Justifying Intellectual Property: A Balanced Approach to IP Rights, Exams of Law

Justifying intellectual property by robert p. Merges presents a compelling argument for the ethical foundation and societal importance of ip rights. The book refutes criticisms of ip rights as inefficient, unfair, and theoretically incoherent, instead proposing a balanced approach with equitable limits. Merges explores the philosophical underpinnings of ip rights through the works of john locke, immanuel kant, and john rawls, and introduces four mid-level principles (proportionality, efficiency, non-removal, and dignity) to provide a common normative framework for ip law debates.

Typology: Exams

2021/2022

Uploaded on 07/05/2022

allan.dev
allan.dev 🇦🇺

4.5

(86)

1K documents

1 / 2

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
Justifying Intellectual Property
Robert P. Merges
Justifying Intellectual Property establishes a sophisticated and balanced
rationale for the most vital form of modern property, IP rights. This book answers
the many critics who contend that these rights are inefficient, unfair, and
theoretically incoherent. The author of this volume argues instead that IP rights
are based on a solid ethical foundation, and that, when subject to judicious
equitable limits, these rights form an indispensable part of a well-functioning
socio-economic system. The result is a vigorous and thorough defense of IP, but
also a call for appropriate constraints and boundaries in this crucial field of law:
IP as real rights, but with real limits.
Slicing through the complexity and confusion that have long surrounded
the IP field, the author separates his analysis into three distinct, interlocking
strands. He begins at the bedrock level, drawing on classic works by John Locke,
Immanuel Kant, and other philosophers, crafting an original theory explaining
why IP rights make sense as a reward for effort and a way to encourage
individuals to thrive and flourish. This book shows how the limits and constraints
built into Lockean and Kantian conceptions of property provide an ideal
grounding for a balanced approach to IP rights. The author also provides a novel
and comprehensive explanation of why awarding IP rights to creative people is
fair for everyone in society – how IP rights contribute to a just distribution of
resources, in accordance with the ideas of philosopher John Rawls.
Next, the book lays out four primary principles that tie together many of
the diverse and far-flung doctrines operating in the field of IP law. These “mid-
level principles” are (1) proportionality; (2) efficiency; (3) nonremoval or public-
domain-building; and (4) dignity. Although these principles flow naturally from the
normative theories of Locke, Kant, and Rawls, they are also completely
consistent with other foundational conceptions of IP rights, such as efficiency-
based (or utilitarian) theories. The mid-level principles are therefore a significant
contribution: they represent a common normative framework that permits policy
debates without requiring agreement on ultimate foundational issues. The mid-
level principles open the way to fruitful debate at a level beyond specific disputes
and detailed doctrines, while leaving “room at the bottom” for divergent
understandings of why society is committed to the institution of IP protection.
Finally, the book deploys normative concepts, together with these mid-
level principles, in original and creative discussions of three leading-edge issues
in the IP field today: the care and feeding of creative professionals, those who
make a living producing original creative works; the continuing relevance and
vitality of IP rights in the online/digital world; and access to patented drugs that
pf2

Partial preview of the text

Download Justifying Intellectual Property: A Balanced Approach to IP Rights and more Exams Law in PDF only on Docsity!

Justifying Intellectual Property

Robert P. Merges

Justifying Intellectual Property establishes a sophisticated and balanced rationale for the most vital form of modern property, IP rights. This book answers the many critics who contend that these rights are inefficient, unfair, and theoretically incoherent. The author of this volume argues instead that IP rights are based on a solid ethical foundation, and that, when subject to judicious equitable limits, these rights form an indispensable part of a well-functioning socio-economic system. The result is a vigorous and thorough defense of IP, but also a call for appropriate constraints and boundaries in this crucial field of law: IP as real rights , but with real limits.

Slicing through the complexity and confusion that have long surrounded the IP field, the author separates his analysis into three distinct, interlocking strands. He begins at the bedrock level, drawing on classic works by John Locke, Immanuel Kant, and other philosophers, crafting an original theory explaining why IP rights make sense as a reward for effort and a way to encourage individuals to thrive and flourish. This book shows how the limits and constraints built into Lockean and Kantian conceptions of property provide an ideal grounding for a balanced approach to IP rights. The author also provides a novel and comprehensive explanation of why awarding IP rights to creative people is fair for everyone in society – how IP rights contribute to a just distribution of resources, in accordance with the ideas of philosopher John Rawls.

Next, the book lays out four primary principles that tie together many of the diverse and far-flung doctrines operating in the field of IP law. These “mid- level principles” are (1) proportionality; (2) efficiency; (3) nonremoval or public- domain-building; and (4) dignity. Although these principles flow naturally from the normative theories of Locke, Kant, and Rawls, they are also completely consistent with other foundational conceptions of IP rights, such as efficiency- based (or utilitarian) theories. The mid-level principles are therefore a significant contribution: they represent a common normative framework that permits policy debates without requiring agreement on ultimate foundational issues. The mid- level principles open the way to fruitful debate at a level beyond specific disputes and detailed doctrines, while leaving “room at the bottom” for divergent understandings of why society is committed to the institution of IP protection.

Finally, the book deploys normative concepts, together with these mid- level principles, in original and creative discussions of three leading-edge issues in the IP field today: the care and feeding of creative professionals, those who make a living producing original creative works; the continuing relevance and vitality of IP rights in the online/digital world; and access to patented drugs that

could save lives in poor countries. The goal is to demonstrate practical payoffs to the normative ideas developed earlier in the book.

The author argues, for example, for the importance of IP rights in the material livelihood of those who make a profession of creating original works. He also admonishes those who would de-emphasize individual, original authorship in the digital realm. While digital manipulation of existing works, and de- centralized “collective” creativity are new and worthwhile developments, traditional property theory still makes sense in the digital realm. One important concept here, present for example in Kant’s theory of property, is the centrality of waiver of rights. In conformity with Kant’s ideas about property and individual autonomy, it is crucial that original creators be given the right and power to waive any property rights in their works, rather than be coerced into foregoing or losing those rights. A similar idea from canonical property theory – this time Locke’s – is developed and applied to the area of patents on drugs useful in the developing world. Locke’s notion of a “charity proviso,” or limitation on property, implies that where open access to patented drugs is justified when it could save actual lives in the immediate future. Outside these dire circumstances, however, the book argues that drug access policy must take account of complexities such as the losses future generations might suffer if immediate access to drugs reduces overall investment in drug development and thereby impairs the capacity to invent new drugs in the future.