Pub Date : 2021-03-25DOI: 10.18572/2072-4322-2021-1-19-25
V.Kh. Zinnurov
Relevance. The article is based on the report of the author at the specialized session “Intellectual Property and competitiveness of enterprises in attracting investment and production diversification: key performance indicators (industry and corporate level)” within the framework of the XII International Forum “Innovative Development through the Intellectual Property Market”, which was held in Moscow on 30.10.2020. Despite approved strategy documents in place for development of Russian aviation industry and governmental programs being implemented, the Russian intellectual property market formation has not been considered among top tier priorities. Methodology: the study analyzes the global aviation industry trends and the outcomes of governmental programs on development of Russian aviation industry. Results. Based on the analysis of the global trends in innovation activity of aerospace industry leaders and the status of development initiatives in the Russian aviation industry and specifically the United Aircraft Corporation, conclusions are made with regard to the quality of institutional environment for support of innovations, with a rationale for facilitation of efforts by industry enterprises in their identifying, protecting and commercializing the intellectual property. Discussion. The study addresses a major issue of how, in the situation of a dominant share of public investments in the aviation industry, to facilitate and promote a proper level of activity in commercialization of intellectual property results by state-owned/sponsored enterprises, and ensure a sustainable level of support for private sector enterprises in the creation of advanced technology products.
{"title":"Market Mechanisms of the Strategy of Innovative Development of the Russian Aviation Industry: Problems and Indicators of the Economy of Intellectual Property","authors":"V.Kh. Zinnurov","doi":"10.18572/2072-4322-2021-1-19-25","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18572/2072-4322-2021-1-19-25","url":null,"abstract":"Relevance. The article is based on the report of the author at the specialized session “Intellectual Property and competitiveness of enterprises in attracting investment and production diversification: key performance indicators (industry and corporate level)” within the framework of the XII International Forum “Innovative Development through the Intellectual Property Market”, which was held in Moscow on 30.10.2020. Despite approved strategy documents in place for development of Russian aviation industry and governmental programs being implemented, the Russian intellectual property market formation has not been considered among top tier priorities. Methodology: the study analyzes the global aviation industry trends and the outcomes of governmental programs on development of Russian aviation industry. Results. Based on the analysis of the global trends in innovation activity of aerospace industry leaders and the status of development initiatives in the Russian aviation industry and specifically the United Aircraft Corporation, conclusions are made with regard to the quality of institutional environment for support of innovations, with a rationale for facilitation of efforts by industry enterprises in their identifying, protecting and commercializing the intellectual property. Discussion. The study addresses a major issue of how, in the situation of a dominant share of public investments in the aviation industry, to facilitate and promote a proper level of activity in commercialization of intellectual property results by state-owned/sponsored enterprises, and ensure a sustainable level of support for private sector enterprises in the creation of advanced technology products.","PeriodicalId":88929,"journal":{"name":"Marquette intellectual property law review","volume":"58 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86219235","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-03-25DOI: 10.18572/2072-4322-2021-1-29-33
T. Kanatov
This article discusses the problematic issues of intellectual piracy and counterfeiting in the EEU countries. Analyzed international instruments, given the statistics in the context of the EEC according to the ECA, the FCS, the types of the main groups of counterfeit goods moved across the customs border, the issues of online trading of counterfeit products, given the statistics of the market size of counterfeit products. The legal characteristics of the concepts of «counterfeit», «intellectual piracy» from the point of view of legislation, doctrine and practice are given. In order to prevent offenses, special tables of «counterfeit indices» developed by the Russian Anti-Piracy Organization to help law enforcement agencies and copyright holders, which allows them to independently identify counterfeit copies without the involvement of experts, as well as the table of the Moscow Center for Independent Comprehensive Examination and Certification of Systems and Technologies, which proposed to use a system of criteria for protecting computer disks with computer programs from counterfeiting according to certain criteria, are considered. Purpose. To investigate current problematic issues of intellectual piracy and counterfeiting in the EAEU countries. Methodology: system-structural, concrete-sociological, historical-legal, social-legal, comparative-legal, statistical methods of work were used in writing the article. Results. Proposals and conclusions based on the analysis of international legislation, as well as regulatory legal acts of the EAEU countries that were in force at the moment. The relevance and practical significance of the article lies in the analysis of intellectual piracy and counterfeiting in the EAEU countries. The special significance of this study lies in the fact that the developed theoretical provisions of this work can be used in the future for further study and consideration of issues related to counterfeiting and intellectual piracy in the doctrine and legislation of the EAEU countries. With this research, the author invests a significant resource in the theoretical part of civil law. Novelty/originality/value: The article has a high scientific value, as it is one of the first attempts to consider topical issues of intellectual piracy and counterfeiting in the EAEU countries.
