法院和学者们越来越把知识产权假定为一种财产权,并将HaroldDemsetz和其他财产权理论分析家的经济分析观点运用到知识产权中而谴责搭便车行为。在本文中,作者提出财产权的经济分析理论如此适用是根本错误的。财产权的经济分析关注的是负外部性的内在化,这种负外部性即某人对土地的使用伤害另一个人的利益,正如人们所熟悉的共有地悲剧。但是知识产权的外部性是正的,不是负的;而且财产权理论没有为正外部性的内在化提供合理解释。事实上,这么做与市场运作及市场逻辑相冲突。以此为基本观点,作者继续解释了为什么在知识产权案件中搭便车是可取的,只有在特定情形下,为鼓励创作而必须遏制搭便车行为。作者解释了为什么经济分析理论已经证明,太多的保护和不充分保护一样糟糕,因此,知识产权必须寻求一种平衡,而不是找出搭便车者。最后,作者分析,如果用其他喻指名词来代替一种错误的有形财产意义上的知识产权概念,我们是否会做得更好。 Courts and academics are increasingly assuming that intellectual property is a property right and condemning free riding by applying the economic analysis of Harold Demsetz and other property rights analysts to intellectual property. In this paper, the author put forward the theory of economic analysis of property rights is so wrong to apply. The economic analysis of property rights focuses on the internalization of negative externality, which is the use of one's land for the benefit of another, as is common to all tragedies. However, the externality of intellectual property is positive, not negative; and property rights theory does not provide a reasonable explanation for the internalization of positive externality. In fact, this conflicts with market operations and market logic. From this basic point of view, the author goes on to explain why it is desirable to catch up in intellectual property cases, and only in certain situations must curb free-riding to encourage creativity. The authors explain why economic analysis theory has proven that too much protection is as bad as inadequate protection and that intellectual property must therefore seek a balance rather than finding free-riders. Finally, the author analyzes whether we can do better if we use other metaphors to replace the notion of a wrongly tangible intellectual property.