Abstract

The discussion on the foundations that legitimize intellectual property is usually centered around two major approaches: iusnaturalism and utilitarianism. The first one argues that it is possible to justify the property of intellectual creation resorting to the liberal theory of property by John Locke. The second one converges around the so-called «clause of progress» and the argument of the incentives. This paper analyzes whether or not it is possible to justify intellectual property under these approaches, concluding that, given the paradoxes identified, they are not sufficient.