English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 20 |  Items with full text/Total items : 90029/119959 (75%)
Visitors : 24039463      Online Users : 164
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    政大機構典藏 > 法學院 > 法律學系 > 學位論文 >  Item 140.119/111795
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/111795


    Title: 電腦軟體專利適格性之法制與政策——以美國法為中心
    The law and policy of patent eligibility of computer software—focusing on U.S. law
    Authors: 劉文燦
    Liu, Wencan
    Contributors: 沈宗倫
    劉文燦
    Liu, Wencan
    Keywords: 軟體專利
    適格性
    Alice
    Mayo測試
    軟體創新
    Software patent
    Eligibility
    Alice
    Mayo inquiry
    Software innovation
    Date: 2017
    Issue Date: 2017-08-10 10:01:19 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 在電腦軟體產業初露锋芒的1970至1980年代,美國曾一度就軟體是否是可專利的標的發生爭論。美國聯邦最高法院先後作出Gottschalk v. Benson (1972)、Parker v. Flook (1978)、Diamond v. Diehr (1981)等相關判決,為軟體的適格性問題定下了基調。
    沉寂數十年後,在該議題幾乎要被人淡忘的時候,軟體的適格性在近年再次被推上了風口浪尖。美國聯邦最高法院連續作出數個專利適格性方面的判決。在其中的Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank International (2014)一案中,最高法院為判斷專利標的適格性設置了一套系統的測試方法。此後,雖然軟體在理論上依然是適格的專利標的,但在實務中軟體相關專利卻頻頻因不適格而被宣告為無效。變相的,軟體專利的效力被大幅削弱。
    本文溯本求源,試圖了解這種政策背後的原因。本文從現象層面入手,介紹軟體專利遇到的相關問題。通過了解軟體的特徵,本文分析軟體創新與專利制度的相容性,發現專利制度的一些設定對於軟體創新並不合適。以此為基礎,本文主要針對專利激勵創新的理論論證現行專利制度對於軟體創新意義較小,進而支持美國聯邦最高法院弱化軟體專利的舉措。最後,本文將回顧部分美國聯邦最高法院和聯邦巡迴上訴法院在專利適格性方面的重要判決,並特別關注其中適格性測試的運用。通過梳理對該測試的理解,本文就適格性測試的適用提出了幾點建議。
    In the early stage of software industry in 1970s to 1980s, it was controversial as to whether software was a patent eligible subject matter. The Supreme Court of United States made a series of eligibility-related cases, i.e. Gottschalk v. Benson (1972), Parker v. Flook (1978) and Diamond v. Diehr (1981) which are still influencing the issue of eligibility at present.
    After decades of peace and when the issue is nearly forgotten, eligibility of software has become disputed again recently. The Supreme Court started another series of eligibility cases. Among them, Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank International (2014), a highly influential one, set forth a systemic rule for eligibility testing. After Alice, software-related patents are frequently invalidated due to eligibility by lower courts, though software in theory is patentable. In this way, the Supreme Court has greatly weakened software patent rights.
    This thesis attempts to explore the reasons behind the policy. Starting from phenomena aspect, it introduces various issues that software patents encounter. Then the features of software will be discussed, the compatibility between software innovations and the patent system will be analyzed, and a conclusion will be reached that the current patent system is unfit for software innovations. On this account, the thesis argues that the patent system is less than effective for software innovations as far as the theory that patents encourage innovations is concerned. As a result, the policy of weakening software patents is supported. In the end, the thesis retraces some important legal cases delivered by the Supreme Court of United States and the Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit, and looks into how they check eligibility of patents. Proposing how the eligibility test the courts are using should be construed, the thesis offers several suggestions as to how the test should be applied.
    Reference: 中文書籍
    崔國斌,專利法:原理與案例,2016年2月,2版。
    李明德,美國知識產權法,2014年4月,2版。
    吳軍,浪潮之巔,2011年8月,初版。

    中文論文
    李玄、王立達,美國後eBay時代專利侵權案件之永久禁制令:以法院見解發展與實證研究為中心,智慧財產評論,第12卷第2期,頁153-194,2014年12月。
    李治安,由AMP v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.案談基因專利之適格性,智慧財產評論,第12卷第2期,頁1-46,2014年12月。

    英文書籍
    Bessen, James, & Michael J. Meurer (2008). PATENT FAILURE: HOW JUDGES, BUREAUCRATS AND LAWYERS PUT INNOVATORS AT RISK. Princeton University Press.
