標題: 美國聯邦經濟間諜法之回顧與展望──兼論我國營業秘密法之刑罰化
Reviewing the U.S. Economic Espionage Act —With the Extending Comments on the 2013 Amendment of Taiwan’s Trade Secret Act
作者: 林志潔
Carol Chih-Chieh Lin
關鍵字: 經濟間諜;營業秘密;營業秘密刑罰化;Economic Espionage;Trade Secret;Criminalization
公開日期: 六月-2016
出版社: 交通大學科技法律研究所
Institute of Technology Law
摘要: 科技、經濟、國家安全,看似不相關的三個名詞,因營業秘密的存在而牢牢相扣。美國自1996 年起以聯邦層級的經濟間諜法來保護營業秘密,對於侵害營業秘密者課予刑事責任,並明確區分竊取營業秘密行為及經濟間諜行為,以嚇阻企業競爭對手竊取營業秘密,防止國家經濟、安全受到危害。然而,美國聯邦經濟間諜法施行至今已十九年,關於經濟間諜罪的案件,經法院判決確定有罪者卻為數不多,本文擬分析經濟間諜法實務上施行之困境,並提出改革建議。又,我國營業秘密法於2013 年增訂刑事規範第13 條之1至第13 條之4,主要參考自經濟間諜法,為分析比較,本文亦將一併檢討我國營業秘密法刑罰化後之問題。
“Technology, economic and national security,” these three words seem to be irrelevant on the surface; however, they are tightly bounded by the existence of the word—trade secret. The federal government of the U.S. passed the Economic Espionage Act in 1996 in an attempt to create a “comprehensive and systematic” approach to address trade secrecy misappropriation, drawing a clear line between economic espionage and theft of trade secrets through federal criminal justice system. It is established to prevent trade rivals from stealing other business’s most precious property—trade secret, and to protect the national economy, security from any harm. While the Economic Espionage Act has been implemented for 19 years, there are only few cases brought in a verdict of guilty, which seemingly contradicts to the legislative purposes. Therefore, this article aims to analyze the predicament of the Act, and to give constructive propositions. Furthermore, the Trade Secret Act in Taiwan was revised in 2013. It mainly referred to the Economic Espionage, adding article 13-1 to 13-4. In order to compare and assay, this article will also probe into the amendment in 2013.
URI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3966/181130952016061301001
http://www-old.itl.nctu.edu.tw/tlr_n/papers/ch_paper/13_1/13_1_1.pdf
http://hdl.handle.net/11536/136993
ISSN: 1811-3113
DOI: 10.3966/181130952016061301001
期刊: 科技法學評論
Technology Law Review
Volume: 13
Issue: 1
起始頁: 1
結束頁: 67
顯示於類別:科技法學評論


文件中的檔案:

  1. 1811-3095-160604.pdf