What do you think?
Rate this book
From Goods to a Good Life: Intellectual Property and Global Justice
Most scholarship on intellectual property considers this law from the standpoint of law and economics. Under this conventional wisdom, intellectual property is simply a tool for promoting innovative products, from iPods to R2D2. In this highly original book Madhavi Sunder calls for a richer understanding of intellectual property law’s effects on social and cultural life. Intellectual property does more than incentivize the production of more goods. This law fundamentally affects the ability of citizens to live a good life. Intellectual property law governs the abilities of human beings to make and share culture, and to profit from this enterprise in a global Knowledge economy. This book turns to social and cultural theory to more fully explore the deep connections between cultural production and human freedom.
273 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2012
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
May 28, 2020
Her sources on Kimba the White Lion are random internet videos with false information, and she clearly didn't even research her subject matter. Yet Yale University Press published it. I guess in academia all you have to do is say "Western Corporation bad, POC and artist good," and that'll get a major publishing deal? Facts don't matter, all that matters is having the right political view? Pathetic.
June 9, 2020
If I could choose to leave a no-star review I would do so. The fact that this book was published by a university, and that it was written by a law professor, is a complete embarrassment to both. Describing the claims in this book as incorrect is an understatement: I'm unsure if the author consumed any of the pieces of media she discusses here. Many of her sources are completely ridiculous and unreliable, including YOUTUBE VIDEOS MADE WITH WINDOWS MOVIE MAKER. Overall if you are looking to become educated about this topic, every single other option out there would be better for you. Madhavi Sunder clearly does not care enough to research her claims, or she is perfectly fine with being constantly academically dishonest.
July 2, 2022
https://youtu.be/G5B1mIfQuo4
The reputation of this book is severely hampered by the awful content regarding the Kimba vs Simba comparisons which were brought upon by a YMS video that references the book as being part of this discourse. In terms of what Madhavi says about this topic, Adum was right. But to Mahdavi's credit, she was willing to admit there are differences between the stories. She acknowledges that both stories have a variety of inspirations, referencing Bambi and Hamlet as being the basis for the Lion King. However, she still frames this as if Disney is guilty of ripping off Tezuka and references a variety of "evidence" that could easily be disproven by anyone simply watching any of these stories individually let alone comparing them side by side. Thus it can be reasoned that Madhavi's frame of reference is questionable considering she was so willing to believe in laughably bad Youtube comparisons than actually consuming both stories for herself to see if the comparison holds any weight. She simply assumed that because there was backlash from Tezuka's base that their claims were legitimate and therefore should be treated as fact.
This isn't the only questionable framing Madhavi has. While she doesn't go so far as to say there were extreme similarities with the films Yojimbo and A Fistful of Dollars in the way she does Kimba/Lion King, she does reference a case where Kurosawa complained A Fistful of Dollars "Being his own film" and managed to successfully obtain a large sum of money from Leone out of court. The problem with this is that Madhavi never begs the question if Kurosawa was at all being reasonable in these allegations. The framing she presents assumes Leone really did copy Kurosawa, and as someone who is a fan of both movies, I could argue that Kurosawa's complaints are based on superficial observations that holds no real weight. The two films may have similarities in setup and direction, but this argument ignores how both films handle themes like death, honor, and resolution differently. Assuming Kurosawa was right with zero consideration of this is being incredibly dishonest. After all, this case didn't go to court and you could discern ulterior motifs for why Leone decided to settle it out of court. It's clear that her frame of reference is questionable and she hasn't consumed much of the media she discusses.
