论文部分内容阅读
文中“知识产权”特指那些“智力活动创造的成果”的权利。绝对财产权理论在逻辑上并不能解释知识产权法中的很多制度,鲜有学者敢于在逻辑上坚持;而激励论本质上是干预主义的,认为存在着一个中央的立法或政策制定者,他(们)可以判断应该如何安排立法,使社会效率迭至最佳。激励论的核心方法论“法律经济学”在关于财产权的正当性问题上的分析是站不住脚的,并且由于成本与收益都是主观的,其关于社会成本与收益的计算也是无法完成的。在使用上有竞争性的事物才牵涉分配问题,人行为自由的边界应该止于尊重上一次分配的结果。由于智力成果在使用上不存在竞争性,因此不存在分配问题,也不能成立财产权。科技与文化的创新,作为一种人的行为不应该进行任何特殊的激励。如果创新是实现人们目的的手段,那么创新自然会涌现出来。
In the article, “intellectual property” specifically refers to those “intellectual achievements”. Absolute property rights theory can not logically explain many systems of intellectual property law, few scholars dare to adhere to logic; and incentive theory is essentially interventionism, that there is a central legislator or policy maker, he ( We can judge how legislation should be arranged so that social efficiency will be optimal. The core methodology of Incentive Theory “Law and Economics ” in the analysis of the legitimacy of property rights is untenable, and the cost and benefits are subjective, and its calculation of social costs and benefits can not be completed of. The issue of distribution is involved in the use of competing things, and the boundaries of human freedom should stop at respect for the outcome of the last distribution. Since intellectual achievements are not competitive in use, there is no distribution problem and no property rights. Innovation in technology and culture, as a human behavior should not be any special incentives. If innovation is the means to achieve one’s purpose, then innovation will naturally emerge.