论科学技术发展对法律的影响

科学技术发展对法律有影响深远,但是也有许多限制。科学技术发展促进了法律的深化,集中体现在科技法及其重要组成部分的知识产权法的产生和发展上。科学技术发展又从人与自然关系的高度,促进生态法的诞生与发展。     

Attack of the killer acronyms: the future of information technology law

This paper looks at the field of information technology (IT) law and its reliance on the buzzwords, jargon and acronyms that tend to alienate serious discussion about some of the deeper socio‐legal issues involved. It is often easy to become confused by the terminology and the technology, which has led to some non‐issues receiving too much interest (the year 2000 bug for example) and some valuable and worthy topics being almost ignored. Some writers and researchers may be tempted to neglect the field because of a lack of understanding of the technology, which may eventually lead to the end of IT law as a serious field of research. This paper will attempt to re‐ignite the jurisprudential debate about the future of IT law research, teaching and practice by looking at the possible trends emerging from the literature.     

技术标准中专利权垄断行为的理论分析及其法律规制

在专利的标准化及其实施过程中,有可能出现专利权的滥用现象,特别是专利权的垄断行为。技术标准中专利权垄断行为导致专利制度的异化,破坏了知识产权制度的利益平衡原则,并扭曲了公平自由的国际市场经济秩序。美国的反托拉斯法、欧盟的竞争法和日本反垄断法体现了对该种垄断行为的基本态度和解决路径,起到积极的规制作用。我国的《反垄断法》一定程度上加强了对滥用知识产权行为的规制,但并不能全面解决国际贸易中产生的众多垄断行为或者限制竞争行为。在技术标准越来越成为新的技术壁垒的背景下,积极借鉴欧盟和美国等的相关立法,根据我国的国际竞争政策需要,构建我国规制技术标准中的专利权滥用行为的法律体系已成当务之急。     

THE INNOVATION OF LAW: FROM CHINESE PERSPECTIVE

It is a new and meaningful research in discovering the impact of technology on law, and the reciprocal relationship between law and invention. This paper starts with a Chinese ancient tragedy to disclose the direct relationship between technology and law that was reflected in the play. It explains the “Needham Puzzle” that was engraved in Chinese law in discussion with the indirect impact of technology on law in the Chinese legal system. After that, the Chinese patent system is analyzed specifically to discover the law of innovation. It also discusses the impact of law on technology in the field of patent system.     

影响发明或实用新型专利权稳定性的实质因素

有关专利权稳定性的问题，在实践中表现为：一方面是，申请人不正当地将不符合专利法要求的技术方案拿来申请并获得专利权；另一方面是，审查过程中，由于制度方面的因素，将不应当授权的技术方案错误地授予专利权，造成了劣质专利的泛滥。深入研究专利权稳定性问题，探索提高专利权稳定性的有效途径，具有重要的理论和现实意义。     

论电子政务的理论基础——以“价值支配科技”的基本观念为核心

电子政务是一把双刃剑 ,在提高行政效率的同时可能损害民族文化的多样性和公民基本权利保护的法治价值。为此 ,必须确立“价值支配科技”的哲学理念 ,认真审视普遍存在的电子政务泡沫 ,整合现代信息化理论、新公共管理理论和法治国家理论 ,为我国电子政务的良性发展构建系统的理论基础。     

3D打印技术发展与专利法回应

3D打印技术在改变制造业基础设施的配置、原材料的供应链和产品销售模式的同时,也对现行专利法律制度形成了冲击和挑战。在3D打印技术领域,如何在激励创新与防止潜在的非法复制之间实现平衡,廓清合法的"修理"和不合法的"再造"之间的界限以及以"非生产经营目的"的个人打印是否构成侵权等问题亟待专利法律制度的回应。面对3D打印技术带来的机遇与挑战,立法者应重新审视《专利法》的制度基础,在平衡技术革新和其他社会、经济价值的基础上,推动3D打印技术和专利法律制度间的互动演进式发展。     

互联网金融刑法规制扩大化的反思与限缩

互联网金融在规范与事实维度均存在刑法规制扩大化倾向。究其缘由,传统刑法规制模式存在秩序法益宽泛化、刑法规范抽象化、刑事治理优先化的弊端。该模式不仅会造成刑法自身机能的紊乱,而且无益于互联网金融的健康发展。当前,在"大力发展民营经济"和"鼓励金融创新"的时代背景下,应合理限缩刑法介入互联网金融的范围,并以金融秩序与自由并重扩充秩序法益内容,以监管科技与刑事规制联动彰显刑法独立品格,以非刑措施与刑事手段并用构建多元制裁体系,进而实现互联网金融刑法规制模式的优化转型。     

Data protection by design and technology neutral law

This article argues that to achieve a technology neutral law, technology specific law is sometimes required. To explain this we discriminate between three objectives, often implied in the literature on technological neutrality of law. The first we call the compensation objective, which refers to the need to have technology specific law in place whenever specific technological designs threated the substance of human rights. The second we call the innovation objective, referring to the need to prevent legal rules from privileging or discriminating specific technological designs in ways that would stifle innovation. The third we call the sustainability objective, which refers to the need to enact legislation at the right level of abstraction, to prevent the law from becoming out of date all too soon. The argument that technology neutral law requires compensation in the form of technology specific law is built on a relational conception of technology, and we explain that though technology in itself is neither good nor bad, it is never neutral. We illustrate the relevance of the three objectives with a discussion of the EU cookie Directive of 2009. Finally we explain the salience of the legal obligation of Data Protection by Design in the proposed General Data Protection Regulation and test this against the compensation, innovation and sustainability objectives.     

人类克隆技术的专利保护

随着生物技术特别是克隆技术的发展,人类克隆技术是否受到专利法的保护成为备受人们关注的问题。由于人 类克隆技术涉及到人类伦理道德和公序良俗等问题,现在许多国家都把此类技术排除在专利保护之外。但是,人 类克隆技术不等于克隆人的技术,克隆也不等同于生殖性克隆,不加区分地禁止人类克隆技术是不利于克隆技术 发展的。况且,本质上来说反对克隆人不是专利法的任务。我们应该尽快制定关于禁止生殖性克隆的法律,而对 于其他的人类克隆技术则可以毫无阻碍地获得专利保护,这样既可以保护社会和公众的利益,又可以推动克隆技 术的更快发展。     

同案同判下司法技术与情理的平衡

同案同判旨在通过指导案例和类案检索制度促进法律统一适用,从而树立司法公信力。同案同判表示着司法技术化趋势,而司法技术化是中国近代以来愈加推崇的形式理性及其所引领的市场经济、科技发展的必然结果。同案同判一方面保证了法律的确定性与司法的形式正义,另一方面却因法律适用过程中的技术化操作牺牲了部分个案的实质正义。既然同案同判的最终目的是向社会树立司法公正价值,那么就必须兼顾社会公正观。当代社会的主流公正观是在法治前提下追求情理法兼容。这是法律儒家化的结果,符合中华文明的和谐平衡观,是传统司法的首要原则。司法技术化与传统情理法的冲突,深层次是中西文化、传统与现代的冲突。近代以来,中国对技术过度迷信,导致司法公正与民众公正观的间隙扩大。这需以情理法兼容的传统予以调和,使司法不仅仅是科学的法律知识与程序之学,更是兼顾伦理观的司法技艺。司法技术只能作为解决当前司法适用不统一的过渡与辅助手段,长远来看,需通过拓展法官的综合知识与培育伦理素质以正确适用、阐释法律。     

‘Customary internet-ional law’: Creating a body of customary law for cyberspace. Part 2: Applying custom as law to the Internet infrastructure

The shift in socio-economic transactions from real space to cyberspace through the emergence of electronic communications and digital formats has led to a disjuncture between the law and practices relating to electronic transactions. The speed at which information technology has developed require a faster, more reactive and automatic response from the law that is not currently met by the existing law-making framework. This paper suggests the development of special rules to enable Internet custom to form legal norms to fulfill this objective. In Part 2 of this article, I will construct the customary rules to Internet law-making that are applicable to electronic transactions by adapting customary international law rules; apply the suggested rules for determining customary Internet norms and identify some existing practices that may amount to established norms on the Internet, specifically practices relating to the Internet Infrastructure and Electronic Contracting.     

Say cheese! Privacy and facial recognition

The popular social networking site, Facebook, recently launched a facial recognition tool to help users tag photographs they uploaded to Facebook. This generated significant controversy, arising as much as anything, from the company’s failure to adequately inform users of this new service and to explain how the technology works.The incident illustrates the sensitivity of facial recognition technology and the potential conflict with data privacy laws. However, facial recognition has been around for some time and is used by businesses and public organisations for a variety of purposes – primarily in relation to law enforcement, border control, photo editing and social networking. There are also indications that the technology could be used by commercial entities for marketing purposes in the future.This article considers the technology, its practical applications and the manner in which European data protection laws regulate its use. In particular, how much control should we have over our own image? What uses of this technology are, and are not, acceptable? Ultimately, does European data protection law provide an adequate framework for this technology? Is it a framework which protects the privacy of individuals without unduly constraining the development of innovative and beneficial applications and business models?     

A call for introducing LegalTech in the classroom

Change is coming to the way the business of law is conducted. It is an unavoidable reality that the delivery of professional legal services is on the cusp of major disruption. The way law firms and in-house legal teams operate is predicted to change dramatically. It is theorised that a majority of the aforementioned change will come from the adoption of more sophisticated technology by law firms and the courts. Technological change has already made some lawyer hours obsolete, and this trend is only expected to continue. Given this incoming wave of change, there exists a strong justification for the inclusion of legaltech in the undergraduate LLB curriculum. This article asses the feasibility of such an inclusion and provides suggestions for what institutions could be doing to support their users.     

