Astone Daniel Pinheiro
Faculty of Law, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.
Law Crit. 2023;34(1):145-164. doi: 10.1007/s10978-022-09324-3. Epub 2022 Jun 25.
The article addresses the role of scarcity in negotiating the relationship between intellectual property, particularly from a legal-economic perspective, and property rights, as understood by transaction cost economics, to shed light on the deadlock faced by those suffering from neglected tropical diseases (NTDs). The consistency of the law and economics fundamentals that support the trade on knowledge goods, namely patents on essential medicines, is put under check by Scott Veitch's scholarship on legal irresponsibility. The damages that emerge from the operations of the intellectual property system are registered in the novel concept of negative public domain, and are due mainly to the lack of access to treatments that end up being unaffordable, or to innovation that leads to new drugs that is not sufficiently incentivised though price signals. The accountability for such damages is taken into consideration by arguing that the disavowal of responsibility is made possible by the negative public domain, which is balanced by the construction of a positive response through the language of rights. As such, responsibility per se is preserved, evading one instantiation of Teubner's legal paradoxes, but rendered ineffective by design. In other words, even if the harms endured by those affected by the NTDs can be traced back to the operations of the intellectual property system, there is no one to hold accountable. The main goal pursued through the article is to make such an arrangement explicit, by giving centrality to the notion of scarcity and its interplay between legal and economic theory, alongside the novel concept of negative public domain as a site where the actual consequences of irresponsibility lie, to hopefully inform further critique in subsequent works.
本文从法律经济学的角度探讨了稀缺性在知识产权关系谈判中的作用,特别是与交易成本经济学所理解的产权之间的关系,以阐明受被忽视热带病(NTDs)影响的人们所面临的僵局。支持知识商品贸易(即基本药物专利)的法律和经济基础的一致性,受到了斯科特·维奇关于法律不负责任的学术研究的审视。知识产权制度运作中产生的损害,被记录在消极公共领域这一新颖概念中,主要是由于无法获得最终价格过高的治疗方法,或者是由于创新导致新药缺乏足够的价格信号激励。通过论证消极公共领域使得责任的否认成为可能,而通过权利语言构建积极回应来平衡这种否认,考虑了对此类损害的问责。因此,责任本身得以保留,避免了托依布纳法律悖论的一种情形,但从设计上看却变得无效。换句话说,即使受NTDs影响的人所遭受的伤害可追溯到知识产权制度的运作,也没有人对此负责。本文追求的主要目标是通过将稀缺性概念及其在法律和经济理论之间的相互作用置于中心位置,以及将消极公共领域这一新颖概念作为不负责任实际后果的所在,来明确这种安排,以期为后续作品中的进一步批判提供参考。