This document discusses the personality-based justification of intellectual property. It defines personality-based justification as the theory that intellectual property is an extension of an individual's personality and should be exclusively controlled by the creator. The document outlines problems with this view, such as whether feelings and traits can truly be owned. It also discusses a 1994 copyright case between Apple and Microsoft and how it relates to personality-based justification. Finally, it notes both advantages and disadvantages of the personality-based view for justifying intellectual property protections.

1. Personality-Based
Justifications of
Intellectual Property

2. Introduction
 Charmasson and Buchaca define Intellectual property
as intangible creations of the mind that can be legally
protected
 It can also be defined as information that has
commercial value
 This can be a proprietary product of the mind, and
things protected by patents, copyrights, and trademarks
 There a number of dimensions of justifying the
protection of property namely Personality-based, rule-
utilitarian, and Lockean justifications of intellectual
property
 In this presentation, we will focus on Personality-based,
justification of intellectual property

3. Definition
 Personality-based justification of intellectual property is
the theory that states that intellectual property is an
extension of an individuals personality
 This belief states that rights on property, tangible or
intangible, should be controlled exclusively by the
creator.
 Charmasson and Buchaca state “The author can
demand not only that no strange work be presented as
his, but that his own work not be presented in a
changed form.”
 The justification states that the work of the author
should not be copied and works should not be derived
from the authors creation

4. Case Study: Apple Computer, Inc.
v. Microsoft Corporation
 In 1994, a copyright infringement lawsuit was considered, by
Microsoft against Apple Computer Inc.
 Apple alleged that Microsoft imitated elements from their
graphical user Interface (GUI) used by apple at the time.
 Apple claimed that the “look and feel” of Microsoft Windows
2.0 was protected by copyright. Including features such as
 Overlapping windows
 Resizing windows
 Rectangular appearance
 Title bars
 The final verdict was that 179 of the original 189 features
were properly licenced and the remaining 10 couldn’t be
copyrighted

5. How study applies
 Had the jury decided in favour of Apple Computer Inc,
the judgement would have been described as being
personality-based justification
 This is because Apple’s claims insinuate sole ownership
of the ideas.
 Apple would have had to prove that they came up with
the original idea by justifying the property rights.
 Also, some elements had no other way of being
expressed.
 It is very difficult to put a patent or copyright on intangible
entities like thoughts and ideas.

6. Rationalisation of Personality-
Based Justification
 If an idea was created by an individual and brought into
fruition, the creation is considered an extension of the
person.
 For example, if a painter paints the a masterpiece, the
piece and it’s likeness belong to the person absolutely.
 This way, the creator is protected from the exploitation
of the conjured idea

7. Cont.…
 Personality-based justification puts the creators
personality or will as the primary motivation behind the
rights that are exercise upon the creations
 With this, they state the authors work cannot be copied,
presented without the authors permission and no work
is to be derived from the authors work
 This way, the author is protected from anyone
benefitting from their work or creation but themselves

8. Problems with personality-based
justification
Charmasson and Buchaca identify four problems
with personality-based justification
 The first problem of personality-based justification is
that it is not clear that we own our own feelings and
traits
 The second problem is even if we could identify that
these traits and feelings are ours, it does mean that
these claims can be stretched to encompass physical
property and ideas
 The third problem is that even if we could extend these
ideas to tangible and intangible objects, we would still
need to justify them
 The final problem identified is that there are many
intellectual innovations that have no evidence of the
creators personality

9. Advantages of Personality-Based
Justification
 The greatest advantage of personality-based
justification is that the creator of the work actually
profits from it
 The second advantage is the author is provided with
privacy; in that the author chooses who can use his
work
 Personality-based justification also promotes the
identity of the author of a piece of work

10. Disadvantages of Personality-
Based Justification
The allowance of authors and inventors right to
control mere ideas would lessen overall social
utility.
Almost all modern day inventions were derived
from an earlier creation. Personality-based
Justification would diminish the vast array of
inventions and creations being made
Personality-based justification promotes
monopolies.

11. Conclusion
 In conclusion, personality-based judgement is
preferable on the authors part. They are well protected
from misuse of their productions
 On the other hand, personality-based justification is a
hindrance to innovation and it hinders progress and
improvement to a product
 Personality-based justification should not be
completely frowned upon simply because it is not
favourable.
 The way forward would be to clearly define what
category of ideas should be considered from the
personality-based
 This should be done with the view to protect the author
and not to interfere with innovation

12. References
 Himma, K and Tavani, H (2008), The handbook of
information and computer ethics, New Jersey, John
Wiley & Sons, Inc
 Buchaca, J and Charmasson, H (2008), Patents,
Copyrights & Trademarks For Dummies, 2nd Ed,
Indianapolis, Wiley Publishing, Inc
 William Fisher, Theory of Intellectual Property,
http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/tfisher/iptheory.html
 APPLE COMPUTER, INC v. MICROSOFT
CORPORATION,
https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/35/35.F3d.14
35.93-16883.93-16869.93-16867.html