论专利侵权赔偿损失的归责原则

专利授权公告不应具有使公众应知的法律效力。专利侵权赔偿适用一般过错推定说对行为人显失公平,专利侵权纠纷中也不存在特殊过错推定说的法定事由。因此,过错推定责任原则不能作为专利侵权赔偿损失的一般归责原则。专利侵权属于一种特殊侵权,在归责上不应适用过错责任原则。我国应基于无过错责任原则的宗旨、专利权的排他权性及专利侵权判定的复杂性,并借鉴国际公约和国外立法例,区分专利侵权产品首次销售前后的不同侵权行为,分别适用无过错责任原则或过错推定责任原则。     

INTERNET INTERMEDIARIES’ LIABILITY FOR ONLINE ILLEGAL HATE SPEECH

Considering the prevalence of online hate speech and its harm and risks to the targeted people, democratic discourse and public security, it is necessary to combat online hate speech. For this purpose, internet intermediaries play a crucial role as new governors of online speech. However, there is no universal definition of hate speech. Rules concerning this vary in different countries depending on their social, ethical, legal and religious backgrounds. The answer to the question of who can be liable for online hate speech also varies in different countries depending on the social, cultural, history, legal and political backgrounds. The First Amendment, cyberliberalism and the priority of promoting the emerging internet industry lead to the U.S. model, which offers intermediaries wide exemptions from liability for third-party illegal content. Conversely, the Chinese model of cyberpaternalism prefers to control online content on ideological, political and national security grounds through indirect methods, whereas the European Union (EU) and most European countries, including Germany, choose the middle ground to achieve balance between restricting online illegal hate speech and the freedom of speech as well as internet innovation. It is worth noting that there is a heated discussion on whether intermediary liability exemptions are still suitable for the world today, and there is a tendency in the EU to expand intermediary liability by imposing obligation on online platforms to tackle illegal hate speech. However, these reforms are again criticized as they could lead to erosion of the EU legal framework as well as privatization of law enforcement through algorithmic tools. Those critical issues relate to the central questions of whether intermediaries should be liable for user-generated illegal hate speech at all and, if so, how should they fulfill these liabilities? Based on the analysis of the different basic standpoints of cyberliberalists and cyberpaternalists on the internet regulation as well as the arguments of proponents and opponents of the intermediary liability exemptions, especially the debates over factual impracticality and legal restraints, impact on internet innovation and the chilling effect on freedom of speech in the case that intermediaries bear liabilities for illegal third-party content, the paper argues that the arguments for intermediary liability exemptions are not any more tenable or plausible in the web 3.0 era. The outdated intermediary immunity doctrine needs to be reformed and amended. Furthermore, intermediaries are becoming the new governors of online speech and platforms now have the power to curtail online hate speech. Thus, the attention should turn to the appropriate design of legal responsibilities of intermediaries. The possible suggestions could be the following three points: Imposing liability on intermediaries for illegal hate speech requires national law and international human rights norms as the outer boundary; openness, transparency and accountability as internal constraints; balance of multi-interests and involvement of multi-stakeholders in internet governance regime.     

论经济犯罪民事责任的归责原则与构成要件

经济犯罪民事责任是基于经济犯罪行为而派生产生的法律责任形式。经济犯罪及其民事责任的特殊性,决定了经济犯罪民事责任的归责原则不同于一般民事责任的归责原则,而且经济犯罪民事责任的归责原则与其构成要件之间存在密切关系。同时,经济犯罪民事责任的类型不同,其各自的构成要件也各不相同,需要予以具体分析和探讨。     

完善我国药品不良反应救济机制的法律思考

药品不良反应是在正常使用合格药品时产生的有害或意外反应。因药品不良反应导致患者严重损害的,相关主体应对受害人进行赔偿。在我国现行法下,药品不良反应法律责任不同于医疗事故责任、产品责任和国家赔偿责任,而属于侵权法中的公平责任。我国应及早建立和完善药品不良反应救济机制,实行药品不良反应救济基金制度。     

Orphan drugs: the question of products liability

Orphan drugs, essential for the treatment of persons with rare diseases, generally are unprofitable for manufacturers to develop and market. While congressional and administrative efforts to promote the development of orphan drugs have met with modest success, application of products liability doctrine to orphan drug sponsors could subvert those efforts. This Note describes the provisions of the Orphan Drug Act and analyzes products liability law with respect to orphan drug litigation. It argues that the goals of tort law support the imposition of liability for design defect, failure to warn and negligence in testing. Finally, the Note acknowledges that liability costs create disincentives for orphan drug development and suggests mechanisms for reducing manufacturers' liability concerns.     

论公司有限责任制度

公司有限责任制度的核心是公司责任与公司成员责任的分离,股东作为投资者无须对公司的债务承担除了其投资之外的进一步的责任。该制度的建立与发展对调动潜在投资者投资的积极性、发展规模经济、促进公司法律制度完善等方面功不可没。有限责任制度有其客观存在的价值,但并非十全十美,这主要表现在该制度被不当利用而对债权人和其它利益相关者造成的损害,实践中各国多采用有限责任制度例外适用来补救该制度之不足。由于历史原因,我国公司有限责任制度的设立和实施存在诸多问题,必须采取必要的措施完善我国的有限责任制度。     

The Trial of Joseph Dotterweich: The Origins of the “Responsible Corporate Officer” Doctrine

This article analyzes the origins of the “responsible corporate officer” doctrine: the trial of Joseph Dotterweich. That doctrine holds that an officer may be personally liable for the criminal act of a subordinate if the officer was, in some indefinite way, able to prevent the violation. Applying this doctrine, the prosecution of Dotterweich entailed strict liability for a strict liability offense. The underlying offenses—the interstate sale of one misbranded and adulterated drug and one misbranded drug—were said to be strict liability offenses. And then, with respect to Dotterweich as the corporation’s general manager, the government argued that he was strictly liable because he stood in “responsible relation” to the company’s acts. The government never tried to prove that the company, Buffalo Pharmacal, was negligent, nor did it try to prove that Dotterweich was negligent in his supervision of the employees of Buffalo Pharmacal. The prosecutor and judge were candid about this theory throughout the trial, although the judge conceded that it seemed bizarre and unfair. The defense lawyer repeatedly sought to inject what became known throughout the trial as the “question of good faith,” but was circumvented at almost every turn. What would thus seem to be the crux of any criminal trial—the personal fault of the defendant—was carefully shorn from the jury’s consideration. The government’s theory was so at odds with intuitive notions of liability and blame that, as one probes into the case, and looks at the language used in the government’s appellate briefs, imputations of moral fault inevitably crept in. Yet the government was not entitled to make such accusations, as it had pruned moral considerations from the trial. The article argues that the responsible corporate officer doctrine can never enjoy a secure place in our legal system. First, the doctrine is at a minimum in tension with, and often in direct opposition to, basic principles of the criminal law; and second, the doctrine fails, when followed to its logical conclusions, to accord with basic notions of fair play. The article concludes that the responsible corporate officer doctrine is either unnecessary, in cases in which the evidence establishes personal fault, or unjust, in cases in which it creates liability in the absence of personal fault through the unspecified notion of “responsibility.” The Dotterweich case illustrates what is contemplated by the latter possibility, and why it is problematic in any judicial system that purports, in the words of the Model Penal Code, “to safeguard conduct that is without fault from condemnation as criminal.”     

Can Strict Criminal Liability for Responsible Corporate Officers be Justified by the Duty to Use Extraordinary Care?

The responsible corporate officer (RCO) doctrine is, as a formal matter, an instance of strict criminal liability: the government need not prove the defendant’s mens rea in order to obtain a conviction, and the defendant may not escape conviction by proving lack of mens rea. Formal strict liability is sometimes consistent with retributive principles, especially when the strict liability pertains to the grading of an offense. But is strict liability consistent with retributive principles when it pertains, not to grading, but to whether the defendant has crossed the threshold from noncriminal to criminal conduct? In this essay, I review the two most plausible arguments supporting an affirmative answer in the context of the RCO doctrine. First, perhaps this doctrine reflects a rule-like form of negligence, akin to a rule that prohibits selling alcohol to a minor. Second, perhaps this doctrine expresses a duty to use extraordinary care to prevent a harm. Neither argument is persuasive. The first argument, although valid in some circumstances, fails to explain and justify the RCO doctrine. The second argument, a duty to use extraordinary care, is also inadequate. If “extraordinary care” simply means a flexibly applied negligence standard that considers the burdens and benefits of taking a precaution, it is problematic in premising criminal liability on ordinary negligence. If instead it refers to a higher duty or standard of care, it has many possible forms, such as requiring only a very slight deviation from a permissible or justifiable standard of conduct, placing a “thumb” on the scale of the Learned Hand test, identifying an epistemic standard more demanding than a reasonable person test, or recognizing a standard that is insensitive to individual capacities. However, some of these variations present a gratuitous or incoherent understanding of “negligence,” and none of them sufficiently explain and justify the RCO doctrine.     

完善我国产品责任法之思考

产品责任法应成为我国社会主义市场经济法律体系的重要组成部分。尽管新《产品质量法》颁布时间不长 ,但我国现行产品责任法律制度无论在形式上还是内容上仍有必要依据保护消费者利益与促进生产发展并重的基本原则、严格责任与过错责任并用的归责原则及全部赔偿、限定赔偿和惩罚性赔偿并行的赔偿原则做进一步的完善     

论药害侵权及其民事救济理论与制度

药害侵权是一种特殊的产品侵权。严格责任作为一种特殊产品侵权的归责原则已经发展成为药害侵权的基本归责原则。药害事故的频繁发生带来了民事诉讼方面的变化，因果关系推定、举证责任倒置以及集团诉讼地位的提升成为药害侵权诉讼的主要特征。当前，我国药害侵权民事救济立法与司法过程中还存在一些问题,需要采取相应措施逐步加以完善。     

Hans Kelsen's Doctrine of Imputation

First, the author examines the traditional doctrine of imputation. A look at the traditional doctrine is useful for establishing a point of departure in comparing Kelsen's doctrines of central and peripheral imputation. Second, the author turns to central imputation. Here Kelsen's doctrine follows the traditional doctrine in attributing liability or responsibility to the subject. Kelsen's legal subject, however, has been depersonalized and thus requires radical qualification. Third, the author takes up peripheral imputation, which is the main focus of the paper. It is argued that with respect to the basic form of the law, exhibited by the linking of legal condition with legal consequence, peripheral imputation counts as an austere doctrine, shorn as it is of all references to legal personality or the legal subject. If Kelsen's reconstructed legal norms are empowerments, then the austere doctrine of peripheral imputation captures the rudiments of their form, exactly what would be expected if peripheral imputation does indeed serve as the category of legal cognition. Finally, the author develops the puzzle surrounding the legal "ought" in this context. Although Kelsen talks at one point as though the legal "ought" were the peculiarly legal category, the author submits that this is not the best reading of Kelsen's texts.     

饲养动物致害责任探析

动物致害责任的立法历史悠久,我国现行关于动物致害责任的民事立法规定太过原则与笼统,缺乏可操作性,难以形成利于受害人权利保护的合理的民事救济体系。未来民法典应区分不同的动物种类,适用不同的归责原则,并预设各类动物侵权类型的责任承担。     

民事责任的两种规范模式

民事权利义务规范的设定有行为本位和资源本位两种模式,民事责任规范作为民事规范的一种也不例外。传统的学说将民事责任界定为义务的违反显然是行为本位视角的产物,实际上民事责任的产生与当事人的义务违反没有必然联系。民事责任是为保护民事权利或者法益,基于特定的法律事实而对一定的民事主体产生的不利后果。根据民事规范的设定模式,可以把民事责任规范设定模式分为“义务(行为)——责任”模式和“权利(资源)——责任”模式两种,其中前者是行为本位视角的产物,后者是资源本位视角的产物。     

