• Journal of Software Assessment and Valuation
• /
• v.16 no.2
• /
• pp.25-35
• /
• 2020

In the Korean litigation system, structural maldistribution of evidence still remains a conundrum. Numerous solutions have been discussed so far and, today, few people deny the need for adopting a system similar to the discovery procedure in the United States. In the intellectual property (IP) domain, a wide range of legislative attempts have been made to improve the litigation system, especially for patent litigation. However, the adoption of discovery in copyright litigation is seldom discussed, despite the fact that copyright infringement lawsuits increasingly involve highly technical issues, especially in case of copyrightable computer programs. The lack of discussion on discovery adoption forms a stark contrast with the active attempts to adapt and adopt discovery procedure for patent litigation. In copyright infringement lawsuits, especially for copyrighted computer programs, securing evidence takes on crucial importance. However, in reality, there are numerous obstacles. Some lawsuits proceed even without properly securing the infringed work. To address this issue, the current litigation system needs to be improved by adopting a procedure similar to discovery. This paper reviews what solutions are being utilized today, and how we should approach the issue.

• Journal of Software Assessment and Valuation
• /
• v.15 no.1
• /
• pp.25-35
• /
• 2019

In Korea, the calculation of quantitative similarity is commonly used to gauge the substantial similarity of computer programs. Substantial similarity should be assessed by considering the quantity and quality of areas that show similarity, but in practice, qualitative aspects are reflected by multiplying the weighted value in the calculation of quantitative similarity. However, such a practical method cannot be deemed adequate, considering the fundamental characteristic of the judgment on substantial similarity, which holds that the quantitative and qualitative aspects of similar areas should be considered on an equal footing. Thus, this study pointed out the issue regarding the use of weighted value and sought appropriate ways to take into account qualitative aspects when assessing the substantial similarity of computer programs.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.87-105
• /
• 2015

Intellectual property law is slowly fighting to keep pace with the rapid growth of the fashion industry. Copyright and patent law have proven only minimally effective in fashion, even in the US and other top fashion nations, forcing designers and fashion companies to rely on their trademarks to protect their work. Litigating trademark disputes in the fashion industry presents a host of problems as witnessed in a recent Christian Louboutin case, leading the parties to resort to Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) and Online Dispute Resolution(ODR). ADR methods, especially arbitration, are increasingly emerging as substitutes to litigation. Using these methods, the fashion industry (CFDA in the US case) should sincerely consider a self-regulating program in which its members, both fashion designers and corporations alike, can resolve disputes in a manner mutually beneficial to all parties in order to preserve the industry's growth, solidarity, and esteem In particular, for the US fashion industry, the ongoing Innovative Design Protection and Privacy Prevention Act(IDPPPA) anti-counterfeit legislation could have caused a chilling effect against innovation. New designers with no name and less resources who could normally flourish producing inspired-by designs may find themselves subject to copyright infringement legislation since the IDPPPA may expand the protection of established designers and brands with more resources. This fear and its implication could be solved by the fashion industry itself since fashion experts know best how to handle these fast-paced issues arising in the field. Therefore, stakeholders in the fashion industry should commit to protecting innovation within fashion on a long-term basis by establishing a panel handling an ADR process. This can mitigate the uncertainty created by the IDPPPA or any other legislation from elsewhere, which could result in a shying away from experimentation with inspired-by designs.