其他最新諮詢
2020/03/27 10:33
代理商亂價
2020/03/05 19:08 有最佳解答
合約問題
2020/02/26 04:36 有最佳解答
長期監視 造成嚴重心理恐懼
2020/02/18 21:09 有最佳解答
刑事犯罪
2020/02/08 21:11
網路霸凌
2020/01/16 12:34
侵犯肖像權
2020/01/02 17:33
網購平台的資訊網
2019/12/26 12:06 有最佳解答
公開競賽的錄影
2019/12/24 04:00 有最佳解答
電腦程式製作販售
2019/12/04 19:52
我被騙了
2019/11/26 14:36
巫告
智慧財產相關案例分享
▲蘇狀師談營業秘密法

淺談祖傳藥方的智財權保護 文/蘇思鴻律師 ▲各位是否知道世界上最貴的商標是什麼? 答案是可口可樂。而可口可樂的配方屬於營業秘密,它的價值在世界上也是數一數二,可見智慧財產權的威力是何等強大,現在這個時代是屬於知識經濟的時代。 我們常在不管是藥房或是夜市,常會見到祖傳祕方這幾個字,例如在中藥房老闆常會拿出幾帖藥方,稱說這是其幾代前所留下專治某某病的祖傳秘方,或是在夜市賣仙草茶或綠豆湯的阿婆,稱說他的仙草茶或綠豆湯與他人的不同,因為她所賣的加入了祖傳秘方。暫且不管係宣傳花招或噱頭,我們現在聚焦於智慧財產權的討論。 就上述祖傳藥方而言,若你是該祖傳藥方的傳人,你會選擇受那一種智慧財產權的保護?首先,該藥方涉及那些智慧財產權? 依我之見,此涉及專利權及營業秘密,至於要受那種智慧財產權的保護,端視權利人的選擇。 如果權利人選擇受專利權保護,首先要提出申請,同時要指明申請那一種專利。藥品屬於物的發明,應申請發明專利。若通過審查,則取得二十年排他的權利。若選擇受營業秘密保護,則無庸申請,而營業秘密則永久保護。(暫且不管藥物需取得許可方面的管制性法令)如果一個人透過藥物成分解析,得知該祖傳藥方的成分,進而做成口服藥在市面上銷售,此不侵害營業秘密,人透過科學之解析或還原工程去製造營業秘密所保護的標的,是被允許,此和專利不同,專利權人可排除他人製造其已取得專利權的發明、新型或設計。另外提醒一點,專利權和營業秘密是互斥的,只能選擇其一受保護。  

▲蘇狀師談娛樂法(著作權法篇)

我國著作權法上之權利耗盡原則 權利耗盡原則可分為國內耗盡與國際耗盡,我國著作權法採國內耗盡原則,此可觀著作權法第59條之1,在中華民國管轄區域內取得著作原件或其合法重製物所有權之人,得以移轉所有權之方式散布之可明。 何謂權利耗盡原則,用淺顯的話來說,亦即「一條牛不可剝兩次皮」,例如你買到一輛車子,你取得車子的所有權,原則上你可以將之再售予他人。但你買到一本小說,並不當然可以將之再轉售甚至出租予他人。小說和車子並不同,小說本質上係原創作人創作之結晶,你取得小說的本體,但小說裏的內容屬於原創作人智慧財產的成果,你未必可以將內容影印下來(重製)或是大聲把內容向公眾唸出來(公開口述),同樣地你將之轉售,此行為屬於著作權法的「散布」,而散布屬於著作財產權,原則上要得到原著作人之同意。 「散布權」屬於著作財產權,如無例外,屬於原著作人所有,ˊ而「散布」在著作權法第3條第1項第12款被定義為,散布:指不問有償或無償,將著作之原件或重製物提供公眾交易或流通。你將購得的小說再轉售他人,屬於以移轉所有權的方式散布之,侵害了原著作人之「散布權」(著作財產權),但著作權法第59條之1設有合理使用之規定,亦即權利耗盡原則,立法者認為你取得小說的所有權,再將之轉售他人,屬於合理使用範疇,原著作人(推定此人擁有完整著作財產權,亦即未將散布權轉讓或授權或同意他人利用)對你再主張享有散布權並不合理,所以在此不構成著作財產權之侵害,但要注意的是依據著作權法第59條之1的規定,只限於在中華民國管轄區域內取得著作原件或其合法重製物所有權之人,才得以移轉所有權之方式散布之,在中華民國管轄區域外取得著作原件或其合法重製物所有權之人,即不得以移轉所有權之方式散布之(無償贈與可以,有償的銷售不可以)。違反者,著作權法有規範民、刑事責任。

