Download this Paper Open PDF in Browser

Why Modularity Does Not (and Should Not) Explain Intellectual Property

6 Pages Posted: 4 Feb 2008  

Michael A. Carrier

Rutgers Law School

Abstract

This five-page essay responds to Henry Smith's article, "Intellectual Property as Property: Delineating Entitlements in Information."

A virtual cottage industry of intellectual property (IP) models has sprung up in recent years. To the mix, Professor Smith adds modularity, in which there are intense interactions within, and few interactions between, components.

Before displacing more traditional explanations, however, the theory faces substantial obstacles. This essay articulates six such challenges: (1) explaining why modularity should be IP's defining feature, (2) accounting for the roles played by IP statutes and doctrine, (3) specifying clear boundaries for innately imprecise patents and copyrights, (4) justifying discerned differences between patent and copyright, (5) rationalizing the enhanced injunctive relief suggested by the model, and (6) proving the game is worth a new empirical candle.

Keywords: intellectual property, property, modularity, patents, copyrights

JEL Classification: K10, K11, O30, O31, O34

Suggested Citation

Carrier, Michael A., Why Modularity Does Not (and Should Not) Explain Intellectual Property. Yale Law Journal Pocket Part, Vol. 117, p. 95, 2007. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1089110

Michael Carrier (Contact Author)

Rutgers Law School ( email )

217 North Fifth Street
Camden, NJ 08102-1203
United States
856-225-6380 (Phone)
856-225-6516 (Fax)

Paper statistics

Downloads
151
Rank
167,734
Abstract Views
1,155