The Conflict and Convergence between Right to Repair and Intellectual Property Rights: A Legal and Policy Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explores the tension between the Right to Repair (R2R) and global intellectual property law, examining how legal systems balance innovation protection with equitable access to technology. At the core of this inquiry lies a pressing constitutional and jurisprudential dilemma: To what extent can contemporary legal systems harmonize the proprietary logic underpinning intellectual property regimes with the evolving normative claims of environmental stewardship, consumer empowerment, and the right to technological self-governance? To begin, the study delineates the historical and legal trajectory of the Right to Repair, situating it within the broader discursive framework of environmental jurisprudence, participatory consumer rights, and the transition toward a regenerative circular economy. First, the paper traces the socio-legal evolution of the Right to Repair (R2R) in India, shaped by transnational policy currents and invigorated by domestic civil society mobilisation, ultimately culminating in the 2022 Framework on Right to Repair promulgated by the Department of Consumer Affairs. It posits that the state’s initial foray into recognising the Right to Repa `ir represents a foundational step toward recalibrating India’s digital governance model to prioritise environmental stewardship, consumer agency, and systemic inclusivity. Second, the study argues that India’s intellectual property regime—through patent laws, trade secret protections, and digital access controls—restricts repair access and stifles grassroots innovation, thereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution and undermining India’s obligations under the Paris Agreement and Sustainable Development Goal 12. Third, the paper analyses India’s Digital Competition Bill (2023) alongside reforms in Canada and Australia, highlighting a growing consensus on curbing repair monopolies and promoting user autonomy in digital markets. Fourth, the paper examines how global IP regimes enable corporate control over repair infrastructure in the Global South, reinforcing economic subordination. It invokes General Comment No. 25 (ICCPR) and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights to frame repair access as essential to inclusive digital development. Ultimately, the paper argues that repair access must evolve into a democratised legal entitlement, rooted in constitutional ethics and aligned with India’s global commitments to equity and sustainable development.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.075 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".