论美欧知识产权人拒绝交易的反垄断法规制

对知识产权人拒绝交易的反垄断规制一直是保护竞争的反垄断法与激励创新的知识产权法相交领域的一个重要课题,而规制的重点在于界定知识产权人拒绝交易是否合法的审查标准。通过纵向分析美欧各自的判例沿革,对两者的做法和立场进行对比,找出了二者的保护消费者利益和社会公共福利的共性,同时对美欧的不同立场进行了比较并探讨原因。最后,分析我国对美欧知识产权人拒绝交易反垄断规制的借鉴。     

THE STOCHASTIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PATENTS AND ANTITRUST

This article develops a novel theory by which to construe theinteraction between the patent and antitrust laws. The rulesof these respective disciplines are often portrayed as conflictingin means, yet harmonious in purpose. Although the intellectualproperty and antitrust laws have ostensibly divergent viewson the role of competition, their interaction is typically limitedto one of constraint. More specifically, antitrust rules havebeen (poorly) designed to limit the exclusivity inherent ina patent grant to the claimed invention alone. This article,however, articulates a new vision for the role of antitrust:it posits that competition rules operate as a stochastic regulatorof exclusionary patent rights. The Sherman Act constrains patentees'efforts to positively transform the probabilistic nature oftheir intellectual property rights through contract. Yet, becausethe empirical calculation of optimal innovation rates is anelusive, if not Sisyphean, task, the normative desirabilityof the foregoing fact is abstruse. Nevertheless, policymakers'inability to pinpoint precisely the ex post rewards requiredto trigger ideal levels of ex ante investment need not bindour hands to inaction. If contemporary rates of innovation aredeemed acceptable (even if not necessarily perfect), there maybe ways to trigger equivalent levels of ex ante investment withlower social cost. In this regard, it is clear that currentlyenacted competition rules significantly accentuate the uncertaintysurrounding patents' apotropaic effect. Concluding that contractssecuring otherwise stochastic rights may be highly desirable,the article calls for the incorporation of this concern intocontemporary rules, with modest substantive effect, and furtheradvocates a qualified antitrust immunity for "gold-plated" patentsif and when they are introduced.     

竞争法对知识产权的保护与限制

知识产权法对知识所建构的权利义务规范以及民法基本原则对知识产权的保护和限制存在着天然的缺陷。知识的私有性与社会性,决定了知识产权与反不正当竞争法和反垄断法的被保护与被规制的关系。反不正当竞争法着眼于侵权人,保护知识产权不受侵犯;反垄断法着眼于权利人,以便防范知识产权的滥用。二者弥补了私法层面对知识产权保护的不足和对滥用知识产权行为制约的局限。     

知识产权强制许可中的反垄断法

如何正确处理知识产权与反垄断法的关系,已经成为各国反垄断立法和执法的热点问题。2004年德国联邦法院关于Spundfass一案的判决,确立了知识产权权利人因违反反垄断法而被强制许可的两个前提条件:一是知识产权许可已经成为其他企业进入市场必不可少的条件;二是权利人的拒绝许可没有重大的合理性。知识产权的行使应当受到反垄断法的制约;解决知识产权与反垄断法冲突的方式是衡量知识产权给权利人带的经济利益和限制竞争对社会的影响。中国应尽快出台反垄断法,并尽快制定与知识产权相关的反垄断指南。     

The Supremacy of Techno-Governance: Privatization of Digital Content and Consumer Protection in the Globalized Information Society

The article aims to describe the role of technology and contractin regulating access to digital content deregulating intellectualproperty law monopoly. In particular it argues that the anti-circumventionprovisions for technological protection measures and digitalrights management systems enacted in the United States and inEurope compromise the consumer’s capacity to exerciselegitimate rights, such as the private use exemption, by givingcontent owners extralegal protection for their works. It alsoanalyses how these acts have caused an inappropriate delegationof governmental decision making to a non-governmental entitywith a consequent privatization of the government’s rolein protecting intellectual property and in setting technicalstandards for digital infrastructure and interoperability.     

Defending intellectual property: State efforts to protect creative works

We examine state efforts to protect intellectual property. In particular, we assess two alternative hypotheses relating to these efforts: the intellectual property protection argument, which predicts an increasing amount of law aimed at protecting intellectual property from unauthorized use; and the intellectual property access argument, which predicts little growth in law aimed at protecting intellectual property but considerable growth in law aimed at providing access to it. Focusing on copyright law, we consider legislative action dealing with copyright between 1949 and 1992, efforts to enforce copyright law as a whole between 1955 and 1993, and efforts to enforce copyright law in one sphere between 1985 and 1994. Our analysis provides mixed support for the intellectual property protection argument. Federal legislators increasingly sought to pass laws protecting creative works, and their efforts intensified over the last decade. On the other hand, federal officials were less than aggressive in enforcing the law; although the courts were diligent in processing cases of copyright infringement, officials exhibited diminished initiative in bringing such cases to court. Local officials, however, seemed to become far more active in prosecuting cases.     

