Alford, W, To steal a book is an elegant offence: intellectual property law in Chinese civilisation, Stanford University Press, 1995.Google Scholar

Allison, J and Lemley, M, ‘Empirical evidence on the validity of litigated patents’ (1998) AIPLA Quarterly Journal 26, 185.Google Scholar

Aoki, K, ‘Authors, inventors and trademark owners: Private intellectual property and the public domain’ (1993–4) 18:1Columbia-VLA Journal of Law and the Arts 1; and Part II in 18:3–4.

Arrow, K, ‘Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Innovation’, in Nelson, R (ed), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity, Princeton University Press, 1962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Arup, C, Innovation, policy and law, Cambridge University Press, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Australian Bureau of Statistics (Australian Bureau of Statistics), 1370.0, Measures of Australia's Progress, 2004.

Australian Law Reform Commission (Australian Law Reform Commission), Report No 74, Designs, 1995.

Bain, J, Barriers to New Competition, Harvard UP, 1956, Chapter IV.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bankman, J and Gilson, RJ, ‘Why start-ups?’ (1999) Stanford LR, 51, 189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bar-Gill O and G Parchomovsky, ‘Intellectual Property Law and the Boundaries of the Firm’ (2005) U of Penn, Inst for Law & Econ Research Paper 05-10; NYU, Law and Economics Research Paper No. 04-06 (April 2005).

Berliner, J, The Innovation Decision in Soviet Industry, MIT Press, 1976.Google Scholar

Boisot, MH, Knowledge assets: Securing competitive advantage in the Information Economy, Oxford University Press, 1998.Google Scholar

Bureau of Industry Economics, The Economics of Intellectual Property, BIE Other Publication, June 1995.

Burk, D, ‘Intellectual property and the firm’ (2004) The University of Chicago Law Review, 71, 3.Google Scholar

Caine, E and Christie, A, ‘A quantitive analysis of Australian intellectual property law and policy-making since federation’ (2005) 16 AIPJ 4, 185.Google Scholar

Castells, M, The rise of the Network Society, Blackwell, 1996.Google Scholar

Chamberlin, E, Theory of Monopolistic Competition, Harvard University Press, 1959.Google Scholar

Conceicao, P et al (eds), Science, technology and innovation policy: opportunities and challenges for the knowledge economy, Quorum Books, 2000.Google Scholar

Coombe, RJ, ‘Objects of property and subjects of politics: intellectual property laws and democratic dialogue’ (1991) Texas LR 69, 1853.Google Scholar

Corones, S, ‘Reconciling Intellectual Property Rights and Competition Law: the Magill TV guide case’ (1992) 20 Australian Bus LR265.Google Scholar

Coulter, M, Property in ideas, Thomas Jefferson University Press, 1991.Google Scholar

David, P, ‘The evolution of intellectual property institutions’ MERIT Research Memorandum 93-009 (1993).Google Scholar

Denicola, R, ‘Freedom to Copy’ (1999) 108 Yale LJ1661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Drahos, P, ‘The regulation of public goods’ (2004) Journal of International Economic Law, 7, 2, 321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Drahos, P —A Philosophy of Intellectual Property, Dartmouth, 1996.Google Scholar

Drahos, P —‘Intellectual Property Law and Basic Science: Extinguishing Prometheus?’ in Arup, C (ed), Science Law and Society (1992) 10 Law in Context Special Issue 56.Google Scholar

Duysters, G, The Dynamics of Technical Innovation, Edward Elgar, 1996.Google Scholar

Edvinsson, L and Malone, M, Intellectual Capital, HarperBusiness, 1999.Google Scholar

Fitzgerald, B and Fitzgerald, A, Intellectual property in principle, LBC, 2004.Google Scholar

Flueckiger, G, Control, information and technological change, Kluwer, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gans, J, Hsu, DH and Stern, S, ‘When does start-up innovation spur the gale of creative destruction?’ (2002) Rand Journal of Economics, 33, 4, 571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Geller, PA, ‘Dissolving intellectual property’ [2006] EIPR 139.Google Scholar

Granstrand, O (ed), Economics, Law and Intellectual Property, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Green, J and Scotchmer, S, ‘On the division of profits in sequential innovation’ (1995) 26 Rand J Econ 20.

Hall, P, Innovation, Economics and Evolution: Theoretical Perspectives on Changing Technology in Economic Systems, Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1994.Google Scholar

Hall, P and Lea, G, ‘Standards and Intellectual Property Rights: An Economic and Legal Perspective’ (2004) Information Economics and Policy 16(1) 67.

