| Summary: | 思想與表達之區別及合併攸關電腦程式侵權之判斷，惟表達是否包含非文字之結構？電腦程式之非文字成分是否屬於表達？思想與表達之區別原則適用於著作之非文字成分之結構時，判斷之基準為何？電腦程式之結構在何種情況因思想與表達之合併而不受著作權法保護？電腦程式之著作權侵權判之步驟為何？我國司法實務見解不一。本文即以最高法院94年度台上字第1530號刑事判決為基礎，分析美國著作權法對非文字成分之思想與表達區別之基準，再解析美國著作權法權威案例Altai案三步驟測試法之精義，並闡釋思想與表達區分及合併在兩個案例中運用之精微。結論則比較研析我國司法實務爭點之所在，釐清相關疑義，期使讀者對此問題之觀察臻於全面。
The dichotomy and merger between idea and expression is highly related to the judgment of the infringement of computer program. Shall the expression be limited to literal element of work? Can the non-literal element of computer program possibly be categorized as expression? If it is possible, then what is the criterion for drawing such a distinction? Under what kind of circumstances, can the expression be regarded s having been merged with idea? And what is the process to make such a judgment of infringement?
In this regard Taiwan judicial decisions have submitted different opinions. Based upon Supreme Court Criminal Judgment No. 94-Tai-Shang-Tze-1530, 2005, this article analyze the criterion for the distinction between idea and expression, and then analyze the contents of the three-step procedure by which judges in Altai applied the principle of the dichotomy and merger between idea and expression to decide the infringement. Finally, in conclusion, this article makes some comments on relevant mentioned above cases, serving as a reference for readers to have a panoramic observation.
|
|---|
