知识产权法"利益平衡说"之反思:自然法与功利主义之比较

“利益平衡说”被认为是知识产权法之基本原则或基本精神,旨在平衡权利人个人利益与社会公共利益之冲突,并以此解释知识产权法的制度构成。依自然法理论,知识产权之正当性因其自然获得性,相关权利与限制是确定权利的正当边界,维护以个人权利为基础之社会契约。功利主义理论则认为知识产权保护是实现社会效用之必要工具,经由排他性权利及其限制来达至社会效用最大化。无论限制或保护权利均有可能产生对权利或社会效用的正面或负面作用。由此,利益平衡的二元价值目标论值得商榷。知识产权法的根本问题是以个人权利为导向还是以社会效用为终极价值之选择问题。

Rethinking of the Doctrine of Interest Balance in IP Law:The Comparison between Natural Law and Utilitarianism

The doctrine of interest balance,advocated by many scholars as the basic principle or value of intellectual property law,regards the balance between the interest of individual right holders and the social interest as the justification of intellectual property system.From the perspective of natural law theory,the intellectual property s legitimacy originates from the natural right of the creators and inventors,and the inalienable mixture of right and its limits is to ascertain the justified scope of the right and maintain social contract.However,the utilitarianism uses the social utility to justify intellectual property,which is the necessary approach to maximize the social welfare through the balance between exclusive rights and their limits.The prima facie conflict is in essence a kind of paradox in which the conflict and consistence co-exist.Since either the protection or the limit of intellectual creations has the possibilities of both facilitating and harming right or social utility,the double objectives of the interest balance doctrine is questionable.The fundamental issue of intellectual property is still the choice of individual right or social utility as the terminal value of law.