專利權本屬法律賦予排他專屬性之無體財產權，乃為鼓勵人類創新及保護人類智慧成果；而競爭法則為維持市場競爭秩序，禁止獨占之濫用、禁止限制競爭及排除不公平競爭，並間接保護消費者權利。因此，專利法與競爭法不免時有頏頡之處，彼此之立場及產生的爭議，亦備受矚目。而我國廠商近年來在科技製造產業，雖於全球占有一席之地，然由於本身未擁有專利權，因此專利授權對國內廠商而言益顯其重要。另外，專利授權為專利權人行使權利之最主要方式，專利權人為遂行其專利權動輒興訟，國內廠商面臨專利強權追索權利金時如何因應，甚至公務部門如何研擬相關規範，影響層面廣大。
本文以飛利浦CD-R專利授權行為作為研究對象，先以我國專利法及公平交易法就專利授權之規範並參考外國相關規範及案例，利用相關文獻整合、個案分析及深度訪談等研究方法，就專利權人在透過專利授權方式進行技術移轉時對於被授權人所為之限制，是否有違限制競爭或妨礙競爭之情事，及專利集管制度下專利權人與被授權人兩者間權利保護之衡平，進一步探討。瞭解國內業者所面臨之問題、政府部門可提供之相關措施及學者專家就個案之分析及建議，試圖歸納整理出較為具體可行之方案或建議，供產業未來因應及政府部門執法參考。
經個案研究後，本文結論如下：
一、專利集管（Patent Pool）有節省成本及促進整體經濟效益之正面意義與價值。
二、行政部門介入專利權管制時應考量社會公益及智財權制度之內涵。
三、專利交易平台就專利技術供需雙方有其積極與消極功能，亟待行政部門積極規劃推動。
四、國內業者應致力於技術的研究、積極加入規格制定、交叉授權的運用、訊息交換、侵權談判經驗交流及以集體授權談判等方式以為因應。

最後本文提出以下建議，
一、政府部門方面： (一)對於專利集管應訂定相關規範予以管理。(二)專利法76條之修正。(三)擴充專利交易平台之功能。
二、國內廠商應積極致力於專利風險控管機制，如(一)致力於技術的研發、積極加入規格制訂。(二)訊息交換、侵權談判經驗交流及集體授權談判，以作為未來面對層出不窮之權利金追索時因應之道。

Patent is a kind of non-physical property and it's the exclusive right entitled by legislator, which encourages human being to innovate and protects the fruits of intellectual workings. To maintain the order of fair competition of markets, however, the competition law prohibits abuse of monopoly, lessen or to impede fair competition, and eliminates the unfair trading, which promotes consumer's rights incidentally.

Accordingly, there is a conflict between patent law and competition law. Those conflicts and controversies have drawn a lots of people's attention. In recent years, Taiwan technology manufacture industry has played a key role globally. Nevertheless, Taiwanese enterprises do not own the patent, and the patent licensing is very crucial to those companies. This is so important to the patent licensors, too. For example, the licensors are used to litigating for charging plenty of royalty. Accordingly, what measures domestic companies and the government should take is so important.

This dissertation will focuses on the “Philips CD-R” case. At first, some relevant articles in Patent Act, Fair Trade Act and foreign/international regulations are needed to interpreted seriously. Next, the following approaches are also adopted, such as legal literatures researching, case-study and in-depth interviewing, which could improve the comprehension for whether the limitations set by patent licensors are legally fair to the licensees or not. In addition, this dissertation not only discusses the equity between licensors and licensees' rights under the patent pool institution, but also considers the problems confronted by domestic industry. Moreover, the measures taken by the government possibly and academic advices would be analyzed carefully, too. Eventually, this dissertation manages to propose certain concrete solutions or suggestions to the industry and the government.

Through the approaches mentioned above, the conclusions are the followings:

1.Patent Pool institution could function cost-down and promote the economy efficiently.
2.When administrative regulations applied for patent system by the authority, the social interests and the conception of the right of intellectual property must be considered.
3.The relevant administration should be eager to promote the plateau for patent trading, because this system would be balance licensors and licensees equally.
4.Domestic companies should devoted themselves to the innovation, R&D, participating in the standard-setting held by S.S.O., applying cross-licensing, information exchanging, sharing the experiences of infringement negotiation, and group-delegationed negotiation with licensors to react legally and immediately.

To sum up, this dissertation suggests the followings:

1.The government: a.) should regulate the patent pool by legislation, b.) Patent Act Article 76 must be amended, c.) to expand the function of the plateau for patent trading.
2.Domestic companies should make efforts to the management of patent risk actively, such as R&D, participating in the standard-setting held by S.S.O., information exchanging, the experiences of infringement negotiation sharing, and group-delegationed negotiation with licensors. Accordingly, they could confront the claims for royalty which is almost endless.