There are more examples of bad framing I could list but I feel it'd be beating a dead horse to do so. While YMS was correct in arguing that her framing of the Kimba/Lion King debacle was lazy and dishonest, he didn't bring light to what her argument was on this chapter. It's an interesting case where bad framing and examples muddle someone's core argument. While Madhavi does play lip service to the idea that these works were "borrowed" and "appropriated", her main concern isn't about proving these cases as being legitimate nor does she express any explicit disdain for either side. She even argues that art isn't "unidirectional" and states that Tezuka himself was inspired by Disney and we could see a variety of inspirations in Lion King from works like Bambi or Hamlet. The main point of these examples is to reference the idea of how art can have so many inspirations and derivatives that trying to find the origin of it any great work would be, as she puts it, “search for the source of the Nile and all its tributaries.”(156) However, she frames this argument in a way where she claims that Hollywood is not given any charge of "appropriating" foreign works in the way Bollywood is. This is disingenuous as the examples she references are not in any way ripping off the source material she is claiming and they are fundamentally original works. I think it's pretty laughable to claim The Lion King is ripping off Kimba or that Leone is ripping of Kurosawa as if it's comparable to something like Indian Thriller or Indian Superman as I posted below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x81ii...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5Pjo...
It's one thing to say that these films have had past inspirations, but it's extremely dishonest to act like it's at all comparable to the sort of shit that China and India does in terms of copyright infringement. I think a better argument to be made here is consideration of what exactly makes the Indian versions of these distinct, while acknowledging that they are, in fact, stealing property directly. A lot of these claims are also dubious - who, exactly, asserts Disney are "wholly original geniuses?"(158) It's been public knowledge for ages that Disney is doing their own twisted adaptions of various popular tales. I don't think anybody aside from children and complete morons went to watch something like Hercules or Tarzan and believed Disney was the creator of these characters. It's also easy to make the case that their telling of stories such as Mulan and Pocahontas are wholly original considering how much they deviate from the source material, for better or worse. Hell, I feel this is not giving Disney enough credit because they genuinely did create a lot of "wholly original" stories such as A Nightmare Before Christmas or Ducktales that were themselves influential.
She acts like Hollywood is guilty of the same sort of infringement that Bollywood is, which is a really stupid claim. While you can make a case that Hollywood is derivative and unoriginal and that people are not giving enough credit to Bollywood's originality and quality, if we're looking at this from the aspect of IP ownership then Hollywood is far less guilty of this than Bollywood. She uses poor examples to condemn Hollywood for something that Bollywood is uniquely guilty of. I'm not a believer of her claim that people view foreign works as less original, at least as a generally accepted attitude in modern society. She's writing this during a time when anime and Japanese video games have become highly successful in western society, with interest in foreign films not only being more accessible but celebrated among avid film fans. Even decades before it was not necessarily true considering there were various directors who spoke fondly of foreign directors and artists. We could could go back even centuries if we are to look at the history of western literature and the place Indian philosophy has had on various writers like Schopenhauer and Thoreau were open about. This isn't to say that foreign art is universally loved by everyone, but I don't think it's accurate to say anything foreign has always been seen as derivative and less valuable. Her frame of reference here is, once again, questionable.
However, she does make a valid point in criticizing Disney in capitalizing off of popular works while in the same breath keeping their hands tight on their own properties. I also agree with her standing that copyright can discourage creative freedoms and that Disney is very much guilty of this. She also articulates well why Bollywood insists on these infringements and the distinctions it has with Hollywood. Although this makes her previous comparisons all the more confusing, as she writes as if Bollywood is unique in their copyright infringement but acted as if Hollywood is no less guilty somehow. She's also far more defensive of Bollywood's uniqueness than she is of Hollywood, when in that same breath she frames Hollywood films as "appropriation" that doesn't actually exist. She argues the film Paa is a different film from the American Benjamin Button, yet she seems to refuse to make this same argument for Leone and Disney when the distinctions are evident to anyone who watches them? To me she strikes me as having a double standard in this regard.
As this was the most contentious aspect of her book, I focused a lot of this review on that specific area of the analysis. But it'd be incredibly dishonest to state that this is primarily what her book focuses on. So this begs the question; does this book actually have any merit, considering her frame of reference is reasonably questionable?
