Table Of Contenta critique of the ontology
of intellectual property law
Intellectual property (IP) law operates with the ontological assumption that immaterial
goods such as works, inventions, and designs exist, and that these abstract types can be
owned like a piece of land. Alexander Peukert provides a comprehensive critique of
thisparadigm,showingthattheabstractIPobjectisaspeech-basedconstruct,whichfirst
crystalisedintheeighteenthcentury.Hehighlightsthetheoreticalflawsofmetaphysical
object ontology and introduces John Searle’s social ontology as a more plausible
approach to the subject matter of IP. On this basis, he proposes an IP theory under
which IP rights provide their holders with an exclusive privilege to use reproducible
‘MasterArtefacts.’Suchalegal-realistIPtheory,Peukertargues,isbothdescriptivelyand
prescriptivelysuperiortotheprevailingparadigmoftheabstractIPobject.Thisworkwas
originallypublishedinGermanandwastranslatedbyGillMertens.
alexander peukert is Professor of civil law, intellectual property, and competition
lawatGoetheUniversity,FrankfurtamMain/Germany.Hehaspublishedfivebooksand
morethanseventyarticlesinthesefields,withafocusonthetheoreticalfoundationsof
intellectualpropertylaw.
CAMBRIDGE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND INFORMATION LAW
As its economic potential has rapidly expanded, intellectual property has become
a subject of front-rank legal importance. Cambridge Intellectual Property and
InformationLawisaseriesofmonographstudiesofmajorcurrentissuesinintellectual
property. Each volume contains a mix of international, European, comparative and
national law, making this a highly significant series for practitioners, judges and aca-
demicresearchersinmanycountries.
SeriesEditors
LionelBently
HerchelSmithProfessorofIntellectualPropertyLaw,UniversityofCambridge
GraemeDinwoodie
GlobalProfessorofIntellectualPropertyLaw,Chicago-KentCollegeofLaw,Illinois
InstituteofTechnology.
AdvisoryEditors
WilliamR.Cornish,EmeritusHerchelSmithProfessorofIntellectualPropertyLaw,
UniversityofCambridge
FrançoisDessemontet,ProfessorofLaw,UniversityofLausanne
JaneC.Ginsburg,MortonL.JanklowProfessorofLiteraryandArtisticPropertyLaw,
ColumbiaLawSchool
PaulGoldstein,ProfessorofLaw,StanfordUniversity
TheRtHon.SirRobinJacob,HughLaddieProfessorofIntellectualProperty,
UniversityCollegeLondon
AnsgarOhly,ProfessorofIntellectualPropertyLaw,Ludwig-Maximilian
UniversityofMunich
Alistofbooksintheseriescanbefoundattheendofthisvolume.
A Critique of the Ontology
of Intellectual Property Law
ALEXANDER PEUKERT
Goethe University (Frankfurt)
Translated by
GILL MERTENS
UniversityPrintingHouse,Cambridgecb28bs,UnitedKingdom
OneLibertyPlaza,20thFloor,NewYork,ny10006,USA
477WilliamstownRoad,PortMelbourne,vic3207,Australia
314–321,3rdFloor,Plot3,SplendorForum,JasolaDistrictCentre,NewDelhi–110025,India
79AnsonRoad,#06–04/06,Singapore079906
CambridgeUniversityPressispartoftheUniversityofCambridge.
ItfurtherstheUniversity’smissionbydisseminatingknowledgeinthepursuitof
education,learning,andresearchatthehighestinternationallevelsofexcellence.
www.cambridge.org
Informationonthistitle:www.cambridge.org/9781108498326
doi:10.1017/9781108653329
Thispublicationisincopyright.Subjecttostatutoryexception
andtotheprovisionsofrelevantcollectivelicensingagreements,
noreproductionofanypartmaytakeplacewithoutthewritten
permissionofCambridgeUniversityPress.
FirstpublishedinEnglishbyCambridgeUniversityPress2021asACritiqueoftheOntologyofIntellectual
PropertyLawbyAlexanderPeukert
Englishtranslation©GillMertens2021
OriginallypublishedinGermanasKritikderOntologiedesImmaterialgüterrechtsbyAlexanderPeukert
and©2018MohrSiebeckTübingen.www.mohr.de
AcataloguerecordforthispublicationisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary.
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
names:Peukert,Alexander,1973-author.
title:Acritiqueoftheontologyofintellectualpropertylaw/Alexandereukert,GoetheUniversity
(Frankfurt).
description:Cambridge,UnitedKingdom;NewYork,NY:CambridgeUniversityPress,[2021]|
Series:Cambridgeintellectualpropertyandinformationlaw|Includesbibliographicalreferences
andindex.
identifiers:lccn2020054774(print)|lccn2020054775(ebook)|isbn9781108498326(hardback)|
isbn9781108735728(paperback)|isbn9781108653329(epub)
subjects:LCSH:Intellectualproperty–Germany.
classification:lcckk2636.p482021(print)|lcckk2636(ebook)|ddc46.4304/8–dc23
LCrecordavailableathttps://lccn.loc.gov/2020054774
LCebookrecordavailableathttps://lccn.loc.gov/2020054775
isbn978-1-108-49832-6Hardback
CambridgeUniversityPresshasnoresponsibilityforthepersistenceoraccuracy
ofURLsforexternalorthird-partyinternetwebsitesreferredtointhispublication
anddoesnotguaranteethatanycontentonsuchwebsitesis,orwillremain,
accurateorappropriate.
Contents
Acknowledgements page xi
1 Introduction 1
1.1 The Paradigm ofthe Abstract IP Object 1
1.2 Irritations: Differences between Real andIntellectualProperty Law 4
1.3 Reactions 7
1.4 Objectives andPlan ofthe Study 15
1.5 Terminology andPreconceptions 20
2 Two Ontologies 24
2.1 The OntologyofAbstract Objects 24
2.1.1 Characteristicsand Applicationto IntellectualProperty 24
2.1.2 Metaphysics: An Obsolete Anachronism? 26
2.1.3 The Implausibility ofthe Abstract IP Object 28
2.2 Social Ontology 34
2.2.1 Fundamentals ofJohn Searle’s Social Ontology 35
2.2.2 Application toIP Objects 42
3 Two Abstractions 50
3.1 Abstraction 1:General Terms for Similar Artefacts 50
3.1.1 A New Artefact 51
3.1.2 The Master Artefact 52
3.1.3 Secondary Artefacts 57
3.2 Abstraction 2: The Idea of the Abstract IPObject 61
3.2.1 The Historicity ofConditions for Abstraction2 63
3.2.1.1 New Technologies 64
3.2.1.2 FromNameless Imitation tothe Ingenious Work 69
vii
viii Contents
3.2.1.3 From Dirigiste Regulationof EconomicActivityto the
Market Economy 74
3.2.1.3.1 EconomicRegulation through Privileges 74
3.2.1.3.2 The Formationof Markets and the
Commodification of All Inputs and Outputs 79
3.2.2 The Emergence ofthe Abstract IP Object 85
3.2.2.1 AHistory ofTerms: Work, Invention,Design 85
3.2.2.2 The Abstract IP Object inLegal Texts ofthe
EighteenthandNineteenth Centuries 89
3.2.2.2.1 France 90
3.2.2.2.2 The UnitedKingdom andthe United States
of America 92
3.2.2.2.3 Germany 97
4 InterimSummary: AnImplausible Paradigm 101
5 The Legal ExplanatoryPower of the Two Ontologies 104
5.1 The Structure andPractice of CurrentIPLaw 104
5.1.1 Scope of Applicationof the PrevailingParadigm 104
5.1.1.1 Trademark Law 105
5.1.1.2 Rights in Innovation, in Particular Rights Related
toCopyright andPlant Variety Rights 107
5.1.2 AnAction-andArtefact-BasedReconstruction of IPRights 110
5.1.2.1 The Master Artefact as the Reference Point ofIP Rights 110
5.1.2.2 SecondaryArtefacts 117
5.1.2.3 Regulationof Behaviour inRelation toSecondary
Artefacts 121
5.2 Structural Differencesbetween RealProperty and IPRights 126
5.3 Particularities ofthe Justification ofIP Rights 128
5.3.1 Effect and Justification of IPRights 129
5.3.2 EconomicAnalysis of IPRights 131
5.4 The Normativityof the Abstract IPObject 132
5.4.1 The Raison d’Être ofthe Abstract IP Object
IsIts Normativity 132
5.4.2 Proof: The Reach of Physical andIdealistic IPRegimes 135
5.4.3 The Instability of the Distinction between
Law andReality 140
6 Normative Critique of the AbstractIP Object 143
6.1 Radical Critique without Extreme Consequences 143
6.1.1 In Support ofa New Understanding ofReality 143
Contents ix
6.1.2 InSupport ofthe Form ofExclusive Rights 145
6.1.3 Alternative Terminology 147
6.2 Change ofPerspective: From Immaterial Objects to Actors,Actions
and Artefacts 150
6.2.1 Actors and Actions 151
6.2.1.1 InnovatorsandInvestors 151
6.2.1.2 Manufacture andUse ofSecondary Artefacts
by ThirdParties 154
6.2.2 Master Artefacts, Secondary Artefacts andSimilarity 158
Summary in Theses 161
Bibliography 171
Index 201
