Hostname: page-component-788cddb947-t9bwh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-19T01:34:56.573Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Efforts for International Protection of Scientific Property

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2017

Stephen B. Ladas
Stephen B. Ladas*
Affiliation:
Harvard University and Radcliffe College Bureau of International Research
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Until the World War the rights of intellectual property were generallydivided into two classes: industrial and artistic or literary property, corresponding to two separate kinds of creations: those aiming at industrial results and those possessing an aesthetic or literary character. This classification, accepted as a matter of course, produced, as will be seen, some difficulties and led to unsatisfactory results in certain cases. Soon after the end of the war a new class of intellectual property began to be discussed: the scientific property. Its claim to existence and protection was not primarily due to theoretical speculation and developments of doctrine, but to practical causes.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , July 1929 , pp. 552 - 569
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1929

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 French law of May 20, 1920, and decree of Dec. 17, 1920 (Bulletin des Lois, 1920, I, p.2055, and II, p. 5569).Belgian law of June 25,1921 and decree of Sept. 23,1921 (Pasinomie, 1921, pp. 343, 696).

2 See a study on the French law and its origins in an article by Albert Vaunois in Le Droitd Autmr, 1920, p. 101.

3 See on the movement in France and the activities of Klotz;, M. Lucien & Fernand-Jacq,, “ Le Droit de Suite des Inventeurs sur leur Dicouvertes”, 332 (1922)in Journal des Economistes, and ProprUU Industrielle, 1922, p. 82, and 1923, p. 113Google Scholar.

4 No. 4233, Chambre des Deputis, session de 1922.

5 No. 4233, Chambre des Deputis, session de 1922, p. 3.

6 Fernand-Jacq,, & “ La Propriitt Scientifique”, 82 (1922)in Le Journal des Economistes of March 15, 1923; Propriety Industrielle, 1922, p. 82, and 1923, pp. 113, 115.Google Scholar.

7 Fernand-Jacq,, & “ La Proprim Scientifique,”, 51 (1925) in Revue Julien Hayem of Dec. 31, 1923;Rapport sur le Projit de loi sur les Brevets dInvention by Marcel Plaisant, No. 1690, Chambre des Diputts, session Google Scholar.

8 La Propriété Scientifique, Le ProjU de la C. T. I., Paris, 1923.

9 Fernand-Jacq,, & “ La PropriScientifique”, 463 (1923) in Revue GMrale de VilectrieiU, 1923, and in Le Journal des Economistes of March 15, 1923; also Marcel Plaisant, Rapport No. 1690, Chambre des Di-putis, session de 1925, p. 54.Google Scholar.

10 See Propriété Industrielle, 1923, pp. 16, 23-24.

11 Doc. C, 711, M, 423, 1922, XII, p. 34.

12 The report was published separately as Doc. A, 38, 1923, XII.

13 Resolutions and Recommendations adopted by the Assembly during its Fourth Session,Off. Journal, Special Suppl. No. 11, October, 1923, p. 25.

14 Report on Scientific Property submitted by Senator Ruffini (A, 38,1923, XII). Annex p. 28.

15 See ProprUU IndustrieUe, 1923, p.31

16 Propriété Industrielle, 1923, p. 169.

17 PropriUt IndustrieUe, 1923, pp. 169, 170.

18 See Report of Scientific Property submitted by Senator F. Ruffini, Committee on Intellectual Cooperation, Doc. A, 38, 1923, XII, p. 2.

19 Ibid., p. 10.

20 The same may be said of Osterrieth's study Wissenschaftliches Eigenium, Tubingen,1925. However, in an article in 1923 (“ Das Geistliche Schaffen in Wissenschafl, Technikund Kunst” in 28 Gewerblicher RecMsschutz und Urheberreeht, No. 3, p. 49) this writer admitted that there is an element of personal creation in scientific research.

21 See a very interesting exposition in this respect in Mile. Suzanne Munier's thesis, LesDroits des Auteurs de Dicovvertes ou dInventions Scientifiques, Paris, 1925, Chapter I, especially,pp. 48 ff. Mr. Gariel's criticism (PropriitS Industrielle, 1925, p. 210) that Mile.Munier's book proceeds by affirmation would seem to be not well taken.

