Ks of IP scholarship are outdated. The field has advanced to center social justice and the claims of the marginalized.

In sum, the previously linear creator/distributor/public dissemination conduit evolved into a relationship in the form of an isosceles triangle: the publisher/distributor occupies the apex point and from there it dictates business terms and market quality criteria downward to the creative and public audience base points.22 Throughout much of the twentieth century, the predominance of this IP commodification paradigm fostered an attendant and disproportionate emphasis on utilitarian "law and economics" perspectives of IP law. The gist of this viewpoint is that the prospect of economic reward provides an essential incentive to undertake IP production and dissemination, and consequently economic considerations should be given primacy in the IP eco-system. This rationale would dominate the IP scholarly and law policy discourse until the latter decades of the twentieth century.

C. Challenging the Status Quo: The Advent of "Deontological" IP Scholarship

As IP endeavors and output became increasingly critical in the routine pursuits of daily life throughout global society,23 some IP legal scholars began to question the viability of the IP commodification paradigm and the prevailing law and economics perspective of intellectual property protection.24 Scholars such as Keith Aoki, Margaret Chon, Laurence Heifer, and others have advanced the proposition that IP protection performs a more complex function in society's cultural, technological, and social well-being, and argued that the IP eco-system is sufficiently capacious to accommodate additional considerations and values such as those extant in in the field of human rights and development.2 5

Other IP scholars would call for exploration of how the prevailing application of the law and economics rationale ignored the failure of the IP regime to achieve its core mandate on behalf of various marginalized groups and communities. IP scholar K.J. Green illuminated the history of racial and cultural piracy and inequitable exploitation in the American entertainment industry,26 and thereby exposed the fallacy of the law and economics presumption of"IP market neutrality." Applying a critical legal theory analysis of intellectual property social injustice, Professor Greene directly challenged IP scholars and pundits who adhered to the IP neutrality façade, and argued that insofar as the IP legal regime fails to account for the reality of institutionalized racism and related racial disparities and inequities, it aborts its fundamental mission.2 7

These and other scholars directly challenged the IP commodification perspective which found little if any room for social justice concerns and which required that any such considerations be all but completely disregarded when they appeared to conflict with IP economic rights and interests. The foundation was thereby laid for theoretical perspectives that held social justice aspirations as not only consistent with the fundamental purpose of IP protection, but in fact essential to its achievement.

III. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SOCIAL JUSTICE: A THEORETICAL RATIONALE FOR THE GLOBAL IP ECO-SYSTEM

A. Social Justice Enters the IP Lexicon

Just as some IP scholars and policy activists pioneered for more socially cognizant perspectives of IP protection, they often (strategically) eschewed the outright realignment of IP social utility as expressly coterminous with generic social justice. The initial challenge was to overcome the obstruent notion that social justice concerns and economic interests are mutually exclusive considerations in the IP ecosystem. With this beachhead established, a new group of scholars would join with their analytic forebears to raise the theoretical ante and advance the thesis that fulfillment of the function of IP protection in the total political economy necessitates that IP social needs and deficiencies be considered on par with IP economic mechanisms and impacts.

Two law review publication symposia reflected a watershed moment in this regard: Symposium, Intellectual Property and Social Justice: IP andBrown28 and Symposium: Intellectual Property and Social Justice.2 9 Collectively these symposia embodied something of a seismic shift in IP scholarly discourse, in as much as they expressly adopted "social justice" terminology into the general IP lexicon and sparked the mapping of IP Social Justice theory as a discreet and affirmatively aspirational rationale which transcends particular social justice deficiencies and challenges. Scholars such as Anupam Chander, Ruth Okediji, Madhavi Sunder, and others shifted the conversation from one of consideration of IP social justice concerns as a viable option, to one of fulfillment of IP social justice obligations as a compelling responsibility. 30 Ultimately these analyses would support the proposition that the achievement of social justice is a fundamental aspiration of the IP regime.3 1