Search results

Support for research and development in information technology is considered today as critical by most governments in the industrially advanced countries. Traditionally the way of stimulating research has been to ensure to the investor the appropriability of the returns generated. Such appropriability is typically implemented by means of the Intellectual Property Rigths. Nevertheless the protection of such rights is heterogeneous worldwide. Today two different legal systems for the protection of software coexist: the system of patents and the system of author's copyrights. This paper explains these two main systems of 'intellectual property' to provide legal protection to a software, including the licenses to transfer rights on software. The end of the paper presents the most recent trends of the EU government to replace the current European software protection system, including a discussion onf the software patents and the legal initiatives on the subject. In addition, legal issues linked with new ways in software comercialization are presented.

The authors considered the essence of the legal language and highlighted its properties. In particular, it is determined that the legal language is, primarily, the official language, which is distinguished by the standard formulations. It is based on the legal terminology. Legal language is characterized by a circle of regular users, special, distinctive fixation objects (for example, legislative, judicial and other legal acts). It is a means of special, intellectual and legal communication, intended for the exchange of legal information. The article contains arguments in favor of the need for the general availability of the legal language and justifies the possibility of its subdivision into species.

The 1997 Supreme Court case Delgamuukw v. British Columbia was groundbreaking in its recognition of oral histories as evidence of Aboriginal title. Brought forth by the Wet'suwet'en and Gitxsan nations, the trial would decide the title to territory in northern British Columbia, a jurisdiction which notably had never signed any treaties with the Canadian government. The Supreme Court overturned an earlier judgement from lower B.C. courts that had claimed Aboriginal title did not exist in law, allowing an appeal and leading to a retrial. The Supreme Court's ruling not only defined the scope of Aborginal title, but ensured it was a constitutionally protected right that cannot be extinguished by the provinces, although it could be "infringed upon." Additionally, it set the precedent for all future cases that Indigenous oral history must be given the same weight as written colonial history.