政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/146688
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 113485/144472 (79%)
Visitors : 51390264      Online Users : 711
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
    •  Adv. Search
    Home ‧ Login ‧ Upload ‧ Help ‧ About ‧ Administer Goto mobile version


    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/146688


    Title: 通訊科技競爭與標準必要專利之研究 -以高通案為例
    A Study on the Competition of Communications Technology and Standard Essential Patents- An Example of the Case of Qualcomm
    Authors: 張舒涵
    Chang, Shu-Han
    Contributors: 許耀明
    Hsu, Yao-Ming
    張舒涵
    Chang, Shu-Han
    Keywords: 標準必要專利
    行動通訊
    高通
    公平合理無歧視
    專利授權
    競爭法
    Standard Essential Patent (SEP)
    Mobile Communication
    Qualcomm
    Fair Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND)
    Patent License
    Competition Law
    Date: 2023
    Issue Date: 2023-08-02 14:32:23 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 科技的競逐不曾停歇，隨著動通訊技術迅速發展，各國都希望打入通訊標準制定核心、掌握更多話語權，以在國際貿易中取得優勢地位，奪得市場先機，因此紛紛遊說標準制定組織選定自身專利技術採納為技術標準，進而運用標準必要專利（standards-essential patents，SEPs）展開智慧財產權戰略，在市場上作為攻擊與防禦的武器，以達到維持競爭力或擴大市場佔有率之目標。

    為避免專利權人有壟斷市場與不公平競爭問題，國際標準制定組織要求標準專利權人應提出「公平、合理、無歧視(Fair Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory，FRAND)」承諾，以求公平合理的處理相關授權關係， 然因FRAND授權承諾定義未明，在國際上衍生許多討論。

    本研究自標準必要專利的形成與FRAND授權承諾切入，探討美國、歐盟、日本、台灣等各國主管機關對於標準必要專利的形成與FRAND授權承諾相關規範及重要案例，進一步討論主流國家對於高通(Qualcomm)案的處置方式，並分析我國公平交易委員會於106年10月20日對高通公司之裁罰案影響。

    此外，在中美貿易戰後科技業成為重點戰場之一，因疫情而生的邊境管控措施促使供應鏈模式改變，各國紛紛將重大戰略物資產線留在國內並推動相關保護政策，本論文最後就各國制定的晶片法案進行說明，並自就企業面與政府面提出相應策略。期望我國企業能積極備戰，取得更多的籌碼換取對自己有利的條件並謹慎應對國際局勢，布局核心技術，維持我國產業地位立於不墜。
    The contest in technology never stops, and with the rapid development of mobile communication technology, countries are eager to penetrate the core of communication standard setting organization and gain more influence to secure advantageous positions in international trade and seize market opportunities. Consequently, they actively lobby standard-setting organizations to adopt their own patents and technologies as technical standards. Subsequently, they utilize Standards-Essential Patents (SEPs) as part of their intellectual property strategies, wielding these SEPs as both offensive and defensive weapons in the market. Their ultimate aim is to maintain competitiveness or expand their market share.

    To prevent patent holders from monopolizing the market and engaging in unfair competition, international standard-setting organizations require standard patent holders to make a "Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory" (FRAND) commitment. This commitment aims to ensure a fair and reasonable approach to handling relevant licensing relationships. However, due to the lack of a clear definition of FRAND commitments, it has led to numerous discussions and debates internationally.

    This study focuses on the formation of Standards-Essential Patents (SEPs) and the associated commitments of Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms. It explores the regulations and important cases related to the formation of SEPs and FRAND commitments by the regulatory authorities in the United States, the European Union, Japan, and Taiwan. Furthermore, the study delves into the handling of the Qualcomm case by major countries and analyzes the impact of the Fair Trade Commission of Taiwan`s ruling against Qualcomm on October 20, 106. The research aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the various approaches and consequences of dealing with SEPs and FRAND commitments in different jurisdictions.

