本文的發展脈絡過程中，圍繞著所有權的範疇以及因著所有權所發生的諸多禁錮的問題；其中，筆者所關注的主題—競業禁止條款—在最近的勞動學界，引起廣大的討論，而在台灣勞資糾紛的角力賽中，也日漸將競業禁止相關的問題揭示世人。本文著重以勞工的角度來論述主題，無意探討法院各個判決所採用的見解，或法律或管理界的說法，只就離職後競業禁止這個問題的概念輪廓做理論性的批判，以免有無法將主題聚焦之憾。 法院主導了台灣競業禁止議題的發展，各級法院先後以各種標準來裁判爭議，而這些標準通常援引自外國的立法例，尤其以德、日兩國為主；行政機關也採用法院的看法，訂立出契約的範本，以資勞資雙方各自遵守。回頭看台灣的僱傭關係，資方的強大經濟實力，足以位居契約訂定的主導地位，勞方根本無置喙的餘地，所謂契約自由，只不過是默認資本主義的生產結構下的假象平等，弱勢的勞工只能任憑資本家的宰割。 知識工作者在時空的接移下，成為現今工業生產的大多數工人階級，但是許多虛無的意識，讓這群工人階級模糊了自身的地位；競業禁止的議題一出現，讓原本的這群知識工作者受盡更多的桎錮，並且遭遇更大不利益的對待。除了在交換過程的剝削外，離職後這群知識工作者依然無法脫離控制，資本家利用更有力的法律工具來支配勞動力的流動，資本家或許提供補償予工人，但是對於自由的限制，卻以議價的方法給付。 因為競業禁止無法可管，所以更應該思考競業禁止問題的未來走向，而這個議題或許是重新審視台灣被扭曲的勞資關係之新契機。

專利聯盟（patent pools）可以創造龐大的促進競爭效益，但是同時也可能產生妨礙競爭與創新之疑慮，若法律完全不對專利聯盟之運作進行規範，專利權人將得以利用專利聯盟制度作為提昇自己市場獨占力量，抑制市場競爭，甚至是濫用專利排他權的工具。為了畫下專利權人正當行使權利之界限，維護專利制度的政策目的，以規範專利聯盟所產生之專利權濫用問題，美國的法制上遂逐漸發展出以專利權濫用原則（patent misuse doctrine）與競爭法（即美國之反托拉斯法），對專利聯盟進行管制的結構。美國法上之專利權濫用原則創設之初係為了限制輔助侵權理論之適用，此理論最初與競爭法制並無交集，判斷的重點在於專利權人是否逾越其權限，之後隨著1988年美國專利法之修正，以及學理實務的改變，現今專利權濫用原則的認定已牽涉競爭法「合理原則」之判斷，然而，許多爭議也逐漸浮現，例如應如何判斷專利權人在專利聯盟中所為之限制競爭行為是否成立濫用，專利權濫用原則與競爭法之間之關係為何，甚至專利權濫用原則本身是否仍有必要存在，這些問題都尚待解決，因此現今正是對專利權濫用理論進行全面檢討之時機。 本文以下將針對專利聯盟所涉及之專利權濫用問題進行研究，對於實務上專利權人利用專利聯盟所進行之搭售、包裹授權、聯合訂價、競業禁止條款等行為進行觀察，並對其所涉及之專利權濫用問題進行初步分析。基於此一研究所獲得之基礎，本文將嘗試指出專利權濫用理論值得檢討之處，並指出專利權濫用理論兼具專利制度和競爭法制之特質，也反映了兩者間之衝突，其亦具有能夠與時俱進，以及反映專利制度政策公益之特質，因此仍有繼續存在價值。尤其係在專利聯盟成員利用彼此間競業禁止協議抑制新生替代性技術發展之情形，法院在適用競爭法合理原則時，往往因為專利聯盟所創造的促進競爭效益，以及新生技術未來發展的不確定性，而傾向認定此種契約條款為合法，忽略其所產生之抑制創新問題，此時即有適用專利權濫用原則之空間。此外，更可以考慮以我國民法第148條所規範之誠信原則與權利濫用原則作為將專利權濫用理論引入我國法之基礎，而在尚未引入以前，對於專利聯盟所涉及之專利權濫用問題，我國實務可以將美國法專利權濫用原則之理論基礎作為操作民法第148條、專利法第60條、公平交易法第18條及第19條以及其他相關規定時之指導原則。本文之意旨並非在完全以專利權濫用原則取代競爭法規範的角色，而係期待實務上應當設法對專利權濫用原則之價值進行重新評估，以賦予專利權濫用原則嶄新之生命，讓專利權濫用原則與競爭法共同形成一個完善、合理的專利權行使規範體系。 / Patent pool licensing can both create enormous pro-competitive and anti-competitive effects. Without legal intervention, the patentee would be able to manipulate the patent pool system as a mean to increase his own monopoly power, suppress competition in the market, and even misuse his patent exclusive power. In order to prevent the misuse of patent rights, protect patent policy and regulate patent misuse issues in patent pools, the U.S law system employs the “patent misuse doctrine” and competition law (antitrust law) to deal with the above issues. The patent misuse doctrine was initially designed to limit the overexpansion of the contributory infringement theory and has no relationship with competition law. The essential factor to constitute patent misuse is that the patentee extends the patent monopoly over the statutory scope of his patent right. Nevertheless, in pace with the Patent Misuse Reform Act of 1988 and the conversion of the legal practice, the patent misuse doctrine has begun to intertwine with competition law’s “rule of reason” analysis. Gradually, many disputes have emerged, such as how to determine whether the patentee’s conduct constitutes patent misuse in patent pools, what is the relationship between the patent misuse doctrine and competition law, and whether the patent misuse doctrine itself is necessary to exist. Therefore, it is high time to conduct a comprehensive review of the patent misuse theory. This article will provide insights to patent misuse issues in patent pool licensing, such as tie-in arrangement, package licensing, price fixing, non-competition agreements, etc, and review the theoretical basis of the patent misuse doctrine. This article will also submit that the patent misuse doctrine is a doctrine which has both the characteristics of patent law and competition law and can compromise the interests of these two areas of regulations. It can also reflect patent policy and grow and change with time. Therefore, it is a doctrine which should continue to exist. Particularly, in the situation which patent pool members use non-competition agreements to suppress the development of nascent substitute technologies, courts would often consider this kind of agreement to be legal because of the enormous pro-competitive effects created by the patent pool and the uncertainty of the future development of the nascent technology. At this moment, it is necessary to apply the patent misuse doctrine to deal with the problem. In addition, the principle of good faith which is encoded in article 148 of the civil code may be an appropriate medium to introduce the patent misuse doctrine into our legal system. Even if it is not yet introduced into our system, the patent misuse doctrine could be the guiding principle for our legal practitioners to apply article 148 of the civil code, article 60 of the patent act, article 18 and article 19 of the Fair Trade Act in order to deal with patent misuse issues in patent pool licensing. This article supports that the patent misuse doctrine should be refined and cooperate with competition law in order to form a complete regulation of patent misuse conducts, but it does not submit that current competition law should be entirely replaced by the patent misuse doctrine.

