Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://ah.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/131687| 題名: | 論Oracle v. Google案對軟體產業之影響 - 以軟體介面著作權及合理使用為中心 The impact of software industry after Oracle v. Google – Focus on software interface copyright and fair use |
作者: | 黃奎喨 Hwang, Kwei-Liang |
貢獻者: | 沈宗倫 Shen, Chung-Lun 黃奎喨 Hwang, Kwei-Liang |
關鍵詞: | 軟體著作權侵權 合理使用 Oracle |
日期: | 2020 | 上傳時間: | 2-Sep-2020 | 摘要: | 由1970年代開始討論電腦軟體保護至今，原本似乎已經沉靜已久的電腦軟體介面的保護問題，在Oracle v. Google 案後又發生了重大的爭議。由於全球電腦及資訊市場多由美國所主導，此案的觀點，未來也勢必影響到全球整體電腦軟體及資訊市場的發展，而電腦軟體相關企業也需由此作參考來擬定未來企業策略之規劃。\n本文嘗試由介紹電腦軟體的保護模式出發，說明電腦軟體過往之所以使用著作權為主要保護模式的因素。再經由電腦軟體著作權侵害及合理使用的重要案例，產生出如何判斷對於電腦軟體著作權是否受到侵害及是否為合理使用。接著以上述之基礎，透過Oracle v. Google一案，進一步分析在電腦軟體介面著作權問題上仍存在的爭議。最後透過本案的爭議，探討在電腦軟體產業會受到的影響，並試著提出可能的建議方案。 | 參考文獻: | 壹、 中文文獻與資料\n\n一、 專書\n1. (美) Marko Gargenta & (日) Masumi Nakamura著，陳健文譯，Android 學習手冊，歐萊禮，2014年10月2版\n2. (美) Martin Foweler 著，侯捷、熊節譯，重構-改善既有程式的設計，碁峰，2003年初版\n3. (美) Mark A. Lemely等著，張韜略譯，軟件與互聯網法(上)，商務印書館，2014年10月\n4. (美) Sheldon W. Halpern著，宋慧獻譯，美國知識產權法原理，商務印書館， 2011年第3版\n5. (美) Steven McConnell著，譚詠歸譯，軟體建構之道，學貫行銷，2007年\n6. (英) Ian Sommerville 著，陳玄玲 譯，軟體工程，開發圖書有限公司，2007年8版\n7. 李明德，美國知識產權法，法律出版社，2014年4月第二版\n8. 李明德、黃暉、關文軍等，歐盟知識產權法，法律出版社，2010 年\n9. 李昇暾，詹智安，Android雲端實務程式設計-適用Android 2.x~4.x，碁峰資訊，2012年2月\n10. 彼得潘，Swift程式設計入門，松岡出版社，2015年2月\n11. 章忠信，著作權法逐條釋義，五南出版社，2019年9月5版。\n12. 陳威如， 王詩一，決勝平台時代: 第一本平台化轉型實戰攻略, 商業周刊出版社，2016年\n13. 黃銘傑主編，著作權合理使用規範之現在與未來，元照出版，2011年9月\n14. 楊智傑，美國著作權法—理論與重要判決，元照出版，2018年11月二刷\n15. 賴以立，程式保護與破解，全華科技圖書，2007年1月第2版\n\n二、 期刊論文\n1. (挪威) Jon Bing 著，徐紅菊 譯，計算機程序的版權保護(Copyright Protection of Computer Programs)，載：歐盟版權法之未來(Research Handbook on the Future of EU Copyright)，知識產權出版社，頁320，2015年初版\n2. 李志安，商業方法相關智慧財產權問題之研究，科技法律透析，13卷12期，頁48-62，2001年12月。\n3. 沈宗倫，著作權法之基本用語與法律體系概述，月旦法學教室，第150期，頁68-78，2015年4月。\n4. 沈宗倫，資料庫著作權保護的檢討與新視界－－以原創性為中心，月旦法學雜誌，第188期，頁6-22，2011年1月\n5. 沈宗倫，還原工程與合理使用——以中間重製的適法性為探討核心，載：著作權合理使用規範之現在與未來，元照出版，頁381-414，2011年9月\n6. 林利芝，從KUSO創作探討戲謔仿作的合理使用爭議，載：著作權合理使用規範之現在與未來，元照出版，頁253-280 ，2011年9月\n7. 范銘祥，電腦程式之智慧財產權保護，智慧財產權月刊，87期，頁34-51，2006年3月。\n8. 高嘉鴻，從Cariou v. Prince案看美國合理使用第一要素中「轉化利用(transformative use)」的判斷，智慧財產權月刊，第192期，頁73-75，2014年12月。\n9. 張吉豫，計算機軟件著作權保護對象範圍研究-對美國相關司法探索歷程的分析與借鑒。法律科學(西北政法大學學報)，頁187-194，2013年第5期。\n10. 章忠信，美國一九九八年數位化千禧年著作權法案簡介，萬國法律，第107期，頁25-42 ，1999年10月。\n11. 許炳華，我來google看看——商標名稱通用化之爭議與美國最新案例，載：智慧財產權與法律風險析論：人工智慧商業時代的來臨，五南出版社，頁533-584，2019年9月\n12. 馮震宇，歐盟著作權指令體制與相關歐盟法院判決之研究，載：國際比較下我國著作權法之總檢討，臺北中央研究院法律學研究所專書（19），頁491-543，2014年12月\n13. 楊智傑，搜尋引擎與合理使用—美國案例與Google圖書館計畫，智慧財產權月刊，第125期，頁39-86，2009年05月。\n14. 劉紹樑，電信市場自由化之競爭政策與法律問題，公平交易季刊，第六卷第三期，頁101-151，1998年7月\n15. 劉博文，美國特別三○一條款與智慧財產權保護，智慧財產權，第9期，頁14-20，1999年9月。\n16. 羅明通，思想與表達之區別、合併及電腦程式侵權判斷之步驟－－最高法院94年度臺上字第1530號刑事判決評析，科技法學評論，第6卷第2期，頁1-40，2009年10月。\n17. 蘇郁雅，我國合理使用判斷基準之實證研究分析，智慧財產評論，第十卷第二期，頁133-237，2012年12月。\n\n三、 學位論文\n1. 朱家毅，著作重製權之侵害與管理，國立政治大學智慧財產研究所碩士學位論文， 2002年6月\n2. 翁儷娟，台灣廠商使用開放原始碼的法律問題研究-以使用 GPLv2 授權條款的 Embedded Linux 為例, 國立交通大學管理學院科技法律學程碩士論文，2011年6月\n3. 趙御廷，行動作業系統產業競爭法議題研析與管制對策，國立臺灣大學法律學研究所學位論文，2019年1月\n4. 劉文燦，電腦軟體專利適格性之法制與政策——以美國法為中心，國立政治大學法律學系碩士學位論文，2016年\n\n四、 網際網路\n\n(一) 學者文章\n1. 曹磊，國內外軟件知識產權制度現狀，2010年10月，可參考 http://www.istis.sh.cn/list/list.asp?id=6850\n2. 章忠信，美國著作權登記制度研究，2012年10月12日，可參考 http://www.copyrightnote.org/ArticleContent.aspx?ID=54&aid=2288\n3. 章忠信，著作的原創性，可參考 http://www.copyrightnote.org/ArticleContent.aspx?ID=9&aid=2607\n4. 章忠信，誰擁有你的電腦軟體，http://www.copyrightnote.org/ArticleContent.aspx?ID=6&aid=2685\n5. 陳歆，著作權潔淨室，智慧財產，1999年8月，可由 https://www.tipo.gov.tw/tw/dl-3899-2ea36c12784f45df8efe7532ee9f5861.html 取得\n6. 陳瀟婷，禁止計算機軟件的合法性研究，出版科學，2019年3期，可參考 http://m.fx361.com/news/2019/0705/5285529.html\n7. 廖彧宏、洪士灝，Android 架構、開發工具與虛擬平台，可由 https://www.csie.ntu.edu.tw/~hungsh/Android_NCP.pdf 取得\n8. 蕭翊展，從Google及Oracle著作權侵權訴訟看著作權之合理使用，可參閱http://www.saint-island.com.tw/TW/Knowledge/Knowledge_Info.aspx?IT=Know_0_1&CID=514&ID=1132\n9. 羅明通，電腦程式還原工程合理使用之界線，智慧財產權，2000年7月。可參閱https://www.tipo.gov.tw/tw/cp-182-313651-d0301-1.html\n\n(二) 官方網址\n1. 國家教育研究院， 圖書館學與資訊科學大辭典，查詢「伯恩公約」 http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1682428/ (最後點閱日期: 2020/04/01)\n2. 經濟部工業局，雲端服務暨巨量資料產業，https://theme.ndc.gov.tw/manpower/cp.aspx?n=C9ECDD0E995DB66B (最後點閱日期: 2020/04/10)\n3. Java 程式下載網址， https://java.com/zh_TW (最後點閱日期: 2020/05/10)\n\n(三) 網路新聞\n1. TVBS，可參考 這一行不好賺／失敗率9成！APP淘汰快 「免費」難尋獲利管道，https://news.tvbs.com.tw/local/616994 (最後點閱日期:2020/04/10)\n2. 江明晏，手機昔日霸主 諾基亞回不去了，中國時報，2013年9月3日https://www.chinatimes.com/realtimenews/20130903003448-260410?chdtv (最後點閱日期：2020/04/04)\n3. 李淑蓮，一個App值多少錢？用什麼方式保護智財權最划算？北美智權報，2014年2月17日。 http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Industry_Economy/publish-193.htm (最後點閱日期: 2020/04/04)\n4. 劉季清，正式走入歷史！微軟終結 Windows Phone 系統時間曝光，自由時報，2017年5月1日，https://3c.ltn.com.tw/news/30002 (最後點閱日期：2020/04/04)\n\n(四) 網路資訊\n1. 10 分鐘，帶你看完 40 年來的「個人電腦進化史」， 參考自https://kknews.cc/zh-tw/tech/4moeeb2.html (最後點閱日期: 2020/04/04)\n2. BREW、JAVA、.NET三大平臺優劣比較，ithome，https://www.itread01.com/p/592091.html (最後點閱日期： 2020/04/04)\n3. Google I/O 2019: 助力開發者在Android和Play平台打造最佳體驗, https://kknews.cc/zh-tw/tech/l9jo2k9.html (最後點閱日期: 2020/04/10)\n4. JAVA虛擬機器、Dalvik虛擬機器和ART虛擬機器簡要對比，https://codertw.com/%E7%A8%8B%E5%BC%8F%E8%AA%9E%E8%A8%80/552327/ (最後點閱日期: 2020/04/04)\n5. 如何看待 Kotlin 成為 Android 官方支持的開發語言？一線開發者這樣說, https://kknews.cc/zh-tw/tech/vap53zl.html (最後點閱日期: 2020/04/10)\n6. 有必要把程式語法背熟嗎？資深工程師：其實你更需要 Google 的能力，2020/04/29，https://buzzorange.com/techorange/2020/04/29/learn-new-programming-language/ (最後點閱日期:2020/05/04)\n7. 行動電話多媒體應用的系統平台趨勢，Digitimes, https://www.digitimes.com.tw/iot/article.asp?cat=130&cat1=50&cat2=15&id=0000161377_nvp2mulv8es64v60uegby (最後點閱日期: 2020/04/04)\n8. 為什麼當年android選擇用java做開發語言，https://kknews.cc/zh-tw/tech/6kb956q.html (最後點閱日期: 2020/04/04)\n9. 英特爾和東進的和解之謎，人民網-中國經濟周刊，http://finance.people.com.cn/BIG5/72020/74689/83969/5759899.html (最後點閱日期: 2020/04/10)\n10. 從Oracle收購Sun 公司談起，https://www.itread01.com/p/337562.html (最後點閱日期：2020/04/04)\n11. 被戲稱為「太監」的軟體，是今天幾乎所有作業系統的鼻祖，https://kknews.cc/tech/mr8le8z.html (最後點閱日期：2020/04/20)\n12. 給Java初學者的學習地圖, https://www.ithome.com.tw/article/124269 (最後點閱日期: 2020/04/04)\n13. 微軟為什麼要推出一款 Android 手機，https://technews.tw/2019/10/07/why-is-microsoft-launching-an-android-phone/ (最後點閱日期: 2020/04/04)\n\n貳、 英文文獻與資料\n\n一、 專書\n1. Brooks Jr, Frederick P., The Mythical Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering, Addison-Wesley Professional, 1995 Anniversary ed. (1995)\n2. van Rooijen, Ashwin, The software interface between copyright and competition law : a legal analysis of interoperability in computer programs. Kluwer Law International, (2010)\n\n二、 期刊論文\n1. Abramowicz, Michael B., A New Uneasy Case for Copyright (2011). George Washington Law Review, Vol. 79, No. 6, (2011);\n2. Asay, Clark D., Software`s Copyright Anticommons. 