Violation of Intellectual Property by Soviet Authorities as a Social Phenomenon

Carp Simion
ORCID: 0000-0003-4772-8325
‘Stefan cel Mare’ Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Republic of Moldova

Pilat Sofia
ORCID: 0000-0002-1517-8886
‘Stefan cel Mare’ Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Republic of Moldova

Abstract. The aforementioned scientific article is devoted to examining the evolution of the institution of intellectual property rights and the violation of these rights by the Soviet authorities. More than three decades have passed since the collapse of the USSR — an event that provided many nations with the opportunity to gain independence and to begin implementing democratic norms and values. This transitional period proved to be far more challenging for the former union republics that had become sovereign states. The exponents of the communist totalitarian regime undertook numerous destructive actions aimed at obstructing the democratic course of these states, pursuing the goal of reconstituting the disintegrated Soviet empire. The coordination centre of all subversive activities was permanently located within the Russian Federation.

DOI: 10.5604/10.5604/01.3001.0055.4518

http://dx.doi.org/10.5604/10.5604/01.3001.0055.4518

Keywords: propaganda, Soviet empire, Bolsheviks, communist ideology, intellectual property, Nazism, invention patent

Introduction

Copyright, although a relatively young legal institution, has experienced one of the most successful developments in the past two centuries. As noted in the literature, copyright plays a key role in the development of human culture.

Everything created by humankind and its evolution has proved both useful and necessary, contributing to the technical, technological, cultural, and spiritual pro­gress of humanity as a whole. In particular, during the last three decades — when the world’s political map changed considerably, and many states gradually gained independence — the newly established and developing countries faced the chal­lenge of educating their citizens to appreciate the importance of cultural values for strengthening national identity and ensuring their continuity.

The importance of the institution of copyright and related rights in Moldova became especially evident after the country’s declaration of independence on 27 August 1991. At that time, the Republic of Moldova recognised the need to establish a legal framework that would eliminate the state monopoly over several privately oriented activities and lay the foundations for a market economy.

Another event of great importance for Moldova was the ratification, by Par­liamentary Decision No. 1318-XII of 2 March 1993, of the Universal Copyright

Convention, signed in Geneva on 6 September 1952 under the auspices of the United Nations.

The concept of intellectual property rights has undergone a long and often controversial evolution. Although the term has become widely accepted, it still lacks a precise and universally agreed definition and continues to be used with a certain degree of conventionality.

Although literary creations date back to the Middle Ages, intellectual property rights — understood as a set of legal norms regulating social relations concerning the creation and use of the results of intellectual activity — emerged only towards the end of the seventeenth century. They were further developed at the begin­ning of the eighteenth century, when the first theoretical considerations regarding copyright and related rights appeared.

In antiquity, an author’s rights were limited to ownership of manuscripts, which were objects of trade. It is worth noting that after the death of Aeschylus, the Athenians allowed other poets to reproduce his tragedies either in their original or modified form. Even his son, Eufarion, also presented his father’s tragedies, including those that had not yet been performed. However, he acted merely as the successor of Decuius in the sense that he acquired the active patrimonial rights over the manuscripts, not as the author of the works themselves.

The concept of copyright remained essentially unchanged during the Middle Ages, a period marked by the flourishing of the manuscript-copying industry as well as and the emergence of exclusive rights to transcribe manuscripts. Initially, this right to transcribe manuscripts belonged only to monks, but later it evolved into an industry associated with universities.

Romanian private law likewise did not contain explicit regulations concerning the protection of intellectual creation; at most, there were provisions regarding the protec­tion of property, within which the results of creative activity were occasionally included.

During the transitional period following the dissolution of the USSR, wars of aggression were launched, secret agents were infiltrated into the governments of the former Soviet republics, and numerous attempts were made to corrupt politi­cal figures to maintain control over them. Gradually, a vast propaganda network was established, distorting historical truth and promoting the idea of reviving the former Soviet empire. Various forms of propaganda disseminated the claim that, during the Soviet era, people enjoyed a higher standard of living, strict respect for civil rights, guaranteed housing in new buildings, universal employment, and access to education, culture, healthcare, leisure, and sport.

It was further claimed that mothers and children were protected and that the elderly received adequate pensions. Among the achievements often attributed to the Soviet regime by propagandists were remarkable results in science and the development of innovative technologies. As a reflection of this nostalgia, ’Sovetskoye champagne’, ’Stolichnaya vodka’, ’Alyonka’ chocolate, and other brands continue to evoke sentimental memories for many Russians. According to a survey conducted by Russia’s Levada Centre, approximately 65 per cent of respondents expressed regret over the collapse of the Soviet Union.¹

However, this sentiment largely reflects the situation within the Russian Federa­tion and not that of the republics which gained independence from the USSR.

It is worth noting that the propaganda outlets of the Russian Federation delib­erately avoid addressing issues such as the methods of torture employed by the communist totalitarian regime against representatives of various peoples, the deportations and artificially induced famines, the so-called struggle against ‘preju­dices’, and the promotion of atheism. There is no mention of the fact that the Soviet authorities forced peasants to abandon their land, machinery, and livestock in order to establish collective farms; nor is reference made to the compulsory requisition­ing of grain and foodstuffs, the extermination of the intelligentsia, or the forced confinement of healthy individuals in psychiatric institutions. These omissions reveal that Soviet policies in the field of criminal law were directed towards the elimination of opponents and those considered disloyal, while fundamental human rights were systematically and flagrantly violated. The population was ideologically subordinated and compelled to reshape its consciousness within the framework of the abolition of private property and the reorganisation of the cultural and edu­cational systems along communist lines. To be fair, it must also be acknowledged that Soviet propaganda made extensive use of manipulative methods designed to render the public obedient to the authorities.

Likewise, it should be recalled that during the communist totalitarian regime there was an intense campaign against the so-called representatives of the bourgeoisie and ‘counter-revolutionary elements.’ Against this background, the Bolsheviks were extolled as liberators of the people from the Tsarist yoke. At the same time, in order to maintain control over the masses, Bolshevik propagandists engaged with various social groups, identifying subjects that might appeal to their specific interests.

For example, young enthusiasts of aeronautics were presented with documents purportedly demonstrating that the Tsarist regime had persecuted talented inven­tors merely because they had exhibited to the public the flying machines they had created. The Soviet author A. Pozdnev provides one such example, noting: ‘In one of the documents issued during the reign of Ivan the Terrible, information was pre­served regarding the punishment inflicted upon a Serbian peasant from the estate of the boyar’s son Lupatov. The document states: ‘Man is not a bird and has no wings. If man gains wings by his own effort, he acts against his nature, and this does not come from God but from evil forces. For this connection with evil spirits, the inventor’s head should be cut off, and the body of this sinful creature should be thrown to the pigs to be devoured. His invention, created with the help of evil forces, shall be burned after the Mass has been completed.’²

The same author goes on to describe the situation of inventors in France, citing the example of the Montgolfier brothers, who were celebrated in 1783 following the launch of their hot-air balloon:

‘In the presence of King Louis XVI, to the sound of a brass band and accompa­nied by cannon volleys, the balloon — painted in various colours — rose into the air with the help of a brazier attached to it with ropes. The king was greatly pleased with the event and awarded the inventors decorations and noble titles. A Latin maxim appeared on the Montgolfier family’s coat of arms: Sic itur ad astra, which translates as ‘Thus we go to the stars.’ Meanwhile, in Russia, in 1874, a decree was issued stating: ‘In order to prevent fires and other accidents that may be caused by bal­loons filled with various gases, or by braziers attached to them, the launching of such devices is prohibited. Those caught will pay a fine of twenty-five roubles.’ As we can see, the attitude of the Russian government towards aeronautics had ‘noticeably improved’—instead of burning at the stake, execution by quartering, or excom­munication, only a monetary fine was now prescribed by law.’³

In Romania, the Press and Publications Law of 13 April 1862, promulgated during the reign of Alexandru Ioan Cuza, was the first normative act to regulate copyright within the country. The law addressed matters relating to copyright by recognising writers, composers, and creators of literary and artistic works to benefit from their creations as a form of property. The normative act mentioned above granted pro­tection to works during the author’s lifetime and provided for the transfer of rights for a period of 10 years following the author’s death.⁴

From the foregoing, it is evident that, in the Soviet Union, the regime’s primary focus was the establishment of criminal law norms that enabled the totalitarian communist authorities to eliminate individuals deemed undesirable from society. Concurrently, newspapers, books, and radio broadcasts emphasised the ‘successes’ claimed by the regime, while deliberately omitting the fact that democracy, cul­tural values, and national traditions had been supplanted by communist ideology. Under such conditions, individuals of questionable integrity who demonstrated loyalty to the regime were often promoted to positions of leadership. Lenin himself famously declared:

‘It is nonsense! Any worker can become a minister after learning the trade for a few days. No special skills are required. There is no need to understand the opera­tion of the state apparatus. This function will be performed by the specialists who must work for us.’⁵

Guided by Lenin’s exhortation, the Soviet authorities routinely violated the rule of law, and intellectual property rights were not protected. A striking example of this is the production of Champagne, a beverage originating from the Cham­pagne region of France. Soviet Champagne, or Sovetskoye Shampanskoye, began to be produced in the late 1920s as an inexpensive alternative accessible to the working class. In 1936, the Soviet government initiated mass production of the spar­kling wine, aiming to produce one million bottles within a few years. This plan was highly ambitious, given that between five and eight million people had perished in the famine that had occurred just a few years prior.

To achieve Stalin’s ambitious objective, the Soviets had to produce Champagne in large quantities, a feat that the traditional bottle fermentation method could not accommodate. The realisation of the plan and the popularisation of the product in the Soviet Union were largely due to the innovation of the oenologist Anton Frolov-Bagreyev, who transferred the fermentation process from the bottle to large tanks. A process that would normally have taken a year was reduced to one month, albeit at the cost of lower quality. Millions of bottles were produced over the years, eventually becoming a symbol of party propaganda, which sought to portray the success of Soviet Champagne as an economic miracle, even as store shelves remained largely empty.⁶

During World War II, Soviet engineers were tasked with providing the Soviet Army with high-performance military technology. Some of these inventors plagia­rized foreign models of aircraft and began to manufacture them on the assembly line in the USSR. As a result, there were cases when Soviet Army soldiers opened fire on them, confusing them with German ones. Such incidents happened with the airplane invented by Pavel Suhoi, ‘SU-2’: ‘In which the famous aviator — Alex­andr Pokryshkin was involved. It was mentioned in all the books, dictionaries and encyclopedias that during the war he shot down 59 enemy planes. However, there is still a 60th plane, which in reality was the first one shot down by him. He remi­nisced about this incident saying: ‘I was looking at the sky: from the side of the sun a group of planes was flying. Here comes the long-awaited! The bombers fly at an angle slightly away from the airfield. Even though the sun was beating in my eyes, I noticed that the planes were of an unknown model, they looked strange: with an engine, the cockpit of the pilot and the target navigator being joined together. I directed my plane towards them and approached one from the side. I opened fire! A short burst and I saw that I had hit the spot. But because I got too close to him, the air wave from his engine blew me aside. Suddenly changing the plane’s course, I look at them from above and — what a horror! I saw red stars on their wings. They were ours! I took down one of our own! Fortunately, there were no victims. All these happened because new SU-2 planes appeared in the sky, which were not shown to the pilots of Pokryshkin’s regiment. Some people appeared then and ‘fabricated a criminal case’ against Pokryshkin. ‘The investigators surrounded me like raptors,’ he later recalled. Fortunately, there were honest and brave people who defended the pilot’.⁷

Other Soviet soldiers found themselves in similar situations. Later, in textbooks published in the USSR, information was presented in such a way that certain models of military equipment and weapons, supplied to the Soviet Army by the United States and the United Kingdom as aid in the fight against Nazism, were depicted as inventions of Soviet specialists. After the defeat of Nazi Germany in World War II, Soviet troops brought to Moscow, as so-called ‘spoils of war,’ batches of classi­fied documents containing details of new technologies developed by scientific researchers in Germany and other countries. Soviet specialists subsequently used this information to achieve advances in various fields.

As the victors, the leadership of the USSR permitted itself to exploit representa­tives of countries that had fought against it, flagrantly violating their intellectual property rights. For instance, in one strictly confidential directive (No. 52/3477), signed on 19 April 1948 by the Deputy of the Main Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR concerning prisoners of war and interned civilians, Lieutenant General Kobulov instructed the leadership of the Union ministries, autonomous republics, and camp authorities to pay particular attention to: ‘Iden­tifying highly qualified specialists among the prisoners of war in order to transfer them to work within the Soviet economy. In some cases, prisoners and interned civilians did not disclose information about their areas of expertise. Recently, such a specialist was found among the prisoners of war — a Doctor of Technical Sciences, Corresponding Member of the Academy of Sciences in Germany, holding over 100 patents. He was identified and compelled to work for the USSR. Only in this way will our state be able to produce the necessary machinery to prelaunch industry and develop the economy. We are confident that among the prisoners of war and interned civilians there are specialists capable of contributing to various fields. The fundamental task is to identify them and compel them to work for the benefit of our country’.⁸

In the publications of contemporary authors, it is stated that an invention pat­ent represents the exclusive right granted to an invention. Such an invention may be a product or a process that offers new ways of doing something, or provides new technical solutions to a specific problem.⁹ The same authors also emphasise the fact that: ‘Intellectual property rights are rights granted by the state to indi­viduals in respect to their intellectual creations. A principal characteristic of these rights is the conferral of an exclusive entitlement to the author over their creation or invention for a defined period. The applicable law of each country sets out the procedures to be followed to secure protection for specific intellectual property.

Intellectual property rights are generally divided into two principal categories:

1. Copyright and Related Rights;

2. Industrial Property Rights’¹⁰.

It should be noted that the Soviet totalitarian regime exploited to the maximum both the work of prisoners of war and the intellectual potential of scholars from the occupied countries: ‘In eleven of the fifteen neighbouring countries, Moscow imposed new governments, completely subservient to its authority’.¹¹ It is evident that the Soviet authorities systematically distorted historical truth, presenting for­eign inventions as the achievements of Soviet scientists. This distortion represents a striking expression of triumphant Russian nationalism, emphasising that Russians — rather than Ukrainians, Bashkirs, or other peoples of the former USSR — were the principal liberators of the Soviet peoples and, subsequently, of the world. According to this narrative, Russians were portrayed as leading the world in every field: being the first to utilise furnaces, to develop dynamite, to discover penicillin, to invent the agricultural combine, the jet plane, and the radar; to be the first to observe the planet Venus, meteorites, and Antarctica; and to conduct the first studies of plant life on Mars. Furthermore, they were credited with constructing the world’s largest telescope and publishing more books than any other nation.

The central theme of ‘Soviet patriotism’ was the constant insistence on Russian greatness, attributed to the achievements of the Communist government, and framed as a continuation of historical triumph over Tsarist oppression. This narrative positioned Russian accomplishment as preeminent.

Other peoples of the Soviet Union were expected to revere the Soviet liberators, take pride in Russia’s achievements, and value their own traditions and national heritage only insofar as these were presented as a direct result of Russian guid­ance and influence. Russia was depicted as the bringer of culture and the liberator of subjugated peoples. This propagandistic approach found widespread resonance among the Russian population itself. The exercise of unchecked power during the Second World War further reinforced this perception, and for many Russians born and raised under communism, Russianness and communism became virtually synonymous.¹²

The aforementioned discussion allows us to better understand the impact of Soviet propaganda. Among the so-called ‘remarkable’ achievements attributed to Soviet scientists is the discovery of penicillin. In reality, the international scientific community recognises that this discovery was made by foreign researchers — Alex­ander Fleming, Howard Florey, and Ernst Chain — who, in 1945, were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for identifying penicillin and demonstrating its therapeutic effectiveness against various infectious diseases.¹³

The fact that certain pseudo-scientists from the USSR claimed foreign inventions as their own caused discontent abroad. To prevent Soviet citizens from questioning the value and authority of Soviet inventors, the communist regime ordered the publication of numerous books glorifying those targeted in these controversies. Meanwhile, propagandists identified several scientists associated with the Bolshe­viks whom they sought to elevate by alleging that certain foreign individuals had plagiarised their inventions. A prominent example of this strategy was the Russian scholar A.S. Popov, whom the Soviet authorities presented as the inventor of radio telegraphy. An important aspect of his biography, as promoted by the regime, was his involvement in protests against the tsarist government. According to Soviet accounts: ‘On 31 December 1905 (Old Style), a new conflict arose between Popov, who defended the civil rights of students, and the Minister of Internal Affairs. Popov was exhausted. When he returned home, he fell ill, and on the same day the brilliant inventor passed away, dying of a stroke. He was only forty-nine years old.’¹⁴

Soviet propaganda declared A.S. Popov to be the inventor of radiotelegraphy and radio. Soviet authors closely linked Popov’s invention with the Socialist Revolu­tion of 1917. In books published under their guidance, it was stated: ‘On the great day of 7 November 1917, the radio station aboard the cruiser Aurora announced to the world that power in Russia had been seized by the people. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin personally signed the first historic radiograms: ‘Everybody, everybody’—con- cerning the formation of the Soviet Government, the proclamation of peace, and the redistribution of lands to the peasants from the landlords. He also signed the first decrees regarding the development of radio in the Soviet state. Soviet specialists in radiotelegraphy rehabilitated Popov’s honour and achieved new successes, dem­onstrating to the world the remarkable progress our country had made in this field.’¹⁵

Willing to demonstrate their loyalty to the communist totalitarian regime, Soviet authors praised the political leadership and unjustifiably glorified the achievements of Soviet power. It was clear that: ‘.those who would have dared to break the rules of the political game by mentioning failed or abandoned projects — whether eco­nomic, military, social, or cultural — were endangering their own lives and creating difficulties for their family members.’¹⁶

Thus: ‘The writer who composes a novel about life on collective farms receives the Stalin Prize. The one who writes solely about the beauty of nature is held accountable for the alleged lack of social significance in his work.’¹⁷

In such conditions, researchers produced papers solely under political directives. Some books were devoted to A.S. Popov, portraying him as a martyr, allegedly per­secuted by the tsarist regime for his political views, while his invention was claimed to have been plagiarised by foreigners due to the Russian government’s disregard of his achievements. Hence: ‘Their attention was directed beyond the country’s borders, where at that time the self-styled inventor Marconi was developing his profitable enterprise. He managed to obtain a patent based on Popov’s invention, amassed millions in profit, and cynically proclaimed to the world that he held the foremost position in this field. Popov, by contrast, was a man of genuine invention, who truly pioneered radiotelegraphy and could in no way be compared to this businessman.’¹⁸

To clarify matters, we examine the opinion of other authors who observed: ‘The scientific discovery upon which radiotelegraphy was founded was the theory of electromagnetism (classical electrodynamics), developed by James Clerk Max­well in 1864. Although numerous scientists explored the existence and propagation of electromagnetic waves, the first conclusive demonstration was achieved by Hein­rich Hertz (1857-1894), a student of Helmholtz. Hertz succeeded in proving the propagation of electromagnetic waves. His initial result was obtained by chance, yet, as Pasteur remarked, chance favours only those minds prepared to receive it. By 1894, physicists across several countries had replicated Hertz’s experiments and, through refinement, made additional discoveries. On 1 June 1894, Oliver Lodge delivered a lecture at the Royal Institution entitled ‘The Work of Hertz and Some of His Successors,’ demonstrating that Hertz’s results could be further improved.’¹⁹

The same authors assess the true contributions of the Russian scholar Popov, noting that: ‘Lodge’s work resonated widely and inspired many scholars across the

Violation of Intellectual Property by Soviet Authorities as a Social Phenomenon world. In Russia, at Kronstadt, where the headquarters of the Russian Navy was located, the physics professor A.S. Popov (1859-1905) began researching practical problems related to the storm detector. In order to verify that electric discharges in the atmosphere exhibit an oscillating character, in 1894 he conceived the idea of studying them from a distance using a Lodge detector. To increase the sensitivity of the detector, he connected it to a long vertical metal rod —effectively creating a receiving antenna. Subsequently, probably starting in 1896, he began attempting to transmit signals over distances of 1 to 5 km. Following a conference in which he demonstrated his invention, he became a national hero. However, like many discoveries in Tsarist Russia, this one did not acquire immediate practical applica­tion and remained largely unused. ‘Meanwhile, Lodge’s work also captured the attention of the young Guglielmo Marconi during his summer vacation in 1894. At the age of 20, Marconi, an avid enthusiast of electricity, began reproducing the experiments of his predecessors with ingenuity, skill, and perseverance. By Sep­tember 1895, even with rudimentary apparatus, he demonstrated that waves could indeed propagate over hills. The patent entitled ‘Improvements in Transmitting Electrical Impulses and Signals, and an Apparatus therefore’ was filed on 2 June 1896, marking the first published account of the use of radio waves for communica­tion. Demonstrations of this technology took place in 1896 and 1897 for the Royal Navy, attended by international observers.’²⁰

Based on the above, we are able to appreciate the considerable effort required to secure a patent during this period. Later, the inventor Guglielmo Marconi encountered significant challenges as the scientist Oliver Lodge also became involved in the contest for patent recognition: ,Lodge’s resentment over the assign­ment of priority in proving the propagation of electromagnetic waves to Hertz grew even greater when he realised the substantial commercial benefits that could have accrued from the invention, in the development of which he had played a leading role. His position as professor of physics at Liverpool left him little time for commercial pursuits, while the ‘upstart foreigner,’ as he referred to Marconi, seized all the publicity. In 1895, E. Rutherford discovered a magnetic method for detecting electromagnetic waves, later employed by Marconi, and Lodge, together with his associate Muirhead, experimented in 1897 with resonant tuning, that is, the matching of resonance frequencies. During this period, Marconi was continuously engaged in practical work. He established a permanent station on the south coast of England at the Isle of Wight, transmitting from Bournemouth. Numerous radio links were successfully established. During naval manoeuvres, further difficulties arose with transmissions over 135 km, as several installations caused interference, rendering transmissions unintelligible. The solution, based on Rutherford’s reso­nant chord, already existed; however, the patent belonged to Lodge and Muirhead. Although the British government supported Marconi, he feared that his original patent could not be fully exploited without the resonator. He therefore sought to overcome this difficulty and, in his famous four-by-seven patent, number 7777, of 1900, described a method of resonance sufficiently distinct from Lodge’s to secure the novelty of his invention. Lodge contested Marconi’s claim, yet Marconi persisted, and in 1911 the Marconi Company acquired the Lodge-Muirhead patents.

Throughout this period, Marconi focused on his greatest achievement: a transatlan­tic radio link. On 12 December 1901, weak signals were detected for the first time, catapulting Marconi to international fame. In 1909, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics, shared with Ferdinand Braun (1850-1918). Marconi’s equipment later played a critical role in the rescue operations following the Titanic disaster in 1912. A champion of shortwave technology, he also demonstrated its therapeutic appli­cations and, as early as 1922, predicted the possibility of locating ships. By 1935, he was working on detecting troop movements through the interference produced by bodies moving between transmitter and receiver.’²¹

Despite the foregoing, the campaign to discredit Marconi persisted within the USSR. In this context: ‘Attempts were being made to claim that neither Popov nor Russia held the primary position in the invention of radiotelegraphy. Not long ago, in October 1947, at a scientific congress held in Italy, the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs again attributed the merit to Marconi, stating without hesitation: ‘The honour of discovering radiotelegraphy through the transmission of signals and words belongs to the brilliant Marconi.’ ‘This declaration provoked an uproar among Soviet scientists, led by the late president of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, S.I. Vavilov, who published a note of protest condemning the attempts of the Italian official to appropriate the achievements rightly belonging to Popov.’²² We remind that S.I. Vavilov was President of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR decorated with the ‘Stalin Prize’ in 1943, 1946, 1951 and 1952’.²³

S.I. Vavilov was the brother of Nikolai Ivanovich Vavilov, about whom it has been noted: ‘A renowned Soviet scientist, geneticist, biologist, and geographer, and a member of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Vavilov provides a concrete example of the suppression of scientific research in the Soviet Union. In 1940, he was arrested on charges of opposing the theories of Trofim Lysenko and Michurin. The investiga­tion lasted eleven months, during which Vavilov was tortured and interrogated approximately 400 times. ‘On the basis of fabricated documents, he was also accused of being one of the leaders of the Peasant Labor Party—a party whose existence is denied by modern historians. On 9 June 1941, a Military Court sentenced Vavilov to death for allegedly participating in the activities of the Peasant Labor Party and for anti-Soviet activities. The trial, conducted by three military judges and in the absence of a defence, lasted only a few minutes. In June 1942, the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR commuted the death sentence to twenty years of impris­onment in forced labour camps. Vavilov’s health continued to deteriorate during his detention; he contracted pneumonia and dysentery, and in his final year suffered from cachexia—a state of profound bodily weakness that contributed to cardiac failure and indirectly caused his death. He was buried in a mass grave. On 20 August 1955, the Military Collegium of the Supreme Court of the USSR overturned the 9 July verdict, terminated the proceedings against Vavilov, and withdrew all charges.’²⁴

However, while this scholar suffered repression at the hands of the communist totalitarian regime, neither his brother nor other scientists intervened to defend his life and honour, as they had adhered to the political agenda in the case of A.S. Popov. In this context, it is important to remember the crucial contributions of Max­well and Hertz to the field of radiotelegraphy: “Although they were not interested in the transmission of signals over long distances, Maxwell and Hertz can indisput­ably be considered the two ‘Fathers of Wireless Telegraphy’. The first established its theoretical foundations, and the second its experimental foundations. The remainder consisted merely of technical fine-tuning, which was often a challenging operation.”²⁵

Another person praised by communist propaganda is the chemist Zelinskii N.D., about whom Soviet authors wrote the following: ,It should be noted that during the darkest years, Nicolai Dmitrievich, as a professor at Moscow University, was not afraid to speak out against the policy pursued by the obscurantist Casso, Minister of Public Instruction under the Tsar. In 1911, in protest against the pressure exerted by Casso on the students, Nicolai Dmitrievich, together with a group of professors, left Moscow University, where he had headed the Department of Organic Chemis­try that he had founded and led for eighteen years. He moved to Saint Petersburg, where he held a modest post as head of the chemistry laboratory in the Ministry of Finance. It was in this laboratory that he invented the gas mask.’²⁶

We can assume that Zelinskii was persecuted by Leon Casso because he man­aged to secure a position in another ministry, where he was able to continue his scientific research. However, the amplification of this episode served the interests of the communist regime, as both Leon Casso and Nicolai Zelinskii were originally from Bessarabia but held different views regarding the historical past of the region. It is certain that N. Zelinskii remained obedient to Soviet power, and, to strengthen his position, criticised the Tsarist government.

