Based on the special attributes of public property and scenario-based application practices of public data,the commercial use of public data is an important way to unleash its economic value.The existing legal system has initially established the ownership rules of public data as public property,yet it falls short in effectively regulating its commercial use.Therefore,it is necessary to develop specific rules for public data to guide and regulate its commercial use.By distinguishing between the dual behavior types of administrative and market entities,examining the accessibility of public data,the legality of methods employed and the justification of actions taken,the protection boundary of commercial use of public data can be clearly established.Accordingly,predicated on this bifurcation of entities,it is imperative to delve into the governance mechanisms and meticulously refine the rules for commercial use of public data,founded on the fundamental principles established respectively.
The empowerment model and behavior regulation model of data protection is complementary,with dual goals of safeguarding data rights and facilitating data circulation.Therefore,the object,subject,and effectiveness boundary of data protection should be accurately defined.As object of data protection,data is an independent civil right entity that should have its own legitimacy and value,and should not be limited to enterprise data,derivative data,collective data,or non-public data.The subjects of data protection are ultimately natural persons,legal persons,or unincorporated organizations belong to"humans".If data collected and processed by entities other than"humans"is legally protected by"humans",remedies can be sought through revocation and pursuing tort liability.The rights and interests in data protection should be confined to legally recognized data acts,including permission from the rights holder,being profitable,no-conflict with prior rights and interests,no harm to the interests of the state,society,or others,and not impeding others from implementing it reasonably or in good faith.Considering the current legislation and law enforcement that's insufficient to reflect the requirements for the object,subject and effectiveness boundary of data protection,unified legislation based on the Data Security Law is necessary.The China National Intellectual Property Administration and the National Data Office should jointly formulate and issue administrative enforcement measures for data protection.Due to the close interrelation between information,data,and intellectual property,it is more appropriate to incorporate data into the intellectual property legal system and establish specific systems therein.
With the enhancement of machine learning and artificial neural networks,artificial intelligence(AI)technology has made rapid progress,evolving humanoid intelligence capable of independent innovation.The conventional single human innovator has branched into a dual-dimensional model,encompassing both human and AI,creating a"ternary innovation pattern".The"anthropocentrism"in innovation is now under threat,shifting towards"post anthropocentrism",and this transition is poised to profoundly affect the justification of intellectual property.Under the background of autonomous innovation of AI,the logical premise of the labor theory of property and personality theory of"anthropocentrism"contradicts the fact of the lack of"human"elements,rendering these theories impractical.Similarly,the incentive theory,rooted in"mechanical utilitarianism",not only faces the logical dilemma of lacking subject motivation,but also confronts the difficulty to mitigate the double-edged nature of AI technology,proving inadequate for theoretical interpretation.Conversely,a social planning theory anchored in"social centrism",implementing the"balance theory",and emphasizing the"distributive justice"and"abundance in the public domain",aligns with the demands of AI era.It can effectively circumvents the trap of"human"element lack,solve the dilemma of the dual-edged relationship between subject motivation and technology,and stimulate innovation while balancing the dissemination and utilization of knowledge,furthering human self-realization and advancing social fairness and prosperity.
The cultural world displays extensive interdependence,which dictates that in the copyright law,there is an extensive interdependence among subjects and their actions,objects,and between subjects and objects.Accordingly,the rights of each subject should be structured in the same way.The copyright system encompasses three subjects:authors,disseminators and users based on their involvement in the creation,dissemination,consumption and recreation of the works,which entitles them to copyright,neighboring rights and rights of use respectively.These three categories of subjects,along with their respective rights,constitute the three pillars of copyright law.A complete set of foundational norms of copyright law can only be established when the rights and obligations of each subject mutually support one another,and it can regulate comprehensively the basic legal relationships of copyright law,promote cultural development,and finally,achieve the basic goals of the copyright law.
