知识产权证券化中资产池问题研究
|
摘要
知识产权证券化自1997年的鲍伊债券开创以来，已经蓬勃发展了十几年，其在推动知识产权融资方面发挥了重要的作用。在知识产权证券化的结构化运作过程中，资产池的构造处于核心的地位。知识产权证券化中的资产池，是由一系列的基础资产通过一定的资产重组技术构成的，它构造的优劣，直接关系到最终能否对证券投资者进行偿本付息和实现知识产权融资之目的。它在证券化过程中，承担有分散单个基础资产之风险，稳定资产收益，确保资产池现金流量的稳定性和可持续性的职能。
知识产权证券化中的资产池，从最开始只对单一的基础资产进行证券化逐渐发展成为对群组化的基础资产进行证券化，最具有代表性的案例就是耶鲁大学Zerit药物专利证券化案。随着商业经济的不断发展，企业为了追求更大的规模和更高的利润，于是便将其触角伸向了对未来债权的商业化运作，商业的发展不断的刺激着法律的改变，美、日等国最终承认了未来债权的可让与性。在知识产权证券化中则表现为对既有的现金流量的证券化转变为对未来现金流量的证券化。
本文试图开始从资产池的组成问题进行分析，借鉴美国已有的证券化案例，展开对资产池中的基础资产、资产池的构造原则、步骤以及注意事项等问题的分析。此外，本文还试图详尽的展开对未来债权可让行性的分析，以此来解决资产池未来债权证券化之问题。
具体来说，本文共分为四部分。其中，第一部分主要介绍了知识产权证券化中的资产池组成。通过对资产池中基础资产的定义、基本特征和类型的分析，对基础资产的选择标准进行了确定。本文认为资产池是由一系列的基础资产所组成的，要组建符合证券化标准的资产池，首先必须对基础资产进行明确的界定；其次，通过对基础资产的详细分析，得出商业秘密不可以作为证券化之基础资产的结论；再次，证券化之要求资产池需产生稳定的、可预期的现金流量，因此，按其要求对基础资产的选择标准进行了明晰。
第二部分主要介绍了知识产权证券化中资产池的构造。首先，需要明确资产池构造的基本原则；其次，应逐步地展开对其构造步骤的分析，并指出在资产池的构造过程中，要竭力避免不同资产之间的相互冲突以及相应的法律、法规的限制；再次，通过对资产池和SPV之间关系的分析，明晰SPV在资产池构造过程中的破产风险隔离职能。以此，可以使得被转移证券化之基础资产的信用与发起人相分离，从而得以保障证券化之顺利进行。
第三部分主要介绍了知识产权证券化中资产池的变动。资产池变动的方式主要有更新、让与和信托三种方式。其中，更新只得为合同权利义务的更新，且当合同一方或双方当事人人数众多时，一一的进行更新将会增加证券化之成本，不利于证券化目的之实现；让与是最常见的资产池变动方式，其适用于民法中关于债权让与的理论与规定；信托因其具有信托财产独立性的特性，因此，该方式非常符合证券化之要求。但是在大陆法系中的绝对所有权制度不符合证券化之要求，因此，许多采取大陆法系的国家采取单独的信托立法来解决这一问题。
第四部分主要介绍了知识产权证券化中资产池未来债权。当今商业的发展程度已促使着对未来债权可让与性的承认，而我国还尚未对其未来债权进行正式承认。在该部分中，笔者分析了未来债权的类型，以及承认其可让与性的意义，通过对知识产权证券化和未来债权之间关系的分析，得出知识产权未来债权如未来的作品版权收入等可为进行证券化以及其在让与中应遵循一般债权让与的规则的结论。
Since the inception of the1997Bowie bonds, securitization of intellectual property rights have beenbooming over ten years.It played an important role in promoting intellectual property financing. In thecourse of the operation of the IP securitization structure, the structure of the asset pool in the position of thecore. Securitization of intellectual property rights in the asset pool is constituted by a series of underlyingassets through asset restructuring, which constructs the pros and cons, is directly related to the ultimateinvestors in securities subordinated this payment of interest and intellectual property The purpose of thefinancing. In the securitization process, assume the risk of dispersion of a single underlying asset, stablereturn on assets, to ensure the stability and sustainability of the functions of cash flows of the asset pool.
