logo czasopisma

Artykuły

Nr 4 (47) (2023)

Intellectual Property Law: Philosophical Foundations, Theoretical Frameworks, and Cross-Pollination

Przesłane
12 grudnia 2023
Opublikowane
14-02-2024

Abstrakt

This comprehensive study provides an in-depth analysis of the philosophical underpinnings and theoretical frameworks that shape intellectual property (IP) law. It embarks on a scholarly journey that explores various foundational theories, including John Locke's labour theory, utilitarianism as influenced by Bentham and Mill, Hegelian personality theory, and others. The study examines how these theories have influenced the formation and evolution of intellectual property law, highlighting the complex interplay between individual creativity, societal needs, and cultural expression. It examines the application of these theories in real-world legal scenarios, offering insights into how they inform current IP law and policy. It also explores the intersection of these theories, demonstrating their multifaceted nature and the balanced approach they bring to IP law, addressing issues such as creators' rights, the public interest, economic incentives, and cultural diversity. This exploration provides a nuanced understanding of IP law as a dynamic field where philosophical, economic, and social considerations converge to shape laws that reflect broader societal values and priorities.

Bibliografia

  1. Andjelkovic Maja, „Intellectual Property Rights and Access to Knowledge Models: Managing Innovation, Public Goods and Private Interest” BSIS Journal of International Studies, 3.1 (2006): 1-15.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  2. Balkin Jack M., „Digital Speech and Democratic Culture: A Theory of Freedom of Expression for the Information Society”, [in:] Law and Society Approaches to Cyberspace, ed. Paul Schiff Berman. 325-382. London: Routledge, 2017.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  3. Bell Tom W., Intellectual Privilege: Copyright, Common Law, and the Common Good. Mercatus Center at George Mason University, 2014.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  4. Bentham Jeremy, John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism and Other Essays. Hoboken: Penguin, 2004.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  5. Bettig Ronald V., Copyrighting Culture: The Political Economy of Intellectual Property. London: Routledge, 2018.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  6. Biagioli Mario, „Weighing Intellectual Property: Can we Balance the Social Costs and Benefits of Patenting?” History of Science, 57.1 (2019): 140-163.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  7. Biron Laura, „Creative Work and Communicative Norms” The Work of Authorship, (2014): 19-44.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  8. Boldrin Michele, David Levine, „The Case Against Intellectual Property” American Economic Review, 92.2 (2002): 209-212.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  9. Boylan Michael, Michael Boylan, „Utilitarianism” Teaching Ethics with Three Philosophical Novels, (2017): 45-62.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  10. Boyte Alina Ng, „The Social Value of Intellectual Property” IP Theory, 12.3 (2023): 1-28.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  11. Bracha Oren, Talha Syed, „Beyond Efficiency: Consequence-Sensitive Theories of Copyright” Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 29 (2014): 229-315.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  12. Breakey Hugh, „Natural Intellectual Property Rights and the Public Domain” The Modern Law Review, 73.2 (2010): 208-239.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  13. Burnick Sarah, „The Importance of the Design Patent to Modern Day Technology: The Supreme Court’s Decision to Narrow the Damages Clause in Samsung v. Apple” North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology, 18.5 (2017): 283-315.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  14. Chang Cheng-chi, „The Clash of Theories: Semiotic Democracy and Personality Theory in Intellectual Property Law” Law & World, 26 (2023): 14-22.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  15. Clarke James Alexander, „Fichte and Hegel on Recognition” British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 17.2 (2009): 365-385.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  16. Cohen Julie E., „Creativity and Culture in Copyright Theory” Copyright Law, (2017): 473-527.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  17. Croskery Patrick, „Institutional Utilitarianism and Intellectual Property” Chicago-Kent Law Review, 68 (1992): 631-657.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  18. Crouch Dennis D., „The Patent Lottery: Exploiting Behavioral Economics for the Common Good” George Mason Law Review, 16 (2008): 141-172.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  19. de George Richard T., „Intellectual Property and Pharmaceutical Drugs: An Ethical Analysis” Business Ethics Quarterly, 15.4 (2005): 549-575.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  20. Derclaye Estelle, Tim Taylor, Happy IP: Replacing the Law and Economics Justification for Intellectual Property Rights with a Well-Being Approach, 2015, papers.ssrn.com.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  21. Devlin Alan, Neel Sukhatme, „Self-Realizing Inventions and the Utilitarian Foundation of Patent Law” William & Mary Law Review, 51 (2009): 897-955.