云计算专利法律问题研究
发布时间：2018-09-07 20:19
【摘要】：云计算的出现代表了日新月异的技术变迁与商业发展,也对专利制度带来了挑战。论文以云计算技术产业异质性引发的专利法律问题为起点,首先通过对专利理论的适用分析及云计算专利诉讼的实证分析阐明了云计算专利回应的方向及回应的路径,进一步运用比较研究、案例分析等方法着重讨论了云计算专利领域的突出问题——特定客体的专利适格性问题、权利要求的功能性特征问题、多方参与多步骤专利的侵权认定问题,提出了解决方案并阐明了相关制度发展的方向。云计算领域更多软件系统创新,研发成本相对较低、周期较短,早期的专利强保护并不恰当;云计算完全依托互联网生存发展,对其中的商业方法创新,有时竞争而非垄断的激励作用更为显著;为了应对专利的反公地悲剧及专利丛林危机,对于云计算这样一个产业参与者众多、技术生态呈累积性大规模的领域,专利政策杠杆应向更清晰(有时就是更小更窄的)的专利保护范围、更严格的审查标准(意味着相对较少的专利数量)、更高专利质量的方向移动。因此,云计算技术产业强化专利保护不可行,专利回应方向应平衡偏弱,结合各国产业发展的现状及具体涉及的专利问题而定。在回应的路径方面,产业区分立法会遭遇认识不统一、TRIPS协议的法律障碍及产业划界的技术困难等多重阻碍。而行政审查机构只负责专利的授权及有效性判断,在产业区分时缺乏整体眼光与综合考量。司法具有回应的及时便利性、反复实践的专业与熟练性、决策信息的充分性等优势,可以成为应对云计算技术产业对专利法制挑战的主要途径。对云计算具体专利法律问题的分析讨论验证了上述宏观分析。在云计算对专利客体范围的影响方面,美国Bilski案后联邦巡回法院多个典型判例显示,云计算软件商业方法专利适格性审查规则在较长时期内将保持一种“紧张的平衡”。对欧盟及多国相关法制的归纳分析进一步显示了软件商业方法专利适格性问题上的各方利益冲突与目标分歧。尽管云计算商业方法日益普及,软件、算法在技术发展过程中的重要性凸显,但受当前产业发展与专利制度紧张关系现状影响,专利保护范围暂时不会越来越宽——延至云计算算法;受新技术发展的预期与建立专利制度促进创新的宗旨牵引,专利保护强度也不会减弱,范围也不会缩小——将云计算商业方法通过“归类定义”排除出专利客体范围。在功能性特征对云计算专利权利要求保护范围的影响方面,我国现行规则对功能性特征的适用采取了行政审查与司法裁判领域的双重限制,制度性地偏向在后发明人,体现了较弱的专利保护倾向,在云计算领域可以被作为一项有效的政策杠杆使用。从我国当前技术创新激励的目标与技术发展的现状分析,应对云计算专利权利要求中的功能性特征实施限制,从引导撰写与审查角度解决此类权利要求保护范围不明确、说明书公开不充分等问题。对美国、欧盟、日本与台湾判例与审查规则的比较分析可为我国的实践提供借鉴。对于多方参与云计算专利侵权认定问题,美国Akamai案一波三折的审理反映了间接侵权规则的应对不力,可以创造性地适用无意思联络共同侵权责任规则应对多方参与云计算方法专利侵权认定难题。这一方案既阻塞了多方实施专利规避侵权责任的漏洞,又满足了直接侵权的全要件原则,并且不至于累及无过错方。此外,研究发现美国Centillion案中对系统专利“使用”的界定,使那些操控整个系统(并没有物理性操作每一项设备)而获得相对使用利益的行为人比如系统用户成为了侵权指控的对象。在大企业用户比比皆是的云计算产业与技术生态链中,这将更有利于专利权人。结合其它国家地区的立法现状,考虑到云计算的技术特点与我国的专利政策目标,我国不必急于间接侵权立法。鉴于云计算用户的复杂性,建议采取选择性用户责任,将云计算的非商业性使用排除在侵权赔偿责任之外。综上,对相对微观具体云计算专利法律问题“点”的研究(第三、四、五章)与云计算和专利法制挑战回应关系宏观“面”的分析(第一、二章)相互印证,得出了本文的主要观点,即专利法制需要回应云计算这一新技术产业的挑战,但“加强保护”并不可取,应在较弱保护的政策方向指导下,以司法辅之行政审查而非产业立法方式实现新技术专利保护需求与公共利益间的平衡。
[Abstract]:The emergence of cloud computing represents the ever-changing technological changes and commercial development, but also challenges the patent system. Starting from the patent legal issues caused by the heterogeneity of cloud computing technology industry, this paper first clarifies the responding aspects of cloud computing patents through the application analysis of patent theory and the empirical analysis of cloud computing patent litigation. The main problems in the field of cloud computing patents, such as patent eligibility of specific objects, functional characteristics of claims, multi-party involvement in multi-step patent infringement determination, are discussed with the methods of comparative study and case analysis. The solutions are proposed and the relevant systems are clarified. Cloud computing relies entirely on the Internet to survive and develop, and the incentives for business innovation, sometimes competition rather than monopoly, are more pronounced; in response to patent tragedies and patents of anti-commons. Jungle Crisis: For cloud computing, an industry with a large number of participants and a cumulative technological ecology, patent policy leverage should move in the direction of clearer (sometimes smaller and narrower) patent protection, tighter censorship standards (meaning a relatively small number of patents), and higher patent quality. It is not feasible to strengthen patent protection in the technological industry, and the direction of patent response should be balanced weakly, depending on the current situation of industrial development in various countries and the specific patent issues involved. The judiciary has the advantages of prompt and convenient response, repeated practice, professionalism