    Furthermore, after the trade war between China and the United States, the technology industry has become a key battleground. The border control measures arising from the pandemic have prompted changes in supply chain models. In response, countries around the world have taken measures to retain critical strategic supply chain within their borders and have implemented relevant protectionist policies.

    In the concluding part of this thesis, various countries` chip laws are explained, and corresponding strategies are proposed from both the perspectives of enterprises and governments. The hope is that Taiwanese companies will proactively prepare for the potential challenges, secure more leverage to negotiate favorable conditions, and respond cautiously to the evolving dynamics. Emphasizing the development of core technologies is crucial to maintaining Taiwan`s position in the industry and ensuring the stability and continuity of its industrial standing.
    Reference: 一、中文文獻
    (一)專書
    1.經濟部智慧財產局，專利法逐條釋義，2021年6月。
    2.黃銘傑，競爭法與智慧財產法之交會 相生與相剋之間，PART II，第參章，拒絕授權與公平交易法，元照，2009年4月。
    3.楊智傑,專利法，新學林，2014年9月。
    4.劉孔中，解構智財法及其與競爭法的衝突與調和，新學林，2015年5月。
    (二)期刊論文
    1.工研院資通所(2020)，全球5G標準系統與技術效能評估，趨勢觀點，第181期。(頁37 - 42)
    2.王立達(2018)，標準必要專利權行使之國際規範發展與比較分析-FRAND承諾法律性質、禁制令、權利金與競爭法規制，月旦法學雜誌第 275 卷。(頁87-110)
    3.王立達(2018)，魔鬼藏在細節裡：高通案和解筆錄透露的真實訊息，北美智權報225期，載於：http://www.naipo.com/Portals/1/web_tw/Knowledge_Center/Industry_Economy/IPNC_181128_0702.htm (最後瀏覽日:02/01/2023)。
    4.李素華(2003)，技術標準制定之競爭法規範與調和，東吳法律學報，第15卷第1期。(頁117-178)
    5.李素華(2008)，專利權行使與公平交易法-以近用技術標準之關鍵專利為中心，公平交易季刊，第16卷第2期。(頁85-121)
    6.李素華(2018)，公平會高通公司處分案之簡評與省思，月旦法學雜誌第275期。(頁111-121)
    7.李素華(2023)，從德國新近之專利法修正談除去及防止侵害請求權對於實現專利權價值之重要性，月旦法學雜誌，第334期。(頁165-191)
    8.李崇僖(2012)，專利技術價值在侵權訴訟中之認定─兼論美國法上的專利政策思維，專利師，第 9 期。(頁1-16)
    9.李建鵬、葛鑑霆(2021)，行動通信技術發展對軍事應用之研究，空軍學術雙月刊第683期。(頁86-104)
    10.沈宗倫，(2017)。標準必要專利之法定授權與專利權濫用──以誠實信用原則為中心，政大法學評論，第149期。 (頁1-83)
    11.林金榮(2015)，專利授權教戰守則：授權誠信條款 F/RAND 介紹－Microsoft v. Motorola 專利訴訟判決談起，月旦法學雜誌第238期。(頁223-243)
    12.陳在方(2020)，5G 標準必要專利之趨勢、規範與授權—以國家安全疑慮為中心，台灣國際法季刊第十六卷第一期。(頁125-131)
    13.陳皓芸(2017)，標準必要專利權之行使、權利濫用與獨占地位濫用，公平交易季刊，第25 卷第1 期。(頁81-130)
    14.趙涵捷、簡暐哲(2020)，5G 時代改變你我生活，科學發展月刊，第569期。(頁64-71)
    15.楊宏暉(2015)，標準關鍵專利之濫用與限制競爭，公平交易季刊，第23 卷第4期。(頁35-86)
