论文部分内容阅读
知识产权合理性的理论总体可分为法哲学视角下的解读和功利视角下的解读。前者的代表理论为洛克的劳动财产论,后者的代表理论为激励创新论。这两种理论分别为知识产权提供道德上以及经济上的正当性。但是,劳动财产理论对诸多知识产权制度设计的解释力不从心,而盲目遵从激励论及功利主义也将把知识产权合理性的论证带上歧途,严重影响知识产权的稳定性。知识产权制度应当是制度自身价值和工具价值的统一,而知识产权的合理性论证应是正义价值和效率价值的统一。因此,单独的知识产权自然权利理论和功利主义理论均不可能解决知识产权合理性论证的所有问题,也不可能完全否认另一种理论的重要价值,如何在知识产权制度下让两种理论做到并行不悖、有机融合是我们应当关注的内容。
The theory of the rationality of intellectual property can be generally divided into the interpretation from the perspective of legal philosophy and the utilitarian perspective. The former’s representative theory is Locke’s labor property theory, while the latter’s representative theory is incentive innovation theory. Both theories provide moral and economic justification for intellectual property, respectively. However, labor property theory can not explain the design of many intellectual property systems blindly, while blindly following incentive theory and utilitarianism will also lead the argument of the rationality of intellectual property to go astray, seriously affecting the stability of intellectual property. The system of intellectual property should be the unity of the value of the system and the value of the instrument, and the justification of intellectual property should be the unification of the value of justice and the value of efficiency. Therefore, neither the theory of natural rights of intellectual property nor the theory of utilitarianism can solve all the problems of the rationality of intellectual property, nor can it completely deny the important value of another theory and how to make the two theories under the intellectual property system To go hand in hand, organic integration is what we should pay attention to.