Introduction to IPR LawIntroduction to IPR Law

�� LLM PAPERLLM PAPER--I I -- Introduction to IPRIntroduction to IPR

IPR concept & TheoriesIPR concept & Theories

byby

SANJEEV KUMAR CHASWAL,SANJEEV KUMAR CHASWAL,

IPR Attorney and AdvocateIPR Attorney and Advocate

IPR concept & TheoriesIPR concept & Theories�� TheThe twentytwenty--firstfirst centurycentury willwill bebe thethe centurycentury ofof knowledge,knowledge, indeedindeed thethe

centurycentury ofof thethe intellectintellect.. AA nation’snation’s abilityability toto translatetranslate knowledgeknowledge intointowealthwealth andand socialsocial goodgood throughthrough innovationsinnovations willwill determinedetermine itsits futurefuture..ThusThus innovationsinnovations holdhold thethe keykey toto thethe creationcreation asas wellwell asas processingprocessing ofofknowledgeknowledge.. ConsequentlyConsequently issuesissues ofof generation,generation, evaluation,evaluation, protectionprotectionandand exploitationexploitation ofof intellectualintellectual propertyproperty wouldwould becomebecome criticallycriticallyimportantimportant allall overover thethe worldworld..

�� TheThe termterm "intellectual"intellectual property"property" refersrefers toto aa looseloose clustercluster ofof legallegal doctrinesdoctrines�� TheThe termterm "intellectual"intellectual property"property" refersrefers toto aa looseloose clustercluster ofof legallegal doctrinesdoctrinesthatthat regulateregulate thethe usesuses ofof differentdifferent sortssorts ofof informationinformation.. TheThe lawlaw ofofcopyrightcopyright protectsprotects "original"original formsforms ofof expression"expression" ---- novels,novels, movies,movies,musicalmusical compositions,compositions, computercomputer software,software, etcetc.. PatentPatent lawlaw protectsprotectsinventionsinventions ---- machines,machines, processes,processes, (also)(also) computercomputer software,software, etcetc..TrademarkTrademark lawlaw protectsprotects wordswords andand symbolssymbols thatthat identifyidentify forfor consumersconsumersspecificspecific goodsgoods andand servicesservices ---- brandsbrands ofof cereal,cereal, clothing,clothing, automobiles,automobiles, etcetc..TradeTrade--secretsecret lawlaw protectsprotects informationinformation thatthat companiescompanies havehave triedtried butbutfailedfailed toto concealconceal fromfrom theirtheir competitorscompetitors ---- softsoft--drinkdrink formulas,formulas,confidentialconfidential marketingmarketing strategies,strategies, etcetc.. TheThe "right"right ofof publicity"publicity" protectsprotectscelebrities'celebrities' interestsinterests inin theirtheir imagesimages andand identitiesidentities..

�� SomeSome theoriststheorists beginbegin withwith thethe postulatepostulate thatthat aa personperson whowho laborslabors uponuponresourcesresources thatthat areare eithereither unun--ownedowned oror "held"held inin common"common" hashas aa naturalnaturalpropertyproperty rightright toto thethe fruitsfruits ofof hishis oror herher effortsefforts -- andand thatthat thethe statestate hashas aadutyduty toto respectrespect andand enforceenforce thatthat naturalnatural rightright.. TheseThese ideas,ideas, originatingoriginating ininthethe writingswritings ofof JohnJohn Locke,Locke, areare widelywidely thoughtthought toto bebe especiallyespecially applicableapplicabletoto thethe fieldfield ofof intellectualintellectual property,property, wherewhere thethe pertinentpertinent rawraw materialsmaterials(facts(facts andand concepts)concepts) dodo seemseem inin somesome sensesense toto bebe "held"held inin common"common" andandwherewhere (intellectual)(intellectual) laborlabor seemsseems toto contributecontribute soso importantlyimportantly toto thethe valuevalueofof thethe finishedfinished productproduct..

�� InIn recentrecent years,years, aa growinggrowing numbernumber ofof legallegal theoriststheorists havehave attemptedattempted eithereithertoto makemake sensesense ofof thisthis complexcomplex fieldfield oror toto proposepropose waysways inin whichwhich itit shouldshouldtoto makemake sensesense ofof thisthis complexcomplex fieldfield oror toto proposepropose waysways inin whichwhich itit shouldshouldbebe reformedreformed.. SomeSome drawdraw inspirationinspiration fromfrom thethe workwork ofof thethe KantKant andand Hegel,Hegel,fromfrom whichwhich theythey derivederive thethe propositionspropositions

�� ((i)i) thatthat privateprivate propertyproperty rightsrights areare crucialcrucial toto thethe satisfactionsatisfaction ofof somesomefundamentalfundamental humanhuman needsneeds oror interestsinterests andand

�� (ii)(ii) thatthat policymakerspolicymakers shouldshould thusthus strivestrive toto selectselect thethe setset ofof entitlementsentitlementsthatthat mostmost conducesconduces toto humanhuman flourishingflourishing..

�� FromFrom thesethese standpoints,standpoints, intellectualintellectual propertyproperty rightsrights maymay bebe justifiedjustified eithereitheronon thethe groundground thatthat theythey shieldshield fromfrom appropriationappropriation oror modificationmodification artifactsartifactsthroughthrough whichwhich authorsauthors andand artistsartists havehave expressedexpressed theirtheir "wills""wills" oror onon thethegroundground thatthat theythey createcreate socialsocial andand economiceconomic conditionsconditions conduciveconducive totocreativecreative intellectualintellectual activity,activity, whichwhich inin turnturn isis importantimportant toto humanhuman

A third group takes the view that property rights in general -- and intellectual-property rights in particular -- can and should be shaped so as to help foster theachievement of a just and attractive culture. Scholars who work this veintypically draw inspiration from an eclectic cluster of political and legal theorists,including Jefferson, the early Marx, the Legal Realists, and the variousproponents (ancient and modern) of classical republicanism.The premise of the last -- and most popular -- of the approaches is the familiarutilitarian guideline that a lawmaker's beacon when shaping property rightsshould be the greatest good of the greatest number. In other words, he shouldstrive to select a set of entitlements that (a) induces people to behave in waysthat increase socially valuable goods and services and (b) distributes thosethat increase socially valuable goods and services and (b) distributes thosegoods and services in the fashion that maximizes the net pleasures people reapfrom them,Intellectual property can be characterised as the property in ideas or theirexpression. It is a creation of the mind, for example, a technological innovation,a poem, or a design. It protects the rights of individuals and businesses whohave transformed their ideas into property by granting rights to the owners ofthose properties. Intellectual property can be classified into the following fourcategories: patents for inventions, copyrights for literary works, trademarks, andtrade secrets.We shall briefly define the various kinds of IPRs:-Patents and Design: Copyrights, Trademarks: Trade secrets

�� AA patentpatent isis aa legallegal monopolymonopoly grantedgranted forfor aa limitedlimited timetime toto thethe ownerowner ofof ananinventioninvention.. InIn manymany countries,countries, anan inventorinventor ofof aa newnew productproduct oror processprocesscancan applyapply forfor aa patentpatent givinggiving thethe holderholder thethe exclusiveexclusive rightright forfor aa numbernumberofof yearsyears toto produceproduce thethe goodgood oror useuse thethe processprocess.. ThisThis rightright cancan bebe usedusedeithereither throughthrough theirtheir ownown businessbusiness oror byby chargingcharging aa licenselicense feefee.. TheTheearliestearliest knownknown patentpatent onon anan inventioninvention waswas awardedawarded inin FlorenceFlorence inin 14211421toto FilippoFilippo BrunelleschiBrunelleschi forfor aa bargebarge withwith hoistinghoisting geargear capablecapable ofoftransportingtransporting marblemarble.. InIn BritainBritain thethe firstfirst suchsuch patentpatent waswas awardedawarded inin 14491449toto aa FlemishFlemish glassmakerglassmaker forfor aa methodmethod ofof makingmaking stainedstained glassglass windowswindows..DuringDuring thethe sixteenthsixteenth centurycentury thethe EnglishEnglish monarchsmonarchs discovereddiscovered thatthat thethesalesale ofof monopolymonopoly privilegeprivilege couldcould bebe veryvery lucrativelucrative andand grantedgranted patentspatentsonon anan indefiniteindefinite basisbasis toto allall mannersmanners ofof tradestrades andand manufactures,manufactures,onon anan indefiniteindefinite basisbasis toto allall mannersmanners ofof tradestrades andand manufactures,manufactures,regardlessregardless ofof theirtheir noveltynovelty.. EvenEven thethe tradetrade inin commoditiescommodities suchsuch asasleather,leather, salt,salt, iron,iron, andand paperpaper waswas patentedpatented..

