【作者】 幸大智；

【导师】 丁伟；

【作者基本信息】 华东政法大学 ， 国际法学， 2008， 博士

【副题名】兼论两岸知识产权法律在TRIPS协定下的演进

【摘要】 漫长的岁月,无尽的试炼,人类在天地之间踽踽而行。时而瞻前,温习兴替存亡的老故事;时而顾后,寻找社会发展的新方向。人类从过往以武力战争为征服敌人的手段,转化为以科学知识为控驭对手的方法,故而与知识产权(intellectual property,台湾地区称「智慧财产」,以下或简称「IP」)相关的权利义务规范关系相继因应而起,近代意义上的知识产权法源起于英国,此一制度为各国借鉴并突破国家主权疆界,成为国际化程度最高的法律领域之一,但是综观第三世界国家的知识产权竟有80%由他国人持有,其中绝大部分为跨国企业,并仅仅只有5%应用在第三世界国家的本国生产活动。知识产权的规则,是政治经济产物,而发展中国家只能以相对较弱的位置进行谈判。正当人类与共治的理想国度渐行渐远,所有外交谈判的结论均皆置于各国本身实力时,发达国家与发展中国家数度折冲,基于国际现实的基础下,世界贸易组织(World TradeOrganization,以下简称「WTO」)在这般背景下孕育而生。姑且先不予深究WTO成立的背景与过程,几经条件讨论、利益交换,进而达成一揽子的协议,WTO的出现成为截至目前全球唯一处理不同经济体间贸易规则的多边贸易机构,向共治社会迈进一步。相对地,知识产权(intellectual property right,以下或简称「IPR」)的国际保护也在历经了初创阶段、组织化阶段后于签定「与贸易有关的知识产权协议」(Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property,以下简称「TRIPS协定」)进入了贸易化阶段,而一个国家或地区就知识产权的保护是否与国际接轨,也观视于该国或地区是否有加入WTO,并依据TRIPS协定修改或制定相对应的法律规定。知识产权作为国家授予权利人的一种专有权,从产生之时起就有地域性的特征,即一国只依据其颁布的法律对权利予以保护,权利人也只能根据本国的法律,请求授予权利或在权利受到侵害时,请求国家予以保护。换言之,知识产权的这种国内保护在国外是无效的。但是知识产权应不受地域限制的,所以TRIPS协定在实体法的原则是对7类的知识产权订立最低保护标准,因此各个国家或地区依据TRIPS协定所为修改或制定的法律规定则或产生法律规定不一致的出现。而发达国家与发展中国家在TRIPS协定缔约过程中因采取不同的观点与基本立场,各国代表产生了激烈的争辩,最后发达国家提出了交换条件,发展中国家出于谈判策略的考虑,接受了发达国家的提议,终于在1994年4月15日的马拉喀什签署乌拉圭回合谈判的最后文件,其中部分条款弹性大,可操作性差,经济实力弱的国家没有多边制度强有力的支持,国内法的作用是有限的,故而该规定与发展中国家的期望相比有很大的差距。中国于2001年底与台湾地区于2002年初先后成为WTO的会员,立法机关并依据TRIPS协定修改或制定相对应的法律规定。受全球化的影响,知识产权的战争早已跨越国界而无远弗届了,但知识产权地域性的特征,使两岸间关于知识产权的法律规定存有一定程度的差异。研究两岸有关知识产权的法律规定的比较,实有助于奠定建制两地相关法制的基础,故本研究将针对两地就知识产权的相关法律作比较,并整理两地知识产权法律的差异处,再从TRIPS协定的规范与框架下,观察两地知识产权相关法律因应签订TRIPS协定所作的调整,最后提出两地知识产权对TRIPS协定的承诺尚应进一步修正的地方。本研究范围将以中国与台湾地区有关知识产权的相关法律规定为经,以TRIPS协定的规定为纬而相应发展。除TRIPS协定的相关规定外,知识产权将以专利权、商标权、著作权、集成电路布图设计专有权与及未披露讯息为研究主题。本研究有5项研究限制一、本研究法律用语将以中国规定用语为主。二、本研究有关知识产权法制的范围仅限于中国与台湾地区的专利权、著作权、商标权、地理原产地标示(两地均在商标法内规范)、工业产品外观设计(两地均在专利法内规范)、集成电路布图设计与未披露讯息(商业秘密)等7类为限。又本文系就两地知识产权的法律制度作比较,故本文内并未就两地以外之第三地知识产权法制为研究,因此亦未引用大量外文资料。三、本研究仅限于现行法律法制的规范比较,不涉实务争议处理与现况的探讨。四、本研究不包括世界知识产权组织(World Intellectual PropertyOrganization,简称「WIPO」)与美国贸易法301条款的相关规定五、本研究内文指称「中国」的范围系指中国内地本研究将参酌TRIPS协定及中国与台湾地区有关知识产权的相关法律规定,并搜集相关文献并归纳后,作两岸的法律制度比较,因此在研究方法将使用法解释学、文献分析与法学比较等方法。本文将分为一、绪论本研究在进入主命题与子命题前,须先就研究目的与动机、研究的方法、研究范围与限制及研究架构等,先予确认,以使开展命题以后不会偏离主题。绪论将先提出本研究的目的与动机,以作为研究开展的方向与研究的途径。确立本研究的目的后,针对本研究的目的划分研究的范围,以厘清本研究的焦点,并基于本研究的目的,提出本研究的范围与进行时所应为的限制。确认目的与范围后,则为本研究的开展,提出研究方法,以确立本研究分析、归纳的层次,作为本研究比较不同系统法律制度的立论基础,继而基于研究方法提出本研究的架构(章节架构),而研究的章节架构则应与能达成本研究的目的相呼应。二、第1章知识产权的定义与范围本研究既以两地知识产权法制作为本研究主要对象,所以应先就知识产权的定义与范围先为探讨,作为本文对知识产权定义与定性的基础。本章就知识产权的定义及其重要性等基本概念为介绍后,将先就目前主要的知识产权(即专利权、商标权、著作权、集成电路布图设计专有权、未披露讯息、地理原产地标识权、工业产品外观设计权、商事名称权、域名权及植物新品种权等)简述其概念,并简述中国与台湾地区有关知识产权法律的沿革。三、第2章至第6章中国内地与台湾地区就专利、商标、著作权、集成电路布图设计与未揭露讯息相关法律的比较本研究的主命题为两地有关知识产权相关法律的比较,并借着对两地知识产权法规的比较与整理,在涵摄TRIPS协定的规定后,发展子命题。本研究将分别于第2章就专利权(包括工业产品外观设计权)、第3章就商标权(包括地理原产地标识权)、第4章就著作权、第5章就集成电路布图设计专有权与第6章就未披露讯息等5种主要的知识产权,就两地的规定,作详细的比较。惟应注意的,在本章的法律比较主要重点将放在两地法制的差异性,因趋同性的比较在同为欧陆法律系统,其重要性显不如差异性,且藉差异性的比较,使本文除能比较中国与台湾地区5种主要的知识产权主要规范外,并提出两地法律制度差异处的整理。四、第7章知识产权国际保护沿革与TRIPS协议的最新发展本研究的子命题为在TRIPS协定下两地知识产权法制所作的调整,且第2章至第6章的整理将作为子命题的小前提,所以在本章就子命题的大前提作介绍,藉以完整发展子命题。本章将先介绍知识产权国际保护沿革,从巴黎公约、伯尔尼公约、罗马公约、WIPO至TRIPS协议作一简略的介绍,并简介TRIPS协定的基本原则与TRIP的基本规范,最后再介绍TRIPS协定在最近的最新发展,以助于掌握TRIPS协定截至目前为止的新动态。五、第8章于与贸易有关的知识产权协议的规范下,中国与台湾地区知识产权法制的调整本研究的子命题为在TRIPS协定规范下,两地知识产权法制所作的调整。所以承接前两章的发展,整理出两地知识产权法制改变。本章将就中国与台湾地区基于TRIPS协定分别在专利权、商标权、著作权、集成电路布图设计权及未披露讯息等所作的改变作整理。六、第9章建议与展望本研究藉本文的最后,提出两地知识产权就TRIPS协定所要求尚有不足的部分,并对研究成果作整理,给后续研究作建议。本章将总结两地知识产权配合修正的部分,并且由整理的结果,对照两地知识产权尚有不足之处,提出两地知识产权就TRIPS协定所要求尚有不足的部分,作出两地知识产权相关法律未来进一步修法的结论与展望。最后并提出研究中发现中国与台湾地区相关法律制度拟进一步修正的部份,与提出后续研究的建议,以期未来能有继起的研究。本研究的完成,达成以下8项的研究目的(成果)。一、比较中国与台湾地区就专利权主要规范,并提出两地法律制度的差异处。二、比较中国与台湾地区就商标权主要规范,并提出两地法律制度的差异处。三、比较中国与台湾地区就著作权主要规范,并提出两地法律制度的差异处。四、比较中国与台湾地区就集成电路布图设计专有权主要规范,并提出两地法律制度的差异处。五、比较中国与台湾地区就未披露讯息主要规范,并提出两地法律制度的差异处。六、中国知识产权相关法律对TRIPS协定的承诺作出的修正。七、台湾地区知识产权相关法律对TRIPS协定的承诺作出的修正。八、中国与台湾地区基于对TRIPS协定的承诺就知识产权相关法律拟应进一步的调整。更多还原

【Abstract】 Humans replace the method of override his rival from using the military force to manipulating the scientific knowledge. Therefore, the rules and regulations regarding intellectual property (intellectual property, abbreviated to as "IP") bloom accordingly. The contemporary IP laws originate from the England and the concerned legal systems reflect global desire to break through the border of sovereign and become one of most internationalized legal fields. However, under generally observation, eighty percent of intellectual properties registered in the third-world countries are owned by foreigners, multinational corporations mostly, and merely five percent of them are applied in the domestic production activities of the registered third-world countries. Considering that IP is the product under the political economy, developing countries are in a position with less sources, comparing with developed countries, to negotiate under a multi negotiation regarding the IP. While the human is going toward a direction opposite to the dream of establishing a united world, the World Trade Organization ("WTO") was incorporated then under the background and international reality that a conclusion of an international negotiation depends on the national power of the countries involved. Regardless of the background and conclusion process of the WTO establishment, after a series of conditions negotiation and benefits exchange, the countries involved in the negotiation reached a package of treaties expected to be accepted and complied with wholly with refusing any portions of them. The WTO, for now, becomes the only multinational organization which deals with trade rules under various economic bodies and pushes the world toward a untied one further. Accordingly, the protection of the intellectual property rights ("IPR") has undergone the initial stage, organization stage and the trade stage commencing from the execution of Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property ("TRIPS"). Whether the domestic protection of IPR in a nation or region complies with the international protection standards depends on whether that nation or region joins the WTO and has its regulations and rules modified accordingly to comply with the TRIPS.IPR as an exclusive rights conferred to a righter by a nation is granted with the characteristic of geographic limitation, namely, a nation can only provide the protection against the right within the territory in accordance with its domestic regulations; relatively, the righter asks a nation to grant the right or provide protection to his rights which is damaging by the others only within the territory in accordance with its domestic regulations. In other words, the domestic protection of IPR is void outside of the territory of the nation/region involved. Thus, the protection of the IPR is not supposed to be limited by geographic regions. That is the reason that TRIPS sets up the minimum standard of substantial provisions on protecting seven types of IPR. However, it is the WTO members’ obligation to, at least, meet the minimum standard of protection requirements which the TRIPS set up against seven specific types of IPR, but not necessary for them to enact a law exactly identical to the provisions of the TRIPS (namely, a WTO member might enact a IPR-related regulation providing the protections higher than what the TRIPS requires). Therefore, the WTO members’ domestic IPR-related regulations might be still different from each others even though fulfilling the requirements by the TRIPS. Developed countries expressed opinions and basic grounds different from those developing countries adopted in the process of negotiating for the TRIPS. The representatives from the involved countries had a series of intense arguments. The negotiation ended upon accepting the version proposed by the developed countries as a purpose to gain more bargain for the developing countries on benefits in other fields. Eventually, on the date of April 15,1994, The Uruguay Round agreements containing about sixty agreements and decisions totaling 550 pages was signed at the Marrakesh ministerial