云計算專利法律問題研究
發(fā)布時間：2018-09-07 20:19
【摘要】：云計算的出現(xiàn)代表了日新月異的技術變遷與商業(yè)發(fā)展,也對專利制度帶來了挑戰(zhàn)。論文以云計算技術產(chǎn)業(yè)異質(zhì)性引發(fā)的專利法律問題為起點,首先通過對專利理論的適用分析及云計算專利訴訟的實證分析闡明了云計算專利回應的方向及回應的路徑,進一步運用比較研究、案例分析等方法著重討論了云計算專利領域的突出問題——特定客體的專利適格性問題、權(quán)利要求的功能性特征問題、多方參與多步驟專利的侵權(quán)認定問題,提出了解決方案并闡明了相關制度發(fā)展的方向。云計算領域更多軟件系統(tǒng)創(chuàng)新,研發(fā)成本相對較低、周期較短,早期的專利強保護并不恰當;云計算完全依托互聯(lián)網(wǎng)生存發(fā)展,對其中的商業(yè)方法創(chuàng)新,有時競爭而非壟斷的激勵作用更為顯著;為了應對專利的反公地悲劇及專利叢林危機,對于云計算這樣一個產(chǎn)業(yè)參與者眾多、技術生態(tài)呈累積性大規(guī)模的領域,專利政策杠桿應向更清晰(有時就是更小更窄的)的專利保護范圍、更嚴格的審查標準(意味著相對較少的專利數(shù)量)、更高專利質(zhì)量的方向移動。因此,云計算技術產(chǎn)業(yè)強化專利保護不可行,專利回應方向應平衡偏弱,結(jié)合各國產(chǎn)業(yè)發(fā)展的現(xiàn)狀及具體涉及的專利問題而定。在回應的路徑方面,產(chǎn)業(yè)區(qū)分立法會遭遇認識不統(tǒng)一、TRIPS協(xié)議的法律障礙及產(chǎn)業(yè)劃界的技術困難等多重阻礙。而行政審查機構(gòu)只負責專利的授權(quán)及有效性判斷,在產(chǎn)業(yè)區(qū)分時缺乏整體眼光與綜合考量。司法具有回應的及時便利性、反復實踐的專業(yè)與熟練性、決策信息的充分性等優(yōu)勢,可以成為應對云計算技術產(chǎn)業(yè)對專利法制挑戰(zhàn)的主要途徑。對云計算具體專利法律問題的分析討論驗證了上述宏觀分析。在云計算對專利客體范圍的影響方面,美國Bilski案后聯(lián)邦巡回法院多個典型判例顯示,云計算軟件商業(yè)方法專利適格性審查規(guī)則在較長時期內(nèi)將保持一種“緊張的平衡”。對歐盟及多國相關法制的歸納分析進一步顯示了軟件商業(yè)方法專利適格性問題上的各方利益沖突與目標分歧。盡管云計算商業(yè)方法日益普及,軟件、算法在技術發(fā)展過程中的重要性凸顯,但受當前產(chǎn)業(yè)發(fā)展與專利制度緊張關系現(xiàn)狀影響,專利保護范圍暫時不會越來越寬——延至云計算算法;受新技術發(fā)展的預期與建立專利制度促進創(chuàng)新的宗旨牽引,專利保護強度也不會減弱,范圍也不會縮小——將云計算商業(yè)方法通過“歸類定義”排除出專利客體范圍。在功能性特征對云計算專利權(quán)利要求保護范圍的影響方面,我國現(xiàn)行規(guī)則對功能性特征的適用采取了行政審查與司法裁判領域的雙重限制,制度性地偏向在后發(fā)明人,體現(xiàn)了較弱的專利保護傾向,在云計算領域可以被作為一項有效的政策杠桿使用。從我國當前技術創(chuàng)新激勵的目標與技術發(fā)展的現(xiàn)狀分析,應對云計算專利權(quán)利要求中的功能性特征實施限制,從引導撰寫與審查角度解決此類權(quán)利要求保護范圍不明確、說明書公開不充分等問題。對美國、歐盟、日本與臺灣判例與審查規(guī)則的比較分析可為我國的實踐提供借鑒。對于多方參與云計算專利侵權(quán)認定問題,美國Akamai案一波三折的審理反映了間接侵權(quán)規(guī)則的應對不力,可以創(chuàng)造性地適用無意思聯(lián)絡共同侵權(quán)責任規(guī)則應對多方參與云計算方法專利侵權(quán)認定難題。這一方案既阻塞了多方實施專利規(guī)避侵權(quán)責任的漏洞,又滿足了直接侵權(quán)的全要件原則,并且不至于累及無過錯方。此外,研究發(fā)現(xiàn)美國Centillion案中對系統(tǒng)專利“使用”的界定,使那些操控整個系統(tǒng)(并沒有物理性操作每一項設備)而獲得相對使用利益的行為人比如系統(tǒng)用戶成為了侵權(quán)指控的對象。在大企業(yè)用戶比比皆是的云計算產(chǎn)業(yè)與技術生態(tài)鏈中,這將更有利于專利權(quán)人。結(jié)合其它國家地區(qū)的立法現(xiàn)狀,考慮到云計算的技術特點與我國的專利政策目標,我國不必急于間接侵權(quán)立法。鑒于云計算用戶的復雜性,建議采取選擇性用戶責任,將云計算的非商業(yè)性使用排除在侵權(quán)賠償責任之外。綜上,對相對微觀具體云計算專利法律問題“點”的研究(第三、四、五章)與云計算和專利法制挑戰(zhàn)回應關系宏觀“面”的分析(第一、二章)相互印證,得出了本文的主要觀點,即專利法制需要回應云計算這一新技術產(chǎn)業(yè)的挑戰(zhàn),但“加強保護”并不可取,應在較弱保護的政策方向指導下,以司法輔之行政審查而非產(chǎn)業(yè)立法方式實現(xiàn)新技術專利保護需求與公共利益間的平衡。
[Abstract]:The emergence of cloud computing represents the ever-changing technological changes and commercial development, but also challenges the patent system. Starting from the patent legal issues caused by the heterogeneity of cloud computing technology industry, this paper first clarifies the responding aspects of cloud computing patents through the application analysis of patent theory and the empirical analysis of cloud computing patent litigation. The main problems in the field of cloud computing patents, such as patent eligibility of specific objects, functional characteristics of claims, multi-party involvement in multi-step patent infringement determination, are discussed with the methods of comparative study and case analysis. The solutions are proposed and the relevant systems are clarified. Cloud computing relies entirely on the Internet to survive and develop, and the incentives for business innovation, sometimes competition rather than monopoly, are more pronounced; in response to patent tragedies and patents of anti-commons. Jungle Crisis: For cloud computing, an industry with a large number of participants and a cumulative technological ecology, patent policy leverage should move in the direction of clearer (sometimes smaller and narrower) patent protection, tighter censorship standards (meaning a relatively small number of patents), and higher patent quality. It is not feasible to strengthen patent protection in the technological industry, and