�� TheThe consequentconsequent highhigh pricesprices ofof thesethese goodsgoods ledled toto accusationsaccusations thatthat suchsuchperpetualperpetual monopoliesmonopolies werewere unjustunjust.. RespondingResponding toto thisthis criticism,criticism,numerousnumerous patentspatents werewere revokedrevoked.. ForFor example,example, thethe monopolymonopoly onon thetheproductionproduction ofof playingplaying cardscards grantedgranted toto EdwinEdwin DarcyDarcy waswas rescindedrescinded..

Copyrights & TrademarksCopyrights & Trademarks�� CopyrightsCopyrights:: CopyrightCopyright isis thethe exclusiveexclusive rightright grantedgranted byby statutestatute toto

thethe authorauthor ofof thethe worksworks toto reproducereproduce dramatic,dramatic, artistic,artistic, literaryliterary orormusicalmusical workwork oror toto authoriseauthorise itsits reproductionreproduction byby othersothers.. TheThecopyrightcopyright persistspersists forfor aa definitedefinite periodperiod afterafter thethe author’sauthor’s deathdeathafterafter whichwhich itit cancan bebe soldsold oror inheritedinherited.. AsAs suchsuch itit protectsprotects thetheexpressionexpression ofof thethe ideaidea ratherrather thanthan thethe ideaidea itselfitself.. ItIt alsoalso extendsextendstoto filmsfilms oror televisiontelevision.. CopyrightsCopyrights complycomply withwith internationalinternational normsnormslikelike BerneBerne Convention,Convention, TradeTrade RelatedRelated AspectsAspects ofof IntellectualIntellectualPropertyProperty RightsRights (TRIPS)(TRIPS) AgreementAgreement andand WorldWorld IntellectualIntellectualPropertyProperty RightsRights (TRIPS)(TRIPS) AgreementAgreement andand WorldWorld IntellectualIntellectualPropertyProperty OrganisationOrganisation (WIPO)(WIPO) CopyrightCopyright TreatyTreaty (WCT)(WCT)..

�� TrademarksTrademarks:: TrademarkTrademark meansmeans anyany symbol,symbol, logo,logo, oror namename usedusedtoto enableenable thethe publicpublic toto identifyidentify thethe suppliersupplier ofof goodsgoods.. TrademarksTrademarkscancan bebe registered,registered, whichwhich givesgives thethe holderholder thethe exclusiveexclusive rightright toto useusethemthem.. Manufacturers,Manufacturers, distributors,distributors, oror importersimporters maymay registerregister themthem..TheyThey cancan bebe soldsold andand areare anan importantimportant formform ofof commercialcommercialpropertyproperty.. TheyThey areare poorlypoorly enforcedenforced inin somesome LeastLeast DevelopedDevelopedCountriesCountries (LDCs)(LDCs) whichwhich isis aa seriousserious sourcesource ofof internationalinternational frictionfriction

�� TTomom PalmerPalmer criticallycritically analysesanalyses threethree distinctdistinct argumentsarguments inin favourfavourofof intellectualintellectual propertyproperty rightsrights.. ThatThat areare asas followsfollows::

�� MoralMoral DesertDesert TheoryTheory

�� PersonalityPersonality TheoryTheory

�� UtilitarianUtilitarian TheoriesTheories

�� AnAn AlternativeAlternative ModelModel:: TheThe LibertarianLibertarian UtopiaUtopia

�� MoralMoral DesertDesert TheoryTheory:: AccordingAccording toto Locke,Locke, “every“every manman hashas aa propertyproperty ininhishis ownown person”,person”, ii..ee.. thethe fruitsfruits ofof aa man’sman’s labourlabour belongsbelongs toto himhim.. InIn thisthisschemescheme intellectualintellectual propertyproperty wouldwould seemseem toto followfollow naturally,naturally, sincesince thetheindividualindividual mustmust surelysurely bebe permittedpermitted thethe fruitsfruits ofof hishis mentalmental andand physicalphysicallabourlabour.. ButBut LeggettLeggett pointspoints outout thatthat ifif youyou assertassert anan exclusiveexclusive rightright toto aalabourlabour.. ButBut LeggettLeggett pointspoints outout thatthat ifif youyou assertassert anan exclusiveexclusive rightright toto aaparticularparticular ideaidea youyou cannotcannot bebe suresure thethe veryvery samesame ideaidea diddid notnot atat thethesamesame momentmoment enterenter somesome otherother mindmind.. ThusThus thesethese rightsrights cancan onlyonly bebejustifiedjustified ifif theythey areare implementedimplemented inin suchsuch awayaway thatthat rightsrights ofof anan individualindividualareare protectedprotected withoutwithout infringinginfringing onon anotheranother..

�� PersonalityPersonality TheoryTheory:: AccordingAccording toto KantKant andand Hegel,Hegel, ifif one’sone’s artisticartisticexpressionsexpressions areare synonymoussynonymous withwith one’sone’s personality,personality, thenthen theythey arearedeservingdeserving ofof protectionprotection justjust asas muchmuch asas thethe physicalphysical personperson isis deservingdeservingofof protectionprotection sincesince inin aa sensesense theythey areare aa partpart ofof thatthat physicalphysical personperson..HoweverHowever PalmerPalmer counterscounters thisthis byby sayingsaying thatthat ifif aa workwork ofof artart werewere partpart ofofanan individual’sindividual’s personalitypersonality thenthen theythey wouldwould ceasecease toto existexist afterafter thethe personpersondieddied..

�� UtilitarianUtilitarian TheoriesTheories:: AdvocatedAdvocated byby economistseconomists suchsuch asas BenthamBentham andandMillMill andand assumeassume thatthat thethe objectiveobjective ofof anyany policypolicy shouldshould bebe thethe attainmentattainmentofof thethe greatestgreatest goodgood forfor thethe greatestgreatest numbernumber.. HoweverHowever utilitarianutilitarianargumentsarguments cancan bebe cutcut forfor oror againstagainst thethe claimsclaims ofof intellectualintellectual propertypropertyrightsrights.. TheThe utilityutility gainsgains fromfrom increasedincreased incentivesincentives forfor innovationinnovation mustmust bebeweighedweighed againstagainst thethe losseslosses incurredincurred fromfrom monopolisationmonopolisation andand theirtheirdiminisheddiminished diffusiondiffusion.. ThusThus thethe problemproblem arisesarises asas thethe benefitsbenefits gainedgainedcannotcannot bebe measuredmeasured againstagainst thethe losseslosses sufferedsuffered..

�� AnotherAnother argumentargument againstagainst intellectualintellectual propertyproperty rightsrights andand inin particularparticularpatentspatents isis thatthat itit createscreates artificialartificial scarcityscarcity throughthrough aa monopolymonopoly onon variousvariousproductsproducts (which(which impliesimplies aa restrictedrestricted outputoutput andand higherhigher prices)prices).. ForForproductsproducts (which(which impliesimplies aa restrictedrestricted outputoutput andand higherhigher prices)prices).. ForForinstance,instance, fromfrom itsits establishmentestablishment inin 18751875,, thethe USUS companycompany ATAT && TTcollectedcollected patentspatents inin orderorder toto ensureensure itsits monopolymonopoly onon telephonestelephones.. ItItslowedslowed downdown thethe introductionintroduction ofof radioradio forfor aboutabout 2020 yearsyears.. However,However, ititcancan bebe arguedargued thatthat patentspatents andand copyrightscopyrights areare notnot monopoliesmonopolies becausebecausemonopolymonopoly isis thethe useuse ofof forceforce toto constrainconstrain othersothers inin thethe useuse ofof whatwhat wouldwould“in“in thethe absenceabsence ofof suchsuch lawlaw bebe openopen toto all,”all,” whilewhile inventionsinventions andand thethe likelikecouldcould notnot bebe saidsaid toto existexist beforebefore theirtheir creationcreation.. TheThe proponentsproponents ofof patentspatentsandand copyrightscopyrights reasonedreasoned thatthat anan exclusiveexclusive rightright overover anan innovationinnovation couldcouldnotnot bebe aa monopoly,monopoly, becausebecause priorprior toto itsits inventioninvention itit waswas notnot aa “liberty“liberty thatthattheythey hadhad beforebefore..”” RobertRobert NozickNozick arguesargues onon thisthis basisbasis thatthat patentspatents andandcopyrightscopyrights dodo notnot runrun aa foulfoul ofof thethe ““LockeanLockean Proviso”Proviso”:: “An“An inventor’sinventor’s

