Editing Intellectual property (section)

==Motivation and justification==
The main purpose of intellectual property law is to encourage the creation of a wide variety of intellectual goods for consumers.{{sfnp|Goldstein|Reese|2008|p=17}} To achieve this, the law gives people and businesses property rights to the information and intellectual goods they create, usually for a limited period of time. Because they can then profit from them, this gives economic incentive for their creation.{{sfnp|Goldstein|Reese|2008|p=17}} The intangible nature of intellectual property presents difficulties when compared with traditional property like land or goods. Unlike traditional property, intellectual property is indivisible—an unlimited number of people can "consume" an intellectual good without it being depleted. Additionally, investments in intellectual goods suffer from problems of appropriation—while a landowner can surround their land with a robust fence and hire armed guards to protect it, a producer of information or an intellectual good can usually do very little to stop their first buyer from replicating it and selling it at a lower price. Balancing rights so that they are strong enough to encourage the creation of information and intellectual goods but not so strong that they prevent their wide use is the primary focus of modern intellectual property law.{{sfnp|Goldstein|Reese|2008|pp=18–19}}

By exchanging limited exclusive rights for disclosure of inventions and creative works, society and the patentee/copyright owner mutually benefit, and an incentive is created for inventors and authors to create and disclose their work. Some commentators have noted that the objective of intellectual property legislators and those who support its implementation appears to be "absolute protection". "If some intellectual property is desirable because it encourages innovation, they reason, more is better. The thinking is that creators will not have sufficient incentive to invent unless they are legally entitled to capture the full social value of their inventions".<ref name="Mark A. Lemley" /> This absolute protection or full value view treats intellectual property as another type of "real" property, typically adopting its law and rhetoric. Other recent developments in intellectual property law, such as the [[Leahy–Smith America Invents Act|America Invents Act]], stress international harmonization. Recently there has also been much debate over the desirability of using intellectual property rights to protect cultural heritage, including intangible ones, as well as over risks of [[commodification]] derived from this possibility.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Farah|first1=Paolo Davide|last2=Tremolada|first2=Riccardo|title=Desirability of Commodification of Intangible Cultural Heritage: The Unsatisfying Role of Intellectual Property Rights|journal=Transnational Dispute Management|date=15 March 2014|volume=11|issue=2|ssrn=2472339}}</ref> The issue still remains open in legal scholarship.

===Financial incentive===
These exclusive rights allow intellectual property owners to benefit from the property they have created, providing a financial incentive for the creation of an investment in intellectual property, and, in case of patents, pay associated [[research and development]] costs.<ref name="MonoProf">{{cite web|url=http://www.uclan.ac.uk/schools/school_of_health/research_projects/files/health_innova_IPR_reform_report.pdf|title=Prudential Reasons for IPR Reform. A Report for Innova-P2|publisher=[[Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics|CAPPE]], [[University of Melbourne]]|date=May 2009 | access-date=17 July 2019|author=Doris Schroeder and [[Peter Singer]] | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110927130955/http://www.uclan.ac.uk/schools/school_of_health/research_projects/files/health_innova_IPR_reform_report.pdf | archive-date=27 September 2011 |url-status=dead}}</ref> In the United States Article&nbsp;I Section&nbsp;8 Clause&nbsp;8 of the Constitution, commonly called the Patent and Copyright Clause, reads; "The Congress shall have power 'To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.{{'"}}<ref>{{cite web|title=US Constitution |url=http://fairuse.stanford.edu/law/us-constitution/|website=Stanford Copyright and Fair Use Center |date=8 April 2013 |access-date=26 June 2017 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170826034742/http://fairuse.stanford.edu/law/us-constitution/ |archive-date=26 August 2017 }}</ref> "Some commentators, such as [[David K. Levine|David Levine]] and [[Michele Boldrin]], dispute this justification.<ref name='R000000'>{{cite book|last=Levine|first=David |author-link=David K. Levine|author2=Michele Boldrin |author2-link=Michele Boldrin|title=Against intellectual monopoly|publisher=Cambridge University Press|date=7 September 2008|url=http://www.dklevine.com/papers/imbookfinalall.pdf|isbn=978-0-521-87928-6 |url-status=live |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20240122162223/http://www.dklevine.com/papers/imbookfinalall.pdf |archive-date=22 January 2024 }}</ref>

