IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jiplap/v19y2024i9p705-716..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can you patent the sun? Towards a sui generis inclusive right to manage the relationship between intellectual property and Commons

Author

Listed:
  • Gabriele Cifrodelli

Abstract

This paper, by adopting the Covid-19 vaccine as a case study, argues that some pharmaceutical drugs should be considered as Commons, ie goods that are managed and owned by the public at large, and not as private property—exclusivity—of pharmaceutical companies. The reasons of such a strong argument are, on the one side, the conspicuous public-funding contribution to develop Covid-19 vaccines and other essential life-saving treatments, and, on the other side, the search for a human and equity-oriented Global Health Security.It is true that, from a legal perspective, vaccines can be patented, leading to questionable practices in the pharmaceutical industry, such as patent thickets. However, an alternative and fairer path, which would result in the theorization of a Commons for the vaccine, can be pursued. In particular, the actual types of Commons in the IP law field—the public domain, exceptions/limitations to patents and open innovation instruments such as IP pledges—present some issues in relation to enforceability. By forwarding the concept of ‘negative spaces’ to the patent realm, these spaces should not only claim to not enforce IP but also be able to ‘enforce that non-enforcement’.Therefore, this paper, by building on the work of the author Dusollier, advances the idea that from the inclusivity, which is the typical feature of every Commons, a sui generis inclusive right can be envisaged and applied in the context of the vaccine, by rethinking the relationship between IP and Commons.

Suggested Citation

  • Gabriele Cifrodelli, 2024. "Can you patent the sun? Towards a sui generis inclusive right to manage the relationship between intellectual property and Commons," Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(9), pages 705-716.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:jiplap:v:19:y:2024:i:9:p:705-716.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jiplp/jpae044
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:jiplap:v:19:y:2024:i:9:p:705-716.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jiplp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.