 Adjoining Rights and Innovation EconomyV. N. Shtennikov () Russian Journal of Industrial Economics, 2016, issue 2 Abstract: It is incorrect to relate the performance to the results of intellectual activity. The performance is defined as the reproduction, the copying and not the creation of something new. It is impossible to relate the performance to the intellectual property in any sphere of the human activity: science, sports, art. To the creative activity of any citizen, not just artist refer: creation of work, discovery, development of a method or device, rationalization offer and so on, but not the employment of a strange result through making it public. The precedent of an artist’s performance protection stimulates to introduce the protection of performance of other kinds of human activity: the performance of workers, engineers, scientists, office workers, entrepreneurs and so on when collaboration in implementation of inventions or rationalization offers, taking into consideration that this activity requires substantial expenses. The existing institute of intellectual property (Citizens’ Codex of the Russian Federation, Part 4) lacks unfortunately mentioning rights adjoining to patent rights. The legislator, when protecting the show business, hat thus totally “forgotten†the innovative economy namely the protection of relative rights including the reward. I support the opinion that objects of relative right has to be expanded in order to protect the innovation economy. Date: 2016 Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ach:journl:y:2016:id:523 DOI: 10.17073/2072-1633-2016-2-148-152 Access Statistics for this article More articles in Russian Journal of Industrial Economics from MISIS |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.