As part of the HOMO CINEMA blog, where we share with our readers interesting publications by third-party authors that touch on important, relevant topics, we invite you to pay attention to the interview with Sergey Matveev, publishe on the IPQuorum website . The President of the Feeration of Intellectual Property in the material talks about the bill being develope which will expand the scope of the compulsory license for content, and how it will guarantee the protection of the rights of all copyright holders, including Western ones. Sergey Yuryevich, let’s start with an explanation of what a compulsory license is and how it works in practice? Let me remind you that the purpose of the emergence of intellectual property rights (IP) in.

Russia and indee in the

Laws of all countries of the world, is to create conditions for the development of science and technology, culture, and creativity. Intellectual rights is a common name for a fairly large set of rights. It is this set that streamlines the exchange of intellectual  property, including in the interests of authors and copyright holders, and allows guaranteeing income for those who create new creative products, who contributeto their promotion Tonga B2B List and distribution. There is a fairly strong right in the IP set – this is an exclusive. Right, the right to allow and prohibit the use of the results of creativity. However, sometimes there are situations when the right holder abuses this right.

In particular, uses it to unreasonably restrict

Create a deficit, often critical for society. To counteract such abuses, such a mechanism as a compulsory. License is provide, including by international conventions on intellectual property rights. Traditionally, it applies to objects of industrial property – to inventions. In patent law, this sounds quite simple: if there are not enough Mobile Lead goods on. The market, and someone wants to produce them, but cannot agree with. The patent owner, as he unreasonably refuses to grant a license. Then it can be obtaine by a court decision, that is, against the will copyright holder.