understanding intellectual property to build a personal code of ethics

DRAFT – Josey Howarth 1

Understanding “Intellectual Property” to build a Personal Code of Ethics

July 9, 2011

© Josey Howarth, 2011 – DRAFT VERSION


AbstractTo build a strong Code of Ethics for Intellectual Property, an understanding of the history of intellectual

property is needed. This paper explains the poor use of intellectual property as an umbrella term. It then

covers the history of “intellectual property” from two different countries. Legislation, cases, or opposing

views are expressed for each component. A look at different ethical theories in relation to intellectual

property is then covered. Finally the Code of Ethics for Intellectual Property is presented.



Table of ContentsAbstract.......................................................................................................................................................2

Intellectual Property....................................................................................................................................4

History of Intellectual Property...............................................................................................................5

Patents.....................................................................................................................................................6

Trade Marks/Service Marks....................................................................................................................8

Copyright.................................................................................................................................................9

Designs..................................................................................................................................................11

Ethical View for Protection of Intellectual Property..................................................................................11

Kantianism............................................................................................................................................12

Act Utilitarianism / Rule Utilitarianism.................................................................................................13

Social Contract Theory..........................................................................................................................13

Value Ethics..........................................................................................................................................15

Personal Ethical View of Protection for Intellectual Property...................................................................15

Patent Protection....................................................................................................................................16

Trademark Protection............................................................................................................................18

Copyright Protection.............................................................................................................................19

Personal Code of Ethics for Intellectual Property......................................................................................20

Preamble................................................................................................................................................20

Awareness.............................................................................................................................................20

Respect..................................................................................................................................................20

Self........................................................................................................................................................21

References.................................................................................................................................................22



Intellectual Property

Michael J. Quinn defines intellectual property as “any unique product of the human

intellect that has commercial value” (2011, p. 159). While this definition is acceptable for a

starting definition, I believe it is too broad. In order to create a Code of Ethics for Intellectual

Property, a clear definition of intellectual property must be made. This section covers the history

of the term intellectual property and introduces a better way of viewing the term. The separation

of concepts are the foundation for the Code of Ethics for Intellectual Property introduced later in

this paper.

Intellectual property, as a term, has been on a sharp increase since 1983 (Lemley, 2004,

p. 5). The term is seen as “sexy” and as a way to try and link tangible property rights and laws

with the “unique product of the human intellect” (Lemley, 2004, p. 5, Quinn, 2011, p. 159). One

problem with this term is that it lumps into one umbrella patents, trademarks and service marks,

and copyrights. The reality is that the laws that govern one type of intellectual property are

different than those that govern the others. Richard M. Stallman points out that “these laws

originated separately, evolved differently, cover different activities, have different rules, and

raise different public policy issues (2010)”. Thus by using the term intellectual property to

represent each of the types of human ingenuity together under one term creates confusion and

ambiguity.

The second problem with the term intellectual property is the use of the word property.

The term property conjures up specific images, rights, and governance rules. It also infers the

right of ownership. John Locke’s natural right to property deals with scarce resources (Quinn,

2011, p. 160, Tuckness, 2010). A good deal of current property law in the United States is based



on how to protect, make money from, and maintain upkeep of property while minimizing

negative outside influences (Lemley, 2004, p. 11). Many courts have found reasoning for their

rulings in intellectual property cases by making analogies to physical property. In the case of

Regisiter.com v. Verio, “the court analogized the defendant to someone who had taken an apple

from a tree on [the] plaintiff’s property (Lemely, 2004, p. 28)”. The use of such an analogy

creates a particular feel about the actions of the defendant. However, as the plaintiff in the case

lost nothing, the use of information by the defendant should not be analogized the way it was. In

fact, the defendant had used freely available information from the WHOIS site. Had the court

chosen to see the analogy as the defendant was “’taking’ a look” at the apple, the ruling may well

have been different (Lemely, 2004, p. 28). The term property is best associated with scarce

tangible resources. Thus the use of property in regard to innovation, ideas, books, movies,

inventions, and other products of the human mind forces the rules, laws, and ethical decisions

formed around them, to be molded by the concept of scarce tangible property.

Due to the ambiguity of the term intellectual property, and the connotations derived

through the use of the term property, the use of intellectual property in this paper refers very

loosely to copyright, trademark and service mark, and patents as a whole. In the interest of

separating away from the use of intellectual property as a collective term, I will now present the

history of copyright, trademark and service mark, and patents through the United States and the

United Kingdom. The hope is that by showing how two different countries approach each of the

individual topics will shed light on how cultures can influence ethical choices in regards to them,

and also influence law creation.



