这是用户在 2024-8-11 21:09 为 https://app.immersivetranslate.com/word/ 保存的双语快照页面,由 沉浸式翻译 提供双语支持。了解如何保存?

· 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 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) 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 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。

[Company]

[Company]

Signature: ______

Signature: ______

94

Printed Name: ______

Printed Name: ______

Title: ______

Title: ______

Signature Date: ______

Signature Date: ______

Address:

Address:

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》、 《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,
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
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BoughtonKing 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BoughtonKing 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BoughtonKing

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。

181

plaintiff’s website address, did not constitute a “use in commerce,” as defined in §1127. Id. at 408-09. In explaining why the plaintiff’s mark was not “used or displayed in the sale or advertising of services,”1-800 pointed out that, under the defendant’s program, advertisers could not request or purchase keywords to trigger their ads. Id. at 409, 412. Even if an advertiser wanted to display its advertisement to a searcher using the plaintiff’s trademark as a search term, the defendant’s program did not offer this possibility. In fact, the defendant “did not disclose the proprietary contents of [its] directory to its advertising clients.…” Id. at 409. In addition to not selling trademarks of others to its customers to trigger these ads, the defendant did not “otherwise manipulate which category-related advertisement will pop up in response to any particular terms on the internal directory.” Id. at 411. The display of a particular advertisement was controlled by the category associated with the website or keyword, rather than the website or keyword itself. The defendant’s program relied upon categorical associations such as “eye care” to select a pop-up ad randomly from a predefined list of ads appropriate to that category. To the extent that an advertisement for a competitor of the plaintiff was displayed when a user opened the plaintiff’s website, the trigger to display the ad was not based on the defendant’s sale or recommendation of a particular trademark.
原告的网站地址不构成第 1127 条定义的 "商业使用"。Id. at 408-09。1-800 在解释为什么原告的商标没有 "在服务销售或广告中使用或展示 "时指出,根据被告的计划,广告商不能要求或购买关键字来触发他们的广告。Id. at 409, 412。即使广告商希望向使用原告商标作为搜索词的搜索者展示其广告,被告的程序也没有提供这种可能性。事实上,被告 "并未向其广告客户披露[其]目录的专有内容...."。Id. 第 409 页。除了不向客户出售他人商标以触发这些广告外,被告也没有 "以其他方式操纵与类别相关的广告将根据内部目录上的任何特定术语弹出"。Id. at 411。特定广告的显示由与网站或关键词相关的类别控制,而不是由网站或关键词本身控制。被告的程序依赖于 "眼睛保健 "等类别关联,从预定义的适合该类别的广告列表中随机选择弹出式广告。 在用户打开原告网站时显示了原告竞争对手的广告的情况下,显示该广告的触发因素并非基于被告销售或推荐特定商标。

The present case contrasts starkly with those important aspects of the 1-800 decision. First, in contrast to 1-800, where we emphasized that the defendant made no use whatsoever of the plaintiff’s trademark, here what Google is recommending and selling to its advertisers is Rescuecom’s trademark. Second, in contrast with the facts of 1-800 where the defendant did not “use or display,” much less sell, trademarks as search terms to its advertisers, here Google displays, offers, and sells Rescuecom’s mark to Google’s advertising customers when selling its advertising services. In addition, Google encourages the purchase of Rescuecom’s mark through its Keyword Suggestion Tool. Google’s utilization of Rescuecom’s mark fits literally within the terms specified by 15 U.S.C. §1127. According to the Complaint, Google uses and sells Rescuecom’s mark “in the sale…of [Google’s advertising] services… rendered in commerce.” §1127.
本案与1-800 案判决的重要方面形成鲜明对比。首先,与1-800 案中我们强调被告没有使用原告的商标不同,在本案中,谷歌向其广告客户推荐和销售的是 Rescuecom 的商标。其次,与1-800 案中被告没有 "使用或展示 "商标,更没有将商标作为搜索条件出售给其广告客户的事实不同,在本案中,Google 在出售其广告 服务时,向 Google 的广告客户展示、提供并出售 Rescuecom 的商标。此外,Google 还通过其关键字建议工具鼓励购买 Rescuecom 的商标。Google 对 Rescuecom 商标的使用完全符合 15 U.S.C. §1127 规定的条款。根据起诉书,Google 在 "销售......[Google 的广告]服务......的商业活动中 "使用并销售 Rescuecom 的商标。§1127。

Google, supported by amici, argues that 1-800 suggests that the inclusion of a trademark in an internal computer directory cannot constitute trademark use. Several district court decisions in this Circuit appear to have reached this conclusion. See e.g., S&L Vitamins, Inc. v. Australian Gold, Inc., 521 F. Supp. 2d 188, 199-202 (E.D. N.Y. 2007) (holding that use of a trademark in metadata did not constitute trademark use within the meaning of the Lanham Act because the use “is strictly internal and not communicated to the public”); Merck & Co., Inc. v. Mediplan Health Consulting, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 2d 402, 415 (S.D. N.Y. 2006) (holding that the internal use of a keyword to trigger advertisements did not qualify as trademark use). This over-reads the 1-800 decision. First, regardless of whether Google’s use of Rescuecom’s mark in its internal search algorithm could constitute an actionable trademark use, Google’s recommendation and sale of Rescuecom’s mark to its advertising customers are not internal uses. Furthermore, 1-800 did not imply that use of a trademark in a software program’s internal directory precludes a finding of trademark use. Rather, influenced by the fact that the defendant was not using the plaintiff’s trademark at all, much less using it as the basis of a commercial transaction, the court asserted that the particular use before it did not constitute a use in commerce. See 1-800, 414 F.3d at 409-12. We did not imply in 1-800 that an alleged infringer’s use of a trademark in an internal software program insulates the alleged infringer
Google 在法庭之友的支持下辩称,1-800 表明在内部计算机目录中包含商标不能构成商标使用。本巡回法院的一些地区法院判决似乎得出了这一结论。例如, S&L Vitamins, Inc. v. Australian Gold, Inc、Inc. v. Mediplan Health Consulting, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 2d 402, 415 (S.D. N.Y. 2006)(认为内部使用关键字触发广告不符合商标使用的条件)。这过度解读了1-800 判决。首先,无论谷歌在其内部搜索算法中使用 Rescuecom 的商标是否构成可诉的商标使用,谷歌向其广告客户推荐和销售 Rescuecom 的商标都不属于内部使用。此外,1-800 并未暗示在软件程序的内部目录中使用商标就排除了商标使用的认定。相反,受被告根本没有使用原告商标这一事实的影响,更不用说将其作为商业交易的基础了,法院断言其面前的特定使用并不构成商业使用。See 1-800, 414 F.3d at 409-12。我们并没有在1-800 中暗示,被控侵权人在内部软件程序中使用商标可以使被控侵权人免责

182

from a charge of infringement, no matter how likely the use is to cause confusion in the marketplace. If we were to adopt Google and its amici’s argument, the operators of search engines would be free to use trademarks in ways designed to deceive and cause consumer confusion.3 This is surely neither within the intention nor the letter of the Lanham Act.
无论商标的使用多有可能在市场上造成混淆,都不能被指控侵权。3 这肯定既不符合《兰哈姆法》的意图,也不符合其文字。

Google and its amici contend further that its use of the Rescuecom trademark is no different from that of a retail vendor who uses “product placement” to allow one vender to benefit from a competitor’s name recognition. An example of product placement occurs when a store-brand generic product is placed next to a trademarked product to induce a customer who specifically sought out the trademarked product to consider the typically less expensive, generic brand as an alternative. Google’s argument misses the point. From the fact that proper, non-deceptive product placement does not result in liability under the Lanham Act, it does not follow that the label “product placement” is a magic shield against liability, so that even a deceptive plan of product placement designed to confuse consumers would similarly escape liability. It is not by reason of absence of a use of a mark in commerce that benign product placement escapes liability; it escapes liability because it is a benign practice which does not cause a likelihood of consumer confusion. In contrast, if a retail seller were to be paid by an off-brand purveyor to arrange product display and delivery in such a way that customers seeking to purchase a famous brand would receive the off-brand, believing they had gotten the brand they were seeking, we see no reason to believe the practice would escape liability merely because it could claim the mantle of “product placement.” The practices attributed to Google by the Complaint, which at this stage we must accept as true, are significantly different from benign product placement that does not violate the Act.
谷歌及其诉讼代理人进一步辩称,谷歌对 Rescuecom 商标的使用与零售商利用 "产品摆放 "使一个销售商从竞争对手的知名度中获益的做法并无不同。产品摆放的一个例子是,商店品牌的非专利产品被摆放在商标产品的旁边,以诱使专门寻找商标产品的顾客将通常价格较低的非专利品牌作为替代品。谷歌的论点没有抓住重点。根据《兰哈姆法》,适当的、非欺骗性的产品摆放不会导致法律责任,但这并不意味着 "产品摆放 "这一标签是免责的法宝,因此即使是旨在混淆消费者的欺骗性产品摆放计划也同样可以逃脱法律责任。良性的产品摆放并不是因为没有在商业中使用商标而免责;它之所以免责,是因为它是一种良性做法,不会造成消费者混淆的可能性。与此相反,如果零售商接受非品牌销售商的付款,安排产品的展示和运送,使寻求购买知名品牌的消费者收到非知名品牌的产品,以为自己买到了想要的品牌,我们认为没有理由相信这种做法会仅仅因为可以披上 "产品放置 "的外衣而逃脱责任。原告将谷歌的做法归咎于谷歌,在现阶段我们必须承认这些做法属实,但这些做法与不违反该法的良性产品植入行为有很大不同。

Unlike the practices discussed in 1-800, the practices here attributed to Google by Rescuecom’s complaint are that Google has made use in commerce of Rescuecom’s mark. Needless to say, a defendant must do more than use another’s mark in commerce to violate the Lanham Act. The gist of a Lanham Act violation is an unauthorized use, which “is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, …or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of…goods [or] services.” See 15 U.S.C. §1125(a); Estee Lauder Inc. v. The Gap, Inc., 108 F.3d 1503, 1508-09 (2d Cir. 1997). We have no idea whether Rescuecom can prove that Google’s use of Rescuecom’s trademark in its AdWords program causes likelihood of confusion or mistake. Rescuecom has alleged that it does, in that would-be purchasers (or explorers) of its services who search for its website on Google are misleadingly directed to the ads and websites of its competitors in a manner which leads them to believe mistakenly that these ads or websites are sponsored by, or affiliated with Rescuecom. This is particularly so, Rescuecom alleges, when the advertiser’s link appears in a horizontal band at the top of the list of search results in a manner which makes it appear to be the most relevant search result and not an advertisement. What Rescuecom alleges is that by the manner of Google’s display of sponsored links of competing brands in response to a search for
1-800中讨论的行为不同, Rescuecom在申诉中归咎于谷歌的行为是谷歌在商业中使用了Rescuecom的商标。毋庸置疑,被告违反《兰哈姆法》的行为必须不仅仅是在商业活动中使用他人的商标。违反《兰哈姆法》的要旨是未经授权的使用,即 "有可能在......商品[或]服务的隶属关系,或在......商品[或]服务的来源、赞助或批准方面造成混淆、导致错误或欺骗"。See 15 U.S.C. §1125(a); Estee Lauder Inc. v. The Gap, Inc., 108 F.3d 1503, 1508-09 (2d Cir. 1997)。我们不知道 Rescuecom 能否证明 Google 在其 AdWords 程序中使用 Rescuecom 的商标会导致混淆或错误。Rescuecom 声称确实如此,因为在谷歌上搜索其网站的潜在购买者(或探索者)被误导性地引导至其竞争对手的广告和网站,导致他们误以为这些广告或网站由 Rescuecom 赞助或与 Rescuecom 有关联。Rescuecom 称,当广告商的链接出现在搜索结果列表顶部的水平带中,使其看起来是最相关的搜索结果而非广告时,这种情况尤为明显。Rescuecom 声称,谷歌在搜索以下内容时显示竞争品牌的赞助商链接的方式是

183

Rescuecom’s brand name (which fails adequately to identify the sponsored link as an advertisement, rather than a relevant search result), Google creates a likelihood of consumer confusion as to trademarks. If the searcher sees a different brand name as the top entry in response to the search for “Rescuecom,” the searcher is likely to believe mistakenly that the different name which appears is affiliated with the brand name sought in the search and will not suspect, because the fact is not adequately signaled by Google’s presentation, that this is not the most relevant response to the search. Whether Google’s actual practice is in fact benign or confusing is not for us to judge at this time. We consider at the 12(b)(6) stage only what is alleged in the Complaint.
如果谷歌将 "Rescuecom "的品牌名称与 "Rescuecom "的品牌名称混淆(没有将赞助商链接充分识别为广告而非相关搜索结果),谷歌就有可能造成消费者对商标的混淆。如果搜索者在搜索 "Rescuecom "时看到一个不同的品牌名称出现在最前面,那么搜索者很可能误认为出现的不同名称与搜索的品牌名称有关联,而不会怀疑,因为谷歌的展示方式没有充分表明这不是与搜索最相关的回应。谷歌的实际做法究竟是良性的还是混淆性的,我们目前无法判断。在 12(b)(6) 阶段,我们只考虑原告指控的内容。

The judgment of the district court is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
地区法院的判决被撤销,案件发回重审。

* * *

GENERAL DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

1.

Do you agree with the court that Google “used” Rescuecom’s mark in commerce? What role does the “use in commerce” factor play in trademark law?
您是否同意法院关于 Google 在商业中 "使用 "Rescuecom 商标的观点?商业使用 "因素在商标法中起什么作用?

2.

When the case gets tried on the merits, do you see any trademark issues? Any other legal issues?
当案件进入实质审理阶段时,您认为会出现任何商标问题吗?还有其他法律问题吗?

3.

What does the case tell you about Google’s attitude toward strong versus weak trademark protection? How does that compare with what you know about Google’s attitude toward copyright, patent, and trade secret protection? Chapter 10 on Business Model Innovation addresses these issues as well.
本案例说明了谷歌对强商标保护和弱商标保护的态度?这与您所了解的 Google 对版权、专利和商业秘密保护的态度相比有何不同? 第 10 章 商业模式创新也涉及这些问题。

IV. TRADE DRESS AND TRADEMARK PROTECTION FOR USER INTERFACE DESIGN
IV.用户界面设计的商业外观和商标保护

Prior to evaluating the prospect of using trade dress protection for user interfaces, read TrafFix Devices v. Marketing Displays, which is an important U.S. Supreme Court case commenting on the scope of trade dress protection in general. After you read the case, the Exercise that follows will give you an opportunity to apply the principles in the user interface context.
在评估将商业外观保护用于用户界面的前景之前,请阅读 TrafFix Devices v. Marketing Displays 案,这是美国最高法院对商业外观保护范围进行评论的一个重要案例。在阅读案例后,接下来的练习将为您提供在用户界面中应用这些原则的机会。

TRAFFIX DEVICES, INC. v. MARKETING DISPLAYS, INC.
TRAFFIX DEVICES, INC. 诉 MARKETING DISPLAYS, INC.

532 U.S. 23 (2001)

Justice KENNEDY delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
肯尼迪大法官代表法院全体法官发表了意见。

Temporary road signs with warnings like “Road Work Ahead” or “Left Shoulder Closed” must withstand strong gusts of wind. An inventor named Robert Sarkisian obtained two utility patents for a mechanism built upon two springs (the dual-spring design) to keep these and other outdoor signs upright despite adverse wind conditions. The holder of the now-expired
标有 "前方道路施工 "或 "左侧路肩封闭 "等警告的临时路标必须能够抵御强风。一位名叫罗伯特-萨基相(Robert Sarkisian)的发明家获得了两项实用新型专利,该专利涉及一种由两个弹簧组成的装置(双弹簧设计),可以在恶劣的风力条件下保持这些和其他户外标志的直立。现已过期的

184

Sarkisian patents, respondent Marketing Displays, Inc. (MDI), established a successful business in the manufacture and sale of sign stands incorporating the patented feature. MDI’s stands for road signs were recognizable to buyers and users (it says) because the dual-spring design was visible near the base of the sign.
在 Sarkisian 专利的保护下,被告 Marketing Displays 公司(MDI)在制造和销售具有专利特征的标志支架方面取得了成功。MDI 的路标支架之所以能被购买者和使用者识别(该公司称),是因为双弹簧设计在路标底部附近清晰可见。

This litigation followed after the patents expired and a competitor, TrafFix Devices, Inc., sold sign stands with a visible spring mechanism that looked like MDI’s. MDI and TrafFix products looked alike because they were. When TrafFix started in business, it sent an MDI product abroad to have it reverse engineered, that is to say, copied. Complicating matters, TrafFix marketed its sign stands under a name similar to MDI’s. MDI used the name “Wind-Master,” while TrafFix, its new competitor, used “WindBuster.”
专利到期后,竞争对手 TrafFix Devices, Inc.出售了带有与 MDI 相似的可视弹簧装置的标牌架,从而引发了这场诉讼。MDI 和 TrafFix 的产品看起来很像,因为它们确实很像。TrafFix 刚开始经营时,曾将 MDI 的产品送到国外进行反向工程,也就是仿造。更复杂的是,TrafFix 在销售其标志架时使用了与 MDI 相似的名称。MDI 使用的名称是 "Wind-Master",而新的竞争对手 TrafFix 使用的名称是 "WindBuster"。

MDI brought suit under the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act), 60 Stat. 427, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §1051 et seq., against TrafFix for trademark infringement (based on the similar names), trade dress infringement (based on the copied dual-spring design), and unfair competition. TrafFix counterclaimed on antitrust theories. After the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan considered cross-motions for summary judgment, MDI prevailed on its trademark claim for the confusing similarity of names and was held not liable on the antitrust counterclaim; and those two rulings, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are not before us.
MDI根据1946年《商标法》(《兰哈姆法》)(60 Stat. 427, 经修订)提起诉讼, 15 U.S.C. §1051 et seq、 控告 TrafFix 商标侵权(基于相似的名称)、商业外观侵权(基于复制的双弹簧设计)、 和不正当竞争。TrafFix 以反垄断为由提出反诉。在美国密歇根州东区地方法院审议了要求即决判决的交叉动议后,MDI 在名称混淆性相似的商标索赔中胜诉,并被裁定不承担反垄断反诉的责任;这两项裁决得到了上诉法院的确认,我们目前没有收到这两项裁决。

I

We are concerned with the trade dress question. The District Court ruled against MDI on its trade dress claim. 971 F. Supp. 262 (E.D. Mich.1997). After determining that the one element of MDI’s trade dress at issue was the dual-spring design, id., at 265, it held that “no reasonable trier of fact could determine that MDI has established secondary meaning” in its alleged trade dress, id., at 269. In other words, consumers did not associate the look of the dual-spring design with MDI. As a second, independent reason to grant summary judgment in favor of TrafFix, the District Court determined the dual-spring design was functional. On this rationale secondary meaning is irrelevant because there can be no trade dress protection in any event. In ruling on the functional aspect of the design, the District Court noted that Sixth Circuit precedent indicated that the burden was on MDI to prove that its trade dress was nonfunctional, and not on TrafFix to show that it was functional (a rule since adopted by Congress, see 15 U.S.C. §1125(a)(3) (1994 ed., Supp. V)), and then went on to consider MDI’s arguments that the dual-spring design was subject to trade dress protection. Finding none of MDI’s contentions persuasive, the District Court concluded MDI had not “proffered sufficient evidence which would enable a reasonable trier of fact to find that MDI’s vertical dual-spring design is non-functional.” Summary judgment was entered against MDI on its trade dress claims.
我们关注的是商业外观问题。地区法院就 MDI 的商业外观索赔作出了不利判决。971 F. Supp. 262 (E.D. Mich.1997)。id., 第 265 页,在确定 MDI 商业外观的一个争议要素是双弹簧设计之后,法院认为 "任何合理的事实审理者都无法确定 MDI 在其所谓的商业外观中确立了次要含义",id., 第 269 页。换句话说,消费者并没有将双弹簧设计的外观与 MDI 联系在一起。作为给予 TrafFix 有利于简易判决的第二个独立理由,地区法院认定双弹簧设计具有功能性。根据这一理由,次要含义与本案无关,因为无论如何都不存在商业外观保护。在裁定设计的功能性时,地区法院指出,第六巡回法院的判例表明,MDI 有责任证明其商业外观不具有功能性,而不是 TrafFix 有责任证明其具有功能性(这一规则后来被国会采纳,see 15 U.S.C. §1125(a)(3) (1994 ed.. Supp. V))、Supp. V)),然后继续考虑 MDI 关于双弹簧设计应受商业外观保护的论点。地区法院认为 MDI 的论点都不具有说服力,并得出结论认为 MDI 没有 "提供足够的证据,使合理的事实审判者能够认定 MDI 的垂直双弹簧设计不具有 功能"。法院就 MDI 的商业外观索赔做出了简易判决。

The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed the trade dress ruling. The Court of Appeals held the District Court had erred in ruling MDI failed to show a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether it had secondary meaning in its alleged trade dress, and had erred further in determining that MDI could not prevail in any event because the alleged trade dress was in fact a functional product configuration. The Court of Appeals suggested the District Court committed legal error by looking only to the dual-spring design when evaluating MDI’s trade dress. Basic to its reasoning was the Court of Appeals’ observation that it took
第六巡回上诉法院推翻了对商业外观的裁决。上诉法院认为,地区法院错误地裁定 MDI 未能就其所称的商业外观是否具有次要含义提出真正的实质性争议,并错误地进一步裁定 MDI 在任何情况下都不能胜诉,因为所称的商业外观实际上是一种功能性产品配置。上诉法院认为,地区法院在评估 MDI 的商业外观时只考虑了双弹簧设计,犯了法律错误。上诉法院的基本推理是,它认为

185

“little imagination to conceive of a hidden dual-spring mechanism or a tri-or quadspring mechanism that might avoid infringing [MDI’s] trade dress.” The Court of Appeals explained that “[i]f TrafFix or another competitor chooses to use [MDI’s] dual-spring design, then it will have to find some other way to set its sign apart to avoid infringing [MDI’s] trade dress.” It was not sufficient, according to the Court of Appeals, that allowing exclusive use of a particular feature such as the dual-spring design in the guise of trade dress would “hinde[r] competition somewhat.” Rather, “[e]xclusive use of a feature must ‘put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage’ before trade dress protection is denied on functionality grounds.” Ibid. (quoting Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co., 514 U.S. 159, 165, 115 S. Ct. 1300, 131 L. Ed. 2d 248 (1995)). In its criticism of the District Court’s ruling on the trade dress question, the Court of Appeals took note of a split among Courts of Appeals in various other Circuits on the issue whether the existence of an expired utility patent forecloses the possibility of the patentee’s claiming trade dress protection in the product’s design. 200 F.3d, at 939. Compare Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. West Bend Co., 123 F.3d 246 (C.A. 5 1997) (holding that trade dress protection is not foreclosed), Thomas & Betts Corp. v. Panduit Corp., 138 F.3d 277 (C.A. 7 1998) (same), and Midwest Industries, Inc. v. Karavan Trailers, Inc., 175 F.3d 1356 (C.A. Fed.1999) (same), with Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc. v. Duracraft Corp., 58 F.3d 1498, 1500 (C.A. 10 1995) (“Where a product configuration is a significant inventive component of an invention covered by a utility patent…it cannot receive trade dress protection”). To resolve the conflict, we granted certiorari. 530 U.S. 1260, 120 S. Ct. 2715, 147 L. Ed. 2d 981 (2000).
"几乎没有想象力去设想一种隐藏的双弹簧机构或三弹簧或四弹簧机构,以避免侵犯 [MDI 的] 商业外观"。上诉法院解释说,"如果 TrafFix 公司或其他竞争者选择使用 [MDI 公司] 的双弹簧设计,那么它就必须找到 其他方式 将其标志与众不同,以避免侵犯 [MDI 公司] 的商业外观。上诉法院认为,以商业外观为幌子,允许独家使用双弹簧设计等特定特征会 "在一定程度上阻碍竞争",但这还不够。相反,"对某一特征的独家使用必须'使竞争者处于 显著 与声誉无关的劣势',才能以功能性为由拒绝商业外观保护"。 同上。 (引用 Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Products Co.2d 248 (1995)).在批评地区法院关于商业外观问题的裁决时,上诉法院注意到其他各巡回上诉法院在过期的实用专利是否排除了专利权人要求对产品设计的商业外观进行保护的可能性这一问题上存在分歧。200 F.3d,第 939 页。Compare Sunbeam Products, Inc. v. West Bend Co.d 246 (C.A. 5 1997)(认为商业外观保护并不被排除),Thomas & Betts Corp. v. Panduit Corp., 138 F.3d 277 (C.A. 5 1997)(认为商业外观保护并不被排除)。 7 1998)(同上),and Midwest Industries, Inc.诉 Karavan Trailers, Inc.d 1356 (C.A. Fed.1999) (same), with Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc. v. Duracraft Corp、58 F.3d 1498, 1500 (C.A. 10 1995)("如果产品配置是实用新型专利所涵盖的发明的重要创造性组成部分......则不能获得商业外观保护")。为了解决这一冲突,我们批准了调卷。530 U.S. 1260, 120 S. Ct. 2715, 147 L. Ed.2d 981 (2000).

II

It is well established that trade dress can be protected under federal law. The design or packaging of a product may acquire a distinctiveness which serves to identify the product with its manufacturer or source; and a design or package which acquires this secondary meaning, assuming other requisites are met, is a trade dress which may not be used in a manner likely to cause confusion as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of the goods. In these respects protection for trade dress exists to promote competition. As we explained just last Term, see Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Brothers, Inc., 529 U.S. 205, 120 S. Ct. 1339, 146 L. Ed. 2d 182 (2000), various Courts of Appeals have allowed claims of trade dress infringement relying on the general provision of the Lanham Act which provides a cause of action to one who is injured when a person uses “any word, term name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof…which is likely to cause confusion…as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods.” 15 U.S.C. §1125(a)(1)(A). Congress confirmed this statutory protection for trade dress by amending the Lanham Act to recognize the concept. Title 15 U.S.C. §1125(a)(3) (1994 ed., Supp. V) provides: “In a civil action for trade dress infringement under this chapter for trade dress not registered on the principal register, the person who asserts trade dress protection has the burden of proving that the matter sought to be protected is not functional.” This burden of proof gives force to the well-established rule that trade dress protection may not be claimed for product features that are functional. Qualitex, supra, at 164-165, 115 S. Ct. 1300; Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 775, 112 S. Ct. 2753, 120 L. Ed. 2d 615 (1992). And in Wal-Mart, supra, we were careful to caution against
根据联邦法律,商业外观可以受到保护,这一点已得到公认。产品的设计或包装可以获得一种独特性,用于识别产品的制造商或来源;获得这种次要含义的设计或包装,假定符合其他必要条件,就是一种商业外观,不得以可能导致混淆商品来源、赞助或批准的方式使用。在这些方面,对商业外观的保护是为了促进竞争。正如我们在上一学期所解释的,see Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.2d 182 (2000))一案中,各上诉法院允许依据《兰哈姆法》的一般条款对商业外观侵权进行索赔,该条款规定,当某人使用 "任何可能导致混淆......其商品的来源、赞助或认可的单词、术语名称、符号或装置,或其任何组合 "时,受损害者可提起诉讼。15 U.S.C. §1125(a)(1)(A)。国会通过修订《兰哈姆法》确认了对商业外观的法定保护。美国法典》第 15 编第 1125(a)(3)条(1994 年版,补充 V)规定"在根据本章对未在主注册簿上注册的商业外观提起的商业外观侵权民事诉讼中,主张商业外观保护的人有责任证明所寻求保护的事项不具有功能性"。这一举证责任使商业外观保护不得针对具有功能性的产品特征这一既定规则更加有力。Qualitex, supra, at 164-165, 115 S. Ct. 1300; Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 775, 112 S. Ct.2d 615 (1992).在沃尔玛案(同上)中, 我们谨慎地告诫

186

misuse or overextension of trade dress. We noted that “product design almost invariably serves purposes other than source identification.” Id., at 213, 120 S. Ct. 1339.
滥用或过度扩展商业外观。我们注意到,"产品设计几乎无一例外地具有来源识别以外的目的"。Id., at 213, 120 S. Ct.

Trade dress protection must subsist with the recognition that in many instances there is no prohibition against copying goods and products. In general, unless an intellectual property right such as a patent or copyright protects an item, it will be subject to copying. As the Court has explained, copying is not always discouraged or disfavored by the laws which preserve our competitive economy. Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 160, 109 S. Ct. 971, 103 L. Ed. 2d 118 (1989). Allowing competitors to copy will have salutary effects in many instances. “Reverse engineering of chemical and mechanical articles in the public domain often leads to significant advances in technology.” Ibid.
商业外观保护必须认识到,在许多情况下,并不禁止复制商品和产品。一般来说,除非有专利权或版权等知识产权对某一物品进行保护,否则该物品就会被复制。正如法院所解释的那样,维护我们竞争性经济的法律并不总是不鼓励或不赞成复制。Bonito Boats, Inc. 诉 Thunder Craft Boats, Inc., 489 U.S. 141, 160, 109 S. Ct.2d 118 (1989).允许竞争者复制在许多情况下都会产生有益的影响。"对公共领域的化学和机械物品进行逆向工程往往会带来重大的技术进步"。同上

The principal question in this case is the effect of an expired patent on a claim of trade dress infringement. A prior patent, we conclude, has vital significance in resolving the trade dress claim. A utility patent is strong evidence that the features therein claimed are functional. If trade dress protection is sought for those features the strong evidence of functionality based on the previous patent adds great weight to the statutory presumption that features are deemed functional until proved otherwise by the party seeking trade dress protection. Where the expired patent claimed the features in question, one who seeks to establish trade dress protection must carry the heavy burden of showing that the feature is not functional, for instance by showing that it is merely an ornamental, incidental, or arbitrary aspect of the device.
本案的主要问题是过期专利对商业外观侵权索赔的影响。我们的结论是,在先专利对于解决商业外观索赔具有至关重要的意义。实用新型专利可以有力地证明其所主张的特征具有功能性。如果要求对这些特征进行商业外观保护,那么基于在先专利的功能性有力证据将大大增加法定推定的分量,即在寻求商业外观保护的一方提出相反证据之前,这些特征被视为具有功能性。如果已过期的专利申请了有关特征,则寻求商业外观保护的一方必须承担证明该特征不具有功能性的沉重负担,例如证明该特征仅仅是设备的装饰性、附带性或任意性方面。

In the case before us, the central advance claimed in the expired utility patents (the Sarkisian patents) is the dual-spring design; and the dual-spring design is the essential feature of the trade dress MDI now seeks to establish and to protect. The rule we have explained bars the trade dress claim, for MDI did not, and cannot, carry the burden of overcoming the strong evidentiary inference of functionality based on the disclosure of the dual-spring design in the claims of the expired patents.
在本案中,已过期的实用新型专利(Sarkisian 专利)所要求的核心进步是双弹簧设计;而双弹簧设计是 MDI 现在寻求建立和保护的商业外观的基本特征。我们已经解释过的规则禁止了商业外观的权利要求,因为 MDI 没有也不可能承担责任,克服基于已过期专利权利要求中公开的双弹簧设计的功能性的强有力的证据推论。

The dual springs shown in the Sarkisian patents were well apart (at either end of a frame for holding a rectangular sign when one full side is the base) while the dual springs at issue here are close together (in a frame designed to hold a sign by one of its corners). As the District Court recognized, this makes little difference. The point is that the springs are necessary to the operation of the device. The fact that the springs in this very different-looking device fall within the claims of the patents is illustrated by MDI’s own position in earlier litigation. In the late 1970s, MDI engaged in a long-running intellectual property battle with a company known as Winn-Proof. Although the precise claims of the Sarkisian patents cover sign stands with springs “spaced apart,” U.S. Patent No. 3,646,696, col. 4; U.S. Patent No. 3,662,482, col. 4, the Winn-Proof sign stands (with springs much like the sign stands at issue here) were found to infringe the patents by the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment. Sarkisian v. Winn-Proof Corp., 697 F.2d 1313 (1983). Although the Winn-Proof traffic sign stand (with dual springs close together) did not appear, then, to infringe the literal terms of the patent claims (which called for “spaced apart” springs), the Winn-Proof sign stand was found to infringe the patents under the doctrine of equivalents, which allows a finding of patent infringement even when the accused product does not fall within the literal terms of the claims. Id., at 13211322; see generally Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17, 117 S. Ct. 1040, 137
Sarkisian 专利中显示的双弹簧相距甚远(位于框架的两端,用于固定矩形标志,其中一整边为底座),而本案中的双弹簧相距很近(位于框架中,用于固定标志的一个角)。正如地区法院所承认的,这并没有什么区别。问题的关键在于,弹簧是设备运行所必需的。MDI 公司自己在早期诉讼中的立场也说明了这一事实,即这一外观截然不同的装置中的弹簧属于专利权利要求的范围。20 世纪 70 年代末,MDI 与一家名为 Winn-Proof 的公司展开了一场旷日持久的知识产权争夺战。尽管 Sarkisian 专利的确切权利要求涵盖了弹簧 "间隔开 "的标牌架,美国专利号 3,646,696, col.4; U.S. Patent No.美国俄勒冈州地区法院认定 Winn-Proof 公司的标牌架(其弹簧与本案中的标牌架非常相似)侵犯了上述专利,第九巡回上诉法院维持了原判。Sarkisian 诉 Winn-Proof Corp., 697 F.2d 1313 (1983)。尽管 Winn-Proof 交通标志架(双弹簧紧靠在一起)似乎并没有侵犯专利权利要求的字面意思(要求使用 "间隔开的 "弹簧),但根据等同物理论,Winn-Proof标志架被认定侵犯了专利权,该理论允许在被控产品不符合专利权利要求字面意思的情况下认定专利侵权。Id., at 13211322; see generally Warner-Jenkinson Co. 希尔顿-戴维斯化学公司,520 U.S. 17, 117 S. Ct. 1040, 137

187

L. Ed. 2d 146 (1997). In light of this past ruling — a ruling procured at MDI’s own insistence — it must be concluded the products here at issue would have been covered by the claims of the expired patents.
L.Ed.2d 146 (1997).鉴于过去的这一裁决--在 MDI 自己的坚持下获得的裁决--必须得出结论,本案所涉产品本应属于已过期专利的权利要求范围。

The rationale for the rule that the disclosure of a feature in the claims of a utility patent constitutes strong evidence of functionality is well illustrated in this case. The dual-spring design serves the important purpose of keeping the sign upright even in heavy wind conditions; and, as confirmed by the statements in the expired patents, it does so in a unique and useful manner. As the specification of one of the patents recites, prior art “devices, in practice, will topple under the force of a strong wind.” U.S. Patent No. 3,662,482, col. 1. The dual-spring design allows sign stands to resist toppling in strong winds. Using a dual-spring design rather than a single spring achieves important operational advantages. For example, the specifications of the patents note that the “use of a pair of springs…as opposed to the use of a single spring to support the frame structure prevents canting or twisting of the sign around a vertical axis,” and that, if not prevented, twisting “may cause damage to the spring structure and may result in tipping of the device.” U.S. Patent No. 3,646,696, col. 3. In the course of patent prosecution, it was said that “[t]he use of a pair of spring connections as opposed to a single spring connection…forms an important part of this combination” because it “forc[es] the sign frame to tip along the longitudinal axis of the elongated ground-engaging members.” App. 218. The dual-spring design affects the cost of the device as well; it was acknowledged that the device “could use three springs but this would unnecessarily increase the cost of the device.” Id., at 217. These statements made in the patent applications and in the course of procuring the patents demonstrate the functionality of the design. MDI does not assert that any of these representations are mistaken or inaccurate, and this is further strong evidence of the functionality of the dual-spring design.
在本案中,实用新型专利权利要求中对某一特征的公开构成了功能性的有力证据,这一规则的基本原理在本案中得到了很好的诠释。双弹簧设计的重要作用是即使在强风条件下也能使标志保持直立;而且,正如已过期专利中的陈述所证实的那样,它是以一种独特而有用的方式实现这一目的的。正如其中一项专利的说明书所述,现有技术中的 "装置在实践中会在强风的作用下倾倒"。美国专利号 3,662,482, col.1.双弹簧设计使标牌架在强风中不易倾倒。使用双弹簧设计而不是单弹簧可以实现重要的操作优势。例如,专利说明书指出,"使用一对弹簧......而不是使用一个弹簧来支撑框架结构,可以防止标志围绕垂直轴发生倾斜或扭曲",如果不加以防止,扭曲 "可能会对弹簧结构造成损坏,并可能导致装置倾倒"。美国专利号 3,646,696, col.3.在专利申请过程中,据说 "使用一对弹簧连接而不是单个弹簧连接......构成了这种组合的一个重要部分",因为它 "迫使标志框架沿着拉长的接地部件的纵轴倾斜"。App.218.双弹簧设计也影响了该装置的成本;据承认,该装置 "可以使用三个弹簧,但这会不必要地增加装置的成本"。 同上, 页 217。 在专利申请和获得专利的过程中所做的这些陈述证明了该设计的功能性。MDI 并未声称这些陈述有任何错误或不准确之处,这进一步有力地证明了双弹簧设计的功能性。

III

In finding for MDI on the trade dress issue the Court of Appeals gave insufficient recognition to the importance of the expired utility patents, and their evidentiary significance, in establishing the functionality of the device. The error likely was caused by its misinterpretation of trade dress principles in other respects. As we have noted, even if there has been no previous utility patent the party asserting trade dress has the burden to establish the nonfunctionality of alleged trade dress features. MDI could not meet this burden. Discussing trademarks, we have said “‘[i]n general terms, a product feature is functional,’ and cannot serve as a trademark, ‘if it is essential to the use or purpose of the article or if it affects the cost or quality of the article.’” Qualitex, 514 U.S., at 165, 115 S. Ct. 1300 (quoting Inwood Laboratories, Inc. v. Ives Laboratories, Inc., 456 U.S. 844, 850, n.10, 102 S. Ct. 2182, 72 L. Ed. 2d 606 (1982)). Expanding upon the meaning of this phrase, we have observed that a functional feature is one the “exclusive use of [which] would put competitors at a significant non-reputation-related disadvantage.” 514 U.S., at 165, 115 S. Ct. 1300. The Court of Appeals in the instant case seemed to interpret this language to mean that a necessary test for functionality is “whether the particular product configuration is a competitive necessity.” 200 F.3d, at 940. See also Vornado, 58 F.3d, at 1507 (“Functionality, by contrast, has been defined both by our circuit, and more recently by the Supreme Court, in terms of competitive need”). This was incorrect as a comprehensive definition. As explained in Qualitex, supra, and Inwood,
在裁定 MDI 在商业外观问题上胜诉时,上诉法院没有充分认识到已过期的实用专利在确定设备功能方面的重要性及其证据意义。这一错误很可能是由于上诉法院在其他方面对商业外观原则的曲解造成的。正如我们所指出的,即使以前没有实用新型专利,主张商业外观的一方也有责任证明所称商业外观特征的非功能性。MDI 无法履行这一责任。在讨论商标时,我们曾说过"'一般来说,产品特征是功能性的',不能作为商标,'如果它对产品的使用或目的至关重要,或者如果它影响到产品的成本或质量'"。Qualitex, 514 U.S., at 165, 115 S. Ct. 1300(引用 Inwood Laboratories, Inc.2d 606 (1982)).根据这一短语的含义,我们认为功能性特征是指 "独家使用会使竞争者处于与声誉无关的不利地位 "的特征。514 U.S., at 165, 115 S. Ct. 1300.上诉法院在本案中似乎将这一措辞解释为功能性的必要测试是 "特定产品配置是否是竞争必需品"。200 F.3d, at 940。 另见 Vornado, 58 F.3d,第 1507 页("相比之下,我们的巡回法院, 以及最近的最高法院,都从竞争需要的角度对功能性进行了定义")。作为一个全面的定义,这是不正确的。Qualitex, supra, Inwood, 中解释的那样。

188

supra,

a feature is also functional when it is essential to the use or purpose of the device or when it affects the cost or quality of the device. The Qualitex decision did not purport to displace this traditional rule. Instead, it quoted the rule as Inwood had set it forth. It is proper to inquire into a “significant non-reputation-related disadvantage” in cases of esthetic functionality, the question involved in Qualitex. Where the design is functional under the Inwood formulation there is no need to proceed further to consider if there is a competitive necessity for the feature. In Qualitex, by contrast, esthetic functionality was the central question, there having been no indication that the green-gold color of the laundry press pad had any bearing on the use or purpose of the product or its cost or quality.
当某一特征对设备的使用或目的至关重要或影响设备的成本或质量时,该特征也是功能性的。Qualitex 案的判决并未意图取代这一传统规则。相反,它引用了Inwood 所阐述的规则。在审美功能性案件中调查 "与声誉无关的重大劣势 "是适当的,这正是 Qualitex 案所涉及的问题。 根据Inwood 案中的表述,如果设计具有功能性,就没有必要进一步考虑该特征是否具有竞争必要性。在 Qualitex 案中, 相反,审美功能是核心问题,没有迹象表明熨衣垫的金绿色对产品的用途或目的、成本或质量有任何影响。

The Court has allowed trade dress protection to certain product features that are inherently distinctive. Two Pesos, 505 U.S., at 774, 112 S. Ct. 2753. In Two Pesos, however, the Court at the outset made the explicit analytic assumption that the trade dress features in question (decorations and other features to evoke a Mexican theme in a restaurant) were not functional. Id., at 767, n.6, 112 S. Ct. 2753. The trade dress in those cases did not bar competitors from copying functional product design features. In the instant case, beyond serving the purpose of informing consumers that the sign stands are made by MDI (assuming it does so), the dual-spring design provides a unique and useful mechanism to resist the force of the wind. Functionality having been established, whether MDI’s dual-spring design has acquired secondary meaning need not be considered.
法院允许对某些具有内在显著性的产品特征提供商业外观保护。Two Pesos, 505 U.S., at 774, 112 S. Ct.在Two Pesos案中, 然而,法院在一开始就做出了明确的分析假设,即有关的商业外观特征(在餐厅中唤起墨西哥主题的装饰和其他特征)不具有功能性。Id., at 767, n.6, 112 S. Ct.这些案件中的商业外观并没有禁止竞争者复制产品的功能设计特征。在本案中,双弹簧设计除了可以让消费者知道标牌架是由 MDI 生产的(假设是这样),还提供了一个独特而有用的机制来抵抗风力。既然功能已经确定,那么就无需考虑 MDI 的双弹簧设计是否已经获得了次要含义。

There is no need, furthermore, to engage, as did the Court of Appeals, in speculation about other design possibilities, such as using three or four springs which might serve the same purpose. 200 F.3d, at 940. Here, the functionality of the spring design means that competitors need not explore whether other spring juxtapositions might be used. The dualspring design is not an arbitrary flourish in the configuration of MDI’s product; it is the reason the device works. Other designs need not be attempted.
此外,也没有必要像上诉法院那样,对其他设计可能性进行推测,例如使用三个或四个弹簧来达到同样的目的。200 F.3d,第 940 页。在本案中,弹簧设计的功能性意味着竞争者无需探索是否可以使用其他弹簧并置。双弹簧设计并不是 MDI 产品配置中的任意点缀,而是该设备能够工作的原因。其他设计无需尝试。

Because the dual-spring design is functional, it is unnecessary for competitors to explore designs to hide the springs, say, by using a box or framework to cover them, as suggested by the Court of Appeals. Ibid. The dual-spring design assures the user the device will work. If buyers are assured the product serves its purpose by seeing the operative mechanism that in itself serves an important market need. It would be at cross-purposes to those objectives, and something of a paradox, were we to require the manufacturer to conceal the very item the user seeks.
由于双弹簧设计具有功能性,因此竞争者没有必要像上诉法院所建议的那样,探索隐藏弹簧的设计,例如使用盒子或框架来覆盖弹簧。同上。 双弹簧设计向用户保证了设备的功能。如果购买者能通过看到操作机制来确保产品达到目的,这本身就满足了重要的市场需求。如果我们要求制造商隐藏用户所寻求的项目,这将与上述目标背道而驰,而且是一种悖论。

In a case where a manufacturer seeks to protect arbitrary, incidental, or ornamental aspects of features of a product found in the patent claims, such as arbitrary curves in the legs or an ornamental pattern painted on the springs, a different result might obtain. There the manufacturer could perhaps prove that those aspects do not serve a purpose within the terms of the utility patent. The inquiry into whether such features, asserted to be trade dress, are functional by reason of their inclusion in the claims of an expired utility patent could be aided by going beyond the claims and examining the patent and its prosecution history to see if the feature in question is shown as a useful part of the invention. No such claim is made here, however. MDI in essence seeks protection for the dual-spring design alone. The asserted trade dress consists simply of the dual-spring design, four legs, a base, an upright, and a sign. MDI has pointed to nothing arbitrary about the components of its device or the way they are assembled. The Lanham Act does not exist to reward manufacturers for their innovation in
如果制造商试图保护专利权利要求中产品特征的任意、附带或装饰性方面,例如腿部的任意曲线或弹簧上绘制的装饰性图案,则可能会产生不同的结果。在这种情况下,制造商或许可以证明这些方面并没有达到实用新型专利的目的。在调查这些被宣称为商业外观的特征是否因其包含在已过期的实用新型专利的权利要求中而具有功能性时,可以超越权利要求的范围,对专利及其申请历史进行审查,看有关特征是否被证明是发明的一个有用部分。然而,这里并没有提出这样的要求。MDI 公司实质上只是寻求对双弹簧设计的保护。所主张的商业外观仅包括双弹簧设计、四个支脚、一个底座、一个直立架和一个标志。MDI 没有指出其设备的组件或组装方式有任何任意之处。

189

creating a particular device; that is the purpose of the patent law and its period of exclusivity. The Lanham Act, furthermore, does not protect trade dress in a functional design simply because an investment has been made to encourage the public to associate a particular functional feature with a single manufacturer or seller. The Court of Appeals erred in viewing MDI as possessing the right to exclude competitors from using a design identical to MDI’s and to require those competitors to adopt a different design simply to avoid copying it. MDI cannot gain the exclusive right to produce sign stands using the dual-spring design by asserting that consumers associate it with the look of the invention itself. Whether a utility patent has expired or there has been no utility patent at all, a product design which has a particular appearance may be functional because it is “essential to the use or purpose of the article” or “affects the cost or quality of the article.” Inwood, 456 U.S., at 850, n.10, 102 S. Ct. 2182.
这正是专利法及其专有期的目的所在。此外,《兰哈姆法》并不保护功能设计中的商业外观,仅仅因为已经进行了投资以鼓励公众将特定功能特征与单一制造商或销售商联系起来。上诉法院错误地将 MDI 视为有权禁止竞争对手使用与 MDI 相同的设计,并要求这些竞争对手采用不同的设计以避免抄袭。MDI 不能通过声称消费者将双弹簧设计与发明本身的外观联系在一起而获得生产使用双弹簧设计的标牌架的专有权。无论实用新型专利是否已过期或根本没有实用新型专利,具有特定外观的产品设计都可能是功能性的,因为它 "对物品的使用或目的至关重要 "或 "影响物品的成本或质量"。Inwood, 456 U.S., at 850, n.10, 102 S. Ct.

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
上诉法院的判决被推翻,此案被发回重审,以便按照本意见进一步审理。

* * *

EXERCISE

Facts. Abby-Kate Zulauf is a retired CPA and tax attorney who also enjoys software programming as a hobby. She considers herself to be a member of the “free software” community and often contributes bug fixes to the Linux kernel. Zulauf’s latest project is to create a free software-licensed tax preparation program to compete with TurboTax, TaxCut, and other commercial tax preparation products. Several aspects of her product are worth noting:
事实艾比-凯特-祖劳夫(Abby-Kate Zulauf)是一名退休的注册会计师和税务律师,业余爱好是软件编程。她认为自己是 "自由软件 "社区的一员,经常为 Linux 内核提供错误修复。Zulauf 的最新项目是创建一个免费软件许可的报税程序,与 TurboTax、TaxCut 和其他商业报税产品竞争。她的产品有几个方面值得注意:

User Interface and Query System. She has designed a very elegant, inviting user interface. She chose distinctive shades of green and brown for the interface based on academic research showing how certain colors contribute to human relaxation (an important feature when doing high-stress projects such as tax preparation). She has also developed a unique query system (code named “Socrates”) that systematically walks the user through the various questions on the tax return and seems to improve both the speed and accuracy of the tax preparation.
用户界面和查询系统。她设计了一个非常优雅、诱人的用户界面。她为界面选择了独特的绿色和棕色色调,其依据是学术研究表明某些颜色有助于人类放松(这是进行备税等高压力项目时的一个重要特征)。她还开发了一个独特的查询系统(代号为 "苏格拉底"),系统地引导用户回答报税表上的各种问题,似乎提高了报税的速度和准确性。

Tax Advice Service. One feature in the software program is a button labeled “Advise Me,” which, if selected, links the user via the Internet to Zulauf’s tax preparation website, where she runs a business of answering tax questions for a fee via email. Another feature is a button labeled “Check Me,” which, if selected, sends the user’s tax return via email to Zulauf with a message requesting Zulauf to review the return.
税务咨询服务。 软件程序中的一个功能是一个标有 "Advice Me"(向我提供建议)的按钮,如果选择了该按钮,用户就可以通过互联网链接到 Zulauf 的报税网站,她在该网站上经营通过电子邮件回答税务问题的业务,并收取一定的费用。另一个功能是一个标有 "Check Me"(检查我)的按钮,如果选择该按钮,用户的报税表就会通过电子邮件发送给 Zulauf,并附带一条要求 Zulauf 审查报税表的信息。

Exercise. Advise Zulauf on how she can use trademark or trade dress protection to successfully profit from her tax software project. Discuss the pros and cons, as well as strengths and weaknesses, of various uses of trademark and trade dress. Also compare and contrast trademark or trade dress protection with the possibility of copyright or patent protection. For this exercise, begin by breaking into small groups to discuss the legal advice that you should give Zulauf. Then, with a student or
练习。就 Zulauf 如何利用商标或商业外观保护成功地从其税务软件项目中获利向她提供建议。讨论商标和商业外观的各种用途的利弊以及优缺点。同时比较商标或商业外观保护与版权或专利保护的可能性。在本练习中,首先分成小组讨论您应向 Zulauf 提供的法律建议。然后,与一名学生或

190

instructor playing the role of the client Zulauf, provide legal advice to the client and react to the client’s business-side feedback on that legal advice.
指导员扮演客户 Zulauf 的角色,向客户提供法律建议,并对客户就该法律建议提出的业务反馈做出反应。

1. Although we generally refer to a single advertiser, there is no limit on the number of advertisers who can purchase a particular keyword to trigger the appearance of their ads.
1. 虽然我们通常指的是单个广告商,但购买特定关键字以触发广告出现的广告商数量不受限制。

2. We did not imply in 1-800 that a website can never be a trademark. In fact, the opposite is true. See Trademark Manual of Examining Procedures §1209.03(m) (5th ed. 2007) (“A mark comprised of an Internet domain name is registrable as a trademark or service mark only if it functions as an identifier of the source of goods or services.”); see also Two Pesos, Inc. v. Taco Cabana, Inc., 505 U.S. 763, 768, 112 S. Ct. 2753, 120 L. Ed. 2d 615 (1992) (Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act protects unregistered trademarks as long as the mark could qualify for registration under the Lanham Act.); Thompson Med. Co., Inc. v. Pfizer Inc., 753 F.2d 208, 215-216 (2d Cir. 1985) (same). The question whether the plaintiff’s website address was an unregistered trademark was never properly before the 1-800 court because the plaintiff did not claim that it used its website address as a trademark.
2. 我们并没有在1-800 中暗示网站永远不能成为商标。事实上,情况恰恰相反。参见 《商标审查程序手册》§1209.03(m)(2007 年第 5 版)("由商标组成的商标")。"); 另见 Two Pesos, Inc、505 U.S. 763, 768, 112 S. Ct.2d 615 (1992)(《兰哈姆法》第 43(a) 条保护未注册商标,只要该商标符合《兰哈姆法》规定的注册条件);Thompson Med.Co., Inc. v. Pfizer Inc., 753 F.2d 208, 215-216 (2d Cir. 1985) (同上)。1-800 法院从未适当审理过原告的网站地址是否为未注册商标的问题,因为原告并未声称其将网站地址用作商标。

3. For example, instead of having a separate “sponsored links” or paid advertisement section, search engines could allow advertisers to pay to appear at the top of the “relevance” list based on a user entering a competitor’s trademark — a functionality that would be highly likely to cause consumer confusion. Alternatively, sellers of products or services could pay to have the operators of search engines automatically divert users to their website when the users enter a competitor’s trademark as a search term. Such conduct is surely not beyond judicial review merely because it is engineered through the internal workings of a computer program.
3.例如,搜索引擎可以不设置单独的 "赞助商链接 "或付费广告部分,而是允许广告商付费,以便在用户输入竞争对手商标的基础上出现在 "相关性 "列表的顶部--这种功能极有可能造成消费者混淆。另外,产品或服务的销售商也可以付费,让搜索引擎运营商在用户输入竞争对手的商标作为搜索词时自动将用户转向其网站。这种行为肯定不会仅仅因为它是通过计算机程序的内部运作而设计出来的,就不受司法审查。

191

· Chapter ·

6

Software Licensing

I. INTRODUCTION: WHY LICENSE SOFTWARE?

Previous chapters have addressed the role that copyright, patent, trade secret, and trademark law play in legal protection for software. This chapter focuses on the role that contract law plays. Contract law is an essential legal tool in the software industry. It works in tandem with intellectual property law to put intellectual property into productive use. We call the combination of contract and intellectual property “software licensing.” Think of software licensing as intellectual property in action.
前几章介绍了版权法、专利法、商业秘密法和商标法在软件法律保护中的作用。本章重点讨论合同法的作用。合同法是软件行业的重要法律工具。它与知识产权法共同发挥作用,将知识产权用于生产。我们将合同与知识产权的结合称为 "软件许可"。将软件许可视为知识产权的实际应用。

A “license” is a grant of permission. Why is such permission needed for software? Permission is needed because, as described in prior chapters, software is protected by intellectual property rights, so software may not be used without permission of the rights holder. The rights holder may grant permission by selling a copy of software. In copyright, this is called a “first sale,” which grants the software user the limited right to use and resell a copy but nothing further.1 Given the diversity and complexity of business relationships possible in the software industry, a first sale transaction is often inadequate. Consequently, the rights holder grants permission using a contract called a license agreement. License agreements are the predominant transaction model in the software industry because contracts have the ability to describe a wide range of nuanced arrangements that enable technological and business model innovation.
"许可证 "是一种许可。为什么软件需要这种许可?需要许可的原因是,如前几章所述,软件受知识产权保护,因此未经权利人许可不得使用软件。权利人可以通过出售软件副本来授予许可。1 鉴于软件行业可能存在的业务关系的多样性和复杂性,首次销售交易往往是不够的。因此,权利持有者使用一种称为许可协议的合同授予许可。许可协议是软件行业中最主要的交易模式,因为合同能够描述各种细微的安排,从而实现技术和商业模式的创新。

II. BRIEF HISTORY OF SOFTWARE LICENSING

A. Licensing for Software Development

The use of licenses has a long history in the software industry. Many of the early software developers were scientists, academics, or hobbyists. The focus of licensing
许可证的使用在软件行业由来已久。许多早期的软件开发人员都是科学家、学者或业余爱好者。许可证的重点

276

at that point was on the development of software — that is, on granting permission to share and collaborate to improve software and to create new software. To the extent licenses were directed to the end users of software, the audience was the software programmers employed by the users to fix and maintain the software.
当时,软件许可证的目的是开发软件,即允许共享和合作以改进软件和创建新软件。在许可证面向软件最终用户的范围内,受众是用户雇用来修复和维护软件的软件程序员。

B. Software for Users

Over time, firms began to offer software as a product apart from the hardware. These firms wrote specially designed, custom software for a particular use and end user. For example, a programmer might write software to run an automatic bank teller machine or an online airline reservations service. Custom software development and usage license agreements described these relationships.
随着时间的推移,公司开始将软件作为硬件之外的产品提供。这些公司为特定用途和最终用户编写专门设计的定制软件。例如,程序员可以编写运行自动银行柜员机或在线机票预订服务的软件。定制软件开发和使用许可协议描述了这些关系。

The software industry blossomed in the 1970s spurred by IBM’s decision to unbundle the hardware and software for the IBM PC. Firms such as Ashton-Tate, Lotus, Microsoft, Novell, and WordPerfect emerged to produce software for the personal computers produced by IBM and IBM PC “compatibles.” The personal computer revolution put software in the hands of millions of people, but few of them had any expertise or interest in software programming. They simply wanted to use the software in object code form. This led to the creation of a variety of distribution licensing models to deliver software to consumers and business customers in the mass market.
20世纪70年代,IBM公司决定将IBMPC的硬件和软件拆分开来,在此刺激下,软件产业蓬勃发展。Ashton-Tate 、Lotus、Microsoft、Novell 和 WordPerfect 等公司应运而生,为 IBM 生产的个人电脑和 IBM PC "兼容机 "生产软件。个人电脑革命让数百万人掌握了软件,但其中很少有人具备软件编程方面的专业知识或兴趣。他们只是想使用对象代码形式的软件。这就催生了各种分销许可模式,以便向大众市场的消费者和企业客户提供软件。

III. THE LANDSCAPE OF SOFTWARE LICENSING

With this background in mind, it is useful to group licensing transactions into four main categories: licenses to build products; licenses to create customer solutions; licenses to distribute software; and licenses that describe usage. The former two categories are often called upstream licenses; the latter two are called downstream licenses. Sections III-VI focus on upstream licenses and Section VII focuses on downstream licenses.
有鉴于此,我们不妨将许可交易分为四大类:构建产品的许可;创建客户解决方案的许可;分发软件的许可;以及说明使用情况的许可。前两类通常称为上游许可,后两类称为下游许可。第三至第六节主要讨论上游许可证,第七节主要讨论下游许可证。

A. Upstream Licenses

Mass market end user software licenses are ubiquitous in modern commerce. Their sheer volume gives the impression that most software licensing law and practice is concerned with them. It is not. Instead, upstream licenses make up the lion’s share of a licensing lawyer’s practice.
大众市场最终用户软件许可在现代商业中无处不在。它们的数量给人的印象是,大多数软件许可法律和实践都与它们有关。其实不然。相反,上游许可证占据了许可证律师业务的绝大部分。

277

1. Licenses to Build Products

Sometimes a programmer develops software alone and from scratch, but it is common practice for a programmer to collaborate with many others in creating a software program. Many software projects contain code and digital content from numerous individuals and firms. Although the Microsoft Windows and GNU/Linux operating systems differ in many ways, both systems incorporate an array of code that is created by third parties other than (as the case may be) Microsoft or Linus Torvalds. The programmers may jointly own rights in the code. However, software developers typically use licenses to apportion the rights between the various contributors in a way that makes the most sense under the circumstances. In other words, software developers use licenses as the legal tool to build their software products.
有时,程序员会独自从零开始开发软件,但通常情况下,程序员会与许多人合作创建软件程序。许多软件项目都包含来自许多个人和公司的代码和数字内容。尽管 Microsoft Windows 和 GNU/Linux 操作系统在许多方面有所不同,但这两个系统都包含一系列由 Microsoft 或 Linus Torvalds 之外的第三方创建的代码。程序员可以共同拥有代码的权利。不过,软件开发者通常会使用许可证在不同贡献者之间分配权利,这种方式在当时的情况下最为合理。换句话说,软件开发者使用许可证作为构建软件产品的法律工具。

2. Licenses to Create Customer Solutions

In the early days of the software industry, users received all necessary computer technology from one source. Companies such as IBM provided complete packages of computer hardware, software, and services and support. Today this sort of one-stop shopping is less common. A simple personal computer system contains components from a variety of sources: The microprocessor may come from Intel, the hard disk drive from Fujitsu, the CPU from Dell, the monitor from Samsung, the keyboard from Techtronics, the mouse from Logitec, the printer from Hewlett-Packard, the operating system from Apple, Microsoft, or Red Hat, and other software from Adobe, Autodesk, Electronic Arts, Facebook, Google, MontaVista, Mozilla, Oracle, SendMail, Symantec, and Valve. In order for these components to work together, the different developers often need to exchange intellectual property rights. They do so in the form of licenses.
在软件产业的早期,用户从一个渠道获得所有必要的计算机技术。IBM 等公司提供全套的计算机硬件、软件、服务和支持。如今,这种一站式采购已不常见。一个简单的个人计算机系统包含来自不同来源的组件:微处理器可能来自英特尔,硬盘驱动器可能来自富士通,CPU 可能来自戴尔,显示器可能来自三星,键盘可能来自 Techtronics,鼠标可能来自 Logitec,打印机可能来自惠普,操作系统可能来自苹果、微软或 Red Hat,其他软件可能来自 Adobe、Autodesk、Electronic Arts、Facebook、Google、MontaVista、Mozilla、Oracle、SendMail、Symantec 和 Valve。为了让这些组件协同工作,不同的开发者往往需要交换知识产权。它们以许可证的形式进行交换。

For example, for the assortment of computer hardware and software described above to be useful for a user, the following licenses may need to be exchanged:
例如,要使上述各种计算机硬件和软件对用户有用,可能需要交换以下许可证:

License under patents from the microprocessor firm to the computer hardware manufacturer;
微处理器公司向计算机硬件制造商授予专利许可;

Licenses between the operating system developer and the keyboard, mouse, and monitor manufacturers to create and distribute device driver software;
操作系统开发商与键盘、鼠标和显示器制造商之间的许可证,用于创建和分发设备驱动程序软件;

License between the operating system developer and the printer manufacturer for font and page description software;
操作系统开发商与打印机制造商之间关于字体和页面描述软件的许可;

License to application programming interface (API) information or source code between the applications developer and the systems software developer;
应用程序开发人员和系统软件开发人员之间的应用程序编程接口 (API) 信息或源代码许可;

License from the systems software developer to hardware and microprocessor manufacturers to study and modify systems software source code in order to tune the computer hardware or microprocessor so that it runs most effectively;
系统软件开发商向硬件和微处理器制造商颁发的研究和修改系统软件源代码的许可证,以便调整计算机硬件或微处理器,使其运行效率最高;

Licenses to protocol information to enable communication over the Internet.
协议信息许可证,以便在互联网上进行通信。

278

3. Source Code Licensing

Source code licensing plays an important role in collaborations to build products and create customer solutions. Sometimes the license involves rights to use confidential source code; other times the license is to use non-confidential source code that is available in the mass market either in a software development kit licensed by a commercial software developer or available as open source software.
源代码许可在合作开发产品和创建客户解决方案中发挥着重要作用。有时,许可证涉及机密源代码的使用权;有时,许可证涉及非机密源代码的使用权,这些非机密源代码可在商业软件开发商许可的软件开发工具包中或作为开放源码软件在大众市场上获得。

Confidential Source Code. It is standard industry practice for software developers to hold some or all of their source code as a trade secret.2 Even so, software developers need to share their confidential source code in order to collaborate with others in building their product or making it work with other hardware or software components to create a viable customer solution. Consequently, confidential source code licensing is a common form of licensing in the software industry. These licenses combine the characteristics of a copyright and trade secret license. The copyright license grant is carefully tailored to the licensee’s particular uses of the source code, and the license contains a series of measures to protect the confidentiality of the code. This chapter contains a sample confidential source code license, below.
机密源代码。 软件开发人员将其部分或全部源代码视为商业机密是标准的行业惯例。2 即使如此,软件开发人员仍需要共享其机密源代码,以便与他人合作构建其产品或使其与其他硬件或软件组件配合使用,从而创建可行的客户解决方案。因此,保密源代码许可是软件行业中一种常见的许可形式。这些许可结合了版权许可和商业秘密许可的特点。版权许可的授予是根据被许可人对源代码的特定用途精心定制的,许可中包含一系列保护代码机密性的措施。本章包含一个保密源代码许可样本,如下所示。

Open Source Software. Not all software development takes place using confidential source code. Some programmers believe that source code always should be shared on a non-confidential basis and come with rights to freely modify and distribute the code. This is known as “open source” software.3 Open source software is licensed using license agreements that conform to the principles embodied in the Open Source Definition published by an organization known as the Open Source Initiative.4 In practice, there are two predominant open source licenses: the GNU General Public License (GPL) and the Berkley Software Distribution-style license (BSD License). Both license forms are reproduced in this chapter, as well as the popular Apache License and a plain language rendering of the GPL known as the Simple Public License (SimPL).
开放源码软件。 并非所有软件开发都使用机密源代码。一些程序员认为,源代码应始终在非保密的基础上共享,并附带自由修改和分发代码的权利。3 开放源码软件使用符合开放源码倡议组织发布的开放源码定义中所体现的原则的许可协议进行许可。4 在实践中,有两种主要的开放源码许可证:GNU 通用公共许可证 (GPL) 和伯克利软件发布式许可证 (BSD 许可证)。本章将介绍这两种许可形式,以及流行的 Apache 许可和 GPL 的纯语言版本,即 Simple Public License (SimPL)。

279

Open source software burst onto the public stage when Netscape decided to release the source code of its popular Navigator browser software under an open source license (Navigator became the Firefox browser). Now, companies large and small run successful businesses based on open source software. Many governments have adopted or are considering the adoption of open source software. The traditional commercial software industry has not stood still either, with many companies licensing source code more broadly.5
当网景公司(Netscape)决定以开放源代码许可的方式发布其广受欢迎的 Navigator 浏览器软件的源代码(Navigator 后来成为火狐浏览器)时,开放源代码软件开始登上公众舞台。现在,大大小小的公司都在开源软件的基础上成功运营。许多国家的政府已经采用或正在考虑采用开放源码软件。传统的商业软件行业也没有停滞不前,许多公司更广泛地授权使用源代码。 5

Other Source Code Licenses. A substantial amount of source code is licensed under licenses that do not meet the definitions of free or open source software, yet grant substantial derivative works rights and do not hold the source code as a trade secret.
其他源代码许可。 大量源代码的许可不符合自由或开放源码软件的定义,但授予大量衍生作品的权利,并且不将源代码视为商业机密。

Examples of these licenses include:

Software development kits (SDKs).

SDKs contain a collection of software and documentation licensed by system software publishers to developers who want to write applications software or middleware to run on top of the systems software platform.
SDK 包含一系列软件和文档,这些软件和文档由系统软件出版商授权给开发人员使用,开发人员可以在系统软件平台上编写应用软件或中间件。

Device driver kits (DDKs).

DDKs contain a collection of software and documentation licensed by system software publishers to device manufacturers so that the manufacturer’s device, such as a printer or keyboard, will work with the systems software. DDKs often contain sample drivers in source code form that the device manufacturer can use as a starting point to create its own driver.
DDK 包含由系统软件发行商授权给设备制造商的软件和文档集合,以便制造商的设备(如打印机或键盘)能与系统软件配合使用。DDK 通常包含源代码形式的示例驱动程序,设备制造商可以以此为起点创建自己的驱动程序。

Developer tools.

Developer tool products contain software and documentation that enable a developer to write code in a certain computer language, such as BASIC, Java, or C/C++. These tool products contain libraries of code that can be used as pre-fabricated building blocks in developing a software program.
开发工具产品包含软件和文档,使开发人员能够用某种计算机语言(如 BASIC、Java 或 C/C++)编写代码。这些工具产品包含代码库,可用作开发软件程序的预制构件。

Other examples of source code licensing exist as well. The main point is that source code licensing comes in a variety of forms. Although confidential source code licensing and open source licensing are prominent, there are many other flavors of source code licensing.
还有其他源代码许可的例子。重点是源代码许可有多种形式。虽然保密源代码许可和开放源代码许可比较突出,但还有许多其他形式的源代码许可。

280

IV. CONFIDENTIAL SOURCE CODE LICENSING

SOURCE CODE LICENSE AGREEMENT

The Source Code License Agreement (“Agreement”) is an agreement between Pipsqueak Software, Inc. (“Company”) and ______ (“You”), effective this ______ day of ______ , 20 ______ (“Effective Date”).
源代码许可协议(以下简称 "协议")是 Pipsqueak 软件公司(以下简称 "公司")与 ______(以下简称 "您")之间的协议,于 20 ______ 年 ______ 月 ______ 日(以下简称 "生效日期")生效。

Recitals

A. Company created the HoundPup browser software.

B. Company wants You to create an enhanced version of HoundPup.
B.公司希望您创建 HoundPup 的增强版。

You and Company agree as follows:

Agreement

1. Definitions

1.1

“HoundPup” means Company’s HoundPup browser software as that software exists on the Effective Date.
"HoundPup "指公司的 HoundPup 浏览器软件,该软件在生效日期存在。

1.2

“Pup Source Code” means HoundPup in its source code form, including source code comments, build and installation scripts, and documentation.
"Pup 源代码 "是指源代码形式的 HoundPup,包括源代码注释、构建和安装脚本以及文档。

1.3

“New Code” means software developed by You to create and implement in HoundPup the features described in Attachment A. New Code includes software in object and source code forms, including source code comments, build and installation scripts, and documentation.
"新代码 "是指您为在 HoundPup 中创建和实现附录 A 中描述的功能而开发的软件。新代码包括对象和源代码形式的软件,包括源代码注释、构建和安装脚本以及文档。

1.4

“NewHoundPup” means a version of HoundPup containing New Code.
"NewHoundPup "指包含新代码的 HoundPup 版本。

2. Protecting Confidential Information

2.1

The Pup Source Code is confidential information and a trade secret of Company.
Pup 源代码是公司的机密信息和商业秘密。

2.2

When You get Pup Source Code, You agree to:

never disclose it to anyone else (unless a court or the government orders You to)
绝不向任何人透露(除非法院或政府命令您这样做)

keep it secret as You would Your most sensitive confidential information
像对待最敏感的机密信息一样保守秘密

provide access to Your employees only on a need-to-know basis
仅在需要知情的基础上向您的员工提供访问权限

use it only as described in the Agreement

have agreements in place with Your employees that protect its secrecy.
与您的员工签订保密协议。

281

2.3

If a court or the government orders You to disclose Pup Source Code, You must give Company prompt notice of the order so that Company can seek an appropriate protective order (or equivalent).
如果法院或政府命令您披露 Pup 源代码,您必须及时通知公司,以便公司寻求适当的保护令(或同等保护令)。

2.4

Company does not consider certain information about the Pup Source Code to be confidential or a trade secret. If You legally received information from someone other than Company and that person was entitled to share the information with You and did not obligate You to keep it secret, You do not need to keep that information secret. The same holds true for information that Company disclosed to You or someone else without an obligation to keep it secret or information that You develop independently.
公司不认为有关 Pup 源代码的某些信息是机密或商业秘密。如果您合法地从公司以外的其他人处获得信息,且该人有权与您共享该信息,且未要求您对其保密,则您无需对该信息保密。这同样适用于公司向 您或其他人披露的信息,但您没有义务对其保密,或者您独立开发的信息。

2.5

For purpose of this Section 2, Pup Source Code includes New Code in source code form.
在本第 2 条中,Pup 源代码包括源代码形式的新代码。

3. License Grant

Company hereby grants You a personal, limited license, under all of Company’s application intellectual property rights, to make, use, reproduce, and create derivative works of the Source Code for the sole purpose of creating NewHoundPup. All other rights are reserved by Company.
公司特此授予您個人有限許可,在公司所有應用智慧財產權下,製作、使用、複製和創造源代碼的衍生作品,僅用於創建 NewHoundPup。公司保留所有其他权利。

4. Assignment of Rights

You hereby assign to Company all right, title, and interest in and to New Code, including all rights under copyright, patent, and trade secret law.
您特此向公司转让 New Code 的所有权利、所有权和利益,包括版权、专利和商业秘密法下的所有权利。

5. Delivery of New Code

Immediately upon completion of New Code or at any time when Company requests, You shall provide New Code to Company on CD-ROM or on any other medium requested by Company.
在新代码完成后或在公司要求的任何时候,乙方应立即以 CD-ROM 或公司要求的任何其他介质向公司提供新代码。

6. NO WARRANTIES

COMPANY PROVIDES SOURCE CODE TO YOU, AND YOU PROVIDE NEW CODE TO COMPANY, WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS, IMPLIED, OR STATUTORY WARRANTY, NOT EVEN THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR THE WARRANTY OF TITLE OR NON-INFRINGEMENT.
公司向您提供源代码,您向公司提供新代码,不附带任何明示、暗示或法定保证、用途的默示保证,或所有权或不侵权的保证。

7. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY

YOU AND COMPANY AGREE THAT NEITHER PARTY WILL BE LIABLE UNDER THIS AGREEMENT FOR ANY INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES.
您和公司同意,根据本协议,双方均不承担任何间接、后果性、特殊、附带或惩罚性损害赔偿责任。

8. Term and Termination

8.1

This Agreement is in effect until the earlier of three (3) years from the Effective Date or completion of New Code.
本协议有效期至生效之日起三 (3) 年或新准则完成之日(以较早者为准)。

282

8.2

Company may end this Agreement at any time in its sole discretion upon notice to You.
公司可随时自行决定终止本协议,并通知您。

8.3

When Your license to any Pup Source Code ends, You must immediately return to Company or destroy all copies of the Pup Source Code. If Company asks, You agree that an executive of Your company will provide Company with a letter stating that all copies of the Pup Source Code have been returned or destroyed.
当您对任何 Pup 源代码的许可终止时,您必须立即将 Pup 源代码的所有副本归还公司或销毁。如果公司提出要求,贵方同意由贵方公司的一名高管向公司提供一封信,说明 Pup 源代码的所有副本已被归还或销毁。

8.4

When this Agreement ends, Sections 2, 3, 8.3, 9, 10, 11, and 14 remain in effect.
本协议终止时,第 2、3、8.3、9、10、11 和 14 条仍然有效。

9. Notices

9.1

If You or Company need to send a notice under the Agreement, the notice will be considered given when delivered to a commercial courier service or deposited in the United States of America mails, postage prepaid, certified or registered, return receipt requested. All notices must be addressed as follows:
如果贵方或公司需要根据本协议发送通知,则通知应在交付给商业快递服务或存入美利坚合众国邮局、预付邮资、认证或挂号、要求回执后视为已发出。所有通知必须注明以下地址:

To You:

To Company:

________________________

Pipsqueak Software, Inc.

[street address]

010101 Manzanita Drive

________________________

[city], [state], [zip]

Raymond, WA 98577

________________________

Attention: _______________

Attention: President

9.2

Either You or Company may change these addresses by giving notice of the change.
您或公司均可通过发出通知的方式更改这些地址。

10. Governing Law/Venue/Attorney Fees

The Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Delaware, excluding its conflicts of laws, of the United States of America. All claims brought relating to the Agreement shall be brought exclusively in the federal courts in Delaware, unless no federal subject matter jurisdiction exists. If either You or Company uses attorneys to enforce rights relating to the Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorney fees and litigation costs.
本协议受美国特拉华州法律管辖,但不包括其冲突法。与本协议有关的所有索赔均应专门提交特拉华州联邦法院,除非不存在联邦属事管辖权。如果您或公司使用律师强制执行与本协议相关的权利,胜诉方有权收回合理的律师费和诉讼费。

11. Outcome If Some Sections Are Invalid

If a part of the Agreement, other than Sections 2, 4, 6, or 7, is held by a competent court to be unenforceable, the rest shall remain in effect. If Sections 2, 4, 6, or 7 is held by a competent court to be unenforceable, the Agreement ends immediately.
如果有管辖权的法院裁定除第 2、4、6 或 7 节以外的本协议部分内容不可执行,则其余部分仍然有效。如果有管辖权的法院裁定第 2、4、6 或 7 条不可执行,则本协议立即终止。

283

12. Prohibition Against Assignment of the Agreement
12.禁止转让协议

You may not assign the Agreement, and if You attempt to assign the Agreement for any reason, the Agreement ends immediately. As used in the Agreement, the term “assign” includes: (a) any change of ownership of beneficial interest in Your company where greater than a twenty percent (20%) interest is transferred (whether in a single or a series of transactions); (b) a merger of Your company with another party, whether or not Your company is the surviving entity; (c) the acquisition of more than twenty percent (20%) of any class of Your company’s voting stock (or any class of non-voting security convertible into voting stock) by another party (whether in a single transaction or a series of transactions); or (d) the sale of more than fifty percent (50%) of Your company’s assets (whether in a single transaction or series of transactions).
您不得转让本协议,如果您出于任何原因试图转让本协议,则本协议立即终止。在本协议中,"转让 "一词包括(a) 贵公司受益权益所有权的任何变更,其中转让的权益超过百分之二十 (20%)(无论是否在单笔交易或一系列交易中);(b) 贵公司与另一方合并,无论贵公司是否为存续实体;(c) 另一方收购贵公司任何类别有投票权股票(或可转换为有投票权股票的任何类别无投票权证券)的百分之二十 (20%) 以上(无论在单项交易还是系列交易中);或 (d) 出售贵公司百分之五十 (50%) 以上的资产(无论在单项交易还是系列交易中)。

13. Governmental Approvals and Restricted Rights

13.1

You must, at Your expense, obtain and maintain any governmental approvals, consents, licenses, authorizations, declarations, filings, and registrations as may be necessary or advisable for Your performance under the Agreement. You must also pay (and indemnify Company if it gets charged) for any sales taxes, use taxes, and any other taxes imposed by any jurisdiction as a result of the entry into this Agreement, the performance of any of its provisions, or the transfer of any property or rights under it.
貴方必須自費取得並維持任何政府批准、同意、許可、授權、聲明、存檔和註冊,這些對貴方履行本協議是必要的或可取的。贵方还必须支付(如果公司被征收,则对公司进行赔偿)因签订本协议、履行本协议的任何条款或转让本协议项下的任何财产或权利而由任何司法管辖区征收的任何销售税、使用税和任何其他税款。

13.2

Any software provided to the U.S. Government pursuant to solicitations issued on or after December 1, 1995, is provided with the rights and restrictions described elsewhere herein. Any software provided to the U.S. Government pursuant to solicitations issued prior to December 1, 1995, is provided with “Restricted Rights” as provided for in FAR, 48 C.F.R. §52.227-14 (June 1987) or DFAR, 48 C.F.R. §252.227-7013 (Oct. 1988), as applicable. You are responsible for ensuring that any Pup Source Code or New Code source code is marked with the “Restricted Rights Notice” or “Restricted Rights Legend,” as required.
根据 1995 年 12 月 1 日或之后发布的招标而提供给美国政府的任何软件,均附带本文其他部分所述的权利和限制。根据 1995 年 12 月 1 日之前发布的招标而提供给美国政府的任何软件,均具有 FAR、48 C.F.R. §52.227-14 (1987 年 6 月) 或 DFAR、48 C.F.R. §252.227-7013 (1988 年 10 月) 中规定的 "受限权利"(如适用)。您有责任确保任何 Pup 源代码或新代码源代码都按要求标有 "权利受限通知 "或 "权利受限图例"。

14. Export Restrictions

The Pup Source Code is of United States origin. You must comply with all applicable international and national laws that apply to it, including the United States Export Administration Regulations, as well as end user, end use, and country destination restrictions issued by United States and other governments. For information on exporting Company products, see http://www.pipsqueaksoftware.com/exportcontrol/.
Pup源代码源自美国。您必须遵守适用于该源代码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、最终用途和目的地国家限制。有关出口公司产品的信息,请参阅 http://www.pipsqueaksoftware.com/exportcontrol/.

284

15. Entire Agreement

The Agreement is the only agreement between You and Company covering the subject matter of this Agreement. It supersedes all other prior or contemporaneous agreements and communications on the subject. The Agreement shall not be modified unless You and Company sign an amendment after the Effective Date. Neither You nor Company waives the right to claim breach of contract unless the waiver is in a signed, written document. A waiver only applies to things described in that document; it does not apply to other breaches of contract.
本协议是您与公司之间涉及本协议主题事项的唯一协议。本协议取代所有其他先前或同时签订的有关协议和通信。除非您和公司在生效日期后签署修订协议,否则不得修改本协议。您和公司均不放弃主张违约的权利,除非放弃是以书面形式签署的。弃权仅适用于该文件所述事项,不适用于其他违约行为。

We agree to everything in the Agreement.

Pipsqueak Software, Inc.

[Name of Company]

_________________________

_________________________

_________________________

By

By

_________________________

_________________________

Name (print)

Name (print)

_________________________

_________________________

Title

Title

_________________________

_________________________

Date

Date

Attachment A: New Features for HoundPup

_________________________

_________________________

_________________________

_________________________

* * *

Questions

1.

General Discussion Questions

1.1

How does confidential source code licensing promote the goals of intellectual property law?
源代码保密许可如何促进知识产权法目标的实现?

285

1.2

From a policy standpoint, does it make sense that software can be covered, at the same time, by copyright, trade secret, contract, and potentially patent law?
从政策角度看,软件同时受版权法、商业秘密法、合同法以及潜在的专利法保护,这合理吗?

2.

Litigation Questions

2.1

What remedies would you seek for breach of a confidential source code license?
对于违反保密源代码许可的行为,您会寻求哪些补救措施?

2.2

How can you keep source code confidential in the course of discovery during litigation?
如何在诉讼过程中对源代码保密?

2.3

Looking at Section 10 of the Agreement, how important is it for the parties to agree to litigate in federal court? Can you think of the pros and cons of choosing Delaware as the venue?
从协议第 10 条来看,双方同意在联邦法院进行诉讼有多重要?你能想到选择特拉华州作为诉讼地的利弊吗?

3.

Business Law Questions

3.1

How would you compare a Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) with a confidential source code agreement?
您如何比较保密协议(NDA)和机密源代码协议?

3.2

Often parties to a software license agreement disclaim consequential damages — why might that be problematic in a confidential source code license?
通常情况下,软件许可协议的双方都会拒绝承担间接损失,为什么这在机密源代码许可中会出现问题?

3.3

Do you think the confidentiality measures in Section 2 of the Agreement are adequate?
您认为协议第 2 节中的保密措施是否充分?

3.4

Looking at Section 4 of the Agreement, why would a licensor of confidential source code seek an assignment of rights for any modifications made by the licensee? What would a licensee think about this?
从协议第 4 条来看,机密源代码的许可人为什么会要求被许可人对其所作的任何修改进行权利转让?被许可人对此有何看法?

3.5

Looking at Section 12 of the Agreement, why would a licensor of confidential source code not permit the assignment of the license agreement by the licensee to a third party?
从协议第 12 条来看,机密源代码的许可人为什么不允许被许可人将许可协议转让给第三方?

EXERCISE

Development Partnership

The Facts. Dependable Computing Company (DCC) is an established player in the computer industry. Its mini-computer, the Dependable2, is one of the leading computers used by large corporate end users. DCC created all aspects of the Dependable2, including the microprocessor, the operating system, the developer tools, and the applications software. However, PCs are fast becoming as powerful as mini-computers, and IBM is about to release a high-end operating system called OS/2 that will allow IBM PCs to do many things the Dependable2 can do at a fraction of the price.
事实。Dependable Computing Company(DCC)是计算机行业的老牌企业。其微型计算机 Dependable2 是大型企业最终用户使用的主要计算机之一。DCC 创造了 Dependable2 的所有方面,包括微处理器、操作系统、开发工具和应用软件。然而,个人电脑的功能正迅速变得与微型电脑一样强大,IBM 即将发布一款名为 OS/2 的高端操作系统,它将使 IBM 个人电脑能够以极低的价格完成 Dependable2 所能完成的许多工作。

DCC distributes PCs running PCSoft’s GUIDuck operating system, but these computers are only good enough for running personal productivity applications, not heavy-duty applications like email routing, transaction processing, or database management. However, PCSoft is developing a new industrial strength operating system called MightyOS that is designed to run industrial strength applications. One
DCC 经销运行 PCSoft 的 GUIDuck 操作系统的 PC,但这些计算机只能运行个人生产力应用程序,而不能运行电子邮件路由、事务处理或数据库管理等重型应用程序。不过,PCSoft 正在开发一种名为 MightyOS 的新型工业级操作系统,专门用于运行工业级应用程序。一个

286

of the advantages of MightyOS is that it is easily portable to different microprocessors, such as DCC’s newly created Mars processor.
MightyOS 的优势之一是可以轻松移植到不同的微处理器上,例如 DCC 新开发的 Mars 处理器。

The executives from DCC and PCSoft met to discuss collaboration. They agreed on the following deal points:
DCC 和 PCSoft 的高层会面商讨合作事宜。他们就以下交易要点达成一致:

DCC will port MightyOS source code to the Mars processor with assistance from PCSoft;
DCC 将在 PCSoft 的协助下将 MightyOS 源代码移植到火星处理器;

DCC and PCSoft will jointly develop a compiler for creating applications for MightyOS running on Mars, combining PCSoft’s existing C/C++”front end” user interface and DCC’s preexisting “back end” that can generate code for Mars processor-based systems;
DCC 和 PCSoft 将联合开发一个编译器,用于为在火星上运行的 MightyOS 创建应用程序,该编译器将 PCSoft 现有的 C/C++ "前端 "用户界面与 DCC 现有的可为基于火星处理器的系统生成代码的 "后端 "相结合;

PCSoft will port its popular GoodStuff productivity software (word processor, spreadsheet, and presentation graphics) to the MightyOS/Mars platform;
PCSoft 将把其广受欢迎的 GoodStuff 生产率软件(文字处理器、电子表格和演示图形)移植到 MightyOS/Mars 平台;

DCC will port its Dependable2-based email system to the MightyOS/Mars platform, utilizing publicly documented Mighty OS application programming interfaces.
DCC 将利用公开记录的 Mighty OS 应用程序编程接口,将其基于 Dependable2 的电子邮件系统移植到 MightyOS/Mars 平台。

The Exercise. Describe the licenses for each deal point. Discuss the types of IP being licensed, and within each type of IP, what rights would be granted. Discuss license parameters such as scope of use and duration. Discuss any materials that need to be exchanged (e.g., documentation).
练习。描述每个交易点的许可。讨论许可的知识产权类型,以及在每类知识产权中,将授予哪些权利。讨论许可参数,如使用范围和期限。讨论需要交换的任何材料(如文件)。

V. OPEN SOURCE CODE LICENSING

THE OPEN SOURCE DEFINITION

Version 1.9

Introduction

Open source doesn’t just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:
开放源代码并不仅仅意味着可以获取源代码。开源软件的发布条款必须符合以下标准:

1. Free Redistribution

The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
本许可不限制任何一方将本软件作为包含多个不同来源程序的综合软件发行版的组成部分进行销售或赠送。许可不得要求对此类销售收取版税或其他费用。

287

2. Source Code

The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost — preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.
程序必须包括源代码,必须允许以源代码和编译形式发布。如果产品的某些形式没有与源代码一起分发,则必须有一个广为宣传的获取源代码的途径,但费用不得超过合理的复制成本--最好是通过互联网免费下载。源代码必须是程序员修改程序的首选形式。不允许故意混淆源代码。不允许使用预处理器或翻译器输出的中间形式。

3. Derived Works

The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.
许可证必须允许修改和衍生作品,并且必须允许它们按照与原始软件许可证相同的条款进行分发。

4. Integrity of the Author’s Source Code

The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of “patch files” with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software.
许可证可以限制源代码以修改后的形式发布只有许可证允许发布带有源代码的 "补丁文件",以便在构建时修改程序。许可证必须明确允许分发用修改过的源代码构建的软件。许可证可以要求衍生作品使用与原始软件不同的名称或版本号。

5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups

The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
许可证不得歧视任何个人或群体。

6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
许可不得限制任何人在特定领域使用程序。例如,不得限制程序用于商业或基因研究。

7. Distribution of License

The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.
程序所附带的权利必须适用于所有被重新分发程序的人,而无需这些人执行额外的许可。

8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product

The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program’s being part of a particular software distribution. If the program is extracted from that distribution
程序所附带的权利不得取决于程序是否属于某个软件发行版的一部分。如果程序是从该发行版中提取的

288

and used or distributed within the terms of the program’s license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the original software distribution.
在程序的许可条款范围内使用或分发,程序的所有再分发对象都应享有与原始软件分发时所授予的权利相同的权利。

9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software

The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.
许可不得对与许可软件一起发布的其他软件施加限制。例如,许可证不得坚持要求在同一媒体上发布的所有其他程序必须是开源软件。

10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral

No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface.
许可证的任何条款均不得以任何个别技术或界面风格为依据。

General Public License (GPL), Version 2

Copyright © 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
每个人都可以复制和分发本许可文件的逐字副本,但不得更改。

Preamble

The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software — to make sure the software is free for all its users. This General Public License applies to most of the Free Software Foundation’s software and to any other program whose authors commit to using it. (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by the GNU Library General Public License instead.) You can apply it to your programs, too.
大多数软件的许可证都旨在剥夺你共享和更改软件的自由。相比之下,GNU 通用公共许可证旨在保证你共享和更改自由软件的自由,确保软件对所有用户都是自由的。本通用公共许可证适用于自由软件基金会的大部分软件,以及作者承诺使用本许可证的任何其他程序。(其他一些自由软件基金会的软件则适用 GNU Library 通用公共许可证)。您也可以将其应用于您的程序。

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.
当我们谈论自由软件时,我们指的是自由,而不是价格。我们的通用公共许可证旨在确保你有分发自由软件拷贝的自由(如果你愿意,还可以收取服务费),确保你收到源代码,或者如果你需要,可以得到源代码,确保你可以更改软件或在新的自由程序中使用软件片段;确保你知道你可以做这些事情。

To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.
为了保护您的权利,我们需要做出限制,禁止任何人剥夺您的这些权利或要求您放弃这些权利。如果您分发软件拷贝或修改软件,这些限制将转化为您的某些责任。

289

For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
例如,如果你免费或有偿地分发这种程序的拷贝,你必须向接收者提供你所拥有的所有权利。你必须确保他们也能获得源代码。你必须向他们展示这些条款,让他们知道自己的权利。

We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and (2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the software.
我们通过两个步骤保护您的权利:(1) 对软件进行版权保护,(2) 向您提供本许可证,允许您复制、分发和/或修改软件。

Also, for each author’s protection and ours, we want to make certain that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free software. If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original authors’ reputations.
此外,为了保护每位作者和我们自己的利益,我们希望每个人都明白,本免费软件不提供任何担保。如果该软件被他人修改并流传开来,我们希望接受者知道他们所拥有的并非原版,这样他人带来的任何问题都不会影响原作者的声誉。

Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone’s free use or not licensed at all.
最后,任何免费程序都会不断受到软件专利的威胁。我们希望避免这样一种危险,即免费程序的再分发者会单独获得专利许可,从而使程序成为专有程序。为了避免这种情况,我们明确规定,任何专利都必须获得许可,供所有人自由使用,否则就根本无法获得许可。

The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and modification follow.
复制、分发和修改的确切条款和条件如下。

Terms and Conditions for Copying, Distribution and Modification
复制、分发和修改的条款和条件

0.

This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. The “Program,” below, refers to any such program or work, and a “work based on the Program” means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in the term “modification.”) Each licensee is addressed as “you.”
本许可证适用于任何程序或其他作品,只要这些程序或作品包含版权持有者的声明,表示可以根据本通用公共许可证的条款进行发布。以下的 "程式 "是指任何此类程式或作品,而 "以程式为基础的作品 "是指程式或版权法下的任何衍生作品:也就是说,包含程式或其一部分的作品,可以是原封不动的,也可以是经过修改和/或翻译成其他语言的。(以下 "修改 "一词包括翻译,但不受限制)。每个被许可人都被称为 "您"

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.
复制、分发和修改以外的行为不在本许可的适用范围之内。运行程序的行为不受限制,程序的输出只有在其内容构成以程序为基础的作品(与运行程序所产生的内容无关)时才受本许可的保护。这取决于程序的功能。

1.

You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program’s source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.
您可以以任何媒介复制和分发您收到的程序源代码的逐字副本,前提是您必须在每份副本上醒目、适当地发布适当的版权声明和免责声明;保持所有提及本许可和不作任何保证的声明完整无缺;并将本许可副本连同程序一并交给程序的任何其他接收者。

290

You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.
您可以对转让拷贝的实际行为收取费用,也可以选择提供保修保护以换取费用。

2.

You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
您可以修改您的一份或多份程序或其任何部分的副本,从而形成基于程序的作品,并根据上述第 1 节的条款复制和分发这些修改或作品,但您必须同时满足所有这些条件:

(a)

You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
您必须使修改后的文件带有显著的通知,说明您更改了文件以及任何更改的日期。

(b)

You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
您必须根据本许可证的条款,将您发布或出版的全部或部分包含或衍生自本程序或其任何部分的任何作品,作为一个整体免费许可给所有第三方。

(c)

If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
如果修改后的程式在运行时通常会以交互方式读取指令,您必须使它在以最普通的方式开始运行以进行这种交互式使用时,打印或显示一个公告,其中包括适当的版权声明和没有保证的声明 (或者说您提供了保证),以及用户可以在这些条件下重新发布程式,并告诉用户如何查看本许可证的副本。(例外情况:如果程序本身是交互式的,但通常不打印此类公告,则您基于该程序的作品无需打印公告)。

These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
这些要求适用于整个修改后的作品。如果该作品中可识别的部分不是从程式衍生出来的,而且可以被合理地认为是独立和单独的作品,那么当您将这些部分作为单独的作品发布时,本许可证及其条款不适用于这些部分。但是,当您将这些部分作为基于本程序的作品的整体的一部分进行发布时,该整体的发布必须遵守本许可证的条款,本许可证对其他被许可人的许可延伸至整个整体,因此也延伸至每一部分,无论其作者是谁。

Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or collective works based on the Program.
因此,本节无意对完全由您撰写的作品主张权利或争夺您的权利;相反,本节旨在行使控制基于本程序的衍生作品或集体作品的发行的权利。

In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.
此外,仅将非基于本程序的其它作品与本程序(或基于本程序的作品)合并在一个存储或分发介质上,并不能将其它作品纳入本许可的范围。

3.

You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
根据上述第 1 条和第 2 条的规定,您可以以目标代码或可执行形式复制和分发本程序(或根据第 2 条以本程序为基础的作品),但您必须同时满足以下条件之一:

291

(a)

Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
随附完整的相应机器可读源代码,该源代码必须根据上述第 1 和第 2 部分的条款在惯常用于软件交换的介质上发布;或

(b)

Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
随附一份有效期至少为三年的书面提议,向任何第三方提供一份相应源代码的完整机器可读副本,并根据上述第 1 节和第 2 节的条款在惯常用于软件交换的介质上进行分发,但收取的费用不得超过贵方实际执行源代码分发的成本;或

(c)

Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
同时附上你收到的关于分发相应源代码的要约的信息。(只有在非商业性分发的情况下,并且只有在你收到程序的目标代码或可执行形式时,根据上述 b 小节的规定,才允许使用这种替代方式)。

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable. However, as a special exception, the source code distributed need not include anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component itself accompanies the executable.
作品的源代码是指对作品进行修改的首选形式。对于可执行作品而言,完整的源代码是指作品所包含的所有模块的源代码,加上任何相关的界面定义文件,以及用于控制可执行作品的编译和安装的脚本。但是,作为一个特殊的例外,分发的源代码不必包括通常与可执行文件运行的操作系统的主要组件(编译器、内核等)一起分发的任何内容(无论是源代码还是二进制形式),除非该组件本身与可执行文件一起分发。

If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the source along with the object code.
如果可执行代码或目标代码的分发是通过提供从指定地点复制的途径进行的,那么提供从同一地点复制源代码的同等途径也算作源代码的分发,即使第三方并没有被强迫在复制目标代码的同时复制源代码。

4.

You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
除非本许可证有明确规定,否则您不得复制、修改、转授权或分发本程序。任何以其他方式复制、修改、转授权或分发本程序的企图都是无效的,并将自动终止您在本许可下的权利。但是,根据本许可从您处获得副本或权利的各方,只要其完全遵守本许可的规定,其许可将不会被终止。

5.

You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.
您无需接受本许可,因为您尚未签署本许可。但是,本许可证不授予您修改或分发本程序或其衍生作品的权限。如果您不接受本许可证,这些行为将被法律禁止。因此,如果您修改或散布本程式 (或任何以本程式为基础的作品),即表示您接受本许可证,以及本许可证的所有条款和复制、散布或修改本程式或以本程式为基础的作品的条件。

6.

Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy,
您每次重新分发本程序(或基于本程序的任何作品)时,接受者都会自动从原始许可人处获得复制许可、

292

distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients’ exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.
根据这些条款和条件分发或修改程序。您不得对接受者行使此处授予的权利施加任何进一步的限制。您不负责强制第三方遵守本许可。

7.

If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all. For example, if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
如果由于法院判决或专利侵权指控或任何其他原因(不限于专利问题),对您施加了与本许可条件相抵触的条件(无论是通过法院命令、协议或其他方式),这些条件并不能免除本许可条件对您的约束。如果您在发布程序时无法同时满足本许可规定的义务和其他相关义务,那么您可以根本不发布该程序。例如,如果专利许可证不允许所有通过您直接或间接接收拷贝的人免版税地再分发程式,那么您同时满足专利许可证和本许可证的唯一方法就是完全不分发程式。

If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other circumstances.
如果本节的任何部分在任何特定情况下被认定为无效或不可执行,本节的其余部分将适用,本节作为一个整体将适用于其他情况。

It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the integrity of the free software distribution system, which is implemented by public license practices. Many people have made generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed through that system in reliance on consistent application of that system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot impose that choice.
本节的目的不是诱导您侵犯任何专利或其他产权要求,也不是质疑任何此类要求的有效性;本节的唯一目的是保护自由软件发布系统的完整性,该系统是通过公共许可证实践实现的。许多人对通过该系统发布的大量软件做出了慷慨贡献,他们依赖于该系统的一贯应用;作者/捐赠者可自行决定是否愿意通过任何其他系统发布软件,被许可人不能强加这种选择。

This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to be a consequence of the rest of this License.
本节旨在彻底阐明本许可其余部分的后果。

8.

If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the original copyright holder who places the Program under this License may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among countries not thus excluded. In such case, this License incorporates the limitation as if written in the body of this License.
如果程式在某些国家的发行和/或使用受到专利或版权界面的限制,则将程式置于本许可证之下的原始版权持有者可以添加一个明确的地域发行限制,将这些国家排除在外,从而只允许在未被排除在外的国家或国家之间发行。在这种情况下,本许可证会将该限制写入本许可证的正文。

9.

The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.
自由软件基金会可能会不时发布通用公共许可证的修订版和/或新版本。这些新版本在精神上与当前版本相似,但在细节上可能会有所不同,以解决新的问题或关注点。

Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and “any later version,” you have
每个版本都有一个不同的版本号。如果程序指定了适用于本许可和 "任何后续版本 "的版本号,则您拥有

293

the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
您可以选择遵循该版本或自由软件基金会发布的任何后续版本的条款和条件。如果程序未指明本许可证的版本号,您可以选择自由软件基金会发布的任何版本。

10.

If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author to ask for permission. For software which is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we sometimes make exceptions for this. Our decision will be guided by the two goals of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free software and of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally.
如果您希望将本程序的部分内容整合到其他发行条件不同的自由程序中,请致函作者请求许可。对于自由软件基金会拥有版权的软件,请致函自由软件基金会;我们有时会对此作出例外处理。我们的决定将以以下两个目标为指导:维护我们自由软件的所有衍生产品的自由地位;促进软件的共享和重复使用。

No Warranty

11.

BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM “AS IS” WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
除非另有书面说明,版权持有者和/或其他各方均以 "原样 "提供本程序,不提供任何明示或暗示的保证,包括但不限于适销性和特定用途适用性的暗示保证。本程序的质量和性能的全部风险由您承担。如果本程序被证明存在缺陷,您需承担所有必要的服务、维修或纠正费用。

12.

IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
除非適用法律要求或書面同意,否則在任何情況下,任何版權擁有人或任何可能依據上述許可修改及/或重新散佈本程式的其他方,均不對您承擔損害賠償責任,包括任何一般、特殊、附帶或後果性損害賠償、因使用或無法使用本程式所造成的損害,包括任何一般、特殊、附帶或衍生性損害 (包括但不限於資料遺失或資料不準確,或您或第三方所遭受的損失,或本程式無法與任何其他程式一起運作),即使該持有人或其他方已被告知發生此類損害的可能性。

* * *

294

General Public License (GPL), Version 3

29 June 2007

Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. <http://fsf.org/> </http://fsf.org/> Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. 每个人都可以复制和分发本许可证文件的逐字副本,但不允许更改。

Preamble

The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for software and other kinds of works.
GNU 通用公共许可证是一种自由的、用于软件和其他作品的版权许可。

The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program — to make sure it remains free software for all its users. We, the Free Software Foundation, use the GNU General Public License for most of our software; it applies also to any other work released this way by its authors. You can apply it to your programs, too.
大多数软件和其他实用作品的许可证都旨在剥夺你共享和更改作品的自由。相比之下,GNU 通用公共许可证旨在保证你共享和更改程序所有版本的自由--以确保它对所有用户都是自由软件。我们自由软件基金会的大部分软件都使用 GNU 通用公共许可证;它也适用于作者以这种方式发布的任何其他作品。您也可以将其应用于您的程序。

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things.
当我们谈论自由软件时,我们指的是自由,而不是价格。我们的通用公共许可证旨在确保你有分发自由软件副本的自由(如果你愿意,也可以收费),确保你收到源代码,或者如果你想要,也可以得到源代码,确保你可以更改软件,或者在新的自由程序中使用软件的片段,确保你知道你可以做这些事情。

To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you these rights or asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom of others.
为了保护您的权利,我们需要防止他人剥夺您的这些权利或要求您放弃这些权利。因此,如果您分发软件拷贝或对其进行修改,您将承担一定的责任:尊重他人自由的责任。

For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.
例如,如果你免费或有偿地分发这种程序的拷贝,你必须把你所获得的同样的自由传递给接收者。你必须确保他们也能获得源代码。你还必须向他们展示这些条款,以便他们了解自己的权利。

Developers that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps: (1) assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License giving you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify it.
使用 GNU GPL 的开发者通过两个步骤保护您的权利:(1) 维护软件的版权,(2) 向您提供本许可证,允许您复制、分发和/或修改软件。

For the developers’ and authors’ protection, the GPL clearly explains that there is no warranty for this free software. For both users’ and authors’ sake, the GPL requires that modified versions be marked as changed, so that their problems will not be attributed erroneously to authors of previous versions.
为了保护开发者和作者的利益,GPL 明确规定对这种免费软件不提供担保。为了保护用户和作者的利益,GPL 要求将修改后的版本标记为已更改,这样就不会将其问题错误地归咎于先前版本的作者。

Some devices are designed to deny users access to install or run modified versions of the software inside them, although the manufacturer can do so. This is
有些设备在设计上拒绝用户安装或运行其中的修改版软件,尽管制造商可以这样做。这是

295

fundamentally incompatible with the aim of protecting users’ freedom to change the software. The systematic pattern of such abuse occurs in the area of products for individuals to use, which is precisely where it is most unacceptable. Therefore, we have designed this version of the GPL to prohibit the practice for those products. If such problems arise substantially in other domains, we stand ready to extend this provision to those domains in future versions of the GPL, as needed to protect the freedom of users.
从根本上说,这与保护用户修改软件的自由这一目标是不相容的。这种滥用的系统模式发生在供个人使用的产品领域,而这恰恰是最不能接受的地方。因此,我们设计了这一版本的 GPL,禁止在这些产品中使用这种做法。如果此类问题在其他领域大量出现,我们随时准备在未来版本的 GPL 中根据需要将这一规定扩展到这些领域,以保护用户的自由。

Finally, every program is threatened constantly by software patents. States should not allow patents to restrict development and use of software on general-purpose computers, but in those that do, we wish to avoid the special danger that patents applied to a free program could make it effectively proprietary. To prevent this, the GPL assures that patents cannot be used to render the program non-free.
最后,每个程序都不断受到软件专利的威胁。各国不应允许专利限制通用计算机软件的开发和使用,但在那些允许专利的国家,我们希望避免一种特殊的危险,即专利应用于自由程序会使其实际上成为专有程序。为了避免这种情况,GPL 确保专利权不能被用来使程序成为非自由软件。

The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and modification follow.
复制、分发和修改的确切条款和条件如下。

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

0. Definitions.

“This License” refers to version 3 of the GNU General Public License.
"本许可证 "指 GNU 通用公共许可证第 3 版。

“Copyright” also means copyright-like laws that apply to other kinds of works, such as semiconductor masks.
"版权 "也指适用于其他类型作品(如半导体掩膜)的类似版权的法律。

“The Program” refers to any copyrightable work licensed under this License. Each licensee is addressed as “you”. “Licensees” and “recipients” may be individuals or organizations.
"程序 "是指根据本许可授权的任何受版权保护的作品。每个被许可人都被称为 "您"。"被许可人 "和 "接受者 "可以是个人或组织。

To “modify” a work means to copy from or adapt all or part of the work in a fashion requiring copyright permission, other than the making of an exact copy. The resulting work is called a “modified version” of the earlier work or a work “based on” the earlier work.
对作品进行 "修改",是指对作品的全部或部分内容进行复制或改编,而不是完全复制,这需要获得版权许可。由此产生的作品被称为早期作品的 "修改版 "或 "基于 "早期作品的作品。

A “covered work” means either the unmodified Program or a work based on the Program.
受保护作品 "是指未经修改的程序或基于该程序的作品。

To “propagate” a work means to do anything with it that, without permission, would make you directly or secondarily liable for infringement under applicable copyright law, except executing it on a computer or modifying a private copy. Propagation includes copying, distribution (with or without modification), making available to the public, and in some countries other activities as well.
"传播 "作品是指未经许可,根据适用的版权法,除了在计算机上执行作品或修改私人拷贝外,对作品进行任何会使你直接或间接承担侵权责任的行为。传播包括复制、发行(无论是否修改)、向公众提供,在某些国家还包括其他活动。

To “convey” a work means any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies. Mere interaction with a user through a computer network, with no transfer of a copy, is not conveying.
作品的 "传达 "是指使其他各方能够制作或接收复制品的任何传播方式。仅仅通过计算机网络与用户进行互动,而不传递复制品,不属于传达。

An interactive user interface displays “Appropriate Legal Notices” to the extent that it includes a convenient and prominently visible feature that (1) displays an appropriate copyright notice, and (2) tells the user that there is no warranty for the work (except to
交互式用户界面显示 "适当的法律声明 "的范围是,它包括一个方便且醒目的功能,该功能(1)显示适当的版权声明,(2)告诉用户对作品不作任何保证(但对以下情况除外)

296

the extent that warranties are provided), that licensees may convey the work under this License, and how to view a copy of this License. If the interface presents a list of user commands or options, such as a menu, a prominent item in the list meets this criterion.
提供保證的程度)、被授權人可根據本授權條款傳遞作品,以及如何檢視本授權條款的副本。如果界面显示的是用户命令或选项的列表,例如菜单,则列表中的显著项目符合这一标准。

1. Source Code.

The “source code” for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. “Object code” means any non-source form of a work.
作品的 "源代码 "是指对作品进行修改的首选形式。"目标代码 "是指作品的任何非源代码形式。

A “Standard Interface” means an interface that either is an official standard defined by a recognized standards body, or, in the case of interfaces specified for a particular programming language, one that is widely used among developers working in that language.
标准接口 "是指由公认的标准机构定义的正式标准接口,或者,在为特定编程语言指定接口的情况下,在使用该语言的开发人员中广泛使用的接口。

The “System Libraries” of an executable work include anything, other than the work as a whole, that (a) is included in the normal form of packaging a Major Component, but which is not part of that Major Component, and (b) serves only to enable use of the work with that Major Component, or to implement a Standard Interface for which an implementation is available to the public in source code form. A “Major Component”, in this context, means a major essential component (kernel, window system, and so on) of the specific operating system (if any) on which the executable work runs, or a compiler used to produce the work, or an object code interpreter used to run it.
可执行作品的 "系统库 "包括除作品整体之外的任何内容,这些内容(a)包含在主要组件的正常包装形式中,但并非该主要组件的一部分,(b)仅用于使作品能够与该主要组件一起使用,或用于实现标准接口,而该标准接口的实现已以源代码形式向公众提供。此处的 "主要组成部分 "是指可执行作品所运行的特定操作系统(如有)的主要基本组成部分(内核、窗口系统等),或用于制作作品的编译器,或用于运行作品的目标代码解释器。

The “Corresponding Source” for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities. However, it does not include the work’s System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the work. For example, Corresponding Source includes interface definition files associated with source files for the work, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require, such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those subprograms and other parts of the work.
目标代码形式作品的 "相应源代码 "是指生成、安装和(对于可执行作品)运行目标代码以及修改作品所需的全部源代码,包括控制这些活动的脚本。但是,它不包括作品的系统库、通用工具或一般可用的免费程序,这些工具或程序在执行这些活动时未经修改即可使用,但不属于作品的一部分。例如,"对应源代码 "包括与作品源文件相关的接口定义文件,以及共享库和动态链接子程序的源代码。

The Corresponding Source need not include anything that users can regenerate automatically from other parts of the Corresponding Source.
对应源无需包含用户可从对应源其他部分自动再生的任何内容。

The Corresponding Source for a work in source code form is that same work.
源代码形式作品的 "对应源 "就是该作品。

2. Basic Permissions.

All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met. This License explicitly affirms your unlimited permission to run the unmodified Program. The output from running a covered work is covered by this License only if the output, given its content, constitutes a covered work. This License acknowledges your rights of fair use or other equivalent, as provided by copyright law.
本许可证授予的所有权利在程序的版权期限内有效,并且在满足所述条件的情况下不可撤销。本许可证明确确认您可以无限制地运行未经修改的程序。只有当程序的输出内容构成受保护作品时,运行受保护作品的输出才受本许可的保护。本许可证承认您享有版权法规定的合理使用权或其他同等权利。

297

You may make, run and propagate covered works that you do not convey, without conditions so long as your license otherwise remains in force. You may convey covered works to others for the sole purpose of having them make modifications exclusively for you, or provide you with facilities for running those works, provided that you comply with the terms of this License in conveying all material for which you do not control copyright. Those thus making or running the covered works for you must do so exclusively on your behalf, under your direction and control, on terms that prohibit them from making any copies of your copyrighted material outside their relationship with you.
只要您的许可仍然有效,您可以无条件地制作、运行和传播您未传达的涵盖作品。您可以仅出于让他人专门为您进行修改或为您提供运行这些作品的设施的目的,向他人转发受保护作品,但您在转发您不控制版权的所有材料时必须遵守本许可的条款。那些为您制作或运行受保护作品的人必须完全代表您,在您的指导和控制下这样做,并遵守禁止他们在与您的关系之外复制您受版权保护的材料的条款。

Conveying under any other circumstances is permitted solely under the conditions stated below. Sublicensing is not allowed; section 10 makes it unnecessary.
只有在下述条件下,才允许在任何其他情况下转让。不允许转授;第 10 节规定没有必要转授。

3. Protecting Users’ Legal Rights From Anti-Circumvention Law.
3.从反规避法中保护用户的合法权益。

No covered work shall be deemed part of an effective technological measure under any applicable law fulfilling obligations under article 11 of the WIPO copyright treaty adopted on 20 December 1996, or similar laws prohibiting or restricting circumvention of such measures.
根据履行 1996 年 12 月 20 日通过的《世界知识产权组织版权条约》第 11 条规定的义务的任何适用法律,或禁止或限制规避此类措施的类似法律,任何受保护作品均不得被视为有效技术措施的一部分。

When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid circumvention of technological measures to the extent such circumvention is effected by exercising rights under this License with respect to the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to limit operation or modification of the work as a means of enforcing, against the work’s users, your or third parties’ legal rights to forbid circumvention of technological measures.
在您转让受保护作品时,您放弃禁止规避技术措施的任何法律权力,只要这种规避是通过行使本许可下有关受保护作品的权利而实现的,并且您否认有任何意图限制该作品的操作或修改,以此对该作品的用户强制执行您或第三方禁止规避技术措施的法律权利。

4. Conveying Verbatim Copies.

You may convey verbatim copies of the Program’s source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice; keep intact all notices stating that this License and any non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code; keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all recipients a copy of this License along with the Program.
您可以在收到程序的源代码时,以任何媒介传递其逐字副本,前提是您必须在每份副本上醒目、适当地发布适当的版权声明;保持所有声明本许可和根据第 7 节添加的任何非许可条款适用于代码的声明完好无损;保持所有不提供任何保证的声明完好无损;并将本许可的副本与程序一起交给所有接收者。

You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey, and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee.
您可以对传送的每份拷贝收取任何价格或不收取任何价格,也可以有偿提供支持或保修保护。

5. Conveying Modified Source Versions.

You may convey a work based on the Program, or the modifications to produce it from the Program, in the form of source code under the terms of section 4, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:
您可以根据第 4 条的规定,以源代码的形式传达基于本程序的作品,或根据本程序进行的修改,只要您同时满足所有这些条件:

(a)

The work must carry prominent notices stating that you modified it, and giving a relevant date.
作品上必须有醒目的提示,说明您对其进行了修改,并注明相关日期。

298

(b)

The work must carry prominent notices stating that it is released under this License and any conditions added under section 7. This requirement modifies the requirement in section 4 to “keep intact all notices”.
作品必须带有醒目的通知,说明该作品是根据本许可和第 7 节增加的任何条件发布的。这一要求修改了第 4 节中 "保持所有通知完好无损 "的要求。

(c)

You must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who comes into possession of a copy. This License will therefore apply, along with any applicable section 7 additional terms, to the whole of the work, and all its parts, regardless of how they are packaged. This License gives no permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not invalidate such permission if you have separately received it.
您必须根据本许可向任何获得副本的人授权整个作品。因此,本许可与任何适用的第 7 条附加条款一起适用于整个作品及其所有部分,无论其包装方式如何。本许可不允许以任何其他方式对作品进行许可,但如果您已另行获得此类许可,本许可也不会使其失效。

(d)

If the work has interactive user interfaces, each must display Appropriate Legal Notices; however, if the Program has interactive interfaces that do not display Appropriate Legal Notices, your work need not make them do so.
如果作品有交互式用户界面,则每个界面都必须显示适当的法律声明;但是,如果程序有交互式界面,而这些界面不显示适当的法律声明,则您的作品无需使这些界面显示适当的法律声明。

A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an “aggregate” if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation’s users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate.
若某一受著作權保護之作品與其他單獨的作品彙編在一起,而該作品就其本質而言並非該受著作權保護之作品的延伸,亦未與該作品合併以形成更大的程式,則該彙編可稱為 "彙編",但該彙編及其所產生的著作權不得用於限制彙編使用者超出個別作品所允許的存取權或合法權利。在汇编中包含受保护作品并不导致本许可适用于汇编的其他部分。

6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.

You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways:
您可以根据第 4 条和第 5 条的规定,以目标码的形式传递受保护的作品,但同时必须根据本许可 证的规定,以下列方式之一传递机器可读的相应源代码:

(a)

Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by the Corresponding Source fixed on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange.
在实物产品(包括实物分发介质)中传递或体现目标代码,同时在惯常用于软件交换的耐用实物介质上固定相应的源代码。

(b)

Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.
在实体产品(包括实体分销媒介)中传播或体现目标代码,并随附一份书面要约,有效期至少为三年,并在贵方为该产品型号提供备件或客户支持期间一直有效、向任何拥有该目标码的人提供 (1) 本许可所涵盖的产品中所有软件的相应源代码的副本,该副本应存储在惯常用于软件交换的耐用物理介质上,但价格不得高于贵方实际执行该源代码传输的合理成本,或 (2) 免费从网络服务器上复制相应源代码。

(c)

Convey individual copies of the object code with a copy of the written offer to provide the Corresponding Source. This alternative is allowed only occasionally and noncommercially, and only if you received the object code with such an offer, in accord with subsection 6b.
将目标码的个别副本与提供相应来源的书面要约的副本一起转发。这种选择只允许偶尔为之,非商业性地使用,并且只有在您收到目标代码时附有符合第 6b 款规定的此类要约。

299

(d)

Convey the object code by offering access from a designated place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no further charge. You need not require recipients to copy the Corresponding Source along with the object code. If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements.
通过在指定地点(免费或收费)提供访问权来传递目标代码,并以同样的方式在同一地点免费提供相应源码的同等访问权。您不必要求接收者在复制目标代码的同时复制相应源码。如果复制目标代码的地点是网络服务器,则相应源码可以在支持同等复制设施的不同服务器上(由贵方或第三方运营),但贵方必须在目标代码旁边保留明确的指示,说明在哪里可以找到相应源码。无论相应源码存放在哪台服务器上,贵方仍有义务确保在满足这些要求所需的时间内提供相应源码。

(e)

Convey the object code using peer-to-peer transmission, provided you inform other peers where the object code and Corresponding Source of the work are being offered to the general public at no charge under subsection 6d.
使用点对点传输方式传递目标代码,但必须告知其他同行,该作品的目标代码和相应源码正在根据第 6d 款免费向公众提供。

A separable portion of the object code, whose source code is excluded from the Corresponding Source as a System Library, need not be included in conveying the object code work.
目标代码的可分离部分,其源代码不包括在作为系统库的相应源代码中,在传递目标代码作品时不必包括在内。

A “User Product” is either (1) a “consumer product”, which means any tangible personal property which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes, or (2) anything designed or sold for incorporation into a dwelling. In determining whether a product is a consumer product, doubtful cases shall be resolved in favor of coverage. For a particular product received by a particular user, “normally used” refers to a typical or common use of that class of product, regardless of the status of the particular user or of the way in which the particular user actually uses, or expects or is expected to use, the product. A product is a consumer product regardless of whether the product has substantial commercial, industrial or non-consumer uses, unless such uses represent the only significant mode of use of the product.
"用户产品 "是指(1) "消费品",即通常用于个人、家庭或家居目的的任何有形个人财产,或(2)为安装在住宅内而设计或销售的任何物品。在确定产品是否属于消费品时,有疑问的情况应有利于承保。用户收到的特定产品,"通常使用 "指的是该类产品的典型或常见用途,与特定用户的身份或特定用户实际使用、期望或预期使用该产品的方式无关。无论产品是否具有实质性的商业、工业或非消费用途,该产品都属于消费品,除非此类用途是该产品唯一重要的使用方式。

“Installation Information” for a User Product means any methods, procedures, authorization keys, or other information required to install and execute modified versions of a covered work in that User Product from a modified version of its Corresponding Source. The information must suffice to ensure that the continued functioning of the modified object code is in no case prevented or interfered with solely because modification has been made.
用户产品的 "安装信息 "是指从相应源代码的修改版本中安装和执行该用户产品中被涵盖作品的修改版本所需的任何方法、程序、授权密钥或其他信息。这些信息必须足以确保在任何情况下都不会仅仅因为进行了修改而阻止或干扰修改后目标代码的继续运行。

If you convey an object code work under this section in, or with, or specifically for use in, a User Product, and the conveying occurs as part of a transaction in which the right of possession and use of the User Product is transferred to the recipient in perpetuity or for a fixed term (regardless of how the transaction is characterized), the Corresponding Source conveyed under this section must be accompanied by the Installation Information. But this requirement does not apply if neither you nor any third party retains the ability to install modified object code on the User Product (for example, the work has been installed in ROM).
如果您根据本条规定在用户产品中或与用户产品一起或专门为在用户产品中使用而转 让目标代码作品,并且该转让是作为交易的一部分而发生的,在该交易中,用户产品的 拥有权和使用权被永久或有期限地转让给接受者(无论交易如何定性),则根据本条规定转 让的相应源码必须附有安装信息。但是,如果您或任何第三方都不保留在用户产品上安装修改后的目标代码的能力(例如,作品已安装在 ROM 中),则此要求不适用。

300

The requirement to provide Installation Information does not include a requirement to continue to provide support service, warranty, or updates for a work that has been modified or installed by the recipient, or for the User Product in which it has been modified or installed. Access to a network may be denied when the modification itself materially and adversely affects the operation of the network or violates the rules and protocols for communication across the network.
提供安装信息的要求不包括继续为接收方已修改或安装的作品或已修改或安装的用户产品提供支持服务、保修或更新的要求。如果修改本身对网络的运行造成实质性的不利影响,或违反了网络通信的规则和协议,则可能被拒绝访问网络。

Corresponding Source conveyed, and Installation Information provided, in accord with this section must be in a format that is publicly documented (and with an implementation available to the public in source code form), and must require no special password or key for unpacking, reading or copying.
根据本节规定传达的相应源代码和提供的安装信息必须是公开记录的格式(并以源代码的形式向公众提供实施方案),并且在解压缩、阅读或复制时不需要特殊的密码或密钥。

7. Additional Terms.

“Additional permissions” are terms that supplement the terms of this License by making exceptions from one or more of its conditions. Additional permissions that are applicable to the entire Program shall be treated as though they were included in this License, to the extent that they are valid under applicable law. If additional permissions apply only to part of the Program, that part may be used separately under those permissions, but the entire Program remains governed by this License without regard to the additional permissions.
"附加许可 "是通过对本许可的一个或多个条件进行例外处理而对本许可的条款进行补充的条款。适用于整个程序的附加许可,在适用法律允许的范围内,应被视为包含在本许可中。如果附加许可仅适用于程序的一部分,则该部分可根据这些许可单独使用,但整个程序仍受本许可的约束,不受附加许可的影响。

When you convey a copy of a covered work, you may at your option remove any additional permissions from that copy, or from any part of it. (Additional permissions may be written to require their own removal in certain cases when you modify the work.) You may place additional permissions on material, added by you to a covered work, for which you have or can give appropriate copyright permission.
当你传递受保护作品的复制品时,你可以选择删除该复制品或其任何部分的任何附加许可。(在某些情况下,当你修改作品时,附加许可可能会被要求自行删除)。您可以在您已获得或能够获得适当版权许可的情况下,在您添加到受保作品中的材料上添加附加许可。

Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, for material you add to a covered work, you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms:
尽管本许可有任何其他规定,对于您添加到受保作品中的材料,您可以(在获得该材料版权所有者授权的情况下)对本许可的条款进行补充:

(a)

Disclaiming warranty or limiting liability differently from the terms of sections 15 and 16 of this License; or
以不同于本许可第 15 和第 16 条的方式免责或限制责任;或

(b)

Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it; or
要求在该材料或包含该材料的作品所显示的适当法律声明中保留特定的合理法律声明或作者归属;或

(c)

Prohibiting misrepresentation of the origin of that material, or requiring that modified versions of such material be marked in reasonable ways as different from the original version; or
禁止歪曲材料的来源,或要求以合理的方式标明材料的修改版本不同于原始版本;或

(d)

Limiting the use for publicity purposes of names of licensors or authors of the material; or
限制为宣传目的使用材料许可人或作者的姓名;或

(e)

Declining to grant rights under trademark law for use of some trade names, trademarks, or service marks; or
拒绝根据商标法授予使用某些商号、商标或服务标志的权利;或

301

(f)

Requiring indemnification of licensors and authors of that material by anyone who conveys the material (or modified versions of it) with contractual assumptions of liability to the recipient, for any liability that these contractual assumptions directly impose on those licensors and authors.
要求任何人在向接受者提供材料(或材料的修改版本)时,在合同中假定应承担责任,并就这些合同假定直接强加给这些许可人和作者的任何责任,向这些材料的许可人和作者作出赔偿。

All other non-permissive additional terms are considered “further restrictions” within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term. If a license document contains a further restriction but permits relicensing or conveying under this License, you may add to a covered work material governed by the terms of that license document, provided that the further restriction does not survive such relicensing or conveying.
所有其他非许可性附加条款均被视为第 10 条所指的 "进一步限制"。如果您收到的程序或其任何部分包含声明其受本许可管辖的通知以及属于进一步限制的条款,您可以删除该条款。如果许可文件包含进一步限制,但允许根据本许可重新许可或转让,您可以将受该许可文件条款管辖的材料添加到所涵盖的作品中,条件是进一步限制在重新许可或转让后仍然有效。

If you add terms to a covered work in accord with this section, you must place, in the relevant source files, a statement of the additional terms that apply to those files, or a notice indicating where to find the applicable terms.
如果你根据本节规定在受保护作品中添加条款,你必须在相关源文件中放置适用于这些文件的附加条款的声明,或指明在哪里可以找到适用条款的通知。

Additional terms, permissive or non-permissive, may be stated in the form of a separately written license, or stated as exceptions; the above requirements apply either way.
允许或不允许的附加条款可以以单独书面许可的形式说明,也可以作为例外情况说明;上述要求适用于任何一种方式。

8. Termination.

You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third paragraph of section 11).
除非本许可有明确规定,否则您不得传播或修改受保护的作品。任何试图以其他方式传播或修改的行为均属无效,并将自动终止您在本许可下的权利(包括根据第 11 条第三款授予的任何专利许可)。

However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated (a) provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and finally terminates your license, and (b) permanently, if the copyright holder fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means prior to 60 days after the cessation.
但是,如果您停止所有违反本许可的行为,则您从特定版权持有者处获得的许可将(a)暂时恢复,除非且直至版权持有者明确并最终终止您的许可;以及(b)永久恢复,如果版权持有者在您停止违反行为后 60 天内未能通过某种合理方式通知您。

Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after your receipt of the notice.
此外,如果版权持有者以某种合理的方式通知您违反了本许可,而这是您第一次收到该版权持有者(针对任何作品)违反本许可的通知,并且您在收到通知后 30 天内纠正了违反行为,则您从特定版权持有者处获得的许可将永久恢复。

Termination of your rights under this section does not terminate the licenses of parties who have received copies or rights from you under this License. If your rights have been terminated and not permanently reinstated, you do not qualify to receive new licenses for the same material under section 10.
终止您在本条下的权利并不终止根据本许可从您处获得副本或权利的各方的许可。如果您的权利被终止且未永久恢复,则您没有资格根据第 10 条获得相同材料的新许可。

9. Acceptance Not Required for Having Copies.

You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program. Ancillary propagation of a covered work occurring solely as a consequence
您无需接受本许可即可接收或运行程序的副本。仅由于以下原因而发生的受保护作品的辅助传播

302

of using peer-to-peer transmission to receive a copy likewise does not require acceptance. However, nothing other than this License grants you permission to propagate or modify any covered work. These actions infringe copyright if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or propagating a covered work, you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so.
使用点对点传输接收副本同样不需要接受许可。但是,除本许可外,您不得传播或修改任何涉及的作品。如果您不接受本许可,这些行为将侵犯版权。因此,修改或传播受保护作品即表明您接受本许可。

10. Automatic Licensing of Downstream Recipients.

Each time you convey a covered work, the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensors, to run, modify and propagate that work, subject to this License. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties with this License.
在您每次传递受保护的作品时,接收者自动从原始许可人处获得许可,在遵守本许可的前提下运行、修改和传播该作品。您不负责强制第三方遵守本许可。

An “entity transaction” is a transaction transferring control of an organization, or substantially all assets of one, or subdividing an organization, or merging organizations. If propagation of a covered work results from an entity transaction, each party to that transaction who receives a copy of the work also receives whatever licenses to the work the party’s predecessor in interest had or could give under the previous paragraph, plus a right to possession of the Corresponding Source of the work from the predecessor in interest, if the predecessor has it or can get it with reasonable efforts.
实体交易 "是指转让一个组织的控制权或一个组织的大部分资产,或分割一个组织,或合并一个组织的交易。如果实体交易导致了受保护作品的传播,则该交易的每一方在收到作品的复制件时,也会收到该方的利益继承人根据前段规定已经拥有或可以拥有的作品许可,以及从利益继承人处获得作品相应来源的权利,如果利益继承人拥有相应来源或通过合理努力可以获得相应来源的话。

You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License. For example, you may not impose a license fee, royalty, or other charge for exercise of rights granted under this License, and you may not initiate litigation (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any patent claim is infringed by making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing the Program or any portion of it.
您不得对行使本许可授予或确认的权利施加任何进一步的限制。例如,您不得对行使本许可证授予的权利征收许可费、版税或其他费用,并且不得提起诉讼(包括诉讼中的反诉或反请求),指控制造、使用、销售、要约出售或进口本程序或其任何部分侵犯了任何专利权利要求。

11. Patents.

A “contributor” is a copyright holder who authorizes use under this License of the Program or a work on which the Program is based. The work thus licensed is called the contributor’s “contributor version”.
贡献者 "是指根据本许可授权使用本程序或本程序所基于的作品的版权持有者。授权使用的作品称为贡献者的 "贡献者版本"。

A contributor’s “essential patent claims” are all patent claims owned or controlled by the contributor, whether already acquired or hereafter acquired, that would be infringed by some manner, permitted by this License, of making, using, or selling its contributor version, but do not include claims that would be infringed only as a consequence of further modification of the contributor version. For purposes of this definition, “control” includes the right to grant patent sublicenses in a manner consistent with the requirements of this License.
贡献者的 "基本专利权利要求 "是指贡献者拥有或控制的所有专利权利要求,不论是已经获得的还是将来获得的,只要是本许可证允许的制造、使用或销售贡献者版本的方式都会侵犯这些专利权利要求,但不包括仅因进一步修改贡献者版本而侵犯的专利权利要求。在本定义中,"控制权 "包括以符合本许可证要求的方式授予专利次级许可的权利。

Each contributor grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free patent license under the contributor’s essential patent claims, to make, use, sell, offer for sale, import and otherwise run, modify and propagate the contents of its contributor version.
根据贡献者的基本专利权利要求,每位贡献者授予您非排他性、全球性、免版税的专利许可,允许您制作、使用、销售、要约出售、进口和以其他方式运行、修改和传播其贡献者版本的内容。

303

In the following three paragraphs, a “patent license” is any express agreement or commitment, however denominated, not to enforce a patent (such as an express permission to practice a patent or covenant not to sue for patent infringement). To “grant” such a patent license to a party means to make such an agreement or commitment not to enforce a patent against the party.
在以下三段中,"专利许可 "是指不实施专利的任何明示协议或承诺,无论其名称如何(例如明示允许实施专利或约定不起诉专利侵权)。向当事人 "授予 "这种专利许可,就是指作出不对当事人实施专利的约定或承诺。

If you convey a covered work, knowingly relying on a patent license, and the Corresponding Source of the work is not available for anyone to copy, free of charge and under the terms of this License, through a publicly available network server or other readily accessible means, then you must either (1) cause the Corresponding Source to be so available, or (2) arrange to deprive yourself of the benefit of the patent license for this particular work, or (3) arrange, in a manner consistent with the requirements of this License, to extend the patent license to downstream recipients. “Knowingly relying” means you have actual knowledge that, but for the patent license, your conveying the covered work in a country, or your recipient’s use of the covered work in a country, would infringe one or more identifiable patents in that country that you have reason to believe are valid.
如果您在明知的情況下依據專利授權傳遞受保護作品,而該作品的相應來源無法透過公開的網路伺服器或其他容易取得的方式,供任何人依據本授權條款免費複製,則您必須(1)使相應來源可如此取得,或(2)作出安排,使自己無法取得該特定作品的專利授權,或(3)作出安排,以符合本授權條款的方式,將專利授權延伸至下游接受者。"明知而依赖 "是指您实际知晓,如果没有专利许可,您在某一国家传播受保护作品,或您的接受者在某一国家使用受保护作品,将侵犯该国一项或多项您有理由认为有效的可识别专利。

If, pursuant to or in connection with a single transaction or arrangement, you convey, or propagate by procuring conveyance of, a covered work, and grant a patent license to some of the parties receiving the covered work authorizing them to use, propagate, modify or convey a specific copy of the covered work, then the patent license you grant is automatically extended to all recipients of the covered work and works based on it.
如果你根据单项交易或安排,或与单项交易或安排有关,转让或通过促成转让传播受保护作品,并向接收受保护作品的部分当事人授予专利许可,授权他们使用、传播、修改或转让受保护作品的特定副本,则你授予的专利许可自动延伸至受保护作品和基于受保护作品的作品的所有接收者。

A patent license is “discriminatory” if it does not include within the scope of its coverage, prohibits the exercise of, or is conditioned on the non-exercise of one or more of the rights that are specifically granted under this License. You may not convey a covered work if you are a party to an arrangement with a third party that is in the business of distributing software, under which you make payment to the third party based on the extent of your activity of conveying the work, and under which the third party grants, to any of the parties who would receive the covered work from you, a discriminatory patent license (a) in connection with copies of the covered work conveyed by you (or copies made from those copies), or (b) primarily for and in connection with specific products or compilations that contain the covered work, unless you entered into that arrangement, or that patent license was granted, prior to 28 March 2007.
如果专利许可未将本许可中明确授予的一项或多项权利纳入其覆盖范围、禁止行使这些权利或以不行使这些权利为条件,则该专利许可具有 "歧视性"。如果您与从事软件分销业务的第三方达成了一项协议,根据该协议,您根据您分销作品的活动范围向第三方支付费用,并且根据该协议,第三方向将从您处获得受保护作品的任何一方授予,则您不得分销受保护作品、歧视性专利许可,(a)与你所传达的受保护作品的复制品(或根据这些复制品制作的复制品)有关,或(b)主要是为了包含受保护作品的特定产品或汇编并与之有关,除非你是在 2007 年 3 月 28 日之前作出该安排或授予该专利许可的。

Nothing in this License shall be construed as excluding or limiting any implied license or other defenses to infringement that may otherwise be available to you under applicable patent law.
本许可中的任何内容均不得解释为排除或限制您根据适用专利法可能获得的任何默示许可或其他侵权抗辩。

12. No Surrender of Others’ Freedom.

If conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot convey a covered work so as to satisfy
如果对您施加的条件(无论是通过法院命令、协议或其他方式)与本许可的条件相抵触,这些条件并不能免除您遵守本许可的条件。如果您无法转达所涵盖的作品以满足以下条件

304

simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not convey it at all. For example, if you agree to terms that obligate you to collect a royalty for further conveying from those to whom you convey the Program, the only way you could satisfy both those terms and this License would be to refrain entirely from conveying the Program.
如果您的程序与您在本许可证下的义务和任何其他相关义务同时存在,那么您可能根本不会转送该程序。例如,如果您同意的条款规定,您有义务向您转送程序的对象收取进一步转送程序的使用费,那么您同时满足这些条款和本许可的唯一方法就是完全不转送程序。

13. Use with the GNU Affero General Public License.
13.使用 GNU Affero 通用公共许可证。

Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, you have permission to link or combine any covered work with a work licensed under version 3 of the GNU Affero General Public License into a single combined work, and to convey the resulting work. The terms of this License will continue to apply to the part which is the covered work, but the special requirements of the GNU Affero General Public License, section 13, concerning interaction through a network will apply to the combination as such.
儘管本授權條款有任何其他規定,您仍有權將任何受保護之作品與依 GNU Affero 通用公共授權條款第 3 版授權之作品連結或合併為單一合併作品,並傳送所產生之作品。本许可证的条款将继续适用于受保护作品的部分,但《GNU Affero通用公共许可证》第13条关于通过网络进行交互的特殊要求将适用于该组合作品。

14. Revised Versions of this License.

The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the GNU General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.
自由软件基金会可能会不时发布 GNU 通用公共许可证的修订版和/或新版本。这些新版本在精神上与当前版本相似,但在细节上可能会有所不同,以解决新的问题或关注点。

Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies that a certain numbered version of the GNU General Public License “or any later version” applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that numbered version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of the GNU General Public License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
每个版本都有一个不同的版本号。如果程序指定适用于某一编号版本的 GNU 通用公共许可证 "或任何后续版本",您可以选择遵循该编号版本或自由软件基金会发布的任何后续版本的条款和条件。如果程序没有指定 GNU 通用公共许可证的版本号,您可以选择自由软件基金会发布的任何版本。

If the Program specifies that a proxy can decide which future versions of the GNU General Public License can be used, that proxy’s public statement of acceptance of a version permanently authorizes you to choose that version for the Program.
如果本程序规定代理可以决定使用 GNU 通用公共许可证的哪些未来版本,则该代理对某一版本的公开接受声明将永久授权您为本程序选择该版本。

Later license versions may give you additional or different permissions. However, no additional obligations are imposed on any author or copyright holder as a result of your choosing to follow a later version.
以后的许可证版本可能会赋予您更多或不同的权限。但是,任何作者或版权持有者都不会因为您选择使用以后的版本而承担额外的义务。

15. Disclaimer of Warranty.

THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM “AS IS” WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.
在适用法律允许的范围内,对本程序不作任何保证。除非版权所有者和/或其他方以书面形式另行说明,否则本程序 "按原样 "提供,不作任何形式的保证、明示或暗示保证,包括但不限于适销性和特定用途适用性的暗示保证。程序的质量和性能的全部风险由您承担。如果程序出现故障,您将承担所有必要的维修、修理或纠正费用。

305

16. Limitation of Liability.

IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MODIFIES AND/OR CONVEYS THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES, INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
除非适用法律要求或书面同意,否则在任何情况下,任何版权持有者,或在上述允许的情况下修改和/或传递本程序的任何其他方,均不对您的损失负责,包括因使用或无法使用本程序而造成的任何一般、特殊、附带或间接损失(包括但不限于数据丢失或数据不准确,或您或第三方遭受的损失,或本程序无法与任何其他程序一起运行),即使该持有者或其他方已被告知此类损失的可能性。

17. Interpretation of Sections 15 and 16.

If the disclaimer of warranty and limitation of liability provided above cannot be given local legal effect according to their terms, reviewing courts shall apply local law that most closely approximates an absolute waiver of all civil liability in connection with the Program, unless a warranty or assumption of liability accompanies a copy of the Program in return for a fee.
如果上述免责声明和责任限制无法根据其条款在当地产生法律效力,则复审法院应适用最接近于绝对放弃与本程序有关的所有民事责任的当地法律,除非收费的本程序副本附有保证或责任承担。

The BSD License

©[Date][Name of Author]

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
在满足以下条件的情况下,允许以源代码和二进制形式进行再分发和使用,无论是否修改:

Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
重新发布源代码必须保留上述版权声明、本条件清单和以下免责声明。

Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
二进制形式的再发行必须在随发行提供的文档和/或其他材料中复制上述版权声明、本条件清单和以下免责声明。

Neither the name of the <ORGANIZATION> nor the names of its contributors may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission.
未经事先特别书面许可,不得使用 的名称或其贡献者的名称来支持或推广由本软件衍生的产品。

THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS “AS IS” AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT OWNER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT (INCLUDING
本软件由版权所有者和贡献者 "按原样 "提供,任何明示或暗示的保证,包括但不限于适销性和适用于特定用途的暗示保证,一概不予承认。版权所有者或贡献者在任何情况下均不对任何直接的、间接的、附带的、特殊的、惩罚性的或后果性的损害(包括但不限于购买替代产品或服务;使用、数据或利润的损失;或业务中断),无论其原因如何,也无论其责任理论如何,无论是合同、严格赔偿责任还是侵权(包括

侵权行为)。

306

NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
因使用本软件而以任何方式造成的任何损害(包括因疏忽或其他原因造成的损害),即使已被告知发生此类损害的可能性。

Apache License

Version 2.0, January 2004

TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR USE, REPRODUCTION, AND DISTRIBUTION
使用、复制和分发的条款和条件

1. Definitions.

“License” shall mean the terms and conditions for use, reproduction, and distribution as defined by Sections 1 through 9 of this document.
"许可 "系指本文件第 1 至第 9 节所定义的使用、复制和分发的条款和条件。

“Licensor” shall mean the copyright owner or entity authorized by the copyright owner that is granting the License.
"许可人 "系指版权所有者或版权所有者授权授予许可的实体。

“Legal Entity” shall mean the union of the acting entity and all other entities that control, are controlled by, or are under common control with that entity. For the purposes of this definition, “control” means (i) the power, direct or indirect, to cause the direction or management of such entity, whether by contract or otherwise, or (ii) ownership of fifty percent (50%) or more of the outstanding shares, or (iii) beneficial ownership of such entity.
"法律实体 "应指行为实体与控制该实体、受该实体控制或与该实体受共同控制的所有其他实体的联合体。就本定义而言,"控制 "是指:(i) 直接或间接导致该实体的领导或管理的权力,不论是通过合同还是其他方式;或 (ii) 拥有百分之五十 (50%) 或更多的已发行股份;或 (iii) 对该实体的实益拥有权。

“You” (or “Your”) shall mean an individual or Legal Entity exercising permissions granted by this License.
您"(或 "您的")是指行使本许可所授予权限的个人或法人实体。

“Source” form shall mean the preferred form for making modifications, including but not limited to software source code, documentation source, and configuration files.
源 "形式是指进行修改的首选形式,包括但不限于软件源代码、文档源和配置文件。

“Object” form shall mean any form resulting from mechanical transformation or translation of a Source form, including but not limited to compiled object code, generated documentation, and conversions to other media types.
"对象 "形式是指通过对源码形式进行机械转换或翻译而产生的任何形式,包括但不限于编译的 对象代码、生成的文档以及转换成其他媒体类型。

“Work” shall mean the work of authorship, whether in Source or Object form, made available under the License, as indicated by a copyright notice that is included in or attached to the work (an example is provided in the Appendix below).
"作品 "是指根据本协议提供的作者作品,不论是源码形式还是对象形式,作品中或作品附带的版权声明均表明了这一点(下文附录中提供了一个例子)。

“Derivative Works” shall mean any work, whether in Source or Object form, that is based on (or derived from) the Work and for which the editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship. For the purposes of this License, Derivative Works shall not include works that remain separable from, or merely link (or bind by name) to the interfaces of, the Work and Derivative Works thereof.
"派生作品 "是指基于作品(或派生自作品)的任何作品,无论是源码形式还是对象形式,其编辑修订、注释、阐述或其他修改在整体上代表了作者的原创作品。在本许可证中,派生作品不包括与作品及其派生作品的界面保持分离,或仅与作品及其派生作品的界面链接(或名称绑定)的作品。

307

“Contribution” shall mean any work of authorship, including the original version of the Work and any modifications or additions to that Work or Derivative Works thereof, that is intentionally submitted to Licensor for inclusion in the Work by the copyright owner or by an individual or Legal Entity authorized to submit on behalf of the copyright owner. For the purposes of this definition, “submitted” means any form of electronic, verbal, or written communication sent to the Licensor or its representatives, including but not limited to communication on electronic mailing lists, source code control systems, and issue tracking systems that are managed by, or on behalf of, the Licensor for the purpose of discussing and improving the Work, but excluding communication that is conspicuously marked or otherwise designated in writing by the copyright owner as “Not a Contribution.”
「貢獻」係指著作權人或授權代表著作權人提交的個人或法人實體,有意提交給授權人納入作品的任何著作權作品,包括作品的原始版本及對該作品或其衍生作品的任何修改或增補。在本定义中,"提交 "是指发送给许可人或其代表的任何形式的电子、口头或书面通信,包括但不限于由许可人管理或代表许可人管理的、以讨论和改进作品为目的的电子邮寄列表、源代码控制系统和问题跟踪系统上的通信,但不包括版权所有者以书面形式明确标注或以其他方式指定为 "非贡献 "的通信。

“Contributor” shall mean Licensor and any individual or Legal Entity on behalf of whom a Contribution has been received by Licensor and subsequently incorporated within the Work.
"贡献者 "是指许可人以及许可人收到贡献并随后将其纳入作品的任何个人或法人实体。

2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, nonexclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the Work and such Derivative Works in Source or Object form.
2. 授予版权许可。 根据本许可的条款和条件,每位贡献者特此授予您永久的、全球性的、无排他性的、免费的、不可撤销的版权许可,允许您复制、制作衍生作品、公开展示、公开表演、再许可和分发源代码或对象形式的作品和此类衍生作品。

3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. If You institute patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
3. 授予专利许可。 根据本许可的条款和条件,每位贡献者特此授予您永久的、全球的、非排他性的、免费的、免版税的、不可撤销的(本节所述除外)专利许可,允许您制作、拥有、使用、要约出售、销售、进口和以其他方式转让本作品,其中,该许可仅适用于可由该贡献者获得许可的那些专利权利要求,这些专利权利要求必然会受到其贡献者单独提交的作品或其贡献者与该贡献者提交的作品的组合的侵犯。如果您对任何实体提起专利诉讼(包括诉讼中的反诉或反请求),指控本作品或本作品中包含的贡献构成直接或共同专利侵权,则根据本许可授予您的关于该作品的任何专利许可应自提起该诉讼之日起终止。

4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You meet the following conditions:
4. 再分发。 您可以在满足以下条件的情况下,以源代码或对象形式,在任何媒体上复制和分发本作品或其衍生作品的副本,无论是否经过修改:5.

