JUSTICE IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2023 |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
Texto Completo: | https://doi.org/10.21814/eps.3.1.123 |
Resumo: | 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. |
id |
RCAP_33bbf928c304c9ad4c5f63caafedc742 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:journals.uminho.pt:article/5313 |
network_acronym_str |
RCAP |
network_name_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository_id_str |
7160 |
spelling |
JUSTICE IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTYDA JUSTIÇA NA PROPRIEDADE INTELECTUALOriginal ArticlesIntellectual 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.Os direitos de propriedade intelectual (PI) representam uma anomalia dentro de um sistema económico de livre mercado. Isto é, os direitos de PI necessariamente restringem as ações dos indivíduos no mercado. Em resposta a essa anomalia, os estudiosos da PI ofereceram várias justificações para a aplicação de tais supostas restrições numa economia de mercado livre. A principal forma de justificação funda-se na popular visão utilitarista sobre a importância dos incentivos. No entanto, não está perfeitamente claro que esses incentivos estejam realmente a produzir os benefícios necessários para fundamentar a justificação utilitarista. Em vez de abandonar o sistema de PI, no entanto, alguns autores simplesmente sugeriram uma justificação alternativa. Esses estudiosos argumentam que os direitos de PI são verdadeiros direitos morais que merecem proteção enquanto direitos morais. Além disso, os estudiosos argumentam que qualquer desigualdade distributiva gerada pelo sistema de PI é justificada pela teoria da justiça de Rawls. No entanto, eu argumento que a teoria da justiça de Rawls não pode "justificar" um regime seletivo de PI.Centre for Ethics, Politics, and Society - ELACH, University of Minho2023-09-29info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/articlehttps://doi.org/10.21814/eps.3.1.123eng2184-25822184-2574Nelson, Dustin S.info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessreponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos)instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãoinstacron:RCAAP2024-01-29T10:56:40Zoai:journals.uminho.pt:article/5313Portal AgregadorONGhttps://www.rcaap.pt/oai/openaireopendoar:71602024-03-20T01:58:42.690181Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informaçãofalse |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
JUSTICE IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DA JUSTIÇA NA PROPRIEDADE INTELECTUAL |
title |
JUSTICE IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY |
spellingShingle |
JUSTICE IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Nelson, Dustin S. Original Articles |
title_short |
JUSTICE IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY |
title_full |
JUSTICE IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY |
title_fullStr |
JUSTICE IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY |
title_full_unstemmed |
JUSTICE IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY |
title_sort |
JUSTICE IN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY |
author |
Nelson, Dustin S. |
author_facet |
Nelson, Dustin S. |
author_role |
author |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Nelson, Dustin S. |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Original Articles |
topic |
Original Articles |
description |
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. |
publishDate |
2023 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2023-09-29 |
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://doi.org/10.21814/eps.3.1.123 |
url |
https://doi.org/10.21814/eps.3.1.123 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
2184-2582 2184-2574 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Centre for Ethics, Politics, and Society - ELACH, University of Minho |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Centre for Ethics, Politics, and Society - ELACH, University of Minho |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
reponame:Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) instname:Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação instacron:RCAAP |
instname_str |
Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
instacron_str |
RCAAP |
institution |
RCAAP |
reponame_str |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
collection |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Repositório Científico de Acesso Aberto de Portugal (Repositórios Cientìficos) - Agência para a Sociedade do Conhecimento (UMIC) - FCT - Sociedade da Informação |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
|
_version_ |
1799137071331278848 |