眾律國際專利事務公告
提供與企業跨國法律事務協商、管理與爭議處理。全球專利商標布局、管理與維權。新創公司、投資併購與證券交易。商品及服務國際貿易合約安排。企業及民眾常用合約範本、各種民刑、行政訴訟的介紹。以供參考用之法規介紹,案例簡介、法庭觀察及法律小品文章與範例以供企業與網民參閱。本部落格的文章及其回覆,不代表本所的正式法律意見。如需進行各種商業交易的合法審查、各國商務契約的草擬談判、提起訴訟或應訊應訴、專利布局授權、商標布局授權,請諮詢您所委任的商務律師、訴訟律師、商標律師及專利師、專利代理人。如需本所正式法律意見、法律服務、專利服務、商標服務,請就近聯繫台北所02-27595585,新竹所03-6675569。E-mail:info@zoomlaw.net。本所詳細資訊請自行參閱:http://www.zoomlaw.net/files/11-1138-725.php 執行合夥律師 范國華博士敬啟

目前日期文章:201508 (5)

瀏覽方式: 標題列表 簡短摘要

In Taiwan, development of renewable energy is an irreversible trend to replace, at least partially, the fossil energy.  Article 21 of the Basic Environment Law (2002) (環境基本法, the "Basic Law") ruled " Government bodies at all levels shall actively implement measures to control carbon dioxide emissions and establish related plans to mitigate the greenhouse effect."  The wind power has been broadly recognized as a primary type of renewable energy, because of it  less carbon emissions,  sustainable power generation, lower ecological damage, and respectively higher energy conversion rate (compare to other renewable energy). 

 

In order to ensure the energy development will not cause irreparable harm to the environment, Article 24 of the Basica Law further regulated that "The central government shall establish an environmental impact assessment (EIA) system to prevent and reduce the negative impact of government policies or development activities on the environment."   Section 1(10), Article 5 of the Environmental Impact Assessments Act openly stipulated the EIA shall be conducted for "nuclear and other energy" developments.  Such "other energy" include the wind power.[1]

 

However, a big wind power project proposed by the InfraVest Wind Power Group (a Germany company) located in Yuanli, Miaoli county, which had passed the EIA process, encountered local residences’ continual contests since 2012. What is the thing going on the EIS in this Yuan-li project? Whether the impact, caused by the noises, of the quality of residents’ life surrounding the wind turbines was not be sufficiently considered in the EIS process? This paper wants to introduce the Final Environment Impact Statement (FEIS)-- determined by the State of Hawaii-- for the Kawailoa Wind Farm project located on the north shore, as a reference. Hopefully we may have a lesson and learn for improvement on Taiwan’s environmental Impact Assessment system in the future.

 

This article has four parts. Part I will introduce the Kawailoa Wind Farm project. Part II is the factual and procedural background for this project. Part III is an analysis to the compliance of this project with Hawaii’s EIS regulations, and certain insufficiency of the procedure. Part IV will try to make some recommends to Taiwan’s EIS for wind power project, and conclude balance and hope in the wind power projects in Taiwan. Instead of the plans for off-shore wind power, this article will focus on the traditional inland wind turbines because it is still Taiwan’s sole wind power solution.

 

Part I INTRODUCTION

In 2010, Kawailoa Wind LLC[2] (“Kawailoa Wind”), proposed constructing a wind farm that included thirty sets of wind turbines and related wind energy generating facilities at the Kawailoa Plantation land (a big farm land on the north shore, Oahu, Hawaii), which was owned by Kamehameha Schools[3] (the “Project”). Kawailoa Wind prepared a final environmental impact statement (the “FEIS”) under Hawaii Restated Statutes (“HRS”) chapter 343 and Hawaii Administrative Rules (“HAR”) 11-200. Because this Project was established on highly scene-sensitive and culturally sensitive land in world famous popular visitor/tourist area (North Shore, Oahu)[4], the local residents were concerned about the aesthetical, ideological, and cultural impact.

First, the assessment of visual impact in the FEIS was possibly inadequate through the EIS process.

Second, the disclosure of inadequate or error information, or the misrepresentation while communicating with residents or members of local communities or groups, would be possibly argued as a violation of the purpose of EIS process which is to encourage the public participation as set forth in the HRS § 343-1.

