本文選題：保密協(xié)議 + 競業(yè)禁止協(xié)議��； 參考：《華東政法大學(xué)》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：隨著企業(yè)競爭的愈演愈烈，員工在獲取雇主的商業(yè)秘密后創(chuàng)辦公司，或?yàn)榱双@取更高的職位或薪水，利用基于現(xiàn)有職位所獲得的公司商業(yè)秘密，去競爭對手公司謀職的現(xiàn)象也并不罕見。這在商業(yè)秘密法律體系中被認(rèn)為是商業(yè)秘密的潛在侵占（Threatened Misappropriation）。目前我國還沒有引入潛在侵占的概念，對這種潛在侵占的救濟(jì)法律制度也并不完善，對商業(yè)秘密的保護(hù)與促進(jìn)勞動(dòng)者流動(dòng)的公共利益之間出現(xiàn)失衡的現(xiàn)狀。越來越多的企業(yè)與勞動(dòng)者簽訂了保密協(xié)議或者競業(yè)禁止協(xié)議，但仍不能有效預(yù)防商業(yè)秘密侵權(quán)及損害結(jié)果的發(fā)生。 在美國，保密協(xié)議已經(jīng)在客觀上演變成為絕大多數(shù)雇傭合同或者員工手冊的當(dāng)然組成部分；普通法也已經(jīng)在雇主和雇員之間設(shè)定了保密義務(wù)，但競爭壓力也很可能使雇員被迫泄露，在經(jīng)濟(jì)利益、競爭壓力和違約責(zé)任之間，雇員的選擇難以確定，不可避免泄露情形經(jīng)常出現(xiàn)，商業(yè)秘密的潛在侵占不能被有效地控制。美國的法律制度非常重視員工的流動(dòng)率以及因此而產(chǎn)生的社會(huì)效應(yīng)，因此，雖然競業(yè)禁止合同是預(yù)防潛在侵占的有效方式，但很多州及州法院都并不支持競業(yè)禁止合同的存在。 不可避免泄露規(guī)則是美國紐約州法院于1919年在審理Eastman Kodak Co.訴Power Film Products, Inc.一案時(shí)所確立的，目的是為了保護(hù)雇主的商業(yè)秘密，防止商業(yè)秘密的潛在侵占。由于判例和其他法律均沒有給出相關(guān)的解釋，，在美國，“潛在侵占”這個(gè)法律術(shù)語的含義也十分模糊。與實(shí)質(zhì)性侵權(quán)不同的是，潛在侵占只是存在侵權(quán)的高度可能性，而并沒有產(chǎn)生實(shí)際的損害結(jié)果，因此，商業(yè)秘密權(quán)利人不能向法院主張損害賠償金，而只能通過申請禁令的方式來防止侵權(quán)行為的發(fā)生。我國的市場環(huán)境、商業(yè)模式以及與商業(yè)秘密保護(hù)的相關(guān)法律制度和美國都存在著較大的差異。因此，在適用該規(guī)則時(shí)，則必須在分析我國市場主體之間的利益關(guān)系以及相關(guān)的社會(huì)政策基礎(chǔ)上，選擇性地適用該規(guī)則，從而促進(jìn)市場經(jīng)濟(jì)的健康發(fā)展。 本篇論文主要包括六個(gè)部分，第一部分，闡述筆者想要解決的問題；第二三部分，對“潛在侵占”以及“不可避免泄露規(guī)則”進(jìn)行分析，確定其在商業(yè)秘密保護(hù)以及相關(guān)的利益平衡機(jī)制中的功能定位；第四部分將競業(yè)禁止，一種事前的禁止和不可避免泄露規(guī)則，一種事后的禁止這兩種制度進(jìn)行比較，得出這兩項(xiàng)制度在商業(yè)秘密保護(hù)中應(yīng)當(dāng)相輔相成的結(jié)論；第五六部分，在對我國的商業(yè)秘密保護(hù)現(xiàn)狀進(jìn)行分析的基礎(chǔ)上，提出相應(yīng)的建議。最后為結(jié)語。旨在通過對美國相關(guān)制度的研究，為完善我國商業(yè)秘密的保護(hù)及相關(guān)利益平衡機(jī)制提供相應(yīng)建議。
[Abstract]:As competition intensifies, employees start a company after acquiring their employer's trade secrets, or, in order to get a higher position or salary, take advantage of a company's trade secret based on an existing position. It is not uncommon to find a job at a rival company. This is considered a potential encroachment on trade secrets in the trade secrets legal system. At present, China has not introduced the concept of potential usurpation, the relief legal system of this potential encroachment is not perfect, and there is imbalance between the protection of trade secrets and the promotion of the public interests of workers' flow. More and more enterprises have entered into confidentiality agreements or non-compete agreements with workers, but still cannot effectively prevent the infringement of trade secrets and the occurrence of damage. Confidentiality agreements have objectively evolved into an integral part of the vast majority of employment contracts or employee manuals; the common law has also imposed confidentiality obligations between employers and employees, but competition pressures are likely to force employees to leak them. Between economic interests, competitive pressure and liability for breach of contract, the choice of employees is difficult to determine, the inevitable leakage often occurs, and the potential encroachment of trade secrets cannot be effectively controlled. The legal system in the United States attaches great importance to employee turnover and the resulting social effects. Therefore, although non-competitive contracts are an effective way to prevent potential encroachment, But many state and state courts do not support the existence of non-compete contracts. The inevitable breach of the rule is that the New York State court in 1919 tried Eastman Kodak Coak. V. Power Film products, Inc. The purpose of the case was to protect the employer's trade secrets from potential encroachment. In the United States, the legal term "potential encroachment" is also vague, as there is no relevant interpretation in jurisprudence or other laws. Different from the substantive infringement, the potential encroachment is only a high possibility of infringement and does not produce the actual damage result. Therefore, the owner of the trade secret right can not claim damages to the court. But only by applying for injunction to prevent the occurrence of infringement. There are great differences between China's market environment, business model and related legal system of trade secret protection and the United States. Therefore, in applying this rule, the rules must be applied selectively on the basis of the analysis of the interests between the market players in our country and the relevant social policies. So as to promote the healthy development of the market economy. This paper mainly includes six parts, the first part, the author wants to solve the problem, the second part, the third part, the "potential encroachment" and "inevitable leakage rules" analysis, Determine its function in the protection of trade secrets and the relevant interest balance mechanism. The fourth part compares the two systems: the prohibition of non-competition, the prior prohibition and the inevitable disclosure, and the prohibition after the event. The conclusion is that the two systems should complement each other in the protection of trade secrets. Part five, on the basis of analyzing the present situation of the protection of trade secrets in our country, puts forward some corresponding suggestions. The last is the conclusion. The purpose of this paper is to provide some suggestions for the perfection of the protection of trade secrets and the balancing mechanism of relevant interests in China through the study of the relevant systems in the United States.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：華東政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2012
【分類號(hào)】：D922.294

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前2條

1 黃武雙;;美國商業(yè)秘密保護(hù)法的不可避免泄露規(guī)則及對我國的啟示[J];法學(xué);2007年08期

2 李明德;;美國的競業(yè)禁止協(xié)議與商業(yè)秘密保護(hù)及其啟示[J];知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2011年03期

本文編號(hào)：2006603