Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Sui Generis Rules

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Growing Gap Between Emerging Technologies and Legal-Ethical Oversight

Part of the book series: The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology ((ELTE,volume 7))

Abstract

Technological change is often accompanied by legal problems – calls for regulation, legal uncertainty in the face of new situations, poor fit between existing legal frameworks and the new technology, and obsolescent law. In the face of these problems, there is often pressure for “special” or sui generis rules to deal with new situations brought about by the new technology. On the other side, “technology neutral” legislation is widely perceived as desirable. This chapter discussed the benefits and disadvantages of creating sui generis rules as a method for adapting the law to new technologies.

There is the story of a Vermont justice of the peace before whom a suit was brought by one farmer against another for breaking a churn. The justice took time to consider, and then said he had looked through the statutes and could find nothing about churns, and gave judgment for the defendant.

– Oliver Wendell Holmes (1897)

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The Delaware law remained applicable following passage of the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act of 2008 (see section 209 of that Act).

  2. 2.

    17 U.S.C. § 912(a). See also J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc. v Pioneer Hi-Bred Int’l, Inc. 534 U.S. 124 (2001) (in relation to sui generis protection for plants).

References

  • Abelson, H., K. Ledeen, and H. Lewis. 2008. Blown to bits: Your life, liberty and happiness after the digital explosion. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abramson, B. 2002. Promoting innovation in the software industry: A first principles approach to intellectual property reform. Boston University Journal of Science and Technology Law 8: 75–156.

    Google Scholar 

  • Annas, G., L. Glantz, and P. Roche. 1995. Drafting the Genetic Privacy Act: Science, policy and practical considerations. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 23: 360–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett Moses, L. 2005. Understanding legal responses to technological change: The example of in vitro fertilization. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology 6: 505–618.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett Moses, L. 2007a. Recurring dilemmas: The law’s race to keep up with technological change. University of Illinois Journal of Law, Technology and Policy 2007: 239–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett Moses, L. 2007b. Why have a theory of law and technological change. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science and Technology 8: 589–606.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett Moses, L. 2008. The applicability of property law in new contexts: From cells to cyberspace. Sydney Law Review 30(4): 639–662.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bently, L. 2004. Copyright and the Victorian Internet: Telegraphic property laws in colonial Australia. Loyola Los Angeles Law Review 38: 71–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brenner, S. 2007. Law in an era of “smart” technology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Breyer, D. et al. 2009. Genetic modification through oligonucleotide-mediated mutagenesis. A GMO regulatory challenge? Environmental Biosafety Research 8: 57–64. doi:10.1051/ebr/2009007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brownsword, R. 2008. Rights, regulation and the technological revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Burk, D.L. 1991. Biotechnology and patent law: Fitting innovation to the procrustean bed. Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal 17: 1–85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burk, D.L., and M.A. Lemley. 2003. Policy levers in patent law. Virginia Law Review 89: 1575–1696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Callaway, D. 2008. Note: Patent incentives in the semiconductor industry. Hastings Business Law Journal 4: 135–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carroll, M.W. 2006. One for all: The problem of uniformity cost in intellectual property law. American University Law Review, 55: 845–900.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collingridge, D. 1980. The social control of technology. London: Pinter.

    Google Scholar 

  • Easterbrook, F.H. 1996. Cyberspace and the law of the horse. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1996: 207–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edgerton, D. 2006. The shock of the old: Technology and global history since 1900. London: Profile.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, R.G., B.D. Bavister, and P.C. Steptoe. 1969. Early stages of fertilization in vitro of human oocytes matured in vitro. Nature 221: 632–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellinson, D. 1988. The patent system – Time to reflect. Law Institute Journal 62: 292–293.

    Google Scholar 

  • Escudero-Pascual, A., and I. Hosein. 2004. The hazards of technology-neutral policy: Questioning lawful access to traffic data. Communications of ACM 47 (3): 77–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitz Simons, J. 1990. Semiconductor chip protection and sui generis legislation. In Essays on Computer Law, ed. G. Hughes, 51. Melbourne: Longman Professional.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gostin, L.O., and J. Hodge Jr. 1999. Genetic privacy and the law: An end to genetic exceptionalism. Jurimetrics 40: 21–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griem, J.M. Jr. 1993. Note: Against a sui generis system of intellectual property for computer software. Hofstra Law Review 22: 145–176.

