中使用这些技术，而且 TRG 的 Replevin 和 MAN 产品也不需要 UFOD 和 CICP 中包含的许多组件技术，因此，如果在本裁决生效后的九个月内禁止被告使用 Novell 技术，Novell 将得到充分保护。

The existing temporary restraining order has prevented TRG from moving vigorously forward because other companies are reluctant to enter into partnering or other relationships until the litigation is complete.
现有的临时限制令阻碍了 TRG 积极推进工作，因为在诉讼结束之前，其他公司不愿与 TRG 建立合作伙伴关系或其他关系。

Because of the existing temporary restraining order both Merkey and Major have been significantly distracted from the work of TRG as they have had to deal with the existing litigation. TRG’s business has been slowed by this mental resource drain.
由于现有的临时限制令，Merkey 和 Major 都不得不处理现有的诉讼，因而大大分散了 TRG 的工作精力。TRG 的业务因这一精神资源消耗而放缓。

ANALYSIS AND RULING

Based upon the foregoing findings, I now enter this ruling.
基于上述结论，我现在做出本裁决。

Having first obtained a temporary restraining order, which order has been in place during the evidentiary hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction, Novell now seeks a preliminary injunction. It asserts a persisting harm if defendants are allowed to continue in the business of clustering software development.
Novell 公司首先获得了临时禁止令，该令在初步禁令动议的证据听证期间一直有效，现在 Novell 公司寻求获得初步禁令。Novell 声称，如果允许被告继续从事集群软件开发业务，将会造成持续的损害。

Rule 65A(e) sets the standard for issuance of a preliminary injunction:
规则第 65A(e)条规定了签发临时禁令的标准：

A restraining order or preliminary injunction may issue only upon a showing by the applicant that:
只有在申请人证明以下情况时，才能签发限制令或初步禁令

(1) The applicant will suffer irreparable harm unless the order or injunction issues;
(1) 除非发布命令或禁令，否则申请人将遭受无法弥补的损害；

(2) The threatened injury to the applicant outweighs whatever damage the proposed order or injunction may cause the party restrained or enjoined;
(2) 申请人可能受到的损害大于拟议的命令或禁令可能对被限制或禁止的一方造成的损害；

127

(3) The order or injunction, if issued, would not be adverse to the public interest; and
(3) 命令或禁制令如发出，不会损害公众利益；及

(4) There is a substantial likelihood that the applicant will prevail on the merits of the underlying claim, or the case presents serious issues on the merits which should be the subject of further litigation.
(4) 申请人很有可能胜诉，或者案件的实质问题很严重，应进一步提起诉讼。

As to each of these issues, Novell has the burden of proof. Said another way, unless Novell provides proof by a preponderance of the evidence on each of these four requirements, it may not receive the preliminary injunction which it seeks. I treat each of these issues separately.
对于上述每个问题，Novell 都负有举证责任。换句话说，除非 Novell 就这四项要求中的每一项提供优势证据，否则它可能无法获得它所寻求的初步禁令。我将分别处理这些问题。

Irreparable Harm

I. Merkey, Major and Angus Breached Their Contractual obligations to Novell
I.Merkey、Major 和 Angus 违反了对 Novell 的合同义务

At the time that Merkey, Major and Angus left Novell, each was subject to certain contractual covenants of confidentiality. By way of illustration, Merkey signed an “Agreement Respecting Trade Secrets, Inventions, Copyrights, and Patents” which provides that as a Novell employee he may have access to “material embodying trade secrets or confidential technical or business information of” Novell. With respect to any such information, he agreed that as an employee or former employee, he will not “use any such information or material for himself or others” or “disclose or publish any trade secret or confidential technical or business information or material” of Novell.
在 Merkey、Major 和 Angus 离开 Novell 时，每个人都受到某些保密合同条款的约束。例如，Merkey 签署了一份 "关于商业秘密、发明、版权和专利的协议"，该协议规定，作为 Novell 的一名员工，他可能会接触到 "体现 Novell 商业秘密或机密技术或商业信息的材料"。对于任何此类信息，他同意，作为一名员工或前员工，他不会 "为自己或他人使用任何此类信息或材料"，也不会 "披露或公布 Novell 的任何商业秘密或机密技术或业务信息或材料"。

Not only are Merkey, Major and Angus subject to contractual obligations preventing their use or disclosure of Novell’s trade secrets, when Novell agreed to allow Merkey and Major to form a new software development company, Merkey and Major covenanted that they would not compete with Novell, or if they did so they would first enter into an agreement with Novell concerning the use of Novell’s intellectual property.
Merkey、Major 和 Angus 不仅受合同义务的约束，不得使用或披露 Novell 的商业秘密，而且在 Novell 同意让 Merkey 和 Major 成立新的软件开发公司时，Merkey 和 Major 还承诺不与 Novell 竞争，如果竞争，他们将首先与 Novell 签订有关使用 Novell 知识产权的协议。

Notwithstanding these duties not to use for themselves nor to disclose to others Novell’s confidential technical information, the record establishes that Merkey and Major each have violated their agreements with Novell.
尽管有不得私自使用或向他人披露 Novell 机密技术信息的义务，但记录显示 Merkey 和 Major 均违反了与 Novell 的协议。

By late 1996 Merkey was excited with the significant progress in the development of a new product for Novell, a product that he believed would help Novell retain its position as an industry leader in the computer communications software business and which would replace Novell’s existing network products, NetWare and IntranetWare. Though he was officed at the Orem campus and the Wolf Mountain group was regularly treated by the core operating group as a step-child, Merkey believed that Wolf Mountain technologies represented Novell’s future.
到 1996 年底，Merkey 对 Novell 新产品开发取得的重大进展感到兴奋不已，他相信该产品将帮助 Novell 保持其在计算机通信软件行业的领先地位，并将取代 Novell 现有的网络产品 NetWare 和 IntranetWare。虽然他的办公室设在奥勒姆园区，而且狼山小组经常被核心运营小组视为继子，但 Merkey 相信狼山技术代表着 Novell 的未来。

Then, in early 1997, by Merkey’s account, Novell betrayed both him and Novell’s own future by placing the Scalable Server Division under the direction of Denise Gibson, who had stewardship over the core operating group and had a personal antipathy for Merkey. To Merkey this was the death knell for the Wolf Mountain project. Against this backdrop, Merkey hatched a plan in his creative and very fertile mind. He would convince Novell to form a separate company to continue with the development of the Wolf Mountain technologies. To that end he had a number of discussions with a variety of Novell executives, particularly Joe Marengi, Novell’s president. While Novell discussed the possibility, it never decided to form
然后，在 1997 年初，根据 Merkey 的说法，Novell 背叛了他和 Novell 自己的未来，将可扩展服务器部门置于 Denise Gibson 的领导之下，而 Denise Gibson 负责管理核心操作组，并对 Merkey 怀有个人敌意。对梅基来说，这无疑是敲响了狼山项目的丧钟。在这种背景下，Merkey 在他那富有创造力的头脑中制定了一个计划。他要说服 Novell 成立一家独立的公司，继续开发狼山技术。为此，他与 Novell 的多位高管，特别是 Novell 的总裁 Joe Marengi 进行了多次讨论。虽然 Novell 讨论了这一可能性，但始终没有决定成立一家独立的公司。

128

such a spin-out as a done deal. In late March, while still an employee of Novell, he sent to Microsoft, Novell’s largest competitor, a copy of a document which he labeled “Tapestry for NT Architecture Overview,” telling Microsoft he had created this document in the new company in a clean room environment. This story was patently false. With several small exceptions centering around names and acronyms, the Tapestry document is a verbatim pirate from a document Merkey wrote while at Novell entitled “Wolf Mountain Architectural Overview”.
在 3 月下旬，当他还是 Novell 的雇员时，他向 Novell 最大的竞争对手微软公司发送了一份文件副本，上面标有 "Tapestry for NT 架构概述"。3 月下旬，当他还是 Novell 的一名雇员时，他向 Novell 最大的竞争对手微软公司发送了一份文件的副本，他在文件上标注了 "Tapestry for NT 架构概述"，并告诉微软他是在新公司的无尘室环境中创建这份文件的。这个故事显然是假的。除了围绕名称和缩略语的几个小例外，Tapestry 文档是 Merkey 在 Novell 工作时编写的题为 "Wolf Mountain Architectural Overview "的文档的逐字逐句盗版。

On April 17, 1997, while an employee of Novell and against the advice of Novell’s president, Eric Schmidt, Merkey and Major met with representatives of Microsoft. During that meeting Merkey and Major advised that the technology contained in the Tapestry document which he asserted had been created by TRG independent of Novell, was ready for “immediate assimilation” by Microsoft.
1997 年 4 月 17 日，Merkey 和 Major 在担任 Novell 公司员工期间，不顾 Novell 公司总裁 Eric Schmidt 的建议，与微软公司的代表会面。在这次会面中，Merkey 和 Major 建议，Tapestry 文件中包含的技术（他声称该技术是由独立于 Novell 的 TRG 创造的）已准备好被微软 "立即同化"。

Merkey assured Microsoft then, and regularly thereafter, that a finished product would not be long in the making. From April until early fall 1997, though he kept pushing the delivery date back blaming problems like this litigation, Merkey never claimed development of a product other than his proposed tapestry based product, a product built on the architecture which he pirated from Novell.
Merkey 当时并在此后定期向微软公司保证，成品的制作时间不会太长。从 1997 年 4 月到初秋，尽管默基不断将交付日期往后推，指责出现了像这次诉讼这样的问题，但他从未声称开发出了一种产品，而不是他提出的基于挂毯的产品，这种产品是建立在他从 Novell 公司盗用的架构上的。

The day after meeting with Microsoft, Merkey and Major met with a potential investor, Marty Albert. Again, they disclosed to him their business proposal for TRG. By the end of their two day meeting with Albert, he had agreed to finance the new company and had been elected chairman of the board.
与微软会面后的第二天，默基和梅杰又会见了一位潜在投资者马蒂-艾伯特（Marty Albert）。他们再次向他透露了 TRG 的商业计划。与艾伯特两天的会面结束后，他同意为新公司提供资金，并当选为董事会主席。

With a straight face Merkey and Major each assert that they never disclosed or used any confidential technical information belonging to Novell. Simply put, this is not honest. It is beyond any reasonable dispute that they disclosed Novell’s confidential technical information to Microsoft and they disclosed some of it to Albert.
Merkey 和 Major 都直言不讳地声称，他们从未披露或使用过属于 Novell 的任何机密技术信息。简而言之，这并不诚实。毫无疑问，他们向微软披露了 Novell 的机密技术信息，并向 Albert 披露了其中的一部分。

In addition to disclosing to third parties, Merkey and Major obviously intended to use Novell’s confidential technical information for themselves. Within days of Merkey’s leaving Novell, TRG published a description on its web site of its intended product development. The feature set is identical to the feature set which Novell disclosed at Brainshare.
除了向第三方披露外，Merkey 和 Major 显然还打算将 Novell 的机密技术信息据为己有。Merkey 离开 Novell 后没几天，TRG 就在其网站上发布了一份关于其产品开发意图的说明。其功能与 Novell 在 Brainshare 上披露的功能完全相同。

At Brainshare the Wolf Mountain technologies worked. Novell demonstrated a 12-node clustered system that performed just the way Merkey had advertised. This technology was well developed. But for the interposition of this lawsuit I have no doubt Merkey and Major would have moved quickly to fully implement the Wolf Mountain technology which Merkey explained at Brainshare, of which he was the principal architect, and which he considered his personal baby. He even bragged to the press and to other Novell employees that he had under-documented the technology so that Novell would not know what he had, and that if Novell sued him, it would not even know what to sue for. He took and intended to use Novell’s technology for his own use.
在 Brainshare 上，狼山技术发挥了作用。Novell 演示了一个 12 节点集群系统，其性能与 Merkey 所宣传的一样。这项技术已经得到了很好的发展。如果不是这场诉讼的介入，我毫不怀疑 Merkey 和 Major 会迅速全面实施 Merkey 在 Brainshare 上介绍的狼山技术，他是这项技术的主要设计者，并将其视为个人的宝贝。他甚至向媒体和 Novell 的其他员工吹嘘说，他对该技术的文档记录不足，这样 Novell 就不会知道他掌握了什么，如果 Novell 起诉他，甚至不知道该起诉什么。他将 Novell 的技术据为己有。

Each of the foregoing actions — and others which can be found in the record — is a direct violation of defendants’ contractual obligations with Novell.
上述每项行为--以及记录中可以找到的其他行为--都直接违反了被告与 Novell 之间的合同义务。

Novell spent large sums of money developing its Wolf Mountain technologies. Merkey and Major intended to use and disclose these technologies to others at their discretion, an action completely at odds with their contractual obligations. And they did so with an obvious malice. Because they are in breach of their contractual obligations they should be prevented
Novell 斥巨资开发狼山技术。Merkey 和 Major 打算随意使用并向他人披露这些技术，这种行为完全违背了他们的合同义务。而且，他们这样做明显带有恶意。由于他们违反了合同义务，因此应阻止他们的行为

129

from continuing to use themselves or from disclosing to others the technologies which Novell spent so much time and effort developing.
继续使用或向他人披露 Novell 花费大量时间和精力开发的技术。

That such a restraint is appropriate is established by Envirotech Corp. v. Callahan, 872 P.2d 487 (Utah App. 1994) where the court of appeals noted that even absent a written employment contract, a fiduciary duty exists preventing an employee, upon termination, from disclosing confidential information of the former employer. If such a fiduciary duty exists without a contract, certainly a contractual provision preventing a former employee from using or disclosing confidential technical information also should be upheld. This conclusion is consistent with the other Utah appellate rulings touching on the duties of former employees to their former employers: J & K Computer Systems, Inc. v. Parrish, 642 P.2d 732 (Utah 1982); and Microbiological Research Corp. v. Muna, 625 P.2d 690 (Utah 1981). Defendants’ actions are both a breach of their contractual obligations and a breach of their fiduciary duties to their former employer.
Envirotech 公司诉 Callahan 案，872 P.2d 487（犹他州上诉法院，1994 年）确立了这种限制是适当的，上诉法院在该案中指出，即使没有书面雇佣合同，也存在防止雇员在解雇时披露前雇主机密信息的信托责任。如果这种信托责任在没有合同的情况下也存在，那么防止前雇员使用或披露机密技术信息 的合同条款当然也应得到支持。这一结论与犹他州上诉法院关于前雇员对前雇主的责任的其他裁决是一致的：J & K 计算机系统公司诉 Parrish 案，642 P.2d 732（犹他州，1982 年）；以及微生物研究公司诉 Muna 案，625 P.2d 690（犹他州，1981 年）。被告的行为既违反了他们的合同义务，也违反了他们对前雇主的信托责任。

Further, there is no other meaningful or effective remedy for Merkey’s and Major’s breaches of their contractual obligations to Novell. Money damages may provide some relief, but the only truly effectual relief available in this case is the requested restraint.
此外，对于 Merkey 和 Major 违反对 Novell 的合同义务的行为，没有其他有意义或有效的补救措施。金钱赔偿可以提供一些救济，但本案中唯一真正有效的救济是请求的限制。

Closely related to Merkey’s and Major’s breaches is the fact that TRG has been created by Merkey and Major for the express purpose of developing these technologies. They now assert they are building for the Microsoft NT platform. So what? Merkey was the author of Wolf Mountain and committed that it would be platform neutral, meaning that it would function both on Novell’s NetWare operating system as well as Microsoft’s NT operating system and the Unix operating system. True no source code may have been written by Novell to accomplish all of these architectural goals and platform neutrality had not been accomplished, but Novell expected and intended that its Wolf Mountain products would be platform neutral. Had Merkey remained at Novell platform neutrality would be far closer by now, if not a reality. TRG cannot now complete the development for the NT platform which Novell started without impinging on the confidential technical information which Novell developed in its Wolf Mountain project.
与 Merkey 和 Major 的违规行为密切相关的事实是，TRG 是由 Merkey 和 Major 创立的，其明确目的就是开发这些技术。他们现在声称，他们正在为微软 NT 平台进行开发。那又怎样？Merkey 是 "狼山 "的作者，他承诺 "狼山 "是平台中立的，也就是说，它既可以在 Novell 的 NetWare 操作系统上运行，也可以在微软的 NT 操作系统和 Unix 操作系统上运行。诚然，Novell 可能没有为实现所有这些架构目标而编写源代码，也没有实现平台中立，但 Novell 期望并打算让其 Wolf Mountain 产品实现平台中立。如果 Merkey 仍在 Novell 工作，平台中立性即使不能成为现实，现在也已经非常接近了。TRG 现在无法在不影响 Novell 在其 Wolf Mountain 项目中开发的机密技术信息的情况下完成 Novell 开始的 NT 平台开发工作。

Merkey was the chief scientist on Novell’s Wolf Mountain project and Major was a senior scientist. Having left Novell and not bound by a non-competition agreement, they can compete. But not by taking the Novell project, renaming it, and continuing to work on it. Though they now claim that is not what they are doing, all of their early press and web site announcements indicate that is exactly what they were doing. Even Merkey’s draft of a business plan for TRG, prepared in September 1997, almost six months after they left and after they had been subject to the temporary restraining order for many months, establishes that they intend to continue on the same course which they had been following while at Novell. That Major, the president of TRG, disclaims the draft business plan is irrelevant. Merkey, the admitted genius behind Wolf Mountain and the one person whom Major admits he cannot control, intends to continue just where Novell had been going. For these reasons, any restraint against Merkey and Major also should apply to their new company, TRG.
Merkey 是 Novell 狼山项目的首席科学家，而 Major 则是高级科学家。离开 Novell 后，他们不受非竞争协议的约束，可以进行竞争。但不是通过将 Novell 项目重新命名并继续开展工作。虽然他们现在声称他们并没有这么做，但他们早期的所有新闻和网站公告都表明他们正是这么做的。即使是 Merkey 在 1997 年 9 月为 TRG 拟定的商业计划草案，也是在他们离开公司近 6 个月后，而且是在他们被临时限制令限制了许多个月之后，该草案表明他们打算继续走他们在 Novell 工作时的老路。TRG 总裁梅杰否认业务计划草案与此无关。Merkey 是狼山公司公认的幕后天才，也是梅杰承认他无法控制的人，他打算继续沿着 Novell 的方向前进。出于这些原因，对 Merkey 和 Major 的任何限制也应适用于他们的新公司 TRG。

Finally, as to Angus; I find he also breached his contracts with Novell as he failed to return to Novell confidential proprietary information when he left Novell. He admits as much. He likewise should be restrained from using any Novell confidential technical information in any work which he does, whether with TRG or some other employer.
最后，关于安格斯，我发现他也违反了与 Novell 的合同，因为他在离开 Novell 时没有将机密专有信息归还 Novell。他也承认这一点。同样，他也应被禁止在任何工作中使用 Novell 的机密技术信息，无论是在 TRG 还是在其他雇主那里。

130

II. Merkey and Major Took Novell Trade Secrets with Them to TRG
II.Merkey 和 Major 将 Novell 商业机密带入 TRG

Many days of hearing were consumed in closed-door sessions while the parties addressed Novell’s claim that defendants misappropriated Novell’s trade secrets. As I noted in an earlier ruling in this case, the Utah Supreme Court has held that:
听证会的许多天都是在闭门会议中度过的，双方讨论了 Novell 关于被告盗用 Novell 商业秘密的主张。正如我在本案早先的裁决中所指出的，犹他州最高法院认为

The threshold issue in every [trade secret] case is whether, in fact, there is a trade secret to be misappropriated. The secret is of value only so long as it remains a secret. The burden is upon the plaintiff to prove its existence as a secret, and there is no presumption in his favor.
每一起[商业秘密]案件的门槛问题都是，事实上是否存在商业秘密被盗用。只有当秘密仍然是秘密时，它才具有价值。原告有责任证明其作为秘密的存在，没有对原告有利的推定。

Microbiological Research Corp. v. Muna, 625 P.2d 690, 696 (Utah 1981).
微生物研究公司诉 Muna，625 P.2d 690，696（犹他州，1981 年）。

Here, Novell bears the burden of establishing that any of the information which defendant took or used is a trade secret. To resolve that issue the parties relied upon the definition of trade secret contained in Utah Code Ann. Section 13-24(2)4:
在本案中，Novell 公司有责任证明被告获取或使用的任何信息属于商业秘密。为了解决这个问题，双方依据了《犹他州法典》第 13-24(2)4 节中关于商业秘密的定义："商业秘密是指由被告获取或使用的任何信息。第 13-24(2)条4：

“Trade secret” means information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process, that:
"商业秘密 "是指以下信息，包括公式、模式、汇编、程序、装置、方法、技术或流程：

(a) derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and
(a)由于不为能够从其披露或使用中获得经济价值的其他人所普遍知悉，且无法通过适当的手段轻易查明，因而具有独立的实际或潜在经济价值；且

(b) is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.
(b) 在当时情况下已作出合理的保密努力。

In the analysis here I also rely upon this statutory definition of trade secret. Further, the court not only has authority to restrain actual misappropriation of trade secrets, but also threatened misappropriation. Novell argues that while it has proven actual misappropriation, at a minimum it certainly has established threatened misappropriation.
在本文的分析中，我也依据了商业秘密的这一法定定义。此外，法院不仅有权限制实际盗用商业秘密，还有权限制威胁盗用商业秘密。Novell 辩称，虽然它已经证明了实际盗用，但至少它肯定已经证明了威胁盗用。

The parties each offered an expert witness on whether any information allegedly taken or used by defendants constitutes a Novell trade secret. Novell called Dr. Evan Ivie, a retired BYU computer science professor with a thorough computer science background and hands-on experience in an early clustering related project. Defendants called Dr. Sabin Head, an independent computer consultant from Sunnyvale, California, who has a broad base of expertise in computer software development. The court had the opportunity to listen carefully to each and I base my conclusions in this case on their testimony and my own observations and conclusions as to their credibility.
双方各自提供了一名专家证人，以证明被告被指控获取或使用的任何信息是否构成 Novell 的商业秘密。Novell 传唤了 Evan Ivie 博士，他是 BYU 计算机科学的退休教授，拥有全面的计算机科学背景和早期集群相关项目的实践经验。被告传唤了 Sabin Head 博士，他是来自加利福尼亚桑尼维尔的独立计算机顾问，在计算机软件开发方面具有广泛的专业知识。法庭有机会认真听取了他们的证词，我在本案中的结论是基于他们的证词以及我自己对他们可信度的观察和结论得出的。

In an earlier ruling in this case I noted, as the Utah Supreme Court stated in Muna:
正如犹他州最高法院在 Muna 案中所述，我在本案早先的裁决中指出

[A] unique combination of generally known elements or steps can qualify as a trade secret, if it represents a valuable contribution attributable to the independent efforts of the one claiming to have conceived it. The combination must differ materially from other methods revealed by the prior art.
[众所周知的要素或步骤的独特组合，如果是归功于声称构思者的独立努力的有价值的贡献，就可以成为商业秘密。该组合必须与现有技术所揭示的其他方法有实质性区别。

Muna, 625 P.2d at 696.

Defendants assert that much of the technology which they are using in their new projects and efforts can be found in the public domain and therefore is not protectable as a trade secret. To a fair extent this is correct. Further, defendants also note that on leaving Novell they had a right to take with them their general knowledge of the computer industry, gained
被告声称，他们在新项目和工作中使用的许多技术可以在公共领域找到，因此不能作为商业秘密加以保护。在一定程度上，这是正确的。此外，被告还指出，在离开 Novell 时，他们有权带走他们在计算机行业获得的一般知识 。

131

over a lifetime of study and work in that industry. Again, they are correct. Yet, as noted by Muna, even if Novell was using generally known technologies in its Wolf Mountain project, a unique combination of those public domain elements can qualify as a trade secret.
在该行业学习和工作了一辈子。同样，他们是正确的。然而，正如穆纳所指出的那样，即使 Novell 在其 Wolf Mountain 项目中使用的是众所周知的技术，这些公共领域元素的独特组合也可以构成商业秘密。

At the direction of the court Novell submitted an exhibit which it asserts contains the trade secrets which defendants have misappropriated (Ex. 112). After asserting that each of the trade secrets identified in Exhibit 112 is a Novell trade secret, Dr. Ivie endured a merciless cross examination. Thereafter Dr. Head testified that none of the matters which Dr. Ivie identified as trade secrets in fact were. Rather, he concluded that Novell only had one protectable trade secret: the overall scheme or manner of organization of the various parts which it was incorporating into its Wolf Mountain technology.
在法庭的指示下，Novell 公司提交了一份证据，声称其中包含被告盗用的商业秘密（证据 112）。Ivie 博士声称证据 112 中的每项商业秘密都是 Novell 的商业秘密，随后他经受了无情的盘问。此后，Head 博士作证说，Ivie 博士认定为商业秘密的事项实际上都不是。相反，他的结论是 Novell 公司只有一项可保护的商业秘密：即它将纳入其 Wolf Mountain 技术的各个部分的总体方案或组织方式。

I accept Dr. Heads’ analysis that Novell’s grand scheme Wolf Mountain is a trade secret. Unfortunately for defendants, this analysis supports a far broader conclusion than Dr. Head may have intended.
我接受 Heads 博士的分析，即 Novell 的宏伟计划 "狼山 "属于商业秘密。对被告来说，不幸的是，这一分析所支持的结论比 Head 博士的本意要宽泛得多。

Defendants argued over and over again that Novell had the burden of proving what its trade secrets were but failed to meet that burden. Defendants reminded the court several times that I continued the hearing so that Novell could more fully identify and list its trade secrets. Defendants are entitled to know what it is they cannot use. This argument is not without merit.
被告一再辩称，Novell 有责任证明其商业秘密是什么，但却未能履行这一责任。被告多次提醒法庭，我继续举行听证会是为了让 Novell 更充分地确认并列出其商业秘密。被告有权知道他们不能使用的是什么。这一论点不无道理。

The technology at issue in this case is so complex and of such a high level of sophistication that it defies description by a computer layman. That problem not only stymies the court, it clearly effected Novell’s counsel’s ability to introduce helpful evidence to the court. What is clear is that the Wolf Mountain technology, best described and identified in the Wolf Mountain Architectural Overview, is made of myriad separate elements. A goodly portion of those elements are based upon well known, public domain concepts. But how Novell adapted, implemented, integrated and applied those public domain concepts is proprietary. To some extent Novell established that it had developed new and different technologies, but to an extent it also failed.
本案中涉及的技术非常复杂，其复杂程度之高令计算机外行无法形容。这一问题不仅阻碍了法庭的工作，而且明显影响了 Novell 律师向法庭提供有用证据的能力。显而易见的是，"狼山架构概述 "中对狼山技术进行了最好的描述和识别，该技术由无数独立的元素组成。其中相当一部分元素基于众所周知的公共领域概念。但 Novell 是如何调整、实施、整合和应用这些公共领域概念的，则属于专有技术。在某种程度上，Novell 证明自己开发出了与众不同的新技术，但在某种程度上，它也失败了。

As I have explained above, in late March or early April, Merkey gave to Microsoft the Wolf Mountain architecture which he was developing at Novell, having renamed it Tapestry. Novell had spent millions of dollars and almost two years of research and development before Merkey pirated this technology. While Dr. Head did not say so, Novell convincingly established that the Wolf Mountain architecture is the grand scheme or unique combination of which Dr. Head testified. Major also conceded that this architecture, at least as set forth in the Wolf Mountain Architectural Overview, is Novell’s confidential information. What he fails to add, however, is that Merkey pirated that architecture in his Tapestry effort.
如上文所述，3 月底或 4 月初，Merkey 将他在 Novell 开发的 Wolf Mountain 架构交给了微软，并将其更名为 Tapestry。在 Merkey 盗版这项技术之前，Novell 已经花费了数百万美元和近两年的时间进行研发。虽然 Head 博士没有这样说，但 Novell 令人信服地证明，Wolf Mountain 架构就是 Head 博士作证的宏伟计划或独特组合。梅杰也承认，至少在《狼山架构概述》中提出的这一架构是 Novell 的机密信息。但他没有补充的是，Merkey 在其 Tapestry 工作中盗用了该架构。

When Merkey disclosed this architecture he not only violated his confidentiality agreements with Novell, he trafficked upon the trade secrets of Novell. And thereafter he claimed in web site statements and to the media that he was building a product based upon the same Tapestry architecture. Merkey violated Novell’s trade secret rights in its unique combination represented by the Wolf Mountain architecture. Novell is irreparably harmed by this disclosure.
当 Merkey 披露这一架构时，他不仅违反了与 Novell 签订的保密协议，还泄露了 Novell 的商业机密。此后，他在网站声明和媒体上声称，他正在基于相同的 Tapestry 架构开发一款产品。Merkey 侵犯了 Novell 对以 Wolf Mountain 架构为代表的独特组合的商业秘密权。Novell 因这一披露而受到无法弥补的损害。

This same analysis also supports a finding that the UFOD and CICP are Novell trade secrets. Even Dr. Head concedes that one of the most significant innovations in the Wolf Mountain technology is the Unified File Object Directory (UFOD). Major was the principal architect of
同样的分析也支持 UFOD 和 CICP 属于 Novell 商业秘密的结论。甚至 Head 博士也承认，狼山技术最重要的创新之一就是统一文件对象目录 (UFOD)。梅杰是技术的主要设计师。

132

this portion of the technology. UFOD provides integrated directory services, file services and data storage. And, interestingly, UFOD largely is built upon known technologies, many of which are close relatives to main frame storage models used by IBM in its main frame systems. Any computer program seeking to accomplish what the UFOD was designed to accomplish would have common parts: memory caching, disk caching, a hierarchical storage manager, and would use well known techniques such as disk mirroring, segmenting, scatter-gather, and mini-volumes as the primary unit of data storage, caching, replication and distribution. Dr. Head asserted that all of these component parts are well known in the industry. At the same time, however, I accept Dr. Ivie’s analysis that in its form, UFOD is a unique combination of mostly known technologies which, under Muna, qualifies for trade secret status and protection. Major himself conceded that UFOD was unique and proprietary to Novell. While Novell did not really explain all of the nuts and bolts of the UFOD, it is composed of many parts which Major conceded were trade secrets, such as how it was designed to do self journaling, the memory management system and the UFOD message format protocol. Each of these are protectable. And it is clear that the bulk of TRG’s present effort is directed at an NT based implementation of a storage manager like that which Major built in the UFOD. TRG thus is using, at least indirectly the Novell UFOD work product.
这部分技术。UFOD 提供集成的目录服务、文件服务和数据存储。有趣的是，UFOD 在很大程度上是建立在已知技术的基础上的，其中许多技术与 IBM 在其主框架系统中使用的主框架存储模型是近亲。任何试图实现 UFOD 设计目标的计算机程序都会有共同的部分：内存缓存、磁盘缓存、分层存储管理器，并会使用磁盘镜像、分段、分散收集和迷你卷等众所周知的技术作为数据存储、缓存、复制和分发的主要单位。Head 博士断言，所有这些组成部分在业界都是众所周知的。但与此同时，我也接受 Ivie 博士的分析，即 UFOD 在形式上是对大部分已知技术的独特组合，根据 Muna 的规定，符合商业秘密地位和保护的条件。Major 本人也承认 UFOD 对 Novell 来说是独一无二的专有技术。虽然 Novell 并未真正解释 UFOD 的所有细节，但它由许多 Major 承认属于商业秘密的部分组成，例如如何设计 UFOD 以实现自我日志、内存管理系统和 UFOD 消息格式协议。这些都是可以保护的。很明显，TRG 目前的主要工作是在 NT 基础上实现类似 Major 在 UFOD 中建立的存储管理器。因此，TRG 至少间接使用了 Novell UFOD 的工作成果。

Similarly, I find that the Cluster Interconnect Protocol (CICP) deserves separate mention. The purpose of the CICP is to provide a computer communications subsystem for the various computers functioning together as a cluster. The CICP is built of many common parts. But how Novell built its CICP, how it arranged these mostly public domain concepts and technologies, is a unique and protectable secret. Under Merkey’s examination Major admitted that the CICP wire protocol is a trade secret.
同样，我认为集群互连协议（CICP）也值得单独提及。CICP 的目的是为作为集群一起运行的各种计算机提供一个计算机通信子系统。CICP 由许多通用部件组成。但是，Novell 是如何构建其 CICP 的，又是如何安排 这些大多属于公共领域的概念和技术的，这是一个独特的、可保护的秘密。在 Merkey 的询问下，Major 承认 CICP 线路协议是一项商业机密。

Novell wants me to restrain defendants from using its trade secrets. I don’t fault the request, but I struggle to make an identification sufficient that I can issue a restraint. I am persuaded that it is likely Novell has other trade secrets within UFOD, CICP and other elements of the Wolf Mountain technologies. But at this point I stumble. Though I spent considerable effort digging through the huge body of information which was introduced at trial, I have been unable fully to understand and to catalogue the rest of Novell’s alleged trade secrets. To that degree Novell has failed in meeting its burden. Perhaps not because, as defendants claim, no trade secrets exist, but because the matters are so complex and technologically numbing that they escape comprehension by the court. Nonetheless, what the court cannot understand and segregate into identifiable bundles, it cannot restrain defendants from using. I deny the remainder of Novell’s trade secret claims.
Novell 希望我限制被告使用其商业秘密。我对这一请求并无异议，但我很难做出足以让我签发限制令的鉴定。我相信，Novell 很可能在 UFOD、CICP 和狼山技术的其他要素中拥有其他商业秘密。但在这一点上，我犯了难。尽管我花了相当大的精力去挖掘庭审中介绍的大量信息，但我仍无法完全理解 Novell 所称的其他商业秘密，也无法将其编目。在这种程度上，Novell 没有履行其责任。也许并不是因为如被告所声称的那样不存在商业秘密，而是因为这些问题太复杂，技术上太麻木，以至于法庭无法理解。尽管如此，法院无法理解并分割成可识别的捆绑物，也就无法限制被告使用这些捆绑物。我驳回 Novell 公司的其余商业秘密索赔要求。

The Threatened Harm to Novell Outweighs the Potential Damage to Defendants
对 Novell 造成的威胁大于对被告造成的潜在损害

Novell brought this action believing defendants breached their contractual obligations when they took from Novell confidential technical information and trade secrets. Novell has sustained that burden and has established that defendants have no legal entitlement to this information and trade secrets and that defendants have misappropriated Novell technologies.
Novell 公司认为，被告从 Novell 公司窃取机密技术信息和商业秘密的行为违反了合同义务，因此提起诉讼。Novell 承担了这一责任，并证明被告在法律上无权获得这些信息和商业秘密，而且被告盗用了 Novell 的技术。

The computer industry is highly competitive and dynamic. Today’s industry leaders must be forward thinking and innovative if they are to retain their niche in the industry. To that end Novell expended millions of dollars in developing its Wolf Mountain technologies. While it is true that even to date Novell has not developed a stand alone, Wolf Mountain-based product,
计算机行业竞争激烈，充满活力。当今的行业领导者必须具有前瞻性思维和创新精神，才能在行业中保持优势地位。为此，Novell 耗资数百万美元开发了狼山技术。尽管 Novell 至今仍未开发出基于狼山技术的独立产品，但 Novell 仍在不断开发新技术。

133

it now is beginning to implement aspects and technologies developed in the Wolf Mountain project into its other products. Novell will suffer significant loss if defendants are allowed to take and use these technologies with impunity.
目前，Novell 已开始在其其他产品中采用狼山项目开发的内容和技术。如果允许被告肆无忌惮地获取和使用这些技术，Novell 将蒙受巨大损失。

First, there is a point to be made with its own employees. Novell is able to succeed in the software development business by requiring its computer software engineers to respect Novell’s ownership of its confidential technical information and trade secrets. Now, if Novell accedes to Merkey and Major without objection, former senior computer scientists who took and are using its technical information, Novell’s other employees will presume that with impunity, they may take and use for themselves the trade secrets and confidential technical information which Novell has spent millions and millions of dollars developing. This is a damage which money alone never can remedy.
首先，对自己的员工要有一个说法。Novell 公司之所以能够在软件开发业务上取得成功，是因为它要求其计算机软件工程师尊重 Novell 公司对其机密技术信息和商业秘密的所有权。现在，如果 Novell 同意 Merkey 和 Major 的要求而不提出异议，那么 Novell 的其他雇员就会认为，他们可以肆无忌惮地获取和使用 Novell 花费数百万美元开发的商业秘密和保密技术信息。这是金钱永远无法弥补的损失。

Second, the computer industry is extremely competitive and dynamic. A company either must be progressive and innovative or it will soon find itself on the scrap heap. At Brainshare Merkey touted the Wolf Mountain technologies as the next generation of computer communication software. In other settings he asserted that Novell had a two year head start on any of the competition in this new, exciting technology. Now Merkey complains that Novell is not building a stand-alone, Wolf Mountain-based project and thus its confidential information need not be protected.
其次，计算机行业竞争激烈，充满活力。公司必须不断进取和创新，否则很快就会被淘汰出局。在 Brainshare，Merkey 将狼山技术吹捧为下一代计算机通信软件。在其他场合，他断言 Novell 在这项令人兴奋的新技术上比任何竞争对手都领先两年。现在，Merkey 抱怨 Novell 没有建立一个独立的、以 Wolf Mountain 为基础的项目，因此其机密信息不需要受到保护。

While it appears true that Novell has not implemented such a product, it is using the Wolf Mountain technologies in other ways in its existing products and likely will continue to do so as it upgrades and replaces its existing technologies. It will suffer damage if Merkey and Major are allowed to continue to use and build upon the two year lead which Novell has gained.
虽然 Novell 似乎确实没有实施这样的产品，但它正在以其他方式在其现有产品中使用狼山技术，并且很可能在升级和替换现有技术时继续这样做。如果允许 Merkey 和 Major 继续使用 Novell 已经领先两年的技术并在此基础上继续发展，Novell 将遭受损失。

While Novell will suffer great harm if defendants are allowed to use the confidential information which they wrongfully took from Novell, where defendants have no legal claim to Novell’s technologies and proprietary information, they are hard pressed to claim that they should be permitted to use that which they unlawfully took from Novell. Because they do not have a legal basis to use Novell’s confidential information, the threat to Novell if defendants use this information and technology clearly outweighs any risk to defendants. See Autoski11 v. National Educ. Support Sys., Inc., 994 F.2d 1476, 1498 [ 26 USPQ2d 1828 ] (10th Cir. 1993).
如果允许被告使用他们从 Novell 公司非法获取的机密信息，Novell 公司将遭受巨大损失，而被告对 Novell 公司的技术和专有信息并无合法权利主张，他们很难声称自己应被允许使用他们从 Novell 公司非法获取的信息。由于他们没有使用 Novell 公司机密信息的法律依据，如果被告使用这些信息和技术，对 Novell 公司的威胁显然大于被告所面临的任何风险。参见 Autoski11 诉 National Educ. Support Sys., Inc.，994 F.2d 1476, 1498 [ 26 USPQ2d 1828 ] (10th Cir. 1993)。

The Proposed Injunction Is Not Adverse to the Public Interest
拟议的禁令不损害公众利益

As demonstrated by Utah’s adoption of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Utah Code Ann. Section 13-24-3, et seq., public policy supports the development of new technologies by authorizing injunctive protection of trade secrets. Defendants have no claim that the proposed injunction would be adverse to the public interest.
犹他州通过的《统一商业秘密法》（Utah Code Ann.第 13-24-3 节及以下各节所示，公共政策通过授权对商业秘密的禁令保护来支持新技术的开发。被告没有声称拟议的禁令会损害公共利益。

Novell Has a Substantial Likelihood of Prevailing on the Merits
Novell 有很大可能胜诉

Novell has presented a compelling case that defendants misappropriated trade secrets, violated their contractual obligations of confidentiality, and breached their fiduciary duties to their former employer. Defendants have demonstrated a predatory intent and a deliberate strategy to claim and use as their own, technologies which they developed while at Novell. To a large extent their actions have been in bad faith. While counsel claimed in argument that Merkey was “crying out in pain”, in fact, he was a predator seeking to bamboozle Novell into letting him leave with technologies which Novell spent millions of dollars developing. While
Novell 提出了令人信服的证据，证明被告盗用了商业机密，违反了合同规定的保密义务，并违背了对前雇主的信托责任。被告表现出了掠夺性的意图和蓄意的策略，将他们在 Novell 工作期间开发的技术据为己有。在很大程度上，他们的行为是恶意的。虽然律师在辩论中声称 Merkey "痛哭流涕"，但事实上，他是一个掠夺者，试图欺骗 Novell 让他带着 Novell 花费数百万美元开发的技术离开。虽然

134

Novell yet has a judicial education project ahead of it before it will fully persuade the court concerning all of its alleged trade secrets, it has more than amply demonstrated defendants’ breaches and misappropriations. It has a substantial likelihood of prevailing on the merits of many of its claims.
尽管 Novell 还需要进行司法教育，才能就其所有被控商业秘密充分说服法庭，但它已经充分证明了被告的违约和盗用行为。Novell有很大可能就其许多索赔的案情胜诉。

Doctrine of Inevitable Disclosure

Finally, a word about the doctrine of inevitable disclosure which Novell urges that I adopt but defendants just as vigorously urge that I reject.
最后，我想谈谈 Novell 公司要求我采纳但被告同样强烈要求我拒绝采纳的必然披露原则。

The doctrine of inevitable disclosure is based upon the notion that sometimes a departing employee may have such extensive knowledge of and experience with the former employer’s trade secrets that, given the employee’s new job function, it is inevitable that he will use or encroach upon the former employer’s trade secrets. The use of this doctrine negates any requirement to find an actual or threatened misappropriation.
不可避免披露原则是基于这样一种理念，即有时离职员工可能对前雇主的商业秘密具有广泛的知识和经验，鉴于该员工的新工作职能，他不可避免地会使用或侵犯前雇主的商业秘密。这一原则的使用否定了认定实际侵占或威胁侵占的任何要求。

No Utah appellate court has considered, and thus no Utah appellate court has either adopted or rejected the application of this doctrine. I treat the matter as a case of first impression.
犹他州的上诉法院没有考虑过，因此犹他州的上诉法院也没有采纳或拒绝适用这一原则。我将此案视为初审案件。

In 1989 Utah adopted the Utah Uniform Trade Secret Act. Section 13-24-3 of the Act provides that “actual or threatened misappropriations may be enjoined”. Further, Rule 65A of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure, which establishes the requirements for a preliminary injunction, also speaks of a “threatened injury.” In short, both the Act and Rule 65A allow injunctive relief whether a misappropriation actually occurs or only is threatened. The doctrine of inevitability is used to show that the probability of a threatened injury or misappropriation is so high that it becomes “inevitable.” It is not, therefore, a separate basis for action, but rather is used to establish the existence of a threat of misappropriation.
1989 年，犹他州通过了《犹他州统一商业秘密法》。该法第 13-24-3 条规定，"可以禁止实际的或威胁的盗用行为"。此外，《犹他州民事诉讼规则》第 65A 条规定了初步禁令的要求，也提到了 "受到威胁的损害"。简而言之，无论挪用是实际发生还是受到威胁，《法案》和第 65A 条规则都允许实施禁令救济。不可避免原则用于证明受到威胁的损害或挪用的可能性非常高，以至于成为"不可避免的"。因此，它并不是单独的诉讼依据，而是用来证明存在挪用威胁的。

Like many other states, Utah has adopted the Uniform Trade Secret Act. Many of the states which have done so also have applied the doctrine of inevitable disclosure in cases in which there is a question of whether there is a threatened misappropriation.
与其他许多州一样，犹他州也采用了《统一商业秘密法》。许多采用该法案的州还在涉及是否存在盗用威胁的案件中采用了必然披露原则。

In PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond, 54 F.3d 1262, 1269 [35 USPQ2d 1010 ] (7th Cir. 1995) the Seventh Circuit found that a former employee could be enjoined from working in a specific field of work if the “new employment will inevitably lead him to rely on the [former employer’s] trade secrets.” The Court found that the “threatened misappropriation” provision of the Uniform Trade Secret Act was bolstered by the use of the doctrine of inevitable disclosure.
在PepsiCo, Inc.诉Redmond案，54 F.3d 1262, 1269 [35 USPQ2d 1010 ]（第七巡回法院，1995年）中，第七巡回法院认为，如果 "新的工作将不可避免地导致前雇员依赖于[前雇主的]商业秘密"，则可以禁止前雇员从事特定领域的工作。法院认为，《统一商业秘密法》中的 "盗用威胁 "条款因不可避免的披露原则的使用而得到加强。

The federal district court of Minnesota, applying both California and Minnesota law, stated that if a former employee retained trade secret documents from a former employer, an inference of intent to use such information was found, evidencing a “high degree of probability of inevitable disclosure.”
明尼苏达州联邦地区法院同时适用加利福尼亚州和明尼苏达州的法律，指出如果前雇员保留了前雇主的商业秘密文件，就可以推断出使用这些信息的意图，证明 "不可避免的披露的可能性很高"。

In the recent case of DoubleClick Inc. v. Henderson, 11/12/97 NYLJ 26 (col.5), the court noted that:
在最近的 DoubleClick Inc. v. Henderson 案（11/12/97 NYLJ 26（col.5））中，法院指出：

Injunctive relief may issue where a former employer’s new job function will inevitable lead her to rely on trade secrets belonging to a former employer. In Lumex Inc. v. Highsmith (919 F. Supp. 624 [EDNY]) the court granted an injunction preventing a management representative from working with a competitor of plaintiff. The court held that the former employee would likely disclose plaintiff’s trade secrets “to aid his new
如果前雇主的新工作职能将不可避免地导致她依赖属于前雇主的商业秘密，则可以发布禁令救济。在Lumex Inc.诉Highsmith案（919 F. Supp. 624 [EDNY]）中，法院发布禁令，禁止一名管理代表与原告的竞争对手合作。法院认为，该前雇员可能会披露原告的商业秘密，"以帮助他的新雇主"。

135

employer and his own future. . . . [Defendant] was privy to the top secret Cybex product, business and financial information. He cannot eradicate these secrets from his mind.” (Id. at 631; PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond, 54 F.3d 1262, 1269 [ 35 USPQ2d 1010 ].) In the instant case it appears to the court that the defendants will inevitably use DoubleClick’s trade secrets. Like the executive in Lumex, the centrality of Henderson and Dickey in DoubleClick’s operations makes it unlikely that they could “eradicate [DoubleClick’s] secrets from [their] mind.” (Lumex, supra, 919 F. Supp. at 631.) Moreover, the actual use of DoubleClick’s trade secrets described above, and other actions discussed below, demonstrate defendants’ cavalier attitude toward their duties to their former employer. This gives rise to a reasonable inference that they would use DoubleClick’s confidential information against it.
雇主和他自己的未来。. . .[被告]知晓 Cybex 的绝密产品、业务和财务信息。他无法从脑海中抹去这些秘密"。(同上，第 631 页；PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond, 54 F.3d 1262, 1269 [ 35 USPQ2d 1010 ]）。在本案中，法院认为被告将不可避免地使用 DoubleClick 的商业秘密。与Lumex案中的高管一样，Henderson和Dickey在DoubleClick公司运营中的核心地位使他们不太可能 "将[DoubleClick公司的]秘密从[他们的]头脑中根除"。(Lumex，同上，919 F. Supp.，631)此外，上述对 DoubleClick 商业秘密的实际使用，以及下文讨论的其他行为，都表明被告对其前雇主的责任采取了轻率的态度。这使人们有理由推断，他们会利用 DoubleClick 的机密信息来对付 DoubleClick。

Though no Utah court has resolved whether the doctrine of inevitable disclosure should apply in Utah, this case is an excellent example of why it should.
尽管犹他州法院尚未解决不可避免的披露原则是否应在犹他州适用的问题，但本案是一个很好的例子，说明了为什么应该适用。

First, Merkey and Major were two of the principle inventors of Novell’s Wolf Mountain technologies. Prior to leaving Novell each acknowledged that the Wolf Mountain technologies were of great value to Novell and had the potential to represent a paradigm shift in computer communications technology.
首先，Merkey 和 Major 是 Novell 狼山技术的两位主要发明人。在离开 Novell 之前，他们都承认狼山技术对 Novell 具有重大价值，并有可能代表计算机通信技术的范式转变。

Through their long and intimate experience on the Wolf Mountain project Merkey and Major learned two important classes of information: what worked and what didn’t. While it is one thing for them to claim they will not use Novell’s trade secrets, it is inconceivable to believe that if they are designing a product similar to Wolf Mountain that they ever would start down any of the blind alleys that they already know won’t work. No one is going to spend money trying that which they already know will end in failure. At least as to negative knowledge, it is inevitable that Merkey and Major will not use any of the negative knowledge which they learned while at Novell and that negative knowledge gives them a considerable head start or competitive advantage as they develop competing products for the market. They should not be allowed this profit at the expense of their contractual and fiduciary obligations not to use knowledge gained while at Novell.
Merkey 和 Major 通过长期参与 Wolf Mountain 项目的亲身经历，了解到两类重要信息：哪些有效，哪些无效。虽然他们声称不会使用 Novell 的商业机密是一回事，但如果他们正在设计一个类似于 Wolf Mountain 的产品，他们就会开始走他们已经知道行不通的盲道，这是不可想象的。没有人会花钱去尝试他们已经知道会失败的东西。至少在负面知识方面，Merkey 和 Major 不可避免地不会使用他们在 Novell 学习到的任何负面知识，而这些负面知识使他们在为市场开发竞争产品时占据了相当大的先机或竞争优势。不应允许他们以不使用在 Novell 工作期间所学知识的合同义务和信托义务为代价来获取利润。

The pattern of conduct engaged in by Merkey and Major is telling as well.
Merkey 和 Major 的行为模式也很能说明问题。