论药品的警示缺陷责任

药品生产商对药品的警示缺陷应承担无过错责任。在追究药品生产商的严格责任时 ,应注意考察药品生产商在药品危险警示方面是否尽到了充分的、持续的、及时的注意义务。在药品生产商对药品危险具有充分知识而未尽警示义务的情况下 ,药品生产商应对药品对消费者所带来的损害负赔偿责任。对于处方药 ,药品生产商应对医师尽危险警示义务 ,这归因于医师处于权衡利弊并减少损害风险的位置。当药品生产商的促销行为使得医师作为评估者和决策者的地位减弱或丧失时 ,药品生产商应对消费者直接尽警示义务。药品危险警示义务的主体是生产商。药师不负有一般的药品危险警示义务 ,除非存在足以使人警觉从而引发较大注意义务的额外因素。     

Fly by Night or Face the Music? Premature Dissolution and the Desirability of Extended Liability

Premature dissolution can be a rational corporate response tothe threat of future liability. Although early dissolution iscostly to a firm, liability may be more so. The way in whichliability rules can exacerbate this extreme form of liabilityavoidance is of interest, since "fly-by-night" firms generateparticularly large social costs. In particular, we explore theconsequences of liability that is extended to the business partnersof an insolvent or absent tortfeasor—a relatively commonlegal response when tortfeasors abandon obligations. Extendedliability can be desirable; however, if extended liability isanticipated, business partners themselves may choose to flyby night. We show how the preferred liability rule, includingno liability, depends on the relative costs of premature dissolutionand future obligations. The analysis also sheds light on a setof interrelated legal issues, such as the role of the trustfund doctrine and state dissolution statutes.     

缔约过失责任与允诺禁反言原则比较研究

缔约过失责任是大陆法系国家依据诚信原则 ,对于违反先契约义务的当事人所追究的民事责任 ;允诺禁反言原则是英美法系国家依诚信原则对无对价的允诺赋予法律约束力的一种制度。这两种制度各有特点 ,但均以诚信原则为基础 ,来保护当事人在缔约过程中的信赖利益 ,并分别在两大法系内发挥着平衡缔约当事人利益的功能。本文从比较法的角度出发 ,分析了这两种制度在产生渊源、理论基础、构成要件、适用范围等方面的异同     

略论涉外产品责任的法律适用

涉外产品责任是一种特殊的涉外侵权责任。在法律适用方面,各国的规定不尽相同,较具代表性的有侵权行为地法、政府利益分析法、最密切联系原则以及原告选择法律、海牙产品责任法律适用条约等,各有利弊。我国现行法规关于涉外产品责任的法律适用,存在较多缺陷,亟需完善。     

Indirect Co-Perpetration

National and international criminal law systems are continually seeking doctrinal and theoretical frameworks to help them impose individual liability on collective perpetrators of crime. The two systems move in parallel and draw on each other. Historically, it has been mostly international criminal law that leaned on domestic legal systems for its collective modes of liability. Currently, however, it is the emerging jurisprudence of the International Criminal Court that is at the forefront of innovation, with the doctrine of indirect co-perpetration taking the lead in international prosecutions. The article assesses the potential contribution as well as the limits of this compound doctrine to domestic criminal law jurisprudence, particularly with regard to small-group criminality. Four modes of indirect co-perpetration are discussed, namely shared control, concerted control, controlling board, and flawed triangle perpetration. A doctrine of indirect co-perpetration would enable liability in these modes of perpetration, perhaps with the exception of the latter, which marks the limits of its applicability.     

对动物致害责任归责原则的反思

动物致害责任是一种特殊侵权责任,我国民法通则对此作了明确规定。但是在动物致害责任的归责原则问题上,有待深入探讨。通过对大陆法系与英美法系动物致害责任归责原则的比较考察,结合我国动物致害责任归责原则的现状,有必要对我国的动物致害责任归责原则进行重新定位,应当采纳无过错责任与过错推定二元的归责原则体系。