電腦程式之著作權議題研究－以美國法為核心

Abstract

本文首先說明電腦程式之技術發展背景，並回顧專利法、著作權法及營業秘密相關法制之演進。其次，針對電腦程式著作權之保護範圍加以界定，依據思想與表達二分原則，分析美國重要判決之發展脈絡，建立功能性要素之排除標準，並進一步檢視我國法上關於功能性原則之規範與實務見解，透過兩國法制之比較，以釐清電腦程式著作受著作權保護之界限。接續探討侵權比對之議題，著重於侵權判斷標準與實質近似性分析，從傳統著作侵權比對方法出發，進而深入探討電腦程式著作在輸出表現與程式碼層面之侵權比對測試。接下來，則進入著作權侵權成立後之抗辯制度之探討，特別聚焦於合理使用原則，採比較法觀點分析美國著作權法第107條所列四項判斷因素及相關重要案例，並探討電腦程式著作於逆向工程與相容性開發情境下所生之合理使用爭議，此外，亦將檢討著作權濫用理論之發展，並分析我國法制下得透過何種機制加以因應。最後，試提出全文總結與建議。

This article first elucidates the technological background of the development of computer programs and reviews the evolution of the legal frameworks of patents, copyright, and trade secrets. It then discusses the scope of copyright protection for computer programs. Based on the idea/expression dichotomy, the article analyzes the development of leading U.S. judicial cases and further examines the statutory provisions and judicial practice concerning the functionality principle under Taiwanese law. Through a comparative analysis of the legal regimes of the two jurisdictions, the article seeks to clarify the boundaries of copyright protection for computer programs. The discussion subsequently turns to issues of infringement comparison, with particular emphasis on the standards for determining infringement and the analysis of substantial similarity. Beginning with traditional methods of copyright infringement comparison, the article further explores infringement tests applicable to computer programs at both the level of program output and source or object code. The article then proceeds to examine the defenses with a particular focus on the doctrine of fair use. Adopting a comparative law perspective, it analyzes the four statutory factors set forth in Section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law and relevant landmark cases. It also explores fair use controversies arising from reverse engineering and interoperability-driven development of computer programs. In addition, the article reviews the development of the copyright misuse doctrine and analyzes the mechanisms through which such issues may be addressed under Taiwanese law. Finally, the article offers concluding observations and recommendations.