    Boldrin, Michele, & David K. Levine (2008). AGAINST INTELLECTUAL MONOPOLY. Cambridge University Press.
    Buxmann, Peter, Heiner Diefenbach, & Thomas Hess (2013). THE SOFTWARE INDUSTRY: ECONOMIC PRINCIPLES, STRATEGIES, PERSPECTIVES. Springer.
    Feldman, Robin (2012). RETHINKING PATENT LAW. Harvard University Press.
    Jaffe, Adam B. & Josh Lerner (2004). INNOVATION AND ITS DISCONTENTS: HOW OUR BROKEN PATENT SYSTEM IS ENDANGERING INNOVATION AND PROGRESS, AND WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT. Princeton University Press.
    Kinney & Lange, P.A. (2016-2017 ed.), INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW FOR BUSINESS LAWYERS. Thomson West.
    Landes, William M. & Richard A. Posner (2003). THE ECONOMIC STRUCTURE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW. Belknap Press.
    Macfie, Robert Andrew (1864). THE PATENT QUESTION UNDER FREE TRADE: A SOLUTION OF DIFFICULTIES BY ABOLISHING OR SHORTENING THE INVENTORS' MONOPOLY, AND INSTITUTING NATIONAL RECOMPENSES. Johnson.
    Merges, Robert P., Peter S. Menell, & Mark A. Lemley (5 ed. 2009). INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY IN THE NEW TECHNOLOGICAL AGE. Aspen Publishers.
    Naughton, John (2000). A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE FUTURE: FROM RADIO DAYS TO INTERNET YEARS IN A LIFETIME. Overlook Books.
    Rivette, Kevin G. & David Kline (1999). REMBRANDTS IN THE ATTIC: UNLOCKING THE HIDDEN VALUE OF PATENTS. Harvard Business Review Press.
    Rossman, Joseph (3d ed. 1964). INDUSTRIAL CREATIVITY: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE INVENTOR. University Books.
    Schief, Markus (2013). BUSINESS MODELS IN THE SOFTWARE INDUSTRY: THE IMPACT ON FIRM AND M&A PERFORMANCE. Springer Gabler.

    英文論文
    Abramowicz, Michael, & John F. Duffy, The Inducement Standard of Patentability, 120 Yale L.J. 1590 (2011).
    Akerlof, George A., The Market for “Lemons”: Quality Uncertainty and the Market Mechanism, 84 Q.J. Econ. 488 (1970).
    Allison, John R. & Mark A. Lemley, Empirical Evidence on the Validity of Litigated Patents, 26 AIPLA Q.J. 185 (1998).
    Allison, John R. & Mark A. Lemley, The (Unnoticed) Demise of the Doctrine of Equivalents, 59 Stan. L. Rev. 955 (2007).
    Allison, John R. & Emerson H. Tiller, The Business Method Patent Myth, 18 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 987 (2003).
    Allison, John R., Mark A. Lemley, & David L. Schwartz, How Often Do Non-Practicing Entities Win Patent Suits?, 32 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. (forthcoming 2017) (manuscript), available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=2750128.
    Allison, John R., Mark A. Lemley, & David L. Schwartz, Understanding the Realities of Modern Patent Litigation, 92 Tex. L. Rev. 1769 (2014).
    Allison, John R., Mark A. Lemley, & Joshua Walker, Extreme Value or Trolls on Top? The Characteristics of the Most-Litigated Patents, 158 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1 (2009)
    Allison, John R., Mark A. Lemley, & Joshua Walker, Patent Quality and Settlement among Repeat Patent Litigants, 99 Geo. L.J. 677 (2011).
    Allison, John R., Mark A. Lemley, Kimberly A. Moore, & R. Derek Trunkey, Valuable Patents, 92 Geo. L.J. 435 (2004).
