This article was written by Shweta Sharma, pursuing the Diploma in Intellectual Property: Prosecution, Licensing, and Litigation Course from LawSikho, and edited by Koushik Chittella.

Introduction 

A fascinating concept is the intersection of intellectual property and social justice. The most challenging work for makers of intellectual property law was to strike a balance between both. Intellectual property and social justice are the backbones of a developed society. The intellect of humans creates intellectual property. It includes innovations, artistic work, designs, etc., whereas social justice deals with equality and fair treatment among the people of society. It helps to maintain a just and fair environment in society, so every person can have equal rights and be protected from unfair treatment. Many scholars have criticised intellectual property laws and stated that intellectual property law restricts the rights granted by social justice, whereas, in contrast, other scholars believe that there is a harmonious balance between intellectual property and social justice. Still, a few questions arise: How do intellectual property and social justice intersect with each other? What impact do intellectual property rights have on social justice? And how do lawmakers try to balance both? Let’s dive into the article and find the answers to these questions. 

Intellectual property rights and social justice

The intellectual property rights and rights granted under social justice are poles apart, yet they intersect with each other at a point. Intellectual property laws focus on the rights of individuals, ensuring that the creator of the intellectual property gets due credit. Contrary to this, social justice focusses on the rights of society at large, emphasising that every individual can get equal treatment and opportunities. If any state or country withholds the due credit of the creator of intellectual property based on colour, race, gender, habitat, etc., then social justice steps in to give credit to the creators of the intellectual property without any discrimination and protects them from unfair treatment. At this point, intellectual property rights and rights under social justice intersect, as the aim of both is to protect individuals from unfair treatment and ensure that every person gets treated equally, and no one should be deprived of their credit for the work they have done. 

Download Now

For many generations, black artists faced discrimination in various aspects; they were denied the fruits of intellectual property protection relating to copyright royalties and fair compensation. Institutional discrimination, teamed with intellectual property and contract law, resulted in the widespread under-protection of black artistic creativity. Similarly, black inventors created technical and scientific works that impacted early American industries. Evidence exists that black inventors also faced similar divestiture in the industrial marketplace. 

Impact on social justice

Intellectual property rights are monopolist in nature. It grants the creator of intellectual property all rights to create and distribute the intellectual property. Intellectual property rights prevent third parties from using the intellectual property of the creator without his consent; thus, the creator maintains a monopoly over that intellectual property. Therefore, when the government grants an inventor a patent on an invention, the inventor has a monopoly over that invention. Due to this, the industrialist quotes a higher price for their patented product as, firstly, there is no competition in the market; secondly, the industrialist has a monopoly over that product as a third party cannot use the patented product without the creator’s consent. Unauthorised work is prohibited under the intellectual property law. Therefore, developing countries or poor countries find it difficult to access that product due to its high prices. Many patents are granted to pharmaceutical companies, and these companies quote the higher prices for the medicines they sell, due to which a normal person cannot afford those medicines; thus, these medicines are only accessible to a section of people in the society.

For example, Revlimid is a cancer drug. Which is the most expensive drug available in the market, priced at over $125,000 per year. Celgene has sought 105 patents on Revlimid, many of which have been granted, extending its monopoly until the end of 2036. That gives the Revlimid patent portfolio a lifespan of 40 years, which is being used to block or deter generic competitors from entering the market.

Environmental rights and social justice

Social justice is part of the broader concept of justice. Social justice includes not only the social aspects but also economic, political, environmental, and cultural aspects. Therefore, social justice is a wider phenomenon. Environmental rights are also part of social justice. Many diseases are spreading in agricultural areas, of which the most chronic diseases are related to breathing and kidneys. The main reason for the spread of these chronic diseases is the vast usage of agrochemical products. Sri Lanka is a country that has faced this disaster. Most of the agro-chemical products are manufactured by patented multinational companies. However, these products are virtually not environmentally friendly. Therefore, the environment and health of the people are seriously damaged in the agricultural lands. When the patent is granted, the emphasis is not given to the fact that the patent may seriously harm people and the environment.

Artificial intelligence and social justice

As social justice is a wider phenomenon, it includes the privacy rights of individuals. The UAE on 30th July 2024 issued a charter for the development and use of artificial intelligence, out of which the one principle is related to data privacy, as they recognised that data privacy is the top priority for the public. IP protection should not be extended to AI programs doing dangerous or very important work, such as medical diagnosis, facial recognition, or driving a car, unless the AI program is fully transparent or XAI compliant. Even in non-intrinsically important matters such as online shopping, online searching, social media interactions, and other settings, important privacy concerns arise from the use of AI programs gobbling up the data points from each interaction. The acquisition, accumulation, or use of user data by the AI programs in such settings should not be afforded IP protection unless they are XAI compliant such that users and regulators can effectively understand and make judgements about which sorts of intrusions should be allowed or which should be limited.

The balance between intellectual property rights and social justice

The intellectual property law is enacted by keeping in mind all the relevant aspects. The lawmakers tried to maintain a balance between intellectual property and social justice so that neither the individual’s rights under intellectual property nor the societal rights of people under social justice are harmed. To maintain the balance, lawmakers have put a time cap on the rights granted under intellectual property.

Patents under the Patents Act, 1970

  1. As per Section 53 of the Patents Act 1970, a patent in India is granted to the creator for twenty years. After that, the patented intellectual property will fall under the public domain, which means that after the expiry of twenty years, any person can use the subject of intellectual property.
  2. Section 84 of the Patents Act 1970, prevents exploitation by the industrialists. It mentions that after the expiry of three years from the date of grant of a patent there are certain grounds upon which any person can apply to the Controller for the grant of compulsory license on that patent. The following are those grounds:
  • that the reasonable requirements of the public with respect to the patented invention have not been satisfied, or
  • as the patent invention is not accessible to the public at a reasonably affordable price or
  • that the patented invention has not worked in the territory of India.

Copyright under the Copyright Act, 1957

  • As per Section 22 of the Copyright Act, 1957, copyright is granted for a lifetime of the author and sixty years after the death of the author; after the expiry of sixty years, the copyrighted work falls under the public domain; thus, after falling in the public domain, any person can use that work.
  • There are certain exceptions mentioned under Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957, where under these exceptions using copyright work does not amount to infringement, and copyright work can be used without obtaining consent from the original author.

As per Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957, the copyrighted work can be used for research, criticism, educational purposes, etc. For this, no license or consent is required from the original author of the copyrighted work.

Thus, by incorporating these sections of limitations, the lawmakers try to protect the rights guaranteed under social justice without harming the rights of intellectual property owners. Intellectual property rights are not in perpetuity, as lawmakers had put a cap on the time period for the usage of intellectual property by considering all the aspects.

Conclusion

Intellectual property law has its pros and cons like any other law, but it is the most essential law for the creators and inventors of intellectual property. It is requisite to grant intellectual property rights to the creator of an intellectual property. This helps to give credit to creators/inventors for the hard work they have done by creating new inventions and artistic works, and it acts as an encouragement for creators to contribute more to society. If these rights are not granted to the creators, then the creators will lose their will to create intellectual property, and it also leads to injustice to them as they will not get the due credit for their work, and some other persons might copy their work and get all the benefits. Thus, it is important to grant intellectual property rights as it prevents the unauthorised use of intellectual property. It is also essential to limit intellectual property rights so that other rights under social justice might not be harmed and every individual shall benefit from it. Therefore, there is a time limit on the intellectual property, as creators cannot claim monopoly after the expiry of that period. Striking a balance between social justice and intellectual property is difficult but not impractical; lawmakers should keep in mind the social justice aspects while framing new laws related to intellectual property.

References

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here