Legal consolidation of intellectual property as a component of terminology

Abstract

In the work, the author determined the relevance of the topic of scientific research. It was noted that the principle of studying intellectual property as an independent legal term is determined by: first, the general methodological importance of studying and improving the concepts and categories of jurisprudence, as well as the terminology used in acts of law-making, legal interpretation and law enforcement; secondly, the existing shortcomings of its terminological consolidation in the provisions of both international law and Ukrainian legislation; thirdly, the doctrinal uncertainty of intellectual property as a component of the conceptual and categorical apparatus of legal scienceThe perspective of using the value-legal approach, which was taken as a basis for the study of intellectual property as a special value-legal phenomenon, has been proven, which will allow not only to determine the key properties of intellectual property, but also to put them in the basis of an improved conceptual definition and terminological consolidation. The state of scientific development of the subject of the article has been established. Based on the analysis of the state of the terminological consolidation of intellectual property, which is presented in the provisions of international legal acts and acts of the legislation of Ukraine, a critical assessment was given to it, and shortcomings were identified. It has been established that the vast majority of scientists approach the understanding of intellectual property from the point of view of opposite theories - proprietary and exclusive rights theory. Moreover, even in legal science, scientists are already debating whether these theories relate to intellectual property or, after all, to the theory of intellectual property rights.It is summarized that the current state of the terminological definition of the concept of “intellectual property” reflects: first, the value perception of intellectual property as something that requires personalization and definition of the range of rights of subjects, with the aim of its potential legal protection and possible legal protection; secondly, intellectual property is considered as the result of creative activity, which can be carried out only by a person due to his creative (intellectual) abilities; thirdly, the lawmaker clearly defines the spheres of a person’s creative activity, where the result will be intellectual property, which includes industrial, scientific and artistic property; fourthly, intellectual property is understood through the prism of the personified right of the relevant subjects, which refers to the results of creative activity in the industrial, scientific and artistic spheres.