You must give any other recipients of the Work or Derivative Works a copy of this License; and
您必须向作品或衍生作品的任何其他接收者提供本许可的副本;并且

You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files; and
您必须使任何被修改的文件带有显著的通知,说明您更改了文件;并且

308

You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices from the Source form of the Work, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works; and
您必须在您分发的任何衍生作品的源形式中保留作品源形式中的所有版权、专利、商标和署名声明,但不包括与衍生作品任何部分无关的声明;并且

If the Work includes a “NOTICE” text file as part of its distribution, then any Derivative Works that You distribute must include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works, in at least one of the following places: within a NOTICE text file distributed as part of the Derivative Works; within the Source form or documentation, if provided along with the Derivative Works; or, within a display generated by the Derivative Works, if and wherever such third-party notices normally appear. The contents of the NOTICE file are for informational purposes only and do not modify the License. You may add Your own attribution notices within Derivative Works that You distribute, alongside or as an addendum to the NOTICE text from the Work, provided that such additional attribution notices cannot be construed as modifying the License.
如果作品包含 "通知 "文本文件作为其发行的一部分,则您发行的任何衍生作品必须包含该通知文件中包含的署名通知的可读副本,不包括与衍生作品的任何部分无关的通知,至少在以下一个地方:作为衍生作品的一部分发行的通知文本文件中;源形式或文档中(如果与衍生作品一起提供);或者,在衍生作品生成的显示中(如果通常出现此类第三方通知)。通知文件的内容仅供参考,并不修改 许可。您可以在您发布的衍生作品中添加您自己的署名声明,与作品中的注释文本一起或作为注释文本的附录,前提是这些附加的署名声明不能被理解为对许可的修改。

You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and may provide additional or different license terms and conditions for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications, or for any such Derivative Works as a whole, provided Your use, reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with the conditions stated in this License.
您可以在您的修改中添加您自己的版权声明,也可以为您的修改或任何此类衍生作品整体的使用、复制或分发提供附加或不同的许可条款和条件,但您对作品的使用、复制和分发必须符合本许可中规定的条件。

5. Submission of Contributions. Unless You explicitly state otherwise, any Contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work by You to the Licensor shall be under the terms and conditions of this License, without any additional terms or conditions. Notwithstanding the above, nothing herein shall supersede or modify the terms of any separate license agreement you may have executed with Licensor regarding such Contributions.
5. 除非您另有明確聲明,否則您故意提交給授權人以納入作品的任何貢獻,均應遵守本授權之條款與條件,而無任何附加條款或條件。尽管有上述规定,但此处的任何规定均不得取代或修改您可能与许可人就此类贡献签署的任何单独许可协议的条款。

6. Trademarks. This License does not grant permission to use the trade names, trademarks, service marks, or product names of the Licensor, except as required for reasonable and customary use in describing the origin of the Work and reproducing the content of the NOTICE file.
6. 商标。 本许可不授予使用许可人的商号、商标、服务标志或产品名称的许可,但在描述作品来源和复制NOTICE文件内容时合理和惯常使用的情况除外。

7. Disclaimer of Warranty. Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, Licensor provides the Work (and each Contributor provides its Contributions) on an “AS IS” BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied, including, without limitation, any warranties or conditions of TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY, or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. You are solely responsible for determining the appropriateness of using or redistributing the Work and assume any risks associated with Your exercise of permissions under this License.
7 免责声明。除非适用法律要求或书面同意,否则许可人以 "现状 "为基础提供本作品(每个贡献者提供其贡献),不附带任何形式的保证或条件、包括但不限于所有权、不侵权、适销性或特定用途适用性的任何保证或条件。您应自行负责确定使用或再分发本作品的适当性,并承担与您根据本许可行使权限相关的任何风险。

309

8. Limitation of Liability. In no event and under no legal theory, whether in tort (including negligence), contract, or otherwise, unless required by applicable law (such as deliberate and grossly negligent acts) or agreed to in writing, shall any Contributor be liable to You for damages, including any direct, indirect, special, incidental, or consequential damages of any character arising as a result of this License or out of the use or inability to use the Work (including but not limited to damages for loss of goodwill, work stoppage, computer failure or malfunction, or any and all other commercial damages or losses), even if such Contributor has been advised of the possibility of such damages.
8. 责任限制。 在任何情况下,根据任何法律理论,无论是侵权行为(包括过失)、合同或其他,除非适用法律要求(如故意和重大过失行为)或书面同意,任何贡献者均不对您的损害负责,包括任何直接、间接、特殊、附带、或任何性质的间接损害赔偿(包括但不限于 goodwill 损失、停工、计算机故障或功能失常或任何和所有其他商业损害赔偿或损失),即使该贡献者已被告知此类损害赔偿的可能性。

9. Accepting Warranty or Additional Liability. While redistributing the Work or Derivative Works thereof, You may choose to offer, and charge a fee for, acceptance of support, warranty, indemnity, or other liability obligations and/or rights consistent with this License. However, in accepting such obligations, You may act only on Your own behalf and on Your sole responsibility, not on behalf of any other Contributor, and only if You agree to indemnify, defend, and hold each Contributor harmless for any liability incurred by, or claims asserted against, such Contributor by reason of your accepting any such warranty or additional liability.
9.接受保證或額外責任。在重新散布本著作或其衍生著作時,您可以選擇提供並收取費用,以接受符合本授權條款之支援、保證、賠償或其他責任義務與/或權利。但是,在接受此类义务时,您只能以自己的名义单独承担责任,而不能代表任何其他贡献者,并且只有在您同意赔偿、维护并使每个贡献者不因您接受任何此类保证或附加责任而承担任何责任或对其提出索赔的情况下,您才能这样做。

Jacobsen v. Katzer

535 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

HOCHBERG, District Judge.6

BACKGROUND

Copyright holder filed action against competitor alleging infringement of copyright to computer programming code and also sought declaratory judgment that patent issued to defendant was not infringed by copyright holder and was invalid. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Jeffrey S. White, J., 2007 WL 2358628, denied holder’s request for preliminary injunction. Holder appealed.
版权持有者对竞争者提起诉讼,指控其侵犯了计算机程序代码的版权,并要求作出宣告式判决,判定颁发给被告的专利没有侵犯版权持有者的权利,是无效的。美国加利福尼亚州北区地方法院(Jeffrey S. White, J., 2007 WL 2358628)驳回了持有人的初步禁令请求。持有人提起上诉。

DISCUSSION

We consider here the ability of a copyright holder to dedicate certain work to free public use and yet enforce an “open source” copyright license to control the future distribution and modification of that work. Appellant Robert Jacobsen (“Jacobsen”) appeals from an order denying a motion for preliminary injunction. Jacobsen v. Katzer, No. 06-CV-01905 JSW, 2007 WL 2358628 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2007). Jacobsen holds a copyright to computer programming code. He makes that code available for public download from a website without a financial fee pursuant to the Artistic License, an “open source” or public license. Appellees Matthew Katzer and Kamind Associates, Inc. (collectively “Katzer/Kamind”) develop commercial software products for the model train industry and hobbyists. Jacobsen accused
我们在此考虑的是,版权持有人是否有能力将某些作品免费提供给公众使用,同时又执行 "开放源代码 "版权许可,以控制该作品未来的传播和修改。上诉人罗伯特-雅各布森("雅各布森")对驳回初步禁令动议的命令提出上诉。Jacobsen 诉 Katzer,第 06-CV-01905 JSW 号,2007 WL 2358628(加州北区法院,2007 年 8 月 17 日)。Jacobsen 拥有计算机编程代码的版权。他根据 "艺术许可证"(Artistic License)(一种 "开放源代码 "或公共许可证)从一个网站上提供该代码供公众下载而无需支付任何费用。被上诉人 Matthew Katzer 和 Kamind Associates, Inc.(统称 "Katzer/Kamind")为火车模型行业和爱好者开发商业软件产品。雅各布森被告

310

Katzer/Kamind of copying certain materials from Jacobsen’s website and incorporating them into one of Katzer/Kamind’s software packages without following the terms of the Artistic License. Jacobsen brought an action for copyright infringement and moved for a preliminary injunction.
Katzer/Kamind公司复制了Jacobsen网站上的某些材料,并将其纳入Katzer/Kamind公司的一个软件包,但未遵守艺术许可证的条款。Jacobsen 以侵犯版权为由提起诉讼,并申请初步禁令。

The District Court held that the open source Artistic License created an “intentionally broad” nonexclusive license which was unlimited in scope and thus did not create liability for copyright infringement. The District Court reasoned:
地区法院认为,开放源代码艺术许可创建了一个 "有意宽泛 "的非排他性许可,其范围不受限制,因此不产生版权侵权责任。地区法院的理由是

The plaintiff claimed that by modifying the software the defendant had exceeded the scope of the license and therefore infringed the copyright. Here, however, the JMRI Project license provides that a user may copy the files verbatim or may otherwise modify the material in any way, including as part of a larger, possibly commercial software distribution. The license explicitly gives the users of the material, any member of the public, “the right to use and distribute the [material] in a more-orless customary fashion, plus the right to make reasonable accommodations.” The scope of the nonexclusive license is, therefore, intentionally broad. The condition that the user insert a prominent notice of attribution does not limit the scope of the license. Rather, Defendants’ alleged violation of the conditions of the license may have constituted a breach of the nonexclusive license, but does not create liability for copyright infringement where it would not otherwise exist.
原告声称,被告修改软件的行为超出了许可范围,因此侵犯了版权。但在本案中,JMRI 项目许可证规定,用户可以逐字复制文件或以其他任何方式修改材料,包括作为更大的、可能是商业软件发行的一部分。许可证明确规定,材料的使用者,即任何公众成员,"有权以或多或少符合习惯的方式使用和分发 [材料],并有权做出合理的调整"。因此,非排他性许可的范围是有意扩大的。用户必须在显著位置注明出处的条件并没有限制许可的范围。相反,被告被控违反许可条件的行为可能构成了对非独占许可的违反,但并不产生本不存在的版权侵权责任。

Jacobsen, 2007 WL 2358628 at *7 (internal citations omitted).
Jacobsen, 2007 WL 2358628 at *7(内部引用省略)。

On this basis, the District Court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. We vacate and remand.
在此基础上,地区法院驳回了初步禁令动议。我们撤销该动议并发回重审。

I.

Jacobsen manages an open source software group called Java Model Railroad Interface (“JMRI”). Through the collective work of many participants, JMRI created a computer programming application called DecoderPro, which allows model railroad enthusiasts to use their computers to program the decoder chips that control model trains. DecoderPro files are available for download and use by the public free of charge from an open source incubator website called SourceForge; Jacobsen maintains the JMRI site on SourceForge. The downloadable files contain copyright notices and refer the user to a “COPYING” file, which clearly sets forth the terms of the Artistic License.
雅各布森管理着一个名为 Java Model Railroad Interface("JMRI")的开源软件小组。在众多参与者的共同努力下,JMRI 创建了一个名为 DecoderPro 的计算机编程应用程序,它允许铁路模型爱好者使用计算机对控制模型火车的解码器芯片进行编程。DecoderPro 文件可从一个名为 SourceForge 的开放源码孵化器网站免费下载和使用;雅各布森负责维护 SourceForge 上的 JMRI 网站。可下载的文件包含版权声明,并将用户引向 "复制 "文件,该文件明确规定了艺术许可证的条款。

Katzer/Kamind offers a competing software product, Decoder Commander, which is also used to program decoder chips. During development of Decoder Commander, one of Katzer/Kamind’s predecessors or employees is alleged to have downloaded the decoder definition files from DecoderPro and used portions of these files as part of the Decoder Commander software. The Decoder Commander software files that used DecoderPro definition files did not comply with the terms of the Artistic License. Specifically, the Decoder Commander software did not include (1) the author’ names, (2) JMRI copyright notices, (3) references to the COPYING file, (4) an identification of SourceForge or JMRI as the original source of the definition files, and (5) a description of how the files or computer code had been changed from the original source code. The Decoder Commander software also changed
Katzer/Kamind 提供一种竞争性软件产品 Decoder Commander,也用于解码芯片编程。据称,在开发 Decoder Commander 的过程中,Katzer/Kamind 的一位前任或雇员从 DecoderPro 下载了解码器定义文件,并将这些文件的一部分用作 Decoder Commander 软件的一部分。使用 DecoderPro 定义文件的 Decoder Commander 软件文件不符合艺术许可证的条款。具体地说,Decoder Commander 软件不包括:(1) 作者姓名;(2) JMRI 版权声明;(3) 引用 COPYING 文件;(4) 指明 SourceForge 或 JMRI 为定义文件的原始来源;(5) 说明文件或计算机代码是如何从原始源代码修改而来的。Decoder Commander 软件还更改了

311

various computer file names of DecoderPro files without providing a reference to the original JMRI files or information on where to get the Standard Version.7

Jacobsen moved for a preliminary injunction, arguing that the violation of the terms of the Artistic License constituted copyright infringement and that, under Ninth Circuit law, irreparable harm could be presumed in a copyright infringement case. The District Court reviewed the Artistic License and determined that “Defendants’ alleged violation of the conditions of the license may have constituted a breach of the nonexclusive license, but does not create liability for copyright infringement where it would not otherwise exist.” Id. at *7. The District Court found that Jacobsen had a cause of action only for breach of contract, rather than an action for copyright infringement based on a breach of the conditions of the Artistic License. Because a breach of contract creates no presumption of irreparable harm, the District Court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction.
雅各布森申请初步禁令,辩称违反艺术许可条款构成版权侵权,而且根据第九巡回法院的法律,在版权侵权案件中可以推定存在无法弥补的损害。地区法院审查了《艺术许可协议》,认定 "被告涉嫌违反许可条件的行为可能构成了对非独家许可的违反,但并不产生版权侵权责任,否则版权侵权责任并不存在"。Id. at *7。地区法院认为,雅各布森的诉讼理由只是违反合同,而不是基于违反艺术许可条件的版权侵权诉讼。由于违反合同并不推定会造成不可挽回的损害,地区法院驳回了初步禁令申请。

Jacobsen appeals the finding that he does not have a cause of action for copyright infringement. Although an appeal concerning copyright law and not patent law is rare in our Circuit, here we indeed possess appellate jurisdiction. In the district court, Jacobsen’s operative complaint against Katzer/Kamind included not only his claim for copyright infringement, but also claims seeking a declaratory judgment that a patent issued to Katzer is not infringed by Jacobsen and is invalid. Therefore the complaint arose in part under the patent laws. See 28 U.S.C. §2201(a); Golan v. Pingel Enter., 310 F.3d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (explaining that “[i]n the context of a complaint seeking a declaration of noninfringement, the action threatened by the declaratory defendant . . . would be an action for patent infringement,” and “[s]uch an action clearly arises under the patent laws”). Thus the district court’s jurisdiction was based, at least in part, on 28 U.S.C. §1338(a) as it relates to the patent laws, and we have appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1292(c)(1). See 28 U.S.C. §1338(a) (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, plant variety protection, copyrights and trademarks.”); id. at §1295(a)(1) (The Federal Circuit shall have exclusive jurisdiction “of an appeal from a final decision of a district court of the United States” if (1) “the jurisdiction of that court was based, in whole or in part, on section 1338 of this title” and (2) the case is not “a case involving a claim arising under any Act of Congress relating to copyrights, exclusive rights in mask works, or trademarks and no other claims under section 1338(a).”); id. at §1292(c)(1) (Federal Circuit shall have jurisdiction over appeals from interlocutory orders of the district courts refusing injunctions “in any case over which the court would have jurisdiction of an appeal under section 1295”).
雅各布森对其不具备版权侵权诉讼理由的裁定提出上诉。尽管涉及版权法而非专利法的上诉在本巡回法院并不多见,但在此我们确实拥有上诉管辖权。在地区法院,雅各布森对卡特尔/卡明德公司的起诉不仅包括版权侵权,还包括寻求宣告性判决,即卡特尔公司获得的专利不属于雅各布森的侵权行为,并且是无效的。因此,申诉部分是根据专利法提出的。See 28 U.S.C. §2201(a); Golan v. Pingel Enter.d 1360, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2002)(解释说,"在寻求非侵权声明的申诉中,声明被告威胁提起的诉讼......将是专利侵权诉讼","这种诉讼显然是根据专利法提起的")。因此,地区法院的管辖权至少部分基于《美国法典》第 28 编第 1338(a)条,因为它与专利法有关,而且根据《美国法典》第 28 编第 1292(c)(1)条,我们拥有上诉管辖权。 参见 28 U.S.C. §1338(a)("地区法院对根据国会有关专利、植物品种保护、版权和商标的任何法案引起的任何民事诉讼拥有原始管辖权");id. at §1295(a)(1)(联邦巡回法院对 "美国地区法院最终裁决的上诉 "具有专属管辖权,条件是:(1) "该法院的管辖权全部或部分基于本标题第1338条";(2)该案件不 "涉及根据国会有关版权、面具作品专有权或商标的任何法案提出的索赔,且不涉及第1338(a)条规定的其他索赔。"); id. at §1292(c)(1)(联邦巡回法院对 "在法院根据第 1295 条对上诉具有管辖权的任何案件中 "对地区法院拒绝禁令的中间命令提出的上诉具有管辖权)。

312

II.

This Court looks to the interpretive law of the regional circuit for issues not exclusively assigned to the Federal Circuit. Hutchins v. Zoll Med. Corp., 492 F.3d 1377, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Under Ninth Circuit law, an order granting or denying a preliminary injunction will be reversed only if the district court relied on an erroneous legal premise or abused its discretion. Wright v. Rushen, 642 F.2d 1129, 1132 (9th Cir. 1981). A district court’s order denying a preliminary injunction is reversible for factual error only when the district court rests its conclusions on clearly erroneous findings of fact. Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press Int’l, Inc., 686 F.2d 750, 753 (9th Cir. 1982).
对于并非专门分配给联邦巡回法院的问题,本法院参考地区巡回法院的解释性法律。Hutchins v. Zoll Med.Corp., 492 F.3d 1377, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2007)。根据第九巡回法院的法律,只有当地区法院依赖错误的法律前提或滥用其自由裁量权时,才会推翻批准或拒绝初步禁令的命令。Wright v. Rushen, 642 F.2d 1129, 1132 (9th Cir. 1981)。只有当地区法院将其结论建立在明显错误的事实认定之上时,地区法院驳回初步禁令的命令才会因事实错误而被撤销。Sports Form, Inc. 诉 United Press Int'l, Inc., 686 F.2d 750, 753 (9th Cir. 1982)。

In determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction, the Ninth Circuit requires demonstration of (1) a combination of probability of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable harm; or (2) serious questions going to the merits where the balance of hardships tips sharply in the moving party’s favor. Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 487 F.3d 701, 713-14 (9th Cir. 2007); Dep’t of Parks & Recreation v. Bazaar Del Mundo, Inc., 448 F.3d 1118, 1123 (9th Cir. 2006). In cases involving copyright claims, where a copyright holder has shown likelihood of success on the merits of a copyright infringement claim, the Ninth Circuit has held that irreparable harm is presumed. LGS Architects, Inc. v. Concordia Homes of Nev., 434 F.3d 1150, 1155-56 (9th Cir. 2006). But see MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 518 F. Supp. 2d 1197, 1212 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (noting that “the longstanding rule that irreparable harm can be a presumed after a showing of likelihood of success for purposes of a copyright preliminary injunction motion may itself have to be reevaluated in light of eBay [Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 126 S. Ct. 1837, 164 L. Ed. 2d 641 (2006)]”). Thus, for a preliminary injunction to issue, Jacobsen must either show (1) a likelihood of success on the merits of his copyright infringement claim from which irreparable harm is presumed; or (2) a fair chance of success on the merits and a clear disparity in the relative hardships that tips sharply in his favor.
在确定是否签发初步禁令时,第九巡回法院要求证明:(1) 案情胜诉的可能性与不可挽回的损害的可能性相结合;或 (2) 与案情有关的严重问题,且困难的天平急剧向有利于动议方倾斜。Perfect 10, Inc.诉Amazon.com, Inc、487 F.3d 701, 713-14 (9th Cir. 2007);Dep't of Parks & Recreation v. Bazaar Del Mundo, Inc.,448 F.3d 1118, 1123 (9th Cir. 2006)。在涉及版权索赔的案件中,如果版权持有者已经证明了版权侵权索赔的胜诉可能性,第九巡回法院认为不可弥补的损害是可以推定的。LGS Architects, Inc. 诉 Concordia Homes of Nev., 434 F.3d 1150, 1155-56 (9th Cir. 2006)。 但参见 MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd..、518 F. Supp. 2d 1197, 1212 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (noting that "the longstanding rule that irreparable harm can be a presumed after a show of likelihood of success for purposes of a copyright preliminary injunction motion may itself have to be reevaluated in light of eBay [Inc. v MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 126 S. Ct. 1837, 164 L. Ed.2d 641 (2006)]").因此,要签发初步禁令,雅各布森必须证明:(1) 他的版权侵权主张有胜诉的可能性,并由此推定会造成无法弥补的损害;或 (2) 他的主张有胜诉的公平机会,且相对困难的明显差异对他非常有利。

A.

Public licenses, often referred to as “open source” licenses, are used by artists, authors, educators, software developers, and scientists who wish to create collaborative projects and to dedicate certain works to the public. Several types of public licenses have been designed to provide creators of copyrighted materials a means to protect and control their copyrights. Creative Commons, one of the amici curiae, provides free copyright licenses to allow parties to dedicate their works to the public or to license certain uses of their works while keeping some rights reserved.
公共许可证,通常被称为 "开放源代码 "许可证,为艺术家、作家、教育家、软件开发者和 科学家所使用,他们希望创建合作项目并将某些作品奉献给公众。有几种公共许可证旨在为版权材料的创作者提供保护和控制其版权的手段。法庭之友之一的 "知识共享 "提供免费的版权许可,允许当事人将其作品奉献给公众,或许可其作品的某些用途,同时保留某些权利。

Open source licensing has become a widely used method of creative collaboration that serves to advance the arts and sciences in a manner and at a pace that few could have imagined just a few decades ago. For example, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (“MIT”) uses a Creative Commons public license for an OpenCourseWare project that licenses all 1800 MIT courses. Other public licenses support the GNU/Linux operating system, the Perl programming language, the Apache web server programs, the Firefox web browser, and a collaborative web-based encyclopedia called Wikipedia. Creative Commons notes that, by some estimates, there are close to 100,000,000 works licensed under various Creative Commons licenses. The Wikimedia Foundation, another of the amici curiae, estimates that
开放源码许可已经成为一种广泛使用的创造性合作方式,它推动艺术和科学发展的方式和速度是几十年前很少有人能想象到的。例如,麻省理工学院("MIT")的 "OpenCourseWare "项目就使用了知识共享(Creative Commons)公共许可证,该项目为麻省理工学院的全部 1800 门课程提供许可证。其他公共许可证还支持 GNU/Linux 操作系统、Perl 编程语言、Apache 网络服务器程序、Firefox 网络浏览器以及名为维基百科的协作式网络百科全书。知识共享组织指出,据估计,有近100,000,000件作品获得了各种知识共享许可。另一个法庭之友维基媒体基金会估计

313

the Wikipedia website has more than 75,000 active contributors working on some 9,000,000 articles in more than 250 languages.
维基百科网站有 75,000 多名活跃的撰稿人,用 250 多种语言撰写了约 9,000,000 篇文章。

Open Source software projects invite computer programmers from around the world to view software code and make changes and improvements to it. Through such collaboration, software programs can often be written and debugged faster and at lower cost than if the copyright holder were required to do all of the work independently. In exchange and in consideration for this collaborative work, the copyright holder permits users to copy, modify and distribute the software code subject to conditions that serve to protect downstream users and to keep the code accessible.8 By requiring that users copy and restate the license and attribution information, a copyright holder can ensure that recipients of the redistributed computer code know the identity of the owner as well as the scope of the license granted by the original owner. The Artistic License in this case also requires that changes to the computer code be tracked so that downstream users know what part of the computer code is the original code created by the copyright holder and what part has been newly added or altered by another collaborator.
开源软件项目邀请世界各地的计算机程序员查看软件代码,并对其进行修改和改进。通过这种合作,软件程序的编写和调试通常比要求版权持有者独立完成所有工作的速度更快、成本更低。作为这种合作的交换条件和对价,版权持有者允许用户复制、修改和分发软件代码,但须符合保护下游用户和保持代码可访问性的条件。8 通过要求用户复制和重述许可和署名信息,版权持有者可以确保再分发计算机代码的接收者知道所有者的身份以及原所有者授予的许可范围。在这种情况下,艺术许可还要求对计算机代码的更改进行跟踪,以便下游用户知道计算机代码中哪些部分是版权所有者创建的原始代码,哪些部分是由其他合作者新添加或更改的。

Traditionally, copyright owners sold their copyrighted material in exchange for money. The lack of money changing hands in open source licensing should not be presumed to mean that there is no economic consideration, however. There are substantial benefits, including economic benefits, to the creation and distribution of copyrighted works under public licenses that range far beyond traditional license royalties. For example, program creators may generate market share for their programs by providing certain components free of charge. Similarly, a programmer or company may increase its national or international reputation by incubating open source projects. Improvement to a product can come rapidly and free of charge from an expert not even known to the copyright holder. The Eleventh Circuit has recognized the economic motives inherent in public licenses, even where profit is not immediate. See Planetary Motion, Inc. v. Techsplosion, Inc., 261 F.3d 1188, 1200 (11th Cir. 2001) (Program creator “derived value from the distribution [under a public license] because he was able to improve his Software based on suggestions sent by end-users. . . . It is logical that as the Software improved, more end-users used his Software, thereby increasing [the programmer’s] recognition in his profession and the likelihood that the Software would be improved even further.”).
传统上,版权所有者出售版权材料是为了换取金钱。然而,开放源代码许可中没有金钱交易并不意味着没有经济考量。在公共许可下创作和传播受版权保护的作品可以带来巨大的利益,包括经济利益,其范围远远超过传统的许可使用费。例如,程序创作者可以通过免费提供某些组件为其程序创造市场份额。同样,程序员或公司可以通过孵化开放源代码项目来提高其国内或国际声誉。版权持有者甚至不认识的专家也可以快速、免费地改进产品。第十一巡回法院已经认识到公共许可中固有的经济动机,即使利润不是立竿见影的。Planetary Motion, Inc.. . .合乎逻辑的是,随着软件的改进,更多的最终用户使用了他的软件,从而提高了 [程序员] 在其行业中的知名度,软件也有可能得到进一步改进")。

B.

The parties do not dispute that Jacobsen is the holder of a copyright for certain materials distributed through his website.9 Katzer/Kamind also admits that portions of the DecoderPro software were copied, modified, and distributed as part of the Decoder Commander software. Accordingly, Jacobsen has made out a prima facie case of copyright infringement. Katzer/Kamind argues that they cannot be liable for copyright infringement because they had a license to use the material. Thus, the Court must evaluate whether the use by Katzer/Kamind was outside the scope of the license. See LGS Architects, 434 F.3d at 1156. The
9 Katzer/Kamind 也承认 DecoderPro 软件的部分内容被复制、修改并作为 Decoder Commander 软件的一部分发布。因此,Jacobsen 提出了表面证据确凿的版权侵权案件。Katzer/Kamind 辩称,他们不能承担版权侵权责任,因为他们有使用这些材料的许可。因此,法院必须评估 Katzer/Kamind 的使用是否超出了许可范围。See LGS Architects, 434 F.3d at 1156。

314

copyrighted materials in this case are downloadable by any user and are labeled to include a copyright notification and a COPYING file that includes the text of the Artistic License. The Artistic License grants users the right to copy, modify, and distribute the software:
在这种情况下,受版权保护的资料可供任何用户下载,并标明版权声明和包含艺术许可文本的复制文件。艺术许可证授予用户复制、修改和分发软件的权利:

provided that [the user] insert a prominent notice in each changed file stating how and when [the user] changed that file, and provided that [the user] do at least ONE of the following:
前提是[用户]在每个更改的文件中插入一个醒目的通知,说明[用户]更改该文件的方式和时间,并且[用户]至少做了以下其中一项:

a) place [the user’s] modifications in the Public Domain or otherwise make them Freely Available, such as by posting said modifications to Usenet or an equivalent medium, or placing the modifications on a major archive site such as ftp.uu.net, or by allowing the Copyright Holder to include [the user’s] modifications in the Standard Version of the Package.
a) 将[用户的]修改置于公共领域,或以其他方式免费提供修改,例如将所述修改张贴到 Usenet 或同等媒体,或将修改置于主要存档网站,如 ftp.uu.net, 或允许版权 持有人将 [用户的] 修改包含在软件包的标准版本中。

b) use the modified Package only within [the user’s] corporation or organization.
b) 只能在[用户的]公司或组织内使用修改后的软件包。

c) rename any non-standard executables so the names do not conflict with the standard executables, which must also be provided, and provide a separate manual page for each nonstandard executable that clearly documents how it differs from the Standard Version, or
c) 重新命名任何非标准可执行文件,使其名称不与标准可执行文件相冲突(标准可执行文件也必须提供),并为每个非标准可执行文件提供单独的手册页,清楚地记录其与标准版本的不同之处,或者

d) make other distribution arrangements with the Copyright Holder.
d) 与版权持有人作出其他发行安排。

The heart of the argument on appeal concerns whether the terms of the Artistic License are conditions of, or merely covenants to, the copyright license. Generally, a “copyright owner who grants a nonexclusive license to use his copyrighted material waives his right to sue the licensee for copyright infringement” and can sue only for breach of contract. Sun Microsystems, Inc., v. Microsoft Corp., 188 F.3d 1115, 1121 (9th Cir. 1999); Graham v. James, 144 F.3d 229, 236 (2d Cir. 1998). If, however, a license is limited in scope and the licensee acts outside the scope, the licensor can bring an action for copyright infringement. See S.O.S., Inc. v. Payday, Inc., 886 F.2d 1081, 1087 (9th Cir. 1989); Nimmer oN Copyright, §1015[A] (1999).
上诉争论的核心是艺术许可的条款是版权许可的条件还是仅仅是版权许可的约定。一般来说,"版权所有者如果授予使用其版权材料的非排他性许可,就放弃了起诉被许可人侵犯版权的权利",只能以违反合同为由提起诉讼。Sun Microsystems, Inc., v. Microsoft Corp., 188 F.3d 1115, 1121 (9th Cir. 1999);Graham v. James, 144 F.3d 229, 236 (2d Cir. 1998)。但是,如果许可的范围有限,而被许可人的行为超出了许可范围,则许可人可以提起版权侵权诉讼。See S.O.S., Inc. v. Payday, Inc., 886 F.2d 1081, 1087 (9th Cir. 1989); Nimmer oN Copyright, §1015[A] (1999)..

Thus, if the terms of the Artistic License allegedly violated are both covenants and conditions, they may serve to limit the scope of the license and are governed by copyright law. If they are merely covenants, by contrast, they are governed by contract law. See Graham, 144 F.3d at 236-37 (whether breach of license is actionable as copyright infringement or breach of contract turns on whether provision breached is condition of the license, or mere covenant); Sun Microsystems, 188 F.3d at 1121 (following Graham; independent covenant does not limit scope of copyright license). The District Court did not expressly state whether the limitations in the Artistic License are independent covenants or, rather, conditions to the scope; its analysis, however, clearly treated the license limitations as contractual covenants rather than conditions of the copyright license.10
因此,如果被控违反的《艺术许可》条款既是契约又是条件,它们可能会限制许可的范围,并受版权法管辖。相反,如果这些条款仅仅是约定,则受合同法管辖。See Graham, 144 F.3d at 236-37(违反许可是否可作为侵犯版权或违反合同提起诉讼取决于被违反的条款是许可的条件还是单纯的约定);Sun Microsystems, 188 F.3 d at 1121(遵循Sun Microsystems, 188 F.3 d at 1121)。d at 1121(沿用 Graham 案; 独立契约不限制版权许可的范围)。地区法院没有明确说明艺术许可中的限制是独立契约,还是范围条件;但法院的分析显然将 许可限制视为合同契约,而不是版权许可的条件。

315

Jacobsen argues that the terms of the Artistic License define the scope of the license and that any use outside of these restrictions is copyright infringement. Katzer/Kamind argues that these terms do not limit the scope of the license and are merely covenants providing contractual terms for the use of the materials, and that his violation of them is neither compensable in damages nor subject to injunctive relief. Katzer/Kamind’s argument is premised upon the assumption that Jacobsen’s copyright gave him no economic rights because he made his computer code available to the public at no charge. From this assumption, Katzer/ Kamind argues that copyright law does not recognize a cause of action for non-economic rights, relying on Gilliam v. ABC, 538 F.2d 14, 20-21 (2d Cir. 1976) (“American copyright law, as presently written, does not recognize moral rights or provide a cause of action for their violation, since the law seeks to vindicate the economic, rather than the personal rights of authors.”). The District Court based its opinion on the breadth of the Artistic License terms, to which we now turn.
雅各布森辩称,艺术许可的条款规定了许可的范围,任何超出这些限制的使用都是侵犯版权。Katzer/Kamind 辩称,这些条款并没有限制许可的范围,只是为材料的使用提供了合同条款,他违反这些条款既不能获得损害赔偿,也不能获得禁令救济。Katzer/Kamind 的论点建立在这样一个假设之上,即 Jacobsen 的版权没有赋予他任何经济权利,因为他免费向公众提供了他的计算机代码。根据这一假设,Katzer/Kamind 辩称版权法不承认非经济权利的诉因,其依据是 Gilliam 诉 ABC 案,538 F.2d 14, 20-21 (2d Cir. 1976)("美国版权法,按照目前的规定,不承认精神权利,也不为侵犯精神权利的行为提供诉因,因为该法旨在维护作者的经济权利,而非个人权利")。地区法院的意见是基于艺术许可条款的广泛性,我们现在来讨论这个问题。

III.

The Artistic License states on its face that the document creates conditions: “The intent of this document is to state the conditions under which a Package may be copied.” (Emphasis added.) The Artistic License also uses the traditional language of conditions by noting that the rights to copy, modify, and distribute are granted “provided that” the conditions are met. Under California contract law, “provided that” typically denotes a condition. See, e.g., Diepenbrock v. Luiz, 159 Cal. 716, 115 P. 743 (1911) (interpreting a real property lease reciting that when the property was sold, “this lease shall cease and be at an end, provided that the party of the first part shall then pay [certain compensation] to the party of the second part”; considering the appellant’s “interesting and ingenious” argument for interpreting this language as creating a mere covenant rather than a condition; and holding that this argument “cannot change the fact that, attributing the usual and ordinary signification to the language of the parties, a condition is found in the provision in question”) (emphases added).
《艺术许可》在其表面声明该文件创造了条件:"本文件旨在说明可以复制软件包的条件 。(强调是后加的。)《艺术许可证》也使用了传统的条件语言,指出复制、修改和分发的权利是在"条件"得到满足的情况下授予的。根据加州合同法,"前提是 "通常表示条件。See, e.g., Diepenbrock v. Luiz, 159 Cal.716, 115 P.743 (1911)(对一份不动产租约的解释是,当财产被出售时,"本租约应停止并终止,条件是第一部分的一方应向第二部分的一方支付[一定的补偿]";考虑到上诉人提出的 "有趣而巧妙 "的论点,即把这一措辞解释为只是订立了一个契约而不是一个条件;并认为这一论点 "不能改变这样一个事实,即根据双方措辞的通常和一般含义, 条件 在有关条款中是存在的"(强调是后加的)。

The conditions set forth in the Artistic License are vital to enable the copyright holder to retain the ability to benefit from the work of downstream users. By requiring that users who modify or distribute the copyrighted material retain the reference to the original source files, downstream users are directed to Jacobsen’s website. Thus, downstream users know about the collaborative effort to improve and expand the SourceForge project once they learn of the “upstream” project from a “downstream” distribution, and they may join in that effort.
《艺术许可证》中规定的条件对于版权持有者保留从下游用户的作品中获益的能力至关重要。通过要求修改或分发版权材料的用户保留对原始源文件的引用,下游用户被引导至雅各布森的网站。这样,下游用户一旦从 "下游 "发布中了解到 "上游 "项目,就会知道改进和扩展 SourceForge 项目的合作努力,并可能加入这一努力。

The District Court interpreted the Artistic License to permit a user to “modify the material in any way” and did not find that any of the “provided that” limitations in the Artistic License served to limit this grant. The District Court’s interpretation of the conditions of the Artistic License does not credit the explicit restrictions in the license that govern a downloader’s right to modify and distribute the copyrighted work. The copyright holder here expressly stated the terms upon which the right to modify and distribute the material depended and invited direct contact if a downloader wished to negotiate other terms. These restrictions were both clear and necessary to accomplish the objectives of the open source licensing collaboration, including economic benefit. Moreover, the District Court did not address the other restrictions of the license, such as the requirement that all modification from the original be clearly shown
地区法院对《艺术许可证》的解释是允许用户 "以任何方式修改材料",并没有发现《艺术许可证》中的任何 "条件 "限制起到了限制这一授权的作用。地方法院对《艺术许可》条件的解释并不认可许可中关于下载者修改和传播版权作品权利的明确限制。版权持有者在此明确说明了修改和传播材料的权利所依赖的条款,并邀请下载者在希望协商其他条款时直接联系。这些限制既明确又必要,有助于实现开放源代码许可合作的目标,包括经济利益。此外,地区法院并未涉及许可中的其他限制,如要求所有对原版的修改都必须明确显示

316

with a new name and a separate page for any such modification that shows how it differs from the original.
新名称,并为任何此类修改另起一页,说明其与原件的不同之处。

Copyright holders who engage in open source licensing have the right to control the modification and distribution of copyrighted material. As the Second Circuit explained in Gilliam v. ABC, 538 F.2d 14, 21 (2d Cir. 1976), the “unauthorized editing of the underlying work, if proven, would constitute an infringement of the copyright in that work similar to any other use of a work that exceeded the license granted by the proprietor of the copyright.” Copyright licenses are designed to support the right to exclude; money damages alone do not support or enforce that right. The choice to exact consideration in the form of compliance with the open source requirements of disclosure and explanation of changes, rather than as a dollar-denominated fee, is entitled to no less legal recognition. Indeed, because a calculation of damages is inherently speculative, these types of license restrictions might well be rendered meaningless absent the ability to enforce through injunctive relief.
从事开放源代码许可的版权持有者有权控制版权材料的修改和传播。正如第二巡回法院在 Gilliam 诉 ABC,538 F.2d 14,21(第二巡回法院,1976 年)一案中解释的那样,"对基础作品进行未经授权的编辑,如果得到证实,将构成对该作品版权的侵犯,类似于对作品的任何其他使用,超出了版权所有者授予的许可。版权许可旨在支持排除权;仅靠金钱损害赔偿并不能支持或执行该权利。选择以遵守开放源代码要求的披露和解释变更的形式,而不是以美元计价的费用来收取对价,在法律上同样应得到承认。事实上,由于损害赔偿的计算本质上是推测性的,如果不能通过禁令救济来执行,这些类型的许可限制很可能变得毫无意义。

In this case, a user who downloads the JMRI copyrighted materials is authorized to make modifications and to distribute the materials “provided that” the user follows the restrictive terms of the Artistic License. A copyright holder can grant the right to make certain modifications, yet retain his right to prevent other modifications. Indeed, such a goal is exactly the purpose of adding conditions to a license grant.11 The Artistic License, like many other common copyright licenses, requires that any copies that are distributed contain the copyright notices and the COPYING file. See, e.g., 3-10 NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT §10.15 (“An express (or possibly an implied) condition that a licensee must affix a proper copyright notice to all copies of the work that he causes to be published will render a publication devoid of such notice without authority from the licensor and therefore, an infringing act.”).
在这种情况下,下载 JMRI 受版权保护材料的用户有权对材料进行修改和分发,"条件是 "用户必须遵守《艺术许可》的限制性条款。版权持有者可以授权用户进行某些修改,但保留阻止其他修改的权利。11 《艺术许可》与许多其他常见的版权许可一样,要求分发的任何副本都必须包含版权声明和 COPYING 文件。请参阅,例如、 3-10 NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT §10.15("一项明示(或可能是默示)的条件,即被许可人必须在其导致出版的作品的所有副本上贴上适当的版权声明,将使未经许可人授权而没有此类声明的出版成为侵权行为")。

It is outside the scope of the Artistic License to modify and distribute the copyrighted materials without copyright notices and a tracking of modifications from the original computer files. If a downloader does not assent to these conditions stated in the COPYING file, he is instructed to “make other arrangements with the Copyright Holder.” Katzer/Kamind did not make any such “other arrangements.” The clear language of the Artistic License creates conditions to protect the economic rights at issue in the granting of a public license. These conditions govern the rights to modify and distribute the computer programs and files included in the downloadable software package. The attribution and modification transparency requirements directly serve to drive traffic to the open source incubation page and to inform downstream users of the project, which is a significant economic goal of the copyright holder that the law will enforce. Through this controlled spread of information, the copyright holder gains creative collaborators to the open source project; by requiring that changes made by downstream users be visible to the copyright holder and others, the
修改和传播受版权保护的资料,而不注明版权和跟踪原始计算机文件的修改情况,不属于艺术许可的范围。如果下载者不同意 "复制 "文件中说明的这些条件,他将被指示 "与版权持有者作出其他安排"。Katzer/Kamind 没有做出任何这样的 "其他安排"。艺术许可证》的明确语言规定了在授予公共许可证时保护经济权利的条件。这些条件规定了修改和分发可下载软件包中的计算机程序和文件的权利。归属和修改透明度的要求直接有助于将流量引向开放源代码孵化页面,并使下游用户了解该项目,而这正是法律将强制执行的版权持有者的重要经济目标。通过这种有控制的信息传播,版权持有者为开源项目赢得了有创造力的合作者;通过要求版权持有者和其他人都能看到下游用户所做的修改,版权持有者和其他人都能看到下游用户所做的修改。

317

copyright holder learns about the uses for his software and gains others’ knowledge that can be used to advance future software releases.
版权持有者可以了解其软件的用途,并获得他人的知识,这些知识可用于推动未来软件的发布。

IV.

For the aforementioned reasons, we vacate and remand. While Katzer/Kamind appears to have conceded that they did not comply with the aforedescribed conditions of the Artistic License, the District Court did not make factual findings on the likelihood of success on the merits in proving that Katzer/Kamind violated the conditions of the Artistic License. Having determined that the terms of the Artistic License are enforceable copyright conditions, we remand to enable the District Court to determine whether Jacobsen has demonstrated (1) a likelihood of success on the merits and either a presumption of irreparable harm or a demonstration of irreparable harm; or (2) a fair chance of success on the merits and a clear disparity in the relative hardships and tipping in his favor.12
鉴于上述原因,我们撤销原判并发回重审。虽然 Katzer/Kamind 似乎承认他们没有遵守上述艺术许可的条件,但地区法院并没有对证明 Katzer/Kamind 违反艺术许可条件的胜诉可能性做出事实认定。在确定艺术许可的条款是可执行的版权条件之后,我们将案件发回重审,以便地区法院确定 Jacobsen 是否已经证明:(1) 在案情上有胜诉的可能性,并推定存在无法弥补的损害,或证明存在无法弥补的损害;或 (2) 在案情上有公平的胜诉机会,且相对困难明显不同,并对其有利。12

The judgment of the District Court is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. VACATED and REMANDED.
撤销地区法院的判决,并将案件发回重审,以便根据本意见进一步审理。撤销并发回重审。

* * *

Questions

1.

General Discussion Questions

1.1

Which open source license presents the most compelling vision of freedom and openness?
哪种开源许可证最能体现自由和开放的理念?

1.2

Prominent open source leader Eric S. Raymond has argued that it is no longer necessary for software freedom to be enforced by a license agreement like the GPL — he argues that open source software makes the case for itself because of its high quality and low price. Do you agree?
著名的开放源代码领导者埃里克-雷蒙德(Eric S. Raymond)认为,软件自由不再需要像 GPL 这样的许可协议来强制执行--他认为,开放源代码软件因其高质量和低价格而为自己辩护。你同意他的观点吗?

1.3

Prominent free software leader Richard Stallman likes to say that the GPL is about “free speech” not “free beer,” meaning that programmers can charge for open source software. Is that view captured in the GPL 2.0 (GPLv2)?
著名自由软件领袖理查德-斯托尔曼(Richard Stallman)喜欢说 GPL 是关于 "自由言论 "而不是 "自由啤酒",意思是程序员可以对开源软件收费。GPL 2.0 (GPLv2) 是否采纳了这一观点?

1.4

Open source programmers sometimes complain that there are too many open source licenses from which to choose. Does this amount to helpful diversity or hopeless confusion? Should programmers simply choose between the GPL, the BSD License, and a handful of other popular licenses?
开源程序员有时会抱怨有太多的开源许可证可供选择。这究竟是有益的多样性还是无望的混乱?程序员是否应该简单地在 GPL、BSD 许可和其他几种流行的许可之间做出选择?

1.5

The Free Software Foundation has revised GPLv2 to create a new version 3.0 (GPLv3).13
自由软件基金会修订了 GPLv2,创建了新的 3.0 版本(GPLv3)。

Is GPLv3 a better license than GPLv2?

Has GPLv3 clarified the so-called “viral” language in GPLv2 Section 2(b)?
GPLv3 是否澄清了 GPLv2 第 2(b) 节中所谓的 "病毒 "语言?

318

How has GPLv3 approached patent licensing and the ramifications of assertions of patent rights?
GPLv3 是如何处理专利许可和专利权主张的后果的?

What is GPLv3’s approach to software technical protection measures?
GPLv3 如何处理软件技术保护措施?

2.

Litigation Questions

2.1

What remedies are particularly relevant in an open source licensing case? If injunctive relief is relevant, consider whether the breach of any particular provision in an open source license is a breach of contract and/or an infringement of copyright.
哪些救济与开源许可案件特别相关?如果涉及禁令救济,请考虑违反开源许可中的任何特定条款是否构成违约和/或侵犯版权。

2.2

What evidence would you bring to bear on the question of the interpretation of the meaning of the GPL or the BSD License? Does the Free Software Foundation’s interpretation matter (as many hackers assume)?
对于 GPL 或 BSD 许可证含义的解释问题,您会提出哪些证据?自由软件基金会的解释重要吗(很多黑客都这么认为)?

3.

Business Law Questions

3.1

How would you advise a programmer who wants to use GPL-licensed code but does not want her work to be considered a “work based on a program” for purposes of GPLv2 Section 2(b)?
如果一个程序员想要使用 GPL 许可的代码,但又不希望自己的作品被视为 GPLv2 第 2(b) 条所指的 "基于程序的作品",您会如何建议他?

3.2

How would you advise a software developer to choose an open source license? What would you say if the developer seemed wed to the GPL because the developer felt a strong affinity with the Free Software Foundation even though the GPL did not seem like the best fit?
您会如何建议软件开发者选择开源许可证?如果开发者似乎对 GPL 情有独钟,因为他对自由软件基金会有很深的感情,尽管 GPL 似乎并不是最合适的,您会怎么说?

3.3

If a software programmer liked the principles expressed in GPLv2 but just wanted a simpler license form, would you recommend the Simple Public License (SimPL), below, which has been approved as an Open Source license?14
如果软件程序员喜欢 GPLv2 所表达的原则,但只是想要一种更简单的许可证形式,您是否会推荐下面的简单公共许可证 (SimPL),该许可证已被批准为开源许可证?14

Simple Public License (SIMPL-2.0)

Preamble

This Simple Public License 2.0 (SimPL-2.0 for short) is a plain language implementation of GPL 2.0. The words are different, but the goal is the same — to guarantee for all users the freedom to share and change software. If anyone wonders about the meaning of the SimPL, they should interpret it as consistent with GPL 2.0.
简单公共许可证 2.0(简称 SimPL-2.0)是 GPL 2.0 的纯语言实现。虽然文字不同,但目标相同--保证所有用户共享和更改软件的自由。如果有人想知道 SimPL 的含义,他们应该将其理解为与 GPL 2.0 一致。

Simple Public License (SimPL) 2.0

The SimPL applies to the software’s source and object code and comes with any rights that I have in it (other than trademarks). You agree to the SimPL by copying, distributing, or making a derivative work of the software.
SimPL适用于软件的源代码和目标代码,并附带我对其拥有的任何权利(商标除外)。您复制、分发或制作软件的衍生作品即表示您同意 SimPL。

319

You get the royalty-free right to:

Use the software for any purpose;

Make derivative works of it (this is called a “Derived Work”);
制作衍生作品(称为 "衍生作品");

Copy and distribute it and any Derived Work.

If you distribute the software or a Derived Work, you must give back to the community by:
如果您发布软件或衍生作品,您必须通过以下方式回馈社区:

Prominently noting the date of any changes you make;
在显著位置注明您所做任何更改的日期;

Leaving other people’s copyright notices, warranty disclaimers, and license terms in place;
保留他人的版权声明、免责声明和许可条款;

Providing the source code, build scripts, installation scripts, and interface definitions in a form that is easy to get and best to modify;
提供源代码、构建脚本、安装脚本和界面定义,使其易于获取和修改;

Licensing it to everyone under SimPL, or substantially similar terms (such as GPL 2.0), without adding further restrictions to the rights provided;
根据 SimPL 或基本类似的条款(如 GPL 2.0)向所有人授权,而不对所提供的权利添加进一步的限制;

Conspicuously announcing that it is available under that license.
明确宣布可根据该许可使用。

There are some things that you must shoulder:

You get NO WARRANTIES. None of any kind;

If the software damages you in any way, you may only recover direct damages up to the amount you paid for it (that is zero if you did not pay anything). You may not recover any other damages, including those called “consequential damages.” (The state or country where you live may not allow you to limit your liability in this way, so this may not apply to you).
如果该软件以任何方式对您造成损害,您只能获得直接损害赔偿,但赔偿金额不得超过您为该软件支付的金额(如果您未支付任何费用,则赔偿金额为零)。您不得要求赔偿任何其他损失,包括所谓的 "间接损失"。(您所在的州或国家可能不允许以这种方式限制您的责任,因此这可能对您不适用)。

The SimPL continues perpetually, except that your license rights end automatically if:
SimPL 许可证永久有效,但如果出现以下情况,您的许可证权利将自动终止:

You do not abide by the “give back to the community” terms (your licensees get to keep their rights if they abide);
你不遵守 "回馈社会 "条款(如果你的被许可人遵守条款,他们可以保留自己的权利);

Anyone prevents you from distributing the software under the terms of the SimPL.
任何人不得阻止您根据 SimPL 条款分发软件。

License for the License

You may do anything that you want with the SimPL text; it’s a license form to use in any way that you find helpful. To avoid confusion, however, if you change the terms in any way then you may not call your license the Simple Public License or the SimPL (but feel free to acknowledge that your license is “based on the Simple Public License”).
您可以对 SimPL 文本做任何您想做的事情;这是一种许可证形式,您可以以任何您认为有用的方式使用它。不过,为了避免混淆,如果你以任何方式修改了条款,那么你就不能称你的许可证为简单公共许可证或 SimPL(但可以随意承认你的许可证 "基于简单公共许可证")。

* * *

320

Exercises

1.

Draft an email to a software developer client who asked whether you would recommend the BSD License, the Apache License, GPLv3, or GPLv2.
给一位软件开发商客户起草一封电子邮件,客户问你是推荐 BSD 许可、Apache 许可、GPLv3 还是 GPLv2。

2.

Using the SimPL as an example, write a simple language version of GPLv3.
以 SimPL 为例,编写 GPLv3 的简单语言版本。

VI. MULTIMEDIA PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT

Certain software products are called “multimedia products.” These products contain multiple types of works: text, sounds, music, photographs, drawings, paintings, motion pictures, or data in digital form.15 Computers allow users to easily manipulate these multimedia works and provide the user with an interactive experience. To create a multimedia product, a software developer typically partners with content providers from other industries. The license agreements that form the basis of these partnerships create complications as the parties try to anticipate the evolution of technologies, products, and business models. Read the Boosey & Hawkes case as background and then do the Exercise that follows.
某些软件产品被称为 "多媒体产品"。15 计算机允许用户轻松操作这些多媒体作品,并为用户提供交互式体验。为了创建多媒体产品,软件开发商通常会与其他行业的内容提供商合作。由于各方都试图预测技术、产品和商业模式的演变,因此构成这些合作关系基础的许可协议就会变得复杂。阅读 Boosey & Hawkes 案例作为背景,然后做下面的练习。

BOOSEY & HAWKES MUSIC PUBLISHERS LTD. v. WALT DISNEY COMPANY
BOOSEY & HAWKES MUSIC PUBLISHERS LTD.诉 WALT DISNEY COMPANY

145 F.3d 481 (2d Cir. 1998)

LEVAL, Circuit Judge.

Boosey & Hawkes Music Publishers Ltd., an English corporation and the assignee of Igor Stravinsky’s copyrights for “The Rite of Spring,” brought this action alleging that the Walt Disney Company’s foreign distribution in video cassette and laser disc format (“video format”) of the film “Fantasia,” featuring Stravinsky’s work, infringed Boosey’s rights. In 1939 Stravinsky licensed Disney’s distribution of The Rite of Spring in the motion picture. Boosey, which acquired Stravinsky’s copyright in 1947, contends that the license does not authorize distribution in video format.
Boosey & Hawkes 音乐出版有限公司是一家英国公司,也是伊戈尔-斯特拉文斯基《春之祭》版权的受让人,该公司提起诉讼,指控沃尔特-迪斯尼公司在国外以录像带和激光视盘格式("录像格式")发行以斯特拉文斯基的作品为主题的电影《幻想曲》侵犯了 Boosey 的权利。1939 年,斯特拉文斯基授权迪斯尼发行电影《春之祭》。Boosey 公司于 1947 年获得斯特拉文斯基的版权,该公司认为许可证并未授权以视频格式发行。

The district court granted partial summary judgment to Boosey, declaring that Disney’s video format release was not authorized by the license agreement. Disney appeals from that ruling.
地区法院作出了部分简易判决,裁定 Boosey 公司的视频格式发行未获得许可协议的授权。迪斯尼公司对此裁决提出上诉。

I. Background

During 1938, Disney sought Stravinsky’s authorization to use The Rite of Spring (sometimes referred to as the “work” or the “composition”) throughout the world in a motion picture.
1938 年,迪斯尼寻求斯特拉文斯基的授权,将《春之祭》(有时称为 "作品 "或 "作曲")在电影中向全世界使用。

Because under United States law the work was in the public domain, Disney needed no authorization to record or distribute it in this country, but permission was required for distribution in countries where Stravinsky enjoyed copyright protection. In January 1939 the
由于根据美国法律,该作品属于公有领域,迪斯尼在美国录制或发行该作品无需获得授权,但在斯特拉文斯基享有版权保护的国家发行则需要获得许可。1939 年 1 月

321

parties executed an agreement (the “1939 Agreement”) giving Disney rights to use the work in a motion picture in consideration of a fee to Stravinsky of $6000.
双方签署了一份协议("1939 年协议"),迪斯尼有权在电影中使用该作品,但斯特拉文斯基需支付 6000 美元的酬金。

The 1939 Agreement provided that

In consideration of the sum of Six Thousand ($6,000.) Dollars, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, [Stravinsky] does hereby give and grant unto Walt Disney Enterprises, a California corporation…the nonexclusive, irrevocable right, license, privilege and authority to record in any manner, medium or form, and to license the performance of, the musical composition hereinbelow set out.
斯特拉文斯基]以六千($6,000.)美元(特此确认收讫)为代价,特此给予并授予加利福尼亚州公司沃尔特-迪斯尼企业......以任何方式、媒介或形式录制以下音乐作品并许可其演出的非专有、不可撤销的权利、许可、特权和授权。

Under “type of use” in ¶3, the Agreement specified that
在第 3 条 "使用类型 "下,该协议规定

The music of said musical composition may be used in one motion picture throughout the length thereof or through such portion or portions thereof as the Purchaser shall desire. The said music may be used in whole or in part and may be adapted, changed, added to or subtracted from, all as shall appear desirable to the Purchaser in its uncontrolled discretion. The title “Rites of Spring” or “Le Sacre de Printemps”, or any other title, may be used as the title of said motion picture and the name of [Stravinsky] may be announced in or in connection with said motion picture.
上述音乐作品的音乐可在一部电影的整个片长中使用,或按照买方的意愿在其中的一个或多个部分中使用。上述音乐可以全部或部分使用,也可以改编、更改、添加或删减,买方可自行决定。春之祭 "或 "春之祭 "或任何其他标题可用作上述电影的标题,[斯特拉文斯基] 的名字可在上述电影中公布或与上述电影有关。

The Agreement went on to specify in ¶4 that Disney’s license to the work “is limited to the use of the musical composition in synchronism or timed-relation with the motion picture.”
协议第 4 条还明确规定,迪斯尼对作品的许可 "仅限于在与电影同步或定时的情况下使用音乐作品"。

Paragraph Five of the Agreement provided that

The right to record the musical composition as covered by this agreement is conditioned upon the performance of the musical work in theatres having valid licenses from the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers, or any other performing rights society having jurisdiction in the territory in which the said musical composition is performed.
录制本协议所涉及的音乐作品的权利取决于音乐作品在拥有美国作曲家、作 词家和出版商协会或任何其他表演权协会颁发的有效许可证的剧院中的演出情况。

We refer to this clause, which is of importance to the litigation, as “the ASCAP Condition.”
我们将这一对诉讼具有重要意义的条款称为 "ASCAP 条件"。

Finally, ¶7 of the Agreement provided that “the licensor reserves to himself all rights and uses in and to the said musical composition not herein specifically granted” (the “reservation clause”).
最后,协议第 7 条规定,"许可人保留本协议未明确授予的上述音乐作品的所有权利和用途"("保留条款")。

Disney released Fantasia, starring Mickey Mouse, in 1940. The film contains no dialogue. It matches a pantomime of animated beasts and fantastic creatures to passages of great classical music, creating what critics celebrated as a “partnership between fine music and animated film.” The soundtrack uses compositions of Bach, Beethoven, Dukas, Schubert, Tchaikovsky, and Stravinsky, all performed by the Philadelphia Orchestra under the direction of Leopold Stokowski. As it appears in the film soundtrack, The Rite of Spring was shortened from its original 34 minutes to about 22.5; sections of the score were cut, while other sections were reordered. For more than five decades Disney exhibited The Rite of Spring in Fantasia under the 1939 license. The film has been re-released for theatrical distribution at least seven times since 1940, and although Fantasia has never appeared on television in its entirety, excerpts including portions of The Rite of Spring have been televised occasionally over the years. Neither Stravinsky nor Boosey has ever previously objected to any of the distributions.
迪斯尼于 1940 年推出了由米老鼠主演的《幻想曲》。该片没有对白。它将动画片中的野兽和奇幻生物与伟大的古典音乐段落相匹配,被评论界誉为 "高雅音乐与动画电影的完美结合"。原声带采用了巴赫、贝多芬、杜卡斯、舒伯特、柴可夫斯基和斯特拉文斯基的作品,全部由利奥波德-斯托科夫斯基指挥的费城交响乐团演奏。在电影原声带中,《春之祭》由原来的 34 分钟缩短为约 22.5 分钟;乐曲的某些部分被删减,而其他部分则重新排序。五十多年来,迪斯尼根据 1939 年的授权在《幻想曲》中放映了《春之祭》。虽然《幻想曲》从未在电视上完整播出过,但多年来,包括《春之祭》部分在内的选段偶尔也会在电视上播出。斯特拉文斯基和博西此前从未对任何发行提出过异议。

322

In 1991 Disney first released Fantasia in video format. The video has been sold in foreign countries, as well as in the United States. To date, the Fantasia video release has generated more than $360 million in gross revenue for Disney. Boosey brought this action in February 1993.
1991年,迪斯尼首次以录像带的形式发行了《幻想曲》。该录像带在国外和美国均有销售。迄今为止,《幻想曲》录像带的发行已为迪斯尼创造了超过 3.6 亿美元的总收入。博西公司于 1993 年 2 月提起诉讼。

II. Discussion

We confront four questions on appeal. Disney challenges the summary judgment which declared that the 1939 Agreement does not authorize video distribution of The Rite of Spring. Boosey appeals three other rulings: the dismissal for forum non conveniens, and the grants of summary judgment on the claims for damages for violation of the Lanham Act and breach of contract.
我们在上诉中面临四个问题。迪斯尼公司对简易判决提出质疑,该判决宣布 1939 年协议并未授权《春之祭》的视频发行。Boosey 公司对其他三项裁决提出上诉:以不便审理为由驳回起诉,以及对违反《兰哈姆法》和违约行为的损害赔偿请求做出即决判决。

A. Declaratory Judgment on the Scope of the License.
A.关于许可范围的宣告式判决。

Boosey’s request for declaratory judgment raises two issues of contract interpretation: whether the general grant of permission under the 1939 Agreement licensed Disney to use The Rite of Spring in the video format version of Fantasia (on which the district court found in Disney’s favor); and, if so, whether the ASCAP Condition barred Disney from exploiting the work through video format (on which the district court found for Boosey).
Boosey 的宣告性判决请求提出了两个合同解释问题:1939 年协议中的一般许可是否授权迪斯尼在《幻想曲》的视频格式版本中使用《春之祭》(地区法院对此做出了有利于迪斯尼的判决);如果是,ASCAP 条件是否禁止迪斯尼通过视频格式使用该作品(地区法院对此做出了有利于 Boosey 的判决)。

1. Whether the “motion picture” license covers video format. Boosey contends that the license to use Stravinsky’s work in a “motion picture” did not authorize distribution of the motion picture in video format, especially in view of the absence of an express provision for “future technologies” and Stravinsky’s reservation of all rights not granted in the Agreement. Disputes about whether licensees may exploit licensed works through new marketing channels made possible by technologies developed after the licensing contract — often called “new-use” problems — have vexed courts since at least the advent of the motion picture. See 3 Melville B. Nimmer and David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright, §10.10[A] at 10-86 (hereinafter “Nimmer”); Kirke La Shelle Co. v. Paul Armstrong Co., 263 N.Y. 79, 188 N.E. 163 (1933) (deciding whether a license for a stage production also conveyed rights in sound motion pictures).
1."电影 "许可是否包括视频格式。Boosey 认为,在 "电影 "中使用斯特拉文斯基作品的许可并未授权以视频格式发行电影,特别是考虑到没有关于 "未来技术 "的明确条款,以及斯特拉文斯基保留了协议中未授予的所有权利。至少从电影问世以来,关于被许可人是否可以通过许可合同之后开发的技术所带来的新的营销渠道来利用被许可作品的争议--通常被称为 "新用途 "问题--一直困扰着法院。参见 3 Melville B. Nimmer and David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright, §10.10[A] at 10-86 (hereinafter "Nimmer"); Kirke La Shelle Co. v. Paul Armstrong Co., 263 N.Y. 79, 188 N.E. 163 (1933)(裁定舞台剧许可是否也传达了对有声电影的权利)。

In Bartsch v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., we held that “licensee[s] may properly pursue any uses which may reasonably be said to fall within the medium as described in the license.” 391 F.2d 150, 155 (2d Cir. 1968) (Friendly, J.) (quoting Nimmer). We held in Bartsch that a license of motion picture rights to a play included the right to telecast the motion picture. We observed that “[i]f the words are broad enough to cover the new use, it seems fairer that the burden of framing and negotiating an exception should fall on the grantor,” at least when the new medium is not completely unknown at the time of contracting. Id. at 154, 155.
在 Bartsch 诉 Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc. 一案中,我们认为 "被许可人可以合理地使用许可中描述的媒介"。391 F.2d 150, 155 (2d Cir. 1968) (Friendly, J.) (引自 Nimmer)。在 Bartsch 案中,我们认为一出戏剧的电影版权许可包括电影的转播权。我们注意到,"如果文字的宽泛程度足以涵盖新的用途,那么由授予人承担制定和协商例外条款的责任似乎更为公平,"至少在缔约时新媒体并非完全未知的情况下是如此。Id. at 154, 155..

The 1939 Agreement conveys the right “to record [the composition] in any manner, medium or form” for use “in [a] motion picture.” We believe this language is broad enough to include distribution of the motion picture in video format. At a minimum, Bartsch holds that when a license includes a grant of rights that is reasonably read to cover a new use (at least where the new use was foreseeable at the time of contracting), the burden of excluding the right to the new use will rest on the grantor. 391 F.2d at 155; see also Bloom v. Hearst Entertainment Inc., 33 F.3d 518, 524-25 (5th Cir. 1994) (applying Bartsch to hold that a grant of movie and television rights to a book encompassed video rights as well). The license “to
1939 年协议授予 "以任何方式、媒介或形式录制[作品]"的权利,以便 "在[一部]电影中 "使用。我们认为这一措辞足够宽泛,包括了以视频格式发行电影。至少,Bartsch 认为,当许可中包含的权利授予被合理解读为包括新用途时(至少在缔约时新用途是可预见的),排除新用途权利的责任将由授予人承担。391 F.2d at 155;另见 Bloom v. Hearst Entertainment Inc.许可

323

record in any manner, medium or form” doubtless extends to videocassette recording and we can see no reason why the grant of “motion picture” reproduction rights should not include the video format, absent any indication in the Agreement to the contrary. See Bourne v. Walt Disney Co., 68 F.3d 621, 630 (2d Cir. 1995); Bloom, 33 F.3d at 525. If a new-use license hinges on the foreseeability of the new channels of distribution at the time of contracting — a question left open in Bartsch — Disney has proffered unrefuted evidence that a nascent market for home viewing of feature films existed by 1939. The Bartsch analysis thus compels the conclusion that the license for motion picture rights extends to video format distribution.
以任何方式、媒介或形式录制 "无疑延伸到录像带录制,我们看不出为什么 "电影 "复制权的授予不应包括录像带格式,协议中没有任何相反的说明。参见 Bourne v. Walt Disney Co., 68 F.3d 621, 630 (2d Cir. 1995);Bloom, 33 F.3d at 525。如果新用途许可取决于 订约时新发行渠道的可预见性(这在 Bartsch 案中是一个悬而未决的问题),那么迪斯尼公司已经提出了无可辩驳的证据,证明在 1939 年时家庭观看故事片的市场已经初具规模。因此,Bartsch 案的分析迫使我们得出结论,即电影版权许可延伸至视频格式的发行。

We recognize that courts and scholars are not in complete accord on the capacity of a broad license to cover future developed markets resulting from new technologies. The Nimmer treatise describes two principal approaches to the problem. According to the first view, advocated here by Boosey, “a license of rights in a given medium (e.g., ‘motion picture rights’) includes only such uses as fall within the unambiguous core meaning of the term (e.g., exhibition of motion picture film in motion picture theaters) and exclude any uses that lie within the ambiguous penumbra (e.g., exhibition of motion picture on television).” Nimmer, §10.10[B] at 10-90; see also Cohen v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 845 F.2d 851, 853-54 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding that license to use musical score in television production does not extend to use in videocassette release); Rey v. Lafferty, 990 F.2d 1379, 1390-91 (1st Cir. 1993) (holding that license to portray Curious George in animations for “television viewing” does not extend to videocassette release). Under this approach, a license given in 1939 to “motion picture” rights would include only the core uses of “motion picture” as understood in 1939 — presumably theatrical distribution — and would not include subsequently developed methods of distribution of a motion picture such as television videocassettes or laser discs. See Nimmer §10.10[b] at 10-90.
我们认识到,法院和学者对宽泛许可是否能够涵盖新技术带来的未来发达市场的看法并不完全一致。Nimmer 的论文描述了解决这一问题的两种主要方法。根据第一种观点--博西在此提倡--"特定媒介的权利许可(如'电影权利')只包括属于该术语明确核心含义范围内的用途(如在电影影院放映电影胶片),而不包括属于模糊半影范围内的任何用途(如在电视上放映电影胶片)"。Nimmer, §10.10[B] at 10-90; see also Cohen v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 845 F.2d 851, 853-54 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding that license to use musical score in television production does not extend to use in videocassette release); Rey v. Lafferty, 990 F.2d 1379, 1390-91 (1st Cir. 1993) (holding that license to portrayious George in animations for "television viewing" does not extend to videocassette release).根据这种方法,1939 年授予的 "电影 "权许可只包括 1939 年理解的 "电影 "的核心用途--大概是影院发行--而不包括后来开发的电影发行方法,如电视录像带或激光光盘。见 Nimmer §10.10[b] at 10-90。

The second position described by Nimmer is “that the licensee may properly pursue any uses that may reasonably be said to fall within the medium as described in the license.” Id. at 10-91. Nimmer expresses clear preferences for the latter approach on the ground that it is “less likely to prove unjust.” Id. As Judge Friendly noted in Bartsch, “[S]o do we.” 391 F.2d at 155.
Nimmer所述的第二种立场是 "被许可人可以适当地使用任何可以合理地认为属于许可所述媒介范围内的用途"。Id. 第 10-91 页。尼莫尔明确表示倾向于后一种方法,理由是这种方法 "不太可能被证明是不公正的"Id.正如弗兰德法官在 Bartsch 案中所指出的,"我们也这么认为"。391 F.2d at 155。

We acknowledge that a result which deprives the author-licensor of participation in the profits of new unforeseen channels of distribution is not an altogether happy solution. Nonetheless, we think it more fair and sensible than a result that would deprive a contracting party of the rights reasonably found in the terms of the contract it negotiates. This issue is too often, and improperly, framed as one of favoritism as between licensors and licensees. Because licensors are often authors — whose creativity the copyright laws intend to nurture — and are often impecunious, while licensees are often large business organizations, there is sometimes a tendency in copyright scholarship and adjudication to seek solutions that favor licensors over licensees. Thus in Cohen, 845 F.2d at 854, the Ninth Circuit wrote that a “license must be construed in accordance with the purpose underlying federal copyright law,” which the court construed as the granting of valuable, enforceable rights to authors and the encouragement of the production of literary works. Asserting that copyright law “is enacted for the benefit of the composer,” (quoting Jondora Music Publish. Co. v. Melody Recordings, Inc., 506 F.2d 392, 395 (3rd Cir. 1974) (as amended)), the court concluded that it would “frustrate the purposes of the [copyright] Act” to construe the license as encompassing video
我们承认,剥夺作者--许可人参与新的不可预见的发行渠道利润的结果并不是一个完全令人 满意的解决方案。尽管如此,我们认为这比剥夺签约方在其谈判的合同条款中合理享有的权利更为公平合理。这个问题经常被不恰当地归结为许可人和被许可人之间的偏袒问题。由于许可人往往是作者--版权法旨在培养他们的创造力--而且往往穷困潦倒,而被许可人往往是大型商业组织,因此在版权学术研究和判决中,有时会倾向于寻求有利于许可人而不利于被许可人的解决方案。因此,在科恩案(845 F.2d at 854)中,第九巡回法院写道,"必须根据联邦版权法的基本目的来解释许可",法院将其解释为授予作者有价值的、可执行的权利,并鼓励文学作品的创作。法院认为版权法 "是为作曲家的利益而制定的"(引用 Jondora Music Publish.Co. v. Melody Recordings, Inc., 506 F.2d 392, 395 (3rd Cir. 1974) (as amended)),法院得出结论认为,如果将许可解释为包括录像带,将 "有悖于[版权]法的宗旨"。

324

technology, which did not exist when the license was granted. Id.; see also Warner Bros. Pictures v. Columbia Broadcasting System, 216 F.2d 945, 949 (9th Cir. 1954) (“Such doubt as there is should be resolved in favor of the composer. The clearest language is necessary to divest the author from the fruit of his labor.”); William F. Patry, 1 Copyright Law and Practice 392 (1994) (arguing that “agreements should, wherever possible, be construed in favor of the copyright transferor,” to reflect Congress’s “policy judgment that copyright owners should retain all rights unless specifically transferred”).
技术,该技术在授予许可时并不存在。Id.; see also Warner Bros. Pictures v. Columbia Broadcasting System, 216 F.2d 945, 949 (9th Cir. 1954) ("有疑问的地方应有利于作曲家。最清晰的语言是剥夺作者劳动成果的必要条件。");William F. Patry, 1 Copyright Law and Practice 392 (1994) (认为 "协议应尽可能作有利于版权转让者的解释",以反映国会 "关于版权所有者应保留所有权利的政策判断,除非明确转让")。

In our view, new-use analysis should rely on neutral principles of contract interpretation rather than solicitude for either party. Although Bartsch speaks of placing the “burden of framing and negotiating an exception…on the grantor,” 391 F.2d at 155, it should not be understood to adopt a default rule in favor of copyright licensees or any default rule whatsoever. What governs under Bartsch is the language of the contract. If the contract is more reasonably read to convey one meaning, the party benefitted by that reading should be able to rely on it; the party seeking exception or deviation from the meaning reasonably conveyed by the words of the contract should bear the burden of negotiating for language that would express the limitation or deviation. This principle favors neither licensors nor licensees. It follows simply from the words of the contract.
我们认为,对新用途的分析应依赖于中立的合同解释原则,而不是对任何一方的照顾。虽然 Bartsch 案提到 "由授予人承担制定和协商例外条款的责任",391 F.2d at 155,但不应理解为采用有利于版权被许可人的默认规则或任何默认规则。在 Bartsch 案中,起支配作用的是合同的语言。如果合同被更合理地解读为传达了一种含义,那么从这种解读中受益的一方就应该能够依赖这种解读;而寻求例外或偏离合同措辞所合理传达的含义的一方则应该承担谈判的责任,以获得能够表达限制或偏离的措辞。这一原则既不利于许可人,也不利于被许可人。这只是从合同的文字中得出的结论。

The words of Disney’s license are more reasonably read to include than to exclude a motion picture distributed in video format. Thus, we conclude that the burden fell on Stravinsky, if he wished to exclude new markets arising from subsequently developed motion picture technology, to insert such language of limitation in the license, rather than on Disney to add language that reiterated what the license already stated.
迪斯尼许可证的文字更合理地解释为包括而不是排除以视频格式发行的电影。因此,我们的结论是,如果斯特拉文斯基希望将后来开发的电影技术所产生的新市场排除在外,那么他就有责任在许可中加入这种限制性语言,而不是由迪斯尼公司加入重申许可中已有规定的语言。

Other significant jurisprudential and policy considerations confirm our approach to newuse problems. We think that our view is more consistent with the law of contract than the view that would exclude new technologies even when they reasonably fall within the description of what is licensed. Although contract interpretation normally requires inquiry into the intent of the contracting parties, intent is not likely to be helpful when the subject of the inquiry is something the parties were not thinking about. See Nimmer, §10.10[B] at 10-90 (noting that usually “there simply was no intent at all at the time of execution with respect to whether the grant includes a new use developed at a later time”). Nor is extrinsic evidence such as past dealings or industry custom likely to illuminate the intent of the parties, because the use in question was, by hypothesis, new, and could not have been the subject of prior negotiations or established practice. See Michael R. Fuller, Hollywood Goes Interactive: Licensing Problems Associated with Re-Purposing Motion Pictures into Interactive Multimedia Videogames, 15 Loy. L.A. Ent. L.J. 599, 607 (1985). Moreover, many years after formation of the contract, it may well be impossible to consult the principals or retrieve documentary evidence to ascertain the parties’ intent, if any, with respect to new uses. On the other hand, the parties or assignees of the contract should be entitled to rely on the words of the contract. Especially where, as here, evidence probative of intent is likely to be both scant and unreliable, the burden of justifying a departure from the most reasonable reading of the contract should fall on the party advocating the departure.
其他重要的法理和政策考虑因素也证实了我们处理新用途问题的方法。我们认为,我们的观点比那种即使新技术合理地属于许可的描述范围也将其排除在外的观点更符合合同法。尽管合同解释通常需要探究合同双方的意图,但如果探究的主题是双方都没有考虑到的,那么意图就不可能有帮助。参见 Nimmer, §10.10[B] at 10-90(指出通常 "在执行合同时根本没有意图去考虑授权是否包括后来开发的新用途")。过去的交易或行业习惯等外在证据也不可能阐明当事人的意图,因为根据假设,有关用途是新的,不可能是先前谈判或既定惯例的主题。见 Michael R. Fuller, Hollywood Goes Interactive:见 Michael R. Fuller, Hollywood Goes Interactive: Licensing Problems Associated with Re-Purposing Motion Pictures into Interactive Multimedia Videogames, 15 Loy. L.A. Ent.L.A. Ent.L.J. 599, 607 (1985)。此外,在合同订立多年后,很可能无法咨询委托人或检索文件证据,以确定双方在新用途方面的意图(如果有的话)。另一方面,合同当事人或受让人应有权依赖合同中的文字。尤其是像本案这样,能够证明意图的证据可能既少又不可靠的情况下,主张偏离合同最合理解释的一方应承担举证责任。

Neither the absence of a future technologies clause in the Agreement nor the presence of the reservation clause alters that analysis. The reservation clause stands for no more than the truism that Stravinsky retained whatever he had not granted. It contributes nothing to the
无论是协议中没有未来技术条款,还是保留条款的存在,都不会改变上述分析。保留条款所代表的不过是斯特拉文斯基保留他未授予的任何权利这一不言自明的道理。它对

325

definition of the boundaries of the license. See Bartsch, 391 F.2d at 154 n. 1. And irrespective of the presence or absence of a clause expressly confirming a license over future technologies, the burden still falls on the party advancing a deviation from the most reasonable reading of the license to insure that the desired deviation is reflected in the final terms of the contract. As we have already stated, if the broad terms of the license are more reasonably read to include the particular future technology in question, then the licensee may rely on that language.
许可边界的定义。参见 Bartsch, 391 F.2d at 154 n. 1。无论是否存在明确确认未来技术许可的条款,提出偏离许可最合理解释的一方仍有责任确保所希望的偏离反映在合同的最终条款中。正如我们已经指出的那样,如果对许可的宽泛条款进行了更为合理的解读,使其包含了相关的特定未来技术,那么被许可人就可以依赖这些语言。

Bartsch therefore continues to articulate our “preferred” approach to new-use questions, Nimmer, §10.10[B] at 10-91, and we hold that the district court properly applied it to find that the basic terms of Disney’s license included the right to record and distribute Fantasia in video format.
因此,Bartsch 继续阐明了我们处理新用途问题的 "首选 "方法,Nimmer, §10.10[B] at 10-91,我们认为地区法院正确地运用了这一方法,认定迪斯尼许可的基本条款包括以视频格式录制和发行《幻想曲》的权利。

* * *

Exercise

The Facts. Imagine that a U.S. software developer called “PCGamer” wants to create a computer game called “English Premier Football.” To create this product, PCGamer needs the following third-party content:
事实。假设一家名为 "PCGamer "的美国软件开发商希望开发一款名为"English Premier Football" 的电脑游戏。要创建此产品,PCGamer 需要以下第三方内容:

The names and likenesses of pro players in the English Premier League;
英格兰足球超级联赛职业球员的姓名和肖像;

Photos and text from The Times of London;
图片和文字来自《伦敦时报》;

Video content and television commentary from Skye Sports;
来自 Skye Sports 的视频内容和电视评论;

Names and logos of teams in the English Premier League;
英格兰足球超级联赛球队的名称和徽标;

Data from ESPN and Fox Sports;

Video compression technology developed by a professor at Oxford University;
牛津大学教授开发的视频压缩技术;

Internet hosting service log-in information and communications protocols from British Telecom.
英国电信公司提供的互联网托管服务登录信息和通信协议。

The Exercise.

1.

For each type of content, describe the intellectual property or other rights that must be licensed. For each particular type of intellectual property, which exclusive rights would be implicated? What scope of rights would PCGamer need (e.g., exclusive versus non-exclusive rights, worldwide versus limited territory)? Are there any items that need not be licensed because they are in the public domain or usable as a “fair use”?
针对每类内容,说明必须获得许可的知识产权或其他权利。对于每种特定类型的 知识产权,会涉及哪些专有权?PCGamer 需要何种范围的权利(例如,独占权与非独占权、全球范围与有限地区)?是否有任何项目因属于公共领域或可作为 "合理使用 "而无需获得许可?

2.

Describe various business models by which PCGamer could attempt to profit from its product. What are the licensing implications of these business models?
描述 PCGamer 试图从其产品中获利的各种商业模式。这些商业模式对授权有何影响?

326

VII. DOWNSTREAM LICENSES

A. Licenses to Distribute Software

Copyright law gives the software developer the right to control distribution of its software. One of the defining characteristics of software is that it is distributable in many ways: on diskettes in shrinkwrapped boxes, on CD-ROMs in plastic jewel cases, pre-installed on computer hard disk drives, uploaded to a server and downloaded to a local computer, posted on a server and accessed from or streamed from the server, or sent as an email attachment. It often makes economic sense for the software developer to rely on third parties to distribute software products. These may be retail stores (bricks and mortar or Internet), distributors, original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) who make PCs and other devices, or value added resellers (VARs) who provide custom hardware/software packages. Distribution licenses enable these third parties to distribute the developer’s software.
版权法赋予软件开发商控制其软件传播的权利。软件的一个显著特点是它可以通过多种方式发行:装在收缩包装盒中的软盘上、装在塑料珠宝盒中的光盘上、预装在计算机硬盘驱动器上、上传到服务器并下载到本地计算机上、发布在服务器上并从服务器访问或流式传输、或作为电子邮件附件发送。对软件开发商来说,依靠第三方分销软件产品往往具有经济意义。这些第三方可能是零售店(实体店或互联网)、分销商、生产 PC 和其他设备的原始设备制造商 (OEM),或提供定制硬件/软件包的增值分销商 (VAR)。分销许可使这些第三方能够分销开发商的软件。

B. Licenses That Describe Usage

Software often comes with a license directed to the end user that describes how the user may use the software. Software developers call these “end user licenses” or EULAs. EULAs come in two basic varieties: relatively custom licenses and standard form mass market licenses.
软件通常会附带一份针对最终用户的许可证,说明用户可以如何使用软件。软件开发商称其为 "最终用户许可证 "或 EULAs。EULAs 有两种基本形式:相对定制的许可证和标准形式的大众市场许可证。

1. “Custom” End User Licenses

Sometimes software is developed specifically for a certain end user’s needs. If the developer retains ownership, the parties will negotiate the customer’s use rights. Outside this context, however, few end user licenses are truly custom, negotiated licenses. Most of the time a software developer begins with a standard form license that may present various options for certain terms, such as quantity, price, and product support. Whether the developer will negotiate any other license provision such as warranties, indemnification, or choice of law depends on the parties’ interests and bargaining power.
有时,软件是专门为满足某个最终用户的需求而开发的。如果开发者保留所有权,双方将就客户的使用权进行谈判。但在这种情况下,很少有最终用户许可证是真正的定制、协商许可证。在大多数情况下,软件开发商会先提供一份标准格式的许可证,该许可证可能会为某些条款(如数量、价格和产品支持)提供多种选择。至于开发商是否会就保证、赔偿或法律选择等其他许可条款进行谈判,则取决于双方的利益和讨价还价的能力。

2. Standard Form Mass Market End User Licenses

When most people think about software licensing, they think about standard form mass market EULAs. These come in a variety of forms with a variety of colorful names such as “shrinkwrap,” “boot screen,” “clickwrap,” or “browsewrap” licenses. Why do software developers use EULAs in the mass market?
提到软件许可,大多数人都会想到标准格式的大众市场 EULA。这些协议形式多样,名称也五花八门,如 "收缩包装"、"启动屏幕"、"点击包装 "或 "浏览包装 "等。为什么软件开发商要在大众市场上使用 EULA?

One of the chief benefits is that they promote efficient software transactions: Like all standard form contracts, uniform terms facilitate high-volume distribution without
其主要好处之一是可以提高软件交易的效率:与所有标准格式合同一样,统一条款有利于大批量分销,而无需

327

the cost of negotiating individual licenses. Beyond that, EULAs educate unsophisticated end users about what may and may not be done with software. EULAs also contain important terms and conditions about warranties and limitations of liability.
谈判个人许可证的费用。除此以外,EULA 还能让不太懂行的最终用户了解什么情况下可以使用软件,什么情况下不可以使用软件。EULA 还包含有关保证和责任限制的重要条款和条件。

The most important value, however, lies in their ability to provide software with various collections of rights at various price points. For example, a software publisher might license word processing software to business users for one price, to home users for a lower price, to academic institutions for an even lower price, and to charitable organizations free of charge. The publisher may grant the user the right to make extra copies of the word processing software for laptop and tablet computers or the right to create derivative works of clip art.
然而,最重要的价值在于它们能够以不同的价位提供具有各种权利集合的软件。例如,软件出版商可以以一种价格向企业用户授权文字处理软件,以较低的价格向家庭用户授权,以更低的价格向学术机构授权,并免费向慈善机构授权。出版商可能会授予用户为笔记本电脑和平板电脑制作额外的文字处理软件副本的权利,或创作剪贴画衍生作品的权利。

Despite their usefulness and ubiquity, EULAs remain controversial. Some believe that the contract formation process is flawed and unfair to consumers. Some challenge the fairness or legality of various EULA terms, such as limitations on use, choice of law, or prohibitions on reverse engineering. Others contend that the use of standard form EULAs in the mass market tips the balance in intellectual property laws too far in favor of software developers. A final argument is that end user license transactions should be considered “first sales” rather than licenses.
尽管 EULA 非常有用,而且无处不在,但它仍然饱受争议。一些人认为,合同订立过程存在缺陷,对消费者不公平。一些人质疑各种 EULA 条款的公平性或合法性,如使用限制、法律选择或禁止反向工程等。另一些人则认为,在大众市场上使用标准格式的 EULA 使知识产权法的天平过于偏向软件开发商。最后一种观点认为,最终用户许可证交易应被视为 "首次销售",而不是许可证。

Despite the criticism, beginning with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision in ProCD v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996), most courts have held that EULAs are enforceable as a general proposition.16 That is not to say that all EULAs or EULA provisions are enforceable. Courts have now moved on to address whether a EULA or EULA provision is enforceable in a particular fact pattern. Specht v. Netscape, below, presents such a case.
尽管有批评意见,但从第七巡回上诉法院在 ProCD 诉 Zeidenberg,86 F.3.d 1447(1996 年)一案中的判决开始,大多数法院都认为,作为一般主张,EULA 是可以执行的。16 这并不是说所有的 EULA 或 EULA 条款都可以执行。现在,法院已经开始处理在特定事实模式下,EULA 或 EULA 条款是否可以执行的问题。下面的 Specht 诉 Netscape 案就是这样一个案例。

3. License or First Sale?

Can EULAs simply be ignored because mass market software transactions really amount to first sales rather than licenses? This depends on the test for determining whether a EULA-based transaction presents a license or first sale transaction.
是否可以因为大众市场软件交易确实相当于首次销售而不是许可,就忽略 EULA?这取决于确定基于 EULA 的交易是许可交易还是首次销售交易的检验标准。

The “is it really a license?” issue arises in a variety of contexts in the software industry. Some of the earliest cases arose in the “unbundling” context. Some software
"这真的是许可证吗?"这个问题在软件行业的各种情况下都会出现。最早的一些案例出现在 "分拆 "的背景下。一些软件

328

publishers distribute packages or suites of software at a discount when compared to the price of the individual components. Sometimes a party in the chain of distribution unbundles the software packages to sell the components separately, hoping to profit from the higher prices that can be charged for the individual components. Software vendors use license contracts to prevent this unbundling. The Adobe v. Stargate case, below, presents this scenario.
与单个组件的价格相比,出版商以折扣价分销软件包或套件。有时,分销链中的某一方会将软件包拆开,单独出售各组件,希望从单个组件的高价中获利。软件供应商利用许可合同来防止这种拆分行为。下面的 Adobe 诉 Stargate 案就属于这种情况。

A second context deals with limitations placed on software use. A common example is discounted software licensed for academic use only. Another common example is software licensed at one price for business use and at a lower price for personal use.17 And a final example is software licensed for evaluation purposes only. 18 A third context concerns EULA restrictions imposed on end user redistribution of the software. These restrictions are often placed on high-priced software; EULAs for many consumer-oriented mass market software products allow re-distribution (so long as the original user does not keep a copy).19 If a software transaction is fundamentally a first sale rather than a license, then potentially the software may be transferred even if a EULA purports to say otherwise. The dispute in Vernor v. Autodesk, below, arose in this context.
第二种情况涉及对软件使用的限制。一个常见的例子是仅许可学术使用的打折软件。17 最后一个例子是仅授权用于评估目的的软件。18 第三种情况涉及对最终用户重新分发软件施加的 EULA 限制。这些限制通常针对高价软件;许多面向消费者的大众市场软件产品的 EULA 允许重新分发(只要原始用户不保留副本)。19 如果软件交易从根本上说是首次销售而不是许可,那么即使 EULA 的目的不是这样,软件也有可能被转让。下文 Vernor 诉 Autodesk 案中的争议就是在这种情况下产生的。

Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc.

621 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2010)

CALLAHAN, Circuit Judge.

Timothy Vernor purchased several used copies of Autodesk, Inc.’s AutoCAD Release 14 software (“Release 14”) from one of Autodesk’s direct customers, and he resold the Release 14 copies on eBay. Vernor brought this declaratory judgment action against Autodesk to establish that these resales did not infringe Autodesk’s copyright. The district court issued the requested declaratory judgment, holding that Vernor’s sales were lawful because of two of the Copyright Act’s affirmative defenses that apply to owners of copies of copyrighted works, the first sale doctrine and the essential step defense.
蒂莫西-弗诺(Timothy Vernor)从 Autodesk 公司的一个直接客户那里购买了几份 Autodesk 公司的 AutoCAD 第 14 版软件("第 14 版")的二手拷贝,并在 eBay 上转售了这些第 14 版拷贝。Vernor 对 Autodesk 提起了这项宣告判决诉讼,以确定这些转售行为没有侵犯 Autodesk 的版权。地区法院作出了所要求的宣告式判决,认为 Vernor 的销售行为是合法的,因为《版权法》中有两项肯定性抗辩适用于版权作品副本的所有者,即首次销售原则和必要步骤抗辩。

Autodesk distributes Release 14 pursuant to a limited license agreement in which it reserves title to the software copies and imposes significant use and transfer restrictions on its customers. We determine that Autodesk’s direct customers are licensees of their copies of the software rather than owners, which has two ramifications. Because Vernor did not purchase the Release 14 copies from an owner, he may not invoke the first sale doctrine, and he also may not assert an essential step defense on behalf of his customers. For these reasons, we vacate the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Vernor and remand for further proceedings.
Autodesk 根据有限许可协议分发 Release 14,在该协议中,Autodesk 保留对软件副本的所有权,并对客户的使用和转让施加了重大限制。我们认为,Autodesk 公司的直接客户是其软件副本的被许可人,而不是所有者,这有两个方面的影响。由于 Vernor 并未从所有者处购买第 14 版拷贝,因此他不能援引首次销售原则,也不能代表其客户主张必要步骤抗辩。基于这些原因,我们撤销地区法院对 Vernor 做出的即决判决,并发回重审。

329

I.

A. Autodesk’s Release 14 software and licensing practices
A.欧特克第 14 版软件和许可实践

The material facts are not in dispute. Autodesk makes computer-aided design software used by architects, engineers, and manufacturers. It has more than nine million customers. It first released its AutoCAD software in 1982. It holds registered copyrights in all versions of the software including the discontinued Release 14 version, which is at issue in this case. It provided Release 14 to customers on CD-ROMs.
重要事实没有争议。欧特克公司生产计算机辅助设计软件,供建筑师、工程师和制造商使用。它拥有 900 多万客户。它于 1982 年首次发布了 AutoCAD 软件。它拥有该软件所有版本的注册版权,包括已停产的第 14 版,这也是本案的争议焦点。该公司以光盘形式向客户提供第 14 版软件。

Since at least 1986, Autodesk has offered AutoCAD to customers pursuant to an accompanying software license agreement (“SLA”), which customers must accept before installing the software. A customer who does not accept the SLA can return the software for a full refund. Autodesk offers SLAs with different terms for commercial, educational institution, and student users. The commercial license, which is the most expensive, imposes the fewest restrictions on users and allows them software upgrades at discounted prices.
至少从 1986 年开始,Autodesk 就根据附带的软件许可协议("SLA")向客户提供 AutoCAD,客户在安装软件之前必须接受该协议。不接受 SLA 的客户可以退回软件并获得全额退款。Autodesk 为商业用户、教育机构用户和学生用户提供不同条款的 SLA。商业许可证最贵,对用户的限制最少,允许用户以折扣价进行软件升级。

The SLA for Release 14 first recites that Autodesk retains title to all copies. Second, it states that the customer has a nonexclusive and nontransferable license to use Release 14. Third, it imposes transfer restrictions, prohibiting customers from renting, leasing, or transferring the software without Autodesk’s prior consent and from electronically or physically transferring the software out of the Western Hemisphere. Fourth, it imposes significant use restrictions:
Release 14 的 SLA 首先规定 Autodesk 保留所有副本的所有权。其次,它规定客户拥有使用 Release 14 的非独占和不可转让许可。第三,它规定了转让限制,禁止客户在未经 Autodesk 事先同意的情况下出租、租赁或转让软件,也禁止客户以电子或物理方式将软件转让出西半球。第四,它规定了重要的使用限制:

YOU MAY NOT: (1) modify, translate, reverse-engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Software… (3) remove any proprietary notices, labels, or marks from the Software or Documentation; (4) use…the Software outside of the Western Hemisphere; (5) utilize any computer software or hardware designed to defeat any hardware copy-protection device, should the software you have licensed be equipped with such protection; or (6) use the Software for commercial or other revenue-generating purposes if the Software has been licensed or labeled for educational use only.
您不得(1) 修改、翻译、反向工程、反编译或反汇编软件...... (3) 删除软件或文档中的任何专有权声明、标签或标记;(4) 在西半球以外使用...... 软件;(5) 使用任何计算机软件或硬件来破坏任何硬件复制保护装置,如果您已获得许可的软件配备了此类保护装置;或 (6) 如果软件已获得许可或标明仅供教育使用,则将软件用于商业或其他创收目的。

Fifth, the SLA provides for license termination if the user copies the software without authorization or does not comply with the SLA’s restrictions. Finally, the SLA provides that if the software is an upgrade of a previous version:
第五,《服务级协议》规定,如果用户在未经授权的情况下复制软件或不遵守《服务级协议》的限制,许可证将被终止。最后,《服务级协议》规定,如果软件是以前版本的升级版:

[Y]ou must destroy the software previously licensed to you, including any copies resident on your hard disk drive…within sixty (60) days of the purchase of the license to use the upgrade or update.…Autodesk reserves the right to require you to show satisfactory proof that previous copies of the software have been destroyed.
[您]必须在购买使用升级或更新的许可后六十 (60) 天内销毁以前许可给您的软件,包括驻留在您硬盘驱动器上的任何副本......Autodesk保留要求您出示令人满意的证据证明以前的软件副本已被销毁的权利。

Autodesk takes measures to enforce these license requirements. It assigns a serial number to each copy of AutoCAD and tracks registered licensees. It requires customers to input “activation codes” within one month after installation to continue using the software.20 The customer obtains the code by providing the product’s serial number to Autodesk. Autodesk issues the activation code after confirming that the serial number is authentic, the copy is not registered to a different customer, and the product has not been upgraded. Once
Autodesk采取措施来执行这些许可证要求。它为每一份 AutoCAD 都分配了一个序列号,并对注册的许可证持有者进行跟踪。它要求客户在安装后一个月内输入 "激活代码 "以继续使用软件。20 客户通过向 Autodesk 提供产品的序列号来获得代码。Autodesk 在确认序列号是真实的、副本未注册给其他客户且产品未升级后,会发出激活代码。一旦

330

a customer has an activation code, he or she may use it to activate the software on additional computers without notifying Autodesk.
如果客户拥有激活码,则可以在不通知 Autodesk 的情况下使用该激活码在其他计算机上激活软件。

B. Autodesk’s provision of Release 14 software to CTA
B.欧特克向 CTA 提供第 14 版软件

In March 1999, Autodesk reached a settlement agreement with its customer Cardwell/Thomas & Associates, Inc. (“CTA”), which Autodesk had accused of unauthorized use of its software. As part of the settlement, Autodesk licensed ten copies of Release 14 to CTA. CTA agreed to the SLA, which appeared (1) on each Release 14 package that Autodesk provided to CTA; (2) in the settlement agreement; and (3) on-screen, while the software is being installed.
1999 年 3 月,Autodesk 与客户 Cardwell/Thomas & Associates, Inc.("CTA")达成和解协议,Autodesk 指控 CTA 未经授权使用其软件。作为和解协议的一部分,Autodesk 许可 CTA 使用 10 份 Release 14 版本。CTA 同意 SLA,该 SLA 出现在:(1) Autodesk 提供给 CTA 的每个 Release 14 软件包上;(2) 和解协议中;(3) 软件安装时的屏幕上。

CTA later upgraded to the newer, fifteenth version of the AutoCAD program, AutoCAD 2000. It paid $495 per upgrade license, compared to $3,750 for each new license. The SLA for AutoCAD 2000, like the SLA for Release 14, required destruction of copies of previous versions of the software, with proof to be furnished to Autodesk on request. However, rather than destroying its Release 14 copies, CTA sold them to Vernor at an office sale with the handwritten activation codes necessary to use the software.
CTA后来升级到了更新的 AutoCAD 程序第 15 版,即 AutoCAD 2000。每个升级许可证的费用为 495 美元,而每个新许可证的费用为 3,750 美元。与第 14 版的 SLA 一样,AutoCAD 2000 的 SLA 也要求销毁以前版本软件的副本,并应要求向 Autodesk 提供证据。但是,CTA 公司并没有销毁第 14 版的副本,而是将它们连同使用软件所需的手写激活码一起卖给了 Vernor 公司。

C. Vernor’s eBay business and sales of Release 14

Vernor has sold more than 10,000 items on eBay. In May 2005, he purchased an authentic used copy of Release 14 at a garage sale from an unspecified seller. He never agreed to the SLA’s terms, opened a sealed software packet, or installed the Release 14 software. Though he was aware of the SLA’s existence, he believed that he was not bound by its terms. He posted the software copy for sale on eBay.…
弗诺在 eBay 上卖出了 10,000 多件商品。2005 年 5 月,他在一次车库拍卖会上从一个不知名的卖家手中购买了一份 Release 14 的正版二手拷贝。他从未同意过 SLA 条款,从未打开过密封的软件包,也从未安装过 Release 14 软件。尽管他知道 SLA 的存在,但他认为自己不受 SLA 条款的约束。他在 eBay.... 上发布了软件副本的销售信息。

II.

In August 2007, Vernor brought a declaratory action against Autodesk to establish that his resales of used Release 14 software are protected by the first sale doctrine and do not infringe Autodesk’s copyright.…In October 2009, the district court entered judgment for Vernor, and Autodesk timely appealed.
2007 年 8 月,Vernor 对 Autodesk 提起宣告诉讼,以证明他转售使用过的 Release 14 软件受到首次销售原则的保护,并不侵犯 Autodesk 的版权....。2009 年 10 月,地区法院做出了 Vernor 胜诉的判决,Autodesk 及时提起上诉。

III.

Copyright is a federal law protection provided to the authors of “original works of authorship,” including software programs. 17 U.S.C. §§101-103. The Copyright Act confers several exclusive rights on copyright owners, including the exclusive rights to reproduce their works and to distribute their works by sale or rental. Id. §106(1), (3). The exclusive distribution right is limited by the first sale doctrine, an affirmative defense to copyright infringement that allows owners of copies of copyrighted works to resell those copies. The exclusive reproduction right is limited within the software context by the essential step defense, another affirmative defense to copyright infringement that is discussed further infra. Both of these affirmative defenses are unavailable to those who are only licensed to use their copies of copyrighted works.
版权是一项联邦法律,为包括软件程序在内的 "原创作品 "的作者提供保护。美国法典》第 17 卷第 101-103 条。版权法》赋予版权所有者多项专有权利,包括复制其作品和通过销售或出租分发其作品的专有权利。Id. §106(1), (3)。专有发行权受到首次销售原则的限制,首次销售原则是对版权侵权的一种积极抗辩,允许版权作品复制品的所有者转售这些复制品。在软件领域,专有复制权受到 "必要步骤抗辩 "的限制,这是对版权侵权的另一种积极抗辩,下文将进一步讨论。仅被授权使用其版权作品复制品的人无法获得这两项肯定性抗辩。

This case requires us to decide whether Autodesk sold Release 14 copies to its customers or licensed the copies to its customers. If CTA owned its copies of Release 14, then both its sales to Vernor and Vernor’s subsequent sales were non-infringing under the first sale
本案要求我们决定 Autodesk 是向其客户销售 Release 14 复制品,还是向其客户许可使用这些复制品。如果 CTA 拥有 Release 14 的复制品,那么根据首次销售原则,CTA 向 Vernor 的销售以及 Vernor 随后的销售均不构成侵权。

331

doctrine.21 However, if Autodesk only licensed CTA to use copies of Release 14, then CTA’s and Vernor’s sales of those copies are not protected by the first sale doctrine and would therefore infringe Autodesk’s exclusive distribution right.
教义。21 但是,如果 Autodesk 仅许可 CTA 使用 Release 14 的副本,那么 CTA 和 Vernor 对这些副本的销售不受首次销售原则的保护,因此将侵犯 Autodesk 的独家经销权。

A. The first sale doctrine

The Supreme Court articulated the first sale doctrine in 1908, holding that a copyright owner’s exclusive distribution right is exhausted after the owner’s first sale of a particular copy of the copyrighted work. See Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339, 350-51, 28 S. Ct. 722, 52 L. Ed. 1086 (1908). In Bobbs-Merrill, the plaintiff-copyright owner sold its book with a printed notice announcing that any retailer who sold the book for less than one dollar was responsible for copyright infringement. Id. at 341, 28 S. Ct. 722. Plaintiff sought injunctive relief against defendants-booksellers who failed to comply with the price restriction. Id. at 341-42, 28 S. Ct. 722. The Supreme Court rejected the plaintiff’s claim, holding that its exclusive distribution right applied only to first sales of copies of the work. Id. at 350-51, 28 S. Ct. 722. The distribution right did not permit plaintiff to dictate that subsequent sales of the work below a particular price were infringing. Id. The Court noted that its decision solely applied to the rights of a copyright owner that distributed its work without a license agreement. Id. at 350, 28 S. Ct. 722 (“There is no claim in this case of contract limitation, nor license agreement controlling the subsequent sales of the book.”).
最高法院于 1908 年明确提出了首次销售原则,认为版权所有者在首次销售版权作品的特定复制品后,其专有发行权即告用尽。See Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339, 350-51, 28 S. Ct. 722, 52 L. Ed. 1086 (1908)。1086 (1908).在Bobbs-Merrill 案中, 原告(版权所有者)在出售图书时印制了一份通知,宣布任何零售商以低于一美元的价格出售该书,都要对侵犯版权负责。Id. at 341, 28 S. Ct. 722。原告要求对未遵守价格限制的被告--图书销售商--实施禁令救济。Id. at 341-42, 28 S. Ct.最高法院驳回了原告的诉讼请求,认为其独家发行权仅适用于作品副本的首次销售。Id. at 350-51, 28 S. Ct.发行权并不允许原告规定随后低于特定价格销售作品即为侵权。Id. 法院指出,其判决仅适用于在没有许可协议的情况下发行其作品的版权所有者的权利。Id. at 350, 28 S. Ct. 722("本案中没有关于合同限制的主张,也没有控制图书后续销售的许可协议。

Congress codified the first sale doctrine the following year. See 17 U.S.C. §41 (1909). In its current form, it allows the “owner of a particular copy” of a copyrighted work to sell or dispose of his copy without the copyright owner’s authorization. Id. §109(a) (enacted 1976). The first sale doctrine does not apply to a person who possesses a copy of the copyrighted work without owning it, such as a licensee. See id. §109(d); cf. Quality King Distribs., Inc. v. L’anza Research Int’l Inc., 523 U.S. 135, 146-47, 118 S. Ct. 1125, 140 L. Ed. 2d 254 (1998) (“[T]he first sale doctrine would not provide a defense to…any non-owner such as a bailee, a licensee, a consignee, or one whose possession of the copy was unlawful.”).
国会于次年将首次销售原则编入法典。参见 17 U.S.C. §41 (1909)。该条款目前的形式允许版权作品 "特定复制品的所有者 "在未经版权所有者授权的情况下出售或处置其复制品。Id. §109(a)(1976 年颁布)。首次销售原则不适用于拥有版权作品复制品但不拥有该作品的人,如被许可人。See id. §109(d); cf. Quality King Distribs、诉 L'anza Research Int'l Inc., 523 U.S. 135, 146-47, 118 S. Ct.2d 254 (1998) ("[T]first sale doctrine would not provide a defense to... any non-owner such as a bailee, a licensee, a consignee, or one whose possession of the copy was unlawful.")..

B. Owners vs. licensees

We turn to our precedents governing whether a transferee of a copy of a copyrighted work is an owner or licensee of that copy. We then apply those precedents to CTA’s and Vernor’s possession of Release 14 copies.
我们先来看看关于版权作品复制品的受让人是该复制品的所有人还是被许可人的先例。然后,我们将这些先例应用于 CTA 和 Vernor 对 Release 14 复制品的占有。

1. United States v. Wise, 550 F.2d 1180 (9th Cir. 1977)
1.美国诉 Wise,550 F.2d 1180(第 9 巡回法院,1977 年)

In Wise, a criminal copyright infringement case, we considered whether copyright owners who transferred copies of their motion pictures pursuant to written distribution agreements had executed first sales. Id. at 1187. The defendant was found guilty of copyright infringement based on his for-profit sales of motion picture prints. See id. at 1183. The copyright owners distributed their films to third parties pursuant to written agreements that restricted their use and transfer. Id. at 1183-84. On appeal, the defendant argued that the government failed to
Wise, 一宗侵犯版权的刑事案件中,我们考虑了根据书面发行协议转让其电影拷贝的版权所有者是否执行了首次销售。Id. at 1187。被告因销售电影拷贝牟利而被判侵犯版权罪。See id. at 1183。版权所有者根据限制其使用和转让的书面协议向第三方发行影片。Id. 第 1183-84 页。在上诉中,被告辩称政府未能

332

prove the absence of a first sale for each film. If the copyright owners’ initial transfers of the films were first sales, then the defendant’s resales were protected by the first sale doctrine and thus were not copyright infringement.
证明每部影片不存在首次销售。如果版权所有者首次转让影片属于首次销售,那么被告的转售行为就受到首次销售原则的保护,因此不属于侵犯版权行为。

To determine whether a first sale occurred, we considered multiple factors pertaining to each film distribution agreement. Specifically, we considered whether the agreement (a) was labeled a license, (b) provided that the copyright owner retained title to the prints, (c) required the return or destruction of the prints, (d) forbade duplication of prints, or (e) required the transferee to maintain possession of the prints for the agreement’s duration. Id. at 1190-92. Our use of these several considerations, none dispositive, may be seen in our treatment of each film print.
为了确定是否发生了首次销售,我们考虑了与每份电影发行协议有关的多个因素。具体来说,我们考虑了协议是否(a)标明了许可证,(b)规定版权所有者保留拷贝的所有权,(c)要求归还或销毁拷贝,(d)禁止复制拷贝,或(e)要求受让人在协议有效期内保持对拷贝的占有。Id. 第 1190-92 页。从我们对每部影片拷贝的处理中可以看出,我们使用了这几种考虑因素,但没有一种是决定性的。

For example, we reversed the defendant’s conviction with respect to Camelot. Id. at 1194. It was unclear whether the Camelot print sold by the defendant had been subject to a first sale. Copyright owner Warner Brothers distributed Camelot prints pursuant to multiple agreements, and the government did not prove the absence of a first sale with respect to each agreement. Id. at 1191-92, 1194. We noted that, in one agreement, Warner Brothers had retained title to the prints, required possessor National Broadcasting Company (“NBC”) to return the prints if the parties could select a mutual agreeable price, and if not, required NBC’s certification that the prints were destroyed. Id. at 1191. We held that these factors created a license rather than a first sale. Id.
例如,我们推翻了对被告有关 Camelot 的定罪。Id. at 1194。目前尚不清楚被告出售的《卡米洛特》印刷品是否属于首次销售。版权所有者华纳兄弟公司(Warner Brothers)根据多项协议销售《卡米洛特》印刷品,而政府并未证明每项协议都不存在首次销售。Id. at 1191-92, 1194。我们注意到,在一份协议中,华纳兄弟保留了拷贝的所有权,要求拥有者全国广播公司("NBC")在双方能够选择一个共同商定的价格的情况下归还拷贝,如果不能,则要求 NBC 证明拷贝已被销毁。Id. 第 1191 页。我们认为这些因素造成了许可而非首次销售。Id. 第 1191 页。

We further noted, however, that Warner Brothers had also furnished another Camelot print to actress Vanessa Redgrave. Id. at 1192. The print was provided to Redgrave at cost, and her use of the print was subject to several restrictions. She had to retain possession of the print and was not allowed to sell, license, reproduce, or publicly exhibit the print. Id. She had no obligation to return the print to Warner Brothers. Id. We concluded, “While the provision for payment for the cost of the film, standing alone, does not establish a sale, when taken with the rest of the language of the agreement, it reveals a transaction strongly resembling a sale with restrictions on the use of the print.” Id. There was no evidence of the print’s whereabouts, and we held that “[i]n the absence of such proof,” the government failed to prove the absence of a first sale with respect to this Redgrave print. Id. at 1191-92. Since it was unclear which copy the defendant had obtained and resold, his conviction for sale of Camelot had to be reversed. Id.
然而,我们进一步注意到,华纳兄弟公司还向女演员凡妮莎-雷德格雷夫提供了另一份《卡米洛特》印刷品。Id. at 1192。该印刷品是以成本价提供给雷德格雷夫的,她对印刷品的使用受到若干限制。她必须保留该印刷品,并且不得出售、许可、复制或公开展出该印刷品。Id. 她没有义务将印刷品归还华纳兄弟公司。Id. 我们得出结论:"虽然 支付电影成本的条款单独来看并不能确定是一项销售,但如果与协议的其他措辞结合起来,它揭示了一项非常类似于销售的交易,并对拷贝的使用做出了限制"。Id. 没有证据证明该印刷品的下落,我们认为 "在没有此类证据的情况下",政府未能证明该雷德格雷夫印刷品不存在首次销售。Id. at 1191-92。由于不清楚被告获得并转售的是哪一本,因此必须推翻对他销售《卡米洛特》的定罪。Id. 第 1191-92 页。

Thus, under Wise, where a transferee receives a particular copy of a copyrighted work pursuant to a written agreement, we consider all of the provisions of the agreement to determine whether the transferee became an owner of the copy or received a license. We may consider (1) whether the agreement was labeled a license and (2) whether the copyright owner retained title to the copy, required its return or destruction, forbade its duplication, or required the transferee to maintain possession of the copy for the agreement’s duration. Id. at 1190-92. We did not find any one factor dispositive in Wise: we did not hold that the copyright owner’s retention of title itself established the absence of a first sale or that a transferee’s right to indefinite possession itself established a first sale.
因此,根据Wise,当受让人根据书面协议收到版权作品的特定复制品时,我们会考虑协议的所有条款,以确定受让人是成为复制品的所有人还是获得了许可。我们可以考虑:(1) 协议是否标注为许可;(2) 版权所有者是否保留对复制品的所有权、是否要求归还或销毁复制品、是否禁止复制复制品、是否要求受让人在协议有效期内继续持有复制品。Id. 第 1190-92 页。在Wise 案中,我们没有发现任何一个决定性因素: 我们没有认为版权所有者保留所有权本身就确定了不存在首次销售,也没有认为受让人无限期占有的权利本身就确定了首次销售。

2. The “MAI trio” of cases

Over fifteen years after Wise, we again considered the distinction between owners and licensees of copies of copyrighted works in three software copyright cases, the “MAI trio.” See
Wise案十五年后,我们在三个软件版权案件中再次考虑了版权作品副本的所有人和被许可人之间的区别,即"MAI三重奏"。 参见

333

MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993); Triad Sys. Corp. v. Se. Express Co., 64 F.3d 1330 (9th Cir. 1995); Wall Data, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Dep’t, 447 F.3d 769 (9th Cir. 2006). In the MAI trio, we considered which software purchasers were owners of copies of copyrighted works for purposes of a second affirmative defense to infringement, the essential step defense.
MAI Sys.Corp. 诉 Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993);Triad Sys.Corp. v. Se.Express Co., 64 F.3d 1330 (9th Cir. 1995);Wall Data, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Dep't, 447 F.3d 769 (9th Cir. 2006)。在MAI 三案中,我们 考虑了哪些软件购买者是版权作品副本的所有者,以便对侵权行为进行第二种肯定性抗辩,即必要步骤抗辩。

The enforcement of copyright owners’ exclusive right to reproduce their work under the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §106(1), has posed special challenges in the software context. In order to use a software program, a user’s computer will automatically copy the software into the computer’s random access memory (“RAM”), which is a form of computer data storage. See MAI, 991 F.2d at 513. Congress enacted the essential step defense to codify that a software user who is the “owner of a copy” of a copyrighted software program does not infringe by making a copy of the computer program, if the new copy is “created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and…is used in no other manner.” 17 U.S.C. §117(a)(1).
根据《版权法》(17 U.S.C. §106(1))的规定,版权所有者复制其作品的专有权的实施在软件方面提出了特殊的挑战。为了使用软件程序,用户的计算机会自动将软件复制到计算机的随机存取存储器("RAM")中,这是一种计算机数据存储形式。See MAI,991 F.2d at 513。美国国会颁布了 "必要步骤抗辩 "条款,规定软件用户作为版权软件程序 "副本的所有者",如果新的副本是 "作为计算机程序与机器结合使用的必要步骤而创建的,并且......没有以其他方式使用",则其复制计算机程序的行为不构成侵权。美国法典》第 17 卷第 117(a)(1)条。

The Copyright Act provides that an “owner of a copy” of copyrighted software may claim the essential step defense, and the “owner of a particular copy” of copyrighted software may claim the first sale doctrine. 17 U.S.C. §§109(a), 117(a)(1). The MAI trio construed the phrase “owner of a copy” for essential step defense purposes. Neither Vernor nor Autodesk contends that the first sale doctrine’s inclusion of the word “particular” alters the phrase’s meaning, and we “presume that words used more than once in the same statute have the same meaning throughout.” Moldo v. Matsco, Inc. (In re Cybernetic Servs., Inc.), 252 F.3d 1039, 1051 (9th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, we consider the MAI trio’s construction of “owner of a copy” controlling in our analysis of whether CTA and Vernor became “owner[s] of a particular copy” of Release 14 software.
《版权法》规定,版权软件的 "副本所有者 "可以主张必要步骤抗辩,版权软件的 "特定副本所有者 "可以主张首次销售原则。17 U.S.C. §§109(a), 117(a)(1)。MAI 三人组出于必要步骤抗辩的目的,对 "副本所有人 "一词进行了解释。Vernor 和 Autodesk 都没有争辩说,首次销售原则中包含的 "特定 "一词改变了该短语的含义,我们 "假定在同一法规中多次使用的词语具有相同的含义"。Moldo v. Matsco, Inc. (In re Cybernetic Servs., Inc.), 252 F.3d 1039, 1051 (9th Cir. 2001)。因此,在分析 CTA 和 Vernor 是否成为 Release 14 软件的 "特定副本的所有人 "时,我们认为 MAI 三人组对 "副本所有人 "的解释具有控制性。

In MAI and Triad, the defendants maintained computers that ran the plaintiffs’ operating system software. MAI, 991 F.2d at 513; Triad, 64 F.3d at 1333. When the defendants ran the computers, the computers automatically loaded plaintiffs’ software into RAM. MAI, 991 F.2d at 517-18; Triad, 64 F.3d at 1333, 1335-36. The plaintiffs in both cases sold their software pursuant to restrictive license agreements, and we held that their customers were licensees who were therefore not entitled to claim the essential step defense. We found that the defendants infringed plaintiffs’ software copyrights by their unauthorized loading of copyrighted software into RAM. MAI, 991 F.2d at 517-18 & n. 5; Triad, 64 F.3d at 1333, 1335-36. In Triad, the plaintiff had earlier sold software outright to some customers. 64 F.3d at 1333 n. 2. We noted that these customers were owners who were entitled to the essential step defense, and the defendant did not infringe by making RAM copies in servicing their computers. Id.
MAITriad 案中,被告维护了运行原告操作系统软件的计算机。MAI, 991 F.2d at 513;Triad, 64 F.3d at 1333。当被告运行计算机时,计算机会自动将原告的软件加载到 RAM 中。MAI,991 F.2d at 517-18;Triad,64 F.3d at 1333, 1335-36。这两起案件中的原告都是根据限制性许可协议销售软件的,我们认为他们的客户是被许可人,因此无权主张必要步骤抗辩。我们认定被告未经授权将受版权保护的软件载入 RAM 侵犯了原告的软件版权。MAI, 991 F.2d at 517-18 & n. 5; Triad, 64 F.3d at 1333, 1335-36。在Triad 案中, 原告早先曾向一些客户直接出售软件。64 F.3d at 1333 n. 2。我们注意到,这些客户是有权获得必要步骤抗辩的所有者,被告在维修他们的计算机时制作 RAM 副本并不构成侵权。Id.

In Wall Data, plaintiff sold 3,663 software licenses to the defendant. Wall Data, 447 F.3d at 773. The licenses (1) were non-exclusive; (2) permitted use of the software on a single computer; and (3) permitted transfer of the software once per month, if the software was removed from the original computer. Id. at 775 n.5, 781. The defendant installed the software onto 6,007 computers via hard drive imaging, which saved it from installing the software manually on each computer. It made an unverified claim that only 3,663 users could simultaneously access the software. Id. at 776.
Wall Data 案中, 原告向被告出售了 3,663 份软件许可证。Wall Data, 447 F.3d at 773。许可证(1)是非排他性的;(2)允许在一台计算机上使用软件;(3)如果软件从原来的计算机上移除,则允许每月转让一次软件。Id. 第 775 n.5、781 页。被告通过硬盘成像将软件安装到 6,007 台计算机上,从而避免了在每台计算机上手动安装软件。被告声称只有 3,663 名用户可以同时访问该软件,但这一说法未经核实。Id.at 776.

334

The plaintiff sued for copyright infringement, contending that the defendant violated the license by “over-installing” the software. Id. at 775. The defendant raised an essential step defense, contending that its hard drive imaging was a necessary step of installation. Id. at 776. On appeal, we held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant’s request for a jury instruction on the essential step defense. Id. at 784. Citing MAI, we held that the essential step defense does not apply where the copyright owner grants the user a license and significantly restricts the user’s ability to transfer the software. Id. at 784-85. Since the plaintiff’s license imposed “significant restrictions” on the defendant’s software rights, the defendant was a licensee and was not entitled to the essential step defense. Id. at 785.
原告以侵犯版权为由提起诉讼,认为被告 "过度安装 "软件违反了许可协议。Id. 第 775 页。被告提出必要步骤抗辩,称其硬盘成像是安装的必要步骤。Id. at 776。在上诉中,我们认为地区法院没有滥用自由裁量权,拒绝了被告要求陪审团就关键步骤抗辩作出指示的请求。Id. at 784。我们援引 MAI 案, 认为,如果版权所有者向用户授予许可,并在很大程度上限制了用户转让软件的能力,那么必要步骤抗辩就不适用。Id. 第 784-85 页。由于原告的许可证对被告的软件权利施加了 "重大限制",因此被告是被许可人,无权获得必要步骤抗辩。Id. 第 785 页。

In Wall Data, we acknowledged that MAI had been criticized in a Federal Circuit decision, but declined to revisit its holding, noting that the facts of Wall Data led to the conclusion that any error in the district court’s failure to instruct was harmless. Even if the defendant owned its copies of the software, its installation of the software on a number of computers in excess of its license was not an essential step in the software’s use. Id. at 786 n.9 (citing Nimmer on Copyright §8.08[B][1][c] at 8-136; DSC Commc’ns Corp. v. Pulse Commc’ns, Inc., 170 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (criticizing MAI)).
Wall Data案中, 我们承认MAI 在联邦巡回法院的一项判决中受到了批评、但联邦巡回法院拒绝重新审视其裁决,指出根据Wall Data 案的事实可以得出结论,地区法院未能作出指示的任何错误都是无害的。即使被告拥有该软件的副本,但其在超过许可范围的计算机上安装该软件并不是使用该软件的必要步骤。Id. at 786 n.9(引用 Nimmer on Copyright §8.08[B][1][c] at 8-136;DSC Commc'ns Corp. v. Pulse Commc'ns, Inc、170 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (criticizing MAI))..

We read Wise and the MAI trio to prescribe three considerations that we may use to determine whether a software user is a licensee, rather than an owner of a copy. First, we consider whether the copyright owner specifies that a user is granted a license. Second, we consider whether the copyright owner significantly restricts the user’s ability to transfer the software. Finally, we consider whether the copyright owner imposes notable use restrictions.22 Our holding reconciles the MAI trio and Wise, even though the MAI trio did not cite Wise. See Cisneros-Perez v. Gonzales, 451 F.3d 1053, 1058 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[W]e are required to reconcile prior precedents if we can do so.”)
我们从WiseMAI 三人案中了解到,我们可以从三个方面来判断软件用户是否是被许可人,而不是复制品的所有人。首先,我们要考虑版权所有者是否明确指出用户获得了许可。其次,我们要考虑版权所有者是否在很大程度上限制了用户转让软件的能力。最后,我们考虑版权所有者是否施加了明显的使用限制。22 我们的观点调和了MAI 三重奏和 WisE、尽管MAI 三人组没有cite智。见 Cisneros-Perez v. Gonzales, 451 F.3d 1053, 1058 (9th Cir. 2006)("如果可以的话,我们必须调和先前的先例")

In response to MAI, Congress amended §117 to permit a computer owner to copy software for maintenance or repair purposes. See 17 U.S.C. §117(c); see also H.R. Rep. No. 105-551, pt. 1, at 27 (1998). However, Congress did not disturb MAI’s holding that licensees are not entitled to the essential step defense.
为了回应MAI 的要求, 国会修订了第 117 节,允许计算机所有者出于维护或修理目的复制软件。See 17 U.S.C. §117(c); see also H.R. Rep. No.然而,国会并没有干扰MAI 的观点,即被许可人无权获得必要步骤抗辩。

IV.

A. The district court’s decision

[Omitted]

B. Analysis

We hold today that a software user is a licensee rather than an owner of a copy where the copyright owner (1) specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts the user’s ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable use restrictions. Applying our holding to Autodesk’s SLA, we conclude that CTA was a licensee rather than an owner of
我们今天认为,如果版权所有者(1)明确规定用户被授予许可;(2)对用户转让软件的能力施加重大限制;以及(3)施加显著的使用限制,则软件用户是副本的被许可人而非所有者。将我们的裁决应用于 Autodesk 的 SLA,我们得出结论,CTA 是被许可人,而不是版权所有者。

335

copies of Release 14 and thus was not entitled to invoke the first sale doctrine or the essential step defense.
因此无权援引首次销售原则或必要步骤抗辩。

Autodesk retained title to the software and imposed significant transfer restrictions: it stated that the license is nontransferable, the software could not be transferred or leased without Autodesk’s written consent, and the software could not be transferred outside the Western Hemisphere. The SLA also imposed use restrictions against the use of the software outside the Western Hemisphere and against modifying, translating, or reverse-engineering the software, removing any proprietary marks from the software or documentation, or defeating any copy protection device. Furthermore, the SLA provided for termination of the license upon the licensee’s unauthorized copying or failure to comply with other license restrictions. Thus, because Autodesk reserved title to Release 14 copies and imposed significant transfer and use restrictions, we conclude that its customers are licensees of their copies of Release 14 rather than owners.
Autodesk 保留了软件的所有权,并对转让做出了严格限制:规定许可证不得转让,未经 Autodesk 书面同意不得转让或出租软件,不得将软件转让到西半球以外的地区。SLA 还规定了使用限制,禁止在西半球以外使用软件,禁止修改、翻译或逆向工程软件,禁止删除软件或文档中的任何专有标记,禁止破坏任何复制保护装置。此外,"服务级协议 "还规定,如果被许可人未经授权复制或未遵守其他许可限制,许可将被终止。因此,由于 Autodesk 保留了 Release 14 副本的所有权,并施加了重要的转让和使用限制,我们认为其客户是 Release 14 副本的被许可人,而非所有者。

CTA was a licensee rather than an “owner of a particular copy” of Release 14, and it was not entitled to resell its Release 14 copies to Vernor under the first sale doctrine. 17 U.S.C. §109(a). Therefore, Vernor did not receive title to the copies from CTA and accordingly could not pass ownership on to others. Both CTA’s and Vernor’s sales infringed Autodesk’s exclusive right to distribute copies of its work. Id. §106(3).
CTA是第14版的被许可人,而不是 "特定拷贝的所有人",根据首次销售原则,它无权将其第14版拷贝转售给Vernor。美国法典》第 17 卷第 109(a)条。因此,Vernor 没有从 CTA 处获得这些复制品的所有权,因此不能将所有权转给他人。CTA 公司和 Vernor 公司的销售行为都侵犯了 Autodesk 公司分发其作品副本的专有权。Id. §106(3).

Because Vernor was not an owner, his customers are also not owners of Release 14 copies. Therefore, when they install Release 14 on their computers, the copies of the software that they make during installation infringe Autodesk’s exclusive reproduction right because they too are not entitled to the benefit of the essential step defense. 17 U.S.C. §§106(1), 117(a)(1).
由于 Vernor 不是所有者,他的客户也不是第 14 版副本的所有者。因此,当他们在自己的计算机上安装第 14 版时,他们在安装过程中制作的软件副本侵犯了 Autodesk 的专有复制权,因为他们也无权享有必要步骤抗辩权。17 U.S.C. §§106(1), 117(a)(1)。

Although unnecessary to our resolution of the case, we address the legislative history in order to address the arguments raised by the parties and amici. That legislative history supports our conclusion that licensees such as CTA are not entitled to claim the first sale doctrine. The House Report for §109 underscores Congress’ view that the first sale doctrine is available only to a person who has acquired a copy via an “outright sale.” H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476, at 79 (1976), reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5659, 5693. The report also asserts that the first sale doctrine does not “apply to someone who merely possesses a copy or phonorecord without having acquired ownership of it.” Id.
尽管对我们解决本案没有必要,但我们还是要讨论一下立法史,以解决双方当事人和法庭之友提出的论点。立法史支持我们的结论,即 CTA 等被许可人无权主张首次销售原则。众议院关于第 109 节的报告强调了国会的观点,即只有通过 "彻底销售 "获得复制品的人才能适用首次销售原则。H.R. Rep. No. 94-1476, at 79 (1976), reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5659, 5693。该报告还声称,首次销售原则并不 "适用于仅仅拥有复制件或录音制品而没有获得其所有权的人"。Id.