the direction of patent response should be balanced weakly, depending on the current situation of industrial development in various countries and the specific patent issues involved. The judiciary has the advantages of prompt and convenient response, repeated practice, professionalism and proficiency, and adequacy of decision-making information. It can become the main way to deal with the challenges of cloud computing technology industry to patent law. The analysis and discussion of specific patent legal issues confirm the above macro analysis. In terms of the impact of cloud computing on the scope of patent objects, several typical cases of the Federal Circuit Court after the Bilski case in the United States show that the rules for examining the suitability of business methods patents for cloud computing software will maintain a "tense balance" for a long time. The conclusion and analysis of the relevant legal systems in many countries further reveal the conflicts of interest and the divergence of objectives on the patentability of software business methods. The scope of protection will not be wider for the time being - extending to cloud computing algorithms; the intensity and scope of patent protection will not be weakened by the anticipation of new technological developments and the purpose of establishing a patent system to promote innovation - excluding cloud computing business methods from the scope of patent objects by "categorization definition". In calculating the impact of the scope of patent claims protection, China's current rules on the application of functional characteristics of administrative review and judicial adjudication in the field of dual restrictions, institutional bias in the latter inventor, reflects a weak tendency to patent protection, in the field of cloud computing can be used as an effective policy lever. China's current technological innovation incentive objectives and technological development status analysis should be implemented in the cloud computing patent claims functional characteristics restrictions, from the perspective of guidance writing and review to resolve such claims protection scope is not clear, the specification is not fully open and other issues. The comparative analysis can be used for reference in China's practice. As for the multi-party participation in the identification of cloud computing patent infringement, the twists and turns of the Akamai case in the United States reflect the inadequate response to the indirect infringement rules, which can creatively apply the unintentional joint tort liability rules to deal with the difficulties of multi-party participation in the identification of cloud computing patent infringement. This scheme not only blocked the loopholes in patent circumvention by multiple parties, but also met the full requirements of direct infringement, and did not involve the non-fault party. In the cloud computing industry and technological ecology chain, where large enterprise users are everywhere, this will be more conducive to patent holders. Given the complexity of cloud computing users, it is recommended to adopt selective user liability to exclude non-commercial use of cloud computing from liability for infringement. The analysis of the macro-level relationship (Chapter 1 and Chapter 2) confirms each other and draws the main viewpoint of this paper, that is, the patent law system needs to respond to the challenge of cloud computing as a new technology industry, but "strengthening protection" is not advisable. Under the guidance of weak protection policy, the new technology should be realized by judicial supplementary administrative review rather than industrial legislation. The balance between patent protection needs and public interests.
