上周三，加拿大最高法院就一起備受關(guān)注的知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)案做出了不利于谷歌的判決，爭(zhēng)議的焦點(diǎn)是加拿大法官能否將本國法律的裁定適用于整個(gè)互聯(lián)網(wǎng)。

投票結(jié)果為7票贊成、2票反對(duì)，結(jié)果加拿大最高法院認(rèn)定此前不列顛哥倫比亞省一名法官對(duì)谷歌下達(dá)的強(qiáng)制令，要求谷歌不但要在加拿大網(wǎng)絡(luò)刪除盜版產(chǎn)品的搜索結(jié)果，也要?jiǎng)h除全球其他地方的搜索結(jié)果。

有人表示聲援谷歌，包括一些人權(quán)組織的群體警告稱，這一判決會(huì)侵害自由言論，有了這個(gè)判例，全球任何地方的法官都可以發(fā)布禁令，封鎖搜索引擎上的顯示結(jié)果。不過，加拿大最高法院并未表示重視，稱谷歌的擔(dān)憂只是“理論上”的。

一位名叫羅莎莉·阿貝拉的最高法院法官寫道：“這道命令并不是要抹去表達(dá)自由表達(dá)價(jià)值觀的言論，只是撤下違反多個(gè)法庭命令的網(wǎng)頁鏈接。對(duì)于自由言論需要促進(jìn)非法產(chǎn)品銷售的觀點(diǎn)，目前我們不接受?！?/p>

此案涉及一家工業(yè)網(wǎng)絡(luò)設(shè)備制造商Equustek Solutions。Equustek的訴訟請(qǐng)求是制止競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手在網(wǎng)上濫用自己的商標(biāo)，并且勝訴。法官判定，強(qiáng)制谷歌刪除侵犯Equustek權(quán)益的搜索結(jié)果，而且不只在加拿大，要在全球網(wǎng)絡(luò)上刪除。

加拿大最高法院在解釋時(shí)強(qiáng)調(diào)，禁令是暫時(shí)的，只要知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)爭(zhēng)端得以解決，全球禁令就可以撤銷。

不過也有法官表示異議，稱就此案重新開庭解除禁令是“天方夜譚”，Equustek只要一直守著該判決，就能變成實(shí)際上的永久禁令。這些法官還指出，谷歌不是爭(zhēng)端的直接被告，因此應(yīng)該遵循“司法克制”，而不是讓公司進(jìn)一步卷入全球禁令相關(guān)爭(zhēng)議。

加拿大法院做出以上判定時(shí)，正逢歐洲一些法院根據(jù)所謂“被遺忘”權(quán)利保護(hù)法，裁定谷歌刪除某些搜索結(jié)果。

就加拿大最高法院判決回應(yīng)《財(cái)富》時(shí)，谷歌的一位發(fā)言人表示：“我們?cè)谧屑?xì)審議法院的裁定，判斷接下來的行動(dòng)。”

同時(shí)，科技業(yè)也作出回應(yīng)，警告稱加拿大最高法院可能掀起全球?qū)彶榈男乱徊ǜ叱薄?/p>

一個(gè)國家的法院下令刪除全球范圍搜索結(jié)果，這可能讓開放的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)面臨類似美國《禁止網(wǎng)絡(luò)盜版法案》（SOPA）的威脅。

——科技報(bào)道記者羅布·佩格拉羅，2017年6月28日

本次加拿大法院的裁決也展現(xiàn)了美國科技業(yè)巨頭在全球各地的微妙處境：既要維護(hù)言論自由的原則，又要遵守某些國家特定的法律規(guī)定，比如德國的反仇恨法和泰國的褻瀆宗教法。大多數(shù)時(shí)候，科技企業(yè)要么設(shè)置所謂的地理屏障，要么就開辟各國專屬的網(wǎng)頁，比如加拿大谷歌搜索網(wǎng)頁Google.ca。谷歌之前聲稱，有關(guān)Equustek產(chǎn)品的禁令應(yīng)該只適用于加拿大搜索網(wǎng)頁。

可最近有些法院日漸擴(kuò)大單個(gè)國家法律的界限，這令外界擔(dān)心，某個(gè)國家的人要受到其他國家法規(guī)的管制。

加拿大加入了主張對(duì)互聯(lián)網(wǎng)行使全球管轄的國家之列。

——資深律師約翰·博格梅耶，2017年6月28日

比方說，我不想讓英國差勁的誹謗法在全球應(yīng)用，大部分國家都做不到公正運(yùn)用，等等等等。

——資深律師約翰·博格梅耶，2017年6月28日

但也有一些團(tuán)體為加拿大最高法院的裁決叫好。代表大唱片公司的加拿大音樂行業(yè)非營利組織Music Canada發(fā)言人在聲明中表示，新的全球禁令對(duì)“解決違法網(wǎng)絡(luò)活動(dòng)是一劑良藥，可以有效保護(hù)創(chuàng)意工作者的權(quán)益?！?/p>

本周三裁決一周前，加拿大最高法院還給了另一家美國科技業(yè)巨頭Facebook一記重拳。當(dāng)時(shí)Facebook援引其服務(wù)條款禁止一位加拿大人在本地提交隱私訴訟，而是必須去美國加州提交訴訟，法院裁定Facebook的要求無效。（財(cái)富中文網(wǎng)）

譯者：Pessy

審稿：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.