政大機構典藏-National Chengchi University Institutional Repository(NCCUR):Item 140.119/33865
English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 27 |  Items with full text/Total items : 113656/144643 (79%)
Visitors : 51743466      Online Users : 691
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/140.119/33865


    Title: 企業併購之相關智慧財產管理策略與法律規劃研究－以併購美國高科技公司時之專利查核評估探微
    The Study on Related Strategy of Intellectual Property Management and Legal Planning in Corporate M&A－Towards the Patent Due Diligence of Merging / Acquiring an U.S. High-Technology Company
    Authors: 陳則銘
    Chen , Tze-ming
    Contributors: 劉江彬
    孫遠釗


    陳則銘
    Chen , Tze-ming
    Keywords: 併購
    智慧財產
    查核評估
    超優勢競爭
    專利查核
    競爭優勢
    管理策略
    Merger and Acquisition
    Interllectual Property
    Due Diligence
    Hypercompetition
    Patent Audit
    Competitive Advantage
    Managerial Strategy
    Date: 2003
    Issue Date: 2009-09-17 18:39:53 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 在高科技之推波助瀾下，新經濟與全球化之競爭模式儼然成形，也使得智慧財產在此競爭中扮演著重要的角色，成為高科技公司逐鹿中原的武器之一。相對地，也迫使高科技公司在全球割喉競爭之壓力下，開始思索如何更快進入戰場，並以智慧財產制敵機先。於是，企業併購策略開始成為高科技公司之經營決策者思考採行之策略。
    企業併購（Merger and Acquisition）一詞，並非明確之法律定義，實乃商業管理實務界常用之名詞，因此，與其強加定義，不如從併購之模式加以說明，更為精確。併購模式概可歸納為二大模式：一為「收購」，一為「合併」。收購又可區分為「資產收購」與「股權收購」；而合併則有以吸收合併、新設合併及存續合併為主之「法定合併」類型，與以簡式合併、三角合併、強迫合併及實質合併為主之「特殊合併」類型。
    所謂「收購」，係指收購公司以取得資產或經營權之目的，而以現金或債券、股票等有價證券買受目標公司全部或一部資產或股份之行為。而「合併」則係指兩家或兩家以上之公司，訂立合併契約，並經各當事公司之全體股東同意，或股東會之特別決議同意後，結合成一家公司之法律行為。其因合併而消滅之公司之權利義務，由合併後存續或新設立之公司概括承受，毋須再為個別資產或權利義務之移轉。
    在企業採行併購策略之動機上，學理與實務上歸納出五種主要之動機，包括：綜效理論假說、多角化經營假說、策略性重組假說、價值低估假說，及代理成本理論與傲慢假說。綜效理論假說主要可歸納出，以追求規模經濟與範疇經濟之「營運綜效」；以風險分散或節稅考量為思考之「財務綜效」；企圖集中市場以形成壟斷之「市場綜效」；及為更精確掌握時機而追求之「起動綜效」。多角化經營則可分別從「複合式多角化」或「中心式多角化」切入討論。而策略性重組假說則著眼於「法規環境改變」或「技術創新改變」致使企業採取併購策略以為因應之面向，加以討論。此外，價值低估價說及代理成本理論與傲慢假說，則與企業經營決策者企圖追求本業之價值極大化無關，卻也經常成為經營決策者採行併購策略之動機。
    前述企業併購動機之討論，事實上與美國併購歷史上所發生之五次併購浪潮息息相關，而這五次併購浪潮之興衰則亦與美國經濟發展之歷程有關。第一波併購浪潮發生於一八九七年至一九○四年間，其特色主要為「水平整合形成獨占市場」；第二波併購浪潮發生於一九一六年至一九二九年間，其特色主要為「垂直整合以利強化體質」；第三波併購浪潮發生於一九六五年至一九六九年間，其特色主要為「複合式併購擴大多角化」；第四波併購浪潮發生於一九八一年至一九八九年間，其則係以「金融工具激化敵意併購」為主要特色；時至一九九二年至二○○○年間所發生之第五次併購浪潮，則以「策略重組點燃超級併購」，逐漸將以取得智慧財產為目的之併購動機推上台面。亦即，由於全球化競爭而掀起跨國併購，及高科技產業併購之趨勢日盛，以智慧財產之取得規劃併購策略，成為高科技公司開始思考如何將企業價值極大化之策略之一。
    高科技產業之競爭，已進入「超優勢競爭（Hypercompetition）」之態勢，惟有以動態競爭因應，始能勝出。而智慧財產之佈局與運用在動態競爭情境中，扮演著極為重要之角色。因此，透過併購以取得智慧財產，而得達成「控制新資源，加速企業外部成長」、「改變商業模式，大幅躍進新市場」、「動態競爭中，整合或對抗競爭者」，或「併購取得智慧財產權，待價而沽」之成果，已成為許多高科技公司之策略思考方向。
    「世上沒有賣不出去的產品，只有賣不出去的價格」。在企業併購的過程中，如何就目標公司之企業價值進行評價往往是決定併購案是否能成功之關鍵。然而，對於企業的營運有重大影響之智慧財產，其「品質」究竟如何，將會對企業未來的營運造成重大的影響。因此，對於高科技產業之併購案，如何透過對於智慧財產進行查核評估（Due Diligence），協助併購交易雙方瞭解目標公司其智慧財產之品質，使雙方得以更正確評估目標公司之價值，並就併購案可能面臨之風險預先進行規劃，即為重要之課題。
    換言之，由於企業併購交易之內容複雜且代價高昂，動輒為千萬至百億金額的現金交易或股份交換。雖然在交易過程中，賣方或買方通常會準備相關交易資訊及查核評估報告，以提供對方作為評估之用。但由於交易當事人自行提供之資訊通常過於簡略或可能隱惡揚善，為避免在交易價格之決定與交易後風險之承擔及效益之展現上出現問題，因此交易當事人有自行進行查核評估之必要。此即孫子兵法《謀攻篇》中所述「知己知彼，百戰不殆；不知彼不知己，每戰必敗。」所傳達之精神。
    鑑於智慧財產查核評估是一項耗時費力，且所費不貲之工作，企業內部法律顧問或外部律師在進行智慧財產查核評估時，應對於其查核之範圍有所限制。並非所有智慧財產對於買方公司皆有顯著之影響，因此必須從公司之觀點加以檢視，並以其對於公司所可能產生之價值排序其先後。而除了時間、成本與專業人力投入等因素之考量外，「買方公司之策略目標」、「目標公司之核心競爭力」，與「企業併購交易之模式」將影響智慧財產查核評估所欲進行之範圍。
    對於高科技公司而言，其企圖藉由併購活動所取得之智慧財產各異，然最主要者，尤其是對於我國公司而言，仍以「專利權」之取得以利企業在全球市場產業價值鏈中之佈局為首要考量。因此本文將就「專利查核」之相關議題，略做探討。而進行專利查核時，除從「專利申請案」、「專利審查歷程」與「法律意見書」等相關文件，進行概略初步審查外，概可聚焦於「目標公司是否確為真正之完整權利擁有者」、「發明之實施是否須依賴業已存在或第三人之權利」、「目標公司之發明是否獲得足夠之保障」、「目標公司之專利是否已為適當之利用」，及「目標公司之專利是否（或可能）涉訟」等面向出發，進行深入探查。
