我國國立大學預算制度，從過去公務預算時期政府「全額補助」，到目前校務基金預算制度下政府「部分負擔」，歷經極大的變革。什麼樣的壓力導致這樣的變革？變革的結果如何？本研究嘗試利用制度經濟學財產權和交易成本的分析架構，分析台灣國立大學從公務預算制度到校務基金預算制度，制度變革的過程及其成果。 首先，經由探究政府遷台之後，高等教育法規的重要沿革及教育政策的演進，建構出形塑整個高等教育發展的正式和非正式規則：從正式規則觀之，面臨外在環境的壓力，高等教育法規不斷地修正或制定；從非正式規則觀之，「經濟性的再製功能」與「意識型態方面的再製功能」，長久以來主導整個高等教育政策的演進。 對於整個外部環境脈絡有所瞭解之後，本研究進一步從「財產權」及「交易成本」的觀點切入。從財產權三要素（排他、可移轉、憲法的保證）觀之，公務預算制度下國立大學的經費特性均不符合，校務基金預算制度下則明顯較為契合，過去對於公務預算制度下經費使用的質疑，由此可得到新的詮釋觀點。從「交易成本」的角度觀之，本研究比較國立大學預算制度變革前後，國立大學運作成本（包括監督和管理成本）及制度變革成本（主要為設立成本及利益團體互動成本），發現採行校務基金預算制度之下，甚為可觀的交易成本在進行績效評估時，相當程度地被忽略了，這樣的忽視會造成在評估新制度的績效時的過度高估。 透過國立大學「財源結構」及「相關教育品質」的統計分析，證實在校務基金實施之後，國立大學的財源結構確實產生了顯著的改變，「多元、彈性、自主」的目標有所達成。然而這樣的成果付出怎樣的代價？相關的教育品質並不全然正面回應，也就是說，目標的達成很可能是以品質的犧牲為代價，本研究認為，這樣的後果相當程度是忽視交易成本所致。 本研究從制度經濟學的分析架構，檢視我國國立大學預算制度變革的過程及成果，雖然在分析中未能賦予交易成本一個「真正的數值」，藉由突顯交易成本的具體存在，彰顯在評估制度變革的成果時，交易成本扮演的重要性，以及忽視交易成本可能造成過度樂觀的後果。

從智慧財產權的加值過程觀之，可以分為創造、保護、管理與運用四個階段，其中運用為發揮智財權附加價值的唯一手段。因此，如何為智財權尋求新的運用管道應是智財權利人與政府最須關心的議題。參考國外經驗，現今智財權運用的策略與模式已相當多元，除了運用於企業經營以發揮其策略性營運價值外，近年來亦興起以智財權進行擔保交易之趨勢，藉此開創智財權的財務價值。 而在擔保交易中，智財權除可進行融資擔保，以實現其擔保價值外，於1997年知名歌手David Bowie以其音樂著作權為證券化資產，成功發行Bowie Bonds後，亦證明以智財權進行證券化交易的可行性，使得證券化成為另一股智財權運用的新趨勢。而孕育Bowie Bonds誕生的美國，也成為智財權證券化的始祖與交易數量最多的市場。 透過證券化技術之橋接，擁有智財權的企業或個人將可藉此與資本市場產生新的連結，為其提供傳統銀行貸款外的新融資管道，增加智財權的價值。本研究之目的即在於瞭解美國智財權證券化之發展經驗，藉由實際案例之介紹，研究其運作模式與困難、未來前景，提供各界參考，並分析在我國推動智財權證券化的可行性。 研究結果發現符合一定條件的智財權，不論是專利權、商標權、音樂著作權或是電影著作權均可以進行證券化，且在交易架構上，智財權證券化完全可以運用發展已相當成熟的證券化技術，且未超脫此架構。其仍由智財權利人將欲進行證券化的智財權及相關權益以真實買賣的方式移轉給特殊目的機構，於架構所需的信用增強機制後，發行經信用評等機構評等的證券，在證券承銷商的協助下銷售給投資人。其所運用的信用增強方式包括超額擔保、儲備基金帳戶、信用分組、第三人保險或保證、於循環期內新購資產及設定提前清償機制等等，均為傳統證券化交易中常見者。而這些交易的共通點是其證券均經信用評等，且均以私募方式進行銷售，而不採公開發行。 此外，美國市場經過多年發展，可以觀察到四點有利智財權證券化發展的趨勢：一、鑑價技術進步與重視創新管理，帶動市場發展。二、以資產組合的方式進行證券化。三、證券化擴張到新種類的智財權。四、取得專家協助容易。且許多證券業的專家相信，因為智財權將成為全世界大部分收益與現金流量的來源，且證券化交易對買賣雙方都有好處，其未來將會成為最大的證券化資產種類。 然而，因為智財權的特性與固有的價值影響因素，增加其進行證券化的困難度與複雜性。此外，基於外在配套機制、產業環境與企業文化等種種因素，智財權證券化的發展面臨以下難題，包括智財鑑價技術未成熟、智財侵權普遍（特別是影音盜版、電腦軟體盜版與商標仿冒）、因智財權複雜性與高風險所導致的高交易成本、智財權擔保法制不完整、現有授權契約支付結構不利證券化、組織與需求問題、欠缺次級市場、投資人對智財權不熟悉及破產風險不易隔離等。 就我國方面，筆者認為似可以適用金融資產證券化條例之規定，進行智財權權利金收益之證券化。此外，在我國要以智財權本身進行證券化，似也可行。依信託業法第十六條之規定，信託業可經營金錢債權及專利權、著作權及商標權之信託。故智財權利人可以依該法之規定將智財權本身連同其相關權利金收益一併信託給信託業者，由其發行表彰受益權之憑證，進行證券化。但除非該證券另經財政部核定為證券交易法第六條第一項之其他有價證券，該證券將不適用證券交易法之規定，故其性質應屬民法第七百十九條所規定之無記名證券。 再者，因在我國民法下尚不承認『尚未產生債權』之讓與，故無法如美國進行『尚未產生的未來現金流量』的智財權證券化交易，只能以既有授權契約下的權利金收益為之。此外，依我國法院對將來債權轉讓，以該債權發生時為讓與生效時點之見解，似無法隔離創始機構的破產風險。且在我國破產法下，破產管理人原則上也有承擔或拒絕授權契約的權利，但該法未如美國『智慧財產破產保護法案』般，賦予被授權人選擇保留授權契約之權利而須繼續支付權利金，故當破產管理人拒絕該授權契約時，對證券化交易之衝擊並無挽救之道。 而在智財權擔保權益上，專利權與商標權雖已有登記對抗之公示機制，但筆者認為仍有缺憾。更嚴重者為著作財產權設定質權及讓與均不須經登記，且因著作權為無體財產，若無任何公示機制，對於交易安全之維護實屬有害，亦不利著作權證券化之進行。 也許有人會質疑，我國連不動產與金融資產證券化的發展均未成熟，現在就要談發展智慧財產證券化似嫌過早。然而，美國已有不少成功案例證實其可行性，且日本於2002年底通過《智慧財產權基本法》，確立以智慧財產權立國的國家戰略後，對智慧財產權證券化之研究也日益蓬勃。因此，筆者認為為增加發揮智慧財產權附加價值之管道，讓權利人更能從智慧財產權中獲益，即使我國資產證券化之市場仍屬初期發展階段，政府仍須認真思考此議題，進而考慮儘速推動基礎法制及相關配套措施，並解決前述的法制問題，以期建構有利發展智慧財產權證券化之環境，方不致在此新領域上落後美國與日本太多。此外，若能成功推展此種新興的金融商品，相信對我國金融市場的效率提昇與國際知名度亦有助益。 基此，筆者分就智財權利人與我國政府兩個面項，提出十二點有利智財權證券化發展之建議，作為本研究之最終成果。 壹、對智財權利人的建議 一、做好智財管理，創造優質權利。 二、管理授權契約，設計支付架構。 三、事先安排智財權清算機制。 四、善用信用分組，吸引不同偏好的投資人。 五、由智財技術服務業者擔任服務機構，以增加專業性，並降低破產風險。 貳、對我國政府的建議 一、增加金融資產證券化條例適用之資產種類。 二、承認尚未存在之將來債權讓與交易。 三、修改破產法，增定真實買賣安全港與被授權人選擇權。 四、修改智財權法交易登記規定，包括增設著作權交易登記制度，及將登記對抗改為登記生效要件。 五、建立智財權鑑價市場秩序，提高鑑價結果可信度。 六、建立信用保證機制。 七、建立資產證券化資產公告之查詢系統。

開放原始碼軟體（Open Source Software），是由一群相信電腦軟體世界應以開放為主流的軟體創作者所提倡，他們認為電腦軟體之創造、開發、修正、改寫與加值等行為，不應受限於原始碼不開放的困擾及智慧財產權保護過度的法律障礙，而應藉由公開程式原始碼的方式，供其他程式設計者對軟體加以改進，以提升其效能。由於此種軟體開發模式具備取得成本低、穩定與安全性、彈性與自主權、堅強後援等優勢，這些優勢已逐漸被企業界所發覺，趨使其開始採用開放原始碼軟體的步伐，同時也創造了龐大的潛在商機。例如國際知名業者IBM、Intel等紛紛投入開放原始碼軟體相關產品的推廣與銷售，甚至連政府單位，包括歐盟、美國、中國、日本、韓國等各國政府，也大力推動使用開放原始碼軟體。在此風潮之下，我國政府也制定了一系列發展開放原始碼軟體的政策及方向。 如果能夠適當的運用開放原始碼軟體，確實是可以為企業或組織節省大量成本，創造龐大的潛在商機。至於如何將潛在商機轉換為企業的實質利潤，有此即有賴商業模式的建立。 然而，就在開放原始碼逐漸形成趨勢之際，其發展卻也面臨一些新興的法律議題挑戰。相較於專屬軟體在程式開發及授權合約中通常會提供不侵犯他人智慧財產權的保障措施，開放原始碼軟體由於係以社群開發及免費授權的方式發展，在此方面的保障可能較不周全，而SCO與IBM及Novell之間錯綜複雜的智慧財產侵權糾紛，更突顯此類問題的重要與複雜。 除了智慧財產權方面的法律風險外，開放原始碼所依據的授權契約之解釋、執行、契約效力也是一個很大的問題。截至目前為止，經OSI（Open Source Initiative）所認可的開放原始碼授權契約已達58種之多，未來還會持續增加。由於授權契約種類繁多，且各契約之規定及限制不同，也造成開放原始碼擴展上的阻力。 有鑑於此，本論文主要探討的重點包括開放原始碼軟體可採行之商業模式，尤其是有意利用開放原始碼軟體為營收模式的企業應如何評估本身的核心能力及優勢所在，依情況採取適合自己的模式；另一重點則是探討開放原始碼所涉及之法律問題，包括維持開放原始碼運作制度的授權契約，並分析各類授權契約在使用上可能面臨到的風險與問題。除此之外，也將分析開放原始碼軟體可能面臨的智慧財產相關爭議，包括軟體專利的問題、著作權的問題、營業秘密的問題等。 開放原始碼軟體對於台灣是機會，也是挑戰。如果能夠妥善利用開放原始碼軟體的優點，將能為台灣的資訊產業帶來跳躍式的成長契機。 / Open Source Software, which is promoted by a group of software programmers who believe that computer software should open to the public, and the creation, development, modifying, value-added shouldn’t be bothered by the over-protection of intellectual property rights. By disclosing the source code, other programmers can improve the efficacy of the software. With the advantages of low cost, high security, high stability, plus the minimum control by the right holders, the open source software movement has gained major industry players’ support. For example, IBM, Intel have all expressed their support for the open source movement and also developed relevant products using open source software. In addition to industry, many countries, such as European countries, US, Japan, China, Korea, also show their strong support for the open source movement. Under such trend, Taiwanese government also takes positive measures to promote the development of open source industry’s development and application in Taiwan. It indeed can save a large amount of cost and create huge profit if making use of open source software properly. How to transfer the potential business opportunity to substantial revenue depends on the establishment of business models. Nevertheless, while open source movement is getting momentum, it also faces renewed legal challenges. Compared to propriety software, which usually has non-infringement of intellectual property right clauses, open source software can’t provide this kind of guarantee. This issue was especially noticeable when SCO sued IBM for 5 billions damages in 2003. In addition to the legal risks, the most stringent challenge for the open source movement is its license structure. Until May, 2006, there are 58 open source license agreements have being certified by Open Source Initiatives (OSI), the open source software’s alliance. The problem, however, is that every open source license agreement has different terms and conditions. With so many different license agreements and such uncertain legal effects of those agreements, it erected a barrier for the wide-spread application of open source software. As a result, this thesis would like to conduct a thorough research on open source software from different dimensions. One part is about the business models which can be adopted by the open source software, and this part will especially focus on how the industry players evaluate their own core abilities and advantages to adopt suitable business models. The other emphasis is on the legal issues of open source software, including the license agreements, the legal risks and intellectual property problems. Open source software is a chance and also a challenge for Taiwan. If we can make good use of the advantages of open source software, it will definitely bring immense progress for the IT industry of our country.

在現今知識經濟競爭時代中，新興科技企業不斷地衍生成立，每家企業的技術能量更加地深化與專業化，但企業的技術光譜卻相對變窄許多。因此，企業在面對日益劇烈的產業競爭以及急遽被壓縮的產品生命週期時，能否迅速且確實的取得新技術或是互補技術，以便順利進行「新產品開發」，進而及早推出產品與服務於市場上（time to market），將是決定企業生存的重要課題。 然而，技術供給來源散佈在世界各地的研究機構、大學、與企業之中，如何降低企業搜尋其所需技術的成本，提昇整個經濟體的技術媒合效率，也將是知識經濟時代決定經濟體競爭力的關鍵因素。 再者，知識經濟時代的產業結構大幅轉變：企業從原本重視土地、廠房、生產設備等固定資產價值，轉而追求以知識為基礎的「無形資產」（包含法律所保護的智慧財產權，以及其他如：品牌、商譽、供應鏈或客戶關係管理能力、行銷能力等）。但是，此種發展亦帶來新的挑戰，就是傳統的有形資產評價標準並無法適用於此種無形的智慧資產，如何對知識型產業所重視的「無形資產」進行客觀的評價，乃成為發展知識經濟的另一個關鍵因素。 本研究係以策略性思考（範疇、網路、資源）的角度切入，參照國外知名智慧財產技術服務業者的營運成功特性，並藉由廣泛的次級資料、文獻收集，與多重個案、深度訪談的方式，來審視我國智慧財產技術服務業（以鑑價與技術仲介業者為例）的營運現況，進而對業者提出在經營管理上可行之建議，同時也作為我國政府推動智慧財產技術服務業之政策發展上的參考依據。 本研究所得之研究發現如下：（節錄） 一， 我國無形資產鑑價產業的市場需求持續增加，連帶使得鑑價服務業者的投入意願與服務經驗、能力不斷的向上提升；反觀技術仲介產業因為市場需求還不明顯，因此降低了仲介服務業者的投入意願，技術仲介產業發展因而較為緩慢。 二， 我國智慧財產技術服務業者之策略聯盟情形十分普遍，對於技術事業化的相關活動，如：營運計畫撰寫、協助尋找技術、商品開發、市場分析、投資評估、尋找投資資金、行銷管道……等，皆能透過與策略伙伴的合作搭配，提供全面性的智慧財產技術服務。 三， 我國智慧財產技術服務業之從業人員，具有多重背景（科技、法律、管理）的人才仍然不足；此外，目前政府對於無形資產鑑價與仲介機構仍然無法令可管，對於從業人員的資格也不加限制，使得無形資產「鑑價」與「仲介」服務業者呈現參差不齊的現象，嚴重影響公信力。 四， 無形資產融資貸款的關鍵瓶頸在於：1.「無形資產擔保品後續處置問題（如何再出售？）」。 2.「鑑價機構之公信力（不知如何評鑑鑑價報告？）」 3.無形資產融資貸款者的還款計畫（貸款人需提出完整且可行的營運計畫書，清楚說明現金流量與發生時機）。 五， 我國智慧財產技術服務業之政府主管機關過於分散，加上各部會的溝通、協調缺乏效率，導致政策、法令決策緩慢，使業者無所適從。 由以上各點研究發現，本研究提出幾項建議，如下所示：（節錄） 一， 政府應多加鼓勵產業界運用智慧財產技術服務（尤其是技術仲介服務），進而創造與增進市場需求。 二， 智慧財產技術服務業者應加強與策略伙伴的連結。（尤其是創投，投資顧問公司）。 三， 智慧財產技術服務產業中，老字號的服務業者應考量：如何增加與客戶之間的「專屬陷入成本」，以確保客戶與之建立長期且緊密的合作關係。而新進入的服務業者，則應考量如何降低顧客的「外顯單位效益成本」、「資訊搜尋成本」與「道德危機成本」。 四， 政府應多方釋出委託專案計畫，以協助智慧財產技術服務業者成長。同時政府也應儘速訂定智慧財產技術服務相關的法令、補助措施，促進智慧財產技術服務業的發展。 五， 智慧財產技術服務業之相關政府負責單位過於龐雜，應由較高位階的部會，統籌設立單一窗口，以解決政府跨部門之間的溝通不良與無效率。 / As new technological companies sprang up in this knowledge economies era, technological capacity of a company is getting deeper and more professional. Technological scope, however, becomes narrower. Therefore, it is an important issue for companies to survive that if it can quickly and accurately acquire new or complementary technology to develop new products when face to rigorous competition and shortened product life cycle so that they can smoothly launch products and service time to market. Nevertheless, sources of technology supply spread in research institutions, universities, and companies. How to reduce costs in sourcing required technology and improve the efficiency of technology transaction is one of the key factors to decide the competitiveness of an economy. Moreover, industrial structure has been changed a lot in this knowledge management era: companies turn to seek intangible assets instead of fixed assets. The former includes law protected intellectual properties, brand, good will, supply chain, abilities of customer relationships, and marketing, which are based on knowledge. The later includes lands, plants, and equipments. However, this kind of development brings new challenges. Traditional valuation method of tangible assets can not be applied to intangible intellectual properties. How to objectively valuate intangible assets focused by knowledge based industries is another key factor to develop knowledge management. This study is based on strategic points of view (scope, network, and sources), refer to characters of operational success of famous international intellectual property and technology service industry. Rather, this study examine the intellectual property and technology service industry in Taiwan (the case study on the valuation and technology transfer sectors) by secondary information gathering, literature collection, and several case studies and deeply interviews. Further, I propose feasible recommendations on operation and management. Meanwhile, this study could be one of references when our government forms policies to improve intellectual property and technology service industry. The findings of this study are shown as follow: (extracted) 1. The demand of valuation of intangible assets in Taiwan is continuously increasing, resulting in the increase of input willingness, service experience, and abilities of valuation service industry. On the other hand, the demand of technology transfer is not obvious, which lower the input willingness. Therefore, the development of technology transfer industry is slower. 2. It is quite popular for Taiwanese intellectual property and technology service companies to have alliance with other companies. By the corporation with alliance companies, one company can provide total intellectual property and technology service, such as business plan writing, new technology searching assistance, product developing, market analysis, investment evaluation, fund raising, marketing channel, and so on. 3. There are insufficient professionals with muti-background, such as with technology, low, and management, in Taiwanese intellectual property and technology service industry. Rather, no regulation could be applied to Taiwanese intellectual property and technology service industry. There is no criterion to judge professionals’ qualification, which makes valuation and technology transfer sectors uneven, seriously affect power of fairness. 4. The bottlenecks of intangible asset financing are: (1) how to deal with intangible asset collaterals (how to resell them?) (2) fairness of the valuation institution (how to valuate a valuation report?) (3) repayment plan of intangible asset loans (borrowers have to propose a complete and feasible business plan, clearly describing the time and the amount of cash flows) 5. The regulators of Taiwanese intellectual property and technology service industry are too diversified. Moreover, because of the lack of communication and efficiency among regulators, policies are made in a delay mode. Companies do not exactly know what to follow. Based on the findings above, I propose some recommendations as follow: (extracted) 1. The government should encourage industry to use intellectual property and technology service, especially technology transfer service. It could then create and increase market demand. 2. Companies in the intellectual property and technology service industry should improve connection with alliances, especially with venture capital and investment consulting firms. 3. The old companies in the intellectual property and technology service industry should consider: how to increase cost of Hold-up of customers, in order to ensure that they can establish a long-term and closely cooperative relationship with customers. New entry service providers should consider how to increase the benefit, and reduce information searching costs and moral hazard costs of their customers. 4. The government should release government’s funding projects to assist intellectual property and technology service industry developing. At the mean time, the government should set laws and subsidization policies related to intellectual property and technology service industry, improving the development of intellectual property and technology service industry. 5. Regulators in charge of intellectual property and technology service industry are too many to follow. Single window should be set by higher governmental department to resolve the poor communication and inefficiency among governmental departments.

我國為重建金融環境，引進源自美國的資產證券化（asset securitization），近二年制訂金融資產證券化條例與不動產證券化條例，至今已成功發行八件案例。若能將資產證券化範圍擴大適用於智慧財產權與相關債權，或可解決目前企業以智慧財產權融資擔保所面臨的困境，不但有助於我國產業籌措營運資金和提升發展，亦能增加投資人金融商品之選擇與效益。 智慧財產權證券化（IP securitization）是近年國外重點發展之產物，其涉及財務、會計、賦稅、法律等多重領域。本文研究範圍與焦點，首先是國外文獻與實際案例（美國與日本）之整理與介紹，探求智慧財產權證券化可行性的成功要素與風險。其次是我國現行法如何針對智慧財產權證券化進行修正，包括基礎法制的真實買賣與特殊目的機構之獨立性問題，以及有關智慧財產權的特殊議題，例如適格資產範圍、權利瑕疵與衝突、特殊保證機制、智慧財產權鑑價等。本文目的，希冀提供未來我國制訂相關法規和實務配套措施之參考，能使金融機構與企業能瞭解智慧財產權證券化之可行性。 智慧財產權證券化成功因素，關鍵在於現金流量之估算與掌握，我國若要發展智慧財產權證券化，除了建立具有公信力的智慧財產權鑑價機制外，初期仍需倚靠外部信用增強機制，例如美國電影業的完工保證、智慧財產權訴訟保險與韓國信用保證基金的運作模式，以加強投資人對於此種商品之信心，此外財務規劃、風險管理與專業人才責任，亦是整備基本環境之重點。 藉由外國經驗與檢討，我國要進行智慧財產權證券化實須待一段時間建設，然而隨著金融商品推陳出新、金融市場快速變遷、智慧財產權產業擴充整合，以及智慧財產權融資擔保等發展，未來主管機關和立法機構勢必需修正有關真實買賣之法律要件、特殊目的機構獨立性、將來債權轉讓移轉時點等問題，並放寬開發型案件得證券化、加強著作權公示與對抗制度、建立基礎資產公告與交易資料庫等，是時，將為資產證券化議題再次注入活水，開創一番新局。

隨知識經濟發展，有關智慧財產權之管理與對因智慧財產權所衍生之訴訟紛爭因應之道，對企業越來越重要。因大企業多利用我國民事訴訟保全程序中假處分程序較提起本案訴訟所需支出之程序費用較低，取得定暫時狀態假處分之時間較本案訴訟耗費冗長之審理時間迅速，加上我國法律准許原告得提供擔保金代替聲請假處分需提出之事實與理由，導致大企業可挾雄厚財力於提請侵權訴訟之前，提供高額擔保金向法院聲請對競爭對手核發定暫時狀態假處分之裁定，故我國現行智財訴訟定暫時狀態假處分制度遭批評成為大企業用來對付新興中小企業競爭對手之手段。 有鑒於智慧財產案件與一般訴訟案件性質不同，著重承審法官須具備法律以外專門知識與技術知識，且因我國司法採取公私法二元化審判權區分，始同一智慧財產權紛爭案件可提起民事、刑事及行政訴訟程序，產生訴訟程序遲滯、裁判矛盾等問題，加上現行假處分制度有上述缺失。我國研擬智慧財產法院組織法、智慧財產案件審理法，並決定明年3月成立智慧財產專責法院，統一審理智慧財產案件，因此新制實行後能否徹底解決現行諸多缺失，亦係企業十分關心之議題。 隨台灣企業於國際間代工獲利增長、面板產業、資訊科技產業快速成長發展，外國擁有相關技術智慧財產權之大廠，紛紛對台灣企業於美國涉嫌侵權行為提起訴訟，獲取洽談授權金或和解金、賠償金之利益。因國外大廠於提起智慧財產侵權訴訟之際，均會依假處分規定，聲請法院下裁定禁止涉嫌侵權之企業繼續為生產、銷售及進口等行為，使台灣企業無法繼續生產商品銷售至美國，受有商機、商譽等重大損失。且台灣企業於美國侵權訴訟程序需耗費巨額訴訟費用及冗長之訴訟程序進行，台灣現行並無訴訟保險制度，無法將面臨智慧財產侵權訴訟須支出之費用藉由保險制度分散風險，故台灣企業面臨智慧財產權利人提起假處分或侵權訴訟時，應採取何種因應措施與訴訟策略，平時對其所有之智慧財產權應為如何管理，均係相當重要之議題。 ＊關鍵字：定暫時狀態假處分、擔保金、智慧財產法院、訴訟保險、智慧財產權管理、訴訟策略 / In today's knowledge-based economy, management of intellectual property rights is more important and litigation arising out of disputes about intellectual property rights is more than ever among transnational companies. In light of the lengthy procedure of litigation, companies often take advantage of the preliminary injunction system in Taiwan before filing a lawsuit, especially in cases of disputes about intellectual property rights. An applicant of a preliminary injunction is allowed to provide a security bond in lieu of explaining in detail the merit of its lawsuit and can obtain a preliminary injunction issued by the court within a relatively short period of time before the final judgment has been rendered. Consequently, the preliminary-injunction system has been criticized for its shortage in protecting the counterparty's legitimate interest. Because the current preliminary-injunction system has the above-mentioned disadvantages, and the litigation in connection with intellectual property rights differs from the ordinary litigation, i.e. the judges must have certain engineering or scientific knowledge in addition to the understanding of the legal system. Furthermore, our country adopts the "dual system" in terms of jurisdiction, i.e. there might be criminal, administrative, and civil litigations simultaneously arising out of the same intellectual-property disputes, which results in delay and contradictions among the judgments in relation to the same disputes. In view of the above, the Judicial Yuan drafts the "The Act for Establishing the Specialized Intellectual Property Court" and "The Code for Hearing Procedures Concerning Intellectual Property Disputes", and plans to launch the Specialized Intellectual Property Court by March 2007 to be in sole charge of the hearing of intellectual-property cases. Therefore, whether the new system adopted by the Judicial Yuan can resolve the aforementioned shortcoming is the major source of concern for the industries. Owing to the increase in the profits sustained by Taiwan companies when performing their OEM services, and the rapid growth of Taiwan's TFT-LCD and IT industries, foreign companies owning the intellectual property rights in relevant technologies in droves file lawsuits against Taiwan companies in the United States, in order to gain advantages when negotiating royalties or compensation with Taiwan companies. When foreign companies file lawsuits, it is a trend to also apply for preliminary injunction with the court to forbid the infringing companies continuing manufacturing, selling, or importing the products. Thus Taiwan companies cannot proceed to sell the products to the United States and incur huge losses in commercial opportunities and reputation. In addition, litigation in the United States will cost Taiwan companies notable expenditure, and make Taiwan companies endure lengthy procedures. Nonetheless, as currently there is no litigation insurance in Taiwan, Taiwan companies cannot shift the risks in disbursing the litigation expenditure by means of insurance. Accordingly, the management of intellectual property rights in "peacetime", and the measures and litigation strategy for the lawsuits or preliminary injunction filed/applied by the owner of the intellectual property rights, are crucial to Taiwan companies. ＊Keywords：Preliminary injunction、Security Bond、The Specialized Intellectual Property Court、Litigation insurance、the management of intellectual property、the strategy of litigation

有鑑於我國長期以來皆為技術引入國，為強調自主創新，產學合作受到了相當程度的重視，而生技製藥產業的價值鏈長、高風險、高研發成本、高知識內涵等特性，使得產學合作成為生技製藥產業中相當重要的機制。又由於上述的產業特性，使得生技製藥公司在產品上市前，所有的研發投入，皆以「無形資產」的形式，儲存在階段性的開發成果之中，因此，智慧財產的保護與管理，對生技製藥公司而言，確實有很高的重要性，智慧財產若經過妥善的經營與管理，能有效成為企業的競爭優勢來源。 本研究即以生技製藥產業之產學合作為前提，針對智財管理與企業策略因子，以產業方的觀點，探討「產學合作－智財管理－企業營運模式」三者之間的關連性，並從智財管理的四大內涵－「創造、保護、管理、運用」作為分析之構面，釐清重要議題與關鍵因素，以作為日後雙方架構合作與管理模式之依據，達到知己知彼，互信合作，創造雙贏的綜效。 本研究以個案訪談方式，訪談台灣微脂體、台灣東洋、世基生醫三間國內生技製藥公司，並根據訪談結果之分析與彙總比較，得到研究發現並提出建議如下： 1. 生技智財策略與其營運模式有關，受到獲利方式影響而採取不同的智財策略。 2. 生技產學合作成果，「權利歸屬」之模式多元化，與該成果距離商品化之成功率有關；此外，「先專利、後發表」的慣例已普遍採用，無保密與公開之衝突。 3. 智財專責部門的設立與人數配置，應隨企業的成長而增置，人才網羅應以生技背景之跨領域專業人才為主，且需經過商管課程之訓練，方能對產業發展與競爭脈動有所掌握。 4. 產學合作成果運用，與企業核心能力與互補性資產掌控度有關，國內廠商而言，「對外授權」仍然必要；運用訴訟的方式與否，與「智財策略」有關聯，並受成本因素之影響。 5. 產業方應主動積極參與產學合作，由於學界缺乏商品化之經驗，技轉辦公室現階段亦無法充份發揮功能，因此，由產業方積極參與產學合作，能以產業方敏銳的商業嗅覺協助學界補捉具有潛力的研究，發揮引導之功能，使前瞻研究能進入應用階段，而實際造福人群，同時帶動產業的活絡發展。 / Regarding that Taiwan is always in the position of “technology transfer licensee”, to emphasize the goal of innovation, academic-industrial collaboration has becoming an important issue. Especially with regards to the features of bio-pharmaceutical value chain, such as compartmentalization, high risk, high return, highly knowledge-based, the investment input is thus transformed into the form of “intangible assets”before the product actually launched. Therefore, the protection and management of intellectual property is critical to bio-pharmaceutical companies. If IP is properly managed and utilized, it could become a source of competitive advantage. This thesis is based on the study of bio-pharmaceutical academic-industrial collaborations, from an industrial perspective, focusing on IP management and strategy. Four components of IP management－development, protection, management, and exploitation, is set as major constructs of this thesis. The primary goal of this study is to find important issues and key factors toward a successful collaboration. This thesis studied three bio-pharmaceutical companies, Taiwan Liposome Company, TTY Biopharm, and Pharmigene. According to results of interviews and analytical comparison, this thesis concludes some findings and suggestions as follow: 1. The IP strategy of a bio-pharmaceutical company is related to its business model. Different profitable models should apply different IP strategies. 2. The way which academia and industry allocate the IP right and interest is diversed, according to the risk and commercialization successful rate of the collaboration. Also, “patent goes first, publication goes after”is a common route. Therefore there is no collision between secrecy and openness. 3. The establishment and expansion of in-house IP department should go in accordance with the growing of company. It is necessary for an accountable one to be bio-tech educated and further received MBA training, in order to be competent to business competition and strategic planning. 4. The exploitation of collaboration is in relation to company’s core competence and complementary assets. For Taiwan bio-pharm companies, the“licensing out”model is necessary. With regards to litigation, the attitude toward litigation is related to its IP strategy and cost of litigation. 5. The industrial part in such collaboration should take an active attitude, because the academic part lacks commercialization experience. It would be helpful for industry to guide and help capturing valuable study in academia, therefore makes radical innovation an usful one.

如果你是一名技術創業家，你會選擇在台灣創業，抑或直接到美國創業？如果台灣要成為技術創業家的「天堂」，這座天堂會是長成什麼模樣？若以美國創業環境作為現今台灣「打造創業天堂」的學習典範，台灣應如何「布置」這一座創業天堂？ 知識經濟時代，以知識、技術為基礎而進行之創業活動勢必與智慧財產權密切相關，因此本研究即藉由對於與智慧財產作價投資有關的幾項重要議題，包括智慧財產作價投資之概念、智慧財產作價投資與國內投資、智慧財產作價投資與國際投資、我國研發能量之釋放與科技基本法、智慧財產作價投資之會計處理、智慧財產作價投資之租稅問題、智慧財產作價投資之契約與章程等，進行研究及探討，最後針對美國Google公司之技術創業進行個案研究。內容相當廣泛，涉及法律、投資、會計、租稅、契約、評價、智慧財產、技術移轉等面向，並於探討上述議題後，對於台灣現狀提出如下之政策配套及法令修改建議，期許營造台灣成為一座鼓勵創新及創業活動的技術創業天堂： 一、 公司法應允許投資人得以「勞務」出資，建議放寬公司法第156條第5項對於出資種類之限制，並輔以「勞務作價股份銷除制度」作為配套。 二、 公司法應允許得銷除特定股份，而非一體性地等比例銷除，建議修改公司法第168條，賦予公司得以章程規定就特定股份為銷除之權限。。 三、 智慧財產評價之進行，應嚴守於「評價當時」智慧財產權所具有的價值，詳細區分「智慧財產/技術」與「勞務」之不同，而非將經勞務提供後所帶來的經濟價值一併計算在內。 四、 公司法應允許包括「發起設立時」、「募集設立時」，及「發行新股時」等，均得以智慧財產作價投資，建議對於公司法第131條、第156條及第272條之適用要件，予以一致化。 五、 技術並非法律上所規範之權利客體，建議將公司法第156條第5項所稱「技術」修改為「智慧財產」。 六、 對於擁有龐大智慧財產的公立學校及政府機關，應為其尋思解套方法。建議立法規定公立學校及行政機關得另成立一法人組織或基金會，將其所擁有之智慧財產權全部移轉至該智權控股機構或基金會中，由該組織或基金會來運用該些智慧財產權。 七、 現行政府之對外投資政策及法令仍處於管制經濟之思維，建議應加快我國對外投資自由化之腳步。 八、 科技基本法將智財權下放予執行單位，而行政院及各主管機關又訂定辦法對於執行單位之各項智權運用活動課以程序上之繁瑣要求，包括公開、公正之程序，境外實施需事前經主管機關許可等等，此些限制實已造成「智財之不完全下放」現象，嚴重阻礙以智慧財產作價投資建構技術創業天堂之實現。 九、 關於專利權及專門技術之攤折問題，建議應委請公正單位評估該技術之有效生命週期，同時提出該專利權及專門技術之「可能享有年限」，以作為會計上攤折之依據，並顧及企業營運上財務報表資訊之如實揭露。 十、 針對課稅時點之問題，由於作價投資所取得之股票，乃是「財產形式之轉變」，投資人實際上並未獲取所得，必須等到賣出股票時才有所得產生，故建議應於「股票轉讓時」始進行所得稅課徵。 十一、 技術創業要成功，重點是技術移轉要成功，因此，技術移轉之內容及方法便需於契約中詳加規範。 十二、 美國矽谷地區，創業人擁有創新與創業精神，並持續進行技術研發；學校提供創業所需資源、人脈予新創公司及創業人；而創投公司及天使投資人的資金挹注及管理要求與導入，更是新創公司成功的重要因素。此外，整體的外在大環境，包括冒險精神、會計制度、公司制度、租稅制度、法令制度及專業服務機構等等，都是營造創業天堂所不可或缺的要素。 / If you are a technology entrepreneur, will you start your business in Taiwan or in the U.S.? What is the Paradise for technology entrepreneurs if Taiwan chooses to become one? What should Taiwan provide in the environment if Taiwan takes the U.S. as a model of Entrepreneurship Paradise? In the era of knowledge-based economy, any start-up based on knowledge and technology will be closely related to issues of intellectual property. The thesis will focus on several important issues about investment with contribution of intellectual property as equity, such as its concept, domestic and international investment with contribution of intellectual property as equity, industrialization and commercialization of R&D results in Taiwan and the Science and Technology Basic Law, accounting procedures and taxation issues, contracts and regulations of investment with contribution of intellectual property as equity. The thesis will also illustrate with the case study of Google. The discussion tries to elaborate the issue from various aspects, including law, investment, accounting, taxation, contracts, technology evaluation, intellectual property and technology transfer. The thesis concludes with the following suggestions for governmental policy and law on the issues discussed, to build a paradise, friendly to innovation and start-ups, for technology entrepreneurs in Taiwan. 1. Labor should be recognized as an investment in Company Act. The limitation of investment category of Article 156 (5) should be expanded and be complemented with an elimination system of labor equity. 2. Elimination of specific shares, instead of elimination by ratio, should be allowed in Company Act. The thesis also proposes to amend Company Act Article 168 to authorize the enterprise to eliminate specific shares. 3. The evaluation of intellectual property should faithfully reflect its value for the time being. It should also distinguish the difference between the value of intellectual property/ technology and of labor, instead of a compound evaluation of both. 4. The investment with contribution of intellectual property as equity should be allowed when a company is established by means of promotion and by means of offer as well as when it issues new stocks. The applicable conditions of Company Act Article 131, 156, and 272 should be unified. 5. The term “technology” should be changed into “intellectual property” in Company Act Article 156 (5), given that “technology” is not an object of right defined by law. 6. There should be more channels for public universities and governmental institutions for the release of intellectual property. The government or legislators should enable public universities and governmental institutions to establish an institution or foundation and to transfer/ license their intellectual property to the institution for better use. 7. The government should abandon economic controlling measure through policy and regulation about overseas investment and speed up the liberation. 8. Science and Technology Basic Law authorize intellectual property rights to the executives. However, the Executive Yuan and other authorities set up orders and regulations on procedures about the application of intellectual property, including “public and fair procedure,” “overseas execution permission,” and so on. Those orders and regulations violate the spirits of Science and Technology Basic Law and prevent Taiwan from the Paradise for entrepreneurs. 9. Life cycle of patent and know-how should be evaluated by impartial organizations. The prediction of possible effective year of said patent and know-how should be taken for depreciation and amortization in accounting and be publicized as financial information of a company. 10. The investment with contribution of intellectual property should be taxed when stocks are transferred because such investments are transformation of asset types and the investors do not obtain actual income until the stocks are sold. 11. The success of a technology start-up depends on the success of technology transfer. Hence, the content and method of technology transfer should be defined in detail in the contract. 12. The entrepreneurs in the Silicon Valley in the U.S. possess the spirits of innovation and entrepreneurship and keeps on technology research and development. The universities provide resources and personnel network for start-ups and entrepreneurs. Financing, introduction and demand of effective management from Venture Capitals and Angel Funds are the key factors for the success of start-up companies. Besides, the environment, including venture spirits, accounting and taxation system, company structures, law and regulation, and professional institutions, are indispensible for the establishment of the Paradise for entrepreneurs.

民法第一零三零條之一剩餘財產分配請求權之規定，「婚後財產」的界定上應否包含未到期未取得之退休金期待權，此一難題，涉及離婚配偶，尤其未就業或中斷就業的家庭主婦的老年安全保障需求，而開啟本文之討論。 離婚配偶的憲法基本權利應為吾人重視，尤其平等權、財產權和家庭權之保障。而社會保險具財產價值之權利如年金、退休金具有憲法第十五條財產之地位，即便為未到期未領取之期待權，其財產權之性質不受影響，應與私法財產等同視之而納入剩餘財產分配範圍。然而在親屬法、社會法交錯適用下，離婚配偶的老年安全為法制面之闕漏，實務則囿於法條文義解釋，逕將年金、退休金排除於剩餘財產分配範圍外，此種解釋適用方式不僅不適當，並有違憲之虞。 離婚配偶老年安全匱乏的問題，涉及親屬法和社會法的整合，應兼顧離婚時的現時性和離婚後的未來性。內化的親屬法法制當能發揮暫時填補離婚後扶養的缺漏，在私經濟層面提供離婚配偶一定的財產基礎，但長期性的社會風險，仍應回歸外化的社會法法制，以年金給付因應之。就此，世界各國多採取「年金分割」方式，使未就業的家庭主婦獲得自己名義下獨立的年金權利，作為老年安全的基石。 因而本文以最早施行年金分割的德國法制為觀察主軸，尤其二零零九年進行大規模修法後，由民法中獨立出來，整合成為一部共五十四條的專法；在利益分配權利人的考量下，俾使分配結果更符合正義，以調和離婚雙方照護上平衡之方式，達成立法者促進雙方實質平等之目的，而深值我國參照。故本文主要概括介紹德國新法內涵，其後比較觀察美國和瑞士不同的立法模式，並總結歸納外國法制對台灣未來法制發展之啟示。

智慧財產案件審理法第16條揭示當事人抗辯智慧財產權有應撤銷、廢止之原因者，法院應就其主張或抗辯有無理由自為判斷，不適用相關法律停止訴訟程序之規定。前項情形，法院認有撤銷之原因時，智慧財產權人於該民事訴訟中不得對於他造主張權利。上開規定之意旨在於使同一智慧財產權所生之紛爭得於同一訴訟程序中一次解決，以對智慧財產權作有效保護。 依據上開規定，專利有效性之議題即可能為專利侵權訴訟程序及舉發程序所審理。兩程序審理之情形下，專利有效性之認定即可能會因對同一證據事實有不同見解而使認定結果產生歧異（嚴格定義下之判決歧異）或因證據/請求權基礎之不同而產生歧異（假性之判決歧異）。 民事法院和行政機關/法院於發明、新型及新式樣專利對專利有效性具兩歧認定之比例分別為所有抗辯專利有效性案件之6.8%、16%及12%。具歧異認定之案件中約有8%係因對同一證據之處理方式不同。約66%之案件係起因於呈送之證據有別及主張之撤銷理由不同，而此歧異認定或可於後續程序化解。另約有8%歧異認定之案件係因智慧局之見解受到先前經濟部對該見解之拘束，此分歧認定之結果或需藉由救濟程序才得化解。又約有16%具歧異認定之案件係因民事法院非以舉發程序中構成「舉發成立」之要件審酌系爭專利是否具撤銷事由，此歧異認定之結果尚需仰賴救濟程序始得化解。 民事法院倘非以舉發成立要件審酌專利有效性，則其審酌範疇可能涵蓋：得據以舉發事由、未達得據以舉發標準之事由、專利法及施行細則中得據以使申請案不予專利或不受理之事由。而有違誠信原則之事由亦可能受到審查，使系爭專利有不可執行之虞。倘民事訴訟有效性抗辯得涵蓋上開事由，則可預見本質不良但被智慧局誤准之專利將有去除之途徑，公眾利益即得以維護；專利申請人於申請過程中較可能考慮遵循誠信原則；且專利糾紛得以完全於一訴訟程序一併解決。專利環境或可能朝優質化、誠信化及效率化發展。於此架構下，侵權訴訟專利有效性抗辯機制及舉發程序之雙軌制審理即各有實質存在意義。 專利權人於台灣侵權訴訟具專利有效性抗辯案件之勝訴比約10%；敗訴案件中，發明、新型及新式樣專利被認定具無效事由之比例約為48%、65%及40%。審理法施行以來，舉發申請案之案件量約僅減少6%至7%，或隱含專利侵權訴訟不僅未於一定程度取代舉發制度更可能因而使當事人必需同時面對侵權訴訟與舉發程序雙軌戰場之處境。 審理法第16條之施行加快民事訴訟審結速度，達到迅速實現訴訟當事人權利保護之立法目的。而專利權所生之紛爭於同一訴訟程序中一次解決之目的，依檢驗角度之不同而有截然不同之結果，因此或可說未全然達到紛爭一次解決之立法目的。 / Article 16 of Intellectual Property Case Adjunction Act in Taiwan reveals that when a party claims or defends that an intellectual property right shall be cancelled, the court shall decide based on the merit of the case and the relevant laws concerning the stay of an action shall not apply.　Under the circumstances in the preceding paragraph, the holder of the intellectual property right shall not claim any rights during the civil action against the opposing party where the court has recognized the grounds for cancellation of the intellectual property right. The main purpose of the article is to solve the disputes over Intellectual Property Right in one litigation proceeding so as to protect the intellectual property right effectively. According to said article, the validity issue of a patent may be dealt with under civil litigation and invalidation proceedings. Under the circumstances, the decisions on the validity issue of a patent may be diverged due to different perceptions on the same evidence/fact (defined in this article as “actual decision divergence”) or different submitted evidences or instituted grounds (defined in this article as “fake decision divergence”). With respect to invention, utility model, and design patents, about 6.8%, 16% and 12% of cases with invalidity defense respectively had decision divergence between civil court and administrative organization/court. Among patents with decision divergence, around 8% of the patents were due to different perceptions of the same evidence. About 66% of the patents were deemed differently due to different evidences and instituted grounds. This discrepancy may be resolved in subsequent proceedings. Around 8% of the patents having divergent decisions were resulted from that the opinion of Taiwan Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) is confined by that in a previous administrative action issued by its superior organization, the Board of Appeal. This discrepancy may need to be resolved through a remedial procedure. Approximately 16% of the patents were determined differently because the civil court adopted different standards for initiating an invalidation action. This type of discrepancy may only be resolved through a remedial procedure. When the civil court uses its own standards in determining the validity issue of the patent in question, the scope of judicial review might include: the grounds of invalidation proceedings, the grounds of invalidation proceedings with loosened standards, the grounds attributed to a patent being rejected or an application to be inacceptable to TIPO based on Patent Act or the Enforcement Rules of Patent Act. In addition, inequitable conduct might also be reviewed. Under the circumstances, defective patents have a chance to be removed, a duty of candor and good faith would be more likely to be followed during prosecution; patent disputes are able to be reviewed entirely in one proceeding. It is expected that the quality of the patent system would be improved. Moreover, either the invalidity defense mechanism in infringement litigation, or the invalidation proceeding serves its own purpose. For patent infringement cases with invalidity defense, plaintiffs won about 10% of the cases. Among the cases lost by plaintiffs, the patent at issue deemed by civil court as invalid accounted for about 48%, 65% and 40% for invention, utility model and design patents respectively. Since the IP Case Adjudication Act took effect, the number of invalidation cases has decreased about 6-7%, which might indicate that the invalidity defense mechanism in infringement litigation does not replace the invalidation proceeding. The regulation of Article 16 of IP Case Adjudication Act speeds up civil proceedings indicating that the legislative purpose of providing effective protection to parties in IP litigation may be realized. However, the legislative purpose of solving patent disputes in one proceeding may not be achieved fully as the test results vary on the basis of different evaluation criteria.