Therefore, it is the development of the fundamental principles of the intellectual property system that is one of the vital tasks of the domestic legal science. At the same time, it should be taken into account that studies of the problems of legal regulation of relations in the field of intellectual property should be carried out taking into account three fundamental principles: the dualism of intellectual property; exhaustion of the right to distribute objects; restriction of intellectual property rights.
In the legal system, its structure is multifaceted, which is connected, in particular, with the application of certain methods and principles of legal regulation. That is why we should support thoughts that are increasingly being heard in the legal literature, the need to discuss the problem of balancing private and public interests as one of the main tasks of law at the present stage. For the sphere of intellectual property, this is certainly relevant, since in one way or another the sphere of creative activity is characterized by the intersection of private and public interests.
Therefore, the very issue of the place and status of norms in the field of intellectual property in the system of law becomes of a rather fundamental nature. The theory of intellectual property is guided by the fact that the source of the right to a specific result of creative activity is the relevant rule of law defining the first rightholder, or the clause of the agreement between the participants in the creation of such a result(4,20). Each subsequent owner of the intellectual property must provide a documentary proof of entitlement. Accordingly, intellectual property management involves tracking the legal grounds for recognizing specific results of creative activity by intellectual property.
It is desirable to understand that the reason for most violations of intellectual property rights is economic and lies in its very essence, that is, in the monopoly of this right. If the monopolist is the rightful owner, since it is he and only he has the right to a specific object of intellectual property, and it is he who owns the right to use such an object, he has the opportunity to pursue price policy, including monopoly to set the inflated prices, and not rarely not only on the object of intellectual property, but also on the product in which such an object is embodied.
In turn, intellectual property offenders, when selling counterfeit goods, are trying to get bigger profits as a result of dumping pricing policies. Offenders, while reducing the price of counterfeit products and increasing production, may receive additional revenues, and the right holders do not have this opportunity. Therefore, measures of legal liability - both civil, administrative, and criminal - can not give positive effects, provided that this does not take into account the effect of economic laws.
And it is not bad now that more and more often there are the thoughts that intellectual property can act as a locomotive and a brake on the development of society.
In the legal system, its structure is multifaceted, which is connected, in particular, with the application of certain methods and principles of legal regulation. That is why we should support thoughts that are increasingly being heard in the legal literature, the need to discuss the problem of balancing private and public interests as one of the main tasks of law at the present stage. For the sphere of intellectual property, this is certainly relevant, since in one way or another the sphere of creative activity is characterized by the intersection of private and public interests.
It is desirable to understand that the reason for most violations of intellectual property rights is economic and lies in its very essence, that is, in the monopoly of this right. If the monopolist is the rightful owner, since it is he and only he has the right to a specific object of intellectual property, and it is he who owns the right to use such an object, he has the opportunity to pursue price policy, including monopoly to set the inflated prices, and not rarely not only on the object of intellectual property, but also on the product in which such an object is embodied.
In turn, intellectual property offenders, when selling counterfeit goods, are trying to get bigger profits as a result of dumping pricing policies. Offenders, while reducing the price of counterfeit products and increasing production, may receive additional revenues, and the right holders do not have this opportunity. Therefore, measures of legal liability - both civil, administrative, and criminal - can not give positive effects, provided that this does not take into account the effect of economic laws.
And it is not bad now that more and more often there are the thoughts that intellectual property can act as a locomotive and a brake on the development of society.