Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/81609
|
| Title: | 營業秘密保護與不當使用營業秘密保護規範之競合
The Competitions between Trade Secret Protection and the Misuse of Trade Secret Protection |
| Authors: | 陳璽仲
Chen, Hsi Chung |
| Contributors: | 劉孔中
陳璽仲
Chen, Hsi Chung |
| Keywords: | 營業秘密
營業秘密保護理論
不當使用營業秘密保護規範
trade secret
trade secret protection theory
the misuse of trade secret protection |
| Date: | 2016 |
| Issue Date: | 2016-03-01 10:57:35 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 隨著科技與網路之進步，不當竊取他人營業秘密之情況越趨嚴重，因此實務上開始出現對營業秘密加強保護的聲浪，法制上也不斷往加強營業秘密排他性之方向修法，但在此趨勢下，市場上不當使用營業秘密保護之情況也逐漸盛行。美國學界便提出警告，若給予營業秘密過強的排他權，導致營業秘密保護成為權利人限制競爭之武器，將阻礙社會的進步，社會福利並受到嚴重的危害。本文藉由討論營業秘密之保護理論與不當使用營業秘密保護規範之情況，探討其間之關係，研究不當使用營業秘密保護之根本原因，並嘗試提出解決辦法，作為預防潛在或解決目前已發生的問題。
本文於第二章先從營業秘密之保護理論談起，藉由探討各種營業秘密之保護理論，並分析其優點與缺點，作為之後分析不當使用營業秘密保護之素材。第三章，配合美國實務案例、法制情況說明不當使用營業秘密保護之主要態樣，並以法學及經濟學方法討論其與營業秘密保護理論之關聯，試圖找出營業秘密保護受到不當使用之原因。第四章及第五章，藉由檢視我國目前的法制規範、行政與司法實務操作方式，配合實務上曾發生過案例，提出我國現存及潛在的問題，並提供改善或法制方向之建議。
As the progress of technology and internet, the trade secret misappropriation cases become more severe nowadays. Therefore, the trade secret owners began to agitate for strengthening the protection of trade secret, and to keep legislators busy amending the law toward enhancing the exclusivity of trade secret. However, under the trend of strengthening trade secret protection, the situation of misusing trade secret protection has increased drastically. In addition to that, some American scholars have warned that once the legal systems of trade secret protection become the weapons to restrict competition, it will not only impede social progression but it will also do harm to the social welfare. This study reviews various theories of trade secret protections and cases that misused those protections, and provides analyses of the relation between them. Moreover, this study seeks to propose some suggestions to prevent the potential problems and offer some possible solutions for the problems which have occurred.
In Chapter II, the study reviews the trade secret protection theories and analyzes the pros and cons of each theory. In chapter III, this thesis introduces the major types of misusing trade secret protection with the U.S. cases and U.S. legal systems. Furthermore, in this chapter, the study applies different methods of the laws and economics in order to analyze the relation between trade secret protection theories and different types of misusing trade secret protection. Moreover, this chapter aims to find the fundamental reasons why the trade secret protection was being misused. In chapter IV, the study addresses the actual and potential misused problems in Taiwan by examining Taiwanese law systems, practices, and cases. Lastly, in chapter V, several suggestions for solving the present problems and improving future legal direction were made to conclude in the current study. |
| Reference: | 壹、 中文文獻
一、 專書
王澤鑑，侵權行為法，2010年3月。
王偉霖，營業秘密法理論與實務，2015年4月。
文衍正，營業秘密法導讀，1996年5月。
孔祥俊，反不正当竞争法新论，2001年5月。
林山田，刑法通論（上），2008年1月10版。
林洲富，營業秘密與競業禁止－案例式，2012年6月。
范建德、莊春發合著，不公平競爭，1992年7月。
邱聰智，民法總則(上)，2005年2月。
陳計男，民事訴訟法論（下），2011年1月5版。
張靜，我國營業秘密法學的建構與開展，第一冊營業秘密的基礎理論，2007年4月。
張玉瑞，商業秘密法學，2000年6月。
詹森林，馮震宇，林明珠，認識消費者保護法問答資料，1995年2月。
劉孔中，解構智財法及其與競爭法的衝突與調和，2015年6月。
謝哲勝，財產法專題研究（二），1990年11月。
二、 譯著
劉興善譯，American Law Institute著，美國法律整編 侵權行為法（Restatement of the Law, second Torts），1985年5月。
三、 期刊
王偉霖，論營業秘密案件之定暫時狀態處分－兼評台灣高等法院九十六年度抗字第一六四一號民事裁定，月旦法學雜誌，209期，2012年10月。
朱效亮，美国商业秘密保护法的发展，中外法学，2期，1992年3月。
阮开欣，美国商业秘密法中不可避免泄露规则的新发展及其解读，科技与法律，4期，2013年。
邱平荣、欧阳仁根，论对商业秘密保护的限制，政法论坛(中国政法大学学报)，4期，1997年。
洪榮宗、劉偉立、黃心苑，我國侵害營業秘密與競業禁止違約判決之量化研究，科技法學評論，4卷2期，2007年10月。
范曉玲，專利權人權力行使與公平競爭之平衡－以台美專利訴訟的幾個近期重要案例為核心，月旦法學雜誌，139期，2006年12月。
陳秉訓，營業秘密法「不可避免揭露原則」之商榷：評智慧財產法院100年度暫字第5號民事裁定，法令月刊，65 卷9 期，2014年9月。
湯明輝，營業秘密保護理論之探討，律師通訊，163期，1993年4月。
湯明輝，營業秘密保護制度之早期發展，台北銀行月刊，24卷9期，1993年9月。
四、 研究報告
朱静华，从西安杨森制药诉北京赛翁咨询服务中心一案探讨第三人侵犯他人商业秘密的民事责任，http://12330.yantai.gov.cn/ZSCQJWQZXALXD/2010/07/06/501734.html（最後瀏覽日：2016/2/15）。
張忠信，「營業秘密」之範圍與條件，http://www.copyrightnote.org/ArticleContent.aspx?ID=8&aid=2466（最後瀏覽日：2016/2/15）。
五、 學位論文
劉盈宏，論勞工離職後競業禁止－兼論美國法制，國立東華大學財經法律研究所碩士論文，2006年1月。
六、 法院判決
最高法院18年上字第1953號判例
最高法院19年上字第1718號判例
最高法院21年上字第1598號判例
最高法院29年度上字第762號判例
最高法院51年台上字第2101號判例
最高法院91年度台上字第1999號判決
智慧財產法院102年度民專上字第56號判決
智慧財產法院103年度民營訴字第2號判決
智慧財產法院103年度民營上字第4號判決
智慧財產法院104年度刑智上訴字第23號判決
台灣高等法院102年度勞上字第104號判決
台灣高等法院103年勞上易字第26號判決
新北地方法院102年度勞訴字第97號判決
台北地方法院103年度重勞訴字第43號判決
七、 函釋
行政院勞工委員會（89）年台勞資二字第0036255號函
八、 網頁
中華民國勞動部－勞動部全球資訊網，簽訂競業禁止參考手冊，http://www.penghu.gov.tw/uploaddowndoc?file=/pubpenghu/unitdata/201403181116200.pdf&flag=doc（最後瀏覽日：2016/2/15）。
行政院公報，預告修正「勞動基準法施行細則」第七條之一、第七條之二、第七條之三草案，第22卷第27期，http://gazette.nat.gov.tw/EG_FileManager/eguploadpub/eg022027/ch08/type3/gov82/num23/Eg.htm (最後瀏覽日：2016/2/18)。
陳良榕，獵殺叛將－揭密梁孟松投效三星始末，天下雜誌，http://www.cw.com.tw/article/article.action?id=5063951（最後瀏覽日：2016/2/15）。
陳宜誠，《營業秘密系列》留下來又不重用，若敢離開就提告，這樣對嗎？，http://blog.udn.com/vchen123/32513242（最後瀏覽日：2016/2/15）。
貳、 外文文獻
一、 專書
DAVID D. FRIEDMAN, LAW’S ORDER (2000).
MELVIN F. JAGER, LICENSING LAW HANDBOOK (2007-2008 ed.) (2007).
ROBERT M. SHERWOOD, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (1990).
WILLIAM M. LANDES & RICHARD A. POSNER, THE ECONOMIC STRUCTURE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW (2003).
二、 期刊
Christine M. O`malley, Covenants not to Compete in the Massachusetts Hi-Tech Industry: Assessing the Need for a Legislative Solution, 79 B.U.L REV.1215 (1999).
David S. Levine and Sharon K. Sandeen, Here Come the Trade Secret Trolls, 71 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. (2015).
Elizabeth A. Rowe, When Trade Secrets Become Shackles: Fairness and the Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine, 7 Tul. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 167 (2005)
Elizabeth Miller, Antitrust Restrictions on Trade Secret Licensing: A Legal Review and Economic Analysis, 52 Law and Contemporary Problems (1989).
Eric Goldman, Ex Parte Seizures and the Defend Trade Secrets Act, 72 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. (2015).
Eric R. Claeys, Private Law Theory and Corrective Justice in Trade Secrecy, 4 J. TORT L. 1 (2011).
Garrett J. Hardin, The Tragedy of the Commons, Science, 162 New Series 3859 (1968).
Harry First, Trade Secrets and Antitrust Law, New York University Law and Economics Working Papers. Paper 255 (2011).
James H.A. Pooley, The Myth of the Trade Secret Troll: Why We Need a Federal Civil Claim for Trade Secret Misappropriation, Forthcoming 23 Geo. Mason L. Rev._ (2016) (2015).
James H.A. Pooley, Mark A. Lemley and Peter J. Toren, Understanding the Economic Espionage Act of 1966, 5 TEX. INT. PROP. L.J. 219 (1997).
Johanna L. Edelstein, Intellectual Slavery?: The Doctrine of Inevitable Disclosure of Trade Secrets, 26 Golden Gate U.L. Rev. 717 (1996).
Lynn C. Tyler, Trade Secrets in Indiana: Property vs. Relationship, 31 IND. L REV. 339, (1998).
Mark A. Lemley, The Suprising Virtues of Treating Trade Secrects as IP Rights, 61 STAN. L. REV. 311 (2008).
Matthew K. Miller, Inevitable Disclosure Where No Noncompetition Agreement Exists: Additional Guidance Needed, 6 B. U. J. Sci. & Tech. L. 9 (2000).
Peter J. Toren, An Economic Analysis of Economic Espionage Prosecutions: What Companies Can Learn From It and What the Government Should Be Doing About It!, 84 BNA PATENT, TRADEMARK & COPYRIGHT J. 884 (2012).
Ronald J. Gilson, The Legal Infrastructure of High Technology Industrial Districts: Silicon Valley, Route 128, and Covenants Not to Compete, 74 N.Y.U. L. REV. (1999).
Richard H. Stern, The Antitrust Status of Territorial Limitations in International Licensing, 14 IDEA 580 (1971).
三、 研究報告
AMERICAN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW ASSOCIATION, 2015 REPORT OF THE ECONOMIC SURVEY (2015), http://files.ctctcdn.com/e79ee274201/b6ced6c3-d1ee-4ee7-9873-352dbe08d8fd.pdf (last visited: 2016/2/16).
CAROLINE FLAMMER & ALEKSANDRA KACPERCZYK, CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY AND THE PREVENTION OF KNOWLEDGE SPILLOVERS: EVIDENCE FROM THE INEVITABLE DISCLOSURE DOCTRINE (2015), http://ssrn.com/abstract=2661881 (last visited: 2016/2/16).
GLENN R. SCHIECK, ALEXANDER GOLDMAN, AND TOM BENGERA, TRADE SECRETS TROLLS, TRADE SECRETS INSTITUTION (TSI), http://tsi.brooklaw.edu/commentary/trade-secrets-trolls-0 (last visited: 2016/2/16).
IVAN P. L. PNG & SAMPSA SAMILA, TRADE SECRETS LAW AND MOBILITY: EVIDENCE FROM `INEVITABLE DISCLOSURE` (2015), http://ssrn.com/abstract=1986775 (last visited: 2016/2/16).
MANDIANT, APT1: EXPOSING ONE OF CHINA’S CYBER ESPIONAGE UNITS 2 (2013), http://intelreport.mandiant.com/Mandiant_APT1_Report.pdf (last visited: 2016/2/16).
USPTO, 2014 PERFORMANCE & ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT, http://www.uspto.gov/about/stratplan/ar/USPTOFY2014PAR.pdf (last visited: 2016/2/16).
PROFESSORS’ LETTER IN OPPOSITION TO THE “DEFEND TRADE SECRETS ACT OF 2014” (S. 2267) AND THE “TRADE SECRETS PROTECTION ACT OF 2014” (H.R. 5233) (2014), http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/files/blogs/FINAL%20Professors`%20Letter%20Opposing%20Trade%20Secret%20Legislation.pdf (last visited: 2016/2/16).
PROFESSORS’ LETTER IN OPPOSITION TO THE DEFEND TRADE SECRETS ACT OF 2015 (S. 1890, H.R. 3326) (2015), https://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/files/blogs/2015%20Professors%20Letter%20in%20Opposition%20to%20DTSA%20FINAL.pdf (last visited: 2016/2/16).
RUSSELL BRANDOM, TRADE SECRET TROLLS COULD BE THE NEW PATENT TROLLS, THE VERGE (2015), http://www.theverge.com/2015/9/21/9364371/trade-secret-trolls-patents-defend-trade-secrets-act (last visited: 2016/2/16).
四、 法院判決
American Can Co. v. Mansukhani, 216 U.S.P.Q. 1094 (E.D.Wis.1982).
American Can Co. v. Mansukhani, 742 F.2d 314 (7th Cir.1984).
Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. v. Botticella, 613 F.3d 102 (3d Cir.2010).
Berkey Photo, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 603 F.2d 263 (CA2 1979).
Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. v. United States, 261 U.S. 592 (1923).
CVD, Inc. v. Raytheon Co., 769 F.2d 842 (1st Cir.1985).
Choisser Research Corp. v. Electronic Vision Corp., 173 U.S.P.Q 234 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Co. 1972).
Chromalloy American Corp. v. Fischmann, 716 F.2d 683 (9th Cir. 1983).
Cereva networks, Inc., v. Timothy LIETO and another, 13 Mass. L. Rptr. 694 (Mass. Super. 2001).
Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U.S. 373, 31 S.Ct. 376, 55 L.Ed. 502 (1911)
E. I. Dupont de Nemours Powder Co. v. Masland, 244 U.S. 100 (1917).
Eastman Co. v. Reichenbach, 20 N.Y.S. 110 (Sup. Ct. 1892).
E. I. duPont deNemours & Co. v. Rolfe Christopher et al., 431 F. 2d 1012 (5th Cir 1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 1024 (1971).
Ethyl Gasoline Corp. v. United States, 309 U.S. 436 (1940).
Franke v. Wiltschek, 209 F.2d 493 (2d Cir.1953).
Fraser v Evans [1969] 1 QB 349.
Fraser v Thames Television Ltd, Queen`s Bench Division 2 All ER (1983).
Fowle v. Park, 131 U.S. 88, 97, 9 S.Ct. 658, 662, 33 L.Ed. 67 (1889).
In re Data General Corp. Antitrust Litigation, 490 F. Supp 1089, (N.D.Ca.1980), aff’d sub nom.
Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp., 416 U.S. 470 (1974).
Lear, Inc. v. Adkins, 395 U.S. 653 (1969).
Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877, 127 S.Ct. 2705, 168 L.Ed.2d 623 (2007).
Masland v. E I du Pont De Nemours Powder Co., 224 F. 689 (C.A.3 1915).
Official Airlines Schedule Inform-action Service, Inc. v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 333 F.2d 672 (5th Cir. 1964).
PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond, 54 F.3d 1262 (7th Cir 1995).
Peabody v. Norfolk, 98 Mass. 452 (1868).
People v. Aleynikov, 49 Misc.3d 286, 15 N.Y.S.3d 587 (N.Y.Sup., 2015).
pan-Deck, Inc. v. Fab-Con, Inc., 677 F.2d 1237, (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 981 (1982).
Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986 (1984).
Robintech, Inc. v. Chemidus Wavin, Ltd., 628 F.2d 142 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
Rohm & Haas Co. v. Adco Chemical Co., 689 F.2d 424 (3d Cir.1982).
Schreyer v. Casco Products Corp., 190 F.2d 921 (2d Cir. 1951), cert. denied, 342 U.S. 913 (1952).
St. Regis Paper Co. v. Royal Indus., 552 F.2d 309, cert. denied, 434 U.S. 996 (1977).
Timely Prod. v. Costanzo, 465 F. Supp. 91 (D. Conn. 1979).
U.S. Lift Slab Corp. v. C.D. Wailes Co., 113 U.S.P.Q. 228 (Cal.Sup.Ct.1956).
United States Sporting Products v. Johnny Stewart Game Calls, Inc., 865 S.W.2d 214 (Tex.App–Waco 1993, writ denied).
United States v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 351 U.S. 377 (1956).
United States v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 118 F. Supp. 41 (D. Del. 1953), aff’d, 351 U.S. 377 (1956).
United States v. Aleynikov, 676 F.3d 71 (2d Cir.2012).
United States v. Univis Lens Co., 316 U.S. 241 (1942).
United States v. Addyston Pipe & Steel Co., 85 F. 271 (6th Cir. 1898), modified, 175 U.S. 211 (1899).
United States v. Jerrold Electronics Corp., 187 F. Supp. 545 (E.D.Pa.1960), aff`d, 365 U.S. 567, 81 S. Ct. 755, 5 L.Ed.2d 806 (1961) (per curiam).
Veltman v. Norton Simon, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 774 (S.D.N.Y. 1977).
Whyte v. Schlage Lock Co., 125 Cal. Rptr. 2d 277 (Ct. App. 2002).
Warner-Lambert Pharmaceutical Co. v. John J. Reynolds, Inc., 178 F. Supp. 655 (S.D.N.Y. 1959), aff`d per curiam, 280 F.2d 197 (2d Cir. 1960).
五、 立法提案
Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2014, S. 2267, 113th Cong. (2013-2014).
Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2015, S. 1890, 114th Cong. (2015-2016) and H.R. 3326, 114th Cong. (2015-2016).
Future of American Innovation and Research Act, S.1770, 113th Cong. (2013-2014).
Private Right of Action against Theft of Trade Secrets Act, H.R. 2466, 113th Cong. (2013-2014).
Trade Secret Protection Act of 2014, H.R. 5233, 113th Cong. (2013-2014).
六、 網頁
Aaron Smith, Uber founder hit with $1 billion suit for allegedly stealing idea, CNNMoney, http://money.cnn.com/2015/05/15/technology/uber-celluride-lawsuit/ (last visited: 2016/2/16).
Ben Smith, Twins drop legal claim against Facebook founder, CNN, http://edition.cnn.com/2011/TECH/social.media/06/23/facebook.winklevoss/ (last visited: 2016/2/16).
Complaint, United States v. Pilkington PLC, Civ. A. No. CV 94-345 (D. Ariz. 1994), http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f0000/0014.pdf (last visited: 2016/2/16).
The Encyclopedia of Cleveland History, Harshaw Chemical Co., http://ech.case.edu/cgi/article.pl?id=HCC1 (last visited: 2016/2/16).
Federal Trade Commission, FTC: Intel Abuses its Monopoly Power in Violation of Federal Law, https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/1998/06/ftc-intel-abuses-its-monopoly-power-violation-federal-law (last visited: 2016/2/16).
Johana Bhuiyan and Ellen Cushing, An Entrepreneur Says Travis Kalanick Stole the Idea for Uber, BuzzFeedNEWS, http://www.buzzfeed.com/johanabhuiyan/an-entrepreneur-is-suing-travis-kalanick-and-others-for-stea#.vnry6X3Qj (last visited: 2016/2/16).
Press Release, Office of Senator Christopher Coons, Senators Coons, Hatch Introduce Bill to Combat Theft of Trade Secrets and Protect Jobs, http://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2014/4/hatch-coons-introduce-bill-to-combat-theft-of-trade-secrets-protect-jobs (last visited: 2016/2/16).
University of Calgary, Trade Secrets & Confidentiality Agreements, http://www.ucalgary.ca/biztechlaw/node/192 (last visited: 2016/2/16).
U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property, http://www.justice.gov/atr/antitrust-guidelines-licensing-intellectual-property#t53 (last visited: 2016/2/16). |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
科技管理與智慧財產研究所
102364209 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0102364209 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [科技管理與智慧財產研究所] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 420901.pdf | | 2043Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 773 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
