Robert P. Merges is Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati Professor of Law and Technology, University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, and co-founder of the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology.
Why should a property interest exist in an intangible item? In recent years, arguments over intellectual property have often divided proponents--who emphasize the importance of providing incentives for producers of creative works-- from skeptics who emphasize the need for free and open access to knowledge. In a wide-ranging and ambitious analysis, Robert P. Merges establishes a sophisticated rationale for the most vital form of modern property: IP rights. His insightful new book answers the many critics who contend that these rights are inefficient, unfair, and theoretically incoherent. But Merges' vigorous defense of IP is also a call for appropriate legal constraints and boundaries: IP rights are real, but they come with real limits. Drawing on Kant, Locke, and Rawls as well as contemporary scholars, Merges crafts an original theory to explain why IP rights make sense as a reward for effort and as a way to encourage individuals to strive. He also provides a novel explanation of why awarding IP rights to creative people is fair for everyone else in society, by contributing to a just distribution of resources. Merges argues convincingly that IP rights are based on a solid ethical foundation, and--when subject to fair limits--these rights are an indispensable part of a well-functioning society.
發表於2024-12-25
Justifying Intellectual Property 2024 pdf epub mobi 電子書 下載
圖書標籤: 知識産權 Intellectual 羅爾斯 Property Justifying
反方辯友。居然所謂鐵杆自然權利派,也算難得。有理論雄心,沒有曆史意識,根本無視知識産權的曆史定位和功能運作。第三部分的問題分析可佐材料之用。霍姆斯言:一頁曆史分析抵過一捲邏輯分析;與作者共勉。
評分反方辯友。居然所謂鐵杆自然權利派,也算難得。有理論雄心,沒有曆史意識,根本無視知識産權的曆史定位和功能運作。第三部分的問題分析可佐材料之用。霍姆斯言:一頁曆史分析抵過一捲邏輯分析;與作者共勉。
評分反方辯友。居然所謂鐵杆自然權利派,也算難得。有理論雄心,沒有曆史意識,根本無視知識産權的曆史定位和功能運作。第三部分的問題分析可佐材料之用。霍姆斯言:一頁曆史分析抵過一捲邏輯分析;與作者共勉。
評分反方辯友。居然所謂鐵杆自然權利派,也算難得。有理論雄心,沒有曆史意識,根本無視知識産權的曆史定位和功能運作。第三部分的問題分析可佐材料之用。霍姆斯言:一頁曆史分析抵過一捲邏輯分析;與作者共勉。
評分反方辯友。居然所謂鐵杆自然權利派,也算難得。有理論雄心,沒有曆史意識,根本無視知識産權的曆史定位和功能運作。第三部分的問題分析可佐材料之用。霍姆斯言:一頁曆史分析抵過一捲邏輯分析;與作者共勉。
Justifying Intellectual Property 2024 pdf epub mobi 電子書 下載