簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

研究生: 王祥瑀
Shiang-Yu Wang
論文名稱: 3D列印法律責任之研究-以消費關係為核心
3D Printing Liabilities: A Consumer Protection Perspective
指導教授: 陳曉慧
Hsiao-Hui Chen
口試委員: 林瑞珠
Jui-chu Lin
陳昭華
Jau-Hwa Chen
鄭逸琳
Yih-Lin Cheng
學位類別: 碩士
Master
系所名稱: 管理學院 - 科技管理研究所
Graduate Institute of Technology Management
論文出版年: 2019
畢業學年度: 108
語文別: 中文
論文頁數: 130
中文關鍵詞: 3D列印消費者保護法商品製造人責任CAD檔案3D列印提供業者3D列印業餘愛好者
外文關鍵詞: 3D printing, Consumer Protection Law, Products’ manufacturers’ liabilities, CAD files, 3D printing providers, 3D printing amateurs
相關次數: 點閱:187下載:5
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報
  • 3D列印機使人人皆可以成為製造者,帶來創新商業模式。本文欲探討在此新型態商業活動中,消費者受到3D列印商品損害時,現行消費者保護法(下稱消保法)是否依然能有效規範3D列印產業與保護消費者。鑑於歐盟與美國已開始對3D列印的商品責任進行探討,本文採取文獻分析法與比較法之研究方法,進行討論。所獲得之研究結論,首先,3D列印所使用之CAD檔案,由於歐盟與美國皆並未將服務納入商品責任中,因此皆面臨CAD檔案是否為商品的問題。但我國將大量製造與客製化的商品與服務皆納入消保法的規範,企業經營者皆須負無過失責任,具有相同法律規範效果,故無區分CAD檔案是商品亦或服務之實益。第二,3D列印業餘愛好者,是否屬於消保法所規範之企業經營者,除我國實務與學說提及之行為是否反覆為之,以之為常業的因素外,建議可再審酌美國法院判斷因素之賣方是否為受害者在商品產銷流程中唯一可以獲得補救的對象;以及美國學者建議3D列印業餘愛好者可提出微賣家肯定性答辯,再由法院審酌之營業規模、組織規模、是否獲利、製造經驗、能否分攤成本與保險、社會對特定商品的需求、賣方的誠信等因素,以確保受害者可以獲得賠償,與保護未意識到自己已經在進行營業行為的賣方。第三,消保法規定從事製造商品的企業經營者須負無過失責任。然而3D列印提供業者雖為最終印製商品之人,但其對商品的設計掌控度與安全性非常有限,不宜要求其負無過失責任。因此建議對製造者之定義作目的性限縮,將經銷企業經營者之推定過失責任類推適用於3D列印提供業者。最後,對於如何解決受害者可能難以追蹤請求損害賠償的對象的問題,本文參考歐盟建議,認為可透過在CAD檔案中加入特定要素或者在3D列印商品中嵌入標記(DNA)解決。並且要求企業經營者在以網路平台銷售CAD檔案與3D列印商品時,須依行政院消費者保護處電子商務消費者保護綱領規範,於線上揭露資訊,保障消費者權益。


    3D printing not only enables everyone to become a manufacturer but also brings out new business models. Therefore, it brings out concern that, when consumers are damaged by 3D printing products in the future, whether Taiwan’s current Consumer Protection Law can still effectively regulate the 3D printing industry and protect consumers. Since the EU and the United States have already started to discuss 3D printing product liability, this paper adopts the research methods of the literature analysis method and the comparative method to discuss. The research conclusions obtained, first of all, the CAD files used for 3D printing, because the EU and the United States did not include services in product liability, they all face the problem of whether the CAD files are products. However, since Taiwan’s Consumer Protection Law includes both mass-produced or customized products and services, both products and services business operators need to bear strict liability. Therefore, there is no need to distinguish whether CAD files are products or services. Secondly, whether 3D printing amateurs are the business operators regulated by Taiwan’s Consumer Protection Law. In addition to considering the factors in Taiwan’s practice and doctrine: whether the behavior is repeated, and taking this behavior as a profession. This paper suggests that Taiwan should also consider the factors that the United States court apply: whether the actor is the only member of the marketing chain available to the injured plaintiff for redress, and scholar’s suggestions: micro-seller affirmative defense. When 3D printing amateurs apply micro-seller affirmative defense, the court will consider factors such as business scale, organization size, profitability, manufacturing experience, ability to share costs and insurance, social demand for specific products, and the seller's good faith. Ensure that victims receive compensation and protect sellers who are not aware of they are in the business. Thirdly, Taiwan’s Consumer Protection Law stipulates business operators engaged in the manufacture of products are liable for strict liability. However, although 3D printing providers manufacture final products, they only have limited control over products’ design and safety, they should not be required to be responsible for strict liability. Therefore, this paper proposes that 3D printing providers should not be deemed as manufacturers and that 3D printing providers should analogy with distributors and only liable for the presumption of negligence. Lastly, in order for victims to track responsible parties, this paper refers to the EU recommendations and believes that it can be solved by adding specific elements to the CAD files or embedding the mark (DNA) in the 3D printing products. In addition, business operators selling CAD files and 3D printing products on the Internet platform must disclose information on the Internet to protect consumer rights in accordance with the administrative ordinances of the e-commerce consumer protection of the Consumer Protection Committee, Executive Yuan.

