| [pending revision] | [accepted revision] |
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
→The term "intellectual property": Improved wording Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
Line 1:
{{Short description|Ownership of creative expressions and processes}}
{{redirect|Intellectual Property||}}
{{pp-pc|small=yes}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=November 2024}}
{{Intellectual property}}
[[File:Nike, McDonald’s copyright infringing sandals in China.jpg|thumb|Intellectual property laws such as trademark laws forbid the sale of infringing goods like these "[[McDonald's|McDnoald's]]"{{sic}} and "[[Nike, Inc.|NKIE]]" {{sic}} [[sandal]]s from [[China]].]]
'''Intellectual property''' ('''IP''') is a category of [[property]] that includes intangible creations of the human intellect.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://www.wipo.int/publications/en/details.jsp?id=4080|title=Understanding Industrial Property|publisher=World Intellectual Property Organization|doi=10.34667/tind.36288|access-date=6 December 2018|author1=World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)|year=2016|isbn=9789280525939}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/en/sheet/36/intellectual-industrial-and-commercial-property|title=Intellectual, industrial and commercial property {{!}} Fact Sheets on the European Union|publisher=European Parliament|access-date=6 December 2018}}</ref> There are many types of intellectual property, and some countries recognize more than others.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_450_2020.pdf|title=What are intellectual property rights?|website=World Trade Organization|access-date=23 May 2016}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://www.wipo.int/publications/en/details.jsp?id=4528|title=What is Intellectual Property?|publisher=World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)|doi=10.34667/tind.43765|access-date=23 October 2020|author1=World Intellectual Property Organization|series=WIPO publication|year=2021|isbn=9789280532210}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_895_2016.pdf|title=Understanding Industrial Property|publisher=World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)|access-date=7 December 2018}}</ref> The best-known types are [[patent]]s, [[copyright]]s, [[trademark]]s, and [[trade secret]]s. The modern concept of intellectual property developed in [[England]] in the 17th and 18th centuries. The term "intellectual property" began to be used in the 19th century, though it was not until the late 20th century that intellectual property became commonplace in most of the world's [[List of national legal systems|legal systems]].<ref name="Lemley 2005">"property as a common descriptor of the field probably traces to the foundation of the [[World Intellectual Property Organization]] (WIPO) by the United Nations." in [[Mark A. Lemley]], [https://law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/MarkALemleyPropertyIntell.pdf ''Property, Intellectual Property, and Free Riding''] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090226035349/http://www.utexas.edu/law/journals/tlr/abstracts/83/83Lemley.pdf |date=26 February 2009 }}, Texas Law Review, 2005, Vol. 83:1031, page 1033, footnote 4.</ref>
Supporters of intellectual property laws often describe their main purpose as encouraging the creation of a wide variety of intellectual goods.{{sfnp|Goldstein|Reese|2008|p=17}} To achieve this, the law gives people and businesses property rights to certain information and intellectual goods they create, usually for a limited period of time. Supporters argue that because IP laws allow people to protect their original ideas and prevent unauthorized copying, creators derive greater individual economic benefit from the information and intellectual goods they create, and thus have more economic incentives to create them in the first place.{{sfnp|Goldstein|Reese|2008|p=17}} Advocates of IP believe that these economic incentives and legal protections stimulate [[innovation]] and contribute to technological progress of certain kinds.<ref>{{Cite web |title=The Role of Intellectual Property Rights in Technology Transfer and Economic Growth: Theory and Evidence |url=https://www.unido.org/sites/default/files/2009-04/Role_of_intellectual_property_rights_in_technology_transfer_and_economic_growth_0.pdf |access-date=1 September 2022}}</ref>
The [[Intangible property|intangible]] nature of intellectual property presents difficulties when compared with traditional property like land or goods. Unlike traditional property, intellectual property is "indivisible", since an unlimited number of people can in theory "consume" an intellectual good without its being depleted.<ref>{{cite book|last=Moberly|first=Michael D.|title=Safeguarding Intangible Assets|date=2014|pages=33–35|publisher=Butterworth-Heinemann|isbn=978-0-12-800516-3|url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780128005163/safeguarding-intangible-assets}}</ref> Additionally, investments in intellectual goods suffer from appropriation problems: Landowners can surround their land with a robust fence and hire armed guards to protect it, but producers of information or literature can usually do 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 intellectual goods but not so strong that they prevent the goods' wide use is the primary focus of modern intellectual property law.{{sfnp|Goldstein|Reese|2008|pp=18–19}}
==History==
{{Main|History of copyright law|History of patent law}}
[[File:Statute of anne.jpg|thumb|The [[Statute of Anne]] came into force in 1710.]]
The [[Venetian Patent Statute]] of 19 March 1474, established by the [[Republic of Venice]], is usually considered to be the earliest codified patent system in the world.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Ladas |first=Stephen Pericles |title=Patents, trademarks, and related rights: national and international protection |date=1975 |publisher=Harvard University Press |isbn=978-0-674-65775-5 |___location=Cambridge, Mass}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |title=The industrial revolution in national context: Europe and the USA |date=1996 |publisher=Cambridge Univ. Press |isbn=978-0-521-40940-7 |editor-last=Teich |editor-first=Mikuláš |edition=1. publ |___location=Cambridge |editor-last2=Porter |editor-first2=Roy}}</ref> It states that patents might be granted for "any [[Novelty (patent)|new]] and ingenious device, not previously made", provided it was useful. By and large, these principles still remain the basic principles of current patent laws. The [[Statute of Monopolies]] (1624) and the British [[Statute of Anne]] (1710) are seen as the origins of the current [[patent law]] and [[copyright]] respectively,<ref>{{cite book|first1=Brad|last1=Sherman|first2=Lionel|last2=Bently|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5Whg1aNLr30C&q=%221710+Statute+of+Anne+and+the+1624+Statute+of+Monopolies%22 |title=The Making of Modern Intellectual Property Law: The British experience, 1760–1911|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=1999|isbn=978-0-521-56363-5|page=207}}</ref> firmly establishing the concept of intellectual property.
"Literary property" was the term predominantly used in the British legal debates of the 1760s and 1770s over the extent to which authors and publishers of works also had rights deriving from the common law of property (''[[Millar v Taylor]]'' (1769), ''[[Hinton v Donaldson]]'' (1773), ''[[Donaldson v Becket]]'' (1774)). The first known use of the term ''intellectual property'' dates to this time, when a piece published in the ''[[The Monthly Review (London)|Monthly Review]]'' in 1769 used the phrase.<ref>{{OED | intellectual property }} (Citing ''Monthly Review'', [https://books.google.com/books?id=cMsvAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA290 vol. 41. p. 290] (1769): "What a niggard this Doctor is of his own, and how profuse he is of other people's intellectual property.")</ref> The first clear example of modern usage goes back as early as 1808, when it was used as a heading title in a collection of essays.<ref>{{OED | intellectual property }} (Citing ''Medical Repository Of Original Essays And Intelligence'', [https://books.google.com/books?id=Ij9JAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA303 vol. 11. p. 303] (1808): "New-England Association in favour of Inventors and Discoverers, and particularly for the Protection of intellectual Property.")</ref>
The German equivalent was used with the founding of the [[North German Confederation]] whose [[constitution]] granted legislative power over the protection of intellectual property (''Schutz des geistigen Eigentums'') to the confederation.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20040706175038/http://www.verfassungen.de/de/de67-18/verfassung67-i.htm 'Article 4 No. 6 of the Constitution of 1867 (German)'] Hastings Law Journal, Vol. 52, p. 1255, 2001</ref> When the administrative secretariats established by the [[Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property|Paris Convention]] (1883) and the [[Berne Convention]] (1886) merged in 1893, they located in Berne, and also adopted the term intellectual property in their new combined title, the [[United International Bureaux for the Protection of Intellectual Property]].
The organization subsequently relocated to Geneva in 1960 and was succeeded in 1967 with the establishment of the [[World Intellectual Property Organization]] (WIPO) by [[WIPO Convention|treaty]] as an agency of the [[United Nations]]. According to legal scholar [[Mark Lemley]], it was only at this point that the term really began to be used in the United States (which had not been a party to the Berne Convention),<ref name="Lemley 2005" /> and it did not enter popular usage there until passage of the [[Bayh–Dole Act]] in 1980.<ref>Mark A. Lemley, [https://ssrn.com/abstract=582602 "Property, Intellectual Property, and Free Riding"] (Abstract); see Table 1: 4–5.</ref>
<blockquote>The history of patents does not begin with inventions, but rather with royal grants by [[Queen Elizabeth I]] (1558–1603) for monopoly privileges. Approximately 200 years after the end of Elizabeth's reign, however, a patent represents a legal [[right]] obtained by an inventor providing for exclusive control over the production and sale of his mechanical or scientific invention. demonstrating the evolution of patents from royal prerogative to common-law doctrine.<ref>Mossoff, A. [https://ssrn.com/abstract=863925 'Rethinking the Development of Patents: An Intellectual History, 1550–1800,'] Hastings Law Journal, Vol. 52, p. 1255, 2001</ref></blockquote>
The term can be found used in an October 1845 Massachusetts Circuit Court ruling in the patent case ''Davoll et al. v. Brown'', in which Justice Charles L. Woodbury wrote that "only in this way can we protect intellectual property, the labors of the mind, productions and interests are as much a man's own ... as the wheat he cultivates, or the flocks he rears."<ref>''1 Woodb. & M. 53, 3 West. L.J. 151, 7 F.Cas. 197, No. 3662, 2 Robb.Pat.Cas. 303, Merw.Pat.Inv. 414''</ref> The statement that "discoveries are ... property" goes back earlier. Section 1 of the French law of 1791 stated, "All new discoveries are the property of the author; to assure the inventor the property and temporary enjoyment of his discovery, there shall be delivered to him a patent for five, ten or fifteen years."<ref>{{cite web|title=Patent Archives – Ladas & Parry LLP|url=http://www.ladas.com/Patents/USPatentHistory.html|website=Ladas & Parry|publisher=Ladas.com|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130115040700/http://www.ladas.com/Patents/USPatentHistory.html|archive-date=15 January 2013|access-date=17 August 2015}}</ref> In Europe, [[France|French]] author A. Nion mentioned ''propriété intellectuelle'' in his ''Droits civils des auteurs, artistes et inventeurs'', published in 1846.
