About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline



49 San Diego L. Rev. 1069 (2012)
A Lockean Theory of Intellectual Property Revisited

handle is hein.journals/sanlr49 and id is 1099 raw text is: A Lockean Theory of Intellectual
Property Revisited
ADAM D. MOORE*
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.     INTRODUCTION........................................................1070
II.    A LOCKEAN THEORY OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY...          .................1071
A.   Bettering, Worsening, and the Baseline Problem   ................1073
B.   Illustrations.....................           .....................1076
III.    PROBLEMS FOR THE PROPOSED LOCKEAN ACCOUNT        ........................1078
A.   Measuring Value..........................        ................1079
B.   Baseline Worries....................           ..................1082
C.   Final Thoughts About the Baseline Problem............1086
D.   Mere Use and Possession Rights Objection.............1088
E.   The Right To Defend Value..........          .....................1090
IV.    GENERAL PROBLEMS FOR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.....          ...............1091
A.   The Nonrivalrous Argument: But They Still
Have Their Copy!.....................................1091
B.   The Free Speech Argument Against
Intellectual Property...................................1094
C    The Social Nature ofIntellectual Works Argument
Against Intellectual Property...............      ...............1096
D.   Intellectual Property Rights Violate Individual Liberty ............1099
V.      CONCLUSION.                        .......................................................... 101
*This Article was presented at the University of San Diego School of Law Institute
for Law and Philosophy 2012 Editors' Symposium: The Philosophical Foundations of
Intellectual Property conference. I would like to thank Larry Alexander, Steven Smith,
Wendy Gordon, Ken Hirnma, Justin Hughes, David McGowan, Robert Merges, Stephen
Munzer, Randy Picker, Ted Sichelman, Shubha Ghosh, Gary Chartier, and the other
conference participants for providing helpful comments and suggestions. I would also
like to thank the editors of the San Diego Law Review, including Ryan Doyle, Laurel
Gilbert, Tripp May, and Nicholaus Norvell, for all of their help.

1069