Pool of assets in the securitization of intellectual property rights from the very beginning, only a singleunderlying asset securitization gradually developed into a group of assets to be securitized, the mostobvious case is the Yale University Zerit drug patent securitization case. With the continuous developmentof the commercial economy, in order to pursue a larger scale and higher profits, so they have their tentaclesextended to the commercial operation of future claims, commercial development continue to stimulatechange in the law, the United States. Japan and other countries finally recognized the claims allows.Performance of existing securities into cash flow for the securitization of future cash flows in thesecuritization of intellectual property rights.
This paper attempts to analyze the composition of the asset pool, learn from the United States havesecurities cases, expand the pool of assets underlying asset, the analysis of the construction principles of theasset pool, steps and precautions. In addition, we also attempt to detail the commencement of the claims inthe future allow the line of analysis, in order to solve the problem of the asset pool of debt securities of
Specifically, this paper is divided into four parts. The first part of pool of assets in the securitization ofintellectual property rights. The definition of the asset pool of the underlying asset, the basic characteristicsand types of analysis carried out to determine the selection criteria of the underlying asset. I believe that theasset pool is composed of a series of underlying asset, to the formation of securitization of standard assetspool, you must first be clearly defined on the underlying assets; Secondly, through a detailed analysis of the underlying asset obtained for securitization of the underlying asset; again the requirements of thesecuritized pool of assets required to produce a stable, predictable cash flows, therefore, their requirementswere clear selection criteria of the underlying asset.
The second part introduces the structure of the securitization of intellectual property rights in the assetpool. First, the basic principles of a clear pool of assets constructed; Secondly, we should gradually expandits constructor step analysis, and noted that during construction of the asset pool, we must all strive to avoidconflict between different assets and the corresponding legal regulations restrictions; again, through theanalysis of the relationship between the asset pool and the SPV, to draw the risk of bankruptcy of the SPVin the construction process of the asset pool isolation functions. This, it can make credit and promoters ofthe transfer of the underlying asset securitization phase separation, thus allowing the smooth progress of theprotection of securitization.
The third part describes the changes in the pool of assets in the securitization of intellectual propertyrights. Asset pool changes, updates, and trust in three ways. Among them, the update only for thecontractual rights and obligations of the update, and when the contracting party or parties the number oflarge, one by one update will increase the cost of securitization is not conducive to the realization of thepurpose of securitization; let and is the most common assets characteristics of the pool changes in the wayit applies to the civil law on claims for the theory and rules; trust because of the independence of the trustproperty, the way very much in line with the requirements of the securitization. However, the absoluteownership in civil law system does not meet the requirements of the securitization, so many countries totake the civil law to take a separate trust legislation to solve this problem.
The fourth part introduces the pool of assets in the securitization of intellectual property rights claims.The degree of development in today's business has led to claims in the future allows the recognition andsexual, while China is not yet on its future claims official recognition. In this section, the author analyzesthe type of future claims, as well as recognition allows with the meaning, through the analysis of therelationship between intellectual property securitization and future claims, obtained intellectual propertyfuture claims such as the future of copyright income for securitization and to be followed in the generalclaims for the rules and the conclusion.
