نشریه پژوهش های حقوق اقتصادی و تجاری
پیاپی 1 (بهار 1402)

Intellectual property rights are ownership of the works and intellectual efforts of individuals, which, by providing some elements including originality, novelty and innovation, due to the nature of the intellectual work, bring relatively exclusive rights to the creator. Contrary to popular belief, intellectual property is not an absolute right and it can also include the public rights. While analyzing the issue of intellectual property rights in the construction industry as works of art and industry, this article has examined the legal protections in two stages before and after construction and it is based on this opinion that the use of designs and ideas implemented by other engineers does not necessarily mean an infringement of the original creator's rights and is considered as a part of the growing nature of the engineering world. Also, it is concluded that in the absence of a clear legal perspective, at the time of conflict between its material and intellectual rights, at least in the field of engineering and industry, the principle of material ownership prevails and the owner has the right to change the created engineering artifact based on his needs, but the owner of the idea can prevent the attribution of the work to himself and recover his suffered possible or absolute damages, if any. Finally, from the criminal aspect, it is found that violation of intellectual rights is no longer a crime merely related to the private rights of individuals, and it is necessary to identify it as a public crime aligns with the public interest and the social and economic developments.

The movement of artificial intelligence at the edge of science and its exponential progress in recent years as a leading technology has caused legal frameworks to lag behind technology, so that today an important part of financial market transactions such as stock exchange, currency and cryptocurrency is done by robots based on autonomous artificial intelligence. The lack of laws in this field has made it impossible to recognize the legal nature of artificial intelligence in these transactions, and as a result, the validity of the transactions concluded by bots that decide independently, due to the lack of capacity defined in law and hazardous transactions probability is doubted. To solve this problem, this research has theorized a new legal nature under the title of virtual lawyer by studying and examining the current civil and commercial laws and considering jurisprudential sources and judicial opinions and proposed Articles in this regard.

In this article, the jurisprudential foundations of the status of the transferee's possessions at the time of the transferor's right of termination have been studied, with the aim of organizing economic and commercial exchanges and removing the ambiguity of the legal system and judicial procedure through descriptive analytical research method. After examining the issue in numerous examples of the right of termination in jurisprudence and by proposing a general theory in Islamic law, it was concluded that the majority of jurists regarding the contractual right to terminate the contract like option of condition and conditional sale, due to the existence of an implicit condition, prohibits the buyer from taking possession contrary to the seller's right to terminate. But in the right of legal terminations like option of deception, defect and subreption, the possession of the buyer in the seller's property is allowed. On the other hand, some contemporary jurisprudents, regarding the right of contractual and legal terminations, prohibit the possession of the buyer only if the retention of the goods by the buyer or the return of the same to the seller in the event of termination is explicitly or implicitly stipulated. In addition, in cases where there is an explicit or implicit condition for keeping the object or forbidding possession of the consignment in the subject of the transaction, although both groups have not considered the buyer as "obligatory" to possess the property; However, from the "statutory" point of view, famous jurists do not consider the buyer's transactions as valid, but a group of contemporary jurists have considered the buyer's transactions to be correct and believe that the buyer must give the seller a replacement for the subject of the transaction. In both disputes, the opinion of famous jurists has been confirmed. Based on this, it is suggested that in order to organize the discussion in the legal system and create a uniform procedure between the courts and maintain security in commercial and economic exchanges, the decision of the Supreme Court No. 810-4/3/1400-4/3/1400 be interpreted and analyzed on this basis.

Trade liberalizations of 1970s caused financial crises in some countries. After the global financial crisis of 2007, the viewpoint to financial stability has been changed and countries considered the stability of the financial system in whole instead of financial stability of each bank. To this aim, they based banking regulation on macroprudential policy. The haste of countries caused ignoring the theory of bank regulation based on macroprudential policy. In case of uncertainty in banking activities causing market failure, developing a framework for macroprudential policy will not be possible. This research is done through library sources and based on analytic-descriptive approach. The main question of the article is what is the theory of banking regulation based on macroprudential policy? Accordingly, some of the banking activities cause negative externalities that threaten financial stability. The regulator should identify the negative externalities and draw a proper legal framework based on macroprudential policy for the purpose of market failure correction.

Today, financing methods are evolving regularly. Therefore, the complexity and difficulties of existing procedures as well as legal limitations to raise fund by current mechanisms caused new emerging ways, which are issuing and publicly offering crypto tokens using Blockchain as underlying technology. The nature of this technology that employs distributed ledgers and its specific decentralized feature facilitate fund raising process and financing issues for entrepreneurs and companies in a public way by people and individuals. Some kinds of these tokens that is called security tokens entail Securities especial characteristics due to reservations like rights and profits of its owner and risks the subscribers are facing which raise the necessity of compliance with Securities Initial Public Offering rules as well as regulations. This Article, studies governing regulation of crypto tokens through Blockchain technology by findings from Iran and USA legal system through descriptive analytic method.

One of the most challenging issues of corporate law is determining the limits of the CEO's authority. The legal status of the CEO in joint stock companies is a vague and controversial issue in law, doctrine and judicial practice. Some professors, referring to articles 124, 125 and 128 of the legal bill of 1347, consider the CEO to be the company's lawyer and conclude his non- authority and others, according to article 589 of the Commercial Code and inspired by french law, believe that the CEO is considered as one of the pillars of the company which leads to the principle of CEO authority. The aforementioned disagreement has been originated from an innovative translation of french Articles of Law; which is not only against the law of its origin; but also not compatible with the realities of the commercial world. Regarding the CEO’s relationship with the Company, determining the limits and scope of the CEO's authority has a close relationship with choosing among the theory of agency or recognizing CEO as a pillar of the company. In this article, the authors have analyzed the basis of the need to align the powers of the CEO with the board of directors through a trans-legal approach and regarding french law and judicial procedures and considered the CEO as one of the pillars of the company, just like the board of directors empowered with broad inherent authority derived from the law and do not consider the limitation of his powers against third parties in good faith correct.