我國金融消保法於2011年制定，是以保護金融消費者權益，公平、合理、有效處理金融消費爭議事件，以增進金融消費者對市場之信心，並促進金融市場之健全發展為目標。同樣的，因金融消保法將散落在各金融法規的廣告、業務招攬、營業促銷活動、說明義務、適合度評估統合規定，並創立一元化的金融消費爭議處理機制，帶給金融市場相當大的影響。 我國銀行保險業務，近年來快速發展，於適用金融消保法時，會給銀行保險業務帶來什麼影響？本文主要是藉由銀行保險業者履行廣告、業務招攬、營業促銷活動、說明義務、適合度評估之義務時，比較銀行保險業務原先所適用的法規範，以及適用金融消保法後產生的差異，探討對銀行保險業者的影響。然而，然而，因為銀行保險架構採取保險人或銀行保經代為經營主體的二方合約和三方合約經營模式，導致了銀行通路的責任問題，而且於銀行保險發生爭議，要保人使用金融消費爭議處理機制並選擇申訴對象時，會將這個問題展現得更加明顯。 金融消保法確立了廣告招攬促銷擔保責任、說明義務、適合度評估是金融服務業者應履行的法定義務，運用於銀行保險業務，不論在保護要保人方面，或是在維持銀行保險業務安定性的方面都帶來正面的影響。然而，因為金融消保法的要求更加完備和全面，所以銀行保險業者履行這些義務時，會對其業務、財務造成負擔，進而影響其營運，這是必須正視的現象。再者，銀行保險爭議發生時，要保人無法以銀行為申訴對象向其求償，使銀行有權責不一致之情形。因此，金融消保法作為提供給各金融服務業者和金融消費者適用的整合性法律，若採取傳統的分業經營規範方式，將會產生許多適用上的問題。 所以，本文除解析金融消保法對銀行保險業務的影響層面外，還探討金融消保法規定分業經營所產生的問題，並得出結論認為金融消保法跨業經營規範之制定將會使銀行權責得以相符，也會讓金融消保法更能符合實務的需求。

「附隨義務」雖未明文見於我國民法典，惟已在民事契約法領域確立，其類型及內涵藉由漸增之法院裁判日益形成。是故，本文欲透過實務見解之彙整與分析，說明附隨義務之定義、法律效果及各類契約之附隨義務具體型態與內容。 　　本文將簡要介紹附隨義務之上位概念－誠信原則（詳第一章）與附隨義務基本理論及違反附隨義務之法律效果後（詳第二章），再分析近年來最高法院及相關聯判決中，買賣契約、委任契約或類似委任契約及承攬契約中所發展之附隨義務態樣，以及法院於案件裁判心證形成之要素（詳第三章至第五章），以期提供法律適用上之參考。

