我国商业秘密举证制度有违商业秘密本质

商业秘密保护明显不同于专利，两者形成鲜明的对照。专利是以公开技术方案的代价，换取一定期限内的保护，其权利边界相对清晰和保护强度大，但保护期限经过之后即进入公有领域。

商业秘密是一种通过自己保密的方式进行保护的法律权利，其优点是在商业秘密不公开的前提下，可以永久保持和持续享有权利，就像可口可乐公司对其配方已拥有百余年商业秘密那样。而且，商业秘密权益的门槛低，保护范围广。

当然，有其利必有其弊，商业秘密因具有秘密性、不公示性以及一旦公开即丧失权利等特性，其权利又具有天然的脆弱性，保护权利也会遭遇举证难等问题。这种利弊参半恰恰是商业秘密的本来属性。

对于权利人而言，选择商业秘密就意味着要接受其利弊，在享受其优势的同时也不能完全规避其风险。尽管可以尽可能趋利避害，但世间从没有只取其利而舍其弊的道理。

对于权利保护而言，法律只能根据其保护客体本身的属性确定恰当的和相应的制度，并充分注意制度设计中的利益平衡和不偏不倚。法律不可能超越事物本身的本性，而设计一种只有其利没有其弊的商业秘密制度，因为果真如此，受保护的那种客体就不再是商业秘密了。

对于所谓的举证难、保护难等呼声，应当理性地分析和对待，要看这是否是保护制度本身所固有的和无法避免的，固有的和不能避免的保护短板不能通过立法和人为的制度设计去彻底改变，否则会背离事物的本质和颠覆制度本身，扭曲和谐平衡的利益关系。

法律的完善和执法措施只有建立在尊重事物本身的性质和平衡好利益关系的基础上，保护权利首先要看是否有真正的权利，所谓过分的亲权利必然打破平衡，同样不利于营造整个社会的创新环境。

立法者和法律实施者需要倾听和重视权利人的声音，但也不能漠视相对方的正当利益，尤其是不能为纷扰的和不理性的社会情绪所左右。尤其是，有些国家对于商业秘密保护是持双重标准的，对于中国的一些制度要求甚至远远超过了其国内标准，或者打破了国际惯常标准，对此更应该理性对待和不能盲从。

Trade secret protection is distinctly different from patents, and the two are in stark contrast. A patent is the price of disclosing technical solutions in exchange for protection within a certain period of time. Its rights have relatively clear boundaries and strong protection, but after the protection period has passed, it enters the public domain.

A trade secret is a legal right that is protected by its own secrecy. The advantage is that the rights can be permanently maintained and continuously enjoyed on the premise that the trade secret is not disclosed, just like the Coca-Cola Company has owned the trade secret of its formula for more than 100 years. That way. Moreover, the threshold for trade secret rights and interests is low and the scope of protection is wide.

Of course, there are pros and cons. Trade secrets have the characteristics of confidentiality, non-publicity, and loss of rights once they are disclosed, and their rights are naturally fragile, and the protection of rights will also encounter problems such as difficulty in producing evidence. This mixed pros and cons is precisely the nature of trade secrets.

For the right holder, choosing a trade secret means accepting its advantages and disadvantages, and cannot completely avoid its risks while enjoying its advantages. Although it is possible to seek advantages and avoid disadvantages as much as possible, there is never a reason to only take advantage and give up disadvantages.

For the protection of rights, the law can only determine the appropriate and corresponding system according to the nature of the object of protection itself, and pay full attention to the balance of interests and impartiality in the design of the system. It is impossible for the law to transcend the nature of the thing itself, and to design a trade secret system with only its advantages and no disadvantages, because if this is the case, the protected object is no longer a trade secret.

The so-called difficult to provide evidence and difficult to protect should be rationally analyzed and treated to see if this is inherent and unavoidable in the protection system itself, and the inherent and unavoidable protection shortcomings cannot be passed through legislation and artificial systems. Design to change completely, otherwise it will deviate from the essence of things and subvert the system itself, distorting the harmonious and balanced interest relationship.

The improvement of laws and enforcement measures can only be established on the basis of respecting the nature of things and balancing interests. The protection of rights first depends on whether there are real rights. The so-called excessive pro-rights will inevitably break the balance, and it is also not conducive to creating a social environment. innovation environment.

Legislators and law implementers need to listen to and pay attention to the voices of rights holders, but they must not ignore the legitimate interests of the other party, especially not to be swayed by turbulent and irrational social emotions. In particular, some countries hold double standards for the protection of trade secrets, and some of China's system requirements even far exceed its domestic standards, or break international conventional standards, which should be treated rationally and not blindly followed.