|
|
|
| The Legalization Standard and Optimization Path of the Empowerment Reform of Job-based Scientific and Technological Achievements |
| Wang Yinghang1,Li Jinhui2,Li Bingchao3 |
| (1.School of Law, South China Normal University Guangzhou 510006,China;2.Guangdong Techno-Economy Research & Development Center, Guangzhou 510070,China;3.Guangdong Association of Science of Science and S&T Management Research, Guangzhou 510033,China) |
|
|
|
|
Abstract In recent years, in order to encourage relevant institutions and researchers to actively participate in the transformation ofrelated achievements, China has implemented a series of reform measures on the ownership of job-based scientific and technological achievements from the central to local levels. The relevant reforms can be divided into two parts. The first part is the reform to grant research institutions the right to use, dispose and benefit of scientific and technological achievements.The second is the reform of giving scientific researchers the ownership or long-term use right of job-based scientific and technological achievements, referred to as "empowerment reform". At present, the empowerment reform of scientific and technological achievements has entered a diversified phase. Some colleges and universities or local governments have issued some pilot reform measures, such as the compulsory mixed-ownership of job-based scientific and technological achievements. These measures lack the necessary theoretical demonstration and adjustment mechanism, and are easy to fall into the illegal and unreasonable predicaments. This phenomenon is closely related to the insufficient legalization of relevant reforms. This paper aims to explore the legal connotation and standards of the empowerment reform of job-based scientific and technological achievements from the perspective of formal and substantive rule of law, and discuss how to legally and reasonably dispose the ownership of job-based scientific and technological achievements with the attribute of state-owned assets in China and ensure that relevant subjects can reasonably and efficiently exercise the rights of achievements.#br#The paper holds that in public scientific research institutions, the empowerment of the ownership of job-based scientific and technological achievements and the allocation of relevant rights and interests are related to the rational disposal of public property and the security construction of national intellectual property rights, and they must be implemented within the framework of the rule of law. Only by taking the implementation of the principle of legal ownership and empowerment according to law as the formal standard, and the principle of proportionality as the substantive standard, can it be possible to avoid the dual failure of the government and the market in the process of reform by means of the rule of law. At present, the empowerment reform of job-based scientific and technological achievements in China is confronted with the legal problems like the pilot scheme violates the upper law, and the empowerment decision-making is out of proportion. In particular, the problems such as the imperfection of tolerance and regulation of state-owned assets management in the disposal of scientific and technological achievements, the inadequacy of the rule for the empowerment, and the imperfection of information disclosure and government intervention mechanisms for relevant scientific and technological achievements exert direct influences on whether the empowerment reform can achieve sustainable and healthy development.#br#In view of this, China should further improve the top-level design of ownership and legal empowerment of job-based scientific and technological achievements, and timely modify the conflicting laws and regulations. At the same time, China should improve the existing reform measures of empowerment from the substantive rule of law standards such as the appropriateness of purpose, the necessity of means and the balance of results. First of all, China should optimize the tolerance and regulation of relevant state-owned assets management for the purpose of effective transformation of achievements, so as to ensure the fulfillment of the purpose of empowerment. Secondly, China should establish comprehensive statutory rules for the exercise of ownership of job-based scientific and technological achievements to ensure the feasibility of empowerment measures. Furthermore, it is essential improve theinformation disclosure and government intervention system of public welfare-oriented achievement transformation,so as to ensure the maximization of the benefits of empowerment.#br#Compared with the existing research, this paper puts forward some innovative ideas, for example the empowerment reform of job-based scientific and technological achievements must embark on the road of legalization if it is unaffected by policy, and it provides a plan for China to establish a job-based scientific and technological achievements empowerment system based on trust and rule of law.#br#
|
|
Received: 15 July 2022
|
|
|
|
|
|
[1] 国家知识产权局战略规划司,知识产权研究发展中心.2020年中国专利调查报告[EB/OL].(2021-04-01)[2021-10-05].http://www.cnipa.gov.cn/module/download/downfile.jsp?classid=0&showname=2020年中国专利调查报告.pdf&filename=b6bf2ef6f8b74b8bb0f954de18e4830e.pdf.
[2] 王海芸,曹爱红.立法视角下职务科技成果所有权规定模式对比研究[J].科技进步与对策,2022,39(11):134-141.
[3] 科技部.科技部关于印发《赋予科研人员职务科技成果所有权或长期使用权试点单位名单》的通知[EB/OL].(2020-10-19)[2021-01-10].http://www.most.gov.cn/xxgk/xinxifenlei/fdzdgknr/qtwj/qtwj2020/202010/t20201019_159267. html.
[4] 王影航.高校职务科技成果混合所有制的困境与出路[J].法学评论,2020,38(2):68-78.
[5] 任海涛,雷槟硕.高校科研成果市场转化的法治保障研究[J].复旦教育论坛,2018,16(5):32-38.