{"title":"Problems of Intellectual Piracy and Counterfeiting in the EAEU Countries","authors":"T. Kanatov","doi":"10.18572/2072-4322-2021-1-29-33","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18572/2072-4322-2021-1-29-33","url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses the problematic issues of intellectual piracy and counterfeiting in the EEU countries. Analyzed international instruments, given the statistics in the context of the EEC according to the ECA, the FCS, the types of the main groups of counterfeit goods moved across the customs border, the issues of online trading of counterfeit products, given the statistics of the market size of counterfeit products. The legal characteristics of the concepts of «counterfeit», «intellectual piracy» from the point of view of legislation, doctrine and practice are given. In order to prevent offenses, special tables of «counterfeit indices» developed by the Russian Anti-Piracy Organization to help law enforcement agencies and copyright holders, which allows them to independently identify counterfeit copies without the involvement of experts, as well as the table of the Moscow Center for Independent Comprehensive Examination and Certification of Systems and Technologies, which proposed to use a system of criteria for protecting computer disks with computer programs from counterfeiting according to certain criteria, are considered. Purpose. To investigate current problematic issues of intellectual piracy and counterfeiting in the EAEU countries. Methodology: system-structural, concrete-sociological, historical-legal, social-legal, comparative-legal, statistical methods of work were used in writing the article. Results. Proposals and conclusions based on the analysis of international legislation, as well as regulatory legal acts of the EAEU countries that were in force at the moment. The relevance and practical significance of the article lies in the analysis of intellectual piracy and counterfeiting in the EAEU countries. The special significance of this study lies in the fact that the developed theoretical provisions of this work can be used in the future for further study and consideration of issues related to counterfeiting and intellectual piracy in the doctrine and legislation of the EAEU countries. With this research, the author invests a significant resource in the theoretical part of civil law. Novelty/originality/value: The article has a high scientific value, as it is one of the first attempts to consider topical issues of intellectual piracy and counterfeiting in the EAEU countries.","PeriodicalId":88929,"journal":{"name":"Marquette intellectual property law review","volume":"30 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85679045","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-03-25DOI: 10.18572/2072-4322-2021-1-14-18
B. L. Genin, Y. V. Zontov
Relevance. At present, there are significant changes in the modern systems of official publication of patent offices. The paper discusses the concept of digital transformation in relation to official publication systems and the construction of a client-oriented Agency. The new publication requirements include requirements for effective search for information about inventions and utility models, requirements for providing information about changes in legal status, requirements for providing analytical information, and requirements for citation information. Methodology: the research is based on complex and systematic analysis, general scientific methods of cognition-analysis and synthesis, dialectical method, systematization and classification, process and system approaches, as well as the method of comparison. Results. New goals of the publication system and requirements for Electronic publication systems as information service systems are formulated. It is proposed to create and develop new electronic publishing systems based on the use of customer-oriented digital platforms of the service architecture. The main point of contention is that the improvement of electronic publishing systems of patent offices and their transformation into information service systems, with its huge public benefit, can become a negative factor for commercial enterprises that provide search and information services on a paid basis.
