David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ethics and Information Technology 14 (2):109-121 (2012)
This paper argues that intellectual property rights are incompatible with Rawls’s principles of justice. This conclusion is based upon an analysis of the social stratification that emerges as a result of the patent mechanism which defines a marginalized group and ensure that its members remain alienated from the rights, benefits, and freedoms afforded by the patent product. This stratification is further complicated, so I argue, by the copyright mechanism that restricts and redistributes those rights already distributed by means of the patent mechanism. I argue that the positions of privilege established through both the patent and the copyright mechanisms are positions that do not “allow the most extensive liberty compatible with a like liberty for all.” They do not “benefit the least advantaged.” Nor are they “open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity.” In making this argument I critically assess the utilitarian defense of intellectual property rights and find it insufficient to respond to the injustices manifest in our current arrangement for the protection of intellectual property rights
|Keywords||Intellectual property rights Rawls Principles of justice Patent Copyright|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Hugh Breakey (2009). Liberalism and Intellectual Property Rights. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 8 (3):329-349.
Hugh Breakey (2010). Natural Intellectual Property Rights and the Public Domain. Modern Law Review 73 (2):208-239.
Shaheen E. Lakhan & Meenakshi K. Khurana (2008). Intellectual Property, Copyright, and Fair Use in Education. Cogprints.
Speranta Dumitru (2008). Are Rawlsians Entitled to Monopoly Rights? In A. Gosseries, A. Marciano & A. Strowel (eds.), Intelectual Property and Theories of Justice. Palgrave-MacMilan.
Axel Gosseries (ed.) (2008). Intellectual Property and Theories of Justice. Basingstoke & N.Y.: Palgrave McMillan.
David Lea (2006). From the Wright Brothers to Microsoft: Issues in the Moral Grounding of Intellectual Property Rights. Business Ethics Quarterly 16 (4):579-598.
David B. Resnik (2004). Fair Drug Prices and the Patent System. Health Care Analysis 12 (2):91-115.
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.
Michael Gorman (2005). Intellectual Property Rights, Moral Imagination, and Access to Life-Enhancing Drugs. Business Ethics Quarterly 15 (4):595-613.
Joseph Millum (2008). Are Pharmaceutical Patents Protected by Human Rights? Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (11):e25-e25.
Thomas M. Powers (2004). Ideas, Expressions, Universals, and Particulars: Metaphysics in the Realm of Software Copyright Law. In H. Tavani & R. Spinello (eds.), Intellectual Property Rights in a Networked World. Idea Group.
Hugh Breakey (2010). User's Rights and the Public Domain. Intellectual Property Quarterly (3):312-23.
Peter Lewin (2007). Creativity or Coercion: Alternative Perspectives on Rights to Intellectual Property. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 71 (4):441 - 455.
Added to index2012-02-08
Total downloads37 ( #38,338 of 1,008,728 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,702 of 1,008,728 )
How can I increase my downloads?