[HOME] [BOOKS] [ORDERING] [JOURNALS] [ABSTRACTS] [LINKS] [SPECIAL OFFERS]

G. Miller, "Owning Biotechnological Invention: Is There a Difference between Animate and Inanimate Property?", The Liverpool Law Review xv/2 (1993), 143-162: In this paper we examine some of the bases for owning animate and inanimate property with an eye to discovering where and how things, both old and new, are presently and have historically been owned. Because of the recent biotechnical breakthrough in developing and patenting animals and the probable and eventual development of genetically designed humans, we looked for dimensions of property that have served history. We look at some of the claims and flaws of the patent system, the law of trade secrets, and of trade marks. Original title to English real property and the relationship of serfs as indentured servants is contrasted to Roman and American slavery and the development of full political rights for animals as well as human property is examined. We look especially at wild animal ownership and note specifically that new animal species are forbidden to be introduced by English law. We look at the Roman law of juridical persons, their status, descent and the status and property of slaves including their offspring. We look at land, animal and slave usufructuary and finally at mancipation of sons and slaves in Roman law. We conclude with a look at some of the developmental problems associated with technology transfer to lesser developed countries and their attempt to put this debate on terms which will be beneficial to their economic progress.

[HOME] [BOOKS] [ORDERING] [JOURNALS] [ABSTRACTS] [LINKS] [SPECIAL OFFERS]