Teaching IP to undergraduates: a postgraduate asks ...

How best can the teaching of intellectual property law to undergraduates be justified? Carlos Conde asks just this question. He writes:

"I am a PhD student in Law at the University of Sheffield. My funding comes from a university in Colombia which is now conducting a review of its LLB programme. The person who is in charge of the department of IP in the university is asking me to give some good reasons for including IP in the LLB programme for undergraduates. Could I ask for some good reasons from your readers -- and from you?"

This member of the IPKat team has been through this process himself, arguing for the introduction of IP in the syllabus at Trinity College, Dublin (1979-80) and Durham (1983-4).  In the case of Dublin, the case in favour of IP was based on a modernisation of the old Personal Property syllabus (the textbook was Crossley Vaines on Personal Property, which I think was last updated in 1973). I was able to argue that patents, copyrights and trade marks were more likely to be relevant to legal practice in the late 20th century than trespass to chattels, detinue, replevin, various types of liens and the Pawnbrokers Act.  In Durham there was a sudden demand for half-courses, and when IP was offered there was no need to state any case in favour of it at all.

But now, in the context of 21st century Colombia, what arguments might best be deployed both for and indeed against the teaching of IP to undergraduates?  Readers' suggestions are keenly welcomed.

The Undergraduate here and here
The Graduate here