Main page: The updated outlines of my research.

Under construction, beginning at Aug 8, 2014, updated at Sept 1, 2014.

(建構中。開工日 2014/08/08. 最近更新 2014/09/08)

Chinese Outlines http://academicethics.blogspot.com/2014/08/blog-post_31.html

Contents
1. Introduction and Motivation
2. Cases against Academic Ethics
3. Copyright Law
4. Academics Ethics
5. Rights to Education and to Knowledge
6. Economics and Finance Issues (tentative)
7. Future Works Philosophical inquiry into moral rights of (copyrighted) works (property) Forthright and practical works: Publishing critiques on textbooks and journal articles. Contributing to education system and academic cricles.

Hierarchy of Human Action (Proposed Rationale for Analyzing) Civilization Evolution Culture Development Norm Formulation Ethics  (Norm and Critique of Norm), and Development Policy of the State (Community or Society) Law Enforcement

Ludwig von Mises (1962). The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science: An Essay on Methods. Ludwig von Mises (1949). Human Action: A Treatise on Economics.

1. Background and Introduction

How many persons would study  the academic papers written by you within one year? The number would not exceed 199, I guess. On the contrary, more than 3,000 textbooks of the translated version of Saunders and Cornett (2007, 2011) are sold each year. It is translated by three high-profile scholars and practitioners, Chang, Gong, and Hu (2012; 2008)

中文翻譯本 (張、龔、胡，2012)	Saunders and Cornett (2011)
	Financial institutions can assess the the creditworthiness of loan applicants, originate loans, fund loans, and even monitor and service loans without retaining exposure to loss from credit events, such as default or missed payments. This decoupling of the risk from the lending activity allows the market to efficiently transfer risk across counterparties. However, it also loosens the incentives to carefully perform each of the steps of the lending process and can lead to poor loan underwriting, shoddy documentation and due diligence, failure to monitor borrower activity, and fraudulent activity on the part of both lenders and borrowers. Although, the bank regulators attempt to examine the off balance sheet activities so as to ascertain their safety and soundness, there is far less scrutiny off the balance sheet than there is for on-balance-sheet activities (i.e., traditional lending and deposit taking.) The loosening of incentives  was an important factor leading to the global financial crisis of 2008-2009. To the extent that counterparty credit risk is not fully disclosed to, or monitored by, regulators, the increased use of these innovations transfers risk in ways that are not necessarily scrutinized or understood.
	b
劉任昌 (2013). 主題專家翻譯之教科書內容可靠嗎？檢視 Saunders 與Cornett 之金融機構管理中譯本 (Can We Trust the Textbook Translated by Subject Experts? Examining the Translations of Saunders and Cornett’s Financial Institutions Management) (September 1, 2013). Journal of Sciences and Humanities, Vol. 2, No. 1, 19-54, 2013. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2322810 劉任昌 (2014). 著作權法與消費者保護法涉及之大專教科書議題. (2014/10/02). 聖約翰科技大學研討會. (在訪問期間撰寫) 相關性最高之著作： Joseph P. Liu, Copyright Law's Theory of the Consumer. Boston College Law Review, Vol. 44, 2003. http://ssrn.com/abstract=466420
Beginning with the advent of Section 20 subsidiaries in 1987, large banks have enjoyed much greater powers to underwrite commercial paper (and other securities) directly without legal challenges by the securities industry that underwriting by banks is contrary to the  Glass-Steagall Act.	黃、林 (2004)
Transfer of U.S. domestic loans is normally associated with a Uniform Commercial Code filing (as proof that a change of ownership has been perfected.) 評論：「債權銷售」一直被誤用與沿用為「貸款銷售」。

2. Cases against Academic Ethics

• Newton, I., Einstein, A., and Liu, R. (2014). A Development of Object-Oriented Languages. An Automatic CS Paper Generator, 28626.
• SCIgen - An Automatic CS Paper Generator: http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/
• Why were works generated by SCIgen accepted by so many conferences and academic journals? It is "The Emperor's New Clothes." Nobody dares to risk being criticized ignorance.
• A real example of forged research, which  is published is a university journal and is cited by many master thesis. I believe that the author would argue that he had done his best and he hadn't intend to forge that paper.
• Forged authorship. http://retractionwatch.com/page/24/
• Researchers facing criminal investigation for fraud.
  

  The Editorial Board of Cell Death and Disease is retracting the above article (PMID 22932725). A reader contacted the Editors about apparent duplications in Figures 1b and 2c, and possible splicing of an image in Figure 3c. Concerns were subsequently raised about the similarity of the tubulin loading controls in Figure 1b to those that appeared in Figure 1c of Cell Death and Differentiation 2006; 13: 1554–63 (PMID 16341121), a paper that was retracted by the authors on 6 December 2013. Because the Authors were unable to provide the original source files that were used to generate the figures in question, the Editorial Board is retracting this publication. The paper has been cited nine times, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge.

  Source: http://retractionwatch.com/

• Stealing from doctoral thesis.
  

  Retraction to: Novel Control Algorithm for the Foot Placement of a Walking Bipedal Robot. Int J Adv Robot Syst, 2013, 10:202. doi: 10.5772/55909 The Publisher retracts on Authors’ request, following a report of plagiarized content presented in the article. The Publisher’s subsequent investigation of the claims confirmed that the majority of the article originates from Section 4 of Tomas De Boer’s doctoral thesis titled “Foot placement in robotic bipedal locomotion” published in March 2012. Text, equations and figures were appropriated without reference to Dr. De Boer’s thesis or any other indication of the content’s origin. The Authors regret their actions and extend their sincere apologies to Dr. De Boer and Dr. Martijn Wisse. Tomas De Boer’s doctoral thesis may be accessed online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.4233/uuid:795fa8f5-84a0-4673-810c-a8265e29791c The authors — Wanli Liu, Zhankui Wang, and Meng Guo — are at two different institutions in China. De Boer was a graduate student at the Delft University of Technology, and is now at the Florida Institute for Human & Machine Cognition. Wisse was De Boer’s supervisor, according to the thesis. Source: http://retractionwatch.com/

• Issuing Retraction Notice. http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs-wm/46536.pdf
• Retracted Paper. http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs-wm/44301.pdf
  
• List of predatory publishers. Scholarly Open Access.  http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/01/02/list-of-predatory-publishers-2014/
• Taiwanese cases. http://academicethics.blogspot.com/2014/08/taiwanese-cases.html

3. Copyright Law

The Constitutional Provision Respecting Copyright

The Congress shall have power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8.
「為促進科學和實用技藝的進步，對作家和發明家的著作和發明，在一定期限內給予專利權的保障。」

Title 17 US Copyright Act, Section 102 (b): In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

TW Copyright Act Article 10-1: Protection for copyright that has been obtained in accordance with this Act shall only extend to the expression of the work in question, and shall not extend to the work's underlying ideas, procedures, production processes, systems, methods of operation, concepts, principles, or discoveries.

著作權法第 10-1 條：依本法取得之著作權，其保護僅及於該著作之表達，而不及於其所表達之思想、程序、製程、系統、操作方法、概念、原理、發現。

真實案例，某疑似抄襲者X，在收到Y委任律師存證信函後，回覆內容之片段： 所謂重製應是每字每句都一樣，而Y老師所提疑慮部分，其實也跟其他教科書所寫的內容很類似。其實我寫書的目的只是在輔助我的教學並沒有要跟Y老師搶生意的意思，更何況現在的學生都不太買書，我花那麼多時間寫書，至今也沒賺到一毛錢，還要被告，不知所為何來？

雖然X在主管壓力下退讓，但X始終不認為自己抄襲。但事實上，X為了避免「重製 」(重製應是每字每句都一樣)，將Y原著內容進行改作，且改作成傳達錯誤觀念。 上述導致典型之庭外和解，未公告，也未撤除爭議性著作 (書籍或論文)。雖然書籍未再印刷，也未再販售，但該著作仍然可透過圖書館與電子系統被善意之讀者參考，甚至引用在著作中，導致引用者之學術品質存在爭議性。

USCA does not protect abstract idea, procedure... regardless of the form in which it is described. TWCA does not protect abstract idea, procedure... but protect only its expression (the form in which is is described).

