Editing Business ethics (section)

===Intellectual property===
{{main|Intellectual property|Intellectual property rights}}
[[Intellectual property]] (IP) encompasses expressions of ideas, thoughts, codes, and information. "[[Intellectual property rights]]" (IPR) treat IP as a kind of [[real property]], subject to analogous protections, rather than as a reproducible good or service. Boldrin and Levine argue that "government does not ordinarily enforce monopolies for producers of other goods. This is because it is widely recognized that monopoly creates many social costs. Intellectual monopoly is no different in this respect. The question we address is whether it also creates social benefits commensurate with these social costs."<ref>{{harvnb|Boldrin|Levine|2008|p=10}}</ref>

International standards relating to intellectual property rights are enforced through [[Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights]]. In the US, IP other than [[copyright]]s is regulated by the [[United States Patent and Trademark Office]].

The [[US Constitution]] included the power to protect intellectual property, empowering the Federal government "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 name=steel>Steelman, A. Intellectual Property.{{harvnb|Hamowy|Kuznicki|Steelman|2008 |pp=249–250}}</ref> Boldrin and Levine see no value in such state-enforced monopolies stating, "we ordinarily think of innovative monopoly as an [[oxymoron]].<ref>Välimäki, M. (2005). The Rise of Open Source Licensing: A Challenge to the Use of Intellectual Property in the Software Industry. Helsinki: Turre Publishing {{ISBN|952-91-8769-6}}.</ref> Further, they comment, 'intellectual property' "is not like ordinary property at all, but constitutes a government grant of a costly and dangerous private monopoly over ideas. We show through theory and example that intellectual monopoly is not necessary for innovation and as a practical matter is damaging to growth, prosperity, and liberty".<ref name=steel/> Steelman defends patent monopolies, writing, "Consider prescription drugs, for instance. Such drugs have benefited millions of people, improving or extending their lives. Patent protection enables drug companies to recoup their development costs because for a specific period of time they have the sole right to manufacture and distribute the products they have invented."<ref>{{harvnb|Hamowy|Kuznicki|Steelman|2008|p=249}}</ref> The court cases by 39 pharmaceutical companies against [[South Africa]]'s 1997 Medicines and Related Substances Control Amendment Act, which intended to provide affordable HIV medicines has been cited as a harmful effect of patents.<ref>[http://academic.udayton.edu/Health/06world/africa01.htm The South African Medicines and Related Substances Control Amendment Bill and TRIPS] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110807080930/http://academic.udayton.edu/Health/06world/africa01.htm |date=2011-08-07 }}. Academic.udayton.edu. Retrieved on 2010-09-02.</ref><ref>Orsi, F., Camara, M., & Coriat, B. (2006). AIDS, TRIPS and 'TRIPS plus': the case for developing and less developed countries. {{harvnb|Andersen|2006|pp=70–108}}</ref><!-- Isn't the ethical issue not the existence of patents, but the misuse of them in the above circumstance? -->

One attack on IPR is moral rather than utilitarian, claiming that inventions are mostly a collective, cumulative, path dependent, social creation and therefore, no one person or firm should be able to monopolize them even for a limited period.<ref>{{harvnb|Andersen|2006|pp=109–147}}</ref> The opposing argument is that the benefits of innovation arrive sooner when patents encourage innovators and their investors to increase their commitments.

Roderick T. Long, a [[libertarianism|libertarian]] philosopher, argued:

{{Blockquote|Ethically, property rights of any kind have to be justified as extensions of the right of individuals to control their own lives. Thus any alleged property rights that conflict with this moral basis—like the "right" to own slaves—are invalidated. In my judgment, intellectual property rights also fail to pass this test. To enforce copyright laws and the like is to prevent people from making peaceful use of the information they possess. If you have acquired the information legitimately (say, by buying a book), then on what grounds can you be prevented from using it, reproducing it, trading it? Is this not a violation of the freedom of speech and press? It may be objected that the person who originated the information deserves ownership rights over it. But information is not a concrete thing an individual can control; it is universal, existing in other people's minds and other people's property, and over these, the originator has no legitimate sovereignty. You cannot own information without owning other people.<ref>Roderick Long in {{harvnb|Hamowy|Kuznicki|Steelman|2008|pp=249–250}}</ref>}}

