경쟁법과 지식재산권의 긴장관계에 대한 이해
Understanding Tensions between Competition Law and Intellectual Property Rights
0
조회
0
다운로드
2
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
It is often explained that there are tensions between competition law and intellectual property law due to different purposes and natures of two systems. Those who have intellectual property rights hold not only legal rights of an access to the intellectual rights but also monopolistic rights to charge loyalty of intellectual property rights. Accordingly, tensions could be generated between intellectual property law and competition law (and policies) that regulates abusive market power. It is noteworthy that an intellectual property right holder’s monopolistic power to impose loyalty is not same as the concept of monopoly in Fair Trade Act. As more goods and services are protected by intellectual property rights, there are many cases where the two different regulatory regimes should be considered in a careful way. The recent legal discussion has been deepened in terms of coexistence and coherence between competition regulation and intellectual property rights. In addition, in search of harmonious policies and legal enforcement, many countries including Korea have proposed many theories and guidelines. To achieve the balance between competition law and intellectual property law, it is of significance that intellectual property protection should be accompanied with and be understood in the context of competition law enforcement. For the balance and harmony between two regulatory systems, authorities should treat intellectual property rights and competition law in an equal manner. Accordingly, only after sufficient discussion and the fine-tuning process, the stable relationship of the two regulatory systems will be maintained. Based on the stability, the goals of the two regulatory systems—i.e., the efficient competition and innovation—will be achieved.
Abstract
It is often explained that there are tensions between competition law and intellectual property law due to different purposes and natures of two systems. Those who have intellectual property rights hold not only legal rights of an access to the intellectual rights but also monopolistic rights to charge loyalty of intellectual property rights. Accordingly, tensions could be generated between intellectual property law and competition law (and policies) that regulates abusive market power. It is noteworthy that an intellectual property right holder’s monopolistic power to impose loyalty is not same as the concept of monopoly in Fair Trade Act. As more goods and services are protected by intellectual property rights, there are many cases where the two different regulatory regimes should be considered in a careful way. The recent legal discussion has been deepened in terms of coexistence and coherence between competition regulation and intellectual property rights. In addition, in search of harmonious policies and legal enforcement, many countries including Korea have proposed many theories and guidelines. To achieve the balance between competition law and intellectual property law, it is of significance that intellectual property protection should be accompanied with and be understood in the context of competition law enforcement. For the balance and harmony between two regulatory systems, authorities should treat intellectual property rights and competition law in an equal manner. Accordingly, only after sufficient discussion and the fine-tuning process, the stable relationship of the two regulatory systems will be maintained. Based on the stability, the goals of the two regulatory systems—i.e., the efficient competition and innovation—will be achieved.
참고문헌 (22)
- 김철호, "역지급 합의에 대한 미국, EU 및 한국의 최근 결정", Law &Technology, 9(5) (2013), 서울대학교 기술과 법센터
- 박준석, "한국 지적재산권법과 다른 법률들과의 관계", 법조, 62(12), pp.5~65 (2013), 법조협회[DOI]
- 오승한, "시장경쟁과 사회조화(남천권오승 교수 정년기념논문집" (2015), 법문사
- 오승한, "독점규제법 30년" (2011), 법문사
- 윤선희, "지식재산권과 독점규제법과의 관계", 법학논총, 16 (1999), 한양대학교 법학연구소
- 이규홍, "지식재산권의 부당행사 규제에 관한 연구(하)", 저스티스, 140, pp.184~209 (2014), 한국법학원
- 이승준, "혁신의 전유성(appropriability)에 대한 연구 - 산업별 전유장치(appropriability mechanism)의 차이점을 중심으로 -", 산업과 경영, 23(2) (2010), 충북대학교
- 정상조, "지식재산권법" (2013), 홍문사
- 정호열, "경제법 제4판" (2012), 박영사
- 최난설헌, "첨단기술시장에서 상호운용성과 경쟁법의 관계 - EU 법원의 Microsoft 판결(Case T-201", 04, Case T-167, 경제법연구, pp.2013, 12(1)[DOI]
- 한도율, "저작권과 공정거래법의 관계", 기업법연구, 29(2), pp.271~302 (2015), 한국기업법학회
- Steven Anderman, "Intellectual Property and Competition Law - New Frontiers" (2011), Oxford
- Steven Anderman, "The Interface between Intellectual Property and Competition Law" (2007), CUP
- Steven Anderman, "EU Competition Law and Intellectual Property Rights - The Regulation of Innovation" (2011), OUP
- Kevin Arquit, "Canaries in the Coal Mine: “Has Neo-Classical Economics Lost Ground at the Intersection of IP Licensing and Antitrust Law in the United States?,”" (2011), New Frontiers
- Alan Devlin, "Success, Dominance, and Interoperability", Indiana Law Journal, 84(1157) (2009)
- The Intellectual Property-Antitrust Interface, "Herbert Hovenkamp", University of Iowa College of Law, ~, pp.Legal Studies Research Paper No. 08-46 (2008)
- A New Balance Between IP and Antitrust, "Mark A. Lemley", John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics, Stanford Law School, ~, pp.Working Paper No. 340 (2007)
- Cecilio Madero, "Steven Anderman and Ariel Ezrachi, IP and Competition Policy: New Frontiers" (2011), OUP
- Joseph Shumpeter, "Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy" (1976), George Allen &Unwin
- "ETSI White Paper No.3 “Achieving Technical Interoperability - the ETSI approach,”", ~ (2008)
- FTC, "To Promote Innovation: The Proper Balance of Competition and Patent Law and Policy", ~ (2003)