浅议我国知识产权基本理论体系的战略构建

随着我国知识产权事业的蓬勃发展,知识产权基本理论体系作为实施知识产权法制和知识产权战略的重要基础,将更加凸显其重要的价值.然而,一直以来知识产权基本理论体系的内涵仅限于知识产权法制的范畴,尚不适应实施知识产权战略的需要.为此,提出了加快知识产权法制基本理论向知识产权战略基本理论的拓展与融合,构建完整的知识产权基本理论体系,以更好地适应我国知识产权事业发展的需要.     

论知识产权法与竞争法在促进有效竞争方面的平衡与协调

知识产权法不仅需要维护权利所有人的利益,而且需要服务于维护公平竞争的目标。在知识产权法与反不正当竞争法、反垄断法等竞争法之间,存在一种利益平衡问题,需要实现知识产权的行使与反垄断控制、反竞争控制间的平衡。这种平衡机制总的来说是平衡各种应当保护的利益,主要涉及知识产权的私人利益和促进公平竞争的社会利益。     

论计算机信息交易的法律性质

计算机信息交易是指以计算机信息为客体的在线电子交易，是电子商务的一种特殊类型。计算机信息交易包括计算机信息在线销售与计算机信息在线服务。从法律性质上讲，计算机信息交易是一种信息产品交易，而不涉及知识产权许可与知识产权转让。计算机信息交易的核心是信息产品上的信息财产权，而不是知识产权。     

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。     

What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine too: Converging U.S. intellectual property exhaustion doctrines

With the increasing dispersion of intellectual property comes the intellectual property rights owner's continued desire to retain that part of the equation for which the bargain was struck. In terms of patents, the patentee strikes a deal to disclose the invention to the public in exchange for a monopoly over its use for a limited term. Copyright holders contribute their works to the intellectual pool receiving value by sale, lease or license. In 2012–13, the U.S. Supreme Court was tasked with delineating the realms of two intellectual property exhaustion doctrines and answering the question of where to draw the line with regard to an IP owner's ability to control the protected invention or work via patent or copyright, respectively. In one case, the Court permitted the intellectual property owner to restrict a subsequent purchaser's use of the product subject to protection, while in the other case the Court rejected the intellectual property owner's attempt to control the downstream use or resale of the product. This article discusses the relevant intellectual property exhaustion doctrines, analyzes and reconciles the Court's decisions in these cases, and provides guidance for navigating restrictions on use of U.S. protected products and works around the globe.     

知识产权公权化理论的解读和反思

知识产权的权利属性是知识产权研究的基本理论问题.因传统的视知识产权为私权的观点在面对知识产权相较于其他私权的特殊性及其领域内层出不穷的新问题时常常遭遇无法解释的困境,所以,有些学者提出了"知识产权公权化"理论,即在承认知识产权私权本质属性的前提下,指出知识产权是公权化的私权,试图以此来寻到新的"突破口".但事实上,该理论因其立论依据本身就存在疑问,是经不起推敲的,它是在社会思潮运动影响下对知识产权权利客体特殊性的一种误读.知识产权作为私权的根本属性不应该因为知识产权所呈现出的某些独特性而被改变,在当前承认并且强调知识产权的私权属性具有重大意义.     

知识产权人才培养本科层次的定位与发展

单独设置的知识产权全日制本科专业,是对于日益增长的知识产权人才需求的有力回应。但是,知识产权本科专业的人才培养也面临着许多问题。知识产权本科专业的发展方向,应当是以＂基础型＂、＂特色化＂的知识产权人才为培养目标。在培养方案中,应当坚持法学类课程的主干地位,同时着力提高学生的实践能力。     

特许经营中的商标权保护——以特许人权利保护为视角

特许经营的发展是以知识产权的集中许可和使用为其基本特征，商标权是特许经营权的核心内容之一。以商标权为核心的知识产权在特许经营中体现了重要的价值功能。由于特许人的维权意识不足，国内相关立法不够完善，经常发生针对特许人商标权的侵权行为。针对以上情况，结合具体的案例，分析特许人商标权遭受侵权的表现形式和原因，提出特许人维护其商标权的应对策略。     

