来源：《美联社新闻》
原文刊登日期：2021年4月6日
Technology companies sighed with relief Monday after the Supreme Court sided with Google in a copyright dispute with Oracle. The high court said Google did nothing wrong in copying code to develop the Android operating system now used on most smartphones.
在美国最高法院裁决谷歌在与甲骨文的版权纠纷中胜诉后，科技公司周一松了一口气。最高法院表示，谷歌复制代码来开发目前大多数智能手机上使用的Android操作系统没有做错任何事。
To create Android, which was released in 2007, Google wrote millions of lines of new computer code. It also used about 11,500 lines of code copyrighted as part of Oracle’s Java platform. Oracle had sued seeking billions.
为了创建2007年发布的Android系统，谷歌编写了数百万行新的计算机代码。它还使用了大约11,500行受甲骨文Java平台版权保护的代码。甲骨文提起诉讼，要求赔偿数十亿美元。
But the Supreme Court sided 6-2 with Google, describing the copying as “fair use.” The outcome is what most tech companies -- both large and small -- had been rooting for. Both Microsoft and IBM were among the industry heavyweights that had filed briefs backing Google in the case. They and others warned that ruling against the Mountain View, California-based company could have profound consequences, stifling innovation and upending software development.
但最高法院以6比2的票数支持谷歌，并将复制描述为“合理使用”。这样的结果是大多数科技公司——无论大小——一直支持的。微软和IBM都是业内重量级企业，它们都提交了支持谷歌的辩护状。它们和其他企业警告称，如果裁决结果不利于这家总部位于加州山景城的公司，可能会产生深远的影响，将扼杀创新，颠覆软件开发。
Oracle had won backing from the movie and recording industries as well as publishers, which favor expansive copyright protections to protect their profits from books, articles, movies, TV shows and music. The Trump administration had also backed Oracle.
甲骨文赢得了电影和唱片业以及出版商的支持，他们支持扩大版权保护，以保护他们从书籍、文章、电影、电视节目和音乐中获得的利润。特朗普政府也支持甲骨文。
In his opinion for the court’s majority, Justice Stephen Breyer wrote that Google “took only what was needed” and that “Google’s copying was transformative,” a word the court has used “to describe a copying use that adds something new and important.”
大法官斯蒂芬·布雷耶在他代表最高法院多数派撰写的意见书中写道，谷歌“只采用了需要的东西”，“谷歌的复制是具有变革意义的”，最高法院曾用这个词“描述在复制时增加了一些新的和重要的东西”。
Google had said its actions were long-settled, common practice in the industry, a practice that has been good for technical progress. It said there is no copyright protection for the purely functional, noncreative computer code it used, something that couldn’t be written another way. But Austin, Texas-based Oracle argued Google “committed an egregious act of plagiarism.”
谷歌曾表示，其行为是早就解决的，是业内的普遍做法，这种做法有利于技术进步。谷歌说，其使用的纯功能性、非创造性的计算机代码没有版权保护，这些代码无法用另一种方式编写。但是总部位于德克萨斯州奥斯汀的甲骨文公司认为谷歌“犯下了令人震惊的剽窃行为”。
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a dissent joined by Justice Samuel Alito that he believed “Oracle’s code at issue here is copyrightable, and Google’s use of that copyrighted code was anything but fair.”
大法官克拉伦斯·托马斯在一份有塞缪尔·阿利托大法官加入的异议书中写道，他认为“甲骨文在此争议的代码是有版权的，谷歌使用受版权保护的代码完全不公平。”
In a statement, Google’s chief legal officer, Kent Walker, called the ruling a “victory for consumers, interoperability, and computer science.” “The decision gives legal certainty to the next generation of developers whose new products and services will benefit consumers,” Walker wrote.
谷歌首席法律官肯特·沃克在一份声明中称，这项裁决是“消费者、互操作性和计算机科学的胜利”。沃克写道：“这项决定为下一代开发者提供了法律确定性，他们的新产品和服务将惠及消费者”。
Oracle’s chief legal officer, Dorian Daley, condemned the outcome. “The Google platform just got bigger and market power greater. The barriers to entry higher and the ability to compete lower. They stole Java and spent a decade litigating as only a monopolist can,” she wrote in a statement.
甲骨文首席法律官道林·戴利谴责了这一结果。她在一份声明中写道：“谷歌平台越来越大，市场影响力越来越大。进入门槛越来越高，竞争能力越来越低。他们偷走了Java，花了十年时间进行诉讼，这是只有垄断者才能做到的。”
The founder of Privacy Lab at Yale Law School, Sean O’Brien, said both amateur and professional software developers will now “sleep a little easier without worrying that innovation and collaboration would be restrained by new restrictions.”
耶鲁大学法学院隐私实验室的创始人肖恩·奥布莱恩说，业余和专业软件开发人员现在都将“睡得更安稳，不必担心创新和合作会受到新的限制。”