The legislation on data intellectual property represents a new legislative initiative in the intellectual property field and in the big data era.The rationality behind such legislation is rooted in the compatibility of the scope and structural framework of intellectual property with data property empowerment,the theoretical justification of intellectual property,such as labor theory and contract theory for data property empowerment,as well as the legal support provided by the open legal system of intellectual property and pre-existing data protection experience.On this basis,the basic legal relationship of public data sets as the object of rights and the data set manufacturer as the subject of rights,the authorization model of exclusive use rights and content expansion rights as substantive elements and registration as procedural requirement for obtaining rights,as well as the rights confirmation mechanism involving multiple dimensions such as the determination of rights effectiveness,rights limitation rules,and rights relief system,together constitute the basic normative construction of data intellectual property.At the same time,in view of the significant differences in the use and circulation of personal data,business data,and public data,data property should be classified for protection in the process of data intellectual property legislation.Special provisions,industry guidelines,or guidance,built on general legal rules,are proposed to effectuate a structured separation of intellectual property rights for personal data,business data,and public data.
Artificial intelligence(AI)synthesized music uses existing music as raw materials,including musical works and sound recordings protected by copyright law.There is a risk of copyright infringement for the reproductive,expressive,and disseminating use of existing music by Al synthesized music.Due to the explanatory problems between"Al performance"and"performance"under copyright law,AI faces the dilemma of fair use exemption and normative authorization when using music materials,and the dissemination of AI-synthesized music faces the dilemma of infringement defense.It is suggested to resolve the copyright risks of AI-synthesized music from four dimensions:the expanded interpretation of provisions of performers'rights under copyright law,the limited exemption for fair use,the use guarantee of statutory licenses,and,the iteration of the collective management mechanism for music copyright.
专利禁止反悔原则以诚实信用原则作为法理基础,在法律定位上属于等同侵权的限制原则.禁止反悔原则适用于限缩性修改或陈述,其适用的首要条件是存在技术方案放弃的客观事实.专利申请人、专利权人对于技术方案的放弃在外观上应当满足明确性要求,其标准是本领域普通技术人员能够合理相信其通过修改或陈述放弃了某一技术方案.只有以满足授予专利权的实质性要求为目的的限缩性修改或陈述才能够适用禁止反悔原则,但该原则的适用不以限缩性修改或陈述与专利权授予或维持之间存在因果关系为前提.禁止反悔原则的适用受到"明确否定"例外的限制,"明确否定"应当是裁判者对限缩性修改或陈述本身的明示性不予认可.我国司法实践中禁止反悔原则属于"弹性禁止规则",对于专利审查过程中未被放弃的技术内容,专利权人仍可主张等同侵权.
全球化时代,侵犯知识产权犯罪呈现智能化、虚拟化、有组织化的特点,成为联合国规定的17类跨国犯罪中最为严重的犯罪之一.侵犯知识产权犯罪的新态势、新特征对追诉侵犯知识产权犯罪证据的收集、检控、审判等活动提出新要求,对传统国内刑法体系和国际刑法规则带来新挑战.目前大多数与知识产权相关的国际条约都对侵犯知识产权罪进行了规定,但规定得比较简略,对侵犯知识产权犯罪中的重大问题和关键问题还存在较大分歧.为了更好地打击全球化时代的侵犯知识产权犯罪,我国应积极推动并深度参与跨境知识产权刑事司法合作,完善相关法律法规,调整优化知识产权刑事司法体制机制,以提升侵犯知识产权犯罪的刑事打击能力,推动全球知识产权治理格局良性发展,促进国际经济贸易与科技关系的深入合作.
2000年世界知识产权组织成立了知识产权与遗传资源、传统知识和民间文学艺术政府间委员会,开始讨论和审议涉及遗传资源的知识产权问题.经过20余年的努力,2022年世界知识产权组织大会终于作出为缔结一部国际法律文书而最迟于2024年召开外交会议的决定.外交大会谈判的基础是知识产权与遗传资源、传统知识和民间文学艺术政府间委员会主席编拟的《知识产权、遗传资源和遗传资源相关传统知识国际法律文书草案》.目前发展中国家和发达国家对该草案的目标、披露要求的客体、内容和触发点以及未遵守披露要求的后果等关键问题仍存在较大分歧,外交会议谈判能否解决这些分歧依然具有不确定性.我国是生物多样性最为丰富的国家之一,药物专利态势分析显示我国正在向遗传资源利用国转变,我国在外交会议谈判中的定位应该是遗传资源提供国和快速发展之中的遗传资源利用国.我国需要以该定位为指导,在谈判中同时维护我国作为提供国和快速发展之中的利用国的利益.