Holmstrom, B and Milgrom, P, ‘The firm as an incentive system’ (1994) The American Economic Review, 84, 4, 972.Google Scholar

Hope, J, Open Source Biotechnology project, RSSS, ANU, available at: http://rsss.anu.edu.au/∼janeth/home.html

Horibe, F, Managing knowledge workers: new skills and attitudes to unlock the intellectual capital in your organization, Wiley, 1999.Google Scholar

Imparato, N (ed), Capital for our time: the economic, legal and management challenges of intellectual capital, Hoover Institution Press, 1999.Google Scholar

Industrial Property Advisory Committee (Industrial Property Advisory Committee), Patents, Innovation and Competition in Australia (August 1984).

Intellectual Property & Competition Review Committee (IPCRC), Review of Intellectual Property Legislation under the competition Principles Agreement (Final Report, 30 September 2000).

Kelly, RJ, ‘Private Data and Public Knowledge: Intellectual Property Rights in Science’ (1989) 13 Legal Studies Forum365.Google Scholar

Kingston, W, ‘Reducing the cost of resolving intellectual property disputes’ (1995) European Journal of Law and Economics 2, 85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kingston, WKingston, W ‘Intellectual property needs help from accounting’ [2002] EIPR, 11, 508.Google Scholar

Klein, A, The strategic management of intellectual capital, Butterworth Heinemann, 1999.Google Scholar

Laddie, Hon Mr Justice , ‘Copyright: Over-strength, Over-regulated, Over-rated?’ [1996] 5 EIPR253.Google Scholar

Lamberton, D, Science, technology and the Australian economy, Tudor Press, 1970.Google Scholar

Lange, D, ‘Recognizing the Public Domain’ (1981) 44 Law & Contemporary Problems 4, 147.CrossRef

Lasch, C, The true and only heaven: progress and its critics, WW Norton, 1991.Google Scholar

Leijonhufvud, A, ‘Information costs and the division of labour’ (1989) International Social Science Journal 120, 165–76.Google Scholar

Lemley, M and McGowan, D, ‘Legal implications of Network Economic Effects’ (1998) California Law Review 86, 481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lemley, M, ‘Ex ante versus ex post justifications for intellectual property’ (2004) The University of Chicago Law Review, 71, 129.Google Scholar

Levin, R et al, ‘Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development’ (1987) 3 Brookings Papers on Econ. Activity783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Link, A and Scherer, F (eds), Essays in Honor of Edwin Mansfield, Springer, 2006.Google Scholar

Litman, J, ‘The Public Domain’ (1990) 39 Emory LJ965.Google Scholar

Long, P, ‘Invention, authorship, intellectual property, and the origin of patents: notes toward a conceptual history’ (1991) Technology & Culture, 846–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mansfield, E, ‘Academic Research and Industrial Innovation’ (1991) 20 Research Policyl.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mansfield, E —The Economics of Technological Change, Norton & Co, 1968.Google Scholar

McGinnis, P, Intellectual Property Commercialisation: A Business Manager's Companion, Butterworths, 2003.Google Scholar

McKeough, J, Stewart, A and Griffith, P, Intellectual Property in Australia, Butterworths, 2004.Google Scholar

Melzer, A, Weinberger, J and Zinman, M. (eds), History and the idea of progress, Cornell University Press, 1995.Google Scholar

Merges, R, ‘Intellectual Property Rights and the New Institutional Economics’ (2000) 53 V and L Rev 1957.Google Scholar

Merges, RP, ‘Property rights theory and the commons: the case of scientific research’ (1996) 13 Soc Phil & Policy145–67.CrossRef

Metcalfe, S, Evolutionary Foundations of Technology Policy, Edward Elgar, 2000.Google Scholar

Mokyr, J, The lever of riches, Oxford University Press, 1990.Google Scholar

Neef, D, ‘Rethinking Economics in the Knowledge-based Economy’, in The Economic Impact of Knowledge, Butterworth Heinemann, 1998.Google Scholar

Neef, D—A little knowledge is a dangerous thing: understanding our global knowledge economy, Butterworth Heinemann, 1998.Google Scholar

Neef, D—The knowledge economy, Butterworth Heinemann, 1998.Google Scholar

Nelson, R, Understanding Technical Change as an Evolutionary Process, North Holland, 1987.Google Scholar

Nelson, R and Winter, S, An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Harvard University Press, 1982.Google Scholar

Nonaka, I and Takeuchi, H, The Knowledge-creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, 1995.Google Scholar

Pavitt, K, Technology, Management and Systems of Innovation, Edward Elgar, 1999.Google Scholar

Petrusson, U, Intellectual Property and Entrepreneurship, CIP Gothenburg, 2004.Google Scholar

Porter, R, The enlightenment, 2nd edn, Paragon, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prager, FD, ‘A History of Intellectual Property Law from 1545 to 1787’ (1944) 26 JPTO712.Google Scholar

Rassokhin, VP, ‘Centralisation and Freedom of Creativity in Science and Technology’ (1988) 27 Soviet Law and Government55.Google Scholar