and proficiency, and adequacy of decision-making information. It can become the main way to deal with the challenges of cloud computing technology industry to patent law. The analysis and discussion of specific patent legal issues confirm the above macro analysis. In terms of the impact of cloud computing on the scope of patent objects, several typical cases of the Federal Circuit Court after the Bilski case in the United States show that the rules for examining the suitability of business methods patents for cloud computing software will maintain a "tense balance" for a long time. The conclusion and analysis of the relevant legal systems in many countries further reveal the conflicts of interest and the divergence of objectives on the patentability of software business methods. The scope of protection will not be wider for the time being - extending to cloud computing algorithms; the intensity and scope of patent protection will not be weakened by the anticipation of new technological developments and the purpose of establishing a patent system to promote innovation - excluding cloud computing business methods from the scope of patent objects by "categorization definition". In calculating the impact of the scope of patent claims protection, China's current rules on the application of functional characteristics of administrative review and judicial adjudication in the field of dual restrictions, institutional bias in the latter inventor, reflects a weak tendency to patent protection, in the field of cloud computing can be used as an effective policy lever. China's current technological innovation incentive objectives and technological development status analysis should be implemented in the cloud computing patent claims functional characteristics restrictions, from the perspective of guidance writing and review to resolve such claims protection scope is not clear, the specification is not fully open and other issues. The comparative analysis can be used for reference in China's practice. As for the multi-party participation in the identification of cloud computing patent infringement, the twists and turns of the Akamai case in the United States reflect the inadequate response to the indirect infringement rules, which can creatively apply the unintentional joint tort liability rules to deal with the difficulties of multi-party participation in the identification of cloud computing patent infringement. This scheme not only blocked the loopholes in patent circumvention by multiple parties, but also met the full requirements of direct infringement, and did not involve the non-fault party. In the cloud computing industry and technological ecology chain, where large enterprise users are everywhere, this will be more conducive to patent holders. Given the complexity of cloud computing users, it is recommended to adopt selective user liability to exclude non-commercial use of cloud computing from liability for infringement. The analysis of the macro-level relationship (Chapter 1 and Chapter 2) confirms each other and draws the main viewpoint of this paper, that is, the patent law system needs to respond to the challenge of cloud computing as a new technology industry, but "strengthening protection" is not advisable. Under the guidance of weak protection policy, the new technology should be realized by judicial supplementary administrative review rather than industrial legislation. The balance between patent protection needs and public interests.
