- <![CDATA[從語言學觀察商標淡化──論產地證明標章之立法妥適性]]>陽明交大法學評論第1期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;"><strong>A Linguistic Approach to Analyze Trademark Dilution —The Applicability to Geographical Certification Marks Under Trademark Law</strong></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size:100%;"><strong>作者：</strong></span>陳思宇<br />
<span style="font-size:100%;"><strong>出版年月：</strong></span>201706<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>產地證明標章；商標淡化；轉喻；顯著性；搭便車；外部性；Geographical Certification Marks；Trademark Dilution；Metonymy；Salience；Free-riding；Externality<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
任何能夠傳遞資訊的載體皆可視為符號，文字、語言、標章皆屬之。本文以「產地證明標章」為中心，分析我國自2011年商標法修法後，於條文設計上多「依其性質準用」一般商標的規定。基於產地證明標章在各方面皆異於一般商標，因此，在商標侵權態樣之一──淡化（dilution）之規定上，產生準用之困難。本文從產地證明標章之意義、功能為起點，透過Saussure符號學分析傳統混淆誤認規範與商標淡化間所侵害之法益有何不同，並提出構成「商標淡化」之要件為何。惟我國實務對於構成商標淡化之要件看法分歧，原因在於對商標淡化保護之法益模糊不清。本文透過語言學上轉喻（metonymy）分析淡化所保護之法益，提出產地證明標章應無一般商標淡化規定之適用，並在最後以經濟學上外部性（externality）之角度，在商標法架構下提出修法建議。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
Any kinds of vehicles that can convey information could be considered symbols, including words, languages and marks. This article applies semiology and linguistics to analyze the issue in new trademark law that passed in 2011, focusing on “geographical certification mark” which only roughly stipulates as that “trademarks shall apply mutatis mutandis to certification marks.” However, due to various differences between geographical certification marks and trademarks, difficulties have arisen when applying dilution articles to geographical certification marks. This article begins by examining the meaning and function of geographical certification marks, and then applies Saussure’s semiology to identify the legal interest that “likelihood of confusion” and trademark dilution aim to protect. Moreover, this article proposes a rationale to determine whether the trademark dilution occurs, and highlights several split opinions among courts which resulting from having an unclear perception of the legal interests that the dilution articles seek to protect. This article also addresses the issue by analyzing the “metonymy” from a linguistic approach and proposes the conclusion that the dilution is not applicable to geographical certification marks. Furthermore, this article suggests other mechanisms based on “externality” in economic’s concept to protect geographical certification marks under trademark law.]]><![CDATA[]]>https://lawreview.law.nycu.edu.tw/lawreviewlaw/ch/app/data/doc?module=nycu0040&detailNo=1396744929559973888&type=s從語言學觀察商標淡化──論產地證明標章之立法妥適性
- <![CDATA[風險溝通在食安管理中之必要性：以狂牛症事件為例]]>陽明交大法學評論第1期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;"><strong>The Necessity of Risk Communication in the Food Safety Regulation: In the Instance of Mad Cow Disease</strong></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size:100%;"><strong>作者：</strong></span>許耀明；譚偉恩<br />
<span style="font-size:100%;"><strong>出版年月：</strong></span>201706<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>食品安全；風險管理；風險評估；風險溝通；狂牛症；Food Safety；Risk Management；Risk Assessment；Risk Communication；Mad Cow Disease<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
「風險溝通」強調利害關係人之間水平式的對話與資訊交換，其目的是為了使食安管理措施更為周延並符合審議式民主的需求。然而，將風險溝通納入食安管理，會不會對科學專業的判斷或政府管理工作的進行產生妨礙？此問題的背後至少包含了兩個值得細究但一直存有爭論的議題：1.風險溝通是否有助於治理食安問題，以致於具有重要性而必須被重視？2.風險溝通是否僅對消費者有利，但卻不利於食品業者或供應方，甚至會增加政府行政上的成本？本文認為，從風險管理的角度觀之，風險溝通能夠將消費者的真實需求或憂慮融入到食品安全的管理政策中。此種治理機制符合民主政治對於問責性的要求，讓風險承擔者知曉在與其自身利害相關之食安法制中究竟存有什麼風險，以及這些風險可能為自己帶來的利弊得失。當制度上利害關係人皆能獲得充分資訊時，其風險承擔或風險迴避的能力將隨之獲得提升，此結果對於食品市場的交易秩序將具有正面裨益，亦有益於政府食安管理目標之達成。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
The risk communication under the context of food safety emphasizes at the perspectives of “horizontal communication” and “information exchange” between the stakeholders. The purpose of that is to regulate the food safety more compactly and further to fulfill the requirement of deliberative democracy. However, will the application of risk communication into the food safety management impact the embedded scientific neutral in the regulation system and thus interfere the agency’s decision making? Following this question, two controversial issues should be researched: 1. does the application of risk communication truly benefit the food safety management so that its cruciality to the food safety regulation deserves more spotlight? On the other hand, 2. does the risk communication only benefit the consumers, but not the food industry or suppliers; or even increase the administrative cost unexpectedly? In this article, we claim that the application of the risk communication can practically take consumers’ need and their worries into consideration while improving the food safety regulation and relevant decision making. Moreover, the governance of the food safety with risk communication fulfills the requirement of accountability in modern democracy, in which the risk takers understand what they exactly bear under current food safety law and the pros and cons it brings. Ideally, if the information in the food system is fully disclosed to the stakeholders, all of the stakeholders will then be equipped with stronger capability to prevent or take the underlying risk; which results in a positive effect to the transaction order on the food market, as well as the achievement of the goal of food safety regulation.]]><![CDATA[]]>https://lawreview.law.nycu.edu.tw/lawreviewlaw/ch/app/data/doc?module=nycu0040&detailNo=1396741927692406784&type=s風險溝通在食安管理中之必要性：以狂牛症事件為例風險溝通在食安管理中之必要性：以狂牛症事件為例
- <![CDATA[論中國大陸電信法草案對現行頻譜法規範之影響]]>陽明交大法學評論第1期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;"><strong>On How PRC Telecommunication Act Draft Effect Spectrum Law</strong></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size:100%;"><strong>作者：</strong></span>呂嘉穎<br />
<span style="font-size:100%;"><strong>出版年月：</strong></span>201706<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>中華人民共和國電信法；頻譜；電信業；科技法制；電信條例；PRC Telecommunication Act；Spectrum；Telecommunication Industry；Legal System of Science and Technology；Regulation on Telecommunication<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
由於中國大陸電信業至今並無單一且整體性的法律規範之，因此常產生頻譜法制的適用性衍生之爭議，目前中國大陸在法律除以物權視之外，僅就頻譜的指派、分配以國有資源定調其性質。然而，頻譜所生之問題與其影響層面過於廣泛，若電信法的制定造成原有頻譜使用上的爭議，則電信法的施行是否真如其所預期的值得等待？本文透過中國大陸電信法草案公布後，所造成頻譜法制的可能性影響及對於電信市場的衝擊做一論述。藉由法社會學中歷史層面的分析與比較兩者之差異性及帶來的效應，對中國大陸即將施行之電信法提出個人見解與討論。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
Without a sole and comprehensive law on PRC Telecommunications, the controversy about the applicability of the spectrum law is aroused. Currently, the law considers the rights over a spectrum as rights of thing, and a spectrum is defined as a state-owned capital through its assignment and allocation. However, a spectrum has a wide influence. Once the telecommunication act arouses the controversy on the utilization of former act, would implementation on the spectrum law be worthy expecting as what we anticipated? The study will elucidate the possible influences and the impacts on the telecommunication market after PRC passed the telecommunications act draft. By means of analyzing historical phases in sociology of law, comparing the differences between the Telecommunication Act Draft and the spectrum law, and discussing the impacts brought by both of them, the study will include personal opinions and discussions on PRC’s imminent implementation of the Telecommunications Act.]]><![CDATA[]]>https://lawreview.law.nycu.edu.tw/lawreviewlaw/ch/app/data/doc?module=nycu0040&detailNo=1396745333953794048&type=s論中國大陸電信法草案對現行頻譜法規範之影響
- <![CDATA[食品標示與WTO/TBT協定合致性之研析]]>陽明交大法學評論第1期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;"><strong>A Study on the WTO/TBT Consistency of the Food Labelling Measures</strong></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size:100%;"><strong>作者：</strong></span>張南薰<br />
<span style="font-size:100%;"><strong>出版年月：</strong></span>201706<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>原產地標示；食品標示；不歧視待遇；技術性貿易障礙協定；合法的管制上區別；Rule of Origin；Food Labelling；Non-discrimination；Legitimate Regulatory Distinction；TBT Agreement<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
在一連串的食安風暴後，消費者意識到在商業化及全球化的食品生產過程中，自己所吃的食物與自己的認知可能有一段差距，也開始介意自己所吃的食品，原料為何、成分為何及從何而來。食品標示法規即為一國政府提供其民眾關於食品資訊之重要規範，但食品標示規範同時亦會增加食品製造商及貿易商之成本，而有構成隱藏性貿易障礙之可能性。在WTO之爭端解決程序中已有多起涉及食品標示法規之TBT協定之案例。本文希望透過案例之分析，能夠更明確掌握TBT協定下之若干重要原則之解釋及適用，並進一步瞭解制定食品標示法規時所涉及之國際法上之權利及義務關係。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
Suffering from the continuous happenings of food scandals, consumers start to pay more attention to what they eat gradually. Through the national food labelling regulations, consumers’ right to information about food could be protected in the domestic market. However, the implementation of any food labelling policy involves the direct costs of printing and placing labels on food products, as well as the indirect costs of verification and identity preservations. These costs posed on the exporters and producers have been referred to as trade barriers to the market access, even the food labelling were required for the purpose of consumer’s protection. Recently, several WTO members affected by certain food labelling regulations claimed that those kind of domestic requirements were in violation of the Articles 2.1, 2.2 and 2.4 of TBT Agreement and the WTO Panel and the Appellate Body have made several important decisions. In these decisions, the WTO Panel and the Appellate Body sought to reconcile legitimate regulatory interests of the Members with various obligations to treat imported products in a non-discriminatory and not unnecessarily trade restrictive manner. Through a consideration of the WTO juris prudence, this article explores these decisions and the extent to which they provide guidance for governments, stakeholders and the public on the outcome of future TBT cases.]]><![CDATA[]]>
- <![CDATA[我國禁止行賄外國公務員法制之探討]]>陽明交大法學評論第1期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;"><strong>Reviewing Anti-Bribery Law on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials</strong></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size:100%;"><strong>作者：</strong></span>黃思翰；林志潔<br />
<span style="font-size:100%;"><strong>出版年月：</strong></span>201706<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>行賄；外國公務員；海外反貪腐法；貪腐防制；企業遵法；Bribery；Foreign Officials；FCPA；Enterprises；Compliance Program<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
近年有關禁止行賄外國公務員之議題已受到國際社會重視，尤其當美國政府對於違反海外反貪腐法（Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, FCPA）之執法地域範圍從歐美擴及於亞洲時，我國企業及科技公司應更加重視企業行賄外國公務員之防制，以降低相關法律風險。然而，過去我國肅貪政策係以公部門貪腐防制為重心。雖然我國於2003年將行賄外國公務員行為刑罰化，惟從防制跨國賄賂犯罪與提升企業競爭力之角度而言，現行法存有許多疑義尚待釐清，並使得我國企業無妥適之法律制度可資遵循。本文旨在探討我國禁止行賄外國公務員規範與實務之相關問題，除說明有關FCPA之企業遵法議題外，並嘗試從美國法觀點與實證質性研究分析我國防制行賄外國公務員及企業遵法應有之制度內涵，以及提出立法政策建議，以兼顧打擊跨國行賄與保障企業利益之目的。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
In recent years, anti-bribery of foreign public officials has received high attention by the international community. While the U.S. government expands the enforcement region of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) from Europe and America to Asia, the enterprises and technology industries in Taiwan should pay more attention to the prohibition against bribing foreign officials in order to decrease legal risk. In the past, the main regulate focus of the corruption prohibition laws in Taiwan were mainly on the public sector. Although the bribery of foreign officials became criminalized in Taiwan in 2003, from the perspective of implementing the anti-bribery policy and enhancing the competitiveness edge of the enterprises, the laws currently in force leave many problems to be solved, and the enterprises was left no clear rules to comply. For the first part of this article, it will introduce the issues currently existed in the anti-bribery laws in Taiwan. In the sec-ond part, this article will clarify the recent issues regarding the corporate compliance program of the FCPA. Finally, it will consider and provide legislative suggestions that may improve Taiwan’s anti-bribery policy from the perspective of U.S. law and on the basis of qualitative research conducted.]]><![CDATA[]]>https://lawreview.law.nycu.edu.tw/lawreviewlaw/ch/app/data/doc?module=nycu0040&detailNo=1396743108674195456&type=s我國禁止行賄外國公務員法制之探討
- <![CDATA[美國專利紛爭解決之關鍵性變革──論美國專利複審程序的結構功能分析與實施成效]]>陽明交大法學評論第2期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<strong><span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;">The Mechanism and Characteristics of the Revolutionary Patent Review System before the PTAB and an Empirical Review of Its Practice</span></span><br />
作者：</strong>陳在方<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>201712<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>專利；複審程序；專利訴訟；美國發明法；核准後複審程序；多方複審程序；商業方法過渡期複審程序；Patent；Patent Litigation；AIA；Post-Grant Review；Inter Partes Review；Covered Business Method Patent Review<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
美國發明法的設計，反映出美國專利法制對於專利權與公眾利益間平衡點之重新思索。美國發明法下之專利複審制度，提供具備高度效率的專利再審查平臺，平衡專利權人與潛在被控侵權人間之攻防武器，對於美國專利制度之運作影響極大。本文係針對複審程序設計架構與程序性質之特點深入研究。複審程序主要係以靜態之三層次架構以及動態的兩階段審理結構所組成。架構上，係由不同性質與類型之專利，設計出核准後複審（Post-Grant Review, PGR）、多方複審（Inter Partes Review, IPR）、商業方法過渡期複審（Covered Business Method Patent Review, CBMR）之三層次程序架構。在此三層次架構之中，各個程序之進行採取兩階段的審理結構，亦即每個層次均包括立案申請與本案審判等兩階段。複審制度結構功能之設計，大幅引進典型司法審判程序之程序元素，與行政程序之程序元素重組交錯適用後，達到特殊的制度功能，兼採審判程序與行政程序的優點，以達到平衡專利權利與公眾利益的目的。複審程序的結構元素的設計，係此一制度得以達到其制度目的之重要關鍵。本文並為檢視複審制度實施至今的運作情況是否反映其制度功能，利用Lex Machina專利訴訟資料庫的實證數據，針對複審程序至今的發展狀態加以分析，為專利審判及上訴委員會（Patent Trial and Appeal Board, PTAB）前4年5個月的審判活動提供具體的審視。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA) establishes a new patent re-view system before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The purpose of the system is to review issued patents with a view to ensure a proper balance between the interests of patent right holders and that of the general public. The new review system is composed of three types of mechanisms, and the procedure of each type of mechanism has two distinct stages. On the one hand, the new procedure provides a patent challenger broader participation rights, and has strong adjudicatory characteristics. In this regard, the new procedure is a judicial proceeding in which parties resolve concrete disputes between them. On the other hand, the review procedure maintains strong administrative procedure characteristics and is a specialized agency proceeding. Indeed, the mixture of the characteristics and its procedural design are the hallmark of the efficiency and success of the new system.<br />
]]><![CDATA[]]>https://lawreview.law.nycu.edu.tw/lawreviewlaw/ch/app/data/doc?module=nycu0040&detailNo=1396866689563365376&type=s美國專利紛爭解決之關鍵性變革──論美國專利複審程序的結構功能分析與實施成效
- <![CDATA[對「行賄外國公務員罪」之檢視與修正建議──以日本之立法經驗為借鏡]]>陽明交大法學評論第2期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<strong><span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;">The Review and Revised Proposal for “Anti-Bribery of Foreign Public Officials”—Lessons from the Legislative Experience of Japan</span></span><br />
作者：</strong>張天一<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>201712<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>商業賄賂；貪污治罪條例；行賄外國公務員罪；不正競爭防止法；對外國公務員贈賄罪；Business Bribery；Anti-Corruption Act；Anti-Bribery of Foreign Public Officials；Unfair Competition Prevention Act (Japan)；Prohibition to Provide Illicit Gain；etc. to Foreign Public Officers<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
貪污治罪條例第11條第三項為「行賄外國公務員罪」之規定，其目的在於防止我國人民或企業為在國際貿易上取得優勢地位或利益，而對外國公務員行賄，以杜絕商業賄賂行為。但該規定自2003年制定後，經歷15年的時間，卻幾無遭到追訴的案例，究竟是法律制定上發生問題，或是執行上有所困難，值得深入探討。而日本於1997年簽署經濟合作暨發展組織的「禁止在國際貿易中行賄外國公務員公約」後，為了履行相關義務，而於1998年在不正競爭防止法中增訂了「對外國公務員贈賄罪」，其後，為了配合經濟合作暨發展組織的檢查，對於該罪及相關規定又進行多次的修正。而日本在立法、修法及執行過程中所遭遇到的相關問題，以及所提出之因應對策，應有值得我國借鏡 之處。因此，本文透過對日本「對外國公務員贈賄罪」的介紹，進而檢視我國「行賄外國公務員罪」所存在之問題，並嘗試提出解決方案，期望在提升我國貿易競爭力與履行國際義務間，能尋得適當的平衡點。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
Art. 11.3 of the Anti-Corruption Act is called the “Anti-Bribery of Foreign Public Officials.” It aims to prevent our people or corporations from bribing foreign public officials in the hope of getting advantage or benefit in international trades and to eradicate business bribery. However, it has been 14 years since its enactment in 2003 and there have been almost no lawsuits about it. It’s worth our further discussion on whether there are problems about the rules themselves or whether there are difficulties in enforcing them. In 1997, Japan signed a pact of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to inhibit bribing foreign public officials in international trades. To fulfill related obligations, it added the article of “Prohibition to Provide Illicit Gain, etc. to Foreign Public Officers” to its Unfair Competition Prevention Act in 1998. Afterwards, Japan has made many modifications to the related rules of this crime in order to cooperate with the inspection of OECD. Thus, there should be something worth our consultation in Japan’s legislation, amendment, and the problems they encountered in the enforcement. Therefore, this thesis makes an introduction of Japan’s law of “Prohibition to Provide Illicit Gain, etc. to Foreign Public Officers” and examines the problems in our law of “Anti-Bribery of Foreign Public Officials” in the hope of coming up with the solutions so that we can strike a balance between enhancing our trade competitiveness and fulfilling the obligations as a part of the world.<br />
]]><![CDATA[]]>https://lawreview.law.nycu.edu.tw/lawreviewlaw/ch/app/data/doc?module=nycu0040&detailNo=1397037528883662848&type=s對「行賄外國公務員罪」之檢視與修正建議──以日本之立法經驗為借鏡
- <![CDATA[控制權溢價之意涵及其歸屬]]>陽明交大法學評論第2期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<strong><span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;">Components of Control Premium and Its Allocation</span></span><br />
作者：</strong>黃朝琮<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>201712<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>控制權溢價；少數股權折價；流通性折價；控制股權出售；股份收買請求權；受託義務審查；公開收購；Control Premium；Minority Discount；Marketability Discount；Sale of Controlling Shares；Appraisal；Review of Fiduciary Duty；Tender Offer<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
本文觀察美國法上所討論之控制權溢價的內涵，認為可以將之解析為綜效價值、徵用價值及純粹控制價值三者。除公開收購的場合，控制權溢價在美國法上原則歸屬於控制權人，但允許其將之與少數股東分享，並透過受託義務審查及股份收買請求權等機制，使少數股東有機會分享控制權溢價。換言之，控制權溢價之歸屬並非只有一個答案，其分配亦非全有全無。我國關於控制權溢價的概念係在股份收買請求權的脈絡中展開，其中定義雖屬完整，然未完整架構控制權溢價歸屬之完整體系，且有以全有全無方式，作單一配置的傾向，本文觀察相關學說實務見解，試圖提出控制權溢價歸屬的整體架構。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
This article analyzes the components of control premium by observing the discussion under the U.S. law and argues that control premium consists of synergistic value, expropriation value and pure control value. Except for tender offer, the controller of a company is entitled to receive the control premium by default, but the controller could share the control premium with the minority shareholders under the U.S. law. Therefore, there is no single answer with respect to allocation of the control premium. Under Taiwan law, the concept of control premium is developed in the context of appraisal right. Although the control premium is soundly developed, the allocation of the control premium has not been adequately explored and Taiwan court seems to be inclined to give a one-size-fits-all answer in this regard. This article reviews the academic discussions and cases, and provides a global structure with respect to the allocation of the control premium.<br />
]]><![CDATA[]]>https://lawreview.law.nycu.edu.tw/lawreviewlaw/ch/app/data/doc?module=nycu0040&detailNo=1397037426572005376&type=s控制權溢價之意涵及其歸屬
- <![CDATA[著作權法追及權之研究]]>陽明交大法學評論第2期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<strong><span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;">The Study on Resale Royalty Right</span></span><br />
作者：</strong>許炳華<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>201712<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>追及權；著作權；視覺藝術；人格權；第一次銷售原則；Droit de Suite；Resale Royalty Right；Visual Arts；Moral Right；the First Sale Doctrine<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
追及權首度於1920年為法國所法制化，斯時起，法國之視覺藝術家有權由其作品再銷售之過程要求獲得增值分享權利金，追及權雖時常被描繪為財產權利，然精確言之，應界定其為人格權與著作人權利之混合，因為其同時源自於不可移轉之源權及參與未來經濟性利用著作之權利，在將近一世紀後，追及權已在全球81個國家實施，並為伯恩公約第14條明文化，而融合至歐盟之層級。功能健全之著作權法必須提供著作人豐沛之支持，畢竟著作人應該是著作權體系首要之受益者，促進所有人珍視文化、強化對於創作者本身之尊重、藉由藝術之過程及實現來擴展參與，殆屬國際著作權規範之任務，從理論面觀之，追及權確然成為爭議性之議題，然在國際現實下，未來追及權之國際條約將成為下一階段之挑戰。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
