法律论文：论知识产权权利体系的基础 由硕士毕业论文中心，硕士论文组整理提供，本文阐述了论知识产权权利体系的基础
【摘要】 知识产权法学一门体系化程度比较贫弱的学科。因此,知识产权法学者一直在为建立一套属于自己的知识产权系统理论而努力,其中包括许多最基本的理论。这个问题从理论上讲就是如何建构一个科学的知识产权权利体系。以智力成果的创造性程度不同和性质不同为标准来确定知识产权的权利客体并界定社会中的新事物是不完善的,这种传统的划分标准不足以对迅速扩张的知识产权进行明确的界定和保护。由于社会发展趋势对知识产权传统概念的突破,使得当今国际对知识产权法的研究也呈现出基础理论研究的趋势。从根本层次上对知识产权及其权利体系进行分析、抽象和概括,对我国目前的知识产权法理论和立法有重要的现实意义。本文也正是以此为基点来讨论知识产权法律制度的。当前国内知识产权理论研究呈现出过于细化的特点,而这种在没有基础理论支撑的基础上进行的细化研究违背了社会科学的研究规律,知识产权法学应当在体系化的过程中得到发展。知识产权法律制度的核心问题就是权利,因而知识产权能够体系化的前提在于以最简洁的语言对这项权利的独有特征或本质特征进行准确的概括,为人们将知识产权与其它权利区别开来提供一个明确的标准,否则很难使人们对知识产权有正确的理解和进行深入的研究。现有的知识产权权利体系建立所依赖的基础在不同程度上存在着失灵现象,固有的知识产权法的理念和制度安排不尽合理,有必要作出修正。知识产权权利体系需要有新的更为牢固的基础来支撑。新的知识产权权利基础并不是为了提供一种标准答案,而是为了避免褊狭和片面,既适应知识产权的扩张趋势,同时又尽力达到利益的平衡。当代知识产权权利体系的建立应以可替代性知识产品为概念基础,以合理分配创造者、投资者、传播者和社会公众的利益为价值基础。二者共同形成知识产权权利体系的新的基础,并为知识产权立法提供依据,以此作为知识产权法体系化研究的先期探索。笔者通过对现有知识产权权利体系基础的局限性及其原因进行剖析,将知识产权置于理论和社会两大背景下研究,从而找出知识产权权利基础长期薄弱的原因,最终提出笔者的主张。在研究过程中不仅需要民法基础理论和知识产权法理论知识,还需要法哲学、法史学和法经济学的一些基本理论范畴以及对当代社会背景的深刻认识。因而,笔者在写作过程中大量参阅了西方哲学名著和社会学名著,并运用历史分析方法和功能分析方法对知识产权的本质问题进行了深入研究,这些研究帮助笔者较深入的思考了知识产权的本质性和正当性问题。另一方面,笔者结合当代社会背景深入调查了新科技发展对知识产权的影响,并重点了解了一些有代表性的社会动态,这些调查研究帮助笔者更好地理解了知识产权的价值和功能,为本文的最终完成作了充分的准备。本文共分为六个部分,其内容依次为:“导论”部分在文献综述的基础上,就本选题的意义、研究方法和研究思路等几个方面对本文的基本内容进行了总体介绍。它首先从知识产权法学的研究现状入手,指出本选题的意义所在,继而讨论了国内外知识产权法学界有关知识产权概念的争议,最后,针对目前存在的实际问题和争议所在,提出要解决知识产权内涵式概念问题,需从研究知识产权权利本身入手。第一章“知识产权的本质及其正当性”,从为财产权提供正当性的几个代表性学说入手,重点选取洛克的自然法理论的劳动学说和黑格尔的财产权自由意志理论作为讨论的依据,在分析两大学说的内涵的基础上着重探讨它们在知识产权领域的适用性和有限性,从哲学层面上思考知识产权制度这种存在了几百年历史的法律制度的理性与正当性,为本文的研究提供理论大前提。以此为依据,指出知识产权法律制度和知识产权法学的存在是客观事实,如何通过理论上的完善使长期以来争论不休的知识产权体系化问题得以统一,最重要的就是要找到其中的逻辑联系点。第二章“知识产权权利体系的传统基础”,介绍了知识产权的传统逻辑结构,指出了知识产权权利体系的基础包括了概念基础和价值基础两大部分,揭示了原有的知识产权权利体系的概念基础──智力成果权和与其相配套的价值基础──鼓励创造原则在现有的社会环境和经济环境中与现实的差距越来越大,从功能上讲已经不能完全统一现有的知识产权的权利对象,当前知识产权权利体系的基础十分薄弱。在此基础上进一步以新技术革命为背景,指出了各种新技术的产生和利用,给工业经济时代知识产权法原本平静的结构带来了冲击,并在其原有权利内容的基础上提出了新的需求。此种趋势使得本来就十分薄弱的知识产权体系基础显得更加举步维艰,最后,本章强调知识产权要走出新技术革命带来的经济、伦理和制度冲击,一个重要的出路就是通过制度创新来增强知识产权制度的适应性和包容力。第三章“知识产权权利体系的传统基础薄弱的原因”,从历史、科技和法学理论三个方面考察知识产权,介绍了导致知识产权权利基础薄弱的三个方面的主要原因。一是历史原因,指出知识产权产生于17、18世纪工业革命时期的英国,其产生有当时的客观性和必然性,然而现代人类社会已经远远超出了知识产权产生的初衷,需要有更完整的权利基础来加强知识产权法律制度。二是科技原因,指出知识产权的客体虽日益丰富,但也日益背离其传统意义上的范围和特征,触动了知识产权法在权利客体中的一些固有原则和观念,科技的发展使知识产权的基础始终处于不稳定的状态。三是学术原因,一方面,知识产权法学研究与民法学的隔离使得知识产权立法和理论研究成了无源之水,无本之木,不能形成一个完整而协调的体系;另一方面,知识产权领域的绝大多数研究成果只涉及某个具体的技术领域或者是对某个制度的比较研究,这种过度细化的研究态势违反了社会科学的发展规律,使得知识产权权利体系这一基础性问题始终未被足够重视。第四章“决定知识产权权利体系基础的因素”,以知识产权与物权之比较为起点,从权利设计理念、权利性质与特点、权利内容几个方面比较了知识产权与物权这两种主要的财产权类型,进而探讨了决定知识产权权利体系基础的客体因素和主体因素。揭示了知识产权法律制度的构造体现了法律对人的自利与理性的认识,人类一定的理性能力应当是进行合理立法的前提。在此基础上,进一步指出知识产权制度作为一种正式的制度安排,还应当考虑到其功能性,设计或提炼知识产权权利基础应该首先从社会系统对知识产权法的功能需求出发,以此为根据反推知识产权权利体系的基础。第五章“重塑当代知识产权权利体系的基础”,针对分歧极大的知识产权基础学说,首先论证了重塑知识产权权利体系的可能性,指出知识产权的对象在客观上存在着一个突出的共性:价值不是来源于自身的物质属性,而在于能够描述一定的信息。因而知识产权具有了类型化的特征,从逻辑上统一知识产权的对象是可能的。然后,说明了新的知识产权权利体系的基础也分为两个方面,一是概念基础,提出知识产权所保护的是在市场经济条件下,具有市场需求和可替代性的脑力劳动所形成的知识产品。二是价值基础,指出知识产权应当以合理分配创造者、投资者、传播者和社会公众的利益为主要价值基础,二者共同形成知识产权权利体系的基础,并为知识产权立法提供依据。
【Abstract】 The intellectual property law is a science with poor systematization, but as a regime of regulating related legal relations of intellectual property rights, establishment of such right system shall become the starting point to spur on the change of other factors of legal relationship. So many jurists are making efforts to establish the systematical theory of intellectual property, including many basic theories. Since intellectual property law has statutory feature, in the eyes of legal norm, it means how to structure a scientific intellectual property right system. It is not perfect to define the object of right according to the extent of creativity and the variety of character, and the traditional standard can not definite intellectual property rights exactly and protect them well. Because of the development of modern society has broken through traditional intellectual property concept, eventually there is also a trend of basic theory research on intellectual property all over the world. Analysis, abstraction and summarization of intellectual property right and its system at the basic level shall produce great realistic significance to the theory and legislation of intellectual property law. Also this paper is based on this to discuss the regime of intellectual property.At