政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/38726
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 113311/144292 (79%)
Visitors : 50942507      Online Users : 969
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/140.119/38726


    Title: 從Patent Trolls議題看美台專利改革與解決之道
    The Solution of Patent Trolls Issues in Light of Patent Reform and Cases in the U.S. and Taiwan
    Authors: 李明峻
    Lee, James
    Contributors: 馮震宇
    李明峻
    Lee, James
    Keywords: 專利流氓
    非專利實施者
    專利竊佔
    專利改革法案
    投機式授權
    禁制令
    Patent Trolls
    NPE(Non-Practicing Entities)
    Patent Squatter
    Patent Reform Act
    opportunistic licensing
    injunction
    Date: 2009
    Issue Date: 2010-04-09 15:10:34 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 近年來在美國有一種”新興產業”崛起，部份非專利權實施者NPE，專門尋找實際生產商品或提供服務的知名企業為對象，以提出專利侵權訴訟的方式，加上持有法院核發之禁制令，威脅被告以達到強迫授權或合解的目的，一般稱之為「Patent Trolls」。
    按專利制度的二大政策目標，一為提供發明人發明的誘因，一為鼓勵發明人揭露其發明技術內容，而Patent Trolls投機性授權模式所造成的問題，是否會破壞專利法之立法目的，而降低企業投資創新研發的誘因，乃值得觀注且為有待解決的議題。
    故本文之主要目的乃從美國與台灣之專利改革與實務判決，探討Patent Trolls之解決之道。
    Recently there is a “new industry” in the U.S., some NPEs brought patent infringement suits against famous enterprises, which manufacture product or supply service and threatened with injunction, commonly called “Patent Trolls”.
    Among the two policy objects of patent law, one is giving the inducement to invent, the other is encourage inventors to disclose their inventions. Whether the problems caused by the opportunistic licensing models of Patent Trolls would cause damage to the object of patent law and decrease the driving force to invent of the enterprises is an issue worth observing and solving.
    Consequently, the object of this thesis is to discuss the solution of the Patent Trolls issues in light of Patent Reform and cases in the U.S. and Taiwan.
    Reference: ※ 中文參考文獻
    一、 專書
    1. 陶龍生，轉捩點-美國專利訴訟實戰故事，聯合文學出版社，2008年。
    2. 王承守，周延鵬，陳郁婷，鄧穎懋，跨國專利侵權訴訟之管理，2007 年9月。
    3. 劉江彬，智慧財產法律與管理案例評析，華泰文化，2007年9月。
    4. 王承守、鄧穎懋，美國專利訴訟攻防策略運用，元照出版有限公司， 2007年6月二版。
    5. 楊崇森，專利法理論與應用，三民書局，2007年。
    6. 張宇樞，美國專利訴訟實務，經濟部智慧局，2007年。
    7. 陳翠華，專利申請程序實務及基準，經濟部智慧局，2007年。
