지식재산권의 해석 도구로서 재산권(Property)과 자연독점(Natural Monopoly) - 미국에서의 법경제학적 논의를 중심으로 -

Abstract

Intellectual property rights have been developed through using the metaphor of property. This tradition of using the property metaphor has long been dominant in the field of intellectual property. Intellectual property has been recognized as a sort of property that is a right over intellectual products. When understanding intellectual property in terms of property, it is likely to reduce intellectual property to an exclusive right. An emphasis on the exclusive right alone leads to expansions of intellectual property rights through understanding intellectual property infringement in terms of the language of trespass, granting strong injunctive remedies, or extending the duration of copyrights. This paper explores whether the property metaphor properly serves as an interpretative device to understand intellectual property rights. More specifically, it focuses on whether understanding intellectual property as property covers all aspects of intellectual property. Then, it demonstrates that the metaphor of natural monopoly can be an alternative interpretive device to the property. Intellectual property as property gives rise to controversies about the scope of intellectual property rights. Understanding intellectual property as property does not provide any implication for defining the extent to which intellectual property rights should or could be protected. Rather, it may justify the maximization of exclusivity so that it ends up with the excessive protection of intellectual property rights. The excessive protection through too strong exclusivity is likely to impede enjoying innovation by blocking distribution of intellectual property in the market. At this stage, natural monopoly can be considered as an alternative interpretive device to property in the field of intellectual property. As demonstrated in the text, recasting intellectual property as natural monopoly does not so much weaken the property nature of intellectual property, but it also explains more precisely all aspects of the intellectual property, which include production, distribution and commercialization of intellectual property in the market. By doing so, it makes it possible to harmonize intellectual property with public interests, moving away from private interests. Furthermore, it provides an implication for defining the proper scope of intellectual property rights. Consequently, this movement accords with pursuing innovation as the final goal of intellectual property laws.