关于技术发明的保护,国际上经过了从特许权到专利权、从西欧一隅到全球范围的历史进程.基于不同的历史文化传统,又产生了以美国为代表的英美法系专利制度和以德国为代表的大陆法系专利制度.两大法系在专利权客体、专利权实质性要件、专利申请与专利权无效、权利要求和侵权认定方面存在诸多差异.深入了解这些差异有助于推进我国专利制度改革,进而有力有效地保护技术发明.
宁立志在《暨南学报（哲学社会科学版）》2023年第2期撰文指出，完善“规制知识产权滥用行为”的法律制度以及与知识产权相关的反垄断、反不正当竞争等领域立法，是《知识产权强国建设纲要（2021—2035年）》的重要内容之一。无论典型类型知识产权还是非典型类型知识产权，都有其保护范围和边界，故知识产权法规范架构内置诸多限制性制度安排，可从知识产权的取得、维持、实施等维度划出知识产权的范围和边界，对超越这些边界或违反立法宗旨的知识产权利用行为适用民法、反不正当竞争法、反垄断法等进行衡量和调整，从而实现对知识产权滥用行为的规制。
梁志文在《法治研究》2023年第2期撰文指出，知识产权损害具有难以精确计算的特点，法院确定的赔偿数额既有可能对权利人补偿不足，也有可能出现补偿过度。近些年来，我国法上备受关注的问题是补偿不足，其中，占主导地位的法定赔偿规则备受质疑。我国法上门类齐全的赔偿数额计算方式不能发挥作用，是因为它存在三方面的缺陷：法定赔偿定位混杂、惩罚性赔偿计算基准有欠周全以及未能确认法院裁定合理许可使用费的计算方式。为了实现激励创新的知识产权立法目标，法律不仅需要在辅助权利人举证制度和扩大法院的自由裁量权两方面予以改进，而且也需要重构损害赔偿的计算方式。因此，《专利法》等知识产权法应该厘清法定赔偿与惩罚性赔偿的关系，重构惩罚性赔偿的计算基准，建立合理许可使用费的计算方式并明确其适用的案件类型。
伯雨鸿在《现代法学》2023年第2期撰文指出，专利公开是一个以创新为起点、以技术扩散为连接点、以社会福利为依归的完整链条。专利公开通过排他利益与技术公开的人为安排架构了技术创新与技术扩散的双向循环机制。排他利益是构建创新信息系统的前提，而技术公开才是构建创新信息系统的根本。专利制度以激励创新为旨归，专利公开以创新扩散为路径。公开充分性是技术方案的可专利性条件之一，专利申请发挥着技术公开的功能，技术公开又促进技术信息的扩散，从而实现激励创新的专利政策目标。在知识产权强国建设背景下，专利公开实现了技术方案的信息化，促成了技术方案的占有化以及彰显了技术方案的公示化。
陈天昊、苏亦坡在《法学研究》2023年第1期撰文指出，运用双重差分法对2011年至2020年上市公司数据进行分析表明，我国于2014年底设立的知识产权法院取得了积极的治理实效，知识产权法院通过裁判提升纠纷解决效率及输出规范资源可以显著促进企业创新。回顾知识产权法院创设、建制及发展的历程可以发现，知识产权法院作为新创设组织面临的合法性压力及其采取的向上回应、横向竞争的行为逻辑，驱使其在过去的实践中努力提升裁判效率及裁判文书质量，这为司法治理发挥实效提供了具体案例，也为后续专门法院的建设及司法改革的推进积累了宝贵经验。知识产权法院在未来仍面临挑战，包括不同行为逻辑交互耦合导致的工作重心不规律摇摆，以及竞争环境下的资源压力可能引发其重新嵌入常规体系，今后的司法改革需对此采取措施审慎应对。
孔祥俊在《比较法研究》2023年第2期撰文指出，“搭便车”具有多种含义，反不正当竞争法中的“搭便车”具有特殊的法律语境，其适用定位涉及反不正当竞争法的底层观念、原则和价值。制止“搭便车”高度契合自然正义及其衍生的不当得利原则，具有与生俱来的道德感召力。但是，“搭便车”又经常是模仿自由和竞争自由的应有之义，有其积极的和正面的含义，在通常意义上体现的是“搭便车”中立。我国司法裁判过多地赋予其自身违法的负面否定意义，将其作为构成不正当竞争的裁判标准，并广泛地用于竞争行为正当性的判断。“搭便车”的宽泛适用易扰乱相关法律之间的调整秩序，破坏法益保护与竞争自由和公有领域的必要平衡，有悖于自由市场原则。“搭便车”可以成为裁判标准，但应当限定其适用范围、压缩其适用空间，其适用不能抵触相关法律的立法政策。
张玫瑰在《政治与法律》2023年第4期撰文指出，传统的反垄断法事后干预范式难以对互联网平台垄断力量的不断扩张形成有效约束，存在放纵垄断者的伪阴性风险。事前干预通过要求垄断者承担积极竞争义务来对垄断力量进行预防性控制，能够有效克服事后干预的伪阴性弊端。平台反垄断事前干预建立在互联网平台具有必要设施这一属性的基础上，需求侧规模经济的存在使大型互联网平台具备了控制网络竞争瓶颈的必要设施地位，对其施加积极竞争义务具有可操作性与有效性。
李冠煜在《政法论坛》2023年第3期撰文指出，尽管我国司法机关一般能恪守成文法主义认定侵犯商业秘密罪的罪量要素，但也可能出于实用主义思维对其进行灵活处理或柔性解释。罪刑法定原则追求形式明确性和实质明确性，但本罪罪量要素的调整存在违反明确性原则的隐忧。当前对“情节严重”的体系定位要么缺乏阶层式判断，要么类型化程度不高，应当对明确性原则的适用过程进一步予以具体化、精细化，按照“保护法益—犯罪构造—情节内容”的顺序展开判断。本罪的法益应为我国商业秘密管理制度利益，是一种不真正的集合法益，其犯罪结构包括实害犯和抽象危险犯，要配置相应的罪量要素以提升每种风险行为类型的不法程度。根据类型化审查和个别化审查，本罪的罪量要素涵盖结果不法要素、行为不法要素以及客观外界因素。
冯晓青、郝明英在《湖南大学学报（社会科学版）》2023年第2期撰文指出，随着人工智能技术不断发展，人工智能作为“创新主体”生成发明对现行专利制度提出了巨大挑战，如人工智能生成发明是否属于可专利主题、发明人主体资格与人工智能生成发明权利归属如何确定、人工智能生成发明专利权保护对公共利益是否可能产生损害等。在客体制度中，人工智能生成发明属于可专利主题，能够满足新颖性、创造性、实用性要求，其中在创造性判断中有必要根据人工智能特点适当调整“本领域普通技术人员”的判断标准。在主体制度中，发明人需为“自然人”，在激励理论下探讨人工智能生成发明的权利归属，需要综合衡量各主体的作用、贡献度以及激励程度来进行确认。在限制制度中，有必要考虑人工智能生成发明专利权保护期的设定、充分公开义务的加强以及防止权利滥用措施。
单晓光在《人民论坛·学术前沿》2023年第6期撰文指出，数据知识产权是数据基础制度的重要组成部分，创设独立的数据知识产权专门法律，目前并不是一种可实施的制度方案选择，而思考将数据融入现有知识产权客体之中，调整和丰富现有知识产权与竞争法制度，赋予适当的使用数据的例外与限制性规则，促进物联网、人工智能等数字前沿技术的发展，夯实和增强我国在新一轮科技革命和产业变革中的相对优势地位，才是当前应该选择的数据知识产权中国方案。但要审慎对待的是，在这一轮的新科技革命与产业变革中，相比于其他科技大国，我国是一个数据资源与应用场景丰富的大国。如何在新的科技竞争中依托并发挥这种数据资源与应用场景优势，防止“数据殖民主义”，积极参与乃至引领新科技革命与产业变革的可持续性发展，是数据知识产权中国方案从政治、经济与法律等多维视角进行校准的一个基点。
丛立先在《暨南学报（哲学社会科学版）》2023年第2期撰文指出，版权作为知识产权的重要组成部分和核心领域之一，对于国家的经济、文化、社会发展具有重要意义。强国知识产权建设中的全球版权治理，不仅事关国家的版权产业发展，也关乎国家文化安全，还对国家间的文化软实力竞争和产业竞争产生深刻影响。