知识产权证券化中的资产池，从最开始只对单一的基础资产进行证券化逐渐发展成为对群组化的基础资产进行证券化，最具有代表性的案例就是耶鲁大学Zerit药物专利证券化案。随着商业经济的不断发展，企业为了追求更大的规模和更高的利润，于是便将其触角伸向了对未来债权的商业化运作，商业的发展不断的刺激着法律的改变，美、日等国最终承认了未来债权的可让与性。在知识产权证券化中则表现为对既有的现金流量的证券化转变为对未来现金流量的证券化。
本文试图开始从资产池的组成问题进行分析，借鉴美国已有的证券化案例，展开对资产池中的基础资产、资产池的构造原则、步骤以及注意事项等问题的分析。此外，本文还试图详尽的展开对未来债权可让行性的分析，以此来解决资产池未来债权证券化之问题。
具体来说，本文共分为四部分。其中，第一部分主要介绍了知识产权证券化中的资产池组成。通过对资产池中基础资产的定义、基本特征和类型的分析，对基础资产的选择标准进行了确定。本文认为资产池是由一系列的基础资产所组成的，要组建符合证券化标准的资产池，首先必须对基础资产进行明确的界定；其次，通过对基础资产的详细分析，得出商业秘密不可以作为证券化之基础资产的结论；再次，证券化之要求资产池需产生稳定的、可预期的现金流量，因此，按其要求对基础资产的选择标准进行了明晰。
第二部分主要介绍了知识产权证券化中资产池的构造。首先，需要明确资产池构造的基本原则；其次，应逐步地展开对其构造步骤的分析，并指出在资产池的构造过程中，要竭力避免不同资产之间的相互冲突以及相应的法律、法规的限制；再次，通过对资产池和SPV之间关系的分析，明晰SPV在资产池构造过程中的破产风险隔离职能。以此，可以使得被转移证券化之基础资产的信用与发起人相分离，从而得以保障证券化之顺利进行。
第三部分主要介绍了知识产权证券化中资产池的变动。资产池变动的方式主要有更新、让与和信托三种方式。其中，更新只得为合同权利义务的更新，且当合同一方或双方当事人人数众多时，一一的进行更新将会增加证券化之成本，不利于证券化目的之实现；让与是最常见的资产池变动方式，其适用于民法中关于债权让与的理论与规定；信托因其具有信托财产独立性的特性，因此，该方式非常符合证券化之要求。但是在大陆法系中的绝对所有权制度不符合证券化之要求，因此，许多采取大陆法系的国家采取单独的信托立法来解决这一问题。
第四部分主要介绍了知识产权证券化中资产池未来债权。当今商业的发展程度已促使着对未来债权可让与性的承认，而我国还尚未对其未来债权进行正式承认。在该部分中，笔者分析了未来债权的类型，以及承认其可让与性的意义，通过对知识产权证券化和未来债权之间关系的分析，得出知识产权未来债权如未来的作品版权收入等可为进行证券化以及其在让与中应遵循一般债权让与的规则的结论。
Since the inception of the1997Bowie bonds, securitization of intellectual property rights have beenbooming over ten years.It played an important role in promoting intellectual property financing. In thecourse of the operation of the IP securitization structure, the structure of the asset pool in the position of thecore. Securitization of intellectual property rights in the asset pool is constituted by a series of underlyingassets through asset restructuring, which constructs the pros and cons, is directly related to the ultimateinvestors in securities subordinated this payment of interest and intellectual property The purpose of thefinancing. In the securitization process, assume the risk of dispersion of a single underlying asset, stablereturn on assets, to ensure the stability and sustainability of the functions of cash flows of the asset pool.
Pool of assets in the securitization of intellectual property rights from the very beginning, only a singleunderlying asset securitization gradually developed into a group of assets to be securitized, the mostobvious case is the Yale University Zerit drug patent securitization case. With the continuous developmentof the commercial economy, in order to pursue a larger scale and higher profits, so they have their tentaclesextended to the commercial operation of future claims, commercial development continue to stimulatechange in the law, the United States. Japan and other countries finally recognized the claims allows.Performance of existing securities into cash flow for the securitization of future cash flows in thesecuritization of intellectual property rights.