present, the research of intellectual property theory in our country have been paid great attention to details of intellectual property rights. But detailing research without support by basic theory shall violate the research rule in social science field. So the theory of intellectual property should be developed with the process of systematizing. The core of intellectual property law is rights. So the prerequisite for systematization of intellectual property law is that we should define the unique or distinctive character of intellectual property rights in the simplest words, which shall provide a clear standard to distinct intellectual property right from other rights. Otherwise, it is hard to have a correct understanding of intellectual property and further research on it. There are some“failures”in the basis which current intellectual property right is based on, and there is some unreasonableness in intrinsic value and system arrangement of intellectual property law, which show the necessities of correction. The system of intellectual property rights need new and more solid foundation to support. The new foundation of intellectual property right is not to provide a standard answer, but to avoid narrowness and one-sidedness, adapt itself to the expanding intellectual property and make efforts to balance the interests between them. Modern intellectual property right system should be established on the conception basis of substitute knowledge products and value basis of interest distribution, which together have formed the foundation of intellectual property right system and provide theoretical basis for legislation. The above-mentioned basis shall be utilized as the earlier probe in the research of the systematization of intellectual property law.The author plans to research intellectual property rights by way of analyzing the limitations on originally systematical basis under the background of theory and society, try to discover why the basis of intellectual property rights are so weak, in the end the author put forward his own opinion. Such research does not need basic theory of civil law and intellectual property law, but also need deep understanding of some basic theoretical category of jurisprudence, legal history, legal economics and modern social background. Therefore, the writer has not only read many western philosophical or social masterworks to study the nature of intellectual property by the way of historical analysis and functional analysis approach, which helps the author to ponder the nature and justification of intellectual property. On the other hand, the author also investigated the influence of new science and technology and mastered some representative social dynamics to comprehend the value and the function of intellectual property rights. As a result, the writer has been fully prepared to complete this article.There are six chapters in this article. The brief contents of every chapter are as follows.“Introduction”presented the main contents of this article including its methodology, research consideration and significance on the basis of literature survey. The writer first pointed out the significance of this subject by way of studying the current research in intellectual property circles, discussed some controversies about the concept of intellectual property rights at home and abroad, put forward that correct understanding of the connotative meaning of the intellectual property concept should be based upon the research intellectual property rights themselves. Chapter 1,“the Essence and Justification of intellectual property rights”first discusses the justification of property right. The writer paid special attention to“fruits of labor”theory of Rock’s nature law and Hegel’s property right freedom and inquired into the applicability and limitation of above theories and deeply thought the rationalization and justification of the regime of intellectual property, which provide theoretical premise for this article. How to unite the endless debate on the systematization of intellectual property? The key is to find out the logic point of contact between them.Chapter 2,“Traditional basis of intellectual property right