月旦知識庫
  1. 熱門:
 
首頁 臺灣期刊   法律   公行政治   醫學   財經   社會學   教育   其他 大陸期刊   核心   非核心 DOI文章
篇名
對營業秘密法第13條之4規定的檢討與建議--以日本法之經驗為借鏡
並列篇名
The Review and Advice Regarding the Article 13-4 of the Trade Secrets Act: Taking The Japanese Law's Experience As Reference
作者 張天一洪兆承
中文摘要 美光科技公司與聯華電子公司於2018年間所發生一連串侵害營業秘密之爭訟,再次凸顯出科技業之競爭,已經從技術層面蔓延至法律層面。而營業秘密法於2013年的修正中,所增訂第13條之4對法人之「兩罰規定」,在企業的法律戰中成為雙面刃,在企業藉此保護自身營業秘密的同時,亦可能遭競爭對手以此作為箝制。本文對此一規定在解釋與適用上之相關問題進行分析,並就日本立法例為比較法之介紹,檢討法人刑事責任之基礎以及業務關聯性之判斷標準。本文認為監督責任可作為法人刑事責任之基礎,但現行營業秘密法上之法人免責條款,在適用上有其困難性,或許可藉由修法或實質標準之建立,解決一定程度之問題。
英文摘要 The series of trade secret-related disputes of Micron and UMC in 2018 highlighted the competition in the technology industry has extended from the level of technical to legal. The “double punishment” provision under Article 13-4, which was added in the 2013 amendment of the Trade Secrets Act, has become a double-edged sword in company’s legal wars. It may be used by a company to protect its own trade secrets, however, competitors may also use it against the company. This article analyzed the relevant questions related to this provision’s application and interpretation, and conducted a comparative study by introducing Japanese laws to review the foundation of corporate criminal liability and the criteria of business relevance. This article opined that supervisory duty could serve as the foundation of the foregoing liability, but the corporate liability exemption clause under the Trade Secret Act has difficulty in application. Such problems may be solved to some extent by amendment or establishment of substantial standards.
起訖頁 28-48
關鍵詞 營業秘密美光與聯電案法人刑事責任兩罰規定不正競爭防止法Trade SecretThe Case of Micron and UMCCorporate Criminal LiabilityDouble PunishmentUnfair Competition Prevention Act
刊名 月旦法學雜誌
出版單位 元照出版公司
期數 202002 (297期)
DOI 10.3966/102559312020020297002  複製DOI  DOI申請
QRCode
 



讀者服務專線:+886-2-23756688 傳真:+886-2-23318496
地址:臺北市館前路28 號 7 樓 客服信箱
Copyright © 元照出版 All rights reserved. 版權所有,禁止轉貼節錄