欧盟法院作为创新者——网络判例法发展的新视角

Ulf Maunsbach
{"title":"欧盟法院作为创新者——网络判例法发展的新视角","authors":"Ulf Maunsbach","doi":"10.5817/MUJLT2017-1-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper I will use concepts from innovation theory to analyse the work of the  Court of Justice of the European Union in its important role as sole interpreter of EU law. In that regard, I define ‘innovator’ as one that facilitates use of new or existing inventions. Thus innovation is portrayed as a process in which several actors may contribute and where it all starts with an invention (the solution) and it ends with the innovation (the process of making use of the invention). The  Court of Justice of the European Union may be an inventor in as much as it is allowed to invent solutions in order to solve new or existing problems, and it may be innovative in as much as it hands down judgments that shall be followed (i.e. it makes use of the invention). The substance of the paper deals with case-law from the  Court of Justice of the European Union in the field of cross-border infringements. The cases will be analysed in relation to the idea that legal decision-making can be described as an innovative process. An approach like this makes it possible to draw conclusions regarding the  Court of Justice of the European Unions ability to innovate. It will be apparent that the  Court is primarily concerned with so called reactive innovation (i.e. innovation that builds on existing knowledge). Only in exceptional circumstances do we find examples where the Court has proved to conduct in proactive innovation (i.e. inventing and applying new solutions) and this may, according to the author, prove to be a preferred standard. Better to drive safely than to drive in the ditch.","PeriodicalId":38294,"journal":{"name":"Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology","volume":"11 1","pages":"77-101"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The CJEU as an Innovator – a New Perspective on the Development of Internet Related Case-law\",\"authors\":\"Ulf Maunsbach\",\"doi\":\"10.5817/MUJLT2017-1-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this paper I will use concepts from innovation theory to analyse the work of the  Court of Justice of the European Union in its important role as sole interpreter of EU law. In that regard, I define ‘innovator’ as one that facilitates use of new or existing inventions. Thus innovation is portrayed as a process in which several actors may contribute and where it all starts with an invention (the solution) and it ends with the innovation (the process of making use of the invention). The  Court of Justice of the European Union may be an inventor in as much as it is allowed to invent solutions in order to solve new or existing problems, and it may be innovative in as much as it hands down judgments that shall be followed (i.e. it makes use of the invention). The substance of the paper deals with case-law from the  Court of Justice of the European Union in the field of cross-border infringements. The cases will be analysed in relation to the idea that legal decision-making can be described as an innovative process. An approach like this makes it possible to draw conclusions regarding the  Court of Justice of the European Unions ability to innovate. It will be apparent that the  Court is primarily concerned with so called reactive innovation (i.e. innovation that builds on existing knowledge). Only in exceptional circumstances do we find examples where the Court has proved to conduct in proactive innovation (i.e. inventing and applying new solutions) and this may, according to the author, prove to be a preferred standard. Better to drive safely than to drive in the ditch.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38294,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"77-101\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-06-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5817/MUJLT2017-1-5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5817/MUJLT2017-1-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在本文中,我将使用创新理论中的概念来分析欧盟法院作为欧盟法律唯一解释者的重要作用。在这方面,我将“创新者”定义为促进新发明或现有发明的使用。因此,创新被描述为一个过程,在这个过程中,几个参与者可能会做出贡献,而这一切都始于一项发明(解决方案),并以创新(利用发明的过程)结束。欧洲联盟法院可能是一个发明家,只要它被允许发明解决方案来解决新的或现有的问题,它可能是创新的,只要它发布了应遵循的判决(即它利用了发明)。该文件的实质内容涉及欧洲联盟法院在跨界侵权领域的判例法。将根据法律决策可以被描述为一个创新过程的想法来分析这些案件。这样的方法可以得出关于欧盟法院创新能力的结论。显而易见,法院主要关注所谓的被动创新(即建立在现有知识基础上的创新)。只有在特殊情况下,我们才能找到法院被证明积极创新(即发明和应用新的解决方案)的例子,根据作者的说法,这可能被证明是一个首选标准。开车安全总比在沟里开好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The CJEU as an Innovator – a New Perspective on the Development of Internet Related Case-law
In this paper I will use concepts from innovation theory to analyse the work of the  Court of Justice of the European Union in its important role as sole interpreter of EU law. In that regard, I define ‘innovator’ as one that facilitates use of new or existing inventions. Thus innovation is portrayed as a process in which several actors may contribute and where it all starts with an invention (the solution) and it ends with the innovation (the process of making use of the invention). The  Court of Justice of the European Union may be an inventor in as much as it is allowed to invent solutions in order to solve new or existing problems, and it may be innovative in as much as it hands down judgments that shall be followed (i.e. it makes use of the invention). The substance of the paper deals with case-law from the  Court of Justice of the European Union in the field of cross-border infringements. The cases will be analysed in relation to the idea that legal decision-making can be described as an innovative process. An approach like this makes it possible to draw conclusions regarding the  Court of Justice of the European Unions ability to innovate. It will be apparent that the  Court is primarily concerned with so called reactive innovation (i.e. innovation that builds on existing knowledge). Only in exceptional circumstances do we find examples where the Court has proved to conduct in proactive innovation (i.e. inventing and applying new solutions) and this may, according to the author, prove to be a preferred standard. Better to drive safely than to drive in the ditch.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
9
期刊最新文献
Addressing Evolving Digital Piracy Through Contributory Liability for Copyright Infringement: The Mobdro Case Study (Un)lock and (Un)loaded: Regulating 3D-Printed Firearms in the Open-source Era after the 2013 Hysteria Patent-Eligible Invention Requirement Under the European Patent Convention and its Implications on Creations Involving Artificial Intelligence Cybersecurity: Notorious, but Often Misused and Confused Terms How the Two Child Abuse Cases Helped to Shape the Test of Originality of Photographic Works
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1