隨著軟體產業日益倚賴應用程式介面 (API) 以促進跨平台整合與系統相容性，API宣告碼之著作權適格性遂引發廣泛爭議。特別係Oracle v. Google一案，圍繞API宣告碼及其結構是否可受著作權保護所展開之訴訟，更凸顯美國現行著作權法對功能性元素與標準化設計之界線認定仍是未解難題。本文以該案為核心，綜合分析電腦程式著作權制度之發展及API功能定位與開發者技術實務，嘗試釐清API宣告碼應否納入著作權保護體系之問題核心。
本文認為，API宣告碼作為技術系統之調用介面，其命名、分類與結構配置多受語言語法、效率需求、硬體相容與市場慣例所拘束，欠缺創作自由空間，難以符合著作權法所要求之「原創性」要件。即使其具原創性，亦應審酌是否屬於美國著作權法第102條(b)項排除著作權保護之態樣，及根據Altai案所提出之AFC測試法，適用思想與表達合併原則及必要場景原則，於過濾分析階段即排除著作權保護，避免將功能性內容誤納為創作性作品。
本文採用案例研究與文獻分析法，系統性檢視美國實務對API宣告碼著作權適格性與合理使用抗辯之判準，並援引Altai與Lotus等判例，重建功能性原則於API宣告碼適用之正當性。本文進一步解析Java語言設計背景、Android系統之相容性策略，以及開放原始碼發展對API重新實作需求之制度意涵。綜合而言，API宣告碼不僅為實現互操作性所不可或缺之結構，更承載開發者共享與再利用之技術自由。若將其納入著作權保護，將阻礙產業創新並妨害開源合作之發展。
因此，本文主張，應以功能性原則為基礎，結合思想與表達合併原則與必要場景原則，建立一套清晰可操作之API宣告碼著作權評析框架，以供未來司法實務與政策制定之參考，並促進技術生態與法律制度之平衡發展。

As the software industry increasingly relies on application programming interface (API) to facilitate cross-platform integration and system interoperability, the copyright eligibility of API declarations has become a subject of widespread legal debate. In particular, the Oracle v. Google case, which centers on whether API structures constitute protectable expressive works, highlights unresolved challenges in distinguishing between functional components and expressive elements under current copyright law. This paper uses the Oracle case as a central example, providing a comprehensive examination of copyright protection for computer programs, the functional role of API, and the practical constraints faced by software developers.
This study argues that API declarations, as interfaces designed for system-level module invocation, are shaped predominantly by programming language syntax, efficiency requirements, hardware compatibility, and industry conventions. Because of these constraints, API declarations lack the creative freedom required to meet the originality and expression standards of copyright law. Even though they are expressed in textual form, such declarations should be excluded from protection under Section 102(b) of the U.S. Copyright Act and the merger doctrine. This approach prevents the misclassification of functional components as creative expressions.
Using case study and doctrinal analysis, this paper systematically reviews how U.S. courts have assessed the copyright eligibility of API declarations and the applicability of fair use defenses. Precedents such as Whelan, Altai, and Lotus are used to reconstruct the normative justification for excluding functional API components from protection. The paper also analyzes the design context of the Java language, the compatibility strategy of the Android platform, and the institutional significance of open-source development. These factors illustrate why API reuse is necessary in contemporary software ecosystems.
In conclusion, API declarations are not only essential for enabling interoperability, but they also support technological freedom and foster shared innovation. Granting copyright protection to these elements would hinder software industry progress and weaken open collaboration. Therefore, this paper proposes a copyright evaluation framework that is based on the functional exclusion principle and is supplemented by the merger doctrine and the scènes à faire doctrine. This framework aims to guide judicial decisions and policy-making toward a fair and balanced approach between technological development and legal protection.

