| Abstract: | 美國私有財產權運動(Property Rights Movement, PRM)之源起，主要是自一九八○年代，私有財產權人對於政府過度、不合理的管制及徵收私有財產，卻無適當補償而引發之反對風潮，衍生成為對於私有財產應全面保護之主張，強調非為「公共利益」之目的，政府不應干涉財產權人對於私有財產之使用，即便為公共利益之徵收行為，政府亦應給於被徵收者適當合理之補償。近年來，支持財產權運動者亦將觸角伸入智慧財產權領域，以各種方式--包括在相關智慧財產權訴訟中提出法院之友意見書(Amici Curiae)，大力主張智慧財產，如專利、著作權、商標等，亦應受到如同實體財產之保障。財產權運動者之主張，正符合現今不斷試圖擴張智慧財產權利範圍之權利人的訴求。從二十世紀末起，智財權之保護期間不斷延長、保護客體及態樣不斷擴張、以及保護強度不斷增加的趨勢看來，智慧財產之「財產化(propertization)」傾向，已是無可否認的事實。然而智慧財產究竟是不是財產？智慧財產之本質與定性為何？此等問題一直以來均呈現紛雜交錯的情況。本研究計畫嘗試以財產權運動者之角度為出發，先介紹財產權運動之發展與主張，再以二○○六年美國最高法院判決，有關商業方法專利之eBay v. MercExchange一案中為例，探討財產權運動擴及於智慧財產權領域之情況。於此將帶入財產權學者，與從事財產權研究之哲學學者等主張財產權理論應適用於智慧財產權之論述，以洛克勞動財產權理論之應用為主，分析該等主張之理論基礎與適當性。蓋支持財產權之學者主張，個人有權控制對其所創作之物的處置，亦因此得以享受以其勞力創作而產生之果實─利益，此即財產權利之法律定義及保護的重心。實體財產權之權利係對權利客體之使用、收益、處分，亦包括絕對之排他權利。若推及於智慧財產權領域，該等學者認為，若未能合法取得其創作物所衍生之全部社會價值，創作者將缺乏足夠的動機從事創作，因此，全面的保護應是智慧財產法律制度的最終需達成之目標。然事實上，洛克之財產權理論本身即充滿矛盾與疑慮，適用於智慧財產權領域亦會產生許多與現行智慧財產權制度無法相容之扞格。本研究計畫將就此佐以反對學者之評論，以提出本研究計畫之看法與評析。最後，本研究計畫亦將探討智慧財產財產權化之實際例證，以說明此一趨勢正是現今國際間智慧財產權不斷擴張之主因之一，並藉以提出本研究計畫對與智慧財產權過度擴張之批評與建議。
Over the past century, Americans who own property—homeowners, landlords, businesspeople of all kinds—have found themselves increasingly entangled in a web of regulatory restrictions that have limited what they can do with their property. Imposed in the name of an amorphous “public interest,” those restrictions have often been unwarranted and severe, resulting in countless personal and financial losses. By century’s end they had led to the birth of the Property Rights Movement and to a call for both legislative and judicial redress. The movement is likely only to grow in the 21st century. Moreover, this movement has extended its influence from the original region of physical/tangible property into the region of intangible/intellectual property. Supporters of PRM took active interest in several patent cases argued before the U.S. Supreme Court. The most significant one was the 2006 case: eBay v. MercExchange, and the “property” at issue is a patent on a method of selling goods through an “electronic network of consignment stores”. In an amicus brief filed in the Supreme Court on behalf of “various law and economics scholars,” Professor Richard Epstein, PRM’s leading theorist, contended that the MercExchange patent deserves much the same protection as real estate. By analogizing patent protection to trespass law, the brief argued that injunctive relief should be presumed in cases of patent infringement. It pushed the boundaries of patent law advocacy by citing land encroachment precedent. The claim asserted by the patent holder in the eBay case was not the only instance illustrating the ultimate goal of the rights’ holders who wish to unlimited expand the scope of their intellectual properties. From the end of 20 century, the strength of Intellectual Property Rights—especially the Copyright, Patent, and Trade Mark—have been enlarged constantly; the terms of protection have been lengthen again and again; and the subject matter have been increased considerably with the progress of rapidly developing technology. Based on those illustrations set above, the “Propertization” of Intellectual Property became an incontestable fact. However, the long-existed questions are still unsolved: Is Intellectual Property a Property? What is the essential character of Intellectual Property? This Study plans to solve these questions. From the prospect of the PRM supporters, the Study will first introduce the background and its propositions of the PRM. Next, illustrated by the eBay case, this Study will then inquire into the trend that PRM supporters adopting property right’s theories to analogize the nature of intellectual property. Since most property right promoters are used to begin their analysis with the Locke Labor Theory of Property Rights, this Study will therefore focus on investigating the applicability and influence of Locke Theory in the field of intellectual property rights. Because the Locke Theory itself is not flawless, and its application to the field of Intellectual Property results somewhat different consequences from the current schemes of Intellectual Property Rights, this Study will survey the opposed criticisms and comments and try to provide our own analyses and suggestions. Last, this Study will also discuss the trend of propertization of Intellectual property, and to provide comments and suggestions. |
