essays on intellectual property

Essay on Intellectual Property Rights: Top 5 Essays | Law | Business

In this essay we will discuss about:- 1. Introduction to Intellectual Property Rights 2. Need for Intellectual Property Rights 3. Types 4. Advantages 5. Infringement.

Essay on Intellectual Property Rights

Essay Contents:

• Essay on the Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights

Essay # 1. Introduction to Intellectual Property Rights:

It is important that one should understand the IP rights which may exist in the context of his/her business and are vigilant in their protection. Each type of IP has different threshold protection requirements, which give, rise to different rights and different terms of protection. The requirements and processes for protecting each type of IP in other countries may differ and specialist advice should be sought.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

There are various forms of IP that require registration for protection, including:

a. Patents:

Patents to protect inventions of new or improved technology.

b. Trade Marks:

Trade Marks to protect a sign or marking used to distinguish the identity or source of goods or services.

c. Industrial Designs:

Industrial Designs to protect the design and/or appearance of articles or produced goods.

d. Plant Breeder’s Rights:

Plant Breeder’s Rights to protect new plant varieties.

Other IP rights that occur automatically upon creation and do not require registration for protection, include:

a. Copyright:

Copyright To protect works of art, music, literature, broadcasts, films, sound recordings and computer programs; and

b. Circuit Layout Rights:

Circuit Layout Rights to protect integrated circuit designs.

Essay # 2. Need for Intellectual Property Rights :

a. To provide incentive towards various creative endeavors of the mind by offering protections;

b. To give such creators official recognition;

c. To create repositories of vital information;

d. To facilitate the growth of both domestic industry or culture, and international trade, through the treaties offering multi-lateral protection.

Essay # 3. Types of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs):

The different types of Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) are:

1. Copyright.

2. Patents.

3. Trademarks.

4. Trade secrets.

5. Geographical Indications.

6. Industrial Designs.

1. Copyright :

Copyright is the right to stop the copying and distribution of certain categories of work. Copyright protects the following categories of published and unpublished works for specified periods of time.

The categories of works protected by copyright and relevant examples include:

a. Literary Works:

Literary Works (for example, emails and newspaper articles).

b. Dramatic Works:

Dramatic Works (for example, plays).

c. Musical Works:

Musical Works (for example, songs, musical scores and soundtracks).

d. Artistic Works:

Artistic Works (for example, paintings, photographs and images).

Films (for example, videos and cinematic performances).

f. Sound Recordings:

Sound Recordings (for example, oral history tapes and recorded lectures).

g. Broadcasts:

Broadcasts (for example, TV and radio).

h. Typographic Works :

Sound Recordings (for example, the arrangement of websites and translations).

A copyright protects the expression of an idea, but not the idea itself.

The copyright holder has the exclusive right to the following with his/her work:

a. To reproduce the work.

b. To prepare derivative works.

c. To sell, lend, distribute copies or transfer ownership.

d. To perform the work publicly.

e. To display the copyrighted work publicly.

To qualify for protection, the work must be original (meaning ‘not copied’), be recorded in a permanent form, and the author must be a qualifying person. Copyright protection does not depend on registration but arises automatically once the work is created. Copyright protection lasts for a long time, generally speaking for the lifetime of the author plus 70 years. Copyright does not protect ideas; it will protect them once they are fixed in material or tangible form.

For example, an idea for a story will not be protected by copyright, once the idea is transferred into writing, and then it will be protected by copyright. Another example: many authors write textbooks on physics covering various aspects like mechanics, heat, optics etc. Even though these topics are covered in several books by different authors, each author will have a copyright on the book written by him/her, provided the book is not a copy of some other book published earlier.

2. Patent :

A patent is an exclusive right granted by a country to the owner of an invention to make, use, manufacture and market the invention, provided the invention satisfies certain conditions stipulated in the law. Exclusive right implies that no one else can make, use, manufacture or market the invention without the consent of the patent holder.

The protection secured by the registration of a patent is commonly limited in time, usually 20 years. At the end of the period of protection, the patented invention is said to be within the public domain (i.e., available for anyone to exploit).

The applicant for the protection of an invention is usually the inventor or his successor in title. Inventions have to be registered with the government. A patent registration process can take more than one year, and if it is granted, the inventor gains the legal right to exclude anyone else from manufacturing or marketing it.

Conditions for Granting a Patent:

For an invention to be protected by a patent, it must:

a. Meet the criteria of novelty.

b. Involve an inventive step and;

c. Be capable of industrial application.

An invention is conventionally considered to be novel if it is unknown or unavailable to others prior to the date of application for the patent. That is, the invention must not be anticipated by prior art. Prior art is usually taken to comprise everything disclosed to the public, anywhere in the world by prior publication in a tangible form or in the subject country by oral disclosure, or by use in any way prior to the filing of the patent application.

An invention is said to involve an inventive step if, having regard to the prior art, it would not have been obvious to a person having an ordinary skill in the art. In other words, the invention must involve a creative advance on existing knowledge.

An invention shall be considered as industrially applicable where it can be made or used in any kind of industry. In other words a patent will not be granted if it is not useful.

3. Trademark :

Trademarks provide exclusive rights to use distinctive signs, such as symbols, colours, letters, shapes or names to identify the producer of a product, and protect its associated reputation. A trademark can be a combination of words, phrases, symbols, logos, designs, images or devices, used by an individual, legal entity or business organization to distinguish their products from that of others. For example, one can identify the products of Nike, Reebok etc. through their logo, which is embossed on their products.

Trademarks can be registered, which gives the holder the exclusive right to use them. Once registered, trademarks are protected legally and the owners can sue persons who use their trademarks. Trademark protection lasts for 10 years after registration and, like patents, can be renewed.

If a company creates a symbol or name it wishes to use exclusively, it can simply attach the trademark symbol. This effectively marks the territory and gives the company room to prosecute if other companies attempt to use the same symbol for their own purposes.

4. Trade Secret :

Trade secrets are the designs, practice, formulas, instrument, processes, recipes, patterns or ideas, which are used by a company to gain economic advantage over its competitors. The owner of a trade secret does not possess any right over anyone who gains access to that secret independently, but he can prevent the use of trade secret by anyone who has learned it through the owner.

It differs from other types of intellectual property, because it is the responsibility of the owner to keep the secret and it is not protected through government policies. Once the trade secret is leaked, any person can use it.

Examples of trade secrets can be formulas for products, such as the formula for Coca-Cola; compilations of information that provide a business with a competitive advantage, such as a database listing customers; and even advertising strategies and distribution processes. Unlike patents, trade secrets are protected for unlimited period of time, and witho ut any procedural formalities.

5. Geographical Indications :

A Geographical Indication (GI) is a sign used on goods that have a specific geographical origin and possess qualities or a reputation that is solely due to the place of origin. A geographical indication merely tells that a product is produced in a certain place and has certain characteristics, which are due to the place of production.

All producers who make their products in a place designated by the geographical indications and share the same qualities can use it. For example, food products sometimes have qualities that derive from their place of production and local environmental factors. Some countries separately protect, geographical indication for goods such as French cognac or Scotch whiskey.

There are two terms used in the context of geographical indication: appellation of origin and indication of source. Indication of source on a product merely indicates that the product originates in the place indicated. Appellation of origin indicates not only the place of origin but also the essential quality link between the product and the area of its origin; e.g., Kolhapuri chappals from Kolhapur, India. Geographical indications can have indefinite life provided these are renewed after a stipulated time specified in the law by paying official fees.

6. Industrial Design :

An industrial design is the ornamental or aesthetic aspect of an article; it may consist of three-dimensional features such as shape or surface, or of two- dimensional features such as patterns, lines or colour. The design serves as a tool for product differentiation and lures customers by enhanced visual appeal.

It becomes a kind of intellectual property to be protected. Industrial designs are applied to a wide variety of products of industry or handicraft: watches, jewellery, fashion and other luxury items, industrial and medical implements, house ware, furniture, electrical appliances, vehicles and architectural structures, textile designs, toys etc.

