Changing the role of IP in the transition to an innovative model of the economy
An excerpt from the original study on the issues of innovative economics
Recently, the attention of researchers is occupied by the issues of building a new type of economy of a post-industrial society - an innovative economy. At a time when the most developed countries have already entered the post-industrial stage, Russia is still at a previous stage of development.
At present, Russia is beginning the transition to the post-industrial stage of development. Most developed countries have already completed this transition. Innovative economy or knowledge-based economy is an economic model of a post-industrial society based on an intellectual property institute. At present, the practice of intellectual property has developed on the basis of the views and values ​​of the industrial stage, by analogy with the ownership rights to tangible objects.
The main in the structure of the innovation economy is the Institute of Intellectual Property. As material production in a postindustrial society fades into the background, so the right of ownership of material objects does not have such significance in an innovative economy as in today's society. Innovative economy - an economy based on knowledge, on information that plays the same role as the means of production in the industrial economy, if not more, because the main purpose of owning information in the production process is to use it correctly to improve production.
')
Obviously, different types of information play different roles in the economy.
Copyright objects are essentially a commodity. They do not represent value in the production process, but obviously have some customer value. In the field of copyright, the analogy with material values ​​is strongest, in general, as wrong as it is in other branches of intellectual property. The most valuable information in production is similar to the objects of patent law, since it is on such information that almost all types of innovations are based.
From this point of view, the concept of intellectual property “mixed indiscriminately” the concept of trademark, copyright and patent law, which legally arose, developed and raised various questions: “Copyright was developed to promote literature and art, it covers the details of in literature and art. Patent law was conceived to support the publication of ideas for the price of these ideas of their sole owners - a price that in one area is possibly the worst, and in another not. Trademark law was conceived not to promote any business activity, but simply so that the buyer knew what he was buying. <...> If you want to clearly present for yourself the questions raised by either patents, or copyright, or trademarks, or even just find out what these laws say, forget about the idea of ​​linking them together and spread them out on different sides. ” . [Richard M. Stallman. Speak, "intellectual property"? Seductive mirage. (Did You Say "Intellectual Property"? It's a Seductive Mirage by Richard M. Stallman) // citkit.ru/articles/230 ]
As we see, sociologically, such a point of view is fully justified, although a complete rejection of the institution of intellectual property is hardly constructive for society. It is obvious that the society is not paying enough attention to the peculiarity and exclusivity, which the norms on regulating relations connected with objects of intangible culture should possess, and builds its economic and social attitude to them by analogy with material values. Undoubtedly, in the near future this situation should change due to the increasing role of information of all kinds in the economy, with the differentiation of its role in the life of society during the transition to the post-industrial model.
In the economy of knowledge, the policy of access to information also plays a special role, and in particular, the institution of education. It is clear that constant NTP, innovative modification of production require a well-established and flexible system of training qualified personnel. The education system must be as flexible, innovative and ready for change and reorganization as the whole society, otherwise the production facilities will very soon have no one to serve, as the innovative economy requires constant retraining of personnel.
It is obvious that the system of general and even higher education is not ready for such requirements. This situation of the lack of education and the rise in price of information, characteristic of post-industrial society, and related to the phenomena of unemployment and personnel policy, can already be observed in highly technological and rapidly developing markets, such as the IT sphere. Within the framework of this topic, it is possible to dwell on this issue in more detail, since this sector of the economy is most likely a “window to a post-industrial society”, an example of innovative relations that extend to all areas of activity in the future.
Competition in the IT labor market is certainly high. There is competition between job seekers for employers. At the same time, the diversity of programs and qualifications inevitably grows. Now it is impossible to master all computer specialties. And even in those specialties for which applicants are usually hired, there are their own, narrower qualifications. And, undoubtedly, the number of specialties will grow, specialization will deepen, specialists will become narrower. In this situation, there is a conflict of interest between applicants and employers. And this is due to the possible training required by the employer qualifications directly when applying for a job. Now it is practiced by firms that need very specific services. And will this practice spread further? In my opinion, definitely, yes. This is due to the very conflict of interest.