Until the 2000s, the purpose of intellectual property law was to give as little protection as possible in order to encourage [[innovation]]. Historically, legal protection was therefore granted only when necessary to encourage invention, and it was limited in time and scope.<ref name="Mark A. Lemley">{{cite web|title=Property, Intellectual Property, and Free Riding|url=http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/tlr83&div=30&g_sent=1&collection=journals|author=Mark A. Lemley|website=Heinonline|publisher=Heinonline.org|access-date=17 August 2015}}</ref> This is mainly as a result of knowledge being traditionally viewed as a public good, in order to allow its extensive dissemination and improvement.<ref>{{Cite news |title=The liquidity of innovation |newspaper=The Economist |url=https://www.economist.com/special-report/2005/10/22/the-liquidity-of-innovation |access-date=1 September 2022 |issn=0013-0613}}</ref>
The concept's origin can potentially be traced back further. [[Jewish law]] includes several considerations whose effects are similar to those of modern intellectual property laws, though the notion of intellectual creations as property does not seem to exist—notably the principle of Hasagat Ge'vul (unfair encroachment) was used to justify limited-term publisher (but not author) copyright in the 16th century.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/copyright1.html|title=Jewish Law – Articles ("Jewish Law and Copyright")|publisher=Jlaw.com |access-date=17 August 2015}}</ref> In 500 BCE, the government of the Greek state of [[Sybaris]] offered one year's patent "to all who should discover any new refinement in luxury".<ref>Charles Anthon, A Classical Dictionary: Containing an Account of the Principal Proper Names Mentioned in Ancient Authors, and Intended to Elucidate All the Important Points Connected with the Geography, History, Biography, Mythology, and Fine Arts of the Greek and Romans. Together with an Account of Coins, Weights, and Measures, with Tabular Values of the Same 1273 (Harper & Brothers 1841). See also "The first patent law was enacted in Sybaris, a city in the South of Italy, before the Roman domination; The law was mentioned by Atheneus, an ancient writer..." in Takenaka, Toshiko (2013). Intellectual Property in Common Law and Civil Law. Edward Elgar Publishing, p. 419. (chapter by Mario Franzosi).</ref>
According to Jean-Frédéric Morin, "the global intellectual property regime is currently in the midst of a paradigm shift".<ref>{{cite web|last=Morin|first=Jean-Frédéric|title=Paradigm shift in the global IP regime: The agency of academics, Review of International Political Economy, vol 21-2, 2014, p. 275|url=http://www.chaire-epi.ulaval.ca/sites/chaire-epi.ulaval.ca/files/publications/morin_2014_paradigm_shift_agency_of_academics.pdf}}</ref> Up until the early 2000s, the global IP regime used to be dominated by high standards of protection characteristic of IP laws from Europe or the United States, with a vision that uniform application of these standards over every country and to several fields with little consideration over social, cultural or environmental values or of the national level of economic development. Morin argues that "the emerging discourse of the global IP regime advocates for greater policy flexibility and greater access to knowledge, especially for developing countries". With the Development Agenda adopted by WIPO in 2007, a set of 45 recommendations to adjust WIPO's activities to the specific needs of developing countries and aim to reduce distortions especially on issues such as patients' access to medicines, Internet users' access to information, farmers' access to seeds, programmers' access to source codes or students' access to scientific articles.<ref>{{cite web|last=Morin|first=Jean-Frédéric|title=Paradigm shift in the global IP regime: The agency of academics, Review of International Political Economy, vol 21-2, 2014, p. 275|url=http://www.chaire-epi.ulaval.ca/sites/chaire-epi.ulaval.ca/files/publications/morin_2014_paradigm_shift_agency_of_academics.pdf}}</ref> However, this paradigm shift has not yet manifested itself in concrete legal reforms at the international level.<ref>{{cite web|last=Morin|first=Jean-Frédéric|title=Paradigm shift in the global IP regime: The agency of academics, Review of International Political Economy, vol 21-2, 2014, p. 275|url=http://www.chaire-epi.ulaval.ca/sites/chaire-epi.ulaval.ca/files/publications/morin_2014_paradigm_shift_agency_of_academics.pdf}}</ref>
Similarly, it is based on these background that the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement requires members of the WTO to set minimum standards of legal protection, but its objective to have a "one-fits-all" protection law on Intellectual Property has been viewed with controversies regarding differences in the development level of countries.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Roisah|first=Kholis|date=26 December 2017|title=Understanding Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement: From Hard and Soft Law Perspective|journal=Hasanuddin Law Review|volume=3|issue=3|pages=277–289|doi=10.20956/halrev.v3i3.1153|issn=2442-9899|doi-access=free}}</ref> Despite the controversy, the agreement has extensively incorporated intellectual property rights into the global trading system for the first time in 1995, and has prevailed as the most comprehensive agreement reached by the world.<ref>{{Cite web |title=WTO {{!}} intellectual property (TRIPS) - Responding to least developed countries' special needs in intellectual property |url=https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/ldc_e.htm |access-date=1 September 2022 |website=wto.org}}</ref>
==Rights==
Intellectual property rights include [[patent]]s, [[copyright]], [[industrial design right]]s, [[trademark]]s, [[plant variety rights]], [[trade dress]], [[geographical indication]]s,<ref>[http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/treaties/text.jsp?file_id=288514 Article 1(2) of the Paris Convention]: "The protection of industrial property has as its object patents, utility models, industrial designs, trademarks, service marks, trade names, indications of source or appellations of origin, and the repression of unfair competition."</ref> and in some jurisdictions [[trade secret]]s. There are also more specialized or derived varieties of ''[[sui generis]]'' exclusive rights, such as circuit design rights (called [[mask work]] rights in the US), [[supplementary protection certificate]]s for pharmaceutical products (after expiry of a patent protecting them), and [[database right]]s (in [[European law]]). The term "industrial property" is sometimes used to refer to a large subset of intellectual property rights including patents, trademarks, industrial designs, utility models, service marks, trade names, and geographical indications.<ref>{{cite web|title=Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property|url=http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/paris/index.html|website=Wipo|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140711050507/http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/paris/index.html|archive-date=11 July 2014|access-date=25 September 2018}}</ref>
===Patents===
{{Main|Patent}}
A patent is a form of right granted by the government to an inventor or their successor-in-title, giving the owner the right to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering to sell, and importing an [[invention]] for a limited period of time, in exchange for the public disclosure of the invention. An invention is a solution to a specific technological problem, which may be a product or a process, and generally has to fulfill three main requirements: it has to be [[novelty (patent)|new]], [[inventive step and non-obviousness|not obvious]] and there needs to be an [[industrial applicability]].<ref name="WIPO Handbook Ch 2">[http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/about-ip/en/iprm/pdf/ch2.pdf WIPO Intellectual Property Handbook: Policy, Law and Use. Chapter 2: Fields of Intellectual Property Protection] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130520221306/http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/about-ip/en/iprm/pdf/ch2.pdf |date=20 May 2013 }} WIPO 2008</ref>{{rp|17}} To enrich the body of knowledge and to stimulate innovation, it is an obligation for patent owners to disclose valuable information about their inventions to the public.<ref name="wipo.int">{{Cite web |title=What is Intellectual Property? |url=https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo%20pub%20450%202020.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201111222349/https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/intproperty/450/wipo_pub_450.pdf |archive-date=11 November 2020 |access-date=1 September 2022}}</ref>
===Copyright===
{{Main|Copyright}}
{{See also|Literary property}}
A copyright gives the creator of an original work [[exclusive right]]s to it, usually for a limited time. Copyright may apply to a wide range of creative, intellectual, or artistic forms, or "works".<ref name="Intellectual Property and Information Wealth: Copyright and related rights">{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=tgK9BzcF5WgC&q=statute+of+anne+copyright|title=Intellectual Property and Information Wealth: Copyright and related rights|page=346|author=Peter K, Yu|isbn=978-0-275-98883-8|year=2007|publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_909_2016.pdf|title=Understanding Copyright and Related Rights|author=World Intellectual Property Organisation|publisher=WIPO|page=8|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120606013942/http://www.wipo.int/freepublications/en/intproperty/909/wipo_pub_909.pdf|archive-date=6 June 2012|url-status=dead|access-date=1 August 2008}}</ref> Copyright does not cover ideas and information themselves, only the form or manner in which they are expressed.<ref name="Art and copyright">{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=h-XBqKIryaQC&q=idea-expression+dichotomy|title=Art and copyright|pages=48–49|author=Simon, Stokes|isbn=978-1-84113-225-9|year=2001|publisher=Hart Publishing}}</ref>
===Industrial design rights===
{{Main|Industrial design right}}
An industrial design right (sometimes called "design right" or ''design patent'') protects the visual design of objects that are not purely utilitarian. An industrial design consists of the creation of a shape, configuration or composition of pattern or color, or combination of pattern and color in three-dimensional form containing aesthetic value. An industrial design can be a two- or three-dimensional pattern used to produce a product, industrial commodity or handicraft. Generally speaking, it is what makes a product look appealing, and as such, it increases the commercial value of goods.<ref name="wipo.int"/>
===Plant varieties===
{{Main|Plant breeders' rights}}
Plant breeders' rights or plant variety rights are the rights to commercially use a [[Plant variety (law)|new variety of a plant]]. The variety must, amongst others, be novel and distinct and for registration the evaluation of propagating material of the variety is considered.
