论著作权法定赔偿制度

现行著作权法确立了法定赔偿制度,实践中也普遍采用,但法定赔偿在具体适用时仍存在一些问题尚待解决,以现行法律及TRIPs协议的相关规定为依据,本文探讨了法定赔偿与侵权损害赔偿原则的关系,法定赔偿适用的顺序及方式,法定赔偿与法官的自由裁量权,确定损害赔偿额的因素及计算赔偿额等问题。     

知假买假惩罚性赔偿法律问题研究

2013年修改后的新《消费者权益保护法》从强化保护消费者权益的角度出发,对惩罚性赔偿条款做了修订。修订后的条款比原来的规定更加科学、合理,但是也有一些问题值得进一步探讨,其中争论较大的就是知假买假行为适用惩罚性赔偿问题。从中国目前产品质量的现实情况出发,并基于利益平衡角度考虑,知假买假行为适用惩罚性赔偿,有极为重要的理论意义和现实意义。更为重要的是,对普通消费领域的知假买假的惩罚性赔偿规则,需要进行更为广泛的扩展,包括食品、药品领域和服务领域。目前当务之急是梳理现有的法律规定和司法解释、行政规章之中规定的相互矛盾之处,让司法标准进一步统一,实现法律的公正、公平。     

法定赔偿与惩罚性赔偿条款关系辨析《商标法》与《专利法》修改草案惩罚性赔偿条款之对比分析

惩罚性赔偿条款引入知识产权立法中的呼声颇高,《商标法》的修正案首先得以确立,《专利法》的修改草案中亦有体现.但二者在法定赔偿与惩罚性赔偿的关系上存在着分歧,前者采用单一性模式,后者采用兼容性模式.从惩罚性赔偿的功能、适用条件以及法定赔偿替代惩罚功能的角度考虑,单一性模式更符合惩罚性赔偿条款的设立本意,更契合惩罚性赔偿基本理论.因此,《专利法》乃至《著作权法》的修改应当参考新《商标法》的规定采取单一性模式并提高法定赔偿数额之上限.     

我国惩罚性赔偿制度的司法适用问题研究

惩罚性赔偿作为一种特殊的私罚在民法中独树一帜.我国民事法律上的惩罚性赔偿规定就适用对象而言,应逐渐扩大至环境、证券、保险中的某些欺诈行为;就适用条件而言,在涉及人身安全领域当事人重大过失应被归责的同时,实际损害的发生并不应作为必要条件之一;就判罚模式与数额而言,可以选择弹性模式或列举参考因素的方式,来确定《侵权责任法》第47条的赔偿范围,未来的判罚数额也应当适度提高.     

论法律责任的层次

现有理论中关于法律责任的定义存在严重缺陷：以责任承担者为基点构建法律责任的概念,对责任的履行对象缺乏足够的重视。从责任对象的角度出发可以区分为对直接受害者的责任和对国家的责任。补偿性损害赔偿是以受害者责任为核心,惩罚性损害赔偿是以国家责任为核心。在二者出现矛盾的时候,我们比较现实的路径选择应该借鉴美国等国家的刑事和解制度,把对受害者的责任放在优先考虑的位置上。     

个人信息领域消费欺诈民事公益诉讼案件探索与实践

检察机关应结合具体案情确定提起的公益诉讼案件类型。从检察机关提起消费民事公益诉讼的初衷分析,为消费者提供正义正是公益诉讼替代性和补充性的价值体现。针对非法获取消费者个人信息并进行消费欺诈的行为,检察机关提出惩罚性赔偿诉讼请求,可以加大对侵害消费者个人信息和权益行为的惩治力度,维护消费者个人信息安全和合法权益,对惩治和预防该领域严重违法行为具有重要意义。     

我国产品责任法中应建立惩罚性损害赔偿

伴随工业化的普及,产品问题日益严峻。我国目前在产品责任法中采取的是传统的同质补偿原则,随着社会的发展,该原则在产品责任法上受到了挑战和质疑,日益暴露出其固有的缺陷。我国产品责任法应仿效英美法系立法,建立惩罚性损害赔偿。     

FOCUS： PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN CHINA PUNITIVE DAMAGES,CHINESE TORT LAW,AND THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE

In a country such as China, with abundant consumer products and the inevitability of product defects, claims for punitive damages are sure to arise under Article 47 of the new Chinese Tort Law. Article 47 provides that ＂（w）hereany producer or seller knowingly produces or sells defective products, causing death or serious damage to the health of others, the injured party may request appropriate punitive damages.＂ As Chinese jurists and scholars interpret Article 47, they may wish to consider whether lessons can be drawn from the American experience. During the past two decades, few areas of American law have changed more radically than the law on punitive damages. While there were once few restraints on the ability of a judge or jury to impose punitive damages in a case involving egregious conduct, today there are a host of limitations embodied in American state and federal law. In many American states, statutes or judicial decisions restrict the ability of a court to award punitive damages by narrowly defining the types of conduct that will justify a punitive award, raising the standard of proof capping the amount of punitive damages, requiring a portion of a punitive award to be forfeited to the state, or limiting vicarious liability for punitive damages. In addition, under federal constitutional law, the principle of due process limits the imposition of punitive damages by scrutinizing the ratio between compensatory and punitive damages and prohibiting an award to be based on harm to persons other than the plaintiff. An examination of these developments from a comparative law perspective may prove useful to the implementation of Article 47.