To some degree yes. Her main point is that intellectual property has effects on basic human rights and freedom which are often not considered. She looks at this from varying different dimensions, from film and animation to medicine and cuisine. Her conceit is that people have become more concerned over maintaining copyright law than respecting creative freedoms or just general good ethics. She also likes to frame a lot of stories as being broadly derivative and that copyright is ironic in that companies will enforce it upon stories that would have likely broken copyright if free use wasn't a thing. She also discusses how cultural distinctions can make copyright further confusing, such as the case of "Harry Potter vs Harri Putter". To a western audience the latter sounds like some weird knockoff, but in reality an Indian audience would likely not make this connection, which shows how copyright can be abused by companies with poor understanding of foreign linguistics.
However, I think as I've demonstrated before her frame of reference is consistently questionable. I won't continue to dwell on this, but while I do agree with the fundamental aspects of her arguments the foundations of her claims often come across as sketchy or ill-informed. This is not to say all of her references are inaccurate; for example, what she wrote about the origins of the "Mary Sue" is indeed accurate. When she is discussing the industry she usually has something of merit to say. But when she is drawing artistic comparisons she tends to fall flat.
I'm convinced other reviews on here are basing their views on this video rather than on the content of this book. There's a lot here I can discuss and go over, but this book has become more known for its awful Lion King/Kimba comparisons than the whole of its value. I have problems with how the book utilizes its foundation at times, but there's enough merit here for me to say it wasn't a horrible read. Goes to show just how much Youtube can affect the perceptions of people who don't actually engage with a subject of ridicule.
The reputation of this book is severely hampered by the awful content regarding the Kimba vs Simba comparisons which were brought upon by a YMS video that references the book as being part of this discourse. In terms of what Madhavi says about this topic, Adum was right. But to Mahdavi's credit, she was willing to admit there are differences between the stories. She acknowledges that both stories have a variety of inspirations, referencing Bambi and Hamlet as being the basis for the Lion King. However, she still frames this as if Disney is guilty of ripping off Tezuka and references a variety of "evidence" that could easily be disproven by anyone simply watching any of these stories individually let alone comparing them side by side. Thus it can be reasoned that Madhavi's frame of reference is questionable considering she was so willing to believe in laughably bad Youtube comparisons than actually consuming both stories for herself to see if the comparison holds any weight. She simply assumed that because there was backlash from Tezuka's base that their claims were legitimate and therefore should be treated as fact.
This isn't the only questionable framing Madhavi has. While she doesn't go so far as to say there were extreme similarities with the films Yojimbo and A Fistful of Dollars in the way she does Kimba/Lion King, she does reference a case where Kurosawa complained A Fistful of Dollars "Being his own film" and managed to successfully obtain a large sum of money from Leone out of court. The problem with this is that Madhavi never begs the question if Kurosawa was at all being reasonable in these allegations. The framing she presents assumes Leone really did copy Kurosawa, and as someone who is a fan of both movies, I could argue that Kurosawa's complaints are based on superficial observations that holds no real weight. The two films may have similarities in setup and direction, but this argument ignores how both films handle themes like death, honor, and resolution differently. Assuming Kurosawa was right with zero consideration of this is being incredibly dishonest. After all, this case didn't go to court and you could discern ulterior motifs for why Leone decided to settle it out of court. It's clear that her frame of reference is questionable and she hasn't consumed much of the media she discusses.