Reichman, J, ‘Of Green Tulips and Legal Kudzu: Repackaging Rights in Subpatentable Innovation’ (2000) 53 Vanderbilt Law Review174.Google Scholar

Rescher, N, Unpopular essays on technological progress, University of Pittsburgh Press, 1980.Google Scholar

Reynolds, R and Stoianoff, N, Intellectual Property: Text and Essential Cases, The Federation Press, 2005.Google Scholar

Ricketson, S, ‘The Future of Australian Intellectual Property Law Reform and Administration’ (1990) 1 AIPJ3.Google Scholar

Ricketson, S—The law of intellectual property, LBC, 1984.Google Scholar

Roos, J, Roos, G, Edvinsson, L and Dragonetti, N, Intellectual capital: Navigating in the New Business Landscape, NYUP, 1998.Google Scholar

Rose, M, Authors and owners, Harvard UP, 1993.Google Scholar

Rushing, F and Ganz, C Brown (eds), Intellectual Property Rights in Science, Technology, and Economic Performance: International Comparisons, Westview Press, 1990.Google Scholar

Sackville, R, ‘Monopoly vs Freedom of Ideas: the expansion of intellectual property’ (2005) 16 AIPJ65.Google Scholar

Sahal, D, Patterns of Technological Innovation, Addison Wesley, 1981.Google Scholar

Schumpeter, JA, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Harper, 1975 [orig. pub. 1942]) (at pp. 82–85: ‘gale of creative destruction’).Google Scholar

Shavell, S and Ypersele, T, ‘Reward versus intellectual property rights’ (2001) The Journal of Law and Economics, 44, 525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sherman, B and Bently, L, The making of modern intellectual property law, Cambridge University Press, 1999.Google Scholar

Shulman, B, Owning the future, Houghton Mifflin, 1999.Google Scholar

Staff of Senate Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights, 85th Congress, ‘An economic review of the patent system: study No 15 (Comm Print 1958; Fritz Machlup concluded that it would be irresponsible to create a patent system if the US did not have one, but also irresponsible to abolish the one they had).

Standing Committee on Science and Innovation, Inquiry into Business Commitment to Research and Development in Australia, Riding the Innovation Wave: The Case for Increasing Business Investment in R&D (23 June 2003).

Steindl J, ‘Technical progress and evolution’, in: Sahal, D (ed), Research, development and technological innovation, Lexington, 1980.Google Scholar

Sullivan, PH, Profiting from Intellectual Capital: Extracting value from innovation, John Wiley & Sons, 1998.Google Scholar

Suthersanen, U and Dutfield, G, ‘The Innovation Dilemma: Intellectual Property and the Historical Legacy of Cumulative Creativity’ [2004] 8 Intellectual Property Quarterly379–421.Google Scholar

Todd, E, The causes of progress, Basil Blackwell, 1987.Google Scholar

Caenegem W, , Butterworths Tutorial Series, Intellectual Property, 2nd edn, 2005.Google Scholar

Van, Caenegem W—‘Intellectual property law and the idea of progress’ (2003) IPQ 3, 237.Google Scholar

Van, Caenegem W—‘Intellectual property and intellectual capital’ (2002) Intellectual Property Forum4810.Google Scholar

Van, Caenegem W—‘The public domain: scientia nullius?’ (2002) 24 EIPR324.Google Scholar

Van, Caenegem W—‘Inventions in Russia: From public good to private property’ (1993) 4 AIPJ232.Google Scholar

Whitley, R, ‘Competition and pluralism in the public sciences: the impact of institutional frameworks on the organization of academic science’ (2003) Research Policy, 32, 6, 1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Whitt, , ‘Indigenous peoples, intellectual property and the new imperial Science’ (1998) Oklahoma City University Law Review 211.Google Scholar

Ancori, B, Bureth, A and Cohendet, P, ‘The economics of knowledge: the debate about codification and tacit knowledge’ (2000) Industrial and Corporate Change, 9, 2, 255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blackler, F, ‘Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: an overview and interpretation’ (1995) Organization Studies, 16, 6, 1021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Butler, D, ‘A Tort of invasion of privacy in Australia?’ (2005) Melbourne Law Review 11.Google Scholar

Casselman R and D Samson, ‘Moving beyond tacit and explicit: four dimensions of knowledge’, IPRIA Working Paper, June 2004.

Cohendet, P and Steinmueller, W, ‘The codification of knowledge: a conceptual and empirical exploration’ (2002) Industrial and Corporate Change, 11, 2, 195.Google Scholar

Cooper, DP, ‘Innovation and reciprocal externalities: information transmission via job mobility’ (2001) Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, 45, 4, 403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cowan, R, David, P and Foray, D, ‘The explicit economics of knowledge codification and tacitness’ (2000) Industrial and Corporate Change, 9, 2, 211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Darby M, Q Liu and L Zucker, ‘Stakes and stars: the effect of intellectual human capital on the level and variability of high-tech firms’ market value', NBER Working Paper Series No 7201 (1999).

Dean, R, The Law of Trade Secrets and Personal Secrets, 2nd edn, Law Book Company, Sydney, 2002.Google Scholar

Di, Gregorio D and Shane, S, ‘Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others?’ (2003R) Research Policy, 32, 2, 209.Google Scholar

Freedman CD, ‘The Extension of the Criminal Law to Protecting Confidential Commercial Information: Comments on the Issues and the Cyber-Context’, 14th BILETA Conference: “CYBERSPACE 1999: Crime, Criminal Justice and the Internet”, at p 5 (available at www.bileta.ac.uk).

Friedman, D, Landes, W and Posner, R, ‘Some Economics of Trade Secret Law’ (1991) Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 161–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Friedmann D, ‘Restitution for wrongs: the basis of liability’ in Cornish, WR et al (eds), Restitution: Past present and future, Hart, 1998.Google Scholar

Gray, B, ‘Ocular Sciences: a new vision for the doctrine of breach of confidence?’ (1999) Melbourne University Law Review, 23, 1, 241.Google Scholar

Gurry, F, Breach of Confidence, Oxford University Press, 1990.Google Scholar

Johnson, B, Lorenz, E and Lundvall, B-A, ‘Why all this fuss about codified and tacit knowledge’ (2002) Industrial and Corporate Change, 11, 2, 245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Law Commission of England and Wales: ‘Legislating the criminal code: misuse of trade secrets’, Consultation Paper 150, 1997.

Merges, R, ‘The law and economics of employee inventions’ (1999) Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 13, 1.Google Scholar

Monotti, A, ‘Who owns my research and teaching materials: my university or me?’ (1997) Sydney Law Review, 19, 4, 425.Google Scholar

Narayanan, S, ‘The economics of intrapreneurial innovation’ (2005) Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 58, 4, 487.Google Scholar

Nelson, R, ‘On the uneven evolution of human know-how’ (2003) Research Policy, 32, 6, 909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nightingale, P, ‘If Nelson and Winter are only half right about tacit knowledge, which half? A Searlean critique of “codification”’ (2003) Industrial and Corporate Change, 12, 2, 149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Polanyi, M, Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-critical Philosophy, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1958.Google Scholar

Polanyi, M—‘The logic of tacit inference’ (1966) Philosophy, 41, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Riley, J, ‘Who owns human capital? A critical appraisal of legal techniques for capturing the value of work’ (2005) Australian Journal of Labour Law 18, 1, 1.Google Scholar

Roberts, J, ‘The drive to codify: implications for the knowledge based economy’ (2001) Prometheus, 19, 2, 99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Caenegem W, , ‘Inter-firm migration of tacit knowledge: law and policy’ (2005) Prometheus 23, 3, 285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Advisory Council on Intellectual Property (Advisory Council on Intellectual Property), Should plant & animal subject matter be excluded from protection by the innovation patent? (November 2004).

Advisory Council on Industrial Property (Advisory Council on Intellectual Property) —Final Report, Patents and Experimental Use (October 2005).

Advisory Council on Industrial Property (Advisory Council on Intellectual Property) —Review of crown use provisions for patents and designs (November 2005).

Australian Law Reform Commission (Australian Law Reform Commission), Report No 99, Genes and Ingenuity: Gene Patenting and Human Health (2004).

Barton, J, ‘Patents and antitrust: a rethinking in light of patent breadth and sequential innovation’ (1997) Antitrust Law Journal 65, 449.Google Scholar

Barton, J—‘Reforming the Patent System’, Science, Vol 287, 17 March 2000, 1993.Google Scholar

Blows, J and Clark, D, ‘Is an innovative step so easy that “any fool could do it”?’, (2006) Australian Intellectual Property Law Bulletin, 18, 8, 129.

Brennan, D, ‘Springboards and Ironing Boards: Confidential information as a restraint of trade’ (2005) Journal of Contract Law 71.Google Scholar

Bucknell, et al, Australian Patent Law, Butterworths, 2004.Google Scholar

Bureau of Industry Economics, The Economics of Patents, BIE Occasional Paper, Feb. 1994

Burk, D and Lemley, M, ‘Policy levers in patents law’ (2003) 79 Va L Rev101.Google Scholar

Burk, D and Lemley, M. —‘Is patent law technology specific?’ (2002) Berkeley Tech. Law Journal, 17, 1155.Google Scholar

Christie, A, ‘Some Observations on the Requirement of Inherent Patentability in the Context of Business Methods Patents’ (2000) Intellectual Property Forum 43.Google Scholar

Dreyfuss, R, ‘Are business method patents bad for business?’ (2000) Santa Clara Computer & High Technology Law Journal 16(2).Google Scholar

Drummond, D, ‘Are the courts down under properly handling patent disputes?’ (2000) Intellectual Property Forum 42, 10.Google Scholar

Duffy, J, ‘Rethinking the prospect theory of patents’ (2004) The University of Chicago Law Review, 71, 439.Google Scholar

Ellis, T, ‘Distortion of patent economics by litigation costs’, in Hill, et al (eds), CASRIP, Streamlining International Intellectual Property, 1999.

Garde, T, ‘Legal certainty, stare decisis and the doctrine of equivalents’ [2005] EIPR365.Google Scholar

Gee, O, ‘The description-claims relationship – “A fair balance?”. A comparison of the Australian, USA and EPO jurisdictions’ (2006) Intellectual Property Forum 64, 44.Google Scholar

Grady, MF and Alexander, JI, ‘Patent law and rent dissipation’ (1992) 78 Virginia Law Review305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grushcow, J, ‘Measuring secrecy: a cost of the patent system revealed’ (2004) The Journal of Legal Studies, 33, 59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haines, T, ‘Patenting legal strategies – Does the utility justify the ends?’ (2005) Intellectual Property Forum 62, 24.Google Scholar

Hauhart, R, ‘The origin and development of the British and American patent and copyright laws’ (1983) 5 Whittier L R539.Google Scholar

Heath, , ‘Remuneration of employees’ inventions in Europe and Japan', AIPPI: Bimonthly Journal of the International Association for the Protection of the Industrial Property of Japan, Vol. 27 No. 6, November 2002, pp 398–407.Google Scholar

Heller, M and Eisenberg, R, ‘Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anti-commons in Biomedical Research’ (1998) 280 Science698.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, ‘Genetic manipulations: the threat or the glory?’ (1992).

IPAustralia, Issues Paper, Review of the Innovation Patent (September 2005).

IPAustralia, Issues Paper —Review of Patent Grace Period (August 2005).

Janis, M, ‘Patent Abolitionism’ (2002) 17 Berkeley Technology Law Journal899.Google Scholar

Jensen PH and E Webster, ‘Achieving the optimal power of patent rights’, IPRIA Working Paper No 15/04, December 2004.

Kingston, W, ‘Why harmonization is a Trojan horse’ [2004] 26 EIPR10, 447–60.Google Scholar

Kingston, W —‘Innovation needs patent reform’ (2001) Research Policy 30, 3, 403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kitch, EW, ‘The nature and function of the patent system’ (1978) J of L & Eco 20, 165.Google Scholar

Lamberton D, Dissenting Statement, ‘Patents, Innovation and Competition in Australia’, Industrial Property Advisory Group, Attorney General's Department, 1984.

Lemley, M, ‘Reconceiving patents in the age of venture capital’ (2000) The Journal of Small and Emerging Business Law137.Google Scholar

Lemley, M —‘The economics of improvement in intellectual property law’ (1997) Texas Law Review 75, 989.Google Scholar

Levin, R et al, ‘Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development’ (1987) 3 Brookings Papers on Economic Activity783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lithgow, T, ‘Patent infringement immunity for medical practitioners and related health care entities’ (1997) Jurimetrics Journal251.Google Scholar

Lo, VI, ‘Employee inventions and works for hire in Japan: A comparative study against the US, Chinese and German systems’ (2002) 16 Temp Int'l & Comp LJ279.Google Scholar

Long, P, ‘Invention, authorship, “Intellectual property” and the origin of patents: Notes toward a conceptual history’ (1991) Technology and Culture 32, 846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Loughlan, P, ‘Of patents and professors: Intellectual Property, Research Workers and Universities’ [1996] 6 EIPR345.Google Scholar

Macdonald, S, ‘When Means Become Ends: Considering the Impact of Patent Strategy on Innovation’ (2004) Information Economics and Policy, 16, 1, 135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Machlup F, ‘Patents’ in Sills, D (ed), The international encyclopaedia of the social sciences II, Macmillan, 1968, pp 468–71.Google Scholar

Macleod, C, Inventing the industrial revolution: the English patent system 1660–1800, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge University Press 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mandeville, Lamberton, Bishop , The economic effects of the Australian Patent System, 1982.

Mandich, G, ‘Venetian Patents (1450–1550)’ (1948) JPTOS 30, 166.Google Scholar

Mansfield, E, Schwartz, M and Wagner, S, ‘Imitation costs and patents: an empirical study’ (1981) The Economics Journal 91, 907–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Martin, DL, ‘Reducing anticipated rewards from innovation through patent: or less is more’ (1992) 78 Virginia Law Review351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McBratney, A, ‘Does the fair basing “problem child” escape Lockwood?’ (2005) 16 AIPJ4, 210.Google Scholar

McBratney, A—‘The Problem Child in Australian Patent Law: “Fair” Basing’ (2001) 12 AIPJ 4, 211.Google Scholar

Merges, R, ‘As many as six impossible patents before breakfast: property rights for business concepts and patent system reform’ (1999) Berkeley Technology Law Journal 14, 577.Google Scholar

Merges, R—‘The law and economics of employee inventions’ (1999) Harvard Journal of Law and Technology 13, 1.Google Scholar

Merges, R—‘Rent control in the patent district: observations on the Grady-Alexander thesis’, 78 (1992) Virginia Law Review359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Merges R and R Nelson, ‘Market structure and technical advance: the role of patent scope decisions’, in Jorde, T and Teece, D (eds), Antitrust, innovation and competitiveness, Oxford University Press, 1992.Google Scholar

Merges, R and Nelson, R—‘On the complex economics of patents scope’ (1990) Columbia Law Review 90, 839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mills, O, Biotechnological inventions: Moral Restraints and Patent Law, Ashgate, 2005.Google Scholar

Monotti, A and Ricketson, S, Universities and Intellectual Property, Ownership and Exploitation, Oxford University Press, 2003.Google Scholar

Mossinghoff, G, ‘Remedies under patents on medical and surgical procedures’ (1996) 78 JPTOS789.Google Scholar

Parchomsky, G and Polk, R Wagner, ‘Patent portfolios’ (2005) University of Pennsylvania Law Review 154, 1, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pendleton, M, ‘Construe Widely and Face Invalidity – Construe Narrowly and Miss Infringements: The Dilemma of Interpreting Patent Specifications’, Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law, Volume 11, Number 3 (September 2004).Google Scholar

Scotchmer, S, ‘Standing on the shoulders of giants: cumulative research and the patent law’ (1991) Journal of Economic Perspectives 5, 29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Caenegem W, , ‘The technicality requirement, patents scope and patentable subject matter in Australia’ (2002) Australian Intellectual Property Journal 13, 309.Google Scholar

Overwalle G, , The legal protection of biotechnological inventions in Europe, Leuven Law Series, Vol 10, Leuven University Press, 1997.Google Scholar

Walterscheid, E, ‘The early evolution of the United States Patent Law: Antecedents’ (Part I) (1994) JPTOS697; (Part II) (1994) JPTOS849.Google Scholar

Weatherall, K and Jensen, P, ‘An empirical investigation into patent enforcements in Australian courts’ (2005) Federal Law Review 33, 2, 239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Australian Law Reform Commission (Australian Law Reform Commission), Report No 74, Designs (1995).

Bently, L, ‘Visuality and Textuality in Nineteenth Century Intellectual Property Law: The Utility Designs Act 1843’ (1997) Intellectual Property Forum, Issue 29.Google Scholar

Brown, D and Cameron, E, ‘Designing the interface’, (2005) International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 19, 1, 65–81.CrossRef

Bureau of Industry Economics, The Economics of Intellectual Property Rights for Design, BIE Occasional Paper, June 1995.

Commission of the European Communities, Green Paper on the Legal Protection of Industrial Designs, III/F/5131191-EN (1991).

Franzosi, M and Sanctis, G, ‘Moral Rights and New Technology: Are Copyright and Patents Converging?’ [1995] 2 EIPR63.Google Scholar

Fraser, G and Hall, K, ‘Copyright protection for works of artistic craftsmanship’ (1999) Law Institute Journal 73, 9, 47–9.Google Scholar

Golder, T, ‘Australian Designs Law – A Commentary on the Lahore Committee Report and the Need for Legislative Reform’ (1993) Intellectual Property Forum Journal 19.Google Scholar

Gotzen, F (ed), ‘The green paper on the legal protection of industrial design’, CIRLeuven (1992).Google Scholar

Hansmann, H and Santilli, M, ‘Authors and artists’ moral rights: A comparative legal and economic analysis (1997) 26 J Legal Stud95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haungs, MJ, ‘Copyright of Factual Compilations: Public Policy and the First Amendment’ (1990) 23 Colum J L & Soc Problems347.Google Scholar

Izquierdo, Peris JJ, ‘Registered Community Design: First two-year Balance from an Insider's Perspective’ (2006) 28 EIPR3, 146.Google Scholar

Ladas, and Parry, , ‘Intellectual Property Law, the European Design Regulation in Context’, Chapter 5, The position in Europe, available at www.ladas.com/Patents/PatentPractice/EUDesignRegulation/EUDesi05.html

Laddie, Prescott and Vitoria, , The Modern Law of Copyright and Designs, 2nd edn 1995.

McGowan G, Paper concerning the new Designs Act, available at: www.vicbar.com.au/pdf/CLESeminar_30062004GMc.pdf

Posner, RA and Landes, WM, ‘An Economic Analysis of Copyright Law’ (1989) 18 Journal of Legal Studies325.Google Scholar

Ricketson, S, The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, 1886–1986, Kluwer, 1987.Google Scholar

Rothnie, W, ‘The vexed problem of Copyright/Designs overlap’ (2005) Intellectual Property Forum 60, 33.Google Scholar

Rushton, M, ‘An Economic Approach to Copyright in Works of Artistic Craftsmanship’ [2001] Intellectual Property Quarterly 3, 255.Google Scholar

Abbot, J, ‘Reverse engineering of software: Copyright and interoperability’ (2003) Journal of law and information science 14, 7.Google Scholar

Advisory Council on Intellectual Property (Advisory Council on Intellectual Property), Review of enforcement of Plant Breeder's Rights (Current; 2006).

Australian Committee on Industrial Property (Advisory Council on Intellectual Property) —Patents & Experimental Use, Options Paper (Dec 2004); Final Report (Oct 2005).

Australian Committee on Industrial Property (Advisory Council on Intellectual Property) —Should plant & animal subject matter be excluded from protection by the innovation patent? (Nov 2004).

Alexandra, A, Lee, J and Vanclay, F, ‘Innovation, exclusion and commodification of plant types: a social and philosophical investigation of Plant Variety Rights in Australia’ (2004), Rural Society 14, 1, 46.CrossRef

Australian Centre for Intellectual Property in Agriculture (ACIPA), ‘Understanding Plant Breeder's Right's’, available at www.acipa.edu.au/frame_pbr.html

Australian Law Reform Commission (Australian Law Reform Commission), Report No 99, Genes and Ingenuity: Gene Patenting & Human Health (2004).

Bently, L and Burrell, R, ‘The requirement of trade mark use’ (2002) AIPJ, 18, 1.Google Scholar

Burchfield, KJ, ‘The Constitutional Intellectual Property Power: Progress of the Useful Arts and the Legal Protection of Semiconductor Technology’ (1988) 28 Santa Clara LR473.Google Scholar

Christie, A, ‘Final Report of the Copyright Law Review Committee on Protection of Computer Software – An Overview of Recommendations and Issues In relation to Copyright in computer programs’ (1996) Intellectual Property Forum 27.Google Scholar

Christie, A—Integrated Circuits and their Contents: International Protection, LBC Information Services, 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright Law Review Committee, Final Report on Computer Software Protection (1995).

Davis, J, ‘To Protect or Serve? European trade mark law and the decline of the public interest’ [2003] EIPR180.Google ScholarPubMed

Davis, M, ‘Death of a Salesman's Doctrine: A critical look at trademark use’ (1985) 19 Georgia LR233.Google Scholar

Economides, N, ‘The Economics of Trademarks’ (1988) 78 Trademark Reporter523.Google Scholar

Eisenberg, R, ‘Proprietary Rights and the Norms of Science in Biotechnology and Research’ (1988) 97 Yale LJ 2 177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Expert Panel on Breeding, ‘Clarification of plant breeding issues under the Plant Breeder's Rights Act 1994’, Report, December 2002.

Folie, A, ‘Trade-offs in trade mark protection: an economic analysis’ (2004) AIPJ 15, 2, 87.Google Scholar

Forsyth, M, ‘Biotechnology, Patents and Public Policy: A Proposal for Reform in Australia’ (2000) 11 AIPJ 202.Google Scholar

Helth, TS, ‘Beer with lime? A trade mark assembled by the bartenderAIPJ (2005) Australian Intellectual Property Law Bulletin, 18, 6, 93.Google Scholar

Honey, R and Sinden, P, ‘The Interface between Trademark, Designs and Passing Off under Australian Law: The Philips Case’ (2000) Murdoch e-law Journal Vol 7 No 4.Google Scholar

House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, ‘Genetic Manipulation: the Threat or the Glory’, Canberra (1992).

Hughes, S, ‘Protection of Shape Marks in Australia: Extending the permanent monopoly’ (2002) 49 Intellectual Property Forum28.Google Scholar

Janis, M, ‘Sustainable Agriculture, Patent Rights, and Plant Innovation’ (2001) 9 Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies91.Google Scholar

Jones, N, ‘Biotechnology patents: a change of heart’ [1994] 1 EIPR37.Google Scholar

Kang, PH and Snyder, K, ‘A practitioner's approach to strategic enforcement and analysis of business method patents in the post-State Street era’ (2000) IDEA – The Journal of Law and Technology 40, 267.Google Scholar