试论生物技术对传统法律体系的挑战

科技是开放的,法律是保守的。生物科技的进步必然会对现有的法律体系造成巨大的冲击,导致法律体系的重构和优化。本文系统的分析了生物技术对传统法律体系的影响,就宏观内容而言,从五个层次上探讨了生物技术对传统法律体系的挑战,包括:人的法律主体地位受到挑战、国际关系发生重大变化、国家安全与国家利益受到影响、群体基因资源的保护和利用出现新问题、传统个人权利体系受到巨大冲击;就传统民事权利体系而言,本文详细的分析了具体的生物技术对每一项民事权利的影响和冲击,找到其中的焦点与热点。此外,本文还就科技进步与法律、道德的互动作用提出了自己的看法,认为科技的进步势不可挡;法律的最终调控必将实现;道德的磨合、过渡作用不可忽视。     

节约型社会科技法律促进机制研究

科技法律是节约型社会的重要促进因素。节约型社会科技法律促进机制可以分为政府主导型、市场诱导型、综合协调型三种类型。在中国现阶段,可以采取综合协调型节约型社会科技法律促进机制,但又重点依赖政府主导型节约型社会科技法律促进机制来推动节约科技进步与节约型社会建设。根据节约型社会科技法律促进机制类型选择,我们发现中国节约型社会科技法律促进机制目前在科技立法、科技执法、科技司法、科技法律实施监督等方面存在诸多现实困境,必须采取以下措施进一步完善:第一,与时俱进地推进与完善科技立法;第二,循序渐进地改革与强化科技执法;第三,因势利导地改革与完善科技司法;第四,因地制宜地实施与推进法律监督;第五,竭尽所能地强化科技法制宣教。     

作为社会共同体建构技术的法律修辞

法律不是一种纯粹客观的物质性力量,其对社会治理的参与,需要借助于社会共同体所分享的共识发挥作用。就此而言,法律可被理解为一种想象的力量。法律作为社会共同体的想象而获得力量,同时也通过生产想象而作用于社会共同体的建构,在实践中表现出建构社会共同体的技术。法律修辞通过将话语组织起来的方式,在社会中生产关于法律的想象共识,从而成为一种社会共同体的建构技术。法律修辞既能通过叙事来指引关于共同生活经验的想象,以历史和现实中所分享的共同经验形成认同,从而建构社会共同体;又能通过论证来指引关于共同价值观念的想象,使彼此激烈冲突的不同价值观借助修辞的软化而达成某种程度的共识,并通过关于价值判断的认同建构社会共同体。法律修辞的这些特点,使之在形成共识时所达成的更多是相对共识而非绝对共识,表现出模糊的特征,从而达成不完全理论化合意来回应现代社会中价值判断的多元分歧,更有利于社会共同体的建构。     

网络时代我国隐私权立法的思考

本文结合欧美一些国家相关立法的对比研究,立足我国隐私权立法的现状,从制定个人数据保护法方面对我国隐私权立法提出一些初步设想。同时,还就电脑网络环境中个人数据的技术保护与法律保护的协调问题进行了探讨和研究。     

欧盟技术法规体系的建设及对中国的启示

由于技术性贸易壁垒具有合理性、复杂性、隐蔽性和灵活性等特点,其越来越受到各国重视和应用,正在逐步成为国际贸易非关税壁垒中的主要形式,对国际贸易的影响越来越大。世界贸易组织承认各国为了正当目标制定本国技术法规的权力,但条件是不能用这些措施作为变相限制国际贸易的手段。随着经济全球化和贸易自由化的发展,以技术法规和标准为核心的技术性贸易壁垒屡见不鲜,作为世界上最大的发展中国家,中国面临越来越多的贸易技术壁垒的挑战,建立并完善我国技术法规体系是发展的需要,是形势的要求。同时,我国的法制建设也进入了进一步深化的阶段,这是我国完善技术法规体系的最好时机。为此,我国应该按照WTO/TBT协议的要求赋予技术法规和标准新的内涵,借鉴欧盟所确立的完备、周密、层次清晰、相互配套的技术法规体系来建立和完善我国的技术法规体系。     

Intellectual property law and practice in the blockchain realm

Blockchain technology is claimed to be and perceived as one of the revolutionary technologies that will have an enormous impact on our lives in the forthcoming years and decades. The legal questions surrounding blockchain appear to be among the most controversial issues surrounding this novel technology, which create uncertainties as to the scope and speed of its eventual adoption. Is it legal to use blockchain technology? Does or should any governmental authority or court take a record stored in blockchain into consideration in their decisions? Is blockchain reliable? Can the technology be used for the protection and enforcement of legal and property rights?The technological advancements offered by blockchain promise wide ranges of use in a variety of sectors and legal areas, including intellectual property (IP) law. This paper will focus primarily on the possible opportunities that blockchain may offer with respect to the future of IP law and discuss its potential impact on the registration, management and enforcement of intellectual property rights. We will proceed to offer blockchain-based solutions to foster the operation of IP offices, reinforce customs procedures in detecting counterfeit products, and enhance the efficiency of IP rights management by the right holders. The paper concludes by providing some suggestions to pave the way for the advancement of blockchain technology and to increase the number of people that this technology reaches, as well as its successful integration into the various services and registration/transaction channels that we use today.