The Droit de Suite, or an artist’s resale royalty right, was first enacted into law by France in 1920. Since then, French fine artists have had the right to be paid a royalty from the proceeds of any resale of their work. Often characterized as a pecuniary right, the Droit de Suite is more accurately defined as a hybrid of the moral right and the author’s right, because it is an offshoot of both of the inalienable right of paternity and the right to participate in the future economic exploitation of a work. Almost a century later, the resale royalty right is implemented in 81 countries and is now recognized in Berne Convention in Article 14 and harmonized at European Union level. A well-functioning copyright law must provide robust support for authors, who are, after all, the first beneficiaries of the copyright system. To further the appreciation of culture among all the people, to increase respect for the creative individual, to widen participation by all the processes and fulfillments of art, is the duty of international copyright system. An international treaty for artist’s resale royalty right would be a challenge of next stage.<br />
]]><![CDATA[]]>https://lawreview.law.nycu.edu.tw/lawreviewlaw/ch/app/data/doc?module=nycu0040&detailNo=1397037242614026240&type=s著作權法追及權之研究
- <![CDATA[美國專利懲罰性賠償解析──以2016年聯邦最高法院Halo Electronics Inc.v. Pulse Electronics Inc.為中心]]>陽明交大法學評論第2期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<strong><span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;">The Analysis on U.S. Punitive Damages of Patent Infringement: Focusing on Halo Electronics Inc. v. Pulse Electronics Inc.</span></span><br />
作者：</strong>呂柔慧<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>201712<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>懲罰性賠償；三倍損害賠償；故意侵權；專利侵權；美國專利法；Punitive Damage；Treble Damages；Willful Infringement；Patent Infringement；U.S. Patent Law<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
懲罰性賠償，意指於填補權利人損害外，由法院再行提高侵權人之損害賠償數額。於大陸法系國家，由於傳統認為有損害斯有賠償，對於英美法系懲罰性賠償之概念尚無法完全接受，因此，導致我國專利法懲罰性賠償於2011年至2013年間反覆立法，實務在操作上也尚未臻成熟階段。反觀美國專利法制，懲罰性賠償之發展已將近有兩個世紀之久，雖於法條上不同於我國明定以侵權人「故意」為適用前提，實務上仍發展出以侵權人「蓄意」（willful）為要件，美國聯邦最高法院並於2016年做出Halo Electronics Inc. v. Pulse Electronics Inc. 案，推翻適用將近10年的In re Seagate Technology, LLC案之兩階段測試法，重新提出「蓄意」之認定標準。本文即以上開判決為中心，詳述美國專利懲罰性賠償之發展歷程，以及本案可能帶來之影響，最後，以美國法為借鏡，提出我國專利懲罰性賠償之設立有其正當性，但不應以填補損害為主要目的，實務對於相關酌定標準之運作仍有待未來持續發展；另外，我國廠商對於美國此項最新發展亦不能不注意，以避免遭法院認定為「蓄意」，而同負懲罰性賠償之連帶責任。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
Punitive damage means that the court can increase the damages after fully compensating the infringement. The concept of punitive damage hasn’t been well accepted in civil law system because the traditional jurisprudence of damages in civil law is compensatory damages. And that leads to the repeated elimination and enactment of punitive damage in R.O.C. Patent Law within the last two years, the court also has difficulties in utilizing it. Punitive damage in the U.S. patent law has been developed for nearly two centuries. Unlike R.O.C. Patent Law, the U.S. patent law doesn’t expressly require “willfulness” as prerequisite, but it has been accepted through the practice of law. In 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court in Halo Electronics Inc. v. Pulse Electronics Inc. has held that the test used since 2007 for awarding punitive damage for willful patent infringement is not consistent with the Patent Act, by clarifying the proper standard for determining willful infringement. This article aims to focus on Halo, introducing the development of punitive damages in the U.S. patent law and the impact of Halo. Finally, this article suggests that punitive damage should remain enacted in Taiwan and be awarded for a punitive purpose, but the standard for punitive damage still needs future relevant cases in order for a standard to be developed. Taiwan companies should also be aware of the development of Halo to avoid joint and several liabilities.<br />
]]><![CDATA[]]>https://lawreview.law.nycu.edu.tw/lawreviewlaw/ch/app/data/doc?module=nycu0040&detailNo=1397037066616836096&type=s美國專利懲罰性賠償解析──以2016年聯邦最高法院Halo Electronics Inc.v. Pulse Electronics Inc.為中心
- <![CDATA[檢察官定位與指令拘束──德國法的視角啟發]]>陽明交大法學評論第3期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<strong><span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;">Discussion on the Position of Prosecutors and the Restriction on Orders Regarding Prosecutorial Matters–From the Perspective of German Law</span></span><br />
作者：</strong>許澤天<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>201809<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>法律守護人；法定原則；法價值；檢察官；檢察指令權；司法官；行政官；客觀義務；Guardian of Law；Principle of Legality；Legal Value；Prosecutor；Right to Command；the Judicial Officer；the Administrative Officer；Objective Obligation<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
檢察官扮演介於法官與警察之間的法律守護人，不但必須履行客觀義務與遵守法定原則，更須將法價值的實現作為其存在的根本意義，而與一個把法律當作工作制約的行政官有所區別。檢察官在憲法的權力分立意義上屬於行政權，而不在憲法第七章有關「司法」的規範範圍內。因此，憲法第 80 條對於從事審判工作的法官，要求須依據法律獨立審判，卻未明文對檢察官做此要求；立法機關更在法院組織法第 63 條與第 64 條分別規定，檢察總長與檢察長對檢察官的指揮監督權以及職務承繼權與移轉權。不過，在刑事程序的任務上，檢察官與刑事法官皆屬廣義的刑事司法機關，透過彼此的分工與制衡，發現真實，並實現保障人權價值在內的司法正義（司法院大法官釋字第 392 號參照）。因此，在追求法律意旨實現的誡命下，司法人員人事條例第 3 條將檢察官與法官合稱為「司法官」，實屬妥適。由於檢察官在刑事程序的任務趨近於法官，自須使檢察官猶如法官般地，得以依其確信認事用法。檢察官不同於一般行政公務員，對於上級指令權的限制，亦不能只求不違背法令即可，而須考量到檢察官的司法屬性。據此，檢察首長不應透過指令權強迫檢察官違反自己確信行事，如欲貫徹自己觀點，亦只能行使職務承繼權、職務移轉權，以維持檢察官的司法屬性。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
Prosecutor, as the guardian of law subduing between judiciary and police, may not only comply with objective obligation principle of legality, but especially regard demonstrating the legal value as their essential mission. In contrary, executive official, who regards the law as a bound toward the policies, is fundamentally distinct from prosecution system. Under the scheme of separation of powers in constitution, prosecutor was assigned to the executive branch, so the Section 7 (Judiciary) did not include prosecution system within; hence, Constitution Article 80 only dictated that judges shall hold trials independently. Besides, Legislative Yuan had separately entitled the right of instruction and supervision and the right to take over or commission official tasks to prosecutor general and chief prosecutor in Article 63 and 64 of Court Constitution Act. However, within discharging duty in criminal roceedings, prosecutors and judges are both regarded as the generalized judiciary, which counterbalanced and duty-divided with each other to discover the legal fact within cases, and to accomplish the judicial justice and the human right protection (see Interpretation No. 392 of Judicial Yuan). Thus, at the behest of the law, it is accurate to position prosecutor and judge as “judicature” jointly in Article 3 of Jurisdiction Personnel Management Act. There is an obligation for prosecutors to identify cases within the opinio juris, since the role of prosecutor resemble judges under the criminal proceedings. Consequently, the restriction on the right to command between superior and subordinate prosecutor could not only submit to the law, but also ponder the character as judicature, which significantly dissimilar from general executive public official. Whereupon, prosecutor general could not oblige subordinate prosecutors to alter their opinio juris by the right to command. So as to the implementation of the opinio juris of prosecutor general himself/herself, in case of discrediting the judicature character of prosecutor, he/she could only exercise the right to retract or transfer.<br />
<br />
]]><![CDATA[]]>https://lawreview.law.nycu.edu.tw/lawreviewlaw/ch/app/data/doc?module=nycu0040&detailNo=1396864923744604160&type=s檢察官定位與指令拘束──德國法的視角啟發
- <![CDATA[論美國食品輸入的「免驗查扣」制度]]>陽明交大法學評論第3期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<strong><span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;">“Detention Without Physical Examination” in the American Food Importing System</span></span><br />
作者：</strong>陳鋕雄<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>201809<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>免驗查扣；邊境查驗；舉證責任；不法外觀；食品安全；Detention Without Physical Examination；Border Inspection；Burden of Proof；Appear to Be Adulterated；Food Safety<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
免驗查扣制度目的在於以預警角度，避免美國國內消費者因食用問題食品、藥品而受有損害。該制度能使美國食品藥物監督管理局（Food and Drug Administration, FDA）以快速警示之方式，將問題食品扣留於邊境，以保護美國國內消費者不會購買到問題食品及藥品。該制度雖具快速、經濟之特色，惟其本質上仍有侷限，如無法即時發現問題食品來源，導致無法有效杜絕問題食品的進口；或構成世界貿易組織（World Trade Organization, WTO）規定的貿易障礙。惟此制度賦予 FDA 極大權限，使 FDA 無須嚴謹證據，基於進口食品表徵上似有違法即可直接將產品於邊境扣留並禁止進口，可轉移進口國的舉證責任，將政治爭議導入法律程序解決。本文撰寫目的乃為瞭解美國免驗查扣制度之運作，另一方面淺析此制度於實務運作上之問題，並為我國提出更具體、更全面的制度性介紹及建議。故撰文架構將從免驗查扣制度介紹，重要案例探討免驗查扣制度之運作及問題，最後討論該制度在WTO 架構下的爭議。結論中將比較我國現行制度與免驗查扣制度之差異，提出修法建議以消弭食安爭議。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
The purpose of the “detention without physical examination” (DWPE) rules is based on the precautionary perspective to prevent the American consumers from injuries due to defective food or drug products. The system enables the Food and Drug Administration detent problematic products in borders through promulgating import alerts. The system has the benefits of quickness and efficiency. However, the system has shortcomings including the timing to discover problematic products and the potential to be deemed as unreasonable trade obstacles under the legal framework of the World Trade Organization. But the system authorizes the FDA the power to detent products in the borderlines and prohibited them from being imported without any prudent evidence or even only based on the appearance of the products. This approach may shift the burden of proof from the importing country and to prevent political disputes by legal mechanisms. The purpose of this article is to understand the DWPE system, to analyze the problems of the system, and to purpose recommendations to transplant this system to Taiwan. The article will first introduce the DWPE system, analyze important cases, then discuss the disputes under the WTO framework. In conclusion, the article will compare the difference between the Taiwan’s importing rules and the DWPE system, and provide legislative amendment recommendations to solve the food safety disputes.<br />
<br />
]]><![CDATA[]]>
- <![CDATA[美國與臺灣專利民事侵權訴訟爭點效之發展與爭議──兼論臺灣專利無效雙軌制之困境]]>陽明交大法學評論第3期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<strong><span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;">The Development and Disputes of Issue Preclusion in Civil Patent Litigation in the U.S. and Taiwan–Dilemma Resulting from Patent Invalidity Two-track System in Taiwan</span></span><br />
作者：</strong>楊智傑<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>201809<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>專利民事訴訟；附隨禁反言；爭點排除效；專利無效；司法二元化；Patent Civil Litigation；Collateral Estoppel；Issue Preclusion；Patent Invalid；Dual Judiciary System<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
所謂附隨禁反言，又稱為爭點排除效。美國專利侵權訴訟中爭執之專利一旦被判定無效，基於附隨禁反言，該無效判決則產生對世效力。1971 年，美國最高法院就 Blonder-Tongue v. University of Illinois Foundation 一案判決，改變過去見解，判決中提及專利權人在一終局並得上訴之判決中被認定無效之專利權人，被禁止再對他人主張專利權。隨後，此一附隨禁反言之適用範圍，從專利無效之認定，擴大到專利侵權及不侵權之認定，以及專利請求項之解釋。本文研究美國法院一系列之判決發展，討論專利訴訟之附隨禁反言之範圍與發展。並藉由美國附隨禁反言之概念，回頭檢討臺灣智慧財產法院之相關運作。臺灣目前問題有二：1.基於司法二元化之結構，民事專利無效判決無法讓該專利真的無效；2.專利權人對上游廠商而法院判決不侵權後，卻轉而對下游廠商提告之問題。本文將比較日本、臺灣、德國、美國之專利無效雙軌制度，並檢討臺灣制度之問題。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
In civil procedure in U.S., there is a principle of collateral estoppel, also called as issue preclusion. When a patent be declared invalid in a civil litigation opinion by court, principle of collateral estoppel would prevent the patent owner litigate on the patent again. In 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court decides the case Blonder-Tongue vs. University of Illinois Foundation, overruling the old principle mutuality of estoppel, held that once a patent owner’s patent be declared as invalid, he can’t bring infringement suit against other implementers any more. Afterwards, the scope of principle of collateral estoppel extended to the issue of infringement or not infringement of patent, and issue of patent claim interpretation. For the purpose of understanding development and scope of principle of collateral estoppel in patent context in U.S., several important cases in U.S. courts will be studied. Furthermore, we will compare the operation of Taiwan IP court with the U.S. There are two situations problematic in Taiwan: 1. For reasons of dual judiciary system in Taiwan, court decision in civil proceeding declare a patent invalid actually not yet invalidate that patent forever. 2. After a patent owner lose his suit against upstream company alleged infringing patent, he can then bring suit against downstream company. In the end, the two-track invalidation system of Japan, Taiwan, German, and U.S. will be compared, to find what the problems and dilemma in Taiwan’s patent invalidation system.<br />
<br />
]]><![CDATA[]]>
- <![CDATA[鑑識會計實務中無資力被告專家證人訴訟支援權之研究]]>陽明交大法學評論第3期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<strong><span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;">The Right of the Indigent Defendant to Expert Assistance in the Criminal Cases</span></span><br />
作者：</strong>邱筱雯<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>201809<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>專家證人；財經犯罪；鑑識會計；訴訟支援權；無資力被告；Expert Witness；Financial Crime；Forensic Accounting；Litigation Support；Indigent Defendant<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
本文透過比較法分析，簡介美國法上之專家證人制度與專家證人報酬之給付，並由美國法上標竿案例 Ake v. Oklahoma 案談起，探討無資力之被告在刑事訴訟案件中是否具有專家證人訴訟支援權、其權利之範圍，以及在肯認具有專家證人訴訟支援權之前提下，應如何尋找有意願之專家證人及其專家報酬之經費來源。針對我國現行財經刑事訴訟支援之實務運作，本文透過質性訪談研究方法，訪談具有鑑定人經驗之會計教授、會計師，以及財經刑事訴訟律師，透過其等對於實務運作現況之觀察與評析，探討我國於財經刑事訴訟案件中無資力被告聘請鑑定人訴訟支援之需求性、尋求鑑定人之管道、鑑定人報酬之給付與經費來源、應否賦予被告選任鑑定人之權利，以及點出我國刑事訴訟制度中可能存在檢察官裁量權應否擴大、認罪協商制度之落實、法院詰問制度之運作等議題，以就我國現行實務運作現況為呈現，並為我國學術與實務界之參考。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
This article introduces the expert witness in the United States legal system and analyzes the leading case: Ake v. Oklahoma. The purpose of this research is to study whether an indigent defendant has the right to expert assistance in the criminal cases. To be more specific, how they can exercise this right, how to find an expert who has the willingness to assist the case, and what is the financial resource to support this legal system. To deeply understand the legal system and litigation situation in Taiwan, this study adopted the interview research method and provided the perspective of accounting professor, accountant, and the litigation attorney. Based on their professional opinion, to further analyze the demands of the indigent defendant to hire an expert, whether should the legal system to endow defendant the right to elect their expert. On the other hand, it probably exists some critical issues in Taiwan’s legal system, such as the discretion of the prosecutor, the plea bargaining system and the right of Judges to interrogate the expert witness.<br />
]]><![CDATA[]]>
- <![CDATA[我國保險業暨保險輔助人間防制洗錢暨打擊資恐監理之研究]]>陽明交大法學評論第4期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;"><strong>Study of the Supervision of AML/CFT on the Taiwanese Insurance Companies and the Intermediaries</strong></span></span><br />
<strong>作者：</strong>黃天牧；邵之雋<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>201903<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong> 洗錢防制；保險輔助人；大額通報；風險基礎法；加強審查；Anti-Money Laundering；Countering Terrorism Financing；Insurance Company；Insurance Agent；Insurance Broker；Insurance Intermediary；Risk Based Approach；Enhanced Due Diligence<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
本文簡介保險業與保險輔助人之洗錢與資恐監理規範與實際作業，並綜述國內外犯罪人士利用保險商品進行洗錢與資恐常見不法態樣，以及英美國家對保險業與保險輔助人間防範洗錢與資恐相關法令規範。本文發現在如何建置符合我國保險業與保險輔助人間防制洗錢與資恐有效監理法規與作業方面，可從兩個面向著手：保險輔助人與保險公司建構合作通路管理機制之作法，以及增進保險輔助人與保險公司確認及驗證客戶身分之作法。此外，為避免業務員偏重業績，而忽略相關協力義務，本文建議將業務員之執行防制洗錢及打擊資恐之狀況納入酬金制度之一環，以實際得受領之佣金，來管控業務員之作業。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
This study briefly introduces the regulations and compliances of the insurance companies and the insurance agents and brokers (“intermediaries”) on anti-money laundering and countering terrorism financing (“AML/CFT”). It also reviews the common illegalities of domestic and foreign criminals’ using insurance products for money laundering and terrorism financing, and U.S. and U.K.’s regulations for AML/CFT between the insurance companies and intermediaries. In terms of how to establish effective regulations and compliances of AML/CFT which are suitable for Taiwanese insurance companies and intermediaries, this study suggests that we can start from two aspects: the practice of the insurance companies and intermediaries to establish a cooperative access management mechanism, and the practice of enhancing the insurance companies and intermediaries to confirm and verify the clients’ identity. In addition, in order to prevent the salesman’s over emphasis on performance and neglect the relevant cooperation obligations, this study proposes to include the salesman’s implementation of AML/CFT into the part of the remuneration system, and to control the salesmen’s compliances with the actual commission that can be collected.<br />
]]><![CDATA[]]>https://lawreview.law.nycu.edu.tw/lawreviewlaw/ch/app/data/doc?module=nycu0040&detailNo=1396863035758350336&type=s我國保險業暨保險輔助人間防制洗錢暨打擊資恐監理之研究
- <![CDATA[現行證券交易法對臺灣存託憑證（TDR）之規範依據]]>陽明交大法學評論第4期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;"><strong>The Regulatory Basis on Taiwan Depositary Receipts (TDR) in the Securities and Exchange Act</strong></span></span><br />
<strong>作者：</strong>王志誠<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>201903<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>臺灣存託憑證；有價證券；第二上市；第二上櫃；Taiwan Depositary Receipt；Securities；Secondary Listing；Second Cabinet<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
在2012年1月4日增訂證券交易法第165條之2規定之前，證券主管機關雖認為臺灣存託憑證（TDR）係屬「外國之其他具有投資性質之有價證券」，但司法實務上亦有判決認為，存託機構在我國內所發行之臺灣存託憑證，雖是「表彰存放於保管機構之外國發行人有價證券」，仍與該外國發行人在外國發行之「外國有價證券」本身有別，導致證券主管機關是否曾依證券交易法第6條第一項規定之授權，將臺灣存託憑證核定公告為證券交易法上之有價證券，產生重大爭議。至於我國於2012年1月4日增訂證券交易法第165條之2規定後，因已對於來我國第二上市或第二上櫃之有價證券，明定其有價證券在中華民國募集、發行及買賣之管理、監督，準用證券交易法第6條規定，臺灣存託憑證成為我國證券交易法上之有價證券，應無疑義，但司法實務上竟有判決認為證券交易法第165條之2之規範對象與臺灣存託憑證無關。本文期能釐清實務爭議之所在，並從解釋論之觀點提出管蠡之見，以杜爭議。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
Prior to the stipulation of Article 165-2 of the Securities Exchange Act on January 4, 2012, the securities authority Identified by itself that it has announced the Taiwan Depositary Receipt was one of “other securities of foreign countries with investment nature”. However, some courts held that the Taiwan Depositary Receipt issued by the depositary institution in R.O.C. is still different from the “foreign securities” issued by the foreign company, although it is recognizing the securities in the account of the custodian institution which is issued by the foreign company. The major controversy is whether the securities authority has announced the Taiwan Depositary Receipt (TDR) belong to the securities under Paragraph 1, Article 6 of the Securities Exchange Act. As for the amendment of Article 165-2 of the Securities Exchange Act on January 4, 2012 in Taiwan, it has been identified Article 6 of the Securities Exchange Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the secondary listing or second cabinet of the securities which issued by the foreign company. That is the public offering, issuing, management and supervision in R.O.C. shall apply mutatis mutandis to the Article 6 of Securities Exchange Act. Therefore, there is no dispute about the Taiwan Depositary Receipt become the securities in the Securities Exchange Act. In fact, there are some courts held that the Taiwan Depositary Receipt does not regulated by the Article 165-2 of Securities Exchange Law. This paper will clarify the core point of the practical disputes, and put forward the views from the perspective of interpretation theory to eliminate the mentioned disputes.<br />
]]><![CDATA[]]>
- <![CDATA[非律師者之法律業務參與──論英國2007年法律服務業法]]>陽明交大法學評論第4期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;"><strong>Incorporating Non-lawyers into the Provision of Legal Services--The United Kingdom’s Legal Service Act of 2007</strong></span></span><br />
<strong>作者：</strong>陳鋕雄<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>201903<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>法律服務業法；法律服務委員會；新型商業架構；非律師之律所所有權；律師獨立性；the Legal Services Act 2007；Legal Service Board；Alternative Business Structure；Non-lawyers Ownership of Law Firms；Independence of lawyers<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
