代工模式下智慧財產權的歸屬

The study of IPR under the Practice of Original Equipment Manufacturing

曾俊堂(Chun-Tang Tseng)

指導教授 ： 李崇僖

中原大學/商學院/財經法律研究所/碩士(2012年)

https://doi.org/10.6840/cycu201200695

摘要

「代工」，通常是我國廠商發展的第一步，從單純的OEM到ODM，由於是代工，即使訂單量再大能獲取的利潤也不高，但代工並不是代表著我們並沒有技術或是智慧財產的存在，相反的，許多的技術都是在代工的過程中開發出來了，為了追求更優良的品質、更大的產能、更美觀的外型…試想一個好的產品設計，如果沒有相應的工藝技術是沒有辦法充份表現出產品的設計，即使圖畫得再好，無法立體化就是沒有辦法商品化，試想Iphone的手機如果組裝的密合度不好，表面粗糙，即使它的外型再怎麼出眾，還是不能夠讓消費者買單。
本文以實際開發的案例，來說明開發過程的種種問題，並把一些實際開發過程中的各個項目一一以智慧財產法的觀點試說明之，代工模式下智慧財產權的歸屬，很大部份是來自於法律工作者或學習者並不了解開發的實際狀況。在智慧財產權法上，我們已有相當完備的規制，但在對事實的認定上，我們卻無法從開發的事實面上去認定，反而轉向契約上條款的認定，導致法院審理上無法給予有技術的當事人一個合理的保障，更進而助長了貿易商利用訂單控制下游廠商。
本文著重在開發上的各項目的說明，並且提出見解，期待在未來審判實務中能協助法院在針對當事人技術爭議時，利用開發過程的記錄與當事人間的證據，更釐清技術所有者為誰，能有充份的立場來解釋當事人間的契約，以求衡平當事人間的利益。

關鍵字

開發 ； 代工 ； OEM ； ODM ； 設計專利 ； KNOW-HOW ； 設計圖 ； 模具

並列摘要

Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) is usually the first step in the development of manufacturers. From OEM to ODM, the benefits for manufacturers are not as high as expected even with a big order. OEM does not mean that we do not own the properties of techniques and intelligence. To the opposite, many techniques are developed in the OEM process in pursuit of better quality, greater capacity and more attractive appearance. Take a good product design for example. If there is no appropriate technology, there is no way to fully demonstrate the product design. Even if the product can be well pictured, it will not be commercialized without three- dimensional illustration. Take iPhone for another example. If it cannot be perfectly assembled with the rough surface, customers are not willing to purchase.

In this article, some cases are studies to illustrate various problems in the development and production process. Each step in the developmental process is examined and explained through Intellectural Property Law. In OEM, ownership issues of the copy rights of intellectual property mostly come from unknown or misunderstanding of practical situations by law professionals or scholars. Though we have comprehensive regulations of intellectual property law, the judges have to refer to the terms on contracts instead of making a judgment on facts. As a result, parties with techniques cannot be protected, while in turn, traders use orders to control the upstream and downstream firms.

The article focuses on making explanation of each step in developmental process in order to assist court to make right judgment in dealing with technique dispute. With the record of developmental process and evidence of each party, there will be a clear judgment of ownership of technique, sufficient position to explain the contract between the parties and a balanced benefit between parties.

並列關鍵字

ODM ； Mold ； Design copy right ； OEM ； Development ； TOOL ； KNOW-HOW ； Design

參考文獻

1.UlenCooter & ThomasRobert. 法律經濟學. 譯者 溫麗琪. 華泰文化事業股份有限公司, 2003.

7.經濟部智慧財產局. 認識著作權第二冊. 1999.

4.瞿宛文. “台灣後起者能藉自有品牌升級嗎？.” 台灣社會研究季刊 2006: 12.

7.楊益昇，技術轉移合資協議法律研析，科技法律透析，2003年2月。

7.林品瑄，商品設計外觀之智慧財產權保護—設計專利與著作權法、商標法、公平交易法之交錯適用，國立台灣大學法律學院法律學系碩士論文（2007）。