財產權、智慧財產權和搭便車

Property, Intellectual Property and Free Riding

法院和學者們越來越把知識產權假定為一種財產權，並將Harold Demsetz和其他財產權理論分析家的經濟分析觀點運用到知識產權中而譴責搭便車行為。在本文中，作者提出財產權的經濟分析理論如此適用是根本錯誤的。財產權的經濟分析關注的是負外部性的內在化，這種負外部性即某人對土地的使用傷害另一個人的利益，正如人們所熟悉的共有地悲劇。但是知識產權的外部性是正的，不是負的；而且財產權理論沒有為正外部性的內在化提供合理解釋。事實上，這麼做與市場運作及市場邏輯相衝突。以此為基本觀點，作者繼續解釋了為什麼在知識產權案件中搭便車是可取的，只有在特定情形下，為鼓勵創作而必須遏制搭便車行為。作者解釋了為什麼經濟分析理論已經證明，太多的保護和不充分保護一樣糟糕，因此，知識產權必須尋求一種平衡，而不是找出搭便車者。最後，作者分析，如果用其他喻指名詞來代替一種錯誤的有形財產意義上的知識產權概念，我 們是否會做得更好。

Courts and scholars have increasingly assumed that intellectual property is a form of property, and have applied the economic insights of Harold Demsetz and other property theorists to condemn the use of intellectual property by others as “free riding”. In this article, Mark A. Lemley argues that this represents a fundamental misapplication of the economic theory of property. The economics of property is concerned with internalizing negative externalities-harms that one person’s use of land does to another’s interest to it, as in the familiar tragedy of the commons. But the externalities in intellectual property are positive, not negative, and property theory offers little or no justification for internalizing positive externalities. Indeed, doing so is at odds with the logic and functioning of the market. From this core insight, Mark A. Lemley proceeds to explain why free riding is desirable in intellectual property cases except in limited circumstances where curbing is necessary to encourage creativity. Mark A. Lemley explains why economic theory demonstrates that too much protection is just as bad as not enough protection, and therefore why intellectual property law must search for balance, not free riders. Finally, Mark A. Lemley considers whether we would be better served by another metaphor than the misused notion of intellectual property as a form of tangible property.