Machlup concluded that patents do not have the intended effect of enhancing innovation.<ref>Machlup, F. (1958). An Economic Review of the Patent System. Washington D.C.: US Government Printing Office, p. 80. Expressing similar concern Fritz Machlup wrote, "It would be irresponsible, on the basis of our present knowledge of its economic consequences, to recommend instituting [a patent system]."</ref> Self-declared [[anarchist]] [[Pierre-Joseph Proudhon|Proudhon]], in his 1847 seminal work noted, "Monopoly is the natural opposite of competition," and continued, "Competition is the vital force which animates the collective being: to destroy it, if such a supposition were possible, would be to kill society."<ref>Proudhon (1847), [http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/proudhon/philosophy/ch06.htm Chapter Virgin Islands] in The Philosophy of Poverty.</ref><ref>The [[Sherman Antitrust Act|Sherman Act]] of 1890, was passed in America to stop rampant cartelization and monopolization in the American economy, followed by the [[Clayton Antitrust Act|Clayton Act]] of 1914, [[Federal Trade Commission Act]] of 1914,[https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/usc_sup_01_15_10_2_20_I.html] and the [[Robinson-Patman Act|Anti-Price Discrimination Act]] of 1936. In recent years, "[[antitrust]]" enforcement is alleged to have reduced competition. E.g., "antitrust is anticompetitive" writes Boudreaux Antitrust.{{harvnb|Hamowy|Kuznicki|Steelman|2008|pp=16}}</ref>

Mindeli and Pipiya argued that the [[knowledge economy]] is an economy of abundance<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Mindeli|first1=L. E.|last2=Pipiya|first2=L. K.|title=Conceptual aspects of formation of a knowledge-based economy|journal=Studies on Russian Economic Development|volume=18|page=314|year=2007|doi=10.1134/S1075700707030100|issue=3|s2cid=154185640}}</ref> because it relies on the "infinite potential" of knowledge and ideas rather than on the limited resources of natural resources, labor and capital. Allison envisioned an egalitarian distribution of knowledge.<ref>{{Cite book|author=R. Allison |date=30 December 2005| chapter= The Birth of Spiritual Economics|editor = L. Zsolnai | title= Spirituality and Ethics in Management|series=Issues in Business Ethics| volume= 19| pages= 61–74| location= New York| publisher= Springer |issn = 0925-6733 | isbn=978-1-4020-2365-1 }}</ref>  Kinsella claimed that IPR create artificial scarcity and reduce equality.<ref>Kinsella, S. (2008). [https://books.google.com/books?id=og0OkSwUnUQC&pg=PA32 Against Intellectual Property]. Alabama: Ludwig von Mises Institute. Kinsella writes, "Ideas are not naturally scarce. However, by recognizing a right in an ideal object, one creates scarcity where none existed before" p. 33.</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Andersen|2006|p=125}}</ref><ref>David, P. (2001, 22–23 January). Will Building 'Good Fences' Really Make 'Good Neighbours'. Paper presented at the Science, report to European Commission (DG-Research) STRATA-ETAN workshop on IPR aspects of internal collaborations, Brussels.</ref> Bouckaert wrote, "Natural scarcity is that which follows from the relationship between man and nature. Scarcity is natural when it is possible to conceive of it before any human, institutional, contractual arrangement. Artificial scarcity, on the other hand, is the outcome of such arrangements. Artificial scarcity can hardly serve as a justification for the legal framework that causes that scarcity. Such an argument would be completely circular. On the contrary, artificial scarcity itself needs a justification"<ref>Bouckaert, B (1990). "What is Property?" In "Symposium: Intellectual Property." Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy 13(3) p. 793</ref> Corporations fund much IP creation and can acquire IP they do not create,<ref>Macmillan, F. (2006). Public interest and the public domain in an era of corporate dominance. {{harvnb|Andersen|2006|pp=46–69}}</ref> to which Menon and others have objected.<ref>{{harvnb|Drahos|Braithwaite|2002}}</ref> Andersen claims that IPR has increasingly become an instrument in eroding public domain.<ref>{{harvnb|Andersen|2006|pp=63}}</ref>

Ethical and legal issues include [[patent infringement]], [[copyright infringement]], [[trademark infringement]], [[patent misuse|patent]] and [[copyright misuse]], [[submarine patent]]s, [[biological patent]]s, [[patent troll|patent]], [[copyright troll|copyright]] and [[trademark troll]]ing, [[employee raiding]] and monopolizing talent, [[bioprospecting]], [[biopiracy]] and [[industrial espionage]], [[digital rights management]].

Notable IP copyright cases include ''[[A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.]]'', ''[[Eldred v. Ashcroft]]'', and [[Disney]]'s lawsuit against the [[Air Pirates]].