What is beneficial to the applicant: to get independently fragmentary and non-system knowledge in narrow specialties (since obtaining such knowledge through the education system is impossible because of its great inertia for such a dynamic industry) so that you can try to find a job for yourself, for specific ( and often fragmentary and incomplete) qualifications, or to obtain general, systemic knowledge (which can be done through the higher education system), allowing in the future to easily and quickly acquire any specialty, master the newest program, or Is the system straight from the employer, and this will be under his control and will exactly comply with his norms and requirements? Of course, the second. And what is beneficial to the employer? Spend time and resources on staff training, and when hiring a new employee, training will have to start over, or try to catch the most suitable candidates from the sea, while spending disproportionately less than the staff manager? Again, the second. And who: unemployed applicants, or employers are more likely to lobby for their interests, and influence the situation on the market? Undoubtedly, employers, since there is competition between the applicants, and their goal is not to ensure their interests as a social group, but to get a job. And there is no doubt that the market situation will develop under the influence of employers.
But not only. Even the largest firms can not resist the objective laws of the industry. Over time, specialists will become more and more narrow, and more and more specialties will exist. And the harder it is for employers to find the right specialist for them. There will be competition between employers for narrow specialists. Actually, it exists today, but over time it will cover a larger market sector. And in what position is the company more profitable: in the position of competition for job applicants, or employers for cadres? Naturally, a company that finds a way to use to attract competition many applicants who do not have the proper specialization will receive huge advantages over competing ones. And the only way to use them is to organize their specialized training.
Thus, it is clear that the dissemination of the practice of core training by employers of their employees will undoubtedly occur with the current parameters of the industry’s development, since this is the only promising way of personnel management in the conditions of advanced specialization of employees. This indicates a general trend towards a change in public policy regarding access to information. The necessary information will become increasingly valuable and the infrastructure of access to information will develop more and more as the industry becomes industrialized.
This work by Koroteev. Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License .
Recently, the attention of researchers is occupied by the issues of building a new type of economy of a post-industrial society - an innovative economy. At a time when the most developed countries have already entered the post-industrial stage, Russia is still at a previous stage of development.
At present, Russia is beginning the transition to the post-industrial stage of development. Most developed countries have already completed this transition. Innovative economy or knowledge-based economy is an economic model of a post-industrial society based on an intellectual property institute. At present, the practice of intellectual property has developed on the basis of the views and values ​​of the industrial stage, by analogy with the ownership rights to tangible objects.
The main in the structure of the innovation economy is the Institute of Intellectual Property. As material production in a postindustrial society fades into the background, so the right of ownership of material objects does not have such significance in an innovative economy as in today's society. Innovative economy - an economy based on knowledge, on information that plays the same role as the means of production in the industrial economy, if not more, because the main purpose of owning information in the production process is to use it correctly to improve production.
')
Obviously, different types of information play different roles in the economy.
Copyright objects are essentially a commodity. They do not represent value in the production process, but obviously have some customer value. In the field of copyright, the analogy with material values ​​is strongest, in general, as wrong as it is in other branches of intellectual property. The most valuable information in production is similar to the objects of patent law, since it is on such information that almost all types of innovations are based.
From this point of view, the concept of intellectual property “mixed indiscriminately” the concept of trademark, copyright and patent law, which legally arose, developed and raised various questions: “Copyright was developed to promote literature and art, it covers the details of in literature and art. Patent law was conceived to support the publication of ideas for the price of these ideas of their sole owners - a price that in one area is possibly the worst, and in another not. Trademark law was conceived not to promote any business activity, but simply so that the buyer knew what he was buying. <...> If you want to clearly present for yourself the questions raised by either patents, or copyright, or trademarks, or even just find out what these laws say, forget about the idea of ​​linking them together and spread them out on different sides. ” . [Richard M. Stallman. Speak, "intellectual property"? Seductive mirage. (Did You Say "Intellectual Property"? It's a Seductive Mirage by Richard M. Stallman) // citkit.ru/articles/230 ]
As we see, sociologically, such a point of view is fully justified, although a complete rejection of the institution of intellectual property is hardly constructive for society. It is obvious that the society is not paying enough attention to the peculiarity and exclusivity, which the norms on regulating relations connected with objects of intangible culture should possess, and builds its economic and social attitude to them by analogy with material values. Undoubtedly, in the near future this situation should change due to the increasing role of information of all kinds in the economy, with the differentiation of its role in the life of society during the transition to the post-industrial model.
