公司数据权利民法保护初探

Preliminary Study on the Protection of Corporate Data Rights by Civil Law

摘要: 在互联网公司占据重要市场份额，物联网、智能制造或者工业等传统工业启动信息化进程之后，数据逐渐成为产业升级、智能化生产、跨区域经营等的新型交易和运行的基础。但当下的数据权益保护，更倾向于对于公民个人数据进行保护，而忽视了对于公司数据权益的保护，对于公司侵犯数据权利通常采取不当竞争的方式进行保护。此种模式下的保护机制存在以下缺陷，一是不能明确数据权利的权属，不能提供指引和规范作用，也不能全面保护公司数据；二是个人数据权利更侧重于隐私和人格权利保护，相对忽视数据的财产属性，而公司数据并非都是涉及人格和隐私权利，有程序在运行过程中自动生成的，也有匿名化处理的权利，还有不涉及个人属性的权利。笔者认为对于数据财产权益可以被纳入财产的保护范围，但没有相关立法进行规定。而《民法典》第126条、127条对于数据权利保护亦有回应空间，虽并未规定虚拟财产的客体、范围和内容，但相关司法解释和法规应该进行进一步规范。

Abstract: After Internet companies occupy an important market share and traditional industries such as the Internet of Things, intelligent manufacturing or industry start the informatization process, data gradually becomes the basis for new transactions and operations such as industrial upgrading, intelligent production and cross-regional operation. However, the current protection of data rights and interests is more inclined to protect the personal data of citizens, while ignoring the protection of the data rights and interests of companies. For the violation of data rights by companies, improper competition is usually adopted to protect. The protection mechanism in this mode has the following defects: First, it cannot clarify the ownership of data rights, provide guidance and regulation, and comprehensively protect the company’s data; Second, personal data rights pay more attention to the protection of privacy and personality rights, and relatively ignore the property attributes of data. However, not all corporate data are related to personality and pri-vacy rights, some of which are automatically generated in the process of operation, some of which are anonymized, and some of which are not related to personal attributes. The author believes that the rights and interests of data property can be included in the protection scope of property, but there is no relevant legislation to stipulate. Article 126 and 127 of the Civil Code also have room to respond to the protection of data rights. Although the object, scope and content of virtual property are not stipulated, relevant judicial interpretations and regulations should be further standardized.