A Good Idea Gone Bad. Can we still justify patent monopolies?

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Standard

A Good Idea Gone Bad. Can we still justify patent monopolies? / Harrison, Peter Stuart.

Great Debates in Corporate & Commercial Law. ed. / Lorraine Talbot; Andrew Johnston. Palgrave, 2018.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Harvard

Harrison, PS 2018, A Good Idea Gone Bad. Can we still justify patent monopolies? in L Talbot & A Johnston (eds), Great Debates in Corporate & Commercial Law. Palgrave.

APA

Harrison, P. S. (Accepted/In press). A Good Idea Gone Bad. Can we still justify patent monopolies? In L. Talbot, & A. Johnston (Eds.), Great Debates in Corporate & Commercial Law Palgrave.

Vancouver

Harrison PS. A Good Idea Gone Bad. Can we still justify patent monopolies? In Talbot L, Johnston A, editors, Great Debates in Corporate & Commercial Law. Palgrave. 2018

Author

Harrison, Peter Stuart. / A Good Idea Gone Bad. Can we still justify patent monopolies?. Great Debates in Corporate & Commercial Law. editor / Lorraine Talbot ; Andrew Johnston. Palgrave, 2018.

Bibtex - Download

@inbook{9b167965ac464fae8d062fc4e6df8619,
title = "A Good Idea Gone Bad. Can we still justify patent monopolies?",
abstract = "Intellectual property is a surprisingly strange beast. Whilst, society as a whole seems to have become somewhat accustomed (or as some critics might argue, inured) to the concept that the products of intellectual effort are protected by property rights, the true (and highly problematic) character of intellectual property itself, the normative questions which surround its existence, and its societal impact sometimes appear unappreciated. Students who first encounter the subject understandably focus on not confusing a patent with a copyright, a copyright with a trade mark, or a trade mark with a design right. They then grapple with subject matter of protection, validity requirements, duration periods, and infringement exemptions for a seemingly endless spectrum of disparate rights. However, this effort can lead to a misapprehension that the world of intellectual property is (save for some minutiae) relatively settled and without substantial normative problems. That is very far from the truth and it is the aim of this work to highlight some of the key problems with the control of the products of intellectual effort and why radical lawyers may wish to take issue with the current position. The focus of this piece is on the control of inventions by way of patents. It will describe why the propertisation of ideas is a significant restriction on freedom which requires substantial philosophical justification, and the extent to which that justification may be undermined by the behaviour of patent right holders. The piece will, in particular, examine the phenomena of strategic patenting, patent thickets, pharmaceutical patent evergreening, and patent trolls, and the impact of patents on the global South.",
author = "Harrison, {Peter Stuart}",
year = "2018",
month = "10",
day = "19",
language = "English",
editor = "Lorraine Talbot and Andrew Johnston",
booktitle = "Great Debates in Corporate & Commercial Law",
publisher = "Palgrave",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) - Download

TY - CHAP

T1 - A Good Idea Gone Bad. Can we still justify patent monopolies?

AU - Harrison, Peter Stuart

PY - 2018/10/19

Y1 - 2018/10/19

N2 - Intellectual property is a surprisingly strange beast. Whilst, society as a whole seems to have become somewhat accustomed (or as some critics might argue, inured) to the concept that the products of intellectual effort are protected by property rights, the true (and highly problematic) character of intellectual property itself, the normative questions which surround its existence, and its societal impact sometimes appear unappreciated. Students who first encounter the subject understandably focus on not confusing a patent with a copyright, a copyright with a trade mark, or a trade mark with a design right. They then grapple with subject matter of protection, validity requirements, duration periods, and infringement exemptions for a seemingly endless spectrum of disparate rights. However, this effort can lead to a misapprehension that the world of intellectual property is (save for some minutiae) relatively settled and without substantial normative problems. That is very far from the truth and it is the aim of this work to highlight some of the key problems with the control of the products of intellectual effort and why radical lawyers may wish to take issue with the current position. The focus of this piece is on the control of inventions by way of patents. It will describe why the propertisation of ideas is a significant restriction on freedom which requires substantial philosophical justification, and the extent to which that justification may be undermined by the behaviour of patent right holders. The piece will, in particular, examine the phenomena of strategic patenting, patent thickets, pharmaceutical patent evergreening, and patent trolls, and the impact of patents on the global South.

AB - Intellectual property is a surprisingly strange beast. Whilst, society as a whole seems to have become somewhat accustomed (or as some critics might argue, inured) to the concept that the products of intellectual effort are protected by property rights, the true (and highly problematic) character of intellectual property itself, the normative questions which surround its existence, and its societal impact sometimes appear unappreciated. Students who first encounter the subject understandably focus on not confusing a patent with a copyright, a copyright with a trade mark, or a trade mark with a design right. They then grapple with subject matter of protection, validity requirements, duration periods, and infringement exemptions for a seemingly endless spectrum of disparate rights. However, this effort can lead to a misapprehension that the world of intellectual property is (save for some minutiae) relatively settled and without substantial normative problems. That is very far from the truth and it is the aim of this work to highlight some of the key problems with the control of the products of intellectual effort and why radical lawyers may wish to take issue with the current position. The focus of this piece is on the control of inventions by way of patents. It will describe why the propertisation of ideas is a significant restriction on freedom which requires substantial philosophical justification, and the extent to which that justification may be undermined by the behaviour of patent right holders. The piece will, in particular, examine the phenomena of strategic patenting, patent thickets, pharmaceutical patent evergreening, and patent trolls, and the impact of patents on the global South.

M3 - Chapter

BT - Great Debates in Corporate & Commercial Law

A2 - Talbot, Lorraine

A2 - Johnston, Andrew

PB - Palgrave

ER -