    8. 蔡明誠，專利法，經濟部智慧局，2007年。
    9. 洪瑞章，專利侵害鑑定理論，經濟部智慧局，2007年。
    10. 郭雨嵐，專利侵害處理策略-贏的策略與實務，經濟部智慧局，2007年。
    11. 劉新發，專利行政救濟程序，經濟部智慧局，2007年。
    12. 劉國讚，專利舉發實務，經濟部智慧局，2007年。
    13. 詹炳耀，專利鑑價，經濟部智慧局，2007年。
    14. 周延鵬，一堂課2000億，商訊文化，2006年12月。
    15. 黃立，民法債編總論，2006年11月修正三版。
    16. 劉江彬，智慧財產法律與管理案例評析，華泰文化，2006年9月。
    17. 謝銘洋，羅炳榮，賴文平，葉大慧，林合民，兩岸智慧財產權實用手冊，中華保護智慧財產權協會，2006年6月。
    18. 范建得、陳丁章、江國慶、宋皇志、錢逸霖，面對專利戰爭的新思維，新學林出版，2006年4月。
    19. 周延鵬，虎與狐的智慧力－智慧資源規劃九把金鑰，天下文化出版社， 2006 年 3 月。
    20. 劉尚志，王敏銓，張宇樞，林明儀，美台專利訴訟，元照出版社，2005年4月。
    21. 經濟部，2005產業技術白皮書，經濟部技術處，2005年9月。
    二、 期刊文獻
    1. 吳欣玲，專利間接侵權規定之初探-兼論我國專利法修正草案之內容，智慧財產月刊130期，98年10月。
    2. 陳麒文，專利審查高速公路，智慧財產月刊123期，98年3月。
    3. 王銘勇，專利法損害賠償規範之分析與檢討，98年專利法修法研討會論文集。
    4. 劉尚志、王思穎、王俊凱，以合理權利金為專利損害賠償之計算方法：美國法之案例分析，98年專利法修法研討會論文集，經濟部智慧局。
    5. 顏吉承，美國KSR案判決對我國進步性審查之啟示，智慧財產權月刊，2007年9月。
    6. 廖承威，美國Leapfrog案判決研析與習用技術組合之探討-KSR判決之後，智慧財產權月刊，2007年9月。
    7. 王曉玟，智財反思 專利，創新的新敵人，天下文化2007年7月4日。
    8. 洪志勳，美國專利法修法趨勢及現況，科技法律透析，2007年4月。
    9. 古筱玫等，美國專利訴訟對台灣半導體產業營運的影響，經濟部跨領域科技管理研習班95年海外培訓成果發表會，2006年12月12日。
    10. 馮震宇，知識經濟下的專利競賽-面臨專利訴訟與專利流氓的因應策略，能力雜誌，2006年10月。
    11. 陳森豐，陳逸瑄，從Phillips v. AWH一案論申請專利範圍解釋之方法論，科技法律透析，2006年8月。
    12. 葉雪美，淺談美國2005年專利改革法案及後續發展，智慧財產權月刊93期，2005年9月。
    13. 高紅陽，不對稱信息經濟學研究現狀述評，當代經濟研究，2005年第10期。
    14. 馮震宇，從美國司法實務看台灣專利案件之假處分救濟，月旦法學雜誌，2004年6月。
    15. 伊芸，專利愈多籌碼愈多，天下文化，2001年9月。
    三、 法律規範
    1. 專利法修正草案，98年10月14日。
    2. 專利法修正草案，98年8月05日。
    3. 專利法修正草案，98年5月26日。
    4. 智慧財產案件審理法細則，民國97年4月24日司法院公布。
    5. 智慧財產法院組織法，民國九十六年三月二十八日公布。
    6. 智慧財產案件審理法，民國96年3月28日公布。
    7. 專利法施行細則，93年4月7日修正發布,93年7月1日施行。
    8. 專利規費收費準則，93年6月30日修正發布,93年7月1日施行。
    9. 專利侵害鑑定要點，93年9月27日修正發布。
    10. 現行專利審查基準彙編。
    11. 專利法，92年2月6日修正公布,93年7月1日施行。
    四、 法院判例
    1. 凹凸夏寶專利權損害賠償案，智慧財產法院九十七年度民專訴字第一號。
    2. 凹凸美商茂力假處份再審案，最高法院九十五年度台抗字第三六四號。
    3. 華碩凹凸假處分案，最高法院九十五年度台抗字第一五六號。
    4. 凹凸韓商三星損害賠償案，台北地方法院九十五年度智字三十八號。
    5. 華碩凹凸損害賠償案，台北地方法院九十三年度訴字第六二二號。
    6. 凹凸碩頡損害賠償案，台北地方法院九十二年度智字第二十一號。
    7. 凹凸美商茂力損害賠償案，台北地方法院九十二年度智字第十號。
    ※ 英文參考文獻
    一、 專書
    1. Dan Rayburn, Rebecca Kirk, Almudena Arcelus, Digital Meida Patents For Profit, Streaming Media Industry Sourcebook 2007.
