Legal Discussion on Internet Platform Data Ownership Governance
Journal of Information Security Reserach ›› 2022, Vol. 8 ›› Issue (4): 408-.
Previous Articles
Online:
Published:
王凌月;
上海200444
通讯作者:
作者简介:
Abstract: The twodimensional fire v. Meituan unfair competition dispute triggered a “3Q war” in the SaaS field. The two courts made completely opposite judgments on the same case. The source of the contradiction lies in the failure to determine the ownership of the property rights of Internet platform data clear. Under the premise that my country has not established data rights, there are many dilemmas in the solution of establishing data rights, which can easily lead to legal rigidity, which is not conducive to the good operation of the market. In the field of competition law, many principles coexist, and the criteria for identification are vague. Therefore, this issue should be resolved within the current legal framework, and from the perspective of competition law, five factors that affect the ownership of Internet platform data property rights should be considered: the nature of user data, the degree of contribution of Internet platform to data, the subjective purpose and substantive effects of data obtained by thirdparty platforms and the actual effect of using the data and after the data rights are divided, the impact of consumer interests, market competition order and social public interests will be reviewed and determined.Key words data; ownership of rights; Internet platform; unfair competition; five factor analysis
Key words: data, ownership of rights, Internet platform, unfair competition, five factor analysis
摘要: 二维火诉美团不正当竞争纠纷案引发了一场SaaS领域的“3Q大战”,两法院针对同一案情却作出完全相反的判决,其矛盾的根源在于对互联网平台数据的财产权益归属认定不清.在我国尚未设立数据权的前提下,以设立数据权为进路的解决方式存在诸多困境,易导致法律僵化反而不利于市场的良好运行.而竞争法领域内多原则并存,认定标准模糊不清.因此,应在现行法律框架内解决该问题,从竞争法视角考量影响互联网平台数据财产权益归属的5个因素:用户数据的性质、互联网平台对数据的贡献程度、互联网平台加工数据的用途、第三方平台获取数据的主观目的和实质效果以及以数据权益划分后对消费者利益、市场竞争秩序和社会公共利益的影响进行审查和认定.关键词数据;权益归属;互联网平台;不正当竞争;五因素分析
关键词: 数据, 权益归属, 互联网平台, 不正当竞争, 五因素分析
王凌月, . 互联网平台数据权属治理的法律探讨[J]. 信息安全研究, 2022, 8(4): 408-.
0 / / Recommend
Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX
URL: http://www.sicris.cn/EN/
http://www.sicris.cn/EN/Y2022/V8/I4/408
[1]浙江省杭州市中级人民法院. (2018)浙01民初3166号民事判决书[OL]. [20211124]. https:wenshu.court.gov.cnwebsitewenshu181107ANFZ0BXSK4index.html?docId=826e1387fc4a4a498e62aaff00a0cbb5[2]北京市知识产权法院. (2018)京73民初960号民事判决书[OL]. [20211124]. https:wenshu.court.gov.cnwebsitewenshu181107ANFZ0BXSK4index.html?docId=9e878d 36da564bbd9d0fac8c000a0494[3]杨翱宇. 数据财产权益的归属判定[JOL]. 重庆大学学报: 社会科学版. [20211124]. http:kns.cnki.netkcmsdetail50.1023.c.20200326.1617.002.html[4]蒋爱群. 经济与法律——科斯四大定律猜想民商法建议900条[M]. 北京: 中央编译出版社, 2014[5]梅夏英. 在分享和控制之间 数据保护的私法局限和公共秩序构建[J]. 中外法学, 2019, 31(4): 845870[6]郭若昕. 互联网企业商业数据保护研究[J]. 保定学院学报, 2020, 33(6): 2126[7]纪海龙. 数据的私法定位与保护[J]. 法学研究, 2018, 40(6): 7291[8]龙卫球. 数据新型财产权构建及其体系研究[J]. 政法论坛, 2017, 35(4): 6377[9]上海知识产权法院. (2016)沪73民终242号民事判决书[OL]. [20211124]. https:wenshu.court.gov.cnwebsitewenshu181107ANFZ0BXSK4index.html?docId=41dbc22 67514473886a6a7f90124a13c[10]中华人民共和国最高人民法院. (2014)民申字第873号民事裁定书[OL]. [20211124]. https:wenshu.court.gov.cnwebsitewenshu181107ANFZ0BXSK4index.html?docId=ec8c35a1b4924cb0946e692f454261cc[11]宋亚辉. 网络干扰行为的竞争法规制——“非公益必要不干扰原则”的检讨与修正[J]. 法商研究, 2017, 34(4): 91100[12]北京市第一中级人民法院. (2011)一中民终字第7512号民事判决书[OL]. [20211124]. http:shlx.pkulaw.cncasepfnl_a25051f3312b07f38c6113f2056b0f15d522b1046aa0e07 0bdfb.html?keywords=%E7%AC%AC24463%E5%8F%B7&match=Exact[13]刘佳欣. 反不正当竞争法视角下的流量劫持——以流量劫持典型案例为分析样本[J]. 法律适用, 2019 (18): 8088