Our conclusion that those who rightfully possess, but do not own, a copy of copyrighted software are not entitled to claim the essential step defense is also supported by the legislative history. Congress enacted §117 following a report from the National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works (“CONTU”) proposing Copyright Act amendments. DSC Commc’ns Corp. v. Pulse Commc’ns, Inc., 170 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Final Report of the National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, PB-282141, at 30 (July 31, 1978)). CONTU’s proposed version of §117 was identical to the version that Congress enacted with one exception. Id. CONTU’s version provided, “[I]t is not an infringement for the rightful possessor of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that program.…” Id. Without explanation, Congress substituted “owner” for “rightful possessor.” Id. This modification suggests that more than rightful possession is
我们的结论是,那些合法拥有但并不拥有版权软件拷贝的人无权提出必要步骤抗辩,这一结论也得到了立法史的支持。国会在全国版权作品新技术使用委员会("CONTU")提交了一份建议修改《版权法》的报告之后颁布了第 117 条。DSC Commc'ns Corp. v. Pulse Commc'ns, Inc., 170 F.3d 1354, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing Final Report of the National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works, U.S. Department of Commerce, PB-282141, at 30 (July 31, 1978)).CONTU 提议的第 117 条版本与国会颁布的版本完全相同,但有一个例外。Id. CONTU 的版本规定:"计算机程序副本的合法拥有者制作或授权制作该程序的另一 副本或改编本不构成侵权...."。Id. 国会没有解释,就用 "所有者 "代替了 "合法拥有者"。Id. 这一修改表明,合法拥有不仅仅是

336

required for §117 to apply — i.e., that Congress did not intend licensees subject to significant transfer and use restrictions to receive the benefit of the essential step defense.
即国会并不打算让受到重大转让和使用限制的被许可人获得必要步骤抗辩的利益。

C. Vernor’s four counterarguments are not persuasive
C.弗农的四个反驳理由没有说服力

1. The district court’s decision concerning indefinite possession
1.地区法院关于无限期占有的裁决

Vernor contends that the district court correctly concluded that (1) Wise is the controlling precedent and (2) under Wise, the key factor is whether transferees are entitled to indefinite possession of their copy of a copyrighted work. As explained supra, we disagree. In Wise, we utilized a multi-factor balancing test to distinguish between a first sale and a license of a copyrighted film print. United States v. Wise, 550 F.2d 1180, 1190-92 (9th Cir. 1977). We considered a transferee’s ability to possess a print indefinitely as one factor in our analysis, but we did not treat it as dispositive. If we had, we would not have needed to consider other contractual provisions, such as retention of title, copying prohibitions, and lending restrictions. Id. Moreover, we held in Wise that two agreements were licenses rather than first sales, even though those agreements did not describe any provision requiring the transferee to return the prints to the copyright owners. Id. at 1192 (analyzing VIP agreements for The Sting and Funny Girl).…
Vernor 认为地区法院的结论是正确的:(1)Wise 是控制性先例;(2)根据Wise、 关键因素是受让人是否有权无限期地占有其版权作品的复制品。正如 上文所述, 我们不同意这一观点。在 Wise 案中, 我们采用了多因素平衡测试法来区分受版权保护的电影拷贝的首次销售和许可。美国诉怀斯案,550 F.2d 1180,1190-92(第九巡回法院,1977 年)。我们将受让人无限期拥有拷贝的能力作为分析因素之一,但并未将其视为决定性因素。如果我们这样做了,我们就不需要考虑其他合同条款,如保留所有权、禁止复制和出借限制。Id. 此外,我们在Wise 一案中认为,有两份协议属于许可而非首次销售,尽管这些协议并未描述任何要求受让人将印刷品归还版权所有者的条款。Id. at 1192(分析了The StingFunny Girl 的 VIP 协议)....

3. The Supreme Court’s holding in Bobbs-Merrill

Vernor contends that Bobbs-Merrill establishes his entitlement to a first sale defense. See Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339, 28 S. Ct. 722, 52 L. Ed. 1086 (1908). However, Bobbs-Merrill stands only for the proposition that a copyright owner’s exclusive distribution right does not allow it to control sales of copies of its work after the first sale. Id. at 350, 28 S. Ct. 722. Decided in 1908, Bobbs-Merrill did not and could not address the question of whether the right to use software is distinct from the ownership of copies of software. Moreover, the Supreme Court in Bobbs-Merrill made explicit that its decision did not address the use of restrictions to create a license. Id. (“There is no claim in this case of contract limitation, nor license agreement controlling the subsequent sales of the book.”)
Vernor 辩称,Bobbs-Merrill 案确立了他享有首次销售抗辩的权利。See Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339, 28 S. Ct.1086 (1908).然而,Bobbs-Merrill 仅能证明版权所有者的专有发行权不允许其在首次销售后控制其作品复制品的销售。Id. at 350, 28 S. Ct.1908 年判决的Bobbs-Merrill 案没有也不可能解决软件使用权是否有别于软件副本所有权的问题。此外,最高法院在Bobbs-Merrill 案中明确指出,其判决并不涉及使用限制来创建许可的问题。Id. ("本案中没有关于合同限制的主张,也没有控制图书后续销售的许可协议。

4. Economic realities of the transaction

Finally, Vernor contends that “economic realities” demonstrate that Autodesk makes “first sales” to its customers, because Autodesk allows its customers to possess their copies of the software indefinitely and does not require recurring license payments. We held supra that neither of these factors is dispositive. Vernor cites no first sale doctrine case in support of this proposition. Rather, he cites In re DAK Indus., 66 F.3d 1091, 1095 (9th Cir. 1995), a case in which we interpreted the Bankruptcy Code to decide whether a particular transaction should be considered a pre-petition sale. We commented that “[w]hen applying the bankruptcy code to this transaction, we must look through its form to the ‘economic realities of the particular arrangement.’” Id. Nothing in DAK is contrary to our reconciliation of Wise and the MAI trio.
最后,Vernor 认为,"经济现实 "表明 Autodesk 对其客户进行了 "首次销售",因为 Autodesk 允许其客户无限期地拥有软件副本,并且不要求定期支付许可费用。我们认为, 上文 这些因素都不是决定性的。Vernor 没有援引任何首次销售原则案例来支持这一观点。相反,他引用了 In re DAK Indus., 66 F.3d 1091, 1095 (9th Cir. 1995) 一案,在该案中,我们对《破产法》进行了解释,以决定某项交易是否应被视为申请前销售。我们评论说,"在对该交易适用破产法时,我们必须透过其形式来审视'特定安排的经济现实'"。Id. DAK 中没有任何内容与我们对WiseMAI 三人组。

V.

Although our holding today is controlled by our precedent, we recognize the significant policy considerations raised by the parties and amici on both sides of this appeal.
虽然我们今天的裁决受先例的控制,但我们也认识到上诉双方和法庭之友提出的重要政策考虑因素。

337

Autodesk, the Software & Information Industry Association (“SIIA”), and the Motion Picture Association of America (“MPAA”) have presented policy arguments that favor our result. For instance, Autodesk argues in favor of judicial enforcement of software license agreements that restrict transfers of copies of the work. Autodesk contends that this (1) allows for tiered pricing for different software markets, such as reduced pricing for students or educational institutions; (2) increases software companies’ sales; (3) lowers prices for all consumers by spreading costs among a large number of purchasers; and (4) reduces the incidence of piracy by allowing copyright owners to bring infringement actions against unauthorized resellers. SIIA argues that a license can exist even where a customer (1) receives his copy of the work after making a single payment and (2) can indefinitely possess a software copy, because it is the software code and associated rights that are valuable rather than the inexpensive discs on which the code may be stored. Also, the MPAA argues that a customer’s ability to possess a copyrighted work indefinitely should not compel a finding of a first sale, because there is often no practically feasible way for a consumer to return a copy to the copyright owner.
欧特克公司(Autodesk)、软件与信息产业协会("SIIA")和美国电影协会("MPAA")提出了有利于我们的结果的政策论点。例如,Autodesk 公司主张对限制作品副本转让的软件许可协议进行司法强制执行。Autodesk 公司认为,这样做(1)可以针对不同的软件市场实行分级定价,例如为学生或教育机构降低定价;(2)增加软件公司的销售额;(3)通过将成本分摊给大量购买者来降低所有消费者的价格;(4)允许版权所有者对未经授权的转售者提起侵权诉讼,从而减少盗版的发生。SIIA 认为,即使客户(1)只需支付一次费用就能得到作品的拷贝,(2)可以无限期地拥有软 件拷贝,许可证也可以存在,因为有价值的是软件代码和相关权利,而不是存储代码的廉价 光盘。此外,MPAA 还认为,客户无限期拥有版权作品的能力不应强制认定为首次销售,因为消 费者往往没有切实可行的办法将复制品退还给版权所有者。

Vernor, eBay, and the American Library Association (“ALA”) have presented policy arguments against our decision. Vernor contends that our decision (1) does not vindicate the law’s aversion to restraints on alienation of personal property; (2) may force everyone purchasing copyrighted property to trace the chain of title to ensure that a first sale occurred; and (3) ignores the economic realities of the relevant transactions, in which the copyright owner permanently released software copies into the stream of commerce without expectation of return in exchange for upfront payment of the full software price. eBay contends that a broad view of the first sale doctrine is necessary to facilitate the creation of secondary markets for copyrighted works, which contributes to the public good by (1) giving consumers additional opportunities to purchase and sell copyrighted works, often at below-retail prices; (2) allowing consumers to obtain copies of works after a copyright owner has ceased distribution; and (3) allowing the proliferation of businesses.
Vernor、eBay 和美国图书馆协会("ALA")提出了反对我们判决的政策论据。Vernor 认为,我们的判决(1)没有维护法律对限制个人财产转让的反感;(2)可能会迫使每个购买版权财产的人追踪所有权链条,以确保发生了首次销售;以及(3)忽视了相关交易的经济现实,在这些交易中,版权所有者永久性地将软件副本释放到商业流中,而不期望回报,以换取软件价格的全额预付。eBay 辩称,有必要对首次销售原则采取宽泛的观点,以促进版权作品二级市场的建立,从而通过以下方式为公共利益做出贡献:(1)为消费者提供更多购买和销售版权作品的机会,通常是以低于零售的价格;(2)允许消费者在版权所有者停止发行后获得作品副本;以及(3)允许企业扩散。

The ALA contends that the first sale doctrine facilitates the availability of copyrighted works after their commercial lifespan, by inter alia enabling the existence of libraries, used bookstores, and hand-to-hand exchanges of copyrighted materials. The ALA further contends that judicial enforcement of software license agreements, which are often contracts of adhesion, could eliminate the software resale market, require used computer sellers to delete legitimate software prior to sale, and increase prices for consumers by reducing price competition for software vendors. It contends that Autodesk’s position (1) undermines 17 U.S.C. §109(b)(2), which permits non-profit libraries to lend software for non-commercial purposes, and (2) would hamper efforts by non-profits to collect and preserve out-of-print software. The ALA fears that the software industry’s licensing practices could be adopted by other copyright owners, including book publishers, record labels, and movie studios.
美国著作权协会(ALA)认为,首次销售原则有利于版权作品在其商业寿命结束后的可用性,特别是使图书馆、旧书店和版权材料的手拉手交换得以存在。美国著作权协会还认为,软件许可协议通常是粘合合同,对其进行司法强制执行可能会消除软件转售市场,要求二手电脑销售商在出售前删除合法软件,并通过减少软件供应商的价格竞争来提高消费者的价格。该协会认为,欧特克的立场(1)破坏了《美国法典》第 17 编第 109(b)(2)条,该条允许非营利性图书馆出于非商业目的出借软件;(2)将阻碍非营利性机构收集和保存绝版软件的工作。美国图书馆协会担心,软件业的许可做法可能会被其他版权所有者采用,包括图书出版商、唱片公司和电影制片厂。

These are serious contentions on both sides, but they do not alter our conclusion that our precedent from Wise through the MAI trio requires the result we reach. Congress is free, of course, to modify the first sale doctrine and the essential step defense if it deems these or other policy considerations to require a different approach.…
双方都提出了严肃的争论,但这些争论并不能改变我们的结论,即我们从WiseMAI 三人案的先例要求我们得出这样的结果。当然,如果国会认为这些或其他政策考虑要求采取不同的方法,它可以自由修改首次销售原则和必要步骤抗辩....

VACATED AND REMANDED.

338

* * *

Adobe Systems Inc. v. Stargate Software Inc.

216 F. Supp. 2d 1051 (N.D. Cal. 2002)

WARE, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff, Adobe Systems Inc., (“Adobe”) filed this action against Defendant, Stargate Systems Inc., (“Stargate”) for copyright infringement of Adobe’s educational software.
原告 Adobe Systems 公司("Adobe")以侵犯 Adobe 教育软件版权为由,对被告 Stargate Systems 公司("Stargate")提起诉讼。

II. BACKGROUND

Adobe is one of the leading software development and publishing companies in the United States. Some of its copyrighted software products include Adobe Illustrator, Adobe Pagemaker, and Adobe Acrobat. Adobe contends that it distributes its software products under license to a network of distributors and original equipment manufacturers. These distributors sign license agreements that permit them to engage in limited re-distribution to entities or individuals authorized by Adobe. Adobe claims all Adobe software products are subject to a shrink-wrap End User License Agreement (“EULA”) that prohibits copying or commercial re-distribution.
Adobe 公司是美国领先的软件开发和出版公司之一。其部分受版权保护的软件产品包括 Adobe Illustrator、Adobe Pagemaker 和 Adobe Acrobat。Adobe 公司称,它根据许可向分销商和原始设备制造商网络分销其软件产品。这些分销商签署了许可协议,允许他们向经 Adobe 授权的实体或个人进行有限的再分销。Adobe 公司声称,Adobe 公司的所有软件产品都受到禁止复制或商业再分发的收缩包装最终用户许可协议("EULA")的约束。

Adobe also makes “Educational” versions of its software packages available for license to students and educators at a discount. Adobe Educational distributors are licensed to transfer Educational software only to resellers who have signed Off or On Campus Educational Reseller Agreements (“OCRA”) with Adobe. In turn, the OCRA requires that re-distribution of Educational software be limited to students and educators. Adobe claims that the Educational versions are prominently marked “Education Version — Academic ID Required” and include the legend, “Notice to users: Use of the enclosed software is subject to the license agreement contained in the package.”
Adobe 还将其软件包的 "教育 "版本以折扣价提供给学生和教育工作者使用。Adobe 教育分销商只能向与 Adobe 签订《校外或校内教育分销商协议》("OCRA")的分销商转让教育软件。而 OCRA 则要求教育软件的再分销仅限于学生和教育工作者。Adobe 公司称,教育版本软件在显著位置标明 "教育版本--需要学术身份",并附有 "用户须知 "字样:使用所附软件须遵守软件包中的许可协议"。

Stargate is a discount software distributor wholly owned by Leonid Kelman. Neither Stargate nor Mr. Kelman are authorized distributors of Adobe products. In 1995, Mr. Kelman co-founded a software distribution company called Action Software with Alexander Belfer. Together they incorporated Stargate Software Inc. In 1997, Stargate began acquiring software from two businesses, Dallas Computer and D.C. Micro, with the majority of the software being Adobe Educational software. Adobe contends that Stargate’s suppliers acquired Adobe Educational software from Adobe Educational distributor Douglas Stewart Co. pursuant to valid OCRAs. However, Stargate alleges that all of the Adobe software products that Stargate sold were purchased through either D.C. Micro, Inc. or Dallas Computers, Inc.
星际之门是 Leonid Kelman 全资拥有的一家折扣软件分销商。Stargate 和 Kelman 先生都不是 Adobe 产品的授权分销商。1995 年,Kelman 先生与 Alexander Belfer 共同创办了一家名为 Action Software 的软件分销公司。他们共同组建了星际之门软件公司。1997 年,星际之门公司开始从两家公司 Dallas Computer 和 D.C. Micro 收购软件,其中大部分软件都是 Adobe 教育软件。Adobe 公司辩称,Stargate 公司的供应商是根据有效的 OCRA 从 Adobe 教育软件经销商 Douglas Stewart 公司购买 Adobe 教育软件的。然而,Stargate声称,Stargate出售的所有Adobe软件产品都是通过D.C. Micro, Inc.或Dallas Computers, Inc.购买的。

Between March 1998 and April 1999, Stargate, purchased between 1795-2189 packages of “Educational” software produced by Adobe. Stargate distributed this Educational software at below-market prices to retail customers and unauthorized resellers through magazine advertisements, trade shows, action websites and its website “www.stargatesoftware. com.” Adobe learned of this practice, made a trap purchase of the Educational software in April 1999, and filed suit in this Court against Stargate and Mr. Kelman soon thereafter.
1998 年 3 月至 1999 年 4 月间,Stargate 公司购买了 1795-2189 套 Adobe 公司生产的 "教育 "软件。星际之门公司通过杂志广告、贸易展览、行动网站及其网站 "www.stargatesoftware.com",以低于市场的价格向零售客户和未经授权的转售商销售这些教育软件。Adobe 公司得知这种做法后,于 1999 年 4 月购买了教育软件,并在此后不久向本法院起诉 Stargate 公司和 Kelman 先生。

Adobe alleges that Stargate infringed Adobe’s copyrights by obtaining and selling Educational versions of Adobe software without Adobe’s authorization. Stargate contends
Adobe 公司声称,星际之门公司未经 Adobe 公司授权,获取并销售 Adobe 软件的教育版本,侵犯了 Adobe 公司的版权。星际之门辩称

339

that it was the rightful owner of the Adobe software products and therefore did not infringe Adobe’s copyright by reselling those products, pursuant to the “first sale” doctrine, codified at 17 U.S.C. §109.
根据《美国法典》第 17 编第 109 条规定的 "首次销售 "原则,该公司是 Adobe 软件产品的合法所有者,因此转售这些产品并未侵犯 Adobe 的版权。

III. STANDARDS

[Omitted]

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Copyright infringement claim

Section 106 of the Copyright Act (the “Act”) outlines the exclusive rights enjoyed by owners of a copyright including the exclusive right “to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.” 17 U.S.C. §106(3). Under this provision, the copyright owner would have the “right to control the first public distribution of an authorized copy or phonorecord of his work, whether by sale, gift, loan, or some rental or lease arrangement.” 17 U.S.C. §106(3). Section 109(a) of the Act makes clear that “the copyright owner’s rights under §106(3) cease with respect to a particular copy or phonorecord once he has parted with ownership of it.” 17 U.S.C. §109(a) (emphasis added). Also pursuant to §109(a), “the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.” 17 U.S.C. §109(a) (emphasis added). One significant effect of §109(a) is to limit the exclusive right to distribute copies to their first voluntary disposition, and thus negate copyright owner control over further or “downstream” transfer to a third party. Quality King Distrib. v. L’anza Research Int’l, Inc., 523 U.S. 135, 118 (1998). Thus, under the first sale doctrine, “a sale of a lawfully made copy terminates a copyright holder’s authority to interfere with subsequent sales or distribution of that particular copy.” Parfums Givenchy, Inc. v. Drug Emporium, Inc., 38 F.3d 477, 480 (9th Cir. 1994). “[T]he copyright owner is entitled to realize no more and no less than full value of each copy or phonorecord upon its disposition.” Parfums Givenchy, Inc. v. C & C Beauty Sales, Inc., 832 F. Supp. 1378 (C.D. Cal. 1993).
版权法》(以下简称 "该法")第 106 条概述了版权所有者享有的专有权,包括 "通过出售或其他所有权转让方式,或通过出租、租赁或出借方式,向公众发行版权作品的复制品或录音制品 "的专有权。美国法典》第 17 卷第 106(3)条。根据这一规定,版权所有者 "有权控制其作品的授权复制品或录音制品的首次公开发行,无论是通过出售、赠与、出借,还是通过某种租赁或出租安排"。17 U.S.C. §106(3)。该法第 109(a)条明确规定,"版权所有者一旦放弃对某一特定复制品或录音制品的所有权 ,其在第 106(3)条下的权利即终止"。17 U.S.C. §109(a)(着重部分由作者标明)。同样根据第 109(a)节,"根据本标题合法制作的特定复制品或录音制品的所有者,或该所有者授权的任何人,有权在未经版权所有者授权的情况下,出售或以其他方式处置对该复制品或录音制品的拥有权"。17 U.S.C. §109(a)(着重号后加)。§109(a)的一个重要作用是将发行复制件的专有权限制在首次自愿处置的范围内,从而否定了版权所有者对进一步或 "下游 "转让给第三方的控制权。Quality King Distrib.诉L'anza Research Int'l, Inc.案,523 U.S. 135, 118 (1998)。因此,根据首次销售原则,"合法复制件的销售终止了版权持有者干涉该特定复制件后续销售或发行的权力"。Parfums Givenchy, Inc. v. Drug Emporium, Inc., 38 F.3d 477, 480 (9th Cir. 1994)。 "版权所有者有权在处置每份拷贝或录音制品时获得不高于或不低于其全部价值的收益"。Parfums Givenchy, Inc. v. C & C Beauty Sales, Inc., 832 F. Supp. 1378 (C.D. Cal. 1993)。

B. Sale or license

The issue before the Court is whether Adobe, through its OCRA and EULA, transferred ownership of each particular copy of its software to its distributors D.C. Micro and Dallas Computers. Having transferred such ownership would bar Adobe from claiming copyright infringement by Stargate under the first sale doctrine. An issuance via license, however, would not. Rather, the establishment of a license by Adobe would protect Adobe under the first sale doctrine.
摆在法院面前的问题是,Adobe 公司是否通过其 OCRA 和 EULA 将其软件每份特定拷贝的所有权转让给了其分销商 D.C. Micro 公司和 Dallas Computers 公司。如果转让了所有权,Adobe 就不能根据首次销售原则要求星际之门侵犯其版权。然而,通过许可证发放则不然。相反,Adobe建立许可证将根据首次销售原则保护Adobe。

Stargate concedes that Adobe retains title to the [intellectual property of the object code software] contained on the CD-ROM. Nevertheless, Stargate claims, however, that whenever there is a sale, Adobe has parted with title to that particular copy of its copyrighted intellectual property, thereby divesting itself of the exclusive right to vend that particular copy. In essence, Stargate contends that each time Adobe is paid by a distributor or reseller for a package of
星际之门公司承认,Adobe 公司保留对光盘中包含的[目标代码软件的知识产权]的所有权。然而,星际之门声称,然而,每当有一个销售,Adobe公司已经放弃了其版权的知识产权的特定副本的所有权,从而剥夺了自己的专有权,以销售特定的副本。从本质上讲,星际之门公司认为,每当分销商或转售商向Adobe公司支付一包"......

340

software, it has “received its rewards” for that package and has parted with title to that particular copy. Stargate argues that after examining the “economic realities” of the initial transaction between Adobe and its distributors, Adobe’s distribution of its educational software constitutes a sale, rather than a license of each particular copy.
星际之门公司认为,Adobe 公司在分销其教育软件时,已经 "收到了 "该软件包的 "报酬",并放弃了对该特定拷贝的所有权。星际之门公司认为,在审查了 Adobe 公司与其分销商之间最初交易的 "经济现实 "之后,Adobe 公司对其教育软件的分销构成了销售,而不是对每份特定拷贝的许可。

Stargate further alleges that nowhere in either the OCRA or in the EULA, does Adobe purport in any manner to retain title to that particular copy of its software, that is, the package including a CD-ROM on which the program is stored, and any manuals or other materials included within it. Therefore, Stargate argues that further transfers of that package do not infringe Adobe’s copyright.
星际之门进一步声称,无论是在OCRA中还是在EULA中,Adobe都没有以任何方式声称保留对其软件特定副本的所有权,即包括存储程序的CD-ROM在内的软件包,以及其中包含的任何手册或其他材料。因此,星际之门认为,进一步转让该软件包并不侵犯 Adobe 的版权。

Adobe contends, on the other hand, that “a common method of distribution for software products is through licensing agreements, which permit the copyright holder to place restrictions upon the distribution of its products.” Adobe Systems, Inc. v. One Stop Micro, 84 F. Supp. 2d 1086, 1092 (N.D. Cal. 2000). Adobe alleges that Mr. Kelman, Stargate’s sole owner, was aware that Adobe’s software is distributed pursuant to licensing agreements. Kelman Deposition at 223:1-13. Specifically, Kelman testified that, “I’ve seen that there was a licensing agreement (in the software box).” Kelman Deposition at 233:9-13. Furthermore it was Adobe’s intent to license the software rather than to make an outright sale. According to Adobe, “Adobe does not sell its software. Instead, Adobe distributes its software products under license to a network of distributors.…” Navarro Declaration ¶¶34, Exhibits A and B.
另一方面,Adobe 辩称,"软件产品的一种常见销售方式是通过许可协议进行销售,这种协议允许版权持有者对其产品的销售进行限制"。Adobe Systems, Inc. v. One Stop Micro, 84 F. Supp. 2d 1086, 1092 (N.D. Cal. 2000)。Adobe 公司声称,Stargate 公司的唯一所有人 Kelman 先生知道 Adobe 公司的软件是根据许可协议分销的。Kelman 的证词见 223:1-13。具体而言,凯尔曼作证说:"我看到(软件盒中)有一份许可协议"。Kelman 证词 233:9-13。此外,Adobe 的意图是许可使用该软件,而不是直接销售。据 Adobe 称,"Adobe 不销售其软件。相反,Adobe 根据许可向分销商网络分销其软件产品...."。Navarro 声明第 34 段,证据 A 和 B。

Adobe also argues that under the Act, the first sale doctrine does not turn on whether the copyright owner “received its reward” for a particular piece of software, but whether the software has been sold. In this case, Adobe has elected to distribute its products via license rather than sale. Adobe alleges that their OCRA and EULA are clearly licenses. According to Adobe, multiple restrictions on title are placed on each distributor through the express terms of its OCRA. Additionally, Adobe asserts that it was their intention to affect a license agreement, through their OCRAs, rather than a sale.
Adobe 公司还辩称,根据该法案,首次销售原则并不取决于版权所有者是否 "获得 "了某一特定软件的 "报酬",而是取决于该软件是否已经售出。在本案中,Adobe 公司选择通过许可而不是销售的方式分销其产品。Adobe 声称,他们的 OCRA 和 EULA 显然是许可。据 Adobe 称,通过其 OCRA 的明确条款,对每个分销商的所有权都施加了多重限制。此外,Adobe 声称,他们的意图是通过其 OCRA 影响许可协议,而不是销售。

1. The term “software”

In this case, it is important to draw a distinction between the object code “software” and the medium and packaging through which it is sold on the market. Section 202 of the Act recognizes a distinction between tangible property rights in copies of the work and intangible property rights in the creation itself. “Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material object in which the work is embodied.” 17 U.S.C. §202. In this case, both Parties are in agreement that Adobe is the rightful owner of the intangible portion of the software, i.e., the intellectual property.
在本案中,重要的是要区分目标代码 "软件 "与在市场上销售的媒介和包装。该法第 202 条承认作品副本的有形财产权与创作本身的无形财产权之间的区别。"版权所有权或版权下的任何专有权有别于体现作品的任何物质对象的所有权"。美国法典》第 17 卷第 202 条。在本案中,双方一致同意 Adobe 是软件无形部分(即知识产权)的合法所有人。

The dispute arises, however, as to who is the rightful owner of the package, or physical manifestation of this intellectual property. The CD-ROM itself is worth not much more than a nominal amount, and it is the code that justifies the purchase price of the product. That being the case, the economic reality of this transaction is that a consumer is ultimately paying for the software contained on the CD-ROM, rather than the CD-ROM itself. Despite this fact, this case is still based on the ownership of each particular copy of software distributed by Adobe. The determination of ownership in turn is based primarily on an examination of the OCRA, the agreement between Adobe and its distributors.
然而,争议的焦点在于谁才是这一知识产权的包装或实物的合法拥有者。光盘本身的价值并不高,只是象征性的,而代码才是购买该产品的理由。在这种情况下,这种交易的经济现实是,消费者最终要为光盘上的软件而不是光盘本身付费。尽管如此,本案仍以 Adobe 公司分发的每份特定软件的所有权为基础。而所有权的确定又主要基于对 OCRA(Adobe 公司与其分销商之间的协议)的审查。

341

2. The OCRA

The Court looks to the language, content, and intent of the OCRA, in determining whether its terms affect a sale or license of the software. In the OCRA, Adobe contends that “Adobe is the owner and developer of Adobe Educational Software Products.” See Bloch Declaration ¶7, Exhibit F: (“OCRA”), preamble. According to the OCRA, “Educational Software Products,” consist of “the respective software program in object code (‘Software’), supporting documentation (‘Documentation’), and all other related material, if any, supplied to Reseller in a commercial package.” OCRA ¶1(d). Adobe characterizes each transaction it concluded throughout the entire stream of commerce relevant to this action as a license. Accordingly, Adobe argues that it retains ownership of its software, the accompanying documentation, and all other related materials pursuant to the OCRA.
法院根据 OCRA 的语言、内容和意图来确定其条款是否影响软件的销售或许可。在 OCRA 中,Adobe 声称 "Adobe 是 Adobe 教育软件产品的所有者和开发者"。See Bloch Declaration §7, Exhibit F: ("OCRA"),序言。根据 OCRA,"教育软件产品 "包括 "各自的目标代码软件程序('软件')、支持文档('文档')和所有其他相关材料(如有),以商业包的形式提供给经销商。OCRA §1(d)。Adobe 将其在整个商业流程中所达成的每笔交易都定性为与本案诉讼相关的许可。因此,Adobe 辩称,根据 OCRA,它保留对其软件、随附文档和所有其他相关材料的所有权。

a. Terminology

[T]he Court in this case also concludes that the language in Adobe’s OCRA is evidence of a license, rather than a sale. Although the OCRA contains language such as “repurchase” and “owned,” additional language indicates that the OCRA only confers a license. For instance, Paragraph 9 of the OCRA is titled, “Ownership of Proprietary Rights and Nondisclosure” (Referring to Adobe) OCRA ¶9. Under that same paragraph, the OCRA furthers states, “Reseller acknowledges that the structure and organization of the Software is proprietary to Adobe and that Adobe retains exclusive ownership of the Software and Trademarks.” OCRA, ¶9 (emphasis added). The OCRA further states, “Reseller…to protect Adobe’s proprietary rights in the Educational Software Products. Except as provided herein, reseller is not granted any rights to patents, copyrights, trade secrets, trade names, trademarks (whether registered or unregistered), or any other rights, franchises, or licenses with respect to the Software or Educational Software Products.” OCRA, ¶9. As explained by the Court in One Stop,” evidence of trade usage demonstrates that it is commonplace for sales terminology to be used in connection with software licensing agreements.” One Stop Micro, 84 F. Supp. 2d at 1091. This Court concurs.
[在本案中,法院还得出结论认为,Adobe 公司的 OCRA 中的语言是许可而非销售的证据。尽管 OCRA 包含 "回购 "和 "拥有 "等措辞,但其他措辞表明 OCRA 仅授予许可。例如,OCRA 第 9 段的标题是 "所有权和不披露"(参考 Adobe)OCRA 第 9 段。在同一段中,OCRA 进一步指出:"经销商承认,软件的结构和组织为 Adobe 所专有Adobe 保留对软件 和商标的独家所有权"。OCRA,§9(着重部分由作者标明)。OCRA 还规定:"经销商......保护 Adobe 在教育软件产品中的所有权。除本协议另有规定外,经销商不被授予与软件或教育软件产品有关的任何专利权、版权、商业秘密、商号、商标(无论注册与否)或任何其他权利、特许权或许可证。OCRA,§9。正如法院在 One Stop 案中所解释的, "贸易惯例的证据表明,在软件许可协议中使用销售术语是司空见惯的"。One Stop Micro, 84 F. Supp. 2d at 1091。本法院对此表示赞同。

b. Content

After examining the contents of the OCRA, as well as its express terms, it is clear that the agreement outlines numerous restrictions on title that are imposed upon the reseller regarding the distribution of its software. For example, in the OCRA, ¶3, Adobe premises their restrictions with the following statement, “Reseller shall have the right to purchase Educational Software Products from Adobe or authorized Adobe distributors who carry the Educational Software Products and to distribute the Educational Software Products so long as it remains in compliance with all of the following conditions.” OCRA, ¶3.
在研究了 OCRA 的内容及其明示条款后,可以清楚地看出,该协议概述了对转售商在分发其软件方面的所有权施加的众多限制。例如,在 OCRA 第 3 条中,Adobe 用以下声明作为其限制的前提:"经销商有权从销售教育软件产品的 Adobe 或 Adobe 授权经销商处购买教育软件产品,并在符合以下所有条件的情况下分销教育软件产品"。OCRA,§3.

The Court in One Stop stated, “These numerous restrictions imposed by Adobe indicate a license rather than a sale because they undeniably interfere with the reseller’s ability to further distribute the software.” One Stop Micro, 84 F. Supp. 2d at 1091. The Court in One Stop found the following restriction set forth in Adobe’s OCRA in ¶3(a)(ii) particularly compelling: “Reseller distributes pursuant to the terms and conditions of the then current applicable Software Product [EULA].” OCRA ¶3(a)(ii).
One Stop 案中的法院指出,"Adobe 施加的这些大量限制表明这是一种许可而非销售,因为它们无可否认地干扰了转售者进一步分销软件的能力"。One Stop Micro, 84 F. Supp. 2d at 1091。One Stop 案中的法院认为,Adobe 的 OCRA 第 3(a)(ii)条中规定的以下限制尤其具有说服力:"经销商根据当时适用的软件产品[EULA]的条款和条件进行分销"。OCRA §3(a)(ii).

342

As explained by the court in One Stop, supra, the EULA is a shrink-wrap license agreement which accompanies every Adobe software product. The EULA states that “Adobe grants to you a nonexclusive license to use the Software and Documentation,” provided that the user agrees to certain restrictions. EULA, preamble. The Court in One Stop concluded that under the EULA, the end user was only granted a license to use the software. Adobe’s specific incorporation of the EULA into the OCRA indicates that the reseller obtains a license, rather than actual ownership of the product in question. The Court in One Stop stated, “It would be incongruous to conclude that educational resellers are owners of the Adobe educational versions, while the end users who the resellers distribute to are granted a mere license.” One Stop Micro, 84 F. Supp. 2d at 1091.
法院在One Stop, supra一案中解释说, EULA是一份收缩包装的许可协议,附在每个Adobe软件产品之后。EULA 规定,"Adobe 授予您使用软件和文档的非独占许可",但用户必须同意某些限制条件。EULA,序言。One Stop 案的法院认为,根据 EULA,最终用户仅被授予使用软件的许可。Adobe 将 EULA 具体纳入 OCRA 表明,转售商获得的是许可,而不是相关产品的实际所有权。法院在One Stop 案中指出:"如果得出结论认为教育转售商是 Adobe 教育版本的所有者,而转售商分销给最终用户的仅仅是许可证,这将是不协调的"。One Stop Micro, 84 F. Supp. 2d at 1091.One Stop Micro, 84 F. Supp. 2d at 1091.

Similar to the OCRA at issue in One Stop, the OCRA in this case contains multiple restrictions that limit the reseller’s ability to distribute Adobe’s software. Specifically, pursuant to the terms of the OCRA, the Reseller promises to:
One Stop 案中的 OCRA 类似,本案中的 OCRA 包含多项限制,限制了转售商分发 Adobe 软件的能力。具体而言,根据 OCRA 的条款,经销商承诺:

Not distribute outside the country in which its principal place of business is located. OCRA, ¶3(a)(i);
不得在其主要营业地所在国之外进行分销。OCRA, ¶3(a)(i);

Distribute solely to Educational End Users at Reseller’s Outlet or through Reseller’s direct sales force. OCRA, ¶3(a)(iii);
仅在经销商的销售点或通过经销商的直销队伍分销给教育最终用户。OCRA,§3(a)(iii);

Require each Educational End User to provide identification as follows: (1) in the case of a purchase by an individual, a valid photo ID or such other identification as is used by the educational institution for faculty, staff, or students, or (2) in the case of a purchase by an entity, an official purchase order indicating the name of the entity. OCRA, ¶3(a)(iv);
要求每个教育最终用户提供如下身份证明:(1) 如果是个人购买,应提供带有照片的有效身份证件或教育机构用于教职员工或学生的其他身份证件,或 (2) 如果是实体购买,应提供注明实体名称的正式定购单。OCRA, ¶3(a)(iv);

Distribute the Educational Software Products solely in the form obtained from Adobe. OCRA, ¶3(a)(v);
仅以从 Adobe 处获得的形式分发教育软件产品。OCRA,§3(a)(v);

Provide adequate service and support in connection with the distribution of the Educational Software Products. OCRA, ¶3(a)(vi);
为教育软件产品的销售提供充分的服务和支持。OCRA,§3(a)(vi);

Agree not to distribute the Educational Software Products other than pursuant to the provisions of the EULA and, by way of illustration but not of limitation, shall not be entitled to grant any form of site license for Education[al] Software Products. Reseller agrees not to distribute the Educational Software Products without prior written approval from Adobe (i) by mail order, (ii) by rental or lease, (iii) in bulk for redistribution, (iv) with knowledge or reason to know that the Educational Software Products will be transported outside the country in which a Software Product is provided to an Educational End User, or (v) to other Educational Resellers or other dealers, resellers, or redistribut[ors]. OCRA, ¶3(b); and
同意除根据本协议书的规定外,不分销教育软件产品,并且,作为例证但不限于此,无权授予教育软件产品任何形式的现场许可。经销商同意,未经 Adobe 事先书面批准,不得 (i) 以邮购方式,(ii) 以出租或租赁方式,(iii) 以批量再分销方式,(iv) 在知道或有理由知道教育软件产品将被运往向教育最终用户提供软件产品的国家以外的地方,或 (v) 向其他教育经销商或其他经销商、转售商或再分销商分销教育软件产品。OCRA, §3(b);以及

Promises that the reseller’s rights in Educational Software Products used for demonstration purposes shall be subject to the terms and conditions of the respective EULA, which are hereby incorporated by reference. OCRA, ¶3(c).
承诺,转售者对用于演示目的的教育软件产品的权利应受相关 EULA 的条款和条件的约束,这些条款和条件在此以引用方式纳入。OCRA,第 3(c)款。

In light of the fact that the OCRA in this case is substantially similar to the OCRA in One Stop, this Court agrees that the OCRA in the present case contains numerous restrictions on title that are imposed on the reseller, limiting the reseller’s ability to re-distribute Adobe software, and thereby conferring a license between Adobe and the reseller. It is clear to the Court that the terms of the OCRA substantially and undeniably interfere with a reseller’s ability to distribute and/or convey title to the products in question. 17 U.S.C. §106.
鉴于本案中的 OCRA 与 One Stop 案中的 OCRA 大体相似、本法院同意,本案中的 OCRA 包含了对转售者所有权的诸多限制,限制了转售者重新分销 Adobe 软件的能力,从而在 Adobe 和转售者之间授予了许可。法院清楚地看到,OCRA 的条款对转售商分销和/或转让相关产品所有权的能力造成了实质性的、不可否认的干扰。美国法典》第 17 卷第 106 条。

343

c. Softman v. Adobe

Stargate, however, cites Softman Products Company v. Adobe Systems Inc., 171 F. Supp. 2d 1075 (C.D. Cal. 2001) for the proposition that the OCRA in this case constitutes a sale, rather than a license. In Softman, a case arising out of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Softman, a computer software distributor[,] brought an action against Adobe. Adobe counterclaimed, alleging copyright infringement. Adobe claimed that Softman distributed unauthorized copies of Adobe software, including Adobe’s Educational software and illegally unbundled Adobe “Collections.” The court stated, “If a transaction involves a single payment giving the buyer an unlimited period in which it has a right to possession, the transaction is a sale.” Id. at 1086. The Softman court held the nature of the transaction between Adobe and its distributor was a sale and Softman was thus protected by the first sale doctrine.
然而,Stargate 公司援引 Softman Products Company v. Adobe Systems Inc., 171 F. Supp. 2d 1075(C.D. Cal. 2001)一案,主张本案中的 OCRA 构成销售而非许可。在Softman 一案(产生于美国加利福尼亚中区地方法院)中,计算机软件分销商 Softman 对 Adobe 提起诉讼。Adobe 提出反诉,指控其侵犯版权。Adobe 声称,Softman 分销了未经授权的 Adobe 软件拷贝,包括 Adobe 的教育软件和非法拆分的 Adobe "合集"。法院指出:"如果一项交易只涉及一次付款,买方有权在不受限制的期限内占有该软件,那么该交易即为销售。Id. at 1086。Softman 法院认为 Adobe 与其分销商之间的交易性质是销售,因此 Softman 受首次销售原则的保护。

This Court respectfully declines to adopt the Softman analysis. Although the court in Softman[] stated, “The Court understands fully why licensing has many advantages for software publishers,” it concluded that the transaction between the parties constituted a sale. Id. at 1087. In this case, however, the Court reaches a different conclusion.
本法院拒绝采纳 Softman 的分析。尽管法院在 Softman[] 案中指出:"法院完全理解 为什么许可对软件出版商有许多好处",但法院得出结论认为双方之间的交易构成销售。Id. at 1087。但在本案中,法院得出了不同的结论。

The facts involved in Softman are distinguishable from this case. The court in Softman dealt with the question of whether the purchaser of a retail collection of Adobe software can re-distribute the collection’s constituent parts. Softman, 171 F. Supp. 2d at 1079-80. In Softman, the court noted that the terms of the Adobe EULA prohibited licensees from transferring or assigning any individual Adobe product that was originally distributed as part of a Collection, unless it was transferred with all the software contained in that original Collection. Softman Products, 171 F. Supp. 2d at 1083. In Softman, it was uncontested by the Parties that the constituent parts were re-distributed in that prohibited manner. In contrast, the present case involves the re-distribution of Adobe software, with no substantial evidence of adulteration or the illegal unbundling of software.
Softman 案中涉及的事实与本案不同。Softman 案中的法院处理的问题是,Adobe 软件零售合集的购买者是否可以重新分发该合集的各个组成部分。Softman, 171 F. Supp. 2d at 1079-80。在Softman 案中,法院注意到 Adobe EULA 的条款禁止被许可人转让或让与任何最初作为合集中的一部分分发的单独 Adobe 产品,除非该产品与该原始合集中包含的所有软件一起转让。Softman Products, 171 F. Supp. 2d at 1083。在Softman 产品案 中,双方对以这种被禁止的方式重新分配组成部件这一点没有异议。相比之下,本案涉及的是 Adobe 软件的再分销,并没有掺假或非法拆分软件的实质性证据。

Furthermore, this Court notes that, within the context of this case, when a “single payment” is made for a particular copy of software, the payment is being made for the value of the objectcode that is burned on the CD-ROM. Absent this “valuable” information and intellectual property, a CD-ROM would be almost worthless. The true economic value of the product is derived from the intellectual property embodied within it.
此外,本法院还注意到,在本案中,当 "一次性付款 "购买某一软件拷贝时,支付的是刻录在 CD-ROM 上的目标代码的价值。如果没有这些 "有价值的 "信息和知识产权,光盘几乎一文不值。产品的真正经济价值来自其所包含的知识产权。

This Court notes that software is unique from other forms of copyrighted information. Technology and software, in particular, has [sic] radically transformed the way information is created and exchanged. Software fundamentally differs from more traditional forms of medium, such as print or phonographic materials, in that software can be both[] more readily and easily copied on a mass scale in an extraordinarily short amount of time and relatively inexpensively. One of the primary advantages of software, its ability to record, concentrate and convey information with unprecedented ease and speed, makes it extraordinarily vulnerable to illegal copying and piracy. This Court finds that it is important to acknowledge these special characteristics of the software industry and provide enhanced copyright protection for its inventors and developers.
本法院注意到,软件不同于其他形式的受版权保护的信息。技术和软件尤其 [sic] 从根本上改变了信息的创建和交换方式。软件从根本上有别于印刷品或录音材料等传统媒体形式,因为软件可以[]在极短的时间内以相对低廉的成本更容易地进行大规模复制。软件的主要优势之一,即能够以前所未有的方便和快捷方式记录、集中和传递信息,使其极易受到非法复制和盗版的侵害。本法院认为,必须承认软件产业的这些特殊性,并为其发明者和开发者提供更强的版权保护。

Lastly, as a matter of general principle, this Court finds that no colorable reason exists in this case as to why Adobe and its distributors should be barred from characterizing the transaction that has been forged between them as a license. In light of the restrictions on title
最后,作为一项一般原则,本法院认为,本案中不存在任何合理的理由来解释为何禁止 Adobe 及其分销商将他们之间伪造的交易定性为许可。鉴于对所有权的限制

344

that have been incorporated into the OCRA, as well as the Parties’ free and willing consent to enter into and execute its terms, the Parties should be free to negotiate and/or set a price for the product being exchanged, as well as set the terms by which the product is exchanged. Gray v. American Exp. Co., 743 F.2d 10 (D.C. Cir. 1984). Fundamental to any free society is the liberty of its members to formulate contracts in accordance with the terms that they agree and consent to mutually execute. “The right to contract freely with the expectation that the contract shall endure according to its terms is as fundamental to the society as the right to write and to speak without restraint.” Blount v. Smith, 231 N.E.2d 301 (1967). While exceptions are made in the case of unfair or exploitive contracts, or where an inequitable end results as a result of the agreement, commercial parties are generally free to contract as they desire. Mellon Bank, N.A. v. Aetna Business Credit, Inc., 619 F.2d 1001 (3d Cir. 1980).
根据已纳入《商品和服务交易法》以及双方自愿同意订立和执行其条款的规定,双方应可自由协商和/或确定所交换产品的价格,以及确定交换产品的条款。Gray 诉 American Exp.Co., 743 F.2d 10 (D.C. Cir. 1984)。任何自由社会的根本在于其成员可以自由地根据他们同意并同意共同执行的条款制定合同。"自由订立合同并期望合同按其条款有效的权利,与不受限制地写作和发表言论的权利一样,都是社会的根本"。布朗特诉史密斯案,231 N.E.2d 301 (1967)。虽然在不公平或剥削性合同的情况下,或在协议导致不公平结果的情况下会有例外,但商业当事人一般都可以按照自己的意愿自由订立合同。Mellon Bank, N.A. v. Aetna Business Credit, Inc., 619 F.2d 1001 (3d Cir. 1980)。

3. The EULA

Furthermore, the Court finds that Adobe’s EULA contains significant restrictions on title that provides [sic] additional evidence that the relevant transaction between Adobe and its distributors is a license, rather than a sale. For example, the EULA states the following:
此外,法院认为,Adobe的EULA包含对所有权的重要限制,提供了[sic] 额外的证据,证明Adobe与其分销商之间的相关交易是许可而非销售。例如,EULA 规定如下:

“THIS IS A CONTRACT. BY OPENING THIS PACKAGE YOU ACCEPT ALL THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT.” EULA, preamble.
"这是一份合同。打开本软件包即表示您接受本协议的所有条款和条件"。EULA, preamble.

“This package contains software (‘Software’) and related explanatory written materials (‘Documentation’).” EULA, preamble.
"本软件包包含软件('软件')和相关解释性书面材料('文档')"。EULA, preamble.

“Adobe grants to you a nonexclusive license to use the Software and Documentation, provided that you agree to the following.” EULA, preamble.
"Adobe授予您使用本软件和文档的非独占许可,前提是您同意以下条款"。EULA,序言。

“The Software is owned by Adobe and its suppliers.” EULA, ¶(2).
"本软件归 Adobe 及其供应商所有"。EULA, ¶(2)。

This Court in One Stop stated that, “…under the EULA the end user is only granted a license to use the software. Adobe’s specific incorporation of the EULA indicates that the reseller obtains a license. It would be incongruous to conclude that educational resellers are owners of the Adobe educational versions, while the end users who the resellers distribute to are granted a mere license.” One Stop Micro, 84 F. Supp. 2d at 1091.
本法院在One Stop 一案中指出,"......根据 EULA,最终用户仅被授予使用软件的许可。Adobe 对 EULA 的具体纳入表明转售商获得了许可。如果得出这样的结论:教育转售商是 Adobe 教育版本的所有者,而转售商分销给最终用户的仅仅是许可证,这是不协调的"。One Stop Micro, 84 F. Supp. 2d at 1091., 84 F. Supp.

Due to the substantially similar nature and terms of the EULA in both cases, this Court adopts the analysis used in One Stop. Like the EULA in One Stop, the EULA in this case maintains numerous restrictions on title with respect to the end user. Furthermore, it clearly states at the top of the agreement that it is a license agreement. Though[] the EULA is packaged inside the box, the end user is given the opportunity to return the package if he or she is not in agreement with the terms of the contract. It is clear that Adobe, through the express terms of its EULA, intended and attempted openly and in good faith to maintain proprietary ownership over its product, as well as preserve its rights to title.
由于两案中的EULA的性质和条款基本相似,本法院采用了One Stop案中使用的分析方法。One Stop案中的EULA一样,本案中的EULA也对最终用户的所有权做出了诸多限制。此外,它还在协议的顶部明确指出这是一份许可协议。尽管[]EULA是包装在盒子里的,但如果最终用户不同意合同条款,他或她是有机会退回包装的。显然,Adobe公司通过其《使用许可协议》的明确条款,打算并试图公开、真诚地维护其产品的所有权,并维护其对所有权的权利。

The Court, therefore, concludes that based on the clear and unambiguous language of the relevant contracts, coupled with the multiple restrictions on title placed on the reseller in the above agreements, the transaction should be characterized as a license, rather than a sale.
因此,法院得出结论,根据相关合同中明确无误的措辞,再加上上述协议中对转售商所有权的多重限制,该交易应被定性为许可,而非销售。

* * *

345

Questions

1.

General Discussion Questions

1.1

Assess the effect on the software industry if the courts in Vernor or Stargate, respectively, had reached different results. What would change for software developers? For distributors? For users? For open source software?
如果法院分别在VernorStargate 案中得出不同的结果,请评估对软件行业的影响。软件开发商会有什么变化?对于分销商?对于用户?对于开源软件?

1.2

Do you think that “first sale” should be treated differently with respect to distributors and end users of software?
您认为对于软件分销商和最终用户,"首次销售 "是否应区别对待?

1.3

How does the Vernor case’s license/first sale test fit open source licensing?
Vernor 案中的许可/首次销售测试如何与开源许可相匹配?

1.4

Should Congress pass legislation to amend the copyright first sale doctrine to reverse the results in Vernor and Stargate?
国会是否应通过立法修改版权首次销售原则,以扭转VernorStargate 的结果?

1.5

How does the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2016 ruling on patent exhaustion in Lexmark v. Impression Products relate to downstream software licensing?23

2.

Litigation Questions

2.1

After reading the Vernor case, what evidence would you use to show that a transaction is a license?
在阅读了Vernor 案之后,你会使用哪些证据来证明一项交易属于许可?

2.2

When can a licensor claim breach of contract and when can the licensor claim copyright infringement for violation of a software license? What difference does that make?
什么情况下许可人可以要求违约,什么情况下许可人可以要求侵犯软件许可的版权?这有什么区别?

3.

Business Law Questions

3.1

If you were advising Autodesk about improving its licensing practices, what would you advise?
如果您向欧特克公司提出改进许可实践的建议,您的建议是什么?

3.2

If you were advising Adobe about improving its licensing practices, what would you advise?
如果你向 Adobe 建议如何改进其许可实践,你会提出什么建议?

Exercises

1.

Write a client memo advising Autodesk about improving its licensing practices.
撰写一份客户备忘录,建议欧特克改进其许可实践。

2.

Write a client memo advising Adobe about improving its licensing practices.
撰写一份客户备忘录,建议 Adobe 改进其许可实践。

4. Contract Formation

Next, you will read cases that challenge the enforceability of EULAs based on the user’s inadequate opportunity to review the license and manifest assent in a meaningful way.
接下来,您将阅读一些案例,这些案例以用户没有充分机会审查许可并以有意义的方式表示同意为由,对 EULAs 的可执行性提出质疑。

346

ARIZONA RETAIL SYSTEMS, INC. v. THE SOFTWARE LINK, INC.
ARIZONA RETAIL SYSTEMS, INC. 诉 THE SOFTWARE LINK, INC.

831 F. Supp. 759 (D. Ariz. 1993)

BROOMFIELD, District Judge.

Plaintiff Arizona Retail Systems, Inc. (ARS) has brought claims against Defendant The Software Link, Inc. (TSL) arising out of certain purchases by ARS of software from TSL. ARS has moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether TSL effectively disclaimed implied warranties and alleged oral representations through provisions in a license agreement that accompanied each delivery of software. TSL responded to ARS’s motion and filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, contending that, as a matter of law, the license agreement provides the exclusive remedy for plaintiff’s claims. The court heard oral argument on the parties’ motions on October 5, 1992, and now rules.
原告 Arizona Retail Systems, Inc. (ARS) 向被告 The Software Link, Inc. (TSL) 提出索赔,起因是 ARS 向 TSL 购买了某些软件。ARS 就 TSL 是否通过每次交付软件时随附的许可协议中的条款有效放弃默示担保和所谓口头陈述的问题提出了部分简易判决的动议。TSL 回应了 ARS 的动议,并提出交叉动议,要求进行简易判决,辩称作为一个法律问题,许可协议为原告的索赔提供了排他性救济。法院于 1992 年 10 月 5 日听取了对双方动议的口头辩论,现做出裁决。

BACKGROUND

TSL designs and sells software. This lawsuit regards the sale of a software operating system designed and sold by TSL known as PC-MOS. PC-MOS is designed to allow multi-user systems to access software applications from a central host computer, thereby eliminating the need to purchase individual software for each user.
TSL 设计并销售软件。本诉讼涉及销售由 TSL 设计和销售的名为 PC-MOS 的软件操作系统。PC-MOS旨在使多用户系统能够从中央主机访问软件应用程序,从而无需为每个用户购买单独的软件。

ARS is a value-added retailer that, among other things, configures, markets, and services multi-user computer systems. Sometime in 1989, ARS’ system manager, Allen Rude, contacted TSL to obtain information about PC-MOS. Approximately two years earlier, Rude had evaluated PC-MOS but, for a variety of performance-related reasons, decided not to purchase the system. Rude contacted TSL in 1989 because he had seen a magazine advertisement for an updated version of PC-MOS.
ARS是一家增值零售商,主要从事多用户计算机系统的配置、销售和服务。1989 年的某个时候,ARS 的系统经理 Allen Rude 联系了 TSL,希望获得有关 PC-MOS 的信息。大约两年前,Rude 对 PC-MOS 进行了评估,但由于各种与性能相关的原因,他决定不购买该系统。1989年,Rude联系了TSL,因为他在杂志上看到了PC-MOS更新版的广告。

TSL telefaxed to Rude various advertisements and other promotional literature describing the new version of PC-MOS. The literature stated that the program was now operational and compatible as a multi-user operating system. Rude claims that he interpreted these representations to mean that the problems present in the earlier version had been corrected. The representations interested Rude because ARS had clients in need of an effective program to support multi-user networks.
TSL 通过电话传真向 Rude 发送了各种广告和其他宣传资料,介绍了 PC-MOS 的新版本。这些资料称,该程序现在可以作为多用户操作系统运行和兼容。Rude 声称,他将这些表述理解为早期版本中存在的问题已经得到了纠正。Rude 对此很感兴趣,因为 ARS 的客户需要一个有效的程序来支持多用户网络。

After reading the information sent by TSL, Rude contacted TSL and discussed the updated PC-MOS with TSL employees. The contents of the discussion are debated. TSL alleges that PC-MOS was discussed only in general terms; ARS contends that the employees assured Rude that the software would be compatible with DOS operated programs and that the problems with the earlier version of PC-MOS had been corrected. In addition, ARS contends Rude informed TSL of the specific type of system ARS wanted to support with PC-MOS and that TSL representatives assured Rude that PC-MOS would work with that system.
在阅读了 TSL 发送的信息后,Rude 联系了 TSL,并与 TSL 员工讨论了更新后的PC-MOS。讨论的内容引起了争论。TSL 声称,PC-MOS 只进行了一般性讨论;ARS 认为,这些员工向 Rude 保证,该软件将与 DOS 操作的程序兼容,而且 PC-MOS 早期版本的问题已经得到纠正。此外,ARS认为,Rude向TSL通报了ARS希望用PC-MOS支持的具体系统类型,TSL代表向Rude保证,PC-MOS可以与该系统一起使用。

Rude ultimately ordered a copy of PC-MOS. It is unclear whether Rude ordered an evaluative copy of the system, which came with a live copy of the system, or whether Rude ordered a live copy and an evaluative copy accompanied the live copy. In any case, the materials Rude received stated that ARS could return the materials after a specified time period if ARS was not satisfied. Rude admits that he did not decide to keep the live copy of PC-MOS until he tested the evaluation disk. The materials were wrapped in “shrink wrap” plastic, upon which was fixed a Limited Use License Agreement. The Limited Use License
Rude 最终订购了一份PC-MOS。目前还不清楚 Rude 订购的是系统的评估拷贝,而评估拷贝附带了系统的实机拷贝,还是 Rude 订购的是实机拷贝,而评估拷贝附带了实机拷贝。无论如何,鲁德收到的材料上都写明,如果 ARS 不满意,可以在规定期限后退还材料。Rude 承认,在测试评估磁盘之前,他没有决定保留 PC-MOS 的实时拷贝。这些材料用 "收缩膜 "塑料包装,上面固定着一份《有限使用许可协议》。有限使用许可协议

347

Agreement (license agreement) included, among other things, the following provisions relevant to this case.
除其他事项外,该协议(许可协议)还包括以下与本案相关的条款。

A clause stating that the customer has not purchased the software itself, but merely has obtained a personal, non-transferable license to use the program;
说明客户并未购买软件本身,而只是获得了使用该程序的个人不可转让许可的条款;

a disclaimer of all warranties, except for a warranty covering physical defects in the program disks;
除涉及程序磁盘物理缺陷的保证外,免责声明;

a clause purporting to limit the purchaser’s remedies to repair and replacement of defective disks, and to exclude all liability for damages caused by using the program;
该条款的目的是将购买者的补救措施限制在修理和更换有缺陷的磁盘上,并免除因使用该程序而造成的一切损害赔偿责任;

an integration clause providing that the license was the final and complete expression of the parties’ agreement;
整合条款规定,许可证是双方协议的最终和完整表达;

a provision prohibiting the assignment of the program or license without the express prior consent of TSL; and
禁止在未经TSL事先明确同意的情况下转让程序或许可证的条款;以及

a provision purporting to trigger the purchaser’s acceptance of the license upon opening the package.
该条款旨在规定购买者在打开包装时即接受许可证。

After evaluating the system for about two hours, Rude decided to keep the system. Rude admits that he read the license agreement but thought that it was unenforceable and incapable of overriding the specific representations made to him by TSL employees.
在对该系统进行了约两个小时的评估后,鲁德决定保留该系统。Rude 承认他阅读了许可协议,但认为该协议无法执行,也无法推翻 TSL 员工向他做出的具体陈述。

ARS purchased many copies of PC-MOS from TSL over the next year. With respect to these purchases, ARS usually initiated the procedure by telephoning TSL to place an order. During the order calls, ARS and TSL agreed on the specific goods to be shipped by TSL, the quantity of the goods, and the price for the goods. TSL then would ship the goods together with invoices. It does not appear to be disputed that neither party made any reference to the warranty disclaimers or liability limitations during either the calls or on the invoices. The license agreement, however, appeared on the face of the packaging of each set of software sent by TSL to ARS.
在接下来的一年里,ARS 从 TSL 购买了许多 PC-MOS 的副本。对于这些采购,ARS 通常通过打电话给 TSL 下订单来启动程序。在订货电话中,ARS 和 TSL 商定了由 TSL 装运的具体货物、货物数量和货物价格。然后,TSL 将连同发票一起发货。双方在通话中或在发票上都没有提及免责声明或责任限制,这一点似乎没有争议。但是,许可协议出现在 TSL 寄给 ARS 的每套软件的包装上。

ARS contends that it installed PC-MOS into a number of multi-user systems, which ARS then sold to clients. Some of the clients, particularly the Kimball and Curry law firm in Phoenix (K & C), experienced significant problems with their systems. K & C’s first set of problems involved PC-MOS’s incompatibility with WordPerfect, the word processing software installed by ARS. Specifically, PC-MOS allegedly degraded WordPerfect performance speed as well as various WordPerfect printing functions. In response to the complaints about performance speed and printing functions, TSL suggested that ARS purchase additional software to upgrade the PC-MOS system. In reliance on these representations, ARS purchased the upgrade packages.
ARS 声称,它在一些多用户系统中安装了 PC-MOS 系统,然后将其出售给客户。其中一些客户,特别是菲尼克斯的 Kimball and Curry 律师事务所(K & C),在使用其系统时遇到了重大问题。K & C 的第一批问题涉及 PC-MOS 与 WordPerfect(ARS 安装的文字处理软件)不兼容。具体来说,PC-MOS 被指控降低了 WordPerfect 的性能速度以及各种 WordPerfect 打印功能。针对有关性能速度和打印功能的投诉,TSL 建议 ARS 购买其他软件来升级 PC-MOS 系统。ARS 根据这些建议购买了升级软件包。

The upgrade packages, however, caused a whole new set of problems. K & C suffered, among other things, frequent, random lock-ups of its system that resulted in the loss of hundreds of pages of documents. ARS kept in constant contact with TSL about the problems and TSL allegedly encouraged ARS to continue to correct any problems with the system and repeatedly assured ARS that any problems could be solved. After several months, ARS abandoned the repair effort. This suit eventually followed.
然而,升级包带来了一系列新的问题。除其他外,K & C 的系统经常出现随机锁定,导致数百页文件丢失。ARS 不断就这些问题与 TSL 联系,据称 TSL 鼓励 ARS 继续纠正系统中的任何问题,并一再向 ARS 保证任何问题都可以得到解决。几个月后,ARS 放弃了维修工作。这起诉讼最终随之而来。

Apparently, TSL’s software for multi-user systems has come under fire elsewhere as well. In Step-Saver Data Systems v. Wyse Technology, 939 F.2d 91 (3d Cir. 1991), the Third Circuit addressed facts very similar, though not identical, to the facts of this case. In Step-Saver, the
显然,TSL 的多用户系统软件在其他地方也受到了抨击。在 Step-Saver Data Systems 诉 Wyse Technology,939 F.2d 91(3d Cir.1991)一案中,第三巡回法院处理了与本案事实非常相似(尽管不完全相同)的事实。在 Step-Saver 案中

348

Third Circuit ruled on the effect of the identical license agreement present in this case. The court ruled against TSL, holding that the license agreement did not constitute a part of the contract between the parties. ARS contends that Step-Saver is on point with this case in all material respects. TSL responds that the facts of this case are different than the facts before the Third Circuit.
第三巡回法院就本案中相同的许可协议的效力做出了裁决。法院判 TSL 败诉,认为许可协议不构成双方合同的一部分。ARS 认为,Step-Saver 案在所有重要方面都与本案一致。TSL 回应说,本案的事实与第三巡回法院审理的事实不同。

LEGAL ANALYSIS

The parties appear to agree that Georgia law governs this dispute. Georgia has adopted all provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code that are relevant to this dispute. For sake of simplicity, the court when possible will refer to the relevant provisions in the U.C.C. rather than the corresponding provisions in the Georgia Code. Summary judgment is an appropriate device for resolving the issues presented by the parties because issues relating to contract formation and statutory construction are for the court. See Diamond Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Krack Corp., 794 F.2d 1440, 1442 (9th Cir. 1986).
双方似乎同意佐治亚州法律管辖本纠纷。佐治亚州采纳了《统一商法典》中与本纠纷有关的所有条款。为简单起见,法院将尽可能提及《统一商法典》中的相关条款,而不是佐治亚州法典中的相应条款。简易判决是解决双方所提问题的适当手段,因为与合同订立和法律解释相关的问题应由法院来解决。参见 Diamond Fruit Growers, Inc. v. Krack Corp., 794 F.2d 1440, 1442 (9th Cir. 1986)。

A. The Relevant Provisions of the U. C.C.

An understanding of two U.C.C. provisions is necessary to resolve the issues before the court.
要解决摆在法庭面前的问题,有必要了解《美国法典》的两项条款。

1. Section 2-207

Section 2-207 provides:

Additional Terms in Acceptance or Confirmation

(1) A definite and seasonable expression of acceptance or a written confirmation which is sent within a reasonable time operates as an acceptance even though it states terms additional to or different from those offered or agreed upon, unless acceptance is expressly made conditional on assent to the additional or different terms.
(1) 明确而适时的接受表示或在合理时间内发出的书面确认,即使其中载明的条款是要约或协议条款之外的附加条款或与之不同的附加条款或不同条款,也可视为接受,除非明确规定接受以同意附加条款或不同条款为条件。

(2) The additional terms are to be construed as proposals for addition to the contract. Between merchants such terms become part of the contract unless:
(2) 附加条款应解释为对合同的补充建议。在商家之间,这些条款成为合同的一部分,除非

(a) the offer expressly limits acceptance to the terms of the offer;
(a) 要约明确将接受限于要约的条款;

(b) they materially alter it; or

(c) notification of objection to them has already been given or is given within a reasonable time after notice of them is received.
(c) 反对通知已经发出,或在收到反对通知后的合理时间内发出。

(3) Conduct by both parties which recognizes the existence of a contract is sufficient to establish a contract for sale although the writings of the parties do not otherwise establish a contract. In such case the terms of the particular contract consist of those terms on which the writings of the parties agree, together with any supplementary terms incorporated under any other provisions of the [Code].
(3) 双方当事人承认合同存在的行为足以确立销售合同,尽管双方当事人的书面文件并未以其他方式确立合同。在这种情况下,特定合同的条款包括双方书面约定的条款,以及根据[《法典》]任何其他条款纳入的任何补充条款。

The drafters of the Uniform Commercial Code when adopting section 2-207 sought to abolish certain common law rules that made little sense in light of modern business practices. In the average case, a buyer makes an offer to purchase which a seller accepts either by tendering the desired goods or by promising to tender the desired goods at a certain time. The commercial world, however, has altered this basic process by injecting the regular use of
《统一商法典》的起草者在通过第 2-207 条时,试图废除某些在现代商业惯例中毫无意义的普通法规则。在一般情况下,买方提出购买要约,卖方通过提供所需的货物或承诺在某个时间提供所需的货物来接受要约。然而,商业世界改变了这一基本过程,在其中加入了定期使用的 "时间 "一词。

349

forms into the buying and selling processes. Invoices, purchase orders, and confirmatory memoranda are passed between the parties to a contract and often contain terms, conditions, and clauses favorable to the sending party. Thus, in the absence of an agreement drafted contemporaneously with the formation of a contract that contains all the terms desired by each of the parties, it becomes very important to determine how the terms in the forms should be treated.
在购买和销售过程中使用的形式。发票、定购单和确认备忘录在合同双方之间传递,通常包含对发送方有利的条款、条件和规定。因此,如果在订立合同时没有同时起草一份包含各方所需的所有条款的协议,那么确定如何处理表格中的条款就变得非常重要。

Before enactment of the Code, the courts held that each time a form was exchanged as part of an acceptance, a counter-offer was made if the terms of the form varied in any way from the terms of the original offer. If the original offeror proceeded with the contract despite the differing terms of the supposed acceptance, he would, by performance, constructively accept the “counter-offer” and be bound by its terms. See Step-Saver, 939 F.2d at 99. As a result, the terms of the party who sent the last form, typically the seller, would become the terms of the parties’ contract. The drafters of the Uniform Commercial Code recognized that this result made little sense, and thus formulated rules defining what constituted an “acceptance” and how to treat terms that differed in forms exchanged by the parties.
在《法典》颁布之前,法院认为,作为接受的一部分,每次交换表格时,如果表格中的条款与原发价的条款有任何不同,则属于还价。如果原发价人不顾假定接受的不同条款继续履行合同,他将通过履行合同推定接受 "还价 "并受其条款的约束。因此,发送最后一份表格的一方(通常是卖方)的条款将成为双方的合同条款。统一商法典》的起草者认识到这一结果没有什么意义,因此制定了一些规则,界定什么构成 "接受",以及如何处理双方交换的表格中不同的条款。

In essence, section 2-207, in many cases, turns what used to be counter-offers into acceptances. If, when responding to an offer, a party generally accepts the offer but adds some additional or inconsistent terms, the response nevertheless is considered an acceptance and the Code provides special rules as to how to treat the additional or inconsistent terms. The Code requires sellers who express general agreement with an offer, but who do not wish to consent to the offer unless certain terms are included in the agreement, to state expressly that their “acceptances” essentially are counter-offers.
实质上,第 2-207 条在许多情况下将过去的还价变成了接受。如果一方当事人在答复要约时,总体上接受了要约,但增加了一些附加条款或不一致的条款,则该答复仍被视为接受,《合同法》对如何处理附加条款或不一致的条款规定了特殊规则。守则》要求,如果卖方表示总体上同意要约,但又不想同意要约,除非在协议中列入某些条款,则卖方必须明确说明其 "接受 "实质上是还价。

Section 2-207 thus controls the situation in which the parties at some point in time come to a general agreement but have failed, in that oral or written agreement, to come to a mutual understanding on various terms requested by the parties. Under such circumstances, a contract is formed when the parties reach the general agreement and all other material terms not agreed upon are supplied by the Code’s “gap fillers.” See U.C.C. §2-207(3)
因此,第 2-207 条适用于这样一种情况,即双方当事人在某个时间点达成了一般性协议,但在口头或书面协议中未能就双方当事人要求的各种条款达成相互谅解。在这种情况下,当双方达成一般协议,且所有其他未达成一致的重要条款均由《法典》中的 "填补空白者 "提供时,合同即告成立。参见 U.C.C. §2-207(3)

2. Section 2-209

Section 2-207 addresses situations in which various terms proposed by the parties in the offer and acceptances processes were not agreed upon before the contract was formed under section 2-207(1).24 Section 2-209 picks up where section 2-207 leaves off — i.e., after the formation of the contract. Section 2-209 thus sets forth rules for modifications of existing sales contracts.
24 第 2-209 条承接第 2-207 条的内容,即在合同订立之后、第 2-209 条承接第 2-207 条的内容,即在合同成立之后。因此,第 2-209 条规定了修改现有销售合同的规则。

B. The Initial Purchase

The parties treat the issues in this case as if only one contract existed between the parties. It appears to the court that the parties actually engaged in a number of separate contracts, and that the first contract entered into by the parties involves facts and circumstances materially different than the subsequent contracts. The court, therefore, will evaluate the initial purchase of software separately from the subsequent purchases, which appear to all have been conducted under similar circumstances.
双方在处理本案的问题时,好像双方之间只存在一份合同。在法院看来,双方当事人实际上签订了多份独立的合同,而且双方当事人签订的第一份合同所涉及的事实和情况与随后签订的合同存在重大差异。因此,法院将把最初购买软件的行为与随后的购买行为分开评估,后者似乎都是在类似的情况下进行的。

350

The facts surrounding ARS’s initial order of PC-MOS are not entirely clear. Whether Rude ordered an evaluation diskette from TSL or whether Rude ordered a regular software package that came with the evaluation diskette cannot be determined from the papers. To the extent that Rude ordered an evaluation diskette that came accompanied with a regular diskette, which Rude accepted by not returning, a different issue is presented with respect to the initial order of PC-MOS than with respect to the subsequent orders. Nevertheless, because it appears to the court that Rude did order an evaluation disk with the intent to first test the system, see Def. SoF pp. 4-5; Pl. SoF ¶11, the court has analyzed the effect of the license agreement on the initial transaction separately from the effect of the license agreement on subsequent transactions.
有关 ARS 最初订购 PC-MOS 的事实并不完全清楚。从文件中无法确定 Rude 是向 TSL 订购了一张评估软盘,还是订购了附带评估软盘的普通软件包。如果 Rude 订购的是评估软盘,而随附的是普通软盘,而且 Rude 接受了该软盘,没有退货,那么,最初订购 PC-MOS 的问题就与随后订购的问题不同。尽管如此,因为在法庭看来,Rude 确实订购了一张评估磁盘,目的是先对系统进行测试,见 Def.SoF pp.因此,法院将许可协议对初始交易的影响与许可协议对后续交易的影响分开分析。

The court holds that if ARS requested an evaluation diskette and then, by keeping the live disk, agreed to purchase the copy of PC-MOS that accompanied the evaluation diskette after evaluating PC-MOS, the license agreement applies to the initial transaction. Under such facts, the contract was not formed when TSL shipped the goods but rather only after ARS opened the shrink wrap on the live version of PC–MOS which ARS had notice would result in a contract being formed.
法院认为,如果 ARS 申请了一张评估软盘,然后在评估了 PC-MOS 之后,通过保留实盘同意购买评估软盘附带的 PC-MOS 副本,则许可协议适用于初始交易。根据这些事实,合同并非在 TSL 发货时成立,而是在 ARS 打开PC-MOS 实况版的收缩包装后才成立,而 ARS 已注意到这将导致合同成立。

The court’s decision in this respect is not inconsistent with Step-Saver. The Step-Saver court addressed the situation in which a contract had been formed by the conduct of the parties — i.e., through the ordering and shipping of the agreed-upon goods — but the goods arrived with the license agreement affixed. In such cases, the contract is formed before the purchaser becomes aware of the seller’s insistence on certain terms.
法院在这方面的判决与 Step-Saver 案并不矛盾。Step-Saver 案的法院处理了这样一种情况,即合同已通过双方当事人的行为--即通过订购和运输商定的货物--成立,但货物到达时贴有许可协议。在这种情况下,合同在买方意识到卖方坚持某些条款之前就已经成立。

With respect to the initial purchase in this case, TSL made the offer by including the live copy of PC-MOS with the evaluation diskette. The live copy appears to have been sealed in an envelope, the outside of which stated that by opening the envelope the user acknowledges “acceptance of this product, and [consents] to all the provisions [of] the Limited Use License Agreement.” Def. SoF ¶¶11-12. ARS, therefore, accepted TSL’s offer on TSL’s terms when the envelope was opened. Cf. McCrimmon v. Tandy Corp., 202 Ga. App. 233, 414 S.E.2d 15 (1991) (holding that warranty disclaimers that are insisted upon by the seller at the time of sale become part of the agreement between the parties).
关于本案中的首次购买,TSL 通过将 PC-MOS 的实时拷贝与评估软盘一起提供。实时拷贝似乎被密封在一个信封里,信封外面写着,用户打开信封即表示 "接受本产品,并[同意]《有限使用许可协议》的所有规定"。Def. SoF §11-12.SoF §11-12。因此,在打开信封时,ARS 已按照 TSL 的条款接受了 TSL 的要约。参见 McCrimmon 诉 Tandy Corp., 202 Ga.App.233, 414 S.E.2d 15 (1991)(认为卖方在销售时坚持的免责声明将成为双方协议的一部分)。

C. The Subsequent Purchases

The circumstances surrounding the subsequent purchases are very similar to the circumstances present in Step-Saver. See 939 F.2d at 95-96. ARS typically contacted TSL and ordered copies of PC-MOS over the telephone. During the order calls, the parties agreed on the specific goods to be shipped, the quantity of goods, and the price for the goods. TSL would accept the orders and promise to ship them promptly, and thereafter would ship the goods together with invoices. Although the parties apparently never discussed the license agreement, each copy of PC-MOS would have the license agreement attached to its packaging.
随后购买的情况与 Step-Saver 案中的情况非常相似。参见 939 F.2d at 95-96。ARS 通常通过电话与 TSL 联系并订购 PC-MOS 的副本。在订货电话中,双方商定了要运送的具体货物、货物数量和货物价格。TSL 将接受订单并承诺迅速发货,随后将连同发票一起发货。尽管双方显然从未讨论过许可协议,但每份 PC-MOS 的包装上都附有许可协议。

TSL makes three arguments as to why the license agreement is part of the agreement between the parties. First, TSL argues that the license agreement constituted a proposed modification of the original contract pursuant to U.C.C. §2-209, and that ARS accepted the modification by opening the shrink wrap package. Second, TSL argues that the license agreement constituted a conditional acceptance of ARS’s offer to purchase, and that ARS
TSL就许可协议为何是双方协议的一部分提出了三个论点。首先,TSL 认为,根据《美国法典》第 2-209 条,许可协议构成了对原始合同的拟议修改,而且 ARS 通过打开收缩包装接受了修改。其次,TSL 认为,许可协议构成了对 ARS 购买要约的有条件接受,而 ARS

351

accepted TSL’s conditional acceptance by opening the shrink wrap package. Third, TSL argues that if the court applies U.C.C. §2-207 to this dispute as did the Step–Saver court, the court should hold that the terms of the warranty terms of the license agreement became part of the contract between the parties because the terms were not material.
第三,TSL 辩称,如果法院像 Step-Saver 公司的法庭一样将《美国法典》第 2-207 条适用于这一争议,那么法院就应该认定,许可协议中的保修条款已成为 TSL 的有条件接受。第三,TSL 辩称,如果法院像 Step-Saver 案法院那样将《美国法典》第 2-207 条适用于这一争议,那么法院应认定许可协议中的保修条款成为双方合同的一部分,因为这些条款并不重要。

1. The License Agreement as a Proposed Modification Under U. C.C. §2-209
1.许可协议作为《美国法典》第 2-209 节规定的拟议修改

To the extent that the parties had entered into an agreement before ARS opened the shrink wrap package, the license agreement would constitute a proposal for modification of the agreement pursuant to section 2-209. Section 2-209 requires assent to proposed modifications and this court, like the court in Step–Saver, concludes that the assent must be express and cannot be inferred merely from a party’s conduct in continuing with the agreement. ARS, like Step–Saver, did not expressly assent to the modification and the Step– Saver court made clear that merely continuing with a contract does not constitute assent. Id. at 98-99. TSL has cited no authority to contradict this interpretation of section 2-209 and this court concludes that the Third Circuit correctly decided the issue. TSL’s argument based on section 2-209, therefore, is rejected.
如果双方在 ARS 打开收缩包装之前已经达成协议,那么根据第 2-209 条的规定,许可协议将构成对协议的修改建议。第 2-209 条要求同意提议的修改,本法院与 Step-Saver 案的法院一样,认为同意必须是明示的,不能仅从一方继续履行协议的行为中推断。与 Step-Saver 案一样,ARS 也没有明确表示同意修改,Step- Saver 案的法院明确指出,仅仅继续履行合同并不构成同意。Id. at 98-99。TSL 没有援引任何权威来反驳第 2-209 条的这一解释,因此本法院认为第三巡回法院对这一问题的判决是正确的。因此,TSL 基于第 2-209 条的论点被驳回。

2. The License Agreement as a Conditional Acceptance
2.作为有条件接受的许可协议

TSL argues that the license agreement’s terms should control because language in the license agreement expressly made TSL’s acceptance conditional. Thus, TSL apparently contends that it did not enter into contracts with ARS until ARS opened each individual software package.
TSL辩称,许可协议的条款应受控制,因为许可协议中的语言明确规定了TSL的接受是有条件的。因此,TSL 显然认为,在 ARS 打开每个软件包之前,它并没有与 ARS 签订合同。

The Step–Saver court acknowledged but did not decide the issue of whether a conditional acceptance analysis applies when a contract has been established by performance. Id. at 101. The Step–Saver court assumed that a party could accept conditionally even when acceptance had been made by performance but went on to hold, after analyzing the license agreement’s terms and the importance of those terms to TSL, that TSL’s acceptance in that case clearly had not been conditional. Id. at 102-03. This court reaches the same result as the Step-Saver court but does not find it necessary to conduct a conditional acceptance analysis because TSL already had accepted ARS’s offer before TSL presented ARS with the license agreement. In other words, the court does not believe that the license agreement in this case could constitute a conditional acceptance regardless of its terms or the importance of those terms to TSL.
Step-Saver公司案的法院承认,但并未就有条件接受分析是否适用于合同已经履行成立的情况这一问题做出裁决。Id. at 101。Step-Saver 案的法院假定,即使当事人通过履行义务来接受,也可以有条件地接受,但在分析了许可协议的条款以及这些条款对 TSL 的重要性之后,法院认为 TSL 在该案中的接受显然不是有条件的。Id. at 102-03。本法院得出了与 Step-Saver 法院相同的结果,但认为没有必要进行有条件接受分析,因为在 TSL 向 ARS 提交许可协议之前,TSL 已经接受了 ARS 的要约。换言之,法院认为本案中的许可协议不构成有条件接受,无论其条款如何,也无论这些条款对 TSL 的重要性如何。

By agreeing to ship the goods to ARS, or, at the latest, by shipping the goods, TSL entered into a contract with ARS. See, e.g., McJunkin v. Mechanicals, Inc., 888 F.2d 481, 488 (6th Cir. 1989); Lee v. Sheller Globe Corp., 661 F. Supp. 6, 7 (S.D. Miss. 1986). After entering into the contract, TSL was not free to treat the license agreement as a conditional acceptance, which is essentially a counter-offer. The license agreement thus is best seen as a proposal to modify the contract between the parties, which, as the court has discussed, was not effective because ARS never specifically assented to the proposed terms. See U.C.C. §2-209; Step-Saver, 939 F.2d at 98-99.
TSL 同意将货物运送给 ARS,或最迟运送货物,即与 ARS 订立了合同。例如,见 McJunkin 诉 Mechanicals, Inc., 888 F.2d 481, 488 (6th Cir. 1989);Lee 诉 Sheller Globe Corp., 661 F. Supp. 6, 7 (S.D. Miss. 1986)。签订合同后,TSL 无法自由地将许可协议视为有条件接受,而有条件接受实质上是一种还价。因此,许可协议最好被视为修改双方合同的建议,正如法院所讨论的那样,由于 ARS 从未明确同意建议的条款,因此该建议无效。 参见 U.C.C. §2-209; Step-Saver, 939 F.2d at 98-99.

As the court’s analysis indicates, a conditional acceptance analysis very rarely is appropriate in cases in which a contract has been formed, at the latest, by performance, but the goods arrive with conditions attached. See Bergquist Co. v. Sunroc Corp., 777 F. Supp.
正如法院的分析所指出的,在合同最迟通过履约而成立,但货物到达时附带条件的情况下,有条件接受分析很少适用。见 Bergquist Co. 诉 Sunroc Corp.

352

1236, 1242 n.4 (E.D. Pa. 1991). The Step-Saver court based its assumption that conditional acceptance is possible in cases such as this on the language of the comment corresponding to U.C.C. §2-207. The comment states:
1236, 1242 n.4 (E.D. Pa. 1991)。Step-Saver 案的法院根据 U.C.C. §2-207 相应的评注中的措辞,推断在此类案件中可能存在有条件的接受。该评注指出

2. Under this Article a proposed deal which in commercial understanding has in fact been closed is recognized as a contract. Therefore, any additional matter contained in the confirmation or in the acceptance falls within subsection (2) and must be regarded as a proposal for an added term unless the acceptance is made conditional on the acceptance of the additional or different terms. U.C.C. §2-207 cmt.
2.根据本条规定,在商业谅解中事实上已经结束的拟议交易被承认为合同。因此,确认书或接受书中包含的任何附加事项都属于第(2)款的范围,必须被视为附加条款的提议,除非接受是以接受附加条款或不同条款为条件。U.C.C. §2-207 cmt.

This court concludes that the emphasized portion of the comment simply means that if the actual acceptance in the case is made conditional, then subsection (2), which governs situations in which forms have been exchanged that do not agree, does not apply. The comment does not state that a conditional acceptance analysis should be applied in cases in which acceptance was by performance and a later writing seeks to add terms to the agreement.
本法院得出结论认为,评注中强调的部分仅仅意味着,如果案件中的实际接受是有条件的,那么第(2)款就不适用,该款适用于交换表格但未达成一致的情况。该评注并没有说明有条件的接受分析应适用于以履行方式接受而后来的书面文件试图在协议中增加条款的情况。

The court, therefore, rejects TSL’s argument that the license agreement constituted a conditional acceptance. The court is very reluctant, in light of the purposes underlying section 2-207 and the circumstances of this case, to interpret section 2-207 in such a way that a package disclaimer constitutes a conditional acceptance even though the disclaimer arrives after the parties have entered into an agreement for the sale of goods. The court believes that it is much more consistent with the policies underlying section 2-207 to assume that package disclaimers, that arrive only after the parties have reached a general agreement under section 2-207, constitute proposals to modify the agreement.
因此,法院驳回了 TSL 关于许可协议构成有条件接受的论点。考虑到第 2-207 条的基本目的和本案的情况,法院很不愿意以这样一种方式解释第 2-207 条,即即使免责声明是在双方签订货物销售协议之后才出现的,包装免责声明也构成有条件接受。法院认为,假定在双方当事人根据第 2-207 条达成一般协议之后才提出的一揽子免责声明构成修改协议的建议,更符合第 2-207 条的基本政策。

Section 2-207 was drafted to ensure neutrality between contracting parties — i.e., to ensure that a party, usually the selling party, does not gain an advantage merely by being the last one to send a form. See, e.g., Diamond Fruit Growers, 794 F.2d at 1444. To accept TSL’s argument in this case would allow TSL to profit by sending a last “form,” the terms of which could have been included in any original agreement between the parties. Id. Moreover, to accept TSL’s argument would allow TSL and other sellers to take advantage of the fact that purchasers often invest considerable time and money before ordering goods, and, therefore, are somewhat less likely to return goods once they arrive. Cf. Step-Saver, 939 F.2d at 102 (stating that this might be true). In addition, the realities of the workplace sometimes might be used unfairly against purchasers if TSL’s argument were accepted. In some cases ordered goods might never even be seen by the particular department or employee charged with ordering the goods or the goods might be needed as soon as they arrive. Requiring the seller to discuss terms it considers essential before the seller ships the goods is not unfair; the seller can protect itself by not shipping until it obtains assent to those terms it considers essential. See Diamond Fruit Growers, 794 F.2d at 1445. Finally, to the extent that the court’s decision results in important terms such as warranties being implied by the Code, no harm to public policy is done because the implied terms of the code are presumably equitable. See id.
起草第 2-207 条的目的是确保订约双方保持中立,即确保一方(通常是卖方)不会仅仅因为是最后发送表格的一方而获得优势。例如,见 Diamond Fruit Growers, 794 F.2d at 1444。在本案中,如果接受 TSL 的论点,TSL 就可以通过发送最后一份 "表格 "来获利,而该表格的条款本可以包含在双方的任何原始协议中。Id.此外,如果接受 TSL 的论点,TSL 和其他卖家就可以利用这样一个事实,即买方在订购货物之前通常会投入大量的时间和金钱,因此,一旦货物到达,退货的可能性就会降低。参见 Step-Saver,939 F.2d,102(指出这可能是事实)。此外,如果接受 TSL 的论点,工作场所的现实有时可能会被不公平地用来对付购买者。在某些情况下,负责订购货物的部门或员工可能从未见过订购的货物,或者货物一到就需要。要求卖方在发货前讨论其认为必要的条款并非不公平;卖方可以通过在获得其认为必要的条款同意之前不发货来保护自己。参见 Diamond Fruit Growers, 794 F.2d at 1445。最后,如果法院的判决导致诸如保证等重要条款被该法典默示,也不会对公共政策造成损害,因为该法典的默示条款可能是公平的。See id.

353

3. TSL’s Argument that the Terms of the License Agreement Were not Material and, therefore, Automatically Are Incorporated into the Party’s Agreement
3.TSL 辩称许可协议的条款并非重要条款,因此会自动纳入双方的协议中

In Step-Saver, TSL argued, as it does before this court, that the warranty terms included in the license agreement are not material terms and, therefore, pursuant to section 2-207(2), the terms automatically became part of the agreement between the parties. The Step-Saver court rejected this exact argument and so does this court. Step-Saver, 939 F.2d at 105; see also Sunroc Corp., 777 F. Supp. at 1248.
在 Step-Saver 案中,TSL 与在本庭上一样辩称,许可协议中包含的担保条款不是实质性条款,因此根据第 2-207(2)条,这些条款自动成为双方协议的一部分。Step-Saver 法院驳回了这一论点,本法院也驳回了这一论点。Step-Saver, 939 F.2d at 105;另见 Sunroc Corp., 777 F. Supp. at 1248。

CONCLUSION

Thus, the court concludes that the terms of the license agreement are not applicable. In all material respects, the subsequent purchases in this case are equivalent to the purchases in Step-Saver. This court finds that regardless of whether the terms of the license agreement are treated as proposals for additional terms under U.C.C. §2-207, or proposals for modification under U.C.C. §2-209, the terms of the license agreement are not a part of the agreement between the parties. See U.C.C. §§2-207(2)(b); 2-209. Having not expressly agreed to the terms of the agreement, ARS was not bound by those terms.
因此,法院得出结论,许可协议的条款不适用。在所有重要方面,本案中的后续购买都等同于 Step-Saver 案中的购买。法院认为,无论许可协议的条款是被视为 U.C.C. §2-207 规定的附加条款提案,还是 U.C.C. §2-209 规定的修改提案,许可协议的条款都不属于双方协议的一部分。参见 U.C.C.§§2-207(2)(b);2-209。由于 ARS 没有明确同意协议条款,因此不受这些条款的约束。

Partial summary judgment in favor of ARS, therefore, is appropriate on the issue of whether the license agreement was part of the contracts between TSL and ARS subsequent to ARS’s initial purchase of PC-MOS.
因此,在许可协议是否属于 ARS 首次购买 PC-MOS 之后 TSL 与 ARS 之间合同的一部分这一问题上,做出有利于 ARS 的部分即决判决是适当的。

IT IS ORDERED granting Plaintiff ARS’s partial motion for summary judgment with respect to the subsequent orders of PC-MOS, and denying ARS’s motion with respect to the initial purchase of PC-MOS (Doc. 15).
命令批准原告 ARS 关于 PC-MOS 后续订单的部分简易判决动议,驳回 ARS 关于最初购买 PC-MOS 的动议(文件 15)。

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Defendant TSL’s partial cross-motion for summary judgment with respect to the initial purchase of PC-MOS, and denying TSL’s motion with respect to all subsequent orders (Doc. 24).
还命令批准被告 TSL 就最初购买 PC-MOS 提出的部分即决判决交叉动议,驳回 TSL 就所有后续订单提出的动议(文件 24)。

* * *

Procd, Inc. v. Matthew Zeidenberg

86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996)

EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge.

Must buyers of computer software obey the terms of shrinkwrap licenses? The district court held not, for two reasons: first, they are not contracts because the licenses are inside the box rather than printed on the outside; second, federal law forbids enforcement even if the licenses are contracts. 908 F. Supp. 640 (W.D. Wis. 1996). The parties and numerous amici curiae have briefed many other issues, but these are the only two that matter — and we disagree with the district judge’s conclusion on each. Shrinkwrap licenses are enforceable unless their terms are objectionable on grounds applicable to contracts in general (for example, if they violate a rule of positive law, or if they are unconscionable). Because no one argues that the terms of the license at issue here are troublesome, we remand with instructions to enter judgment for the plaintiff.
计算机软件的购买者必须遵守收缩包装许可证的条款吗?地区法院认为不可以,理由有二:第一,它们不是合同,因为许可证在盒子里而不是印在盒子外面;第二,即使许可证是合同,联邦法律也禁止执行。908 F. Supp. 640 (W.D. Wis. 1996)。双方当事人和众多法庭之友还陈述了许多其他问题,但只有这两个问题是重要的--我们不同意地区法官对每个问题的结论。收缩包装许可是可执行的,除非其条款因适用于一般合同的理由而引起反对(例如,如果它们违反了实在法规则,或如果它们不合情理)。由于没有人认为本案中的许可条款有问题,因此我们发回重审,并指示作出有利于原告的判决。

354

I

ProCD, the plaintiff, has compiled information from more than 3,000 telephone directories into a computer database. We may assume that this database cannot be copyrighted, although it is more complex, contains more information (nine-digit zip codes and census industrial codes), is organized differently, and therefore is more original than the single alphabetical directory at issue in Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340, 111 S. Ct. 1282, 113 L.Ed.2d 358 (1991). See Paul J. Heald, The Vices of Originality, 1991 Sup.Ct. Rev. 143, 160-68. ProCD sells a version of the database, called SelectPhone (trademark), on CD-ROM discs. (CD-ROM means “compact disc — read only memory.” The “shrinkwrap license” gets its name from the fact that retail software packages are covered in plastic or cellophane “shrinkwrap,” and some vendors, though not ProCD, have written licenses that become effective as soon as the customer tears the wrapping from the package. Vendors prefer “end user license,” but we use the more common term.) A proprietary method of compressing the data serves as effective encryption too. Customers decrypt and use the data with the aid of an application program that ProCD has written. This program, which is copyrighted, searches the database in response to users’ criteria (such as “find all people named Tatum in Tennessee, plus all firms with ‘Door Systems’ in the corporate name”). The resulting lists (or, as ProCD prefers, “listings”) can be read and manipulated by other software, such as word processing programs.
原告 ProCD 公司将 3000 多份电话簿中的信息编入了一个计算机数据库。我们可以认为这个数据库不能获得版权,尽管它更加复杂,包含更多的信息(九位数邮政编码和人口普查行业代码),组织方式也不同,因此比 Feist Publications, Inc.参见 Paul J. Heald, The Vices of Originality, 1991 Sup.Ct. Rev. 143, 160-68。ProCD 以 CD-ROM 光盘形式销售数据库的一个版本,名为 SelectPhone(商标)。(CD-ROM 的意思是 "光盘--只读存储器"。收缩包装许可证 "的名称来源于这样一个事实,即零售软件包都用塑料或玻璃纸 "收缩包装 "包 裹,一些供应商(虽然不是 ProCD)写的许可证在客户撕开包装后立即生效。供应商更倾向于使用 "最终用户许可证",但我们使用的是更常见的术语)。压缩数据的专有方法也是一种有效的加密方法。客户借助 ProCD 编写的应用程序解密和使用数据。该程序受版权保护,可根据用户的标准(如 "查找田纳西州所有名叫塔图姆的人,以及公司名称中包含'Door Systems'的所有公司")搜索数据库。搜索出的名单(ProCD 更喜欢称其为 "列表")可由其他软件(如文字处理程序)读取和处理。

The database in SelectPhone (trademark) cost more than $10 million to compile and is expensive to keep current. It is much more valuable to some users than to others. The combination of names, addresses, and SIC codes enables manufacturers to compile lists of potential customers. Manufacturers and retailers pay high prices to specialized information intermediaries for such mailing lists; ProCD offers a potentially cheaper alternative. People with nothing to sell could use the database as a substitute for calling long distance information, or as a way to look up old friends who have moved to unknown towns, or just as an electronic substitute for the local phone book. ProCD decided to engage in price discrimination, selling its database to the general public for personal use at a low price (approximately $150 for the set of five discs) while selling information to the trade for a higher price. It has adopted some intermediate strategies too: access to the SelectPhone (trademark) database is available via the America Online service for the price America Online charges to its clients (approximately $3 per hour), but this service has been tailored to be useful only to the general public.
SelectPhone(商标)中的数据库耗资 1 000 多万美元,而且保持更新的费用也很高。它对某些用户的价值远远高于其他用户。姓名、地址和 SIC 代码的组合使制造商能够编制潜在客户名单。制造商和零售商需要向专门的信息中介机构支付高昂的费用才能获得这些邮寄名单;ProCD 提供了一种潜在的廉价替代方案。无货可卖的人可以用这个数据库来替代长途电话信息,或者用来查找搬到不知名城镇的老朋友,或者仅仅作为当地电话簿的电子替代品。ProCD 决定实行价格歧视,以低价(一套五张光盘约 150 美元)向公众出售个人使用的数据库,同时以高价向业界出售信息。该公司还采取了一些中间策略:通过美国在线服务访问 SelectPhone(商标)数据库的价格与美国在线向其客户收取的价格相同(大约每小时 3 美元),但这项服务经过调整,只对普通公众有用。

If ProCD had to recover all of its costs and make a profit by charging a single price — that is, if it could not charge more to commercial users than to the general public — it would have to raise the price substantially over $150. The ensuing reduction in sales would harm consumers who value the information at, say, $200. They get consumer surplus of $50 under the current arrangement but would cease to buy if the price rose substantially. If because of high elasticity of demand in the consumer segment of the market the only way to make a profit turned out to be a price attractive to commercial users alone, then all consumers would lose out — and so would the commercial clients, who would have to pay more for the listings because ProCD could not obtain any contribution toward costs from the consumer market.
如果 ProCD 必须通过收取单一价格来收回所有成本并获得利润,也就是说,如果它不能向商 业用户收取比向普通大众收取更高的价格,它就必须将价格大幅提高到 150 美元以上。随之而来的销售额的减少将损害消费者的利益。在目前的安排下,他们获得了 50 美元的消费者剩余,但如果价格大幅上涨,他们将不再购买。如果由于消费者市场的需求弹性大,盈利的唯一途径变成了只对商业用户有吸引力的价格,那么所有消费者都将蒙受损失,商业客户也将蒙受损失,因为 ProCD 无法从消费者市场获得任何成本分担,他们将不得不为列表支付更多的费用。

To make price discrimination work, however, the seller must be able to control arbitrage. An air carrier sells tickets for less to vacationers than to business travelers, using advance
然而,要使价格歧视发挥作用,卖方必须能够控制套利。一家航空公司向度假者出售的机票价格要低于向商务旅客出售的机票价格。

355

purchase and Saturday-night-stay requirements to distinguish the categories. A producer of movies segments the market by time, releasing first to theaters, then to pay-per-view services, next to the videotape and laserdisc market, and finally to cable and commercial tv. Vendors of computer software have a harder task. Anyone can walk into a retail store and buy a box. Customers do not wear tags saying “commercial user” or “consumer user.” Anyway, even a commercial-user-detector at the door would not work, because a consumer could buy the software and resell to a commercial user. That arbitrage would break down the price discrimination and drive up the minimum price at which ProCD would sell to anyone.
电影生产商按时间划分市场。电影制片商按时间划分市场,首先向影院发行,然后向付费点播服务发行,接着向录像带和激光唱片市场发行,最后向有线电视和商业电视发行。计算机软件供应商的任务则更为艰巨。任何人都可以走进零售商店购买一盒软件。顾客不会贴上 "商业用户 "或 "消费者用户 "的标签。总之,即使在门口安装商业用户检测器也不会起作用,因为消费者可以购买软件,然后转卖给商业用户。这种套利行为会打破价格歧视,抬高 ProCD 卖给任何人的最低价格。

Instead of tinkering with the product and letting users sort themselves — for example, furnishing current data at a high price that would be attractive only to commercial customers, and two-year-old data at a low price — ProCD turned to the institution of contract. Every box containing its consumer product declares that the software comes with restrictions stated in an enclosed license. This license, which is encoded on the CD-ROM disks as well as printed in the manual, and which appears on a user’s screen every time the software runs, limits use of the application program and listings to non-commercial purposes.
ProCD没有对产品进行修补,而是让用户自己进行分类--例如,以只对商业客户有吸引力的高价提供最新数据,以低价提供两年前的数据。每个装有其消费产品的包装盒都声明,该软件附带许可证中规定的限制条件。该许可证编码在 CD-ROM 磁盘上,并印在手册中,每次软件运行时都会显示在用户屏幕上,它将应用程序和列表的使用限制在非商业目的范围内。

Matthew Zeidenberg bought a consumer package of SelectPhone (trademark) in 1994 from a retail outlet in Madison, Wisconsin, but decided to ignore the license. He formed Silken Mountain Web Services, Inc., to resell the information in the SelectPhone (trademark) database. The corporation makes the database available on the Internet to anyone willing to pay its price — which, needless to say, is less than ProCD charges its commercial customers. Zeidenberg has purchased two additional SelectPhone (trademark) packages, each with an updated version of the database, and made the latest information available over the World Wide Web, for a price, through his corporation. ProCD filed this suit seeking an injunction against further dissemination that exceeds the rights specified in the licenses (identical in each of the three packages Zeidenberg purchased). The district court held the licenses ineffectual because their terms do not appear on the outside of the packages. The court added that the second and third licenses stand no different from the first, even though they are identical, because they might have been different, and a purchaser does not agree to — and cannot be bound by — terms that were secret at the time of purchase. 908 F. Supp. at 654.
马修-泽登伯格于 1994 年从威斯康星州麦迪逊市的一家零售店购买了一套 SelectPhone(商标)的消费者套餐,但他决定无视许可证。他成立了 Silken Mountain 网络服务公司,转售 SelectPhone(商标)数据库中的信息。该公司在互联网上向任何愿意支付其价格的人提供数据库,不用说,这个价格比 ProCD 向其商业客户收取的费用还要低。Zeidenberg 又购买了两个 SelectPhone(商标)软件包,每个软件包都有数据库的更新版本,并通过其公司在万维网上有偿提供最新信息。ProCD 提起诉讼,要求禁止超出许可(Zeidenberg 购买的三个软件包中的每一个都相同)规定的权利进一步传播。地区法院认为许可证无效,因为其条款没有出现在软件包的外部。法院补充说,第二份和第三份许可与第一份许可没有什么不同,即使它们是相同的,因为它们可能是不同的,而购买者并不同意--也不能受--购买时保密的条款的约束。908 F. Supp. at 654。

II

Following the district court, we treat the licenses as ordinary contracts accompanying the sale of products, and therefore as governed by the common law of contracts and the Uniform Commercial Code. Whether there are legal differences between “contracts” and “licenses” (which may matter under the copyright doctrine of first sale) is a subject for another day. See Microsoft Corp. v. Harmony Computers & Electronics, Inc., 846 F. Supp. 208 (E.D.N.Y.1994). Zeidenberg does not argue that Silken Mountain Web Services is free of any restrictions that apply to Zeidenberg himself, because any effort to treat the two parties as distinct would put Silken Mountain behind the eight ball on ProCD’s argument that copying the application program onto its hard disk violates the copyright laws. Zeidenberg does argue, and the district court held, that placing the package of software on the shelf is an “offer,” which the customer “accepts” by paying the asking price and leaving the store with the goods. Peeters v. State, 154 Wis. 111, 142 N.W. 181 (1913). In Wisconsin, as elsewhere, a contract includes only the terms on which the parties have agreed. One cannot agree to hidden terms, the judge
根据地区法院的意见,我们将许可证视为产品销售的普通合同,因此受普通合同法和《统一商法典》的管辖。"合同 "和 "许可 "之间是否存在法律上的差异(在版权的首次销售原则下可能很重要)是另一个话题。参见 Microsoft Corp. v. Harmony Computers & Electronics, Inc.Zeidenberg 并未辩称 Silken Mountain Web Services 不受适用于 Zeidenberg 本人的任何限制,因为将双方区别对待的任何努力都会使 Silken Mountain 在 ProCD 提出的将应用程序复制到其硬盘上违反版权法的论点上处于劣势。Zeidenberg 确实认为,将软件包放在货架上是一种 "要约",顾客通过支付要价并带着货物离开商店来 "接受 "要约,地区法院也是这样认为的。Peeters 诉州政府案,154 Wis.111, 142 N.W. 181 (1913)。在威斯康星州和其他地方一样,合同只包括双方同意的条款。法官

356

concluded. So far, so good — but one of the terms to which Zeidenberg agreed by purchasing the software is that the transaction was subject to a license. Zeidenberg’s position therefore must be that the printed terms on the outside of a box are the parties’ contract — except for printed terms that refer to or incorporate other terms. But why would Wisconsin fetter the parties’ choice in this way? Vendors can put the entire terms of a contract on the outside of a box only by using microscopic type, removing other information that buyers might find more useful (such as what the software does, and on which computers it works), or both. The “Read Me” file included with most software, describing system requirements and potential incompatibilities, may be equivalent to ten pages of type; warranties and license restrictions take still more space. Notice on the outside, terms on the inside, and a right to return the software for a refund if the terms are unacceptable (a right that the license expressly extends), may be a means of doing business valuable to buyers and sellers alike. See E. Allan Farnsworth, 1 Farnsworth on Contracts §4.26 (1990); Restatement (2d) of Contracts §211 comment a (1981) (“Standardization of agreements serves many of the same functions as standardization of goods and services; both are essential to a system of mass production and distribution. Scarce and costly time and skill can be devoted to a class of transactions rather than the details of individual transactions.”). Doubtless a state could forbid the use of standard contracts in the software business, but we do not think that Wisconsin has done so.
结论是到此为止,一切顺利--但 Zeidenberg 在购买软件时同意的条款之一是该交易受许可证约束。因此,Zeidenberg 的立场必然是,包装盒外的印刷条款就是双方的合同--除非印刷条款提及或包含了其他条款。但威斯康星州为什么要以这种方式束缚当事人的选择呢?销售商可以将合同的全部条款印在盒子外面,但前提是必须使用微缩字体,或者删除买家可能认为更有用的其他信息(例如软件的功能以及在哪些计算机上运行),或者两者兼而有之。大多数软件附带的 "Read Me "文件描述了系统要求和潜在的不兼容性,可能相当于 10 页的字体;担保和许可限制占用的空间更大。外包装上的通知、内包装上的条款,以及在无法接受这些条款的情况下退货退款的权利(许可证明确规定了这一权利),可能是一种对买卖双方都有价值的交易方式。见 E. Allan Farnsworth, 1 Farnsworth on Contracts §4.26 (1990);Restatement (2d) of Contracts §211 comment a (1981)("协议的标准化与商品和服务的标准化具有许多相同的功能;两者对于大规模生产和分销系统都是必不可少的。稀缺而昂贵的时间和技能可以用于一类交易,而不是个别交易的细节")。毫无疑问,一个州可以禁止在软件业务中使用标准合同,但我们认为威斯康星州并没有这样做。

Transactions in which the exchange of money precedes the communication of detailed terms are common. Consider the purchase of insurance. The buyer goes to an agent, who explains the essentials (amount of coverage, number of years) and remits the premium to the home office, which sends back a policy. On the district judge’s understanding, the terms of the policy are irrelevant because the insured paid before receiving them. Yet the device of payment, often with a “binder” (so that the insurance takes effect immediately even though the home office reserves the right to withdraw coverage later), in advance of the policy, serves buyers’ interests by accelerating effectiveness and reducing transactions costs. Or consider the purchase of an airline ticket. The traveler calls the carrier or an agent, is quoted a price, reserves a seat, pays, and gets a ticket, in that order. The ticket contains elaborate terms, which the traveler can reject by canceling the reservation. To use the ticket is to accept the terms, even terms that in retrospect are disadvantageous. See Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585, 111 S. Ct. 1522, 113 L. Ed. 2d 622 (1991); see also Vimar Seguros y Reaseguros, S.A. v. M/V Sky Reefer, 515 U.S. 528, 115 S. Ct. 2322, 132 L. Ed. 2d 462 (1995) (bills of lading). Just so with a ticket to a concert. The back of the ticket states that the patron promises not to record the concert; to attend is to agree. A theater that detects a violation will confiscate the tape and escort the violator to the exit. One could arrange things so that every concertgoer signs this promise before forking over the money, but that cumbersome way of doing things not only would lengthen queues and raise prices but also would scotch the sale of tickets by phone or electronic data service.
在交易中,货币交换先于详细条款的沟通是很常见的。例如购买保险。买方去找代理人,代理人向买方说明基本情况(保险金额、保险年限),买方将保险费汇给总部,总部寄回一份保险单。按照地区法官的理解,保单的条款是无关紧要的,因为投保人在收到保单之前已经支付了保费。然而,在收到保单之前支付保费,通常还附有 "粘合剂"(这样保险立即生效,即使总部保留以后撤销保险的权利),这种做法通过加快效力和降低交易成本而符合买方的利益。或者考虑一下购买机票。旅客打电话给航空公司或代理商,报价、预订座位、付款、取票,依次进行。机票上有详细的条款,旅客可以通过取消预订来拒绝这些条款。使用船票就等于接受了这些条款,即使这些条款在事后看来是不利的。见 Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, 499 U.S. 585, 111 S. Ct. 1522, 113 L. Ed.2d 622 (1991); see also Vimar Seguros y Reaseguros, S.A. v. M/V Sky Reefer, 515 U.S. 528, 115 S. Ct.2d 462 (1995)(提单)。音乐会门票也是如此。门票背面写明,观众承诺不录制音乐会内容;参加音乐会即表示同意。发现违规行为的剧院会没收磁带,并护送违规者到出口处。 我们可以做出这样的安排,让每一位音乐会观众在交钱之前都签署这一承诺,但这种繁琐的做法不仅会延长排队时间,提高票价,而且会阻碍电话或电子数据服务售票。

Consumer goods work the same way. Someone who wants to buy a radio set visits a store, pays, and walks out with a box. Inside the box is a leaflet containing some terms, the most important of which usually is the warranty, read for the first time in the comfort of home. By Zeidenberg’s lights, the warranty in the box is irrelevant; every consumer gets the standard warranty implied by the UCC in the event the contract is silent; yet so far as we are aware no state disregards warranties furnished with consumer products. Drugs come with a list of
消费品也是如此。有人想买一台收音机,他去商店付钱,然后拿着一个盒子走出来。盒子里有一张小册子,上面有一些条款,其中最重要的通常是保修条款,这是在舒适的家中第一次阅读。根据齐登伯格的观点,盒子里的保证书无关紧要;如果合同没有规定,每个消费者都会得到《统一商法典》所默示的标准保证书;然而,据我们所知,没有任何一个州无视消费品所附带的保证书。药品附带的

357

ingredients on the outside and an elaborate package insert on the inside. The package insert describes drug interactions, contraindications, and other vital information — but, if Zeidenberg is right, the purchaser need not read the package insert, because it is not part of the contract.
药品外包装上有成分说明,内包装上有精心制作的说明书。包装内页介绍了药物相互作用、禁忌和其他重要信息--但如果 Zeidenberg 是对的,购买者无需阅读包装内页,因为它不是合同的一部分。

Next consider the software industry itself. Only a minority of sales take place over the counter, where there are boxes to peruse. A customer may place an order by phone in response to a line item in a catalog or a review in a magazine. Much software is ordered over the Internet by purchasers who have never seen a box. Increasingly software arrives by wire. There is no box; there is only a stream of electrons, a collection of information that includes data, an application program, instructions, many limitations (“MegaPixel 3.14159 cannot be used with BytePusher 2.718”), and the terms of sale. The user purchases a serial number, which activates the software’s features. On Zeidenberg’s arguments, these unboxed sales are un-fettered by terms — so the seller has made a broad warranty and must pay consequential damages for any shortfalls in performance, two “promises” that if taken seriously would drive prices through the ceiling or return transactions to the horseand-buggy age.
再看看软件业本身。只有少数销售是在柜台上进行的,柜台上摆放着各种包装盒。客户可能会根据目录中的细目或杂志上的评论通过电话下订单。许多软件是购买者通过互联网订购的,他们从未见过包装盒。越来越多的软件通过电线送达。软件没有包装盒,只有电子流、信息集合(包括数据、应用程序、指令、许多限制("MegaPixel 3.14159 不能与 BytePusher 2.718 一起使用")和销售条款)。用户购买的序列号可以激活软件的功能。根据 Zeidenberg 的论点,这些开箱销售不受条款约束--因此卖方做出了广泛的保证,并且必须为任何性能缺陷支付间接损害赔偿,这两项 "承诺 "如果被认真对待,将使价格突破天花板,或使交易回到马车和马车时代。

According to the district court, the UCC does not countenance the sequence of money now, terms later. (Wisconsin’s version of the UCC does not differ from the Official Version in any material respect, so we use the regular numbering system. Wis. Stat. §402.201 corresponds to UCC §2-201, and other citations are easy to derive.) One of the court’s reasons — that by proposing as part of the draft Article 2B a new UCC §2-2203 that would explicitly validate standard-form user licenses, the American Law Institute and the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform Laws have conceded the invalidity of shrinkwrap licenses under current law, see 908 F. Supp. at 655-56 — depends on a faulty inference. To propose a change in a law’s text is not necessarily to propose a change in the law’s effect. New words may be designed to fortify the current rule with a more precise text that curtails uncertainty. To judge by the flux of law review articles discussing shrinkwrap licenses, uncertainty is much in need of reduction — although businesses seem to feel less uncertainty than do scholars, for only three cases (other than ours) touch on the subject, and none directly addresses it. See Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology, 939 F.2d 91 (3d Cir.1991); Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd., 847 F.2d 255, 268-70 (5th Cir.1988); Arizona Retail Systems, Inc. v. Software Link, Inc., 831 F. Supp. 759 (D. Ariz.1993). As their titles suggest, these are not consumer transactions. Step-Saver is a battle-of-the-forms case, in which the parties exchange incompatible forms and a court must decide which prevails. See Northrop Corp. v. Litronic Industries, 29 F.3d 1173 (7th Cir. 1994) (Illinois law); Douglas G. Baird & Robert Weisberg, Rules, Standards, and the Battle of the Forms: A Reassessment of §2-207, 68 Va. L. Rev. 1217, 1227-31 (1982). Our case has only one form; UCC §2-207 is irrelevant. Vault holds that Louisiana’s special shrinkwrap-license statute is preempted by federal law, a question to which we return. And Arizona Retail Systems did not reach the question, because the court found that the buyer knew the terms of the license before purchasing the software.
地区法院认为,《统一商法典》并不认可 "先付款,后条款 "的顺序。(威斯康星州版本的《统一商法典》与官方版本没有任何实质性差异,因此我们使用常规的编号系统。Wis. Stat.Stat.§402.201与《统一商法典》§2-201相对应,其他引文也很容易得出)。法院的其中一个理由是,美国法学会和全国统一法专员会议通过提出作为第 2B 条草案一部分的新的《统一商法典》第 2-2203 条,明确规定标准形式的用户许可有效,从而承认了收缩包装许可在现行法律下的无效性,见 908 F. Supp. at 655-56--这取决于一个错误的推论。建议修改法律条文并不一定是建议修改法律的效力。新的措辞可能是为了用更精确的文本来加强现行规则,以减少不确定性。从大量讨论收缩包装许可的法律评论文章来看,不确定性亟待减少--尽管企业似乎比学者更少感到不确定性,因为只有三个案例(除我们的案例外)涉及这一主题,而且没有一个案例直接涉及这一主题。参见 Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology, 939 F.2d 91 (3d Cir.1991);Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Ltd., 847 F.2d 255, 268-70 (5th Cir.1988);Arizona Retail Systems, Inc. v. Software Link, Inc., 831 F. Supp. 759 (D. Ariz.1993)。正如其标题所示,这些并非消费者交易。Step-Saver 案是一起形式之争的案件,双方当事人交换互不兼容的形式,法院必须裁定哪一方胜诉。参见 Northrop Corp. v. Litronic Industries, 29 F.3d 1173 (7th Cir. 1994)(伊利诺伊州法律);Douglas G. 贝尔德和罗伯特-韦斯伯格,《规则、标准和形式之争》:A Reassessment of §2-207, 68 Va.L. Rev. 1217, 1227-31 (1982).我们的案件只有一种形式;UCC §2-207与本案无关。Vault 认为路易斯安那州的特殊收缩包装许可法规受到联邦法律的限制,这个问题我们会再讨论。亚利桑那零售系统公司案没有涉及这个问题,因为法院认为买方在购买软件之前就知道许可条款。

What then does the current version of the UCC have to say? We think that the place to start is §2-204(1): “A contract for sale of goods may be made in any manner sufficient to show agreement, including conduct by both parties which recognizes the existence of such a contract.” A vendor, as master of the offer, may invite acceptance by conduct, and may propose limitations on the kind of conduct that constitutes acceptance. A buyer may accept
那么,现行版本的《统一商法典》是如何规定的呢?我们认为可以从§2-204(1)开始:"货物销售合同可以以任何足以表明双方同意的方式订立,包括双方承认存在此类合同的行为。"卖方作为要约的主人,可以通过行为邀请买方接受,也可以对构成接受的行为提出限制。买方可以接受

358

by performing the acts the vendor proposes to treat as acceptance. And that is what happened. ProCD proposed a contract that a buyer would accept by using the software after having an opportunity to read the license at leisure. This Zeidenberg did. He had no choice, because the software splashed the license on the screen and would not let him proceed without indicating acceptance. So although the district judge was right to say that a contract can be, and often is, formed simply by paying the price and walking out of the store, the UCC permits contracts to be formed in other ways. ProCD proposed such a different way, and without protest Zeidenberg agreed. Ours is not a case in which a consumer opens a package to find an insert saying “you owe us an extra $10,000” and the seller files suit to collect. Any buyer finding such a demand can prevent formation of the contract by returning the package, as can any consumer who concludes that the terms of the license make the software worth less than the purchase price. Nothing in the UCC requires a seller to maximize the buyer’s net gains.
通过实施卖方建议视为接受的行为。事情就是这样。ProCD 公司提出的合同是买方在有机会阅读许可证后通过使用软件来接受合同。Zeidenberg 就这样做了。他别无选择,因为软件会在屏幕上显示许可证,如果不表示接受,就不会让他继续使用。因此,尽管地区法官的观点是正确的,即只要付了钱并走出商店,合同就可以成立,而且经常成立,但《统一商法典》允许以其他方式成立合同。ProCD 公司提出了这样一种不同的方式,Zeidenberg 没有提出异议就同意了。在我们的案件中,消费者打开包装后发现内页上写着 "您欠我们额外的 10,000 美元",卖方提起诉讼要求收款。任何发现这种要求的买方都可以通过退回包装来阻止合同的成立,任何认为许可条款使软件价值低于购买价格的消费者也可以这样做。统一商法典》中没有任何条款要求卖方使买方的净收益最大化。

Section 2-606, which defines “acceptance of goods”, reinforces this understanding. A buyer accepts goods under §2-606(1)(b) when, after an opportunity to inspect, he fails to make an effective rejection under §2-602(1). ProCD extended an opportunity to reject if a buyer should find the license terms unsatisfactory; Zeidenberg inspected the package, tried out the software, learned of the license, and did not reject the goods. We refer to §2-606 only to show that the opportunity to return goods can be important; acceptance of an offer differs from acceptance of goods after delivery, see Gillen v. Atalanta Systems, Inc., 997 F.2d 280, 284 n.1 (7th Cir. 1993); but the UCC consistently permits the parties to structure their relations so that the buyer has a chance to make a final decision after a detailed review.
第 2-606 条对 "接受货物 "进行了定义,强化了这一理解。根据第 2-606(1)(b)条的规定,如果买方在有机会检查之后没有根据第 2-602(1)条的规定提出有效的拒绝,那么他就接受了货物。如果买方发现许可条款不能令人满意,ProCD 提供了拒收的机会;Zeidenberg 检查了软件包,试用了软件,了解了许可条款,并没有拒收货物。我们引用第 2-606 节只是为了说明退货的机会可能很重要;接受要约与接受交货后的货物不同,见 Gillen 诉 Atalanta Systems, Inc.,997 F.2d 280, 284 n.1 (7th Cir. 1993);但《统一商法典》一贯允许当事人构建其关系,以便买方有机会在详细审查后做出最终决定。

Some portions of the UCC impose additional requirements on the way parties agree on terms. A disclaimer of the implied warranty of merchantability must be “conspicuous.” UCC §2-316(2), incorporating UCC §1-201(10). Promises to make firm offers, or to negate oral modifications, must be “separately signed.” UCC §§2-205, 2-209(2). These special provisos reinforce the impression that, so far as the UCC is concerned, other terms may be as inconspicuous as the forum-selection clause on the back of the cruise ship ticket in Carnival Lines. Zeidenberg has not located any Wisconsin case — for that matter, any case in any state — holding that under the UCC the ordinary terms found in shrinkwrap licenses require any special prominence, or otherwise are to be undercut rather than enforced. In the end, the terms of the license are conceptually identical to the contents of the package. Just as no court would dream of saying that SelectPhone (trademark) must contain 3,100 phone books rather than 3,000, or must have data no more than 30 days old, or must sell for $100 rather than $150 — although any of these changes would be welcomed by the customer, if all other things were held constant — so, we believe, Wisconsin would not let the buyer pick and choose among terms. Terms of use are no less a part of “the product” than are the size of the database and the speed with which the software compiles listings. Competition among vendors, not judicial revision of a package’s contents, is how consumers are protected in a market economy. Digital Equipment Corp. v. Uniq Digital Technologies, Inc., 73 F.3d 756 (7th Cir. 1996). ProCD has rivals, which may elect to compete by offering superior software, monthly updates, improved terms of use, lower price, or a better compromise among these elements. As we stressed above, adjusting terms in buyers’ favor might help Matthew Zeidenberg today
统一商法典》的某些部分对当事人商定条款的方式提出了额外要求。对适销性默示保证的免责声明必须 "醒目"。UCC §2-316(2)包含了UCC §1-201(10)。作出确定要约或否定口头修改的承诺必须 "单独签署"。UCC §§2-205, 2-209(2)。这些特别但书强化了这样一种印象,即就 UCC 而言,其他条款可能与嘉年华邮轮公司案中游轮船票背面的法院选择条款一样不起眼。Zeidenberg没有找到任何威斯康星州的案例,也没有找到任何州的案例,认为根据《统一商法典》,收缩包装许可中的普通条款需要特别突出,否则就会被削弱而不是强制执行。归根结底,许可条款与包装内容在概念上是一致的。正如没有一家法院会梦想着规定 SelectPhone(商标)必须包含 3100 本电话簿而不是 3000 本,或者必须包含不超过 30 天的数据,或者必须以 100 美元而不是 150 美元的价格出售--尽管在所有其他条件不变的情况下,任何这些变化都会受到客户的欢迎--因此,我们相信,威斯康星州不会让买方在条款中挑挑拣拣。使用条款是 "产品 "的一部分,其重要性不亚于数据库的规模和软件编制清单的速度。在市场经济中,保护消费者的方式是供应商之间的竞争,而不是对软件包内容的司法修订。Digital Equipment Corp. v. Uniq Digital Technologies, Inc., 73 F.3d 756 (7th Cir. 1996)。ProCD 有竞争对手,他们可能会选择通过提供更好的软件、每月更新、改进的使用条款、更低的价格或这些要素之间更好的折衷来进行竞争。正如我们在上文所强调的,调整条款使其对买方有利,可能会对马修-泽登伯格的今天有所帮助

359

(he already has the software) but would lead to a response, such as a higher price, that might make consumers as a whole worse off.
(他已经拥有了该软件),但会导致一种反应,如提高价格,从而可能使消费者的整体利益受损。

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp.

306 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2002)

SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judge.

I. FACTS

….

In the time period relevant to this litigation, Netscape offered on its website various software programs, including Communicator and SmartDownload, which visitors to the site were invited to obtain free of charge. It is undisputed that five of the six named plaintiffs — Michael Fagan, John Gibson, Mark Gruber, Sean Kelly, and Sherry Weindorf — downloaded Communicator from the Netscape website. These plaintiffs acknowledge that when they proceeded to initiate installation of Communicator, they were automatically shown a scrollable text of that program’s license agreement and were not permitted to complete the installation until they had clicked on a “Yes” button to indicate that they accepted all the license terms. If a user attempted to install Communicator without clicking “Yes,” the installation would be aborted. All five named user plaintiffs expressly agreed to Communicator’s license terms by clicking “Yes.” The Communicator license agreement that these plaintiffs saw made no mention of SmartDownload or other plug-in programs, and stated that “[t]hese terms apply to Netscape Communicator and Netscape Navigator” and that “all disputes relating to this Agreement (excepting any dispute relating to intellectual property rights)” are subject to “binding arbitration in Santa Clara County, California.”
在与本诉讼相关的时间段内,网景公司在其网站上提供了各种软件程序,包括 Communicator 和 SmartDownload,并邀请网站访问者免费获取这些程序。无可争辩的是,六名原告中的五名--迈克尔-费根、约翰-吉布森、马克-格鲁伯、肖恩-凯利和雪莉-温多夫--都从网景公司的网站上下载了 Communicator。这些原告承认,当他们开始安装 Communicator 时,他们自动看到了该程序许可协议的滚动文本,在他们点击 "是 "按钮表示接受所有许可条款之前,不允许他们完成安装。如果用户在没有点击 "是 "的情况下试图安装 Communicator,安装将被中止。所有五名被点名的原告用户都通过点击 "是 "明确表示同意 Communicator 的许可条款。这些原告看到的 Communicator 许可协议没有提及 SmartDownload 或其他插件程序,并声明 "这些条款适用于 Netscape Communicator 和 Netscape Navigator",而且 "与本协议有关的所有争议(与知识产权有关的任何争议除外)"均须接受 "加利福尼亚州圣克拉拉县具有约束力的仲裁"。

Although Communicator could be obtained independently of SmartDownload, all the named user plaintiffs, except Fagan, downloaded and installed Communicator in connection with downloading SmartDownload. Each of these plaintiffs allegedly arrived at a Netscape webpage captioned “SmartDownload Communicator” that urged them to “Download With Confidence Using SmartDownload!” At or near the bottom of the screen facing plaintiffs was the prompt “Start Download” and a tinted button labeled “Download.” By clicking on the button, plaintiffs initiated the download of SmartDownload. Once that process was complete, SmartDownload, as its first plug-in task, permitted plaintiffs to proceed with downloading and installing Communicator, an operation that was accompanied by the clickwrap display of Communicator’s license terms described above.
虽然 Communicator 可以独立于 SmartDownload 而获得,但除 Fagan 外,所有被点名的用户原告都在下载 SmartDownload 的同时下载并安装了 Communicator。据称,这些原告都进入了网景公司的一个网页,标题为 "SmartDownload Communicator",该网页敦促他们 "使用 SmartDownload 放心下载!"。在原告面前的屏幕底部或接近底部的地方,有 "开始下载 "的提示和一个标有 "下载 "字样的有色按钮。通过点击该按钮,原告开始下载 SmartDownload。下载完成后,SmartDownload 作为其第一个插件任务,允许原告继续下载和安装 Communicator,同时点击显示上述 Communicator 的许可条款。

The signal difference between downloading Communicator and downloading SmartDownload was that no clickwrap presentation accompanied the latter operation. Instead, once plaintiffs Gibson, Gruber, Kelly, and Weindorf had clicked on the “Download” button located at or near the bottom of their screen, and the downloading of SmartDownload was complete, these plaintiffs encountered no further information about the plug-in program or the existence of license terms governing its use. The sole reference to SmartDownload’s license terms on the “SmartDownload Communicator” webpage was located in text that would have become visible to plaintiffs only if they had scrolled down to the next screen.
下载 Communicator 与下载 SmartDownload 之间的显著区别在于,后者在操作时没有任何点击演示。相反,一旦原告 Gibson、Gruber、Kelly 和 Weindorf 点击了位于屏幕底部或接近屏幕底部的"下载 "按钮,并且下载 SmartDownload 已经完成,这些原告就不会再看到有关该插件程序的信息,也不会再看到有关其使用的许可条款。SmartDownload Communicator "网页上唯一提及 SmartDownload 许可条款的文字只有在原告向下滚动到下一个屏幕时才会出现。

360

Had plaintiffs scrolled down instead of acting on defendants’ invitation to click on the “Download” button, they would have encountered the following invitation: “Please review and agree to the terms of the Netscape SmartDownload software license agreement before downloading and using the software.” Plaintiffs Gibson, Gruber, Kelly, and Weindorf averred in their affidavits that they never saw this reference to the SmartDownload license agreement when they clicked on the “Download” button. They also testified during depositions that they saw no reference to license terms when they clicked to download SmartDownload, although under questioning by defendants’ counsel, some plaintiffs added that they could not “remember” or be “sure” whether the screen shots of the SmartDownload page attached to their affidavits reflected precisely what they had seen on their computer screens when they downloaded SmartDownload.
如果原告没有按照被告的邀请点击 "下载 "按钮,而是向下滚动,他们就会看到以下邀请:"在下载和使用该软件之前,请查看并同意 Netscape SmartDownload 软件许可协议的条款"。原告 Gibson、Gruber、Kelly 和 Weindorf 在宣誓证词中声称,他们在点击 "下载 "按钮时从未看到过 SmartDownload 许可协议的提示。尽管在被告律师的询问下,一些原告补充说他们无法 "记住 "或 "确定 "其宣誓证词所附 SmartDownload 页面的屏幕截图是否准确反映了他们下载 SmartDownload 时在计算机屏幕上看到的内容,但他们在取证时也证实,他们在点击下载 SmartDownload 时没有看到提及许可条款的内容。

In sum, plaintiffs Gibson, Gruber, Kelly, and Weindorf allege that the process of obtaining SmartDownload contrasted sharply with that of obtaining Communicator. Having selected SmartDownload, they were required neither to express unambiguous assent to that program’s license agreement nor even to view the license terms or become aware of their existence before proceeding with the invited download of the free plug-in program. Moreover, once these plaintiffs had initiated the download, the existence of SmartDownload’s license terms was not mentioned while the software was running or at any later point in plaintiffs’ experience of the product.
总之,原告Gibson、Gruber、Kelly和Weindorf声称,获得SmartDownload的过程与获得Communicator的过程截然不同。在选择了 SmartDownload 之后,他们既没有被要求明确表示同意该程序的许可协议,甚至也没有被要求在受邀下载免费插件程序之前查看许可条款或了解其存在。此外,一旦这些原告开始下载,SmartDownload的许可条款在软件运行过程中或在原告使用该产品的过程中都没有被提及。

Even for a user who, unlike plaintiffs, did happen to scroll down past the download button, SmartDownload’s license terms would not have been immediately displayed in the manner of Communicator’s clickwrapped terms. Instead, if such a user had seen the notice of SmartDownload’s terms and then clicked on the underlined invitation to review and agree to the terms, a hypertext link would have taken the user to a separate webpage entitled “License & Support Agreements.” The first paragraph on this page read, in pertinent part:
即使用户与原告不同,碰巧向下滚动过下载按钮,SmartDownload 的许可条款也不会像 Communicator 的点击包装条款那样立即显示出来。相反,如果该用户看到了 SmartDownload 的条款通知,然后点击了下划线邀请查看并同意条款,一个超文本链接就会将用户带到一个名为 "许可和支持协议 "的单独网页。该网页第一段的相关内容如下:

The use of each Netscape software product is governed by a license agreement. You must read and agree to the license agreement terms BEFORE acquiring a product. Please click on the appropriate link below to review the current license agreement for the product of interest to you before acquisition. For products available for download, you must read and agree to the license agreement terms BEFORE you install the software. If you do not agree to the license terms, do not download, install or use the software.
每个 Netscape 软件产品的使用都受许可协议的约束。在购买产品之前,您必须阅读并同意许可协议条款。请点击下面相应的链接,在购买之前查看您感兴趣的产品的当前许可协议。对于可供下载的产品,您必须在安装软件之前阅读并同意许可协议条款。如果您不同意许可协议条款,请勿下载、安装或使用该软件。

Below this paragraph appeared a list of license agreements, the first of which was “License Agreement for Netscape Navigator and Netscape Communicator Product Family (Netscape Navigator, Netscape Communicator and Netscape SmartDownload).” If the user clicked on that link, he or she would be taken to yet another webpage that contained the full text of a license agreement that was identical in every respect to the Communicator license agreement except that it stated that its “terms apply to Netscape Communicator, Netscape Navigator, and Netscape SmartDownload.” The license agreement granted the user a nonexclusive license to use and reproduce the software, subject to certain terms:
在该段下面出现了一系列许可协议,其中第一个是 "Netscape Navigator 和 Netscape Communicator 产品系列(Netscape Navigator、Netscape Communicator 和 Netscape SmartDownload)许可协议"。如果用户点击该链接,就会进入另一个网页,该网页包含一份许可协议的全文,该许可协议除了声明其 "条款适用于 Netscape Communicator、Netscape Navigator 和 Netscape SmartDownload "外,在其他任何方面都与 Communicator 许可协议完全相同。该许可协议授予用户使用和复制软件的非专有许可,但须遵守某些条款:

BY CLICKING THE ACCEPTANCE BUTTON OR INSTALLING OR USING NETSCAPE COMMUNICATOR, NETSCAPE NAVIGATOR, OR NETSCAPE SMARTDOWNLOAD SOFTWARE (THE “PRODUCT”), THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY LICENSING THE PRODUCT
通过点击接受按钮或安装或使用 NETSCAPE COMMUNICATOR、NETSCAPE NAVIGATOR 或 NETSCAPE SMARTDOWNLOAD 软件(本 "产品"),本产品的授权个人或实体 通过点击接受按钮或安装或使用 NETSCAPE COMMUNICATOR、NETSCAPE NAVIGATOR 或 NETSCAPE SMARTDOWNLOAD 软件(本 "产品"),本产品的授权个人或实体

361

(“LICENSEE”) IS CONSENTING TO BE BOUND BY AND IS BECOMING A PARTY TO THIS AGREEMENT. IF LICENSEE DOES NOT AGREE TO ALL OF THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, THE BUTTON INDICATING NON-ACCEPTANCE MUST BE SELECTED, AND LICENSEE MUST NOT INSTALL OR USE THE SOFTWARE.
(被许可人")同意受本协议约束并成为本协议的一方。如果被许可人不同意本协议的所有条款,则必须选择表示不接受的按钮,被许可人不得安装或使用本软件。

Among the license terms was a provision requiring virtually all disputes relating to the agreement to be submitted to arbitration:
许可条款中有一条规定,几乎所有与协议有关的争议都必须提交仲裁:

Unless otherwise agreed in writing, all disputes relating to this Agreement (excepting any dispute relating to intellectual property rights) shall be subject to final and binding arbitration in Santa Clara County, California, under the auspices of JAMS/EndDispute, with the losing party paying all costs of arbitration.
除非另有书面约定,与本协议有关的所有争议(与知识产权有关的任何争议除外)均应在 JAMS/EndDispute 的主持下,在加利福尼亚州圣克拉拉县进行最终和有约束力的仲裁,由败诉方支付所有仲裁费用。

Unlike the four named user plaintiffs who downloaded SmartDownload from the Netscape website, the fifth named plaintiff, Michael Fagan, claims to have downloaded the plug-in program from a “shareware” website operated by ZDNet, an entity unrelated to Netscape. Shareware sites are websites, maintained by companies or individuals, that contain libraries of free, publicly available software. The pages that a user would have seen while downloading SmartDownload from ZDNet differed from those that he or she would have encountered while downloading SmartDownload from the Netscape website. Notably, instead of any kind of notice of the SmartDownload license agreement, the ZDNet pages offered only a hypertext link to “more information” about SmartDownload, which, if clicked on, took the user to a Netscape webpage that, in turn, contained a link to the license agreement. Thus, a visitor to the ZDNet website could have obtained SmartDownload, as Fagan avers he did, without ever seeing a reference to that program’s license terms, even if he or she had scrolled through all of ZDNet’s webpages.
与从网景公司网站下载 SmartDownload 的四名具名用户原告不同,第五名具名原告 Michael Fagan 声称是从 ZDNet 经营的 "共享软件 "网站下载该插件程序的,ZDNet 是一个与网景公司无关的实体。共享软件网站是由公司或个人维护的网站,其中包含免费、公开的软件库。用户从 ZDNet 下载 SmartDownload 时看到的页面与从 Netscape 网站下载 SmartDownload 时看到的页面不同。值得注意的是,ZDNet 网页上没有任何关于 SmartDownload 许可协议的通知,而只提供了一个关于 SmartDownload "更多信息 "的超文本链接,如果点击该链接,用户就会进入一个 Netscape 网页,而该网页又包含一个许可协议链接。因此,ZDNet 网站的访问者可以像 Fagan 所说的那样获得 SmartDownload,即使他或她滚动浏览了 ZDNet 的所有网页,也不会看到该程序的许可条款。

The sixth named plaintiff, Christopher Specht, never obtained or used SmartDownload, but instead operated a website from which visitors could download certain electronic files that permitted them to create an account with an internet service provider called WhyWeb. Specht alleges that every time a user who had previously installed SmartDownload visited his website and downloaded WhyWeb-related files, defendants intercepted this information. Defendants allege that Specht would receive a representative’s commission from WhyWeb every time a user who obtained a WhyWeb file from his website subsequently subscribed to the WhyWeb service. Thus, argue defendants, because the “Netscape license agreement conferred on each user the right to download and use both Communicator and SmartDownload software,” Specht received a benefit under that license agreement in that SmartDownload “assisted in obtaining the WhyWeb file and increased the likelihood of success in the download process.” This benefit, defendants claim, was direct enough to require Specht to arbitrate his claims pursuant to Netscape’s license terms. Specht, however, maintains that he never received any commissions based on the WhyWeb files available on his website.
第六名原告 Christopher Specht 从未获得或使用 SmartDownload,而是经营了一个网站,访问者可以从该网站下载某些电子文件,从而可以在一家名为 WhyWeb 的互联网服务提供商处创建一个账户。Specht 声称,每次有安装了 SmartDownload 的用户访问他的网站并下载 WhyWeb 相关文件时,被告都会截获这些信息。被告称,每当有用户从他的网站上获得 WhyWeb 文件并随后订阅了 WhyWeb 服务,Specht 就会从 WhyWeb 收到代表佣金。因此,被告辩称,由于 "网景公司的许可协议赋予每个用户下载和使用 Communicator 和 SmartDownload 软件的权利",Specht 根据该许可协议获得了好处,因为 SmartDownload "帮助用户获得了 WhyWeb 文件,增加了下载成功的可能性"。被告声称,这一利益直接要求 Specht 根据网景公司的许可条款对其索赔进行仲裁。然而,Specht 坚持认为,他从未从其网站上提供的 WhyWeb 文件中获得任何佣金。

362

II. PROCEEDINGS BELOW

[Omitted]

DISCUSSION

I. STANDARD OF REVIEW AND APPLICABLE LAW

[Omitted]

II. WHETHER THIS COURT SHOULD REMAND FOR A TRIAL ON CONTRACT FORMATION [Omitted]
II.本庭是否应发回重审合同订立问题 [省略] 3.

III. WHETHER THE USER PLAINTIFFS HAD REASONABLE NOTICE OF AND MANIFESTED ASSENT TO THE SMARTDOWNLOAD LICENSE AGREEMENT
III.原告用户是否合理知悉并表示同意智能下载许可协议

Whether governed by the common law or by Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”), a transaction, in order to be a contract, requires a manifestation of agreement between the parties. See Windsor Mills, Inc. v. Collins & Aikman Corp., 25 Cal. App. 3d 987, 991 (1972) (“[C]onsent to, or acceptance of, the arbitration provision [is] necessary to create an agreement to arbitrate.”); see also Cal. Com. Code §2204(1) (“A contract for sale of goods may be made in any manner sufficient to show agreement, including conduct by both parties which recognizes the existence of such a contract.”). 25 Mutual manifestation of assent, whether by written or spoken word or by conduct, is the touchstone of contract. Binder v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 75 Cal. App. 4th 832, 848 (1999); cf. Restatement (Second) of Contracts §19(2) (1981) (“The conduct of a party is not effective as a manifestation of his assent unless he intends to engage in the conduct and knows or has reason to know that the other party may infer from his conduct that he assents.”). Although an onlooker observing the disputed transactions in this case would have seen each of the user plaintiffs click on the SmartDownload “Download” button, see Cedars Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Mid-West Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 118 F. Supp. 2d 1002, 1008 (C.D. Cal. 2000) (“In California, a party’s intent to contract is judged objectively, by the party’s outward manifestation of consent.”), a consumer’s clicking on a download button does not communicate assent to contractual terms if the offer did not make clear to the consumer that clicking on the download button would signify assent to those terms, see Windsor Mills, 25 Cal. App. 3d at 992 (“[W]hen the offeree does not know that a
不论是受普通法还是受《统一商法典》("UCC")第 2 条的管辖,一项交易要想成为合同,就必须在当事人之间表明协议。See Windsor Mills, Inc. v. Collins & Aikman Corp., 25 Cal.App.3d 987, 991 (1972) ("[C]onsent, or acceptance of, the arbitration provision [is] necessary to create an agreement to arbitrate."); see also Cal.Com.Code §2204(1)("货物销售合同可以以任何足以表明协议的方式订立,包括双方承认存在此类合同的行为")。25 通过书面、口头或行为相互表示同意是合同的试金石。Binder 诉 Aetna Life Ins.Co., 75 Cal.App.4th 832, 848 (1999); cf. Restatement (Second) of Contracts §19(2) (1981)("除非一方当事人有意从事该行为,并且知道或有理由知道另一方当事人可能从其行为中推断出他同意,否则其行为不具有表示同意的效力。)尽管观察本案争议交易的旁观者会看到每个用户原告都点击了 SmartDownload 的 "下载 "按钮,see Cedars Sinai Med.Ctr. v. Mid-West Nat'l Life Ins.Co., 118 F. Supp. 2d 1002, 1008 (C.D. Cal.) 2000 年)("在加利福尼亚州,一方当事人的合同意图是通过其同意的外在表现来客观判断的。"),如果要约没有向消费者明确表示点击下载按钮即表示同意合同条款,那么消费者点击下载按钮并不 表示同意合同条款,see Windsor Mills, 25 Cal.App.3d at 992("当受要约人不知道一项

363

proposal has been made to him this objective standard does not apply.”). California’s common law is clear that “an offeree, regardless of apparent manifestation of his consent, is not bound by inconspicuous contractual provisions of which he is unaware, contained in a document whose contractual nature is not obvious.” Id.; see also Marin Storage & Trucking, Inc. v. Benco Contracting & Eng’g, Inc., 89 Cal. App. 4th 1042, 1049 (2001) (same).
向他提出了建议,但这一客观标准并不适用")。加利福尼亚州的普通法明确规定,"被要约人无论是否明显表示同意,都不受合同性质不明显的文件中包含的他不知道的不明显的合同条款的约束"。Id.; see also Marin Storage & Trucking, Inc. v. Benco Contracting & Eng'g, Inc., 89 Cal.App.4th 1042, 1049 (2001) (same).

