本文選題：商業(yè)方法　切入點：專利　出處：《復旦大學》2012年碩士論文

【摘要】：在目前的國際法框架內,原則上一切屬于技術領域的發(fā)明,無論是產(chǎn)品或工序,都屬于可專利性主題的范圍。然而,在世界范圍內明確將商業(yè)方法排除在可專利性主題范圍之外的有69個國家,排除計算機軟件的也有64個國家。這說明,雖然科學技術的發(fā)展日新月異,但是如商業(yè)方法、計算機軟件等一類與傳統(tǒng)物質載體下發(fā)明專利不同的客體作為可專利性主題仍存在很大的爭議。值得注意的是,在專利法國際協(xié)調中發(fā)揮最重要作用的美國、歐盟等發(fā)達國家或地區(qū)均將商業(yè)方法納入了可專利性主題的范圍。這一方面基于商業(yè)方法作為可專利性主題在國際法框架內的合法性,另一方面也基于其作為可專利性主題有著重要的經(jīng)濟價值和社會價值。 盡管如此,商業(yè)方法與其他類型的發(fā)明在性質上還是有著明顯的不同。這使得我們不能簡單地將所有商業(yè)方法納入可專利性主題的范疇,而應對其進入可專利性主題范圍進行必要的限制。采用何種限制方法,與商業(yè)方法在一國社會經(jīng)濟中的重要性和該國專利審查的質量和水平呈現(xiàn)出一定的負相關——即商業(yè)方法專利在社會經(jīng)濟中的重要性越高,專利審查質量和水平越高,對商業(yè)方法的限制則越少。美國在“比爾斯基”案之后,已經(jīng)不再將“機器及轉化測試”作為唯一標準,轉而采用更為靈活的標準,這反映出商業(yè)方法在美國社會經(jīng)濟中的重要地位,以及美國專利審查的水平和質量。歐盟自2000年以后也不再全面否定商業(yè)方法作為可專利性主題,而是采用了“技術相關”原則的標準,將具備技術特征的商業(yè)方法納入可專利性主題的范圍。我國的專利立法對于商業(yè)方法并無特別規(guī)定,但通過對專利行政管理的研究,本文認為我國在審查標準上也采用了類似于歐盟的“技術相關”原則。 本文通過對相關國際法的研究和梳理,認為《與貿易有關的知識產(chǎn)權協(xié)定》未明確排除商業(yè)方法作為可專利性主題,進而分析了美國、歐盟和中國在《與貿易有關的知識產(chǎn)權協(xié)定》的協(xié)調下自行決定的對商業(yè)方法專利保護的不同制度,最后從經(jīng)濟學角度對商業(yè)方法的專利保護合理性和限制性作了分析,并根據(jù)商業(yè)方法專利在國際范圍內的發(fā)展趨勢,結合商業(yè)方法專利的特殊性質和我國的實際情況,提出了適當?shù)耐晟粕虡I(yè)方法專利制度的建議。
[Abstract]:In the current framework of international law, in principle, all inventions in the field of technology, be they products or processes, fall within the scope of patentable subjects.However, 69 countries explicitly exclude business methods from patentable subjects worldwide, and 64 countries exclude computer software.This shows that, although the development of science and technology is changing with each passing day, there are still many controversies on the subject of patentability, such as commercial methods, computer software and other objects which are different from the patent under the traditional material carrier.It is worth noting that the United States, the European Union and other developed countries or regions that play the most important role in the international coordination of patent law have brought business methods into the scope of patentability.On the one hand, it is based on the legitimacy of business method as a patentable subject within the framework of international law, on the other hand, it has important economic and social value as a patentable subject.Nevertheless, business methods differ markedly from other inventions in nature.This makes it impossible for us to simply bring all business methods into the category of patentable subjects, but to limit them to patentable topics.There is a certain negative correlation between the use of restrictive methods and the importance of business methods in the socio-economic context of a country and the quality and level of patent review in that country-that is, the higher the importance of business method patents in the social economy,The higher the quality and level of patent review, the less restrictions on business methods.After the Birsky case, the United States no longer used "machine and transformation tests" as the sole criterion, and instead adopted more flexible standards, which reflected the importance of business methods in the social economy of the United States.And the level and quality of patent reviews in the United States.Since 2000, the European Union has not completely denied the business method as the patentability subject, but has adopted the standard of "technology related" principle, bringing the business method with technical characteristics into the scope of patentability subject.China's patent legislation has no special provisions on business methods, but through the study of patent administration, this paper holds that China has also adopted the "technology related" principle similar to that of the European Union in reviewing standards.By studying and combing the relevant international law, this paper concludes that the Agreement on Trade-Related aspects of intellectual property Rights (trips) does not explicitly exclude commercial methods as a patentable subject, and then analyzes the United States.The EU and China, in coordination with the Agreement on Trade-Related aspects of intellectual property Rights (trips), decide on their own different systems for patent protection of business methods. Finally, from an economic point of view, the EU and China make an analysis of the rationality and limitations of patent protection of business methods.According to the development trend of the commercial method patent in the international scope, combined with the special nature of the business method patent and the actual situation of our country, this paper puts forward some suggestions on how to perfect the business method patent system.
【學位授予單位】：復旦大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2012
【分類號】：D996.1;D997.1

【參考文獻】

相關期刊論文 前10條

1 馮曉青;;商業(yè)方法專利略論[J];北方論叢;2007年03期

2 蘇運來;;商業(yè)方法專利的經(jīng)濟分析[J];商業(yè)研究;2006年16期

3 李曉秋;;美英兩國商業(yè)方法專利適格性標準的悖離抑或趨同[J];重慶大學學報(社會科學版);2010年05期

4 徐棣楓;;問題專利探析[J];東南大學學報(哲學社會科學版);2007年04期

5 朱理;;濫用問題專利的司法規(guī)制[J];電子知識產(chǎn)權;2008年11期

6 姚克實;吳曉群;;IN RE BILSKI案:確定專利標的物的新動向[J];電子知識產(chǎn)權;2009年03期

7 謝黎偉;;從新近判例看美國商業(yè)方法專利的發(fā)展[J];電子知識產(chǎn)權;2009年07期

8 楊振東;;金融商業(yè)方法專利的攻與防——跨國銀行與發(fā)展中國家之間的較量[J];電子知識產(chǎn)權;2009年10期

9 謝黎偉;;利益平衡視角下的商業(yè)方法可專利性[J];海峽法學;2010年03期

10 鄭成思;信息、知識產(chǎn)權與中國知識產(chǎn)權戰(zhàn)略若干問題[J];法律適用;2004年07期

，

本文編號：1709073