后TRIPs时代我国知识产权反垄断的立法价值选择

后TRIPs时代,我国知识产权保护水平已与世界先进国家标准接轨;但我国自主创新比例却相当低,知识产权已经成为国外知识产权权利人进人中国后封闭市场、排挤竞争对手的工具。一国的知识产权反垄断立法价值取向应当与其具体的国内外经济政治环境相适应,反映其“本土性”、“时代性”的特点。作为拥有知识霸权的发达国家,已放松了对知识产权反垄断的规制,持有利于知识产权人的立场;他们的立场与技术落后的发展中国家截然不同。我国在知识产权反垄断立法过程中,当务之急不是去寻求国外的立法技术移植;而是从战略高度确定知识产权反垄断的立法价值取向,即以社会公益为本位,强化反垄断规制。     

与技术标准相关的知识产权强制许可

在知识经济时代,知识产权在市场竞争中起着非常重要的作用,从而它的行使与竞争法包括反垄断法有着密切的关系。本文以技术标准为视角,以德国的Spundfass和美国的N-date两个案件为例,说明作为技术标准的知识产权有可能被强制许可的情况。本文指出,知识产权的行使须受竞争法的制约,解决知识产权与竞争法二者冲突的方法是衡量限制竞争的影响。我国反垄断法第55条对滥用知识产权限制竞争的行为作出了禁止性规定。为了使这个规定具有可操作性,我国应在这方面尽快制定相关的实施细则或者指南。     

中外反商业贿赂法律制度之比较

商业贿赂是市场经济中一种常见且危害较大的不正当竞争行为,各国的竞争法都明令禁止,并给予严厉制裁。本文选取美国、日本、德国、法国等一些发达国家作为参考系,根据可比性原则,从反商业贿赂法规制度体系规范出发,与我国反商业贿赂法规制度作横向比较分析。通过比较其优劣利弊,从中借鉴和吸收国外反商业贿赂法规制度的优点和经验,以弥补我国之不足,以促进我国反商业贿赂法规制度的科学化、规范化。     

The interplay between IP rights and competition law in the context of standardization

Legal context: This article attempts to analyse the patent ambush scenarioin the context of both competition law and IP rights under USand EC law. The regulators such as the US FTC and European Commissionattempt to combat the abuses, however the legal tools availablerequire a very difficult balancing act between patent law (whichprotects innovation) and competition law (which attempts tohamper abuse of the free market rules). Key points: The patent ambush scenario employed within a standard-settingorganization poses an important threat of jeopardizing the goalsof achieving a common standard. The response to the problemconcentrates on ensuring that the rules applicable to standard-settingorganizations' members prevent abuse and/or reaching reasonableand non-discriminatory licensing terms to stop deriving unduebenefits from proprietary technologies embedded in the standard. Practical significance: As the information exchange technologies become increasinglypopular, the need to ensure interoperability between productsof different manufacturers employing these technologies becomescrucial for market success. This consequently increases thedanger of malignant abuse of co-operation within the standardsetting-organizations. The law may need to step in to securetechnological progress free of risks such as the patent ambush.     

Intellectual property (IP) protection versus IP abuses: The recent development of Chinese IP abuse rules and recommendations for foreign technology-driven companies

This paper will focus on the recent development of the Chinese IP abuse legislation and its potential impact on IP protection and the operation of technology-driven foreign enterprises in China. Firstly, it will provide a brief overview of the TRIPS's requirements on IPR abuse and technology transfer, and the recent development of IP abuse laws at the domestic level, particularly in the US and the EC. Secondly, by drawing a comparison with similar laws in the US and the EC, this paper will critically examine the recent development of the Chinese laws regarding technology transfer and IP abuse prevention, including both the recently enacted Anti-Monopoly Law 2008 (AML) and other prior-AML regulations. Thirdly, the paper will examine both opportunities and potential risks these laws may bring to foreign IP holders/technology-driven companies when operating in China, particularly focusing on the impact of the IP-related provision in the AML. Recent development in antitrust litigation in which Microsoft is a party, including the recent anti-monopoly investigation against Microsoft in China, will also be examined. Lastly, it will provide some practical suggestions for foreign IP holders and technology-driven companies to operate in China, such as useful defences against potential IP abuse claims, and other strategies for flexibly applying the IP abuse rules and better participating in future IP abuse legislative process in China.     

Would the current ambiguities within the legal protection of software be solved by the creation of a sui generis property right for computer programs?

Legal context: Software is an anomaly in the traditional sphere of IP, andits problematic nature has been manifest in the confused findingsof courts on both sides of the Atlantic. This article considersthe reasons for the confusion, where things might have beendone better, and how the law could develop considering the realitiesof the industry. Key points: Software protection at present favours the multinational corporations,while the interests of smaller companies and the Free and OpenSource Software community are prejudiced greatly. The currentregime is not fundamentally incompatible with software, however,and as such features of it could and should be retained in thecreation of a sui generis IP right. Practical significance: Much of today's software industry is driven by the efforts ofsmall enterprises and the Free and Open Source Software community.Their interests are not recognized in the current protection-biasedframework, and as a result innovation is being stifled by thethreat of litigation. IP law in this area is preventing thevery thing it is designed to foster—enterprise and innovation.     

知识产权惩罚性赔偿的类型化适用与风险避免——基于国际知识产权规则的视角

惩罚性赔偿制度的目的在于通过惩罚既往侵权行为而威慑未来侵权行为,其前提包括权利的确定性、侵权判断可行和过度威慑的消极影响小。知识产权的不确定性决定了它与惩罚性赔偿有着根本冲突,难以全面适用惩罚性赔偿制度。从惩罚性赔偿制度的前提和侵权行为的道德可责性出发,可对知识产权惩罚性赔偿进行类型化适用,恶意知识产权侵权行为或可适用惩罚性赔偿,一般知识产权侵权行为则难以适用。在国际知识产权规则下,既要保护知识产权,又要为正当竞争保留合理空间,知识产权与竞争的平衡才可产生最优的创新激励效果。知识产权惩罚性赔偿可能造成过度威慑,打破知识产权与竞争的平衡,妨碍知识产权法基本目标的实现。类型化适用有利于降低或避免知识产权惩罚性赔偿的制度风险。     

论反不正当竞争法对知识产权的保护

反不正当竞争法的诞生源于对知识产权的保护,它与知识产权法的关系极为密切,二者形成了相辅相成的互动关系,一方面,反不正当竞争法对于保护知识产权,特别是保护那些不能直接获得知识产权单行法保护的智力成果及相关成就有着不可缺少的补充作用,另一方面,知识产权制度本身的建立,也有利于市场竞争秩序的健康发展,所以,在某种意义上,可以反过来说,知识产权法是竞争法律制度的重要组成部分。     

障碍与释疑:反垄断法适用于银行业的理论澄清

法律适用的明晰是开展法律规制实践的必要前提。虽然反垄断法的适用障碍表现出法律效力的"自我否定"倾向,但是这种制度设计源于对行业发展规律和合理规则方法的尊重。伴随市场经济的发展和管制行业的开放浪潮,反垄断法适用障碍具有主客观两方面的消弭倾向,其适用范围不断扩张。市场化进程的推进使得作为垄断性行业的银行业逐渐回归市场竞争的发展本质,"新型"的反垄断规制和"传统"的金融规制也会因此产生此消彼长的态势转变。《反垄断法》适用于银行业的实然逻辑在于既有法律规则范畴下的解释合法性、银行业市场发展演变的行业合理性以及我国反垄断规制发展脉络下的可期待性。     