{"title":"Digital Transformation of the Patent Information Services","authors":"B. L. Genin, Y. V. Zontov","doi":"10.18572/2072-4322-2021-1-14-18","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18572/2072-4322-2021-1-14-18","url":null,"abstract":"Relevance. At present, there are significant changes in the modern systems of official publication of patent offices. The paper discusses the concept of digital transformation in relation to official publication systems and the construction of a client-oriented Agency. The new publication requirements include requirements for effective search for information about inventions and utility models, requirements for providing information about changes in legal status, requirements for providing analytical information, and requirements for citation information. Methodology: the research is based on complex and systematic analysis, general scientific methods of cognition-analysis and synthesis, dialectical method, systematization and classification, process and system approaches, as well as the method of comparison. Results. New goals of the publication system and requirements for Electronic publication systems as information service systems are formulated. It is proposed to create and develop new electronic publishing systems based on the use of customer-oriented digital platforms of the service architecture. The main point of contention is that the improvement of electronic publishing systems of patent offices and their transformation into information service systems, with its huge public benefit, can become a negative factor for commercial enterprises that provide search and information services on a paid basis.","PeriodicalId":88929,"journal":{"name":"Marquette intellectual property law review","volume":"49 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90995217","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-03-25DOI: 10.18572/2072-4322-2021-1-26-28
A. V. Gapanovich
Relevance. To analyze the problems of legal status’ determination of intellectual property objects’ in digital form in the framework of valid civil legislation. The study tested the admission of different basis for regulation of the intellectual property objects’ possession and use in the digital and analog form. Methodology: the methodological basis of the article is formal-logical law research method. Results. The author concludes that intellectual property objects in digital form exist only in Internet that give for its possessors more opportunities for digital contact distribution. Moreover digital form of the intellectual property object influences on the marketability of digital product in respect of broad list of methods’ use of this product and reduction of its cost in comparative with the analog object. The research provided digital and analog forms of the intellectual property objects are not the same as a whole in spite of its content unity. The author makes a conclusion that such categories as «original work» and «sample of work» can’t be used to the digital form of the intellectual property objects, because the objects in digital form are only the copies of the original work. Therefore legal regulation of the intellectual property objects depends on its forms. The author suggests considering license agreement made on form of click-wrap-agreement as application of the intellectual property objects in digital form. Discussion. The conclusions of the study can be used as a basis for further researches and lawmaking.
{"title":"Digital Form of an Object of Intellectual Property as a Way to Increase its Competitiveness","authors":"A. V. Gapanovich","doi":"10.18572/2072-4322-2021-1-26-28","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18572/2072-4322-2021-1-26-28","url":null,"abstract":"Relevance. To analyze the problems of legal status’ determination of intellectual property objects’ in digital form in the framework of valid civil legislation. The study tested the admission of different basis for regulation of the intellectual property objects’ possession and use in the digital and analog form. Methodology: the methodological basis of the article is formal-logical law research method. Results. The author concludes that intellectual property objects in digital form exist only in Internet that give for its possessors more opportunities for digital contact distribution. Moreover digital form of the intellectual property object influences on the marketability of digital product in respect of broad list of methods’ use of this product and reduction of its cost in comparative with the analog object. The research provided digital and analog forms of the intellectual property objects are not the same as a whole in spite of its content unity. The author makes a conclusion that such categories as «original work» and «sample of work» can’t be used to the digital form of the intellectual property objects, because the objects in digital form are only the copies of the original work. Therefore legal regulation of the intellectual property objects depends on its forms. The author suggests considering license agreement made on form of click-wrap-agreement as application of the intellectual property objects in digital form. Discussion. The conclusions of the study can be used as a basis for further researches and lawmaking.","PeriodicalId":88929,"journal":{"name":"Marquette intellectual property law review","volume":"96 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77545505","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-03-25DOI: 10.18572/2072-4322-2021-1-9-13
R. Omorov
In the article, prepared on the basis of the author’s plenary report presented at the XII International Forum “Innovative Development through the Intellectual Property Market”, held in Moscow at the MSLA on October 30, 2020, issues arising in the field of intellectual property rights in connection with the development of artificial intelligence systems and their impact on the development of legal relations in the economy and culture of modern society are considered. Aspects of mutual policies in the field of intellectual property rights and the development of artificial intelligence systems for the development of innovation and creativity are discussed. Questions of copyright and ownership are raised and proposed in the interaction of man, collective and artificial intelligence or artificial intelligence systems. Issues related to artificial intelligence as an object of intellectual property are considered. The position of the author on the legal personality of artificial intelligence to intellectual property objects created by autonomous artificial intelligence systems is presented, which is expressed in the answers to the questions of the project of the World Intellectual Property Organization to the wide discussion of interested parties, planned for 2020 at the headquarters of the World Intellectual Property Organization in Geneva. The main conceptual principle of the author on the issues of the planned discussion is to grant the right of copyright and ownership of intellectual property objects created by autonomous artificial intelligence to a dressed subject — a person or collective, a developer of artificial intelligence with fixation of the latter as a sub-subject or instrument of the subject. Traditional categories of intellectual property rights are also discussed, such as patentability and the inventive level of property in connection with the possible generation of these objects by artificial intelligence. Issues related to data, its generation, fabrications and legal relations regarding data are considered. It is proposed to harmonize international intellectual property rights policies to reduce the technological gap between countries in the context of artificial intelligence development.
{"title":"Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property","authors":"R. Omorov","doi":"10.18572/2072-4322-2021-1-9-13","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18572/2072-4322-2021-1-9-13","url":null,"abstract":"In the article, prepared on the basis of the author’s plenary report presented at the XII International Forum “Innovative Development through the Intellectual Property Market”, held in Moscow at the MSLA on October 30, 2020, issues arising in the field of intellectual property rights in connection with the development of artificial intelligence systems and their impact on the development of legal relations in the economy and culture of modern society are considered. Aspects of mutual policies in the field of intellectual property rights and the development of artificial intelligence systems for the development of innovation and creativity are discussed. Questions of copyright and ownership are raised and proposed in the interaction of man, collective and artificial intelligence or artificial intelligence systems. Issues related to artificial intelligence as an object of intellectual property are considered. The position of the author on the legal personality of artificial intelligence to intellectual property objects created by autonomous artificial intelligence systems is presented, which is expressed in the answers to the questions of the project of the World Intellectual Property Organization to the wide discussion of interested parties, planned for 2020 at the headquarters of the World Intellectual Property Organization in Geneva. The main conceptual principle of the author on the issues of the planned discussion is to grant the right of copyright and ownership of intellectual property objects created by autonomous artificial intelligence to a dressed subject — a person or collective, a developer of artificial intelligence with fixation of the latter as a sub-subject or instrument of the subject. Traditional categories of intellectual property rights are also discussed, such as patentability and the inventive level of property in connection with the possible generation of these objects by artificial intelligence. Issues related to data, its generation, fabrications and legal relations regarding data are considered. It is proposed to harmonize international intellectual property rights policies to reduce the technological gap between countries in the context of artificial intelligence development.","PeriodicalId":88929,"journal":{"name":"Marquette intellectual property law review","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75172517","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-03-25DOI: 10.18572/2072-4322-2021-1-39-42
Y. Nechepurenko, L.N. Nehorosheva
Relevance. In the modern interpretation, intellectual property has an interdisciplinary nature, being a legal and economic category, which determines the complexity of training personnel in the field of intellectual property as one of the key elements in building an innovative economy. Great importance is attached to the solution of this problem in the implementation of the State Program of Innovative Development of the Republic of Belarus and the Strategy of the Republic of Belarus in the field of intellectual property. Methodology: the research is based on general scientific methods of complex and systematic analysis, including the methodology of comparative analysis of international and national experience in the field under study. Results. In a historical aspect, the article describes the experience of the Republic of Belarus in training personnel in the field of intellectual property, identified the main problems at the present stage and proposed a set of measures to solve them. Particular attention is paid to the development and teaching experience of the discipline «Fundamentals of Intellectual Property Management», which was introduced as a mandatory state component in the studying programs of higher educational institutions. Discussion. The study considered content of training programs for training students of the first and second levels of education, retraining on the basis of higher education and advanced training of specialists. The authors proposed and substantiated an approach to the organization of education in the field of intellectual property for economic specialties in the Republic of Belarus. The article concluded that the implementation of a set of proposed measures for the development of a system for training specialists in the field of intellectual property management will make it possible to train personnel for an innovative economy, digital transformation and solve social and economic problems facing the country.
{"title":"History and Problems of Personnel Training in the Field of Intellectual Property in the Republic of Belarus","authors":"Y. Nechepurenko, L.N. Nehorosheva","doi":"10.18572/2072-4322-2021-1-39-42","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18572/2072-4322-2021-1-39-42","url":null,"abstract":"Relevance. In the modern interpretation, intellectual property has an interdisciplinary nature, being a legal and economic category, which determines the complexity of training personnel in the field of intellectual property as one of the key elements in building an innovative economy. Great importance is attached to the solution of this problem in the implementation of the State Program of Innovative Development of the Republic of Belarus and the Strategy of the Republic of Belarus in the field of intellectual property. Methodology: the research is based on general scientific methods of complex and systematic analysis, including the methodology of comparative analysis of international and national experience in the field under study. Results. In a historical aspect, the article describes the experience of the Republic of Belarus in training personnel in the field of intellectual property, identified the main problems at the present stage and proposed a set of measures to solve them. Particular attention is paid to the development and teaching experience of the discipline «Fundamentals of Intellectual Property Management», which was introduced as a mandatory state component in the studying programs of higher educational institutions. Discussion. The study considered content of training programs for training students of the first and second levels of education, retraining on the basis of higher education and advanced training of specialists. The authors proposed and substantiated an approach to the organization of education in the field of intellectual property for economic specialties in the Republic of Belarus. The article concluded that the implementation of a set of proposed measures for the development of a system for training specialists in the field of intellectual property management will make it possible to train personnel for an innovative economy, digital transformation and solve social and economic problems facing the country.","PeriodicalId":88929,"journal":{"name":"Marquette intellectual property law review","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81316554","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-03-25DOI: 10.18572/2072-4322-2021-1-34-38
A. Sorokin
Relevance. In the context of the transition to a digital economy, many processes at the level of federal executive bodies remain paper or only automated. Despite the system of interagency electronic interaction, electronic documents are often formed with the participation of officials. Thus, there is great potential to automate these processes, including through the provision of public services. Results. The main directions of development of the Federal Customs Service of Russia for the period until 2030 are considered. Directions related to customs protection of rights to intellectual property objects (IPO) are highlighted. Further materials are devoted to the absentee discussion of the prospects for the introduction of automatic provision of public services for the inclusion of IPO in the customs register of IPO. They are considered and classified for formalization (current and possible), nature and possibility of checking the information submitted when applying for the service. Three fundamentally possible models of automatic service provision are proposed. Their positive and negative aspects are shown. The potential results from the introduction of automatic registration of IPO in TROIS for all interested parties were evaluated. Methodology: the basis of the study is complex and systemic analysis, general scientific methods of cognition — analysis and synthesis, dialectical method, systematization and classification, process and system approaches, as well as a method of comparison. Discussion. The financial side of the proposed changes deserves a separate study. Any changes should be effective, which means a reasonable ratio of the effects obtained to the resources spent. Given the high level of uncertainty of the subject area, it is not possible to carry out such calculations. Also debatable is the question of which particular model of provision should be the basis of the automatic registration model: classical, currently in force, or modified and simplified, capable of providing full automation.
{"title":"Prospects for the Introduction of Automatic Registration of Intellectual Property Objects in the Customs Registry","authors":"A. Sorokin","doi":"10.18572/2072-4322-2021-1-34-38","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18572/2072-4322-2021-1-34-38","url":null,"abstract":"Relevance. In the context of the transition to a digital economy, many processes at the level of federal executive bodies remain paper or only automated. Despite the system of interagency electronic interaction, electronic documents are often formed with the participation of officials. Thus, there is great potential to automate these processes, including through the provision of public services. Results. The main directions of development of the Federal Customs Service of Russia for the period until 2030 are considered. Directions related to customs protection of rights to intellectual property objects (IPO) are highlighted. Further materials are devoted to the absentee discussion of the prospects for the introduction of automatic provision of public services for the inclusion of IPO in the customs register of IPO. They are considered and classified for formalization (current and possible), nature and possibility of checking the information submitted when applying for the service. Three fundamentally possible models of automatic service provision are proposed. Their positive and negative aspects are shown. The potential results from the introduction of automatic registration of IPO in TROIS for all interested parties were evaluated. Methodology: the basis of the study is complex and systemic analysis, general scientific methods of cognition — analysis and synthesis, dialectical method, systematization and classification, process and system approaches, as well as a method of comparison. Discussion. The financial side of the proposed changes deserves a separate study. Any changes should be effective, which means a reasonable ratio of the effects obtained to the resources spent. Given the high level of uncertainty of the subject area, it is not possible to carry out such calculations. Also debatable is the question of which particular model of provision should be the basis of the automatic registration model: classical, currently in force, or modified and simplified, capable of providing full automation.","PeriodicalId":88929,"journal":{"name":"Marquette intellectual property law review","volume":"94 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74114754","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-03-25DOI: 10.18572/2072-4322-2021-1-4-8
I. Zenin
The purpose is to identify and evaluate the doctrinal definitions of the concept and recommendations on ensuring the protection of the results created by AI as products of the functioning of its technologies using the norms of the current copyright, patent and other legislation. At the same time, the goal of scientific evaluation of the existing legal definitions of the concept of AI and its accompanying categories is pursued. The methodology includes methods of logical, historical, systematic and comparative legal analysis of legal definitions, methods of translation (implementation) of doctrinal categories in normative legal acts, interpretation of differences in copyright and patent protection of the results of human creative activity and the need to take them into account when deciding on the possibility of legal protection of products generated by artificial intelligence. Result. As part of the assessment of the existing doctrinal and legal definitions of the concept of AI, its technologies and the possibilities of protecting the protective results created in the course of their operation, conclusions are drawn in favor of legal structures. In the sense of the latter: artificial intelligence is recognized as a human-created “complex of technological solutions”; operations performed by this complex are not identified with human actions, but are recognized only as their similarity (“imitation»); the results of these operations are not equated with the creative achievements of the natural (human) mind, but are recognized as their visibility, which can only be compared (“compared”) with the products of the cognitive functions of the human brain as the results of its “intellectual activity”.