History of Intellectual PropertyThe intellectual property umbrella covers different things depending on which country

you look at. The United Kingdom’s Intellectual Property Office recognizes patents, trade marks,

designs, and copyrights as individual “expressions of an idea” (IPO, 2011). However, in the

United States of America, intellectual property revolves around patents, trademark and service

marks, and copyrights. Already there is a separation of concepts held under the intellectual

property umbrella showing again that the collective term of intellectual property is not good

enough. This section starts with the history of patents in both countries. It continues by looking

at the history of trademarks and service marks in both countries. Copyright history is then

shown. Finally, in the history of designs there is a focus on why the United Kingdom has a

separate section for designs. Each section also presents additional information relating to laws,

court rulings, and government legislation for each individual country. These sections are meant

to show general histories and are not completely exhaustive.

Patents

In the United Kingdom, a patent protects inventions, gives a monopoly over an invention, and is

given to ensure “the owner [has] the right to prevent others from making, using, importing or selling the

invention without permission” (“What is a Patent?”, 2009). Patents in the United Kingdom started in the

15th century. Henry IV gave the first patent to John of Utynam, called a “Letters Patent”, for the “method

of making stained glass” (“History of Patents”, 2008). Due to an increase in abuse of the monopolies

given by patents during Elizabeth I’s reign, and increased public pressure, James I “revoked all previous

patents” in 1610 (“Tudors and Stuarts”, 2010). For 200 years after James I’s revocation, the patent

system was “developed through the work of lawyers and judges in the courts without government

regulation” (“The 18th century, 2008). During the Industrial Revolution, it became clear that the current

method of patent registration was not working, and the Patent Law Amendment Act of 1852 was created



(“The 19th century”, 2008). The Act of 1902 ensured that research was done into the “novelty of the

invention before granting a patent”. (The 20th century, 2008). Currently, the 1977 Patents Act is the

current legislation in effect for patents in the United Kingdom.

Inventions are also protected in the United States with patents. With the obvious awareness of

patents by English individuals moving to the colonies, it is no surprise that patents do exist in the United

States of America. There was also the French Patent Law of 1844 (“History of US Patent Law”, 2009).

Patents were known by those who lived in the new world. In fact, at one point, pre-constitution, each

state had its own laws for handling patents (“History of US Patent Law”, 2009). Just as the British had

trouble with monopolies, so did the United States. In 1890, the Sherman Antitrust Act was created to

handle monopoly issues (Becker, 2004). The United States Constitution lays the foundation for a patent

system through Article 1, Section 8, clause 8, stating:

Congress shall have power … to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for

limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and

discoveries.

The most important part of patent history for both the United Kingdom and the United States of

America, in my opinion, is the Patent Cooperation Treaty of 1970 (PCT). The PCT was set up by the

World Intellectual Property Organization as part of the United Nations to help facilitate patent protection

in multiple countries. Specifically, it helps to “perfect the legal protection of inventions” as well as tries to

progress “science and technology” (Patent Cooperation Treaty, 2001). Both the United Kingdom and the

United States of America have a patent lifetime of 20 years (“What is a patent?”, 2009, Quinn, 2011, p.

167).

Patents affect everything from the method used to stain glass to the creation of pharmaceutical

drugs. The part of Quinn’s definition for intellectual property that best applies to patents is “commercial

value” (2011, p. 159). Abraham Lincoln stated once that “the patent system added the fuel of interest to



the fire of genius” (“History of US Patent Law”, 2009). While there is a lot of support for allowing a

temporary monopoly to an invention, others think the reasons for support fall short. Rick Falkvinge

created a list of “Ten Myths About Patents”, taking the time to debunk many of the reasons patents are

supported including how “patents ban innovation” instead of driving it as Lincoln had suggested (2011).

Trade Marks/Service Marks

Before going into detail, an important distinction must be made. When dealing with the United

Kingdom, trade mark is two words. In the United States of America, it is one word.

The term trade mark comes from ancient times when traders identified their goods with unique

identifiers (“History of trade marks”, 2009). The first trade mark registry, in the United Kingdom, was

created in 1875 and trade mark law was “consolidated in 1883” (“History of trade marks”, 2009). In

1986, amendments were made to allow for the “registration of service marks in respect of services such as

laundries and banking” (“History of trade marks”, 2009). A further change was made in 1988 to make

“forgery of a trade mark a criminal offense” (“History of trade marks”, 2009). The last change to trade

marks in the United Kingdom was made in 1994. This change made sure that the laws for trade marks in

the United Kingdom matched the laws of other countries.