    Armitage A., Robert, Understanding the America Invents Act and Its Implications for Patenting, 40 AIPLA Q.J. 1 (2012).
    Armond, Michelle, Introducing the Defense of Independent Invention to Motions for Preliminary Injunctions in Patent Infringement Lawsuits, 91 Cal. L. Rev. 117 (2003).
    Asay, Clark D., Enabling Patentless Innovation, 74 Md. L. Rev. 431 (2015).
    Bessen, James, & Michael J. Meurer, The Direct Costs from NPE Disputes, 99 Cornell L. Rev. 387 (2014).
    Boldrin, Michele, & David K. Levine, The Case Against Patents, 27 J. Econ. Perspectives 3 (2013).
    Boldrin, Michele, & David Levine, Perfectly Competitive Innovation, 55 J. Monetary Econ. 435 (2008).
    Bravo, Gustavo, From Paris Convention to Trips: A Brief History, 12 J. Contemp. Legal Issues 445 (2001).
    Burk, Dan L. & Mark A. Lemley, Fence Posts or Sign Posts? Rethinking Patent Claim Construction, 157 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1743 (2009)
    Burk, Dan L. & Mark A. Lemley, Policy Levers in Patent Law, 89 Va. L. Rev. 1575 (2003)
    Carter, Joel B., Responding to A Patent Troll's Threats, Ark. Law. (Summer 2013).
    Chien, Colleen V., From Arms Race to Marketplace: The Complex Patent Ecosystem and Its Implications for the Patent System, 62 Hastings L.J. 297 (2010).
    Chien, Colleen V., Startups and Patent Trolls, 17 Stan. Tech. L. Rev. 461 (2014).
    Chisum, Donald S., The Patentability of Algorithms, 47 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 959, 983-84 (1986).
    Cohen, Julie E. & Mark A. Lemley, Patent Scope and Innovation in the Software Industry, 89 Cal. L. Rev. 1 (2001).
    Cohen, Julie E., Reverse Engineering and the Rise of Electronic Vigilantism: Intellectual Property Implications of "Lock-Out" Programs, 68 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1091 (1995).
    Collins, Kevin Emerson, Patent Law's Functionality Malfunction and the Problem of Overbroad, Functional Software Patents, 90 Wash. U.L. Rev. 1399 (2013).
    Collins, Kevin Emerson, The Reach of Literal Claim Scope into After-Arising Technology: On Thing Construction and the Meaning of Meaning, 41 Conn. L. Rev. 493 (2008).
    Cotropia, Christopher A. & Mark A. Lemley, Copying in Patent Law, 87 N.C. L. Rev. 1421 (2009).
    Crouch, Dennis, & Robert P. Merges, Operating Efficiently Post-Bilski by Ordering Patent Doctrine Decision-Making, 25 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 1673 (2010).
    Dratler, Jay, Jr., Does Lord Darcy Yet Live? The Case Against Software and Business-Method Patents, 43 Santa Clara L. Rev. 823 (2003).
    Farrell, Joseph, & Garth Saloner, Standardization, Compatibility, and Innovation, 16 Rand J. Econ. 70 (1985).
    Fromer, Jeanne C., Expressive Incentives in Intellectual Property, 98 Va. L. Rev. 1745 (2012).
    George, Gavin D., What Is Hiding in the Bushes? Ebay's Effect on Holdout Behavior in Patent Thickets, 13 Mich. Telecomm. & Tech. L. Rev. 557 (2007).
    Gomulkiewicz, Robert W., How Copyleft Uses License Rights to Succeed in the Open Source Software Revolution and the Implications for Article 2b, 36 Hous. L. Rev. 179 (1999).
    Graham, Stuart J.H. & Saurabh Vishnubhakat, Of Smart Phone Wars and Software Patents (January 2, 2013). 27 J. Econ. Persp. 67 (2013), available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=2291603.
    Graham, Stuart J.H., Robert P. Merges, Pam Samuelson, & Ted Sichelman, High Technology Entrepreneurs and the Patent System: Results of the 2008 Berkeley Patent Survey, 24 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 1255 (2009).
    Gruner, Richard S., Intangible Inventions: Patentable Subject Matter for an Information Age, 35 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 355 (2002).
    Hardin, Garrett, The Tragedy of the Commons, 162 Sci. 1243 (1968).
    Heller, Michael A., The Tragedy of the Anticommons: Property in the Transition from Marx to Markets, 111 Harv. L. Rev. 621 (1998).
    Holbrook, Timothy R., Equivalency and Patent Law's Possession Paradox, 23 Harv. J. Law & Tech. 1 (2009).
    Janis, Mark D., Patent Abolitionism, 17 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 899 (2002).
    Johnson-Laird, Andrew, Software Reverse Engineering in the Real World, 19 U. Dayton L. Rev. 843 (1994).
    Katz, Michael L. & Carl Shapiro, Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility, 75 Am. Econ. Rev. 424 (1985).
    Kumar, Sapna, & Arti Rai, Synthetic Biology: The Intellectual Property Puzzle, 85 Tex. L. Rev. 1745 (2007).
    Lee, Jyh-An, New Perspectives on Public Goods Production: Policy Implications of Open Source Software, 9 Vand. J. Ent. & Tech. L. 45 (2006).
    Leibovitz, John S., Inventing A Nonexclusive Patent System, 111 Yale L.J. 2251 (2002).
    Lemley, Mark A. & A. Douglas Melamed, Missing the Forest for the Trolls, 113 Colum. L. Rev. 2117 (2013).
    Lemley, Mark A. & David W. O'Brien, Encouraging Software Reuse, 49 Stan. L. Rev. 255 (1997).
    Lemley, Mark A. & Bhaven Sampat, Is the Patent Office A Rubber Stamp? 58 Emory L.J. 181 (2008).
    Lemley, Mark A. & Carl Shapiro, Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking, 85 Tex. L. Rev. 1991 (2007).
    Lemley, Mark A. & Ragesh K. Tangri, Ending Patent Law's Willfulness Game, 18 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 1085 (2003).
    Lemley, Mark A., Ex Ante versus Ex Post Justifications for Intellectual Property, 71 U. Chi. L. Rev. 129 (2004).
    Lemley, Mark A., Ignoring Patents, 2008 Mich. St. L. Rev. 19 (2008).
    Lemley, Mark A., Point of Novelty, 105 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1253 (2011).
    Lemley, Mark A., Rational Ignorance at the Patent Office, 95 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1495 (2001).
    Lemley, Mark A., Michael Risch, Ted Sichelman, & R. Polk Wagner, Life After Bilski, 63 Stan. L. Rev. 1315 (2011).
    Lemley, Mark A., Should Patent Infringement Require Proof of Copying? 105 Mich. L. Rev. 1525 (2007)
    Lemley, Mark A., Software Patents and the Return of Functional Claiming, 2013 Wis. L. Rev. 905 (2013).
    Lemley, Mark A., The Changing Meaning of Patent Claim Terms, 104 Mich. L. Rev. 101 (2005).
    Lemley, Mark A., The Economics of Improvement in Intellectual Property Law, 75 Tex. L. Rev. 989 (1997).
    Lemley, Mark A., The Myth of the Sole Inventor, 110 Mich. L. Rev. 709 (2012).
    Lemley, Mark A., The Surprising Resilience of the Patent System, 95 Tex. L. Rev. 1 (2016).
    Lin, Daniel, Research Versus Development: Patent Pooling, Innovation and Standardization in the Software Industry, 1 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 274 (2002).
    Lobachev, Sergey, Top languages in global information production, Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research, Vol 3, No 2 (2008), available at https://journal.lib.uoguelph.ca/index.php/perj/article/view/826/1358.
    Mann, Ronald J., Do Patents Facilitate Financing in the Software Industry? 83 Tex. L. Rev. 961 (2005).
    Mazzola, Robert, The 101 Conundrum: Creating A Framework to Solve Problems Surrounding Interpretation of 35 U.S.C. §101, 14 Chi.-Kent J. Intell. Prop. 400 (2015).
    McDonough III, James F., The Myth of the Patent Troll: An Alternative View of the Function of Patent Dealers in an Idea Economy, 56 Emory L.J. 189 (2006).
    Menell, Peter S., A Method for Reforming the Patent System, 13 Mich. Telecomm. & Tech. L. Rev. 487 (2007).