meeting. Due to the over-flexibility of partial provisions of the TRIPS and less enforceability thereof, the domestic regulations of the member countries without strong economic power and support by the multilateral pace function less than what they are expected to be. In summary, the TRIPS still has a great gap between what the developing countries expect and what the reality is.China, in 2001, and Taiwan, in 2002, joined the WTO as its members in turn. The regulators revised the original regulations and also enacted new ones to comply with the requirements of the TRIPS. Under the impact of globalization, the IPR-related "wars" have broken through the limitation of national border and expanded worldwide. However, due to the IPR’s characteristic of geographic limitation, the discrepancy of IPR-related regulations exists between China and Taiwan. Researching the comparison of IPR-related regulations between China and Taiwan contributes to structure the foundation of the legal systems in both China and Taiwan. Thus, this research mainly focuses on four sectors: the comparison of IPR-related regulations between China and Taiwan, the analysis of the discrepancy, observation of revisions on both China and Taiwan domestic laws as a result of meeting the requirements by the TRIPS and also providing further suggestions for the future revision on China and Taiwan laws to keep their promises to comply with the TRIPS.This research is structured on the framework of the IPR-related regulations in China and Taiwan and the TRIPS. Besides the provisions concerned under the TRIPS, this research mainly discusses and elaborates patent, trademark, copyrights, layout-designs (topographies) of integrated circuits and undisclosed information.This research is subject to five limitations as following.1.The terms mentioned in this research would mainly refer to those commonly adopted by China regulations.2. The content of intellectual property rights discussed in this research is limited to seven types, including patents, copyrights, trademarks, geographical indications, industrial designs, layout-designs of integrated circuits and undisclosed information.3. This research focuses on the comparison of current regulations, but not on solutions and opinions on specific disputes.4. This research does not include the discussion of the World Intellectual Property Organization and Section 301 of the United States Trade Act.5. "China" mentioned in this research refers to merely the mainland of China.This research compares the legal systems in China and Taiwan after referring to the TRIPS and the IPR-related regulations in these two places and collecting and analyzing related documents. Thus, it adopts the research methods relating to legal explanation, documentation analysis and legal comparison.This research is divided into: 1. PreambleBefore further discussing the main topic and sub-one, this research confirms the matters in connection with the research purpose, motive, method, content, limitation and framework in its preamble in order to avoid any divergence from the contemplated topics.2. First Paragraph "Definitions and contents of IPR"Since discussing mainly on the IPR-related legal systems in China and Taiwan, this research begins with the definitions and contents of IPR as the foundations of IPR hereunder. This Paragraph briefs the concepts of the main types of IPR (namely, patents, trademarks, copyrights, layout-design of integrated circuits, undisclosed information, geographical indications, industrial designs, trade names, domain names and plant varieties) and the historical background of legislation of IPR-related regulations.3. Second Paragraph to Sixth Paragraph "The comparison of the regulations in China and Taiwan on patents, trademarks, copyrights, layout-designs of integrated circuits and undisclosed information.Besides structuring its main topic on the comparison of the IPR-related regulations in China and Taiwan by following