[6] 康慧强.职务科技成果权属混改中的引致风险与对策研究[J].科学管理研究,2020,38(1):42-46.
[7] 朱雪忠.对专利法“产权激励”条款实施效果的冷思考[EB/OL].(2021-06-08)[2021-10-02].http://www.chinaipmagazine.com/zl/ColumnView.asp?fId=83&id=206.
[8] 新华社.习近平主持召开中央全面深化改革领导小组第二次会议[EB/OL].(2014-02-28)[2021-07-02].http://www.gov.cn/ldhd/2014-02/28/content_2625924.htm.
[9] 刘剑文,王桦宇.公共财产权的概念及其法治逻辑[J].中国社会科学,2014，35(8):129-146，206-207.
[10] HEMEL D J,OUELLETTE L L. Bayh-Dole beyond borders[J].Journal of Law and the Biosciences，2017,4(2):282-310.
[11] 孙远钊.论科技成果转化与产学研合作——美国《拜杜法》35周年的回顾与展望[J].科技与法律,2015，27(5):1008-1037.
[12] 蒋舸.职务发明奖酬管制的理论困境与现实出路[J].中国法学,2016，33(3):125-144.
[13] QUINN G. Bayh-Dole: a success beyond wildest dreams[EB/OL].(2013-09-15)[2021-10-02].http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2013/09/15/bayh-dole-a-success-beyond-wildest-dreams.
[14] 常旭华,陈强,李晓,等.财政资助发明权利配置：国家、单位、个人三元平衡分析[J].中国软科学,2019，34(6):13-21.
[15] 刘武俊.重估萨维尼的价值[J].读书,1996，18(1):74-75.
[16] 冯锋,崔晓峰,张雷勇.高校科技成果转化机会的影响因素分析——基于扎根理论的研究[J].华南理工大学学报(社会科学版),2020,22(4):42-51.
[17] 蒋悟真.科研项目经费治理入法的机遇、难点与模式[J].法学杂志,2020,41(7):36-45.
[18] 朱一飞.高校科技成果转化法律制度的检视与重构[J].法学,2016，61(4):81-92.
[19] 姜昕.比例原则研究:一个宪政的视角[M].北京:法律出版社,2008.
[20] 赫尔曼·哈肯.协同学[M].上海：上海译文出版社，2001.
[21] 王影航.创新激励视阈下出版产业税收立法的完善[J].中国出版,2016，39(24):42-46.
[22] 徐清飞.简政放权后权力接续行使规范化研究[J].法律科学(西北政法大学学报),2020,38(4):110-124.
[23] 李石勇.协同创新背景下职务发明奖励报酬制度的完善[J].广东社会科学,2018，35(2):237-245.
[24] WHALEN R. The Bayh-Dole Act & Public Rights in federally funded inventions: will the agencies ever go marching in[J].Northwestern University Law Review,2015,109(1):76-87.
[25] 陈迎新,李施奇,周玥.美国《拜杜法案》介入权改革及其对中国的启示[J].中国科技论坛,2017，33(7):169-175.
[26] 胡朝阳.试析财政性科技项目成果的知识产权保护问题——兼论《科技进步法》第二十条的有效施行[J].科技管理研究,2009,29(12):491-493.
[27] 全国人大常务委员会法制工作委员会社会法室.中华人民共和国促进科技成果转化法解读[M].北京：中国法制出版社,2016.
[28] 杨瑞琦,彭洁,赵辉.科技成果价值评估体系实证研究——基于验证性因子分析检验[J].情报杂志,2015,34(11):44-49.
[29] 吴寿仁.从科技成果转化2021年度报告看科技成果转化政策落实[J].科技中国,2022，27(8):51-56.
[30] 吴寿仁.赋权与否对职务科技成果转化的影响研究[J].创新科技,2022,22(7):13-20.
[31] 王进富,朱玉丹,张颖颖,等.科研人员职务科技成果赋权、组织能力与衍生创业间关系研究[J].科技进步与对策,2021,38(20):111-120.
[32] 西南交通大学.西南交通大学专利管理规定[EB/OL].(2017-03-16)[2021-02-11].https://cyc.swjtu.edu.cn/info/1015/1056.htm.
[33] 朱琬宁.高校科技成果转化服务模式比较研究——以国内外4所院校调研分析为例[J].中国高校科技,2020，34(11):4-7.
[34] 中国科技评估与成果管理研究会,国家科技评估中心,中国科学技术信息研究所.中国科技成果转化2021年度报告(高等院所与科研院所篇)[M].北京:科学技术文献出版社,2022.
[35] 漆苏.非专利实施主体研究[J].知识产权,2019，33(6):50-57.
[36] 谢惠加.产学研协同创新联盟的知识产权利益分享机制研究[J].学术研究,2014，57(7):58-62.
[37] 李石勇.财政资助科技成果政府介入权法律制度探究[J].政法论丛,2018，34(4):82-92.
|
|
|
|
