國內科技廠商近年來幾乎毫無例外的不斷在國外 （主要是美國）遭到專利侵權訴訟的困擾，尤其是牽涉 到本身不從事研發生產，卻是專以訴訟威脅為手段的所 謂「專利地痞」，導致國內廠商必需支付龐大的律師、 訴訟費用以及和解權利金等，結果不但血本無歸，而且 已嚴重影響到了我國的科技和經濟發展。 為了因應此一日趨嚴重的情況，行政院在2010 年年 底通過決議，準備研擬成立一個由政府和民間共同出資 的「智慧財產基金」，從而可以直接到現貨市場購買各 種專利等權益，協助廠商從事佈局，並可進而攻、退可 守，共同「抵禦外侮」，以所購得或取得授權的專利作 為槓桿，以攻擊代替防守，採取反訴等策略來促使對手 投鼠忌器，不敢再濫行起訴或是願意儘速接受對我國廠 商有利的和解條件。這已成為我國當前在對應國際專利 訴訟時所準備採取的關鍵政策。 然而一個從表面看去乍似有理的政策其實在背後卻 是寓含了許多相當嚴重的潛在法律問題以及管理和技術 方面的困難。本文即擬從角色定位、法律和管理等分別 七個不同的面向來切入和討論此一政策背後的問題。本 文旨在凸顯一旦此一政策涉及到政府的經費投入或實際 管控，則其中的法律與管理等問題非但不能解決當務之 急，協助廠商度過難關，恐怕反而還會衍生出更多的麻 煩，讓問題益加複雜化。本文認為政府在此並無如何的 角色可以扮演，因此呼籲主政者必須極為慎重的來審視 本身的立場與分際。本文主張政府所應做的，就是回歸 「正道」，以實際的行動來強調合作研發、保障智慧財產權益並開創有利於國際合作與競爭的整體市場環境即可。畢竟政府所應扮演好的，是馬車駕馭者的角色，掌握整體的大方向；而不是把自身給轉變為與廠商在前一齊奔跑的一匹馬，反而失去了方向，甚至形成利益衝突。

The domestic high-tech industries in Taiwan have in recent years experienced countless and continuous threat of patent infringement actions, primarily from the United States and especially from the “patent trolls.” Large attorney and litigation costs and the time-consuming process have greatly eaten into the capital base of the industries, adversely and seriously impacting the development of Taiwan’s technological and economic development. To counter, the Executive Yuan (Cabinet) resolved in late 2010, as the core component of the official strategy in tackling the ever-growing foreign patent litigation threat, to form an “intellectual property bank” jointly sponsored by the government and industry. With the combined resources, this fund will acquire and/or license patents from around the world so that it can on the one hand help industries withtheir patent strategic planning, and on the other hand help local industries leverage against their opponents in a given litigation. Hopefully it will speed up the process and win more favorable outcome to the local industries. What seems to be an ideal and rational policy on the surface is in fact filled with potential legal problems as well as managerial and technical difficulties. This article is an attempt to analyze the issues from the legal, managerial and technological perspective, respectively, and to lay out seven reasons why government should reconsider its involvement in this policy initiative. It argues that instead of solving the existing problems, it may yet create a whole host of new and unsolvable new issues. The article urges the government to stick to what it is supposed to do: Uphold the protection of intellectual property, and promote a healthy, competitive environment whereby innovation and collaboration can truly be incentivized. After all, the role of the government is the chauffeur of the horses on a chariot, to guide its direction, not one of the horses that run with the industries but easily lose the direction or even create conflict of interests.