초록 열기/닫기 버튼
Recently there have been some cases concerning Microsoft's monopoly power abuse around the world. In Europe, in 2004, EU Commission ruled that Microsoft had failed to provide rivals with information that they needed to compete fairly in the market for server software. This paper will examine the monopolistic IPR's refusal of license. In principle, IPR owners have the right to refuse to license. However, in some exceptional circumstances, it has been noted that IPR owners are compelled to license. A compulsory license in Patent Act is a good example. In addition, there has been a dispute whether we could apply 'essential facility theory' to license-refusal. Although some scholars would not agree to it because of IPR's nature, I believe that we should regulate the monopolistic owner's license-refusal with essential facility theory. The standpoint of Anti-trust Act's provision has convinced me that this interpretation has a warrant. In order to substantiate my argument, I have analyzed earlier cases regarding these topics. At last, I would argue that Korea should make a specific mechanism to regulate software monopoly powers, by reference to that of Telecommunication, namely essential facility system.
