RISS 학술연구정보서비스

검색

인기 검색어

    다국어 입력

    http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.

    변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.

    예시)
    • 中文 을 입력하시려면 zhongwen을 입력하시고 space를누르시면됩니다.
    • 北京 을 입력하시려면 beijing을 입력하시고 space를 누르시면 됩니다.
    닫기
    KCI등재

    독점금지법과 지적재산권 라이센스 = Antitrust Law and Licensing of Intellectual Property

    한글로보기

    https://www.riss.kr/link?id=A76479005

    • 0

      상세조회
    • 0

      다운로드
    서지정보 열기
    • 내보내기
    • 내책장담기
    • 공유하기
    • 오류접수

    부가정보

    다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract) kakao i 다국어 번역

    In the market economy the intellectual property laws and antitrust law share a common purpose of promoting innovation and enhancing consumer welfare, even though they seem to have a possibility to crash each other. The reason is that intellectual property rights provide incentives for innovation through giving a monopoly right for a certain period, while antitrust law is aiming to prevent misuse of predominant position in the market place and concentration of overriding.
    In the field of intellectual property rights the owners make profits through using their rights by themselves as well as through licensing contract. The licensing contract is, however, likely to be applied by antitrust law in accordance with under which conditions and restraints a licensing contract is concluded, and herein many complicated constituents get introduced. With this respect, countries such as America, Japan and Korea established their own guidelines in order to assist those who want to predict whether a licensing practice would be regarded as anti-competitive. In particular, it is noticed that with its enlargement European Union has published a new Regulation No. 772/2004 and Guidelines regarding technology transfer which came into effect on 1 May 2004, and will have a dramatic impact on technology licensing in the European Union.
    With the article I gave an overview of major anti-competitive constituents in the guidelines of each country and compared and analyzed them.
    번역하기

    In the market economy the intellectual property laws and antitrust law share a common purpose of promoting innovation and enhancing consumer welfare, even though they seem to have a possibility to crash each other. The reason is that intellectual prop...

    In the market economy the intellectual property laws and antitrust law share a common purpose of promoting innovation and enhancing consumer welfare, even though they seem to have a possibility to crash each other. The reason is that intellectual property rights provide incentives for innovation through giving a monopoly right for a certain period, while antitrust law is aiming to prevent misuse of predominant position in the market place and concentration of overriding.
    In the field of intellectual property rights the owners make profits through using their rights by themselves as well as through licensing contract. The licensing contract is, however, likely to be applied by antitrust law in accordance with under which conditions and restraints a licensing contract is concluded, and herein many complicated constituents get introduced. With this respect, countries such as America, Japan and Korea established their own guidelines in order to assist those who want to predict whether a licensing practice would be regarded as anti-competitive. In particular, it is noticed that with its enlargement European Union has published a new Regulation No. 772/2004 and Guidelines regarding technology transfer which came into effect on 1 May 2004, and will have a dramatic impact on technology licensing in the European Union.
    With the article I gave an overview of major anti-competitive constituents in the guidelines of each country and compared and analyzed them.

    더보기

    목차 (Table of Contents)

    • Ⅰ. 들어가는 말
    • Ⅱ. 지적재산권법의 경제학
    • Ⅲ. 독점금지에 관한 법률
    • Ⅳ. 지적재산권 라이센스에 관한 독점금지법 가이드라인
    • Ⅴ. 끝맺는 말
    • Ⅰ. 들어가는 말
    • Ⅱ. 지적재산권법의 경제학
    • Ⅲ. 독점금지에 관한 법률
    • Ⅳ. 지적재산권 라이센스에 관한 독점금지법 가이드라인
    • Ⅴ. 끝맺는 말
    • [참고문헌]
    • 【ABSTRACT】
    더보기

    참고문헌 (Reference)

    1 "지적재산권의 부당한 행사에 대한 심사지침" 2000년8월30일자.

    2 "국제계약상의 불공정 거래행위의 유형 및 기준(공정거래위원회 고시" 1997년4월21일자.

    3 "공업소유권법(상) 특허법" 홍문당 2000.

    4 "知的財産?と?占禁止法 (財?法人 知的財産?究所 "21世紀において知的財産?の展望"(知的財産?究所 10周年記念論文集)" Murakami Masahiro

    5 "ノウハウライセンスに?する?占禁止法上の指針" 1999

    6 "United States' Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property."

    7 "The Sinking of the United States Electronics Industry within Japanese Patent Pools" 26gwj.int'll.&econ.1992.

    8 "The Law of Copyrights" 2003.

    9 "The Antimonopoly Laws of Japan" 1983.

    10 "Mergers and Acquisitions Under Japanese Law" 52 Antitrust L. J. 1011 1984.

    1 "지적재산권의 부당한 행사에 대한 심사지침" 2000년8월30일자.

    2 "국제계약상의 불공정 거래행위의 유형 및 기준(공정거래위원회 고시" 1997년4월21일자.

    3 "공업소유권법(상) 특허법" 홍문당 2000.

    4 "知的財産?と?占禁止法 (財?法人 知的財産?究所 "21世紀において知的財産?の展望"(知的財産?究所 10周年記念論文集)" Murakami Masahiro

    5 "ノウハウライセンスに?する?占禁止法上の指針" 1999

    6 "United States' Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property."

    7 "The Sinking of the United States Electronics Industry within Japanese Patent Pools" 26gwj.int'll.&econ.1992.

    8 "The Law of Copyrights" 2003.

    9 "The Antimonopoly Laws of Japan" 1983.

    10 "Mergers and Acquisitions Under Japanese Law" 52 Antitrust L. J. 1011 1984.

    11 "Japanese Competition Polies are Pondered by Senate Committee"

    12 "Intellectual Property Rights" Oxford 2003

    13 "Guidelines on the application of Article 81 of the EC Treaty to technology transfer agreements 02 as of 26 April 2004." -101, 2004

    14 "European Commission Notice on agreements of minor importance which do not appreciably restrict competition under Article 81 12 as of 22 December 2001" 2001

    15 "EC Competition Law and Intellectual Property Rights" Oxford 1998.

    16 "EC Competition Law" 4th ed. 2003.

    17 "Competition Law and Intellectual Property Protection in Japan A Half-Century of Progress A New Millennium of Challenges" 2002

    18 "Background Report on the Role of Competition Policy in Regulatory Reform" OECD Report 1999.

    19 "2004 on the application of Article 81 of the Treaty to categories of technology transfer agreements" 11-123, 2004

    더보기

    동일학술지(권/호) 다른 논문

    동일학술지 더보기

    더보기

    분석정보

    View

    상세정보조회

    0

    Usage

    원문다운로드

    0

    대출신청

    0

    복사신청

    0

    EDDS신청

    0

    동일 주제 내 활용도 TOP

    더보기

    주제

    연도별 연구동향

    연도별 활용동향

    연관논문

    연구자 네트워크맵

    공동연구자 (7)

    유사연구자 (20) 활용도상위20명

    인용정보 인용지수 설명보기

    학술지 이력

    학술지 이력
    연월일 이력구분 이력상세 등재구분
    2027 평가 재인증평가 신청대상 (재인증)
    2021-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (재인증) KCI등재
    2018-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2015-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2011-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2009-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2007-01-01 등재 등재학술지 유지 (등재유지) KCI등재
    2004-01-01 등재 등재학술지 선정 (등재후보2차) KCI등재
    2003-01-01 등재 등재후보 1차 PASS (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
    2002-01-01 등재 등재후보학술지 유지 (등재후보1차) KCI등재후보
    2000-07-01 등재 등재후보학술지 선정 (신규평가) KCI등재후보
    더보기

    학술지 인용정보

    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
    더보기

    이 자료와 함께 이용한 RISS 자료

    나만을 위한 추천자료

    해외이동버튼