近年來頻傳科技業高階主管跳槽到競爭對手，而我國於二〇一三年增訂營業秘密的刑事責任，營業秘密的保護與人才流動兩者之間的關係，越來越受到關注，特別是台積電與梁孟松案，智慧財產法院於二〇一二年三月台積電訴梁孟松案假處分裁定採納不可避免揭露原則，在後續的判決中亦論及不可避免揭露原則，使此一原則開始受到國內智慧財產權法實務及學術界之相當關注。 不可避免揭露原則係源自美國法上之司法實踐，本文首先介紹美國法上不可避免揭露原則的理論基礎，透過五個重要判決（Allis-Chalmers v. Continental案、PepsiCo v. Redmond案、Bimbo v. Botticella案、Whyte v. Schlage案和EarthWeb v. Schlack案）介紹不可避免揭露原則的發展，分析不可避免揭露原則的要素，包括兩間公司的競爭程度、營業秘密之認定、員工職務的近似程度、違反誠信的行為和與保密協議、競業禁止條款的關係，並且整理出四種不同的適用類型即完全適用、擴張適用、限縮適用和拒絕適用，繼而以之分析美國各州的適用情形。最後，回歸到我國台積電訴梁孟松案，分析該案是否適合導入或參考美國法之不可避免揭露原則之各項考量因素，並評析法院對於不可避免揭露原則的見解包括採納不可避免揭露原則的適用類型，輔以我國目前實務發展，探討不可避免揭露原則是否應該引入我國，包括是否違反我國法律規定、與美國法制的差異是否影響不可避免揭露原則的適用和價值衡平與政策考量。 / In recent years, hi-tech companies in Taiwan occasionally need to cope with crisis where their executives decide to join competitors’ firms. Along with the 2013 amendment in Trade Secrets Law, which crminizlized trade secrets infringemenet, the relationship between the trade secret protection and job mobility has drew wide attention from IP practitioers and academia. In the case of TSMC v. Liang, the Intellectual Property Court first applied the inevitable disclosure doctrine in an injunction relief. Since the inevitable disclosure doctrine originates from the judicial development of the United States (U.S) trade secret law, the thesis first introduces the basic idea of the inevitable disclosure doctrine in the U.S., and then through five representative cases, including Allis-Calmers v. Continental, PepsiCo v. Redmond, Bimbo v. Botticella, Whyte v. Schlage, and EarthWeb v. Schlack. It then investigates the overall development of the inevitable disclosure doctrine in the U.S.. Based on the case-law development, the thesis further analyzes the essential factors of the inevitable disclosure doctrine incluing the competition between rivals, indentification of trade secrets, job similarity, dishonest act and the relationship with non-disclosure agreement and covenant not to compete. It also catalgorizes four types of judicial application of the inevitable disclosure doctrine, including the original, extended, limited and rejected type. Furthermore, the thesis analyzes the type of application of the inevitable disclosure doctrine in each state in the U.S.. Last but not least, back to TSMC v. Liang, the thesis analyzes if the above-mentioned factors of the inevitable disclosure doctrine fit in the case, and reviews the court ruling about the inevitable disclosure doctrine. In conclusion, based on the current development of judicial practice, the thesis assesses the application of inevitable disclosure doctrine in Trade Secrets Law in Taiwan with the polict goal to balance various interests.

定型化契約條款的發展自二十世紀以來，普遍地擴及一切的商品服務業，此種普及之情況在勞動生活實態中亦不例外。在勞動契約的締結過程中，雇主多以預先擬定的契約條款，單方面向勞工提出，就締約實力而言，勞工多半處於弱勢之一方，對於契約內容之形成難有影響力，通常僅能在接受與否間選擇，契約自由原則在此無法達到其保障契約內容的實質正當性功能，從而對於定型化勞動契約之內容有加以控制、審查之必要性。 然而定型化勞動契約之司法控制在我國現行實定法之狀態下，有其適用上之困境，我國制定法中有關定型化契約條款之規範，以消費者保護法之規定（第11條至第17條）最為詳盡，然而該法所適用之對象受到立法定義之侷限，非消費性契約無消保法之適用，勞動契約因而無法直接適用上開規定。我國民法債編於民國88年的修正中雖增訂民法第247條之1，作為定型化契約條款之原則性規定，然此一規範內容僅涉及定型化契約之內容控制，其立法密度顯然小於消保法之規定。 為了釐清定型化勞動契約控制在我國法上之適用依據，本論文蒐羅大量法院判決，觀察法院適用民法第247條之1於勞動契約中之現狀，並譯介德國法制相關討論及規範，希冀對此問題有更進一步之認識，進而提出妥適之解決之道。 本論文首先從定型化契約之理論出發，分析定型化契約須受控制之理由及其控制之基本模式。其後詳述我國法制現狀，探討在法律適用困境下，如何進一步建構起定型化勞動契約之法律體系及適用依據。為能釐清定型化契約的司法控制體系，本論文以大量篇幅分析比較我國與德國法制，依序探討定型化契約條款之定義、納入契約及異常條款之判定、不明確條款解釋原則、內容控制等相關重要問題。再者，若契約不被納入成為契約內容，或者因顯失公平而被判定無效後，其法律效果為何，亦為本論文所要探討之議題。最後，以勞動契約常見之四種定型化契約條款為題，介紹我國法院之處理方式以及德國法制之討論，期能藉由比較法上之分析作為我國將來法律解釋及立法之借鏡。