Under the essential facilities doctrine, a company which has a dominant position in the provision of facilities which are essential for rivals to use in order to compete should allow them to access to those facilities. This doctrine is dev...

http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A76453679
2007
-
360
KCI등재
학술저널
1-32(32쪽)
6
0
상세조회0
다운로드다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)
Under the essential facilities doctrine, a company which has a dominant position in the provision of facilities which are essential for rivals to use in order to compete should allow them to access to those facilities. This doctrine is dev...
Under the essential facilities doctrine, a company which has a dominant position in the provision of facilities which are essential for rivals to use in order to compete should allow them to access to those facilities. This doctrine is developed on the basis of the leveraging theory, tracing back to United States v. Terminal Railroad Association. Since Terminal Railroad Association, this doctrine has been applied to a wide variety of business contexts. Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Co. affirmed the judgment of a Section 2 violation where a monopolist ski company discontinued its long-standing practice of cooperating with a competitor to offer a multi-day ski pass. However, the Supreme Court of the United States has never recognized this doctrine. In Verizon Communications, Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, the Supreme Court ignored the expansive possibilities of Aspen Skiing Co. to function as a case for stare decisis. The Supreme Court’s 2004 Trinko decision took a significantly different view on the refusal to deal, expressing skepticism about the existence of an essential facilities doctrine because monopoly power is “an important element of the free-market system.” The Trinko case suggests that a monopolist"s burden to share a certain facilities with a rival may decrease incentives for the monopolist to invest in economically beneficial facilities. Thus, this case tells us that Korea’s governmental authorities and courts should adopt a narrow interpretation of when unilateral refusals to deal are inappropriate.
목차 (Table of Contents)
참고문헌 (Reference)
1 "필수설비이론에 의한 라이센스 거절의 규제" 한국경영법률학회 16 (16): 2005
2 "필수설비의 법리에 관한 연구" 2005
3 "열연코일시장에서의 포항종합제철㈜의 거래거절행위에 대한 경제분석 보고서" 2001
4 "독점규제법쟁점과 판례" 홍문사 2005
5 "네트워크 산업의 필수설비원리와 경쟁정책" 산업연구원 2001
6 "공정거래법상 필수설비법리의 현황과 과제- 심결례 및 판례를 중심으로" 한국상사판례학회 2006
7 "계약체결강제" 한국민사법학회 1986
8 "계약자유원칙론 형성소고" 21세기 국제정경연구원 1997
9 "경제법 제5판" 법문사 2005
10 "경제법 4정판" 법원사 2005
1 "필수설비이론에 의한 라이센스 거절의 규제" 한국경영법률학회 16 (16): 2005
2 "필수설비의 법리에 관한 연구" 2005
3 "열연코일시장에서의 포항종합제철㈜의 거래거절행위에 대한 경제분석 보고서" 2001
4 "독점규제법쟁점과 판례" 홍문사 2005
5 "네트워크 산업의 필수설비원리와 경쟁정책" 산업연구원 2001
6 "공정거래법상 필수설비법리의 현황과 과제- 심결례 및 판례를 중심으로" 한국상사판례학회 2006
7 "계약체결강제" 한국민사법학회 1986
8 "계약자유원칙론 형성소고" 21세기 국제정경연구원 1997
9 "경제법 제5판" 법문사 2005
10 "경제법 4정판" 법원사 2005
11 "米における不可欠施設理論の現在" 商事法務 (821) : 2005
12 "獨占寡占規制見直し報告書につい" 商事法務 (776) : 2004
13 "日米占禁止法" 商事法務 2005
14 "日米EUの禁法と競政策-グロバル下の企業競ルル 第3版" 林書院 2006
15 "平成16年占禁止法改正をめぐる論点─措置系と不可欠施設" 商事法務 (778) : 2004
16 "占禁止法の改正と議論の緯" 有斐閣 (1270) : 2004
17 "不可欠施設の法理の占禁止法の意義について~米國法ㆍEC 法及びドイツ法を手がかりとして" 一橋大學 4 : 2005
18 "エッセンシャルㆍファシリテイの死最新アメリカ合衆國最高裁判所判決「ベライゾントリンコ 事件の紹介 [上]" 國際商事法務 32 (32): 2004
19 "Wireless Communications and Computing at a Crossroads: New Paradigms and Their Impact on Theories Governing the Public's Right to Spectrum Access" 3 : 239-, 2005
20 "Unilateral Refusals to Deal under Section 2 of the Sherman Act" 63 : 749-, 1995
21 "Unilateral Refusal to License" 2 : 1-, 2006
22 "The Theory of Natural Monopoly" 1982
23 "The Law of Competition and Its Practice" 1994
24 "The Law of Antitrust: An Integrated Handbook" 2000
25 "The Essential Facilities Doctrine under U.S. Antitrust Law" 70 : 443-, 2002
26 "The Essential Facilities Doctrine and Intellectual Property Rights: A Response to Pitofsky, Patterson and Hooks" 70 : 847-, 2003
27 "The Antitrust Law of the United States: A Study of Competition Enforced by Law 2d ed" 1970
28 "The Antitrust Enterprise: Principle and Execution" 2005
29 "Standards Ownership and Competition Policy" 48 : 87-, 2007
30 "Present and Future Antitrust Enforcement at the Federal Trade Commission" 72 : 209-, 2005
31 "No Shortcut to Antitrust Analysis: The Twisted Journey of the ‘Essential Facilities’ Doctrine" 1996 : 1-, 1996
32 "Law and Economics of the Essential Facility Doctrine" 32 : 433-, 1987
33 "Defining Better Monopolization Standards" 56 : 253-, 2003
34 "Antitrust Law: Economic Theory & Common Law Evolution" 2003
35 "Antitrust Law: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles and Their Application" Supp 1995
36 "Antitrust Law Developments 5th ed" 2002
37 "An Epithet in Need of Limiting Principles" 1989
건축물의 하자와 도급인의 위자료청구권 - 일본 판례의 분석을 중심으로
학술지 이력
| 연월일 | 이력구분 | 이력상세 | 등재구분 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2027 | 평가 | 재인증평가 신청대상 (재인증) | |
| 2021-01-01 | 등재 | 등재학술지 유지 (재인증) | ![]() |
| 2018-01-01 | 등재 | 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) | ![]() |
| 2015-01-01 | 등재 | 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) | ![]() |
| 2011-01-01 | 등재 | 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) | ![]() |
| 2009-01-01 | 등재 | 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) | ![]() |
| 2007-01-01 | 등재 | 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) | ![]() |
| 2004-01-01 | 등재 | 등재학술지 선정 (등재후보2차) | ![]() |
| 2003-01-01 | 등재 | 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) | ![]() |
| 2002-01-01 | 등재 | 등재후보학술지 유지 (등재후보1차) | ![]() |
| 2000-07-01 | 등재 | 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) | ![]() |
학술지 인용정보
| 기준연도 | WOS-KCI 통합IF(2년) | KCIF(2년) | KCIF(3년) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2016 | 1.11 | 1.11 | 1.07 |
| KCIF(4년) | KCIF(5년) | 중심성지수(3년) | 즉시성지수 |
| 0.99 | 0.99 | 1.176 | 0.45 |