关于我国网络犯罪刑事管辖权立法的思考

在确定网络犯罪刑事管辖权时,适用传统的刑事管辖权理论面临诸多困境。许多国家的立法以及《网络犯罪公约》都在尝试解决这一问题,而我国关于网络犯罪管辖权的立法明显滞后。为了惩治和打击网络犯罪,我国应根据可能、公正、方便及国际协调原则,分别确立网络犯罪的国内管辖权和国际管辖权。对网络犯罪的国内管辖,可适用刑法中的地域管辖理论,借鉴民事网络案件的管辖权规则,以网络犯罪的IP地址作为确定管辖权的依据。在网络犯罪的国际管辖权方面,建议确立以属地管辖为基础、以法益受到损害的关联性为补充的有限扩张原则;同时,应通过参加或缔结网络犯罪刑事管辖的多边或双边国际条约来解决网络犯罪刑事管辖权的冲突问题。     

对新技术时代的知识产权行政管理机构的探讨

20世纪90年代以来的技术革新给知识产权行政管理机构带来了深刻的影响。知识产权行政管理机构的性质从法人机构逐渐转变为执行或特殊机构;从较多关注于知识产权登记、审核的机构向承担更多的政治、经济发展职责的机构转变。技术进步也带来了知识产权行政管理机构传播以及保护作用的巨大变化。我国的知识产权行政管理机构必须认识到技术进步带给知识产权行政管理的挑战并作出相应的变革。     

论我国知识产权法院的规划设计

知识产权审判面临事实查明难度大,民事、刑事和行政审判领域之间缺乏沟通,确权纠纷解决程序设计不合理等现实问题。世界范围的知识产权审判体制改革业已形成较为一致的趋势和做法,我国知识产权法院的规划设计应当合理借鉴比较法经验,秉持战略思维、国情思维、改革思维和治理思维,按照四级两审、交错并行的纵向架构,均衡分布、两区分离的横向布局,在案件管辖上实行民事、刑事和行政纠纷的三审合一与技术类纠纷的集中管辖,通过准确的程序定位与有效的程序衔接提高确权争议解决的效率,以多元设计的程序规则和增设序列的队伍配备保障知识产权法院的有效运行。     

The beginning of university entrepreneurship in Japan: TLOs and bioventures lead the way

Following reforms between 1998 and 2004, Japan’s technology transfer system closely resembles the U.S. Bayh-Dole system. Numbers of TLO patents and licenses and numbers of startups are respectable compared to U.S. numbers shortly after enactment of Bayh-Dole. However, capabilities of TLOs vary, average royalties are low, and business prospects for most startups seem limited. In contrast, joint research with companies is increasing rapidly. Most joint research inventions are jointly owned giving the companies an automatic de facto, non-transferable, royalty-free and license. Data from one university show a large proportion of engineering and materials/chemistry inventions are attributed to joint research with large companies, thus limiting opportunities for startup formation and licensing to other small companies. (In biomedicine, pre-emption of discoveries by joint research is less.) Pre-emption of university discoveries (often publicly funded) under joint research agreements recreates the pre-reform system, where corporate donations also enabled pre-emption of discoveries. Like the old system, the new system is advantageous to established companies. Strengthening the formal system (including programs to assist startups) may redress this balance and give Japan the benefits of both types of technology transfer systems.

知识产权权利客体析疑

知识产权法律制度既保护智力成果、也保护非智力成果,既保护创造性的智力成果、也保护非创造性的智力成果,既保护劳动、也保护投资,而许多创造性的智力成果并未纳入知识产权法的保护范围。今天“知识产权法”已经名不副实,它保护的对象并不是“知识”,而知识产权的权利客体也不完全是“智力成果”。     

基于信息家电的可重构协议栈的设计与实现

针对信息家电上网的协议栈移植、地址资源有限等问题,设计并实现了一种可重构的嵌入式TCP/IP协议栈。该协议栈可以根据用户需求重构为IPv4.IPv6等多种协议栈,可以为家电上网以及其他嵌入式应用系统的远程网络控制提供一种良好的解决方案。     

Intellectual property (IP) protection versus IP abuses: The recent development of Chinese IP abuse rules and recommendations for foreign technology-driven companies

This paper will focus on the recent development of the Chinese IP abuse legislation and its potential impact on IP protection and the operation of technology-driven foreign enterprises in China. Firstly, it will provide a brief overview of the TRIPS's requirements on IPR abuse and technology transfer, and the recent development of IP abuse laws at the domestic level, particularly in the US and the EC. Secondly, by drawing a comparison with similar laws in the US and the EC, this paper will critically examine the recent development of the Chinese laws regarding technology transfer and IP abuse prevention, including both the recently enacted Anti-Monopoly Law 2008 (AML) and other prior-AML regulations. Thirdly, the paper will examine both opportunities and potential risks these laws may bring to foreign IP holders/technology-driven companies when operating in China, particularly focusing on the impact of the IP-related provision in the AML. Recent development in antitrust litigation in which Microsoft is a party, including the recent anti-monopoly investigation against Microsoft in China, will also be examined. Lastly, it will provide some practical suggestions for foreign IP holders and technology-driven companies to operate in China, such as useful defences against potential IP abuse claims, and other strategies for flexibly applying the IP abuse rules and better participating in future IP abuse legislative process in China.     

日本知识产权高等法院

从20世纪90年代开始，日本经济就一直处于停滞不前的状态，日本总结其原因后提出了“信息创新时代，知识产权立国”的建设方针。知识产权施法改革也是日本知识产权立国的重要内容。2005年4月1日日本成立知识产权高等法院，统一审理知识产权民事和行政上诉案件，优化司法复审资源配置，有效保护知识产权。日本知识产权高等法院其实并不是一个独立的高等法院，它属于东京高等法院；但是它又是一个相对独立的机构，有自己的法院院长，有独立的法官和独立的专门委员。日本知识产权高等法院设置有其自己特色，如专门委员制度、大合议制度，管辖分为技术型案件和非技术型案件。结合日本知识产权高等法院的特点和我国知识产权法院发展的情况来看，日本知识产权高等法院模式对我国知识产权法院的设立及发展有一定的借鉴意义。     

美国联邦巡回上诉法院特色机制及对我国的借鉴

设立知识产权专门法院以审理知识产权案件的做法是当今国际主流，然而我国自拥有知识产权制度以来，便始终处于面向“三审合一”模式的缓慢衍进之中。我国知识产权专门法院体系随着《关于在北京、上海、广州设立知识产权法院的决定》的施行虽有渐成之势，但是仍未能触及设立全国性知识产权法院的问题。鉴于中美两国知识产权环境的相似性以及密切的贸易关系，我国在知识产权法院的创设问题上可以借鉴“美国模式”的经验。了解围绕联邦巡回上诉法院而建立的美国诉讼体系，对解决我国所面临的“司法与行政双轨制”“循环诉讼”以及知识产权法官选任等问题具有相当价值。     

试论网络知识产权犯罪中的审判管辖制度

快速发展的信息技术为人类在现实世界之外,创建起一个复杂多变的虚拟世界,即网络空间.而网络空间内所发生的侵犯知识产权犯罪以其所具有的异于传统侵犯知识产权犯罪的隐匿性、复杂性、智能化等特性,给我国刑事诉讼中传统的审判管辖制度造成了很大的障碍和困难,亟待学界进行深入研究以创建合理的解决机制.