The design right owner has the exclusive right to stop anyone else from reproducing the design (that is, copying it) by making articles to it for commercial purposes, and the right to stop anyone else dealing in infringing copies of the design by way of trade.

The person who has an industrial design right has the exclusive right to make or sell any objects in which the design is applicable. The right is conferred for a period of 10 to 25 years. For registration, a design needs to be new and original, though the notion of these qualities may vary from country to country.

Essay # 4. Advantages of Intellectual Property Rights :

Intellectual Property (IP) is an umbrella term that covers copyright, patents, trademarks, designs, circuit layout rights, and trade secrets. Each of these terms covers a different type of property that is made up of knowledge.

Some of the advantages of IPRs are:

a. Intellectual property rights help in providing exclusive rights to creator or inventor, thereby induces them to distribute and share information and data instead of keeping it confidential.

b. It provides legal protection and offers them incentive of their work.

c. Rights granted under the intellectual property act helps in socio and economic development.

Essay # 5. Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights :

An intellectual property infringement is the infringement or violation of an intellectual property right. Generally speaking, the use of a patented invention, copyrighted work, or trademark without the authorization of the IP owner constitutes infringement.

The IP owner may initiate a civil action against an alleged infringer for a violation of any of the exclusive rights conferred by a patent, copyright, or trademark. Depending on the type of intellectual property involved, one may have a variety of ways to respond to violations.

Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) are dealt with by administrative procedures and legal proceedings. In terms of civil liabilities, the infringer may be ordered to stop the infringing act, eradicate the damage done, make public apologies or compensate for damages. In terms of administrative measures and criminal liabilities, they include warnings, orders to stop the infringing act, confiscation of unlawful gains, fines, and compensation for damages.

In all cases of intellectual property violation, negotiation is the simplest and cheapest possible remedy. Sometimes, intellectual property violations occur as the result of innocent mistakes. A simple phone call or friendly letter notifying the perpetrator might be enough to resolve the problem. Litigation is also an option.

As previously mentioned, copyright, patent, and trademark violations are actionable in the federal court system. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is another means of resolving these issues. There are two general types of ADR, mediation and arbitration. Mediation is a process where the parties mutually reach an agreement with the help of a facilitator. Arbitration involves a third party determining the outcome of a dispute.

Intellectual property infringement can be:

1. Copyright Infringement.

2. Patent Infringement.

3. Trademark Infringement.

1. Copyright Infringement :

Copyright gives the creator of the work the right to reproduce the work, make copies, translate, adapt, sell or give on hire and communicate the work to public. Any of these activities done without the consent of the author or his assignee is considered infringement of the copyright.

There is a provision of ‘fair use’ in the law, which allows copyrighted work to be used for teaching and research and development. In other words making one photocopy of a book for teaching students may not be considered an infringement, but making many photocopies for commercial purposes would be considered an infringement.

The copyright act provides several civil remedies for infringement, including the possibility of obtaining injunctive relief, actual damages suffered by the copyright owner due to the infringement, statutory damages, and costs.

2. Patent Infringement :

Patents play an important role in economic development by encouraging technology transfer and investment, research and development, and the discovery of new technologies. Violations of patent laws are known as patent infringement. Patent infringement is the commission of a prohibited act with respect to a patented invention without permission from the patent holder.

If a defendant is found guilty of patent infringement in a lawsuit brought by the patent holder, the remedies available to the patent holder includes an injunction to cease and prohibit the offending activity by the defendant, damages to compensate for the infringement, and even attorney fees. The law only provides civil remedies in the event of patent infringement; there are no criminal sanctions.

3. Trade Marks Infringement :

Trademark infringement is a violation of the exclusive rights attaching to a trademark without the authorization of the trademark owner or any licensees (provided that such authorization was within the scope of the license).

Infringement may occur when one party, the ‘infringer’, uses a trademark which is identical or 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 which the registration covers.

An owner of a trademark may commence legal proceedings against a party which infringes its registration. Trademark infringements carry civil penalties such as injunctions prohibiting continued violations and/or monetary damages.

Related Articles:

• Essay on Intellectual Property | Law | Business
• Term Paper on Intellectual Property Rights | Law | Business Management
• Intellectual Property Rights: Frequently Asked Questions | Business Law
• Rights and Duties of Partners | Business Management

We use cookies

Privacy overview.

Back to Faculty Bibliography

William W. Fisher, Theories of Intellectual Property , in New Essays in the Legal and Political Theory of Property 168 (Stephen R. Munzer ed., 2001).

• KinsellaLaw
• Translations
• Papinian Press
• Oxford Publications
• Legal Foundations of a Free Society + Supplemental Material
• Against Intellectual Property
• You Can’t Own Ideas: Essays on Intellectual Property
• The Anti-IP Reader
• The Anarchist Reader
• Copy This Book
• Libertarian Fallacies
• Kinsella’s Selected Blogposts: 2009-2022
• Latino Liberty
• Liberdade Portuguesa
• Legal Publications
• Media/Events
• WeTransfer dropbox

You Can’t Own Ideas: Essays on Intellectual Property

The contents, arranged in “chapters,” are listed below in the recommended reading order, with an initial preface. I have also printed to PDF all the chapters and combined them in one file here for those who prefer that format ( PDF ).

Cite as : Stephan Kinsella, You Can’t Own Ideas: Essays on Intellectual Property (Houston, Texas: Papinian Press , 2023; www.stephankinsella.com/own-ideas )

My first major piece on this issue was Against Intellectual Property ( AIP ), first published 2001 (not included here). In the intervening 22 years, I’ve given many talks, responded to many objections and questions, and written other articles and blog posts on this issue, all linked at c4sif.org/aip . This collection draws on these pieces.

After some introductory and earlier pieces in “Part I. Beginnings” and “Part II. Summary Presentations,” I include some lengthier articles in “Part III. Main Theory,” beginning with “ Law and Intellectual Property in a Stateless Society ,” 2 a more recent and streamlined and somewhat updated version of the argument presented in AIP ; and “ Against Intellectual Property After Twenty Years: Looking Back and Looking Forward .” This latter piece contains an overview of the debate on IP in the 20+ years since AIP was published, and summarizes additional arguments and changes or supplements I would make to AIP if rewriting it now, or if writing a new book from scratch on this topic. 3 Together, these two chapters provide a good and fairly comprehensive overview of my current IP views and arguments. These chapters are based on those that appear in Legal Foundations of a Free Society ( LFFS ; Papinian Press, 2023). Several other chapters included here are also drawn from LFFS.

The remaining chapters include other articles, interviews, transcripts, and blog posts.

For those who want to skip the more extraneous material and focus on the core argument against IP, I recommend chapters 4 , 6 , and 7 . Chapter 4 is a summary of the case against IP, chapter 6 a streamlined update of my original AIP , and chapter 7 a summary of arguments developed since  AIP .

Note : I do not plan to publish this as a paper book anytime soon, or ever, but as the content is all CC0 anyone else is free to do so.

Part I. Beginnings

This Part includes some of my earlier and summary pieces on IP. They are not all as fleshed out or as direct and explicit as my later pieces, but they show how I began to approach this topic.

• Letter on Intellectual Property Rights  (1995). 4 My first tentative foray into expressing skepticism about IP law in print. I was a new patent attorney working in a large law firm at the time and concerned about alienating clients and the firm, so I tried not to be too direct about my skepticism about IP. It turns out, no one cared, and in fact my anti-IP writing garnered me clients. 5
• Is Intellectual Property Legitimate?  (1998). First published in the Pennsylvania Bar Association Intellectual Property Newsletter and later republished in the Federalist Society’s Intellectual Property Practice Group Newsletter. 6 The Federalist society leans pro-IP, but over the years has nonetheless hosted me presenting my anti-IP perspective. 7
• In Defense of Napster and Against the Second Homesteading Rule  (2000). 8 This was a more condensed version of the argument presented the next year in AIP . It’s a summary, like those in the next section, but I included it here since it was one of my earlier pieces.

Part II. Summary Presentations

• Intellectual Property and Libertarianism  (2009). 9 As my Napster article (ch. 3) is a summary version of the more lengthy argument laid out in AIP , this chapter is a summary version of my later-presented case against IP (elaborated on more fully in ch. 6). This piece was first published (without endnotes) in Liberty ; the version on Mises Daily , with endnotes, is preferable. 10
• Ideas are Free: The Case Against Intellectual Property: or, How Libertarians Went Wrong  (2010). 11 Another summary argument against IP. This article is based on a transcript of a speech I delivered at the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society . 12

Part III. Main Theory

As noted in the Preface, Chapters 6 and 7 below together provide a good and fairly comprehensive overview of my current IP views and arguments. Those interested in inquiring further may see AIP, although most of those arguments are present and restated in Chapters 6 and 7. As indicated, chaps. 6 and 7 can be read instead of and as an update to AIP . For those who want to read the original AIP , I recommend instead “ The Case Against Intellectual Property ” as it omits some material very few need to read, such as the examples in the Appendix and the lengthy bibliography. 13

• Law and Intellectual Property in a Stateless Society  (2010). 14 This article, originally intended for a symposium issue of the Griffith Law Review but withdrawn because of a dispute with the editors, was originally published in my journal Libertarian Papers in 2013. It was the most comprehensive article I’d written on IP since AIP . 15 · The structure of the article is similar to the more concise “Intellectual Property and Libertarianism” ( ch. 4). The title is slightly misleading because the article was really about why IP is unjust, and had little to do with anarchy or stateless societies; the title and the slight emphasis on stateless societies in the text was intended to make the article fit the theme of the symposium issue it was intended for, which was “Law and Anarchy: Legal Order and the Idea of a Stateless Society.” I’ve chosen to retain the original title. · This chapter incorporates much of the material from AIP and includes some additional material that I had published the intervening decade or so. The following piece (ch. 7), contains additional arguments developed subsequently and complements this work and AIP .
• Against Intellectual Property After Twenty Years: Looking Back and Looking Forward  (2023), first published in LFFS . This chapter provides a perspective on the IP debates amongst libertarians since AIP was first published in 2001, and provides an overview of newer arguments about IP that I’ve made in the twenty-plus years since the publication of AIP . It also discusses changes I would make to the original arguments presented in AIP . This chapter complements ch. 6 above, which itself was originally published about a decade after AIP .
• Goods, Scarce and Nonscarce ” (with Jeffrey A. Tucker; 2010). 16 This article emerged out of many discussions Tucker and I had about intellectual property and our respective writings on this topic. 17
• Selling Does Not Imply Ownership, and Vice-Versa: A Dissection  (2022). 18 I delivered a speech with the same name as this chapter at the Property and Freedom Society’s 16 th Annual Meeting, in Bodrum, Turkey, in 2022. 19 This chapter helps to expand on and clarify some issues touched on in the previous chapters. It takes aim, in part, at some of Walter Block’s views on voluntary slavery and body-alienability, a topic we’ve disagreed about for a long time. 20 Since Walter prefers to respond to published articles, I published the transcript of this speech as an article. The transcript was lightly edited for clarity and to add some references and links, but the colloquial and informal tone has largely been preserved, and some headings added. I published it on my old, mostly defunct site The Libertarian Standard , to which Walter responded in due course. 21 This chapter is a revised version of that article. 22

Part IV. Elaborations and Applications

• Introduction to Origitent  (2018). 23 Libertarian sci-fi author J. Neil Schulman, an old friend, and I agreed on most political matters, except for IP, over which we’d had a decades-long disagreement. 24 Neil modified his theory over time, moving from “logorights” to “media-carried property,” and eventually published Origitent: Why Original Content is Property in 2018, which included debates and discussions with IP abolitionists Wendy McElroy, Sam Konkin III, and me, and including my Introduction. I have updated my Introduction, and retained the somewhat breezy and informal style.
• Conversation with Schulman about Logorights and Media-Carried Property (2018). 25 This chapter based on an edited transcript of a conversation between libertarian sci-fi author J. Neil Schulman and me, 26 which was included in his book Origitent , in addition to my introduction (ch. 10).
• Intellectual Freedom and Learning Versus Patent and Copyright  (2011). 27 In this chapter, I emphasize the importance of the accumulation of technological knowledge—Hayek’s “fund of experience”—for human prosperity, and how the patent system impedes this. I summarize this also in ch. 7, Part IV.E.
• Defamation Law and Reputation Rights as a Type of Intellectual Property (forthcoming 2024). 28

Part V. History

• The Origins of Libertarian IP Abolitionism  (2011). 29 All hail Benjamin Tucker, Sam Konkin, and Wendy McElroy!
• The Four Historical Phases of IP Abolitionism  (2011). 30 Let’s go ahead and get to phase five.
• Classical Liberals and Anarchists on Intellectual Property  (2015). 31 Rounding them up. The good, the bad, the ugly. 32

Part VI. Empirics and Reform

• There’s No Such Thing as a Free Patent (2005). 33 In this article I pointed out that utilitarian justifications of IP have to take the costs of IP law into account, but they never do (and can’t). 34
• Radical Patent Reform Is Not on the Way  (2009). 35 Patent defenders like to argue that the system is under assault. It’s their way of framing their Overton window and blocking any meaningful reform. I point out here that the patent system is in no danger of any significant reform (unfortunately). And that’s how they like it.
• Reducing the Cost of IP Law  (2010). 36 People say IP abolition is impossible and they criticize me for not suggesting more moderate reforms that could improve the system. Here I offer some suggestions for reform, short of abolition. Of course, these reforms would all be opposed tooth and nail by the IP parasites, so these suggestions are about as impractical as abolition, but hey, they asked. 37
• The Overwhelming Empirical Case Against Patent and Copyright  (2012). 38 Not the official narrative. See also Part III.A, “Utilitarianism,” in “Law and Intellectual Property in a Stateless Society” (ch. 6, above).
• Legal Scholars: Thumbs Down on Patent and Copyright  (2012). 39 Even law professors manage to get a few things right, on occasion.
• The Patent, Copyright, Trademark, and Trade Secret Horror Files (2010). 40 I started to collect various anecdotes of outrageous results due to IP law, but gave up updating it regularly since it would be duplicative and impossible to keep up with.

Part VII. Shorter Pieces

• Absurd Arguments for IP  (2010). 41 All arguments for IP are flawed or dishonest, but here are choice few especially ridiculous ones. See also ch. 32, below.
• Independent Institute on The ‘Benefits’ of Intellectual Property Protection (2016). 42 With friends like these … Why are almost all libertarian groups weak on the IP issue, other than the Mises Institute? 43
• “Oh yeah? How would like it if I copy and publish your book under my name?!”: On IP Hypocrisy and Calling the Smartasses’ Bluffs  (2013). 44 Calling their bluff. 45
• Intellectual Property Rights as Negative Servitudes  (2011). 46 The real problem with patent and copyright law. Also discussed in ch. 7, Part IV.B.
• Intellectual Property and the Structure of Human Action  (2010). 47 Deeep. The real real problem with IP. Also discussed in ch. 7, Part IV.E.
• Rothbard on the Main Fallacy of our Time: Marx’s Labor Theory of Value  (2016). 48 Sic ’em, Murray. See also “Locke’s Big Mistake” (ch. 31).

