欧洲人权与生物医学公约(节译)

序言欧洲理事会(Council of Europe)②成员国,其他国家和欧洲共同体,即签约国:遵循1948年12月10日联合国大会宣布的世界人权宣言;遵循1950年11月4日人权和基本自由保护公约;遵循1961年10月18日欧洲社会宪章;遵循1966年12月16日公民权利和政治权利国际公约以及经济、社会和文化权利国际公约;遵循1981年1月28日个人数据自动处理时个人保护之公约;同样遵循1989年11月20日儿童权利公约;考虑到欧洲理事会的目的在于致力于成员国间更大程度之结合,而达成这一目的的手段之一为保持并进一步实现人权和基本自由;意识到生物和医学的快速发展;确信尊重…     

欧洲人权与生物医学公约(节译)

欧洲理事会(Council of Europe)成员国，其他国家和欧洲共同体．即签约国：     

小议知识产权的私权和人权属性

现代知识产权制度主要构建在对财产权或私权认识的基础上,而《世界人权宣言》赋予了知识产权人权意义。正确认识知识产权私权和人权属性,有助于在兼顾个人利益和社会公共利益的基础上,重建或优化全球知识产权制度,并防止知识产权人滥用知识产权垄断市场的行为。     

论产权的特征

产权是一组权利 ,包括财产权利和非财产权利 ;人力资本是产权主体的重要组成部分 ;产权决定企业治理结构 ,其本质是将企业的剩余索取权与控制权在股东与经营者之间进行有效的配置 ,提高企业效率 ;产权是伴随着现代企业制度的发展而产生的。     

A property rights view of multi-unit franchising

This study develops a property rights explanation of the multi-unit (MU) ownership strategy of the franchise firm. According to the property rights theory, the allocation of residual rights of control (decision and ownership rights) in franchise firms depends on the contractibility of system-specific and local market assets (LMA). We develop and test the following hypotheses: Multi-unit franchising (MUF) is positively related to the franchisor’s intangible system-specific assets and negatively to the franchisee’s intangible LMA. In addition, we argue that impact of financial assets on the tendency toward MUF depends on the contractibility of LMA. Empirical results from the German franchise sector provide partial support of the hypotheses. Compared to the agency theory, which focuses on (complete) incentive contracts that specify residual income rights between the franchisor and franchisee, property rights theory focuses on incomplete contracts that allocate residual control rights between the franchisor and network partners. Furthermore, compared to the resource scarcity theory, property rights theory explains the impact of contractibility of resources/assets on the ownership strategy of the franchise firm.     

Deregulation,property rights,and legal system

During regulation the regulator carries out an intermediary role between shareholders and managers, consequently affecting property rights and the agency relation between the two. Deregulation implies that this intermediary role ceases to exist. This article analyses how government deregulation changes property rights, differentiating between firms of network and non-network structures. Changes in property rights affect the agency relation between shareholders and managers, increasing information asymmetry and agency costs. I argue that the way to reduce agency costs depend to a great extent on the country’s legal system classified as of common or civil law tradition.

An evolutionary step in intellectual property rights – Artificial intelligence and intellectual property

This article addresses and analyses the issues concerning the ownership of computer generated works within patents and copyright, and concludes that the current regime is woefully inadequate to deal with the growing use of more and more intuitive artificial intelligence systems in the production of such works. It considers the respective claims of interested parties to such rights before moving on to a consideration of the creation of a new legal personality to which such rights could be granted to resolve the difficulties inherent in the current system.     

The interface between intellectual property rights and competition policy

This book is a collection of chapters written by a variety ofauthors with a single and coherent theme, as opposed to beinga series of essays. Although the emphasis of this book is primarilylaw and competition policy Drs Régibeau and Rockett ofEssex University, both well known for their excellent work inthis field, write eloquently about the economic implicationsof IP rights. Their chapter competes well with the writingsof Professor Landes and Judge Posner in their book The     

Personhood,property rights,and the permissibility of abortion

The purpose of this paper is to argue that the tactic of granting a fetus the legal status of a person will not, contrary to the expectations of opponents of abortion, provide grounds for a general prohibition on abortions. I begin by examining two arguments, one moral (J. J. Thomson's ‘A Defense of Abortion’) and the other legal (D. Regan's ‘Rewriting Roe v. Wade’), which grant the assumption that a fetus is a person and yet argue to the conclusion that abortion is permissible. However, both Thomson and Regan rely on the so-called bad samaritan principle. This principle states that a person has a right to refuse to give aid. Their reliance on this principle creates problems, both in the moral and the legal contexts, since the bad samaritan principle is intended to apply to passive refusals to aid; abortion, however, does not look like any such passive denial of aid, and so it does not seem like the sort of action covered by the bad samaritan principle. In defense of the positions outlined by Thomson and Regan, I argue that the apparent asymmetry between abortion and the usual type of case covered by the bad samaritan principle is only apparent and not a genuine problem for their analyses. I conclude with a defense of the morality of the bad samaritan principle.     

Flexibility in the implementation of intellectual property rights in agricultural biotechnology

In this paper I discuss the fact that economists define optimal IP rights as a continuum of options in three dimensions: height, breadth and length. At the operational level we see the impossibility of multiplying rights indefinitely (due to prohibitive transaction costs), as well as the use of a limited number of IP tools which have led to the implementation of flexibilities. These flexibilities are designed to limit certain perverse effects of rights ill-adjusted to the characteristics of some economic sectors (agricultural biotechnologies, pharmacy, etc.). In this context, I analyse how these flexibilities are implemented in TRIPS and TRIPS+ agreements and I study the consequences for Developing Countries.     

Effects on academia-industry collaboration of extending university property rights

Several recent studies show European university scientists contributing far more frequently to company-owned patented inventions than they do to patents owned by universities or by the academic scientists themselves. Recognising the significance of this channel for direct commercialisation of European academic research makes it important to understand its response to current Bayh-Dole inspired reforms of university patenting rights. This paper studies the contribution from university scientists to inventions patented by dedicated biotech firms (DBFs) specialised in drug discovery in Denmark and Sweden, which in this respect share a number of structural and historic characteristics. It examines effects of the Danish Law on University Patenting (LUP) effective January 2000, which transferred to the employer university rights to patents on inventions made by Danish university scientists alone or as participants in collaborative research with industry. Sweden so far has left property rights with academic scientists, as they also were in Denmark prior to the reform. Consequently, comparison of Danish and Swedish research collaboration before and after LUP offers a quasi-controlled experiment, bringing out effects on joint research of university IPR reform. In original data on all 3,640 inventor contributions behind the 1,087 patents filed by Danish and Swedish DBFs 1990–2004, Difference-in-Difference regressions uncover notable LUP-induced effects in the form of significant reductions in contributions from Danish domestic academic inventors, combined with a simultaneous substitutive increase of non-Danish academic inventors. A moderate increase in academic inventions channelled into university owned-patents does appear after LUP. But the larger part of the inventive potential of academia, previously mobilised into company-owned patents, seems to have been rendered inactive as a result of the reform. As a likely explanation of these effects the paper suggests that exploratory research, the typical target of joint university-DBF projects in drug discovery, fits poorly into LUP’s requirement for ex ante allocation of IPR. The Pre-LUP convention of IPR allocated to the industrial partner in return for research funding and publication rights to the academic partner may have offered more effective contracting for this type of research. There are indications that LUP, outside the exploratory agenda of drug discovery, offers a more productive framework for inventions requiring less complicated and uncertain post-discovery R&D.