Full metadata record
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | 이호영 | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2019-12-01T18:08:36Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2019-12-01T18:08:36Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2017-11 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | 경쟁법연구, v. 36, page. 109-147 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 1598-2335 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 2671-6402 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | https://www.kci.go.kr/kciportal/ci/sereArticleSearch/ciSereArtiView.kci?sereArticleSearchBean.artiId=ART002289385 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | https://repository.hanyang.ac.kr/handle/20.500.11754/116079 | - |
dc.description.abstract | The Korea Fair Trade Commission’s (KFTC) two decisions against Qualcomm on it's standard-essential patent (SEP) licensing practices have significant implications for Korea's competition law enforcement. Above all, they provided opportunities for full-fledged discussions on the relationship between intellectual property rights such as patents and competition law in Korea, and clearly recognized the competition policy meaning of the FRAND commitment.The KFTC also sent important signals for competition law enforcement on IP-related issues in the future. First, it applied the same criteria as in cases where other tangible property rights are involved in determining whether the SEP licensing practice is a violation of the Korea Monopoly Regulation Act (Korea Monopoly Regulation Act). Second, it changed its prior position and acknowledged that the SEP constitute the essential element under the Korea Monopoly Regulation Act. Third, it put an emphasis on the breach of FRAND commitments as a basis of finding anti-competitive intent or purpose and anti-competitive concerns. Furthermore, in assessing the illegality of the FRAND commitment breach by the SEP holders, the KFTC did not consider only its impact on the patented technology licensing market and related product markets, but also on the innovation market and the final consumer's welfare.One the other hand, the KFTC did not clearly say that the level of royalties itself imposed by Qualcomm was excessive or unfair. while it found that Qualcomm's conduct in question was a violation of the FRAND commitment by focusing on procedural aspects of the FRNAD commitment.Lastly, the KFTC did not only declare the illegality of Qualcomm's SEP licensing practices, but also impose a licensing obligation with specific procedures for negotiating license terms among the parties. | en_US |
dc.description.sponsorship | 이 논문은 2016년 대한민국 교육부와 한국연구재단의 지원을 받아 수행된 연구임(NRF-2016S1A3A2923769). | en_US |
dc.language.iso | ko_KR | en_US |
dc.publisher | 한국경쟁법학회 | en_US |
dc.subject | 퀄컴 | en_US |
dc.subject | 표준필수특허 | en_US |
dc.subject | 프랜드확약 | en_US |
dc.subject | 공정거래법 | en_US |
dc.subject | 시장지배적 지위의 남용 | en_US |
dc.subject | 라이선스거절 | en_US |
dc.subject | 차별적 로열티 | en_US |
dc.subject | 조건부 리베이트 | en_US |
dc.subject | 포괄적 라이선스 | en_US |
dc.subject | Qualcomm | en_US |
dc.subject | Standard-essential patents | en_US |
dc.subject | FRAND commitments | en_US |
dc.subject | Korea Monopoly Regulation Act | en_US |
dc.subject | Abuse of market dominance | en_US |
dc.subject | Refusal to license | en_US |
dc.subject | Discriminatory royalty | en_US |
dc.subject | Conditional rebates | en_US |
dc.subject | Blanket license | en_US |
dc.title | 퀄컴 사건의 의미와 시사점 | en_US |
dc.title.alternative | The Meaning and Implications of the Korea Fair Trade Commission’s Decisions against Qualcomm | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.relation.volume | 36 | - |
dc.relation.page | 109-147 | - |
dc.relation.journal | 경쟁법연구 | - |
dc.contributor.googleauthor | 이호영 | - |
dc.contributor.googleauthor | Lee, Ho Young | - |
dc.relation.code | 2017018505 | - |
dc.sector.campus | S | - |
dc.sector.daehak | SCHOOL OF LAW[S] | - |
dc.sector.department | Hanyang University Law School | - |
dc.identifier.pid | hoylee | - |
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.