【学位授予单位】：上海交通大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D923.42
，
本文编号：2229314
[Abstract]:The emergence of cloud computing represents the ever-changing technological changes and commercial development, but also challenges the patent system. Starting from the patent legal issues caused by the heterogeneity of cloud computing technology industry, this paper first clarifies the responding aspects of cloud computing patents through the application analysis of patent theory and the empirical analysis of cloud computing patent litigation. The main problems in the field of cloud computing patents, such as patent eligibility of specific objects, functional characteristics of claims, multi-party involvement in multi-step patent infringement determination, are discussed with the methods of comparative study and case analysis. The solutions are proposed and the relevant systems are clarified. Cloud computing relies entirely on the Internet to survive and develop, and the incentives for business innovation, sometimes competition rather than monopoly, are more pronounced; in response to patent tragedies and patents of anti-commons. Jungle Crisis: For cloud computing, an industry with a large number of participants and a cumulative technological ecology, patent policy leverage should move in the direction of clearer (sometimes smaller and narrower) patent protection, tighter censorship standards (meaning a relatively small number of patents), and higher patent quality. It is not feasible to strengthen patent protection in the technological industry, and the direction of patent response should be balanced weakly, depending on the current situation of industrial development in various countries and the specific patent issues involved. The judiciary has the advantages of prompt and convenient response, repeated practice, professionalism and proficiency, and adequacy of decision-making information. It can become the main way to deal with the challenges of cloud computing technology industry to patent law. The analysis and discussion of specific patent legal issues confirm the above macro analysis. In terms of the impact of cloud computing on the scope of patent objects, several typical cases of the Federal Circuit Court after the Bilski case in the United States show that the rules for examining the suitability of business methods patents for cloud computing software will maintain a "tense balance" for a long time. The conclusion and analysis of the relevant legal systems in many countries further reveal the conflicts of interest and the divergence of objectives on the patentability of software business methods. The scope of protection will not be wider for the time being - extending to cloud computing algorithms; the intensity and scope of patent protection will not be weakened by the anticipation of new technological developments and the purpose of establishing a patent system to promote innovation - excluding cloud computing business methods from the scope of patent objects by "categorization definition". In calculating the impact of the scope of patent claims protection, China's current rules on the application of functional characteristics of administrative review and judicial adjudication in the field of dual restrictions, institutional bias in the latter inventor, reflects a weak tendency to patent protection, in the field of cloud computing can be used as an effective policy lever. China's current technological innovation incentive objectives and technological development status analysis should be implemented in the cloud computing patent claims functional characteristics restrictions, from the perspective of guidance writing and review to resolve such claims protection scope is not clear, the specification is not fully open and other issues. The comparative analysis can be used for reference in China's practice. As for the multi-party participation in the identification of cloud computing patent infringement, the twists and turns of the Akamai case in the United States reflect the inadequate response to the indirect infringement rules, which can creatively apply the unintentional joint tort liability rules to deal with the difficulties of multi-party participation in the identification of cloud computing patent infringement. This scheme not only blocked the loopholes in patent circumvention by multiple parties, but also met the full requirements of direct infringement, and did not involve the non-fault party. In the cloud computing industry and technological ecology chain, where large enterprise users are everywhere, this will be more conducive to patent holders. Given the complexity of cloud computing users, it is recommended to adopt selective user liability to exclude non-commercial use of cloud computing from liability for infringement. The analysis of the macro-level relationship (Chapter 1 and Chapter 2) confirms each other and draws the main viewpoint of this paper, that is, the patent law system needs to respond to the challenge of cloud computing as a new technology industry, but "strengthening protection" is not advisable. Under the guidance of weak protection policy, the new technology should be realized by judicial supplementary administrative review rather than industrial legislation. The balance between patent protection needs and public interests.
【学位授予单位】：上海交通大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D923.42
，
本文编号：2229314
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/minfalunwen/2229314.html
