INTRODUCTION
According to Article 2 of the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) (see here), “Intellectual Property shall include the rights relating to literary, artistic, and scientific works, inventions in all fields of human endeavour, scientific discoveries, industrial designs, trademarks, service marks, and commercial names and designations, protection against unfair competition, and protection against unfair competition.”
As part of Digital India, individuals have begun to conduct their transactions online and make use of internet-based services. The shift is also due to the government’s desire to encourage digitization through additional benefits for online transactions. Internet use has widely exposed Intellectual Property to multiple risks since it offers “easy access to illegitimate copying and reproducing.”
Despite being a relatively new concept, intellectual property has evolved considerably in the years following the industrial revolution in Europe, when technological advancements peaked. In the nineteenth century, however, intellectual property laws were codified. The protection of intellectual property has therefore encouraged further innovation among creators.
It is IP that serves as a motivator for creators by giving them a sense of ownership by ensuring their information is protected even when it is accessed online. In today’s technologically advanced age, it is necessary to protect inventions and artworks, so intellectual property rights should be enforced to protect these creations.
Several important philosophers contributed toward a greater understanding of intellectual property, including John Locke, Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, Jeremy Bentham, and Georg Hegel. The jurisprudential aspect of intellectual property rights is based on their ideologies and theories.
THEORIES Of IPR
- NATURAL RIGHTS THEORY / THE LOCKEAN LABOUR THEORY OF PROPERTY:
John Locke (1632-1704), one of the most influential Enlightenment thinkers and epistemologists in defending property rights, argued in Chapter V of the Second Treatise on Government (see here) that one may own goods and properties to produce goods necessary for society.
The essence of this theory is John Locke’s theory of natural ownership, which holds that an owner has a natural right to all things he creates through his hard work and effort. Consequently, ownership is based on the invention and innovation of the creator. Locke believed that individuals should have control over the results of their labours. According to him, by adding one’s labour to planting crops or creating a new invention, a person has “naturally acquired property rights” (see here). Therefore, in a similar vein, the natural rights theory of intellectual property asserts that an individual automatically acquires ownership of his work simply by putting forth his intellectual efforts.
To Lockean thinking, property rights should be rewarded for hard work. Therefore, intellectual labour deserves property rights as long as it contributes to societal welfare. The Lockean theory of property has made scholarly debate about property rights impossible since it is open to multiple interpretations. Several judicial decisions have cited it, including Millar v. Taylor (1769) 4 Burr.2303 (see here), and it is still influential today.
Locke’s theory holds that when work is invested in an unowned object, that work becomes entangled with the new object, which cannot be separated without damaging the new creation. Therefore, the creator has acquired the natural right to own the work he has contributed to. Property rights ensure that an individual’s original creation cannot be used, transferred, or manipulated by others. Intellectual property rights belonging to the creator or owner of work are protected by law.
- ETHIC AND REWARD THEORY:
In addition to protecting an owner or creator’s novel creations, IPR also grants him exclusive rights over those works. A property owner has exclusive rights to use and dispose of the property as he sees fit, as well as exclude others from using it. As the creator contributes to society by producing his work, he is rewarded for doing so; however, if a moral or ethical perspective is included in the reward, it falls within this theory of intellectual property rights.
This theory believes that giving exclusive rights to original work is a way to express gratitude to an author for doing more than society expects. The individual whose work is granted exclusive legal rights to produce should also benefit not just financially, but also by contributing to the betterment of society.
As per the Ethic and Reward Theory, the original creator might have received a royalty or other type of compensation for creating the original work, and the creator should then receive exclusive legal rights to his novel production for contributing to the greater good of society. This theory’s proponents believe that an individual who devotes his intellectual labour to the greater good should be fairly compensated and his contribution respected, and that this can be accomplished by granting him exclusive rights. The creator is legally protected from infringement due to these exclusive rights that serve as rewards for moral and ethical conduct.
- UTILITARIAN THEORY:
Utilitarianism, as proposed by Jeremy Bentham and John S. Mill, aids in socio-cultural and economic progress. When it comes to intellectual property, the utilitarian concept becomes crucial.
Utilitarianism means “the greatest good for the greatest number”, which essentially means that the greatest number of people should be happy. As a result, behaviour that brings enjoyment to a large number of individuals should be praised and promoted, whereas behaviour that brings dissatisfaction to society should be avoided or discouraged.
According to this concept, technological advancement and cultural products have a positive impact on society. As a consequence, to promote innovations and creations, the inventor must ensure that the result outweighs his expenditures. Ultimately, intellectual property rights are a government-sponsored artificial incentive for development. As a result of their societal value, intellectual property rights are defended based on incentive/utilitarian theory.
- PERSONHOOD THEORY/PERSONALITY-BASED THEORY:
This jurisprudential philosophy was advocated by intellectual giants like Immanuel Kant and Georg Hegel. Using their labour to create anything, the person also incorporates some characteristics of their personalities into the work. This is known as the personhood theory of intellectual property rights.
Individuals develop their personalities through work and production, according to this notion. The right to property includes the right to develop one’s personality. According to Hegel, the right to intellectual property permits and defends the development of the individual’s personality, which extends to material things as well. In the same vein, a copyist is regarded as a criminal who tries to sell someone else’s spirit.
The right to “protect the development of personality extends to material goods” places more importance on preserving and safeguarding individual interests than solely monetary goals. Furthermore, the creator should be entitled to protect the identity of himself or herself embodied in the work along with the right to earn a living through the work. Intellectual property rights must include both creativity and everything else that accompanies it.
- SOCIALIST THEORY:
Karl Marx (1818-1883) opposed Locke, who argued for private property based on labour, believing that property rights provided alienation and restricted freedom. Karl Marx was an outspoken opponent of the French theory of the “Right of Man” of 1789, and he did not believe all rights are equal. According to him, all other rights are subordinate to the right to property. A person’s right to property forced him to see other people as adversaries who hindered his ability to acquire or preserve property. Legal equality cannot exist without property if laws are there to defend it.
- THE DOCTRINE OF EQUIVALENTS:
A copy of a patent may not always be regarded as an actual imitation, but it might have the same effect. By permitting such copying, it becomes moot to grant the creator patent protection. Making slight adjustments will make it simple for anyone to copy the patent and reap greater profits than the original creator. It was intended to curb such conduct through the Doctrine of Equivalents.
Patent infringement can be divided into two categories: literal infringement and non-literal infringement. It must be a literal replication of the claimed innovation for it to be considered an infringement. As determined in Polaroid Corp v. Eastman Kodak (see here), Eastman Kodak’s use of the Polaroid ‘instant camera technology’ was a literal copy of the original. On the other hand, indirect infringement assumes some malicious intent or unintentional infringement.
Indirect infringements are governed by the Doctrine of Equivalent Patents. The law allows the patentee to assert a claim even if the claims of the patented invention are not the same in the infringing product. To prevent unauthorized modifications to inventions while maintaining their functionality, this doctrine prohibits people from taking advantage of the inventor’s labour and investment by making minor modifications.
A test is known as the “all elements test” was established by Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Company (see here). This test requires applying the doctrine of equivalent patents to each claim individually, not the entire invention. Thus, it is critical to proving that the accused process or product embodies all the essential elements of the patent or its substantial equivalent.
In India, there has been little discussion about the doctrine of equivalent patents, and in the process, it is not well established. A case in India entitled Ravi Kamal Bali v. Kala Tech and others (see here) explored the doctrine for the first time. As the result of its factual investigation of the case, the court determined that the accused product and the patented product shared the same “use/purpose”, “type of material”, and “principle”. In its decision, the court explained that reworking the main body of the product did not amount to an invention because there was little difference between its structural and functional aspects. Although the judgment established the doctrine’s practice, it did not specify the procedures for interpreting it.
CONCLUSION
In recent years, Intellectual Property Rights have shown to be extremely useful and successful in protecting creations that have contributed to the growth and development of any country. They’ve given society a boost and urged it to generate more. As the world progresses technologically and creatively, it is undeniable that competitiveness is increasing. People might resort to unethical practices, such as manipulating or copying others’ inventions or using them for illegitimate purposes. Therefore, intellectual property rights, such as patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets, are used to prevent such occurrences.
Intellectual property rights are determined in different ways based on the above-mentioned theories. There is no one correct theory or doctrine to determine intellectual property rights. Different people may endorse different theories. In spite of the fact that most philosophers regard property rights as essential, none of their theories can adequately defend or oppose intellectual property rights. It is undoubtedly true that intellectual property creators have some control over their creations.
There are several flaws and inconsistencies in these theories that need to be investigated. Furthermore, as time passes and technology advances, there may be several difficulties that present IPR regulations must address. It will be crucial to evaluate how much the domestic IPR laws have progressed and improved in comparison to international IPR laws in the future.
YLCC would like to thank Nikunj Arora for his valuable inputs in this article.