Even before he left Novell Merkey pirated Novell’s technology and shipped a copy to Microsoft. Within days of his resignation but before his actual termination date, Merkey was telling Microsoft that he was nearly ready for Microsoft’s assimilation of the Tapestry (pirated) technology. With that kind of conduct overshadowing their every action, and where they have openly and regularly acknowledged that they were building upon the Tapestry architecture, it is inevitable that they will use or disclose the Novell technology. Frankly, they have essentially admitted to doing so.
甚至在离开 Novell 之前，Merkey 就已经盗版了 Novell 的技术，并向微软运送了一份拷贝。Merkey 辞职后没几天，但在他实际离职日期之前，他就告诉微软，他已经为微软吸收 Tapestry（盗版）技术做好了准备。他们的一举一动都笼罩着这种行为的阴影，而且他们公开并经常承认他们是在 Tapestry 架构的基础上进行开发的，因此他们使用或披露 Novell 技术是不可避免的。坦率地说，他们基本上已经承认这样做了。

Second, Doubleclick also provides a basis for the application of the doctrine because it so closely parallels the present case.
其次，Doubleclick 案也为适用该原则提供了依据，因为它与本案非常相似。

I have found that Merkey, Major, and Angus each retained trade secret documents or confidential technical information belonging to Novell after their termination of employment. Further, Merkey himself stated in a LanTimes article: “None of the intellectual property is documented. None of the patents have been filed. The only place the knowledge exists is inside [my head] and [Darren’s]. None of it has been written down.” Because Merkey and Major were the chief engineers of the Wolf Mountain project, their intimate acquaintance
我发现，Merkey、Major 和 Angus 在离职后都保留了属于 Novell 的商业机密文件或机密技术信息。此外，Merkey 本人也在《LanTimes》的一篇文章中表示"所有知识产权都没有文件证明。没有一项专利已经申请。这些知识只存在于 [我] 和 [达伦] 的头脑中。这些知识都没有被写下来。由于默基和梅杰是狼山项目的首席工程师，他们之间的亲密关系

136

with Novell trade secrets makes it highly probable that they will disclose or use Novell’s trade secrets. The fact that to a large extent the Wolf Mountain technology exists primarily in their heads further reinforces that they will inevitably use or disclose Novell’s trade secrets.
Novell 公司的商业秘密使他们极有可能披露或使用 Novell 公司的商业秘密。狼山公司的技术在很大程度上主要存在于他们的头脑中，这一事实进一步证实了他们将不可避免地使用或披露 Novell 的商业机密。

Another reason stated by the court in Doubleclick for adopting the doctrine of inevitable disclosure was the cavalier attitude of defendants Henderson and Dickey towards their former employer. The court stated that this attitude “gives rise to a reasonable inference that [Henderson and Dickey] would use DoubleClick’s confidential information against it.” This case presents a similar circumstance. At the least, Merkey’s attitude towards Novell can be characterized as “cavalier.” I have chosen the adjective “predatory” which the facts of this case amply support. Although counsel argued eloquently in closing arguments that Merkey was not cavalier, but rather was “crying out in pain,” the evidence establishes that Merkey intended to take from Novell its trade secret and confidential technical information and use it for himself. With such an intent, it is inevitable that he would use information gained through his employment with Novell for his own profit.
法院在 Doubleclick 案中提出采用必然披露原则的另一个原因是被告 Henderson 和 Dickey 对其前雇主的轻蔑态度。法院指出，这种态度 "使人合理推断 [Henderson 和 Dickey] 会利用 DoubleClick 的机密信息对其不利"。本案的情况与此类似。至少，Merkey 对 Novell 的态度可以用 "轻率 "来形容。我选择了 "掠夺性 "这一形容词，本案的事实也充分证明了这一点。尽管律师在结案陈词中雄辩地指出，Merkey 并非轻率，而是在 "痛苦地哭泣"，但证据表明，Merkey 打算从 Novell 公司窃取其商业秘密和机密技术信息，并将其据为己有。有了这样的意图，他就不可避免地会利用在 Novell 工作期间获得的信息为自己牟利。

If I invoke the doctrine I may treat the foregoing actions of defendants’ as creating an inference that they intended to use Novell’s confidential technical information — that their use of the information is inevitable. Such a conclusion is entirely appropriate in this case. In my mind there is no question that there is a high probability that defendants will use or disclose Novell’s trade secrets. I am fully satisfied that but for the interposition of this lawsuit, they already would have made good on their intent to capitalize on the technologies which they wrongfully took from Novell.
如果我援引该原则，我可以将被告的上述行为视为推断出他们有意使用 Novell 的机密技术信息--他们对该信息的使用是不可避免的。这样的结论在本案中是完全恰当的。在我看来，毫无疑问，被告使用或披露 Novell 商业机密的可能性很大。我完全相信，如果不是这场诉讼的介入，他们早就实现了利用他们从 Novell 公司非法获取的技术的意图。

An Injunction Is an Appropriate Remedy

Given the factual findings and my conclusion on the legal application of those facts, I am convinced that Novell has met the requirements for entry of a preliminary injunction in this matter, meaning an injunction which will control the parties as they proceed through the remaining phases of this lawsuit. What remains is to define the scope and breadth of the injunction.
鉴于事实调查结果和我对这些事实的法律适用的结论，我确信 Novell 已满足在此事件中发布初步禁令的要求，即在诉讼的剩余阶段对双方进行控制的禁令。剩下的工作就是确定禁令的范围和广度。

I have found that it is inevitable that defendants will traffic upon Novell’s trade secrets and confidential technical information unless they are restrained from being in the same business Novell is in. By this I mean, if defendants are involved in the development of clustering technologies; file management, directory, storage and routing systems; or cluster interconnect communications systems; they will inevitably use Novell’s intellectual property. That I will not allow.
我发现，除非限制被告从事与 Novell 相同的业务，否则他们将不可避免地侵犯 Novell 的商业秘密和机密技术信息。我的意思是，如果被告参与开发集群技术、文件管理、目录、存储和路由系统或集群互连通信系统，他们将不可避免地使用 Novell 的知识产权。这是我所不允许的。

Yet, by design defendants were not bound not to compete. As former employees they are free to go to work for any of Novell’s competitors or to found a competing business themselves. All they cannot do is benefit from their knowledge of Novell’s intellectual property. Further, they need to be able to support themselves and their families and their expertise is in computer software development. Keeping them from software development would be like prohibiting counsel from practicing law. What else are they to do?
然而，从设计上讲，被告并不受不参与竞争的约束。作为前雇员，他们可以自由地为 Novell 的任何竞争对手工作，或自己创办竞争性企业。他们所不能做的只是从他们对 Novell 知识产权的了解中获益。此外，他们需要养活自己和家人，而他们的专长是计算机软件开发。不让他们从事软件开发，就好比禁止律师从事法律工作一样。他们还能做什么呢？

The answer for the lawyer is that he or she could leave a law firm and still have opportunities for employment in governmental or corporate law offices. Similarly, there are computer software developers who are busy in the industry but are not deeply involved in clustering; in file management, directory, routing and storage systems; or in cluster
律师的答案是，他或她可以离开律师事务所，但仍有机会在政府或企业的律师事务所工作。同样，有些计算机软件开发人员虽然在业内工作繁忙，但并没有深入参与集群、文件管理、目录、路由和存储系统或集群等领域的工作。

137

interconnect communications systems. That is where these men will need to go. True Major convincingly explained that his knowledge base is in file management and storage systems. But the facts of this case are just too compelling. Defendants cannot be allowed to remain in the same field as Novell’s Wolf Mountain project without inevitably encroaching on the knowledge which they gained in a fiduciary capacity while at Novell.
互联通信系统。这就是这些人需要去的地方。真正的少校令人信服地解释说，他的知识基础是文件管理和存储系统。但本案的事实太令人信服了。我们不能允许被告继续从事与 Novell 的 Wolf Mountain 项目相同的工作，否则他们在 Novell 任职期间以受托人身份获得的知识将不可避免地受到侵蚀。

Finally, I am not prepared to make this injunction permanent. It must have an end. This is a fluid industry, with new developments coming at lighting speed. The delay of only several months to a year may consign a project to second or third class status. Thus, while an injunction is altogether appropriate, it should not last forever.
最后，我不准备将这项禁令永久化。它必须有一个终结。这是一个多变的行业，新的发展日新月异。仅仅几个月到一年的延误就可能使一个项目沦为二流或三流项目。因此，尽管禁令是完全适当的，但它不应永远持续下去。

When they first established TRG, defendants asserted that within nine months they would have a product on the market. A considerable time has passed since then as we have worked through the legal steps giving rise to this ruling and they keep pushing back the date upon which they will have a product ready, in large part because of the serious mental and resource drain which this litigation has created. They still are nearly as far away from shipping a product now as they claimed in May 1997. Given the fluidity of the industry and of Novell’s place in the market, a restraint of nine months from the entry of this ruling is appropriate.
在成立 TRG 之初，被告声称将在九个月内将产品投放市场。从那时起，随着我们通过法律步骤作出这一裁决，已经过去了相当长的时间，而他们却不断推迟产品上市的日期，这在很大程度上是因为这场诉讼造成了严重的精神和资源消耗。现在，他们离出货还差得很远，就像他们在 1997 年 5 月声称的那样。考虑到该行业的流动性和 Novell 在市场中的地位，从作出本裁决起限制 9 个月是适当的。

I therefore conclude that for nine more months defendants must be restrained from using any of Novell’s trade secrets or confidential technical information and from engaging in any software development in the areas of clustering; file management, directory, storage and routing systems; or clustering interconnect communications system. If during that time they seek employment with any new employer, they must advise that new employer of the restrictions contained in this ruling and injunction. But because the marketplace changes so rapidly, this preliminary injunction will expire nine months after the entry of this ruling and defendants will be free to reenter any of the areas as to which this restraint is issued. By then Novell will have had a year and a half of restraint upon defendants within which Novell can develop, perfect and capitalize upon its Wolf Mountain technologies. Given the degree of completion which was evident at Brainshare, when a 12-node cluster operated, that is an appropriate and ample time for it to bring its technologies to fruition.
因此，我的结论是，在接下来的九个月内，被告不得使用 Novell 的任何商业秘密或机密技术信息，不得从事集群、文件管理、目录、存储和路由系统或集群互连通信系统领域的任何软件开发。如果他们在此期间向任何新雇主求职，他们必须告知新雇主本裁决和禁令中包含的限制。但是，由于市场瞬息万变，本初步禁令将在本裁决生效九个月后失效，被告将可以自由地重新进入本限制令所涉及的任何领域。届时，Novell 将有一年半的时间来限制被告，以便 Novell 开发、完善和利用其 Wolf Mountain 技术。考虑到在 Brainshare 会议上 12 节点集群运行的完成程度，这是 Novell 实现其技术的适当而充裕的时间。

Pursuant to Rule 4-504, Utah Code of Judicial Administration, Novell’s counsel is directed to prepare an appropriate order.
根据《犹他州司法管理法典》第 4-504 条，指示 Novell 的律师准备一份适当的命令。

138

Proposed Protective Order4
拟议保护令4

Honorable Steven Gonzalez

in the Superior Court of the State of Washington

in and for the County of King

No. 05-2-23561-6 Sea

Microsoft Corp. v. Kai-Fu Lee and Google Inc.

Stipulation

it is hereby stipulated by and among Defendants Kai-Fu Lee and Google Inc. (the Defendant “Party” and collectively all are termed the “Parties”), of record, that this Court may enter the following “Stipulated Order” to safeguard confidential and attorneys’ eyes only information as disclosed in this litigation. This Order is necessary because this case concerns Microsoft’s alleged confidential, proprietary and trade secret information. Microsoft and Google may make requests for information that would call for each others’ confidential, proprietary and trade secret information, and this information could lose its value if disclosed to the public or improperly used outside of this litigation. It is also likely that the Parties’ confidential, proprietary and trade secret information will be submitted to the court to assist in ruling on various motions. This information could lose its value if disclosed to the public.
记录在案的被告李开复和谷歌公司（被告 "一方"，统称为 "双方"）特此约定，本法院可以发布以下 "约定命令"，以保护本诉讼中披露的机密信息和仅供律师参考的信息。由于本案涉及微软的所谓机密、专有和商业秘密信息，因此本命令是必要的。微软和谷歌可能会要求获得对方的机密、专有和商业秘密信息，而这些信息如果向公众披露或在诉讼之外被不当使用，可能会失去其价值。此外，双方的机密、专有和商业秘密信息很可能会提交给法院，以协助法院对各种动议做出裁决。如果向公众披露，这些信息可能会失去其价值。

Protective Order

it is hereby ordered that the following Protective Order be entered in this matter and that the Parties shall follow the procedures set forth below with respect to information, documents, or things produced in this litigation:
特此命令 在本案中签发以下保护令，双方应遵守以下有关在本次诉讼中出示的信息、文件或物品的程序：

To protect the confidentiality of proprietary and trade secret information contained in documents produced, and other information disclosed in this litigation, the Court orders as follows:
为保护所提交文件中包含的专有信息和商业机密信息以及在本诉讼中披露的其他信息的机密性，法院命令如下：

This Protective Order shall be applicable to and govern all depositions, documents, information or things produced in response to requests for production of documents, answers to interrogatories, responses to requests for admissions and all other discovery taken pursuant to the Washington Civil Rules, as well as testimony adduced at trial or other hearings, matters in evidence and other information which the disclosing party designates as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” hereafter furnished, directly or indirectly, by or on behalf of any party or any non-party witness in connection with this action. As used herein, “disclosing party” shall refer to the parties to this action and to third parties who give testimony or produce documents or other information.
本保护令适用于并管辖根据《华盛顿州民事规则》提出的文件出示请求、对质询的答复、对承认请求的答复以及所有其他披露请求而出示的所有证言、文件、信息或物品、以及在审判或其他听证会上援引的证词、证据事项和披露方指定为 "机密 "或 "仅供律师查看 "的其他信息，此后由任何一方或任何与本诉讼相关的非当事人证人或其代表直接或间接提供。本文中使用的 "披露方 "系指本诉讼的各方以及作证或提供文件或其他信息的第三方。

The following information may be designated as “CONFIDENTIAL”: any trade secret or other confidential research, design, development, financial, or commercial information (as defined by Washington State law) contained in any document, discovery response or testimony;
以下信息可能被指定为 "机密"：任何文件、披露回复或证词中包含的任何商业秘密或其他机密研究、设计、开发、财务或商业信息（根据华盛顿州法律定义）；

The following information may be designated as “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY”: any trade secret or other confidential research, design, development, or commercial information
以下信息可指定为 "仅供律师查看"： 任何商业秘密或其他机密研究、设计、开发或商业信息

139

contained in any document, discovery response, or deposition testimony as such terms are used in Rule 26(c)(7) of the Washington Rules of Civil Procedure and any applicable case law interpreting Rule 26(c)(7) that is entitled to a higher level of protection due to its commercial sensitivity.
《华盛顿民事诉讼规则》第 26(c)(7) 条和解释第 26(c)(7) 条的任何适用判例法中使用的术语所包含的、因其商业敏感性而有权获得更高程度保护的任何文件、披露回复或取证证词。

A disclosing party may also designate materials as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” if it contains information that the disclosing party, in good faith, believes is confidential or proprietary to a third-party. Material designated “CONFIDENTIAL” or “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” shall be used by the parties to this litigation solely for the purpose of conducting this litigation, and the litigation commenced in Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 105-CV-045586, and removed to the United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. CV 05-0309 5RMW (hereinafter referred to as the “California Litigation”), but not for any other purpose whatsoever.
如果材料中包含披露方真诚认为属于第三方机密或专有的信息，披露方也可将其指定为 "机密 "或 "仅供律师查看"。指定为 "机密 "或 "仅供律师查看 "的材料仅供本诉讼各方用于进行本诉讼以及在圣克拉拉县高级法院提起的诉讼（案件号：105-CV-045586）之目的，该诉讼已被移送至加利福尼亚州北区美国地区法院，案件号：CV 05-0309 5RMW（以下简称 "加州诉讼"），但不得用于任何其他目的。

Disclosing parties shall designate “CONFIDENTIAL” or “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” information as follows:
披露方应按以下方式指定 "机密 "或 "仅供律师查看 "的信息：

In the case of discovery responses and the information contained therein, designation shall be made by placing the following legend on every page of any such document prior to production: “CONFIDENTIAL” or “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” In the event that a party inadvertently fails to stamp or otherwise designate a document or other information as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” at the time of its production, that party shall have five (5) business days after such production to so stamp or otherwise designate the document or other information.
对于披露答复及其中包含的信息，在出示前应在任何此类文件的每一页上标注以下图例，以进行指定："机密 "或 "律师专用"。如果一方当事人在出示文件或其他信息时不慎未加盖印章或以其他方式指定其为 "机密 "或 "仅限律师查看"，则该方当事人应在出示文件或其他信息后的五 (5) 个工作日内加盖印章或以其他方式指定该文件或其他信息。

The parties agree to produce electronic or paper copies of responsive documents absent good cause shown to designate documents for inspection only. In the case of documents or other material to be produced for inspection, all original documents produced for inspection shall be treated as “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” for a period not to exceed five (5) business days after the receiving party inspecting the documents has indicated the documents it desires to be copied. After a receiving party inspecting the documents has indicated the documents it desires to be copied, and before such copies are provided to the requesting party, the producing party shall have a reasonable time, not to exceed the aforementioned five (5) business days, to review the copied documents and designate them as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” pursuant to the terms of this Order.
双方同意在没有正当理由的情况下，出示回应性文件的电子或纸质副本，指定文件仅供检查。对于为检查而提供的文件或其他材料，在检查文件的接收方指明其希望复制的文件后的不超过五 (5) 个工作日内，为检查而提供的所有原始文件应被视为 "仅供律师查看"。在检查文件的接收方指明其希望复制的文件之后，以及在向请求方提供这些副本之前，制作方应有合理的时间（不超过上述五（5）个工作日）审查复制的文件，并根据本命令的条款将其指定为 "机密 "或 "仅供律师查看"。

In the case of depositions, designation of the portion of the transcript (including exhibits) which contains CONFIDENTIAL or ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY information shall be made by a statement to such effect on the record in the course of the deposition or, upon review of such transcript, by counsel for the party to whose CONFIDENTIAL or ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY information the deponent has had access. If a party wishes to designate portions of a deposition transcript under this Order after a deposition, that party’s counsel shall make such designation within five (5) business days after counsel’s receipt of the transcript. Counsel shall list on a separate piece of paper the numbers of the pages of the transcript containing CONFIDENTIAL or ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY information, inserting the
在取证的情况下，对于记录誊本（包括证物）中包含机密信息或仅供律师查看的信息的部分，应在取证过程中通过记录上的声明进行指定，或在审查该记录誊本后，由取证人曾接触过其机密信息或仅供律师查看的信息的一方的律师进行指定。如果一方当事人希望在取证后根据本命令指定取证记录誊本的部分内容，该当事人的律师应在收到誊本后五（5）个工作日内进行指定。律师应在另一张纸上列出记录誊本中包含机密信息或律师专用信息的页码，并在其中插入

140

list at the end of the transcript, and mailing copies of the list to counsel for all parties so that it may be affixed to the face of the transcript and each copy thereof. Pending such designation by counsel, the entire deposition transcript, including exhibits, shall be deemed CONFIDENTIAL, unless counsel during the deposition states that the information is ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY, in which case it shall be deemed ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY. If no designation is made during the deposition or within five (5) business days after receipt of the transcript, the transcript shall be considered not to contain any CONFIDENTIAL or ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY information.
在 謄 本 末 端 列 出 清 單 ， 並 將 清 單 副 本 郵 寄 給 所 有 當 事 人 的 律 師 ， 以 便 將 清 單 貼 在 謄 本 正 面 及 每 份 謄 本 副 本 上 。在律师作出上述指定之前，包括证物在内的整个取证笔录应被视为机密，除非律师在取证过程中声明该信息仅供律师查看，在这种情况下，该信息应被视为仅供律师查看。如果在取证期间或在收到记录誊本后五（5）个工作日内未作任何指定，则记录誊本应被视为不包含任何机密信息或仅供律师查看的信息。

Transcripts of depositions will not be filed with the Court unless it is necessary to do so for purposes of preliminary injunction hearings, trial, motions for summary judgment, or other matters. If a deposition transcript is filed and if it contains CONFIDENTIAL or ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY information the transcript shall bear the appropriate legend on the caption page and shall be filed under seal.
除非出于初步禁令听证、审判、简易判决动议或其他事项的需要，否则不会向法院提交证言笔录。如果提交的证词笔录中包含机密信息或律师专用信息，则应在标题页上标注相应的图例，并密封提交。

Any CONFIDENTIAL or ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY information produced in a non-paper media (e.g., videotape, audiotape, computer disk, etc.) may be designated as such by labeling the outside of such non-paper media as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” In the event such non-paper media is transmitted via email the producing party may designate the information produced as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” by so identifying such media in the email. In the event a receiving party generates any “hard copy,” transcription, or printout from any such designated non-paper media, such party must stamp each page “CONFIDENTIAL” or “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” and the hard copy, transcription or printout shall be treated as it is designated.
以非纸质媒体（如录像带、录音带、计算机磁盘等）形式制作的任何机密信息或仅供律师查看的信息，均可在此类非纸质媒体外部标明 "机密 "或 "仅供律师查看"。如果此类非纸质介质通过电子邮件传送，制作方可在电子邮件中将所制作的信息标明为 "机密 "或 "仅供律师查看"。如果接收方从任何此类指定的非纸质媒体生成任何 "硬拷贝"、转录或打印输出，则接收方必须在每页上加盖 "机密 "或 "仅供律师查看 "的印章，并且硬拷贝、转录或打印输出应按指定的方式处理。

If any information designated CONFIDENTIAL or ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY is filed or submitted to the Court, it shall be produced in sealed envelopes or containers indicating the following:
如果将任何指定为机密或仅供律师查看的信息归档或提交给法院，则应将其装在密封的信封或容器中，并注明以下内容：

the case caption;

the nature of the contents therein; or

the words “CONFIDENTIAL [or ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY] — NOT TO BE OPENED EXCEPT BY ORDER OF THE COURT.”
"机密[或仅供律师查看]--除非法庭命令，否则不得打开 "字样。

All CONFIDENTIAL information shall be used solely for the purposes of this litigation between the parties hereto, and the California Litigation, including discovery, motions, trial and hearing preparation and during trial or hearings and not for any other purpose.
所有机密信息只能用于本协议双方之间的诉讼和加州诉讼，包括证据开示、动议、庭审和听证准备以及庭审或听证期间，不得用于任何其他目的。

Disclosure of all CONFIDENTIAL information shall be limited to:
所有机密信息的披露应仅限于以下方面

The outside attorneys working on this action, and the California Litigation, on behalf of any party, and any paralegal assistants, stenographic and clerical employees working under the direct supervision of such counsel;
代表任何一方参与本诉讼和加州诉讼的外聘律师，以及在这些律师直接监督下工作的任何律师助理、速记员和文员；

Two in-house counsel and one in-house paralegal for both sides directly working on the litigation, as follows: For Microsoft, (1) _______; (2) _______ and (3) _______; for Google, (1) _______, (2) _______, and (3) reserved to be designated, provided they execute and deliver to the other side in advance of any review of documents subject to this Order a declaration in the form attached as Exhibit B, and sign the undertaking attached as Exhibit A;
双方直接参与诉讼的两名内部律师和一名内部律师助理，具体如下：微软方面：(1) _______；(2) _______；(3) _______；谷歌方面：(1) _______；(2) _______；(3) 保留指定，但他们必须在审查受本命令约束的文件之前，签署并向对方递交一份声明（格式见附录 B），并签署一份承诺书（格式见附录 A）；

141

Officers of the Court and supporting personnel or officers of any appellate court to which an appeal may be taken in this litigation or the California Litigation or in which review is sought, including necessary stenographic and clerical personnel (e.g. court reporters);
法院官员以及在本诉讼或加利福尼亚州诉讼中可能向其提出上诉或寻求复审的任何上诉法院的辅助人员或官员，包括必要的速记员和书记员（如法庭记录员）；

Other qualified reporters taking and videographers recording testimony involving such information and necessary stenographic and clerical personnel thereof;
其他合格的记录员和摄像师，记录涉及此类信息的证词，以及必要的速记员和文书人员；

Any person of whom testimony is taken regarding the CONFIDENTIAL information, except that such person may only be shown copies of CONFIDENTIAL information during his/her testimony, and may not retain a copy of such CONFIDENTIAL information;
就机密信息作证的任何人，但此人只能在作证时出示机密信息的副本，且不得保留此类机密信息的副本；

Any person who is expressly retained or sought to be retained by any outside attorney described in paragraph 8(a) to assist in preparation of this action for trial, who is not employed by, affiliated with (whether as a consultant or otherwise), controlled by, agents of, or materially interested in any party or any competitor of any party, with disclosure only to the extent necessary to perform such work;

The individual defendant, and the employees of Microsoft and Google who are required to work directly on this litigation, and the California Litigation, with disclosures only to the extent necessary to perform such work.
被告个人，以及需要直接参与本诉讼和加州诉讼的微软和谷歌员工，披露范围仅限于执行此类工作所需的信息。

