SOCIAL-PHILOSOPHIC VIEW OF THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY TYPOLOGY

Abstract

Urgency of the research. Relevance of the research is connected with the quest for new grounds for expansion of the intellectual property’s typology. However, the implementation of any new, not so obvious varieties of intellectual property should be confirmed and illustrated with examples from reality, and shouldn’t go against the legal classification. It should not make unsolvable contradictions. Target setting. Abstracting from the juridical classification of intellectual property, it becomes evident an existence of broader horizons for possible classification criteria than the law offers in respect of this specific kind of property. In particular, the social philosophy may provide a supplement to existing law typology with such less obvious grounds as intellectual property’s classification by origin, by substance and by certain other criteria. Actual scientific researches and issues analysis. Among the fundamental research for some phenomena of modern intellectual sphere we should mention the monograph "Intellectual Property: creative metaphysical search" by V. Bazylevych and V. Ilyin, the monograph "Intelligence in the structure of human being" by E. Andros, dissertations "Analysis of knowledge as a strategic resource for society transformation (ideological and methodological aspects)" by V. Kusheretc’, "Intelle ctual proper ty’s sociogenes is" by N. Okonskaya, "Intellectual Property: an experience of social-philosophic research" by A. Orekhov, "The Knowledge as a form of communication for consciousness and being" by V. Petrushenko. Uninvestigated parts of general matters defining. While studying various social relations connected with intellectual property, we also have to take into account the realities of open civil society, global informatization, postindustrialism and postmodernity, as well as the private law specificity of the Intellectual Property institution. So we need compare social-philosophic patterns of intellectual property and legal ones, in accordance with Ukrainian laws and international conventions. The research objective. Main purpose of the article is to research some nonobvious criteria for the intellectual property’s possible classification, in order to complete the existing typology of intellectual property with new varieties, taking into account the social-philosophic specifics. The statement of basic materials. There is some ambiguity can be seen in the sense of private and personal property and their conjunction. In fact the phenomenon of ownership has an extremely controversial social assessment. The history of philosophic thought knows very different views of the property, sometimes even antagonistic. Thus A. Smith considers a property as a "foundation of social stability" and "a basic system of natural liberty". Another vision that "the division of labor and the private property are identical effects" shows K. Marx, giving his sentence: "a property is possession of results of the others' work". In the first chapter of his treatise "What is property?" P. Proudhon expounds the main motive of whole work: "property is a theft". According to F. Engels, a property is prerequisite and one of underlying causes for the state genesis. Such a variety of ideas about nature of the property does not improve the understanding of intellectual property phenomenon, exactly as does not resolve the controversy about its typology. Sometimes we have to refer to the logic of the legislation in the field of intellectual property, in order to clarify the nature and some features of intellectual property’s different types. Conclusions. In philosophic discourse we suggest to make a difference between following non-juridical types of intellectual property: 1) «newly generated» and «disseminated»; 2) «a priori» (copyright & related rights) and «a posteriori» (that require an official legitimation); 3) «personal» intellectual property (individual ownership) and «collective» (joint ownership); 4) «natural» (as a result of self intellectual, creative working) and «appropriated» (if exclusive rights were acquired due to the contract, under the law, by inheritance, or with another generally accepted methods); 5) «presently valid» (if exclusive commercial rights are in force) and «already e x pired» (becoming a public domain).