Third, the lack of comprehensive cultural impact assessment (“CIA”) may probably be argued as a conflict to the EIS §343-2, amended by the H.B. 2895 Act 50,[5] which requires an EIS to disclose the effects of a proposed action on cultural practices of the community and the State.



[1] See Sec. 6, Art. 29 of the “Standards for Determining Specific Items and Scope of Environmental Impact Assessments for Development Activities” [開發行為應實施環境影響評估細目及範圍認定標準]: “Where one of the following circumstances applies with respect to the development of nuclear energy or other energy sources, an environmental impact assessment shall be conducted: . . . VI. The installation of wind power generation units and one of the following conditions applies. . .”

[3] Kamehameha Schools owns lots of lands in Hawaii from legacy. See Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamehameha_Schools

[4] See Hawaii Tourism Authority, “North Shore, Oahu,” available at http://www.gohawaii.com/en/oahu/regions-neighborhoods/north-shore/#newCustomSearch:false

[5] H.B. 2895 Act 50, 20th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Haw. 2000)

文章標籤

ZoomlawPatent 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In 2007, Kamehameha Schools developed a North Shore Master Plan to integrate the use of their lands on the North Shore of Oahu, Hawaii. They seek the returns of culture, education, environment, economy, and community of this region (the “Master Plan”).[1] “Wind energy has shown great promise for economic returns from preliminary studies…The wind technology has a relatively small footprint will likely be compatible with most agricultural uses.”[2] Under such consideration of “economic returns,” Kamehameha School adopted the Kawailoa Wind project as a part of the Master Plan and provided the lands, which closed to the Waimea Bay--the most famous beach park in North Shore, to Kawailoa Wind.

Kawailoa Wind proposed to build renewable energy (wind power) facilities,[3] including thirty wind turbines with generating capacity of up to 70 MW per hour and other supporting structures.[4] In addition, related communication equipment was installed at two existing Hawaiian Telecom facilities on Oahu’s highest mountain--Mt. Ka`ala. Because of this installation, the EIS process was mandatorily triggered. As per Hawaii law.

Although Kawailoa Wind claimed that its goal was to increase the use of clean, renewable energy and reduce the State of Hawaii’s dependence on fossil fuels, a twenty-five (25) years power purchase agreement, [5] with stable revenues, was entered into with Hawaii Electric Cooperation (“HECO,”) which constituted a significant incentive to Kawailoa Wind-- for the sake of such substantial economic benefits.

PROCEDRUAL BACKGROUND

The Hawaii EIS process related to the Kawailoa Wind project includes:

  •  the trigger of EIS process;
  • the scoping;
  • the EIS preparation notice (EISPN);
  • the draft EIS (DEIS);
  • the final EIS (FEIS); and
  • the mitigation methodology.

In most cases, a judicial challenge process under HRS § 343-7 would allow the public/environmental/community groups to help the decision makers better consider the new wind farm project more completely, while the Kawailoa Wind did not faced those private challenges. Here is a brief of the mentioned processes.

(1) EIS trigger: because Kawailoa Wind project used a small piece (0.27 Acres) of land o Although the Kawailoa project did not get into the n Mt. Ka’ala owned by the State, the EIS process was triggered under the HRS§ 343-5(a).[6] However, according to the HRS § 201N-8 (b), the permission for a renewable energy facility shall not be made until after final acceptance of an environmental impact statement, and a draft EIS shall be prepared at the earliest practicable time.[7] Accordingly, an EIS process shall be required for the new Pupukea Wind project.  

(2) Scoping: Scope is an important step in the EIS process after it is triggered. Scoping is to determine the scope of the EIS, and to determine the significant issues to be discussed in the EIS.[8] An applicant may segment the proposal into separated pieces thus to evade the possible EIS process and defeat the purpose of EIS review. Therefore, a proposal shall be well scoped to prevent improper segmentation.[9] In Hawaii, there are four scenarios of actions will be treated as a single action in order to avoid “segmentation”.[10] Maimea Valley may monitor such scoping-relevant activities noticed by the Office of Environmental Quality Control (OEQC)[11] in order to step in earlier.