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  22. Du Bois Mikhalien, „Justificatory Theories for Intellectual Property Viewed Through the Constitutional Prism” Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal/Potchefstroomse Elektroniese Regsblad, 21.1 (2018): 2-38.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  23. Ellis Elisabeth, Provisional Politics: Kantian Arguments in Policy Context. New Heaven: Yale University Press, 2008.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  24. Etzioni Amitai, The common good. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2014.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  25. Evans David S., Anne Layne-Farrar, „Software Patents and Open Source: The Battle Over Intellectual property rights” Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law, 9 (2004).
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  26. Fisher William W., „Theories of Intellectual Property”, [in:] New Essays in the Legal and Political Theory of Property, ed. Stephen Munzer. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001. https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/37373274/iptheory.pdf?sequence=1.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  27. Fitzgerald Brian, „Theoretical Underpinning of Intellectual Property: »I Am a Pragmatist but Theory Is My Rhetoric«” Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence, 16.2 (2003): 179-189.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  28. Flynn Matthew B., Pharmaceutical Autonomy and Public Health in Latin America: State, Society and Industry in Brazil’s AIDS Program. London: Routledge, 2014.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  29. Forsythe Lynn M., Deborah J. Kemp, „Creative Commons: for the Common Good” University of La Verne Law Review, 30 (2008): 346-369.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  30. Frischmann Brett M., Mark A. Lemley, „Spillovers” Columbia Law Review, 107 (2007): 257-301.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  31. Geiger Christophe, „Can IP Rights Be Freely Reformed, Limited or Repealed, or Are There Restrictions Resulting from Constitutional Theory and Fundamental Rights?” Jotwell: The Journal of Things We Like, (2021).
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  32. Guichardaz Rémy, „4. What would be a Fair Intellectual Property? A Dynamic Inquiry Through the Rawlsian Theory of Justice” Cahiers d'économie politique, 1 (2022): 91-125.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  33. Harvey David, „The Future of the Commons” Radical History Review, 109 (2011): 101-107.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  34. Heim Irina, „The Protection of IP” Intellectual Property Management: Interdisciplinary Knowledge for Business Decision-Making (2023): 37-52.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  35. Henry Claude, Joseph E. Stiglitz, „Intellectual Property, Dissemination of Innovation and Sustainable Development” Global Policy, 1.3 (2010): 237-251.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  36. Heyman Steven J., „The Light of Nature: John Locke, Natural Rights, and the Origins of American Religious Liberty” Marquette Law Review, 101 (2017): 705-774.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  37. Hughes Justin, „The Personality Interest of Artists and Inventors in Intellectual Property” Cardozo Law's Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, 16 (1998): 81-181.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  38. Ilie Livia, „Intellectual Property Rights: an Economic Qpproach” Procedia Economics and Finance, 16 (2014): 548-552.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  39. Intellectual Property and Theories of Justice, ed. Axel Gosseries, Alain Marciano, Alain Strowel. London: Palgrave, 2008.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  40. Jaszi Peter, „Toward a Theory of Copyright: The Metamorphoses of »Authorship«”, [in:] Intellectual Property Law and History, ed. Steven Wilf. 61-108. London: Routledge, 2017.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  41. Jenkins John J., „Locke and Natural rights” Philosophy, 42.160 (1967): 149-154.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  42. Kelly Paul Joseph, Utilitarianism and Distributive Justice: Jeremy Bentham and the Civil Law London: Clarendon Press, 1990.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  43. Knowles Dudley, „Hegel on Property and Personality” The Philosophical Quarterly, 33.130 (1983): 45-62.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  44. Kornyo Emmanuel, „Patent Protection and the Global Access to Essential Pharmaceuticals During Patent Infringements under TRIPS” Voices in Bioethics (2015): 1-11.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  45. Lee Jyh-An, „New Perspectives on Public Goods Production: Policy Implications of Open Source Software” Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law, 9 (2006): 45-112.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  46. Lee Peter, Madhavi Sunder, „Design Patents: Law Without Design” Stanford Technology Law Review, 17 (2013): 277-304.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  47. Lemley Mark A., Eugene Volokh, „Freedom of Speech and Injunctions in Intellectual Property Cases” Duke Law Journal, 48 (1998): 147-242.