谷歌跟oracle_谁赢得了Google VS Oracle？开发人员赢了。

谷歌跟oracle

Google has successfully defended itself from a $9 billion lawsuit from Oracle. In doing so, Google’s lawyers have prevented a dangerous precedent that would have given old copyright-hoarding tech companies a way to sue lots of startups and open source projects.

谷歌已经成功地为Oracle的90亿美元诉讼辩护。这样做，谷歌的律师阻止了一个危险的先例，该先例使拥有版权的老牌技术公司能够起诉许多初创公司和开源项目。

If this is the first you’ve heard about the trial, I don’t blame you. It was basically just a bunch of lawyers trying to explain the intricacies of APIs and copyright law to a jury of non-technical Californians, using metaphors like file cabinets and bookshelves.

如果这是您第一次听到有关审判的信息，我不会怪您。基本上，只有一群律师试图使用文件柜和书架之类的隐喻向非技术加利福尼亚人组成的陪审团解释API和版权法的复杂性。

When the person in the row ahead of you is buying tickets on StubHub during testimony, you know you’re in the weeds.

当您前面的人在作证时在StubHub上购买门票时，您就知道自己在草丛中。

- Brian Bishop reporting for The Verge

-Brian Bishop为The Verge报道

Here’s a rough timeline of how the whole conflict unfolded:

这是整个冲突如何展开的大致时间表：

2005: Google acquires Android. They opt to use Java over Microsoft’s C#, negotiate with Sun Microsystems, who own Java, but fail to secure a licensing deal.

2005年 ：Google收购了Android。他们选择在Microsoft的C＃上使用Java，并与拥有Java的Sun Microsystems进行谈判，但未能获得许可协议。

2006: Google rejects Sun’s alleged offer of a three-year Java license for $20 million plus 10% of Google’s Android-related revenue, capped at $25 million.

2006年 ：Google拒绝了Sun提出的以2,000万美元的价格获得三年Java许可证的提议，外加Google与Android相关的收入的10％(最高2500万美元)。

2007: Google publicly announces Android, and its use of Dalvik, a Java-compatible virtual machine.

2007年 ：Google公开发布了Android及其对Java兼容虚拟机Dalvik的使用。

2010: Oracle acquires Sun for its Java patents and copyrights, then files a lawsuit accusing Google of infringing upon seven of Sun’s Java patents.

2010年 ：Oracle以其Java专利和版权收购了Sun，然后提起诉讼，指控Google侵犯了Sun的7项Java专利。

2011: The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office dismisses five of the seven patent allegations. Oracle seeks damages of up to $6 billion. A settlement can’t be reached.

2011年 ：美国专利商标局驳回了七项专利指控中的五项。 Oracle要求最高赔偿60亿美元。无法达成和解。

2012: Oracle and Google go to trial in a San Francisco district court and Google wins.

2012年： Oracle和Google在旧金山地方法院受审，Google获胜。

2014: An appeals court reverses the district court’s decision, stating that an API is copyrightable.

2014年：上诉法院推翻了地区法院的裁决，指出API具有版权。

2016: A second trial starts over whether Google’s use of Java’s APIs was fair use.

2016年：关于谷歌对Java API的使用是否合理使用的第二次审判开始。

Sarah Jeong, a law and technology journalist who covered the trial in detail since it began, announced its conclusion in with this tweet:

法律和技术记者莎拉·郑(Sarah Jeong)自试验开始以来详细介绍了该试验，并在此推文中宣布了该试验的结论：

Throughout the lawsuit, I haven’t been able to stop thinking about Oracle’s place in this classic collection of tech company organizational charts:

在整个诉讼中，我一直无法停止思考Oracle在这家经典的科技公司组织结构图中的地位：

You’re probably asking, “OK. So one massive multinational corporation doesn’t need to give $9 billion to another massive multinational corporation. How is this a win for me as a developer?”

您可能会问，“好吧。因此，一家大型跨国公司无需向另一家大型跨国公司捐款90亿美元。作为开发人员，这对我来说是一个胜利吗？”

Well, if you’re developing software — or plan to in the future — this means that Google’s lawyers just steered you around a massive intellectual property minefield. They were able to prevent Oracle from setting a dangerous precedent: that a company could successfully sue you for writing your own functionally similar implementation of their APIs.

好吧，如果您正在开发软件(或计划在将来进行开发)，则意味着Google的律师带领您进入了一个庞大的知识产权雷区。他们能够阻止Oracle设定危险的先例：公司可以成功起诉您编写自己的功能上相似的API实现。

Unfortunately, the case isn’t closed yet. Oracle has vowed to appeal the decision yet again. And this ruling could still be overturned.

不幸的是，此案尚未结案。 Oracle誓言再次上诉该决定。而且这项裁决仍可能被推翻。

Either way, the fact that Oracle was able to get so close to a verdict in their favor is pretty terrifying, and may embolden other companies that hold copyrights on APIs to start suing startups and open source projects, too.

无论哪种方式，Oracle都能够如此接近他们的裁决是令人恐惧的事实，并且可能鼓舞其他拥有API版权的公司开始起诉初创公司和开源项目。

For example, a company called Micro Focus owns Unix, which among other things uses an API called POSIX. They could start suing developers who maintain versions of Linux and other Unix-compatible open source operating systems.

例如，一家名为Micro Focus的公司拥有Unix，该公司除其他外还使用一种称为POSIX的API。他们可能会开始起诉维护Linux和其他Unix兼容的开源操作系统版本的开发人员。

We’re not out of the woods yet, but all of us developers in the open source world — and the people who use our software — can breathe a momentary sigh of relief.

我们还没有走出困境，但是开源世界中的所有开发人员以及使用我们软件的人员都可以立即松一口气。

If you have time, check out Sarah Jeong’s account of how absurd this trial was, and how disastrous an Oracle victory would have been for everyone but Oracle.

如果有时间的话，请查看Sarah Jeong的叙述，说这次审判多么荒谬，Oracle的胜利对除Oracle以外的所有人来说都是灾难性的。

I only write about programming and technology. If you follow me on Twitter I won’t waste your time. ?

我只写关于编程和技术的文章。 如果您在Twitter上关注我，我不会浪费您的时间。 ？