From the Wright Brothers to microsoft: Issues in the moral grounding of intellectual property rights
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Business Ethics Quarterly 16 (4):579-598 (2006)
Abstract: This paper considers the arguments that could support the proposition that intellectual property rights as applied to software have a moral basis. Undeniably, ownership rights were first applied to chattels and land and so we begin by considering the moral basis of these rights. We then consider if these arguments make moral sense when they are extended to intellectual phenomenon. We identified two principal moral defenses: one based on utilitarian concerns relating to human welfare, the other appeals to issues of individual autonomy and private control. We conclude that intellectual property rights could not be defended from a moral perspective that emphasizes autonomy and individual control because copyright and patent restrict fundamental freedoms to transfer and redistribute one’s property. We also find it difficult to defend intellectual property in software from a utilitarian perspective because of the current structure of the market. We mention two characteristics of the software market that make it distinct and promote monopolistic conditions and excessive profit taking: the facility of replication, and the need for compatibility in operating systems. We conclude that there are good reasons to reverse the current market’s structure. We suggest three possible remedies. The government could rigorously enforce antitrust legislation, impose greater monitoring and price controls, or obviate the commercial aspect altogether by denying the application of intellectual property rights to software
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Wade M. Chumney & Tammy W. Cowart (2010). Iethics. Journal of Business Ethics 93 (3):471-482.
Similar books and articles
Rivka Amado & Nevin M. Gewertz (2004). Intellectual Property and the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Moral Crossroads Between Health and Property. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 55 (3):295 - 308.
J. M. Elegido (1995). Intrinsic Limitations of Property Rights. Journal of Business Ethics 14 (5):411 - 416.
James Wilson (2009). Could There Be a Right to Own Intellectual Property? Law and Philosophy 28 (4):393 - 427.
Hugh Breakey (2009). Liberalism and Intellectual Property Rights. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 8 (3):329-349.
Nevin M. Gewertz & Rivka Amado (2004). Intellectual Property and the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Moral Crossroads Between Health and Property. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 55 (3):295 - 308.
Paul Steidlmeier (1993). The Moral Legitimacy of Intellectual Property Claims: American Business and Developing Country Perspectives. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 12 (2):157 - 164.
Darryl J. Murphy (2012). Are Intellectual Property Rights Compatible with Rawlsian Principles of Justice? Ethics and Information Technology 14 (2):109-121.
Betty Yung (2009). Reflecting on the Common Discourse on Piracy and Intellectual Property Rights: A Divergent Perspective. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 87 (1):45 - 57.
Hugh Breakey (2010). Natural Intellectual Property Rights and the Public Domain. Modern Law Review 73 (2):208-239.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads13 ( #272,041 of 1,906,946 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #277,703 of 1,906,946 )
How can I increase my downloads?