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.

The law of civil procedure is an important branch of South African law as it resolves individual civil disputes through a regulated judicial system. Mandatory statutes and rules regulate the processes when bringing disputes to court. For example, the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013, regulates the superior courts, while the provisions of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 32 of 1944, as well as the Small Claims Court Act 61 of 1984, control the lower courts. Further, a series of court rules ensure efficient operation of different courts and support the overarching legislation. For example, the Constitutional Court Rules, Rules Regulating the Conduct of the Proceedings of the Supreme Court of Appeal, Uniform Rules of Court, Magistrates’ Courts’ Rules, and the Rules of Small Claims Court support the implementation of legislation. The researcher submits, however, that the current legislative provisions, and their enabling rules, are not fully complementing the Electronic Communication and Transactions Act 25 of 2002 and are thereby impeding the growth of e-technology law in South Africa. Put differently, they do not embrace the use of e-technology and digital devices. It appears that in future civil proceedings will occur electronically through digital and e-technology devices. Present legislation does not cater for this practical reality. This calls for South African courts to, for example, install satellite devices that will ease the use of e- technology in civil proceedings. The researcher avers that there have been attempts by the Constitutional Court and Supreme Court of Appeal to enable electronic communication through their websites, but this is insufficient to effectively implement the provisions of the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act 25 of 2002 especially insofar as service of process. The courts have effectively moved away from the decision in Narlis v SA Bank of Athens, which excluded computer-generated evidence and there have been attempts by South African courts in recent decisions to appreciate the use of e-technology. For example, in CMC Woodworking Machinery v Odendaal Kitchens the court, for the first time, acknowledged service of court papers via Facebook. Further, in Spring Forest Trading v Wilbery, the Supreme Court of Appeal confirmed that electronic communication such e-mail, can be used to cancel agreements, even where parties incorporated a non-variation clause into the agreement. However, there is an urgent need to review and amend South African statutes and rules to fully acknowledge the fact that e-technology is a constantly evolving modern reality. Therefore, South African laws and rules ought to be in-line with e-technology developments and competitive with international jurisdictions such as England, the United States of America and Canada. The rules of these jurisdictions realise the use of e-technology and digital e-technology, particularly in England where a pilot project that facilitates the use of e-technology and digital e-technology in civil proceedings, is already in place. The time has come to fully employ e-technology and digital e- technology law within South African law of civil procedure. This research investigates the possibility, and practical implications, thereof. / Criminal and Procedural Law / LL. D.