万物互联时代,数据的价值与日俱增。与此相关的数据纠纷也越来越多,但我国的数据保护机制仍然不够健全,因此,探索其完善方式具有重要意义。通过阐述数据的概念及特征厘清数据知识产权保护的可行性,并从司法实践着手,分析不同数据知识产...万物互联时代,数据的价值与日俱增。与此相关的数据纠纷也越来越多,但我国的数据保护机制仍然不够健全,因此,探索其完善方式具有重要意义。通过阐述数据的概念及特征厘清数据知识产权保护的可行性,并从司法实践着手,分析不同数据知识产权案例,得出其保护存在的问题,如著作权法中汇编作品保护数据的标准模糊并忽视了数据本身价值,商业秘密条款保护数据的可操作性不强且容易造成数据垄断,同时我国知识产权保护中也缺乏数据邻接权保护模式。最后,针对上述问题提出建议,以期能够促进数据的规范使用和流通。In the era of the Internet of Everything, the importance of data continues to escalate. An increasing number of disputes are emerging in relation to this, yet China’s data protection infrastructure remains imperfect. Thus, delving into its enhancement is of paramount importance. By elucidating the notion and attributes of data, the viability of safeguarding data intellectual property is delineated, and various data intellectual property cases are examined from a judicial perspective to discern deficiencies in data protection. For instance, the criteria for safeguarding compiled works under copyright legislation are ambiguous and fail to account for the intrinsic value of data, while the provisions for protecting trade secrets are impractical and susceptible to fostering data monopolies. Moreover, China’s intellectual property protection framework lacks an institution analogous to data neighboring rights. In conclusion, several recommendations are proffered to facilitate the standardized utilization and fluidity of data.展开更多
文摘万物互联时代,数据的价值与日俱增。与此相关的数据纠纷也越来越多,但我国的数据保护机制仍然不够健全,因此,探索其完善方式具有重要意义。通过阐述数据的概念及特征厘清数据知识产权保护的可行性,并从司法实践着手,分析不同数据知识产权案例,得出其保护存在的问题,如著作权法中汇编作品保护数据的标准模糊并忽视了数据本身价值,商业秘密条款保护数据的可操作性不强且容易造成数据垄断,同时我国知识产权保护中也缺乏数据邻接权保护模式。最后,针对上述问题提出建议,以期能够促进数据的规范使用和流通。In the era of the Internet of Everything, the importance of data continues to escalate. An increasing number of disputes are emerging in relation to this, yet China’s data protection infrastructure remains imperfect. Thus, delving into its enhancement is of paramount importance. By elucidating the notion and attributes of data, the viability of safeguarding data intellectual property is delineated, and various data intellectual property cases are examined from a judicial perspective to discern deficiencies in data protection. For instance, the criteria for safeguarding compiled works under copyright legislation are ambiguous and fail to account for the intrinsic value of data, while the provisions for protecting trade secrets are impractical and susceptible to fostering data monopolies. Moreover, China’s intellectual property protection framework lacks an institution analogous to data neighboring rights. In conclusion, several recommendations are proffered to facilitate the standardized utilization and fluidity of data.
