Kējì Fǎxué Pínglùn (Jun 2012)
論我國現行科技法制對公立大學技術移轉之影響初探 Impacts of ‘Science and Technology Basic Act’ on National Universities in Taiwan
Abstract
為因應全球化知識經濟時代興起之挑戰，我國政府近年來對於科技發展相當重視。儘管憲法與科技相關之條款紛多，但此等科技憲法條款仍有模糊與不足之處。我國參考美國拜杜法案（Bayh-Dole Act）之立法意旨，於1999年制定科學技術基本法，後於2003 年及2005 年進行部分條文之修正。2011年再次做出重大修正，主要的內容包括政府應致力推動全國研究發展經費逐年成長；對於研究成果優異之公立單位，政府得給予必要的支援；此外，對於歸屬公立學校、公立機關（構）或公營事業之智慧財產權及成果，其保管、使用、收益及處分不受國有財產法之限制，明文與國有財產法脫鉤。本次修法亦核准中央研究院得報請其主管機關設置科學研究基金；政府負有改善科學技術人員之工作條件及研究環境之義務；放寬公立研究機關及大學教師之兼職規定，不受教育人員任用條例及公務員服務法之限制。雖然科技基本法修法確定排除國有財產法的相關限制，但政府必須儘速擬定相關政策，以防範因專利流氓之猖獗而造成大學研究價值及整體經濟發展之負面效應。此外，政府介入權之行使涉及甚廣，其後果影響甚鉅，實有參考美國拜杜法 案施行細則第401.6 條而訂定規範之必要。修法之後對於科技研發所必然發生的採購行為，在政府組織改造之際，相關配套之監督管理辦法尚未出爐之前，治標的方法可從現行法中針對執行細項問題加以檢討調整，而治本的作法則應針對科技研發之特殊性，訂定採購專法。對於高科技人才之延攬，政府應持續推動「公務人員基準法」之修法及利益衝突之規範，朝向建立國立大學技術移轉良善法制環境之目標邁進。 Along with the rise of global knowledge-based economy, the government of Taiwan has laid much emphasis on the development of science and technology. Although there are relevant Articles addressing this issue in Constitution, it seems that the regulatory framework is still abstract. To follow the footstep of ‘Bayh-Dole Act’ in the United States, Taiwan promulgate ‘Science and Technology Basic Act’ in 1999. Subsequent amendments were done in 2003 and 2005 respectively. In 2011, the law has gone through another major modification, which obliges the government to raise annual budget for science and technology development, to provide substantial supports in human resources as well as infrastructure improvement, and to waive the research results from national property regulation. In addition, the establishment of an ad hoc research fund for Academia Sinica was consented. All these relaxations in law help create room for more research and development freedom. Nonetheless, detailed bylaws making does not catch up accordingly. As a re-sult, either public servants in national research organizations or national university teachers are still subject to the old restraints. Moreover, relaxations in law also attract the attentions of patent trolls as an easy access for them to try to take advantage of the research results for generating profits. This paper proposes both shortterm and long-term solutions to better the current regulatory framework. Detailed implementation rules with legally binding forces are needed to further define ‘march-in rights’ in terms of scope and procedures. Long-term solution is also suggested to make a new law to regulate research activities between academia and the industrial sector.