    摘要 III Abstract IV 致謝 VI 目錄 VII 表目錄 X 圖目錄 XI 1. 緒論 1 1.1 研究背景與動機 1 1.2 研究範圍與方法 1 1.2.1 研究範圍 1 1.2.2 研究方法 2 1.3 論文架構 2 2. 3D列印技術說明與問題之提出 3 2.1 3D列印之意義 3 2.2 3D列印之流程與參與者 4 2.3 3D列印與傳統方式製造商品產銷流程之差異 8 2.3.1 傳統方式製造商品之產銷流程 8 2.3.2 3D列印製造商品產銷流程及差異比較 11 2.4 問題之提出 14 3. 歐盟規範之探討 15 3.1 法規調適方案 15 3.1.1 歐洲經濟社會委員會與歐洲議會之提案 15 3.1.2 瑕疵商品責任指令和行政規定之適用性 19 3.1.3 數位內容與服務契約指令之適用性 20 3.2 問題探討 24 3.2.1 商品之認定 24 3.2.2 承擔責任主體之認定 28 3.2.3 瑕疵之認定與免責 31 3.2.4 商品損害之認定 36 3.3 小結 38 4. 美國規範之探討 42 4.1 商品責任規範 42 4.2 問題探討 45 4.2.1 商品之認定 45 4.2.2 承擔責任主體之認定 51 4.2.3 商品瑕疵之認定與免責 65 4.2.4 商品損害之認定 69 4.3 其他監管方式 70 4.4 小結 72 5. 我國規範之探討 77 5.1 消費關係 77 5.2 商品、服務 79 5.3 承擔責任主體 82 5.4 請求權主體 87 5.5 商品、服務瑕疵 88 5.6 損害 93 5.7 小結 95 6. 結論 99 參考文獻 106

    中文文獻
    一、專書(按作者姓氏筆劃排序)
    Andreas Gebhardt(著),賴維祥(譯)(2017),《3D列印導論》,新北市:全華圖書股份有限公司。
    James Floyd Kelly(著),王豪勳(譯)(2014),《3D列印無限可能:從打造自己的3D印表機到輸出個性化3D物件》,臺灣:博碩文化。
    Karl T. Ulrich, and Steven D. Eppinger(著),張書文(譯)(2016),《產品設計與開發》,6版,臺灣:華泰文化。
    Nikkei Design(著),謝靜玫、謝薾鎂(譯)(2014),《h concept售出2000萬個文創商品的開發過程與經營手法》,臺北市:旗標出版社。
    水野操(著),林詠純(譯)(2014),《3D列印的概念、原理和應用:完整認識即將改變世界的新製造科技》,新北市:遠足文化事業股份有限公司。
    王傳芬(2000),《網路交易法律錦囊:消費者權益保護》,臺北市:元照出版公司。
    王澤鑑(2006),《法律思維與民法實例:請求權基礎理論體系》,臺灣:自刊。
    王澤鑑(2015),《侵權行為法》,增訂新版,臺灣:自刊。
    朱柏松(1999),《消費者保護法論》,增訂版,臺北市:自刊。
    行政院消費者保護委員會(1994),《消費者保護法立法目的與條文說明》,臺北市:自刊。
    足立昌彥、稻田雅彥、大口諒、PALABOLA、和田拓朗(著),李明穎(譯)(2016),《3D列印的提案、建模和行銷》,臺灣:瑞昇文化。
    洪誌宏(2017),《消費者保護法》,3版,臺北市:五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
    黃明陽(2017),《消費者保護法入門》,修訂3版,臺灣:臺灣商務。
    鄭正元、江卓培、林宗翰、林榮信、蘇威年、汪家昌、蔡明忠、賴維祥、鄭逸琳、洪基彬、鄭中緯、宋宜駿、陳怡文、賴信吉、吳貞興、許郁淞、陳宇恩(2017),《3D列印:積層製造技術與應用》,新北市:全華圖書股份有限公司。
    蘇英嘉(2014),《3D列印決戰未來》,臺北市:五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
    二、專書論文(按作者姓氏筆劃排序)
    The Council of the European Communities(著),劉春堂(譯)(1995),〈歐洲共同體產品責任指令〉,收於:行政院消費者保護會(編),《消費者保護研究第1輯》,頁167-174,臺灣:行政院消費者保護會。
    李英正(2004),〈論消保法上商品責任之危險議題〉,收於:行政院消費者保護委員會(編),《消費者保護研究(十)》,頁203-226,臺北:行政院消費者保護委員會。
    邱聰智(2006),〈類型趨勢下的侵權法律適用-以商品事故之侵權責任為中心〉,收於:法學叢刊雜誌社(編),《跨世紀法學新思維:法學叢刊創刊五十週年》,頁261-290,臺灣:元照出版公司。
    黃明陽(2013),〈消保法產品責任之法制研究〉,收於:行政院消費者保護處(編),《消費者保護研究第18輯》,頁1-48,臺灣:行政院。
    楊淑文(2011),〈消費者保護法與民法的分與合-雙軌制立法下的消費者與消費關係〉,收於:政治大學法學院民法中心(編),《民事法與消費者保護》,頁151-199,臺灣:元照出版公司。
    詹森林(2003),〈消保法有關商品責任之規定在實務上之適用與評析〉,氏著,《民事法理與判決研究(三)》,頁165-228,臺灣:元照出版公司。
    三、期刊文獻(按作者姓氏筆劃排序)
    江昱瑩(2019),〈歐盟數位內容契約指令將調和數位供應契約〉,《經貿法訊》251期,頁1-5。
    吳淑莉(2015),〈從美國商品責任法論我國消保法商品責任之客觀歸責事由〉,《中原財經法學》35期,頁1-46。
    吳淑莉(2016),〈餐飲業之消保法商品及服務責任-熱紅茶案判決評析〉,《月旦法學雜誌》252期,頁210-222。
    李珣(2007),〈美國產品責任制度簡介〉,《世界標準化與質量管理》12期,頁48-50。
    李鳳翱(2004),〈美國嚴格商品責任-兼論我國消保法商品責任之若干問題〉,《律師雜誌》293期,頁51-67。
    林益山(1993),〈論美國產品責任理論之演進與發展(下)〉,《軍法專刊》,39卷5期,頁7-13。
    林鼎勝(2014),〈3D列印的發展現況〉,《科學發展》503期,頁32-37。
    夏禾(2019),〈網路交易平臺業者的商標侵權責任研究〉,《智慧財產權月刊》,244卷,頁50-90。
    張嵐(2004),〈產品責任法發展史上的里程碑-評美國法學會《第三次侵權法重述:產品責任》〉,《法學》3期,頁118-123。
    郭姿君(2017),〈飯店跌倒案-消費訴訟之舉證責任〉,《月旦法學教室》176期,頁127-128。
    陳忠五(2009),〈論消費者保護法商品責任的保護法益範圍〉,《台灣法學雜誌》134期,頁77-96。
    陳龍昇(2014),〈網路服務提供者商標間接侵權責任〉,《中原財經法學》33期,頁193-253。
    陳聰富(2001),〈消保法有關服務責任之規定在實務上之適用與評析〉,《臺大法學論叢》,30卷1期,頁73-112。
    曾品傑(2012),〈臺灣商品責任法之發展-以消費者保護法上之商品責任為中心〉,《成大法學》23期,頁1-33。
    馮震宇(1994),〈美國產品責任法之發展-兼論我國消費者保護法中之無過失責任(下)〉,《美歐月刊》,9卷6期,頁114-126。
    黃士洋、白美娟、吳宗熹(2018),〈網路平台販賣拍賣之輸入行為適法性研析〉,《食品藥物研究年報》9期,頁334-340。
    黃立(2003),〈消費者保護法:第一講-我國消費者保護法之商品與服務責任(一)〉,《月旦法學教室》8期,頁68-78。
    黃宏全(2015),〈消費訴訟之舉證責任-最高法院一○○年度台上字第一○四號判決的觀察〉,《月旦裁判時報》35期,頁22-32。
    詹森林(2009),〈純粹經濟損失與消保法之商品責任-最高法院97年台上字第2348號判決之研究〉,《法令月刊》,60卷7期,頁47-64。
    詹森林(2012),〈消費者保護法服務責任之實務問題-最高法院96年度台上字第656號判決、99年度台上字第933號裁定及其原審判決之評析〉,《法令月刊》,63卷1期,頁1-16。
    詹森林(2013),〈消費者保護法之企業經營者-最高法院九十九年度台上字第二○三三號民事判決(屋頂溫泉花園案)之研究〉,《月旦裁判時報》19期,頁5-15。
    四、碩博士論文(按作者姓氏筆劃排序)
    張志朋(2004),《論我國商品責任之請求權主體-消費者與第三人區別之必要性與正當性?》,國立臺灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文,臺北市。
    陳俊杰(2007),《我國消費者保護法懲罰性賠償金實務案例之研究》,國立中正大學法律所碩士論文,嘉義縣。
    蔡立群(2008),《論現代產品責任法抗辯事由-以美國法之瑕疵類型為中心》,中國文化大學法律學研究所碩士論文,臺北市。
    五、司法判決
    最高法院95年台上字第2178號民事判決。
    最高法院96年台上字第323號民事判決。
    最高法院96年台上字第697號民事裁定。
    最高法院97年度臺上字第741號判決民事判決。
    最高法院98年台上字第1014號民事裁定。
    臺灣高等法院92年上易字第980號民事判決。
    臺灣高等法院104年醫上易字第3號民事判決。
    臺灣高等法院臺中分院98年度建上更(一)字第90號民事判決。
    臺灣高等法院臺中分院101年醫上字第5號民事判決。
    臺灣高等法院臺中分院103年醫上字第8號民事判決。
    臺灣高等法院臺南分院92年上易字第226號民事判決。
    臺灣高等法院臺南分院106年上易字第201號民事判決。
    臺灣新北地方法院89年重訴字第65號民事判決。
    臺灣臺北地方法院107年醫字第24號民事判決。
    臺灣臺南地方法院105年度消字第2號民事判決。
    六、行政機關函釋
    行政院消費者保護委員會96年10月3日消保法字第0960009076號。
    行政院消費者保護委員會98年6月29日消保法字第0980005526號函。
    行政院消費者保護委員會台84消保法字第00351號書函。
    七、網路資源(按作者姓氏筆劃排序)
    三帝瑪有限公司,〈FDM材料比較表〉,載於:https://3dmart.com.tw/tw/files/fdm-materials-sheet.pdf(最後瀏覽日:2019/06/07)。
    王竹(2009年04月09日),〈美國法學會《侵權法重述·第三次·產品責任編》(條文翻譯校對搞)〉,《中國民商法律網》,載於:http://old.civillaw.com.cn/article/default.asp?id=43965&_d_id=537927303ee4c6b43009f2e144f35d(最後瀏覽日:2019/03/22)。
    消費者保護處,〈消費者保護法Q&A〉,《行政院消費者保護會》,載於:https://cpc.ey.gov.tw/Page/2CC341DED4FBBB94/9fd21f0b-a206-4a7e-9608-118e649b7f0a(最後瀏覽日:2019/04/08)。
    張庭銉(2019年07月29日),〈設計、生產一次到位!「3D列印」4個突破正徹底瓦解造物規則〉,《數位時代》,載於:https://www.bnext.com.tw/article/54114/additive-manufacturing-aka-3d-printing(最後瀏覽日:2019/08/05)。
    經濟部國際貿易局推動綠色貿易專案辦公室,〈歐盟CE〉,載於:http://cogp.greentrade.org.tw/Certificate/inside/97(最後瀏覽日:2019/4/29)。
    義守大學,〈創意商品設計學系本系簡介〉,載於:http://www.cpd.isu.edu.tw/interface/showpage.php?dept_mno=275&dept_id=0&page_id=25429(最後瀏覽日:2019/07/08)。
    數位書選(2019年07月15日),〈3D列印不是泡沫?6大突破顛覆傳統製造業〉,《數位時代》,載於:https://www.bnext.com.tw/article/53998/3d-print-the-pan-industrial-revolution(最後瀏覽日:2019/08/05)。
    駐美國代表處經濟組(2017年10月31日),〈美國消費者產品安全委員會與消費者產品安全保護〉,載於:https://www.trade.gov.tw/App_Ashx/File.ashx?FilePath=../Files/Doc/83e36519-3297-413c-8f6c-f6d65dc281b2.pdf (最後瀏覽日:2019/08/20)。
    英文文獻
    一、專書(按作者姓名之字母排序)
    Hod Lipson, and Melba Kurman. (2013). Fabricated: The New World of 3D Printing. United States Of America: Wiley Publishing.
    二、期刊文獻(按作者姓名之字母排序)
    Alexander E. Ackel.(2018). Extending Liability to the Micro-Manufacturers of the Future: Applying the Casual Seller Exception in the Context of 3-D Printing. UC Irvine Law Review, 8, 121-139.
    David G. Owen.(2002). Manufacturing Defects. South Carolina Law Review, 53, 851-905.
    David G. Owen.(2008). Design Defects. Missouri Law Review, 73, 291-368.
    David Owen.(1998). Products Liability Law Restated. South Carolina Law Review, 49, 273-292.
    Dov Greenbaum, Amit Gelbart, and Yana Sheinberg.(2017). Digital Delivery of Physical Goods Shipping in the 3d Printing Era-Problems and Solutions. Tulane Maritime Law Journal, 41, 395-436.
    Dumitru Fornea, and Hilde Van Laere.(2015). Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on ‘Living tomorrow. 3D printing — a tool to empower the European economy’. Official Journal of the European Union:Information and Notices, 58, 36-44.
    Eric Lindenfeld.(2016). 3D Printing of Medical Devices: Cad Designers As the Most Realistic Target for Strict, Product Liability Lawsuits. UMKC Law Review, 85, 79-103.
    European Parliament and of The Council.(2000). DIRECTIVE 2000/31/EC OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (Directive on electronic commerce). Official Journal of the European Communities:Legislation, 43, 1-16.
    European Parliament and of The Council.(2019). Directive(Eu)2019/771 of The European Parliament and of The Council of 20 May 2019 on certain aspects concerning contracts for the sale of goods, amending Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 and Directive 2009/22/EC, and repealing Directive 1999/44/EC. Official Journal of the European Union:Legislation, 62, 28-50.
    European Parliament and The Council of The European Union.(2011). Directive 2011/83/EU of The European Parliament and of The Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights, amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directive 1999/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and repealing Council Directive 85/577/EEC and Directive 97/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council. Official Journal of the European Union:Legislation, 54, 64-88.
    European Parliament and The Council of The European Union.(2019). Directive (EU) 2019/770 of The European Parliament and of The Council of 20 May 2019 on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content and digital services. Official Journal of the European Union:Legislation, 62, 1-27.
    Evan M. Malloy.(2016). Three-Dimensional Printing and A Laissez-Faire Attitude Towards the Evolution of the Products Liability Doctrine. Florida Law Review, 68, 1199-1226.
    Frances E. Zollers, Andrew McMullin,Sandra N. Hurd, and Peter Shears.(2005). No More Soft Landings for Software: Liability for Defects in an Industry That Has Come of Age. Santa Clara Computer and High Technology Law Journal, 21, 745-782.
    Gary C. Robb.(1982). A Practical Approach to Use of State of the Art Evidence in Strict Products Liability Cases. Northwestern University Law Review, 77, 1-33.
    Heidi Nielson.(2015). Manufacturing Consumer Protection for 3-D Printed Products. Arizona Law Review, 57, 609-622.
    Hervé Jacquemin.(2017). Digital Content and Sales or Service contracts under EU Law and Belgian/French Law. Journal of Intellectual Property, Information Technology and E-Commerce Law, 8, 27-38.
    James M. Beck, and Matthew D. Jacobson.(2017). 3D Printing: What Could Happen to Products Liability When Users (and Everyone Else in Between) Become Manufacturers. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, 18, 148-205.
    Joseph L. Reutiman.(2012). Defective Information: Should Information Be A "Product" Subject to Products Liability Claims? Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy, 22, 181-203.
    Lars Noah.(1998). Authors, Publishers, and Products Liability: Remedies for Defective Information in Books. Oregon Law Review, 77, 1195-1228.
    Lucas S. Osborn.(2014). Regulating Three-Dimensional Printing: The Converging Worlds of Bits and Atoms. San Diego Law Review, 51, 553-621.
    Michael Hoenig.(1976). Product Designs and Strict Tort Liability: Is There a Better Approach. Southwestern University Law Review, 8, 109-137.
    Nicole D. Berkowitz.(2015). Strict Liability for Individuals? The Impact of 3-D Printing on Products Liability Law. Washington University Law Review, 92, 1019-1053.
    Nora Freeman Engstrom.(2013). 3-D Printing and Product Liability: Identifying the Obstacles. University of Pennsylvania Law Review Online, 162, 35-41.
    Shen Wang.(2016). When Classical Doctrines of Products Liability Encounter 3d Printing: New Challenges in the New Landscape. Houston Business and Tax Law Journal, 16, 104-126.
    The Council of The European Communities.(1985). Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products. Official Journal of the European Communities:Legislation, 28, 29-33.
    William C. Powers Jr.(1984). Distinguishing between Products and Services in Strict Liability. North Carolina Law Review, 62, 415-434.
    Zachary M. DuGan.(2017). 3-D Printing & Products Liability Law: Are Individuals Printing Themselves into Strict Products Liability? Widener Law Journal, 26, 187-228.
    三、官方資源(按作者姓名之字母排序)
    BEUC The European Consumer Organisation. (2017). Review of product liability rules. BEUC The European Consumer Organisation Retrieved from https://www.beuc.eu/publications/beuc-x-2017-039_csc_review_of_product_liability_rules.pdf (last visited 2019/08/25).
    European Commission. (2015). Proposal for a DIRECTIVE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content. European Commission Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52015PC0634&from=EN (last visited 2019/08/25).
    European Commission. (2018). COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Evaluation of Council Directive 85/374/EEC of 25 July 1985 on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products. European Commission Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52018SC0157&from=EN (last visited 2019/08/25).
    European Commission. (2018). REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the Application of the Council Directive on the approximation of the laws, regulations, and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning liability for defective products (85/374/EEC). European Commission Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52018DC0246 (last visited 2019/08/25).
    European Parliament. (2018). Three-dimensional printing: intellectual property rights and civil liability. European Parliament Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-8-2018-0274_EN.html?redirect (last visited 2019/08/25).
    Evelyne Gebhardt, and Axel Voss. (2017). Report on the proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on certain aspects concerning contracts for the supply of digital content. European Parliament Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/A-8-2017-0375_EN.pdf (last visited 2019/08/25).
    ISO/ASTM International. (2018). ISO/ASTM 52900(en)Additive manufacturing-General principles -Terminology. ISO/ASTM International Retrieved from https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso-astm:52900:dis:ed-2:v1:en (last visited 2019/08/25).
    Joëlle Bergeron. (2017). WORKING DOCUMENT on three-dimensional printing, a challenge in the fields of intellectual property rights and civil liability. European Parliament Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=COMPARL&reference=PE-612.302&format=PDF&language=EN&secondRef=01 (last visited 2019/08/25).
    Luke Heemsbergen, Robbie Fordyce,Michael Arnold,Thomas Apperley,Thomas Birtchnell, and Bjorn Nansen. (2016). 3D Printing Rights & Responsibilities: consumer perceptions & realities. Emerging issues for online access, communication & sharing of 3D printer files. Australian Communications Consumer Action Network Retrieved from https://accan.org.au/files/Grants/UMelb_3DP%20Rights%20%20Responsibilities_Aug%202017%20update_web.pdf (last visited 2019/08/25).
    Rafał Mańko. (2018). Contracts for the supply of digital content and digital services. European Parliamentary Research Service Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2018/614707/EPRS_BRI%282018%29614707_EN.pdf (last visited 2019/08/25).
    Van Eecke Patrick, Truyens Maarten,DLA Piper UK LLP, and European Commission. (2014). EU study on the legal analysis of a single market for the information society New rules for a new age? - Study Chapter 6 Liability of online intermediaries. European Commission Retrieved from https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/a856513e-ddd9-45e2-b3f1-6c9a0ea6c722# (last visited 2019/08/25).
    四、司法判決
    Escola v. Coca Cola Bottling Co. of Fresno, 150 P.2d 436 (24 Cal. 2d 453 1944).
    Wirth v. Clark Equip. Co., 457 F.2d 1262 (9th Cir. 1972).
    Pavlides v. Galveston Yacht Basin, Inc., 727 F.2d 330 (5th Cir. 1984).
    Galindo v. Precision Am. Corp., 754 F.2d 1212 (5th Cir. 1985).
    Sukljian v. Charles Ross & Son Co., 101 503 N.E.2d 1358 (69 N.Y.2d 89 1986).
    Musser v. Vilsmeier Auction Co., 522 Pa. 367,373, 562 A.2d 279 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. 1989).
    Winter v. G.P. Putnam's Sons, 938 F.2d 1033 (9th Cir. 1991).
    Munhoven v. Northwind Marine, Inc., 353 F. Supp. 2d 1072 (D. Alaska 2005).
    Berrier v. Simplicity Mfg., Inc., 563 F.3d 38 (3d Cir. 2009).
    Centre hospitalier universitaire de Besançon v Thomas Dutrueux and Caisse primaire d’assurance maladie du Jura, Case C‑495/10 ECLI:EU:C:2011:869 (Court of Justice of The European Union 2011).
    Allstate New Jersey Ins. Co. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. CV172738FLWLHG 2018 WL 3546197 (D.N.J. 2018).
    Erie Ins. Co. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 925 F.3d 135 (4th Cir. 2019).
    Fox v. Amazon.com, Inc., 930 F.3d 415 (6th Cir. 2019).
    Stiner v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2019-Ohio-586 120 N.E.3d 885 (Ohio App. 9 Dist. 2019).
    五、網路資源(按作者姓名之字母排序)
    American Jurisprudence. (2019). § 93.Occasional sellers—Strict liability. Retrieved from https://1-next-westlaw-com.ezproxy.lib.ntust.edu.tw/Document/I76af1ed1b27b11d9815db1c9d88f7df2/View/FullText.html?originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29 (last visited 2019/08/20).
    American Law Institute. (2018). § 402A Special Liability of Seller of Product for Physical Harm to User or Consumer. Retrieved from https://1-next-westlaw-com.ezproxy.lib.ntust.edu.tw/Document/I82ca668ddc1611e2ac56d4437d510c12/View/FullText.html?originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=%28sc.DocLink%29 (last visited 2019/4/21).
    American Law Institute. (2019). Restatement (Third) of Torts: Prod. Liab. § 1 (1998). Retrieved from https://1-next-westlaw-com.ezproxy.lib.ntust.edu.tw/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=0290692047&pubNum=0106659&originatingDoc=I98b646b20cf911e482e1f6dc249fd3d1&refType=TS&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.Search) (last visited 2019/5/14).
    American Law Institute. (2019). Restatement (Third) of Torts: Prod. Liab. § 19 (1998). Retrieved from https://0-1.next.westlaw.com.sierra.lib.ntust.edu.tw/Document/I82c75950dc1611e2ac56d4437d510c12/View/FullText.html?transitionType=UniqueDocItem&contextData=(sc.Search)&userEnteredCitation=RESTATEMENT+(THIRD)+OF+TORTS%3a+PRODS.+LIAB.+s+19 (last visited 2019/4/17).
    American Law Institute. (2019). Restatement (Third) of Torts: Prod. Liab. § 21 (1998). Retrieved from https://1-next-westlaw-com.ezproxy.lib.ntust.edu.tw/Document/I82c75956dc1611e2ac56d4437d510c12/View/FullText.html?originationContext=documenttoc&transitionType=CategoryPageItem&contextData=%28sc.DocLink%29 (last visited 2019/4/23).
    Cyrus Farivar. (2013). Worried about accidentally 3D printing a gun? New software will prevent it. Retrieved from https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/06/worried-about-accidentally-3d-printing-a-gun-new-software-will-prevent-it/ (last visited 2019/4/24).
    Donald M. Zupanec, M.A., and J.D. (Originally published in 1980). When is person "engaged in the business" for purposes of doctrine of strict tort liability. Retrieved from https://1-next-westlaw-com.ezproxy.lib.ntust.edu.tw/Document/I47843b8420c711da83919e4c5b99b7e9/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=Search%2Fv1%2Fresults%2Fnavigation%2Fi0ad740160000016cadca81a09ec76b06%3FNav%3DANALYTICAL%26fragmentIdentifier%3DI47843b8420c711da83919e4c5b99b7e9%26parentRank%3D0%26startIndex%3D1%26contextData%3D%2528sc.Search%2529%26transitionType%3DSearchItem&listSource=Search&listPageSource=bcd89ce1df97389774f9df96c029b02e&list=ALL&rank=1&sessionScopeId=d95490a6cc9c45c59e4b3cfcbc47e08baaee0b137791e4fe9e4b8dd62ee3ce32&originationContext=Smart%20Answer&transitionType=SearchItem&contextData=%28sc.Search%29 (last visited 2019/08/20).
    European Commission. (2019). Digital contract rules. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/doing-business-eu/contract-rules/digital-contracts/digital-contract-rules_en# (last visited 2019/4/27).
    European Parliament. (2018). 3D printing: sorting out the legal issues. Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/headlines/economy/20180615STO05928/3d-printing-sorting-out-the-legal-issues (last visited 2019/4/26).
    European Parliament. (2019). Legislative Train JD -Contracts for Supply of Digital Content and Digital Services to Consumers. Retrieved from http://www.europarl.europa.eu/legislative-train/theme-connected-digital-single-market/file-jd-digital-content-and-digital-services (last visited 2019/08/08).
    Hogan Lovells. (2019). Product liability in the EU. Retrieved from https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=ab1e2137-df8d-42f2-8b5b-3849f32726b1 (last visited 2019/5/30).
    MakerBot. (2018). MAKERBOT TERMS OF USE. Retrieved from https://www.makerbot.com/legal/terms/ (last visited 2019/4/25).
    Michael Molitoris, and Juan Carlos Dastis. (2019). Germany:Product Liability 2019. Retrieved from https://iclg.com/practice-areas/product-liability-laws-and-regulations/germany (last visited 2019/08/09).
    Oxford Product Design. (2019). What is Product Design? and other FAQs. Retrieved from https://www.oxfordproductdesign.com/product-design-faqs/ (last visited 2019/07/08).
    Richard E. Kaye. (2019). American Law of Products Liability 3d §16:56.Bystanders. Retrieved from https://1-next-westlaw-com.ezproxy.lib.ntust.edu.tw/Link/Document/FullText?findType=Y&serNum=0283833779&pubNum=0142409&originatingDoc=I413ca56d2e9211de9988d233d23fe599&refType=TS&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&contextData=(sc.DocLink) (last visited 2019/07/19).
    Shapeways. (2019). Shapeways. Retrieved from https://www.shapeways.com/?utm_campaign=search_branded&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_content=shapeways&utm_term=shapeways&gclid=Cj0KCQjw4-XlBRDuARIsAK96p3BPJ3pjYRq3BEt5fA8rrK3j7COEHStB3wxUnossXHvGeiUxBBtHw0UaAh1IEALw_wcB (last visited 2019/4/19).

    QR CODE