Pronichkin S.V.Federal Research Center Computer Science and Control of Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russian Federation pronichkin@mail.ru
Importance S&T programs is the basic mechanism for implementing priority development areas of science and technology in Russia. Currently, it is important to commercialize the outcome of S&T programs. It is impossible without determining the way the outcome of S&T program is allowed or prohibited to use. Objectives The research analyzes the legislative treatment of the outcome of S&T programs, identifies strengths and weaknesses of remedies the outcome of S&T programs is subject to. Methods The research relies upon principles of the systems approach and general scientific methods, such as classification and structural analysis, combination of logic and functional methods, cause?and-effect relations. The historical method and method of legislative comparison were used as special tools of the research. Results I found fundamental features of the outcome of S&T programs that shaped the legislative treatment. The article mentions strengths and weaknesses of statutory and non-statutory remedies applicable to the outcome of S&T programs. I also investigated possible options to formalize the intellectual property rights for the outcome of S&T programs and performed a systems analysis of possibilities and restrictions of the legislative framework for capitalization of the outcome of S&T programs. Conclusions and Relevance It is necessary to legislate procedures the State used to confer titles for results of S&T programs to authors. The findings can be used in activities of actors of Russia's national innovative system in patenting and implementing results of intellectual activities.
Dvoryankin O.A., Nikitina E.S. [Personal economic culture as a factor of informed attitude to intellectual property]. Kul'tura: upravlenie, ekonomika, pravo = Culture: Management, Economy, Law, 2007, no. 1, pp. 14–18. (In Russ.)
Giummo J. German Employee Inventors' Compensation Records: A Window into the Returns to Patented Inventions. Research Policy, 2010, vol. 39, iss. 7, pp. 969–984. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2010.04.004
Chun-Shuo Chen, Maxwell T.A. Three Decades of Bilateral Copyright Negotiations: Mainland China and the United States. Government Information Quarterly, 2010, vol. 27, iss. 2, pp. 196–207. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2009.12.005
Arai Y. Civil and Criminal Penalties for Copyright Infringement. Information Economics and Policy, 2011, vol. 23, iss. 3-4, pp. 270–280. doi: 10.1016/j.infoecopol.2011.08.001
Honkasalo P. Links and Copyright Law. Computer Law & Security Review, 2011, vol. 27, iss. 3, pp. 258–266. doi: 10.1016/j.clsr.2011.03.011
Mowery D., Ziedonis A. Academic Patent Quality and Quantity before and after the Bayh-Dole Act in the United States. Research Policy, 2002, vol. 31, iss. 3, pp. 399–418. doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(01)00116-0
Zenin I.A. Problemy rossiiskogo prava intellektual'noi sobstvennosti [Issues of the Russian intellectual property law]. Moscow, Statut Publ., 2015, 512 p.
Zenin I.A. [Intellectual property and innovation in the Russian Federation]. Rossiiskaya yustitsiya = Russian Justitia, 2015, no. 12, pp. 2–5. (In Russ.)
Ruuskanen R., Seppanen M. Alternative Methods in Protecting Innovation: A Literature Review. Tampere, TUT, 2013, 22 p.
Kozyrev A.N. [Conflicts of interests in using Science & Technology results achieved with federal budgetary funds]. Pravo intellektual'noi sobstvennosti = Law of Intellectual Property, 2008, no. 1, pp. 20–24. (In Russ.)
Chan T., Gountas S., Zhang L., Handley B. Western Firms' Successful and Unsuccessful Business Models in China. Journal of Business Research, 2016, vol. 69, iss. 10, pp. 4150–4160. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.03.036
Liu F.Ch., Simon D.F., Sun Y.T., Cao C. China's Innovation Policies: Evolution, Institutional Structure, and Trajectory. Research Policy, 2011, vol. 40, iss. 7, pp. 917–931. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2011.05.005
Cheng J.C., Yiu D. China Business at a Crossroads: Institutions, Innovation, and International Competitiveness. Long Range Planning, 2016, vol. 49, iss. 5, pp. 584–588. doi: 10.1016/j.lrp.2016.07.006
Wu Y., Welch E., Huang W. Commercialization of University Inventions: Individual and Institutional Factors Affecting Licensing of University Patents. Technovation, 2014, vol. 36-37, pp. 12–25. doi: 10.1016/j.technovation.2014.09.004
Pronichkin S.V. [System analysis of the potential of results of special-purpose S&T programs]. Trudy ISA RAN = Proceedings of Institute for System Analysis, 2015, no. 4, pp. 32–39. (In Russ.)
