如何翻译“独占许可”和“排他许可”？
在翻译合同时，有没有碰到“独占许可”和“排他许可”的翻译难题？
法学专业以外的同学，这时可能需要去搜索一下，看看这两个词有什么区别。即便有法学背景，知道二者的区别，恐怕也会在选词上犹豫不定。
简单来说，独占比排他更严格，连许可方自己也不能利用许可的知识产权。
“排他”往往会对应到exclusive，那“独占”是什么？sole吗？
我以前翻译的时候，也没搞懂，这两个词大概就用过去了，直到有一天在A Manual of Style for Contract Drafting（以前介绍过这本书，戳这里）里看到一个说法：
In licensing circles, it seems generally accepted that there’s a distinction between an exclusive license and a sole license. In an exclusive license, only the licensee has the right to make use of the intellectual property. By contrast, in a sole license, the licensor agrees not to grant any additional licenses but retains the right to make use of the intellectual property.
简单来说，exclusive license是独占许可，sole license是排他许可。
这与我之前的理解恰好相反。我以前以为sole是比exclusive更加“唯一”的。
可是，为什么sole要有“唯二”的感觉呢？它不应该是“唯一”吗？
为此，我还专门去查了sole的意思，想要从中找到蛛丝马迹，扭转此前的印象。
这就好比刚到一个新地方，倒了向，非得找到一个参照物，把晕了的方向感扭转过来一样。
可惜，我没找到。
截止写这篇文章时，我能给自己的解释是：sole是only的意思，给被许可人的是only的许可，但不排除许可人仍可使用的权利；而exclusive则带有“绝对排他”的意思，连许可人也“排掉”了。
嗯，好像说得通。
不过，sole license还有另外一种意思：
A sole license could also be understood to mean not that the licensor retains the right to make use of the intellectual property, but that prior licenses granted are preserved.
简单来说，原先已经授权过了，现在授权给你，你有的是sole license，但不影响原先的许可。
快要有种“唯三”的感觉了~
Exclusive license和sole license这一区分不是上书作者自己想出来的，确实存在。作者也在书里引用了几本书，列在下面，供大家查证：
Drafting License Agreements § 1.02, Michael A. Epstein and Frank L. Politano eds., 4th ed. 2012
A-Z Guide to Boilerplate and Commercial Clauses, Mark Anderson & Victoer Warner, Pp 286-87, 3rd ed. 2012
Milgrim on Licensing § 15.33 2012
如上面所说，sole license不只有一种含义。因此，它和exclusive license之间的这种区分，也未必靠谱。
你无法保证每个人都知道这一区分，或者知道而且同意这种区分，最好的办法还是下定义。
检索到另外一篇文章也提到，sole license这种用法不是那么常见。
A far less commonly used form of licence is a Sole Licence.
另外，美国人还特别爱用“exclusive and sole license”这个词语。一些评论认为这个词繁琐而且语义模糊，应尽量避免使用。
很不好意思的是，在我以前翻译时，为了保险，用过这个词来翻译“独占许可”。exclusive + sole，够“独占”了吧。哈哈哈~
这两个词还有很多细节，涉及法律内容较多，这里就不再展开了。有机会以后开培训课，可以慢慢聊一下。
那结论是什么？
没有结论。我只是告诉你，英美法中有一个区分：exclusive license=独占许可，sole license = 排他许可。这个区分似乎较为接受，很多人知道，但并非公认的，写合同时最好下定义。
至于翻译，可以根据上下文从这两个词语中选用合适的译法。如果原文件也没说清楚，按照上面这个区分翻译也是很不错的选择。
参考文章：
Licensing – Exclusive / Non-Exclusive / Sole
When granting or receiving a licence under intellectual property rights, the parties need to consider at the earliest stage the degree of exclusivity that will be granted.
AnExclusive Licencemeans that no person or company other than the named licensee can exploit the relevant intellectual property rights. Importantly, the licensor is also excluded from exploiting the intellectual property rights. If the licensor wishes to continue to conduct any activity covered by the intellectual property (for example, a university licensor may wish to continue its research), or if the licensor has previously granted any rights in relation to the intellectual property, the exclusive licence will need to expressly state that it is exclusivesubjectto those carve-outs.
ANon-Exclusive Licencegrants to the licensee the right to use the intellectual property, but means that the licensor remains free to exploit the same intellectual property and to allow any number of other licensees to also exploit the same intellectual property.
A licence can also take a middle-ground between exclusive and non-exclusive. Such a licence is sometimes known as a "co-exclusive" licence and is one in which the licensor grants a licence to more than one licensee, but agrees that it will only grant licences to a limited group of other licensees. The group of licensees may be identified by name, description (a licence will only be granted to licensees who meet certain criteria), or simply by number (a limited number of licenses will be granted by the licensor).
A far less commonly used form of licence is aSoleLicence. This is typically understood to mean that the licence is exclusive, except that the licensor also reserves full rights to exploit the intellectual property itself. The licensor does not have the right to grant any other sub-licences. Whilst this is the typically understood meaning, if this is the intention of the parties, it would be preferable for them to explicitly state in the agreement the extent of the rights of each of the licensor and the licensee.
On occasion, and particularly when working with US entities, a licence may be expressed as "sole and exclusive". Given that these two terms do not necessarily mean the same thing, it is preferable to avoid expressing a licence in this way. If one party insists on expressing the licence in this way it would be preferable for the agreement to explicitly state what is intended by the term.
Whether a licence is exclusive or non-exclusive has an impact on several other provisions of the licence, for example:
where the licence is non-exclusive, it is likely that the licensor will prohibit sub-licensing. The licensor would then be the only party able to grant another non-exclusive licence to another party seeking the same rights;
the diligence obligations are likely to be more onerous in an exclusive licence than in a non-exclusive licence; and
an exclusive licensee is likely to have more rights regarding the prosecution, defence and enforcement of the intellectual property rights than a non-exclusive license. In the UK, an exclusive licensee of a patent has an automatic right to enforce the patent unless the contract specifically provides otherwise.
Where a licence is stated to be "exclusive", but is limited to a particular territory or field of use, the parties should carefully consider the extent to which the licensee is permitted to prosecute, defend and enforce the intellectual property rights. Although the licence is stated to be "exclusive", other licences under the same intellectual property rights could be granted in other territories and/or fields. Such other licensees may want to be involved in the prosecution, defence and enforcement of the intellectual property rights as such activities are likely to impact on the value of their licence. In this sense, a territory or field limited licence is not equivalent to a fully exclusive licence.