    2. Merrill Stephen A, Levin Richard C, Myers Mark B, A Patent System For The 21st Centry, Washington D.C.: National Academies Press, 2004.
    3. Grubb Philip W, Patents For Chemicals, Pharmaceuticals And Biotechnology: Fundamentals Of Global Law, Practice And Strategy, Oxford University Press, 2004.
    4. Cohen Wesley Marc, Merrill Stephen A, Patents In The Knowledge -Based Economy, National Academies Press, 2003.
    二、期刊文獻
    1. John R. Allison, Mark A. Lemley and Joshua Walker, Extreme Value or Trolls on Top? The Characteristics of the Most-Litigated Patents, 158 University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 2009.
    2. John R. Allison, Abe Dunn & Ronald J. Mann, Frontiers Of Intellectual Property: Software Patents, Incumbents, and Entry, 85 Texas Law Review 1579, 2007.
    3. John Bringardner, Patent Analytics Offer A New Tool For Evaluating A Company’s Intangible assects, But Will It Produce A Tangible Result For Inventors, 05 IP Law & Business 03, 2007.
    4. Michael W. Carroll, Patents And Diversity In Innovation Policy Conference:Patent Injunctions And The Problem Of Uniformity Cost, 13 Michigan Telecommunications And Technology Law Review, 2007.
    5. Jesse S. Chui, To What Extent Can Congress Change The Patent Right Without Effecting a Taking, 34 Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 447, 2007.
    6. David B. Connrad, Mining The Patent Thicket: The Supreme Court’s Rejection of the Automatic Injunction Rule in eBay v. MercExchange, 26 The Review of Litigation 119, 2007.
    7. Gavin D. George, What Is Hiding In The Bushes? Ebay’s Effect On Holdout Behavior In Patent Thickets, 13 Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review 557, 2007.
    8. Jennifer Kahaulelio Gregory, The Troll Next Door, 6 John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law 292, 2007.
    9. Xenia Kobylarz, Extreme Makeover How Acacia Technologies Once Derided As A Patent Troll Grew Up And Got Respectable, 2 IP Law & Business 24, 2007.
    10. Mark A. Lemley, Ten Things To Do About Patent Holdup Of Standards (And One Not To), Boston Colledge Law Review, 2007.
    11. Mark A. Lemley, Carl Shapiro, Patent Holdup And Royalty Stacking, 85 Texas Law Review 199, 2007.
    12. Mark A. Lemley, Sould Patent Infringement Require Proof Of Copying, 105 Michigan Law Review 1525, 2007.
    13. Russell E. Levine, Making It In US Patent Litigation, Lawyer Weekly, 2007.
    14. Steven Levy, Changes In Patents May Be Pending-‘Patent Trolls’ Come Out Of The Woodwork After Companies Have Spent Billions On A Product, Newsweek 19, March 12 2007.
    15. Cary Tope-Mackay, Taking A Page From The “Patent Troll Playbook, Leo Stoller Attempted To Invented A Similar Trademark-Based Business Model, 25 No.3 Intellectual Property Law Newsletter 1, 2007.
    16. Gerard N. Magliocca, Blackberries And Barnyards: Patent Trolls And The Perils Of Innovation, 82 Notre Dame Law Review, 2007.
    17. Maya Eckstein, 2007 Patent Reform Act could bring needed changes, The Daily Record of Rochester (Rochester, NY), May 30, 2007.
    18. Maya Eckstein, Commentary: Patent Reform Act proposes new ways to grant and test patents, Virginia Lawyers Weekly, May 28, 2007.
    19. Jeremy Mulder, The Affermath of eBay:Predicting When District Courts Will Grant Permanent Injunctions In Patent Cases, 22 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 67, 2007.
    20. Damian Myers, Reeling In The Patent Troll：Was Ebay v. Mercexchange Enough, 14 Journal of Intellectual Property Law333, 2007.
