Skip to main content
Log in

Owning biotechnological invention: Is there a difference between animate and inanimate property?

  • Published:
Liverpool Law Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

References

  1. D. Brian & B. Momberg,Strategy in the Use of Intellectual Property, Genudive Press, Hong Kong, 1986, 115.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ibid., at 292.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ibid., at 481, Art 36, Treaty of Rome.

    Google Scholar 

  4. D. Campbell,Legal Aspects of Doing Business in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, Kluwar Law, London, 1986, 277, UN Doc # A/6/396/1966, setting out the legal duties of ITOs.

  5. M. Bolz,Inventions and Innovations Under Soviet Law, Lexington Books, 1975, 26.

  6. J.S. Berliner,Soviet Industry From Stalin to Gorbechev: Essays on Management, Elgar Publishers, 1988.

  7. See European Convention, Paris, 1976, revised and amended, 1979. Also see Soviet Inventions Illustrated, Foreign Patents Section in British Patent Library, London.

  8. New Law Published 27 Dec. 1988, covering innovations in the USSR-v/o Sojez Patent, German Annex Blatt.

  9. S. Bent and R. Schwarb,Intellectual Property Rights in Biotechnology Worldwide, Stockton Press, 1985, NYC.: “no treaty law on trade secrets...”

  10. Ibid., at 555, even in the United States, trade secrecy is a state rather than a federal question.

  11. See proposed Uniform Trade Secrets Act, published 1979; See also American Restatement of Torts, section 757–759;Kenanee Oil v.Bicron Corp; 416 US 470, (1974).

  12. European Commission Trade Mark Practitioners Association, Distinctiveness Requirements for Trademarks in EEC Countries, 1984.

  13. German Trademark Law, Section 5, para. 4; 72 Warenzeichen gesetz BGB 2 (III 423–9).

  14. See Luxmore Trademark (1964) R.P.C. 12.

  15. European Comm.,supra n.12 at 45.

  16. B. Nicholas,An Introduction to Roman Law, Clarendon Press, 1962.

  17. K. McNeil,Common Law Original Title, Oxford University Press, 1989, 30.

  18. E John,Land Tenure in Early England, Leicester University Press, 1960, 27–28.

  19. Ibid., at 26.

  20. Law of Property Act 1925, seeCrosley v.Wordsworth, 1805, 6 East 602.

  21. SeeElwes v.Brigg Gas Co. [1886] 33 Ch.D.562.

  22. Nicholas,supra n.16 at 132.

  23. SeeArkansas Valley Land & Cattle Co. v.Mann 130 US 69 (1888).

  24. SeeBlade v.Higgs [1865] 11. H.L.C. 621.

  25. See the Criminal Damage Act 1971.

  26. See Ground Game Act 1880.

  27. SeeEckryod v.Courthund [1898] 2 Ch. 358.

  28. Nicholas,supra n.16 at 138.

  29. Ibid., 138.

  30. SeeCrosley v.Wandsworth, 1805; 6 East 602 (grass) and Teal v. Auty, 1820, 2 Brod. of B. 99 (trees).

  31. Ibid., at 69.

  32. Ibid., at 71.

  33. L. Archer, ed.,Slavery and Other Forms of Unfree Labour, Routledge, 1988, 9.

  34. Nicholas,supra n.16 at 70.

  35. Al-Alzmeh, Aziz-A,Islamic Law, Social and Historical Context, Routledge, 1988, 55.

  36. Nicholas,supra n.16 at 64.

  37. Ibid., at 65.

  38. Ibid., at 68.

  39. Slavery, the Many Faces of a Southern Institution, British Association of American Studies, 1979, see also, E. Genovese,The Political Economy of Slavery, Vintage Books, 1967.

  40. Ibid., at 9.

  41. Ibid, at 78: slavery expect debt bondage being a condition of foreigners.

  42. Nicholas,supra n.16 at 72.

  43. Ibid, at 128.

  44. British Association,supra, n.39.

  45. Aziz, Al-Azmeh, supra n.35 at 36.

  46. Ibid., at 40.

  47. Ibid., at 41.

  48. Nicholas,supra n.16 at 76.

  49. Ibid., at 80.

  50. Ibid., at 116.

  51. Ibid., at 79.

  52. Nicholas,supra n.16 at 140.

  53. Nicholas,supra n.16 at 140.

  54. Ibid, at 70.

  55. Genovese,supra n.39.

  56. Evidenced by 35 USC 101.

  57. 447 US 305 (1980).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Miller, G. Owning biotechnological invention: Is there a difference between animate and inanimate property?. Liverpool Law Rev 15, 143–162 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01079917

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01079917

Keywords

Navigation