Information designated as “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” shall be used solely for the purposes of this litigation between the parties hereto, and the California Litigation. “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” information shall not be disclosed, except by the prior written consent of the disclosing party or third party, or pursuant to an order of this Court, to any person other than the following:
指定为 "仅供律师查看 "的信息仅用于本协议双方之间的诉讼和加州诉讼。除非事先得到披露方或第三方的书面同意，或根据本法院的命令，否则不得向以下人员以外的任何人披露 "仅限律师查看 "的信息：

The outside attorneys working on this action on behalf of any party, and the California Litigation, and any paralegal assistants, stenographic and clerical employees working under the direct supervision of such counsel;
代表任何一方参与本诉讼的外聘律师、加州诉讼律师以及在上述律师直接监督下工作的任何律师助理、速记员和文员；

Two in-house counsel and one in-house paralegal for both sides directly working on the litigation, as follows: For Microsoft, (1) _______, (2) _______, and (3) _______; for Google, (1) _________, (2) _______, and (3) reserved to be designated, provided they execute and deliver to the other side in advance of any review of documents subject to this Order an affidavit in the form attached as Exhibit B, and sign the undertaking attached as Exhibit A;
双方直接参与诉讼的两名内部律师和一名内部律师助理，具体如下：微软方面：(1) _______，(2) _______，(3) _______；谷歌方面：(1) _________，(2) _______，(3) 保留指定，但他们必须在审查受本命令约束的文件之前，按照附件 B 中的格式向对方签署并递交宣誓书，并签署附件 A 中的承诺书；

Officers of the Court and supporting personnel or officers of any appellate court to which any appeal may be taken in this litigation or the California Litigation or in which review is sought, including necessary stenographic and clerical personnel (e.g. court reporters);
法院官员以及在本诉讼或加利福尼亚州诉讼中可能向其提起上诉或寻求复审的任何上诉法院的辅助人员或官员，包括必要的速记员和书记员（如法庭记录员）；

Other qualified reporters taking and videographers recording testimony involving such information and necessary stenographic and clerical personnel thereof;
其他合格的记录员和摄像师，记录涉及此类信息的证词，以及必要的速记员和文书人员；

Any person who is an author or recipient of “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” material or an employee of the party producing such materials may be shown copies of such material during his or her testimony, but may not retain a copy of such information following the deposition;
作为 "仅限律师查看 "材料的作者或接收者的任何人，或提供此类材料的一方的雇员，可在作证时被出示此类材料的副本，但在取证后不得保留此类信息的副本；

142

Any person who is expressly retained or sought to be retained by any outside attorney described in paragraph 9(a) to assist in preparation of this action for trial, who is not employed by, affiliated with (whether as a consultant or otherwise), controlled by, agents of, or materially interested in any party or any competitor of any party, with disclosure only to the extent necessary to perform such work;
第 9(a) 段所述的任何外部律师明确聘用或寻求聘用的任何人，以协助准备本诉讼的审判，但该人不得受雇于任何一方或任何一方的竞争者，也不得与任何一方或任何一方的竞争者有关联（无论是作为顾问还是其他身份）、控制、代理或实质性利益关系，且仅在执行此类工作所必需的范围内披露信息；

The individual defendant, with disclosures only to the extent necessary to aid in the defense.
被告个人，仅在有助于辩护的必要范围内披露信息。

Nothing herein shall restrict the use of CONFIDENTIAL or ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY information of the disclosing party by the disclosing party.
本协议的任何条款均不限制披露方使用披露方的机密信息或仅供律师查看的信息。

Prior to disclosure of any CONFIDENTIAL information to any persons in paragraphs 8(d), 8(e), 8(f) and 8(g), and prior to disclosure of any ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY information to any persons in paragraphs 9(d) and 9(f) the procedure set forth in paragraph 12 shall be followed.
在向第 8(d)、8(e)、8(f) 和 8(g) 款所述人员披露任何机密信息之前，以及在向第 9(d) 和 9(f) 款所述人员披露任何仅供律师查看的信息之前，应遵循第 12 款规定的程序。

Prior to the disclosure of CONFIDENTIAL or ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY information to persons in paragraphs 8(d), 8(e), 8(f), 8(g), 9(d) or 9(f), the outside counsel in this litigation or the California Litigation for the party making the disclosure shall advise each person that the information is CONFIDENTIAL or ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY, can only be discussed with persons authorized by this Protective Order to view the material and can only be used for purposes of this litigation, and the California Litigation. Counsel shall retain, but need not disclose, a copy of a signed undertaking of each person to whom disclosure is made under paragraphs 8(d), 8(e), 8(f), and 8(g). Counsel shall retain and disclose to the other party a copy of a signed undertaking of each person to whom disclosure is made under paragraphs 9(d) and 9(f). The written undertaking, which shall be in the form as illustrated in Exhibit A hereto, shall acknowledge that he or she has read and understands this Protective Order, agrees to comply with this Protective Order, agrees that the CONFIDENTIAL or ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY information will be used only to assist in this litigation or in the California Litigation, and agrees not to disclose or discuss CONFIDENTIAL or ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY information with any person other than those authorized by this Order to view the material and to use it only for the purposes of this litigation, and the California Litigation.
在向第 8(d)、8(e)、8(f)、8(g)、9(d) 或 9(f) 款所述人员披露机密信息或仅供律师查看的信息之前，披露方的本诉讼或加州诉讼外聘律师应告知每个人该信息为机密信息或仅供律师查看、只能与本保护令授权查看材料的人员讨论，并且只能用于本诉讼和加州诉讼的目的。律师应保留但无需披露根据第 8(d)、8(e)、8(f) 和 8(g) 款向其披露的每个人的签名承诺副本。律师应保留并向另一方披露根据第 9(d)和 9(f)款向其披露的每个人的签名承诺副本。该书面承诺书应采用本协议附录 A 所示的格式，并应确认其已阅读并理解本保护令，同意遵守本保护令，同意机密信息或律师专用信息仅用于协助本诉讼或加州诉讼，并同意不披露或公开该信息、并同意不向除本命令授权查看材料的人员以外的任何人披露或讨论机密信息或律师眼中的唯一信息，并仅将其用于本诉讼和加州诉讼的目的。

A party shall not be obligated to challenge the propriety of a CONFIDENTIAL or ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY designation at the time made, and failure to do so shall not preclude a subsequent challenge thereto. In the event that any party to this litigation disagrees at any stage of these proceedings with such designation, such party shall provide to the producing party written notice of its disagreement with the designation. The parties shall first try to dispose of such dispute in good faith on an informal basis. If the dispute cannot be resolved, the party challenging the designation may request appropriate relief from the Court, but in any event, such relief from the Court shall not be requested before five (5) business days after the producing party is served with said written notice.
一方当事人没有义务在作出保密或律师专用指定时对其适当性提出质疑，如果没有这样做，也不排除以后对其提出质疑的可能性。如果本诉讼的任何一方在诉讼的任何阶段不同意这种指定，该方应向提供方发出书面通知，说明其不同意这种指定。双方应首先尝试以非正式的方式真诚地解决此类争议。如果争议无法解决，对指定提出异议的一方可请求法院给予适当救济，但无论如何，不得在向出示方送达上述书面通知后五（5）个工作日之前请求法院给予救济。

Failure of counsel to designate or mark any document, thing, or testimony as CONFIDENTIAL or ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY information as provided above shall not
律师未按上述规定将任何文件、物品或证词指定或标记为机密信息或律师专用信息的，不得

143

preclude the disclosing party from thereafter in good faith making such designation and requesting the receiving party to so mark and treat such documents and things so designated even after the expiration of the “five (5) business days” designation period described in paragraph 5(a). The receiving party, however, shall incur no liability for disclosures made prior to notice of such designations.
即使在第 5(a)款所述的 "五（5）个工作日 "指定期结束后，披露方仍可善意地作出此 类指定，并要求接收方如此标记和处理如此指定的文件和物品。但是，接收方对在通知此类指定之前所做的披露不承担任何责任。

If CONFIDENTIAL or ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY information is disclosed to any person other than in the manner authorized by this Protective Order, the person responsible for the disclosure shall immediately bring all pertinent facts relating to such disclosure to the attention of counsel for all parties, without prejudice to other rights and remedies of any party, and shall make every effort to prevent further disclosure by it or by the person who was the recipient of such information.
如果机密信息或 "仅限律师查看 "的信息以本保护令授权的方式以外的方式披露给任何人，披露信息的责任人应立即提请所有当事方的律师注意与此类披露有关的所有相关事实，但不得损害任何一方的其他权利和补救措施，并应尽一切努力防止其或接收此类信息的人进一步披露信息。

The Clerk of the Court is directed to maintain under seal all documents and all transcripts of deposition testimony filed with this Court in this litigation by any party which are, in whole or in part, designated as CONFIDENTIAL or ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY, including all pleadings, deposition transcripts, exhibits, discovery responses or memoranda purporting to reproduce or paraphrase such information. The person filing such material shall designate to the Clerk that all or a designated portion thereof is subject to this Protective Order and is to be kept under seal, except that upon the failure of the filing party to so designate, any party may do so.
法院书记官奉命对任何一方在本诉讼中提交给法院的全部或部分被指定为机密或仅供律师查阅的所有文件和所有证言笔录进行密封保存，包括所有书状、证言笔录、证物、证据披露答复或旨在复制或转述此类信息的备忘录。提交此类材料的人应向书记官指定其全部或指定部分材料受本保护令约束，并应密封保存，除非提交方未能指定，否则任何一方均可指定。

In the event that any CONFIDENTIAL or ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY information is used in any court proceeding in connection with this litigation, it shall not lose its CONFIDENTIAL or ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY status through such use, and the parties shall take all steps reasonably required to protect its confidentiality during such use.
如果任何机密信息或 "仅限律师查看 "的信息被用于与本诉讼相关的任何法庭程序中，该信息不会因此类使用而失去其机密性或 "仅限律师查看 "的地位，并且双方应采取一切合理措施，在此类使用期间保护其机密性。

The inadvertent production in the course of discovery in this action of any document or information (whether designated as confidential or not) shall not be deemed to waive whatever attorney-client privilege, work product protection or other privilege or immunity that would otherwise attach to the document or information produced or to other documents or information, as long as the producing party or person, promptly after discovery, notifies the other party or parties of the claim of privilege or other protection or immunity. Upon such notice, the other party or parties shall promptly destroy all copies of the documents or information referred to and notify the producing party that it has done so. Such destruction and notice shall not constitute an acknowledgment that the claimed document or information is in fact privileged or entitled to protection or immunity.
在本诉讼的证据披露过程中无意中出示的任何文件或信息（无论是否被指定为机密文件或信息），不应被视为放弃所出示文件或信息或其他文件或信息本应享有的任何律师-当事人特权、工作成果保护或其他特权或豁免，只要出示文件或信息的一方或个人在证据披露后立即将特权或其他保护或豁免的主张通知另一方或多方。一经通知，另一方或多方当事人应立即销毁所提及文件或信息的所有副本，并通知出示方已销毁。此类销毁和通知并不构成承认所声称的文件或信息确实享有特权或有权获得保护或豁免。

Within 60 days after the later of the final termination of this litigation and the final termination of the California Litigation, counsel for each Party shall return to the originating source, or certify in writing the destruction of, all CONFIDENTIAL and ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY information and all copies thereof and work product created therefrom; provided, however, counsel of record for each party may petition the Court to retain one copy of each document, for good cause shown.
在本诉讼最终终止和加州诉讼最终终止（以较晚者为准）后 60 天内，每一方的律师应将所有机密信息和仅供律师查看的信息及其所有副本以及由此产生的工作成果归还给原始来源，或书面证明已销毁；但是，每一方的记录律师如有正当理由，可请求法院保留每份文件的一份副本。

Nothing herein shall prevent any party from moving the court for modification of this Protective Order for good cause. No party shall cite this Order, or any provision thereof, as evidence, or in support of any argument, regarding the merits of this litigation, or for any purpose other than seeking to enforce the terms of this Order.
本协议的任何条款均不妨碍任何一方出于正当理由向法庭申请修改本保护令。任何一方均不得将本命令或其中的任何规定作为证据，或支持有关本诉讼案情的任何论点，或用于寻求执行本命令条款以外的任何目的。

144

Except as specifically provided herein, the terms, conditions, and limitations of this Protective Order shall survive the termination of this action.
除在此特别规定外，本保护令的条款、条件和限制在本诉讼终止后继续有效。

Nothing herein shall be deemed to constitute a waiver of any objection a producing party may have to any request for production of documents or other requested discovery. Nothing herein shall prevent any party from objecting to production of documents or objecting to other discovery requests on any available grounds, or from seeking alternative protective orders from the Court.
本协议的任何规定均不得视为提交文件的一方放弃对提交文件的请求或其他要求披露的信息所提出的异议。本协议的任何规定均不妨碍任何一方以任何可用的理由反对出示文件或反对其他披露请求，或向法院寻求其他保护令。

it is so stipulated this ______ day of August, 2005.
兹协议如下 2005 年 8 月 ______ 日。

[Signatures for parties’ attorneys]

preston gates & ellis llp

By: _____________

Attorneys for Plaintiff Microsoft Corporation

dorsey & whitney llp

By: _____________

Attorneys for Defendants Kai-Fu Lee and Google, Inc.
被告李开复和谷歌公司的代理律师

IT IS SO ORDERED this ______ day of August, 2005.

[Signature for Judge Gonzalez]

honorable steven gonzalez

Paragraph 23 to Stipulated Protective Order:

The court has approved the above Stipulated Protective Order among Microsoft Corporation, Dr. Kai-Fu Lee and Google, Inc. on the following conditions:
法院已批准微软公司、李开复博士和谷歌公司之间的上述协议保护令，条件如下：

Each time restrictions on access to hearings or records from hearings are sought, the court must follow these steps: First, the proponent of closure and/or sealing must make a sufficient showing of the need therefor; second, the intervenors and anyone present when a sealing or closure motion is made must be given an opportunity to object; third, the court, proponents and objectors should carefully analyze whether the requested method for curtailing access would be both the least restrictive means available and effective in protecting the interests threatened; fourth, the court must weigh competing interests of parties and the public and consider the alternative or less restrictive methods; and fifth, the order must be no broader in its application or duration than necessary to serve its purpose. Seattle Times Co. v. Ishikawa, 97 Wash. 2d 30, 640 P.2d 716 (Wash. 1982); Dreiling v. Jain, 151 Wash. 2d 900 (2004).
每次要求限制听证或听证记录的获取时，法院必须遵循以下步骤：首先，提议关闭和/或封存的人必须充分证明其必要性；其次，在提出封存或关闭动议时，必须给予参与人和任何在场的人反对的机会；第三，法院、提议人和反对者应仔细分析所请求的限制访问的方法是否既是限制性最小的可用手段，又能有效保护受到威胁的利益；第四，法院必须权衡当事人和公众之间的利益冲突，并考虑替代或限制性较小的方法；第五，命令的适用范围或期限不得超出实现其目的所必需的范围。西雅图时报公司诉 Ishikawa，97 Wash. 2d 30，640 P.2d 716（华盛顿州，1982 年）；Dreiling 诉 Jain，151 Wash. 2d 900（华盛顿州，2004 年）。

Therefore, while the parties are free to designate any document, deposition, or other thing not filed with the courts as “sealed” or “confidential” or “protected” or “attorneys’ eyes only” and limit its dissemination and use, each thing filed with the court must be subject to the above analysis and treatment and a court order reflecting the same and authorizing sealing must be obtained no later than the hearing in connection with which it is filed. This may be done by motion noted without oral argument and may be based on a report and recommendation from the discovery master, as previously ordered. The burden is on the party proposing that the document be sealed to provide the needed information so that the court can determine whether all, a portion or none of the documents may be filed under seal.
因此，虽然当事人可以自由地将任何文件、证词或其他未向法院提交的材料指定为 "密封 "或 "保密 "或 "受保护 "或 "仅供律师查阅"，并限制其传播和使用，但向法院提交的每份材料都必须经过上述分析和处理，并且必须在与提交材料有关的听证会之前获得反映上述情况并授权密封的法院命令。这可以通过不经口头辩论而提出的动议来完成，也可以基于先前命令的发现大师的报告和建议来完成。提议对文件进行密封的一方有责任提供所需的信息，以便法院确定是否可以对全部、部分或全部文件进行密封。

Judge Steven González

145

Exhibit A

Undertaking

I acknowledge that I, ______ (Name), of ______ (Place and Position of Employment), am about to receive confidential information supplied by ______ (Party). I certify that I understand that such confidential information will be provided to me pursuant to the terms and restrictions of the PROTECTIVE ORDER of ______ , 2005, in Microsoft Corporation v. Kai-Fu Lee and Google Inc., Civil Action No. 05-2-23561-6 SEA in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of King. I further represent that I have been given a copy of and have read that PROTECTIVE ORDER, and that I agree to be bound by all of its applicable terms. I also understand that documents and/or information having any CONFIDENTIAL or ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY designation, and all copies, summaries, notes and other records that may be made regarding such documents and/or information, shall be disclosed to no one other than persons qualified under the PROTECTIVE ORDER to have access to such information.
我承认，我，______（姓名），来自 ______（工作地点和职位），即将收到 ______（当事人）提供的机密信息。我证明，我了解这些机密信息将根据 2005 年在 Microsoft Corporation 诉 Kai-Fu Lee 和 Google Inc.（华盛顿州国王郡高等法院民事诉讼案，民事诉讼案号：05-2-23561-6 SEA）______"保护令 "的条款和限制提供给我。我还声明，我已收到并阅读了该保护令的副本，并同意接受其所有适用条款的约束。我还理解，具有机密或律师专用标识的文件和/或信息，以及可能就此类文件和/或信息制作的所有副本、摘要、笔记和其他记录，除根据保护令有资格获取此类信息的人员外，不得向任何人披露。

I understand and acknowledge that violation of this Undertaking or the PROTECTIVE ORDER may be punishable by Contempt of Court.
本人理解并承认，违反本承诺书或保护令可能会受到藐视法庭的处罚。

DATED this ______ day of ______ , 2005.

By: ______

Exhibit B

Declaration of Inside Counsel/Paralegal I, ______ , state and declare as follows:
内部法律顾问/律师助理声明 本人（______）声明如下：

I am employed as an attorney (or paralegal) at <insert party name/> and my title is <insert party name/>. My general job responsibilities are <insert party name/>.
我受雇于，担任律师（或律师助理），我的头衔是。我的一般工作职责是。

I am not involved in competitive business decision making or patent prosecution with regard to the subject areas at issue in this case. More specifically, I do not participate in prosecuting patents or advise <insert party name/> on competitive business decisions about the following: search technologies, business plans to market and monetize search products, natural language processing, speech research, machine learning concepts, strategies for the China market, or strategies to compete with <insert party name/>.
我没有参与本案所涉主题领域的竞争性商业决策或专利申请。更具体地说，我不参与专利申请，也不就以下方面的竞争性商业决策向提供建议：搜索技术、搜索产品营销和盈利的商业计划、自然语言处理、语音研究、机器学习概念、中国市场战略或与竞争的战略。

I further agree not to assume any responsibility for competitive business decision making or patent prosecution with regard to the subject areas at issue in this case (described in paragraph 2 above) for at least twelve months following the earlier of: (a) the conclusion of this case and the California Litigation (whichever is later), or (b) my leaving <insert party name/>‘s employment.
我还同意，在以下两个日期（以较早者为准）之后的至少十二个月内，不承担与本案（上文第 2 段所述）争议主题领域有关的竞争性商业决策或专利申请方面的任何责任：(a) 本案和加州诉讼结束（以较晚者为准），或 (b) 我离开 的工作。

I have reviewed the Stipulated Protective Order. I understand the obligations the Protective Order imposes on anyone who is given access to Confidential or Attorneys’ Eyes Only information and I will fulfill those obligations.
我已阅读协议保护令。我了解保护令对获准接触机密信息或仅供律师查看的信息的任何人规定的义务，我将履行这些义务。

If I leave <insert party name/>‘s employ, I agree to destroy or return to outside counsel for <insert party name/> all confidential information obtained by virtue of my access to materials as in-house counsel (or paralegal) for <insert party name/> under the protective order in this case.
如果我离开的工作，我同意销毁或归还的外部律师根据本案保护令作为内部律师（或律师助理）接触材料而获得的所有机密信息。

146

I hereby declare, under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Washington, that
我在此声明，根据华盛顿州法律，在作伪证的情况下，我声明

the foregoing is true and correct.

executed at ______ [city], ______ [state].
在 ______ [city], ______ [state]. 执行 。

dated: ______
日期： ______

[Signature]

* * *

Questions

1.

General Discussion Questions

1.1

Are covenants not to compete good or bad for innovation? What do you make of the fact that two software hotbeds, California and Washington, take different policy approaches? 5
不竞争契约对创新是好是坏？您如何看待加利福尼亚州和华盛顿州这两个软件温床采取不同的政策方针？5

1.2

In this age of the Internet and global business, what is a reasonable geographic scope and period of time for a covenant not to compete?
在这个互联网和全球商务时代，不竞争协议的合理地域范围和期限是什么？

1.3

How would you evaluate the pros and cons of the inevitable disclosure doctrine?
您如何评价必然披露原则的利弊？

2.

Litigation Questions

2.1

The court in Edwards mentions a possible trade secret exception to California’s prohibition on non-competition agreements — if you were representing an employer in a departing employee case in California, what arguments would you make to justify such an exception?
Edwards 案中的法院提到了加州禁止竞业禁止协议中可能存在的商业秘密例外情况--如果你在加州的离职员工案件中代表雇主，你会提出哪些论据来证明这种例外情况的合理性？

2.2

In a case between an employer in Washington state and a departing employee who now works in California, what litigation procedural moves would you make to attempt to enforce a covenant not to compete? If you were representing the employee, what procedural moves would you make to avoid enforcement of a covenant not to compete?
在华盛顿州的一名雇主与一名目前在加利福尼亚州工作的离职雇员之间的案件中，你会采取哪些诉讼程序措施来试图强制执行不竞争契约？如果你是该雇员的代理律师，你会采取哪些程序措施来避免执行不竞争协议？

2.3

If you were litigation counsel representing Google, what objections would you raise to the Proposed Protective Order in the Microsoft v. Kai-Fu Lee case?
如果您是代表谷歌的诉讼律师，您会对微软诉李开复案中的拟议保护令提出哪些 反对意见？

2.4

If you were litigating a case in a state that had not considered the inevitable disclosure doctrine, what arguments would you make favoring it? Opposing it? Use facts from Novell v. Timpanogos to support your arguments.
如果你在一个尚未考虑必然披露原则的州进行诉讼，你会提出哪些支持该原则的论据？反对？用 Novell 诉 Timpanogos 案中的事实来支持你的论点。

3.

Business Law Questions

3.1

In drafting a non-compete provision, what factors go into deciding its duration, geographic reach, and scope?
在起草竞业禁止条款时，决定其期限、地域范围和范围的因素有哪些？

3.2

What are the business pros and cons of asking employees to sign a non-compete agreement?
要求员工签署竞业禁止协议对企业有何利弊？

147

3.3

If you were the lawyer for a software programmer who was asked to sign a non-compete agreement, what advice would you provide?6
如果您是一位软件程序员的律师，他要求您签署一份非竞争协议，您会提供哪些建议？

Exercises

Mellow and Best

Email received from Mellow:

Hi: — I’m Raffy Sanchez. I started Mellow Software a few years ago with some friends. Anyway, here’s the deal: I just got an email from Peng Petrova, who’s our lead programmer for our EcoSim game. She’s saying that a big company called Best Business Machines made her a rock-crushing offer and that she’s actually considering it. I’m bummed because I never thought any of our team would go to the dark side. Plus, she signed a 10-year covenant not to compete.
Hi: - 我是 Raffy Sanchez。几年前，我和几个朋友创办了 Mellow Software。总之，事情是这样的：我刚刚收到 Peng Petrova 的一封电子邮件，她是我们 EcoSim 游戏的首席程序员。她说有一家叫 Best Business Machines 的大公司给了她一份令人难以置信的工作，她正在考虑。我很沮丧，因为我从没想过我们团队中会有人投靠黑暗势力。另外，她还签署了一份 10 年不参赛的协议。

What should I do? Thanks, hope to hear from you later today.
我该怎么办？谢谢，希望今天晚些时候能收到您的回复。

— Raffy

Email received from Best:

Dear Sir or Madam: Our company is Best Business Machines from Boston. We are represented by a large Boston law firm; however, the firm does not have a Seattle office and thus, we are seeking to engage local counsel. As you may be aware, we are a highly ethical company that strives to abide by the spirit and letter of the law. At the same time we must tell you, confidentially, that we have an urgent business need to enter the computer games business in short order. Please send us your standard retainer agreement and fee schedule.
尊敬的先生或女士：我们公司是波士顿的 Best Business Machines 公司。我们由波士顿一家大型律师事务所代理；但是，该律师事务所在西雅图没有办事处，因此，我们正在寻求聘请当地律师。如您所知，我们是一家极富职业道德的公司，努力遵守法律的精神和条文。同时，我们必须秘密地告诉您，我们有一个迫切的业务需求，即在短期内进入电脑游戏行业。请将您的标准聘用协议和收费表发给我们。

Cordially,

Alice H. O’Grady III

President, Best Business Machines

The Exercise. Assume that Washington law applies: Advise Raffy on the best strategy for Mello. Advise Best on the best strategy for Best. Assume, just to make things interesting, that California law applies. How would you advise Mello and Best, respectively?
练习。 假定华盛顿州法律适用：建议 Raffy 为 Mello 制定最佳策略。为贝斯特提供最佳策略建议。为了增加趣味性，假设适用加利福尼亚州法律。您将分别如何建议梅洛和贝斯特？

148

AirWare and JetDesign

The Facts. Divya Ram moved from India to the state of Washington to take a job at AirWare as vice president of marketing. AirWare is a small Kirkland, Washington-based company that specializes in creating computer aided design (CAD) tools for the airline industry. Although AirWare managed to land Boeing’s commercial airplane division as a customer, it hopes to license its tools to airplane companies who build military aircraft. AirWare plans to publicly release a new product in the near term, specifically designed for and marketed to the military aircraft market.
事实迪维亚-拉姆从印度来到华盛顿州，在 AirWare 担任营销副总裁。AirWare 是一家总部位于华盛顿州柯克兰的小型公司，专门为航空业开发计算机辅助设计 (CAD) 工具。虽然 AirWare 成功地将波音公司的商用飞机部门作为其客户，但它希望将其工具授权给制造军用飞机的飞机公司。AirWare 计划在近期公开发布一款新产品，专门为军用飞机市场设计和销售。

AirWare’s chief competitor in the airline CAD tools market is San Diego, California-based JetDesign. JetDesign markets its CAD product primarily to the military jet market. JetDesign contacted Ram, offering her the position of Senior Vice President for marketing. She wants to take the position but is concerned about the employment contract that she signed when she joined AirWare. Ram’s employment contract contains the following clauses:
AirWare 在航空 CAD 工具市场上的主要竞争对手是总部位于加利福尼亚州圣迭戈的 JetDesign。JetDesign 的 CAD 产品主要面向军用喷气机市场。JetDesign 联系了拉姆，向她提供了市场营销高级副总裁的职位。她想接受这个职位，但对加入 AirWare 时签订的雇佣合同感到担忧。拉姆的雇佣合同包含以下条款：

“Non-disclosure. During and after your employment at AirWare, you shall not disclose any trade secret, proprietary, or confidential information of AirWare.”
"Non-disclosure. 在您受雇于 AirWare 期间和之后，您不得披露 AirWare 的任何商业秘密、专有信息或机密信息。

“Non-compete. For a period of ten (10) years following termination of your employment at AirWare you shall not work for a competitor of AirWare in any location in the world.”
"Non-compete. 在您与 AirWare 解除雇佣关系后的十 (10) 年内，您不得在世界任何地方为 AirWare 的竞争对手工作。

“Choice of Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the state of Washington.”
"Choice of Law. 本协议受华盛顿州法律管辖。

The Exercise. The class will be divided into five groups, each group representing a different point of view in this Exercise. The groups are (1) counsel for Ram; (2) counsel for AirWare; (3) counsel for JetDesign; (4) California state trial court judge; (5) Washington state trial court judge.
练习。 全班将分为五组，每组代表本练习中的不同观点。这些小组分别是：(1) Ram 的律师；(2) AirWare 的律师；(3) JetDesign 的律师；(4) 加利福尼亚州审判法院法官；(5) 华盛顿州审判法院法官。

Each group should consider the following questions from its particular perspective.
每个小组应从各自的角度考虑以下问题。

What are the key legal issues in the case and how would you (on behalf of Ram, AirWare, or JetDesign) argue them or (on behalf of the California or Washington court) decide them?
案件中的关键法律问题是什么？您（代表 Ram、AirWare 或 JetDesign）将如何论证这些问题，或（代表加利福尼亚州或华盛顿州法院）如何裁决这些问题？

What are the key procedural issues in the case and what counsel would you provide on those issues?
案件中有哪些关键的程序问题，您将就这些问题提供哪些建议？

Aside from litigation, are there other actions that you could advise?
除了诉讼，您还能建议采取其他行动吗？

149

B. Reverse Engineering Object Code

Often software is distributed in object code form only. When using the software in this form, the user certainly can observe the behavior of the software and its visual display elements. However, the user cannot observe the inner workings of the code that would be observable if the software were in source code form. In other words, from a purely technical and practical standpoint, the object code form of software inherently protects trade secrets. The secrets can be discovered, though, by reversing the code compilation process, using a software tool to turn object code back into source code. This process is called reverse engineering. Therefore, to bolster the inherent secrecy of object code, many software firms include a prohibition on reverse engineering in the End User License Agreement (EULA). Think of this EULA provision as akin to an NDA; EULAs, like NDAs, protect the secrecy of software by contract.
软件通常只以目标代码的形式发布。在使用这种形式的软件时，用户当然可以观察到软件的行为及其可视化显示元素。但是，用户无法观察到代码的内部工作情况，而如果软件是源代码形式，用户则可以观察到代码的内部工作情况。换句话说，从纯技术和实用的角度来看，软件的目标代码形式本质上保护了商业秘密。不过，通过逆转代码编译过程，使用软件工具将目标代码变回源代码，就可以发现这些秘密。这一过程被称为逆向工程。因此，为了加强目标代码固有的保密性，许多软件公司在最终用户许可协议（EULA）中加入了禁止逆向工程的条款。将 EULA 条款视为类似于 NDA；EULA 与 NDA 一样，通过合同保护软件的机密性。

Does reverse engineering amount to a legal means of discovering an idea or, instead, an illegal misappropriation of a trade secret? Reverse engineering is considered a legitimate practice under the UTSA, Restatement of Torts, and Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition. 7 The U.S. Supreme Court has characterized reverse engineering as “an essential part of innovation.”8 In some circumstances it may also be a fair use under copyright if the goal is to discover unprotectable ideas.9 In Europe, contractual prohibitions on reverse engineering to discover information to create a compatible software product may be void under the E.U. Software Directive,10 although similar legislation has been proposed but never enacted in the United States at the state or federal level.
逆向工程是发现创意的合法手段，还是非法盗用商业秘密？根据《UTSA》、 《侵权法重述》、 和 《不正当竞争法重述（第三版）》，逆向工程被视为一种合法行为。 7 美国最高法院将反向工程定性为 "不正当竞争"。8 在某些情况下，如果目的是发现不受保护的创意，那么根据著作权，这也可能是一种合理使用。9 在欧洲，根据《欧洲软件指令》（E. U. Software Directive），禁止通过逆向工程发现信息以创建兼容软件产品的合同规定可能无效。10 尽管美国在州或联邦层面提出过类似立法，但从未颁布。

However, trade secret law treats reverse engineering in violation of a confidential relationship as an improper means of discovering information. Similarly, acquisition of information by breaching a contract constitutes an illegal misappropriation of trade secrets. The Data General v. Grumman case below illustrates these points. The Bowers v. Baystate Technologies case, which follows Data General, explores reverse engineering in breach of a EULA, raising breach of contract and copyright infringement issues that often accompany trade secret issues in software reverse engineering cases.11
然而，商业秘密法将违反保密关系的逆向工程视为发现信息的不正当手段。同样，通过违反合同获取信息也构成非法盗用商业秘密。下面的 Data General 诉 Grumman 案就说明了这些问题。继Data General案之后， Bowers v. Baystate Technologies案探讨了违反EULA的逆向工程，提出了在软件逆向工程案件中经常伴随商业秘密问题的违反合同和侵犯版权问题。

150

DATA GENERAL CORP. v. GRUMMAN SYSTEMS SUPPORT CORP.
DATA GENERAL CORP.诉 GRUMMAN SYSTEMS SUPPORT CORP.

825 F. Supp. 340 (D. Mass. 1993)

SKINNER, Senior District Judge.

Following a vigorously litigated trial spanning more than nine weeks, the jury returned a verdict against defendant Grumman Systems Support Corporation. The jury awarded Data General $27,417,000 on its federal copyright infringement claim and $27,417,000 on its state law misappropriation of trade secrets claim, Mass. Gen. L. ch. 93, §42. Finding Grumman’s misappropriation of trade secrets to be willful, I increased the trade secrets award by $9,000,000. This court entered judgment, in the form submitted by Data General, on January 29, 1993.…
经过九个多星期的激烈诉讼，陪审团作出了不利于被告格鲁曼系统支持公司的裁决。陪审团根据联邦版权侵权索赔判决 Data General 公司赔偿 27,417,000 美元，根据马萨诸塞州州法挪用商业秘密索赔判决 Data General 公司赔偿 27,417,000 美元。Gen. L. ch. 93, §42。由于认定格鲁曼公司故意盗用商业秘密，我将商业秘密赔偿额增加了 9,000,000 美元。法院于 1993 年 1 月 29 日以 Data General 提交的格式做出判决：....

B. Misappropriation of Trade Secrets

To prevail on its claim that Grumman misappropriated Data General’s trade secrets in MV/ADEX, Data General was required to show that (1) MV/ADEX is a trade secret; (2) Data General took reasonable steps to preserve the secrecy of MV/ADEX; and (3) Grumman used improper means, in breach of a confidential relationship, to acquire and use the trade secret. The evidence produced at trial amply supports the jury’s verdict in Data General’s favor.
为了胜诉，数据通用公司必须证明：(1) MV/ADEX 是商业秘密；(2) 数据通用公司采取了合理措施保守 MV/ADEX 的秘密；(3) 格鲁曼违反保密关系，使用不正当手段获取和使用商业秘密。庭审中出示的证据充分支持了陪审团作出的有利于 Data General 的裁决。

1. MV/ADEX as a Trade Secret

Grumman argues that it is entitled to judgment because Data General failed to identify the specific secret which was misappropriated by Grumman. Though the jury heard extensive testimony as to the function, effectiveness, and use of MV/ADEX, Grumman complains that Data General never produced the precise secret as embodied in the software’s source code.
Grumman 辩称，它有权获得判决，因为 Data General 未能确定被 Grumman 侵占的具体秘密。虽然陪审团听取了有关 MV/ADEX 的功能、有效性和使用的大量证词，但 Grumman 抱怨 Data General 从未提供体现在软件源代码中的确切秘密。

In Diodes, the court explained,
在Diodes 案中， 法院解释说：

One who seeks to protect his trade secrets from wrongful use or disclosure does not have to spell out the details of the trade secret to avoid a demurrer to a complaint. To so require would mean that the complainant would have to destroy the very thing for which he sought protection by making public the secret itself.
一个寻求保护其商业秘密不被不法使用或披露的人，不一定要详细说明商业秘密的细节，以避免对投诉提出抗辩。如果这样要求，就意味着原告必须通过公开秘密本身来破坏他寻求保护的东西。

Diodes, 67 Cal. Rptr. at 24.
Diodes, 67 Cal.Rptr. at 24.

Under the governing law of this case, Massachusetts law, “[a] trade secret may consist of any formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is used in one’s business, and which [provides] an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use it.…The subject matter of a trade secret must be secret. Matters of public knowledge or of general knowledge in an industry cannot be appropriated by one as his secret.” J.T. Healy, 260 N.E. 2d at 729 (quoting Restatement of Torts §757, comment b). The existence of a trade secret depends on the facts of each case. Jet Spray Cooler, Inc. v. Crampton, 361 Mass. 835, 282 N.E. 2d 921, 925 (1972). Here, the jury was instructed to consider a number of factors, including the nature of the information and the conduct of the parties, and concluded that MV/ADEX was a trade secret — a conclusion well-supported by the evidence.
根据本案的准据法，即马萨诸塞州法律，"商业秘密可以由任何公式、模式、装置或信息汇编组成，这些信息用于一个人的业务中，并[提供]机会获得比不知道或不使用它的竞争者更多的优势....，商业秘密的主题必须是秘密的。公共知识或行业内的一般知识不能被某个人用作自己的秘密"。J.T. Healy， 260 N.E. 2d at 729（引用《侵权法重述》第 757 条评注 b）。商业秘密是否存在取决于每个案件的事实。Jet Spray Cooler, Inc.诉Crampton案，361 Mass.835, 282 N.E. 2d 921, 925 (1972)。在本案中，陪审团被指示考虑一系列因素，包括信息的性质和当事人的行为，并得出 MV/ADEX 是商业秘密的结论--这一结论得到了证据的充分支持。

Several witnesses, including two Grumman witnesses, testified that MV/ADEX contained trade secrets. This evidence was corroborated by testimony about the design, function, and use of MV/ADEX. The evidence showed that MV/ADEX was unique, effective, and conferred a
包括两名格鲁曼证人在内的几名证人证实 MV/ADEX 包含商业秘密。有关 MV/ADEX 的设计、功能和使用的证词证实了这一证据。证据表明，MV/ADEX 是独一无二的、有效的，并具有以下优点

151

competitive advantage to Data General in the computer service business. Data General’s expert witness, Mr. Gove, explained that Data General developed numerous original programs for use in MV/ADEX and testified in some detail as to the more important functions and capabilities of those programs. In addition to this direct evidence, the jury was entitled to infer that MV/ADEX contained trade secrets because Grumman was unable to create functionally comparable diagnostic software. There was no evidence to indicate that MV/ADEX was a matter of public knowledge. Data General took reasonable steps to preserve, and in fact did preserve, the secrecy of MV/ADEX. With the exception of those who lawfully licensed or unlawfully misappropriated MV/ADEX, Data General enjoyed the exclusive use of MV/ADEX. Even those who obtained MV/ADEX and were able to use MV/ADEX were unable to discover its trade secrets because MV/ADEX was distributed only in its object code form, which is essentially unintelligible to humans. An infringer may be liable for misappropriating trade secrets when it loads and runs a computer program in its object code form, even if the infringer never understands exactly how the program works. Trandes Corp. v. Guy F. Atkinson Co., 798 F. Supp. 284, 288 (D. Md.1992).
Data General 在计算机服务业务中的竞争优势。Data General 公司的专家证人 Gove 先生解释说，Data General 公司开发了许多用于 MV/ADEX 的原始程序，并详细说明了这些程序的重要功能和能力。除了这些直接证据外，陪审团还有权推断 MV/ADEX 包含商业秘密，因为格鲁曼公司无法开发出功能相当的诊断软件。没有证据表明MV/ADEX为公众所知。Data General 公司采取了合理的措施来保护 MV/ADEX 的秘密，事实上也确实这样做了。除了那些合法许可或非法盗用 MV/ADEX 的人之外，Data General 公司享有 MV/ADEX 的独家使用权。即使那些获得 MV/ADEX 并能够使用 MV/ADEX 的人也无法发现其商业秘密，因为 MV/ADEX 仅以目标代码的形式分发，而目标代码基本上是人类无法理解的。当侵权人加载并运行目标代码形式的计算机程序时，即使侵权人从未确切了解该程序的工作原理，也可能要为盗用商业秘密承担责任。Trandes Corp.诉Guy F. Atkinson Co.案，798 F. Supp. 284, 288 (D. Md.1992)。

2. Reasonable Steps to Preserve Secrecy

A plaintiff enforcing a trade secret must take reasonable and proper steps to preserve its secrecy. USM, 393 N.E. 2d at 899-902; CVD, 769 F.2d at 851-52. Heroic measures, however, are not required. Id. Whether reasonable steps have been taken depends on the circumstances of each case, including the nature of the information sought to be protected and the conduct of the parties. USM, 393 N.E. 2d at 902. Grumman argues that it is entitled to judgment because Data General failed to establish that it took reasonable steps to preserve the secrecy of its trade secret. Grumman’s argument is contrary to the weight of the evidence.
执行商业秘密的原告必须采取合理和适当的步骤来维护其机密性。USM, 393 N.E. 2d at 899-902；CVD, 769 F.2d at 851-52。然而，英雄措施并非必需。Id. 是否采取了合理的措施取决于每个案件的具体情况，包括寻求保护的信息的性质和当事人的行为。USM, 393 N.E. 2d at 902。Grumman 辩称，它有权获得判决，因为 Data General 未能证明它采取了合理的步骤来保护其商业秘密的机密性。格鲁曼的论点与证据的重要性相悖。

Data General required employees to sign confidentiality agreements which prohibited the unauthorized disclosure of confidential or proprietary information; completed termination checklists, which specifically covered software, when an employee left the company; distributed a company brochure detailing the company’s policy on protecting confidential and proprietary information, including software; deployed security guards; required visitors to sign in when visiting and prohibited unescorted visits; restricted employee access to the area in which MV/ADEX was developed; labeled MV/ADEX tapes as “property of Data General”; displayed a copyright notice on the exterior of MV/ADEX tapes and on the first display screen of the program itself; did not distribute MV/ADEX source code outside of Data General; and required customers to sign an agreement which, among other things, prohibited unauthorized disclosure to third parties. Grumman cites evidence to the contrary, focusing on perceived shortcomings in the safeguards and instances where Data General’s procedures were not followed. The jury heard all testimony, weighed the evidence, and apparently rejected Grumman’s evidence as unpersuasive, as they were free to do. The jury properly concluded that Data General took reasonable steps to preserve the secrecy of the information embodied in the MV/ADEX programs.
Data General 要求员工签署保密协议，禁止未经授权披露机密信息或专有信息；当员工离开公司时，填写解雇清单，其中特别涉及软件；分发公司手册，详细说明公司保护机密信息和专有信息（包括软件）的政策；部署保安；要求来访者在参观时签到，禁止无陪同参观；限制员工进入开发 MV/ADEX 的区域；将 MV/ADEX 磁带标记为 "Data General 的财产"；在 MV/ADEX 磁带外部和程序本身的第一个显示屏幕上显示版权声明；不在 Data General 外部分发 MV/ADEX 源代码；要求客户签署一份协议，其中包括禁止未经授权向第三方披露。格鲁曼公司援引了相反的证据，重点是保障措施中被认为存在的缺陷以及 Data General 公司的程序未得到遵守的情况。陪审团听取了所有证词，权衡了证据，显然拒绝了格鲁曼的证据，认为这些证据没有说服力，他们可以自由地这样做。陪审团正确地得出结论认为，数据通用公司采取了合理的措施来保护 MV/ADEX 程序所含信息的机密性。

3. Grumman’s Misappropriation

Grumman argues that Data General failed to prove that Grumman knowingly misappropriated MV/ADEX and goes so far as to make the remarkable statement that “there
格鲁门公司辩称，Data General 公司未能证明格鲁门公司在知情的情况下盗用了 MV/ADEX，甚至还发表了引人注目的声明，即 "有证据证明格鲁门公司盗用了 MV/ADEX"。

152

is no evidence that [Grumman] knowingly took anything in breach of a duty.” The jury, for good reason, differed with Grumman’s view of the evidence. Grumman admits that it took copies of MV/ADEX from customer sites and obtained copies from used MV machines on which MV/ADEX resided, but claims that Data General never proved the wrongful acquisition of any one of the hundreds of tapes in Grumman’s possession. Grumman’s argument is either totally contrary to the evidence or is based on a misunderstanding of the law. Grumman also asserts that the jury erred in rejecting Grumman’s “good faith” defense, which alleged that it had a good faith belief that it had a license to use Data General diagnostics.
没有证据表明［格鲁曼公司］在知情的情况下违反义务拿走了任何东西"。陪审团有充分理由不同意格鲁曼对证据的看法。格鲁门公司承认，它从客户现场拿走了 MV/ADEX 的拷贝，并从 MV/ADEX 所在的二手 MV 机器上获取了拷贝，但声称 Data General 公司从未证明格鲁门公司所拥有的数百盘磁带中的任何一盘是非法获取的。Grumman 的论点要么与证据完全相反，要么是基于对法律的误解。Grumman 还声称，陪审团错误地驳回了 Grumman 的 "善意 "辩护，该辩护声称 Grumman 善意地相信它拥有使用 Data General 诊断的许可。

Though a defendant must “have notice of both the fact that the information claimed to be a trade secret is in fact secret and the fact that disclosure by the third person is a breach of duty before one is subject to liability for the use or disclosure of the trade secret,” the requisite notice may be found where the defendant knew or should have known that the proffered information is the trade secret of another. Curtiss-Wright Corp., 407 N.E.2d at 32324 (quoting Restatement of Torts §757 (1939)) (emphasis added). “Studious ignorance” will not insulate a defendant from liability. Id. at 324. Moreover, courts have noted that the defendant’s knowledge “often must be proved by the weight of credible circumstantial evidence.” Id. (citing R. Milgrim, Trade Secrets §504[3] at 5-102 (1978)). In this case, there was credible evidence from which the jury could infer that Grumman obtained MV/ADEX by taking property known to belong to another or by knowingly participating in the breach of an express or implied confidentiality agreement by, for example, a former employee or customer of Data General.
虽然被告必须 "同时知晓声称是商业秘密的信息事实上是秘密，以及第三人披露该信息是违反义务的事实，才会因使用或披露商业秘密而承担责任、"如果被告知道或应该知道 所提供的信息是他人的商业秘密，那么就可以认定被告发出了必要的通知。Curtiss-Wright Corp., 407 N.E.2d at 32324（引用《侵权法重述》第 757 条（1939 年））（着重部分由作者标明）。"一知半解 "并不能免除被告的责任。Id. 第 324 页。此外，法院还指出，被告的知情 "往往必须通过可信的间接证据来证明"。Id. （引用 R. Milgrim, Trade Secrets §504[3] at 5-102 (1978)）。在本案中，有可信的证据表明，陪审团可以推断出格鲁门公司是通过获取已知属于他人的财产，或通过故意参与违反明示或暗示的保密协议（例如 Data General 的前雇员或客户）而获得 MV/ADEX 的。

After this court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining further use of MV/ADEX by Grumman, the defendant returned more than 200 copies of MV/ADEX. Though Data General never proved how Grumman acquired all the tapes, neither could Grumman explain how it came into possession of so many tapes. It was undisputed that Grumman never purchased a copy of MV/ADEX from Data General. On the facts of this case, the unexplained possession of Data General’s MV/ADEX tapes is more than suspicious. The tapes were labeled as “property of Data General” and, when run on a computer, displayed a copyright notice identifying Data General as its owner. For some tapes, a Grumman label had been pasted on top of the original Data General label. At the same time Grumman was collecting MV/ADEX tapes from unidentified sources, it was unsuccessful in its attempts to acquire MV/ADEX openly and directly from Data General under a licensing agreement. Moreover, Grumman admitted that it knew confidentiality agreements were widely used in the business to restrict disclosure of proprietary information by customers and former employees. In fact, an internal Grumman memorandum from 1987, which was reviewed by top Grumman officials, stated that use of MV/ADEX diagnostics was illegal unless purchased from Data General. A proper inference is that Grumman was acting with either studied ignorance or actual knowledge of the source of so many copies of a competitor’s valuable software program.
在法院发布初步禁令禁止格鲁曼公司进一步使用 MV/ADEX 之后，被告归还了 200 多份 MV/ADEX 拷贝。尽管 Data General 公司从未证明 Grumman 公司是如何获得所有这些磁带的，但 Grumman 公司也无法解释它是如何拥有这么多磁带的。无可争辩的是，格鲁曼公司从未从 Data General 公司购买过 MV/ADEX 的拷贝。从本案的事实来看，Data General 公司不明不白地拥有 MV/ADEX 磁带的行为非常可疑。这些磁带被标注为 "Data General 的财产"，在计算机上运行时，会显示版权声明，表明 Data General 是磁带的所有者。有些磁带的原始标签上还贴有格鲁曼公司的标签。在格鲁曼公司从不明来源收集 MV/ADEX 磁带的同时，它试图根据许可协议直接从 Data General 公司公开购买 MV/ADEX 磁带，但没有成功。此外，格鲁门公司承认，它知道保密协议被广泛用于限制客户和前雇员披露专有信息。事实上，格鲁门公司 1987 年的一份内部备忘录（经格鲁门公司高级官员审阅）指出，除非从 Data General 公司购买，否则使用 MV/ADEX 诊断技术是非法的。一个适当的推论是，格鲁门公司对如此多的竞争对手有价值的软件程序拷贝的来源一无所知或实际知情。

Some of the tapes turned in by Grumman were pre-release versions of MV/ADEX. Pre-release versions of MV/ADEX were not sold, distributed, or permitted to leave Data General facilities. The jury could infer that Grumman’s possession of these tapes demonstrated that it knew the tapes were taken directly from Data General or were being provided to Grumman by former Data General employees in violation of their employment agreements. This is
格鲁曼公司上交的一些磁带是 MV/ADEX 的预发布版本。MV/ADEX 的预发布版本不出售、不分发，也不允许离开 Data General 的设施。陪审团可以推断，Grumman 拥有这些磁带表明，它知道这些磁带直接取自 Data General，或由 Data General 前雇员违反雇用协议提供给 Grumman。这是

153

consistent with Grumman’s admission that it came to learn that George Tasso, a former employee of Data General, brought a copy of MV/ADEX when he came to work for Grumman.
这与格鲁曼公司承认它得知 Data General 公司的前雇员乔治-塔索（George Tasso）来格鲁曼公司工作时带来了 MV/ADEX 的副本是一致的。

As for Grumman’s proffered “good faith” defense, further discussion is unnecessary. The purported defense was not based on compelling facts and, in face of inconsistent evidence, the jury was free to reject Grumman’s claim of good faith as incredible.
至于格鲁曼公司提出的 "善意 "抗辩，没有必要进一步讨论。所谓的辩护并非基于令人信服的事实，而且面对前后矛盾的证据，陪审团可以自由地拒绝格鲁曼公司的善意主张，认为其难以置信。

* * *

BOWERS v. BAYSTATE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

320 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2003)

RADER, Circuit Judge.

