Ramona Dumitraşcu*

Abstract

It is not easy to make a firm conclusion on the differences in between the legal reglementation on intellectual property in Japan and occidental legislation: cultural differences, the interpretation on what cultural differences are and on the interpretation on what culture is, the notion of importance to the general population in regard protocol implementation, interpretation of the economic importance and future planning (strategy) influence the political approach through legislation. Japan has put the emphasis on hardware rather than software in order to control /influence the innovation impact in time.The mere difference in languages (cca 260 characters vs 7000 characters) and its specific interpretation possibilities makes it difficult to come with a firm acceptable assessment, and yet the paradox of relating to tradition and culture to build spectacular innovation makes the Japanese example overwhelming.

* Avocat Baroul Bucureşti; membru al Asociaţiei Ştiinţifice de Dreptul Proprietăţii Intelec­tuale, (This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.).

Andra-Maria Drăgan*

Abstract

The process of analyzing the condition of originality of intellectual creations has always been one of the main concerns of both doctrine and jurisprudence. This is due to the fact that the granting of legal protection is closely related to the fulfillment of this condition, considered unanimously by specialists as essential, since national and international provisions state that original works are protected without laying down other conditions to be fulfilled. The differences of opinion in both the doctrine and the jurisprudence have led to the birth of a multitude of theories, which try to bring clarity to the notion, especially since the sphere of intellectual creation works is constantly transformed. This highlights the necessity of developing and remodeling the conditions that must be met in order for the works to be considered original. Next, we propose to look at the theoretical and practical aspects that have emerged over time in European and American law.

*Absolventă a Facultăţii de Drept, Universitatea „Alexandru Ioan Cuza” din Iaşi, adresă de e-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. 

Andreea Livadariu*

Abstract

We believe that at the echo level among practitioners and recipients of the rules of conduct (without preexisting significantly similar legal provisions), the „Copyright Directive” will give birth in the next two years (until the transposition deadline, June 2021 respectively) of debates, fears and scenarios regarding applicability and effects. Of course, if the action for annulment filed by the Government of the Polish Republic against the most sensitive provisions, respectively against those included in art. 17 paragraph 4 lit. b) and c) of the Directive, will not be admitted by the European Court of Justice. Voted in the European Parliament, while Romania held the rotating Presidency at the Council of the European Union, on March 26, 2019, after wide debates and a fairly close vote (348 votes in favor, 274 votes against and 24 abstentions), Directive (EU)) 2019/790 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on copyright and related rights in the digital single market and amending Directives 96/9 / EC and 2001/29 / EC is a normative challenge of copyright and of related rights.

* Avocat colaborator în cadrul SCA Roş şi Asociaţii, asistent universitar drd. Universitatea Nicolae Titulescu din Bucureşti. E-mail: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Partners