Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
Currently, technologies are actively shaping and intensifying the time of implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) systems, while at the same time the so-called soft skills that employers are looking for in future employees are becoming increasingly important. Thus, in today's situation, we have the possibility to use automatons and robots that successfully replace humans in many tasks, while at the same time there is a need to create teams based on such qualities as empathy, communication, ingenuity, intelligence and, above all, humanism, whose importance in creating a business perspective cannot be overestimated. The aim of this article is to analyse the research problem in case of social robots and the probable legal status of artificial intelligence in the future. The article will discuss the differences between artificial intelligence versus artificial consciousness. AI poses societal challenges, it is currently undergoing a number of important developments, and the law must be rapidly changed. Firstly, the difference between artificial intelligence and artificial consciousness is attempted to be demystified. Subsequently, the analysis of current legal status of Artificial Intelligence in EU will be conducted. Cyberspace and the Internet revolutionised human life. It brings benefits, but also hitherto unknown risks. However, this is an inherent problem of human development. Every new technology, every new invention has its advantages, but also disadvantages. It would seem that autonomous systems, using artificial intelligence, are a panacea for such problems. Perhaps so, but the security of cyberspace depends on a variety of factors that are sometimes beyond our control or, from another perspective, we ourselves create the threat, inspire it intentionally or through inadequacies, ignorance, and negligence.
Currently, technologies are actively shaping and intensifying the time of implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) systems, while at the same time the so-called soft skills that employers are looking for in future employees are becoming increasingly important. Thus, in today's situation, we have the possibility to use automatons and robots that successfully replace humans in many tasks, while at the same time there is a need to create teams based on such qualities as empathy, communication, ingenuity, intelligence and, above all, humanism, whose importance in creating a business perspective cannot be overestimated. The aim of this article is to analyse the research problem in case of social robots and the probable legal status of artificial intelligence in the future. The article will discuss the differences between artificial intelligence versus artificial consciousness. AI poses societal challenges, it is currently undergoing a number of important developments, and the law must be rapidly changed. Firstly, the difference between artificial intelligence and artificial consciousness is attempted to be demystified. Subsequently, the analysis of current legal status of Artificial Intelligence in EU will be conducted. Cyberspace and the Internet revolutionised human life. It brings benefits, but also hitherto unknown risks. However, this is an inherent problem of human development. Every new technology, every new invention has its advantages, but also disadvantages. It would seem that autonomous systems, using artificial intelligence, are a panacea for such problems. Perhaps so, but the security of cyberspace depends on a variety of factors that are sometimes beyond our control or, from another perspective, we ourselves create the threat, inspire it intentionally or through inadequacies, ignorance, and negligence.
Just as innovations contribute to building a competitive advantage, the level of intellectual property protection constitutes the international competitiveness of national economies and determines the market attractiveness for foreign direct investments. In this light, the paper analyses the impact of the amendment of February 13, 2020, to the Code of Civil Procedure Act and some other acts, introducing the so-called specific actions in cases related to intellectual property against the situation of innovators, including beneficiaries of the IP box relief, i.e. defence or preventive instruments in the event of a lawsuit or possible dispute. There is a risk of tax authorities questioning the legitimacy of the use of IP box based on qualified IP, i.e. copyright to a computer program. The potential dispute between the taxpayer and the tax authorities will primarily concern the resolution of what is a “computer program” under copyright law and the creative nature of the activity carried out by the taxpayer benefiting from the IP box relief. Effective from July 1, 2020, changes to the procedural proceedings in cases in the field of intellectual property introduced by the amendment to the Code of Civil Procedure protect the taxpayer’s interests using the IP box.
The article deals with the methods of combating the trade in counterfeit goods and brand piracy. In the current situation, especially when reports about the growing wave of trade in counterfeit goods and brand piracy also fully apply to the Polish market, there is no doubt that all the authorities operating in Poland whose scope of tasks includes activities in the field of preventing and combating such violations should actively contribute to the implementation of plans and initiatives undertaken at the EU level, referred to in part IV of this article. For many years, the European Commission has been generating various documents that are worth using, but when it comes to concrete methods – the Commission has for years been constantly “announcing” the future creation of a “toolbox” to fight this type of infringement. The article (in parts V and VI) also mentions “self-regulation” – as a new method of combating counterfeiting and brand piracy – in the light of actions taken at the EU level. The basis of this new method is the document referred to as the “Memorandum of Understanding on the Sale of Counterfeit Goods via the Internet” of May 4, 2011 (the 2016 version is currently in use). This document is defined as the voluntary agreement supported by the European Commission between the largest online platforms, suppliers, sellers and rights owners of goods whose counterfeit and pirated versions are sold on the Internet. The article presents the assumptions and principles of the functioning of this agreement in the field of “self-regulation” consisting in the cooperation of the signatories of this agreement, in particular based on the exchange of information on cases of violations and procedures to counter them (as part of quarterly meetings of these entrepreneurs “under the auspices of the European Commission”). The descriptions of the functioning of this agreement presented in the periodical documents published by the Commission contain both positive and negative evaluations. In particular, the article mentions that a large group of rights holders have pointed out that many offers of counterfeit goods are still available on online markets. These signatories consider that cooperation and information exchange with online platforms are insufficient for the commitments made under the “self-regulation” agreement and that the level of counterfeit goods is still too high. Descriptions of the agreement’s principles of operation and of assessments contained in the published documents prompted the author to pose numerous questions regarding the fundamental issues requiring clarification if the agreement is to continue to be in power in its current form. One of the questions concerns the verification by the European Commission (under the “auspices” of which this agreement is functionning) of the content of information exchanged by the signatories of the agreement from the point of view of compliance with the antimonopoly law which prohibits competition-restricting agreements.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.