TD4 wrote:
你是不是要再看一次？(恕刪)
我沒看到啊。
你不舉實例出來，誰知道你以為的判例，實際上跟論文門相似度是多少？
你前面已經引用一個駭客入侵這個跟論文門風牛馬不相及的案件了。
只要你能舉出一個判例，是博士生把自己的口試委員的名字公開出來，然後被告洩漏個資成功，我就服你。
如果你要堅持，有很多"examiner"這字出現的判例，這些判例都跟蔡英文的案子有高度相似性，那我只會覺得你是來亂的。
airbus330 wrote:
你知道你在說什麼？你(恕刪)
我不曉得下面這是幹嘛的...
The Purpose of this Policy and Key Principles
1.2.1 This Policy and associated procedures have been designed to be a general statement of the LSE’s
policy in relation to the works and associated intellectual property rights of LSE, LSE members of
staff, LSE students and LSE visitors in a way which balances the interests of all parties,
LSE Intellectual Property Policy
1.4 Who this Policy applies to:
1.4.1 This Policy applies to all works created at LSE by LSE members of staff in the course of their
employment, LSE students in the course of their studies and LSE visitors in the course of their
visiting arrangement; more specifically it sets out LSE’s policy in relation to intellectual property
rights in works created by:
TD4 wrote:
前面我討論的是在英國「學校自行公佈口委個資」會不會有法律問題
看起來是有的。你前面提到的Queen's University，我搜尋到的案例是因為沒有提供考官名字，而被ICO糾正，要求校方必須提供考官名字。
我不知道你是不是蔡英文陣營裡面的高級黑....
你說的其他學校，我找不到網頁。我有看到General Medical Council的案子，但case examiner不是考官。
內文搜尋
從 APP 打開
X