특허침해에 대한 구제원리로서 물권적 보호원칙과 손해배상원칙
Property Rules and Liability Rules as Principles of Remedies for Patent Infringements
0
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Abstract
From the perspective of law & economics, the two principles of remedies for violation of legal rights are ‘Property rule’ and ‘Liability rule’. The remedies of property rule are injunctions and the remedies of liability rule are compensatory money damages. Patent rights - one of intellectual property rights as exclusive rights - are protected by property rule. According to traditional property rules, the appropriate relief for patent infringements has been considered an injunction, barring the use of the invention at issue. But, the cases that injunctions for patent uses hamper subsequent innovations and technology development have occurred. Under these circumstances, it is necessary to discuss the unappreciated but significant aspect of the debate over property rules and liability rules in patent law context. In particular, technology informations of a patent, in essence, have the same characteristics as public goods (non-rivalry & non-excludability) and legally have been given excludability, eventually become to have the characteristics of natural monopoly goods. Therefore, allowing those who have paid or have intention to pay royalty for patents to use the patents would promote the efficient use of them. In other words, liability rules as the remedies for patent infringement should be considered. Also, the transaction costs of patent market are high due to the uncertainty of valuation, complexity of the commercialization processes, unclearness of rights range and the fact that it involves multiple parties. If there are obstacles of negotiation the same as high transaction costs, the more efficient remedies are compensatory money damages. In contrast, if transaction costs are low and there are few obstacles to negotiation, the more efficient remedies are injunctions against the defendant’s interference with plaintiff’s property. Therefore, the more efficient remedies for patent infringements are compensatory money damages according to the liability rule. Recently, US Supreme Court has also given limitations on the routine award of injunctive relief. If liability rule is provided for patent infringements, subsequent development of technology will be possible without complex negotiation processes and without having concerns of infringement.
참고문헌 (34)
- 김일중, "법경제학 연구-핵심이론과 사례분석-" (2008), 한국법제연구원
- 박세일, "법경제학" (2006), 박영사
- Harrison, J. L, "법경제학" (2006), 세창출판사
- Ayres, I, "Solomonic Bargaining: Dividing a Legal Entitle- ment to Facilitate Coasean Trade", Yale L.J., 1027 (1995)
- Barten, G, "Permanent Injunctions: A Discretionary Remedy for Patent Infringement in the Aftermath of the Ebay Decision", U. Miami Bus. L. Rev., 1 (2007)
- Bell, A, "A Theory of Property", Cornell L. Rev., 531 (2005)
- Blair, R. D, "An Economic Analysis of Damages Rules in Intellectual Property Law", Wm. & Mary L. Rev., 1585 (1998)
- Calabresi, G, "Property Rules, Liability Rules, and Inalienability: One View of the Cathedral", Harv. L. Rev., 1089 (1972)
- Chisum, D. S, "Principal of Patent Law" (1998), Foundation Press
- Cohen, W. M, "Protecting their intellectual assets: Appropriability conditions and why U.S. Manufacturing firms patent", NBER Working Paper, (7552) (2000)
- Cooter, R, "The cost of Coase", J. Legal Stud., 1 (1982)
- Cooter, R, "Bargaining in the Shadow of Law: A Testable Model of Strategic Behavior", J. Legal Stud., 225 (1982)
- Cooter, R, "Law and Economics" (2008), Pearson International Edition
- Depoorter, B, "Property rules and, Liability rules and Patent market failure", Erasmus L. Rev., 59 (2008)
- Epstein, R. A, "A Clear View of the Cathedral: The Dominance of Property Rules", Yale L.J., 2091 (1997)
- Gallini, N. T, "The Economics of Patents: Lessons from Recent U.S. Patent Reform", J. Econ. Persp., 131 (2002)
- Hall, B. H, "The Patent Paradox Revisited: An Empirical study of Patenting in the U.S. Semi-conductor Industry, 1975-1995", RAND J. Econ., 101 (2001)
- Hardin, G, "The Tragedy of the Commons", Science, 1243 (1968)
- Heller, M. A, "The Tragedy of the Anticommons: Property in the Transition from Marx to Markets", Harv. L. Rev., 621 (1998)
- Heller, M. A, "The Boundaries of Private Property", Yale L.J., 1163 (1999)
- Heller, M. A, "Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research", Science, 698 (1998)
- Kitch, E. W, "The nature and function of the patent system", J.L. & Econ., 265 (1977)
- Lemley, M. A, "The Economics of Improvement in Intellectual Property Law", Tex. L. Rev., 989 (1997)
- Lemley, M. A, "Property, Intellectual Property and Free Riding", Tex. L. Rev., 1031 (2005)
- Lemley, M. A, "Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking", Tex. L. Rev., 1991 (2007)
- Lemley, M. A, "Should Property or Liability Rules Govern Information?", Tex. L. Rev., 783 (2007)
- Lewin, J. L, "Boomer and the American Law of Nuisance: Past, Present and Future", Alb. L. Rev., 1914 (1990)
- Merges, R. P, "Of Property Rules, Coase, and Intellectual Property", Colum. L. Rev., 2655 (1994)
- Merges, R. P, "Intellectual Property Rights and Bargaining Breakdown: The Case of Blocking Patents", Tenn. L. Rev., 75 (1994)
- Meurer, M. J, "Controlling Opportunistic and Anti-Competitive Intel- lectual Property Litigation", B.C. L. Rev., 509 (2003)
- Michelman, F. I, "Property, Utility and Fairness: Comments on the Ethical Foundations of “Just Compensation", Harv. L. Rev., 1165 (1967)
- Michelman, F. I, "Review; Pollution as a Tort: A Non-Accidental Perspective on Calabresi's Costs", Yale L.J., 647 (1971)
- Schankerman, M. A, "How Valuable is Patent Protection? Estimates by Technology Field", RAND J. Econ., 77 (1998)
- Turner, J. S, "he Nonmanufacturing Patent Owner: Toward a Theory of Efficient Infringement", Cal. L. Rev., 179 (1998)