1.Introduction Cyber insurance is one of the effective tools to transfer cyber and IT security risk and minimize potential financial losses. Take the example of Sony’s personal information security breach, Sony made a cyber insurance claim to mitigate the losses. In Taiwan, the cyber insurance market demand was driven by Taiwan’s Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA) which was passed in April 2010 and implemented in Oct 2012. According to PIPA, a non-government agency including the natural persons, juridical persons, or group shall be liable for the damages caused by their illegal collection, processing or using of personal information or other ways of infringement on the rights of the individual whose personal information was collected, processed or used. The non-government agency may thus pay each individual NT$500 to NT$20,000 and the total compensation amount in each case may be up to NT $200 million if there is no evidence for actual damage amount. However, the cyber insurance market does not prosper as expected one hand because of the absence of incentives of insurance companies to develop and promote the cyber-insurance products and on the other hand because of the unaffordable price that deters many companies from buying the insurance. Some countries have tried to identify the incentives and barriers for the cyber insurance market and have taken some measurements to kick start its development. In this paper, the barriers for the cyber insurance market were addressed and how American government promoted this market was mentioned. Finally, suggestions on how to stimulate the cyber insurance market growth were proposed for reference. 2.What is cyber insurance? Insurance means the parties concerned agree that one party pays a premium to the other party, and the other party is liable for pecuniary indemnification for damage caused by unforeseeable events or force majeure1. Thus, the cyber insurance means the parties concerned agree that one party pays a premium to the other party, and the other party is liable pecuniary indemnification for damage caused by cyber security breach. The cyber insurance usually covers the insured's losses (or costs) and his liabilities to the third party. For example, the insured was to be liable for the damages caused by the unlawful disclosure of identifiable personal information belonging to the third party resulted from the insured's negligence. 2Typically, cyber insurance covers penalties or regulatory fines for data breaches, litigation costs and compensation arising from civil suits filed by those whose rights are infringed, direct costs to notify those whose personal data was illegal collected, processed or used and so on. 3 3.What are the barriers for cyber insurance market? Per the report made by European Network and Information Security Agency in2012, the following issues have significant influence on incentives of insurers to design and provide cyber –insurance products, including uncertainty about the extent of risk and lack of robust actuarial data, uncertainty about what risk is being insured, fast-paced nature of the use of technology, little visibility on what constitutes effective measures, absence of insurer of last resort to re-insure catastrophic risks, and perception that existing insurance already covers cyber-risks 4. In Taiwan, insurance companies face the same issues as mentioned above when they tried to develop and promote the cyber-insurance products. However, what discourages the insurance and re-insurance companies from investing in the cyber-insurance market most is the lack of accurate information to figure out the costs associated with different information security risk and thus to price the cyber insurance contract precisely. Several cases involving personal data breach did happened after Taiwan’s PIPA became effective on Oct 1th 2012, but few verdicts have been made. It is not easy to master the direct costs or losses resulting from violation of PIPA, including penalties or fines from regulator,, compensation to the parties of the civil suit who claim their personal data were unlawfully collected, processed or used, litigation costs and so on. Otherwise, indirect costs or losses such as media costs, costs to regain reputation or trust of consumers, costs of deployment of proper technical measures to prevent the data breach from happening again etc. are difficult to calculate. Therefore, it is not easy to identify the costs of information security risk and thus to calculate the premium the insured has to pay precisely. The rapid development of technology also has a negative impact on the ability of the insurers to master the types of the information security risk which shall be insured and its costs. Accompanied with the convenience and efficiency of applying new technologies into the working environment, security issues arise, too. For example, the loss or theft of mobile or portable devices may result in data breaches. In 2012, an unencrypted laptop computer with personal information and other sensitive information of one of NASA's employees was stolen from his locked vehicle and this led to thousands of NASA's workers and contractors at risk. 5And, per the report made by a NASA inspector, similar data breaches had been resulted from the lost or theft of 48 NASA laptops and mobile computing devices between April 2009 and April 2011. 6 There is no singe formula which could guarantee 100% security, but some international organizations have promulgated best practices for information security management, such as ISO 2700x standards. 7In Taiwan, Bureau of Standards, Metrology and Inspection (BSMI) which belongs to the Ministry of Economic also consulted ISO standards and announced Chinese National Standards on information security. For example, BSMI consulted ISO 27001 “Information technology – Security techniques – Information security management systems – Requirements” and then promulgated CNS27001. Theoretically, if the company who tries to buy cyber insurance policy that covers data breaches and damages to customers' data privacy can show that it has adopted and do implement the suite of security management standards well, the premium could properly be reduced because such company shall face less security risk. 8 However, it is still not easy to price the cyber insurance contract rightly because of no enough data or evidence which could approve what constitutes effective information security measures as well as no impartial, controversial or standard formula to value intangible assets like personal or sensitive information. 9 Finally, the availability of re-insurance programs plays an important role in the cyber insurance market because insurers would appeal to such program as a strategy of risk management. The lack of solid and actual data as mentioned above would discourage re-insurers from providing insurance policies that covers the insured’s losses and liabilities. Therefore, insurers may not be keen to develop and offer cyber insurance products. 4.The USA experience on developing cyber insurance market 4.1Current market status Due to the increase of the number of data breaches, cyber attacks, and civil suits filed by those whose data were illegal disclosed to third parties, more and more enterprises recognize the importance of cyber and privacy risks and turning to cyber insurance to minimize the potential finical losses. 10 However, the increased government focus on cyber security also contributed to the rapidly growth of the cyber insurance market. 11 For example, US Department of Homeland Security has been aware of the benefits of the cyber insurance, including encouraging better information security management, reducing the finical losses that a company has to face due to the data breach and so on. 12 Compared to other lines of insurance, cyber insurance market is not mature yet and is small in USA. For example, the gross premiums for medical malpractice insurance are more than 10% of that for cyber insurance market. However, the cyber insurance market certainly appears to grow rapidly. Per the survey made by Corporate Board Member & FTI Consulting, 48% of corporate directors and 55% of general counsel take highly of the issue of data security. 13And, per the report made by Marsh, there are more and more companies buying cyber insurance to cover financial losses due to the data breach or cyber attack, and the number of Marsh’s US clients purchasing cyber insurance increased 33% in 2012 over 2011. 14 4.2What contributed to the growth of the cyber insurance market in USA? Some measurements taken by the government or regulatory intervention had impacts on the incentives of companies to carry cyber insurance. CF Disclosure Guidance published by U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in Oct 2011 mentioned that except the operation and financial risks, public companies shall disclose the cyber security risks and cyber incidents for such risks and incidents may result in severe finical losses and thus have a board impact on their financial statements. 