The Utilitarian Theory of Intellectual Property Rights, associated with philosophers like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, justifies IPR protection on which basis?

The Utilitarian Theory of IPR, rooted in the philosophy of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, justifies IP protection purely on instrumental grounds not because creators have any natural or moral entitlement, but because granting them temporary exclusive rights maximises overall social welfare. The argument runs as follows: without IP protection, creators and inventors would have insufficient incentive to invest time and resources in innovation, as competitors could immediately free-ride on their efforts. By granting a limited monopoly (e.g., 20 years for patents, life + 60 years for copyright), society induces creators to produce new works and inventions, which ultimately enriches the public domain when the protection expires. The utilitarian framework is reflected in the design of IP law itself the limited duration of protection (unlike physical property, which is permanent), the public disclosure requirement for patents (the inventor must reveal the invention in exchange for the monopoly), and the fair dealing exceptions in copyright all represent utilitarian balancing of private and public interests. Critics note that the utilitarian theory can also justify restricting IP rights where the social cost of monopoly exceeds its benefit as seen in compulsory licensing under TRIPS.