Arbitration agreements are no exception to the requirement of manifestation of assent. “This principle of knowing consent applies with particular force to provisions for arbitration.” Windsor Mills, 101 Cal. Rptr. at 351. Clarity and conspicuousness of arbitration terms are important in securing informed assent. “If a party wishes to bind in writing another to an agreement to arbitrate future disputes, such purpose should be accomplished in a way that each party to the arrangement will fully and clearly comprehend that the agreement to arbitrate exists and binds the parties thereto.” Commercial Factors Corp. v. Kurtzman Bros., 280 P.2d 146, 147-48 (1955) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, California contract law measures assent by an objective standard that takes into account both what the offeree said, wrote, or did and the transactional context in which the offeree verbalized or acted.
仲裁协议对表示同意的要求也不例外。"这一知情同意原则尤其适用于仲裁条款"。Windsor Mills案,101 Cal.Rptr. at 351。仲裁条款的明确性和显著性对于确保知情同意非常重要。"如果一方当事人希望以书面形式约束另一方当事人同意对未来的争议进行仲裁,那么在达成这一目的时,应使协议的每一方当事人都能充分、清楚地理解仲裁协议的存在并对各方当事人具有约束力"。Commercial Factors Corp. v. Kurtzman Bros., 280 P.2d 146, 147-48 (1955) (内部引号省略)。因此,加州合同法以客观标准衡量同意与否,该标准既考虑到被发价人所说、所写或所做的内容,也考虑到被发价人的口头或行为所处的交易环境。

A. The Reasonably Prudent Offeree of Downloadable Software
A.可下载软件的合理审慎受赠人

Defendants argue that plaintiffs must be held to a standard of reasonable prudence and that, because notice of the existence of SmartDownload license terms was on the next scrollable screen, plaintiffs were on “inquiry notice” of those terms. We disagree with the proposition that a reasonably prudent offeree in plaintiffs’ position would necessarily have known or learned of the existence of the SmartDownload license agreement prior to acting, so that plaintiffs may be held to have assented to that agreement with constructive notice of its terms. See Cal. Civ. Code §1589 (“A voluntary acceptance of the benefit of a transaction is equivalent to a consent to all the obligations arising from it, so far as the facts are known, or ought to be known, to the person accepting.”). It is true that “[a] party cannot avoid the terms of a contract on the ground that he or she failed to read it before signing.” Marin Storage & Trucking, 89 Cal. App. 4th at 1049. But courts are quick to add: “An exception to this general rule exists when the writing does not appear to be a contract and the terms are not called to the attention of the recipient. In such a case, no contract is formed with respect to the undisclosed term.” Id.; cf. Cory v. Golden State Bank, 95 Cal. App. 3d 360, 364 (1979) (“[T]he provision in question is effectively hidden from the view of money order purchasers until after the transactions are completed. Under these circumstances, it must be concluded that the Bank’s money order purchasers are not chargeable with either actual or constructive notice of the service charge provision, and therefore cannot be deemed to have consented to the provision as part of their transaction with the Bank.”).…
被告辩称,必须以合理审慎的标准来要求原告,而且由于 SmartDownload 许可条款的存在通知出现在下一个可滚动的屏幕上,原告对这些条款是 "查询通知"。我们不同意这样的主张,即处于原告地位的合理审慎的受要约人在采取行动之前一定会知道或获悉 SmartDownload 许可协议的存在,因此原告可以被认定为在推定知悉协议条款的情况下同意了该协议。SeeCal.Civ.Code》§1589("自愿接受一项交易的利益等同于同意该交易产生的所有义务,只要事实为接受者所知或理应所知")。诚然,"[一方]当事人不能以其在签署合同前未阅读合同为由而撤销合同条款"。Marin Storage & Trucking, 89 Cal.App.4th at 1049。但法院很快又补充道:"当书面材料看起来不像合同,且未提请收件人注意其中的条款时,这一一般规则存在例外。在这种情况下,未披露的条款不构成合同"。Id.; cf. Cory v. Golden State Bank, 95 Cal.App.3d 360, 364 (1979)("在交易完成之前,汇票购买者实际上无法看到该条款。 在这种情况下,必须得出这样的结论,即银行汇票的购买者不应被实际或推定地通知服务费条款,因此不能被视为已同意将该条款作为其与银行交易的一部分")。…

We are not persuaded that a reasonably prudent offeree in these circumstances would have known of the existence of license terms. Plaintiffs were responding to an offer that did not carry an immediately visible notice of the existence of license terms or require unambiguous manifestation of assent to those terms. Thus, plaintiffs’ “apparent manifestation of…consent” was to terms “contained in a document whose contractual nature [was] not obvious.” Windsor Mills, 25 Cal. App. 3d at 992.…
我们认为,在这种情况下,合理谨慎的受要约人不会知道存在许可条款。原告所回应的要约并没有立即明确告知存在许可条款,也没有要求受要约人明确表示同意这些条款。因此,原告 "明显表示......同意 "的是 "合同性质并不明显 "的文件中所包含的条款。Windsor Mills, 25 Cal.App.3d at 992....

* * *

364

Questions

1.

General Discussion Questions

1.1

Do you think that standard form software end user license agreements that are presented to the user after payment should be enforceable? Would you make a distinction between consumer and business users?
您是否认为付款后向用户出示的标准格式软件最终用户许可协议应具有强制执行力?您会区分消费者用户和企业用户吗?

1.2

Do you think that the use of standard form software end user license agreements is, on balance, good for consumer welfare?
您认为使用标准格式的软件最终用户许可协议总的来说是否有利于消费者福利?

1.3

What body of contract law applies to software licenses?26 The common law of contracts? Uniform Commercial Code Article 2? Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act? The Principles of Software Contracts?
什么合同法适用于软件许可证?26 普通合同法?统一商法典》第 2 条?统一计算机信息交易法》?软件合同原则?

2.

Litigation Questions

2.1

If you are legal counsel for a software licensor, how would you prove that the licensee agreed to the license terms in a shrinkwrap, clickwrap, or browsewrap setting?
如果你是软件许可人的法律顾问,你如何证明被许可人同意收缩包装、点击包装或浏览包装中的许可条款?

2.2

If you are legal counsel for a software licensor, where would you sue a consumer licensee for breach of a standard form software end user license agreement?
如果你是软件许可人的法律顾问,你会在哪里起诉消费者被许可人违反标准格式的软件最终用户许可协议?

Business Law Questions

3.1

Is a license agreement always the best vehicle for monetizing software in the mass market? What are the alternatives and their pros and cons?
许可协议是否总是大众市场软件货币化的最佳工具?有哪些替代方案及其利弊?

3.2

How can software licensors make their software end user license agreements user friendly? What are the advantages of a user-friendly license?
软件许可人如何使其软件最终用户许可协议对用户友好?用户友好型许可有哪些优势?

3.3

How would you explain to a client the difference between an end user license for software, terms of use for a website, and a privacy policy, and when each may be needed?
您如何向客户解释软件最终用户许可证、网站使用条款和隐私政策之间的区别,以及何时需要这三者?

Exercises

1.

You represent a software developer who has written a presentation graphics program for the iPad. The program contains third-party photos, video, music, and pictures. Write a memorandum to your software developer client about the best practices for deploying an enforceable EULA.
你代表的软件开发商为 iPad 编写了一个演示图形程序。该程序包含第三方照片、视频、音乐和图片。给你的软件开发商客户写一份备忘录,说明部署可执行的 EULA 的最佳实践。

2.

Present your memo to a student playing the role of the software developer. Discuss the practicalities of your approach, including whether a EULA is needed at all.
向一名扮演软件开发人员的学生提交您的备忘录。讨论你的方法的实用性,包括是否需要 EULA。

1. See 17 U.S.C. §109(a). Patent law’s first sale doctrine is called “patent exhaustion.” See Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., 553 U.S. 617 (2008). See generally Robert W. Gomulkiewicz, Is the License Still the Product?, 60 ARIZ. L. REV. 425 (2018) (comparing copyright first sale and patent exhaustion).
1. 参见 17 U.S.C. §109(a)。专利法的首次销售原则被称为 "专利权用尽"。参见广达电脑公司诉LG电子公司案,553 U.S. 617 (2008)。See generally Robert W. Gomulkiewicz, Is the License Still the Product?, 60 ARIZ.L. REV.425 (2018)(比较版权首次销售和专利权用尽)。

2. See, e.g., McRoberts Software Inc. v. Media 100, Inc., 329 F.3d 557 (7th Cir. 2003); Dun & Bradstreet Software Servs. v. Grace Consulting, Inc., 307 F.3d 197 (3d Cir. 2002).
2. See, e.g., McRoberts Software Inc、329 F.3d 557 (7th Cir. 2003);Dun & Bradstreet Software Servs.诉 Grace Consulting, Inc.,307 F.3d 197 (3d Cir. 2002)。

3. The Free Software Foundation (FSF) prefers the term “free” rather than “open” to emphasize that the goal is to keep the software “free as in freedom.” Some programmers use the term “FOSS” to refer to both free and open source software. Other names for open source software include “public,” “community,” and “copyleft.”
3. 自由软件基金会(FSF)更喜欢使用 "自由 "一词,而不是 "开放",以强调其目标是保持软件的 "自由"。一些程序员使用 "FOSS "一词来指自由软件和开放源码软件。开放源码软件的其他名称包括 "公共"、"社区 "和 "版权"。

4. The Open Source Definition can be found here: http://opensource.org/osd.
4. 开源定义可在此处找到:http://opensource.org/osd.

5. See generally Stephen Maurer, The Penguin and the Cartel: Rethinking Antitrust and Innovation Policy for the Age of Commercial Open Source, 2012 UTAH L. REV. 229 (2012); Greg Vetter, Commercial Free and Open Source Software: Knowledge Production, Hybrid Appropriability, and Patents, 77 FORDHAM L. REV. 2087 (2009).
5. See generally Stephen Maurer, The Penguin and the Cartel:重新思考商业开源时代的反垄断和创新政策, 2012 UTAH L. REV.229 (2012); Greg Vetter, Commercial Free and Open Source Software:Commercial Free and Open Source Software: Knowledge Production, Hybrid Appropriability, and Patents, 77 FORDHAM L. REV.2087 (2009).

6. The Honorable Faith S. Hochberg, District Judge, United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation.
6. 美国新泽西州地区法院地区法官 Faith S. Hochberg,指定开庭。

7. Katzer/Kamind represents that all potentially infringing activities using any of the disputed material have been voluntarily ceased. The district court held that it could not find as a matter of law that Katzer/ Kamind’s voluntary termination of allegedly wrongful activity renders the motion for preliminary injunction moot because it could not find as a matter of law that it is absolutely clear that the alleged behavior could not recur. Jacobsen, 2007 WL 2358628 at *5. We agree that this matter is not moot. See also Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Slater, 528 U.S. 216, 222, 120 S. Ct. 722, 145 L. Ed. 2d 650 (2000) (“Voluntary cessation of challenged conduct moots a case.. .only if it is absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.” (emphasis in original)).
7. Katzer/Kamind 表示,使用任何有争议材料的所有潜在侵权活动均已自愿停止。地区法院认为,它无法从法律上认定 Katzer/Kamind 自愿终止被指控的不法行为会使初步禁令动议失去实际意义,因为它无法从法律上认定被指控的行为绝对不会再次发生。Jacobsen, 2007 WL 2358628 at *5。我们同意此事没有实际意义。See also Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Slater, 528 U.S. 216, 222, 120 S. Ct. 722, 145 L. Ed.2d 650 (2000) ("Voluntary cessation of challenged conduct moots a case... only if it is sabsolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur." (emphasis original).(着重号为原文所加)。

8. For example, the GNU General Public License, which is used for the Linux operating system, prohibits downstream users from charging for a license to the software. See Wallace v. IBM Corp., 467 F.3d 1104, 110506 (7th Cir. 2006).
8. 例如,Linux 操作系统使用的 GNU 通用公共许可证禁止下游用户对软件许可证收费。See Wallace v. IBM Corp., 467 F.3d 1104, 110506 (7th Cir. 2006).

9. Jacobsen’s copyright registration creates the presumption of a valid copyright. See, e.g., Triad Sys. Corp. v. SE Exp. Co., 64 F.3d 1330, 1335 (9th Cir. 1995).
9. Jacobsen 的版权登记产生了有效版权的推定。See, e.g., Triad Sys. Corp.公司诉 SE Exp.Co., 64 F.3d 1330, 1335 (9th Cir. 1995).

10. The District Court held that “Defendants’ alleged violation of the conditions of the license may have constituted a breach of the nonexclusive license . . . [and] the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claim properly sounds in contract.”Jacobsen, 2007 WL 2358628 at *7. Thus, despite the use of the word “conditions,” the District Court treated the terms of the Artistic License as contractual covenants which did not limit the scope of the license.
10. 地区法院认为,"被告声称的违反许可条件的行为可能构成对非独占许可的违反......。[Jacobsen, 2007 WL 2358628 at *7。因此,尽管使用了 "条件 "一词,地区法院仍将艺术许可的条款视为不限制许可范围的合同条款。

11. Open source licensing restrictions are easily distinguished from mere “author attribution” cases. Copyright law does not automatically protect the rights of authors to credit for copyrighted materials. See Gilliam, 538 F.2d at 20-21 (“American copyright law, as presently written, does not recognize moral rights or provide a cause of action for their violation, since the law seeks to vindicate the economic, rather than the personal rights of authors.”); Graham, 144 F.3d at 236. Whether such rights are protected by a specific license grant depends on the language of the license. See County of Ventura v. Blackburn, 362 F.2d 515, 520 (9th Cir. 1966) (copyright infringement found where the county removed copyright notices from maps licensed to it where the license granted the county “the right to obtain duplicate tracings” from photographic negatives that contained copyright notices).
11. 开放源码许可限制很容易与单纯的 "作者署名 "情况区分开来。版权法不会自动保护作者对版权材料的署名权。See Gilliam, 538 F.2d at 20-21("美国版权法目前的规定不承认精神权利,也不为侵犯精神权利提供诉因,因为法律旨在维护作者的经济权利而非个人权利");Graham, 144 F.3d at 236。此类权利是否受到特定许可授予的保护取决于许可的语言。See County of Ventura v. Blackburn, 362 F.2d 515, 520 (9th Cir. 1966)(在许可授予该县从包含版权声明的照片底片中 "获得复制描图 "的权利的情况下,该县从许可给它的地图上删除了版权声明,版权侵权成立)。

12. At oral argument, the parties admitted that there might be no way to calculate any monetary damages under a contract theory.
12. 在口头辩论中,双方承认可能无法根据合同理论计算任何金钱赔偿。

13. See generally Robert W. Gomulkiewicz, A First Look at General Public License 3.0, 24 COMPUTER & Internet Law. 15 (2007).
13. See generally Robert W. Gomulkiewicz, A First Look at General Public License 3.0, 24 COMPUTER & Internet Law.15 (2007)..

14. See Robert W. Gomulkiewicz, General Public License 3.0: Hacking the Free Software Movement’s Constitution, 42 HOUS. L. REV. 1015 (2005) (introducing the SimPL); Robert W. Gomulkiewicz, Open Source License Proliferation: Helpful Diversity or Hopeless Confusion?, 30 WASH. U. J.L. & POL’Y 261 (2009) (telling the story of the SimPL’s approval by the Open Source Initiative).
14. See Robert W. Gomulkiewicz, General Public License 3.0:破解自由软件运动的宪法, 42 HOUS.REV.1015 (2005)(介绍 SimPL);Robert W. Gomulkiewicz,开源许可证扩散:, 30 WASH.J.L. & POL'Y 261 (2009)(讲述了开源计划批准 SimPL 的故事)。

15. The term “multimedia” is a bit of a misnomer because, rather than containing many types of media, multimedia products combine multiple works on one medium, such as a CD-ROM.
15. "多媒体" 这个术语有点名不副实,因为、媒体,多媒体产品将多种作品结合在一种介质(如光盘)上。

16. See Mark A. Lemley, Terms of Use, 91 MINN. L. REV. 459, 459-460 (2006) (“Every court to consider the issue has found ‘clickwrap’ licenses.. .enforceable. A majority of courts in the past ten years have enforced ‘shrinkwrap’ licenses. .Finally, and more recently, an increasing number of courts have enforced ‘browsewrap’ licenses..”); Robert W. Gomulkiewicz, Getting Serious About User-Friendly Mass Market Licensing for Software, 12 Geo. MASON L. REV. 687, 689-692 (2004). See, e.g., Apple, Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 658 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2011); Vernor v. Autodesk, 621 F.3d 1102 (9th Cir. 2010); MDY Indus. v. Blizzard Entm’t, 629 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2010); Bowers v. Baystate Techs., Inc., 320 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Specht v. Netscape Commc’ns Corp., 306 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2002); Micro Star v. Formgen Inc., 154 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 1998); ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447, 1455 (7th Cir. 1996); Adobe Sys., Inc. v. Stargate Software, Inc., 216 F. Supp. 2d 1051 (N.D. Cal. 2002); i.LAN Sys., Inc. v. Netscout Serv. Level Corp., 183 F. Supp. 2d 328 (D. Mass. 2002); Storm Impact, Inc. v. Software of the Month Club, 13 F. Supp. 2d 782 (N.D. Ill. 1998); Ariz. Retail Sys., Inc. v. Software Link, Inc., 831 F. Supp. 759 (D. Ariz. 1993); I-A Equip. Co. v. I-Code, Inc., 43 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d 807 (Mass. Dist. Ct. 2000); M.A. Mortenson Co. v. Timberline Software Corp., 140 Wash. 2d 568, 998 P.2d 305 (2000).
16. See Mark A. Lemley, Terms of Use, 91 MINN.L. REV.459, 459-460 (2006) ("Every court to consider the issue has found 'clickwrap' licenses... enforceable.在过去十年中,大多数法院都执行了'收缩包装'许可。.Finally, and more recently, an increasing number of courts have enforced 'browsewrap' licenses."); Robert W. Gomulkiewicz, Getting Serious About User-Friendly Mass Market Licensing for Software, 12 Geo.MASON L. REV.REV.687, 689-692 (2004).See, e.g., Apple, Inc.d 1102 (9th Cir. 2010); MDY Indus. v. Blizzard Entm't, 629 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 2010); Bowers v. Baystate Techs、306 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 2002);Micro Star 诉 Formgen Inc.,154 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 1998);ProCD, Inc. 诉 Zeidenberg,86 F.3d 1447, 1455 (7th Cir. 1996);Adobe Sys., Inc. 诉 Stargate Software, Inc.,216 F. Supp. 2d 1051 (N.D. Cal. 2002);i.LAN Sys., Inc. 诉 Netscout Serv.Level Corp., 183 F. Supp. 2d 328 (D. Mass. 2002);Storm Impact, Inc. v. Software of the Month Club, 13 F. Supp. 2d 782 (N.D. Ill. 1998);Ariz.Retail Sys., Inc. v. Software Link, Inc., 831 F. Supp. 759 (D. Ariz. 1993);I-A Equip.Co. v. I-Code, Inc., 43 U.C.C. Rep. Serv.2d 807 (Mass. Dist. Ct. 2000);M.A. Mortenson Co. v. Timberline Software Corp., 140 Wash. 2d 568, 998 P.2d 305 (2000)。

17. See ProCD, Inc. v. Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996).
17. ProCD, Inc. 诉 Zeidenberg, 86 F.3d 1447 (7th Cir. 1996).

18. See Arizona Retail Sys. Inc. v. Software Link, Inc., 831 F. Supp. 759 (D. Ariz. 1993).
18. See Arizona Retail Sys.Inc. 诉 Software Link, Inc., 831 F. Supp. 759 (D. Ariz. 1993)。

19. See Robert W. Gomulkiewicz & Mary L. Williamson, A Brief Defense of Mass Market Software License Agreements, 22 RUTGERS COMPUTER & TECH. L.J. 335, 357 n.89 (1996).
Williamson, A Brief Defense of Mass Market Software License Agreements, 22 RUTGERS COMPUTER & TECH.L.J. 335, 357 n.89 (1996).

20. Prior to using activation codes, Autodesk required users to return one disc of an earlier version of the software to upgrade to a later version. Autodesk has abandoned this return policy, deeming it slow and unworkable.
20. 在使用激活代码之前,Autodesk 要求用户退回一张早期版本软件的光盘以升级到后续版本。Autodesk 已经放弃了这一退货政策,认为它既慢又不可行。

21. If Autodesk’s transfer of Release 14 copies to CTA was a first sale, then CTA’s resale of the software in violation of the SLA’s terms would be a breach of contract, but would not result in copyright liability. See United States v. Wise, 550 F.2d 1180, 1187 (9th Cir. 1977) (“[T]he exclusive right to vend the transferred copy rests with the vendee, who is not restricted by statute from further transfers of that copy, even though in breach of an agreement restricting its sale.”).
21. 如果 Autodesk 向 CTA 转让 Release 14 副本是首次销售,那么 CTA 违反 SLA 条款转售软件就是违约,但不会导致版权责任。See United States v. Wise, 550 F.2d 1180, 1187 (9th Cir. 1977)("受让副本的独家销售权属于卖方,即使卖方违反了限制其销售的协议,其进一步转让该副本的权利也不受法律限制。

22. Although use restrictions were not dispositive in the MAI trio, we considered them in each case. See MAI, 991 F.2d at 517 n. 3 (license limited user to making one working and one backup copy of the software, and forbade examination, disclosure, copying, modification, adaptation, and visual display of the software); Triad, 64 F.3d at 1333 (license prohibited software duplication and third-party use); Wall Data, 447 F.3d at 775 n. 5 (license permitted software use on single computer, prohibited multicomputer and multi-user arrangements, and permitted transfer to another computer no more than once every thirty days).
22. 虽然使用限制在 MAI 三案中并非决定性因素,但我们在每个案件中都考虑了这些因素。See MAI, 991 F.2d at 517 n. 3(许可证限制用户制作一份软件的工作副本和一份备份副本,并禁止检查、披露、复制、修改、改编和直观展示软件);Triad, 64 F.3d at 1333(许可禁止软件复制和第三方使用);Wall Data, 447 F.3d at 775 n. 5 (许可允许在单台计算机上使用软件,禁止多台计算机和多用户安排,并允许每三十天向另一台计算机转移不超过一次)。

23. See Robert W. Gomulkiewicz, Is the License Still the Product?, 60 ARIZ. L. REV. 425 (2018).
23. See Robert W. Gomulkiewicz, Is the License Still the Product?Gomulkiewicz, Is the License Still the Product?, 60 ARIZ.L. REV.425 (2018)..

24. Under section 2-207, a party can, of course, send a confirmatory memorandum after acceptance.
24. 根据第 2-207 条,一方当事人当然可以在接受之后发送确认备忘录。

25. ...Downloadable software, however, is scarcely a “tangible” good, and, in part because software may be obtained, copied, or transferred effortlessly at the stroke of a computer key, licensing of such Internet products has assumed a vast importance in recent years. Recognizing that “a body of law based on images of the sale of manufactured goods ill fits licenses and other transactions in computer information,” the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws has promulgated the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (“UCITA”), a code resembling UCC Article 2 in many respects but drafted to reflect emergent practices in the sale and licensing of computer information. UCITA, prefatory note (rev. ed. Aug. 23, 2001) (available at www.ucitaonline.com/ucita.html). UCITA — originally intended as a new Article 2B to supplement Articles 2 and 2A of the UCC but later proposed as an independent code — has been adopted by two states, Maryland and Virginia. See Md. Code Ann. Com. Law §§22-101 et seq.; Va. Code Ann. §§59.1501.1 et seq.
25.......然而,可下载的软件几乎不是一种 "有形 "的商品,部分原因是只需按一下电脑键,就可以毫不费力地获得、复制或转让软件,因此近年来此类互联网产品的许可问题变得非常重要。全国统一州法专员会议(National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws)认识到 "基于制成品销售图像的法律体系不适合计算机信息的许可和其他交易",因此颁布了《统一计算机信息交易法》(Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act,简称 "UCITA"),该法典在许多方面与《统一商法典》第 2 条相似,但其起草目的是为了反映计算机信息销售和许可方面的新兴做法。UCITA, prefatory note (rev. ed. Aug. 23, 2001) (available at www.ucitaonline.com/ucita.html).UCITA最初是作为新的第2B条来补充《统一商法典》的第2条和第2A条,但后来被提议作为一部独立的法典,目前已被马里兰州和弗吉尼亚州两个州采用。SeeMd.Code Ann.Com.Law §§22-101 et seq.;Va.Code Ann.§§59.1501.1 及其后。

We need not decide today whether UCC Article 2 applies to Internet transactions in downloadable products. The district court’s analysis and the parties’ arguments on appeal show that, for present purposes, there is no essential difference between UCC Article 2 and the common law of contracts. We therefore apply the common law, with exceptions as noted.
我们今天无需决定《统一商法典》第 2 条是否适用于可下载产品的互联网交易。地区法院的分析和双方在上诉中的争论表明,就目前而言,《统一商法典》第 2 条与普通合同法并无本质区别。因此,我们适用普通法,但如前所述的例外情况除外。

26. See generally Robert W. Gomulkiewicz, The Federal Circuit’s Licensing Law Jurisprudence: Its Nature and Influence, 84 WASH. L. REV. 199 (2009).
26. See generally Robert W. Gomulkiewicz, The Federal Circuit's Licensing Law Jurisprudence:其性质和影响, 84 WASH.L. REV.199 (2009).

365

· Chapter ·

7

Ownership of Software Development

I. Introduction

Most software projects involve collaborative work. Often a programmer simply uses some preexisting code as the starting point for his or her software project, thus building on the work of a known or unknown collaborator. The settings for these collaborations vary. Sometimes programmers work together with colleagues at the same company in the same location. At other times, programmers work together with anonymous programmers at unknown locations via the Internet. Who owns the intellectual property arising from these collaborations? This chapter addresses that question in several contexts.
大多数软件项目都涉及协作工作。通常情况下,程序员只需使用一些已有的代码作为其软件项目的起点,从而在已知或未知合作者的工作基础上进行开发。这些合作的背景各不相同。有时,程序员会与同一公司、同一地点的同事一起工作。有时,程序员通过互联网与未知地点的匿名程序员合作。谁拥有这些合作产生的知识产权?本章将从几个方面探讨这个问题。

First, who owns the copyright when a firm hires a programmer to write software for it? Independent contractors are very important in the software industry. Many programmers prefer to work independently rather than join a corporation as an employee. Independent work suits both their lifestyle and their philosophical inclinations. This suits the firm’s interest as well, particularly small software startups. Using independent contractors keeps the overhead low and workforce flexible. The Aymes v. Bonelli and Asset Marketing Systems v. Gagnon cases in this chapter examine copyright ownership in the independent contractor context.
首先,当一家公司雇用程序员为其编写软件时,版权归谁?独立承包商在软件行业非常重要。许多程序员宁愿独立工作,也不愿加入公司成为雇员。独立工作既适合他们的生活方式,也符合他们的哲学倾向。这也符合公司的利益,尤其是小型软件初创公司。使用独立承包商可以降低管理费用,保持劳动力的灵活性。本章中的 Aymes v. Bonelli 案和 Asset Marketing Systems v. Gagnon 案探讨了独立承包商背景下的版权所有权问题。

Second, who owns the copyright or patent when two or more programmers work together on a software product? Programmers often collaborate with others who have complementary expertise. A specialist in user interface design, for instance, may collaborate with a programmer who can write the software engine. As the project moves toward completion, the programmers may diverge on what they want to do with the software. One may want to form a corporation and grow the business; the other may prefer to partner with an established firm that already has marketing and sales capabilities. When the collaborators decide to go in different directions, ownership issues arise. The Ashton-Tate v. Ross case presents this scenario.
其次,当两个或更多程序员合作开发软件产品时,版权或专利归谁?程序员通常会与其他具有互补专长的人合作。例如,用户界面设计专家可以与编写软件引擎的程序员合作。随着项目接近尾声,程序员们可能会对软件的用途产生分歧。其中一位可能想成立一家公司并发展业务;而另一位可能更愿意与一家已经具备市场营销和销售能力的成熟公司合作。当合作者决定朝不同的方向发展时,所有权问题就出现了。Ashton-Tate v. Ross 案就呈现了这种情况。

366

Third, now that patents play an important role in the software industry, it is important to address the ownership of patents that arise from software development. This chapter presents the principles of patent ownership by employees and contractors. Finally, the chapter contains an excerpt from a contract called a Software Services Agreement. This contract is often used when hiring software programmers as outside contractors to avoid some of the copyright and patent ownership complications that arise in software development.
第三,既然专利在软件产业中扮演着重要角色,那么解决软件开发过程中产生的专利所有权问题就显得尤为重要。本章介绍了雇员和承包商的专利所有权原则。最后,本章节选了一份名为《软件服务协议》的合同。该合同通常用于聘用软件程序员作为外部承包商,以避免软件开发过程中出现的一些版权和专利所有权方面的复杂问题。

II. Copyright Ownership: Independent Contractors

Aymes v. Bonelli

980 F.2d 857 (2d Cir. 1992)

ALTIMARI, Circuit Judge.

Clifford Scott Aymes, proceeding pro se.…
Clifford Scott Aymes, proceeding pro se....

BACKGROUND

In May 1980, Aymes was hired by defendant-appellee Jonathan Bonelli, the president and chief executive officer of Island, to work as a computer programmer. Island operated a chain of retail stores selling swimming pools and related supplies. Aymes, who received a graduate degree from Cornell University’s School of Engineering in 1981, worked with Island’s computer systems from 1980 to 1982.
1980 年 5 月,艾姆斯受雇于被告--被上诉人乔纳森-博内利(Island 公司的总裁兼首席执行官),担任计算机程序员。Island 公司经营着一家销售游泳池和相关用品的连锁零售店。艾姆斯于 1981 年获得康奈尔大学工程学院的研究生学位,1980 年至 1982 年期间一直从事 Island 公司计算机系统的工作。

Aymes did most of his programming at the Island office, where he had access to Island’s computer hardware. He generally worked alone, without assistants or co-workers, and enjoyed considerable autonomy in creating CSALIB. This autonomy was restricted only by Bonelli who directed and instructed Aymes on what he wanted from the program. Bonelli was not, however, sufficiently skilled to write the program himself.
艾姆斯的大部分编程工作都是在岛办事处进行的,因为他可以使用岛办事处的计算机硬件。他通常独自工作,没有助手或同事,在创建 CSALIB 的过程中享有相当大的自主权。这种自主权只受到博内利的限制,博内利指导并指示艾姆斯从程序中得到他想要的东西。然而,博内利并没有足够的技能亲自编写程序。

Although Aymes worked semi-regular hours, he was not always paid by the hour and on occasion presented his bills to Bonelli as invoices. At times, Aymes would be paid by the project and given bonuses for finishing the project on time. It is undisputed that Aymes never received any health or other insurance benefits from Island. It is similarly undisputed that Island never paid an employer’s percentage of Aymes’s payroll taxes and never withheld any of his salary for federal or state taxes. In fact, Aymes was given an Internal Revenue Service 1099 Non-Employee Compensation form instead of the standard employee W-2 form.
虽然艾梅斯的工作时间是半固定的,但他并不总是按小时计酬,有时他还将账单作为发票交给博内利。有时,艾姆斯按项目计酬,并因按时完成项目而获得奖金。无可争辩的是,艾姆斯从未从岛公司领取过任何医疗或其他保险福利。同样无可争议的是,岛公司从未向艾姆斯支付雇主比例的工资税,也从未从他的工资中扣留任何联邦税或州税。事实上,艾姆斯得到的是国内税收署的 1099 非雇员报酬表,而不是标准的雇员 W-2 表。

DISCUSSION

Under the Copyright Act of 1976, copyright ownership “vests initially in the author or authors of the work.” 17 U.S.C. §201(a) (1988). Although the author is generally the party who actually creates the copyrightable work, the Act provides:
根据 1976 年《版权法》,版权所有权 "最初归属于作品的作者"。17 U.S.C. §201(a) (1988)。尽管作者通常是实际创作可获得版权的作品的一方,但该法案规定

In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright.
就本标题而言,为雇佣而创作的作品的雇主或其他人被视为作者,并且,除非当事人在其签署的书面文书中另有明确约定,否则,作者拥有版权中包含的所有权利。

367

It is undisputed that Aymes and Bonelli never signed a written agreement assigning ownership rights in CSALIB. We must therefore consider whether the program was a work prepared by Aymes as an employee within the scope of his employment. If so, CSALIB qualifies as a “work made for hire” whose copyright belongs to Island as Aymes’s employer.
无可争辩的是,艾姆斯和博内利从未签署过转让 CSALIB 所有权的书面协议。因此,我们必须考虑该程序是否是 Aymes 作为雇员在其工作范围内制作的作品。如果是,那么 CSALIB 就符合 "受雇作品 "的条件,其版权属于作为 Aymes 雇主的 Island 公司。

The Copyright Act does not define the terms “employee” or “employment,” and, consequently, the application of these terms is left to the courts. In Reid, the Supreme Court addressed the question of when an individual is an employee under the work for hire doctrine. Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989). Relying extensively on the legislative history of the Copyright Act, the Court concluded that to “determine whether a work is for hire under the Act, a court first should ascertain, using principles of the general common law of agency, whether the work was prepared by an employee or an independent contractor.” Id. at 751. The Court then set forth the factors to be used in making this determination:
《版权法》没有对 "雇员 "或 "雇佣 "进行定义,因此,这些术语的应用由法院决定。在Reid 案中,最高法院解决了个人何时成为雇佣作品原则下的雇员的问题。创造性非暴力社区诉里德案,490 U.S. 730 (1989)。法院广泛参考了《版权法》的立法史,得出结论认为,"要确定一项作品是否属于《版权法》规定的受雇作品,法院首先应利用一般普通代理法的原则,确定该作品是由雇员还是独立承包商创作的。Id. at 751。法院随后列出了用于做出这一决定的因素:

In determining whether a hired party is an employee under the general common law of agency, we consider the hiring party’s right to control the manner and means by which the product is accomplished. Among the other factors relevant to this inquiry are the skill required, the source of the instrumentalities and tools, the location of the work; the duration of the relationship between the parties, whether the hiring party has the right to assign additional projects to the hired party; the extent of the hired party’s discretion over when and how long to work; the method of payment; the hired party’s role in hiring and paying assistants; whether the work is part of the regular business of the hiring party; whether the hiring party is in business; the provision of employee benefits, and the tax treatment of the hired party.
在根据一般普通代理法确定受雇方是否为雇员时,我们会考虑受雇方是否有权控制完成产品的方式和方法。与这一调查相关的其他因素包括:所需技能、工具和手段的来源、工作地点、双方关系的持续时间、雇用方是否有权向受雇方分配额外的项目;受雇方对工作时间和长短的自由裁量权程度;付款方式;受雇方在雇用和支付助理人员方面的作用;工作是否属于受雇方正常业务的一部分;受雇方是否在营业;雇员福利的提供以及受雇方的税务待遇。

….

I. Application of the Reid test

….

We begin our analysis by noting that the Reid test can be easily misapplied, since it consists merely of a list of possible considerations that may or may not be relevant in a given case. Reid established that no one factor was dispositive, but gave no direction concerning how the factors were to be weighed. It does not necessarily follow that because no one factor is dispositive all factors are equally important, or indeed that all factors will have relevance in every case. The factors should not merely be tallied but should be weighed according to their significance in the case.
我们在开始分析时指出,Reid 检验标准很容易被误用,因为它只是列出了在特定案件中可能相关也可能不相关的可能考虑因素。Reid 确立了没有一个因素是决定性的,但没有给出如何权衡这些因素的方向。这并不一定意味着因为没有一个因素是决定性的,所以所有因素都同样重要,或者实际上所有因素在每个案件中都有相关性。这些因素不应该仅仅被统计出来,而应该根据其在案件中的重要性加以权衡。

For example, the factors relating to the authority to hire assistants will not normally be relevant if the very nature of the work requires the hired party to work alone. In such a case, that factor should be accorded no weight in applying the Reid test. Having the authority to hire assistants, however, might have great probative value where the individual claiming to be an independent contractor does exercise authority to enlist assistants without prior approval of the party that hired him. In the latter case, this show of authority would be highly indicative that the hired party was acting as an independent contractor.
例如,如果工作的性质要求受雇方单独工作,则与雇用助手的权力有关的因素通常与此无关。在这种情况下,在适用Reid 检验标准时,该因素不应受到重视。但是,如果声称自己是独立订约人的个人确实有权在未经雇用他的一方事先批准的情况下雇用助手,那么有权雇用助手就可能具有很大的证明价值。在后一种情况下,这种权力展示将极大地表明受雇方是作为独立承包商行事的。

Some factors, therefore, will often have little or no significance in determining whether a party is an independent contractor or an employee. In contrast, there are some factors that
因此,有些因素在确定一方是独立承包商还是雇员时往往意义不大或根本没有意义。相比之下,有些因素

368

will be significant in virtually every situation. These include: (1) the hiring party’s right to control the manner and means of creation; (2) the skill required; (3) the provision of employee benefits; (4) the tax treatment of the hired party; and (5) whether the hiring party has the right to assign additional projects to the hired party. These factors will almost always be relevant and should be given more weight in the analysis, because they will usually be highly probative of the true nature of the employment relationship.
几乎在任何情况下都将具有重要意义。这些因素包括(1) 雇用方有权控制创造的方式和手段;(2) 所需技能;(3) 提供雇员福利;(4) 雇用方的税务待遇;以及 (5) 雇用方是否有权向被雇用方分配额外项目。这些因素几乎总是相关的,在分析中应给予更多的权重,因为它们通常对雇佣关系的真实性质具有很强的证明作用

Although the Reid test has not yet received widespread application, other courts that have interpreted the test have in effect adopted this weighted approach by only addressing those factors found to be significant in the individual case. We begin by addressing those factors bearing most significantly in our analysis.
尽管Reid 检验标准尚未得到广泛应用,但对该检验标准进行解释的其他法院实际上已经采用了这种加权方法,即只处理那些在个案中被认为是重要的因素。我们首先讨论那些在我们的分析中影响最大的因素。

a. The Right to Control

The district court did not specifically address whether Aymes or Island Swimming had the right to control the manner of CSALIB’s creation. Even without a specific finding, it is clear from the record that Bonelli and Island had the right to control the manner in which CSALIB was created. Aymes disputed Bonelli’s purported skill at programming, but even without such knowledge Bonelli was capable of directing Aymes on CSALIB’s necessary function. Aymes was not working entirely alone. He received significant input from Bonelli in programming CSALIB, and worked under programming limitations placed by Bonelli. Consequently, this factor weighs heavily in favor of finding that Aymes was an employee.
地区法院没有具体讨论 Aymes 或 Island Swimming 是否有权控制 CSALIB 的创建方式。即使没有具体的调查结果,从记录中也可以清楚地看出,Bonelli 和 Island 游泳公司有权控制 CSALIB 的创建方式。Aymes 对 Bonelli 所称的编程技巧提出质疑,但即使没有编程知识,Bonelli 也有能力指导 Aymes 完成 CSALIB 的必要功能。艾梅斯并非完全独自工作。在 CSALIB 的编程过程中,他得到了 Bonelli 的大量帮助,并在 Bonelli 的编程限制下工作。因此,这一因素非常有利于认定 Aymes 是一名雇员。

b. The Level of Skill

The district court found that although Aymes’s ability as a programmer required skills “beyond the capacity of a layman, it required no peculiar expertise or creative genius.” We disagree. Aymes’s work required far more than merely transcribing Bonelli’s instructions. Rather, his programming demanded that he use skills developed while a graduate student at Cornell and through his experience working at a family run company. Other courts that have addressed the level of skill necessary to indicate that a party is an independent contractor have held architects, photographers, graphic artists, drafters, and indeed computer programmers to be highly-skilled independent contractors.
地区法院认为,虽然艾梅斯作为程序员所需的技能 "超出了普通人的能力,但并不需要特殊的专业知识或创造天才"。我们不同意这一观点。艾姆斯的工作要求远不止是抄写博内利的指令。相反,他的编程工作要求他运用在康奈尔大学攻读研究生期间以及在一家家族企业工作时积累的技能。其他法院在处理表明一方是独立承包商所需的技能水平时,认为建筑师、摄影师、平面艺术家、绘图员以及计算机程序员都是高技能的独立承包商。

We therefore conclude that the district court erred in relying on Aymes’s relative youth and inexperience as a professional computer programmer. Rather, the court should have examined the skill necessary to perform the work. In this case, Aymes was clearly a skilled craftsman. Consequently, this factor weighs heavily in his favor.
因此,我们得出结论,地区法院错误地将艾梅斯相对年轻和缺乏经验作为专业计算机程序员的依据。相反,法院本应审查完成工作所需的技能。在本案中,艾姆斯显然是一名熟练技工。因此,这一因素对他非常有利。

c./d. The Employee Benefits and Tax Treatment

The district court found that Aymes received no employee benefits from Island, but disregarded this factor as merely being an indication that Aymes was an employee who worked “off the books.” It is undisputed that Aymes was not provided with health, unemployment, or life insurance benefits. Similarly, it is uncontested that Island did not pay a share of Aymes’s social security taxes and did not withhold federal or state income taxes.
地区法院认为艾姆斯没有从岛公司领取任何雇员福利,但认为这仅仅表明艾姆斯是一名 "账外 "雇员,因此不予考虑。艾姆斯没有获得医疗、失业或人寿保险福利,这是无可争议的。同样,无可争议的是,Island 公司没有为 Aymes 缴纳社会保险税,也没有预扣联邦或州所得税。

The failure of Island to extend Aymes any employment benefits or to pay any of his payroll taxes is highly indicative that Aymes was considered an outside independent contractor by
岛公司没有向艾姆斯提供任何就业福利,也没有支付他的任何工资税,这充分说明艾姆斯被岛公司视为外部独立承包商。

369

Island. Indeed, these two factors constitute virtual admissions of Aymes’s status by Bonelli himself. Moreover, they also point out a basic inequity in Aymes’s treatment. Island benefitted from treating Aymes like an independent contractor when it came to providing benefits and paying a percentage of his payroll taxes. Island should not in one context be able to claim that Aymes was an independent contractor and ten years later deny him that status to avoid a copyright infringement suit.
岛。事实上,这两个因素实际上构成了博内利本人对艾梅斯地位的承认。此外,这两个因素还指出了艾姆斯待遇上的基本不平等。岛公司在提供福利和支付一定比例的工资税时,将艾姆斯当作独立承包商对待,从而从中获益。岛公司不应该在一种情况下声称艾姆斯是独立承包商,而在十年后为了避免版权侵权诉讼而否认他的独立承包商身份。

These two factors are given even greater weight because they are undisputed in this case. During the ten years in which this case has been litigated, all the other issues have been hotly contested. But for purposes of benefits and taxes, Island definitely and unequivocably chose not to treat Aymes as an employee. Island deliberately chose to deny Aymes two basic attributes of employment it presumably extended to its workforce. This undisputed choice is completely inconsistent with their defense.
这两个因素在本案中是无可争议的,因此更受重视。在本案的十年诉讼期间,所有其他问题都存在激烈的争议。但是,就福利和税收而言,岛公司明确无误地选择不将艾姆斯视为雇员。岛公司故意拒绝给予艾姆斯两项基本的就业属性,而这两项属性理应适用于其员工。这一无可争议的选择与他们的辩护完全不符。

The importance of these two factors is underscored by the fact that every case since Reid that has applied the test has found the hired party to be an independent contractor where the hiring party failed to extend benefits or pay social security taxes.
Reid以来,适用该检验标准的每个案例都认定,在雇用方未提供福利或缴纳社会保险税的情况下,受雇方是独立承包商。

e. The Right to Assign Other Projects

The district court found that Bonelli had the right to and did assign Aymes other projects in addition to the creation of CSALIB. This is fairly strong evidence that Aymes was an employee, since independent contractors are typically hired only for particular projects. However, this factor carries less weight than those evaluated above, because the delegation of additional projects to Aymes is not inconsistent with the idea that he was Island’s independent trouble shooter who might be asked to intervene as computer problems arose. Accordingly, this factor weighs fairly strongly but not conclusively for Island.
地区法院认定,除了创建 CSALIB 之外,博内利有权并确实向艾梅斯指派了其他项目。这相当有力地证明艾梅斯是一名雇员,因为独立承包商通常只受雇于特定的项目。然而,与上述因素相比,这一因素的权重较小,因为将更多的项目委托给艾梅斯与他是岛公司的独立故障处理人员,在出现计算机问题时可能会被要求介入的想法并不矛盾。因此,这一因素对岛内公司相当重要,但不是决定性的。

f. Remaining Factors

The remaining factors are relatively insignificant or negligible in weight because they are either indeterminate or inapplicable to these facts.…
其余因素的权重相对较小或可忽略不计,因为它们要么不确定,要么不适用于这些事实....。

On balance, application of the Reid test requires that we find Aymes to be an independent contractor when he was creating CSALIB for Island. Consequently, we hold that CSALIB is not a work for hire. Aymes therefore owns the copyright as author of the program.…
在权衡利弊之后,适用Reid检验标准要求我们认定 Aymes 在为 Island 制作 CSALIB 时是一名独立承包人。因此,我们认为 CSALIB 不属于雇佣作品。因此,艾姆斯作为程序的作者拥有版权....

* * *

Questions

1.

General Discussion Questions

1.1

What copyright ownership implications flow from characterizing a work as a work made for hire? Can independent contractors create works made for hire?
将作品定性为受雇作品会对版权所有权产生什么影响?独立承包人能否创作受雇作品?

1.2

What test does the court use to determine whether Aymes is an employee or an independent contractor? How does it apply that test?
法院使用什么测试来确定艾梅斯是雇员还是独立承包商?它是如何应用该测试的?

1.3

If Aymes owns the copyright, what does Bonelli get for his money?
如果艾梅斯拥有版权,那么博内利又能得到什么呢?

370

2.

Litigation Questions

2.1

Notice that Mr. Aymes brought this case pro se. Why did he proceed pro se and what issues does that raise, litigation and otherwise?
注意到艾梅斯先生提起了这个诉讼 自诉 。他为什么要自诉,这引起了哪些诉讼和其他方面的问题?

2.2

Notice the role that evidence plays in this case and the other cases you read. What evidence did the court find persuasive in this case?
请注意证据在本案和您阅读的其他案例中所起的作用。法庭认为本案中哪些证据具有说服力?

3.

Business Law Questions

3.1

What is the nature of Bonelli’s permission to use Aymes’s software?
Bonelli 允许使用 Aymes 软件的性质是什么?

3.2

What advice would you have given Bonelli to avoid litigation?
为避免诉讼,您对博内利有何建议?

3.3

What advice would you have given Aymes to avoid litigation?
为了避免诉讼,您对艾姆斯有何建议?

3.4

Do the Copyright Act’s work made for hire rules line up with the normal expectations of a firm that pays for programming services? If not, what are the implications for the firms contracting for programming services?
《版权法》的受雇工作规则是否符合付费购买节目制作服务的公司的正常预期?如果不符合,那么对承包节目制作服务的公司有何影响?

Exercises

1.

Act as counsel to Aymes — advise him on strategies to avoid litigation. Break into pairs, with one student playing the role of the lawyer and one the role of the client.
担任 Aymes 的顾问--向他建议避免诉讼的策略。两人一组,一人扮演律师,一人扮演客户。

2.

Act as counsel to Bonelli — advise him on strategies to avoid litigation. Break into pairs, with one student playing the role of the lawyer and one the role of the client.
扮演博内利的律师--向他建议避免诉讼的策略。两人一组,一人扮演律师,一人扮演客户。

Asset Marketing Systems, Inc. v. Gagnon

542 F.3d 748 (9th Cir. 2008)

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. AMS and Gagnon’s Relationship

Asset Marketing Systems, Inc. (AMS) is a field marketing organization offering sales and marketing support to insurance marketing entities. From May 1999 to September 2003, Kevin Gagnon, doing business as Mister Computer (Gagnon), was an at-will, independent contractor for AMS, hired to assist with its information technology needs. Subsequently, Gagnon was asked to develop custom software for AMS. AMS was Gagnon’s largest client, accounting for 98% of his business. Jay Akerstein, a partner at AMS who later became the Chief Operating Officer, was Gagnon’s primary contact. Over the course of their four-year relationship, AMS paid Gagnon over $2 million, $250,000 of which was for custom software development and computer classes. Gagnon developed six computer programs for AMS.
Asset Marketing Systems, Inc. (AMS) 是一家现场营销机构,为保险营销实体提供销售和营销支持。1999 年 5 月至 2003 年 9 月期间,Kevin Gagnon(以 Mister Computer (Gagnon) 的名义开展业务)是 AMS 的任意独立承包商,受雇协助满足其信息技术需求。随后,Gagnon 受邀为 AMS 开发定制软件。AMS 是 Gagnon 最大的客户,占其业务的 98%。后来成为首席运营官的 AMS 合伙人 Jay Akerstein 是盖格南的主要联系人。在他们四年的合作中,AMS 向盖格南支付了 200 多万美元,其中 25 万美元用于定制软件开发和计算机课程。Gagnon 为 AMS 开发了六个计算机程序。

In May 2000, AMS and Gagnon entered a Technical Services Agreement (TSA), which was scheduled to expire on April 30, 2001. The TSA, printed on Mister Computer letterhead, set forth Gagnon’s fees and the services to be provided. The services included “Custom Application Programming-Consultant will provide Contractor with specific add-on products to
2000 年 5 月,AMS 和 Gagnon 签订了一份技术服务协议 (TSA),该协议定于 2001 年 4 月 30 日到期。TSA 印在 Mister Computer 的信笺上,规定了 Gagnon 的费用和应提供的服务。服务内容包括 "定制应用程序编程--顾问将向承包商提供特定的附加产品,以便

371

enhance Contractor’s current in-house database application,” and mentioned nothing about a license. The TSA was not renewed, though the relationship continued.
加强承包商目前的内部数据库应用",但没有提到许可证的问题。虽然双方的关系仍在继续,但 TSA 没有续约。

AMS claims that on June 12, 2002, Gagnon signed a Vendor Nondisclosure Agreement (NDA).1 The NDA would have given AMS ownership of all intellectual property developed for AMS by Gagnon. Gagnon claims that the document is a forgery and that his signature cannot be authenticated.
AMS 声称,2002 年 6 月 12 日,Gagnon 签署了一份《供应商保密协议》(NDA)。1 NDA 将赋予 AMS 对 Gagnon 为 AMS 开发的所有知识产权的所有权。盖格南声称该文件是伪造的,他的签名无法得到验证。

In June 2003, Gagnon proposed that AMS execute an Outside Vendor Agreement (OVA). The OVA included a Proprietary Rights clause providing:
2003 年 6 月,Gagnon 提议 AMS 签署一份《外部供应商协议》(OVA)。OVA 包括一项专有权条款,其中规定

Client agrees that all designs, plans, specifications, drawings, inventions, processes, and other information or items produced by Contractor while performing services under this agreement will be the property of Contractor and will be licensed to Client on a non-exclusive basis as will any copyrights, patents, or trademarks obtained by Contractor while performing services under this agreement. On request and at Contractor’s expense, Client agrees to help Contractor obtain patents and copyrights for any new developments. This includes providing data, plans, specifications, descriptions, documentation, and other information, as well as assisting Contractor in completing any required application or registration. Any source code or intellectual property will remain the property of Contractor. Trademarks, service marks, or any items identifying said Company shall remain the Company’s said property. Contractor will allow Company non exclusive, unlimited licensing of software developed for Company.
客户同意,所有设计,计划,规格,图纸,发明,工艺,和其他信息或项目产生的承包商,而根据本协议执行的服务将是承包商的财产,将被授权给客户的非排他性的基础上,将任何版权,专利或商标获得承包商,而根据本协议执行的服务。根据要求,并在承包商的费用,客户同意帮助承包商获得专利和版权的任何新的发展。这包括提供数据、计划、规格、说明、文件和其他信息,以及协助承包商完成任何必要的申请或注册。任何源代码或知识产权均归承包商所有。商标、服务标志或任何可识别公司的项目均归公司所有。承包商将允许公司开发的软件的非独家,无限许可。

Akerstein declined to execute the OVA, but countered with a redlined version of the OVA, which substantially rewrote the Proprietary Rights clause to read:
阿克尔斯泰因拒绝执行 OVA,但提出了 OVA 的红线版本,将专有权条款大幅改写如下:

Contractor agrees that all designs, plans, specifications, drawings, inventions, processes, and other information or items produced by Contractor while performing services under this agreement will be the sole property of Client. Any source code or intellectual property agreed to and documented as Contractor’s will remain the property of Contractor.
承包商同意,承包商在根据本协议提供服务时产生的所有设计、计划、规格、图纸、发明、工艺和其他信息或项目均为客户的专有财产。任何同意并记录为承包商的源代码或知识产权仍将是承包商的财产。

By the end of June 2003, AMS had decided to terminate Gagnon’s services. AMS extended an employment offer to Gagnon, but he declined to accept the offer. AMS and Gagnon then discussed an exit strategy, and by late July, the parties had set a target exit date of September 15, 2003.
到 2003 年 6 月底,AMS 决定终止 Gagnon 的服务。AMS 向 Gagnon 发出了聘用邀请,但他拒绝接受。AMS 和 Gagnon 随后讨论了离职策略,到 7 月下旬,双方确定的目标离职日期为 2003 年 9 月 15 日。

In August 2003, Gagnon responded to Akerstein’s redlined OVA draft with a letter asserting that his “position has always been that Asset Marketing Systems shall be entitled to unlimited software licensing as long as my company had a business relationship with Asset Marketing Systems.” The parties never executed the OVA.
2003年8月,盖格南在回复阿克尔斯坦的OVA草案红线的信中声称,他的 "立场一直是,只要我的公司与资产营销系统公司有业务关系,资产营销系统公司就有权获得无限制的软件许可"。双方从未执行 OVA。

In a letter to AMS dated September 18, 2003, Gagnon demanded $1.75 million for AMS to have the right to continue to use the programs and $2 million for Gagnon’s agreement not to sell or disclose the programs to AMS’s competitors.
在 2003 年 9 月 18 日致 AMS 的一封信中,Gagnon 要求 AMS 支付 175 万美元,以获得继续使用这些程序的权利,并要求 Gagnon 支付 200 万美元,以同意不向 AMS 的竞争对手出售或披露这些程序。

372

In a letter dated September 23, 2003, AMS terminated its relationship with Gagnon. According to AMS, a consultant identified numerous problems with Gagnon’s work. It also stated:
在 2003 年 9 月 23 日的一封信中,AMS 终止了与 Gagnon 的关系。据 AMS 称,一名顾问发现 Gagnon 的工作存在许多问题。信中还指出

Recently, we had discussed employee and intellectual property issues which have yet to be resolved. Despite the foregoing, I learned that we did not have copies of the source code for the software we developed and that copies of our SalesLogix software and our entire database may be maintained by you and your agents offsite.
最近,我们讨论了尚未解决的员工和知识产权问题。尽管如此,我还是了解到,我们没有我们所开发软件的源代码副本,而我们的 SalesLogix 软件和我们整个数据库的副本可能由你们和你们的代理商异地保存。

The letter then demanded:

In connection with that separation, you must immediately provide any and all copies of the source code for all software developed by and on behalf of Asset Marketing Systems immediately. You are not authorized to utilize that software which we believe is owned and all copyrights belong to Asset Marketing Systems. Furthermore, despite your claimed ownership in that copyright, we believe that Asset Marketing Systems’ trade secrets are embedded and utilized throughout that software which would preclude use by you as well. We also demand that you return to us any copies of the SalesLogix software or Asset Marketing databases, programs or other materials that may have come into your possession during our relationship.
在离职时,你必须立即提供由资产营销系统公司或代表资产营销系统公司开发的所有软件的源代码副本。你无权使用该软件,我们认为该软件的所有权和所有版权都属于资产营销系统公司。此外,尽管你们声称拥有该软件的版权,但我们认为资产营销系统公司的商业秘密已嵌入并用于该软件中,因此你们也不得使用。我们还要求贵方归还我们在双方合作期间可能拥有的任何 SalesLogix 软件或 Asset Marketing 数据库、程序或其他材料的副本。

In October 2003, Gagnon sent AMS a cease and desist letter, asserting that the use of the programs was unauthorized. It also asserted that the hiring of Gagnon’s prior employees violated their Employment Agreement with him. Gagnon demanded that AMS certify that it had undertaken to remove “all original and derivative source code” and all related files for the programs from AMS computers.
2003 年 10 月,Gagnon 公司向 AMS 公司发出了一封停止信,声称使用这些程序是未经授权的。它还声称,雇用 Gagnon 以前的雇员违反了他们与 Gagnon 签订的雇佣协议。Gagnon 要求 AMS 证明它已承诺从 AMS 计算机中删除 "所有原始和衍生源代码 "以及程序的所有相关文件。

AMS responded by asserting that Gagnon could not unilaterally stop AMS from continuing to use and update the programs because it had an irrevocable license to use, copy, and modify the programs based on the course of conduct of the parties over the past twoand-a-half years. AMS also asserted that Gagnon could not use the programs because it contained AMS’s trade secrets. AMS also declined to pay Gagnon the $1.75 to $2 million he had requested in September.
AMS 回应称,Gagnon 不能单方面阻止 AMS 继续使用和更新程序,因为根据双方过去两年半的行为过程,Gagnon 拥有使用、复制和修改程序的不可撤销的许可。AMS 还声称,Gagnon 不能使用这些程序,因为其中包含 AMS 的商业秘密。AMS 还拒绝向 Gagnon 支付他在 9 月份要求的 175 万美元至 200 万美元。

B. The Programs

Specifically at issue are the six programs that Gagnon created for AMS. He included a copyright notice, “copyright Mister Computer,” in the splash screens for each program.
有争议的是盖格南为 AMS 制作的六个程序。他在每个程序的闪屏上都注明了 "Mister Computer 版权所有"。

According to a declaration by one of Gagnon’s former employees, the programs were designed to work with AMS’s databases and included “detailed information concerning AMS’ network of sales persons, including information related to AMS’ agent lists, their territories, and the criteria used by AMS to qualify an agent or create a territory.” The source code for these programs was installed on several of AMS’s development computers, which were located at AMS’s facilities.2 The employee was not instructed by Gagnon to maintain the source code at any location other than AMS, and Gagnon made no attempt to hide the source code from AMS employees.
根据 Gagnon 的一名前雇员的声明,这些程序旨在与 AMS 的数据库配合使用,其中包括 "与 AMS 的销售人员网络有关的详细信息,包括与 AMS 的代理名单、代理区域以及 AMS 用于确定代理资格或创建代理区域的标准有关的信息"。2 Gagnon 没有指示该员工将源代码保存在 AMS 以外的任何地方,Gagnon 也没有试图向 AMS 员工隐藏源代码。

373

In his deposition, Gagnon admitted that after he hired employees, the source code was stored on AMS computers in the development room. The room could not be accessed without a pass that Gagnon’s software developers and a few key AMS personnel, including Akerstein, possessed. Gagnon never received any promises of confidentiality with respect to his trade secrets from the AMS personnel who had passes to the development room nor did he discuss terms of a potential license or royalty agreement with them.
在证词中,盖格南承认,在他雇用员工之后,源代码就被存放在开发室的 AMS 计算机上。没有 Gagnon 的软件开发人员和包括 Akerstein 在内的一些 AMS 关键人员持有的通行证,是无法进入开发室的。Gagnon 从未从拥有开发室通行证的 AMS 人员那里得到任何有关其商业秘密的保密承诺,也没有与他们讨论潜在的许可或使用费协议的条款。

DISCUSSION

A. Copyright Infringement Claim

Gagnon alleges that AMS’s continued use of the six programs constitutes copyright infringement because the programs were used by AMS without its obtaining a license or Gagnon’s permission. AMS asserts three defenses to Gagnon’s copyright infringement claim: an implied license, a transfer of copyright ownership via the NDA, and 17 U.S.C. §117. We hold that AMS has an implied unlimited license for the programs, and we do not reach the other defenses asserted by AMS.
Gagnon 声称 AMS 继续使用这六个程序构成版权侵权,因为 AMS 在没有获得许可或 Gagnon 允许的情况下使用了这些程序。AMS 对 Gagnon 的版权侵权指控提出三项抗辩:默示许可、通过 NDA 转移版权所有权以及《美国法典》第 17 篇第 117 节。我们认为 AMS 对这些程序拥有默示的无限许可,因此我们不考虑 AMS 提出的其他抗辩。

Though exclusive licenses must be in writing, 17 U.S.C. §204, grants of nonexclusive licenses need not be in writing, and may be granted orally or by implication. Foad Consulting Group, Inc. v. Azzalino, 270 F.3d 821, 825-26 (9th Cir. 2001). We have previously considered the grant of an implied license in the context of movie footage and architectural drawings. Id.; Effects Assocs., Inc. v. Cohen, 908 F.2d 555, 558 (9th Cir.1990).
虽然排他性许可必须以书面形式授予,《美国法典》第 17 编第 204 条,但非排他性许可的授予不需要书面形式,可以口头或暗示的方式授予。Foad Consulting Group, Inc. 诉 Azzalino, 270 F.3d 821, 825-26 (9th Cir. 2001)。我们曾在电影胶片和建筑图纸中考虑过默示许可的授予问题。Id.; Effects Assocs.

In Effects Associates, a movie producer hired Effects Associates to create certain special effects for a movie. Effects, 908 F.2d at 555-556. Though the film footage containing the special effects was used without the producer’s obtaining a written license from Effects Associates, we found that an implied license had been granted because the footage was created at the producer’s request with the intent that it be used in the film with no warning that use of the footage would constitute infringement. Id. at 558-59 & n. 6. We determined that “[t]o hold that Effects did not at the same time convey a license to use the footage… would mean that plaintiff’s contribution to the film was ‘of minimal value,’ a conclusion that can’t be squared with the fact that Cohen paid Effects almost $56,000 for this footage.” Id. at 559.
Effects Associates 案中, 一家电影制片人雇用 Effects Associates 为一部电影制作某些特效。Effects, 908 F.2d at 555-556。虽然制片人在使用包含特效的电影胶片时没有从 Effects Associates 公司获得书面许可,但我们认为已经授予了默示许可,因为该胶片是应制片人的要求制作的,目的是将其用于电影中,并且没有警告使用该胶片将构成侵权。Id. at 558-59 & n. 6。我们认定,"如果认为 Effects 没有同时转达使用镜头的许可......就意味着原告对影片的贡献'价值极低',这一 结论与科恩为该镜头向 Effects 支付近 56,000 美元的事实不符"。Id. at 559.

Thus, we have held that an implied license is granted when “(1) a person (the licensee) requests the creation of a work, (2) the creator (the licensor) makes that particular work and delivers it to the licensee who requested it,3 and (3) the licensor intends that the licensee-requestor copy and distribute his work.” I.A.E., Inc. v. Shaver, 74 F.3d 768, 776 (7th Cir. 1996). We apply the same analysis we did in Effects to implied licenses for computer programs. The last prong of the Effects test, however, is not limited to copying and distribution; instead we look at the protected right at issue — here, whether Gagnon intended that AMS use, retain, and modify the programs.
因此,我们认为,当"(1)某人(被许可人)请求创作某作品,(2)创作者(许可人)创作了该特定作品并将其交付给请求创作的被许可人,即授予了默示许可、3 并且(3)许可人打算让被许可人复制和传播其作品。"I.A.E., Inc. v. Shaver, 74 F.3d 768, 776 (7th Cir. 1996)。我们将在Effects 案中所做的分析同样应用于计算机程序的默示许可。但是,Effects 检验的最后一个方面并不局限于复制和分发;相反,我们要看的是受保护的权利--在这里,Gagnon 是否有意让 AMS 使用、保留和修改程序。

374

1. AMS Requested the Creation of the Programs

Gagnon argues that AMS never specifically requested that he create the programs, but “rather relayed its needs to Mr. Gagnon and he satisfied them by providing either computer hardware or computer software at his discretion.” We find this interpretation of “request” to be strained. Gagnon did not create the programs on his own initiative and market them to AMS; rather, he created them in response to AMS’s requests. Moreover, after prototype software was developed, he made changes to the programs in response to Akerstein and other AMS employees’ requests. No genuine issue of material fact remains as to whether AMS requested the programs.
Gagnon 辩称,AMS 从未明确要求他制作这些程序,而是 "向 Gagnon 先生转达了它的需求,而 Gagnon 先生则通过酌情提供计算机硬件或计算机软件来满足这些需求"。我们认为这种对 "要求 "的解释有问题。Gagnon 并没有主动创建程序并将其推销给 AMS;相反,他是应 AMS 的要求创建程序的。此外,在原型软件开发出来后,他应 Akerstein 和 AMS 其他员工的要求对程序进行了修改。在 AMS 是否要求开发这些程序的问题上,不存在真正的实质性争议。

2. Gagnon Created the Software for AMS and Delivered It
2.盖格南为 AMS 开发并交付软件

Though Gagnon argues that the programs could be converted for use by another company, Gagnon admitted that the programs were created specifically for AMS and that AMS paid for the work related to drafting of the programs as well as some related costs. It is, therefore, undisputed that Gagnon created these programs for AMS.
虽然 Gagnon 认为这些程序可以转换为其他公司使用,但 Gagnon 承认这些程序是专门为 AMS 制作的,而且 AMS 支付了与起草程序有关的工作费用以及一些相关费用。因此,Gagnon 为 AMS 制作这些程序是无可争议的。

The remaining question is whether Gagnon delivered the programs to AMS. We agree with the district court that Gagnon delivered them when he installed them onto the AMS computers and stored the source code on-site at AMS. Gagnon argues that even if he had installed the programs onto the AMS computers, he never delivered the source code so that AMS could modify the code. If AMS did not have the right to modify the code, it may have infringed Gagnon’s copyright by exceeding the scope of its license. See S.O.S., Inc. v. Payday, Inc., 886 F.2d 1081, 1087 (9th Cir. 1989). Gagnon primarily points to AMS’s inability to locate the code on its own computer systems after his services were terminated to show that AMS did not possess the code. But, as we explain below, Gagnon’s conduct manifested an objective intent to give AMS an unlimited license at the time of creation; thus, when he stored the source code at AMS, the code was delivered.
剩下的问题是 Gagnon 是否向 AMS 交付了程序。我们同意地区法院的观点,即 Gagnon 将程序安装到 AMS 的计算机上并将源代码存储在 AMS 的现场时,就已经交付了程序。Gagnon 辩称,即使他已将程序安装到 AMS 的计算机上,他也从未交付源代码以便 AMS 可以修改代码。如果 AMS 无权修改代码,那么它就可能因超出许可范围而侵犯了 Gagnon 的版权。See S.O.S., Inc. v. Payday, Inc., 886 F.2d 1081, 1087 (9th Cir. 1989)。Gagnon 主要指出 AMS 在其服务终止后无法在自己的计算机系统中找到该代码,以表明 AMS 并不拥有该代码。但是,正如我们在下文中解释的那样,Gagnon 的行为表现出在创建时给予 AMS 无限许可的客观意图;因此,当他将源代码存储在 AMS 时,代码已经交付。

3. Gagnon’s Intent as Manifested by His Conduct

Gagnon argues that he never intended that AMS would retain and modify the programs he delivered. Gagnon misunderstands the inquiry into intent, and we conclude that his conduct did manifest an intent to grant a license. The relevant intent is the licensor’s objective intent at the time of the creation and delivery of the software as manifested by the parties’ conduct. See Effects, 908 F.2d at 559 n.6 (noting that “every objective fact concerning the transaction” supported the finding that an implied license existed); see also John G. Danielson, Inc. v. Winchester-Conant Props., Inc., 322 F.3d 26, 42 (1st Cir. 2003); I.A.E., 74 F.3d at 777. The First and Fourth Circuits consider the following factors to determine such an intent:
Gagnon 辩称,他从未打算让 AMS 保留和修改他交付的程序。Gagnon 误解了对意图的调查,我们的结论是,他的行为确实表明了授予许可的意图。相关的意图是许可人在制作和交付软件时的客观意图,这一点通过双方的行为表现出来。See Effects, 908 F.2d at 559 n.6 (注意到 "每一个与许可有关的客观事实")。(指出 "与交易有关的每一个客观事实 "都支持默示许可存在的结论); 另见 John G. Danielson, Inc、322 F.3d 26, 42 (1st Cir. 2003);I.A.E., 74 F.3d at 777。第一和第四巡回法院考虑以下因素来确定这种意图:

(1) whether the parties were engaged in a short-term discrete transaction as opposed to an ongoing relationship; (2) whether the creator utilized written contracts…providing that copyrighted materials could only be used with the creator’s future involvement or express permission; and (3) whether the creator’s conduct during the creation or delivery of the copyrighted material indicated that use of the material without the creator’s involvement or consent was permissible.
(1)双方从事的是否是短期的不连续交易,而不是持续的关系;(2)创作者是否使用了书面的合同......合同,规定只有在创作者未来参与或明确许可的情况下才能使用受版权保护的材料;以及(3)创作者在创作或交付受版权保护的材料期间的行为是否表明允许在没有创作者参与或同意的情况下使用该材料。

375

Danielson, 322 F.3d at 41 (quoting Nelson-Salabes, Inc. v. Morningside Dev., LLC, 284 F.3d 505, 516 (4th Cir. 2002)). We find this approach to be persuasive.
Danielson, 322 F.3d at 41(引用 Nelson-Salabes, Inc.我们认为这种方法具有说服力。

Gagnon and AMS had an ongoing service relationship in which Gagnon provided technical support for all computer-related problems at AMS; he also created certain custom software applications at AMS’s request. The relationship of the parties indicates neither an intent to grant nor deny a license without Gagnon’s future involvement.
Gagnon 和 AMS 一直保持着服务关系,Gagnon 为 AMS 所有与计算机有关的问题提供技术支 持;他还应 AMS 的要求定制了一些应用软件。双方的关系表明,在没有 Gagnon 今后参与的情况下,既没有授予许可的意图,也没有拒绝授予许可的意图。

Several documents exist, however, that reflect the parties’ objective intent: the TSA, signed by both parties, the OVA submitted by Gagnon, and Gagnon’s letter objecting to Akerstein’s proposed changes to the OVA. 4 Courts have looked to contracts, even if unexecuted, as evidence of the intent of the party submitting the contract. See Johnson v. Jones, 149 F.3d 494, 501 (6th Cir. 1998) (finding no license where architect submitted contracts containing express provision that drawings could not be used by others except with agreement and compensation); Nelson-Salabes, 284 F.3d at 516 (same); cf. I.A.E., 74 F.3d at 776-77 (architect submitted no language indicating an intent to retain control); see also Foad Consulting, 270 F.3d at 835-36 (Kozinski, J., concurring) (comparing Johnson and I.A.E.).
但是,有几份文件反映了双方的客观意图:由双方签署的《技术服务协议》、盖格南提交的 OVA 以及盖格南反对阿克尔斯坦对 OVA 进行拟议修改的信件。4 法院将合同(即使是未执行的合同)视为提交合同一方的意图的证据。 参见 Johnson v. Jones, 149 F.3d 494, 501 (6th Cir. 1998)(发现建筑师提交的合同中明文规定他人不得使用图纸,除非得到同意和补偿,否则没有许可);Nelson-Salabes, 284 F.3d at 516(同上);cf. I.A.E..、 74 F.3d at 776-77(建筑师没有提交表明保留控制权意图的文字); see also Foad Consulting, 270 F.3d at 835-36 (Kozinski, J., concurring) (comparing Johnson and I.A.E.).

The TSA, signed by both parties in 2000 and printed on Mister Computer letterhead, stated only that Gagnon “will provide” AMS “specific add-on products.” Nothing in the TSA indicates Gagnon’s understanding or intent that continued use of the custom application programming undertaken by Gagnon would be prohibited after the TSA terminated. The TSA also provided that AMS would be billed for Gagnon’s services at an hourly rate. Like the special effects creators in Effects Associates, Gagnon was well paid for his services. Under the circumstances, it defies logic that AMS would have paid Gagnon for his programming services if AMS could not have used the programs without further payment pursuant to a separate licensing arrangement that was never mentioned in the TSA, and never otherwise requested at the time. This is especially so because custom software is far less valuable without the ability to modify it and because the TSA was set to expire in one year; one would expect some indication of the need for future licensing if the custom programs were to become unusable after the TSA expired.
双方于 2000 年签署的、印在 Mister Computer 信笺上的 TSA 只说明 Gagnon "将提供 "AMS "特定的附加产品"。TSA 中没有任何内容表明 Gagnon 理解或有意在 TSA 终止后禁止继续使用由 Gagnon 承担的 定制应用程序编程。技术服务协议》还规定,AMS 将按小时收取 Gagnon 的服务费。就像《Effects Associates》一书中的特效制作者一样,盖格南也获得了丰厚的服务报酬。在这种情况下,如果 AMS 无法根据 TSA 中从未提及、当时也从未提出过要求的单独许可安排,在不进一步付款的情况下使用这些程序,那么 AMS 就会为 Gagnon 的编程服务支付报酬,这是不合逻辑的。这尤其是因为定制软件如果不能修改,其价值就会大打折扣,而且 TSA 将在一年后到期;如果定制程序在 TSA 到期后无法使用,人们就会期望有一些迹象表明今后需要许可证。

The OVA submitted by Gagnon, but never executed, did not evidence any intent by Gagnon to limit AMS’s use of the programs. Gagnon argues that the clause, “Client agrees that [intellectual property] produced by Contractor while performing services under this agreement will be the property of Contractor and will be licensed to Client on a non-exclusive basis as will any copyrights, patents, or trademarks obtained by Contractor while performing services under this agreement…,” means that his license was conditioned on a continuing relationship with AMS. We disagree. The clause “while performing services under this agreement” modifies the production of the intellectual property and the obtainment of copyrights. Furthermore, the contract then expressly stated, “Contractor will allow Company non-exclusive, unlimited licensing of software developed for Company,” eliminating any ambiguity.
Gagnon 提交但从未执行的 OVA 没有证明 Gagnon 有任何限制 AMS 使用这些程序的意图。Gagnon 认为,"客户同意,承包商在根据本协议提供服务时产生的 [知识产权] 将是承包商的财产,并将以非独占的方式许可客户使用,承包商在根据本协议提供服务时获得的任何版权、专利或商标也是如此...... "这一条款意味着,他的许可是以与 AMS 的持续关系为条件的。我们不同意这一说法。在根据本协议提供服务时 "这一条款修改了知识产权的生产和版权的获得。此外,合同还明确规定,"承包商将允许公司对为公司开发的软件进行非独占的、无限制的许可",从而消除了任何歧义。

376

Moreover, Gagnon and AMS did not discuss a licensing agreement until their relationship was ending. Gagnon delivered the software without any caveats or limitations on AMS’s use of the programs. Even if Gagnon and his employees maintained the software and had primary control over the code, they programmed on-site at AMS on AMS computers to which key AMS personnel had access — conduct that does not demonstrate an intent to retain sole control. The first time Gagnon expressed a contrary intent was in his letter to Aker sent after AMS had decided to terminate Gagnon’s services.
此外,Gagnon 和 AMS 直到他们的关系即将结束时才讨论许可协议。Gagnon 交付软件时,没有对 AMS 使用程序提出任何警告或限制。即使 Gagnon 及其雇员维护软件并对代码拥有主要控制权,他们也是在 AMS 的计算机上现场编程,而 AMS 的关键人员可以访问这些计算机 - 这种行为并不能证明他们有意保留唯一控制权。Gagnon 第一次表达相反的意图是在 AMS 决定终止 Gagnon 的服务之后他写给 Aker 的信 中。

Finally, the splash screens containing the copyright notice do not negate AMS’s license to use the product. The splash screens speak to Gagnon’s intent to retain copyright ownership over the programs, not to his intent to grant or not grant a license as would be his right as the copyright owner.
最后,包含版权声明的闪屏并不能否定 AMS 使用该产品的许可。闪屏显示的是盖格南保留程序版权所有权的意图,而不是他作为版权所有者有权授予或不授予许可的意图。

Gagnon had to express an intent to retain control over the programs and limit AMS’s license if he intended to do so. A belated statement that the programs could not be used after Gagnon’s departure, made after the termination decision and well after the creation and delivery of the programs for which substantial sums were paid, was not sufficient to negate all other objective manifestations of intent to grant AMS an unlimited license.
如果 Gagnon 打算保留对程序的控制权并限制 AMS 的许可权,他必须表达这样的意图。在作出终止合同的决定之后,以及在制作和交付程序并为此支付了大笔费用之后,才姗姗来迟地表示程序在 Gagnon 离职后不能使用,这并不足以否定所有其他关于授予 AMS 无限许可的客观意图表示。

4. Scope and Irrevocability of Implied License

For the reasons outlined, we hold that Gagnon granted AMS an unlimited, nonexclusive license to retain, use, and modify the software. Furthermore, because AMS paid consideration, this license is irrevocable.…
基于上述理由,我们认为 Gagnon 公司授予 AMS 公司保留、使用和修改软件的无限、非独占许可。此外,由于 AMS 支付了对价,该许可是不可撤销的....。

* * *

Questions

1.

General Discussion Questions

1.1

Why did the court find that AMS had received a non-exclusive license rather than an exclusive license, an assignment of rights, or a work made for hire?
为什么法院认定 AMS 获得的是非排他性许可,而不是排他性许可、权利转让或受雇作品?

1.2

Do you agree with the scope of the implied license granted to AMS by the court?
您是否同意法院授予 AMS 的默示许可范围?

2.

Business Law Questions

2.1

How would you analyze the adequacy of the Technical Services Agreement as a license agreement from AMS’s standpoint?
从 AMS 的角度,您如何分析技术服务协议作为许可协议的适当性?

2.2

How would you analyze the adequacy of the Technical Services Agreement as a license agreement from Gagnon’s standpoint?
从 Gagnon 的立场出发,您如何分析技术服务协议作为许可协议的适当性?

3.

Litigation Questions

3.1

Why did Gagnon present evidence of the splash screens containing his copyright notice?
Gagnon 为什么要提交包含其版权声明的闪屏证据?

3.2

Would you have advised Gagnon to send the cease and desist letter to AMS?
你会建议盖格南向 AMS 寄出停止和终止信吗?

377

Exercise

Assume that you are the lawyer for AMS. Revise the Technical Services Agreement to better describe AMS’s rights in the programs developed by Gagnon. Assume, as presented in the case, that Gagnon will not assign his copyright to AMS.
假设您是 AMS 的律师。修改技术服务协议,以更好地描述 AMS 对 Gagnon 开发的程序的权利。假设 Gagnon 不会将其版权转让给 AMS。

* * *

III. Copyright Ownership: Joint Development

Ashton-Tate Corp. v. Ross

916 F.2d 516 (9th Cir. 1990)

CHOY, Circuit Judge.

BACKGROUND

In September 1984 appellant Richard Ross (Ross) decided to collaborate with Randy Wigginton (Wigginton) on the development of a computer spreadsheet program for the Apple Macintosh computer. Ross alleged that he and Wigginton agreed that Ross would work on the “engine,” or computational component of the program, and Wigginton would work on the user interface portion. During September 1984 through February of 1985, Ross and Wigginton worked on their respective portions of the program. They also met on at least two occasions to discuss ideas and concepts for the program. At one of these meetings, Ross gave Wigginton a handwritten list of user commands he felt the interface should contain. The actual writing of the user interface portion of the program was done by Wigginton, however. Ross did all the writing of the computational half of the program.
1984 年 9 月,上诉人理查德-罗斯(罗斯)决定与兰迪-维金顿(维金顿)合作,为苹果 Macintosh 电脑开发一个电子表格程序。罗斯声称,他和维金顿商定,罗斯负责程序的 "引擎 "或计算部分,维金顿负责用户界面部分。1984 年 9 月至 1985 年 2 月期间,罗斯和维金顿分别负责各自的程序部分。他们还至少在两个场合会面,讨论程序的想法和概念。在其中一次会议上,罗斯给了维金顿一份手写的用户命令列表,他认为界面应该包含这些命令。不过,程序用户界面部分的实际编写工作是由维金顿完成的。罗斯完成了程序计算部分的全部编写工作。

In April 1985 Wigginton [went] to work for Ashton-Tate. He and his company, “Encore,” continued to work on the user interface and adapted it for use with a new engine from a program called “Alembic,” which Ashton-Tate already had an interest in. Eventually, the combination of Wigginton’s user interface and the adapted Alembic engine became the “Full Impact” spreadsheet program released by Ashton-Tate. Meanwhile, Ross worked on his spreadsheet program. By June of 1986, he completed work on a user interface to combine with his engine and published “MacCalc.”
1985年4月,维金顿[前往]阿斯顿-泰特公司工作。他和他的公司 "Encore "继续开发用户界面,并将其与阿什顿-塔特已经感兴趣的 "Alembic "程序的新引擎结合使用。最终,维金顿的用户界面与经过改编的 Alembic 引擎相结合,成为了阿斯顿-泰特发布的 "Full Impact "电子表格程序。与此同时,罗斯也在开发他的电子表格程序。到 1986 年 6 月,他完成了将用户界面与引擎相结合的工作,并发布了 "MacCalc"

DISCUSSION

II. Copyright Ownership of Full Impact

A. Are Intention and Ideas Enough?

[A] “joint work” is “a work prepared by two or more authors with the intention that their contributions be merged into inseparable or interdependent parts of a unitary whole.” 17 U.S.C. §101 (1977). The authors of a joint work are co-owners of the copyright in that work. 17 U.S.C. §201(a). The question presented by Appellants’ first theory, where Ross claims authorship on the basis of an alleged agreement to collaborate combined with his noncopyrightable contribution to the interface, is what satisfies the requirements for joint authorship.
[联合作品 "是指 "由两个或两个以上作者共同完成的作品,其意图是将他们的贡献合并为一个整体的不可分割或相互依存的部分"。美国法典》第 17 编第 101 条(1977 年)。共同作品的作者是该作品版权的共同所有人。美国法典》第 17 卷第 201(a)条。在上诉人的第一种理论中,罗斯根据所谓的合作协议以及他对界面的无版权贡献主张作者身份,这就提出了一个问题,即怎样才能满足共同作者身份的要求。

378

The district court held that “[b]ecause Ross only contributed ideas to the Full Impact interface, which by themselves are not protectable, the program is not a ‘joint work’ between Ross and Wigginton.” The rule expressed by the district court — that only contributors of copyrightable material can be authors of a work — is not entirely settled, but is consistent with the direction our circuit has taken.
地区法院认为,"由于罗斯只是为 Full Impact 界面提供了想法,而这些想法本身并不能得到保护,因此该程序并不是罗斯与维金顿之间的'共同作品'。地区法院所表达的规则--只有可受版权保护材料的贡献者才能成为作品的作者--并非完全确定,但与我们巡回法院所采取的方向是一致的。

Academic authorities split on what type of “contribution” the copyright law requires for joint authorship purposes. The Nimmers argue that:
学术权威对版权法要求的共同作者身份的 "贡献 "类型存在分歧。尼默夫妇认为

If authors A and B work in collaboration, but if A’s contribution is limited to plot ideas which standing alone would not be copyrightable, and B weaves the ideas into a completed literary expression, it would seem that A and B are joint authors of the resulting work.
如果作者 A 和 B 合作,但如果 A 的贡献仅限于情节构思,而情节构思本身不具有版权,B 将这些构思编织成完整的文学表现形式,那么 A 和 B 似乎是所产生作品的共同作者。

M. & D. Nimmer, 1 NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT §6.07, p. 6-18 (1989). Conversely, Goldstein in Copyright: Principles, Law and Practice, takes a different view: A collaborator’s contribution will not produce a joint work, and a contributor will not obtain a co-ownership interest, unless the contribution represents original expression that could stand on its own as the subject matter of copyright. P. Goldstein, COPYRIGHT: PRINCIPLES, LAW AND PRACTICE, §4.2.1 p. 379 (1989).
M. & D. Nimmer, 1 NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT §6.07, p. 6-18 (1989).相反,Goldstein 在《版权:原则、法律和实践》一书中持不同观点:合作者的贡献不会产生共同作品,贡献者也不会获得共同所有的权益,除非该贡献是原创性的表 达,可以独立成为版权的主题。P. Goldstein, COPYRIGHT:P. Goldstein, COPYRIGHT: PRINCIPLES, LAW AND PRACTICE, §4.2.1 p. 379 (1989).

The district court adopted the view championed by Professor Goldstein. This court recently adopted the same position in S.O.S. Inc. v. Payday Inc., 886 F.2d 1081, 1086-87 (9th Cir. 1989). We held in Payday that “[t]o be an author, one must supply more than mere direction or ideas; one must ‘translate[ ] an idea into a fixed tangible expression entitled to copyright protection.’ Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989).” Id.
地区法院采纳了戈德斯坦教授的观点。本法院最近在 S.O.S. Inc. 诉 Payday Inc., 886 F.2d 1081, 1086-87 (9th Cir. 1989) 一案中采取了相同的立场。我们在Payday 案中认为,"作为作者,一个人必须提供的不仅仅是方向或想法;一个人必须'将想法转化[]为有权获得版权保护的固定的有形表达'。创意非暴力社区诉里德案,490 U.S. 730 (1989)"。编号。

Payday involved a dispute over a commissioned work. The Reid decision quoted in Payday stated the general rule that a person must translate ideas into copyrightable expression to receive copyright protection as an author of a work. Reid also pointed out, however, that the Copyright Act carves out an important exception for works made for hire. 109 S. Ct. at 2171. Further, Reid left undecided whether joint authorship is another exception to the general rule that to be an author one must make an independently copyrightable contribution to a work.
Payday 涉及对委托作品的争议。Reid 案中引用的Payday 案的判决陈述了一项一般规则,即一个人必须将想法转化为可受版权保护的表达方式,才能作为作品的作者获得版权保护。Reid 还指出,《版权法》为雇佣作品规定了一个重要的例外。109 S. Ct. at 2171。此外,Reid 还没有决定共同作者身份是否是一般规则的另一个例外,即要成为作者,必须对作品做出可独立获得版权的贡献。

Even though this issue is not completely settled in the case law, our circuit holds that joint authorship requires each author to make an independently copyrightable contribution. Thus the district court properly decided this issue against Appellants.
尽管这一问题在判例法中尚未完全解决,但我们的巡回法院认为,共同作者身份要求每位作者都做出独立的可受版权保护的贡献。因此,地区法院对这一问题做出了不利于上诉人的正确裁决。

B. Was Ross’s Contribution to the User Interface Copyrightable?
B.罗斯对用户界面的贡献是否应受版权保护?

Appellants argue that the handwritten list of user commands Ross gave to Wigginton was a fixed expression of Ross’s ideas, and as such was entitled to copyright protection. They contend that this list was used by Wigginton to help develop the user interface and therefore, Ross is a joint author of the interface portion of Full Impact. This argument is meritless for the reasons given in the district court’s order. The list simply does not qualify for copyright protection.
上诉人认为,罗斯交给维金顿的用户命令手写清单是罗斯思想的固定表达,因此有权受到版权保护。他们争辩说,这份清单被维金顿用来帮助开发用户界面,因此,罗斯是《Full Impact》界面部分的共同作者。根据地区法院命令中给出的理由,这一论点是毫无根据的。这份清单根本不符合版权保护的条件。

379

C. Did Ross’s Copyrightable Contribution to the MacCalc Prototype Make Him a Joint Author of Full Impact?
C.罗斯对 MacCalc 原型的版权贡献是否使他成为 Full Impact 的共同作者?

Appellants also claim that Ross is a joint author of the Full Impact program on the basis of his contribution to the MacCalc prototype. They argue that because Ross contributed copyrightable expression to the MacCalc prototype by writing the engine portion of the program, he is a joint author of the prototype and that this gave him an undivided ownership interest in the entire prototype. Hence, they argue, Full Impact’s use of the user interface portion of the MacCalc prototype made Ross a joint author of that program as well.
上诉人还声称,罗斯是 Full Impact 程序的共同作者,因为他对 MacCalc 原型程序做出了贡献。他们认为,由于 Ross 通过编写程序的引擎部分为 MacCalc 原型提供了受版权保护的表达方式,因此他是原型的共同作者,这使他对整个原型拥有不可分割的所有权。因此,他们认为,Full Impact 使用 MacCalc 原型的用户界面部分也使 Ross 成为该程序的共同作者。

The district court focused on the user interface and Ross’s contributions to it when determining appellants’ joint authorship claim. This made sense, because this was the theory pushed by Appellants, and at the time the contribution requirement for authorship of joint works was not settled in this circuit. It is possible, however, to conceive of the entire MacCalc prototype as a joint work. Indeed, if Ross and Wigginton intended to create a joint work, and both contributed copyrightable material to the resulting work (the MacCalc prototype), then they may have both obtained an undivided interest in the entire work. 17 U.S.C. §201(a); 1 NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT, §6.03 (1989).
地区法院在裁定上诉人的共同著作权主张时,将重点放在了用户界面和罗斯的贡献上。这是有道理的,因为这是上诉人所推崇的理论,而当时本巡回法院对共同著作权的贡献要求还没有定论。然而,将整个 MacCalc 原型视为共同著作是可能的。事实上,如果罗斯和维金顿打算共同创作一部作品,并且两人都为所创作的作品(MacCalc原型)贡献了可获得版权的材料,那么他们可能都获得了对整个作品不可分割的权益。17 U.S.C. §201(a); 1 NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT, §6.03 (1989).

In other words, Ross may have obtained a one-half ownership interest in the user interface and Wigginton may have obtained a one-half interest in the engine. We need not decide this issue now, however. Even assuming, arguendo, that Ross does have a one-half interest in the interface written by Wigginton, it does not follow that Ross is a joint author of the Full Impact program because its interface is derived from his and Wigginton’s joint work. The Second Circuit’s decision in Weissmann v. Freeman, 868 F.2d 1313 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 883 (1989), is a clear refutation of this position. Joint authorship in a prior work is insufficient to make one a joint author of a derivative work: “[i]f such were the law, it would eviscerate the independent copyright protection that attaches to a derivative work that is wholly independent of the protection afforded the prexisting [sic] work.Id. at 1317. The analysis in Weissmann is sound, and we adopt its reasoning on this point.
换句话说,罗斯可能获得了用户界面二分之一的所有权,而维京顿可能获得了引擎二分之一的所有权。但是,我们现在不需要对这一问题做出决定。即使假设罗斯对维京顿编写的界面拥有二分之一的权益,也不能因此认为罗斯是 Full Impact 程序的共同作者,因为该程序的界面源自他和维京顿的共同作品。第二巡回法院在 Weissmann 诉 Freeman, 868 F.2d 1313 (2d Cir.), cert.denied, 493 U.S. 883 (1989) 一案中的判决明确驳斥了这一立场。在先作品中的共同作者身份不足以使一个人成为衍生作品的共同作者:"sic] 作品的独立版权保护" Id. at 1317。Weissmann 案中的分析是合理的,我们采纳了它在这一点上的推理。

Interestingly, the court in Weissmann also discussed the situation where a joint work is utilized or licensed for use in a derivative work by one of the co-authors of the joint work. In such a situation, no cause of action for infringement exists, “because an individual cannot infringe his own copyright. The only duty joint owners have is to account for profits from [the joint work’s] use.” Id. at 1318.
有趣的是,法院在Weissmann 一案中还讨论了共同作品的共同作者之一在衍生作品中使用或被许可使用共同作品的情况。在这种情况下,不存在侵权诉讼理由,"因为个人不能侵犯自己的版权。共同所有人的唯一责任是说明从[共同作品]的使用中获得的利润"。Id. 第 1318 页。

[I]t appears that Appellants have misframed the type of relief they could litigate with any possibility of success. While an author of a joint work does not acquire an authorship interest in derivative works that utilize part of the joint work, that author may be entitled to compensation for the use of the original joint work. The problem for Appellants in this appeal, however, is that such a claim for compensation is not a copyright claim. Furthermore, the claim would have to be against the alleged “co-author” Wigginton, because he was the person who allegedly allowed Ashton-Tate to use the user interface portion of the joint work for use in Full Impact.…
上诉人似乎错误地界定了他们有可能胜诉的救济类型。虽然共同作品的作者并不获得使用共同作品部分内容的衍生作品的作者权益,但该作者可能有权因使用原始共同作品而获得补偿。然而,上诉人在本次上诉中遇到的问题是,这种赔偿要求并非版权要求。此外,该索赔必须针对所谓的 "共同作者 "Wigginton,因为据称是他允许 Ashton-Tate 在 Full Impact.... 中使用共同作品的用户界面部分。

* * *

380

Questions

1.

General Discussion Questions

1.1

What did Ross contribute to the collaboration? What did Wigginton contribute? Did Ross and Wigginton both contribute a work fixed in a tangible medium of expression?
罗斯为合作做出了什么贡献?维金顿贡献了什么?罗斯和维金顿是否都贡献了固定在有形表达媒介上的作品?

1.2

Do you agree that a programmer should be required to contribute more than ideas to be considered a joint author under copyright? What if the economic value of the idea exceeds the economic value of programming needed to implement the idea?
你是否同意,程序员必须贡献比创意更多的东西才能被视为版权下的共同作者?如果创意的经济价值超过了实现创意所需的编程的经济价值,该怎么办?

1.3

Who owns Full Impact? Who owns the MacCalc prototype?
谁拥有 Full Impact?谁拥有 MacCalc 原型?

2.

Litigation Questions

2.1

Why did Ross sue Ashton-Tate? Was that a good litigation strategy?
罗斯为什么要起诉阿什顿-塔特?这是一个好的诉讼策略吗?

2.2

What cause of action should Ross have pursued that he failed to pursue?
罗斯应该提出什么诉讼理由而他没有提出?

2.3

What remedies were available to Ross?

3.

Business Law Questions

3.1

Based on what you learned from this case, what representations and warranties would you want if you were acquiring software or a software firm?
根据你从本案例中学到的知识,如果你要购买软件或软件公司,你希望得到哪些陈述和保证?

3.2

What should Ross and Wigginton have done in forming their business relationship to make litigation less likely?
罗斯和维金顿在建立商业关系时应采取哪些措施来降低诉讼的可能性?

Exercises

1.

Serve as counsel for Ross — advise him on the non-litigation strategies he should consider.
担任罗斯的顾问--就他应该考虑的非诉讼策略向他提供建议。

2.

Serve as counsel for Wigginton — advise him on the non-litigation strategies he should consider.
担任维京顿的顾问--就他应考虑的非诉讼策略向他提供建议。

3.

Serve as in-house counsel for Ashton-Tate — advise senior management on the approaches the corporation should consider to resolve the ownership issues that arise in situations like this one.
担任 Ashton-Tate 的内部法律顾问,就公司应考虑采取哪些方法来解决类似情况下出现的所有权问题,向高级管理层提供建议。

4.

Serve as outside counsel for an open source software start-up company that plans to use GPL 2.0 for distributing its new software product. The founder asks you what type of legal arrangement the company should use to accept contributions from other developers. She has heard that the Free Software Foundation insists on a copyright assignment for its development projects but that the Apache Foundation uses a license. She would prefer simply to use GPL 2.0 as the contributor agreement. Advise her on the best option, including the result of not using any type of contribution agreement.
担任一家开源软件新创公司的外部法律顾问,该公司计划使用 GPL 2.0 发布其新的 软件产品。公司创始人问您,公司应该采用哪种法律安排来接受其他开发者的贡献。她听说自由软件基金会坚持为其开发项目转让版权,但 Apache 基金会使用的是许可证。她倾向于简单地使用 GPL 2.0 作为贡献者协议。请向她建议最佳方案,包括不使用任何类型贡献协议的结果。

381

IV. Patent Ownership

The starting point for understanding ownership of patent rights can be seen in this brief excerpt from a Supreme Court case involving a bio-medical invention.
理解专利权所有权的起点可以从最高法院涉及一项生物医学发明的案例中的这一简短摘录中看出。

Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.
利兰斯坦福大学董事会诉罗氏分子系统公司案

131 S. Ct. 2188 (2011)

Chief Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court. ….
首席大法官罗伯茨发表了法院意见。....

Our precedents confirm the general rule that rights in an invention belong to the inventor. It is equally well established that an inventor can assign his rights in an invention to a third party. [W]e have recognized that unless there is an agreement to the contrary, an employer does not have rights in an invention which is the original conception of the employee alone. In most circumstances, an inventor must expressly grant his rights in an invention to his employer if the employer is to obtain those rights.
我们的先例确认了发明权属于发明人的一般规则。同样公认的是,发明人可以将其发明权转让给第三方。[我们已经认识到,除非有相反的协议,否则雇主对仅由雇员原创的发明不享有权利。在大多数情况下,如果雇主要获得发明权,发明人必须明确将其发明权授予雇主。

….

Most employees agree to assign ownership rights in inventions as part of their employment contract. Absent an express agreement, the employer may own the invention under an implied-in-fact contract if the employee was hired to invent something or solve a particular problem. 1 Moreover, if an employee uses his or her employer’s resources to conceive of or first reduce an invention to practice, then the employer acquires a “shop right.”2 This shop right is a non-exclusive, royalty free, non-transferable license to make and use the invention. The shop right continues even if the employee leaves the company.3
作为雇佣合同的一部分,大多数雇员都同意转让发明的所有权。如果没有明示协议,雇主可能会根据默示事实合同拥有发明,前提是雇员受雇发明某样东西或解决某个特定问题。1 此外,如果雇员使用其雇主的资源构思发明或首先将发明付诸实践,那么雇主就获得了 "商店权"。"2 这种商店权是一种非排他性、免版税、不可转让的制造和使用发明的许可。即使员工离开公司,商店权仍继续有效。3

Joint inventors acquire an equal, undivided interest in a patent.4 Absent an agreement to the contrary, each joint owner may use or authorize others to use the subject matter claimed in the patent without accounting to the other owner or owners.5
共同发明人获得平等、不可分割的专利权益。4 如果没有相反的协议,每位共同所有人都可以使用或授权他人使用专利中要求的主题,而无需向其他一位或多位所有人说明。5

* * *

Questions

1.

General Discussion Questions

1.1

How does copyright law’s work for hire doctrine compare to patent law’s shop right?
版权法的雇佣作品原则与专利法的商店权相比有何不同?

1.2

How does copyright law’s approach to joint ownership compare to patent law’s approach?
版权法对共同所有权的处理方式与专利法的处理方式相比有何不同?

382

2.

Litigation Questions

2.1

A patent owner or exclusive licensee may file suit against an accused infringer, but a non-exclusive licensee may not — what is the rationale for this distinction?
专利所有人或独占被许可人可以对被控侵权人提起诉讼,但非独占被许可人却不可以--这种区别的理由是什么?

2.2

Normally all joint owners of a patent should join in bringing suit against an accused infringer — what is the rationale for this rule?
通常情况下,专利的所有共同所有人都应共同对被控侵权人提起诉讼--这一规则的依据是什么?

3.

Business Law Questions

3.1

What are the advantages and disadvantages of asking an employee for an assignment of patent rights as opposed to simply relying on the shop right?
要求雇员转让专利权与简单地依赖商店权利相比有什么优缺点?

3.2

What formalities are necessary in executing a patent assignment or exclusive license?6
在执行专利转让或独占许可时需要哪些手续?6

Exercise

Draft a patent assignment agreement from an employee software programmer to the programmer’s employer for all software inventions created within the scope of employment or using the employer’s resources.
起草一份专利转让协议,由雇员软件程序员向其雇主转让在工作范围内或利用雇主资源创造的所有软件发明。

V. Services Contracts for Software Development

Software Services Agreement

This Software Services Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into this ______ day of ________ , 2 ________ , by and between Tillamook Tech Services, Inc. (“Contractor”) and Nisqually National Computer Corp. (“Company”).
本软件服务协议(以下简称 "协议")由 Tillamook Tech Services, Inc. (以下简称 "承包商")和 Nisqually National Computer Corp. (以下简称 "公司")于 2 ________ 年 ______ 日签订。

SECTION 1 Definitions

“Deliverables” means all IP or other work product developed by Contractor (or a subcontractor of Contractor) for Company under a SOW or as part of the Services;
"交付成果" 是指承包商(或承包商的分包商)根据 SOW 或作为服务的一部分为公司开发的所有 IP 或其他工作产品;

IP” means all intellectual property rights throughout the world, whether existing under statute or at common law or equity, now or hereafter in force or recognized, including: copyrights, trade secrets, trademarks and service marks, patents, inventions, designs, logos and trade dress, “moral rights,” mask works, publicity rights, and privacy rights.
"IP"知识产权 "是指全世界范围内的所有知识产权,无论是根据成文法还是普通法或衡平法存在的、现在或将来生效或被认可的知识产权,包括版权、商业秘密、商标和服务标记、专利、发明、设计、徽标和商业外观、"精神权利"、面具作品、公开权和隐私权。

Company Materials” means any tangible or intangible materials (including hardware, software, source code, documentation, methodologies, know-how,
"公司材料" 指任何有形或无形材料(包括硬件、软件、源代码、文档、方法、诀窍、

383

processes, techniques, ideas, concepts, technologies, and data) that are provided by or on behalf of Company to Contractor to perform the Services. Company Materials include any modifications to, or derivative works of, the foregoing materials, the trademarks, and any data entered into any Contractor database as part of the Services.
公司材料"(Company Materials)包括由公司或代表公司向承包商提供的用于执行服务的任何材料、工艺、技术、想法、概念、技术和数据。公司材料包括对上述材料、商标和作为服务一部分输入承包商数据库的任何数据的任何修改或衍生作品。

Services” means the services specified in a SOW or otherwise performed by Contractor under this Agreement;
"服务" 指 SOW 中规定的服务或承包商根据本协议以其他方式执行的服务;

SOW(s)” means any of the following which describe Services and/or Deliverables ordered under this Agreement:
"SOW(s)" 是指描述根据本协议订购的服务和/或交付品的以下任何一项:

Purchase order(s);

Electronic statement(s) of work transmitted by Company; or
公司传送的电子工作报表;或

Written agreement(s) signed by authorized representatives of both parties expressly referencing this Agreement.
由双方授权代表签署的明确提及本协议的书面协议。

Subcontractor(s)” means either a third party to whom Contractor delegates one or more of its obligations under this Agreement or a Contractor Affiliate that is not contracting directly with Company; and
"分包商"是指承包商将其在本协议下的一项或多项义务委托给的第三方,或承包商的关联公司,该关联公司不直接与公司签订合同;并且

Contractor IP” means:
" 承包商 IP" 是指:

Contractor’s preexisting or independently developed proprietary tools, processes, or IP; and
承包商已有的或独立开发的专有工具、流程或知识产权;以及

Any modifications to or derivative works of the foregoing that Contractor creates as a part of the Services, to the extent such modifications or derivative works have no functionality separate from Contractor IP.
承包商作为服务的一部分对前述内容进行的任何修改或衍生作品,只要这些修改或衍生作品没有独立于承包商 IP 的功能。

SECTION 2 Provision of Services: Scope and Requirements
第 2 款 服务的提供:范围和要求

Scope of Services to be described in SOW. The parties will describe the Services in one or more SOW. This Agreement applies to each SOW. The parties may agree to change a SOW. Contractor will, at its own expense:
SOW 中描述的服务范围。双方将在一份或多份 SOW 中描述服务。本协议适用于每份 SOW。双方可商定更改 SOW。承包商将自费

Obtain and maintain any approvals, licenses, filings, or registrations necessary to perform the Services; and
获得并保持执行服务所需的任何批准、许可、备案或注册;以及

Comply with all applicable laws (including export laws and regulations).
遵守所有适用法律(包括出口法律法规)。

Acceptance of Deliverables. Company will evaluate each Deliverable and will accept or reject it within 15 business days after receipt, or as otherwise agreed. If Company does not accept or reject a Deliverable within this period, the Deliverable will be deemed accepted unless otherwise agreed. Contractor will have 10 business days to fix any Deliverable after receiving notice from Company. If Contractor does not fix the Deliverable, Company may either reject the Deliverable without further obligation, or work with Contractor to resolve the issue.
交付品的验收。公司 "将评估每项交付品,并在收到后 15 个工作日内或另有约定时接受或拒绝交付品。如果 "公司 "未在此期限内接受或拒绝 "交付品",则视为接受 "交付品",除非另有约定。在收到公司通知后,承包商有 10 个工作日的时间修复任何交付品。如果承包商未修复交付货品,公司可拒绝接受交付货品,不再承担任何义务,或与承包商合作解决问题。

384

SECTION 3 Ownership and Use of the Parties’ Respective IP
第 3 款 双方各自知识产权的所有权和使用权

Ownership of preexisting IP. Each party will own and retain all rights to its preexisting IP and any IP developed outside of the Services performed under this Agreement.
原有 IP 的所有权。每一方都将拥有并保留其原有 IP 和在本协议服务之外开发的任何 IP 的所有权利。

Contractor’s use of Company Materials

License to use Company Materials.

Company grants Contractor a non-exclusive, revocable license to copy, use, and distribute any Company Materials provided to it to the extent necessary to perform the Services. Company or its suppliers retain all other interest in Company Materials and related IP. Contractor has no right to sublicense the right to use Company Materials, except as necessary to any approved subcontractor.
公司授予承包商非排他性、可撤销的许可,允许承包商复制、使用和分发向其提供的任何 "公司材料",但仅限于执行服务所需的范围。公司或其供应商保留公司材料和相关 IP 的所有其他权益。承包商无权转授使用公司材料的权利,除非在必要时转授给任何经批准的分包商。

If the Company Materials come with a separate license, the terms of that license will also apply. Those other Company license terms control in the case of any conflict with this Agreement.
如果公司材料附带单独的许可,则该许可的条款同样适用。在与本协议发生冲突时,以公司的其他许可条款为准。

Termination of license and return of Company Materials. Company may revoke the license to Company Materials at any time for any reasonable business reason. The license will terminate automatically on the earlier of the expiration or termination of:
许可证的终止和公司材料的归还。公司可随时以任何合理的商业理由撤销对公司材料的许可。许可将在以下时间到期或终止(以较早者为准)时自动终止:

This Agreement; or

The applicable SOW.

Contractor will promptly return any Company Materials on request or termination of Contractor’s license.
承包商在接到要求或承包商许可证被终止时,应立即归还任何公司材料。

Company’s use of Contractor IP.

If Contractor IP is incorporated into any Deliverable, then Contractor will continue to own the Contractor IP. Contractor grants Company a worldwide, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, fully paid-up right and license, under all current and future IP, to:
如果承包商 IP 被纳入任何交付品,则承包商将继续拥有承包商 IP。承包商授予公司一个全球性的、非排他性的、永久的、不可撤销的、免版税的、全额支付的权利和许可,根据所有当前和未来的 IP,以:

Make, use, reproduce, format, modify, and create derivative works of the applicable Contractor IP;
对适用的承包商知识产权进行制作、使用、复制、格式化、修改和创作衍生作品;

Publicly perform or display, import, broadcast, transmit, distribute, license, offer to sell and sell, rent, lease, or lend copies of the applicable Contractor IP and derivative works thereof;
公开表演或展示、进口、广播、传输、分发、许可、要约出售和销售、出租、租赁或出借适用的承包商知识产权及其衍生作品的副本;

Combine the Contractor IP and/or derivative works thereof with any software, firmware, hardware, and/or services; and
将承包商 IP 和/或其衍生作品与任何软件、固件、硬件和/或服务相结合;以及

Sublicense to third parties the foregoing rights, including the right to sublicense to further third parties.
将上述权利分许可给第三方,包括分许可给其他第三方的权利。

If Contractor intends to use any third-party IP in a manner described above, then Contractor will also obtain all necessary rights in the third-party IP to make the grant of rights provided above.
如果承包商打算以上述方式使用任何第三方 IP,则承包商还将获得第三方 IP 中的所有必要权利,以便授予上述权利。

385

Ownership of Deliverables

Ownership of IP in Deliverables. All Deliverables are “work made for hire” for Company under applicable copyright law subject to:
交付品知识产权的所有权。根据适用的版权法,所有交付成果均为公司的 "受雇作品",但须符合以下条件

Contractor’s retention of its rights in any Contractor IP as provided in this Section 3 (Ownership and Use of Parties’ Respective IP); and
承包商保留本第 3 节(各方各自知识产权的所有权和使用)中规定的承包商知识产权的权利;以及

Any third party’s retention of its rights in any IP licensed to Company under that Section 3(c).
任何第三方保留其对根据第 3(c)节许可公司使用的任何知识产权的权利。

To the extent any Deliverables do not qualify as a work made for hire, Contractor assigns all right, title, and interest in and to the Deliverables, including all IP, to Company. Contractor waives, and agrees not to assert, any moral rights that may exist in the Deliverables.
在任何交付品不符合受雇作品的情况下,承包商将交付品的所有权利、所有权和利益(包括所有 IP)转让给公司。承包商放弃并同意不主张交付成果中可能存在的任何精神权利。

Contractor’s assistance. Contractor will promptly disclose to Company, in writing, any inventions, works of authorship, improvements, developments, or discoveries conceived, authored, made, or reduced to practice by Contractor or its Subcontractors, either solely or in collaboration with others, in connection with performing the Services. At Company’s request and expense, Contractor will sign documents and take any other action reasonably necessary to evidence, perfect, or protect Company’s rights in the Deliverables. Contractor will cooperate with Company in the filing and prosecution of any copyright, trademark, or patent applications that Company may choose to file on the Deliverables or inventions and designs relating to the Deliverables. Contractor irrevocably appoints Company as Contractor’s attorney-in-fact (which appointment is coupled with an interest) to sign those documents on Contractor’s behalf. Contractor will not challenge, oppose, or interfere with any Company applications relating to the Deliverables or file any applications on its own behalf.
承包商的协助。承包商将立即以书面形式向公司披露任何发明,著作权,改进,发展,或发现设想,作者,使,或减少到实践由承包商或其分包商,无论是单独或与他人合作,在执行服务。在公司的要求和费用,承包商将签署文件,并采取任何其他合理必要的行动,以证明,完善或保护公司在交付的权利。承包商将与公司合作,提交和起诉任何版权、商标、或专利申请,公司可能会选择提交的交付品或与交付品有关的发明和设计。承包商不可撤销地指定公司为承包商的法定代表人(该任命附有权益),代表承包商签署这些文件。承包商不得质疑、反对或干涉公司有关交付品的任何申请,也不得以自己的名义提交任何申请。

SECTION 4 Contractor Compensation

Company will pay the Contractor fees set forth in each SOW.
公司将向承包商支付每份 SOW 中规定的费用。

SECTION 5 Term and Termination

Term. This Agreement commences on the Effective Date and will continue for a period of 2 years (the “Term”) unless it is:
期限。本协议自生效之日起生效,有效期为 2 年(" 期限"),除非出现以下情况:

Terminated earlier according to its terms; or

Extended by a written and signed amendment.

Termination for convenience. Without prejudice to any other remedies:
为方便起见而终止。在不影响任何其他补救措施的情况下:

Company may terminate this Agreement, or any SOW, at any time without cause by giving 10 days’ written notice. If Company terminates for convenience, its only obligation is to pay Contractor, for:
公司可在任何时候无故终止本协议或任何 SOW,只需提前 10 天发出书面通知即可。如果 "公司 "为方便起见而终止本协议,则其唯一的义务是向承包商支付以下费用:

Services or Deliverables it accepts before the effective date of termination; or
在终止生效日期之前接受的服务或交付品;或

386

Services performed, where Company retains the benefit after the effective date of termination.
已提供的服务,公司在终止生效日期后保留福利。

Termination for cause.

Mutual right. Either party may terminate this Agreement or any SOW on the other party’s material breach of this Agreement or a SOW. The non-breaching party must give 10 calendar days’ written notice and the opportunity to cure its breach. Either party may immediately terminate this Agreement on written notice of a breach of Section 6 (Confidentiality, Privacy and Data Protection, and Publicity) of this Agreement.
共同权利。任何一方均可在另一方严重违反本协议或任何 SOW 的情况下终止本协议或任何 SOW。非违约方必须提前 10 个日历日发出书面通知,并提供纠正其违约行为的机会。任何一方在收到违反本协议第 6 节(保密、隐私和数据保护以及公开)的书面通知后,均可立即终止本协议。

Company’s right. Company may terminate this Agreement, effective immediately upon written notice, if Contractor:
公司的权利。如果承包商出现以下情况,公司可在发出书面通知后立即终止本协议:

Is found to be non-compliant in its use of Company software;
在使用公司软件时被发现不合规;

Becomes insolvent; or

Executes any assignment for the benefit of creditors or becomes the subject of any proceeding under any bankruptcy, insolvency, or other debtor relief laws, whether voluntary or involuntary, unless the proceeding is dismissed or terminated within 60 days after it commences.
执行任何有利于债权人的转让,或成为任何破产法、无力偿债法或其他债务人救济法(无论是自愿还是非自愿)所规定的任何程序的主体,除非该程序在开始后 60 天内被驳回或终止。

Effect of termination. Each party will return the Confidential Information and property of the other within 10 calendar days of the effective date of termination of this Agreement or any SOW unless otherwise instructed. Contractor will deliver to Company any affected Deliverables in progress and all data and materials related to them. Contractor will assist Company with a post- termination transition at Company’s request. Contractor’s assistance will not exceed 60 calendar days. Company will pay Contractor, through the Compliance Service Provider, for its assistance at a rate no greater than that set forth in any SOW for comparable services.
终止的效力。除非另有指示,否则双方应在本协议或任何 SOW 终止生效后 10 个日历日内归还对方的机密信息和财产。承包商将向 "公司 "交付正在进行中的任何受影响的可交付成果以及与之相关的所有数据和材料。承包商将应公司要求协助公司进行终止后的过渡。承包商的援助将不超过 60 个日历日。公司 "将通过 "合规服务提供商 "向 "承包商 "支付其协助费用,费率不高于任何 SOW 中规定的可比服务费。

Survival. The provisions of this Agreement which, by their terms, require performance after the termination or expiration of this Agreement, or have application to events that may occur after the termination or expiration of this Agreement, will survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement. All indemnity obligations and any applicable indemnification procedures will be deemed to survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement.
存续。根据本协议的条款规定,需要在本协议终止或期满后履行的条款,或适用于本协议终止或期满后可能发生的事件的条款,在本协议终止或期满后仍然有效。所有赔偿义务和任何适用的赔偿程序在本协议终止或期满后仍然有效。

SECTION 6 Confidentiality, Privacy and Data Protection, and Publicity
第 6 节 保密、隐私和数据保护以及宣传

The information shared under this Agreement is confidential information subject to the nondisclosure agreement (“NDA”) between the parties dated ______ .
根据本协议共享的信息属于保密信息,受双方于 ______ 签订的保密协议("NDA")的约束。

387

SECTION 7 Representations and Warranties

Contractor represents and warrants:

Contractor has full rights and authority to enter into and perform according to this Agreement;
承包商拥有签订和履行本协议的全部权利和授权;

Contractor’s performance will not violate any agreement or obligation between Contractor and any third party;
承包商的履约行为不得违反承包商与任何第三方之间的任何协议或义务;

The Services will be performed professionally and be of high grade, nature, and quality;
服务将以专业方式提供,并具有较高的档次、性质和质量;

The Services, the Deliverables, and any Contractor IP or third-party IP provided to Company under this Agreement will not:
根据本协议提供给公司的服务、交付成果和任何承包商 IP 或第三方 IP 将不

To the best of Contractor’s knowledge, infringe any patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret, or other proprietary right of any third party; or
据承包商所知,侵犯任何第三方的任何专利、版权、商标、商业秘密或其他专有权利;或

Contain any viruses or other malicious code that will degrade or infect any Deliverables, product, service, or any other software or Company’s network or systems;
包含会降低或感染任何交付品、产品、服务或任何其他软件或公司网络或系统的任何病毒或其他恶意代码;

Any Company software in Contractor’s possession is properly licensed for use.
承包商所拥有的任何公司软件均有适当的使用许可。

EXCEPT AS SET FORTH IN THIS SECTION 7 (REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES), THE SERVICES AND THE DELIVERABLES ARE PROVIDED “AS IS.” TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, CONTRACTOR DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL OTHER WARRANTIES, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WHETHER ARISING BY A COURSE OF DEALING, USAGE OR TRADE PRACTICE, OR COURSE OF PERFORMANCE.
除本第 7 节(陈述和保证)所列情况外,服务和交付产品均按 "原样 "提供。在法律允许的最大范围内,承包商不作任何和所有其他明示或默示保证,包括但不限于:任何对适销性、质量和服务的默示保证、对适销性或特定用途适用性的任何默示保证,无论是否因交易过程、惯例或贸易实践或履约过程而产生。

SECTION 8 Indemnification and Other Remedies

Indemnification by Contractor. Contractor will defend, indemnify, and hold Company, its Affiliates, and their respective successors, directors, officers, employees, and agents (each a “Company Indemnified Party”) harmless from and against all Claims to the extent that such Claims arise out of or relate to:
承包商赔偿。承包商将为公司、其关联公司及其各自的继承人、董事、高级职员、雇员和代理人(各为"公司受补偿方")辩护、对其进行补偿并使其免受所有索赔的损害,前提是此类索赔是由以下方面引起或与之相关:公司受补偿方

Any breach of any representation or warranty contained in Section 7(a) or 7(b) by Contractor or its subcontractors;
承包商或其分包商违反第 7(a)或 7(b)节所载的任何陈述或保证;

The negligent or willful acts or omissions of Contractor or its subcontractors resulting in any bodily injury or death to any person or loss, disappearance, or damage to tangible or intangible property;
承包商或其分包商的疏忽或故意行为或不行为造成的人身伤害或死亡,或有形或无形财产的损失、失踪或损坏;

Contractor’s (or its subcontractors’) infringement, misuse, or misappropriation of any third-party IP rights;
承包商(或其分包商)侵犯、滥用或盗用任何第三方知识产权;

Breach of any obligations under Section 6 (Confidentiality, Privacy and Data Protection, and Publicity); or
违反第 6 节(保密、隐私和数据保护以及公开)规定的任何义务;或

Contractor’s (or its subcontractors’) failure to comply with applicable laws, rules, or regulations.
承包商(或其分包商)未能遵守适用的法律、法规或规章。

388

However, Contractor will have no liability under this Section 8(a) (Indemnification by Contractor) to the comparative extent that Claims result:
然而,承包商将不承担本第 8(a)节(承包商的赔偿)规定的赔偿责任:

From the negligent or willful acts of a Company Indemnified Party; or
公司受赔偿方的疏忽或故意行为;或

From Contractor’s compliance with the express instructions of Company.
承包商遵守公司的明确指示。

Indemnification by Company. Company will defend, indemnify, and hold Contractor, its Affiliates, and their respective successors, directors, officers, employees, and agents (each a “Contractor Indemnified Party”) harmless from and against all Claims to the extent that the Claims arise out of or relate to:
公司赔偿。公司将为承包商、其关联公司及其各自的继承人、董事、高级职员、雇员和代理人(各为"承包商受补偿方")辩护、进行补偿并使其免受所有索赔的损害,只要索赔是因以下原因引起或与以下原因有关:公司补偿:

The negligent or willful acts or omissions of Company resulting in any bodily injury or death to any person or loss, disappearance, or damage to tangible or intangible property; or
公司的疏忽或故意行为或不行为导致任何人身伤害或死亡,或有形或无形财产的损失、失踪或损坏;或

Company’s failure to comply with applicable laws, rules, or regulations.
公司未能遵守适用的法律、法规或规章。

However, Company will have no liability under this Section 8(b) (Indemnification by Company) to the comparative extent that Claims result from the negligent or willful acts of a Contractor Indemnified Party.
但是,如果索赔是由于承包商受补偿方的疏忽或故意行为造成的,则公司不承担本第 8 (b) 节(公司补偿)规定的责任。

Indemnification procedures. The indemnified party will:
赔偿程序。赔偿方将

Provide the indemnifying party with reasonably prompt notice of Claims;
向赔偿方提供合理及时的索赔通知;

Permit the indemnifying party through mutually acceptable counsel to answer and defend Claims; and
允许赔偿方通过双方均可接受的律师对索赔进行答辩和辩护;以及

Provide the indemnifying party with reasonable information and assistance to help the indemnifying party defend Claims at the indemnifying party’s expense.
向赔偿方提供合理的信息和协助,帮助赔偿方为索赔进行辩护,费用由赔偿方承担。

Any indemnified party will have the right to employ separate counsel and participate in the defense of any Claim at its own expense.
任何受赔偿方均有权另行聘请律师并自费参与任何索赔的辩护。

SECTION 9 Limitations of Liability

SUBJECT TO SECTION 9(b) BELOW, NEITHER PARTY WILL BE LIABLE TO THE OTHER FOR ANY CONSEQUENTIAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES (INCLUDING DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF DATA, REVENUE, AND/OR PROFITS), WHETHER FORESEEABLE OR UNFORESEEABLE, ARISING OUT OF THIS AGREEMENT REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE LIABILITY IS BASED ON BREACH OF CONTRACT, TORT, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTIES, OR OTHERWISE, AND EVEN IF THE PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF THOSE DAMAGES. ADDITIONALLY, NEITHER PARTY’S TOTAL AGGREGATE LIABILITY TO THE OTHER PARTY WILL EXCEED THE GREATER OF:
在不违反以下第 9(b)条规定的情况下,任何一方均不对另一方承担任何相应的、特殊的、免责的或惩罚性的损害赔偿(包括数据、收入和/或利润损失的损害赔偿),无论这些损害赔偿是可预见的还是不可预见的、由本协议引起的赔偿责任,无论该责任是否基于违约、侵权、严格责任、违反保证或其他原因,即使该方已被告知这些损害的可能性。此外,任何一方对另一方的责任总额均不得超过以下两项中的较大值:

$2 MILLION; OR

THE ACTUAL FEES PAID BY COMPANY IN THE 12-MONTH PERIOD PRIOR TO THE DATE THE CLAIM AROSE.
公司在索赔发生之日前 12 个月内实际支付的费用。

389

THE LIMITATIONS ON LIABILITY SET FORTH IN SECTION 9(a) DO NOT APPLY TO LIABILITY ARISING FROM:
第 9(a)款规定的责任限制不适用于因以下原因引起的责任:

A PARTY’S DUTY TO INDEMNIFY THE OTHER FOR THIRD-PARTY CLAIMS UNDER THIS AGREEMENT;
一方根据本协议对另一方的第三方索赔进行赔偿的责任;

A BREACH OF A PARTY’S OBLIGATIONS UNDER SECTION 6 (CONFIDENTIALITY, PRIVACY AND DATA PROTECTION, AND PUBLICITY);
一方违反第 6 节(保密、隐私和数据保护以及宣传)规定的义务;

ANY INFRINGEMENT, MISUSE, OR MISAPPROPRIATION OF ANY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS; OR
任何侵犯、滥用或盗用知识产权的行为;或

FRAUD.

SECTION 10 Insurance

Contractor will maintain sufficient insurance coverage to meet obligations created by this Agreement and by law.
承包商将投保足够的保险,以履行本协议和法律规定的义务。

SECTION 11 Miscellaneous

Independent contractor status; taxes

Independent contractor status. The parties are independent contractors. Neither party is a partner of the other for any purpose whatsoever. Nothing herein shall be construed as: (i) creating an employer-employee relationship; (ii) creating an exclusive relationship; (iii) preventing either party from entering into the same or a similar relationship with others; or (iv) creating a minimum business commitment from Company to Contractor. Contractor and its employees, agents, consultants, and/or subcontractors shall not be construed as Company employees, or entitled to participate in the profit sharing, pension, or other plans established for the benefit of Company employees.
独立承包商身份。双方均为独立承包商。无论出于何种目的,任何一方都不是另一方的合伙人。本协议的任何条款均不得解释为(i) 建立雇主与雇员的关系;(ii) 建立排他性关系;(iii) 阻止任何一方与他人建立相同或类似的关系;或 (iv) 建立公司对承包商的最低业务承诺。承包商及其员工、代理、顾问和/或分包商不得被视为公司员工,或有权参与利润分享、养老金或其他为公司员工利益而设立的计划。

Employment-related taxes, insurance, and benefits. Contractor is responsible for paying all of Contractor’s federal and state taxes, withholding, social security, insurance, and other benefits on behalf of Contractor and Contractor’s employees. If the Internal Revenue Service, any state or local agency, or a court of competent jurisdiction determines that Contractor is a common law Company employee and therefore subject to withholding and payroll taxes (e.g., federal income tax, FICA, FUTA, etc.), Contractor will indemnify and hold Company harmless from all such withholding and payroll taxes, and related interest and penalties, if any, assessed against Company in connection with such determination.
与雇用有关的税收、保险和福利。承包商负责代表承包商和承包商的员工支付承包商的所有联邦税和州税、预扣税、社会保险、保险和其他福利。如果美国国税局、任何州或地方机构或有管辖权的法院认定承包商是普通法公司雇员,因此需要缴纳预扣税和工资税(如联邦所得税、FICA、FUTA 等),承包商将赔偿公司所有此类预扣税和工资税以及相关利息和罚金(如有),并使公司免受损害。

Other taxes. The amounts to be paid by Company to Compliance Service Provider for the Services do not include any taxes. Company is not liable for any taxes that Contractor or Compliance Service Provider is legally obligated to pay. “Taxes” includes but is not limited to net income or gross receipts taxes, franchise taxes, property taxes, and any other taxes or duties that are levied or based on the Agreement or any SOW. Contractor will indemnify and hold Company harmless from any claims, costs (including reasonable attorneys’ fees), and liabilities that relate to Contractor’s taxes.
其他税费。公司向合规服务提供商支付的服务费用不包括任何税费。公司对承包商或合规服务提供商依法有义务支付的任何税款不承担任何责任。"税款 "包括但不限于净收入或总收入税、特许经营税、财产税以及根据本协议或任何 SOW 征收的任何其他税款或关税。承包商将赔偿公司与承包商税款相关的任何索赔、费用(包括合理的律师费)和责任,并使公司免受损害。

390

Governing provision. Despite any other provision in this Agreement, this Section 12(a) will govern the treatment of all taxes relating to this Agreement.
管辖条款。尽管本协议有任何其他规定,与本协议有关的所有税务处理均以第 12(a)节为准。

Governing law; jurisdiction. The laws of the State of Oregon govern this Agreement. If federal jurisdiction exists, the parties consent to exclusive jurisdiction and venue in the federal courts in Washington County, Oregon. If not, the parties consent to exclusive jurisdiction and venue in the Superior Court of Washington County, Oregon. If either Company or Contractor employs attorneys to enforce any rights arising out of or relating to this Agreement, the prevailing party will be entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and other expenses, including the costs and fees incurred on appeal or in a bankruptcy or similar action.
准据法;管辖权。本协议受俄勒冈州法律管辖。如果存在联邦管辖权,双方同意俄勒冈州华盛顿县的联邦法院拥有专属管辖权和审判地。如果不存在,双方同意俄勒冈州华盛顿县高级法院拥有专属管辖权和审判地。如果 "公司 "或 "承包商 "聘请律师强制执行本协议所产生的或与之相关的任何权利,则胜诉方有权收回其合理的律师费、成本和其他费用,包括上诉或破产或类似诉讼所产生的成本和费用。

No waiver. A party’s delay or failure to exercise any right or remedy will not result in a waiver of that or any other right or remedy.
不放弃。一方延迟或未能行使任何权利或补救措施,并不导致放弃该权利或任何其他权利或补救措施。

Assignment. Contractor will not sell, assign, transfer, pledge, or encumber this Agreement or any right, or delegate any duty or obligation under this Agreement, by assignment or operation of law, without Company’s prior written consent. Company will not unreasonably withhold such consent. Contractor will be deemed to have assigned this Agreement if Contractor engages in a change of control transaction. Company may assign this Agreement to any of its Affiliates. This Agreement will inure to the benefit of and bind all permitted successors, assigns, receivers, and trustees of each party.
转让。未经公司事先书面同意,承包商不得出售、转让、转移、质押或抵押本协议或本协议项下的任何权利,或通过转让或法律运作委托本协议项下的任何责任或义务。公司不会无理拒绝此类同意。如果承包商进行控制权变更交易,承包商将被视为已转让本协议。公司可将本协议转让给其任何关联公司。本协议将使各方所有允许的继承人、受让人、接管人和受托人受益,并对其具有约束力。

Force majeure. Neither party will be liable for failure to perform any obligation under this Agreement to the extent such failure is caused by a force majeure event (including acts of God, natural disasters, war, civil disturbance, action by governmental entity, strike, and other causes beyond the party’s reasonable control). The party affected by the force majeure event will provide notice to the other party within a commercially reasonable time and will use its best efforts to resume performance. Obligations not performed due to a force majeure event will be performed as soon as reasonably possible when the force majeure event concludes.
不可抗力。若因不可抗力事件(包括天灾、自然灾害、战争、内乱、政府实体行为、罢工和其他超出 当事方合理控制范围的原因)导致无法履行本协议项下的任何义务,则任何一方均不承担责 任。受不可抗力事件影响的一方应在商业上合理的时间内通知另一方,并尽最大努力恢复履约。因不可抗力事件而未履行的义务将在不可抗力事件结束后尽快履行。

Severability. If any court of competent jurisdiction determines that any provision of this Agreement is illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions will remain in full force and effect.
可分割性。如果任何有管辖权的法院裁定本协议的任何条款不合法、无效或不可执行,则其余条款仍将完全有效。

Entire agreement, precedence, and amendment. This Agreement supersedes all prior and contemporaneous communications, whether written or oral, regarding the subject matter covered in this Agreement. In the event of a conflict between any parts of this Agreement not resolved expressly by its terms, the following order of precedence will apply:
完整协议、优先权和修订。本协议取代所有先前和同期就本协议所涉主题事项进行的书面或口头交流。如果本协议条款中未明确解决的任何部分之间发生冲突,则适用以下优先顺序:

This Agreement;

A signed SOW, except to the extent that this Agreement or the SOW expressly provides that a particular section of the SOW takes precedence over a particular section of this Agreement; and
已签署的 SOW,除非本协议或 SOW 明确规定 SOW 的某一特定部分优先于本协议的某一特定部分;以及

Company purchase order terms and conditions.

391

This Agreement may be modified only by a written agreement signed by duly authorized representatives of both parties.
本协议只能通过双方正式授权代表签署的书面协议进行修改。

* * *

Questions

1.

General Discussion Questions

1.1

Some countries do not permit the assignment of intellectual property ownership from employees to employers — do you agree with this policy?
有些国家不允许雇员将知识产权所有权转让给雇主--您同意这种政策吗?

1.2

Should a contractor be able to disclaim the implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose?
承包商是否可以放弃对适销性或特定用途适用性的默示保证?

2.

Litigation Questions

2.1

Is the consent to jurisdiction in Section 11(b) binding on a court?
第 11(b)条中的管辖权同意对法院是否具有约束力?

2.2

When might a licensor not want to ask a licensee for a defense of claims agreement as found in Section 8?
什么情况下许可人不想要求被许可人签署第 8 节中的索赔抗辩协议?

3.

Business Law Questions

3.1

What are the advantages and disadvantages of entering into a contract like the Software Services Agreement for the software programmer and the party contracting for software services?
对于软件程序员和软件服务签约方来说,签订类似《软件服务协议》的合同有哪些利弊?

3.2

Which issues raised in Aymes v. Bonelli and Asset Marketing Systems v. Gagnon would have been resolved if the parties had entered into the Software Services Agreement? Are there any issues that would not be resolved?
如果双方签订了《软件服务协议》,Aymes 诉 Bonelli 案和 Asset Marketing Systems 诉 Gagnon 案中提出的哪些问题会得到解决?是否存在无法解决的问题?

3.3

Why is Section 3(d) on Ownership of Deliverables phrased the way it is phrased?
关于交付品所有权的第 3(d)节为何如此措辞?

3.4

Is it appropriate for Company to have greater leeway to terminate the Agreement than Contractor? Why or why not?
公司终止协议的余地比承包商大是否合适?为什么?

Exercises

1.

Assume the Contractor is not willing to assign ownership of certain Deliverables to Company. Negotiate alternative arrangements.
假设承包商不愿意将某些交付品的所有权转让给公司。协商替代安排。

2.

