知识财产利益权利化路径之反思  

Reflection on the Path to Entitle Intellectual Property Interests

作　　者：黎华献 LI Hua-xian(Law School,Renmin University of China,Beijing 100872,China)

机构地区：[1]中国人民大学法学院,北京100872

出　　处：《现代法学》2020年第3期85-98,共14页Modern Law Science

基　　金：中央马克思主义理论研究和建设工程重大项目兼国家社科基金重大项目“知识产权保护与创新发展研究”(2016MZD022)。

摘　　要：随着社会创新领域的不断细化,知识财产利益的类型呈现复杂化趋势,而探讨知识财产利益如何赋权保护,具有规范和社会的双重意义。权利化的正当性路径和合法性路径,均以建构权利的同一性为目标,其本质是权利的构成性路径。权利正当性的自然权利理论与功利主义理论,是刻意的理论划分,二者的不同被用来否定部分知识财产利益权利化的必要性;合法性路径所依据的保护标准,在适用中限缩了部分知识财产利益保护的范围。权利的构成性路径对利益复杂性的认识存在偏差。基于对复杂性的考量,构成性路径应转向生成性路径。当商业模式、合同和技术措施等市场机制,无法确保创造者的市场领先时间而导致市场失灵时,额外的赋权才有必要。而类型化方法能有效呈现权利的生成性路径对现有规范的影响。With the continuous refinement of the field of social innovation,the types of intellectual property interests are becoming more complicated. It is of normative and social significance to explore how intellectual property interests are empowered and protected. The justification path and the legitimacy path of rights both aim at constructing the identity of rights,and their essence is the constitutive path of rights.The natural right theory of right legitimacy and the utilitarian theory are deliberate theoretical confusions.The difference between the two is used to negate the necessity of the empowerment of some intellectual property interests;the protection criteria on which the legitimacy path is based limits the scope of protection of some intellectual property interests. The constitutional path of rights is biased in understanding the complexity of interests. Based on the consideration of complexity,the constitutive path should shift to the generative path. When market mechanisms such as business models,contract mechanisms,and technical measures fail to ensure the market lead time of creators and lead to market failure,additional empowerment protection is necessary. The typed method can effectively show the impact of the generative path of rights on existing norms.

关 键 词：正当性 合法性 构成性 市场失灵 类型化 

分 类 号：DF523[政治法律—民商法学]