Intellectual Property Monetization Is More Of A Moral Issue

By Author: Jacob Willis
Total Articles: 13
Comment this article

IP or Intellectual Property, as defined by OECD or the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, refers to intangible assets other than financial and physical assets, which can be owned and controlled for commercial use. This definition has importance in context of ownership issues for determining entitlement to any return from such assets, also referred to as Intellectual Property Monetization. Here, it is important how parties, who have control over the risks as well as the functions, conduct themselves. Protecting the assets, incurring associated costs and the risks, control, maintenance and responsibility of development are key tests for ownership entitlement and IP monetization.
However, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights begs to differ. According to this eighteen member UN body that meets once every quarter to consider reports submitted by the member states conforming to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights or the ICESCR, Intellectual Property should be considered as a social commodity, whose purpose should be to serve mankind. But Intellectual Property monetization ...
... is in contrast to the above idea, with economic goals governing such an intangible asset. This committee recommends IP should come under the purview of Human Rights laws, with the former complying with such laws.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights defines the relationship between IP and human rights. Article 27 states that every individual, who has authored any literary, scientific or artistic production, has the exclusive right to protect the material and moral interests arising out of such an invention. There are many critics and theorists who have their own thoughts on this sensitive and complex topic. While some believe Intellectual Property monetization is justified on the basis of hard work and deservedness, there are others who argue IP monetization is a stimulant for social progress and motivates individuals for future innovations.
The morality of Intellectual Property Monetization is a debatable issue; yet, some justifications favor the protection of private property. An individual has the right to the creations, labor and productions of one’s body. Although, this philosophy doesn’t explicitly mention the natural right to creations of the mind, it is only fair to include them as well, to prevent the misuse of one’s ideas by other people. The second rationale states that societies that protect IP are more prosperous than the ones that don’t. Invention and innovation need to be encouraged; and towards this effect, the patent system was developed. Since its inception, patents have been credited with many such discoveries, especially in 19th century America.
Another argument is based on a thought of the famous German philosopher, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. He believed Intellectual Property was an extension of an individual’s personality; therefore, every human being has the right to turn a thing into an object of his liking or will. He can recreate the thing and make it his own. The basis of this theory lies on the premise that there is an inherent risk for the creator as he is vulnerable to having his designs or ideas stolen. Intellectual Property Monetization and the principles governing it, therefore, seek to protect the moral claims related to personality. IP is a moral issue, as the human mind is the ultimate source of all creations, and all property is Intellectual Property. Violating such property constitutes an act of immorality, no different than violating tangible property rights.