本文選題：知識產(chǎn)權(quán) + 勞動(dòng)自然獲得理論��； 參考：《合肥工業(yè)大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：知識產(chǎn)權(quán)制度發(fā)端于封建時(shí)代,從皇家特許的限制保護(hù)制度演變到以促進(jìn)智慧成果應(yīng)用實(shí)踐為目的的開放式保護(hù)體系,其制度形成發(fā)展始終圍繞私人利益與公共利益權(quán)重的此消彼長而展開。對權(quán)利正當(dāng)性的終極論證源自哲學(xué)上的思考,自知識產(chǎn)權(quán)制度產(chǎn)生以來,以法哲學(xué)為路徑論證知識產(chǎn)權(quán)制度正當(dāng)性是對私人權(quán)利與公共權(quán)利之間權(quán)利與限制的深刻探尋。以約翰·洛克的勞動(dòng)自然獲得理論為主的勞動(dòng)即獲得學(xué)派為知識產(chǎn)權(quán)制度正當(dāng)性提供了基本進(jìn)路,通過勞動(dòng)自然獲得理論,學(xué)者們發(fā)現(xiàn)創(chuàng)造行為乃勞動(dòng)的一個(gè)分支,創(chuàng)造者對自己身體享有所有權(quán),對基于身體行動(dòng)而創(chuàng)造出來的智慧成果理應(yīng)享有所有權(quán)。讓-雅克·盧梭在批判性認(rèn)可對洛克勞動(dòng)即獲得理論的同時(shí)強(qiáng)調(diào)社會契約以及社會公意的作用,從權(quán)利轉(zhuǎn)移角度發(fā)掘知識產(chǎn)權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓許可制度的合理性。通過契約的制定,智慧成果的價(jià)值在轉(zhuǎn)讓授權(quán)中被充分利用。通過契約授予的權(quán)利是否具有可被執(zhí)行性以及是否具有相互約束性則是通過社會公意的承認(rèn)與否來決定。康德的財(cái)產(chǎn)自由意志觀繼盧梭公意學(xué)說后以自由意志為出發(fā)點(diǎn)探尋財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)存在的法哲學(xué)意義,然而康德過分的強(qiáng)調(diào)人的目的價(jià)值使得財(cái)產(chǎn)自由意志理論在證成知識產(chǎn)權(quán)制度的道路上受到阻礙,康德所謂的人在不成為他人的工具的前提下獲得應(yīng)有的尊嚴(yán)似乎并不是法律崇尚自由、平等之體現(xiàn),因?yàn)榉擅媲叭巳似降鹊淖杂删袷菍Ψ饨ǖ燃壷频钠瞥?個(gè)體作為這個(gè)新思潮的受益者具有獨(dú)立性,而非工具性或目的性的客體承載。黑格爾則從財(cái)產(chǎn)人格權(quán)角度闡述知識產(chǎn)權(quán)中人格權(quán)利與創(chuàng)作者的不可分性,并從經(jīng)濟(jì)效益角度出發(fā)贊成創(chuàng)作者基于自己的作品擁有獲得報(bào)酬的權(quán)利。上述理論在一定程度上提供了論證知識產(chǎn)權(quán)正當(dāng)性的路徑,但也各自存在不足之處。在完善知識產(chǎn)權(quán)制度理論框架上,一方面我們應(yīng)看到現(xiàn)有理論的正當(dāng)性價(jià)值,另一方面我們應(yīng)該重視現(xiàn)有理論的不足。
[Abstract]:The intellectual property system originated in the feudal era and evolved from the restricted protection system of the royal franchise to the open protection system aimed at promoting the application of intellectual achievements.The formation and development of its system has always revolved around the rise and fall of the weight of private interest and public interest.The ultimate proof of the legitimacy of rights originates from philosophical thinking. Since the emergence of the intellectual property system, it has been a profound exploration of the rights and limitations between private rights and public rights to demonstrate the legitimacy of intellectual property rights by the way of legal philosophy.Based on John Locke's theory of natural acquirement of labor, the school of acquirement provides a basic way for the legitimacy of intellectual property rights system. Through the theory of natural acquisition of labor, scholars find that creative behavior is a branch of labor.Creators have ownership of their bodies and intellectual achievements based on their actions.Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in his critical recognition of Locke's theory of labor acquisition, emphasized the role of social contract and social will, and explored the rationality of intellectual property transfer licensing system from the perspective of power transfer.Through the establishment of contracts, the value of intellectual achievements is fully utilized in the transfer authorization.Whether the rights granted by contract are enforceable and mutually binding is decided by the recognition or not of social will.Kant's view of property free will, after Rousseau's theory of public will, explores the legal philosophical significance of the existence of property right by taking free will as the starting point.However, Kant's excessive emphasis on the value of human aims hindered the theory of property free will from becoming a system of intellectual property rights.Kant's so-called human dignity without becoming an instrument for others does not seem to be the embodiment of the freedom and equality advocated by the law, because the spirit of freedom before the law is the breaking of the feudal hierarchy.Individuals as beneficiaries of this new trend of thought have independence, not instrumental or purposeful object bearing.Hegel expounds the inseparability of personality rights and creators in intellectual property rights from the angle of property and personality rights, and from the angle of economic benefits, agrees that the creators have the right to receive remuneration based on their own works.To some extent, the above theory provides the path to justify intellectual property rights, but there are also shortcomings.In improving the theoretical framework of intellectual property system, on the one hand, we should see the legitimate value of the existing theory, on the other hand, we should pay attention to the shortcomings of the existing theory.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：合肥工業(yè)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：D90

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 向波;;知識產(chǎn)權(quán)正當(dāng)性之批判解讀——以利益沖突為基本視角[J];法學(xué)雜志;2015年08期

2 康翟;;從政治社會的財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)到歷史-生產(chǎn)定向的財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)——馬克思對若干近代理論資源的批判[J];現(xiàn)代哲學(xué);2014年05期

3 袁崢嶸;杜霈;;試論知識產(chǎn)權(quán)制度與市場經(jīng)濟(jì)的關(guān)系[J];特區(qū)經(jīng)濟(jì);2014年01期

4 張勤;;論知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的道德基礎(chǔ)[J];知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2012年01期

5 王鐵雄;;洛克的自然財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)理論[J];學(xué)術(shù)交流;2010年10期

6 賈玉慧;;法哲學(xué)視域下的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)[J];法制與社會;2009年30期

7 李滿新;;法哲學(xué)在知識產(chǎn)權(quán)制度中的應(yīng)用及發(fā)展——從司法保護(hù)的角度[J];云夢學(xué)刊;2007年S1期

8 黃匯;;知識產(chǎn)權(quán)非理性擴(kuò)張的法哲學(xué)解讀——基于知識產(chǎn)權(quán)與所有權(quán)理念差異的視角[J];西南民族大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(人文社科版);2006年06期

9 吳漢東;法哲學(xué)家對知識產(chǎn)權(quán)法的哲學(xué)解讀[J];法商研究;2003年05期

10 姚岷;黑格爾法哲學(xué)中的知識產(chǎn)權(quán)思想[J];電子知識產(chǎn)權(quán);2003年06期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前4條

1 阮思宇;論知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的權(quán)利限制[D];吉林大學(xué);2011年

2 梁興國;知識產(chǎn)權(quán)權(quán)利沖突問題研究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2007年

3 饒明輝;當(dāng)代西方知識產(chǎn)權(quán)理論的哲學(xué)反思[D];吉林大學(xué);2006年

4 胡朝陽;論知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的正當(dāng)性[D];南京師范大學(xué);2006年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前6條

1 張成志;論知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的法哲學(xué)基礎(chǔ)[D];安徽大學(xué);2014年

2 馬密;回到洛克[D];西南政法大學(xué);2014年

3 莫觀培;人格標(biāo)識財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)的保護(hù)[D];暨南大學(xué);2010年

4 萬杰;知識產(chǎn)權(quán)基礎(chǔ)理論研究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2009年

5 王蕾;論知識產(chǎn)權(quán)的私權(quán)屬性[D];河北師范大學(xué);2007年

6 于曉藝;知識產(chǎn)權(quán)存在合理性的哲學(xué)分析[D];吉林大學(xué);2004年

，

本文編號：1770522