Assume Company wants an unequivocal IP warranty in Section 7(d) rather than the “to the best of Contractor’s knowledge” version in the Software Services Agreement as written. Negotiate alternative arrangements.
假设公司希望在第 7(d)条中提供明确的知识产权担保,而不是《软件服务协议》中的 "据承包商所知 "版本。协商替代安排。

1. The NDA was located and produced six months into the litigation.
1. 在诉讼开始六个月后找到并出示了 NDA。

2. Gagnon disputes that the source code was ever stored on the AMS server.
2. Gagnon 对源代码曾存储在 AMS 服务器上的说法提出异议。

3. Though delivery of a copy of software does not compel the conclusion that Gagnon granted AMS a license, it is a relevant factor that we may consider. See 17 U.S.C. §202; Effects, 908 F.2d at 558 n.6 (recognizing that delivery is not dispositive, but “one factor that may be relied upon in determining that an implied license has been granted”).
3. 尽管交付软件拷贝并不能强制得出 Gagnon 授予 AMS 许可证的结论,但这是我们可以考虑的一个相关因素。See17 U.S.C. §202; Effects, 908 F.2d at 558 n.6(承认交付不是决定性因素,但 "在确定默示许可已被授予时可以依赖的一个因素")。

4. We do not consider the NDA, allegedly signed by Gagnon, because Gagnon contests its validity and argues that his signature was forged, creating a factual dispute inappropriate for resolution on summary judgment.
4. 我们不考虑据称由 Gagnon 签署的 NDA,因为 Gagnon 对其有效性提出质疑,并认为他的签名是伪造的,从而产生了不适合通过简易判决解决的事实争议。

1. See Banks v. Unisys Corp., 228 F.3d 1357, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
1. Banks 诉 Unisys Corp., 228 F.3d 1357, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2000).

2. See Wommack v. Durham Pecan Co., 715 F.2d 962 (5th Cir. 1983).
2. Wommack 诉 Durham Pecan Co.,715 F.2d 962(第 5 巡回法院,1983 年)。

3. See Wiegand v. Dover Mfg. Co., 292 F. Supp. 255 (N.D. Ohio 1923).
3. Wiegand 诉 Dover Mfg. Co., 292 F. Supp. 255 (N.D. Ohio 1923)。

4. 35 U.S.C. §262.
4. 《美国法典》第 35 编第 262 条。

5. Id.

6. See 35 U.S.C. §261.
6. 参见 35 U.S.C. §261。

393

· Chapter ·

9

Boundaries of Protection

I. INTRODUCTION

Legal protection for software has its limits. Some of the limits are inherent in intellectual property itself. Copyright cannot protect the functional parts of software. Trademark cannot protect the functional parts of software either. Copyright fair use also limits protection, particularly in the case of copying done to discover information needed for interoperability purposes. Trade secrets can protect many of the functional aspects of software, but this protection is limited by the need to maintain secrecy, which can be challenging in an industry based on collaboration and partnership and where products are available on the Internet and in the mass market. Patentability of software, while a good fit in many ways, presents challenges because software often cuts close to presenting a pure idea or runs into obviousness issues. Contracts play a role in protection but are limited because they are bilateral in nature and, when introduced as standard forms in the mass market, present enforceability challenges.
软件的法律保护有其局限性。有些限制是知识产权本身固有的。版权不能保护软件的功能部分。商标也不能保护软件的功能部分。版权的合理使用也限制了保护范围,特别是在为发现互操作性所需的信息而进行复制的情况下。商业秘密可以保护软件的许多功能方面,但这种保护因需要保密而受到限制,而在一个以合作和伙伴关系为基础、产品可在互联网和大众市场上获得的行业中,这一点可能具有挑战性。软件的可专利性虽然在很多方面都很合适,但也带来了挑战,因为软件往往接近于提出一个纯粹的想法,或遇到显而易见的问题。合同在保护方面起着一定的作用,但其作用有限,因为合同是双边性质的,当作为标准形式引入大众市场时,会带来可执行性方面的挑战。

Legal protection for software runs up against other boundaries as well. This chapter addresses three of the most important ones: copyright misuse, antitrust, and federal law preemption. Often, these boundaries arise out of the use of contracts with intellectual property, as illustrated in two misuse cases, Lasercomb v. Reynolds and Apple v. Psystar, and in the United States v. Microsoft, Novell v. Microsoft, and Wallace v. IBM antitrust cases. This chapter examines the preemption boundary both in a run-of-the-mill intellectual property/contract setting in the National Car Rental v. Computer Associates and Davidson & Associates v. Jung cases and in the context of a state statute in the Vault v. Quaid Software case. Finally, this chapter presents a limitation on copyright protection contained in Section 117(c) of the Copyright Act for the repair and maintenance of computer systems.
软件的法律保护也会遇到其他限制。本章将讨论其中三个最重要的界限:版权滥用、反垄断和联邦法律优先权。通常,这些界限产生于知识产权合同的使用,如 Lasercomb 诉 Reynolds 和 Apple 诉 Psystar 这两个滥用案件,以及美国诉 Microsoft、Novell 诉 Microsoft 和 Wallace 诉 IBM 反垄断案件所示。本章在 "National Car Rental v. Computer Associates "和 "Davidson & Associates v. Jung "两个案件中,以及在 "Vault v. Quaid Software "案件中的州法规背景下,研究了普通知识产权/合同背景下的优先权边界。最后,本章介绍了《版权法》第 117(c)条中对计算机系统维修和维护的版权保护的限制。

500

II. COPYRIGHT MISUSE

LASERCOMB AMERICA, INC. v. REYNOLDS
LASERCOMB AMERICA, INC. 诉 REYNOLDS

911 F.2d 970 (4th Cir. 1990)

SPROUSE, Circuit Judge.

I

Facts and Proceedings Below

Appellants and defendants below are Larry Holliday, president and sole shareholder of Holiday Steel Rule Die Corporation (Holiday Steel), and Job Reynolds, a computer programmer for that company. Appellee is Lasercomb America, Inc. (Lasercomb), the plaintiff below. Holiday Steel and Lasercomb were competitors in the manufacture of steel rule dies that are used to cut and score paper and cardboard for folding into boxes and cartons. Lasercomb developed a software program, Interact, which is the object of the dispute between the parties. Using this program, a designer creates a template of a cardboard cutout on a computer screen and the software directs the mechanized creation of the conforming steel rule die.
上诉人和被告是 Holiday Steel Rule Die Corporation(Holiday Steel)的总裁兼唯一股东 Larry Holliday 和该公司的计算机程序员 Job Reynolds。被上诉人是 Lasercomb 美国公司(Lasercomb),即本案原告。Holiday Steel 公司和 Lasercomb 公司是钢尺模制造领域的竞争对手,钢尺模用于切割和划线纸张和纸板,以便折叠成纸箱和纸盒。Lasercomb 开发了一种软件程序 Interact,这是双方争议的焦点。使用该软件,设计人员可在计算机屏幕上创建纸板剪裁模板,然后由软件指导机械化制造符合要求的钢尺模具。

In 1983, before Lasercomb was ready to market its Interact program generally, it licensed four prerelease copies to Holiday Steel which paid $35,000 for the first copy, $17,500 each for the next two copies, and $2,000 for the fourth copy. Lasercomb informed Holiday Steel that it would charge $2,000 for each additional copy Holiday Steel cared to purchase. Apparently ambitious to create for itself an even better deal, Holiday Steel circumvented the protective devices Lasercomb had provided with the software and made three unauthorized copies of Interact which it used on its computer systems. Perhaps buoyed by its success in copying, Holiday Steel then created a software program called “PDS-1000,” which was almost entirely a direct copy of Interact, and marketed it as its own CAD/CAM die-making software. These infringing activities were accomplished by Job Reynolds at the direction of Larry Holliday.
1983年,在Lasercomb准备全面销售其Interact程序之前,它向HolidaySteel公司授权了四份预发行拷贝,Holiday Steel为第一份拷贝支付了35,000美元,为接下来的两份拷贝各支付了17,500美元,为第四份拷贝支付了2,000美元。Lasercomb 通知假日钢铁公司,假日钢铁公司每多购买一份,它将收取 2000 美元的费用。Holiday Steel 公司显然想为自己创造更好的交易条件,于是规避了 Lasercomb 公司随软件提供的保护装置,未经授权复制了三份 Interact 软件,并在其计算机系统中使用。也许是受到成功复制的鼓舞,Holiday 钢铁公司随后又创建了一个名为 "PDS-1000 "的软件程序,几乎完全直接复制了 Interact,并将其作为自己的 CAD/CAM 模具制造软件进行销售。这些侵权行为是 Job Reynolds 在 Larry Holliday 的指导下完成的。

There is no question that defendants engaged in unauthorized copying, and the purposefulness of their unlawful action is manifest from their deceptive practices. For example, Lasercomb had asked Holiday Steel to use devices called “chronoguards” to prevent unauthorized access to Interact. Although defendants had deduced how to circumvent the chronoguards and had removed them from their computers, they represented to Lasercomb that the chronoguards were in use. Another example of subterfuge is Reynolds’ attempt to modify the PDS-1000 program output so it would present a different appearance than the output from Interact.…
毫无疑问,被告进行了未经授权的复制,而且从他们的欺骗行为中可以看出他们的非法行为是有目的的。例如,Lasercomb 曾要求 Holiday Steel 使用名为 "chronoguards "的设备来防止未经授权访问 Interact。尽管被告已推断出如何规避计时器保护器,并已将其从电脑中移除,但他们仍向 Lasercomb 谎称计时器保护器仍在使用。另一个潜规则的例子是雷诺兹试图修改 PDS-1000 程序的输出,使其与 Interact.... 的输出呈现出不同的外观。

Holliday and Reynolds raise several issues on appeal. They do not dispute that they copied Interact, but they contend that Lasercomb is barred from recovery for infringement by its concomitant culpability. They assert that, assuming Lasercomb had a perfected copyright, it impermissibly abused it. This assertion of the “misuse of copyright” defense is based on language in Lasercomb’s standard licensing agreement, restricting licensees from creating any of their own CAD/CAM die-making software….
霍利迪和雷诺兹在上诉中提出了几个问题。他们对抄袭《互动》的事实没有异议,但认为 Lasercomb 应承担相应的过错责任,因此不能获得侵权赔偿。他们声称,假定 Lasercomb 拥有完善的版权,但其滥用版权的行为是不被允许的。这种 "滥用版权 "抗辩的主张是基于 Lasercomb 标准许可协议中的语言,即限制被许可人创建任何自己的 CAD/CAM 模具制造软件....。

501

II

Misuse of Copyright Defense

A successful defense of misuse of copyright bars a culpable plaintiff from prevailing on an action for infringement of the misused copyright. Here, appellants claim Lasercomb has misused its copyright by including in its standard licensing agreement clauses which prevent the licensee from participating in any manner in the creation of computer-assisted die-making software. The offending paragraphs read:
滥用版权的抗辩成功后,有过错的原告就不能在侵犯滥用版权的诉讼中胜诉。在本案中,上诉人声称 Lasercomb 滥用了其版权,在其标准许可协议中加入了禁止被许可人以任何方式参与创建计算机辅助模具制造软件的条款。违规段落如下

D.Licensee agrees during the term of this Agreement that it will not permit or suffer its directors, officers and employees, directly or indirectly, to write, develop, produce or sell computer assisted die making software.
D.被许可人同意在本协议有效期内,不直接或间接允许或容许其董事、高级职员和雇员编写、开发、生产或销售计算机辅助模具制造软件。

E. Licensee agrees during the term of this Agreement and for one (1) year after the termination of this Agreement, that it will not write, develop, produce or sell or assist others in the writing, developing, producing or selling computer assisted die making software, directly or indirectly without Lasercomb’s prior written consent. Any such activity undertaken without Lasercomb’s written consent shall nullify any warranties or agreements of Lasercomb set forth herein.
E.被许可人同意在本协议有效期内以及本协议终止后的一(1)年内,未经 Lasercomb 事先书面同意,不直接或间接地编写、开发、生产或销售或协助他人编写、开发、生产或销售计算机辅助模具制造软件。任何未经 Lasercomb 书面同意而进行的此类活动将使 Lasercomb 在本协议中规定的任何保证或协议失效。

The “term of this Agreement” referred to in these clauses is ninety-nine years.
这些条款中提到的 "本协定期限 "为 99 年。

Defendants were not themselves bound by the standard licensing agreement. Lasercomb had sent the agreement to Holiday Steel with a request that it be signed and returned. Larry Holliday, however, decided not to sign the document, and Lasercomb apparently overlooked the fact that the document had not been returned. Although defendants were not party to the restrictions of which they complain, they proved at trial that at least one Interact licensee had entered into the standard agreement, including the anticompetitive language.…
被告本身不受标准许可协议的约束。Lasercomb 将协议寄给了假日钢铁公司,并要求其签字后退回。但 Larry Holliday 决定不签署该文件,而 Lasercomb 显然忽略了该文件未被退回的事实。尽管被告不是他们所抱怨的限制条款的当事人,但他们在庭审中证明至少有一位互动被许可人签订了标准协议,其中包括反竞争语言....。

A. Does a “Misuse of Copyright” Defense Exist?

The misuse of a patent is a potential defense to suit for its infringement, and both the existence and parameters of that body of law are well established. Although there is little case law on the subject, courts from time to time have intimated that the similarity of rationales underlying the law of patents and the law of copyrights argues for a defense to an infringement of copyright based on misuse of the copyright. E.g., United States v. Loew’s, Inc., 371 U.S. 38, 44-51 (1962); United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131, 157-59 (1948); Mitchell Bros. Film Group v. Cinema Adult Theater, 604 F.2d 852, 865 & n.27 (5th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 917 (1980). The origins of patent and copyright law in England, the treatment of these two aspects of intellectual property by the framers of our Constitution, and the later statutory and judicial development of patent and copyright law in this country persuade us that parallel public policies underlie the protection of both types of intellectual property rights. We think these parallel policies call for application of the misuse defense to copyright as well as patent law.…
滥用专利是专利侵权诉讼的潜在抗辩理由,而这一法律体系的存在和参数均已确立。虽然这方面的判例很少,但法院不时暗示,专利法和版权法的基本原理相似,因此可以滥用版权为由对侵犯版权的行为进行抗辩。 例如, 美国诉 Loew's 公司,371 U.S. 38, 44-51 (1962);美国诉 Paramount Pictures, Inc、334 U.S. 131, 157-59 (1948);Mitchell Bros. Film Group v. Cinema Adult Theater, 604 F.2d 852, 865 & n.27 (5th Cir. 1979),cert.英国专利法和版权法的起源、我国宪法制定者对知识产权这两个方面的处理,以及我国专利法和版权法后来的成文法和司法发展,都使我们相信,保护这两类知识产权所依据的是平行的公共政策。我们认为,这些平行的政策要求对版权法和专利法适用滥用抗辩....

3. The “Misuse of Copyright” Defense

Although the patent misuse defense has been generally recognized since Morton Salt, it has been much less certain whether an analogous copyright misuse defense exists. This uncertainty persists because no United States Supreme Court decision has firmly established
尽管自Morton Salt 案以来,专利滥用抗辩已得到普遍认可,但类似的版权滥用抗辩是否存在却不那么确定。这种不确定性之所以持续存在,是因为美国最高法院的任何判决都没有牢固确立 版权滥用抗辩。

502

a copyright misuse defense in a manner analogous to the establishment of the patent misuse defense by Morton Salt. The few courts considering the issue have split on whether the defense should be recognized, and we have discovered only one case which has actually applied copyright misuse to bar an action for infringement. M. Witmark & Sons v. Jensen, 80 F. Supp. 843 (D. Minn. 1948), appeal dismissed, 177 F.2d 515 (8th Cir. 1949).
版权滥用抗辩的方式与莫顿盐业公司确立专利滥用抗辩的方式类似。考虑这一问题的法院为数不多,但在是否应承认这一抗辩的问题上存在分歧,我们只发现了一个实际适用版权滥用来禁止侵权诉讼的案例。M. Witmark & Sons v. Jensen, 80 F. Supp. 843 (D. Minn. 1948), 上诉被驳回, 177 F.2d 515 (8th Cir. 1949).

We are of the view, however, that since copyright and patent law serve parallel public interests, a “misuse” defense should apply to infringement actions brought to vindicate either right. As discussed above, the similarity of the policies underlying patent and copyright is great and historically has been consistently recognized. Both patent law and copyright law seek to increase the store of human knowledge and arts by rewarding inventors and authors with the exclusive rights to their works for a limited time. At the same time, the granted monopoly power does not extend to property not covered by the patent or copyright. Morton Salt, 314 U.S. at 492; cf. Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1880).
然而,我们认为,由于版权法和专利法服务于平行的公共利益,因此 "滥用 "抗辩应适用于为维护这两种权利而提起的侵权诉讼。如上所述,专利法和版权法的基本政策具有很大的相似性,这一点在历史上一直得到认可。专利法和版权法都旨在通过奖励发明者和作者在有限时间内对其作品享有专有权来增加人类知识和艺术的储备。同时,授予的垄断权并不延伸至专利或版权未涵盖的财产。Morton Salt, 314 U.S. at 492; c. Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99 (1880).

Thus, we are persuaded that the rationale of Morton Salt in establishing the misuse defense applies to copyrights. In the passage from Morton Salt quoted above, the phraseology adapts easily to a copyright context:
因此,我们确信,Morton Salt 确立滥用抗辩的理由适用于版权。在上文引用的Morton Salt 的段落中,用语很容易适应版权语境:Morton Salt

The grant to the [author] of the special privilege of a [copyright] carries out a public policy adopted by the Constitution and laws of the United States, “to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to [Authors]… the exclusive Right…” to their [“original” works]. United States Constitution, Art. I, §8, cl. 8, [17 U.S.C.A. §102]. But the public policy which includes [original works] within the granted monopoly excludes from it all that is not embraced in the [original expression]. It equally forbids the use of the [copyright] to secure an exclusive right or limited monopoly not granted by the [Copyright] Office and which it is contrary to public policy to grant.
授予[作者][版权]特权是为了执行美国宪法和法律通过的一项公共政策,即 "通过在有限的时间内确保[作者]......对其["原创 "作品]享有专有权...... "来 "促进科学和实用艺术的进步"。美国宪法》第 I 条第 8 款第 8 项。美国宪法》第 I 条第 8 款第 8 项,[17 U.S.C.A. §102]。但将[原创作品]纳入授权垄断范围的公共政策排除了[原创表达]中未包含的所有内容。它同样禁止使用[版权]来确保[版权]局未授予的专有权或有限垄断权,因为授予这种权利违反了公共政策。

Having determined that “misuse of copyright” is a valid defense, analogous to the misuse of patent defense, our next task is to determine whether the defense should have been applied by the district court to bar Lasercomb’s infringement action against the defendants in this case.
在确定 "滥用版权 "是一种有效的抗辩理由(类似于滥用专利的抗辩理由)之后,我们的下一项任务是确定地区法院是否应适用该抗辩理由来禁止 Lasercomb 对本案被告提起侵权诉讼。

B. The District Court’s Finding that the Anticompetitive Clauses Are Reasonable
B.地区法院认定反竞争条款是合理的

Lasercomb undoubtedly has the right to protect against copying of the Interact code. Its standard licensing agreement, however, goes much further and essentially attempts to suppress any attempt by the licensee to independently implement the idea which Interact expresses. The agreement forbids the licensee to develop or assist in developing any kind of computer-assisted die-making software. If the licensee is a business, it is to prevent all its directors, officers and employees from assisting in any manner to develop computer-assisted die-making software. Although one or another licensee might succeed in negotiating out the noncompete provisions, this does not negate the fact that Lasercomb is attempting to use its copyright in a manner adverse to the public policy embodied in copyright law, and that it has succeeded in doing so with at least one licensee. See supra note 8 and accompanying text. Cf. Berlenbach v. Anderson & Thompson Ski Co., 329 F.2d 782, 784-85 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 830 (1964).
Lasercomb 无疑有权防止 Interact 代码被复制。然而,它的标准许可协议却走得更远,实质上是试图压制被许可人独立实现 Interact 所表达的思想的任何尝试。协议禁止被许可人开发或协助开发任何计算机辅助模具制造软件。如果被许可人是一家企业,则要防止其所有董事、高级职员和雇员以任何方式协助开发计算机辅助模具制造软件。尽管一个或另一个被许可人可能会通过谈判成功地取消竞业禁止条款,但这并不能否认 Lasercomb 试图以违反版权法所体现的公共政策的方式使用其版权的事实,而且它至少已经成功地对一个被许可人这样做了。 见上文 注 8 和附文。Cf. Berlenbach 诉 Anderson & Thompson Ski Co.d 782, 784-85 (9th Cir.), cert.

503

The language employed in the Lasercomb agreement is extremely broad. Each time Lasercomb sells its Interact program to a company and obtains that company’s agreement to the noncompete language, the company is required to forego utilization of the creative abilities of all its officers, directors and employees in the area of CAD/CAM die-making software. Of yet greater concern, these creative abilities are withdrawn from the public. The period for which this anticompetitive restraint exists is ninety-nine years, which could be longer than the life of the copyright itself.
Lasercomb 协议中使用的语言极为宽泛。Lasercomb 每次向一家公司出售其 Interact 程序并获得该公司对竞业禁止条款的同意时,该公司就必须放弃使用其所有管理人员、董事和员工在 CAD/CAM 模具制造软件领域的创造能力。更令人担忧的是,这些创造性能力将不再向公众公开。这种反竞争限制存在的期限为 99 年,可能比版权本身的寿命还要长。

We previously have considered the effect of anticompetitive language in a licensing agreement in the context of patent misuse. Compton v. Metal Products, Inc., 453 F.2d 38 (4th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 406 U.S. 968 (1972). Compton had invented and patented coal auguring equipment. He granted an exclusive license in the patents to Joy Manufacturing, and the license agreement included a provision that Compton would not “engage in any business or activity relating to the manufacture or sale of equipment of the type licensed hereunder” for as long as he was due royalties under the patents. Suit for infringement of the Compton patents was brought against Metal Products, and the district court granted injunctive relief and damages. On appeal we held that relief for the infringement was barred by the misuse defense, stating:
我们曾在专利滥用的背景下考虑过许可协议中反竞争语言的影响。Compton 诉 Metal Products, Inc., 453 F.2d 38 (4th Cir. 1971), cert.denied,406 U.S. 968 (1972)。Compton 发明了钻煤设备并申请了专利。他向 Joy Manufacturing 公司授予了专利的排他性许可,许可协议包括一项条款,规定只要 Compton 还应得专利使用费,他就不得 "从事与制造或销售本协议许可类型的设备有关的任何业务或活动"。地方法院对金属制品公司提起了侵犯康普顿专利权的诉讼,并准予禁令救济和损害赔偿。在上诉中,我们认为侵权救济因滥用抗辩而被禁止,并指出:

The need of Joy to protect its investment does not outweigh the public’s right under our system to expect competition and the benefits which flow therefrom, and the total withdrawal of Compton from the mining machine business…everywhere in the world for a period of 20 years unreasonably lessens the competition which the public has a right to expect, and constitutes misuse of the patents.
Joy 公司保护其投资的需要并没有超过公众在我们的制度下期待竞争和由此产生的利益的权利,而 Compton 公司在 20 年内完全退出世界各地的采矿机械业务......不合理地减少了公众有权期待的竞争,构成了对专利的滥用。

Id. at 45. Cf. Berlenbach, supra (applying misuse doctrine where license to sell patented ski bindings prohibited licensee from manufacturing or selling any competing ski binding).
Id. at 45。Cf. Berlenbach, supra (适用滥用原则,销售专利滑雪绑带的许可禁止被许可人制造或销售任何竞争性滑雪绑带)。

We think the anticompetitive language in Lasercomb’s licensing agreement is at least as egregious as that which led us to bar the infringement action in Compton, and therefore amounts to misuse of its copyright. Again, the analysis necessary to a finding of misuse is similar to but separate from the analysis necessary to a finding of antitrust violation. The misuse arises from Lasercomb’s attempt to use its copyright in a particular expression, the Interact software, to control competition in an area outside the copyright, i.e., the idea of computer-assisted die manufacture, regardless of whether such conduct amounts to an antitrust violation.
我们认为,Lasercomb公司许可协议中的反竞争语言至少与导致我们在Compton案中禁止侵权诉讼的反竞争语言一样恶劣,因此相当于滥用其版权。同样,认定滥用所需的分析类似于认定违反反垄断法所需的分析,但两者是分开的。滥用的原因是 Lasercomb 试图利用其在特定表达方式(即 Interact 软件)上的版权来控制版权之外领域(即计算机辅助模具制造的理念)的竞争,无论这种行为是否构成违反反垄断法。

C. The Effect of Appellants Not Being Party to the Anticompetitive Contract
C.上诉人不是反竞争合同一方的影响

In its rejection of the copyright misuse defense, the district court emphasized that Holiday Steel was not explicitly party to a licensing agreement containing the offending language. However, again analogizing to patent misuse, the defense of copyright misuse is available even if the defendants themselves have not been injured by the misuse. In Morton Salt, the defendant was not a party to the license requirement that only Morton-produced salt tablets be used with Morton’s salt-depositing machine. Nevertheless, suit against defendant for infringement of Morton’s patent was barred on public policy grounds. Similarly, in Compton, even though the defendant Metal Products was not a party to the license agreement that restrained competition by Compton, suit against Metal Products was barred because of the
地区法院在拒绝接受版权滥用抗辩时强调,Holiday Steel 公司并不是包含违规语言的许可协议的明确当事人。然而,再次类比专利滥用,即使被告本身没有受到滥用的损害,也可以使用版权滥用抗辩。在Morton Salt 案中,被告并不是关于只有 Morton 生产的盐片才能与 Morton 的食盐投放机配合使用的许可要求的当事人。尽管如此,基于公共政策的理由,禁止对被告提起侵犯 Morton 专利的诉讼。同样,在Compton 案 中,尽管被告 Metal Products 公司不是限制 Compton 公司竞争的许可协议的一方,但由于 的规定,禁止对 Metal Products 公司提起诉讼。

504

public interest in free competition. See also Hensley Equip. Co., 383 F.2d at 261; cf. Berlenbach, 329 F.2d at 784-85.
自由竞争的公共利益。See also Hensley Equip.Co., 383 F.2d at 261; cf. Berlenbach, 329 F.2d at 784-85.See also.

Therefore, the fact that appellants here were not parties to one of Lasercomb’s standard license agreements is inapposite to their copyright misuse defense. The question is whether Lasercomb is using its copyright in a manner contrary to public policy, which question we have answered in the affirmative.
因此,本案上诉人不是 Lasercomb 公司标准许可协议的当事人这一事实与他们的版权滥用抗辩并不相干。问题在于 Lasercomb 是否以违反公共政策的方式使用其版权,我们对这一问题的回答是肯定的。

In sum, we find that misuse of copyright is a valid defense, that Lasercomb’s anticompetitive clauses in its standard licensing agreement constitute misuse of copyright, and that the defense is available to appellants even though they were not parties to the standard licensing agreement. Holding that Lasercomb should have been barred by the defense of copyright misuse from suing for infringement of its copyright in the Interact program, we reverse the injunction and the award of damages for copyright infringement.1
总之,我们认为滥用版权是一个有效的抗辩理由,Lasercomb公司在其标准许可协议中的反竞争条款构成滥用版权,而且即使上诉人不是标准许可协议的当事人,也可以使用该抗辩理由。我们认为,Lasercomb 本应受到版权滥用抗辩的禁止,不能就侵犯其 Interact 程序版权提起诉讼,因此我们推翻了禁令和对侵犯版权的损害赔偿判决。

Because of this holding, we do not reach the other defenses to copyright infringement advanced by appellants.
基于这一裁定,我们不考虑上诉人提出的其他版权侵权抗辩。

Although we find misuse of copyright, we reject the contention of appellants — that they should recover attorney fees from Lasercomb under 17 U.S.C. §505 because Lasercomb brought this action in bad faith. Given the conduct of defendants and the obscurity of their defenses, we find such a position completely untenable.
尽管我们发现了滥用版权的行为,但我们驳回上诉人的论点,即根据《美国法典》第 17 篇第 505 节,他们应向 Lasercomb 追偿律师费,因为 Lasercomb 是在恶意的情况下提起诉讼的。鉴于被告的行为及其辩护的模糊性,我们认为这种立场是完全站不住脚的。

* * *

APPLE, INC. v. PSYSTAR CORP.

658 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2011)

SCHROEDER, Circuit Judge.

….

I. BACKGROUND

Apple launched its Macintosh line of personal computers in 1984. This line of computers has included Mac Pro, iMac, Mac Mini, MacBook, MacBook Air, and MacBook Pro. Apple launched its Mac OS X operating system in 2001. Apple now sells all Mac computers with a preinstalled, licensed copy of Mac OS X. Apple’s SLA requires that the Mac OS X be used exclusively on Apple computers. Apple also separately distributes Mac OS X in a stand-alone, retail-packaged DVD with licensed software for the sole purpose of enabling Apple’s existing customers to upgrade their Mac computers to the latest version of the operating system. Apple owns a registered copyright for each version of its operating system and the SLA for each requires the system to be used only on Apple computers.
苹果公司于 1984 年推出了 Macintosh 个人电脑系列。该系列电脑包括 Mac Pro、iMac、Mac Mini、MacBook、MacBook Air 和 MacBook Pro。2001 年,苹果公司推出了 Mac OS X 操作系统。现在,苹果公司销售的所有 Mac 电脑都预装了 Mac OS X 许可拷贝。苹果的服务级协议要求 Mac OS X 只能在苹果电脑上使用。苹果公司还以独立零售包装 DVD 的形式单独销售 Mac OS X,并附带许可软件,其唯一目的是让苹果公司的现有客户能够将其 Mac 电脑升级到最新版本的操作系统。苹果公司拥有每个版本操作系统的注册版权,每个版本的服务级协议都要求该系统只能在苹果电脑上使用。

In addition to the SLA and the copyrights, Apple uses lock-and-key technological measures to prevent Mac OS X from operating on non-Apple computers. This involves the use of a “kernel” extension, which is software that is executed and becomes part of the operating
除了 SLA 和版权之外,Apple 还使用了锁定和密钥技术措施来防止 Mac OS X 在非 Apple 计算机上运行 。这涉及到 "内核 "扩展的使用,它是一种被执行并成为操作系统一部分的软件。

505

system on an Apple computer. The kernel extension communicates with other kernel extensions to locate the decryption keys in Apple hardware, and to unlock the encrypted files.
苹果电脑上的系统。内核扩展与其他内核扩展进行通信,以便在苹果硬件中找到解密密钥,并解锁加密文件。

In April 2008, Psystar began manufacturing and selling personal computers — originally named “OpenMac” and then renamed “Open Computers.” Psystar’s Open Computers can run a variety of operating systems, but Psystar has chosen to sell Open Computers with Mac OS X. To do so, Psystar purchased a copy of Mac OS X, installed this copy of Mac OS X on a Mac Mini computer, and downloaded various software updates, using the automatic-update feature of Mac OS X. Psystar then imaged the Mac Mini with the OS X software, i.e., made a copy of the software, and transferred the copy to a non-Apple computer used as an imaging station. Psystar then added its own bootloader and kernel extensions to the Mac OS X on the imaging station, and this copy became the “master image.” Psystar used this imaging station to reproduce the master image and install it on Open Computers for sale to the general public. Finally, Psystar shipped Open Computers with a copy of the master image installed, and with an unopened copy of Mac OS X, which Psystar purchased from Apple or third-party vendors such as Amazon, in the box. The unopened copy enabled Psystar to maintain it had purchased a copy of Mac OS X for each computer it sold, but the computer actually was to run on the copy of the altered Mac OS X installed in the Psystar computer.
2008 年 4 月,Psystar 开始生产和销售个人电脑,最初命名为 "OpenMac",后更名为 "Open Computers"。Psystar 的开放式计算机可以运行多种操作系统,但 Psystar 选择销售装有 Mac OS X 的开放式计算机。为此,Psystar 购买了 Mac OS X 的拷贝,将 Mac OS X 拷贝安装在一台 Mac Mini 电脑上,并利用 Mac OS X 的自动更新功能下载了各种软件更新。然后,Psystar 用 OS X 软件对 Mac Mini 电脑进行了成像,即制作了一份软件副本,并将副本传输到一台用作成像站的非苹果电脑上。然后,Psystar 在成像站上为 Mac OS X 添加了自己的引导加载程序和内核扩展,这个副本就成了 "主镜像"。Psystar 利用该成像站复制主镜像,并将其安装到开放式计算机上,向公众出售。最后,Psystar 将安装了主镜像拷贝的开放式计算机和一份未开封的 Mac OS X 拷贝(Psystar 从苹果公司或第三方供应商(如亚马逊)购买)一起装箱发货。未开封的拷贝使 Psystar 公司可以说,它为每台售出的计算机购买了一份 Mac OS X 拷贝,但计算机实际上是在 Psystar 公司计算机上安装的经过修改的 Mac OS X 拷贝上运行的。

On July 3, 2008, Apple filed this action against Psystar in the Northern District of California, alleging breach and induced breach of its SLA for Mac OS X, direct and contributory copyright infringement, trademark and trade dress infringement, and violation of state and common law unfair competition laws. Apple later amended its complaint to add a DMCA claim arising from Psystar’s circumvention of the technological protection measures employed by Apple to prevent unauthorized access to and copying of Mac OS X.
2008年7月3日,苹果公司在加利福尼亚州北区法院对Psystar提起诉讼,指控Psystar违反并诱使苹果公司违反Mac OS X的服务水平协议(SLA),直接和共同侵犯版权,侵犯商标和商业外观,以及违反州法和普通法中的不公平竞争法。苹果公司后来修改了诉状,增加了一项因 Psystar 规避苹果公司为防止未经授权访问和复制 Mac OS X 而采用的技术保护措施而引起的《数字千年版权法》索赔。

Psystar asserted a counterclaim for a declaratory judgment that Apple was misusing its copyright in Mac OS X by requiring purchasers to run their copies only on Apple computers. The district court dismissed an earlier antitrust counterclaim that Psystar filed with its initial answer to the original complaint. That ruling is not appealed.
Psystar 公司提出反诉,要求宣告苹果公司滥用其 Mac OS X 的版权,要求购买者只能在苹果电脑上运行其副本。地区法院驳回了 Psystar 公司在对原告的最初答辩中提出的反垄断反诉。该判决未被上诉。

In August of 2009, Apple released its next version of Mac OS X — Mac OS X Snow Leopard (“Snow Leopard”); Psystar, in turn, released a new version of Open Computers, Rebel EFI, which was capable of running Snow Leopard. On August 27, Psystar sued Apple in the Southern District of Florida, alleging new antitrust claims and seeking a declaratory judgment that its products did not infringe Apple’s intellectual property in Snow Leopard.
2009 年 8 月,苹果公司发布了 Mac OS X 的下一个版本--Mac OS X Snow Leopard("Snow Leopard");Psystar 也发布了能够运行 Snow Leopard 的新版本 Open Computers, Rebel EFI。8 月 27 日,Psystar 在佛罗里达州南区法院起诉苹果公司,提出新的反垄断索赔,并寻求宣告其产品没有侵犯苹果公司在 Snow Leopard 中的知识产权。

Both parties then filed cross motions for summary judgment. On November 13, 2009 the district court granted Apple’s motion for summary judgment, finding that 1) Psystar’s production process and hard drive imaging did not constitute fair use of Apple’s operating system; 2) Psystar infringed Apple’s exclusive right to create derivative works; 3) Apple’s licensing agreement was not unduly restrictive and thus did not constitute copyright misuse; and 4) Psystar’s use of decryption software to obtain access to operating system violated the DMCA.
双方随后都提出了要求即决判决的交叉动议。2009 年 11 月 13 日,地区法院批准了苹果公司的简易判决动议,认定:1)Psystar 公司的生产流程和硬盘成像不构成对苹果公司操作系统的合理使用;2)Psystar 公司侵犯了苹果公司创作衍生作品的专有权;3)苹果公司的许可协议没有不当限制,因此不构成版权滥用;4)Psystar 公司使用解密软件获取操作系统违反了《数字千年版权法》。

The district court then, in a second published opinion, issued a permanent injunction against Psystar, enjoining all current and future infringement of Apple’s Mac OS X software and the manufacture or sale of any device to circumvent Apple’s software production. See Apple II, 673 F. Supp. 2d at 948-49. The court ruled in favor of Apple in its legal argument on copyright infringement and found that Apple would suffer irreparable harm if an injunction
地区法院随后在第二份公开发表的意见书中发布了针对 Psystar 公司的永久禁令,禁止当前和未来对苹果 Mac OS X 软件的所有侵权行为,以及制造或销售任何规避苹果软件生产的设备。See Apple II, 673 F. Supp. 2d at 948-49。法院在关于版权侵权的法律论证中裁定苹果胜诉,并认为如果发布禁令,苹果将遭受无法弥补的损害

506

did not issue. The court found that the Apple software did not work well on Psystar computers and was causing Apple a loss of business reputation. “With respect to its brand, business reputation, and goodwill, Apple has put forth significant evidence, undisputed by Psystar, that its investment in and commitment to high standards of quality control and customer service would be irreparably harmed if Psystar’s illegal activities were allowed to continue.” Id.
没有签发。法院认为,Apple 软件在 Psystar 计算机上运行不畅,给 Apple 造成了商业信誉损失。"关于苹果公司的品牌、商业声誉和goodwill,苹果公司提出了大量证据(Psystar 对此没有异议),证明如果允许 Psystar 的非法活动继续下去,苹果公司在高标准质量控制和客户服务方面的投资和承诺将受到无法弥补的损害。编号。

This appeal by Psystar followed. The principal issue is whether the district court erred when it rejected Psystar’s defense of copyright misuse.
Psystar 公司随后提出上诉。主要问题是地区法院驳回 Psystar 滥用版权的抗辩是否有误。

II. PSYSTAR’S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE OF COPYRIGHT MISUSE
II.彩星公司关于滥用版权的积极抗辩

Psystar contends that Apple misused its copyright in Mac OS X in two ways. Psystar first contends that Apple misused its copyright by asserting invalid claims of copyright infringement in this case. We find this contention entirely unpersuasive, however, given that Psystar does not appeal the district court’s findings of infringement of Apple’s valid copyright in Mac OS X.
Psystar 公司认为苹果公司在两个方面滥用了 Mac OS X 的版权。Psystar 公司首先认为,苹果公司在本案中提出了无效的版权侵权主张,从而滥用了其版权。然而,鉴于 Psystar 公司并未对地区法院关于苹果公司侵犯 Mac OS X 有效版权的认定提出上诉,我们认为这一论点完全没有说服力。

Psystar’s main contention of misuse is aimed at Apple’s requirement that licensees of Mac OS X run their copies only on Apple computers. The relevant section of Apple’s SLA for Mac OS X provides,
Psystar 关于滥用的主要论点针对的是苹果公司关于 Mac OS X 许可证用户只能在苹果电脑上运行其副本的要求。苹果公司关于 Mac OS X 的服务级协议的相关条款规定:

This License allows you to install, use and run one (1) copy of the Apple Software on a single-Apple-labeled computer at a time. You agree not to install, use or run the Apple Software on any non-Apple labeled computer, or to enable others to do so.
本许可允许您在单台贴有 Apple 标签的计算机上安装、使用和运行一 (1) 份 Apple 软件, 一次。您同意不在任何非 Apple 标记的计算机上安装、使用或运行 Apple 软件,也不允许他人这样做。

Psystar contends that this language barring use of the Apple software on non-Apple computers impermissibly extends the reach of Apple’s copyright and constitutes misuse. We conclude that the district court correctly ruled that Apple had not engaged in copyright misuse. As we will explain, this is principally because its licensing agreement was intended to require the operating system to be used on the computer it was designed to operate, and it did not prevent others from developing their own computer or operating systems. These licensing agreements were thus appropriately used to prevent infringement and control use of the copyrighted material.
Psystar 公司认为,这种禁止在非苹果电脑上使用苹果软件的措辞不适当地扩大了苹果公司的版权范围,构成了滥用。我们的结论是,地区法院裁定苹果公司没有滥用版权是正确的。正如我们将要解释的那样,这主要是因为其许可协议的目的是要求将操作系统用于其设计用于运行的计算机上,并没有阻止他人开发自己的计算机或操作系统。因此,这些许可协议被恰当地用于防止侵权和控制版权材料的使用。

A. Software licensing agreements, rather than sales, have become ubiquitous in the software industry because they enable the licensor to control the use of the copyrighted material.
A.软件许可协议,而不是销售协议,在软件业已变得无处不在,因为它们使许可人能够控制版权材料的使用。

To understand why license agreements, rather than sales, have become the predominate form of the transfer of rights to use copyrighted software material, it is necessary to understand the legal principle that applies when copyrighted works are not licensed, but sold: the “first sale doctrine.” The first sale doctrine allows owners of copies of copyrighted works to resell their copies without restriction.
要理解为什么许可协议而不是销售已成为受版权保护的软件材料使用权转让的主要形式,有必要了解版权作品不是许可而是销售时适用的法律原则:"首次销售原则"。首次销售原则允许版权作品复制品的所有者不受限制地转售其复制品。

The doctrine was first recognized by the Supreme Court in Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339, 28 S. Ct. 722, 52 L. Ed. 1086 (1908). At issue in Bobbs-Merrill was the exclusive right of a copyright owner to restrict the resale terms of its copyrighted material. The Supreme Court interpreted the then copyright statute’s “sole right to vend” to bar a publisher from restricting future sales of a book by placing a notice on the book’s cover that limited resale to $1 or more. Id. at 350, 28 S. Ct. 722. Congress codified the first sale doctrine in the 1909 Copyright Act, see 17 U.S.C. §41 (1909), and then refined the doctrine in the 1976 Copyright
最高法院在 Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus, 210 U.S. 339, 28 S. Ct.1086 (1908).Bobbs-Merrill 案的争议焦点是版权所有者限制其版权材料转售条款的专有权。最高法院对当时版权法规中 "唯一销售权 "的解释是,禁止出版商通过在书籍封面上张贴告示来限制书籍的未来销售,将转售限制在 1 美元或以上。Id. at 350, 28 S. Ct.美国国会在 1909 年《版权法》see 17 U.S.C. §41 (1909)中编纂了首次销售原则,并在 1976 年《版权法》 中完善了该原则。

507

Act and its subsequent amendments. See 17 U.S.C. §109 (2008). As currently constituted, the doctrine exempts subsequent owners who then sell a legitimate copy of a copyrighted work from claims of infringing the original owner’s exclusive distribution rights:
法案及其后续修正案。参见 17 U.S.C. §109 (2008)。按照目前的规定,如果后继所有人出售版权作品的合法复制品,则该原则可使其免于被指控侵犯原所有人的专有发行权:

Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord.
尽管有第 106 条第(3)款的规定,根据本标题合法制作的某一复制品或录音制品的所有者,或该所有者授权的任何人,有权在未经版权所有者授权的情况下,出售或以其他方式处置对该复制品或录音制品的占有权。

Id. at §109(a). Thus, once a publisher sells a valuable, vellum-bound volume, for example, it forfeits its exclusive distribution privilege and enables the buyer, the new owner of the volume, to resell the copy to another buyer. See 2 MELVILLE B. NIMMER & DAVID NIMMER, NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT §8.12[B][1][d] (rev. ed. 2010).
Id. at §109(a)。因此,例如,一旦出版商出售了一本有价值的牛皮纸装订的书籍,它就丧失了独家发行的特权,并使买方,即书籍的新所有者,能够将副本转售给另一个买方。 参见 2 MELVILLE B. NIMMER & D.M.S.,"...NIMMER & DAVID NIMMER, NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT §8.12[B][1][d] (rev. ed. 2010)。

The statute specifically excludes the doctrine’s application, however, when the copy is transferred through “rental, lease, loan, or otherwise, without acquiring ownership of it.” 17 U.S.C. at §109(d). Thus, the first sale doctrine does not apply to a licensee. See Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., 621 F.3d 1102, 1107-08 (9th Cir. 2010) (“The first sale doctrine does not apply to a person who possesses a copy of the copyrighted work without owning it, such as a licensee.”).
然而,当复制品通过 "出租、租赁、出借或其他方式 "转让,而未获得所有权时,法规明确排除了该原则的适用。17 U.S.C. at §109(d)。因此,首次销售原则不适用于被许可人。See Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc., 621 F.3d 1102, 1107-08 (9th Cir. 2010)("首次销售原则不适用于拥有版权作品复制品而不拥有该复制品的人,如被许可人。

Our court’s application of §109(d) in Vernor not only reconciled our prior cases and avoided a possible disagreement with the Federal Circuit, but also constituted a significant validation of license restrictions on transfer and use of software.
我们的法院在 Vernor 案 中对 §109(d) 的适用不仅调和了我们之前的案例,避免了与 联邦巡回法院之间可能存在的分歧,而且也是对软件转让和使用许可限制的重要确认。

B. Licensees have reacted to the proliferation of software licensing agreements by asking the courts to apply copyright misuse defense to limit the scope of such agreements.
B.被许可人对软件许可协议激增的反应是,要求法院适用版权滥用抗辩来限制此类协议的范围。

Copyright misuse is a judicially crafted affirmative defense to copyright infringement, derived from the long-standing existence of such a defense in patent litigation. The patent misuse defense was originally recognized by the Supreme Court in 1942, in holding that the owner of the patent on a salt tablet machine could not require licensees to use only unpatented salt tablets sold by the patent owner. Morton Salt Co. v. G.S. Suppiger Co., 314 U.S. 488, 62 S. Ct. 402, 86 L. Ed. 363 (1942). The Court held that this improper tying of a patented product and an unpatented product constituted misuse, and prohibited the patent holder from maintaining infringement actions until the patent holder ceased misuse of the patent. Id. at 493, 62 S. Ct. 402 (“Where the patent is used as a means of restraining competition with the patentee’s sale of an unpatented product…[e]quity may rightly withhold its assistance from such a use of the patent by declining to entertain a suit for infringement [until] the improper practice has been abandoned and [the] consequences of the misuse of the patent have been dissipated.”).
版权滥用是版权侵权的一种司法抗辩,源于专利诉讼中长期存在的这种抗辩。专利滥用抗辩最初于 1942 年得到最高法院的承认,当时最高法院认为盐片机专利的所有人不能要求被许可人只能使用专利所有人出售的未获得专利的盐片。Morton Salt Co. v. G.S. Suppiger Co., 314 U.S. 488, 62 S. Ct. 402, 86 L. Ed.363 (1942).法院认为,这种将专利产品与非专利产品不适当地捆绑在一起的行为构成了滥用,并禁止专利持有人提起侵权诉讼,直到专利持有人停止滥用专利为止。Id. at 493, 62 S. Ct.402("当专利被用作限制与专利权人销售未获专利产品竞争的手段时......司法机关可以拒绝受理侵权诉讼,[直到]不正当行为被放弃,滥用专利的后果被消除,从而正确地阻止对专利的这种使用。

In 1990, the Fourth Circuit became the first federal circuit to extend the misuse rationale to copyrights. See Lasercomb Am., Inc. v. Reynolds, 911 F.2d 970, 972 (4th Cir. 1990).
1990年,第四巡回法院成为第一个将滥用理由扩展到版权的联邦巡回法院。See Lasercomb Am., Inc. v. Reynolds, 911 F.2d 970, 972 (4th Cir. 1990).

Subsequently, our court recognized the existence of a copyright misuse doctrine. See, e. g., Altera Corp. v. Clear Logic, Inc., 424 F.3d 1079, 1090 (9th Cir. 2005); Practice Mgmt. Info. Corp. v. Am. Med. Ass’n, 121 F.3d 516, 521 (9th Cir. 1997), amended by 133 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 1998). In Altera, we made it clear that the defense is not a defense to state law claims, and in A&M Records v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001), we rejected the applicability of
随后,我们的法院承认了版权滥用原则的存在。See, e. g., Altera Corp. v. Clear Logic, Inc.Info.Corp. v. Am.Med.Ass'n, 121 F.3d 516, 521 (9th Cir. 1997), amended by 133 F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 1998)。在Altera 案中, 我们明确指出,该抗辩不是对州法索赔的抗辩,而在 A&M Records 诉Napster, Inc.案(239 F.3d 1004)(第九巡回法院,2001 年)中,我们驳回了Napster, Inc.

508

the defense on the merits, upholding, in the circumstances of that case, the district court’s conclusion that there was actionable copyright infringement.
在此情况下,地区法院认为存在可诉的版权侵权行为。

We have thus applied the doctrine sparingly. The doctrine did not apply in Altera when there had been no allegation of copyright infringement. 424 F.3d at 1090. In Napster, we observed that the plaintiffs who sought to enjoin unlicensed use of copyrighted works were entitled to do so because they were not seeking to extend a copyright monopoly to other products or works. We described the purpose of the defense as preventing holders of copyrights “from leveraging their limited monopoly to allow them control of areas outside the monopoly.” Napster, 239 F.3d at 1026.
因此,我们慎用该原则。在Altera 案 中,在没有版权侵权指控的情况下,该原则并不适用。424 F.3d at 1090。在Napster案中, 我们注意到,寻求禁止未经许可使用受版权保护作品的原告有权这样做,因为他们并没有寻求将版权垄断扩展到其他产品或作品。我们将辩护的目的描述为防止版权持有人 "利用其有限的垄断权来控制垄断权以外的领域"。Napster, 239 F.3d at 1026.

Our decision in Practice Management is the only case in which we upheld a copyright misuse defense. We did so because the copyright licensor in that case prevented the licensee from using any other competing product. 121 F.3d at 520-21. In Practice Management, a publisher and distributor of medical books was using a coding system developed by the American Medical Association (“AMA”) to enable physicians and others to identify particular medical procedures with precision. Id. Practice Management sued the AMA for a declaratory judgment that the AMA’s copyright in its coding system, the Physician’s Current Procedural Terminology (“CPT”), was not valid. Id. at 518. The CPT had become an industry standard, and the AMA had a licensing agreement that allowed the Health Care Financing Administration (“HCFA”) to use the AMA system. The agreement provided, however, that HCFA use only the AMA system. Id. at 520-21 (the agreement required “HCFA to use the AMA’s copyrighted coding system and prohibit[ed] HCFA from using any other.”).
我们在Practice Management 案中的判决是我们支持版权滥用抗辩的唯一案例。我们之所以这样做,是因为该案中的版权许可人阻止被许可人使用任何其他竞争产品。121 F.3d at 520-21。在实践管理案中, 一家医学书籍出版商和经销商使用了美国医学协会("AMA")开发的编码系统,使医生和其他人能够精确地识别特定的医疗程序。Id. Practice Management 起诉美国医学会,要求作出宣告式判决,认定美国医学会对其编码系统《医师现行程序术语》("CPT")的版权无效。Id. at 518。CPT 已成为行业标准,美国医学会签订了一份许可协议,允许医疗保健融资管理局("HCFA")使用美国医学会的系统。但该协议规定,HCFA 只能使用 AMA 系统。Id. at 520-21(协议要求 "HCFA 使用 AMA 受版权保护的编码系统,并禁止 HCFA 使用任何其他系统。

We held this was copyright misuse, because the AMA was not entitled to use the license agreement to prevent the use of all competitor’s [sic] products. Id. at 521 (“Conditioning the license on HCFA’s promise not to use competitors’ products constituted a misuse of the copyright by the AMA.”). In recognizing clear abuse of the copyright, we observed that the AMA’s misuse was its limitation on the HCFA’s right to decide whether or not to use other systems as well. It was not necessary to decide whether the limitation, in the antitrust context, would have been reasonable or not. We said that “a defendant in a copyright infringement suit need not prove an antitrust violation to prevail on a copyright misuse defense.” Id. (citing Lasercomb, 911 F.2d at 978).
我们认为这是滥用版权,因为美国医学会无权利用许可协议阻止使用所有竞争对手的 [sic] 产品。Id. at 521("以 HCFA 承诺不使用竞争对手的产品作为许可的条件,构成了 AMA 对版权的滥用")。在承认明显滥用版权的同时,我们注意到 AMA 的滥用是限制 HCFA 决定是否使用其他系统的权利。在反托拉斯的背景下,没有必要判定这种限制是否合理。我们说,"版权侵权诉讼中的被告无需证明违反了反托拉斯法,就能以版权滥用为由胜诉"。Id. (引用Lasercomb, 911 F.2d at 978)。

No such limitation existed in Triad Sys. Corp. v. Se. Express Co., 64 F.3d 1330 (9th Cir. 1995). We therefore rejected a copyright misuse defense and upheld the software licensing agreement. Id. at 1337. We held that there was no abuse where the copyright license did not prevent the licensee from developing competing software. Triad has significance for this case because we there adopted the Fourth Circuit’s view in Lasercomb that copyright misuse involves restraining development of competing products. See 911 F.2d at 978.
在 Triad Sys. Corp.Corp. v. Se.Express Co., 64 F.3d 1330 (9th Cir. 1995)一案中不存在这样的限制。因此,我们驳回了版权滥用抗辩,支持软件许可协议。Id. at 1337。我们认为,在版权许可没有阻止被许可人开发竞争性软件的情况下,不存在滥用。Triad 案对本案具有重要意义,因为我们在该案中采纳了第四巡回法院在Lasercomb 案中的观点,即版权滥用涉及限制竞争产品的开发。 911 F.2d at 978.

Triad, a hardware and software producer, brought a copyright infringement action against Southeastern, an independent service organization that services Triad hardware. Triad licensed its copyrighted operating and diagnostic software for use by its licensees in the operation of Triad computers. 64 F.3d at 1333. Triad’s software license agreement prohibited the licensee from making copies of the software and from allowing third parties to use the software. Id. Triad alleged that Southeastern infringed Triad’s copyrights when Southeastern’s technicians serviced a licensees’ [sic] computers, because, during servicing, Southeastern copied Triad’s operating and service software and loaded it into Southeastern memory. Id.
硬件和软件生产商 Triad 对一家为 Triad 硬件提供服务的独立服务机构 Southeastern 提起版权侵权诉讼。Triad 将其拥有版权的操作和诊断软件授权给被许可人,供其在操作 Triad 计算机时使用。64 F.3d at 1333。Triad 的软件许可协议禁止被许可人复制软件和允许第三方使用软件。Id. Triad 声称,当 Southeastern 的技术人员为被许可人的 [sic] 计算机提供服务时,Southeastern 侵犯了 Triad 的版权、因为在维修过程中,东南公司复制了 Triad 的操作和服务软件,并将其加载到东南公司的内存中。编号。

509

Triad sought to enjoin Southeastern from servicing its computers because of the infringement. Southeastern asserted a copyright misuse defense, claiming Triad was trying to monopolize its computer maintenance. By restricting third-party use of its software, “Triad ha[d] used its intellectual property monopoly over Triad software to leverage its position in the Triad computer maintenance market.” Triad Sys. Corp. v. Southeastern Exp. Co., 1994 WL 446049, *3 n. 1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 1994). The district court rejected this argument and this court affirmed on appeal, holding that there was no attempt to stifle competition in the service software market. “Triad did not attempt to prohibit Southeastern or any other [independent service operator] from developing its own service software to compete with Triad.” Triad, 64 F.3d at 1337.
Triad 要求禁止 Southeastern 为其电脑提供服务。东南公司提出版权滥用抗辩,声称 Triad 试图垄断其计算机维护业务。通过限制第三方使用其软件,"Triad 已利用其对 Triad 软件的知识产权垄断,在 Triad 计算机维护市场上占据了有利地位"。Triad Sys.Corp. v. Southeastern Exp.Co., 1994 WL 446049, *3 n. 1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 1994)。地区法院驳回了这一论点,本院在上诉中维持原判,认为该案并未试图扼杀服务软件市场的竞争。"Triad公司并未试图禁止东南公司或任何其他[独立服务运营商]开发自己的服务软件与Triad公司竞争"。Triad, 64 F.3d at 1337.

To the extent that Triad held that copying of software for purposes of servicing the computer was unlawful, it has been legislatively overruled. See 17 U.S.C. §117(c); see also Melissa A. Bogden, Note, Fixing Fixation: The RAM Copy Doctrine, 43 Ariz. St. L.J. 181, 19697 (2011). To the extent that its reasoning requires rejection of a misuse defense in contexts other than maintenance, its reasoning remains the law of the circuit. A software licensing agreement may reasonably restrict use of the software as long as it does not prevent the development of competing products.
Triad 认为为维修计算机而复制软件是非法的,但这一观点已被立法推翻。See17 U.S.C. §117(c); see also Melissa A. Bogden, Note, Fixing Fixation:The RAM Copy Doctrine, 43 Ariz.St. L.J. 181, 19697 (2011)。只要其推理要求在维护以外的情况下拒绝滥用抗辩,其推理仍然是巡回法院的法律。只要不妨碍竞争产品的开发,软件许可协议就可以合理地限制软件的使用。

C. Psystar’s Misuse Defense fails because it is an attempt to apply the First Sale Doctrine to a valid licensing agreement.
C.Psystar 公司的滥用抗辩不能成立,因为它试图将首次销售原则适用于有效的许可协议。

Psystar attempts to distinguish Triad from the present case by invoking the first sale doctrine. Psystar argues that Apple, unlike Triad, attempts to control the use of Mac OS X software after it has been sold, because Psystar purchased retail-packaged copies of the operating software. Psystar contends that while the copyright owner can refuse to sell copies, it cannot control their subsequent use. This argument falsely assumes that Apple transferred ownership of Mac OS X when it sold a retail-packaged DVD containing software designed to enable Apple’s existing customers to upgrade to the latest version of the operating system. The buyers of that DVD purchased the disc. They knew, however, they were not buying the software. Apple’s SLA clearly explained this.
Psystar 公司试图通过援引首次销售原则将Triad 案与本案区分开来。Psystar 辩称,与Triad 不同,Apple 试图在 Mac OS X 软件售出后控制其使用,因为 Psystar 购买的是零售包装的操作软件副本。Psystar 认为,虽然版权所有者可以拒绝出售拷贝,但不能控制拷贝的后续使用。这一论点错误地假定,苹果公司在出售零售包装的 DVD 时转让了 Mac OS X 的所有权,该 DVD 包含的软件旨在使苹果公司的现有客户升级到最新版本的操作系统。DVD 的购买者购买了光盘。然而,他们知道自己买的不是软件。苹果公司的服务级协议清楚地解释了这一点。

The DVD purchasers were licensees, not owners, of the software. The Mac OS X SLA[ ] states that the software is “licensed, not sold, to [the customer] by Apple Inc. (Apple) for use only under the terms of this License.” Thus the SLA provides that Apple “retain[s] ownership of the Apple Software itself.” The SLA also imposes significant use and transfer restrictions, providing, inter alia, that a licensee may only run one copy and “may not rent, lease, lend, redistribute or sublicense the Apple Software.” Cf. Wall Data, 447 F.3d at 785 (“Generally, if the copyright owner makes it clear that she or he is granting only a license to the copy of software and imposes significant restrictions on the purchaser’s ability to redistribute or transfer that copy, the purchaser is considered a licensee, not an owner, of the software.”). The license thus satisfied Vernor’s three-factor test for demonstrating the existence of a licensor/licensee relationship. 621 F.3d at 1111.
DVD购买者是软件的被许可人,而非所有者。Mac OS X SLA[ ]规定,该软件 "由苹果公司(Apple)许可给[客户]使用,而不是出售给[客户],仅供其根据本许可条款使用"。因此,SLA 规定苹果公司 "保留苹果软件本身的所有权"。SLA 还规定了重要的使用和转让限制, 除其他外, 还规定被许可人只能运行一份副本,并且 "不得出租、租赁、出借、再分发或再许可 Apple 软件"。Cf. Wall Data, 447 F.3d at 785("一般来说,如果版权所有者明确表示其仅授予软件副本的许可,并对购买者重新分配或转让该副本的能力施加重大限制,则购买者被视为软件的被许可人,而非所有者")。因此,该许可符合 Vernor 关于证明许可人/被许可人关系存在的三要素测试。621 F.3d at 1111。

Contrary to Psystar’s assertion, such licensing arrangements are also firmly rooted in the history of copyright law. While copyright owners may choose to simply exclude others from their work, i.e. not to transfer their rights, see Stewart v. Abend, 495 U.S. 207, 228-29, 110 S. Ct. 1750, 109 L. Ed. 2d 184 (1990); Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U.S. 123, 127, 52 S. Ct. 546, 76
与 Psystar 的说法相反,这种许可安排在版权法的历史上也是根深蒂固的。虽然版权所有者可以选择简单地排除他人使用其作品,即不转让其权利,see Stewart v. Abend, 495 U.S. 207, 228-29, 110 S. Ct. 1750, 109 L. Ed.2d 184 (1990); Fox Film Corp. 诉 Doyal, 286 U.S. 123, 127, 52 S. Ct.

510

L. Ed. 1010 (1932), courts have long held that copyright holders may also use their limited monopoly to leverage the right to use their work on the acceptance of specific conditions, see, e.g., Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Distrib. Corp. v. Bijou Theatre Co., 59 F.2d 70, 77 (1st Cir. 1932) (holding that if a motion picture license is subject to the condition that its exhibition must occur at specified times and places, the licensee’s exhibitions at other times and places is without authority from the licensor and therefore constitutes copyright infringement).
L.Ed.1010 (1932),法院长期以来一直认为版权持有者也可以利用其有限的垄断权,在接受特定条件的情况下获得使用其作品的权利,see, e.g., Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Distrib.Corp. v. Bijou Theatre Co., 59 F.2d 70, 77 (1st Cir. 1932)(认为如果电影许可的条件是电影必须在规定的时间和地点放映,那么被许可人在其他时间和地点放映就没有得到许可人的授权,因此构成版权侵权)。

….

The copyright misuse doctrine does not prohibit using conditions to control use of copyrighted material, but it does prevent copyright holders from using the conditions to stifle competition.
版权滥用原则并不禁止使用条件来控制版权材料的使用,但它确实防止版权持有者使用条件来扼杀竞争。

AFFIRMED in part, REMANDED in part. Costs are awarded to Apple.
部分维持原判,部分发回重审。诉讼费判给苹果公司。

* * *

Questions

1.

General Discussion Questions

1.1

Would the court have reached the same result in Lasercomb if the license agreement had not been a standard form? Should it matter that Lasercomb had shown willingness to negotiate the terms of the standard form license?
如果许可协议不是标准格式的,法院在Lasercomb 案中会得出同样的结果吗?Lasercomb 曾表示愿意就标准格式许可的条款进行谈判,这是否重要?

1.2

Do you agree with the Lasercomb court’s position that the defendants can take advantage of the misuse defense even though they were not a party to the offending license agreement?
你是否同意Lasercomb 法院的立场,即 被告即使不是违规许可协议的当事人,也可以利用滥用抗辩?

1.3

The Lasercomb court expresses concern that defendants’ creative abilities will be withdrawn from the public. Is that a genuine concern in this case? In the majority of cases involving mass market software?
Lasercomb 法院表示担心被告的创造能力会从公众面前消失。在本案中,这种担忧是真的吗?在大多数涉及大众市场软件的案件中?

1.4

The Lasercomb court draws on patent law to create a misuse defense for copyright. Is there anything about the nature of copyright that suggests the misuse defense is more necessary for patents than copyrights?
Lasercomb 法院借鉴专利法为版权设立了滥用抗辩。版权的性质是否表明专利比版权更需要滥用抗辩?

1.5

The court in Psystar suggests that the copyright misuse doctrine should be applied sparingly. Do you agree? Can you think of contexts in which courts should be encouraged to use misuse more aggressively?
Psystar 一案中的法庭建议,应慎用版权滥用原则。您同意吗?您认为在哪些情况下应鼓励法院更积极地使用滥用?

2.

Litigation Questions

2.1

The Lasercomb court brings license agreements with all of Lasercomb’s customers into play. How will that affect discovery?
Lasercomb 法院将与 Lasercomb 的所有客户签订的许可协议纳入考虑范围。这将如何影响证据开示?

2.2

What is the procedural posture of the case following a successful assertion of a misuse defense? What are the next steps litigation-wise?
滥用抗辩成功后,案件的程序态势如何?接下来的诉讼步骤是什么?

2.3

If you were representing Lasercomb, what arguments would you make to offer the court less severe alternatives to the misuse defense?
如果你是 Lasercomb 的代理人,你会提出哪些论据,为法庭提供滥用辩护之外的其他较轻的辩护?

2.4

Why did the court award Apple its costs in the Psystar case? What does this suggest about advising clients on litigation strategy?
Psystar 案中,法院为何判苹果承担诉讼费用?这对向客户提供诉讼策略建议有何启示?

511

3.

Business Law Questions

3.1

How would you advise Lasercomb to purge its misuse? How would you advise a company with a worldwide mass market software business to purge its misuse (e.g., a company like Apple, Adobe, Google, or Microsoft)?
你如何建议 Lasercomb 杜绝滥用?你会如何建议一家拥有全球大众市场软件业务的公司(如苹果、Adobe、谷歌或微软等公司)清除其滥用行为?

3.2

How would you advise Lasercomb to revise its licensing agreement and practices?
您建议 Lasercomb 如何修订其许可协议和做法?

EXERCISE

Draft a memo advising Lasercomb’s management on how to revise its licensing agreement and practices. Then, with one student playing the role of the lawyer and one the role of a Lasercomb senior manager, discuss the legal advice contained in the memo.
起草一份备忘录,就如何修订许可协议和做法向 Lasercomb 的管理层提出建议。然后,由一名学生扮演律师,一名学生扮演 Lasercomb 高级经理,讨论备忘录中的法律建议。

III. ANTITRUST

UNITED STATES v. MICROSOFT CORP.

253 F. 3d 34 (D.C. Cir. 2001)

PER CURIAM

Microsoft Corporation appeals from judgments of the District Court finding the company in violation of §§1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and ordering various remedies.
微软公司对地区法院认定该公司违反了《谢尔曼法》第 1 和第 2 条并下令采取各种补救措施的判决提出上诉。

The action against Microsoft arose pursuant to a complaint filed by the United States and separate complaints filed by individual States. The District Court determined that Microsoft had maintained a monopoly in the market for Intel compatible PC operating systems in violation of §2; attempted to gain a monopoly in the market for internet browsers in violation of §2; and illegally tied two purportedly separate products, Windows and Internet Explorer (“IE”), in violation of §1. United States v. Microsoft Corp., 87 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000) (“Conclusions of Law”). The District Court then found that the same facts that established liability under §§1 and 2 of the Sherman Act mandated findings of liability under analogous state law antitrust provisions. Id.
针对微软的诉讼是根据美国提出的一项申诉和个别国家分别提出的申诉提起的。地区法院裁定,微软公司在英特尔兼容PC操作系统市场上保持垄断,违反了§2;试图在互联网浏览器市场上获得垄断,违反了§2;非法捆绑两个据称独立的产品--Windows和Internet Explorer("IE"),违反了§1。美国诉微软公司案,87 F. Supp. 2d 30 (D.D.C. 2000)("法律结论")。地区法院随后认定,根据《谢尔曼法》第 1 条和第 2 条确定责任的相同事实要求根据类似的州法反托拉斯条款确定责任。同上。

[The appeal of the remedies ordered by the District Court and the motion to disqualify the District Court judge for misconduct are omitted]
[对地区法院下令采取的补救措施提出的上诉和因行为不当而要求地区法院法官回避的动议省略]

I. INTRODUCTION A.
I.引言A.

Background

In July 1994, officials at the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), on behalf of the United States, filed suit against Microsoft, charging the company with, among other things, unlawfully maintaining a monopoly in the operating system market through anticompetitive terms in its licensing and software developer agreements. The parties subsequently entered into a consent decree, thus avoiding a trial on the merits. See United States v. Microsoft Corp., 56 F.3d 1448 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (“Microsoft I”). Three years later, the Justice Department filed a civil
1994 年 7 月,美国司法部("DOJ")官员代表美国对微软公司提起诉讼,指控该公司通过其许可和软件开发商协议中的反竞争条款非法维持操作系统市场的垄断地位。双方随后达成了一项同意协议,从而避免了对案情的审理。参见美国诉微软公司案,56 F.3d 1448(华盛顿特区巡回法院,1995 年)("微软案一")。三年后,司法部提起民事诉讼。

512

contempt action against Microsoft for allegedly violating one of the decree’s provisions. On appeal from a grant of a preliminary injunction, this court held that Microsoft’s technological bundling of IE 3.0 and 4.0 with Windows 95 did not violate the relevant provision of the consent decree. United States v. Microsoft Corp., 147 F.3d 935 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (“Microsoft II”). We expressly reserved the question whether such bundling might independently violate §§1 or 2 of the Sherman Act. Id. at 950 n.14.
藐视诉讼,指控微软违反了法令的一项规定。在就初步禁令的批准提起的上诉中,法院认为微软将 IE 3.0 和 4.0 与 Windows 95 进行技术捆绑的行为并未违反同意法令的相关规定。United States v. Microsoft Corp., 147 F.3d 935 (D.C. Cir. 1998) ("Microsoft II")。我们明确保留了这种捆绑行为是否可能单独违反《谢尔曼法》第 1 条或第 2 条的问题。同上,第 950 n.14 页。

On May 18, 1998, shortly before issuance of the Microsoft II decision, the United States and a group of State plaintiffs filed separate (and soon thereafter consolidated) complaints, asserting antitrust violations by Microsoft and seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions against the company’s allegedly unlawful conduct. The complaints also sought any “other preliminary and permanent relief as is necessary and appropriate to restore competitive conditions in the markets affected by Microsoft’s unlawful conduct.” Gov’t’s Compl. at 53, United States v. Microsoft Corp., No. 98-1232 (D.D.C. 1999). Relying almost exclusively on Microsoft’s varied efforts to unseat Netscape Navigator as the preeminent internet browser, plaintiffs charged four distinct violations of the Sherman Act: (1) unlawful exclusive dealing arrangements in violation of §1; (2) unlawful tying of IE to Windows 95 and Windows 98 in violation of §1; (3) unlawful maintenance of a monopoly in the PC operating system market in violation of §2; and (4) unlawful attempted monopolization of the internet browser market in violation of §2. The States also brought pendent claims charging Microsoft with violations of various State antitrust laws.
1998 年 5 月 18 日,就在 "微软案二 "判决发布前不久,美国和一些州的原告分别提起诉讼(不久后合并),声称微软公司违反了反垄断法,并寻求对该公司的所谓非法行为实施初步和永久禁令。诉状还寻求任何 "其他必要和适当的初步和永久救济,以恢复受微软非法行为影响的市场的竞争条件"。Gov't's Compl. at 53,United States v. Microsoft Corp.,No. 98-1232 (D.D.C. 1999)。原告几乎完全以微软为取代网景浏览器(Netscape Navigator)成为卓越的互联网浏览器而做出的各种努力为依据,指控微软违反了四项不同的谢尔曼法:(1) 违反第 1 节的非法排他性交易安排;(2) 违反第 1 节的非法将 IE 与 Windows 95 和 Windows 98 捆绑;(3) 违反第 2 节的非法维持 PC 操作系统市场的垄断;以及 (4) 违反第 2 节的非法企图垄断互联网浏览器市场。这两个州还提出了附带索赔,指控微软违反了多个州的反垄断法。

The District Court scheduled the case on a “fast track.” The hearing on the preliminary injunction and the trial on the merits were consolidated pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2). The trial was then scheduled to commence on September 8, 1998, less than four months after the complaints had been filed. In a series of pretrial orders, the District Court limited each side to a maximum of 12 trial witnesses plus two rebuttal witnesses. It required that all trial witnesses’ direct testimony be submitted to the court in the form of written declarations. The District Court also made allowances for the use of deposition testimony at trial to prove subordinate or predicate issues. Following the grant of three brief continuances, the trial started on October 19, 1998.
地区法院将此案列入 "快速通道"。根据联邦民事诉讼法典(Fed. R. Civ.R. Civ.P. 65(a)(2)。随后,审判定于 1998 年 9 月 8 日开始,这距离提交申诉还不到四个月。在一系列审前命令中,地区法院限制每一方最多只能有 12 名审判证人和两名反驳证人。法院要求所有 审判证人的直接证词都必须以书面声明的形式提交给法院。地区法院还允许在审判中使用证词来证明从属或前提问题。在批准了三次短暂的延期后,审判于 1998 年 10 月 19 日开始。

After a 76-day bench trial, the District Court issued its Findings of Fact. United States v. Microsoft Corp., 84 F. Supp. 2d 9 (D.D.C. 1999) (“Findings of Fact”). This triggered two independent courses of action. First, the District Court established a schedule for briefing on possible legal conclusions, inviting Professor Lawrence Lessig to participate as amicus curiae. Second, the District Court referred the case to mediation to afford the parties an opportunity to settle their differences. The Honorable Richard A. Posner, Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, was appointed to serve as mediator. The parties concurred in the referral to mediation and in the choice of mediator.
经过 76 天的庭审,地区法院发布了《事实认定》。United States v. Microsoft Corp., 84 F. Supp. 2d 9 (D.D.C. 1999)("事实认定")。这引发了两项独立的行动。首先,地区法院制定了就可能的法律结论进行案情陈述的时间表,并邀请 Lawrence Lessig 教授作为法庭之友参与其中。其次,地区法院将案件提交调解,为双方提供解决分歧的机会。美国第七巡回上诉法院首席法官 Richard A. Posner 被任命为调解员。双方同意提交调解和选择调解人。

Mediation failed after nearly four months of settlement talks between the parties. On April 3, 2000, with the parties’ briefs having been submitted and considered, the District Court issued its conclusions of law. The District Court found Microsoft liable on the §1 tying and §2 monopoly maintenance and attempted monopolization claims, Conclusions of Law, at 35-51, while ruling that there was insufficient evidence to support a §1 exclusive dealing violation, id. at 51-54. As to the pendent State actions, the District Court found the State antitrust laws conterminous with §§1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, thereby obviating the need for further
经过双方近四个月的和解谈判,调解失败。2000 年 4 月 3 日,在提交并审议了双方的辩护状后,地区法院发布了法律结论。地区法院认定微软对第 1 节 "搭售 "和第 2 节 "维持垄断 "及 "企图垄断 "的索赔负有责任,法律结论,第 35-51 页,同时裁定没有足够的证据支持违反第 1 节 "排他性交易 "的行为,同上,第 51-54 页。至于附属的州诉讼,地区法院认为州反托拉斯法与《谢尔曼法》第 1 和第 2 节相一致,因此无需进一步审理。

513

State-specific analysis. Id. at 54-56. In those few cases where a State’s law required an additional showing of intrastate impact on competition, the District Court found the requirement easily satisfied on the evidence at hand. Id. at 55.
针对具体州的分析。同上,第 54-56 页。在少数几个案例中,如果一个州的法律要求额外证明对竞争的国内影响,地区法院认为根据现有证据很容易满足这一要求。同上,第 55 页。

Having found Microsoft liable on all but one count, the District Court then asked plaintiffs to submit a proposed remedy. Plaintiffs’ proposal for a remedial order was subsequently filed within four weeks, along with six supplemental declarations and over 50 new exhibits. In their proposal, plaintiffs sought specific conduct remedies, plus structural relief that would split Microsoft into an applications company and an operating systems company. The District Court rejected Microsoft’s request for further evidentiary proceedings and, following a single hearing on the merits of the remedy question, issued its Final Judgment on June 7, 2000. The District Court adopted plaintiffs’ proposed remedy without substantive change.
地区法院在认定微软应承担除一项罪名以外的所有责任后,要求原告提交一份补救建议。原告随后在四周内提交了补救令提案以及六份补充声明和 50 多份新证据。原告在建议中寻求具体的行为补救措施,以及将微软拆分为应用软件公司和操作系统公司的结构性补救措施。地区法院驳回了微软要求进一步举证的请求,并在就补救问题的是非曲直进行了一次听证后,于 2000 年 6 月 7 日做出了最终判决。地区法院采纳了原告提出的补救措施,未作实质性修改。

Microsoft filed a notice of appeal within a week after the District Court issued its Final Judgment. This court then ordered that any proceedings before it be heard by the court sitting en banc. Before any substantive matters were addressed by this court, however, the District Court certified appeal of the case brought by the United States directly to the Supreme Court pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §29(b), while staying the final judgment order in the federal and state cases pending appeal. The States thereafter petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari in their case. The Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal of the Government’s case and remanded the matter to this court; the Court likewise denied the States’ petition for writ of certiorari. Microsoft Corp. v. United States, 530 U.S. 1301, 121 S. Ct. 25, 147 L. Ed. 2d 1048 (2000). This consolidated appeal followed.
在地区法院做出最终判决后一周内,微软公司提交了上诉通知书。法院随后下令由全体合议庭审理向其提起的任何诉讼。然而,在本法院处理任何实质性事项之前,地区法院根据 15 U.S.C. §29(b) 将美国提起的上诉直接提交最高法院,同时在上诉期间暂缓执行联邦和州案件的最终判决令。此后,各州向最高法院提出申请,要求对其案件进行审理。最高法院拒绝审理政府的上诉案,并将此案发回本法院重审;法院同样驳回了州政府的调卷申请。微软公司诉美国,530 U.S. 1301, 121 S. Ct.2d 1048 (2000).本合并上诉随之产生。

B. Overview

Before turning to the merits of Microsoft’s various arguments, we pause to reflect briefly on two matters of note, one practical and one theoretical.
在讨论微软公司各种论点的是非曲直之前,我们先简单思考两个值得注意的问题,一个是实际问题,一个是理论问题。

The practical matter relates to the temporal dimension of this case. The litigation timeline in this case is hardly problematic. Indeed, it is noteworthy that a case of this magnitude and complexity has proceeded from the filing of complaints through trial to appellate decision in a mere three years.
实际问题与本案的时间维度有关。本案的诉讼时限几乎没有问题。事实上,值得注意的是,如此大规模和复杂的案件从提出申诉到审判再到上诉裁决,仅用了三年时间。

What is somewhat problematic, however, is that just over six years have passed since Microsoft engaged in the first conduct plaintiffs allege to be anti-competitive. As the record in this case indicates, six years seems like an eternity in the computer industry. By the time a court can assess liability, firms, products, and the marketplace are likely to have changed dramatically. This, in turn, threatens enormous practical difficulties for courts considering the appropriate measure of relief in equitable enforcement actions, both in crafting injunctive remedies in the first instance and reviewing those remedies in the second. Conduct remedies may be unavailing in such cases, because innovation to a large degree has already rendered the anticompetitive conduct obsolete (although by no means harmless). And broader structural remedies present their own set of problems, including how a court goes about restoring competition to a dramatically changed, and constantly changing, marketplace. That is just one reason why we find the District Court’s refusal in the present case to hold an evidentiary hearing on remedies — to update and flesh out the available information before seriously entertaining the possibility of dramatic structural relief — so problematic.
然而,有些问题的是,自微软公司首次从事原告所称的反竞争行为以来,仅仅过去了六年多的时间。正如本案的记录所显示的,六年时间在计算机行业似乎是一个永恒的话题。等到法院可以评估责任时,公司、产品和市场很可能已经发生了巨大的变化。这反过来又给法院在衡平法执行诉讼中考虑适当的救济措施带来了巨大的实际困难,无论是在一审中制定禁令救济措施,还是在二审中审查这些救济措施。在这种情况下,行为救济可能无法奏效,因为创新在很大程度上已经使反竞争行为过时(尽管绝非无害)。而更广泛的结构性补救措施也会带来一系列问题,包括法院如何在变化巨大、不断变化的市场中恢复竞争。这就是为什么我们认为地区法院在本案中拒绝就补救措施举行证据听证会--在认真考虑采取重大结构性补救措施的可能性之前更新和充实现有信息--是有问题的。

514

We do not mean to say that enforcement actions will no longer play an important role in curbing infringements of the antitrust laws in technologically dynamic markets, nor do we assume this in assessing the merits of this case. Even in those cases where forward-looking remedies appear limited, the Government will continue to have an interest in defining the contours of the antitrust laws so that law-abiding firms will have a clear sense of what is permissible and what is not. And the threat of private damage actions will remain to deter those firms inclined to test the limits of the law.
我们并不是说执法行动在遏制技术动态市场中违反反垄断法的行为方面将不再发挥重要作用,我们在评估本案的是非曲直时也没有假定这一点。即使在那些前瞻性补救措施似乎有限的案件中,政府也将继续关注如何界定反垄断法的轮廓,以便让守法的公司清楚地了解什么是允许的,什么是不允许的。而私人损害诉讼的威胁将继续存在,以阻止那些倾向于试探法律界限的公司。

The second matter of note is more theoretical in nature. We decide this case against a backdrop of significant debate amongst academics and practitioners over the extent to which “old economy” §2 monopolization doctrines should apply to firms competing in dynamic technological markets characterized by network effects. In markets characterized by network effects, one product or standard tends towards dominance, because “the utility that a user derives from consumption of the good increases with the number of other agents consuming the good.” Michael L. Katz & Carl Shapiro, Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility, 75 Am. Econ. Rev. 424, 424 (1985). For example, “[a]n individual consumer’s demand to use (and hence her benefit from) the telephone network…increases with the number of other users on the network whom she can call or from whom she can receive calls.” Howard A. Shelanski & J. Gregory Sidak, Antitrust Divestiture in Network Industries, 68 U. Chi. L. Rev. 1, 8 (2001). Once a product or standard achieves wide acceptance, it becomes more or less entrenched. Competition in such industries is “for the field” rather than “within the field.” See Harold Demsetz, Why Regulate Utilities?, 11 J.L. & Econ. 55, 57 & n.7 (1968) (emphasis omitted).
第二个值得注意的问题更具理论性。学术界和从业者对 "旧经济 "第 2 节垄断理论在多大程度上适用于在以网络效应为特征的动态技术市场中竞争的公司展开了激烈辩论,我们正是在这一背景下对本案作出裁决的。在以网络效应为特征的市场中,一种产品或标准往往会占据主导地位,因为 "用户从商品消费中获得的效用会随着消费该商品的其他代理人数量的增加而增加"。Michael L. Katz & Carl Shapiro, Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility, 75 Am.Rev. 424, 424 (2009)。Rev. 424, 424 (1985)。例如,"个人消费者对电话网络的使用需求(以及由此获得的利益)......会随着她可以拨打或接听电话的网络用户数量的增加而增加"。Howard A. Shelanski & J. Gregory Sidak, Antitrust Divestiture in Network Industries, 68 U. Chi.1, 8 (2001)。一旦某种产品或标准被广泛接受,它或多或少会变得根深蒂固。这类行业的竞争是 "领域内 "的竞争,而不是 "领域内 "的竞争。见 Harold Demsetz, Why Regulate Utilities?55, 57 & n.7 (1968) (emphasis omitted).

In technologically dynamic markets, however, such entrenchment may be temporary, because innovation may alter the field altogether. See Joseph A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy 81-90 (Harper Perennial 1976) (1942). Rapid technological change leads to markets in which “firms compete through innovation for temporary market dominance, from which they may be displaced by the next wave of product advancements.” Shelanski & Sidak, at 11-12 (discussing Schumpeterian competition, which proceeds “sequentially over time rather than simultaneously across a market”). Microsoft argues that the operating system market is just such a market.
然而,在技术活跃的市场中,这种固化可能是暂时的,因为创新可能会彻底改变这一领域。见 Joseph A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy 81-90(Harper Perennial 1976)(1942 年)。快速的技术变革导致市场中 "企业通过创新争夺暂时的市场支配地位,但可能会被下一波产品进步所取代"。Shelanski & Sidak,第 11-12 页(讨论了熊彼特式竞争,即 "随着时间的推移依次进行,而不是在整个市场上同时进行")。微软认为,操作系统市场正是这样一个市场。

Whether or not Microsoft’s characterization of the operating system market is correct does not appreciably alter our mission in assessing the alleged antitrust violations in the present case. As an initial matter, we note that there is no consensus among commentators on the question of whether, and to what extent, current monopolization doctrine should be amended to account for competition in technologically dynamic markets characterized by network effects. Compare Steven C. Salop & R. Craig Romaine, Preserving Monopoly: Economic Analysis, Legal Standards, and Microsoft, 7 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 617, 654-55, 663-64 (1999) (arguing that exclusionary conduct in high-tech networked industries deserves heightened antitrust scrutiny in part because it may threaten to deter innovation), with Ronald A. Cass & Keith N. Hylton, Preserving Competition: Economic Analysis, Legal Standards and Microsoft, 8 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 1, 36-39 (1999) (equivocating on the antitrust implications of network effects and noting that the presence of network externalities may actually encourage innovation by guaranteeing more durable monopolies to innovating winners). Indeed, there is some suggestion that the economic consequences of network
无论微软对操作系统市场的描述是否正确,都不会明显改变我们评估本案中涉嫌违反反垄断法行为的任务。首先,我们注意到,对于是否应该以及在多大程度上修改现行垄断理论,以考虑以网络效应为特征的技术动态市场中的竞争问题,评论家们并没有达成共识。比较 Steven C. Salop & R. Craig Romaine, Preserving Monopoly: Economic Analysis, Legal Standards, and Microsoft, 7 Geo.Mason L. Rev. 617, 654-55, 663-64 (1999)(认为高科技网络产业中的排他性行为应受到更严格的反垄断审查,部分原因是这种行为可能会阻碍创新),与 Ronald A. Cass & Keith N. Hylton, Preserving Competition:经济分析、法律标准和微软》,8 Geo.1, 36-39 (1999)(对网络效应的反托拉斯影响含糊其辞,并指出网络外部性的存在实际上可能会通过保证创新赢家获得更持久的垄断来鼓励创新)。事实上,有一些观点认为,网络外部性的经济后果可能会鼓励创新。

515

effects and technological dynamism act to offset one another, thereby making it difficult to formulate categorical antitrust rules absent a particularized analysis of a given market. See Shelanski & Sidak, at 6-7 (“High profit margins might appear to be the benign and necessary recovery of legitimate investment returns in a Schumpeterian framework, but they might represent exploitation of customer lock-in and monopoly power when viewed through the lens of network economics…. The issue is particularly complex because, in network industries characterized by rapid innovation, both forces may be operating and can be difficult to isolate.”).
在对特定市场进行具体分析的情况下,反托拉斯规则很难制定。见 Shelanski & Sidak,第 6-7 页("在熊彼特框架下,高利润率可能是对合法投资回报的良性和必要回收,但从网络经济学的角度来看,它们可能是对客户锁定和垄断权力的利用....)。这个问题尤为复杂,因为在以快速创新为特征的网络产业中,两种力量都可能在起作用,而且难以分离。

Moreover, it should be clear that Microsoft makes no claim that anticompetitive conduct should be assessed differently in technologically dynamic markets. It claims only that the measure of monopoly power should be different. For reasons fully discussed below, we reject Microsoft’s monopoly power argument.…
此外,应该明确的是,微软并没有声称在技术动态市场中应该以不同的方式评估反竞争行为。它只是声称对垄断势力的衡量应该有所不同。出于以下充分讨论的原因,我们拒绝接受微软的垄断势力论点....。

With this backdrop in mind, we turn to the specific challenges raised in Microsoft’s appeal.
有鉴于此,我们再来看看微软在上诉中提出的具体质疑。

II. MONOPOLIZATION

Section 2 of the Sherman Act makes it unlawful for a firm to “monopolize.” 15 U.S.C. §2. The offense of monopolization has two elements: “(1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and (2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.” United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 57071, 86 S. Ct. 1698, 16 L. Ed. 2d 778 (1966). The District Court applied this test and found that Microsoft possesses monopoly power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems. Focusing primarily on Microsoft’s efforts to suppress Netscape Navigator’s threat to its operating system monopoly, the court also found that Microsoft maintained its power not through competition on the merits, but through unlawful means. Microsoft challenges both conclusions. We defer to the District Court’s findings of fact, setting them aside only if clearly erroneous. Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a). We review legal questions de novo.
谢尔曼法》第 2 条规定公司 "垄断 "为非法行为。15 U.S.C. §2。垄断罪有两个要素:"(1)在相关市场中拥有垄断权;(2)故意获取或维持这种权力,有别于因产品优越、商业敏锐或历史偶然而增长或发展。美国诉格林内尔公司案,384 U.S. 563, 57071, 86 S. Ct. 1698, 16 L. Ed.2d 778 (1966).地区法院采用了这一检验标准,认定 Microsoft 在英特尔兼容 PC 操作系统市场中拥有垄断势力。法院主要关注微软压制 Netscape Navigator 对其操作系统垄断地位的威胁,并认定微软不是通过竞争来维持其垄断地位,而是通过非法手段。微软对这两个结论都提出了质疑。我们尊重地区法院对事实的认定,只有在明显错误的情况下才将其搁置。联邦民事诉讼规则R. Civ.P. 52(a)。我们对法律问题进行重新审查。

We begin by considering whether Microsoft possesses monopoly power, and finding that it does, we turn to the question whether it maintained this power through anticompetitive means. Agreeing with the District Court that the company behaved anticompetitively, and that these actions contributed to the maintenance of its monopoly power, we affirm the court’s finding of liability for monopolization.
我们首先考虑的是微软是否拥有垄断权,在发现微软拥有垄断权后,我们转而讨论微软是否通过反竞争手段维持这种垄断权的问题。我们同意地区法院的观点,即该公司采取了反竞争行为,而且这些行为促成了垄断势力的维持,因此我们维持法院关于垄断责任的判决。

A. Monopoly Power

While merely possessing monopoly power is not itself an antitrust violation, see Northeastern Tel. Co. v. AT&T, 651 F.2d 76, 84-85 (2d Cir. 1981), it is a necessary element of a monopolization charge, see Grinnell, 384 U.S. at 570, 86 S. Ct. 1698. The Supreme Court defines monopoly power as “the power to control prices or exclude competition.” United States v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 351 U.S. 377, 391 (1956). More precisely, a firm is a monopolist if it can profitably raise prices substantially above the competitive level. 2A Phillip E. Areeda et al., Antitrust Law ¶501, at 85 (1995); cf. Ball Mem’l Hosp., Inc. v. Mut. Hosp. Ins., Inc., 784 F.2d 1325, 1335 (7th Cir. 1986) (defining market power as “the ability to cut back the market’s total output and so raise price”). Where evidence indicates that a firm has in fact profitably done so, the existence of monopoly power is clear. See Rebel Oil Co. v. Atl. Richfield
虽然仅仅拥有垄断权本身并不违反反垄断法,参见 Northeastern Tel.Co. v. AT&T, 651 F.2d 76, 84-85 (2d Cir. 1981),但它是垄断指控的必要因素,见 Grinnell, 384 U.S. at 570, 86 S. Ct. 1698。最高法院将垄断权定义为 "控制价格或排除竞争的权力"。美国诉 E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co.案,351 U.S. 377, 391 (1956)。更确切地说,如果一家公司可以将价格大幅提高到竞争水平之上并从中获利,那么它就是垄断者。2A Phillip E. Areeda et al., Antitrust Law §501, at 85 (1995); cf. Ball Mem'l Hosp.公司, 784 F.2d 1325, 1335 (7th Cir. 1986) (将市场支配力定义为 "削减市场总产量从而提高价格的能力")。如果有证据表明一家公司事实上已经这样做并从中获利,那么垄断势力的存在就是显而易见的。见 Rebel 石油公司诉 Atl.Richfield

516

Co., 51 F.3d 1421, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995); see also FTC v. Indiana Fed’n of Dentists, 476 U.S. 447, 460-61, 106 S. Ct. 2009, 90 L. Ed. 2d 445 (1986) (using direct proof to show market power in Sherman Act §1 unreasonable restraint of trade action). Because such direct proof is only rarely available, courts more typically examine market structure in search of circumstantial evidence of monopoly power. 2A Areeda et al., Antitrust Law ¶531a, at 156; see also, e.g., Grinnell, 384 U.S. at 571, 86 S. Ct. 1698. Under this structural approach, monopoly power may be inferred from a firm’s possession of a dominant share of a relevant market that is protected by entry barriers. See Rebel Oil, 51 F.3d at 1434. “Entry barriers” are factors (such as certain regulatory requirements) that prevent new rivals from timely responding to an increase in price above the competitive level. See S. Pac. Communications Co. v. AT&T, 740 F.2d 980, 1001-02 (D.C. Cir.1984).
Co., 51 F.3d 1421, 1434 (9th Cir. 1995); see also FTC v. Indiana Fed'n of Dentists, 476 U.S. 447, 460-61, 106 S. Ct.2d 445 (1986)(在《谢尔曼法》第 1 节不合理限制贸易的诉讼中使用直接证据证明市场支配力)。由于很少有直接证据,法院通常会审查市场结构,寻找垄断势力的间接证据。2A Areeda et al., Antitrust Law §531a, at 156; see also, e.g., Grinnell, 384 U.S. at 571, 86 S.Ct. 1698.根据这种结构性方法,垄断势力可从一家公司在相关市场中拥有受进入壁垒保护的支配性份额中推断出来。参见 Rebel Oil, 51 F.3d at 1434。"进入壁垒 "是指阻止新竞争对手对高于竞争水平的价格上涨做出及时反应的因素(如某些监管要求)。见 S. Pac.通信公司诉 AT&T,740 F.2d 980,1001-02(华盛顿特区巡回法院,1984 年)。

The District Court considered these structural factors and concluded that Microsoft possesses monopoly power in a relevant market. Defining the market as Intel-compatible PC operating systems, the District Court found that Microsoft has a greater than 95% share. It also found the company’s market position protected by a substantial entry barrier. Conclusions of Law, at 36.
地区法院考虑了这些结构性因素,得出结论认为,微软在相关市场中拥有垄断势力。地区法院将市场定义为与英特尔兼容的 PC 操作系统,认定微软的市场份额超过 95%。地区法院还认定,该公司的市场地位受到实质性进入壁垒的保护。法律结论,第 36 页。

Microsoft argues that the District Court incorrectly defined the relevant market. It also claims that there is no barrier to entry in that market. Alternatively, Microsoft argues that because the software industry is uniquely dynamic, direct proof, rather than circumstantial evidence, more appropriately indicates whether it possesses monopoly power. Rejecting each argument, we uphold the District Court’s finding of monopoly power in its entirety.
微软辩称,地区法院对相关市场的定义不正确。微软还声称,该市场不存在进入壁垒。另外,微软还辩称,由于软件行业具有独特的动态性,直接证据比间接证据更能说明其是否拥有垄断势力。我们驳回了每一个论点,支持地区法院对垄断势力的全部认定。

1. Market Structure

a. Market definition

“Because the ability of consumers to turn to other suppliers restrains a firm from raising prices above the competitive level,” Rothery Storage & Van Co. v. Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 210, 218 (D.C. Cir. 1986), the relevant market must include all products “reasonably interchangeable by consumers for the same purposes.” du Pont, 351 U.S. at 395, 76 S. Ct. 994. In this case, the District Court defined the market as “the licensing of all Intel-compatible PC operating systems worldwide,” finding that there are “currently no products — and…there are not likely to be any in the near future — that a significant percentage of computer users worldwide could substitute for [these operating systems] without incurring substantial costs.” Conclusions of Law, at 36. Calling this market definition “far too narrow,” Appellant’s Opening Br. at 84, Microsoft argues that the District Court improperly excluded three types of products: non-Intel compatible operating systems (primarily Apple’s Macintosh operating system, Mac OS), operating systems for non-PC devices (such as handheld computers and portal websites), and “middleware” products, which are not operating systems at all.
Rothery Storage & Van Co. v. Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 210, 218 (D.C. Cir. 1986),"因为消费者转向其他供应商的能力限制了公司将价格提高到竞争水平之上",相关市场必须包括所有 "消费者为相同目的可合理互换 "的产品。在本案中,地区法院将市场定义为 "全球范围内所有与英特尔兼容的 PC 操作系统的许可",认为 "目前没有任何产品--而且......在不久的将来也不可能有任何产品--能够让全球相当大比例的计算机用户在不产生巨额成本的情况下替代 [这些操作系统]"。法律结论》,第 36 页。上诉人的开庭陈述第 84 页称这一市场定义 "过于狭窄",微软认为地区法院不恰当地排除了三类产品:非英特尔兼容操作系统(主要是苹果的 Macintosh 操作系统 Mac OS)、非PC设备的操作系统(如掌上电脑和门户网站)以及 "中间件 "产品,它们根本不是操作系统。

We begin with Mac OS. Microsoft’s argument that Mac OS should have been included in the relevant market suffers from a flaw that infects many of the company’s monopoly power claims: the company fails to challenge the District Court’s factual findings, or to argue that these findings do not support the court’s conclusions. The District Court found that consumers would not switch from Windows to Mac OS in response to a substantial price increase because of the costs of acquiring the new hardware needed to run Mac OS (an Apple computer and
我们从 Mac OS 开始。微软认为 Mac OS 本应被纳入相关市场的论点存在一个缺陷,该缺陷影响了该公司的许多垄断势力主张:该公司未能对地区法院的事实调查结果提出质疑,也未能辩称这些调查结果并不支持法院的结论。地区法院认为,消费者不会因为价格大幅上涨而从 Windows 转向 Mac OS,因为购买运行 Mac OS 所需的新硬件(苹果电脑和 Mac 操作系统)的成本很高。

517

peripherals) and compatible software applications, as well as because of the effort involved in learning the new system and transferring files to its format. Findings of Fact ¶20. The court also found the Apple system less appealing to consumers because it costs considerably more and supports fewer applications. Id. ¶21. Microsoft responds only by saying: “the district court’s market definition is so narrow that it excludes Apple’s Mac OS, which has competed with Windows for years, simply because the Mac OS runs on a different microprocessor.” Appellant’s Opening Br. at 84. This general, conclusory statement falls far short of what is required to challenge findings as clearly erroneous. Pendleton v. Rumsfeld, 628 F.2d 102, 106 (D.C. Cir. 1980); see also Terry v. Reno, 101 F.3d 1412, 1415 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (holding that claims made but not argued in a brief are waived). Microsoft neither points to evidence contradicting the District Court’s findings nor alleges that supporting record evidence is insufficient. And since Microsoft does not argue that even if we accept these findings, they do not support the District Court’s conclusion, we have no basis for upsetting the court’s decision to exclude Mac OS from the relevant market.
此外,学习新系统和将文件转换为新系统的格式也很费劲。事实认定 §20。法院还认为苹果系统对消费者的吸引力较小,因为它的成本要高得多,而且支持的应用程序较少。同上,§21。¶21.微软只回应说"地区法院的市场定义过于狭隘,仅仅因为 Mac OS 运行在不同的微处理器上,就将多年来一直与 Windows 竞争的苹果 Mac OS 排除在外。上诉人开庭陈述第 84 页。这种笼统的、结论性的陈述远远达不到质疑调查结果明显错误的要求。Pendleton v. Rumsfeld, 628 F.2d 102, 106 (D.C.ir. 1980); see also Terry v. Reno, 101 F.3d 1412, 1415 (D.C.ir. 1996) (holding that claims made but not argued in a brief are waived).微软既没有指出与地区法院的调查结果相矛盾的证据,也没有声称支持性记录证据不足。由于微软没有辩称即使我们接受这些调查结果,它们也不能支持地区法院的结论,因此我们没有理由推翻法院将 Mac OS 排除在相关市场之外的判决。

Microsoft’s challenge to the District Court’s exclusion of non-PC based competitors, such as information appliances (handheld devices, etc.) and portal websites that host server-based software applications, suffers from the same defect: the company fails to challenge the District Court’s key factual findings. In particular, the District Court found that because information appliances fall far short of performing all of the functions of a PC, most consumers will buy them only as a supplement to their PCs. Findings of Fact ¶23. The District Court also found that portal websites do not presently host enough applications to induce consumers to switch, nor are they likely to do so in the near future. Id. ¶27. Again, because Microsoft does not argue that the District Court’s findings do not support its conclusion that information appliances and portal websites are outside the relevant market, we adhere to that conclusion.
Microsoft 对地区法院排除非PC型竞争者(如信息设备(手持设备等)和托管基于服务器的软件应用程序的门户网站)的质疑也存在同样的缺陷:该公司未能对地区法院的关键事实结论提出质疑。特别是,地区法院认为,由于信息设备远不能实现 PC 的所有功能,因此大多数消费者购买信息设备只能作为 PC 的补充。事实结论第 23 段。地区法院还认为,门户网站目前没有提供足够多的应用程序来吸引消费者转换,而且在不久的将来也不可能吸引消费者转换。同上,§27。¶27.同样,由于微软没有辩称地区法院的调查结果不支持其关于信息设备和门户网站不属于相关市场的结论,我们坚持这一结论。

This brings us to Microsoft’s main challenge to the District Court’s market definition: the exclusion of middleware. Because of the importance of middleware to this case, we pause to explain what it is and how it relates to the issue before us.
这就引出了微软对地方法院市场定义的主要质疑:将中间件排除在外。鉴于中间件对本案的重要性,我们在此先解释一下什么是中间件以及中间件与本案的关系。

Operating systems perform many functions, including allocating computer memory and controlling peripherals such as printers and keyboards. See Direct Testimony of Frederick Warren-Boulton ¶20, reprinted in 5 J.A. at 3172-73. Operating systems also function as platforms for software applications. They do this by “exposing” — i.e., making available to software developers — routines or protocols that perform certain widely-used functions. These are known as Application Programming Interfaces, or “APIs.” See Direct Testimony of James Barksdale ¶70, reprinted in 5 J.A. at 2895-96. For example, Windows contains an API that enables users to draw a box on the screen. See Direct Testimony of Michael T. Devlin ¶12, reprinted in 5 J.A. at 3525. Software developers wishing to include that function in an application need not duplicate it in their own code. Instead, they can “call” — i.e., use — the Windows API. See Direct Testimony of James Barksdale ¶¶70-71, reprinted in 5 J.A. at 289597. Windows contains thousands of APIs, controlling everything from data storage to font display. See Direct Testimony of Michael Devlin ¶12, reprinted in 5 J.A. at 3525.
操作系统执行许多功能,包括分配计算机内存和控制打印机和键盘等外围设备。见 Frederick Warren-Boulton 的直接证词第 20 段,转载于 5 J.A. at 3172-73。操作系统也是软件应用程序的平台。它们通过 "暴露"--即向软件开发者提供--执行某些广泛使用功能的例程或协议来实现这一功能。这些被称为应用程序接口,或 "API"。参见 James Barksdale 的直接证词第 70 段,转载于 5 J.A. at 2895-96。例如,Windows 包含一个 API,可使用户在屏幕上画出一个方框。见 Michael T. Devlin 的直接证词第 12 段,转载于 5 J.A. at 3525。希望在应用程序中加入该功能的软件开发人员无需在自己的代码中复制该功能。相反,他们可以 "调用"--即使用 Windows API。参见 James Barksdale 的直接证词第 70-71 段,转载于 5 J.A. at 289597。Windows 包含数千个 API,控制着从数据存储到字体显示的一切。请参见 Michael Devlin 的直接证词第 12 段,转载于 5 J.A. at 3525。

Every operating system has different APIs. Accordingly, a developer who writes an application for one operating system and wishes to sell the application to users of another must modify, or “port,” the application to the second operating system. Findings of Fact ¶4. This process is both time consuming and expensive. Id. ¶30.
每个操作系统都有不同的应用程序接口。因此,为一种操作系统编写应用程序的开发人员如果希望向另一种操作系统的用户销售该应用程序,就必须修改或 "移植 "该应用程序到第二种操作系统。事实认定 §4。这一过程既耗时又昂贵。同上,§30。¶30.

518

“Middleware” refers to software products that expose their own APIs. Id. ¶28; Direct Testimony of Paul Maritz ¶¶234-36, reprinted in 6 J.A. at 3727-29. Because of this, a middleware product written for Windows could take over some or all of Windows’s valuable platform functions — that is, developers might begin to rely upon APIs exposed by the middleware for basic routines rather than relying upon the API set included in Windows. If middleware were written for multiple operating systems, its impact could be even greater. The more developers could rely upon APIs exposed by such middleware, the less expensive porting to different operating systems would be. Ultimately, if developers could write applications relying exclusively on APIs exposed by middleware, their applications would run on any operating system on which the middleware was also present. See Direct Testimony of Avadis Tevanian, Jr. ¶45, reprinted in 5 J.A. at 3113. Netscape Navigator and Java — both at issue in this case — are middleware products written for multiple operating systems. Findings of Fact ¶28.
"中间件 "是指公开自己的应用程序接口的软件产品。同上。28; Direct Testimony of Paul Maritz §¶234-36, reprinted in 6 J.A. at 3727-29。正因为如此,为 Windows 编写的中间件产品可能会取代 Windows 的部分或全部有价值的平台功能,也就是说,开发人员可能会开始依赖中间件公开的 API 来执行基本例程,而不是依赖 Windows 中包含的 API 集。如果中间件是为多个操作系统编写的,其影响可能会更大。开发人员对此类中间件所提供的 API 的依赖程度越高,移植到不同操作系统的成本就越低。最终,如果开发人员可以完全依赖中间件公开的 API 来编写应用程序,那么他们的应用程序就可以在任何有中间件的操作系统上运行。参见 Avadis Tevanian, Jr.45, reprinted in 5 J.A. at 3113.本案中涉及的 Netscape Navigator 和 Java 都是为多个操作系统编写的中间件产品。事实认定》,第 28 页。

Microsoft argues that, because middleware could usurp the operating system’s platform function and might eventually take over other operating system functions (for instance, by controlling peripherals), the District Court erred in excluding Navigator and Java from the relevant market. The District Court found, however, that neither Navigator, Java, nor any other middleware product could now, or would soon, expose enough APIs to serve as a platform for popular applications, much less take over all operating system functions. Id. ¶¶28-29. Again, Microsoft fails to challenge these findings, instead simply asserting middleware’s “potential” as a competitor. Appellant’s Opening Br. at 86. The test of reasonable inter-changeability, however, required the District Court to consider only substitutes that constrain pricing in the reasonably foreseeable future, and only products that can enter the market in a relatively short time can perform this function. See Rothery, 792 F.2d at 218 (“Because the ability of consumers to turn to other suppliers restrains a firm from raising prices above the competitive level, the definition of the ‘relevant market’ rests on a determination of available substitutes.”); see also Findings of Fact ¶29 (“[I]t would take several years for middleware…to evolve” into a product that can constrain operating system pricing.). Whatever middleware’s ultimate potential, the District Court found that consumers could not now abandon their operating systems and switch to middleware in response to a sustained price for Windows above the competitive level. Findings of Fact ¶¶28, 29. Nor is middleware likely to overtake the operating system as the primary platform for software development any time in the near future. Id.
微软辩称,由于中间件可能篡夺操作系统的平台功能,并可能最终接管操作系统的其他功能(例如,通过控制外围设备),因此地区法院将 Navigator 和 Java 排除在相关市场之外是错误的。但地区法院认为,无论是 Navigator、Java 还是任何其他中间件产品,现在或将来都不会提供足够的 API 来作为流行应用程序的平台,更不用说接管操作系统的所有功能了。同上。¶¶28-29.同样,微软也没有对这些结论提出质疑,而只是声称中间件作为竞争者的 "潜力"。上诉人开庭陈述第 86 页。然而,合理的可互换性测试要求地区法院只考虑在合理可预见的未来限制定价的替代品,只有能够在相对较短的时间内进入市场的产品才能履行这一职能。见 Rothery, 792 F.2d at 218("由于消费者转向其他供应商的能力限制了公司将价格提高到竞争水平之上,因此'相关市场'的定义取决于对可用替代品的确定");另见《事实认定》第 29 段("中间件......需要几年时间才能发展成为 "能够限制操作系统定价的产品")。无论中间件的最终潜力有多大,地区法院认为,消费者现在不可能因为 Windows 的价格持续高于竞争水平而放弃他们的操作系统,转而使用中间件。事实认定第 28 和 29 段。在不久的将来,中间件也不可能取代操作系统成为软件开发的主要平台。同上。

Alternatively, Microsoft argues that the District Court should not have excluded middleware from the relevant market because the primary focus of the plaintiffs’ §2 charge is on Microsoft’s attempts to suppress middleware’s threat to its operating system monopoly. According to Microsoft, it is “contradict[ory],” 2/26/2001 Ct. Appeals Tr. at 20, to define the relevant market to exclude the “very competitive threats that gave rise” to the action. Appellant’s Opening Br. at 84. The purported contradiction lies between plaintiffs’ §2 theory, under which Microsoft preserved its monopoly against middleware technologies that threatened to become viable substitutes for Windows, and its theory of the relevant market, under which middleware is not presently a viable substitute for Windows. Because middleware’s threat is only nascent, however, no contradiction exists. Nothing in §2 of the Sherman Act limits its prohibition to actions taken against threats that are already well-developed
另外,微软认为地区法院不应该将中间件排除在相关市场之外,因为原告第 2 节指控的主要焦点是微软试图压制中间件对其操作系统垄断的威胁。微软认为,"自相矛盾",2/26/2001 Ct.根据微软的观点,将相关市场定义为不包括 "导致 "诉讼的 "竞争威胁 "是 "自相矛盾的"2/26/2001 Ct.上诉人开庭陈述第 84 页。原告的第 2 节理论认为,中间件技术有可能成为 Windows 的可行替代品,微软据此保持了对中间件技术的垄断;而原告的相关市场理论则认为,中间件目前并不是 Windows 的可行替代品,这两者之间存在所谓的矛盾。然而,由于中间件的威胁只是刚刚出现,因此并不存在矛盾。谢尔曼法》第 2 节中的任何规定都没有限制禁止针对已经发展成熟的威胁采取的行动

519

enough to serve as present substitutes. See infra Section II.C. Because market definition is meant to identify products “reasonably interchangeable by consumers,” du Pont, 351 U.S. at 395, 76 S. Ct. 994, and because middleware is not now interchangeable with Windows, the District Court had good reason for excluding middleware from the relevant market.
见下文第 II.C 节。由于市场定义旨在确定 "消费者可合理互换 "的产品,du Pont, 351 U.S. at 395, 76 S. Ct. 994,并且由于中间件现在无法与 Windows 互换,地区法院有充分理由将中间件排除在相关市场之外。

b. Market power

Having thus properly defined the relevant market, the District Court found that Windows accounts for a greater than 95% share. Findings of Fact ¶35. The court also found that even if Mac OS were included, Microsoft’s share would exceed 80%. Id. Microsoft challenges neither finding, nor does it argue that such a market share is not predominant. Cf. Grinnell, 384 U.S. at 571, 86 S. Ct. 1698 (87% is predominant); Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451, 481, 112 S. Ct. 2072, 119 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1992) (80%); du Pont, 351 U.S. at 379, 391, 76 S. Ct. 994 (75%).
因此,在正确界定相关市场后,地区法院认定 Windows 占据了 95% 以上的份额。事实认定 §35。法院还认为,即使将 Mac OS 包括在内,微软的份额也将超过 80%。同上。微软既未质疑这两项裁定,也未辩称这样的市场份额不占主导地位。参见 Grinnell, 384 U.S. at 571, 86 S. Ct. 1698 (87% is predominant);Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Servs.2d 265 (1992) (80%); du Pont, 351 U.S. at 379, 391, 76 S. Ct. 994 (75%)。

Instead, Microsoft claims that even a predominant market share does not by itself indicate monopoly power. Although the “existence of [monopoly] power ordinarily may be inferred from the predominant share of the market,” Grinnell, 384 U.S. at 571, 86 S. Ct. 1698, we agree with Microsoft that because of the possibility of competition from new entrants, see Ball Mem’l Hosp., Inc., 784 F.2d at 1336, looking to current market share alone can be “misleading.” Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc. v. Ragu Foods, Inc., 627 F.2d 919, 924 (9th Cir. 1980); see also Ball Mem’l Hosp., Inc., 784 F.2d at 1336 (“Market share reflects current sales, but today’s sales do not always indicate power over sales and price tomorrow.”) In this case, however, the District Court was not misled. Considering the possibility of new rivals, the court focused not only on Microsoft’s present market share, but also on the structural barrier that protects the company’s future position. Conclusions of Law, at 36. That barrier — the “applications barrier to entry” — stems from two characteristics of the software market: (1) most consumers prefer operating systems for which a large number of applications have already been written; and (2) most developers prefer to write for operating systems that already have a substantial consumer base. See Findings of Fact ¶¶30, 36. This “chicken-and-egg” situation ensures that applications will continue to be written for the already dominant Windows, which in turn ensures that consumers will continue to prefer it over other operating systems. Id.
相反,微软声称,即使市场份额占主导地位本身也不能说明垄断势力。尽管"通常可以从市场的主要份额推断出是否存在[垄断]力量",Grinnell, 384 U.S. at 571, 86 S. Ct. 1698,但我们同意微软的观点,即由于可能存在新进入者的竞争,见 Ball Mem'l Hosp., Inc., 784 F.2d at 1336,仅看当前的市场份额可能会 "误导"。Hunt-Wesson Foods, Inc. v. Ragu Foods, Inc., 627 F.2d 919, 924 (9th Cir. 1980); see also Ball Mem'l Hosp., Inc., 784 F.2d at 1336 ("Market share reflects current sales, but today's sales do not always indicate power over sales and price tomorrow.")但在本案中,地区法院并没有被误导。考虑到可能出现新的竞争对手,法院不仅关注微软目前的市场份额,还关注保护公司未来地位的结构性障碍。法律结论》,第 36 页。这种壁垒--"应用软件进入壁垒"--源于软件市场的两个特点:(1) 大多数消费者更喜欢已经编写了大量应用软件的操作系统;(2) 大多数开发者更喜欢为已经拥有大量消费者的操作系统编写应用软件。见《事实认定》第 30 段和第 36 段。这种 "先有鸡还是先有蛋 "的情况确保了应用程序将继续为已占主导地位的 Windows 编写,这反过来又确保了消费者将继续偏爱 Windows 而非其他操作系统。同上。

Challenging the existence of the applications barrier to entry, Microsoft observes that software developers do write applications for other operating systems, pointing out that at its peak IBM’s OS/2 supported approximately 2,500 applications. Id. ¶46. This misses the point. That some developers write applications for other operating systems is not at all inconsistent with the finding that the applications barrier to entry discourages many from writing for these less popular platforms. Indeed, the District Court found that IBM’s difficulty in attracting a larger number of software developers to write for its platform seriously impeded OS/2’s success. Id. ¶46.
微软在质疑进入市场的应用软件障碍时指出,软件开发人员确实为其他操作系统编写了应用软件,并指出 IBM 的 OS/2 在其巅峰时期支持大约 2,500 种应用软件。同上,第 46 页。¶46.这没有抓住重点。一些开发人员为其他操作系统编写应用程序,这与 "应用程序的进入门槛阻碍了许多开发人员为这些不太流行的平台编写应用程序 "的结论并不矛盾。事实上,地区法院认为,IBM 难以吸引更多的软件开发者为其平台编写软件,这严重阻碍了 OS/2 的成功。同上。同上,第 46 页。

Microsoft does not dispute that Windows supports many more applications than any other operating system. It argues instead that “[i]t defies common sense” to suggest that an operating system must support as many applications as Windows does (more than 70,000, according to the District Court, id. ¶40) to be competitive. Appellant’s Opening Br. at 96.
对于 Windows 比其他操作系统支持更多应用程序的说法,微软并无异议。它反驳说,"一个操作系统必须支持像 Windows 那样多的应用程序(根据地区法院的说法,超过 70,000 个,同上,第 40 页)才能具有竞争力","这是违反常理的"。上诉人开庭陈述,第 96 页。

520

Consumers, Microsoft points out, can only use a very small percentage of these applications. Id. As the District Court explained, however, the applications barrier to entry gives consumers reason to prefer the dominant operating system even if they have no need to use all applications written for it:
微软指出,消费者只能使用这些应用程序中的很小一部分。同上。然而,正如地区法院所解释的那样,应用程序的进入壁垒使消费者有理由选择占主导地位的操作系统,即使他们不需要使用为其编写的所有应用程序:

The consumer wants an operating system that runs not only types of applications that he knows he will want to use, but also those types in which he might develop an interest later. Also, the consumer knows that if he chooses an operating system with enough demand to support multiple applications in each product category, he will be less likely to find himself straitened later by having to use an application whose features disappoint him. Finally, the average user knows that, generally speaking, applications improve through successive versions. He thus wants an operating system for which successive generations of his favorite applications will be released — promptly at that. The fact that a vastly larger number of applications are written for Windows than for other PC operating systems attracts consumers to Windows, because it reassures them that their interests will be met as long as they use Microsoft’s product.
消费者需要的操作系统不仅要能运行他知道自己想用的应用软件,还要能运行他以后可能会感兴趣的应用软件。此外,消费者还知道,如果他选择的操作系统有足够的需求来支持每个产品类别中的多个应用程 序,那么他以后就不太可能因为不得不使用某个功能令他失望的应用程序而感到窘迫。最后,普通用户知道,一般来说,应用程序会通过不断的版本改进。因此,他希望自己喜欢的应用程序能在一个操作系统中不断推出新的版本,而且要及时推出。与其他PC操作系统相比,为 Windows 编写的应用程序数量要多得多,这一事实吸引着消费者使用 Windows,因为这让他们确信,只要使用 Microsoft 的产品,他们的利益就会得到满足。

Findings of Fact ¶37. Thus, despite the limited success of its rivals, Microsoft benefits from the applications barrier to entry.
事实认定第 37 段。因此,尽管竞争对手的成功有限,微软还是从应用软件的进入壁垒中获益。

Of course, were middleware to succeed, it would erode the applications barrier to entry. Because applications written for multiple operating systems could run on any operating system on which the middleware product was present with little, if any, porting, the operating system market would become competitive. Id. ¶¶29, 72. But as the District Court found, middleware will not expose a sufficient number of APIs to erode the applications barrier to entry in the foreseeable future. See id. ¶¶28-29.
当然,如果中间件取得成功,它将削弱应用程序的进入门槛。因为为多种操作系统编写的应用程序可以在中间件产品所在的任何操作系统上运行,几乎不需要任何移植,操作系统市场将变得竞争激烈。同上。¶¶29, 72.但正如地区法院所认定的,在可预见的将来,中间件不会公开足够多的 API 来削弱应用程序的进入壁垒。参见同上。¶¶28-29.

Microsoft next argues that the applications barrier to entry is not an entry barrier at all, but a reflection of Windows’ popularity. It is certainly true that Windows may have gained its initial dominance in the operating system market competitively — through superior foresight or quality. But this case is not about Microsoft’s initial acquisition of monopoly power. It is about Microsoft’s efforts to maintain this position through means other than competition on the merits. Because the applications barrier to entry protects a dominant operating system irrespective of quality, it gives Microsoft power to stave off even superior new rivals. The barrier is thus a characteristic of the operating system market, not of Microsoft’s popularity, or, as asserted by a Microsoft witness, the company’s efficiency. See Direct Testimony of Richard Schmalensee ¶115, reprinted in 25 J.A. at 16153-14.
微软接下来辩称,应用程序的进入壁垒根本不是进入壁垒,而是 Windows 大受欢迎的反映。当然,Windows 最初可能是通过竞争--通过卓越的远见或质量--获得了操作系统市场的主导地位。但本案与微软最初获得垄断权无关。本案涉及的是微软通过竞争之外的手段来维持这一地位的努力。因为无论质量如何,应用软件的进入壁垒都会保护占主导地位的操作系统,它使微软有能力阻止甚至更优秀的新对手。因此,该壁垒是操作系统市场的一个特征,而不是微软的知名度,或者如微软证人所言,是该公司的效率。参见 Richard Schmalensee 的直接证词第 115 段,转载于 25 J.A. at 16153-14。

Finally, Microsoft argues that the District Court should not have considered the applications barrier to entry because it reflects not a cost borne disproportionately by new entrants, but one borne by all participants in the operating system market. According to Microsoft, it had to make major investments to convince software developers to write for its new operating system, and it continues to “evangelize” the Windows platform today. Whether costs borne by all market participants should be considered entry barriers is the subject of much debate. Compare 2A Areeda & Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law §420c, at 61 (arguing that these costs are entry barriers), and Joe S. Bain, Barriers to New Competition: Their Character and Consequences in Manufacturing Industries 6-7 (1956) (considering these costs entry barriers), with L.A. Land Co. v. Brunswick Corp., 6 F.3d 1422, 1428 (9th Cir. 1993)
最后,微软辩称,地区法院不应考虑进入市场的应用障碍,因为它反映的不是新进入者不成比例地承担的成本,而是操作系统市场所有参与者都要承担的成本。据微软公司称,它不得不投入巨资说服软件开发商为其新操作系统编写软件,而且至今仍在继续 "宣传 "视窗平台。由所有市场参与者承担的成本是否应被视为进入壁垒,这是一个争论不休的话题。比较 2A Areeda & Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law §420c, at 61(认为这些成本是进入壁垒)和 Joe S. Bain, Barriers to New Competition:6-7 (1956)(认为这些成本是进入壁垒),以及 L.A. Land Co. v. Brunswick Corp.

521

(evaluating cost based on “[t]he disadvantage of new entrants as compared to incumbents”), and George Stigler, the Organization of Industry 67 (1968) (excluding these costs).
(根据 "新进入者与现有者相比的劣势 "评估成本),以及 George Stigler, the Organization of Industry 67 (1968) (不包括这些成本)。

We need not resolve this issue, however, for even under the more narrow definition it is clear that there are barriers. When Microsoft entered the operating system market with MS–DOS and the first version of Windows, it did not confront a dominant rival operating system with as massive an installed base and as vast an existing array of applications as the Windows operating systems have since enjoyed. Findings of Fact ¶¶6, 7, 43. Moreover, when Microsoft introduced Windows 95 and 98, it was able to bypass the applications barrier to entry that protected the incumbent Windows by including APIs from the earlier version in the new operating systems. See id. ¶44. This made porting existing Windows applications to the new version of Windows much less costly than porting them to the operating systems of other entrants who could not freely include APIs from the incumbent Windows with their own.
然而,我们不必解决这个问题,因为即使按照更狭义的定义,显然也存在障碍。当微软以 MS-DOS 和第一版 Windows 进入操作系统市场时,它并没有面对一个像 Windows 操作系统那样拥有庞大安装基础和大量现有应用程序的占支配地位的竞争对手操作系统。事实认定 §¶6, 7, 43。此外,微软在推出 Windows 95 和 98 时,通过在新操作系统中加入早期版本的 API,绕过了保护在位 Windows 的应用程序进入壁垒。参见同上,第 44 页。¶44.这使得将现有的 Windows 应用程序移植到新版 Windows 的成本要比移植到其他新进入者的操作系统的成本低得多,因为其他新进入者不能自由地将现有 Windows 的 API 纳入自己的操作系统。

2. Direct Proof

Having sustained the District Court’s conclusion that circumstantial evidence proves that Microsoft possesses monopoly power, we turn to Microsoft’s alternative argument that it does not behave like a monopolist. Claiming that software competition is uniquely “dynamic,” Appellant’s Opening Br. at 84 (quoting Findings of Fact ¶59), the company suggests a new rule: that monopoly power in the software industry should be proven directly, that is, by examining a company’s actual behavior to determine if it reveals the existence of monopoly power. According to Microsoft, not only does no such proof of its power exist, but record evidence demonstrates the absence of monopoly power. The company claims that it invests heavily in research and development, id. at 88-89 (citing Direct Testimony of Paul Maritz ¶155, reprinted in 6 J.A. at 3698 (testifying that Microsoft invests approximately 17% of its revenue in R&D)), and charges a low price for Windows (a small percentage of the price of an Intel-compatible PC system and less than the price of its rivals, id. at 90 (citing Findings of Fact ¶¶19, 21, 46)).
在支持地区法院关于间接证据证明微软拥有垄断势力的结论后,我们转而讨论微软的另一个论点,即它的行为不像垄断者。该公司声称软件竞争具有独特的 "动态性",上诉人的开庭陈述第 84 页(引用事实认定第 59 页),并提出了一条新规则:软件行业的垄断势力应直接得到证明,即通过审查公司的实际行为来确定其是否揭示了垄断势力的存在。根据微软的说法,不仅不存在这种证明其实力的证据,而且记录证据也表明不存在垄断实力。该公司声称其在研发方面投入巨资,同上,第 88-89 页(引用了 Paul Maritz 的直接证词第 155 段,转载于 6 J.A. at 3698 页(证明微软在研发方面的投入约占其收入的 17%)),并对 Windows 收费低廉(仅为英特尔兼容PC系统价格的一小部分,低于其竞争对手的价格,同上,第 90 页(引用了事实认定第 19、21、46 段))。

Microsoft’s argument fails because, even assuming that the software market is uniquely dynamic in the long term, the District Court correctly applied the structural approach to determine if the company faces competition in the short term. Structural market power analyses are meant to determine whether potential substitutes constrain a firm’s ability to raise prices above the competitive level; only threats that are likely to materialize in the relatively near future perform this function to any significant degree. Rothery, 792 F.2d at 218 (quoting Lawrence Sullivan, Antitrust §12, at 41 (1977)) (only substitutes that can enter the market “promptly” should be considered). The District Court expressly considered and rejected Microsoft’s claims that innovations such as handheld devices and portal websites would soon expand the relevant market beyond Intel-compatible PC operating systems. Because the company does not challenge these findings, we have no reason to believe that prompt substitutes are available. The structural approach, as applied by the District Court, is thus capable of fulfilling its purpose even in a changing market. Microsoft cites no case, nor are we aware of one, requiring direct evidence to show monopoly power in any market. We decline to adopt such a rule now.
微软的论点站不住脚,因为即使假设软件市场在长期内具有独特的动态性,地区法院也正确地运用了结构性方法来确定该公司是否在短期内面临竞争。结构性市场支配力分析的目的是确定潜在的替代品是否会限制公司将价格提高到竞争水平之上的能力;只有在相对较近的将来有可能实现的威胁才能在很大程度上发挥这一作用。Rothery, 792 F.2d at 218 (引用 Lawrence Sullivan, Antitrust §12, at 41 (1977))(只应考虑能够 "迅速 "进入市场的替代品)。地区法院明确考虑并驳回了微软的主张,即手持设备和门户网站等创新将很快扩大相关市场,使其超越与英特尔兼容的 PC 操作系统。由于该公司并未对这些结论提出质疑,因此我们没有理由相信会出现迅速的替代品。因此,即使在市场不断变化的情况下,地区法院采用的结构性方法也能够实现其目的。微软公司没有援引任何案例,我们也不知道有任何案例要求提供直接证据来证明任何市场中的垄断力量。我们现在拒绝采用这样的规则。

Even if we were to require direct proof, moreover, Microsoft’s behavior may well be sufficient to show the existence of monopoly power. Certainly, none of the conduct Microsoft
此外,即使我们要求提供直接证据,微软的行为也足以证明垄断势力的存在。当然,微软的所有行为

522

points to — its investment in R&D and the relatively low price of Windows — is inconsistent with the possession of such power. Conclusions of Law, at 37. The R&D expenditures Microsoft points to are not simply for Windows, but for its entire company, which most likely does not possess a monopoly for all of its products. Moreover, because innovation can increase an already dominant market share and further delay the emergence of competition, even monopolists have reason to invest in R&D. Findings of Fact ¶61. Microsoft’s pricing behavior is similarly equivocal. The company claims only that it never charged the short-term profit- maximizing price for Windows. Faced with conflicting expert testimony, the District Court found that it could not accurately determine what this price would be. Id. ¶65. In any event, the court found, a price lower than the short-term profit-maximizing price is not inconsistent with possession or improper use of monopoly power. Id. ¶¶65-66. Cf. Berkey Photo, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 603 F.2d 263, 274 (2d Cir. 1979) (“[I]f monopoly power has been acquired or maintained through improper means, the fact that the power has not been used to extract [a monopoly price] provides no succor to the monopolist.”). Microsoft never claims that it did not charge the long-term monopoly price. Microsoft does argue that the price of Windows is a fraction of the price of an Intel-compatible PC system and lower than that of rival operating systems, but these facts are not inconsistent with the District Court’s finding that Microsoft has monopoly power. See Findings of Fact ¶36 (“Intel-compatible PC operating systems other than Windows [would not] attract[ ] significant demand…even if Microsoft held its prices substantially above the competitive level.”).
这与拥有这种权力不符。法律结论,第 37 页。微软指出的研发支出并不只是针对 Windows,而是针对其整个公司,该公司很可能并不拥有对其所有产品的垄断权。此外,由于创新可以增加已经占主导地位的市场份额并进一步推迟竞争的出现,因此即使是垄断者也有理由投资研发。事实认定》第 61 页。微软的定价行为同样模棱两可。该公司仅声称,它从未对 Windows 实行短期利润最大化价格。面对相互矛盾的专家证词,地区法院认为它无法准确确定这一价格。同上,§65。¶65.法院认为,无论如何,低于短期利润最大化价格与拥有或不当使用垄断权并不矛盾。同上,¶65-66。¶¶65-66.参见 Berkey Photo, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 603 F.2d 263, 274 (2d Cir. 1979)("如果垄断权是通过不正当手段获得或维持的,那么没有利用垄断权来获取[垄断价格]这一事实并不能为垄断者提供任何帮助。微软从未声称自己没有收取长期垄断价格。微软确实辩称,Windows 的价格只是英特尔兼容PC系统价格的一小部分,而且低于竞争对手的操作系统,但这些事实与地区法院认定微软具有垄断权并不矛盾。 参见《事实认定》第 36 页("Windows 之外的英特尔兼容PC操作系统[不会]吸引[]大量需求......即使微软将其价格大幅维持在竞争水平之上")。

More telling, the District Court found that some aspects of Microsoft’s behavior are difficult to explain unless Windows is a monopoly product. For instance, according to the District Court, the company set the price of Windows without considering rivals’ prices, Findings of Fact ¶62, something a firm without a monopoly would have been unable to do. The District Court also found that Microsoft’s pattern of exclusionary conduct could only be rational “if the firm knew that it possessed monopoly power.” Conclusions of Law, at 37. It is to that conduct that we now turn.
更能说明问题的是,地区法院认为,除非 Windows 是垄断产品,否则很难解释微软行为的某些方面。例如,地区法院认为,该公司在制定 Windows 的价格时没有考虑竞争对手的价格,《事实认定》第 62 页,而没有垄断地位的公司是无法做到这一点的。地区法院还认为,微软的排他性行为模式只有在 "公司知道自己拥有垄断权的情况下 "才是合理的。法律结论,第 37 页。我们现在要讨论的正是这种行为。

B. Anticompetitive Conduct

As discussed above, having a monopoly does not by itself violate §2. A firm violates §2 only when it acquires or maintains, or attempts to acquire or maintain, a monopoly by engaging in exclusionary conduct “as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.” Grinnell, 384 U.S. at 571, 86 S. Ct. 1698; see also United States v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 148 F.2d 416, 430 (2d Cir. 1945) (Hand, J.) (“The successful competitor, having been urged to compete, must not be turned upon when he wins.”).
如上所述,垄断本身并不违反§2。只有当一家公司通过参与排他性行为获得或维持,或试图获得或维持垄断地位时,才违反了§2,"有别于因卓越的产品、商业头脑或历史性事故而导致的增长或发展"。Grinnell, 384 U.S. at 571, 86 S. Ct. 1698; see also United States v. Aluminum Co. of Am., 148 F.2d 416, 430 (2d Cir. 1945) (Hand, J.) ("The successful competitor, having been urged to compete, must not be turned upon when he wins.").

In this case, after concluding that Microsoft had monopoly power, the District Court held that Microsoft had violated §2 by engaging in a variety of exclusionary acts (not including predatory pricing), to maintain its monopoly by preventing the effective distribution and use of products that might threaten that monopoly. Specifically, the District Court held Microsoft liable for: (1) the way in which it integrated IE into Windows; (2) its various dealings with Original Equipment Manufacturers (“OEMs”), Internet Access Providers (“IAPs”), Internet Content Providers (“ICPs”), Independent Software Vendors (“ISVs”), and Apple Computer; (3)
在本案中,地区法院在认定微软公司具有垄断地位后,认为微软公司违反了第 2 节的规定,因为微软公司采取了各种排他性行为(不包括掠夺性定价),通过阻止可能威胁其垄断地位的产品的有效销售和使用来维持其垄断地位。具体而言,地区法院认为微软应对以下行为负责(1) 将 IE 集成到 Windows 中的方式;(2) 与原始设备制造商("OEM")、互联网接入提供商("IAP")、互联网内容提供商 ("ICP")、独立软件供应商("ISV")和苹果电脑公司的各种交易;(3)

523

its efforts to contain and to subvert Java technologies; and (4) its course of conduct as a whole. Upon appeal, Microsoft argues that it did not engage in any exclusionary conduct.
其遏制和颠覆 Java 技术的努力;以及 (4) 其整个行为过程。在上诉中,微软辩称其并未从事任何排他性行为。

Whether any particular act of a monopolist is exclusionary, rather than merely a form of vigorous competition, can be difficult to discern: the means of illicit exclusion, like the means of legitimate competition, are myriad. The challenge for an antitrust court lies in stating a general rule for distinguishing between exclusionary acts, which reduce social welfare, and competitive acts, which increase it.
垄断者的任何特定行为是否是排他性的,而不仅仅是一种激烈竞争的形式,这一点可能很难辨别:非法排他性的手段,就像合法竞争的手段一样,是多种多样的。反托拉斯法院面临的挑战在于如何制定一项一般规则,以区分减少社会福利的排他性行为和增加社会福利的竞争性行为。

From a century of case law on monopolization under §2, however, several principles do emerge. First, to be condemned as exclusionary, a monopolist’s act must have an “anticompetitive effect.” That is, it must harm the competitive process and thereby harm consumers. In contrast, harm to one or more competitors will not suffice. “The [Sherman Act] directs itself not against conduct which is competitive, even severely so, but against conduct which unfairly tends to destroy competition itself.” Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan, 506 U.S. 447, 458, 113 S. Ct. 884, 122 L. Ed. 2d 247 (1993); see also Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209, 225, 113 S. Ct. 2578, 125 L. Ed. 2d 168 (1993) (“Even an act of pure malice by one business competitor against another does not, without more, state a claim under the federal antitrust laws….”).
不过,从一个世纪以来有关第 2 节下垄断的判例法中,确实可以看出几条原则。首先,垄断者的行为必须具有 "反竞争效果",才能被定为排他性行为。也就是说,它必须损害竞争过程,从而损害消费者。相反,对一个或多个竞争者造成损害是不够的。"[谢尔曼法]针对的不是竞争行为,即使是严重的竞争行为,而是不公平地倾向于破坏竞争本身的行为"。Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan, 506 U.S. 447, 458, 113 S. Ct.2d 247 (1993);另见 Brooke Group Ltd. 诉 Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209, 225, 113 S. Ct.2d 168 (1993) ("Even an act of pure malice by one business competitor against another does not, without more, state a claim under the federal antitrust laws....").

Second, the plaintiff, on whom the burden of proof of course rests, see, e.g., Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Serv. Corp., 465 U.S. 752, 763, 104 S. Ct. 1464, 79 L. Ed. 2d 775 (1984); see also United States v. Arnold, Schwinn & Co., 388 U.S. 365, 374 n.5, 87 S. Ct. 1856, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1249 (1967), overruled on other grounds, Cont’l T.V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc., 433 U.S. 36, 97 S. Ct. 2549, 53 L. Ed. 2d 568 (1977), must demonstrate that the monopolist’s conduct indeed has the requisite anticompetitive effect. See generally Brooke Group, 509 U.S. at 225-26, 113 S. Ct. 2578. In a case brought by a private plaintiff, the plaintiff must show that its injury is “of ‘the type that the statute was intended to forestall,’” Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477, 487-88, 97 S. Ct. 690, 50 L. Ed. 2d 701 (1977) (quoting Wyandotte Transp. v. United States, 389 U.S. 191, 202, 88 S. Ct. 379, 19 L. Ed. 2d 407 (1967)); no less in a case brought by the Government, it must demonstrate that the monopolist’s conduct harmed competition, not just a competitor.
其次,原告当然负有举证责任,例如,见 Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Serv.Corp., 465 U.S. 752, 763, 104 S. Ct.2d 775 (1984); see also United States v. Arnold, Schwinn & Co., 388 U.S. 365, 374 n.5, 87 S. Ct.2d 1249 (1967), overruled on other grounds, Cont'l T.V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc.2d 568 (1977),必须证明垄断者的行为确实具有必要的反竞争效果。参见 Brooke Group, 509 U.S. at 225-26, 113 S.Ct. 2578。在私人原告提起的诉讼中,原告必须证明其受到的损害属于"'法规旨在防止的类型',"Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc.2d 701 (1977) (引用 Wyandotte Transp.2d 407 (1967));同样,在政府提起的案件中,政府必须证明垄断者的行为损害了竞争,而不仅仅是竞争对手。

Third, if a plaintiff successfully establishes a prima facie case under §2 by demonstrating anticompetitive effect, then the monopolist may proffer a “procompetitive justification” for its conduct. See Eastman Kodak, 504 U.S. at 483, 112 S. Ct. 2072. If the monopolist asserts a procompetitive justification — a nonpretextual claim that its conduct is indeed a form of competition on the merits because it involves, for example, greater efficiency or enhanced consumer appeal — then the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to rebut that claim. Cf. Capital Imaging Assocs., P.C. v. Mohawk Valley Med. Assocs., Inc., 996 F.2d 537, 543 (2d Cir. 1993).
第三,如果原告通过证明反竞争效果成功地根据第 2 节确立了表面证据确凿的案件,那么垄断者可以为其行为提出 "有利于竞争的理由"。参见 Eastman Kodak, 504 U.S. at 483, 112 S. Ct.如果垄断者提出了有利于竞争的理由,即其行为确实是一种竞争形式,因为它涉及提高效率或增强对消费者的吸引力等非借口性主张,那么反驳该主张的责任又转回原告身上。参见 Capital Imaging Assocs.Assocs., Inc., 996 F.2d 537, 543 (2d Cir. 1993)。

Fourth, if the monopolist’s procompetitive justification stands unrebutted, then the plaintiff must demonstrate that the anticompetitive harm of the conduct outweighs the procompetitive benefit. In cases arising under §1 of the Sherman Act, the courts routinely apply a similar balancing approach under the rubric of the “rule of reason.” The source of the rule of reason is Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 U.S. 1, 31 S. Ct. 502, 55 L. Ed. 619 (1911), in which the Supreme Court used that term to describe the proper inquiry under both sections of the Act. See id. at 61-62, 31 S. Ct. 502 (“[W]hen the second section [of the Sherman Act] is thus harmonized with…the first, it becomes obvious that the criteria to be resorted to in any
第四,如果垄断者支持竞争的理由不成立,那么原告必须证明该行为的反竞争损害大于支持竞争的利益。在根据《谢尔曼法》第 1 节引发的案件中,法院通常在 "合理规则 "的名义下采用类似的平衡方法。合理规则 "的来源是标准石油公司诉美国案,221 U.S. 1, 31 S. Ct.619 (1911),在该案中,最高法院使用该术语描述了根据该法两个部分进行的适当调查。参见同上,第 61-62 页,31 S. Ct. 502 页("当[《谢尔曼法》]第二节与......第一节相协调时,在任何情况下所采用的标准就显而易见了。

524

given case for the purpose of ascertaining whether violations of the section have been committed, is the rule of reason guided by the established law….”). As the Fifth Circuit more recently explained, “[i]t is clear…that the analysis under section 2 is similar to that under section 1 regardless whether the rule of reason label is applied….” Mid-Texas Communications Sys., Inc. v. AT&T, 615 F.2d 1372, 1389 n.13 (5th Cir. 1980) (citing Byars v. Bluff City News Co., 609 F.2d 843, 860 (6th Cir. 1979)); see also Cal. Computer Prods., Inc. v. IBM Corp., 613 F.2d 727, 737 (9th Cir. 1979).
为确定是否存在违反该条的行为,在既定法律指导下的合理规则....")。正如第五巡回法院最近解释的那样,"很明显......第 2 条下的分析与第 1 条下的分析类似,无论是否适用合理规则标签...."。Mid-Texas Communications Sys., Inc. v. AT&T, 615 F.2d 1372, 1389 n.13 (5th Cir. 1980) (citing Byars v. Bluff City News Co., 609 F.2d 843, 860 (6th Cir. 1979)); see also Cal.Computer Prods., Inc. v. IBM Corp., 613 F.2d 727, 737 (9th Cir. 1979))。

Finally, in considering whether the monopolist’s conduct on balance harms competition and is therefore condemned as exclusionary for purposes of §2, our focus is upon the effect of that conduct, not upon the intent behind it. Evidence of the intent behind the conduct of a monopolist is relevant only to the extent it helps us understand the likely effect of the monopolist’s conduct. See, e.g., Chicago Bd. of Trade v. United States, 246 U.S. 231, 238, 38 S. Ct. 242, 62 L. Ed. 683 (1918) (“knowledge of intent may help the court to interpret facts and to predict consequences”); Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585, 603, 105 S. Ct. 2847, 86 L. Ed. 2d 467 (1985).
最后,在考虑垄断者的行为是否总的来说损害了竞争并因此被定为第 2 节所指的排他性行为时,我们的重点是该行为的效果,而不是其背后的意图。垄断者行为背后意图的证据只有在有助于我们理解垄断者行为可能产生的影响时才具有相关性。例如,见 Chicago Bd. of Trade v. United States, 246 U.S. 231, 238, 38 S. Ct. 242, 62 L. Ed.683 (1918)("了解意图有助于法院解释事实和预测后果");Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp.2d 467 (1985).

With these principles in mind, we now consider Microsoft’s objections to the District Court’s holding that Microsoft violated §2 of the Sherman Act in a variety of ways.
考虑到这些原则,我们现在考虑微软对地区法院关于微软以多种方式违反《谢尔曼法》第 2 节的认定提出的异议。

1. Licenses Issued to Original Equipment Manufacturers
1.颁发给原始设备制造商的许可证

The District Court condemned a number of provisions in Microsoft’s agreements licensing Windows to OEMs, because it found that Microsoft’s imposition of those provisions (like many of Microsoft’s other actions at issue in this case) serves to reduce usage share of Netscape’s browser and, hence, protect Microsoft’s operating system monopoly. The reason market share in the browser market affects market power in the operating system market is complex, and warrants some explanation.
地区法院谴责了微软向 OEM 颁发 Windows 许可证的协议中的许多条款,因为法院认为微软实施这些条款(与本案中涉及的微软的许多其他行为一样)的目的是为了减少网景浏览器的使用份额,从而保护微软的操作系统垄断地位。浏览器市场的市场份额会影响操作系统市场的市场支配力,其原因非常复杂,值得解释一下。

Browser usage share is important because, as we explained in Section II.A above, a browser (or any middle-ware product, for that matter) must have a critical mass of users in order to attract software developers to write applications relying upon the APIs it exposes, and away from the APIs exposed by Windows. Applications written to a particular browser’s APIs, however, would run on any computer with that browser, regardless of the underlying operating system. “The overwhelming majority of consumers will only use a PC operating system for which there already exists a large and varied set of…applications, and for which it seems relatively certain that new types of applications and new versions of existing applications will continue to be marketed….” Findings of Fact ¶30. If a consumer could have access to the applications he desired — regardless of the operating system he uses — simply by installing a particular browser on his computer, then he would no longer feel compelled to select Windows in order to have access to those applications; he could select an operating system other than Windows based solely upon its quality and price. In other words, the market for operating systems would be competitive.
浏览器的使用份额之所以重要,是因为正如我们在上文第II.A节中所解释的,浏览器(或任何中间件产品)必须拥有足够数量的用户,才能吸引软件开发人员依赖浏览器提供的API编写应用程序,而不是依赖Windows提供的API。然而,根据特定浏览器的 API 编写的应用程序可以在任何装有该浏览器的计算机上运行,而与底层操作系统无关。"绝大多数消费者只会使用PC操作系统,而该操作系统已经存在大量不同的......应用程序,而且相对确定的是,新类型的应用程序和现有应用程序的新版本将继续推向市场...."。事实认定第 30 段。如果消费者只需在电脑上安装一个特定的浏览器,就可以访问他想要的应用程序--无论他使用的是哪种操作系统--那么他就不会再感到必须选择 Windows 才能访问这些应用程序;他可以完全根据质量和价格选择 Windows 以外的操作系统。换句话说,操作系统市场将充满竞争。

Therefore, Microsoft’s efforts to gain market share in one market (browsers) served to meet the threat to Microsoft’s monopoly in another market (operating systems) by keeping rival browsers from gaining the critical mass of users necessary to attract developer attention away from Windows as the platform for software development. Plaintiffs also argue that Microsoft’s actions injured competition in the browser market — an argument we will
因此,微软在一个市场(浏览器)上努力争取市场份额,是为了应对微软在另一个市场(操作系统)上的垄断所面临的威胁,即阻止竞争对手的浏览器获得必要的临界用户量,以吸引开发者的注意力,使其不再将 Windows 作为软件开发的平台。原告还辩称,微软的行为损害了浏览器市场的竞争--我们将对这一论点进行讨论。

525

examine below in relation to their specific claims that Microsoft attempted to monopolize the browser market and unlawfully tied its browser to its operating system so as to foreclose competition in the browser market. In evaluating the §2 monopoly maintenance claim, however, our immediate concern is with the anticompetitive effect of Microsoft’s conduct in preserving its monopoly in the operating system market.
在下文中,我们将结合微软企图垄断浏览器市场并非法将其浏览器与操作系统捆绑在一起以阻止浏览器市场竞争的具体诉求,对这些诉求进行审查。然而,在评估第 2 节 "维持垄断 "索赔时,我们的当务之急是微软为维护其在操作系统市场的垄断地位而采取的行为所产生的反竞争效果。

In evaluating the restrictions in Microsoft’s agreements licensing Windows to OEMs, we first consider whether plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case by demonstrating that the restrictions have an anticompetitive effect. In the next subsection, we conclude that plaintiffs have met this burden as to all the restrictions. We then consider Microsoft’s proffered justifications for the restrictions and, for the most part, hold those justifications insufficient.
在评估微软向 OEM 颁发 Windows 许可证的协议中的限制条款时,我们首先考虑原告是否通过证明这些限制条款具有反竞争效果而提出了表面证据确凿的案件。在下一小节中,我们将得出结论,原告已就所有限制条件履行了这一责任。然后,我们考虑了微软为这些限制所提出的理由,并在大多数情况下认为这些理由并不充分。

a. Anticompetitive effect of the license restrictions
a.许可证限制的反竞争效果

The restrictions Microsoft places upon Original Equipment Manufacturers are of particular importance in determining browser usage share because having an OEM pre-install a browser on a computer is one of the two most cost-effective methods by far of distributing browsing software. (The other is bundling the browser with internet access software distributed by an IAP.) Findings of Fact ¶145. The District Court found that the restrictions Microsoft imposed in licensing Windows to OEMs prevented many OEMs from distributing browsers other than IE. Conclusions of Law, at 39-40. In particular, the District Court condemned the license provisions prohibiting the OEMs from: (1) removing any desktop icons, folders, or “Start” menu entries; (2) altering the initial boot sequence; and (3) otherwise altering the appearance of the Windows desktop. Findings of Fact ¶213.
微软对原始设备制造商的限制对确定浏览器的使用份额尤为重要,因为让原始设备制造商在电脑上预装浏览器是迄今为止分发浏览软件的两种最具成本效益的方法之一。(另一种方法是将浏览器与 IAP 发布的互联网接入软件捆绑在一起)。事实认定》第 145 页。地区法院认为,微软在向 OEM 颁发 Windows 许可证时施加的限制阻碍了许多 OEM 发布 IE 以外的浏览器。法律结论,第 39-40 页。特别是,地区法院谴责许可条款禁止 OEM 厂商:(1) 删除任何桌面图标、文件夹或 "开始 "菜单条目;(2) 更改初始启动顺序;(3) 以其他方式更改 Windows 桌面的外观。事实认定第 213 页。

The District Court concluded that the first license restriction — the prohibition upon the removal of desktop icons, folders, and Start menu entries — thwarts the distribution of a rival browser by preventing OEMs from removing visible means of user access to IE. Id. ¶203. The OEMs cannot practically install a second browser in addition to IE, the court found, in part because “[p]re-installing more than one product in a given category…can significantly increase an OEM’s support costs, for the redundancy can lead to confusion among novice users.” Id. ¶159; see also id. ¶217. That is, a certain number of novice computer users, seeing two browser icons, will wonder which to use when and will call the OEM’s support line. Support calls are extremely expensive and, in the highly competitive original equipment market, firms have a strong incentive to minimize costs. Id. ¶210.
地区法院的结论是,第一项许可限制--禁止删除桌面图标、文件夹和启动菜单项--通过阻止 OEM 移除用户访问 IE 的可见方式,阻碍了竞争对手浏览器的发布。同上。¶203.法院认为,OEM 厂商实际上无法在 IE 之外再安装第二个浏览器,部分原因是 "在特定类别中重新安装一个以上的产品......会显著增加 OEM 厂商的支持成本,因为冗余会导致新手用户产生混淆。同上,第 159 页;另见同上。同上,第 159 页;另见同上,第 217 页。¶217.也就是说,一定数量的电脑新手用户在看到两个浏览器图标时,会不知道什么时候该使用哪个图标,并会拨打原始设备制造商的支持热线。支持电话的费用极其昂贵,而在竞争激烈的原始设备市场上,企业有强烈的动机将成本降到最低。同上,§210。¶210.

Microsoft denies the “consumer confusion” story; it observes that some OEMs do install multiple browsers and that executives from two OEMs that do so denied any knowledge of consumers being confused by multiple icons. See 11/5/98 pm Tr. at 41-42 (trial testimony of Avadis Tevanian of Apple), reprinted in 9 J.A. at 5493-94; 11/18/99 am Tr. at 69 (trial testimony of John Soyring of IBM), reprinted in 10 J.A. at 6222.
微软否认了 "消费者感到困惑 "的说法;它指出,一些原始设备制造商确实安装了多个浏览器,而且有两家安装了多个浏览器的原始设备制造商的高管否认了消费者被多个图标困惑的说法。见 11/5/98 pm Tr. at 41-42(苹果公司 Avadis Tevanian 的庭审证词),转载于 9 J.A. at 5493-94;11/18/99 am Tr. at 69(IBM 公司 John Soyring 的庭审证词),转载于 10 J.A. at 6222。

Other testimony, however, supports the District Court’s finding that fear of such confusion deters many OEMs from pre-installing multiple browsers. See, e.g., 01/13/99 pm Tr. at 61415 (deposition of Microsoft’s Gayle McClain played to the court) (explaining that redundancy of icons may be confusing to end users); 02/18/99 pm Tr. at 46-47 (trial testimony of John Rose of Compaq), reprinted in 21 J.A. at 14237-38 (same); 11/17/98 am Tr. at 68 (deposition of John Kies of Packard Bell-NEC played to the court), reprinted in 9 J.A. at 6016 (same); 11/17/98 am Tr. at 67-72 (trial testimony of Glenn Weadock), reprinted in 9 J.A. at 6015-20
然而,其他证词支持地区法院的认定,即由于担心这种混淆,许多原始设备制造商不敢预装多种浏览器。例如,请参阅01/13/99 pm Tr. at 61415(向法庭播放的微软公司 Gayle McClain 的证词)(解释说图标的冗余可能会使最终用户感到困惑);02/18/99 pm Tr. at 46-47(康柏公司 John Rose 的庭审证词),转载于 21 J. A. at 14237-38(同上)。14237-38 页(同上);1998 年 11 月 17 日上午记录,第 68 页(向法庭播放 Packard Bell-NEC 的 John Kies 的证词),转载于 9 J.A. 6016 页(同上);1998 年 11 月 17 日上午记录,第 67-72 页(Glenn Weadock 的庭审证词),转载于 9 J.A. 6015-20 页。

526

(same). Most telling, in presentations to OEMs, Microsoft itself represented that having only one icon in a particular category would be “less confusing for endusers.” See Government’s Trial Exhibit (“GX”) 319 at MS98 0109453. Accordingly, we reject Microsoft’s argument that we should vacate the District Court’s Finding of Fact 159 as it relates to consumer confusion.
(same).最有说服力的是,在向 OEM 介绍时,Microsoft 自己表示,在特定类别中只有一个图标将 "减少最终用户的混淆"。参见政府审判证据("GX")319,MS98 0109453。因此,我们驳回了微软的论点,即我们应撤销地区法院与消费者混淆有关的事实认定 159。

As noted above, the OEM channel is one of the two primary channels for distribution of browsers. By preventing OEMs from removing visible means of user access to IE, the license restriction prevents many OEMs from pre-installing a rival browser and, therefore, protects Microsoft’s monopoly from the competition that middleware might otherwise present. Therefore, we conclude that the license restriction at issue is anticompetitive. We defer for the moment the question whether that anticompetitive effect is outweighed by Microsoft’s proffered justifications.
如上所述,OEM 渠道是浏览器的两个主要销售渠道之一。通过阻止 OEM 取消用户访问 IE 的可见方式,许可限制阻止了许多 OEM 预装竞争对手的浏览器,从而保护了微软的垄断地位,使其免受中间件可能带来的竞争的影响。因此,我们得出结论,该许可限制是反竞争的。至于这种反竞争影响是否被微软提出的理由所抵消,我们暂且不予考虑。

The second license provision at issue prohibits OEMs from modifying the initial boot sequence — the process that occurs the first time a consumer turns on the computer. Prior to the imposition of that restriction, “among the programs that many OEMs inserted into the boot sequence were Internet sign-up procedures that encouraged users to choose from a list of IAPs assembled by the OEM.” Findings of Fact ¶210. Microsoft’s prohibition on any alteration of the boot sequence thus prevents OEMs from using that process to promote the services of IAPs, many of which — at least at the time Microsoft imposed the restriction — used Navigator rather than IE in their internet access software. See id. ¶212; GX 295, reprinted in 12 J.A. at 14533 (Upon learning of OEM practices including boot sequence modification, Microsoft’s Chairman, Bill Gates, wrote: “Apparently a lot of OEMs are bundling non-Microsoft browsers and coming up with offerings together with [IAPs] that get displayed on their machines in a FAR more prominent way than MSN or our Internet browser.”). Microsoft does not deny that the prohibition on modifying the boot sequence has the effect of decreasing competition against IE by preventing OEMs from promoting rivals’ browsers. Because this prohibition has a substantial effect in protecting Microsoft’s market power, and does so through a means other than competition on the merits, it is anticompetitive. Again the question whether the provision is nonetheless justified awaits later treatment.
第二项许可条款禁止原始设备制造商修改初始启动程序,即消费者首次打开计算机时的程序。在实施该限制之前,"许多 OEM 在启动顺序中插入的程序包括互联网注册程序,这些程序鼓励用户从 OEM 收集的 IAP 列表中进行选择"。事实认定第 210 段。因此,微软禁止对启动顺序进行任何更改,这就阻止了 OEM 利用该程序推广 IAP 的服务,至少在微软实施限制时,许多 OEM 在其互联网访问软件中使用的是 Navigator 而不是 IE。See id.212;GX 295,转载于 12 J.A. at 14533(在得知 OEM 的做法包括修改启动顺序后,微软董事长比尔-盖茨写道:"显然,许多 OEM 正在捆绑非微软浏览器,并与 [IAP] 一起提供产品,这些产品在其机器上的显示方式远远超过 MSN 或我们的 Internet 浏览器。)微软并不否认,禁止修改启动顺序的规定会阻止 OEM 推广竞争对手的浏览器,从而减少与 IE 的竞争。由于这项禁令对保护微软的市场支配力具有重大影响,而且是通过竞争以外的手段实现的,因此它是反竞争的。同样,该条款是否合理的问题有待稍后讨论。

Finally, Microsoft imposes several additional provisions that, like the prohibition on removal of icons, prevent OEMs from making various alterations to the desktop: Microsoft prohibits OEMs from causing any user interface other than the Windows desktop to launch automatically, from adding icons or folders different in size or shape from those supplied by Microsoft, and from using the “Active Desktop” feature to promote third-party brands. These restrictions impose significant costs upon the OEMs; prior to Microsoft’s prohibiting the practice, many OEMs would change the appearance of the desktop in ways they found beneficial. See, e.g., Findings of Fact ¶214; GX 309, reprinted in 22 J.A. at 14551 (March 1997 letter from Hewlett-Packard to Microsoft: “We are responsible for the cost of technical support of our customers, including the 33% of calls we get related to the lack of quality or confusion generated by your product…. We must have more ability to decide how our system is presented to our end users. If we had a choice of another supplier, based on your actions in this area, I assure you [that you] would not be our supplier of choice.”).
最后,微软还规定了几项附加条款,与禁止移除图标一样,这些条款阻止 OEM 对桌面进行各种改动:微软禁止 OEM 厂商自动启动除 Windows 桌面以外的任何用户界面,禁止 OEM 厂商添加与微软提供的图标或文件夹大小或形状不同的图标或文件夹,禁止 OEM 厂商使用 "活动桌面 "功能推广第三方品牌。这些限制给 OEM 带来了巨大的成本;在微软禁止这种做法之前,许多 OEM 会以他们认为有益的方式改变桌面的外观。例如,见《事实认定》第 214 段;GX 309,转载于 22 J.A. 第 14551 页(1997 年 3 月惠普致微软的信函:"我们负责为客户提供技术支持的费用,包括我们接到的 33% 的电话,这些电话与你们的产品缺乏质量或产生的混乱有关....。我们必须有更多的能力来决定如何向最终用户展示我们的系统。如果我们可以选择另一家供应商,根据你们在这方面的行为,我向你们保证 [你们] 不会成为我们的首选供应商")。

The dissatisfaction of the OEM customers does not, of course, mean the restrictions are anticompetitive. The anticompetitive effect of the license restrictions is, as Microsoft itself recognizes, that OEMs are not able to promote rival browsers, which keeps developers
当然,OEM 客户的不满并不意味着这些限制是反竞争的。正如微软自己所承认的那样,许可限制的反竞争效果在于,OEM 无法推广竞争对手的浏览器,从而使开发者无法获得许可。

527

focused upon the APIs in Windows. Findings of Fact ¶212 (quoting Microsoft’s Gates as writing, “[w]inning Internet browser share is a very very important goal for us,” and emphasizing the need to prevent OEMs from promoting both rival browsers and IAPs that might use rivals’ browsers); see also 01/13/99 Tr. at 305-06 (excerpts from deposition of James Von Holle of Gateway) (prior to restriction Gateway had pre-installed non-IE internet registration icon that was larger than other desktop icons). This kind of promotion is not a zerosum game; but for the restrictions in their licenses to use Windows, OEMs could promote multiple IAPs and browsers. By preventing the OEMs from doing so, this type of license restriction, like the first two restrictions, is anticompetitive: Microsoft reduced rival browsers’ usage share not by improving its own product but, rather, by preventing OEMs from taking actions that could increase rivals’ share of usage.
侧重于 Windows 中的 API。事实认定》第 212 页(引述微软盖茨的话:"互联网浏览器的共享对我们来说是一个非常非常重要的目标",并强调需要防止 OEM 同时推广竞争对手的浏览器和可能使用竞争对手浏览器的 IAP);另见 01/13/99 Tr. 305-06 页(Gateway 的 James Von Holle 证词摘录)(在限制之前,Gateway 已预装了比其他桌面图标更大的非 IE 互联网注册图标)。这种推广并非零和游戏;如果没有 Windows 使用许可的限制,OEM 厂商可以推广多种 IAP 和浏览器。通过阻止 OEM 厂商这样做,这种许可限制与前两种限制一样,都是反竞争的:微软不是通过改进自己的产品来减少竞争对手浏览器的使用份额,而是通过阻止 OEM 厂商采取可能增加竞争对手使用份额的行动来减少竞争对手浏览器的使用份额。

b. Microsoft’s justifications for the license restrictions
b.微软许可限制的理由

Microsoft argues that the license restrictions are legally justified because, in imposing them, Microsoft is simply “exercising its rights as the holder of valid copyrights.” Appellant’s Opening Br. at 102. Microsoft also argues that the licenses “do not unduly restrict the opportunities of Netscape to distribute Navigator in any event.” Id.
微软辩称,许可限制在法律上是合理的,因为微软实施许可限制只是 "行使其作为有效版权持有者的权利"。上诉人开庭陈述第 102 页。微软还辩称,这些许可 "无论如何都不会不适当地限制网景公司分销 Navigator 的机会"。同上。

Microsoft’s primary copyright argument borders upon the frivolous. The company claims an absolute and unfettered right to use its intellectual property as it wishes: “[I]f intellectual property rights have been lawfully acquired,” it says, then “their subsequent exercise cannot give rise to antitrust liability.” Appellant’s Opening Br. at 105. That is no more correct than the proposition that use of one’s personal property, such as a baseball bat, cannot give rise to tort liability. As the Federal Circuit succinctly stated: “Intellectual property rights do not confer a privilege to violate the antitrust laws.” In re Indep. Serv. Orgs. Antitrust Litig., 203 F.3d 1322, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
微软公司的主要版权论点近乎轻率。该公司声称,它拥有按照自己的意愿使用知识产权的绝对和不受约束的权利:该公司称,"如果知识产权是合法获得的",那么 "随后行使这些权利就不会引起反托拉斯责任"。上诉人的开庭陈述,第 105 页。这与使用个人财产(如棒球棒)不会导致侵权责任的主张一样,都是不正确的。联邦巡回法院简明扼要地指出"知识产权并不赋予违反反垄断法的特权。In re Indep.Orgs.反托拉斯诉讼案,203 F.3d 1322, 1325(联邦巡回法院,2000 年)。

Although Microsoft never overtly retreats from its bold and incorrect position on the law, it also makes two arguments to the effect that it is not exercising its copyright in an unreasonable manner, despite the anticompetitive consequences of the license restrictions discussed above. In the first variation upon its unqualified copyright defense, Microsoft cites two cases indicating that a copyright holder may limit a licensee’s ability to engage in significant and deleterious alterations of a copyrighted work. See Gilliam v. ABC, 538 F.2d 14, 21 (2d Cir. 1976); WGN Cont’l Broad. Co. v. United Video, Inc., 693 F.2d 622, 625 (7th Cir. 1982). The relevance of those two cases for the present one is limited, however, both because those cases involved substantial alterations of a copyrighted work, see Gilliam, 538 F.2d at 18, and because in neither case was there any claim that the copyright holder was, in asserting its rights, violating the antitrust laws, see WGN Cont’l Broad., 693 F.2d at 626; see also Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 846 F.2d 1485, 1498 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (noting, again in a context free of any antitrust concern, that “an author [ ] may have rights against” a licensee that “excessively mutilated or altered” the copyrighted work).
尽管微软从未公开放弃其大胆而不正确的法律立场,但它也提出了两个论点,即尽管上述许可限制产生了反竞争后果,但微软并未以不合理的方式行使其版权。在其无条件版权抗辩的第一个变种中,微软引用了两个案例,表明版权持有人可以限制被许可人对版权作品进行重大和有害修改的能力。参见 Gilliam 诉 ABC, 538 F.2d 14, 21 (2d Cir. 1976);WGN Cont'l Broad.Co. v. United Video, Inc., 693 F.2d 622, 625 (7th Cir. 1982)。然而,这两个案件与本案的相关性是有限的,因为这两个案件涉及对版权作品的实质性改动,见 Gilliam, 538 F.2d at 18,而且在这两个案件中,版权持有者在主张其权利时都没有声称其违反了反托拉斯法,见 WGN Cont'l Broad、693 F.2d at 626; see also Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 846 F.2d 1485, 1498 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (noting, again in a context free of any antitrust concern, that "an author [ ] may have rights against" a licensee that "excessively mutilated or altered" the copyrighted work).

The only license restriction Microsoft seriously defends as necessary to prevent a “substantial alteration” of its copyrighted work is the prohibition on OEMs automatically launching a substitute user interface upon completion of the boot process. See Findings of Fact ¶211 (“[A] few large OEMs developed programs that ran automatically at the conclusion of a new PC system’s first boot sequence. These programs replaced the Windows desktop
微软唯一认真辩护的许可限制是禁止 OEM 在完成启动过程后自动启动替代用户界面,这是防止其版权作品被 "实质性改变 "所必需的。参见《事实认定》第 211 页("少数大型 OEM 开发了在新的 PC 系统第一次启动序列结束时自动运行的程序。这些程序取代了 Windows 桌面

528

either with a user interface designed by the OEM or with Navigator’s user interface.”). We agree that a shell that automatically prevents the Windows desktop from ever being seen by the user is a drastic alteration of Microsoft’s copyrighted work, and outweighs the marginal anticompetitive effect of prohibiting the OEMs from substituting a different interface automatically upon completion of the initial boot process. We therefore hold that this particular restriction is not an exclusionary practice that violates §2 of the Sherman Act.
要么使用原始设备制造商设计的用户界面,要么使用 Navigator 的用户界面。)我们同意,自动阻止用户看到 Windows 桌面的外壳是对微软受版权保护的作品的大幅改动,其影响超过了禁止 OEM 在完成初始启动过程后自动替换不同界面的边际反竞争影响。因此,我们认为这一特定限制并非违反《谢尔曼法》第 2 节的排他性做法。

In a second variation upon its copyright defense, Microsoft argues that the license restrictions merely prevent OEMs from taking actions that would reduce substantially the value of Microsoft’s copyrighted work: that is, Microsoft claims each license restriction in question is necessary to prevent OEMs from so altering Windows as to undermine “the principal value of Windows as a stable and consistent platform that supports a broad range of applications and that is familiar to users.” Appellant’s Opening Br. at 102. Microsoft, however, never substantiates this claim, and, because an OEM’s altering the appearance of the desktop or promoting programs in the boot sequence does not affect the code already in the product, the practice does not self-evidently affect either the “stability” or the “consistency” of the platform. See Conclusions of Law, at 41; Findings of Fact ¶227. Microsoft cites only one item of evidence in support of its claim that the OEMs’ alterations were decreasing the value of Windows. Defendant’s Trial Exhibit (“DX”) 2395 at MSV0009378A, reprinted in 19 J.A. at 12575. That document, prepared by Microsoft itself, states: “there are quality issues created by OEMs who are too liberal with the pre-install process,” referring to the OEMs’ installation of Windows and additional software on their PCs, which the document says may result in “user concerns and confusion.” To the extent the OEMs’ modifications cause consumer confusion, of course, the OEMs bear the additional support costs. See Findings of Fact ¶159. Therefore, we conclude Microsoft has not shown that the OEMs’ liberality reduces the value of Windows except in the sense that their promotion of rival browsers undermines Microsoft’s monopoly — and that is not a permissible justification for the license restrictions.
在其版权辩护的第二种变体中,微软辩称,许可限制只是防止 OEM 厂商采取会大大降低微软版权作品价值的行动:也就是说,微软声称,有关的每项许可限制都是必要的,以防止 OEM 厂商对 Windows 进行改动,从而损害 "Windows 作为一个支持广泛应用且为用户所熟悉的稳定而一致的平台的主要价值"。上诉人的开庭陈述,第 102 页。然而,微软从未证实这一主张,而且由于 OEM 更改桌面外观或在启动顺序中推广程序并不影响产品中已有的代码,因此这种做法并不影响平台的 "稳定性 "或 "一致性"。见《法律结论》第 41 页;《事实认定》第 227 页。微软仅引用了一项证据来支持其关于 OEM 的改动降低了 Windows 价值的主张。被告的审判证据("DX")2395,载于 MSV0009378A,转载于 19 J.A. at 12575。这份由微软自己编写的文件指出该文件指出:"OEM 厂商在预装过程中过于随意会造成质量问题",指的是 OEM 厂商在 PC 上安装 Windows 和其他软件,该文件称这可能会导致 "用户的担忧和困惑"。当然,如果原始设备制造商的修改造成了消费者的困惑,原始设备制造商将承担额外的支持费用。参见《事实认定》第 159 页。 因此,我们的结论是,微软没有证明 OEM 厂商的自由行为降低了 Windows 的价值,除非他们对竞争对手浏览器的推广破坏了微软的垄断地位,而这并不是许可限制的正当理由。

Apart from copyright, Microsoft raises one other defense of the OEM license agreements: It argues that, despite the restrictions in the OEM license, Netscape is not completely blocked from distributing its product. That claim is insufficient to shield Microsoft from liability for those restrictions because, although Microsoft did not bar its rivals from all means of distribution, it did bar them from the cost-efficient ones.
除版权外,微软还对 OEM 许可协议提出了另一项抗辩:它辩称,尽管 OEM 许可中有所限制,但 Netscape 并未完全被禁止销售其产品。这种说法不足以使微软免于承担这些限制的责任,因为尽管微软没有禁止其竞争对手使用所有分销手段,但它确实禁止了它们使用成本效益高的分销手段。

In sum, we hold that with the exception of the one restriction prohibiting automatically launched alternative interfaces, all the OEM license restrictions at issue represent uses of Microsoft’s market power to protect its monopoly, unredeemed by any legitimate justification. The restrictions therefore violate §2 of the Sherman Act.
总之,我们认为,除了一项禁止自动启动替代界面的限制外,所有有争议的 OEM 许可限制都是利用微软的市场支配力来保护其垄断地位的行为,没有任何合法的正当理由。因此,这些限制违反了《谢尔曼法》第 2 节。

2. Integration of IE and Windows

Although Microsoft’s license restrictions have a significant effect in closing rival browsers out of one of the two primary channels of distribution, the District Court found that “Microsoft’s executives believed…its contractual restrictions placed on OEMs would not be sufficient in themselves to reverse the direction of Navigator’s usage share. Consequently, in late 1995 or early 1996, Microsoft set out to bind [IE] more tightly to Windows 95 as a technical matter.” Findings of Fact ¶160.
尽管微软的许可限制在将竞争对手的浏览器拒之于两个主要销售渠道之外方面效果显著,但地区法院认为,"微软的管理人员认为......其对 OEM 的合同限制本身不足以扭转 Navigator 的使用份额。因此,在 1995 年底或 1996 年初,微软开始在技术上将 [IE] 与 Windows 95 结合得更紧密。事实认定第 160 段。

529

Technologically binding IE to Windows, the District Court found, both prevented OEMs from pre-installing other browsers and deterred consumers from using them. In particular, having the IE software code as an irremovable part of Windows meant that pre-installing a second browser would “increase an OEM’s product testing costs,” because an OEM must test and train its support staff to answer calls related to every software product preinstalled on the machine; moreover, pre-installing a browser in addition to IE would to many OEMs be “a questionable use of the scarce and valuable space on a PC’s hard drive.” Id. ¶159.
地区法院认为,在技术上将 IE 与 Windows 绑定,既妨碍了原始设备制造商预装其他浏览器,也阻碍了消费者使用其他浏览器。特别是,将 IE 软件代码作为 Windows 不可移除的一部分意味着预装第二个浏览器将 "增加 OEM 的产品测试成本",因为 OEM 必须测试和培训其支持人员来接听与机器上预装的每个软件产品相关的电话;此外,对许多 OEM 来说,在 IE 之外再预装一个浏览器将 "对 PC 硬盘驱动器上稀缺而宝贵的空间的使用产生疑问"。Id.第 159 节。

Although the District Court, in its Conclusions of Law, broadly condemned Microsoft’s decision to bind “Internet Explorer to Windows with…technological shackles,” Conclusions of Law, at 39, its findings of fact in support of that conclusion center upon three specific actions Microsoft took to weld IE to Windows: excluding IE from the “Add/Remove Programs” utility; designing Windows so as in certain circumstances to override the user’s choice of a default browser other than IE; and commingling code related to browsing and other code in the same files, so that any attempt to delete the files containing IE would, at the same time, cripple the operating system. As with the license restrictions, we consider first whether the suspect actions had an anticompetitive effect, and then whether Microsoft has provided a procompetitive justification for them.
尽管地区法院在其法律结论中广泛谴责了微软将 "Internet Explorer 与 Windows 绑定在一起 "的决定(法律结论,第 39 页),但支持该结论的事实调查结果集中在微软为将 IE 与 Windows 绑定在一起而采取的三个具体行动上:将 IE 排除在 "添加/删除程序 "工具之外;设计 Windows,以便在某些情况下推翻用户对除 IE 之外的默认浏览器的选择;将与浏览有关的代码和其他代码混合在同一文件中,这样,任何试图删除包含 IE 的文件的尝试都会同时削弱操作系统。与许可限制一样,我们首先考虑的是可疑行为是否具有反竞争效果,然后再考虑微软是否为这些行为提供了有利于竞争的理由。

a. Anticompetitive effect of integration

As a general rule, courts are properly very skeptical about claims that competition has been harmed by a dominant firm’s product design changes. See, e.g., Foremost Pro Color, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 703 F.2d 534, 544-45 (9th Cir. 1983). In a competitive market, firms routinely innovate in the hope of appealing to consumers, sometimes in the process making their products incompatible with those of rivals; the imposition of liability when a monopolist does the same thing will inevitably deter a certain amount of innovation. This is all the more true in a market, such as this one, in which the product itself is rapidly changing. See Findings of Fact ¶59. Judicial deference to product innovation, however, does not mean that a monopolist’s product design decisions are per se lawful. See Foremost Pro Color, 703 F.2d at 545; see also Cal. Computer Prods., 613 F.2d at 739, 744; In re IBM Peripheral EDP Devices Antitrust Litig., 481 F. Supp. 965, 1007-08 (N.D. Cal. 1979).
一般来说,法院对支配性公司改变产品设计损害竞争的说法持怀疑态度。例如,参见 Foremost Pro Color, Inc.在竞争激烈的市场中,企业经常会进行创新以吸引消费者,有时在这一过程中会使自己的产品与竞争对手的产品不兼容;如果垄断者做了同样的事情,则要求其承担责任,这将不可避免地阻止一定程度的创新。在这样一个产品本身日新月异的市场中,情况更是如此。见《事实认定》第 59 页。然而,对产品创新的司法尊重并不意味着垄断者的产品设计决定本身就是合法的。见 Foremost Pro Color, 703 F.2d at 545;另见 Cal.Computer Prods., 613 F.2d at 739, 744; In re IBM Peripheral EDP Devices Antitrust Litig., 481 F. Supp. 965, 1007-08 (N.D. Cal. 1979)。

The District Court first condemned as anticompetitive Microsoft’s decision to exclude IE from the “Add/Remove Programs” utility in Windows 98. Findings of Fact ¶170. Microsoft had included IE in the Add/Remove Programs utility in Windows 95, see id. ¶¶175-76, but when it modified Windows 95 to produce Windows 98, it took IE out of the Add/Remove Programs utility. This change reduces the usage share of rival browsers not by making Microsoft’s own browser more attractive to consumers but, rather, by discouraging OEMs from distributing rival products. See id. ¶159. Because Microsoft’s conduct, through something other than competition on the merits, has the effect of significantly reducing usage of rivals’ products and hence protecting its own operating system monopoly, it is anticompetitive; we defer for the moment the question whether it is nonetheless justified.
地区法院首先谴责微软将 IE 从 Windows 98 的 "添加/删除程序 "工具中排除的决定是反竞争的。事实认定第 170 段。在 Windows 95 中,微软将 IE 纳入了 "添加/删除程序 "实用程序,参见同上,第 175-76 页。但在修改 Windows 95 以生产 Windows 98 时,它将 IE 从 "添加/删除程序 "实用程序中删除。这一改变不是通过使微软自己的浏览器对消费者更有吸引力,而是通过阻止 OEM 发布竞争对手的产品来减少竞争对手浏览器的使用份额。参见同上,第 159 页。¶159.由于微软的行为不是通过竞争来实现的,而是通过其他方式大大降低了竞争对手产品的使用率,从而保护了自己操作系统的垄断地位,因此它是反竞争的;我们暂且不讨论这种行为是否合理的问题。

Second, the District Court found that Microsoft designed Windows 98 “so that using Navigator on Windows 98 would have unpleasant consequences for users” by, in some circumstances, overriding the user’s choice of a browser other than IE as his or her default browser. Id. ¶¶171-72. Plaintiffs argue that this override harms the competitive process by
其次,地区法院认为,微软在设计 Windows 98 时,"使用户在 Windows 98 上使用 Navigator 会产生不愉快的后果",因为在某些情况下,用户会选择 IE 以外的浏览器作为默认浏览器。同上。¶¶171-72.原告认为,这种覆盖损害了竞争过程,因为

530

deterring consumers from using a browser other than IE even though they might prefer to do so, thereby reducing rival browsers’ usage share and, hence, the ability of rival browsers to draw developer attention away from the APIs exposed by Windows. Microsoft does not deny, of course, that overriding the user’s preference prevents some people from using other browsers. Because the override reduces rivals’ usage share and protects Microsoft’s monopoly, it too is anticompetitive.
尽管消费者可能更愿意使用 IE 以外的浏览器,但他们却不敢使用,从而减少了竞争对手浏览器的使用份额,进而削弱了竞争对手浏览器吸引开发人员注意力,使其不再使用 Windows 提供的 API 的能力。当然,微软并不否认,覆盖用户的偏好会阻止一些人使用其他浏览器。由于覆盖会减少竞争对手的使用份额并保护微软的垄断地位,因此它也是反竞争的。

Finally, the District Court condemned Microsoft’s decision to bind IE to Windows 98 “by placing code specific to Web browsing in the same files as code that provided operating system functions.” Id. ¶161; see also id. ¶¶174, 192. Putting code supplying browsing functionality into a file with code supplying operating system functionality “ensure[s] that the deletion of any file containing browsing-specific routines would also delete vital operating system routines and thus cripple Windows….” Id. ¶164. As noted above, preventing an OEM from removing IE deters it from installing a second browser because doing so increases the OEM’s product testing and support costs; by contrast, had OEMs been able to remove IE, they might have chosen to pre-install Navigator alone. See id. ¶159.
最后,地区法院谴责了微软将 IE 与 Windows 98 绑定的决定,即 "将专门用于网页浏览的代码与提供操作系统功能的代码放在相同的文件中"。同上。同上,第 161 页;另见同上,第 174 页、第 192 页。¶¶174, 192.将提供浏览功能的代码与提供操作系统功能的代码放在一个文件中,"确保删除任何包含浏览专用例程的文件也会删除重要的操作系统例程,从而削弱 Windows...." 。同上。¶164.如上所述,阻止原始设备制造商删除 IE 会阻止其安装第二个浏览器,因为这样做会增加原始设备制造商的产品测试和支持成本;相比之下,如果原始设备制造商能够删除 IE,他们可能会选择单独预装 Navigator。参见同上,第 159 页。¶159.

Microsoft denies, as a factual matter, that it commingled browsing and non-browsing code, and it maintains the District Court’s findings to the contrary are clearly erroneous. According to Microsoft, its expert “testified without contradiction that ‘[t]he very same code in Windows 98 that provides Web browsing functionality’ also performs essential operating system functions — not code in the same files, but the very same software code.” Appellant’s Opening Br. at 79 (citing 5 J.A. 3291-92).
作为一个事实问题,微软否认它混合了浏览和非浏览代码,它坚持认为地区法院的相反结论明显错误。根据微软的说法,其专家 "毫无矛盾地证明'Windows 98 中提供网络浏览功能的代码'也执行操作系统的基本功能--不是相同文件中的代码,而是相同的软件代码"。上诉人的开庭陈述第 79 页(引用 5 J.A. 3291-92)。

Microsoft’s expert did not testify to that effect “without contradiction,” however. A Government expert, Glenn Weadock, testified that Microsoft “design[ed][IE] so that some of the code that it uses co-resides in the same library files as other code needed for Windows.” Direct Testimony ¶30. Another Government expert likewise testified that one library file, SHDOCVW.DLL, “is really a bundle of separate functions. It contains some functions that have to do specifically with Web browsing, and it contains some general user interface functions as well.” 12/14/98 am Tr. at 60-61 (trial testimony of Edward Felten), reprinted in 11 J.A. at 695354. One of Microsoft’s own documents suggests as much. See Plaintiffs’ Proposed Findings of Fact ¶131.2.vii (citing GX 1686 (under seal) (Microsoft document indicating some functions in SHDOCVW.DLL can be described as “IE only,” others can be described as “shell only” and still others can be described as providing both “IE” and “shell” functions)).
然而,微软的专家并没有 "毫无矛盾 "地证明这一点。政府专家格伦-韦多克(Glenn Weadock)作证说,微软 "设计[IE]时,它使用的一些代码与 Windows 需要的其他代码共同存在于相同的库文件中"。直接证词第 30 段。另一位政府专家同样作证说,有一个库文件 SHDOCVW.DLL "实际上是一个独立的功能包。它包含一些专门与网络浏览有关的功能,也包含一些一般的用户界面功能"。12/14/98 am Tr. at 60-61(Edward Felten 的庭审证词),转载于 11 J.A. at 695354。微软自己的一份文件也表明了这一点。请参阅原告提议的事实认定第 131.2.vii 段(引用 GX 1686(密封)(微软文件显示 SHDOCVW.DLL 中的某些功能可被描述为 "仅 IE",其他功能可 描述为 "仅 shell",还有一些功能可被描述为同时提供 "IE "和 "shell "功能))。

In view of the contradictory testimony in the record, some of which supports the District Court’s finding that Microsoft commingled browsing and non-browsing code, we cannot conclude that the finding was clearly erroneous. See Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573-74, 105 S. Ct. 1504, 84 L. Ed. 2d 518 (1985) (“If the district court’s account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, the court of appeals may not reverse it even though convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently.”). Accordingly, we reject Microsoft’s argument that we should vacate Finding of Fact 159 as it relates to the commingling of code, and we conclude that such commingling has an anticompetitive effect; as noted above, the commingling deters OEMs from pre-installing rival browsers, thereby reducing the rivals’ usage share and, hence, developers’ interest in rivals’ APIs as an alternative to the API set exposed by Microsoft’s operating system.
鉴于记录中存在相互矛盾的证词,其中一些证词支持地区法院关于 Microsoft 将浏览代码和非浏览代码混合在一起的认定,我们不能得出该认定明显错误的结论。参见 Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573-74, 105 S. Ct.2d 518 (1985)("如果地区法院对证据的解释从整个记录来看是可信的,那么即使上诉法院确信,如果它作为事实的审判者,也会对证据进行不同的权衡,但上诉法院不得推翻地区法院的解释")。因此,我们驳回了微软关于应撤销与代码混合有关的事实认定 159 的论点,并得出结论认为,这种混合具有反竞争效果;如上所述,混合阻碍了 OEM 厂商预装竞争对手的浏览器,从而降低了竞争对手的使用份额,进而降低了开发人员对竞争对手 API 的兴趣,使其无法使用微软操作系统的 API 集。

531

b. Microsoft’s justifications for integration

Microsoft proffers no justification for two of the three challenged actions that it took in integrating IE into Windows — excluding IE from the Add/Remove Programs utility and commingling browser and operating system code. Although Microsoft does make some general claims regarding the benefits of integrating the browser and the operating system, see, e.g., Direct Testimony of James Allchin ¶94, reprinted in 5 J.A. at 3321 (“Our vision of deeper levels of technical integration is highly efficient and provides substantial benefits to customers and developers.”), it neither specifies nor substantiates those claims. Nor does it argue that either excluding IE from the Add/Remove Programs utility or commingling code achieves any integrative benefit. Plaintiffs plainly made out a prima facie case of harm to competition in the operating system market by demonstrating that Microsoft’s actions increased its browser usage share and thus protected its operating system monopoly from a middleware threat and, for its part, Microsoft failed to meet its burden of showing that its conduct serves a purpose other than protecting its operating system monopoly. Accordingly, we hold that Microsoft’s exclusion of IE from the Add/Remove Programs utility and its commingling of browser and operating system code constitute exclusionary conduct, in violation of §2.
微软在将 IE 集成到 Windows 中时采取了三项受质疑的行动,其中两项--将 IE 排除在 "添加/删除程序 "工具之外,以及将浏览器和操作系统代码混合在一起--没有提出任何正当理由。尽管微软确实就集成浏览器和操作系统的好处提出了一些一般性的主张,例如,见 James Allchin 的直接证词第 94 段,转载于 5 J.A. at 3321("我们对更深层次技术集成的设想是高效的,并能为客户和开发人员带来巨大利益"),但它既没有具体说明也没有证实这些主张。它也没有论证将 IE 从 "添加/删除程序 "实用程序中排除或混合代码会带来任何整合性的好处。原告通过证明微软的行为增加了其浏览器的使用份额,从而保护了其操作系统的垄断地位免受中间件的威胁,显然初步证明了微软的行为损害了操作系统市场的竞争。因此,我们认为,微软将 IE 排除在 "添加/删除程序 "工具之外,并将浏览器和操作系统代码混为一谈的行为构成排他性行为,违反了第 2 节的规定。

As for the other challenged act that Microsoft took in integrating IE into Windows — causing Windows to override the user’s choice of a default browser in certain circumstances — Microsoft argues that it has “valid technical reasons.” Specifically, Microsoft claims that it was necessary to design Windows to override the user’s preferences when he or she invokes one of “a few” out “of the nearly 30 means of accessing the Internet.” Appellant’s Opening Br. at 82. According to Microsoft:
至于微软在将 IE 集成到 Windows 中时所采取的另一项受质疑的行为--在某些情况下使 Windows 凌驾于用户对默认浏览器的选择之上--微软辩称,它有 "正当的技术理由"。具体地说,微软声称,当用户调用 "近 30 种上网手段 "中的 "少数几种 "之一时,有必要设计 Windows 来覆盖用户的偏好。上诉人的开庭陈述第 82 页。微软认为

The Windows 98 Help system and Windows Update feature depend on ActiveX controls not supported by Navigator, and the now-discontinued Channel Bar utilized Microsoft’s Channel Definition Format, which Navigator also did not support. Lastly, Windows 98 does not invoke Navigator if a user accesses the Internet through “My Computer” or “Windows Explorer” because doing so would defeat one of the purposes of those features — enabling users to move seamlessly from local storage devices to the Web in the same browsing window.
Windows 98 帮助系统和 Windows 更新功能依赖于 Navigator 不支持的 ActiveX 控件,而现已停用的 Channel Bar 则使用 Microsoft 的 Channel Definition Format(通道定义格式),Navigator 也不支持该格式。最后,如果用户通过 "我的电脑 "或 "Windows 资源管理器 "访问互联网,Windows 98 不会调用 Navigator,因为这样做会违背这些功能的目的之一,即让用户在同一个浏览窗口中从本地存储设备无缝移动到网络。

Id. (internal citations omitted). The plaintiff bears the burden not only of rebutting a proffered justification but also of demonstrating that the anticompetitive effect of the challenged action outweighs it. In the District Court, plaintiffs appear to have done neither, let alone both; in any event, upon appeal, plaintiffs offer no rebuttal whatsoever. Accordingly, Microsoft may not be held liable for this aspect of its product design.
Id. (内部引用省略)。原告不仅有责任反驳所提出的理由,而且有责任证明被质疑行为的反竞争影响超过了所提出的理由。在地方法院,原告似乎既没有做到这一点,更不用说同时做到这两点了;无论如何,在上诉时,原告没有提出任何反驳。因此,Microsoft 不应对其产品设计的这一方面负责。

3. Agreements with Internet Access Providers

The District Court also condemned as exclusionary Microsoft’s agreements with various IAPs. The IAPs include both Internet Service Providers, which offer consumers internet access, and Online Services (“OLSs”) such as America Online (“AOL”), which offer proprietary content in addition to internet access and other services. Findings of Fact ¶15. The District Court deemed Microsoft’s agreements with the IAPs unlawful because:
地区法院还谴责微软与各种 IAP 签订的协议具有排他性。IAP 既包括为消费者提供互联网接入服务的互联网服务提供商,也包括美国在线("AOL")等在线服务公司,后者除提供互联网接入和其他服务外,还提供专有内容。事实认定 §15。地区法院认为微软与 IAP 达成的协议不合法,因为

532

Microsoft licensed [IE] and the [IE] Access Kit [(of which, more below)] to hundreds of IAPs for no charge. [Findings of Fact] ¶¶250-51. Then, Microsoft extended valuable promotional treatment to the ten most important IAPs in exchange for their commitment to promote and distribute [IE] and to exile Navigator from the desktop. Id. ¶¶255-58, 261, 272, 288-90, 305-06. Finally, in exchange for efforts to upgrade existing subscribers to client software that came bundled with [IE] instead of Navigator, Microsoft granted rebates — and in some cases made outright payments — to those same IAPs. Id. ¶¶25960, 295.
微软将 [IE] 和 [IE] Access Kit [(详情见下文)] 免费授权给数百家 IAP。[事实认定] §¶250-51。然后,微软向十家最重要的 IAP 提供了宝贵的促销待遇,以换取它们承诺推广和分发 [IE],并将 Navigator 从桌面流放出去。同上。¶¶255-58, 261, 272, 288-90, 305-06.最后,作为将现有用户升级到与 [IE] 捆绑的客户端软件而非 Navigator 的交换条件,微软向这些 IAPs 提供回扣,有时甚至直接付款。同上。¶¶25960, 295.

Conclusions of Law, at 41.

The District Court condemned Microsoft’s actions in (1) offering IE free of charge to IAPs and (2) offering IAPs a bounty for each customer the IAP signs up for service using the IE browser. In effect, the court concluded that Microsoft is acting to preserve its monopoly by offering IE to IAPs at an attractive price. Similarly, the District Court held Microsoft liable for (3) developing the IE Access Kit (“IEAK”), a software package that allows an IAP to “create a distinctive identity for its service in as little as a few hours by customizing the [IE] title bar, icon, start and search pages,” Findings of Fact ¶249, and (4) offering the IEAK to IAPs free of charge, on the ground that those acts, too, helped Microsoft preserve its monopoly. Conclusions of Law, at 41-42. Finally, the District Court found that (5) Microsoft agreed to provide easy access to IAPs’ services from the Windows desktop in return for the IAPs’ agreement to promote IE exclusively and to keep shipments of internet access software using Navigator under a specific percentage, typically 25%. See Conclusions of Law, at 42 (citing Findings of Fact ¶¶258, 262, 289). We address the first four items — Microsoft’s inducements — and then its exclusive agreements with IAPs.
地区法院谴责微软的以下行为:(1) 向 IAP 免费提供 IE 浏览器;(2) 向 IAP 提供赏金,奖励 IAP 使用 IE 浏览器注册服务的每一位客户。实际上,法院的结论是,微软以极具吸引力的价格向 IAP 提供 IE 浏览器是为了维护其垄断地位。同样,地区法院认为微软应为以下行为承担责任:(3) 开发 IE 访问工具包("IEAK"),该软件包允许 IAP "通过定制[IE]标题栏、图标、开始和搜索页面,在短短几个小时内为其服务创建独特的标识",以及 (4) 向 IAP 免费提供 IEAK,理由是这些行为也有助于微软维护其垄断地位。法律结论,第 41-42 页。最后,地区法院认定:(5) 微软同意让 IAPs 从 Windows 桌面轻松访问其服务,以换取 IAPs 同意独家推广 IE,并将使用 Navigator 的互联网访问软件的出货量控制在特定比例(通常为 25%)之内。见《法律结论》,第 42 页(引用《事实认定》第 258、262 和 289 段)。我们先讨论前四项--微软的诱导,然后讨论其与 IAP 达成的独家协议。

Although offering a customer an attractive deal is the hallmark of competition, the Supreme Court has indicated that in very rare circumstances a price may be unlawfully low, or “predatory.” See generally Brooke Group, 509 U.S. at 220-27, 113 S. Ct. 2578. Plaintiffs argued before the District Court that Microsoft’s pricing was indeed predatory; but instead of making the usual predatory pricing argument — that the predator would drive out its rivals by pricing below cost on a particular product and then, sometime in the future, raise its prices on that product above the competitive level in order to recoup its earlier losses — plaintiffs argued that by pricing below cost on IE (indeed, even paying people to take it), Microsoft was able simultaneously to preserve its stream of monopoly profits on Windows, thereby more than recouping its investment in below-cost pricing on IE. The District Court did not assign liability for predatory pricing, however, and plaintiffs do not press this theory on appeal.
虽然为客户提供有吸引力的交易是竞争的标志,但最高法院指出,在极少数情况下,价格可能是非法的低价或 "掠夺性的"。参见 Brooke Group, 509 U.S. at 220-27, 113 S. Ct.原告向地区法院辩称,微软的定价确实具有掠夺性;但原告并没有提出通常的掠夺性定价论点--即掠夺者会通过对某一特定产品以低于成本的价格定价来赶走其竞争对手,然后在未来某个时候将该产品的价格提高到高于竞争水平的价格,以挽回之前的损失--而是辩称,通过对 IE 以低于成本的价格定价(事实上,微软甚至付钱让人们接受它),微软能够同时保持其在 Windows 上的垄断利润流,从而超过了其对 IE 以低于成本的价格定价所进行的投资。但是,地区法院没有指定掠夺性定价的责任,原告也没有在上诉中提出这一理论。

The rare case of price predation aside, the anti-trust laws do not condemn even a monopolist for offering its product at an attractive price, and we therefore have no warrant to condemn Microsoft for offering either IE or the IEAK free of charge or even at a negative price. Likewise, as we said above, a monopolist does not violate the Sherman Act simply by developing an attractive product. See Grinnell, 384 U.S. at 571, 86 S. Ct. 1698 (“[G]rowth or development as a consequence of a superior product [or] business acumen” is no violation.). Therefore, Microsoft’s development of the IEAK does not violate the Sherman Act.
撇开价格掠夺这一罕见情况不谈,即使垄断者以诱人的价格提供产品,反垄断法也不会对其进行谴责,因此我们没有理由谴责微软免费提供 IE 或 IEAK,甚至以负价提供。同样,正如我们在上文所述,垄断者并不会因为开发了有吸引力的产品而违反《谢尔曼法》。参见 Grinnell, 384 U.S. at 571, 86 S. Ct. 1698("作为卓越产品[或]商业敏锐性的结果的优势或发展 "并不违反谢尔曼法)。因此,微软开发 IEAK 并不违反谢尔曼法。

We turn now to Microsoft’s deals with IAPs concerning desktop placement. Microsoft concluded these exclusive agreements with all “the leading IAPs,” Findings of Fact ¶244,
我们现在来看看微软与 IAP 达成的桌面放置协议。微软与所有 "领先的 IAP "签订了这些排他性协议,《事实认定》第 244 页、

533

including the major OLSs. Id. ¶245; see also id. ¶¶305, 306. The most significant of the OLS deals is with AOL, which, when the deal was reached, “accounted for a substantial portion of all existing Internet access subscriptions and…attracted a very large percentage of new IAP subscribers.” Id. ¶272. Under that agreement Microsoft puts the AOL icon in the OLS folder on the Windows desktop and AOL does not promote any non-Microsoft browser, nor provide software using any non-Microsoft browser except at the customer’s request, and even then AOL will not supply more than 15% of its subscribers with a browser other than IE. Id. ¶289.
包括主要的 OLS。Id.同上,第 245 段;另见同上,第 305、306 段。¶¶305, 306.OLS 交易中最重要的是与美国在线的交易,在交易达成时,美国在线 "在所有现有互联网接入用户中占很大比例,并且......吸引了很大比例的新 IAP 用户"。同上,第 272 页。¶272.根据该协议,微软将 AOL 图标放在 Windows 桌面的 OLS 文件夹中,AOL 不推广任何非微软浏览器,也不提供使用任何非微软浏览器的软件,除非客户提出要求,即便如此,AOL 也不会为超过 15%的用户提供 IE 以外的浏览器。Id.§289.

The Supreme Court most recently considered an anti-trust challenge to an exclusive contract in Tampa Electric Co. v. Nashville Coal Co., 365 U.S. 320, 81 S. Ct. 623, 5 L. Ed. 2d 580 (1961). That case, which involved a challenge to a requirements contract, was brought under §3 of the Clayton Act and §§1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. The Court held that an exclusive contract does not violate the Clayton Act unless its probable effect is to “foreclose competition in a substantial share of the line of commerce affected.” Id. at 327, 81 S. Ct. 623. The share of the market foreclosed is important because, for the contract to have an adverse effect upon competition, “the opportunities for other traders to enter into or remain in that market must be significantly limited.” Id. at 328, 81 S. Ct. 623. Although “[n]either the Court of Appeals nor the District Court [had] considered in detail the question of the relevant market,” id. at 330, 81 S. Ct. 623, the Court in Tampa Electric examined the record and, after defining the relevant market, determined that the contract affected less than one percent of that market. Id. at 333, 81 S. Ct. 623. After concluding, under the Clayton Act, that this share was “conservatively speaking, quite insubstantial,” id., the Court went on summarily to reject the Sherman Act claims. Id. at 335, 81 S. Ct. 623 (“[I]f [the contract] does not fall within the broader prescription of §3 of the Clayton Act it follows that it is not forbidden by those of the [Sherman Act].”).
最高法院最近在坦帕电气公司诉纳什维尔煤炭公司案(365 U.S. 320, 81 S. Ct. 623, 5 L. Ed.2d 580 (1961).该案涉及对要求合同的质疑,是根据《克莱顿法》第 3 节和《谢尔曼法》第 1 节和第 2 节提出的。法院认为,排他性合同并不违反《克莱顿法》,除非其可能产生的效果是 "在受影响的商业领域的很大一部分排除竞争"。同上,第 327 页,81 S. Ct.被排除的市场份额很重要,因为要使合同对竞争产生不利影响,"其他贸易商进入或留在该市场的机会必须受到很大限制"。同上,第 328 页,81 S.Ct.623。尽管 "上诉法院和地区法院都没有详细考虑过相关市场的问题",但坦帕电力公司案的法院审查了记录,在确定了相关市场后,判定该合同影响的市场份额不到 1%。同上,第 333 页,81 S. Ct.根据《克莱顿法》,法院认为这一份额 "保守地说,相当微不足道"。同上,第 335 页,81 S.Ct.623("如果[该合同]不属于《克莱顿法》第 3 节更广泛的规定范围,那么它就不受《谢尔曼法》的禁止")。

Following Tampa Electric, courts considering antitrust challenges to exclusive contracts have taken care to identify the share of the market foreclosed. Some courts have indicated that §3 of the Clayton Act and §1 of the Sherman Act require an equal degree of foreclosure before prohibiting exclusive contracts. See, e.g., Roland Mach. Co. v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 749 F.2d 380, 393 (7th Cir. 1984) (Posner, J.). Other courts, however, have held that a higher market share must be foreclosed in order to establish a violation of the Sherman Act as compared to the Clayton Act. See, e.g., Barr Labs. v. Abbott Labs., 978 F.2d 98, 110 (3d Cir. 1992); 11 Herbert Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law ¶1800c4 (1998) (“[T]he cases are divided, with a likely majority stating that the Clayton Act requires a smaller showing of anticompetitive effects.”).
继坦帕电气公司之后,考虑对排他性合同提出反托拉斯质疑的法院都会注意确定被剥夺的市场份额。一些法院指出,《克莱顿法》第 3 节和《谢尔曼法》第 1 节要求在禁止排他性合同之前必须有同等程度的取消。例如,参见 Roland Mach.Co. v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 749 F.2d 380, 393 (7th Cir. 1984) (Posner, J.).然而,其他法院认为,与《克莱顿法》相比,必须排除更高的市场份额才能确定违反了《谢尔曼法》。例如,参见 Barr Labs. v. Abbott Labs., 978 F.2d 98, 110 (3d Cir. 1992); 11 Herbert Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law §1800c4 (1998) ("[T]he cases are divided, with a likely majority stating that the Clayton Act requires a smaller show of anticompitive effects.").

Though what is “significant” may vary depending upon the antitrust provision under which an exclusive deal is challenged, it is clear that in all cases the plaintiff must both define the relevant market and prove the degree of foreclosure. This is a prudential requirement; exclusivity provisions in contracts may serve many useful purposes. See, e.g., Omega Envtl., Inc. v. Gilbarco, Inc., 127 F.3d 1157, 1162 (9th Cir. 1997) (“There are, however, well-recognized economic benefits to exclusive dealing arrangements, including the enhancement of interbrand competition.”); Barry Wright Corp. v. ITT Grinnell Corp., 724 F.2d 227, 236 (1st Cir. 1983) (Breyer, J.) (“[V]irtually every contract to buy ‘forecloses’ or ‘excludes’ alternative sellers from some portion of the market, namely the portion consisting of what was bought.”). Permitting an antitrust action to proceed any time a firm enters into an exclusive deal would
尽管 "重要 "的含义可能因质疑独家经营所依据的反托拉斯条款而有所不同,但显而易见的是,在所有情况下,原告都必须界定相关市场并证明丧失市场支配地位的程度。这是一项审慎的要求;合同中的排他性条款可以达到许多有用的目的。例如,参见 Omega Envtl., Inc. v. Gilbarco, Inc., 127 F.3d 1157, 1162 (9th Cir. 1997)("然而,排他性交易安排也有公认的经济利益,包括增强品牌间的竞争、724 F.2d 227, 236 (1st Cir. 1983) (Breyer, J.)("几乎每一份购买合同都'排除'或'排除'替代卖方进入市场的某些部分,即由所购商品组成的部分。如果允许反托拉斯诉讼在公司达成排他性交易的任何时候进行,那么

534

both discourage a presumptively legitimate business practice and encourage costly antitrust actions. Because an exclusive deal affecting a small fraction of a market clearly cannot have the requisite harmful effect upon competition, the requirement of a significant degree of foreclosure serves a useful screening function. Cf. Frank H. Easterbrook, The Limits of Antitrust, 63 Tex. L. Rev. 1, 21-23 (1984) (discussing use of presumptions in antitrust law to screen out cases in which loss to consumers and economy is likely outweighed by cost of inquiry and risk of deterring procompetitive behavior).
这既打击了假定合法的商业行为,又鼓励了代价高昂的反垄断诉讼。因为影响市场一小部分的排他性交易显然不可能对竞争产生必要的有害影响,所以要求有相当程度的取消赎回权就起到了有效的筛选作用。参见 Frank H. Easterbrook, The Limits of Antitrust, 63 Tex.L. Rev. 1, 21-23 (1984)(讨论了反托拉斯法中使用推定来筛选出那些对消费者和经济造成的损失可能超过调查成本和阻止有利于竞争行为的风险的案件)。

In this case, plaintiffs challenged Microsoft’s exclusive dealing arrangements with the IAPs under both §§1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. The District Court, in analyzing the §1 claim, stated, “unless the evidence demonstrates that Microsoft’s agreements excluded Netscape altogether from access to roughly forty percent of the browser market, the Court should decline to find such agreements in violation of §1.” Conclusions of Law, at 52. The court recognized that Microsoft had substantially excluded Netscape from “the most efficient channels for Navigator to achieve browser usage share,” id. at 53; see also Findings of Fact ¶145 (“[N]o other distribution channel for browsing software even approaches the efficiency of OEM pre-installation and IAP bundling.”), and had relegated it to more costly and less effective methods (such as mass mailing its browser on a disk or offering it for download over the internet); but because Microsoft has not “completely excluded Netscape” from reaching any potential user by some means of distribution, however ineffective, the court concluded the agreements do not violate §1. Conclusions of Law, at 53. Plaintiffs did not cross-appeal this holding.
在本案中,原告根据《谢尔曼法》第 1 条和第 2 条质疑微软与 IAP 达成的独家经营安排。地区法院在分析第 1 节索赔时指出,"除非证据表明微软的协议将网景公司完全排除在约 40% 的浏览器市场之外,否则法院应拒绝认定此类协议违反了第 1 节"。法律结论,第 52 页。法院承认,微软在很大程度上将网景公司排除在 "Navigator 实现浏览器使用份额的最有效渠道 "之外,同上,第 53 页;另见《事实认定》第 145 页("浏览软件的其他分销渠道甚至无法达到 OEM 预装和 IAP 捆绑的效率。"),并使其不得不采用成本更高、效率更低的方法(如大量邮寄磁盘上的浏览器或在互联网上提供下载);但由于微软没有 "完全排除网景公司 "通过某种分销手段接触任何潜在用户,无论这种手段多么无效,法院得出结论,这些协议没有违反第 1 节。法律结论,第 53 页。原告没有对这一裁决提出交叉上诉。

Turning to §2, the court stated: “the fact that Microsoft’s arrangements with various [IAPs and other] firms did not foreclose enough of the relevant market to constitute a §1 violation in no way detracts from the Court’s assignment of liability for the same arrangements under §2.…[A]ll of Microsoft’s agreements, including the non-exclusive ones, severely restricted Netscape’s access to those distribution channels leading most efficiently to the acquisition of browser usage share.” Conclusions of Law, at 53.
关于第 2 节,法院指出"微软与各种[IAP 和其他]公司的安排并没有封锁足够的相关市场以构成第 1 节的侵权行为,但这一事实丝毫不影响法院根据第 2 节....。"微软的所有协议,包括非排他性协议,都严重限制了网景公司进入那些能够最有效地获取浏览器使用份额的分销渠道。法律结论,第 53 页。

On appeal Microsoft argues that “courts have applied the same standard to alleged exclusive dealing agreements under both Section 1 and Section 2,” Appellant’s Opening Br. at 109, and it argues that the District Court’s holding of no liability under §1 necessarily precludes holding it liable under §2. The District Court appears to have based its holding with respect to §1 upon a “total exclusion test” rather than the 40% standard drawn from the caselaw. Even assuming the holding is correct, however, we nonetheless reject Microsoft’s contention.
在上诉中,微软辩称 "法院对第 1 节和第 2 节下的所谓排他性交易协议采用了相同的标准",上诉人的开庭陈述第 109 页,并辩称地区法院关于第 1 节下无责任的裁定必然排除了第 2 节下的责任。地区法院似乎是根据 "完全排除测试 "而不是判例法中的 40%标准来裁定第 1 节。然而,即使假定该判决是正确的,我们也不同意微软的论点。

The basic prudential concerns relevant to §§1 and 2 are admittedly the same: exclusive contracts are commonplace — particularly in the field of distribution — in our competitive, market economy, and imposing upon a firm with market power the risk of an antitrust suit every time it enters into such a contract, no matter how small the effect, would create an unacceptable and unjustified burden upon any such firm. At the same time, however, we agree with plaintiffs that a monopolist’s use of exclusive contracts, in certain circumstances, may give rise to a §2 violation even though the contracts foreclose less than the roughly 40% or 50% share usually required in order to establish a §1 violation. See generally Dennis W. Carlton, A General Analysis of Exclusionary Conduct and Refusal to Deal — Why Aspen and Kodak Are Misguided, 68 Antitrust L.J. 659 (2001) (explaining various scenarios under which
与第 1 节和第 2 节相关的基本审慎考量无疑是相同的:在我们的竞争性市场经济中,排他性合同司空见惯--尤其是在分销领域,而要求具有市场支配力的公司每次签订此类合同时都要承担反垄断诉讼的风险,无论其影响有多小,都会给任何此类公司造成不可接受且不合理的负担。但与此同时,我们也同意原告的观点,即在某些情况下,垄断者使用排他性合同可能会导致违反第 2 节,即使这些合同所剥夺的份额低于通常为确定违反第 1 节所需的大约 40% 或 50% 的份额。参见 Dennis W. Carlton,《排他行为和拒绝交易的一般分析--为什么阿斯彭和柯达被误导了》,68 Antitrust L.J. 659 (2001)(解释了

535

exclusive dealing, particularly by a dominant firm, may raise legitimate concerns about harm to competition).
排他性交易,尤其是占支配地位的公司的排他性交易,可能会引起对损害竞争的合理担忧)。

In this case, plaintiffs allege that, by closing to rivals a substantial percentage of the available opportunities for browser distribution, Microsoft managed to preserve its monopoly in the market for operating systems. The IAPs constitute one of the two major channels by which browsers can be distributed. Findings of Fact ¶242. Microsoft has exclusive deals with “fourteen of the top fifteen access providers in North America[, which] account for a large majority of all Internet access subscriptions in this part of the world.” Id. ¶308. By ensuring that the “majority” of all IAP subscribers are offered IE either as the default browser or as the only browser, Microsoft’s deals with the IAPs clearly have a significant effect in preserving its monopoly; they help keep usage of Navigator below the critical level necessary for Navigator or any other rival to pose a real threat to Microsoft’s monopoly. See, e.g., id. ¶143 (Microsoft sought to “divert enough browser usage from Navigator to neutralize it as a platform.”); see also Carlton, at 670.
在本案中,原告声称,微软通过向竞争对手关闭很大一部分可用的浏览器分销机会,成功地维护了其在操作系统市场上的垄断地位。IAP 是分发浏览器的两个主要渠道之一。事实认定》第 242 页。微软与 "北美前十五大接入服务提供商中的十四家达成了独家协议[,它们]占世界上这一地区所有互联网接入用户的绝大多数"。Id.¶308.通过确保将 IE 作为默认浏览器或唯一浏览器提供给所有 IAP 用户中的 "大多数",Microsoft 与 IAP 达成的交易显然对维护其垄断地位产生了重大影响;这些交易有助于将 Navigator 的使用率保持在 Navigator 或任何其他竞争对手对 Microsoft 的垄断地位构成真正威胁所必需的临界水平以下。See, e.g.,id. §143(Microsoft 试图 "从 Navigator 转移足够多的浏览器使用量,使其不再是一个平台");另见 Carlton, at 670.

Plaintiffs having demonstrated a harm to competition, the burden falls upon Microsoft to defend its exclusive dealing contracts with IAPs by providing a procompetitive justification for them. Significantly, Microsoft’s only explanation for its exclusive dealing is that it wants to keep developers focused upon its APIs — which is to say, it wants to preserve its power in the operating system market. 02/26/01 Ct. Appeals Tr. at 45-47. That is not an unlawful end, but neither is it a procompetitive justification for the specific means here in question, namely exclusive dealing contracts with IAPs. Accordingly, we affirm the District Court’s decision holding that Microsoft’s exclusive contracts with IAPs are exclusionary devices, in violation of §2 of the Sherman Act.
原告既然证明了对竞争的损害,微软就有责任为其与 IAP 签订的排他性交易合同辩护,提供有利于竞争的理由。值得注意的是,微软对其排他性交易的唯一解释是,它想让开发者专注于其 API,也就是说,它想维护其在操作系统市场上的权力。02/26/01 Ct.上诉记录,第 45-47 页。这并不是非法的目的,但也不是采用 特定手段(即与 IAP 签订排他性交易合同)进行竞争的理由。因此,我们维持地区法院的判决,认为微软与 IAP 签订的排他性合同属于排他性手段,违反了《谢尔曼法》第 2 节的规定。

4. Dealings with Internet Content Providers, Independent Software Vendors, and Apple Computer
4.与互联网内容提供商、独立软件供应商和苹果电脑公司的交易

The District Court held that Microsoft engages in exclusionary conduct in its dealings with ICPs, which develop websites; ISVs, which develop software; and Apple, which is both an OEM and a software developer. See Conclusions of Law, at 42-43 (deals with ICPs, ISVs, and Apple “supplemented Microsoft’s efforts in the OEM and IAP channels”). The District Court condemned Microsoft’s deals with ICPs and ISVs, stating: “By granting ICPs and ISVs free licenses to bundle [IE] with their offerings, and by exchanging other valuable inducements for their agreement to distribute, promote[,] and rely on [IE] rather than Navigator, Microsoft directly induced developers to focus on its own APIs rather than ones exposed by Navigator.” Id. (citing Findings of Fact ¶¶334-35, 340).
地区法院认为,微软在与开发网站的 ICP、开发软件的 ISV 以及既是 OEM 又是软件开发商的 Apple 的交易中存在排他性行为。参见《法律结论》,第 42-43 页(与 ICP、ISV 和 Apple 的交易 "补充了微软在 OEM 和 IAP 渠道上的努力")。地区法院谴责了微软与 ICP 和 ISV 的交易,指出"通过向 ICP 和 ISV 免费授予将 [IE] 与他们的产品捆绑在一起的许可,以及以其他有价值的诱饵换取他们同意分销、推广[]和依赖 [IE] 而不是 Navigator,微软直接诱使开发人员专注于自己的 API 而不是 Navigator 提供的 API。同上。(同上(援引事实认定第 334-35 段和第 340 段)。

With respect to the deals with ICPs, the District Court’s findings do not support liability. After reviewing the ICP agreements, the District Court specifically stated that “there is not sufficient evidence to support a finding that Microsoft’s promotional restrictions actually had a substantial, deleterious impact on Navigator’s usage share.” Findings of Fact ¶332. Because plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that Microsoft’s deals with the ICPs have a substantial effect upon competition, they have not proved the violation of the Sherman Act.
关于与 ICP 的交易,地区法院的调查结果并不支持赔偿责任。在审查了 ICP 协议后,地区法院特别指出,"没有足够的证据证明微软的促销限制实际上对 Navigator 的使用份额产生了实质性的有害影响"。事实认定第 332 段。由于原告未能证明微软与 ICP 的交易对竞争产生了实质性影响,因此他们未能证明违反了《谢尔曼法》。

As for Microsoft’s ISV agreements, however, the District Court did not enter a similar finding of no substantial effect. The District Court described Microsoft’s deals with ISVs as follows:
但是,对于微软的 ISV 协议,地区法院并没有做出类似的无实质性影响的裁定。地区法院对微软与 ISV 的交易作了如下描述:

536

In dozens of “First Wave” agreements signed between the fall of 1997 and the spring of 1998, Microsoft has promised to give preferential support, in the form of early Windows 98 and Windows NT betas, other technical information, and the right to use certain Microsoft seals of approval, to important ISVs that agree to certain conditions. One of these conditions is that the ISVs use Internet Explorer as the default browsing software for any software they develop with a hypertext-based user interface. Another condition is that the ISVs use Microsoft’s “HTML Help,” which is accessible only with Internet Explorer, to implement their applications’ help systems.
在 1997 年秋季至 1998 年春季签订的几十份 "第一波 "协议中,微软承诺向同意某些条件的重要 ISV 提供优惠支持,包括早期的 Windows 98 和 Windows NT betas、其他技术信息以及使用某些微软认可印章的权利。其中一个条件是,ISV 在开发任何基于超文本用户界面的软件时,必须使用 Internet Explorer 作为默认的浏览软件。另一个条件是,ISV 使用微软的 "HTML 帮助"(只有 Internet Explorer 才能访问)来实施其应用程序的帮助系统。

Id. ¶339. The District Court further found that the effect of these deals is to “ensure[ ] that many of the most popular Web-centric applications will rely on browsing technologies found only in Windows,” id. ¶340, and that Microsoft’s deals with ISVs therefore “increase[ ] the likelihood that the millions of consumers using [applications designed by ISVs that entered into agreements with Microsoft] will use Internet Explorer rather than Navigator.” Id. ¶340.
同上。¶339.地区法院进一步认定,这些交易的效果是 "确保[]许多最流行的以网络为中心的应用程序将依赖于只有 Windows 才有的浏览技术",同上,第 340 页。因此,微软与 ISV 的交易 "增加了[]数百万消费者使用[由与微软签订协议的 ISV 设计的应用程序]使用 Internet Explorer 而非 Navigator 的可能性"。同上。¶340.

The District Court did not specifically identify what share of the market for browser distribution the exclusive deals with the ISVs foreclose. Although the ISVs are a relatively small channel for browser distribution, they take on greater significance because, as discussed above, Microsoft had largely foreclosed the two primary channels to its rivals. In that light, one can tell from the record that by affecting the applications used by “millions” of consumers, Microsoft’s exclusive deals with the ISVs had a substantial effect in further foreclosing rival browsers from the market. (Data introduced by Microsoft, see Direct Testimony of Cameron Myhrvold ¶84, reprinted in 6 J.A. at 3922-23, and subsequently relied upon by the District Court in its findings, see, e.g., Findings of Fact ¶270, indicate that over the twoyear period 1997-98, when Microsoft entered into the First Wave agreements, there were 40 million new users of the internet.) Because, by keeping rival browsers from gaining widespread distribution (and potentially attracting the attention of developers away from the APIs in Windows), the deals have a substantial effect in preserving Microsoft’s monopoly, we hold that plaintiffs have made a prima facie showing that the deals have an anticompetitive effect.
地区法院没有具体指明与 ISV 达成的独家协议取消了浏览器分销市场的份额。尽管 ISV 只是一个相对较小的浏览器分销渠道,但它们的重要性却更大,因为如上所述,微软已在很大程度上排除了竞争对手的两个主要渠道。有鉴于此,我们可以从记录中看出,通过影响 "数百万 "消费者使用的应用程序,微软与 ISV 达成的排他性协议对进一步将竞争对手的浏览器排除在市场之外产生了重大影响。(微软介绍的数据,见 Cameron Myhrvold 的直接证词第 84 段,转载于 6 J.A. at 3922-23,以及地区法院随后在其调查结果中依据的数据,例如,见事实调查结果第 270 段,表明在微软签订第一波协议的 1997-98 两年期间,互联网的新用户达到了 4000 万)。由于这些协议阻止了竞争对手浏览器的广泛传播(并有可能吸引开发人员的注意力,使其不再关注 Windows 的 API),从而在很大程度上维护了微软的垄断地位,因此我们认为原告已初步证明这些协议具有反竞争效果。

Of course, that Microsoft’s exclusive deals have the anticompetitive effect of preserving Microsoft’s monopoly does not, in itself, make them unlawful. A monopolist, like a competitive firm, may have a perfectly legitimate reason for wanting an exclusive arrangement with its distributors. Accordingly, Microsoft had an opportunity to, but did not, present the District Court with evidence demonstrating that the exclusivity provisions have some such procompetitive justification. See Conclusions of Law, at 43 (citing Findings of Fact ¶¶33940) (“With respect to the ISV agreements, Microsoft has put forward no procompetitive business ends whatsoever to justify their exclusionary terms.”). On appeal Microsoft likewise does not claim that the exclusivity required by the deals serves any legitimate purpose; instead, it states only that its ISV agreements reflect an attempt “to persuade ISVs to utilize Internet-related system services in Windows rather than Navigator.” Appellant’s Opening Br. at 114. As we explained before, however, keeping developers focused upon Windows — that is, preserving the Windows monopoly — is a competitively neutral goal. Microsoft having offered no procompetitive justification for its exclusive dealing arrangements with the ISVs, we hold that those arrangements violate §2 of the Sherman Act.
当然,微软的排他性交易具有维护微软垄断地位的反竞争效果,但这本身并不意味着这些交易是非法的。垄断企业与竞争企业一样,可能有完全合法的理由希望与其分销商达成排他性协议。因此,微软有机会向地方法院提交证据,证明排他性条款具有某种有利于竞争的正当理由,但微软没有这样做。参见《法律结论》,第 43 页(引用《事实认定》第 33940 段)("关于 ISV 协议,微软没有提出任何有利于竞争的商业目的来证明其排他性条款的合理性")。在上诉中,微软同样没有声称这些协议所要求的排他性服务有任何合法目的;相反,它只是说其 ISV 协议反映了 "说服 ISV 在 Windows 中使用与互联网相关的系统服务而不是 Navigator "的企图。上诉人开庭陈述第 114 页。然而,正如我们之前所解释的,让开发者专注于 Windows,即维护 Windows 的垄断地位,是一个竞争中性的目标。由于微软没有为其与 ISV 的排他性交易安排提供任何有利于竞争的理由,我们认为这些安排违反了《谢尔曼法》第 2 节。

537

Finally, the District Court held that Microsoft’s dealings with Apple violated the Sherman Act. See Conclusions of Law, at 42-43. Apple is vertically integrated: it makes both software (including an operating system, Mac OS), and hardware (the Macintosh line of computers). Microsoft primarily makes software, including, in addition to its operating system, a number of popular applications. One, called “Office,” is a suite of business productivity applications that Microsoft has ported to Mac OS. The District Court found that “ninety percent of Mac OS users running a suite of office productivity applications [use] Microsoft’s Mac Office.” Findings of Fact ¶344. Further, the District Court found that:
最后,地区法院认为微软与苹果的交易违反了《谢尔曼法》。参见《法律结论》,第 42-43 页。苹果是纵向一体化公司:它既生产软件(包括操作系统 Mac OS),也生产硬件(Macintosh 系列计算机)。微软主要生产软件,除操作系统外,还包括许多流行的应用程序。其中一款名为 "Office "的应用程序是一套商业生产力应用程序,微软已将其移植到 Mac OS。地区法院发现,"运行一套办公生产力应用程序的 Mac OS 用户中有 90% [使用] 微软的 Mac Office"。事实认定第 344 段。此外,地区法院还认定

In 1997, Apple’s business was in steep decline, and many doubted that the company would survive much longer…. [M]any ISVs questioned the wisdom of continuing to spend time and money developing applications for the Mac OS. Had Microsoft announced in the midst of this atmosphere that it was ceasing to develop new versions of Mac Office, a great number of ISVs, customers, developers, and investors would have interpreted the announcement as Apple’s death notice.
1997 年,苹果公司的业务急剧下滑,许多人怀疑该公司是否还能继续生存下去....。[许多 ISV 质疑继续花费时间和金钱为 Mac 操作系统开发应用程序是否明智。如果微软在这种氛围下宣布停止开发 Mac Office 的新版本,那么大量的 ISV、客户、开发人员和投资者都会将这一消息理解为苹果的死亡通知。

Id. ¶344. Microsoft recognized the importance to Apple of its continued support of Mac Office. See id. ¶347 (quoting internal Microsoft e-mail) (“[We] need a way to push these guys [, i.e., Apple] and [threatening to cancel Mac Office] is the only one that seems to make them move.”); see also id. (“[Microsoft Chairman Bill] Gates asked whether Microsoft could conceal from Apple in the coming month the fact that Microsoft was almost finished developing Mac Office 97.”); id. at ¶354 (“I think…Apple should be using [IE] everywhere and if they don’t do it, then we can use Office as a club.”).
同上。¶344.微软认识到继续支持 Mac Office 对苹果公司的重要性。参见 id.同上,第 347 页(引用微软内部电子邮件)("[我们]需要一种方法来推动这些家伙[,即、");另见同上("[微软董事长]比尔-盖茨问微软是否可以在未来一个月内向苹果隐瞒微软几乎完成 Mac Office 97 开发的事实");同上,第 354 页("我认为......苹果应该在所有地方使用 [IE],如果他们不这样做,我们就可以用 Office 作为俱乐部")。

In June 1997 Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates determined that the company’s negotiations with Apple “‘have not been going well at all…. Apple let us down on the browser by making Netscape the standard install.’ Gates then reported that he had already called Apple’s CEO… to ask ‘how we should announce the cancellation of Mac Office….’” Id. at ¶349. The District Court further found that, within a month of Gates’ call, Apple and Microsoft had reached an agreement pursuant to which
1997 年 6 月,微软公司董事长比尔-盖茨(Bill Gates)认为,公司与苹果公司的谈判"'进展并不顺利....'。苹果公司在浏览器上让我们失望了,它把网景浏览器作为标准安装程序。盖茨随后报告说,他已经打电话给苹果公司的首席执行官......询问'我们应该如何宣布取消 Mac Office....'" 。同上,第 349 页。地区法院还发现,在盖茨打电话后的一个月内,苹果公司和微软公司达成了一项协议,根据该协议

Microsoft’s primary obligation is to continue releasing up-to-date versions of Mac Office for at least five years…. [and] Apple has agreed…to “bundle the most current version of [IE]…with [Mac OS]” … [and to]”make [IE] the default [browser]”…. Navigator is not installed on the computer hard drive during the default installation, which is the type of installation most users elect to employ…. [The] Agreement further provides that…Apple may not position icons for nonMicrosoft browsing software on the desktop of new Macintosh PC systems or Mac OS upgrades.
微软的主要义务是在至少五年内继续发布最新版本的 Mac Office....。[苹果公司已同意...... "将最新版本的 [IE]...与 [Mac OS] 捆绑"。...[并]"将 [IE] 作为默认 [浏览器]"....在默认安装过程中,Navigator 不会安装在计算机硬盘上,这是大多数用户选择使用的安装类型....。[协议]进一步规定......Apple 不得在新 Macintosh PC 系统或 Mac OS 升级版的桌面上放置非 Microsoft 浏览软件的图标。

Id. ¶¶350-52. The agreement also prohibits Apple from encouraging users to substitute another browser for IE, and states that Apple will “encourage its employees to use [IE].” Id. ¶352.
Id.¶¶350-52.协议还禁止 Apple 鼓励用户用其他浏览器替代 IE,并规定 Apple 将 "鼓励其员工使用 [IE]"。Id.§352.

This exclusive deal between Microsoft and Apple has a substantial effect upon the distribution of rival browsers. If a browser developer ports its product to a second operating system, such as the Mac OS, it can continue to display a common set of APIs. Thus, usage share, not the underlying operating system, is the primary determinant of the platform challenge a browser may pose. Pre-installation of a browser (which can be accomplished
微软和苹果之间的这种排他性协议对竞争对手浏览器的发行产生了重大影响。如果浏览器开发商将其产品移植到第二个操作系统(如 Mac OS)上,就可以继续使用一套通用的 API。因此,决定浏览器平台挑战的主要因素是使用份额,而非底层操作系统。浏览器的预安装(可通过以下方式实现

538

either by including the browser with the operating system or by the OEM installing the browser) is one of the two most important methods of browser distribution, and Apple had a not insignificant share of worldwide sales of operating systems. See id. ¶35 (Microsoft has 95% of the market not counting Apple and “well above” 80% with Apple included in the relevant market). Because Microsoft’s exclusive contract with Apple has a substantial effect in restricting distribution of rival browsers, and because (as we have described several times above) reducing usage share of rival browsers serves to protect Microsoft’s monopoly, its deal with Apple must be regarded as anticompetitive. See Conclusions of Law, at 42 (citing Findings of Fact ¶356) (“By extracting from Apple terms that significantly diminished the usage of Navigator on the Mac OS, Microsoft helped to ensure that developers would not view Navigator as truly cross-platform middleware.”).
在全球操作系统销售中,苹果公司所占份额不小。见 id.参见同上,第 35 页(不计苹果公司,微软公司拥有 95% 的市场份额,将苹果公司纳入相关市场后,"远高于 "80%)。由于微软与苹果公司的排他性合同在限制竞争对手浏览器的销售方面具有重大影响,而且(正如我们在上文多次描述的)减少竞争对手浏览器的使用份额有助于保护微软的垄断地位,因此微软与苹果公司的交易必须被视为反竞争交易。见《法律结论》,第 42 页(引用《事实认定》第 356 页)("通过向苹果公司索取大幅减少 Navigator 在 Mac OS 上使用的条款,微软帮助确保开发人员不会将 Navigator 视为真正的跨平台中间件。

Microsoft offers no procompetitive justification for the exclusive dealing arrangement. It makes only the irrelevant claim that the IE-for-Mac Office deal is part of a multifaceted set of agreements between itself and Apple, see Appellant’s Opening Br. at 61 (“Apple’s ‘browsing software’ obligation was [not] the quid pro quo for Microsoft’s Mac Office obligation[;]…all of the various obligations…were part of one ‘overall agreement’ between the two companies.”); that does not mean it has any procompetitive justification. Accordingly, we hold that the exclusive deal with Apple is exclusionary, in violation of §2 of the Sherman Act.
微软没有为排他性交易安排提供任何有利于竞争的理由。它只提出了一个无关紧要的主张,即 IE-for-Mac Office 交易是它与苹果公司之间多方面协议的一部分,见上诉人开庭陈述第 61 页("苹果公司的'浏览软件'义务[不是]微软公司 Mac Office 义务的交换条件[;]......所有各种义务......都是两家公司之间'整体协议'的一部分");这并不意味着它有任何有利于竞争的理由。因此,我们认为与苹果公司的排他性协议是排他性的,违反了《谢尔曼法》第 2 节。

5. Java

Java, a set of technologies developed by Sun Microsystems, is another type of middleware posing a potential threat to Windows’ position as the ubiquitous platform for software development. Findings of Fact ¶28. The Java technologies include: (1) a programming language; (2) a set of programs written in that language, called the “Java class libraries,” which expose APIs; (3) a compiler, which translates code written by a developer into “bytecode”; and (4) a Java Virtual Machine (“JVM”), which translates bytecode into instructions to the operating system. Id. ¶73. Programs calling upon the Java APIs will run on any machine with a “Java runtime environment,” that is, Java class libraries and a JVM. Id. ¶¶73, 74.
Java 是 Sun Microsystems 公司开发的一套技术,它是另一种中间件,对 Windows 作为无处不在的软件开发平台的地位构成了潜在威胁。事实认定 §28。Java 技术包括(1) 一种编程语言;(2) 一套用该语言编写的程序,称为 "Java 类库",其中公开了 API;(3) 一个编译器,用于将开发人员编写的代码转换为 "字节码";(4) Java 虚拟机("JVM"),用于将字节码转换为操作系统指令。同上,第 73 页。¶73.调用 Java API 的程序可以在任何具有 "Java 运行时环境"(即 Java 类库和 JVM)的机器上运行。Id.第 73 和 74 段。

In May 1995 Netscape agreed with Sun to distribute a copy of the Java runtime environment with every copy of Navigator, and “Navigator quickly became the principal vehicle by which Sun placed copies of its Java runtime environment on the PC systems of Windows users.” Id. ¶76. Microsoft, too, agreed to promote the Java technologies — or so it seemed. For at the same time, Microsoft took steps “to maximize the difficulty with which applications written in Java could be ported from Windows to other platforms, and vice versa.” Conclusions of Law, at 43. Specifically, the District Court found that Microsoft took four steps to exclude Java from developing as a viable cross-platform threat: (a) designing a JVM incompatible with the one developed by Sun; (b) entering into contracts, the so-called “First Wave Agreements,” requiring major ISVs to promote Microsoft’s JVM exclusively; (c) deceiving Java developers about the Windows-specific nature of the tools it distributed to them; and (d) coercing Intel to stop aiding Sun in improving the Java technologies.
1995年5月,Netscape公司与Sun公司达成协议,在每份Navigator拷贝中附带一份Java运行环境拷贝,"Navigator很快成为Sun公司在Windows用户的PC系统中放置其Java运行环境拷贝的主要工具"。同上,第 76 页。¶76.微软也同意推广 Java 技术--看起来是这样。因为与此同时,微软还采取了措施,"最大限度地降低用 Java 编写的应用程序从 Windows 移植到其他平台的难度,反之亦然"。法律结论,第 43 页。具体而言,地区法院认为,微软采取了四个步骤来阻止 Java 发展成为一种可行的跨平台威胁:(a) 设计一种与 Sun 开发的 JVM 不兼容的 JVM;(b) 签订合同,即所谓的 "第一波协议",要求主要的 ISV 独家推广微软的 JVM;(c) 欺骗 Java 开发人员,使他们不知道微软向他们分发的工具是针对 Windows 的;(d) 强迫英特尔停止协助 Sun 改进 Java 技术。

a. The Incompatible JVM

The District Court held that Microsoft engaged in exclusionary conduct by developing and promoting its own JVM. Conclusions of Law, at 43-44. Sun had already developed a JVM for
《地区法院认为,微软开发和推广自己的 JVM 是一种排他性行为。法律结论》,第 43-44 页。Sun 公司已经开发了用于

539

the Windows operating system when Microsoft began work on its version. The JVM developed by Microsoft allows Java applications to run faster on Windows than does Sun’s JVM, Findings of Fact ¶389, but a Java application designed to work with Microsoft’s JVM does not work with Sun’s JVM and vice versa. Id. ¶390. The District Court found that Microsoft “made a large investment of engineering resources to develop a high-performance Windows JVM,” id. ¶396, and, “[b]y bundling its…JVM with every copy of [IE]… Microsoft endowed its Java runtime environment with the unique attribute of guaranteed, enduring ubiquity across the enormous Windows installed base,” id. ¶397. As explained above, however, a monopolist does not violate the antitrust laws simply by developing a product that is incompatible with those of its rivals. See supra Section II.B.1. In order to violate the antitrust laws, the incompatible product must have an anticompetitive effect that outweighs any procompetitive justification for the design. Microsoft’s JVM is not only incompatible with Sun’s, it allows Java applications to run faster on Windows than does Sun’s JVM. Microsoft’s faster JVM lured Java developers into using Microsoft’s developer tools, and Microsoft offered those tools deceptively, as we discuss below. The JVM, however, does allow applications to run more swiftly and does not itself have any anticompetitive effect. Therefore, we reverse the District Court’s imposition of liability for Microsoft’s development and promotion of its JVM.
微软开始开发其版本时的 Windows 操作系统。事实认定》第 389 段,Microsoft 开发的 JVM 允许 Java 应用程序在 Windows 上比 Sun 的 JVM 运行得更快,但设计用于 Microsoft JVM 的 Java 应用程序不能用于 Sun JVM,反之亦然。Id.¶390.地区法院认为,Microsoft "为开发高性能 Windows JVM 投入了大量工程资源",Id.第 396 页,并且 "通过将其......JVM 与每份 [IE] 副本捆绑在一起......Microsoft 赋予其 Java 运行时环境独特的属性,即在庞大的 Windows 安装基础上保证持久的普遍性",同上。¶397.但正如上文所解释的,垄断者不会仅仅因为开发了与其竞争对手不兼容的产品而违反反垄断法。见上文第 II.B.1 节。要违反反垄断法,不兼容的产品必须具有反竞争效果,其效果必须超过该设计的任何有利于竞争的理由。微软的 JVM 不仅与 Sun 的 JVM 不兼容,而且允许 Java 应用程序在 Windows 上运行的速度比 Sun 的 JVM 更快。微软更快的 JVM 诱使 Java 开发人员使用微软的开发工具,而微软提供的这些工具具有欺骗性,我们将在下文讨论。然而,JVM 确实使应用程序运行得更快,其本身并不具有任何反竞争效果。因此,我们推翻地区法院对 Microsoft 开发和推广其 JVM 所施加的责任。

b. The First Wave Agreements

The District Court also found that Microsoft entered into First Wave Agreements with dozens of ISVs to use Microsoft’s JVM. See Findings of Fact ¶401 (“[I]n exchange for costly technical support and other blandishments, Microsoft induced dozens of important ISVs to make their Java applications reliant on Windows-specific technologies and to refrain from distributing to Windows users JVMs that complied with Sun’s standards.”). Again, we reject the District Court’s condemnation of low but non-predatory pricing by Microsoft.
地区法院还发现,微软与数十家 ISV 签订了使用微软 JVM 的第一波协议。见《事实认定》第 401 段("为了换取昂贵的技术支持和其他诱惑,微软诱使数十家重要的 ISV 将其 Java 应用程序依赖于 Windows 特有的技术,并避免向 Windows 用户分发符合 Sun 标准的 JVM。我们再次驳回地方法院对微软低价但非掠夺性定价的谴责。

To the extent Microsoft’s First Wave Agreements with the ISVs conditioned receipt of Windows technical information upon the ISVs’ agreement to promote Microsoft’s JVM exclusively, they raise a different competitive concern. The District Court found that, although not literally exclusive, the deals were exclusive in practice because they required developers to make Microsoft’s JVM the default in the software they developed. Id. ¶401.
在微软与 ISV 签订的第一波协议中,ISV 同意独家推广微软的 JVM,作为获得 Windows 技术信息的条件,这引起了不同的竞争问题。地区法院认为,尽管这些协议在字面上并不具有排他性,但实际上却具有排他性,因为它们要求开发人员将 Microsoft 的 JVM 作为其开发软件的默认设置。Id.第 401.

While the District Court did not enter precise findings as to the effect of the First Wave Agreements upon the overall distribution of rival JVMs, the record indicates that Microsoft’s deals with the major ISVs had a significant effect upon JVM promotion. As discussed above, the products of First Wave ISVs reached millions of consumers. Id. ¶340. The First Wave ISVs included such prominent developers as Rational Software, see GX 970, reprinted in 15 J.A. at 9994-10000, “a world leader” in software development tools, see Direct Testimony of Michael Devlin ¶2, reprinted in 5 J.A. at 3520, and Symantec, see GX 2071, reprinted in 22 J.A. at 14960-66 (sealed), which, according to Microsoft itself, is “the leading supplier of utilities such as anti-virus software,” Defendant’s Proposed Findings of Fact ¶276, reprinted in 3 J.A. at 1689. Moreover, Microsoft’s exclusive deals with the leading ISVs took place against a backdrop of foreclosure: the District Court found that “[w]hen Netscape announced in May 1995 [prior to Microsoft’s execution of the First Wave Agreements] that it would include with every copy of Navigator a copy of a Windows JVM that complied with Sun’s standards, it appeared that Sun’s Java implementation would achieve the necessary ubiquity on
尽管地区法院没有就第一波协议对竞争对手的 JVM 整体销售的影响做出精确的裁决,但记录表明,微软与主要 ISV 的交易对 JVM 的推广产生了重大影响。如上所述,第一波 ISV 的产品惠及数百万消费者。同上,第 340 页。¶340.第一波 ISV 包括 Rational Software(见 GX 970,转载于 15 J.A. 页 9994-10000)等著名开发商,Rational Software 是软件开发工具领域的 "世界领先企业",见 Michael Devlin 的直接证词第 2 段,转载于 5 J.A. 页 3520,以及赛门铁克公司(见 5 J.A. 页 3520)。赛门铁克,见 GX 2071,转载于 22 J.A.,页 14960-66(已封存),根据微软自己的说法,它是 "反病毒软件等实用程序的领先供应商",被告建议的事实认定,页 276,转载于 3 J.A.,页 1689。此外,微软与领先的 ISV 达成的排他性协议是在取消赎回权的背景下达成的:地区法院认为,"当 Netscape 于 1995 年 5 月(在微软执行第一波协议之前)宣布它将在每份 Navigator 中包含一份符合 Sun 标准的 Windows JVM 时,Sun 的 Java 实现似乎将在 Windows 平台上实现必要的普遍性。

540

Windows.” Findings of Fact ¶394. As discussed above, however, Microsoft undertook a number of anticompetitive actions that seriously reduced the distribution of Navigator, and the District Court found that those actions thereby seriously impeded distribution of Sun’s JVM. Because Microsoft’s agreements foreclosed a substantial portion of the field for JVM distribution and because, in so doing, they protected Microsoft’s monopoly from a middleware threat, they are anticompetitive.
窗口"。事实认定第 394 段。但如上所述,微软采取了一系列反竞争行动,严重减少了 Navigator 的销售,地区法院认定这些行动严重阻碍了 Sun JVM 的销售。由于微软的协议排除了 JVM 分销领域的很大一部分,而且这样做保护了微软的垄断地位,使其免受中间件的威胁,因此这些协议是反竞争的。

Microsoft offered no procompetitive justification for the default clause that made the First Wave Agreements exclusive as a practical matter. See Findings of Fact ¶401. Because the cumulative effect of the deals is anticompetitive and because Microsoft has no procompetitive justification for them, we hold that the provisions in the First Wave Agreements requiring use of Microsoft’s JVM as the default are exclusionary, in violation of the Sherman Act.
微软没有提供任何有利于竞争的理由来解释使 First Wave 协议实际上具有排他性的默认条款。参见《事实认定》第 401 页。由于这些交易的累积效应是反竞争的,而且微软没有提供有利于竞争的理由,因此我们认为 First Wave 协议中要求使用微软 JVM 作为默认设置的条款具有排他性,违反了《谢尔曼法》。

c. Deception of Java Developers

Microsoft’s “Java implementation” included, in addition to a JVM, a set of software development tools it created to assist ISVs in designing Java applications. The District Court found that, not only were these tools incompatible with Sun’s cross-platform aspirations for Java — no violation, to be sure — but Microsoft deceived Java developers regarding the Windows-specific nature of the tools. Microsoft’s tools included “certain ‘keywords’ and ‘compiler directives’ that could only be executed properly by Microsoft’s version of the Java runtime environment for Windows.” Id. ¶394; see also Direct Testimony of James Gosling ¶58, reprinted in 21 J.A. at 13959 (Microsoft added “programming instructions…that alter the behavior of the code.”). As a result, even Java “developers who were opting for portability over performance…unwittingly [wrote] Java applications that [ran] only on Windows.” Conclusions of Law, at 43. That is, developers who relied upon Microsoft’s public commitment to cooperate with Sun and who used Microsoft’s tools to develop what Microsoft led them to believe were cross-platform applications ended up producing applications that would run only on the Windows operating system.
除了 JVM 之外,微软的 "Java 实施 "还包括一套软件开发工具,其目的是协助 ISV 设计 Java 应用程序。地区法院认为,这些工具不仅与 Sun 对 Java 的跨平台期望不兼容(当然这并不违反规定),而且微软在这些工具的 Windows 专用性方面欺骗了 Java 开发人员。微软的工具包括 "某些'关键字'和'编译器指令',只有微软版本的 Windows Java 运行环境才能正确执行"。Id.394;另见 James Gosling 的直接证词第 58 段,转载于 21 J.A. at 13959(微软添加了 "编程指令......改变了代码的行为")。因此,即使 Java "开发人员在选择可移植性而非性能时......也会不知不觉地[编写]只能在 Windows 上[运行]的 Java 应用程序"。法律结论,第 43 页。也就是说,那些依赖于微软与 Sun 合作的公开承诺并使用微软的工具来开发微软让他们相信是跨平台应用程序的开发人员,最终开发出了只能在 Windows 操作系统上运行的应用程序。

When specifically accused by a PC Week reporter of fragmenting Java standards so as to prevent cross-platform uses, Microsoft denied the accusation and indicated it was only “adding rich platform support” to what remained a cross-platform implementation. An e-mail message internal to Microsoft, written shortly after the conversation with the reporter, shows otherwise:
当《PC周刊》的一位记者特别指责微软将 Java 标准分割得支离破碎,从而阻止跨平台使用时,微软否认了这一指责,并表示它只是在仍然是跨平台实现的基础上 "增加了丰富的平台支持"。与记者谈话后不久,微软内部的一封电子邮件却显示了相反的信息:

[O]k, i just did a followup call…. [The reporter] liked that i kept pointing customers to w3c standards [(commonly observed internet protocols)]…. [but] he accused us of being schizo with this vs. our java approach, i said he misunderstood [ — ] that [with Java] we are merely trying to add rich platform support to an interop layer…. this plays well…. at this point its [sic] not good to create MORE noise around our win32 java classes. instead we should just quietly grow j÷÷ [(Microsoft’s development tools)] share and assume that people will take more advantage of our classes without ever realizing they are building win32-only java apps.
[好的,我刚打了一个后续电话....。[记者]喜欢我不断向客户指出 w3c 标准[(普遍遵守的互联网协议)]....[但]他指责我们在这一点上与我们的 Java 方法相比是精神分裂的,我说他误解了[-],[对于 Java]我们只是试图在互操作层中添加丰富的平台支持....,这样做很好....,在这一点上,[原文]围绕我们的 win32 java 类制造更多的噪音是不好的。相反,我们应该静静地扩大 j÷÷[(微软的开发工具)]的份额,假定人们将更多地利用我们的类,而不会意识到他们正在构建仅支持 Win32 的 Java 应用程序。

GX 1332, reprinted in 22 J.A. at 14922-23.

541

Finally, other Microsoft documents confirm that Microsoft intended to deceive Java developers, and predicted that the effect of its actions would be to generate Windows-dependent Java applications that their developers believed would be cross-platform; these documents also indicate that Microsoft’s ultimate objective was to thwart Java’s threat to Microsoft’s monopoly in the market for operating systems. One Microsoft document, for example, states as a strategic goal: “Kill cross-platform Java by grow[ing] the polluted Java market.” GX 259, reprinted in 22 J.A. at 14514; see also id. (“Cross-platform capability is by far the number one reason for choosing/using Java.”) (emphasis in original).
最后,微软的其他文件证实,微软有意欺骗 Java 开发人员,并预测其行动的效果将是产生依赖于 Windows 的 Java 应用程序,而这些应用程序的开发人员认为这些应用程序将是跨平台的;这些文件还表明,微软的最终目标是挫败 Java 对微软在操作系统市场垄断地位的威胁。例如,微软的一份文件指出其战略目标是:"通过扩大被污染的 Java 市场来扼杀跨平台 Java"。GX 259,转载于 22 J.A. at 14514;另见 id.(跨平台能力是迄今为止选择/使用 Java 的首要原因。)(着重号为原文所加)。

Microsoft’s conduct related to its Java developer tools served to protect its monopoly of the operating system in a manner not attributable either to the superiority of the operating system or to the acumen of its makers, and therefore was anticompetitive. Unsurprisingly, Microsoft offers no procompetitive explanation for its campaign to deceive developers. Accordingly, we conclude this conduct is exclusionary, in violation of §2 of the Sherman Act.
微软与 Java 开发工具相关的行为旨在保护其对操作系统的垄断,而这种垄断既不能归因于操作系统的优越性,也不能归因于其制造商的敏锐性,因此属于反竞争行为。毫不奇怪,微软没有为其欺骗开发者的行为提供任何有利于竞争的解释。因此,我们认为这种行为是排他性的,违反了《谢尔曼法》第 2 节的规定。

d. The Threat to Intel

The District Court held that Microsoft also acted unlawfully with respect to Java by using its “monopoly power to prevent firms such as Intel from aiding in the creation of cross-platform interfaces.” Conclusions of Law, at 43. In 1995 Intel was in the process of developing a high-performance, Windows-compatible JVM. Microsoft wanted Intel to abandon that effort because a fast, cross-platform JVM would threaten Microsoft’s monopoly in the operating system market. At an August 1995 meeting, Microsoft’s Gates told Intel that its “cooperation with Sun and Netscape to develop a Java runtime environment…was one of the issues threatening to undermine cooperation between Intel and Microsoft.” Findings of Fact ¶396. Three months later, “Microsoft’s Paul Maritz told a senior Intel executive that Intel’s [adaptation of its multimedia software to comply with] Sun’s Java standards was as inimical to Microsoft as Microsoft’s support for non-Intel microprocessors would be to Intel.” Id. ¶405.
地区法院认为,微软利用其 "垄断力量阻止英特尔等公司协助创建跨平台接口",也是对 Java 的非法行为。法律结论,第 43 页。1995 年,英特尔正在开发高性能、与 Windows 兼容的 JVM。微软希望英特尔放弃这一努力,因为快速、跨平台的 JVM 会威胁到微软在 操作系统市场的垄断地位。在 1995 年 8 月的一次会议上,微软的盖茨对英特尔说,英特尔 "与 Sun 和网景公司合作开发 Java 运行环境......是有可能破坏英特尔和微软之间合作的问题之一"。事实认定第 396 段。三个月后,"微软的保罗-马里茨(Paul Maritz)告诉英特尔的一位高级主管,英特尔[调整其多媒体软件以符合]Sun 的 Java 标准对微软来说是不利的,就像微软支持非英特尔微处理器对英特尔来说是不利的一样"。Id.405.

Intel nonetheless continued to undertake initiatives related to Java. By 1996 “Intel had developed a JVM designed to run well…while complying with Sun’s cross-platform standards.” Id. ¶396. In April of that year, Microsoft again urged Intel not to help Sun by distributing Intel’s fast, Suncompliant JVM. Id. And Microsoft threatened Intel that if it did not stop aiding Sun on the multi-media front, then Microsoft would refuse to distribute Intel technologies bundled with Windows. Id. ¶404.
尽管如此,英特尔仍在继续开展与 Java 有关的活动。到 1996 年,"英特尔已经开发出一种 JVM,其设计目的是在符合 Sun 跨平台标准的情况下运行良好......"。同上。¶396.同年 4 月,微软再次敦促英特尔不要通过分发英特尔快速、符合 Sun 标准的 JVM 来帮助 Sun。同上。此外,微软还威胁英特尔说,如果英特尔不停止在多媒体领域帮助 Sun,那么微软将拒绝发布与 Windows 捆绑的英特尔技术。Id.404.

Intel finally capitulated in 1997, after Microsoft delivered the coup de grace.
1997 年,英特尔终于在微软的 "致命一击 "后屈服了。

[O]ne of Intel’s competitors, called AMD, solicited support from Microsoft for its “3DX” technology…. Microsoft’s Allchin asked Gates whether Microsoft should support 3DX, despite the fact that Intel would oppose it. Gates responded: “If Intel has a real problem with us supporting this then they will have to stop supporting Java Multimedia the way they are. I would gladly give up supporting this if they would back off from their work on JAVA.”
[英特尔的竞争对手之一 AMD 向微软寻求对其 "3DX "技术的支持....。微软的 Allchin 问盖茨,尽管英特尔会反对 3DX 技术,但微软是否应该支持 3DX 技术。盖茨回答说盖茨回答说:"如果英特尔对我们支持这项技术真的有意见,那么他们就必须停止对 Java 多媒体的支持。如果他们能放弃对 JAVA 的支持,我很乐意放弃对它的支持"。

Id. ¶406.
Id.406..

Microsoft’s internal documents and deposition testimony confirm both the anticompetitive effect and intent of its actions. See, e.g., GX 235, reprinted in 22 J.A. at 14502 (Microsoft executive, Eric Engstrom, included among Microsoft’s goals for Intel: “Intel to stop
微软的内部文件和证词都证实了其行为的反竞争效果和意图。例如,参见 GX 235,转载于 22 J.A. at 14502(微软高管 Eric Engstrom,在微软对英特尔的目标中包括:"英特尔要停止与微软的竞争":"英特尔停止

542

helping Sun create Java Multimedia APIs, especially ones that run well…on Windows.”); Deposition of Eric Engstrom at 179 (“We were successful [in convincing Intel to stop aiding Sun] for some period of time.”).
帮助 Sun 创建 Java 多媒体 API,尤其是在 Windows 上运行良好的 API......");Eric Engstrom 的证词,第 179 页("我们成功地[说服英特尔在一段时间内停止援助 Sun]")。

Microsoft does not deny the facts found by the District Court, nor does it offer any procompetitive justification for pressuring Intel not to support cross-platform Java. Microsoft lamely characterizes its threat to Intel as “advice.” The District Court, however, found that Microsoft’s “advice” to Intel to stop aiding cross-platform Java was backed by the threat of retaliation, and this conclusion is supported by the evidence cited above. Therefore we affirm the conclusion that Microsoft’s threats to Intel were exclusionary, in violation of §2 of the Sherman Act.
微软没有否认地区法院认定的事实,也没有提出任何有利于竞争的理由来迫使英特尔不支持跨平台 Java。微软蹩脚地将其对英特尔的威胁说成是 "建议"。然而,地区法院认为,微软向英特尔提出的停止支持跨平台 Java 的 "建议 "是以报复威胁为后盾的,这一结论得到了上述证据的支持。因此,我们确认微软对英特尔的威胁具有排他性,违反了《谢尔曼法》第 2 节。

6. Course of Conduct

The District Court held that, apart from Microsoft’s specific acts, Microsoft was liable under §2 based upon its general “course of conduct.” In reaching this conclusion the court relied upon Continental Ore Co. v. Union Carbide & Carbon Corp., 370 U.S. 690, 699, 82 S. Ct. 1404, 8 L. Ed. 2d 777 (1962), where the Supreme Court stated, “[i]n [Sherman Act cases], plaintiffs should be given the full benefit of their proof without tightly compartmentalizing the various factual components and wiping the slate clean after scrutiny of each.”
地区法院认为,除了微软公司的具体行为之外,微软公司应根据其一般 "行为过程 "承担第 2 节规定的责任。在得出这一结论时,法院依据的是 Continental Ore Co. v. Union Carbide & Carbon Corp.2d 777 (1962),最高法院在该案中指出,"在[谢尔曼法案件]中,原告应充分受益于他们的证据,而不应将各种事实部分严密地分割开来,并在对每个部分进行审查后将石板擦得干干净净"。

Microsoft points out that Continental Ore and the other cases cited by plaintiffs in support of “course of conduct” liability all involve conspiracies among multiple firms, not the conduct of a single firm; in that setting the “course of conduct” is the conspiracy itself, for which all the participants may be held liable. See Appellant’s Opening Br. at 112-13. Plaintiffs respond that, as a policy matter, a monopolist’s unilateral “campaign of [acts intended to exclude a rival] that in the aggregate has the requisite impact” warrants liability even if the acts viewed individually would be lawful for want of a significant effect upon competition. Appellees’ Br. at 82-83.
微软指出,Continental Ore 和原告为支持 "行为过程 "责任而引用的其他案例均涉及多家公司的共谋,而非一家公司的行为;在这种情况下,"行为过程 "就是共谋本身,所有参与者都可能为此承担责任。见上诉人开庭陈述,第 112-13 页。原告回应说,作为一个政策问题,垄断者单方面的"[意在排斥竞争对手的]行为在总体上产生了必要的影响",即使单独看这些行为因对竞争没有重大影响而合法,也应承担责任。被上诉人诉状,第 82-83 页。

We need not pass upon plaintiffs’ argument, however, because the District Court did not point to any series of acts, each of which harms competition only slightly but the cumulative effect of which is significant enough to form an independent basis for liability. The “course of conduct” section of the District Court’s opinion contains, with one exception, only broad, summarizing conclusions. See, e.g., Conclusions of Law, at 44 (“Microsoft placed an oppressive thumb on the scale of competitive fortune….”). The only specific acts to which the court refers are Microsoft’s expenditures in promoting its browser, see id. (“Microsoft has expended wealth and foresworn opportunities to realize more….”), which we have explained are not in themselves unlawful. Because the District Court identifies no other specific acts as a basis for “course of conduct” liability, we reverse its conclusion that Microsoft’s course of conduct separately violates §2 of the Sherman Act.
然而,我们无需考虑原告的论点,因为地区法院并未指出任何一系列行为,每项行为对竞争的损害都很轻微,但其累积效应足以构成责任的独立依据。地区法院意见书中的 "行为过程 "部分只包含概括性的结论,只有一个例外。例如,参见《法律结论》,第 44 页("微软在竞争财富的天平上竖起了压迫性的大拇指....")。法院提到的唯一具体行为是微软在推广其浏览器方面的支出,见同上,第 44 页("微软在竞争财富的天平上竖起了压迫性的大拇指")。(我们已经解释过,这些行为本身并不违法。由于地区法院没有指出其他具体行为作为 "行为过程 "责任的依据,我们推翻其关于微软的行为过程单独违反了《谢尔曼法》第 2 节的结论。

C. Causation

As a final parry, Microsoft urges this court to reverse on the monopoly maintenance claim, because plaintiffs never established a causal link between Microsoft’s anticompetitive conduct, in particular its foreclosure of Netscape’s and Java’s distribution channels, and the maintenance of Microsoft’s operating system monopoly. See Findings of Fact ¶411 (“There is insufficient evidence to find that, absent Microsoft’s actions, Navigator and Java already
作为最后的反驳,微软敦促本庭推翻垄断维持的主张,因为原告从未证实微软的反竞争行为(尤其是剥夺 Netscape 和 Java 的分销渠道)与维持微软操作系统垄断之间的因果关系。见《事实认定》第 411 页("没有足够的证据表明,如果没有微软的行为,Navigator 和 Java 已经

543

would have ignited genuine competition in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems.”). This is the flip side of Microsoft’s earlier argument that the District Court should have included middleware in the relevant market. According to Microsoft, the District Court cannot simultaneously find that middleware is not a reasonable substitute and that Microsoft’s exclusionary conduct contributed to the maintenance of monopoly power in the operating system market. Microsoft claims that the first finding depended on the court’s view that middleware does not pose a serious threat to Windows, see supra Section II.A, while the second finding required the court to find that Navigator and Java would have developed into serious enough cross-platform threats to erode the applications barrier to entry. We disagree.
会引发英特尔兼容PC操作系统市场的真正竞争")。这是 Microsoft 早先提出的论点的反面,即地区法院应将中间件纳入相关市场。微软认为,地区法院不能同时认定中间件不是合理的替代品,以及微软的排他性行为有助于维持操作系统市场的垄断地位。微软声称,第一项认定取决于法院认为中间件不会对 Windows 构成严重威胁的观点(见上文第 II.A 节),而第二项认定则要求法院认定 Navigator 和 Java 会发展成为严重的跨平台威胁,足以侵蚀进入市场的应用程序壁垒。我们不同意这一观点。

Microsoft points to no case, and we can find none, standing for the proposition that, as to §2 liability in an equitable enforcement action, plaintiffs must present direct proof that a defendant’s continued monopoly power is precisely attributable to its anticompetitive conduct. As its lone authority, Microsoft cites the following passage from Professor Areeda’s antitrust treatise: “The plaintiff has the burden of pleading, introducing evidence, and presumably proving by a preponderance of the evidence that reprehensible behavior has contributed significantly to the…maintenance of the monopoly.” 3 PHILLIP E. AREEDA & HERBERT HOVENKAMP, ANTITRUST LAW ¶650c, at 69 (1996) (emphasis added).
微软没有指出任何案例(我们也找不到任何案例)可以证明以下主张,即就衡平法执行诉讼中的第 2 节责任而言,原告必须提出直接证据,证明被告持续的垄断力量恰恰归因于其反竞争行为。作为唯一的权威,微软引用了 Areeda 教授反托拉斯论文中的以下段落:"原告有责任提出抗辩、引入证据,并可能通过优势证据证明应受谴责的行为在很大程度上促成了......垄断的维持"。3 PHILLIP E. AREEDA & HERBERT HOVENKAMP, ANTITRUST LAW §650c, at 69 (1996) (emphasis added).

But, with respect to actions seeking injunctive relief, the authors of that treatise also recognize the need for courts to infer “causation” from the fact that a defendant has engaged in anticompetitive conduct that “reasonably appear[s] capable of making a significant contribution to…maintaining monopoly power.” Id. ¶651c, at 78; see also Morgan v. Ponder, 892 F.2d 1355, 1363 (8th Cir. 1989); Barry Wright, 724 F.2d at 230. To require that §2 liability turn on a plaintiff’s ability or inability to reconstruct the hypothetical marketplace absent a defendant’s anticompetitive conduct would only encourage monopolists to take more and earlier anticompetitive action.
但是,对于寻求禁令救济的诉讼,该论文的作者也承认法院有必要从被告从事反竞争行为的事实中推断出 "因果关系",这种行为 "合理地看......能够对......维持垄断势力做出重大贡献"。同上。651c, at 78; see also Morgan v. Ponder, 892 F.2d 1355, 1363 (8th Cir. 1989); Barry Wright, 724 F.2d at 230.要求第 2 节的责任取决于原告是否有能力在没有被告反竞争行为的情况下重建假设市场,这只会鼓励垄断者采取更多和更早的反竞争行动。

We may infer causation when exclusionary conduct is aimed at producers of nascent competitive technologies as well as when it is aimed at producers of established substitutes. Admittedly, in the former case there is added uncertainty, inasmuch as nascent threats are merely potential substitutes. But the underlying proof problem is the same — neither plaintiffs nor the court can confidently reconstruct a product’s hypothetical technological development in a world absent the defendant’s exclusionary conduct. To some degree, “the defendant is made to suffer the uncertain consequences of its own undesirable conduct.” 3 Areeda & Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law ¶651c, at 78.
当排他性行为的对象是新兴竞争技术的生产者以及成熟替代品的生产者时,我们可以推断出因果关系。诚然,在前一种情况下,由于新生威胁只是潜在的替代品,因此增加了不确定性。但基本的证明问题是一样的--原告和法院都无法在没有被告排他性行为的世界中自信地重建产品的假设技术发展。在某种程度上,"被告要承受自己不良行为的不确定后果"。3 Areeda & Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law §651c, at 78.

Given this rather edentulous test for causation, the question in this case is not whether Java or Navigator would actually have developed into viable platform substitutes, but (1) whether as a general matter the exclusion of nascent threats is the type of conduct that is reasonably capable of contributing significantly to a defendant’s continued monopoly power and (2) whether Java and Navigator reasonably constituted nascent threats at the time Microsoft engaged in the anticompetitive conduct at issue. As to the first, suffice it to say that it would be inimical to the purpose of the Sherman Act to allow monopolists free reign to squash nascent, albeit unproven, competitors at will — particularly in industries marked by rapid technological advance and frequent paradigm shifts. Findings of Fact ¶¶59-60. As to the second, the District Court made ample findings that both Navigator and Java showed potential as middleware platform threats. Findings of Fact ¶¶68-77. Counsel for Microsoft admitted as
鉴于这一相当苛刻的因果关系检验标准,本案的问题不在于 Java 或 Navigator 是否会发展成为可行的平台替代品,而在于:(1) 一般而言,排除新生威胁的行为是否能够合理地显著助长被告的持续垄断势力;(2) Java 和 Navigator 在微软实施相关反竞争行为时是否合理地构成了新生威胁。关于第一点,我们只需指出,允许垄断者随意压制新生的、尽管未经证实的竞争者--尤其是在技术发展迅速、模式转变频繁的行业--将有悖于《谢尔曼法》的宗旨。事实认定》第 59-60 段。关于第二点,地区法院做出了充分的裁定,即 Navigator 和 Java 都显示出作为中间件平台威胁的潜力。事实认定 §¶68-77。微软律师承认

544

much at oral argument. 02/26/01 Ct. Appeals Tr. at 27 (“There are no constraints on output. Marginal costs are essentially zero. And there are to some extent network effects. So a company like Netscape founded in 1994 can be by the middle of 1995 clearly a potentially lethal competitor to Windows because it can supplant its position in the market because of the characteristics of these markets.”).
多在口头辩论中。02/26/01 Ct.Appeals Tr. at 27("产出没有限制。边际成本基本上为零。在某种程度上存在网络效应。因此,像 1994 年成立的 Netscape 这样的公司,到了 1995 年中期,显然就会成为 Windows 潜在的致命竞争对手,因为根据这些市场的特点,它可以取代 Windows 在市场中的地位。

Microsoft’s concerns over causation have more purchase in connection with the appropriate remedy issue, i.e., whether the court should impose a structural remedy or merely enjoin the offensive conduct at issue. As we point out later in this opinion, divestiture is a remedy that is imposed only with great caution, in part because its long-term efficacy is rarely certain. But these queries go to questions of remedy, not liability. In short, causation affords Microsoft no defense to liability for its unlawful actions undertaken to maintain its monopoly in the operating system market.
微软公司对因果关系的担忧更多地与适当的救济问题有关,即法院是应该实施结构性救济还是仅仅禁止有争议的攻击行为。正如我们在本意见稍后部分所指出的,只有在非常谨慎的情况下才实施剥离这种补救措施,部分原因是其长期效力很少能确定。但这些疑问涉及的是补救问题,而不是责任问题。简而言之,因果关系并不能为微软为维持其在操作系统市场的垄断地位而采取的非法行为的责任提供辩护。

III. ATTEMPTED MONOPOLIZATION

Microsoft further challenges the District Court’s determination of liability for “attempt[ing] to monopolize…any part of the trade or commerce among the several States.” 15 U.S.C. §2 (1997). To establish a §2 violation for attempted monopolization, “a plaintiff must prove (1) that the defendant has engaged in predatory or anticompetitive conduct with (2) a specific intent to monopolize and (3) a dangerous probability of achieving monopoly power.” Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan, 506 U.S. 447, 456, 113 S. Ct. 884, 122 L. Ed. 2d 247 (1993); see also Times-Picayune Pub. Co. v. United States, 345 U.S. 594, 626, 73 S. Ct. 872, 97 L. Ed. 1277 (1953); Lorain Journal Co. v. United States, 342 U.S. 143, 153-55, 72 S. Ct. 181, 96 L. Ed. 162 (1951). Because a deficiency on any one of the three will defeat plaintiffs’ claim, we look no further than plaintiffs’ failure to prove a dangerous probability of achieving monopoly power in the putative browser market.
微软还对地区法院关于 "企图垄断......几个州之间贸易或商业的任何部分 "的责任认定提出质疑。15 U.S.C. §2 (1997)。原告必须证明:(1) 被告参与了掠夺性或反竞争行为;(2) 有垄断的具体意图;(3) 有实现垄断的危险可能性。Spectrum Sports, Inc. v. McQuillan, 506 U.S. 447, 456, 113 S. Ct.2d 247 (1993); see also Times-Picayune Pub.Co. v. United States, 345 U.S. 594, 626, 73 S. Ct.1277 (1953);Lorain Journal Co. v. United States, 342 U.S. 143, 153-55, 72 S. Ct. 181, 96 L. Ed.162 (1951).由于上述三项中任何一项的不足都会使原告的诉讼请求败诉,因此我们只关注原告未能证明在推定的浏览器市场中实现垄断权的危险可能性。

The determination whether a dangerous probability of success exists is a particularly fact-intensive inquiry. Because the Sherman Act does not identify the activities that constitute the offense of attempted monopolization, the court “must examine the facts of each case, mindful that the determination of what constitutes an attempt, as Justice Holmes explained, ‘is a question of proximity and degree.’” United States v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 743 F.2d 1114, 1118 (5th Cir. 1984) (quoting Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U.S. 375, 402, 25 S. Ct. 276, 49 L. Ed. 518 (1905)). The District Court determined that “[t]he evidence supports the conclusion that Microsoft’s actions did pose such a danger.” Conclusions of Law, at 45. Specifically, the District Court concluded that “Netscape’s assent to Microsoft’s market division proposal would have…resulted in Microsoft’s attainment of monopoly power in a second market,” and that “the proposal itself created a dangerous probability of that result.” Conclusions of Law, at 46 (citation omitted). The District Court further concluded that “the predatory course of conduct Microsoft has pursued since June of 1995 has revived the dangerous probability that Microsoft will attain monopoly power in a second market.” Id.
确定是否存在危险的成功可能性是一项特别需要大量事实的调查。由于《谢尔曼法》并未确定构成垄断未遂罪的活动,法院 "必须审查每个案件的事实,同时注意到,正如霍姆斯大法官解释的那样,确定什么构成未遂,'是一个远近和程度的问题'"。美国诉 Am.Airlines, Inc., 743 F.2d 1114, 1118 (5th Cir. 1984) (quoting Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U.S. 375, 402, 25 S. Ct. 276, 49 L. Ed. 518 (1905))。518 (1905)).地区法院认定,"证据支持微软的行为确实构成了这种危险的结论"。法律结论,第 45 页。具体而言,地区法院得出结论认为,"网景公司同意微软公司的市场划分提案会......导致微软公司在第二个市场上获得垄断权",而且 "该提案本身就造成了出现这种结果的危险可能性"。法律结论》,第 46 页(引用省略)。地区法院进一步得出结论,"微软自 1995 年 6 月以来所采取的掠夺性行为使微软在第二个市场获得垄断地位的危险可能性再次出现"。Id.

At the outset we note a pervasive flaw in the District Court’s and plaintiffs’ discussion of attempted monopolization. Simply put, plaintiffs have made the same argument under two different headings — monopoly maintenance and attempted monopolization. They have relied upon Microsoft’s §2 liability for monopolization of the operating system market as a presumptive indicator of attempted monopolization of an entirely different market. The
首先,我们注意到地区法院和原告对企图垄断的讨论存在一个普遍缺陷。简而言之,原告在两个不同的标题下提出了相同的论点--维持垄断和企图垄断。他们将微软因垄断操作系统市场而承担的第 2 节责任作为企图垄断一个完全不同市场的推定指标。微软

545

District Court implicitly accepted this approach: It agreed with plaintiffs that the events that formed the basis for the §2 monopolization claim “warrant[ed] additional liability as an illegal attempt to amass monopoly power in ‘the browser market.’” Id. at 45 (emphasis added). Thus, plaintiffs and the District Court failed to recognize the need for an analysis wholly independent of the conclusions and findings on monopoly maintenance.
地区法院含蓄地接受了这种方法:它同意原告的观点,即构成第 2 节垄断索赔基础的事件 "作为非法企图在'浏览器市场'中囤积垄断力量的行为,应承担额外责任"。Id. 第 45 页(着重部分由作者标明)。因此,原告和地区法院未能 认识到有必要进行完全独立于有关维持垄断的结论和发现的分析。

To establish a dangerous probability of success, plaintiffs must as a threshold matter show that the browser market can be monopolized, i.e., that a hypothetical monopolist in that market could enjoy market power. This, in turn, requires plaintiffs (1) to define the relevant market and (2) to demonstrate that substantial barriers to entry protect that market. Because plaintiffs have not carried their burden on either prong, we reverse without remand.
要证明成功的危险概率,原告必须首先证明浏览器市场可以被垄断,即该市场的假定垄断者可以享有市场支配力。这反过来又要求原告(1)界定相关市场,(2)证明进入该市场存在实质性障碍。由于原告在这两个方面都没有履行其责任,我们撤销原判,不发回重审。

A. Relevant Market

A court’s evaluation of an attempted monopolization claim must include a definition of the relevant market. See Spectrum Sports, 506 U.S. at 455-56, 113 S. Ct. 884. Such a definition establishes a context for evaluating the defendant’s actions as well as for measuring whether the challenged conduct presented a dangerous probability of monopolization. See id. The District Court omitted this element of the Spectrum Sports inquiry.
法院对企图垄断索赔的评估必须包括相关市场的定义。参见 Spectrum Sports, 506 U.S. at 455-56, 113 S. Ct.这样的定义为评估被告的行为以及衡量被质疑的行为是否存在垄断的危险可能性提供了背景。参见同上。地区法院忽略了 Spectrum Sports 案调查的这一要素。

Defining a market for an attempted monopolization claim involves the same steps as defining a market for a monopoly maintenance claim, namely a detailed description of the purpose of a browser — what functions may be included and what are not — and an examination of the substitutes that are part of the market and those that are not. See also supra Section II.A. The District Court never engaged in such an analysis nor entered detailed findings defining what a browser is or what products might constitute substitutes. In the Findings of Fact, the District Court (in a section on whether IE and Windows are separate products) stated only that “a Web browser provides the ability for the end user to select, retrieve, and perceive resources on the Web.” Findings of Fact ¶150. Furthermore, in discussing attempted monopolization in its Conclusions of Law, the District Court failed to demonstrate analytical rigor when it employed varying and imprecise references to the “market for browsing technology for Windows,” “the browser market,” and “platform-level browsing software.” Conclusions of Law, at 45.
为企图垄断索赔界定市场的步骤与为维持垄断索赔界定市场的步骤相同,即详细描述浏览器的用途--可能包括哪些功能,不包括哪些功能--并审查属于市场一部分的替代品和不属于市场一部分的替代品。地区法院从未进行过这样的分析,也未对浏览器的定义或哪些产品可能构成替代品做出详细裁定。在事实认定中,地区法院(在关于 IE 和 Windows 是否为独立产品的一节中)仅指出 "网络浏览器为最终用户提供了选择、检索和感知网络资源的能力"。事实认定第 150 页。此外,地区法院在其《法律结论》中讨论企图垄断问题时,采用了不同的、不精确的 "Windows 浏览技术市场"、"浏览器市场 "和 "平台级浏览软件 "等提法,未能体现出分析的严谨性。法律结论,第 45 页。

Because the determination of a relevant market is a factual question to be resolved by the District Court, we would normally remand the case so that the District Court could formulate an appropriate definition. A remand on market definition is unnecessary, however, because the District Court’s imprecision is directly traceable to plaintiffs’ failure to articulate and identify evidence before the District Court as to (1) what constitutes a browser (i.e., what are the technological components of or functionalities provided by a browser) and (2) why certain other products are not reasonable substitutes (e.g., browser shells or viewers for individual internet extensions, such as Real Audio Player or Adobe Acrobat Reader). Indeed, when plaintiffs in their Proposed Findings of Fact attempted to define a relevant market for the attempt claim, they pointed only to their separate products analysis for the tying claim. However, the separate products analysis for tying purposes is not a substitute for the type of market definition that Spectrum Sports requires. See infra Section IV.A.
由于相关市场的确定是一个应由地区法院解决的事实问题,我们通常会将案件发回重审,以便地区法院制定适当的定义。然而,就市场定义发回重审是不必要的,因为地区法院的不准确性可直接归因于原告未能向地区法院阐明和确认以下方面的证据:(1) 什么是浏览器(即浏览器的技术组成部分或提供的功能是什么);(2) 为什么某些其他产品不是合理的替代品(例如,浏览器外壳或个别互联网扩展程序的查看器,如 Real Audio Player 或 Adobe Acrobat Reader)。事实上,当原告在其 "事实认定建议 "中试图界定未遂诉讼请求的相关市场时,他们仅指出了其对搭售诉讼请求的单独产品分析。然而,针对搭售的独立产品分析并不能替代《频谱体育》所要求的市场定义。见下文第 IV.A 节。

Plaintiffs’ proposed findings and the District Court’s actual findings on attempted monopolization pale in comparison to their counterparts on the monopoly maintenance
原告提出的调查结果和地区法院对企图垄断的实际调查结果,与他们在维持垄断方面的调查结果相比,显得苍白无力。

546

claim. Compare Findings of Fact ¶150, and Plaintiffs’ Joint Proposed Findings of Fact, at 817819, reprinted in 2 J.A. at 1480-82, with Findings of Fact ¶¶18-66, and Plaintiffs’ Joint Proposed Findings of Fact, at 20-31, reprinted in 1 J.A. at 658-69. Furthermore, in their brief and at oral argument before this court, plaintiffs did nothing to clarify or ameliorate this deficiency.
索赔。将《事实认定》第 150 段和《原告联合提议的事实认定》第 817819 段(转载于 2 J.A. 第 1480-82 页)与《事实认定》第 18-66 段和《原告联合提议的事实认定》第 20-31 段(转载于 1 J.A. 第 658-69 页)进行比较。此外,原告在其辩护状和法庭口头辩论中均未澄清或改善这一缺陷。

B. Barriers to Entry

Because a firm cannot possess monopoly power in a market unless that market is also protected by significant barriers to entry, see supra Section II.A, it follows that a firm cannot threaten to achieve monopoly power in a market unless that market is, or will be, similarly protected. See Spectrum Sports, 506 U.S. at 456, 113 S. Ct. 884 (“In order to determine whether there is a dangerous probability of monopolization, courts have found it necessary to consider…the defendant’s ability to lessen or destroy competition in that market.”) (citing cases). Plaintiffs have the burden of establishing barriers to entry into a properly defined relevant market. See 2A Phillip E. Areeda et al., Antitrust Law ¶420b, at 57-59 (1995); 3A Phillip E. Areeda & Herbert Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law ¶807g, at 361-62 (1996); see also Neumann v. Reinforced Earth Co., 786 F.2d 424, 429 (D.C. Cir. 1986). Plaintiffs must not only show that barriers to entry protect the properly defined browser market, but that those barriers are “significant.” See United States v. Baker Hughes Inc., 908 F.2d 981, 987 (D.C. Cir. 1990). Whether there are significant barriers to entry cannot, of course, be answered absent an appropriate market definition; thus, plaintiffs’ failure on that score alone is dispositive. But even were we to assume a properly defined market, for example browsers consisting of a graphical interface plus internet protocols, plaintiffs nonetheless failed to carry their burden on barriers to entry.
由于一家公司不可能在一个市场中拥有垄断权,除非该市场也受到重要的进入壁垒的保护(见上文第 II.A 节),因此,一家公司不可能威胁在一个市场中实现垄断权,除非该市场也受到或将受到类似的保护。见 Spectrum Sports, 506 U.S. at 456, 113 S. Ct. 884("为了确定是否存在危险的垄断可能性,法院认为有必要考虑......被告削弱或破坏该市场竞争的能力。)(引用案例)。原告有责任建立进入适当界定的相关市场的壁垒。见 2A Phillip E. Areeda et al., Antitrust Law §420b, at 57-59 (1995);3A Phillip E. Areeda & Herbert Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law §807g, at 361-62 (1996);另见 Neumann 诉 Reinforced Earth Co., 786 F.2d 424, 429 (D.C. Cir. 1986)。原告不仅要证明进入壁垒保护了正确定义的浏览器市场,还要证明这些壁垒是 "重大的"。参见 United States v. Baker Hughes Inc., 908 F.2d 981, 987 (D.C. Cir. 1990)。当然,如果没有适当的市场定义,就无法回答是否存在重大的进入障碍;因此,原告在这一点上的失败本身就是决定性的。但即使我们假定市场定义适当,例如浏览器由图形界面和互联网协议组成,原告也未能履行其在进入障碍方面的责任。

Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention on appeal, none of the District Court’s statements constitutes a finding of barriers to entry into the web browser market. Finding of Fact 89 states:
与原告在上诉中提出的论点相反,地区法院的任何陈述都不构成对网络浏览器市场进入障碍的认定。事实认定 89 指出

At the time Microsoft presented its proposal, Navigator was the only browser product with a significant share of the market and thus the only one with the potential to weaken the applications barrier to entry. Thus, had it convinced Netscape to accept its offer of a “special relationship,” Microsoft quickly would have gained such control over the extensions and standards that network centric applications (including Web sites) employ as to make it all but impossible for any future browser rival to lure appreciable developer interest away from Microsoft’s platform.
在微软提出建议时,Navigator 是唯一一个在市场上占有相当份额的浏览器产品,因此也是唯一一个有可能削弱应用程序进入壁垒的产品。因此,如果微软说服网景公司接受其 "特殊关系 "的提议,那么它将很快获得对网络中心应用程序(包括网站)所采用的扩展和标准的控制权,从而使未来的浏览器竞争对手几乎不可能从微软的平台上吸引到开发人员的兴趣。

This finding is far too speculative to establish that competing browsers would be unable to enter the market, or that Microsoft would have the power to raise the price of its browser above, or reduce the quality of its browser below, the competitive level. Moreover, it is ambiguous insofar as it appears to focus on Microsoft’s response to the perceived platform threat rather than the browser market. Finding of Fact 144, on which plaintiffs also rely, is part of the District Court’s discussion of Microsoft’s alleged anticompetitive actions to eliminate the platform threat posed by Netscape Navigator. This finding simply describes Microsoft’s reliance on studies indicating consumers’ reluctance to switch browsers, a reluctance not shown to be any more than that which stops consumers from switching brands
这一结论过于推测,无法确定竞争性浏览器将无法进入市场,也无法确定微软有能力将其浏览器的价格提高到竞争水平之上,或将其浏览器的质量降低到竞争水平之下。此外,该裁定似乎只关注微软对平台威胁的反应,而不是浏览器市场,因而含糊不清。原告还依赖的事实认定 144 是地区法院讨论微软为消除 Netscape Navigator 构成的平台威胁而采取的反竞争行动的一部分。这一结论简单地描述了微软对表明消费者不愿更换浏览器的研究的依赖,而这种不愿更换浏览器的情况并未被证明比阻止消费者更换品牌的情况更严重。

547

of cereal. Absent more extensive and definitive factual findings, the District Court’s legal conclusions about entry barriers amount to nothing more than speculation.
如果没有更广泛的事实调查结果,地区法院关于进入壁垒的法律结论只能是推测。在没有更广泛和明确的事实调查结果的情况下,地区法院关于进入壁垒的法律结论不过是推测而已。

In contrast to their minimal effort on market definition, plaintiffs did at least offer proposed findings of fact suggesting that the possibility of network effects could potentially create barriers to entry into the browser market. See Plaintiffs’ Joint Proposed Findings of Fact, at 822-23, 825-27, reprinted in 2 J.A. at 1485-86, 1488-90. The District Court did not adopt those proposed findings. See Findings of Fact ¶89. However, the District Court did acknowledge the possibility of a different kind of entry barrier in its Conclusions of Law:
与他们在市场定义方面所做的极少努力形成鲜明对比的是,原告至少提出了建议的事实认定,表明网络效应的可能性可能会对进入浏览器市场造成潜在障碍。参见《原告联合提议的事实认定》,第 822-23 页、第 825-27 页,转载于 2 J.A. 第 1485-86 页、第 1488-90 页。地区法院没有采纳这些提议的调查结果。见《事实认定》第 89 页。然而,地区法院在其法律结论中承认了另一种进入壁垒的可能性:

In the time it would have taken an aspiring entrant to launch a serious effort to compete against Internet Explorer, Microsoft could have erected the same type of barrier that protects its existing monopoly power by adding proprietary extensions to the browsing software under its control and by extracting commitments from OEMs, IAPs and others similar to the ones discussed in [the monopoly maintenance section].
在有抱负的新进入者认真努力与 Internet Explorer 竞争所需的时间内,微软本可以通过在其控制的浏览软件中添加专有扩展,以及通过从 OEM、IAP 和其他厂商那里获得类似于[垄断维护部分]所讨论的承诺,从而建立起保护其现有垄断权力的相同类型的壁垒。

Conclusions of Law, at 46.