Trademark history in the United States of America is turbulent to say the least. The first

trademark laws were created in 1870, amended in 1878, and defeated by the Supreme Court in 1879 for

being unconstitutional (“Trademark Cases, 100 U.S. 82”, 1879). Not willing to give up, Congress created

the Trademark Act of 1881 (“Act of March 3”, 1881). The Act allowed trademark protection based on the

powers of “commerce” that Congress held (Dudnikov & Meadors, 2011). To bring trademark law into

alignment with British and German trademark laws, the Lanham Act was introduced in 1946. Several

more revisions were made and finally in 1988, the Trademark Law was revised to bring it in line with the

global world. “The term ‘trademark’ is often used to refer to both trademarks and service marks”



(“Trademark FAQs”, 2010). United Kingdom and United States of America trade marks last for 10 years,

and must be renewed to keep it in force.

Trademark changes in the United States have made it so that any company, or individual, with a

trademark has rights to the associated domain name through the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection

Act. The United Kingdom does not have a specific piece of legislation to protect domain names.

However, if you can bring enough proof and evidence, you can try for legal methods to gain access to a

domain name that has been purchased by someone else (Taylor, 2011). Considering the various

companies out there throughout the world, if trademarks are going to remain enforceable there may need

to further amend trade mark legislation in the United Kingdom. After all, I know someone who owns the

potnoodle.org.uk domain name. They have no connection to the company product Pot Noodle.

The difference in how trademarks are handled from one country to another can actually cause a

bit of a stir. Take the recent action of Michael S. Pascazi and his wife Celine M. Pascazi trying to

trademark “Bitcoin” in the United States. When the news was published on techdirt.com, Michael S.

Pascazi replied to the story stating that “he and his wife had abandoned the US trademark filing… but, at

the same time, they’ve commenced trademark applications in other countries, which have a first to file

rule, rather than a first to use” (Masnick, 2011). Obviously, in a global market, as long as trademarks

will be recognized, there needs to be a standard across countries.

Copyright

Before explaining what copyright protects, I want to make clear the one thing it does not protect,

ideas. An idea is not copyrightable in the United Kingdom, or in the United States. The only thing that is

copyrightable is the expression of the idea.

In the United Kingdom, the expressions of an idea that can be copyrighted are “literary works”,

“dramatic works”, “musical works”, “artistic works”, “layouts or typographical arrangements”,

“recordings”, and “broadcasts” (“About copyright”, 2009). The history of copyright starts back in 1710



with the Statute of Anne, although the ability to “register a licensed book” was allowed in 1662 (“History

of copyright”, 2009). As with all other laws regarding unique human ideas, over time changes were made

to bring the current legislation and laws into accordance with other countries. The first was in 1952

through the Universal Copyright Convention in Geneva (“History of copyright”, 2009). And the final

time through the Copyright Designs and Patent Act of 1988 which was influenced by the EC Directives

and other legislation.

In the United States of America, expressions of ideas that can be copyrighted are “literary,

dramatic, musical, poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture” (U.S. Copyright

Office, 2010). Again, the history of copyright in America is tumultuous. As with patents, the U.S.

Constitution set the foundation for copyright law. Copyright from its beginnings has been a delicate

balance of trying to ensure expressions of ideas are balanced with protection for the one who created the

work. The Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 brought copyright law closer in line with

copyright protection in Europe. It seems with copyright protection, the US is playing catch up, while

trying to appease the “copyright industries” (Quinn, 2011, p. 168). There is a current bill being brought in

front of Congress called the S.978 (S.978, 2011). The bill is trying to protect copyrighted works,

however their unclear definition of “performance” has gamers who share their experience online through

sites like YouTube concerned. By having an unclear definition of “performance” the bill is completely

open for abuse and individuals are scared enough to start protesting (“Demand Progress”, 2011).

In both the United Kingdom and in the United States of America, copyright protection is

automatically given the moment an idea is put into a fixed state that is recognized as expressions of an

idea. In the United Kingdom the length of a copyright is based on the type of work it is. Written,

theatrical, musical, artistic and film have a protection length of life of the creator plus 70 years (“Written,

Theatrical, Musical, Artistic and Film”, 2008). A sound recording and a broadcast is protected by

copyright for “50 years from the end of the year in which it was made or published” (“Sound

Recordings”, 2011, “Broadcasts”, 2008). Published editions “expire 25 years” after the end of the year



from when first published (“Published editions”, 2009). In general, the United States of America has

copyright protection for the “life of the author plus an additional 70 years” (Copyright, 2010). Granted if

a work is done anonymously, or made for hire, the protection lasts for 95 years or 120 years, whichever

comes first. In some respects, the UK and US laws match, but it is obvious there is still a difference

based on the type of work created.

