The Importance of Being First: Economic and Non-economic Dimensions of Inventorship in American and German Law

IF 1.3 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW American Journal of Comparative Law Pub Date : 2023-02-22 DOI:10.1093/ajcl/avac043
Katya Assaf, Lisa Herzog
{"title":"The Importance of Being First: Economic and Non-economic Dimensions of Inventorship in American and German Law","authors":"Katya Assaf, Lisa Herzog","doi":"10.1093/ajcl/avac043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This Article examines the right to be acknowledged as the first inventor of a new technology in patent law. Technological inventions usually result from cumulative research and development, and several people sometimes arrive at the same invention almost simultaneously. However, only one person is usually considered to be the “inventor,” and receives all the credit and honor. This Article focuses on the legal systems of Germany and the United States, comparing how they conceptualize the right to be seen as inventor. These systems have developed in substantially different philosophical and cultural climates: while the German legal system has been deeply influenced by Kantian and Hegelian thought, the American legal system has been inspired more strongly by liberal and utilitarian ideas. These two schools of philosophical thought have different perspectives on the relationship between personal identity and work; while the German tradition emphasizes the deeply personal relation between individuals and their work, the Anglo-Saxon approach is, in general, more instrumentalist and utilitarian with regard to work. One way in which these differences express themselves is the different ways in which the right to be acknowledged as the first inventor is understood and regulated. The right to be acknowledged as the first inventor is deeply connected with one’s identity as a professional, whether an engineer, technician, or scientist. On the other hand, this right does not necessarily have pecuniary significance. Hence, the protection of the right to be considered as the first inventor allows a glimpse into the different visions of identity and work found in these legal systems. This Article examines to what extent German and American legal systems recognize and protect the right to be perceived as the first inventor. It demonstrates that the two legal systems differ profoundly in the ways they perceive and protect the right to be considered as the first inventor. True to its visions of professional dignity, German law carefully protects this right, independently from any pecuniary interests. In contrast, American law grants a remarkably weak protection to the right to be considered as the first inventor, focusing primarily on its monetary aspects. Hence, one can here discover different visions of the role of individuals in society, and specifically of the role of individuals as creators and not just consumers. What is at stake here is whether questions of honor, dignity, and symbolic property, above and beyond material benefits, are recognized as playing a role in the economic system.","PeriodicalId":51579,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Comparative Law","volume":"65 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Comparative Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcl/avac043","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This Article examines the right to be acknowledged as the first inventor of a new technology in patent law. Technological inventions usually result from cumulative research and development, and several people sometimes arrive at the same invention almost simultaneously. However, only one person is usually considered to be the “inventor,” and receives all the credit and honor. This Article focuses on the legal systems of Germany and the United States, comparing how they conceptualize the right to be seen as inventor. These systems have developed in substantially different philosophical and cultural climates: while the German legal system has been deeply influenced by Kantian and Hegelian thought, the American legal system has been inspired more strongly by liberal and utilitarian ideas. These two schools of philosophical thought have different perspectives on the relationship between personal identity and work; while the German tradition emphasizes the deeply personal relation between individuals and their work, the Anglo-Saxon approach is, in general, more instrumentalist and utilitarian with regard to work. One way in which these differences express themselves is the different ways in which the right to be acknowledged as the first inventor is understood and regulated. The right to be acknowledged as the first inventor is deeply connected with one’s identity as a professional, whether an engineer, technician, or scientist. On the other hand, this right does not necessarily have pecuniary significance. Hence, the protection of the right to be considered as the first inventor allows a glimpse into the different visions of identity and work found in these legal systems. This Article examines to what extent German and American legal systems recognize and protect the right to be perceived as the first inventor. It demonstrates that the two legal systems differ profoundly in the ways they perceive and protect the right to be considered as the first inventor. True to its visions of professional dignity, German law carefully protects this right, independently from any pecuniary interests. In contrast, American law grants a remarkably weak protection to the right to be considered as the first inventor, focusing primarily on its monetary aspects. Hence, one can here discover different visions of the role of individuals in society, and specifically of the role of individuals as creators and not just consumers. What is at stake here is whether questions of honor, dignity, and symbolic property, above and beyond material benefits, are recognized as playing a role in the economic system.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
第一的重要性:美国和德国法律中发明人的经济和非经济维度
本文探讨专利法中被承认为新技术第一发明人的权利。技术发明通常是积累研究和发展的结果,有时几个人几乎同时取得了同样的发明。然而,通常只有一个人被认为是“发明者”,并获得所有的荣誉和荣誉。本文以德国和美国的法律制度为研究对象,比较了两国对发明人权利的概念界定。这些法律体系是在截然不同的哲学和文化氛围中发展起来的:德国法律体系深受康德和黑格尔思想的影响,而美国法律体系则受到自由主义和功利主义思想的更强烈启发。这两种哲学思想流派对个人同一性与工作的关系有着不同的看法;虽然德国传统强调个人与工作之间深刻的个人关系,但盎格鲁-撒克逊人的方法通常更注重工作的工具主义和功利主义。这些差异表现出来的一种方式是对被承认为第一发明人的权利的不同理解和规定。被承认为第一发明人的权利与一个人作为专业人员的身份密切相关,无论是工程师、技术人员还是科学家。另一方面,这种权利并不一定具有金钱意义。因此,保护被视为第一发明人的权利让我们得以一窥这些法律体系中对身份和工作的不同看法。本文考察了德国和美国的法律制度在多大程度上承认和保护被视为第一发明人的权利。这表明,两种法律制度在认识和保护被视为第一发明人的权利方面存在着深刻的差异。德国法律忠实于其职业尊严的愿景,谨慎地保护这一权利,不受任何金钱利益的影响。相比之下,美国法律对被视为第一发明人的权利给予的保护非常薄弱,主要集中在金钱方面。因此,人们可以在这里发现对个人在社会中的角色的不同看法,特别是个人作为创造者而不仅仅是消费者的角色。这里的利害攸关之处在于,超越物质利益的荣誉、尊严和象征性财产问题,是否被认为在经济体系中发挥着作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
20.00%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Comparative Law is a scholarly quarterly journal devoted to comparative law, comparing the laws of one or more nations with those of another or discussing one jurisdiction"s law in order for the reader to understand how it might differ from that of the United States or another country. It publishes features articles contributed by major scholars and comments by law student writers. The American Society of Comparative Law, Inc. (ASCL), formerly the American Association for the Comparative Study of Law, Inc., is an organization of institutional and individual members devoted to study, research, and write on foreign and comparative law as well as private international law.
期刊最新文献
Sovereignty, Territoriality, and Private International Law in Classical Muslim International Law Beyond Transplant: A Network Innovation Model of Transnational Regulatory Change The Irony of British Human Rights Exceptionalism, 1948–1998 Are Political “Attacks” on the Judiciary Ever Justifiable? The Relationship Between Unfair Criticism and Public Accountability Is Neutrality Possible? A Critique of the CJEU on Headscarves in the Workplace from a Comparative Perspective
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1