    Google Scholar 

  • Himma, K. 2003. The relationship between the uniqueness of computer ethics and its independence as a discipline in applied ethics. Ethics and Information Technology 5 (4): 225–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hohfeld, W.N. 1913–1914. Some fundamental legal conceptions as applied in judicial reasoning. Yale Law Journal 23: 16–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, O.W. 1897. The path of the law. Harvard Law Review 10: 457–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Janis, M.D., and Smith, S. 2007. The protection of rights in plant varieties: Technological change and the design of plant variety protection regimes. Chicago-Kent Law Review 82: 1557–1615.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D.G. 2001. Computer ethics. 3rd ed.. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplow, L. 1992. Rules versus standards: An economic analysis. Duke Law Journal 42: 557–629.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kastenmeier, R.W., and M.J. Remington. 1985. The Semiconductor Chip Protection Act of 1984: A swamp or firm ground? Minnesota Law Review 70: 417–470.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirby, M. 2008. New Frontier: Regulating Technology by Law and ‘Code’. In Regulating technologies: Legal futures, regulatory frames and technological fixes, eds. R. Brownsword, and K. Yeung. Portland: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohler, P. 2000. The death of ownership and the demise of property. Current Legal Problems 53: 237–282.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohler, P., and Palmer, N. 1998. Information as property. In Interests in goods (2nd ed.), eds. N. Palmer, and E. McKendrick. London: LLP Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koops, B.-J. 2006. Should ICT regulation be technology-neutral? In Starting points for ICT regulation: Deconstructing prevalent policy one-liners, eds. B.-J. Koops et al. (77). National Programme for Information Technology and Law, Information Technology and Law Series No. (9). The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kukkonen, C.A. III. 1997. The need to abolish registration for integrated circuit topographies under TRIPS. IDEA: The Journal of Law and Technology 38: 105–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lessig, L. 1995. The path of Cyberlaw. Yale Law Journal 104: 1743–1755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lessig, L. 1999. The law of the horse: What Cyberlaw might teach. Harvard Law Review 113: 501–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, T.G. 1995. Comment: Semiconductor chip process protection. Houston Law Review 32: 555–613.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maner, W. 1996. Unique ethical problems in information technology. Science and Engineering Ethics (Special Issue: Global Information Ethics, T. Bynum and S. Rogerson eds.) 2 (2): 137–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, J., and K. Christensen. 1998. No jail: Fertility doctor gets home detention, fine. Orange County Register, 12 May 1998, B2.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKeough, J. 1986. Semi conductor chip protection: Copyright or Sui Generis? University of New South Wales Law Journal 9: 101–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mellor, J. 1988. Patents and genetic engineering – Is it a new problem? European Intellectual Property Review 10: 159–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michaelson, P.L. 1986. The 1984 Semiconductor Chip Protection Act – A comprehensive view. Communications and the Law 8 (5): 23–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, T. 1997. Genetic exceptionalism and “Future Diaries”: Is genetic information different from other medical information? In Genetic secrets: Protecting privacy and confidentiality in the genetic era, ed. M. Rothstein, 60–73. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelkin, D. 1984. Science, technology, and political conflict: Analyzing the issues. Controversy: In The politics of technical decisions, ed. Dorothy Nelkin, 2nd ed. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oxford English Dictionary (definition of sui generis).

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, J.C. 1992. Note: Sui generis intellectual property protection for computer software. George Washington Law Review 60: 997–1041.

    Google Scholar 

  • Purvis, I. 1987. Patents and genetic engineering – Does a new problem need a new solution? European Intellectual Property Review 9: 347–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Radomsky, L. 2000. Sixteen years after the passage of the U.S. Semiconductor Chip Protection Act: Is international protection working? Berkeley Technology Law Journal 15: 1049–1094.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raskind, L. 1986. The uncertain case for special legislation protecting computer software. University of Pittsburgh Law Review 47: 1131–1184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rauch, J.G. 1993. The realities of our times: The Semiconductor Chip Protection Act of 1984 and the evolution of the semiconductor industry. Fordham Entertainment, Media and Intellectual Property Law Forum 3: 403–439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed, C. 2007. Taking sides on technology neutrality. Script-ed 4 (3): 263–284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reichman, J.H. 1994. Legal hybrids between the patent and copyright paradigms. Columbia Law Review 94: 2432–2558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reichman, J.H. 2000. Green tulips and legal Kudzu: Repackaging rights in subpatentable innovation. Vanderbilt Law Review 53: 1743–1798.

    Google Scholar 

  • Risberg, R.L. Jr. 1990 Comment: Five years without infringement litigation under the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act: Unmasking the spectre of chip piracy in an era of diverse and incompatible process technologies. Wisconsin Law Review 24: 241–277.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuels, L.B., and J.M. Samuels. 1986. Semiconductor Chip Protection Act of 1984: An analytical commentary. American Business Law Journal 23(4): 601–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, P. 1985. Creating a new kind of intellectual property: Applying the lessons of the chip law to computer programs. Minnesota Law Review 70: 471–531.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuelson, P. et al. 1994. Manifesto concerning the legal protection of computer programs. Columbia Law Review 94: 2308–2431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schlag, P. 1985. Rules and standards. University of California Los Angeles Law Review 33: 379–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shi, Q. 2005. Patent system meets new sciences: Is the law responsive to changing technologies and industries? New York University Annual Survey of American Law 61: 317–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sommer, J.H. 2000. Against Cyberlaw. Berkeley Technology Law Journal 15: 1145–1232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stern, R.H. 1986. The future of software protection: The bundle of rights suited to new technology. University of Pittsburgh Law Review 47: 1229–1267.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svantesson, D.J.B. 2007. Private International Law and the Internet. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Haar, I. 2007. Technology neutrality; What does it entail. TILEC Discussion Paper, DP2007-009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wahlgren, P. 2004. IT and legislative development. IT Law, Scandinavian Studies in Law 47: 601–618.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber, T., and J. Marquis. 1995. In quest for miracles, did fertility clinic go too far? LA Times, 4 June 1995, A1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J.J. 2005. Protecting the frontiers of biotechnology beyond the genome: The limits of patent law in the face of the proteomics revolution. Vanderbilt Law Review 58: 955–994.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, J.Q. 1980. The politics of regulation. In The politics of regulation, ed. J.Q. Wilson, 357–394. New York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

Legislation

Cases

  • Dahl v. Angle, 222 Ore. App. 572.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis v. Davis, 842 S.W.2d 588 (Tenn., 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  • Del Zio v. The Presbyterian Hospital in New York, No. 74 Civ. 3588, 1978 US Dist LEXIS 14450 (SDNY, 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  • Frisina v. Women and Infants Hospital, No CIV A 95-4037, No CIV A 95-4468, No CIV A 95-5827, 2002 WL 1288784 (Sup. Ct. R.I., 30 May 2002).

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeter v. Mayo Clinic Arizona, 121 P.3d 1256 (Ct. App. Ariz., 2005).

    Google Scholar 

  • J.E.M. Ag Supply, Inc. v Pioneer Hi-Bred Int’l, Inc. 534 U.S. 124 (2001).

    Google Scholar 

  • York v. Jones, 717 F. Supp. 421 (E.D. Va., 1989).

    Google Scholar 

Other

  • Australian Law Reform Commission. 2003. Report 96, Essentially Yours: Protection of Human Genetic Information in Australia.

    Google Scholar 

  • H.R. Rep. No 781, 98th Cong., 2d Sess., reprinted in 1984 US Code Cong & AD News 5750.

    Google Scholar 

  • Intellectual Property and Competition Review Committee. 2000. Review of Intellectual Property Legislation under the Competition Principles Agreement available at http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/pdfs/ipcr/finalreport.pdf. (Sept 2000).

Download references

Acknowledgment

I am grateful to all participants at the Workshop on Pacing Law and Ethics with Science and Technology for their probing questions and comments. Many of the ideas presented here are derived from the sparks of others, while all errors remain my own.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Law, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Lyria Bennett Moses

Authors
  1. Lyria Bennett Moses
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lyria Bennett Moses .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. College of Law, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, USA

    Gary E. Marchant

  2. , Department of Civil and Environmental En, Ira A. Fulton School of Engineering, PO Box 875306, Tempe, 85287, USA

    Braden R. Allenby

  3. , School of Letters and Sciences, Arizona State University, Santa Catalina Hall 250 D, Mesa, 85212, USA

    Joseph R. Herkert

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Moses, L.B. (2011). Sui Generis Rules. In: Marchant, G., Allenby, B., Herkert, J. (eds) The Growing Gap Between Emerging Technologies and Legal-Ethical Oversight. The International Library of Ethics, Law and Technology, vol 7. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1356-7_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation