|
|
|
| A Study of Ownership of Intellectual Property Rights under Open Innovation Paradigm: Based on the Inherent Characteristics of Typical Practices of User Innovation and Peer Innovation |
| Li Yongming, Xiang Ludan, Zhang Yining |
| Guanghua School of Law, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310008, China |
|
|
|
|
Abstract The closed innovation paradigm, which used to be the mainstream, has shaped the classic success cases such as DuPont and Bell LABS, enabling many innovative subjects who pursue this innovation model achieve great success. However, in recent years, the traditional closed innovation has gradually become unsustainable in the context of industry evolution and market changes, while open innovation is increasingly favored by various innovation subjects. While the pioneering open innovation practice has spawned the transformation of innovation paradigm, the popularity of open innovation is also negatively affecting the development of innovation practice. The typical practice represented by “user innovation” and “peer innovation” has entered the public’s vision in the field of innovation. Although the open innovation practice characterized by “individual creation” is still in its early stage, it has become more and more mature. The transformation of innovation mode poses new challenges to the original intellectual property regulation system, and the innovation behavior adjusted by the original intellectual property regulation system has undergone qualitative changes, which is doomed to its limited applicability to new scenarios and new situations. There are different forms of expression between closed innovation and open innovation in practice, and the original abstract and typed legal facts cannot accommodate the new situation, which makes the intellectual property regulation system constructed under the traditional closed innovation field inevitably produce the absence of legal facts in the face of the new practice mode of open innovation. The intellectual property interest balance mechanism based on the three conceptual tools of exclusive right, right restriction and public domain will inevitably produce imbalance under the innovation paradigm of open and sharing concept. The core of the intellectual property problems brought about by the two typical practices is the ownership of intellectual property rights, which leads to the preliminary problems and subsequent rights protection problems that can be summarized as: the qualitative doubt of individual behavior in open innovation, the process of identifying and confirming property rights, the difficulties of ownership of rights and the application of achievements, and the procedural and substantive law protection of intellectual property rights. The difference in legal facts between closed innovation and open innovation leads to the difference in the underlying logic of the application of rules, and the explanatory power of the classical explanation theory of the legitimacy of intellectual property behind the existing legal system of intellectual property is weakened in the transformation of innovation paradigm. It is decided that the intellectual property problems in the typical practice of open innovation cannot be solved simply by analogy with the existing legal system of intellectual property. Therefore, this paper holds that a kind of open innovation between formal norms and free space is suitable for the characteristics of open innovation. Unified intellectual property guidelines and norms can be used as the direction of countermeasures for the ownership of intellectual property rights in the typical practice of open innovation. This paper rejects the separate legislative ideas that will increase legislative costs and incompatibility of legal systems, and it does not agree with the academic argument of “knowledge sharing ethical system” to eliminate intellectual property rights to solve difficult problems in special scenarios. Compared with legal norms, the so-called intellectual property guidelines are more flexible and specialized, and more professional and secure than autonomous agreements such as community conventions. This paper tries to regard them as concretization of micro-policies, and advocates that the intellectual property guidelines should be designed and implemented by the intellectual property administrative department. In the long run, it is a forward-looking consideration of the overall evolution direction of the intellectual property legal system under the spirit of balance of interests, which is equivalent to a priori practice of the legal system. On the other hand, the intellectual property normative guidelines are the embodiment of the national macro policy of intellectual property, which can survive in the form of legal sources and have an impact on the application of law under certain conditions. In addition, the intellectual property guidelines can also be used as a blueprint to guide the orderly operation of the entire industry. On this basis, three basic concepts of the design of norms are further proposed: First, maximize the realization of the value of intellectual property transformation. Second, pay attention to the presentation of efficiency value. The third is to reshape the structure of intellectual property rights, and concretely realize the disassembly of intellectual property rights to meet the interests of different subjects.
|
|
Received: 06 July 2023
|
|
|
|
1 Chesbrough H. W.， Open Innovation： The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology， Boston： Harvard Business School Press， 2003.