    16.楊宏暉(2017)，基於競爭考量之強制授權－兼談競爭法與專利法之競合，公平交易季刊，第 25 卷 第 1 期。(頁1-36 )
    17.楊智傑，高通行動通訊標準必要專利授權與競爭法: 大陸、南韓、歐盟、美國、臺灣裁罰案之比較，公平交易季刊，第26卷2期，2018年04月。(頁1-54)
    18.蔡作敏(2017)，無線行動通訊—過去的發展以及未來的挑戰，科學月刊，第430 期。
    19.顧超光(2015)，近代日本海軍無線電通信技術發展與三大無線電信所之設置：以臺灣鳳山無線電信所為中心的探討，臺灣文獻，第66卷第2期。(頁73-120)
    (三)法院判決及主管機關函令
    1.公平會90年公處字第021號處分書。
    2.公平會91年公處字第091069號處分書。
    3.公平會98年公處字第098156號處分書。
    4.公平會103公處字第103060號處分書。
    5.公平會104公處字104027號處分書。
    6.公平會公結字第103001號處分書。
    7.公平會公處字第106094號處分書。
    8.行政院101年8月22日院台經字第1010139937號令。
    9.行政院院臺訴字第1030148908號訴願決定書。
    10.中華人民共和國國家發展和改革委員會行政處罰決定書，發改半價監處罰（2015）1號。
    11.中國廣東省高級人民法院（2013）粵高法民三終字第306號民事判決書。
    12.監察院108財調0025 調查報告。
    13.臺北高等行政法院103年度訴字第1874號判決。
    14.最高行政法院105年度判字第403號判決。
    (四)立法機關資料
    產業創新條例第十條之二、第七十二條修正草案總說明。
    (五)網路資料
    1.公平會107 年 8 月 10 日新聞資料，2018 年 8 月 ， 載於https://www.ftc.gov.tw/internet/main/doc/docDetail.aspx?uid=1614&docid=15649&mid=1611(最後瀏覽日:01/01/2023)。
    2.公平會108 年 5月 21 日新聞資料，2019 年 5月，載於https://www.ftc.gov.tw/internet/main/doc/docList.aspx?uid=1611&mid=1611 (最後瀏覽日:02/01/2023)。
    3.公平會美商高通公司訴訟和解案相關資料(本會第 1396 次委員會議通過決議之和解筆錄內容) ，載於https://www.ftc.gov.tw/internet/main/doc/docList.aspx?uid=1611&mid=1611 (最後瀏覽日:01/01/2023)。
    4.行政院， 台灣5G 行動計畫（2019-2022 年），2020 年1 月， 載於https://www.ey.gov.tw/Page/5A8A0CB5B41DA11E/087b4ed8-8c79-49f2-90c3-6fb22d740488 (最後瀏覽日:02/01/2023)。
    5.經濟部標準檢驗局-定義，載於：https://www.bsmi.gov.tw/wSite/ct?xItem=77888&ctNode=9192&mp=1 (最後瀏覽日：02/26/2023)。
    6.智慧財產法院106年度行公訴字第1號公平交易法事件新聞稿，2018 年 8 月，載於https://jirs.judicial.gov.tw/GNNWS/NNWSS002.asp?id=357903(最後瀏覽日:01/01/2023)。
    7.財團法人國家實驗研究院，行動通訊技術發展對生活造成的影響與改變，科普講堂， 載於：https://www.narlabs.org.tw/xcscience/cont?xsmsid=0I148638629329404252&sid=0K279564703065721553(最後瀏覽日：02/26/2023)
    8.李素華，技術標準專利權的美麗與哀愁，自由時報專欄-專利創新：自由共和國，2017年10月 ，載於https://talk.ltn.com.tw/article/paper/1147516(最後瀏覽日:02/02/2023)。
    9.曾志超，擢髮難數的高通和解案，國政評論網專欄，2019年7月 ，載於https://www.npf.org.tw/3/20981(最後瀏覽日:30/01/2023)。
    10.卓承賢，Avanci之車聯網專利許可新模式及挑戰，新聚能科技，2018年06月，載於：https://synergytek.com.tw/blog/2018/06/12/avanci%E4%B9%8B%E8%BB%8A%E8%81%AF%E7%B6%B2%E5%B0%88%E5%88%A9%E6%8E%88%E6%AC%8A%E6%B1%BD%E8%BB%8A%E7%94%A2%E6%A5%AD%E6%96%B0%E6%A8%A1%E5%BC%8F%E5%8F%8A%E6%8C%91%E6%88%B0/(最後瀏覽日:05/05/2023)
    11.簡永祥，美晶片補助限制 劉德音：台積電無法接受，聯合新聞網，2023年3月，載於：https://udn.com/news/story/7240/7068614 (最後瀏覽日:05/05/2023)。
