Abstract
Criminal acts against trade secret violations regulated in Law Number 30 of 2000 have an important role in protecting ideas that have a selling value that can provide benefits in the business world and this study compares the criminal acts of trade secret violations regulated in Japan because both are in accordance with the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement (Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights including Trade in Counterfeit Goods) as an international agreement in an effort to protect Intellectual Property Rights. This study aims to determine how the application of sanctions stipulated in Law no. 30/2000 regarding Trade Secrets in the development of business activities in Indonesia and elements of proof that someone commits a criminal act of violating trade secrets as formulated in Article 17 paragraph (1) of the Trade Secret Law and how the Japanese government takes steps to implement a secret breach trade and Japan's efforts under the Fraud Prevention Act have strengthened the protection of its trade secrets. This writing method uses a type of normative legal research using a statutory approach. Based on the results of the investigation of Criminal Actions against Trade Secrets which have been decided by the competent Court, however, supervision and protection of trade secrets owned by business actors must be improved because trade secret violations cause material loss to the legitimate owner of the trade secret. The protection of trade secrets in Japan has an intellectual property protection system that was developed increasingly from the amendment process with a focus on increasing criminal sanctions to prevent the disclosure of Japanese technology abroad. Whereas in Indonesia, there are no restrictions regarding confidential information, it is clearly stated only in a (written) contract, does not violate legal principles and is not information that is public property.
Keywords: Criminal Act, trade secret violations
Bahasa Abstract
Tindak pidana terhadap pelanggaran rahasia dagang yang diatur dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 30 Tahun 2000. UU Ini memiliki peran penting dalam melindungi ide-ide yang memiliki nilai jual yang dapat memberikan manfaat dalam dunia bisnis. Penelitian ini membandingkan tindak pidana pelanggaran rahasia dagang yang diatur di Indoensia dan Jepang. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui penerapan sanksi yang diatur dalam UU No. 30/2000 tentang Rahasia Dagang dalam perkembangan aktivitas bisnis di Indonesia dan unsur-unsur membuktikan seseorang melakukan tindak pidana pelanggaran rahasia dagang yang dirumuskan dalam Pasal 17 ayat (1) UU Rahasia Dagang dan perbandingan antara pemerintah Jepang mengambil langkah-langkah menerapkan pengaturan pelaggaran rahasia dagangnya dan upaya Jepang dalam UU Pencegahan Persaingan Curang telah memperkuat perlindungan rahasia dagangnya. Tulisan ini menggunakan metode penelitian hukum normatif dengan pendekatan perundang-undangan. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian Tindak Pidana terhadap Rahasia Dagang yang telah diputus oleh Pengadilan berwenang, namun pengawasan dan perlindungan terhadap rahasia dagang yang dimiliki pelaku usaha harus semakin ditingkatkan karena pelanggaran rahasia dagang menimbulkan kerugian secara materi dari si pemilik sah rahasia dagang. Perlindungan rahasia dagang di Jepang memiliki sistem perlindungan kekayaan intelektual yang dikembangkan semakin meningkat dari proses amandemen dengan fokus pada peningkatan sanksi pidana untuk mencegah pembukaan teknologi Jepang di luar negeri. Sedangkan di Indonesia, tidak ada batasan mengenai informasi yang bersifat rahasia, secara jelas hanya dikemukakan dalam kontrak (tertulis), tidak melanggar prinsip-prinsip hukum dan bukan informasi yang telah menjadi milik umum.
Kata Kunci: Tindak Pidana, Pelanggaran Rahasia Dagang
References
Buku
Achmad Zen Umar Purba. Hak Kekayaan Intelektual Pasca TRIPs. Bandung: PT Alumni, 2005.
Ahmad M. Ramli. Perlindungan Rahasia Dagang Dalam UU No.30/2000 dan Perbandingannya dengan Beberapa Negara. Bandung: CV Mandar Maju, 2001.
Andi Hamzah. Asas-Asas Hukum Pidana. Jakarta: Rineka Cipta, 2008.
Andi Hamzah, KUHP Jepang, 1987.
Carl-Bern Kaelig, Indonesia Intelectual Property Law: Trade Secret Jakarta: PT. Tatanusa, 1993.
Cita Citrawinda Priapanjta. Budaya Hukum Indonesia Menghadapi Globalisasi Perdagangan atau Perlindungan Rahsaia Dagang di Bidang Farmasi. Bandung: Chandra Pratama. 1999.
E. Utrecht. Rangkaian Sari Kuliah Hukum Pidana I: Suatu Pengantar Hukum Pidana untuk Tingkat Pelajaran Sarjana Muda Hukum Suatu Pembahasan Pelajaran Umum. Surabaya: Pustaka Tinta Mas, 2001.
Gunawan Widjaja. Rahasia Dagang, Seri Hukum Bisnis. Jakarta: PT. Raja Grafindo Persada, 2001.
H. Adami Chazawi. Tindak Pidana Hak atas Kekayaan Intelektual (HaKI): Penyerangan Terhadap Kepentingan Hukum Kepemilikan dan Penggunaan Hak atas Kekayaan Intelektual. Malang: Bayumedia Publishing, 2007.
Hyun-Soo Kim, Dissertation, Trade Secret Law, Intellectual Property. and Innovation: Theoretical. Empirical,and Asian Perspectives. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 2010.
Karl F. Jorda “International Trade Secret Protection” yang dimuat pada Protecting Trade Secrets 1983; Patents, Copyrights, Trademarks and Literacy Property Course, Handbook Series, No. 157 (Practising Law Institute).
OK. Saidin. Aspek Hukum Hak Kekayaan Intelektual (Intellectual Property Rights). Jakarta: PT RajaGrafindo Persada, 2004.
Suyud Margono, Amir Angkasa. Komersialisasi Aset Intelektual, Aspek Hukum Bisnis. Jakarta: PT Gramedia Widia Sarana Indonesia, 2002.
Tim Lindsey, dkk. Hak Kekayaan Intelektual Suatu Pengantar. Bandung: PT. Alumni, 2004).
Artikel
Anastasia E. Gerungan, ”Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Rahasia Dagang Ditinjau Dari Aspek Hukum Perdata dan Pidana di Indonesia”, Jurnal Hukum Unsrat Vol. 22 Nomor 5 (Januari 2016).
Thomas Landman. Trade Secret Protection in Japan and the United States: Comparison and Recommendation, Brooklyn Journal of Internasional Law. Vol. 44 No. 2. 2019.
Peraturan Perundang-Undangan
Indonesia, Undang-Undang Rahasia Dagang, UU No. 30 Tahun 2000, LN Nomor 242 Tahun 2002, TLN Nomor 4044
Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana (Wetboek van Strafrecht). Diterjemahkan oleh Moeljatno. Jakarta: Pradnya Paramita, 1976.
Unfair Competition Prevention Act (UCPA), Japan.
Putusan Pengadilan
Mahkamah Agung, Salinan Putusan Nomor 332 K/PID.SUS/2013
Pengadilan Negeri Palu, Putusan Nomor 55/Pid.B/2011/PN.PL.
Internet
Intellectual Property Policy Office, “Significant Changes to Japan’s Trade Secret Protection Law”. https://www.jpo.go.jp/.
Stepher Elias, “Trade Secret Law: Overview”, http://www.marketingtoday.com/legal/ trdesec.html.
Sumber lain
Japan Patent Office Asia-Pacific Industrial Property Center. Outline of the Japanese Unfair Competition Prevention Law.
Katzuko Matsui. Development in the Protection of Trade Marks in Japan, Inter-Pacific Bar Association, Sydney Conference. 1992.
Recommended Citation
Hakim, Ariffan Rahman
(2022)
"PENERAPAN TINDAK PIDANA TERHADAP PELANGGARAN RAHASIA DAGANG DI INDONESIA DAN JEPANG,"
"Dharmasisya” Jurnal Program Magister Hukum FHUI: Vol. 2, Article 16.
Available at:
https://scholarhub.ui.ac.id/dharmasisya/vol2/iss2/16
Included in
Administrative Law Commons, Banking and Finance Law Commons, Bankruptcy Law Commons, Business Organizations Law Commons, Civil Law Commons, Civil Procedure Commons, Computer Law Commons, Conflict of Laws Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Construction Law Commons, Contracts Commons, Courts Commons, Criminal Law Commons, Criminal Procedure Commons, Family Law Commons, Government Contracts Commons, Health Law and Policy Commons, Human Rights Law Commons, Insurance Law Commons, International Law Commons, International Trade Law Commons, Internet Law Commons, Jurisprudence Commons, Law and Economics Commons, Law and Philosophy Commons, Law and Politics Commons, Law of the Sea Commons, Legal History Commons, Legislation Commons, Marketing Law Commons, Military, War, and Peace Commons, Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law Commons, Organizations Law Commons, Other Law Commons, Privacy Law Commons, Public Law and Legal Theory Commons, Religion Law Commons, Rule of Law Commons, Social Welfare Law Commons, State and Local Government Law Commons, Supreme Court of the United States Commons, Taxation-Federal Commons, Taxation-Federal Estate and Gift Commons, Taxation-Transnational Commons, Tax Law Commons, Torts Commons, Transnational Law Commons, Transportation Law Commons, Water Law Commons, Workers' Compensation Law Commons