英國於2007年通過著名的法律服務業法，可謂大幅改寫既有法律服務提供之遊戲規則，對歐美國家造成深遠影響。該法在高度管制及放任市場運作這兩種模式中找到平衡點，於規範目的中明示了保護消費者、促進競爭及建立一個具有獨立、健全、多元及有效法律服務市場之決心。該法在監管方面最為特別之處，在於創設由非法律人組成的法律服務委員會，由其作為法律服務之最終監督機構，而日常活動之監管，則交由專業人員自行組成的認證監管機構負責。該法亦創設法律申訴辦公室，以行政調解來統一處理消費者對於法律服務之申訴。雖然英國此一新法帶給消費者更大的選擇自由，對整體法律服務市場帶來極大的利益，然而，有些潛在的法律倫理問題需要注意。本文擬就英國之法律服務業法及實施成效加以分析，並探討此法於運作上所可能產生之倫理議題，最後則會為我國提出政策建議，以期引起更多有志者的討論。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
The famous Legal Services Act 2007 of the United Kingdom dramatically rewrites the traditional rules of legal service and has profound impact to the Western countries. The law finds a balancing point between highly governmental regulations and free market competition and announces in the regulatory goals the determination to protect consumers, to promote competition, and to build up a legal service market with independence, integrity, diversity, and efficiency. The law is special in the approach of regulatory governance that it established Legal Service Board which is dominated by non-lawyer persons as the ultimate regulator, and leave the day-to-day activities to be monitored by approved regulators organized by professionals. The law creates Office for Legal Complaints to handle consumers’ complaints by administrative mediation. Although the new law brings more freedom to choose for consumers and creates great benefits for the legal service market, but there are certain legal ethics issues requiring attentions. This article analyzes the Legal Services Act and the empirical data of the law’s performance, discusses the potential ethical issues, and makes some recommendations for Taiwan’s policymakers in the hope to have more fruitful discussion in this area.]]><![CDATA[]]>https://lawreview.law.nycu.edu.tw/lawreviewlaw/ch/app/data/doc?module=nycu0040&detailNo=1396862555464404992&type=s非律師者之法律業務參與──論英國2007年法律服務業法
- <![CDATA[職業工會適用我國罷工投票規範之研究──德國法制之啟示]]>陽明交大法學評論第4期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;"><strong>The Study on the Application of the Regulation of Strike Ballot in Craft Unions and the Implication of German Labor Law</strong></span></span><br />
<strong>作者：</strong>邱羽凡<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>201903<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>職業工會；爭議權；罷工；罷工投票；勞資爭議處理法第54條第一項；Craft Unions；Right to Dispute；Strike；Strike Ballot；Article 54；Section 1 of the Act for Settlement of Labor-Management Disputes<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
我國職業工會自2011年新勞動三法實施後，逐步朝向自主化與多元化的發展，並發展出不同於以往勞健保職業工會模式的工運路線，亦有進行罷工之事例出現，此均讓職業工會適用罷工規範的相關問題開始受到矚目。勞資爭議處理法第54條第一項規定：「工會非經會員以直接、無記名投票且經全體過半數同意，不得宣告罷工及設置糾察線。」此一規範限制工會於宣告罷工前，應先經過罷工投票且取得全體工會會員過半數同意。由於職業工會具有「跨廠場、跨企業」以及「結合相關職業技能之勞工」二大特點，職業工會應如何在罷工投票中適用「全體過半數」之規範，迭生爭論。本文分析德國法上相關討論，釐清罷工投票程序的目的在於實現工會民主，故「全體會員過半數」應以爭議範圍中的工會會員為全體會員的範圍，而違反罷工投票規範應屬工會違反對於會員的義務，不應導出罷工違法以及讓雇主取得對於工會或勞工請求損害賠償之權利。現行勞資爭議處理法第54條第一項將罷工投票規範置於勞資爭議處理法的爭議行為章之中，實有導引讓人誤解罷工投票之組織（工會）內部效力要件為外部效力之問題，故立法上應將罷工投票事項回歸為工會依章程自主所保障的權限，以落實工會內部的直接民主，而不宜再將規範工會與其會員間的事項與勞資爭議處理法中的罷工合法要件併列，造成不當限制工會與勞工之罷工權的結果。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
Since the latest collective labor laws came into effect in 2011, craft unions which used to take care of the labor insurance and health insurance in the past, now become more independent and diverse, and even lead strikes. As a result, this phenomenon raises issues about how the procedural requirement for a strike to be applied on craft unions. Article 54, section 1 of the Act for Settlement of Labor-Management Disputes provides “A craft union shall not call a strike and set up a picketing line unless a strike has been approved by more than half of the members in total via direct and secret balloting,” which means a craft union should hold a poll, and get more than half of members’ approval before calling for a strike. However, professional unions are consist of members whose occupations are same, but from different enterprises. Therefore, how should “half of members’ approval” from a professional union be counted? Through analyzing German laws, this paper clarifies that the purpose of voting procedures is fulfilling “democracy in craft unions.” Therefore, the base number of “over half of members’ approval” should only include the number of members concerning the instant dispute. In addition, defying such procedure only resulted when a union violates its obligation toward members. Employers cannot claim for any compensation resulting violation of the procedural requirement of a strike. Due to placing Article 54, section 1 of the Act for Settlement of Labor-Management Disputes in the chapter of the Industrial Action, people often misunderstand the voting procedure as an issue of external rather than internal effect. Hence, the Act for Settlement of Labor-Management Disputes should not regulate the relationship of a craft union and its members, as it will unreasonably limit the right to strike of a craft union and its members. Article of the craft union should have the full autonomy in regulating the procedure of vote to strike in order to achieve the goal of direct democracy in a craft union.]]><![CDATA[]]>
- <![CDATA[評析臺灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例第93條之1修法與實務之若干議題]]>陽明交大法學評論第5期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<strong><span style="font-size:115%;"><span style="color:#990000;">Commentaries on Selected Issues of the Article 93-1 of Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and the Mainland Area</span></span></strong><br />
<strong>作者：</strong>吳盈德<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>201909<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>臺灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例；陸資；違法投資；行政罰法；連續處罰；The Act Governing Relations between the People of theTaiwan Area and the Mainland Area；Funds from China；Illegal Investments；Administrative Punishments；PenalizedContinuously<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
臺灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例自1992年7月31日制定公布，同年9月18日施行以來，先後歷經16次修正。鑑於目前出現大陸資金未經主管機關許可來臺從事投資，影響我國資本市場秩序，本次修法將調高陸資未經許可來臺投資之罰鍰上限，並將陸資投資事業規避主管機關檢查納入裁罰對象，以遏止陸資違法投資或違規之行為，另考量實務上不乏小額投資違規態樣，宜由主管機關依違法情節輕重及比例原則進行裁處。此次修正條文第93條之1，將陸資未經許可來臺投資之罰鍰，由現行12萬元至60萬元，修正為12萬元至2,500萬元，主管機關可依違法情節輕重及比例原則，處以罰鍰。另依據行政罰法第18條，若違法來臺陸資所得之利益，超過法定罰鍰最高額2,500萬元，相關機關可再加以裁罰，不受法定罰鍰最高金額之限制。另外，此次修法也新增限期改正，否則可要求其撤資，並得連續處罰至改正為止，相信可適用於大部分的案件，未來特殊案件也可思考如何予以強化。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
The Act Governing Relations between the People of the Taiwan Area and theMainland Area was established on July 31, 1992 and enforced on September 18thof the same year with 16 amendments. Recently Taiwan's financial market was inchaos due to unauthorized investments from China. To prevent such unlawful investmentsand transactions, this amendment will raise and maximize the fine forunauthorized investments from China, as well as set up an executive departmentresponsible for putting the unlawful investors from China under investigation andmaking them liable. Considering the many actual cases involving illegal investmentsin small monetary value, it is most appropriate for the authority to determinethe punishment based on the illegal action's level of significance.This amendment of Article 93-1 shall change the scale of fines for unauthorizedinvestments from China from the initial range of NT＄ 120,000 to NT＄ 600,000 to become NT＄ 120,000 to NT＄ 25,000,000. The authorities who arefound to be linked to said illegal investments will also be punished according to thedegree of severity and proportion of the violations with a fine. In addition, based onArticle 18 of the Administrative Penalty Law, whereas the benefits of the unlawfulinvestment in Taiwan exceed the maximum legal penalty of NT＄ 25 million, therelevant organizations may impose additional punishments that are not limited bythe stated maximum value of penalty. Moreover, the amendment also adds a timelimit restriction for correction and if not satisfied, the investor will be demanded towithdraw their shares and be punished continuously until corrective action is done.This is believed to be appropriate for most cases. The article will be furtheramended in the future upon the occurrence of special cases.<br />
]]><![CDATA[]]>https://lawreview.law.nycu.edu.tw/lawreviewlaw/ch/app/data/doc?module=nycu0040&detailNo=1396861258996649984&type=s評析臺灣地區與大陸地區人民關係條例第93條之1修法與實務之若干議題
- <![CDATA[標準必要專利FRAND權利金計算──兼論智慧財產法院105年度民專上字第24號判決]]>陽明交大法學評論第5期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<strong><span style="font-size:115%;"><span style="color:#990000;">FRAND Royalties for Standard Essential Patents and Case Review of Philips v. Gigastorage in Taiwan IP Court</span></span></strong><br />
<strong>作者：</strong>莊弘鈺；鍾京洲；劉尚志<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>201909<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>人工智慧；人工智慧創作品；繪畫機器人；著作權保護；聘雇著作；職務著作；Artificial Intelligence (AI)；AI-Generated Work；Painting Robot；Copyright Protection；Work-Made-for-Hire；Work- Made-for-Position<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
本文回顧各國法院關於標準必要專利公平、合理、無歧視（FRAND）之權利金計算所作成之司法判決，從比較研究之觀點進行分析及歸納。自美國法院於2013年作成第一個關於標準必要專利FRAND權利金計算的判決，各國法院在FRAND權利金計算的議題上，已陸續發展出許多值得參考的判決與方法論。本文深入個案進行判決之研究，從中萃取重要之計算方法與論理，描繪出可供依循之FRAND權利金計算架構，而各國法院採納之具體方法論以「由上而下法」與「可比較授權法」為主流，有僅採用其中一種方法，亦有見兩種方法並用作為交叉檢驗者，決定出標準必要專利最終之FRAND權利金費率。其後聚焦我國智慧財產法院105年度民專上字第24號判決，並就飛利浦與國碩公司間損害賠償額之決定，以各國相關司法判決為借鏡，分別解析一、二審法院計算賠償數額之方法論。本文主張可比較授權之授權金應僅為計算合理權利金之起始點，仍應將系爭專利貢獻度納入考量進行分配，俾使個案中合理權利金之數額能適度，避免專利箝制與權利金堆疊的風險。故期待本文對FRAND權利金計算之比較研究觀察與啟示，能作為資訊通訊產業界與我國司法實務界面臨相關爭議時之參考。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
The article reviews judicial decisions of fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory(“FRAND”) royalties in various jurisdictions. Starting with Microsoft v. Motorolain 2013, the first FRAND royalty decision ever made, courts from different juris- dictions have addressed their opinions on how to determine FRAND royalties. Afterexploring rationales in each case, the article then extracts useful approaches andkey implications for determining FRAND royalties in order to depict an applicableframework. Courts now primarily consider either “top down approach” or “comparablelicense analysis,” or even both as a reliable cross-check, to come up with finalFRAND royalties for SEPs in suit. The article further focuses on Philips v. Gigastorage, a controversial patent infringement case where Taiwan Intellectual PropertyCourt awarded the patentee (Philips) an outrageous amount of damages. The articlerespectively analyzes and discusses the methodology the court adopted in its firstand second instance. The article then suggests that under the comparable licenseanalysis, royalties from a comparable license should be considered as a startingpoint for the calculation, and that the court should further consider apportioningeconomic value of the infringed patent(s) from the entire patent portfolio. The considerationcould help avoid risk of patent hold-up and royalty stacking. The implicationsand trends in the article may shed some light on future FRAND royalty calculation, for corporations in the global telecommunications arena as well as for thejudiciary in Taiwan.<br />
]]><![CDATA[]]>
- <![CDATA[人工智慧創作品之著作權保護──從繪畫機器人談起]]>陽明交大法學評論第5期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<strong><span style="font-size:115%;"><span style="color:#990000;">Copyright Protection for AI-Generated Work–From the Discussion of Painting Robots</span></span></strong><br />
<strong>作者：</strong>毛舞雲<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>201909<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>人工智慧；人工智慧創作品；繪畫機器人；著作權保護；聘雇著作；職務著作；Artificial Intelligence (AI)；AI-Generated Work；Painting Robot；Copyright Protection；Work-Made-for-Hire；Work- Made-for-Position<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
本文首先透過繪畫機器人之介紹，使讀者理解機器人獨立自主從事創作之情境，並進而激發問題意識：當機器人已具備某種感知能力，能夠自行生成人類所無法預知內容的作品（AI-generated work，以下簡稱「人工智慧創作品」）時，著作權相關規範應如何調整以因應此種新興作品之保護？為回應此一議題，本文主要分為法律與政策兩方面探討：在法律方面，參考英國立法例，初步建議可於著作權相關規範中將人工智慧創作品納入保護，其具體內容考量法律安定性，則考慮透過擬制既有制度以填補目前法制空缺，經檢視現行著作權法規範中與人工智慧創作品之創作邏輯最為接近者，發現聘雇著作的法理與人工智慧創作品有一定相似性，其中又以職務著作最為接近，故似可以此作為人工智慧創作品擬制之依據；另在政策方面，為求人工智慧創作品之長期且全面性發展，初步建議可參考日本之相關討論，設立跨部會整合之專責機構加以統籌擘劃。本文結論強調，賦予此一新型態創作品法律位階的保護，且以人類為權利主體，始能達到創造誘因、激勵創新之目的，才更有機會建立一個正向循環的人工智慧經濟，並期待政策上將人工智慧創作品納入人工智慧產業之整體規劃，以使產業全面發展。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
Starting with newly-invented painting robots, this article hopes to inspirereaders' awareness of current issue: how to modify copyright framework, when therobot is perceptive and capable of generating unpredictable artwork? This articletries to respond this issue from two perspectives of law and policy. Firstly in legalperspective, this article refers to UK's similar mechanism, claiming that protectionneeds to be built in the copyright related laws. As for the protection method, basedon the principle of legal stability, analogizing AI-generated work to the existingwork under copyright law may be a feasibly way. After reviewing each type of theworks, the author considers work-made-for-hire theory has the highest similaritywith AI-generated work. Secondly in policy perspective, this article refers to EuropeanUnion and Japan's policy consideration to introduce the advanced mechanismfor Taiwan's reference. The initial suggestion is proposed that an inter- departmental sector shall be established for the long-term development of the AIgeneratedwork. In conclusion, the author emphasizes that legal protection shouldbe applied to this new type of work and attribute right to human, so that the incentivefor innovation will be created and eventually benefit to Taiwan's AI industry.Also, the policy on AI-generated work should be formulated, so that the Taiwan'sAI development blueprint will be more complete.<br />
]]><![CDATA[]]>
- <![CDATA[專利有效性判斷雙軌制下臺灣專利連結制度觀察及建議]]>陽明交大法學評論第5期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<strong><span style="font-size:115%;"><span style="color:#990000;">Observations and Suggestions on Taiwan's Patent Linkage System in Bifurcated Patent Litigation System</span></span></strong><br />
<strong>作者：</strong>李秉燊<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>201909<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>專利連結；公私法二元與雙軌制；藥品專利登載；擬制侵權；暫停核發藥物許可證；銷售專屬期間；Patent Linkage；Bifurcated Patent Litigation System；Drug Patent Listing；Artificial Act of Infringement；Automatic Stay；Market Exclusivity<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
美國法院判決專利無效，即拘束其後所有訴訟當事人；是以，在專利連結制度下，當有學名藥廠取得專利無效判決，美國食品藥品監督管理局（USFDA）於另一學名藥廠申請上市時，不再啟動暫停核發許可證。臺灣專利有效性判斷則採雙軌制，雖然民事法院得自為判斷專利有效性，惟僅生個案拘束力；因此，專利連結在臺灣施行後，即使系爭專利曾經民事法院認定無效，只要未經舉發撤銷，臺灣衛生福利部食品藥物管理署（TFDA）在另一學名藥廠申請上市時仍於法定期間暫停核發許可證。由此可知，同樣的專利連結制度，適用臺灣專利法制後產生有別美國的法律效果，系爭專利將繼續啟動暫停核發許可證的法定效力，遞延第二、三家學名藥廠進入市場的時間，進而影響藥品價格與製藥產業發展。鑑於上述問題，本文研究美國修法歷程與韓國立法例，在臺灣公私法二元與雙軌制的結構下提出專利連結制度的規範配套建議，調和現行臺灣專利連結制度在專利有效性判斷雙軌制下可能形塑的市場壁壘。此外，臺灣有別美國，尚未允許學名藥廠主動提起確認系爭專利應撤銷或未侵權之訴，於訴訟啟動完全處於被動；甚至在專利連結下擬制侵權訴訟中對原開發藥廠訴訟理由有重大影響的專利資訊有疑義時，得否爭執亦未可知。本文建議臺灣未來在專利法增訂專利連結下擬制侵權態樣時，應確保配套規定學名藥廠得於原開發藥廠未於法定期間起訴時，提起確認專利未侵權之訴；並基於專利資訊為該擬制侵權的重要基礎，規定學名藥廠得於專利連結訴訟中提請法院審酌專利資訊適格與正確性，以平衡現行制度下學名藥廠的弱勢地位。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
n the U.S., once a patent owner's patent(s) is declared as invalid, he cannotbring an infringement suit against other implementers any more. Therefore, when ageneric drug company successfully challenges patent(s) validity in a Hatch-Waxman litigation, the US FDA will not grant other 30-month stays of regulatoryapproval to brand-name drug company because the patent(s) corresponding to newdrugs is invalid. However, patent law in Taiwan follows the bifurcation system.Accordingly, although Taiwan civil courts are allowed to decide the validity of patentright at issue, its opinion binds only the parties in suits. For that reason, afterthe patent linkage system is implemented in Taiwan, the statutory 12-months stayswill be triggered automatically if the patent(s) corresponding to new drugs have notbeen revoked, even the civil courts had decided the patent(s) is invalid based on themerit of the case. Obviously, patent linkage system in Taiwan's bifurcated patentlitigation system will delay the latecomer generic drug companies who sell thesame drug entering the market. The generic pharmaceutical industry and the right to access medicine in Taiwan will subsequently be jeopardized. Furthermore, Taiwancivil courts are not allowed to invalidate a patent or decide whether patent(s)corresponding to new drugs is infringed by a counterclaim or declaratory judgement.On top of that, it is still unknown that whether the generic drug companycould question the patent information in the Hatch-Waxman litigation if it seemsinappropriate. As a result, this article digs into U.S. Statute law revision and suggestsTaiwan civil courts should shoulder the burden of verifying the informationafter requested by the generic drug company in the litigation with the objective ofstriking a balance between brand-name and generic drug company.<br />
]]><![CDATA[]]>
- <![CDATA[商標功能性與識別性之關聯性研究──從智慧財產法院107年度民商上易字第3號民事判決談起]]>陽明交大法學評論第6期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;"><strong>A Study on the Relationships between Distinctiveness and Functionality --The Taiwan Intellectual Property Court’s 2018 Decision Min-Shang-Shang-Yi-Zi-3</strong></span></span><br />
<strong>作者：</strong>陳匡正<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>202003<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>商標；識別性；功能性；先天識別性；後天識別性；Trademark；Distinctiveness；Functionality；Inherent Distinctiveness；Secondary Meaning<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
商標須具備識別性之要求，乃為保障公共利益，並讓商標不受不正當權利所壟斷。至於商標不須具備功能性之消極要件，則為避免功能性之商品設計或特徵取得永久的商標保護，且有礙同業之公平競爭和社會進步。然商標識別性與功能性之關聯性為何？首先，如智慧財產法院（以下簡稱「智財法院」）在107年度民商上易字第3號民事判決（以下簡稱「本案」）所稱：「當特定型式之功能性配件，可以發揮識別性作用時，即屬於商標使用之性質。」此外，亦有論者謂：「一旦一標識具備功能性，即使其具有先天識別性，或者其具有後天識別性，但其仍不受商標法所保護。」換言之，商標識別性與功能性兩者是否相互排斥，就此爭點亦頗耐人尋味。特別是這關乎在商標註冊階段，系爭商標能否加以註冊？又於商標註冊、生效後，這仍與系爭商標之權利，是否及於其他侵權之商標？甚至使用系爭商標，是否構成異議、評定之事由。而本文之論點將從分析本案做基礎，並結合我國、美國理論及實務之見解，提出不管是現行法之解釋，抑或是智財法院之判決，都應將具有功能性之標識，排除在商標權之保護外，且我國傳統、非傳統商標關於功能性判斷之因素，應明文訂定在審查基準中等建議，如此不僅得以確保本法維護市場公平競爭之立法目的，更能夠提供未來實務針對判斷識別性及功能性之明確標準。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
Distinctiveness is a requirement for trademark registrations, for protecting public interests, and for creating trademarks without unfair rights monopolizations. Furthermore, trademark registration can -- without being a requirement of functionality -- attempt to avoid gaining trademark rights protections for functional goods designs or characters and hinder other competitors’ fair competition and social progressions. However, what is the relationship between trademark distinctiveness and functionality? First, the Intellectual Property Court (hereafter called the IP Court) claimed, with regard to the 2018 Min-Shang-Shang-Yi-Zi-3 case (hereafter called this case), that, when distinctiveness functions are displayed by specific types of functional accessories, they should belong to the uses of trademarks. Moreover, there are still arguments that functionality is expressed through a mark, which even has an inherent distinctiveness or secondary meaning and that this mark cannot be protected by a trademark act. In other words, an interesting issue is to further investigate whether trademark distinctiveness and functionality are in conflict with each other. In particular, trademark distinctiveness and functionality are related to the question of whether a trademark can be registered during the stage of trademark registration. Furthermore, trademark distinctiveness and functionality are also concerned with whether there are trademark infringements and whether the uses of a trademark constitute opposition or invalidation. The arguments of this article are based on this case and the combined theories and practices of Taiwan and the United States and include to make suggestions that marks with functionalities cannot be protected by trademark rights regulated by the current laws and made by the IP Court. Moreover, judgments of traditional and non-traditional trademarks’ functio-nalities in Taiwan should be ruled in examination guidelines. Thus, it attempts to maintain the legislative purpose of Taiwan Trademark Act regarding fair competition in markets and provide clear judgments concerning distinctiveness and functionalities for Taiwanese practices.]]><![CDATA[]]>https://lawreview.law.nycu.edu.tw/lawreviewlaw/ch/app/data/doc?module=nycu0040&detailNo=1396859183407566848&type=s商標功能性與識別性之關聯性研究──從智慧財產法院107年度民商上易字第3號民事判決談起
- <![CDATA[初探區塊鏈之不可竄改特性、匿名性所衍生的法律問題]]>陽明交大法學評論第6期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;"><strong>On Law Problems from Immutability and Anonymity of Blockchain</strong></span></span><br />
