第二章 客戶資訊在美國法上之保護
第四節 反不正競爭法
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
藉「經濟間諜法」指控我國廠商竊取營業秘密，並在民事訴訟程序中要求高額賠 償金，即可略知一二。而在員工夥同外國政府機構或其他競爭廠商盜用企業之客 戶資訊，而企業本身在蒐證上遭遇困難時，不妨依循同樣的模式，先由司法機關 踐行刑事追訴程序，藉由國家機關之力量進行蒐證並對行為人施以刑事制裁後，
企業再行利用刑事程序中所提證據，以求後續之民事程序能獲得較有利之判決，
避免可能之舉證上的不便。
第四節 反不正競爭法
針對營業秘密之盜用，有些法院則依照 1993 年美國法學會出版的反不正競爭 法(Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition)所提供之標準，判斷該盜用行為是否 涉及不正競爭，而受到該法之管制。
壹、本法就營業秘密之定義
反不正競爭法將營業秘密定義為:任何具有價值且機密之資訊，得為擁有者帶 來實際或潛在之經濟上優勢，且擁有者得將該資訊運用在商業營運之中90。如本 文於「第二節 統一營業秘密法」中所述之法院見解，客戶資訊除得被運用於商業 營運中，例如:了解客戶喜好以提供相對應商品或服務、進行潛在客戶開發等外，
若該等資訊本身亦具備「秘密性」及「經濟性」之條件，則亦屬於反不正競爭法 所稱之營業秘密。由此可知，相較於統一營業秘密法，本法就「營業秘密」之定 義顯然較為廣泛，並未要求「合理保密措施」之要件，在訴訟上似乎對原告較為 有利；然而，目前許多法院仍較偏好前述統一營業秘密法對營業秘密之定義，而 未必接受本法之定義91，故企業就自身擁有之客戶資訊主張權益時，應特別注意
金3,000 萬美元等。詳參 United States of America v. Pin Yen Yang, Criminal No. 1:97MG0109 (N.D.
Ohio, Sep. 4, 1997).
90Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition§ 39 provides: A trade secret is any information that can be used in the operation of a business or other enterprise and that is sufficiently valuable and secret to afford an actual or potential economic advantage over others.
91ROGERMILGRIM,MILGRIMONTRADESECRETS, § 1.01(3)(A).
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
此差別。以下就客戶資訊符合本法營業秘密的要件下，所受之保護加以介紹。
貳、營業秘密之盜用
依本法第 40 條規定，行為人就下述行為應負起盜用營業秘密之法律責任92: 一、行為人以不正當方式獲取資訊，且行為人知悉或可得而知該資訊乃他人之營 業秘密。
依同法第 43 條，所謂「不正當方式」，係指藉由竊盜、詐欺、攔截通訊、誘 使或參與保密義務之違反，以及其他錯誤之手段獲取營業秘密。因此，若係藉自 行獨立開發客戶所獲資訊，或分析公開之客戶資訊者，則非屬不正方法獲取營業 秘密。反之，若明知或可得而知該客戶資訊乃他企業之營業秘密，卻仍誘使他企 業之員工違反報密義務，進而獲取該等客戶資訊者，則應負違反本法盜用營業秘 密之責。
二、行為人在未得他人同意下，使用或洩漏他人之營業秘密，且為該行為時有以 下之情形:
(一) 行為人知悉或可得而知該資訊乃營業秘密，且行為人獲得該資訊時，即 負有保密義務。
典型案例為員工明知或可得而知該等客戶資訊乃所屬企業之營業秘
92Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition§ 40provides:One is subject to liability for the appropriation of another’s trade secret if:
(a) the actor acquires by means that are improper under the rule stated in § 43 information that the actor knows or has reason to know is the other’s trade secret; or
(b) the actor uses or discloses the other’s trade secret without the other’s consent and, at the time of the use or disclosure,
(1) the actor knows or has reason to know that the information is a trade secret that the actor acquired under circumstances creating a duty of confidence owed by the actor to the other under the rule stated in
§ 41; or
(2) the actor knows or has reason to know that the information is a trade secret that the actor acquired by means that are improper under the rule stated in § 43; or
(3) the actor knows or has reason to know that the information is a trade secret that the actor acquired from or through a person who acquired it by means that are improper under the rule stated in § 43 or whose disclosure of the trade secret constituted a breach of a duty of confidence owed to the other under the rule stated in § 41; or
(4) the actor knows or has reason to know that the information is a trade secret that the actor acquired through an accident or mistake, unless the acquisition was the result of the other’s failure to take reasonable precautions to maintain the secrecy of the information.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
密，且員工獲取該客戶資訊時即負有保密義務，卻在未經雇主的同意下，
逕自將客戶資訊挪用於他用途或洩漏之。
(二) 行為人知悉或可得而知該資訊乃營業秘密，且行為人係以不正當方式獲 得該資訊。
典型案例為行為人明知或可得而知該客戶資訊乃他企業之營業秘密，
卻仍誘使他企業之員工違反報密義務，使行為人獲取該等客戶資訊，並 進而使用或洩漏之。
(三) 行為人知悉或可得而知該資訊乃營業秘密，而該資訊係從第三人處獲得，
且該第三人係以不正當方式獲得該資訊或第三人係違反保密義務而洩漏 之。
典型案例為行為人明知或可得而知該客戶資訊乃他企業之營業秘密，
卻仍從違反報密義務之第三人或以不正當方式獲得該資訊之第三人處獲 取該等客戶資訊，並進而使用或洩漏之。
(四) 行為人知悉或可得而知該資訊乃營業秘密，且行為人係因意外或第三人 之疏失獲得該資訊，不含因資訊擁有人未採取合理保密措施而洩漏之情 形。
典型案例為行為人係因意外或第三人之疏失獲得該客戶資訊，且行 為人知悉或可得而知該等資訊乃營業秘密，卻仍使用或洩漏之。
至於保密義務之範圍，本法第 41 條有所規定93:「營業秘密資訊之接收者，在 下列情況下，對營業秘密擁有者負有保密義務:
93Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition§ 41 provides:A person to whom a trade secret has been disclosed owes a duty of confidence to the owner of the trade secret for purposes of the rule stated in § 40 if:
(a) the person made an express promise of confidentiality prior to the disclosure of the trade secret; or(b) the trade secret was disclosed to the person under circumstances in which the relationship between the parties to the disclosure or the other facts surrounding the disclosure justify the conclusions that, at the time of the disclosure,
(1) the person knew or had reason to know that the disclosure was intended to be in confidence, and (2) the other party to the disclosure was reasonable in inferring that the person consented to an obligation of confidentiality.
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
一、接收者在接受營業秘密資訊前，明示其願意保密
二、依接收該資訊時，營業秘密擁有者與接收者雙方之關係或其他事實狀況，可 得出以下結論:
(一) 接收者知悉或可得而知該資訊應予保密
(二) 營業秘密擁有者可合理推測接收者願意負保密義務。」
由此可知，反不正競爭法承認以契約方式保護客戶資訊，即便該資訊已超出 前述統一營業秘密法就營業秘密之定義範圍。在此類案件中，只要其係以合理的 契約規定，要求員工就其所知悉之客戶資訊負保密義務，則一旦員工擅自洩漏，
即應負本法所稱之「盜用營業秘密」責任，如此即可達到「保護機密而有價值之 客戶資訊」的目標。
參、違反本法之法律責任
此外，同法第 45 條就侵害營業秘密之損害賠償有特殊規定: (第一項)盜用營 業秘密者，就其因盜用行為所獲經濟上利益，或因盜用行為對營業秘密所有人造 成之經濟上損害，二者取其高者，對營業秘密所有人負賠償之責。但依第二項之 判斷基準，足認該賠償金額顯然不當者，不再此限。(第二項)判斷賠償金額是否 妥適，應衡量該案件所有因素，包含但不限於以下數種主要因素:
一、 就其自身因盜用行為所失利益或所受損害，原告能證明之程度 二、 盜用行為之態樣及性質
三、 其他方式得否使原告獲得充分救濟 四、 行為人主觀之認知，是否屬善意
五、 原告就其自身權利之行使或起訴，有無任何不合理之遲延 六、 原告是否有任何錯誤之行為舉止94。
94Restatement (Third) of Unfair Competition§ 45provides:(1) One who is liable to another for an appropriation of the other’s trade secret under the rule stated in § 40 is liable for the pecuniary loss to the other caused by the appropriation or for the actor’s own pecuniary gain resulting from the appropriation, whichever is greater, unless such relief is inappropriate under the rule stated in Subsection (2).
(2) Whether an award of monetary relief is appropriate and the appropriate method of measuring such relief depend upon a comparative appraisal of all the factors of the case, including the following primary factors:
‧
(a) the degree of certainty with which the plaintiff has established the fact and extent of the pecuniary loss or the actor’s pecuniary gain resulting from the appropriation;
(b) the nature and extent of the appropriation;
(c) the relative adequacy to the plaintiff of other remedies;
(d) the intent and knowledge of the actor and the nature and extent of any good faith reliance by the actor;
(e) any unreasonable delay by the plaintiff in bringing suit or otherwise asserting its rights; and (f) any related misconduct on the part of the plaintiff.