메뉴 건너뛰기

추천
검색

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
저널정보
한국지식재산학회 산업재산권 산업재산권 제38호
발행연도
수록면
1 - 54 (54page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
이 논문의 연구방법이 궁금하신가요?
🏆
연구결과
이 논문의 연구결과가 궁금하신가요?
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색

초록· 키워드

This article tried to capture the specific characteristics of trade secret having recently emerging importance, which were easily overlooked when prior researchers stick only to trade secret itself, by the comparative analysis with patent and other intellectual property protection, etc. Before that, the requirement of independent economic value plus utility seems meaningless repetition in the definition of trade secrets and it is inappropriate for Korean statute to nominate How To Sell as one of only two examples for trade secrets. At first when doing comparative analysis, it is essential to understand that finding an equilibrium between the two protection system, trade secret as technology information and patent is always needed because those are closely related. Then, every issue including novelty and doctrine of equivalents which could arguably be common points should be carefully compared while legislative, executive, and judicial branch shall figure out what will be the problem in which trade secret and patent are related inextricably to each other, as illustrated in this article. The technology information among trade secrets obtained at office will revert to the employee under the Invention Promotion Act though the other part among trade secrets (management information) will probably be taken out by the employer. Finally, it seems premature to establish so-called the Trade Secret Act separated from the current Unfair Competition Prevention Act and the analysis through comparison even with copyrights shed a light on a way to go for an appropriate trade secret protection system in Korea.
상세정보 수정요청해당 페이지 내 제목·저자·목차·페이지
정보가 잘못된 경우 알려주세요!

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌

참고문헌 신청

최근 본 자료

전체보기