著作权法与专利法中“惩罚性赔偿”之非惩罚性
蒋舸著作权法与专利法中“惩罚性赔偿”之非惩罚性
On Removing the Punishing Element from “Punitive Damages” in Copyright and Patent Law
期刊名称：《法学研究》
期刊年份：
作者：蒋舸
单位：清华大学法学院
中文关键词：著作权法;专利法;惩罚性赔偿;加重赔偿;创新
英文关键词：copyright;patent;punitive damages;enhanced damages;innovation
中文摘要：
著作权法与专利法应引入加重赔偿,但不应追求惩罚目的,"惩罚性赔偿"的术语在创新规则体系中有误导性.创新领域的救济以最佳预防为上限,而惩罚的本质是独立于预防目的的责难,二者无法兼容.创新具有连续性,在后创新常常无法绕开在前创新的产权瓶颈,因此合理的创新规则不能只保护在先创新者,还需激励在后创新者.同时,集体理性选择了模糊的智力成果产权边界,从而给在后创新带来巨大的侵权风险,这要求救济不仅要避免补偿不足、预防不力,还要警惕预防过度.在著作权与专利法领域,加重赔偿的主要目的是实现个案中的完全补偿,特殊情况下也可追求宏观层面的最佳预防,但不应超出预防之需追求非功利的惩罚效果.加重赔偿之"非惩罚性"能够缓解其与填平原则的冲突,有助于降低主观要件给损害赔偿带来的不确定性.加重的幅度应与后来者利用在先智力成果的创新程度相关,而与侵权人的支付能力无关.如有可能,法官应在衡量其他救济手段威慑效果的前提下,确定损害赔偿所追求的最佳预防.
英文摘要：
While enhanced damages are justified rules for copyright and patent infringements, punitive damages are not. Legal remedies provided to stimulate innovation cannot afford to over-deter, but the core element of punishment lies in moral condemnation that is exactly exposed to over-deterrence. The incremental nature of innovation implies that punishment is harmful since over-deterrence hinders subsequent innovation, and the profit-chasing nature of copyright and patent infringements renders punishment that exceeds optimal deterrence unnecessary. Another consideration against over-deterrence stems from the uncertain scope of exclusiveness of patent and copyright. Such uncertainty represents collective rational ignorance of society and thus should not disadvantage follow-on innovators unilaterally. Enhanced damages are introduced primarily for the purpose of full compensation and secondarily as a tool to achieve optimal deterrence by eliminating opportunistic behaviors under certain conditions. "Punitive damages" is a misleading label for rules that regulate innovation. Removing the punishing element from enhanced damages in copyright and patent law has important normative implications. Firstly, the non-punishing nature of enhanced damages largely reconciles the long existing conflict between triple damages and the principle of full compensation, while leaving sufficient room for more effective enforcement. Secondly, interpreting enhanced damages in an objective way provides a new perspective for the evaluation of "intention", which understands the infringer's subjective element as an instrument for investigating the harm. Thirdly, the more significant the improvement made by subsequent innovation is, the more cautious judges should be when enhancing damages. Fourthly, enhanced damages without punitive element should be determined regardless how wealthy the infringer is. And lastly, as long as possible, the deterring effect produced by other legal remedies should be taken into consideration when calculating damages.
全文阅读： 点击下载
