論《民法典》中知識產權專有的體系功能

On the System Function of Exclusive in the Intellectual Property Clauses of Civil Code

《民法典》第123條將知識產權規定為“專有的權利”，面臨著知識產權專有的侵權法質疑，即“專有的權利”不能涵蓋知識產權保護的制止不正當競爭模式，從而有損於《民法典》第123條知識產權條款的體系功能。知識產權專有的侵權法質疑是一個“偽命題”，因為《民法典》第123條知識產權條款和第120條侵權責任條款存在適用差異，知識產權保護的專有權模式和制止不正當競爭模式不宜以《民法典》第123條知識產權條款作為規範依據，應當回歸於《民法典》第120條侵權責任條款的統轄之下。知識產權專有的體系功能旨在彰顯知識產權之於物權的獨特性，需要賦予“專有的權利”有別於《民法典》第114條中“直接支配和排他”的新內涵。

"Article 123 of Civil Law is the intellectual property clause and describes intellectual property as ''exclusive right'', which is faced with the tort law doubt about ''exclusive'' of the intellectual property. ''exclusive right'' can't cover preventing unfair competition in intellectual property protection, so the expression of ''exclusive right'' impairs the systematic function of Article 123 of Civil Code as the intellectual property clause. This doubt is a false proposition, because it ignores the differences in application between Article 123 and Article 120 of Civil Code. The tort liability of the intellectual property should not be regulated by Article 123 of Civil Code but should return to the jurisdiction of Article 120 of Civil Code. The system function of exclusive of intellectual property is to highlight the uniqueness of intellectual property, so ''exclusive right'' should be given the new connotation, which is different from ''direct domination and exclusivity'' in Article 114 of Civil Code."