Intellectual property rights are recognized in the Iranian jurisprudence both in form of International Conventions to which Iran has acceded, as well as laws adopted by the national Parliament. The Law for Protecting the Rights of Authors, Composers and Artists (1969) particularly considers architectural designs and drawings as an intellectual property (article2.7). Thus, the originator (architect, designer or engineer) is entitled to a set of intangible and tangible rights with regard to a certain property. There are certain criteria for a design to qualify as intellectual property, however. The intangible rights of the originator are not limited to a physical or temporal sphere and are not transferrable, while there is a limited protection period and territory for the tangible rights. Criminal and civil liabilities are envisaged in this law in case intellectual property rights are violated.

Background: Guarantee of property rights increases economic freedom and prevent moral hazards in the community. In order to achieve development, it is seriously felt paying attention to restoration and preparation of necessary substrates including justice system and economic which leads from lack of economic ethics. Fix the violation of property rights will not be possible to link the growing in line with practical motives of economic development unless increasing bond economic ethic. This study tries to answer the question, what reasons would have been successful in securing property rights and what variables affect the quality of the provision is effective for property rights in the community.Conclusion: When property rights are guaranteed to create a framework in which ensure the individual property to their assets and deprived of prevented by others and provides in society a structure to maintain the people’s confidence in the future to ensure ownership of their assets by people’s expectations about their property rights and assets. In these circumstances, any variable that is theoretically cause the individual property rights should be violated or that the expectation of people affected by the decline in confidence reduce to the economic activity of desire to contract may interpreted considered to violate property rights and Cause moral hazard and risk taking on the increase.

there are many indices for measuring property rights (PR) security. They may be classified into two groups: subjective proxies and objective proxies. Most of the proxies are subjective. One contribution of this paper is introducing a new approach for measuring government expenditures devoted to PR protection. Calculating physical capital within the introduced new approach is another contribution of this paper. Finally, the proposed approach is applied for measuring PR and physical capital in Iran.

Because of its very dynamic nature and its close ties with global commerce, intellectual property law is one of the liveliest areas of law. The significant of this branch of law is manifested in the debate which is going on between developed and developing countries in terms of the scope of the protection of intellectual property rights. On the one hand, the developed country argue the stronger protection of intellectual property rights increases and facilitates the transfer of technology to the developing countries but, on the other hand, developing countries consider intellectual property rights as a means for development not an end by itself and as such are in favor some moderation in the scope and length of intellectual property rights. Moreover, in addition to the concept of development, the emergence and expansion of internet has also caused new developments in the field of intellectual property rights. These developments have posed new challenges which shall be discussed in this paper.

There are two fundamental subjects in the philosophy of intellectual property rights: conceptualization and justification of intellectual property rights. There is a difference between philosophy of IP rights and 'philosophy of IP Law. While the first one is a first- order knowledge the second one is a second-order one. It means that the philosophy of intellectual property rights is on some philosophical argumentations about a conventional fact called IP "' rights" But the argumentations of philosophy of IP law - if any –are about an existent discipline called JP Law.. Because there is no remarkable difference between the two disciplines (i.e. the law and IP Law), their both methodologies are still the same and so we don't have a philosophy of IP Law independent from philosophy of Law. But there is a philosophical tendency about the nature of IP rights and the ethical justification on the necessity of the acceptance of IP rights in a legal system.There are three difficulties in Iranian legal history on the recognition of the concept of IP rights.1. The conventional abstract property differs from the concrete property. The statement « This house is for A. differs from the statement «This sweetness is for surgeon or «the Universe is for God. These two concepts are occasionally mixed in the traditional jurisprudence and so the IP rights appeared more fictitious and metaphorical.2. Traditional law reduces the property to the notion of physical appropriation and because one can not appropriate the IP rights, it is said that this kind of ownership is impossible.3. According to the Art. 338 of Iranian civil code, the thing which is transferred by sale should be an objective and physical one. So the transferring of IP property confronts with a legal problem.Three theories on the justification of IP rights are:1. IP rights as natural rights: in Lockean theorem property is a thing plus a human work. Ideas are produced by intellectual works and so became the property of the producer.2. IP rights as personality: in Hegel's view, property is the instrument for subjective freedom of human beings and who expresses his expectations in a literal work, renders its owner.3. IP rights as privilege: Peter Drahos following Marx recognizes the IP as a privilege not a right; a privilege which can be withheld by the legislatures.

There is a doubt about pledge of intellectual property rights in considering of articles 774 and 772 of Iranian Civil Code. The principal goal of this paper is the reforming study of the roots of these articles. In the first chapter, we argue that is it feasible to pledge intangible things? And in the second one, we suggest some solutions for their delivery.

The emergence of the intellectual property rights in the social life has posed various questions. The most important question concerns the appropriate legal regime for protection of intellectual property rights. The prevailing view for protection of intellectual property rights has been the idea of grating the exclusive privileges to the owner of such properties. Nevertheless, some authors have proposed alternative mechanisms and have come up with the idea of alternative protection of intellectual property rights. Given that in the field of copyright there has been no remedy for unauthorized copying of works of arts, a solution have been sought to tackle this problem. However, some have radical views that the regime of exclusive rights for the owner of intellectual property rights has to be abandoned altogether and should be replaced by an alternative regime in a specific sense, i.e. the regime of reward. The current paper is seeking to examine these alternative views.