    Menell, Peter S., Tailoring Legal Protection for Computer Software, 39 Stan. L. Rev. 1329 (1987).
    Merges, Robert P. & Richard R. Nelson, On the Complex Economics of Patent Scope, 90 Colum. L. Rev. 839 (1990).
    Merges, Robert P., Rent Control in the Patent District: Observations on the Grady-Alexander Thesis, 78 Va. L. Rev. 359 (1992).
    Merges, Robert P., Intellectual Property Rights and Bargaining Breakdown: The Case of Blocking Patents, 62 Tenn. L. Rev. 75 (1994).
    Miller, Joseph Scott, Standard Setting, Patents, and Access Lock-in: Rand Licensing and the Theory of the Firm, 40 Ind. L. Rev. 351 (2007).
    Miller, Shawn P., "Fuzzy" Software Patent Boundaries and High Claim Construction Reversal Rates, 17 Stan. Tech. L. Rev. 809 (2014).
    Moser, Petra, Determinants of Innovation - Evidence from 19th Century World Fairs, 64 The Journal of Economic History 548 (2004).
    Moser, Petra, How Do Patent Laws Influence Innovation? Evidence from Nineteenth-Century World's Fairs, 95 Am. Econ. Rev. 1214 (2005).
    Moser, Petra, Innovation Without Patents: Evidence from World's Fairs, 55 J.L. & Econ. 43 (2012).
    Newell, Allen, Response: The Models Are Broken, the Models Are Broken, 47 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 1023 (1986).
    Note, Everlasting Software, 125 Harv. L. Rev. 1454 (2012).
    O'Rourke, Maureen A., Toward A Doctrine of Fair Use in Patent Law, 100 Colum. L. Rev. 1177 (2000).
    Paley, Mark Aaron, A Model Software Petite Patent Act, 12 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 301 (1996).
    Phillips, John C., Sui Generis Intellectual Property Protection for Computer Software, 60 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 997 (1992).
    Plotkin, Esq., Robert, Computer Programming and the Automation of Invention: A Case for Software Patent Reform, UCLA J.L. & Tech., Fall 2003.
    Risch, Michael, Everything Is Patentable, 75 Tenn. L. Rev. 591 (2008).
    Samuelson, Pamela et. al., A Manifesto Concerning the Legal Protection of Computer Programs, 94 Colum. L. Rev. 2308 (1994).
    Samuelson, Pamela, Benson Revisited: The Case Against Patent Protection for Algorithms and Other Computer Program-Related Inventions, 39 Emory L.J. 1025 (1990).
    Schwartz, David L., Practice Makes Perfect? An Empirical Study of Claim Construction Reversal Rates in Patent Cases, 107 Mich. L. Rev. 223 (2008).
    Seaman, Christopher B., Permanent Injunctions in Patent Litigation After Ebay: An Empirical Study, 101 Iowa L. Rev. 1949 (2016).
    Sigmond, Bennett M., Free/open Source Software Licensing-Too Big to Ignore, 34-DEC Colo. Law. 89 (2005).
    Sterne, Robert Greene, Michael Q. Lee, Patrick E. Garrett, Michael V. Messinger, & Donald R. Banowit, The 2005 U.S. Patent Landscape For Electronic Companies, 823 PLI/Pat 293 (2005).
    Strandburg, Katherine J., Patent Fair Use 2.0, 1 UC Irvine L. Rev. 265 (2011).
    Teska, Kirk, (the Unfortunate) Future of Software Patents Under 35 USC § 101 and § 112, 16 J. High Tech. L. 394 (2016).
    Thomas, Robert E., Debugging Software Patents: Increasing Innovation and Reducing Uncertainty in The Judicial Reform of Software Patent Law, 25 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 191 (2009).
    Torrance, Andrew W. & Jevin D. West, Are Litigated Patents More Important? (working paper 2016).
    Vermont, Samson, Independent Invention As A Defense to Patent Infringement, 105 Mich. L. Rev. 475 (2006)
    Victorson, Holly K., Structure from Nothing and Claims for Free: Using A Whole-System View of the Patent System to Improve Notice and Predictability for Software Patents, 20 Mich. Telecomm. & Tech. L. Rev. 497 (2014).
