Compulsory Licensing in the Light of John Locke’s Concept of Property and Utilitarian Concept of Bentham
Compulsory Licensing in the light of John Locke’s Concept of Property and Utilitarian Concept of Bentham
Introduction:-
Is it fair to grant compulsory licensing to any person of any persons’ intellectual property for which he is demanding higher price? Intellectual Property is “jura in re propria”. It is a valuable intangible property which vests on the owner in the form of artistic, literary, dramatic, musical, cinematographic works and sound recording. It also exists in any new creation which has any utility and industrial application; i.e, to any invention. These rights are protected because they are the brain child of a person and the fruits of his labour. They are worthy of protection by national laws and international laws because of the fact that the civilised nations recognises the value of such creations and are highly prized.
Is it necessary to protect “Intellectual Property”?
“When a man by the exertion of his rational powers has produced an original work, he seems to have clearly a right to dispose of that identical work as he pleases and any attempt to vary the disposition he has made of it appears to be an invasion of that right.”
If it is viewed in the perspective of John Locke, it can be understood that such a property should receive the protection of law simply because of the fact that they are the output of a man’s hard effort. As Locke believed that a person acquires property in those things which were formerly un-owned or un-known and or with which he or she mixes something which his or her owns, which may be in the form of labour. The private property of one’s labour overcomes the common property upon which one labours because almost all of the value of the finished product is the result of the labour required to produce it and hence it is to be protected. Thus, what Locke has advocated is that every person has a natural right to claim protection for his work or labour which is the result of his or her effort. Any appropriation of his or
Introduction:-
Is it fair to grant compulsory licensing to any person of any persons’ intellectual property for which he is demanding higher price? Intellectual Property is “jura in re propria”. It is a valuable intangible property which vests on the owner in the form of artistic, literary, dramatic, musical, cinematographic works and sound recording. It also exists in any new creation which has any utility and industrial application; i.e, to any invention. These rights are protected because they are the brain child of a person and the fruits of his labour. They are worthy of protection by national laws and international laws because of the fact that the civilised nations recognises the value of such creations and are highly prized.
Is it necessary to protect “Intellectual Property”?
“When a man by the exertion of his rational powers has produced an original work, he seems to have clearly a right to dispose of that identical work as he pleases and any attempt to vary the disposition he has made of it appears to be an invasion of that right.”
If it is viewed in the perspective of John Locke, it can be understood that such a property should receive the protection of law simply because of the fact that they are the output of a man’s hard effort. As Locke believed that a person acquires property in those things which were formerly un-owned or un-known and or with which he or she mixes something which his or her owns, which may be in the form of labour. The private property of one’s labour overcomes the common property upon which one labours because almost all of the value of the finished product is the result of the labour required to produce it and hence it is to be protected. Thus, what Locke has advocated is that every person has a natural right to claim protection for his work or labour which is the result of his or her effort. Any appropriation of his or