There are more examples of bad framing I could list but I feel it'd be beating a dead horse to do so. While YMS was correct in arguing that her framing of the Kimba/Lion King debacle was lazy and dishonest, he didn't bring light to what her argument was on this chapter. It's an interesting case where bad framing and examples muddle someone's core argument. While Madhavi does play lip service to the idea that these works were "borrowed" and "appropriated", her main concern isn't about proving these cases as being legitimate nor does she express any explicit disdain for either side. She even argues that art isn't "unidirectional" and states that Tezuka himself was inspired by Disney and we could see a variety of inspirations in Lion King from works like Bambi or Hamlet. The main point of these examples is to reference the idea of how art can have so many inspirations and derivatives that trying to find the origin of it any great work would be, as she puts it, “search for the source of the Nile and all its tributaries.”(156) However, she frames this argument in a way where she claims that Hollywood is not given any charge of "appropriating" foreign works in the way Bollywood is. This is disingenuous as the examples she references are not in any way ripping off the source material she is claiming and they are fundamentally original works. I think it's pretty laughable to claim The Lion King is ripping off Kimba or that Leone is ripping of Kurosawa as if it's comparable to something like Indian Thriller or Indian Superman as I posted below.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x81ii...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5Pjo...
It's one thing to say that these films have had past inspirations, but it's extremely dishonest to act like it's at all comparable to the sort of shit that China and India does in terms of copyright infringement. I think a better argument to be made here is consideration of what exactly makes the Indian versions of these distinct, while acknowledging that they are, in fact, stealing property directly. A lot of these claims are also dubious - who, exactly, asserts Disney are "wholly original geniuses?"(158) It's been public knowledge for ages that Disney is doing their own twisted adaptions of various popular tales. I don't think anybody aside from children and complete morons went to watch something like Hercules or Tarzan and believed Disney was the creator of these characters. It's also easy to make the case that their telling of stories such as Mulan and Pocahontas are wholly original considering how much they deviate from the source material, for better or worse. Hell, I feel this is not giving Disney enough credit because they genuinely did create a lot of "wholly original" stories such as A Nightmare Before Christmas or Ducktales that were themselves influential.
She acts like Hollywood is guilty of the same sort of infringement that Bollywood is, which is a really stupid claim. While you can make a case that Hollywood is derivative and unoriginal and that people are not giving enough credit to Bollywood's originality and quality, if we're looking at this from the aspect of IP ownership then Hollywood is far less guilty of this than Bollywood. She uses poor examples to condemn Hollywood for something that Bollywood is uniquely guilty of. I'm not a believer of her claim that people view foreign works as less original, at least as a generally accepted attitude in modern society. She's writing this during a time when anime and Japanese video games have become highly successful in western society, with interest in foreign films not only being more accessible but celebrated among avid film fans. Even decades before it was not necessarily true considering there were various directors who spoke fondly of foreign directors and artists. We could could go back even centuries if we are to look at the history of western literature and the place Indian philosophy has had on various writers like Schopenhauer and Thoreau were open about. This isn't to say that foreign art is universally loved by everyone, but I don't think it's accurate to say anything foreign has always been seen as derivative and less valuable. Her frame of reference here is, once again, questionable.
However, she does make a valid point in criticizing Disney in capitalizing off of popular works while in the same breath keeping their hands tight on their own properties. I also agree with her standing that copyright can discourage creative freedoms and that Disney is very much guilty of this. She also articulates well why Bollywood insists on these infringements and the distinctions it has with Hollywood. Although this makes her previous comparisons all the more confusing, as she writes as if Bollywood is unique in their copyright infringement but acted as if Hollywood is no less guilty somehow. She's also far more defensive of Bollywood's uniqueness than she is of Hollywood, when in that same breath she frames Hollywood films as "appropriation" that doesn't actually exist. She argues the film Paa is a different film from the American Benjamin Button, yet she seems to refuse to make this same argument for Leone and Disney when the distinctions are evident to anyone who watches them? To me she strikes me as having a double standard in this regard.
As this was the most contentious aspect of her book, I focused a lot of this review on that specific area of the analysis. But it'd be incredibly dishonest to state that this is primarily what her book focuses on. So this begs the question; does this book actually have any merit, considering her frame of reference is reasonably questionable?