<strong>作者：</strong>呂嘉穎<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>202003<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>區塊鏈；不可竄改；匿名性；被遺忘權；Blockchain；Incorruptible；Anonymous；Right to Be Forgotten<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
科技的日新月異對於人類的生活帶來了創新的改變，舉例來說，奠基於區塊鏈技術的數位貨幣，對於傳統交易而言，帶來了不同的思維方式。現今區塊鏈之運用，在規劃、運用上已不限於數位貨幣，而是以更為全面的方式進入人類的生活之中。也由於這種對於未來社會所可能帶來的觀念衝擊，本文試圖從區塊鏈本質及其與現行法規範間的矛盾、衝突為分析主軸，亦即以區塊鏈技術層面可能帶來的爭議，做提前性的法律制定及修正建議。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
Ever-changing technologies bring innovative changes in our life. For example, digital currency based on Blockchain provides a brand new way of transaction. Blockchain now is going to be applied not only on digital currency, but on most aspects of our life. However, it may bring impact on existing norms. The study focuses on analyzing the contradiction between Blockchain and existing laws. That is, the author provides early advices of enactment and amendment of laws to respond possible controversies caused by Blockchain.]]><![CDATA[]]>
- <![CDATA[食品攙偽假冒之類型化──美國法的啟示]]>陽明交大法學評論第6期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;"><strong> Typification of Food Adulteration --A Perspective on the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of the United States of America</strong></span></span><br />
<strong>作者：</strong>黃于容；陳鋕雄<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>202003<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>攙偽；食品安全衛生管理法；「美國聯邦食品、藥品與化妝品法」；食品安全；攙偽假冒；Adulteration；Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation；“Federal Food；Drug；and Cosmetic Act”；Food Safety；Adulterated<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
邇來攙偽相關之食品安全事件頻傳，與攙偽、假冒刑罰構成要件有關之條文，亦即食品安全衛生管理法第15條第一項第七款和同法第49條之適用與討論也逐漸增加，然由於食品安全衛生管理法第15條第一項第七款條文用字過於精簡，導致實務與學說有諸多相異之觀點，至今無法統一。美國聯邦食品、藥品與化妝品法對於攙偽之規範採取比較詳盡的定義模式，共列有數十種攙偽之行為樣態，值得我國借鑑，本文將以比較法研究之方式，分析其內涵、適用狀況與相關批評，再與我國現行食品安全衛生管理法第15條第一項各款進行對照，以期能以立法論之角度，提供關於攙偽、假冒內涵之修法建議，而於未修法前，亦試圖透過比較法之對照，得出較為適切的條文解釋。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
Due to the increasing frequency of food adulteration incidents, the issue of adulteration has been greatly discussed. However, as the Section 15 Paragraph 1 Subparagraph 7 of the Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation (the acts of adulteration and counterfeit) is not worded with precision, the indications of application of Section 15 Paragraph 1 Subparagraph 7 of the Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation and the definition of adulteration as interpreted by scholars and courts are oftentimes not uniformed. This article therefore discusses in depth the core of adulteration and counterfeit from the perspective of criminal legislation. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of the United States of America comprehensively defines the acts and punishments of adulteration. By analyzing the regulations in the USA, and comparing them with the regulations in Taiwan, this article hopes to clarify the definitions of adulteration and propose suggestions for future amendments of Section 15 Paragraph 1 of the Act Governing Food Safety and Sanitation.]]><![CDATA[]]>
- <![CDATA[我的電腦，你的檔案──論刑法第359條「他人電磁紀錄」之範圍界定]]>陽明交大法學評論第6期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;"><strong>My Computer, Your File --Discussion about the Scope of Criminal Law Article 359 “Magnetic Record of Another”</strong></span></span><br />
<strong>作者：</strong>魏國晉<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>202003<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>電腦犯罪；電磁紀錄；處分權限；電腦使用安全；電腦法益；Computer Crime；Magnetic Record；Disposition Authority；Security of Computer Use；Legal Benefit of Computer<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
就刑法第359條「無故取得、刪改他人電磁紀錄罪」之「他人電腦或其設備之電磁紀錄」應如何解釋之問題，我國實務近期具代表性之見解，係將該用語解釋為「他人之電磁紀錄」，並根據電磁紀錄之「處分權限」究竟屬行為人自己或他人所有，界定本罪客體之範圍。惟若細究判決理由，或得察覺系爭判決並未回應既有學說見解，亦未說明其採取相關解釋之理由，甚至可能於判斷標準之選用上存有邏輯上之不當連結，而牴觸我國立法者就「電腦使用人」與「電腦使用安全」所設之極限。為釐清前述爭議，筆者自本罪十數年來之法益爭議中，探詢各說見解對法益內涵之基礎共識，並同時參酌德國刑法對「電磁紀錄」處分權限歸屬之判斷，嘗試建構符合我國法制現狀之判斷標準。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
As to the question of how to interpret the “magnetic record of another’s computer/another’s magnetic record in computer” in Criminal Law Article 359, also known as “obtaining, deleting or altering Magnetic Record of Another without reason,” the recent judgment from the Supreme Court has tried to interpret the term as “magnetic record of another,” and then define the scope of the object, depending on who has the “disposition authority” of the magnetic record. However, if the reasons for the judgment are carefully investigated, it is certain that the judgment has neither responded to the existing doctrines and opinions, nor explained the reasons behind its choice. In the worst case, it may even have logically inappropriate links, which in turn touches the limits set by legislators on “computer users” and “security of computer use”. In order to clarify the above disputes, the author explores the basic consensus of the meaning of legal interests from the controversy for more than a decade. At the same time, the German criminal law’s discussion on the privilege of the “magnetic record” has also been consider, in an attempt to construct the standard that conforms to the status quo of Taiwan’s legal system.]]><![CDATA[]]>
- <![CDATA[首次代幣發行的美麗新世界？我國證券型代幣之規範架構評釋]]>陽明交大法學評論第6期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;"><strong>A Brave New World for ICO? On Taiwan’s Regulatory Framework of STO</strong></span></span><br />
作者：黃朝琮<br />
出版年月：202003<br />
關鍵詞：首次代幣發行；證券型代幣；Howey測試；區塊鏈；金融監理沙盒；Initial Coin Offering；Securities Token；Howey Test；Blockchain；Financial Regulatory Sandbox<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
首次代幣發行（initial coin offering，以下簡稱「ICO」）乃近年來廣受討論之募資方式，其一方面使募資者得以迅速募集資金，但另一方面又因其涉及廣泛大眾，若有糾紛將有廣泛影響，而為金融監理機關所矚目。對此，我國金融監督管理委員會（以下簡稱「金管會」）藉由核定具證券性質之虛擬通貨為有價證券的方式，將ICO中之證券型代幣發行（security token offering）引入證券交易法的規範當中，並就證券型代幣之發行與交易建置相關機制，料將對於ICO於我國發展產生深遠影響。本文就金管會之規範框架進行，就ICO之分類、證券型代幣之定義、申報豁免規定、資訊揭露內容及外國法規定適用等面向，若干觀察與思考，期促進後續對話與規範之完善。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
'Initial Coin Offering (“ICO”) is a financing method that is widely discussed recently. On the one hand, ICO allows the issuer to quickly obtain the funding required, but on the other hand, it involves the general public and may have broad impact in the event of disputes. By including the virtual assets with the nature of securities as one of the securities to be regulated, the Financial Supervisory Commission (“FSC”) subjects one type of the ICO, the security token offering (“STO”), to the regulatory framework of Taiwan’s Securities and Exchange Act and establishes the mechanism for the issuance and trading of security tokens, which would bring significant implications to the development of ICO in Taiwan. This article observes and ponders on FSC’s regulatory framework of STO with respect to classification of ICO, definition of security token, exemption of application, information disclosure and application of foreign law, aiming to facilitate the conversations and to improve the regulatory framework in the future.]]><![CDATA[]]>
- <![CDATA[我國同性婚姻之法律衝突問題]]>陽明交大法學評論第7期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<strong><span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;">Same-Sex Marriages in Taiwan Private International Law</span></span><br />
作者：</strong>林恩瑋<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>202009<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>國際私法；涉外婚姻；同性婚姻；註冊伴侶關係；本國法主義；Private International Law；Foreign Marriage；Same-Sex Marriage；Registered Partnership；Lex Patriae<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
司法院釋字第748號解釋施行法僅就內國的同性婚姻關係做出實體法上的相關規定，但對於涉外的同性婚姻關係應如何適用法律，並無明文。我國現行法制對於與大陸地區人民之婚姻、與港澳地區人民之婚姻及與外國人民之婚姻在法律適用規定上均不完全相同，使得涉外同性婚姻的法律適用問題越形複雜。我國法制應如何定性「同性婚姻」？關於涉外同性婚姻之準據法，是否亦應適用結婚之準據法規定？上開問題均為我國同性婚姻之法律衝突之核心。本文以比較法學分析方法，就上開問題逐一進行分析，並試著提出一些具體建議予我國司法實務工作者。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
Act for Implementation of J.Y. Interpretation No. 748 only made relevant substantive laws on same-sex marriage in Taiwan, but there was no clear text on how the law should be applied to same-sex marriage involving foreign elements. Taiwan legal system is not completely the same in terms of applicable laws to marriages with the mainland area people, marriages with the Hong Kong and Macao area people, and marriages with foreign people, making the same-sex marriages involving foreign elements more complicated in the application of law. How should Taiwan legal system characterize ''same-sex marriage''? Regarding the law governing foreign same-sex marriage, could the law governing marriage also apply? They are the core issues of Taiwan conflict of laws over same-sex marriage involving foreign elements. This article uses comparative legal analysis methods to analyze the mentioned issues and tries to give some specific advices to our judicial practice workers.]]><![CDATA[]]>https://lawreview.law.nycu.edu.tw/lawreviewlaw/ch/app/data/doc?module=nycu0040&detailNo=1396856306748362752&type=s我國同性婚姻之法律衝突問題
- <![CDATA[國民參與刑事審判模擬法庭之觀察與評析 ──兼論定型化指令、行為準則 以及決策樹狀圖的使用]]>陽明交大法學評論第7期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<strong><span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;">Observations and Analysis of the Lay Judge Mock Trials-A Proposal to the Application of Model Instructions, Best Behavioral Practices and Decision Trees</span></span><br />
作者：</strong>金孟華<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>202009<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>國民參與刑事審判；模擬審判；定型化指令；行為準則；決策樹狀圖；Lay Judge System；Mock Trial；Model Instruction；Best Practices Guidelines；Decision Tree<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
本文綜整作者於2018至2019年間參與全國各地方法院所舉辦之國民參與刑事審判模擬審判觀察心得，分別針對選任程序、開審陳述、證據調查、國民法官對法律的理解、論罪評議以及量刑評議等議題進行介紹。此外，也針對所觀察到之問題，提出軟性規範的重要性，這當中包括針對職業法官以及國民法官使用各種定型化「指令」與「行為準則」，以及透過「決策樹狀圖」減少職業法官及國民法官之認知負擔。本文同時建議未來定型化指令、行為準則以及決策樹狀圖所應具備之要素供各界參考。最後，本文主張主管機關應組成一功能性委員會，有系統地將所見所聞進行整理，並且將相關問題以及解答，彙整、內化成一套全國共用之決策工具系統，供職業法官及國民法官使用。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
This article describes the observations of a series of lay judge mock trials held between 2018 to 2019 in the district courts of Taiwan. It focuses on key procedures and issues including voir dire, opening statement, evidence investigation, the comprehension of law by lay judges, and deliberation (guilt and sentencing). It points out the importance of implementing tools such as ''model instructions'' for lay judges and ''best practices guidelines'' for professional judges, as well as ''decision trees'' to limit the cognitive loading of decision-making for both lay judges and professional judges. Finally, this article argues that these tools should be reviewed and maintained by a national committee and develop into a national standard.]]><![CDATA[]]>
- <![CDATA[秘密保持命令之回顧與展望]]>陽明交大法學評論第7期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<strong><span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;">The Confidentiality Preservation Order in Taiwan-Review and Response</span></span><br />
作者：</strong>劉怡君；杜佩珊；陳俐雯<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>202009<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>營業秘密；秘密保持命令；審酌要素；證據開示；Trade Secret；Protective Order / Confidentiality Preservation Order / Investigation Confidentiality Protective Order；Examination Factor；Discovery<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
立法院因應國內偵查實務所需，提出由檢察官為核發機關之偵查保密令制度，作為偵查程序中衡平發現真實與營業秘密保護之手段。偵查保密令係我國因應實務所需而創建之制度，欠缺國外立法例及實務操作前例，將來偵查保密令制度之建置與執法操作，應有研議因應必要。因偵查保密令制度係發想於審理中秘密保持命令制度，本文將回顧國內及國外有關秘密保持命令制度之研究文獻與實務見解，對國內審判實務操作秘密保持命令制度之法院實務審理狀況相關議題，與實務工作者進行深度訪談，及就秘密保持命令裁定進行量化研究，分析國內與國外審判實務情況異同，提出實證研究結果及相關分析意見，並提出本文認為我國偵查保密令制度建立意義，及實務操作借鏡秘密保持命令研究成果時應注意之點，期望讓從事實務工作者能更深入瞭解我國秘密保持命令實務狀況，讓國內偵查保密令及秘密保持命令制度均能穩健成熟發展，發揮制度應有之訴訟程序中兼顧保護營業秘密及程序權利的目的。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
The Legislative Yuan of Taiwan enacted ''the Investigation Confidentiality Protective Order'' (hereinafter referred to as ''the Order'') which granted the prosecutor to issue during criminal investigation, as the method of balancing substantive justice and protection of trade secrets. It is not applied the criminal discovery rule in Taiwan, taking opportunity to legally explore the trade secret of the rivals during a criminal investigation. The Order is constituted in response to the demands of domestic investigating practices in Taiwan. Since it lacks foreign legislation and practical precedents, it is necessary to discuss how to legislate and enforce the system of the Order. Since the Order is derived from ''the Confidentiality Preservation Order ,'' this article reviewed domestic and foreign literatures and practical opinions of the Con- fidentiality Preservation Order, also conducted in-depth interview with practitioners about the issues of the enforcement of Confidentiality Preservation Order in trials, and made quantitative research of the ruling of Confidentiality PreservationOrder. The text analyzed implementation of the Confidentiality Preservation Order between the domestic and foreign trial practices, and presented the results of the empirical research and the related observations. Also, this article claimed the significance of the legislation of the Order, and reminded the precautions in the application of the Order by observing the implementation of the Confidentiality Preservation Order. The study expected to make practitioners have a deeper and broader understanding of the practical implication of the Confidentiality Preservation Order, and develop the system of the Order and the Confidentiality Preservation Order without hesitation. The purpose of legislation is to balance trade secrets protection and procedural due process.]]><![CDATA[]]>
- <![CDATA[私部門之金融揭弊者保護 ──我國草案與美國法之對照]]>陽明交大法學評論第7期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<strong><span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;">Financial Fraud and Whistleblower Protection-A Comparison Between Taiwan's Bill and the U.S. Laws</span></span><br />
作者：</strong>林志潔；楊善淳；劉千瑜；林哲辰<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>202009<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>揭弊者；金融機構；揭弊者保護法草案；沙賓法；華爾街改革與消費者保護法；Whistleblower；Financial Industry；Whistleblower Protection Bill；Sarbanes-Oxley Act；Dodd-Frank Act<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
鑑於金融機構之經濟重大影響性，本文自金融機構角度切入，介紹揭弊者保護理論及相關規範，以凸顯我國揭弊者保護仍為不足之現況，並援引美國法案例與制度，以對我國法務部廉政署研擬，並於2020年4月8日經立委提案之「公益揭弊者保護法草案」做一檢視。本文依據揭弊者與其他行為人間之身分關係，將揭弊者劃分為不同類型，因應各類型揭弊者所面臨之困境，提出相應之保護措施，並以金融機構之產業特性及現存弊病，說明金融機構中揭弊者保護制度建立之必要性。由於我國揭弊者保護相關法制闕漏，且美國法之金融機構吹哨者保護相關法制齊備，如沙賓法（Sarbanes-Oxley Act）、華爾街改革與消費者保護法（Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act）即詳盡規範相關保護、獎勵措施，且相關案例繁多可供借鑑，因此本文援引美國法案例及制度，以輔助檢視揭弊者保護法草案，以期完善揭弊者保護制度，並對金融機構及主管機關於揭弊者法制建構後，提出相關應行作為建議。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
This study focuses on the whistleblower protection policy in Taiwan and compares Taiwan's policy with the U.S. laws. The financial industry in U.S. has a long history and developed successfully, which could provide Taiwan's legal reform a reference model. In Taiwan, whistleblower bears unfair burdens and culture stigma. Lacking of sufficient protection forces whistleblower to take risks of personal safety and retaliation in workplace. On the contrast, the U.S. legal system provides whistleblower protection comprehensively including identity's confidentiality, prevention from workplace retaliation and legal remedies. Corporations are required to establish compliant system and protection mechanism. Due to the insufficiency of current whistleblower protection policy, Taiwan's Agency Against Corruption at Ministry of Justice proposed Whistleblower Protection Act in the end of 2018. The bill in now under the review at the Congress. This article will analyze and give comments to the bill as well. Hopefully, Taiwan could own its whistleblower protection law as soon as possible.]]><![CDATA[]]>
- <![CDATA[準公同共有關係裡之權利行使──以債權與股份表決權為例]]>陽明交大法學評論第8期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<strong><span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;">The Exercise of Rights in Quasi Relation in Common - Taking Obligation and Right of Stock Voting as Examples</span></span><br />
作者：</strong>游進發<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>202103<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>準共有；準公同共有債權；準公同共有股份權利；可分債權；不可分債權；Quasi Co-Ownership；Quasi Obligation in Common；Quasi Right of Shareholder in Common；Dividable Obligation；Indivisible Obligation<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
若系爭準公同共有權利乃民法第828條第二項規定所指權利，則應適用該條規定，而非逕自適用民法第828條第三項規定，以避免應以全體準公同共有人之同意，始得行使權利，這項權利行使限制所造成的難以行使權利的困境。關於系爭權利行使，應依民法第831條規定準用第828條第二項或第三項規定？這則法律解釋適用，應追求符合相應於民法共有之團體規範意義關連之法律解釋。在例如繼承人因繼承而準公同共有股份權利之情形，繼承人基於股東權利，出席股東會，行使表決權，這項表決權行使，應依民法第831條準用民法第828條第二項規定，以全體準公同共有股份權人成立分管契約為之，不能成立分管契約者，則得以多數決為之。例如準公同共有債權，其給付不可分者，應準用民法第821條規定本文與但書規定，使各準公同共有債權人雖均得請求債務人為給付，但僅得請求債務人向全體準公同共有債權人為給付；其給付可分者，應依民法第831條準用第828條第二項、第821條本文與但書規定，使各準公同共有債權人雖均得單獨請求債務人給付，但僅得請求債務人向全體準公同共有債權人為給付。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
f the right in dispute is the right referred to in article 828, item 2 of the Civil Law, that provision shall be applied first, rather than directly applying of article 828, item 3 of the Civil Law, so to avoid that quasi owners in common shall exercise their rights only with the consent of the all quasi owners in common. Regarding the exercise of disputed rights, should article 831, 828, item 2 or 3 be applied? This application should pursue a legal interpretation that is consistent with the group meaning of co-owners of the Civil Law. For example, in the case where heirs are quasi owners of share rights in common due to inheritance, the heirs attend the shareholders meeting and exercise the right to vote, this voting right shall be exercised in accordance with article 831, 828 item 2 of the Civil Law under the establishing of the division contract, and if the division contract cannot be established, it shall be decided by a majority. For example, if the quasi obligation in common is inseparable, the whole article 821 of the Civil Law shall be applied. And then each quasi creditor in common can request the debtor for payment, but can only request the debtor to pay to all the quasi creditors in common. If separable, article 831, 828, item 2 and whole article 821 of the Civil Law shall be applied. Thus, each quasi creditors in common can request the debtor to pay, but only request the debtor to pay all the quasi creditors in common.]]><![CDATA[]]>https://lawreview.law.nycu.edu.tw/lawreviewlaw/ch/app/data/doc?module=nycu0040&detailNo=1396852878773063680&type=s準公同共有關係裡之權利行使──以債權與股份表決權為例
- <![CDATA[知情交易、證券交易的三面結構與內線交易的外沿]]>陽明交大法學評論第8期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<strong><span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;">Informed Trading, the Three-Way Nature of Modern Securities Transaction, and the Halo of Insider Trading</span></span><br />
作者：</strong>林建中；吳奐廷<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>202103<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>知情交易；知情交易機率；證券交易三面結構；花旗張偉凱案；Newman case；SAC Capital；Informed Trading；Probability of Informed Trading；Three-Way Nature of Securities Transaction；Citigroup Global and Kevin Chang case；Newman case；SAC Capital<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
本文從財務經濟學與法學雙重角度，介紹知情交易的概念。此一概念，藉由財務經濟學的發展，得以量化的知情交易機率的估算，並提供內線交易與優勢交易的有效量化標準。本文並藉由現代證券交易的三面關係，討論市場專業從業人士與金融中介機構在交易與資訊傳遞上所扮演的角色。本文基於以上的介紹，透過近年美國（Steinberg案、Newman案、Salman案、Martoma案）與臺灣案例（花旗環球張偉凱案）的進一步分析，檢討知情交易與專業人士本於資訊開發與優勢下所為交易所應承擔之法律責任，並對相關法律原則在演進與進退間，所面對的批評與掙扎進行評論。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
This article discusses the concept of ''informed trading'' from two dueling angles: financial economics and law. As a concept developed since the 1980s, informed trading has gradually evolved into a concept of ''probability of informed trading,'' which is a numeric estimation achieved by the OLS and the Poisson Process. Based on this understanding, we discuss the three-way nature of modern securities transactions and the role that market professionals play in securities industry, with a focus on their role in transmitting information to the market and an efficient price. In its last part, this article examines several recent U.S. cases involving tipper-tippee liability and their struggle in developing a stable legal theory that can strike a balance between trading need and market fairness. It concludes with a middle-ground approach as a legislative recommendation for the possible solution.]]><![CDATA[]]>
