Intellectual Property Ethics

David Tuck

Phil 3550

Pelton

21 October 2016

Experiential Exercise II

        Dilemmas concerning the ethics of intellectual property are akin to pouring dirt into an already muddied river. If there wasn’t enough grey space in the chasm of ethics alone, there is an exponentially greater amount when they are applied to the ambiguous sphere of patents, copyrights and trademarks.

        Being on the consumer side of the fence, I’d take a position opposing the rigid laws protecting certain intellectual property. Overall I feel they should be relaxed as they teleologically serve to benefit one or few people. But the benefit should go to the literal creators. Not the ones implied by the dictation of the laws. In issues where the product of the intellectual property can have a tangible effect on one or more people, the laws should be aimed at functioning in a utilitarian fashion.

The pharmaceutical industry is nearly notorious for its monopolizing approach to medication patents. In this business a brand name medicine protected under a patent can be sold as the only product option for the duration of said patent. This gives executives the essentially-tyrannical authority to charge whatever they please for the drug they produced. Take Martin Shkreli for example. The 33-year-old was a wildly successful hedge fund manager before becoming the C.E.O. of Turing Pharmaceuticals. Here he became an overnight beacon of controversy when he and Turing “acquired the U.S. rights to a lifesaving drug and promptly boosted its price over 5,000 percent, from $13.50 a tablet to $750 (a tablet).” From not just a utilitarian perspective, but an ethical one overall, this would register as deplorable with just about anyone. But this jaw-droppingly decadent act was made possible through the intellectual property laws here in the United States. “The attempt to public shame is interesting,” says Shkreli. “Because everything we’ve done is legal. [Standard Oil tycoon John D.] Rockefeller made no attempt to apologize as long as what he was doing was legal.” (McClean)

Shkreli also exhibits the value of being able to play these laws to the tune of outrageous profits. “Those who know how to game the system can make huge profits without creating anything of value.” (McClean) The Work For Hire loophole (the research done by doctors and scientists owned by Turing) has made Shkreli unnecessarily wealthy. The intellectual property behind medicines like the ones produced by Turing should be left open or at least accessible. The type of knowledge that can make an immense impact on a person’s life should be available so that it can be built upon. Right now the pharmaceutical industry represents the antithesis of Rawls idea of classical utilitarianism, ““the main idea is that society is rightly ordered, and therefore just, when its major institutions are arranged so as to achieve the greatest net balance of satisfaction summed over all the individuals belonging to it” (Ronzoni 458) Shkreli, operating in a field that begs for actions of altruism, exhibits characteristics of a rational egoist by what appears to be solely a drive at furthering his self-interest. (Audi 264) Other productions, that don’t necessarily involve life or death consequences, should be governed the way they are.