Juralpostulates By Rosco Pound

Roscoe Pound is considered to be the founder of American include:

1. The Spirit of Common Law 2. Interpretation of Legal History 3. The Formative Era of American Law 4. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Law 5. Law and Morals 6. Social Control through Law 7. Law and Morals 8. The Task of Law

sociological

jurisprudence.

His

works

According to Roscoe Pound, the main features of the sociological school of jurisprudence are:
1. It emphasises the functional aspect of law and not its abstract contents. 2. It treats law as a social institution which is closely related to various other disciplines that have a direct impact on society. 3. It believes that human experience is the basis of law and that law is designed to meet dynamic social needs. (This is contrary to the

emphases placed on command by analytical positivism and on the past by the historical school of jurisprudence.) 4. It either adopts a pragmatic approach by treating law as an applied science which uses functional methods to investigate, analyse and solve social problems or else, it adopts a realistic approach and defines law primarily in terms of judicial precedents.

His theory is called the Theory of Social Engineering.

Law :
Pound defined law as the rules principles, conceptions and standards of conduct and decision and also the precepts and doctrine of professional rules of art. The aim of law is: 1. to satisfy as many wants as possible while causing as little friction or confrontation as can be caused. 2. to reconcile the aims, wants and demands of the individual with those of society 3. to bring harmony into the relationship between the individual and society. He called this satisfaction of social aims, wants and demands with the least possible sacrifice social engineering. He went on to say that the members of the judiciary, legislators, administrators and jurists must make a planned and coordinated effort to maintain a balance between the completing interests in society which he classified into three main categories: private, public and social. Private Interests include physical integrity, freedom of volition, freedom of conscience safeguarded by the law of crime, tort, contract and constitutional law, domestic relationships, etc. Public interests include the preservation of the State and social interests include the preservation of social institutions such as religion, the prevention of prostitution and the conservation of Social Resources such as forests. The classification is not watertight; Julius Stone has, in fact, said that public interests are social interests.

Pound evaluated these interests with reference to certain basic assumptions which he said exist in every society. He called these assumptions the jural postulates of the legal system in question and specifically mentioned five of them which exist as guidelines for civilised life in every civilised society by saying that men in such societies must be able to assume that: 1. others will commit no intentional aggressions upon them. 2. they may control for beneficial purposes what they have discovered and appropriated to their own use, what they have created by their own labor, and what they have acquired under the existing social and economic order. 3. those with whom they deal in the general intercourse of society will act in good faith and hence: (i) Will make good reasonable expectations which their promises or other conduct will reasonably create; (ii) Will carry out their undertakings according to the expectations which the moral sentiment of the community attaches thereto; (iii) Will restore specifically or by equivalent what comes to them by mistake or unanticipated or (via a) not fully intended situation whereby they receive at anothers expense what they could not reasonably have expected to receive under the circumstances. 4. those who are engaged in some course of conduct will act with due care not to cause an unreasonable risk of injury upon others. 5. those who maintain things likely to get out of hand or to escape and do damage will restrain them or keep them within their proper bounds.

However, Pound also acknowledged that the jural postulates are dynamic; they are merely of relative value and are not absolute.

Criticism of Roscoe Pounds Theory

1. Social Engineering: By using the term social engineering, Roscoe Pound compared society to a machine ignoring its dynamic and non-mechanistic nature. 2. Jural Postulates: They fail to establish any framework of reference or yardstick with which to evaluate various interests since they themselves are not static. 3. The Interests: They overlap and cannot be easily fit into neat little pigeon holes. 4. The Balance: Roscoes emphasis on securing the maximum satisfaction of needs, wants and demands has the inherent danger of this satisfaction being at the expense of individual rights and freedoms.

POUND PREVAILING IN THE INDIAN PATENT LAW

Sociological jurisprudence theory according to Pound should ensure that the making, interpretation and applications of law take account of social facts. Propounding the task of a lawyer to be akin to engineering, Pound aimed at building a structure of society, wherein it required the satisfaction of maximum of wants with minimum of friction and waste. Pound seemed to

render a programme towards achieving the end of this jurisprudence which consisted of eight points. To fulfill his agenda of Social Engineering, Pound classified the interests protected by law, into three primary categories (and consequent subcategories therein), namely: Individual, Public and Social

interests.Individual interests are claims or demands or desires involved in and looked at from the standpoint of the individual life. These include Personality,Domestic Relations and Interest of Substance. Public interests on the other hand are asserted by individuals involved in or looked at from the standpoint of political life, while Social Interests are looked at in terms of social life and generalized claim of a social group.

Pounds theory also renders five Jural Postulates, in his article, A Survey of Social Interests.The Postulates as modeled by Pound may be enlisted as:

Jural Postulate I
In civilized society men must be able to assumethat others will commit no intentional aggressions upon them.

Jural Postulate IIIn civilized society men must be able to assume that they may control for the beneficial purposes what they have discovered and appropriated to their

own use, what they have acquired under the existing social and economic order.

Jural Postulate IIIIn civilized society men must be able to assume that those with whom they deal in the general intercourse of society will act in good faith.

Jural Postulate IVIn civilized society men must be able to assume that those who engage in some course of conduct will act with due care not to cast an unreasonable risk of injury upon others.

Jural Postulate VIn civilized society men must be able to assume that others, who maintain things or employ agencies, harmless in the sphere of their use but harmful in their normal action elsewhere, will restrain them or keep them within their proper bounds. Looking at the scheme and jurisprudence backing Patent law as itstands today, it is evident that the various Jural Postulates are quite satisfied by its scheme. The first postulate may be satisfied by the freedom in India to work and develop inventions, and exercise claim over them, while the second is satisfied by the fact that a patent may be acquired and rights

accruingthereof may be asserted. The third and fourth postulate are governed by the provisions to take action in the form of opposition proceedings to the grant of a patent,revocation of a valid patent, infringement and the like,while the fifth Postulate is fulfilled by provisions such as those affording the grant of compulsory licenses whereby conditions such as permission from the patentee for inventions which are not being worked are expected to be

satisfied by the third party (others) desirous to make use of the patent in their field of operation. Thus, it is quite evident from the scheme of the Act that the Patent Act is indeed a piece of Social Engineering. While there are rights conferred upon patentees, there are also considerations that are made by the Patent Office in granting those rights and consequently accruing an interest in them. Alongside, the fact that third parties at various points in time acquire the right to oppose the application for a patent or file a suit for infringement takes care of their individual interests which, very often, are a manifestation of an interest favouring the larger society. Provisions such as those of Compulsory Licensing evidently depict a conflict between social and individual interests. On the other hand, an invention relating to Atomic energy not being patentable subject matter is a depiction of a conflict between social, and public interest (interest in preservation of peace and order and maintaining general security) and individual interests.

SECTION INTERESTS

3(D)

AS

CONFLICT

OF

The paper in particular analyzes the latest ruling on Section 3(d).Section 3 deals with non-patentable subject matter and dedicates this particular subsection to the patentability of derivatives and modified versions of products, processes or apparatus. Examining the conflict of interests in Section 3(d), there exists a tug of war between individual, public and social rights. Where the question of derivative forms of chemical compounds exists, an element of similarity in

properties between the derived (or modified composition) and the original composition cannot be negated. In this event, while individual interests in terms of investment in research & development, skill, labour and appending questions come under the spotlight, it is indeed necessary to determine the prevailing conflicts between other social and public interests and find the yardstick to balance the two. Section 3(d) in terms of patentability of the derivative negates any rights to an applicant, unless and until enhanced efficacy is depicted to be existent. The public interest in doing so is the interest of the state as the guardian of social interests, which arises out of the need to conserve social interests while preserving the freedom to manufacture, trade and deal with a substance. In other words, the public interest exercised by the Patent Office, which is the State representative here, with the powers of a quasi-judicial body, protects social interests by not letting an individual rob the freedom of others in the society to use the subject-matter under contention, by granting monopoly to an individual over the same. Inferring the intent, the section primarily seems to be aiming at preventing ever-greening amongst pharmaceutical products, assuming a high degree of physical, chemical, reactive and consequently functional similaritybetween various isomers and derivative forms. Further, the demand is to demonstrate to the Patent Office enhanced efficacy and hence claim ones ground to secure a patent. This factor, no doubt brings into purview the nonpatentability of an incremental innovation. As a result, by making derivates with enhanced efficacy patentable, section 3(d) encourages the sequential development of existing products or technologies to help bring in improved products that address unmet public health needs

Roscoe Pounds greatest criticism lies in the lack of guidelines enabling the determination of the balancing metaphor to any conflict of interests. This criticism extends itself to Section 3(d) as well. The Novartis Glivec decision pronounced by the Madras High Court, deliberating upon the constitutionality of the section, pronounced therapeutic efficacy as the balancing metaphor.

Roscoe Pound And His Theory On Law

Roscoe Pound was the first scholar to analyze jurisprudence with the findings and the methodologies of the social sciences. Until then Philosophy was undermined by centuries of its failings to offer such a theory, logic as a tool was discredited by the attempts of Langdell and his German colleagues. Pound claimed that law is the paramount agency of social control. It has gradually replaced religion and morality as the basic instrument for achieving social order. According to him social control is necessary for preserving civilization since its main function is human control over internal or human nature, which according to him is absolutely necessary for the conquest of external, i.e. physical, nature. Pound asserts that this control over human nature upholds civilized society and deters antisocial conduct which is at variance with the postulates of social order. Law, as a mechanism of social control, is primarily the function of the state and it operates through the systematic and orderly application of force by the appointed agents. But, Pound adds that law is not enough, it needs the backing-up of home training, religion, morality and education. Law is a system of precepts with both ideal and empirical elements, disguised as natural or positive theories.

Pound says that the natural law of each era is essentially a positive natural law, an idealized version of the positive law of the time and place, naturalized for purposes of social control when the force wielded by organized society is not an adequate justification. He confides that the confusion prevails for the three different meanings of the word law: law as legal order, law as body of authoritative material, and law as judicial process. The important thing that Pound did was, he unified all three meanings in his definition. He defined law and its fundamental function of social control: Law is a regime which is a highly specialized form of social control, carried on in accordance with a body of authoritative precepts, applied in the context of a judicial and an administrative process. Pound confides that law should be an organ of social engineering. Justice is not an ideal state of relations or some form of virtue. It is a regime of such an adjustment of relations and ordering of conduct as will make the goods of existence, the means of satisfying human claims to have things and do things, go round as far as possible with the least friction and waste. His theory is based on the corner-stone of interests. He says that a legal system attains the end of the legal order by recognizing certain of these interests, by defining the limits within which those interests shall be recognized and given effect through legal precepts developed and applied by the judicial process according to an authoritative technique, and by endeavoring to secure the interests so recognized within defined limits. According to Pound the need for social control originates from the reality of scarcity. The scarcity creates the need for a legal system that will classify interests and recognize some of them. He says that law does not create interests, it finds them pressing for security. Law chooses to recognize those which are necessary for the maintenance and furtherance of civilization. Pound claims that there are three overlapping classes of

interests: individual, i.e. interests of personality, public and social. They are secured through their elevation to the status of legal rights.