【摘要】：對(duì)于專(zhuān)利權(quán)的權(quán)利性質(zhì),學(xué)界一般以TRIPs協(xié)議的規(guī)定,認(rèn)為其具有私權(quán)權(quán)利屬性。由于上述主流觀點(diǎn)在國(guó)內(nèi)外得以流行,使得專(zhuān)利權(quán)在最初起源時(shí)的權(quán)利性質(zhì)被掩蓋�？v觀專(zhuān)利權(quán)的歷史演變過(guò)程,可知專(zhuān)利權(quán)起源于威尼斯,被確立為一種近現(xiàn)代產(chǎn)產(chǎn)權(quán)制度是在英國(guó),英國(guó)《壟斷法規(guī)》的出臺(tái)是專(zhuān)利制度的一個(gè)里程碑,該法明確規(guī)定專(zhuān)利權(quán)是以壟斷“特權(quán)”的性質(zhì)存在。美國(guó)獨(dú)立建國(guó)后,仍然沿襲英國(guó)“特權(quán)”的方式來(lái)授予發(fā)明人專(zhuān)利權(quán),1790年美國(guó)第一部《專(zhuān)利法》的出臺(tái),基本形成了“美國(guó)式”的專(zhuān)利制度,其對(duì)專(zhuān)利權(quán)的獲得方式、權(quán)限范圍、以及時(shí)空性進(jìn)行了詳細(xì)規(guī)定。該法確立了科學(xué)嚴(yán)格的專(zhuān)利審查授予模式,認(rèn)為其是發(fā)明人可以直接依法獲得的財(cái)產(chǎn)性權(quán)利,不在認(rèn)為專(zhuān)利權(quán)擁有絕對(duì)的壟斷權(quán)屬性。至此,專(zhuān)利權(quán)的私權(quán)屬性開(kāi)始凸顯。1995年烏拉圭回合談判后,TRIPs協(xié)議出臺(tái),徹底摒棄了專(zhuān)利權(quán)原有的壟斷“特權(quán)”性質(zhì),將其直接規(guī)定為私權(quán)的權(quán)利性質(zhì)。雖然TRIPs協(xié)議出臺(tái)后至今,世界各國(guó)基本上認(rèn)可了專(zhuān)利權(quán)的私權(quán)性,然而學(xué)界一直對(duì)TRIPs協(xié)議的規(guī)定存有廣泛爭(zhēng)議,涉及專(zhuān)利法的主體、客體內(nèi)容等諸多層面。因此將專(zhuān)利權(quán)界定為私權(quán),不但沒(méi)有合理的理論根基,而且也不切合真實(shí)的制度發(fā)展史。專(zhuān)利制度具有增進(jìn)財(cái)富的目標(biāo),本質(zhì)上體現(xiàn)了工具性權(quán)利的特性�，F(xiàn)代專(zhuān)利權(quán)是基于政府的行政確認(rèn)和授權(quán)來(lái)獲得,并且賦予專(zhuān)利權(quán)人在一定的時(shí)空范圍內(nèi)可以自由轉(zhuǎn)讓和銷(xiāo)售。由此可知,雖然專(zhuān)利權(quán)具有壟斷特權(quán)的性質(zhì),但隨各國(guó)社會(huì)結(jié)構(gòu)的變化,單純的強(qiáng)調(diào)專(zhuān)利權(quán)的壟斷特權(quán)性質(zhì)已不在符合專(zhuān)利權(quán)目前的發(fā)展現(xiàn)狀。工具論的理論觀點(diǎn)強(qiáng)調(diào)專(zhuān)利制度應(yīng)該更多的關(guān)注如何解決財(cái)產(chǎn)以及財(cái)產(chǎn)的行為方面,并不鼓勵(lì)對(duì)財(cái)產(chǎn)本身的深層結(jié)構(gòu)進(jìn)行剖析,認(rèn)為專(zhuān)利權(quán)只是一種財(cái)產(chǎn)機(jī)制。所以應(yīng)該回歸專(zhuān)利權(quán)最初起源的權(quán)利性質(zhì),認(rèn)為其是一種特權(quán),是具有壟斷性和私權(quán)性雙重屬性的工具性權(quán)利。又因?qū)＠贫纫灿凶屔鐣?huì)民眾接觸已經(jīng)獲得專(zhuān)利的工業(yè)知識(shí),來(lái)促進(jìn)本國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)技術(shù)發(fā)展的公共性目標(biāo),以及各國(guó)社會(huì)結(jié)構(gòu)的變化,對(duì)于專(zhuān)利權(quán)的權(quán)利屬性應(yīng)當(dāng)在壟斷性特權(quán)權(quán)利性質(zhì)和私權(quán)權(quán)利性質(zhì)屬性之間尋求平衡,單純的強(qiáng)調(diào)其中之一都不能完全反映專(zhuān)利權(quán)目前的現(xiàn)狀和發(fā)展趨勢(shì)。
[Abstract]:As to the nature of patent rights, scholars generally regard trips as private rights. Due to the popularity of the above-mentioned views at home and abroad, the nature of patent rights in the initial origin is masked. From the historical evolution of patent right, it can be seen that patent originated in Venice and was established as a modern property right system in England. The introduction of British monopoly law is a milestone of patent system. The Act clearly stipulates that patent rights exist in the nature of monopoly "privilege". After the independence of the United States, the United States still granted the inventors the patent right in the way of "privilege" in Britain. With the publication of the first United States Patent Law in 1790, a "American-style" patent system was basically formed, and the way in which the patent right was obtained was basically formed. The scope of authority, as well as the space-time nature of the detailed provisions. The