    Wagner, R. Polk, Understanding Patent-Quality Mechanisms, 157 U. Pa. L. Rev. 2135 (2009).
    Zittrain, Jonathan, Normative Principles for Evaluating Free and Proprietary Software, 71 U. Chi. L. Rev. 265 (2004).
    判決
    Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014).
    Alpex Computer Corp. v. Nintendo Co., 102 F.3d 1214 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
    Amazon.com, Inc. v. Barnesandnoble.com, Inc., 239 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
    Amdocs (Israel) Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
    Application of Hogan, 559 F.2d 595 (C.C.P.A. 1977).
    Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc. v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
    Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107 (2013).
    Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
    Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010).
    Chiron Corp. v. Genentech, Inc., 266 F. Supp. 2d 1172 (E.D. Cal. 2002).
    Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat. Ass'n, 776 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
    DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
    DECISION of 24 February 2006, Case Number: T 0469/03 – 3.5.01, European Patent Office, Boards of Appeal, 24 February 2006, Reason 6, available at http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/pdf/t030469eu1.pdf (visited on April 5, 2017).
    DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
    Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980).
    Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175 (1981).
    eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006).
    Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
    Fonar Corp. v. General Elec. Co., 107 F.3d 1543 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
    Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63 (1972).
    Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1 (1966).
    Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., 339 U.S. 605 (1950).
    Halo Elecs., Inc. v. Pulse Elecs., Inc., 136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016).
    In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
    In re Baxter Int'l, Inc., 678 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
    In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (2008).
    In re Hayes Microcomputer Prod., 982 F.2d 1527 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
    In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
    In re Seagate Technology, LLC, 497 F. 3d 1360 (2007) (en banc).
    In re TLI Commc'ns LLC Patent Litig., 823 F.3d 607 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
    Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
    Kopykake Enterprises, Inc. v. Lucks Co., 264 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2001).
    KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007).
    Laser Alignment, Inc. v. Woodruff & Sons, Inc., 491 F.2d 866 (7th Cir. 1974).
    Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66 (2012).
    McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America (Fed. Cir. 2016), available at http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/s15-1080.Opinion.9-9-2016.2.pdf.
    Microsoft Corp. v. I4I Ltd. P'ship, 564 U.S. 91 (2011).
    N. Telecom, Inc. v. Datapoint Corp., 908 F.2d 931 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
    OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
    Oracle Am., Inc. v. Google Inc., 750 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
    Overhead Door Corp. v. Chamberlain Grp., Inc., 194 F.3d 1261 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
    Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584 (1978).
    Roche Palo Alto LLC v. Apotex, Inc., 531 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
    Schering Corp. v. Amgen Inc., 222 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
    Sega Enters. Ltd. v. Accolade, Inc., 977 F.2d 1510 (9th Cir.1992).
    Siebring v. Hansen, 346 F.2d 474 (8th Cir. 1965).
    Sony Computer Entm't, Inc. v. Connectix Corp., 203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2000).
    State St. Bank & Trust Co. v. Signature Fin. Grp., Inc, 149 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1998) abrogated by In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
    SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
    Teva Pharm. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 831 (2015).
    Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
    Universal Oil Prod. Co. v. Globe Oil & Ref. Co., 322 U.S. 471 (1944).
    Wang Labs., Inc. v. Am. Online, Inc., 197 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
    Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chem. Co., 520 U.S. 17 (1997).
    Whelan Associates, Inc. v. Jaslow Dental Laboratory, Inc., 797 F.2d 1222 (3d Cir. 1986).
    Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC, 792 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
    網路資源
    “Content License”, available at https://source.android.com/source/licenses.html (visited on June 14, 2017).
    Anthony Ha, “Ditto Defeats Patent Claim After Teaming Up With A ‘Troll’”, https://techcrunch.com/2013/10/12/ditto-wins-defeats-patent-claim-after-teaming-up-with-a-troll/ (visited on June 11, 2017).
    Daniel F. Klodowski and David Seastrunk, “CLAIM AND CASE DISPOSITION”, available at http://www.aiablog.com/claim-and-case-disposition/ (visited on April 10, 2017).