66 Emory Law Journal 265, (2017)\n3. Band, Jonathan, The Global API Copyright Conflict, Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Volume 31, Special Issue Spring 2018 (2018)\n4. Breyer, Stephen G., The Uneasy Case for Copyright: A Look Back Across Four Decades, in The George Washington Law Review, Vol.79, No.6, 2011 (2011)\n5. Breyer, Stephen G., The Uneasy Case for Copyright: A Study of Copyright in Books, Photocopies, and Computer Programs, 84 HARV. L. REV. 281 (1970)\n6. Duan, Charles, Internet of Infringing Things: The Effect of Computer Interface Copyrights on Technology Standards (December 19, 2018). 45 Rutgers Computer & Tech. L.J. 1, (2019). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3303618\n7. Gordon, Wendy J., Fair Use in Oracle: Proximate Cause at the Copyright/Patent Divide (March 12, 2020). Boston University Law Review, Vol. 100, No. 389 (2020).\n8. Gosling, James, The Feel of Java, 30 Computer (June 1997)\n9. Gratz, Joseph, and Mark A. Lemley, Platforms and Interoperability in Oracle v. Google. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, Vol. 31, Special Issue Spring 2018 (2018)\n10. Lemly, Mark A., & David W. O’Brien, Encouraging Software Reuse, 49 Stan L. Rev 255, (1997)\n11. Leval, Pierre N., Toward a Fair Use Standard, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1105 (1990)\n12. Menell, Peter S., Rise of the API Copyright Dead?: An Updated Epitaph for Copyright Protection of Network and Functional Features of Computer Software. 31 Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 305 (2018)\n13. Menell, Peter S., API Copyrightability Bleak House: Unraveling and Repairing the Oracle v. Google Jurisdictional Mess (April 30, 2017). Berkeley Technology Law Journal, Forthcoming; UC Berkeley Public Law Research (2017)\n14. Menell, Peter S., An Analysis of the Scope of Copyright Protection for Computer Programs, 41 Stan. L. Review 1045 (1989)\n15. Menell, Peter S., An Epitaph for Traditional Copyright Protection of Network Features of Computer Software. Antitrust Bulletin, Vol. 43 651 (1998)\n16. Nimmer, David, Jures and the development of fair use standards, Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Vol 31, Special issue spring 2018 (2018)\n17. Oman, Ralph, Computer software as copyrightable subject matter:Oracle v. Google, Legislative intent, and the scope of right in digital works, , Harvard Journal of Law &Technology Vol 31, Special issue spring 2018 (2018)\n18. Parasidis, Efthimios, A Sum Greater than its Parts?: Copyright Protection for Application Program Interfaces. Texas Intellectual Property Law Journal, Vol. 14, pp. 59-90, (2005).,\n19. Raysman, Richard, and Peter Brown, Copyright infringement of computer software and the “altai” test, New work Law Journal, Volume 235-no.89 (2006)\n20. Sag, Matthew, Predicting Fair Use (February 25, 2012). Ohio State Law Journal, Vol. 73:1 47-91 (2012)\n21. Samuelson, Pamela, A manifesto concerning the legal protection of computer programs, Columbia. Law. Rev. 2308 (1994)\n22. Samuelson, Pamela, Are Patents on Interfaces Impeding Interoperability?. Minnesota Law Review, Forthcoming; UC Berkeley Public Law Research Paper No. 1323838. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1323838,\n23. Samuelson, Pamela, Comparing U.S. and EC Copyright Protection for Computer Programs: Are They More Different Than They Seem, 13 J.L. & Com. 279 (1993)\n24. Samuelson, Pamela, Functionality and Expression in Computer Programs: Refining the Tests for Software Copyright Infringement. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, (2017)\n25. Samuelson, Pamela, Reconceptualizing Copyright`s Merger Doctrine (April 12, 2016). 63 Journal of the Copyright Society of the U.S.A., Forthcoming;. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2763903\n26. Samuelson, Pamela, Staking the Boundaries of Software Copyrights in the Shadow of Patents. 71 Florida Law Review 243 (2019)\n27. Samuelson, Pamela, Three Fundamental Flaws in CAFC`s Oracle v. Google Decision (August 13, 2015). European Intellectual Property Review, October 2015, Forthcoming. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2643840\n28. Samuelson, Pamela, & Clark D. Asay, Saving Software`s Fair Use Future, Harvard Journal of Law & Technology Vo. 31 Special Issue Spring 2018 (2018)\n29. Samuelson, Pamela, The Uneasy Case for Software Copyrights Revisited. George Washington Law Review, Vol. 79, 2010-2011; (2011)\n30. Snow, Ned, Who Decides Fair Use — Judge or Jury? (March 28, 2019). Washington Law Review, Vol. 94, No. 1 (2019)\n31. Vasilescu-Palermo, Daria, APIs and Copyright Protection: The Potential Impact on Software Compatibility in the Programming Industry, 16 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 153 (2016)\n32. von Lohmann, Fred, The new wave: copyright and software interface in the wake of Oracle v. Google, Harvard Journal of Law &Technology Vol 31, Special issue spring 2018 (2018)\n\n三、 法庭之友\n1. Barclay, Michael & Mitchell L. Stoltz, Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT Case Nos. 2017-1118, BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION AND PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-CROSS-APPELLANT AND AFFIRMANCE\n2. Barclay, Michael, Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc. Supreme Court of the United States No. 18-956, BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE ELECTRONIC FRONTIER FOUNDATION IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER (January 13, 2020),\n3. Bohl, LisaW., Leonid Grinberg & Jeffery A. Lamken, Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc. Supreme Court of the United States No. 18-956, BRIEF OF MICROSOFT CORPORATION AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER (January 10, 2020)\n4. Bridges, Andrew P., Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc. Supreme Court of the United States No. 18-956, BRIEF OF SOFTWARE AND SYSTEMDEVELOPERS AND ENGINEERS FOR UNITED ST ATES GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AS AMICI CURIAE SUPPORTING GOOGLE AND URGING REVERSAL\n5. Cecere, J. Carl, Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc. Supreme Court of the United States No. 18-956, BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE SOFTWARE INNOVATORS, STARTUPS, AND INVESTORS IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER (January 13, 2020)\n6. Gustafson, Bruce & James H. Hulme, Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc. Supreme Court of the United States No. 18-956, AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF DEVELOPERS ALLIANCE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER\n7. Halley Patrick R., & Russell P. Hanser, Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc. Supreme Court of the United States No. 18-956, BRIEF OF USTELECOM – THE BROADBAND ASSOCIATION AS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING RESPONDENT (February 19, 2020)\n8. Hayes, Lisa A. & Joesph C. Gratz, Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc. Supreme Court of the United States No. 18-956,, BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE CENTER FOR DEMOCRACY AND TECHNOLOGY, INSTITUTE FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & SOCIAL JUSTICE, NATIONAL CONSUMERS LEAGUE, AND NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND SUPPORTING PETITIONER (January 10, 2020)\n9. Hofmann, Marcia, Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT Case Nos. 2017-1118, -1202 BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE MOZILLA URGING AFFIRMANCE OF THE JUDGMENT (May 30, 2017)\n10. Isaacson, WIllIam A., Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc. No. 18-956,BRIEF OF FORMER CONGRESSMEN AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT (February 19, 2020)\n11. Lewis, Marc R., Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc., Supreme Court of the United States No. 18-956, BRIEF OF RALPH OMAN AS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING RESPONDENT (February 19, 2020)\n12. Malone, Phillip R., Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc. Nos. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2017-1118, 2017-1202, BRIEF OF COMPUTER SCIENTISTS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-APPELLEE (May 26, 2017),\n13. Malone, Phillip R., Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc. Supreme Court of the United States No. 18-956, BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF 83 COMPUTER SCIENTISTS IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER (January 13, 2020)\n14. Schnapper-Casteras, John Paul, Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc. Supreme Court of the United States No. 18-956, BRIEF OF THE ROBERT RAUSCHENBERG FOUNDATION AND THE ANDY WARHOL FOUNDATION FOR THE VISUAL ARTS, INC. AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF NEITHER PARTY (January 13, 2020)\n15. Schruers, Matthew, & Jonathan Band, Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Nos. 2017-1118, 2017-1202, BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF THE COMPUTER & COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION IN SUPPORT OF GOOGLE INC (May 26, 2017)\n16. Smith,Regan, Noel J. Francisco et al., Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc., Supreme Court of the United States No. 18-956, BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING RESPONDENT (FEBRUARY 2020)\n17. Tushnet, Rebecca, Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc. Supreme Court of the United States No. 18-956, BRIEF OF COPYRIGHT SCHOLARS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF THE PETITIONER (January 13, 2020)\n\n四、 法院裁判\n(一) 美國案例\n1. A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, 239 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2001)\n2. Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp., 714 F.2d 1240 (3d Cir.1983)\n3. Authors Guild v. Google Inc., 770 F. Supp. 2d 666, 679-680 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)\n4. Authors Guild v. Google, Inc., 2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 17988, at 11-12 (2ed Cir. 2015)\n5. Baker v. Selden, 101 U.S. 99(1879)\n6. Cisco Sys., v. Arista Networks, Inc., No 14-CV-05344 (N.D. Cal. May 10, 2017)\n7. Compbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 579 (1994)\n8. Computer Associates International, Inc. v. Altai, Inc., 982 F2d 693, 702 (2d Cir.1992)\n9. Danjaq LLC v. Sony Corp., 263 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2001)\n10. Dun & Bradstreet Software Servs., Inc. v. Grace Consulting, Inc., 307 F.3d 197, 208 (3d Cir. 2002)\n11. Field v. Google, Inc., 412 F.Supp. 2d 1106 (D. Nev. 2006)\n12. GDC Tech. Ld, Inc v. Dolby Labs, Inc., No 16-CV-02459 (C.D Cal. filed Apr. 11, 2016)\n13. Harper & Row Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539 (1985)\n14. Johnson Control, Inc. v. Phoenix Control Sys., Inc., 886 F.2d 1173, 1175 (9th Cir. 1989)\n15. Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp, 336 F.3d 811(9 Cir. 2003)\n16. Lexmark Int, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 387 F.3d 522, 533 (6th Cir. 2004)\n17. Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int`l, Inc., 49 F.3d 807 (1st Cir. 1995)\n18. Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int`l, Inc., 516 U.S. 233 (1996)\n19. Mitel, Inc v. Iqtel, Ine., 124 F.3d 1366 (10th Cir. 1997)\n20. Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc., 872 F. Supp. 2d 974 (N.D. Cal., May 31, 2012)\n21. Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8744 (Fed. Cir. 2014 )\n22. Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc., No. C 10-03561, 2016 WL. 3181206 (N.D. Cal. June 8, 2016)\n23. Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc., No. C 10-03561, 2016 WL 5393938 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2016)\n24. Oracle America, Inc. v. Google LLC., 886 F. 3d 1179 (2018)\n25. Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 487 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2007)\n26. Perfect 10, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 416 F.Supp.2d 828 (C.D. Cal. 2006)\n27. Rimini St., Inc. v. Oracle USA, Inc., 2019 U.S. LEXIS 1733 (2019)\n28. SAS Institute, inc. v. world programming ltd., 874 F.3d 370 (4th Cir. 2017)\n29. Sega Enterprises Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992)\n30. Sony Computer Ent`t, Inc. v. Connectix Corp., 203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir.2000)\n31. Sun Microsystem, Inc v. Microsoft Corp., 188 F. 3d 1115 (9th Cir, 1999)\n32. Synopsys Inc. v. ATopTech Inc., No. C 13-CV-02965 2016WL 6158216 (N.D. Cal. Oct 24 2016)\n33. TCA Television Corp. v. McCollum,. No. 1:16-cv-0134 (2d Cir. Oct. 11, 2016)\n34. University computer company v. LyKes-Youngerstown Copr., 504 F. 2d 518 (5th Cir. 1974)\n35. Veeck v. Southern Bldg. Code Congress Int`l, Inc., 293 F.3d 791 (5th Cir. 2002)\n36. Whelan Associates, Inc. v. Jaslow Dental Laboratories, Inc., 797 F2d 1222 (3d Cir. 1986)\n37. Williams Electronics Inc V. Artic International, Inc., 685 F2d 870 (3d Cir. 1982)\n38. Worldwide Church of God v. Phila. Church of God, Inc.,. 227 F.3d 1110 (9th Cir. 2000)\n\n(二) 歐洲案例\n1. SAS Institute Inc v World Programming Ltd [2013] EWHC 69 (Ch) (25 January 2013)\n\n五、 網際網路\n(一) 官方網址\n1. Java, The Java Programming Language Platforms, available from https://docs.oracle.com/javaee/6/firstcup/doc/gkhoy.html (last visited 2020/04/04)\n2. Java, Trial:Essential Classes(The Java Turtorials), Oracle, available from https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/essential/index.html (visited at 2020/3/29)\n3. Oracle and Sun Microsystems, Oracle, available from https://www.oracle.com/tw/sun/ (last visited: 2020/4/4)\n\n(二) 網路新聞或資訊\n1. Band, Jonathan, Thin tech industry support for Oracle in the second round of supreme court briefing, 2020/02/21 http://www.project-disco.org/intellectual-property/022120-thin-tech-industry-support-for-oracle/ (last visited:2020/05/18)\n2. Bristow, Collyer, English court denies claim by foreign software giant to enforce US judgement, https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=247659a5-1838-4591-b39a-23287026aec5 (last visited 2020/4/4)\n3. Cox, Krista L., Oracle v. Google Is More Evidence That The Federal Circuit Has No Business Deciding Copyright Cases https://abovethelaw.com/2018/03/oracle-v-google-is-more-evidence-that-the-federal-circuit-has-no-business-deciding-copyright-cases/ (last visited 2020/04/10)\n4. Crouch, Dennis, Google v. Oracle: Amici Weigh in on Why the Supreme Court Should Reverse the Federal Circuit’s Rulings, January 14, 2020, avail from https://patentlyo.com/patent/2020/01/supreme-reverse-circuits.html (last visited:2020/05/03)\n5. Duan, Charles, Oracle copied Amazon’s API—was that copyright infringement? Opinion: Copying APIs is essential to competition in the software industry., 2020/01/04 , available from https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/01/oracle-copied-amazons-api-was-that-copyright-infringement/ (Last visited:2020/04/04)\n6. Mims, Christopher, How New Zealand banned software patents without violating international law，https://qz.com/119419/how-new-zealand-banned-software-patents-without-violating-international-law/ (last visited 2020/04/04)\n7. Mullin, Joe, Google beats Oracle—Android makes “fair use” of Java APIs Oracle has spent many millions trying to get a chunk of Android, to no avail. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/05/google-wins-trial-against-oracle-as-jury-finds-android-is-fair-use/ (last visited 2020/04/10)\n8. Orlowski, Andrew, Java won the smartphone wars, https://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/19/java_java_everywhere/ (last visited 2020/4/4)\n9. Schwartz, Jonathan, Congratulations Google, Red Hat and the Java Community!, https://jonathanischwartz.wordpress.com/2007/11/05/congratulations-google-red-hat-and-the-java-community/ (last visited 2020/04/09)\n10. Vaughan-nichols, Steven J., OpenStack vs. CloudStack: The beginning of the open-source cloud wars, 2012/4/12, available from https://www.zdnet.com/article/openstack-vs-cloudstack-the-beginning-of-the-open-source-cloud-wars/ (Last visited:2020/04/04)\n11. Wolfe, Jan, Arista to pay $400 million to Cisco to resolve court fight, Reuters, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-cisco-arista-settlement/arista-to-pay-400-million-to-cisco-to-resolve-court-fight-idUSKBN1KR1PI (last visited 2020/4/3) | 描述: | 碩士 國立政治大學 法學院碩士在職專班 101961051 |
資料來源: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0101961051 | 資料類型: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | 學位論文 |
Files in This Item:
| File | Description | Size | Format | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 105101.pdf | 6.1 MB | Adobe PDF2 | View/Open |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.