메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색
질문

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
저널정보
중앙법학회 중앙법학 중앙법학 제13집 제1호
발행연도
2011.3
수록면
373 - 406 (34page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색
질문

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
The rigid regulatory enforcement of Antitrust Law alone would wither the intellectual property rights system itself and cause the contraction of innovation. Thus, the standard of undue exercise of intellectual property has to be used in the purpose of intellectual property law. In this regard, the author strongly believes that Antitrust Law should be applied to regulate ``IP Misuse``. However, in reality, the Fair Trade Commission`s lack of expertise and manpower is predictable enough in the patent area of sharp conflict of technological ideologies. Therefore, the IP Misuse is bound to be a remedial relief in the enforcement of Antitrust Law. Many empirical studies of the economy warn that without competition, intellectual property rights would be strengthened excessively and rather slow the rate of innovation. The best innovation of intellectual property can be realized only when the protection of intellectual property is maintained proportionally spaced from the competition policy. Therefore, it is the author`s view that Antitrust Law needs to regulate the misuse of intellectual property rights. Particularly industries related to intellectual property are changing so fast that urgent relief measures will be essential. It is because it usually takes months or years before the Fair Trade Commission investigates and takes corrective actions, and the court decides on the case. Thus, there are high concerns on effectiveness and time. In addition, market timing is an absolutely critical matter in intellectual property-related industries. Where a potential market entrant is discouraged to enter into the market due to a collective refusal to deal with a potential competitor to market, the market enterpriser would have no choice but to abandon the relevant business unless the refusal to deal is banned immediately. So, the resulting damage in the form of compensation for damages is hard to prove it in practice since there is lack of economic motives in the claim to increase the chance of monetary damages. In light of this problem, Antitrust Law should introduce ``private action for injunction under Antitrust Law`` to allow the claim of those who are likely to be inflicted with injury or damage to the court to injunct the unlawful act. More over, Intellectual property rights are usually associated with the highly specialized area of the industrial sector and it is not easy for the Fair Trade Commission to recognize the violation of law. In other words, it is hard to find the best solution to promote competition. Accordingly, it is necessary to introduce the consent order to investigate and deliberate process of self-corrective measures proposed by enterprisers. When the competition authority recognizes the validity of the corrective measures, the competition authorities will close the case quickly without investigating the violation of law.

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (17)

참고문헌 신청

이 논문과 연관된 판례 (2)

  • 서울중앙지방법원 2009. 6. 11. 선고 2007가합90505 판결

    [1] 주된 상품에 종된 상품을 포함하여 판매한 행위가 결합판매행위에 해당하는지 여부를 판단함에 있어 주된 상품과 종된 상품이 별개 상품인지 여부는, 종된 상품이 주된 상품의 밀접 불가결한 구성요소인지 아니면 독립하여 거래의 대상이 될 수 있는 상품인지 여부를 종된 상품의 공급 현황이나 종된 상품 업계의 거래 관행을 기준으로 판단하되, 통상

    자세히 보기
  • 서울고등법원 2007. 12. 27. 선고 2007누8623 판결

    자세히 보기

이 논문의 저자 정보

이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0

UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2016-360-002580087