{"title":"Convergence of Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Rights","authors":"I. Zenin","doi":"10.18572/2072-4322-2021-1-4-8","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18572/2072-4322-2021-1-4-8","url":null,"abstract":"The purpose is to identify and evaluate the doctrinal definitions of the concept and recommendations on ensuring the protection of the results created by AI as products of the functioning of its technologies using the norms of the current copyright, patent and other legislation. At the same time, the goal of scientific evaluation of the existing legal definitions of the concept of AI and its accompanying categories is pursued. The methodology includes methods of logical, historical, systematic and comparative legal analysis of legal definitions, methods of translation (implementation) of doctrinal categories in normative legal acts, interpretation of differences in copyright and patent protection of the results of human creative activity and the need to take them into account when deciding on the possibility of legal protection of products generated by artificial intelligence. Result. As part of the assessment of the existing doctrinal and legal definitions of the concept of AI, its technologies and the possibilities of protecting the protective results created in the course of their operation, conclusions are drawn in favor of legal structures. In the sense of the latter: artificial intelligence is recognized as a human-created “complex of technological solutions”; operations performed by this complex are not identified with human actions, but are recognized only as their similarity (“imitation»); the results of these operations are not equated with the creative achievements of the natural (human) mind, but are recognized as their visibility, which can only be compared (“compared”) with the products of the cognitive functions of the human brain as the results of its “intellectual activity”.","PeriodicalId":88929,"journal":{"name":"Marquette intellectual property law review","volume":"36 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84916046","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-05-22DOI: 10.18572/2072-4322-2019-1-28-32
N. Latysheva
{"title":"Peculiarities of Judicial Statistics in Cases on Intellectual Right Protection","authors":"N. Latysheva","doi":"10.18572/2072-4322-2019-1-28-32","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.18572/2072-4322-2019-1-28-32","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":88929,"journal":{"name":"Marquette intellectual property law review","volume":"36 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84772502","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-05-13DOI: 10.1093/HE/9780198747697.003.0002
Stavroula Karapapa, Luke McDonagh
This chapter examines the subsistence of copyright. Subsistence is a central requirement for copyright protection — unless it is established that copyright subsists in one's work, one cannot make a viable claim that someone else has used one's work without permission. Section 1 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA) declares that copyright is a property right which subsists in an exhaustive, or closed, list of eight different categories of ‘work’: original literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic works; sound recordings, films, or broadcasts; and the typographical arrangement of published editions. Originality is the paramount criterion of copyright protection. For this reason, there are a great many cases that consider how to define the level of originality required for a piece of literature, drama, music, or art to be protected.
{"title":"2. Subsistence of copyright","authors":"Stavroula Karapapa, Luke McDonagh","doi":"10.1093/HE/9780198747697.003.0002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/HE/9780198747697.003.0002","url":null,"abstract":"This chapter examines the subsistence of copyright. Subsistence is a central requirement for copyright protection — unless it is established that copyright subsists in one's work, one cannot make a viable claim that someone else has used one's work without permission. Section 1 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA) declares that copyright is a property right which subsists in an exhaustive, or closed, list of eight different categories of ‘work’: original literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic works; sound recordings, films, or broadcasts; and the typographical arrangement of published editions. Originality is the paramount criterion of copyright protection. For this reason, there are a great many cases that consider how to define the level of originality required for a piece of literature, drama, music, or art to be protected.","PeriodicalId":88929,"journal":{"name":"Marquette intellectual property law review","volume":"33 1-2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78208030","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：