• 기술혁신연구
• /
• 제20권3호
• /
• pp.57-91
• /
• 2012

본 연구는 우리나라에서 하나의 발명이 유효한 특허권으로 확정되는 과정에서 나타나는 두 가지 분쟁 형태, 즉 결정계(ex parte)와 당사자계(inter parte)를 대상으로 하여 분쟁에서의 승리에 영향을 미치는 요인에 대한 분석을 한 최초의 논문이며 기업, 소송, 대리인, 특허차원에서의 특성들을 설명변수로 구성하여 2단계 프로빗 회귀분석을 하였다. 분석모형에 따르면, 상대적 심판제기율, 심판제기까지 걸린 시간, 대리인 교체, 복수(複數) 대리인 등에서 결정계와 당사자계간에 평균 한계효과(average marginal effect)의 차이가 나타났다. 결정계의 경우 이들 변수가 승소확률을 낮추는 요인이 되지만, 당사자계의 경우 반대로 승소 확률을 높이는 요인으로 작용하였다. 그런데, 결정계와 당사자계 모두에서 특허를 출원한 대리인의 경험이 많을수록 승소확률을 낮추는 역설적인 결과가 나타났다. 그러나, 이는 대리인의 경험이 많을수록 심판제기 확률이 높아지는 표본선택(sample selection)의 효과가 이미 반영되어 있기 때문이며, 대리인 경험의 전 범위에 적용할 수는 없을 것이다. 특허의 가치를 나타내는 청구항수는 승소확률을 높이는 것으로 나타났다. 본 연구에서는 자연인인 특허대리인에 한정하였고, 특허대리인의 경험을 출원대리에 한정하였으나, 앞으로 소송대리의 경험, 특허법인 차원에서의 특성자료, 더 나아가 특허인용 자료와 연결이 된다면 많은 추가적인 연구주제들이 파생될 수 있을 것이다.

• 안보군사학연구
• /
• 통권8호
• /
• pp.1-48
• /
• 2010

The purpose of this study is to examine and analyze the Untied Nations' efforts for peace on Korean peninsular after CCF's participation in Korean War. The Untied Nation tried to negotiate th peace plan between two sides from the end of 1950. Once the CCF's entry into the war had been confirmed, the war situation moved to a new phase, and the UN forces, which had guided the war in an effort to destroy the NKP A forces, and to punish North Korea, had to set up new guidelines to cope with the new situation. Accordingly, in late November, 1950, the UN forces camp, mainly the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and the United Nations Command, discussed various options, such as an expansion of the war up to the Chinese territory, a cease fire along the 38th Parallel, or a forced and inevitable evacuation. The Korean delegation to the UN insisted that "the unification of Korea should be achieved only by victory in the war. The Chinese intervention in the war is a Challenge to the UN in the same way as the North Korean invasion. The UN participation in the war was to repulse the invasion. With the same spirit we should drive back the Chinese Communists." The Korean delegation also emphasized to the friendly nations the political objective and will of unification, and that a cease fire at a threshold of unification might return us to the status quo ante bellum, and would be contrary to the Korean nation's desire. At that time, particularly, the US strongly considered the employment of nuclear weapons as one of the new strategies to cope with the Chinese invasion. The international effects of these casual remarks were realized almost at once. The British Prime Minister who had not wanted the expansion of war in the Far East, especially from the view point of the interest of NATO's security, visited Washington. so the conference had a very important meaning for the UN forces' new strategy. On the other hand, at the UN, on the 5th of December, the very day Truman and Attlee agreed to seek a cease-fire under UN auspices, a group of thirteen Asian and Arab states proposed to ask China and North Korea not to cross the 38th Parallel, and sounded out both sides about a cease fire along the 38th Parallel. The United States and the United Kingdom gave their assent, but China and North Korea gave no direct response. The CCF, who were securing the initiative of operation, were not agreeable with the proposal of the UN forces. The Untied Nation has tried to negotiate th peace plan between two sides from the December of 1950 and January of 1951. The Untied Nations' has achieved great results to negotiate for the peace plan on Korean peninsular after CCF's participation in Korean War. It's the results considering both the operation situation and political opinions.

• 미술이론과 현장
• /
• 제2호
• /
• pp.27-48
• /
• 2004

Robert Rauschenberg's artistic career has often been regarded as having reached its culmination when the artist won the first prize at the 1964 Venice Biennale. With this victory, Rauschenberg triumphantly entered the pantheon of all-American artists and firmly secured his position in the history of American art. On the other hand, despite the artist's ongoing new experiments in his art, the seemingly precocious ripeness in his career has led the critical discourses on Rauschenberg's art to the artist's early works, most of which were done in the mid-1950s and the 1960s. The crux of Rauschenberg criticism lies not only in focusing on the artist's 50's and 60's works, but also in its large dismissal of the significance of the imagery that the artist employed in his works. As art historians Roger Cranshaw and Adrian Lewis point out, the critical discourse of Rauschenberg either focuses on the formalist concerns on the picture plane, or relies on the "culturalist" interpretation of Rauschenberg's imagery which emphasizes the artist's "Americanness." Recently, a group of art historians centered around October has applied Charles Sanders Peirce's semiotics as art historical methodology and illuminated the indexical aspects of Rauschenberg's work. The semantic inquiry into Rauschenberg's imagery has also been launched by some art historians who seek the clues in the artist's personal context. The first half of this essay will examine the previous criticism on Rauschenberg's art and the other half will discuss the artist's 1955 work Rebus, which I think intersects various critical concerns of Rauschenberg's work, and yet defies the closure of discourses in one direction. The categories of signs in the semiotics of Charles Sanders Peirce and the discourse of Jean-Francois Lyotard will be used in discussing the meanings of Rebus, not to search for the semantic readings of the work, hut to make an analogy in terms of the paradoxical structures of both the work and the theory. The definitions of rebus is as follows: Rebus 1. a representation or words or syllables by pictures of object or by symbols whose names resemble the intended words or syllables in sound; also: a riddle made up wholly or in part of such pictures or symbols. 2. a badge that suggests the name of the person to whom it belongs. Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged. Since its creation in 1955, Robert Rauschenberg's Rebus has been one of the most intriguing works in the artist's oeuvre. This monumental 'combine' painting($6feet{\times}10feet$ 10.5 inches) consists of three panels covered with fabric, paper, newspaper, and printed reproductions. On top of these, oil paints, pencil and crayon drawings connect each section into a whole. The layout of the images is overall horizontal. Starting from a torn election poster, which is partially read as "THAT REPRE," on the far left side of the painting. Rebus leads us to proceed from the left to the right, the typical direction of reading in a Western context. Along with its seemingly proper title. Rebus, the painting has triggered many art historians to seek some semantic readings of it. These art historians painstakingly reconstruct the iconography based on the artist's interviews, (auto)biography, and artistic context of his works. The interpretation of Rebus varies from a 'image-by-image' collation with a word to a more general commentary on Rauschenberg's work overall, such as a work that "bridges between art and life." Despite the title's allusion to the legitimate purpose of the painting as a decoding of the imagery into sound, Rebus, I argue, actually hinders a reading of it. By reading through Peirce to Rauschenberg, I will delve into the subtle anxiety between words and images in their works. And on this basis, I suggest Rauschenberg's strategy in playing Rebus is to hide the meaning of the imagery rather than to disclose it.

• 분석과 대안
• /
• 제8권2호
• /
• pp.65-86
• /
• 2024

본 연구는 우크라이나 공간을 둘러싼 유럽열강 간 오랜 지정학적 충돌을 역사적 관점에서 분석하고자 한다. 이를 통해 근대 유럽사 속에서 드러나는 우크라이나 공간의 지정학적 중요성과 이를 두고 벌어진 근대 유럽열강 간 패권분쟁을 부각시키고자 한다. 19세기 이래, 영미(英美)와 독일은 이와 관련하여 각각 상이한 대(對) 유라시아 지정학 관점과 전략을 발전시켰다. 따라서 양측이 일으킨 크림전쟁과 독소전쟁은 이들의 지정학적 전략과 이익실현의 관점에서 분석될 필요가 있다. 먼저 대영제국의 경우 크림전쟁개입을 통해 제정 러시아에 의한 우크라이나 공간의 완전한 장악을 저지하였다. 이를 통해 대영제국은 제정 러시아의 흑해 및 지중해 남하와 중부유럽진출을 위한 교두보 확보를 봉쇄하였다. 다음으로 중부유럽을 중심으로 아시아 대륙세력과 영미해양세력의 침투를 저지하는 배타적 공간질서를 건설해야한다는 지정학 전략을 수용한 독일 제3제국은, 중동부유럽의 레벤스라움(Lebensraum) 확보와 확장을 위해 독소전쟁을 일으켰다. 이를 통해 독일 제3제국은 우크라이나 공간을 넘어 카프카스 지역진출을 시도하고 소련과의 완충지대를 확장시키고자 하였다. 양(兩) 전쟁에 대한 지정학적 분석을 바탕으로 3가지 결론을 도출 할 수 있다. 첫째, 우크라이나 공간을 둔 지정학적 분쟁은 키예프 공국 패망 이래 해당공간을 토대로 한 강력한 국가의 부재에 기인한 측면이 크다. 둘째, 우크라이나 공간을 둘러싼 지정학적 분쟁은 분쟁당사자 모두에게 득보다 실이 큰 피로스의 승리와 같다. 셋째, 우크라이나 공간을 둘러싼 지정학적 분쟁의 근본원인은 상호공존과 균형을 경시하는 배타적 지정학관 간 충돌이다.