To some degree yes. Her main point is that intellectual property has effects on basic human rights and freedom which are often not considered. She looks at this from varying different dimensions, from film and animation to medicine and cuisine. Her conceit is that people have become more concerned over maintaining copyright law than respecting creative freedoms or just general good ethics. She also likes to frame a lot of stories as being broadly derivative and that copyright is ironic in that companies will enforce it upon stories that would have likely broken copyright if free use wasn't a thing. She also discusses how cultural distinctions can make copyright further confusing, such as the case of "Harry Potter vs Harri Putter". To a western audience the latter sounds like some weird knockoff, but in reality an Indian audience would likely not make this connection, which shows how copyright can be abused by companies with poor understanding of foreign linguistics.
However, I think as I've demonstrated before her frame of reference is consistently questionable. I won't continue to dwell on this, but while I do agree with the fundamental aspects of her arguments the foundations of her claims often come across as sketchy or ill-informed. This is not to say all of her references are inaccurate; for example, what she wrote about the origins of the "Mary Sue" is indeed accurate. When she is discussing the industry she usually has something of merit to say. But when she is drawing artistic comparisons she tends to fall flat.
I'm convinced other reviews on here are basing their views on this video rather than on the content of this book. There's a lot here I can discuss and go over, but this book has become more known for its awful Lion King/Kimba comparisons than the whole of its value. I have problems with how the book utilizes its foundation at times, but there's enough merit here for me to say it wasn't a horrible read. Goes to show just how much Youtube can affect the perceptions of people who don't actually engage with a subject of ridicule.
December 21, 2020
Embarrassing. Very poorly researched. Sources page is an absolute joke. I can’t believe this was published.
April 5, 2021
see
dont say nonsesnse on the lion king and kimba thing please watch this u will understand its ok everyone makes mistakes but please watch
-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5B1m...
dont say nonsesnse on the lion king and kimba thing please watch this u will understand its ok everyone makes mistakes but please watch
-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5B1m...
March 9, 2021
Those who take the time to read this book will quickly realize that Sunder’s writing contains much more than what the existing one-star reviews seem to indicate. She raises interesting, important, and challenging questions that should be addressed on their own terms, not simplified and immediately discredited.
Sunder is one of a handful of legal scholars who are expanding the legal academy’s discussion of intellectual property law beyond the traditional view of intellectual property as incentivizing production of goods. Her work takes a broader view of what intellectual property does and can do for creators, particularly those working in underserved and marginalized communities. In parts of this book, she argues that we should consider how law regulating the production and distribution of cultural goods affects issues of justice, fairness, and participation in an increasingly globalized, decentralized creative space.
These are important issues, particularly as we navigate increasingly challenging questions about power dynamics, global cultural exchange, and the kinds of cultural goods we value. Sunder was prescient to raise these issues in 2012, and they’re no less relevant today.
Many of the reviews stem from perceived inaccuracies regarding similarities between The Lion King and Kimba. I don’t come to this debate with any bias towards or against Disney, but I take issue with these reviews for other reasons. Specifically, I’d like to address two specific points where I disagree with the impression created by these reviews:
1) This book covers far more ground than this particular example. The narrow focus of most reviews creates an impression that this book is an anti-Disney polemic. It is not. The Lion King is merely one of many examples Sunder uses to illustrate her broader arguments, and I find it unfair to Sunder to discredit these arguments based on the perceived inaccuracies in just one illustrative example.
2) Sunder cites far more sources than what the reviews suggest. A quick review of her bibliography on the Lion King example shows citations to contemporaneous news articles and published academic essays across a variety of fields. Such research is characteristic of the rest of her book.
More broadly, I’d suggest that this controversy about Kimba actually proves Sunder is right in centering the very personal relevance and importance of global cultural products to our lives. Intellectual property law governs the way these products are made, consumed, and distributed around the world, and Sunder’s contribution to broadening the discourse on these issues should be acknowledged.
