• Korean Journal of Environmental Biology
• /
• v.32 no.4
• /
• pp.403-412
• /
• 2014

This article chronicles key shifts in intellectual property regimes in the twentieth century as they related to the commercialization of academic research. The institutionalization and growth of scientific research in the research university in the twentieth century and the increasing awareness of its potential to promote technology innovation and economic growth posited an important question of the ownership of knowledge created in the academic setting, where knowledge was traditionally regarded as a common property among academic researchers. This paper shows the ownership of academic knowledge emerged as a key public policy and legal issue in the latter half of the twentieth century for academic researchers and government officials who pursue the commercialization of academic knowledge for private gain and public benefit. The resulting institutionalization of patent management in the research university and shifts in federal patent policy in turn opened a new legal avenue for the establishment of the private ownership of academic knowledge and the expansion of intellectual property rights in academia, especially in the area of biological and biomedical research. Reflecting upon historical shifts in intellectual property regimes in the twentieth century, this paper suggests recent controversies regarding ownership of biological knowledge and profit sharing in developing counties are linked to critical issues pertinent to the welfare of indigenous population, utilization of new natural resources, and sustainable development for humanity.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.10 no.2
• /
• pp.455-492
• /
• 2009

(Background) Recent biotechnological breakthroughs are shedding new lights on various ethical and legal issues about human biological material. Since Rudolph Virchow, a German pathologist, had founded the medical discipline of cellular pathology, issues centering around human biological materials began to draw attention. The issues involving human biological materials were revisited with more attention along with series concerns when the human genome map was finally completed. Recently, with researches on human genes and bioengineering reaping enormous commercial values in the form of material patent, such changes require a society to reassess the present and future status of human tissue within the legal system. This in turn gave rise to a heated debate over how to protect the rights of material donors: property rule vs. no property rule. (Debate and Cases) Property rule recognizes the donors' property rights on human biological materials. Thus, donors can claim real action if there were any bleach of informed consent or a donation contract. Donors can also claim damages to the responsible party when there is an infringement of property rights. Some even uphold the concept of material patents overtaking. From the viewpoint of no property rule, human biological materials are objects separated from donors. Thus, a recipient or a third party will be held liable if there were any infringement of donor's human rights. Human biological materials should not be commercially traded and a patent based on a human biological materials research does not belong to the donor of the tissues used during the course of research. In the US, two courts, Moore v. Regents of the University of California, and Greenberg v. Miami Children's Hospital Research Institute, Inc., have already decided that research participants retain no ownership of the biological specimens they contribute to medical research. Significantly, both Moore and Greenberg cases found that the researcher had parted with all ownership rights in the tissue samples when they donated them to the institutions, even though there was no provision in the informed consent forms stating either that the participants donated their tissue or waived their rights to ownership of the tissue. These rulings were led to huge controversy over property rights on human tissues. This research supports no property rule on the ground that it can protect the human dignity and prevent humans from objectification and commercialization. Human biological materials are already parted from human bodies and should be treated differently from the engineering and researches of those materials. Donors do not retain any ownership. (Suggestions) No property rule requires a legal breakthrough in the US in terms of donors' rights protection due to the absence of punitive damages provisions. The Donor rights issue on human biological material can be addressed through prospective legislation or tax policies, price control over patent products, and wider coverage of medical insurance. (Conclusions) Amid growing awareness over commercial values of human biological materials, no property rule should be adopted in order to protect human dignity but not without revamping legal provisions. The donors' rights issue in material patents requires prospective legislation based on current uncertainties. Also should be sought are solutions in the social context and all these discussions should be based on sound medical ethics of both medical staffs and researchers.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.18 no.1
• /
• pp.37-60
• /
• 2017

Ownership is the bundle of rights that allow a person or institute to use and control an object. As the biomedical science is advanced, we should consider whether human biological material should be recognized as property. Whether separated parts of the human body can be objects of ownership is a different issue. Many thought that separated parts of the human body could not be objects of ownership. This idea is primarily based on this thought: even if a piece of human biological material is separated from a person, it still relates to that person, and if treated as a thing, human dignity may be harmed. However, some commentators have admitted separated parts of the human body into the realm of property. Though a person owns his/her body or body parts, this does not mean that he/she can do anything he/she desires. There are many natural and social limitations to exercise the ownership of human biological material as discussed above. Human dignity is the core consideration whether or not we recognize that ownership of human biological material biomedical research and knowledge.

• Korean Architects
• /
• s.646
• /
• pp.128-137
• /
• 2023

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.111-129
• /
• 2008

Denying the legitimacy of occupying any parts of the outer space satisfied the political interests of space fairing States. 'Res communis' idea was converted into the rationale which met such political needs in the best way available. This rationale, as its roman law concept implies, is based upon ownership to things. Ownership paradigm, as discussed in this paper, may be not sufficient for applying the OST. A new paradigm may be more valuable. Diversified type of the right to use would be best available one. Space commercialization should be understood in social and economical dimension, which is too diverse and important for space lawyers, especially adhering to ownership paradigm, to deal with. It is mature to admit that res communis rationale operated for 40 years is not sufficiently refined to foster the advent and benefit expected from space commercialization. Diversified type of right to use is to be taken into account seriously, as workable paradigm provided by other social science.

• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.19 no.4
• /
• pp.432-445
• /
• 2019

Since industry and technology are being developed through interactions, intellectual property (IP), which are used as a substitute for technology, are found to have a close relationship with industry. The current status of IP and the business revenue differences of enterprises of south Korea are analyzed in the disaster-safety industry. Only 2.66% out of 49,538 firms have IP, indicating that most companies do not have IP. The difference in sales due to the ownership of IP is not statistically significant in middle-standing enterprises, but that of medium and small-sized enterprises (SMEs) is statistically significant. It is also found that 17 Divisions, which have IP, out of 21 Divisions in the Disaster-Safety Industry Special Classification of Korea have higher business revenue, and 10 Divisions of those 17 Divisions indicate statistical significance. In conclusion, the ownership of IP is one of the factors affecting the difference in business revenue for SMEs in Korea, implying that it is important to focus on creating and securing IP.

• KDI Journal of Economic Policy
• /
• v.40 no.3
• /
• pp.69-89
• /
• 2018

We study whether a default option attached to non-recourse mortgages improves borrowers' surplus from mortgage financing. By defaulting on mortgage debt, borrowers can save their non-collateralized income from being foreclosed. In exchange, borrowers must forgo non-monetary surplus from retaining any collateral. Banks may charge a high mortgage rate due to increased default rates. We find that the interest rate of non-recourse mortgage decreases with the borrower's surplus from home ownership. Moreover, non-recourse mortgages benefit only borrowers who deem housing property as an investment asset. Hence, the transition to a non-recourse mortgage is detrimental to welfare if the borrower enjoys a large surplus from home ownership. Although the borrower privately knows how much surplus she enjoys from home ownership, a menu of non-recourse mortgage contracts may exist, yielding a separating equilibrium without information rent.

• Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
• /
• v.27 no.1
• /
• pp.35-47
• /
• 2024

The aim of this study was to analyze the income and productivity of seaweed farmers based on farmed land ownership status. This research was conducted in three provinces on the Sulawesi Island which are ranked among the 10 largest seaweed producers in Indonesia: Central Sulawesi, South Sulawesi and Southeast Sulawesi. The twelve study sites were determined based on 5 special criteria and 792 respondents fulfilled the criteria for seaweed farmers. Data were collected through field surveys and analyzed using qualitative and quantitative methods. Results showed that the seaweed farming areas are considered as private property with 4 types of marine land tenure or ownership status: own land, inherited land, leasehold land and purchased land. The productivity of seaweed farming land had a positive value greater than 1 in South Sulawesi and Southeast Sulawesi, and a positive value of less than 1 in Central Sulawesi. Seaweed cultivation in Central Sulawesi has not been managed effectively. At all sites, the maximum number of growing season cycles was 5 cycles/year. Optimal growing season conditions gave the highest marginal returns at 2-3 cycles/year with additional costs exceeding additional income for more than 3 cycles/year.

• Journal of the Korean Society for Aviation and Aeronautics
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.20-27
• /
• 2022

It is anticipated that there will be radical disputes over land ownership in the event of the advent of the era of UAM. As such, policy alternative is presented by analyzing and researching relevant laws at home and abroad on the means of legislating 'Regulations on compensation for use of air space above land' in preparation of such occurrence. As the results of the study, it is deemed to limit the range of the land ownership in accordance with UAM operation as follows. First, it is proposed to newly enact regulation to limit the ownership of air space of land owner to the public space above the elevation of 200m as stipulated under the Article 78 of the Aviation Safety Act. Second, as the result of analysis made for the option of making compensation from the perspective of the property right of land ownership and option of not making compensation from the perspectives of public interest and concerns in the event of operation of UAM within the air space below the elevation of 200m, it is deemed that legislative decision is necessary through more extensive studies in the future.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.45
• /
• pp.3-31
• /
• 2010

The passing of property in goods affects contractual rights and duties. It is the point on which depend issues as diverse as the seller's entitlement to sue for the price and the incidence of risk of loss of casualty to the goods. The passing of property may also have an incidental effect on the remedies of the parties, including specific performance. But Incoterms do not deal with how the goods should reach the agreed point of delivery. While Incoterms specifically deal with questions of division of risk of loss of or damage to the goods between seller and buyer, they do not deal with property or transfer of title of the goods. Indeed, it was not even possible to agree on uniform rules on these questions in the CISG. Therefore, the parties to a contract of sale should provide for these matters themselves in the contract of sale and closely observe what the applicable law requires for the transfer of ownership to the goods and other property rights.