This article delves into the emergence of ‘new types of unfair competition’ in China, propelled by the rapid development of the digital economy. It primarily focuses on ‘Internet Provision’ and the proposed ‘Data Provision’. Notably, China’s Anti-Unfair Competition Law, enacted in 1993, underwent its first significant revision after a span of 24 years, leading to the introduction of the ‘Internet Provision’. However, the typology of these provisions presented evident flaws, resulting in the frequent invocation of the ‘catch-all clause’ by the courts since its implementation. This lack of specific categorization for unfair competition in the Internet domain has led to the courts heavily relying on Article 2 of the ‘Anti-Unfair Competition Law’, which is regarded as a general provision. Unfortunately, this approach has given rise to convoluted reasoning, unstable outcomes and excessive judicial intervention in commercial competition matters. To address these issues, the newly proposed ‘data clause’ aims to reestablish clear typification. Nevertheless, it contains semantic ambiguities in its specific expression. More importantly, while the proposed rules consider the cost of public access to information, they do not sufficiently safeguard freedom of information. The lack of well-defined boundaries for data scraping tends to overly favour the original platforms that control the data. Confronting this novel form of unfair competition, it is crucial for codified law countries to endeavour to typify unfair competition acts. However, in designing the legal system, due consideration should be given to the principle of ‘competitive neutrality’ meaning that excessive judicial coercion and interference in the Internet competition landscape should be avoided to ensure a level playing field. The law’s role is to establish clear parameters while allowing for technical solutions to address many of the arising problems. Therefore, it is essential to define a precise and consistent standard. This paper argues against an overly broad recognition of ‘new unfair competition behaviour’, as it may hinder market entry and stifle innovation in the long run.

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.

As a new type of resource and asset in the data era, the importance and value of data are undeniable. Developed economies such as Europe, America, and Japan have adopted legislation and policies to establish norms for the acquisition, protection,and utilization of this new resource. There have also been heated academic discussions and debates on these cutting-edge issues.However, research in the field of intellectual property law in China mainly focuses on data protection, with little attention paid to the coordination between data access and intellectual property protection. To construct and improve China’s fundamental system on data governance, we should abandon the mindset to equate "protection" with "exclusive rights", and make it clear that the core value of data governance is not "protection", but lies in openness and utilization. The law should respond to the confusing issues arising from the unclear ground of data transaction in practice and establish the necessary rules; at the same time, the establishment of the rules and regulations should be considered in a comprehensive manner and ample space should be left for dynamic discussion.

数据作为重要资产已成国际共识,数据跨境流动则对经济社会发展意义重大、影响深远.然而由于发展水平、价值取向、法律传统等方面的差异,不同法域对数据交易与利用的管理规则存在较大差别,目前通过国内法律和国际贸易协定规制数据流动均面临诸多困难和挑战.面对数据跨境法律规制的国内与国际挑战,应当以构建"网络空间命运共同体"为指引,为世界数字共同体建设贡献中国智慧:采取包容审慎的监管策略,坚持高效率的"重点监管",避免滑向高成本的"过度规制",从而降低经贸活动成本;通过积极探索"一带一路"倡议下的数据保护"充分性认定"机制、推广RCEP有关数据跨境的监管规则、加强技术援助等方式,构建良好的国内、国际"数字营商环境";坚决反对"数字霸权",推动建立平等、互惠的全球数据流通生态.

数字技术使音乐产业呈现新的业态,也令传统的音乐版权许可制度面临许可与传播效率冲突、成本失衡的困境.限制著作权人的专有许可权是降低音乐市场交易成本的一种可选方案,但我国录音法定许可运行绩效饱受诟病,在《著作权法》第三次修法过程中更是曾掀起废除录音法定许可的论争.探究实体唱片时代的录音法定许可应否扩展至数字音乐领域,可首先追索其制度脉络.法定许可制度立法沿革表明,法定许可是一种应对版权扩张的权利限制机制,面对数字技术对版权体系的冲击时依然表现出其稳定的制度价值和生命力.其次,从域外例证转向立足我国实践环境进行考察,法定许可制度在著作权利益平衡的内生属性、数字音乐时代产业及社会文化需求、本土实践的路径选择三个维度均体现出难以替代的现实价值.最后,提出许可效率必要的程序保证和权利人获酬权实现的制度保障,是数字音乐时代法定许可制度价值实现的关键.

