Natural Intellectual Property Rights and the Public Domain

No natural rights theory justifies strong intellectual property rights. More specifically, no theory within the entire domain of natural rights thinking – encompassing classical liberalism, libertarianism and left‐libertarianism, in all their innumerable variants – coherently supports strengthening current intellectual property rights. Despite their many important differences, all these natural rights theories endorse some set of members of a common family of basic ethical precepts. These commitments include non‐interference, fairness, non‐worsening, consistency, universalisability, prior consent, self‐ownership, self‐governance, and the establishment of zones of autonomy. Such commitments have clear applications pertaining to the use and ownership of created ideas. I argue that each of these commitments require intellectual property rights to be substantially limited in scope, strength and duration. In this way the core mechanisms of natural rights thinking ensure a robust public domain and categorically rule out strong intellectual property rights.     

The Shift from Agonistic to Non-Agonistic Debate in Early Nyāya

This article examines the emergence of the Nyāya distinction between vāda and jalpa as didactic-scientific and agonistic-sophistical forms of debate, respectively. Looking at the relevant sutras in Gautama’s Nyāya-sūtra (NS 1.2.1-3) in light of the earlier discussion of the types of debate in Caraka Saṃhitā 8, the article argues that certain ambiguities and obscurities in the former text can be explained on the hypothesis that the early Nyāya presupposed an agonistic understanding of vāda similar to what we find in Caraka.     

Intergenerational Justice and the Non-reciprocity Problem

Many of us share a strong intuitive sense that acts or policies that gravely threaten future people's well-being violate the requirements of justice. This intuition has proven problematic for theories that found justice on reciprocity because future people are viewed as powerless to reciprocate our actions towards them. The non-reciprocity problem appears to deliver a decisive blow to reciprocity-based theories of justice. I wish to dispute this view. I point to two well-known facts about human existence – generations overlap continuously and the old depend upon the young – to show that future generations are not asymmetrically vulnerable to our actions, and therefore that justice as reciprocity is not vulnerable to the non-reciprocity problem.     

RESPONSE

This is a response to “A Comment on William J. Howe and Hugh McIsaac's Article ‘Finding the Balance’ Published in the January 2008 Issue of Family Court Review.”     

Changes in college students' use and abuse of alcohol,and in their attitudes toward drinking over the course of their college years

Using a November 1987 random sample of 526 undergraduate students attending a midsized, private, midwestern university, this study examines changes in students' alcohol use, alcohol abuse, and attitudes toward drinking over the course of their college careers. This research provides an empirical examination of the supposition that people begin college in an adolescent-like phase in their development and graduate from college in a decidedly more adult-like developmental phase. The data suggest that women appear to mature throughout the college years, gradually progressing toward an adult-like developmental state, at least insofar as their drinking patterns and alcohol-related attitudes are concerned. Men, on the other hand, demonstrated no significant changes over the course of their college careers, suggesting that college may represent little more than a period of protracted adolescence for them.Received Ph.D. in sociology from Washington University in St. Louis. Research interests include alcohol and other drug studies, sexual behavior, HIV/AIDS, and mass media.     

The Freedom to Circulate Documents: Regulating Contracts in Europe

Abstract:  Evidence collected by the European Commission indicates that insofar as the diversity between laws of national legal systems presents an obstacle to trade in the Internal Market, the problem consists of the inability of businesses to use their standard terms of business in cross-border trade with confidence. It is suggested that the solution to this problem lies not in legal integration through harmonisation of the private law of contract, but rather through the creation of procedures for autonomous agreements under which representatives of parties to standard types of contracts can agree upon model contracts containing fair ancillary terms.