• 환경생물
• /
• 제32권4호
• /
• 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.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제10권2호
• /
• 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.

• 의료법학
• /
• 제18권1호
• /
• pp.37-60
• /
• 2017

전통적인 법이론에 의하여 인간은 권리의 주체이기 때문에 인체로부터 유래한 생물학적 물질은 권리의 객체가 될 수 없다. 하지만 의학과 생명과학의 발전으로 인하여 인체로 부터 유래한 생물학적 물질은 다양한 용도로 사용되고 있으며 인체로부터 유래한 생물학적 물질의 객체성 여부와 소유권 인정 여부에 대한 논의는 지속적으로 제기되고 있다. 인체로부터 유래한 생물학적 물질을 법적으로 파악하는 이론은 전통적으로 자율성에 근거한 모델이었으며 현재도 그것이 가장 보편적으로 받아들여지고 있다. 하지만 자율성 모델에 의하여 인체로부터 유래한 생물학적 물질을 파악할 경우 인체로부터 유래한 생물학적 물질을 다루는 현실을 제대로 설명할 수 없을 뿐만 아니라 오히려 배분적 정의의 측면에서 볼 때 적절하지 못한 결론에 도달할 수도 있다는 의문이 제기되고 있다. 인체 유래 생물학적 물질을 소유권의 객체로 파악하려는 소유권 모델은 인간의 존엄과 가치에 반하는 이론 구성이라는 의혹을 받고 있다. 하지만 소유권은 단일한 권리가 아니며 다양한 권리들의 집합체이며 그 내용이 어떻게 구성될 것인가는 객체의 특성 등을 고려하여 판단하면 될 것으로 생각된다. 본 논문은 인체 유래 생물학적 물질의 소유권 전체 보다는 일단 사체로부터 유래한 물질의 소유권 인정 여부를 중점적으로 다루었다. 이를 통하여 인체 유래 생물학적 물질전반에 대한 법이론적 고찰이 현재의 과학적 사실에 적합한 형태로 이루어지기를 기대한다.

• 건축사
• /
• 통권646호
• /
• pp.128-137
• /
• 2023

• 항공우주정책ㆍ법학회지
• /
• 제23권1호
• /
• pp.111-129
• /
• 2008

1967년 우주조약은 우주공간의 비영유원칙 등을 천명하면서 우주공간의 이용에 관한 인간의 활동을 규율함에 있어서 소유권에 초점을 두고 있다. 우주공간의 공유물이론 등에 의해서 그와 같은 취지의 조문들이 규정되어 있다. 1967년 우주조약의 기본 법리는 그와 같은 차원에서 res communis라고 할 수 있다. 그러나, 우주공간의 법적 지위, 및 우주공간과 영공간의 경계 등이 획정되지 않은 상태에서 그러한 법리는 우주공간에서의 이용의 자유 내지는 항행의 자유를 인정하는 반면에, 실제적으로 우주공간의 이용에 관한 제반 원칙을 형성하는 데에는 기여하지 못하고 있다. 이에 우주공간의 소유에 관한 법리가 아니라, 새로운 법리에 의해서 우주공간을 이용하는 활동을 규율하는 것이 바람직하며, 우주공간의 소유권과 관련없는 이용권의 부여에 관한 법리가 대안이 될 수 있다.

• 한국콘텐츠학회논문지
• /
• 제19권4호
• /
• pp.432-445
• /
• 2019

산업과 기술은 상호작용을 통해 발전하고 있기 때문에 기술의 대용지표로 활용되고 있는 지식재산권은 산업과 밀접한 관계를 맺고 있다. 본 연구에서는 재난안전산업 기업의 규모 업종별 지식재산권 현황을 파악하고 지식재산권 보유여부에 따른 매출액의 차이를 분석하고자 하였다. 분석결과, 재난안전산업 49,538개 기업 중 2.66%만 지식재산권을 보유하고 있어 대부분의 기업이 지식재산권을 보유하지 않은 것으로 나타났다. 지식재산권 보유여부에 따른 매출액 규모의 비교결과, 중견기업, 중기업, 소기업 모두 지식재산권 보유기업이 지식재산권 미보유기업보다 각각의 평균매출액이 높았고 특히, 중기업과 소기업은 매출액의 차이가 통계적으로도 유의미한 것으로 나타났다. 또한 재난안전산업 특수분류 21개 업종 중 17개 업종에서 지식재산권 보유기업이 지식재산권 미보유기업보다 평균매출액이 높았고, 이 중 10개 업종은 통계적으로도 유의미한 것으로 나타났다. 결론적으로 소규모 기업의 비율이 높고, 다양한 분야가 혼재되어 있는 국내 재난안전산업은 지식재산권 보유여부가 기업의 매출액 차이와 연관되어 있는 요소임을 발견하였다.

• KDI Journal of Economic Policy
• /
• 제40권3호
• /
• 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
• /
• 제27권1호
• /
• 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.

• 한국항공운항학회지
• /
• 제30권1호
• /
• 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.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제45권
• /
• 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.