JUSTICE IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21814/eps.3.1.123Keywords:
Rawls, Intellectual Property, Difference PrincipleAbstract
Intellectual property (IP) rights represent an anomaly within a free market economic system. IP rights, that is, necessarily constrain the actions of individuals within the market. In response to this anomaly, IP scholars have offered various justifications for the application of such supposed constraints within a free market economy. Chief among these justifications is the widespread appeal to utilitarianism via incentivization. Yet, it is not exactly clear that this incentivization is actually producing the benefits required for the utilitarian justification. Rather than abandoning the IP system, however, some have simply suggested an alternative justification. These scholars argue that IP rights are actual, moral rights that deserve protection as moral rights. Further, scholars argue that any distributional inequality generated by the IP system are nonetheless justified under Rawls’s theory of justice. I argue, however, that Rawls’s theory of justice cannot “justify” a selective, IP regime.
References
Blankfiein-Tabachnick, D. (2013). Does intellectual property law have foundations? A review of Robert Merges's Justifying intellectual property. Connecticut Law Review, 45(3), 995–1016. Retrieved from https://opencommons.uconn.edu/law_review/190/
Cohen, G. (2008). Rescuing justice and equality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674262713
Gallini, N., & Scotchmer, S. (2002). Intellectual property: When is it the best incentive system. In A. Jaffe, J. Lerner, & S. Stern (Eds.), Innovation Policy and the Economy (Vol. 2, pp. 51–77). Cambridge: MIT Press DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/653754
Gordon, W. (2013). Thoughts on Justifying Intellectual Property from Wendy Gordon. Retrieved from http://prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/2013/01/thoughts-on-justifying-intellectual-property-from-wendy-gordon.html
Hagen, G. (2014). Merges on just IP: Are IP rights basic? In Scassa, M. Goudreau, M. Saginue, & C. Doagoo (Eds.), Intellectual Property for the 21st Century: Interdisciplinary Approaches, (pp. 349–367). Canada: Irwin Law
Hughes, J., & Merges, R. (2017). Copyright and distributive justice. Notre Dame Law Review, 92(2), 513–577.
Lemley, M. (2015). Faith-Based intellectual property. UCLA Law Review, 62(5), 1328–1346. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2587297
Martin, R. (2014). Close-Knitness. In D. Reidy & J. Mandle (Ed.), The Cambridge Rawls lexicon (pp. 108–110). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139026741.036
Merges, R. (2011). Justifying intellectual property. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674061125
Nickel, J. (1994). Rethinking Rawls's theory of liberty and rights. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 61 (3), 763–785.
Plato. (376 B.C.). The Republic - Book 1.
Plato. (380 B.C.). Euthyphro.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674042605
Rawls, J. (1985). Justice as fairness: Political not metaphysical. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 14(3), 223–251.
Rawls, J. (1993). Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