===Trademarks===
{{Main|Trademark}}
A trademark is a recognizable [[sign (semiotics)|sign]], [[design]] or [[idiom|expression]] that distinguishes a particular trader's [[goods|products]] or [[Service (economics)|services]] from similar products or services of other traders.<ref>{{cite web|title=Trademark, Patent, or Copyright?|url=http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/definitions.jsp|date=13 December 2015|work=[[United States Patent and Trademark Office]]|publisher=[[Department of Commerce]]|url-status=dead|access-date=23 November 2015|archive-date=13 December 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121213072252/http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/definitions.jsp}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/tm/t-about/t-whatis.htm|quote=A trade mark is a sign which can distinguish your goods and services from those of your competitors (you may refer to your trade mark as your "brand"). |access-date=22 December 2012|title=What is a trade mark (or brand)? |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120703105213/http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/tm/t-about/t-whatis.htm |archive-date=3 July 2012|work=[[Intellectual Property Office (United Kingdom)|Intellectual Property Office]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.patentamt.de/english/trade_marks/index.html|quote=Trade marks identify the goods and services of particular traders |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141129082624/http://www.patentamt.de/english/trade_marks/index.html |archive-date=29 November 2014|date=28 November 2014 |access-date=28 March 2019|work=[[Deutsches Patent- und Markenamt]]|title=Trade Marks}}</ref>
===Trade dress===
{{Main|Trade dress}}
Trade dress is a legal term of art that generally refers to characteristics of the visual and aesthetic appearance of a product or its packaging (or even the design of a building) that signify the source of the product to consumers.<ref>{{cite book|first1=Robert P.|last1=Merges|first2=Peter S.|last2=Menell|first3=Mark A.|last3=Lemley|title=Intellectual Property in the New Technological Age|edition=4th rev.|year=2007|___location=New York|publisher=Wolters Kluwer|isbn=978-0-7355-6989-8|page=29}}</ref>
===Trade secrets===
{{Main|Trade secret}}
A trade secret is a [[formula]], practice, process, [[design]], instrument, [[pattern]], or compilation of [[information]] which is not generally known or reasonably ascertainable, by which a [[business]] can obtain an economic advantage over competitors and customers.<ref>{{Cite web |title=trade secret |url=https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/trade_secret |access-date=2025-02-13 |website=LII / Legal Information Institute |language=en |quote="The UTSA defines a 'trade secret' as: Information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process that: Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; and Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy."}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=Trade secrets in the EU: What is protected? |url=https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/running-business/intellectual-property/trade-secrets/index_en.htm |access-date=2025-02-13 |website=Your Europe |language=en |quote="If you possess valuable information on technology or on any other aspect of your business, you can protect it as a trade secret if the following conditions are met: the information is not known either by the public at large or by the experts of the sector in question[,] the information has commercial value[, and] you have taken steps to keep the information secret: for example, you keep it in safe storage and you have signed non-disclosure agreements with anyone that has access to it or with whom you have shared the information"}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |title=WIPO Guide to Trade Secrets and Innovation - Part III: Basics of trade secret protection |url=https://www.wipo.int/web-publications/wipo-guide-to-trade-secrets-and-innovation/en/part-iii-basics-of-trade-secret-protection.html |access-date=2025-02-13 |website=WIPO Guide to Trade Secrets and Innovation |language=en |quote="In general, trade secrets are confidential information, which is: not generally known among, or accessible to, the persons in the relevant business sector (“secrecy”)[,] commercially valuable because it is secret, and subject to reasonable steps taken by the rightful holder of the information to keep it secret, such as the use of confidentiality agreements for business partners."}}</ref>
Trade secrets are protected by a combination of state and federal laws,{{Globalize inline|US|date=March 2025}} which prescribe a combination of civil and criminal penalties for trade secret "misappropriation"—the improper acquisition, disclosure, or use of a trade secret.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Zirpoli |first=Christopher |date=January 27, 2023 |title=An Introduction to Trade Secrets Law in the United States |url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12315 |archive-url= |access-date=March 4, 2025 |website=Congresstional Research Service}}</ref>
Examples of trade secrets include [[Coca-Cola]]'s formulas for its soft drinks and the [[WD-40 Company]]'s formula for its lubricant [[WD-40]].<ref>{{cite web |last1=Blank |first1=Jennifer |title=Trade secret protection in the United States |url=https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/OPIATradeSecret.pdf |website=U.S. Patent and Trademark Office |publisher=USPTO, Office of Policy and International Affairs |access-date=February 13, 2025}}</ref>
==Motivation and justification==
Intellectual property law is mainly intended to encourage the creation of various intellectual goods for consumers{{sfnp|Goldstein|Reese|2008|p=17}} by giving 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 creates economic incentives 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 rightsholders mutually benefit, and an incentive is created for inventors and authors to create and disclose their works. Some commentators have noted that the objective of intellectual property legislators and supporters of intellectual property laws appears to be "objective 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 the 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=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 I Section 8 Clause 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 trillion and creates employment for an estimated 18 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 billion in economic activity—$73.3 billion in spending by the organizations, which leveraged an additional $78.4 billion in event-related spending by their audiences." This spending supported 2.6 million jobs and generated $29.1 billion in local, state and federal tax revenue." 224,000 audience members and over 16,000 organizations in all 50 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=https://tind.wipo.int/record/24455|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> 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=https://www.wipo.int/web/wipo-magazine/articles/measuring-the-economic-impact-of-intellectual-property-systems-35845|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 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 theory|Personality theorist]]s believe intellectual property is an extension of an individual. [[Utilitarian]]s believe that intellectual property stimulates [[social progress]] and pushes people to further innovation. [[Lockean]]s 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:
* The [[natural rights]]/[[natural justice|justice]] 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 rights 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 the material they create. They argue that, as we own our bodies which are the laborers, this right of ownership extends to what we create. Intellectual property thus ensures this right with regard to production.
* According to the utilitarian-pragmatic argument, societies that protect [[private property]] are more effective and prosperous than societies that do not. Innovation and invention in [[19th century in the United States|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.
* The "personality" argument is based on a quote from [[Hegel]]: {{blockquote|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 the 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 of (and vulnerable to) having their ideas and designs stolen and/or altered. Intellectual property protects moral claims that pertain to personality.
[[Lysander Spooner]] (1855) argues that {{blockquote|[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. Intellectual property rights violations therefore do not differ morally from violations of other property rights which compromise the very processes of survival and therefore constitute immoral acts.<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>
==Infringement, misappropriation, and enforcement==
{{Main|Intellectual property infringement}}
Violation of intellectual property rights, called "infringement" with respect to patents, copyright, and trademarks, and "misappropriation" with respect to trade secrets, may be a breach of civil law or criminal law, depending on the type of intellectual property involved, jurisdiction, and the nature of the action. As of 2011, trade in counterfeit copyrighted and trademarked works was a $600 billion industry worldwide and accounted for 5{{nbnd}}7% of global trade.<ref name="Bitton">Miriam Bitton (2012) [https://web.archive.org/web/20121010073552/http://www.law.northwestern.edu/jclc/backissues/v102/n1/1021_67.Bitton.pdf Rethinking the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement's Criminal Copyright Enforcement Measures] The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 102(1):67–117</ref> During the [[Russian invasion of Ukraine]], IP has been a consideration in punishment of the aggressor through trade sanctions,<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Ranjan |first=Prabhash |date=17 July 2022 |title=Russia-Ukraine War and WTO's National Security Exception |url=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00157325221114586 |journal=Foreign Trade Review |volume=58 |issue=2 |language=en |pages=246–258 |doi=10.1177/00157325221114586 |s2cid=250654113 |issn=0015-7325|url-access=subscription }}</ref> has been proposed as a method to prevent future wars of aggression involving [[nuclear weapon]]s,<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Pearce |first=Joshua M. |date=2022 |title=Leveraging Intellectual Property to Prevent Nuclear War |journal=Safety |language=en |volume=8 |issue=3 |pages=55 |doi=10.3390/safety8030055 |issn=2313-576X|doi-access=free }}</ref> and has caused concern about stifling innovation by keeping patent information secret.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Matthews |first1=Duncan |last2=Ostapenko |first2=Hanna |date=31 January 2023 |title=The War in Ukraine Raises Questions About Patents for Secret Inventions |language=en |___location=Rochester, NY|doi=10.2139/ssrn.4344212 |ssrn=4344212 |s2cid=256534179 |periodical=Queen Mary Law Research Paper|doi-access=free }}</ref>
===Patent infringement===
{{Main|Patent infringement|}}
Patent infringement typically is caused by using or selling a patented invention without permission from the patent holder, i.e. from the patent owner. The scope of the patented invention or the extent of protection<ref>{{EPC Article|69}}</ref> is defined in the [[patent claim|claims]] of the granted patent. There is [[safe harbor (law)|safe harbor]] in many jurisdictions to use a patented invention for research. This safe harbor does not exist in the US unless the research is done for purely philosophical purposes, or to gather data to prepare an application for regulatory approval of a drug.<ref>Pradip K. Sahu and Shannon Mrksich, Ph.D. [https://web.archive.org/web/20130207023621/http://www.brinkshofer.com/resource_center/85-the-hatch-waxman-act-research-exempt-from-patent-infringement The Hatch-Waxman Act: When Is Research Exempt from Patent Infringement?] ABA-IPL Newsletter 22(4) Summer 2004</ref> In general, patent infringement cases are handled under civil law (e.g., in the United States) but several jurisdictions incorporate infringement in criminal law also (for example, Argentina, China, France, Japan, Russia, South Korea).<ref>Matthew L. Cutler (2008) [http://blog.hdp.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/60549706_1.PDF International Patent Litigation Survey: A Survey of the Characteristics of Patent Litigation in 17 International Jurisdictions] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130922062127/http://blog.hdp.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/60549706_1.PDF |date=22 September 2013 }}</ref>
===Copyright infringement===
{{Main|Copyright infringement}}
Copyright infringement is reproducing, distributing, displaying or performing a [[creative work|work]], or to make [[derivative work]]s, without permission from the copyright holder, which is typically a publisher or other business representing or assigned by the work's creator. It is often called "piracy".<ref name="Panethiere_p2">{{cite web|title=The Persistence of Piracy: The Consequences for Creativity, for Culture, and for Sustainable Development|url=http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/files/28696/11513329261panethiere_en.pdf/panethiere_en.pdf|last=Panethiere|first=Darrell|date=July–September 2005|website=portal.unesco|publisher=UNESCO e-Copyright Bulletin|page=2|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20080816063513/http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/files/28696/11513329261panethiere_en.pdf/panethiere_en.pdf|archive-date=16 August 2008}}</ref> In the United States, while copyright is created the instant a work is fixed, generally the copyright holder can only get money damages if the owner registers the copyright.<ref>{{Cite web |date=September 2021 |title=Copyright Basics |url=https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf |website=U.S. Copyright Office}}</ref> Enforcement of copyright is generally the responsibility of the copyright holder.<ref name=Xuan_p211>{{cite book|last=Correa|first=Carlos Maria|author2=Li, Xuan|title=Intellectual property enforcement: international perspectives|publisher=Edward Elgar Publishing|year=2009|page=211|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=bN3o1uwpKF4C&q=copyright+infringement+international+acta|isbn=978-1-84844-663-2}}</ref> The [[Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement|ACTA trade agreement]], signed in May 2011 by the United States, Japan, Switzerland, and the EU, and which has not entered into force, requires that its parties add criminal penalties, including incarceration and fines, for copyright and trademark infringement, and obligated the parties to actively police for infringement.<ref name=Bitton /><ref name=Musa>Irina D. Manta Spring 2011 [http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v24/24HarvJLTech469.pdf The Puzzle of Criminal Sanctions for Intellectual Property Infringement] Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 24(2):469–518</ref> There are [[limitations and exceptions to copyright]], allowing limited use of copyrighted works, which does not constitute infringement. Examples of such doctrines are the [[fair use]] and [[fair dealing]] doctrine.
===Trademark infringement===
{{Main|Trademark infringement}}
Trademark infringement occurs when one party uses a trademark that is identical or [[confusing similarity|confusingly similar]] to a trademark owned by another party, in relation to products or services which are identical or similar to the products or services of the other party. In many countries, a trademark receives protection without registration, but registering a trademark provides legal advantages for enforcement. Infringement can be addressed by civil litigation and, in several jurisdictions, under criminal law.<ref name=Bitton /><ref name=Musa />
===Trade secret misappropriation===
{{Main|Trade secret#Misappropriation}}
Trade secret misappropriation is different from violations of other intellectual property laws, since by definition trade secrets are secret, while patents and registered copyrights and trademarks are publicly available. In the United States, trade secrets are protected under state law, and states have nearly universally adopted the [[Uniform Trade Secrets Act]]. The United States also has federal law in the form of the [[Economic Espionage Act of 1996]] ({{usc|18|1831|1839}}), which makes the theft or misappropriation of a trade secret a federal crime. This law contains two provisions criminalizing two sorts of activity. The first, {{uscsub|18|1831|a}}, criminalizes the theft of trade secrets to benefit foreign powers. The second, {{usc|18|1832}}, criminalizes their theft for commercial or economic purposes. The statutory penalties are different for the two offenses. In [[Commonwealth of Nations|Commonwealth]] [[common law]] jurisdictions, confidentiality and trade secrets are regarded as an [[Equity (law)|equitable]] right rather than a [[property]] right but penalties for theft are roughly the same as in the United States.{{citation needed|date=July 2015}}
== International framework ==
The international governance of IP involves multiple overlapping institutions and forums.<ref name=":4" />{{Rp|page=25}} There is no overall rule-making body.<ref name=":4" />{{Rp|page=25}} One of the most important aspects of global IP governance is the [[TRIPS Agreement|Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights]] (TRIPS).<ref name=":4" />{{Rp|page=7}} The TRIPS Agreement sets minimum international standards for IP which every member of the [[World Trade Organization]] (WTO) must comply with.<ref name=":4" />{{Rp|page=7}} A member's non-compliance with the TRIPS Agreement may be grounds for suit under the [[Dispute settlement in the World Trade Organization|WTO's Dispute Settlement Mechanism]].<ref name=":4" />{{Rp|page=7}} Bilateral and multi-lateral agreements often establish IP requirements above the requirements of the TRIPS Agreement.<ref name=":4" />{{Rp|page=7}}
==Criticisms==
{{Further|Criticism of patents|Opposition to copyright}}
{{split|Criticism of intellectual property|date=June 2021|discuss=Talk:Intellectual property#Split proposal}}
[[File:Pro piracy demonstration.jpg|thumb|Demonstration in [[Sweden]] in support of [[file sharing]], 2006]]
[[File:GlamCamp NY Kippelboy nina Paley (2).JPG|thumb|"Copying is not theft!" badge with a character resembling [[Mickey Mouse]] in reference to the "in popular culture" rationale behind the [[Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act]] of 1998]]
===The term "intellectual property"===
Criticism of the term ''intellectual property'' ranges from discussing its vagueness and abstract overreach to direct contention to the semantic validity of using words like ''property'' and ''rights'' in fashions that contradict practice and law. Critics argue that this term specially serves the doctrinal agenda of parties opposing reform in the public interest or otherwise abusing related legislations, and that it disallows intelligent discussion about specific and often unrelated aspects of copyright, patents, trademarks, etc.<ref>{{cite web|title=If Intellectual Property Is Neither Intellectual, Nor Property, What Is It?|url=https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080306/003240458/if-intellectual-property-is-neither-intellectual-property-what-is-it.shtml|author1=Mike Masnick|author-link1=Mike Masnick|date=6 March 2008|website=techdirt.com|publisher=[[Techdirt]]|access-date=17 August 2014}}</ref>
[[Free Software Foundation]] founder [[Richard Stallman]] argues that, although the term ''intellectual property'' is in wide use, it should be rejected altogether, because it "systematically distorts and confuses these issues, and its use was and is promoted by those who gain from this confusion". He claims that the term "operates as a catch-all to lump together disparate laws [which] originated separately, evolved differently, cover different activities, have different rules, and raise different public policy issues" and that it creates a bias by confusing these monopolies with ownership of limited physical things, likening them to property rights.<ref name="mirage">{{cite web|title=Did You Say "Intellectual Property"? It's a Seductive Mirage|url=https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.en.html|first=Richard M.|last=Stallman|author-link=Richard M. Stallman|website=GNU |publisher=Free Software Foundation, Inc.|access-date=28 March 2008}}</ref> Stallman advocates referring to copyrights, patents and trademarks in the singular and warns against abstracting disparate laws into a collective term. He argues that, "to avoid spreading unnecessary bias and confusion, it is best to adopt a firm policy not to speak or even think in terms of 'intellectual property'."<ref name="words-to-avoid">{{cite web|title=Words to Avoid (or Use with Care) Because They Are Loaded or Confusing|url=https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.en.html#IntellectualProperty|last=Stallman|first=Richard M.|author-link=Richard M. Stallman|website=gnu|publisher=The GNU Project|access-date=1 December 2016}}</ref>
Similarly, economists [[Michele Boldrin|Boldrin]] and [[David K. Levine|Levine]] prefer to use the term "intellectual monopoly" as a more appropriate and clear definition of the concept, which, they argue, is very dissimilar from property rights.<ref>Boldrin, Michele, and David K. Levine. [http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm Against intellectual monopoly] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171206094352/http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/against.htm |date=6 December 2017 }}. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.</ref> They further argued that "stronger patents do little or nothing to encourage innovation", mainly explained by its tendency to create market monopolies, thereby restricting further innovations and technology transfer.<ref>{{Cite web |title=A Model of Discovery |url=http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/aea_pp09.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170809070301/http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/papers/aea_pp09.pdf |archive-date=9 August 2017 |access-date=1 September 2022}}</ref>
On the assumption that intellectual property rights are actual rights, Stallman says that this claim does not live to the historical intentions behind these laws, which in the case of copyright served as a censorship system, and later on, a regulatory model for the printing press that may have benefited authors incidentally, but never interfered with the freedom of average readers.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://web.mit.edu/comm-forum/forums/copyright.html|title=copyright and globalization in the age of computer networks|date=19 April 2001 |access-date=21 October 2015|website=mit.edu|last=Stallman|first=Richard |author-link=Richard Stallman |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150302072256/http://web.mit.edu/comm-forum/forums/copyright.html |archive-date=2 March 2015}}</ref> Still referring to copyright, he cites legal literature such as the United States Constitution and [[case law]] to demonstrate that the law is meant to be an optional and experimental bargain to temporarily trade property rights and free speech for public, not private, benefits in the form of increased artistic production and knowledge. He mentions that "if copyright were a natural right nothing could justify terminating this right after a certain period of time".<ref>{{Cite web|title=Misinterpreting Copyright|url=https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html|last=Stallman|first=Richard|author-link=Richard Stallman|website=gnu.org|access-date=21 October 2015}}</ref>
Law professor, writer and political activist [[Lawrence Lessig]], along with many other [[copyleft]] and free software activists, has criticized the implied analogy with physical property (like land or an automobile). They argue such an analogy fails because physical property is generally rivalrous while intellectual works are non-rivalrous (that is, if one makes a copy of a work, the enjoyment of the copy does not prevent enjoyment of the original).<ref name="lessigperpetual" /><ref>{{cite news|title="Intellectual property" is a silly euphemism|last=Doctorow|first=Cory |author-link=Cory Doctorow|newspaper=[[The Guardian]]|url=https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2008/feb/21/intellectual.property|date=21 February 2008 |access-date=23 February 2008}}</ref> A related argument is that unlike the situation with tangible property, there is [[artificial scarcity|no natural scarcity]] of a particular idea or information: once it exists at all, it can be re-used and duplicated indefinitely without such re-use diminishing the original. [[Stephan Kinsella]] has objected to ''intellectual property'' on the grounds that the word "property" implies scarcity, which is not applicable to ideas.<ref>Stephan Kinsella (2001) [https://cdn.mises.org/15_2_1.pdf Against Intellectual Property] Journal of Libertarian Studies 15(2):1–53</ref>
Entrepreneur and politician [[Rick Falkvinge]] and [[hacker]] Alexandre Oliva have independently compared George Orwell's fictional dialect [[Newspeak]] to the terminology used by intellectual property supporters as a linguistic weapon to shape public opinion regarding copyright debate and [[digital rights management]] (DRM).<ref>{{cite web|title=Language Matters: Framing The Copyright Monopoly So We Can Keep Our Liberties|url=http://torrentfreak.com/language-matters-framing-the-copyright-monopoly-so-we-can-keep-our-liberties-130714/|author1=Rick Falkvinge|author-link1=Rick Falkvinge|date=14 July 2013|website=torrentfreak.com|url-status=dead|access-date=17 August 2014|archive-date=4 June 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140604193406/http://torrentfreak.com/language-matters-framing-the-copyright-monopoly-so-we-can-keep-our-liberties-130714/}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|author1=Alexandre Oliva |author-link1=Alexandre Oliva|title=1984+30: GNU speech to defeat e-newspeak|url=http://www.fsfla.org/~lxoliva/fsfla/1984+30.en.pdf |access-date=17 August 2014}}</ref>
====Alternative terms====
In [[civil law (legal system)|civil law]] jurisdictions, intellectual property has often been referred to as intellectual rights, traditionally a somewhat broader concept that has included [[moral rights]] and other personal protections that cannot be bought or sold. Use of the term ''intellectual rights'' has declined since the early 1980s, as use of the term ''intellectual property'' has increased. Alternative terms ''monopolies on information'' and ''intellectual monopoly'' have emerged among those who argue against the ''property'' or ''intellect'' or ''rights'' assumptions, notably [[Richard Stallman]]. The [[backronym]]s ''intellectual protectionism'' and ''intellectual poverty'',<ref>Stephan Kinsella for Ludwig von Mises Institute blog, 6 January 2011. [https://web.archive.org/web/20120709151150/http://archive.mises.org/15240/intellectual-poverty/ Intellectual Poverty]</ref> whose initials are also ''IP'', have also found supporters, especially among those who have used the backronym ''[[Opposition to digital rights management|digital restrictions management]]''.<ref>[http://drm.info/ Official drm.info site] run by the Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE)</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=What is DRM?|url=http://www.defectivebydesign.org/what_is_drm_digital_restrictions_management|website=defectivebydesign|publisher=Defective by Design|access-date=17 August 2015}}</ref> The argument that an intellectual property right should (in the interests of better balancing of relevant private and public interests) be termed an ''intellectual monopoly privilege'' (IMP) has been advanced by several academics including Birgitte Andersen<ref>Birgitte Andersen. "'Intellectual Property Right' Or 'Intellectual Monopoly Privilege: Which One Should Patent Analysts Focus On?" CONFERENCIA INTERNACIONAL SOBRE SISTEMAS DE INOVAÇÃO E ESTRATÉGIAS DE DESENVOLVIMENTO PARA O TERCEIRO MILÊNIO. Nov 2003</ref> and [[Thomas Faunce]].<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Martin|first1=G|last2=Sorenson|first2=C|last3=Faunce|first3=TA|year=2007|title=Balancing intellectual monopoly privileges and the need for essential medicines|journal=Globalization and Health|volume=3|issue=1|page=4|doi=10.1186/1744-8603-3-4|quote=Balancing the need to protect the intellectual property rights (IPRs) (which the third author considers are more accurately described as intellectual monopoly privileges (IMPs)) of pharmaceutical companies, with the need to ensure access to essential medicines in developing countries is one of the most pressing challenges facing international policy makers today.|pmid=17565684|pmc=1904211|doi-access=free}}</ref>
===Objections to overly broad intellectual property laws===
[[File:Definition of Free Cultural Works logo notext.svg|thumb|The [[free-culture movement]] champions the production of [[Free content|content]] [[Information wants to be free|that bears little or no restrictions]].]]
Some critics of intellectual property, such as those in the [[free-culture movement]], point at intellectual monopolies as harming health (in the case of [[pharmaceutical patent]]s), preventing progress, and benefiting concentrated interests to the detriment of the masses,<ref>{{cite web|first=Birgitte |last=Andersen |url=https://redesist.ie.ufrj.br/globelics/pdfs/GLOBELICS_0050_Andersen.pdf |title='Intellectual Property Right' Or 'Intellectual Monopoly Privilege': Which One Should Patent Analysts Focus On? |website=RedeSist.ie.ufrj.br |___location=Conferência Internacional Sobre Sistemas De Inovação E Estratégias De Desenvolvimento Para O Terceiro Milênio |date=November 2003}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last1=Martin|first1=G|last2=Sorenson|first2=C|last3=Faunce|first3=TA|year=2007|title=Editorial: Balancing the need to protect the intellectual property rights (IPRs)|journal=Globalization and Health|volume=3|issue=1|page=4|doi=10.1186/1744-8603-3-4|pmid=17565684|pmc=1904211|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>On patents – {{cite web|title=Protecting Freedom In The Patent System: The Public Patent Foundation's Mission and Activities|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0chez_Jf5A|author=Daniel B. Ravicher|date=6 August 2008|website=YouTube}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Authors@Google: Joseph Stiglitz – Making Globalization Work.|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UzhD7KVs-R4#t=16m05s| archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211028/UzhD7KVs-R4| archive-date=28 October 2021|last=Stiglitz|first=Joseph|author-link=Joseph Stiglitz|date=13 October 2006|website=YouTube}}{{cbignore}}</ref> and argue that ever-expansive monopolies in the form of [[copyright extension]]s, [[software patent]]s, and [[business method patent]]s harm the public interest. More recently, scientists and engineers are expressing concern that [[patent thicket]]s are undermining technological development even in high-tech fields like [[nanotechnology]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://arstechnica.com/science/2012/11/stallmans-got-company-researcher-wants-nanotech-patent-moratorium/ |title=Stallman's got company: Researcher wants nanotech patent moratorium |last=Timmer |first=John |date=21 November 2012 |website=[[Ars Technica]]}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-11/23/professor-seeks-nanotech-patent-moratorium |title=Freeze on nanotechnology patents proposed to help grow the sector |last=Timmer |first=John |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140302113908/http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-11/23/professor-seeks-nanotech-patent-moratorium |archive-date=2 March 2014 |url-status=dead |website=Wired.co.uk |date=23 November 2012}}</ref> [[Petra Moser]] has asserted that historical analysis suggests that intellectual property laws may harm innovation:<blockquote>Overall, the weight of the existing historical evidence suggests that patent policies, which grant strong intellectual property rights to early generations of inventors, may discourage innovation. On the contrary, policies that encourage the diffusion of ideas and modify patent laws to facilitate entry and encourage competition may be an effective mechanism to encourage innovation.<ref>Moser, Petra. 2013. "Patents and Innovation: Evidence from Economic History." Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(1): 23–44.</ref></blockquote>
In support of that argument, [[Jörg Baten]], Nicola Bianchi and Petra Moser<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Baten|first1=Jörg|last2=Bianchi|first2=Nicola|last3=Moser|first3=Petra|title=Compulsory licensing and innovation–Historical evidence from German patents after WWI|journal=Journal of Development Economics|year=2017|volume=126|pages=231–242|doi=10.1016/j.jdeveco.2017.01.002|doi-access=free}}</ref> find historical evidence that especially compulsory licensing—which allows governments to license patents without the consent of patent-owners—encouraged invention in Germany in the early 20th century by increasing the threat of competition in fields with low pre-existing levels of competition. [[Peter Drahos]] notes, "Property rights confer authority over resources. When authority is granted to the few over resources on which the many depend, the few gain power over the goals of the many. This has consequences for both political and economic freedom within a society."<ref>{{cite book|first1=Peter |last1=Drahos |first2=John |last2=Braithwaite |url=http://www.anu.edu.au/fellows/pdrahos/books/Information%20Feudalism.pdf |title=Information Feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge Economy? |publisher=Earthscan Publications |year=2002 |website=anu.edu.au |isbn=978-1-85383-922-1 |archive-date=14 August 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080814200637/http://www.anu.edu.au/fellows/pdrahos/books/Information%20Feudalism.pdf |url-status=dead}}</ref>{{rp|13}}
The [[World Intellectual Property Organization]] (WIPO) recognizes that conflicts may exist between respecting and implementing current intellectual property systems and other human rights.<ref>{{cite web|title=Human Rights and Intellectual Property: An Overview|url=http://www.wipo.int/tk/en/hr/|author=WIPO – World Intellectual Property Organization|website=wipo|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111022125749/http://www.wipo.int/tk/en/hr/|archive-date=22 October 2011|access-date=25 October 2011}}</ref> In 2001 the UN [[Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights]] issued a document called "Human rights and intellectual property" that argued that intellectual property tends to be governed by economic goals when it should be viewed primarily as a social product; in order to serve human well-being, intellectual property systems must respect and conform to human rights laws. According to the Committee, when systems fail to do so, they risk infringing upon the human right to food and health, and to cultural participation and scientific benefits.<ref>{{cite web|author=UN Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights |___location=Geneva |website=www2.ohchr.org |url=http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cescr/docs/statements/E.C.12.2001.15HRIntel-property.pdf |title=Human rights and intellectual property |date=14 December 2001 |id=E/C.12/2001/15}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Chapman|first=Audrey R.|title=The Human Rights Implications of Intellectual Property Protection|journal=Journal of International Economic Law|date=December 2002|volume=5|issue=4|pages=861–882|doi=10.1093/jiel/5.4.861}}</ref> In 2004, the General Assembly of WIPO adopted ''The Geneva Declaration on the Future of the World Intellectual Property Organization'' which argues that WIPO should "focus more on the needs of developing countries, and to view IP as one of many tools for development—not as an end in itself".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cptech.org/ip/wipo/genevadeclaration.html |title=Geneva Declaration on the Future of the World Intellectual Property Organization |website=CPTech.org}}</ref>
Ethical problems are most pertinent when socially valuable goods like life-saving medicines are given IP protection. While the application of IP rights can allow companies to charge higher than the marginal cost of production in order to recoup the costs of research and development, the price may exclude from the market anyone who cannot afford the cost of the product, in this case a life-saving drug.<ref name=Sonderholm>{{Cite journal|doi=10.1111/j.1747-9991.2010.00358.x|title=Ethical Issues Surrounding Intellectual Property Rights|journal=Philosophy Compass|volume=5|issue=12|pages=1107–1115|year=2010|last=Sonderholm|first=Jorn}}</ref> "An IPR driven regime is therefore not a regime that is conductive to the investment of R&D of products that are socially valuable to predominately poor populations".<ref name=Sonderholm />{{rp|1108–9}} [[Libertarian]]s have [[Libertarian perspectives on intellectual property|differing views on intellectual property]].<ref>{{cite web |last=D'Amato |first=David |title=Libertarian Views of Intellectual Property: Rothbard, Tucker, Spooner, and Rand |url=https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/libertarian-views-intellectual-property-rothbard-tucker-spooner-rand |website=Libertarianism.org |publisher=Cato Institute |access-date=2 January 2023}}</ref> [[Stephan Kinsella]], an [[anarcho-capitalist]] on the [[right-wing of libertarianism]],<ref>{{cite web|first=Stephan |last=Kinsella |url=https://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/01/stephan-kinsella/what-it-means-to-be-an-anarcho-capitalist/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180415041048/https://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/01/stephan-kinsella/what-it-means-to-be-an-anarcho-capitalist/ |title=What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist |website=LewRockwell.com |date=20 January 2004 |archive-date=15 April 2018 |access-date=4 August 2018}}</ref> argues against intellectual property because allowing property rights in ideas and information creates [[artificial scarcity]] and infringes on the right to own tangible property. Kinsella uses the following scenario to argue this point:<blockquote>[I]magine the time when men lived in caves. One bright guy—let's call him Galt-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 a house, according to IP advocates, would have a right to prevent others from building houses on their own land, with their own logs, or to charge them a fee if they do build houses. It is plain that the innovator in these examples becomes a partial owner of the tangible property (e.g., land and logs) of others, due not to first occupation and use of that property (for it is already owned), but due to his coming up with an idea. Clearly, this rule flies in the face of the first-user homesteading rule, arbitrarily and groundlessly overriding the very homesteading rule that is at the foundation of all property rights.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://mises.org/books/against.pdf |url-status=usurped |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080730030236/https://mises.org/books/against.pdf |archive-date=30 July 2008 |work=Ludwig von Mises Institute |first=N. Stephan |last=Kinsella |title=Against Intellectual property |year=2008 |page=44}}</ref></blockquote>
[[Thomas Jefferson]] once said in a letter to Isaac McPherson on 13 August 1813:
<blockquote>If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his [[candle|taper]] at mine, receives light without darkening me.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_8s12.html |title=Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson |date=13 August 1813 |website=press-pubs.uchicago.edu}}</ref></blockquote>
In 2005, the [[Royal Society of Arts]] launched the [[Adelphi Charter]], aimed at creating an international policy statement to frame how governments should make balanced intellectual property law.<ref>{{cite web|last=Boyle |first=James |date=14 October 2005 |url=https://www.theguardian.com/education/2005/oct/14/highereducation.uk |title=Protecting the public ___domain |work=The Guardian}}</ref> Another aspect of current U.S. Intellectual Property legislation is its focus on individual and joint works; thus, copyright protection can only be obtained in 'original' works of authorship. Critics like Philip Bennet argue that this does not provide adequate protection against [[cultural appropriation]] of indigenous knowledge, for which a [[indigenous intellectual property|collective IP regime]] is needed.<ref>{{cite journal|first=Philip|last=Bennet|title=Native Americans and Intellectual Property: the Necessity of Implementing Collective Ideals into Current United States Intellectual Property Laws|year=2009|doi=10.2139/ssrn.1498783 |ssrn=1498783 |ssrn-access=free |doi-access=free }}</ref> Intellectual property law has been criticized as not recognizing new forms of art such as the [[remix culture]], whose participants often commit what technically constitutes violations of such laws, creation works such as [[anime music video]]s and others, or are otherwise subject to unnecessary burdens and limitations which prevent them from fully expressing themselves.<ref name="JemielniakPrzegalinska20202">{{cite book|author1=Dariusz Jemielniak|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yLDMDwAAQBAJ|title=Collaborative Society|author2=Aleksandra Przegalinska|date=18 February 2020|publisher=MIT Press|isbn=978-0-262-35645-9}}</ref>{{Rp|70}}<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Fiesler|first1=Casey|last2=Feuston|first2=Jessica L.|last3=Bruckman|first3=Amy S.|title=Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing |chapter=Understanding Copyright Law in Online Creative Communities |date=28 February 2015|chapter-url=https://doi.org/10.1145/2675133.2675234|series=CSCW '15|___location=Vancouver, BC, Canada|publisher=Association for Computing Machinery|pages=116–129|doi=10.1145/2675133.2675234|isbn=978-1-4503-2922-4|s2cid=28669082}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Freund|first=Katharina|date=1 August 2016|title="Fair use is legal use": Copyright negotiations and strategies in the fan-vidding community|url=https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814555952|journal=New Media & Society|language=en|volume=18|issue=7|pages=1347–1363|doi=10.1177/1461444814555952|s2cid=11258627|issn=1461-4448|url-access=subscription}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Allen|first=Peter James|date=24 August 2008|title=Rip, mix, burn ... sue ... ad infinitum: The effects of deterrence vs voluntary cooperation on non-commercial online copyright infringing behaviour|url=https://journals.uic.edu/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2073|journal=First Monday|language=en|doi=10.5210/fm.v13i9.2073|issn=1396-0466 |doi-access= free}}</ref>
===Objections to the expansion in nature and scope of intellectual property laws===
[[File:Tom Bell's graph showing extension of U.S. copyright term over time.svg|thumb|Expansion of U.S. copyright law (assuming authors create their works by age 35 and live for seventy years)]]
Other criticism of intellectual property law concerns the expansion of intellectual property, both in duration and in scope. As scientific knowledge has expanded and allowed new industries to arise in fields such as biotechnology and nanotechnology, originators of technology have sought IP protection for the new technologies. Patents have been granted for living organisms,<ref>Council for Responsible Genetics, "[https://web.archive.org/web/20111002092235/http://www.actionbioscience.org/genomics/crg.html DNA Patents Create Monopolies on Living Organisms]". Retrieved 2008.12.18.</ref> and in the United States, [[Plant breeders' rights|certain living organisms]] have been patentable for over a century.<ref>Plant Patents [https://web.archive.org/web/19990220172601/http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/plant/ USPTO.gov]</ref>
The increase in terms of protection is particularly seen in relation to copyright, which has recently been the subject of serial extensions [[Copyright Term Extension Act|in the United States]] and [[Copyright Duration Directive|in Europe]].<ref name="lessigperpetual">{{cite web|title=Against perpetual copyright|url=http://wiki.lessig.org/index.php/Against_perpetual_copyright|website=wiki.lessig.org|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091103224919/http://wiki.lessig.org/index.php/Against_perpetual_copyright|archive-date=3 November 2009}}</ref><ref>''E.g.'', the U.S. [[Copyright Term Extension Act]], Pub.L. 105–298.</ref><ref>Mark Helprin, Op-ed: [https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/20/opinion/20helprin.html A Great Idea Lives Forever. Shouldn't Its Copyright?] ''The New York Times'', 20 May 2007.</ref><ref>''[[Eldred v. Ashcroft]]'' [https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/01-618.ZS.html Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U. S. 186 (2003)]</ref><ref name="td_confused">{{cite web|title=Arguing For Infinite Copyright... Using Copied Ideas And A Near Total Misunderstanding Of Property|url=http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070521/015928.shtml|last=Masnick|first=Mike|date=21 May 2007|website=techdirt|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090907142130/http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070521/015928.shtml|archive-date=7 September 2009}}</ref> With no need for registration or copyright notices, this is thought to have led to an increase in [[orphan work]]s (copyrighted works for which the copyright owner cannot be contacted), a problem that has been noticed and addressed by governmental bodies around the world.<ref>Library of Congress Copyright Office [http://www.copyright.gov/fedreg/2012/77fr64555.pdf Docket No. 2012–12 Orphan Works and Mass Digitization] Federal Register, Vol. 77, No. 204. Monday, 22 October 2012. Notices. PP 64555–64561; see p 64555 first column for international efforts and 3rd column for description of the problem.</ref>
Also with respect to copyright, the American film industry helped to change the social construct of intellectual property via its trade organization, the [[Motion Picture Association]] (MPA). In amicus briefs in important cases, in lobbying before Congress, and in its statements to the public, the MPAA has advocated strong protection of intellectual property rights. In framing its presentations, the association has claimed that people are entitled to the property that is produced by their labor. Additionally Congress's awareness of the position of the United States as the world's largest producer of films has made it convenient to expand the conception of intellectual property.<ref>Dennis Wharton, "MPAA's Rebel With Cause Fights for Copyright Coin", Variety (3 August 1992), Vol. 348, No. 2, p. 18.</ref> These doctrinal reforms have further strengthened the industry, lending the MPAA even more power and authority.<ref>William W. Fisher III, [http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property99/history.html The Growth of Intellectual Property:A History of the Ownership of Ideas in the United States] Eigentumskulturen im Vergleich (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999)</ref>
The growth of the [[Internet]], and particularly distributed search engines like [[Kazaa]] and [[Gnutella]], have represented a challenge for copyright policy. The [[Recording Industry Association of America]], in particular, has been on the front lines of the fight against [[copyright infringement]], which the industry calls "piracy". The industry has had victories against some services, including a highly publicized case against the file-sharing company [[Napster]], and some people have been prosecuted for sharing files in violation of copyright. The electronic age has seen an increase in the attempt to use software-based DRM tools to restrict the copying and use of digitally based works. Laws such as the [[Digital Millennium Copyright Act]] have been enacted that use criminal law to prevent any circumvention of software used to enforce DRM systems. Equivalent provisions, to prevent circumvention of copyright protection have existed in EU for some time, and are being expanded in, for example, Article 6 and 7 the [[Copyright and Information Society Directive 2001|Copyright Directive]]. Other examples are Article 7 of the Software Directive of 1991 (91/250/EEC), and the [[Conditional Access Directive]] of 1998 (98/84/EEC). This can hinder legal uses, affecting [[public ___domain]] works, [[limitations and exceptions to copyright]], or uses allowed by the copyright holder. Some [[copyleft]] licenses, like the [[GNU GPL 3]], are designed to counter this.<ref>{{cite web|title=A Quick Guide to GPLv3|url=https://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.en.html|last=Smith|first=Brett|date=2007–2010|website=gnu|publisher=[[Free Software Foundation]]|access-date=15 February 2013}}</ref> Laws may permit circumvention under specific conditions, such as when it is necessary to achieve interoperability with the circumventor's program, or for [[accessibility]] reasons; however, distribution of circumvention tools or instructions may be illegal.
In the context of trademarks, this expansion has been driven by international efforts to harmonise the definition of "trademark", as exemplified by the [[TRIPS Agreement|Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights]] ratified in 1994, which formalized regulations for IP rights that had been handled by common law, or not at all, in member states. Pursuant to TRIPS, any [[sign (semiotics)|sign]] which is "capable of distinguishing" the products or services of one business from the products or services of another business is capable of constituting a trademark.<ref>Katherine Beckman and Christa Pletcher (2009) [http://ipjournal.law.wfu.edu/files/2010/10/article.10.215.pdf Expanding Global Trademark Regulation] Wake Forest Intellectual Property Law Journal 10(2): 215–239</ref>
===Use in corporate tax avoidance===
{{quote box
|width=26em|border=1px|align=right|bgcolor=#c6dbf7|qalign=left
|quote = Make no mistake: the headline [tax] rate is not what triggers tax evasion and aggressive tax planning. That comes from schemes that facilitate profit shifting.
|salign=left
|source=[[Pierre Moscovici]]<br />European Commissioner for Tax<br />''Financial Times'', 11 March 2018<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.ft.com/content/2b356956-17fc-11e8-9376-4a6390addb44 |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221210/https://www.ft.com/content/2b356956-17fc-11e8-9376-4a6390addb44 |archive-date=10 December 2022 |url-access=subscription |url-status=live|title=Multinationals pay lower taxes than a decade ago|work=Financial Times|date=11 March 2018|last=Toplensky|first=Rochelle}}</ref>
}}
Intellectual property has become a core tool in corporate tax planning and [[tax avoidance]].<ref name="fordam">{{cite web|title=Intellectual Property and Tax Avoidance in Ireland|url=http://www.fordhamiplj.org/2016/08/30/ip-tax-avoidance-ireland/|date=30 August 2016|website=fordhamiplj|publisher=Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190502112434/http://www.fordhamiplj.org/2016/08/30/ip-tax-avoidance-ireland/|archive-date=2 May 2019}}</ref><ref name="ucla">Intellectual property (IP) has become the leading tax-avoidance vehicle.{{cite web|title=Intellectual Property Law Solutions to Tax Avoidance|url=https://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/62-1-1.pdf|year=2015|website=uclalawreview|publisher=UCLA Law Review|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150316232500/http://www.uclalawreview.org/pdf/62-1-1.pdf|archive-date=16 March 2015}}</ref><ref name="lux">{{cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/business/2015/08/27/patently-problematic|title=Patently problematic|newspaper=The Economist|date=August 2015}}</ref> IP is a key component of the leading multinational tax avoidance [[base erosion and profit shifting]] (BEPS) tools,<ref name="tilburg">{{cite web|url=http://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=143915|title=Intellectual Property Tax Planning in the light of Base Erosion and Profit Shifting|publisher=University of Tilburg|date=June 2017}}</ref><ref name="zew">{{cite web|url=http://ftp.zew.de/pub/zew-docs/dp/dp13078.pdf|title=Profit Shifting and "Aggressive" Tax Planning by Multinational Firms|publisher=Centre for European Economic Research (ZEW)|page=3|date=October 2013}}</ref> which the OECD estimates costs $100{{nbnd}}240 billion in lost annual tax revenues.<ref name="BEPS Background"/> In 2017–2018, both the U.S. and the EU Commission simultaneously decided to depart from the [[Base erosion and profit shifting (OECD project)|OECD BEPS Project]] timetable, which was set up in 2013 to combat IP BEPS tax tools like the above,<ref name="BEPS Background">{{cite web|title=BEPS Project Background Brief|url=http://www.oecd.org/tax/beps/background-brief-inclusive-framework-for-beps-implementation.pdf|publisher=OECD|date=January 2017}}</ref> and launch their own anti-IP BEPS tax regimes:
* U.S. [[Tax Cuts and Jobs Act]], which has several anti-IP BEPS abuse tax regimes, including GILTI tax and the BEAT tax regimes.<ref>{{Cite web|title=A Hybrid Approach: The Treatment of Foreign Profits under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act|url=https://taxfoundation.org/treatment-foreign-profits-tax-cuts-jobs-act/|publisher=Tax Foundation|date=3 May 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/trump-s-us-tax-reform-a-significant-challenge-for-ireland-1.3310866|title=Trump's US tax reform a significant challenge for Ireland|newspaper=The Irish Times|date=30 November 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.irishtimes.com/business/donald-trump-singles-out-ireland-in-tax-speech-1.3310149?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fbusiness%2Fdonald-trump-singles-out-ireland-in-tax-speech-1.3310149|title=Donald Trump singles out Ireland in tax speech|newspaper=The Irish Times|date=29 November 2017}}</ref>
* EU Commission 2018 Digital Services Tax, which is less advanced than the U.S. TCJA, but does seek to override IP BEPS tools via a quasi-VAT.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.irishtimes.com/business/economy/why-ireland-faces-a-fight-on-the-corporate-tax-front-1.3426080|title=Why Ireland faces a fight on the corporate tax front|newspaper=The Irish Times|date=14 March 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.independent.ie/business/irish/eu-digital-levy-could-hit-tech-fdi-and-tax-revenue-here-36725944.html|title=EU digital levy could hit tech FDI and tax revenue here|work=Irish Independent|date=21 March 2018}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.thejournal.ie/eu-digital-tax-ireland-2-2-3918628-Mar2018/|title=What the EU's new taxes on the tech giants mean – and how they would hurt Ireland|publisher=thejournal.ie|date=24 March 2018}}</ref>
The departure of the U.S. and EU Commission from the OECD BEPS Project process, is attributed to frustrations with the rise in IP as a key BEPS tax tool, creating intangible assets, which are then turned into royalty payment BEPS schemes (double Irish), and/or [[capital allowance]] BEPS schemes (capital allowances for intangibles). In contrast, the OECD has spent years developing and advocating intellectual property as a legal and a GAAP accounting concept.<ref name="un1">{{cite web|url=https://www.taxjustice.net/2017/09/11/new-un-tax-handbook-sets-lower-income-countries-oecd-beps/|title=New UN tax handbook: Lower-income countries vs OECD BEPS failure|publisher=Tax Justice Network|date=11 September 2017}}</ref>
==
Women have historically been underrepresented in the creation and ownership of intellectual property covered by intellectual property rights. According to the World Intellectual Property Organization, women composed only 16.5% of patent holders even as recently as 2020.<ref>{{Cite web|last=WIPO|first=World Intellectual Property Organization|date=8 March 2021|title=Gender Equality, Diversity and Intellectual Property|url=https://www.wipo.int/women-and-ip/en/|access-date=7 June 2021}}</ref> This disparity is the result of several factors including systemic bias, sexism and discrimination within the intellectual property space, underrepresentation within [[Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics|STEM]], and barriers to access of necessary finance and knowledge in order to obtain intellectual property rights, among other reasons.<ref>{{Cite web|last=WIPO|first=World Intellectual Property Organization|date=21 May 2021|title=Closing the Gender Gap in IP|url=https://www.wipo.int/women-and-ip/en/news/2021/news_0005.html|access-date=7 June 2021}}</ref>
=== Global IP ratchet and developing countries ===
The global increase in intellectual property protection is sometimes referred to as a global IP ratchet in which a spiral of bilateral and multilateral agreements result in growing obligations where new agreements never recede from existing standards and very often further heighten them.<ref name=":4">{{Cite book |last=Cheng |first=Wenting |title=China in Global Governance of Intellectual Property: Implications for Global Distributive Justice |publisher=[[Palgrave Macmillan]] |year=2023 |isbn=978-3-031-24369-1 |series=Palgrave Socio-Legal Studies series}}</ref>{{Rp|page=7}} The global IP ratchet has limited the freedom of [[Developing country|developing countries]] to set their own IP standards.<ref name=":4" />{{Rp|page=7}} Developing countries' lack of bargaining power relative to the developed countries driving the global IP ratchet means that developing countries' ability to regulate intellectual property to advance domestic interests is eroding.<ref name=":4" />{{Rp|pages=6–7}}
==See also==
* [[Copyfraud]]
* [[Defensive publication]]
* [[Freedom of information]]
* [[Information policy]]
* [[Libertarian perspectives on intellectual property]]
* [[New product development]]
* [[Soft intellectual property]]
* [[Sweat of the brow]]
== References ==
=== Citations ===
{{Reflist |colwidth = 30em}}
==
{{refbegin |colwidth = 30em}}
* Arai, Hisamitsu. "Intellectual Property Policies for the Twenty-First Century: The Japanese Experience in Wealth Creation", [[WIPO]] Publication Number 834 (E). 2000. [https://archive.today/20121212232107/http://www.wipo.int/freepublications/en/intproperty/834/index.html wipo.int]
* Bettig, R. V. (1996). "Critical Perspectives on the History and Philosophy of Copyright". In R. V. Bettig, ''Copyrighting Culture: The Political Economy of Intellectual Property'' (pp. 9–32). Boulder, CO: [[Westview Press]].
* [[Michele Boldrin|Boldrin, Michele]] and [[David K. Levine]]. "Against Intellectual Monopoly", 2008. [http://www.dklevine.com/papers/imbookfinalall.pdf dkleving.com]
*
* Branstetter, Lee, [[Raymond Fisman]] and [[C. Fritz Foley]]. "Do Stronger Intellectual Property Rights Increase International Technology Transfer? Empirical Evidence from US Firm-Level Data". [[NBER]] Working Paper 11516. July 2005. [https://web.archive.org/web/20081122150353/http://weblog.ipcentral.info/IPRs%20%26%20Tech%20Trans.pdf weblog.ipcentral.info]
* Connell, Shaun. "Intellectual Ownership". October 2007. [https://web.archive.org/web/20071221052053/http://rebirthoffreedom.org/freedom/property/intellectual-ownership/ rebirthofffreedom.org]
* [[Richard T. De George|De George, Richard T.]] "Intellectual Property Rights". In George G. Brenkert and [[Tom L. Beauchamp]] (eds.), ''The Oxford Handbook of Business Ethics'', eds. (pp. 408–439). 1st ed. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, n.d.
* Farah, Paolo and Elena Cima. "China's Participation in the World Trade Organization: Trade in Goods, Services, Intellectual Property Rights and Transparency Issues". In Aurelio Lopez-Tarruella Martinez (ed.), {{lang|es|El comercio con China. Oportunidades empresariales, incertidumbres jurídicas}} (pp. 85–121). [[Tirant lo Blanch]], Valencia, Spain, 2010. {{ISBN|978-84-8456-981-7}}. Available at [https://ssrn.com/abstract=1527992 SSRN.com]
* Farah, Paolo Davide and Tremolada Riccardo. "Desirability of Commodification of Intangible Cultural Heritage: The Unsatisfying Role of IPRs". In ''Transnational Dispute Management, Special Issue'', vol. 11, iss. 2, March 2014. {{ISSN|1875-4120}} Available at [https://ssrn.com/abstract=2472339 SSRN.com]
* Farah, Paolo Davide and Tremolada Riccardo. "Intellectual Property Rights, Human Rights and Intangible Cultural Heritage". ''Journal of Intellectual Property Law'', iss. 2, p. I, June 2014. {{ISSN|0035-614X}}, Giuffre, pp. 21–47. Available at [https://ssrn.com/abstract=2472388 SSRN.com]
* {{cite book|first1=Paul|last1=Goldstein|first2=R. Anthony|last2=Reese|title=Copyright, Patent, Trademark and Related State Doctrines: Cases and Materials on the Law of Intellectual Property|year=2008|edition=6th|___location=New York|publisher=Foundation Press|isbn=978-1-59941-139-2}}
* [[Andrew Gowers|Gowers, Andrew]]. "Gowers Review of Intellectual Property". [[Her Majesty's Treasury]], November 2006. [https://web.archive.org/web/20090407093401/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/pbr06_gowers_report_755.pdf hm-treasury.gov.uk] {{ISBN|978-0-11-840483-9}}.
* Greenhalgh, C. and M. Rogers, (2010). ''Innovation, Intellectual Property, and Economic Growth''. New Jersey: [[Princeton University Press]].
* [[Stephan Kinsella|Kinsella, Stephan]]. "Against Intellectual Property". ''Journal of Libertarian Studies'' (pp. 1–53), vol. 15, no. 2, Spring 2001. [https://www.mises.org/journals/jls/15_2/15_2_1.pdf mises.org]
* Lai, Edwin. "The Economics of Intellectual Property Protection in the Global Economy", April 2001. [[Princeton University Press]]. [http://www.dklevine.com/archive/refs4122247000000000481.pdf dklevine.com]
* Lee, Richmond K. ''[http://www.philstar.com/business/320465/scope-and-interplay-ip-rights Scope and Interplay of IP Rights]''. Accralaw Offices.
* [[Lawrence Lessig|Lessig, Lawrence]]. "Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity", 2004. New York: [[Penguin Press]]. [http://www.free-culture.cc/freeculture.pdf free-culture.cc] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090916145748/http://www.free-culture.cc/freeculture.pdf |date=16 September 2009 }}.
* Lindberg, Van. ''Intellectual Property and Open Source: A Practical Guide to Protecting Code'', 2008. [[O'Reilly Books]]. {{ISBN|0-596-51796-3}} | {{ISBN|978-0-596-51796-0}}
* Maskus, Keith E. "Intellectual Property Rights and Economic Development". ''[[Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law]]'', vol. 32, no. 471. [https://web.archive.org/web/20081223230716/http://www.law.case.edu/student_life/ journals/jil/32-3/maskusarticle.pdf law.case.edu]
* Mazzone, Jason. "[https://ssrn.com/abstract=787244 Copyfraud]". [[Brooklyn Law School]], Legal Studies Paper No. 40. ''[[New York University Law Review]]'', no. 81, 2006. (Abstract.)
* [[Arthur R. Miller|Miller, Arthur Raphael]], and Michael H. Davis. ''Intellectual Property: Patents, Trademarks, and Copyright'', 3rd ed. New York: West/Wadsworth, 2000. {{ISBN|0-314-23519-1}}.
* [[Adam D. Moore|Moore, Adam]], [http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2011/entries/intellectual-property "Intellectual Property"]. In [[Edward N. Zalta]] (ed.), [[The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]], Summer 2011 Edition.
* [http://www.chaire-epi.ulaval.ca/sites/chaire-epi.ulaval.ca/files/publications/morin_2014_paradigm_shift_agency_of_academics.pdf Morin, Jean-Frédéric, Paradigm Shift in the Global IP Regime: The Agency of Academics, Review of International Political Economy, vol. 21(2), 2014, pp. 275–309.]
* Mossoff, A. [https://ssrn.com/abstract=787244 'Rethinking the Development of Patents: An Intellectual History, 1550–1800,'] Hastings Law Journal, Vol. 52, p. 1255, 2001
* Rozanski, Felix. "Developing Countries and Pharmaceutical Intellectual Property Rights: Myths and Reality" [http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20091009142207/http://www.stockholm-network.org/downloads/publications/Developing_Countries_and_Intellectual_Property_Rights_Myth_and_Reality_6.pdf stockholm-network.org]
* Perelman, Michael. ''Steal This Idea: Intellectual Property and The Corporate Confiscation of Creativity''. Palgrave Macmillan, 2004.
* Rand, Ayn. "Patents and Copyrights" in Ayn Rand, ed. 'Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal,' New York: New American Library, 1966, pp. 126–128
* Reisman, George. 'Capitalism: A Complete & Integrated Understanding of the Nature & Value of Human Economic Life,' Ottawa, Illinois: 1996, pp. 388–389
* Schechter, Roger E., and John R. Thomas. ''Intellectual Property: The Law of Copyrights, Patents and Trademarks''. New York: West/Wadsworth, 2003, {{ISBN|0-314-06599-7}}.
* Schneider, Patricia H. "International Trade, Economic Growth and Intellectual Property Rights: A Panel Data Study of Developed and Developing Countries". July 2004. [https://web.archive.org/web/20090226035349/http://www.mtholyoke.edu/~pschneid/images/Schneider_JDEJuly2004.pdf mtholyoke.edu]
* Shapiro, Robert and Nam Pham. "Economic Effects of Intellectual Property-Intensive Manufacturing in the United States". July 2007. [https://web.archive.org/web/20080216195041/http://www.the-value-of-ip.org/ the-value-of.ip.org]. Retrieved 9 April 2008.
* Spooner, Lysander. "The Law of Intellectual Property; or An Essay on the Right of Authors and Inventors to a Perpetual Property in their Ideas". Boston: Bela Marsh, 1855.
* [[Siva Vaidhyanathan|Vaidhyanathan, Siva]]. ''The Anarchist in the Library: How the Clash Between Freedom and Control Is Hacking the Real World and Crashing the System''. New York: Basic Books, 2004.
* {{cite book|author=Burk, Dan L.|author2=Mark A. Lemley |name-list-style=amp|title=The Patent Crisis and How the Courts Can Solve It|publisher=University of Chicago Press|year=2009|isbn=978-0-226-08061-1}}
{{refend}}
==External links==
{{Wikiquote}}
{{scholia|topic}}
{{Library resources box}}
*{{Commons category-inline|Intellectual property}}
*The [[European Audiovisual Observatory]] hosts articles on [https://web.archive.org/web/20130729081345/http://www.obs.coe.int/en/legal/copyright/ copyright] legislature and covers media laws in their [http://merlin.obs.coe.int/newsletter/index newsletter]
*[https://www.statista.com/topics/3493/media-piracy/ Internet/Media Piracy: Statistics & Facts]—Statista
{{Intellectual property activism}}
{{Law}}
{{Property navbox}}
{{Authority control}}
[[Category:Intellectual property law|*]]
[[Category:Social information processing]]
[[Category:Economics of the arts and literature]]
[[Category:Intangible assets]]
[[Category:Intellectual capital]]
| |||