經營遊戲店被訴販賣盜版光碟,律師協助獲判無罪

委託人小如民國91年即於台北市開立一間精品店,其時常會有客人或朋友因遊戲主機方面發生一些問題時,會請小如代為修繕或加以測式之。然於民國93年年末時,突然被警方到店表示,該店有提供該店消費之客戶改遊戲機之防盜拷措施之服務,且同時亦於該店內扣押相關電腦主動、遊戲光碟片及空白光碟片等。此外就其所扣押之遊戲光碟片部份,亦被認為有仿冒當時市面上最夯的sony和微軟的Xbox之商標,進而將其相關商品加以出售獲利之情形存在,故檢警就上述之行為對小如提起公訴,認其違反著作權法第80之2條規定及刑法偽造私文書之相關規定........https://www.alicelaw.com.tw/cases_content.html?n=65

▲蘇狀師談娛樂法(名氣權vs著作權)

Right of Publicity v Copyright Infringement 知名度v著作權侵權 There have been instances in which a Right of Publicity claim has been preempted by Plaintiff’s copyright infringement claim.  The Ninth Circuit recently found that a Plaintiff actor’s claim that his Right of Publicity had been violated was preempted by the Copyright Act because the “factual basis of his right of publicity claim was the unauthorized reproduction of his performance on the DVDs.”  Jules Jordan Video, Inc. v. 144942 Canada Inc., 617 F.3d 1146, 1154 (9th Cir. 2010).  Therefore, the “essence” of Plaintiff’s claim was the reproduction and distribution of DVDs without authorization, which fell under Copyright protection.   Explaining the rationale behind this, the Ninth Circuit stated that: “Were we to conclude that [Plaintiff’s] misappropriation claim was not preempted by the Copyright Act, then virtually every use of a copyright[] would infringe upon the original performer’s right of publicity.”  Laws v. Sony Music Entm’t, Inc., 448 F.3d 1134, 1145 (9th Cir. 2006). 最近有一案例,知名度優先著作權而受保護。第九巡迴法院最近認定,原告起訴主張其知名度被侵害優先適用著作權法而受保護;因該知名度訴求之事實上依據係未經其授權重製DVD上 之表演,Jules Jordan Video, Inc. v. 144942 Canada Inc., 617 F.3d 1146, 1154 (9th Cir. 2010).  所以,原告訴求之重製及散布DVDs,其落入著作權之保護。詮釋其背後之理論,第九巡迴法院闡述,我們總結原告起訴主張盜用著作權並不應先適用,實際上每一利用著作權係侵害原創表演者之知名度。Laws v. Sony Music Entm’t, Inc., 448 F.3d 1134, 1145 (9th Cir. 2006).

▲蘇狀師談娛樂法(棒球篇)

