• Journal of Digital Convergence
• /
• v.2 no.1
• /
• pp.93-112
• /
• 2004

A license under UCITA(Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act) which represents the first comprehensive uniform computer information licensing law is not fundamentally rooted in intellectual property law such as patent or copyright law. A license under UCITA is simply a commercial contract, dependent wholly on the parties' ability to enter into a normal, commercial contract, just as a contract of sale or lease is simply and wholly a commercial contract. However, intellectual property rights may be licensed in a contract subject to UCITA. UCITA may not be used to vary or extend informational rights that are intellectual property rights, and expressly recognizes preemption by copyright, patent, or other federal intellectual property law in Section 105(b). Like the law of sales and leases, in general, the right to contract is constrained by principles of unconscionability, good faith and fair dealing, UCITA has an additional restraint, an express power for a court to deny enforcement of a provision in a licensing contract that violates fundamental public policy. This public policy defense is unique in UCITA. An essential purpose of this defense is to give courts some latitude in reconciling commercial licensing law with the principles of intellectual property law. Most intellectual property law is federal, and UCITA expressly recognizes the preemptive effect of that federal law. But the public policy defense gives courts an additional power to consider intellectual property principles purely within the context commercial law.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.64
• /
• pp.39-64
• /
• 2014

The object of International License Contract is technology. Technology is means to produce visible goods, which are human's intellectual creations such as Intellectual Property Right - patent, design, trademark- and Know-how. Unlike visible goods which decrease as being used, these technologies are possible to be produced expansively and develop additionally. Therefore, the way to make a contract of goods is a sales contract which transfers ownership while technology follows license contract which gives approval of use for a certain period. International license contract means that licensor has right to possess, allows licensee to use licensed technology for a fixed period and takes royalty. So there are various matters such as selection of the duration of a contract, confirmation of technology range, competition limitation, technique guidance and support, calculation of royalty, withholding tax between parties. This study examines licensor's grant of license and competition limitation. Intellectual property rights fundamentally give exclusive rights to the creator so the licensor use or dispose of his or her intellectual property rights at will. Technology transfer is possible through license contract because of this right. But licensor must exercise his or her intellectual property rights within a reasonable limit. It means, when licensor makes an unreasonable demand abusing his or her position, it is regarded as competition limitation clause and the deal itself may become null. Therefore, restraint on competition needs to be examined in detail as it influences on contract validity. Each country has their own competition laws for establishing a fair market order and inspection guide and guideline for judging whether there is any unfair act related to intellectual property rights. Judgment on intellectual property rights is subject the technology-introduced country's domestic laws and thus, contracting parties each need to precede opposite nation's domestic laws system.

• Journal of the Korea Institute of Information and Communication Engineering
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.286-293
• /
• 2021

Smart contract based on the blockchain technology can be applied to the real estate registry including transactions. The Ethereum coin using multi layered protocol is widely accepted as the token for the smart contract. Block chain smart contract using SOLIDITY or PYTHON can mediate transactions auch as sale or lease, creating various scenarios in the property market. Those smart contract can construct the basis for the blockchain real estate registry, which is expected to overcome conventional transaction costs concerning the national law system, the asymmetric information and the currency exchange. The advantages of blockchain technology, namely security, decentralization, global transparency and openness can be applied to the smart contract system on the property registry. Several countries have advanced such blockchain real estate registry project recently, but no actual implementation has been reported for years, owing to institutional and technological impasses.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.19 no.3
• /
• pp.215-235
• /
• 2017

The United Nations Convention on Contract for the International Sale of Goods(CISG) is legislated for unified of international sale of goods, but does not cover all concerns related to that. Arilce 4 provides the exclusions of CISG. These exclusions might be govern by a domestic law. This paper analyses what are excluding under CISG Article 4, and then provides the Korean and Chinese domestic regulations related to them. At first, whether some issues are excluding based on the interpretation of CISG Article 4 depends on the agreement of parties concerned. An issue that a national law applies even might be invalid if it does not follow the general principles of CISG. In Conclusion, CISG does not cover the validity of the contract and the property in the goods sold under CISG Article 4. a company who trades with Chines company should understand the differences of both countries' regulations about the validity of the contract and the effect of property transfer and be careful to decide a govern law to avoid unnecessary disputes about these issues even though their contract is govern by CISG.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.61
• /
• pp.29-55
• /
• 2014

Subject matter of international trade are various. They contain not only tangible assets such as goods but also intangible assets including service, technology, and capital etc. Technology, a creation of the human intellect, is important as it is the main creative power to produce goods. It can be divided into Patent, Trademark, Know-how and so on. These Technologies are protected by the national and international laws on regulations for the Intellectual Property Rights(IPR), since technology development is needed a lot of time and effort, and the owner of the technology may have crucial benefits for creating and delivering better goods and services to users and customers. Therefore, any licensee who wants to use the technology which other person(licensor) owns, he(the licensee) and the original owner(the licensor) shall make Technology Transfer Contract. Differently from the International Sales Contract in which seller provides the proprietary rights of goods for buyer, in the case of International Transfer of Technology Contract, the licensor doesn't provide proprietary rights of technologies with the licensee, on the contrary the right of using is only allowed during the contract. The purpose of this paper is to examine the main issues in International Transfer of Technology Contract. This author focused on the main obligations of both parties, namely licensor's obligation to provide the technology and licensee's obligation to pay the royalty. As every country has different local mandatory laws about Intellectual Property Rights(IPR) and these mandatory rules and laws prevails over the contract, the related rules and laws should be examined carefully by both parties in advance. Especially the rules and laws about the competition limitation in the local country of licensee and the economic union(like the EU) should be checked before contracting. In addition, the contract has much more complicate and delicate aspects than other international business contracts, so both parties should review carefully before singing the contract.

• Proceedings of the Korean Institute of Building Construction Conference
• /
• v.y2004m10
• /
• pp.83-86
• /
• 2004

Index adjusted ration method has been widely utilized in public construction secter for contract sum adjustment by price fluctuation. In this method. the Production Price Index are used for calculating the base ratio. but the PPI can't reflect the property of construction project in respect of the selected item and weight structure. In this research we prove the problem of using the index adjusted ration method in contract sum adjustment by price fluctuation. and improve it by using the construction cost index. which has the property of construction project. And the result. we figure out the difference between the PPI and CCI by $6.7\%$ in maximum value.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.45
• /
• 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.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.27-46
• /
• 2011

In the intellectual based society of the 21th century, intellectual property of nation and enterprise management has been the key element of nation's competitiveness and development. Therefore in countries like Korea, China, and many other countries, intellectual property of advancement strategy are being constructed and intellectual properties are protected at national level. Top priority task of protecting the intellectual property is to efficiently resolute intellectual property right disputes. Considering the nature of intellectual property right and arbitrage system, arbitration to solve intellectual property disputes is realistically the best method. However, not all cases of them are qualified. In order to relieve the intellectual property disputes through arbitration, qualification must be obtained. During the process, generally and globally, intellectual property right dispute is evaluated by three parts, intellectual property right contract dispute, intellectual property right violation dispute, and intellectual property right validity dispute. Based on UN's "Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Agreement" in 1958, June 10th, in New York, both arbitrage organization and judgment can be approved in both Korea and China countries. However, as of today, there is a big gap of arbitration qualification between two countries, which can be troublesome if intellectual property right disputes arise. For instance, in Korea, intellectual property right contract disputes and intellectual property right violation disputes are both generally accepted as arbitration qualification. However for intellectual property right validity dispute, arbitration qualification is only accepted for non-registered intellectual property as in copyright entity. It does not apply to other registered intellectual property right as in patents. In China, arbitration qualification is accepted for intellectual property right contract dispute, and also accepted for intellectual property right violation dispute to copyrights but restricted to others. As for intellectual property right validity dispute, arbitration qualification is completely denied. Therefore, when there is an intellectual property right dispute between Korea and China, the biggest problem is whether China will accept arbitrage judgments made in Korea. Theoretically, arbitrage judgement made in Korea should be also accepted in China's court. However, considering the criticism of China's passive nature of arbitration qualification for its own local intellectual property right disputes, it's very unlikely they'll actively accept arbitrary judgment made in foreign countries. Korea and China must have a more open minded approach for intellectual property disputes and arbitration qualification. Base on WTO's Intellectual Property Right Agreement, it's being defined as private right. Therefore, sovereign principle should be the basic principle of solving intellectual property right disputes. Currently, arbitration qualification is expanding internationally. So both Korea and China must also follow the trend expand the arbitration qualification with a more open minded and forward looking approach, for the good of intellectual property disputes.

• International Journal of Computer Science & Network Security
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.424-435
• /
• 2022

When the owners of the intellectual property rights of digital content have lost control over it in the digital environment, there emerged fears that the intellectual property laws, especially copyright law, would not be effective as in the material (Offline ) world. The reason is that the digital environment helps to reproduce copies in high quality and at almost no cost, while copyright law protection has been limited to programs embedded in CDs. According to copyright laws, the owner of the program did not have the right to prevent buyers of the initial physical copy of the program from copying and reselling it to more than one individual without the permission of the original owner. As a result, business owners have invented the idea of licensing digital content and programs instead of selling them. They set out terms that serve their commercial interests regardless of their abuse to intellectual property laws or even the rules of the traditional contract to sell a material property. The abuse has resulted from the way those terms are concluded and the heavy rules that are unfair to consumer rights. Therefore, business owners insisted on dealing with the website and its programs and digital content as material property. Here raises the question of whether the website and its digital content are subject to the protection of copyright law or the rules of the traditional contract or licensing contracts. As the answer to this question affects the protection of consumer rights, is it possible to find a balance between it and the protection of the owners of digital programs' rights.That is what we will discuss in this paper.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.64
• /
• pp.155-185
• /
• 2014

Liability for the manufacture or supply of defective products can arise in two principle ways, in tort and in contract. English law has long regarded shipbuilding contract as agreement for the sale and purchase of goods. The consequence of which is that unless the Buyer and Builder agree otherwise, terms will automatically be implied into the contract between them as to the quality and performance of the completed vessel. The same principle applies to sub-contracts allied to the shipbuilding contract. On the other hand, one case decisions established that ".... a contract to build a ship, though a contract of sale of goods, has also some characteristics of a building contract", Recently the liability of a manufacturer in tort for physical damage i.e. personal injury and damage to property other than alleged to be defective is now well settled in most countries. Accordingly the Builder may face third party claims in tort more regularly than they have in the past, if the statutory implied terms have not been expressly excluded in contract. In such circumstances, it is necessary for the Builder to be prepared with counter measures to secure the stability of the vessel from its design development, building process, delivery and operation etc. The purpose of this paper is, from the case of "MSC Carla", to review product liability, jurisdiction and the initial date of extinctive prescription, then to suggest counter measures to the Builder.