Designs

The United Kingdom has a specific intellectual property registration called Registered

Design. The Intellectual Property Office defines a Registered Design as “a legal right which

protections the overall visual appearance of a product or a part of a product in the country or

countries you register it” (2011). This particular type of intellectual property was put into

legislation in 1787 with the Designing & Printing of Linen Act (“History of designs”, 2011).

This Act protected the visual representation on fabric of designs that lasted only two months

from the first publication, though it was extended to three months in 1794 (“History of designs”,

2011). In 1839, protection for designs was added to the Copyright and Design Act of 1839 and

since then has gone through several revisions ending in the last change of 2001 where the law

was brought into compliance with the European Designs Directive. This specific difference

between the United Kingdom and the United States shows how different cultures can distinguish

and create different laws and pieces of legislation to respond to different ideas of what

intellectual property is. A Registered Design can be protected for 25 years.

Ethical View for Protection of Intellectual Property

Although there are many different ethical theories, in this section I will only focus on five

frameworks for ethical decision making in regards to patents, trademarks, and copyright.

Although there is also design and service marks, those will be included in the copyright and



trademark section respectively as they are protected by the same laws. After describing each

ethical theory, I will explain how those theories impact patents, trademarks, and copyright. The

description of each ethical theory is not meant to be exhaustive, but to give a strong enough

definition to help understand the foundation upon which I built the Code of Ethics for

Intellectual Property. After covering all five ethical theories, I present my personal ethical view.

Kantianism

Kantianism was developed by Immanuel Kant, thus the name. The ethical principles

presented by Kant are vast and as this is only a general introduction to Kantianism, it is

important to recognize just how rich the ethical theory is. I will be focusing mainly on the

impact of the first formulation and second formulation of the categorical imperative can

influence decision making involving patents, trademarks, and copyright. I acknowledge that

Kantianism contains perfect and imperfect duties, but in order to keep this section short, I have

chosen to focus only upon the two categorical imperatives.

Michael J. Quinn expresses the first and second formulation of the categorical imperative

as (2011, pp. 72-73):

i. Act only from moral rules that you can at the same time will to be universal moral laws.

ii. Act so that you always treat both yourself and other people as ends in themselves, and

never only as a means to an end.

One can argue that the first formulation gives ethical justification for the creation of laws to

protect intellectual property. However, a different individual could argue that the moral rule

they wish to see turned into a universal moral law is “All information, inventions, creations, and

other products of human imagination should be made free to all.” This dichotomy shows how



two individuals who follow Kantianism to make ethical decisions can come to two very different

conclusions. The second formulation can be used to argue both for, and against, the creation of

intellectual property laws. An individual can point out that by having laws the creator is treating

the user of their intellectual property as a means to an end (cash). The creator can argue that an

individual who takes their idea and modifies, copies it, or does anything else to it without

permission from the creator is treating the creator as a means to an end. Thus Kantianism, while

a strong ethical theory does present a lot of situations where differing individuals can have

opposing views and be seen as morally just and right.

Act Utilitarianism / Rule Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism was developed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. It focuses upon

the result of an action. Utilitarianism is based upon the Principle of Utility. Again, Utilitarianism

is a rich ethical theory and the weights used to figure out if an action is ethical or not is expanded

upon by Bentham to include seven attributes (Quinn, 2011, p. 79). However, for the sake of

space, the focus is upon the concept of the Principle of Utility. The Principle of Utility is “An

action is right (or wrong) to the extent that it increases (or decreases) the total happiness of the

affected parties” (Quinn, 2011, p. 76). Act utilitarianism focuses upon how parties are affected

by one individual’s actions. Rule utilitarianism focuses upon how a “moral rule which, if

followed by everyone, will lead to the greatest increase in total happiness” (Quinn, 2011, p. 81-

82). As with Kantianism, depending upon the type of weight you use, the value you give that

weight, and how deep you go into the ethical calculus, you can find sound, just, and good ethical

support for either having, or not having, laws to protect intellectual property.



Social Contract Theory

Social contract theory was created by Thomas Hobbes, developed further by Jean-

Jacques Rousseau, and further expounded upon by John Rawls. This ethical theory is a

combination of a definition of moral actions (Social Contract Theory) and principles for

explaining equality and inequality (John Rawl’s Principles of Justice). Quinn restates James

Rachel’s summary of social contract theory as “morality consists in the set of rules, governing

how people are to treat one another, that rational people will agree to accept, for their mutual

benefit, on the condition that others follow those rules as well” (2011, p. 86). This very definition

gives complete justification for the creation of laws to protect intellectual property.

