Earticle

Home

산업재산권 [Journal of Industrial Property]

간행물 정보
  • 자료유형
    학술지
  • 발행기관
    한국지식재산학회 [Korea Intellectual Property Society]
  • ISSN
    1598-6055
  • 간기
    연3회
  • 수록기간
    1995~2019
  • 등재여부
    KCI 등재
  • 주제분류
    사회과학 > 법학
  • 십진분류
    KDC 360 DDC 340
제12호 (7건)
No
1

『발명』에 관한 고찰

윤선희

한국지식재산학회 산업재산권 제12호 2002.11 pp.1-26

※ 기관로그인 시 무료 이용이 가능합니다.

The Korean Patent Law, which has been influenced by the Japanese Patent Law, clearly provides what the object of protection by the Patent Law is. It defines an invention as the highly advanced creation of technological ideas by utilizing rules of nature in Section 2. Also, it prescribes the requirements for patents in Section 29 and unpatentable inventions in Section 32. In other nations, however, there is no provision of the definition of an invention. Instead, they only establish the requirements for a patent and depend on theories or court decisions in defining" a notion of invention. While they properly adjust the scope of the patentable objects based on their own paces of technological improvements, our nation and Japan have difficulty in extending the scope rapidly adjusting to their paces because of the clear legal definition of an invention. For this reason, there are disputes among scholars on the interpretation of the above provision in extending the scope of the patentable objects. It would be, therefore, necessary to review how to interpret it, how to amend it, or whether to delete it or not.
我が國の特許法は、日本の特許法を影響を受け同法第2條において、‘發明とは、自然法則を利 用した技術的思想の創作のうち高度のものをいう’と定義しており、同法第29條には特許要件を 、第32條には特許を受けることができない發明についての規定を設けて特許法の保護對象を明 確にしている。しかし、我が國と日本を除いた諸外國においては、發明の定義規定がない。發 明の定義規定なしに特許を受けられる要件だけを規定しており、學說或いは判例に任している 。このような國家の場合には、技術の發展に伴い適切に特許の對象を調節することが可能だが 、我が國や日本の場合には發明の定義規定が明確になっており、技術發展に伴い迅速に特許の 保護對象を擴大することには、なお制限がある。これにより、特許の保護對象を擴大するため の同規定の解析の考え方について學者間に論難がある。これをどのように解釋するか、どのよ うに改定していくか、またはこれを削除すればどうかなどについての檢討が必要な時期になっ ている。

6,400원

2

중소기업 지적재산권 담보가치평가에 관한 연구

최병규

한국지식재산학회 산업재산권 제12호 2002.11 pp.27-54

※ 기관로그인 시 무료 이용이 가능합니다.

value of intellectual property can be associated with the core of small-enterprise-IP-strategy that is attributed to the use of the intellectual property. In addition to assisting in the valuation of intellectual property, the three methods(cost approach, market approach, income approach) are useful in deriving royalty rates at which the subject intellectual property can be licensed. Specifically, a company lacking intangible assets and technology would be reduced to operating a commodity-oriented enterprise where competition and lack of product distinction would severely limit the potential for profits. The three approaches(cost approach, market approach, income approach) are discussed in this article. Although we believe that these approaches are universal in nature, and that they ought to be applicable in any property situation anywhere in the world, we must recognize that there may be legal, economic, and practical restraints to applying them in precisely the way. 1) cost approach One might think that the application of the cost approach from country to country would be quite uniform, but individual factors can affect its application. One of the practical matters that has to be addressed is the availability of the subject property in the country in question. We have become accustomed to assuming that almost any kind of property would be readily available and are not used to thing in terms of substantial delays that might be experienced in the replacement cost element. 2) market approach Of the three standard valuation approaches, the market approach is probably the most difficult to apply internationally, especially in less developed countries or those that are emerging from state-controlled economies. Markets may be very thin, with very few transactions. There may be no real sales because of legal or political restrictions. 3) income approach The ingredients for the income approach are universal(the amount of income, the duration of income, and the risk of achieving it). But our ability to apply this approach may vary considerably from country to country. The uncertainty relates to accounting standards and so on. The world of commerce is imploding. Despite all of the business communication problems noted, process continues. We are of the opinion that intellectual property will continue to be the focus of the exports and imports. By the way we should solve the valuation problem rationally.

6,700원

3

6,600원

4

UDRP의 문제점과 그 대응방안에 관한 연구 : 도메인 네임을 중심으로

이대희

한국지식재산학회 산업재산권 제12호 2002.11 pp.83-108

※ 기관로그인 시 무료 이용이 가능합니다.

ICANN approved its Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy(UDRP) on October 24, 1999. Since December 1999 when the first decision was made under the UDRP, there have been more than 6,000 UDRP proceedings and more than 110,000 domain names have been the subject matters of the dispute. In one sense, therefore, the UDRP proceeding has been very successful in resolving domain name disputes around the world. However, there have been arguments against the fairness of the UDRP procedure. According to the analysis of statistics on UDRP decisions, around 80 percent of the respondents have lost the case. In particular, when the responds defaulted, they lost almost all of the case. It has been argued that the UDRP procedure offers some advantages to the complainant. Korea needs to pay great attention to the issues on the substantial and the procedural unfairness of UDRP since many Koreans have been parties, in particular respondents, to a UDRP procedure. Furthermore, many Koreans, almost all of Korean respondents have lost the case. Therefore, Korea needs to fix the problem. This paper offers some suggestions for Korea's strategies to fix the problem. It further suggests that Korea reflect its interest on the formation of new international rules.

6,400원

5

유사상호ㆍ상표의 판단기준에 관한 연구

김상규

한국지식재산학회 산업재산권 제12호 2002.11 pp.109-127

※ 기관로그인 시 무료 이용이 가능합니다.

As long as trade marks and name continue to be used in trade these signs are a prominent part of goodwill and rights in them cannot be subject to any maximum duration. Trade marks and related aspects of trading goodwill are protected as symbols needed by consumers to distinguish between competing products and services in a market economy. Trade marks and names in accordingly quite as significant in economic terms as patents and copyright Legal protecting against the imitation of marks and names ist nowadays a very important legal problems Infringement on the trade marks and names controls the commercial law and unfair competition law; intrusion upon the trade marks regulates unfair competition law and trademark law The commercial law protect the trade name on the view of the protection of the business man and consumers. therefor the test depend on whether a trade name is infringed or not. The unfair competition law controls the imitation of the trade names and marks for the fair competition. trademark law prevent infringing of trade marks for the development of industry and interest of consumers. Misconception or confusion in the test of the infringement of trade names and trade marks must be considered and applied what the each law goals.

5,400원

6

8,700원

7

版面權保護에 대한 比較法的 硏究

安孝秩

한국지식재산학회 산업재산권 제12호 2002.11 pp.171-208

※ 기관로그인 시 무료 이용이 가능합니다.

Under the existing Korean legal system there are no remedies that are able to protect the publisher appropriately, if he publishes the literary and artistic works especially after the expiry of copyright protection. There are several methods for the protection of publishers; protection of typographical arrangement of published editions, protection of posthumous works and scientific editions. The former has been adopted by the British copyright law, the latter has been adopted by the German copyright law and the EU-Term Directive(93/98/EEC). The typographical copyright was introduced into the British Copyright Act 1956, because the skill and labour which has gone into the typographical design of fine editions of literary or musical works was appropriated by other publishers who made facsimile copies of these works. Under the German copyright law, the author of scientific editions enjoy a protection mutatis mutandis to that provided for the copyright owner, if they represent the result of scientific analysis and differ in significant manner from previously known editions of the works or texts. Any person who lawfully causes a work which has not previously been published to be published or communicated publicly for the first time can also, under the German copyright law, has the exclusive right to exploit the work. Today the copy technique has been highly developed, but it is as expensive and laborious as ever to publish particular books. It is urgent to introduce a legal system in the Korean copyright law which appropriately protects the publisher. But it is necessary, first of all, to investigate which method is more suitable to the demand of the Korean publishers.

8,200원

 
페이지 저장