    12.蔡孟熹，標準必要專利(SEP)與公平及合理非歧視條款(FRAND)，廣流智權評析專欄，第23期，2014年10月，載於：https://www.widebandip.com/tw/mobile/knowledge2.php?type1=A&idno=118 (最後瀏覽日：02/26/2023)
    13.中華人民共和國科學技術部，我国正式启动第六代移动通信技术研发工作，2019年11月，載於：http://www.gov.cn/guowuyuan/2019-11/07/content_5449650.htm (最後瀏覽日：02/26/2023)
    14.中國信息通信研究院知識產權與創新發展中心，全球5G專利活動報告（2022年）2022年4月， 載於http://www.caict.ac.cn/kxyj/qwfb/ztbg/202204/P020220422375972363387.pdf(最後瀏覽日:02/01/2023)
    15.中國半導體行業協會，关于美国出台《2022年芯片与科学法》的声明，2022年8月17日，載於https://web.csia.net.cn/newsinfo/4449485.html (最後瀏覽日:07/15/2023)
    16.華為，华为创新和知识产权白皮书，2021年3 月，載於https://www-file.huawei.com/-/media/CORP2020/pdf/download/Huawei_IPR_White_paper_2020_cn.pdf(最後瀏覽日:02/01/2023)。
    17.华为发布创新和知识产权白皮书2020新聞稿，2021年03月，載於https://www.huawei.com/cn/news/2021/3/huawei-releases-whitepaper-innovation-intellectual-property-2020(最後瀏覽日:02/01/2023)
    18.科技產業資訊室，南韓全力投入6G開發 目標2028年正式商業營運，載於：https://iknow.stpi.narl.org.tw/post/Read.aspx?PostID=16924 (最後瀏覽日：02/26/2023) 。
    19.科技產業資訊室，日本6G國家戰略：2025年力爭6G關鍵技術達30%市占，載於：https://iknow.stpi.narl.org.tw/Post/Read.aspx?PostID=16529 (最後瀏覽日：02/26/2023) 。
    20.新華網，商务部响应美出台《芯片和科学法案》：必要时采取有力措施维护自身合法权益，2022年8月18日，載於http://www.news.cn/fortune/2022-08/18/c_1128926605.htm (最後瀏覽日:07/15/2023)。
    21.MoneyDJ， 川普：美國 5G 網路必須安全牢固，以免遭受敵人攻擊， 載於： https://technews.tw/2019/04/15/remarks-by-president-trump-on-united-states-5g-deployment/(最後瀏覽日：03/04/2023)
    22.MoneyDJ， 川普：美國 5G 網路必須安全牢固，以免遭受敵人攻擊， 載於： https://technews.tw/2019/04/15/remarks-by-president-trump-on-united-states-5g-deployment/(最後瀏覽日：03/04/2023)

    二、外文文獻
    (一)期刊論文
    1.Armstrong, Ann and Mueller, Joseph and Syrett, Tim (2014), The Smartphone Royalty Stack: Surveying Royalty Demands for the Components Within Modern Smartphones. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2443848.
    2.Fairfield Resources International, Inc., (2007), Analysis of Patents Declared as Essential to GSM of June 6, 2007.
    3.Joseph Farrell, John Hayes, Carl Shapiro & Theresa Sullivan, (2007) Standard Setting, Patents, and Hold-. Up, 74 ANTITRUST LAW JOURNAL, 603.
    4.Li, Benjamin C. (2016), The Global Convergence of FRAND Licensing Practices: Towards `Interoperable` Legal Standards,31 BERKELEY TECHNOLOGY LAW JOURNAL 429.
    5.Mueller, Janice M (2001), PATENTING INDUSTRY STANDARDS. 34 J. Marshall L. Rev. 897.