著作權法第1條：「為保障著作人著作權益，調和社會公共利益，促進國家文化發展，特制定本法。」說明了著作權法的目的同時兼具保障著作權人權利、公共利益以及促進國家文化發展。為了達成著作權的目的，明文刑事責任於規範中。刑事責任置於著作權領域是否妥適，至今為止不僅學說上，在社會上均引起廣泛的討論，特別是我國這十年來發生了許多相關爭議性的事件。這樣的問題不禁使人反覆思考，著作權的保護範圍到底為何？以刑罰保護著作權的妥適性？ 本文從著作權的基礎思維出發，探討著作權法中公共領域、利用人權利與合理使用概念，進而分析著作權背後所代表的法律意義。著作權是否得以做為刑法上所保護的利益，必須端視著作權的本質為何。本文嘗試討論著作權作為財產權，從刑法的角度，以「家族相似性( Familienähnli-chkeit)」的概念就著作權本身資訊的特性下，討論著作財產權法益的存在與否。 美國法作為世界著作權法的領導先驅，深深地影響我國學說見解與實務操作。透過比較美國著作權法之規範，省思我國社會現況是否有必要制定如此嚴格之刑罰規定；從經濟分析的角度思考，對於著作權刑罰威嚇作用的成果效益效果是有限度的，然而著作權政策以及刑法的長期效益所帶來的成本卻是很高的。著作權刑罰所需的成本高於其所獲得的效益，以致於立法者將著作權侵權行為視為犯罪並無法有效率地保護著作權人或公眾長期的著作權利益。 本文設計一賽局，分析在侵害人選擇侵害著作權的策略時，即使政府選擇執行刑事處罰反而比起不執行所付出的成本為高，在這樣的情形下，政府不執行刑事處罰的策略才是最佳策略的選擇。法律使用刑罰保護大家共同認可、接受的利益，前提是人類的社會共同生活秩序在我們的社會共識必須認同這樣的規範，透過觀察實務案例與統計分析，可以發現我國實務在著作權重製認定或是在刑度裁量上都出現很大之問題，同時也出現許多著作權人濫用刑事程序之情形。 綜上所述，我國的著作權刑事立法確實有值得探討的空間，需要再加以審慎考量。本文認為，應該廢除著作權刑事處罰的刑罰規定，讓著作權刑事處罰行為回歸民事的侵權行為，由著作權人向侵權行為人請求損害賠償。借鏡專利法廢除刑罰規定的經驗，讓著作權回歸其本質，以民事損害賠償填補著作權人之損失即為已足。 / Copyright Law Article 1: ” This Act is specifically enacted for the purposes of protecting the rights and interests of authors with respect to their works, balancing different interests for the common good of society, and promoting the development of national culture. Matters not provided for herein shall be governed by the provisions of other acts.” It illustrates that the purpose of copyright law combines both the right of copyright owner and public interest. In order to achieve this goal, criminal liability is included. However, there are controversies of criminal liability in copyright law, especially lots of copyright social events happened in the past few years. This leads to questions: Is it right to protect copyright through criminal punishment? In this thesis, I intend to use the concept of Familienähnli-chkeit (Legal Interest) to analyze legal interest of copyright. Economic analysis of law applies the economic cost theory to the analysis of copyright rules and utility. Game theory analysis of law seeks primarily to explain how people behave in response to legal rules and institutions. The prior discussion identifies the protection of copyright through criminal punishment is relatively useless. On the other hand, as a leading country of copyright legislation and academic discussion, Copyright Law comparison between United States and Taiwan is helpful for rethinking Taiwan Copyright Law. Last but not the least, the observation of judicial practice matters is also important. I researched the related cases and made statistics in order to reveal the real aspect of Taiwan judicial practice. Based on the above, this thesis identifies the problems of criminal punishment of Taiwan Copyright Law. An overview of copyright criminal norm is given for this purpose. I then reflect on Taiwan’s current copyright criminal punishment, with particular emphasis on preeminent aspects of the elements which mentioned above that may be used as references for the future development of Taiwan Copyright Law.

学位授与大学：京都大学 ; 取得学位：博士(工学) ; 学位授与年月日：2008-01-23 ; 学位の種類：新制・論文博士 ; 学位記番号：論工博第3983号 ; 報告番号：乙第12159号 ; 整理番号：25705 ; 請求記号：新制/工/1424 / Kyoto University (京都大学) / 0048 / 新制・論文博士 / 博士(工学) / 乙第12159号 / 論工博第3983号 / 新制||工||1424(附属図書館) / 25705 / UT51-2007-T886 / (主査)教授 橘 邦英, 教授 石川 順三, 教授 鈴木 実 / 学位規則第4条第2項該当

隨著社會經濟的不斷發展，社會物質精神文化生活的不斷豐富，人們可以越來越容易的購買到自己喜歡的衣服，特別是廣大愛美的女生。現如今中國大陸市場上充斥著各種名稱的女裝品牌，本文的研究對象正是這些消費者可以輕而易舉的接觸到的女裝品牌。 本研究通過對商標的基本解釋、意義與類型的歸納，商標註冊保護程序與要件的列舉，綜合分析目前中國大陸商標的註冊與保護概況。在對女裝品牌相關的文獻進行綜述和總結之後，通過資料檢索、統計分析、判決分析等方式，利用網路平台並在不同網路平台中查找那些關於中國大陸常見的女裝品牌。再通過中國大陸商標局檢索出與這些女裝品牌相關的商標註冊情況，這些註冊情況涵蓋了註冊時間、註冊申請人、註冊公告時間、商標專用權期限等，本論文針對這些信息進行整理、分析和總結，得出有關中國大陸女裝品牌的商標概況。通過在中國裁判文書網，檢索商標名稱以及對應的商標申請人的法律判決狀況，以篩選出的女裝品牌為代表，了解目前中國大陸女裝品牌的商標相關的法律問題。最後本論文結合淘寶網品牌總銷量的相關情況，綜合分析商標註冊的多寡對於這些女裝品牌的銷量和該些女裝品牌註冊商標的爭議之間的影響狀況，總結出女裝品牌商標註冊與保護問題的相關建議。 / With the development of society, people can gain more goods they need than before, like some beautiful clothes, especially for women. And nowadays there are many women’s clothing brands exist in the market of China, this article is based on this phenomenon and focus on the brands of women’s clothing which people can easily buy. In this article, the author interpret and define what brand and what women’s clothing brand is. Also, the author will illuminate how to register a trademark in China, and what protection Chinese government and Chinese trademark related laws offer, meanwhile the writer will collect and select the existing women’s clothing brands by searching different information from the internet. Then the writer will search these brands from “Trademark Office of The State Administration For Industry & Commerce of the People’s Republic of China”, collect these brands’ registrant, registration time, publication time, the period of their exclusive rights and so on. The writer will focus on the information above, try to reorganize and analyze the information mentioned above and draw some conclusions from that. The author will search the trademark-related judgment of these selected brands by “China Judgements Online”, as well as collect the sales volume of these brands by “Taobao”. At last the author will use the software of “Excel” and “R” to analyze the data above. After doing all the things above, the author will draw a conclusion and could give some related suggestion on the topic of the registration and protection of the trademarks’ status in China from women’s clothing brands.