This paper attempts to analyze the composition of the asset pool, learn from the United States havesecurities cases, expand the pool of assets underlying asset, the analysis of the construction principles of theasset pool, steps and precautions. In addition, we also attempt to detail the commencement of the claims inthe future allow the line of analysis, in order to solve the problem of the asset pool of debt securities of
Specifically, this paper is divided into four parts. The first part of pool of assets in the securitization ofintellectual property rights. The definition of the asset pool of the underlying asset, the basic characteristicsand types of analysis carried out to determine the selection criteria of the underlying asset. I believe that theasset pool is composed of a series of underlying asset, to the formation of securitization of standard assetspool, you must first be clearly defined on the underlying assets; Secondly, through a detailed analysis of the underlying asset obtained for securitization of the underlying asset; again the requirements of thesecuritized pool of assets required to produce a stable, predictable cash flows, therefore, their requirementswere clear selection criteria of the underlying asset.
The second part introduces the structure of the securitization of intellectual property rights in the assetpool. First, the basic principles of a clear pool of assets constructed; Secondly, we should gradually expandits constructor step analysis, and noted that during construction of the asset pool, we must all strive to avoidconflict between different assets and the corresponding legal regulations restrictions; again, through theanalysis of the relationship between the asset pool and the SPV, to draw the risk of bankruptcy of the SPVin the construction process of the asset pool isolation functions. This, it can make credit and promoters ofthe transfer of the underlying asset securitization phase separation, thus allowing the smooth progress of theprotection of securitization.
The third part describes the changes in the pool of assets in the securitization of intellectual propertyrights. Asset pool changes, updates, and trust in three ways. Among them, the update only for thecontractual rights and obligations of the update, and when the contracting party or parties the number oflarge, one by one update will increase the cost of securitization is not conducive to the realization of thepurpose of securitization; let and is the most common assets characteristics of the pool changes in the wayit applies to the civil law on claims for the theory and rules; trust because of the independence of the trustproperty, the way very much in line with the requirements of the securitization. However, the absoluteownership in civil law system does not meet the requirements of the securitization, so many countries totake the civil law to take a separate trust legislation to solve this problem.
The fourth part introduces the pool of assets in the securitization of intellectual property rights claims.The degree of development in today's business has led to claims in the future allows the recognition andsexual, while China is not yet on its future claims official recognition. In this section, the author analyzesthe type of future claims, as well as recognition allows with the meaning, through the analysis of therelationship between intellectual property securitization and future claims, obtained intellectual propertyfuture claims such as the future of copyright income for securitization and to be followed in the generalclaims for the rules and the conclusion.
引文
①参见魏振灜.民法[M].北京：北京大学出版社、高等教育出版社，2007：09.
②甘勇.资产证券化的法律问题比较研究[D].武汉：武汉大学，2008：10.
①参见宋鱼水.数次转让著作权引发的法律问题与思考[C].民法九人行（4）.北京：法律出版社，2010：202—210.
①董涛.知识产权证券化制度研究[M].北京：清华大学出版社，2009：155.
①[古罗马]盖尤斯.法学阶梯[M].黄风译.北京：中国政法大学出版社，1998：90.
①丘汉平.罗马法[M].北京：中国方正出版社，2004：388.
②于海涌.论英美信托财产双重所有权在中国的本土化[M].北京：现代法学，2010，32（3）.
①王利明，崔建远.合同法新论总则[M]，北京：中国政法大学出版社，1996：427.
②杨明刚.合同转让轮[M]，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2006：84.
①参见申建平.债权让与制度研究——以让与通知为中心[M].北京：法律出版社，2008：133—134.
①史尚宽.债法总论[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社，2000：676—677.
[1]董涛.知识产权证券化制度研究[M].北京：清华大学出版社，2009.
[2]安森.李艳译.知识产权价值评估基础[M].北京：知识产权出版社，2009.
[3]沈炳熙.资产证券化中国的实践[M].北京：北京大学出版社，2008.
[4]刘向东.资产证券化的信托模式研究[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社，2007.
[5]洪艳荣.资产证券化法律问题研究[M].北京：北京大学出版社，2004.
[6]申建平.债权让与制度研究——以让与通知为中心[M].北京：法律出版社，2008.
[1]艾毓斌，黎志成.知识产权证券化：知识资本与金融资本的有效融合[J].研究与发展管理,2004，16（3）.
[2]汤珊芬，程良友.知识产权证券化探析[J].科学管理研究,2006，24（4）.