Of course, you need not agree with her wholeheartedly. I—and I think Sunder and other law professors would concur—would never suggest being wholly uncritical of arguments just because they’re made in academic books. But I think most readers would agree that Sunder is making her arguments in good faith with supporting research and copious in-text acknowledgement of possible criticisms. A commitment to rational discourse suggests that even those who disagree with Sunder should extend the same courtesy by taking her work seriously and engaging with them in their entireties.
I hope you’ll move beyond the negative reviews and give this book a fair chance. I think you’ll find it far more interesting, provocative, and challenging than the reviews suggest.
Sunder is one of a handful of legal scholars who are expanding the legal academy’s discussion of intellectual property law beyond the traditional view of intellectual property as incentivizing production of goods. Her work takes a broader view of what intellectual property does and can do for creators, particularly those working in underserved and marginalized communities. In parts of this book, she argues that we should consider how law regulating the production and distribution of cultural goods affects issues of justice, fairness, and participation in an increasingly globalized, decentralized creative space.
These are important issues, particularly as we navigate increasingly challenging questions about power dynamics, global cultural exchange, and the kinds of cultural goods we value. Sunder was prescient to raise these issues in 2012, and they’re no less relevant today.
Many of the reviews stem from perceived inaccuracies regarding similarities between The Lion King and Kimba. I don’t come to this debate with any bias towards or against Disney, but I take issue with these reviews for other reasons. Specifically, I’d like to address two specific points where I disagree with the impression created by these reviews:
1) This book covers far more ground than this particular example. The narrow focus of most reviews creates an impression that this book is an anti-Disney polemic. It is not. The Lion King is merely one of many examples Sunder uses to illustrate her broader arguments, and I find it unfair to Sunder to discredit these arguments based on the perceived inaccuracies in just one illustrative example.
2) Sunder cites far more sources than what the reviews suggest. A quick review of her bibliography on the Lion King example shows citations to contemporaneous news articles and published academic essays across a variety of fields. Such research is characteristic of the rest of her book.
More broadly, I’d suggest that this controversy about Kimba actually proves Sunder is right in centering the very personal relevance and importance of global cultural products to our lives. Intellectual property law governs the way these products are made, consumed, and distributed around the world, and Sunder’s contribution to broadening the discourse on these issues should be acknowledged.
Of course, you need not agree with her wholeheartedly. I—and I think Sunder and other law professors would concur—would never suggest being wholly uncritical of arguments just because they’re made in academic books. But I think most readers would agree that Sunder is making her arguments in good faith with supporting research and copious in-text acknowledgement of possible criticisms. A commitment to rational discourse suggests that even those who disagree with Sunder should extend the same courtesy by taking her work seriously and engaging with them in their entireties.
I hope you’ll move beyond the negative reviews and give this book a fair chance. I think you’ll find it far more interesting, provocative, and challenging than the reviews suggest.
July 23, 2021
There is a well-crafted nuance to Madhavi Sunder’s book From Goods to a Good Life: Intellectual Property and Global Justice that is increasingly relevant in today’s society. This book goes beyond the intersection of law, economics, and incentives. Instead, it engages in a critical discussion on the intersection between human capability, distributive justice, and global social relations, among others. Given this book was first published in 2012, Sunder was prescient to conduct in-depth research in this field nearly a decade ago, and her thesis arguably carries more weight today than ever before.
What I most enjoyed about this book was Sunder’s ability to weave together various threads of intellectual property law with more theoretical concepts of equity and fairness. Today’s interconnected society is vastly different than it was even a few years ago, and Sunder's ability to hone in on the intersection between cultural theory and property is a forward-looking view. The proliferation of technology has made culture more interactive and yet, because our law has not adapted to this change, it leaves more people at the risk of committing copyright violations. Sunder cites numerous examples throughout her book that manifest participatory culture, such as how President Barack Obama’s election in 2008 spurred cultural creativity that ranged “from Will.i.am’s ‘Yes We Can’ video to Shephard Fairey’s now iconic street art ripped and mixed from a digital photo.”
