Table Of Content

a critique of the ontology of intellectual property law Intellectual property (IP) law operates with the ontological assumption that immaterial goods such as works, inventions, and designs exist, and that these abstract types can be owned like a piece of land. Alexander Peukert provides a comprehensive critique of thisparadigm,showingthattheabstractIPobjectisaspeech-basedconstruct,whichfirst crystalisedintheeighteenthcentury.Hehighlightsthetheoreticalflawsofmetaphysical object ontology and introduces John Searle’s social ontology as a more plausible approach to the subject matter of IP. On this basis, he proposes an IP theory under which IP rights provide their holders with an exclusive privilege to use reproducible ‘MasterArtefacts.’Suchalegal-realistIPtheory,Peukertargues,isbothdescriptivelyand prescriptivelysuperiortotheprevailingparadigmoftheabstractIPobject.Thisworkwas originallypublishedinGermanandwastranslatedbyGillMertens. alexander peukert is Professor of civil law, intellectual property, and competition lawatGoetheUniversity,FrankfurtamMain/Germany.Hehaspublishedfivebooksand morethanseventyarticlesinthesefields,withafocusonthetheoreticalfoundationsof intellectualpropertylaw. CAMBRIDGE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND INFORMATION LAW As its economic potential has rapidly expanded, intellectual property has become a subject of front-rank legal importance. Cambridge Intellectual Property and InformationLawisaseriesofmonographstudiesofmajorcurrentissuesinintellectual property. Each volume contains a mix of international, European, comparative and national law, making this a highly significant series for practitioners, judges and aca- demicresearchersinmanycountries. SeriesEditors LionelBently HerchelSmithProfessorofIntellectualPropertyLaw,UniversityofCambridge GraemeDinwoodie GlobalProfessorofIntellectualPropertyLaw,Chicago-KentCollegeofLaw,Illinois InstituteofTechnology. AdvisoryEditors WilliamR.Cornish,EmeritusHerchelSmithProfessorofIntellectualPropertyLaw, UniversityofCambridge FrançoisDessemontet,ProfessorofLaw,UniversityofLausanne JaneC.Ginsburg,MortonL.JanklowProfessorofLiteraryandArtisticPropertyLaw, ColumbiaLawSchool PaulGoldstein,ProfessorofLaw,StanfordUniversity TheRtHon.SirRobinJacob,HughLaddieProfessorofIntellectualProperty, UniversityCollegeLondon AnsgarOhly,ProfessorofIntellectualPropertyLaw,Ludwig-Maximilian UniversityofMunich Alistofbooksintheseriescanbefoundattheendofthisvolume. A Critique of the Ontology of Intellectual Property Law ALEXANDER PEUKERT Goethe University (Frankfurt) Translated by GILL MERTENS UniversityPrintingHouse,Cambridgecb28bs,UnitedKingdom OneLibertyPlaza,20thFloor,NewYork,ny10006,USA 477WilliamstownRoad,PortMelbourne,vic3207,Australia 314–321,3rdFloor,Plot3,SplendorForum,JasolaDistrictCentre,NewDelhi–110025,India 79AnsonRoad,#06–04/06,Singapore079906 CambridgeUniversityPressispartoftheUniversityofCambridge. ItfurtherstheUniversity’smissionbydisseminatingknowledgeinthepursuitof education,learning,andresearchatthehighestinternationallevelsofexcellence. www.cambridge.org Informationonthistitle:www.cambridge.org/9781108498326 doi:10.1017/9781108653329 Thispublicationisincopyright.Subjecttostatutoryexception andtotheprovisionsofrelevantcollectivelicensingagreements, noreproductionofanypartmaytakeplacewithoutthewritten permissionofCambridgeUniversityPress. FirstpublishedinEnglishbyCambridgeUniversityPress2021asACritiqueoftheOntologyofIntellectual PropertyLawbyAlexanderPeukert Englishtranslation©GillMertens2021 OriginallypublishedinGermanasKritikderOntologiedesImmaterialgüterrechtsbyAlexanderPeukert and©2018MohrSiebeckTübingen.www.mohr.de AcataloguerecordforthispublicationisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary. LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData names:Peukert,Alexander,1973-author. title:Acritiqueoftheontologyofintellectualpropertylaw/Alexandereukert,GoetheUniversity (Frankfurt). description:Cambridge,UnitedKingdom;NewYork,NY:CambridgeUniversityPress,[2021]| Series:Cambridgeintellectualpropertyandinformationlaw|Includesbibliographicalreferences andindex. identifiers:lccn2020054774(print)|lccn2020054775(ebook)|isbn9781108498326(hardback)| isbn9781108735728(paperback)|isbn9781108653329(epub) subjects:LCSH:Intellectualproperty–Germany. classification:lcckk2636.p482021(print)|lcckk2636(ebook)|ddc46.4304/8–dc23 LCrecordavailableathttps://lccn.loc.gov/2020054774 LCebookrecordavailableathttps://lccn.loc.gov/2020054775 isbn978-1-108-49832-6Hardback CambridgeUniversityPresshasnoresponsibilityforthepersistenceoraccuracy ofURLsforexternalorthird-partyinternetwebsitesreferredtointhispublication anddoesnotguaranteethatanycontentonsuchwebsitesis,orwillremain, accurateorappropriate. Contents Acknowledgements page xi 1 Introduction 1 1.1 The Paradigm ofthe Abstract IP Object 1 1.2 Irritations: Differences between Real andIntellectualProperty Law 4 1.3 Reactions 7 1.4 Objectives andPlan ofthe Study 15 1.5 Terminology andPreconceptions 20 2 Two Ontologies 24 2.1 The OntologyofAbstract Objects 24 2.1.1 Characteristicsand Applicationto IntellectualProperty 24 2.1.2 Metaphysics: An Obsolete Anachronism? 26 2.1.3 The Implausibility ofthe Abstract IP Object 28 2.2 Social Ontology 34 2.2.1 Fundamentals ofJohn Searle’s Social Ontology 35 2.2.2 Application toIP Objects 42 3 Two Abstractions 50 3.1 Abstraction 1:General Terms for Similar Artefacts 50 3.1.1 A New Artefact 51 3.1.2 The Master Artefact 52 3.1.3 Secondary Artefacts 57 3.2 Abstraction 2: The Idea of the Abstract IPObject 61 3.2.1 The Historicity ofConditions for Abstraction2 63 3.2.1.1 New Technologies 64 3.2.1.2 FromNameless Imitation tothe Ingenious Work 69 vii viii Contents 3.2.1.3 From Dirigiste Regulationof EconomicActivityto the Market Economy 74 3.2.1.3.1 EconomicRegulation through Privileges 74 3.2.1.3.2 The Formationof Markets and the Commodification of All Inputs and Outputs 79 3.2.2 The Emergence ofthe Abstract IP Object 85 3.2.2.1 AHistory ofTerms: Work, Invention,Design 85 3.2.2.2 The Abstract IP Object inLegal Texts ofthe EighteenthandNineteenth Centuries 89 3.2.2.2.1 France 90 3.2.2.2.2 The UnitedKingdom andthe United States of America 92 3.2.2.2.3 Germany 97 4 InterimSummary: AnImplausible Paradigm 101 5 The Legal ExplanatoryPower of the Two Ontologies 104 5.1 The Structure andPractice of CurrentIPLaw 104 5.1.1 Scope of Applicationof the PrevailingParadigm 104 5.1.1.1 Trademark Law 105 5.1.1.2 Rights in Innovation, in Particular Rights Related toCopyright andPlant Variety Rights 107 5.1.2 AnAction-andArtefact-BasedReconstruction of IPRights 110 5.1.2.1 The Master Artefact as the Reference Point ofIP Rights 110 5.1.2.2 SecondaryArtefacts 117 5.1.2.3 Regulationof Behaviour inRelation toSecondary Artefacts 121 5.2 Structural Differencesbetween RealProperty and IPRights 126 5.3 Particularities ofthe Justification ofIP Rights 128 5.3.1 Effect and Justification of IPRights 129 5.3.2 EconomicAnalysis of IPRights 131 5.4 The Normativityof the Abstract IPObject 132 5.4.1 The Raison d’Être ofthe Abstract IP Object IsIts Normativity 132 5.4.2 Proof: The Reach of Physical andIdealistic IPRegimes 135 5.4.3 The Instability of the Distinction between Law andReality 140 6 Normative Critique of the AbstractIP Object 143 6.1 Radical Critique without Extreme Consequences 143 6.1.1 In Support ofa New Understanding ofReality 143 Contents ix 6.1.2 InSupport ofthe Form ofExclusive Rights 145 6.1.3 Alternative Terminology 147 6.2 Change ofPerspective: From Immaterial Objects to Actors,Actions and Artefacts 150 6.2.1 Actors and Actions 151 6.2.1.1 InnovatorsandInvestors 151 6.2.1.2 Manufacture andUse ofSecondary Artefacts by ThirdParties 154 6.2.2 Master Artefacts, Secondary Artefacts andSimilarity 158 Summary in Theses 161 Bibliography 171 Index 201