    6.Stitzing, Robin and Sääskilahti, Pekka and Royer, Jimmy and Audenrode, Marc Van (2017), Over-Declaration of Standard Essential Patents and Determinants of Essentiality.
    7.Rill, James F. Rill and Kress, James G.and Kallay, Dina and Hollman, Hugh M. (2015), Antitrust and FRAND Bargaining: Rejecting the Invitation For Antitrust Overreach Into Royalty Disputes, Antitrust, Vol. 30, No. 1.
    (二)司法判決及其他政府決定
    1.Case C-170/13: Request for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany) lodged on 5 April 2013 — Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v ZTE Corp., ZTE Deutschland GmbH(2013).
    2.eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. - 547 U.S. 388, 126 S. Ct. 1837 (2006).
    3.European Commission, Antitrust: Commission sends Statement of Objections to Samsung on potential misuse of mobile phone standard-essential patents (2012).
    4..European Commission, Communication from the Commission to the Institutions on Setting out the EU approach to Standard Essential Patents (2017).
    5.European Commission, Antitrust/Cartel Cases, 40220 Qualcomm (exclusivity payments)(2018)European Commission, Contribution to the Debate on SEPs - Executive Summary (2021).
    6.European Commission, Contribution to the Debate on SEPs - Executive Summary (2021).
    7.European Commission, REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on standard essential patents and amending Regulation (EU)2017/1001, European Commission (2023).
    8.Ericsson, Inc. v. D-Link Sys. Inc., et al., Case. Nos. 13-1625, - 1631, -1632, -1633 (Fed. Cir., Dec. 4, 2014)(2014).
    9.Federal Trade Commission, To Promote Innovation: The Proper Balance of Competition and Patent Law and Policy, (2003).
    10.Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Incorporated, No. 17-CV-00220-LHK FTC v. Qualcomm), at 4(N.D. Cal, 2017)(2017).
    11.Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm, Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK, partial summary judgement (ND Cal. 11/06/2018). (2018).
    12.Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Inc., 935 F.3d. 752 (9th Cir. 2019)(2019).
    13.Federal Trade Commission, Statement on Agency’s Decision not to Petition Supreme Court for Review of Qualcomm Case (2021).
    14.Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v ZTE Corp., ZTE Deutschland GmbH (Case C-170/13) Huawei v ZTE, Case No. C-170/13(2015).
    15.In re Dell Computer Corp., 121 F.T.C. 616, 1996 FTC LEXIS 291(1996).
    16.In re Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC Patent Litigation, 921 F.Supp.2d 903, 906-07 (2013).
    17.Japan Fair Trade Commission, Cease and Desist Order against QUALCOMM Incorporated (2009).
    18.Japan Patent Office, Announcement for release of "Guide to Licensing Negotiations Involving Standard Essential Patents (2018).
    19.Japan Patent Office, Guide to Licensing Negotiations involving Standard Essential Patents (2018).
    20.Japan Patent Office, Good Faith Negotiation Guidelines for Standard Essential Patent Licenses Established, (2022).
    21.Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 16 July 2015. Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd v ZTE Corp. and ZTE Deutschland GmbH Düsseldorf District Court, (2013).
    22.Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC), Strict Sanctions on Qualcomm’s Abuse of Cellular SEPs (2016).
    23.Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc, No.2:10-cv-01823-JLR,Order 6 (Apr, 2013) (2013).
    24.Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc. et al., Case No 14-35393 (9th Cir, July 30, 2015)(2015).
    25.Rambus Inc. v. F.T.C., 522 F.3d 456, 469 (D.C. Cir. 2008)(2008).
    26.Sisvel v Haier, Düsseldorf District Court, 3 November 2015, 4a O 144/14 (2015).Sisvel v. Haier, Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) 5 May 2020, (FCJ docket no. KZR 36/17)(2020).
    27.Sisvel v. Haier, Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) 5 May 2020, (FCJ docket no. KZR 36/17)(2020).
    28.TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd. v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson et al., 8:14-cv-00341. CAFC(2017).
    29.The United States Department of Justice, DOJ and FTC Issue Updated Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property (2017).