    Free Software Foundation, Inc., “GNU General Public License”, available at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html (visited on March 4, 2017).
    Free Software Foundation, Inc., “What is free software?”, available at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html (visited on March 3rd, 2017).
    Gene Quinn, “How to Patent Software in a Post Alice Era”, November 17, 2016, available at http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/11/17/patent-software-post-alice/id=74750/ (visited on April 6, 2017).
    IBM Corporation, A History of Progress, available at http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/interactive/index.html (visited on April 3, 2017).
    IPWatchdog.com, “Martin Goetz”, http://www.ipwatchdog.com/authors/martin-goetz/ (visited on Feb. 11, 2017).
    Joe Mullin, “In historic vote, New Zealand bans software patents”, 8/29/2013, 3:50 AM, available at https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/08/in-historic-vote-new-zealand-bans-software-patents/ (visited on April 4, 2017).
    Julie Bort, “Larry Ellison Is A Billionaire Today Thanks To The CIA”, Sep. 29, 2014, 9:14 AM, available at http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cia-made-larry-ellison-a-billionaire-2014-9 (visited on Feb. 4th, 2017).
    Kate Endress, “Save Startup, DITTO.com, from Patent Trolls”, https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/save-startup-ditto-com-from-patent-trolls#/ (visited on June 11, 2017).
    Leonard Kravits, “Do Patents Really Matter to Startups? New Data Reveals Shifting Habits”, TECHCRUNCH (June 21, 2012), available at https://techcrunch.com/2012/06/21/do-patents-really-matter-to-startups-new-data-reveals-shifting-habits/ (visited on Feb. 15th, 2017).
    Lisa Eadicicco, Matt Peckham, Matt Vella, Alex Fitzpatrick, John Patrick Pullen, Victor Luckerson, Claire Howorth, Josh Raab, “The 50 Most Influential Gadgets of All Time”, May 03, 2016, available at http://time.com/4309573/most-influential-gadgets/ (visited on April 3, 2017).
    Microsoft, "Choose the 64-bit or 32-bit version of Office", https://support.office.com/en-us/article/Choose-the-64-bit-or-32-bit-version-of-Office-2dee7807-8f95-4d0c-b5fe-6c6f49b8d261#32or64Bit=2013 (visited on Jan. 23, 2017).
    Microsoft, "Select a plan", 2017, available at https://products.office.com/en-US/business/compare-office-365-for-business-plans (visited on Feb. 4th, 2017).
    Microsoft, Choose your Office, 2017, available at https://products.office.com/en-US/compare-microsoft-office-products (visited on Feb. 4th, 2017).
    Netcraft, “February 2017 Web Server Survey”, available at https://news.netcraft.com/archives/2017/02/27/february-2017-web-server-survey.html (visited on March 4, 2017).
    Open Source Initiative, “The Open Source Definition”, available at https://opensource.org/osd (visited on March 4, 2017).
    Reuters (Feb. 14, 2013, 8:52 PM), “Obama Says Patent Reform Needs to Go Farther”, http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/15/us-obama-patent-idUSBRE91E03320130215 (visited on June 11, 2017).
    Robert R. Sachs, “ALICE BRINGS A MIX OF GIFTS FOR 2016 HOLIDAYS”, Dec 23, 2016, http://www.bilskiblog.com/blog/2016/12/alice-brings-a-mix-of-gifts-for-2016-holidays.html (visited on March 8, 2017).
    Robert R. Sachs, “AliceStorm Update February 2017”, March 31, 2017, available at http://www.bilskiblog.com/blog/2017/03/alicestorm-update-february-2017.html?utm_source=Mondaq&utm_medium=syndication&utm_campaign=inter-article-link (visited on March 31, 2017).
    SIPO, “Can computer software be patented in China?”, available at http://english.sipo.gov.cn/FAQ/200904/t20090408_449722.html (visited on June 8, 2017).
    StatCounter, "Browser Market Share Worldwide", available at http://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share (visited on March 4, 2017).
    StatCounter, “Desktop Browser Market Share Worldwide”, available at http://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/worldwide (visited on March 4, 2017).
