Intellectual Property and Constitutional Norms

IF 3.4 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW
Thomas B. Nachbar
{"title":"Intellectual Property and Constitutional Norms","authors":"Thomas B. Nachbar","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.453261","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The paper examines a question of general interpretive significance about the relationship between enumerated powers within the particular context of intellectual property. Specifically, the paper asks whether Congress can avoid the restrictions on its intellectual property power (such as the \"limited times\" requirement or the prohibition against protecting facts and consequently electronic databases) by resorting instead to other Article I powers, most notably the Commerce Clause. It is my position that the Intellectual Property Clause stands as no barrier to legislation passed pursuant to another Section 8 power. Because of the nature of a government of enumerated powers, it is impossible as a matter of text or structure to determine whether limits on one Article I power apply to the others. A review of precedent confronting overlapping Section 8 powers in other contexts leads one to a more nuanced approach: to identify the values underlying the different Section 8 restrictions and whether they are worthy of general application - whether they represent constitutional norms. What follows is an attempt to identify such a norm in the Intellectual Property Clause, as reflected by the First Amendment, present in Supreme Court precedent, or demonstrated by the history surrounding the Intellectual Property Clause's inclusion in the Constitution. Once one closely examines the history of intellectual property and American trade regulation, it becomes clear that no such generally applicable norm is at work in the limits on Congress's intellectual property power. The economics of trade regulation, demonstrate that, far from unique, the intellectual property power is economically indistinguishable from other forms of trade regulation - any benefit conferred by means of an exclusive right could be conferred in some other way, such as through taxation or industry regulation. Furthermore, finding such a limit would require a rejection of our modern understanding of the commerce power and would turn the concept of enumerated powers on its head. In the end, \"exclusive rights\" are merely another form of regulation that Congress may, and frequently does, use to confer economic rents on favored special interests. The Constitution, it will come as no surprise, offers very little protection against rent-seeking.","PeriodicalId":51408,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2004-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.453261","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Columbia Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.453261","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

The paper examines a question of general interpretive significance about the relationship between enumerated powers within the particular context of intellectual property. Specifically, the paper asks whether Congress can avoid the restrictions on its intellectual property power (such as the "limited times" requirement or the prohibition against protecting facts and consequently electronic databases) by resorting instead to other Article I powers, most notably the Commerce Clause. It is my position that the Intellectual Property Clause stands as no barrier to legislation passed pursuant to another Section 8 power. Because of the nature of a government of enumerated powers, it is impossible as a matter of text or structure to determine whether limits on one Article I power apply to the others. A review of precedent confronting overlapping Section 8 powers in other contexts leads one to a more nuanced approach: to identify the values underlying the different Section 8 restrictions and whether they are worthy of general application - whether they represent constitutional norms. What follows is an attempt to identify such a norm in the Intellectual Property Clause, as reflected by the First Amendment, present in Supreme Court precedent, or demonstrated by the history surrounding the Intellectual Property Clause's inclusion in the Constitution. Once one closely examines the history of intellectual property and American trade regulation, it becomes clear that no such generally applicable norm is at work in the limits on Congress's intellectual property power. The economics of trade regulation, demonstrate that, far from unique, the intellectual property power is economically indistinguishable from other forms of trade regulation - any benefit conferred by means of an exclusive right could be conferred in some other way, such as through taxation or industry regulation. Furthermore, finding such a limit would require a rejection of our modern understanding of the commerce power and would turn the concept of enumerated powers on its head. In the end, "exclusive rights" are merely another form of regulation that Congress may, and frequently does, use to confer economic rents on favored special interests. The Constitution, it will come as no surprise, offers very little protection against rent-seeking.
知识产权与宪法规范
本文探讨了在知识产权的特定背景下,列举的权力之间的关系具有一般解释意义的问题。具体而言,本文询问国会是否可以通过诉诸其他第一条权力,尤其是商业条款,来避免对其知识产权权力的限制(例如“有限时间”要求或禁止保护事实和电子数据库)。我的立场是,知识产权条款不会阻碍根据第8条的另一项权力通过的立法。由于列举权力政府的性质,就文本或结构而言,不可能确定对第一条中的一项权力的限制是否适用于其他权力。回顾在其他情况下与第8条权力重叠的先例,可以得出一种更微妙的方法:确定第8条不同限制的价值,以及它们是否值得普遍适用——它们是否代表宪法规范。接下来,我们将尝试在《第一修正案》中、在最高法院的判例中、或在围绕《知识产权条款》被纳入《宪法》的历史中,识别出这样一种规范。一旦仔细研究知识产权和美国贸易监管的历史,就会发现,在限制国会知识产权权力的过程中,并没有这种普遍适用的规范在起作用。贸易监管的经济学表明,知识产权权力远非独一无二,在经济上与其他形式的贸易监管没有区别——通过专有权授予的任何利益都可以通过其他方式授予,例如通过税收或行业监管。此外,找到这样一个限制将要求拒绝我们对商业权力的现代理解,并将彻底改变列举权力的概念。最终,“专有权”仅仅是国会可能(而且经常)用来向受青睐的特殊利益集团授予经济租金的另一种形式的监管。毫无疑问,宪法对寻租行为提供的保护很少。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
6.90%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: The Columbia Law Review is one of the world"s leading publications of legal scholarship. Founded in 1901, the Review is an independent nonprofit corporation that produces a law journal edited and published entirely by students at Columbia Law School. It is one of a handful of student-edited law journals in the nation that publish eight issues a year. The Review is the third most widely distributed and cited law review in the country. It receives about 2,000 submissions per year and selects approximately 20-25 manuscripts for publication annually, in addition to student Notes. In 2008, the Review expanded its audience with the launch of Sidebar, an online supplement to the Review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信