作　者：熊琦
关键词：知识产权法典；民法典编纂；商法；法典化；体系化
摘　要：

我国知识产权入典和成典所引发的争议，根源在于未能清晰地梳理知识产权法与民法的体系逻辑。回溯两者的立法传统可以发现，知识产权法与民法彼此独立发展的史实在现有研究中未被重视。再观权利属性的类型衔接，知识产权、私权、财产权的概念边界不明，最终造成片面的为了制度创新和特色而忽视体系科学的现状。历史上知识产权法的变革与发展，很大程度上体现的是商法自治性和超国家的发展特色，因而以民法与商法的关系来类比民法与知识产权法的关系更为科学。鉴于无体物与有体物财产权在规则设计上不可忽略的差异以及知识产权法内部各权利类型无法提取公因式的实际现状，立法上应该保留著作权法、专利法和商标法单独立法，避免出现为法典化而法典化导致的例外远多于一般的窘境。

■ 作者简介  熊   琦，法学博士，华中科技大学法学院教授、博士生导师、副院长，最高人民法院知识产权司法保护理论研究基地研究员，国家版权局国际版权研究基地研究员；湖北 武汉 430074。

 

Intellectual Property Law and Civil Law in Legal System

Xiong Qi (Huazhong University of Science and Technology)

Abstract Controversies over the codification of intellectual property is essentially an issue of defining the relationship between intellectual property law and civil law. By tracing back to the origin of both laws, we discovered our ignorance of the fact that intellectual property law and civil law were legislated in different ways and backgrounds. Based on the nature of private right, intellectual property, private right, property right have not been clearly defined and classified, which leads to the unscientific codification. When reviewing the history of intellectual property, it can be found that the legislation of intellectual property law was more like Merchant Law, whose nature is autonomous and supranational, so the relationship between intellectual property law and civil law is more like that between commercial law and civil law. Additionally, considering the intangible nature of the subject of intellectual property, property rules are obviously different compared with real property. The different nature of the subject of copyright, patent and trademark also forced us to avoid an unified intellectual property code.

Key words intellectual property code; civil law codification; commercial law; codification; legal systematization

[PDF]（下载数：）