Foreign patenting faces a number of difficulties: necessity of preparation of a great number of demands, payment of great sums by the patent attorney in the form of patent fees. Work of patent departments is duplicated. Two international mechanisms facilitate these difficulties: Paris convention on protection of industrial property (1883) Patent cooperation treaty (1970). E.P.Gavrilov – doctor of sciences, professor, chair of the civil low of the state university Heigher school of economy the partisipant of the soviet delegation at this conference recollects this conference.
copyright, exclusive right, copyrighted works, successors of the author, the assignee
The abduction of women is closely connected with traditional or primitive societies. Anthropologists tie it with alternative marriage arrangements, characteristic of those systems where marriages are arranged by parents; historians tend to view the abduction of women as part of early history of developed nations, mostly the Middle Ages. In Russia, recent historiographical discussion of abductions always starts with descriptions of customary practices in Siberia to highlight the steppe and frontier experiences in the framework of colonization and underline ‘savage’ or ‘backwardness’ of Siberian populations. However, scholars almost never talk about the abduction of women within the European part. In this article, female abductions are analyzed within the framework of citizenship and modernization of the Russian Empire in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. It focuses on the notion of consent and how it contributed to the founding of a new social unit, that is the family, in which women and men acquired their rights and duties in relation to outside society and wider polity. The lack of consent jeopardized the legitimacy of such a union and compromized the citizenship status of its members. On its way to build the country as a modern empire, Russian authorities localized the abduction of women as a ‘customary’ practice of ‘backwards’ people to preserve the modern European core of the Empire.
Superior bargaining power arises when one trading partner becomes dependent on the other. It can be abused to exploit the counterparty or to grab profi ts within a product value chain. It is necessary to apply anti-monopoly law to superior bargaining power because, firstly, abuse of a superior bargaining power distorts the product value chain and, finally, leads to higher prices or a decline in product quality. When superior bargaining power originates from an intellectual property right, its abuse will hinder both the application of the subject technology and competition in adjacent or downstream markets. Secondly, the economic relationships that abuse of superior bargaining power covers are often macroscopical. Compared to other laws and legislative proposals, anti-monopoly law is the most appropriate way to regulate superior bargaining power.
This article contributes to the growing body of research on the increasing role of judicial systems in regulating politics and religion (‘judicialization of politics and religion’) across the globe. By examining how academic expertise is deployed in anti-extremist litigation involving Russia’s minority religions, this article reveals important processes involved in this judicial regulation, in particular when legal and academic institutions lack autonomy and consistency of operation. It focuses on the selection of experts and the validation of their opinion within Russia’s academia and the judiciary, and identifies patterns in the experts’ approach to evidence and how they validate their conclusions in the eyes of the judiciary. Academic expertise provides an aura of legitimacy to judicial decisions in which anti-extremist legislation is used as a means to control unpopular minority religions and to regulate Russia’s religious diversity. As one of the few systematic explorations of this subject and the first focused on Russia, this article reveals important processes that produce religious discrimination and the role that anti-extremist legislation plays in these processes.
Modernizing reforms in Russia carried out under the banner of “Westernization” and “Europeanization”—and this has been their character throughout history—tend to treat modernization as a technical process, ignoring institutional transformations, not to mention the democratic values embedded in the modernization project. The implementation of educational reform in Russia thus raises a question: How does the incorporation of Russia into the system of international higher education affect academic rights and academic freedom? Can integration into that system by itself guarantee academic freedom within the Russian academy? To answer this question, one must first understand the role academic freedom played in Soviet scholarship and education.
The Soviet system of knowledge production based on cooperation, knowledge sharing, but also intense competition was already an inspiration for innovation policymakers in the U.S. and in Europe back in the 1950 and 1960s. Nowadays, as the global economy is moving towards a new mode of production, the Soviet case may still play an important role to help to frame a better institutional approach to innovation. With the dramatic challenges already brought by the fourth industrial revolution and the tectonic economic and social shifts it is expected to cause around the world, the Soviet case with all its pros and cons is becoming more and more relevant for this debate as it provides necessary empirical data to consider other institutional approaches to innovation distinct from the established property-focused model. In this context, intellectual property and competition law scholars hopefully would better understand the Soviet innovation system through further academic studies.
The article discusses current changes in the social legislation of Russia
The author analyzes the current changes in the labor legislation of Russia
The article discusses changes in Russian labor legislation and social security legislation
This article commemorates works of a renowned Russian legal scholar and human-rights activist Aidar R. Sultanov. In doing so, we will use an original methodology of the analysis of transnational intellectuals to consider the work of Sultanov illuminated by the following four approaches: the “We dimension”; the dimension of “Others”; the dimension of Sultanov’s “spatial narratives”; and key “historical narratives”. We concentrate our analysis of Sultanov not only as a legal scholar and human-rights activist but, even more broadly, as a public intellectual—some of whose cultural and philosophical premises have remained implicit but which we believe need to be explored in a brighter light. The latter are taken into consideration, in this essay, so as to speculate about the following: what elements of Sultanov’s worldview make this one of a transnational intellectual and, also, what prompts him to feel obliged to take a stand against attempts to securitize human rights at the national level in the Russian Federation?
The article acts as an Introduction to the speaicl issue of the journal which deals with domestic violence and authority's abuse in early modern Europe
To understand decision making processes in the field of public ethics, legal policy and e-government regulation it is important to understand the factors that promote, restrict, and distort the processes. This in turn requires an analysis of the failure to establish in the behaviour of institutions and individuals such values as ethics in the public IT-policy as factors for sociocultural changes, the respect for e-government legal regulation and procedures standards, and an acknowledgement of the decisions of courts as dispute resolution mechanisms. This strategy presumably provides the possibility to offer a prognostic approach, involving an analysis of the correlation between the beliefs, norms and reality, and based on previous experience of e-government regulation in national and comparative perspective.
The article analyzes one of the central institutions of Russian tax law — alteration of the time limits for the payment of taxes. The right of the taxpayer to alter the execution of tax obligations, on one hand, demonstrates the desire of the legislator to ensure a balance of public and private interests in the implementation of tax regulation, and on the other hand, must guarantee the full implementation of the fiscal function of tax law. The fulfillment of the constitutional obligation to pay the established-by-law taxes involves the payment of taxes not only in full, but also on time. Alteration of the time limits doesn’t cancel the existing tax obligation and doesn’t create a new tax obligation. Having exercised the right to alter the time limit for fulfilling tax obligations, the taxpayer is able to pay tax at a later date than established by the legislation on taxes and fees, and at the same time not be held liable for violation of tax legislation. In order to maintain a balance of public and private interests in the tax sphere, a taxpayer’s right to alter the time limits for the payment of taxes is compensated by his obligation to pay in established cases a percentage that compensates for the damage caused to the fiscal interests of the state and municipalities in the exercise of this right. The article analyzes the general procedure for exercising the taxpayer’s right to alter the tax payment time limit established in the Tax Code of the Russian Federation (Chapter 9) and the acts of the Federal Tax Service adopted in accordance with it. Special cases of the realization of this right are also considered: when paying indirect taxes on goods imported into the territory of the customs union (in this case, the relevant norms of customs legislation are applied) and when altering the terms of payment of taxes credited to regional and local budgets (in this case, normative legal acts of constituent entities of the Russian Federation and municipalities). The article presents main forms of exercising the taxpayer’s right to alter the terms of tax payment (deferral, installment plan and investment tax credit) and tax and customs authorities with the authority to make appropriate decisions. Particular attention is paid to the issues of protecting the fiscal interests of the state in case of termination of legal relations of altering the terms of payment of taxes (for example, protecting fiscal interests in case of early termination of the investment tax credit agreement).
The article concerns the key aspects of alternative dispute resolutions in China and in Russia, it focuses on key issues of the operation, it describe the system of alternative dispute resolution in two different country. This article shows advantages and disadvantages of every avenues of alternative dispute resolution.
Thepaperanalysestheroleofregulationinthesuppressionofdisruptiveinnovations and shows that this process might be explained by the dependance on the path of joint evolution of regulation and the mainstream technology. Industrial policy in highly regulated industries such as wireless telecommunications is able to support evolution of established technologies and adjust itself to sustaining innovations, while regulatory disconnection impedes disruptive technologies, and the market plays a quite secondary role in this process. We observe more innovations in those parts of telecommunications where regulator is less active, but the core, the physical layer, of the industry is changing in sustaining way of development of the technology. The paper argues that the problem of impediment to disruptive innovations could be alleviated if the crucial resources of the industry were accessible for a number of potential innovators and newcomers. The openness makes easier the appearance of disruptive technologies, and regu- lation must facilitate it in order to promote opportunities for creative destruction.