In 2013, the [[United States Patent and Trademark Office]] approximated that the worth of intellectual property to the [[U.S. economy]] is more than US$5&nbsp;trillion and creates employment for an estimated 18&nbsp;million American people. The value of intellectual property is considered similarly high in other developed nations, such as those in the European Union.<ref>{{cite web|title=Why Chemotherapy That Costs $70,000 in the U.S. Costs $2,500 in India|url=https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/04/why-chemotherapy-that-costs-70-000-in-the-us-costs-2-500-in-india/274847/ |url-access=subscription |work=[[The Atlantic]]|publisher=The Atlantic Monthly Group |access-date=18 April 2013|last=Bollyky|first=Thomas|date=10 April 2013}}</ref> In the UK, IP has become a recognised asset class for use in [[Pension led funding|pension-led funding]] and other types of business finance. However, in 2013, the [[UK Intellectual Property Office]] stated: "There are millions of intangible business assets whose value is either not being leveraged at all, or only being leveraged inadvertently".<ref>{{cite book|last1=Brassell |last2=King|first1=Martin |first2=Kelvin|url=http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipresearch-bankingip.pdf|title=Banking on IP?|publisher=The Intellectual Property Office|year=2013|isbn=978-1-908908-86-5|location=Newport, Wales|page=15|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131114113720/http://www.ipo.gov.uk/ipresearch-bankingip.pdf|archive-date=14 November 2013}}</ref>

An October 2023 study released by [[Americans for the Arts]] (AFTA) found that "nonprofit arts and culture organizations and their audiences generated $151.7&nbsp;billion in economic activity—$73.3&nbsp;billion in spending by the organizations, which leveraged an additional $78.4&nbsp;billion in event-related spending by their audiences." This spending supported 2.6&nbsp;million jobs and generated $29.1&nbsp;billion in local, state and federal tax revenue." 224,000&nbsp;audience members and over 16,000&nbsp;organizations in all 50&nbsp;states and Puerto Rico were surveyed over an 18-month period to collect the data.<ref>{{cite web |title=Groundbreaking Arts & Economic Prosperity 6 Study Reveals Impact of the Arts on Communities Across America |url=https://www.americansforthearts.org/news-room/americans-for-the-arts-news/groundbreaking-arts-economic-prosperity-6-study-reveals-impact-of-the-arts-on-communities-across |website=Americans for the Arts |access-date=13 May 2024}}</ref>

===Economic growth===
The WIPO treaty and several related international agreements underline that the protection of intellectual property rights is essential to maintaining economic growth. The ''WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook'' gives two reasons for intellectual property laws: "One is to give statutory expression to the moral and economic rights of creators in their creations and the rights of the public in access to those creations. The second is to promote, as a deliberate act of Government policy, creativity and the dissemination and application of its results and to encourage fair trading which would contribute to economic and social development."<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/about-ip/en/iprm/pdf/ch1.pdf|page=3|title=The Concept of Intellectual Property |access-date=28 March 2019|work=[[WIPO]] Intellectual Property Handbook: Policy, Law and Use |archive-date=15 January 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130115120714/http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/about-ip/en/iprm/pdf/ch1.pdf |url-status=dead}}</ref>

The [[Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement]] (ACTA) states that "effective enforcement of intellectual property rights is critical to sustaining economic growth across all industries and globally".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/assets/pdfs/acta-crc_apr15-2011_eng.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120507132516/http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/assets/pdfs/acta-crc_apr15-2011_eng.pdf |archive-date=7 May 2012 |access-date=28 March 2019|title=Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement|pages=24|work=[[Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada]]}}</ref> Economists estimate that two-thirds of the value of large businesses in the United States can be traced to intangible assets.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.sonecon.com/docs/studies/0807_thevalueofip.pdf|title=Economic Effects of Intellectual Property-Intensive Manufacturing in the United States|first1=Robert J.|last1=Shapiro|first2=Nam D.|last2=Pham|work=Sonecon.com |access-date=17 August 2015|date=July 2007|first3=Alan S.|last3=Blinder|pages=29|publisher=[[World Growth]]}}</ref> "IP-intensive industries" are estimated to generate 72% more [[value added]] (price minus material cost) per employee than "non-IP-intensive industries".<ref name="Shapiro-Pham">{{cite web |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080216195041/http://www.the-value-of-ip.org/|title=Economic Effects of Intellectual Property-Intensive Manufacturing in the United States|first1=Robert|last1=Shapiro|first2=Nam|last2=Pham|date=July 2007 |access-date=28 March 2019 |archive-date=16 February 2008|url=http://www.the-value-of-ip.org/|first3=Alan S.|last3=Blinder|work=the-value-of-ip.org}}</ref>{{Dubious|date=July 2009}}<!--does advertising count as "value"--> A joint research project of the [[WIPO]] and the [[United Nations University]] measuring the impact of IP systems on six Asian countries found "a positive correlation between the strengthening of the IP system and subsequent economic growth."<ref name="WIPO: Economic Impact">{{cite web|url=http://www.wipo.int/portal/en/news/2007/article_0032.html|title=Measuring the Economic Impact of IP Systems|work=[[WIPO]]|date=19 September 2007 |access-date=28 March 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170521064049/http://www.wipo.int/portal/en/news/2007/article_0032.html |archive-date=21 May 2017}}</ref>

===Morality===
According to Article&nbsp;27 of the [[Universal Declaration of Human Rights]], "everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author".<ref>{{cite web|publisher=United Nations|title=The Universal Declaration of Human Rights|url=https://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml |access-date=25 October 2011}}</ref> Although the relationship between intellectual property and [[human rights]] is complex,<ref>{{cite web|author=WIPO – The World Intellectual Property Organization|title=Human Rights and Intellectual Property: An Overview|url=http://www.wipo.int/tk/en/hr/ |access-date=25 October 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111022125749/http://www.wipo.int/tk/en/hr/ |archive-date=22 October 2011}}</ref> there are moral arguments for intellectual property. The arguments that justify intellectual property fall into three major categories. Personality theorists believe intellectual property is an extension of an individual. Utilitarians believe that intellectual property stimulates social progress and pushes people to further innovation. Lockeans argue that intellectual property is justified based on deservedness and hard work.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/intellectual-property/|title=Intellectual Property|last=Moore|first=Adam|year=2014|website=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University}}</ref> Various moral justifications for private property can be used to argue in favor of the morality of intellectual property, such as:

# ''Natural Rights/Justice Argument'': this argument is based on Locke's idea that a person has a natural right over the labour and products which are produced by their body. Appropriating these products is viewed as unjust. Although Locke had never explicitly stated that natural right applied to products of the mind,<ref>Ronald V. Bettig. "Critical Perspectives on the History and Philosophy of Copyright" in Copyrighting Culture: The Political Economy of Intellectual Property, by Ronald V. Bettig. (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1996), 19–20</ref> it is possible to apply his argument to intellectual property rights, in which it would be unjust for people to misuse another's ideas.<ref>Richard T. De George, "14. Intellectual Property Rights", in The Oxford Handbook of Business Ethics, by George G. Brenkert and Tom L. Beauchamp, vol. 1, 1st ed. (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, n.d.), 415–416.</ref> Locke's argument for intellectual property is based upon the idea that laborers have the right to control that which they create. They argue that we own our bodies which are the laborers, this right of ownership extends to what we create. Thus, intellectual property ensures this right when it comes to production.
# ''Utilitarian-Pragmatic Argument'': according to this rationale, a society that protects private property is more effective and prosperous than societies that do not. Innovation and invention in 19th-century America has been attributed to the development of the [[patent]] system.<ref>Richard T. De George, "14. Intellectual Property Rights", in The Oxford Handbook of Business Ethics, by George G. Brenkert and Tom L. Beauchamp, vol. 1, 1st ed. (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, n.d.), 416.</ref> By providing innovators with "durable and tangible return on their investment of time, labor, and other resources", intellectual property rights seek to maximize social utility.<ref name="Spinello 2007">{{cite journal|last=Spinello|first=Richard A.|title=Intellectual property rights|journal=Library Hi Tech|date=January 2007|volume=25|issue=1|pages=12–22|doi=10.1108/07378830710735821|s2cid=5159054 }}<!--|access-date=November 3, 2011--></ref> The presumption is that they promote public welfare by encouraging the "creation, production, and distribution of intellectual works".<ref name="Spinello 2007" /> Utilitarians argue that without intellectual property there would be a lack of incentive to produce new ideas. Systems of protection such as Intellectual property optimize social utility.
# ''"Personality" Argument'': this argument is based on a quote from [[Hegel]]: "Every man has the right to turn his will upon a thing or make the thing an object of his will, that is to say, to set aside the mere thing and recreate it as his own".<ref>Richard T. De George, "14. Intellectual Property Rights", in The Oxford Handbook of Business Ethics, by George G. Brenkert and Tom L. Beauchamp, vol. 1, 1st ed. (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, n.d.), 417.</ref> European intellectual property law is shaped by this notion that ideas are an "extension of oneself and of one's personality".<ref>Richard T. De George, "14. Intellectual Property Rights", in The Oxford Handbook of Business Ethics, by George G. Brenkert and Tom L. Beauchamp, vol. 1, 1st ed. (Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, n.d.), 418.</ref> Personality theorists argue that by being a creator of something one is inherently at risk and vulnerable for having their ideas and designs stolen and/or altered. Intellectual property protects these moral claims that have to do with personality.

[[Lysander Spooner]] (1855) argues that "a man has a natural and absolute right—and if a natural and absolute, then necessarily a perpetual, right—of property, in the ideas, of which he is the discoverer or creator; that his right of property, in ideas, is intrinsically the same as, and stands on identically the same grounds with, his right of property in material things; that no distinction, of principle, exists between the two cases."<ref>The Law of Intellectual Property, Part 1 Chapter 1 Section 9 – Lysander Spooner</ref> Writer [[Ayn Rand]] argued in her book ''[[Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal]]'' that the protection of intellectual property is essentially a moral issue. The belief is that the human mind itself is the source of wealth and survival and that all property at its base is intellectual property. To violate intellectual property is therefore no different morally than violating other property rights which compromises the very processes of survival and therefore constitutes an immoral act.<ref>{{cite book|last=Rand|first=Ayn |author-link=Ayn Rand|title=Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal|url=https://archive.org/details/capitalismunknow00rand |url-access=registration|location=New York|publisher=Signet|year=1967|isbn=9780451147950 |orig-year=1966|edition=paperback 2nd}}</ref>