Pasek boczny artykułu

Przesłane
12 grudnia 2023
Opublikowane
14 lutego 2024
Pobieranie
pdf (English)
Statystyczny
Read Counter : 137 Pobieranie : 70

Treść głównego artykułu

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.

Słowa kluczowe

intellectual property law, philosophical foundations, labour theory, utilitarianism, personality theory, economic incentives, cultural diversity, legal frameworks intellectual property law, philosophical foundations, labour theory, utilitarianism, personality theory, economic incentives, cultural diversity, legal frameworks

Szczegóły artykułu

Creative Commons License

Utwór dostępny jest na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa 4.0 Międzynarodowe.

Referencje

  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.
  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.
  3. Bell Tom W., Intellectual Privilege: Copyright, Common Law, and the Common Good. Mercatus Center at George Mason University, 2014.
  4. Bentham Jeremy, John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism and Other Essays. Hoboken: Penguin, 2004.
  5. Bettig Ronald V., Copyrighting Culture: The Political Economy of Intellectual Property. London: Routledge, 2018.
  6. Biagioli Mario, „Weighing Intellectual Property: Can we Balance the Social Costs and Benefits of Patenting?” History of Science, 57.1 (2019): 140-163.
  7. Biron Laura, „Creative Work and Communicative Norms” The Work of Authorship, (2014): 19-44.
  8. Boldrin Michele, David Levine, „The Case Against Intellectual Property” American Economic Review, 92.2 (2002): 209-212.
  9. Boylan Michael, Michael Boylan, „Utilitarianism” Teaching Ethics with Three Philosophical Novels, (2017): 45-62.
  10. Boyte Alina Ng, „The Social Value of Intellectual Property” IP Theory, 12.3 (2023): 1-28.
  11. Bracha Oren, Talha Syed, „Beyond Efficiency: Consequence-Sensitive Theories of Copyright” Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 29 (2014): 229-315.
  12. Breakey Hugh, „Natural Intellectual Property Rights and the Public Domain” The Modern Law Review, 73.2 (2010): 208-239.
  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.
  14. Chang Cheng-chi, „The Clash of Theories: Semiotic Democracy and Personality Theory in Intellectual Property Law” Law & World, 26 (2023): 14-22.
  15. Clarke James Alexander, „Fichte and Hegel on Recognition” British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 17.2 (2009): 365-385.
  16. Cohen Julie E., „Creativity and Culture in Copyright Theory” Copyright Law, (2017): 473-527.
  17. Croskery Patrick, „Institutional Utilitarianism and Intellectual Property” Chicago-Kent Law Review, 68 (1992): 631-657.
  18. Crouch Dennis D., „The Patent Lottery: Exploiting Behavioral Economics for the Common Good” George Mason Law Review, 16 (2008): 141-172.
  19. de George Richard T., „Intellectual Property and Pharmaceutical Drugs: An Ethical Analysis” Business Ethics Quarterly, 15.4 (2005): 549-575.
  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.
  21. Devlin Alan, Neel Sukhatme, „Self-Realizing Inventions and the Utilitarian Foundation of Patent Law” William & Mary Law Review, 51 (2009): 897-955.
  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.
  23. Ellis Elisabeth, Provisional Politics: Kantian Arguments in Policy Context. New Heaven: Yale University Press, 2008.
  24. Etzioni Amitai, The common good. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2014.
  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).
  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.
  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.
  28. Flynn Matthew B., Pharmaceutical Autonomy and Public Health in Latin America: State, Society and Industry in Brazil’s AIDS Program. London: Routledge, 2014.
  29. Forsythe Lynn M., Deborah J. Kemp, „Creative Commons: for the Common Good” University of La Verne Law Review, 30 (2008): 346-369.
  30. Frischmann Brett M., Mark A. Lemley, „Spillovers” Columbia Law Review, 107 (2007): 257-301.
  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).
  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.
  33. Harvey David, „The Future of the Commons” Radical History Review, 109 (2011): 101-107.
  34. Heim Irina, „The Protection of IP” Intellectual Property Management: Interdisciplinary Knowledge for Business Decision-Making (2023): 37-52.
  35. Henry Claude, Joseph E. Stiglitz, „Intellectual Property, Dissemination of Innovation and Sustainable Development” Global Policy, 1.3 (2010): 237-251.
  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.
  37. Hughes Justin, „The Personality Interest of Artists and Inventors in Intellectual Property” Cardozo Law's Arts & Entertainment Law Journal, 16 (1998): 81-181.
  38. Ilie Livia, „Intellectual Property Rights: an Economic Qpproach” Procedia Economics and Finance, 16 (2014): 548-552.
  39. Intellectual Property and Theories of Justice, ed. Axel Gosseries, Alain Marciano, Alain Strowel. London: Palgrave, 2008.
  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.
  41. Jenkins John J., „Locke and Natural rights” Philosophy, 42.160 (1967): 149-154.
  42. Kelly Paul Joseph, Utilitarianism and Distributive Justice: Jeremy Bentham and the Civil Law London: Clarendon Press, 1990.
  43. Knowles Dudley, „Hegel on Property and Personality” The Philosophical Quarterly, 33.130 (1983): 45-62.
  44. Kornyo Emmanuel, „Patent Protection and the Global Access to Essential Pharmaceuticals During Patent Infringements under TRIPS” Voices in Bioethics (2015): 1-11.
  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.
  46. Lee Peter, Madhavi Sunder, „Design Patents: Law Without Design” Stanford Technology Law Review, 17 (2013): 277-304.
  47. Lemley Mark A., Eugene Volokh, „Freedom of Speech and Injunctions in Intellectual Property Cases” Duke Law Journal, 48 (1998): 147-242.
  48. Lewin Peter, „Creativity or Coercion: Alternative Perspectives on Rights to Intellectual Property” Journal of Business Ethics, 71 (2007): 441-455.
  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.
  50. Locke John, Locke: Two Treatises of Government Student Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
  51. Locke John, The Works of John Locke. Vol. I. T. Longman, 1794.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  55. May Christopher, The Global Political Economy of Intellectual Property Rights: The New Enclosures. London: Routledge, 2015.
  56. Mayer-Schonberger Viktor, „In Search of the Story: Narratives of Intellectual Property” Virginia Journal of Law and Technology, 10 (2005): 1-19.
  57. McKay Spencer, Democratic Theory and the Commons: Conceptualizing the Relationship Between Deliberation, Publics, and the Internet. University of British Columbia, 2013.
  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.
  59. Moore Adam D., „A Lockean Theory of Intellectual Property Revisited” San Diego Law Review, 49 (2012): 1069-1104.
  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.
  61. Morrissey Michael, An Alternative to Intellectual Property Theories of Locke and Utilitarian Economics. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College, 2012.
  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.
  63. Mtima Lateef, „IP Social Justice Theory: Access, Inclusion, and Empowerment” Gonzaga Law Review, 55 (2019): 401-420.
  64. Murphy Darryl J., „Are Intellectual Property Rights Compatible with Rawlsian Principles of Justice?” Ethics and Information Technology, 14.2 (2012): 109-121.
  65. Nagel Thomas, „Rawls on Justice” The Philosophical Review (1973): 220-234.
  66. Nelson Dustin S., „Justice in Intellectual Property” Ethics, Politics & Society, 3 (2020): 49-72.
  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.
  68. Poynton Aaron, „The Incentive Argument in Pharmaceutical Patent Law” (2022): at SSRN 4204148.
  69. Pringle-Pattison Andrew Seth, Hegelianism and Personality. Edinburgh-London: W. Blackwood and Sons, 1887.
  70. Priya Kanu, „Intellectual Property and Hegelian Justification” National University of Juridical Sciences Law Review, 1 (2008): 359-366.
  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.
  72. Ramello Giovanni Battista, Access to vs. Exclusion from Knowledge: Intellectual Property, Efficiency and Social Justice. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  76. Rosenblatt Elizabeth L., „Intellectual Property's Negative Space: Beyond the Utilitarian” Florida State University Law Review, 40 (2012): 441-486.
  77. Samuelson Pamela, „Copyright and Freedom of Expression in Historical Perspective” Journal of Intellectual Property Law, 10 (2002): 319-344.
  78. Samuelson Pamela, „The Google Book Settlement as Copyright Reform” Wisconsin Law Review (2011): 479-562.
  79. Sang Yoonmo, „Revisiting Copyright Theories: Democratic Culture and the Resale of Digital Goods” Communication Theory, 29.3 (2019): 277-296.
  80. Schroeder Jeanne L., „Unnatural Rights: Hegel and Intellectual Property” University Miami Law Review, 60 (2005): 453-504.
  81. Searle Nicola, Martin Brassell, Economic Approaches to Intellectual Property. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.
  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.
  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.
  84. Snyder David A., „Two Problems with the Value of Participation in Democratic Theory and Copyright” Texas Law Review, 89 (2010): 1019.
  85. Stiglitz Joseph E., „Economic Foundations of Intellectual Property Rights” Duke Law Journal, 57 (2007): 1693-1724.
  86. Stiglitz Joseph E., „Knowledge as a Global Public Good” Global Public Goods: International Cooperation in the 21st Century, 308 (1999): 308-325.
  87. Sunder Madhavi, „Review of Intellectual Property and Theories of Justice” Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics, 3.1 (2010): 114-118.
  88. Sunder Madhavi, From Goods to a Good Life: Intellectual Property and Global Justice. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012.
  89. Tamburrini Giovanni, Sergey Butakov, „The Philosophy Behind Fair Use: Another Step Towards Utilitarianism” Journal of International Commercial Law & Technology, 9 (2014): 190-202.
  90. Uszkai Radu, „Intellectual Property has no Personality” Annals of the University of Bucharest. Philosophy Series, 66.2 (2017): 181-205.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  94. Victoria Campbell, „Authors Guild v. Google, Inc.” DePaul Journal of Art, Technology & Intellectual Property Law, 27 (2016): 59-71.
  95. Viner Jacob, „Bentham and JS Mill: The Utilitarian Background” American Economic Review, 39.2 (1949): 360-382.
  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.
  97. Woodmansee Martha, Peter Jaszi. The Construction of Authorship: Textual Appropriation in Law and Literature. Durnham: Duke University Press, 1994.
  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.
  99. Zoltan J. Acs, Mark Sanders, „Patents, Knowledge Spillovers, and Entrepreneurship” Small Business Economics, 39 (2012): 801-817.