在数字经济时代反垄断法面临新的挑战,大型数字平台携数据、资金、网络等多重优势构筑难以撼动的市场地位,进而实施自我优待、数据不当合并、数据不兼容、施加不公平交易条件等不当行为.此类不当行为实质排除或限制了市场竞争,然建立于相关市场界定地基上的传统反垄断法难以有效规制此类不当行为.我国2022年《反垄断法》专门增加了针对数字市场的反垄断条款,但过于原则、抽象.欧洲议会通过的《数字市场法》(DMA)堪称数字时代的反垄断法,在立法目标、规制理念和规制路径方面均有创新,创制了"守门人"的新概念,并用具体的"黑名单""灰名单"规则规制垄断行为,将开启"数字治理的新纪元",为我国数字市场反垄断提供可咨借鉴的有益经验.

[目的/意义]数字经济时代,数据的生产要素地位日益凸显,数据在企业间的高效流动是激活数字创新、提升社会整体福利的重要一环.然而,数据法律属性以及企业间的数字鸿沟与壁垒阻碍了企业间的数据流动,完善数据访问与共享的规则具有重要的现实意义.[方法/过程]以企业间数据流动为研究对象,运用案例分析、比较分析方法,分析企业数据流动的挑战和欧盟《数据法案》促进企业数据流动的机理,提出完善对策.[结果/结论]从个人权利保障、数据流动法治环境、技术标准与规范建设等方面提出了完善企业数据流动制度的具体路径.

售后回租模式是近年来我国知识产权证券化"探索"的一种模式.它一方面满足了创新者对知识产权独占性使用的需要,另一方面也缓解了知识产权定价的不确定性,具有较高的实践理性.但知识产权售后回租模式存在严重的制度困境,主要在于知识产权客体作为融资租赁物的适格性规则不明,具体表现为:立法对知识产权客体作为标的物缺乏认可;知识产权评估难以影响标的物的价值与租金的确定.就域外经验来看,为满足知识产权融资租赁业务的开展需求,可以通过动产担保一元化的体系保护以及对传统融资租赁的扩大解释两种方式为知识产权售后回租提供法律保障.基于功能主义视角,应扩大融资租赁物的适用范围,肯定知识产权客体的适格性,采用行为识别模式判断知识产权融资租赁关系,推动证券化项目中的基础资产组合多元化,探索固定循环型资产池模式,以及完善基础资产登记程序等具体举措化解知识产权证券化售后回租模式的法律风险.

新型举国体制强调更好地发挥政府在协同创新中的主导作用,政府主导协同创新包括政府资助模式以及政府与市场主体合作研发模式.在由科研成果归属管制到知识产权利益分配自治的历史演进过程中,协同创新知识产权利益规制边界并不清晰,"有约依约,无约共有"的知识产权利益分配自治模式在实践中出现了诸多不足.基于软家长主义视角,可以通过敦促方式进一步引导协同创新中知识产权利益的理性分配.在遵循成果利用最大化、弱势缔约方利益保障以及成本收益原则基础上,依据资金来源以及知识产权价值增加等贡献标准,采用范本形式对知识产权利益分配场景类型化,进一步提升协同创新中知识产权利益分配合理性.

囤积牟利、寻租抢注等非使用目的的恶意商标行为严重扰乱了我国市场秩序,破坏了营商环境.我国现已制定了一系列治理"注而不用"商标的规制规则,但在制度的周延性和执行效力上仍有局限.美国《商标现代化法案》引入了新的政策工具,为识别和清理"注而不用"商标提供了便捷、高效的制度保障.为有效治理我国"注而不用"商标乱象,助力构建一流营商环境,应积极吸纳域外治理的有益经验,切实加强对商标使用问题的重视程度,并从正向规范、反向遏制、协同格局三个维度构建符合实践需求、回应市场期待、适应理论体系的商标使用制度.

