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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
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.
Croskery, P. (1993) Institutional Utilitarianism and Intellectual Property, Chicago-Kent Law Review, 68: 631–57.
Drahos, P. (1996) A Philosophy of Intellectual Property. Sudbury, MA: Dartmouth.
Friedman, D. (2000) Law’s Order. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Gauthier, D. (1987) Morals by Agreement. New York: Oxford University Press.
Gilbert, R. and Shapiro, C. (1990) Optimal Patent Length and Breadth, RAND Journal of Economics, 21.
Hohfeld, W. N. (1913) Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied to Judicial Reasoning, Yale Law Journal, 23: 16–59.
Jacobs, L. A. (2004) Pursuing Equal Opportunities. The Theory and Practice of Egalitarian Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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.
Landes, W. M. and Posner, R. A. (1989) An Economic Analysis of Copyright Law, The Journal of Legal Studies, 18: 325–63.
Lemley, M. (2005) Property, Intellectual Property and Free Riding, Texas Law Review, 83: 1031–75.
Nordhaus, W. D. (1969) Invention,Growth,and Welfare: A Theoretical Treatment of Technological Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Nozick, R. (1974) Anarchy,State,and Utopia. Oxford and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Olson, M. (1965) The Logic of Collective Action, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Pogge, T. (2005) Human Rights and Global Health: A Research Program, Metaphilosophy, 36: 182–209.
Polanyi, M. (1944) Patent Reform, Review of Economic Studies, 11: 61–77. Rakowski, E. (1991) Equal Justice. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Rakowski, E. (1991) Equal Justice. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Resnik, D. B. (2003) A Pluralistic Account to Intellectual Property, Journal of Business Ethics, 46: 319–35.
Rawls, J. (1971) A Theory of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Samuelson, P. A. (1954) The Pure Theory of Public Expenditure, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 36: 387–9.
Scotchmer, S. (1991) Standing on the Shoulders of Giants: Cumlative Research and Patent Law, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5: 29–41
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
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-0-230-58239-2_3
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-28297-5
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-58239-2
eBook Packages: Palgrave Religion & Philosophy CollectionPhilosophy and Religion (R0)