- <![CDATA[槓桿交易監理創新的國際經驗介紹]]>陽明交大法學評論第8期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<strong><span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;">Introduction to the New International Experience of Supervising Leverage Trading</span></span><br />
作者：</strong>邵之雋<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>202103<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>槓桿交易；金融監理；創新沙盒；監理科技；資訊透明；Leveraged Transaction；Financial Supervision；Regulatory Sandbox；RegTech；Information Transparency<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
本文綜述了美國、新加坡、英國、澳洲，在槓桿交易產品定義上的差異性。本文發現我國的槓桿交易法規設計上主要參考美國經驗，而在實際運營中則採國際通用，以期貨商兼營槓桿交易商的方式。在監理發展上，我國的槓桿交易商環境相對自由，並無嚴格的槓桿倍數限制；而在槓桿交易產品的開發上，由於我國不允許做本幣以及和中國大陸資本市場連結的槓桿交易產品，因而較其他國家保守。這使得我國槓桿交易商在產品開發上，除需結合本國實體經濟需求外，也必須與其他國家既有優勢產品作差異化區別，以滿足國內業者使用槓桿交易產品進行避險以服務實體經濟的需求。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
This article summarized the definition differences of leverage trading between U.S., Singapore, U.K. and Australia. We discover that our design of regulations on leverage trade is primarily based on U.S. experience, yet international standard is adopted in the actual operation, futures dealers acting as leverage traders. In terms of the development of supervision, our trading environment for leverage has relative freedom without a strict limit on leverage's multiples. In terms of leverage trade's product development, it is more conservative than other countries since our country forbids creating leverage products that link our currency to Mainland China's capital market. It forces our country to combine the needs of our economy and to create differentiation from other countries' featured products in the leverage trade dealer's product development in order to satisfy the industry need of using leverage trade product to service the market by performing hedge.]]><![CDATA[]]>
- <![CDATA[行動通信業者共用基礎設施暨頻率之競爭法問題]]>陽明交大法學評論第8期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<strong><span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;">Competition Law Issues on Infrastructure and Spectrum Sharing of Mobile Telecommunications Operators</span></span><br />
作者：</strong>謝長江<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>202103<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>第五代行動通訊；5G；頻率共用；基礎設施共享；聯合行為；電信管理法；The Fifth-Generation Cellular Network Technology；5G；Spectrum Sharing；Infrastructure Sharing；Concerted Action；Telecommunications Management Act<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
本文在電信管理法開放第五代行動通訊（5G）相關電信業者共用頻率之背景下，探究相關合作行為在競爭法上的定性以及競爭分析所涉因素。共用頻率係基礎設施共享的一種類型，在對於行動通信基礎設施共享的類型及其技術、管制與競爭等層面進行簡介與初步分析之後，本文以歐盟的監管政策及競爭法上的分析與案例為比較對象，分析頻率共用行為在電信管理法兼冶競爭目的之產業政策下，是否及如何適用公平交易法有關聯合行為的規定。本文依照電信業者享有使用權及進行共用之頻率資源，將其共用行為分為「促進市場參進」及「共同開發網路」2種類型，其中僅後者可能合致公平交易法上的聯合行為，並分析依該法第15條審查時應考慮的因素。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
This contribution explores the properties under competition law and related analytical factors of spectrum sharing, which is allowed under Telecommunications Management Act among 5G mobile telecommunications operators. Based on preliminary remarks and analysis of infrastructure sharing of mobile telecommunications, including its technical, regulatory, and competitive aspects, comparative legal studies focusing on whether and how Article 14 of the FTC Act, which pertains to concerted actions, applies to the cooperative behaviors concerning spectrum sharing are conducted. The said behaviors are categorized into two types, ''entry enhancing'' and ''network developing,'' according to the spectrums licensed to and shared by the operators, where only the latter type has the potential to be deemed as a concerted action. An analysis on the review concerning the approval of the latter type of cooperation under Article 15 of the Act is then provided.]]><![CDATA[]]>
- <![CDATA[重審臺灣憲法法院的政治角色──以大法官釋字第261號為例]]>陽明交大法學評論第9期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;"><strong>Reexamining the Role of the Constitutional Court in Taiwan’s Democratization—Evidence from the J.Y. Interpretation No. 261</strong></span></span><br />
<strong>作者：</strong>王金壽；宋昱嫺<br />
<strong>出版年月</strong>：202109<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>大法官；憲法法庭；261號解釋；民主化；司法政治；Justice；Constitutional Court；J.Y. Interpretation No. 261；Democratization；Judicial Politics<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
本文透過分析大法官釋字第261號出現的政治背景，重新檢視臺灣憲法法院在民主化過程中扮演的角色。釋字第261號長期以來被許多法律學者視為是推動臺灣民主化最重要的釋憲案。在這個釋憲案中，大法官為第一屆多年未被改選的中央民代設下了確切的退職期限，促成了國會全面改選。法律學者大多對此釋憲案有很高的評價，認為大法官展現了民主化的機能。本文挑戰這樣的觀點。我們透過分析憲法法院作成釋字第261號時的政治脈絡，論證大法官在民主化過程並非扮演民主倡議者的角色，反之，他們的角色較接近於政治潮流的旁觀者。即使沒有261號解釋文，臺灣的民主化進程並沒有太大的影響。我們同時論證261號解釋文有下列三個政治功能：第一、為當時的執政者解決一個政治上的燙手山芋；第二、解決臺灣政治上的異常質；第三、合法化政治上的大趨勢。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
Most Taiwan law scholars claimed that the Constitutional Court paved the way for Taiwan’s democratization and constitutional reforms. These legal studies consider the J.Y. Interpretation No. 261 as the most critical decision in Taiwan’s democratic transition as this decision provided the constitutional foundations for the retirement of the first-term national representatives and led to subsequent constitutional reforms. In this paper, we challenge this dominant view. We reexamine the political role of the Constitutional Court during the processes of Taiwanese democratization by citing J.Y. Interpretation No. 261 as a hard case. We argue that the Constitutional Court made little contribution to Taiwan’s democratization. This paper shows that the role of Taiwan’s Constitutional Court in the process of democratization has been far more complicated and far less promising than is commonly thought. We also argue that J.Y. Interpretation No. 261 provides at least three political functions for the dominant party: first, it solved a political dilemma for the political elites; second, it helped the political elites to remove the political outliners. Third, it legitimated the ruling party’s political agenda.<br />
]]><![CDATA[]]>https://lawreview.law.nycu.edu.tw/lawreviewlaw/ch/app/data/doc?module=nycu0040&detailNo=1396850995174051840&type=s重審臺灣憲法法院的政治角色──以大法官釋字第261號為例
- <![CDATA[生醫研究與資本市場之監理──以資訊揭露（解盲）為核心]]>陽明交大法學評論第9期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;"><strong>Biomedical Research and Capital Market Supervision—Focus on Information Disclosure (Unblind)</strong></span></span><br />
<strong>作者：</strong>李毓華<br />
<strong>出版年月</strong>：202109<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>解盲；重大訊息；資訊揭露；生技；解盲數據解讀；Unblind；Materially（Substantially）Information Disclosure；Biotech；Unblind Data Interpretation<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
生醫研究、生技產業研發週期長、研發成功率低、風險高、資金需求大，對外籌資於此領域顯得十分重要，資金取得管道通常有二：1.公部門：政府補助或投資，如行政院國家開發基金或經濟部科專補助。2.私人：民間募資。而可成為生技產業中、長期穩定資金來源者通常是資本市場，然因研發結果有其不確定性，為避免此種不確定性成為資本市場投資之阻力，可透過適時公布研發進度及成果消弭投資者之疑慮及不確定感，因適時公布研發進度及成果之目的除了是公司對股東的揭露義務外，也是吸引潛在投資者進入市場之良方。此外，為了避免公司為了籌措資金而過度誇大研發結果（如解盲結果）或故意隱匿部分資訊，造成市場上資訊接收者因資訊不對稱之情況下，做出錯誤的投資決定，因此生技公司研發成果揭露之規範十分重要。同時，生醫領域之資訊內容之複雜可能造成投資者理解上之困難，可能因而造成私人資金不進入之募資困境，因此制訂適度資訊揭露使得資訊透明度增加，並補足資訊落差。本文認為，所謂適度揭露乃符合目的性（達到資訊對稱：透明度、理解度）手段性、比例性（成本考量）之揭露機制。舉例而言，解盲數據之解讀，如何正確解讀解盲數據，切勿落入用單一結果便進行判斷，如何引導投資者正確解讀解盲數據有其重要性，如果用適當之輔助機制協助理解解盲數據，更能幫助投資者理解數據之背後含意，其方法如：允許廠商為一定「客觀」之說明，避免過度樂觀、誇大解盲數據。本文以下內容試圖討論生技產業哪些事項具有重要性而需要揭露，相關資訊（解盲數據）若需揭露時揭露之方法、密度及應權衡之相關權益（金融監管、營業秘密、投資大眾資訊獲知權等）。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
Biomedical research and biotechnology industry have a long R&D cycle, low R&D success rate, high risk, and large funding needs. It is very important to seek external funds in this field. There are two sources of funding: 1. The public sector: Government subsidies or investments, such as the National Development Fund of the Executive Yuan or the Ministry of Economic Affairs subsidies. 2. The private sector: Private fundraising. Capital market (private funding) is a medium and longterm stable source. However, due to the uncertainty of R&D results, timely announcement of R&D progress and results is not only the company’s disclosure obligation to shareholders, but also a good way to attract potential investors to enter the market. To avoid the company from overly exaggerating R&D results (such as unblinding) or deliberately concealing some information to obtain funds, proper and appropriate disclosure of information by a corporation is essential for the long term. Therefore, the standard of disclosure of the research and development results of biotechnology companies is important. At the same time, the complexity of the information content in the biomedical field may cause difficulties for investors to understand, which may result in the financing dilemma of private investment not being invested. Therefore, the formulation of appropriate information disclosure increases information transparency and fills up the information gap. The author believes that moderate disclosure is a disclosure method that meets the purpose (to achieve information symmetry: transparency, understanding) and proportionality (cost consideration).<br />
]]><![CDATA[]]>
- <![CDATA[基因編輯技術，對歐盟基因改造生物管理之挑戰]]>陽明交大法學評論第9期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;"><strong>The Challenge of Gene Editing Technology for EU Genetically Modified Organisms Regulation</strong></span></span><br />
<strong>作者：</strong>謝碧蓮<br />
<strong>出版年月</strong>：202109<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>基因編輯；新育種技術；基因改造生物；定點核酸酶；寡核苷酸定點突變；2015/2283新穎性食品規則；Gene Editing；New Breeding Technologies；Genetic Modified Organisms；Site-Directed Nuclease；Oligonucleotide-Directed Mutagenesis；Regulation (EU) 2015/2283<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
基因編輯技術（gene editing）是21世紀生物科技的重大進展，新育種技術即是運用基因編輯技術，精準誘發基因突變開發新品種，相較傳統的育種技術，更為快速且成本低廉，提升產量緩解糧食不足的危機，對於人類及環境永續發展帶來重大利益，然而，國際間對於基因編輯技術之管理仍未有定論，實則與基因改造生物（genetically modified organisms, GMOs）之管理策略有關，採產品導向模式的國家可能認為無須特別訂定相關管理的政策，而採製程導向模式的國家可能認為應以GMOs加以管制。對於GMOs一向採取嚴格管制的歐盟，在歐盟法院裁決利用基因編輯技術產生誘變的育種技術仍屬GMOs，雖為基因編輯技術以及其產品屬性予以定位，卻造成新興科技發展與相關產業的衝擊，引發新一波的基因技術的爭論，歐盟理事會也要求執委會提出一份關於利用基因編輯技術與傳統技術產生誘變的評估報告。未來對於基因編輯技術及其產品之合理管理政策的發展，仍值得持續關注。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
Gene editing is a major advancement of biotechnology in the 21st century. Compared with conventional breeding technologies, gene editing technology is more effective and precise. This new breeding technology not only improves the yield and nutritional value of crops, but also offer the resolutions for food security. However, many countries are struggling with the regulatory status of this new technology; one of major concerns is related with the strategies of genetically modified organisms. Some countries, represented by the United States, regulating GM crops on a product-basis, will think that there is no necessity to establish relevant regulation or policies for genome-edited crops; others, including EU member states, adopting process-based GM crop regulations, may regard the products obtained by using gene editing technology as GMOs, and these products should need a more rigorous risk assessment throughout the process of GM crop development. Recently, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that the organisms obtained by using gene editing technology to generate mutations are regarded as GMOs. The ruling marked the next round of the dispute around the genetic engineering in Europe. The European Council requested the European Committee to submit an evaluation report between the new breeding technologies and conventional breeding technologies in this year. In the future, we look forward to the development of reasonable regulation for gene editing technology and its products.<br />
<br />
]]><![CDATA[]]>
- <![CDATA[論以保險商品比較平臺推動，普惠金融之可行性]]>陽明交大法學評論第9期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;"><strong>Study on the Feasibility of Promoting Financial Inclusion by Insurance Product Comparison Platform</strong></span></span><br />
<strong>作者：</strong>曾允君<br />
<strong>出版年月</strong>：202109<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>保險商品比較平臺；普惠金融；保險科技；資訊整合；網路保險服務；Insurance Product Comparison Platform；Financial Inclusion；InsurTech；Information Integration；Online Insurance<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
客觀且健全之保險商品比較平臺所具資訊整合及網路保險功能，應具有減省保險消費者取得適合保險商品之成本、促成保險市場商品資訊透明度等功能，有助於降低弱勢個人或群體接觸、瞭解及利用保險商品之障礙，促成普惠金融之落實。若得藉法令或政策安排，由具相當專業性之客觀中立第三方建置保險商品比較平臺無償提供民眾使用，並開放各保險業者得於該平臺執行網路保險服務，且適度容許第三方業者透過開放應用程式介面方式提供更多元應用服務，應更具推動及落實普惠金融之效益。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
nsurance product comparison platform has the function of information integration and online insurance service, which can reduce the cost of insurance consumers to obtain suitable insurance products, increase the transparency of insurance product information, and then help reduce the barriers of vulnerable individuals or groups to contact, understand and use insurance products, and finally achieve the goal of financial inclusion. If a professional, objective and neutral third party can set up an insurance product comparison platform through appropriate laws and policies, which can be used by the public free of charge and allow various insurance companies to provide online insurance services, even further allow other third-party operators to provide more diversified application services through the open application interface, the financial supervision environment shall be more conducive to promote and implement the benefits of financial inclusion.<br />
<br />
<br />
]]><![CDATA[]]>
- <![CDATA[論稅捐撤銷訴訟之爭點主義與總額主義的爭議]]>陽明交大法學評論第10期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<span style="font-size:115%;"><strong><span style="color:#990000;">On the Theoretical Dispute of Subject of Taxation Revocation Litigation</span></strong></span><br />
<strong>作者：</strong>柯格鐘<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>202203<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>撤銷訴訟；訴訟標的；程序標的；爭點主義；個別化理論；總額主義；結算理論；Taxation Revocation Litigation；Subject of Litigation；Pro-cedural Subject；Dispute Doctrine；Individualization Theo-ry；Gross Doctrine；Settlement Theory<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要<br />
</span></strong>我國課稅處分撤銷訴訟標的理論之爭議，表現在「訴訟標的」與「程序標的」等兩個層次產生學說與實務觀點的歧異。有關「訴訟標的」爭議，為爭點主義（個別化理論）與總額主義（結算理論）的爭執；有關「程序標的」爭議，涉及作為訴訟程序救濟標的之行政處分，究竟是指原課稅處分，或經復查程序而作成的復查決定。爭點主義緣起行政法院判例，以將納稅義務人在復查程序所提出之事實爭執（爭點），替代行政處分本身，作為課稅處分撤銷訴訟之程序標的，因此而使關於課稅事件之紛爭，無法在行政救濟程序中一次加以解決。立法者因此藉由制定納稅者權利保護法規定，捨棄爭點主義而改採用總額主義，納稅義務人可以課稅處分上所載之稅額（結算稅額）為訴訟標的範圍，作爭點的擴張（追加）或變更，藉此達成紛爭一次解決目的。惟參考德國法制，總額主義在適用上有其界限，僅對具結算能力之課稅處分才有適用。由於我國實務，對於單一稅捐債權債務關係，現實上經常做出兩個各別獨立課稅處分，即無法適用總額主義而為紛爭一次性解決。從而，應該在納稅者權利保護法修訂後，同時在稅捐稽徵法與行政訴訟法中作相關配套規範之研擬制定，才能達除目的。本文因此在結論上提供修法建議，以為參酌。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
The theoretical disputes about the subject of taxation revocation procedure in Taiwan are manifested in two subjects, which the first one is“subject of litigation”and the other one“procedural subject”. The dispute around“subject of litigation”is theoretical debate between dispute doctrine (also known as individualization theo-ry) and gross doctrine (also known as settlement theory); disputes about“procedur-al subject”involve the administrative assessments between the original tax assess-ment and the review decision made through the review procedure by tax admin-istration. The dispute doctrine originated from one administrative court’s precedent, which indicate only the taxpayer’s factual disputes raised in the review process, instead of the administrative assessment itself, as the subject of the taxation revoca-tion litigation. Just the view of precedent has led to disputes over taxation, which cannot be resolved in one tome in litigation. To resolve the problem, Taiwan’s leg-islators adopted the provisions of Article 21of the Taxpayer’s Rights Protection Act, TRPA, to abandon the dispute doctrine and adopt the gross doctrine, and hope through this specification, that disputes can be resolved at one time. However, gross doctrine has its limits in its application. In terms of this country’s normative situation, if there are two separate tax assessments for a single tax in the same year, it will be impossible to apply settlement theory and resolve disputes in litigation at one time. TRPA is therefore to be revised, which need the relevant supporting regu-lations in the Tax Collection Act and the Administrative Litigation Act. This article provides suggestions revisions in the conclusion for consideration.]]><![CDATA[]]>https://lawreview.law.nycu.edu.tw/lawreviewlaw/ch/app/data/doc?module=nycu0040&detailNo=1396848639665508352&type=s論稅捐撤銷訴訟之爭點主義與總額主義的爭議
- <![CDATA[論涉及專利連結之專利侵權訴訟與其訴訟標的價額之計算]]>陽明交大法學評論第10期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<span style="font-size:115%;"><strong><span style="color:#990000;">Patent-Linkage-Related Patent Infringement Civil Litigation and Valuation of a Cause of Action</span></strong></span><br />
<strong>作者：</strong>陳秉訓<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>202203<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>專利連結；學名藥；原廠藥；訴訟標的；專利侵權；Patent Linkage；Generic Drug；Brand-Named Drug；Cause of Action；Patent Litigation<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要<br />
</span></strong>2019年起藥事法實施專利連結制度，於學名藥廠申請學名藥藥品許可證之過程中，提供原藥廠提早解決專利權侵害爭議之機制。本文意在藉由過去智財法院涉及藥品專利的民事訴訟裁定，共四件案例，以提出在涉及專利連結之專利侵權訴訟中訴訟標的價額之計算方法。案例1與案例4皆屬原藥廠與學名藥廠間的訴訟，但涉及不同原廠藥。案例2、案例3、與案例4涉及相同原廠藥，但三個案件的被告分別為藥局、藥品經銷商、與學名藥廠。最後，本文建議在涉及專利連結之專利民事訴訟中，原告排除侵害請求權之訴訟標的價額之計算公式為：「原藥廠就系爭原廠藥之年度營業所得」×「原藥廠就系爭原廠藥之淨利率」×「起訴時至專利權到期日之期間」；其中，「年度營業所得」以起訴日為起點回算至前一年之營業所得；「淨利率」則可參考財政部之《營利事業各業所得額暨同業利潤標準》中之最接近起訴日之數據。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
In 2019, the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act introduced a patent-linkage system in generic drug application. The patent-linkage mechanism allows a potential patent dispute to be resolved early when the generic drug application is under review. This article attempts to resolve an issue of valuation of a cause of action in patent-linkage-related patent infringement litigation. The resolution relies on four previ-ous decisions of the Taiwan Intellectual Property Court which relate to patent in-fringement by generic drug sales. Case 1 and Case 4 involve a brand-named drug company and a generic drug company, where Case 2, Case 3, and Case 4 involve the same generic drug but different infringers, a pharmacy, two local medicine dis-tributors, and a generic drug company. This article proposes a calculating method: (Annual revenue of the brand-named drug company related to the brand-named drug)×(net profit rate concerning the brand-named drug)×time period starting from the law suit filing date to the expiration date of the disputed patent).]]><![CDATA[]]>
- <![CDATA[國民法官選任程序之操作方法──以美國陪審制為借鏡]]>陽明交大法學評論第10期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<span style="font-size:115%;"><strong><span style="color:#990000;">Legal Study on Children’s Data Protection Legislation under Digital Environment from the Perspective of US Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act</span></strong></span><br />
<strong>作者：</strong>金孟華<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>202203<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>國民法官；選任程序；程序正義；問卷；偏見；Lay Judge；Selection Process；Procedural Justice；Ques-tionnaire；Bias<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要<br />
</span></strong>選任程序是一般國民要成為國民法官所需歷經的重要程序，但全國各地由司法院舉辦之模擬審判中，針對選任程序的操作方法產生許多疑問。本文參考美國陪審制之實務運作以及相關之社會科學研究，認為選任程序的關鍵在於排除偏見以促進公平審判，以及透過程序正義促進信賴。欲達成排除偏見的目的，必須針對候選國民法官取得足夠的資訊，而欲促進信賴，則必須兼顧程序參與。是以，本文建議應於審前擴大使用書面問卷，並在選任程序時，以書面問卷的內容為基礎，將多數時間使用於兩造主導之個別詢問，並同時利用全體詢問兼顧其餘候選陪審員之程序參與，以促進程序信賴。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
The selection process is an essential process in which lay people must go through to become lay judges. However, in the moot courts held by the Judicial Yuan, questions were raised regarding the selection process. This article looks at the American jury system and related social science studies. This article argues that the selection process’s primary goal is to exclude bias to ensure a fair trial and to increase legitimacy through procedural justice. The exclusion of bias can only be achieved by gathering enough information about the lay judge candidates; to in-crease legitimacy, opportunities for participation must be guaranteed. This article suggests expanding the use of written questionnaires before trial. Based on the findings of the questionnaires, the court should allow the parties to interview a lim-ited number of lay judge candidates. Equally important, the court should use group interviews to increase the participation of all other lay judge candidates.<br />
]]><![CDATA[]]>