2 徐茜、吴彬、姜道奎： 《当代创新挑战与范式转换——对开放式创新的理论评述》，《科技进步与对策》2015年第3期，第1-6页。
3 后锐、张毕西： 《企业开放式创新：概念、模型及其风险规避》，《科技进步与对策》2006年第3期，第140-142页。
4 卢福财、周鹏： 《外部网络化与企业组织创新》，《中国工业经济》2004年第2期，第101-106页。
5 Brandenburger A. M. & Nalebuff B. J.， Co-opetition： A Revolution Mindset That Combines Competition and Cooperation， New York： Broadway Business， 1997.
6 王大珩： 《漫谈科学精神》，《中国计量》2008年第4期，第4-6页。
7 徐瑞前、龚丽敏： 《开放式创新理论的视角、过程及未来研究方向》，《科技进步与对策》2011年第21期，第155-160页。
8 周立群、刘根节： 《由封闭式创新向开放式创新的转变》，《经济学家》2012年第6期，第53-57页。
9 肖尤丹： 《开放式创新与知识产权制度研究》，北京：知识产权出版社，2017年。
10 von Hippel E.， “The dominant role of users in the scientific instrument innovation process，” Research Policy， Vol. 22， No. 2 （1993）， pp. 103-104.
11 吴贵生、谢： 《用户创新概念及其运行机制》，《科研管理》1996年第5期，第14-19页。
12 高良谋、马文甲： 《开放式创新：内涵、框架与中国情境》，《管理世界》2014年第6期，第157-169页。
13 Benkler Y.， “Coase’s Penguin， or， Linux and The Nature of the Firm，” Yale Law Journal， Vol. 112， No. 3 （2002）， pp. 369-446.
14 唐方成、仝允桓： 《经济全球化背景下的开放式创新与企业的知识产权保护》，《中国软科学》2007年第6期，第58-62页。
15 朱一飞： 《高校科技成果转化法律制度的检视与重构》，《法学》2016年第4期，第81-92页。
16 戴凌燕、陈劲： 《产品创新的新范式：用户创新》，《经济管理》2003年第12期，第16-20页。
17 胡波： 《知识产权法哲学研究》，《知识产权》2015年第4期，第82-84页。
18 美］罗伯特·P.莫杰思： 《知识产权正当性解释》，金海军、史兆欢、寇海侠译，北京：商务印书馆，2019年。
19 英］洛克： 《政府论》（下篇），叶启芳、瞿菊农译，北京：商务印书馆，2017年。
20 日］富田彻男： 《市场竞争中的知识产权》，廖正衡、张明国、徐书绅等译，北京：商务印书馆，2017年。
21 王宇： 《开源创新：激励多元化与公共产品的私人有效提供》，《当代财经》2013年第10期，第36-45页。
22 胡波： 《共享模式与知识产权的未来发展——兼评“知识产权替代模式说”》，《法制与社会发展》2013年第4期，第95-109页。
23 马忠法： 《对知识产权制度设立的目标和专利的本质及其制度使命的再认识——以专利技术转化率低为视角》，《知识产权》2009年第6期，第3-9页。
24 顾培东： 《效益：当代法律的一个基本价值目标——兼评西方法律经济学》，《中国法学》1992年第1期，第89-98页。
25 卓泽渊： 《法的价值论》（第二版），北京：法律出版社，2006年。
26 丘志乔： 《知识产权质押制度之重塑：基于法律价值的视角》，北京：知识产权出版社，2015年。
27 王利明： 《民法》，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2005年。
28 尹田： 《物权法》，北京：北京大学出版社，2013年。
29 申卫星： 《物权法原理》（第二版），北京：中国人民大学出版社，2016年。
30 杨立新： 《物权法》（第八版），北京：中国人民大学出版社，2021年。 |
|
|
|
2024, Vol. 54 