Another perspective on Leon Casso’s character was offered by the Bessarabian Ioan Pelivan, a victim of communist repression. The renowned jurist and politician wrote in the early 1940s about two members of the Casso family, whom he con­sidered to: ‘Deserve all the gratitude of our Romanians. The first, in chronological order, is Nicolae Ștefan Casso, to whom we dedicate the present study. The sec­ond is his nephew, Leon Aristide Casso, the well-known scholar, former professor at the Universities of Dorpat, Kharkiv and Moscow, and former Minister of Public Instruction under Tsar Nicholas II. From the Romanian point of view, Leon A. Casso (1865-1914) deserves our gratitude for the following three highly interesting works concerning Bessarabia:

1. Byzantine Law in Bessarabia (Moscow, 1907)

2. Russia on the Danube and the Organisation of the Bessarabia Province (Mos­cow, 1913)

3. Petre Manega, The Forgotten Codifier of Bessarabian Law (Petersburg, Maga­zine of the Ministry of Public Instruction, 1914).

These three works are of great importance for the history of Bessarabia, revealing many aspects of our Moldavian past that were previously unknown. At the conclu­sion of the very interesting study Russia on the Danube and the Organisation of the Bessarabia Province, L.A. Casso includes tender passages which, although written under the Russian regime and while serving as Minister of Public Instruction, betray his Romanian sentiments.”²⁷

Next, Ioan Pelivan turns his attention to what probably caused significant con­sternation within the Bolshevik regime, noting that in his work L.A. Casso: ‘He had the courage, among other things, to assert:

1. That the Moldovans are of Latin origin, while the Russians claimed they were Romanised Slavs;

2. That Bessarabia, a former province of Moldova, is mostly inhabited by Mol­dovans, whereas official Russian statistics from 1897 recorded them as only 47.7%;

3. That Russian officials falsified the ethnographic statistics of Bessarabia;

4. That two-thirds of the Moldovan language is Latin;

5. That the Bessarabian boyars, protected by Ion A. Capodistria and Alexandru Scarlat Sturza from Petersburg, fought with all their energy to preserve the Moldavian language in Bessarabia, as well as all national rights and privileges granted by Tsar Alexander I in 1818;

6. That the Russian administration in Bessarabia was extremely abusive, cor­rupt, and venal;

7. That the province, during the Russian-Turkish War of 1806-1812, was plun­dered and devastated by Russian generals.’

Leon A. Casso died in December 1914 and was buried at his estate in Ciutulești, Soroca County, where he had often spent his summer vacations and interacted with the Moldavian peasants. On the marble slab of his grave in the Ciutulești cemetery, the following inscription is engraved in Latin: ‘Leo-Victor-Constantinus Casso, iuris utriusque doctor (Doctor of both Laws) 1865-1914.’ Baron de Taude, former State Deputy Secretary at the Department of Public Instruction during L.A. Casso’s tenure as minister, praises him highly in his memoirs, noting that L.A. Casso was Romanian by his father and Greek by his mother (Mavro-Biazi).²⁸

It is easy to understand why Soviet authors subjected Leon Casso to harsh criti­cism, portraying him negatively in contrast to Nicolai Zelinskii, who aligned himself with the Bolsheviks. Clearly, during that period, the communist regime censored works by authors promoting the values of the Romanian nation and persecuted Bessarabians who refused to renounce their national identity.

Returning to Zelinskii, Soviet authors continued to depict him as a victim, highlighting other difficulties he faced during the tsarist era. One notable episode concerned the gas mask he invented, which was allegedly plagiarised by Prince Oldenburgskii. As A. Pozdnev notes: ‘The inclusion of the gas mask proposed by Zelinskii in the list of chemical defence measures was delayed not only due to the criminal attitude of tsarist government officials towards a disgraced teacher, but also because the gas mask he proposed seemed overly simple, thus casting doubt on its effectiveness. It’s hard to believe! Against poisonous gases, only activated carbon? And nothing else? These were the comments made by English specialists to whom the Russian command sent some of Zelinskii’s gas masks for evaluation. Unfortunately for the Russian army, the commander of the military- sanitary department was Prince Oldenburgskii, who had already invented a model of a gas mask. Despite protests from chemists, this opportunist managed to reject Zelinskii’s design and secure funding for the production of three million Olden- burgskii model gas masks for the Russian army. After a subsequent German poison gas attack, hundreds of Russian soldiers perished on the battlefield, all equipped with the Oldenburgskii model. This tragedy could not be concealed. In June 1916, the military-sanitary department ordered 200,000 Zelinskii model gas masks and tasked the professor with organising the production of activated carbon. Mean­while, Prince Oldenburgskii quickly modified his gas mask design to incorporate activated carbon. Naturally, after these changes, the original Oldenburgskii mask had been radically altered, but the prince managed to retain the ‘author’ rights and maintain the order to deliver three million units. Simultaneously, he took additional measures to block Zelinskii’s work, aiming to eliminate a serious competitor. In real­ity, Zelinskii had been invited to the military-sanitary department not to design gas masks, but to produce activated carbon. The commander of the department thus had the legal right to distribute this carbon as deemed appropriate, directing the entire batch to the Oldenburgskii masks.”²⁹

Over the years, dozens of works appeared in which capitalism was criticised and socialism praised, yet the Soviet authorities failed to achieve meaningful progress in science and the development of new technologies. The truth only emerged in memoirs published at the beginning of the third millennium, in which eye­witnesses recounted that international exhibitions were organised in Moscow to plagiarise foreign inventions: ‘Leaders of large enterprises from all corners of the country were invited to these exhibitions — to familiarise themselves with high-performance technologies used abroad and later implement them in our own factories. These events were lavishly funded, yet the outcomes were often disappointing. Why? For instance, a company manager would attend the exhibition, accompanied by a beautiful woman and the head of the purchasing depart­ment. The woman — clearly for her own purposes — and the purchasing head — to ensure daily pomp and lavish meals. After visiting, everyone would hear the same message: ‘We cannot manufacture the products shown here. We lack thread, suitable fabric, metal buttons, and so on.’ They looked, drank, and ate, yet nothing changed. „The representatives of the so-called ‘dark economy’ approached these exhibitions differently. These illiterate businessmen brought two or three skilled craftsmen with them. They did not merely glance at the exhibits; they studied them intensively, sometimes visiting the same rooms for several days. If it was technical machinery, they sought to identify which parts and mechanisms could be repli­cated using resources from our own country. If raw materials were involved, they analysed which domestic fabrics or components could be used. After visiting the exhibition, these people often established clandestine production lines. The goods they produced were in high demand.”³⁰

The same author also recounts the following: For clarity, I will share an example told to me by a good friend. On a business trip to Georgia, he left his hotel in the morning and headed to work. On the way, he met a well-known Georgian, who invited him to lunch. Over a glass of wine, he was asked to sell the shirt he was wearing, for which the Georgian offered 1,500 rubles. The shirt had been produced in Japan and purchased in Vladivostok for 150 rubles.

‘They went to a nearby shop where my friend bought a plain shirt to change into and sold the Japanese-made shirt to the Georgian. Curious, he asked what the Geor­gian intended to do with the shirt. The Georgian replied: ‘Look at the quality, how it is cut and sewn, the pockets, the buttons — is it possible to buy something like this in our stores? For this shirt, I will receive 5,000 rubles from some businessmen who run a clandestine workshop. Soon, they will begin producing similar shirts and earn hundreds of thousands of rubles in profit.’ ‘How many goods did our leaders import from abroad, yet they failed to produce items of such quality in our own country?’³¹

It should be noted that law enforcement agencies in the USSR were primarily focused on combating the shadow economy and showed little interest in protect­ing intellectual property rights. Soviet criminologists declared that the main cause of the rising crime rate during that period was: ‘…the negative influence of bour­geois ideology.’³²

The truth is that high-ranking officials of the Soviet government were also involved in such activities. In this context, a former leader of the MIA of the USSR writes in his memoirs: ‘Investigating the activities of the ‘Разноэкспорт’ Agency of the Ministry of Foreign Trade of the USSR, we discovered that it regularly received, from many countries around the world, a vast number of models of high- performance equipment and other products intended for exhibition, with the goal of later concluding agreements for their commercialisation in the USSR. These ranged from clothing and footwear to audio-visual equipment, office supplies, electronic devices, and other goods that were unavailable on the domestic market.

At the helm of ‘Разноэкспорт’ was a certain Vladimir Suslov, who had come from Chisinau, where he had worked as a personal driver for L.I. Brezhnev when the latter was First Secretary of the Communist Party of Moldova. Suslov was illiterate and economically incompetent. The deputy of the Ministry of Foreign Trade, who coordinated the activities of the ‘Разноэкспорт’ Agency, was Brezhnev’s son, Iurii. In short, over the years this agency had become a clandestine distributor of foreign goods, regularly visited by family members of influential figures in the Central Com­mittee of the CPSU and the Soviet government.

There, at nominal prices, they could acquire large quantities of discounted goods under various pretexts. Suslov did not even keep track of these goods, and no one ever requested such information. On the basis of falsified documents, shipments of quality goods produced abroad were classified as scrap and later sold through ‘dark channels’. Due to the abuses and lack of oversight within ‘Разноэкспорт’, high- value goods were stolen by employees of the logistics departments of the Central Committee of the CPSU, KGB, MIA, and numerous other state organisations.’³³

In reality, law enforcement bodies in the USSR did not engage with foreign specialists to combat crimes in the field of intellectual property. Their efforts were primarily aimed at monitoring Soviet citizens holding foreign currency, clandestine traders, foreign tourists, and Soviet citizens travelling abroad. In an interview with a correspondent on 29 May 1989, the former head of the KGB of the MSSR, Lieuten­ant General G. Volkov, stated: ‘During the last years in Moldova, there have been numerous attempts to recruit local inhabitants in order to obtain secret informa­tion from them regarding political and economic matters. In the majority of cases, foreigners sought to exploit national assets and criticise Soviet power. Thanks to the decisive actions of KGB officers, some individuals were warned in time that foreigners were ‘hovering’ around them with the intent of committing crimes (over six thousand provocations involving USSR citizens abroad) against state security.

Among those actively monitored and prevented from carrying out such crimes were a Soviet Army officer stationed in Chisinau, a high-ranking ministry official, a trade worker who frequently visited Israel, an engineer employed at a special­regime enterprise in Chisinau, and others. Meanwhile, every year the KGB of the MSSR uncovered dozens of foreign agents among tourists, specialists, journalists, and businessmen visiting the republic. Attempts to commit crimes by representa­tives of foreign secret services and diplomats from NATO countries and other states were consistently detected and thwarted.’³⁴

Given the particular nature of the Soviet KGB’s operations, the veracity of these statements can be questioned. In his memoirs, the same general notes that the Soviet secret services actively sought to prevent scientists from leaving the USSR: ‘Information was obtained regarding Israel’s intentions to entice certain scientists from Moldova who could provide details on scientific research projects within the USSR that were of interest to foreign specialists.’³⁵

The former head of the KGB of the MSSR does not mention that the Soviet secret services were tasked by the country’s leadership to obtain, at any cost, classified information from abroad regarding new achievements in industry, information technologies, armaments, and more. Some undercover agents were only exposed long after the fall of the USSR, by which time they had caused significant damage to the economies and security of several states. For instance: ‘On 15 January 2013, the Stuttgart Regional Court began the trial of a married couple accused of spying for the Russian Federation. For more than two decades, Andreas Anschlag (53) and his wife Heidrun (48) conducted espionage for the Soviet KGB and later the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR). Their exposure was made possible by Colonel Alexander Poteov, an SVR officer who had been recruited by the CIA in 1999. This defector to the Americans facilitated, in 2010, the arrest by the FBI of a network of ten Russian ‘ghost’ spies, including the highly publicized Anna Chapman. The latter, following her return to Russia in a spy exchange, went on to become an inter­national top model and TV celebrity.’³⁶

As the Romanian author A.I. Barbu notes: ‘To the extent that the great powers seek, by various means, to destabilise the political, economic, and social situation in different regions of the world, to intervene brutally in the internal affairs of cer­tain countries, and to undermine the fundamental attributes of states within their spheres of influence, such actions will affect not only the security of the countries concerned but also international security at a global level.’³⁷

Regarding the damage caused by certain agents of the Soviet KGB, who later continued their activities under the control of the Russian Federation’s Secret Services, the following information has been reported. In September 2012: ‘The German prosecutor issued a statement concerning the accusation against the spy couple Andreas and Heidrun Anschlag, arrested in October 2011, for collecting and sending to the S.V.R. thousands of pieces of classified information on the political and military strategy of the European Union and NATO.

They were also accused of recruiting and coordinating a large number of inform­ants who supplied them with confidential documents. For their activities, the Anschlag couple received remuneration of over 100,000 euros per year from the Russian Intelligence Service. The couple used forged documents, claiming to be descendants of Austrians settled in 1988. It should be noted that their true identities remain unknown. After entering Germany, the Anschlags initially settled in Aachen, near the Belgian border, later moving to Meckenheim near Berlin. Andreas worked as an engineer in several automotive companies. Their most important source of information was the Dutch diplomat Razmond Poeteray. During the investiga­tion, Poeteray admitted to handing over 500 classified documents relating to the German military, NATO, and the European Union to the Anschlags. These docu­ments were used once a month in C.P.I. locations in Belgium. For his cooperation with the S.V.R., the Dutch diplomat received 72,200 euros. The indictment also detailed the communication methods used by the spy couple with liaison agents and the Russian Intelligence Service headquarters, primarily relying on traditional post office boxes (C.P.I.) to exchange information with their informants, with whom they also maintained personal contact.’³⁸

It is evident that most secret agents were recruited by the Soviet Secret Services and later continued under the patronage of those of the Russian Federation, moti­vated not by ideological convictions but by the prospect of substantial material reward. The information obtained in this manner was often used for malicious purposes. It is well known that some Soviet enterprises, which later came under the jurisdiction of the Russian Federation, permitted themselves to copy copyrighted works without the consent of the authors, producing and selling pirated audio and video products, computer programs, and other protected materials.

At the same time, specialists tasked with documenting cases involving the sale and use of computers containing unlicensed software issue the following recommendations to law enforcement representatives in the Russian Federation, cautioning that: ‘It is essential that the specialist conducting an on-site investigation in cases of fraudulent installation of pirated programs on computers takes all nec­essary measures to prevent the information on the computer from being erased by other programs or the computer itself failing.’³⁹

Other Russian specialists investigating methods of combating crime in the third millennium have observed that: ‘Global experience in the field of informa­tion security demonstrates that the success of a business depends on the degree of protection of information concerning innovative technologies. Such security is essential to achieving high performance under competitive market conditions.’⁴⁰

According to Romanian researchers: ‘Copyright infringement occurs when any act requiring the authorization of the rights holder is carried out by another party without the holder’s consent. Counterfeit copies, as the term suggests, are those manufactured to imitate the original product by replicating the trademark, label, and packaging, often with the intention of deceiving consumers into believing they are purchasing an authentic item. The creation of a ‘black’ economy frequently leads to other crimes, most notably corruption and the bribery of public officials.’⁴¹

Likewise, it should be noted that, although the law enforcement agencies in the Russian Federation claim to take measures to combat crimes related to intellectual property, the results remain limited. This observation is corroborated by other Russian authors, who note that: ‘Society does not feel the support of the state authorities, which is why people do not believe their rights are protected. This demonstrates that, for a large part of the population, the rule of law holds little value. Consequently, the population attempts to seek justice by circumventing legal channels.’⁴²

In 1999, the European Union adopted a Common Strategy towards Russia, signed in the same year, which envisaged collaboration in the fields of trade, the harmo­nisation of Russian legislation with that of the European Union, the development of dialogue and partnership in the energy sector, and the exploration of opportuni­ties for cooperation in the areas of security and defence policy.⁴³

In reality, many countries around the world have gradually come to the con­clusion that the current leadership of the Russian Federation does not adhere to international law. Numerous controversial legislative acts adopted in Russia over the past two decades serve as evidence of this. In the summer of 2021, journalist Irina Breilean reported: ‘On Friday, the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, signed a law requiring that imported products be labelled as ‘Sparkling Wine’ on the Rus­sian market. This law also applies to French champagne, a name protected under the European Union’s system of geographical indications, which may only be used for products originating from the Champagne region in northeastern France. French producers reacted swiftly, and exports to Russia were temporarily suspended. The law has been perceived in France as offensive. Champagne, or Champanskoye? How the Russian product became popular. Champagne has a long history in France, and strict protection rules govern its production, even within most French regions. Internationally, there is general consensus regarding sparkling wine: Spain has Cava, Italy uses the term sparkling, and Germany produces Sekt. Russia, however, uses the name Champanskoye, a term introduced during the Soviet period and still in use today.’⁴⁴

Thus, it is evident that the political elite of the Russian Federation has embraced the policies once promoted by the Soviet totalitarian regime and openly expresses its ambition to reconstitute the USSR, gradually moving from propaganda to wars of aggression against certain sovereign states. It is crucial to emphasise that even the intent to restore the Soviet empire constitutes a crime, both against the peoples who freed themselves from Soviet domination and against humanity as a whole. It should also be noted that claims made by propagandists and nostalgic voices— such as the assertion that people lived better under the Soviet Union and that their rights were fully guaranteed — do not reflect reality. The millions of victims of polit­ical repression bear testimony to the truth. Moreover, statistical data concerning the achievements of Soviet scientific progress were often exaggerated, as many technologies had been obtained fraudulently from abroad, demonstrating a clear disregard for intellectual property rights. Tragically, some of these technologies are now being utilised by the Russian Federation in its ongoing war of aggression against Ukraine.

Conclusion

In this context, it is necessary to revisit the issue of the violation of intellectual property rights by the Soviet authorities and to highlight that criminality in this field continues to affect the social life and security of citizens worldwide. Accord­ingly, the former Soviet republics must carefully analyse all risk-bearing phenomena originating from the USSR and implement genuine preventive measures. Effective management of these risks will enable states aspiring to European values to build democratic societies and move closer to EU membership. In this regard, it is essential to undertake initiatives aimed at raising public awareness about the trade in counterfeit goods, fakes, and imitations, as well as the importance of respect­ing intellectual property rights, including copyright and related rights, drawing on examples from countries that have achieved tangible results in this domain.

It should be noted that the Republic of Moldova is actively working towards EU membership, contributing to the harmonisation of legislation to facilitate integration into the EU internal market. In this context, it should be noted that the Criminal Code of the Republic of Moldova provides penalties for violations of the legislation in force, including the following: ‘Art. 185¹ ‘Copyright and Related Rights Infringement’; Art.185² ‘Violation of the Right to Industrial Property Objects’; Art.185³ ‘Intentionally False Statements in Registration Documents Related to Intellectual Property’.⁴⁵

However, it is necessary to streamline strategies to combat this type of crime in order to support the process of democratisation and strengthen the market economy. The experience of other countries in addressing intellectual property crimes should be carefully studied to acquire the professional expertise required to effectively prevent and combat such offences. Only through this approach will it be possible to identify new methods, tools, and strategies to confront the emerg­ing challenges and risks that society faces at the present stage.

References

1. Ardashev R.G., Irrationality of the Public Consciousness of Russians, Moscow 2021. 2. Archive of the MIA of the Republic of Moldova. Fund 103, Description 6, Ex. 70.

File No. 1. Vol. I.

3. Barbu A.I., Some Legal Considerations Regarding Crimes Against State Security, ‘Crime Investigation Magazine’ January-June 2012, Vol. V, No.1

4. Breilean I., Champagne, ‘Russian Medicine’. Why Vladimir Putin Wants the French Patent. Romania. Free Europe org. published on July 6, 2021.

5. Bushin V., We Are Not Slaves, ‘Military-Historical Magazine’ 1989, Vol. 12.

6. The Criminal Code of the Republic of Moldova No. 985-XV of 18/04/2002. In: Monitorul Oficial of the Republic of Moldova, No. 128-129/1012 of 13/09/2002.

7. Czika A., Is the Conditional Recognition of the New States of Eastern Europe and the Former USSR Part of the Tendency to Expand the EU and to Constitute a Euro­pean Area of Freedom, Security and Justice? [in:] The Scientific Session with Inter­national Participation ‘European Union Area of Freedom, Security and Justice’, Volume 1. Craiova: ‘SITECH’ Publishing House 2011.

8. Dănăilă A-E., Dănăilă A., Misdemeanors, Penalties and Crimes Regarding the Ac­counting Regime of Intellectual Property Rights [in:] The Scientific Session with International Participation, ‘The European Union Space of Freedom, Security and Justice’. Volume I. Craiova: SITECHÎ Publishing House 2011.

9. Frolov V.N., All Life is a Struggle [in:] M.A. Brezhnev, I.V. Aljoshin, I.S. Osipov and others. Reform and Reformers of the MIA of the USSR. Part 4, Moscow 2018.

10. Georgescu I., Georgescu D.S., Some Aspects of Crime Combating in the Field of Copyright and Related Rights, ‘Crime Investigation Magazine’ 2009, II Year, No. 3.

11. Lăpăduși V., Bobin F., Comments About Some Special Events, ‘Romanian Journal of Criminalistics’ July 2013, No. 3 (87), Vol. XIV.

12. Mindagulov A.H., Rjabykin F.K., Cerdjuk L.V., Causes of Crime., Khabarovsk 1988.

13. Opriș P., Army, Espionage and Economy in Romania (1945-1991), Bucharest: Trei Publishing House 2021.

14. Parinov A.V., Parinova L.V., Problems of Information Security Ensuring of Innovative Projects: Assessments and Recommendations [in:] Public Safety, Law and Order in the III Millennium. International Scientific-Practical Conference, Voronezh 2013.

15. Pelivan I., Casso N.S., Formulation by M. Adauge. Chișinău: ‘Universitas’ Publishing House 1992.

16. Perevoznik P.F., Teneviki. Based on materials from the book ‘About the Past for the Future’, Moscow 2007 [in:] M.A. Brezhnev, I.V. Aljoshin, I.S. Osipov et.al., Re­form and Reformers of the MIA of the USSR. Part 4, Moscow 2018.

17. Popescu M., Spulber V., Scientifi c Discoveries, Legend and Truth, Chișinău: ‘Știința’ Publishing House 1992, Publication after the Albatros Publishing House edition, Bucharest 1988.

18. Pozdnev A., Creators of National Weapons. Military Publishing House of the Minis­try of Defense of the USSR, Moscow 1955.

19. Rațiu I., Moscow Challenges the World., Timișoara: ‘SigNata’ Publishing House 1990.

20. Sanatina Ju.V., Problems of Crimes’ Investigating Related to Violation of Copyright and Related Rights in Relation to Software Products [in:] Crime in the CIS: Problems of Crime Prevention and Detection. International Scientifi c-Practical Conference, Voronezh 2012.

21. Stuart E., Fano E., Scales L. et. al., Intellectual Property Legislation and Poli­cies, Translation: Inesa Coman, Sanda Iarincovschi, Andriana Chironda-Lone, Chișinău 2010.

22. Volkov G.M., Essays by a KGB Lieutenant General on His Personal Life and Security Operations in Russia, Western Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Moldova, Chisinau: Intel­ligence and Security Service of the Republic of Moldova 2004.

23. Zîgar M., The Empire Must Die. History of the Russian Revolutions Through Person­alities. Years 1900-1917. Translation, notes and index of names by Antoaneta Olteanu, Chișinău: Cartier 2020.

About the Authors

Simion Carp, PhD, university professor. Interests: criminal enforcement law, criminal law, history. E-mail: [email protected]

Sofia Pilat, PhD, associate professor. Interests: criminal procedural law, criminal law. E-mail: sofi [email protected]

Streszczenie. Artykut naukowy poswiecony jest badaniu ewolucji instytucji praw wtasnosci intelektualnej, a takie naruszaniu tych praw przez wtadze radzieckie. Minqty ponad trzy dekady od upadku ZSRR, wydarzenia, ktore dato szanse wielu narodom na uzyskanie niepodlegtosci i rozpoczecie procesu wdraiania demokratycznych norm i wartosci. Wspomnianyjui okres przejsciowy okazat sie znacznie trudniejszy dla bytych republik zwiqzkowych, ktore staty sie suwerennymi panstwami. Reprezentanci komunistycznego reiimu totalitarnego podjqli wiele destrukcyjnych dziatan, aby zablokowac demokratyczny kurs tych panstw, dqiqc do odtworzenia imperium sowieckiego, ktore sie rozpadto. Centrum koordynacji wszystkich dziatan wywrotowych znajdowato sie na state w Federacji Rosyjskiej.

Zusammenfassung. Dieser wissenschaftliche Artikel ist der Untersuchung der Entwicklung der Institution der geistigen Eigentumsrechte und der Verletzung dieser Rechte durch die sowjetischen Behorden gewidmet. Mehr als drei Jahrzehnte sind seit dem Zusammenbruch der UdSSR vergangen, ein Ereignis, das vielen Volkern die Moglichkeit gab, ihre Unabhangigkeit zu erlangen und den Prozess der Einfuhrung demokratischer Normen und Werte zu beginnen. Fur die ehemaligen Unionsrepubliken, die zu souveranen Staaten wurden, erwies sich diese Ubergangszeit als wesentlich schwieriger. Die Vertreter des totalitaren kommunistischen Regimes unternahmen viele zerstorerische Aktionen, um den demokratischen Kurs dieser Staaten zu blockieren, mit dem Ziel, das zusammengebrochene Sowjetimperium wiederherzustellen. Das Zentrum der Koordinierung aller subversiven Aktionen befand sich stets in der Russischen Foderation.

Резюме. Данная научная статья посвящена исследованию эволюции института прав интеллектуальной собствен­ности, а также нарушению этих прав советскими властями. Прошло более трех десятилетий с момента распада СССР, события, которое дало многим народам возможность обрести независимость и начать процесс внедрения демократических норм и ценностей. Вышеупомянутый переходный период оказался гораздо более сложным для бывших союзных республик, которые стали суверенными государствами. Представители тоталитарного комму­нистического режима предприняли множество разрушительных действий, чтобы заблокировать демократический курс этих государств, стремясь воссоздать распавшуюся советскую империю. Центр координации всех подрывных действий постоянно находился в Российской Федерации.