Teisės sampratų pasireiškimas intelektinės nuosavybės teisinėje praktikoje ; Manifestation of legal concepts in legal practice of intellectual property law

Abstract

Intellectual property law in Lithuania is undergoing essential reform since restoration of Lithuanian independence. Most of the attention is dedicated to the development of statutory law. Examples from Lithuanian legal practice indicate that philosophical aspect of intellectual property remains forgotten. Even when statutory law governing intellectual property in Lithuania is harmonized with the international practice, automatic transfer of rules may not be justified. It is essential to understand the reasons and philosophical grounds of protection of intellectual property. Only in this way it is possible to solve practical problems, evaluate the relationship between the holders of exclusive rights and public interests, and to solve conflicts in the best possible way. The paper analyses main arguments and manifestation of natural and utilitarian concepts of law in intellectual property legal practice, paying special attention to property issue. The arguments of the natural and utilitarian concepts of law vary greatly, they stress different phenomenon and different priorities. Nevertheless, after summarising their ideas, one can state that establishment of property rights and their protection system is needed mainly because of scarce resources. Some justify acquisition of property because of its natural character, because of work put into it; the others justify property because of its social value, since private property allows exhaustion and distribution of scarce resources in the most efficient way. Despite different positions regarding purpose and aim of property rights, it is accepted that essential feature of property objects is their scarcity. The term "intellectual property" encourages drawing parallels and analogies with property rights to material objects. At a theoretical level, however, interpretation of intellectual property objects and rights analogously as traditional material property raises many discussions. The main arguments of the opponents of intellectual property are related to the relationship between intellectual and material property. Practical examples indicate that traditional concepts of property are not sufficient to provide consistent reasoning of intellectual property, because of specific nature of intellectual property, intangible objects, possibilities of information dissemination and other factors. It is rather easy to identify how concepts of law manifest in legal regulation, court practise, state politics, etc. Their ability to influence legal practise, however, is limited. There is no clear balance between natural and utilitarian concepts of law regarding intellectual property protection in Lithuanian practice. Questions of nature of intellectual property, principles of its existence and protection are not analysed in Lithuanian practice. Moreover, the politics of the Lithuanian legislator in this field is unclear and chaotic.