No. 73 (2025): Septiembre-diciembre
Filosofía en el espacio público

When the Patent System Affects People’s Wellbeing

PDF (Spanish)
  • Benedicto Acosta,
  • Elisa Calleja-Sordo
Benedicto Acosta
Universidad de Salamanca
Elisa Calleja-Sordo
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Published 2025-08-25

Keywords

  • ethics,
  • patents,
  • welfare,
  • dignity,
  • risk,
  • intellectual property,
  • artifacts,
  • technology,
  • limits of patentability,
  • patent regulation
    • ...More
    Less

Copyright (c) 2025 Tópicos, Revista de Filosofía

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Acosta, B., & Calleja-Sordo, E. (2025). When the Patent System Affects People’s Wellbeing. Tópicos, Revista De Filosofía, 73, 461-484. https://doi.org/10.21555/top.v730.3009
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC

Abstract

In 2019, a British inventor applied for a patent for an inclined toilet that sought to be uncomfortable for its users. Despite the controversy it created, the case has not produced any academic reflection so far. The aim of this article is twofold: on the one hand, it analyses the morality of these types of inventions; on the other hand, it discusses the commitment that patent systems have with certain moral values, such as human dignity or public order. Regarding the first aim, we conclude that, in inventions such as these toilets, the risks clearly outweigh the benefits. Consequently, we argue that patent systems do not have the appropriate tools to face immoral inventions. This is because the patent system is not concerned with the use nor the impact that inventions have, something that, we believe, may influence the very justification of these intellectual property regimes.

PDF (Spanish)

References

  1. Acosta, B. (2022). Moral and Political Concerns About Patents: A Cross-Cultural Perspective. En C. Stephanidis, M. Antona, S. Ntoa y G. Salvendy (eds.), HCI International 2022 -- Late Breaking Posters (pp. 227-231). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-19682-9_30
  2. Acosta, B. (2024), On Value-laden Patents: A Call for Moral Limits. International Journal of Ethics and Systems, 40(4), 829-844. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOES-04-2023-0077
  3. Adger, W. N. (2006). Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 268-281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.02.006
  4. Asociación Médica Mundial. (2024). Declaración de Helsinki de la AMM — Principios éticos para las investigaciones médicas con participantes humanos. https://www.wma.net/es/policies-post/declaracion-de-helsinki-de-la-amm-principios-eticos-para-las-investigaciones-medicas-en-seres-humanos/
  5. BBC. (2019, 18 de diciembre). Social Media Awash with Scorn for “Sloping Toilet”. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-50835604
  6. Beck, U. (2002). La sociedad del riesgo global. J. Alborés Rey (trad.). Siglo XXI.
  7. Braga, E. J., Ribeiro de Souza, A., Leal de Lima Soares, P. y Rodrigues, R. C. (2018). The Role of Specification in Patent Applications: A Comparative Study on Sufficiency of Disclosure. World Patent Information, 53, 58-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wpi.2018.05.008
  8. British Toilet Association. (2019, 18 de noviembre). The New Standard Toilet. http://www.btaloos.co.uk/?p=2134
  9. Chang, H. F. (1995). Patent Scope, Antitrust Policy, and Cumulative Innovation. RAND Journal of Economics, 26(1), 34-57. https://doi.org/10.2307/2556034
  10. Coeckelbergh, M. (2013). Human Being @ Risk: Enhancement, Technology, and the Evaluation of Vulnerability Transformations. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6025-7
  11. Convenio de Múnich sobre Concesión de Patentes Europeas (1973). https://www.oepm.es/cs/OEPMSite/contenidos/NORMATIVA/NormasSobrePatentes_MU_Topografias_CCP/NSPMTCCP_DerechoEuropeoPatentes/ConvenioMunichConcesionPatentesEuropeas_5_Oct_1973.htm
  12. Crespi, R. S. (2000). An Analysis of Moral Issues Affecting Patenting Inventions in the Life Sciences: A European Perspective. Science and Engineering Ethics, 6(2), 157-180. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-000-0045-8
  13. Crespi, R. S. (2005). Ethico-legal Issues in Biomedicine Patenting: A Patent Professional Viewpoint. Science and Engineering Ethics, 11(1), 117-136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-005-0064-6
  14. Dahlander, L. y Gann, D. M. (2010). How Open is Innovation? Research Policy, 39(6), 699-709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.013
  15. Devaiah, V. H. (2010). Impact of Bioethics on Patentability of Inventions. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 7(1), 14-17. https://doi.org/10.20529/IJME.2010.005
  16. Drahos, P. (2010). The Global Governance of Knowledge: Patent Offices and their Clients. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511676581
  17. Dutfield, G. (2009). Intellectual Property Rights and the Life Science Industries: Past, Present and Future. World Scientific Publishing Co. https://doi.org/10.1142/6917
  18. European Food Safety Authority. (s. f.). Risk-benefit Analysis. https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/glossary/risk-benefit-analysis
  19. European Patent Office. (2022). Guidelines for Examination in the European Patent Office. https://www.epo.org/en/legal/guidelines-epc
  20. Fecteau, L. M. (2001). The Ayahuasca Patent Revocation: Raising Questions About Current U.S. Patent Policy. Boston College Third World Law Journal, 21, 69-104.
  21. Garvey, M. (2021, 21 de junio). Does AI have Politics? Analysis of ‘Do Artifacts have Politics’ by Langdon Winner, 1980 – Reflecting on current AI innovation. Towards Data Science. https://towardsdatascience.com/does-ai-have-politics-21145e5b5445
  22. Gill, M. S. (2021). Toilet with an Inclined Seating Surface. (Solicitud de patente británica no. GB2586776A). U. K. Intellectual Property Office.
  23. Gill, M. S. (2022). Toilet with an Inclined Seating Surface. (Solicitud de patente estadounidense no. US20220346608A1). U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
  24. Hansson, S. O. (2023). Risk. En E. N. Zalta y U. Nodelman (eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2022/entries/risk/
  25. Hennessey, T. (2019, 18 de diciembre). New Downward Tilted Toilets Designed to Prevent Workers from Staying Comfortable During Long Loo Breaks. The Standard. https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/new-downward-tilted-toilets-designed-to-prevent-workers-from-staying-comfortable-during-long-loo-breaks-a4316916.html
  26. Jasanoff, S. (2016).The Ethics of Invention: Technology and the Human Future. W.W. Norton.
  27. Jonas H. (1995). El principio de responsabilidad: ensayo de una ética para la civilización tecnológica. J. M. Fernández Retenaga (trad.). Herder.
  28. Kaplan, D. M. (2009). Readings in the Philosophy of Technology. Rowman & Littlefield.
  29. Karvonen, A. (2020). Urban Techno-Politics: Knowing, Governing, and Imagining the City. Science as Culture, 29(3), 417-424. https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2020.1766011
  30. Kroes, P. y Meijers, A. W. M. (2016). Toward an Axiological Turn in the Philosophy of Technology. En M. Franssen, P. Vermaas, P. Kroes y A. Meijers (eds.), Philosophy of Technology after the Empirical Turn (pp. 11-30). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-33717-3_2
  31. Leigh, M. L. (2015). Toilet Bowl Having an Inclined Surface. (Solicitud de patente estadounidende no. 20150107010). U. S. Patent and Trademark Office.
  32. Mackenzie, C., Rogers, W. y Dodds, S. (2014). Vulnerability: New Essays in Ethics and Feminist Philosophy. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199316649.001.0001
  33. Morrison, R. (2019, 17 de diciembre). Toilets That Are Tilted Downwards by 13 Degrees to Stop Workers Spending Too Long on the Loo. Daily Mail. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-7801245/Toilets-tilted-downwards-13-degrees-stop-workers-spending-long-loo.html
  34. Organización Mundial de la Salud. (2025). Constitución. https://www.who.int/es/about/governance/constitution
  35. Organización Mundial del Comercio. (1994). Acuerdo sobre los Aspectos de los Derechos de Propiedad Intelectual relacionados con el Comercio. https://www.wto.org/spanish/docs_s/legal_s/27-trips_01_s.htm
  36. Ozanne, R. (1967). A Century of Labor-Management Relations at McCormick and International Harvester. University of Wisconsin Press.
  37. Parthasarathy, S. (2011). Whose Knowledge? What Values? The Comparative Politics of Patenting Life Forms in the United States and Europe. Policy Sciences, 44(3), 267-288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-011-9133-7
  38. Parthasarathy, S. (2017). Patent Politics: Life Forms, Markets, and the Public Interest in the United States and Europe. Chicago University Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226437996.001.0001
  39. Parthasarathy, S. (2020). Approaching Intellectual Property Scholarship Differently: A Qualitative Research Review and Agenda. Science and Public Policy, 47(5), 627-637. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scaa010
  40. Pinsker, J. (2019, 19 de diciembre). Slanted Toilets and the Curse of Productivity. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2019/12/slanted-toilet-standardtoilet-productivity/603898/
  41. Pogge, T. (2012). ¿Estamos violando los derechos humanos de los pobres del mundo? R. Pedroza (trad.). Eidos, 12, 12-67.
  42. Quintanilla, M. Á. (2017). Tecnología. Un enfoque filosófico y otros ensayos de filosofía de la tecnología. FCE.
  43. Reiss, M. J. (2003). The Ethics of Patenting DNA. Journal of Commercial Biotechnology, 9(3), 192-198. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jcb.3040028
  44. Rogers, W., Mackenzie, C. & Dodds, S. (2012). Why Bioethics Needs a Concept of Vulnerability. International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics, 5(2), 11-38. https://doi.org/10.3138/ijfab.5.2.11
  45. Simon, J. (2017). Value-sensitive Design and Responsible Research and Innovation. En S. O. Hansson (ed.), The Ethics of Technology: Methods and Approaches (pp. 219-235). Rowman & Littlefield.
  46. Shiva, V. (1995). Abrazar la vida. Mujer, ecología y supervivencia. Instituto del Tercer Mundo (trads.). Horas y Horas.
  47. Sjöberg, L. (2000). The Methodology of Risk Perception Research. Quality & Quantity, 34(4), 407-418. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1004838806793
  48. Slanty. (2023). Home. https://standardtoilet.net/
  49. Sterckx, S. y Cockbain, J. (2012). Exclusions from Patentability: How Far Has the European Patent Office Eroded Boundaries? Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139047623
  50. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (2018, January 4). Risk Assessment in Regulation. https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/risk-informed.html#TheNRCsConceptofRisk
  51. Winner, L. (1980). Do Artifacts Have Politics? Daedalus, 109(1), 121-136.
  52. Žižek, S. (2009). Sobre la violencia. Seis reflexiones marginales. A. J. Antón Fernández (trad.). Paidós.