Justifications of Intellectual Property Rights: A Discussion on Locke and Hegelâ€™s Theories
Introduction to The Problem: At its core, Lockeâ€™s main argument is centralised in the role of labour, while Hegelâ€™s principal idea lies in oneâ€™s will, self-actualisation as well as personal expression. As both thinkers posit strong arguments in substantiating their views, discussions surrounding this topic may influence one to favour a particular theory over the other.
Purpose/Objective Study: This paper makes a modest attempt to discuss the justifications of intellectual property rights by focusing on two well-known philosophers, John Locke and G.W.F Hegel.
Design/Methodology/Approach: The research design is exploratory as this paper aspires to explore the basis for the grant of intellectual property rights from the lenses of both theories. Therefore, the research methodology is purely doctrinal and theoretical. The research approach is mainly based on library research, focusing on a reading and analysis of Locke and Hegelâ€™s published works, as well as other materials such as journal articles, commentaries, and textbooks.
Findings: This article contributes to the existing body of knowledge by highlighting that neither Locke nor Hegel could provide one-fit-for-all justifications of intellectual property rights. Nevertheless, it is worth stating that both philosophers do contribute thoughtful insights that reflect important values worthy of considerations and should never be undermined when framing policies and laws on intellectual property rights.
Paper Type: General Review
Aplin, T., & Davis, J. (2013). Intellectual Property Law: Text, Cases, and Materials (Second ed.). Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Chander, A., & Sunder, M. (2004). The Romance of the Public Domain. California Law Review, 92(5), 1331-1371.
Dusollier, S. (2011). (Re)introducing Formalities in Copyright as a Strategy for the Public Domain. In L. Guibault & C. Angelopoulos (Eds.), Open Content Licensing: From Theory to Practice. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press
Dutfield, G., & Suthersanen, U. (2008). Global Intellectual Property Law. United Kingdom: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Fisher, W. (2001). Theories of Intellectual Property. In S. Munzer (Ed.), New Essays in the Legal and Political Theory of Property. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.
Gordon, W. J. (1993). A Property Right in Self-Expression: Equality and Individualism in the Natural Law of Intellectual Property. The Yale Law Journal, 102(7), 1533-1609.
Hegel, G.W.F (2005). Philosophy of Right (S. W. Dyde, Trans.). New York, US: Dover Publications Inc. (Original work published 1820)
Hettinger, E. C. (1989). Justifying Intellectual Property. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 18(1), 31-52.
Himma, K. E. (2008). The Justification of Intellectual Property: Contemporary Philosophical Disputes. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59(7), 1143-1161.
Hughes, J. (1988). The Philosophy of Intellectual Property. Georgetown LJ 287, 77(II), 296-314.
Hume, D. (1978 [1739-40]). A Treatise of Human Nature (Second ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press
Koutras, N. (2019). From Property Right to Copyright: A Conceptual Approach and Justifications for the Emergence of Open Access. Erasmus Law Review, 12(2), 139-154.
Khaw, LT & Tay, P.S. (2017). Khaw on Copyright Law in Malaysia (Fourth ed.). Singapore: Lexis Nexis.
Lim, W. (2003). Towards Developing a Natural Law Jurisprudence in the US Patent System. Santa Clara Computer & High Technology Law Journal, 19(2), 561-625.
Locke, J. (1988). Two Treatises of Government (P. Laslett, Ed.). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1690)
Lu, B. (2013). The Orphan Works Copyright Issue: Suggestions for International Response. Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA, 60, 255-284.
Machlup, F., & Penrose, E. (1950). The Patent Controversy in the Nineteenth Century. The Journal of Economic History, 10(1), 1-29.
Moore, A. D. (2017). Intellectual Property and Information Control: Philosophic Foundations and Contemporary Issues. Routledge.
Mossoff, A. (2012). Saving Locke From Marx: The Labour Theory of Value in Intellectual Property Theory. Social Philosophy and Policy, 29(2), 283-317.
Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State, And Utopia. New York, USA: Basic Books.
World Intellectual Property Organisation (2004). Intellectual Property Handbook. Geneva, Switzerland: WIPO.
Plant, A. (1934). The Economic Theory Concerning Patents for Inventions. Economica, 1(1), 30-51.
Radin, M. J. (1982). Property and Personhood. Stanford Law Review, 34(5), 957-1015.
Richards, D. G. (2002). The Ideology of Intellectual Property Rights in the International Economy. Review of Social Economy, 60(4), 521-541.
Russel, D. (2004). Locke on Land and Labour. Philosophical Studies, 117(1-2), 303-325.
Simmons, A. J. (1998). Makersâ€™ Rights. The Journal of Ethics, 2(3), 197-218.
Spence, M. (2002). Justifying Copyright. In D. McClean & K. Schubert (Eds.), Dear Images: Art, Copyright, and Culture. Ridinghouse.
Tay, P.S (2013). Intellectual Property Law In Malaysia. Selangor, Malaysia: Thomson Reuters Malaysia Sdn Bhd.
Yoo, C. S. (2019). Rethinking Copyright and Personhood. University of Illinois Law Review(3), 1039-1078.
Zemer, L. (2006). The Making of A New Copyright Lockean. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 29(3), 891-947.
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2020 Jurnal Hukum Novelty
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Jurnal Hukum Novelty
ISSN 1412-6834 (Print)
ISSN 2550-0090 (Online)
This journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Jurnal Hukum Novelty is indexed by:
Jurnal Hukum Novelty is member of: