INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE NATURAL RIGHTS THEORY

INTRODUCTION

Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) refer to the legal protections granted to the intangible creations of the human mindsuch as inventions, literary and artistic works, designs, and symbols used in commerce. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) defines intellectual property (IP) as “creations of the mind,” which encompasses mechanisms like patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets that safeguard innovation and creativity from unauthorised use. Unlike tangible property, intellectual property is non-rivalrous and intangible, necessitating a unique legal framework for its acquisition, enforcement, and transfer.

The emergence and development of IPR coincided with the Industrial Revolution and gained traction through the 19th century, culminating in the codification of intellectual property laws. Over time, IPR has become integral to various industries; technology, pharmaceuticals, fashion, biotechnology; by ensuring inventors and creators have control over their work, fostering innovation and economic growth. A philosophical understanding of IPR is essential to justify the legal rights granted and explore their ethical and societal implications.

Among the major philosophical justifications for IPR, the Labour Theoryor Natural Rights Theory, stands out as one of the earliest and most influential frameworks. Rooted in the works of John Locke, this theory argues that property rights naturally arise from one’s labour. This article delves into the core principles of the Labour Theory, its application to intellectual property, and its limitations in the modern context.

LABOUR THEORY OR NATURAL RIGHTS THEORY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

John Locke, a 17th-century English philosopher, believed that everyone has an inherent right to own the fruits of their labour. According to Locke, by mixing one’s labour with resources from nature, an individual acquires rightful ownership over the resulting product. Applying this theory to intellectual property rights, it follows that when a person employs their mental faculties to create something original, such as an invention, literary work, or artistic piece, they naturally gain ownership rights over it.

As Locke wrote:

“Though the earth, and all inferior creatures, be common to all men, yet every man has a property in his own person: this nobody has any right to but himself. The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his.”

– Second Treatise of Government (1690), ch 5, para

Therefore, intellectual products, just like crops grown or tools crafted, belong to those who invested their labour in creating them. Applying this to IPR, when an individual invents a new machine or expresses unique thoughts in the form of literature or music, they are entitled to own those expressions. For instance, John Locke would have supported granting a patent to James Watt for developing the steam engine. Watt’s labour added novelty and utility, generating economic value and technological progress. In Locke’s view, this justified exclusive ownership through a patent.

In the modern era, platforms like TMWALA can help protect such intellectual products by enabling creators to document, verify, and timestamp their innovations on a secure digital ledger. This supports the Lockean principle of labour-based ownership by ensuring the creator’s contribution is formally recognized and protected.

Legal Recognition and Landmark Case

The Labour Theory of Intellectual Property Rights finds judicial backing in the case of International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918). Though not purely based on Locke’s theory, Justice Pitney’s opinion for the majority acknowledged a quasi-property right in news gathered through labour and investment. The Court held that while facts themselves cannot be owned, the investment of labour in gathering and distributing news conferred a right to prevent unfair commercial use by others.

This landmark decision resonates with the Lockean view: it recognises a limited right in intellectual effort and economic value derived from one’s own work. Although contemporary IP regimes are more structured and statutory, Locke’s natural rights theory remains an influential moral foundation for these protections.

Illustration

Suppose a scientist invests years in isolating and refining a compound from a rare plant that shows promise in treating a disease. Even if the plant and compound exist in nature, the act of discovery, refinement, and application involves considerable intellectual and physical effort. Locke’s theory would support granting the scientist a patent because they have merged their labour with natural resources to produce something new and beneficial.

Modern IP platforms such as TMWALA can play a crucial role in such scenarios by offering tools for documenting each stage of the innovation processfrom discovery to refinementthus enhancing the credibility of the creator’s claim and streamlining the path to legal protection.

Contrast this with W.R. Grace’s attempt to patent the active insecticidal component of neem, ‘azadirachtin’. The company identified a naturally occurring substance and sought exclusive rights. Critics argued that the compound existed independently of Grace’s effort, and the patent would deprive communities that had traditionally used neem for similar purposes. Locke’s theory, through the Lockean Proviso, would oppose this monopolisation, as it violates the principle that “enough and as good” must be left for others.

Criticism of the Labour Theory

A significant limitation of Locke’s theory is its silence on the temporal limitation of Intellectual Property Rights. Whereas physical property may be held in perpetuity, intellectual property is time-bound to eventually enter the public domain. This contrast challenges the application of Locke’s perpetual ownership principle to IP.

Locke’s Proviso further complicates matters. It requires that no one should be made worse off by another’s appropriation of resources. In Intellectual Property Rights terms, monopolies on essential knowledge; like patents on cancer-related genes (e.g., BRCA1 and BRCA2), may hinder medical advancement, thus violating this condition.

Philosopher Robert Nozick supports this interpretation, arguing that excessive control over valuable resources can unjustly deprive others of access or opportunity.Thus, while labour justifies initial ownership, it must be balanced with societal equity and continued access for other innovators.

Conclusion

John Locke’s Labour Theory provides a compelling philosophical basis for recognising intellectual property rights. It aligns well with the moral intuition that individuals deserve to control and benefit from what they create through their labour. Yet, as seen through critiques and modern examples, the application of this theory must be tempered with public interest considerations and equitable access to innovation.

While not a comprehensive justification for the entire IP regime, Locke’s theory significantly contributes to the ethical foundation of Intellectual Property Rights law. In contemporary legal systems, this perspective continues to inform debates over the scope, duration, and limitations of IP rights. Understanding it deepens our appreciation of why intellectual creations deserve protection and how such protections must evolve in a just and balanced manner.

With solutions like TMWALA, innovators today can bridge the gap between philosophical ownership and legal protection, ensuring their labour is preserved, recognized, and safeguarded across borders.

REFERENCES

Books and Treatises:

• John Locke, Two Treatises of Government (Peter Laslett edn, Cambridge University Press 1988)

Cases:

• International News Service v Associated Press, 248 US 215 (1918)

Reports and Institutional Sources:

• World Intellectual Property Organization, ‘What is Intellectual Property?’ (WIPO, 2020) https://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/ accessed 27 May 2025

Articles and Papers:

• Gomase V, Priyadarshi D and Kathikar P, ‘Theories of Grant for Intellectual Property Rights’ (2023) 6(3) International Journal of Law Management & Humanities [ISSN 2581-5369] 1046 https://doi.org/10.10000/IJLMH.114827

Author- Suhani Sharma

Fourth year, BBA LLB, Army Law College, Pune