John Rawl’s Principles of Justice are (Quinn, 2011, p. 88):

i) Each person must claim a “fully adequate” number of basic rights and liberties,

such as freedom of thought, speech, freedom of association, the right to be safe

from harm, and the right to own property, so long as these claims are consistent

with everyone else having a claim to the same rights and liberties.

ii) Any social and economic inequalities must satisfy two conditions: first, they are

associated with positions in society that everyone has a fair and equal

opportunity to assume; and second, they are to be in the greatest benefit of the

least-advantaged members of society.

As pointed out previously in this paper, I have an issue with the use of the word property

in regards to copyrights, patents, and trademarks. However, we have laws and processes that

help an individual acquire protection for their intellectual property. The first principle is met,

though it is obvious that the process is more affordable to some creators. The second principle



actually points out a discrepancy. If creators are protecting their expressions of ideas so that

others cannot do anything without creator permission, and/or monetary payment, for probably

more time than their lifetime, it definitely shows how innovation, can be kept from being a

benefit to those who are not in advantageous positions. Again, a conflict within an ethical theory

is discovered.

Value Ethics

Value ethics was introduced by Aristotle and is based on intellectual, and moral, virtues.

The virtues can be anything that motivates an individual and represents what an individual

perceives as someone with a strong moral character (Quinn, 2011, p. 411-412). As with all other

theories present, the virtues that an individual holds as characteristics of someone with strong

moral character can modify the outcome of deciding if intellectual property protection is

justified. If generosity is the value chosen, an individual can argue that intellectual property law

is generous only to the creator. If justice is the virtue chosen, an individual can argue that laws

are required to ensure that justice is served for both the creator and the beneficiary of the

intellectual property.

Personal Ethical View of Protection for Intellectual Property

Having presented the five different theories, it can be assumed that whatever ethical theory an

individual believes, follows, and adheres to they are neither right nor wrong. Based on the explanation

of the ethical theories presented above, it is easy to see how intellectual property as a topic has

become a hotbed of legal and ethical discussion. I cannot say whether someone else’s point of

view is correct, or wrong, because every individual, and in some cases group, follows their own

ethical philosophy. So, all I can do is present my own opinion. However, before presenting my



personal view, it is important to point out two things. The first is that unless you follow value

ethics and place a high value on self over others, every single ethical theory promotes the

following of laws laid down by governments, one way or another. The second important point

is that not all laws are ethical and not all uses of laws are ethical. As I have made a stance on the

use of the term intellectual property in a previous section, I will continue to support this stance

by looking at patents, trademarks, and copyright protection separately. I will present my

personal ethical view in relation to each.

Patent Protection

I believe that patents should exist and there should be some form of protection for the

patent holder. However, I do not agree with the length of protection time for patents or how the

current patent protection process seems incredibly biased to the patent holder with little regard to

others. The length of time given to patents deliberately prevents individuals, or companies, from

building upon the technology currently in place unless they are the patent holder themselves.

Rick Falkvinge explains this concept by stating (2011):

“It is morally just that you can combine your own pieces of property into new kinds of

property, using ideas that you get by yourself. Patents allow someone else to ban exactly

this, just because they thought of the idea independently earlier and manage to fill out

some particular forms”.

Patent law is such that those who make it to the patent office first, usually is given a monopoly

over the invention, and with the length of patent protection applied by law, innovation is stifled if

an individual has the same idea, or wants to improve the invention of someone else.



In patent law, there is a concept called “inducement to infringe”. Inducement to infringe

is “an act that encourages another party to infringe a patent” (Hunter, n.d.). Unfortunately, in a

recent ruling about a patent, it seems that even if you develop an idea, seek to see if it patented,

hire people to look for patents for you, and you find no patents, if you develop a product and a

patent shows up later, you can be guilty of inducement to infringe due to what the Supreme

Court of the United States calls “willful blindness”. The case was Global-Tech Appliances, Inc.,

et al. v. SEB S.A. (Slip Opinion, 2011). This case really makes me worried about where patent

law is going. To start, the defendant sought information about existing patents. Yet, they are

viewed as the bad guy in this situation due to one point. The manufacturer created the product

desired by a company based off of a product that had no patent attached to it because it was sold

in a foreign country. They looked for a patent, and could not find one. I can understand how it

can be seen as patent violation, however, using the term “willful blindness”? I can accept the

defendant being guilty of patent violation, but the Supreme Court of the United States declaring

that the reason for the violation as “willful blindness”; now that just confuses me. Even Justice

Kennedy, the only Justice to oppose the ruling points out that:

“If willful blindness is as close to knowledge and as far from the “knew or should have

known” jury instruction provided in this case as the Court suggests, then reviewing the

record becomes all the more difficult. I would leave that task to the Court of Appeals in

the first instance on remand” (Slip Notice, 2011, p. 4).

Individuals have similar ideas all the time, and yet it seems that in this world, you have to race to

patent an object and you need to search every single patent giver on the planet. The cost to do

that will fall back on the consumer. Justice Kennedy pointed out an incredibly chilling point

(Slip Notice, 2011, p. 3).



“The court appears to endorse the willful blindness doctrine here for all federal criminal

cases involving knowledge. It does so in a civil case where it has received no briefing or

argument from the criminal defense bar, which might have provided important counsel

on this difficult issue”.

Looks like the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that even if you exhaust all your

resources to find a patent, and you create an invention that someone has patented after you, or

before you could get the patent office, you are guilty of patent fraud due to “willful blindness”.

Trademark Protection

As with patent protection, I support trademark protection, however, I believe that the

current laws are capable of abuse and that the abuse of the laws shows the weakness of the

current laws and sets court precedents that will radically change trademark protection in the

future. I have already shared the story of Michael S. Pascazi and his rather subversive ways of trying

to trademark “Bitcoin”. In another, in my opinion, abuse of trademark protection, two days after Seal

Team 6 killed Bin Laden, Disney applied for a trademark for “Seal Team 6” covering “clothing, footwear,

headware, toys, games, and ‘entertainment and education services” (Weprin, 2011). To me this is

profiteering and not proper use of trademark protection. Disney had nothing to do with Seal Team 6, so

why should they own the trademark for it? I’ll also be curious to see the court ruling in regards to Apple

trying to trademark the already generic term “App Store” (Reitano, 2011). Even more so now that Judge

Phyllis Hamilton has stated she will “probably” deny the motion of Apple to create an injunction on the

use of the term (Rosenblatt & Gullo, 2011).

It’s clear that companies who have the cash seek to subvert the patent process. It is also clear

that the laws are not strong enough in relation to global trademark. My only hope is that the trademark

office takes one look at Disney’s request, and sends them packing.



Copyright Protection

Copyright is probably one of the hottest topics in legal and ethical discussion about

intellectual property. I support copyright protection, however I believe the time afforded

copyright protection is exorbitant. A minimum of 50 years for certain types of fixed expression

of human ideas? I am still disappointed with The Walt Disney Corporation pushing Congress to

pass the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act to keep their work out of public domain

(Quinn, 2011, p. 171). It makes far more sense, to me, to have the protection applied for 10 to 20

years maximum.

I am glad that Larry Lessig has worked hard to promote the Creative Commons. In

March 2007, he gave an incredibly persuasive talk at a TED convention about how human

cultural development is stifled by copyright laws (Lessig, 2007). Another individual, Kirby

Ferguson believes that “Everything is a Remix” (Ferguson, 2011). I personally believe this is

true. I believe that an individual should be able to pick what type of copyright protection they

want to incorporate, and thus I support the Creative Commons and use it on my personal web

site. Slowly but surely, it seems like public domain is becoming a scarce commodity and I want

to ensure that if anyone is inspired by anything I create, that they give me credit, and then take

any inspiration and put their idea back into the public domain for consumption and sharing.

In conclusion, it is obvious that the term intellectual property is too broad a term for the

differences of patent, trademark, and copyright. Even if various court systems are trying to

create “intellectual property” laws that impact all three types of human ingenuity, much to my

chagrin. Thus, I present my Personal Code of Ethics for Intellectual Property which has been

formed through the information gathered to write this paper and my own personal ethical

philosophy.



Personal Code of Ethics for Intellectual Property

Preamble

This personal code of Ethics for Intellectual Property covers my personal responsibilities and

covers some, though not all, issues that I may face in regards to intellectual property. This is

intended to be the foundation for my ethical decision making and where certain principles

challenge others, I will make my decisions based upon deep thought about the issue.

Awareness

I shall strive to stay aware of the changes to intellectual property terms. Specifically, I shall as appropriate:

Be aware that ideas cannot be patented, trademarked, or copyrighted.

Acknowledge that the term intellectual property is an umbrella term and does not refer

specifically to any specific laws.

Strive to follow changes to definitions and laws regarding patents, trademarks, and

copyrights.

Respect

I shall strive to offer respect to myself, other individuals, groups, countries, and cultures. Specifically, I shall as appropriate:

Respect the laws of different countries.

Respect creators by giving proper credit based upon the type of intellectual property

referenced and the country that has issued the patent, trademark, or copyright.

Respect users of intellectual property by clearly defining the type of protection any of my

creations has in plain English, and if possible other languages.



Respect users of intellectual property by listening fairly to their intended uses of any of

my creations.

Not discriminate against any individual, group, country, or culture.

Self

It is my intent to be ethical in all my dealings with intellectual property. Specifically, I shall as

appropriate:

Accept responsibility for my actions.

Be honest.

Maintain personal integrity.

Be accepting of other’s point of views.

Give personal contribution to society’s understanding of intellectual property

Honor country specific laws in relation to copyrights, patents, and trademarks.

Continue to improve my understanding of intellectual property; including but not limited

to patents, trademarks, and copyrights.



References

“About copyright”, (2009). Retrieved July 10, 2011 from IPO.gov.uk:

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-about.htm

“Act of March 3”, (1881). An act to authorize the registration of trade—marks and protect the

same. Retrieved July 10, 2011 from ipmall.info:

http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/lipa/trademarks/PreLanhamAct_084_Act_of_1881.htm

Becker, A. D. (2004). The sherman antitrust act (1890). Retrieved July 10, 2011 from

Stolaf.edu: http://www.stolaf.edu/people/becker/antitrust/statutes/sherman.html

“Broadcasts”, (2011). Retrieved July 10, 2011 from IPO.gov.uk:

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-duration/c-broadcasts.htm

Demand Progress, (2011). Urgent: congress wants to make streaming a felony. Retrieved July

10, 2011 from DemandProgress.org: http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/ten_strikes?

akid=700.450896.5hVZPC&rd=1&t=1

Dudnikov, K, & Meadors, M. (2011). The history of trademark law. Retrieved July 10, 2011

from tabberone.com:

http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/TrademarkLaw/History/History.shtml

Falkvinge, R., (2011). Ten myths about patents. Retrieved July 10, 2011 from Falkvinge.net:

http://falkvinge.net/2011/06/21/ten-myths-about-patents/


http://falkvinge.net/2011/06/21/ten-myths-about-patents/

http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/TrademarkLaw/History/History.shtml

http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/ten_strikes?akid=700.450896.5hVZPC&rd=1&t=1

http://act.demandprogress.org/letter/ten_strikes?akid=700.450896.5hVZPC&rd=1&t=1


http://www.stolaf.edu/people/becker/antitrust/statutes/sherman.html

http://ipmall.info/hosted_resources/lipa/trademarks/PreLanhamAct_084_Act_of_1881.htm

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-about.htm


Ferguson, K. (2011). Everything is a remix. Retrieved June 20, 2011 from

EverythingIsARemix.com: http://www.everythingisaremix.info/everything-is-a-remix-

part-3/

“History of copyright”, (2009). Retrieved July 10, 2011 from IPO.gov.uk:

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-about/c-history.htm

“History of designs”, (2011). Retrieved July 10, 2011, from IPO.gov.uk:

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/design/d-about/d-whatis/d-history.htm

“History of patents”, (2008). Retrieved July 10, 2011, from IPO.gov.uk:

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/patent/p-about/p-whatis/p-history.htm

“History of US Patent Law”, (2009). A brief history of the patent law of the united states.

Retrieved July 10, 2011, from Ladas.com:

http://www.ladas.com/Patents/USPatentHistory.html

Hunter, R. M. (n.d.). Inducement to infringe. Retrieved July 11, 2010 from ExpertGlossary.com:

http://www.expertglossary.com/patent/definition/inducement-to-infringe/source/robert-

hunter-patent-glossary

IPO, (2011). Home Page. Retrieved July 9, 2011, from IPO.gov.uk:

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/home.htm

Lessig, L. (2007). Larry lessig on laws that choke creativity. Retrieved June 5, 2010 from

Ted.com:

http://www.ted.com/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity.html


http://www.ted.com/talks/larry_lessig_says_the_law_is_strangling_creativity.html

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/home.htm

http://www.expertglossary.com/patent/definition/inducement-to-infringe/source/robert-hunter-patent-glossary

http://www.expertglossary.com/patent/definition/inducement-to-infringe/source/robert-hunter-patent-glossary

http://www.ladas.com/Patents/USPatentHistory.html

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/patent/p-about/p-whatis/p-history.htm

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/design/d-about/d-whatis/d-history.htm

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-about/c-history.htm

http://www.everythingisaremix.info/everything-is-a-remix-part-3/

http://www.everythingisaremix.info/everything-is-a-remix-part-3/


Lemley, M. A. (2004). Property, intellectual property, and free riding. Retrieved July 9, 2011

from Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collect:

http://ssrn.com/abstract=582602

Masnick, M. (2011). Lawyer trying to trademark bitcoin explains his legal theory. Retrieved

