• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.12
• /
• pp.555-586
• /
• 1999

United States has extended the extraterritorial application of U.S. Antitrust Law in 1990s. First, The U.S. Federal Supreme Court declared in Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. California that the extraterritorial application of U.S. Antitrust Law is according to Effect Doctrine. Therefore, U.S. Antirust Division and FTC will continue to base their assertions of juridiction on the test of direct, substantial and foreseeable effects on U.S. interests. Second, U.S. Antitrust Law apply to foreign conduct that such conduct has direct, substantial and reasonably foreseeable effect on U.S. domestic or import commerce and export commerce. Third, United States has extended the extraterritorial application of U.S. Antitrust Law on international licensing contract or international merger. Forth, United States impose criminal responsbility of U.S. Antitrust Law on the foreign anticompetitive conduct. Therefore, our government and industries must consider the corresponding stratigies against the extension of the extraterritorial application of U.S. Antitrust Law.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.1
• /
• pp.41-65
• /
• 2010

It is a matter for debate that which types of dispute may be resolved by arbitration. This problem is concerning the arbitrability of the subject-matter of a dispute. National laws establish the domain of arbitration. Each state decides which matters may or may not be resolved by arbitration in accordance with its own political, social and economic policy. In response to complexity and diversity of a social phenomenon, the dispute also is various, therefore can not be settled efficiently by means of court adjudication to which applies a law strictly. To overcome such problems we are going to seek to make use of arbitration. According to Korean Arbitration Act Art. 3 (1), any dispute in private laws would be the object of arbitral proceedings. For the promotion of fair and free competition, it is increasingly wide-ranging antitrust legislation across the world. It is matter for debate what can an arbitral tribunal do when confronted with an allegation that the contract under which the arbitration is brought is itself an illegal restraint of trade or in some other way a breach of antitrust law. The underlying question is how to accommodate the conflicting congressional policies favoring resolution of private controversies by arbitration and encouraging private suits to protect the public interests served by the antitrust laws. It is necessary to inquire into the arbitrability of antitrust issues on case-by-case basis, because the types of them are quite diverse. If antitrust issues are the dispute in private laws and the contracting parties agreed to submit to arbitration disputes which have arisen or which may arise between them in the antitrust issues, the antitrust disputes are arbitrable. Not only international antitrust disputes but also domestic antitrust disputes are capable of being resolved by arbitration. When the public interests in the enforcement of antitrust legislation are asserted, it is possible to justify the annulment or the refusal of the recognition or the enforcement of an arbitral award that ignores public policy as a matter of it.

• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.44
• /
• pp.801-828
• /
• 2013

This essay provides a legislative perspective on conflict-of-laws issues in the area of antitrust law. A consistent focus on the affected market question of applicable law is possible and yields content and acceptable results. The law applicable to damages claims should follow the law applicable to the antitrust relation itself. It is problematic, however, where more than one market is affected. In my view, the European perspective provides one general lesson for us. We are not yet prepared to accept american-style of class action in the field of antitrust law, at least until the european have made their legislative decision. Nevertheless we should make our antitrust system more effective, so that it would have strong deterrence to anti-competitive conducts. In this paper I present a proposal for adoption of a international conflict of law instrument, possibly a regulation, on damages actions for breach of art. 32 Korean Anti-trust Law.

• The Korean Society of Law and Medicine
• /
• v.12 no.2
• /
• pp.295-316
• /
• 2011

If the medical staff privileges, which mean the eligibility to practice at open hospitals, are excluded in the United States, antitrust claims based on the violation of the Sherman Act have been raised a lot. The proliferation of these lawsuits in the United States, which are characterized as antitrust lawsuits, can be understandable situation. The reason is because doctors who don't belong to specific hospitals are seriously damaged, if the medical staff privileges are excluded and doctors cannot use facilities of open hospitals. In order to decide to allow the privileges of certain doctors, hospitals have to rely on peer review to maintain high quality of medical services, and it is not easy to find alternative of peer review in the professional areas like healthcare. However, there are possibilities that members of the peer review can abuse power to unfairly exclude privileges of potential competitors. In this sense, it is asserted in the U.S. antitrust lawsuits that the restraint of medical staff privilege can be the illegal restraint of trade in violation of section 1 of Sherman Act and can be monopolization or an attempt to monopoly by hospitals in violation of section 2 of Sherman Act. As Korea adopted open hospital system quite recently, there is still no case related with the exclusion of medical staff privileges. However, medical staff privilege system of Korea is not different from that of the United States in principle. Thus, the U.S. jurisprudence on the exclusion of medical staff privileges can be referred in the interpretation of "practice that interferes with or restricts the activities or contents of the business" based on Article 19.1.9 of Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Law of Korea.

• Journal of the Korea Safety Management & Science
• /
• v.6 no.1
• /
• pp.247-256
• /
• 2004

Recently, International Standardization is an important issue in competitive world market because of integration of standard, liberalization of international trade and globalization. Consequently, Korean companies need a strategy about corresponding to market circumstance and global standard. In this study, we examine Intellectual Property, Patent and Antitrust Law which are related to standardization. This study suggests company strategy and system integration model to dispose the global standard.

• Journal of Korea Fair Competition Federation
• /
• no.118
• /
• pp.70-79
• /
• 2005

• STI Policy Review
• /
• v.8 no.1
• /
• pp.87-112
• /
• 2017

This study analyzes patenting practices in the pharmaceutical industry and the impacts of sequential innovation. The main argument of the research is that strategic patenting is common in the pharmaceutical sector and it is legal within the context of patent law. However, when these practices have negative effects on the competition process post-grant, the practices that are legal under patent law may come into conflict with antitrust laws, which are not applied. The study brings into question whether sequential patenting practices characteristic of the pharmaceutical industry encourage or discourage innovation, and moreover, the overall functionality of the patent system. Ultimately, the functionality of the patent system creates market incentives that neglect consumer, i.e., patient, welfare; potential solutions to deal with the shortcomings are discussed.

• Journal of Korea Fair Competition Federation
• /
• no.27
• /
• pp.21-27
• /
• 1997

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.5 no.1
• /
• pp.79-116
• /
• 1995

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.45
• /
• pp.165-188
• /
• 2010

The repeal of the block exemption for liner conferences and the abolition of any "special EC antitrust regime" for the shipping industry marks an important step in European maritime competition policy. This article examines the origins and the rationale of the EC antitrust immunity granted so far to the shipping industry and explains the causes of this historical change. Moreover, based on the precedents which have appeared so far, a general assessment is offered under this new EC regime on agreements restricting competition in the liner shipping industry, in particular horizontal ones: conference and tariff/freight arrangements will be doomed, whereas the legitimacy of consortia agreements should not be cast in doubt; a case-by-case analysis will be the approach as regards exchange or dissemination of information by shipowners in the market, and the relevant case law which emerges on these matters in other industries will be the criterion for their evaluation. Finally, a few remarks are made in respect of the international dimension of the decision to outlaw liner conferences and hence carve out EU Member States from the UN Code of Conduct regime.