law establishes a scientific and strict mode of patent examination and grant, which is regarded as a property right which the inventor can obtain directly according to the law, and does not hold the absolute monopoly right attribute of patent right. After the Uruguay Round of negotiations in 1995, the trips Agreement came into being, which completely abandoned the monopoly "privilege" nature of patent right and directly stipulated it as the right nature of private right. Although the trips Agreement has been adopted since the publication of the trips Agreement, countries in the world have basically recognized the private rights of patent rights. However, the academic circles have always had extensive disputes on the provisions of trips Agreement, involving the subject and object content of patent law and so on. Therefore, the definition of patent right as private right is not only without reasonable theoretical foundation, but also with the true history of system development. Patent system has the goal of increasing wealth and embodies the characteristics of instrumental rights. Modern patent right is obtained on the basis of the government's administrative confirmation and authorization, and the patentee can be freely transferred and sold in a certain time and space. It can be seen that, although patent has the nature of monopoly privilege, but with the change of social structure in various countries, it is no longer in line with the current development situation of patent right to emphasize the monopoly privilege nature of patent right. The theory of instrumentalism emphasizes that the patent system should pay more attention to how to solve the property and the behavior of the property, and does not encourage the analysis of the deep structure of the property itself, and thinks that the patent right is only a kind of property mechanism. Therefore, it is necessary to return to the nature of the original origin of patent right as a privilege and an instrumental right with the dual attributes of monopoly and private right. And because the patent system also gives the public access to the industrial knowledge that has been patented, to promote the public goal of the economic and technological development of our country, as well as the changes in the social structure of various countries. The property of patent right should be balanced between the nature of monopoly privilege and private right, and no one of them can completely reflect the current situation and development trend of patent right.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：天津商業(yè)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D913

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前3條

1 梅夏英;;當(dāng)代財(cái)產(chǎn)權(quán)的公法與私法定位分析[J];人大法律評(píng)論;2001年01期

2 吳漢東;關(guān)于知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)私權(quán)屬性的再認(rèn)識(shí)——兼評(píng)“知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)公權(quán)化”理論[J];社會(huì)科學(xué);2005年10期

3 李玉劍,宣國(guó)良;專(zhuān)利聯(lián)盟反壟斷規(guī)制的比較研究[J];知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán);2004年05期

，

本文編號(hào)：2131346