�� ThereThere areare nono easyeasy andand preciseprecise answersanswers toto thisthis issueissue.. ThusThus forfor thethe purposepurposeofof examiningexamining thethe validityvalidity ofof thesethese rights,rights, letlet usus exploreexplore aa hypotheticalhypotheticalsituationsituation wherewhere intellectualintellectual propertyproperty rightsrights dodo notnot existexist atat all,all, andand analyseanalysewhetherwhether suchsuch aa systemsystem wouldwould sustainsustain itselfitself oror collapsecollapse

�� AnAn AlternativeAlternative ModelModel:: TheThe LibertarianLibertarian UtopiaUtopia

�� AnAn intriguingintriguing analysisanalysis inin thethe fieldfield intellectualintellectual propertyproperty rightsrights isis thetheconceptionconception ofof aa worldworld wherewhere nono regulationsregulations oror lawslaws toto protectprotect intellectualintellectualpropertyproperty existexist.. AllAll creationscreations ofof thethe mindmind suchsuch asas inventions,inventions, literaryliterary works,works,innovationsinnovations areare freelyfreely accessibleaccessible andand cancan bebe utilisedutilised byby anyoneanyone.. anyanylibertarianlibertarian thinkersthinkers suchsuch asas KinsellaKinsella believebelieve thatthat anyany institutioninstitution ororargumentargument suchsuch asas thethe questionquestion ofof intellectualintellectual propertyproperty rightsrights whichwhichargumentargument suchsuch asas thethe questionquestion ofof intellectualintellectual propertyproperty rightsrights whichwhichattemptsattempts toto legitimiselegitimise oror callscalls forfor thethe continuedcontinued existenceexistence ofof thethe statestate isisfallaciousfallacious.. IfIf somethingsomething cancan onlyonly bebe donedone oror protectedprotected byby thethe state,state, thenthen ititstandsstands toto (libertarian)(libertarian) reasonreason that,that, thatthat somethingsomething shouldshould notnot bebe donedone ororprotectedprotected atat allall.. TheyThey believebelieve thatthat itit isis indisputableindisputable thatthat anythinganything thatthat oneoneproduces,produces, withwith theirtheir ownown handshands and/orand/or withwith theirtheir ownown capitalcapital inincollaborationcollaboration withwith theirtheir creativecreative mind,mind, isis theirtheir exclusiveexclusive propertyproperty.. ButBut onceoncesuchsuch thingsthings areare readyready toto bebe sold,sold, theythey shouldshould bebe subjectsubject toto thethe competitioncompetitionofof thethe freefree market,market, unhamperedunhampered byby claimsclaims ofof intellectualintellectual propertyproperty rightsrights;; totoallowallow thethe inventorinventor ofof aa devicedevice toto smashsmash competitioncompetition inin thethe marketplacemarketplace isistoto allowallow himhim toto festerfester inin mediocrity,mediocrity, whilewhile someonesomeone smartersmarter couldcould havehaveimprovedimproved onon thethe invention,invention, benefitingbenefiting everyoneeveryone..

Benjamin Tucker postulated that property arose as a means of solving conflictswithin society, which were caused by scarcity. In the universe of human reality,almost all goods were scarce, and that fact led to an inevitable competitionamong human beings for their use. For example, since two individuals could notuse the same chair in the same manner at the same time, it was necessary todetermine who should use the chair. The concept of property resolved thisproblem. Intellectual property cannot exist because an idea is not property; it isnot scarce. The very institution of property came about for the purpose ofassigning scarce goods to individuals. An idea in my head is my property,because it is part of my mind. But the instant a person utters it, the next personto hear it also owns the idea, as it is now part of their mind. We may both "own"to hear it also owns the idea, as it is now part of their mind. We may both "own"the idea without diminishing it in either of our brains.The libertarian contention is that the market will find a happy medium betweenmanufacturers protecting their products from copying and the consumers doingthe copying. For example, while technology provides ways to trump IP laws, italso creates more ways to protect the creations of writers and artists. To protecttheir software, companies should hide their source codes; much like Microsoftdoes to keep other companies from producing Windows. To keep consumersfrom copying software to give away to friends or to sell, they should usetechnology that makes it impossible to "pirate" the software or a file. Theyshould use technology that does not allow the owner of a CD to make an MP3 outof a track, or possibly, allow the download of a song in a format that allows onlytransfer, not duplication. So in the case where someone buys a new computer,

All the world’s products are modeled after something that came before.From clothing to buildings to, yes, writing, there is always a predecessor. Todeny someone the right to improve upon another’s creation, manifested inthe former’s personal property, is to contradictorily support intellectualproperty rights over real and personal property rights,Although the above system in theory seems ideal, to enforce it in realitywould be a formidable task. We must recognise that laws (in this contextproperty law) are the result of a moral consensus among people.Intellectual property laws did not evolve in nature; people living in a civilsociety gradually converged to them. So if the majority of the people didnot approve of these laws they would not exist. Secondly, as we have seenin the past, the market has devised ways to prohibit piracy and imitations.in the past, the market has devised ways to prohibit piracy and imitations.But with the rapidly exploding technology, individuals would work aroundthem and devise ways to duplicate which ultimately would lead to chaos,and the society would ultimately resort to a system of enforcing intellectualproperty rights (legally or by mutual consent).Finally, it is incorrect to argue that the scarcity of tangible property is thesole explanation for property rights and as intangible property is inabundance, there is no basis for protecting an intellectual property. Theurge to own property is inherent in man as it provides security and a senseof identity, which is undeniable.

Moreover although ideas as such may not be finite, revolutionary ideas that canbe translated to profitable concrete works are, and thus need to be guarded.

After evaluating the above arguments the conclusion we have come to isthat a system of intellectual property rights are justified as long as they donot violate another’s parallel right to intellectual property. Althoughrealistically, the development of such a system is a daunting task due to itsvarious intricacies. It is important to realise that there are no clear-cut, easyanswers for this debate.

This debate is thorny because two important principles clash: legalThis debate is thorny because two important principles clash: legalprotection for intangible works conflicts with the free expression andexchange of ideas. IP disputes have always involved trade-off betweenthese two fundamental principles.

Thus the best solution is to minimise the opportunity cost of the trade off.A system whereby an individual is secure in the knowledge that hisintellectual property shall be protected without infringing on someone else’sright to his intellectual property. One of the systems that can achieve thisobjective to a large extent is the use of copyrights instead of patents, whichwas originally suggested by Murray N Rothbard

The plaintiff must prove that the defendant stole the former's creation byreproducing it and selling it himself in violation of his or someone else's contractwith the original seller. But if the defendant independently arrives at the samecreation, the plaintiff has no copyright privilege that couldprevent the defendant from using and selling his products. But patent then hasnothing to do with implicit theft. It confers an exclusive privilege on its firstinventor, and if anyone else should, quite independently, invent the same orsimilar product, the latter would be debarred by force from using it inproduction.This does not seem just as two individuals might independently come up withthe same invention that requires huge investments and only one can obtain apatent due to several reasons such as timely appeal, political lobbying or anypatent due to several reasons such as timely appeal, political lobbying or anyother coincidental factor. This is fair neither on the consumer nor on theproducer. Firstly by restricting the amount of output and hence higher pricesand secondly if one producer obtains the patent then the other cannot produce.Thus patents seem highly unreasonable in this regard.The Rothbardian SolutionPatents and copyrights are both property rights in innovations. But there is acrucial difference in their legal enforcement. If an author or a composerbelieves his copyright is infringed and he takes legal action, he must prove thatthe defendant had "access" to the infringed work. If the defendant producessomething identical to the plaintiff's work by mere chance, there is noinfringement. Copyrights in other words, have their basis in implicit theft.

Thus as a solution the patent protection now obtained by the inventor could beachieved in the free market by a type of copyright protection. In the free market,the inventor could mark the copyright status on his product and anyone who buysthe product does it on the condition that he would not reproduce and sell such amachine for profit. The patent is incompatible with the free market to the extentthat it goes beyond the copyright. The man, who has not bought the machine andhas independently arrived at the same invention, will in a free market be perfectlyable to use and sell his invention. Thus this would extend a copyright-type ofprotection to the subject matter of patents as well. Thus, argues Rothbard:suppose that Brown builds a better mousetrap and sells it widely, but stamps eachmousetrap “copyright Mr Brown.” What he is then doing is selling not the entireproperty right in each mousetrap, but the right to do anything with the mousetrapproperty right in each mousetrap, but the right to do anything with the mousetrapexcept to sell it or an identical copy to someone else. The right to sell the Brownmousetrap is retained in perpetuity by Brown.

The Rothbardian system resolves the debate regarding intellectual property rightsto a very large extent as it satisfies the Moral Desert theory while resolving theobjections to it. However this system has inherent flaws, which are not conceptualbut rather pertain to its enforcement. Some of these flaws are as follows:It does not strictly define what qualifies as "copying." For instance, a person canobtain the particular piece of work, alter very trivial aspects of it, and then sell inthe market. It is very tough to differentiate between an improvement and a merealteration of the original work.

Moreover, Rothbard advocates the copyright to exist in perpetuity that isunfair as although it is generally presumed that ideas and intellectualproperty are not scarce, but ideas that materialise into profitable products orprocesses are few. Thus perpetual copyrights drastically reduce the scopeof innovation and enhancement of existing ideas.

- It is very difficult to prove that a particular idea was stolen in case ofviolation of a Copyright. Fortunately, appropriate and precise laws that areenforced efficiently can overcome all the above stated problems.

The large majority of the writers who have attempted economic analyses ofintellectual property have relied, explicitly or implicitly, on the "Kaldor-Hicks"criterion (also known as the "wealth-maximization" criterion or "potentialpareto superiority") which counsels lawmakers to select a system of rulesthat maximizes aggregate welfare measured by consumers' ability andwillingness to pay for goods and services. They disagree sharply, however,concerning the implications of that criterion in this field. Three quite differentarguments -- commonly thought to be incompatible -- dominate theliterature.

Economic Analysis of Intellectual Property

1. Incentive Theory2. Optimizing Patterns of Productivity.3. Reducing Rent-Dissipation

1. Incentive Theory. The first and most common of the three tacksargues that the optimal doctrine is the one that maximizes thedifference between(a) the present discounted value to consumers of the intellectualproducts whose creation is induced by holding out to authors andinventors the carrot of monopoly power and(b) the aggregate losses generated by such a system of incentives (the(b) the aggregate losses generated by such a system of incentives (theconsumer surplus sacrificed when authors and inventors price theircreations above the marginal costs of producing them, the"administrative costs" of interpreting and enforcing intellectual-propertyrights, etc.) In rougher terms, incentive theory urges a lawmaker toestablish or increase intellectual-property protection when doing sowould help consumers by stimulating creativity more than it would hurtthem by constricting their access to intellectual products or raising theirtaxes. Here are two illustrations of this general approach, both from thepens of William Landes and Richard Posner

That the distinctive characteristics of most intellectual products are that they are easilyreplicated and that enjoyment of them by one person does not prevent enjoyment ofthem by other persons. Those characteristics create a danger that the creators of suchproducts will be unable to recoup their "costs of expression" (the time and effortdevoted to writing or composing; the costs of negotiating with publishers or recordcompanies, etc.), because they will be undercut by copyists who bear only the low"costs of production" (the costs of printing, binding, and distributing books; the costsof "burning" and packaging compact disks, etc.) and thus can offer consumersidentical products at very low prices. Awareness of that danger will deter creators frommaking socially valuable intellectual products in the first instance. How might we avoidthis economically inefficient outcome? By allocating to the creators (for limited times)the exclusive right to make copies of their creations, thereby enabling them to chargeconsumers monopoly prices. All of the various alternative ways in which creators mightconsumers monopoly prices. All of the various alternative ways in which creators mightbe empowered to recover their costs, Landes and Posner contend, are, for one reasonor another, more wasteful of social resources. This utilitarian rationale, they argue,should be -- and, for the most part, has been -- used to shape specific doctrines withinthe field. The primary economic benefits of trademarks, they contend, are (1) thereduction of consumers' "search costs" (because it's easier to pick a box of "Cheerios"off the grocery shelf than to read the list of ingredients on each container, and becauseconsumers can rely upon their prior experiences with various brands of cereal whendeciding which box to buy in the future) and (2) the creation of an incentive forbusinesses to produce consistently high quality goods and services (because theyknow that their competitors cannot, by imitating their distinctive marks, take a freeride on the consumer good will that results from consistent quality).

Trademarks, Landes and Posner claim, also have an unusual ancillary social benefit:they improve the quality of our language -- by increasing our stock of nouns (andthus economizing on communication costs); by creating new, useful, generic words(e.g., "aspirin" and "brassiere"); and by "creating words or phrases that people valuefor their intrinsic pleasingness as well as their information value." To be sure,trademarks can sometimes be socially harmful -- for example by enabling the firstentrant into a market to discourage competition by appropriating for itself anespecially attractive or informative brand name. Awareness of these benefits andharms should (and usually does), Landes and Posner claim, guide legislators andjudges when tuning trademark law; marks should be (and usually are) protectedwhen they are socially beneficial and not when they are, on balance, deleterious.The general principle that underlies these various arguments is that maximization ofThe general principle that underlies these various arguments is that maximization ofnet social welfare should be lawmakers' exclusive objective when shapingintellectual-property law.2. Optimizing Patterns of Productivity. Many years ago, Harold Demsetz arguedthat the copyright and patent systems play the important roles of letting potentialproducers of intellectual products know what consumers want and thus channellingproductive efforts in directions most likely to enhance consumer welfare. In the pastdecade, a growing group of theorists have argued that recognition of this functionjustifies expanding the copyright and patent systems. In Paul Goldstein's words:The logic of property rights dictates their extension into every corner in whichpeople derive enjoyment and value from literary and artistic works. To stop short ofthese ends would deprive producers of the signals of consumer preference thattrigger and direct their investments.

Won't adoption of this strategy impede public dissemination of intellectualproducts? Not at all, say the proponents of this approach. Sales and licenses willensure that goods get into the hands of people who want them (and are able topay for them). Only in the rare situations in which transaction costs would preventsuch voluntary exchanges should intellectual-property owners be denied absolutecontrol over the uses of their works -- either through an outright privilege (likethe fair-use doctrine) or through a compulsory licensing system

3. Reducing Rent-Dissipation. The final approach is related to butdifferentiable from the second. Its objective is to eliminate or reduce the tendencyof intellectual-property rights -- and patent rights in particular -- to fosterduplicative or uncoordinated inventive activity. Economic waste of this sort canduplicative or uncoordinated inventive activity. Economic waste of this sort canoccur at three stages in the inventive process. First, the pot of gold representedby a patent on a pioneering, commercially valuable invention may lure aninefficiently large number of persons and organizations into the race to be thefirst to reach the invention in question. Second, the race to develop a lucrativeimprovement on an existing technology may generate a similar scramble forsimilar reasons at the "secondary" level. Finally, firms may try to "invent around"technologies patented by their rivals -- i.e., to develop functionally equivalent butnon-infringing technologies -- efforts that, although rational from the standpointof the individual firm, represent a waste of society's resources. In recentyears, several economistshave devoted themselves to identifying possible reformsof intellectual property law (or of related doctrines, such as antitrust law) that

Serious difficulties attend efforts to extract from any one of these approachesanswers to concrete doctrinal problems. With respect to incentive theory, theprimary problem is lack of the information necessary to apply the analytic. Towhat extent is the production of specific sorts of intellectual productsdependent upon maintenance of copyright or patent protection? With respect tosome fields, some commentators have answered: very little; other monetary ornonmonetary rewards (profits attributable to lead time, prestige, tenure, thelove of art, etc.) would be sufficient to sustain current levels of production evenin the absence of intellectual-property protection. Other commentators sharplydisagree.

The truth is that we don't have enough information to know who is right -- andare unlikely ever to acquire sufficient information. Even if we were able tosurmount this enormous hurdle -- and concluded that society would be betteroff, on balance, by supplying authors and inventors some sort of special reward-- major sources of indeterminacy would remain. Is an intellectual-propertysystem the best way of providing that reward or would it be better (as StevenShavell and Tanguy van Ypersele have recently argued) for a governmentagency to estimate the social value of each innovation and pay the innovatorsthat sum out of tax revenues? If the former, how far should creators'entitlements extend? Should they include the right to prepare "derivativeworks"? To block "experimental uses" of their technologies? To suppress theirinventions? Determining which set of rights would be optimal well beyond our

Criticism of IPRCriticism of IPR�� The term itself :The term itself :

�� FreeFree SoftwareSoftware FoundationFoundation founderfounder RichardRichard StallmanStallman arguesargues that,that,althoughalthough thethe termterm intellectualintellectual propertyproperty isis inin widewide use,use, itit shouldshould beberejectedrejected altogether,altogether, becausebecause itit "systematically"systematically distortsdistorts andand confusesconfusesthesethese issues,issues, andand itsits useuse waswas andand isis promotedpromoted byby thosethose whowho gaingain fromfromthisthis confusionconfusion.."" HeHe claimsclaims thatthat thethe termterm "operates"operates asas aa catchcatch--allall totolumplump togethertogether disparatedisparate lawslaws [which][which] originatedoriginated separately,separately, evolvedevolveddifferently,differently, covercover differentdifferent activities,activities, havehave differentdifferent rules,rules, andand raiseraisedifferentdifferent publicpublic policypolicy issues"issues" andand thatthat itit createscreates aa "bias""bias" byby confusingconfusingthesethese monopoliesmonopolies withwith ownershipownership ofof limitedlimited physicalphysical things,things, likeninglikeningthesethese monopoliesmonopolies withwith ownershipownership ofof limitedlimited physicalphysical things,things, likeninglikeningthemthem toto "property"property rights“rights“.. StallmanStallman advocatesadvocates referringreferring toto copyrights,copyrights,patentspatents andand trademarkstrademarks inin thethe singularsingular andand warnswarns againstagainst abstractingabstractingdisparatedisparate lawslaws intointo aa collectivecollective termterm..

�� LawrenceLawrence LessiqLessiq,, alongalong withwith manymany otherother copyleftcopyleft andand freefree softwaresoftwareactivists,activists, havehave criticizedcriticized thethe impliedimplied analogyanalogy withwith physicalphysical propertyproperty (like(likelandland oror anan automobile)automobile).. TheyThey argueargue suchsuch anan analogyanalogy failsfails becausebecausephysicalphysical propertyproperty isis generallygenerally rivalrousrivalrous whilewhile intellectualintellectual worksworks areare nonnon--rivalrousrivalrous (that(that is,is, ifif oneone makesmakes aa copycopy ofof aa work,work, thethe enjoymentenjoyment ofof thethecopycopy doesdoes notnot preventprevent enjoymentenjoyment ofof thethe original)original)

Limitations:

Some critics of intellectual property, such as those in the free culturemovement point at Intellectual monopolies as harming health, preventingprogress, and benefiting concentrated interests to the detriment of themasses and argue that the public interest is harmed by ever expansivemonopolies in the form of Copyright extensions, softwarepatents and business method Patents .The committee on economic, social and cultural Rights recognizes that"conflicts may exist between the respect for and implementation of currentintellectual property systems and other human rights“. It argues thatintellectual property tends to be governed by economic goals when it shouldbe viewed primarily as a social product; in order to serve human well-being,be viewed primarily as a social product; in order to serve human well-being,intellectual property systems must respect and conform to human rightslaws. According to the Committee, when systems fail to do so they riskinfringing upon the human right to food and health, and to culturalparticipation and scientific benefitsSome libertarian critics of Intellectual property have argued that allowingproperty rights in ideas and information creates artificial scarcity andinfringes on the right to own tangible property.The Stephan Kinsella uses the following scenario to argue this point:Imagine the time when men lived in caves. One bright guy—let's call himGalt-Magnon—decides to build a log cabin on an open field, near his crops.

To be sure, this is a good idea, and others notice it. They naturally imitate Galt-Magnon, and they start building their own cabins. But the first man to invent ahouse, according to IP advocates, would have a right to prevent others frombuilding houses on their own land, with their own logs, or to charge them a feeif they do build houses.

It is plain that the innovator in these examples becomes a partial owner of thetangible property (e.g., land and logs) of others, due not to first occupation anduse of that property (for it is already owned), but due to his coming up with anidea. Clearly, this rule flies in the face of the first-user homesteading rule,arbitrarily and groundlessly overriding the very homesteading rule that is at thefoundation of all property rights.foundation of all property rights.Other criticism of intellectual property law concerns the tendency of theprotections of intellectual property to expand, both in duration and in scope.The trend has been toward longer copyright protection (raising fears that itmay some day be eternal In addition, the developers and controllers of items ofintellectual property have sought to bring more items under the protection.Patents have been granted for living organisms,(and in the US, certain Livingorganisms have been patentable for over a century) and colors have beentrademarked. Because they are systems of Government granted monopoliescopyrights, patents, and trademarks are called Intellectual monopoly privileges,(IMP) a topic on which several academics, including Birgitte Andersen andThomas Alured Faunce have written.

Marxist criticismMarxist criticism�� CapitalismCapitalism attemptsattempts toto turnturn everythingeverything intointo privateprivate property,property, thethe airair wewe

breathe,breathe, thethe waterwater wewe drinkdrink andand eveneven ideasideas.. AttemptsAttempts ofof capitalistscapitalists totomakemake moneymoney fromfrom “their”“their” intellectualintellectual propertyproperty areare likelike thethe highwayhighwayrobberyrobbery ofof medievalmedieval aristocratsaristocrats whowho leviedlevied tollstolls onon traderstraders andand restrictedrestrictedthethe growthgrowth ofof commercecommerce andand prosperityprosperity.. TodayToday privateprivate propertyproperty andand thetheprofitprofit motivemotive areare thethe biggestbiggest threatthreat toto ourour enjoymentenjoyment ofof newnew ideas,ideas, ourourprogressprogress andand eveneven ourour existenceexistence asas aa speciesspecies..

�� CapitalismCapitalism isis aa greedygreedy systemsystem.. ItIt seeksseeks profitprofit everywhereeverywhere andand turnsturnseverythingeverything intointo privateprivate propertyproperty.. InIn doingdoing so,so, itit inevitablyinevitably destroysdestroys allalleverythingeverything intointo privateprivate propertyproperty.. InIn doingdoing so,so, itit inevitablyinevitably destroysdestroys allallthosethose thingsthings wewe holdhold inin commoncommon -- thethe “commons”“commons”.. TheThe worldworld isisdominateddominated byby capitalcapital.. WageWage labourerslabourers dodo thethe workwork andand turnturn thethe profitsprofitsforfor capitalcapital becausebecause theythey havehave nono otherother wayway ofof makingmaking aa livingliving.. AndAnd that'sthat'sbecausebecause inin thethe pastpast wewe werewere disinheriteddisinherited fromfrom ourour “commons”,“commons”, whichwhichwerewere enclosedenclosed byby thethe risingrising capitalistcapitalist classclass..

�� SoSo what?what? Isn'tIsn't thatthat allall inin thethe past?past? Well,Well, actuallyactually nono.. ConsiderConsider thetheInternetInternet.. WhatWhat isis itit butbut aa vastvast intellectualintellectual commons,commons, aa “common“common carrier”carrier”ofof ideas?ideas? CleanClean airair isis aa common,common, asas isis cleanclean waterwater.. TheThe Antarctic,Antarctic, thetheBrazilianBrazilian rainrain forestsforests andand wildlifewildlife areare allall commons,commons, andand allall underunder threatthreat..

�� InIn Capital,Capital, MarxMarx explainsexplains thethe processprocess ofof primitiveprimitive accumulation,accumulation, whichwhichestablishedestablished thethe preconditionspreconditions forfor capitalistcapitalist productionproduction.. OnOn thethe oneone hand,hand,richrich menmen gainedgained fortunesfortunes inin moneymoney ratherrather thanthan landland oror slavesslaves.. OnOn thetheotherother hand,hand, thethe commoncommon peoplepeople werewere reducedreduced toto propertyproperty lesslessproletarians,proletarians, forcedforced toto sellsell theirtheir labourlabour powerpower inin orderorder toto livelive..

�� MarxMarx usesuses BritainBritain asas hishis exampleexample ofof primitiveprimitive accumulationaccumulation.. PartPart ofof thisthisexpropriationexpropriation waswas thethe separationseparation ofof thethe peoplepeople fromfrom thethe commonscommons..MedievalMedieval andand earlyearly modernmodern villagesvillages had,had, atat theirtheir centre,centre, thethe cropcrop fieldsfields..AllAll aroundaround werewere “wastes”,“wastes”, whichwhich suppliedsupplied woodwood forfor fuelfuel andand buildingbuildingmaterials,materials, runningrunning waterwater andand fishingfishing rightsrights andand roughrough grazinggrazing forfor theirtheiranimalsanimals.. TheThe villagersvillagers couldcould notnot makemake aa livingliving withoutwithout thesethese commonscommons..animalsanimals.. TheThe villagersvillagers couldcould notnot makemake aa livingliving withoutwithout thesethese commonscommons..YetYet thethe comingcoming ofof capitalismcapitalism sawsaw thethe enclosures,enclosures, thethe seizureseizure ofof thesetheselandslands fromfrom thethe villagersvillagers andand theirtheir conversionconversion intointo thethe privateprivate propertyproperty ofofthethe richrich..

�� “Communal“Communal propertyproperty -- whichwhich isis entirelyentirely distinctdistinct fromfrom thethe statestate propertypropertywewe havehave justjust beenbeen consideringconsidering -- waswas anan oldold TeutonicTeutonic institutioninstitution whichwhichlivedlived onon underunder thethe covercover ofof feudalismfeudalism.. WeWe havehave seenseen howhow itsits forcibleforcibleusurpation,usurpation, generallygenerally accompaniedaccompanied byby thethe turningturning ofof arablearable intointo pasturepastureland,land, beginsbegins atat thethe endend ofof thethe fifteenthfifteenth centurycentury andand extendsextends intointo thethesixteenthsixteenth.. ButBut atat thatthat timetime thethe processprocess waswas carriedcarried onon byby meansmeans ofofindividualindividual actsacts ofof violenceviolence……

�� TheThe advanceadvance mademade byby thethe eighteentheighteenth centurycentury showsshows itselfitself inin this,this, thatthat thethelawlaw itselfitself nownow becomesbecomes thethe instrumentinstrument byby whichwhich thethe people'speople's landland isisstolenstolen…… TheThe ParliamentaryParliamentary formform ofof thethe robberyrobbery isis thatthat ofof 'Bills'Bills forforenclosureenclosure ofof Commons',Commons', inin otherother wordswords decreesdecrees byby whichwhich landownerslandownersgrantgrant themselvesthemselves thethe people'speople's landland asas privateprivate property,property, decreesdecrees ofofexpropriationexpropriation ofof thethe peoplepeople..

�� CapitalismCapitalism hadhad toto fightfight longlong andand hardhard againstagainst whatwhat thethe historianhistorian EE..PP..ThompsonThompson callscalls thethe “moral“moral economy”,economy”, aa codecode ofof ethicsethics andand practicepracticeradicallyradically atat oddsodds withwith capitalistcapitalist behaviourbehaviour.. (E(E..PP.. ThompsonThompson -- CustomsCustoms inincommon,common, PenguinPenguin Books,Books, 19931993)).. ThisThis piecepiece ofof doggereldoggerel fromfrom thetheseventeenthseventeenth centurycentury showsshows thethe hatredhatred feltfelt byby commoncommon peoplepeople againstagainst thetheseventeenthseventeenth centurycentury showsshows thethe hatredhatred feltfelt byby commoncommon peoplepeople againstagainst thetheenclosureenclosure movementmovement::

�� “The“The lawlaw hangshangs thethe manman andand flogsflogs thethe woman,woman, WhoWho stealsteal thethe goosegoose fromfromoffoff thethe common,common, ButBut leavesleaves thethe greatergreater villainvillain loose,loose, WhoWho stealssteals thethecommoncommon fromfrom thethe goosegoose..””

�� AA similarsimilar processprocess ofof expropriationexpropriation tooktook placeplace inin thethe ScottishScottish highlandshighlands ininthethe yearsyears afterafter CullodenCulloden.. MarxMarx explainsexplains thethe situationsituation..

�� “The“The HighlandHighland CeltsCelts werewere organizedorganized inin clans,clans, eacheach ofof whichwhich waswas thetheownerowner ofof thethe landland onon whichwhich itit waswas settledsettled.. TheThe representativerepresentative ofof thethe clan,clan,itsits chiefchief oror 'great'great man'man' waswas onlyonly thethe titulartitular ownerowner ofof thisthis property,property, justjust asasthethe QueenQueen ofof EnglandEngland isis thethe titulartitular ownerowner ofof allall thethe nationalnational soilsoil

�� Economics”Economics” continuescontinues toto justifyjustify thethe thefttheft ofof thethe commonscommons.. TheThe classicclassic piecepieceisis GarrettGarrett Hardin'sHardin's article,article, 'The'The tragedytragedy ofof thethe commons'commons' ((Science,Science, 162162,,19681968,, pppp.. 12431243--12481248)).. HardinHardin waswas aa ProfessorProfessor ofof HumanHuman EcologyEcology atat thetheUniversityUniversity ofof CaliforniaCalifornia.. HeHe isis notnot oneone forfor empiricalempirical enquiryenquiry onon thisthis subjectsubject..HeHe prefersprefers toto appealappeal toto thethe readerreader toto performperform aa soso--calledcalled 'thought'thoughtexperimentexperiment..''

�� HardinHardin couldcould havehave mademade aa livingliving asas economiceconomic adviseradviser toto thethe DuchessDuchess ofofSutherland!Sutherland! LikeLike hishis predecessors,predecessors, HardinHardin pleadspleads efficiencyefficiency gainsgains asas thethejustificationjustification forfor enclosureenclosure.. InIn realityreality theythey werewere aa formform ofof classclass struggle,struggle,intendedintended toto makemake thethe poorpoor incapableincapable ofof scrapingscraping anyany kindkind ofof livinglivingindependentlyindependently ofof thethe rich,rich, andand utterlyutterly dependentdependent onon themthem toto earnearn aa crustcrust..independentlyindependently ofof thethe rich,rich, andand utterlyutterly dependentdependent onon themthem toto earnearn aa crustcrust..

�� Hardin'sHardin's theoremtheorem isis aa fablefable fromfrom beginningbeginning toto endend.. TheThe commonscommons werewere notnotactuallyactually openopen toto allall andand sundrysundry toto grazegraze theirtheir animalsanimals uponupon.. ThisThis rightright waswasreservedreserved toto peoplepeople knownknown asas thethe commoners,commoners, usuallyusually thethe locallocal villagersvillagers..EvenEven thethe commoners'commoners' grazinggrazing rightsrights werewere strictlystrictly regulatedregulated byby officials,officials,knownknown inin BritainBritain asas beadles,beadles, inin orderorder toto preventprevent overgrazingovergrazing.. “Historians“Historians……agreeagree thatthat therethere isis nono evidenceevidence thatthat commoncommon landland useuse waswas itselfitselfunsustainableunsustainable..””

�� DespiteDespite thethe lacklack ofof evidence,evidence, Hardin'sHardin's fablefable hashas becomebecome thethe acceptedacceptedwisdomwisdom amongamong thethe fraternityfraternity ofof economistseconomists.. HardinHardin isis aa discipledisciple ofof thetheeconomisteconomist ThomasThomas MalthusMalthus.. MalthusMalthus believedbelieved thatthat growinggrowing populationpopulationpressedpressed againstagainst finitefinite naturalnatural resourcesresources.. HisHis waswas aa powerfulpowerful reactionaryreactionary

�� TheThe onlyonly thingthing thethe workingworking classclass couldcould thereforetherefore dodo toto improveimprove theirtheir lotlotwaswas toto tietie aa knotknot inin it!it! (Marx(Marx wrotewrote extensivelyextensively againstagainst Malthus,Malthus, butbut wewewillwill notnot dealdeal withwith thethe argumentsarguments herehere..))

�� TheThe extremeextreme examplesexamples ofof externalexternal effectseffects onon economiceconomic activityactivity areare publicpublicgoodsgoods.. ThisThis refersrefers toto aa narrownarrow rangerange ofof productsproducts withwith twotwo characteristicscharacteristics..TheyThey areare nonnon--rivalrival inin consumptionconsumption andand nonnon--excludableexcludable.. PublicPublic goodsgoods arearetoto bebe comparedcompared withwith privateprivate goodsgoods.. TheseThese areare rivalrival inin consumptionconsumption.. IfIf IIeateat aa KitKatKitKat,, youyou cannotcannot eateat thethe samesame KitKatKitKat.. II cancan alsoalso deprivedeprive youyou ofofaccessaccess toto mymy KitKatKitKat byby buyingbuying itit andand keepingkeeping itit inin mymy pocketpocket -- thatthat is,is, IIcancan excludeexclude youyou fromfrom itit..

ThereThere isis nonnon--rivalryrivalry inin consumptionconsumption becausebecause therethere isis zerozero costcost ofof�� ThereThere isis nonnon--rivalryrivalry inin consumptionconsumption becausebecause therethere isis zerozero costcost ofofreproductionreproduction forfor anotheranother useruser.. TheThe logiclogic ofof thisthis inin neoclassicalneoclassical welfarewelfareeconomicseconomics isis thatthat thethe goodgood shouldshould bebe providedprovided freefree.. AfterAfter all,all, aa chargecharge isisonlyonly leviedlevied inin neoclassicalneoclassical theorytheory becausebecause supplyingsupplying anan extraextra unitunit involvesinvolvesadditionaladditional realreal costcost..

�� TheThe problemproblem ofof freefree provisionprovision isis obviouslyobviously thatthat therethere isis nono incentiveincentive forforthethe capitalistcapitalist toto supplysupply thethe goodgood atat all,all, soso capitalismcapitalism systematicallysystematicallyundersuppliesundersupplies publicpublic goodsgoods andand marketsmarkets failfail..

