美国大数据市场能否腾飞？

    当下，“大数据”获得了规模十分庞大的价值，这使得我们的商业世界站在了一个新行业的起点上。大量信息本身正在迅速演化成为一种资产类别，如同有着自己的生态系统、竞争动态和创新周期的软件和硬件一样。当然，相关法律问题也同样不可避免。

    全球政府和企业都在收集、存储和利用数据宝藏，并开发了复杂的计算方法，以便从这些数据中提取价值。例如，零售商对我们生活的记录比我们自己更加详尽。借助大量的顾客接触点，以及异常丰富的数据，零售商们甚至比消费者自己更早知道他们想要什么样的产品和服务。

    乍听起来，这些事实可能有些令人毛骨悚然。虽然零售商们没有违法，但人们仍在广泛讨论是否需要制定一些政策，以便在隐私、谨慎、社会认可和所有权与不可否认的大量商业机会之间寻求平衡。但是，暂且不论隐私问题，我们需要什么样的法律制度来确保这个新行业的成长，并提供最大的个人和公共价值呢？我们要让正在成长的大数据资产类别受制于丛林法则吗？或者，我们需要新的规则去促进大数据行业的成长，使美国成为世界上最有吸引力的大数据行业基地吗？这些并不仅仅是抽象的法律问题，而是与我们的专利权、商标权和版权（也就是知识产权）法直接相关的问题。

    在初期阶段，软件是随硬件销售而免费赠送的。短短几十年间，一个行业应运而生。随着这个行业的发展，我们的法律制度做出了相应改变，通过新的、不断发展的版权、专利权和商业秘密制度来促进这个行业的成长。如今，软件行业产值达数千亿美元，增长速度快、创新性高，并以极快的速度带来全新的消费者利益和挽救生命的机会。而美国几乎全面引领着整个软件行业的发展。

    很多人会说，美国的领导地位在很大程度上归因于美国的支持性知识产权法，因为这部法律在提供激励措施，促进对创新的投资与向第三方提供使用机会之间，取得了非常好的平衡。

    因此，参考软件行业的发展，可以公平地说，大数据行业风险很高，而且政策十分重要。但是，美国现行的知识产权体系内并不存在为调解大数据问题而量身定制的政策手段。然而，我们或许可以对知识产权法进行解释或重塑，使其在为数据行业提供最佳保护和激励措施的同时，实现社会利益的最大化。虽然我们现在还不具备大数据和知识产权之间相互作用的完整路线图，但是我们的确拥有一些可行的出发点。举例来说，我们的专利权和版权体系可以继续发挥其当前的作用——保护利用数据来获取价值的创造性方法（通过专利权）和数据本身的创造性（通过版权）。当然，还没有证据表明需要在这些领域实行更高或更低级别的保护措施，而有句老话说得好：如果东西还没坏，就不要去修。

    Our business world stands today at the threshold of a new industry, as “big data” gains value on a very big scale. Vast quantities of information are evolving rapidly into an asset class in its own right, akin to software and hardware with their own ecosystems and competitive dynamics and innovation cycles. And of course, legal issues.

    There are troves of data being collected and stored and used by governments and companies globally. Complex algorithms are being developed to extract value from all this data. Retailers, for example, have a more detailed account of our lives than we ourselves can access. With their massive number of customer touch points, they’re so data-rich that they know what products and services customers want before consumers even know it themselves.

    Some of this might sound a bit creepy. While retailers are not breaking any laws, there is much debate about the need for policies to harmonize privacy, prudence, social acceptance, and ownership with an undeniably massive business opportunity. But setting aside the privacy issues, what sort of legal regime do we need to ensure this new industry grows, and provides maximum private and public value? Do we leave the growing big data asset class to the law of the jungle? Or do we need new rules to foster growth and make our country the world’s most attractive home for the business of big data? These aren’t just abstract legal questions; they’re questions going directly to our patent, trademark, and copyright — intellectual property — laws.

    When software was in its nascent stages, it was given away for free to sell hardware. Over the course of a few short decades an industry emerged. And along with it our legal system adapted to foster growth through new and evolving copyright, patent, and trade secret regimes. Now, software is a multi-hundred-billion dollar industry enjoying rapid growth and innovation, delivering bright new consumer benefits and life-saving breakthroughs at warp speed. And the U.S. leads the software industry practically across the board.

    Many would say our country’s leadership is attributable in no small measure to our supportive intellectual property laws that have struck just the right balance between providing incentives for investment in innovation and providing access to third parties.

    So taking software as a guide, it is fair to say the stakes are high, and policy matters. But no existing policy device within our current intellectual property system is tailored to mediate big data. However, it may be possible to interpret or re-fashion our IP laws so that the best protections and incentives are afforded to the data industry and the maximum social good is realized. While we do not yet have a complete roadmap for the interplay between big data and IP, we do have a few viable starting points. For one, our patent and copyright systems can continue to play their current roles – protecting inventive ways to draw value from data (through patents) and the creative aspects of data (through copyrights). There is certainly no evidence that a much greater or lesser level of protection is called for in these areas, and there is wisdom in the old saw: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.