• 인삼약초
• /
• v.3 no.3
• /
• pp.48-49
• /
• 2004

• Science & Technology Policy
• /
• v.13 no.4 s.142
• /
• pp.2-14
• /
• 2003

• Journal of Technology Innovation
• /
• v.14 no.3
• /
• pp.43-69
• /
• 2006

In this study, we examine the effect of TRIPS on the relationship between R&D expenditures and patent applications in manufacturing firms. The first set of tests examines the association between patent applications and R&D expenditures and firm specific factors such as firm size and capital intensity. The next set of tests adds environmental factors including R&D intensity of the industry and development of TRIPS. We divide the sample period into three subperiods according to the progress of TRIPS subperiod 1(1984-1988) before TRIPS, subperiod 2(1989-1994) after negotiation of TRIPS and subperiod 3(1995-2000) after agreement on TRIPS. Regression model reveals that the coefficient on firm size is significantly positive over the all sample Period, while that of R&D expenditures of R&D intensive firms is significantly positive in subperiod 2 and 3(1989-2000) and that of capital intensity is significantly negative only in subperiod 3(1995-2000). The findings suggest that the efficient intellectual property system promotes the patent application of R&D intensive firms.

• 주류산업
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.51-61
• /
• 1999

• 주류산업
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.66-73
• /
• 2000

• Patent21
• /
• s.49
• /
• pp.3-8
• /
• 2003

WTO/TRIPS 협정 체결과 WIPO의 저작권 조약이 선진국의 주도로 성립된 뒤로 지적재산권 분야의 변화와 대응은 각국의 주요 이슈로 부각 되었다. 새로운 지적재산 체제는 경제는 물론 교육, 문화, 사회 전반에 걸핀 서비스영역까지 영향을 미치고 있다. 본 연구에서는 새로운 지식재산 시대에서 한국과 경제적, 문화적, 지정학적으로 비슷한 위치에 있는 대만의 과학기술 정책과 연구 개발 활동, 그리고 지적재산권에 대한 현황에 대해 살펴봄으로써 대만의 지적재산 관련 정책대응과 활동에 대해 알아본다.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.13
• /
• pp.699-733
• /
• 2000

This article analyzes the state-of-play of WTO dispute settlement for first four and a half years. Remarkable points found on this analysis are as follows: First, the Quad consisting of the United States, the European Community (EC), Canada and Japan has participated in the WTO dispute settlement mechanism more frequently than any other WTO member. Second, among developing country members some leading countries such as Korea, Brazil and India have relied actively upon the mechanism to claim and defend their rights and obligations under the WTO rules. Third, bilateral dispute settlements generally have been preferred to multilateral dispute settlements by the panel or Appellate Body. Fourth, observation of the Appellate Body proceedings well shows WTO members' strategy to use every process available to them. Fifth, the provisions of GATT 1994 have been most frequently invoked by the members. GATS and TRIPS Agreement disputes are mainly involved in developed countries, in particular the U.S. and the EC. Sixth, very high winning ratio in the panel and Appellate Body process indicates that complaining parties review the possibility to get favorable rulings even before referring to the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) and prepare for the case very thoroughly. Seventh, roughly speaking, disputes were settled within two or three years. Therefore, seeking bilateral dispute settlement can be more advantageous to a complaining party than referring to a panel or an arbitrator because of low costs and short time period in dispute settlement. Finally, the DSB approved retaliatory actions for winning complaining parties against the defending parties who had rejected implementation of its rulings and recommendations. In conclusion, it can be said that the WTO dispute settlement mechanism has been operated very successfully for the first four and a half years. It is hoped that continued study on state-of-play of WTO dispute settlement mechanism will be contributory to improved national interest of Korea.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.12
• /
• pp.615-641
• /
• 1999

Trade and the environment emerged as a major and complex issue for trade negotiators in the final stages of the Uruguay Round negotiations. The agreements and other international measures employing trade measures and trade sanctions for achieving global environmental objectives are Vienna Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer(1985), the Montreal Protocol on Substances that deplete the Ozone Layer(1987), The Framework Convention on Climate Change(1992), the Convention on Biological Diversity(1992), the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste and their Disposal(1992), the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Faunna and Flora(1975), the Rio Declaration, the Agenda 21, etc. The texts of the World Trade Organization(WTO) incorporated certain provisions which were designed to reflect some of the environmental concerns are Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Properity Rights(TRIPs), Trade-Related Investment Measures (TRIMs), the General Agreement on Trade in Services(GATS), and Technical Barriers to Trade(TBT) There is the possibility of conflict between multilateral environmental agreements and WTO agreements granting waivers against trade measures and sanctions. This remains a possibility, especially between countries which are Member of WTO and which are not Members of the relevant multilateral environment agreements, and countries which are Members of both the WTO and the relevant MEAs. Measures taken under the trade-related provisions of MEAs could potentially give rise to conflicts under obligations arising in WTO texts. If the parties in dispute are WTO members while they are not members of MEAs, the WTO provisions can be granted a certain priority in terms of international norms and vice versa. When the parties concerned are both WTO members and MEAs, it will be rational to grant the WTO provisions a priority. However, such measures should neither constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where similar conditions prevail, nor create a disguised restriction on trade. Also any trade measures taken should be necessary to prevent developments in trade from endangering the effectiveness of an MEA and they should be proportional and least trade restrictive.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.17
• /
• pp.227-250
• /
• 2002

This paper is to explore the direction of international software protection laws, either copyright or patent right, by examining the current situations in the United States, European countries, Asia including Korea and the WTO/TRIPs Agreement. According to the comparative legal systems, each court and office gives both copyrightability and patentability of software by a stronger and appropriate intellectual property protection system.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.23 no.3
• /
• pp.165-184
• /
• 2007

This study reviews the concept and protection system for the geographical Indication(GI) to support the Korea-EU FTA. A geographical indication(GI) is a name or sign used on certain products or which corresponds to a specific geographical indication or origin (eg. a town, region, or country). The use of a GI may act as a certification that the product possesses certain qualities, or enjoys a certain reputation, due to its geographical origin. In the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual property Rights("TRIPS"). There are, in effect, two basic obligations from Article 22 to article 23 on WTO member governments relating to GIs in the TRIPS agreement. Geographical Indications have long been associated with Europe as an entity, where there is a tradition of associating certain food products with particular regions, Under European Union Law, the protected designation of origin system which came into effect in 1992 and 2003 regulates the following geographical indications: Protected designation of origin(PDO) and protected geographical indication(PGI) and Traditional Specialty Guaranteed(TSG). They have 5,000 articles for GI. We have the GI system and 40 articles rotating to registration by the law for quality management of production in agriculture. Cinclusinally, geographical indications could potentially serve as tools to helf holders of trade benefit more equitable through the mutual Acceptance for Korea-EU FTA.