Skip to main content

Abstract

Talented people are at the centre of Rawls’ theory of justice. Of two principles, one is devoted to specifying what they are entitled to: equal opportunities for the equally talented, regardless of their social position; and unequal income for the unequally talented, provided that it benefits the least advantaged. Talented people are at the centre of the patent system, too. Within this system, some of the most talented people — those who are the first to invent and divulge a new device — are entitled not to a higher income, but to monopoly rights. They have a twenty-year right to prevent anyone from using, fabricating or selling the invention without their consent. How they manage this right determines the level of their income. Are monopoly rights for talented people justified by Rawls— criteria of justice?

Thanks to Marc Rüegger, Nicola Riva, Alain Marciano, Lubomira Radoilska, Vincent Aubert, Axel Gosseries and to participants of the Chaire Hoover (UCL Belgium) seminar for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this chapter.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Cowen, T. (1985) Public Goods and their Institutional Context: A Critique of Public Goods Theory, Review of Social Economy, 43: 53–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Croskery, P. (1993) Institutional Utilitarianism and Intellectual Property, Chicago-Kent Law Review, 68: 631–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Drahos, P. (1996) A Philosophy of Intellectual Property. Sudbury, MA: Dartmouth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, D. (2000) Law’s Order. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gauthier, D. (1987) Morals by Agreement. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, R. and Shapiro, C. (1990) Optimal Patent Length and Breadth, RAND Journal of Economics, 21.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hohfeld, W. N. (1913) Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied to Judicial Reasoning, Yale Law Journal, 23: 16–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, L. A. (2004) Pursuing Equal Opportunities. The Theory and Practice of Egalitarian Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jefferson, T. (1905) Letter to Isaac McPherson, 13 August 1813, in A. Lipscomb and A. E. Bergh (eds.) The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, vol. XIII. Washington, pp. 326–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landes, W. M. and Posner, R. A. (1989) An Economic Analysis of Copyright Law, The Journal of Legal Studies, 18: 325–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lemley, M. (2005) Property, Intellectual Property and Free Riding, Texas Law Review, 83: 1031–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nordhaus, W. D. (1969) Invention,Growth,and Welfare: A Theoretical Treatment of Technological Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nozick, R. (1974) Anarchy,State,and Utopia. Oxford and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olson, M. (1965) The Logic of Collective Action, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pogge, T. (2005) Human Rights and Global Health: A Research Program, Metaphilosophy, 36: 182–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Polanyi, M. (1944) Patent Reform, Review of Economic Studies, 11: 61–77. Rakowski, E. (1991) Equal Justice. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rakowski, E. (1991) Equal Justice. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Resnik, D. B. (2003) A Pluralistic Account to Intellectual Property, Journal of Business Ethics, 46: 319–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (1971) A Theory of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, P. A. (1954) The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 36: 387–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scotchmer, S. (1991) Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Cumlative Research and Patent Law, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5: 29–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 2008 Speranta Dumitru

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Dumitru, S. (2008). Are Rawlsians Entitled to Monopoly Rights?. In: Gosseries, A., Marciano, A., Strowel, A. (eds) Intellectual Property and Theories of Justice. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-0-230-58239-2_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics