在常识与逻辑之间的法律论证——以“白云机场案”判决为例

The Legal Argumentation Between Common Sense and Logic:the "Baiyun Airport" Case

"白云机场案"判决书在其法律论证的内部证立过程中直接援引"公共利益"理由驳回原告停止侵权的诉讼请求,难以满足逻辑有效性要求。当法条推演结论与"常识"严重背离时,应重新进入外部证立过程,另寻合适的法源,或者考虑做限缩解释、扩张解释以及类推适用的可能性,在现行法框架内和法教义学体系内求得妥当的裁判结果。其实,我国《专利法》、《民法通则》和《侵权责任法》均未对停止侵权民事责任的构成要件加以规定,法官在上述案件中不判决停止侵权并无法律障碍。"白云机场案"判决的论证理路说明知识产权审判中存在忽视逻辑有效性约束和脱离法律条文进行法律论证的倾向。

In the case of ＂Baiyun Airport＂, public interest was quoted as the basis to reject the claim of stopping the infringement in the internal justification of legal argumentation. This, however, did not meet the requirement of logical validity. When the conclusion deduced from the legal provisions conflicts with common sense, the judge should introduce the external justification again to search the new legal source or take the method of restrictive interpretation to obtain proper verdict within the legal system. In fact, the Patent Law of PRC, General Principles of the Civil Law of PRC and Tort Law of PRC have not stipulated the elements of the civil liability of infringement cessation in patent infringement cases. Therefore, there is not real legal obstacle to reject the claim of the cessation of infringement in the aforementioned case. The argumentation method in the aforementioned verdict reveals the lack of the constraints of effective logic and legal formalism, especially in patent cases.