Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Science and Technology Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Intellectual Property Law

Institution
Keyword
Publication Year
Publication
Publication Type
File Type

Articles 2851 - 2854 of 2854

Full-Text Articles in Science and Technology Law

Patent Rights For Scientific Discoveries, By C. J. Hamsom, Alvin C. Johnson May 1933

Patent Rights For Scientific Discoveries, By C. J. Hamsom, Alvin C. Johnson

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.


Book Reviews, Edward S. Rogers, John Barker Waite Feb 1921

Book Reviews, Edward S. Rogers, John Barker Waite

Michigan Law Review

Patent Law. by John Barker Waite, Professor of Law in the University of Michigan Law School. Princeton University Press, x92o.


The Patentability Of A Principle Of Nature, John B. Waite Jan 1917

The Patentability Of A Principle Of Nature, John B. Waite

Articles

The extent to which courts will go in conceding patentability to a natural law, or principle of nature, is evidenced in the case of Minerals Separation Co. v. Hyde, 37 Sup. Ct. -, decided by the Supreme Court, December 11, 1916. It has always been more or less an axiom of patent law that the discovery of a principle of nature does not entitle the discoverer to a patent for it. The case usually thought of first as authority therefor, is that of Morton v. New York Eye Infirmary, 5 Blatch. 116, 2 Fisher 320. The patentees in that case …


Restrictions On The Use Of Patented Articles, Edward S. Rogers Jun 1912

Restrictions On The Use Of Patented Articles, Edward S. Rogers

Michigan Law Review

The case of Henry v. Dick recently decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, has occasioned considerable unfavorable comment in the public press. It seems to be the opinion of many that the decision lays down a new principle of law, particularly adaptable to the working of a monopoly, and that the public is, under the supposed new principle, exposed to a practically unlimited exploitation by any patentee. It is believed that neither of these contentions is correct.