system”introduced the traditional logical structure of intellectual property rights, and indicated that the systematical basis of rights should include concept basis and value basis. The writer revealed that the concept basis (namely intellectual property) and the value basis (namely the principle of“encouraging creation”) could not cover all objects of intellectual property rights in the modern society. So the current foundation of intellectual property right system is fairly weak. With the development and utilization of various new technologies, the calm structure of intellectual property has been shattered in industrial economic times, which also presented new demands in the content of intellectual property rights. This trend further weakened frail traditional intellectual property system. In the end, this chapter pointed out that to respond the economical, ethical and institutional influence of new technological revolution, it is important to reinforce the applicability and contain-ability of intellectual property regime through institutional innovation.Chapter 3,“Why is the foundation of intellectual property right system weak?”was about three major factors leading to the weak systematic basis. The first factor is that the regime of intellectual property appeared in Britain in the 17~18th century industrial revolution, but now the regime cannot pace with the development of human society, which need more integrated foundation to strengthen the regime. The second factor was the influence of new science and technology. The objects are of intellectual property rights are increasing more but also deviate from the traditional meaning in its scope and character and shattered the intrinsic principles and ideology. The development of science and technology caused the foundation of intellectual property rights unstable. The third factor was from the academic circles. The separate research between intellectual property law and civil law caused the study of this legal field to fail to form a complete and coordinate system. On the other hand, most of jurists were devoted to some specific technological field or comparative study of certain realm, which had violated the development rule of social science and resulted in little attention to the fundamental problems of intellectual property rights.Chapter 4,“Factors determining the foundation of intellectual property rights system”firstly compared with the design concept, nature and character, and contents of rights between intellectual property rights and rights of things, then discussed the subject factors and object factors that determine the foundation of intellectual property rights. The author revealed that the regime of intellectual property reflected the understanding of selfishness and rationality of human beings and human beings’rationality should be prerequisite of legislation. This chapter further pointed out that the regime of intellectual property, as a formal institutional arrangement, shall be established in consideration of its function—the functional demand of social system to design and abstract the foundation of intellectual property rights.Chapter 5,“Rebuilding up the foundation of intellectual property rights system”, firstly the possibility of rebuilding up of the foundation of intellectual property rights system, and pointed out that there is one distinctive common in objects of intellectual property, that is, value does not lie in its physical attributes but in description of its sources. Therefore, intellectual property rights have“categorized”characteristics, which make it possible to unify the object of intellectual property. Then, the author explained that the new foundation of intellectual property rights are also pided into concept foundation and value foundation, the former refers to the knowledge products with market demand and substitutability under the market economic and under the protection of intellectual property law; the latter means that intellectual property should be conducted mainly on the basis of interest distribution. Both foundations together form the basis of intellectual property right system and provided the legislative basis for intellectual property law.
