In Criticism of Justifying Intellectual Property 

Content Summary

In my paper, "In Criticism of Justifying Intellectual Property: A case against Edwin C. Hettinger," I delve into the complex realm of intellectual property (IP) rights. Edwin C. Hettinger, in his essay "Justifying Intellectual Property," explores various aspects of IP, including non-exclusivity, free thought and speech, and utilitarian justification. He argues for government support to legitimize IP and suggests reconsidering the legal term for IP awards. However, I find some of his arguments unconvincing, particularly regarding the non-exclusive nature of IP and the challenges it poses to traditional ownership concepts. My critique focuses on reconstructing Hettinger's arguments and presenting counterarguments to highlight the nuances and complexities of IP rights.

The paper critically examines three key aspects of Hettinger's arguments: the non-exclusivity of intellectual objects, the ownership of ideas versus the free flow of information, and the utilitarian justification of IP. Hettinger posits that sharing intellectual objects does not hinder individual usage, which I counter by emphasizing the significant costs involved in creating IP, such as R&D investments. I argue that sharing IP without permission can lead to misinformation and misuse. Additionally, I challenge his views on how private IP limits the free flow of ideas, proposing that IP rights, in fact, incentivize innovation and creativity. The utilitarian perspective, which Hettinger finds appealing, is also scrutinized, particularly the notion that large corporations need less patent protection than smaller entities.

In conclusion, while appreciating Hettinger's clear exposition of IP rights, I believe his arguments lack practical examples and could benefit from a more balanced presentation, considering both the benefits and limitations of IP rights. The complexities surrounding IP justification require a nuanced approach, taking into account the diverse impacts on creators, consumers, and the broader society. The debate on IP rights is far from settled, and this paper aims to contribute to the ongoing discourse by challenging prevailing notions and encouraging deeper reflection on the subject.