In the economy of knowledge, the policy of access to information also plays a special role, and in particular, the institution of education. It is clear that constant NTP, innovative modification of production require a well-established and flexible system of training qualified personnel. The education system must be as flexible, innovative and ready for change and reorganization as the whole society, otherwise the production facilities will very soon have no one to serve, as the innovative economy requires constant retraining of personnel.
It is obvious that the system of general and even higher education is not ready for such requirements. This situation of the lack of education and the rise in price of information, characteristic of post-industrial society, and related to the phenomena of unemployment and personnel policy, can already be observed in highly technological and rapidly developing markets, such as the IT sphere. Within the framework of this topic, it is possible to dwell on this issue in more detail, since this sector of the economy is most likely a “window to a post-industrial society”, an example of innovative relations that extend to all areas of activity in the future.
Competition in the IT labor market is certainly high. There is competition between job seekers for employers. At the same time, the diversity of programs and qualifications inevitably grows. Now it is impossible to master all computer specialties. And even in those specialties for which applicants are usually hired, there are their own, narrower qualifications. And, undoubtedly, the number of specialties will grow, specialization will deepen, specialists will become narrower. In this situation, there is a conflict of interest between applicants and employers. And this is due to the possible training required by the employer qualifications directly when applying for a job. Now it is practiced by firms that need very specific services. And will this practice spread further? In my opinion, definitely, yes. This is due to the very conflict of interest.
What is beneficial to the applicant: to get independently fragmentary and non-system knowledge in narrow specialties (since obtaining such knowledge through the education system is impossible because of its great inertia for such a dynamic industry) so that you can try to find a job for yourself, for specific ( and often fragmentary and incomplete) qualifications, or to obtain general, systemic knowledge (which can be done through the higher education system), allowing in the future to easily and quickly acquire any specialty, master the newest program, or Is the system straight from the employer, and this will be under his control and will exactly comply with his norms and requirements? Of course, the second. And what is beneficial to the employer? Spend time and resources on staff training, and when hiring a new employee, training will have to start over, or try to catch the most suitable candidates from the sea, while spending disproportionately less than the staff manager? Again, the second. And who: unemployed applicants, or employers are more likely to lobby for their interests, and influence the situation on the market? Undoubtedly, employers, since there is competition between the applicants, and their goal is not to ensure their interests as a social group, but to get a job. And there is no doubt that the market situation will develop under the influence of employers.
But not only. Even the largest firms can not resist the objective laws of the industry. Over time, specialists will become more and more narrow, and more and more specialties will exist. And the harder it is for employers to find the right specialist for them. There will be competition between employers for narrow specialists. Actually, it exists today, but over time it will cover a larger market sector. And in what position is the company more profitable: in the position of competition for job applicants, or employers for cadres? Naturally, a company that finds a way to use to attract competition many applicants who do not have the proper specialization will receive huge advantages over competing ones. And the only way to use them is to organize their specialized training.
Thus, it is clear that the dissemination of the practice of core training by employers of their employees will undoubtedly occur with the current parameters of the industry’s development, since this is the only promising way of personnel management in the conditions of advanced specialization of employees. This indicates a general trend towards a change in public policy regarding access to information. The necessary information will become increasingly valuable and the infrastructure of access to information will develop more and more as the industry becomes industrialized.
This work by Koroteev. Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License .
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/56655/
All Articles