    21. Bill Mashek, Coalition to Push for Patent Reform Measures at Full House Judiciary Committee, PR Newswire US, May 16, 2007.
    22. Carol M. Nielsen, Michael R. Samardzija, Compulsory Patent Licensing：Is It A Viable Solution In The United States, 13 Michigan Telecommunicaiton and Technology Law Review, 2007.
    23. Raymond P. Niro, Who Is Really Undermining The Patent System-“Patent Trolls” Or Congress, John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law, 2007.
    24. Yasuo Ohkuma, Miyuki Sahashi, Hui-Wen Hsueh, Joe Brennan, Patent Trolls In The US,Japan,Taiwan And Europe, Tokugikon, 2007.
    25. Thomas J. Speiss III, Cary Tope-Mckay, Taking A Page From The “Patent Troll” Playbook, Leo Stoller Attempted To Invent A Similar Trademark-Based Business Model, 25 No.3 Intellectual Property Law Newsletter 1, Spring 2007.
    26. Alisha Kay Taylor, What Does Forum Shopping In The Eastern Distric Of Texas Mean For Patent Reform, The John Marshall Review Of Intellectual Property Law, 2007.
    27. James H. Wallace Jr., The Impact Of Recent Development On Your Practice The Debate Over “Patent Trolls”: Point/Counterpoint, 899 Practising Law Institute, 2007.
    28. Junko Yoshida, Patent Troll Casts Shadow Over Cable, Electronic Engineering Times, May 14, 2007.
    29. Brian Akers and Andrew E. Rawlins, United States: Top Intellectual Properties Issues That Will Affect The Medical Device Industry In 2007, Mondaq Business Briefing, December 20, 2006.
    30. Ryan Eddings, CONSUMER NEWS: Trolls and Titans Take Fight to Top Court, 18 Loyola Consumer Law Review 503,2006.
    31. James R. Farrand, Territoriality And Incentives Under The Patent Laws: Overreaching Harms U.S. Economic And Technological Interests, 21 Berkeley Technology Law Journal 1215, 2006.
    32. Leslie T. Grab, Equitable Concerns Of Ebay v. Mercexchange: Did The Supreme Court Successfully Balance Patent Protection Against Patent Trolls, 2006.
    33. Jeremiah S. Helm, Why Pharmaceutical Firms Support Patent Trolls: The Disparate Impact Of Ebay v. Mercexchange On Innovation, 13 Michigan Telecommunications and Technology Law Review 331, 2006.
    34. Dean Kamen, Capitol Hill Hearing Testimoney, CQ Congressional Testimony, 2006.
    35. Jason Kirby, Patent troll Or Producer?: The Evolution Of Intellectual Property, National Post`s Financial Post & FP Investing, January 14, 2006.
    36. Cristopher L. Logan, Patent Reform 2005:HR 2795 And The Road To Post-Grand Oppositions, UMKC Law Review, 2006.
    37. John F. Luman III , Cristopher L. Dodson, No Longer A Myth, The Emergence Of The Patent Troll:Shifting Innovation, Inceasing Litigation, And Extorting Billions, 18 Intellectual Property Technology Law Journal 5, 2006.
    38. Victoria E. Luxardo, Comment: Towards A Solution To The Problem Of Illegitimate Patent Enforcement Practices In The United States: An Equitbale Affirmativ Deffense Of “Fair Use” In Patent, 20 Emory International Law Review 791, 2006.
    39. James F. McDonough III, The Myth Of The Patent Troll：An Alternative View Of The Function Of Patent Dealeers In An Idea Economy, 56 Emory Law Journal 189, 2006.
    40. J.P. Mello, Technology Licensing And Patent Trolls, 12 Boston University Journal of Science and Technology Law, 2006.
    41. Judy Newman, Innovators Fear The `Patent Trolls`; A Madison Company Is In An Intellectual Property Fight Emblematic Of Today`s Knowledge Economy, 2006.
    42. Adele Nicholas, Patent Trolls Set Their Sights On The Pharmaceutical Industry, Inside Counsel, May 2006.
    43. Joe Nocera, Tired of Trolls, A Feisty Chief Fights Back, The New York Times, September 16, 2006.
    44. Cris Nuttall, Americas And International Economy, Financial Times UK, 2006.
    45. Alexander Poltorak, On ‘Patent Troll’ And Injunctive Relief, No12 Patent Strategy & Management 3, 2006.
    46. Robert H. Resis Esq., History Of The Patent Troll And Lessons Learned, 17 Intellectual Property Ligigation 2, 2006.
    47. Jeffrey Silva, Patent reform gathers support, RCR Wireless News, May 29, 2006.
    48. Steve Rubin, Patent Trolls Foster Innovation,Marketplace Liquidity, According To WolfBlock’s Steve Rubin, PR Newswire Europe, 2006.
    49. Steve Seidenberg, Troll Control, The Supreme Court’s Ebay Decision Sets Back ‘Patent Trolls’ Or American Innovation,Depending Upon Which Sdie You’re On, 92 ABA Journal 51, 2006.
    50. Joseph R. Sozzani, Case Comment: Patent Law: Redefining Equitable Injunctions: MercExchange, LLC v. eBay, Inc., 401 F.3d 1323, 11 Journal of Technology Law & Policy 341, 2006.
    51. Mitchell G. Stockwell, Implementing eBay: New Problems In Guiding Judicial Discretion And Enforcing Patent Rights, 88 Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society 747, 2006.
    52. Robert E. Thomas, Vanquishing Copyright Pirates And Patent Trolls: The Divergent Evolution of Copyright and Patent Laws, 43 American Business Law Journal 689, 2006.
    53. Patti Waldmeir, Get It Now From Ebay, Hostage To The Patent Trolls, Financial Times, March 15 2006.
    54. Tim Wu, Weapons of Business Destruction, Slate Magazine, February 6, 2006.
    55. David G. Barker, Troll Or No Troll? Policing Patent Usage With An Open Post-Grnat Review, 2005 Duke Law & Technology Review 9, 2005.
    56. Jeremish Chan, Matthew Fawcett, Footsteps Of The Patent Troll, 10 Intellectual Property Law Bulletin 1, 2005.
    57. Bruce Einhom et al., Why Taiwan Matters, Business Week, May 16 2005.
    58. James Feldman, Ampex Is No ‘Patent Troll’, BusinessWeek, May 16 2005.
    59. Elizabeth D. Ferrill, Patent Investment Trusts：Let’s Build a PIT to Catch The Patent Trolls, 6 North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology 367, 2005.
    60. Jennifer H. Hokel, Patent Trolls: Advising Businesses In A Patent Assertion Climate, Missouri Lawyers Weekly, October 15 2005.
    61. Morag Macdonald, IP, IT AND TELECOMS: Beware of the troll, The Lawyer, September 26, 2005.
    62. Ronald J. Mann, Do Patents Facilitate Financing In The Software Industry, 83 Texas Law Review 961, 2005.
    63. Randall Stross, Why Bill Gates Wants 3,000 New Patents, The New York Times, July 31 2005.
    64. Steve Seidenberg, Patent Trolls Go Mainstream With Ocean Tomo Fund, Corporate Legal Times, November 2005.
    65. Oren Bracha, How Patents Become Rights And Why We Should Care, 38 Loy. L.A.L. Rev. 177, 2004.
    66. Mark A. Lemley, Ex Ante versus Ex Post Justifications For Intellectual Property, 71 U.CHI. Law Review 129, 2004.
    67. Jeff A. Ronspies , Comment, Does David Need A New Sling? Small Enties Face A Costly Barrier To Patent Protection, 4 Journal Of John Marshall Review Intellectual Property Law 184, 2004.
    68. Dan L Burk, Mark A. Lemley, Plicy Levers in Patent Law, 89 Virginia. Law Review 1575, 2003.
    69. Michael J. Meurer, Controlling Opportunistic And Anti-Competitive Intellectual Property Litigation , 44 B.C. Law Review, 509, 512, 2003.
    70. Lisa M Brownlee, Part III Valuation Chapter 12 Valuation Of Intellectual Property Assets, Intellectual Property Due Dilligence In Corporate Transactions, May 2002.
    71. Mark A. Lemley, Intellectual Property Rights And Standradard-Setting Organization, 90 California Law Review 1889,1893, 2002.
    72. Kimberly A. Moore, Francesco Parisi, Rethinking Forum Shopping In Cyberspace, 77 Chicago Kent Law Review 1325, 2002.
    73. Mark A. Lemley, Rationale Ignorance At The Patent Office, 95 New York University Law Review 1495, 2001.
    三、法院判例
    1. Furnace Brook LLC v. Overstock.com, Inc., 230 Fed. Appx. 984, 2007.
    2. In re Seagate Tech., L.L.C., 497 F.3d. 1360, 1365, 2007.
    3. InternetAd System LLC v. Opodo Ltd., 481 F. Supp.2d.596, 2007.
    4. Israel Bio Engineering Project v. Amgen Inc., 127 S.Ct. 2994, 2007.
    5. Israel Bio Engineering Project v. Amgen Inc., 475 F.3d.1256, 2007.
    6. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 2007.
    7. MedImmune Inc. v. Genentech Inc., 127 S.Ct. 764, 2007.
    8. Rembrandt Technologies L.P. v. Comcast Corp. et.al., F. Supp.2d., 2007.
    9. Rembrandt Technologies L.P. v. Comcast Corp. et.al., 2007 WL470631.
    10. Ampex Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Company, and Altek Corp., 461 F.Supp.2d 232, 2006.
    11. eBay Inc. v. Mercexchange LLC., 126 S.Ct. 1837, 2006.
    12. Paice LLC. v. Toyota Motor Corp., US. Dist. Lexis 61600, 2006.
    13. Visto Corp. v. Sproqit Technologies, Inc., 413 F.Supp.2d 1073, 2006.
    14. Z4 Techs. Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 434 F. Supp. 2d. 437, 2006.
    15. Acacia Media Technologies Corp. v. New Destiny Internet Group, et al., 405 F.Supp.2d 1127, 2005.
    16. Eolas Techs. Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 339 F.3d. 1325, 2005.
    17. Israel Bio Engineering Project v. Amgen Inc., 401 F.3d.1299, 2005.
    18. Mercexchange LLC. v. eBay Inc., 401 F.3d. 1323, 2005.
    19. NTP Inc. v. Research In Motion Ltd., 418 F.3d. 1282, 1287, 2005.
    20. Overstock.com, Inc. v. Furnace Brook, LLC, 420 F.Supp.2d.1217, 2005.
    21. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d. 1303, 2005.
    22. Teleflex Inc. v. KSR International Co., Fed. Appx.282, 2005.
    23. Symbol Technologies v. Lemelson 301 F. Supp. 2d. 1147, 2004.
    24. Rambus v. Infineon AG., 318 F.3d. 1081, 2003.
    25. Silent Drive Inc. v. Strong Industries Inc., 326 F.3d. 1194, 2003.
    26. Texas Digital System Inc. v. Telegenix Inc., 308 F.3d. 1193, 2002.
    27. Union carbide Chemicals & Plastics Technology Corp. v. Shell Oil Co., 308 F.3d. 1167, 2002.
    28. Red Wing Shoe Company Inc. v. Hockerson-Halberstadt Inc., 148 F.3d. 1355, 1998.
    29. Ford Motor Co. v. Lemelson, 42 U.S.P.Q.2d 1707, 1711, 1997.
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    法律科際整合研究所
    94652012
    98
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0094652012
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[Graduate Institute of Law and Interdisciplinary Studies] Theses

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    201201.pdf1339KbAdobe PDF26824View/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