assumption of risk 自承風險   assumption of risk 自承風險 風險承擔(assumption of risk、自承風險)屬於英美侵權法中的一種抗辯,如果被告能夠證明原告自願且明知地承擔了他所處的危險活動中所受的損害之固有的風險,則法律就會限制或減少原告對過失侵權行為人(被告)的追償權(故意侵權沒有適用)。   Attending baseball games and other sporting events is a quintessential American pastime. However, it is not uncommon that an accident can result in the injury of a fan. 參加棒球賽及其他運動賽事在美國是典型的消遣。然而,球迷在球賽中被球擊中卻是普遍現象。 Hit by a foul ball:被界外球擊中 In July 2015, a fan attending a Brewers/Braves baseball game at Milwaukee’s Miller Park was struck in the face by a foul ball. The fan sustained near-fatal injuries that have resulted in over $200,000 in medical bills and will require lifelong care. In August 2016, another fan was struck by a line-drive at Miller Park. 2015年,一位球迷在密爾瓦基觀看釀酒人與勇士兩隊的大聯盟賽事被界外球擊中臉部。該名球迷遭受到幾近致命之傷害,進而支出超過20萬美元之醫療費用,同時需要終身醫療。2016年8月另一名球迷在同場地被平飛球擊中。 Unfortunately, Miller Park isn't alone when it comes to spectator injuries. A 2014 study by Bloomberg News found 1,750 fans per year were injured by foul balls at Major League games. In 2018, A woman died after being hit in the head with a foul ball at Dodgers Stadium, making her the first foul-ball fatality in nearly 50 years. Spectators of hockey and NASCAR are also at risk of potentially hazardous projectiles at games and races as well. But if you are injured by a foul ball or stray hockey puck that flies into the stands, who is responsible for your medical bills, or possible lost time at work? 當談到觀眾受傷,米勒棒球場(密爾瓦基釀酒人之主場)並不是唯一。2014年彭博新聞指出大聯盟賽事每年有1750名球迷被界外球擊中。2018年在道奇隊球場,一名婦人在被界外球擊中頭部後死亡,離之前首位被擊中身亡者將近50年。職業冰球的冰球及全國運動汽車競賽協會舉行的賽事裏的賽車在比賽中係極具淺在危險性之拋射體。假如你在觀眾席被界外球擊中或冰上曲棍球的冰球擊中,誰要負擔你的醫療費及工作能力之損失? The answer, unfortunately, is you.很不幸,答案是你(亦即你自己要負擔醫療費用及所受的傷害、損害) “Assumed Risk” and your ticket:自承風險及你的賽票 Assumed risk falls into the category of liability that applies to the so-called “baseball rule,” that is implemented in both professional and amateur leagues. If you read the fine print on the back of your ticket to a sporting event, it usually outlines refund policies and rules regarding flash photography. This is also where you will find that statement of assumed risk, which is why the venue isn’t liable for your injuries. 「自承風險」落入適用所謂“棒球法則”責任歸屬之範疇,其在職業及業餘賽事都有適用。假如你閱讀你賽票背面小號字體印刷品,其通常會將補償方案及法則用以凸顯方式概略出來,你將會發現自承風險的聲明,這也是為何賽事場地對你所受之傷毋庸負責之理。 It is assumed, that when choosing to attend a sporting event, the spectator understands that flying objects may enter the seats. And it is the spectator’s responsibility to avoid them. 其已被自我承擔,當選擇觀看賽事時,觀眾意識到飛來物會進入觀眾席,同時觀眾有責任去迴避牠。 The exception:自承風險之例外: While most risks at sporting events are considered "inherent to the game," there are situations in which negligent circumstances would hold the stadium/venue liable for injuries. For example: 然而,在運動賽事裏大部分的風險被認為是“比賽中所固有的”,有些情況被認為是運動場/賽場對該傷害有過失,例如: If you were to fall due to a broken handrail or other forms of facility disrepair such as a damaged net or partition, one could find the ballpark negligent for improper maintenance of the grounds. 假如你摔倒係因扶手損壞或是其他設施維護失當,例如護網毀損或被劃開,會認為球場基於不當維護而有過失為由。   In other cases, dram shop laws (like “social host” law) can be applied if a patron is over-served alcohol by stadium concessions and causes an accident of some sort while intoxicated.在其他情形,適用酒類供應商責任法,假如球場攤商過度供酒予顧客,造成其酒醉時的一些意外。 Unfortunately for many, this baseball rule was adopted when the game was quite different. Things happen a lot faster on the field these days and the entertaining nature of the sport often creates more “sideshows” that distract fans from what is happening on the field. We are forced to assume a certain level of risk any time we attend a spectator sport. So even with nets and barriers to protect fans, the most you can do is to always be alert while watching a game.