摘要：一块新礁石，被“法治号”豪华邮轮撞上了，名叫“知识产权无执行力”。本文指出，知识产权陷入历史性的冲突而被克服，与其归咎于那匹经常被人误名误解的替罪羊“中国模式”，不如指互联网和业务外包这两股全球化潮流为“罪魁祸首”。有鉴于此，通行的法律观念和法律运用或许不得不做出重大修正，以接纳新的普世主义信念。
关键词：知识产权 法治 互联网 业务外包 修正主义 普世主义
一
知识产权正在消亡。至少，那一整套的由我们法学院传授、靠国家机器强制推行的知识财产的各种权利形式（IPRs），那张由法定财产权与人格权编织的繁复的网络，且依照世贸组织（WTO）等全球贸易共同体各成员签署实施的一长串条约同国际协定，有权在一切“文明国度”接受官方敬意和保护——那一类知识产权，业已走到了尽头。
网络杂谈之二十三
自信息技术和相关设备发明以来，就不断有人声称“隐私的终结”，例如照相机和摄像头便利了偷拍和监控、电报和电话则容易遭到窃听、计算机的出现导致“数据库国家”的出现，等等。本文试图延续这一话题，即在数字时代我们是否还能够拥有所谓隐私，并讨论相关的法律问题。本文的观点是：传统隐私及其观念正经历着重大转型，即从物理空间隐私转向信息隐私，隐私和其他个人数据的界限也变得模糊不清。其根源在于人们生活世界的数字化，周遭环境的默认状态是持续地搜集而非排斥信息。传统法律对此无能为力，只能在承认环境变化的基础上约束和限制对隐私和个人数据的使用。
本文将首先讨论现代隐私观念背后的多重基础：物理空间/架构的保护、从熟人社区到陌生人社区的转变、大规模搜集个人信息能力的匮乏；其次展示上述条件如何慢慢被信息技术打破和消解，使隐私具有了全新的商业和治理价值；第三部分将分析这一转变的法律基础，即通过契约同意个人数据的搜集和使用，以及带来的可能问题；最后简要讨论未来隐私保护的前景。
Copyright © 2011 by Feng Xiang
《知识产权的终结》
“The End of Intellectual Property”
International Critical Thought
Vol. 2, No. 1, March 2012, 99-106
知识产权的终结
The End of Intellectual Property
Challenges beyond the “China Model”*
冯 象
Abstract: A new reef the luxury cruise ship “Rule of Law” has hit, called the unenforceability of intellectual property rights. This article argues that instead of the often misnamed and misunderstood scapegoat, the “China model”, it is two global trends, the internet and outsourcing, that have led to the historical clashing and overcoming of the law. As a result, important revisions to our conception and use of the law and a new faith in universalism must be contemplated.
Key words: intellectual property; rule of law; internet; outsourcing; revisionism; universalism.
I
Intellectual property is demising. Or at least, that form of intellectual property rights (IPR) as taught at our law schools and propagated by powerful state machines – a complex web of statutorily defined property and moral rights, entitled to official respect and protection in all “civilized nations”, according to a long list of treaties and international conventions signed into effect by members of global trade communities such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) – has come to its end.
The fact is undeniable. Today, few people in good conscience can conduct normal business or enjoy a day of leisure without breaching a commandment of intellectual property by, for example, running a computer program, choosing a branded handbag or sharing a song with friends on the internet. This is so not only in China and other emergent economies, but increasingly in the United States and developed markets in general, as amply documented by academic researchers and industry analysts. The situation of IPR in China, therefore, is essentially no different from elsewhere on this over-wired blue planet, though for various reasons, there is often more media attention paid to it, in China as well as in the west, than deeper economic and social problems, such as what triggered the “Occupy Wall Street” demonstrations.
A couple of months ago, I remember, the BBC reported a case in the city of Kunming, Yunnan Province, southwestern China, in which 22 fake Apple stores were shut down in a crackdown by the local industry and commerce administration. The tips came from a foreign tourist who discovered some alterations in the layout and “signature” features in one of those “Apple stores” (BBC news, 12 Aug 2011). Given the freewheeling business environment, however, we may reasonably expect that similar bootleg operations will soon mushroom to fill in the void, right there or in nearby towns. The consumer market demands that.
Beijing’s ongoing efforts to promote growth are infringing on people’s economic and political rights. In order to survive, the Chinese government will have to start allowing ordinary citizens to take part in the political process.
Yang Yao, “The End of the Beijing Consensus,” Foreign Affairs, February 2, 2010.
Since China began undertaking economic reforms in 1978, its economy has grown at a rate of nearly ten percent a year, and its per-capita GDP is now twelve times greater than it was three decades ago. Many analysts attribute the country’s economic success to its unconventional approach to economic policy — a combination of mixed ownership, basic property rights, and heavy government intervention. Time magazine’s former foreign editor, Joshua Cooper Ramo, has even given it a name: the Beijing consensus.