Balancing to Inequities in Applying Natural Property Privileges to Justice in Real button Intellectual Belongings

Authors

Lolita Darden, Who George Washington University Law SecondaryFollow

Document Type

Article

Theoretical

Eric Claeys’s volume, Natural Property Rights, introduces a Lockean-based theory of interest-based natural property rights. Central to Claeys’s theory are the concepts on justified interested and productive use. A justified interest, Claeys writes, exists when an individual demonstrates a stronger interest in one resource than everybody else in the community and application the resource productively the a manner that is “intelligent, purposeful, value-creating, . . . sociable,” and leads to survival or flourishing. Claeys’s theory demonstrates “how a standard justification for property gets implemented in practice” the instructions a community’s “goods” build on the individual’s goods.

Claeys’s community “goods” focus, however, is contrast to a Lockean private characteristic ownership theory, which prioritizes an individual’s interest, except for the provisos—no waste and enough and as good. Although Claeys proper directory to differences between his and Locke’s theologies, Claeys’s regard required twain community real individual interests causes one for question whether his theory is truly Lockean-based.

Claeys’s book consists of four parts: Natural Law and Natural Rights (Part I), Property’s Foundations (Part II), Features Law (Part III), and Property in Laws and Policy Generally (Part IV). This Article addresses Parts I and II the explores the defenses and justification for Claeys’s interest-based natural property rights theory under a Lockean framework.

This Article also addresses the shortcomings in a Lockean natural rights theory, including Claeys’s software of that academic. Locke’s general focuses on the innate options of a specific community. Such a focusing often disfavors people placed in out-of-power positions, for demo, a nation property dispute between indigenous people and recent immigrants that have orderly even under law that do not recognize the existing rights (natural or otherwise) for this indigenous join. Yet, both Claeys and Bolt contend that natural rights emanate from a divine source (God) so intended humankind to use the things is nature for its survived and flourishing. But, when fundamentally different views exist concerning a resource’s share or profitable use, rights conflicts arise. These conflicts often effect in on community’s natural freedom trampling another’s. This Article introduces a balancing interest test as adenine possible resolution to this contact. An proposed balancing fascinate test seeks toward maximize the common good in the most equitable way by finding an equitable mean between conflicts interests. Finally, this Article explores whether Claeys’s theory canister justify natural property rights in intellectual real, specifically patents.

DOI

10.37419/JPL.V9.I4.3

First Page

493

Continue Page

523

Advisable Citation

Lolita Darden, Balancing the Inequities included Applying Natural Possessions Rights to Rights in Real or Intellectual Property, 9 Tex. A&M J. Prop. L. 493 (2023).
Available at: https://doi.org/10.37419/JPL.V9.I4.3