跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(35.172.223.30) 您好!臺灣時間:2021/07/25 12:25
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:林宜柔
研究生(外文):Diane I.Lin
論文名稱:電腦軟體程式之智慧財產法律保護-以美國法為中心
論文名稱(外文):Protection of Software Programs Under Intellectual Property Regime: From the Perspective of the Law of the U.S.
指導教授:陳俊仁陳俊仁引用關係
指導教授(外文):Chun-Jen Chen
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立成功大學
系所名稱:法律學系
學門:法律學門
學類:一般法律學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2012
畢業學年度:100
語文別:英文
論文頁數:110
中文關鍵詞:智慧財產權專利著作權營業秘密商業表徵電腦程式軟體
外文關鍵詞:intellectual propertyUSPTOpatentcopyrighttrade secretstrade dresssoftware programs
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:430
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:3
電腦科技在進入了二十一世紀之後,已發展成為超出數十年前的人們所能想像,而軟體也不僅僅是驅動機器或設備的技術,小至應用程式大至作業系統,皆為獨立的技術可以讓人們的生活更便利也更多采多姿;而隨著科技的發展,發明人大多會尋求智慧財產法律的保護以提高其發明價值與創造更大的經濟利益,法律制度也因應這樣的需求而隨著科技的發展不斷地改變,由於電腦程式其無體的特性、加上智慧財產權亦為無體財產的形式,使得軟體產業在尋求智慧財產法律保護的過程當中遭遇了許多挑戰。
美國擁有領先於全球的電腦及軟體技術,相對的,在其電腦相關發明之智慧財產保護的法律制度上也已臻成熟,這也使得美國許多的電腦及軟體大廠,如蘋果(Apple)、微軟(Microsoft) 、谷歌(Google)、國際事務機器(IBM)等,不僅開啟了科技的大戰,也啟動了軟體智慧財產權的法律戰爭,從市場打到法院、再從法院打到市場;在數年之間,有美國最高法院在Bilski v. Kappos之商業方法專利上作下足以撼動整個產業以及未來法律制度發展的判決,對於電腦程式商業方法專利的審查方法也作出了決定,而在甲骨文公司控告谷歌(Oracle v. Google)歷經兩年、同時跨專利、著作權與部份涉及營業秘密範圍的重大軟體案件當中,法院在自由軟體(Open Source)的開發運用是否有專利侵權之餘,以及Google整合於Android平台內,利用java script開發的API是否有具有著作權的適格性以及更進一步是否有侵權或侵害的可能性作出了決定;再者,在訴前與訴訟進行期間,Google與Oracle和解談判之中揭露雙方營業秘密也涉及了許多智慧財產法律方面與電腦程式在智財權保護下所產生諸多的法律爭議。
本文將針對美國在電腦程式相關專利、著作權、營業秘密的法律制度與歷史沿革作通盤性的分析,並研究電腦科技的發展對於法院判決與各項審查基準的影響,再以Bilski一案對專利制度的發展與限縮可專利性標的判決對產業所產生的衝擊進行評析,最後以Oracle一案可能對軟體產業在智慧財產權主張與權利組合影響進行分析、是否有尋求其它如商業表徵智財保護的可能性,並對產業作出建議。

When technology comes to the 21st century, computer is not a stranger to the world anymore and people have been used to a life with computer and even as small as your palm. What lies behind the technology which makes our lives more convenient and vivid is the work of software programs. Software programs today are not only a series of instruction to make a machine or a device act; they can perform as big as an operation system (OS) and as small as an application (APP). Since it is software, not hardware, that brings computers to life and lets them serve their users in ways that those users find desirable, and since the ability to make a business out of program depends heavily on the existence of intellectual property rights in that program, it is becoming clear that the extent of the software programs protection offered in the developed world will decide the result of what may be the last great competitive war of the current industrial economy. Those creators and inventors of new technology started to seek for the intellectual property protection very earlier from centuries ago. With growth of software technology, legal protection of intellectual property for computers sought by software developers unsurprisingly has been a topic and impacts the intellectual property law system.
Intellectual property laws contain with patent, copyright, trademark and trade secrets. United States not only has the most advanced computer technology especially the state-of-the-art software technology, but also has the most advanced law systems of the intellectual property protection for software programs. The law systems are not formed in one day, and just decades ago a vigorous debate still raged in U.S. legal academia and judicial proceedings over whether software should be covered by patent or copyright or some third option. Today, software ended up being covered by both schemes, partly due to actions by the U.S. Congress, including several references to software in the Copyright Act, and partly as a result of decisions by the Copyright Office, the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), and by judges. This thesis discusses the merits of intellectual property law protections, the development of the law and their importance to the software industry in the United States. It then provides background on various laws in protecting software programs that have been employed to control the intellectual property law. The study will show that ideological and structural arrangements of the law systems have influenced the extent of liberalization in intellectual property policy, and the preservation of equilibrium between law and the industry in the establishment of intellectual property. This is additionally followed by an analysis of current and future challenges facing U.S. software industry with regard to intellectual property rights, and particularly the challenges presented by the decisions of the Courts after Bilski and Oracle v. Google cases. After a thorough analysis and study on the changes of the law and recent cases, with the options found in the intellectual property law, this thesis will provide a suggestion to software industry in how they may alternate their intellectual property protections.

Table of Content
Abstract i
Acknowledgement iv
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Motivation and Purpose 2
1.2 Scope, Limitation and Research Method 3
1.3 Research Structure and Process 4
Chapter 2 Literature Review 5
2.1 Intellectual Property Protection for Software Programs 6
2.1.1 Patent Protections 7
2.1.2 Copyright Protection 9
2.1.3 Trade Secret Protection 11
2.2 General Review of the Issues for Software Intellectual Property Protections 13
2.2.1 Technological and Institutional Challenges for Patent System 14
2.2.2 Issues of Originality and Protection of Expression of an Idea for Software Programs in Copyright Law 16
2.2.3 Issues in Trade Secret Protection and the Interaction with Other Intellectual Property Laws for Software Programs 18
Chapter 3 Patent Protection for Software Programs 22
3.1 Patentability of Computer-Related Invention 23
3.1.1 Historical Development of Computer-related Patent Law in the United States 24
3.1.1.1 A Roadmap of the History 25
3.1.1.2 Difficult Era for Software As a Patent Subject Matter Before 1981 26
3.1.1.3 Developing Patent Eligibility for Computer-related Invention Between 1981-1990 27
3.1.1.4 Software As Patentable Invention Between 1990-2008 29
3.1.1.5 An Impact on Business Method Patent Application by CAFC’s Finding of Bilski Case After 2008 30
3.1.1.6 The Change of the Examine System for Computer-related Patent Application After Supreme Court’s Decision on Bilski and the Law in 2010s 32
3.1.2 Patentable Subject Matters 34
3.1.3 Fundamental Requirements for Patent Protection in the United States 34
3.1.3.1 Novelty 35
3.1.3.2 Utility 36
3.1.3.3 Nonobviousness 37
3.2 Substantive Invention Guideline for Patent Application 40
3.3 Features of Software Programs and Its Patent Protection 42
3.3.1 A Software Patent 43
3.3.2 Software As a Subject Matter of Patent 44
3.3.3 Utility, Novelty and Nonobviousness of Software Programs 46
3.4 Issues in Patent Protection for Software Programs 48
3.4.1 Disclosure Requirement 49
3.4.2 Effectiveness of a Software Patent 50
3.4.3 Post Bilski Era 51
Chapter 4 Copyright Protection for Software Programs 53
4.1 Copyright Law in the United States 54
4.2 Historical Development of Copyright Laws 55
4.3 Subject Matter and the Limitation of Copyright 57
4.3.1 Copyrightable Subject Matter 57
4.3.2 Limitation on Copyrightability 59
4.3.2.1 Protection and Scope of Software Copyright 59
4.3.2.2 Source Code and Object Code 60
4.3.2.3 Processes 61
4.4 Issues in Copyright Protection for Software Programs 62
4.4.1 Look-and Feel Copyright 63
4.4.2 Authorship and the Originality 64
4.4.3 Reverse Engineering 65
Chapter 5 Trade Secret and Other Intellectual Property Protection for Software programs 67
5.1 The Law of Trade Secret in the United States 68
5.2 Trade Secret and Software Programs 69
5.2.1 Defining Software Programs in Trade Secret Law 70
5.2.1.1 Source Code and Object Code 70
5.2.1.2 Novelty 71
5.2.1.3 Publication and Secrecy 72
5.2.1.4 Misappropriation 74
5.3 Other Intellectual Property Protection 75
5.3.1 Fundamental Principles of Trademark Protection and Trade Dress 75
5.3.1.1 Trademark 76
5.3.1.2 Trade Dress 77
5.3.1.3 Unfair Competition 78
5.3.2 Software Programs and Trade Dress 79
5.4 Issues in Trade Secrets and Trade Dress Protection for Software programs 80
5.4.1 Trade Secrets 80
5.4.2 Trade Dress 81
Chapter 6 Recent Development in Intellectual Property Protections for Software programs and Alternatives of the Software Industry 83
6.1 Oracle v. Google, the Technological Development and the Legal Issues 84
6.1.1 Factual Background 84
6.1.2 Proceedings 86
6.1.3 Holdings 87
6.1.4 Impacts to the Software Industry and the Next Step 88
6.2 Issues of the Law and the Solution of the Industry 88
6.2.1 Intellectual Property Issues as a Whole 89
6.2.2 The Interaction of Different Laws 91
6.3 Software Industry and the Intellectual Property Laws 92
6.3.1 The Theory of Barriers of Entry 93
6.3.2 Patent, Copyright, Trade Secret and other Intellectual Property Protection 95
Chapter 7 Conclusion 98

Books
1.ABBOTT, FREDERICK, COTTIER, THOMAS & GURRY, FRANCIS, THE INTERNATIONAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SYSTEM: COMMENTARY AND MATERIALS (Kluwer Law International 1999).
2.BLAIR, ROGER D. & COTTER, THOMAS F., INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – ECONOMIC AND LEGAL DIMENSIONS OF RIGHTS AND REMEDIES (Cambridge University Press 2005).
3.CHEN, CHA-CHUN, A DISCUSSION ON COMPUTER INTELLECTUAL LAW FROM THE PERSPECTIVES OF HI-TECH AND LAW (Wei-Li Law Publisher 1990)(陳家駿,電腦智慧財產權法,蔚理法律出版社,1990.7.15).
4.CHEN, CHI-SHING SOFTWARE PATENTS OF THE UNITED STATES, 1966-1999: LAW AND INFORMATION STUDY, (Sharing Publisher, 2002)(陳起行,美國軟體專利論,1966-1991 – 法與資訊研究(二) ,學林文化事業有限公司,2002.2).
5.GOLDSTEIN, PAUL P., & HUGENHOLTZ, BERNT, INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT: PRINCIPLES, LAW, AND PRACTICE (2nd Edition, Oxford University Press 2010).
6.GURGUNDER, LEE, LEGAL ASPECTS OF MANAGING TECHNOLOGY (4th Edition, Thomson West 2007).
7.HALPERN, SHELDON W., NARD, CRAIG ALLEN & PORT, KENNETH L., FUNDAMENTALS OF UNITED STATES INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW : COPYRIGHT, PATENT, TRADEMARK (2nd Edition, Alphen an den Rijn, The Netherlands : Kluwer Law International 2007).
8.HARRIS III, THORNE D., THE LEGAL GUIDE TO COMPUTER SOFTWARE PROTECTION: A PRACTICAL HANDBOOK ON COPYRIGHTS, TRADEMARKS, PUBLISHING AND TRADE SECRETS (Prentice-Hall, Inc.1985).
9.LANDY, GENE K., THE IT/DIGITAL LEGAL COMPANION: A COMPREHENSIVE BUSINESS GUIDE TO SOFTWARE, IT, INTERNET, MEDIA AND IP LAW (Syngress Publishing 2008).
10.LEMLEY, MARK A., MENELL, PETER S., MERGES, ROBERT P., SAMUELSON, PAMELA & CARVER, BRIAN W., SOFTWARE AND INTERNET LAW (4th Edition, Wolters Kluwer law & Business 2011).
11.LODIGKEIT, KLAUS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN SOFTWARE PROGRAMS IN THE USA AND GERMANY (Peter Lang GmbH 2006).
12.MAGGS, PETER B., SOMA, JOHN T. & SPROWL, JAMES A., COMPUTER LAW (West Publishing 1992).
13.MCCARTHY, J. THOMAS, MCCARTHY ON TRADEMARKS AND UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW VOL. 1, (4th Edition, West Group 2004).
14.MERGES, ROBERT P., MENELL, PETER S. & LEMLEY, MARK A., INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN THE NEW TECHNOLOGICAL AGE (2nd Edition, Aspen Law & Business, A division of Aspen Publishers 2000).
15.MILLER, ARTHUR R. & DAVIS, MICHAEL H., INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN A NUTSHELL – PATENS, TRADEMARKS AND COPYRIGHT (West Publishing 1990).
16.MUELLER, JANICE M., AN INTRODUCTION TO PATENT LAW (2nd Edition, Aspen Publishers 2006).
17.NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ISSUES IN SOFTWARE (the National Academic Press 1991).
18.NATIONAL COMMISSION ON NEW TECHNOLOGICAL USES OF COPYRIGHTED WORKS, FINAL REPORT (1979).
19.NIMMER, MELVILLE & NIMMER, DAVID, NIMMER ON COPYRIGHT VOL. I, (1989).
20.NIMMER, RAYMOND T., THE LAW OF COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY (4th Edition, West Publishing 2009).
21.OTA, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN AN AGE OF ELECTRONICS AND INFORMATION, (OTA-CIT-302, Kreiger Publishing Co., 1986).
22.OTA, FINDING A BALANCE: COMPUTER SOFTWARE, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND THE CHALLENGE OF TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE (OTA-CIT-527, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1992).
23.SCHECHTER, ROGER E., PRINCIPLES OF PATENT LAW (West, a Thomson business 2004).
24.SULLIVAN, ARTHUR & SHEFFRIN, STEVEN M., ECONOMICS: PRINCIPLES IN ACTION (Pearson Prentice Hall 2003).
25.TAIR, RALPH M., PRINCIPLES OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS (6th Edition, Thomson Learning, Inc. 2003).
26.U.S. COPYRIGHT OFFICE, COPYRIGHT REGISTRATION FOR SOFTWARE PROGRAMS (reprinted in 11 Bull. Copyright Society 1964).
27.WIPO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY HANDBOOK: POLICY, LAW AND USE (World Intellectual Property Organization 2004).
28.YU, PETER K., INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND INFORMATION WEALTH, ISSUES AND PRACTICES IN THE DIGITAL AGE VOL. 1 COPYRIGHT (Praeger Publishers 2007).
29.YU, PETER K., INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND INFORMATION WEALTH, ISSUES AND PRACTICES IN THE DIGITAL AGE VOL. 2 PATENTS AND TRADE SECRETS (Praeger Publishers 2007).
30.YU, PETER K., INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND INFORMATION WEALTH, ISSUES AND PRACTICES IN THE DIGITAL AGE VOL. 3 TRADEMARK AND UNFAIR COMPETITION (Praeger Publishers 2007).
31.ZEIDMAN, BOB & ZEIDMAN, ROBERT, THE SOFTWARE IP DETECTIVE’S HANDBOOK: MEASUREMENT, COMPARISON AND INFRINGEMENT (Prentice Hall 2011).

Journal and General Articles
1.Bender, David, the Renaissance of the Software Patent, 13 HAMLINE L. R. 205 (1990).
2.Beutel, Richard A., Trade Dress Protection for the Look And Feel of Software: The Lanham Act as an Emerging Source of Proprietary Rights Protection for Software Developers, 71 J. PAT. & TRADEMARK OFF. SOC'Y 974 (1989).
3.Chiappetta, Vincent, Patentability of Computer Software Instruction As an Article of Manufacture:’ Software As Such As the Right Stuff, 17 J. MARSHALL J. COMPUTER & INFO. L. 298 (1998).
4.Donner, Irah, The Copyright Clause of the U. S. Constitution: Why Did the Framers Include It with Unanimous Approval?, 36 AM. J. L. HIS. 361 (July 1992).
5.Dreyfuss, Rochelle Cooper, Are Business Method Patents Bad for Business? 16 SANTA CLARA COMPUTER & HIGH TECH. L.J. 263 (2000).
6.Easterbrook, Frank H., Intellectual Property is Still Property, 13 HARV. J. L. & PUB. POL'Y 108 (1990).
7.Fisher, William W., Theories of Intellectual Property in NEW ESSAYS IN THE LEGAL AND POLITICAL THEORY OF PROPERTY (Cambridge University Press, 2001).
8.Gallini, Nancy, & Scotchmer, Suzanne, Intellectual Property: When Is It the Best Incentive System? 2 INNOVATION POLICY AND THE ECONOMY (1 National Bureau of Economic Research 2002).
9.Goldstein, Paul, The Future of Software Protection: Infringement of copyright in Software programs, 47 U. PITT. L. REV. 1119 (1986).
10.Gosseires, Axel, How (Un)fair is Intellectual Property? INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND THEORIES OF JUSTICE 3 (EDITED BY AXEL GOSSERIES, ALAIN MARCIANO & ALAIN STROWEL, Macmillan Publishers Limited 2008).
11.Gruner, Richard S., Software Patents: The Evolution of the Useful Arts in INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND INFORMATION WEALTH, ISSUES AND PRACTICES IN THE DIGITAL AGE VOL. 2 PATENTS AND TRADE SECRETS 377 (EDITED BY PETER K. YU, Praeger Publishers 2007).
12.Hollar, Lee A., Why Software Developers Should Support a New, Limited Patent (EUPACO-22007).
13.Hort, Brittany, Jury Decides Google Did Not Infringe Oracle Patents but Question of Whether APIs Can Be Copyrighted Remains, HARVARD JOURNAL OF LAW & TECHNOLOGY, (May 30, 2012).
14.Hyde, Edward R., Legal Protection of Computer Software, 59 CONN. B. J. 298 (1985).
15.Kahin, Brian, The Impact of Software Patents, EDUCOM REVIEW 26 (1989).
16.Kellner, Lauren Fisher, Trade Dress Protection for Computer User Interface “Look and Feel, 61 U. CHI. L. REV. 1011 (1994).
17.Keplinger, Michael S., Computer Software--Its Nature and Its Protection, 30 EMORY L. J., 483 (1981).
18.Levin, K., MAI v. Peak: Should Loading Operation System Software into RAM Constitute Copyright Infringement?, 24 GOLDEN GATE U. L. R. 649 (1994).
19.Lemley, Mark A., Risch, Michael, Sichelman, Ted, & Wagner, R. Polk, Life After Bilski, 63 STAN. L. REV. 1315 (June 2011).
20.McAfee, R. Preston, Mialon, Hugo M. & Williams, Michael A., When Are Sunk Costs Barriers to Entry? Entry Barriers in Economic and Antitrust Analysis, 94 THE AMER. ECON’M. REV. 461 (May 2004).
21.Ochoa, Tyler T., Copyright Duration: Theories and Practice, in PETER K. YU, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND INFORMATION WEALTH, ISSUES AND PRACTICES IN THE DIGITAL AGE VOL. 1 COPYRIGHT 142 (Praeger Publishers 2007).
22.Ocksrider, Matthew, Patentability of Computer Software and Business Methods Post Bilski: A New Hope, 14 J. TECH. L. & POL’Y, 179 (December 2009).
23.Oliar, Dotan, The Constitutional Convention on IP: A New Reading, 57 UCLA L. REV. 421 (2009).
24.Plotkin, Robert, Intellectual Property and the Process of Invention: Why Software is Different, presented at the 2002 INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY, SPONSORED BY THE IEEE SOCIETY ON SOCIAL IMPLICATIONS OF TECHNOLOGY (Raleigh, North Carolina June 6-8, 2002).
25.Saladi, Indira, Computer Software: Patentable Subject Matter Jurisprudence comes of Age, 18 J. MARSHALL J. COMPUTER & INFO. L. 113 (1999).
26.Samuelson, Pamela, Creating A New Kind of Intellectual Property: Applying the Lessons of the Chip Law to Software programs, 70 MINN. L. REV. 471 (1985).
27.Schiller, Arthur, Trade Secrets and the Roman Law: the Actio Servi Corrupti, 30 COL. L. REV. 837 (1930).
28.Schortgen, Steven, Dressing Up Software Interface Protection: The Application of Two Pesos to Look and Feel 80 CORNELL L. REV. 194 (1994).
29.Smith, Albert C. & Slosberg, Jared A., Beware! Trade Secret Software May be Patented by a Later Inventor, COMPUTER LAW, 15 (1990).
30.Story, Alan, Intellectual Property and Computer Software: A Battle of Competing Use and Access Visions for Countries of the South 9(United Nations Conference on Trade and Development 2004).
31.Tindel, Andy W., Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition Claims (Harris County District Judges 2006 Conference and Seminar Feb. 15, 2006).
32.U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), Computer Software and Intellectual Property (OTA-BP-CIT-61 Stockton Press, 1990).
33.Waltersheid, Edward C., Originalism and the IP Clause: A Commentary on Professor Oliar's New Reading, 58 UCLA L. R. DISC. (2009).
34.Watson, Alan, Trade Secrets and Roman Law: The Myth Exploded, 11 TUL. EUR. & CIV. L.F. 19 (1996).
35.Wrenn, Gregory J., Federal Intellectual Property Protection for Computer Software Audiovisual Look and Feel: The Lanham, Copyright, and Patent Acts, 39 COPYRIGHT LAW SYMPOSIUM 39 (1992).

Thesis
1.Chen, Yueh-Chun, A Study on IP Protection of Software programs and Business Method: Focusing on Patent Law (Kaohsiung First University of Science and Technology Graduate Institute of Science and Technology Law, master degree thesis)(陳岳駿,電腦軟體與商業方法之智慧財產權保護-以專利法為中心), 2010.
2.Chu, Chun-Ming, The Computer Software Related Intellectual Law System – from the Activities of Open Source, (National Taiwan University Law School, master degree thesis, 2003.6.24)(朱俊銘,電腦軟體相關智慧財產權法制之探討-從開放原始碼運動出發), 2003.6.24.
3.Fang, Wei, Study on e-Commerce Related Law Issues under Patent Law System: from the Perspective of Business Method Software, (Soochow University Department of Law, master degree thesis) (方偉,專利制度適用於電子商務相關法律問題之研究 – 以商業方法軟體為中心), 2001.6.
4.Hsu, Yao-Ching, Issues on the Position of Copyright Law and Patent Law for Software programs, (Soochow University Department of Law, master degree thesis) (徐堯慶,電腦程式著作在著作權法與專利法上定位問題之研究,東吳大學法律研究所), 2004.7.
5.Jyi, Yuh-Cherng, Subject Matter Problems and Extraterritorial infringement with Patent on Methods of Doing Business, (National Cheng-Chi University Department of Law, master degree thesis)(吉玉成,商業方法軟體專利之研究,政治大學法律研究所碩士論文), 2001.7.
6.Kang, Yun-Lung, Research on The Impact of Open Source Code on The Intelligence Property Theory: Focus on Copy Right Act (Ming Chuan University Department of Law)(康雲龍,論開放原始碼軟體對智慧財產權理論之影響---以著作權法為中心), 2007.
7.Lai, Hung-Chia , The Infrastructure of Intellectual Property Law for Software under Multicultural Internet Environment: from the Perspectives of Copyright and Patent Law, (National Cheng-Kung University Department of Law, master degree thesis)(賴宏嘉,多元文化下網際網路軟體智慧財產的法建構以著作權法和專利法為中心), 2003.
8.Lin, Hung-Ta, Study on Business Method Software Patent, (Soochow University Department of Law, master degree thesis) (林鴻達,商業方法電腦軟體專利之研究), 2001.7.
9.Ong, Shou-Feng Hope, Study on Taiwan’s computer software intellectual property right protection, (Soochow University Department of Law, master degree thesis) (王秀芬,我國電腦軟體智慧財產權保護執行面研究), 2006.6.
10.Tsai, Mei-Chi, Study on Computer Software Development Agreement and Copyright Law Protection for Software programs, (Soochow University Department of Law, master degree thesis) (蔡美智,電腦軟體開發契約之研究 – 兼論電腦程式著作權之法律保護), 1999.1.
11.Wang, Min-Chiuan, A Dialogue between U.S. Copyright Protections to Software programs and (Post)Structuralism (Soochow University Department of Law, master degree thesis)(王敏銓,美國著作權法對電腦程式的保護範圍與結構主義思想的對話,東吳大學法律研究所), 1993.
12.Wu, Wan-Hsien, Study on the Patentability of Computer Software In ROC from the Protection of Computer Software in USA (Chung-Cheng University Department of Law, master degree thesis) (伍婉嫻,由美國專利法上電腦軟體之保護探討我國電腦軟體專利之可行性), 1998.7.

Case
1.Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. v. American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., 280 F.3d 619, 630 (6th Cir. 2002).
2.Apple Computer, Inc. v. Formula International, Inc., United States District Court, Central District of California, 562 F.Supp. 755 (1983).
3.Apple Computer, Inc. v. Franklin Computer Corp., 714 F.2d 1240 (3d Cir. 1983).
4.Apple Computer, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. & Hewlett-Packard Co., 35 F.3d 1435 (9th Cir. 1994).
5.Arrhythmia Research Technology Inc. v. Corazonix Corp.958 F.2d 1053, 22 USPQ2d 1033 (1992).
6.AT&T Corp. v. Excel Communications, Inc., 172 F.3d 1352, 50 U.S.P.Q.2d 1447 (Fed.Cir. 1999).
7.Atari Games Corp. v. Oman, 693 F. Supp. 1204, 1205 (D.D.C. 1988).
8.Atari Games Corp. v. Nintendo America, Inc., 975 F.2d 832, 24 USPQ2d 1015 (1992).
9.Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218, 561 US __, 177 L. Ed. 2d 792 (2010).
10.Capital Bakers v. Townsend, 426 Pa. 188, 231 A.2d 292 (1967).
11.Com-Share, Inc. v. Computer Comoplex, Inc., 338 F. Supp. 1229, 1234-35 (E.D. Mich. 1971), aff'd, 458 F.2d 1341 (6th Cir. 1972).
12.Comprehensive Technologies International v. Software Artisans, 3 F.3d 730 (4th Cir. 1993).
13.Cybertek Computer Products, Inc. v. Whitfield, 203 U.S.P.Q. (Cal S. Ct. 1977).
14.Data General Corporation v. Digital Computer Controls, Inc., 297 A.2d 433 (Del. Ch. 1971).
15.Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 474 U.S. 303, 309 (1980).
16.Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981).
17.Dickerrman Associates v. Tiverton Bottled Gas Co., 594 F. Supp. 30, 35 (D. Mass. 1984).
18.Digital Computer Controls v. C. Itoh, 229 U.S.P.Q. 598 (D.N.J. 1985).
19.E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 849 F.2d 1430 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 986 (1988).
20.GCA Corporation v. Chance et al., 217 U.S.P.Q. 719 (N.D.Cal.1982).
21.Gillman v. Stern, 114 F.2d 28 (2d Cir. 1940).
22.Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63(1972).
23.Great A&P Tea Co., v. Supermarket Equipment Corp., 340 U.S. 147, 71 S.Ct. 127, 95 L.Ed. 162 (1950).
24.Hotchkiss v. Greenwood, 52 U.S. 248 (1850).
25.In re Abele, 684 F.2d 902 (C.C.P.A. 1982).
26.In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
27.In re Bilski (In re Bernard L. Bilski and Rand A. Warsaw), 545 F.3d 943, 88 U.S.P.Q.2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
28.In re Comiskey, No. 2006-1286 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 20, 2007).
29.In re Ferguson, 558 F.3d 1359, 1364–65 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
30.In re Freeman, 573 F.2d 1237 (C.C.P.A. 1978).
31.In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
32.In re Iwahashi, 888 F.2d 1370, 12 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1908 (Fed.Cir. 1989).
33.In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579 (1994).
34.In re Mogen David Wine Corp., 328 F.2d 925, 932 (C.C.P.A. 1964) (Rich, J., concurring).
35.In re Morton-Norwich Prods., 671 F.2d 1332, 1336 (C.C.P.A. 1982).
36.In re Pardo, 684 F.2d 912, 214 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 673 (C.C.P.A. 1982).
37.In re Walter, 618 F.2d 758 (C.C.P.A. 1980).
38.Integrated Cash Management Services, Inc. v. Digital Transactions, Inc. 920 F.2d 171 (2d Cir. 1990).
39.Inwood Labs., Inc. v. Ives Labs., Inc., 456 U.S. 844, n.10 (1982).
40.Jostens, Inc. v. National Computer Systems, Inc., 318 N.W.2d 691, 698 (Minn. 1982).
41.Kewanee Oil Company v. Bicron Corporation, 416 U.S. 470, 481 (1974).
42.King v. Ames, 179 F.3d 379, 373 (5th Cir. 1999).
43.Lasercomb America v. Reynolds, 911 F.2d 970, 15 USPQ2d 1846 (4th Cir. 1990).
44.Lockwood v. American Airlines, 107 F.3d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
45.Lotus Development Corporation v. Borland International, Inc., 516 U.S. 233 (1996).
46.MAI Sys. Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F. 2nd 511 (9th Cir. 1933).
47.Oracle America, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 3:10-cv-03561 WHA. United States District Court, N.D. California (May 2012).
48.Rockwell Graphic Systems, Inc. v. DEV Industries, Inc., 925 F.2d 174 (7th Cir. 1991).
49.Paine, Webber v. Merrill Lynch, 564 F.Supp. 1358, 218 USPQ 212 (1983).
50.Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978).
51.Paulik v. Rizkalla, 760 F.2d 1270, 226 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 224 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
52.SAS Inst., Inc. v. S&H Computer Sys., Inc., 605 F. Supp. 816, 225 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 916 (M.D. Tenn. 1985).
53.Sega Enterprises ltd., v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir. 1992).
54.Shire US, Inc. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 329 F.3d 348 (3d Cir. 2003).
55.Source Material. Whelan Association v. Jaslow Dental Lab, Inc., 797 F.2d 1222, 230 USPQ 481 (3d Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1031 (1987).
56.State Street Bank v. Signature Financial Group, 149 F .3d 1368, 47 USPQ2d 1596, (Fed. Cir. 1998).
57.United States Golf Association v. St. Andrews Systems, 749 F.2d 1028 (3d Cir. 1984).
58.University Computing co. v. Lykes-Youngstown Corp., 504 F.2d 518 (5th Cir. 1974).
59.Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software, 847 F.2d 255 (5th Cir. 1988).
60.Winner International Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d. 1340, 1348 (Fed. Cir., 2000).
電子全文 電子全文(網際網路公開日期:20220101)
連結至畢業學校之論文網頁點我開啟連結
註: 此連結為研究生畢業學校所提供,不一定有電子全文可供下載,若連結有誤,請點選上方之〝勘誤回報〞功能,我們會盡快修正,謝謝!
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top