Law of mental ownership is one of the new branchs of law. Although it is very fresh, the major has so developed in both quantity and quality that perhaps no other law subject resembles it. The large mass of national regulations and court precedents, as well as a large number of local and international documents shows its importance. Entering of these subjects into law literatures has made main law systems shows that there are three major views: absolute fulfillment of punitive condition, fulfillment of the condition with the has tried to reconciliate between religious codes and mental rights, and regard it acceptable. Due to the importance of the subject for educational fields, Iranian legislator’s tendency to reforming of current laws or making new laws, and the function of these new set of law in development of the country, a deep new jurisprudential study of the subject is necessary. Following this aim, this article jurisprudentaily challenges one of the most fundamental subject of mental ownership. Introducing the subject, firstly, the position taken by law and ethic philosophers is stated and then the view of twelve-imam shite jurists is stated and criticized. Different views, for and against the legitimacy of mental rights and their presumptions are studied in this article.
)