(3) EISPN: On September 23, 2010, First Wind LLC prepared an EIS Preparation Notice (EISPN) and submitted tothe Hawaii State Energy Office of Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism (the “DEBDT”) in accordance with the HRS § 201N-8 (2013) and HRS § 343-5(e), without Environmental Assessment (the “EA,” which is usually the first stage of environmental impact evaluation.)[12] A thirty-day consultation period expired on October 30, 2010.[13]

(4) DEIS: On February 23, 2011, First Wind LLC prepared a Draft of EIS (DEIS) and submitted tothe DEBDT. A forty-five day review period under HRS§343-5(e) expired on August 9, 2011. During the thirty-day consultation period under EISPN and the forty-five day review period under the DEIS, Kawailoa Wind communicated with and gave presentations to local community groups such as the North Shore Chamber of Commerce and the North Shore Neighborhood Board.[14] Kawailoa Wind received twenty seven letters with comments and replied to them.[15]

(5) FEIS. On July 9, 2011, First Wind LLC prepared and submitted the FEIS to DEBDT. Eleven days later, on July 20, 2011, the DBEPT quickly accepted that FEIS.[16] A sixty-day period after the acceptance of the FEIS expired without any challenge or request for judicial review[17] from the public.

(6) Mitigations: Kawailoa Wind presented two major approaches in the FEIS,[18] inter alia, to mitigate certain unresolved issues, including: to amend the original layout of the construction or to remove certain turbines on the Kawailoa plantation thus minimize the impact on military flight and ground training practices in that area,[19]and to establish a Habitat Conservation Plan ("HCP")[20]  for endangered species[21]  as required by the Hawaii Endangered Species Act.[22] A separate FEIS for the above mentioned HCP was made and accepted by the authorized agency.[23]



[1] See. “The Plan”, pp.2-4, the attachment of North Shore Plan website ( http://www.ksbe.edu/nsplan/)

[2] Id. p 4.

[3] The proposed action including: See the “Proposed Action”, FEIS, pp. Summary-5

[4] Including: interconnection facilities; communication towers; an operations and maintenance building and temporary laydown area; meteorological monitoring equipment; and onsite access roads which may use some lands owned by individuals other than Kamehameha Schools.

[5] See. “Application of Hawaiian Electronic Company Inc for Approval of Power Purchase Agreement for as available renewable energy with Kawailoa Wind LLC” Daily Active Report as of 12/12/2011, the Public Utility Commission of State of Hawaii, Docket No. 2011-0224, Decision and Order No. 30012. (http://dms.puc.hawaii.gov/dms/DailyActivityReport.jsp?reportDate=12/12/2011)

Construction Begins on Kawailoa Wind Project in Hawaii”, Feb 27, 2012, Industry News, Enegyonline. See http://www.energyonline.com/Industry/News.aspx?NewsID=7561&Construction_Begins_on_Kawailoa_Wind_Project_in_Hawaii

[6] The land where two communication sites located on Mt. Ka’ala was classified as a conservation district, the EA was also required to be applied by the Applicant. HRS §343-5 (2) “Proposed any use within any land classified as a conservation district by the state land use commission under Chapter 205.”

[7] HRS§343-5 (e )

[8] Roger W. Findley and Daniel A. Farber, “Environmental Law In a Nutshell”, 7th edition, Thomson West, p. 36.

[9] Id. p.37.

[10] HAR §11-200-7.

[11]HRS §343-3 (b).

[12] On June 27, 2012, the Act 172 (2012) was passed by Hawaii Congress (Gov. Msg. No. 1275) to amend HRS §343-5 (e), saying that “if the agency determines, through its judgment and experience, that an environmental impact statement is likely to be required, the agency may choose not to prepare an environmental assessment and instead shall prepare an environmental impact statement that begins with the preparation of an environmental impact statement preparation notice as provided by rules”. Before the Act 172, there was a divergence in practice: OEQC insisted to have a EA first even the EIS is inevitable required; but the applicants or agency was jump to the EIS stage. The Kawailoa Wind Farm project is the case to skip to EIS stage.

[13] HAR § 11-200-15 (b) “Upon publication of a preparation notice in the periodic bulletin, agencies, groups, or individuals shall have a period of thirty days from the initial issue date in which to request to become a consulted party and to make written comments regarding the environmental effects of the proposed action”.

