| 摘要: | 隨著「知識經濟」(knowledge- Based Economy)與「全球化」(Globalization)的趨勢之下，知識經濟在全球化機制的運作下，使得知識創新瞬息萬變，以智慧財產為基礎的相關科技、管理與法律保護機制，儼然成為企業競爭力的核心，於是形成「科技法律化」與「法律經濟化」的雙重效果。然而，由於「法律機制」的設計往往無法與時俱進，以致於「智慧財產權」經常被不當濫用成為企業競爭策略的工具，使得以「知識差距」所引發的衝突與日俱增，進而造成法律系統始終無法達到均衡狀態。例如，國際自有品牌公司(Own Brand Manufacturer，簡稱：OBM)經常憑藉資本與專利技術的優勢競爭地位，利用寄送警告信函、申請禁制令，以及進行冗長的法律訴訟，迫使專利權處於弱勢地位的競爭者退出市場。今日，台灣高科技產業身處於高度競爭環境中，企業經理人如何不受「知識差距」影響，能夠建構新的智慧財產管理思維，並且及時提出因應策略，遂成為值得深入研究探討的議題。 Raul Espejo (1994)認為，企業經理人為了能夠有效應付複雜多變的動態環境，應該以「系統理論」作為企業管理策略。有鑒於此，本研主要藉由以「系統理論」(System Theory) 作為研究架構主軸。首先，在系統輸入(Inputs)環境，將以「高科技產業環境因素」作為問題研究的評價對象，探討企業經理人對於專利紛爭解決法律途徑選擇的決策思維。其次，在系統轉換過程(Conversion)中，將以比較法方式，探討如何維持專利法律系統的動態均衡。最後，在系統輸出效果(Outputs)中，將以「各種專利紛爭解決途徑的均衡機制」作為問題研究的評價對象，藉由統計實證的研究方式，探討各種專利紛爭解決途徑中，究竟何者可以使得系統始終維持在動態均衡(Equilibrium)點上。 依據上揭實證研究方法所得到研究結論如下：首先，研究結果顯示出高科技產業企業經理人對於專利紛爭解決的策略，往往是兼具「法律理性」與「經濟理性」的雙重決策思維。蓋「法律理性」必須踐行「正當法律程序」，但是在現代法律正當程序中，除了強調公平、正義實踐之外，也必須考慮與「經濟理性」相關的「效率」與「成本」概念，將「成本效益分析模式」(cost-benefit analysis) 建構，正式內化至法律正當程序之中，以體現「實質正義」的內涵。 其次，在系統轉換過程(Conversion)中，對於專利法律系統的動態均衡而言： 1. 就「專利權範圍」作為問題研究的評價對象，研究結果顯示：「專利權範圍」具有相當的不確定性。 2. 就「專利權效力」作為問題研究的評價對象，研究結果顯示：「專利權效力」具有相當的不安定性。 3. 就「行政機關處分與法院判決」作為問題研究的評價對象，研究結果顯示：智慧財產法院(法院)所為判斷對於智慧財產局(行政機關)不生拘束力，當事人仍然得以就相同事證，再度向智慧財產局(行政機關)舉發撤銷，以致於智慧財產局(行政機關)所為行政處分與法院判決之間具有高度歧異的可能性。 4. 就「司法機關之間判決」作為問題研究的評價對象，研究結果顯示：智慧財產法院(法院)對於同一專利有效性必須先後予以分別審理時；縱然事證與理由相同，則智慧財產法院(法院)先後或分別在民事(法院)與行政(法院)訴訟程序中，對於專利權有效性判斷，仍然可能產生歧異；更遑論事證與理由不同，對於專利權有效性判斷勢必無法一致。 5. 就「超國界法律之間判斷」作為問題研究的評價對象，研究結果顯示：超國界法律之間的衝突，對於專利訴訟案件中之交易相對人而言，勢將導致法律適用之不安定性。 6. 就「衡平法理」(Equality Law) 作為問題研究的評價對象，研究結果顯示：不當利用包括訴訟程序、禁制令與警告信函作為專利紛爭解決途徑，顯然違反「衡平法理」的規範意旨。 最後，在系統輸出效果(Outputs)中，就「各種專利紛爭解決途徑的均衡機制」作為問題研究的評價對象，研究結果顯示：相較於郵寄存證信函、禁制令與訴訟程序等專利紛爭解決途徑，企業經理人選擇仲裁程序，除了能夠符合高科技產業的特殊屬性，可以調和程序正義與實質正義之間的鴻溝之外，並且進而使得系統能夠週而復始維持處於動態均衡點上，並且更能夠與世界貿易組織(World Trade Organization，簡稱：WTO)等超國界法律(Transnational Law)接軌。With the trend of knowledge based economy and globalization, knowledge innovation is updating and changing every minute causing the fact that the technology related to intellectual property right, management and legal protection mechanism have become the core of business competition. Thus they come into a double effects of “technology legalization” and “legal economization”. However, due to the fact that the designation of the legal mechanism is often unable to catch up with the times that the intellectual property right is frequently improperly used as a tool for the business competition strategies, making the number of conflicts arising from “knowledge gap” increase, which further causes an unbalanced legal system at all time. For instance, Own Brand Manufacturer (OBM) often relies on its own advantages in favor of great capital and patent techniques, using the methods of sending cease and desist letters, applying for injuction order and undertaking time-consuming law proceedings, aiming to force the relatively less competitive counterparts out of the market. Nowadays, the high-tech industry in Taiwan is in a quite competitive environment and the management in companies isn’t conscious of avoiding being affected by “knowledge gap” and of proposing proper measures in time, which has become an issue that is worth studying further. Raul Espejo (1994) thought business managers, in order to handle complicated and changeable dynamic situations effectively, should apply System Theory as the business management strategy. In view of this, this study is aimed to apply System Theory as the main frame of the research structure. First, under the circumstance of System Theory inputs, it will take “environmental factors in high-tech enterprises” as the evaluation object of the issue, exploring the way of thinking of the business managers when making decision on finding the legal solutions regarding patent disputes. Secondly, in the process of system conversion, it will apply a comparative method to explore how to maintain dynamic equilibrium of the patent legal system. Finally, on system outputs, it will take the “balanced mechanism of all kinds of patent dispute solutions” as the evaluation object of the study to explore which solutions will keep the system at equilibrium among the patent dispute solutions through statistical method. The results from above positivism research methods show that: Firstly, under the circumstances of system inputs, for “environmental factors of high-tech enterprises” as the evaluation object of the issue and study, the outcome indicated that when high-tech business managers are seeking the strategies on patent disputes solutions they often take both “legal rationality” and “economic rationality” into consideration when making decision. Although legal rationality must follow the rule of “due process of law”, the modern due process of law, besides putting great emphasis on the realization of fairness and justice, the idea on economic rationality related efficiency and costs must also be taken into account to internalize the cost-effective analysis structure into the due process of law to carry out the “substantive justice”. Secondly, in the process of system conversion, in terms of the dynamic equilibrium of patent legal system, the outcome of different evaluation objects suggested that: 1. The “Claims of Patent” are quite uncertain. 2. The “Effectiveness of Patent” is quite unstable. 3. There might be great difference in “Action of administrative department and judgment of the court” for the same matter and evidence and the administrative action of the Intellectual Property Office (administrative department) and the judgment of the court. 4. There is a big difference in judgment of patent effects from intellectual property court at different times or respectively in civil or administrative lawsuits from “judgment of different judicial departments” even though the evidence and reason accord with each other, not to mention when the evidence and reason are different, which the judgment of patent effects would not be consistent for sure. 5. The “judgment of transnational law” for the trading partners of the patent legal cases, the applicable law is unstable, regarding the conflicts. 6. The improper use of proceedings, Injunction Order, and sending Cease and Desist letter as the way to solve the patent dispute is obviously violating the regulation principle of the Equality Law. Finally, on system outputs effect, taking the “equilibrium mechanism of all kinds of patent disputes solutions” as the evaluation objects of issue and study, the research outcome indicated that in comparison to sending cease and warning letters, applying for injunction order, and undertaking lawsuits and so on, business managers often choose arbitration proceedings, which not only may accord with the special attributes of high-tech enterprises but also may regulate the gap between the procedure justice and substantive justice; this may further keep the system at a dynamic equilibrium point from time to time and allow the transnational law of the World Trade Organization (WTO) to be mutually connected. |