- <![CDATA[從美國兒童線上隱私保護法檢視數位時代兒童個人資料保護法制推動課題]]>陽明交大法學評論第10期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<span style="font-size:115%;"><strong><span style="color:#990000;">Legal Study on Children’s Data Protection Legislation under Digital Environment from the Perspective of US Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act</span></strong></span><br />
<strong>作者：</strong>郭戎晉<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>202203<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>網際網路；兒童；個人資料；父母同意；兒童線上隱私保護法；一般資料保護規則；個人資料保護法；Internet；Children；Personal Data；Parental Consent；Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act；General Data Protection Regulation；Taiwan’s Personal Data Protection Act<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要<br />
</span></strong>兒童對於個人資料因使用網路服務與資訊設備從而遭到不當蒐集與利用一事，往往欠缺必要的認知與防備能力。美國在網路開放商業使用未久便通過兒童線上隱私保護法（Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, COPPA）並由聯邦貿易委員會制定COPPA規則，凡以兒童為目標客群的平臺或線上服務，經營者蒐集兒童個人資料時必須取得父母事前同意並確保該等同意可資驗證，同時符合其他要求。觀察COPPA實施以降代表性執法案例，由電子商務、行動應用服務至近年廣受歡迎的視訊串流與短影音平臺，除反映資通訊科技及網路商務模式的遞嬗情形，也突顯出數位時代兒童隱私保護法制設計，能否揆諸科技更迭適時進行調整實至為重要。國內現行個人資料法在定位為普通法之前提下，並未特別慮及兒童之保護需求，若擬強化兒童個人資料之保護，可能作法包括仿COPPA制定特別法進行規範，抑或仿歐盟GDPR於個資法中納入相關保護規定。除立法論層面之討論，本文認為關鍵當在於採納規定的可行性與落實，包括COPPA實務運作所突顯的平臺╱網路服務是否以兒童作為目標客群之判斷，以及如何建立業界廣泛認可並可得負擔的父母事前同意確認機制。此外，能否識別網路使用者（兒童）的真實年齡亦殊為重要，導入第三方年齡驗證服務或運用人工智慧技術進行確認，是國內在研商相關法制時可併同納為考量之事項。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
Children’s internet use has dramatically increased in recent years. The expansive engagement of children in cyber space triggered privacy threats, but children often lack the awareness and the capacity to foresee possible consequences. To address the growing online privacy concerns of children, US Congress passed the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) in 1998 and the Federal Trade Commission enacted and implemented COPPA Rules based on COPPA. COPPA applies to operators of commercial websites and online services, according to the major requirements of COPPA, operators must obtain verifiable parental consent prior to collection and use of personal data from children. Cases tagged with COPPA which covered electronic commerce platforms, mobile applications, social networking sites and short video platforms illustrate the development and changes of Information and Communication Technologies, as technology continues to advance, it become more and more important to keep the legislation stay current by enacting frequent updates to the law. Taiwan’s Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) was first introduced in 1996 and was significantly amended in 2010, with the amendments becoming effective in 2012. Being the basic law of data protection affairs, the PDPA did not specifically consider the protection needs of children. Considering the increasing demand for children’s privacy protection, possible approaches include formulating a section law such as COPPA, or imitating GDPR to include relevant protection provisions in PDPA. Regardless of what approach is adopted, the legislator should focus on the feasibility and implementation of relevant regulations, specifically judging whether the operators of platform or online service target the children or not, and promote acceptable and affordable parental consent verification mechanisms.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
]]><![CDATA[]]>
- <![CDATA[電子圍籬作為拘禁措施與提審案件之審查範圍──評臺灣臺北地方法院111年度行提字第2號與第3號裁定]]>陽明交大法學評論第13期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;"><strong>Electronic Fence as a Detention Measure and Scope of Habeas Corpus Review in Cases—Discussion of Taiwan Taipei District Court’s Ruling No. 2 and No. 3 in 2022</strong></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size:100%;"><strong>作者：</strong></span>劉青峰<br />
<span style="font-size:100%;"><strong>出版年月：</strong>202309<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>人身自由；居家隔離；電子圍籬；拘禁；提審；Right to Personal Liberty；Home Quarantine；Electronic Fence；Detention；Habeas Corpus<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong></span><br />
COVID-19疫情肆虐期間，為避免大規模社區傳播，國家針對感染者與自國外入境者，採取居家隔離與集中檢疫之干預措施，同時輔以電子圍籬監控，藉以確保隔離與檢疫手段之執行。於此種高度干預人身自由之情況下，隔離檢疫者就上開剝奪自由之措施向臺北地方法院聲請提審。然而，本文分析兩號裁定內容發現，法院一方面指摘臺北市衛生局以口頭方式所下命之隔離處分，係具重大明顯瑕疵而自始無效，惟另一方面卻又認定在此條件下，隔離檢疫者之人身自由仍未受到拘束，故難認有逮捕拘禁之事實而予以駁回。對此，法院令人費解之論述，實有割裂適用行政程序法、傳染病防治法與提審法之虞，且違反體系解釋之一致性或融貫性要求，進而破壞法秩序之穩定，喪失法律適用上之可預見性，最終將導致人民無所適從。此外，該裁定亦顯示出人身自由之保護範圍是否涵蓋心理影響、法院審查剝奪自由處分之範圍為何與公共政策之後果考量應在法院審理提審案件中扮演何種角色等三個問題。<br />
針對上述三個問題，本文首先認為，違反電子圍籬規定處以高額罰鍰甚至係刑罰之措施，其將導致隔離檢疫者經濟上與社會評價降級之嚴重不利益，進而對其形成巨大之心理壓制，故應肯認發動電子圍籬措施係屬人身自由之剝奪。其次，法院審查剝奪自由措施之範圍，因無涉罪責認定與尊重行政機關發動剝奪自由措施之專業裁量，故不審查該措施之合目的性，而係應審查其實體理由與踐行程序之合法性，並非如傳統實務見解所稱僅審查程序合法性。最後，居家隔離者聲請提審後，法院審查行政機關之隔離處分，倘發現其具有重大瑕疵原因而自始無效，此時法院無須受限於公共政策之防疫角度，考慮釋放當事人之「後果」並自為限縮裁定釋放之範圍。因此，法院倘認行政機關所命之居隔處分自始無效，即應立即當庭開釋隔離檢疫者，落實憲法第8條保障人身自由之意旨。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
During the COVID-19 pandemic, in order to prevent large-scale community transmission, Taiwan implemented home isolation and centralized quarantine through measures such as electronic fence surveillance for infected individuals and those arriving from overseas. Under such a high level of interference with personal liberty, the quarantined and isolated person applied to the Taipei District Court for review of habeas corpus of the deprivation of liberty measure. However, an analy-sis of the two rulings reveals that, on the one hand, the court criticized that the iso-lation ordered orally by the Department of Health, Taipei City Government is ob-viously flawed and invalid from the beginning, but on the other hand, the Court found that the personal liberty of the quarantined and isolated person had not been restrained under these circumstances, and therefore dismissed the case for lack of arrest and detention. For this, the Court’s incomprehensible reasoning threatens to divide the application of the Administrative Procedure Act, the Communicable Disease Control Act, and the Habeas Corpus Act, and violates the requirement of consistency or coherence in systematic interpretation. Therefore, it will destroy the legal stability and predictability. Ultimately, the people are in a very Catch-22 situation. In addition, the two rulings also brought to light three matters: whether personal liberty protection extends to psychological impacts, the extent to which the court should examine cases involving deprivation of liberty, and the significance of public policy considerations in the court’s evaluation of an arraignment case.<br />
In the light of the above three problems, this article points out that the imposition of high fines or even criminal penalties for violating the provisions of electronic fencing will lead to a serious economic and social downgrading of the quarantined and isolated person, which will in turn form a great psychological sup-pression, and therefore should be recognized as a deprivation of personal liberty. Secondly, the court examines the scope of deprivation of liberty measures. Since there is no culpability determination and respect for the professional discretion of the administrative agency to initiate deprivation of liberty measures, the court does not examine the suitability of the measure, but only examines its substantive rea-sons and the legitimacy of the procedure. Instead of simply reviewing procedural legality, as traditionally perceived. Finally, after the quarantined and isolated per-son applies for arraignment, the court examines the administrative agency’s qua-rantine sanction. In this case, the court is not bound by public policy considerations to consider the“consequences”of releasing the client and limit the scope of the ruling on release from the perspective of the administrative agency’s prevention of disease. Therefore, if the court finds that the segregation ordered by the executive branch is invalid from the beginning, it should immediately release the quarantined and isolated person in court to implement the intent of Article 8 of the Constitution to protect personal freedom.]]><![CDATA[]]>https://lawreview.law.nycu.edu.tw/lawreviewlaw/ch/app/data/doc?module=nycu0040&detailNo=1396835985374842880&type=s電子圍籬作為拘禁措施與提審案件之審查範圍──評臺灣臺北地方法院111年度行提字第2號與第3號裁定
- <![CDATA[Should No-Poaching Agreements Be Prohibited in Corporate Transactions? From the View of Taiwanese C]]>陽明交大法學評論第13期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;"><strong>因併購交易簽訂的禁止聘僱條款是否合法？從臺灣競爭法角度觀之</strong></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size:100%;"><strong>作者：</strong>鄭歆儒<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>202309<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>No-poaching Agreements；Restriction of Competition；Corporate Transaction；Unethical Recruitment；Labor Protection；禁止聘僱條款；限制競爭；併購交易；惡意聘僱；勞工保護<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong></span><br />
在併購交易的協商過程中，雙方或簽訂禁止聘僱條款，限制一方於交易過程進行中（或結束後）聘僱他方之員工。該條款固能防止因併購交易發生的惡意招募行為，但也嚴重限制員工到他方公司任職的轉職自由，使員工與現在雇主在薪資福利的協商上陷於談判劣勢。有鑑於現有勞動法規似未能有效規範此問題，本文嘗試從競爭法角度探討該條款的合法性。透過比較分析外國及臺灣的競爭法及相關案例，本文釐清禁止聘僱條款的相關市場範圍、限制競爭與促進競爭效果。本文主張為保障弱勢的勞工族群，該條款須為保障併購交易雙方利益且損害最小的方法時，方能認為該條款的促進競爭效果優於限制競爭效果。在盡職調查過程中委由獨立團隊閱覽員工資訊，不須限制勞工的轉職自由即能避免經營團隊利用該等資訊惡意聘僱他方員工，與禁止聘僱條款相較應屬損害更小的方法。因此除非個案中組成獨立團隊有其困難，應認禁止聘僱條款違反競爭法。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
No-poaching agreements (NPAs) prohibit parties from recruiting each other’s employees. While the agreements can prevent unethical recruitment in corporate transactions, they reduce external job options for laborers, thereby significantly harming their bargaining power. Yet, employment law and labor law appear to face difficulties of addressing the problem. This article seeks to tackle the problem by examining the legality of NPAs under Taiwanese competition law. With reference to the major jurisdictions and Taiwan’s competition law and previous cases, this article clarifies the relevant market of NPAs and their anticompetitive harms and procompetitive benefits. It argues that NPAs should be prohibited under competi-tion law, even to protect parties’interests in corporate transactions, because orga-nizing an independent team to manage employee information is a less restrictive way to achieve the same goal.]]><![CDATA[]]>
- <![CDATA[以不正方法取得營業秘密之未遂犯──美國法著手犯的借鏡]]>陽明交大法學評論第13期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;"><strong>Criminal Attempt of Improperly Acquiring Trade Secrets Under the Trade Secret Act—A Lesson from the Concept of“Attempt”Under the United States Criminal Law</strong></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size:100%;"><strong>作者：</strong>陳秉訓<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>202309<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>營業秘密；侵害營業秘密罪；未遂犯；美國經濟間諜法；法律上不能；Trade Secret；Criminal Misappropriation of Trade Secrets；Criminal Attempt；United States’Economic Espionage Act；Legal Impossibility<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong></span><br />
本文意在參酌美國聯邦《經濟間諜法》（Economic Espionage Act, EEA）與《模範刑法法典》（Model Penal Code, MPC）第5.01條之著手犯之法制，來思考我國營業秘密法犯罪行為中的未遂犯意涵。本文指出意圖竊取他人營業秘密、並進而著手以不正方法取得他人之資訊者，只要該行為人以為到其所取得的資訊為營業秘密，其即應負未遂犯之責。該認識之成立可基於被害單位客觀上有執行營業秘密合理保密措施。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
This article provides the definition of criminal attempt of stealing trade secrets under the Trade Secret Act through studying the United States’Economic Espio-nage Act and criminal attempt under Model Penal Code§5.01. This article argues that a person shall be held criminally liable for his attempt to acquire other’s trade secret by an unjust measure, as long as he knew the stolen information was a trade secret. Such knowledge may be inferred from circumstances showing that the own-er has implemented reasonable measures to protect its trade secrets.]]><![CDATA[]]>
- <![CDATA[人壽保險公司所受洗錢及資恐風險與相應抵減風險措施研究]]>陽明交大法學評論第13期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;"><strong>A Study of the Risk of Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing Faced by Life Insurance Companies and Mitigating Measures Thereof</strong></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size:100%;"><strong>作者：</strong>邵之雋；李怡萱<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>202309<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>Risk Assessment；Life Insurance Industry；Information Exchange；Beneficial Owner；Anti-Money Laundering；風險評估；人壽保險業；資訊交流；實質受益人；防制洗錢<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong></span><br />
按2021年國家洗錢資恐及資武擴風險評估報告評估結果，人壽保險公司被評估為高風險弱點產業。本於人壽保險商品係屬能積累大額資金、交易大額資金或是允許大額資金解約的保險商品類型，其提供犯罪行為人高度停泊價值，為隱匿不法資金的絕佳管道。本文爬梳產業常見疑似洗錢及資恐態樣後，認為「強化人壽保險公司與其他金融機構之防制洗錢及打擊資恐資訊交流機制」、「課予人壽保險公司間接辨識實質受益人之強制性義務」以及「就違反確認客戶身分程序之人壽保險公司人員，訂定合乎比例原則之過失行政責任」能有效抵減人壽保險業所受之洗錢及資恐風險。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
According to Taiwan’s 2021 National ML/TF/PF Risk Assessment Report, life insurance companies are regarded as particularly vulnerable to the aforesaid risk. Indeed, life insurance products are of a unique category that allows for the accumu-lation and transaction of large amounts of cash or policy termination thereof. This provides offenders with great value for parking capital and thus makes an excellent channel for hiding illicit funds. After going over the common types of suspicious money laundering and terrorism financing transactions seen in the sectors, this study concludes that“bolstering the information exchange between life insurance companies and other financial institutions with regard to anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism,”“imposing the mandatory obligation of indirect identification of beneficial owners on life insurance companies,”and“de-fining the negligent breach of duty in accordance with the principle of proportio-nality by the personnel of life insurance companies who fail to follow the protocol for verifying client identities”will prove effective in mitigating the risk of money laundering and terrorism financing faced by life insurance companies.]]><![CDATA[]]>https://lawreview.law.nycu.edu.tw/lawreviewlaw/ch/app/data/doc?module=nycu0040&detailNo=1396834018695057408&type=s人壽保險公司所受洗錢及資恐風險與相應抵減風險措施研究
- <![CDATA[從國際間之監理發展探索我國虛擬資產及央行數位貨幣之發展動向]]>陽明交大法學評論第12期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<span style="color:#990000;"><strong><span style="font-size:115%;">Exploring the Development Trend of Virtual Assets and CBDC in Taiwan from the Perspective of International Supervision Development</span></strong></span><br />
<strong>作者：</strong>林盟翔；賴建宇<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>202303<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>金融科技；分散式帳本技術；虛擬資產；央行數位貨幣；監理機制；Financial Technology；Decentralization Ledger Technology；Virtual Asset；CBDC；Supervision Mechanism<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
我國金管會將虛擬資產定位為「數位虛擬商品」，與國際間對虛擬資產有發布監理制度或明文規範相比，採取較嚴謹之監理態度。雖我國虛擬資產交易量占全球比重甚小，與實體經濟之連結度低，對整體支付系統、金融穩定及中央銀行貨幣政策尚無顯著影響，僅於防制洗錢及投資人保護等方面，規範可能衍生之風險，但仍應正本清源梳理虛擬資產，乃至穩定幣之發展趨勢及後續影響。若須兼顧金融科技創新應用及使用者保障，自應建立適性監理方式並形成規範，從而確立我國對虛擬資產之定位，對特定虛擬資產作為交換媒介之可行性評估後，再依整體環境提出相應之監理制度。<br />
至於央行數位貨幣（Central Bank Digital Currency, CBDC），不論是採用中心化機制或分散式帳本技術，均應將消費者保護、確保投資人免受詐欺、誤導性陳述之影響等列為優先考量，並納入非法金融監理、國家安全之考量。整體而言，影響金融穩定之根源，未隨貨幣型態之演變而有明顯改變，雖使用實體貨幣、虛擬資產或 CBDC，於金融風險之傳遞速度上有所不同，但風險仍是圍繞於信任與資產價格。尤其不論虛擬資產或 CBDC 均為金融科技之一環，其對金融體系之衝擊程度，取決主管機關之監理態度，爰應持續對虛擬資產及 CBDC 設計縝密之監理制度，進而選擇適合我國金融體系之數位金融政策。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
The Financial Supervisory Commission of Taiwan positions virtual assets as “digital virtual commodities” and employ cautious supervision attitude, but other countries have clearly formulated system of supervision and rules. Although, virtual asset trading volume accounts for a small proportion of the world of Taiwan, and its connection lower with the real economy, it has nonsignificant effect on the payment system, financial stability, and the monetary policy of central bank, it is only by formulating anti-money laundering and investor protection rules, it still should be sorted out the development trend and subsequent impact of various types of virtual assets and stablecoin. If it is necessary to consider financial technology innovation and user protection, appropriate supervision methods should be established and norms, and established to establish positioning of virtual assets of Taiwan. After evaluating the feasibility of specific virtual assets as medium of exchange, that supervision system should be proposed according to the financial environment.<br />
As for the CBDC, whether using centralized mechanism or distributed ledger technology, the priority should be given to consumer protection, ensuring investors are protected from fraudulent and misleading representations, and incorporating illicit financial supervision, national security considerations. Overall, the sources of financial stability have not changed significantly with the evolution of currency types. Although the use of material money, virtual assets or CBDC differs in the transmission speed of financial risks, the source of risks remains the same, it is around trust and asset prices. Especially, both virtual assets and CBDC are part of the development of financial technology, and their impact on the financial system depends on the supervisory attitude of the competent authority. Therefore, we should continue to design meticulous supervision system for virtual assets and CBDC, and then choose digital finance policy suitable for financial system of Taiwan.]]><![CDATA[]]>https://lawreview.law.nycu.edu.tw/lawreviewlaw/ch/app/data/doc?module=nycu0040&detailNo=1396833169759539200&type=s從國際間之監理發展探索我國虛擬資產及央行數位貨幣之發展動向
- <![CDATA[洗錢防制之負面新聞檢核的現況分析與建議]]>陽明交大法學評論第12期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<span style="color:#990000;"><strong><span style="font-size:115%;">Introduction and Recommendations on the Current Status of Adverse Media Censorship Under Anti-Money Laundry</span></strong></span><br />
<strong>作者：</strong>蔣念祖；劉建志<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>202303<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>洗錢防制；認識你的客戶；客戶盡職調查；負面新聞檢核；人工智慧；AML；KYC；CDD；Adverse Media Screening；AI<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
近年來，我國在洗錢防制（Anti-Money Laundering, AML）的立法及執行上逐漸邁入正軌並與先進國家逐步看齊，國內金融機構多數都已建置基本洗錢防制系統，並配合商業資料庫提供的名單進行認識你的客戶（Know Your Customer, KYC）與客戶盡職調查（Customer Due Diligence, CDD）中的姓名檢核工作。然而，在實際作業中，金融機構因姓名檢核缺失被主管機關糾正或裁罰案例層出不窮，此皆肇因於姓名檢核作業的困難性以及工作的繁重，法遵洗防單位苦於沒有科技協助只能大量仰賴人力所致。<br />
本文依據國內實際實施的困難並針對現況進行分析，並參照國外的實際案例作法，以及符合國內情境方式引入新技術來提出建議，期望能為金融機構在採用AI 大數據等新技術執行洗錢防制負面新聞檢核時作為參考。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
In recent years, our country has gradually stepped on the right track in the legislation and implementation of anti-money laundering (AML), and has gradually lined up with advanced countries. Most domestic financial institutions have established basic anti-money laundering systems, and perform the name screening operation of know your customers (KYC) and customer due diligence (CDD) process with the sanction and watchlists provided by the commercial database. However, in practice, financial institutions have been corrected or punished by the FSC (Financial Supervisory Commission R.O.C. (Taiwan)) due to the lack and missing of name screening. This is due to the difficulty and heavy workload of name screening operation. The legal compliance team suffers from the lack of technological assistance. It can only rely heavily on manpower.Based on the difficulties of domestic actual implementation, this paper analyzes the current situation, refers to the actual cases and practices of foreign countries, and introduces new technologies in line with the domestic situation, hoping to beAreference for financial institutions when using AI big data and other new technologies to carry out the inspection of anti-money laundering of adverse media screening.]]><![CDATA[]]>
- <![CDATA[從數位經濟下逃漏稅手法論防制洗錢之對策]]>陽明交大法學評論第12期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<span style="color:#990000;"><strong><span style="font-size:115%;">On the Countermeasures of Preventing Money Laundering from the Method of Tax Evasion Under the Digital Economy</span></strong></span><br />
<strong>作者：</strong>梁建道<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>202303<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>數位經濟；洗錢；稅務犯罪；逃漏稅；虛擬貨幣；Digital Economy；Money Laundering；Tax Crime；Tax Evasion；Virtual Currency<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
因為資訊與通信科技（Information and Communication Technology）突破式的發展，促成了數位經濟的實現，數位經濟除在商業模式展現其多元化之面貌外，更在支付方法上提供多樣化的選擇，除傳統的線上轉帳、提款機轉帳、信用卡付款外，新型態例如超商條碼、超商代碼、超連結提供QR 碼、虛擬貨幣交易等，一個洗錢計畫通常會附帶逃漏稅捐的結果。<br />
本文首先分析洗錢行為與逃漏稅行為的共通性要素與常見的洗錢判斷指標，接續從實務角度觀察常見之稅務犯罪態樣，並說明數位經濟下稅務洗錢犯罪之特色，最後嘗試提出可能之解決方案。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
The breakthrough development of information and communication technology has contributed to the realization of the digital economy. Besides online transfers, ATM transfers, and credit card payments, new forms such as supermarket barcodes, supermarket codes, QR codes provided by hyperlinks, virtual currency transactions, etc., a money laundering plan usually comes with the result of tax evasion.<br />
This article first, analyzes the common elements of money laundering behavior and tax evasion behavior and common money laundering judgment indicators, continues to observe common tax crimes from a practical perspective, and explains the characteristics of tax money laundering crimes in the digital economy, and finally tries to propose possible solutions.]]><![CDATA[]]>
- <![CDATA[數位經濟的公平隱憂──創新因素、創新要素與事業結合之審查]]>陽明交大法學評論第11期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;"><strong>An Antitrust Review of Innovation Factor and Innovation Elements on Mergers in Digital Economy</strong></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size:100%;"><strong>作者：</strong>江雅綺<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>202209<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>事業結合；創新因素；創新要素；限制競爭；創新事業；Mergers；Innovation Factor；Innovation Elements；Anti-trust；Innovation Enterprises</span><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
近年許多企業，紛紛積極透過併購新創、以強化自身創新的實力，進一步鞏固市場上的優勢。從公平法角度而言，事業結合一者提高市場集中度、帶來限制競爭之隱憂，二者亦可能因結合提高事業效率、促進整體經濟利益。兩者如何權衡，向來是競爭法的難題。然而隨著數位經濟的發展，市場上大者恆大，原來以科技創新領先市場的巨擘企業，極易以自身資源併購新創，讓已高度集中的市場無法更加多元發展。寥寥幾家超大型企業，成為數位市場的守門員，對市場創新可能有的不利隱憂，也因之加劇。有鑑於此，本文嘗試於數位經濟時代，探究下列問題：如何於事業結合案的審查中，就創新影響做出競爭法的評價。本文將創新影響分為創新因素與創新要素。創新因素是指以促進創新為目標，討論事業結合審查是否把促進創新作為一衡量因素；而創新要素則指創新過程中須投入的人力、或數據資料等資源要素，因而討論審查事業結合案中，如何審視結合對創新要素集中造成的影響。本文首先探討這類創新事業結合案件中，可能衍生的限制競爭議題。繼而透過分析文獻，整理分析創新因素與創新要素於競爭法中的運用及發展，最後反思我國公平法於創新事業結合審查值得關注之重點。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
In the past decade, many technology giants who gained their market power by leading innovations, have been further strengthening their own innovation power by acquiring innovation start-ups. From the perspective of antitrust laws, mergers may be a two sided sword, on the one hand, they may stifle competitions because of the market concentration, on the other hand, they may be beneficial to the econ-omy because of increasing the market efficiency. It is always a difficult task to bal-ance the pros and cons of mergers. Nonetheless, in the age of digital economy, very few tech giants become the gatekeepers of digital markets. While they further add their revenues by acquiring more innovation-based start-ups easily with their pow-ers and resources, the more and more concentrated market has sounded the alarm of antitrust laws. In light of the innovation impact, this article attempts to make a renewed antitrust review on merger cases especially taking the innovation factor and innovation elements into con-sideration. The innovation factor weighs the in-novation efficiency after the merger whilst the innovation elements imply the re-sources input to make innovations happen, such as the data that powers the digital economy business models. The purpose of this article is to review the evaluation of the innovation factor and innovation elements on merger cases through the antitrust lenses. The author will begin with the review of traditional antitrust assumptions and analyze how the innovation factor weighed in cases. Subsequently, the author will explore the antitrust perspective on innovation elements, with a particular fo-cus on data, and give a brief introduction on the international trend on formulating a new regulatory approach about innovation elements in digital economy. At the end of this article, the author will reflect on the current antitrust practice in the Taiwan context.]]><![CDATA[]]>https://lawreview.law.nycu.edu.tw/lawreviewlaw/ch/app/data/doc?module=nycu0040&detailNo=1396830203501613056&type=s數位經濟的公平隱憂──創新因素、創新要素與事業結合之審查
- <![CDATA[論網路通訊監察之水平式分階段規制──以「食肉獸系統」為主要檢討素材]]>陽明交大法學評論第11期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;"><strong>The Study on the Horizontal Phased Regulation of Internet Surveillance—Taking the“Carnivore System”as the Main Material for Review</strong></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size:100%;"><strong>作者：</strong>劉芳伶<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>202209<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>食肉獸系統；設備端通訊監察；特定性要求；數位匯流；第三人原則；馬賽克理論；位置情報；Carnivore System；Source-Telecommunications-Monitoring (Quellen-Telekommunikationsüberwachung)；Particularity Requirement；Digital Convergence；Third-Party Doctrine；Mosaic Theory；Location Information</span><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
本文指出，現行通訊保障及監察法（通保法）於立法之初係以中央系統通訊傳輸作為制度設計之前提，導致其在本質上難以對應分散系統通訊傳輸之規制需求。而網路傳輸即分散系統之典型例，故本文以有網路封包補食器之稱的食肉獸系統（進行通訊監察之一種科技手段）作為主要檢討素材，藉以釐清問題之所在。再以此為前提，聚焦於數位匯流之技術性特徵，改從跨巨庫觀點為進一步的綜合分析。所謂跨巨庫，係指以數位匯流技術為代表的各類情報通訊科學技術，搭配上各式各樣的感知器或探測器乃至於各種端末，而得讓各類不同的資料庫具有可跨虛擬與實境之無限連結可能性，藉此生成一個可不斷有機成長的跨領域之巨大資料庫。政府利用此一既存的跨巨庫現象來進行偵查時，可區分為四階段，即 A 設備裝置階段、B 取得資訊階段、C 儲存累積階段、D 照合分析階段，此即所謂跨巨庫觀點。本文擬由此觀點進一步深入剖析，並提出所謂水平式分階段規制論（即區分上述 A、B、C、D 各階段分別進行不同的規制），最後以之為據，針對現行通保法提出具體之修法建言。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
This article points out that the current Communication Security and Surveil-lance Act (CSSA) was originally based on a centralized system as its prerequisite for legislation, so it is essentially unable to cope with the problems of decentralized systems. Because the Internet is a typical example of a decentralized system, this paper takes the Carnivore System (a technological method for internet surveillance) known as a packet sniffer as the main material to clarify the problem. With this as the premise, this article focuses on the technical characteristics of digital conver-gence, and change it from the perspective of “the across-giant-database” to further comprehensive analysis. With the development and popularization of information technology and various sensors, everyday life in the modern world is often insepa-rable from a variety of giant databases that have unlimited possibility of connecting the virtual and the real world. This is the aforementioned “the across-giant-database”. “The across-giant-database” as an investigative method can be divided into four stages: A stage-equipment installation, B stage-getting information, C stage-storage accumulation, and D stage-conformity analysis. This is the so-called cross-big library view. This article further analyzes this point of view and puts for-ward the so-called horizontal phased regulation theory to make specific suggestions for amending the current law.]]><![CDATA[]]>https://lawreview.law.nycu.edu.tw/lawreviewlaw/ch/app/data/doc?module=nycu0040&detailNo=1396824924215054336&type=s論網路通訊監察之水平式分階段規制──以「食肉獸系統」為主要檢討素材
- <![CDATA[論德國科技防疫措施下之個資風險與保護法制]]>陽明交大法學評論第11期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;"><strong>Risks and Legal Protection of Personal Data Under the Technological Measures for Pandemic Prevention in Germany</strong></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size:100%;"><strong>作者：</strong>彭睿仁<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>202209<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>傳染病防治法；追蹤App；GDPR；敏感個資保護；確診足跡追蹤；Infektionsschutzgesetz (IfSG)；Corona-App；General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)；Protection of Sensitive Personal Data；Infection Tracing</span><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
自 2020 年 3 月初起，新冠肺炎（COVID-19）確診案例每日在德國各邦大量增加。為有效減緩疫情惡化，德國國會分別於同年 3 月及 5 月快速通過「全國範圍流行病情勢下之國民保護法」（Gesetz zum Schutz der Bevölker-ung bei einer epidemischen Lage von nationaler Tragweite）及「全國範圍流行病情勢下之國民保護法第二次法案」（Das Zweite Gesetz zum Schutz der Bevölkerung bei einer epidemischen Lage von nationaler Tragweite），以及該法對「傳染病防治法」（Infektionsschutzgesetz, IfSG）等法律條文修正後之授權。其中，增修後之「傳染病防治法」（IfSG）第 4 條及第 14 條，授權防疫機構「羅伯特科赫研究所」（Robert Koch-Institut, RKI）研發「德國電子通報資訊系統」（Deutsches Elektronisches Melde- und Informationssystem für den Infektionsschutz, DEMIS），以投入病毒感染追蹤及防止擴散之用。而此一系統即為德國聯邦衛生部（Bundesministerium für Gesundheit, BMG）及「羅伯特科赫研究所」開發並推動之「新冠病毒警示追蹤 App」（Corona-App）。<br />
在民眾自願安裝後，App 透過行動裝置定位及接觸資料回傳防疫主管機關主機，即時追蹤用戶特定距離內是否接觸確診者與其移動足跡。回傳資料經分析後，可快速篩選出與確診者之可能接觸者，並即刻召回、隔離及匡列下一波可能接觸者。App 用於防疫雖有法源，但其實際應用仍造成德國法學及公衛學界之爭議。因 App 執行時所蒐集的敏感及一般個資，均傳送行政機關進行處理，難以排除個資濫用對人格權及隱私權造成侵害之疑慮。<br />
對此，反對者認為，App 雖係自願使用，但個資蒐集種類、範圍及處理方式並無法律明文，不宜貿然推行。但支持者卻認為，資料保護過度及應用過於保守，才會違反個人「健康完整無缺」之基本人權。正、反意見間雖各有論據，但無共識。對此，本文將從歐盟《一般資料保護規則》（GDPR）及德國相關國內法之觀點，探討德國政府採用追蹤 App 等科技工具進行防疫之適法議題及後續涉及之人權爭議，並以研析結果，解釋相關法律爭議之解決途徑，作為日後研究相關防疫法制之重要參考。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
Since early March 2020, the daily number of confirmed COVID-19 infections has grown significantly in all states of Germany. To effectively curb the worsening pandemic, the German parliament quickly passed the “Gesetz zum Schutz der Bevölkerung bei einer epidemischen Lage von nationaler Tragweite” and the “Das Zweite Gesetz zum Schutz der Bevölkerung bei einer epidemischen Lage von nationaler Tragweite” in March and May respectively. It also approved the authori-zations under the laws, which amended the provisions of the “Infektionsschutzge-setz” (IfSG). Articles 4 and 14 of the amended IfSG authorize the pandemic pre-vention agency “Robert Koch-Institut” (RKI) to develop an electronic reporting and information system that will be used to trace coronavirus infections and pre-vent its spread. The aforementioned “electronic reporting and information system” is the Corona-App developed and promoted by the Bundesministerium für Ge-sundheit (BMG) and RKI.<br />
After a user has voluntarily installed the app, it will locate his or her position and transmit contact data to a server of the government agency in charge of pan-demic prevention for real-time tracking of the user’s contact with any infected per-son within a certain distance and for the tracing of his or her movement. The transmitted data will be analyzed and used to quickly identify users who may have had contact with the infected person. They will be immediately recalled and isolat-ed, and the next group of users possibly having had such contact will be identified. Even though the use of the app for pandemic prevention is legally permitted, its actual application has been controversial for the German academic circles in law and public health. When the app is running, all personal data collected by it is transmitted to the executive authorities for processing, regardless of whether such data is sensitive or ordinary. Therefore, it is inevitable that concerns arise over the infringement of personal and privacy rights due to misuse of personal data.<br />
For opponents to the app, despite the voluntary nature of its use, it should not be hastily introduced because the law fails to specify the types, scope and methods of processing the personal data collected. For supporters of the app, however, ex-cessive protection and overly conservative application of such data constitute a vio-lation of the fundamental human rights in the “integrity of personal health”. Both supporters and opponents of the app have their own arguments, but there is a lack of consensus. In this respect, this article will analyze the legality issues and subse-quent controversies of human rights relating to the use of tracking apps and other technological means by the German government for pandemic prevention from the perspectives of the EU’s “General Data Protection Regulation” (GDPR) and the domestic laws of Germany. The result of analysis will then be used for explanation of the solutions to the relevant legal controversies and serve as an important source of reference for the future research of laws on pandemic prevention]]><![CDATA[]]>
- <![CDATA[檢察官就被告具「累犯事實」及「加重量刑事項」之舉證或說明責任──以最高法院刑事大法庭110年度臺上大字第5660號裁定為中心]]>陽明交大法學評論第11期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<span style="font-size:115%;"><strong><span style="color:#993300;">Prosecutors Shall Bear the Burden of Proof with the Obligation for Providing Clear Explanations of“Facts for Repeated Offending”and“Crimes that Should Be Aggregated”: Centered on“110 Year Taishang Dazi No. 5660”Ruling of the Supreme Court of Taiwan</span></strong></span><br />
<span style="font-size:100%;"><strong>作者：</strong>邱忠義<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>202209<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>改良式當事人進行主義；累犯；舉證責任；說明責任；嚴格證明；Modified Adversary System；Repeated Offending；Burden of Proof；Provide；Rule of Strict Proof</span><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
臺灣司法實務雖早已改採改良式當事人進行主義，惟仍有若干思維殘存糾問主義色彩，尤其是對被告不利益之事項，仍遺留著職權進行主義之餘威。以累犯為例，司法實務向認為關於被告具有「累犯事實」以及「應加重量刑之事項」，屬於法院認定事實與適用法律之基礎事項，客觀上有調查之必要性，法院「應」依職權加以調查。惟最高法院刑事大法庭 110 年度臺上大字第 5660 號裁定，藉助於司法院釋字第 775 號解釋所蘊涵的司法改革理路，做出震撼性的宣告：上開累犯事項，應分別由檢察官負舉證、說明責任。此一裁定，雖是最高法院擺脫職權進行主義舊例的一小步，但已足以將司法改革之路往前推進一大步。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
Although the “modified adversary system” has been adopted by Taiwan’s criminal practice for a long while, somewhat extents of the “inquisitorial system” remain. In particular, the “inquisitorial system” still shadows matters disadvantaged to the defendant. Using a repeated offender as an example, in Taiwan’s judicial practice, it is believed that “facts for repeated offending” and “crimes that should be aggregated” are basic matters that the court shall know for determining the facts and applying laws. Thus, it is believed that the court “shall” investigate these basic matters ex officio. However, the “110 Year Taishang Dazi No. 5660” ruling of the Supreme Court of Taiwan, which incorporated the judicial reform rationale given in “Judicial Yuan’s interpretation No. 755,” surprisingly stated that, regarding the above two basic matters for the repeated offenders, prosecutors shall bear the bur-den of proof with the obligation for providing clear explanations. Though this rul-ing may be merely a small step for the Taiwan Supreme Court to get rid of the “in-quisitorial system”, it is enough to push the Taiwanese judicial reform to make a giant step]]><![CDATA[]]>https://lawreview.law.nycu.edu.tw/lawreviewlaw/ch/app/data/doc?module=nycu0040&detailNo=1396816970225029120&type=s檢察官就被告具「累犯事實」及「加重量刑事項」之舉證或說明責任──以最高法院刑事大法庭110年度臺上大字第5660號裁定為中心
- <![CDATA[面對金融科技浪潮的來襲──犯罪防制觀點]]>陽明交大法學評論第14期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<span style="font-size:115%;"><span style="color:#990000;"><strong>Embracing the Fintech Wave—Crime Prevention Perspective</strong></span></span><br />
<strong>作者：</strong>游彥城；林志潔<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>202403<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>金融科技；虛擬通貨；櫻桃支付；去中心化金融；維卡幣；FinTech；Virtual Currency；Cherry Pay；Defi；Onecoin<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
本文以金融科技被當成犯罪的藉口和說詞、金融科技被當成犯罪的工具及金融科技自身作為被害者為主軸，討論目前最常見的金融科技犯罪面相。讓我們在面對層出不窮的金融科技犯罪，可以透過案件分析去瞭解金融科技的犯罪思維，再以有效的方式來平衡風險。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
This paper aims at analyzing from fintech as excuse crime, crime tool and crime victim to discuss different dimensions of common FinTech crimes nowadays. In so doing to reexamine diverse fintech crimes for not only figur-ing out the crime scheme but also finding effective risk prevention ways.]]><![CDATA[]]>https://lawreview.law.nycu.edu.tw/lawreviewlaw/ch/app/data/doc?module=nycu0040&detailNo=1396814739048239104&type=s面對金融科技浪潮的來襲──犯罪防制觀點
- <![CDATA[Supply Chain Data Sharing: Evaluating Challenges and Opportunities of EU Data Law]]>陽明交大法學評論第14期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<strong>作者：</strong>Nils Wiedemann；Maximilian Leicht<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>202403<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>Data Act；Cyber Resilience Act；Data Sharing；Data Law；Cybersecurity；Supply Chain<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
After regulating the processing of personal data with the GDPR, the EU is now aiming to govern the emerging data economy. The different acts of this so-called data law shall create a single market for data. To this end, the legislation intends to break up data monopolies and incentivise the sharing of both non-personal and personal data. We argue that the data law will have a major impact on international supply chain data sharing–especially, because this involves complex layers of different stakeholders. Especially the Data Act (DA) will have a significant effect on data sharing. The regulation lays down harmonising rules on how to access and share data generated by products of the“Internet of Things”(IoT), which covers not only smart home devices but also industrial machines connected to the internet. The DA applies to products placed in and data transferred to the EU. It is a horizontal framework which the EU intends to complement with several sector-specific regulations for the creation of so-called“data spaces”. The Commission has recently published a proposal for the first data space–the European Health Data Space (EHDS). Further data spaces shall cover other supply-chain-related areas like manufacturers or mobility. This paper analyses the effects of the European Data Law on supply chain data sharing as one of the most promising scenarios and illustrates both chances and challenges of the regulatory framework. For a comprehensive view, it highlights relevant parts of the new cybersecurity framework for products with digital elements (mainly the Cyber Resilience Act) and their influence on data sharing.]]><![CDATA[]]>https://lawreview.law.nycu.edu.tw/lawreviewlaw/ch/app/data/doc?module=nycu0040&detailNo=1396814617266622464&type=sSupply Chain Data Sharing: Evaluating Challenges and Opportunities of EU Data Law
- <![CDATA[Facial Recognition at the Fitness Center Under the General Data Protection Regulation Article...]]>陽明交大法學評論第14期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<span style="font-size:115%;"><span style="color:#990000;"><strong>Facial Recognition at the Fitness Center Under the General Data Protection Regulation Article 9(1) and 9(2)(a)</strong></span></span><br />
<strong>作者：</strong>Daria Bulgakova；Valentyna Bulgakova<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>202403<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>GDPR；Unique Identification；Biometrics；Control Entry Management；Consent；Public Interest<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
There are significant concerns regarding the legitimacy of biometric data processing within the European Union. Therefore, it is imperative that facial data processing adheres to the criteria and standards outlined in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).<br />
According to GDPR Article 9(1), the processing of biometric data is prohibited. In high-incursion situations that involve the private sphere, obtaining consent becomes crucial. It requires further justification and confirmation about the lawfulness of the process, as specified in GDPR Article 6. Hence, the European Union relies on Data Protection Authorities in Member States to assure obedience to GDPR in practice. Regardless above mentioned, the authors aim to investigate compliance with the GDPR Article 9(1) and 9(2)(a) through the case study about facial recognition technology with biometric involvement at a fitness center in Denmark.<br />
The research focuses on analyzing the Danish Data Protection Agency’s investigation of FysioDanmark concerning the facial biometric recognition of customers’and employees’faces at the entrance to a fitness center for membership control checks and business optimization. The authors have made the following findings. The Agency warned the entity in question about the use of a system in fitness centers to uniquely identify customers without obtaining their consent. Furthermore, the research has shown that the application of consent as a legal ground to avoid prohibition to uniquely identify employees can’t be granted as an appropriate argument due to an imbalance of employment relationships meaning the consent is not freely given.<br />
Based on the given outcomes, the authors propose measures to prevent noncompliance with biometric facial technology and advocate respect for individuals’right to personal data protection by mandating consent for facial recognition, specifically for the purpose of unique identification, prior to the performance of facial biometric scans. And, the authors’advice is not to regard the GDPR Article 9(2)(a) in terms of biometric facial employees’data processing because it is not a legal ground to exempt from Article 9(1) at the fitness workplace center.<br />
]]><![CDATA[]]>https://lawreview.law.nycu.edu.tw/lawreviewlaw/ch/app/data/doc?module=nycu0040&detailNo=1396814404376334336&type=sFacial Recognition at the Fitness Center Under the General Data Protection Regulation Article...
- <![CDATA[世界金流新秩序──FATF 虛擬資產規範及我國法制面整體建議]]>陽明交大法學評論第12期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<span style="color:#990000;"><strong><span style="font-size:115%;">The New Order of World Money Flow —The Virtual Assets Requirements of FATF and Suggestions of the Overall Legal Regulations</span></strong></span><br />
<strong>作者：</strong>魏至潔<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>202303<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>虛擬資產；虛擬資產服務提供商；防制洗錢金融行動工作組織；洗錢防制法；Virtual Assets；Virtual Asset Service Providers；FATF；The Money Laundering Control Act<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
自中本聰（Satoshi Nakamoto）於2008 年在網路上發表第一篇去中心化的虛擬貨幣比特幣論文後，虛擬貨幣就顛覆了我們對於金錢的傳統想像，金錢好像早已從那張躺在我們錢包裡薄薄的紙張，逐漸的成為一串數字、一堆代表錢包地址的亂碼及金鑰，或許我們仍習慣於現鈔帶給我們的安全感，但虛擬貨幣儼然已改變我們的世界。防制洗錢金融行動工作組織（Financial Action Task Force, FATF）是全球洗錢防制與打擊資恐國際規範的制定者，在2018 年至2019 年之際，就已提醒犯罪者喜歡使用虛擬貨幣進行暗網（Dark Web）黑市交易、買賣甚至洗錢的趨勢，FATF 遂於2019 年及2020 年陸續發布虛擬資產指引及虛擬資產紅旗指標等文件，希冀成為全球各國對於虛擬資產的監理及各國執法單位追查的依歸，並要求世界各國最遲應在2021 年完成虛擬資產監管法規之內國法化，顯示FATF 亟欲掌握虛擬資產這看不見的數字金流。我國洗錢防制法於2017 年11 月修正，當時已先期納入「虛擬貨幣」為洗錢防制法規範範疇，可謂「超前部署」於國際標準之前。然而隨著亞太洗錢防制組織（Asia/Pacific Group on Money Laundering, APG）第三輪相互評鑑結束，我國獲得「一般追蹤」佳績後，洗錢防制法的修正再度成為各界焦點，除須兼顧國際標準對虛擬資產之規範外，本文欲透過國際經驗，彙整歸納符合臺灣本土之法制面整體方向淺見，供各界參考。<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
Since Satoshi Nakamoto published his first paper about “decentralized virtual currency” on the internet in 2008, virtual currency has subverted our traditional imagination of money. “Money” seems to transform from paper money to a string<br />
of numbers, a pile of wallet address and private key or public key. Perhaps we are still accustomed to the sense of security of cash, but virtual currency has already changed our world quietly. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) is the international norms maker for global money laundering prevention and combating terrorism financing. From 2018 to 2019, FATF warned that criminals liked to use virtual currency for black market trading and money laundering in dark web. FATF has<br />
released documents such as virtual asset guidelines and virtual asset red flag indi-cators in 2019 and 2020, which gave a full landscape of the virtual assets. In Taiwan, the Money Laundering Control Act was amended in November 2017. At that time, it was included in the “virtual currency” as the scope of the money laundering prevention and control law, which can be described as international standards.<br />
However, with the end of the third round of APG Mutual Evaluation, the amendment of the Law has once again become the focus of all nations. In addition to considering the international standards for virtual assets, this research intends to use international experiences for suggesting appropriate directions for legal reform in Taiwan.]]><![CDATA[]]>https://lawreview.law.nycu.edu.tw/lawreviewlaw/ch/app/data/doc?module=nycu0040&detailNo=1396814192534622208&type=s世界金流新秩序──FATF 虛擬資產規範及我國法制面整體建議
- <![CDATA[21世紀下機構投資人之受託義務──試論受託義務與ESG投資之調和]]>陽明交大法學評論第14期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<span style="font-size:115%;"><span style="color:#990000;"><strong>The Fiduciary Duties of Institutional Investors in the 21st Century: Harmonizing Fiduciary Duty and ESG Investing</strong></span></span><br />
<strong>作者：</strong>張景儒<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>202403<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>ESG投資；受託義務；機構投資人；盡職治理；責任投資；ESG Investing；Fiduciary Duty；Institutional Investor；Stewardship；Responsible Investing<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
ESG投資在近年來成為顯學，投入ESG相關金融商品的資金更是逐年成長。機構投資人作為投資人與公司間之中介角色，一方面有足夠的股份可以影響公司經營階層的決策，另一方面也需要回應客戶的要求，因此在ESG議題的實踐扮演著關鍵的角色。當機構投資人採行ESG投資時，其將有可能因為考量ESG議題，而未優先考量投資報酬率，這樣的作法與機構投資人的受託義務出現潛在的衝突。此緊張關係也導致部分機構投資人，因為受託義務之不確定性，對於ESG投資躊躇不前。是以，受託義務與ESG投資之間的關係為何，實為必須要面對的先決問題。對此問題，外國學說已有相當豐富之討論，惟我國學說之討論卻相對稀薄。有鑑於此，本文希冀能夠補足此一學術上之空缺，藉由探討受託義務之內涵，釐清受託義務與ESG投資之關係，使機構投資人能夠無後顧之憂地深化我國ESG投資，真正地達到改善環境、社會、公司治理之目標。此外，本文同時將探討我國機構投資人盡職治理守則對於受託義務之問題應如何做出調整，以使盡職治理守則能夠成為機構投資人實踐ESG投資的助力。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
As more and more capital flows into ESG-related investments, ESG in-vesting has become mainstream in recent years. Institutional investors, being the intermediary between the investors and companies, on one hand, have the shares to influence the company management decision-making; on the other hand, they have to respond to the needs of their clients. For this reason, insti-tutional investors play a central role in ESG investing. However, when institu-tional investors practice ESG investing, ESG issues may sometimes be priori-tized over investment returns. In such circumstances, tensions will arise be-tween the institutional investors’fiduciary duties and their practice of ESG investing. The relationship between fiduciary duty and ESG investing is there-fore a critical issue. This issue has been a topic of great academic interest internationally, but it has rarely been discussed in Tai-wan. To that end, this article aims to fill this gap in the academic literature. By discussing the contours of fiduciary duty and clarifying the relation between fiduciary duty and ESG investing, this article hopes to encourage more institu-tional investors to adopt ESG investing so that the goals of ESG investing can truly be achieved. This article also touches upon the potential revisions to the Taiwan Stewardship Principles in response to the issue of fiduciary duty, hop-ing that it can support the adoption of ESG investing among institutional in-vestors.]]><![CDATA[]]>https://lawreview.law.nycu.edu.tw/lawreviewlaw/ch/app/data/doc?module=nycu0040&detailNo=1396809193939275776&type=s21世紀下機構投資人之受託義務──試論受託義務與ESG投資之調和
- <![CDATA[Japan’s 2015 Medical Accident Investigation Scheme and Its Failures]]>陽明交大法學評論第15期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<strong>作者：</strong>Futoshi Iwata, Ryoko Hatanaka<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>202409<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>Medical Accident Investigation；Professional Autonomy；Medical Safety；Unexpected Death；Root Cause Analysis；Legal Liability<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
This paper argues that Japan’s 2015 Medical Accident Investigation Scheme, which places great emphasis on professional autonomy, has fatal flaws.<br />
After nearly two decades of discussions on how to establish a transparent and thorough medical accident investigation scheme and improve medical safety. Japan implemented the Medical Accident Investigation Scheme in 2015 (the 2015 Scheme). Under its scheme, (1) each hospital and clinic is required to report to the third-party organization approved by the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) when any“unexpected death”of a patient occurs in the course of medical treatment, regardless of any negligence. (2) Then, each hospital and clinic must conduct a transparent and thorough root cause analysis of how and why such death occurred and submit the final investigation report with a new safety measure to the third-party organization and the patients’families. (The investigation committee may include at least one member from outside the institution, but that is not required.) (3) The third-party organization analyses the final reports of reported cases and provides feedback on safety issues to hospitals and clinics.<br />
MHLW predicted about 3,000 reports each year based on the medical records review for accidental deaths in hospitals several years ago. However, the number of reported cases has been much lower than previously predicted, around 350-400 cases per year (only about one report per day). And so, by not reporting, professional autonomy–the very foundation of the current scheme–is being shaken.<br />
To explore what barriers prevent the reporting of unexpected deaths and what benefits of such reporting there are in reality after the implementation of the 2015 Scheme, we conducted online interviews with 20 medical safety experts (doctors, nurses, and families of medical accident victims). Each interview lasted a minimum of 60 minutes for each interviewee.<br />
There are some positive results of the 2015 scheme, such as that (1) some hospitals have significantly increased their efforts to report accidents and analyse the causes of accidents scientifically and objectively; (2) bereaved families are often satisfied with the results; (3) the medical community’s initial concerns about the 2015 Scheme’s possible effect of promoting conflicts with victims’families and litigation were largely unfounded; and (4) external review committee members have often proven effective.<br />
But our conclusion is that many challenges remain. The single undeniable problem is that many medical institutions neither report medical accidents nor conduct in-hospital accident investigations. Ironically, the 2015 Scheme’s structure is based on trust of professional independence, yet that trust has been undermined by the professionals themselves. In order to regain the societal expectations of medical professionals, the 2015 Scheme should be thoroughly reexamined.<br />
]]><![CDATA[]]>
- <![CDATA[Analysing the Role of State and Non-State Actors in the Protection of Data...]]>陽明交大法學評論第15期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<span style="color:#990000;"><strong><span style="font-size:115%;">Analysing the Role of State and Non-State Actors in the Protection of Data in the Southeast Asian Nations with Special Reference to the Existing Legal Regime in India</span></strong></span><br />
<strong>作者：</strong>Priyanka Dhar<br />
<strong>出版年月</strong>：202409<br />
<strong>關鍵詞：</strong>Data Protection；Data Sharing；State Actors；Personal Data；Sensitive Information；Data Breach<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
In the era of information technology, where data emerges as a critical asset and a potent tool for extracting valuable insights, privacy is progressively evolving into a paramount global concern. The primary driver of this global unease stems from the escalating number of individuals willingly divulging their sensitive information on the internet. Furthermore, a significant portion of the population is compelled to share sensitive data due to the necessity of engaging in online transactions. Despite the diverse motives behind sharing personal data on online platforms, individuals worldwide share a collective apprehension about the storage, processing, and third-party control of their private data. The inability to access one’s data, coupled with numerous incidents of data breaches and privacy violations, intensifies the sense of insecurity among individuals, heightening the fear of becoming victims of such privacy breaches.<br />
As a result, safeguarding data in digital form has emerged as a global issue demanding special attention within a legal context. In the Western world, the European Union (EU) implemented specific provisions for databases through the EU Data Protection Directive of 1995 (DPD), subsequently replaced by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in May 2018. Widely regarded as an exemplary demonstration of assurance to guarding the sensitive and personal data of data subjects, the GDPR sets a benchmark for data protection.<br />
Southeast Asian democracies, experiencing rapid development and outperforming Western democracies in terms of GDP, are crucial players in the global business landscape. Given their engagements with EU members, many Southeast Asian nations have established data protection regimes that align with or are GDPR-compliant. Notably, India enacted the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 on August 11, 2023, marking a significant legislative milestone dedicated to data protection.<br />
This article aims to analyse the provisions of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, specifically focusing on the existing legal frameworks related to data protection in Southeast Asian democracies such as Singapore and Taiwan. The examination will centre on the responsibilities of state and non-state actors. Lastly, a comparative analysis of these jurisdictions will be conducted to identify vulnerabilities and best practices in the existing legal mechanisms.]]><![CDATA[]]>
- <![CDATA[從地緣政治視角看美國國家智財保護戰略的演變─以「智慧財產執法聯合戰略計畫」為核心]]>陽明交大法學評論第15期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;"><strong>Analysis of the National Intellectual Property Protection Strategy of the United States from a Geopolitical Perspective: Focusing on the“Joint Intellectual Property Enforcement Strategic Plan”</strong></span></span><br />
<strong>作者：</strong>黃孝怡<br />
<strong>出版年月：</strong>202409<br />
<strong>關鍵字：</strong>美國國家智財保護戰略；智慧財產執法聯合戰略計畫；地緣政治；國家智財戰略；智慧財產權保護；United States’National Intellectual Property Protection Strategy；Joint Intellectual Property Enforcement Strategic Plan；Geopolitics；National Intellectual Property Strategy；Intellectual Property Rights Protection<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
美國國家智財戰略並非單一的國家戰略，而是包括法律、政策與戰略，其涉及廣泛的行政機構和部門，以確保政府的努力集中且協調一致。而國家智財保護戰略主要的目的在保護美國境內與海外的智慧財產權。以往美政府各部門各有不同的智慧財產權政策與執法行動，但在2008年美國國會通過的「智慧財產資源及機構優先法案」（Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act）規定下制定了「智慧財產執法聯合戰略計畫」（Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement）。「智慧財產執法聯合戰略計畫」主要目的重點是協調和發展美國的整體智慧財產執法政策和戰略，促進創新和創造力，並確保國內外有效的智慧產權保護和執法。由於海外智慧財產權的保護不免會受到國際地緣政治因素的影響；因此在最近三位美國總統任內，「聯合戰略計畫」的內容與方向也有所轉變。本文將從美國智慧財產權保護政策與國際地緣政治兩個面向，分析「聯合戰略計畫」的內容與轉變。研究顯示，美國的國家智財權保護戰略，其主要目的在持續強化美國國內外智慧財產權的保護，以及防止來自境外的智慧財產權侵害；但該計畫較其他國家的智財戰略更具有國內外執法的功效，也會因地緣政治變化而進行方向與強度的調整。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
The United States’intellectual property strategy is not a separate national strategy, but includes laws, policies and strategies. It involves a broad range of executive branch agencies and departments to ensure that the government’s efforts are focused and well coordinated. The main purpose of the Intellectual Property Protection Strategy is to protect intellectual property rights within the United States and abroad. In the past, various departments of the U.S. government had different intellectual property policies and enforcement actions. However, under the“Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act”passed by the U.S. Congress in 2008, the“Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement”was formulated. The main purpose of the“Joint Strategic Plan for Intellectual Property Enforcement”is focused on coordinating and developing the United States’overall intellectual property enforcement policy and strategy, to promote innovation and creativity, and to ensure effective intellectual property protection and enforcement domestically and abroad. The protection of international intellectual property rights will inevitably be affected by geopolitical factors; therefore, during the terms of the last three US presidents, the content and direction of the“Joint Strategic Plan”have also changed in different years. This article analyzes the content and changes of the“Joint Strategic Plan”in different years from the two aspects of intellectual property rights protection policies and geopolitics. The results show that the“Joint Strategic Plan”will be adjusted its directions and intensity due to geopolitical changes.]]><![CDATA[]]>
- <![CDATA[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]]>陽明交大法學評論第15期科技法律研究所<![CDATA[<span style="color:#990000;"><span style="font-size:115%;"><strong>A Study on the Protection of Trade Secrets in the Electronic Equipment Industry—Focusing on Judicial Practice in Taiwan</strong></span></span><br />
作者：蘇柏樺；林志潔<br />
出版年月：202409<br />
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<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">中文摘要</span></strong><br />
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。<br />
<br />
<strong><span style="background-color:#f1c40f;">英文摘要</span></strong><br />
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.<br />
]]><![CDATA[]]>