當管理策略的發展開始從既有的「純競爭策略」，逐漸轉變為一種陰陽相依、競合相倚的觀念時，這種「陰」與「陽」同時存在或交替出現的「競合策略」便成為管理學者爭相研究的焦點。然而，即使有關於競合的理論與研究不勝枚舉，但是能以知識為探討的立足點，來瞭解廠商間創新研發競合關係的研究並不多見。再者，過去有關區域創新或是產業聚落的研究，多半強調合作創新，顯少討論區域內的競爭。進一步而言，對於區域內廠商在創新研發方面同時「競合並存」的研究，特別是針對「競爭導向的合作」與「合作導向的競爭」兩種創新競合的情境下，廠商間的知識分享與知識保護的情形，更是付之闕如。因此，本研究的目的，即在回應這些文獻缺口，對於廠商在不同的創新研發「競合關係」情境下，其知識互動的實際作為，做一深入的探究。 本研究在研究方法上採用多重個案研究方法，以全球最著名的區域創新系統之一台灣中部地區的工具機群聚為主要的研究場域。在研究的過程中，以兩階段的深度訪談，針對中部地區的工具機暨零組件產業之競合關係進行瞭解，並找出兩個特殊的創新研發競合案例。進一步地，針對此兩案例中廠商的創新研發「競合關係」與知識互動的實際作為，做深入的比較與分析。 本研究經歸納彙整研究命題後，進一步得到以下結論： 一、第三方單位在區域內廠商之創新研發競合關係與知識互動中扮演重要的角色，包括中介協調、主動催生與管理計畫、技術移轉與檢測驗證等。 二、廠商在不同的「競合關係」情境下，會因營運範疇相似度的不同，而有不同的知識分享類型與交流管道。在營運範疇相似度高的情況下，會以基礎理論知識來進行分享，且以正式的討論會議為主要的知識交流管道；在營運範疇相似度度低的情況下，會以應用層面的技術知識進行分享，在知識交流的管道上不僅會有正式的討論會議，還會透過非正式的方式進行交流。 三、廠商在不同的創新研發「競合關係」情境下，會因未來競爭的可能性與營業秘密的考量，而採取不同的知識分享方式，包括選擇性分享、不願意分享以及主動進行分享等。 四、廠商在不同的創新研發「競合關係」情境下，儘管知識保護的緣由不同，都會以契約內的保密協議做為最主要的知識保護方式。 在學術研究方面，本研究不同於以往的文獻從「市場」或是「資源」的角度來探究「競合關係」，而是以創新研發中最根本的要素–「知識」，來探究創新研發的「競合關係」。其次，不僅瞭解到第三方單位是促成競爭廠商形成合作研發聯盟的重要推手，亦從廠商不同的競合情境下，其知識互動的作為，整理出「知識互動的影響因素」。因此，本研究在學術研究上做出以下的貢獻： 一、過往競合方面的研究，主要是以一般性的策略領域為主，本研究則特別針對廠商在「創新研發」上的「競合」行為來加以探討。 二、過往的競合理論對於市場與資源的定義不夠完整與明確，且認為市場與資源是分別影響競爭與合作的不同要素。本研究更細緻地以「知識」的層次來加以探討，發現「知識」對廠商間的競合行為有很大的影響；此外，知識層次的觀點亦會使市場與資源間的界限變得模糊。 三、過往的競合理論概括性地提出既競爭又合作的概念，本研究進一步地提供「競爭導向的合作」（競中帶合）與「合作導向的競爭」（合中帶競）兩種情境的實證研究結果。 四、過往的研究較少提出第三方單位在競合關係中扮演的角色，本研究藉由實證並提出區域內廠商在進行創新研發競合關係時，第三方單位的主要角色與重要性。 五、過往區域創新系統或產業群聚的研究以探討廠商間的合作為主，本研究再加入「競爭」的要素做為研究廠商創新研發「競合關係」的基礎。 整體而言，本研究將「競中帶合」與「合中帶競」做清楚的定義，進一步地以知識作為廠商進行創新研發競合的根本要素，並提出第三方單位的重要性。在實務上，提供知識互動的影響因素作為廠商進行競合與知識互動時的參考依據。 / Management strategy has gradually transformed from “pure competition” to the coexistence of competition and cooperation, also known as co-opetition, where “co-opetition strategy” has become a popular research focus for scholars who study management. Scholars, upon observing such trend where “peace” and “warfare”- or “yin” and “yang”- exists either at the same time or occurs alternatively, begin to add the “cooperative” element (yang) into the traditional concept of “competition” (yin). Although immense theories and researches on the concept of co-opetition exist, researches that attempt to reveal the co-opetition relationship in the realm of R&D and Innovation among firms from the standpoint of knowledge have been scarce. Regional Innovation Systems is a field full of cooperation and competition, yet past research mostly focused on cooperation and innovation instead of discussing the competition among firms in the region. That is, few researches focused on discussing the cooperation and competition coexisting at the same time in the realm of R&D and Innovation among firms. Moreover, researches that particularly discuss the situation of knowledge sharing and knowledge protection among firms from two R&D and Innovation co-opetition types of “Competition-dominated cooperation” and “Cooperation-dominated competition” relegate said situations to the category of things unknown. Therefore, this research aims to fill the gap in such literature by conducting deep explorations into knowledge interaction among firms in one region, particularly from two R&D and Innovation co-opetition types. This research adopts a multi-case study method while the main field of research focuses on one of the most renowned global Regional Innovation Systems: the machinery cluster in central Taiwan. During the process of the research, a two-stage, in-depth interview was conducted to understand the co-opetition relationship among the machine tool and component firms in the central Taiwan, and has identified two special case studies of R&D and Innovation co-operation. Furthermore, this research focus on the R&D and Innovation co-opetition relationship among firms and their practices of knowledge interaction in these two cases, and conducts in-depth comparisons and analysis. By conducting two-stage in-depth interviews, this study summarizes the research propositions and further obtains the following conclusions: 1.Third party plays an important role in R&D and innovation co-opetition knowledge interaction among firms in the same region, including the roles of intermediary coordination, taking the initiative to spawn and manage projects, and transferring, testing and verification of technology. 