Harold L. Bowers (Bowers) created a template to improve computer aided design (CAD) software, such as the CADKEY tool of Cadkey, Inc. Mr. Bowers filed a patent application for his template on February 27, 1989. On June 12, 1990, United States Patent No. 4,933,514 (’514 patent) issued from that application.
Harold L. Bowers (Bowers) 创造了一种模板，用于改进计算机辅助设计 (CAD) 软件，如 Cadkey 公司的 CADKEY 工具。Bowers 先生于 1989 年 2 月 27 日为他的模板提交了专利申请。1990 年 6 月 12 日，该专利申请获得了第 4,933,514 号美国专利（'514 专利）。

Generally, a CAD software program has many commands that the software presents to the user in nested menus many layers deep. The layering often makes it difficult for a user to find quickly a desired command. To address this problem, the claimed template works with a CAD system as illustrated in Fig. 1 of the ’514 patent. In that figure, the ’514 patent template lies on top of the digitizing tablet of a CAD computer. The user selects data from the template with a pointing device. The template places the many CAD commands in a claimed visual and logical order.
一般来说，CAD 软件程序有许多命令，软件会以多层嵌套菜单的形式呈现给用户。这种分层往往使用户难以快速找到所需的命令。为了解决这个问题，所要求的模板与 CAD 系统配合使用，如 514 号专利的图 1 所示。在该图中，514 号专利模板位于 CAD 计算机数字化平板的顶部。用户使用指向设备从模板中选择数据。该模板将许多 CAD 命令按照声称的视觉和逻辑顺序排列。

In 1989, Mr. Ford offered Mr. Bowers an exclusive license to his Geodraft software. Mr. Bowers accepted that offer and bundled Geodraft and Cadjet together as the Designer’s Toolkit. Mr. Bowers sold the Designer’s Toolkit with a shrink-wrap license that, inter alia, prohibited any reverse engineering.
1989 年，福特先生向鲍尔斯先生提供了其 Geodraft 软件的独家许可。Bowers 先生接受了这一提议，并将 Geodraft 和 Cadjet 捆绑在一起，成为 Designer's Toolkit。Bowers 先生在出售 Designer's Toolkit 时附带了一份收缩包装许可证，其中特别禁止任何反向工程。

In 1989, Baystate also developed and marketed other tools for CADKEY. One of those tools, Draft-Pak version 1 and 2, featured a template and GD & T software. In 1988 and 1989, Mr. Bowers offered to establish a formal relationship with Baystate, including bundling his template with Draft-Pak. Baystate rejected that offer, however, telling Mr. Bowers that it believed it had “the in-house capability to develop the type of products you have proposed.”
1989 年，Baystate 还为 CADKEY 开发和销售了其他工具。其中一个工具 Draft-Pak 第 1 版和第 2 版包含一个模板和 GD & T 软件。1988 年和 1989 年，Bowers 先生提出与 Baystate 建立正式关系，包括将他的模板与 Draft-Pak 捆绑。但 Baystate 拒绝了这一提议，它告诉 Bowers 先生，它认为自己 "有能力开发你提出的那类产品"。

In 1990, Mr. Bowers released Designer’s Toolkit. By January 1991, Baystate had obtained copies of that product. Three months later, Baystate introduced the substantially revised Draft-Pak version 3, incorporating many of the features of Designer’s Toolkit. Although DraftPak version 3 operated in the DOS environment, Baystate later upgraded it to operate with Microsoft Windows®.
1990 年，鲍尔斯先生发布了《设计师工具包》。1991 年 1 月，Baystate 公司获得了该产品的副本。三个月后，Baystate 公司推出了经过大幅修改的 Draft-Pak 第 3 版，其中包含了 Designer's Toolkit 的许多功能。虽然 DraftPak 第 3 版是在 DOS 环境下运行的，但 Baystate 公司后来将其升级为在 Microsoft Windows® 环境下运行。

Baystate’s introduction of Draft-Pak version 3 induced intense price competition between Mr. Bowers and Baystate. To gain market share over Baystate, Mr. Bowers negotiated with Cadkey, Inc., to provide the Designer’s Toolkit free with CADKEY. Mr. Bowers planned to recoup his profits by selling software upgrades to the users that he hoped to lure to his products. Following pressure from Baystate, however, Cadkey, Inc., repudiated its distribution agreement with Mr. Bowers. Eventually, Baystate purchased Cadkey, Inc., and eliminated Mr. Bowers from the CADKEY network — effectively preventing him from developing and marketing the Designer’s Toolkit for that program.
Baystate 推出 Draft-Pak 第 3 版后，引发了 Bowers 先生与 Baystate 之间激烈的价格竞争。为了抢占 Baystate 的市场份额，Bowers 先生与 Cadkey, Inc.Bowers 先生计划通过向希望购买其产品的用户出售软件升级来收回利润。然而，在 Baystate 公司的压力下，Cadkey 公司放弃了与 Bowers 先生的分销协议。最终，Baystate 收购了 Cadkey 公司，并将 Bowers 先生排除在 CADKEY 网络之外，从而有效地阻止了他为该程序开发和销售设计师工具包。

154

On May 16, 1991, Baystate sued Mr. Bowers for declaratory judgment that 1) Baystate’s products do not infringe the ’514 patent, 2) the ’514 patent is invalid, and 3) the ’514 patent is unenforceable. Mr. Bowers filed counterclaims for copyright infringement, patent infringement, and breach of contract.
1991 年 5 月 16 日，Baystate 公司起诉 Bowers 先生，要求作出如下宣告性判决：1）Baystate 公司的产品未侵犯 514 号专利；2）514 号专利无效；3）514 号专利不可执行。Bowers 先生提出了版权侵权、专利侵权和违约反诉。

Following trial, the jury found for Mr. Bowers and awarded $1,948,869 for copyright infringement, $3,831,025 for breach of contract, and $232,977 for patent infringement. The district court, however, set aside the copyright damages as duplicative of the contract damages and entered judgment for $5,270,142 (including pre-judgment interest). Baystate filed timely motions for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL), or for a new trial, on all of Mr. Bowers’ claims. Baystate appeals the district court’s denial of its motions for JMOL or a new trial, while Mr. Bowers appeals the district court’s denial of copyright damages. This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1295(a)(1) (2000).
庭审结束后，陪审团裁定 Bowers 先生胜诉，赔偿版权侵权损失 1,948,869 美元、违约损失 3,831,025 美元和专利侵权损失 232,977 美元。但是，地区法院认为版权损害赔偿与合同损害赔偿重复，因此撤销了版权损害赔偿，并判决赔偿 5,270,142 美元（包括判决前利息）。Baystate 公司及时提出动议，要求对 Bowers 先生的所有诉讼请求依法判决（JMOL）或重新审判。Baystate 公司对地区法院驳回其请求依法判决或重新审判的动议提出上诉，而 Bowers 先生则对地区法院驳回版权损害赔偿的动议提出上诉。根据《美国法典》第 28 编第 1295(a)(1)条（2000 年），本法院拥有管辖权。

A.

Baystate contends that the Copyright Act preempts the prohibition of reverse engineering embodied in Mr. Bowers’ shrink-wrap license agreements. Swayed by this argument, the district court considered Mr. Bowers’ contract and copyright claims coextensive. The district court instructed the jury that “reverse engineering violates the license agreement only if Baystate’s product that resulted from reverse engineering infringes Bowers’ copyright because it copies protectable expression.” Mr. Bowers lodged a timely objection to this instruction. This court holds that, under First Circuit law, the Copyright Act does not preempt or narrow the scope of Mr. Bowers’ contract claim.
Baystate 公司辩称，《版权法》优先于 Bowers 先生的收缩包装许可协议中禁止逆向工程的规定。受这一论点的影响，地区法院认为 Bowers 先生的合同索赔和版权索赔是并列的。地区法院指示陪审团，"只有当 Baystate 公司通过逆向工程生产的产品因复制了可受保护的表达方式而侵犯了 Bowers 的版权时，逆向工程才违反了许可协议"。Bowers 先生及时对这一指示提出异议。本院认为，根据第一巡回法院的法律，《版权法》并不优先于或缩小 Bowers 先生的合同索赔范围。

Courts respect freedom of contract and do not lightly set aside freely-entered agreements. Beacon Hill Civic Ass’n. v. Ristorante Toscano, 422 Mass. 318, 662 N.E.2d 1015, 1017 (1996). Nevertheless, at times, federal regulation may preempt private contract. Cf. Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502, 523, 54 S. Ct. 505, 78 L. Ed. 940 (1934) (“Equally fundamental with the private right is [the right] of the public to regulate [the private right] in the common interest.”). The Copyright Act provides that “all legal or equitable rights that are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright…are governed exclusively by this title.” 17 U.S.C. §301(a) (2000). The First Circuit does not interpret this language to require preemption as long as “a state cause of action requires an extra element, beyond mere copying, preparation of derivative works, performance, distribution or display.” Data Gen. Corp. v. Grumman Sys. Support Corp., 36 F.3d 1147, 1164, 32 USPQ 2d 1385, 1397 (1st Cir. 1994) (quoting Gates Rubber Co. v. Bando Chem. Indus., 9 F.3d 823, 847, 28 USPQ 2d 1503, 1520 (10th Cir. 1993)); see also Computer Assoc. Int’l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693, 716 (2d Cir. 1992) (“But if an ‘extra element’ is ‘required instead of or in addition to the acts of reproduction, performance, distribution or display, in order to constitute a state- created cause of action, then the right does not lie “within the general scope of copyright,” and there is no preemption.’”) (quoting 1 Nimmer on Copyright §1.01[B] at 1-15). Nevertheless, “[n]ot every ‘extra element’ of a state law claim will establish a qualitative variance between the rights protected by federal copyright law and those protected by state law.” Id.
法院尊重合同自由，不会轻易搁置自由达成的协议。Beacon Hill Civic Ass'n. v. Ristorante Toscano，422 Mass.318, 662 N.E.2d 1015, 1017 (1996)。不过，有时联邦法规可能会优先于私人合同。Cf. Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502, 523, 54 S. Ct.940 (1934)（"与私人权利同等重要的是公众为共同利益对[私人权利]进行管理的[权利]"）。版权法》规定，"所有等同于版权一般范围内任何专有权的法律或衡平法权利......均由本标题专门管辖"。17 U.S.C. §301(a) (2000)。第一巡回法院并不将这一措辞解释为只要 "州的诉因要求有额外的要素，而不仅仅是复制、制作衍生作品、表演、发行或展示"，就要求先入为主。Data Gen.Support Corp., 36 F.3d 1147, 1164, 32 USPQ 2d 1385, 1397 (1st Cir. 1994)（引用 Gates Rubber Co. v. Bando Chem.Indus., 9 F.3d 823, 847, 28 USPQ 2d 1503, 1520 (10th Cir. 1993)); see also Computer Assoc. Int'l, Inc.d 693, 716 (2d Cir. 1992) ("But if an 'extra element' is 'required instead of or in addition to the acts of reproduction, performance, distribution or display, in order to constitute a state created cause of action, then the right does not lie "within the general scope of copyright," and there is no preemption.")(引用 1 Nimmer on Copyright §1.01[B] at 1-15）。 尽管如此，"并非州法律索赔的每一个'额外要素'都能确定联邦版权法保护的权利与州法律保护的权利之间存在质的差异"。Id.

In Data General, Data General alleged that Grumman misappropriated its trade secret software. 36 F.3d at 1155. Grumman obtained that software from Data General’s customers and former employees who were bound by confidentiality agreements to refrain from
在 Data General案中， Data General指控格鲁曼盗用其商业秘密软件。36 F.3d at 1155。格鲁曼公司从数据通用公司的客户和前雇员那里获得了该软件，而这些客户和前雇员受保密协议的约束，不得泄露该软件的商业秘密。

155

disclosing the software. Id. at 1154-55. In defense, Grumman argued that the Copyright Act preempted Data General’s trade secret claim. Id. at 1158, 1165. The First Circuit held that the Copyright Act did not preempt the state law trade secret claim. Id. at 1165. Beyond mere copying, that state law claim required proof of a trade secret and breach of a duty of confidentiality. Id. These additional elements of proof, according to the First Circuit, made the trade secret claim qualitatively different from a copyright claim. Id. In contrast, the First Circuit noted that claims might be preempted whose extra elements are illusory, being “mere label[s] attached to the same odious business conduct.” Id. at 1165 (quoting Mayer v. Josiah Wedgwood & Sons, Ltd., 601 F. Supp. 1523, 1535, 225 USPQ 776, 784 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)). For example, the First Circuit observed that “a state law misappropriation claim will not escape preemption…simply because a plaintiff must prove that copying was not only unauthorized but also commercially immoral.” Id.
公开软件。Id. at 1154-55。格鲁曼公司在答辩时辩称，《版权法》优先于 Data General 公司的商业秘密索赔。Id. at 1158, 1165。第一巡回法院认为，《版权法》并不优先于州法中的商业秘密索赔。Id. 第 1165 页。除了单纯的复制之外，该州法律索赔还要求证明商业秘密和违反保密义务。Id. 第一巡回法院认为，这些额外的举证要素使得商业秘密索赔与版权索赔在性质上有所不同。Id. 相比之下，第一巡回法院指出，如果额外的要素是虚幻的，"仅仅是贴在相同的可憎商业行为上的标签"，那么这些权利主张可能会被先占。Id. at 1165（引用 Mayer v. Josiah Wedgwood & Sons, Ltd., 601 F. Supp. 1523, 1535, 225 USPQ 776, 784 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)）。例如，第一巡回法院指出，"州法上的盗用索赔不会仅仅因为原告必须证明复制不仅未经授权，而且在商业上也是不道德的......而逃脱优先权"。Id.

The First Circuit has not addressed expressly whether the Copyright Act preempts a state law contract claim that restrains copying. This court perceives, however, that Data General’s rationale would lead to a judgment that the Copyright Act does not preempt the state contract action in this case. Indeed, most courts to examine this issue have found that the Copyright Act does not preempt contractual constraints on copyrighted articles. See, e.g., ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447, 39 USPQ 2d 1161 (7th Cir. 1996) (holding that a shrinkwrap license was not preempted by federal copyright law); Wrench LLC v. Taco Bell Corp., 256 F.3d 446, 457, 59 USPQ 2d 1434, 1441-42 (6th Cir. 2001) (holding a state law contract claim not preempted by federal copyright law); Nat’l Car Rental Sys., Inc. v. Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc., 991 F.2d 426, 433, 26 USPQ 2d 1370, 1376 (8th Cir. 1993); Taquino v. Teledyne Monarch Rubber, 893 F.2d 1488, 1501 (5th Cir. 1990); Acorn Structures v. Swantz, 846 F.2d 923, 926, 6 USPQ 2d 1810, 1812 (4th Cir. 1988); but see Lipscher v. LRP Publs., Inc., 266 F.3d 1305, 1312, 60 USPQ 2d 1468, 1473 (11th Cir. 2001).
第一巡回法院没有明确解决《版权法》是否优先于限制复制的州法合同索赔的问题。然而，本法院认为，Data General 的理由将导致判决《版权法》不优先于本案中的州合同诉讼。事实上，审查这一问题的大多数法院都认为，《版权法》并不优先于对版权物品的合同限制。See, e.g., ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447, 39 USPQ 2d 1161 (7th Cir. 1996) (holding that a shrinkwrap license was not preempted by federal copyright law); Wrench LLC v. Taco Bell Corp、256 F.3d 446, 457, 59 USPQ 2d 1434, 1441-42 (6th Cir. 2001)（认为州法合同索赔不受联邦版权法的限制）；Nat'l Car Rental Sys., Inc.Int'l, Inc., 991 F.2d 426, 433, 26 USPQ 2d 1370, 1376 (8th Cir. 1993)；Taquino 诉 Teledyne Monarch Rubber, 893 F.2d 1488, 1501 (5th Cir. 1990)；Acorn Structures 诉 Swantz, 846 F.2d 923, 926, 6 USPQ 2d 1810, 1812 (4th Cir. 1988); but see Lipscher v. LRP Publs、Inc., 266 F.3d 1305, 1312, 60 USPQ 2d 1468, 1473 (11th Cir. 2001).

In ProCD, for example, the court found that the mutual assent and consideration required by a contract claim render that claim qualitatively different from copyright infringement. 86 F.3d at 1454. Consistent with Data General’s reliance on a contract element, the court in ProCD reasoned: “A copyright is a right against the world. Contracts, by contrast, generally affect only their parties; strangers may do as they please, so contracts do not create ‘exclusive rights.’” Id. Indeed, the Supreme Court recently noted “[i]t goes without saying that a contract cannot bind a nonparty.” EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279, 122 S. Ct. 754, 764, 151 L. Ed. 2d 755 (2002). This court believes that the First Circuit would follow the reasoning of ProCD and the majority of other courts to consider this issue. This court, therefore, holds that the Copyright Act does not preempt Mr. Bowers’ contract claims.
例如，在ProCD, 案中，法院认为合同索赔所要求的相互同意和对价使得该索赔与版权侵权有质的区别。86 F.3d at 1454。与Data General 对合同要素的依赖相一致，法院在ProCD 案中的推理是："版权是一种对抗世界的权利。相比之下，合同一般只影响其当事人；陌生人可以随心所欲，因此合同并不产生'排他性权利'"。Id. 事实上，最高法院最近指出，"不言而喻，合同不能约束非当事人"。EEOC v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279, 122 S. Ct.2d 755 (2002).本法院认为，第一巡回法院将遵循 ProCD 和大多数其他法院的推理来考虑这个问题。因此，本法院认为，《版权法》并不优先于 Bowers 先生的合同索赔。

In making this determination, this court has left untouched the conclusions reached in Atari Games v. Nintendo regarding reverse engineering as a statutory fair use exception to copyright infringement. Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of America, Inc., 975 F.2d 832, 24 USPQ 2d 1015 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In Atari, this court stated that, with respect to 17 U.S.C. §107 (fair use section of the Copyright Act), “[t]he legislative history of section 107 suggests that courts should adapt the fair use exception to accommodate new technological innovations.” Atari, 975 F.2d at 843. This court noted “[a] prohibition on all copying whatsoever would stifle the free flow of ideas without serving any legitimate interest of the copyright holder.” Id. Therefore, this court held “reverse engineering object code to discern the unprotectable ideas
在做出这一裁定时，本法院未触及 Atari Games 诉任天堂案中就逆向工程作为版权侵权的法定合理使用例外情况得出的结论。Atari Games Corp. 诉 Nintendo of America, Inc., 975 F.2d 832, 24 USPQ 2d 1015 (Fed. Cir. 1992)。在Atari 案中， 法院指出，关于《美国法典》第 17 篇第 107 节（《版权法》的合理使用部分），"第 107 节的立法历史表明，法院应调整合理使用的例外情况，以适应新的技术创新"。Atari, 975 F.2d at 843。该法院指出，"禁止任何复制都会扼杀思想的自由流动，而不符合版权持有者的任何合法利益"。Id. 因此，该法院认为，"逆向工程目标代码可以识别出不可保护的思想。

156

in a computer program is a fair use.” Id. Application of the First Circuit’s view distinguishing a state law contract claim having additional elements of proof from a copyright claim does not alter the findings of Atari. Likewise, this claim distinction does not conflict with the expressly defined circumstances in which reverse engineering is not copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. §1201(f) (section of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act) and 17 U.S.C. §906 (section directed to mask works).
计算机程序中的使用属于合理使用。Id. 适用第一巡回法院将具有额外证明要素的州法合同索赔与版权索赔区分开来的观点，并不会改变Atari 案的结论。 同样，根据《美国法典》第 17 编第 1201(f)条（《数字千年版权法》的条款）和第 17 编第 906 条（针对掩码作品的条款）的明确规定，逆向工程不属于侵犯版权的情况，这种权利主张上的区别并不冲突。

Moreover, while the Fifth Circuit has held a state law prohibiting all copying of a computer program is preempted by the federal Copyright Act, Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software, Ltd., 847 F.2d 255 (5th Cir. 1988), no evidence suggests the First Circuit would extend this concept to include private contractual agreements supported by mutual assent and consideration. The First Circuit recognizes contractual waiver of affirmative defenses and statutory rights. See United States v. Spector, 55 F.3d 22, 24-5 (1st Cir. 1995) (holding that a contractual waiver of the statute of limitations defense constitutes an “effective waiver of defendant’s rights under the statute of limitations” if the agreement were properly executed, and the “waiver is made knowingly and voluntarily.”); Tompkins v. United Healthcare of New England, 203 F.3d 90, 97 (1st Cir. 2000) (stating that “in some circumstances contractual waiver of statutory rights is permissible,” citing Canal Elec. Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 406 Mass. 369, 548 N.E.2d 182, 187 (Mass. 1990) (“a contractual waiver of statutory rights is permissible when the statute’s purpose is the ‘protection of the property rights of individual parties…rather than…the protection of the general public.’”)). Thus, case law indicates the First Circuit would find that private parties are free to contractually forego the limited ability to reverse engineer a software product under the exemptions of the Copyright Act. Of course, a party bound by such a contract may elect to efficiently breach the agreement in order to ascertain ideas in a computer program unprotected by copyright law. Under such circumstances, the breaching party must weigh the benefits of breach against the arguably de minimis damages arising from merely discerning non-protected code.
此外，虽然第五巡回法院认为禁止复制计算机程序的州法律优先于联邦《版权法》，Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software, Ltd., 847 F.2d 255 (5th Cir. 1988)，但没有证据表明第一巡回法院会将这一概念扩展到包括有相互同意和考虑支持的私人合同协议。第一巡回法院承认合同放弃积极抗辩和法定权利。See United States v. Spector, 55 F.3d 22, 24-5 (1st Cir. 1995)（认为如果协议是正确签署的，并且 "放弃是在知情和自愿的情况下做出的"，那么以合同形式放弃诉讼时效抗辩就构成了 "对被告诉讼时效权利的有效放弃"）；Tompkins v. United Healthcare of New England, 203 F.3d 90, 97 (1st Cir. 1995)（认为如果协议是正确签署的，并且 "放弃是在知情和自愿的情况下做出的"，那么以合同形式放弃诉讼时效抗辩就构成了 "对被告诉讼时效权利的有效放弃"）。d 90, 97 (1st Cir. 2000)（指出 "在某些情况下，通过合同放弃法定权利是允许的，"引用 Canal Elec.Co. v. Westinghouse Elec.Corp., 406 Mass.369, 548 N.E.2d 182, 187 (Mass. 1990) ("a contractual waiver of statutory rights is permissible when the statute's purpose is the 'protection of the property rights of individual parties...rather than...the protection of the general public.")).因此，判例法表明，第一巡回法院会认为，私人当事方可以自由地根据《版权法》的豁免条款，通过合同放弃对软件产品进行反向工程的有限能力。当然，受这种合同约束的一方可以选择有效地违反协议，以确定不受版权法保护的计算机程序中的想法。 在这种情况下，违约方必须权衡违约所带来的利益与仅仅因为发现了不受保护的代码而造成的可以说是微不足道的损失。

This court now considers the scope of Mr. Bowers’ contract protection. Without objection to the choice of law, the district court applied Massachusetts contract law. Accordingly, contract terms receive “the sense and meaning of the words which the parties have used; and if clear and free from ambiguity the words are to be taken and understood in their natural, usual and ordinary sense.” Farber v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 250 Mass. 250, 253, 145 N.E. 535 (Mass. 1924); see also Kelly v. Marx, 428 Mass. 877, 881, 705 N.E.2d 1114 (Mass. 1999) (“The proper course is to enforce contracts according to their plain meaning and not to undertake to be wiser than the parties.”) (quoting Guerin v. Stacy, 175 Mass. 595, 597, 56 N.E. 892 (1900) (Holmes, C.J.)).
本庭现在审议 Bowers 先生的合同保护范围。在对法律选择没有异议的情况下，地区法院适用了马萨诸塞州的合同法。因此，合同条款应具有 "当事人所使用的词语的意义和含义；如果词语明确且没有歧义，则应按其自然、通常和普通的意义来理解"。Farber 诉 Mutual Life Ins.Co., 250 Mass.250, 253, 145 N.E. 535 (Mass. 1924); see also Kelly v. Marx, 428 Mass.877, 881, 705 N.E.2d 1114 (Mass. 1999)（"正确的做法是根据合同的明确含义执行合同，而不是承诺比当事人更聪明"）。(引用 Guerin 诉 Stacy 案，175 Mass.595, 597, 56 N.E. 892 (1900) (Holmes, C.J.) ）。

In this case, the contract unambiguously prohibits “reverse engineering.” That term means ordinarily “to study or analyze (a device, as a microchip for computers) in order to learn details of design, construction, and operation, perhaps to produce a copy or an improved version.” Random House Unabridged Dictionary (1993); see also The Free On-Line Dictionary of Computing (2001), at http://wombat.doc.ic.ac.uk/foldoc/foldoc.cgi?reverse+ engineering (last visited July 17, 2002). Thus, the contract in this case broadly prohibits any “reverse engineering” of the subject matter covered by the shrink-wrap agreement.
在本案中，合同明确禁止 "逆向工程"。该术语通常是指 "研究或分析（一种设备，如计算机的微芯片），以了解设计、构造和操作的细节，也许是为了生产一个副本或改进版本"。Random House Unabridged Dictionary (1993)； 另见《免费在线计算机词典》 (2001)，网址：http：//wombat.doc.ic.ac.uk/foldoc/foldoc.cgi?reverse+ 工程（最后访问日期：2002 年 7 月 17 日）。因此，本案中的合同广泛禁止对收缩包装协议所涵盖的标的物进行任何 "逆向工程"。

The record amply supports the jury’s finding of a breach of that agreement. As discussed above, the district court erred in instructing the jury that copyright law limited the scope of
记录充分支持了陪审团关于违反该协议的认定。如上文所述，地区法院错误地指示陪审团版权法限制了"...... "的范围。

157

Mr. Bowers’ contract protection. Notwithstanding that error, this court may affirm the jury’s breach of contract verdict if substantial record evidence would permit a reasonable jury to find in favor of Mr. Bowers based on a correct understanding of the law. Larch v. Mansfield Mun. Elec. Dept., 272 F.3d 63, 69 (1st Cir. 2001). The shrink-wrap agreements in this case are far broader than the protection afforded by copyright law. Even setting aside copyright violations, the record supports a finding of breach of the agreement between the parties. In view of the breadth of Mr. Bowers’ contracts, this court perceives that substantial evidence supports the jury’s breach of contract verdict relating to both the DOS and Windows versions of Draft-Pak.
Bowers先生的合同保护。尽管有这一错误，但如果实质性的记录证据允许一个合理的陪审团根据对法律的正确理解做出有利于 Bowers 先生的裁决，那么本庭可以维持陪审团的违约裁决。Larch 诉 Mansfield Mun.Larch v. Mansfield Munc.272 F.3d 63, 69 (1st Cir. 2001)。本案中的收缩包装协议远远超出了版权法所提供的保护范围。即使撇开违反版权的行为不谈，记录也证明双方之间的协议遭到了违反。鉴于 Bowers 先生合同的广泛性，本庭认为大量证据支持陪审团关于 Draft-Pak 的 DOS 和 Windows 版本违反合同的裁决。

The record indicates, for example, that Baystate scheduled two weeks in Draft-Pak’s development schedule to analyze the Designer’s Toolkit. Indeed, Robert Bean, Baystate’s president and CEO, testified that Baystate generally analyzed competitors’ products to duplicate their functionality.
例如，记录显示 Baystate 公司在 Draft-Pak 公司的开发计划中安排了两周的时间来分析 Designer's Toolkit。事实上，Baystate 公司的总裁兼首席执行官罗伯特-比恩（Robert Bean）作证说，Baystate 公司通常会分析竞争对手的产品，以复制其功能。

The record also contains evidence of extensive and unusual similarities between Geodraft and the accused Draft-Pak — further evidence of reverse engineering. James Spencer, head of mechanical engineering and integration at the Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center, testified that he examined the relevant software programs to determine “the overall structure of the operating program” such as “how the operating programs actually executed the task of walking a user through creating a [GD&T] symbol.” Mr. Spencer concluded: “In the process of taking the [ANSI Y14.5M] standard and breaking it down into its component parts to actually create a step-by-step process for a user using the software, both Geodraft and Draft-Pak [for DOS] use almost the identical process of breaking down that task into its individual pieces, and it’s organized essentially identically.” This evidence supports the jury’s verdict of a contract breach based on reverse engineering.
记录中还有证据表明，Geodraft 与被告 Draft-Pak 之间存在大量不寻常的相似之处--这是逆向工程的进一步证据。詹姆斯-斯宾塞（James Spencer）是太空和海战系统中心的机械工程和集成主管，他作证说，他检查了相关软件程序，以确定 "操作程序的整体结构"，例如 "操作程序如何实际执行引导用户创建 [GD&T] 符号的任务"。斯宾塞先生得出结论"斯宾塞先生总结道："在采用 [ANSI Y14.5M] 标准并将其分解为各个组成部分，从而为使用软件的用户实际创建一个分步流程的过程中，Geodraft 和 Draft-Pak [for DOS] 都使用了几乎相同的流程，将任务分解为各个部分，其组织结构基本相同。这些证据支持陪审团基于逆向工程做出的违约裁决。

Mr. Ford also testified that he had compared Geodraft and Draft-Pak. When asked to describe the Draft-Pak interface, Mr. Ford responded: “It looked like I was looking at my own program [i.e., Geodraft].” Both Mr. Spencer and Mr. Ford explained in detail similarities between Geodraft and the accused Draft-Pak. Those similarities included the interrelationships between program screens, the manner in which parameter selection causes program branching, and the manner in which the GD&T symbols are drawn.
福特先生还作证说，他比较过 Geodraft 和 Draft-Pak。当被要求描述 Draft-Pak 界面时，福特先生回答说："看起来就像我在看自己的程序 [即 Geodraft]"。斯宾塞先生和福特先生都详细解释了 Geodraft 与被告 Draft-Pak 之间的相似之处。这些相似之处包括程序屏幕之间的相互关系、参数选择导致程序分支的方式以及 GD&T 符号的绘制方式。

Both witnesses also testified that those similarities extended beyond structure and design to include many idiosyncratic design choices and inadvertent design flaws. For example, both Geodraft and Draft-Pak offer “straightness tolerance” menu choices of “flat” and “cylindric,” unusual in view of the use by ANSI Y14.5M of the terms “linear” and “circular,” respectively. As another example, neither program requires the user to provide “angularity tolerance” secondary datum to create a feature control frame — a technical oversight that causes creation of an incomplete symbol. In sum, Mr. Spencer testified: “Based on my summary analysis of how the programs function, their errors from the standard and their similar nomenclatures reflecting nonstandard items, I would say that the Draft-Pak [for DOS] is a derivative copy of a Geodraft product.”
两位证人还作证说，这些相似之处超出了结构和设计的范围，还包括许多特殊的设计选择和不经意的设计缺陷。例如，Geodraft 和 Draft-Pak 都提供了 "平面 "和 "圆柱 "的 "直线度公差 "菜单选项，这在 ANSI Y14.5M 分别使用 "直线 "和 "圆 "这两个术语的情况下并不常见。另一个例子是，两个程序都不要求用户提供 "角度公差 "辅助基准来创建特征控制框架--这种技术疏忽会导致创建的符号不完整。总之，斯宾塞先生作证说"根据我对这些程序的功能、它们与标准的误差以及它们反映非标准项目的类似术语的简要分析，我认为 Draft-Pak [DOS 版] 是 Geodraft 产品的衍生拷贝"。

Mr. Ford and others also demonstrated to the jury the operation of Geodraft and both the DOS and Windows versions of the accused Draft-Pak. Those software demonstrations undoubtedly conveyed information to the jury that the paper record on appeal cannot easily replicate. This court, therefore, is especially reluctant to substitute its judgment for that of
福特先生和其他人还向陪审团演示了 Geodraft 以及被控 Draft-Pak 的 DOS 和 Windows 版本的操作。这些软件演示无疑向陪审团传递了一些信息，而上诉中的纸质记录无法轻易复制这些信息。因此，本庭特别不愿意用自己的判断代替陪审团的判断。

158

the jury on the sufficiency and interpretation of that evidence. In any event, the record fully supports the jury’s verdict that Baystate breached its contract with Mr. Bowers.
陪审团将就该证据的充分性和解释进行裁决。无论如何，记录完全支持陪审团的裁决，即 Baystate 公司违反了与 Bowers 先生的合同。

Baystate does not contest the contract damages amount on appeal. Thus, this court sustains the district court’s award of contract damages. Mr. Bowers, however, argues that the district court abused its discretion by dropping copyright damages from the combined damage award. To the contrary, this court perceives no abuse of discretion.
Baystate在上诉中没有对合同损害赔偿金额提出异议。因此，本法院支持地区法院对合同损害赔偿的裁决。但是，Bowers 先生认为地区法院滥用了自由裁量权，将版权损害赔偿从合并损害赔偿中删除。与此相反，本庭认为没有滥用自由裁量权。

The shrink-wrap license agreement prohibited, inter alia, all reverse engineering of Mr. Bowers’ software, protection encompassing but more extensive than copyright protection, which prohibits only certain copying. Mr. Bowers’ copyright and contract claims both rest on Baystate’s copying of Mr. Bowers’ software. Following the district court’s instructions, the jury considered and awarded damages on each separately. This was entirely appropriate. The law is clear that the jury may award separate damages for each claim, “leaving it to the judge to make appropriate adjustments to avoid double recovery.” Britton v. Maloney, 196 F.3d 24, 32 (1st Cir. 1999) (citing Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan, 506 U.S. 447, 451 n. 3, 113 S. Ct. 884, 122 L. Ed. 2d 247 (1993)); see also Data Gen. Corp. v. Grumman Sys. Support Corp., 825 F. Supp. 340, 346 (D. Mass. 1993) (“So long as a plaintiff is not twice compensated for a single injury, a judgment may be comprised of elements drawn from separate…remedies.”), aff’d in relevant part, 36 F.3d 1147 (1st Cir. 1994). In this case, the breach of contract damages arose from the same copying and included the same lost sales that form the basis for the copyright damages. The district court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion by omitting from the final damage award the duplicative copyright damages. Because this court affirms the district court’s omission of the copyright damages, this court need not reach the merits of Mr. Bowers’ copyright infringement claim.
除其他外，收缩包装许可协议禁止对 Bowers 先生的软件进行任何逆向工程，这种保护包括但比版权保护更为广泛，后者只禁止某些复制。Bowers 先生的版权和合同索赔均以 Baystate 复制 Bowers 先生的软件为依据。根据地区法院的指示，陪审团分别考虑并判定了两方面的损害赔偿。这是完全恰当的。法律明确规定，陪审团可就每项索赔分别判定损害赔偿，"由法官做出适当调整，以避免双重赔偿"。Britton v. Maloney, 196 F.3d 24, 32 (1st Cir. 1999) (citing Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan, 506 U.S. 447, 451 n. 3, 113 S. Ct.2d 247 (1993)); see also Data Gen.Support Corp., 825 F. Supp. 340, 346 (D. Mass. 1993) ("So long as a plaintiff is not twice compensated for a single injury, a judgment may be comprised of elements drawn from separate...remedies."), aff'd in relevant part, 36 F.3d 1147 (1st Cir. 1994).在本案中，违约损害赔偿产生于相同的复制行为，并包括构成版权损害赔偿基础的相同的销售损失。因此，地区法院没有滥用自由裁量权，在最终损害赔偿中省略了重复的版权损害赔偿。由于本庭维持地区法院省略版权损害赔偿的判决，因此本庭无需审理 Bowers 先生版权侵权索赔的是非曲直。

Questions

1.

General Discussion Questions

1.1

Do you think that object code distributed in a mass market software product can retain trade secret protection? Always? Never? Only under certain circumstances?
你认为在大众市场软件产品中发布的目标代码可以保留商业秘密保护吗？总是？从不？只有在某些情况下？

1.2

Why do courts and policymakers consider reverse engineering to be an ethical and even a laudatory business practice?
为什么法院和决策者认为逆向工程是一种合乎道德甚至值得称赞的商业行为？

1.3

Do you agree with the Federal Circuit’s conclusion in the Bowers v. Baystate Technologies case that contractual prohibitions on reverse engineering are not preempted by copyright law?
您是否同意联邦巡回法院在 Bowers 诉 Baystate Technologies 一案中得出的结论，即禁止反向工程的合同不受版权法约束？

1.4

Would you support legislation making contractual prohibitions on reverse engineering unenforceable? Test your conclusion in light of the facts of the Bowers v. Baystate Technologies case.
您是否支持立法规定禁止逆向工程的合同不可执行？根据 Bowers 诉 Baystate Technologies 案的事实检验您的结论。

1.5

Should the purpose behind the reverse engineering matter? Should it be more legal to reverse engineer to achieve interoperability than to create a clone or competing product?
逆向工程背后的目的是否重要？为实现互操作性而进行逆向工程是否比创造克隆产品或竞争产品更合法？

159

2.

Litigation Questions

2.1

In the Bowers v. Baystate Technologies case, why did Bowers bring patent, copyright, and contract causes actions but not a trade secret cause of action?
在 Bowers 诉 Baystate Technologies 案中，为什么 Bowers 提起了专利、版权和合同诉讼，却没有提起商业秘密诉讼？

2.2

Analyze the role that remedies played in the outcome of the Bowers v. Baystate Technologies case. What advice would you give a client in pre-litigation counseling in light of Judge Rader’s hint about the potential for recovery of contract damages?12
分析补救措施在 Bowers 诉 Baystate Technologies 案的结果中所起的作用。根据 Rader 法官关于合同损害赔偿追偿可能性的提示，您将在诉前咨询中向客户提供哪些建议？ 12

3.

Business Law Questions

3.1

Should every EULA contain a prohibition on reverse engineering? On what basis would you decide?
是否每份 EULA 都应禁止反向工程？您将根据什么做出决定？

3.2

If you represent a business client who wants to obtain information in software code but is confronted with a EULA that prohibits reverse engineering, how would you advise the client? What are the client’s alternatives?
如果你代表的企业客户希望获取软件代码中的信息，但面对禁止反向工程的 EULA，你会如何建议客户？客户有哪些选择？

Exercise

Draft a memo to a software developer client who is trying to decide whether or not to prohibit reverse engineering in a software license agreement. Discuss legal and practical issues.
给一位软件开发商客户起草一份备忘录，该客户正试图决定是否在软件许可协议中禁止逆向工程。讨论法律和实际问题。

1. See Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470, 486 (1974); Aronson v. Quick Point Pencil Co., 440 U.S. 257 (1979).
1. See Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp、416 U.S. 470, 486 (1974); Aronson v. Quick Point Pencil Co., 440 U.S. 257 (1979).

2. We do not here address the applicability of the so-called trade secret exception to section 16600, as Edwards does not dispute that portion of his agreement or contend that the provision of the noncompetition agreement prohibiting him from recruiting Andersen’s employees violated section 16600.
2. 我们在此不讨论所谓的第 16600 条商业秘密例外条款的适用性，因为 Edwards 并未对其协议的这一部分提出异议，也未争辩竞业禁止协议中禁止他招募安达信员工的条款违反了第 16600 条。

3. As noted, the Ninth Circuit’s reading of Boughton and King may be the source of that Circuit’s narrow-restraint exception to section 16600. We are not persuaded that Boughton or King provides any guidance on the issue of noncompetition agreements, largely because neither involved noncompetition agreements in the employment context. However, to the extent they are inconsistent with our analysis, we disapprove Boughton and King.
3. 如前所述、第九巡回法院对Boughton 和King 的解读可能是该巡回法院对第 16600 条的狭义限制例外的来源。我们不认为Boughton 或King 为竞业禁止协议问题提供了任何指导，这主要是因为两者都不涉及雇佣背景下的竞业禁止协议。然而，由于它们与我们的分析不一致，我们不批准Boughton 和King 。

4. This Proposed Protective Order was amended on August 29, 2005.
4. 本建议保护令于 2005 年 8 月 29 日修订。

5. See Robert W. Gomulkiewicz, Leaky Covenants-Not-to-Compete as the Legal Infrastructure for Innovation, 49 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 251 (2014) (comparing the approaches taken by Washington and California).
5. SeeRobert W. Gomulkiewicz, Leaky Covenants-Not-to-Compete as the Legal Infrastructure for InnovationGomulkiewicz, Leaky Covenants-Not-to-Compete as the Legal Infrastructure for Innovation, 49 U.C. DAVIS L. REV.251 (2014)（比较了华盛顿州和加利福尼亚州的做法）。

6. See Robert W. Gomulkiewicz, Reasons For Counseling Reasonableness in Deploying Covenants-Not-to-Compete in Technology Firms, 20 LEWIS & CLARK L. REV. 477 (2016).
6. SeeRobert W. Gomulkiewicz, Reasons For Counseling Reasonableness in Deploying Covenants-Not-to-dompete in the Testing Authority.Gomulkiewicz, Reasons For Counseling Reasonableness in Deploying Covenants-Not-to-Compete in Technology Firms, 20 LEWIS & CLARK L. REV.477 (2016).

7. Restatement OF Torts §757 cmt. f; Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition §43; Uniform Trade Secrets Act§1 official cmt.
7.Restatementof Torts §757 cmt.f;Restatement(Third)UUnfairCcompetitionSection 43；Uniform TradeSecretsAct§1 official cmt.

8. Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 160 (1989).
8. Bonito Boats, Inc.诉 Thunder Craft Boats, Inc.，489 U.S.141，160（1989）。

9. See, e.g., Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of Am., Inc., 975 F.2d 832 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Sony Computer Entm’t, Inc. v. Connectix Corp., 203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2000). But see DSC Commc’ns Corp. v. Pulse Commc’ns, Inc., 170 F.3d 1354, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (noting that reverse engineering may be a fair use but not under all circumstances).
9. See, e.g., Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo of Am、Inc., 975 F.2d 832 (Fed. Cir. 1992)；Sony Computer Entm't, Inc. v. Connectix Corp., 203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2000)。 但参见 DSC Commc'ns Corp. v. Pulse Commc'ns, Inc., 170 F.3d 1354, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 1999)（指出逆向工程可能是一种合理使用，但并非在所有情况下都是如此）。

10. Council Directive 91/250/EEC on the Legal Protection of Software Programs, 1991 O.J. (L 122) 42, 44.
10. 关于软件程序法律保护的第 91/250/EEC 号理事会指令，1991 O.J. (L 122) 42, 44.

11. See also Blizzard Entm’t v. Jung, 422 F.3d 630 (8th Cir. 2005) (reverse engineering in the context of online gaming platform for World of Warcraft).
11. 另见 Blizzard Entm't v. Jung, 422 F.3d 630 (8th Cir. 2005)（《魔兽世界》在线游戏平台的反向工程）。

12. See Robert W. Gomulkiewicz, Fostering the Business of Innovation: The Untold Story of Bowers v. Baystate Technologies, 7 Wash. J.L. Tech. & Arts 445 (2012) (discussing the Federal Circuit’s approach to remedies).
12. See Robert W. Gomulkiewicz, Fostering the Business of Innovation：The Untold Story of Bowers v. Baystate Technologies, 7 Wash.J.L. Tech. & Arts 445 (2012)（讨论联邦巡回法院的救济方法）。

161

· Chapter ·

4

Trademark and Trade Dress Protection

I. INTRODUCTION

In many ways trademark protection for software seems unremarkable. Just like other producers of goods and services, creators of software use the tools of trademark to distinguish and build goodwill in their products. Arguably, however, trademarks have become particularly important in the information economy as consumers constantly must decide who to trust when confronted with whether to download software that they discover, install software “pushed” at them (including software purporting to provide updates, fix bugs, and eradicate viruses), or click on a link.
在许多方面，软件的商标保护似乎并不引人注目。就像其他商品和服务的生产者一样，软件的创造者也使用商标工具来区分并在其产品中建立goodwill。但可以说，商标在信息经济中变得尤为重要，因为消费者在面对是下载他们发现的软件、安装 "推送 "给他们的软件（包括声称提供更新、修复漏洞和清除病毒的软件）还是点击链接时，必须不断决定该相信谁。

Lawyers practicing in the software industry will find some interesting challenges. First, choosing and using marks require careful thought for a variety of reasons, including the fact that software products often work on and with other software and hardware products. This chapter examines several common trademark selection and usage scenarios, as well as challenges presented as the software industry converges with other industries such as the music industry. Second, the chapter explores how different business models in the software industry influence whether a software vendor favors relatively strong or weak trademark protection.
在软件行业执业的律师会发现一些有趣的挑战。首先，选择和使用商标需要经过深思熟虑，原因有很多，其中包括软件产品经常与其他软硬件产品协同工作。本章探讨了几种常见的商标选择和使用情况，以及软件业与音乐业等其他行业融合时所面临的挑战。其次，本章探讨了软件产业中不同的商业模式如何影响软件厂商选择相对较强或较弱的商标保护。

Finally, trade dress protection has the potential to protect the “look and feel” of the user interface of software. Trade dress protection, as you may recall, normally relates to product packaging and configuration but may be applied to product features in certain cases. This chapter explores this possibility.
最后，商业外观保护有可能保护软件用户界面的 "外观和感觉"。您可能还记得，商业外观保护通常与产品包装和配置有关，但在某些情况下也可能适用于产品功能。本章将探讨这种可能性。

II. SELECTING AND USING TRADEMARKS IN THE SOFTWARE INDUSTRY
II.在软件业选择和使用商标

A. Trademarks: Personal Computers

Computer hardware manufacturers produce personal computers, but PCs are made up of numerous third-party hardware and software components. The PC
计算机硬件制造商生产个人计算机，但个人计算机是由众多第三方硬件和软件组件组成的。PC。

162

manufacturer puts its trademark on the computer, of course, but often you will also find third-party trademarks there such as “Intel Inside” or “Windows.” Turn on the computer, and the desktop contains the names and logos of various software, hardware, and services companies. Open a software program and its splash screen displays additional trademarks. Click on a link and the browser takes you to a website that displays additional trademarks. The following Business Law Questions explore trademark selection and use in the PC market.
当然，制造商会在电脑上贴上自己的商标，但通常你也会发现第三方商标，如 "Intel Inside "或 "Windows"。打开电脑，桌面上就会出现各种软件、硬件和服务公司的名称和标识。打开一个软件程序，它的闪屏就会显示更多商标。点击一个链接，浏览器会带你进入一个显示其他商标的网站。以下商业法问题探讨了PC市场中的商标选择和使用。

BUSINESS LAW QUESTIONS

1.

Why would a personal computer hardware manufacturer allow Intel to put its “Intel Inside” logo on the PC? What concerns does the PC company have in doing so? Why does Intel want to put its mark there? What’s the consumer perspective on this? Any policy concerns?
为什么个人计算机硬件制造商会允许 Intel 在PC上贴上 "Intel Inside "徽标？PC公司这样做有什么顾虑？英特尔为什么要在PC上贴上自己的徽标？消费者对此有何看法？政策方面有什么顾虑？

2.

Why would a personal computer hardware manufacturer allow Microsoft to put its Windows mark on the PC? What concerns does the PC company have in doing so? Is there any distinction between allowing marks that say “Windows ready-to-run”; “Windows capable”; or simply “Windows”? Why does Microsoft want to put its mark there? What concerns might it have in placing its trademark on thirdparty hardware? What is the consumer perspective on this? Any policy concerns?
为什么个人计算机硬件制造商会允许 Microsoft 在 PC 上打上 Windows 标记？PC公司这样做有什么顾虑？允许使用 "Windows 即可运行"、"Windows 能力 "或简单的 "Windows "标记之间是否存在任何区别？微软为什么要在这里放置其商标？在第三方硬件上打上自己的商标会有什么顾虑？消费者对此有何看法？在政策上有什么顾虑？

B. Platform Compatible Applications

As discussed previously, application software is written to run on a particular operating system platform. Adobe PageMaker for the Mac runs on the Mac OS, not the Windows OS. There are ways to alter this phenomenon by using compatibility layers, dual boot systems, and other tricks, but these approaches present imperfect solutions. Even when an application is written to run on a particular operating system platform, the application may only run on certain versions of the OS. Application software developers, therefore, use trademarks to signal compatibility with certain OS platforms, as explored in the following Questions and Exercise.
如前所述，应用软件是为在特定操作系统平台上运行而编写的。Mac 版 Adobe PageMaker 可在 Mac 操作系统而非 Windows 操作系统上运行。有一些方法可以通过使用兼容性层、双启动系统和其他技巧来改变这种现象，但这些方法都是不完美的解决方案。即使应用程序是为在特定操作系统平台上运行而编写的，该应用程序也可能只能在特定版本的操作系统上运行。因此，应用软件开发人员会使用商标来表示与特定操作系统平台的兼容性，下面的问题和练习将对此进行探讨。

BUSINESS LAW AND LITIGATION QUESTIONS

A company developed a Linux-based operating system that could run applications written for the Windows OS. The product is called “Lindows” — obviously a play on both the Linux and Windows marks. Microsoft sued the Lindows developer to prevent use of the Lindows mark. Microsoft lost its motions for preliminary injunctive relief, and the case ultimately settled.
一家公司开发了一种基于 Linux 的操作系统，可以运行为 Windows 操作系统编写的应用程序。该产品被称为 "Lindows"--显然是对 Linux 和 Windows 两个商标的戏仿。微软起诉了 Lindows 开发商，以阻止其使用 Lindows 商标。微软公司在初步禁令救济的动议中败诉，该案最终以和解告终。

1.

If you served as Microsoft’s trademark counsel, would you have recommended bringing this lawsuit?
如果您是微软的商标律师，您会建议提起这场诉讼吗？

163

2.

If you served as Microsoft’s litigation counsel, what arguments would you have made and what evidence would you have mustered for your case?
如果您担任微软的诉讼律师，您会提出哪些论据，并为您的案件收集哪些证据？

3.