美国域外知识产权扩张中的论坛选择政策研究:历史、策略与哲学

为追求知识产权利益最大化,美国的域外知识产权保护始终处于扩张之中。美国不断追逐有效的知识产权国际论坛,从联合国教科文组织到世界知识产权组织、世界贸易组织和最近的《反假冒贸易协议》,采取的论坛选择策略包括论坛加入或退出、论坛转移和新论坛构建等,意图在于把不断提高的国内知识产权保护实质地延伸至全球领域。为支持其论坛选择政策,美国交互采取单边、双边和多边贸易措施,包括"特别301"、自由贸易协议和WTO的争端解决机制。持续推动美国域外知识产权保护的力量来自其跨国公司,支撑其论坛选择政策的是美国的实用主义哲学。对美国域外知识产权扩张历程及其论坛选择政策的考察,有助于人们认识知识产权全球化的实质,正视其内在冲突,把握其合理方向,理解知识产权国际保护不应是一国知识产权制度的无条件延伸,从而有助于我国吸收相关经验与教训,在知识产权对外交往中采取更有针对性和前瞻性的应对之策。     

传统知识的知识产权保护正当性研究——以社区为新权利主体

传统知识是整个人类的宝贵财富。传统知识的基本特征使其难以获得现代知识产权制度的保护。在权利客体上,基于传统知识的基本特征,对知识产权客体进行发展、扩充,承认传统知识为知识产权保护的特殊客体;在权利主体的界定上,根据传统知识其本身的主体群体性、社区传统根本性特点,结合社区发展权理论,明确以社区作为传统知识在知识产权上的权利主体。对传统知识进行知识产权上的保护具有正当性,是法律公平原则的体现,是尊重人格权的需要,是维护和发展文化多样性和生物多样性的资源基础,是知识产权平衡激励机制的本质体现。     

知识产权体系同一性理论的反思与构建

随着现代社会科技的发展,知识产权和知识产权以外的无形财产权的范围都在日益扩大,探究不同类型的知识产权统归于知识产权体系的逻辑关联便显得十分重要和紧迫。无论采用客体来源视角,还是采用客体形态视角,传统知识产权理论都没有对此进行充分阐述。知识产权体系同一性理论的构建回归客体非物质的逻辑起点,采用超越客体来源和客体形态的人的理性思维、意识活动视角,在知识产权类型化的基础上,构建由类型动态谱系和程度动态谱系组成的动态体系理论。     

WTO对知识产权国际保护制度的继承和发展

ＷＴＯ在继承既有知识产权国际公约所规定的基本原则和制度的基础上,从贸易的角度构建知识产权法律体系,对各种知识产权的国际保护作了若干新的规定,并对知识产权保护水平提出了更高的要求,从而丰富了知识产权国际保护制度的内容。     

试论知识产权限制的法理基础

利益平衡是构建知识产权限制制度的基本法律观。各类主体的相互利益关系,在知识产权法律中的权利配置方面,表现为本权与他权、私权与公益的关系;知识产权虽为一种独占性权利,但往往受到一定的限制,包括公共领域保留、权利行使限制、禁止权利滥用等;知识产权立法应秉持二元价值目标,即保护创造者合法权益和促进知识广泛传播。     

University opposition to unfettered research: a new bedfellow for biotech?

This Article examines university opposition to a proposed statutory exemption to infringement liability for basic genetic research and patient care. Gene patenting has allowed patentees to bar basic genetic research, slowing the progress of developing and administering diagnostics and gene-targeting therapeutics. Debates over the merits of gene patents have been heated, most recently leading to an unprecedented invalidation of several broad patents covering all variations and use of two genes linked to breast and ovarian cancers. More important, however (as this ruling was reversed in part), are proposed statutory exemptions to infringement liability. The Department of Health and Human Services' Secretary's Advisory Committee on Genetics, Health, and Society (SACGHS) has promulgated an exemption from liability for infringement that occurs in the course of research. This exemption would promote basic research by granting academic scientists unfettered access to genetic material. The proposal does not alter the patentability of gene sequences; it merely restricts patentees from using infringement threats to stop research. Surprisingly, the Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM), an organization responsible for promoting development of university research, opposes such an exemption. The AUTM alleges that the exemption would slow research by reducing the incentive for private firms to invest in upstream discoveries made in university laboratories. Yet the exemption would do the opposite: by opening the doors to research relating to any gene segment, a research exemption would accelerate basic research. Moreover, it would not affect collaboration with private industry: where there is potential to commercialize basic research, biomedical companies would continue to license the rights to university discoveries. Thus, the AUTM's motivations in opposing the proposed research exemption are suspect. They appear to reflect either a misunderstanding of the purpose behind granting property rights to publicly funded university research, or an improper alignment with industry goals.