Part VIII. Transcripts and Interviews

• On the Logic of Libertarianism and Why Intellectual Property Doesn’t Exist  (2012). 49 This was an interview by Anthony Wile. I would not word the title this way—the problem with IP is not that it doesn’t “exist” but rather that IP law is unjust. But I didn’t choose the title, and have not changed it here. This has been revised for LFFS .
• A Libertarian’s Case Against Intellectual Property  (2018). 50 This is a transcript (unedited) of a speech I delivered at the Federalist Society chapter at University of Berkeley-California . It was well-organized and there was a perceptive and interesting critical commentary by Professor  Talha Syed .
• Locke’s Big Mistake: How the Labor Theory of Property Ruined Political Theory  (2013). 51 Blame it all on Locke. And Rand. This is a lightly-edited transcript of a talk I delivered at the “Liberty in the Pines” conference at Stephen F. Austin State University, in Nacogdoches, Texas. 52 This topic is also addressed in ch. 6, Part III.B and ch. 7, Part IV.C. See also “Rothbard on the Main Fallacy of our Time: Marx’s Labor Theory of Value,” ch. 28.
• Intellectual Nonsense: Fallacious Arguments for IP  (2012). 53 This is a transcript of a talk I delivered at Libertopia in 2012, and the followup Part 2 ( transcript ) which I recorded afterwards. 54 See also ch. 23, above.
• Soho Forum Debate vs. Richard Epstein: Patent and Copyright Law Should Be Abolished  (2021). 55 This is a transcript of my debate with Richard Epstein on IP law at the Soho Forum in Manhattan on November 15, 2021, moderated by Gene Epstein. I defended the resolution “all patent and copyright law should be abolished” and Professor Epstein opposed it. Oxford debate rules applied which meant that whoever changed the most minds won. My side went from about 20 to 29 percentage points, gaining about 9; Richard went from about 44 to 55%, gaining about 11, so he won by 1.7 percentage points. Well, I tried. 56
• ESEADE Lecture: Should We Release Patents on Vaccines?, including: An Overview of Libertarian Property Rights and the Case Against IP  (2021). 57 This is a transcript of a webinar I did for an Argentinian audience for ESEADE  May 26, 2021. The topic was formally “ Should We Release Patents on Vaccines” (“¿Hay que liberar las patentes sobre las vacunas? “). In this talk, I briefly provide an overview of the nature of property rights and the principled case against IP, then apply it to vaccines, and took questions from the audience.
• Adam Smith Forum (Moscow): Why Intellectual Property is not Genuine Property  (2011). 58 A transcript of speech delivered (remotely) at 3 rd Adam Smith Forum , Moscow, Russia. As I noted in a  previous post , this event was held Nov. 12, 2011 in Moscow. It was organized by the Center for the Philosophy of Freedom, the Libertarian Party of Russia, and others. The Chairman of the ASF Steering Committee was economist Pavel Usanov, head of the Hayek Institute for Economy and Law, and Andrey Shal’nev, head of the federal committee of the Libertarian Party of Russia, was its co-chairman. I was invited to speak but could not attend in person, so my 47-minute speech “Why Intellectual Property is not Genuine Property” was presented remotely, with Russian subtitles.

Part IX. Final Thoughts

• Do Business Without Intellectual Property (Liberty.me, 2014). 59 At the encouragement of Jeff Tucker when he was with Liberty.me, I put together this little booklet explaining how businessmen can avoid or reduce their dependence on IP in an IP-riddled world.
• Examples of Ways Content Creators Can Profit Without Intellectual Property (2010). 60
• The Death Throes of Pro-IP Libertarianism  (2010). 61 The revolution is still in progress. First we convert all the libertarians, and then the other 99.9%. 62

Appendix: Further Reading

• For critiques by IP by others from a libertarian or free market point of view, see Kinsella, ed., The Anti-IP Reader: Free Market Critiques of Intellectual Property (Papinian Press, 2023).
• “ Rethinking Intellectual Property: History, Theory, and Economics ” (Mises Academy course, 2011). 63  If you want a deep dive, this six-lecture Mises Academy course is for you. See also the introduction to this course: “ Rethinking IP ,” Mises Daily (Feb. 10, 2011).
• Kinsella, Introduction to Against Intellectual Property  (Laissez Faire Books, 2012) (files linked above)
• ——, “ The Case Against IP: A Concise Guide ,” C4SIF Blog (Sep. 4, 2009)
• ——, “ A Selection of my Best Articles and Speeches on IP ,” C4SIF Blog (Nov. 30, 2015)
• For other articles and blog posts, see the AIP Supplementary Material linked at www.c4sif.org/aip ; the Resources page at www.c4sif.org/resources .
• Thanks to Jeff Tucker for the title suggestion. [ ↩ ]
• Stephan Kinsella, “ Law and Intellectual Property in a Stateless Society ,” Libertarian Papers in 2013, 5, no. 1 (2013): 1–44. [ ↩ ]
• Which I may do someday, in a book tentatively to be entitled Copy This Book: The Case for Abolishing Intellectual Property . [ ↩ ]
• IOS Journal 5, no. 2 (June 1995): 12–13. [ ↩ ]
• In another article for an engineering journal in 1995, I also tried to delicately introduce a note of IP skepticism without being too explicit about it, by noting that there is debate about the justifiability of the patent system. See Kinsella, “ Patent Law Basics and Recent Developments ,” The Bent of Tau Beta Pi 86, no. 2 (Spring 1995): 14–17, p. 14. [ ↩ ]
• Pennsylvania Bar Association Intellectual Property Newsletter  1 (Winter 1998): 3 (of which I was editor); republished in the Federalist Society’s  Intellectual Property Practice Group Newsletter,  3, no. 3 (Winter 2000). [ ↩ ]
• See, e.g., my talks at Federalist Society sponsored events: KOL253 | Berkeley Law Federalist Society: A Libertarian’s Case Against Intellectual Property KOL235 | Intellectual Property: A First Principles Debate (Federalist Society POLICYbrief) ; KOL079 | “Federalist Society IP Debate (Ohio State)” (2011) ; KOL253 | Berkeley Law Federalist Society: A Libertarian’s Case Against Intellectual Property . See also my posts More defenses of IP by the Federalist Society (July 29, 2013); Anti-IP Material Needed in the IP Section of the Federalist Society’s “Conservative & Libertarian Legal Scholarship: Annotated Bibliography” (Oct. 29, 2012); James Stern: Is Intellectual Property Actually Property? [Federalist Society No. 86 LECTURE] (Sep. 17, 2022). [ ↩ ]
• LewRockwell.com (Sep. 4, 2000). [ ↩ ]
• Mises Daily (Nov. 17, 2009). [ ↩ ]
• Another summary piece, which I omit from this collection due to redundancy with this piece and the next chapter, is “ How Intellectual Property Hampers the Free Market ,” The Freeman (June 2011), republished as “ How to Slow Economic Progress ,” Mises Daily (June 1, 2011). [ ↩ ]
• Mises Daily (Nov. 23, 2010). [ ↩ ]
• “ KOL054 | “Ideas are Free: The Case Against Intellectual Property: or, How Libertarians Went Wrong” (2010, Property and Freedom Society) ” and “ PFP064 | Stephan Kinsella, Ideas are Free: The Case Against Intellectual Property Rights (PFS 2010) .” I discuss the conference in my post “ Bodrum Days and Nights: The Fifth Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society: A Partial Report .” I also participated in a Q&A Discussion Panel featuring “Hoppe, van Dun, DiLorenzo, Kinsella, Daniels, Kealey”: see “ PFP066 | Hoppe, Kinsella, Kealey, Van Dun, Daniels, DiLorenzo, Discussion, Q&A (PFS 2010) .” [ ↩ ]
• Kinsella, “ The Case Against Intellectual Property ,” in  Handbook of the Philosophical Foundations of Business Ethics (Prof. Dr. Christoph Lütge, ed.; Springer, 2013) (chapter 68, in Part 18, “Property Rights: Material and Intellectual,” Robert McGee, section ed.), as this piece was a slightly more recent and streamlined version of  AIP . [ ↩ ]
• Originally published in Libertarian Papers 5, no. 1 (2013): 1–44; an updated version of which is included in LFFS . [ ↩ ]
• The publication history is detailed at Kinsella, “ Kinsella, ‘Law and Intellectual Property in a Stateless Society,’ ” C4SIF Blog (March 1, 2013). [ ↩ ]
• Originally published in Mises Daily (Aug. 25, 2010); an updated version of which is included in LFFS . [ ↩ ]
• For some of Tucker’s writings related to IP, see, e.g., “Ideas, Free and Unfree,” and other chapters in the “Can Ideas Be Owned?” section of It’s a Jetsons World: Private Miracles & Public Crimes (Auburn, Ala.: Mises Institute, 2011; https://mises.org/library/its-jetsons-world-private-miracles-and-public-crimes ) (chaps. 37–41); several chapters in the “Technology” section of Bourbon for Breakfast: Living Outside the Statist Quo (Auburn, Ala.: Mises Institute, 2010; https://mises.org/library/bourbon-breakfast ); various chapters in Liberty.me: Freedom Is a Do-It-Yourself Project (Liberty.me, 2014; https://perma.cc/LWV2-UNJM); and various other articles, such as “ Germany and Its Industrial Rise: Due to No Copyright ,” Mises Economics Blog (Aug. 18, 2010); and “ Eternal Copyright ,” C4SIF Blog (Feb. 21, 2012). [ ↩ ]
• Originally published in The Libertarian Standard (Oct. 25, 2022); an updated version of which is included in LFFS . [ ↩ ]
• Kinsella, “ KOL395 | Selling Does Not Imply Ownership, and Vice-Versa: A Dissection (PFS 2022) ,” Kinsella on Liberty Podcast (Sept. 17, 2022). [ ↩ ]
• See Kinsella, “ KOL004 | Interview with Walter Block on Voluntary Slavery and Inalienability ,” Kinsella on Liberty Podcast (Jan. 27, 2013). [ ↩ ]
• Walter Block, “ Rejoinder to Kinsella on ownership and the voluntary slave contract ,” Management Education Science Technology Journal (MESTE) 11, no. 1 (Jan. 2023; https://perma.cc/H3AL-WBQJ ): 1-8. [ ↩ ]
• Some of this material is also discussed in ch. 7, Part IV.G. [ ↩ ]
• Stephan Kinsella, “ Introduction ,” in J. Neil Schulman, Origitent: Why Original Content is Property (Steve Heller Publishing, 2018; https://perma.cc/2E6G-WWPE ), an updated version of which is included in LFFS . For related and background material, see Kinsella, “ On J. Neil Schulman’s Logorights ,” Mises Economics Blog (July 2, 2009); and “Conversation with Schulman about Logorights and Media-Carried Property” (ch. 11). [ ↩ ]
• See Kinsella, “ On J. Neil Schulman’s Logorights ,” Mises Economics Blog (July 2, 2009); idem , “KOL208 | Conversation with Schulman about Logorights and Media-Carried Property.” Neil passed away in 2019. See Kinsella, “ J. Neil Schulman, R.I.P. ,” StephanKinsella.com (Aug. 10, 2019). [ ↩ ]
• In Schulman, Origitent ; an updated version of which is included in LFFS . [ ↩ ]
• See Kinsella, “KOL208 | Conversation with Schulman about Logorights and Media-Carried Property,” which was transcribed by Rosemary Denshaw and edited for clarity for Schulman for his book. [ ↩ ]
• The Libertarian Standard , Jan. 19, 2011; also published as “ Intellectual Freedom and Learning Versus Patent and Copyright ,” Economic Notes No. 113 (Libertarian Alliance, Jan. 18, 2011). This article was based on this speech: “ KOL062 | “Intellectual Freedom and Learning versus Patent and Copyright” (2010) .”  [ ↩ ]
• Kinsella, “Defamation Law and Reputation Rights as a Type of Intellectual Property,” in Elvira Nica & Gheorghe H. Popescu, eds., A Passion for Justice: Essays in Honor of Walter Block (New York: Addleton Academic Publishers, forthcoming 2024). [ ↩ ]
• C4SIF Blog (April 1, 2011). [ ↩ ]
• C4SIF Blog (April 13, 2011). [ ↩ ]
• C4SIF Blog (Oct. 6, 2015). [ ↩ ]
• I call out various libertarian groups for their weak stances on IP in various posts, e.g. More defenses of IP by the Federalist Society (July 29, 2013); Anti-IP Material Needed in the IP Section of the Federalist Society’s “Conservative & Libertarian Legal Scholarship: Annotated Bibliography” (Oct. 29, 2012); James Stern: Is Intellectual Property Actually Property? [Federalist Society No. 86 LECTURE] (Sep. 17, 2022); Independent Institute on The “Benefits” of Intellectual Property Protection (ch. 23);   Shughart’s Defense of IP  (Jan. 29, 2010);  Disinvited From Cato (Aug. 7, 2016); Cato on IP (Jan. 30, 2023); Cato vs. Public Citizen on IP and the TPP (Jan. 20, 2014);  Cato Tugs Stray Back Onto the Reservation; Epstein on reimportation (July 29, 2003). [ ↩ ]
• Mises Daily (Mar. 7, 2005). [ ↩ ]
• See also “ The Forgotten Costs of the Patent System ” (Dec. 6, 2010); “ Costs of the Patent System Revisited ” (Sep. 29, 2010); What are the Costs of the Patent System? (Sep. 27, 2007). See also ch. 19. [ ↩ ]
• Mises Daily (Oct. 1, 2009). [ ↩ ]
• Mises Daily (Jan. 10, 2010). [ ↩ ]
• See also “ The Forgotten Costs of the Patent System ” (Dec. 6, 2010); “ Costs of the Patent System Revisited ” (Sep. 29, 2010); What are the Costs of the Patent System? (Sep. 27, 2007). [ ↩ ]
• C4SIF Blog (Oct. 23, 2012). [ ↩ ]
• StephanKinsella.com (Feb. 3, 2010). [ ↩ ]
• C4SIF Blog (Dec. 10, 2010). [ ↩ ]
• C4SIF Blog (Feb 16, 2016). [ ↩ ]
• See also references in the note to ch. 16. [ ↩ ]
• C4SIF Blog (Jan. 3, 2013). [ ↩ ]
• See also a similar stunt I pulled in “ Russell Madden’s ‘The Death Throes of Pro-IP Libertarianism,’ ” (July 29, 2010). [ ↩ ]
• C4SIF Blog , (June 23, 2011). [ ↩ ]
• StephanKinsella.com (Jan. 6, 2010). [ ↩ ]
• StephanKinsella.com (Dec. 26, 2016). [ ↩ ]
• The Daily Bell (March 18, 2012). [ ↩ ]
• StephanKinsella.com (Oct. 12, 2018). [ ↩ ]
• C4SIF Blog (April 13, 2013). [ ↩ ]
• KOL037 | Locke’s Big Mistake: How the Labor Theory of Property Ruined Political Theory (March 28, 2013). [ ↩ ]
• StephanKinsella.com (April 25, 2021). [ ↩ ]
•   KOL236 | Intellectual Nonsense: Fallacious Arguments for IP (Libertopia 2012) (Feb. 10, 2018) and KOL237 | Intellectual Nonsense: Fallacious Arguments for IP—Part 2 (Libertopia 2012) (Feb. 12, 2018). [ ↩ ]
•   StephanKinsella.com (Nov. 24, 2021). [ ↩ ]
• See  KOL369 | Soho Forum IP Debate Post-Mortem with Greg Morin . [ ↩ ]
•   StephanKinsella.com (June 5, 2021). [ ↩ ]
• StephanKinsella.com (Dec. 11, 2013). [ ↩ ]
• My Liberty.met seminar discussion of these topics  is available at “ KOL159 | Seminar: “Practical Solutions to the IP Trap ” (Oct. 24, 2014). [ ↩ ]
• Kinsella, “ Examples of Ways Content Creators Can Profit Without Intellectual Property ,” StephanKinsella.com (July 28, 2010). See also  idem , “ Conversation with an author about copyright and publishing in a free society ,” C4SIF.org (Jan. 23, 2012); idem , “ Innovations that Thrive Without IP ,” StephanKinsella.com (Aug. 9, 2010). [ ↩ ]
• Mises Daily (July 28, 2010). [ ↩ ]
• See also “Classical Liberals and Anarchists on Intellectual Property,” ch. 16; “ An Objectivist Recants on IP ” (Dec. 4, 2009); “ Yet another Randian recants on IP ” (Feb. 1, 2012); “ Letter from a UK Grad Student ” (Feb. 10, 2012). [ ↩ ]
• Kinsella on Liberty Podcast (Feb. 14, 2015). [ ↩ ]

• AgainstMonopoly.org Blog Posts
• Announcements
• Audio Narration
• Austrian Economics
• Intellectual Property
• Kinsella on Liberty Podcast
• Legal Foundations of a Free Society
• LewRockwell.com Blog Posts
• Libertarian Answer Man
• Libertarian Papers
• Libertarian Party
• Libertarian Standard, The
• Libertarianism
• Living & Travel
• Mises Blog Posts
• Original-Other Authors
• Property rights
• Publications
• Speaking and Teaching
• Uncategorized

Recent Comments

• What Kind of Libertarian Are You? on Private Discrimination, Rand Paul, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964
• Patents, Pharma, Government: The Unholy Alliance – Analysis – Yerepouni Daily News on There’s No Such Thing as a Free Patent
• On Jonah Goldberg’s Youthful Phase on I hereby expel Bill Maher from the libertarian movement
• Patents, Pharma, Government: The Unholy Alliance – April 3, 2024 – Rose Rambles… on There’s No Such Thing as a Free Patent
• KOL426 | Discussing Immigration and Homesteading Donuts with Matthew Sands of Nations of Sanity on Libertarian Answer Man: Homesteading Donuts, Hostile Encirclement, and Prostitution as Selling One’s Body
• KOL426 | Discussing Immigration and Homesteading Donuts with Matthew Sands of Nations of Sanity on KOL362 | California Gold #6, with Matt Sands: Defining Libertarianism, Anarchism and Voluntaryism
• KOL426 | Discussing Immigration and Homesteading Donuts with Matthew Sands of Nations of Sanity on KOL372 | Discussing Contract Theory, Restitution, Punishment, with Matthew Sands of Nations of Sanity
• KOL426 | Discussing Immigration and Homesteading Donuts with Matthew Sands of Nations of Sanity on Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Libertarian Theory and Applications
• Switzerland, Immigration, Hoppe, Raico, Callahan on Boudreaux on Hoppe on Immigration
• Boudreaux on Hoppe on Immigration on Switzerland, Immigration, Hoppe, Raico, Callahan
• Patents, Pharma, Government: The Unholy Alliance  – Freedom Is Good on Cato on Drug Reimportation; Cato Tugs Stray Back Onto the Reservation; and Other Posts
• Patents, Pharma, Government: The Unholy Alliance  – Freedom Is Good on There’s No Such Thing as a Free Patent
• Patents, Pharma, Government: The Unholy Alliance on Patents, Pharma, Government: The Unholy Alliance
• Patents, Pharma, Government: The Unholy Alliance on Cato on Drug Reimportation; Cato Tugs Stray Back Onto the Reservation; and Other Posts
• Patents, Pharma, Government: The Unholy Alliance on There’s No Such Thing as a Free Patent
• A Thousand Cuts [Brian Martinez]
• Against Monopoly
• Albert Esplugas (en busca de Ancapia – vía Londres)
• Anti-State.com
• Antiwar.com
• Argumentation Ethics
• Austro-Athenian Empire
• Daily Apology, The
• Daniel Coleman
• Education by Design (Montessori blog)
• Free Talk Live: 100% Pro-Liberty Talk Radio
• Freiheit und Zivilisation (Robert Grözinger)
• Gil Guillory
• Guido Hülsmann
• Hans-Hermann Hoppe
• IP-Policy Wiki
• Is-Ought GAP [Geoff Plauche]
• KinsellaLaw.com
• Lettuce Have Peas: Anarcho-capitalist rants with a focus on Real Estate, Books and Technology (Iceberg)
• Libertarian Forum (news)
• Libertarian Guide
• Libertarian Law & Lawyers Googlegroup
• LibertarianChristians.com
• Lone Star Injury Attorneys
• Mike Makes Right (Michael Barnett)
• Mises Made Easier-Glossary
• Murder Park Blog
• My AudioBoo RSS Feed
• Objectivist Living
• Paleo Blog, The
• Positive Anarchy [Wombatron]
• Profatus veritas (Dick Clark)
• Property and Freedom Society
• Retorno a la Razón [Juan Fernando Carpio-Spanish]
• Rob Wicks's Random Ramblings
• Shadow Justice, The
• The Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom (C4SIF)
• The Swamp Land Exile
• Walter Block
• WendyMcElroy.com

My Favorites

• Annoying & Pretentious Terms
• Favorite Quotes
• Favorite Things
• Interesting and Notable Terms of the Slate Podcast Literati
• Entries feed
• Comments feed
• WordPress.org

• 10 economic lessons (that governments would like to hide from you) January 16, 2015 Juan Fernando Carpio
• Charlie Hebdo: on “hate crimes” and blaming the victim January 9, 2015 Brian Martinez
• Green Shoots Among the EcoReds November 9, 2014 Robert Wicks
• Salon’s Seven Misconceptions About Libertarianism September 5, 2014 Akiva
• Of Morality and Failed Business Strategies… August 15, 2014 Wilton Alston
• Religious Conduct of Commerce: Unwinding the Hobby Lobby Case July 2, 2014 Akiva
• Was Robin Hood a Marxist? June 16, 2014 BK Marcus
• Patents, Pharma, Government: The Unholy Alliance April 2, 2024 Stephan Kinsella
• Objectivist Adam Mossoff and Heritage Argue for Internet Censorship to Protect Copyrights February 14, 2024 Stephan Kinsella
• Intellectual Property Discussion with Mark Skousen February 3, 2024 Stephan Kinsella
• Munger on Property Rights in Words and Information January 16, 2024 Stephan Kinsella
• Libertarian and IP Answer Man: Does China have “more fierce” competition because of weaker IP law? January 9, 2024 Stephan Kinsella
• Patents Kill: Apple Watch Blocked from Blood Oxygen Monitoring December 19, 2023 Stephan Kinsella
• Intellectual Property is Common Property: Arguments for the Abolition of Private Intellectual Property Rights, by Andreas Von Gunten October 30, 2023 Stephan Kinsella

This site rocks the Classic Responsive Skin for Thesis .

• Harvard Central Administration and University Research Centers
• Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society Scholarly Articles
• Communities & Collections
• By Issue Date
• FAS Department
• Quick submit
• Waiver Generator
• DASH Stories
• Accessibility
• COVID-related Research
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• By Collections
• By Departments

Show simple item record

Theories of Intellectual Property

Files in this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

• Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society Scholarly Articles [105]

2011 Theses Doctoral

Essays on Intellectual Property

Michigan, Ryan

This dissertation consists of three essays on regulation. In the first essay, "Firm Reputation and Screening at the Patent Office", we assert that the patent office is an important regulator, exerting influence on firm outcomes. Prior research argues that powerful groups such as top innovators are able to capture their regulators , gaining favorable treatment in return for either monetary contributions to legislators' political committees or hoped-for future employment of regulators in the firms they regulate or in the firms of their legal representatives. It is also argued that regulators face many audiences and attempt to maximize their legitimacy to political entities, legal entities, the general public and the firms affected by their regulation. This can introduce a lack of consistency in decision-making. Given the considerable power of many regulators, this has implications for both policy and firm strategy. The patent office, in particular, faces considerable uncertainty about the value of the patent rights it provides. Further, patent examiners are under pressure to grant patents quickly and have no way of permanently disposing of an application other than by granting it. We argue that patent examiners tend to look for certain signals in attempting to determine the quality of the application. We assert that the patent office's focus on helping its clients obtain intellectual property rights make their clients' prior reputations most salient. Therefore examiners tend to rely on the prominence of the applicant in the prior patent art. This can grant either a positive or negative reputation depending upon the general reputation of that field in prior patent art. We utilize a dataset of all patents granted from 2001-2003. We use examiner-added citations to prior patent art, controlling for applicant-added citations as a measure of examiner screening. We find that firm reputation for patenting influences the level of scrutiny to which a patent application is subjected. In the conclusion we discuss the implications of these findings. In the second essay, "Which drugs obtain the Pediatric Exclusivity Provision" we examine the pediatric exclusivity regulation provision. Pediatric exclusivity is designed to reward companies for conducting pediatric trials for dosage and safety with 6 months' extra monopoly on their drug. Using data from the Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys from 1996-2007 and drug data from the FDA, we find that companies appear to base the decision to conduct pediatric trials almost solely on the basis of current sales (and hence presumably future projected revenue). We find the threshold for a sharply increased probability of obtaining pediatric exclusivity is annual sales of $260 million in the prior year. We estimate, very conservatively, that the total liability to consumers is US$ 21 billion as of end 2007. We also find, in accordance with prior criticism, that, (barring ADHD drugs, which are marketed primarily to minors) even after controlling for the total sales, the proportion of sales to minors does not affect the probability of obtaining pediatric exclusivity. This is in concordance with regulatory capture theory which would suggest that a powerful group (i.e.. brand-name drug manufacturers ) influenced Congress to pass this legislation to procure a benefit for themselves with a not-easily perceived cost to the much more diffuse group of pharmaceutical customers who pay brand-name prices for 6 more months as a result of delayed generic entry. In the third essay "Pediatric Exclusivity - Are the intended benefits being realized?" we examine the underlying rationale for the pediatric exclusivity and test whether the intended benefits of pediatric exclusivity are being realized. The pediatric exclusivity rule is intended to provide benefits to pediatric patients by providing clinicians with label information regarding safety and dosage in pediatric populations. We test whether valuable and important information is being produced and disseminated by the clinical trials that are undertaken to gain pediatric exclusivity. We do this by examining the patterns of publication of clinical trials before and after pediatric exclusivity is obtained and by examining the patterns of prescriptions to minor patients before and after pediatric exclusivity is obtained. We find no evidence of greater dissemination of pediatric information in the peer-reviewed literature after obtaining pediatric exclusivity. We also find no evidence of changing patterns of prescriptions to minor patients after pediatric exclusivity is obtained. This leads us to question the value of the information being provided and conclude that the intended benefits of pediatric exclusivity provision are not being realized. We conclude that pediatric exclusivity legislation is an example of regulatory capture, designed primarily to increase monopoly protection of the sales of brand-name drugs without producing many tangible benefits.

• Organizational sociology

More About This Work

• DOI Copy DOI to clipboard

Essay on Intellectual Property

Students are often asked to write an essay on Intellectual Property in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Intellectual Property

What is intellectual property.

Intellectual Property, or IP, is like owning a special thing that you thought of or created. It can be an invention, a story, a song, or even a symbol for a brand. IP rights protect these creations to make sure others don’t use them without permission.

Types of Intellectual Property

There are main types of IP. Patents protect inventions. Copyrights are for art and writing. Trademarks keep brand names and logos safe. Lastly, trade secrets are secret recipes or methods that businesses keep to themselves.

Why Intellectual Property Matters

IP rights encourage people to create new things by promising they can control how their creations are used. This leads to more inventions, art, and technology, which helps everyone. Plus, it makes sure creators get credit and possibly money for their work.

250 Words Essay on Intellectual Property

Intellectual Property, or IP, is like owning a bike or a book. When you create something with your mind, like a story, a song, a painting, or an invention, IP laws say that your idea belongs to you. This means others can’t take or use your work without asking you first.

There are a few different kinds of IP. First, we have “copyrights.” These protect creative works like books, music, and movies. Then there’s “patents.” If you invent a new machine or a way of doing something, a patent says that your invention is yours alone. Third, “trademarks” protect brand names and logos. Lastly, “trade secrets” are special recipes or methods that a company keeps secret to stay ahead of others.

IP is important because it encourages people to be creative and inventive. Knowing that your ideas are safe means you can share your work with the world without fear of it being stolen. It also means that creators can make money from their ideas, which helps them to keep creating new things.

Respecting Intellectual Property

Just like you wouldn’t want someone to take your belongings, it’s important to respect others’ IP. This means not copying or using someone else’s work without permission. By respecting IP, we can all enjoy more music, art, and inventions that make our world interesting and fun.

500 Words Essay on Intellectual Property

Intellectual property, or IP for short, is like owning a bike or a toy. When you own something, it means it’s yours and no one else can use it without your permission. IP is the same idea, but instead of things you can touch, it’s about ideas and creations from your mind. These can be stories, inventions, designs, or even the name of a new type of candy.

There are four main kinds of IP. First, there’s ‘patents.’ If you invent a cool gadget, a patent stops others from making it without asking you first. Second, ‘trademarks’ protect symbols, words, or phrases that represent a company or product. Think about the special ‘swoosh’ sign for Nike – that’s a trademark. Third, ‘copyrights’ are for creative works like books, movies, and music. They make sure no one copies your work and sells it. Last, there’s ‘design rights’ which protect the unique look of things like toys or furniture.

Why is Intellectual Property Important?

IP is important because it encourages people to be creative and come up with new things. Imagine if you spent a long time creating a new board game, and then someone else started selling it without saying thank you or sharing the money they made from it. You would feel upset, right? IP laws make sure that creators can get credit and money for their work. This way, they can keep making more new and exciting things for us.

How Intellectual Property Affects You

You might wonder, “Why should I care about IP?” Well, it’s everywhere! When you play a video game, listen to music, or wear clothes with a favorite character, IP is at work. It helps make sure that the people who made those things get paid, so they can keep making more things for us to enjoy.

Protecting Intellectual Property

Protecting IP is a big job. There are special rules and laws. If someone copies someone else’s IP, they can get in trouble, like having to pay money or even going to court. It’s like if someone took your bike and you had to tell a teacher to help get it back.

Intellectual property is a way to keep safe the things people create with their minds. It’s not just for inventors or artists, but for everyone. It helps make sure that when people create something new, they are rewarded for their hard work. This way, we all get to enjoy more music, games, books, and inventions. IP is like a promise that when you make something, it’s protected and valued, just like any other property you own.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:

• Essay on Intellectual Powers Of Man
• Essay on Integrated Marketing Communication
• Essay on Instability And Finance

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Intellectual Property Rights: Importance for Business Essay

Introduction, intellectual property, why intellectual property matters, bankruptcy and its relation to debtors and creditors, reference list.

Companies lose billions of dollars in violation of intellectual property rights. These have been witnessed in Microsoft’s cases, for instance, in 2010, they lost over $20 billion due to piracy in China alone. Intellectual property is therefore very important for ensuring the survival of multinational companies. The United States government has reformed its bankruptcy policies to weed out debtors who had previously depended on bankruptcy to evade paying their debts. This paper will explore the relevance of modules studied in real life situations (Feeney, 2010, p. 5).

The module started by introducing intellectual property and relating its significance to companies in terms of ownership of their creations as well as the benefits that come from such creations. Intellectual property refers to the development exclusive rights guarding a number of creations by organizations or individuals. For instance, when Microsoft develops an operating system, they get exclusive rights on the software, thus restricting any form of piracy, copy or use of the same idea to produce the identical products. However, this has been violated in most cases , with most Chinese businesses opting to buy the cheap pirated copies of Microsoft operating system. This has contributed to revenue loss by the Microsoft company as reports estimate that over $ 20 billion are lost every year (Yahoo! Inc., 2011, p. 1).

The module then proceeded to explore the importance of intellectual property. These include value added per employee and generation of funds as incentives for creation of more products. Most multinational corporations face infringement of their intellectual property rights by pirates in developing countries such as China, Vietnam as well as India, among others. When such vices are allowed to continue, operations in multinational companies can halt. This is why intellectual property forms the basis of investments and innovations. Among other things, China, for example, produce identical automobiles from companies such as General Motors and electronics. This is quite detrimental to the development of other creations as profits are greatly reduced. Intellectual property rights are very essential for innovations and survival of multinational companies (Cross, & Miller, 2008, p. 68).

The module explores the links between debtors and creditors. Before granting credits, vendors are expected to conduct extensive screening of their potential debtor to ascertain their repayment capabilities as well as good moral risks. Examples from the United States show an overwhelming experience in relating Debts, which ensures informed applications only. Most multinational companies that granted credits during recession are suffering as they could not recoup their investment and had to receive a bailout from the federal government to remain in business. In addition, the American population has always used bankruptcy to evade paying off their debts. However, this has changed since the Congress reformed laws regulating bankruptcy. Bankruptcy has been made more difficult to come by, forcing people to make informed decisions before applying for credits. Healthcare costs burden the American population and this has greatly contributed to high levels of debts. The module went further to determine functions of agents who are charged with responsibility of conducting businesses transactions on behalf of companies (Cross, & Miller, 2008, p. 68).

Intellectual property rights have to be protected to ensure survival of multinational companies. If this is not done, funds and incentives for innovative research as well as investments on new creations will decline. In addition, since businesses have gone global, intellectual property should be monitored over the web to ascertain more ways of reducing its spread. Screening of debtors should also be done to enhance determination of repayment ability. More ways should also be explored to help in noting debtors with bad moral risks (PhysOrg, 2011, p. 1).

Cross, F.B., & Miller, R.L. (2008). The legal environment of business: Text and cases – ethical, regulatory, global, and e-commerce issues. (7th ed.) . West: Cincinnati.

Feeney, J.N. (2010). The road out of debt : bankruptcy and other solutions to your financial problems . Hoboken, NJ : Wiley.

PhysOrg. (2011). Microsoft chief says China piracy very costly . PHYSORG.com. Web.

Yahoo! Inc. (2011). China piracy cost software industry $20bn in 2010 . Yahoo! News Network. Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2022, April 1). Intellectual Property Rights: Importance for Business. https://ivypanda.com/essays/intellectual-property-rights-importance-for-business/

"Intellectual Property Rights: Importance for Business." IvyPanda , 1 Apr. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/intellectual-property-rights-importance-for-business/.

IvyPanda . (2022) 'Intellectual Property Rights: Importance for Business'. 1 April.

IvyPanda . 2022. "Intellectual Property Rights: Importance for Business." April 1, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/intellectual-property-rights-importance-for-business/.

1. IvyPanda . "Intellectual Property Rights: Importance for Business." April 1, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/intellectual-property-rights-importance-for-business/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Intellectual Property Rights: Importance for Business." April 1, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/intellectual-property-rights-importance-for-business/.

• Bankruptcy Types and Their Application
• Issues That Relate to Security and Bankruptcy
• Business Law and Bankruptcy
• Business Law. Bankruptcy and Reorganization
• Reformed Epistemology Analysis
• Bankruptcy and the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005
• The Bankruptcy Act and Amendments
• “Darth Wall Street Thwarting Debtors With Credit Swaps” by Harrington & Salas
• A case against Software Piracy
• Should Common Agricultural Policy Be Reformed?
• Protection of Intellectual Property Rights
• Copyright Implications: Crime Punishable by Law
• Audi AG and Volkswagen of America Inc. vs. Bob D'Amato
• Copyright: Challenges, Limitations and Solutions
• YouTube and Copyright Infringement

Peter Drahos, Gustavo Ghidini and Hanns Ullrich (eds): Kritika: Essays on Intellectual Property, Volume 1

Edward Elgar Publishing Ltd, Cheltenham 2015. xiii + 352 pp. ISBN 978 1 78471 205 1. £90.00

• Book Review
• Published: 25 May 2017
• Volume 48 , pages 499–500, ( 2017 )

Cite this article

• Axel Metzger 1  

205 Accesses

Explore all metrics

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

Access this article

Price includes VAT (Russian Federation)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Rent this article via DeepDyve

Institutional subscriptions

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany

Axel Metzger ( Dr., LL.M. (Harvard); Professor of Civil Law and Intellectual Property Law )

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Axel Metzger .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Metzger, A. Peter Drahos, Gustavo Ghidini and Hanns Ullrich (eds): Kritika: Essays on Intellectual Property, Volume 1. IIC 48 , 499–500 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-017-0585-y

Download citation

Published : 25 May 2017

Issue Date : June 2017

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-017-0585-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Kritika: Essays on Intellectual Property

• Intellectual Property Law

• [66.249.64.20|81.177.182.159]
• 81.177.182.159

Character limit 500 /500

• Intellectual Property

Buy new: $125.73 $125.73 $3.99 delivery: May 6 - 10 Ships from: SuperBookDeals--- Sold by: SuperBookDeals---

Buy used: $116.60.

Download the free Kindle app and start reading Kindle books instantly on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required .

Read instantly on your browser with Kindle for Web.

Using your mobile phone camera - scan the code below and download the Kindle app.

Image Unavailable

• To view this video download Flash Player

Kritika: Essays on Intellectual Property: Volume 3

Purchase options and add-ons.

With contributions from: Sara Bannerman; Shamnad Basheer; Rahul Bajaj; Mohammed El Said; Blayne Haggart; Thomas Hoeren; P. Bernt Hugenholtz and Fiona Macmillan

• ISBN-10 1788971159
• ISBN-13 978-1788971157
• Publisher Edward Elgar Publishing
• Publication date July 27, 2018
• Language English
• Dimensions 6.25 x 0.75 x 9.25 inches
• Print length 224 pages
• See all details

Editorial Reviews

About the author, product details.

• Publisher ‏ : ‎ Edward Elgar Publishing (July 27, 2018)
• Language ‏ : ‎ English
• Hardcover ‏ : ‎ 224 pages
• ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 1788971159
• ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-1788971157
• Item Weight ‏ : ‎ 1 pounds
• Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 6.25 x 0.75 x 9.25 inches

Customer reviews

Customer Reviews, including Product Star Ratings help customers to learn more about the product and decide whether it is the right product for them.

To calculate the overall star rating and percentage breakdown by star, we don’t use a simple average. Instead, our system considers things like how recent a review is and if the reviewer bought the item on Amazon. It also analyzed reviews to verify trustworthiness.

No customer reviews

• Amazon Newsletter
• About Amazon
• Accessibility
• Sustainability
• Press Center
• Investor Relations
• Amazon Devices
• Amazon Science
• Sell on Amazon
• Sell apps on Amazon
• Supply to Amazon
• Protect & Build Your Brand
• Become an Affiliate
• Become a Delivery Driver
• Start a Package Delivery Business
• Advertise Your Products
• Self-Publish with Us
• Become an Amazon Hub Partner
• › See More Ways to Make Money
• Amazon Visa
• Amazon Store Card
• Amazon Secured Card
• Amazon Business Card
• Shop with Points
• Credit Card Marketplace
• Reload Your Balance
• Amazon Currency Converter
• Your Account
• Your Orders
• Shipping Rates & Policies
• Amazon Prime
• Returns & Replacements
• Manage Your Content and Devices
• Recalls and Product Safety Alerts
• Conditions of Use
• Privacy Notice
• Consumer Health Data Privacy Disclosure
• Your Ads Privacy Choices