This paper analyzed the use of 'intellectual property' under domestic laws and arranged the differences in its meaning. Among them, four cases were categorized by analyzing the differences based on how the 'intellectual property' use cases included the concept of works through a harmonized interpret...
This paper analyzed the use of 'intellectual property' under domestic laws and arranged the differences in its meaning. Among them, four cases were categorized by analyzing the differences based on how the 'intellectual property' use cases included the concept of works through a harmonized interpretation and expression format with the relevant statute text.
The classification criteria through research and their analysis are regarded as basic data that can then be used as the enactment, revision, legislation and various policy data of domestic laws. The use of 'intellectual property' was grouped step by step to draw up a resolution that could be used to improve policies and related legislation for scientific technology researchers, and the existing articles identified in domestic laws were presented as examples of the classification criteria.
The policy and legislative implications obtained from the analysis results are as follows: First, the analysis was carried out with 155 statutes that used the term intellectual property, but the legislation was also confirmed to refer to copyright and industrial property rights accurately without the use of the term intellectual property. On the other hand, there was also a case in which the text was compiled without including the concept of copyright in the use of intellectual property without clearly distinguishing between copyright and industrial property. The biggest problem is the lack of understanding among lawmakers and policymakers on the concept of copyright. It should be recognised clearly that within intellectual property rights there exists a different copyright on the basis of industrial property rights.
Second, what is unique about the analysis results is that the laws under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Science, Technology, Information and Communication, which used the most intellectual property cases, were frequently identified which could not be interpreted by including copyright concepts. Protecting researchers as copyright holders and correctly understanding copyright, one of the intellectual properties, is an important task even within science and technology policies. Considering the situation in which the government implements policies to promote innovation using knowledge assets, such as the creation, protection, and utilization of knowledge assets by R&D researchers in science and technology, it would be necessary to improve the fact that the wrong use of "knowledge properties" comes from the subordinate statutes of the key ministries.
Third, it has already been seven years since the Framework Act on Intellectual Property, which decided to collectively name human rights to intangible assets, was enacted. Nevertheless, "merciless property" that has been used since liberation from Japanese rule is still in use in local statutes. It is a legal term that can cause misunderstanding for those who study knowledge assets or work in related matters, not to mention it as a trivial matter. Instead of being indifferent, we should once again make policy efforts to achieve unity and consistency in the legal system.
This paper analyzed the use of 'intellectual property' under domestic laws and arranged the differences in its meaning. Among them, four cases were categorized by analyzing the differences based on how the 'intellectual property' use cases included the concept of works through a harmonized interpretation and expression format with the relevant statute text.
The classification criteria through research and their analysis are regarded as basic data that can then be used as the enactment, revision, legislation and various policy data of domestic laws. The use of 'intellectual property' was grouped step by step to draw up a resolution that could be used to improve policies and related legislation for scientific technology researchers, and the existing articles identified in domestic laws were presented as examples of the classification criteria.
The policy and legislative implications obtained from the analysis results are as follows: First, the analysis was carried out with 155 statutes that used the term intellectual property, but the legislation was also confirmed to refer to copyright and industrial property rights accurately without the use of the term intellectual property. On the other hand, there was also a case in which the text was compiled without including the concept of copyright in the use of intellectual property without clearly distinguishing between copyright and industrial property. The biggest problem is the lack of understanding among lawmakers and policymakers on the concept of copyright. It should be recognised clearly that within intellectual property rights there exists a different copyright on the basis of industrial property rights.
Second, what is unique about the analysis results is that the laws under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Science, Technology, Information and Communication, which used the most intellectual property cases, were frequently identified which could not be interpreted by including copyright concepts. Protecting researchers as copyright holders and correctly understanding copyright, one of the intellectual properties, is an important task even within science and technology policies. Considering the situation in which the government implements policies to promote innovation using knowledge assets, such as the creation, protection, and utilization of knowledge assets by R&D researchers in science and technology, it would be necessary to improve the fact that the wrong use of "knowledge properties" comes from the subordinate statutes of the key ministries.
Third, it has already been seven years since the Framework Act on Intellectual Property, which decided to collectively name human rights to intangible assets, was enacted. Nevertheless, "merciless property" that has been used since liberation from Japanese rule is still in use in local statutes. It is a legal term that can cause misunderstanding for those who study knowledge assets or work in related matters, not to mention it as a trivial matter. Instead of being indifferent, we should once again make policy efforts to achieve unity and consistency in the legal system.
주제어
#기술경영, 지식재산경영전략, 지식재산, 지식재산권, IP
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.