傳統上著作物與著作權是兩個涇渭分明的概念，購買著作物不當然取得與之相關的著作權，反過來說，即便僅獲得有限的著作授權，亦不影響該著作物的所有權歸屬。為了將利益最大化，著作權人試圖透過契約架空權利耗盡，最常見的方式是透過定型化契約、以授權代替銷售，直接阻斷著作物所有權移轉的發生，但權利耗盡肩負著調和著作物所有權人與著作權人間權利衝突的任務，若允許著作權人以契約打破平衡，將使著作利用人陷入使用處處受制的窘境，亦有損文化推廣、知識傳承的著作權制度本旨。 隨著數位科技的發展，著作物逐漸走向無體化，在無體著作物與著作權本身界線模糊的情況下，權利耗盡應如何適用遂成為一個複雜的問題。本論文以有體物變成無體物的著作物型態轉變做為切入點，討論著作數位化下的權利耗盡面對的挑戰，並對實務上常用的規避手段進行分析，進一步提出著作物授權和銷售契約的辨別標準，同時提出對電子定型化契約適法性的判斷方式。 近年發展蓬勃的著作訂閱服務，更是完全跳脫產品交易模式下存在的耗盡問題。本論文最後便以現存不同數位著作（音樂、電子書、軟體）的服務平台為中心，藉由其運作模式的介紹來分析當著作與雲端結合後，除了傳統存於著作上的使用限制外，還有哪些影響著作利用人的選擇因素。

自從美國最高法院在廣達與LGE案中作出解釋後，便將權利耗盡理論亦稱為第一次銷售理論帶往另一個層次。此案已被普遍認為對於美國過去的判例影響甚鉅，對於產業界的商業活動發展更是具有深遠的影響。智慧財產權旨在保護發明及創造公眾利益間取得一平衡點，權利耗盡理論長久以來已被視為專利法中重要的一環，並藉以杜絕專利權人的過當控制。而最高法院對於第一次銷售理論的解釋，則進而撼動專利權人長此以往對限制性銷售策略的仰賴。 即便銷售後限制(Post-sale restriction)確實提供了專利權人避免耗盡其權利的好方法，但專利權範圍則限縮了專利權人所享有的權利控制範圍，換言之，專利權人僅能擁有專利法所賦予的權利，且其加諸於被授權人的購買條件限制僅限於該專利之功能及使用目的。而超越該專利功能及使用目的的過分限制，則可能導致專利權濫用。而在開放WTO框架下，國際貿易的頻繁也使得權利耗盡衍生出了在散佈等方面的相關討論，平行輸入/輸出的議題亦隨著跨國交易的興盛而隨之重要。 故此篇論文的研究目的不僅僅探討權利耗盡理論及其相關議題，更旨在藉由廣達案的啟發，提供台灣的IT產業一有效的專利授權策略，並提供不論專利權人或被授權人於制定授權契約時，能有一更具有策略性的思考方向。 / The Supreme Court’s current decision in Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. brings the exhaustion doctrine also known as first sale doctrine up to a new phase. This case is believed significantly overcome quite a lot of past precedents and will effectively influent industry business operations in the future. The core goal of intellectual property right aims to find a balance between protecting the incentives to create and innovate, and providing the benefits to public interests. Exhaustion doctrine has been long standing as part of patent law to prevent patentees’ over control. The interpretation made by Supreme Court regarding the first sale doctrine does vibrate the conditional sale strategies long believed by patentees. Now the Supreme Court brings the issue from the phase of patent law down to the contract law level. Subsequently, the litigations of antitrust and fair trade are therefore involved while patentees are tempting to make an “end-run” control over the downstream purchasers. Though applying post-sale restriction provides a way out for intellectual property owner from triggering the exhaustion, however, the scope of the patent claims determine how far the privilege is given to the inventors. A patent owner or licenser can only enforce its patent right while the right is truly granted by the patent law. Subsequently, the restriction set forth to limit the licensees or purchasers must be accordance with the function or feature of the patent claims for. On the contrary, the patentee intends to restrict its purchasers by holding the exclusive right which beyond the scope of the patent granted may result to patent misuse, for instance, the resale price maintenance, prohibition of manufacturing the competing products, the conditional license which incorporates another license, and overwhelming royalties on the price of the whole product instead of the actual usage of the patented article. Under WTO, the concern of intellectual property protection has become more critical in the perspective of international trade, different issues and disputes regarding exhaustion have also been generated. Not alike the traditional domestic exhaustion, the discussion regarding distribution has therefore been derived. Moreover, the issues related to parallel import/export are generated in accordance with the frequent cross-border transaction. The purpose of this research does not merely lead us look into the doctrine and restriction patentees used to impose for avoiding exhaustion. But I intend to further illustrate a guideline based on the inspiration from Quanta and the explanation of the Courts. This guideline should provide both patentees and licensees an orientation while considering making a licensing agreement.