一、中文部分
1.江雪玉(2007)，「專利濫用在我國法規範適用之探討-以飛利浦專利授權為例」，世新大學法學院碩士論文
2.吳秀明(2001)，「聯合行為理論與實務之回顧與展望」，公平交易法施行9週年學術研討會論文集，元照出版公司，2001 年8月初版第1刷。
3.吳姵潔(2004)，「論反托拉斯法與專利授權之衡平－以專利集管為例－」，中原大學財經法律學系碩士論文。
4.呂榮海(1992)，「公平交易法解讀」，月旦出版社。
5.李素華，「競爭秩序維護與智財權行使正當性之關係-以美歐技術標準制定案之最新發展為例」，萬國法律雜誌第134期。
6.李孝揚(2003)，「DVD-ROM光碟機專利權利金解決方案之法律分析」，世新大學法學院碩士論文
7.孟慶法、馮高義(1992)，「美國專利及商標保護」，專利文獻出版社，1992 年版。
8.紀舒青(1993)，「公平交易法對專利授權契約中限制競爭條款之規制」，台灣大學法律研究所碩士論文。
9.范建得、陳丁章、江國慶、宋皇志、錢逸霖（2006），「面對專利戰爭的新思維」，新學林出版公司。
10.郭枝群(2003)，『台灣光碟片製造業的產業分析』，國立台灣大學財務金融研究所碩士論文。
11.陳哲宏、謝鏑洋、陳逸南、徐宏昇(1994)，「專利法解讀」，元照出版公司。
12.彭淑敏(2003)，「台灣CD-R 光碟片產業之發展歷程」，國立交通大學產業經營研究所碩士論文
13.黃章典（2008），「授權談判實務」，國立臺灣大學科技整合法律學研究所編印。
14.黃群超(2005)，「中國大陸/台灣光碟廠(一次性可錄式光碟)競爭優勢探討」，國立中央大學管理學院高階主管企業管理碩士論文
15.黃銘傑(2002)，「專利集管（Patent Pool）與公平交易法—評行政院公平交易委員會對飛利浦等3 家事業技術授權行為之2次處分書案」，月旦法學雜誌，第87 期，元照出版社。
16.楊崇森（2007），「專利法理論與應用」，三民書局。
17.溫俊富(1997)，「專利制度與競爭制度調和之研究」，政治大學法律學研究所博士論文。

18.廖義男(1995)，「公平法之理論與立法」。
19.鄭秋道(2002)，「臺灣地區光儲存媒體產業企業平家之個案研究」，國立政治大學企業管理研究所碩士論文
20.謝佑鑫(2007)，「論處理『專利蟑螂』爭議問題之手段–美國禁制令與我國強制授權之比較」，世新大學法學院碩士論文
21.行政院公平交易委員會90 年1 月20 日(90)公處字第021號處分書。
22.行政院公平交易委員會91 年4 月25 日(91)公處字第091069號處分書。
23.行政院公平交易委員會95年4月26日(95)公處字第095045 號處分書。
24.行政院訴願審議委員會90 年11 月16 日台(90)訴字第067266號決定書。
25.行政院訴願審議委員會91 年12 月26 日院台訴字第0910091970號決定書。
26.板橋地方法院91年訴字第864號判決。
27.臺北高等行政法院92 年度訴字第908號、第1132號與第1214號判決。
二、英文部分
5.David A. Balto & Andrew M. Wolman, Intellectual Property and Antitrust: General Principles, 43 IDEA 395, 434-35 (2003).
6.Hovenkamp, Herbert, Federal Antitrust Policy-the law of competition and its practice, WEST Group, 15-17 (1999).
7.Joseph Scott Miller, Standard Setting, Patents and Access Lock-in: RAND Licensing and the Theory of the Firm, 40 Ind. L. Rev.351, 358, 363 (2007).
8.Kamiel J. Koelmean, An Exceptio Standards: Do We Need an IP Exemption for Standards ?, IIC 2006, 823 (2006).
9.Larry M. Goldstein & Brain N. Kearsey, Technology Patent Licensing: An International Reference on 21st Century Patent Licensing, Patent Pools and Patent Platforms, 27 (2004).
10.Matthew N. Kriegel, Would You Work if You Weren’t Paid ? The problem of Incentives for Participants in Standards Development Organizations,84 Wash. U. L. Rev. 211, 230 (2006).
11.Mark A. Lemley, Intellectual Property Rights and Standard-Setting Organizations, 90 AL. L. Rev.1889,1901-02 (2002).
12.Sullivan, E. Thomas, The Confluence of Antitrust and Intellectual Property at the New Century, 1Minn. Intell. Prop. Rev.101 (2000).
13.World Trade Report,Ⅱ.Trade Standards and the WTO (2005).
14.Guidelines for Implementation of the ANSI Patent Policy (March 2003), 4;§§10.2.1,10.2.2 of the VITA Patent Policy.
15.Annual Report 2008 of Taiyo yuden，Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2008
16.Annual Report 2007 of Taiyo yuden，Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2007
17.Annual Report 2006 of Taiyo yuden，Fiscal Year Ended March 31, 2006

三、相關網站
3.Federal Trade Commission：
http://www.ftc.gov/os/2000/04/ftcdojguidelines.pdf
4.United States Department of Justice
http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/busreview/1170.htm
5.Japan Fair Trade Commission：
http://www.jftc.go.jp/e-page/legislation/ama/patentpool.pdf
6.Royal Philips：
http://www.philips.com/global/index.page
7.Sony Taiwan：
http://www.sony.com.tw/
8.United States Patent and Trademark Office：
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/dapp/opla/patpoolcover.html
9.Word Trade Organization：
http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/reser_e/world_trade_report_e.htm
10.太陽誘電股份有限公司
http://www.yuden.co.jp/cs/
11.台灣飛利浦：http://www.philips.com.tw/about/company/taiwanphillipsintroduces/
12.鈞達股份有限公司：
http://www.fmc.com.tw/faq/f-cdrexp.htm#5
13.維基百科：
http://www.comefromchina.com/wiki/?title=CD
http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/