• Asian Journal of Innovation and Policy
• /
• v.7 no.3
• /
• pp.606-624
• /
• 2018

Patent infringement is defined as implementing a whole patent product without authorization, which is called literal infringement. However, the alleged infringer sometimes does not directly produce the same product with the patented invention, but they simply replace some claimed elements with new materials, or they only produce a certain part of the patent product. Therefore, there is an issue on whether the above cases should also be deemed as patent infringement. This paper uses specific cases to analyze the formation and development process of the doctrine of equivalents and indirect infringement theory in Japan. Then, by discussing the interpretation of Article 101 of the current Japanese patent law, this paper makes it clear that whether it constitutes direct or indirect infringement in some particular cases. The objective of this paper is to clarify the specific requirements of patent infringement under Japanese patent law by case studying and comparing with the patent legal system of China.

• Journal of Korea Technology Innovation Society
• /
• v.20 no.4
• /
• pp.1288-1308
• /
• 2017

When looking at the online copyright infringement, the advertisements have served as a revenue source. Recently, copyright holders and state agencies have requested to stop and withdraw posting the ad. in order to prevent copyright infringement. This way is very easy and efficient. However, the problem is that it is not clear whether the request is appropriate. For the request to be valid, posting the ad. should be a kind of indirect infringement, or if not, it must have a suitable reason. If there is no basis or reason for the two, the request should not be asked recklessly. In the US relevant cases, something more than simple relationship with direct infringers or more material contribution to the direct infringement is required to impose secondary liability for copyright infringement. However, just posting the ad. cannot be considered as the close relationship and moreover, it is not material contribution. Thus, posting the ad. is not secondarily liable for copyright infringement. In addition, the bills which was proposed in 2011, so called SOPA and PIPA, had a provision which can stop and withdraw the ads in the piracy sites. Its opponents raised the following problems: withdrawing the ad. is the censorship, gives the burdensome to the sites, and causes the imbalance due to the overload protection of copyright. Also, under the ad blocker case, to remove the ad. discretionally consists of illegal activity or copyright infringement. As a result, because the request to stop and withdraw posting the ad. is not reasonable, the request should be asked carefully.

• KSII Transactions on Internet and Information Systems (TIIS)
• /
• v.16 no.7
• /
• pp.2459-2472
• /
• 2022

With the increase in copyright content exports to overseas markets due to the recent globalization of the Korean culture, the added value of the Korean digital content market is increasing at a significant rate. As such, as the size of the copyright market increases, different piracy sites have emerged that generate profits by illegally distributing works without the permission of the copyright holders, resulting in direct and indirect damage to these copyright holders. The existing copyright detection methods used in public institutions for solving this problem are limited, while the piracy sites are ever-changing. Methods are being continuously developed to achieve better detection results. To this end, it is possible to detect the latest infringement site domain by detecting the infringement site domain that is constantly changed through the search engine. This paper proposes an improved piracy site detection method using a search engine to prevent the damage caused by piracy sites.

• Journal of the Korea Institute of Information Security & Cryptology
• /
• v.20 no.6
• /
• pp.97-109
• /
• 2010

Although the primary liability for online copyright infringement may fall on the individual who illegally copies, transfers, and/or distributes the copyrighted content, the issue of indirect liability for Online Service Providers (OSPS) that provide a channel for the distribution of illegal content has recently come under the spotlight. Currently, in an effort to avoid liability for indirect copyright infringement and improve their reputation, most OSPs have voluntarily applied filtering technology. Under the Copyright Act of Korea, special types of OSPS including P2P and Web-based Hard Drive (WebHard) are required to incorporate filtering technology, and may be charged with penalties if found without one. However, despite the clear need for filtering mechanisms, several arguments have been set forth that question the efficacy and appropriateness of the system. As such, this paper discusses the liability theory adopted in the US. -a leader in internet technology development-and analyzes the scope of liability and filtering related regulations in our copyright law. In addition, this paper considers the current applications of filtering as well as limits of the applied filtering technology in OSPS today. Finally, we make four suggestions to improve filtering in Korea, addressing issues such as clarifying the limits and responsibilities of OSPS, searching for cooperative solutions between copyright holders and OSPS, standardizing the filtering technology to enable compatibility among different filtering techniques, and others.

• Knowledge Management Research
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.69-94
• /
• 2024

With the development of cyberspace and its increasing interaction with our daily lives, cybercrime has been steadily increasing in recent years and has become more prominent as a serious social problem. Notably, the "four major malicious cybercrimes" - cyber fraud, cyber financial crime, cyber sexual violence, and cyber gambling - have drawn significant attention. In order to minimize the damage of cybercrime, it's crucial to delve into the specifics of each crime and develop targeted prevention and intervention strategies. Yet, most existing research relies on indirect data sources like statistics, victim testimonials, and public opinion. This study seeks to uncover the characteristics and factors of cybercrime by directly interviewing suspects involved in 'copyright infringement', 'gambling' related to illicit online content, and 'pornography crime'. Through coding analysis and text mining, the study aims to offer a more in-depth understanding of cybercrime dynamics. Furthermore, by suggesting preventative and remedial measures, the research aims to equip policymakers with vital information to reduce the repercussions of this escalating digital threat.

• Convergence Security Journal
• /
• v.16 no.6_2
• /
• pp.89-97
• /
• 2016

Disclosure of personal information to be carried out in one of the Administrative Publicity, Administrative agency as specific information about the person who has violated the obligation imposed by the law is an unspecified number people know is through the direct or Internet media it is to be disclosed in an unspecified number of people. This is, indirect sanctions so as to fulfill its obligations by the addition of psychological pressure that exposes the personal information of the fact that in breach of his obligations to the breach of duty and it has been an unspecified number of people know it is a means. However, publication of these personal information, infringement of the moral rights of the Constitution guarantees an individual, of course, not only a matter of law that the right to self-determination of the personal information, has continued also doubts for the effectiveness of the system. As a result, in this paper, to discuss legal issues with the disclosure of management personal information and its improvement measures, and expected to be able to take advantage of the efficient development of the future of personal information disclosure system.

• Journal of Legislation Research
• /
• no.53
• /
• pp.525-551
• /
• 2017

This Article discusses the current trend of European competition damage actions focused on the recent Damage Directive and its transposition by the United Kingdom and Germany. The relevant Directive was signed into law in November 2014, and it requires the EU Member States to adopt certain measures to support competition damage actions. The required measures and principles by the Directive include right to full compensation, rebuttable presumption of harm, extensive disclosure of evidence, use of pass-on for defense and indirect purchaser suits. Although many Member States did not meet the deadline to transpose the Directive, the end of 2016, it is reported that 23 Member States have now, as of September 2017, made enactments according to the Directive. When we look at the transposition done by the United Kingdom and Germany, the revisions on their competition laws closely follow the contents of the Directive. However, it will take quite a long time before the amended provisions apply to actual cases since most of the new provisions apply to the infringement that take place after the date of the amendment. A similar situation regarding application time may happen in some other Member States. Furthermore, even if the terms of the competition laws of the Member States become similar following the Directive, the interpretations of the laws may differ by the courts of different countries. EU also does not have a tool to coordinate the litigations that are brought in different Member States under the same facts. It is true that the EU made a big step to enhance competition damage actions by enacting Damage Directive. However, it needs to take more time and resources to have settled system of competition private litigation throughout the Member States. Korea has also experienced increase in competition damage actions during the last fifteen years, and there have been some revisions of the relevant fair trade law as well as development of relevant legal principles by court decisions. Although there are some suggestions that Korea should have more enactments similar to the EU Directive, its seems wiser for Korea to take time to observe how EU countries actually operate competition damage actions after they transposed the Directive. Then, it will be able to gain some wisdom to adopt competition action measures that are suitable for Korean legal system and culture.