[14] See. FEIS. p. SUMMARY-7.

[15] “List of Comments Received on Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Kawailoa Wind Farm Project”, Table F-1 of the FEIS.

[16] See supra note 12.

[17] HRS §343-7

[18] “Unresolved issues” See. Section 4.5 of the FEIS

[19] July 20, 2011, Letter of Acceptance of Kawailoa Wind Farm Project Final Environment Impact Statement, A. “Background”

[20] On September 27, 2011, as the mitigation of the unresolved issues under the FEIS, a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) was established by the Kawailoa Wind to submit to the State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural resources, Division of Forestry and Wildlife (DOFAW). Such HCP described the voidance and minimization measures to minimize collision risks to those species, including to development and contribute funds for research of the bird migration and other behaviors, and to restore of wetland or forest habitat for bat. The DOFAW grant Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on to compliant with the provisions of HRS§343-5 (c).

[21] The wind farm would affect the habitats for at least six federally protected endangered species and one state-listed endangered species Newell’s shearwater, Hawaiian duck, Hawaiian stilt, Hawaiian coot, Hawaiian moorhen, Hawaiian short-eared owl, and Hawaiian horay bat. See. Section 3.5.2.3 of the FEIS.

[22] Endangered species may be possibly injured or killed if they collided with the wind-turbine generators or other infrastructure facilities. To compliant with Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act ( ESA ), 16 U.S.C §1538, which forbids “taking” any endangered species, Kawailoa Wind prepared a preparing Habitat Conservation Plan and applied for an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) and Incidental Take License (ITL) for the Kawailoa wind farm project. Such ITP and ITL allow “take” of those species, provided that the “take” is incidental to otherwise lawful activities. According to 50 CFR §17.3, “Take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hurt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect species listed as endangered or threatened, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.  

[23]A Notice by the Fish and Wildlife Service on 08/24/2011”. Daily journal of the United State government (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2011/08/24/2011-21614/kawailoa-wind-energy-generation-facility-oahu-hi-draft-habitat-conservation-plan-and-draft)

文章標籤

ZoomlawPatent 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

根據8月23日蘋果日報報導,日本有人設計「翻群機器人」程式,製造出虛擬ID後加入某個Line群組,然後可以在一瞬間解散群組。新北市某少女取得翻群機器人程式後,用來解散了一個網購服飾群組,經營該群組的賣家非常生氣,套出某少女的實話後,向警局報案,警局以妨害電腦使用罪函送法院少年法庭,最重可以處五年以下有期徒刑等。

隨著網路社群的風行,各式社群出現了群組功能,基於不同目的、身分而產生各種群組,社群成員也有機會加入各種群組,群組的管理因此變得日漸重要。而群組的管理方式,例如新增、移除群組成員,或是改變成員的權限,視系統(社群業者)之設定而異。例如臉書的社群,只有具管理者權限的成員,才能夠移除成員;至於Line的群組,在功能上,並沒有管理者與一般成員的區別,也就是說,人人都具有管理者權限。所以Line群組的成員名單,其實任何一個成員都可以編輯,換句話說,Line一開始就授予每個群組成員可以新增或刪除成員的權限。所謂翻群機器人,也不過就是在加入某群組之後,以程式自動化地、快速地把所有成員一個一個刪除,直到刪光所有成,群組自然就解散了。

報導內容只說警方以「妨害電腦使用罪」函送少年法庭,但沒有說明使用的法條。對照刑法妨害電腦罪章的可能適用法條,不外乎刑法第358條、第359條和第360條,以下簡單地逐條檢討:

一、刑法第358條規定:無故輸入他人帳號密碼、破解使用電腦之保護措施或利用電腦系統之漏洞,而入侵他人之電腦或其相關設備者...

在此暫不檢討立法本身的問題(以下兩條也是)。使用翻群機器人,是把程式裝在自己的手機或電腦上,合法送出刪除成員的指令到Line的伺服器,Line的系統也依照上述系統的權限設定,接受並在伺服器執行刪除成員的指令,而其他成員是在自己的手機或電腦上看到執行的結果,其間並沒有「入侵他人電腦或相關設備」的行為,不成立刑法第358條之罪

二、刑法第359條:無故取得、刪除或變更他人電腦或其相關設備之電磁紀錄,致生損害於公眾或他人者...