�� TheThe secondsecond characteristiccharacteristic ofof aa publicpublic goodgood isis thatthat thethe providerprovider shouldshould bebeunableunable toto preventprevent usersusers fromfrom freefree ridingriding onon theirtheir productproduct andand capturingcapturingthethe benefitsbenefits withoutwithout payingpaying.. TheThe classicclassic exampleexample isis thethe lightlight fromfrom aa streetstreetlightlight oror lighthouselighthouse.. SoSo howhow cancan aa capitalistcapitalist sellsell lightlight forfor profit?profit?

�� AnAn exampleexample ofof thisthis intellectualintellectual propertyproperty isis copyrightcopyright.. CharlesCharles Dickens'Dickens'worksworks werewere veryvery popularpopular inin thethe USAUSA inin thethe nineteenthnineteenth century,century, butbut hehedidn'tdidn't receivereceive aa pennypenny fromfrom thethe piratedpirated editionseditions publishedpublished therethere.. ButBut thetheprincipleprinciple waswas thatthat DickensDickens wrotewrote thethe booksbooks;; hehe deserveddeserved thethe rewardreward.. ThatThatprincipleprinciple hashas beenbeen turnedturned upsideupside downdown byby thethe newnew privatisersprivatisers whowho areareusingusing intellectualintellectual propertyproperty lawslaws toto stealsteal ourour intellectualintellectual commonscommons.. AAclassicclassic exampleexample isis thethe articlesarticles academicsacademics writewrite forfor learnedlearned journalsjournals.. YouYouclassicclassic exampleexample isis thethe articlesarticles academicsacademics writewrite forfor learnedlearned journalsjournals.. YouYoumightmight thinkthink theythey getget paidpaid forfor theirtheir effortsefforts.. NotNot aa bitbit ofof itit.. TheyThey assignassign thethecopyrightcopyright toto thethe publisherpublisher.. TheyThey can'tcan't eveneven distributedistribute thethe articlearticle they'vethey'vewrittenwritten toto theirtheir ownown studentsstudents withoutwithout permissionpermission..

�� Obscenely,Obscenely, thethe ownershipownership ofof thingsthings hashas beenbeen extendedextended toto lifelife formsforms.. TheTheUSUS firmfirm RiceTecRiceTec hashas laidlaid claimclaim toto ownown basmatibasmati ricerice.. EveryoneEveryone knowsknows thatthatthisthis ricerice hashas beenbeen growngrown forfor centuriescenturies inin thethe shadowshadow ofof thethe HimalayasHimalayas ininIndiaIndia andand PakistanPakistan andand waswas developeddeveloped longlong agoago byby unknownunknown peasantspeasants..TheseThese peasantspeasants wouldwould havehave regardedregarded thisthis superiorsuperior strainstrain ofof ricerice asas aa giftgifttoto futurefuture generationsgenerations..

IPR & Third World Concern & CriticismIPR & Third World Concern & Criticism�� TwentyTwenty firstfirst centurycentury willwill bebe thethe centurycentury ofof knowledge,knowledge, indeedindeed thethe centurycentury

ofof mindmind.. InnovationInnovation isis thethe keykey forfor thethe productionproduction asas wellwell asas processingprocessing ofofknowledgeknowledge.. AA nation'snation's abilityability toto convertconvert knowledgeknowledge intointo wealthwealth andand socialsocialgoodgood throughthrough thethe processprocess ofof innovationinnovation willwill determinedetermine itsits futurefuture.. InIn thisthiscontext,context, issuesissues ofof generation,generation, valuation,valuation, protectionprotection andand exploitationexploitation ofofintellectualintellectual propertyproperty (IP)(IP) areare goinggoing toto becomebecome criticallycritically importantimportant allallaroundaround thethe worldworld.. ExponentialExponential growthgrowth ofof scientificscientific knowledge,knowledge, increasingincreasingdemandsdemands forfor newnew formsforms ofof intellectualintellectual propertyproperty protectionprotection asas wellwell asasaccessaccess toto IPIP relatedrelated information,information, increasingincreasing dominancedominance ofof thethe newnewaccessaccess toto IPIP relatedrelated information,information, increasingincreasing dominancedominance ofof thethe newnewknowledgeknowledge economyeconomy overover thethe oldold ‘brick‘brick && mortar’mortar’ economy,economy, complexitiescomplexities

�� linkedlinked toto IPIP inin traditionaltraditional knowledge,knowledge, communitycommunity knowledgeknowledge andand animateanimateobjects,objects, willwill posepose aa challengechallenge inin settingsetting thethe newnew 2121ss tt centurycentury IPIP agendaagenda..IntellectualIntellectual propertyproperty willwill nono longerlonger bebe seenseen asas aa distinctdistinct oror selfself--containedcontaineddomain,domain, butbut ratherrather asas anan importantimportant andand effectiveeffective policypolicy instrumentinstrument thatthatwouldwould bebe relevantrelevant toto aa widewide rangerange ofof socioeconomic,socioeconomic, technologicaltechnological andandpoliticalpolitical concernsconcerns.. TheThe developmentdevelopment ofof skillsskills andand competencecompetence toto managemanageIPRIPR andand leverageleverage itsits influenceinfluence willwill needneed increasingincreasing focusfocus;; inin particular,particular, ininthethe thirdthird worldworld

An ideal regime of intellectual property rights strikes a balance betweenprivate incentives for innovators and the public interest of maximizing accessto the fruits of innovation. This balance is reflected in article 27 of the 1948Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which recognizes both that“Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interestresulting from any scientific, literacy or artistic production of which he is theauthor” and that “Everyone has the right ...... to share in scientificadvancement and its benefits”. The burning question seems to be balancingthe interest of the inventor and that of the society in an optimum way.Intellectual property rights are being harmonised worldwide.As per the obligation under the Trade Related Intellectual Property SystemsAs per the obligation under the Trade Related Intellectual Property Systems(TRIPS) agreement, developing countries are now implementing nationalsystems of intellectual property rights following an agreed set of minimumstandards, such as twenty years of patent protection; the least developedcountries have an extra 11 years to do so. One of the third world concernsis that while a fully harmonised system of IPR is being advocated, today’sadvanced economies had refused to grant patents throughout the 19th andearly 20th centuries. They formalized the enforced intellectual propertyrights gradually as they shifted from being net users of intellectual propertyto bring net producers. Indeed, France, Germany and Switzerland, who areleading developed countries today completed, what is now standardprotection, only in the 1960s and 1970s.

The battle today is between those that are not equal, economically andinstitutionally. TRIPS, like other World Trade Organization agreements, is anagreement on a legal framework. Its implications will be decided by resolvingdisputes. That makes case law and the power of the parties involved of greatimportance. The third world has a clear disadvantage here.In the developing world, the impact of TRIPS will vary according to eachcountry’s economic and technological development. Middle-income countrieslike Brazil and Malaysia are likely to benefit from the spur to local innovation.Countries like India and China, which are endowed with a large intellectualinfrastructure, can gain in the long term by stronger IPR protection. However,least developed countries, where formal innovation is minimal, are likely toleast developed countries, where formal innovation is minimal, are likely toface higher costs without the offsetting benefits.There are concrete examples to show that technology transfers to the thirdworld have not taken place when they were needed most. The 1990 MontrealProtocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer ran into conflicts overcommitments to ensure fair and favourable access for developing countries tochlorofluorocarbon (CFC) substitutes protected by intellectual propertyrights. The 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity aims to ensure fair andequitable use of genetic resources partly through technology cooperation, butits technological provisions have received little attention. The 1994 TRIPSagreement calls for technology transfer to the least developed countries, yetthat provision has scarcely been translated into action

Traditional Knowledge Protection and Promotion: One of the concerns of thedeveloping world is that the process of globalization is threatening the appropriation ofelements of the collective knowledge of societies into proprietary knowledge for thecommercial profit of a few. An urgent action is needed to protect these knowledgesystems through national policies and international understanding linked to IPR, whileproviding its development &proper use for the benefit of its holders. We need aparticular focus on community knowledge and community innovation. To encouragecommunities, it is necessary to scout, support, spawn and scale up the green grassroot innovation. Linking innovation, enterprise and investment is particularly important.New models and new thinking on IP will have to be envisioned to accomplish this.