22 Das Recht des Erfinders, Berlin, 1907, pp. 223 ff.

23 See Propritti Industrielle, 1922, p. 54, and 1923, p. 31.

24 See Propriiti Industrielle, 1925, pp. 209, 214.

25 Marcel Vigneron, Essai sur la Protection de la PropriiU Scientifique, Paris, 1925.

26 Marcel Vignerons resort to the ideas of “ occupation” and “specification” as the theoreticalbasis of scientists rights (Essai sur la Protection de la PropriUi Scientifique, Paris 1925, pp. 39 jf.) would not seem to be very helpful.

27 See Commission on Intellectual Cooperation, Minutes of the Third Session, p. 55.

28 See Fernand-Jacq,, & “ La ProprUti Scientifique”, 463 (1923) in the Journal des Economistes of March 15, 1923.Google Scholar.

29 Professor Cesare Vivante (La Propriiti Scientifique devant la Socittt des Nations, Paris,1924) makes a strong attack on Senator Ruffini's plan. With the exception of his allegation that there is no claim really on the part of scientists for the protection of their discoveries,his other points refer to the application and exercise of scientists' rights. He comes again and again to the idea of complications and uncertainties into which industry will be thrown.

30 Committee on Intellectual Cooperation, Minutes of the Fourth Session, p. 35 and Annex p. 71, and Report of the Committee, p. 19 (A, 31, 1924, XII). Also, Supplementary Report submitted by Senator Ruffini together with a memorandum on the Replies of Governments, Committee on Intellectual Cooperation, Doc. A, 29, 1924, XII.

31 Committee on Intellectual Cooperation, Minutes of the Sixth Session, p. 21 and Annex p. 42, and Report of the Committee, p. 6 (A, 24, 1925, XII).

32 Committee on Intellectual Cooperation, Minutes of the Ninth Session, p. 43, and Annex p. 87; also Report of the Committee, pp. 2-3 and 13. (A, 35,1927, XII.) See also Committee on Intellectual Cooperation, Minutes of the Ninth Session, p. 43 and Annex p. 89. For discussions and resolutions on scientific property by various national and international organizations, see ProprteU IndustrieUe, 1924, pp. 16, 162, 190; 1925, p. 108; 1927,pp. 17,126,167. A bill for the protection of scientific property was introduced in the Italian Parliament in 1925 (Proprtett Industrielle, 1926, p. 83) and a new bill is being prepared in Prance by a committee appointed by the Minister of Education (ProprUti Industrielle,1928, pp. 100, 157).

33 See Report on Scientific Property submitted on behalf of the Committee of Experts by Mr. Marcel Plaisant, Internationa] Committee on Intellectual Cooperation, Doc. A, 21, 1928, XII. A. I. Also Proces-Verbal Sous-Comite dExperts pour la Propriete Scientifique C. I. C. I. 196 (communicated to the present writer by the courtesy of Mr. Weiss,Director of the Legal Section of the Institute).

34 See Report on Scientific Property submitted on behalf of the Committee of Experts by Mr. Marcel Plaisant, International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation, Doc. A, 21, 1928, XII. A. I. Also ProcSs-Verbal Sous-Comitc dExperts pour la PropriScientifique C. I. C. I. 196 (communicated to the present writer by the courtesy of Mr. Weiss,Director of the Legal Section of the Institute), p. 2.

35 Many of the changes from Mr. RufEnis text adopted by the Committee of Experts had been proposed by Mr. Lyon-Caen, Permanent Secretary of the French AcarUrrde desSciences Morales et Politiques on behalf of that academy and of the Acadmie des Sciences when he was heard by the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property at its meeting of Nov.29, 1923. (See Committee on Intellectual Cooperation, Minutes of the Third Session, pp.54-55.)

36 See introductory statement of Mr. Ostertag, Director of the International Bureau, at the Rome Congress of the International Association for the Protection of Industrial Property, 1928, in Propriite IndustrieUe, 1928, pp. 178, 181.

37 See his article on scientific property in PropriM IndustrieUe, 1928, p. 225.

38 Doc. A, 29, 1924, X II, and C, 217, M, 74, 1925, XII.

39 See supra, note (32).

40 International Chamber of Commerce, Synopsis of Replies No. 2366, 20, 10, 26.

41 See Propriite Industrielle, 1927, p. 161, and 1928, p. 204.

42 See on this Mr. Ostertag's statement in ProprUU Industrielle, 1928, p. 181.

43 See Doc. E, 37, 1928.

44 See Hudson, “International Protection of Property in News,” this Journal, 1928,p. 385, 389.