摘要
在确定标准必要专利许可费这一难题上,现有的主要方法都有其局限性。相较而言,通过可比较交易来确定许可费由于具有体现市场行为的基本理念、简化判断过程和提高结果被接受程度的优势而在实务中被广泛采用。但是,通过可比较交易来判断许可费的过程中容易被忽视的一个问题在于,专利费确认的过程也是法官的认知过程,由于法官的裁判总是处于纠纷发生以后,因此会受到事后之明偏见的影响而不利于判决的公正性和合理性。在华为诉IDC案中,法院从事后判断苹果公司智能手机的成功是必然发生的事件,忽略了许可协议签订时的市场风险,典型地体现了这一认知偏差。尽管不能完全消除事后之明偏见,但从现有的理论研究成果出发,通过判决书的充分说理以及对被告抗辩理由的全面回应,可以在很大程度上降低事后之明偏见的不利影响。
The current mainstream methods of calculating SEP＇s royalties all have their own limits. The widely applied approach for practitioners, i.e. using benchmarks based on comparable royalties, has comparative advantages in embodying market mechanism, simplifying decision-making process and raising the degree of acceptance. However, an often-ignored downside of this approach is related to the fact that the process of determining royalty is also the process of cognition of adjudication. Within such a process judges are easily affected by hindsight bias since they review the alleged facts ex post, thus leading to decisions deviating from justice and rationality. In the case of Huawei v. IDC, the court＇s decision was based on the fact that Apple Inc. had achieved success in the smartphone market, and hence ignored the initial market risks when the license agreement was reached. This case exactly showcased such a cognitive bias. Although hindsight bias cannot be eliminated completely, recent research demonstrates that a detailed reasoning and a comprehensive analysis of defendant＇s arguments should be able to significantly reduce the risks thus caused.
出处
《中外法学》
CSSCI
北大核心
2017年第1期230-249,共20页
Peking University Law Journal
基金
上海交通大学文理交叉重点项目"标准必要专利的反垄断法规制研究"
上海市"曙光计划"的阶段性成果
作者简介
上海交通大学凯原法学院教授。
