척수수막류를 동반한 감염성 요막관난종 1례

정진근,소석호,최낙규 한림대학교의료원 1989 人間科學 Vol.13 No.6

인공지능시대의 SW특허적격성에 대한 미국의 대응과 시사점–2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance를 중심으로–

정진근 강원대학교 비교법학연구소 2019 江原法學 Vol.57 No.-

The USPTO has issued a guidance for new SW patent eligibility judgments in 2019, which explains that the new guidance is to clarify Alice case’s 2 step test and not the new Rulemaking. Nevertheless, we suspect that the scope of the SW patent eligibility has been broadened for the AI ​​and Bigdata industries. It is because that when the 2A test is split into two prongs, it is recognized as a SW patent eligibility if it is integrated into the practical application of Abstract Ideas, which can be recognized as a new step to bypass the invention concept required in step 2B. In this respect, we can read the USPTO’s willingness to broaden the scope of SW patent eligibility. This trend is expected to affect many countries including Korea, and it is expected that the impacts on the development of AI and Bigdata industry, which are the main technologies of the 4th Industrial Revolution, are expected to be greater. Nevertheless, considering that the 2019 Guidance does not deny Alice’s decision that the SW invention is process-invention in essence, the future study should focus on the criteria of SW patent eligibility related to the establishment of process-invention. Therefore, the Korean Intellectual Property Office and academia need to present the criteria of the SW invention eligibility for process-invention, regardless of the controversy over the invention of the medium or the invention of the machine. 미국 특허상표청은 2019년 새로운 SW특허적격성 판단을 위한 가이드라인을 내놓았는데, 새로운 가이드라인은 Alice판결의 2단계 테스트를 명확히 하는 목적을 위한 것이며 새로운 룰메이킹은 아니라고 설명하고 있다. 그럼에도 불구하고 미국 문헌들은 인공지능과 빅데이터 산업을 위해 SW특허적격성의 범위를 넓힌 것으로 생각하고 있으며, 2단계 테스트 중 2A를 두 갈래로 나눔으로써 추상적인 아이디어들의 실재적인 응용으로 통합되는 경우에는 SW특허적격성을 인정하고 있고, 이는 결국 2B단계에서 요구하는 발명적 개념을 우회할 수 있는 새로운 단계라는 점에서 SW특허적격성의 범위를 넓히려는 미국 특허상표청의 의지를 읽을 수 있다. 이와 같은 미국의 흐름은 우리나라를 포함한 여러 나라에 영향을 미칠 것으로 예상되며, 제4차 산업혁명의 주요 기술인 인공지능기술과 빅데이터기술의 발전에 미치는 영향은 더욱 클 것으로 예상된다. 그럼에도 불구하고, 2019 가이드라인은 SW발명과 관련한 향후 연구는 SW발명의 성립성과 관련된 SW특허적격성의 기준에 초점을 맞추어야 할 것이다. 이에 따라 우리 특허청실무 및 학계 역시 매체발명 또는 물건의 발명에 대한 논쟁을 떠나 방법발명에 대한 구체적인 SW발명적격성의 기준을 제시할 필요가 있다.

협업저작물 창작과 관련된 저작권법적 문제와 해결방안

정진근 한국경영법률학회 2014 經營法律 Vol.24 No.2

User Created Contents or User Generated Contents are developed on the growth of computing system, internet network and media-creating tools. In addition to the growth of UCC or UGC, text-based cooperative portals and group-based aggregation websites also are developing. So, we should interpret legal issues on collaborative works to fulfill the will of new style creators of copyrightable works. By the view of business such as social network theory and resource theory, collaborative work system is expected to develop copyright work industry. None the less, Copyright Act only has the statutes for joint work, secondary work and we need to solve many legal issues from collaborative works by contracts. Among legal issues, we have to solve the legal issues related to contract on internet, interpretation method related to joint works and warranty from defects of collaborative works. First, we can expect to solve contract-related issues on internet would be solved on theories but the contents of contract should keep the political copyright act's purposes. Second, we should interpret the statutes for joint work more flexibly. So, we should consider the creator's intention for collaborative work system and make the rights to be belonged to the creators on their intention. But we should to go deep into the study for the validity of warranty in contract because the warranty clauses could be valid against 3'rd party. So, collaborative work system provider should develop the filtering system to filter the illegal copyrighted works and divide the responsibility between material provider and collaborative work system provider on the principle of equity. Also, we should develop copyright act suitable for the new environment of creating system and IT technology such as cloud computing services on the view of OSP liability.

