Интервью с Главным юристом по интеллектуальной собственности ООО «УК «РОСНАНО», профессором Исследовательского центра частного права имени С.С.Алексеева при Президенте РФ Виталием Калятиным
In summer 2018 the United States launched a trade war against China. Before that, there was a chance that both sides would find a compromise, some hopes were still in place during bilaterial negotiations in May. However, new US tariffs on import from China were imposed in July and August with the total of 200 billion. The successful economic growth of China leads to the transformation of the world economic space, where the leading positions are still occupied by the countries of the West. The new US administration, fearing economic competition, announced a policy of containing China. In this case, Washington is going to violate the existing rules of international trade. The tension in the economic relations of the United States and China is growing. The authors look into the history, ideology and details of the conflict between two major powerhouses of the global economy. They try to investigate how both countries will be affected by the emerging trade war, which is also challenging the whole system of international trade regulation. Besides, the conflict between Washington and Beijing is understood as a fundamental shift in the world economy and politics where rising powers take the lead in globalization. For the first time in the history of Sino-American relations economic tensions between the two sides have reached such a scale. Analysis of their consequences far exceeds the standard methods of assessment of trade policy measures.
Results of a research of a legal regime of the intellectual property items created by spontaneous programs (artificial intelligence or robots) are presented in article. The author reasons a conclusion according to which it is necessary to recognize the results received by artificial intelligence as the protected intellectual property items on which there is no copyright; each such object has to have automatically assigned identification number allowing to determine, first, by what artificial intelligence he is created to establish, secondly, the developer of the spontaneous program having the exclusive right not only to this program, but also to the object created by it.
Introduction: efficient legal protection of intellectual outputs is essential for the dynamic development of modern society. The list of intellectual property objects is not intended to be exhaustive, separate outputs lose their relevance and become excluded from the list of protected objects, while new ones, on the contrary, are added to it. Purpose: this work aims to identify the tendencies regarding the extension of the range of intellectual property objects at the beginning of the 21st century, and to define the scientific and technological progress results that were granted protection under the influence of the Fourth Industrial Revolution and other factors. Methods: the method of formal logic, historical, comparative legal, systemic structural and formal dogmatic methods were used in course of the analysis. Results: international legal regulation does not provide clearly-defined guidelines to restrict the sphere of intellectual property. This factor undoubtedly contributes to expanding the list of its objects. At the beginning of the 21st century, law-based lists of copyrighted works did not include any new items. The institute of neighboring rights is most dynamically developing in the Law of the European Union. The Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market proposes recognizing two new neighboring rights. One of them is the right of the press publishers for online use of their publications by the news aggregators. The other neighboring right included into the draft Directive was the right to coverage of sporting events. However, in February, 2019, the provisions on this right were excluded from the Directive. In our opinion, biomedical cell products constitute new objects of civil circulation that require their own legal regulation as intellectual property constituents. Conclusions: intellectual property law cannot and should not undergo changes with the emergence of every new kind of objects. The contemporary challenge facing civil jurisprudence and the legislature is to formulate universal regulations that would make it possible to protect the rights of authors and developers of technological solutions even at the stage of experiments.