http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
- 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
- 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
RISS 인기검색어
- 검색키워드
- 저자 : 손태우(Shon Tae-Woo) (검색결과 3 건)
- 무료
- 기관 내 무료
- 유료
-
소프트웨어 국제라이센스계약상의 지적재산권에 대한 법적 연구
손태우(Shon Tae-Woo) 부산대학교 법학연구소 2002 법학연구 Vol.43 No.1
It is desirable to see that our computer-related companies have been recognized as leading ones for exporting their own-developed softwares around world. However, still some of them have a chilly perception about our intellectual property laws for international computer software license agreements. One important reason is a lack of knowledge about the Korean laws. Another is the idea that intelloctual property laws in the developed countries and international treaties are better to apply their contracts. However, considering the following reasons, they may realize that their perception is wrong to decide which law is better for their contract from international marketing point of view. Today, Korea has changed to come around to the recognition that computer software is just as worthy of protection as are any other invention in other areas of techNoogy. For example, Korea, like the U.S.A., has been in the forefront in developing the criteria for patentability of computer software. Of course, it is needless to say that a licensor for a computer software relies on the Korean copyright law for protection of his software. Futhermore, he can regard his software as a trademark or one of business secrets for its protection in the condition of satisfaction of its qualifications under the related Korean laws. Related to the license contract, when making customized software contract, note that there are some important issues to decide who is the owner of the software and what kinds of right a licensee will have.
-
孫泰宇(Shon Tae-Woo) 부산대학교 법학연구소 2001 법학연구 Vol.42 No.1
The traditional position of how to protect a personal information in the United States is to rely on industry self regulation. However, techNoogies of surveillance, data stalking and commercial profiling create wide spread concern about privacy in personal information. Furthermore, exiting legal rights canner be enough to protect American citizens against offensive data practices. Critics say that self regulation and technical mechanism are an inadequate substitute for legal rights. For assuring citizen privacy in this information society, some legal scholars and congressmen in the United States strongly suggest that Congress should enact new legislations to be on level with the internationally acclaimed OECD Guidelines. They also say that Congress should create so-called Data Protection Commission that promotes fair information practices in the United States. Although privacy began as an American concept at the end of the 19th century, the United States has lost its leadership role in defining privacy. Because the EU require each of its member states to harmonize data protection rights for citizens at a high level with a set of legal standards. In the absence of stronger legal protection, the United States is still vulnerable to trade war with the EU or other world trade partners. The safe harbor negotiated with the EU is not enough to resolve above issue. Therefore, it is said that Congress needs to act to establish a basic set of legal protections for privacy in the United States. Such legal norms should provide for minimum statutory damages in the event of violations as well as being a counterpart as European model of data privacy for guidance.
-
WTO 체제하의 미국 상계관세적용 방법론에 대한 법적 고찰
손태우(Shon Tae-Woo) 부산대학교 법학연구소 2007 법학연구 Vol.48 No.1
상계관세제도는 반덤핑제도와 함께 불공정무역관행을 저지하는 대표적인 무역구제제도이다. 세계 각국은 이러한 상계관세제도를 점차 활발히 이용하고 있는 추세이지만 미국은 이미 오랫동안 자국의 상계관세 법제도와 그 방법론을 적극 사용하고 있다. 이러한 사실은 미상계관세제도가 다른 무역구제수단보다 월등히 효율적이며 국제적 비난을 덜 받는다는 것을 반증한다. 문제는 미국의 상계관세적용 방법론이 특정시장을 기준으로 해서 그 시장내에서 활동해야 하는 정부역할에 관해 국수적이고 한정적인 시장경제원리를 적용한다는 사실이다. 이러한 방법론은 미국식 시장경제제도와 다른 어떠한 시장경제조직을 무시하는 것뿐만 아니라 나아가 이를 제재하고 있다. 이러한 상계조치는 자유무역주의의 활성화에 반하는 것으로 미국이 이것을 남발한다면 세계는 다시 신보 호무역주의로 회기할 수도 있는 중대한 문제이다. 특히 상계조치는 성격상 정부보조금이 조사대상이기 때문에 미정부가 상계관세 조치를 취한다는 것은 단순히 우리 수출업체를 조사하는 것이 아니고 우리정부의 국내산업정책을 조사하는 것이 되므로 언제나 일국의 주권침해소지를 가지고 있다. 유의해야 할 것은 미상계관세제도가 현행 SCM협정과 매우 유사한 내용을 가지고 있게 때문에 외관상으로 국제적 비난소지를 면할 수 있다는데 있다. 이는 미국이 동경라운드와 우루과이라운드에서 자국의 국내법을 GATT(WTO) 체제에 많이 반영하였기 때문이다. 그러나 미국의 상계관세법이 형식적인 외관내용이 SCM협정에 부합할 지라도 그 법을 적용하는 방법과 절차가 SCM협정에 위반될 수 있다. 즉 보조금에 대한 미국의 억제적 접근법과 미국식 시장시스템 접근법은 타국시장의 시스템과 다양성을 무시한 국수적 방법론이다. 따라서 미국의 상계관세조치에 대해 단순히 관련법령이 국제규범에 위반되었다고 주장할 것이 아니라 상계조치의 방법론이 국제적 승인을 받지 못한 국수적 방법론이라는 사실을 적극 입증하는데 주력해야 할 것이다. The United States has maintained the position that current U.S. methodology for determining countervailing subsidies need not be changed even though they has not legally recognized by GATT(WTO) panels. The US Administration basically looks for the market benchmark to determine whether the government intervention is consistent with commercial considerations for its loan or grants. However, the market benchmark is one which similar to the United States’s market. Thus, if the market were one difference to that assumed by the US Adminstration, the government behaviour allowed would be different and then be sanctioned. The second element of the Department of Commerce’s 'consistent with market considerations’ test is what kind of behaviour is permitted by the government. The matter is that the Commerce’s test is not concerned with the actual effects of the subsidy, but in fact interfering in the domestic structures of the foreign country when applying its test. Because any government action in the market which is not consistent with the rational behaviour of a market actor in a plural and individualist market will be considered as a countervailing subsidy. It is not simply requiring a policy of low governmental intervention but one which is in accordance with America’s own hands off policy. Through its countervailing duty methodology, the US Administration is globalising the American model. Countervailing duties are not only protectionist instruments but also a means by which the United States both establishes the agenda of the international trading system and interferes in the domestic structures of foreign countries in order to advantage its own domestic organization. The Commerce’s past 349 countervailing duty investigations were an example of United States’ broad consensus on trade policy. The duties resulting from them were adopted both to protect domestic industry and to promote the country’s export interests by moulding an international trading system into a reflection of the American way.
KCI연관 검색어 추천
이 검색어로 많이 본 자료
활용도 높은 자료