    StatCounter, “Mobile Operating System Market Share Worldwide”, available at http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide (visited on March 4, 2017)
    The Associated Press (June 4, 2013), “Obama pitches crackdown on patent trolls”, http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/obama-pitches-crackdown-on-patent-trolls-1.1372638 (visited on June 11, 2017).
    Timothy B. Lee, “New Zealand just abolished software patents. Here’s why we should, too.” August 29, 2013, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/08/29/new-zealand-just-abolished-software-patents-heres-why-we-should-too/ (visited on April 5, 2017).
    TOP500.org, “DEVELOPMENT OVER TIME”, available at https://www.top500.org/statistics/overtime/ (visited on March 4, 2017).
    U.S. Government Accountability Office, "Assessing Factors That Affect Patent Infringement Litigation Could Help Improve Patent Quality", Aug 22, 2013, available at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-465 (visited on April 4, 2017).
    USPTO, "Patent Counts by Class by Year Report", https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/cbcby.htm (visited on Dec. 23, 2016).
    USPTO, "Traditional Total Pendency", available at https://www.uspto.gov/corda/dashboards/patents/kpis/kpiOverallPendency.kpixml (visited on Feb. 11th, 2017); Pendency of Requests for Continued Examination (RCEs), USPTO, available at https://www.uspto.gov/corda/dashboards/patents/kpis/kpiRCEPendency.kpixml (visited on Feb. 11th, 2017).
    USPTO, "Traditional Total Pendency, Including RCEs", available at https://www.uspto.gov/corda/dashboards/patents/kpis/kpiWithRCE.kpixml (visited on Feb. 11th, 2017).
    USPTO, "U.S. Patent Statistics Report", https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/us_stat.htm (visited on Dec. 23, 2016).
    USPTO, “U.S. Patent Statistics Chart Calendar Years 1963 - 2015”, available at https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/us_stat.htm (visited on June 12, 2017).
    W3Techs, “Site Info - Evernote.com”, available at https://w3techs.com/sites/info/evernote.com (visited on March 4, 2017).
    W3Techs, “Usage of operating systems for websites”, available at https://w3techs.com/technologies/overview/operating_system/all (visited on March 4, 2017).
    W3Techs, “Usage statistics and market share of Unix for websites”, available at https://w3techs.com/technologies/details/os-unix/all/all (visited on March 4, 2017).
    國家教育研究院(雙語詞彙、學術名詞暨辭書資訊網),「暫存器」,http://terms.naer.edu.tw/detail/1285253/ (於2017年6月30日訪問)。
    其他資源
    《專利審查指南2010》
    《國家智慧財產權局關於修改<專利審查指南>的決定(2017)(第74號)》
    American Intellectual Property Law Association, Report of Economic Survey 2007.
    Chien, Colleen V., Patent Assertion Entities (December 10, 2012). Presentation to the Dec 10, 2012 DOJ/FTC Hearing on PAEs, available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=2187314.
    Emery Simon, Counselor, Policy Council of the Bus. Software Alliance, Remarks at the Brookings Institute Panel on Software and Law: Is Regulation Fostering or Inhibiting Innovation? (Dec. 7, 2005), transcript available at http:// www.brookings.edu/comm/events/20051207software.pdf.
    Fritz Machlup, An Economic Review of the Patent System (U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary Study No.15, 1958).
    Description: 碩士
    國立政治大學
    法律學系
    103651067
    Source URI: http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0103651067
    Data Type: thesis
    Appears in Collections:[法律學系] 學位論文

    Files in This Item:

    File SizeFormat
    106701.pdf1451KbAdobe PDF466View/Open


    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    社群 sharing

    著作權政策宣告
    1.本網站之數位內容為國立政治大學所收錄之機構典藏,無償提供學術研究與公眾教育等公益性使用,惟仍請適度,合理使用本網站之內容,以尊重著作權人之權益。商業上之利用,則請先取得著作權人之授權。
    2.本網站之製作,已盡力防止侵害著作權人之權益,如仍發現本網站之數位內容有侵害著作權人權益情事者,請權利人通知本網站維護人員(nccur@nccu.edu.tw),維護人員將立即採取移除該數位著作等補救措施。
    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback