Analiza i Egzystencja

ISSN: 1734-9923     eISSN: 2300-7621    OAI    DOI: 10.18276/aie.2023.63-05

Issue archive / 63 (2023)
Inconsistencies in Himma's Intellectual Property Theory

Authors: Wojciech Gamrot ORCID
University of Economics in Katowice
Keywords: immaterial goods intellectual property state of nature natural rights original appropriation Locke
Year of publication:2023
Page range:24 (109-132)
Klasyfikacja JEL: D42 L43 O34 P14 P26
Cited-by (Crossref) ?:


The intellectual property theory of Kenneth E. Himma aims to vindicate natural rights to the "intellectual content of creations", which is believed to consist of abstract objects. Himma proposes a reformulation of John Locke's well-known argument in terms of value. He maintains that even if abstract objects preexist their alleged creation, then they are not yet ready for consumption until the access to them is provided by the labor of innovators and artists. He declares that making them available is an act of value creation that justifies granting intellectual property rights. In this paper several assumptions on which Himma's theory relies are identified and challenged. Against his claims, it is argued that no human labor can improve the availability of abstract objects. It is then demonstrated that "intellectual commons" cannot be "stocked" by human activities and that the alleged value creation cannot happen, because the concept of value is inapplicable to abstract objects. This derails Himma's IP justification. Finally the meaning of rights envisaged by Himma is investigated. It is shown that they cannot be exercised with respect to causally inert entities.
Download file

Article file


1.Attas, D. (2008). Lockean justifications of intellectual property. In A. Gosseries,A. Strowel, & A. Marciano (Eds.), Intellectual property and theories of justice (pp. 29–56). Palgrave-Macmillan.
2.Becker, L. C. (1993). Deserving to own intellectual property. Chicago-Kent Law Review, 68, 609–629.
3.Biron, L. (2010). Two challenges to the idea of intellectual property. The Monist, 93(3), 382–394.
4.Biron, L. (2016). The elusive ‘objects’ of intellectual property. In M. Goldhammer, M. Grünberger, & D. Klippel (Eds.), Geistiges Eigentum im Verfassungsstaat Geschichte und Theorie (pp. 127–141). Mohr Siebeck.
5.Błaszczyk, C. (2016). The critique of copyright in Hans Hermann Hoppe’s argumentation ethics. Studia Iuridica, 68, 33–54.
6.Błaszczyk, C. (2020). Lockean intellectual property refuted. Scientia Politica, 32, 161–186.
7.Boldrin, M., & Levine, D. K. (2008). Against intellectual monopoly. Cambridge University Press.
8.Bouckaert, B. (1990). What is property? Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 13(3), 775–816.
9.Breakey, H. (2009). Liberalism and intellectual property rights. Politics, Philosophy and Economics, 3, 329–349.
10.Breakey, H. (2010). Natural intellectual property rights and the public domain. The Modern Law Review, 73, 208–239.
11.Cernea, M. V., & Uszkai, R. (2012). The clash between global justice and pharmaceutical patents: A critical analysis. Public Reason, 4(1–2), 210–221.
12.Chatterjee, M. (2022). Intellectual property, independent creation and the Lockean commons. UC Irvine Law Review, 12, 747–804.
13.Cohen, J. E. (2014). What kind of property is intellectual property? Houston Law Review, 52(2), 691–707.
14.Craig, C. J. (2002). Locke, labor and limiting the author’s right: A warning against a Lockean approach to copyright law. Queen’s Law Journal, 28(1), 1–60.
15.Cwik, B. (2014). Labor as the basis for intellectual property rights. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 17, 681–695.
16.Cwik, B. (2016). Property rights in non-rival goods. Journal of Political Philosophy, 24(4), 470–486.
17.Damstedt, B. G. (2003). Limiting Locke: A natural law justification for the fair use doctrine. The Yale Law Journal, 112, 1179–1221.
18.DeLong, J. V. (2002). Defending intellectual property. In A. Thierer, & C. W. Crews (Eds.), Copy fights: The future of intellectual property in the information age (pp. 17–36). Cato Institute.
19.Demsetz, H. (1967). Toward a theory of property rights. The American Economic Review, 57(2), 347–359.
20.Diamond, A. M. (2015). Seeking the patent truth: Patents can provide justice and funding for inventors. The Independent Review, 19(3), 325–355.
21.Drahos, P. (1996). A philosophy of intellectual property. Ashgate.
22.Dodd, J. (2000). Musical works as eternal types. British Journal of Aesthetics, 40, 424–440.
23.Dodd, J. (2008). Musical works: Ontology and meta-ontology. Philosophy Compass, 3, 1113–1134.
24.Dominiak, Ł. (2014). Anarcho-capitalism, aggression and copyright. Political Dialogues, 16, 37–47.
25.Easterbrook, F. H. (1990). Intellectual property is still property. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 13, 108–118.
26.Epstein, R. A. (2009). The disintegration of intellectual property? A classical liberal response to a premature obituary. Stanford Law Review, 62, 455–522.
27.Fallis, D. (2007). Toward an Epistemology of Intellectual Property. Journal of Information Ethics, 16(2), 34–51.
28.Faraci, D. (2014). Do property rights presuppose scarcity? Journal of Business Ethics, 125(3), 531–537.
29.Friedman, D. D. (2000). Law’s order. Princeton University Press.
30.Gamrot, W. (2021). On type creation and ownership. Political Dialogues, 30, 187–200.
31.Gamrot, W. (2022). The type-token distinction and four problems with propertarian IP justification. Axiomathes, 32, 1047–1059.
32.Gordon, W. J. (1989). An inquiry into the merits of copyright: the challenges of consistency, consent and encouragement theory. Stanford Law Review, 41, 1343–1469.
33.Gordon, W. J. (1993). A property right in self-expression: Equality and individualism in the natural law of intellectual property. The Yale Law Journal, 102, 1533–1609.
34.Hauser, J. (2017). Sharing is caring vs. stealing is wrong: a moral argument for limiting copyright protection. International Journal of Technology Policy and Law 3(1), 68–85.
35.Hettinger, E. C. (1989). Justifying intellectual property. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 18(1), 31–52.
36.Himma, K. E. (2005a). Abundance, rights, and interests: Thinking about the legitimacy of intellectual property. In P. Brey, F. Grodzinsky, & L. Introna (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference of Computer Ethics—Philosophical Enquiry (CEPE 2005).
37.Himma, K. E. (2005b). Information and intellectual property protection: Evaluating the claim that information should be free. APA Newsletter on Philosophy and Law, 4(2), 3–9.
38.Himma, K. E. (2007). Justifying intellectual property protection: Why the interests of content creators usually win over everyone else’s. In E. Rooksby, & J. Weckert (Eds.), Information Technology and Social Justice (pp. 47–68). IGI Global.
39.Himma, K. E. (2008). The justification for intellectual property: Contemporary philosophical disputes. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59, 1143–1161.
40.Himma, K.E. (2012). Toward a Lockean moral justification of legal protection of intellectual property. San Diego Law Review, 49, 1105–1182
41.Hughes, J. (1988). The philosophy of intellectual property. Georgetown Law Journal, 77(287), 330–350.
42.Kinsella, N. S. (2003). A libertarian theory of contract: Title transfer, binding promises and inalienability. Journalof Libertarian Studies, 17(2), 11–37.
43.Kinsella, N. S. (2008). Against intellectual property. Ludwig von Mises Institute.
44.Kinsella, N. S. (2009). Intellectual property and libertarianism. Liberty, 23(11), 27–46.
45.Koepsell, D. R. (2015). Who owns you? Science, innovation and the gene patent wars. Wiley-Blackwell.
46.Koepsell, D., & Inglott, P. S. (2017). ICT’s architecture of freedom. In M. Hildebrandt, & B. van den Berg (Eds.), Information, Freedom and Property (pp. 109–130). Routledge.
47.Kraft, J. M., & Hovden, R. (2013). Natural rights, scarcity & intellectual property. New York University Journal of Law and Liberty, 7(2), 464–496.
48.Kuflik, A. (1989). The moral foundations of intellectual property rights. In V. Weil, & J. Snapper (Eds.), Owning scientific and technical information. Rutgers University Press.
49.Lambrecht, M. (2015). On water drinkers and magical springs: Challenging the Lockean proviso as a justification for copyright. Ratio Iuris, 28(4), 1–29.
50.LeFevre, R. (1971). The philosophy of ownership. Ludwig von Mises Institute.
51.Lemley, M. A. (2004). Ex ante versus ex post justifications for intellectual property. University of Chicago Law Review, 71, 129–150.
52.Lester, J. C. (2016). Against intellectual property: A short refutation of meme communism. In Arguments for liberty: A libertarian miscellany (pp. 148–154). The University of Buckingham Press.
53.Luper, S. (1999). Natural resources, gadgets and artificial life. Environmental Values, 8, 27–55.
54.Madison, M. (2012). The end of the work as we know it. Journal of Intellectual Property Law, 19, 325–355.
55.Massin, O. (2017). The metaphysics of ownership: A Reinachian account. Axiomathes, 27(5), 577–600.
56.Moglen, E. (1999). Anarchism triumphant: Free software and the death of copyright. First Monday, 4(8).
57.Moore, A. D. (1997). Lockean theoryof intellectual property. Hamline Law Review, 21, 65–108.
58.Moore, A. D. (1998). Intangible property: Privacy, power and information control. American Philosophical Quarterly, 35(4), 365–378.
59.Moore, A. D. (2003). Intellectual property: Theory, privilege, and pragmatism. Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence, 16(2), 191–216.
60.Moore, A. D. (2004). Intellectual property and information control: Philosophic foundations and contemporary issues. Routledge.
61.Moore, A. D. (2012). A Lockean theory of intellectual property revisited. San Diego Law Review, 49, 1069–1103.
62.Moore, A. D. (2015). Lockean foundations of intellectual property. The WIPO Journal, 7(1), 29–39.
63.Mossoff, A. (2005). Is copyright property? San Diego Law Review, 42, 29–44.
64.Murphy, D. J. (2012). Are intellectual property rights compatible with Rawlsian principles of justice? Ethics and Information Technology, 14, 109–121.
65.Narveson, J. (2010). Property and rights. Social Philosophy and Policy, 27(1), 101–134.
66.Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state and utopia. Basic Books.
67.Palmer, T. G. (1990). Are patents and copyright morally justified? The philosophy of property rights and ideal objects. Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 13(3), 817–865.
68.Penner, J. E. (1997). The idea of property in law. Oxford University Press. Peterson, J. (2008). Lockean property and literary works. Legal Theory, 14(4), 257–280.
69.Radder, H. (2013). Exploring philosophical issues in the patenting of scientific and technological inventions. Philosophy and Technology, 26, 283–300.
70.Ramello, G. B. (2005). Intellectual property and the markets of ideas. Review of Network Economics, 4(2), 161–180.
71.Rand, A. (1986). Capitalism: The unknown ideal. Signet.
72.Reisman, G. (1996). Capitalism: A treatise on economics. Jameson Books.
73.Resnik, D.B. (2003). A pluralistic account of intellectual property. Journal of Business Ethics, 46, 319–335.
74.Reinach, A. (1989). The apriori foundations of the civil law (J. F. Crosby, Trans.). Aletheia, 3, 1–142.
75.Sandefur, T. (2007). A critique of Ayn Rand’s theory of intellectual property rights. The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, 9(1), 139–161.
76.Scanlan, M. (2005). Locke and intellectual property rights. In R. A. Spinello, & H. Tavani (Eds.), Intellectual property rights in a networked world: Theory and practice (pp. 83–98). Information Science Publishing.
77.Slutskiy, P. (2021). Communication and libertarianism. Springer.
78.Spinello, R. A. (2003). The future of intellectual property. Ethics and Information Technology, 5, 1–16.
79.Spinello, R. A., & Bottis. M. (2009). A defense of intellectual property rights. Edward Elgar.
80.Spitzlinger, R. (2011). On the idea of owning ideas: Applying Locke’s labor appropriation theory to intellectual goods. Masaryk University Journal of Law and Technology, 5(2), 273–287.
81.Spooner, L. (1855). The law of intellectual property; or an essay on the right of authors and inventors to a perpetual property in their ideas. Bela Marsh.
82.Timmermann, C. (2017). Harvesting the uncollected fruits of other people’s intellectual labor. Acta Bioethica, 23(2), 259–269.
83.Trerise, J. (2008). Liberty and the rejection of strong intellectual property rights. In A. Gosseries, A. Strowel, & A. Marciano (Eds.), Intellectual property and theories of justice (pp. 122–137). Palgrave-Macmillan.
84.Tucker, B. R. (1926). Individual liberty. Vanguard Press.
85.Uszkai, R. (2014). Are copyrights compatible with human rights? The Romanian Journal of Analytic Philosophy, 8(1), 5–20.
86.Uszkai, R. (2017). Intellectual property has no personality. Annals of the University of Bucharest Philosophy Series, 66(2), 181–205.
87.Varelius, J. (2015). Is the non-rivalrousness of intellectual objects a problem for the moral justification of economic rights to intellectual property? Science and Engineering Ethics, 21, 895-–906.
88.Von Gunten, A. (2015). Intellectual property is common property: arguments for the abolition of private intellectual property rights. Buch & Netz.
89.Weckert, J. (1997). Intellectual property rights and computer software. Business Ethics, the Environment and Responsibility 6(2), 101–109.
91.Wilson, J. (2009). Could there be a right to own intellectual property? Law and Philosophy, 28, 393–427.
92.Wilson, J. (2010). Ontology and the regulation of intellectual property. The Monist, 93(3), 450–463.
93.Wiśniewski, J. B. (2020). On the impossibility of intellectual property. Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, 23, 33–45.
94.Wreen, M. (2010). The ontologyof intellectual property. The Monist, 93(3), 433–449.
95.Wysocki, I. (2014). The rebuttalof pro-IP arguments. Political Dialogues, 17, 33–39.
96.Yen, A. C. (1990). Restoring the natural law: Copyright as labor and possession. Ohio State Law Journal, 51, 517–559.
97.Young, J. O. (2020). Radically rethinking copyright in the arts: A philosophical approach. Routledge.
98.Yung, B. (2009). Reflecting on the common discourse on piracy and intellectual property rights: A divergent perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 87, 45–57.