Walking the groundless threats minefield

Legal context. It is one of the peculiarities of UK law thatthreatening litigation of IP rights can, in some circumstances,give rise to an action for "groundless threats". This has thepotential to cause great disruption to the right-holder's case.There is even the potential for professional advisors to endup in the dock where they made the threat on their client'sbehalf, raising the possibility of a conflict of interest preventingthe advisers from continuing to act. Key points. To minimise the risk of these scenarios, intellectualproperty law advisors, be they patent or trade mark attorneysor solicitors, should be aware of the provisions that governgroundless threats actions for the various IP rights, particularlyin light of the recent changes brought in by the Patents Act2004 and the further changes expected to the groundless threatsprovisions relating to designs. These alterations increasinglycomplicate what has always been a nebulous area of the law.In addition, there is considerable tension between the "talkfirst, sue later" philosophy underlying the Civil ProcedureRules and the "sue first, talk later" approach traditionallyused to circumvent threats actions. Reckitt recently confirmedthat the groundless threats provisions, while running counterto the purpose of the CPR, cannot be ignored by the Courts.This article provides an overview of the current state of thegroundless threats provisions that apply to the various IP rights,and considers how IP owners and their advisors can best navigatethe groundless threats minefield. Practical significance. Groundless threats form a complex andchanging area of IP law in the UK, which advisers need to takeinto account in virtually every dispute. Amendments made toSection 70 of the Patents Act 1977 have not provided a threatspanacea to patent holders and it remains to be seen how thesection will be interpreted by the Courts. What is clear isthat the threats provisions contained in the IP legislationwill remain in force in one form or another for the foreseeablefuture and that they remain a trap for the unwary.     

我国《公司法》体系的重构——一种解释论的观点

1993年以来我国《公司法》虽经过多次修订、修改,但其体系结构并没有发生实质的变化。由于历史的原因,我国《公司法》最初是为现代企业制度的建立,而参酌各国公司立法经验,整合了有限责任公司法规范和股份公司法规范,采取“统分结合”的方式,形成了现行法上的规范体系。这一体系对法律解释和法律适用产生了困扰。各国现代公司法体系是19世纪自由竞争和工业经济的产物,是为大型公开公司的需求而设计的。多数国家以公开公司为基础,以封闭公司为例外,建立了公司法的体系,在立法形式上,采取这两类公司的分别立法或统一立法的模式。近年来,以英国和日本为代表的国家进行了公司法的改革,转变了原有的观念,以中小企业和封闭公司为基础构建一般规范,对公开公司作出例外规定或就某一事项作出单独规定。我国《公司法》的修订应顺应当代知识经济和数字经济的要求,在坚持现行法上将有限责任公司和股份有限公司统合于一部公司法典的基本模式的同时,建立从公司设立、存续到消灭等的同一事项中以具有封闭性质的中小公司为定位建立基础规范,对具有公开性质的大公司作例外或单独规范,以利于公司法的解释和适用。     

Understanding IP enforcement in the United States and beyond

An often neglected topic in the field of IP law is IP borderenforcement. To a large extent, the protection and enforcementof IP rights is the burden of right holders and most discussionsinvolving the protection of these rights centre on (or at leastbegin with) obtaining patent, copyright, and trade mark protection.Additionally, much attention is paid to bringing and defendinginfringement suits. As a result, the importance of border enforcementis usually not given the attention     

Predatory Innovation: A Step Beyond? (Understanding Competition in High-technology Markets)

The idea of a direct relationship between innovation and progress must be reconsidered. Innovation, in other periods of History merely pursued for the sake of Mankind, eventually turned into an grail for companies willing to see their sales increased. The last decades had witnessed another turn of the screw in that identification: innovation may be used as a weapon to destroy rivals and take over a market, regardless of any considerations of progress. Competition law is not foreign to these new circumstances. The inclusion of innovation as a variable in the context of an exclusionary strategy entails not only an important aggression to free competition, but to social welfare. Due to the novelty of these practices, competition law is still adapting itself to the new scenario. This paper explains the underlying complexity of the study of predatory innovation, establishing the foundations for its proper understanding and subsequent approach of the conclusions to market operators, legislators, judges and to society itself.     

国际植物新品种保护制度的变革发展与我国应对

植物新品种保护制度发展历史表明,育种技术和农业商业化是推动植物育种创新保护制度发展与变革的重要因素。文章从育种技术和种业发展对植物新品种保护制度影响的角度,分析国际植物新品种保护制度的发展与变革,以及我国植物新品种保护的实践探索与面临挑战,认为制定《植物新品种保护法》是我国种业现代化的必然选择。《植物新品种保护法》既是种业企业基本的产权保障法,也是种业领域最重要的“反不正当竞争法”。唯有制定《植物新品种保护法》,才能有效解决品种权保护中的“取证难、周期长、成本高、保护弱”的问题,才能有效完善现行法律法规之不足,为我国种业发展的现代化、开启种业发展新纪元提供法治保障。     

反垄断法中联合限制竞争行为的比较研究

联合限制竞争行为的主体必须为两个或两个以上,且目的在于限制竞争;根据不同的分类法,可将其分为横向与纵向、协议与协同、禁止与豁免等种类;考虑其在经济上既能产生消极效果亦能产生积极效果,因此不能简单适用本身违法原则,有时需通过经济学分析以区别豁免情形;欧美竞争法规制联合限制竞争行为在立法体例、价值目标、执法机制、例外制度方面等均不尽相同;我国反垄断立法应以欧美竞争立法经验为基础,同时体现我国的特色.     

不争执条款的反垄断法分析

知识产权许可协议中的不争执条款既有阻碍竞争的消极影响,也有其积极的一面。美国、日本、欧盟在认定不争执条款的效力时采用了基本相同的方法,即一般指导原则下的个案分析。它们运用一套以反垄断法为基础的具体规则,将宏观经济背景、技术发展水平、市场结构状态、权利质疑成本等因素类型化、具体化,主要依合理原则进行考量,协调知识产权政策和竞争政策的变化。我国应当甄别性地借鉴国外的成熟经验,不断完善不争执条款的立法和执法。     

无线电频谱资源使用权的开放性设计

我国传统上僵化的频谱监管没有确认无线电频谱使用人的民事权利,不利于电信市场的竞争和技术创新。而《物权法》对于无线电频谱国家所有权的规定混淆了"民法之物"和"公物",背离了频谱使用权开放性的改革方向。应当将频谱资源所有权界定为公法所有权,进而将经行政许可获得的频谱使用权确认为准物权,准用民法规范,允许其自由交易,合理设计其取得、期限、内容以及效力,从而增强频谱资源利用的开放性和灵活性,鼓励投资和竞争,激励创新。     

Secured Financing of Intellectual Property Assets and the Reform of English Personal Property Security Law

The past three decades have seen a decline in traditional industriesin the United Kingdom and there has been a relative declinein the value of physical assets to the UK economy. At the sametime, the value of intangible assets seen in intellectual propertyrights have increased considerably. As such, IP rights representimportant assets for companies and often comprise the foundationfor market dominance and continued profitability. There is astructural uncertainty in the law relating to the use of IPas collateral for the purpose of raising debt finance and thismay impact upon the survival of firms with high ratios of intangibleto tangible assets. This article considers the proper goalsfor an effective credit and security regime in IP. It examinesthe significance of the availability of collateral to the lendingdecision and also considers whether the reluctance to maximisethe use of IP as security reflects inherent difficulties whicharise out of the nature of IP as economic assets. This has implicationsfor the reform of English personal property security law andthe development of bright line priority rules associated withArticle 9 of the US Uniform Commercial Code which is often citedas a model for reform of English law.     

《反垄断法》实施的预期效应探究

我国的《反垄断法》是国家基于“公平与效率”的价值追求而创设的市场经济基础·肄法律，旨在维护市场有序竞争，落实国家竞争、产业等经济政策，实现国家经济管理职能。它的实施必将产生一系列预期效应：国家竞争政策统一、反垄断指南具法律效力、“成文法”与“判例法”相融合、为保护国家利益增添新的法律手段以及促进我国行政管理体制的进一步改革等。     

Spaces and Places: A Systems Theory Approach to Regulatory Competition in European Company Law

Abstract:  This article takes issue with the longstanding oppositional themes of harmonisation versus regulatory competition in European company law. Instead of embracing one approach over the other in exclusivity, the article draws attention to the persisting mixture of approaches to an emerging European-wide law regulating the business corporation. Against the background of an ongoing struggle over identifying the goals and taboos of the European legislator's mandate in regulating the company, the argument put forward here is that this very struggle is reflective of the nature of the evolution of company law in an 'integrating Europe and a globalising world'. European attempts of developing European company law as part of a larger initiative of improving the Union's potential for innovation and competition are thus likely to meet with the challenges that contemporary Nation States are facing when adapting their modes of regulation and representation to the demands of an increasingly complex and decentralised fields of market activities. Situating the law of the business corporation within the larger theme of European integration on the one hand, and of issues of market regulation, domestic, transnational, and international, on the other, suggests the adoption of a systems theory-based approach to understanding the boundaries of law in this multilevel and multipolar process.