知识产权的共同规则与自主话语

Shared Norms and Autonomous Discourse concerning Intellectual Property

TRIPS协定为各国知识产权保护提供了共同规则，但不同发展程度的国家都有自己对知识产权理解和诠释的自主话语权。某种意义上说，这也是一个国家和民族知识产权制度安排的“话语权力”。在中国，知识产权法学研究随着对知识产权本质的认识和自主话语权的发展而进步。构建有本国文化传统支持的知识产权系统诠释理论，已成为知识产权学者共同努力的目标。学界已从盲目信任知识产权自然权利或者简单断言知识产权是政策工具的思维中走出来，但因为缺乏共同的话语和共识，当前知识产权研究中还有不少不理性的、甚至是激烈的对立态度；有时不是因为学术观点的不同，而是因价值取向、视闺局限、逻辑差异而导致的“对话不能”。这在某种程度上阻碍了中国知识产权制度的全面启动和良好运行。为了更好地落实和推进实施《国家知识产权战略纲要》，推动中国话语下知识产权理论研究的进步，加快自主话语知识产权理论体系的建立，我们组织了这组文章。中南财经政法大学吴汉东教授对知识产权属性进行多学科、多元化、多视角的解读，旨在说明知识产权制度的品性和特质。暨南大学法学院、知识产权学院徐碹教授从现行知识产权制度是一个均衡对价的制度安排出发，建议人们用法哲学、辩证逻辑的方法，理解知识产权的制度安排，诠释其保护知识产权是为促进共享智慧最大化，初步架构了视阈融合下知识产权之理论框架。暨南大学产业经济研究院、管理学院张耀辉教授则通过对科斯定理的分析，探讨了知识产权优化配置的经济条件，从产权经济学角度分析了对知识产权保护多少才公平和有效率。

The TRIPS agreement provides shared norms for intellectual property protection around the world, but countries at different stages of development have their own autonomous discourse in the understanding and interpreting of intellectual property, which is, in a sense, the 'discourse power' of a nation or state in relation to the institutional arrangements for intellectual property. In China, legal research on intellectual property has advanced along with the development of knowledge about the essence of intellectual property and autonomous discourse. It has become a common goal of intellectual property scholars to establish a systematic theory of interpretation backed by China's own cultural tradition. Academic circles have gone beyond the stage of blindly believing in intellectual property as a natural right or simply asserting that it is merely a policy tool. In the absence of shared discourse and consensus, many irrational and even radically antagonistic attitudes can be observed in present research on intellectual property. This 'dialogue failure' is sometimes caused by opposing values, limited vision or logical divergence rather than by different academic viewpoints. This has to some extent impeded the comprehensive operation and sound performance of China's intellectual property institutions. Here we present the following articles with the aim of better implementing the Compendium of the National Intellectual Property Strategy, promoting theoretical research on intellectual property under Chinese discourse, and accelerating the establishment of a theoretical system of autonomous discourse on intellectual property rights. Among contributing scholars, Professor Xu Xuan from the Law School and Intellectual Property School of Jinan University holds that current intellectual property institutions are an institutional arrangement based on balance and consideration and advocates the methods of legal philosophy and dialectical logic for understanding this arrangement. In the belief that the aim of intellectual property protection is to maximize shared wisdom, she formulates a preliminary theoretical framework for intellectual property from mixed perspectives. Wu Handong, Professor at Zhongnan University of Economics and Law, provides a multidisciplinary interpretation from different perspectives to illuminate the attributes and characteristics of the institution of intellectual property. According to him, the legal category into which intellectual property is supposed to fall is that of 'private property right'; 'specific human rights' and 'public policy' respectively summarize the values and instrumental function underlying this private right, while the concept of 'intangible asset' describes the economic attribute of intellectual property. The above aspects do not provide an all-inclusive explanation of the attributes of intellectual property, but serve as basic guidelines for our understanding of the institution of intellectual property. With an analysis of the Coase Theorum, Professor Zhang Yaohui of the Institute of Industrial Economics and Management School, Jinan University, explores the economic conditions for optimizing the allocation of intellectual property, and offers an analysis from the perspective of property rights economics of how much intellectual property protection is needed for equitable and effective outcomes.