反垄断法语境下的“法定垄断权”探疑  

Legal Monopoly Right in the Context of Anti-Monopoly Law

作　　者：吴天成 支果 WU Tiancheng;ZHI Guo(Law School and Grassroots Judicial Capacity Research Center of Sichuan University of Science&Engineering,Zigong Sichuan 644300,China)

机构地区：[1]四川轻化工大学基层司法能力研究中心,法学院

出　　处：《四川文理学院学报》2020年第1期120-128,共9页Sichuan University of Arts and Science Journal

基　　金：四川省教育厅高校人文社会科学重点研究基地基层司法能力研究中心重点项目“知识产权竞争法律风险防控研究”(JCSF2019-01)

摘　　要：知识产权是"法定垄断权"在反垄断法领域似乎已成为共识,知识产权存在的主要目的是为了激励创新,途径是授权,故而知识产权是一种法定垄断权,是反垄断法的适用除外。知识产权授权论严重忽视了人们的劳动价值,创新激励是以依赖承认、尊重和保护人们的脑力劳动成果为基础,在确认知识产权的自然权属的前提下的政策指引,而非知识产权权利来源的价值导向。知识产权法定论无法解释为何同样可自然可法定的物权等权利的行使不被视为反垄断法的适用除外。在反垄断法领域,知识产权应视为自然权而非法定权,知识产权的专有性不能简单概称为垄断性,知识产权的权利存在本就不是反垄断法调整的对象,不是反垄断法的适用除外。Intellectual property rights as a legal monopoly right seems to have become a consensus in the field of antimonopoly law.The main purpose of intellectual property rights is to encourage innovation,and the way is authorization.Therefore,intellectual property rights are a kind of legal monopoly power,and the exception of antitrust laws.The intellectual property empowerment theory seriously ignores people’s labor value.Innovation incentives are based on the recognition of,respect for and protection of people’s mental work and the policy guidelines under the premise of confirming the natural ownership of intellectual property rights.Rather than intellectual property rights are the value orientation of the source.That intellectual property protected is based on the legislate and cannot explain why the exercise of the right to property is not considered to be not applicable to the anti-monopoly law.It may base on natural or legislate,too.In essence,intellectual property rights should be natural rights rather than“legal monopoly rights”.The exclusiveness of intellectual property rights cannot be called monopoly.The existence of intellectual property rights is not the exception of antitrust laws.

关 键 词：知识产权 反垄断 法定垄断权 适用除外 

分 类 号：DF523[政治法律—民商法学] D912.29[政治法律—法学]