If you served as Lindows trademark counsel, what advice would you have given regarding selection and use of the Lindows mark?
如果您是 Lindows 的商标顾问，您对 Lindows 商标的选择和使用有何建议？

4.

If you served as Lindows litigation counsel, what arguments would you have made and what evidence would you have mustered for your case?
如果您担任 Lindows 的诉讼律师，您会提出哪些论点，为您的案件收集哪些证据？

5.

What does the Lindows mark signal to the public — compatibility, competition, or both?
Lindows 标志向公众传递了什么信号--兼容性、竞争，还是两者兼而有之？

EXERCISE

Assume that you represent a small start-up company called Mystical Operating System Products (MOP) that has developed a new, innovative operating system for smartphones. The OS is called “Misty.” The president of the company, Danny Dawson, wants applications for the Misty OS to be able to use a logo created by the MOP marketing department to signal compatibility with Misty. You advise Dawson to utilize a logo licensing program. Write the license grant, quality control, warranty, and indemnity sections of the logo license agreement. Draft the text of the license agreement and write an explanation for your approach addressed as an email to Dawson.
假设你代表一家名为 "神秘操作系统产品公司"（MOP）的小型新创公司，该公司为智能手机开发了一种新的创新操作系统。该操作系统名为 "迷雾"。公司总裁 Danny Dawson 希望 Misty 操作系统的应用程序能够使用 MOP 市场部创建的徽标，以表示与 Misty 兼容。你建议道森使用徽标许可计划。撰写徽标许可协议中的许可授予、质量控制、保证和赔偿部分。起草许可协议文本，并以电子邮件的形式向 Dawson 解释你的做法。

C. Open Source Software and Trademarks

Chapter 6 on Software Licensing discusses open source software in depth. If you want, review that part of Chapter 6 before working on the following Business Law Questions.
第 6 章 软件许可深入讨论了开源软件。如果您愿意，请在复习 第 6 章 中的这部分内容后，再学习下面的商业法问题。

BUSINESS LAW QUESTIONS

1.

The Open Source Initiative (OSI) has a licensing program for the Open Source certified logo. This logo is a certification mark, signaling that a software program is licensed under a license based on Open Source principles as expressed in the Open Source Definition. The OSI’s website contains a list of licenses that meet the Open Source Definition. Why does OSI license a logo rather than the “Open Source” word mark? Recently, OSI has taken steps to convert its mark from a certification to a service mark. Why do you think it has done that?
开源计划（OSI）有一个开源认证标识许可计划。该标识是一个认证标志，表明软件程序是根据《开放源码定义》中所表述的开放源码原则许可的。OSI 网站上有一份符合开源定义的许可证清单。为什么 OSI 使用徽标而不是 "开源 "字样？最近，OSI 已采取措施将其标识从认证转换为服务标识。您认为它为什么要这样做？

2.

How would you compare the power of the Open Source logo with the signaling power of simply using GPL 2.0 or the Apache 2.0 license?
您如何比较开放源代码标识的力量与简单使用 GPL 2.0 或 Apache 2.0 许可证的信号力量？

D. Industry Convergence

The Agreement that follows settled a trademark dispute in the early 1990s between Apple Computer, Inc. and Apple Corps Ltd., the music label known for
以下协议解决了 20 世纪 90 年代初苹果电脑公司与 Apple Corps Ltd. 之间的商标纠纷。

164

publishing songs by The Beatles. Settled, it seems, until Apple Computer launched its iPod music player and iTunes music service. At that point, Apple Corps accused Apple Computer of violating the 1991 Agreement. After much public posturing and private negotiations, the parties settled again. However, the 1991 Agreement provides useful instruction on the trademark difficulties that arise in the midst of industry convergence. Study the Agreement and do the Exercise that follows it.
出版披头士的歌曲。在苹果电脑公司推出 iPod 音乐播放器和 iTunes 音乐服务之前，双方似乎已经和解。此时，苹果公司指控苹果电脑违反了 1991 年的协议。经过一番公开姿态和私下谈判，双方再次达成和解。然而，1991 年协议为行业融合过程中出现的商标难题提供了有用的指导。请仔细阅读该协议，并完成其后的练习。

AGREEMENT BETWEEN APPLE COMPUTER, INC. AND APPLE CORPS LTD.
Apple Computer, Inc.与 Apple Corps Ltd. 之间的协议

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

Exercises

Assume that you were serving as in-house corporate counsel at Apple Computer. After studying paragraphs 1.2, 1.3, 4.3, and 4.5 of the Agreement between Apple Computer and Apple Corps, write a memorandum to the business lead of the iPod and iTunes business units, analyzing whether Apple Computer may use the Apple trademark in conjunction with its iPod and iTunes (and future iPhone) businesses.
假设你是苹果电脑公司的内部企业法律顾问。在研究了苹果电脑公司与苹果公司之间协议的第 1.2、1.3、4.3 和 4.5 段之后，给 iPod 和 iTunes 业务部门的业务负责人写一份备忘录，分析苹果电脑公司是否可以在其 iPod 和 iTunes（以及未来的 iPhone）业务中使用苹果商标。

177

III. BUSINESS MODELS AND THEIR RELEVANCE TO WEAK OR STRONG TRADEMARK PROTECTION
III.商业模式及其与弱商标保护或强商标保护的相关性

A software company’s business model influences its attitude toward the desirable strength of trademarks. For example, if a company writes application or add-on software products, it desires a robust trademark fair use doctrine so that it can make referential use of the target platform’s mark. At a minimum, the company needs to say that its software works on (as the case may be) Linux, Mac, or Windows systems. Sometimes the software company would like to do something more creative. For example, when Sun’s Java language and platform were first introduced, many companies chose coffee-related marks (such as Latte and Mocha) to show affinity with the Java platform. From the platform software developer’s side of things, the developer needs to assess which third-party uses are a “win win,” which of them seem dangerous to the developer’s ability to control the goodwill in its mark, and how to act in cases of concern.
软件公司的商业模式会影响其对商标合理强度的态度。例如，如果一家公司撰写应用软件或附加软件产品，它就希望有一个强有力的商标合理使用原则，这样它就可以参考性地使用目标平台的商标。至少，该公司需要说明其软件可在（视情况而定）Linux、Mac 或 Windows 系统上使用。有时，软件公司想做一些更有创意的事情。例如，当 Sun 的 Java 语言和平台刚刚推出时，许多公司选择了与咖啡有关的商标（如 Latte 和 Mocha），以显示与 Java 平台的亲和力。从平台软件开发商的角度来看，开发商需要评估哪些第三方使用是 "双赢 "的，哪些使用似乎对开发商控制其商标中的goodwill的能力构成威胁，以及在出现问题时如何采取行动。

As advertising plays a bigger role in business models, new challenges have emerged. Consider the Rescuecom v. Google case.
随着广告在商业模式中发挥越来越大的作用，新的挑战也随之出现。请看 Rescuecom 诉谷歌案。

RESCUECOM CORP. v. GOOGLE INC.
RESCUECOM CORP.

562 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2009)

LEVAL, Circuit Judge.

BACKGROUND

As this appeal follows the grant of a motion to dismiss, we must take as true the facts alleged in the Complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of Rescuecom. Rescuecom is a national computer service franchising company that offers on-site computer services and sales. Rescuecom conducts a substantial amount of business over the Internet and receives between 17,000 to 30,000 visitors to its website each month. It also advertises over the Internet, using many web-based services, including those offered by Google. Since 1998, “Rescuecom” has been a registered federal trademark, and there is no dispute as to its validity.
由于本上诉是在驳回申诉的动议获得批准后提出的，我们必须将原告起诉书中指控的事实视为真实，并做出有利于 Rescuecom 的所有合理推论。Rescuecom 是一家全国性的计算机服务特许经营公司，提供现场 计算机服务和销售。Rescuecom 通过互联网开展了大量业务，其网站每月的访问量在 17,000 到 30,000 之间。该公司还利用许多网络服务，包括谷歌提供的服务，在互联网上做广告。自 1998 年以来，"Rescuecom "一直是注册的联邦商标，对其有效性没有争议。

Google operates a popular Internet search engine, which users access by visiting www.google.com. Using Google’s website, a person searching for the website of a particular entity in trade (or simply for information about it) can enter that entity’s name or trademark into Google’s search engine and launch a search. Google’s proprietary system responds to such a search request in two ways. First, Google provides a list of links to websites, ordered in what Google deems to be of descending relevance to the user’s search terms based on its proprietary algorithms. Google’s search engine assists the public not only in obtaining information about a provider, but also in purchasing products and services. If a prospective purchaser, looking for goods or services of a particular provider, enters the provider’s trademark as a search term on Google’s website and clicks to activate a search, within seconds, the Google search engine will provide on the searcher’s computer screen a link to
www.google.com. 使用谷歌的网站，搜索特定贸易实体网站（或仅仅是有关该实体的信息）的人可以在谷歌的搜索引擎中输入该实体的名称或商标并启动搜索。谷歌的专有系统会以两种方式响应这种搜索请求。首先，谷歌提供一个网站链接列表，根据其专有算法，按照谷歌认为与用户搜索词相关程度的高低排列。谷歌的搜索引擎不仅可以帮助公众获取有关供应商的信息，还可以帮助公众购买产品和服务。如果一个潜在购买者想购买某个供应商的产品或服务，在谷歌网站上输入该供应商的商标作为搜索词，并点击激活搜索，在几秒钟内，谷歌搜索引擎就会在搜索者的电脑屏幕上提供一个链接，链接到该供应商的产品或服务。

178

the webpage maintained by that provider (as well as a host of other links to sites that Google’s program determines to be relevant to the search term entered). By clicking on the link of the provider, the searcher will be directed to the provider’s website, where the searcher can obtain information supplied by the provider about its products and services and can perhaps also make purchases from the provider by placing orders.
由该供应商维护的网页（以及谷歌程序认为与所输入搜索词相关的大量其他网站链接）。通过点击提供商的链接，搜索者将被引导至提供商的网站，在那里搜索者可以获得提供商提供的有关其产品和服务的信息，或许还可以通过下订单的方式从提供商处进行购买。

The second way Google responds to a search request is by showing context-based advertising. When a searcher uses Google’s search engine by submitting a search term, Google may place advertisements on the user’s screen. Google will do so if an advertiser, having determined that its ad is likely to be of interest to a searcher who enters the particular term, has purchased from Google the placement of its ad on the screen of the searcher who entered that search term. What Google places on the searcher’s screen is more than simply an advertisement. It is also a link to the advertiser’s website, so that in response to such an ad, if the searcher clicks on the link, he will open the advertiser’s website, which offers not only additional information about the advertiser, but also perhaps the option to purchase the goods and services of the advertiser over the Internet. Google uses at least two programs to offer such context-based links: AdWords and Keyword Suggestion Tool.
谷歌响应搜索请求的第二种方式是显示基于上下文的广告。当搜索者通过提交搜索词使用 Google 的搜索引擎时，Google 可能会在用户的屏幕上投放广告。如果广告商认为输入特定搜索词的搜索者可能会对其广告感兴趣，并向 Google 购买了在输入该搜索词的搜索者的屏幕上投放广告的服务，Google 就会这样做。谷歌在搜索者屏幕上投放的不仅仅是广告。它也是广告商网站的一个链接，因此，如果搜索者点击该链接，就会打开广告商的网站，该网站不仅提供有关广告商的更多信息，而且还可能提供通过互联网购买广告商的商品和服务的选择。谷歌至少使用了两种程序来提供这种基于上下文的链接：AdWords 和关键词建议工具。

AdWords is Google’s program through which advertisers purchase terms (or keywords). When entered as a search term, the keyword triggers the appearance of the advertiser’s ad and link. An advertiser’s purchase of a particular term causes the advertiser’s ad and link to be displayed on the user’s screen whenever a searcher launches a Google search based on the purchased search term.1 Advertisers pay Google based on the number of times Internet users “click” on the advertisement, so as to link to the advertiser’s website. For example, using Google’s AdWords, Company Y, a company engaged in the business of furnace repair, can cause Google to display its advertisement and link whenever a user of Google launches a search based on the search term, “furnace repair.” Company Y can also cause its ad and link to appear whenever a user searches for the term “Company X,” a competitor of Company Y in the furnace repair business. Thus, whenever a searcher interested in purchasing furnace repair services from Company X launches a search of the term X (Company X’s trademark), an ad and link would appear on the searcher’s screen, inviting the searcher to the furnace repair services of X’s competitor, Company Y. And if the searcher clicked on Company Y’s link, Company Y’s website would open on the searcher’s screen, and the searcher might be able to order or purchase Company Y’s furnace repair services.
AdWords是谷歌的一项计划，广告商通过该计划购买术语（或关键字）。当输入搜索关键词时，关键词会触发广告商的广告和链接。广告商购买特定术语后，每当搜索者根据购买的搜索术语启动 Google 搜索时，广告商的广告和链接就会显示在用户屏幕上。1 广告商根据互联网用户 "点击 "广告并链接到广告商网站的次数向 Google 支付费用。例如，利用 Google 的 AdWords，从事火炉维修业务的 Y 公司可以使 Google 在用户根据搜索词 "火炉维修 "进行搜索时显示其广告和链接。每当用户搜索 "X 公司"（Y 公司在火炉维修业务方面的竞争对手）时，Y 公司也可以使其广告和链接出现。因此，每当有兴趣购买 X 公司炉子维修服务的搜索者搜索 X（X 公司的商标）时，搜索者的屏幕上就会出现广告和链接，邀请搜索者使用 X 的竞争对手 Y 公司的炉子维修服务。如果搜索者点击 Y 公司的链接，Y 公司的网站就会在搜索者的屏幕上打开，搜索者可能会订购或购买 Y 公司的炉子维修服务。

In addition to AdWords, Google also employs Keyword Suggestion Tool, a program that recommends keywords to advertisers to be purchased. The program is designed to improve the effectiveness of advertising by helping advertisers identify keywords related to their area of commerce, resulting in the placement of their ads before users who are likely to be responsive to it. Thus, continuing the example given above, if Company Y employed Google’s Keyword Suggestion Tool, the Tool might suggest to Company Y that it purchase not only the term “furnace repair” but also the term “X,” its competitor’s brand name and trademark, so that Y’s ad would appear on the screen of a searcher who searched Company X’s trademark, seeking Company X’s website.
除 AdWords 外，谷歌还采用了 "关键字建议工具"（Keyword Suggestion Tool），这是一个向广告商推荐购买关键字的程序。该程序旨在帮助广告商确定与其商业领域相关的关键字，从而将广告投放到可能对其产生反应的用户面前，从而提高广告效果。因此，继续上面的例子，如果 Y 公司使用谷歌的关键词建议工具，该工具可能会建议 Y 公司不仅购买 "火炉修理 "一词，而且购买其竞争对手的品牌名称和商标 "X "一词，这样 Y 公司的广告就会出现在搜索 X 公司商标的搜索者的屏幕上。

179

Once an advertiser buys a particular keyword, Google links the keyword to that advertiser’s advertisement. The advertisements consist of a combination of content and a link to the advertiser’s webpage. Google displays these advertisements on the search result page either in the right margin or in a horizontal band immediately above the column of relevance-based search results. These advertisements are generally associated with a label, which says “sponsored link.” Rescuecom alleges, however, that a user might easily be misled to believe that the advertisements which appear on the screen are in fact part of the relevance-based search result and that the appearance of a competitor’s ad and link in response to a searcher’s search for Rescuecom is likely to cause trademark confusion as to affiliation, origin, sponsorship, or approval of service. This can occur, according to the Complaint, because Google fails to label the ads in a manner which would clearly identify them as purchased ads rather than search results. The Complaint alleges that when the sponsored links appear in a horizontal bar at the top of the search results, they may appear to the searcher to be the first, and therefore the most relevant, entries responding to the search, as opposed to paid advertisements.
一旦广告商购买了某个关键词，谷歌就会将该关键词链接到该广告商的广告上。广告由内容和广告商网页链接组成。谷歌将这些广告显示在搜索结果页面的右侧空白处，或显示在基于相关性的搜索结果列上方的水平带中。这些广告通常带有一个标签，上面写着 "赞助商链接"。然而，Rescuecom 声称，用户很容易被误导，认为屏幕上出现的广告实际上是基于相关性的搜索结果的一部分，而竞争对手的广告和链接出现在搜索者对 Rescuecom 的搜索结果中，很可能会导致商标混淆，使其误认为是附属公司、原产地、赞助商或服务批准。起诉书称，之所以会出现这种情况，是因为谷歌未能以明确标识广告为购买广告而非搜索结果的方式进行标注。申诉书称，当赞助商链接出现在搜索结果顶部的水平条中时，搜索者可能会认为它们是响应搜索的第一个条目，因此也是最相关的条目，而不是付费广告。

Google’s objective in its AdWords and Keyword Suggestion Tool programs is to sell keywords to advertisers. Rescuecom alleges that Google makes 97% of its revenue from selling advertisements through its AdWords program. Google therefore has an economic incentive to increase the number of advertisements and links that appear for every term entered into its search engine.
谷歌的 AdWords 和关键字建议工具项目的目标是向广告商销售关键字。Rescuecom 声称，谷歌 97% 的收入来自通过 AdWords 项目销售广告。因此，Google 有经济动机增加输入其搜索引擎的每个词的广告和链接数量。

Many of Rescuecom’s competitors advertise on the Internet. Through its Keyword Suggestion Tool, Google has recommended the Rescuecom trademark to Rescuecom’s competitors as a search term to be purchased. Rescuecom’s competitors, some responding to Google’s recommendation, have purchased Rescuecom’s trademark as a keyword in Google’s AdWords program, so that whenever a user launches a search for the term “Rescuecom,” seeking to be connected to Rescuecom’s website, the competitors’ advertisement and link will appear on the searcher’s screen. This practice allegedly allows Rescuecom’s competitors to deceive and divert users searching for Rescuecom’s website. According to Rescuecom’s allegations, when a Google user launches a search for the term “Rescuecom” because the searcher wishes to purchase Rescuecom’s services, links to websites of its competitors will appear on the searcher’s screen in a manner likely to cause the searcher to believe mistakenly that a competitor’s advertisement (and website link) is sponsored by, endorsed by, approved by, or affiliated with Rescuecom.
Rescuecom 的许多竞争对手都在互联网上做广告。Google 通过其关键字建议工具向 Rescuecom 的竞争对手推荐 Rescuecom 商标，将其作为可购买的搜索关键词。Rescuecom 的竞争对手（其中一些响应了谷歌的建议）购买了 Rescuecom 的商标作为谷歌 AdWords 程序中的关键字，这样，每当用户搜索 "Rescuecom "一词并希望连接到 Rescuecom 的网站时，竞争对手的广告和链接就会出现在搜索者的屏幕上。据称，这种做法使 Rescuecom 的竞争对手能够欺骗和转移搜索 Rescuecom 网站的用户。根据 Rescuecom 的指控，当谷歌用户因希望购买 Rescuecom 的服务而搜索 "Rescuecom "一词时，其竞争对手的网站链接将出现在搜索者的屏幕上，很可能导致搜索者误以为竞争对手的广告（和网站链接）由 Rescuecom 赞助、认可、批准或与 Rescuecom 有关联。

DISCUSSION

I. Google’s Use of Rescuecom’s Mark Was a “Use in Commerce”
I.谷歌使用 Rescuecom 商标属于 "商业使用 "行为

Our court ruled in 1-800 that a complaint fails to state a claim under the Lanham Act unless it alleges that the defendant has made “use in commerce” of the plaintiff’s trademark as the term “use in commerce” is defined in 15 U.S.C. §1127. The district court believed that this case was on all fours with 1-800, and that its dismissal was required for the same reasons as given in 1-800. We believe the cases are materially different. The allegations of Rescuecom’s complaint adequately plead a use in commerce.
本法院在1-800 一案中裁定，根据《兰哈姆法》的规定，除非指控被告 "在商业中使用 "了原告的商标，否则原告的申诉不能成立，因为《美国法典》第 15 编第 1127 条对 "在商业中使用 "一词进行了定义。地区法院认为，本案与1-800 一案完全相同，因此，出于与1-800 一案相同的理由，必须驳回上诉。 我们认为，这两起案件存在实质性差异。Rescuecom 在申诉中的指控充分证明了在商业中的使用。

180

In 1-800, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant infringed the plaintiff’s trademark through its proprietary software, which the defendant freely distributed to computer users who would download and install the program on their computer. The program provided contextually relevant advertising to the user by generating pop-up advertisements to the user depending on the website or search term the user entered in his browser. For example, if a user typed “eye care” into his browser, the defendant’s program would randomly display a pop-up advertisement of a company engaged in the field of eye care. Similarly, if the searcher launched a search for a particular company engaged in eye care, the defendant’s program would display the pop-up ad of a company associated with eye care. The pop-up ad appeared in a separate browser window from the website the user accessed, and the defendant’s brand was displayed in the window frame surrounding the ad, so that there was no confusion as to the nature of the pop-up as an advertisement, nor as to the fact that the defendant, not the trademark owner, was responsible for displaying the ad, in response to the particular term searched.
1-800案中，原告指控被告通过其专有软件侵犯了原告的商标权，被告向下载并在其计算机上安装该软件的计算机用户免费分发了该软件。该软件根据用户在浏览器中输入的网站或搜索词生成弹出式广告，向用户提供与上下文相关的广告。例如，如果用户在浏览器中输入 "眼睛保健"，被告的程序就会随机显示一家从事眼睛保健的公司的弹出式广告。同样，如果搜索者搜索某家从事眼科保健的公司，被告的程序就会显示一家与眼科保健相关的公司的弹出式广告。弹出式广告出现在用户访问的网站之外的一个单独的浏览器窗口中，而被告的品牌则显示在广告周围的窗口框架中，因此，不会对弹出式广告的性质产生混淆，也不会对被告（而非商标所有人）负责针对特定的搜索词显示广告这一事实产生混淆。

Sections 32 and 43 of the Act, which we also refer to by their codified designations, 15 U.S.C. §§1114 & 1125, inter alia, impose liability for unpermitted “use in commerce” of another’s mark which is “likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive,”§1114, “as to the affiliation…or as to the origin, sponsorship or approval of his or her goods [or] services…by another person.” §1125(a)(1)(A). The 1-800 opinion looked to the definition of the term “use in commerce” provided in §45 of the Act, 15 U.S.C. §1127. That definition provides in part that “a mark shall be deemed to be in use in commerce… (2) on services when it is used or displayed in the sale or advertising of services and the services are rendered in commerce.” 15 U.S.C. §1127. Our court found that the plaintiff failed to show that the defendant made a “use in commerce” of the plaintiff’s mark, within that definition.
《法案》第 32 和 43 条，我们也以其编纂名称 15 U.S.C. §§1114 & 1125 来称呼它们。§1114 & 1125，除其他外，对未经许可 "在商业中使用 "他人商标"可能造成混淆、错误或欺骗 "的行为规定了责任，§1114，"在隶属关系......方面......"。或其商品[或]服务......的来源、赞助或批准"。"§1125(a)(1)(A)。1-800 意见参考了该法第 45 节（《美国法典》第 15 编第 1127 节）中 "在商业中使用 "一词的定义。该定义部分规定："一个商标应被视为在商业中使用......(2) 当它被使用或展示在服务的销售或广告中，并且服务是在商业中提供的。15 U.S.C. §1127。我们的法院认为，原告未能证明被告 "在商业中使用 "了原告的商标。

At the outset, we note two significant aspects of our holding in 1-800, which distinguish it from the present case. A key element of our court’s decision in 1-800 was that under the plaintiff’s allegations, the defendant did not use, reproduce, or display the plaintiff’s mark at all. The search term that was alleged to trigger the pop-up ad was the plaintiff’s website address. 1-800 noted, notwithstanding the similarities between the website address and the mark, that the website address was not used or claimed by the plaintiff as a trademark. Thus, the transactions alleged to be infringing were not transactions involving use of the plaintiff’s trademark. Id. at 408-09.2 1-800 suggested in dictum that is highly relevant to our case that had the defendant used the plaintiff’s trademark as the trigger to pop-up an advertisement, such conduct might, depending on other elements, have been actionable. 414 F.3d at 409 & n.11.
首先，我们注意到我们在1-800 案中的裁定有两个重要方面，这两个方面与本案有所不同。在 1-800 案中，本法院判决的一个关键因素是，根据原告的指控，被告根本没有使用、复制或展示原告的商标。据称触发弹出式广告的搜索词是原告的 网站地址。1-800指出，尽管网站地址与商标相似，但原告并未将网站地址作为商标使用或主张。因此，被控侵权的交易不涉及原告商标的使用。Id. 第 408-09 页。2 1-800 在与本案高度相关的判词中提出，如果被告使用原告的商标作为弹出广告的触发器、根据其他要素，这种行为可能具有可诉性。414 F.3d at 409 & n.11.。

Second, as an alternate basis for its decision, 1-800 explained why the defendant’s program, which might randomly trigger pop-up advertisements upon a searcher’s input of the
其次，作为裁决的另一个依据，1-800 解释了为什么被告的程序可能会在搜索者输入 时随机触发弹出式广告。