[3]李建伟.知识产权证券化：理论分析与应用研究[J].知识产权,2006，(1).
[4]谢黎伟.美国的知识产权融资机制及其启示[J].科技进步与对策,2010，27（24）.
[5]余振刚，邱菀华，余振华.我国知识产权证券化理论与发展策略研究[J].科学研究,2007，25（6）.
[6]胡彬彬.知识产权证券化[J].东方企业文化·公司与产业,2010，(8).
[7]孙春伟.知识产权证券化的制度缺失与完善[J].学术交流,2010，09(9).
[8]钟瑞栋.知识产权证券化风险防范的法律对策[J].厦门大学学报（哲学社会科学版），2010，(198).
[9]朱雪忠，黄光辉.知识产权证券化中基础资产的选择研究[J].科技与法律,2009，(1).
[10]陶红武.知识产权证券化中知识产权资产转让的法律问题探析[J].甘肃金融,2010，(10).
[11]张婉菁.知识产权证券化中资产池的构建[J].科技创业月刊,2006，(19).
[12]李艺，王仁文，彭小宝.自主知识产权流通不畅的原因及对策探析[J].中国市场,2010，(36).
[13]崔聪聪.债权让与融资的法律障碍及其克服[J].政法论坛,2011，29（1）.
[14]郑琳.资产证券化之信息披露制度研究[J].厦门大学学报（哲学社会科学版），2005，（102）.
[15]钟基立.知识产权证券化的机遇与风险[J].西北第二民族学院学报（哲学社会科学版）,2007，(6).
[16]杜蓓蕾，安中业.知识产权信托初探[J].法学杂志,2006，(5).
[17]郭玉军，甘勇.论我国资产证券化中特殊目的机构的法律构建[J].经济法学·劳动法学（人大报刊复印资料）,2003，(9).
[18]覃有土，陈雪萍.知识产权信托：知识产权运作机制[J].法学论坛,2006，(1).
[19]纪光兵，陈玉强.知识产权证券化——知识产权开发和金融融资的双重创新[J].商业现代化,2008，(1).
[20]申建平.论未来债权让与[J].求是杂志,2007，（3）.
[21]孔利强.知识产权证券化若干问题探析——兼论我国知识产权证券化的对策建议[J].环渤海经济嘹望，2012，（01）.
[22]黄光辉，徐筱箐.知识产权证券化中资产池的构建策略研究——以风险控制为中心[J].经济问题，2011，（02）.
[1]胡国爱.知识产权证券化的法律问题研究[D].厦门：厦门大学，2008.
[2]陈武刚.知识产权证券化相关制度与法律风险研究[D].烟台：烟台大学，2010.
[3]张宏宇.知识产权证券化在中国的应用研究[D].合肥：中国科学技术大学，2009.
[4]夏龙保.知识产权证券化法律问题研究[D].济南：山东大学，2011.
[5]王昌环.知识产权证券化风险隔离机制法律问题研究[D].重庆：西南政法大学，2010.
[6]高雪.中国知识产权证券化问题研究[D].北京：中国社会科学院研究生院，2010.
②甘勇.资产证券化的法律问题比较研究[D].武汉：武汉大学，2008：10.
①参见宋鱼水.数次转让著作权引发的法律问题与思考[C].民法九人行（4）.北京：法律出版社，2010：202—210.
①董涛.知识产权证券化制度研究[M].北京：清华大学出版社，2009：155.
①[古罗马]盖尤斯.法学阶梯[M].黄风译.北京：中国政法大学出版社，1998：90.
①丘汉平.罗马法[M].北京：中国方正出版社，2004：388.
②于海涌.论英美信托财产双重所有权在中国的本土化[M].北京：现代法学，2010，32（3）.
①王利明，崔建远.合同法新论总则[M]，北京：中国政法大学出版社，1996：427.
②杨明刚.合同转让轮[M]，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2006：84.
①参见申建平.债权让与制度研究——以让与通知为中心[M].北京：法律出版社，2008：133—134.
①史尚宽.债法总论[M].北京：中国政法大学出版社，2000：676—677.
[1]董涛.知识产权证券化制度研究[M].北京：清华大学出版社，2009.
[2]安森.李艳译.知识产权价值评估基础[M].北京：知识产权出版社，2009.
[3]沈炳熙.资产证券化中国的实践[M].北京：北京大学出版社，2008.
[4]刘向东.资产证券化的信托模式研究[M].北京：中国财政经济出版社，2007.
[5]洪艳荣.资产证券化法律问题研究[M].北京：北京大学出版社，2004.
[6]申建平.债权让与制度研究——以让与通知为中心[M].北京：法律出版社，2008.
[1]艾毓斌，黎志成.知识产权证券化：知识资本与金融资本的有效融合[J].研究与发展管理,2004，16（3）.
[2]汤珊芬，程良友.知识产权证券化探析[J].科学管理研究,2006，24（4）.
[3]李建伟.知识产权证券化：理论分析与应用研究[J].知识产权,2006，(1).
[4]谢黎伟.美国的知识产权融资机制及其启示[J].科技进步与对策,2010，27（24）.
[5]余振刚，邱菀华，余振华.我国知识产权证券化理论与发展策略研究[J].科学研究,2007，25（6）.
[6]胡彬彬.知识产权证券化[J].东方企业文化·公司与产业,2010，(8).
[7]孙春伟.知识产权证券化的制度缺失与完善[J].学术交流,2010，09(9).
[8]钟瑞栋.知识产权证券化风险防范的法律对策[J].厦门大学学报（哲学社会科学版），2010，(198).
[9]朱雪忠，黄光辉.知识产权证券化中基础资产的选择研究[J].科技与法律,2009，(1).
[10]陶红武.知识产权证券化中知识产权资产转让的法律问题探析[J].甘肃金融,2010，(10).
[11]张婉菁.知识产权证券化中资产池的构建[J].科技创业月刊,2006，(19).
[12]李艺，王仁文，彭小宝.自主知识产权流通不畅的原因及对策探析[J].中国市场,2010，(36).
[13]崔聪聪.债权让与融资的法律障碍及其克服[J].政法论坛,2011，29（1）.
[14]郑琳.资产证券化之信息披露制度研究[J].厦门大学学报（哲学社会科学版），2005，（102）.
[15]钟基立.知识产权证券化的机遇与风险[J].西北第二民族学院学报（哲学社会科学版）,2007，(6).
[16]杜蓓蕾，安中业.知识产权信托初探[J].法学杂志,2006，(5).
[17]郭玉军，甘勇.论我国资产证券化中特殊目的机构的法律构建[J].经济法学·劳动法学（人大报刊复印资料）,2003，(9).
[18]覃有土，陈雪萍.知识产权信托：知识产权运作机制[J].法学论坛,2006，(1).
[19]纪光兵，陈玉强.知识产权证券化——知识产权开发和金融融资的双重创新[J].商业现代化,2008，(1).
[20]申建平.论未来债权让与[J].求是杂志,2007，（3）.
[21]孔利强.知识产权证券化若干问题探析——兼论我国知识产权证券化的对策建议[J].环渤海经济嘹望，2012，（01）.
[22]黄光辉，徐筱箐.知识产权证券化中资产池的构建策略研究——以风险控制为中心[J].经济问题，2011，（02）.
[1]胡国爱.知识产权证券化的法律问题研究[D].厦门：厦门大学，2008.
[2]陈武刚.知识产权证券化相关制度与法律风险研究[D].烟台：烟台大学，2010.
[3]张宏宇.知识产权证券化在中国的应用研究[D].合肥：中国科学技术大学，2009.
[4]夏龙保.知识产权证券化法律问题研究[D].济南：山东大学，2011.
[5]王昌环.知识产权证券化风险隔离机制法律问题研究[D].重庆：西南政法大学，2010.
[6]高雪.中国知识产权证券化问题研究[D].北京：中国社会科学院研究生院，2010.