试论算法的法律保护模式
|
摘要
该采用何种法律模式对算法进行保护,是值得关注的问题。国内理论研究不足的情况下,有必要以美国为鉴。结合我国当前算法技术发展的特点和发展现状,宜采用专利模式对"白箱"算法和"灰箱"算法施以保护。然而,"黑箱"算法、"感知"算法和"奇异"算法因能实现自我规划和自我设计,已经脱离了人类的有效控制,变得不可预测和不可解释,若对这三种高阶算法继续采用专利或商业秘密等专属性法律保护模式,将会严重冲击《知识产权法》及其实施细则的现有框架。因而,不再对这三种高阶算法设定专门法律保护模式的情况下,宜采用非专属性激励机制对这三种高阶算法的设计者、研发者施以奖励。
Which legal mode should be adopted to protect the algorithm is a problem worth paying attention to. It is necessary to take the United States as a mirror for the deficiency of domestic theoretical research. Considering the status quo of algorithm technology in China, we should protect the "white box" algorithm and the "gray box" algorithm with patent mode. "Black box" algorithm, "perception" algorithm and "strange" algorithm can plan and design freely by themselves, and lose effective control of human beings, becoming unpredictable and inexplicable. If the patent protection mode continues to be adopted to these three kinds of high order algorithm,it will have a deadly impact on the existing framework of the patent law and its detailed rules for the implementation. Therefore, the legal protection mode is no longer be considered, non-exclusive incentive mechanism should be adopted to reward the designers and developers of these three high-order algorithms, so as to enhance their enthusiasm for innovation and ensure the orderly progress of social progressive innovation.
Which legal mode should be adopted to protect the algorithm is a problem worth paying attention to. It is necessary to take the United States as a mirror for the deficiency of domestic theoretical research. Considering the status quo of algorithm technology in China, we should protect the "white box" algorithm and the "gray box" algorithm with patent mode. "Black box" algorithm, "perception" algorithm and "strange" algorithm can plan and design freely by themselves, and lose effective control of human beings, becoming unpredictable and inexplicable. If the patent protection mode continues to be adopted to these three kinds of high order algorithm,it will have a deadly impact on the existing framework of the patent law and its detailed rules for the implementation. Therefore, the legal protection mode is no longer be considered, non-exclusive incentive mechanism should be adopted to reward the designers and developers of these three high-order algorithms, so as to enhance their enthusiasm for innovation and ensure the orderly progress of social progressive innovation.
引文
1.Mayo v.Prometheus,132 S.Ct.at 1298(citing 35 U.S.C.§101(2012).
2.Alice Corp.Pty.v.CLS Bank Int'l,134 S.Ct.2347,2358(2014).
3.吴汉东:《中国知识产权法律变迁的基本面向》,载《中国社会科学》2018第8期,第116页。
4.Andrew Tutt,An FDA For Algorithm.69 Administrative Law Review.84-123(2017).
5.W.Nicholson II Price,Black-Box Medicine,28 HARV,J.L.&TECH.419(2015).
6.Ariad Pharm.,Inc.v.Eli Lilly&Co.,598 F.3d 1351,(Fed.Cir.2010).
7.许竹:《微博的“信息茧房”效应及其思考》,载《新闻爱好者》2018年第2期,第55-58页。
8.Robert G.Bone,A New Look at Trade Secret Law:Doctrine in Search of Justification,86 CAL.L.REv.241,247-51(1998).
9.Kirsten Martin,Ethical Implications and Accountability of Algorithms,Journal of Business Ethics,6(2018).
10.MarkMacCarthy,Standards of Fairness for Disparate Impact Assessment of Big Data Algorithms.48 CUM.L.REV.67-147(2017).
11.David S.Levine,Secrecy and Unaccountability:Trade Secrets in Our Public Infrastructure,59 FLA.L.REV.135,170-77(2007).
12.David Stark,The Sense of Dissonance:Accounts of Worth in Economic Life,41VIL.L.REV.433-504.(2011).
13.Katherine Drabiak,Caveat Emptor.How the Intersection of Big Data and Consumer Genomics Exponentially Increases Informational Privacy Risks.27 Health Matrix.143-184.(2017).
2.Alice Corp.Pty.v.CLS Bank Int'l,134 S.Ct.2347,2358(2014).
3.吴汉东:《中国知识产权法律变迁的基本面向》,载《中国社会科学》2018第8期,第116页。
4.Andrew Tutt,An FDA For Algorithm.69 Administrative Law Review.84-123(2017).
5.W.Nicholson II Price,Black-Box Medicine,28 HARV,J.L.&TECH.419(2015).
6.Ariad Pharm.,Inc.v.Eli Lilly&Co.,598 F.3d 1351,(Fed.Cir.2010).
7.许竹:《微博的“信息茧房”效应及其思考》,载《新闻爱好者》2018年第2期,第55-58页。
8.Robert G.Bone,A New Look at Trade Secret Law:Doctrine in Search of Justification,86 CAL.L.REv.241,247-51(1998).
9.Kirsten Martin,Ethical Implications and Accountability of Algorithms,Journal of Business Ethics,6(2018).
10.MarkMacCarthy,Standards of Fairness for Disparate Impact Assessment of Big Data Algorithms.48 CUM.L.REV.67-147(2017).
11.David S.Levine,Secrecy and Unaccountability:Trade Secrets in Our Public Infrastructure,59 FLA.L.REV.135,170-77(2007).
12.David Stark,The Sense of Dissonance:Accounts of Worth in Economic Life,41VIL.L.REV.433-504.(2011).
13.Katherine Drabiak,Caveat Emptor.How the Intersection of Big Data and Consumer Genomics Exponentially Increases Informational Privacy Risks.27 Health Matrix.143-184.(2017).