使用翻群機器人之後,會造成Line伺服器與群組及使用者有關的電磁紀錄被修改(變更)甚至刪除,但請回頭看看條文內容, 一開始就是「無故」兩個字(另外兩條也是),作何解釋呢?在此忍不住向當年參與制訂草案的學者專家小小抱怨一下,立法者在強調明確性的刑法上加上不確定性高的用語,風險是要由司法來承擔的!從美國法(18 USC 1030)或歐洲理事會網路犯罪公約的用語可以看出,「無故」應限於「無授權(without authorization)」或「無權利(without right)」的情形。翻群機器人雖然變更或刪除了電磁紀錄,但這本來就是Line系統設定的權限所容許,所以沒有「無故」,也不成立刑法第359條之罪。

三、刑法第360條:無故以電腦程式或其他電磁方式干擾他人電腦或其相關設備,致生損害於公眾或他人者...

刑法第360條的干擾電腦罪,是以電磁方式破壞對於電腦的可用性(Availability),參照立法理由,本條處罰之對象乃「對電腦及網路設備產生重大影響之故意干擾行為」,例如以DDoS方式攻擊電腦,當然成立,就本案來說,刪除這個群組,造成使用者的不便,對於可用性的確發生影響,但是影響極微,算不上是對於電腦及網路設備的重大影響,而且是權限所允許,也不符「無故」的要件,所以恐怕也不會成立。

那麼警局函送少女,表示警方錯了?不,警方沒有不移送的權利,有人告,就要送,但從警方是「移送」或「函送」,可以看出警方的態度。後者的意思是:有人這麼告,但我們(警方)覺得好像,可能,不確定是有那麼一回事,所以請您(檢察官或法院)參考看看吧!

文章標籤

ZoomlawPatent 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

歐洲專利如何在指定國生效

眾律國際專利商標事務所專利專案副理陳弘易

2015-08-12

EPO及其締約國家/區域

歐洲專利組織(European Patent Organization,EPO)係基於歐洲專利公約(European Patent Convention,EPC)而成立,官方單位為歐洲專利局(European Patent Office)。

截至目前(2015/8/12),EPO共涵蓋了38個締約國家/區域,分別是阿爾巴尼亞、奧地利、比利時、保加利亞、克羅埃西亞、塞普勒斯、捷克、丹麥、愛沙尼亞、芬蘭、法國、德國、希臘、匈牙利、冰島、愛爾蘭、義大利、拉脫維亞、列支敦斯登、立陶宛、盧森堡、馬其頓、馬爾他、摩納哥、荷蘭、挪威、波蘭、葡萄牙、羅馬尼亞、聖馬力諾、塞爾維亞、斯洛伐克、斯洛伐尼亞、西班牙、瑞典、瑞士、土耳其和英國(Albania, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lichtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey and United Kingdom)。各締約國家/區域加入EPO的時間點可參考[1]。

指定國的定義

若前述的國家/區域,在一件歐洲專利的申請日為有效的EPO締約國家/區域,即當然成為該件歐洲專利的指定國(designated contracting state)(EPC Art. 79(1),[2])。然該件歐洲專利必須在特定官方期限(檢索報告公開後6個月)前繳納指定國家費方能在獲證(grant)後生效(EPC Art. 79(2),[2])。一件歐洲在專利獲證前,隨時可以取消任一締約國家/區域的指定國資格(EPC Art. 79(3),[2])。

值得注意的是,前述的締約國家/區域中,最後加入EPC的是塞爾維亞,加入日期為2010年10月1日[1]。

如何進入指定國生效

根據EPC第64條第1項[3]的規定,一件歐洲專利獲證,並於部份或是全部的指定國進行生效(Validation)程序[5]後,即在該部份或是全部的指定國生效。根據EPC第65條第1項規定,各指定國有權規範,一歐洲專利在獲證後3個月內,必須將該歐洲專利的內容,以其規定的語言之一進行翻譯並提交,方能維持在該指定國內的專利權。各指定國亦可規範比上述3個月更長的期限完成上述翻譯。

然而,由於各締約國家/區域的官方語言多有不同,在早期,當一件歐洲專利選擇進入多個指定國時,專利權人必須再負擔一筆為數不小的翻譯費用。為了使得歐洲專利能以更經濟並合理的方式維護其專利權,若干締約國家/區域在2000年10月17日於倫敦簽定了一份倫敦協議(London Agreement),此後亦陸續有其他締約國家/區域加入。

倫敦協議主要的規定如下:當一締約國家/區域的官方語言之一,為EPO的官方語言(英文、德文、法文)時,該締約國家/區域不應再要求一歐洲專利在獲證後進一步翻譯並提交,才能在該締約國家/區域生效;另外,當一締約國家/區域的官方語言並非是EPO的官方語言之一時,若一件歐洲專利是以該締約國家/區域所指定的EPO官方語言提交並獲證、或是曾經被翻譯成該指定的EPO官方語言,則該締約國家/區域亦不應再要求該歐洲專利在獲證後進一步翻譯全文並提交,但可要求以該締約國家/區域的官方語言之一,翻譯其請求項(claims)的部份[4]。

根據上述協議的精神,再配合各個締約國家/區域的相關規定,可以歸納出各締約國家/區域關於獲證後是否需要進一步翻譯的情形如下。

不再需要進一步翻譯的締約國家/區域有:英國、德國、法國、摩納哥、盧森堡、瑞士和列支敦斯登。

若一歐洲專利是以英文進行提交並獲證,則除了上述7個締約國家/區域外,尚有3個締約國家/區域不需要進一步翻譯,即阿爾巴尼亞、愛爾蘭和馬爾他;以下國家則會要求僅翻譯請求項為該國語言:克羅埃西亞、丹麥、芬蘭、匈牙利、冰島、拉脫維亞、立陶宛、馬其頓、荷蘭和瑞典;而下列國家則會進一步要求翻譯說明書全文為該國語言:奧地利(要求語言為德文)、比利時(要求語言為法文、荷蘭文或德文)、保加利亞、塞普勒斯(要求語言為希臘語)、捷克、愛沙尼亞、希臘、義大利、挪威、波蘭、葡萄牙、羅馬尼亞、聖馬力諾(要求語言為義大利文)、塞爾維亞、斯洛伐克、西班牙及土耳其。

[1]http://www.epo.org/about-us/organisation/member-states.html

[2]http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2013/e/ar79.html

[3]http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/html/epc/2013/e/ar64.html

[4]http://www.epo.org/law-practice/legal-texts/london-agreement.html

[5]http://patent-validations.com/

文章標籤

ZoomlawPatent 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

歡迎徐仕瑋律師加入本所為合夥律師,徐律師原任臺灣臺北地方法院檢察署公訴組(重大金融案件專庭)、智慧財產暨電腦犯罪專組檢察官,於今年七月底離開司法界、八月加入本所為合夥人。
 
徐律師之學經歷、法律與網路專長,如下:
 
學歷與證照:
 
司法官特考及格
律師高考及格
國立交通大學科技法律研究所碩士
國立臺灣大學法律系司法組學士
建國中學畢業
 
經歷:
 
臺灣臺北地方法院檢察署公訴組(重大金融案件專庭)、智慧財產暨電腦犯罪專組檢察官
臺灣臺南地方法院檢察署公訴組、黑金暨智財專組、緝毒組檢察官
福建金門地方法院檢察署檢察官
2008我國參加第13屆國際檢察官協會(International Association of Prosecutors, IAP)代表團成員
2009代表法務部參加第39屆亞太經合會電信資訊工作小組會議
2012代表法務部參加第45屆亞太經合會電信資訊工作小組會議安全暨繁榮推動小組(SPSG)第2次網路犯罪專家小組會議
立法院國會助理
國防部示範樂隊管樂首席(主修單簧管)
 
講座與演講:
 
智慧財產培訓學院(TIPA)核定數位內容著作權師資
司法院法官學院商標法講座
法務部網路犯罪講座、智慧財產權講座
法務部司法官學院網路犯罪講座
法務部調查局網路犯罪講座
經濟部專技人員中心智慧財產網路侵權講座
內政部保安警察第二總隊(保智大隊)著作權講座
翰林出版公司著作權講座
國立政治大學、交通大學、私立東吳大學、元智大學、華梵大學等大學個資法、網路法、智財法講座
 
2009.3.5代表法務部在亞太電腦網路危機處理團隊(Asia Pacific Computer Emergency Response Team)2009年會擔任主講人,主題為The Role of Legal System in the Fight Against Malware
2009.9.10在法務部調查局所舉辦Botnet偵查實務國際研討會擔任主講人,主題為「Botnet之偵查與防制」
2013至2015年擔任經濟部專業人員研究中心智慧財產權研習專業課程中級班、高級班暨智慧財產權應用研究班主講人,主講範圍包括網路侵權、著作權侵權偵查實務等
2013.5.9擔任TIPA法務部專班講師,對象為檢察官、檢察事務官,主題為「智慧財產案件偵查」
2014.4.10擔任TIPA司法專班講師,對象為法官、司法事務官,主題為「商標仿冒品查緝實務」
2014.5.7擔任TIPA法務部專班講師,對象為檢察官、檢察事務官,主題為「智慧財產案件偵查」
2015.5.27擔任TIPA司法專班講師,對象為法官、司法事務官,主題為「智慧財產犯罪偵查實務」
2015.6.6 擔任世新大學數位內容著作權專班講師,主題為「數位內容之授權與交易機制」
2015.6.6 擔任世新大學數位內容著作權專班講師,主題為「國際著作權公約及發展趨勢
 
法律專長:
 
網路法、著作權、音樂著作權、數位著作權、營業秘密、商標權、娛樂法、個資法、資訊安全、金融犯罪、證券犯罪、經濟犯罪
刑法、刑事訴訟法
數位網路犯罪、侵權
數位證據蒐集、分析與法庭攻防
網路資訊安全
 
資訊專長:
 
2006台灣電腦網路危機處理暨協調中心(Taiwan Computer Emergency Response Team /Coordination Center)網路安全認證(TWCERT/CC Certified Security Engineer, TCSE)
2006台灣電腦網路危機處理暨協調中心網路管理認證(TWCERT/CC Certified Security Manager, TCSM)
2006台灣電腦網路危機處理暨協調中心數位鑑識認證(TWCERT/CC Certified Computer Forensics, TCCF)
2006無線網路管理認證(Certified Wireless Network Administrator, CWNA)
2007微軟認證產品專家(Microsoft Certified Professional, MCP)─ISA防火牆
2008電腦科技工業協會(The Computing Technology Industry Association)網路安全認證(CompTIA Security+® Certified Professional)
2013 EC-Council Certified Ethical Hacker (CEH)道德駭客認證
2014 EC-Council Computer Hacking Forensic Investigator (CHFI) 資安鑑識調查專家認證
2014 ISO/IEC 27001:2013主導稽核員(ISO/IEC 27001:2013 Lead Auditor)認證
 
著作:
 
論文:
 
線上遊戲盜寶案件偵辦標準程序(日新年刊)
從雲端運算談個資保護(司法新聲)
數位證據與現行搜索、扣押法制間之適用問題-以硬碟等儲存媒介之搜索、扣押為中心(檢察新論)
個資法所保護個人資料之範圍界定—評臺灣臺北地方法院一○三年度北小字第一三六○號小額民事判決(裁判時報)
 
公務人員出國報告:
 
參加亞太經濟合作(APEC)電信暨資訊工作小組第45次會議(TEL45)安全暨繁榮推動小組(SPSG)第2次網路犯罪專家小組會議(Second Meeting of Experts’ Group on Cybercrime)
參加亞太經濟合作(APEC)電信暨資訊工作小組第39次會議報告—安全暨繁榮推動小組(SPSG)研討會部分
參加國際檢察官協會2008年第13屆年會報告(負責參、虛擬世界中的財產保護部分)
 
經辦重要案件:
 
網路賭博案、職棒簽賭詐欺案、地下期貨案、上市公司營業秘密案、銀行法吸金案、名人不雅影片外流案、建商富少傷害

 

文章標籤

ZoomlawPatent 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

您尚未登入,將以訪客身份留言。亦可以上方服務帳號登入留言

請輸入暱稱 ( 最多顯示 6 個中文字元 )

請輸入標題 ( 最多顯示 9 個中文字元 )

請輸入內容 ( 最多 140 個中文字元 )

請輸入左方認證碼:

看不懂,換張圖

請輸入驗證碼