Long thoughts about innovation
Innovation Law: 12 years later
Elena Timokhina, Alexey Gusakov, UNOVA
The first attempts at legislative definition of the concepts of "innovation" and "innovative activity" were made in 1999. After 12 years, the parliamentarians finally decided to "agree on the terms." However, it seems that it was not possible to find mutual understanding again.
On February 3, a group of deputies from Fair Russia, led by Ivan Grachev, Konstantin Beschetnov and Oksana Dmitrieva, submitted to the State Duma a bill "On state support for innovation".
This is not the first attempt by fair-minded people to establish legislative regulation in the field of innovation. "I developed this draft seven years ago," admits Ivan Grachev, one of the drafters of the text of the bill, "we went through lengthy consultations with the Government, from which we eventually received a positive conclusion. However, the State Duma rejected our project, considering it insufficiently elaborated."
The fact that now they are talking about the need for the law again is already a great achievement. After all, the first attempts to create a full–fledged law on innovations were carried out back in 1999 (then he lacked only one signature - the presidential one). The revision of the law was postponed. Now it was decided to revive the law.
To the question "Why couldn't the law be adopted for so long?", Viktor Zubarev, a United Russia deputy, replies that parliamentarians were wary of the bills proposed earlier due to the ambiguity of the concept of "innovation". "It is clear that the textual definition of this term will not allow us to give preferences to all creatively thinking people in Russia," the deputy clarifies.
Ivan Grachev, however, sees other reasons in the long-term delay: the gradual transformation of Russia into a raw country, and the inactivity of politicians and businessmen that has developed against this background.
"Now a critical mass of laws has accumulated in Russia, in which it is necessary to define innovative activity," Ivan Grachev comments, "rejecting our legislative initiative, the deputies promised to create something alternative."
And created. The bill of the same name "On state support for innovation" was submitted to the State Duma by a group of parliamentarians from United Russia a day earlier, on February 2.
"Grachev has been submitting his project to the State Duma for seven years," says Viktor Zubarev, co–author of the new document, "the catch is that his text does not solve key problems: a clear definition of innovations and the development of transparent mechanisms for obtaining state support."
Indeed, the question of definitions is one of the most difficult. Especially in light of the lack of generally accepted definitions in the community of innovators. A few years ago, the absolute majority of experts in this industry were generally against any state regulation: someone said that a legislative definition could cut off a certain part of innovative companies, someone insisted on a simple calculation of Western concepts.
"I did not agree with either of them," says Deputy Ivan Grachev, "we should not promote the spread of American pop music: we need our own norms, sharpened for a Russian scientist."
The fact that the just Russians approached the issue of definitions with special care is visible to the naked eye: their law interprets 14 "basic terms of the industry".
In particular, parliamentarians understand innovation activity as "activities aimed at transforming the results of intellectual activity in the form of inventions, utility models, industrial designs, selection achievements, integrated circuit topologies, databases, know-how, computer programs, research and R&D results into goods (works, services), and their subsequent implementation directly or as part of manufactured products (goods, works, services)".
Deputies from United Russia did not demonstrate such scrupulousness in matters of definitions, considering it necessary to reduce the number of definitions to a minimum. There are two of them in the bill:
"Innovation activity – actions (activities) of an individual or legal entity aimed at the creation and (or) practical application of the results of scientific and (or) scientific and technical activities (innovations) in the production of goods, works and services (innovative products) in priority areas of development of science, technology and technology of the Russian Federation."And "innovations, including programs for electronic computers and databases, inventions, utility models, industrial designs, selection achievements, integrated circuit topologies, production secrets (know-how), as well as unified technologies."
Which of the two definitions (the rigid "Just Russia" or the abstract one proposed by the party of power) is better is a complex question. For example, Grigory Gerashchenko, a grant holder from the Foundation for the Promotion of Small Forms of Enterprises in the scientific and technical field, believes that the definition should be specific and purposefully tailored to Russian realities.
In principle, the draft laws differ not only in definitions, but also in approaches to determining the forms of state support. The United Russia project prescribes in more detail both a set of options for supporting innovative business, and the procedure and conditions for its provision.
The list of incentive measures includes tax incentives, subsidies, state guarantees for lending, customs breaks. The absolute innovation of the developers of the bill is a tax credit, the ability to defer tax payments or reduce their amount for a while.
In addition, the bill for the first time introduces special preferences for persons engaged in "innovative patronage" (investors who invest their money free of charge).
However, the statement of President Dmitry Medvedev at the last meeting of the Commission on Modernization and Technological Development suggests that the legislative definition of innovation may be postponed indefinitely again, giving way to the solution of more pragmatic tasks.
"First of all, we need to put forward practical and pragmatic principles. Nevertheless, where it is necessary to write some kind of bill - I don't mind, of course, let's sit down and write it quickly – but it's time to calm down with this, we need not to engage in rulemaking, but to translate it all into a practical plane," Dmitry Medvedev said.
Portal "Eternal youth" http://vechnayamolodost.ru10.02.2011