中文文獻
 專書
Bill Lubanovic著，賴屹民譯，《精通Python：運用簡單的套件進行現代運算》，第二版，碁峯資訊，台北（2024）。
Eric Freeman, Elisabeth Robson著，賴屹民譯，《深入淺出設計模式》，第二版，碁峯資訊，台北（2024）。
Jason C. McDonald著，H&C譯，《Python風格徹底研究：超詳實、好理解的Python必學主題》，初版，碁峯資訊，台北（2024）。
陳惠貞，《最新計算機概論》，第十一版，碁峯資訊，台北（2024）。
陳木中、胡志堅，《資料結構：理論與實作》，初版，新文京，新北（2023）。
陳明熒，《Arduino專題製作與應用：Python連線控制篇》，初版，博碩文化，新北（2022）。
柯博文，《Raspberry Pi 4 最佳入門與實戰應用》，第三版，碁峯資訊，台北（2023）。
王樹生，《遙遙領先：使用Java開發Web新手轉高手之路》，初版，深智數位，台北（2024）。
 期刊論文
胡心蘭（2018），從啦啦隊制服案探討美國實用性物品設計之著作權法保護，東海大學法學研究，55期，頁95-172。
胡心蘭（2023），再論挪用藝術與著作權合理使用原則，月旦民商法雜誌，82期，頁21-54。
胡心蘭（2024），思想與表達二分與合併原則於功能性電腦程式著作之適用，中正財經法學，28期，頁53-102。
 碩士論文
林珈宏（2010），開放原始碼軟體商業應用之法律爭議及其可能之解決途徑，國立中央大學產業經濟研究所碩士論文。
英文文獻
 Books
NIMMER, MELVILLE B. & NIMMER, DAVID, NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT (Matthew Bender, Rev. Ed., 2025).
RAYMOND, Eric S., THE ART OF UNIX PROGRAMMING (Addison-Wesley., 2003).
 Journal Articles, Reports and Press Releases
Band, Jonathan, The Global Api Copyright Conflict, 31 HARV. J.L. & TECH. 615 (2018).
Buckman, Deborah F., Copyright Protection to Computer Programs, 180 A.L.R. FED. 1 (2005).
Englund, Steven R., Idea, Process, or Protected Expression?: Determining the Scope of Copyright Protection of the Structure of Computer Programs, 88 MICH. L. REV. 866 (1990).
Karjala, Dennis S., The Relative Roles of Patent and Copyright in the Protection of Computer Programs, 17 J. MARSHALL J. COMPUTER & INFO. L. 41 (1998).
Karjala, Dennis S., Oracle v. Google and the Scope of a Computer Program Copyright, 24 J. INTELL. PROP. L. 1 (2016).
Lemley, Mark A., & Samuelson, Pamela, Interfaces and Interoperability After Google v. Oracle, 100 TEX. L. REV. 1 (2021).
Menell, Peter S., Rise of the Api Copyright Dead?: An Updated Epitaph for Copyright Protection of Network and Functional Features of Computer Software, 31 HARV. J.L. & TECH. 305 (2018).
Menell, Peter S., Economic Analysis of Network Effects and Intellectual Property, 34 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 219 (2019).
Morrison, Linda G., The Ec Directive on the Legal Protection of Computer Programs: Does It Leave Room for Reverse Engineering Beyond the Need for Interoperability?, 25 VAND. J. TRANSNAT'L L. 293 (1992).
Netanel, Neil Weinstock., Making Sense of Fair Use, 15 LEWIS & CLARK L. REV. 715 (2011).
Samuelson, Pamela & Scotchmer, Suzanne, The Law and Economics of Reverse Engineering, 111 YALE L.J. 1575 (2002).
Samuelson, Pamela, Why Copyright Law Excludes Systems and Processes from the Scope of Its Protection, 85 TEX. L. REV. 1921 (2007).
Samuelson, Pamela, Are Patents on Interfaces Impeding Interoperability?, 93 MINN. L. REV. 1943 (2009).
Samuelson, Pamela, Functionality and Expression in Computer Programs: Refining the Tests for Software Copyright Infringement, 31 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1215 (2016).
Samuelson, Pamela, Reconceptualizing Copyright's Merger Doctrine, 63 J. COPYRIGHT SOC'Y U.S.A. 417 (2016).
Unni, V.K., Fifty Years of Open Source Movement: An Analysis Through the Prism of Copyright Law, 40 S. ILL. U. L.J. 271 (2016).
von Lohmann, Fred. The New Wave: Copyright and Software Interfaces in the Wake of Oracle v. Google, 31 HARV. J.L. & TECH. 517 (2018).
Yankwich, Hon. Leon R., Originality in the Law of Intellectual Property (Its Meaning from A Legal and Literary Standpoint), 11 F.R.D. 457, 462 (1952).