    深入探究目標公司是否確為真正之完整權利擁有者之議題上，本論文將從「共同發明」、「受雇人之發明」與「部分讓與」所涉及之問題加以討論；而在發明之實施是否須依賴業已存在或第三人之權利之議題上，關於「技術改良與從屬專利」、「交互授權」及「技術輸入授權」涉及之契約約款（例如：契約存續期間、專屬性、可轉讓性與控制權之變更、轉授權、授權範圍、技術改良與回饋授權、擔保與賠償責任、最惠待遇，與過往侵權免責等）所衍生相關問題將為本論文關心之重點。
    此外，在目標公司之發明是否獲得足夠之保障之議題上，本論文將討論關於「發明之檢討與揭露程序」、「專利權之地理範圍」，及「申請專利範圍與專利審查歷程之檢討」等問題；而關於「授權實施」及「專利濫用」將係買方公司查核目標公司之專利是否已為適當之利用時之重點。最後，在目標公司之專利是否（或可能）涉訟此議題之討論中，本論文將從評估目標公司之專利組合是否侵害第三人之專利權所進行之「專利侵權評估」與如涉及專利侵權訴訟時可能之「反訴或抗辯之評估」。
    為印證本論文所提高科技公司以併購活動取得智慧財產之策略及所進行之查核評估活動，在結論與建議部分將以一家台灣公司之實際經驗為個案，探討其進行跨國併購時所面臨之問題，並就多數高科技公司所忽略之「競業禁止」問題，以美國法下之經驗，作為高科技公司進行跨國（尤其是美國）併購時，在專利查核之外，亦應注意之建議，以避免研發團隊於併購前後離職或被挖角，對買方公司所造成之傷害。
    A recent survey showed that between two and five emerging technology companies are acquired for every one that does an initial public offering （IPO）. Acquisitions can provide strategic, operating and financial benefits to both emerging technology companies and the company acquiring it. A strategic acquisition can provide emerging technology companies’ shareholders with earlier liquidity than an IPO, with less risk and dilution. It also can provide emerging technology companies with the immediate leverage of Buy Company`s established manufacturing or distribution infrastructure, without the dilution, time and risk of internal development. A strategic acquisition can provide Buy Company with the new products and technologies necessary to maintain its competitive advantage, growth rate and profitability. Ill-conceived or badly done acquisitions, however, can result in expense and disruption to both businesses, the discontinuance of good technologies and products, employee dissatisfaction and defection, and poor operating results by the combined company. By understanding the key factors that lead to a successful acquisition, Target Company and Buy Company can improve the probability of achieving one.
    When considering an M&A transaction, Target Company first step should be to identify the strategic reasons why it wants to be acquired. For example, while Target Company may seek liquidity for its founders and investors, it also may have concluded that its future success requires the synergies of complementary resources and access to the infrastructure of a major corporation. An IPO could provide Target Company’s shareholders with liquidity, but would not immediately address Target Company’s need for product synergy or provide an established infrastructure. Those needs could be better met by finding a strategic buyer for Target Company. Equally important is to identify Buy Company’s strategic objectives in acquiring Target Company. For example, Buy Company may seek to acquire a product line or key technology, gain creative, technical or management talent, or eliminate a competitor. Ultimately, Buy Company will acquire Target Company because it believes M&A transaction is a more effective means of meeting a strategic need and increasing shareholder value than internal development. If Target Company understands its own and Buy Company’s strategic objectives, it can focus on candidates that are most likely to meet its needs and value the assets that it has to offer. While the objectives of individual companies will vary, the following table identifies common strategic objectives that Target Companies and Buy Companies try to achieve through an M&A activity.

    Target Company Reasons to Be Acquired Buy Company Reasons to Make a M&A
    Access to complementary products
    Access to complementary markets
    Access to working capital
    Avoid dilution of building own infrastructure
    Best and fastest return on investment
    Faster access to established infrastructure
    Gain critical mass
    Improve distribution capacity
    More rapid expansion of customer base
    Acquire key technology
    Acquire a new distribution channel
    Assure a source of supply
    Eliminate a competitor
    Expand or add a product line
    Gain creative talent
    Gain expertise and entry in a new market
    Gain a time-to-market advantage
    Increase earnings per share

    This study focuses on intellectual property due diligence, especially for the investigation of the benefits and risks associated with the ownership and exploitation of patent right when a company involves in a M&A activity. The increased profile, frequency, and value of intellectual property-related transactions have elevated the need for all legal, financial and managerial professionals and intellectual property owners to have a thorough understanding of the assessment and valuation of these assets and their role in commercial transactions; a detailed assessment of patent right is becoming an increasingly integral part of commercial transactions for the high-technology companies. Acquiring or investing in a business that owns intellectual property assets requires expanding the scope and depth of the due diligence that is usually conducted in such transactions.
    The process of gathering information and assessing the merits, issues, and risks associated with a business transaction is called “due diligence.” It is a critical exercise in the acquisition and strategic utilization of intellectual property assets. Due diligence is a necessary precursor to funding a new venture, and is critically important in many other business transactions, including mergers, acquisitions, licenses, initial public offerings, and in some instances litigation. In recent years, the commercial importance of patents and other intellectual property has become highly visible. Courts have imposed large damage awards for intellectual property misuse and infringement. Multi-million dollar judgments are no longer a rarity. Courts have also granted significant injunctions to limit the products which a company can market. For instance, Kodak was virtually eliminated from the instant camera market and subject to an extremely high damage award when it was found to infringe patents owned by Polaroid. As a result of these potential events, and the increasing value of intellectual property assets in today’s high technology society, intellectual property matters have become an important aspect of a traditional due diligence study.
    Intellectual property due diligence can be conducted in preparation for a wide variety of transactions. For example, intellectual property assets should be analyzed in the context of a share purchase or asset transfer, or may require assessment in connection with a capital contribution, in a joint venture or security for a loan, or in preparation of disclosure in connection with an offering of securities. Intellectual property due diligence can also facilitate a company’s thorough internal assessment of its own assets. Such a self-audit can prepare the company for an externally conducted due diligence, such as audited by a buyer company involving in a M&A transaction, and can enhance the company’s own intellectual property planning and management.
    Intellectual property rights are the product of human thought, born of human needs and aspirations, and manifested by societal values. A thorough intellectual property due diligence also requires consideration of many nonlegal, nonmaterial aspects of the rights involved. The impact of an investment in a specific intellectual property right, and its role and value in a given M&A transaction, can be easily miscalculated if the private and public implications of those rights are not considered. Every intellectual property transaction embodies both individual and societal beliefs and values that can profoundly affect the parties’s strategies and success. The philosophical underpinnings of intellectual property rights are often discussed in academic and philosophical forums. However, these principles deserve reiteration here, in a transaction-specific context. Too often, they are forgotten amidst the binders, cabinets and files full of due diligence documents and analytical reports.
    In Chapter 4, Patent Due Diligence, it comprises detailed analyses of the key issues to be assessed in the patent investigation. This chapter presents the steps in the legal review that should be undertaken on patents, and reviews the pertinent law pertaining to patent right. This chapter identifies the relevant documents that should be requested, defines the subject right, and analyzes the following substantive questions:
    Whether Target Company owns the patent right(s);
    Whether the patent right(s) have been adequately protected;
    Whether Target Company’s use of the patent right(s) is dependent on third part rights;
    Whether the scope of patent right(s) is sufficient;
    Whether the patent right(s) have been properly exploited; and
    Whether the patent right(s) present a risk of litigation.
    An investigation of Target Company’s patent assets can require analysis of extensive documentation, as well as knowledge of the specific technical field in which Target Company conducts its business, and of patent law. The circumstances of each particular case will dictate whether specialized patent counsel will need to be retained to assist with the patent due diligence. Buyer Company should be aware that proper preparation of patentability opinions and validity / infringement opinions can require substantial lead time and budget, and should accordingly account for these contingencies.
    Similarly, a thorough investigation to confirm ownership and assess exploitation of Target Company’s patent portfolio can require discussions regarding contribution of inventive ideas, past and present consultant or employment status of inventors, proper use of assignments, close investigation of the technology, markets, improvement clauses, cross-licenses, and the like. In sum, if Buyer Company specifies Target Company’s patent portfolio as a high priority in the intellectual property due diligence investigation, Buyer Company is well-advised to assign the patent-related investigation tasks to team members and, as applicable, patent experts, early in the due diligence process.
    Reference: 壹､中文文獻
    一、專書部分
    01. BUFFETT, Warren E. & Lawrence A. Cunningham, The Essays of Warren Buffett: Lessons for Corporate America（中譯本：張淑芳譯，巴菲特寫給股東的信，台北：財訊，2000年）
    02. BUNNELL, David & Adam Brate, Making the Cisco Connection: The Story Behind the Real Internet Superpower（New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2000）（中譯本：劉世平譯，「雄霸天下：思科成功的奧秘」，台北：商周， 2000年）
    03. D’AVENI, Richard A., Hypercompetition: Managing the Dynamics of Strategic Maneuvering（New York: The Free Press, 1994）（中譯本：許梅芳譯，「超優勢競爭－新時代的動態競爭理論與應用」，台北：遠流，1998）
    04. FRIEDMAN, David D., Law’s Order（Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000）（中譯本：徐源豐譯，「經濟學與法律的對話」，台北：先覺，2002年）
    05. GEIS, George T. & George S. Geis, Digital Deal: Strategies for Selecting and Structuring Partnerships（New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2001）（中譯本：蔡舜玉、丁惠民、張倩茜譯，「新合縱連橫：讓AT&T、新力、惠普、百事達、CNN教你如何聯盟最有優勢」，台北：麥格羅•希爾，2001年）
    06. Johnstone, Bob, We Were Burning: Japanese Entrepreneurs and the Forging of the Electronic Age（New York: Basic Books, 1999）（中譯本：譚天譯，74分42秒－新力、夏普、精工、三洋、佳能、山葉、富士通的創新傳奇，台北：藍鯨，2000年）
    07. MARKS, Mitchell Lee & Philip Mirvis, Joining Forces: Making one plus one equal three in mergers, acquisitions, and alliances（San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc., 1997）（中譯本：林麗寬譯，「企業力結合－企業購併&聯盟教戰手冊」，汐止：中國生產力中心，1999年）
    08. DRUCKER, Peter F. & Isao Nakauchi, Drucker on Asia: A Dialogue between Peter Drucker and Isao Nakauchi（Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1997）（中譯本：鄧嘉玲譯，杜拉克看亞洲，台北：天下遠見，1998年）
    09. McKENNA, Regis, Real Time: Preparing for the Age of the Never Satisfied Customer（Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1997）（中譯本：湯淑君譯，即時行銷革命－數位時代企業經營、行銷新經典法則，台北：商周，1998年）
    10. PORTER, Michael E., On Competition（Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1998）（中譯本：高登弟、李明軒譯，「競爭論」，台北：天下，2001年）
    11. PORTER, Michael E., Competitive Advantage: Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance（New York: The Free Press, 1985）（中譯本：李明軒、邱如美譯，競爭優勢（上）（下），台北：天下文化，1999年）
    12. RIVETTE, Kevin G. & David Kline, Rembrandts in the Attic: Unlocking the Hidden Value of Patents（Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1999）（中譯本：林柳君譯，「閣樓上的林布蘭」，台北：經典傳訊，2000年）
    13. SHAPIRO, Carl & Hal Varian, Information Rules（Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1998）（中譯本：張美惠譯，「資訊經營法則」，台北：時報，1999年）
    14. STAUFFER, David, Big Shots, Business the Cisco Way: Secrets of the Company that makes the Internet（Oxford: Capstone Publishing Ltd., 2000）（中譯本：陳澄和譯，「思科的十大秘訣」，台北：聯經，2000年）
    15. WEAVER, Samuel C. & J. Fred Weston, Mergers and Acquisitions （New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2001）（中譯本：陳儀譯，「企業購併：全方位評估並掌握當前M&A環境」，台北：麥格羅•希爾，2002年）
    16. WILLIAMSON, Oliver E., Antitrust Economics: Mergers, Contracting and Strategic Behavior（Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1987）（中譯本：張群群、黃濤譯，「反托拉斯經濟學：兼併、協約和策略行為」，北京：經濟科學，1999）
    17. 王泰允，「企業併購實用」，台北：遠流，1991年。
    18. 王澤鑑，「民法實例研習叢書（二）：民法總則」，台北：自版，1994年。
    19. 毛慶生、朱敬一、林全、許松根、陳昭南、陳添枝、黃朝熙，「經濟學」，台北：自版，1999年。
    20. 伍忠賢，「企業購併理論與實務－跨世紀全球投資觀點」，台北：新陸，2000年。
    21. 伍忠賢，「企業購併聖經」，台北：遠流，1998年。
    22. 何清漣，「中國的陷阱」，台北：台灣英文新聞，2003年。
    23. 邱聰智，「新訂民法債編通則（上）」，台北：輔仁大學法學叢書編輯委員會，2000年。
    24. 吳思華，「策略九說－策略思考的本質」，台北：臉譜，2001年。
    25. 吳嘉生，「智慧財產之理論與應用」，台北：五南，1999年。
    26. 林進富、蘇聰儒、莊國偉、金文悅，「公司併購法律實戰守則」，台北：永然文化，1999年。
    27. 林進富，「公司併購教戰守則」，台北：聯經，1999年。
    28. 柯芳枝，「公司法論」，台北：三民，1997年。
    29. 施啟揚，「民法總則」，台北：自版，1994年。
    30. 陳長文，「財經法律與企業經營－導論」，收錄於「財經法律與企業經營」，台北：元照，2002年。
    31. 陳國慈，「步步求勝－中外合資與技術移轉」，台北：英文漢聲，1986年。
    32. 陳國慈，「科技企業與智慧財產」，新竹：國立清華大學出版社，2002年。
    33. 曾陳明汝，「兩岸暨歐美專利法」，台北：自版，2002年。
    34. 溫英超，「購併之神王嘉廉傳奇」，台北：先覺，1999年。
    35. 楊佳璋、張子，「經營權爭霸－企業敵意併購攻防戰」，台北：商周，2001年。
    36. 黃俊英、劉江彬，「智慧財產管理總論」，台北：華泰，2004年。
    37. 馮震宇，「高科技產業之法律策略與規劃」，台北：元照，2003年。
    38. 馮震宇，「智慧財產權發展趨勢與重要問題研究」，台北：元照，2003年。
    39. 蔡明介（林宏文採訪整理），「競爭力之探求－IC設計、高科技產業實戰策略與觀察」，台北：財訊，2001年。
    40. 劉博文，「智慧財產權之保護與管理」，台北：揚智，2002年。
    41. 劉曉莉，「軟體靈龍－王嘉廉與CA電腦王國」，台北：遠流，1995年。
    42. 謝銘洋、徐宏昇、陳哲宏、陳逸南，「專利法解讀」，台北：元照，1999年。
    43. 羅昌發，「國際貿易法」，台北：元照，2000年。
    44. 戴學文，「營業秘密保護大趨勢」，台北：財團法人省屬行庫中小企業聯合輔導基金，1993年。
    二、期刊及論文選集部分
    01. ANSLINGER, Patricia L., 高登第譯，「透過收購尋求成長」，收錄於「成長策略：哈佛商業評論精選（Strategies for Growth－Harvard Business Review）」，台北：天下，2000年。
    02. ASHKENAS, Ronald N., 高登第譯，「交易成真：奇異資融公司如何對其收購案進行整合」，收錄於「成長策略：哈佛商業評論精選（Strategies for Growth－Harvard Business Review）」，台北：天下，2000年。
    03. MARKIDES, Constantinos C., 高登第譯，「是否多角化？」，收錄於「成長策略：哈佛商業評論精選（Strategies for Growth－Harvard Business Review）」，台北：天下， 2000年。
    04. 王文宇，「世界主要國家併購相關法律規定之比較」，經濟情勢暨評論季刊，第四卷第二期，1998年。
    05. 方嘉麟，「我國兼併制度中結合規範之理論與檢討－與歐美制度及背景之比較」，收錄氏著於「公司兼併與集團企業」，台北：月旦，1994年。
    06. 古清華，「如何建立智財權管理制度」，收錄於「智財權教戰守則」，台北財團法人資訊工業策進會科技法律中心，2000年。
    07. 江炯聰，「高度技術產業之經營管理發展策略」，台灣經濟研究月刊，第七卷第一期，1984年。
    08. 余尚武、江玉柏，「影響企業購併之成敗因素與策略探討」，經濟情勢暨評論季刊，第四卷第二期，1998年。
    09. 邱宏仁，「企業資源能力與價值創造程序之全球配置：解析台商之國際併購策略與實務」，經濟情勢暨評論季刊，第四卷第二期，1998年。
    10. 何之邁，「論企業之結合」，收錄於氏著「公平交易法專論」，台北：自版，1993年。
    11. 何瑞文、鄧之欣，「美國專利律師之養成」，智慧財產管理季刊，第二三期，1999年。
    12. 林仁光，「企業併購規範與組織再造規範制度之重新檢視」，月旦民商法雜誌，創刊號，2003年。
    13. 林仁光，「企業併購與組織再造法制之研究」，收錄於2002財務金融學術研討會論文集，台北：台灣財務金融學會，2002年。
    14. 周延鵬，「企業實施智慧財產權管理制度的困境」，收錄於「智財權教戰守則」，台北：財團法人資訊工業策進會科技法律中心，2000年。
    15. 周延鵬，「智慧資本投資保障的完整性」，政大智慧財產評論，第一卷第一期，2003年。
    16. 周延鵬，「中國知識產權戰略試探－一件中國專利將等於或大於一件美國專利的經濟價值」，政大智慧財產評論，第二卷第一期，2004年。
    17. 姚欣欣，「從全球購併風潮看未來網路業發展」，國際經濟情勢週報，第一三五三期， 2000年。
    18. 許曉芬，「電腦軟體與商業方法之專利保護：歐洲發展」，政大智慧財產評論，第一卷第一期，2003。
    19. 莊春發，「競爭概念的發展、演變與反托拉斯政策」，公平交易季刊，第六卷第一期，1998年。
    20. 莊謙信，「中國大陸《外商投資創業投資企業管理規定》之評析」，收錄於「2003全國科技法律研討會論文集」，新竹：國立交通大學科技法律研究所，2003年。
    21. 孫遠釗，「美國智慧財產權法最新發展與評析（2000-2003）」，政大智慧財產評論，第一卷第一期，台北：國立政治大學智慧財產研究所，2003年。
    22. 陳怡之、羅麗珠、李靜芳，「高科技公司進行購併之智慧財產權與管理問題」，收錄於「1999全國智慧財產權研討會論文集」，新竹：國立交通大學企業法律中心，1999年。
    23. 陳家駿，「談公司維護研發智財權成果之道」，收錄於「智財權教戰守則」，台北：財團法人資訊工業策進會科技法律中心，2000年。
    24. 陳智超，「論專利權之效力」，IPO專利商品化網站－專家論壇（http://www.tipo.gov.tw/pcm/pro_list.asp），經濟部智慧財產局，2003年。
    25. 陳歆，「專利授權合約必知（上）（下）」，IPO專利商品化網站－專家論壇（http://www.tipo.gov.tw/pcm/pro_list.asp），經濟部智慧財產局，2002年。
    26. 連峻慶，「技術鑑價在併購交易中之應用」，智識網（http://www.ipnavigator.com.tw/），2003年。
    27. 黃俊英、凌儀玲，「企業內部營業秘密之保護措施－兼論智慧財產權下的員工管理」，收錄於「1998全國智慧財產權研討會論文集」，新竹：國立交通大學企業法律中心， 1998年。
    28. 黃達業，「我國金融監理機構之設計與各式可行方案之比較」，國家政策季刊，第一卷第一期（創刊號），2002年。
    29. 馮博生，「智慧財產權跨國訴訟之管理與策略」，收錄於「財經法律與企業經營」，台北：元照，2002年。
    30. 馮震宇，「知識經濟時代之智慧財產權問題與挑戰」，收錄於「知識經濟與法制改造研討會專輯」，台北：元照，2002年。
    31. 馮震宇，「高科技產業進行購併應注意的法律問題」，經濟情勢暨評論季刊，第四卷第二期，1998年。
    32. 馮震宇，「從Lexmark案看科技保護措施立法的負面影響」，智權情報網（http://www.apipa.org.tw），財團法人亞太智慧財產權發展基金會，2003年。
    33. 馮震宇，「論實施專利權的相關問題與其限制（上）（下）」，IPO專利商品化網站－專家論壇（http://www.tipo.gov.tw/pcm/pro_list.asp），經濟部智慧財產局，2003年。
    34. 翁岳生，「論『不確定法律概念』與行政裁量之關係」，載於氏著「行政法與現代法治國家」，台北：自版，1982年。
    35. 劉尚志，「我國新興高科技製造業的競爭力與策略佈局：以TFT-LCD產業發展為例」，科技發展政策報導，SR8810，1999年。
    36. 劉紹梁，「我國併購法制的蛻變與前瞻」，經社法制論叢，第三十二期，2003年。
    37. 劉承愚，「高科技產業併購之法律實地審查」，收錄於「1999全國智慧財產權研討會論文集」，新竹：國立交通大學企業法律中心，1999年。
    38. 劉瑞霖，「企業跨國購併之法律規劃」，收錄於「財經法律與企業經營」，台北：元照，2002年。
    39. 劉瑞圖，「發展高科技產業之途徑」，工業簡訊，第十八卷第二期，1988年。
    40. 謝易宏，「企業併購的法律成本與風險」，中原財經法學，第五期，2000年。
    41. 謝銘洋，「研究成果之智慧財產權歸屬與管理－兼述德國之相關制度」，收錄於氏著「智慧財產權之基礎理論」，台北：自版，1995年。
    42. 羅昌發，「競爭法與知識經濟之關連及其應有之變革」，收錄於「知識經濟與法制改造研討會專輯」，台北：元照，2002年。
    43. 羅炳榮，「專利跨國訴訟之評估」，收錄於「1999全國智慧財產權研討會論文集」，新竹：國立交通大學企業法律中心，1999年。
    三、學位論文部分
    01. 汪渡村，「專利授權限制競爭條款之規範－以公平交易法草案為中心」，政治大學法律學研究所，博士論文，1990年。
    02. 林育烽，「垂直合併之經濟分析」，中央大學經濟學研究所，碩士論文，1998年。
    03. 林雁琳，「公司組織變動之研究－以公司合併及收購為中心」，台灣大學法律學研究所，碩士論文，2002年。
    04. 應國卿，「我國企業國際併購之失敗因素研究」，台灣科技大學工程技術研究所，碩士論文，1991年。
    貳､外文文獻
    一、專書部分
    01. ALDRICH, Douglas F., Mastering the Digital Marketplace: Practical Strategies for Competitiveness in the New Economy（New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1999）
    02. American Bar Association Committee on Corporate Laws, Model Business Corporation Act Annoted, 3rd ed.（Chicago: American Bar Association, 2002）
    03. ANSOFF, Igor H., The New Corporate Strategy（New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1988）
    04. ARISTOTLE, The Politics, Translated by Carnes Lord（Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984）
    05. BERLE, Adolf A., & Gardiner C. Means, The Modern Corporation and Private Property, Rev. ed.（New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1968）
    06. BERMAN, Bruce, From Idea to Assets: Investing Wisely in Intellectual Property（New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2002）
    07. BLACK, Henry Campbell & Bryan A. Garner, Black’s Law Dictionary, 7th ed.（St. Paul, Minn.: West Group, 1999）
    08. BROWNLEE, L. M., Intellectual Property Due Diligence in Corporate Transactions（Eagan: West Group, 2002）
    09. BURGELMAN, Robert A., Clayton M. Christensen & Steven C. Wheelwright, Strategic Management of Technology and Innovation, 4th ed.（New York: McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2004）
    10. CHANDLER, Alfred D., Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism （Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1990）
    11. CHANDLER, Alfred D., The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business（Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1977）
    12. CHISUM, Donald S., Chisum on Patents,（Neward, N.J.: Matthew Bender & Co., Inc., 2001）
    13. CLARK, Robert Charles, Corporate Laws（New York: Aspen Publishers, Inc., 1986）
    14. CLEMENTE, Mark N. & David S. Greenspan, Winning at Mergers and Acquisitions（New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1998）
    15. CORNISH, William R., & David Llewelyn, Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyrights, Trademarks & Allied Rights（London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1989）
    16. DePAMPHILIS, Donald, Mergers, Acquisitions, and Other Restructuring Activities: An Integrated approach to Process, Tools, Cases, and Solutions（San Diego: Academic Press, 2003）
    17. DOZ, Yves L., Jose Santos & Peter J. Williamson, From Global to Metanational－How companies win in the knowledge economy（Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2001）
    18. GAUGHAN, Patrick A., Mergers, Acquisitions, and Corporate Restructurings（New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1996）
    19. GILSON, Ronald & Bernard Black, Law and Finance of Corporate Acquisition, Supplement ed.（St. Paul: West Group, 1999）
    20. JAGER, Melvin F., Trade Secret Law（New York, N.Y.: Clark Boardman Company, 1987）
    21. KRALLINGER, Joseph C., Mergers & Acquisitions: Managing the Transaction（New York: McGraw-Hill, 1997）
    22. LADAS, Stephen P., Patents, Trademarks, and Related Rights: National and International Protection, Vol. I（Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975）
    23. LANDES, William M. & Richard A. Posner, The Economic Structure of Intellectual Property Law（Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2003）
    24. NIMMER, Melville B. & David Nimmer, Nimmer on Copyright, Vol. Ⅲ（Newark, N.J.: Matthew Bender and Co., Inc., 1991）
    25. POSNER, Richard A., Economic Analysis of Law, 5th ed.（New York: Aspen Publishers, Inc., 1998）
    26. REED, Stanley Foster & Alenandra Reed Lajoux, The Art of M&A: A Merger/ Acquisition/ Buyout Guide（New York: McGraw-Hill, 1999）
    27. RIGGS, Henry E., Managing High Technology Companies（New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1999）
    28. ROGER, Everett M. & Judith K. Larsen, Silicon Valley Fever: Growth of High-Technology Culture（Reading, Mass: Persus Books, 1986）
    29. ROSENBERG, Peter D., Patent Law Fundamentals, 2nd ed., vol. 1（New York: Clark Boardman Callaghan, 1996 Revision）
    30. SHEPHERD, William G., The Economics of Industrial Organization: Analysis, Markets, Policies, 4th ed.（Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 1997）
    31. STIGLER, George J., The Organization of Industry（Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983）
    32. WESTON, J. Fred, Juan A. Siu & Brian A. Johnson, Takeovers, Restructuring, and Corporate Governance, 3rd ed.（New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 2001）
    二、期刊及論文選集部分
    01. AIELLO, Robert J. & Michael D. Watkins, “The Fine Art of Friendly Acquisition,” Harvard Business Review on Mergers and Acquisitions（Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2001）
    02. ASHKENAS, Ronald N. & Suzanne C. Francis, “Integration Managers,” Harvard Business Review on Mergers and Acquisitions（Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2001）
    03. BAGHAI, Mehrdad A., Stephen C. Coley & David White, “Turning capabilities into advantages, ” The McKinsey Quarterly, 1999, No. 1.
    04. BLEICHER, Knut, Frank Bleicher & Herbert Paul, Managerial Framework for Innovation Responses in High-Tech Organization, Business Horizons, Vol. 26, Issue 6, pp. 69-78, 1983.
    05. BORETSKY, M., The Threat to U.S. High Technology Industries: Economic and National Security Implications Draft, International Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1982.
    06. BRADLEY, Michael, Anand Desai & E. Han Kim, “The Rationale Behind Interfirm Tender Offers: Information or Synergy?,” Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 11, pp. 183-206, 1983.
    07. BURSHTEIN, Sheldon, “Intellectual Property and Technology Due Diligence in Business Transactions,” Intellectual Property Assets in Mergers and Acquisitions（New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2002）
    08. CAREY, Dennis, “Lessons from Master Acquirers: A CEO Roundtable on Making Mergers Succeed,” Harvard Business Review on Mergers and Acquisitions（Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2001）
    09. CHAPPUIS, Bertis E., Kevin A. Frick & Paul J. Roche, “High-tech mergers take shape,” The McKinsey Quarterly, 2004, No. 1.
    10. CHRISTOFFERSON, Scott A., Robert S. McNish & Diane L. Sias, “Where mergers go wrong,” The McKinsey Quarterly, 2004, No. 2.
    11. CHURCH, Judith L., “Resolving Intellectual Property Issues in Mergers and Acquisitions,” PLI Patent, Copyrights, Trademarks and Literary Property Course Handbook Series, No. 559（New York: Practising Law Institute, 1999）
    12. COASE, Ronald H., “The Nature of the Firm,” Economica, Vol. 4, No. 16, pp. 386-405, 1937.
    13. DAUNT, Jacqueline A., “Mergers & Acquisitions: A Strategy for High Technology Companies,” Article of Fenwick & West, LLP, April, 2003.
    14. DEMSETZ, Harold, “Industry Structure, Market Rivalry, and Public Policy,” Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 16, pp. 1-9, 1973.
    15. DODD, P., “Merger Proposals, Management Discretion and Stockholder Wealth,” Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 8, pp. 105-138, 1980.
    16. DREYFUSS, Rochelle C., “The Federal Circuit: A Case Study in Specialized Courts,” New York University Law Review, Vol. 64, No. 1, 1989.
    17. ECCLES, Robert G., Kersten L. Lanes & Thomas C. Wilson, “Are You Paying Too Much for That Acquisition? ,” Harvard Business Review on Mergers and Acquisitions（Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2001）
    18. FAMA, Eugene F. & Michael C. Jensen, “Separation of Ownership and Control,” Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 26, pp. 301-325, 1983.
    19. FISHER, Alan A. & Richard Sciacca, “An Economic Analysis of Vertical Merger Enforcement Policy,” Research in Law and Economics, Vol. 6, pp. 11-12, 1984.
    20. FRICK, Kevin A. & Alberto Torres, “Learning from high-tech deals,” The McKinsey Quarterly, 2002, No. 1.
    21. GARDNER, Peter J., “A Role for the Business Attorney in the Twenty-First Century: Adding Value to the Client`s Enterprise in the Knowledge Economy,” Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review, Vol. 7, 2003.
    22. HAN, Kim E. & Vijay Singal, “Mergers and Market Power: Evidence from the Airline Industry,” American Economic Review, Vol. 83, No. 3, pp. 549-569, June 1993.
    23. JENSEN, Michael C. & William H. Meckling, “Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behavior, Agency Costs and Ownership Structure,” Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 3, pp. 305-360, 1976.
    24. KOHERS, Ninon & Theodor Kohers, “The Value Creation Potential of High-Tech Mergers,” Financial Analysts Journal, May/June, Vol. 56, Iss. 3, pp. 40-50, 2000.
    25. LACHUK, Michael B., & James R. Myers, “IP Due Diligence in Business Transactions: Develop Your Plan Now,” ACCA Docket, 21, No. 1, pp. 44-63, Jan. 2003.
    26. LEWIS, William W., Vincent Palmade, Baudouin Regout & Allen P. Webb, “What’s right with the U.S. economy,” The McKinsey Quarterly, 2002, No. 1.
    27. MACHLUP, Fritz and Edith Penrose, “The patent controversy in the nineteenth century,” Journal of Economic History, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 1-29, 1950.
    28. MAIDIQUE, Modesto A. & Robert H. Hayes, The Art of High-Technology Management, Sloan Management Review, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 17-31, 1984.
    29. MANNE, Henry G., “Mergers and the Market for Corporate Control,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 73, No. 2, pp. 110-120, 1965.
    30. MANDELKER, G.N., “Risk and Return: The Case of Merging Firms,” Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 1, pp. 303-305, 1974.
    31. MEILMAN, Edward A., & James W. Brady, Jr., “Due Diligence in Business Transactions Involving Intellectual Property Assets,” Intellectual Property Today, Jan. 2003.
    32. MERGERSTAT Review Free Reports: M&A Activity 2004（New York: Merrill Lynch Business Brokerage and Valuation, 2004）
    33. MITCHELL, Mark L. & J. Harold Mulherin, “The Impact of Industry Shocks on Takeover and Restructuring,” Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 41, Iss. 2, pp. 193-229, 1996.
    34. MULHERIN, J. Harold & Audra L. Boone, “Comparing Acquisitions and Divestitures,” Working Paper Series, Social Sciences Research Network, April 19, 2000.
    35. OESTERLE, Dale A., “Method to the Merger Madness: Revisiting the ’80s takeover boom,” REGULATION: THE CATO REVIEW OF BUSINESS AND GOVERNMENT, Vol. 20, No. 2, 1997.
    36. PORTER, Michael E., “From Competitive Advantage to Corporate Strategy,” Harvard Business Review, May-Jun, pp. 43-59, 1987.
    37. POSNER, Richard A., “The Social Costs of Monopoly and Regulation,” Journal of Political Economics, Vol. 83, No. 4, pp. 807-827, Aug. 1975.
    38. PRAHALAD, C. K. & Gary Hamel, “The Core Competence of the Corporation,” Harvard Business Review, May-June, pp. 277-299, 1990.
    39. RAPPAPORT, Alfred & Mark L. Sirower, “Stock or Cash? The Trade-Offs for Buyers and Sellers in Mergers and Acquisitions,” Harvard Business Review on Mergers and Acquisitions（Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2001）
    40. ROLL, Richard, “The Hubris of Corporate Takeovers,” Journal of Business, 59, No. 2, pp. 127-216, 1986.
    41. ROMER, Paul M., “Endogenous Technological Change,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 98, No. 5, pp. S71-S102, 1990.
    42. SAVAGE, Diane W., “Intellectual Property Due Diligence in Acquisitions of Technology Companies,” Article of Cooley Godward, LLP, January 14, 1998.
    43. SETH, Anju, “Value creation in acquisitions: A re-examination of performance issues,” Strategic Management Journal, Vo. 11, Iss. 2, pp. 99-115, 1990.
    44. SIMENSKY, Melvin, & William M. Heberer, “Intellectual Property, Due Diligence, and Security Interest Issues in Mergers and Acquisitions,” Intellectual Property Assets in Mergers and Acquisition（New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2002）
    45. STILLMAN, Robert S., “Examining Antitrust Policy Toward Mergers,” Journal of Financial Economics, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 225-240, 1983.
    46. STOCKELL, Catherine H., “A Primer on Due Diligence Reviews of Intellectual Property Assets,” PLI Corporate Law and Practice Course Handbook Series, No. 441（New York: Practising Law Institute, 1999）
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    智慧財產研究所
    91361003
    92
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0091361003
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[Graduate Institute of Intellectual Property] Theses

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    36100301.pdf99KbAdobe PDF22324View/Open
    36100302.pdf207KbAdobe PDF23685View/Open
    36100303.pdf239KbAdobe PDF23755View/Open
    36100304.pdf236KbAdobe PDF23444View/Open
    36100305.pdf528KbAdobe PDF25609View/Open
    36100306.pdf1743KbAdobe PDF242861View/Open
    36100307.pdf838KbAdobe PDF26695View/Open
    36100308.pdf1216KbAdobe PDF210394View/Open
    36100309.pdf425KbAdobe PDF23287View/Open
    36100310.pdf305KbAdobe PDF27013View/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