There is a significant difference between the civil law and common law approach to intellectual property rights. In the former, the justification for the creation and enforcement of such rights is the belief that the author has a moral right to retain control over his intellectual creations. In the common law system, a different policy is the driver. Ours is an economic justification. We sometimes say that we are free to do or copy anything save only to the extent that it is expressly prohibited by law and that the law only imposes a prohibition where an economic case can be made for it. Freedom to compete, including the freedom to copy and improve on competitor's products, is the fuel on which our economy runs. Restrictions are to be kept to a minimum. Although the language of fairness may be used as an additional tool to sell intellectual property rights to politicians and the public, both the existence of intellectual property rights and the scope of protection has to be justified on the basis that the commercial benefits to society outweigh the disadvantages of restrictions on competition.

This may make the expansion of existing IP rights or the creation of new ones rather more easy to accept in the civil law system. It is a value judgment whether any particular type of creation or work product is worthy of protection.