人工智能技术的兴起对传统的合理使用制度提出了严峻挑战.从结构主义整体观出发的研究表明,随着AI学习和创作的发展,传统版权法的"作者中心主义"和严格的"三步检验法"不能适应AI技术变革的需要.为了促进创新和AI技术的发展,合理使用应当扩张并进行制度重塑.首先应以"合理使用"这一术语替代"限制与例外".其次,随着AI创作的兴起、人类作者角色的淡出和作者的"袪魅",应当重构版权保护与合理使用的关系,将合理使用提升至与版权保护比肩的地位.再次,应当将为了AI学习、创作使用版权作品纳入合理使用的范围,但如果AI"输出"的作品与原作品实质相似,则应当属于版权人的控制范围.最后,我国著作权法应当采用灵活的、有弹性的合理使用立法模式.

作为知识产权强保护的重要抓手,刑事保护的质量直接关涉知识产权保护体系的成效.司法机关基于知识产权刑事案件侦查、审理的特殊性,不断增进知识产权权利人在刑事诉讼中的参与程度.就理论维度而言,加强权利人参与契合恢复性的司法理念,符合法秩序的统一性要求,有助于落实权利人的诉讼参与权.但在制度设置层面,现有制度设计在提高知识产权权利人诉讼地位的同时,却在一定程度上缺乏对于权利人刑事诉讼中权利恢复的关注,忽视了知识产权权利人在刑事诉讼中经济补偿的诉求,不利于提高知识产权权利人参与的主动性与积极性.基于妥适、高效处置知识产权刑事案件的需要,可以在现有的刑事诉讼法框架下,允许知识产权权利人提起附带民事诉讼,并在部分知识产权案件中引入刑事和解制度.

As a follow-up project to the “Declaration on a Balanced Interpretation of the Three-Step Test” (2008), the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition has coordinated an international group of world-renowned copyright experts to produce a legal instrument (possibly in the form of an international agreement) containing a nucleus of indispensable copyright-permitted uses that States should be obliged to implement in their legislations. With the purpose of counterbalancing the current international trend in copyright law, characterised by its “minimal protection approach”, concrete provisions and extended explanatory notes are provided to foster a “minimal limitation approach”.

"通知—删除"系为避免网络服务提供者承担严格责任之立法构建,然其自被引入后即逐渐脱离其原有立法本意,进而被衍变为权利人恶意打击竞争对手、谋求不正当利益的工具,而《电子商务法》新增的"反通知+15日静默期"规定无疑更加剧了这一情形.为避免该规则的误用,对其及时修正实有必要.文章在对"通知—删除"规则与DMCA第512条比对并分析衍变缘由后认为,从长远来看需使"通知—删除"规则回归免责条款,短期则需加紧出台《电子商务法司法解释》,对合格"通知""反通知"形式要件及"恶意""加倍赔偿"进行必要解释,打破电商营运失序格局;与此同时,政府部门、司法机关及电商平台亦需有机协作,共同维护电商运营生态良性发展.

国内外学界对商业秘密是否是一种知识产权一直存在严重的分歧.我国《民法总则》将商业秘密列为知识产权的一种类型,2019年4月23日《反不正当竞争法》的修订进一步加强对商业秘密的保护.但是,商业秘密能否成为一种知识产权?其知识产权化的理据如何?尚没有充分的讨论和论证.从商业秘密本质属性和保护路径的演变探寻,认为商业秘密可以成为一种知识产权.首先商业秘密是通过智力劳动产生的成果,其保护有利于促进创新,符合知识产权保护的正当性基础,具有知识产权的"内核";其次,历经数百年的演变,商业秘密不再是单纯的相对性权利,而是具有相当程度的对世性和排他性,与知识产权具有同质性.商业秘密权利人不仅可以对抗签有保密协议的合同相对方,而且可以对抗其他第三人.尽管商业秘密权利人不能阻止他人的反向工程和独立研发,但这并不能否认商业秘密权的排他性,只是影响排他性的范围和程度.此外,秘密性的存在是商业秘密财产价值的重要基础,而非其产权化的障碍.知识产权的客体——信息是否公开,不是判断一项权利能否成为知识产权的标准.

为规制权利人异化"通知"规则功能,平衡权利人、电商平台及平台内经营者利益,《电子商务法》第42条第3款首创性引入"恶意错误通知"概念并对其发出者要求承担"加倍赔偿责任",然上述规定对"恶意"与"错误通知"概念语焉不详.为避免该条款在司法实践下被误用,澄清其含义及法理实有必要.文章在对"恶意"与其他过错形式比较并结合司法实践考量后认为,第3款之"恶意"是对具惩罚性质"加倍赔偿责任"的主观考量,应采取"明知+不正当竞争动机"标准;而"错误通知"则是对事实的陈述,其构成不应包含主观要件.

近年来,各大互联网公司斥巨资抢夺的体育赛事节目播出资源饱受盗播之苦.体育赛事节目相关纠纷频发,法院对体育赛事节目的权利属性和保护路径看法不一,导致判决结果各异.对此,从促进体育产业健康发展的角度出发,运用案例分析法和文献分析法,研究我国体育赛事节目的保护现状及其存在的问题,提出通过完善广播组织权来保护体育赛事节目.我国新《著作权法》为广播组织扩张了转播权并新增信息网络传播权,但未解决广播组织权利主体和权利客体等相关问题.应当将广播组织权的主体范围扩大至新型的网络传播主体,确定广播组织权的客体为载有节目的信号,基于利益平衡原则对权利进行一定的限制,如赋予公众免费观看重大体育赛事活动的合理机会并给予未获独家转播授权的媒体一定的新闻报道的自由.明晰体育赛事节目的法律性质及其权利归属和权利内容,将有助于妥善处理体育赛事节目产业链上各相关主体的利益,在权利的专有和公有之间划分合理的界限.

地理标志的法律保护是一项十分复杂的问题.目前在国际上,拥有反不正当竞争保护、专门法保护和商标法保护等不同法律模式.改革开放以来,经过多层面的实践探索,其中包括对域外多种不同法律保护模式的学习和借鉴,我国对地理标志的法律保护逐渐形成现今"两种法律模式并行、三套保护制度同在"的基本面貌.从目前来看,我国地理标志的法律保护并完善,还面临一系列困境和难题,比如,地理标志法律概念及保护条件不一致,还存在不同程度忽视地理标志的声誉或知名度等问题;地理标志授权确权制度不完善,地理标志还存在重叠保护、注册和登记主体不一致等乱象;地理标志侵权救济制度也还不完善;等等.在民法"法典化"时代,我国地理标志法律保护的根本出路在于,应以《民法总则《为统领,遵循"一依托、两回归、三改造"的基本改进思路,重新定位我国的地理标志法律保护模式,坚持在商标法律制度基本框架下对现行多套地理标志保护制度作体系化重构.

Chinese universities have been the major suppliers of scientific and technological innovation, but the inadequate management and application of intellectual property has received heavy criticism in China. The criticism is usually expressed in the following arguments: scientific research is not application-oriented, researchers selectively disclose scientific research results, intellectual property management is based on the “stamp-style” administrative management, there is no special technology transfer institution and there is a shortage of high-leveled and versatile talents. These problems have hindered the application of scientific and technological achievements in Chinese universities, and resulted in the waste of innovative resources. However, it has been controversial about the causes of the problems. This paper shows that the main causes for the unsatisfactory situation of technology transfer in Chinese colleges and universities are as follows: the current university evaluation system, which is the driving force for the selection of scientific research direction, puts little weight on practical application, some high-quality scientific research achievements are far from maturing into high-value patents, there is no structured intellectual property management system, and the institutional setup and staffing for technology transfer are not appropriate.