Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Cabining Intellectual Property through a Property Paradigm

2004; Duke University School of Law; Volume: 54; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

1939-9111

Michael A. Carrier,

Intellectual Property and Patents

One of the most revolutionary legal changes in the past generation has been the “propertization” of intellectual property (IP). The duration and scope of rights expand without limit, and courts and companies treat IP as absolute property, bereft of any restraints. But astonishingly, scholars have not yet recognized that propertization also can lead to the narrowing of IP. In contrast to much of the literature, which criticizes the propertization of IP, this Article takes it as a given. For the transformation is irreversible, sinking its tentacles further into public and corporate consciousness (as well as the IP laws) with each passing day and precluding the likelihood that IP will return to the prepropertization era. This Article therefore Copyright © 2004 by Michael A. Carrier. † Associate Professor, Rutgers University School of Law—Camden. I would like to thank Bob Brauneis, Stacey Dogan, Jay Feinman, Shubha Ghosh, Ellen Goodman, Greg Lastowka, Joe Liu, Rob Merges, Adam Mossoff, Craig Nard, Dennis Patterson, Mark Patterson, Arti Rai, Carol Rose, Henry Smith, Lloyd Weinreb, Diane Zimmerman; participants in the Fourth Annual Intellectual Property Scholars Conference held at DePaul University College of Law, the IP Workshop Series at George Washington University Law School, the First Annual Intellectual Property and Communications Law and Policy Scholars Roundtable held at Michigan State University College of Law, the Rutgers-Camden faculty and junior faculty workshops, and the Villanova Law School speaker series; and especially Kara Moorcroft and the editors of the Duke Law Journal for very helpful comments on drafts of this Article. I would also like to thank Dean Ray Solomon for support, Fran Brigandi for administrative assistance, and Heather Baker, Gabriella Ferri, Jeanine Graham, and Jacek Wypych for excellent research assistance. Finally, I would like to thank my daughter, Jordan Carrier, for demonstrating more patience and industriousness than anyone is reasonably entitled to expect from a nine-month old. CARRIER FINAL WITH LINK.DOC 3/8/2005 8:53 AM 2 DUKE LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 54:1 ventures onto a new path, one that follows property into unexpected briar patches of limits. The secret here is that property is not as absolute as it is often claimed to be. After surveying fifty doctrines in property law, Professor Carrier synthesizes limits based on development, necessity, and equity. He then utilizes these limits to construct a new paradigm for IP. The paradigm facilitates the reorganization of defenses that courts currently recognize as well as a more robust set of defenses, which include (1) a new tripartite fair use doctrine in copyright law, (2) a new defense for public health emergencies and a recovered experimental use defense and reverse doctrine of equivalents in patent law, (3) a development-based limit to trademark dilution, and (4) a functional use defense for the right of publicity. By adopting the paradigm of property, IP has reopened the door to limits. Rediscovering these limits offers significant promise for the future of innovation and democracy.