학술논문
지적재산권 라이센스의 배타적 조건에 대한 독점금지법의 위법성 판단 - 독점금지법의 동태적 효율성 분석을 중심으로
이용수 137
- 영문명
- The determination of illegality for the exclusive licensing conditions of IP under antitrust law
- 발행기관
- 한국사법학회(구 한국비교사법학회)
- 저자명
- 오승한(Seung-Han Oh)
- 간행물 정보
- 『비교사법』比較私法 제13권 제1호, 741~788쪽, 전체 48쪽
- 주제분류
- 법학 > 법학
- 파일형태
- 발행일자
- 2006.03.01
8,560원
구매일시로부터 72시간 이내에 다운로드 가능합니다.
이 학술논문 정보는 (주)교보문고와 각 발행기관 사이에 저작물 이용 계약이 체결된 것으로, 교보문고를 통해 제공되고 있습니다.
국문 초록
영문 초록
This thesis will show how to analyze intellectual property (hereinafter "IP") proprietors" exclusive IP exercise under antitrust analysis, which is supposed to prevent the IP right causing anticompetitive effect in a relevant market from being enforced. Based on a previously published thesis showing the ultimate purpose of IP law by the concept of "dynamic efficiency", thereby identifying three major IP policies designed to achieve the purpose, this thesis is derived to illuminate the role of antitrust law to determine explosive IP exercise.
Antitrust law hasbeen used as the legal limitation for the exploitative IP licensing practices because contract law would be reluctant to intervene in voluntary agreed legal terms despite their restrictive characteristics. However, appropriate limitation for applying antitrust law to IP exercise has been discussed. Considering the independent purpose and policies of IP law, both bodies of laws are understood to partially overlap with each other, but each law has own itsdistinctive purpose and policies; while antitrust law focuses on allocative efficiency, IP law emphasizes dynamic efficiency. For this reason, allowing antitrust law to be applied to IP restrictive practices may still cause the interface problem between IP law and antitrust law. That interface problem should be circumvented in antitrust analysis by considering the necessity of granting private reward protected by the IP reward policy in analyzing the restraint"s effect against allocative efficiency.
In conclusion, the legal IP excludability justified by IP policies may be the critical tool of IP laws to promote more competition and dynamic efficiency in the future despite its anticompetitive effect temporarily decreasing allocative efficiency in the present. Some IP restraints allowed by IP laws to incentivise innovative projects ultimately may contribute to increasing the possibility of potential competitors" entry into the innovation market because, otherwise, som e critical developm ents of technologies would not have been made and consumers could not have had any choices to benefit them. In antitrust analysis, such contribution could be determined as one of the important procompetitive effects for a justification to reverse the presumptive illegality of exclusive IP exercise by an IP proprietor. Therefore, the necessity of granting private reward protected by the IP reward policy should be considered in analyzing the restraint"s effect against allocative efficiency under antitrust law. If this is done, the conflict problem between IP law and antitrust law may be avoided appropriately.
Antitrust law hasbeen used as the legal limitation for the exploitative IP licensing practices because contract law would be reluctant to intervene in voluntary agreed legal terms despite their restrictive characteristics. However, appropriate limitation for applying antitrust law to IP exercise has been discussed. Considering the independent purpose and policies of IP law, both bodies of laws are understood to partially overlap with each other, but each law has own itsdistinctive purpose and policies; while antitrust law focuses on allocative efficiency, IP law emphasizes dynamic efficiency. For this reason, allowing antitrust law to be applied to IP restrictive practices may still cause the interface problem between IP law and antitrust law. That interface problem should be circumvented in antitrust analysis by considering the necessity of granting private reward protected by the IP reward policy in analyzing the restraint"s effect against allocative efficiency.
In conclusion, the legal IP excludability justified by IP policies may be the critical tool of IP laws to promote more competition and dynamic efficiency in the future despite its anticompetitive effect temporarily decreasing allocative efficiency in the present. Some IP restraints allowed by IP laws to incentivise innovative projects ultimately may contribute to increasing the possibility of potential competitors" entry into the innovation market because, otherwise, som e critical developm ents of technologies would not have been made and consumers could not have had any choices to benefit them. In antitrust analysis, such contribution could be determined as one of the important procompetitive effects for a justification to reverse the presumptive illegality of exclusive IP exercise by an IP proprietor. Therefore, the necessity of granting private reward protected by the IP reward policy should be considered in analyzing the restraint"s effect against allocative efficiency under antitrust law. If this is done, the conflict problem between IP law and antitrust law may be avoided appropriately.
목차
Ⅰ. 서론
Ⅱ. IP행사와 관련된 독점금지법 적용의 문제점
Ⅲ. 독점금지법의 분배적 효율성 보호와 IP 시장 보호의 역할
Ⅳ. IP법의 지속적 혁신정책에 대한 독점금지법의 평가
Ⅴ. 결론
[참고문헌]
【ABSTRACT】
Ⅱ. IP행사와 관련된 독점금지법 적용의 문제점
Ⅲ. 독점금지법의 분배적 효율성 보호와 IP 시장 보호의 역할
Ⅳ. IP법의 지속적 혁신정책에 대한 독점금지법의 평가
Ⅴ. 결론
[참고문헌]
【ABSTRACT】
키워드
해당간행물 수록 논문
- 간행사
- 정보수집물 보호에 관한 미국의 입법과 판례 동향에 관한 연구
- 外部監査人의 職務權限과 責任에 관한 批判的 檢討
- 지적재산권 라이센스의 배타적 조건에 대한 독점금지법의 위법성 판단 - 독점금지법의 동태적 효율성 분석을 중심으로
- 企業金融에 있어서의 後順位債(Subordinated Debt)에 관한 연구 - 우리나라의 최근 발행현황과 관련한 비교법적 검토
- 디지털콘텐츠 표시제도 개선 방안에 관한 연구
- “지연이자 및 부당이득으로서의 이자”에 대한 지연배상청구권
- 노동분쟁과 대체적 분쟁해결방안 - 우리나라에서 노동분쟁해결의 현황과 과제를 중심으로
- 프랑스법에서의 강제건축책임보험제도의 전개과정과 현황
- 取得時效에서의 占用權과 相當性
- ADR을 통한 지적재산권분쟁 해결의 현황과 개선책
- 프로젝트 금융(Project Financing)의 활성화를 위한 법제도 개선에 관한 연구
- 가사조정제도의 문제점과 과제
- 代案的 紛爭解決制度(ADR)의 經濟學 - 環境紛爭調停制度에 대한 評價를 中心으로
- 상속재산의 파산에 관한 고찰
- 기관투자가의 경영개입
- 醫療紛爭과 ADR
- 민법상의 Obliegenheit에 관한 연구 - Reimer Schmidt의 학설을 중심으로
- 현행 남녀고용평등법의 간접차별 규정에 대한 비교법적 고찰
- 학회활동 현황(2005.1.1 - 2006.3.31) 외
- 독일 금융산업에서의 겸업주의의 최근 동향
- 準占有의 개념과 법적 의의
- 眞正名義回復을 위한 所有權移轉登記請求
참고문헌
관련논문
최근 이용한 논문
교보eBook 첫 방문을 환영 합니다!
신규가입 혜택 지급이 완료 되었습니다.
바로 사용 가능한 교보e캐시 1,000원 (유효기간 7일)
지금 바로 교보eBook의 다양한 콘텐츠를 이용해 보세요!