2.In different “co-opetition” types, the types of knowledge sharing and exchange channels among firms are different according to how similar they are in operational scope. In the case of high similarity in operational scope, basic and theoretical knowledge is shared, and formal meetings are the main channel of knowledge exchange. In the case of low similarity in operational scope, technical and applied knowledge is shared, and the channels of knowledge exchange do not only have formal meetings, but also communicate informally. 3.In different “R&D and innovation co-opetition” types, firms will take different approaches in sharing knowledge (either being selective, not willing, or actively sharing) due to future competition possibilities and trade secrets. 4.Firms differ in their reasons for knowledge protection in different “R&D and innovation co-opetition” types, but will mostly rely on confidential agreements within their contracts as the main measure for knowledge protection. While past academic research mostly explores "co-opetition relationship" from the perspective of "market" or "resource", this research explores R&D and innovation co-opetition with the most essential element, “knowledge”. Not only is it understood that third-party units are important promoters of competitive firms in forming R&D alliances, "the influencing factors of knowledge interaction" from the perspective of their knowledge interaction under different co-opetition types is concluded. Therefore, this research aims to produce the following contributions in the academic field: 1.Past co-opetition researches mostly focus on generic and strategical fields, this research focuses particularly on bahviors of “co-opetition in R&D and innovation” among firms. 2.Past co-opetition theories’ definitions on markets and resources are insufficient and imprecise, for they describe markets and resources as different factors that affect competition and cooperation. This research offers a finer exploration from the aspect of “knowledge”. This research finds that “knowledge” has an immense impact on co-opetition behaviors. In addition, the knowledge-level viewpoint further blurs the boundary between markets and resources. 3.Past co-opetition theories offered the generic concept of simultaneous competition and cooperation This research further provides empirical research results of two scenarios: "competition-dominated cooperation" and "cooperation-dominated competition". 4.Past researches seldom discuss the role that third parties play in co-opetition. This research states the importance of third parties in the firms’ “co-opetition relationships” through empirical evidence when it comes to R&D and innovation in the region. 5.Past researches of regional innovation systems or clusters primarily focus on cooperation between firms, this research adds the factor of “competition” as a research basis for understanding firms’ co-opetition relationships in and R&D and innovation. Overall, this research clearly defines "competition-dominated cooperation" and "cooperation-dominated competition", and views “knowledge” as a fundamental element of R&D and innovation co-opetition, putting forward the importance of third-party units. In practice, provide the influential factors of knowledge interaction as a reference for firms to conduct co-opetition and knowledge interaction.

