Publications
Detailed Information
실용신안에 의한 영업방법의 보호 : Utility Model Protection of Business Methods
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | 구대환 | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2009-09-27T23:40:54Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2009-09-27T23:40:54Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2005 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | 법학, Vol.46 No.2, pp. 278-315 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 1598-222X | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://lawi.snu.ac.kr/ | - |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/10371/9899 | - |
dc.description.abstract | Patent protection of innovative business methods has a number of problems.
Much of them are being developed by individuals and SMEs. Extending patentability would impose a major burden on them because they would have to divert time and effort into making sure they are not infringing on business method patents (BMPs), and seeking and enforcing them. It is necessary to consider whether patenting business methods will work properly to produce innovative technology, because overly broad protection will stifle competition and result in a cost to the public. It should be assessed whether innovations are given protections in proportion to the contribution to the society the invention will make. It is important to limit the patent system to those fields where the benefits will outweigh the disadvantages. BMPs hinder follow-on innovations because they are based on the property right rules. Most of software innovations are incremental and thus, they cannot satisfy the criteria of inventive step. Under the liability regime, follow-on innovators can use the first comer's innovation only if they are willing to pay a certain royalty to the first comer. This lowers transaction costs and reduces undesirable social behaviour such as free riding appropriation. Utility models that are modified to be based on liability regimes could solve the critical issue of the relationship between the first comer and second comers in sequential innovation, i.e. encouraging innovation without impeding follow-on innovations. In addition, it is desirable to introduce substantial examination only for novelty (not for inventive step) in order to minimize the negative effect of an unexamined utility model right, and abandon inventive step requirements because most of software innovations are incremental. | - |
dc.description.sponsorship | 이 논문은 서울대학교 법학발전재단 출연 법학연구소 기금의 2005학년도 연구지원비
의 보조를 받았음. | - |
dc.language.iso | ko | - |
dc.publisher | 서울대학교 법학연구소 | - |
dc.subject | 영업방법을 특허로 보호 | - |
dc.subject | 기술적 사상의 창작을 보호 | - |
dc.subject | 레히만(Reichman)의 책임이론 | - |
dc.subject | 영업방법발명(BM발명) | - |
dc.title | 실용신안에 의한 영업방법의 보호 | - |
dc.title.alternative | Utility Model Protection of Business Methods | - |
dc.type | SNU Journal | - |
dc.contributor.AlternativeAuthor | Koo, Dae Hwan | - |
dc.citation.journaltitle | 법학 | - |
dc.citation.endpage | 315 | - |
dc.citation.number | 2 | - |
dc.citation.pages | 278-315 | - |
dc.citation.startpage | 278 | - |
dc.citation.volume | 46 | - |
- Appears in Collections:
- Files in This Item:
Item View & Download Count
Items in S-Space are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.