Giving plaintiffs and the District Court the benefit of the doubt, we might remand if the possible existence of entry barriers resulting from the possible creation and exploitation of network effects in the browser market were the only concern. That is not enough to carry the day, however, because the District Court did not make two key findings: (1) that network effects were a necessary or even probable, rather than merely possible, consequence of high market share in the browser market and (2) that a barrier to entry resulting from network effects would be “significant” enough to confer monopoly power. Again, these deficiencies are in large part traceable to plaintiffs’ own failings. As to the first point, the District Court’s use of the phrase “could have” reflects the same uncertainty articulated in testimony cited in plaintiffs’ proposed findings. As to the second point, the cited testimony in plaintiffs’ proposed findings offers little more than conclusory statements. See id. at 822-27, reprinted in 2 J.A. at 1485-90. The proffered testimony contains no evidence regarding the cost of “porting” websites to different browsers or the potentially different economic incentives facing ICPs, as opposed to ISVs, in their decision to incur costs to do so. Simply invoking the phrase “network effects” without pointing to more evidence does not suffice to carry plaintiffs’ burden in this respect.
考虑到原告和地区法院的疑虑,如果我们唯一关心的是浏览器市场可能产生和利用的网络效应可能导致的进入壁垒,我们可能会发回重审。然而,这并不足以使我们获得支持,因为地区法院没有做出两个关键的认定:(1) 网络效应是浏览器市场高市场份额的必然结果,甚至是可能的结果,而不仅仅是可能的结果;(2) 网络效应导致的进入壁垒 "重大 "到足以形成垄断力量。同样,这些缺陷在很大程度上可归因于原告自身的失误。关于第一点,地区法院使用的 "本来 "一词反映了原告拟议的调查结果中引用的证词所阐述的不确定性。至于第二点,原告提议的调查结果中引用的证词不过是一些结论性的陈述。See id.at 822-27, reprinted in 2 J.A. at 1485-90。所提供的证词中没有任何证据证明将网站 "移植 "到不同浏览器的成本,或 ICP 与 ISV 在决定是否为此承担成本时可能面临的不同经济激励。仅仅引用 "网络效应 "一词而不指出更多证据不足以证明原告在这方面的责任。

Any doubt that we may have had regarding remand instead of outright reversal on the barriers to entry question was dispelled by plaintiffs’ arguments on attempted monopolization before this court. Not only did plaintiffs fail to articulate a website barrier to entry theory in either their brief or at oral argument, they failed to point the court to evidence in the record that would support a finding that Microsoft would likely erect significant barriers to entry upon acquisition of a dominant market share.
原告在法庭上关于企图垄断的论点消除了我们对发回重审而非彻底推翻进入壁垒问题的任何疑虑。原告不仅未能在其辩护状或口头辩论中阐明网站进入壁垒理论,也未能向法庭指出记录中的证据,以支持微软在获得支配性市场份额后可能会设置重大进入壁垒的结论。

Plaintiffs did not devote the same resources to the attempted monopolization claim as they did to the monopoly maintenance claim. But both claims require evidentiary and theoretical rigor. Because plaintiffs failed to make their case on attempted monopolization both in the District Court and before this court, there is no reason to give them a second chance to flesh out a claim that should have been fleshed out the first time around. Accordingly, we reverse the District Court’s determination of §2 liability for attempted monopolization.
原告在企图垄断索赔上投入的资源没有在维持垄断索赔上投入的资源多。但这两项主张都需要严谨的证据和理论。由于原告在地区法院和本庭均未能就企图垄断立案,因此没有理由再给他们第二次机会来充实本应在第一次就充实的诉求。因此,我们推翻地区法院关于企图垄断的第 2 节责任的裁定。

548

IV. TYING

Microsoft also contests the District Court’s determination of liability under §1 of the Sherman Act. The District Court concluded that Microsoft’s contractual and technological bundling of the IE web browser (the “tied” product) with its Windows operating system (“OS”) (the “tying” product) resulted in a tying arrangement that was per se unlawful. Conclusions of Law, at 47-51. We hold that the rule of reason, rather than per se analysis, should govern the legality of tying arrangements involving platform software products. The Supreme Court has warned that “‘[i]t is only after considerable experience with certain business relationships that courts classify them as per se violations….’ “Broad. Music, Inc. v. CBS, 441 U.S. 1, 9, 99 S. Ct. 1551, 60 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1979) (quoting United States v. Topco Assocs., 405 U.S. 596, 607-08, 92 S. Ct. 1126, 31 L. Ed. 2d 515 (1972)). While every “business relationship” will in some sense have unique features, some represent entire, novel categories of dealings. As we shall explain, the arrangement before us is an example of the latter, offering the first up-close look at the technological integration of added functionality into software that serves as a platform for third-party applications. There being no close parallel in prior antitrust cases, simplistic application of per se tying rules carries a serious risk of harm. Accordingly, we vacate the District Court’s finding of a per se tying violation and remand the case. Plaintiffs may on remand pursue their tying claim under the rule of reason.
微软还对地区法院根据《谢尔曼法》第 1 节裁定的责任提出异议。地区法院的结论是,微软通过合同和技术将 IE 网页浏览器("搭售 "产品)与其 Windows 操作系统("操作系统")("搭售 "产品)捆绑在一起,导致了搭售安排本身是非法的。法律结论》,第 47-51 页。我们认为,涉及平台软件产品的搭售安排的合法性应遵循合理规则,而不是本身分析。最高法院曾警告说,"'只有在对某些商业关系积累了大量经验之后,法院才会将其归类为本身违法....'。"Broad.音乐公司诉哥伦比亚广播公司案,441 U.S. 1, 9, 99 S. Ct. 1551, 60 L. Ed.2d 1 (1979) (quoting United States v. Topco Assocs., 405 U.S. 596, 607-08, 92 S. Ct. 1126, 31 L. Ed.2d 515 (1972)).虽然每一种 "商业关系 "在某种意义上都有其独特之处,但有些关系则代表了完整的、新颖的交易类型。正如我们将要解释的,我们面前的安排就是后者的一个例子,它首次近距离展示了将附加功能整合到作为第三方应用平台的软件中的技术。在以前的反托拉斯案件中没有类似的案例,简单地适用本身的搭售规则会带来严重的损害风险。因此,我们撤销地区法院关于搭售本身违法的认定,并将案件发回重审。原告可在发回重审时根据合理性规则提出搭售索赔。

The facts underlying the tying allegation substantially overlap with those set forth in Section II.B in connection with the §2 monopoly maintenance claim. The key District Court findings are that (1) Microsoft required licensees of Windows 95 and 98 also to license IE as a bundle at a single price, Findings of Fact ¶¶137, 155, 158; (2) Microsoft refused to allow OEMs to uninstall or remove IE from the Windows desktop, id. ¶¶158, 203, 213; (3) Microsoft designed Windows 98 in a way that withheld from consumers the ability to remove IE by use of the Add/Remove Programs utility, id. ¶170; cf. id. ¶165 (stating that IE was subject to Add/Remove Programs utility in Windows 95); and (4) Microsoft designed Windows 98 to override the user’s choice of default web browser in certain circumstances, id. ¶¶171, 172. The court found that these acts constituted a per se tying violation. Conclusions of Law, at 4751. Although the District Court also found that Microsoft commingled operating system-only and browser-only routines in the same library files, Findings of Fact ¶¶161, 164, it did not include this as a basis for tying liability despite plaintiffs’ request that it do so, Plaintiffs’ Proposed Findings of Fact, ¶¶131-32, reprinted in 2 J.A. at 941-47.
有关搭售指控的事实与第二部分 B 节中有关第 2 节垄断维持索赔的事实基本重叠。地区法院的主要调查结果是:(1) 微软要求 Windows 95 和 98 的被许可人也以单一价格捆绑许可 IE,《事实认定》第 137、155、158 段;(2) 微软拒绝允许 OEM 从 Windows 桌面卸载或删除 IE,同上,《事实认定》第 158、203、213 段;(3) 微软在设计 Windows 98 时就考虑到了这一点。同上,第 158、203、213 段;(3) 微软在设计 Windows 98 时不允许消费者使用 "添加/删除程序 "工具删除 IE。同上,第 170 页;参见同上,第 165 页(指出 IE 在 Windows 98 中被删除)。同上,第 165 段(指出在 Windows 95 中,IE 受添加/删除程序实用程序的限制);以及 (4) 微软设计的 Windows 98 在某些情况下会推翻用户对默认 Web 浏览器的选择,同上,第 171、172 段。¶¶171, 172.法院认为这些行为本身就构成了搭售侵权。法律结论,第 4751 页。尽管地区法院还发现微软将操作系统专用例程和浏览器专用例程混杂在同一个库文件中,事实认定第 161、164 段,但尽管原告要求法院将此作为搭售责任的依据,法院却没有这样做,原告提议的事实认定第 131-32 段,转载于 2 J.A. at 941-47。

There are four elements to a per se tying violation: (1) the tying and tied goods are two separate products; (2) the defendant has market power in the tying product market; (3) the defendant affords consumers no choice but to purchase the tied product from it; and (4) the tying arrangement forecloses a substantial volume of commerce. See Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Tech. Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451, 461-62, 112 S. Ct. 2072, 119 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1992); Jefferson Parish Hosp. Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde, 466 U.S. 2, 12-18, 104 S. Ct. 1551, 80 L. Ed. 2d 2 (1984).
搭售本身违法行为有四个要素:(1)搭售商品和被搭售商品是两种不同的产品;(2)被告在搭售产品市场具有市场支配力;(3)被告让消费者别无选择,只能从其处购买被搭售产品;(4)搭售安排阻碍了大量商业活动。参见伊士曼柯达公司诉 Image Tech.服务公司案,504 U.S. 451, 461-62, 112 S. Ct. 2072, 119 L. Ed.2d 265 (1992); Jefferson Parish Hosp. Dist.2d 2 (1984).

Microsoft does not dispute that it bound Windows and IE in the four ways the District Court cited. Instead it argues that Windows (the tying good) and IE browsers (the tied good) are not “separate products,” Appellant’s Opening Br. at 69-79, and that it did not substantially foreclose competing browsers from the tied product market, id. at 79-83. (Microsoft also
微软并没有质疑它以地区法院引用的四种方式搭售 Windows 和 IE。相反,它辩称 Windows(搭售商品)和 IE 浏览器(被搭售商品)不是 "独立的产品",上诉人的开庭陈述,第 69-79 页,并且它没有实质性地阻止竞争性浏览器进入被搭售产品市场,id. at 79-83。(微软还

549

contends that it does not have monopoly power in the tying product market, id. at 84-96, but, for reasons given in Section II.A, we uphold the District Court’s finding to the contrary.)
但由于第二节 A 部分所述原因,我们支持地区法院的相反结论)。

We first address the separate-products inquiry, a source of much argument between the parties and of confusion in the cases. Our purpose is to highlight the poor fit between the separate-products test and the facts of this case. We then offer further reasons for carving an exception to the per se rule when the tying product is platform software. In the final section we discuss the District Court’s inquiry if plaintiffs pursue a rule of reason claim on remand.
我们首先讨论独立产品调查,这是双方争论不休和案件混乱的根源。我们的目的是强调独立产品测试与本案事实之间的不匹配。然后,我们提出了进一步的理由,说明当搭售产品是平台软件时,本身规则的例外情况。在最后一节中,我们讨论了如果原告在发回重审时提出合理性规则索赔,地区法院应如何进行调查。

A. Separate-Products Inquiry Under the Per Se Test
A.根据 "本身检验标准 "进行分离产品调查

The requirement that a practice involve two separate products before being condemned as an illegal tie started as a purely linguistic requirement: unless products are separate, one cannot be “tied” to the other. Indeed, the nature of the products involved in early tying cases — intuitively distinct items such as a movie projector and a film, Motion Picture Patents Co. v. Universal Film Mfg. Co., 243 U.S. 502, 37 S. Ct. 416, 61 L. Ed. 871 (1917) — led courts either to disregard the separate-products question, see, e.g., United Shoe Mach. Corp. v. United States, 258 U.S. 451, 42 S. Ct. 363, 66 L. Ed. 708 (1922), or to discuss it only in passing, see, e.g., Motion Picture Patents, 243 U.S. at 508, 512, 518, 37 S. Ct. 416. It was not until Times-Picayune Publishing Co. v. United States, 345 U.S. 594, 73 S. Ct. 872, 97 L. Ed. 1277 (1953), that the separate-products issue became a distinct element of the test for an illegal tie. Id. at 614, 73 S. Ct. 872. Even that case engaged in a rather cursory inquiry into whether ads sold in the morning edition of a paper were a separate product from ads sold in the evening edition.
一项行为在被认定为非法搭售之前必须涉及两个独立的产品,这一要求最初纯粹是语言上的要求:除非产品是独立的,否则一个产品不能与另一个产品 "搭售"。事实上,早期搭售案中所涉及产品的性质--直观上不同的物品,如电影放映机和胶片,电影专利公司诉环球电影制造公司案,243 U.S. 502, 37 S. Ct.871 (1917)--导致法院要么无视独立产品的问题,参见,例如,United Shoe Mach.Corp. v. United States, 258 U.S. 451, 42 S. Ct.708 (1922),或只是顺带讨论,参见 Motion Picture Patents, 243 U.S. at 508, 512, 518, 37 S. Ct. 416。直到 Times-Picayune Publishing Co. v. United States, 345 U.S. 594, 73 S. Ct.1277 (1953),分离产品问题成为非法纽带测试的一个独特要素。Id. at 614, 73 S. Ct. 872。即使在该案中,也只是粗略地调查了报纸早间版销售的广告与晚间版销售的广告是否属于不同的产品。

The first case to give content to the separate-products test was Jefferson Parish, 466 U.S. 2, 104 S. Ct. 1551, 80 L. Ed. 2d 2. That case addressed a tying arrangement in which a hospital conditioned surgical care at its facility on the purchase of anesthesiological services from an affiliated medical group. The facts were a challenge for casual separate-products analysis because the tied service — anesthesia — was neither intuitively distinct from nor intuitively contained within the tying service — surgical care. A further complication was that, soon after the Court enunciated the per se rule for tying liability in International Salt Co. v. United States, 332 U.S. 392, 396, 68 S. Ct. 12, 92 L. Ed. 20 (1947), and Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States, 356 U.S. 1, 5-7, 78 S. Ct. 514, 2 L. Ed. 2d 545 (1958), new economic research began to cast doubt on the assumption, voiced by the Court when it established the rule, that “‘tying agreements serve hardly any purpose beyond the suppression of competition,’” id. at 6, 78 S. Ct. 514 (quoting Standard Oil of Cal. v. United States, 337 U.S. 293, 305-06, 69 S. Ct. 1051, 93 L. Ed. 1371 (1949)); see also Jefferson Parish, 466 U.S. at 15 n. 23, 104 S. Ct. 1551 (citing materials); Fortner Enters. v. U.S. Steel Corp., 394 U.S. 495, 524-25, 89 S. Ct. 1252, 22 L. Ed. 2d 495 (1969) (Fortas, J., dissenting) (“Fortner I”).
杰斐逊教区案,466 U.S. 2, 104 S. Ct.2d 2.该案涉及一项搭售安排,即一家医院以从附属医疗集团购买麻醉服务为条件在其设施内提供手术治疗。由于搭售服务--麻醉--与搭售服务--手术护理既没有直观的区别,也没有直观的包含在搭售服务中,因此这些事实对随意的独立产品分析构成了挑战。另一个复杂因素是,法院在国际盐业公司诉美国案(332 U.S. 392, 396, 68 S. Ct. 12, 92 L. Ed.20 (1947), and Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States, 356 U.S. 1, 5-7, 78 S. Ct.2d 545 (1958),新的经济研究开始对法院在确立该规则时提出的假设产生怀疑,即"'搭售协议除了抑制竞争之外几乎没有任何作用'",id. at 6, 78 S. Ct. 514(引用标准石油公司诉美国,337 U.S. 293, 305-06, 69 S. Ct.1371 (1949)); see also Jefferson Parish, 466 U.S. at 15 n. 23, 104 S. Ct. 1551 (citing materials); Fortner Enters.2d 495 (1969) (Fortas, J., dissenting) ("Fortner I").

The Jefferson Parish Court resolved the matter in two steps. First, it clarified that “the answer to the question whether one or two products are involved” does not turn “on the functional relation between them….” Jefferson Parish, 466 U.S. at 19, 104 S. Ct. 1551; see also id. at 19 n. 30, 104 S. Ct. 1551. In other words, the mere fact that two items are complements, that “one…is useless without the other,” id., does not make them a single “product” for purposes of tying law. Accord Eastman Kodak, 504 U.S. at 463, 112 S. Ct. 2072. Second, reasoning that the “definitional question [whether two distinguishable products are involved] depends on whether the arrangement may have the type of competitive consequences
杰斐逊教区法院分两步解决了这一问题。首先,它澄清了 "涉及的是一个还是两个产品的问题的答案 "并不取决于 "它们之间的功能关系...."。Jefferson Parish, 466 U.S. at 19, 104 S. Ct. 1551; see also id.换句话说,仅凭两件商品互为补充的事实,即 "一件商品......没有另一件商品就毫无用处"(同上),并不能使它们在搭售法中成为单一的 "产品"。参见伊士曼柯达公司,504 U.S. at 463, 112 S. Ct.其次,推论 "定义问题(是否涉及两个可区分的产品)取决于该安排是否可能产生竞争后果

550

addressed by the rule [against tying],” Jefferson Parish, 466 U.S. at 21, 104 S. Ct. 1551, the Court decreed that “no tying arrangement can exist unless there is a sufficient demand for the purchase of anesthesiological services separate from hospital services to identify a distinct product market in which it is efficient to offer anesthesiological services separately from hospital service,” id. at 21-22, 104 S. Ct. 1551 (emphasis added); accord Eastman Kodak, 504 U.S. at 462, 112 S. Ct. 2072.
id.21-22,104 S.Ct.1551(着重部分由作者标明);参见伊士曼柯达公司,504 U.S.,462,112 S.Ct.2072。

The Court proceeded to examine direct and indirect evidence of consumer demand for the tied product separate from the tying product. Direct evidence addresses the question whether, when given a choice, consumers purchase the tied good from the tying good maker, or from other firms. The Court took note, for example, of testimony that patients and surgeons often requested specific anesthesiologists not associated with a hospital. Jefferson Parish, 466 U.S. at 22, 104 S. Ct. 1551. Indirect evidence includes the behavior of firms without market power in the tying good market, presumably on the notion that (competitive) supply follows demand. If competitive firms always bundle the tying and tied goods, then they are a single product. See id. at 22 n.36, 104 S. Ct. 1551; see also Eastman Kodak, 504 U.S. at 462, 112 S. Ct. 2072; Fortner I, 394 U.S. at 525, 89 S. Ct. 1252 (Fortas, J., dissenting), cited in Jefferson Parish, 466 U.S. at 12, 22 n.35, 104 S. Ct. 1551; United States v. Jerrold Elecs. Corp., 187 F. Supp. 545, 559 (E.D. Pa. 1960), aff’d per curiam, 365 U.S. 567, 81 S. Ct. 755, 5 L. Ed. 2d 806 (1961); 10 Phillip E. Areeda et al., Antitrust Law ¶1744, at 197-201 (1996). Here the Court noted that only 27% of anesthesiologists in markets other than the defendant’s had financial relationships with hospitals, and that, unlike radiologists and pathologists, anesthesiologists were not usually employed by hospitals, i.e., bundled with hospital services. Jefferson Parish, 466 U.S. at 22 n. 36, 104 S. Ct. 1551. With both direct and indirect evidence concurring, the Court determined that hospital surgery and anesthesiological services were distinct goods.
法院接着审查了消费者对与搭售产品分开的搭售产品需求的直接和间接证据。直接证据涉及的问题是,在有选择的情况下,消费者是向搭售产品制造商购买搭售产品,还是向其他公司购买搭售产品。例如,法院注意到病人和外科医生经常要求与医院无关的特定麻醉师的证词。Jefferson Parish, 466 U.S. at 22, 104 S. Ct.间接证据包括在搭售商品市场上没有市场支配力的公司的行为,这大概是基于(竞争性)供应服从需求的理念。如果有竞争力的公司总是将搭售商品和被搭售商品捆绑在一起,那么它们就是单一产品。See id. at 22 n.36, 104 S. Ct. 1551; see also Eastman Kodak, 504 U.S. at 462, 112 S. Ct. 2072; Fortner I, 394 U.S. at 525, 89 S. Ct. 1252 (Fortas, J.. dissenting)、Jefferson Parish, 466 U.S. at 12, 22 n.35, 104 S. Ct. 1551; United States v. Jerrold Elecs.Corp., 187 F. Supp. 545, 559 (E.D. Pa. 1960), aff'd per curiam, 365 U.S. 567, 81 S. Ct.2d 806 (1961);10 Phillip E. Areeda et al., Antitrust Law §1744, at 197-201 (1996)。法院注意到,在被告市场以外的市场中,只有 27% 的麻醉师与医院有财务关系,而且与放射科医生和病理学家不同,麻醉师通常不受雇于医院,即与医院服务捆绑在一起。Jefferson Parish, 466 U.S. at 22 n. 36, 104 S. Ct.在直接和间接证据一致的情况下,法院认定医院手术和麻醉服务是不同的商品。

To understand the logic behind the Court’s consumer demand test, consider first the postulated harms from tying. The core concern is that tying prevents goods from competing directly for consumer choice on their merits, i.e., being selected as a result of “buyers’ independent judgment,” id. at 13, 104 S. Ct. 1551 (internal quotes omitted). With a tie, a buyer’s “freedom to select the best bargain in the second market [could be] impaired by his need to purchase the tying product, and perhaps by an inability to evaluate the true cost of either product….” Id. at 15, 104 S. Ct. 1551. Direct competition on the merits of the tied product is foreclosed when the tying product either is sold only in a bundle with the tied product or, though offered separately, is sold at a bundled price, so that the buyer pays the same price whether he takes the tied product or not. In both cases, a consumer buying the tying product becomes entitled to the tied product; he will therefore likely be unwilling to buy a competitor’s version of the tied product even if, making his own price/quality assessment, that is what he would prefer.
要理解法院消费者需求测试背后的逻辑,首先要考虑搭售的假定危害。其核心问题是,搭售阻碍了商品根据其优点直接与消费者进行竞争,即作为 "买方独立判断 "的结果被选择,id.at 13, 104 S. Ct. 1551(内部引文省略)。在搭售的情况下,买方 "在第二市场上选择最佳交易的自由[可能]会因为他需要购买搭售产品而受到损害,也许还会因为他无法评估两种产品的真实成本...."。Id. at 15, 104 S. Ct.如果搭售产品只与被搭售产品捆绑销售,或者虽然单独销售,但以捆绑价格销售,这样无论购买者是否购买被搭售产品,都要支付相同的价格,那么搭售产品的直接竞争就被排除了。在这两种情况下,购买搭售产品的消费者就有权获得搭售产品;因此,他很可能不愿意购买竞争者的搭售产品,即使根据他自己对价格/质量的评估,他更愿意购买竞争者的搭售产品。

But not all ties are bad. Bundling obviously saves distribution and consumer transaction costs. 9 Phillip E. Areeda, Antitrust Law ¶1703g2, at 51-52 (1991). This is likely to be true, to take some examples from the computer industry, with the integration of math co-processors and memory into microprocessor chips and the inclusion of spell checkers in word processors. 11/10/98 pm Tr. at 18-19 (trial testimony of Steven McGeady of Intel), reprinted in 9 J.A. at 5581-82 (math co-processor); Cal. Computer Prods., Inc. v. IBM Corp., 613 F.2d 727, 744 & n.29 (9th Cir. 1979) (memory). Bundling can also capitalize on certain economies of scope. A
但并非所有捆绑都是坏事。捆绑显然节省了分销和消费者交易成本。9 Phillip E. Areeda, Antitrust Law §1703g2, at 51-52 (1991).以電腦業為例,把數學輔助處理器和記憶體整合到微處理器晶片中,以及在文字處理器中加入拼寫檢查器,都可能是真實的情況。11/10/98 pm Tr. at 18-19(英特尔公司 Steven McGeady 的审判证词),转载于 9 J.A. at 5581-82(数学协处理器);Cal.Computer Prods., Inc. v. IBM Corp., 613 F.2d 727, 744 & n.29 (9th Cir. 1979) (内存)。捆绑还可以利用某些范围经济。A

551

possible example is the “shared” library files that perform OS and browser functions with the very same lines of code and thus may save drive space from the clutter of redundant routines and memory when consumers use both the OS and browser simultaneously. 11/16/98 pm Tr. at 44 (trial testimony of Glenn Weadock), reprinted in 9 J.A. at 5892; Direct Testimony of Microsoft’s James Allchin ¶¶10, 97, 100, 106-116, app. A (excluding ¶¶f, g.vi), reprinted in 5 J.A. at 3292, 3322-30, 3412-17. Indeed, if there were no efficiencies from a tie (including economizing on consumer transaction costs such as the time and effort involved in choice), we would expect distinct consumer demand for each individual component of every good. In a competitive market with zero transaction costs, the computers on which this opinion was written would only be sold piecemeal — keyboard, monitor, mouse, central processing unit, disk drive, and memory all sold in separate transactions and likely by different manufacturers.
例如,"共享 "库文件用相同的代码行执行操作系统和浏览器的功能,因此,当消费者同时使用操作系统和浏览器时,可以节省硬盘空间,避免冗余的程序和内存。11/16/98 pm Tr. at 44(Glenn Weadock 的审判证词),转载于 9 J.A. at 5892;微软 James Allchin 的直接证词 §¶10, 97, 100, 106-116, app.A(不包括 §¶f、g.vi),转载于 5 J.A.,页 3292、3322-30、3412-17。事实上,如果没有领带带来的效率(包括节省消费者的交易成本,如选择所需的时间和精力),我们就会预期消费者对每种商品的每个组成部分都有不同的需求。在一个交易成本为零的竞争性市场中,撰写本意见所依据的计算机只能零散销售--键盘、显示器、鼠标、中央处理单元、磁盘驱动器和内存都在不同的交易中销售,而且很可能由不同的制造商生产。

Recognizing the potential benefits from tying, see Jefferson Parish, 466 U.S. at 21 n.33, 104 S. Ct. 1551, the Court in Jefferson Parish forged a separate-products test that, like those of market power and substantial foreclosure, attempts to screen out false positives under per se analysis. The consumer demand test is a rough proxy for whether a tying arrangement may, on balance, be welfare-enhancing, and unsuited to per se condemnation. In the abstract, of course, there is always direct separate demand for products: assuming choice is available at zero cost, consumers will prefer it to no choice. Only when the efficiencies from bundling are dominated by the benefits to choice for enough consumers, however, will we actually observe consumers making independent purchases. In other words, perceptible separate demand is inversely proportional to net efficiencies. On the supply side, firms without market power will bundle two goods only when the cost savings from joint sale outweigh the value consumers place on separate choice. So bundling by all competitive firms implies strong net efficiencies. If a court finds either that there is no noticeable separate demand for the tied product or, there being no convincing direct evidence of separate demand, that the entire “competitive fringe” engages in the same behavior as the defendant, 10 AREEDA ET AL., ANTITRUST LAW ¶1744c4, at 200, then the tying and tied products should be declared one product and per se liability should be rejected.
由于认识到搭售的潜在利益,见 Jefferson Parish, 466 U.S. at 21 n.33, 104 S. Ct. 1551,法院在 Jefferson Parish 案中制定了一个独立的产品测试标准,该标准与市场支配力和实质性赎回一样,试图筛除本身分析中的假阳性结果。消费者需求测试是一种粗略的替代方法,用于衡量搭售安排是否能够提高福利,而不适合本身的谴责。当然,抽象地说,消费者对产品总是有直接的单独需求:假定零成本提供选择,消费者会更喜欢有选择而不是没有选择。然而,只有当捆绑销售的效率高于为足够多的消费者提供选择的好处时,我们才能真正观察到消费者进行独立购买。换言之,可感知的独立需求与净效率成反比。在供给方面,没有市场支配力的企业只有在联合销售节省的成本超过消费者对独立选择的价值时,才会捆绑两种商品。因此,所有竞争企业的捆绑销售都意味着强大的净效率。10 AREEDA ET AL., ANTITRUST LAW §1744c4, at 200, 如果法院发现对搭售产品没有明显的单独需求,或者没有令人信服的直接证据表明存在单独需求,那么整个 "竞争边缘 "都在从事与被告相同的行为,那么搭售和被搭售产品应被宣布为一种产品,其本身的责任应被驳回。

Before concluding our exegesis of Jefferson Parish’s separate-products test, we should clarify two things. First, Jefferson Parish does not endorse a direct inquiry into the efficiencies of a bundle. Rather, it proposes easy-to-administer proxies for net efficiency. In describing the separate-products test we discuss efficiencies only to explain the rationale behind the consumer demand inquiry. To allow the separate-products test to become a detailed inquiry into possible welfare consequences would turn a screening test into the very process it is expected to render unnecessary. 10 Areeda et al., Antitrust Law ¶¶1741b & c, at 180-85; see also Jefferson Parish, 466 U.S. at 34-35, 104 S. Ct. 1551 (O’Connor, J., concurring).
在结束对杰斐逊教区独立产品测试的解释之前,我们应该澄清两件事。首先,杰斐逊教区并不赞成直接调查捆绑产品的效率。相反,它提出了易于管理的净效率代用指标。在描述独立产品测试时,我们讨论效率只是为了解释消费者需求调查背后的原理。如果让独立产品测试成为对可能的福利后果的详细调查,就会使筛选测试变成它所期望的不必要的过程。10 Areeda et al., Antitrust Law §¶1741b & c, at 180-85; see also Jefferson Parish, 466 U.S. at 34-35, 104 S. Ct. 1551 (O'Connor, J., concurring).

Second, the separate-products test is not a one-sided inquiry into the cost savings from a bundle. Although Jefferson Parish acknowledged that prior lower court cases looked at cost-savings to decide separate products, see id. at 22 n.35, 104 S. Ct. 1551, the Court conspicuously did not adopt that approach in its disposition of tying arrangement before it. Instead it chose proxies that balance costs savings against reduction in consumer choice.
其次,独立产品测试并不是对捆绑产品节省成本的片面调查。尽管杰斐逊教区承认下级法院之前的案例是以成本节约来决定独立产品,见 id.相反,法院选择了在节约成本与减少消费者选择之间取得平衡的替代方案。

With this background, we now turn to the separate-products inquiry before us. The District Court found that many consumers, if given the option, would choose their browser separately from the OS. Findings of Fact ¶151 (noting that “corporate consumers…prefer to
《有了这一背景,我们现在来讨论我们面前的独立产品问题。地区法院认为,如果可以选择,许多消费者会将浏览器与操作系统分开选择。事实认定》第 151 页(指出 "企业消费者......更愿意将浏览器与操作系统分开")。

552

standardize on the same browser across different [OSs]” at the work-place). Turning to industry custom, the court found that, although all major OS vendors bundled browsers with their OSs, these companies either sold versions without a browser, or allowed OEMs or end-users either not to install the bundled browser or in any event to “uninstall” it. Id. ¶153. The court did not discuss the record evidence as to whether OS vendors other than Microsoft sold at a bundled price, with no discount for a browserless OS, perhaps because the record evidence on the issue was in conflict. Compare, e.g., Direct Testimony of Richard Schmalensee ¶241, reprinted in 7 J.A. at 4315 (“[A]ll major operating system vendors do in fact include Web-browsing software with the operating system at no extra charge.”) (emphasis added), with, e.g., 1/6/99 pm Tr. at 42 (trial testimony of Franklin Fisher of MIT) (suggesting all OSs but Microsoft offer discounts).
在工作场所使用不同[操作系统]的同一浏览器")。在谈到行业习惯时,法院发现,尽管所有主要的操作系统供应商都在其操作系统中捆绑了浏览器,但这些公司要么销售不带浏览器的版本,要么允许 OEM 或最终用户不安装捆绑的浏览器,或者无论如何都可以 "卸载 "浏览器。Id.¶153.法院没有讨论关于微软以外的操作系统供应商是否以捆绑价格销售无浏览器操作系统且不打折的记录证据,这可能是因为关于该问题的记录证据存在冲突。例如,Richard Schmalensee 的直接证词第 241 段,转载于 7 J.A. at 4315("所有主要的操作系统供应商实际上都在操作系统中包含了网络浏览软件,而且不收取额外费用。(例如,1/6/99 pm Tr. at 42(麻省理工学院 Franklin Fisher 的庭审证词)(暗示除微软外所有操作系统都提供折扣)。

Microsoft does not dispute that many consumers demand alternative browsers. But on industry custom Microsoft contends that no other firm requires non-removal because no other firm has invested the resources to integrate web browsing as deeply into its OS as Microsoft has. Appellant’s Opening Br. at 25; cf. Direct Testimony of James Allchin ¶¶26272, reprinted in 5 J.A. at 3385-89 (Apple, IBM); 11/5/98 pm Tr. at 55-58 (trial testimony of Apple’s Avadis Tevanian, Jr.), reprinted in 9 J.A. at 5507-10 (Apple). (We here use the term “integrate” in the rather simple sense of converting individual goods into components of a single physical object (e.g., a computer as it leaves the OEM, or a disk or sets of disks), without any normative implication that such integration is desirable or achieves special advantages. Cf. United States v. Microsoft Corp., 147 F.3d 935, 950 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (“Microsoft II”).) Microsoft contends not only that its integration of IE into Windows is innovative and beneficial but also that it requires non-removal of IE. In our discussion of monopoly maintenance we find that these claims fail the efficiency balancing applicable in that context. But the separate-products analysis is supposed to perform its function as a proxy without embarking on any direct analysis of efficiency. Accordingly, Microsoft’s implicit argument — that in this case looking to a competitive fringe is inadequate to evaluate fully its potentially innovative technological integration, that such a comparison is between apples and oranges — poses a legitimate objection to the operation of Jefferson Parish’s separate-products test for the per se rule.
对于许多消费者要求使用替代浏览器的说法,微软并无异议。但就行业习惯而言,微软认为没有其他公司要求不删除浏览器,因为没有其他公司像微软那样投入资源将网页浏览功能深入集成到其操作系统中。上诉人的开庭陈述第 25 页;参见 James Allchin 的直接证词第 26272 段,转载于 5 J.A. 第 3385-89 页(苹果、IBM);11/5/98 pm Tr. 第 55-58 页(苹果公司 Avadis Tevanian, Jr. 的庭审证词),转载于 9 J.A. 第 5507-10 页(苹果)。(我们在此使用的 "集成 "一词的含义相当简单,即把单个商品转化为单一实物的组成部分(例如,离开原始设备制造商的计算机,或磁盘或磁盘组),而不包含任何规范性含义,即这种集成是可取的或实现了特殊优势。参见 United States v. Microsoft Corp., 147 F.3d 935, 950 (D.C. Cir. 1998) ("Microsoft II")。微软不仅认为其将 IE 集成到 Windows 中是创新和有益的,而且还认为它要求不得删除 IE。在我们关于垄断维持的讨论中,我们发现这些主张未能通过适用于该情况的效率平衡。但是,独立产品分析应该是作为一种替代手段来执行其功能,而不需要对效率进行任何直接分析。因此,微软的隐含论点--在本案中,着眼于竞争边缘不足以充分评估其潜在的创新性技术整合,这种比较是苹果与桔子之间的比较--对杰斐逊教区的分离产品测试法本身规则的运作提出了合理的反对意见。

In fact there is merit to Microsoft’s broader argument that Jefferson Parish’s consumer demand test would “chill innovation to the detriment of consumers by preventing firms from integrating into their products new functionality previously provided by standalone products — and hence, by definition, subject to separate consumer demand.” Appellant’s Opening Br. at 69. The per se rule’s direct consumer demand and indirect industry custom inquiries are, as a general matter, backward-looking and therefore systematically poor proxies for overall efficiency in the presence of new and innovative integration. See 10 Areeda et al., Antitrust Law ¶1746, at 224-29; Amicus Brief of Lawrence Lessig at 24-25, and sources cited therein (brief submitted regarding Conclusions of Law). The direct consumer demand test focuses on historic consumer behavior, likely before integration, and the indirect industry custom test looks at firms that, unlike the defendant, may not have integrated the tying and tied goods. Both tests compare incomparables — the defendant’s decision to bundle in the presence of integration, on the one hand, and consumer and competitor calculations in its absence, on the other. If integration has efficiency benefits, these may be ignored by the Jefferson Parish proxies. Because one cannot be sure beneficial integration will be protected by the other
事实上,微软公司更广泛的论点是有道理的,即杰斐逊教区的消费者需求测试将 "通过阻止公司将以前由独立产品提供的新功能整合到其产品中--因此,根据定义,将受到单独的消费者需求的制约,从而阻碍创新,损害消费者利益"。上诉人的开庭陈述,第 69 页。一般来说,"本身规则 "的直接消费者需求和间接行业习惯调查都是后向性的,因此在新的和创新的整合出现时,系统性地对整体效率的替代性很差。见 10 Areeda et al., Antitrust Law §1746, at 224-29; Amicus Brief of Lawrence Lessig at 24-25, and sources cited therein (brief submitted regarding Conclusions of Law).直接消费者需求测试关注的是消费者的历史行为,很可能是在整合之前;间接行业习惯测试关注的是与被告不同的企业,这些企业可能没有整合搭售商品和被搭售商品。这两种检验都比较了不可比因素--一方面是被告在存在整合时的捆绑决定,另一方面是消费者和竞争者在没有整合时的计算。如果一体化能带来效率上的好处,杰斐逊教区的代用指标可能会忽略这些好处。因为我们无法确定有益的整合是否会受到其他 竞争对手的保护。

553

elements of the per se rule, simple application of that rule’s separate-products test may make consumers worse off.
如果简单地适用 "本身 "规则中的 "独立产品 "检验标准,可能会使消费者的利益受损。

In light of the monopoly maintenance section, obviously, we do not find that Microsoft’s integration is welfare-enhancing or that it should be absolved of tying liability. Rather, we heed Microsoft’s warning that the separate-products element of the per se rule may not give newly integrated products a fair shake.
显然,鉴于垄断维持部分,我们并不认为微软的整合能够提高福利,也不认为应该免除其搭售责任。相反,我们注意到微软的警告,即 "本身规则 "中的 "独立产品 "要素可能不会给新整合的产品以公平待遇。

B. Per Se Analysis Inappropriate for this Case

We now address directly the larger question as we see it: whether standard per se analysis should be applied “off the shelf” to evaluate the defendant’s tying arrangement, one which involves software that serves as a platform for third-party applications. There is no doubt that “[i]t is far too late in the history of our antitrust jurisprudence to question the proposition that certain tying arrangements pose an unacceptable risk of stifling competition and therefore are unreasonable ‘per se.’” Jefferson Parish, 466 U.S. at 9, 104 S. Ct. 1551 (emphasis added). But there are strong reasons to doubt that the integration of additional software functionality into an OS falls among these arrangements. Applying per se analysis to such an amalgamation creates undue risks of error and of deterring welfare- enhancing innovation.
我们现在直接讨论我们认为更大的问题:标准的本身分析是否应 "现成地 "应用于评估被告的搭售安排,即涉及作为第三方应用软件平台的软件的搭售安排。毫无疑问,"在我们反托拉斯法学的历史上,现在才质疑某些搭售安排会带来不可接受的扼杀竞争的风险,因此'本身'是不合理的这一主张,为时已晚"。Jefferson Parish, 466 U.S. at 9, 104 S. Ct. 1551(着重部分由作者标明)。但我们有充分的理由怀疑将附加软件功能整合到操作系统中是否属于这些安排。对这种合并应用本身的分析方法会造成不必要的错误风险,并阻碍提高福利的创新。

The Supreme Court has warned that “‘[i]t is only after considerable experience with certain business relationships that courts classify them as per se violations.…’ “Broad. Music, 441 U.S. at 9, 99 S. Ct. 1551 (quoting Topco Assocs., 405 U.S. at 607-08, 92 S. Ct. 1126); accord Cont’l T.V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc., 433 U.S. 36, 47-59, 97 S. Ct. 2549, 53 L. Ed. 2d 568 (1977); White Motor Co. v. United States, 372 U.S. 253, 263, 83 S. Ct. 696, 9 L. Ed. 2d 738 (1963); Jerrold Elecs., 187 F. Supp. at 555-58, 560-61; see also Frank H. Easterbrook, Allocating Antitrust Decisionmaking Tasks, 76 GEO. L.J. 305, 308 (1987). Yet the sort of tying arrangement attacked here is unlike any the Supreme Court has considered. The early Supreme Court cases on tying dealt with arrangements whereby the sale or lease of a patented product was conditioned on the purchase of certain unpatented products from the patentee. See Motion Picture Patents, 243 U.S. 502, 37 S. Ct. 416, 61 L. Ed. 871 (1917); United Shoe Mach., 258 U.S. 451, 42 S. Ct. 363, 66 L. Ed. 708 (1922); IBM Corp. v. United States, 298 U.S. 131, 56 S. Ct. 701, 80 L. Ed. 1085 (1936); Int’l Salt, 332 U.S. 392, 68 S. Ct. 12, 92 L. Ed. 20 (1947). Later Supreme Court tying cases did not involve market power derived from patents, but continued to involve contractual ties. See Times-Picayune, 345 U.S. 594, 73 S. Ct. 872, 97 L. Ed. 1277 (1953) (defendant newspaper conditioned the purchase of ads in its evening edition on the purchase of ads in its morning edition); N. Pac. Ry., 356 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct. 514, 2 L. Ed. 2d 545 (1958) (defendant railroad leased land only on the condition that products manufactured on the land be shipped on its railways); United States v. Loew’s Inc., 371 U.S. 38, 83 S. Ct. 97, 9 L. Ed. 2d 11 (1962) (defendant distributor of copyrighted feature films conditioned the sale of desired films on the purchase of undesired films); U.S. Steel Corp. v. Fortner Enters., Inc., 429 U.S. 610, 97 S. Ct. 861, 51 L. Ed. 2d 80 (1977) (“Fortner II”) (defendant steel company conditioned access to low interest loans on the purchase of the defendant’s prefabricated homes); Jefferson Parish, 466 U.S. 2, 104 S. Ct. 1551, 80 L. Ed. 2d 2 (1984) (defendant hospital conditioned use of its operating rooms on the purchase of anesthesiological services from a medical group associated with the hospital); Eastman Kodak, 504 U.S. 451, 112 S. Ct. 2072, 119 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1992) (defendant photocopying machine
最高法院曾警告说,"'只有在对某些商业关系有了相当多的经验之后,法院才会将其归类为本身违反....'"Broad.Music, 441 U.S. at 9, 99 S. Ct. 1551 (quoting Topco Assocs., 405 U.S. at 607-08, 92 S. Ct. 1126); accord Cont'l T.V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc.2d 568 (1977);White Motor Co. v. United States, 372 U.S. 253, 263, 83 S. Ct.2d 738 (1963); Jerrold Elecs., 187 F. Supp. at 555-58, 560-61; see also Frank H. Easterbrook, Allocating Antitrust Decisionmaking Tasks, 76 GEO.L.J. 305, 308 (1987)。然而,在此受到攻击的这种搭售安排与最高法院审理过的任何案件都不同。最高法院早期关于搭售的案例涉及专利产品的销售或租赁以从专利权人处购买某些非专利产品为条件的安排。参见电影专利,243 U.S. 502, 37 S. Ct. 416, 61 L. Ed.871 (1917);United Shoe Mach.,258 U.S.451,42 S.Ct.363,66 L. Ed.708 (1922);IBM 公司诉美国,298 U.S. 131, 56 S. Ct.1085 (1936);Int'l Salt, 332 U.S. 392, 68 S. Ct. 12, 92 L. Ed.20 (1947).最高法院后来的搭售案件不涉及专利带来的市场支配力,而是继续涉及合同关系。参见 Times-Picayune, 345 U.S. 594, 73 S. Ct.1277 (1953)(被告报纸以购买早报广告作为购买晚报广告的条件);N. Pac.Ry., 356 U.S. 1, 78 S. Ct.2d 545 (1958)(被告铁路公司租赁土地的条件是在该土地上生产的产品必须通过其铁路运输);美国诉 Loew's Inc. Ed.2d 11 (1962)(受版权保护的故事片的被告发行商以购买不受欢迎的影片作为销售所需影片的条件);美国钢铁公司诉 Fortner Enters.2d 80 (1977)("Fortner II")(被告钢铁公司以购买被告的预制房屋作为获得低息贷款的条件);Jefferson Parish, 466 U.S. 2, 104 S. Ct.2d 2 (1984)(被告医院以从与医院有关联的医疗集团购买麻醉服务作为使用其手术室的条件);Eastman Kodak, 504 U.S. 451, 112 S. Ct. 2072, 119 L. Ed.2d 265(1992)(被告复印机)。

554

manufacturer conditioned the sale of replacement parts for its machines on the use of the defendant’s repair services).
制造商以使用被告的维修服务作为销售其机器替换零件的条件)。

In none of these cases was the tied good physically and technologically integrated with the tying good. Nor did the defendants ever argue that their tie improved the value of the tying product to users and to makers of complementary goods. In those cases where the defendant claimed that use of the tied good made the tying good more valuable to users, the Court ruled that the same result could be achieved via quality standards for substitutes of the tied good. See, e.g., Int’l Salt, 332 U.S. at 397-98, 68 S. Ct. 12; IBM, 298 U.S. at 13840, 56 S. Ct. 701. Here Microsoft argues that IE and Windows are an integrated physical product and that the bundling of IE APIs with Windows makes the latter a better applications platform for third-party software. It is unclear how the benefits from IE APIs could be achieved by quality standards for different browser manufacturers. We do not pass judgment on Microsoft’s claims regarding the benefits from integration of its APIs. We merely note that these and other novel, purported efficiencies suggest that judicial “experience” provides little basis for believing that, “because of their pernicious effect on competition and lack of any redeeming virtue,” a software firm’s decisions to sell multiple functionalities as a package should be “conclusively presumed to be unreasonable and therefore illegal without elaborate inquiry as to the precise harm they have caused or the business excuse for their use.” N. Pac. Ry., 356 U.S. at 5, 78 S. Ct. 514 (emphasis added).
在所有这些案例中,被搭售商品都没有在物理和技术上与搭售商品相结合。被告也从未辩称他们的搭售行为提高了搭售产品对用户和互补商品制造商的价值。在那些被告声称使用搭售商品使搭售商品对用户更有价值的案件中,法院裁定通过搭售商品替代品的质量标准可以达到同样的结果。例如,参见 Int'l Salt, 332 U.S. at 397-98, 68 S. Ct. 12; IBM, 298 U.S. at 13840, 56 S. Ct. 701。在此,微软辩称,IE 和 Windows 是一个集成的实体产品,IE API 与 Windows 的捆绑使后者成为第三方软件更好的应用平台。目前尚不清楚如何通过不同浏览器制造商的质量标准来实现 IE API 带来的好处。我们不对微软关于整合其 API 所带来的好处的说法作出判断。我们只是注意到,这些和其他新颖的、所谓的效率表明,司法 "经验 "没有提供什么依据,让我们相信,"由于其对竞争的有害影响和缺乏任何可取之处",软件公司将多种功能作为一个软件包出售的决定应该 "被断然推定为不合理的,因此是非法的,而无需详细调查它们造成的确切损害或使用它们的商业借口"。N. Pac.Ry., 356 U.S. at 5, 78 S. Ct. 514 (emphasis added)。

Nor have we found much insight into software integration among the decisions of lower federal courts. Most tying cases in the computer industry involve bundling with hardware. See, e.g., Digital Equip. Corp. v. Uniq Digital Techs., Inc., 73 F.3d 756, 761 (7th Cir. 1996) (Easterbrook, J.) (rejecting with little discussion the notion that bundling of OS with a computer is a tie of two separate products); Datagate, Inc. v. Hewlett–Packard Co., 941 F.2d 864, 870 (9th Cir. 1991) (holding that plaintiff’s allegation that defendant conditioned its software on purchase of its hardware was sufficient to survive summary judgment); Digidyne Corp. v. Data Gen. Corp., 734 F.2d 1336, 1341-47 (9th Cir. 1984) (holding that defendant’s conditioning the sale of its OS on the purchase of its CPU constitutes a per se tying violation); Cal. Computer Prods., 613 F.2d at 743-44 (holding that defendant’s integration into its CPU of a disk controller designed for its own disk drives was a useful innovation and not an impermissible attempt to monopolize); ILC Peripherals Leasing Corp. v. IBM Corp., 448 F. Supp. 228, 233 (N.D. Cal. 1978) (finding that defendant’s integration of magnetic disks and a head/disk assembly was not an unlawful tie), aff’d per curiam sub. nom. Memorex Corp. v. IBM Corp., 636 F.2d 1188 (9th Cir. 1980); see also Transamerica Computer Co. v. IBM Corp., 698 F.2d 1377, 1382-83 (9th Cir. 1983) (finding lawful defendant’s design changes that rendered plaintiff peripheral maker’s tape drives incompatible with the defendant’s CPU). The hardware case that most resembles the present one is Telex Corp. v. IBM Corp., 367 F. Supp. 258 (N.D. Okla. 1973), rev’d on other grounds, 510 F.2d 894 (10th Cir. 1975). Just as Microsoft integrated web browsing into its OS, IBM in the 1970s integrated memory into its CPUs, a hardware platform. A peripheral manufacturer alleged a tying violation, but the District Court dismissed the claim because it thought it inappropriate to enmesh the courts in product design decisions. Id. at 347. The court’s discussion of the tying claim was brief and did not dwell on the effects of the integration on competition or efficiencies. Nor did the court consider whether per se analysis of the alleged tie was wise.
在下级联邦法院的判决中,我们没有发现太多关于软件集成的见解。计算机行业的大多数搭售案件都涉及与硬件的捆绑。例如,参见Digital Equip.Corp. v. Uniq Digital Techs., Inc., 73 F.3d 756, 761 (7th Cir. 1996) (Easterbrook, J.) (几乎没有讨论就驳回了将操作系统与计算机捆绑是两个独立产品的搭售这一观点);Datagate, Inc.v. Data Gen. Corp., 734 F.2d 1336, 1341-47 (9th Cir. 1984)(认为被告以购买其 CPU 作为销售其操作系统的条件本身就构成搭售侵权);Cal.Computer Prods., 613 F.2d at 743-44(认为被告在其 CPU 中集成了为自己的磁盘驱动器设计的磁盘控制器是一种有用的创新,而不是不允许的垄断企图);ILC Peripherals Leasing Corp. v. IBM Corp., 448 F. Supp. 228, 233 (N.D. Cal. 1978)(认为被告集成磁盘和磁头/磁盘组件不是非法搭售),aff'd per curiam sub.Memorex Corp. v. IBM Corp., 636 F.2d 1188 (9th Cir. 1980); see also Transamerica Computer Co. v. IBM Corp., 698 F.2d 1377, 1382-83 (9th Cir. 1983) (finding lawful defendant's design changes that render plaintiff peripheral maker's tape drives incompatible with the defendant's CPU).与本案最相似的硬件案件是 Telex Corp. v. IBM Corp., 367 F. Supp. 258 (N.D. Okla. 1973), rev'd on other grounds, 510 F.2d 894 (10th Cir. 1975)。 正如微软将网络浏览整合到其操作系统中一样,20 世纪 70 年代的 IBM 也将内存整合到其 CPU 这一硬件平台中。一家外围设备制造商声称存在搭售侵权行为,但地方法院驳回了这一诉讼请求,因为它认为将法院卷入产品设计决策是不合适的。Id.at 347。法院对搭售主张的讨论很简短,并未详述整合对竞争或效率的影响。法院也没有考虑对所谓的搭售进行本身分析是否明智。

555

We have found four antitrust cases involving arrangements in which a software program is tied to the purchase of a software platform — two district court cases and two appellate court cases, including one from this court. The first case, Innovation Data Processing, Inc. v. IBM Corp., 585 F. Supp. 1470 (D.N.J. 1984), involved an allegation that IBM bundled with its OS a utility used to transfer data from a tape drive to a computer’s disk drive. Although the court mentioned the efficiencies achieved by bundling, it ultimately dismissed the per se tying claim because IBM sold a discounted version of the OS without the utility. Id. at 1475-76. The second case, A.I. Root Co. v. Computer/Dynamics, Inc., 806 F.2d 673 (6th Cir. 1986), was brought by a business customer who claimed that an OS manufacturer illegally conditioned the sale of its OS on the purchase of other software applications. The court quickly disposed of the case on the ground that defendant Computer/Dynamics had no market power. Id. at 675-77. There was no mention of the efficiencies from the tie. The third case, Caldera, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 72 F. Supp. 2d 1295 (D. Utah 1999), involved a complaint that the technological integration of MS–DOS and Windows 3.1 into Windows 95 constituted a per se tying violation. The court formulated the “single product” issue in terms of whether the tie constituted a technological improvement, ultimately concluding that Microsoft was not entitled to summary judgment on that issue. Id. at 1322-28.
我们发现有四起反托拉斯案件涉及软件程序与购买软件平台捆绑的安排--两起地区法院案件和两起上诉法院案件,包括本法院的一起案件。第一起案件是 Innovation Data Processing 公司诉 IBM 公司案,585 F. Supp. 1470(D.N.J. 1984),该案指控 IBM 将用于将数据从磁带驱动器传输到计算机磁盘驱动器的实用程序与操作系统捆绑在一起。尽管法院提到了捆绑所带来的效率,但最终驳回了搭售指控,因为IBM出售的是没有捆绑工具的打折版操作系统。Id. at 1475-76。第二个案例是 A.I. Root Co. v. Computer/Dynamics, Inc., 806 F.2d 673(第 6 巡回法院,1986 年),该案是由一位商业客户提起的,他声称一家操作系统制造商非法将购买其他应用软件作为销售其操作系统的条件。法院以被告 Computer/Dynamics 公司不具有市场支配力为由迅速驳回了此案。Id. at 675-77。该案没有提及平局带来的效率。第三个案例是 Caldera, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 72 F. Supp. 2d 1295 (D. Utah 1999),该案涉及一项申诉,即将 MS-DOS 和 Windows 3.1 整合到 Windows 95 中的技术本身构成了搭售侵权行为。法院从搭售是否构成技术改进的角度提出了 "单一产品 "问题,并最终得出结论,微软无权就该问题作出即决判决。Id. 第 1322-28 页。

The software case that bears the greatest resemblance to that at bar is, not surprisingly, Microsoft II, 147 F.3d 935, where we examined the bundling of IE with Windows 95. But the issue there was whether the bundle constituted an “integrated product” as the term was used in a 1994 consent decree between the Department of Justice and Microsoft. Id. at 939. We did not consider whether Microsoft’s bundling should be condemned as per se illegal. We certainly did not make any finding that bundling IE with Windows had “no purpose except stifling of competition,” White Motor, 372 U.S. at 263, 83 S. Ct. 696, an important consideration in defining the scope of any of antitrust law’s per se rules, see Cont’l T.V., 433 U.S. at 57-59, 97 S. Ct. 2549. While we believed our interpretation of the term “integrated product” was consistent with the test for separate products under tying law, we made clear that the “antitrust question is of course distinct.” Microsoft II, 147 F.3d at 950 n.14. We even cautioned that our conclusion that IE and Windows 95 were integrated was “subject to reexamination on a more complete record.” Id. at 952. To the extent that the decision completely disclaimed judicial capacity to evaluate “high-tech product design,” id., it cannot be said to conform to prevailing antitrust doctrine (as opposed to resolution of the decree-interpretation issue then before us). In any case, mere review of asserted breaches of a consent decree hardly constitutes enough “experience” to warrant application of per se analysis. See Broad. Music, 441 U.S. at 10-16, 99 S. Ct. 1551 (refusing to apply per se analysis to defendant’s blanket licenses even though those licenses had been thoroughly investigated by the Department of Justice and were the subject of a consent decree that had been reviewed by numerous courts).
与本案最相似的软件案件是 Microsoft II, 147 F.3d 935,在该案中,我们审查了将 IE 与 Windows 95 捆绑的问题。但该案中的问题是,捆绑是否构成 "集成产品",1994年司法部与微软达成的同意令中使用了该术语。Id.at 939。我们并未考虑是否应将微软的捆绑行为本身定为非法行为。我们当然没有发现将 IE 与 Windows 捆绑在一起 "除了扼杀竞争之外没有任何目的",White Motor 案,372 U.S. at 263,83 S. Ct. 696,这是界定反托拉斯法本身规则范围的一个重要考虑因素,见 Cont'l T.V.案,433 U.S. at 57-59,97 S. Ct. 2549。虽然我们认为我们对 "集成产品 "一词的解释与搭售法中对独立产品的测试是一致的,但我们明确指出 "反托拉斯问题当然是不同的"。Microsoft II, 147 F.3d at 950 n.14。我们甚至提醒说,我们关于 IE 和 Windows 95 是集成产品的结论 "需要根据更完整的记录重新审查"。Id.at 952。由于该判决完全放弃了评估 "高科技产品设计 "的司法能力,因此不能说它符合现行的反托拉斯理论(而不是解决当时摆在我们面前的法令解释问题)。在任何情况下,仅仅审查声称的违反同意法令的行为都不足以构成 "经验",从而保证适用本身分析。参见 Broad.Music, 441 U.S. at 10-16, 99 S. Ct. 1551(拒绝对被告的一揽子许可适用本身分析,尽管这些许可已由司法部进行了彻底调查,并且是由许多法院审查过的同意令的对象)。

While the paucity of cases examining software bundling suggests a high risk that per se analysis may produce inaccurate results, the nature of the platform software market affirmatively suggests that per se rules might stunt valuable innovation. We have in mind two reasons.
尽管研究软件捆绑的案例很少,这表明本身的分析很有可能产生不准确的结果,但平台软件市场的性质肯定地表明,本身的规则可能会阻碍有价值的创新。我们考虑到两个原因。

First, as we explained in the previous section, the separate-products test is a poor proxy for net efficiency from newly integrated products. Under per se analysis the first firm to merge
首先,正如我们在上一节所解释的,独立产品测试不能很好地反映新整合产品的净效率。根据本身的分析,最先合并的公司

556

previously distinct functionalities (e.g., the inclusion of starter motors in automobiles) or to eliminate entirely the need for a second function (e.g., the invention of the stain- resistant carpet) risks being condemned as having tied two separate products because at the moment of integration there will appear to be a robust “distinct” market for the tied product. See 10 AREEDA ET AL., ANTITRUST LAW ¶1746, at 224. Rule of reason analysis, however, affords the first mover an opportunity to demonstrate that an efficiency gain from its “tie” adequately offsets any distortion of consumer choice. See Grappone, Inc. v. Subaru of New England, Inc., 858 F.2d 792, 799 (1st Cir. 1988) (Breyer, J.); see also Town Sound & Custom Tops, Inc. v. Chrysler Motor Corp., 959 F.2d 468, 482 (3d Cir. 1992); Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 677 F.2d 1045, 1048-49 n.5 (5th Cir. 1982).
在这种情况下,将以前不同的功能(如在汽车中加入起动机)或完全消除对第二种功能的需要(如发明防污地毯)的做法有可能被视为捆绑了两种不同的产品,因为在整合的那一刻,捆绑产品似乎有了一个强大的 "独特 "市场。见 10 AREEDA ET AL., ANTITRUST LAW §1746, 页 224。然而,合理性规则分析使先行者有机会证明其 "搭售 "带来的效率收益足以抵消对消费者选择的任何扭曲。见 Grappone, Inc. v. Subaru of New England, Inc., 858 F.2d 792, 799 (1st Cir. 1988) (Breyer, J.); see also Town Sound & Custom Tops, Inc. v. Chrysler Motor Corp., 959 F.2d 468, 482 (3d Cir. 1992); Kaiser Aluminum & Chem.Sales, Inc. v. Avondale Shipyards, Inc., 677 F.2d 1045, 1048-49 n.5 (5th Cir. 1982)。

The failure of the separate-products test to screen out certain cases of productive integration is particularly troubling in platform software markets such as that in which the defendant competes. Not only is integration common in such markets, but it is common among firms without market power. We have already reviewed evidence that nearly all competitive OS vendors also bundle browsers. Moreover, plaintiffs do not dispute that OS vendors can and do incorporate basic internet plumbing and other useful functionality into their OSs. See Direct Testimony of Richard Schmalensee ¶508, reprinted in 7 J.A. at 4462-64 (disk defragmentation, memory management, peer-to-peer networking or file sharing); 11/19/98 am Tr. at 82-83 (trial testimony of Frederick Warren-Boulton), reprinted in 10 J.A. at 6427-28 (TCP/IP stacks). Firms without market power have no incentive to package different pieces of software together unless there are efficiency gains from doing so. The ubiquity of bundling in competitive platform software markets should give courts reason to pause before condemning such behavior in less competitive markets.
在平台软件市场(如被告参与竞争的市场)中,独立产品测试未能筛选出某些生产性整合案例,这一点尤其令人担忧。在这类市场中,整合不仅很常见,而且在没有市场支配力的公司中也很常见。我们已经审查了几乎所有竞争性操作系统供应商也捆绑浏览器的证据。此外,原告对操作系统供应商能够并确实将基本的互联网管道和其他有用的功能整合到其操作系统中并无异议。见 Richard Schmalensee 的直接证词第 508 段,转载于 7 J.A. 第 4462-64 页(磁盘碎片整理、内存管理、点对点网络或文件共享);11/19/98 am Tr. 第 82-83 页(Frederick Warren-Boulton 的庭审证词),转载于 10 J.A. 第 6427-28 页(TCP/IP 协议栈)。没有市场支配力的公司没有动力将不同的软件打包在一起,除非这样做可以提高效率。在竞争激烈的平台软件市场上,捆绑行为无处不在,这应该让法院有理由在谴责竞争不那么激烈的市场上的这种行为之前暂停一下。

Second, because of the pervasively innovative character of platform software markets, tying in such markets may produce efficiencies that courts have not previously encountered and thus the Supreme Court had not factored into the per se rule as originally conceived. For example, the bundling of a browser with OSs enables an independent software developer to count on the presence of the browser’s APIs, if any, on consumers’ machines and thus to omit them from its own package. See Direct Testimony of Richard Schmalensee ¶¶230-31, 234, reprinted in 7 J.A. at 4309-11, 4312; Direct Testimony of Michael Devlin ¶¶12-21, reprinted in 5 J.A. at 3525-29; see also Findings of Fact ¶2. It is true that software developers can bundle the browser APIs they need with their own products, see id. ¶193, but that may force consumers to pay twice for the same API if it is bundled with two different software programs. It is also true that OEMs can include APIs with the computers they sell, id., but diffusion of uniform APIs by that route may be inferior. First, many OEMs serve special subsets of Windows consumers, such as home or corporate or academic users. If just one of these OEMs decides not to bundle an API because it does not benefit enough of its clients, ISVs that use that API might have to bundle it with every copy of their program. Second, there may be a substantial lag before all OEMs bundle the same set of APIs — a lag inevitably aggravated by the first phenomenon. In a field where programs change very rapidly, delays in the spread of a necessary element (here, the APIs) may be very costly. Of course, these arguments may not justify Microsoft’s decision to bundle APIs in this case, particularly because Microsoft did not merely bundle with Windows the APIs from IE, but an entire browser application (sometimes even without APIs, see id.). A justification for bundling a component of software may not be
其次,由于平台软件市场具有普遍的创新性,在此类市场中的搭售行为可能会产生法院以前未曾遇到过的效率,因此最高法院在最初设想的 "本身 "规则中并未将其考虑在内。例如,将浏览器与操作系统捆绑在一起使独立软件开发商能够指望消费者的机器上存在浏览器的应用程序接口(如果有的话),从而在自己的软件包中省略这些应用程序接口。见 Richard Schmalensee 的直接证词 §¶230-31, 234,转载于 7 J.A. at 4309-11, 4312;Michael Devlin 的直接证词 §¶12-21, 转载于 5 J.A. at 3525-29;另见事实认定 §2。诚然,软件开发商可以将他们需要的浏览器 API 与自己的产品捆绑在一起,see id.193,但如果将相同的 API 与两个不同的软件程序捆绑在一起,可能会迫使消费者为该 API 支付两次费用。id.也的确,OEM 可以将 API 与他们销售的计算机捆绑在一起,但通过这种方式传播统一的 API 可能效果较差。首先,许多 OEM 服务于 Windows 消费者的特殊子集,例如家庭、企业或学术用户。如果其中一家 OEM 因 API 无法惠及足够多的客户而决定不捆绑该 API,那么使用该 API 的 ISV 可能不得不在其程序的每一份拷贝中捆绑该 API。其次,在所有 OEM 捆绑同一套 API 之前,可能会有一个相当长的滞后期--第一个现象不可避免地加剧了这一滞后期。在程序瞬息万变的领域,一个必要元素(这里指的是应用程序接口)的推广滞后可能会造成巨大损失。 当然,这些论点可能无法证明微软在本案中捆绑 API 的决定是正确的,特别是因为微软在 Windows 中捆绑的不仅仅是 IE 的 API,而是整个浏览器应用程序(有时甚至没有 API,参见同上)。捆绑软件组件的理由可能不是

557

one for bundling the entire software package, especially given the malleability of software code. See id. ¶¶162-63; 12/9/98 am Tr. at 17 (trial testimony of David Farber); 1/6/99 am Tr. at 6-7 (trial testimony of Franklin Fisher), reprinted in 11 J.A. at 7192-93; Direct Testimony of Joachim Kempin ¶286, reprinted in 6 J.A. at 3749. Furthermore, the interest in efficient API diffusion obviously supplies a far stronger justification for simple price-bundling than for Microsoft’s contractual or technological bars to subsequent removal of functionality. But our qualms about redefining the boundaries of a defendant’s product and the possibility of consumer gains from simplifying the work of applications developers makes us question any hard and fast approach to tying in OS software markets.
捆绑整个软件包,尤其是考虑到软件代码的可塑性。见 id。¶162-63;12/9/98 am Tr. at 17(David Farber 的庭审证词);1/6/99 am Tr. at 6-7(Franklin Fisher 的庭审证词),转载于 11 J.A. at 7192-93;Joachim Kempin 的直接证词¶286,转载于 6 J.A. at 3749。此外,与微软在合同或技术上禁止随后取消功能相比,对有效传播 API 的兴趣显然为简单的价格捆绑提供了更有力的理由。但是,我们对重新定义被告产品的界限存在疑虑,而且简化应用软件开发者的工作可能会给消费者带来好处,这使我们对操作系统软件市场中的任何硬性搭售方法提出质疑。

There may also be a number of efficiencies that, although very real, have been ignored in the calculations underlying the adoption of a per se rule for tying. We fear that these efficiencies are common in technologically dynamic markets where product development is especially unlikely to follow an easily foreseen linear pattern. Take the following example from ILC Peripherals, 448 F. Supp. 228, a case concerning the evolution of disk drives for computers. When IBM first introduced such drives in 1956, it sold an integrated product that contained magnetic disks and disk heads that read and wrote data onto disks. Id. at 231. Consumers of the drives demanded two functions — to store data and to access it all at once. In the first few years consumers’ demand for storage increased rapidly, outpacing the evolution of magnetic disk technology. To satisfy that demand IBM made it possible for consumers to remove the magnetic disks from drives, even though that meant consumers would not have access to data on disks removed from the drive. This componentization enabled makers of computer peripherals to sell consumers removable disks. Id. at 231-32. Over time, however, the technology of magnetic disks caught up with demand for capacity, so that consumers needed few removable disks to store all their data. At this point IBM reintegrated disks into their drives, enabling consumers to once again have immediate access to all their data without a sacrifice in capacity. Id. A manufacturer of removable disks sued. But the District Court found the tie justified because it satisfied consumer demand for immediate access to all data, and ruled that disks and disk heads were one product. Id. at 233. A court hewing more closely to the truncated analysis contemplated by Northern Pacific Railway would perhaps have overlooked these consumer benefits.
还有一些效率尽管非常真实,但在采用搭售本身规则的计算中却被忽略了。我们担心,这些效率在技术动态市场中很常见,因为在这些市场中,产品开发尤其不可能遵循容易预见的线性模式。下面以 ILC Peripherals, 448 F. Supp. 228 案为例,该案涉及计算机磁盘驱动器的发展。当 IBM 于 1956 年首次推出这种驱动器时,它销售的是一种集成产品,其中包含磁盘和磁盘头,磁盘头可将数据读写到磁盘上。Id.at 231。硬盘的消费者需要两种功能--存储数据和一次性访问数据。在最初几年,消费者对存储的需求迅速增长,超过了磁盘技术的发展速度。为了满足这一需求,IBM 让消费者可以从硬盘中取出磁盘,尽管这意味着消费者无法访问从硬盘中取出的磁盘上的数据。这种组件化使计算机外设制造商能够向消费者出售可移动磁盘。Id.at 231-32。然而,随着时间的推移,磁盘技术跟上了容量需求的步伐,消费者只需要几块可移动磁盘就能存储所有数据。此时,IBM 将磁盘重新整合到硬盘中,使消费者能够在不牺牲容量的情况下再次立即访问所有数据。Id.一家可移动磁盘制造商提起诉讼。 但地区法院认为这种捆绑是合理的,因为它满足了消费者对立即访问所有数据的需求,并裁定磁盘和磁头是一种产品。Id. at 233。如果法院更贴近《北太平洋铁路公司案》所设想的截断分析,或许会忽略这些消费者利益。

These arguments all point to one conclusion: we cannot comfortably say that bundling in platform software markets has so little “redeeming virtue,” N. Pac. Ry., 356 U.S. at 5, 78 S. Ct. 514, and that there would be so “very little loss to society” from its ban, that “an inquiry into its costs in the individual case [can be] considered [ ] unnecessary.” Jefferson Parish, 466 U.S. at 33-34, 104 S. Ct. 1551 (O’Connor, J., concurring). We do not have enough empirical evidence regarding the effect of Microsoft’s practice on the amount of consumer surplus created or consumer choice foreclosed by the integration of added functionality into platform software to exercise sensible judgment regarding that entire class of behavior. (For some issues we have no data.) “We need to know more than we do about the actual impact of these arrangements on competition to decide whether they…should be classified as per se violations of the Sherman Act.” White Motor, 372 U.S. at 263, 83 S. Ct. 696. Until then, we will heed the wisdom that “easy labels do not always supply ready answers,” Broad. Music, 441 U.S. at 8, 99 S. Ct. 1551, and vacate the District Court’s finding of per se tying liability under Sherman Act §1. We remand the case for evaluation of Microsoft’s tying arrangements under
这些论点都指向一个结论:我们不能心安理得地说,平台软件市场中的捆绑行为没有什么 "可取之处",N. Pac. Ry, 356 U.S. at 5, 78 S. Ct 514。Ry., 356 U.S. at 5, 78 S. Ct. 514,而且禁止捆绑销售 "对社会造成的损失极小",以至于 "在个案中对其成本的调查[可以]被认为[]没有必要"。Jefferson Parish, 466 U.S. at 33-34, 104 S. Ct. 1551 (O'Connor, J., concurring).我们没有足够的经验证据来证明微软的做法对消费者盈余的影响,也没有足够的证据来证明将附加功能集成到平台软件中会阻碍消费者的选择,从而对整个行为类别做出合理的判断。(对于某些问题,我们没有数据。)"我们需要了解更多有关这些安排对竞争的实际影响的信息,以决定它们......是否应被归类为本身违反《谢尔曼法》的行为"。White Motor, 372 U.S. at 263, 83 S. Ct. 696。在此之前,我们将注意 "简单的标签并不总能提供现成的答案",Broad.Music, 441 U.S. at 8, 99 S. Ct. 1551),并撤销地区法院根据《谢尔曼法》第 1 条对搭售责任本身的认定。我们将此案发回重审,以便根据《谢尔曼法》第1条对微软的搭售安排进行评估。

558

the rule of reason. See Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 292, 102 S. Ct. 1781, 72 L. Ed. 2d 66 (1982) (“[W]here findings are infirm because of an erroneous view of the law, a remand is the proper course unless the record permits only one resolution of the factual issue.”). That rule more freely permits consideration of the benefits of bundling in software markets, particularly those for OSs, and a balancing of these benefits against the costs to consumers whose ability to make direct price/quality tradeoffs in the tied market may have been impaired. See Jefferson Parish, 466 U.S. at 25 nn.41-42, 104 S. Ct. 1551 (noting that per se rule does not broadly permit consideration of procompetitive justifications); id. at 34-35, 104 S. Ct. 1551 (O’Connor, J., concurring); N. Pac. Ry., 356 U.S. at 5, 78 S. Ct. 514.
合理规则。参见 Pullman-Standard 诉 Swint 案,456 U.S. 273, 292, 102 S. Ct. 1781, 72 L. Ed.2d 66 (1982)("如果由于对法律的错误理解而导致裁决不成立,那么发回重审是正确的做法,除非记录只允许对事实问题做出一种解决方案。该规则更自由地允许考虑软件市场(尤其是操作系统市场)中捆绑销售的好处,并平衡这些好处与消费者的成本,因为消费者在捆绑市场中直接进行价格/质量权衡的能力可能会受到损害。见 Jefferson Parish, 466 U.S. at 25 nn.41-42, 104 S. Ct. 1551(指出本身规则并不广泛允许考虑有利于竞争的理由);id. at 34-35, 104 S. Ct. 1551(O'Connor, J., concurring);N. Pac.Ry., 356 U.S. at 5, 78 S. Ct.

Our judgment regarding the comparative merits of the per se rule and the rule of reason is confined to the tying arrangement before us, where the tying product is software whose major purpose is to serve as a platform for third-party applications and the tied product is complementary software functionality. While our reasoning may at times appear to have broader force, we do not have the confidence to speak to facts outside the record, which contains scant discussion of software integration generally. Microsoft’s primary justification for bundling IE APIs is that their inclusion with Windows increases the value of third-party software (and Windows) to consumers. See Appellant’s Opening Br. at 41-43. Because this claim applies with distinct force when the tying product is platform software, we have no present basis for finding the per se rule inapplicable to software markets generally. Nor should we be interpreted as setting a precedent for switching to the rule of reason every time a court identifies an efficiency justification for a tying arrangement. Our reading of the record suggests merely that integration of new functionality into platform software is a common practice and that wooden application of per se rules in this litigation may cast a cloud over platform innovation in the market for PCs, network computers and information appliances.
我们对 "本身规则 "和 "合理规则 "优劣的判断仅限于我们面前的搭售安排,即搭售产品是软件,其主要目的是作为第三方应用程序的平台,而被搭售产品是补充软件功能。虽然我们的推理有时似乎具有更广泛的效力,但我们没有信心谈论记录之外的事实,因为记录中对软件集成的讨论很少。微软捆绑 IE 应用程序接口的主要理由是,将这些程序接口与 Windows 结合使用可以提高第三方软件(和 Windows)对消费者的价值。参见上诉人开庭陈述第 41-43 页。由于这一主张在搭售产品为平台软件时具有明显的效力,因此我们目前没有理由认为本身规则不适用于一般软件市场。我们也不应该被解释为开创了一个先例,即每当法院发现搭售安排有效率方面的正当理由时,就转而采用合理规则。我们对记录的解读仅仅表明,将新功能整合到平台软件中是一种常见的做法,在这起诉讼中木讷地适用本身规则可能会给个人电脑、网络计算机和信息设备市场的平台创新蒙上一层阴影。

C. On Remand

Should plaintiffs choose to pursue a tying claim under the rule of reason, we note the following for the benefit of the trial court:
如果原告选择根据合理性规则提出搭售索赔,我们将指出以下几点,供初审法院参考:

First, on remand, plaintiffs must show that Microsoft’s conduct unreasonably restrained competition. Meeting that burden “involves an inquiry into the actual effect” of Microsoft’s conduct on competition in the tied good market, Jefferson Parish, 466 U.S. at 29, 104 S. Ct. 1551, the putative market for browsers. To the extent that certain aspects of tying injury may depend on a careful definition of the tied good market and a showing of barriers to entry other than the tying arrangement itself, plaintiffs would have to establish these points. See Jefferson Parish, 466 U.S. at 29, 104 S. Ct. 1551 (“This competition [among anesthesiologists] takes place in a market that has not been defined.”); id. at 29 n.48, 104 S. Ct. 1551 (“[N]either the District Court nor the Court of Appeals made any findings concerning the contract’s effect on entry barriers.”). But plaintiffs were required — and had every incentive — to provide both a definition of the browser market and barriers to entry to that market as part of their §2 attempted monopolization claim; yet they failed to do so. See supra Section III. Accordingly, on remand of the §1 tying claim, plaintiffs will be precluded from arguing any theory of harm that depends on a precise definition of browsers or barriers to entry (for example, network effects from Internet protocols and extensions embedded in a browser) other than what may be implicit in Microsoft’s tying arrangement.
首先,在发回重审时,原告必须证明微软的行为不合理地限制了竞争。Jefferson Parish, 466 U.S. at 29, 104 S. Ct. 1551, 即推定的浏览器市场,履行这一责任 "涉及调查 "微软的行为对搭售商品市场竞争的实际影响。搭售损害的某些方面可能取决于对搭售商品市场的仔细定义,以及搭售安排本身之外的进入障碍,原告必须证明这几点。见 Jefferson Parish, 466 U.S. at 29, 104 S. Ct. 1551("[麻醉师之间的]竞争发生在一个尚未界定的市场中");id. at 29 n.48, 104 S. Ct. 1551("地区法院和上诉法院均未就合同对进入壁垒的影响做出任何认定")。但原告被要求--而且完全有动机--提供浏览器市场的定义和进入该市场的障碍,作为其第 2 节企图垄断索赔的一部分;但他们没有这样做。见上文第三节。因此,在§1搭售索赔的发回重审过程中,原告将被禁止提出任何依赖于浏览器的精确定义或进入障碍的损害理论(例如,互联网协议和浏览器中嵌入的扩展程序所产生的网络效应),而微软的搭售安排中可能隐含的内容除外。

559

Of the harms left, plaintiffs must show that Microsoft’s conduct was, on balance, anticompetitive. Microsoft may of course offer procompetitive justifications, and it is plaintiffs’ burden to show that the anticompetitive effect of the conduct outweighs its benefit.
在剩下的损害中,原告必须证明微软的行为总的来说是反竞争的。当然,微软可能会提出有利于竞争的理由,原告有责任证明该行为的反竞争效果大于其利益。

Second, the fact that we have already considered some of the behavior plaintiffs allege to constitute tying violations in the monopoly maintenance section does not resolve the §1 inquiry. The two practices that plaintiffs have most ardently claimed as tying violations are, indeed, a basis for liability under plaintiffs’ §2 monopoly maintenance claim. These are Microsoft’s refusal to allow OEMs to uninstall IE or remove it from the Windows desktop, Findings of Fact ¶¶158, 203, 213, and its removal of the IE entry from the Add/Remove Programs utility in Windows 98, id. ¶170. See supra Section II.B. In order for the District Court to conclude these practices also constitute §1 tying violations, plaintiffs must demonstrate that their benefits — if any, see supra Sections II.B.1.b and II.B.2.b; Findings of Fact ¶¶176, 186, 193 — are outweighed by the harms in the tied product market. See Jefferson Parish, 466 U.S. at 29, 104 S. Ct. 1551. If the District Court is convinced of net harm, it must then consider whether any additional remedy is necessary.
其次,我们已经在维持垄断一节中考虑了原告声称构成违反搭售的一些行为,但这并不能解决第 1 节的问题。原告最强烈主张的两种违反搭售的行为确实是原告在§2垄断维护主张下承担责任的依据。这两种做法是:微软拒绝允许原始设备制造商卸载 IE 或将其从 Windows 桌面移除,《事实认定》第 158、203、213 段,以及将 IE 条目从 Windows 98 的 "添加/删除程序 "工具中移除,id. 第 170 段。为了让地区法院认定这些做法也构成第 1 节中的搭售违法行为,原告必须证明其利益--如果有的话,见上文第 II.B.1.b 节和第 II.B.2.b 节;事实认定第 176、186、193 段--大于搭售产品市场的损害。见 Jefferson Parish, 466 U.S. at 29, 104 S. Ct.如果地方法院确信存在净损害,则必须考虑是否有必要采取任何额外的补救措施。

In Section II.B we also considered another alleged tying violation — the Windows 98 override of a consumer’s choice of default web browser. We concluded that this behavior does not provide a distinct basis for §2 liability because plaintiffs failed to rebut Microsoft’s proffered justification by demonstrating that harms in the operating system market outweigh Microsoft’s claimed benefits. See supra Section II.B. On remand, however, although Microsoft may offer the same procompetitive justification for the override, plaintiffs must have a new opportunity to rebut this claim, by demonstrating that the anticompetitive effect in the browser market is greater than these benefits.
在第二部分B节中,我们还考虑了另一个被指控的搭售违法行为--Windows 98覆盖消费者对默认网络浏览器的选择。我们的结论是,这种行为并没有为第 2 节的责任提供独特的依据,因为原告未能通过证明操作系统市场的损害超过了微软声称的利益来反驳微软提出的理由。然而,在发回重审时,尽管微软可能会提出同样有利于竞争的理由,但原告必须有新的机会反驳这一主张,证明浏览器市场的反竞争影响大于这些利益。

Finally, the District Court must also consider an alleged tying violation that we did not consider under §2 monopoly maintenance: price bundling. First, the court must determine if Microsoft indeed price bundled — that is, was Microsoft’s charge for Windows and IE higher than its charge would have been for Windows alone? This will require plaintiffs to resolve the tension between Findings of Fact ¶¶136-37, which Microsoft interprets as saying that no part of the bundled price of Windows can be attributed to IE, and Conclusions of Law, at 50, which says the opposite. Compare Direct Testimony of Paul Maritz ¶¶37, 296, reprinted in 6 J.A. at 3656, 3753-54 (Microsoft did not “charge separately” for IE, but like all other major OS vendors included browsing software at “no extra charge”), with GX 202 at MS7 004343, esp. 004347, reprinted in 22 J.A. at 14459, esp. 14463 (memo from Christian Wildfeuer describing focus group test used to price Windows 98 with IE 4), and GX 1371 at MS7 003729-30, 003746, 003748, esp. 003750, reprinted in 15 J.A. at 10306-07, 10323, 10325, esp. 10327 (Windows 98 pricing and marketing memo), and Findings of Fact ¶63 (identifying GX 202 as the basis for Windows 98 pricing).
最后,地区法院还必须考虑我们在第 2 节垄断维护中没有考虑的涉嫌搭售违法行为:价格捆绑。首先,法院必须确定微软是否确实捆绑了价格,也就是说,微软对 Windows 和 IE 的收费是否高于对 Windows 单独的收费?这就要求原告解决事实认定第 136-37 段与法律结论第 50 段之间的矛盾,前者被微软解释为 Windows 的捆绑价格中没有任何部分可以归因于 IE,而后者的说法恰恰相反。比较保罗-马里茨的直接证词 §¶37、296,转载于 6 J.A.,页 3656、3753-54(微软没有对 IE "单独收费",而是像所有其他主要操作系统供应商一样,"不额外收费 "地将浏览软件包括在内),以及 GX 202,页 MS7 004343,特别是 004347,转载于 22 J.A.,页 14459,特别是 14463(克里斯蒂安-弗朗西斯的备忘录,转载于 22 J.A.,页 14459,特别是 14463)。14463(Christian Wildfeuer 的备忘录,其中描述了用于为带有 IE 4 的 Windows 98 定价的焦点小组测试),以及 GX 1371,MS7 003729-30、003746、003748,特别是 003750,转载于 15 J.A.,10306-07、10323、10325,特别是 10327(Windows 98 定价和营销备忘录),以及事实认定第 63 段(将 GX 202 作为 Windows 98 定价的依据)。

If there is a positive price increment in Windows associated with IE (we know there is no claim of price predation), plaintiffs must demonstrate that the anticompetitive effects of Microsoft’s price bundling outweigh any procompetitive justifications the company provides for it. In striking this balance, the District Court should consider, among other things, indirect evidence of efficiency provided by “the competitive fringe.” See supra Section IV.A. Although this inquiry may overlap with the separate-products screen under the per se rule, that is not its role here. Because courts applying the rule of reason are free to look at both direct and
如果 Windows 中与 IE 相关的价格出现正增长(我们知道并不存在价格掠夺的主张),原告必须证明微软捆绑价格的反竞争效果超过了该公司为此提供的任何有利于竞争的理由。在进行平衡时,地方法院应考虑 "竞争边缘 "提供的间接效率证据等。尽管这种调查可能与本身规则下的独立产品筛选重叠,但在此并不适用。因为适用合理性规则的法院可以自由审查直接和间接证据。

560

indirect evidence of efficiencies from a tie, there is no need for a screening device as such; thus the separate-products inquiry serves merely to classify arrangements as subject to tying law, as opposed to, say, liability for exclusive dealing. See Times–Picayune, 345 U.S. at 614, 73 S. Ct. 872 (finding a single product and then turning to a general rule of reason analysis under §1, though not using the term “tying”); Foster v. Md. State Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 590 F.2d 928, 931, 933 (D.C. Cir. 1978), cited in Jefferson Parish, 466 U.S. at 40, 104 S. Ct. 1551 (O’Connor, J., concurring) (same); see also Chawla v. Shell Oil Co., 75 F. Supp. 2d 626, 635, 643-44 (S.D. Tex. 1999) (considering a rule of reason tying claim after finding a single product under the per se rule); Montgomery County Ass’n of Realtors v. Realty Photo Master Corp., 783 F. Supp. 952, 961 & n.26 (D. Md. 1992), aff’d mem. 993 F.2d 1538 (4th Cir. 1993) (same).
直接证据表明了搭售带来的效率,因此不需要筛查手段;因此,单独产品调查的作用仅仅是将搭售安排归入搭售法的管辖范围,而不是独家经营的责任。见 Times-Picayune, 345 U.S. at 614, 73 S. Ct. 872(发现单一产品,然后根据§1进行一般合理性分析,尽管没有使用 "搭售 "一词);Foster 诉 Md. State Sav、1999)(在根据本身规则认定单一产品后考虑合理性规则的搭售主张);蒙哥马利县房地产经纪人协会诉房地产照片大师公司案,783 F. Supp. 952, 961 & n.26 (D. Md. 1992), aff'd mem.993 F.2d 1538 (4th Cir. 1993) (same).

If OS vendors without market power also sell their software bundled with a browser, the natural inference is that sale of the items as a bundle serves consumer demand and that unbundled sale would not, for otherwise a competitor could profitably offer the two products separately and capture sales of the tying good from vendors that bundle. See 10 Areeda et al., Antitrust Law ¶1744b, at 197-98. It does appear that most if not all firms have sold a browser with their OSs at a bundled price, beginning with IBM and its OS/2 Warp OS in September 1994, Findings of Fact ¶140; see also Direct Testimony of Richard Schmalensee ¶212, reprinted in 7 J.A. at 4300-01, and running to current versions of Apple’s Mac OS, Caldera and Red Hat’s Linux OS, Sun’s Solaris OS, Be’s BeOS, Santa Cruz Operation’s UnixWare, Novell’s NetWare OS, and others, see Findings of Fact ¶153; Direct Testimony of Richard Schmalensee ¶¶215-23, 230, esp. table 5, reprinted in 7 J.A. at 430205, 4310; Direct Testimony of James Allchin ¶¶261-77, reprinted in 5 J.A. at 3384-92.
如果没有市场支配力的操作系统供应商也将其软件与浏览器捆绑销售,那么自然可以推断出捆绑销售符合消费者需求,而非捆绑销售则不符合消费者需求,因为否则竞争者可以单独提供这两种产品并从捆绑销售的供应商那里获得搭售商品的销售额,从而获利。见 10 Areeda 等人,《反垄断法》第 1744b 条,第 197-98 页。从 1994 年 9 月 IBM 及其 OS/2 Warp 操作系统开始,大多数公司(如果不是全部的话)似乎都以捆绑价格销售浏览器,《事实认定》第 140 页;另见 Richard Schmalensee 的直接证词第 212 页,转载于 7 J.A. at 4300-01,并一直延续至今。在 4300-01 页,并运行到苹果公司的 Mac 操作系统、Caldera 和 Red Hat 的 Linux 操作系统、Sun 的 Solaris 操作系统、Be 的 BeOS、Santa Cruz Operation 的 UnixWare、Novell 的 NetWare 操作系统等的当前版本,见《事实认定》第 153 页;Richard Schmalensee 的直接证词第 215-23 页、第 230 页,尤其是表 5,第 7 页。表 5,转载于 7 J.A.,第 430205、4310 页;James Allchin 的直接证词,第 261-77 段,转载于 5 J.A.,第 3384-92 页。

Of course price bundling by competitive OS makers would tend to exonerate Microsoft only if the sellers in question sold their browser/OS combinations exclusively at a bundled price. If a competitive seller offers a discount for a browserless version, then — at least as to its OS and browser — the gains from bundling are outweighed by those from separate choice. The evidence on discounts appears to be in conflict. Compare Direct Testimony of Richard Schmalensee ¶241, reprinted in 7 J.A. at 4315, with 1/6/99 pm Tr. at 42 (trial testimony of Franklin Fisher). If Schmalensee is correct that nearly all OS makers do not offer a discount, then the harm from tying — obstruction of direct consumer choice — would be theoretically created by virtually all sellers: a customer who would prefer an alternate browser is forced to pay the full price of that browser even though its value to him is only the increment in value over the bundled browser. (The result is similar to that from non-removal, which forces consumers who want the alternate browser to surrender disk space taken up by the unused, bundled browser.) If the failure to offer a price discount were universal, any impediment to direct consumer choice created by Microsoft’s price-bundled sale of IE with Windows would be matched throughout the market; yet these OS suppliers on the competitive fringe would have evidently found this price bundling on balance efficient. If Schmalensee’s assertions are ill-founded, of course, no such inference could be drawn.
当然,竞争性操作系统制造商的捆绑价格只有在相关销售商完全以捆绑价格销售其浏览器/操作系统组合时,才会倾向于免除微软的责任。如果竞争性销售商为无浏览器版本提供折扣,那么--至少就其操作系统和浏览器而言--捆绑销售的收益就会被单独选择的收益所抵消。有关折扣的证据似乎存在冲突。请比较 Richard Schmalensee 的直接证词第 241 段(转载于 7 J.A. 4315 页)与 1999 年 6 月 1 日下午庭审记录第 42 段(Franklin Fisher 的庭审证词)。如果施马伦斯的观点是正确的,即几乎所有的操作系统制造商都不提供折扣,那么理论上几乎所有的销售商都会造成搭售的危害--阻碍消费者的直接选择:一个喜欢另一个浏览器的客户被迫支付该浏览器的全价,即使该浏览器对他的价值只是比捆绑浏览器的价值增加了。(这与不删除的结果类似,因为不删除会迫使想要替代浏览器的消费者交出未使用的捆绑浏览器所占用的磁盘空间)。如果不提供价格折扣是普遍现象,那么微软将 IE 与 Windows 捆绑销售的做法对消费者直接选择造成的任何阻碍都会在整个市场上得到体现;然而,这些处于竞争边缘的操作系统供应商显然会认为这种捆绑价格的做法总的来说是有效的。当然,如果施马伦斯的论断缺乏根据,就无法得出这样的推论。

VII. CONCLUSION

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded in part. We vacate in full the Final Judgment embodying the remedial order, and remand the
地区法院的判决部分得到确认,部分被推翻,部分发回重审。我们完全撤销包含补救令的最终判决,并将其发回重审。

561

case to the District Court for reassignment to a different trial judge for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
将此案交由地区法院重新分配给不同的审判法官,以便按照本意见进一步审理。

* * *

NOVELL, INC. v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION
NOVELL, INC.诉微软公司

731 F.3d 1064 (10th Cir. 2013)

GORSUCH, Circuit Judge.

A straggler of a case, this one drags us back twenty years. To a time before the dotcom boom busted and boomed again, a time when Microsoft was busy amassing a virtual empire — if sometimes in violation of the antitrust laws. Long since found liable for a rich diversity of antitrust misdeeds in the 1990s, this case calls on us to decide whether Microsoft back then committed still another, as-yet undetected anti-trust violation — this time at Novell’s expense.
这是一起散兵游勇式的案件,把我们拉回到二十年前。那是一个在网络泡沫破灭又再次繁荣之前的时代,那是一个微软忙于积累虚拟帝国的时代--尽管有时违反了反垄断法。早在 20 世纪 90 年代,微软就因各种反垄断不当行为而被认定负有责任,而本案则要求我们判定微软当时是否还犯下了另一起尚未被发现的反垄断违法行为--这一次是以 Novell 为代价。

Novell’s suit against Microsoft finally found its way to trial in 2011 but the jury couldn’t manage a verdict. Reviewing the record for itself after trial, the district court decided it could fairly admit of only one conclusion: Microsoft’s conduct did not offend section 2 of the Sherman Act. So the district court entered judgment as a matter of law, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 50, a decision Novell now asks us to overturn but one we find we cannot. Novell complains that Microsoft refused to share its intellectual property with rivals after first promising to do so. But the antitrust laws rarely impose on firms — even dominant firms — a duty to deal with their rivals. With respect to Novell at least, Microsoft did nothing unlawful.
Novell 对微软的诉讼终于在 2011 年进入了审判阶段,但陪审团未能做出裁决。地区法院在庭审后自行审查了记录,认为只有一个结论是合理的:微软的行为并未触犯《谢尔曼法》第 2 条。因此,地区法院依法做出了判决,参见联邦民事诉讼法典(Fed.R. Civ.P.50,Novell 现在要求我们推翻这一判决,但我们认为不能推翻。Novell 抱怨微软在首次承诺与竞争对手共享其知识产权后又拒绝这样做。但反垄断法很少规定公司--即使是占支配地位的公司--有义务与对手进行交易。至少就 Novell 而言,微软没有做任何违法的事情。

Despite a long trial — 8 weeks — and a voluminous record — 16,696 pages — the facts relevant to this appeal are straightforward enough. Looking at them as favorably to Novell as the record allows, they tell us this much.
尽管审判时间很长(8 周),记录也很多(16,696 页),但与本次上诉相关的事实却非常简单。在记录允许的范围内,从对 Novell 有利的角度来看,这些事实告诉了我们很多东西。

By the mid-1990s Microsoft had become the leading provider of Intel-compatible personal computer operating systems. An operating system amounts to the computer’s core software — software that allows the everyday user to take advantage of a computer’s functions. Users often rely on an operating system to open and close other applications — word processors, spreadsheets, calendars, or the like. Those applications often depend on the operating system, too, drawing on the operating system’s code to read and write files on the hard drive, draw images and text on the screen, or transmit information. In 1981, Microsoft introduced MS–DOS, an operating system that required users to type commands on the keyboard. Beginning in 1990, the company developed successive versions of its Windows operating system, one that featured a “graphical user interface” allowing users to issue commands simply by pointing and clicking a mouse on visual icons. Windows proved a huge commercial success for Microsoft, quickly becoming by a wide margin the most popular operating system on personal computers.
到 20 世纪 90 年代中期,微软已成为英特尔兼容个人计算机操作系统的领先供应商。操作系统相当于计算机的核心软件--使日常用户能够利用计算机功能的软件。用户通常依靠操作系统来打开和关闭其他应用程序,如文字处理器、电子表格、日历等。这些应用程序通常也依赖于操作系统,利用操作系统的代码读写硬盘上的文件、在屏幕上绘制图像和文本或传输信息。1981 年,微软推出了 MS-DOS,这是一种需要用户在键盘上键入命令的操作系统。从 1990 年开始,该公司陆续开发了多个版本的 Windows 操作系统,其中一个版本采用了 "图形用户界面",用户只需在可视图标上点击鼠标即可发出指令。事实证明,Windows 为微软带来了巨大的商业成功,并迅速成为个人电脑上最流行的操作系统。

Microsoft’s relationship with independent software vendors (ISVs) during this period proved a complicated one. On one hand, Microsoft had some incentive to cooperate with ISVs. After all, ISVs wrote applications for Microsoft’s operating system; increasing the number of applications that could run on Microsoft’s operating system meant increasing the utility of the operating system for users; and that meant more sales for Microsoft. On the
在此期间,微软与独立软件供应商(ISV)的关系非常复杂。一方面,微软有与 ISV 合作的动机。毕竟,ISV 为微软的操作系统编写应用程序;增加能够在微软操作系统上运行的应用程序的数量,意味着增加操作系统对用户的实用性;而这对微软来说意味着更多的销售额。关于

562

other hand, Microsoft didn’t just supply the operating system — it also competed with ISVs in the development and sale of applications for use on its Windows operating system. So, for example, by the mid–1990s, “office suites” containing applications for word processing, spreadsheets, and other everyday office tasks were all the rage and Microsoft began to offer its Microsoft Office suite (including Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel) in competition with ISVs. Among the ISVs with whom Microsoft competed during this era was Novell. In the mid1990s (and well before then), Novell produced WordPerfect — Microsoft Word’s leading rival in word processing applications — and the company harbored ambitions to create an office suite of its own to rival Microsoft Office, one it called PerfectOffice.
另一方面,微软不仅提供操作系统,还与 ISV 竞争,开发和销售在其 Windows 操作系统上使用的应用程序。例如,到 20 世纪 90 年代中期,包含文字处理、电子表格和其他日常办公任务应用程序的 "办公套件 "风靡一时,微软开始提供其 Microsoft Office 套件(包括 Microsoft Word 和 Microsoft Excel),与 ISV 竞争。在这一时期,与微软竞争的 ISV 包括 Novell。在 20 世纪 90 年代中期(甚至更早),Novell 生产了 WordPerfect(Microsoft Word 在文字处理应用程序中的主要竞争对手),该公司雄心勃勃地要创建一个自己的办公套件来与 Microsoft Office 竞争,它称之为 PerfectOffice。

This case concerns the tensions inherent in Microsoft’s relationship with ISVs in general and Novell in particular, and how those tensions played out in Microsoft’s development of the Windows 95 operating system.
本案例涉及微软与 ISV(特别是 Novell)之间的紧张关系,以及这些紧张关系在微软开发 Windows 95 操作系统过程中的表现。

As it was planning to roll out its Windows 95 operating system, the successor to Windows 3.0, Microsoft faced the questions whether and to what degree it should share its intellectual property with ISVs. Should it share a pre-release development version of the new operating system, and perhaps provide access to its internal workings, all to help ISVs develop applications ready for use by the public when the final version of Windows 95 went on sale? The firm was torn. Doing so would help the marketing of Windows 95, allowing the company to boast a robust range of applications users could employ on the new operating system straight away. At the same time, helping ISVs develop and sell applications threatened to hurt Microsoft’s own applications business, perhaps most especially its new office suite product, Microsoft Office.
在计划推出 Windows 95 操作系统(Windows 3.0 的后继系统)时,微软面临着是否应与 ISV 共享知识产权以及共享程度的问题。它是否应该分享新操作系统的预发布开发版本,也许还应该提供对其内部运作的访问权限,所有这些都是为了帮助 ISV 开发应用程序,以便在 Windows 95 最终版本上市时供公众使用?公司很纠结。这样做将有助于 Windows 95 的市场营销,使公司能够吹嘘用户可以在新操作系统上直接使用一系列强大的应用程序。与此同时,帮助 ISV 开发和销售应用程序又有可能损害微软自己的应用程序业务,尤其是其新的办公套件产品 Microsoft Office。

At first, Microsoft opted to share. Anticipating the release of Windows 95 to the public sometime in 1995, in June 1994 it shared a beta, or test, version of the operating system with ISVs. At the same time, Microsoft also gave ISVs access to Windows 95’s application programming interfaces (APIs). APIs allow programs to invoke the operating system’s built-in abilities to perform certain functions; each API consists of a set of named procedures that automate particular tasks an application might need to perform. By publishing the names of the procedures in an API and providing information about how to invoke each one, Microsoft essentially permitted ISVs a shortcut — they could rely on Microsoft’s APIs when writing their own code rather than having to design custom code to perform the same functions.
起初,微软选择了共享。由于预计 Windows 95 将于 1995 年向公众发布,微软于 1994 年 6 月与 ISV 共享了该操作系统的测试版。与此同时,微软还允许 ISV 使用 Windows 95 的应用程序编程接口(API)。API 允许程序调用操作系统的内置能力来执行某些功能;每个 API 由一组命名的程序组成,这些程序自动执行应用程序可能需要执行的特定任务。通过公布 API 中的程序名称并提供如何调用每个程序的信息,微软基本上允许 ISV 走捷径--他们在编写自己的代码时可以依赖微软的 API,而不必设计自定义代码来执行相同的功能。

Take, for example, a word processor user who wants to open a document she earlier created and saved. To do so, she might click “Open” (an option in the “File” menu on the program’s menu bar), opening the “file open dialog” — an unwieldy name for the on-screen window that lets the user select a file to open. But the word processor must somehow gather information about the contents of various folders on the hard drive, display it, and allow the user to click on or type the name of the file she wants to open. When Microsoft suggested it would share its APIs, it held out the hope that ISVs might avoid the need to develop their own code to perform each individual task and might instead simply use Microsoft’s APIs to perform these functions. By offering to share its APIs, Microsoft essentially suggested to ISVs that they wouldn’t have to “reinvent the wheel.”
例如,文字处理程序的用户想要打开她先前创建并保存的文档。为此,她可能会点击 "打开"(程序菜单栏上 "文件 "菜单中的一个选项),打开 "文件打开对话框"--一个让用户选择要打开的文件的屏幕窗口的笨重名称。但文字处理器必须以某种方式收集硬盘上各个文件夹的内容信息,显示出来,然后让用户点击或键入要打开的文件名。当微软提出要共享其应用程序接口时,它希望 ISV 可以避免开发自己的代码来执行每项任务,而只需使用微软的应用程序接口来执行这些功能。微软提出共享其 API,实质上是向 ISV 暗示,他们不必 "重新发明轮子"。

Among the APIs Microsoft chose to share information about were namespace extensions (NSEs). NSEs are a subset of APIs that permit a user to see (and then open) documents affiliated not just with the current application but located in wildly different places on the
微软选择共享的 API 中包括命名空间扩展(NSE)。NSE 是 API 的一个子集,它允许用户查看(然后打开)隶属于当前应用程序的文档,这些文档的位置与当前应用程序的位置大相径庭。

563

computer or elsewhere. Familiar namespaces include the “Recycle Bin” — where a user might dispose of an unwanted document — and the “Desktop” — the computer’s default screen that displays when the user starts up his computer. If a user wants to open a document on the Desktop, she might click the Desktop namespace icon on the left side of the file open dialog in the application she is currently running, and watch the contents of the Desktop appear on the right side of the window. With a double click, she might then open the document. NSEs thus provide something of a shortcut to places outside the current application.
或其他地方。熟悉的命名空间包括 "回收站"--用户可以在此处理不需要的文档,以及 "桌面"--用户启动计算机时显示的计算机默认屏幕。如果用户想在桌面上打开文档,可以在当前运行的应用程序中单击文件打开对话框左侧的桌面命名空间图标,然后在窗口右侧看到桌面的内容。双击后,她就可以打开文档了。因此,NSE 提供了通往当前应用程序以外地方的快捷方式。

Novell thought access to these NSEs particularly key. Not only would access to Microsoft’s NSEs allow Novell to ensure users of its programs could access, say, the Desktop and Recycle Bin without having to leave WordPerfect. Access to Microsoft’s NSEs would also allow Novell to create custom namespaces of its own. So, for example, Novell had in mind the possibility that someone in its WordPerfect program with the file open dialog screen open could access, say, items in Novell’s email application or its ClipArt library, all for use in a WordPerfect document. Novell’s hope was to use NSEs to help make its product so useful that users might be able to “live in” WordPerfect (or PerfectOffice) because they could open, modify, and search for their files across the computer all while remaining within the WordPerfect environment.
Novell 认为访问这些 NSE 尤为关键。访问 Microsoft 的 NSE 不仅可以让 Novell 确保其程序的用户可以访问桌面和回收站,而无需离开 WordPerfect。访问 Microsoft 的 NSE 还将允许 Novell 创建自己的自定义命名空间。因此,举例来说,Novell 希望在 WordPerfect 程序中打开文件打开对话框屏幕的人可以访问 Novell 电子邮件应用程序或剪贴画库中的项目,所有这些都可以在 WordPerfect 文档中使用。Novell 希望使用 NSE 使其产品非常有用,以至于用户可以 "生活在 "WordPerfect(或 PerfectOffice)中,因为他们可以在计算机上打开、修改和搜索文件,而这一切都可以保持在 WordPerfect 环境中。

All this matters because, after first choosing to share so much of its intellectual property with ISVs in the beta version distributed in June 1994, Microsoft reversed course in October, indicating to ISVs that they could no longer rely on the previously published APIs and that Microsoft would not guarantee the operability of the previously published APIs in the final version of Windows 95. The evidence suggests Microsoft did so because it concluded that — on balance — this move would prove profit maximizing for the firm. Withdrawing access to information about how to invoke APIs generally and NSEs in particular would make it harder for ISVs to produce applications for Windows 95 and in this way would marginally reduce the attractiveness of Microsoft’s new operating system. But withdrawing access would also make Microsoft’s own applications, including Microsoft Office, more immediately attractive to users. While ISVs could eventually develop work-arounds to give users the same effective experience, without advance access to information about how to invoke Microsoft’s APIs and NSEs, it would take them time to do so. All the while, Microsoft’s applications would have a competitive advantage, being the first applications usable on Windows 95. In an October 3, 1994 email, Bill Gates, Microsoft’s CEO, explained as much: “I have decided that we should not publish these [NSEs]. We should wait until we have a way to do a high level of integration [which] will be harder for the likes of Notes, WordPerfect to achieve, and which will give [Microsoft] Office a real advantage.”
这一切之所以重要,是因为微软在 1994 年 6 月发布的测试版中首次选择与 ISV 分享如此多的知识产权后,又在 10 月份反其道而行之,向 ISV 表示他们不能再依赖以前发布的 API,而且微软将不保证以前发布的 API 在 Windows 95 最终版本中的可操作性。证据表明,微软之所以这样做,是因为它认为--总的来说--此举将证明公司的利润最大化。取消对有关如何调用 API(特别是 NSE)的信息的访问权限,会使 ISV 更难为 Windows 95 开发应用程序,从而会略微降低微软新操作系统的吸引力。但是,取消访问权限也会使微软自己的应用程序,包括微软 Office,对用户更有吸引力。虽然 ISV 最终可以开发出变通方法,为用户提供同样有效的体验,但如果不能提前获得有关如何调用微软 API 和 NSE 的信息,他们就需要时间来做到这一点。在此期间,微软的应用程序将拥有竞争优势,因为它们是第一批可在 Windows 95 上使用的应用程序。在 1994 年 10 月 3 日的一封电子邮件中,微软公司首席执行官比尔-盖茨这样解释道:"我已经决定,我们不应该发布这些 [NSE]。我们应该等待,直到我们有办法实现高水平的集成,[这]将是 Notes 和 WordPerfect 等公司难以实现的,而且这将赋予 [Microsoft] Office 真正的优势。

When Microsoft withdrew access to its NSEs, Novell contends its business suffered. Effectively forced to reverse engineer Microsoft’s handiwork, it had to write its own replacement computer code. While Novell was able to achieve the same functionality for consumers, it took until May 1996, nine months after Windows 95’s public release, for it to roll out its own applications for Windows 95. That nine month delay, Novell argues, made all the difference. Where once it had a leading word processing program and hopes of a leading office suite, it contends the nine month delay gave Microsoft Office a huge leg up, one that it alleges was designed to be and proved to be a permanent advantage.
当微软撤销对其 NSE 的访问权限时,Novell 声称其业务受到了影响。实际上,Novell 被迫对微软的产品进行逆向工程,不得不编写自己的替代计算机代码。虽然 Novell 能够为消费者实现同样的功能,但它直到 1996 年 5 月,即 Windows 95 公开发布 9 个月后,才推出了自己的 Windows 95 应用程序。Novell 公司认为,这 9 个月的延迟造成了所有的不同。Novell 曾经拥有领先的文字处理程序和领先的办公套件的希望,但它认为 9 个月的延迟给了 Microsoft Office 巨大的优势,它声称这种优势是设计出来的,并被证明是一种永久的优势。

564

Given that the damages Novell claims to have suffered came as a result of lost sales of software applications (WordPerfect, PerfectOffice), one might be excused for thinking Novell’s lawsuit charges Microsoft with violating section 2 by seeking or maintaining a monopoly in some sort of market for applications generally or office suite applications more particularly. When Novell tried to pursue such a claim, however, it found the case soon dismissed on the ground that the statute of limitations for conduct back in the 1990s had long since run. See Novell, Inc. v. Microsoft, No. 05-CV-1087, 2005 WL 1398643 (D. Md. June 10, 2005), aff’d, 505 F.3d 302 (4th Cir. 2007).
鉴于 Novell 声称所遭受的损失是由于软件应用程序(WordPerfect、PerfectOffice)的销售损失造成的,人们可能会认为 Novell 的诉讼指控微软违反了第 2 条的规定,因为微软在应用程序或办公套件应用程序的市场上寻求或维持垄断。然而,当 Novell 尝试提出这样的诉讼请求时,却发现案件很快被驳回,理由是上世纪 90 年代行为的诉讼时效早已超过。参见 Novell, Inc. v. Microsoft, No. 05-CV-1087, 2005 WL 1398643 (D. Md. June 10, 2005), aff'd, 505 F.3d 302 (4th Cir. 2007)。

To pursue this suit, Novell had to develop a different theory and it eventually settled on this one. It alleged that Microsoft’s withdrawal of the NSEs not only helped Microsoft in the applications arena. Novell also alleged that the move helped Microsoft maintain its monopoly in the market for Intel-compatible personal computer operating systems. This theory Novell could still pursue because the government’s long-running antitrust case against Microsoft involved allegations of monopoly in the operating systems market and thus tolled the statute of limitations for private plaintiffs like Novell. See Novell, Inc. v. Microsoft, 699 F. Supp. 2d 730, 736 (D. Md. 2010), rev’d on other grounds, 429 Fed. Appx. 254 (4th Cir. 2011).
为了提起诉讼,Novell 不得不提出不同的理论,并最终确定了这一理论。Novell 声称,微软撤销 NSE 不仅有助于微软在应用程序领域的发展。Novell 还声称,此举有助于微软维持其在英特尔兼容个人计算机操作系统市场上的垄断地位。Novell 公司仍可坚持这一理论,因为政府对微软的长期反托拉斯案件涉及对操作系统市场垄断的指控,因此对 Novell 这样的私人原告而言,诉讼时效已过。参见 Novell, Inc. v. Microsoft, 699 F. Supp. 2d 730, 736 (D. Md. 2010), rev'd on other grounds, 429 Fed.254 (4th Cir. 2011)。

Novell initially filed its suit alleging unlawful monopolization in the operating systems market in federal district court in Utah. While the case was transferred for a period to a federal court in Maryland for consolidated pre-trial proceedings with other similar suits, see 28 U.S.C. §1407, it eventually returned to Utah for trial. It was after that trial in Utah Judge Motz entered judgment as a matter of law for Microsoft — and it is that result Novell now asks us to undo.
Novell 最初向犹他州联邦地区法院提起诉讼,指控其非法垄断操作系统市场。虽然该案曾一度被转移到马里兰州的一家联邦法院,与其他类似诉讼案进行合并预审程序(见《美国法典》第 28 编第 1407 条),但最终还是回到犹他州进行审判。在犹他州的审判之后,莫茨法官根据法律做出了微软胜诉的判决,而 Novell 现在要求我们撤销的正是这一结果。

At this point, one might wonder: How did Microsoft’s withdrawal of the NSEs help it maintain a monopoly in the operating systems market? Wouldn’t the withdrawal of NSEs have prevented ISVs from writing applications for Windows 95, at least to some degree? And wouldn’t this have hurt rather than helped Microsoft’s sales of operating systems? Withdrawing NSEs may have helped Microsoft’s competitive position against ISVs in selling applications, but any claim Novell might have involving an applications market was lost long ago. Novell has to show that withdrawing NSEs helped Microsoft maintain its dominant position in operating systems. How could it have done that?
说到这里,人们可能会有疑问:微软撤销 NSE 对其维持操作系统市场的垄断地位有何帮助?撤销 NSE 难道不会至少在某种程度上阻止 ISV 为 Windows 95 编写应用程序吗?这对微软操作系统的销售不是有百害而无一利吗?撤消 NSE 可能有助于微软在销售应用程序方面与 ISV 的竞争地位,但 Novell 可能涉及应用程序市场的任何主张早已丧失。Novell 必须证明,撤销 NSE 有助于微软维持其在操作系统领域的主导地位。它怎么可能做到这一点呢?

Novell offers two theories.

First, Novell argues that — but for Microsoft’s withdrawal of the NSEs — it would have released PerfectOffice earlier and acquired a greater following for its products. This larger group of consumers — now freed from dependence on Microsoft office suite applications — would have proven more susceptible to the lure of other operating systems (like Linux) also capable of running Novell’s applications. Put simply, Novell alleges that by delaying the release of Word-Perfect, Microsoft was able to lock more people into using Microsoft Office, and because Microsoft Office could only run on a Windows operating system those consumers were then locked into using a Windows operating system too.
首先,Novell 认为,如果不是微软撤回 NSE,它本可以更早发布 PerfectOffice,并为其产品赢得更多的追随者。这一大批消费者--现在摆脱了对微软办公套件应用程序的依赖--将被证明更容易受到同样能够运行Novell应用程序的其他操作系统(如 Linux)的诱惑。简而言之,Novell 声称,通过延迟 Word-Perfect 的发布,Microsoft 能够将更多的人锁定为使用 Microsoft Office,而由于 Microsoft Office 只能在 Windows 操作系统上运行,这些消费者也被锁定为使用 Windows 操作系统。

Second, Novell explains that PerfectOffice was equipped with middleware — PerfectFit and AppWare — that permitted ISVs to write applications directly for PerfectOffice rather than for the operating system. If PerfectOffice could perform more of the tasks traditionally performed by operating systems, more users would be more inclined to “live in” PerfectOffice
其次,Novell 解释说,PerfectOffice 配备了中间件--PerfectFit 和 AppWare--允许 ISV 直接为 PerfectOffice 而不是为操作系统编写应用程序。如果 PerfectOffice 能够执行更多传统上由操作系统执行的任务,更多用户就会更愿意 "生活在 "PerfectOffice 中。

565

rather than Windows. And because PerfectOffice was designed to work on other operating systems, these users too might be more easily enticed away from Windows.
而不是 Windows。而且,由于 PerfectOffice 是为在其他操作系统上运行而设计的,这些用户也可能更容易被吸引离开 Windows。

Could a rational trier of fact find Novell was a victim of unlawful monopolization under these theories? To prevail on a section 2 claim, a plaintiff generally must show the defendant possessed sufficient market power to raise prices substantially above a competitive level without losing so much business that the gambit becomes unprofitable. See United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 571 (1966); Olympia Equip. Leasing Co. v. W. Union Tel. Co., 797 F.2d 370, 373 (7th Cir. 1986). Then the plaintiff must show that the defendant achieved or maintained that market power through the use of anticompetitive conduct. See Verizon Commc’ns v. Law Offices of Curtis v. Trinko, 540 U.S. 398 (2004). Finally, a private plaintiff must show that its injuries were caused by the defendant’s anticompetitive conduct. See Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477, 489 (1977); Four Corners Nephrology Assocs., P.C. v. Mercy Med. Ctr. of Durango, 582 F.3d 1216, 1225-26 (10th Cir. 2009); 3 Phillip E. Areeda & Herbert Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law ¶501, at 85 (3d ed. 2008). How do Novell’s theories stack up against these standards?
根据这些理论,理性的事实审判者能否认定 Novell 是非法垄断的受害者?要在第 2 条索赔案中胜诉,原告一般必须证明被告拥有足够的市场实力,可以将价格大幅提高到高于竞争水平,同时又不会失去大量业务,以至于无利可图。参见美国诉 Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563, 571 (1966);Olympia Equip.Leasing Co. v. W. Union Tel.Co., 797 F.2d 370, 373 (7th Cir. 1986)。然后,原告必须证明被告通过反竞争行为实现或维持了市场支配力。参见 Verizon Commc'ns v. Law Offices of Curtis v. Trinko, 540 U.S. 398 (2004)。最后,私人原告必须证明其伤害是由被告的反竞争行为造成的。参见 Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477, 489 (1977);Four Corners Nephrology Assocs.Ctr. of Durango, 582 F.3d 1216, 1225-26 (10th Cir. 2009);3 Phillip E. Areeda & Herbert Hovenkamp, Antitrust Law §501, at 85 (3d ed. 2008)。Novell 的理论如何与这些标准相匹配?

Not infrequently, the initial question of market power proves decisive. Plaintiffs usually seek to prove market power indirectly or circumstantially — by defining a relevant product and geographic market, pointing to the defendant’s share of that market and perhaps barriers to entry (like the costs of regulatory compliance), and then asking us to infer from this evidence the power to raise price. See, e.g., United States v. Aluminum Co. of Am. (Alcoa), 148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945) (Hand, J.); Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image Technical Servs., Inc., 504 U.S. 451, 481-82 (1992); United States v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 351 U.S. 377 (1956); DOJ-FTC Horizontal Merger Guidelines (2010), www.justice.gov/atr/public/guidelines/hmg-2010.pdf. In these circumstances, the viability of the plaintiff’s claim can and often does turn on the market’s definition — which products are found to be sufficiently substitutable to fit within the same product market, which territories are found to constitute the terrain in which competition takes place. The greater the elasticity of demand and the larger the relevant geographic area of competition, the higher the chance that the defendant’s market share will dilute past the point where it can be taken as posing a serious threat to the competitive process. Alternatively but less often, a plaintiff will try to show market power not by inference but directly — by showing the defendant has actually raised prices substantially above a competitive level without sacrificing business. See, e.g., United States v. Microsoft, 253 F.3d 34, 51 (D.C. Cir. 2001); see also United States v. Dentsply Int’l, Inc., 399 F.3d 181, 190-91 (3d Cir. 2005) (using direct evidence to show market power in a section 1 case).
最初的市场支配力问题往往起决定性作用。原告通常试图间接或间接地证明市场支配力--通过界定相关产品和地域市场,指出被告在该市场中的份额,或许还有进入该市场的障碍(如遵守法规的成本),然后要求我们从这些证据中推断出提高价格的能力。例如,参见美国诉美国铝业公司(Alcoa)案,148 F.2d 416 (2d Cir. 1945) (Hand, J.);伊士曼柯达公司诉图像技术服务公司案,504 U.S. 451, 481-82 (1992);美国诉 E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co、351 U.S. 377 (1956); DOJ-FTC Horizontal Merger Guidelines (2010), www.justice.gov/atr/public/guidelines/hmg-2010.pdf. 在这种情况下,原告索赔的可行性可能而且往往取决于市场的定义--哪些产品被认为具有足够的可替代性以适应同一产品市场,哪些地区被认为构成了发生竞争的地域。需求弹性越大,相关竞争地域越广,被告的市场份额就越有可能被稀释到对竞争过程构成严重威胁的程度。另外,原告也可以不通过推论,而是直接通过证明被告在不牺牲业务的情况下将价格大幅提高到竞争水平之上来证明其市场支配力,但这种情况并不常见。例如,参见美国诉微软案,253 F.3d 34, 51 (D.C. Cir. 2001);另见美国诉 Dentsply Int'l, Inc.案,399 F.3d 181, 190-91 (3d Cir. 2001)。 2005 年)(在第 1 条案件中使用直接证据证明市场支配力)。

Though often the focus of section 2 disputes, questions of market definition and power aren’t in play here. Microsoft doesn’t dispute that in the 1990s a nationwide product market existed for Intel-compatible personal computer operating systems, as Novell alleges. Neither does Microsoft dispute it possessed market power in that market. To be sure, one could well debate whether the same product market that existed back then still exists today. Not infrequently, the quickly shifting gears of market innovation outstrip the slowly grinding gears of the law, and today Microsoft may face greater competition in providing operating systems for personal computers (think Apple, which now produces an Intel-compatible operating system) and the personal computer itself may face more competition from other devices (think tablets and smartphones). See, e.g., Henry Blodget, In Case You Don’t Appreciate How
尽管市场定义和权力问题通常是第 2 条争议的焦点,但在此并不存在。正如 Novell 所称,Microsoft 并未质疑 20 世纪 90 年代存在一个全国性的与 Intel 兼容的个人计算机操作系统产品市场。微软也没有对其在该市场中拥有的市场支配力提出异议。当然,人们完全可以就当时的产品市场是否仍然存在进行辩论。如今,微软在为个人电脑提供操作系统方面可能面临更大的竞争(想想苹果公司,它现在生产与英特尔兼容的操作系统),而个人电脑本身也可能面临来自其他设备的更多竞争(想想平板电脑和智能手机)。例如,见 Henry Blodget, In Case You Don't Appreciate How.

566

Fast the ‘Windows Monopoly’ Is Getting Destroyed…, Bus. Insider (July 17, 2013), www.businessinsider.com/windows-monopoly-is-getting-destroyed-2013-7. But however that may be, the antitrust laws and this lawsuit beckon us to look back in time to the marketplace as it once was and perhaps might have been, not as it now is.
Fast the 'Windows Monopoly' Is Getting Destroyed..., Bus.Insider 》(2013 年 7 月 17 日),www.businessinsider.com/windows-monopoly-is-getting-destroyed-2013-7 。但无论如何,反垄断法和这起诉讼都在召唤我们回顾市场曾经的样子,也许可能是过去的样子,而不是现在的样子。

With issues of market definition and power by the board, our focus turns to the next question in the sequence required to establish liability: Did Microsoft engage in anticompetitive conduct in violation of section 2 when it withdrew access to its NSEs from Novell and other ISVs? Or was this legally permissible competition?
随着市场定义和权力问题的解决,我们的重点转向了确定责任所需的下一个问题:当微软撤销 Novell 和其他 ISV 对其 NSE 的访问权限时,它是否违反了第 2 条,实施了反竞争行为?还是法律允许的竞争行为?

In earlier days, some courts suggested that a monopolist must lend smaller rivals a helping hand. If a monopolist so much as expanded its facilities to meet anticipated demand, or failed to keep its prices high enough to permit less efficient rivals to stay afloat, it could find itself held liable under section 2. See, e.g., Alcoa, 148 F.2d at 430; Telex Corp. v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 510 F.2d 894, 925 (10th Cir. 1975) (rejecting district court’s view that monopoly maintenance “need not be evidenced by predatory practices”). The Supreme Court and this one, however, have long and emphatically rejected this approach, realizing that the proper focus of section 2 isn’t on protecting competitors but on protecting the process of competition, with the interests of consumers, not competitors, in mind. Forcing monopolists to “hold[ ] an umbrella over inefficient competitors” might make rivals happy but it usually leaves consumers paying more for less. Olympia, 797 F.2d at 375; see also Trinko, 540 U.S. at 411; Four Corners, 582 F.3d at 1225-26; Christy Sports v. Deer Valley Resort Co., 555 F.3d 1188, 1195 (10th Cir. 2009); 3 Areeda & Hovenkamp, supra, ¶651, at 107.
在早期,一些法院认为垄断者必须向规模较小的竞争对手施以援手。如果垄断者为满足预期需求而扩建设施,或未能将价格维持在足够高的水平以允许效率较低的竞争对手维持下去,那么根据第 2 条,垄断者可能要承担责任。例如,见 Alcoa, 148 F.2d at 430; Telex Corp. v. Int'l Bus.Machs.Corp., 510 F.2d 894, 925 (10th Cir. 1975)(驳回地区法院关于维持垄断 "无需通过掠夺性行为来证明 "的观点)。然而,最高法院和本院长期以来一直坚决反对这种做法,因为他们意识到,第 2 条的正确重点不是保护竞争者,而是保护竞争过程,考虑的是消费者的利益,而不是竞争者的利益。强迫垄断者 "为效率低下的竞争者撑起一把保护伞 "可能会让竞争对手高兴,但通常会让消费者花更少的钱买更多的东西。Olympia, 797 F.2d at 375;另见 Trinko, 540 U.S. at 411;Four Corners, 582 F.3d at 1225-26;Christy Sports 诉 Deer Valley Resort Co., 555 F.3d 1188, 1195 (10th Cir. 2009);3 Areeda & Hovenkamp, supra, §651, at 107。

So what exactly qualifies as anticompetitive conduct under section 2, properly understood? It’s been said that anticompetitive conduct comes in too many forms and shapes to permit a comprehensive taxonomy. See Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752, 767-68 (1984); Caribbean Broad. Sys., Ltd. v. Cable & Wireless P.L.C., 148 F.3d 1080, 1087 (D.C. Cir. 1998). But the question we often find ourselves asking is whether, based on the evidence and experience derived from past cases, the conduct at issue before us has little or no value beyond the capacity to protect the monopolist’s market power — bearing in mind the risk of false positives (and negatives) any determination on the question of liability might invite, and the limits on the administrative capacities of courts to police market terms and transactions. See 3 Areeda & Hovenkamp, supra, §651 a, at 96-97. With time and a gathering body of experience, courts have been able to adapt this general inquiry to particular circumstances, developing considerably more specific rules for common forms of alleged misconduct — like tying, Eastman Kodak, 504 U.S. at 461-62, 112 S. Ct. 2072; exclusive dealing, Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 69; or efforts to defraud or lie to regulators or consumers, Conwood Co. v. U.S. Tobacco Co., 290 F.3d 768, 783-88 (6th Cir. 2002); Caribbean, 148 F.3d at 1087.
那么,按照第 2 条的正确理解,究竟什么才是反竞争行为呢?有人说,反竞争行为有太多的形式和形态,无法进行全面的分类。参见 Copperweld 公司诉 Independence Tube 公司案,467 U.S. 752, 767-68 (1984);Caribbean Broad.Sys., Ltd. v. Cable & Wireless P.L.C., 148 F.3d 1080, 1087 (D.C.ir. 1998)。但我们经常发现自己要问的问题是,根据证据和从过去案件中得出的经验,我们面前的争议行为除了保护垄断者的市场支配力之外,是否几乎没有任何价值--同时要考虑到任何有关责任问题的裁定都可能导致误判(和误判)的风险,以及法院对市场条款和交易进行监管的行政能力的限制。参见 3 Areeda & Hovenkamp,同上,第 651 a 节,第 96-97 页。随着时间的推移和经验的积累,法院能够根据具体情况调整这一一般性调查,为常见的不当行为制定更为具体的规则,如搭售,伊士曼柯达公司,504 U.S. at 461-62, 112 S. Ct.v. U.S. Tobacco Co., 290 F.3d 768, 783-88 (6th Cir. 2002);Caribbean, 148 F.3d at 1087。

As these common categories and the rules associated with them suggest, section 2 misconduct usually involves some assay by the monopolist into the marketplace — to limit the abilities of third parties to deal with rivals (exclusive dealing), to require third parties to purchase a bundle of goods rather than just the ones they really want (tying), or to defraud regulators or consumers. By contrast, and “as a general rule…purely unilateral conduct” does not run afoul of section 2 — ” businesses are free to choose” whether or not to do business with others and free to assign what prices they hope to secure for their own products. See Pac. Bell Tel. Co. v. Linkline Commc’ns, 555 U.S. 438, 448, 129 S. Ct. 1109, 172 L. Ed. 2d 836
正如这些常见类别及其相关规则所表明的,第 2 条不当行为通常涉及垄断者对市场的某种控制--限制第三方与竞争对手交易的能力(排他性交易),要求第三方购买捆绑商品而非他们真正想要的商品(搭售),或者欺骗监管者或消费者。相比之下,"作为一般规则......纯粹的单边行为 "并不违反第 2 条--"企业可自由选择 "是否与他人做生意,并自由指定其希望为自己的产品争取的价格。参见 Pac.Bell Tel.Co. v. Linkline Commc'ns, 555 U.S. 438, 448, 129 S. Ct. 1109, 172 L. Ed.2d 836

567

(2009). Put simply if perhaps a little too simply, today a monopolist is much more likely to be held liable for failing to leave its rivals alone than for failing to come to their aid. See id.; Four Corners, 582 F.3d at 1224-25; 3 Areeda & Hovenkamp, supra, ¶658, at 183.
(2009).简单地说,也许有点过于简单,如今垄断者因未能放过对手而被追究责任的可能性远大于因未能援助对手而被追究责任的可能性。参见同上;Four Corners, 582 F.3d at 1224-25;3 Areeda & Hovenkamp, supra, §658, at 183。

Many antitrust values lie behind the boundary line the law sketches here. If the law were to make a habit of forcing monopolists to help competitors by keeping prices high, sharing their property, or declining to expand their own operations, courts would paradoxically risk encouraging collusion between rivals and dampened price competition — themselves paradigmatic antitrust wrongs, injuries to consumers and the competitive process alike. Forcing firms to help one another would also risk reducing the incentive both sides have to innovate, invest, and expand — again results inconsistent with the goals of antitrust. The monopolist might be deterred from investing, innovating, or expanding (or even entering a market in the first place) with the knowledge anything it creates it could be forced to share; the smaller company might be deterred, too, knowing it could just demand the right to piggyback on its larger rival. See Einer Elhauge, Defining Better Monopolization Standards, 56 Stan. L. Rev. 253, 300-06 (2003); A. Douglas Melamed, Exclusionary Conduct Under the Antitrust Laws: Balancing, Sacrifice, and Refusals To Deal, 20 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 1247, 1254 (2005).
许多反垄断价值都隐藏在法律在此划定的边界线之后。如果法律习惯于强迫垄断者通过维持高价、分享财产或拒绝扩大自身业务来帮助竞争对手,那么法院就有可能鼓励竞争对手之间的串通和抑制价格竞争--这本身就是典型的反垄断错误,对消费者和竞争过程都是一种伤害。强迫企业互相帮助还可能降低双方创新、投资和扩张的积极性--这同样不符合反垄断的目标。垄断者可能会因为知道自己创造的任何东西都可能被迫分享而不敢进行投资、创新或扩张(甚至不敢首先进入市场);小公司也可能会因为知道自己可以要求获得对大对手的 "回击 "权而不敢进行投资、创新或扩张(甚至不敢首先进入市场)。见 Einer Elhauge, Defining Better Monopolization Standards, 56 Stan.L. Rev. 253, 300-06 (2003);A. Douglas Melamed, 《反托拉斯法下的排他性行为》:A. Douglas Melamed, Exclusionary Conduct Under Antitrust Laws: Balancing, Sacrifice, and Refusals To Deal, 20 Berkeley Tech.L.J. 1247, 1254 (2005).