【关键词】 知识产权； 智力成果； 无形财产； 体系化； 利益分配；
【Key words】 Intellectual Property Rights； Intelligent Fruit； Intangible Property； Systematization； Interest Distribution；
论知识产权权利体系的基础
摘要3-7
ABSTRACT7-10
1. 导论13-28
1.1 问题的提出13-15
1.2 文献综述15-24
1.3 本文的研究思路和研究方法24-28
2. 知识产权的本质及其正当性28-38
2.1 洛克的财产权劳动理论与知识产权的正当性28-31
2.2 黑格尔的“财产人格”理论与知识产权的正当性31-34
2.3 对两大理论的再认识34-38
3. 知识产权权利体系的传统基础38-67
3.1 知识产权权利体系的传统逻辑结构39-45
3.2 知识产权权利体系的传统概念基础45-54
3.3 知识产权权利体系的传统价值基础54-59
3.4 知识产权权利传统基础的新危机59-67
4. 知识产权权利体系的传统基础薄弱的原因67-77
4.1 历史原因：单纯的工业革命的烙印67-69
4.2 科技原因：知识产权的保护对象不断扩张69-71
4.3 学术原因：学术研究的过度分化71-77
5. 决定知识产权权利体系基础的因素77-89
5.1 决定知识产权权利体系基础的客体因素——以知识产权与物权之比较为起点77-81
5.2 决定知识产权权利体系基础的主体因素81-85
5.3 决定知识产权权利体系基础的功能因素85-89
6. 重塑知识产权权利体系的基础89-101
6.1 重塑知识产权权利体系基础的可能性89-93
6.2 重塑知识产权权利体系的基础93-99
6.3 结论99-101
参考文献101-106
后记106-107
致谢107-108
在读期间科研成果目录108
[1] 韦之. 知识产权客体的统一称谓之我见[J]. 电子知识产权. 2006(04)
[2] 李琛. 质疑知识产权之“人格财产一体性”[J]. 中国社会科学. 2004(02) [3] 宋红松. 知识产权法的体系化与法典化[J]. 中华商标. 2003(01)
[4] 郑成思. 民法、民诉法与知识产权研究——21世纪知识产权研究若干问题[J]. 韶关学院学报(社会科学版). 2002(11) [5] 尹田. 论物权与知识产权的关系[J]. 法商研究. 2002(05)
[6] 冯晓青. 从黑格尔法哲学看知识产权的精神——研读《知识产权哲学》之体会[J]. 知识产权. 2002(03) [7] 吴汉东. 关于知识产权本体、主体与客体的重新认识——以财产所有权为比较研究对象[J]. 法学评论. 2000(05)
[8] 易继明. 评财产权劳动学说[J]. 法学研究. 2000(03) [9] 苏力. 法律与科技问题的法理学重构[J]. 中国社会科学. 1999(05)
[10] 郑成思. 侵害知识产权的无过错责任[J]. 中国法学. 1998(01)
法律论文：论知识产权权利体系的基础 由博士论文网，论文中心为您整理提供信息资讯。
如需了解更多法律论文请联系本站（）