15 And, according to the guidance, appropriate disclosures may includes risk factors and this potential costs and consequences, cyber incidents experienced or expected and theirs costs and consequences, undetected risks related to cyber incidents, and the relevant insurance coverage. 16 Such disclosure requirements triggered the demands for the cyber insurance products because cyber insurance as an effective tool to transfer financial losses or damages could be an evidence that firms are managing cyber security risks well and properly. 17 The demand for cyber-insurance products may be created by government by means of requiring government contractors and subcontractors to purchase cyber insurance under Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) which mentions that contractors are required by law and FAR to provide insurance for certain types of perils 18. Also, in order to sustain the covered critical infrastructure (CCI) designation, the owner of such infrastructure may need to carry cyber insurance, too. 19 On the other hand, referring to Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act of 2002 which requires those who provides Federal and non-Federal Government customers with a qualified/certificated anti-terrorism technologies shall obtain liability insurance of such types but the amount of such insurance shall be reasonable and will not distort the sales price of such technologies 20, the federal government tried to draw and enact legislation that provides limitations on cyber security liability 21. If it works, this could raise the incentive of insurers because amounts of potential financial losses which may be transferred to insurers are predictable. Besides, referring to Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 which established the terrorism insurance program to provide compensations to insurers who suffered the insured losses due to terrorist attacks 22, the federal government may increase the supply of cyber insurance products by means of providing compensations to insurers who suffered the insured losses due to cyber security breach or cyber attacks. 23 Otherwise, some experts and stakeholders did suggest the federal government implement reinsurance programs to develop cyber insurance programs. 24 Finally, to solve the problem of information asymmetry, the government tried to develop the legislation that could build a mechanism for information-sharing among private entities. 25 Also, it was recommended that the federal government may consider to allow insurance firms to establish an information-sharing database together so that insurers could accordingly develop better models to figure out cyber risks and price the cyber insurance contract accurately. 26 5.Suggestions and conclusion Compared to USA where 30-40 insurers offer cyber-insurance products and thus suggested that a more mature market exists 27, the cyber insurance market in Taiwan is still at the first stage of the product life cycle. Few insurers have introduced their cyber-insurance products covering the issues related to the personal information breach. Per the experience how US government developed the cyber insurance market, the following suggestion are made for reference. First, the government may consider requiring his contractors and subcontractors to carry cyber insurances. This could stimulate the demand for cyber insurance products as well as make cyber insurance prevail among private sector as an effective risk management tool. Second, the government may consider establishing re-insurance program to offer compensation to those who suffer the insured’s large losses and damages or impose limitations of the amount insured by law. However, it is undeniable that providing re-insurance program is not feasible as the government’s budget is not abundance. Finally, an information-sharing mechanism, including information on cyber attacks an cyber risks, may be helpful to solve the problem of information asymmetry. 1.Insurance Act §1 (R.O.C, 2012). 2.European Network and Information Security Agency, Incentives and barriers of the cyber insurance market in Europe , June 2012, at 8, http://www.enisa.europa.eu/activities/Resilience-and-CIIP/national-cyber-security-strategies-ncsss/incentives-and-barriers-of-the-cyber-insurance-market-in-europe. 3.Ben Berkowitz, United States: insurance-cyber insurance, C.T.L.R. 2012, 18(7), N183. 4.Supra note2, at 19-25. 5.Mathew J. Schwartz, Stolen NASA laptop had unencrypted employee data , InformationWeek, November 15, 2012 11:17 AM, http://www.informationweek.com/security/attacks/stolen-nasa-laptop-had-unencrypted-emplo/240142160；Ben Weitzenkorn, Stolen NASA laptop prompts new security rules, TechNewsDaily , November 15 2012 11:35 AM, http://www.technewsdaily.com/15482-stolen-nasa-laptop.html. 6. Irene Klotz, Laptop with NASA workers' personal data is stolen, CAPE CANAVERAL, Nov 14, 2012 8:47pm, http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/15/us-space-nasa-security-idUSBRE8AE05F20121115. 7.The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region , An overview of information security standards, Feb 2008, at 2, http://www.infosec.gov.hk/english/technical/files/overview.pdf；Supra note2, at 21. 8.Supra note2, at 21-22. 9.Id. 10.Id. 11.Id. 12.U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Cyber security insurance workshop readout report, Nov 2012, at 1, http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/cybersecurity-insurance-read-out-report.pdf. 13.John E. Black Jr., Privacy liability and insurance developments in 2012, 16 No. 9 J. Internet L. 3, 12 (2013). 14.Marsh, Number of companies buying cyber insurance up by one-third in 2012, March 14, 2013, http://usa.marsh.com/NewsInsights/MarshPressReleases/ID/29878/Number-of-Companies-Buying-Cyber-Insurance-Up-by-One-Third-in-2012-Marsh.aspx. 15.U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, CF Disclosure Guidance: Topic No. 2 Cybersecurity, October 13, 2011, http://www.sec.gov/divisions/corpfin/guidance/cfguidance-topic2.htm. 16.Id. 17.Supra note2, at 6.(last visited Dec. 31, 2012) 18.Federal Acquisition Regulations §28.301. 19.E. Paul Kanefsky, Insuring against cyber risks: congress and president Obama weigh in, March 2012, http://www.edwardswildman.com/newsstand/detail.aspx?news=2812. 20.Support Anti-Terrorism by Fostering Effective Technologies Act of 2002 §864. 21.Supra note19. 22.Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002 §103. 23.Supra note19. 24.Id. 25.Id. 26.Id. 27.Supra note2.
By Ying-Hsi Chiu, Project Manager Science and Technology Law Center Institute for Information Industry Taiwan , Republic of China English Conference Paper of The 6 th PDMC International Seminar on Software and Digital Content IPR Protection in Digital Environment, Korea In recent years, there is a phenomenon that governments in various countries launched different programs or action plans to stimulate the development and use of digital content, with the hope to boost a new economy based upon this promising industry. The rise of digital content signifies the shift of economy from manufacture of physical items to high value intangibles. However, the nature of digital content such as easy-copy, low-cost and high-quality, render the new industry even more vulnerable to piracy. Furthermore the threats to lose profits and even the future of the whole industry pose a severe challenge to governments. In order to support digital content industry to continue thriving in a healthy and sound environment, proper legal protection and stringent enforcement measures, especially for on-line digital content, will definitely have a profound impact in the long run. Taiwan Government also put digital content as one of the most promising industries for the next generation. Human resources and financial supports have been allocated, and we have seen more and more talents and companies joining this industry. However, in the meanwhile, in addition to the continuous task on cracking down piracy, our Government has been working on amending relevant laws and regulations in order to provide a solid legal infrastructure for digital content industry. In this paper, I would like to introduce you the major achievements regarding our recent amendments of Copyright Law, Rating system for digital content and the draft of “Digital Content Industry Promotion Act”. Of course, two local peer to peer cases and other legislative proposals regarding ISP responsibility will also be discussed. A. the Impact of Copyright Law amendments in 2003 and 2004 on Digital Content With Taiwan 's accession to World Trade Organization, Taiwan is under the obligation to amend her domestic intellectual property laws to be in line with the minimum standards as required in TRIPs. Besides, the society of Taiwan , at the same time, is experiencing a knowledge-based revolution. Almost every kind of information is digitalized, but relevant laws offer little or inadequate legal protections which in turn arouse more piracy on internet and greatly reduce our confidence in internet creativity. Copyright Law is the existing law that has been confronted with the most impacts from the progress of scientific and technological development. Therefore, c opyright law has been amended successively in July 2003 and August 2004 so as to cope with the increasing application of digital science and technology. The key amendments that have profound impact on digital contents are summarized as follows: a. The Right of Temporary Reproduction 1: Whether “temporary reproduction” is a type of reproduction under copyright law has been a issue of discussion for years, and finally in 2003, the amendment gave an positive answer. Temporary reproduction of copyrighted works is deemed a type of reproduction, but is not protected under copyright law if the temporary reproduction is transient, incidental, an essential part of a technology process, and without independent economic significance, where solely for the purpose of lawful network relay transmission, or for the lawful use of a work. A “lawful network relay transmission” includes technically unavoidable phenomena of the computer or machine occurring in network browsing, caching, or other processes for enhancing transmission efficiency. For the above amendment,, the definition of "reproduction" was also amended to include the "direct, indirect, permanent and/or temporary reproduction activities" 2. b. The Right of Public Transmission 3 One of the most important amendments regarding the protection of digital content is the new article about “public transmission”. The term is defined as “to make available or communicate to the public the content of a work through sounds or images by wire or wireless network, or through other means of communication, including enabling the public to receive the content of such work by any of the above means at a time or place individually chosen by them.” The act of public transmission is characterized in its mode of operation by means of interactive computerized or Internet transmission which is different from the mode of operation of transmitting the contents of copyrighted works in a unilateral manner such as public oral transmission, public broadcasting, or public performance etc. To confer the new added definition of “public transmission” 4, the Article 3-1-7 regarding the definition of "public broadcast" 5 was also amended 6, so as to distinguish the operation modes of "public transmission" and "public broadcast" in order to avoid confusion while using these two different terms. c. Protection of Electronic Rights Management Information When copyright law confers the “public transmission” right to authors, the introduction of “Electronic Rights Management Information” will definitely facilitate the author to be easily accessed and encourage more exploitation of digital contents. The term " electronic rights management information" refers to the electronic information which is used to identify a copyrighted work, the title of the work, author, economic rights holder or person licensed thereby, and the period or conditions of exploitation of the work, including numbers or symbols that represent such information 7. Anyone who removes or alters the electronic rights management information without authorization shall be imposed civil liability for damages and criminal liability for sentence up to one year imprisonment, detention or fine. d. Technology Protection Measures 8 The term "technology protection measures", that is, the "anti-circumvention measures", means the equipments, devices, components, technology or other technological means employed by copyright owners to prohibit or restrict, in effective manner, others from accessing or utilizing his/her work without prior authorization. Anyone who disarms, destroys or by any other means circumvents the technological protection measures employed by the copyright owner shall be subject to civil liability for damages. The new amendment further specifies that any equipment, device, component, technology or information for disarming, destroying, or circumventing technological protection measures shall not, without legal authorization, be manufactured, imported, offered to the public for use, or offered in services to the public. Violation of this article shall be imposed criminal liability for sentence up to one year imprisonment, detention or fine. e. Specific Punishment for Use of Pirated Software 9 Before the 2004 amendment, the use of pirated software for commercial purposes shall be deemed an infringement of copyright only if the user has “actual knowledge” that he is using pirated software for that purpose. The application of this article, however, was controversial because it was difficult to prove that the user did have “actual knowledge” of the contended facts. Hence in the 2004 amendment, the requirement of “actual knowledge” was deleted, and therefore, as long as there is the fact of using pirated software, the user shall have no excuse to running away form civil liability for damages and criminal liability for sentence of up to two years imprisonment or detention, or in lieu thereof or in addition thereto, a fine of no more than five hundred thousand New Taiwan Dollars (hereinafter called NT Dollars). f. Increasing the magnitude of criminal liability for illegal optical disk copyright infringement Owing to the massive harmful power on digital content by illegal optical disks, the amendment increases the magnitude of criminal liability for illegal optical disk copyright infringement. A person who infringes on the economic rights of another person by means of reproducing a work onto an optical disk shall be subject to imprisonment ranging from six months to five years, and in addition thereto, may be fined ranging from five hundred thousand to five million NT Dollars. Besides, heavy criminal liability is also imposed on a person who distributes or with intent to distribute publicly displays or possesses a copy of optical disk knowing that it infringes on the economic rights shall be subject to imprisonment ranging from six months to three years and, in addition thereto, may be fined ranging from two hundred thousand to two million NT Dollars. Both offenses are actionable not upon complaint. B. Local P2P case analysis and possible solution No matter we accept it or not, Internet has changes our life style in many ways . People find that many real-life activities could now find their counterparts “on line”, which bring us not only convenience and exciting experiences, but sometimes also raise problems. Downloading on-line music has drawn much attention during recent years. This newly flourishing business model provides music lovers a wide range of selections on-line, through peer to peer technology at relatively low cost. However, this new business did not receive supports from record companies and music right holders. On the contrary, these P2P companies were accused of the main cause for the sharp drop in profits for the past few years. Although it is difficult to prove the direct relationship between lost of profits and the downloading services, we have seen many copyright infringement cases were brought to courts in the United States (Napster/Groster cases), Holland /Australia (Kazaa case) and Japan (MMO case) and the judgments, even with similar facts, were opposite! This situation just reflects the complexity of the whole issue and arouses more discussion on this topic. In August 2003, International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, Taiwan Branch (hereinafter referred to as IFPI Taiwan) brought complaints against two local P2P companies in Taipei and the courts also reached opposite judgments. It is the main purpose of this paper to discuss the two judgments and possible solution in the future. Before we start to discuss the two cases, I would like to take this opportunity to briefly clarify our copyright law liability system. Unlike American legal system, where liability for violation of copyright law is civil liability in nature, the legal responsibility for copyright infringement in Taiwan is criminal liability, and therefore, courts in Taiwan will apply stricter standard in deciding whether violation of copyright is intentional. a. ezPeer case This is the first P2P case in Taiwan and Taipei Shihlin District Court found in June 2005 that the defendant, ezPeer company, is not guilty of copyright violation charges for the following reasons: In the indictment, the prosecutor claimed that ezPeer provides on-line music downloading services through a “centralized P2P framwork”, so it is reasonable to conclude that ezPeer has “actural knowledge” about the fact of copyright infringement by its members. With such knowledge in mind, ezPeer still provides file-exchange services, and therefore, ezPeer is suspecious of violating copyright of the record companies. The Court, however, held that ezPeer is in fact a “decentralized P2P framwork”, and further held that it is not important to decide the type of P2P framework in this case because the original structure of P2P was not designed for the purpose of violating copyright. The Court maintained that the downloading and transmission of musical files by individual member might satisfay fair-use circumstances or other requirements for legal exploitation of the works. From the evidences submitted by the prosecutor, the Court is not able to ascertain if ezPeer is able to distinguish the legality of conducts acted by its members. Under such circumstances, the Court helded that it is also impossible to conclude that ezPeer is an accomplice in this case. Under present relevant laws, ezPeer is under no legal obligation to take active actions to provide special devices or measures to filter off the downloading and transmission of musical files that are suspecious of violating copyright law. Of course, ezPeer judement ignited another pro and con debate in Taiwan . It is interesting to note that the judgment of ezPeer case was rendered on the 30 th of June, 2005, only three days after the Groster judgment which was rendered on the 27 th of June 2005. We are not sure if the Groster judgment has any impact on the Kuro case, but as we will see below, the judgment of Kuro case is just totally opposite to ezPeer. b. Kuro case On the 9 th of September , 2005, Taipei District Court reached its judgment on Kuro case, and held that the defendant, providing unauthorized music downloading services for the purpose of making profits, is jointly responsible as conspiracy with its individual member for infringing plaintiff's copyright. The CEO and General Manager of Kuro were sentenced for three-years' imprisonment separately, and both were fined three million NT Dollars; the responsible person (chairman) of Kuro was sentenced for two-years' imprisonment and Kuro's member, Miss Chen, was also sentenced for four-months' imprisonment, which could be substituted by fine, and which also obtained a respite for three years. In addition to criminal action, IFPI also filed a civil lawsuit claiming for compensation, and this case finally reached a peaceful settlement on the 15 th of September, 2006. Kuro promised to pay IFPI Taiwan 3 millions and 5 hundred thousand NTD as compensation. A new company /will be incorporated to continue the legal music platform business. The members' list, brand name and the employees of Kuro will be transferred to the new company under a license agreement. In the future, the new company will provide downloading services not with P2P technology, but with streaming model, and the member fee will have a jump from the present 99 NTD/month to 150 NTD/month. A brief comparison can be made between the two local cases: Taipei Court found that when Kuro's server is under normal operation, and when Kuro's member would like to download a specific music file from another member, Kuro's server will provide IP address, route and establish connection in order to facilitate its member to conduct fast search and to download the music file; If the connection is interrupted during transmission, Kuro's server will automatically locate other member's IP to resume the transmission. The Court was convinced under these facts that Kuro was a “centralized P2P framework”. The Court further found that Kuro published a great deal of commercial advertisements on various media to increase its membership; Kuro also established “feed-back mechanism” on its own website to encourage the users to download music file. Given all these evidences, The court was convinced that Kuro, who had actual knowledge that the P2P technology it provided will be utilized by others as a tool to carry out criminal activities, should induce the general public to pay or buy its membership to infringe other's copyright in order to pursue its own commercial benefits. In doing so, the court held that Kuro has already foreseen that its member will use P2P technology to conduct unauthorized music downloading, the copyright holder's damages and the causation between the two, and the result of causing lost of profits on plaintiff is not against Kuro's intent. Therefore, Kuro must be responsible for violating copyright liability. We found that the supporting evidences really play important roles in helping the Court to reach its final judgment and that is one major reason why we have two cases with similar facts but having opposite results. The P2P issue, with the settlement between Kuro and IFPI Taiwan, is at rest for the time being, but efforts trying to have legislative solution are just begun. There was suggestion to amend Copyright Law to have a “compensation system” to solve the P2P problems. This proposal, however, did not receive much support among scholars and legislators. Recently another proposal was brought to our attention that our Copyright Law shall adopt a procedure similar to the one adopted in DMCA. This new proposal arouses another big issue: how should we regulate ISP? This issue has been in debate for years in Taiwan , and so far there is still no consensus on this point. As a matter of fact, ISP relates not only to copyright issues, privacy protection, anti-porn/violence for minors on internet are also important topics needed to address our concerns. So far, it is too early to comment the future of this new proposal, but we will keep close watch of its future development. From III's point of view, a single legislation encompassing all issues regarding ISP will be a better solution. C. Rating system for digital contents With the rapid advances of technology and the widespread use of computers, Internet has become an indispensable part in our daily lives. When we enjoy the convenience of having easy and quick access to almost all kinds of information, we are exposing ourselves, at the same time, to a world which is flooded with impoper or even indecent contents. Those contents deliver either wrongful or harmful messages to the viewers and sometimes cause negative impacts on their minds forever. This situation poses a quite serious problem especially for children and teenagers who are encouraged to acquaint themslves with the cyber space but do not equipped with proper knowledge and ability to distinguish healthy and useful contents from unhealthy and harmful ones. Hence, in addition to protectingof the right of digital content, while in the process of promoting digital content industry, setting clear rules to regulate content providers to protect minors are also very important. In order to insure the sound development of the physical and mental status of the minors, Article 27, Paragraph III of the “Children and Youth Welfare Act 10” requires that “the competent authority should publish rating regulations for publication 11, compouter software and internet content”. This is not to impose any restrictions on the freedom of speech on internet, but rather a protection measure by providing a basic reference for parents and the minors to decide which content is appropriate for them. a.Regulations of Internet Content Rating The “Regulations of Internet Content Rating” was first published by Government Information Office (hereinafter referred to as GIO) on the 26 th of April, 2004. The regulation provides a grace period of 18 months in order to avoid rushness and, therefore, the exact enforcement date was the 26 th of October, 2005. This Regulation was further amended in October 2005. The most important spirit of the Regulation is “self discipline” principle. According to the amended regulation, content providers shall classify the contents either “restricted” or “non-restricted” by themselves. Restricted contents providers are required by the Regulation to put a “restricted” label on the homepage or relevant web pages in a conspicuous manner. Before the amendment, the rating system was classified as “common for all”, “protected” (which means the content is not suitable for children under 6), “parents guide” (which means that the content is not suitable for children under 12; for the youth between 12 to 18, parents guide is needed) and “restricted” (not suitable for people under 18). So under the present classification, Internet content that is not rated as “restricted” may be viewed by children under guidance or under the discretion of parents, guardians or others taking care of them 12. In order to carry out the functions specified in the regulation, the “Taiwan Internet Content Rating Promotion Foundation 13” (hereinafter referred to as TICRF) was established by GIO on the 7 th of January, 2005 . This will facilitate the development of Internet-related industry while protecting freedom of speech online and regulate user behavior. b. Regulations of Computer Software Rating The “Regulations of Computer Software Rating” was published by Industry Development Bureau (hereinafter referred to as IDB) of Ministry of Economic affairs on the 6 th of July, 2006 and will be enforced on the 5 th of January of 2007. Following the Internet Content Rating Regulation, this regulation adopts the “self-discipline” principle, and “four tiers” rating classification. However, there a re some points to be noted: 1. The term “computer software” in this Regulation refers only to “computer games”, excluding other kinds of software like searching engine, data mining, tool or educational software. 2. Only the game software that can be played through “computer” shall be the subject under this regulation. Games played on other devices, such as mobile phone, PDA, television or other devices. As a result, video games do not fall within the definition of “computer game” under this regulation and, therefore, is not regulated so far. 3. The competent authority for the new Regulation is IDB. Not like GIO establishing a foundation under its donation, IDB will encourage the private sector to organize professional groups to provide consultation services regarding any question or misunderstanding arising from this regulation. Anyone who would like to challenge the rating label marked by the computer software providers, may also bring their cases to any of those professional groups for opinions. 5. The new Regulation requires that the computer software providers must put the label not only on the web page providing downloading services but also on the package in a conspicuous manner. It further requires that for “restricted” software, a warning sentence like “This software is intended for use for persons above 18” must be properly marked. D. The “Digital Content Industry Promotional Act” (Draft) a.To restore the copyright pledge recordation system As we have pointed out that copyright and other intangible assets are playing a more and more important role in the knowledge based economy. Therefore, the purposes of copyright law are no longer limited in protecting the rights of the authors, but are extended to facilitate the maximum exploitation of these works in order to manifest their potential economic values. As we all know that the most valuable assets for digital content companies are their intangibles, such as patents, copyrights or trademarks. In the early stage, those start-up companies might rely heavily on government's financial supports. However, when digital content companies are becoming more mature and try to make use of their intellectual properties as collateral to reach a loan agreement with the banks, they will find that the banks are not willing to accept these intangibles as collateral 14. The situation for copyright is even worse in Taiwan since our copyright competent authority no longer provides copyright recordation services to the public 15, and therefore, the banks are even less interested in accepting copyright as collateral because they are not able to estimate their risks with accuracy in any particular case when those important information regarding the “intangible collateral” is not available from any trustworthy government agency or private organization. In order to provide a formal channel of disclosure and to ignite the economic potential in intellectual properties in the future, our government is planning to restore the copyright pledge recordation system in the draft of “Digital Content Industry Promotional Act”, aiming that this will offer the digital content companies a better position to negotiate with the bank and other financial institutions for loan agreements. b. Exploitation of Work Whose Authorship is Unknown At a higher level of the panorama, Copyright Law encourages the exploitation of other's works in order to facilitate further idea exchange and culture development. However, such a privilege is granted by law only when the users obtain author's authorization in advance, except in some specified fair-use circumstances or using works which already in public domain. However, author's authorization is sometimes difficult or even impossible to obtain when the author's whereabouts is unknown 16. This is especially true in the internet environment when the flow of information is so fast and the amount of information is enormous. This situation undoubtedly creates a big hurdle for content users and impedes their willingness to continue creative activities on internet . In order to solve this problem and to reach full utilization of digital contents, our Government is planni ng to bring this licensing deadlock to an end by setting a procedure which allows the users to submit sufficient evidences to the copyright competent authority to prove that he/she has exhausted all possible means but still fail to locate the author. After reviewing all the documents and evidences, copyright competent authority will grant the authorization on a non-exclusive basis, and the user has to deposit the license fee as prescribed in the approval letter and then use the work in the manner as prescribed therein. Taiwan Government is hoping that in the internet era, authors are urged to exercise their rights granted under Copyright Law in a much more positive manner by using “electronic rights management information” to enable others to share authors' wisdom and to help the whole society to benefit from the wisdom-sharing process. Conclusion The whole world is facing a new digital era that nobody has ever experienced before, especially the Internet world. Traditional legal system is no longer enough to deal with problems related to the creativities of intangible assets. Members of modern society, need to find the best solution to irrigate and protect these digital fruits, and, at the same time, to resolve or prevent problems or expected harm from the development of digital content industry. To set up a new legal system along with various industrial policies is deemed a good solution to build up sound environment for the growth of digital industry. Challenges and hurdles will be confronting us every single day. They come to existence even faster than before. Their existences just send us clear messages that it is time to submit more proposals to promote digital industry, to create maximum profit to the digital society as a whole and to prevent harmful results from this trend of digital tide. We believe that Taiwan Government is now well prepared to face this new age and to overcome all the expected or unexpected challenges. Major changes of legal structure will be achieved step by step within the following years and it is expected that when cases relating to digital content are accumulated to certain amount , the consensus to solve those legal issues will become much clear. When we reach this point, our society will be more comfortable and confident in using and creating digital contents and the digital industry in Taiwan will be mature. 1. This amendment is made pursuant to Article 9 of the TRIPs which provides that every member of the WTO shall adhere to the provisions set out in Article 1 through Article 21 of the 1971 Berne Copyright Convention. Article 9 of the Berne Convention entitles the authors of the literary and art works protected by the Convention the exclusive right to licensing, in any manner or form, the reproduction of his/her copyrighted works. 2. The ROC Copyright Law Article 3-1-5 3. This amendment was made by making reference to Article 8 of the WCT and Article 10 and Article 14 of the "WPPT", and Article 2, and Article 2 –1 and 2-2 of the EU 2001 Copyright Directives 4. "Public transmission" means to make available or communicate to the public the of a work' content through sounds or images by wire or wireless network, or through other means of communication, including enabling the public to receive the content by any of the above means at a time or place individually chosen by them 5. "Public broadcast" means to communicate to the public the a work's content through sounds or images by means of transmission of information by a broadcasting system of wire, wireless, or other equipment, where such communication is for the purpose of direct listening reception or viewing reception by the public. This includes any communication, by transmission of information via a broadcasting system of wire, wireless, or other equipment, to the public of an original broadcast of sounds or images by any person other than the original broadcaster 6. The amendment was referenced to the provisions set out respectively in Article 8 of the WIPO Copyright Treaty (hereinafter referred to as "WCT") and Article 10 and Article 14 of "The WIPO Performance and Phonograms Treaty" (hereinafter referred to as "WPPT") 7. The ROC Copyright Law Article 3-1-17 , The definition of the term " electronic rights management information" was added with reference to the provisions set out respectively in Article 12 of the WCT, and Article 19 of the WPPT which requires all signatory countries to provide full protection and remedies to the integrity of electronic rights management information, Article 7 of the EU 2001 Copyright Directives, Article 1202 of the US Copyright Act, and Article 2-1-21 of the Japanese Copyright Law. 8. The ROC Copyright law Article 3-1-18 , this item was added in 2004 amendment. The definition of the term "technology protection measures" are added to the 2004 Copyright Law pursuant to in Article 11 of the WCT and Article 18 of the WPPT respectively, requiring the mandatory and adequate legal protection to the "anti-circumvention measures". And, the Article also makes reference to the relevant provisions provided in Article 6 of the EU 2001 Copyright Directives"; Article 1201 of the US Copyright Act; Article 20,1,20 of the Japanese Copyright Law; Article 18 of the "On-line Digital Contents Industry Development Act" and Article 30 of the "Computer Programs Protection Act" of Korea respectively. 9. The ROC Copyright Law Article 87-5 and 87-6 10. The Act was put in force on the 28th of May, 2003 11. ROC Government has already enacted rating regulations for publication (books, magazines, etc.) and movies/TV programs. 12. Many teachers and parents group are criticizing the new rating classification. They agree that it is sometimes difficult for the content providers to mark correct label for contents which are either “protected” or “parent guide”. However, they argue that it is irresponsible to shift the whole burden to parents who do not have enough profession or simply do not have time to do so. 13. For more detailed information, please visit TICRF's website at http://www.ticrf.org.tw/ 14. The conservative attitude of the banks and other financial institutions are understandable. First of all, the market for intangibles as collateral is just not mature for the time being, and we do not have enough experiences in the area of intangible assets evaluation. Secondly, banks are more familiar with traditional collateral, like lands, houses, etc. In fact, they are quite confused about how to deal with all these intangible assets in their hands. Thirdly, an effective mechanism for the withdrawal of banks and financial institutions from the market is still lacking, which greatly increases the risks for banks, and in turn, will render banks more hesitated to reach any loan agreement with digital content companies from the very beginning. 15. The Copyright Law of Republic of China was first promulgated in 1928. At that time, copyright protection would be obtained only if the author fulfilled the strict “registration” process. In 1985, Copyright Law was undergoing an overall review, and an internationally accepted principle that “copyright protection will be automatically obtained upon completion of the work” was adopted. However, copyright registration system was still maintained for voluntary application for registration and the issuance of copyright registration certificate. In 1992, a more loose “copyright recordation system” was adopted to replace the “copyright registration system” to avoid any confusion. In 1998, after many years' debates, copyright recordation system was finally abolished for the following reasons: 1). The existence of “copyright recordation system” always delivers wrong information to the public that copyright law still requires registration for protection of a work. So it would be better to abolish the recordation system to avoid any misunderstanding in the future. 2). In a copyright lawsuit, the courts, instead of conducting substantial fact-finding procedure to ascertain who the copyright holder is, very often require the party claiming copyright protection to submit copyright registration certificate or recordation transcript to prove that he/she is the copyright holder. In doing so, the spirit of copyright law was led to such a distortion that would render the public even more confused about the true meaning of copyright law. 3). Due to limited manpower in our copyright competent authority, services for applications either for copyright registration or recordation will consume a lot of administrative resources , and the crowding-out effect would have negative influence on the allocation of resources to other pending copyright issues or basic researches at hand. 16. This is termed “orphan works” by Professor Lawrence Lessig.
I. Forward Only about 18% of the products or services continue to create good sales and have long product life cycles after entering the stream of commerce. This might denote that mass investing in the R&D does not necessary guarantee to develop popular goods and services. In order to overcome this obstacle, many experts and scholars from different research areas propose different R&D mechanisms to solve this problem. The so called “open innovation” is one of the most dynamic R&D mechanisms in recent years, which is created to compensate the weakness of “closed innovation”. By introducing the concept of “open innovation”, Living Lab invites real users join the projects of un-launched products and services for every possible R&D process to obtain the real interaction wherefrom, to fulfill the goal of “user centric” innovation. However, if users or any third party is injured or damaged from the trial products or services, to what extent Living Labs is liable for is one important question to further future innovation environment. This article will first gives a brief introduction and the development of living labs in Taiwan, follow by applying national laws and analysising obstacles to the liability issue caused by defective Living Lab products. Then, the article will continue to refer to foreign legislation and Living Lab practice, and conclude by suggestions and recommendations to the Living Labs practice in Taiwan. II. Brief Introduction of Living Labs A. Composition of Living Labs The concept of Living Labs was developed by Professor William J. Mitchell from the MIT Media Lab and School of Architecture. Professor Mitchell proposed applying the user-centric research method by using Living Lab as a R&D platform and bring together stockholders (co-creators), including public sectors, companies, universities and research fellows, and the most important, the end-users communities, both professional or non-professionals from various backgrounds, to join the R&D process. B. Operation Mode of Living Labs Living Lab invites end users to join the real world testing either in a digital, physical or virtual environment. Un-launched products or services are provided for testing and users are required to give feedbacks either experience, opinions, suggestions or even ideas to the products or services in return. Living Lab then collets and utilizes the feedbacks and observe the behavior patterns for product or service modification and improvement, future R&D plans and market analysis. C. Benefits of Living Labs Lirving Lab could effectively converse different backgrounds and levels of empirical environment, enhance the efficiency in R&D and bring about different benefits to the stakeholders. By participating in the R&D process, users could give feedbacks to Living Labs to further up the un-launched products and services (on the marketplace) to fit consumers’ needs. For industry, Living Lab provides platforms to get together stakeholders, speed up the integration of stakeholders of different size or from different fields and promote the R&D efficiency. For universities and research institutes, the public-private-people (user)-partnership (PPPP), could further more flexible services or R&D ecosystem and not only to have user-centric innovation, but also user-driven innovation.1 D. Development of Living Labs Living Labs has been energetically developed in Europe. Through the integration of project resources, individual Living Lab forms into Living Labs networks and actively engaging in cross-border or cross-project co-operation. 2 The concept of Living Labs has been introduced into Taiwan, there are several Living Labs in Taiwan so far, for example, Living Labs Taiwan from Institute for Information Industry (III), 3Touch Center (Center for Technology of Ubiquitous Computing and Humanity) from National Cheng Kung University, 4 Insight (Center of Innovation and Synergy for Intelligent Home and Living Technology) from National Taiwan University, 5 and Eco City from National Chiao Tung University. 6 The Living Labs aim to bring about the user-centric and user-driven model and bring new elements to R&D innovation. III. Liability of Losses, Damages, or Injuries Caused by Living Lab Products In order to encourage more end users join the Living Labs experiment, Living Labs usually provide the un-launched products or services as gifts or lend it for free. However, if products or services caused injury, economic loss or property damages to the users or third party during the experiment, to what extent should the Living Lab be liable for. A. Legal Status Upon on discussing of legal liability of Living Labs, the first prong to review is the legal status of Living Labs under the legal system in Taiwan. Although it is called “Lab”, but it is not necessarily to be a lab with “physical facility”, it could also be “virtual Labs”, for example, HP and Firebox are both launch for virtual Living Labs online to invite users join their open innovation projects. The concept of open innovation within the Living Labs environment, where Living Labs play as a role of a cook pot which gather personnel, equipment, and technology from parties from different working fields, integrate resources and creativeness to catalyze innovative ideas for new products and services. Normally, each Living Lab can be viewed as an independent "legal entity". In other words, it can exercise rights ad bear responsibility/liabilities under the law, and therefore, to response to needs for R&D, increase efficiency and contribute matters of legal compliance. B. User’s Legal Claims Against Living Labs 1. Contractual Liability Living Labs often use “user agreements” as legal documents to regulate the legal relationship between Living Labs and users. If there is any injury, damages or losses occurred during the experiment, users can sue Living Labs for breach of contract and sue for liability, warranty or violation of justice of contract. If the product is defective, such as manufacture defect, design defect or lack of proper warning, the injured user can sue Living Labs based on warranty. However under the provisions of Article 411 of the Civil Code, 7 if the product is offered for trial free for charge, if the gift is defective and caused injury, damages or losses to the users, Living Lab is not liable for breach of warranty. Unless the Living Lab intentionally conceal the defects and not information the user, or represent to the user that the product is guaranteed flawlessness and free from defects. Under this situation, Living Lab will be liable for damages caused by the defect. In the situation that when Living Lab only lend the products for trial, with the provisions of Article 466 of the Civil Code, 8 only when Living Lab intentionally conceal the defect, then is liable for the injuries and damages resulting there from. However, the purpose of the Living Labs experiment is to implement the open innovation, through the operation of the mechanism, by inviting potential users to join the experiment and require them to give feedbacks, ideas and recommendations for future product improvement. In addition to that, in most of the situations, it is difficult for Living Labs to foresee the existence of potential risks of their products or intentionally conceal the defects or guarantee the products are without defects; therefore it will be even harder for the injured users to bear the burden to proof the above situations. It is worth to address that, Living Labs and users shall enjoy contract autonomy as long as the provisions and terms of contract are not violating laws, public order and good morals, but not without any restriction. When parties have right of freedom of contract, at the mean time, their contract shall not exceed the boundaries of contractual justice. Especially, the burden and allocation of risks needs to be measured and assessed by the status and interests of the parties on rational bases. Because one of the special characteristics of Living Lab is open to general users to participate the experiment voluntarily, Living Lab usually adapts fill-in standard form contracts for convenience. But for the protection of the users, Living Lab shall pay more attention to the provisions and terms of contract which must not violate Article 247-1 of the Civil Code, 9 for example, provisions of contract shall not waive, decrease or increase liabilities of the parties, waive or limit any party to exercise his/her rights, or significant detriment one another’s’ interests, otherwise that part of the provision shall be void. 2. Tortious Liability When damages are caused by defective Living Lab products, users may be able to sue Living Labs and based his/her causes of action on Consumer Protection Law Article 7 business operator’s liability, 10 The Civil Code Article 191-1 manufacturer’s liability 11 and as well as The Civil Code Article 184 (1) tortious liability. 12 Yet, in order to provide motivations and incentives for users to join the open innovation, Living Labs usually gratuitous lending or gifting products or services to the users, at least in this stage, Living Labs are not conform with the definition of “business operators” 13 in the Consumer Protection Law, in designing, producing, manufacturing, importing or distributing goods, or providing services design, manufacturing, inputs, distribution of goods or the provision of services for business enterprise operators. Nor the Living Labs users are under the same definition of “consumer” 14 protected under the definition of the Consumer Protection Law, as those who enter into transactions, use goods or accept services for the purpose of consumption. Therefore, the relationship between Living Labs and the users are not “consumer relationship” 15 for sale of goods or provision of services, for which the Consumer Protection Law might not be applicable to offer protection to the users. Reviewing from the legislative history, Article 191-1 of the Civil Code was amended after the Consumer Protection Law. The reason for amendment was to maintain the completeness of the torts liability in the Civil Code and in supplement to the inadequacy of the Consumer Protection Law. 16 In referred from the above, the definition of “goods” is synonymous with the definition in the Consumer Protection Law. In order to apply the provisions, parties must be in the “consumer relationship” as regulated in Article 2 (3) of the Consumer Protection Law. As mentioned above, usually, Living Labs provide the products free of use or as gifts, it is really difficult to say there is “consumer relationship” between the parties. The first clause of Article 184 of the Civil Code states, “A person who, intentionally or negligently, has wrongfully damaged the rights of another is bound to compensate him for any injury arising there from. The same rule shall be applied when the injury is done intentionally in a manner against the rules of morals.” Hence, in this situation the burden of proof will lay on the users to prove that Living Labs is either with negligent or intent to damage the users by the defective products. Living Labs adapt open innovation to encourage users to participate into the every possible R&D process and obtain feedbacks or recommendations in return. Therefore, most of the time, Living Labs do not have “intent” to cause damages to the users, but whether Living Labs are with “negligence” will often be difficult to prove by the users. C. Third Party’s Legal Claim Against Living Labs 1. Contractual Liability In the case when a third party, who is not associated with the Living Labs experiment, sustains injury or damage from the defective Living Labs products, he or she might not be able to sue under the terms of contract because there is no contractual relationship exists between the parties. The possible cause of action for the third party might be able to sue Living Labs based on torts liability for damages. 2. Tortious Liability Although Article 7 of the Consumer Protection Law does provide cause of action for the third party to sue against the business operator for defective products, the third party must base his or her claim on the “consumer relationship” between the Living Labs or users. However, as mention as above, the relationship between Living Labs and the users are not under the “consumer relationship” as prescribed in the Consumer Protection Law, thus third party cannot sue Living Labs for damages in accordance with the Consumer Protection Law. As to the application process of provisions prescribed in Article 191-1 and 184 (1) of the Civil Code, the result is as the same as above. IV. Foreign Legislation and Practice A. American Jurisprudence 2d In the Comment of the 63A Am. Jur. 2d Products Liability §1142 states, “[s]trict liability covers not only products which have been sold, but also products that have been designed to be sold, have been produced to be sold, or are offered to be sold or marketed”. Furthermore, introduction into the stream of commerce does not require a transfer of possession; strict liability rests on “foreseeability”, and not on esoteric concepts relating to transfer or delivery of possession. Furthermore, the Comment extends the scope of application of strict liability to the “Transaction Other than Sales”. Strict liability also applies to the distribution products in a commercial transaction other than a sale, one provides the product to another either for use or consumption or as a preliminary step leading to ultimate use or consumption. For products made available for demonstration, testing or trial regulated in 63A Am. Jur. 2d Products Liability §1147, where a product-caused injury has taken place while the product is being tested or used for trial purposes by the prospective buyer, prior to the completion of a sales transaction, the person or entity who placed the product into the stream of commerce by providing it to the prospective buyer may be strictly liable. Strict liability also applies to those who manufacture and supply products to consumers on an investigational basis, even though the "supplying" does not technically amount to a sale. In the Observation of §1147 states that “[a] manufacturer who enters the marketing cycle by way of a demonstration, lease, free sample, or sale is in the best position to know and correct defects in its product, and as between the manufacturer and its prospective consumers, should bear the risk of injury to those prospective consumers when any such defects enter the market uncorrected. In sum, if one sustained injury, damages or economic losses by Living Labs products, he or she may sue Living Labs for product strict liability prescribes in §1142 & §1147. B. Living Labs Practice in Foreign Countries Referring to provisions of “Standard Contract” used between Living Labs and the users in other countries, most of the time, Living Labs might disclaim damages to property, but cannot disclaim legal protection or injury compensation. At the mean time, most of the Living Labs also adapt public safety insurance and product liability insurance to protect themselves and the users. V. Conclusion and Recommendation In conclude, the legal norms in Taiwan seems not be able to offer proper protection to Living Labs and the users. This article suggests that in order to form the ecosystem for the open innovation model of Living Labs, Living Labs shall provide proper protection to the users in order to balance the interests between Living Labs and users and catalyze the motive for the users to join the experiment. In referring to the “Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice for Trials on Pharmaceutical Products” 17 from the Department of Health, besides the proper duty, the main purpose of the guideline is to ensure the safety of the human participants. In the provisions prescribe in Article 22 of the “Good Clinical Guidelines”, the clinical trial agreement or related document shall provide participants with proper compensation or treatment when damage occurs. The “Model Clinical Trail Agreement” also provides provisions of damage compensation and insurance in the template which state the application to the assumption of risks and consumer protection. However, because the pharmaceutical clinical trial is with higher risk, the competent authorities, Department of Health, particularly get involved within the regulations and mechanisms of clinical trials to protect the human participants. In sum, whether the similar mechanism can be applied directly between the Living Labs and users needs for further consideration. Finally, for the continuous operating environment, it is necessary for Living Labs to adapt related laws and measures for the open innovation operating model. It is suggested that Living Labs shall enter contracts in the terms with proper risk allocation in accordance to contract justice and possibly with public safety or product insurance to share their liabilities. 1.EUROPEAN COMMISSION INFORMATION SOCIETY AND MEDIA, Living Labs for User-Driven Open Innovation:An Overview of the Living Labs Methodology, Activities and Achievements, European Commission(2009),at7,availableat http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/activities/livinglabs/docs/brochure_jan09_en.pdf (last accessed on Dec. 31, 2012). 2. Id., at 11-12 & 14. 3.Living Lab Taiwan, http://www.livinglabs.com.tw/index.html (Last accessed Dec. 26, 2012). 4. Touch Center from National Cheng Kung University, http://touch.ncku.edu.tw/touch/?q=node/52 (Last accessed Dec. 26, 2012). 5.Insight from National Taiwan University, http://insight.ntu.edu.tw/zh-tw/node/662 (Last accessed Dec. 26, 2012). 6.Eco City from National Chiao Tung University, http://www.ecocity.org.tw (Last accessed Dec. 26, 2012). 7.Civil Code Article 411, “The donor is not liable for a defect in the thing or right given. But, if he has intentionally concealed the defect or expressly guaranteed that the thing was free from such defect, he is bound to compensate the donee for any injury arising therefrom.” 8.Civil Code Article 466, “If the lender intentionally conceals a defect in the thing lent, he is responsible to the borrower for any injury resulting therefrom.” 9.Civil Code Article 247-1, “If a contract has been constituted according to the provisions which were prepared by one of the parties for contracts of the same kind, the agreements which include the following agreements and are obviously unfair under that circumstance are void. (1) To release or to reduce the responsibility of the party who prepared the entries of the contract. (2) To increase the responsibility of the other party. (3) To make the other party waive his right or to restrict the exercise of his right. (4) Other matters gravely disadvantageous to the other party. 10.Consumer Protection Law Article 7, “ business operators engaging in the design, production or manufacture of goods or in the provisions of services shall ensure that goods and services provided by them meet and comply with the contemporary technical and professional standards of the reasonably expected safety prior to the sold goods launched into the market, or at the time of rendering services. Where goods or services may endanger the lives, bodies, health or properties of consumers, a warning and the methods for emergency handling of such danger shall be labeled at a conspicuous place. Business operators violating the two foregoing two paragraphs and thus causing injury to consumers or third parties shall be jointly and severally liable therefore, provided that if business operators can prove that they are not guilty of negligence, the court may reduce their liability for damages.” 11.Civil Code Article 191-1, “The manufacturer is liable for the injury to another arising from the common use or consumption of his merchandise, unless there is no defectiveness in the production, manufacture, process, or design of the merchandise, or the injury is not caused by the defectiveness, or the manufacturer has exercised reasonable care to prevent the injury. The manufacturer mentioned in the preceding paragraph is the person who produces, manufactures, or processes the merchandise. Those, who attach the merchandise with the service mark, or other characters, signs to the extent enough to show it was produced, manufactured, or processed by them, shall be deemed to be the manufacturer. If the production, manufacture, process, or design of the merchandise is inconsistent with the contents of its manual or advertisement, it is deemed to be defective. The importer shall be as liable for the injury as the manufacturer.” 12.Civil Code Article 184 (1), “A person who, intentionally or negligently, has wrongfully damaged the rights of another is bound to compensate him for any injury arising there from. The same rule shall be applied when the injury is done intentionally in a manner against the rules of morals.” Consumer Protection Law Article 2 (2), “business operators" means those who are engaged in the business of designing, producing, manufacturing, importing or distributing goods, or providing services. Consumer Protection Law Article 2 (1), “consumers" means those who enter into transactions, use goods or accept services for the purpose of consumption. Consumer Protection Law Article 2 (3), “consumer relationship” means the legal relationship arising between consumers and business operators for sale of goods or provision of services. 16.王澤鑑，侵權行為法第二冊：特殊侵權行為，第313-314頁 (出版日期2006年7月) 17.DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice for Trials on Pharmaceutical Products, http://www.6law.idv.tw/6law/law3/%E8%97%A5%E5%93%81%E5%84%AA%E8%89%AF%E8%87%A8%E5%BA%8A%E8%A9%A6%E9%A9%97%E6%BA%96%E5%89%87.htm (last visited Dec. 31, 2012)