Administrability considerations are also at play here. If forced sharing were the order of the day, courts would have to pick and choose the applicable terms and conditions. That would not only risk judicial complicity in collusion and dampened price competition. It would also require us to become “central planners,” a role for which we judges lack many comparative advantages and a role in which we haven’t always excelled in the past. See Trinko, 540 U.S. at 407-08; 3B Areeda & Hovankamp, supra, ¶772, at 220.
可管理性方面的考虑也在此发挥作用。如果强制共享成为主流,法院就必须挑选适用的条款和条件。这不仅有可能使司法部门成为串通和抑制价格竞争的同谋。它还会要求我们成为 "中央规划者",而我们法官在这一角色上缺乏许多比较优势,过去我们也并非总是擅长这一角色。见 Trinko, 540 U.S. at 407-08; 3B Areeda & Hovankamp, supra, §772, at 220。

The bottom line, then, is that antitrust evinces a belief that independent, profit-maximizing firms and competition between them are generally good things for consumers. Just as courts have held particular forms of antitrust conduct per se illegal because experience teaches that they are almost always destructive of competition, so too courts have fashioned rules of presumptive legality for certain forms of conduct that experience teaches almost never harm consumers. Experience teaches that independent firms competing against one another is almost always good for the consumer and thus warrants a strong presumption of legality. Acknowledging as much in the form of a general rule gives a degree of predictability to judicial outcomes and permits reliance by all market participants, themselves goods for both the competitive process and the goal of equal treatment under the law. See Trinko, 540 U.S. at 407-8; Schor v. Abbott Labs., 457 F.3d 608, 613 (7th Cir. 2006).
因此,底线是反托拉斯表明了一种信念,即独立的、利润最大化的公司以及它们之间的竞争通常对消费者是有利的。正如法院认定某些形式的反托拉斯行为本身是非法的,因为经验告诉我们,这些行为几乎总是破坏竞争,同样,法院也为某些形式的行为制定了推定合法的规则,而经验告诉我们,这些行为几乎从未伤害过消费者。经验告诉我们,独立企业之间的竞争几乎总是对消费者有利的,因此应大力推定其合法性。以一般规则的形式承认这一点,可使司法结果具有一定程度的可预测性,并允许所有市场参与者依赖,这对竞争过程和法律规定的平等待遇目标都是有利的。参见 Trinko, 540 U.S. at 407-8; Schor v. Abbott Labs.

Of course, most every rule proves over- or under-inclusive in some way. We often accept a degree of over- and under-inclusion as the price that must be paid for the benefits associated with a clear rule of law. But rarely is the law so unsubtle that it fails to acknowledge and candidly account for at least a rule’s most glaring exceptions. And certainly section 2 doctrine isn’t so unsubtle. Though “rare,” liability can sometimes be assigned even when the monopolist engages in “purely unilateral” conduct. Pac. Bell Tel. Co., 555 U.S. at 448. Predatory pricing presents a notable and easy example. Brooke Grp. Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209, 222-23 (1993); United States v. AMR Corp., 335 F.3d 1109, 1115 (10th Cir. 2003). Refusals to deal supplies is another if somewhat more controversial example. Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp., 472 U.S. 585, 600
当然,大多数规则都在某种程度上被证明过度或不足包容。我们常常接受一定程度的过度包容和不足包容,将其作为与明确的法律规则相关的利益所必须付出的代价。但是,法律很少会如此不含蓄,以至于不知道并不坦率地说明规则中最明显的例外情况。当然,第 2 条理论也并非如此不含蓄。尽管 "罕见",但有时甚至在垄断者从事 "纯粹的单边 "行为时,也可以追究其责任。Pac.Bell Tel.Co., 555 U.S. at 448。掠夺性定价就是一个显著而简单的例子。Brooke Grp.Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209, 222-23 (1993);United States v. AMR Corp., 335 F.3d 1109, 1115 (10th Cir. 2003)。拒绝交易供应品是另一个更有争议的例子。Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp.

568

01, 105 S. Ct. 2847, 86 L. Ed. 2d 467 (1985); Trinko, 540 U.S. at 408-10; see also 3B Areeda & Hovenkamp, supra, ¶772. Essential facilities doctrine offers perhaps an even more controversial example still. Compare Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States, 410 U.S. 366, 377-79 (1973) (forebearer of essential facilities doctrine), with Trinko, 540 U.S. at 411 (“We have never recognized such a doctrine.”).
01, 105 S. Ct. 2847, 86 L. Ed.2d 467 (1985); Trinko, 540 U.S. at 408-10; see also 3B Areeda & Hovenkamp, supra, ¶772。必要设施理论提供了一个可能更具争议性的例子。比较 Otter Tail Power Co. v. United States, 410 U.S. 366, 377-79 (1973)(基本设施理论的先驱)和 Trinko, 540 U.S. at 411("我们从未承认过这样的理论")。

Our case revolves around the second of these exceptions to the general rule protecting unilateral conduct. Novell seeks to impose section 2 liability on Microsoft for refusing to deal with its rivals. Initially, Microsoft chose to share its internal NSE protocols with ISVs in an effort to spur them into writing software for Windows 95. Then Microsoft reversed course, choosing to keep its NSEs to itself. Normally, this sort of unilateral behavior — choosing whom to deal with and on what terms — is protected by the antitrust laws. Even a monopolist generally has no duty to share (or continue to share) its intellectual or physical property with a rival. Novell insists, however, that Microsoft had an affirmative duty to continue sharing its intellectual property and that the firm’s decision to withdraw that assistance violated section 2. Predatory pricing appears nowhere in the case and Novell disclaims any reliance on essential facilities doctrine. So if a path to recovery lies anywhere for Novell, it lies through the narrow-eyed needle of refusal to deal doctrine.
我们的案件围绕着保护单方面行为的一般规则的第二种例外情况展开。Novell 要求微软承担第 2 条规定的责任,因为微软拒绝与其竞争对手进行交易。最初,微软选择与 ISV 共享其内部 NSE 协议,以刺激他们为 Windows 95 编写软件。后来,微软反其道而行之,选择自己保留其 NSE。通常情况下,这种单边行为--选择与谁交易、以什么条件交易--是受反垄断法保护的。即使是垄断者,一般也没有义务与竞争对手分享(或继续分享)其知识产权或实物财产。然而,Novell 公司坚持认为,微软公司有义务继续分享其知识产权,而且该公司撤销援助的决定违反了第 2 条的规定。本案中没有出现掠夺性定价的情况,Novell 公司也否认依赖必要设施原则。因此,如果说 Novell 的追偿之路在哪里的话,那也只能是通过拒绝交易原则这根狭隘的针。

Refusal to deal doctrine’s high water mark came in Aspen. There, this court and the Supreme Court upheld a jury verdict finding liability when a monopolist (Aspen Skiing Company) first voluntarily agreed to a sales and marketing joint venture with a rival (Aspen Highlands) and then later discontinued the venture even when the evidence suggested the arrangement remained a profitable one. This result, however, falls “at or near the outer boundary of §2 liability.” Trinko, 540 U.S. at 409. Since Aspen, the Supreme Court has refused to extend liability to various other refusal to deal scenarios, emphasizing that Aspen represents a “limited exception” to the general rule of firm independence. Trinko, 540 U.S. at 409; see also Pac. Bell Tel. Co., 555 U.S. at 448. To invoke Aspen’s limited exception, the Supreme Court and we have explained, at least two features present in Aspen must be present in the case at hand.
拒绝交易原则的最高标志出现在阿斯彭案中。在该案中,当垄断者(阿斯彭滑雪公司)先是自愿同意与竞争对手(阿斯彭高地公司)建立销售和营销合资企业,随后又中止了合资企业,即使有证据表明这种安排仍然有利可图,但法院和最高法院仍维持了陪审团的裁决,认定该垄断者负有责任。然而,这一结果属于 "第 2 节责任的外部界限或接近外部界限"。Trinko, 540 U.S. at 409。自阿斯彭案以来,最高法院拒绝将责任延伸至其他各种拒绝交易的情形,强调阿斯彭案是公司独立性一般规则的 "有限例外"。Trinko, 540 U.S. at 409; see also Pac.Bell Tel.Co., 555 U.S. at 448。最高法院和我们都解释说,要援引阿斯彭案的有限例外,手头的案件必须至少具备阿斯彭案中的两个特征。

First, as in Aspen, there must be a preexisting voluntary and presumably profitable course of dealing between the monopolist and rival. Trinko, 540 U.S. at 409; Four Corners, 582 F.3d at 1224-25; Christy Sports, 555 F.3d at 1197. To be sure, requiring a preexisting course of dealing as a precondition to antitrust liability risks the possibility that monopolists might be dissuaded from cooperating with rivals even in procompetitive joint venture arrangements — for fear that, once in them, they can never get out. Inversely, this condition risks deterring the termination of joint ventures when they no longer make economic sense. But the requirement at least advances the larger principle that unadulterated unilateral conduct — situations in which no course of dealing ever existed — won’t trigger anti-trust scrutiny. It keeps courts, too, out of the business of initiating collusion and helps address, at least to some degree, administrability concerns — presumably profitable terms already agreed to by the parties may suggest terms a court can use to fashion a remedial order without having to cook them up on its own. Trinko, 540 U.S. at 407.
首先,与阿斯彭案一样,垄断者与竞争对手之间必须存在自愿且可能有利可图的交易过程。Trinko, 540 U.S. at 409; Four Corners, 582 F.3d at 1224-25; Christy Sports, 555 F.3d at 1197。可以肯定的是,要求将预先存在的交易过程作为反托拉斯责任的先决条件,有可能导致垄断者即使在有利于竞争的合资企业安排中也不愿与对手合作--因为他们担心一旦加入就永远无法脱身。反之,当合资企业不再具有经济意义时,这一条件有可能阻碍合资企业的终止。但这一要求至少推进了一个更大的原则,即不掺杂任何成分的单边行为--在不存在任何交易过程的情况下--不会引发反垄断审查。它还使法院不参与发起合谋的业务,至少在一定程度上有助于解决可管理性的问题--当事人已经同意的可能有利可图的条款可能会建议法院使用这些条款来制定补救令,而不必自行制定。Trinko 案,540 U.S. at 407。

Second, as in Aspen, the monopolist’s discontinuation of the preexisting course of dealing must “suggest[ ] a willingness to forsake short-term profits to achieve an anti-competitive end.” Id.; Four Corners, 582 F.3d at 1224-25; Christy Sports, 555 F.3d at 1197. In Aspen, the
其次,与在 Aspen 案中一样,垄断者终止先前存在的交易过程必须 "表明[]愿意放弃短期利润以达到反竞争目的"。Id.; Four Corners, 582 F.3d at 1224-25; Christy Sports, 555 F.3d at 1197。在 Aspen 案中,

569

Supreme Court held, the evidence suggested that the parties’ joint venture was profitable for all concerned and that Aspen Skiing Company (the monopolist) discontinued the arrangement simply to reduce the value of Aspen Highlands, force Highlands to sell, and in this way allow the monopolist to win control of all four ski mountains in Aspen. Much as in predatory pricing doctrine, the animating concern here is that a dominant firm may be able to forgo short-term profits longer than smaller rivals, and it may have an incentive to take on those losses to drive rivals from the market or to discipline them for having the audacity to try competition on the merits rather than abide as price-takers under the monopolist’s umbrella. Giving up short-term profits in these particular circumstances may risk doing less to enhance competition and consumer interests than to entrench a dominant firm and enable it to extract monopoly rents once the competitor is killed off or beaten down. See Brooke Grp., 509 U.S. at 222-23; 3 Areeda & Hovenkamp, supra, ¶651, at 102-03.
最高法院认为,证据表明,双方的合资企业对所有相关方都有利可图,而阿斯彭滑雪公司(垄断者)终止这一安排只是为了降低阿斯彭高地的价值,迫使高地出售,从而使垄断者赢得对阿斯彭所有四座滑雪山的控制权。与掠夺性定价理论一样,这里的关键问题是,一家占支配地位的公司可能比规模较小的竞争对手更有能力放弃短期利润,它可能有动机承担这些损失,以将竞争对手赶出市场,或惩罚那些敢于尝试正面竞争而不是在垄断者保护伞下做价格接受者的竞争对手。在这些特殊情况下放弃短期利润,对加强竞争和消费者利益的作用可能小于巩固主导公司的地位,并使其能够在竞争对手被干掉或打倒后攫取垄断租金。见 Brooke Grp.,509 U.S. at 222-23;3 Areeda & Hovenkamp,同上,§651, at 102-03。

Of course, firms routinely sacrifice short-term profits for lots of legitimate reasons that enhance consumer welfare (think promotional discounts). Neither is it unimaginable that a monopolist might wish to withdraw from a prior course of dealing and suffer a short-term profit loss in order to pursue perfectly procompetitive ends — say, to pursue an innovative replacement product of its own. To avoid penalizing normal competitive conduct, then, we require proof not just that the monopolist decided to forsake short-term profits. Just as in predatory pricing cases, we also require a showing that the monopolist’s refusal to deal was part of a larger anticompetitive enterprise, such as (again) seeking to drive a rival from the market or discipline it for daring to compete on price. Put simply, the monopolist’s conduct must be irrational but for its anti-competitive effect. See Aspen, 472 U.S. at 597 (a refusal to deal with a competitor doesn’t violate section 2 if “valid business reasons exist for that refusal”); Trinko, 540 U.S. at 407 (defendant must be seeking “an anti-competitive end”).
当然,企业通常会出于许多提高消费者福利的正当理由(例如促销折扣)而牺牲短期利润。垄断者为了追求完全有利于竞争的目的--例如,追求自己的创新替代产品--而退出先前的交易过程并遭受短期利润损失,这也不是不可想象的。因此,为了避免惩罚正常的竞争行为,我们不仅需要证明垄断者决定放弃短期利润。就像在掠夺性定价案件中一样,我们还要求证明垄断者拒绝交易是更大的反竞争行为的一部分,例如(再次)试图将竞争对手赶出市场,或因其敢于在价格上竞争而对其进行惩戒。简单地说,垄断者的行为必须是非理性的,但必须具有反竞争效果。见 Aspen, 472 U.S. at 597(如果 "存在拒绝交易的有效商业理由",则拒绝与竞争对手交易不违反第 2 条);Trinko, 540 U.S. at 407(被告必须寻求 "反竞争目的")。

At this point, one might object: refusal to deal doctrine requires the monopolist to sacrifice short-term profits to be held liable, but surely a monopolist can find ways to harm competition while still making money. And that’s undoubtedly right. Filing false papers with regulators and misleading consumers or others, for example, don’t (necessarily) involve the short-term sacrifice of profits but can at least conceivably harm competition as much as profit-sacrificing maneuvers. As we have already seen, though, a rival is always free to bring a section 2 claim for affirmatively interfering with its business activities in the marketplace. Refusal to deal doctrine targets only a discrete category of section 2 cases attacking a firm’s unilateral decisions about with whom it will deal and on what terms. It doesn’t seek to displace doctrines that address a monopolist’s more direct interference with rivals. It bears remembering, too, that to the extent that Aspen’s test still might be accused of being underinclusive to some degree even in the narrow field of refusals to deal, the general rule is firm independence and refusal to deal doctrine exists only to address one of the most obvious exceptions to that general rule. If the doctrine fails to capture every nuance, if it must err still to some slight degree, perhaps it is better that it should err on the side of firm independence — given its demonstrated value to the competitive process and consumer welfare — than on the other side where we face the risk of inducing collusion and inviting judicial central planning. See Melamed, supra, at 1266 (considering alternatives and defending the profit sacrifice test as “a sensible middle ground” for refusal to deal cases); Areeda & Hovenkamp, supra, ¶651.
在这一点上,有人可能会反对:拒绝交易原则要求垄断者牺牲短期利润来承担责任,但垄断者肯定能找到既损害竞争又能赚钱的方法。这无疑是正确的。例如,向监管机构提交虚假文件、误导消费者或其他人,这些行为不(一定)涉及牺牲短期利润,但至少可以想象,它们与牺牲利润的行为一样会损害竞争。不过,正如我们已经看到的那样,竞争对手总是可以自由地就积极干预其市场商业活动的行为提起第 2 条诉讼。拒绝交易理论只针对第 2 条中的一类独立案件,即攻击公司单方面决定与谁交易以及交易条件的行为。它并不试图取代针对垄断者对竞争对手进行更直接干预的理论。同样值得注意的是,即使在狭窄的拒绝交易领域,阿斯彭的检验标准仍可能被指责在某种程度上包容性不足,但一般规则是企业独立,拒绝交易理论的存在只是为了解决该一般规则中最明显的例外情况之一。如果该理论未能抓住每一个细微差别,如果它必须在某种程度上犯错误,那么,鉴于其对竞争过程和消费者福利的明显价值,也许它最好是在公司独立性方面犯错误,而不是在我们面临诱导串通和招致司法中央计划风险的另一面犯错误。 See Melamed, supra, at 1266 (considering alternatives and defending the profit sacrifice test as "a sensible middle ground" for refusal to deal cases); Areeda & Hovenkamp, supra, ¶651。

570

There’s no question that Novell can satisfy the first essential component of refusal to deal doctrine. A voluntary and profitable relationship clearly existed between Microsoft and Novell. Microsoft doesn’t dispute that at first it freely offered its applications rivals, including Novell, access to its NSEs. Neither does Microsoft dispute that doing so was profitable enough, encouraging software companies to write for its new operating system and in that way making Windows more attractive to consumers.
毫无疑问,Novell 可以满足拒绝交易原则的第一个基本要素。微软和 Novell 之间显然存在着自愿和有利可图的关系。微软并没有质疑起初免费向包括 Novell 在内的应用程序竞争对手提供 NSE 的访问权。微软也没有质疑这样做能够带来足够的利润,鼓励软件公司为其新操作系统编写软件,从而使 Windows 对消费者更具吸引力。

The difficulty is that Novell has presented no evidence from which a reasonable jury could infer that Microsoft’s discontinuation of this arrangement suggested a willingness to sacrifice short-term profits, let alone in a manner that was irrational but for its tendency to harm competition. To the contrary, all the evidence suggests that Microsoft’s decision came about as a result of a desire to maximize the company’s immediate and overall profits. And, as we’ve seen, refusal to deal doctrine specifically and section 2 generally seek to protect, not penalize, such prosaic profit-maximizing (and presumptively pro-competitive) conduct by independently operating firms, even dominant firms.
问题在于,Novell 没有提供任何证据,合理的陪审团无法据此推断出微软停止这种安排表明其愿意牺牲短期利润,更不用说如果不是因为这种安排有损害竞争的倾向,这种方式就是非理性的。恰恰相反,所有证据都表明,微软之所以做出这一决定,是因为它希望最大限度地提高公司的直接和整体利润。而且,正如我们所看到的,拒绝交易原则和第 2 条一般都是为了保护而不是惩罚独立经营的公司,甚至是占支配地位的公司的这种平庸的利润最大化行为(以及推定为有利于竞争的行为)。

Within the operating systems market alone, it’s not clear Microsoft lost or expected to lose revenues in the short term — or ever. By withdrawing NSEs, Microsoft may have handicapped the ability of ISVs to write for Windows 95. But as Novell acknowledges, ISVs had a reasonably strong incentive to write for Microsoft’s operating system with or without access to Window’s NSEs — given Microsoft’s significant presence in the operating systems market (already about a 90 percent share before Windows 95). In fact, the record suggests that Microsoft’s market share continued to grow even after the introduction of Windows 95 without shared NSEs (to at least 95 percent). To be sure, Novell’s CEO testified that Windows 95 would have done even better (to some unspecified degree) had Microsoft continued to provide access to NSEs. But Novell’s own expert refused to opine on the question. And Novell’s own theory of monopoly maintenance posits that Microsoft’s withdrawal of the NSEs helped its position in the operating systems market by wedding consumers to Microsoft applications that themselves could run only on its operating system. Perhaps Novell would respond that this strategy only helped Microsoft in the long run after a period of forgone short-term profits — but here again Novell presents no evidence to support such a theory.
仅就操作系统市场而言,微软在短期内或永远不会失去收入,这一点并不明显。通过撤销 NSE,微软可能削弱了 ISV 为 Windows 95 编写程序的能力。但是,正如 Novell 所承认的那样,无论是否可以访问 Window 的 NSE,ISV 都有相当大的动力为微软的操作系统编写软件,因为微软在操作系统市场上占有重要的地位(在 Windows 95 之前已经占据了约 90% 的份额)。事实上,记录表明,即使在没有共享 NSE 的 Windows 95 推出后,微软的市场份额仍在继续增长(至少达到 95%)。可以肯定的是,Novell 的首席执行官作证说,如果微软继续提供对 NSE 的访问权限,Windows 95 的业绩会更好(具体程度不详)。但 Novell 自己的专家拒绝就此问题发表意见。而 Novell 自己的垄断维护理论认为,微软撤销 NSE 有助于其在操作系统市场上的地位,因为它将消费者引向了只能在其操作系统上运行的微软应用程序。也许 Novell 会回应说,这一战略只是在放弃了短期利润之后对微软的长期发展有所帮助--但 Novell 在此也没有提出任何证据来支持这一理论。

Besides, even assuming Microsoft’s conduct did suggest a willingness to forgo short-term profits in the operating systems market, that would still account for only part of the story. As we’ve seen, Microsoft also produced various applications and, by everyone’s estimation, its withdrawal of the NSEs helped the firm win additional profits in that field. Indeed, Novell’s theory in this lawsuit rests on the view that Microsoft’s withdrawal of NSEs allowed it to win significant profits in the sale of office suite applications — and to do so immediately. Put differently, even if Microsoft’s decision to withdraw the NSEs ultimately made Windows 95 less successful, any losses in that market have to be considered in light of the acknowledged and immediate gains it achieved in the applications arena. Microsoft is an integrated firm with the goal of maximizing overall profits. And viewed overall, there’s no evidence that Microsoft took any course other than seeking to maximize the company’s net profits in the short as well as long-term.
此外,即使假设微软的行为确实表明它愿意放弃操作系统市场的短期利润,这也只占故事的一部分。正如我们所看到的,微软还生产了各种应用程序,而且据所有人估计,微软撤回 NSE 有助于该公司在这一领域赢得更多利润。事实上,Novell 在这场诉讼中的理论依据是,微软撤销 NSE 使其在办公套件应用程序的销售中赢得了巨大利润,而且是立即赢得的。换句话说,即使微软撤销 NSE 的决定最终使 Windows 95 不那么成功,但在考虑该市场的任何损失时,也必须考虑到微软在应用程序领域所取得的公认的直接收益。微软是一家以整体利润最大化为目标的综合性公司。从总体上看,没有证据表明微软除了在短期和长期内寻求公司净利润最大化之外,还采取了其他任何措施。

Perhaps Novell might reply that we should disaggregate operating systems from applications — that proof of a design to forgo short-term profits in one line of business (operating systems) should suffice without consideration of admittedly inevitable short-term
也许 Novell 公司会回答说,我们应该将操作系统与应用程序分开--只要证明在某一业务领域(操作系统)放弃短期利润的设计就足够了,而不必考虑不可避免的短期利益。

571

gains in another (applications). Novell, however, never attempts the argument for itself — and for good reason. It would be inconsistent with both the formal aspects and the reasoning behind Aspen and Trinko. In Aspen, the Supreme Court found that Aspen Skiing Company’s conduct had no economic justification except its tendency to exclude a rival. Aspen, 472 U.S. at 608. Neither did the Court disaggregate profits from different lines of business in Trinko: in concluding that Verizon’s behavior failed to show a willingness to sacrifice short-term profits, the Court didn’t separately consider the wholesale and retail markets at play there. The point of the profit sacrifice test is to isolate conduct that has no possible efficiency justification. Parsing profits from different product lines would defeat this project, holding firms liable for making moves that enhance their overall efficiency, if at the expense of a particular business line. It would risk as well returning us to a day when larger firms had to forgo immediate overall gains in order to subsidize a less efficient rival that happens to do business only in one particular product line. And it would present a serious administration challenge to say the least. After all, businesses have the ability “to recoup [their] investment[s]” in any number of ways. Christy Sports, 555 F.3d at 1194. And selling operating systems surely isn’t the only way to recoup the costs of developing a new operating system — a company might just as easily recoup costs through the sale of applications designed for that operating system. All this courts would have to account for and police.
另一个方面(应用程序)的收益。然而,Novell 从来没有为自己提出过这样的论点,这是有道理的。这与 Aspen 和 Trinko 案的形式和推理都不一致。在 Aspen 案中,最高法院认为 Aspen Skiing Company 的行为除了倾向于排斥竞争对手之外,没有任何经济上的正当理由。Aspen 案,472 U.S. at 608。在 Trinko 案中,法院也没有对不同业务范围的利润进行分解:在断定 Verizon 的行为未能表明其愿意牺牲短期利润时,法院没有分别考虑批发和零售市场。利润牺牲测试的意义在于隔离那些不可能以效率为理由的行为。对不同产品线的利润进行分析会使这一计划落空,使公司为提高整体效率的行为(如果牺牲了某一业务线)承担责任。这样做还有可能使我们回到这样一个时代,即规模较大的公司不得不放弃眼前的整体收益,以补贴效率较低的竞争对手,而该竞争对手恰好只在某一特定产品线上开展业务。至少可以说,这将给管理带来严峻的挑战。毕竟,企业有能力以各种方式 "收回投资"。Christy Sports, 555 F.3d at 1194。销售操作系统肯定不是收回开发新操作系统成本的唯一途径--公司可以通过销售为该操作系统设计的应用程序轻松收回成本。所有这一切,法院都必须加以说明和监管。

When pressed at oral argument to point to evidence of Microsoft’s willingness to sacrifice short-term profits, Novell contended that Mr. Gates’s internal October 3, 1994 email did the trick. That email, however, indicates only a desire to keep NSEs from rivals “until we have a way to do a high level of integration [that] will be harder for the likes of Notes, WordPerfect to achieve, and which will give Office a real advantage.” J.A. 1967. This may suggest a hard-nosed intent to undo rivals in the applications field, to assure Microsoft a leg up, but it doesn’t suggest Microsoft intended to forgo profits. More nearly, it suggests just the opposite — a wish to increase the firm’s immediate profits — and in this way it tends to show that Microsoft’s conduct was hardly irrational but for its exclusionary tendencies. Maybe the email suggests an uncharitable intent toward rivals, maybe even a wish to “hurt” or “destroy” them. But as we’ve seen, experience teaches that the process of firms investing in their own infrastructure and intellectual property and competing rather than colluding normally promotes competition and consumer gains — and the intent to undo a competitor in this process should hardly surprise. “Competition,” after all, “is a ruthless process.” Ball Memorial, 784 F.2d at 1338. “Most businessmen don’t like their competitors” and the antitrust laws aren’t designed to be a guide to good manners. Olympia, 797 F.2d at 379. Were intent to harm a competitor alone the marker of antitrust liability, the law would risk retarding consumer welfare by deterring vigorous competition — and wind up punishing only the guileless who haven’t figured out not to write such things down despite (no doubt) the instructions they received in countless “antitrust compliance” seminars. We fail to see any reason why the law should be more concerned about deterring the clumsy monopolist than the more sophisticated one. See Ronald A. Cass and Keith N. Hylton, Antitrust Intent, 74 S. Cal. L. Rev. 657, 676 (2001).
在口头辩论中,当被要求指出微软愿意牺牲短期利润的证据时,Novell 辩称盖茨先生 1994 年 10 月 3 日的内部电子邮件起到了作用。但这封电子邮件只表明,微软希望将 NSE 从竞争对手手中夺走,"直到我们有办法实现高水平的集成,[这]将使 Notes 和 WordPerfect 等公司难以实现,并将使 Office 具有真正的优势"。J.A. 1967。这可能暗示了微软在应用程序领域击败对手的强硬意图,以确保微软的优势,但这并不表明微软打算放弃利润。更确切地说,它表明的恰恰相反--希望增加公司的即期利润--通过这种方式,它倾向于表明,微软的行为除了其排他性倾向之外,几乎没有什么不合理之处。也许这封邮件暗示了微软对竞争对手不怀好意,甚至希望 "伤害 "或 "摧毁 "竞争对手。但正如我们所看到的那样,经验告诉我们,企业投资于自己的基础设施和知识产权、竞争而非勾结的过程通常会促进竞争和消费者利益--而在这一过程中消灭竞争对手的意图也不足为奇。"竞争 "毕竟 "是一个无情的过程"。Ball Memorial, 784 F.2d at 1338。"大多数商人都不喜欢自己的竞争对手",反托拉斯法并不是用来指导人们如何做人的。奥林匹亚案,797 F.2d at 379。如果仅将伤害竞争对手的意图作为反托拉斯责任的标志,那么法律就有可能通过阻止激烈的竞争而阻碍消费者的福利--最终只会惩罚那些尽管(毫无疑问)在无数次 "反托拉斯合规 "研讨会上接受了指导,但仍不知道不要写下这些东西的无耻之徒。 我们看不出法律为何更关注阻止笨拙的垄断者,而不是更老练的垄断者。见 Ronald A. Cass 和 Keith N. Hylton, Antitrust Intent, 74 S. Cal.L. Rev. 657, 676 (2001)。

Still, that is not quite the end of the story. Unable to travel the hard road of refusal to deal doctrine, Novell seeks an escape route, trying to recast Microsoft’s conduct as an “affirmative” act of interference with a rival rather than a “unilateral” refusal to deal. Novell
然而,故事还没有完全结束。由于无法在拒绝交易理论的道路上艰难前行,Novell 试图寻找一条逃脱之路,试图将微软的行为重塑为干扰竞争对手的 "积极 "行为,而非 "单方面 "拒绝交易。诺维尔公司

572

says Microsoft “affirmatively” induced reliance on its intellectual property only then to pull the rug out from underneath it, raising Novell’s cost of doing business in the process — and that, Novell says, should be enough to state a claim under section 2. Essentially Novell asks us to toy with the act-omission distinction, seeking to have us describe Microsoft’s conduct as an “affirmative” act of interference rather than an “omission” of assistance, and to replace the profit sacrifice test with a raising rivals’ cost test.
Novell 称,微软 "积极地 "诱导人们依赖其知识产权,然后才将地毯从其脚下拉开,在此过程中提高了 Novell 的经营成本--Novell 称,这应足以根据第 2 条提出索赔。从根本上说,Novell 要求我们玩弄行为与不行为的区别,试图让我们将微软的行为描述为 "积极的 "干扰行为,而不是 "不作为 "的协助行为,并用提高竞争对手成本的检验标准取代牺牲利润的检验标准。

Traditional refusal to deal doctrine is not so easily evaded. One could just as easily recast the monopolists’ “withdrawals” of assistance in Aspen or Trinko as “affirmative” acts of interference with the plaintiff’s efforts to win customers, ones that raised the rival’s costs of doing business in the process. Indeed, in almost any case where a monopolist first shares and then withdraws its property — as in Aspen and Trinko — the dominant firm might be said to raise the rival’s costs of doing business by forcing it to forgo reliance on the monopolist’s facilities or intellectual property and compete on its own. That’s the whole reason why competitors sue for refusals to deal — because they now have to incur costs associated with doing business another firm previously helped subsidize. Yet neither Trinko nor Aspen Skiing suggested this is enough to evade their profit sacrifice test, and we refuse to do so either. Whether one chooses to call a monopolist’s refusal to deal with a rival an act or omission, interference or withdrawal of assistance, the substance is the same and it must be analyzed under the traditional test we have outlined.
传统的拒绝交易理论并非如此容易回避。在阿斯彭案或特林科案中,垄断者 "撤回 "援助的行为同样可以被视为干扰原告争取客户的 "积极 "行为,在此过程中提高了竞争对手的经营成本。事实上,几乎在任何垄断者先分享后收回其财产的案件中(如阿斯彭案和特林科案),占支配地位的公司都可以说是提高了竞争对手的经营成本,迫使其放弃依赖垄断者的设施或知识产权而自行竞争。这就是竞争对手起诉拒绝交易的全部原因--因为他们现在不得不承担与开展业务相关的成本,而这些成本是另一家公司之前帮助补贴的。然而,无论是特林科还是阿斯彭滑雪公司都没有提出这足以逃避利润牺牲测试,我们也拒绝这样做。无论人们选择将垄断者拒绝与竞争对手进行交易的行为称为作为或不作为、干涉还是撤回援助,其实质都是一样的,都必须按照我们概述的传统检验标准进行分析。

This shouldn’t be (mis)taken as suggesting raising rivals’ costs theories play no role in antitrust. It is to say only and much more modestly that they do not displace Aspen and Trinko’s profit sacrifice test in the narrow world of refusal to deal cases, whether one wants to conceive of those cases as involving acts or omissions. Aspen and Trinko’s more demanding inquiry applies in this particular arena because — as we have already explained — the law views with an especially wary eye claims that competition and consumers benefit from collusion between rivals, and it views doubtfully too the ability of courts to identify “the proper price, quantity, and other terms” associated with compelled sharing. Trinko, 540 U.S. at 408; see also 3 Areeda & Hovenkamp, supra, ¶651, at 102, 109 (profit sacrifice test is “useful in unilateral refusal to deal cases to the extent that, if we wish to condemn refusals to deal at all, we must have a mechanism for identifying the very small subset of refusals that are anticompetitive”; raising rivals’ costs theory “is sometimes useful” but “can never operate as a complete test for exclusionary conduct”). Indeed, the primary case on which Novell relies, Multistate Legal Services, made plain that it was willing to apply a raising rivals’ cost theory only because that case did not involve a situation in which the defendant had refused to deal or share with a rival — and thus a situation in which the profit sacrifice test would apply. See Multistate Legal Studies v. Harcourt Brace Publ., 63 F.3d 1540, 1553 n.12 (10th Cir. 1995).
这不应(被)误解为提高竞争对手成本的理论在反垄断中不起作用。我们只是想更谦虚地说,在狭义的拒绝交易案件中,这些理论并不能取代阿斯彭和特林科的利润牺牲检验标准,无论我们是否愿意将这些案件视为涉及行为或不行为。阿斯彭案和特林科案的调查更为严苛,适用于这一特殊领域,因为--正如我们已经解释过的--法律以特别警惕的眼光看待竞争和消费者从竞争对手之间的串通中获益的主张,而且也怀疑法院确定与强制分享相关的 "适当价格、数量和其他条款 "的能力。Trinko, 540 U.S. at 408; see also 3 Areeda & Hovenkamp, supra, ¶651, at 102, 109 (profit sacrifice test is "useful in unilateral refusal to deal cases to the extent that, if we wish to condemn refusal to deal at all, we must have a mechanism for identifying the very small subset of refusal that are anticompetitive"; raising rivals' costs theory "is sometimes useful" but "can never operate as a complete test for exclusionary conduct").事实上,Novell 公司所依据的主要案例--"多州法律服务公司案"--明确表示愿意适用提高竞争对手成本理论,只是因为该案并不涉及被告拒绝与竞争对手交易或分享的情况--因此也就不涉及适用利润牺牲测试的情况。见 Multistate Legal Studies v. Harcourt Brace Publ.

Novell seeks to evade refusal to deal doctrine in one final way. It charges Microsoft with acting deceptively when it withdrew the NSEs. Microsoft gave pretextual technical reasons for withdrawing the NSEs, Novell says, when Microsoft’s real reasons were competitive in nature. This act of deception, Novell submits, is actionable under the antitrust laws without regard to traditional refusal to deal doctrine.
Novell试图以最后一种方式回避拒绝交易原则。它指控微软在撤回 NSE 时采取了欺骗行为。Novell 称,微软为撤销 NSE 提供了借口性的技术理由,而微软真正的理由是竞争性的。Novell 认为,这种欺骗行为是反托拉斯法下的可诉行为,而无需考虑传统的拒绝交易原则。

Business torts generally, and acts of fraud more particularly, can sometimes give rise to antitrust liability. At least when the defendant’s deceptive actions — usually aimed at third parties in the market-place — are so widespread and longstanding and practically incapable
一般来说,商业侵权行为,尤其是欺诈行为,有时会引起反托拉斯责任。至少当被告的欺骗行为--通常针对市场中的第三方--如此广泛和长期存在,实际上无法

573

of refutation that they are capable of injuring both consumers and competitors. See, e.g., Caribbean, 148 F.3d at 1087; Conwood, 290 F.3d at 783; 3B Areeda & Hovenkamp, supra, ¶782b. Here, however, at least that last element is missing. Whatever other problems exist with Novell’s theory, it falters when it comes to the antitrust injury requirement.
但这并不意味着消费者和竞争者都会受到损害。例如,见 Caribbean, 148 F.3d at 1087;Conwood, 290 F.3d at 783;3B Areeda & Hovenkamp, supra, ¶782b。然而,这里至少缺少最后一个要素。无论 Novell 的理论存在什么其他问题,它在反托拉斯损害要求方面都是失败的。

Suppose Microsoft had admitted its “real” reasons for withdrawing the NSEs, as Novell says it should have. Novell and consumers still would have suffered the same alleged harm — the delayed release of PerfectOffice. Deception, then, wasn’t the cause of Novell’s injury or any possible harm to consumers — Microsoft’s refusal to deal was. And that refusal to deal must be analyzed under the doctrine we’ve described. The antitrust laws don’t turn private parties into bounty hunters entitled to a windfall anytime they can ferret out anticompetitive conduct lurking somewhere in the marketplace. To prevail, a private party must establish some link between the defendant’s alleged anticompetitive conduct, on the one hand, and its injuries and the consumer’s, on the other. Here, that essential element is missing: the conduct Novell complains about (deception) is divorced from the conduct that allegedly caused harm to it and to consumers (the refusal to deal). Even if Microsoft had behaved just as Novell says it should have, it would have helped Novell not at all.
假设微软公司像 Novell 公司所说的那样,承认它撤回 NSE 的 "真正 "原因。Novell 和消费者仍然会遭受同样的所谓伤害--PerfectOffice 的延迟发布。因此,欺骗并不是 Novell 公司受到伤害或消费者可能受到伤害的原因,微软拒绝交易才是原因。而这种拒绝交易的行为必须根据我们所描述的理论进行分析。反垄断法并没有把私人当事方变成赏金猎人,只要他们能找出潜伏在市场中的反竞争行为,就有权获得意外之财。要想胜诉,私人当事方必须在被告被指控的反竞争行为与其对消费者造成的伤害之间建立某种联系。在本案中,这一基本要素缺失:Novell 公司投诉的行为(欺骗)与据称对其和消费者造成损害的行为(拒绝交易)相脱节。即使微软的行为如 Novell 所说的那样,对 Novell 也没有任何帮助。

At the end of the day it is clear to us, as it was to the district court, that Microsoft’s conduct does not qualify as anticompetitive behavior within the meaning of section 2. The district court offered still other rationales for rejecting Novell’s claim — ruling that Microsoft’s conduct didn’t harm competition in the operating systems market, and that Novell’s delay in producing its Windows 95 software was really attributable to its own mismanagement and not Microsoft’s withdrawal of the NSEs. We have no need to reach those alternative holdings or tangle with the parties’ arguments over them. The district court’s first and primary holding is correct and sufficient to support the judgment. The judgment is affirmed.
最后,我们和地区法院都清楚,微软的行为不属于第 2 条意义上的反竞争行为。地区法院还提出了其他理由来驳回 Novell 的诉讼请求--裁定微软的行为并未损害操作系统市场的竞争,而且 Novell 在生产其 Windows 95 软件方面的延迟实际上是由于其自身管理不善造成的,而不是由于微软撤销 NSE 造成的。我们没有必要讨论这些替代性裁定,也没有必要纠缠于双方的争论。地区法院的第一项主要裁定是正确的,足以支持判决。判决维持原判。

* * *

DANIEL WALLACE v. INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP.
DANIEL WALLACE 诉 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORP.

467 F.3d 1104 (7th Cir. 2006)

EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge.

Does the provision of copyrighted software under the GNU General Public License (“GPL”) violate the federal antitrust laws? Authors who distribute their works under this license, devised by the Free Software Foundation, Inc., authorize not only copying but also the creation of derivative works — and the license prohibits charging for the derivative work. People may make and distribute derivative works if and only if they come under the same license terms as the original work. Thus the GPL propagates from user to user and revision to revision: neither the original author, nor any creator of a revised or improved version, may charge for the software or allow any successor to charge. Copyright law, usually the basis of limiting reproduction in order to collect a fee, ensures that open-source software remains free: any attempt to sell a derivative work will violate the copyright laws, even if the improver has not accepted the GPL. The Free Software Foundation calls the result “copyleft.”
根据 GNU 通用公共许可证("GPL")提供受版权保护的软件是否违反了联邦反垄断法?根据自由软件基金会(Free Software Foundation, Inc)制定的这一许可证发布作品的作者不仅授权复制,还授权创作衍生作品--许可证禁止对衍生作品收费。人们可以制作和发布衍生作品,但前提是这些作品必须与原作品遵守相同的许可条款。因此,GPL 在用户与用户之间、修订版与修订版之间传播:无论是原作者还是任何修订版或改进版的创作者,都不得对软件收费,也不允许任何继承者收费。版权法通常是限制复制以收取费用的依据,但它确保了开源软件的免费性:任何试图出售衍生作品的行为都将违反版权法,即使改进者并未接受 GPL。自由软件基金会将这种结果称为 "copyleft"

One prominent example of free, open-source software is the Linux operating system, a derivative of the Unix operating system written by AT&T in the 1960s and now available
Linux 操作系统是免费开放源码软件的一个突出例子,它是美国电话电报公司(AT&T)在 20 世纪 60 年代编写的 Unix 操作系统的衍生版本,现在可以在 Linux 上使用。

574

without cost. (UNIX® is a trademark of The Open Group, but the source code to many variants of AT&T’s work is freely available.) Linux is one of many modern derivatives of Unix — which is not itself under the GPL. Thus Apple Computer, which uses the Berkeley Software Distribution variant of Unix as the foundation for the Mac OS X operating system, is entitled to charge for its software. Linux, initially the work of Linus Torvalds, is maintained by a large open-source community. International Business Machines offers Linux with many of its servers, or customers can install it themselves. IBM has contributed code to the Linux project and furnishes this derivative work to anyone else with an interest. Red Hat, Inc., sells media (such as DVDs), manuals, and support for the installation and maintenance of Linux. The GPL covers only the software; people are free to charge for the physical media on which it comes and for assistance in making it work. Paper manuals, and the time of knowledgeable people who service and support an installation, thus are the most expensive part of using Linux.
免费提供。(UNIX® 是开放集团的商标,但 AT&T 工作的许多变体的源代码都可以免费获取)。Linux 是 Unix 的众多现代衍生版本之一,而 Unix 本身并不在 GPL 下。因此,使用 Unix 的 Berkeley Software Distribution 变体作为 Mac OS X 操作系统基础的苹果电脑公司有权对其软件收费。Linux 最初是 Linus Torvalds 的作品,由一个庞大的开源社区维护。国际商业机器公司的许多服务器都提供 Linux,客户也可以自行安装。IBM 为 Linux 项目贡献了代码,并将这些衍生作品提供给其他感兴趣的人。Red Hat 公司销售 Linux 安装和维护所需的媒体(如 DVD)、手册和支持。GPL 只涵盖软件;人们可以自由地对软件的物理介质和帮助软件运行的服务收费。因此,纸质手册以及为安装提供服务和支持的知识渊博的人所花费的时间,是使用 Linux 最昂贵的部分。

Daniel Wallace would like to compete with Linux — either by offering a derivative work or by writing an operating system from scratch — but maintains that this is impossible as long as Linux and its derivatives are available for free. He contends that IBM, Red Hat, and Novell have conspired among themselves and with others (including the Free Software Foundation) to eliminate competition in the operating system market by making Linux available at an unbeatable price. Under the GPL, which passes from user to improver to user, Linux and all software that incorporates any of its source code will be free forever, and nothing could be a more effective deterrent to competition, Wallace maintains. The GPL is the conspiracy as Wallace sees things; it is a joint undertaking among users and creators of derivative works to undercut the price of any potential rival. But the district judge dismissed the complaint, ruling that Wallace does not suffer antitrust injury, see Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-OMat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477, 97 S. Ct. 690, 50 L. Ed. 2d 701 (1977), because he is a would-be producer rather than a consumer.
丹尼尔-华莱士希望与 Linux 竞争--要么提供衍生产品,要么从头开始编写操作系统--但他坚持认为,只要 Linux 及其衍生产品是免费提供的,就不可能与 Linux 竞争。他认为,IBM、Red Hat 和 Novell 相互之间以及与其他人(包括自由软件基金会)合谋,通过以无与伦比的价格提供 Linux 来消除操作系统市场的竞争。根据从用户到改进者再到用户的GPL,Linux 和所有包含其源代码的软件将永远免费,没有什么比这更有效地阻止竞争了。在华莱士看来,GPL 就是一个阴谋;它是用户和衍生作品创作者的共同承诺,目的是压低任何潜在竞争对手的价格。但地区法官驳回了华莱士的申诉,裁定华莱士没有遭受反垄断损害,see Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-OMat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477, 97 S. Ct. 690, 50 L. Ed.2d 701 (1977),因为他是一个潜在的生产者而不是消费者。

Although antitrust law serves the interests of consumers rather than producers, the Supreme Court has permitted producers to initiate predatory-pricing litigation. See Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209 (1993); Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986). This does not assist Wallace, however, because his legal theory is faulty substantively.
尽管反托拉斯法服务于消费者而非生产者的利益,但最高法院允许生产者提起掠夺性定价诉讼。见 Brooke Group Ltd. 诉 Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209 (1993);Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. 诉 Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (1986)。然而,这并不能帮助华莱士,因为他的法律理论在实质上是错误的。

Predatory pricing is a three-stage process: Low prices, followed by the exit of producers who can no longer make a profit, followed by monopoly prices. The law’s worry is the final period in which the survivor (or cartel of survivors) recoups losses incurred during the low-price period. When exit does not occur, or recoupment is improbable even if some producers give up the market, there is no antitrust problem. So the Court held in both Brooke Group and Matsushita. See also, e.g., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Cigarettes Cheaper!, 462 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 2006); Schor v. Abbott Laboratories, 457 F.3d 608 (7th Cir. 2006). Either prices will stay low (reflecting efficient production and enduring benefits to consumers) or the practice will be self-deterring (because the predator loses more during the low-price period than it gains later, and consumers are net beneficiaries). When monopoly does not ensue, low prices remain — and the goal of antitrust law is to use rivalry to keep prices low for consumers’ benefit. Employing antitrust law to drive prices up would turn the Sherman Act on its head.
掠夺性定价是一个三阶段过程:首先是低价,然后是无法再获利的生产者退出,最后是垄断价格。法律担心的是最后一个阶段,在这一阶段中,幸存者(或幸存者卡特尔)将弥补低价期间的损失。如果退出没有发生,或者即使一些生产商放弃市场也不可能弥补损失,那么就不存在反托拉斯问题。在布鲁克集团案和松下公司案中,法院都是这样认为的。See also, e.g., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Cigarettes Cheaper!, 462 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 2006); Schor v. Abbott Laboratories, 457 F.3d 608 (7th Cir. 2006)。要么价格持续走低(反映了高效生产和消费者的持久利益),要么这种做法是自我欺骗(因为掠夺者在低价时期的损失大于其后期的收益,而消费者是净受益者)。当垄断没有出现时,低价依然存在--反垄断法的目标就是利用竞争保持低价,使消费者受益。利用反托拉斯法来抬高价格,将使《谢尔曼法》发生颠覆性变化。

Wallace does not contend that software available for free under the GPL will lead to monopoly prices in the future. How could it, when the GPL keeps price low forever and
华莱士并不认为根据 GPL 提供免费软件会导致未来的垄断价格。既然 GPL 能让价格永远保持在低位,又怎么会导致垄断呢?

575

precludes the reduction of output that is essential to monopoly? “[I]f a manufacturer cannot make itself better off by injuring consumers through lower output and higher prices, there is no role for antitrust law to play.” Schor, 457 F.3d at 612.
是否排除了对垄断至关重要的产量减少?"如果制造商不能通过降低产量和提高价格来损害消费者利益,从而使自己过得更好,那么反托拉斯法就无法发挥作用"。Schor, 457 F.3d at 612。

Software that is not maintained and improved eventually becomes obsolete, and the lack of reward may reduce the resources devoted to maintenance and improvement of Linux and other open-source projects. If that occurs, however, then proprietary software will enter or gain market share. People willingly pay for quality software even when they can get free (but imperfect) substitutes. Open Office is a free, open-source suite of word processor, spreadsheet and presentation software, but the proprietary Microsoft Office has many more users. Gimp is a free, open-source image editor, but the proprietary Adobe Photoshop enjoys the lion’s share of the market. Likewise there is a flourishing market in legal treatises and other materials, plus reference databases such as LEXIS and Westlaw, even though courts give away their work (this opinion, for example, is not covered by copyright and may be downloaded from the court’s website and copied without charge). And so it is with operating systems. Many more people use Microsoft Windows, Apple OS X, or Sun Solaris than use Linux. IBM, which includes Linux with servers, sells mainframes and supercomputers that run proprietary operating systems. The number of proprietary operating systems is growing, not shrinking, so competition in this market continues quite apart from the fact that the GPL ensures the future availability of Linux and other Unix offshoots.
缺乏维护和改进的软件最终会被淘汰,而缺乏回报可能会减少用于维护和改进 Linux 和其他开源项目的资源。然而,如果出现这种情况,那么专有软件就会进入或获得市场份额。即使可以得到免费的(但不完美的)替代品,人们也愿意为高质量的软件付费。Open Office 是一套免费、开源的文字处理器、电子表格和演示软件,但专有的微软 Office 拥有更多用户。Gimp 是一款免费的开源图像编辑器,但专有的 Adobe Photoshop 却占据了大部分市场份额。同样,法律论文和其他资料,以及 LEXIS 和 Westlaw 等参考数据库的市场也在蓬勃发展,尽管法院也会赠送他们的作品(例如,本意见书不受版权保护,可从法院网站下载并免费复制)。操作系统也是如此。使用 Microsoft Windows、Apple OS X 或 Sun Solaris 的人要比使用 Linux 的人多得多。IBM 公司销售的大型机和超级计算机都运行专有操作系统,其服务器也包括 Linux 系统。专有操作系统的数量不是在减少,而是在增加,因此,除了 GPL 确保 Linux 和其他 Unix 分支在未来的可用性这一事实之外,这一市场的竞争仍在继续

It does not help to characterize people who accept the GPL as “conspirators.” Although the anti-trust laws forbid conspiracies “in restraint of trade,” 15 U.S.C. §1, §26, the GPL does not restrain trade. It is a cooperative agreement that facilitates production of new derivative works, and agreements that yield new products that would not arise through unilateral action are lawful. See, e.g., Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 441 U.S. 1 (1979); Polk Bros., Inc. v. Forest City Enterprises, Inc., 776 F.2d 185 (7th Cir. 1985). Cf. Texaco Inc. v. Dagher, ____ U.S. ____, 126 S. Ct. 1276 (2006).
把接受 GPL 的人说成是 "共谋者 "是无济于事的。尽管反垄断法禁止 "限制贸易 "的共谋,《美国法典》第 15 卷第 1 条和第 26 条,但 GPL 并没有限制贸易。它是一项促进新衍生作品生产的合作协议,而产生单边行动不会产生的新产品的协议是合法的。例如,参见 Broadcast Music, Inc. 诉 Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 441 U.S. 1 (1979); Polk Bros, Inc.参见德士古公司诉 Dagher,____ U.S. ____, 126 S. Ct. 1276 (2006)。

Nor does it help to call the GPL “price fixing.” Although it sets a price of zero, agreements to set maximum prices usually assist consumers and therefore are evaluated under the Rule of Reason. See State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3 (1997). Intellectual property can be used without being used up; the marginal cost of an additional user is zero (costs of media and paper to one side), so once a piece of intellectual property exists the efficient price of an extra copy is zero, for that is where price equals marginal cost. Copyright and patent laws give authors a right to charge more, so that they can recover their fixed costs (and thus promote innovation), but they do not require authors to charge more. No more does antitrust law require higher prices. Linux and other open-source projects have been able to cover their fixed costs through donations of time; as long as that remains true, it would reduce efficiency and consumers’ welfare to force the authors to levy a charge on each new user.
将 GPL 称为 "价格垄断 "也无济于事。尽管它设定的价格为零,但设定最高价格的协议通常有助于消费者,因此应根据 "合理规则 "进行评估。参见 State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3 (1997)。知识产权可以被使用而不会被耗尽;增加一个用户的边际成本为零(媒体和纸张的成本是一方面),因此一旦一项知识产权存在,增加一份拷贝的有效价格就是零,因为这就是价格等于边际成本的地方。版权法和专利法赋予作者收取更多费用的权利,这样他们就能收回固定成本(从而促进创新),但它们并不要求作者收取更多费用。反垄断法也不要求提高价格。Linux 和其他开放源码项目已经能够通过捐赠时间来收回固定成本;只要这种情况不改变,强迫作者向每个新用户收费就会降低效率和消费者福利。

Wallace does not contend that Linux has such a large market share, or poses such a threat to consumers’ welfare in the long run, that evaluation under the Rule of Reason could lead to condemnation. A “quick look” is all that’s needed to reject Wallace’s claim. See, e.g., California Dental Association v. FTC, 526 U.S. 756 (1999); National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. University of Oklahoma, 468 U.S. 85 (1984); Ball Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Mutual Hospital Insurance, Inc., 784 F.2d 1325 (7th Cir. 1986) (unless a firm with market power can increase its profits by
华莱士并没有争辩说 Linux 拥有如此大的市场份额,或对消费者的长期利益构成如此大的威胁,以至于根据 "理性规则 "进行评估会导致谴责。只要 "看一眼 "就能否定华莱士的说法。例如,参见加利福尼亚牙科协会诉美国联邦贸易委员会案,526 U.S. 756 (1999);全国大学生体育协会诉俄克拉荷马大学案,468 U.S. 85 (1984);鲍尔纪念医院公司诉互助医院保险公司案,784 F.2d 1325 (7th Cir. 1986)(除非具有市场支配力的公司能够通过526 U.S. 756 (1999)增加利润,否则该公司就不能通过526 U.S. 756 (1999)增加利润。

576

curtailing output, the practice is lawful under the Rule of Reason). The GPL and open-source software have nothing to fear from the antitrust laws.
根据 "合理规则"(Rule of Reason),这种做法是合法的。GPL 和开源软件无需担心反垄断法。

* * *

Questions

1.

General Discussion Questions

1.1

Looking back on the U.S. v. Microsoft case knowing what we know about the state of competition in the software industry, how would you evaluate the court’s decision? Was the court in Novell v. Microsoft influenced by 20/20 hindsight?
回顾美国诉微软案,了解我们对软件行业竞争状况的认识,您如何评价法院的判决?Novell 诉微软案中的法院是否受到了 20/20 事后诸葛亮的影响?

1.2

What does the result in the U.S. v. Microsoft case suggest about the result of the antitrust claim raised in Apple v. Psystar?
美国诉微软案的结果对苹果诉 Psystar 案中提出的反垄断索赔结果有何启示?

1.3

In antitrust cases in Europe, Microsoft was required to offer a version of its Windows software without its music player and to give parity to other browsers on the Windows desktop. Do you agree with these remedies? Should similar remedies be applied to Apple’s smartphone or tablet, or devices based on Google’s Android software?
在欧洲的反托拉斯案件中,微软被要求提供不含音乐播放器的 Windows 软件版本,并在 Windows 桌面上向其他浏览器提供平等待遇。您同意这些补救措施吗?苹果公司的智能手机或平板电脑,或基于谷歌 Android 软件的设备是否也应适用类似的补救措施?

1.4

In general, what do you think about antitrust enforcement as a tool to police anticompetitive behavior in technology markets?
总体而言,您如何看待反托拉斯执法作为技术市场反竞争行为的监管工具?

1.5

What do you think about the role that lobbying plays in antitrust enforcement?
您如何看待游说在反垄断执法中的作用?

1.6

Why did the U.S. v. Microsoft court issue a per curiam opinion?
为什么美国诉微软案的法庭会发表 per curiam 意见?

1.7

Do you agree with the concerns expressed by the court in Novell v. Microsoft about requiring a market leader to license its intellectual property?
您是否同意 Novell 诉微软案中法院对要求市场领导者许可其知识产权所表达的担忧?

1.8

Even though the court in Wallace v. IBM found no antitrust issue with the GPL, is there a basis for finding copyright misuse?
尽管法院在华莱士诉 IBM 案中并未发现 GPL 存在反垄断问题,但是否有理由认定其滥用版权?

2.

Litigation Questions

2.1

How would you assess the parties’ effectiveness at presenting evidence in U.S. v. Microsoft and Novell v. Microsoft?
在 U.S. v. Microsoft 和 Novell v. Microsoft 案中,您如何评价双方举证的有效性?

2.2

How would you make the case that the court should have broken Microsoft up into two companies, one focused on operating systems and one focused on applications? How would you argue against this remedy?
您认为法院应将微软拆分为两家公司,一家专注于操作系统,另一家专注于应用程序?您如何反对这种补救措施?

3.

Business Law Questions

3.1

How would you have advised Microsoft on creating the license agreements described in the U.S. v. Microsoft case?
在美国诉微软一案中,您如何建议微软制定许可协议?

3.2

How would you advise Microsoft on devising and implementing a compliance regime to avoid license agreements and technology decisions that raise antitrust issues? How would you assess the impact of such a regime on Microsoft’s ability to operate effectively in the market?
您如何建议微软制定并实施合规制度,以避免许可协议和技术决策引发反垄断问题?您如何评估这种制度对微软在市场中有效运作能力的影响?

577

Exercises

1.

Draft a memo advising a Microsoft senior manager on how to revise the license agreements described in the U.S. v. Microsoft case. Then, with one student playing the role of the lawyer and one the role of the Microsoft senior manager, discuss the legal advice contained in the memo.
起草一份备忘录,就如何修订美国诉微软案中所述的许可协议向微软公司的一位高级经理提出建议。然后,由一名学生扮演律师,一名学生扮演微软高级经理,讨论备忘录中包含的法律建议。

2.

Conduct a mock trial of the U.S. v. Microsoft case on the issues that the D.C. Circuit remanded.
就华盛顿特区巡回法院发回重审的美国诉微软案进行模拟审判。

IV. PREEMPTION

VAULT CORP. v. QUAID SOFTWARE LTD. 847 F.2d 255 (5th Cir. 1988)
VAULT CORP.诉 QUAID SOFTWARE LTD. 847 F.2d 255(第 5 巡回法院,1988 年)

REAVLEY, Circuit Judge.

I

Vault produces computer diskettes under the registered trademark “PROLOK” which are designed to prevent the unauthorized duplication of programs placed on them by software computer companies, Vault’s customers. Floppy diskettes serve as a medium upon which computer companies place their software programs. To use a program, a purchaser loads the diskette into the disk drive of a computer, thereby allowing the computer to read the program into its memory. The purchaser can then remove the diskette from the disk drive and operate the program from the computer’s memory. This process is repeated each time a program is used.
Vault 公司生产注册商标为 "PROLOK "的计算机软盘,旨在防止未经授权复制 Vault 公司客户--计算机软件公司--放在软盘上的程序。软盘是计算机公司放置软件程序的媒介。使用程序时,购买者将软盘装入计算机的磁盘驱动器,从而使计算机将程序读入内存。然后,购买者可以从磁盘驱动器中取出软盘,并从计算机内存中操作程序。每次使用程序时,都要重复这一过程。

The protective device placed on a PROLOK diskette by Vault is comprised of two parts: a “fingerprint” and a software program (“Vault’s program”). The “fingerprint” is a small mark physically placed on the magnetic surface of each PROLOK diskette which contains certain information that cannot be altered or erased. Vault’s program is a set of instructions to the computer which interact with the “fingerprint” to prevent the computer from operating the program recorded on a PROLOK diskette (by one of Vault’s customers) unless the computer verifies that the original PROLOK diskette, as identified by the “fingerprint,” is in the computer’s disk drive. While a purchaser can copy a PROLOK protected program onto another diskette, the computer will not read the program into its memory from the copy unless the original PROLOK diskette is also in one of the computer’s disk drives. The fact that a fully functional copy of a program cannot be made from a PROLOK diskette prevents purchasers from buying a single program and making unauthorized copies for distribution to others.
Vault 放在 PROLOK 软盘上的保护装置由两部分组成:"指纹 "和软件程序("Vault 的程序")。指纹 "是放置在每张 PROLOK 软盘磁性表面上的一个小标记,其中包含某些不能更改或删除的信息。Vault 的程序是给计算机的一套指令,它与 "指纹 "相互作用,防止计算机操作 PROLOK 软盘上录制的程序(由 Vault 的客户录制),除非计算机验证 原版 PROLOK 软盘(由 "指纹 "识别)在计算机的磁盘驱动器中。虽然购买者可以将受 PROLOK 保护的程序拷贝到另一张软盘上,但除非原始 PROLOK 软盘也在计算机的磁盘驱动器中,否则计算机不会从拷贝中将程序读入内存。PROLOK软盘无法制作功能完整的程序副本这一事实,可防止购买者购买单一程序并制作未经授权的副本分发给他人。

Vault produced PROLOK in three stages. The original commercial versions, designated as versions 1.01, 1.02, 1.03, 1.04, and 1.06 (“version 1.0”) were produced in 1983. Vault then incorporated improvements into the system and produced version 1.07 in 1984. The third major revision occurred in August and September of 1985 and was designated as versions 2.0 and 2.01 (“version 2.0”). Each version of PROLOK has been copyrighted and Vault includes a license agreement with every PROLOK package that specifically prohibits the copying,
Vault 分三个阶段生产 PROLOK。最初的商业版本,即 1.01、1.02、1.03、1.04 和 1.06 版("1.0 版")于 1983 年生产。随后,Vault 对系统进行了改进,并于 1984 年推出了 1.07 版。第三次重大修订发生在 1985 年 8 月和 9 月,被命名为 2.0 版和 2.01 版("2.0 版")。PROLOK的每个版本都有版权,Vault在每个PROLOK软件包中都包含一份许可协议,明确禁止复制、

578

modification, translation, decompilation, or disassembly of Vault’s program.2 Beginning with version 2.0 in September 1985, Vault’s license agreement contained a choice of law clause adopting Louisiana law.3
修改、翻译、反编译或反汇编 Vault 的程序。2 从 1985 年 9 月的 2.0 版开始,Vault 的许可协议包含采用路易斯安那州法律的法律选择条款。从 1985 年 9 月的版本 2.0 开始,Vault 的许可协议中包含了一项法律选择条款,采用路易斯安那州法律。

Quaid’s product, a diskette called “CopyWrite,” contains a feature called “RAMKEY” which unlocks the PROLOK protective device and facilitates the creation of a fully functional copy of a program placed on a PROLOK diskette. The process is performed simply by copying the contents of the PROLOK diskette onto the CopyWrite diskette which can then be used to run the software program without the original PROLOK diskette in a computer disk drive. RAMKEY interacts with Vault’s program to make it appear to the computer that the CopyWrite diskette contains the “fingerprint,” thereby making the computer function as if the original PROLOK diskette is in its disk drive. A copy of a program placed on a CopyWrite diskette can be used without the original, and an unlimited number of fully functional copies can be made in this manner from the program originally placed on the PROLOK diskette.
奎德公司的产品是一种名为 "CopyWrite "的软盘,它包含一种名为 "RAMKEY "的功能,可解除 PROLOK 保护装置的锁定,并有助于创建 PROLOK 软盘上程序的全功能副本。只需将 PROLOK 软盘的内容复制到 CopyWrite 软盘上,就可以运行软件程序 而无需 计算机磁盘驱动器中的原始 PROLOK 软盘。RAMKEY 与 Vault 的程序交互,使计算机认为 CopyWrite 软盘包含 "指纹",从而使计算机的功能如同原始 PROLOK 软盘在其磁盘驱动器中一样。放在CopyWrite软盘上的程序副本可以在没有原件的情况下使用,而且可以用这种方式从最初放在PROLOK软盘上的程序中复制出无限数量的功能齐全的副本。

Quaid first developed RAMKEY in September 1983 in response to PROLOK version 1.0. In order to develop this version of RAMKEY, Quaid copied Vault’s program into the memory of its computer and analyzed the manner in which the program operated. When Vault developed version 1.07, Quaid adapted RAMKEY in 1984 to defeat this new version. The adapted version of RAMKEY contained a sequence of approximately 30 characters found in Vault’s program and was discontinued in July 1984. Quaid then developed the current version of RAMKEY which also operates to defeat PROLOK version 1.07, but does not contain the sequence of characters used in the discontinued version. Quaid has not yet modified RAMKEY to defeat PROLOK version 2.0, and has agreed not to modify RAMKEY pending the outcome of this suit. Robert McQuaid, the sole owner of Quaid, testified in his deposition that while a CopyWrite diskette can be used to duplicate programs placed on all diskettes, whether copy-protected
1983 年 9 月,Quaid 针对 PROLOK 1.0 版首次开发了 RAMKEY。为了开发这一版本的 RAMKEY,Quaid 将 Vault 的程序复制到其计算机内存中,并分析了该程序的运行方式。当 Vault 开发出 1.07 版本时,Quaid 于 1984 年对 RAMKEY 进行了改编,以击败这个新版本。改编版 RAMKEY 包含 Vault 程序中发现的约 30 个字符序列,并于 1984 年 7 月停用。之后,Quaid 开发了当前版本的 RAMKEY,该版本也能破解 PROLOK 1.07 版,但不包含已停产版本中使用的字符序列。Quaid 尚未修改 RAMKEY 以破解 2.0 版 PROLOK,并同意在本诉讼结果出来之前不修改 RAMKEY。Robert McQuaid 是 Quaid 公司的唯一所有人,他在作证时说,虽然 CopyWrite 软盘可以用来复制放在所有软盘上的程序,无论是受拷贝保护的程序还是受拷贝保护的程序。

579

or not, the only purpose served by RAMKEY is to facilitate the duplication of programs placed on copy-protected diskettes. He also stated that without the RAMKEY feature, CopyWrite would have no commercial value.
他还说,无论 RAMKEY 功能是否有效,它的唯一作用就是方便复制放在受拷贝保护的软盘上的程序。他还说,如果没有 RAMKEY 功能,CopyWrite 就没有商业价值。

II

Vault brought this action against Quaid seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions to prevent Quaid from advertising and selling RAMKEY, an order impounding all of Quaid’s copies of CopyWrite which contain the RAMKEY feature, and monetary damages in the amount of $100,000,000. Vault asserted three copyright infringement claims cognizable under federal law.…Vault also asserted two claims based on Louisiana law, contending that Quaid breached its license agreement by decompiling or disassembling Vault’s program in violation of the Louisiana Software License Enforcement Act, La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §51:1961 et seq. (West 1987), and that Quaid misappropriated Vault’s program in violation of the Louisiana Uniform Trade Secrets Act, La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §51:1431 et seq. (West 1987).
Vault 公司对 Quaid 公司提起诉讼,要求颁布初步和永久禁令,禁止 Quaid 公司宣传和销售 RAMKEY,下令扣押 Quaid 公司所有含有 RAMKEY 功能的 CopyWrite 副本,并要求赔偿损失 100,000,000 美元。Vault 根据联邦法律提出了三项版权侵权索赔....,还根据路易斯安那州法律提出了两项索赔,认为 Quaid 违反了 Louisiana Software License Enforcement Act(路易斯安那州软件许可实施法),反编译或反汇编了 Vault 的程序,从而违反了其许可协议。Rev. Stat.Ann.§51:1961 et seq. (West 1987),Quaid 盗用了 Vault 的程序,违反了《路易斯安那州统一商业秘密法》(La.Rev. Stat.Ann.§51:1431 et seq. (West 1987)。

….

III. VAULT’S FEDERAL CLAIMS

[Omitted]

IV. VAULT’S LOUISIANA CLAIMS

Seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions and damages, Vault’s original complaint alleged that Quaid breached its license agreement by decompiling or disassembling Vault’s program in violation of the Louisiana Software License Enforcement Act (the “License Act”), La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §51:1961 et seq. (West 1987), and that Quaid misappropriated Vault’s program in violation of the Louisiana Uniform Trade Secrets Act, La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §51:1431 et seq. (West 1987). On appeal, Vault abandons its misappropriation claim, and, with respect to its breach of license claim, Vault only seeks an injunction to prevent Quaid from decompiling or disassembling PROLOK version 2.0.
Vault最初的申诉声称,Quaid违反了《路易斯安那州软件许可实施法》("许可法"),即La.Rev. Stat.Ann.§51:1961起(西1987年),Quaid盗用了Vault的程序,违反了《路易斯安那州统一商业秘密法》(La.Rev. Stat.Ann.§51:1431 et seq. (West 1987)。在上诉中,Vault 放弃了其盗用主张,对于其违反许可的主张,Vault 只要求发布禁令,阻止 Quaid 反编译或反汇编 PROLOK 2.0 版本。

Louisiana’s License Act permits a software producer to impose a number of contractual terms upon software purchasers provided that the terms are set forth in a license agreement which comports with La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§51:1963 & 1965, and that this license agreement accompanies the producer’s software. Enforceable terms include the prohibition of: (1) any copying of the program for any purpose; and (2) modifying and/or adapting the program in any way, including adaptation by reverse engineering, decompilation, or disassembly. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §51:1964.4 The terms “reverse engineering, decompiling or disassembling” are
路易斯安那州许可法》允许软件生产商向软件购买者强加一些合同条款,但这些条款必须在符合《路易斯安那州法规修正案》的许可协议中加以规定。Rev. Stat.Ann.§§51:1963和§§1965,且该许可协议与软件生产商的软件一并提供。可执行的条款包括禁止(1) 出于任何目的复制程序;以及 (2) 以任何方式修改和/或改编程序,包括通过反向工程、反编译或反汇编进行改编。La.Rev. Stat.Ann.§51:1964.4 术语 "逆向工程、反编译或反汇编 "是指

580

defined as “any process by which computer software is converted from one form to another form which is more readily understandable to human beings, including without limitation any decoding or decrypting of any computer program which has been encoded or encrypted in any manner.” La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §51:1962(3).
定义为 "将计算机软件从一种形式转换为另一种更易于人类理解的形式的任何过程,包括但不限于对以任何方式编码或加密的任何计算机程序进行解码或解密"。La.La.Ann.§51:1962(3).

Vault’s license agreement, which accompanies PROLOK version 2.0 and comports with the requirements of La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§51:1963 & 1965, provides that “[y]ou may not… copy, modify, translate, convert to another programming language, decompile or disassemble” Vault’s program. Vault asserts that these prohibitions are enforceable under Louisiana’s License Act, and specifically seeks an injunction to prevent Quaid from decompiling or disassembling Vault’s program.
Vault 的许可协议随 PROLOK 2.0 版本一起发布,符合 La.Rev. Stat.Ann.§§51:1963 & 1965,规定 "不得......复制、修改、翻译、转换为另一种编程语言、反编译或反汇编 "Vault 的程序。Vault 声称,根据路易斯安那州的《许可法》,这些禁令是可以执行的,并特别要求发布禁令,阻止 Quaid 反编译或反汇编 Vault 的程序。

The district court held that Vault’s license agreement was “a contract of adhesion which could only be enforceable if the [Louisiana License Act] is a valid and enforceable statute.” Vault, 655 F. Supp. at 761. The court noted numerous conflicts between Louisiana’s License Act and the Copyright Act, including: (1) while the License Act authorizes a total prohibition on copying, the Copyright Act allows archival copies and copies made as an essential step in the utilization of a computer program, 17 U.S.C. §117; (2) while the License Act authorizes a perpetual bar against copying, the Copyright Act grants protection against unauthorized copying only for the life of the author plus fifty years, 17 U.S.C. §302(a); and (3) while the License Act places no restrictions on programs which may be protected, under the Copyright Act, only “original works of authorship” can be protected, 17 U.S.C. §102. Vault, 655 F. Supp. at 762-63. The court concluded that, because Louisiana’s License Act “touched upon the area” of federal copyright law, its provisions were preempted and Vault’s license agreement was unenforceable. Id. at 763.
地区法院认为,Vault 的许可协议是 "一种附合合同,只有在[路易斯安那州许可法]是有效且可执行的法规的情况下才可执行"。Vault, 655 F. Supp. at 761。法院注意到路易斯安那州的《许可法》与《版权法》之间存在许多冲突,包括:(1) 《许可法》授权完全禁止复制,而《版权法》允许存档副本和作为使用计算机程序的必要步骤而制作的副本,17 U.S.C.§117;(2) 《许可法》授权完全禁止复制,而《版权法》允许存档副本和作为使用计算机程序的必要步骤而制作的副本,17 U.S.C.§11717U.S.C.§117;(2) 《许可证法》授权永久禁止复制,而《版权法》只在作者的有生之年加五十年内保护未经授权的复制,17 U.S.C.§302(a);(3) 《许可证法》对可能受到保护的程序没有限制,而根据《版权法》,只有 "原创作品 "才能受到保护,17 U.S.C.§102。Vault, 655 F. Supp. at 762-63。法院的结论是,由于路易斯安那州的《许可法》"触及 "了联邦版权法的 "领域",因此其条款优先于联邦版权法,Vault 的许可协议不可执行。Id. 第 763 页。

In Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., 376 U.S. 225, 84 S. Ct. 784, 11 L. Ed. 2d 661 (1964), the Supreme Court held that “[w]hen state law touches upon the area of [patent or copyright statutes], it is ‘familiar doctrine’ that the federal policy ‘may not be set at naught, or its benefits denied’ by the state law.” Id. at 229, 84 S. Ct. at 787 (quoting Sola Elec. Co. v. Jefferson Elec. Co., 317 U.S. 173, 176, 63 S. Ct. 172, 173, 87 L. Ed. 165 (1942)). See Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc., 376 U.S. 234, 84 S. Ct. 779, 11 L. Ed. 2d 669 (1964); see also Mitchell v. Penton/Indus. Publishing Co., 486 F. Supp. 22 (N.D. Ohio 1979) (holding that common law unfair competition claim preempted by the Copyright Act); Triangle Publications, Inc. v. Sports Eye, Inc., 415 F. Supp. 682, 686-87 (E.D. Penn. 1976) (holding that state regulation of unfair competition preempted as to matters falling within broad confines of the Copyright Act). Section 117 of the Copyright Act permits an owner of a computer program to make anadaptation
在 Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Stiffel Co., 376 U.S. 225, 84 S. Ct.2d 661 (1964))一案中,最高法院认为 "当州法触及[专利或版权法规]领域时,'众所周知的理论'是联邦政策'不得因州法而化为乌有,或剥夺其利益'"。Id. at 229, 84 S. Ct. at 787(引用 Sola Elec.Co. v. Jefferson Elec.Co., 317 U.S. 173, 176, 63 S. Ct.165 (1942)).See Compco Corp. v. Day-Brite Lighting, Inc.2d 669 (1964); 另见 Mitchell 诉 Penton/Indus.Publishing Co., 486 F. Supp. 22 (N.D. Ohio 1979)(认为普通法中的不公平竞争索赔已被《版权法》排除);Triangle Publications, Inc.版权法》第 117 条允许计算机程序的所有者进行改编

581

of that program provided that the adaptation is either “created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine,” §117(1), or “is for archival purpose only,” §117(2). The provision in Louisiana’s License Act, which permits a software producer to prohibit the adaptation of its licensed computer program by decompilation or disassembly, conflicts with the rights of computer program owners under §117 and clearly “touches upon an area” of federal copyright law. For this reason, and the reasons set forth by the district court, we hold that at least this provision of Louisiana’s License Act is preempted by federal law, and thus that the restriction in Vault’s license agreement against decompilation or disassembly is unenforceable.
只要改编是 "作为计算机程序与机器结合使用的必要步骤"(§117(1)),或者 "仅为存档目的"(§117(2))。路易斯安那州许可法》中的规定允许软件生产商禁止通过反编译或反汇编的方式改编其许可的计算机程序,这与第 117 条规定的计算机程序所有者的权利相冲突,显然 "触及 "了联邦版权法的 "一个领域"。基于这一原因,以及地区法院提出的理由,我们认为路易斯安那州许可法的这一条款至少被联邦法律所取代,因此 Vault 许可协议中关于反编译或反汇编的限制是不可执行的。

* * *

NATIONAL CAR RENTAL SYSTEM, INC. v. COMPUTER ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
NATIONAL CAR RENTAL SYSTEM, INC.诉 COMPUTER ASSOCIATES INTERNATIONAL, INC.

991 F.2d 426 (8th Cir. 1993)

MAGILL, Circuit Judge.

We here deal with the difficult question of the extent to which the Copyright Act preempts state breach of contract actions alleging that the licensee of computer software exceeded limitations on the use of computer software contained in the license agreements. Computer Associates International, Inc., appeals from the district court’s order resolving a motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissing its breach of contract claim against National Car Rental as preempted under the Copyright Act. We conclude that the district court failed to grant Computer Associates all reasonable inferences from its pleadings, and hold that as properly construed, the cause of action as pled is not preempted. We reverse.
我们在此处理的是一个棘手的问题,即《版权法》在多大程度上优先于州级违约诉讼,州级违约诉讼指控计算机软件的被许可人超出了许可协议中对计算机软件使用的限制。Computer Associates International, Inc.对地区法院的一项命令提出上诉,该命令解决了根据诉状进行判决的动议,并驳回了其对 National Car Rental 提出的违约索赔,因为根据《著作权法》,该索赔已被排除。我们的结论是,地区法院没有允许 Computer Associates 从其诉状中进行所有合理的推论,并认为经适当解释后,所提出的诉因不属于先诉抗辩。我们驳回上诉。

I. BACKGROUND

Computer Associates International, Inc. (CA), creates and licenses computer software. CA licensed its programs to the appellee, National Car Rental Systems, Inc. (National), to process National’s data on National’s hardware in Bloomington, Minnesota. The 1990 license agreement between CA and National provided, as did earlier licenses, that National may use the licensed programs “only for the internal operations of Licensee and for the processing of its own data.” A separate order form, incorporated into the license agreement, similarly provided that “use of the Licensed Program[s] is restricted to the internal operations of Licensee and for the processing of its own data.”
Computer Associates 国际公司(CA)开发并授权使用计算机软件。CA 将其程序许可给被上诉人 National Car Rental Systems 公司(National),用于在明尼苏达州布卢明顿的 National 硬件上处理 National 的数据。1990 年 CA 与 National 签订的许可协议规定,与以前的许可协议一样,National 可以将许可程序 "仅用于被许可人的内部运作和处理自己的数据"。一份单独的订货单被纳入许可协议,同样规定 "被许可程序的使用仅限于被许可人的内部运作及其自身的数据处理"。

Sometime in 1990, National decided to cease its internal computer operations and contract with an independent computer services vendor for computer related information services. Ultimately, National retained Electronic Data Systems Corporation (EDS) to provide these services. In connection with this transaction, National, EDS, and CA entered into a supplement addendum, which provided that EDS could use the licensed programs to process National’s data. The supplement addendum provided that EDS would use the programs for the benefit of National subject to the terms and conditions of the 1990 license agreement, and solely “to process data of Licensee and in no event for the processing of data…of any third party other than Licensee.”
1990年,National公司决定停止内部计算机操作,与一家独立的计算机服务供应商签订合同,由其提供与计算机相关的信息服务。最终,National 聘用了电子数据系统公司(EDS)来提供这些服务。在这项交易中,National、EDS 和 CA 签订了一份补充附录,规定 EDS 可以使用许可程序处理 National 的数据。补充附录规定,EDS 将根据 1990 年许可协议的条款和条件,为 National 的利益使用这些程序,并且仅 "用于处理被许可人的数据,在任何情况下都不得用于处理......被许可人以外的任何第三方的数据"。

CA subsequently determined that National had been using the programs to process the data of third parties, including Lend Lease Trucks, Inc. (Lend Lease), and Tilden Car Rental, Inc.
CA 随后确定,National 一直在使用这些程序处理第三方的数据,包括 Lend Lease Trucks 公司(Lend Lease)和 Tilden Car Rental 公司。

582

(Tilden), in violation of the license agreement, and that such use had continued through EDS under the supplement addendum. CA threatened to sue National if such use did not stop. National then brought a declaratory judgment action in the district court. National admitted in its complaint that it “has used the Licensed Software in its business activities… including the activities relating to Tilden and Trucks [Lend Lease],” but requested a declaration that its use of the programs neither breached the license agreement nor infringed CA’s copyright. CA asserted two counterclaims. In the first, it claimed that National’s use of the programs, either individually or through EDS, for the benefit of Lend Lease and Tilden, breached the license agreement. In the second, CA claimed that National infringed its copyright by making an unauthorized copy of the software.
(Tilden) 的使用违反了许可协议,而且根据补充附录,这种使用通过 EDS 继续进行。CA 威胁说,如果不停止这种使用,将起诉 National。National 随后向地区法院提起了宣告判决诉讼。National 在诉状中承认,它 "在商业活动中使用了许可软件......包括与 Tilden 和 Trucks [Lend Lease] 有关的活动",但要求法院宣布它对程序的使用既没有违反许可协议,也没有侵犯 CA 的版权。CA 提出了两项反诉。在第一项反诉中,CA 声称 National 为 Lend Lease 和 Tilden 的利益单独或通过 EDS 使用程序违反了许可协议。在第二项反诉中,CA 声称 National 未经授权复制软件,侵犯了其版权。

National moved for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), alleging that CA’s first counterclaim was preempted under §301(a) of the Copyright Act. In resolving the motion, the district court concluded that CA alleged a lease agreement between National and the third parties: National permitted them to use the software in exchange for payment. The district court concluded that this cause of action, as pled, was “equivalent” to the exclusive copyright right of distribution of copies of the work, and held it was preempted.
National根据规则第12(c)条提出动议,要求根据诉状作出判决,声称根据《版权法》第301(a)条,CA的第一项反诉属于先诉抗辩。地区法院在解决该动议时得出结论,CA 声称National与第三方之间存在租赁协议:National 允许第三方使用软件以换取报酬。地区法院得出结论认为,所提出的这一诉讼理由 "等同于 "发行作品副本的排他性版权权利,因此认为该诉讼理由已被排除在外。

II. DISCUSSION

The Copyright Act provides the exclusive source of protection for “all legal and equitable rights that are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright as specified by section 106” of the Copyright Act. See 17 U.S.C. §301(a). Concomitantly, all non-equivalent rights are not preempted. A state cause of action is preempted if: (1) the work at issue is within the subject matter of copyright as defined in §§102 and 103 of the Copyright Act, and (2) the state law created right is equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright as specified in §106. Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 723 F.2d 195, 200 (2d Cir. 1983).
版权法》为 "所有等同于《版权法》第 106 条规定的版权一般范围内的任何专有权的法律和衡平法权利 "提供了专有的保护来源。见 17 U.S.C. §301(a)。相应地,所有非等同权利都不被排除在外。在以下情况下,州诉讼理由被优先适用(1) 有争议的作品属于《版权法》第 102 节和第 103 节所定义的版权主题,且 (2) 州法规定的权利等同于第 106 节所规定的版权一般范围内的任何专有权利。Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 723 F.2d 195, 200 (2d Cir. 1983)。

We cannot tell from the district court’s memorandum opinion whether the district court concluded the cause of action was preempted because the district court believed CA had alleged National actually distributed a copy of the program to Lend Lease and Tilden, or whether the district court concluded that the allegation of use by National for Lend Lease’s and Tilden’s benefit was preempted even absent an actual distribution. Therefore, we first examine CA’s pleadings to determine whether the district court gave it the benefit of all reasonable inferences from the pleadings. On this standard, we determine that CA’s pleadings cannot be read to allege that National actually distributed a copy of the program to Lend Lease or Tilden. Instead, CA’s pleadings must be read to allege that National breached their contract by using the program itself, or through EDS, to process data for Lend Lease and Tilden. We then examine whether so construed, the cause of action is preempted.
我们无法从地区法院的备忘录意见中得知,地区法院是否因为 CA 认为 National 实际向 Lend Lease 和 Tilden 分发了一份程序拷贝而得出该诉因被优先适用的结论,或者地区法院是否得出结论认为,即使没有实际分发,National 为 Lend Lease 和 Tilden 的利益而使用程序的指控也被优先适用。因此,我们首先审查 CA 的诉状,以确定地区法院是否从诉状中给予了其所有合理推论的利益。根据这一标准,我们确定 CA 的诉状不能被理解为指控 National 实际向 Lend Lease 或 Tilden 分发了程序的副本。相反,CA的诉状必须被理解为指控National违反了他们的合同,使用该程序本身或通过EDS为Lend Lease和Tilden处理数据。然后,我们将审查这样的解释是否会导致诉因被抢先。

B. Characterization of CA’s Pleadings

Because the question here depends upon the proper interpretation of CA’s first counterclaim, we set it out in some detail. In the first counterclaim, CA alleged, in pertinent part, that:
由于这里的问题取决于对 CA 第一项反诉的正确理解,我们对其进行了详细阐述。在第一项反诉中,CA 公司声称:

583

The authorization for use granted National [pursuant to the 1990 License Agreement] was for the internal operations of National and for the processing of its own data. (First Counterclaim, ¶31)
[根据 1990 年许可协议]授予 National 的使用授权是用于其内部运作和处理自己的数据。(第一次反诉,第 31 段)

Pursuant to the Supplement Addendum…it was agreed that the Licensed Programs would be used solely for the benefit of National and subject to the rights, obligations and benefits in all respects of the terms and conditions of the License Agreement. (First Counterclaim, ¶32)
根据《补充附录》......双方同意,许可程序将仅用于 National 的利益,并受许可协议条款和条件各方面的权利、义务和利益的约束。(第一次反诉,第 32 页)

Pursuant to the Supplement Addendum…National and EDS further agreed, among other things, to use the Licensed Programs…solely to process data of National and in no event for the processing of data of any third party other than National. (First Counterclaim, ¶33)
根据补充附录......National 和 EDS 还同意,除其他事项外,使用许可程序......仅用于处理 National 的数据,在任何情况下都不用于处理除 National 之外的任何第三方的数据。(第一次反诉,第 33 页)

…In none of the License Agreements was [National] granted any authorization to use the licensed programs for the benefit of any company other than itself. (First Counterclaim, ¶35)
......在任何一份许可协议中,[National]都没有被授权为除其自身以外的任何公司的利益使用许可程序。(第一次反诉,第 35 页)

…National has used and permitted the use of the Licensed Programs for the processing of data for the benefit of third parties. This use of the Licensed Programs for the benefit of third parties includes the use for Lend Lease Trucks, Inc. and Tilden Car Rental, Inc. (First Counterclaim, ¶36)
......National 使用并允许使用许可程序为第三方处理数据。这种为第三方利益使用许可程序的行为包括为 Lend Lease Trucks, Inc. 和 Tilden Car Rental, Inc. (First Counterclaim, §36)

…National has been unjustly enriched by any fees or other compensation received from those third-parties for use of the Licensed Programs for their benefit. (First Counterclaim, ¶37)
......National因第三方使用许可程序为其谋取利益而从这些第三方收取的任何费用或其他补偿而不当得利。(第一反诉,第 37 页)

The district court noted that the computer software in question was within the subject matter of copyright, and thus focused on whether CA’s breach of contract action sought to protect rights equivalent to the exclusive copyright rights. The court noted that National had not alleged which copyright right was equivalent to CA’s action, but concluded that the distribution right was the only right potentially equivalent.
地区法院指出,有关计算机软件属于版权主题,因此重点关注 CA 的违约诉讼是否寻求保护与排他性版权权利相当的权利。法院注意到,National 没有声称哪项版权权利等同于 CA 的诉讼,但得出结论认为,发行权是唯一可能等同的权利。

In resolving the preemption issue, the court concluded that “[c]onstrued as true, CA’s allegations reflect the existence of a lease arrangement between National and Lend Lease and Tilden: National has permitted Lend Lease and Tilden to use the licensed software in exchange for payment. The distribution right includes specifically the right to lease or lend.” Mem. op. at 9-10. The court further concluded that the presence of a contract promise did not create a right qualitatively different from copyright, and stated: “In essence, CA alleges National breached the license agreement by infringing CA’s copyrights in the licensed software.” Id. at 10.
在解决优先权问题时,法院得出结论认为,"CA 的指控反映了 National 与 Lend Lease 和 Tilden 之间存在租赁安排:National 允许 Lend Lease 和 Tilden 使用许可软件以换取报酬。分销权具体包括出租或出借的权利"。Mem. op.法院进一步得出结论认为,合同承诺的存在并没有产生与版权有本质区别的权利,并指出"本质上,CA 声称 National 侵犯了 CA 在许可软件中的版权,从而违反了许可协议。同上,第 10 页。

We believe that in reaching this conclusion, the district court either failed to give CA the benefit of all reasonable inferences from the pleadings or misinterpreted the law of copyright preemption. We first assume that the district court concluded an actual distribution had occurred.
我们认为,地区法院在得出这一结论时,要么没有从诉状中给予 CA 所有合理推论的利益,要么曲解了版权先占的法律。我们首先假定地区法院认定发生了实际传播。

Given our standard of review, we do not believe that CA’s complaint may be read to allege that National actually distributed the program. The copyright holder’s distribution right is the right to distribute copies. See 17 U.S.C. §106(3). Section 106(3) grants the copyright owner the “exclusive right publicly to sell, give away, rent or lend any material embodiment of his work.” 2 Nimmer on Copyright §8.11[A], at 8-123 (emphasis added). An examination of CA’s pleadings demonstrates that they cannot reasonably be read to complain about wrongful
鉴于我们的审查标准,我们不认为 CA 的申诉可以理解为指控 National 实际发行了该程序。版权持有者的发行权是发行拷贝的权利。参见 17 U.S.C. §106(3)。第 106(3)条授予版权所有者 "公开出售、赠送、出租或出借其作品的任何物质体现的专有权"。2 Nimmer on Copyright §8.11[A], at 8-123 (emphasis added).对 CA 的诉状进行审查后发现,这些诉状不能被合理地理解为对不法行为的控诉。

584

distribution. First, the contract provisions CA alleges are at issue place limits upon the way those in rightful possession of a copy of the program can use that copy. The provisions do not prohibit National or EDS from giving a copy of the program to anyone else. Second, CA does not specifically allege that National gave a copy of the program to Lend Lease or Tilden. CA alleges that “National has used and permitted the use of the Licensed Programs for the processing of data for the benefit of third parties.” CA did not allege use by Lend Lease and Tilden, but instead alleged use for their benefit.
分发。首先,CA 声称有争议的合同条款对合法拥有程序拷贝的人使用该拷贝的方式进行了限制。这些条款并没有禁止 National 或 EDS 将程序的副本提供给 其他人。其次,CA 没有明确指控 National 向 Lend Lease 或 Tilden 提供了程序的副本。CA 声称 "National 已经使用并允许使用许可程序为第三方处理数据"。CA 没有指控 Lend Lease 和 Tilden 使用,而是指控为他们的利益而使用。

The only potential allegation of unauthorized distribution comes in CA’s contention that National “permitted the use” of the programs. Because we must give CA the benefit of all reasonable inferences from the pleadings, we cannot conclude that an allegation that National “permitted the use” necessarily amounts to an allegation of the actual distribution of a copy of the program. Rather, we believe that such a pleading can be read, in context, to allege that National permitted EDS to use the programs for the benefit of Lend Lease and Tilden, with no copies ever going to Lend Lease and Tilden. EDS, however, was authorized under the supplement addendum to have a copy of the program. Thus, given our standard of review, we cannot read CA’s pleadings to allege that National breached the contract by wrongfully distributing a copy of the program.
CA 声称 National "允许使用 "这些程序,这是唯一可能的未经授权分发的指控。由于我们必须从诉状中给予 CA 所有合理推论的利益,我们不能得出结论认为,National "允许使用 "的指控必然等同于实际分发程序副本的指控。相反,我们认为,根据上下文,这样的诉状可以理解为,National 允许 EDS 为 Lend Lease 和 Tilden 的利益使用这些程序,但从未向 Lend Lease 和 Tilden 分发过任何副本。然而,根据补充附录,EDS被授权拥有程序的副本。因此,鉴于我们的审查标准,我们不能将 CA 的诉状理解为指控 National 通过错误地分发程序副本而违反了合同。

The district court’s conclusion that the pleadings alleged a lease agreement does not change our conclusion. The exclusive right to lease a copyrighted work is derivative of the right to distribute, which, as we noted, is the right to distribute copies. See 17 U.S.C. §106; Nimmer, supra, at §8.11[A]. Allegations of a lease agreement thus cannot expand that distribution right; the right to lease must be the right to lease a copy. Because the pleadings cannot properly be read to allege distribution of a copy, neither can they be read to allege a lease of a copy.
地区法院关于诉状中声称有租赁协议的结论并没有改变我们的结论。租赁版权作品的专有权是发行权的派生权利,正如我们所指出的,发行权是发行拷贝的权利。参见 17 U.S.C. §106; Nimmer, supra, at §8.11[A]。因此,关于租赁协议的指控不能扩大该发行权;租赁权必须是租赁副本的权利。由于诉状不能正确理解为指控复制件的发行,因此也不能理解为指控复制件的租赁。

We thus conclude that CA’s pleadings cannot be read to allege that National breached its contract by actually distributing a copy of the licensed program to either Lend Lease or Tilden.
因此,我们得出结论,CA 的诉状不能被理解为指控 National 通过向 Lend Lease 或 Tilden 实际分发许可程序的副本而违反了合同。

C. Preemption of the Contractual Limitation on Use
C.合同使用限制的优先权

The question then becomes whether CA’s allegation that National breached their contract by using the program in a fashion not allowed under the contract protects a right equivalent to one of the exclusive copyright rights. We believe it does not.
那么问题就来了,CA 公司指控 National 公司以合同规定不允许的方式使用程序,从而违反了他们的合同,这一指控是否保护了等同于独家版权的权利。我们认为不能。

We agree with the district court that the computer program in question is within the subject matter of copyright. Thus we focus on the second preemption issue: whether the right sought under state law is equivalent to the exclusive rights under copyright. We must consider whether a limitation on the uses to which a licensee may put a licensed work are preempted even though those uses do not involve the exclusive copyright rights. As noted above, courts and commentators have framed this inquiry as whether the right in question is “infringed by the mere act of reproduction, performance, distribution or display.” 1 Nimmer on Copyright §1.01[B], at 1-13. Section 301 preempts only those state law rights that “‘may be abridged by an act which, in and of itself, would infringe one of the exclusive rights’ provided by federal copyright law.” Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693, 716 (2d Cir. 1992) (citing Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 723 F.2d 195, 200 (2d Cir. 1983), rev’d on other grounds, 471 U.S. 539 (1985)). 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
我们同意地区法院的观点,即有关计算机程序属于版权的主题事项。因此,我们将重点放在第二个优先权问题上:根据州法寻求的权利是否等同于版权下的专有权。我们必须考虑的是,对被许可人使用被许可作品的限制是否属于优先权,即使这些使用并不涉及版权专有权。如上所述,法院和评论家将这一问题界定为:有关权利是否 "仅仅因复制、表演、发行或展示行为而受到侵犯"。1 Nimmer on Copyright §1.01[B], at 1-13。第 301 条仅对那些"'可能被某一行为削弱,而该行为本身会侵犯联邦版权法规定的某一专有权利'的州法律权利具有优先权"。Computer Assocs.Int'l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693, 716 (2d Cir. 1992) (citing Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 723 F.2d 195, 200 (2d Cir. 1983), rev'd on other grounds, 471 U.S. 539 (1985)).如果 "在复制、表演、发行或展示行为之外,还需要一个额外的要素,才能构成由国家创造的",那么,"在复制、表演、发行或展示行为之外,还需要一个额外的要素,才能构成由国家创造的"。

585

cause of action, then the right does not lie ‘within the general scope of copyright’ and there is no preemption.” 1 Nimmer on Copyright §1.01[B], at 1-14-15 (footnotes omitted); see also Harper & Row, 723 F.2d at 200 (where state law right is predicated upon an act incorporating elements beyond mere reproduction or the like, the [federal and state rights] are not equivalent and there is no preemption).
在这种情况下,该权利不属于'版权的一般范围',也就不存在优先权。1 Nimmer on Copyright §1.01[B],at 1-14-15(脚注省略);另见 Harper & Row, 723 F.2d at 200(如果州法权利是以包含超出单纯复制或类似内容的行为为前提,则[联邦和州权利]并不等同,也不存在优先权)。

We conclude that the alleged contractual restriction on National’s use of the licensed programs constitutes an extra element in addition to the copyright rights making this cause of action qualitatively different from an action for copyright.
我们的结论是,对 National 使用许可程序的所谓合同限制构成了版权权利之外的额外因素,使这一诉因在性质上有别于版权诉讼。

National initially contends that any complaint alleging use of a copyrighted work that exceeds the uses allowable under the license must be brought as a copyright infringement claim; contract claims containing such allegations are preempted. In support of this proposition, National cites several cases finding copyright infringement when the licensee’s “use” of a copyrighted and licensed work exceeded the uses allowed under the license. See S.O.S., Inc. v. Payday, Inc., 886 F.2d 1081, 1087 (9th Cir. 1989); Cohen v. Paramount Pictures Corp., 845 F.2d 851, 853 (9th Cir. 1988); Gilliam v. American Broadcasting Cos., Inc., 538 F.2d 14, 20 (2d Cir. 1976); Frank Music Corp. v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 772 F.2d 505, 512 (9th Cir. 1985); Wolff v. Institute of Elec. & Elecs. Eng’rs, Inc., 768 F. Supp. 66, 69 (S.D.N.Y. 1991); National Bank of Commerce v. Shaklee Corp., 503 F. Supp. 533, 544 (W.D. Tex. 1980).
National 公司最初认为,任何指控版权作品的使用超出了许可允许的使用范围的投诉,都必须作为版权侵权索赔提出;包含此类指控的合同索赔属于先入为主。为支持这一主张,National 援引了几个案例,当被许可人对版权作品的 "使用 "超出了许可允许的使用范围时,这些案例都认定被许可人侵犯了版权。参见 S.O.S.公司诉 Payday 公司案,886 F.2d 1081,1087(第 9 巡回法院,1989 年);科恩诉派拉蒙影业公司案,845 F.2d 851,853(第 9 巡回法院,1988 年);吉利安姆诉美国广播公司案,538 F.2d 851,853(第 9 巡回法院,1988 年)、Inc., 538 F.2d 14, 20 (2d Cir. 1976); Frank Music Corp. v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 772 F.2d 505, 512 (9th Cir. 1985); Wolff v. Institute of Elec.Eng'rs, Inc., 768 F. Supp. 66, 69 (S.D.N.Y. 1991);National Bank of Commerce v. Shaklee Corp., 503 F. Supp. 533, 544 (W.D. Tex. 1980)。

We believe that National reads these cases too broadly. First, only one of these cases involved preemption. See Wolff, 768 F. Supp. at 69. In Wolff, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had both infringed his copyright and breached their contract by republishing a photograph licensed for only one publication. The court held that the breach of contract cause of action was preempted because, as the court construed it, the plaintiff merely alleged that the defendant breached their contract by infringing his copyright. Wolff, 768 F. Supp. at 69. None of the other cases involved preemption; however, in each, the conduct claimed as infringing involved one of the exclusive copyright rights. See S.O.S., 886 F.2d at 1087 (licensee made a copy of the program and prepared a modified version without authorization); Cohen, 845 F.2d at 852 (company with a right to record musical composition for film and display film on television also sold and rented videocassettes to general public); Gilliam, 538 F.2d at 18 (defendant televised edited version of program without authorization); Frank Music, 772 F.2d at 512 (defendant staged musical revue in manner not allowed under the license); Shaklee, 503 F. Supp. at 544 (defendant inserted unauthorized advertising material into published work). Rather than stating a rule that any use exceeding the license is infringing, these cases establish that engaging in one of the acts reserved to the copyright holder under §106, without a license to do so, is infringing. Moreover, the Wolff case stands at most for the proposition that a breach of contract claim alleging nothing more than an act of infringement is preempted. Given that we cannot read CA to allege that National engaged in one of the acts reserved to CA under §106, these cases are inapposite.
我们认为,National 对这些案例的解读过于宽泛。首先,这些案例中只有一个涉及到优先权。参见 Wolff, 768 F. Supp. at 69。在 Wolff 案中,原告指控被告重新出版了一张只授权给一家出版社的照片,从而侵犯了他的版权并违反了双方的合同。法院认为,违反合同的诉因已被排除,因为根据法院的解释,原告只是声称被告侵犯了他的版权,从而违反了他们的合同。Wolff,768 F. Supp. at 69。其他案件均不涉及先入为主的问题;但在每个案件中,被控侵权的行为均涉及其中一项专有版权权利。参见 S.O.S.,886 F.2d 案,第 1087 页(被许可人未经授权复制节目并制作修改版);Cohen,845 F.2d 案,第 852 页(有权为电影录制音乐作品并在电视上播放电影的公司也向公众出售和出租录像带);Gilliam,538 F.2d at 18(被告未经授权在电视上播放经过编辑的节目版本);Frank Music, 772 F.2d at 512(被告以许可证不允许的方式上演音乐剧);Shaklee, 503 F. Supp. at 544(被告在出版的作品中插入未经授权的广告材料)。这些案例并没有规定任何超出许可范围的使用都是侵权行为,而是确定了在没有获得许可的情况下从事第 106 条规定的版权持有人保留的行为之一就是侵权行为。此外,Wolff 案最多只能说明,仅指控侵权行为的违约索赔已被排除在外。 鉴于我们无法理解 CA 声称 National 参与了§106 中为 CA 保留的行为之一,因此这些案例并不适用。

Because we find no general rule holding breach of contract actions such as this one preempted, we examine specifically whether this cause of action seeks to protect rights equivalent to the exclusive copyright rights. We conclude that the contractual restriction on use of the programs constitutes an additional element making this cause of action not equivalent to a copyright action.
由于我们没有发现任何一般规则认为违反合同的诉讼(如本诉讼)具有优先权,因此我们特别审查了本诉讼理由是否寻求保护等同于排他性版权权利的权利。我们的结论是,对程序使用的合同限制构成了一个额外的因素,使得这一诉因不等同于版权诉讼。

586

National disagrees with this characterization and attempts to read the term “use” in the license agreement as synonymous with the rights given to the copyright holder. We believe it is not, as two recent cases make clear.
National 公司不同意这种说法,并试图将许可协议中的 "使用 "一词理解为与赋予版权持有者的权利同义。我们认为这不是同义词,最近的两个案例就说明了这一点。

In a case very similar to this one, involving CA, the court held that a contractual restriction on use of a computer program was distinct from the exclusive copyright rights. In Computer Assocs. v. State St. Bank & Trust, 789 F. Supp. 470 (D. Mass. 1992), the parties had executed a license that provided, inter alia: “Customer agrees to refrain from using the Equipment… for other customer-sites or customers on a service basis.” Id. at 475. CA argued that State Street violated the provisions of the license agreement by allowing customers direct access to the programs to gain information. Because of that alleged breach, Computer Associates claimed that it could cancel their maintenance contract. State Street moved for a preliminary injunction prohibiting CA from cancelling the maintenance contract. CA then claimed that the violation of the agreements constituted copyright infringement, preventing State Street from claiming irreparable harm. In denying this claim, the court stated:
在一个与本案十分相似的涉及 CA 的案件中,法院认为关于使用计算机程序的合同限制有别于排他性版权权利。在 Computer Assocs 诉 State St. Bank & Trust, 789 F. Supp. 470 (D. Mass. 1992) 案中,双方签署了一份许可协议,其中特别规定"客户同意不将设备......用于其他客户网站或客户服务。同上,第 475 页。CA 认为,道富公司允许客户直接访问程序以获取信息,违反了许可协议的规定。由于这一所谓的违约行为,Computer Associates 声称可以取消他们的维护合同。State Street 申请了初步禁令,禁止 CA 取消维护合同。随后,CA 声称,违反协议构成了版权侵权,因此 State Street 无法声称受到了无法弥补的损害。法院在驳回这一主张时指出

infringement results only from the unauthorized copying of copyrighted material. A use of an authorized copy of copyrighted subject matter ordinarily is not infringing.… Therefore, applicable limitations on State Street’s use of the programs, if any, must be derived initially from the license agreements, not copyright law.
只有未经授权复制版权材料才构成侵权。使用受版权保护内容的授权副本通常不构成侵权....,因此,对道富使用程序的适用限制(如有)必须首先从许可协议而非版权法中得出。

Id. at 472.

The Ninth Circuit reached a similar conclusion in G.S. Rasmussen & Assocs. v. Kalitta Flying Serv., 958 F.2d 896 (9th Cir. 1992). In Kalitta, the plaintiff had received from the FAA a certificate (STC) allowing him to modify a plane design. The defendant took the certificate from an existing, modified plane and used it to modify another plane, without paying the plaintiff for doing so. Plaintiff sued for unfair competition, and the defendant raised the defense of copy-right preemption. The court first noted that there was no allegation of copying. It went on to hold that:
第九巡回法院在 G.S. Rasmussen & Assocs 诉 Kalitta 飞行服务公司案(958 F.2d 896,第九巡回法院,1992 年)中也得出了类似的结论。在 Kalitta 案中,原告从联邦航空局获得了一份证书(STC),允许他修改飞机设计。被告从一架现有的改装飞机上拿走了证书,并用它改装了另一架飞机,却没有因此向原告支付任何费用。原告以不正当竞争为由提起诉讼,被告则提出了复制权优先的抗辩。法院首先注意到没有关于复制的指控。法院接着认为

Federal copyright law governs only copying.… Enforcement of Rasmussen’s property right in his STC leaves Kalitta free to make as many copies of the certificate as it wishes; to the extent the manual supplement is not protected by the copyright laws, the same is true of it. That Kalitta is prevented from then using these copies to obtain an airworthiness certificate from the FAA does not interfere in any way with the operation of the copyright laws.
联邦版权法仅适用于复制.... 执行 Rasmussen 对其 STC 的财产权,使 Kalitta 可以随意复制该证书;在手册增补不受版权法保护的情况下,也是如此。Kalitta 无法使用这些副本从联邦航空局获得适航证书,但这丝毫不影响版权法的实施。

Id. at 904.

In both of these cases, the courts distinguished restrictions on use of a copyrightable work that did not involve “copying” from the exclusive rights in copyright. CA’s situation is the same. CA does not claim that National is doing something that the copyright laws reserve exclusively to the copyright holder, or that the use restriction is breached “by the mere act of reproduction, performance, distribution or display.” Instead, on this posture, CA must be read to claim that National’s or EDS’s processing of data for third parties is the prohibited act. None of the exclusive copyright rights grant CA that right of their own force. Absent the parties’ agreement, this restriction would not exist. Thus, CA is alleging that the contract creates a right not existing under the copyright law, a right based upon National’s promise, and that it
在这两起案件中,法院都将不涉及 "复制 "的版权作品的使用限制与版权中的专有权区分开来。CA 的情况也是如此。CA 并未声称,National 所做的是版权法专属于版权持有者的事情,也未声称 "仅仅是复制、表演、发行或展示行为 "就违反了使用限制。相反,在这种情况下,CA 必须被理解为声称 National 或 EDS 为第三方处理数据是被禁止的行为。没有任何一项专有版权权利授予 CA 这种权利。如果没有双方的协议,这种限制就不存在。因此,CA 声称合同创造了一项版权法中不存在的权利,一项基于 National 承诺的权利,而且它

587

is suing to protect that contractual right. The contractual restriction on use of the programs constitutes an extra element that makes this cause of action qualitatively different from one for copyright.
该诉讼是为了保护这一合同权利。对程序使用的合同限制构成了一个额外的因素,使这一诉因与版权诉因有了质的区别。

We believe that the legislative history of the Copyright Act supports this conclusion. In elaborating the meaning of the term “equivalent rights” the House committee report to the Copyright Act suggests that breaches of contract were not generally preempted: “nothing in the bill derogates from the rights of parties to contract with each other and to sue for breaches of contract.” See H.R.Rep. No. 94-1476, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 132, reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5659, 5748. This is not the end of the inquiry, however.
我们认为《版权法》的立法史支持这一结论。在阐述 "等同权利 "一词的含义时,众议院委员会关于《版权法》的报告表明,违反合同的行为一般不会被排除在外:"法案中的任何内容都不会减损当事人之间签订合同的权利以及就违反合同提起诉讼的权利。见 H.R.Rep. No.132, reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5659, 5748.然而,这并不是调查的终点。

National contends that while the bill as initially drafted might have excluded breaches of contract from preemption, the bill as passed did not. National notes that §301(b)(3) of the Copyright Act, as initially drafted and reported out of committee in the House, explicitly exempted breach of contract suits from preemption. This provision was then amended on the floor of the House to delete all the specific examples of non-preempted causes of action. National claims this action demonstrated congressional intent to remove the “safe harbor” from preemption for breach of contract actions. See, e.g., Wolff v. Institute of Elec. & Elecs. Eng’rs, Inc., 768 F. Supp. 66 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (deletion of safe harbor provision for breaches of contracts suggests that Congress did not intend generally to except them from preemption).
National认为,虽然最初起草的法案可能将违反合同排除在免责范围之外,但通过的法案并没有这样做。National指出,最初起草的《版权法》第301(b)(3)条在众议院的委员会报告中明确规定,违反合同的诉讼不受优先权的限制。众议院随后对该条款进行了修改,删除了所有不受豁免的诉讼理由的具体例子。National 声称这一行动表明国会有意取消对违约诉讼的免责 "安全港"。例如,参见 Wolff 诉 Institute of Elec.Eng'rs, Inc., 768 F. Supp. 66 (S.D.N.Y. 1991)(删除违反合同的 "安全港 "条款表明国会一般无意将其排除在免责范围之外)。

We disagree. Although the deletion of a provision from a final bill generally means that Congress intends to disavow what was formerly expressed, we believe in this case the facts surrounding the deletion of §301(b)(3) suggest Congress did not intend to reverse the presumption of non-preemption for the examples initially included in §301(b)(3). Instead, it appears that certain members of the House were concerned about the subsequent addition of the tort of misappropriation to the list of non-preempted causes of action, and suggested deletion of the specific examples in order to prevent confusion about the scope of preemption. We agree with Professor Nimmer that “[i]t seems clear that the amendment that caused such deletion was not intended substantively to alter Section 301(b)(3) as regards [those examples originally included].” 1 Nimmer on Copyright §1.10[B], at 1-22; See also Mayer v. Josiah Wedgwood & Sons, Ltd., 601 F. Supp. 1523, 1533 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (same); Factors, Etc., Inc. v. Pro Arts, Inc., 496 F. Supp. 1090 (S.D.N.Y. 1980) (same). Thus, we believe, the better view is that the legislative history suggests a congressional intent not to preempt breach of contract actions such as this one.
我们不同意这一观点。尽管从最终法案中删除某项条款通常意味着国会有意否定之前的表述,但我们认为,在本案中,与删除第 301(b)(3)节相关的事实表明,国会无意推翻最初列入第 301(b)(3)节的例子的非免责推定。相反,众议院的某些议员似乎对后来在非豁免诉因清单中增加挪用侵权行为表示担忧,并建议删除具体示例,以防止对豁免范围产生混淆。我们同意 Nimmer 教授的观点,即 "很明显,导致删除这些例子的修正案并不是为了实质性地修改第 301(b)(3)条[最初包含的那些例子]"。1 Nimmer on Copyright §1.10[B], at 1-22; See also Mayer v. Josiah Wedgwood & Sons, Ltd., 601 F. Supp. 1523, 1533 (S.D.N.Y. 1985) (same); Factors, Etc., Inc. v. Pro Arts, Inc., 496 F. Supp. 1090 (S.D.N.Y. 1980) (same).因此,我们认为,更好的观点是,立法史表明国会的意图是不预先阻止像本案这样的违约诉讼。

National contends, however, that such a conclusion fails to recognize the nature and value of computer software. According to National, computer software has value because it performs a function. National thus claims an allegation that it used the program for another is in fact an allegation that it distributed the “functionality” of the program. This argument fails. First, National cites to no authority in support of this position. Second, even with respect to computer software, the distribution right is only the right to distribute copies of the work. As Professor Nimmer has stated, “[i]nfringement of [the distribution right] requires an actual dissemination of either copies or phonorecords.” 2 Nimmer on Copyright §8.11[A], at 8-124.1. Finally, courts have specifically held that copyright protection in computer software does not extend to the software’s function. See, e.g., Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693, 704 (2d Cir. 1992). Thus, even if CA could be said to have alleged that National
然而,National 认为,这样的结论没有认识到计算机软件的性质和价值。National 认为,计算机软件之所以有价值,是因为它能实现某种功能。因此,National 声称其为他人使用该程序的指控实际上是其分发了该程序的"功能 "的指控。这一论点未能成立。首先,National 没有援引任何权威来支持这一立场。其次,即使就计算机软件而言,分发权也只是分发作品副本的权利。正如 Nimmer 教授所说,"侵犯[发行权]需要实际传播副本或录音制品"。2 Nimmer on Copyright §8.11[A], at 8-124.1。最后,法院明确认定,计算机软件的版权保护并不延伸至软件的功能。例如,参见 Computer Assocs.Int'l, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F.2d 693, 704 (2d Cir. 1992)。因此,即使 CA 可以声称 National

588

“distributed the functionality” of its program, such a claim would not protect a right equivalent to one of the exclusive rights in copyright.
在这种情况下,"分发 "其程序的 "功能 "并不能保护等同于版权中某项专有权的权利。

Finally, National claims that CA’s requested relief demonstrates its cause of action is equivalent to the exclusive rights under copyright. First, National notes that CA requested damages for unjust enrichment, damages National claims are preempted under §301. National is correct in noting that certain courts have held claims for unjust enrichment preempted when based upon allegations that the defendant engaged in one of the acts reserved to the copyright holder under §106. We do not read CA to allege that National was unjustly enriched as a result of a wrongful exercise of one of the §106 rights. Rather, we read this allegation of damage as a further explanation of the damages CA intends to prove arising from the breach of contract. CA alleges generally that it has been damaged in an amount to be proved at trial, and it will have to prove those damages. In this context, we read its allegations of unjust enrichment as an attempt, albeit inartful, to allege that National received from Lend Lease and Tilden amounts that CA would have received had National not breached their contract. Second, National notes that CA requested return or destruction of any copies of its programs still in National’s possession. It notes that the Copyright Act provides precisely that remedy, see 17 U.S.C. §504, and claims that the request for destruction shows the claim is equivalent to a copyright claim. We disagree. The parties’ contract specifically provides for the return or destruction of the licensed programs upon any breach of the license agreement. This remedy would apply equally to this asserted breach (improper use) as to an action for breach of an agreement to pay royalties or license fees, which National admits would not be preempted. Furthermore, the copyright remedy of return or destruction applies even absent a preexisting relationship between the parties: it does not have to be stated in a contract or license agreement. We cannot conclude that this action is preempted simply because the parties’ contract provides a remedy for breach identical to a remedy provided in copyright.
最后,National 声称 CA 请求的救济表明其诉因等同于版权下的专有权。首先,National 指出 CA 要求对不当得利进行损害赔偿,National 声称根据 §301 的规定,这种损害赔偿属于优先权。National 正确地注意到,某些法院认为,如果基于被告从事了第 106 节规定的版权持有人保留的行为之一的指控,则不当得利的索赔会被优先考虑。我们并没有将 CA 案理解为指控 National 因错误行使第 106 节规定的某项权利而不当得利。相反,我们将这一损害指控理解为对 CA 打算证明的因违约造成的损害的进一步解释。CA 笼统地声称它受到了损害,其数额有待审判时证明,而且它必须证明这些损害。在这种情况下,我们将其关于不当得利的指控理解为试图指控 National 从 Lend Lease 和 Tilden 处获得了在 National 没有违约的情况下 CA 本应获得的金额,尽管这种指控很含糊。其次,National 指出 CA 要求归还或销毁仍由 National 占有的任何程序副本。它指出《版权法》恰恰提供了这种补救措施,见《美国法典》第 17 编第 504 条,并声称销毁要求表明索赔等同于版权索赔。我们不同意这一观点。双方的合同明确规定,如果违反了许可协议,许可程序将被归还或销毁。这一补救措施同样适用于这一声称的违约行为(不当使用),也适用于因违反支付版税或许可费协议而提起的诉讼,National 承认该诉讼不会被优先适用。 此外,即使双方之间没有预先存在的关系,版权的返还或销毁补救措施也适用:它不一定要在合同或许可协议中说明。我们不能仅仅因为双方的合同中规定了与版权中规定的补救措施相同的违约补救措施,就断定该诉讼优先于版权诉讼。

III. CONCLUSION

For all the foregoing reasons, we conclude that CA’s cause of action, as pled, is not preempted by the Copyright Act.
鉴于上述原因,我们得出结论,CA 的诉讼理由并没有受到《版权法》的限制。

* * *

DAVIDSON & ASSOCIATES d/b/a BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT5 v. JUNG

422 F.3d 630 (8th Cir. 2005)

SMITH, Circuit Judge.

I. BACKGROUND

Factual Background

Blizzard, a California corporation and subsidiary of Vivendi, creates and sells software games for personal computers.
暴雪公司(Blizzard)是一家加利福尼亚公司,也是维旺迪公司(Vivendi)的子公司,主要制作和销售个人电脑游戏软件。

In January 1997, Blizzard officially launched “Battle.net,” a 24-hour online-gaming service available exclusively to purchasers of its computer games. The Battle.net service has nearly
1997 年 1 月,暴雪公司正式推出 "Battle.net",这是一项 24 小时在线游戏服务,专供购买其电脑游戏的用户使用。战网服务已拥有近

589

12 million active users who spend more than 2.1 million hours online per day. Blizzard holds valid copyright registrations covering Battle.net and each of its computer games at issue in this litigation. Battle.net is a free service that allows owners of Blizzard games to play each other on their personal computers via the Internet. Battle.net mode allows users to create and join multi-player games that can be accessed across the Internet, to chat with other potential players, to record wins and losses and save advancements in an individual password-protected game account, and to participate with others in tournament play featuring elimination rounds. Players can set up private “chat channels” and private games on Battle.net to allow players to determine with whom they wish to interact online. These Battle. net mode features are only accessible from within the games.
暴雪拥有 1200 万活跃用户,他们每天的在线时间超过 210 万小时。暴雪公司对 Battle.net 及其在本诉讼中涉及的每一款电脑游戏都进行了有效的版权注册。Battle.net 是一项免费服务,允许暴雪游戏的所有者通过互联网在个人电脑上相互对战。Battle.net 模式允许用户创建和加入可在互联网上访问的多人游戏,与其他潜在玩家聊天,记录输赢并在有密码保护的个人游戏账户中保存进展情况,以及与他人一起参加以淘汰赛为特色的锦标赛。玩家可以在 Battle.net 上设置私人 "聊天频道 "和私人游戏,让玩家决定与谁进行在线互动。这些 Battle.net 模式功能只能在游戏中使用。

Like most computer software, Blizzard’s games can be easily copied and distributed over the Internet. Blizzard has taken steps to avoid piracy by designing Battle.net to restrict access and use of the Battle.net mode feature of the game. Each time a user logs onto Battle.net, a Battle.net server examines the user’s version of the game software. If a Blizzard game does not have the latest software upgrades and fixes, the Battle.net service updates the customer’s game before allowing the game to play in Battle.net mode.
与大多数计算机软件一样,暴雪的游戏可以很容易地被复制并在互联网上传播。暴雪已采取措施避免盗版,在设计 Battle.net 时限制了游戏的 Battle.net 模式功能的访问和使用。每次用户登录 Battle.net,Battle.net 服务器都会检查用户的游戏软件版本。如果暴雪游戏没有最新的软件升级和修复,Battle.net 服务会更新用户的游戏,然后才允许游戏以 Battle.net 模式运行。

With the exception of “Diablo,” each authorized version of a Blizzard game comes with a “CD Key.” A CD Key is a unique sequence of alphanumeric characters printed on a sticker attached to the case in which the CD-ROM was packaged. To log on to Battle.net and access Battle.net mode, the game initiates an authentication sequence or “secret handshake” between the game and the Battle.net server. In order to play the Blizzard game contained on a CD-ROM, a user must first install the game onto a computer and agree to the terms of the End User License Agreement (“EULA”) and Terms of Use (“TOU”), both of which prohibit reverse engineering. At the end of both the EULA and TOU, Blizzard includes a button with the text “I Agree” in it, which the user must select in order to proceed with the installation. Users are also required to enter a name and the CD Key during installation of Battle.net and Blizzard games.
除 "暗黑破坏神 "外,暴雪游戏的每个授权版本都附有 "CD 密钥"。CD 密钥是一串独特的字母数字字符,印在贴在 CD-ROM 包装盒上的贴纸上。要登录战网并进入战网模式,游戏会在游戏和战网服务器之间启动一个验证序列或 "秘密握手"。要玩光盘中的暴雪游戏,用户必须先将游戏安装到电脑上,并同意《最终用户许可协议》("EULA")和《使用条款》("TOU")的条款,这两项条款都禁止反向工程。在 EULA 和 TOU 的末尾,暴雪都有一个按钮,上面写着 "我同意",用户必须选择该按钮才能继续安装。在安装战网和暴雪游戏时,用户还必须输入姓名和 CD 密钥。

The outside packaging of all Blizzard games, except for Diablo, contains a statement that use of the game is subject to the EULA and that use of Battle.net is subject to the terms of the TOU. The terms of neither the EULA nor the TOU appear on the outside packaging. If the user does not agree to these terms, the game may be returned for a full refund of the purchase price within thirty (30) days of the original purchase. Combs, Crittenden, and Jung installed Blizzard games and agreed to the terms of the EULA. Crittenden and Jung logged onto Battle.net and agreed to the TOU.
除《暗黑破坏神》外,所有暴雪游戏的外包装上都有一项声明,即游戏的使用受 EULA 的约束,战网的使用受 TOU 条款的约束。外包装上既没有 EULA 条款,也没有 TOU 条款。如果用户不同意这些条款,可在最初购买后三十(30)天内退回游戏,并要求全额退还货款。Combs、Crittenden和Jung安装了暴雪游戏并同意EULA的条款。Crittenden 和 Jung 登录 Battle.net,并同意使用条款。

The users of Battle.net have occasionally experienced difficulties with the service. To address their frustrations with Battle.net, a group of non-profit volunteer game hobbyists, programmers, and other individuals formed a group called the “bnetd project.” The bnetd project developed a program called the “bnetd.org server” that emulates the Battle.netservice and permits users to play online without use of Battle.net. The bnetd project is a volunteer effort and the project has always offered the bnetd program for free to anyone. Combs, Crittenden, and Jung were lead developers for the bnetd project.
Battle.net 的用户偶尔会遇到服务方面的困难。为了解决他们对 Battle.net 的不满,一群非营利的志愿游戏爱好者、程序员和其他个人成立了一个名为 "bnetd 项目 "的小组。bnetd 项目开发了一个名为 "bnetd.org 服务器 "的程序,它可以模拟 Battle.nets 服务,允许用户在不使用 Battle.net 的情况下进行在线游戏。bnetd 项目是一个志愿者项目,该项目一直免费向任何人提供 bnetd 程序。Combs、Crittenden 和 Jung 是 bnetd 项目的主要开发人员。

The bnetd project was organized and managed over the Internet through a website, www.bnetd.org, that was made available to the public through equipment provided by Internet Gateway. The bnetd.org emulator provides a server that allows gamers unable or
bnetd项目是通过一个网站www.bnetd.org , 在互联网上组织和管理的,该网站通过互联网网关提供的设备向公众开放。bnetd.org模拟器提供了一个服务器,允许无法或

590

unwilling to connect to Battle.net to experience the multi-player features of Blizzard’s games. The bnetd.org emulator also provides matchmaking services for users of Blizzard games who want to play those games in a multi-player environment without using Battle.net. Bnetd. org attempted to mirror all of the user-visible features of Battle.net, including online discussion forums and information about the bnetd project, as well as access to the program’s computer code for others to copy and modify.
不愿意连接到 Battle.net 来体验暴雪游戏的多人游戏功能。bnetd.org 模拟器还为想在多人游戏环境中玩暴雪游戏而不使用战网的用户提供匹配服务。Bnetd.org 试图镜像 Battle.net 的所有用户可见功能,包括在线论坛和有关 bnetd 项目的信息,以及供他人复制和修改的程序代码。

To serve as a functional alternative to Battle.net, bnetd.org had to be compatible with Blizzard’s software. In particular, compatibility required that bnetd.org speak the same protocol language that the Battle.net speaks. By speaking the same protocol language, the bnetd programs would be interoperable with Blizzard games. Once game play starts, a user perceives no difference between Battle.net and the bnetd.org.
要成为 Battle.net 的功能替代品,bnetd.org 必须与暴雪的软件兼容。特别是,兼容性要求 bnetd.org 使用与 Battle.net 相同的协议语言。通过使用相同的协议语言,bnetd 程序可以与暴雪游戏互操作。游戏开始后,用户不会感觉到 Battle.net 和 bnetd.org 有任何区别。

By necessity, Appellants used reverse engineering to learn Blizzard’s protocol language and to ensure that bnetd.org worked with Blizzard games. Combs used reverse engineering to develop the bnetd.org server, including a program called “tcpdump” to log communications between Blizzard games and the Battle.net server. Crittenden used reverse engineering to develop the bnetd.org server, including using a program called “Nextray.” Crittenden also used a program called “ripper” to take Blizzard client files that were compiled together in one file and break them into their component parts. Crittenden used the ripper program to determine how Blizzard games displayed ad banners so that bnetd.org could display ad banners to users in the format that Blizzard uses on the Battle.net service. Combs tried to disassemble a Blizzard game to figure out how to implement a feature that allowed bnetd. org to protect the password that a user enters when creating an account in Battle.net mode. Crittenden made an unauthorized copy of a Blizzard game in order to test the interoperability of the bnetd.org server with multiple games.
必要时,上诉人使用逆向工程来学习暴雪的协议语言,确保 bnetd.org 与暴雪游戏协同工作。Combs 利用逆向工程开发了 bnetd.org 服务器,其中包括一个名为 "tcpdump "的程序,用于记录暴雪游戏与 Battle.net 服务器之间的通信。Crittenden 利用逆向工程开发了 bnetd.org 服务器,包括使用一个名为 "Nextray "的程序。Crittenden 还使用了一个名为 "ripper "的程序,将编译成一个文件的暴雪客户端文件分解成各个组成部分。Crittenden 利用 ripper 程序确定暴雪游戏显示广告横幅的方式,以便 bnetd.org 能够以暴雪在 Battle.net 服务中使用的格式向用户显示广告横幅。Combs 试图拆解暴雪的一款游戏,以找出如何实现一种功能,使 bnetd.org 能够保护用户在战网模式下创建帐户时输入的密码。Crittenden 未经授权复制了一款暴雪游戏,以测试 bnetd.org 服务器与多款游戏的互操作性。

….

Discussion

….

A. Preemption

The Copyright Act provides the exclusive source of protection for “all legal and equitable rights that are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright as specified by [§]106” of the Copyright Act. See 17 U.S.C. §301(a). The Copyright Act preempts state laws that attempt to protect rights exclusively protected by federal law. See Nat’l Car Rental Sys., Inc. v. Computer Assocs. Intern., Inc., 991 F.2d 426, 428 (8th Cir. 1993). Conversely, the Copyright Act does not preempt state law from enforcing non-equivalent legal or equitable rights. Id. A state cause of action is statutorily or expressly preempted if: (1) the work at issue is within the subject matter of copyright as defined in §§102 and 103 of the Copyright Act, and (2) the state-law-created right is equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright as specified in §106. Id. at 428-29 (citing Harper & Row Pub., Inc. v. Nation Enter., 723 F.2d 195, 200 (2d Cir. 1983)). Express preemption is no longer at issue in this case.
《版权法》为《版权法》[§]106 中规定的 "所有等同于版权一般范围内任何专有权利的法律和衡平法权利 "提供了专有的保护。See17 U.S.C. §301(a)。版权法》优先于试图保护受联邦法律专门保护的权利的州法律。 参见 Nat'l Car Rental Sys., Inc.Intern., Inc., 991 F.2d 426, 428 (8th Cir. 1993)。相反,《版权法》并不禁止州法执行非等同的法律或衡平法权利。Id. 如果出现以下情况,州诉讼理由将被法定或明文规定优先适用:(1) 争议作品属于版权法第 102 和 103 节中定义的版权主题,且 (2) 州法律规定的权利等同于第 106 节中规定的版权一般范围内的任何专有权。Id. at 428-29(引用 Harper & Row Pub.,Inc. v. Nation Enter.,723 F.2d 195,200 (2d Cir. 1983))。在本案中,明示优先权不再是问题。

This case concerns conflict preemption. Conflict preemption applies when there is no express preemption but (1) it is impossible to comply with both the state and federal law or
本案涉及冲突优先原则。冲突优先适用于以下情况:没有明文规定的优先权,但 (1) 不可能同时遵守州法和联邦法或

591

when (2) the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Energy Res. Conservation and Dev. Comm’n, 461 U.S. 190, 204 (1983); Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. 519, 525 (1977). Appellants, relying upon Vault v. Quaid Software Ltd., 847 F.2d 255, 268-70 (5th Cir. 1988), argue that the federal Copyright Act preempts Blizzard’s state law breachof-contract claims. We disagree.
当 (2) 州法律成为实现和执行国会全部宗旨和目标的障碍时。Pacific Gas & Elec.Co. v. Energy Res.Comm'n,461 U.S.190,204 (1983);Jones 诉 Rath 包装公司,430 U.S.519,525 (1977)。上诉人依据 Vault v. Quaid Software Ltd., 847 F.2d 255, 268-70 (5th Cir. 1988) 案,认为联邦《版权法》优先于暴雪公司的州法违约索赔。我们不同意这一观点。

In Vault, plaintiffs challenged the Louisiana Software License Enforcement Act, which permitted a software producer to impose contractual terms upon software purchasers provided that the terms were set forth in a license agreement comporting with the statute. Id. at 268. “Enforceable terms [under the Louisiana statute] include the prohibition of: (1) any copying of the program for any purpose; and (2) modifying and/or adapting the program in any way, including adaptation by reverse engineering, decompilation or disassembly.” Id. at 269 (citation omitted). The Louisiana statute defined reverse engineering, decompiling or disassembling as “any process by which computer software is converted from one form to another form which is more readily understandable to human beings, including without limitation any decoding or decrypting of any computer program which has been encoded or encrypted in any manner.” Id. (citation omitted). The Fifth Circuit held that the Louisiana statute conflicted with the rights of computer program owners under the Copyright Act, specifically 17 U.S.C. §117, which permits a computer program owner to make an adaptation of a program provided that the adaption is either created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine or is for archival purpose only. Id. at 270.
Vault 案中,原告对《路易斯安那州软件许可实施法》提出质疑,该法允许软件生产商向软件购买者强加合同条款,条件是这些条款必须在符合法规的许可协议中加以规定。Id. 第 268 页。根据路易斯安那州法规,"可执行条款 "包括禁止:Id:(1) 出于任何目的复制程序;以及 (2) 以任何方式修改和/或改编程序,包括通过逆向工程、反编译或反汇编进行改编"。Id. at 269(引文省略)。路易斯安那州法规将逆向工程、反编译或反汇编定义为 "将计算机软件从一种形式转换为另一种更易于人类理解的形式的任何过程,包括但不限于对以任何方式编码或加密的任何计算机程序进行解码或解密"。Id. (引文省略)。第五巡回法院认为,路易斯安那州的法规与《版权法》,特别是《美国法典》第 17 编第 117 条规定的计算机程序所有者的权利相冲突,该条允许计算机程序所有者对程序进行改编,但改编必须是作为计算机程序与机器结合使用的必要步骤,或者仅用于存档目的。Id.

Unlike in Vault, the state law at issue here neither conflicts with the interoperability exception under 17 U.S.C. §1201(f) nor restricts rights given under federal law. Appellants contractually accepted restrictions on their ability to reverse engineer by their agreement to the terms of the TOU and EULA. “[P]rivate parties are free to contractually forego the limited ability to reverse engineer a software product under the exemptions of the Copyright Act[,]” Bowers v. Baystate Techs, Inc., 320 F.3d 1317, 1325-26 (Fed. Cir. 2003), and “a state can permit parties to contract away a fair use defense or to agree not to engage in uses of copyrighted material that are permitted by the copyright law if the contract is freely negotiated.” Id. at 1337 (Dyk, J., dissenting). See also Nat’l Car Rental Sys., Inc., 991 F.2d at 434 (holding that the Copyright Act does not preempt a breach of contract action based on prohibited use of software contained in a license agreement). While Bowers and Nat’l Car Rental were express preemption cases rather than conflict preemption, their reasoning applies here with equal force. By signing the TOUs and EULAs, Appellants expressly relinquished their rights to reverse engineer.
Vault 一案不同的是,此处涉及的州法律既没有与《美国法典》第 17 编第 1201(f)节规定的互操作性例外相冲突,也没有限制联邦法律赋予的权利。上诉人通过同意 TOU 和 EULA 的条款,在合同上接受了对其反向工程能力的限制。"私人当事方可以根据《版权法》的豁免条款,以合同方式自由放弃对软件产品进行反向工程的有限能力[]"。Bowers v. Baystate Techs, Inc., 320 F.3d 1317, 1325-26 (Fed. Cir. 2003),而且 "如果合同是自由协商的,国家可以允许当事人在合同中放弃合理使用抗辩,或者同意不使用版权法允许使用的版权材料"。Id. at 1337 (Dyk, J., dissenting).See also Nat'l Car Rental Sys., Inc., 991 F.2d at 434(认为《版权法》并不优先于基于许可协议中禁止使用软件的违约诉讼)。虽然BowersNat'l Car Rental 是明示优先权案件而非冲突优先权案件,但它们的推理同样适用于本案。通过签署 TOU 和 EULA,上诉人明确放弃了反向工程的权利。

Summary judgment on this issue was properly granted in favor of Blizzard.…
在这一问题上作出有利于暴雪的简易判决是正确的....。

* * *

592

Questions

1.

General Discussion Questions

1.1

What state laws are being considered in the Vault, National Car Rental, and Jung cases, respectively? Should these state laws be assessed differently in the context of federal law preemption?
Vault 案、National Car Rental 案Jung 案 中分别考虑了哪些州的法律?在联邦法律优先权的背景下,是否应该对这些州法律进行不同的评估?

1.2

How would you describe the effect on the software industry if the court had reached a different result in the National Car Rental and Jung cases? Would this effect be better or worse for innovation and competition?
如果法院在National Car RentalJung 案中得出不同的结果,您将如何描述对软件产业的影响?这种影响对创新和竞争是好是坏?

2.

Litigation Questions

2.1

Aside from a preemption argument, what arguments would you have made on behalf of the defendants in the Jung case?
除了优先权论点之外,你还会在Jung 案中代表被告提出哪些论点?

2.2

If you were representing the defendants in the Jung case, how would you argue that the Vault case supports your preemption argument?
如果你在Jung 案中代表被告,你将如何论证Vault 案支持你的优先权论点?

2.3

Why did the plaintiff in Vault raise the Louisiana statute in support of its case?
为什么Vault 案的原告会提出路易斯安那州的法规来支持其案件?

3.

Business Law Questions

3.1

How would you have advised the defendants in the Jung case to achieve interoperability in a legal manner?
您会如何建议Jung 案中的被告以合法的方式实现互操作性?

3.2

How would you advise the defendants in the Jung case about whether it would matter if their actions took place in Europe?
你会如何建议Jung 案中的被告,如果他们的行为发生在欧洲是否会有影响?

3.3

If you were advising the government affairs group at a software company, what type of state legislation would you propose to support software licensing but avoid preemption problems?
如果你是一家软件公司政府事务部门的顾问,你会建议哪种类型的州立法来支持软件许可,但又能避免优先权问题?

EXERCISE

Draft a memo advising the defendants in the Jung case on how to achieve interoperability in a legal manner. Then, with one student playing the role of the lawyer and one the role of the software programmer client, discuss the legal advice contained in the memo.
起草一份备忘录,就如何以合法的方式实现互操作性向Jung 案的被告提供建议。然后,由一名学生扮演律师,一名学生扮演软件程序员客户,讨论备忘录中包含的法律建议。