In the past two years, a Taiwan-based adhesive manufacturer confronted significant declines in sales for the U.S. market. The purpose of the study is to propose alternative strategies for the manufacturer in expanding the U.S. adhesive market and to assess the best strategies to be implemented. The Quantitative Strategic Planning Matrix (QSPM), a managerial assessment tool that determines the relative attractiveness of different strategies based on a firm’s external and internal factors, was adopted as the methodology. The results revealed that working with alternative agents is the most suitable strategic decision. The selected strategy is two percent better than strategy one: Build a factory in the U.S., eight percent better than strategy two: Maintain and strengthen the existing ODM model, eleven percent better than strategy three: Acquire the current agent, and twenty percent better than strategy five: Supply from the JV factory in India. The study findings may serve as a guide for the management team to construct their market development plan for the U.S. market.

我國稅捐稽徵法第12條之1【實質課稅原則】規定自立法迄今仍爭議不斷，故為求於稅捐爭訟案件中妥當適用實質課稅原則，有必要對於實質課稅原則之適用前提、定位、解釋及適用界限等議題進行分析，特別係指明實質課稅原則應有之適用界限，避免稅捐稽徵機關過度擴張適用，俾保障納稅義務人之合法權益。特別是我國立法院於105年12月28日制定公布【納稅者權利保護法】，訂於106年12月28日生效施行，為我國納稅者權利保護邁出一大步，而此專法之通過，對於稅捐稽徵機關及行政法院適用實質課稅原則時，應有何種程度之影響亦值探討，俾能發揮納稅者權利保護之立法目的與意旨。本研究以法學方法論及【納稅者權利保護法】意旨為分析方法，提出實質課稅原則之適用前提及界限，並選擇納稅義務人進行租稅規劃時常用租稅工具（包括信託、保險、土地交易、所得性質）之相關行政法院判決，進行評析驗證，最後提出結論與建議供納稅義務人、稅捐主管機關及行政法院參考。

本文研析2011年至2016年期間，中國在人道干預立場上對利比亞和敘利亞的差異比較，試圖分析中國在「國家保護責任」（Responsibility to Protect）上的態度轉變。中國於安理會1970號和1973號針對利比亞內戰所涉及的人道干預決議案，不但同意將利比亞情勢送交國際刑事法院，更間接默許西方軍事干預利比亞，此與一向不干預他國內政、尊重他國主權為外交原則的中國相違背。然而，發生於同時期、同受到阿拉伯之春影響、同為推翻獨裁政權的敘利亞內戰，中國卻多次否決對其進一步軍事干預，形成人道干預立場上的矛盾。 而本文試圖利用「國家利益」和「形象建構」兩大分析途徑，探究中國隨著負責任大國的形象建立，和在國際事務上話語權漸增的情況下，於人道干預立場的考量是否有所改變或偏向。本文認為中國在利比亞案例上突破以往不干預他國內政的立場，並不代表中國對「國家保護責任」態度的轉變。其次，中國當前在人道干預立場上，仍以國家利益為主，形象建構為輔，特別是中共政權維穩、國家安全為首要。此外，中國也正試圖擺脫俄羅斯和西方國家的單方影響，建立一套獨立自主的人道干預外交原則。

京都大学 / 0048 / 新制・課程博士 / 博士(法学) / 甲第22207号 / 法博第240号 / 新制||法||167(附属図書館) / 京都大学大学院法学研究科法政理論専攻 / (主査)教授 土井 真一, 教授 毛利 透, 教授 曽我部 真裕 / 学位規則第4条第1項該当 / Doctor of Laws / Kyoto University / DGAM