PCS의 정의

홍대식,Hong Dae-Sik 한국공학교육학회 1997 Ingenium(人材니움) Vol.4 No.4

공정거래법의 사적 집행에 관한 국내 동향과 쟁점

홍대식,Hong, Dae-Sik 한국공정경쟁연합회 2009 경쟁저널 Vol.- No.145

해외 심.판결 사례 해설 및 평석 - 특허상품 끼워팔기 사건에서의 시장지배력 입증 : 미국 Illinois Tool Works 판결

홍대식,Hong, Dae-Sik 한국공정경쟁연합회 2008 경쟁저널 Vol.- No.140

1세션 스마트방송플랫폼

홍대식,이구현,문철수,황준호,이성엽(Hong Daesik,Lee Guhyun,Moon Chulsoo,Hwang Junho,Lee Sungyup) 한국정보법학회 2013 한국정보법학회 정기세미나 발표자료 Vol.- No.24

현행 방송관련법은 「방송법」과 「인터넷 멀티미디어 방송사업법」(이하 “IPTV 사업법”)으로 이원화되어 있다.1) 이는 방송법상 방송 개념에 포괄되기 어려운 새로운 유형의 방송사업인 인터넷 멀티미디어 방송(이하 “IPTV”) 사업에 대하여 정부가 별도의 법률을 제정하여 제도적 수요에 대응한 결과이다. 방송법과 IPTV 사업법은 적용 대상이 되는 방송과 IPTV의 개념을 다른 방식으로 정의하고 있다. 예컨대, 방송법상 방송은 방송프로그램의 기획, 편성 또는 제작 기능을 핵심적인 개념요소로 하고 있다. 반면에 IPTV 사업법상 IPTV는 이용자에게 콘텐츠를 복합적으로 제공하는 기능을 중심으로 개념이 구성되어 있고 방송프로그램의 기획, 편성 또는 제작 기능은 개념요소를 구성하고 있지 않기 때문에, IPTV의 경우 일정한 기술적 제한 하에 이용자에게 단순히 콘텐츠를 제공하는 것만으로도 그 개념의 구성요소를 충족할 수 있다.2)

연구 간접비란 무엇인가? - 연구 간접비는 '연구지원'에 대한 '원가보전'

홍대식,Hong, Dae-Sik 한국과학기술단체총연합회 2011 과학과 기술 Vol.511 No.-

기고문 - 표준화와 특허권 행사, 경쟁법적 판단을 어떻게 할 것인가?

홍대식,권남훈,Hong, Dae-Sik,Gwon, Nam-Hun 한국공정경쟁연합회 2011 경쟁저널 Vol.- No.157

온라인 쇼핑 사업자의 온라인 상품 진열 관련 행위에 대한 공정거래법상 불공정거래행위 규정의 적용

홍대식(Dae-Sik Hong) 경희법학연구소 2023 경희법학 Vol.58 No.2

온라인 쇼핑 사업자의 온라인 상품 진열 방식은 기본적으로는 오프라인 대규모유통업자의 상품 진열 방식과 공통적인 성격을 가지면서 인터넷 쇼핑 환경에 고유한 특성으로 인해 소비자의 구매 과정을 원활하게 도와주기 위한 목적으로 제공되는 결정 보조도구로서 검색기능을 필요로 한다. 다만 이런 검색 기능은 상품 구매 결정을 목적으로 고객이 원하는 상품의 재고 여부와 위치 확인을 위하여 검색결과를 중간 과정으로 한다는 점에서 정보 제공을 목적으로 히여 이용자가 원하는 것이 검색결과 그 자체인 검색서비스의 검색 기능과 차이가 있다. 또한 온라인 쇼핑 사업자의 검색 기능은 온라인 상품 진열 방식과 관련된 기능이라는 점에서 오프라인 대규모유통업자가 매대 상품 진열을 통해 판매촉진활동을 하는 것과 유사하게 활용될 수 있다. 온라인 쇼핑 사업자는 추천 시스템에 적용되는 알고리즘에 특정한 조정을 하여 일정한 상품을 검색결과 화면에 우선 노출하는 방식으로 판매촉진활동을 한다. 이 연구에서는 온라인 쇼핑 사업자가 검색 기능에 판매촉진활동을 위한 추천 기능을 결합하여 알고리즘에 특정한 조점을 한 결과 PB 상품이 제3자 판매 상품보다 우선 노출되는 행위가 자사우대행위로 취급되어 이에 대하여 공정거래법상 불공정거래행위 규정이 적용될 수 있는지를 비판적으로 검토하였다. 불공정거래행위 유형 중에서는 공정위가 다른 사건에서 자사우대행위로 취급한 행위에 적용한 행위 유형인 거래조건 차별행위와 위계에 의한 고객유인행위의 행위 요건과 행위 유형에 공통적인 공정거래저해성 판단의 원리를 해석론의 관점에서 검토하였다. 이런 검토를 토대로 하여 가상적인 사례로서 온라인 쇼핑 사업자가 판매촉진활동의 하나로 알고리즘을 개별적으로 조정한 행위를 하고 그 결과로 온라인 쇼핑 사업자의 PB 상품이 소비자의 검색결과에서 제3자 판매 상품보다 우선 노출되는 경우, 불공정거래행위 규정을 적용하면 몇 가지 해석상 난점이 도출된다는 점과 공정거래저해성 판단에 신중한 접근이 필요하다는 점을 보였다. The online product display method of online shopping operators basically has a common characteristic with the product display method of offiine large-scale retailers, and requires a search function as a decision aid provided for the purpose of helping consumers smoothly purchase due to the unique characteristics of the Internet shopping environment. However, this search function has a difference with the search function of a search setvice in which what the user wants is the search result itself for the purpose of providing information in that the search result is used as an intermediate process to check whether the product the customer wants is in stock and the location for the purpose of making a purchase decision. In addition, in that the online shopping operator's search function is a function related to the online product display method, it can be used similarly to the sales promotion activities of offiine large-scale retailers by displaying products on their shelves. Online shopping operators make specific adjustments to the algorithm applied to the recommendation system to promote sales by exposing certain products prominent on the search result screen. In this study, it was critically reviewed whether the conduct m which private brand('PB') products are exposed prior to products sold by third parties as a result of specific adjustments to the algorithm by combining the search function with the recommendation function for sales promotion by online shopping operators could be treated as a self-preferencing and unfair trade practices provision in the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act(“MRFTA”) could be applied to the conduct. Among the types of unfair trade practices, discrimination of trade terms and unfair customer inducement by deception, which are the conduct types that the Korea Fair Trade Commission applied to the behavior treated as a self-preferencing in other cases, and the principle of judging the impediment to fair trade common to the conduct types were reviewed from the interpretative perspective. Based on this review, as a hypothetical case, if a online shopping company makes specific adjustments to the algorithm as part of its sales promotion activities, and as a result, the company's PB products are exposed prominent in consumer search results than products sold by third parties, it was shown that the application of the unfair trade practices provision leads to some interpretation difficulties, and that a cautious approach is needed to determine impediment to fair trade.

경쟁시장의 창출과 경쟁법: 유비쿼터스도시서비스 시장의 경우

홍대식 ( Dae Sik Hong ) 한국경쟁법학회 2009 競爭法硏究 Vol.19 No.-

This article tries to deal with specific competition issues raised in the course of making a new market in which there had been no market function at all or the spontaneous formation of the market function is hard to be expected. Under such situations, competition-fostering policy defined broadly should be implemented which requires positive policy measures distinctive from those for the general competition law. As a proposition to the discussion, this article draws a line between the general competition law and the special competition law and corresponds the former to the narrowly-defined competition-fostering policy in comparison to the broadly-defined competition-fostering policy. I will use the term of the broadly-defined competition-fostering policy as inclusive of various policy tools designed to aim to establish a pro-competitive institutional framework. Against this background, this article focuses on the case of the ubiquitous city service markets which are encouraged to emerge with the operation of the Act on the Construction, etc. of Ubiquitous Cities(U-City Construction Act). Recently, the U-City model as a new futuristic city paradigm tends to actively apply to both the development of new cities and the improvement of old city regions in Korea. U-city Construction Act has it as an objective to improve competitiveness of the cities and to promote sustainable development. The U-City concept has two elements: U-City infrastructure and U-City services. Viewed from the whole process of the U-City realization, the former is related to planning and construction stages and the latter is related to the management and operation stages. For the U-City services to be profitable enough to induce private investment, the active role of government is needed in developing business models based on the definition of property rights and in presenting public-private partnership or private participation models because the public feature of the U-City services does not seem to allow the creation of competitive markets and even the spontaneous market formation. By explaining some institutional tasks and suggesting some kinds of ways to cope with those, I would like to emphasize the importance and effectiveness of the competition principle which should be consistently preserved even in the context of the broadly-defined competition-fostering policy.

인터넷 플랫폼 시장에서의 경쟁법 적용을 위한 소비자 선택 기준

홍대식 ( Dae Sik Hong ) 한국경쟁법학회 2013 競爭法硏究 Vol.27 No.-

As the ICT(Information, Communications, and Technology) ecosystems are substituting the established value chains in the telecommunications market, the platform service provider`s influence is increasing due to its role of a gatekeeper to connect the different layers by enabling the flow of information and values among various stakeholders. This article aims to overview the consumer choice standard that emerges as a new standard for applying competition law into the internet platform market and to study the prerequisite and method required for its right application. There needs to be a policy-driven approach as to whether the traditional way of competition law application into the markets characterized by the New Economy is desirable. This approach can be made either by reestablishing the standard for judgment of illegality or by diversifying the enforcement methods. As regards the reestablishment for the illegality determination standard, the method that places the concept of consumer choice as a center gains increased attention in the EU. This method can be described as the one which identifies the foreclosure effect on the competitors of the conduct in question and links the subsequently less consumer choice opportunities with the anti-competitive effect. By developing a reasoning focused on the concept of consumer choice, unlike counterparts in the US, EU competition authorities and courts seem to pursue an alternative way of determining illegality so as to lower the dependence on the troubling economic analysis techniques such as price-cost test. Even though the consumer choice standard could be considered significantly in applying competition law, it should be borne in mind that the standard acts as a ground for capturing the effect on consumers in the context of the likely negative effect on competitors at the illegality judgment stage or as a ground for evaluating the defences arguing the effects of enhancing consumer welfare or efficiencies at the justification judgment stage. In this regard, it is not desirable to apply competition law into the practices relating to the circumstances where the effect on competition is undeclared by referring to abstract harm to the benefits of consumer choice as the detriment to consumer interests sufficient for fulfilling the legal requirement for the intervention. Even when the government tries to address this undeveloped area in any way, it should be very considerate as to policy choice of whether and to what extent to intervene. I think co-regulation would be an alternative in this situation.

표준필수특허 보유자의 특허권 남용 사례에 대한 법적 분석 -퀄컴 사건을 중심으로-

홍대식 ( Dae Sik Hong ) 법조협회 2015 法曹 Vol.64 No.11

The aim of this article is to analyse Qualcomm case from the legal perspective, on which both the Korea Fair Trade Commission(‘KFTC’)’s resolution and the Seoul High Court’s decision have been rendered. As a prerequisite for the case analysis, a general analysis on abuse of market-dominant position provision in relation to applying to abuse of standard-essential patent(‘SEP’) holders’ patent rights is made. The general analysis consists of four parts: defining relevant market, judging market-dominant enterprise, distinguishing types of exclusionary abusive conducts, and determining illegality. The case analysis is made step by step in accordance with the framework of general analysis. In Qualcomm case, the KFTC ordered corrective measures and imposed administrative fines against Qualcomm for the violation of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act(‘MRFTA’) such as discrimination of royalty on license of standard-essential patent, giving conditional rebates for using modem chips and RF chips, and demanding post-patent term royalty payments. Qualcomm appealed the case except for post-patent term licensing issue. The Seoul High Court dismissed the case, only cancelling an insignificant part of the KFTC resolution. Both Qualcomm and the KFTC appealed the case to the Supreme Court, which is still pending. Legal analysis focusing on discriminatory patent licensing is as follows: Firstly, with respect to defining relevant market, it is to be focused that the KFTC defined Qualcomm’s patented technology as a whole. In this case, technologies used in mobile communication are all mixed up, called patent thickets, and it is almost impossible to distinguish one to another. Cluster market approach is recommended in this case. Secondly, Qualcomm owned overwhelmingly dominant power in defined markets. The amended Guidelines on the Abuse of Intellectual Property Right(‘IPR Guidelines’) provides that discrimination is in principle subject to this guidelines only when the company has overwhelmingly market dominance. Therefore, there is no problem for applying the IPR Guidelines to this case. Thirdly, Qualcomm’s concerned conduct constitutes discriminatory pricing. In this case, focusing more on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory(‘FRAND’) terms can give an answer to the question of abusive conduct type. Whether there is a price discrimination can be determined based on whether there is a breach of non-discriminatory term included in FRAND terms. Lastly, for unreasonableness, breach of FRAND terms can be an important factor to be considered in determining unreasonableness under the specific circumstances such as conduct of SEP holder with overwhelmingly dominant power. In this case, leveraging or extension of market-dominant power is the key to determine anti-competitive effects. Price discrimination by an enterprise having patent right and participating in downstream market can be a means to leveraging market dominant power in one market to another market.