Intergenerational Progress

IF 1 3区 社会学 Q2 LAW
Mark Mckenna, Brett M. Frischmann
{"title":"Intergenerational Progress","authors":"Mark Mckenna, Brett M. Frischmann","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1810943","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This Essay prepared for the Wisconsin Law Review’s symposium on Intergenerational Equity lays the groundwork for a broader understanding of the goals of IP law in the United States by arguing that there is room for a normative commitment to intergenerational justice. First, we argue that the normative basis for IP laws need not be utilitarianism. The Constitution does not require that we conceive of IP in utilitarian terms or that we aim only to promote efficiency or maximize value. To the contrary, the IP Clause leaves open a number of ways to conceive of Progress; courts’ and scholars’ overwhelming acceptance of the utilitarian approach reflects nothing more than a modern policy choice. Second, we argue that acceptance of the utilitarian frame has led too easily to reliance on markets as the exclusive mechanism for achieving Progress, which has had a dramatic impact on the path of IP law and discourse. Specifically, we argue that, because it relies so heavily on the market, and because the market is inherently short-sighted, IP is less future regarding than it could be. This is disappointing because the subject matter of IP makes it particularly susceptible to the promotion of intergenerational progress. In the end, we conclude that a commitment to intergenerational justice is both compatible with Progress and normatively attractive.","PeriodicalId":47176,"journal":{"name":"Notre Dame Law Review","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Notre Dame Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1810943","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This Essay prepared for the Wisconsin Law Review’s symposium on Intergenerational Equity lays the groundwork for a broader understanding of the goals of IP law in the United States by arguing that there is room for a normative commitment to intergenerational justice. First, we argue that the normative basis for IP laws need not be utilitarianism. The Constitution does not require that we conceive of IP in utilitarian terms or that we aim only to promote efficiency or maximize value. To the contrary, the IP Clause leaves open a number of ways to conceive of Progress; courts’ and scholars’ overwhelming acceptance of the utilitarian approach reflects nothing more than a modern policy choice. Second, we argue that acceptance of the utilitarian frame has led too easily to reliance on markets as the exclusive mechanism for achieving Progress, which has had a dramatic impact on the path of IP law and discourse. Specifically, we argue that, because it relies so heavily on the market, and because the market is inherently short-sighted, IP is less future regarding than it could be. This is disappointing because the subject matter of IP makes it particularly susceptible to the promotion of intergenerational progress. In the end, we conclude that a commitment to intergenerational justice is both compatible with Progress and normatively attractive.
两代人之间的进展
这篇为《威斯康辛法律评论》代际公平专题讨论会准备的文章为更广泛地理解美国知识产权法的目标奠定了基础,认为代际公正的规范性承诺是有空间的。首先,我们认为知识产权法的规范性基础不一定是功利主义。宪法并没有要求我们从功利主义的角度来看待知识产权,也没有要求我们的目标仅仅是提高效率或实现价值最大化。相反,知识产权条款为理解“进步”提供了多种途径;法院和学者对功利主义方法的压倒性接受只不过反映了一种现代政策选择。其次,我们认为,对功利主义框架的接受太容易导致依赖市场作为实现进步的唯一机制,这对知识产权法律和话语的道路产生了巨大影响。具体来说,我们认为,因为它严重依赖于市场,因为市场本质上是短视的,所以IP的未来前景并不乐观。这是令人失望的,因为IP的主题使其特别容易受到代际进步的影响。最后,我们得出结论,对代际正义的承诺既与进步相容,又在规范上具有吸引力。
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
1.20
自引率
11.10%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: In 1925, a group of eager and idealistic students founded the Notre Dame Lawyer. Its name was changed in 1982 to the Notre Dame Law Review, but all generations have remained committed to the original founders’ vision of a law review “synonymous with respect for law, and jealous of any unjust attacks upon it.” Today, the Law Review maintains its tradition of excellence, and its membership includes some of the most able and distinguished judges, professors, and practitioners in the country. Entirely student edited, the Law Review offers its members an invaluable occasion for training in precise analysis of legal problems and in clear and cogent presentation of legal issues.
×
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