    30.The United States Department of Justice, Draft Policy Statement On Licensing Negotiations And　Remedies For Standards-Essential Patents Subject To Voluntary F/Rand Commitments，Guidelines and Policy Statements of The United States Department of Justice(2021).
    31.The United States Further Restricts Huawei Access to U.S. Technology, SECRETARY OF STATE (2020).
    32.The Department of Justice, Public Comments Welcome on Draft Policy Statement on Licensing Negotiations and Remedies for Standards-Essential Patents Subject to F/RAND Commitments (2021).
    33.The Intellectual Property Office of the United Kingdom, Standard Essential Patents and Innovation: Call for views, (2021).
    34.U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Global Standards: Building Blocks for the Future, TCT-512 (1992).
    35.United States Patent and Trademark Office, Policy Statement on Remedies for Standards-Essential Patents Subject to Voluntary F/RAND Commitments (2013).
    36.United States Patent and Trademark Office, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office releases policy statement on standards-essential patents subject to voluntary F/RAND commitments (2019).
    37.United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent and Trademark Office of Policy and International Affairs, Patenting Activity among 5G Technology Developers(2022).
    38.U.S. Department of Commerce, Commerce Adds China’s SMIC to the Entity List, Restricting Access to Key Enabling U.S. Technology, December 18, 2020 (2020)
    39.U.S. Department of Justice, Request Letter: Avanci LLC, November 21, 2019 https://www.justice.goatr/page/file/1298631/download (2019).
    40.U.S. Department of Justice，Business Review Letter，July 28, 2020, https://www.justice.gov/atr/page/file/1298626/download (2020)
    41.Unwired Planet International Ltd and another v. Huawei Technologies (UK) Co Ltd and another (UKSC 2018/0214.)
    42.Unwired Planet v. Huawei EWHC 711 (Pat)(2017).
    43.Unwired Planet v Huawei, UK Court of Appeal, 23 October 2018, Case-No. A3/2017/1784,EWCA Civ 2344(2018).
    44.Urteil des X. Zivilsenats vom 10.5.2016 - X ZR 114/13 (2016).
    (三)國際組織出版品
    1.ANNEX 6: ETSI Intellectual Property Rights Policy, ETSI RULES OF PROCEDURE, (Nov. 2022.) (last visited Mar.13,2022)
    2.International Organization for Standardization, Standards, https://www.iso.org/standards.html (last visited Mar.13,2022)
    3.International Organization for Standardization, ISO/IEC GUIDE 2:2004Standardization and related activities - General vocabulary, https://www.iso.org/standard/39976.html (last visited Mar.13,2022)
    4.International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Recommendation ITU-R M.1645, Framework and overall objectives of the future development of IMT-2000 and systems beyond IMT-2000, (June 2003) (last visited Mar.13,2022)
    5.Industry and Security Bureau, Release of “Technology” to Certain Entities on the Entity List in the Context of Standards Organizations (85 FR. 36719) (2020) (last visited Mar.13,2022)
    6.International Telecommunication Union, Framework and overall objectives of the future development of IMT for 2030 and beyond (2023) (last visited May 13,2023)
    7.Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA), Intellectual Property Rights Policy, 3rd Edition (Oct, 2016). (last visited Mar.13,2022)
    8.The International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Minimum requirements related to technical performance for IMT-2020 radio interface(s), (last visited Mar.13,2022)
    9.World Trade Organization, Technical barriers to trade, https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tbt_e/tbt_e.htm (last visited Mar.13,2022)
    10.日本経済産業省,標準必須特許のライセンスを巡る取引環境の在り方に関する研究会誠実交渉指針の策定に関する報告書(2022)
    (四)網路資料
    1.Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions，ATIS Launches Next G Alliance to Advance North American Leadership in 6G，載於：https://www.atis.org/press-releases/atis-launches-next-g-alliance-to-advance-north-american-leadership-in-6g/ (last visited Mar.13,2023)
    2.Arjun Kharpal, Huawei to start charging royalties to smartphone makers using its patented 5G tech,，(Mar. 16, 2021) https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/16/huawei-to-charge-royalties-to-smartphone-makers-using-its-5g-tech-.html(last visited March 6, 2023)
    3.Autorité de régulation des communications électroniques et des postes, 5G: ISSUES & CHALLENGES, https://www.arcep.fr/uploads/tx_gspublication/Report-5G-issues-challenges-march2017.pdf (last visited Mar.13,2023)
    4.European Commission, EU challenges China at the WTO to defend its high-tech sector, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_1103(last visited Jul.1,2023).
    5.EU challenges China at the WTO to defend its high-tech sector, European Commission, official website, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_1103(last visited Jul.1,2023).
    6.Florian Mueller, EU investigations of Qualcomm have come out of hibernation this summer: will anything noteworthy happen? FOSS PATENTS (2017), http://www.fosspatents.com/2017/08/eu-investigations-of-qualcomm-have-come.html (last visited Mar.20,2023)
    7.Iplytics, Who is leading the 5G patent race? A patent landscape analysis on declared SEPs and standards contributions, https://www.iplytics.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Who-Leads-the-5G-Patent-Race_2019.pdf (last visited Mar.13,2023)
    8.Mercedes-Benz Group Media, Joint press release of Nokia and Daimler AG: Daimler and Nokia sign patent licensing agreement (2021), https://group-media.mercedes-benz.com/marsMediaSite/en/instance/print/Joint-press-release-of-Nokia-and-Daimler-AG-Daimler-and-Nokia-sign-patent-licensing-agreement.xhtml?oid=50102151 (last visited Mar. 6, 2023)
    9.RAHUL VIJH , Understanding Damages Calculation in SEP Litigation, IPWatch Dog, ( Jan. 30, 2021) https://ipwatchdog.com/2021/01/30/understanding-damages-calculation-sep-litigation/id=129501/(last visited Mar.13, 2023).
    10.Samsung, Samsung’s 6G white paper, (2020), https://news.samsung.com/global/samsungs-6g-white-paper-lays-out-the-companys-vision-for-the-next-generation-of-communications-technology(last visited Mar.13, 2022)
    11.SHARP, ダイムラーとLTE特許ライセンス契約を締結, (2020), https://corporate.jp.sharp/news/201007-a.html (last visited Mar. 6, 2023)
    12.Takehiro Nakamura, Proposal for Candidate Radio Interface Technologies for IMT-Advanced Based on LTE Release 10 and Beyond (LTE-Advanced), https://www.3g4g.co.uk/LteA/LteA_Pres_0910_3GPP.pdf (last visited Mar.13,2023)
    13.Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA), Patent Holder Statements, https://standards.tiaonline.org/all-standards/procedures/ipr (last visited Mar.13,2023).
    14.The Thomson Reuters, Qualcomm wins fight against $1 bln EU antitrust fine (2022), https://www.reuters.com/technology/eu-court-rejects-1-bln-eu-antitrust-fine-against-qualcomm-2022-06-15/(last visited Mar. 6, 2023)
    15.Qualcomm, Qualcomm 5G NR Royalty Terms Statemen, Nov. 2017), https://www.qualcomm.com/content/dam/qcomm-martech/dm-assets/documents/qualcomm-5g-nr-royalty-terms-statement.pdf (last visited Mar. 6, 2023)
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    法學院碩士在職專班
    108961013
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0108961013
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[Master of Laws Program for Executives] Theses

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    101301.pdf8025KbAdobe PDF2137View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告 Copyright Announcement
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏，無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用，惟仍請適度，合理使用本網站之內容，以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用，則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    The digital content of this website is part of National Chengchi University Institutional Repository. It provides free access to academic research and public education for non-commercial use. Please utilize it in a proper and reasonable manner and respect the rights of copyright owners. For commercial use, please obtain authorization from the copyright owner in advance.

    2.本網站之製作，已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益，如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者，請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw)，維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    NCCU Institutional Repository is made to protect the interests of copyright owners. If you believe that any material on the website infringes copyright, please contact our staff(nccur@nccu.edu.tw). We will remove the work from the repository and investigate your claim.
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback