最新一期
- 發布單位：科技法律研究所
電子設備業與營業秘密保護之研究──以我國司法實務為中心
A Study on the Protection of Trade Secrets in the Electronic Equipment Industry—Focusing on Judicial Practice in Taiwan
作者：蘇柏樺；林志潔
出版年月：202409
關鍵詞：營業秘密；電子設備；經濟間諜；國家安全；智慧財產；Trade Secret；Electronic Equipment；Economic Espionage；National Security；Intellectual Property
中文摘要
電子設備產業的智慧財產權有其獨特性，就是被侵權時極難取證。電子設備業以B2B（Business to Business，企業對企業）模式銷售生產製程設備或輔助生產設備，當設備被銷售到一個工廠，就算侵害了競爭對手的智慧財產權，競爭對手也無法自由進出該工廠並進行取證，更何況是對鏡頭與記憶體有高度入廠管制的高科技製造產業。彙整臺灣2017年到2023年8月9間電子設備業公司營業秘密相關判決，判決結果只有兩個依照營業秘密法第13條之1第一項第一款和第二款裡的洩漏營業秘密判處有罪，其他民刑事判決皆為無罪、駁回、和解等結果。其中兩個判決提出被使用智慧財產權的證據，都被法官以無法確認其所有權、或是舉證不足等原因不被採納。國家安全法在2022年有修法，但僅將極少數電子設備業定義為國家核心技術範圍，故多數電子設備業暫時不適用。美國經濟間諜法是針對外國政府或其代理人之經濟間諜行為，但沒有針對使用營業秘密行為處罰。加州的電腦資料存取與詐欺罪立法不是為了外國政府的經濟間諜行為，不過卻協助全球最大曝光機設備商阻止中國公司竊取其營業秘密後進行競爭。
英文摘要
The intellectual property rights of the electronics device industry are uniquely characterized by the extreme difficulty of evidence collection in infringement cases. Sales in this industry often occur in a B2B (Business to Business) model, involving the sale of production or auxiliary production equipment. Once equipment is sold to a factory, even if it infringes upon a competitor’s intellectual property rights, the competitor cannot freely enter the factory to collect evidence, especially in high-tech manufacturing with strict controls over cameras and memory access. Reviewing Taiwan’s 9 companies of electronic device industry’s trade secret-related judgments from 2017 to August in 2023, only two cases resulted in convictions based on the leakage of trade secrets under specific provisions of the Trade Secrets Act. Most other civil and criminal judgments resulted in acquittal, dismissal, or settlement. Additionally, two judgments that presented evidence of used intellectual property rights were not accepted by judges due to insufficient evidence or unclear ownership. The National Security Law was amended in 2022, but it defined only a minimal portion of the electronics industry as within the scope of national core technologies, thus excluding most of the industry. The U.S. Economic Espionage Act targets espionage by foreign governments or their agents without addressing the misuse of trade secrets. California’s laws against computer data access and fraud were not designed for economic espionage by foreign governments but have helped the world’s largest photolithography equipment manufacturer prevent Chinese companies from stealing its trade secrets for competition.
作者：蘇柏樺；林志潔
出版年月：202409
關鍵詞：營業秘密；電子設備；經濟間諜；國家安全；智慧財產；Trade Secret；Electronic Equipment；Economic Espionage；National Security；Intellectual Property
中文摘要
電子設備產業的智慧財產權有其獨特性，就是被侵權時極難取證。電子設備業以B2B（Business to Business，企業對企業）模式銷售生產製程設備或輔助生產設備，當設備被銷售到一個工廠，就算侵害了競爭對手的智慧財產權，競爭對手也無法自由進出該工廠並進行取證，更何況是對鏡頭與記憶體有高度入廠管制的高科技製造產業。彙整臺灣2017年到2023年8月9間電子設備業公司營業秘密相關判決，判決結果只有兩個依照營業秘密法第13條之1第一項第一款和第二款裡的洩漏營業秘密判處有罪，其他民刑事判決皆為無罪、駁回、和解等結果。其中兩個判決提出被使用智慧財產權的證據，都被法官以無法確認其所有權、或是舉證不足等原因不被採納。國家安全法在2022年有修法，但僅將極少數電子設備業定義為國家核心技術範圍，故多數電子設備業暫時不適用。美國經濟間諜法是針對外國政府或其代理人之經濟間諜行為，但沒有針對使用營業秘密行為處罰。加州的電腦資料存取與詐欺罪立法不是為了外國政府的經濟間諜行為，不過卻協助全球最大曝光機設備商阻止中國公司竊取其營業秘密後進行競爭。
英文摘要
The intellectual property rights of the electronics device industry are uniquely characterized by the extreme difficulty of evidence collection in infringement cases. Sales in this industry often occur in a B2B (Business to Business) model, involving the sale of production or auxiliary production equipment. Once equipment is sold to a factory, even if it infringes upon a competitor’s intellectual property rights, the competitor cannot freely enter the factory to collect evidence, especially in high-tech manufacturing with strict controls over cameras and memory access. Reviewing Taiwan’s 9 companies of electronic device industry’s trade secret-related judgments from 2017 to August in 2023, only two cases resulted in convictions based on the leakage of trade secrets under specific provisions of the Trade Secrets Act. Most other civil and criminal judgments resulted in acquittal, dismissal, or settlement. Additionally, two judgments that presented evidence of used intellectual property rights were not accepted by judges due to insufficient evidence or unclear ownership. The National Security Law was amended in 2022, but it defined only a minimal portion of the electronics industry as within the scope of national core technologies, thus excluding most of the industry. The U.S. Economic Espionage Act targets espionage by foreign governments or their agents without addressing the misuse of trade secrets. California’s laws against computer data access and fraud were not designed for economic espionage by foreign governments but have helped the world’s largest photolithography equipment manufacturer prevent Chinese companies from stealing its trade secrets for competition.
