Judicial analysis of the contractual role of bills of lading as it stands in Greek, United States and English law

[From the introduction]: The aim of this thesis is the comparative examination of the contractual role of the bill of lading in Greek, United States and English law. First of all, the principles of law which have created the bill of lading either as the contract or as evidence will be investigated. Moreover, the axis of the development of the thesis will be the analysis of how and why the issued and accepted bill of lading becomes the contract of carriage. The recent efforts to pass from a paper bill of lading to an electronic one makes more important the establishment of a uniform contractual characteristic and function of the bill of lading. The creation and transfer of a bill of lading through the parties' computer brings forward the need to have a standard format of a bill of lading contract where the detailed terms of carriage will be stated and more important to have a uniform and harmonised function.However, there is an uncertainty and dispute about its contractual nature. A legal term has to be used to express the proper meaning of its language and, therefore, every legal term used internationally must have the same substance regardless of the type of the legal system. Hence, the term "bill of lading contract", taking into account the frequent circulation of the bill of lading in the three countries and its general circulation in international trade, should mean that the bill of lading is a contract in the three systems or that it is not to be used as such and that it is not contract in one and merely memorandum or receipt in the other.The bill of lading is a commercial document. It is issued in one jurisdiction and the delivery of the goods, under its terms, is completed in another, while any resulting dispute is litigated in a third jurisdiction. Hence, it cannot be treated as any other ordinary document which is only issued for circulation within the territory of a single legal system. Stability which arises out of a uniform legal functioning of a bill of lading is the primary concern of merchants. At the beginning there was a bailment receipt for goods. Later, this has been developed into a receipt containing the contract of carriage and acquired in time the third characteristic, that of a negotiable document of title. Consequently, the bill of lading has completed its metamorphosis, concerning its functions, through its mercantile usage. If the bill of lading being a contract is of no importance, then why has the historical mercantile usage internationally transformed the bill of lading from being merely a receipt into a receipt and contract, regardless of civil law or common law system? The protection of the shipper was the main reason of the incorporation of the terms of the contract in the bill of lading. Can the uncertainty regarding the terms of the contract under the ordinary principles of the different national laws of contract be applicable in the case of the bills of lading and the carriage of goods by sea? Has the use of the bill of lading changed in the three legal systems since its introduction in order to be attributed to a different contractual function? It is supposed that the contract is consummated when the goods are delivered by the shipper to the carrier and the bill of lading is issued. Has this view been accepted in the three legal systems? Taking into consideration the legal history of the bill of lading, the establishment of a single contractual role is fundamental, not only for its commercial use, but also for its definition as a legal document

Denying Patentability of Scientific Theories

337-346In general, intellectual property systems do not protect ideas but only their practical applications. To grant protection, patent law imposes stringent checks like novelty, non-obviousness, and utility, while copyright law involves a lower threshold of originality. Patentability determinations have undergone considerable disarray over the last few decades. The question to be answered is whether pure science has become patentable as against scientific development even as legal reforms have tightened the standards for patentability narrowing it to reduce the scope of patent-eligible subject matter and to make patents harder to acquire (thus easier to invalidate) based on obviousness. Can simple advances in science and its methods be regarded as patentable or should there be significant progress for satisfying patentability criteria is a question that needs to be answered. </span

Denying patentability of scientific theories

Denying patentability of scientific theorie

Documentation in the 2007 Draft convention on the carriage of goods wholly or partly by sea

International audienc

Interrelation of Intellectual Property Rights and Competitiveness: FDI inwards and FDI outwards

338-350The spreading recognition of the importance of competition has been supplemented by a persistent process of globalization. In a knowledge-driven economy, the successful protection of IPR is emerging as a crucial ingredient for commercial success. The two bodies of laws are complementary because both pursue a welfare objective. IP laws do so by creating and defending the right of innovators to exclude others from using their ideas. Antitrust laws protect dynamic competition in the marketplace, while intellectual property laws protect the means to receive earnings on the investments needed to innovate. <span style="mso-fareast-font-family:Tahoma; mso-ansi-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US">The economic analysis utilizing the author’s zekipr1 index shows a complementarity of IPRs and competitiveness regarding FDI inwards and FDI outwards<span style="mso-fareast-font-family: Tahoma;mso-ansi-language:EN-US" lang="EN-US">. </span

Discrepancies in Biotechnology/Chemical Patenting

287-299The patent system is meant to protect technology—actual machines, devices, and new chemical compositions—rather than pure concepts. Without patents, enterprises that do not make the research and development investment needed to invent new medicines could directly copy the drug and challenge the innovator’s price, making it unfeasible for the innovator to generate funds to invest in discovering new medicines. Hence, the whole patenting process should not be prohibitive for companies but also should not accept loose principles allowing discrepancy to standards against consumers’ protection in order to allow companies to have undue profits. Biotechnology and chemistry inventions should have the same high written description standard injecting some reasonableness into the written description requirement in these regards. The main aim of the analysis is to investigate the existence of discrepancies in the standards between chemical and biotechnology patenting. The discrepancies between chemical and biotechnology patenting must be diminished in order to avoid double standards and so establishing predictability adding to the inventive prospects of firms