【學位授予單位】：上海交通大學
【學位級別】：博士
【學位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D923.42
，
本文編號：2229314
[Abstract]:The emergence of cloud computing represents the ever-changing technological changes and commercial development, but also challenges the patent system. Starting from the patent legal issues caused by the heterogeneity of cloud computing technology industry, this paper first clarifies the responding aspects of cloud computing patents through the application analysis of patent theory and the empirical analysis of cloud computing patent litigation. The main problems in the field of cloud computing patents, such as patent eligibility of specific objects, functional characteristics of claims, multi-party involvement in multi-step patent infringement determination, are discussed with the methods of comparative study and case analysis. The solutions are proposed and the relevant systems are clarified. Cloud computing relies entirely on the Internet to survive and develop, and the incentives for business innovation, sometimes competition rather than monopoly, are more pronounced; in response to patent tragedies and patents of anti-commons. Jungle Crisis: For cloud computing, an industry with a large number of participants and a cumulative technological ecology, patent policy leverage should move in the direction of clearer (sometimes smaller and narrower) patent protection, tighter censorship standards (meaning a relatively small number of patents), and higher patent quality. It is not feasible to strengthen patent protection in the technological industry, and the direction of patent response should be balanced weakly, depending on the current situation of industrial development in various countries and the specific patent issues involved. The judiciary has the advantages of prompt and convenient response, repeated practice, professionalism and proficiency, and adequacy of decision-making information. It can become the main way to deal with the challenges of cloud computing technology industry to patent law. The analysis and discussion of specific patent legal issues confirm the above macro analysis. In terms of the impact of cloud computing on the scope of patent objects, several typical cases of the Federal Circuit Court after the Bilski case in the United States show that the rules for examining the suitability of business methods patents for cloud computing software will maintain a "tense balance" for a long time. The conclusion and analysis of the relevant legal systems in many countries further reveal the conflicts of interest and the divergence of objectives on the patentability of software business methods. The scope of protection will not be wider for the time being - extending to cloud computing algorithms; the intensity and scope of patent protection will not be weakened by the anticipation of new technological developments and the purpose of establishing a patent system to promote innovation - excluding cloud computing business methods from the scope of patent objects by "categorization definition". In calculating the impact of the scope of patent claims protection, China's current rules on the application of functional characteristics of administrative review and judicial adjudication in the field of dual restrictions, institutional bias in the latter inventor, reflects a weak tendency to patent protection, in the field of cloud computing can be used as an effective policy lever. China's current technological innovation incentive objectives and technological development status analysis should be implemented in the cloud computing patent claims functional characteristics restrictions, from the perspective of guidance writing and review to resolve such claims protection scope is not clear, the specification is not fully open and other issues. The comparative analysis can be used for reference in China's practice. As for the multi-party participation in the identification of cloud computing patent infringement, the twists and turns of the Akamai case in the United States reflect the inadequate response to the indirect infringement rules, which can creatively apply the unintentional joint tort liability rules to deal with the difficulties of multi-party participation in the identification of cloud computing patent infringement. This scheme not only blocked the loopholes in patent circumvention by multiple parties, but also met the full requirements of direct infringement, and did not involve the non-fault party. In the cloud computing industry and technological ecology chain, where large enterprise users are everywhere, this will be more conducive to patent holders. Given the complexity of cloud computing users, it is recommended to adopt selective user liability to exclude non-commercial use of cloud computing from liability for infringement. The analysis of the macro-level relationship (Chapter 1 and Chapter 2) confirms each other and draws the main viewpoint of this paper, that is, the patent law system needs to respond to the challenge of cloud computing as a new technology industry, but "strengthening protection" is not advisable. Under the guidance of weak protection policy, the new technology should be realized by judicial supplementary administrative review rather than industrial legislation. The balance between patent protection needs and public interests.
【學位授予單位】：上海交通大學
【學位級別】：博士
【學位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D923.42
，
本文編號：2229314
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/minfalunwen/2229314.html
最近更新
教材專著
