在工商業高度發達的社會，事業單位爲免其長年努力耕耘所獲得之成果，被在職中或離職後之勞工非法或不當運用，以致其業務或客戶流失、甚至陷入經營困境。因此，其尋求以競業禁止條款維護其正當利益，毋寧係一極爲正常的現象。然而，爲免契約正義在當事人之一方濫用契約自由原則下蕩然無存，競業禁止條款理當受到憲法上之工作權或遷徙自由的限制，亦是一極爲自然之事，蓋憲法上所保障之自由或權利，並非可以毫無限制地行使，而係應與其他的自由或權利取得協調(praktische Konkordanz)。尤其是我國勞工法令對於競業禁止條款之合法性及其審查標準幾無規定，更顯示出從憲法上之職業自由及比例原則導出解決此一問題的重要性。一俟憲法上之相關之原理原則釐清後，始能及於合理性審查之各種標準，此尤待於學者的闡釋與法院的形成具體的標準。至於在勞工的技術發明或精神創作方面，我國在發明權或專利權部分並不採發明人原則，而在著作權部分則是採取有條件的創作人原則。惟均是原則上賦予雇主專有的實施權或著作財產權，但卻同時給予勞工適當的報酬請求權或著作人格權保留在勞工著作人。因此，並不宜簡易地即謂雇主擁有排他獨佔之權利，故勞工即無（尤其是離職後）使用該發明或著作物之餘地。而是應區別各種不同的情況，綜合勞雇雙方利益之平衡，以得出適當的解決方式。在此，雇主原則上不得單純地以後契約忠實義務或後契約附隨義務，而要求離職勞工不得合法地使用其發明或著作物。如以勞工發明而言，尤其是針對勞工非職務上之發明、新型或新式樣，不問其是否有利用雇主之資源或經驗，原則上雇主只取得一非專屬的實施權（但經約定可取得一專屬的實施權），如此一來，雇主如欲禁止勞工離職後之使用該發明、新型或新式樣，其有效與否，應以其是否給付勞工一適當的報酬爲準。吾人以爲此處之“適當報酬”，其性質上與代償給付相同。至於在勞工著作部分，尤其是在勞工離職後，雇主之使用著作物（尤其是非職務上之著作），亦應以代償給付之理論，課雇主在繼續使用該著作物之際，亦應負擔給付另一額外報酬之義務。

At present, every undertaking which has long-term investment in invention or every sorts of (spiritual) works and already get his profit, will try to stop his workers to use the know-how or other knowledge unlawfully or inappropriately. Otherwise, he could lose his business or clients, or his undertaking breaks down. For that reason it is a natural thing that employer try to make Articles for restraint on competitive practice with employee. But, on the other hand, the contractual justice might disappear when employer abuse the freedom of contract, therefore, the Articles for restraint on competitive practice must be restrained by right, of work or freedom of movement. The reason is, that none of freedom or right which be protected by Constitution can ignore another freedom or right which also regulated in the Constitution. It means that every freedom or right must coordinate with another freedom or right. Especially because our labor law contain no regulations over the legality or criteria about the Articles for restraint on competitive practice, it seems it is necessary to try to solve this problem through freedom of profession or ratio principle which regulated in the Constitution. Only when we resolve this problem, then we can come to discuss the reasonable criteria, which scholars should continue to research and courts should draw up the concrete criterion. With respect to labor technical inventions or spiritual works, our Patent Act does not carry out Principle of Creator, and Copyright only carry out Principle of Creator conditionally. In this case, employer in principle has exclusive right of use or copyright of property. Nevertheless, employee can ask employer to give him another appropriate remuneration. Therefore, it is too rudely to say that because employer has exclusive right, so employee is forbidden to use inventions or spiritual works (especially when employee has given up his job). We must distinguish different occasions, and try to consider both sites' interest carefully, and find a reasonable solution. If employer really want to ban employee to use inventions or spiritual works to compete with him, then he cannot only depend on post-contractual loyal duty theory or post-contractual additional duty theory. It is not plausible. In the case of laborer's inventions, especially when inventions are not within labor contractual obligation, whether employee has use employer's resources or experience or not, employer in principle can only get simple right of use (but when he make an agreement with employee, he can also get exclusive right of use). Then he must give employee another appropriate remuneration in order to forbid him to use the inventions which he invented, otherwise this restraint order or non-competitive request is invalid. We can equate the appropriate remuneration with compensation payment. In the case of laborer's spiritual works, especially when works are not within labor contractual obligation, the employer must also give employee another appropriate remuneration in order to use spiritual works continually, even though he originally has right to use spiritual works.