Sunder also makes a compelling case for why participatory culture matters. Culture is part and parcel of our humanity, and in turn, Sunder’s argument as to why we need to broaden our view of intellectual property and reconsider how to fairly renumerate people for their contributions to global culture greatly contributes to legal scholarship. As Sunder herself states most aptly, “an intellectual property law benefitting this new participatory century must lift its gaze beyond the narrow goal of incentivizing the creation of more intellectual products to facilitating critical and autonomous participation in the cultural sphere. Modernity is not simply technology. A modern intellectual property law must promote our capacity to author our own lives.”
I would highly recommend this book both for those looking to expand their knowledge on the intellectual property field and for those seeking a richer understanding of modern intellectual property law.
What I most enjoyed about this book was Sunder’s ability to weave together various threads of intellectual property law with more theoretical concepts of equity and fairness. Today’s interconnected society is vastly different than it was even a few years ago, and Sunder's ability to hone in on the intersection between cultural theory and property is a forward-looking view. The proliferation of technology has made culture more interactive and yet, because our law has not adapted to this change, it leaves more people at the risk of committing copyright violations. Sunder cites numerous examples throughout her book that manifest participatory culture, such as how President Barack Obama’s election in 2008 spurred cultural creativity that ranged “from Will.i.am’s ‘Yes We Can’ video to Shephard Fairey’s now iconic street art ripped and mixed from a digital photo.”
Sunder also makes a compelling case for why participatory culture matters. Culture is part and parcel of our humanity, and in turn, Sunder’s argument as to why we need to broaden our view of intellectual property and reconsider how to fairly renumerate people for their contributions to global culture greatly contributes to legal scholarship. As Sunder herself states most aptly, “an intellectual property law benefitting this new participatory century must lift its gaze beyond the narrow goal of incentivizing the creation of more intellectual products to facilitating critical and autonomous participation in the cultural sphere. Modernity is not simply technology. A modern intellectual property law must promote our capacity to author our own lives.”
I would highly recommend this book both for those looking to expand their knowledge on the intellectual property field and for those seeking a richer understanding of modern intellectual property law.
July 16, 2021
Georgetown Law Professor Sunder’s scholarship is refreshing and is particularly relevant amidst the current pandemic and discussion on COVID-19 patents. It charts a detailed and more holistic approach to intellectual property law, diving deep into its influence on real people. Professor Sunder conveys how IP law not only can incentivize innovation but how it plays a role in controlling what drugs we have access to (and at what cost), in establishing cultural norms, and in distributing wealth, playing a role in further marginalizing underrepresented groups.
Professor Sunder’s work challenges one to think beyond the standard economic theories that traditionally dominate the discussion of IP law. Further, it explains how understanding IP solely from an efficiency viewpoint can have dangerous effects, like perpetuating inequalities and excluding those with less resources from the conversation. Professor Sunder powerfully drills down that IP should play a role in promoting a more equitable society.
Professor Sunder additionally develops a persuasive definition of culture as a community composed of three features: participation, livelihood, and shared meaning. This definition accurately accounts for the active roles individuals play in shaping and creating something of value and in linking people together. Lastly, the last chapter, as mentioned above, is critical to our understanding of the COVID-19 vaccine patent and waiver discussion. Professor Sunder thoughtfully analyzes IP rights on access to similar life- saving medicines and highlights how patents serve as an impediment to drug distribution in developing countries.
I highly recommend this book especially to those who are interested in a more modern and nuanced perspective to IP. A must read!
Professor Sunder’s work challenges one to think beyond the standard economic theories that traditionally dominate the discussion of IP law. Further, it explains how understanding IP solely from an efficiency viewpoint can have dangerous effects, like perpetuating inequalities and excluding those with less resources from the conversation. Professor Sunder powerfully drills down that IP should play a role in promoting a more equitable society.