the orders of patents in paragraph 2 (including industrial designs), trademark in paragraph 3 (including geographical indications), copyright in paragraph 4, layout-designs of integrated circuits in paragraph 5 and undisclosed information in paragraph 6, this research combining with the discussion of the TRIPS, also develops its subtopic in accordance with the comparison and analysis. However, the readers need to pay attention to that the comparisons under the aforementioned paragraphs focus mostly on the discrepancy but not the similarity, which is less important than the former. By the comparison, this research can not only compare the current regulations regarding five specific types of main IPR easily but also provide a general organization of the discrepancy of the legal systems in both places.4. Seventh Paragraph "The historical development of international protection of IPR and the latest development of the TRIPS"The subtopic of this research focuses on the adjustments on the IPR-related regulations in China and Taiwan under the requirements of the TRIPS and is analyzed on the basis of the summaries of previous six paragraphs. Therefore, this paragraph introduces the historical and latest development on international IPR protection for the purpose of elaborating the subtopic.This paragraph introduces in turn by the historical development of IPR international protection, briefing from the Paris Convention, Berne Convention, Rome Convention, and treaty on integrated circuits , basic principles and stipulations of the TRIPS and, finally, the latest development of the TRIPS in order to know the status quo of the TRIPS for now.5. Eighth Paragraph "The adjustment of IPR-related regulations in China and Taiwan under the requirements of the TRIPS"The subtopic of this research focuses on the adjustment of IPR-related regulations in China and Taiwan under the requirements, which leads to the discussions of the previous paragraphs, to organize the revisions on the IPR-related regulations in both places. This paragraph discusses the adjustments on patents, trademarks, copyrights, layout-designs of integrated circuit and undisclosed information sectors by China and Taiwan to comply with the TRIPS. 6. Ninth Paragraph "Suggestions and prospects"This research provides suggestions on the noncompliance in the current IPR-related regulations in China and Taiwan to the TRIPS, a summary of this research and also the prospects for any further researches later as well.This paragraph summarizes the adjustments regarding the IPR-related regulations in both places; furthermore, highlighting their noncompliance to the TRIPS for the reference and prospect of the future revision on the related regulations. Eventually, this paragraph also raises attentions to the portions of IPR-related regulations in both places remaining further review and brings out suggestions for the future researches on the similar topic.The completion of this research achieves the following eight purposes/goals.1. Comparing the mainly patent-related regulations in China with those in Taiwan and, then, bring out the discrepancy.2. Comparing the mainly trademark-related regulations in China with those in Taiwan and, then, bring out the discrepancy.3. Comparing the mainly copyrights-related regulations in China with those in Taiwan and, then, bring out the discrepancy.4. Comparing the mainly layout-design of integrated circuit-related regulations in China with those in Taiwan and, then, bring out the discrepancy.5. Comparing the mainly undisclosed information-related regulations in China with those in Taiwan and, then, bring out the discrepancy.6. The adjustments on China IPR-related regulations to meet the commitments to the TRIPS. 7. The adjustments on Taiwan IPR-related regulations to meet the commitments to the TRIPS.8. The further revisions on both China and Taiwan IPR-related regulations under the obligations of fulfilling the commitments to the TRIPS.更多还原