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  48. Lewin Peter, „Creativity or Coercion: Alternative Perspectives on Rights to Intellectual Property” Journal of Business Ethics, 71 (2007): 441-455.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  49. Lianos Ioannis, A Regulatory Theory of IP. Implications for Competition Law, 2008; Evan G. Williams, „Rule Utilitarianism and Rational Acceptance” The Journal of Ethics, (2023): 1-24.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  50. Locke John, Locke: Two Treatises of Government Student Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  51. Locke John, The Works of John Locke. Vol. I. T. Longman, 1794.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  52. Lor Peter Johan, Johannes Britz, „Knowledge Production from an African Perspective: International Information Flows and Intellectual Property” The International Information & Library Review, 37.2 (2005): 61-76.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  53. Lor Peter Johan, Johannes Jacobus Britz, „Is a Knowledge Society Possible Without Freedom of Access to Information?” Journal of Information Science, 33.4 (2007): 387-397.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  54. Maskus Keith E., Jerome H. Reichman, „The Globalization of Private Knowledge Goods and the Privatization of Global Public Goods” Journal of International Economic Law, 7.2 (2004): 279-320.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  55. May Christopher, The Global Political Economy of Intellectual Property Rights: The New Enclosures. London: Routledge, 2015.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  56. Mayer-Schonberger Viktor, „In Search of the Story: Narratives of Intellectual Property” Virginia Journal of Law and Technology, 10 (2005): 1-19.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  57. McKay Spencer, Democratic Theory and the Commons: Conceptualizing the Relationship Between Deliberation, Publics, and the Internet. University of British Columbia, 2013.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  58. Merges Robert P., „Philosophical Foundations of IP Law: The Law and Economics Paradigm” [w:] Research Handbook on the Economics of IP Law, ed. Peter S. Menell, Ben Depoorter, David Schwartz, Vol. I. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing House, 2016.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  59. Moore Adam D., „A Lockean Theory of Intellectual Property Revisited” San Diego Law Review, 49 (2012): 1069-1104.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  60. Moore Adam D., „Personality-Based, Rule-Utilitarian, and Lockean Justifications of Intellectual Property”, [in:] The Handbook of Information and Computer Ethics, ed. Kenneth Einar Himma, Herman T. Tavani. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons, 2008.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  61. Morrissey Michael, An Alternative to Intellectual Property Theories of Locke and Utilitarian Economics. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College, 2012.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  62. Mossoff Adam, „Saving Locke from Marx: The Labor theory of Value in Intellectual Property Theory” Social Philosophy and Policy, 29:2 (2012): 283-317.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  63. Mtima Lateef, „IP Social Justice Theory: Access, Inclusion, and Empowerment” Gonzaga Law Review, 55 (2019): 401-420.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  64. Murphy Darryl J., „Are Intellectual Property Rights Compatible with Rawlsian Principles of Justice?” Ethics and Information Technology, 14.2 (2012): 109-121.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  65. Nagel Thomas, „Rawls on Justice” The Philosophical Review (1973): 220-234.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  66. Nelson Dustin S., „Justice in Intellectual Property” Ethics, Politics & Society, 3 (2020): 49-72.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  67. O’Regan Karla M., „Downloading Personhood: A Hegelian Theory of Copyright Law” Canadian Journal of Law and Technology, 7.1 & 2 (2010): 1-40.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  68. Poynton Aaron, „The Incentive Argument in Pharmaceutical Patent Law” (2022): at SSRN 4204148.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  69. Pringle-Pattison Andrew Seth, Hegelianism and Personality. Edinburgh-London: W. Blackwood and Sons, 1887.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  70. Priya Kanu, „Intellectual Property and Hegelian Justification” National University of Juridical Sciences Law Review, 1 (2008): 359-366.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  71. Proskine Emily Anne, „Google’s Technicolor Dreamcoat: A Copyright Analysis of the Google Book Search Library Project” Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 21.1 (2006): 213-239.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  72. Ramello Giovanni Battista, Access to vs. Exclusion from Knowledge: Intellectual Property, Efficiency and Social Justice. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  73. Reichman Jerome H., Jonathan A. Franklin, „Privately Legislated Intellectual Property Rights: Reconciling Freedom of Contract with Public Good Uses of Information” University of Pensylwania Law Review, 147 (1998): 875-970.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  74. Robinson Douglas, Nina Medlock, „Diamond v. Chakrabarty: a Retrospective on 25 Years of Biotech Patents” Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal, 17.10 (2005): 12-15.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  75. Rosemary J. Coombe, „Objects of Property and Subjects of Politics: Intellectual Property Laws and Democratic Dialogue” Texas Law Review, Vol. 69 (1991): 1853-1880.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  76. Rosenblatt Elizabeth L., „Intellectual Property's Negative Space: Beyond the Utilitarian” Florida State University Law Review, 40 (2012): 441-486.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  77. Samuelson Pamela, „Copyright and Freedom of Expression in Historical Perspective” Journal of Intellectual Property Law, 10 (2002): 319-344.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  78. Samuelson Pamela, „The Google Book Settlement as Copyright Reform” Wisconsin Law Review (2011): 479-562.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  79. Sang Yoonmo, „Revisiting Copyright Theories: Democratic Culture and the Resale of Digital Goods” Communication Theory, 29.3 (2019): 277-296.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  80. Schroeder Jeanne L., „Unnatural Rights: Hegel and Intellectual Property” University Miami Law Review, 60 (2005): 453-504.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  81. Searle Nicola, Martin Brassell, Economic Approaches to Intellectual Property. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  82. Shaffer Gregory, „Recognizing Public Goods in WTO Dispute Settlement: Who Participates? Who decides? The case of TRIPS and Pharmaceutical Patent Protection” Journal of International Economic Law, 7.2 (2004): 459-482.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  83. Shao Ken, „From Lockean Theory to Intellectual Property: Marriage by Mistake and its Incompatibility with Knowledge, Creativity and Dissemination” Hong Kong Law Journal, 39 (2009): 401-420.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  84. Snyder David A., „Two Problems with the Value of Participation in Democratic Theory and Copyright” Texas Law Review, 89 (2010): 1019.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  85. Stiglitz Joseph E., „Economic Foundations of Intellectual Property Rights” Duke Law Journal, 57 (2007): 1693-1724.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  86. Stiglitz Joseph E., „Knowledge as a Global Public Good” Global Public Goods: International Cooperation in the 21st Century, 308 (1999): 308-325.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  87. Sunder Madhavi, „Review of Intellectual Property and Theories of Justice” Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics, 3.1 (2010): 114-118.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  88. Sunder Madhavi, From Goods to a Good Life: Intellectual Property and Global Justice. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  89. Tamburrini Giovanni, Sergey Butakov, „The Philosophy Behind Fair Use: Another Step Towards Utilitarianism” Journal of International Commercial Law & Technology, 9 (2014): 190-202.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  90. Uszkai Radu, „Intellectual Property has no Personality” Annals of the University of Bucharest. Philosophy Series, 66.2 (2017): 181-205.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  91. Varsha Mangal, „Is Fair Use Actually Fair? Analyzing Fair Use and the Potential for Compulsory Licensing in Authors Guild v. Google” North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology, 17.5 (2016): 251-291.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  92. Vaver David, „Does Intellectual Property Have Personality?”, [w:] Rights of Personality in Scots law: A Comparative Perspective, ed. Reinhard Zimmerman, Niall R Whitty. 403-432. Edinburgh: University of Dundee Press, 2009.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  93. Verspagen Bart, „Intellectual Property Rights in the World Economy”, [in:] Economics, Law and Intellectual Property: Seeking Strategies for Research and Teaching in a Developing Field. 489-518. Boston, MA: Springer US, 2003.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  94. Victoria Campbell, „Authors Guild v. Google, Inc.” DePaul Journal of Art, Technology & Intellectual Property Law, 27 (2016): 59-71.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  95. Viner Jacob, „Bentham and JS Mill: The Utilitarian Background” American Economic Review, 39.2 (1949): 360-382.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  96. Weber Rolf H., Ulrike I. Heinrich, „IP Address Allocation Through the Lenses of Public Goods and Scarce Resources Theories” SCRIPTed, 8 (2011): 69-92.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  97. Woodmansee Martha, Peter Jaszi. The Construction of Authorship: Textual Appropriation in Law and Literature. Durnham: Duke University Press, 1994.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  98. Zimmerman Diane Leenheer, „Is There a Right to Have Something to Say-One View of the Public Domain” Fordham Law Review, 73 (2004): 297-375.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar
  99. Zoltan J. Acs, Mark Sanders, „Patents, Knowledge Spillovers, and Entrepreneurship” Small Business Economics, 39 (2012): 801-817.
    Pokaż w Google Scholar

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.