Professor Sunder additionally develops a persuasive definition of culture as a community composed of three features: participation, livelihood, and shared meaning. This definition accurately accounts for the active roles individuals play in shaping and creating something of value and in linking people together. Lastly, the last chapter, as mentioned above, is critical to our understanding of the COVID-19 vaccine patent and waiver discussion. Professor Sunder thoughtfully analyzes IP rights on access to similar life- saving medicines and highlights how patents serve as an impediment to drug distribution in developing countries.
I highly recommend this book especially to those who are interested in a more modern and nuanced perspective to IP. A must read!
July 17, 2021
From Goods to a Good Life thoughtfully analyzes the inherent problems related to intellectual property law and social justice, health, and happiness. This book is informative, educational, and well-organized. It provides a strong overview of how intellectual property law, specifically patent law, promotes innovation in rich countries, but does little to fix the problems of drug distribution in poorer countries. Professor Sunder also provides a good contrast and comparison with other countries' patent law to demonstrate potential solutions. It challenges people to consider intellectual property more holistically. Professor Sunder urges individuals to think about intellectual property in a new way - one that combines human happiness and health with traditional thoughts about wealth and property.
Further, the book offers educational and well-researched thoughts about the current international regime that controls access to drugs. This is a great read for anyone interested in learning more about the connection between intellectual property and equal access to health care, and is especially relevant given the discussion surrounding COVID-19 vaccines and ending the global pandemic.
Further, the book offers educational and well-researched thoughts about the current international regime that controls access to drugs. This is a great read for anyone interested in learning more about the connection between intellectual property and equal access to health care, and is especially relevant given the discussion surrounding COVID-19 vaccines and ending the global pandemic.
July 15, 2021
The COVID-19 pandemic underscores the importance of this research. Intellectual property rights have been pushed to the forefront of the vaccine discussion. Sunder explained that patents are a question of life and death, which we are now seeing play out in real-time. As the United States is reaching the point where vaccine supply is exceeding demand, economically developing nations have been left behind. Many of Sunder’s concerns have proved to be valid.
Highly recommend!
Highly recommend!
November 22, 2022
This book is intellectually dishonest. The citations do not back up the claims she is making (many are also cited incorrectly, and many more are just incredibly low quality).
July 15, 2021
Professor Sunder is unique as law professor because her (impeccable) research, captured in this book, focuses on how IP law could improve the lives of, not the most powerful, but regular people. This book deftly summarizes the importance of IP law as it challenges basic assumptions undergirding the field, making it an excellent read for the IP novice and scholar alike. The reader will learn about the incredible reach of IP laws, surprising and thought-provoking examples of IP law at work in both good and not-so-good ways, and will learn the basics of intellectual property while being challenged to rethink those basics. Professor Sunder challenges the normative goal of IP law--to increase the quantity of IP goods available in the marketplace--to invite a paradigmatic shift in the role IP law can and should play in society. At heart, Professor Sunder convincingly argues that IP law needs to take its cue from recent shifts in property law, quoting from the New Jersey case State v. Shack: "Property rights serve human values."
This book is also an excellent read in terms of its relevance to the COVID-era fight over patents in COVID vaccines. Flip to Chapter 7 to read an argument for why, not only should patents be waived in the case of life-saving COVID vaccines, but perhaps patents are not the best tool for encouraging medical development at all.
In sum, an excellent read for anyone, including non-lawyers, wishing to dip their toes into intellectual property and think deeply about what that law is, why it is, and what it should be.
This book is also an excellent read in terms of its relevance to the COVID-era fight over patents in COVID vaccines. Flip to Chapter 7 to read an argument for why, not only should patents be waived in the case of life-saving COVID vaccines, but perhaps patents are not the best tool for encouraging medical development at all.
In sum, an excellent read for anyone, including non-lawyers, wishing to dip their toes into intellectual property and think deeply about what that law is, why it is, and what it should be.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews