A) Briefly but precisely describe the pizza-right test.

Be sure to state clearly what

conditions the argument in favor of intellectual monopoly has to satisfy in order to PASS
the pizza-right test.

B) Apply the pizza-right test for each of the following arguments in favor of intellectual
property.

C) Make sure to state whether the argument is defective in the sense that it proves too
much.

Please, address each of the arguments in isolation.

"The creation of pharmaceutical product such as a drug or vaccine requires considerable

investments in research and development. Such investments may take a long time to yield
profits since unforeseen delays may happen in any of the following stages: research and
development, trial, and commercialization. Also, there is considerable uncertainty regarding
the profitability of any such investment as there are no guarantees the product will
successfully pass the clinical trials. Absent patents, pharmaceutical companies would have
no incentives to face such risks."
"The creation of digital entertaining (books, movies, etc) is almost infinitely costly relative to
the cost of reproducing/coping these creations. Without copyright protections, creators of
digital content would not be able to recover their opportunity cost since anyone could flood
the market with digital copies without (or almost without ) incurring costs."

A)
Pizzaright law states that it is illegal to make or serve a pizza without a license from the
pizzaright owner (and we want competition in pizza industry so this law is defective).
Pizzaright test is used to test if an intellectual property right is reasonable. When we apply
that same right to the making and selling of pizzas, if the pizza version of the argument is
absurd, so is the intellectual property argument. When evaluating an argument in favor of
intellectual monopoly, if your argument serves equally well as an argument for a pizzaright,
which also means your argument passes the pizzaright test, then your argument is defective.

B)
argument 1:
Creating pizza requires a lot of investments in research and development. Investing in
creating pizza takes a long time to generate profits and there are unforeseen delays in the
research and development, trial, and commercialization stage. Also, there is considerable
uncertainty regarding the profitability of any such investment as there are no guarantees the
product will successfully pass the taste trials. Absent patents, pizza companies would have
no incentives to face such risks.
argument 2:
The creation of pizza is almost infinitely costly relative to the cost of reproducing/copying it.
Without copyright protections, creators of pizza would not be able to recover their
opportunity cost since anyone could flood the market with pizzas without (or almost without
) incurring costs.

C)
argument 1:
Argument 1 is not defective. Creating pizza doesn’t need a lot of investment in research and
development (a chief could simply observe and understand how to make one) and there is
no unforeseen delays, but the pharmaceutical industry does need to invest a lot in R&D. The
situation in argument 1 doesn’t apply to the pizza industry, so it doesn’t prove too much.

argument 2:
Argument 2 is not defective too. The creation of pizza is not costly relative to the cost of
copying it. You need to buy others’ pizza, taste and analyze, and have a group of people
figuring out what ingredients it uses. Creators can recover the opportunity cost without the
copyright by advertising or lowering cost of ingredients, and not anyone can enter the
market because you need to have the infrastructure and fund to do so. Thus, the situation
doesn’t apply to the pizza industry and the argument doesn’t prove too much.