Search

This thesis investigates the patent system introduced in 1817 by the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, and its fate in its successor states of Belgium and the Netherlands from 1830. This patent system differed strongly from present-day patent systems because it gave patent authorities a high degree of discretion on whether and under what conditions to grant a patent. As such, this context can provide lessons for patent reform today. But besides the potential for historical analogues, this context is also important historically: while an industrialising Belgium reformed its patent system in 1854, the Netherlands, the late industrialiser, abolished theirs in 1869. To investigate these questions, the thesis methodologically steps away from a purely formal understanding of patent laws. It integrates the administrative implementation of formal rules, and so uncovers the creative force administrative discretion can be. It combines in-depth archival research with a newly constructed patent database. The new database integrates the methodological perspective by including the non-granted patents and the administrative process that led to patent grants or their refusal. This is a rare if not unique feature in quantitative historical patent research. With this methodology, I find that the highly discretionary patent system developed fairly consistent practices, treating applicants professionally and equitably, whether foreigners or domestic residents. In Belgium, this practice was continued after independence in 1830 and made more transparent and accessible, until the law was undermined by its own success. By contrast, in the Netherlands the patent system withered away in the face of a lack of interest and a hostile environment from politicians, judges and industrialists. I argue that there is a mutually reinforcing dynamic between the Industrial Revolution and the patent system, and that the Dutch abolition of its patent system should therefore be seen as an evolutionary rather than a revolutionary event.

Geographical indications (Gls) arc one of the most controversial categories of intellectual property rights. The complication of Gi protection not only results from the overlapped dimensions of law, economics, culture and social policy but also is caused by the under-constructed theoretical basis. Thus, the thesis firstly constructs a theoretical foundation of GI protection based on morality and utilitarian theory. The theoretical rationales of GI protection demonstrate and lead to the proposition that Gls are an independent type of intellectual property right as they are justified by their own rationales in addition to conventional justifications for trade mark protection. GI protection not only involves considering signs from the point of view of communicative logic but is also fundamentally influenced by the specificity of the underlying products with the sign as a proxy. Accordingly, doctrinal issues with regard to GI protection should be considered and addressed by reference to its own rules rather than by drawing upon rules applied to the trade mark or unfair competition regimes. After exploring the principal models of GI protection in national law and discussing the advantages and disadvantages of each approach in a theoretical context, the thesis focuses on choice of models in the EU and China by tracing the historical development of Gl protection in both parties. Under the current legal framework of GI protection in the EU and China, the thesis evaluates the rational coherence with regard to two doctrinal issues - qualification and level of protection - in an attempt to clarify the conceptual confusion that surrounds Gls, deal with exceptions to GI protection, and explore the extent to which they should be protected. Based on the theoretical rationales of GI protection, the thesis proposes that a sui generis system designed for GI protection within the intellectual property family, introducing proper state intervention and operating by their own rules is the optimal model of GI protection for China.

This doctoral thesis argues for the reform of the Irish law on adverse possession. It explains why the doctrine, in its current state, fails to confer adequate protection on the owner against the dangers of losing title to an adverse possessor and it illustrates how the law permits 'undeserving' adverse possessors to acquire title. The analysis of the law is conducted by relying on doctrinal and empirical research methodologies. Although a number of reform options are considered, this thesis makes the case for the introduction of a qualified veto system of adverse possession which would govern land that has been registered in the Land Registry and also unregistered land. This reform would permit the owner of land to veto an adverse possession application unless the applicant qualifies under one of the exceptions formulated to the proposed scheme which are designed to preserve the operation of the doctrine for certain 'deserving' adverse possessors. Adverse possessors who enter possession pursuant to an informal or a defective title, or adverse possessors of boundary land which they believe to be their own, would be entitled to be registered as owners, regardless of an objection by the owner. In formulating these exceptions, the thesis examines the modern role played by adverse possessions in resolving different types of land law disputes, its suitability as a remedy and, where appropriate, the challenges involved in introducing a qualification to the veto system. The introduction of a veto system of adverse possession would also permit abandoned land to be brought back onto the market. While the thesis is devoted primarily to an examination of the Irish law in this area, it also engages in a comparative analysis of discrete aspects of the law in a number of other common law jurisdictions, namely England and Wales, Canada, Australia and the United States.