Most people do not understand that IP law is domestic only, which is why it is nonsensical to say that China is “stealing” western “IP”.1 Most countries have IP protection, primarily because of Western, primarily US, IP imperialism and bullying, mostly at the behest of Big Pharma (patents) and Hollywood and the music industry/RIAA (copyright) which have forced other countries to adopt American-style IP, to their detriment.2 But any country that chooses not to have IP rights and does not protect inventions and and artistic works does not violate others’ property rights, any more than insecure property rights in North Korea violates property rights in Texas. (IP supporters do not understand that this is a difference between real property rights and fake IP rights, since if your property right in material resources in a given jurisdiction are secure–in your home, in your body, in your car–then what other people do in some lawless regime simply cannot violate your property rights; yet they somehow think “China” can “steal” Western property rights by failing to enforce them locally. This alone shows that IP rights are not “similar to” real property rights. But let this pass.)3
This means that if you were to set up shop in a free country that did not protect fake, socialist IP rights, free of evil IP restrictions, when you use information that is protected by copyright or patents in socialist countries, you are not violating their IP rights at all, and certainly not their legitimate property rights. The same would be true alien civilizations that happened to make copies of earthlings’ books (despite the plot of the stupid Year Zero: A Novel), and the same is true in outer space, since no municipal copyright or patent law applies in outer space (or on the high seas or deep sea bed).
For some scholarship about this, see:
Scharf, Michael P. and Roberts, Lawrence D., “The Interstellar Relations of the Federation: International Law and Star Trek: The Next Generation“25 U. Tol. L. Rev. 577 (1994; SSRN)
Abstract: A recent University of Toledo Law Review article concerning the legal issues dealt with in the television series Star Trek: The Next Generation (STNG)
became an overnight national sensation. Given that, during its seven seasons of
first-run episodes; STNG had been the most popular syndicated series on
American television, it is perhaps not surprising that the article should engender so much public attention. The article, written by law professors Paul Joseph and Sharon Carton of Nova Southeastern University Law School, was not intended as however. Rather, it was a serious examination of the way STNG United Federation of Planets dealt with such weighty legal issues as the right to privacy, the right to life and rights to sexual orientation as an implicit for commentary on the salient issues facing American courts in the 1990s.
Sedef Ayalp, “Lost in Space: The Copyright Dilemma,” AMERICAN UNIV. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY BRIEF Vol. 7:2 (2020):
Intro: Given the ever-advancing strides in technology and the push to extend the boundaries of space exploration, there will undoubtedly be new extraterritorial concerns with subject matter covered by copyright. Whether it is the launch of the first commercial spaceline, the installation of private space stations in the Earth’s orbit, or the colonization of new celestial bodies, there will be issues in creating works and protecting newly developed works in outer space and potentially infringing existing terrestrial ones. Sorting through international copyright law on Earth can be an intricate ordeal in itself; however, it is vital to consider how this area will be affected by the newest space race.