There is a problem on the grant of such patents linked to the indigenous knowledge ofthe developing world that needs to be addressed jointly by the developing and thethe developing world that needs to be addressed jointly by the developing and thedeveloped world. We need to understand that there is a distinction between thepatents that are granted based on modern research and patents, which can becategorized as traditional knowledge based patents. A recent study by an Indianexpert group examined randomly selected 762 US patents, which were granted underA61K35/78 and other IPC classes, having a direct relationship with medicinal plants interms of their full text. Out of these patents, 374 patents were found to be based ontraditional knowledge not that all of them were wrong. The Governments in the thirdworld as well as members of public are rightly concerned about the grant of patentsfor non-original inventions in the traditional knowledge systems of the developingworld. At International level there is significant level of support for opposing thegrant of patents on non-original inventions. For example, more than a dozenorganizations from around the world got together to oppose the EPO Neem patent

To mitigate this problem, the Indian Government has taken steps to create aTraditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) on traditional medicinal plants andsystems (see box 6), which will also lead to a Traditional Knowledge ResourceClassification (TKRC). Linking this to internationally accepted International PatentClassification (IPC) System will mean building the bridge between the knowledgecontained in an old Sanskrit Shloka and the computer screen of a patent examiner inWashington! This will eliminate the problem of the grant of wrong patents since theIndian rights to that knowledge will be known to the examiner. In a further action,the examiner has decided to disallow seventeen of the twenty claim.

The third world faces several other challenges. Weak physical infrastructure in termsof inadequate IP offices, as explained above, is just one aspect; but inadequateof inadequate IP offices, as explained above, is just one aspect; but inadequateintellectual infrastructure, poor public awareness and lack of government policies thatare not in tune with the times are some other hurdles. Many R&D institutions andindustrial firms in the developing world have so far focussed on imitative research orreverse engineering, and have depended heavily on borrowed technology and,therefore, not created productive national IP portfolio. Apart from manpowerplanning for IPR protection setting up of patent training institutes and specializedcourses, a judicious management of patent information is needed is the need of thehour. This will require well-structured functioning of information creating centres,information documenters and retrievers, information users and informationtechnology experts

The Global Politics of Intellectual Property The Global Politics of Intellectual Property Rights Rights

WithWith thethe establishmentestablishment ofof thethe WorldWorld TradeTrade OrganisationOrganisation inin 19951995,, thethe TradeTradeRelatedRelated AspectsAspects ofof IntellectualIntellectual PropertyProperty RightsRights (TRIPs)(TRIPs) AgreementAgreementbecamebecame partpart ofof thethe ‘single‘single undertaking’undertaking’ thatthat allall membersmembers werewere requiredrequired totoaccedeaccede toto.. However,However, unlikeunlike mostmost ofof thethe restrest ofof thethe WTO’sWTO’s legallegalinstruments,instruments, whichwhich areare concernedconcerned withwith thethe mannermanner inin whichwhich state’sstate’stradingtrading activitiesactivities areare controlledcontrolled andand regulatedregulated atat thethe border,border, thethe TRIPsTRIPsagreementagreement requiredrequired WTOWTO membersmembers toto establishestablish domesticdomestic lawslaws thatthatproducedproduced specificspecific legallegal effectseffects asas regardsregards thethe ‘owners’‘owners’ ofof IPRsIPRs (patents,(patents,producedproduced specificspecific legallegal effectseffects asas regardsregards thethe ‘owners’‘owners’ ofof IPRsIPRs (patents,(patents,copyrights,copyrights, trademarks,trademarks, andand otherother intellectualintellectual properties)properties).. WhileWhile thetheTRIPsTRIPs agreementagreement diddid notnot mandatemandate howhow thesethese lawslaws shouldshould bebe framedframed theytheydiddid requirerequire themthem toto bringbring intointo existenceexistence certaincertain rightsrights andand obligationsobligations..ThisThis hashas ledled toto considerableconsiderable resourcesresources andand efforteffort beingbeing putput intointoprogrammesprogrammes ofof capacitycapacity buildingbuilding andand technicaltechnical assistance,assistance, ledled by,by, butbut notnotexclusivelyexclusively delivereddelivered byby thethe WorldWorld IntellectualIntellectual PropertyProperty OrganisationOrganisation(WIPO)(WIPO).. TheseThese programmesprogrammes havehave soughtsought toto establishestablish thethe westernwestern mindmind--setset andand legallegal processesprocesses ofof intellectualintellectual propertyproperty asas bestbest practicepractice aroundaroundthethe world,world, althoughalthough notnot alwaysalways easilyeasily oror completelycompletely.. Indeed,Indeed, lawslaws cannotcannotproperlyproperly functionfunction withoutwithout widespreadwidespread socialsocial acceptanceacceptance andand thetheestablishmentestablishment ofof legitimacy,legitimacy, andand thisthis hashas becomebecome aa majormajor problemproblem withwithintellectualintellectual propertyproperty;; itsits legitimacylegitimacy asas aa legallegal formform isis increasinglyincreasingly

Promoting the norms of protecting IPRs has proved to be a difficult task. Onone hand in fields as varied as access to the medicines needed to sustain thelife of those who have AIDS or HIV, the control and sale of music as welleducational publications, the control of the naming of foods and wine, thepayment for the tools needed to access the Internet, and the use ofgenetically modified material (in industry and agriculture), the ‘owners’ ofIPRs have sought to maintain and expand their rights to control, charge foruse, and prevent unauthorised access to their properties. On the other hand,as the social costs of these prohibitions (until payment is received) havebecome increasingly obvious: people with AIDS die because drugs remain soexpensive, although in the face of high profile campaigns in this area thingshave started to change; educators find they are unable to easily and cheaplyhave started to change; educators find they are unable to easily and cheaplyaccess the latest information for students; the costs of some softwareproducts greatly constrains the advantages of the information age for thepoor; and people across the world have started to understand why somegoods seem so expensive despite their low material production costs.One response to this programme of protection has been the expansion of(so-called) piracy by those who need to access knowledge and information,but who cannot afford it. The word ‘piracy’ is used by knowledge owners totry and draw a parallel with violent dispossession but this depiction isunjustified even if it has some political currency; most of those identified as‘pirates’,

whatever their morals seldom kill or use violence to obtain information andknowledge related products or services. We all know that the music industry hasfound that given the choice between paying for music or downloading it for free,many people prefer the latter, but on the other hand, the live music scene whichprovides direct payment from audiences to artists is flourishing. Some countries havesought legal ways of sidestepping the limitations on the production of needed drugsby using forms of compulsory licensing as another way of confronting the enforcedscarcity that IPRs produce. Across the world faced with protecting the rights ofholders of IPRs in the richest and most developed countries (mostly corporations whohold/own these rights) at the cost of the lives of their citizens, or at the very least atthe cost of their ability to utilise information and knowledge resources to enrich andimprove their lives, states and other organisations have questioned the claims putimprove their lives, states and other organisations have questioned the claims putforward by the supporters of intellectual property.The central claim made is that without the protection of the rights of creators,innovators and inventors, they would cease to provide the innovations required if thehuman race is to continue to prosper. It is only by constructing a scarcity (of use) forknowledge and information, by making it property, that proper and legitimateeconomic rewards can be established in a market society. The construction of scarcitycertainly changes the character of information and knowledge, which has few if anycosts of replication in its original state, but this scarcity is required if we are to ensureindividuals and companies receive the support and incentives they need to continueto innovate in a society where the market is the key organisational device. This claimis the foundation for the TRIPs agreement and global governance of IPR

it now seems that the TRIPs agreement rather than finally consolidating theexpanded rights linked to IPRs, actually represented the high-water mark from whichsubsequent political pressure and contest has forced a partial retreat, and thebeginning of a return to the sort of balance that has been achieved through most ofthe long, and at times contentious, history of protecting intellectual property.The TRIPs agreement and subsequent attempts to further expand the rights of IPRs’owners have served to demonstrate the social costs of such commodification, and assuch have prompted social forces, and community practices to respond in the face ofan over-reaching by one set of social interests. The new millennium’s politics of IPRswill be a story of compromise and re-organisation, rather than as some feared twodecades ago, a period of consolidation and expansion of the interests of a small IPR-owning elite. The TRIPs agreement was an anomaly and the relatively normal historyowning elite. The TRIPs agreement was an anomaly and the relatively normal historyof IPRs is returning.As people in the developed world argue over how long the law should give Disneythe exclusive right to Mickey Mouse, they need to remember the blessings ofintellectual property rights. Yes, intellectual property laws are imperfect andsometimes abused, but they have helped create the most prosperous, dynamic, andenjoyable society the world has ever known.Critics are right when they say that we need to do more than simply demand thatdeveloping nations respect the intellectual property rights of the developed world.But we will not help the developing world by discouraging it from doing what hashelped the developed world to prosper. If we truly have a heart for the poor, weshould help them build institutions that foster intellectual property THE END