In law, particularly in common law jurisdictions, intellectual
property or IP refers to a legal entitlement which sometimes attaches
to the expressed form of an idea, or to some other intangible subject
matter. In general terms this legal entitlement sometimes enables its
holder to exercise exclusive control over the use of the IP. The term
intellectual property reflects the idea that the subject matter of IP
is the product of the mind or the intellect, and that once established,
such entitlements are generally treated as equivalent to tangible
property, and may be enforced as such by the courts.
The
most well known forms of intellectual property include copyrights,
patents, trademarks, and trade secrets. Patents and trademarks fall
into a particular subset of intellectual property known as industrial
property.
The purposes of laws dealing with exclusive
rights have varied, but they all share in common the appearance of
granting the "owner" of the exclusive rights a monopoly on copying or
distribution of a protected form of "property". This was originally
done to grant a boon to a king's favourite (with some positive
advantages to the public, since often these grants were prerequisites
before a merchant would undertake production). The United States
Constitution accords Congress the power to promote the progress of
science and the useful arts by granting exclusive rights to authors and
inventors for limited times.
The use of the term
"intellectual property" is often predicated on considerations such as
the "free rider problem" or rationalized by problematizing the fact
that owners of computers have the ability to produce and distribute
perfect copies of digital works. Proponents of the term tend to address
exclusive rights policy by valorizing the incentives afforded to
authors and inventors in granting them a right to exact a fee from
those who wish to manufacture their inventions or publish their
expressive works. The analyses associated with the term tend to
overlook or even to attempt to defeat the fact, noted by Thomas
Jefferson when he took part in wording the exclusive rights clause,
that published information is intrinsically free and that in fact this
is the whole point of exclusive rights -- to publish, to provide
information to the public.
By an economic analysis,
the incentives granted for patent rights have sometimes served the
public benefit purpose (and promoted innovation) by ensuring that
someone who devoted, say, ten years of penury while struggling to
develop vulcanized rubber or a workable steamship, could recoup her or
his investment of time and energy. Using monopoly power, the inventor
could exact a fee from those who wanted to make copies of his or her
invention. Set it too high, and others would simply try to make a
competing invention, but set it low enough and one could make a good
living from the fees.
In latter years, the public
benefit idea has been downplayed in favor of the idea that the primary
purpose of exclusive rights is to benefit the rightsholder, even to the
detriment of society at large; and this development has attracted some
opponents.
In some fields, patent law has had an
unintended consequence: treating abstract rules and mental products
like concrete ones has stifled innovation in those fields, rather than
aiding it.
The four main types of non-physical things
considered by this point of view are copyrights, patents, trademarks
and trade secrets. Common types of intellectual property rights include
conflicting areas of law:
- Copyrights, which
give the holder some exclusive rights to control some reproduction of
works of authorship, such as books and music, for a certain period of
time.
- Patents give the holder an exclusive right
to prevent third parties from commercially exploiting an invention for
a certain period, typically 20 years from the filing date of a patent
application.
- Trademarks are distinctive names, phrases or marks used to identify products to consumers.
- Trade
secrets, where a company keeps information secret, perhaps by enforcing
a contract under which those given access to information are not
permitted to disclose it to others.
These
rights, conferred by law, can be given, sold, rented (called
"licensing") and, in some countries, even mortgaged, in much the same
way as physical property (especially real property). However, the
rights have limitations, including term limits and other considerations
(such as intersections with fundamental rights and the codified
provisions for fair use for copyrighted works). Some analogize these
considerations to public easements, since they grant the public certain
rights which are considered essential.
It is
important to understand that authors and inventors exercise specific
rights, and the "property" referred to in "intellectual property" is
the rights, not the intellectual work. A patent can be bought and sold,
but the invention that it covers is not owned at all. This is one of
many reasons that some believe the term intellectual property to be
misleading. Some use the term "intellectual monopoly" instead, because
such so-called "intellectual property" is actually a government-granted
monopoly on certain types of action. Others object to this usage,
because this still encourages a natural rights notion rather than a
recognition that the rights are purely statutory, and it only
characterizes the "property" rather than eliminates the property
presupposition. Others object to the negative connotation of the term
"monopoly" and cite the wide availability of substitute goods. Still
others prefer not to use a generic term, because of differences in the
nature of copyright, patent and trademark law, and try to be specific
about which they are talking about, or the term "exclusive rights",
which reflects the U.S. Constitutional language.