July 8, 2011 from techdirt.com:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110708/00564015004/lawyer-trying-to-trademark-

bitcoin-explains-his-legal-theory.shtml

Patent Cooperation Treaty, (2001). Preamble. Retrieved July 10, 2011 from WIPO.int:

http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/articles/a0.htm

“Published editions” (2009). Retrieved July 10, 2011, from IPO.gov.uk:


Quinn, M. J. (2011). Ethics for the information age. Addison-Wesley. pp. 72-73, 76, 79, 81-82,

86, 88, 159, 160, 167, 168, 202, 411-412

Reitano, V. (2011). Apple fires back in ‘app store’ trademark fight. Retrieved July 11, 2011 from

SDTimes.com: http://www.sdtimes.com/link/35339

Rosenblatt, J. & Gullo, K. (2011). Apple bid to bar amazon ‘appstore’ will ‘likely’ be denied.

Retrieved July 11, 2011 from businessweek.com:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-06-22/apple-bid-to-bar-amazon-appstore-will-

likely-be-denied.html

Slip Opinion, (2011). Global-Tech Appliances, Inc., et al. v. SEB S.A. p. 3 Retrieved July 10,

2011 from SupremeCourt.gov: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-6.pdf


http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/10-6.pdf

http://www.sdtimes.com/link/35339


http://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/articles/a0.htm

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110708/00564015004/lawyer-trying-to-trademark-bitcoin-explains-his-legal-theory.shtml

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110708/00564015004/lawyer-trying-to-trademark-bitcoin-explains-his-legal-theory.shtml

http://ssrn.com/abstract=582602


S 978, (2011). A bill to amend the criminal penalty provision for criminal infringement of a

copyright, and for.. Retrieved July 10, 2011, from GovTrack.us:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s112-978

“Sound Recordings”, (2011). Retrieved July 10, 2011, from IPO.gov.uk:

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-duration/c-types.htm

Stallman, R. M. (2010). Did you say “intellectual property”? it’s a seductive mirage. Retrieved

July 9, 2011 from GNU.org: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html

Taylor, A. (2011). Faq: what is the relationship between a domain name and a

registered/unregistered trade? Retrieved July 10, 2011 from AdlexSolicitors.co.uk:

http://www.adlexsolicitors.co.uk/domain-dispute/faqs/domain-trademark.htm

“The 18th century” (2008). Retrieved July 10, 2011 from IPO.gov.uk:

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/patent/p-about/p-whatis/p-history/p-history-18century.htm





“Trademark Cases, 100 U.S. 82” (1879). Retrieved July 10, 2011 from Justia.com:

http://supreme.justia.com/us/100/82/case.html

“Trademarks FAQ” (2010). What is a service mark? Retrieved July 10, 2011 from USPTO.gov:

http://www.uspto.gov/faq/trademarks.jsp#_Toc275426673


http://www.uspto.gov/faq/trademarks.jsp#_Toc275426673

http://supreme.justia.com/us/100/82/case.html




http://www.adlexsolicitors.co.uk/domain-dispute/faqs/domain-trademark.htm

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html


http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s112-978


Tuckness, A. (2010). Locke’s Political Philosophy. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

(Fall 2010 Edition). Retrieved, July 9, 2011 from Stanford.edu:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/#Pro

“Tudors and Stuarts”, (2010). Retrieved July 10, 2011 from IPO.gov.uk:

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/patent/p-about/p-whatis/p-history/p-history-tudor.htm

U.S. Copyright Office, (2010). What does copyright protect? Retrieved July 10, 2011, from

Copyright.gov: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html

Weprin, A. (2011). Disney Trademarks “Seal Team 6”. Retrieved July 11, 2010 from

MeiaBistro.com: http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/disney-trademarks-seal-team-

6_b35689

“What is a Patent?” (2009). Retrieved July 10, 2011 from IPO.gov.uk:

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/patent/p-about/p-whatis.htm

“Written, Theatrical, Musical, Artistic and Film”, (2008). Retrieved July 10, 2011 from

IPO.gov.uk http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/copy/c-duration/c-types.htm



http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/patent/p-about/p-whatis.htm

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/disney-trademarks-seal-team-6_b35689

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/disney-trademarks-seal-team-6_b35689

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/types/patent/p-about/p-whatis/p-history/p-history-tudor.htm

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/#Pro

understanding intellectual property to build a personal code of ethics

Documents