***
Poujiabthai Gangmeih & Dr. Ravi Kant Mishra, “The Relationship Between Outer Space Activities And Intellectual Property Laws,” Educational Administration Theory and Practice Journal (January 2024)
Abstract: Up until 1957, space travel was largely unknown to humans. Before then, it was beyond their grasp. By launching Sputnik-I, an uncrewed spacecraft, into space in October 1957, the USSR became the first nation to explore space. Next year, the US adopted a similar strategy to the USSR. When it launched the first manned satellite into Earth’s orbit in 1961, it made history. Space technology has developed significantly since then. The admission of several governmental and non-governmental organizations into space exploration has propelled advancements in space activities and created a fantastic opportunity for understanding, discovering, and inventing. It has changed drastically during the last couple of decades or so. It is important to note that the processes of privatization and commercialization have followed and changed the very direction of these endeavours. As a result, recent developments have made it possible for the operations that call for the developers’ intellectual property rights to be protected. International law has generally held that no State may exploit space for its purposes; space research and exploration must serve the interests of humanity rather than the self-serving interests of the State, and it is founded on the idea of “res communis.” However, the primary focus of international intellectual property law is territoriality. Problems may arise if national law is applied to actions taken in regions covered by international law but where no one has sovereign powers or authority. This essay will provide a broad overview of the international legal frameworks about intellectual property and space operations
Gordon Rausser, Elliot Choi and Alexandre Bayen, “Public–private partnerships in fostering outer space innovations,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 120(43) October 2023
Abstract: As public and private institutions recognize the role of space exploration as a catalyst for economic growth, various areas of innovation are expected to emerge as drivers of the space economy. These include space transportation, in-space manufacturing, bioproduction, in-space agriculture, nuclear launch, and propulsion systems, as well as satellite services and their maintenance. However, the current nature of space as an open-access resource and global commons presents a systemic risk for exuberant competition for space goods and services, which may result in a “tragedy of the commons” dilemma. In the race among countries to capture the value of space exploration, NASA, American research universities, and private companies can avoid any coordination failures by collaborating in a public–private research and development partnership (PPRDP) structure. We present such a structure founded upon the principles of polycentric autonomous governance, which incorporate a decentralized autonomous organization framework and specialized research clusters. By advancing an alignment of incentives among the specified participatory members, PPRDPs can play a pivotal role in stimulating open-source research by creating positive knowledge spillover effects and agglomeration externalities as well as embracing the nonlinear decomposition paradigm that may blur the distinction between basic and applied research.
Papers in “Legal Impact of Scientific Investigation on the Protection of Intellectual Property,” International Astronautical Federation, Oct. 1, 2025:
Description: Research in extra-terrestrial space, including in the areas of space resources and long term human habitation, is being increasingly carried out by private entities operating under international cooperation schemes. Given the importance of intellectual property for these activities, the concept of territoriality and jurisdiction in IP law allows the extension of jurisdiction under national (regional) law to those objects which the respective country has registered and launched into outer space; registered space objects are treated as quasi-territorial for the purposes of intellectual property. The IP framework is equally relevant to scientific and technological advancement. In the absence of explicit international rules, several international cooperations agreements have been concluded for such space projects. This session invites papers that aim to analyse these agreements, to study the interrelation between the protection of intellectual property and the principles of the common interest and non-appropriation of outer space as formulated by the Outer Space Treaty.
Papers:
Abstract: Innovation drives up to 75 percent of global economic growth, which underpins socioeconomic development, improved standard of living, and quality of life. Social development seeks to enhance the beneficial coexistence of the populace and support their management of the economy. As a space policy objective, socioeconomic development therefore necessitates the ability to access, create, and control wealth within commercial space markets. Patents present a mechanism for such control via their limited monopoly and require publication to spur further innovation. In return, patent owners may charge supra-competitive prices to recover RD expenses otherwise comprising sunk costs. Without patents, competitors may reverse engineer and push the price of products to their marginal cost of production, precluding RD recovery and ultimately discouraging innovation critical to space exploration. Consequently, tradeoffs exist between patents, innovation, space exploration, economic growth, and socioeconomic development. Aerospace has historically relied on trade secrets, but global activity in aerospace patents has surged concomitant to skyrocketing enthusiasm for the benefits of space development. Government space RD programs support technology transfer and commercialization of inventions, and space agencies diligently identify and stimulate the socioeconomic benefits of their missions, increasingly planned to support multiple applications to cross-pollinate non-space markets. NASA counts over 2,000 commercially deployed inventions from 1976-2018, including manufacturing, products, services, and resource management. A 2009 survey spanning 54 manufacturing sectors across 72 countries from 1981-2000 demonstrates the clear correlation between stronger patent rights and accelerated economic growth, prevalent in patent-intensive industries and high-tech economies. Robust markets must exist for patents to successfully catalyze innovation, economic growth, and socioeconomic development. Recent reports indicate the global space economy has arrived at such a critical juncture, with exponential growth projected to exceed $1 trillion by 2040, establishing the requisite market. Achieving growth forecasts now requires the rigorous commercial certainties of patents, but patchwork jurisdictions in outer space countervail typical terrestrial patent protections. Especially in view of esoteric patent laws like the temporary presence defense, enshrined in the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property and extended by many member States to space objects (e.g., Hughes Aircraft Co. v. US, 1993). These complexities are compounded by arcane space law provisions that fail to align with historic territory-based patent norms. In response, we examine nuanced patent strategies under existing space law frameworks to optimize invention protections, enhance investment returns, expand space markets, support exploration, and ultimately advance a global space-faring civilization.
Jessica Noble, “Balancing Innovator and Government Ownership of IP in Technology Developed in Space considering Mixed Funding Sources and Innovator Incentives”
Abstract: Private space actors are increasingly engaged in research and development activities in space. One question facing these innovators is how to secure the intellectual property (IP) rights in new technology they have developed in order to promote continued innovation and the enablement of private capital funding. Missions are conducted by governments, private entities, or some mixture thereof, and in facilities and vehicles in space owned or operated by a mix thereof. Clarity of IP ownership becomes more complex when there is a mixture of government funding and private investment in the mission. This analysis reviews the international framework and regional laws governing IP ownership. Lacuna or inconsistencies in legal regimes are identified and solutions are proposed to protect private space innovators’ IP rights, while also addressing the concerns around use of public funds in support of missions that lead to development of new IP by the private sector.
Chioma Ezeigbo, “Legal Impact of Scientific Investigation on the Protection of Intellectual Property”
As the global space industry shifts from government-led exploration to private-sector-driven commercialization, the legal interplay between intellectual property (IP) rights, space law principles, and space entrepreneurship has become increasingly complex. The 1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST) designates outer space as a global commons, yet the rapid expansion of private space companies, startups, and multinational collaborations has intensified debates on ownership, commercialization, and IP protection in outer space. The rise of industries such as satellite communications, orbital manufacturing, space resource utilization, and space tourism necessitates a legal framework that both supports innovation and upholds space law principles of non-appropriation, common benefit, and international cooperation.
A fundamental challenge in applying IP law to space activities is its territorial nature, which traditionally ties IP protection to national jurisdictions. Notably, Article VIII of the OST extends national jurisdiction to objects a state registers and launches into space, effectively creating quasi-territorial zones where national IP protections might apply. This principle has influenced legal frameworks within multinational projects such as the International Space Station (ISS) and emerging lunar governance agreements, yet no clear international consensus exists on how to enforce IP rights in space-based commercial activities. As private enterprises lead advancements in lunar and asteroid mining, in-space research, and autonomous manufacturing, legal uncertainties could deter investment and slow commercialization efforts.
Additionally, balancing IP protection with open science presents another challenge. Many space technologies, including Earth observation systems and AI-driven applications, rely on data-sharing and collaborative research frameworks. However, private companies and entrepreneurs rely on IP protections to attract investment and ensure business sustainability.
This research examines how existing IP and space law frameworks intersect with the realities of space entrepreneurship and private-sector expansion. It assesses case studies from spacefaring nations and explores how developing space economies, particularly in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, can navigate these legal uncertainties to support emerging space businesses. The study demonstrates that, on a global scale, developing international guidelines to clarify the application of intellectual property laws to private-sector space activities can provide much needed legal certainty.
Ultimately, this work contributes to the ongoing discourse on IP rights in space commercialization, proposing legal and policy strategies to balance private-sector innovation with fundamental space law principles.
Arti Sangar, “Protection of Intellectual Property in Space Exploration”
Abstract: Intellectual property (IP) rights are becoming increasingly vital in the realm of space exploration. From the iconic footprints left by Neil Armstrong on the Moon to the pioneering endeavors of nations aiming to obtain the first right to mine asteroids and other celestial bodies, the scope of IP in space is vast. The IP rights also encompass spacecraft design, propulsion systems, satellite technology, and space-related materials.
In the realm of IP law, the principle of territoriality traditionally confines the protection of rights to the jurisdictional boundaries of a state. However, in space exploration, this concept is nuanced by the quasi-territorial status of registered space objects. The absence of explicit international regulations governing IP in space has led to the formulation of various international cooperation agreements. These agreements aim to harmonize the protection of IP rights among participating nations and private entities. For instance, the Artemis Accords, initiated by NASA, establish principles for international cooperation in the exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon, Mars, and other celestial bodies. These principles emphasize transparency, interoperability, and the peaceful use of outer space, providing a framework for addressing IP concerns in collaborative space missions.
The protection of IP in space must be balanced with the foundational principles of the Outer Space Treaty, which include the non-appropriation of outer space and the promotion of international cooperation. While IP rights grant exclusive use and commercialization of inventions, they must not conflict with the Treaty’s stipulations that outer space is free for exploration and use by all countries and that activities in space should benefit all humankind. Therefore, IP frameworks in space exploration are designed to ensure that the benefits of space activities are shared globally, aligning with the common interest and non-appropriation principles.
As private entities increasingly engage in space exploration, the legal landscape surrounding IP rights in space continues to evolve. The interplay between national IP laws, international cooperation agreements, and the overarching principles of Outer Space Treaty necessitates a nuanced approach to IP protection. Ongoing dialogue and collaboration among international stakeholders are essential to develop a cohesive and equitable framework that fosters innovation while upholding the collective interests of humanity in the exploration of outer space.
Jonathan Lim, “Human Rights and Space IP: Countering Quasi-Territorial Claims under the Outer Space Treaty”
Abstract:
The growing practice of states to adopt quasi-territorial approaches to intellectual property (IP) in space underscores the relevance of human rights in reinforcing the principles of common interest and nonappropriation under the 1967 Outer Space Treaty (OST). This paper explores the tensions between the IP protection, the right to retain information gathered from space activities, and access to space-based knowledge and technology.
International human rights law (IHRL) counterbalances this reckless extension of national jurisdiction by state parties, ensuring that outer space remains a domain for the collective benefit of humanity rather than monopolization by select space powers and corporations. This is achieved in holding states accountable to their international obligations to respect, protect, and fulfill human rights; and restraining the actions of non-state actors (UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights).
A human rights-based approach to such quasi-territorial challenges in IP overlays several principles – common interests in space, the concept of global commons, and the doctrine of res extra commercium. These space law principles are foundational under the OST and have a basis within IHRL jurisprudence. Firstly, common interests align with the human right to share in scientific advancement per Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Second, global commons are rooted in the collective right of all nations to equitable access to and use of space resources. Third, res extra commercium resonates with the right to equitable access to knowledge (UDHR Article 26) and view that certain domains (i.e. space) must remain open and free for all humanity’s benefit.
This paper provides a lege ferenda where IP protections are aligned with basic rights under international human rights law – including the right to share in scientific advancement (UDHR Article 27), right to protection of intellectual property (ICESCR Article 15), and right to equitable access to knowledge (UDHR Article 26). A balanced framework for the regulation of space-related IP places the human right to technology at its core – ensuring the benefits of space are shared more equitably, fostering collaboration between private and public sectors, and addressing disparities between nations.
IHRL provides an established legal framework to maintain space as the province for all mankind by holding states accountable to their obligations under international law. A human rights-based approach promotes an inclusive and sustainable space environment where all nations, regardless of development status, may access the benefits of space exploration and technologies derived from it.
Abstract: Article I of the Outer Space Treaty provides the principle of the freedom of scientific investigation and its article IX that States Parties agree to inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations as well as the public and the international scientific community, to the greatest extent feasible and practicable of the results of such activities. More generally, the current trend in public international law calls for an open access to the results of scientific research as demonstrated by the various recommendations of adopted by the UNESCO and notably the 2021 Recommendation open science.
However, as reflected in the 2014 dispute between Japan and Australia related to the whaling in Antarctica, the very definition of scientific research can raise issues relating to the rights and obligations of States in terms of scientific research. In this case, Australia accused Japan of conducting whaling activities that were incompatible with International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, which prohibits whaling except “for the purpose of scientific research”. Japan’s whaling activities included lethal whaling, where a significant proportion of which was sold. The International Court of Justice, while recognizing that the Japanese programme could be characterized as “scientific research”, considered that it was not conducted “for the purpose of scientific research”, and refused to provide a definition of the notion of “scientific research”. In this context of legal uncertainty surrounding the definition of scientific research, it is possible to question the extent to which scientific research data should be shared and made openly accessible, in compliance with international space treaties and other legal instruments relating to science. What is scientific research, and how can we distinguish it from other related activities such as exploration, prospection, technology demonstration, journalism or espionage?
The aim of this article is to present the uncertainties surrounding the sharing of scientific data from space missions in the light of the definitional and conceptual difficulties surrounding the notion of “scientific research”.
Edward Koellner, “Legal Black Holes: The Unresolved Challenges of Intellectual Property in Outer Space”
Abstract: As space exploration and commercialization progress at an unprecedented pace, the legal frameworks governing intellectual property (IP) remain inadequate, raising fundamental questions about ownership, enforcement, and jurisdiction beyond Earth. While private entities drive research and development in space resources and long-term habitation, existing IP laws—rooted in territoriality—are ill-equipped to address the complexities of multi-national collaborations, transient research stations, and extraterrestrial manufacturing. This paper critically examines the gaps in current IP protection mechanisms and highlights key legal, jurisdictional, and policy issues that must be addressed to create a functional framework for space-based innovation.
One of the most pressing concerns is the lack of a unified international mechanism for IP registration and enforcement in space. Under the current system, national laws extend jurisdiction to objects launched and registered by respective states, treating them as quasi-territorial zones. However, this approach fails to address projects involving multiple stakeholders, such as the Artemis Accords signatories or privatepublic partnerships operating on the Moon, Mars, and beyond. Ambiguities arise when IP disputes involve entities from different jurisdictions, creating potential conflicts over patent rights, licensing agreements, and proprietary technologies.
Additionally, the principle of non-appropriation under the Outer Space Treaty (OST) directly conflicts with the commercial need to assert ownership over space-generated innovations. Without clear regulatory frameworks, space companies risk legal uncertainty regarding whether patents filed on Earth remain enforceable for inventions developed in microgravity, lunar colonies, or asteroid mining operations. These gaps discourage investment in high-risk, high-reward RD and may lead to proprietary technologies being developed in legally gray areas where enforcement mechanisms are unclear or non-existent.
Another critical challenge is the lack of precedent in dispute resolution mechanisms for space-related IP conflicts. Current enforcement relies on national and regional patent offices, such as the USPTO and EPO, which have no extraterritorial jurisdiction in space. The absence of an international arbitration system for space-related IP disputes means that companies may be forced to rely on ad hoc legal agreements, increasing legal uncertainty and potential conflicts.
This paper argues that without urgent legal reforms, these gaps could stifle innovation, deter private investment, and lead to fragmented governance approaches that undermine space RD collaboration. By identifying the most pressing legal voids and inconsistencies, this study highlights the urgent need for international dialogue to bridge these gaps and create a stable, enforceable system for protecting intellectual property beyond Earth.
Giorgio Cardile, “Key concepts of space law on ownership situations: property from a civil and comparative perspective”
Abstract: This article analyzes the complex framework of property rights in outer space through a critical examination of legal doctrines and international instruments from civil and comparative law perspectives. Drawing on the literature on lunar property rights, extraterrestrial resources property acquisition, and commercial appropriation in the absence of sovereignty, the study reveals a fragmented regime in which the prevailing right of use replaces the classical prerogative of exclusion. This fragmentation not only challenges traditional legal paradigms, but also raises concerns about the sustainable management and equitable exploitation of space resources and poses a series of interpretive questions on how we think of property and the acquisition of it in outer space, considering from both civil and common law definitions of property. The research seeks to reconcile the principles of non-appropriation enshrined in instruments such as the Outer Space Treaty with the evolving national legal frameworks and diverse cultural legal traditions of space faring nations. Using a dual methodological approach that includes a doctrinal analysis of international treaties and case law and a comparative study of national legal practices, this work aims to clarify inherent legal anomalies and propose innovative solutions to the current regulatory impasse. Ultimately, the research seeks to propose a harmonized framework that promotes fair and sustainable exploitation of space resources. By promoting international legal consistency and encouraging cooperative governance, the study aspires to contribute to the development of a stable and forward-looking regime in an era of renewed global interest in space exploration.
Scott Schneider, “New Ideas and Ownership in Outer Space: The Opportunity for Effective and Moral Management of Intellectual Property Rights for Space Objects and Creativity in Outer Space”
Abstract: This paper examines intellectual property rights in outer space activities considering the increase in private space ventures. It explores whether space activities generally present an opportunity to streamline intellectual property arrangements for the benefit of entrepreneurs, regulators and the end beneficiaries of space activities. Using case studies, this paper reviews intellectual property law development focusing on property rights generally, transfer of ownership, creativity and social welfare. The analysis discusses challenges in determining and enforcing space-related intellectual property rights, particularly in the context of jurisdiction, the current legal frameworks and academic literature of space-related copyrights and patents.
The findings suggest that private space affairs are an opportunity to develop the protection of intellectual property in way which better aligns with natural rights, economics and social wellbeing. Rather than purely expanding or refining existing intellectual property frameworks, the findings show how such a principles-based approach to the intellectual property rights of outer space would incentivise economic activity in space affairs and increase the likelihood that space-derived benefits will reach a broader pool of stakeholders. The paper illustrates how this opportunity has the added advantage of improving filing, dispute avoidance and dispute resolution processes in intellectual property matters for outer space activities. The principles from the findings are then presented in a practical form to propose a model which complies with Articles I, II and VI of the Outer Space Treaty
Martina Elia Vitoloni, “Made in Luna: Geographical Indicators for Space Activities”
Abstract: Space manufacturing is a key objective for the coming decades. The fabrication of products in outer space is poised to not only further expand the horizons of space exploration but also to introduce scientific discoveries, technological innovations, and novel products into Earth’s economy. As states and private entities increasingly engage in research in outer space, intellectual property regulations need to adapt to this new panorama. Intellectual property regimes have been established to safeguard the rights of scientists, inventors and manufacturers while ensuring the quality, provenance, and originality of products. A notable mechanism in this regard is Geographical Indicators (GIs), which serve to indicate the provenance of goods from a specific geographical location. However, the implementation of GIs faces particular challenges in the context of space law. These challenges pertain to issues of jurisdiction, the territorial nature of IP, and notably the non-appropriation, common interest, and freedom of scientific investigation principles established by the Outer Space Treaty. This presentation explores the adoption of GIs for space investigation and manufacturing, assessing whether they will create a legal monopoly that could prevent other states from using, exploring, and conducting scientific investigation of outer space, leading to a de facto appropriation. It explores the relation between GIs, national jurisdiction over registered space objects, the balance between freedom of investigation and IP rights, and international cooperation agreements. The presentation seeks to identify a balance between the advantages offered by GIs for the development of space exploration and the obstacles that they could represent, aiming to provide a set of guidelines in order to adapt the existing GIs regime to the legal space framework.
Hisako Moriguchi, “We need a space patent system…do we really?”
Abstract: Since most of intellectual property rights are the exclusive rights granted by nations, their exclusive effect is limited to the jurisdiction of the nation that granted. In exercising these rights, it is impossible to escape the principle of territoriality. Meanwhile, in outer space, intellectual property rights are protected in some spaces by international agreements such as IGA and MOU, and intellectual property rights are also protected on some launched objects by Registration Convention under the provisions of domestic law. But in most spaces, The Outer Space Treaty declares there is no sovereignty there, which means the intellectual property rights of any nation are not protected there. Therefore, there are calls for explicit international rules, such as a uniform protection system of patent, or trademark in outer space. But do we really need a uniform system to protect intellectual property rights in outer space? Once a spacecraft is launched into space, how can you discover a technology that infringes your patent right and exercise your right on it?Since both the discovery of infringing goods and the exercise of your patent rights are acts that should be completed on the ground, wouldn’t it be sufficient if your patent rights were protected within necessary nations on the ground?This research will examine the necessity of a unified system in outer space using patent rights as an example, assuming the place where intellectual property rights are created, the purpose of protection, and the specific aspects of exercising rights.
- The China Stealing IP Myth; Stop calling patent and copyright “property”; stop calling copying “theft”; Copying, Patent Infringement, Copyright Infringement are not “Theft”, Stealing, Piracy, Plagiarism, Knocking Off, Ripping Off. [↩]
- The Mountain of IP Legislation. [↩]
- The Structural Unity of Real and Intellectual Property. [↩]
You must log in to post a comment. Log in now.