Science and Technology Law Commons^™

Lectures On Atomic Energy Industrial And Legal Problems, University Of Michigan Law School

Summer Institute on International and Comparative Law

Since 1948 the University of Michigan Law School has, as a part of its program of public service, sponsored a series of Summer Institutes, intended to provide a medium for high-level discussions of important problems in areas of public concern. The Institutes held in previous years are as follows:

• The First Summer Institute, July 15-23, 1948, "Current Problems in International Law"
• The Second Summer Institute, August 5-21, 1949, "Legal Problems of World Trade"
• The Third Summer Institute, June 26-July 1, 1950, "The Law and Labor-Management Relations"
• The Fourth Summer Institute, June 25-28, 1951, "Taxation of Business Enterprise"

The Fifth Summer …

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

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

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.