争议重重，加拿大高院判谷歌在全球范围删除侵权搜索结果
|
上周三，加拿大最高法院就一起备受关注的知识产权案做出了不利于谷歌的判决，争议的焦点是加拿大法官能否将本国法律的裁定适用于整个互联网。 投票结果为7票赞成、2票反对，结果加拿大最高法院认定此前不列颠哥伦比亚省一名法官对谷歌下达的强制令，要求谷歌不但要在加拿大网络删除盗版产品的搜索结果，也要删除全球其他地方的搜索结果。 有人表示声援谷歌，包括一些人权组织的群体警告称，这一判决会侵害自由言论，有了这个判例，全球任何地方的法官都可以发布禁令，封锁搜索引擎上的显示结果。不过，加拿大最高法院并未表示重视，称谷歌的担忧只是“理论上”的。 一位名叫罗莎莉·阿贝拉的最高法院法官写道：“这道命令并不是要抹去表达自由表达价值观的言论，只是撤下违反多个法庭命令的网页链接。对于自由言论需要促进非法产品销售的观点，目前我们不接受。” 此案涉及一家工业网络设备制造商Equustek Solutions。Equustek的诉讼请求是制止竞争对手在网上滥用自己的商标，并且胜诉。法官判定，强制谷歌删除侵犯Equustek权益的搜索结果，而且不只在加拿大，要在全球网络上删除。 加拿大最高法院在解释时强调，禁令是暂时的，只要知识产权争端得以解决，全球禁令就可以撤销。 不过也有法官表示异议，称就此案重新开庭解除禁令是“天方夜谭”，Equustek只要一直守着该判决，就能变成实际上的永久禁令。这些法官还指出，谷歌不是争端的直接被告，因此应该遵循“司法克制”，而不是让公司进一步卷入全球禁令相关争议。 加拿大法院做出以上判定时，正逢欧洲一些法院根据所谓“被遗忘”权利保护法，裁定谷歌删除某些搜索结果。 就加拿大最高法院判决回应《财富》时，谷歌的一位发言人表示：“我们在仔细审议法院的裁定，判断接下来的行动。” 同时，科技业也作出回应，警告称加拿大最高法院可能掀起全球审查的新一波高潮。 一个国家的法院下令删除全球范围搜索结果，这可能让开放的互联网面临类似美国《禁止网络盗版法案》（SOPA）的威胁。 ——科技报道记者罗布·佩格拉罗，2017年6月28日 本次加拿大法院的裁决也展现了美国科技业巨头在全球各地的微妙处境：既要维护言论自由的原则，又要遵守某些国家特定的法律规定，比如德国的反仇恨法和泰国的亵渎宗教法。大多数时候，科技企业要么设置所谓的地理屏障，要么就开辟各国专属的网页，比如加拿大谷歌搜索网页Google.ca。谷歌之前声称，有关Equustek产品的禁令应该只适用于加拿大搜索网页。 可最近有些法院日渐扩大单个国家法律的界限，这令外界担心，某个国家的人要受到其他国家法规的管制。 加拿大加入了主张对互联网行使全球管辖的国家之列。 ——资深律师约翰·博格梅耶，2017年6月28日 比方说，我不想让英国差劲的诽谤法在全球应用，大部分国家都做不到公正运用，等等等等。 ——资深律师约翰·博格梅耶，2017年6月28日 但也有一些团体为加拿大最高法院的裁决叫好。代表大唱片公司的加拿大音乐行业非营利组织Music Canada发言人在声明中表示，新的全球禁令对“解决违法网络活动是一剂良药，可以有效保护创意工作者的权益。” 本周三裁决一周前，加拿大最高法院还给了另一家美国科技业巨头Facebook一记重拳。当时Facebook援引其服务条款禁止一位加拿大人在本地提交隐私诉讼，而是必须去美国加州提交诉讼，法院裁定Facebook的要求无效。（财富中文网） 译者：Pessy 审稿：夏林 |
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled against Google on Wednesday in a closely-watched intellectual property case over whether judges can apply their own country's laws to all of the Internet. In a 7-2 decision, the court agreed a British Columbia judge had the power to issue an injunction forcing Google to scrub search results about pirated products not just in Canada, but everywhere else in the world too. Those siding with Google, including civil liberties groups, had warned that allowing the injunction would harm free speech, setting a precedent to let any judge anywhere order a global ban on what appears on search engines. The Canadian Supreme Court, however, downplayed this objection and called Google's fears "theoretical." "This is not an order to remove speech that, on its face, engages freedom of expression values, it is an order to de-index websites that are in violation of several court orders. We have not, to date, accepted that freedom of expression requires the facilitation of the unlawful sale of goods," wrote Judge Rosalie Abella. The facts of the case involved Equustek Solutions, a maker of industrial networking gear that sought to stop a rival misusing its trademarks online. In the process, Equustek sought—and won—an injunction forcing Google to remove search results for the rival not just in Canada, but also worldwide. In explaining its decision, the Canadian Supreme Court emphasized that its order was only a temporary injunction, and that the worldwide order could be set aside once the underlying intellectual property dispute had been sorted out. The dissenting judges, however, said the idea of further court proceedings was "a fiction" and that Equustek would just sit on the temporary order, effectively making it a permanent one. The judges also pointed that Google was not a direct party to the dispute, which meant the situation called for "judicial restraint" rather than subjecting the company to a worldwide order. The Canadian ruling comes at a time when some courts in Europe have ruled that Google must remove search results worldwide under so-called "right to be forgotten" laws. In response to a request for comment about the Supreme Court ruling, a Google spokesperson told Fortune, "We are carefully reviewing the Court’s findings and evaluating our next steps." Meanwhile, the tech industry has reacted with alarm, warning the Canadian Supreme Court could lead to a new wave of global censorship. Worldwide search-result-removal orders imposed by one country's court represent a SOPA-level threat to the open Internet. https://t.co/uKlN6Fq8Mj - Rob Pegoraro (@robpegoraro) June 28, 2017 The Canadian ruling also illustrates the delicate balance U.S. tech giants face in trying to preserve free speech principles while also obeying the particular laws of individual countries, such as anti-hate laws in Germany or blasphemy laws in Thailand. For the most part, the companies have addressed the issue through so-called geo-fencing or by developing versions of their website tailored to each country—such as Google.ca, which is where Google had argued the injunction in Equustek should only have applied. But recently, courts have become more emboldened to extend the national reach of those laws, triggering fears that citizens in one country will effectively be subject to the rules of others: Canada joins the list of countries asserting global jurisdiction over the internet https://t.co/9s5g5Hw3NO - John Bergmayer (@bergmayer) June 28, 2017 For instance I don't want the UK's crappy libel laws to de facto apply worldwide, most countries don't have fair use, etc etc - John Bergmayer (@bergmayer) June 28, 2017 Some groups, however, applauded the ruling. A spokesperson for Music Canada, which represents major recording labels, said in a statement that the new worldwide injunction will be a "vital remedy to address illegal online activities and enforce the rights of creators.” Wednesday's ruling also comes a week after the Canadian Supreme Court dealt a big setback to another U.S. tech giant, Facebook. In the earlier ruling, the court said the social network could not invoke its terms of service to force a Canadian citizen to bring a privacy lawsuit in California rather than Canada. |