USCA provides a NEGATIVE listings of abstract and controversial items, e.g. idea, procedure... TWCA provides a NEGATIVE listings of abstract and controversial items, plus a POSITIVE listing of expression. I conjecture that this is a merit or a mistake. It induces some authors to believe that they do not infringe other's copyright as long as they adapt the expressed words when reproducing (incorporating) other's ideas.

"Copyright protection extends to the expression of particular ideas rather than to the ideas themselves. Yet protection actually reaches well beyond the literal work to works that have been copied and are substantially similar." (Fromer, Virginia L. Rev. 1749-1750 ,2012)

"It is of course essential to any protection of literary property, whether at common-law or under the statute, that the right cannot be limited literally to the text, else a plagiarist would escape by immaterial variations." "But when the plagiarist does not take out a block in situ, but an abstract of the whole, decision is more troublesome." "We did not in Dymow v. Bolton, 11 F.(2d) 690, hold that a plagiarist was never liable for stealing a plot; that would have been flatly against our rulings in Dam v. Kirk La Shelle Co., 175 F. 902, 41 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1002, 20 Ann. Cas. 1173, and Stodart v. Mutual Film Co., 249 F. 513, affirming my decision in (D.C.) 249 F. 507; neither of which we meant to overrule." NICHOLS v. UNIVERSAL PICTURES CORPORATION et al. 45 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1930)

「就他人的畫「臨摩」，畫得像的是重製，畫不像的是改作，即使顏色有變化，可能仍構成侵害著作權，但如果真的依一定的景物畫作，不管畫得像不像，既是獨立創作，應無侵害著作權之虞。不過，有時著作權方面不構成侵害，在學術界方面是否可被認為不是抄襲，不必然會認定相同，這應交由學界去處理。亦即學術歸學術，法律歸法律，學術上可能要求較嚴格，法律上則未必違反著作權法。」 章忠信 (2010, p. 47)

(to be continued)

Academic Ethics and Integrity. http://www.pmc.edu/academic-ethics-and-integrity

Helfer and Austin (2011). Human Rights and Intellectual Property

Locke, Hegel, and Kant: Expressive Incentives in Intellectual Property

Philosophical Foundation of Copyright, Creating, and Ultimate Reality of Life

Julie E. Cohen (2007). Creativity and Culture

Joseph P. Liu (2003). Copyright Law's Theory of the Consumer

Yochai Benkler (2000). From Consumers to Users

4. Academics Ethics

As far as I know the first case of retracting published paper occurred in 2006.

The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to education. They agree that education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and the sense of its dignity, and shall strengthen the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. They further agree that education shall enable all persons to participate effectively in a free society, promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations and all racial, ethnic or religious groups, and further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace. (Source: http://www.ohchr.org/)

論文疑造假》張邦彥：給我3個月證明 【聯合報／記者李名揚／台北報導】 對於中興大學教授張邦彥刊登在世界知名「細胞（Cell）期刊」的論文數據遭質疑造假，國科會表示，已給張邦彥兩個月時間，讓他重做實驗，證明自己清白；若最後確認是作假，張邦彥最重可能終身都不得再向國科會申請研究計畫。 張邦彥這項研究的經費是由國科會支持，國科會生物處處長鍾邦柱指出，遭質疑有問題的數據圖形，是張邦彥的學生用電腦繪製，張邦彥堅稱所有數據都是真實的，可重做來驗證，只是他的學生用電腦繪圖時一時疏忽，未保留原始圖檔。 鍾邦柱說，現在這件事情正由興大調查中，由於張邦彥剛被質疑時，曾要求細胞期刊給他兩個月時間，讓他重做實驗，但未獲對方接受，張邦彥才決定撤回這篇論文；所以現在國科會也給他兩個月時間，讓他重做實驗、接受同儕檢驗，因為只有同儕才有資格斷定研究結果是真或假。 張邦彥還有後續的研究結果，也投稿到著名的「生物化學期刊」，已被接受，但還未登出；鍾邦柱表示，由於擔心會遭受相同質疑，張邦彥已將後續研究的全部原始資料，都寄給生物化學期刊，以證明並未作假。 鍾邦柱指出，科學界最重視「誠實」，若兩個月後，證明確如張邦彥所說，只是學生未保留原始數據，那就只是一件小疏忽，沒有人會受到處分；若是學生作假，而張邦彥不知情，則張邦彥不會受到處分，但作假學生恐怕得從此退出學術圈。 【2006/12/21 聯合報】

I will show you other cases at request.

From the perspective human civilization evolution, research fake is a felony. 

A bribery or a fraud is a mere incidence (a trivial event) in the infinite time line of history. However, a fake research or a plagiarism is an attempt to torture the history and to destruct human development.

交大師告博士生毀謗　今開偵查庭 (蘋果日報，2014年04月24日) 交大副教授段馨君控告博士生助理陳運陞妨害名譽，今天新竹地檢署上午開偵查庭，庭上雙方各自表述意見，段馨君說自己並無抄襲，陳生任職助理期間僅是秘書職務，論文內容皆是由她口述陳生幫忙輸入，因此陳生的指控，已造成學術聲譽嚴重損害，因此提告。陳運陞則是說自己創作及勞動權益受損。  因日前目前就讀交大博士班三年級的陳運陞指稱，在擔任交大副教授段馨君助理期間，所做的學術研討會報告被段馨君著作出版，讓陳運陞認為段馨君侵犯著作權及有違學術倫理，並於日前招開記者會討公道，陳運陞認為老師必須要公開道歉，並且承認著作中部分內容為陳運陞所寫。 段馨君則是向檢察官表示，當時陳運陞只是秘書職務，最多也是由她口述後再由陳運陞打字紀錄，並無陳所指控的抄襲問題。同時段馨君也認為，陳運陞在網路上及媒體指控她抄襲，已經嚴重影響學術聲譽，因此控告妨害名譽。 今早招開的偵查庭，檢察官就相關提告內容詢問雙方兩造，偵查庭進行約1小時後結束，雙方並無眼神交集。踏出偵查庭段馨君副教授對於媒體詢問，表示將會發出聲明稿說明後，即快步離開地檢署。 陳運陞則是說，從100年9月至11月擔任段的研究助理，隔年段馨君出版專書｢戲劇與客家｣，將他寫的文字複製約6千字，陳運陞認為要爭取的是勞動權益被侵害，因雙方不是師生指導關係而是雇傭，陳說「任職期間一個月4千薪水，從事撰寫論文」，其中是否有代寫論文的疑慮，還有爭議。  陳表示，當時撰寫的內容被段馨君告知是用作研討會，但事後自己逛圖書館才驚覺被整理成冊並出書。交大學術倫理事件報告出爐，則是認定段馨君並無抄襲，僅因為著名未註明他人貢獻，有失「嚴謹」。 (侯力元／新竹報導）

「沒有實質貢獻」則「不應該列為共同作者」，因此「列為共同作者」則「應該具有實質貢獻」。 以上才是〈研究人員學術倫理規範〉的正確解讀，因為具有實質貢獻 (至少該博士生如此認為)，就要求列名共同作者，這並非〈研究人員學術倫理規範〉的主張。 我們用另外一個角度去解析：如果陳運陞將擔任助理期間，應段馨君副教授的要求，撰寫的計畫申請書與兩篇論文內容，陳生將他以獨立作者名義將 "論文" 發表，是否構成對段馨君的侵權行為？我認為是。因為陳生是應聘擔任助理，並非擔任研究員，或協同主持人。 我的主張和檢驗以下命題的邏輯相同，即 「陳運陞擔任研究助理期間，為段馨君副教授所撰寫之論文」成立之要件是： 第一、陳生應聘擔任段君的助理。 第二、陳生應段君的指示，收集與撰寫爭議著作內容。 第三、段君將陳生撰寫之著作，編輯成「論文」之一部分。 也就是說，陳生的工作是助理，並未有 (至少未表達) 撰寫該爭議「論文」之動機。卻在發現段君出版之「論文」中，包含他的工作成果作品，而指控約定之工作內容不包括「撰寫學術論文」、「撰寫計畫案」或是「撰寫專書」。(請問助理的工作又是什麼？乾脆再加上「協助升等」、「協助論文發表」。這個論點是惟恐天下不亂！高教公會如果想做對自己、對社會有實質貢獻的工作，跟我聯絡，我們一起來抓現職教師的抄襲。抄襲者會被解聘，就多出劉爛教師的職缺。) 很不幸的，陳生並沒有因為發現自己的工作成果而高興，段君肯定他的工作成果，才會高比率收錄他的工作成果在論文中。 很不幸的，段君在事前沒有設身處地的為社會科學博士生需要發表著作的艱困事實做著想。我個人的確發現一些老師將研究助理(但非短期助理)列為計畫或論文共同作者之案例。 我的建議是陳生應及早向段君公開道歉，段君接受其道歉，並且撤銷告訴。如果陳生對段君之研究議題有興趣，應提議對陳生指導與合作，讓雙方在未來有共同著作之生產。這才是多方共贏的解決之道。

5. Rights to Education and to Knowledge

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (經濟社會文化權利國際公約) Article 13:

The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to education. They agree that education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and the sense of its dignity, and shall strengthen the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. They further agree that education shall enable all persons to participate effectively in a free society, promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations and all racial, ethnic or religious groups, and further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace. (Source: http://www.ohchr.org/)

本公約締約國確認人人有受教育之權。締約國公認教育應謀人格及人格尊嚴意識之充分發展，增強對人權與基本自由之尊重。締約國又公認教育應使人人均能參加自由社會積極貢獻，應促進各民族間及各種族、人種或宗教團體間之了解、容恕及友好關係，並應推進聯合國維持和平之工作。 (來源： http://www.judicial.gov.tw/)

This statement parallel to what Hegel and Kant.

消費者保護法第7-條 企業經營者主張其商品於流通進入市場，或其服務於提供時，符合當時科技或專業水準可合理期待之安全性者，就其主張之事實負舉證責任。 商品或服務不得僅因其後有較佳之商品或服務，而被視為不符合前條第一項之安全性。

6. Economic and Financial Issues

During the visiting period, I completed a paper discussing the power struggle among the directors of Samyang Industry. It was written in Chinese and submitted by Contemporary Review, whose published is Tamkang Univeersity.

標題： 股東會授權董事會與董事會授權董事長決策：分析三陽工業經營權爭奪戰

摘要： 臺灣企業之股息分派案須經年度股東會表決通過，然後依慣例地授權董事會決定除息日與發放日。在2013年的三陽工業經營權爭奪戰，黃世惠家族的公司派為充分掌握可用之資源，在股東會決議分派股息後，即充分利用法令未規範之盲點，由董事會授權董事長全權決定股息發放日，導致「股利未發先扣稅」之狀況。在2014年的三陽工業股東會地點議題，董事會也授權董事長做最後決定，導致「股東會場地違規」事件。市場派股東為此反撲，不斷向臺灣證交所檢舉，最後促成證交所營業細則增訂「三陽條款」，三陽工業股票也因為股東會場地問題，被打入全額交割股。本研究透過回顧臺灣上市公司之相關事件，以及透過審視證交所之相關法令，檢視證交所上述處置之適當性，並且提出建議方案：第一、「三陽條款」內容應以規定分派基準日應在股東會後三個月內，以取代目前之發放日在分派基準日三個月內。第二、證交所之「決定分派股息及紅利或其他利益之基準日公告」表單應附加載明股息發放日之欄位，以昭公信。若分派股息之公司未能在公告之發放日支付股息，對應付股息債務違約之事實即成立，證交所可據以執行營業細則第49條之規定，對違約公司股票做打入全額交割股處置。第三、證交所因為三陽工業市場派股東之檢舉，而特地會同集保公司等單位前往勘查股東會場地，再因公司當局未配合勘查與改進，而將其股票打入全額交割股，證交所有失行政處置之一致性與比例原則。 關鍵字： 三陽工業、除息日、發放日、授權董事會、授權董事長 謝詞： 本研究是在中研院法律研究所訪問期間撰寫，作者特別感謝法律所提供之設備與環境。本研究之可能錯誤與責任皆由作者負責。

Moral rights

pearsonhood perspective...to achieve proper self-development--to be a person--an individual needs some control over resources in the external environment.	Radin, 1982 Stan L R
Property  provides a unique or especially suitable mechanism for self-actualization, for personal expression, and for dignity and recognition as an individual person. ..the idea is a manifestation of the creator's personality or self. The Lockean labor theory applies more easily because the common of ideas seems inexhaustible. The Hegelian personality theory applies more easily because intellectual products, even the most technical, seem to result from the individual's mental process.	Hughes,1988, Georg L R
Hegel’s theory develops an important insight about property: we need property to express ourselves in the world. The self-expression theory fits examples where the property in question reflects a person’s unique knowledge, creativity, insight, skill, or genius. If a person has poured oneself into the object, then the object should be his property. Some examples of these highly personal creations include poems, diaries, paintings, songs, sculptures, as well as gardens, houses, rooms, and musical instruments.	Resnik,2003 J B Ethics
The key factor is not the money, it's the will... the brutal force of putting in 60 hours a week for a week." (Fromer, 2012, p. 1776)	Fromer, 2012 Virg L R
	Fromer(2012)

陳祥、楊純青、黃伸閔 (2014)，我國博碩士論文不當引用與剽竊型態之研究: 以「科技接受模式」 相關論文之文獻探討為例。資訊社會研究，24，74-119。

以Davis於1986年所創製之「科技接受模型」(Technology Acceptance Model) 為研究內容之台灣碩士論文。選擇此議題之原因有二：第一，它是主要作者專長領域之一；第二、TAM理論的整體研究範疇的起始點明確，因此在選取研究樣本時能有較明確範圍可供篩選。研究發現如下：

1. 不當直接引用前人的文獻引用幾乎是產生論文文獻相互剽竊的主因。
2. 基於後續抄襲者係直接引用的抄襲行為，因而許多文獻上的錯誤會如世代相傳般綿延，無法得到更正的可能。
3. 數位化全文提供下載是推波助瀾近年博碩士論文作者更輕易相互抄襲。

會議後之檢討與回應

感激所有參予者熱烈的指導，讓我今天都在思考回饋的問題， 甚至正在試圖將各位老師提出的意見寫成論文。 各位老師提出的議題應該是最具有撰寫價值者，首先，  "按下相機快門者" (操作者) 未必是該相片之著作權所有人， 正如同電影攝影師 (攝影機操作者) 未必是該電影的著作權所有人。  (我試圖尋找陳述上述主張之文獻，但未找到，是否可以給我指引？ 讓我得以根據下述內容寫作。)  著作權所有人的必要條件是勞動力(labor, of Locke)與意志(will, of Hegel)。  完全接收指示操作相機或攝影機的操作者，縱然提供勞動， 卻無施展創作的意志力，所以不是著作權所有人。  因此，若是協助拍照的路人用(求好)意志選取角度與鏡頭，甚至用口語表達等方式， 營造現場拍攝氣氛，則該相片之所有權人是被拍攝者與拍攝者(路人)。 則該路人有權要求該相片之共同署名權，也有權共享可能之經濟權。  專業模特兒與專業攝影師合作產生之作品，人格權屬於二者共有，經濟權則屬於委託人(經紀公司或廠商)。  再如我舉出之真實案例：「小琪加入舞蹈教室...」模仿「小文加入游泳俱樂部...」 是前者「改作」後者，但改作手法是機械式的置換(replace)二個名詞， 沒有投入意志力可言，甚至可以直接稱她「沒格」，無人格權可言。  若作陳述類似內容：廖與王 (2012) 提供生動之選擇權商品例子， 我們可以模仿之，再舉例... 就不構成抄襲。 美國最高法院之相關判決書內容皆相當保守，且謹慎。 但我常聽到「複製比例在多少之下...」或「沒有整句相同...」就不算抄襲， 然而，我尚未看到任何正式的判決書出現類似內容。 我目前嘗試論證：將原典之主張勞動說與意志說 (人格說) 納入著作權法之著作權人定義。 但我習慣於以方程式、圖、表之論文寫作方式，目前還在摸索法律論文之寫作形式。 所以，我期待能有更多討論、指導或合著之可能。 我目前的最大資源是試圖在學術倫理或著作權議題創作之「意志力」。