Today, the majority of developed jurisdictions vigorously provide instruments for the focused support of the economic sectors and companies, which are able to give a significant positive effect for the whole economy in the nearest perspective. It is particularly true for the fastest-growing companies, which operate in the tech sectors i.e. technology-based gazelle companies. Such companies manufacture unique products, creates new job places for highly qualified staff and intensively export their tech solutions worldwide. Despite overall reduction of the earnings, some technology-based companies demonstrate outstanding flexibility in searching for the new opportunities and markets in the context of COVID-19 pandemic. However, the majority of technologybased gazelle companies rapidly grow out of the thresholds for the small and medium enterprises. In turn, these companies get into the “death valley” in the absence of the focused instruments of the governmental support. At the same time, complex governmental support in the spheres of tax, financing and procurement is able to promote achievement by the certain technology-based gazelle companies of their potential and make them “unicorn” companies with market value over USD 1 billion and even world leaders in their technology sectors. That, in turn, will give a chance for the growth of the Russian economy even in the context of the fall of the prices on energy resources. This article proposes complex and the most relevant measures of the state support for the technology-based gazelle companies, taking into account the foreign experience and Russian peculiarities.

This essay presents the main trends of changes in the labor market in connection with the digitalization of the world economy. The interrelated problems of increasing labor productivity, reducing workplaces, and ensuring effective demand are considered. The authors propose considering digitalization as a way of promoting creativity in workplaces, albeit having a delayed effect due to the lag in time for the establishment of a world new economic order, during which services are becoming the main product, and digital platforms and ecosystems are the main actors in the global economy. “Creativization” is a new term suggested by the authors, which means a workplace that is being transformed by digitalization, whereby monotonous work processes are replaced by intellectually intensive operations, art elements, and unique high-performance activities.

In the practice of the Russian courts, when creating an account in an online multiplayer game, any agreement concluded between the provider and the user seems to be covered by article 1062 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, which is why this topic is not subject to judicial examination. However, this approach is unlikely to be applied for much longer, as it does not stand up to criticism. It can only be interpreted as a court attempt to insulate itself from the issue of virtual property. This article is devoted to the consideration the key risks to a provider related to the uncertain legal status of an online games’ terms of use, particularly the prohibition to share a user’s account or login credentials with anyone and a user’s actual rights to virtual content associated with his account.
To achieve the research goal, the authors review the legal literature and perform a case study in this area, use a comparative method to identify legislative approaches in different legal systems regarding a user’s rights to their account and the virtual content connected with it, and determine the aspects of the user agreement that obviously contain risks for the provider.
As a result of the research, the authors conclude that online multiplayer games are a sphere that tends to self-regulate. Therefore, to the extent possible, the risk of imbalance between self-regulation capabilities and the need to avoid abuse of the current situation, both by providers and users, should be minimized. The main source of regulation for relations between providers and players remains an agreement between them, which can be qualified as a mixed contract. However, such a qualification carries a risk for the provider, due to the complexity of determining the consequences of using the agreement as a single document, which combines various goals, ranging from determining the amount of processing of a player’s data and to fixing the legal regime of a user’s account. Regarding prohibition to share a user’s account, the authors assume that, according to Russian legislation, the most appropriate path is to determine it as a prohibition of assignment to secure providers from the liability for protection of users’ data. The lack of special regulation in this area allows the provider, through the terms of use, to sidestep the potential risk of protecting the player’s copyright on virtual content associated with his account. The authors, however, suggest that using an analogue of the American “sweat of the brow” doctrine in user agreements can to a certain extent remove the provider’s risks associated with the players’ real rights to their in-game property.

This article focuses on the right to a name, which in private law doctrine is traditionally considered a basic human right. The meaning of this right is indisputable and holds a fundamental value for everyone, since a name individualizes each person. However, the purpose of this article is not to tell the history of this right, but to study its nature. The development of the internet and digital technologies has made it possible to take a fresh look at the right to a name; when registering on social media, a person also uses his or her name, and in some cases acquires a pseudonym (nickname). In this study, the author aims at answering the question of what, in the era of the internet, is truly meant by the right to a name.
Methodologically, there are two general approaches to understand the right to a name: the first one is AngloAmerican and the second one is European. While it is typical for common-law countries to consider a name as an element of privacy, in continental legal tradition the right to a name is considered as a type of personal right, as well as one of the conditions of legal capacity. Both approaches are re-examined in this study.
Having started with the right to a name, in the final paragraph of the article the author reaches the issue of the right to a pseudonym. This topic is illustrated with the case of “the fight against rootless cosmopolitism”, when many representatives of the Jewish intelligentsia in the Soviet Union became victims of discrimination, at a time when it public authorities assumed that the use of a pseudonym was dangerous as they could lose control over the people; ironically, many modern states have declared the same criticism of the right to a nickname regarding the internet. This example clearly shows that, throughout history, non-democratic regimes have systematically attacked and diminished the right to a name.
It is concluded that the advent of new technologies has not changed the essence of a name. Therefore, any unreasonable limitation of the right to a name and the right to a pseudonym should be defined as a violation of the basic principles of democracy and the rule of law.

The articles focuses on opportunities and problems connected with implementation of smart contracts into “over-the-counter” derivatives trading. The importance of success of professionals who work on this cannot be underestimated: the volume of “over-the-counter” derivatives market is huge, its automatization and transparency provided by implemented smart contracts could dramatically increase its economic efficiency. In this study, the author aims at answering the following question: what aspects of “over-the-counter” derivatives trading could take a quantum leap because of the implementation of smart contacts and, per contra, what aspects could not benefit from implementation of underlying technologies at all.
The author starts with the overview of “over-the-counter” derivatives market, investigates the matter of its internal design, main features and the structure of legal documentation used by market participants. Then the article provides the analysis of smart contract phenomenon, summary of its engineering aspects and difficulties connected with the implementation of smart contracts as a practical matter, including underlying legal issues. The third part is a synthesis of ideas indicated in previous parts. Herein the author examines the perspectives of adoption of smart contracts in “over-the-counter” derivatives trading, identifies the problems that cannot be resolved yet: different parts of legal relations existing between market participants shall be structured in a flexible way and shall be subject to revision under specific conditions. Smart contracts in their turn cannot be considered as a flexible tool and the revision of their terms requires the input from highly experienced specialists that dramatically increases the costs of their implementation and maintenance.
As a matter of conclusion, the author gives recommendation to potential developers of smart contacts to implement them only in relation to the automatization of payments and deliveries as at the moment the clearing can be considered as the most appropriate area for the implementation and use of smart contracts.