블록체인과 가상화폐 : 허와 실

정진근 철학문화연구소 2021 철학과 현실 Vol.130 No.-

표절과 저작권, 무엇이 문제인가?

정진근,유충권 한국경영법률학회 2007 經營法律 Vol.18 No.1

【Abstract】 Plagiarism and Copyright, What is the problem? Jeong, Jin-Keun ․You, Chung-Kweon Although plagiarism becomes a social issue, many opinions are being described about the definition and the scope of plagiarism and make confusion. Especially, many opinions are described whether the plagiarism includes only the infringement of copyright and whether the plagiarism is an ethical subject but are ambiguous, all of these. There are many conceptions which are similar to plagiarism, such as parody, pastiche, homage, self-plagiarism, copy of material belong to public domain, research fraud and etc. In spite of that, court deals with the plagiarism only as the matter of infringement of copyright because there is no appropriate legal system for plagiarism and similar conceptions except for Copyright Act. Therefore, public opinions are asking us to make regulations against the plagiarism and various similar conceptions. We should aware of the importance of the a preventive measure against plagiarism and the various patterns of the plagiarism. Also, we should consider the influence and appropriateness of punishment against the plagiarism. And all researchers and scholars should make every effort to maintain the respect of the public.

표절에 대한 사회적 인식과 비난가능성

정진근 한국경영법률학회 2009 經營法律 Vol.19 No.4

The definition of Plagiarism is the theft of others' idea, processes, result or record without the permission. On the other hand, social recognition for the plagiarism include the self plagiarism, redundant publication/duplicate publication and research misconduct as research fabrication and research falsification for the definition of plagiarism. Among these types of plagiarisms, copyright infringement brings about legal issues and many cases by courts can lead the solution of settlement of disputes. But problems on self plagiarism, redundant publication/duplicate publication and research misconduct as research fabrication and research falsification can not be settled under the present legal system. This is the why many social debates are continuing in the public. However, self plagiarism, redundant publication/duplicate publication and research misconduct as research fabrication and research falsification are considered as the very same ethical plagiarism or the inappropriate behavior. Scholars will agree that we can blame for these new types of plagiarism. This is the social mutual consent, I think so. None the less, we should recognize that we could not agree that all new types of research misconduct should be punished because some area of new types of research misconduct is allowed for advance of culture or culture diffusion. So, We must set standards and a criterion on the area to be accused of cheating for new types of research misconduct. Also, the way of sanction for research misconduct can be advised by several ways, but most efficient way to prevent the research misconduct is the institutional autonomy. However, local regulations may be different from each other, and we should present the guidelines the common criteria for all types of plagiarism and research misconduct.

법경제학적 관점에서 본 지적재산권 독점배타권의 정당성 -공정사용의 원칙을 중심으로-

정진근 한국정보법학회 2011 정보법학 Vol.15 No.3

Intellectual property law system is based on the concept of ‘infinite property’ as “intellectual property is infinite just like human being’s desire”. So, intellectual property law system should be different from the Law of Realty system. To explain the special feature of Intellectual property, the theory of the dynamic efficiency based on Law and Economics have been developed in so much period. The theory of the dynamic efficiency is explaining the objects of Intellectual property law as the view of policy making and searching for public interests by the maintenance of steady innovation. As on the basis of the theory of the dynamic efficiency, policy of compensation, policy of access right and the other policies have been developed for dynamic efficiency. If the benefits of right owner are not bigger than the benefits of public or the advantages of right owner are less than the loss of contractual costs of users, then the right should not be treated as the rightful thing. So we should compare the benefits of right owner and the benefits of public and the advantages right owner’s exclusive right and the loss of contractual costs of users. Also, we should resume one’s infringement only when the property damage occur but if there is no any property damage we should treat those kind of behaviors are innocent. When some property damage occurs, then the intellectual property right owner should prove the damage of Intellectual property on those behaviors. After then they should demand the protests based on the fair use doctrine. 지적재산권법은 “인간의 욕망이 무한한 것과 같이 지적재산 역시 무한하다”는 전제를 가지고 출발한다. 이렇듯 희소성이 존재하지 않는 지적재산권의 존재의의를 설명하여온 이론으로 대표적인 이론은 ‘동태적 효율성론(theory of the dynamic efficiency)’이 있다. 동태적 효율성론은 지적재산권제도의 존재의의를 정책적 관점에서 설명하고 있다. 즉, 지적재산권의 정책목표를 ‘지속적인 혁신의 유지’에 의한 공공이익의 증가에 있다고 보고, ‘지속적 혁신’을 통한 동적 효율성의 증진이라는 지적재산권법의 기본 목적으로부터 지적재산권 정책들인 보상정책, 정보접근 보장정책 및 자유진입보장정책들이 도출될 수 있다. 따라서 공유(公有)이던 지적재산을 독점화시킴으로써 발생되는 교섭비용 등 제반비용에 비해 창작장려가 갖는 동태적 이익이 더 큰 경우에 한해 지적재산권법제도의 정당성이 인정된다는 것이므로, 지적재산권의 제한은 동태적 이익과 독점으로 인한 비용을 비교함으로써 이루어져야 할 것이다. 따라서, 저작재산권 침해는 이용행위에 의하여 저작권자의 경제적 손해가 발생되었을 때 비로소 완성되는 것으로 해석되어야 하며, 이러한 관점에서 재산적 손해가 없는 지적재산권의 침해는 존재하지 않는 것으로 해석되어야 한다. 아울러, 재산적 손해가 있는지의 여부는 지적재산권자가 입증하여야 하며, 이러한 입증이 있는 때에 비로소 이용자에게 공정사용의 항변을 요구하여야 할 것이다.

자기표절 및 중복게재에 관한 판례의 태도에 대한 비판 - 대법원 2016. 10. 27. 선고 2015다5170 판결에 대한 평석 -

정진근 한국경영법률학회 2019 經營法律 Vol.29 No.2

Korean Supreme Court presented the criteria for plagiarism in the decision to invalidate the dismissal of a doctoral degree holder, and proposed the criteria as self-plagiarism and duplication as a atypical plagiarism that is seriously deviated from the acceptable scope in academia. However, this ruling should be criticized in that research misconduct belonged to the ethical domain as a matter of research ethics, that the demands and levels raised by ethical standards varied, that the diversity of academic specificities, and the criteria set by the Supreme Court will be influenced as at least standards. In particular, self-plagiarism is not a type of research misconduct in the Ministry of Education's Ethics Guidelines, which is evaluated as an outcome of academic consensus, and duplicate publication is also not regarded as research misconduct. Considering these points, the Supreme Court's judgment is contrary to academic consensus, and it is thought that it will have a negative influence on academic research in the future. It should be noted that this is a judgment that takes into account the specificity of the case, but that the case will be generalized and will provide the criteria for all similar cases. Research ethics standards should be trusted by the academic community and left to academia, and the discussions of political circles should not have too much influence on academia. 대법원은 박사학위소지자의 해고무효확인판결에서 표절에 대한 기준을 제시하는 한편, 자기표절과 중복게재를 비전형적 표절 내지 학계에서 용인되는 범위를 심각하게 벗어나는 행위라고 하면서 그 기준을 구체적으로 제시하였다. 그러나 이와 같은 대법원 판결은 연구부정행위가 연구윤리의 문제로서 윤리적 영역에 속하며, 윤리적 기준에 따라 제기되는 요구와 수준이 다양하고, 학문적 특수성을 고려해야 한다는 점, 그리고 대법원에서 제시한 기준은 향후 최소 기준으로 영향을 끼칠 것이라는 점을 고려할 때 부적절한 것으로 평가될 수 있다. 특히, 자기표절은 학계의 합의에 의한 결과물로 평가되는 교육부 연구윤리지침에서 연구부정행위로 보지 않는 유형이며, 중복게재 역시 부당한 이익이 없는 중복게재는 연구부정행위로 보지 않고 있다. 이러한 점을 고려할 때, 대법원의 판결은 학계의 합의에 반하는 것으로서 향후 학문연구에 부정적인 영향을 끼칠 수 있을 것으로 생각된다. 대상판결은 해당 사건의 특수성을 고려한 판결이지만, 판례는 일반화되어 모든 사건에 그 기준을 제시할 것이라는 점을 간과해서는 안 된다. 연구윤리기준은 학계를 신뢰하고 학계에 맡겨두어야 하며, 정치권의 논의가 학계에 지나친 영향을 미치게 해서는 안 된다.

이시송신의 의의와 정책방향 - WIPO SCCR의 논의를 중심으로 -

정진근 한국지식재산학회 2019 産業財産權 Vol.- No.61

Deferred transmission is a problem triggered by the convergence of broadcasting and communication. Although the convergence of broadcasting and telecommunications has emerged as an important issue before and after 1990, it seems that the copyright law system has not succeeded enough to properly reflect such changes. In the meantime, these changes were discussed in more detail in the realm of broadcasting law. As a result, broadcasters have the right to deferred transmission beyond the barriers of rights stipulated by copyright law. In order to overcome such inconsistency between the two laws, discussion on revision of copyright law is necessary. In particular, the discussion of the SCCR calls for discussion of the scope of deferred transmissions, exclusive rights to deferred transmissions, and restrictions on copyright. Part B of the SCCR addresses the question of whether to recognize the broadcaster's exclusive rights beyond the typical deferred transmission to the secondary use of broadcast content. Taking these points into consideration, policies should be clarified, consistency between copyright law and broadcasting law, and measures to faithfully protect the rights of broadcast contents producers should be prepared. 이시송신 문제의 본질은 방송과 통신의 융합의 문제이다. 이미1990년을 전후로 방송과 통신의 융합이 중요한 이슈로 떠올랐으나, 저작권법제도는 이러한 변화를 적절히 반영하는데 충분한 성공을 거두지 못 한 것으로 생각된다. 그러한 가운데, 이러한 변화는 방송법의 영역에서 보다 더 구체적으로 논의되고 있었다. 이에 따라, 지상파방송사업자가 저작권법에서 정한 권리의 울타리를 넘어 이시재송신에 대한 권리를 갖게 되었다. 이와 같은 양법 간의 부정합성을 극복하기 위해 저작권법의 개정논의가 필요하다. 특히, SCCR의 논의는 이시전송의 범위, 이시송신에 대한 배타적 권리자 및 저작권의 제한에 대한 논의를 요구하고 있다. SCCR에서 제시한 Part B는 전형적인 이시송신을 넘어 방송콘텐츠의 2차적 이용에까지 방송사업자의 배타적 권리를 인정할 것인지의 문제를 다루고있다. 이러한 점들을 고려하여, 이에 대한 정책을 명확히 하고, 저작권법과 방송법 간의 정합성을 확보하여야 하며, 방송콘텐츠제작자의 권익을 충실히 보호할 수 있는 방안이 마련되어야 한다.

SW라이선스를 위반한 저작권 침해시의 공정사용원칙 적용가능성 -SW스트리밍 서비스 사례를 중심으로-

정진근 한국경영법률학회 2010 經營法律 Vol.20 No.2

Recently, major countries in the world are making new trade order through Regional Trade Agreement(RTA) to get over limitation of Global trade environment, and Korea also had concluded RTA with several countries in the world. Among these, Korea-US FTA is leading changes throughout intellectual property rights, and National Assembly of Korea has brought in the statute about fair use of copyrighted works according to Korea-US FTA Article 18.4, clause 1, footnote 11. Therefore, as the possibility of adopting the fair use doctrine to Korea's Copyright law is growing, it became necessary to establish interpretation principle about fair use. The most important references about the interpretation principle of fair use doctrine are precedents of US. Courts of US are looking through whether the using is transformative use or not, this interpretation principle has different view from each consideration of 4-requirement, therefore it became urgent to develop theory which can determine whether the use is transformative use or not. Especially, in relation to the statute of fair use, it has been controversy in that courts of US accept a contract preferentially in Bowers Case, it should be interpreted as mandatory regulation considering copyright law of Korea. This interpretation principles should be applied if excepting fair use by contract as well. At the moment to interpret under this principle, it should be determined if streaming services infringe copyright or not by focusing whether there is transformative use. Therefore, it's more likely to reinterpret the precedents which held that streaming services infringed right of transmission.