Are intellectual property rights compatible with Rawlsian principles of justice?
- First Online:
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.
KeywordsIntellectual property rights Rawls Principles of justice Patent Copyright
- Benatar, S. (2006). Facing challenges in rolling out antiretroviral treatment in resource-poor countries: Comment on they call it ‘patient selection’ in Khayelitsha. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 15(3), 322–330.Google Scholar
- Biron, L. (2010). Two challenges to the idea of intellectual property. The Monist, 93(3), 382–394.Google Scholar
- Hughes, J. (1988). The philosophy of intellectual property. Georgetown Law Journal, 77, 287–366.Google Scholar
- McGowan, D. (2004). Copyright Nonconsequentialism. Missouri Law Review, 69, 1–72.Google Scholar
- Moore, A. D. (2003). Intellectual property: Theory, privilege, and pragmatism. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, 16, 191–216.Google Scholar
- Neumann, M. (2009). Degrees of Property. Think 75–91.Google Scholar
- Nozick, R. (1999). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers Ltd.Google Scholar
- Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice (Revised ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Wilson, J. (2010). Ontology and the regulation of intellectual property. The Monist, 93(3), 450–463.Google Scholar
- Wreen, M. (2010). The ontology of intellectual property. The Monist, 93(3), 433–449.Google Scholar
- Zwahlen, M., & Egger, E. (2006). Progression and mortality of untreated HIV-positive individuals living in resource-limited settings: Update of literature review and evidence synthesis. In UNAIDS Obligation HQ/05/422204. http://data.unaids.org/pub/periodical/2006/zwahlen_unaids_hq_05_422204_2007_en.pdf. Accessed 7 July 2011.