Landes, WM and Posner, R, ‘Trademark law: an economic perspective’ (1987) 30 J of Law & Eco265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lawson, C, ‘Patents and plant breeder's rights over plant genetic resources for food and agriculture’ (2004) Federal Law Review 32, 107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lawson, C—‘Patenting Genes and Gene Sequences and Competition: Patenting at the Expense of Competition’ (2002) 30 Federal Law Review97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lemley, M and Cohen, JE, ‘Patent scope and innovation in the software industry’ (2001) 89 California Law Review1.Google Scholar

Lemley, M and McGowan, D, ‘Legal Implications of Network Economic Effects’ (1998) 86 California Law Review479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Marschak J, ‘The economics of language’, in Lamberton, D (ed), The Economics of Communication and Information, Edward Elgar, 1996.Google Scholar

McCutcheon, J, ‘Monopolised product shapes and factual distinctiveness under s 41(6) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth)’ (2004) 15 AIPJ 1, 18.Google Scholar

Moens, A, ‘Streamlining the Software Development Process Through Reuse and Patents’ [2000] EIPR 22(9) 418.Google Scholar

Moens, A—‘The Use of Copyright and Patents for Software Protection’ (1998) 4 Computer & Telecommunications Law Review35.Google Scholar

Nicol, D, ‘On the legality of gene patents’ [2005] MULR25.Google Scholar

Nicol, D and Nielsen, J, ‘The Australian Medical Biotechnology Industry and Access to Intellectual Property: Issues for Patent Law Development’ (2001) 23 Sydney Law Review347.Google Scholar

Nott, R, ‘The proposed directive on biotechnological inventions’ [1994] 5 EIPR191.Google Scholar

Nuffield Council on Bioethics, ‘The Ethics of Patenting DNA – A Discussion Paper’ (2002).

Outterson, K, ‘The vanishing public domain: antibiotic resistance, pharmaceutical innovation and intellectual property law’ (2005) University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 1, 67.Google Scholar

Png, I and Reitman, D, ‘Why are some products branded and others not?’ (1995) 38 Journal of Law & Economics207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rangnekar, D, ‘Technology paradigms and the Innovation-Appropriation Interface: An examination of the nature and scope of Plant Breeders’ Rights' (1999) 17 Prometheus 2, 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Registrar of Plant Breeder's Rights, Clarification of Plant Breeding Issues under the Plant Breeder's Rights Act 1994 (2002).

Rimmer, M, ‘Franklin Barley: patent law and Plant Breeders’ Rights' (2003) Murdoch e-Law Journal 10 4.Google Scholar

Roberts, C, ‘The prospects of success of the National Institute of Health's Human Genome Application’ [1994] 1 EIPR30.Google Scholar

Roberts, T, ‘Broad claims for biotechnological inventions’ [1994] 9 EIPR371.Google Scholar

Schulze, C, ‘Registering colour trade marks in the European Union’ [2003] 25 EIPR 2, 55.Google Scholar

Smith, C, ‘Trade mark protection for product shape – Where does the public interest lie?’ (2005) Intellectual Property Forum 63, 32.Google Scholar

Suthersanen, U, ‘The European Court of Justice in Philips v Remington: Trade Marks and Market Freedom’ [2003] 7 Intellectual Property Quarterly257–83Google Scholar

Turkevich, L, ‘An end to the “Mathematical algorithm” confusion?’ [1995] 2 EIPR91.Google Scholar

Willchon, D, ‘Broad Trade Mark Specifications’ [2002] 24 EIPR228.Google Scholar

Alford, W, To steal a book is an elegant offence: intellectual property law in Chinese civilisation, Stanford University Press, 1995.Google Scholar

Allison, J and Lemley, M, ‘Empirical evidence on the validity of litigated patents’ (1998) AIPLA Quarterly Journal 26, 185.Google Scholar

Aoki, K, ‘Authors, inventors and trademark owners: Private intellectual property and the public domain’ (1993–4) 18:1Columbia-VLA Journal of Law and the Arts 1; and Part II in 18:3–4.

Arrow, K, ‘Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Innovation’, in Nelson, R (ed), The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity, Princeton University Press, 1962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Arup, C, Innovation, policy and law, Cambridge University Press, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Australian Bureau of Statistics (Australian Bureau of Statistics), 1370.0, Measures of Australia's Progress, 2004.

Australian Law Reform Commission (Australian Law Reform Commission), Report No 74, Designs, 1995.

Bain, J, Barriers to New Competition, Harvard UP, 1956, Chapter IV.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bankman, J and Gilson, RJ, ‘Why start-ups?’ (1999) Stanford LR, 51, 189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bar-Gill O and G Parchomovsky, ‘Intellectual Property Law and the Boundaries of the Firm’ (2005) U of Penn, Inst for Law & Econ Research Paper 05-10; NYU, Law and Economics Research Paper No. 04-06 (April 2005).

Berliner, J, The Innovation Decision in Soviet Industry, MIT Press, 1976.Google Scholar

Boisot, MH, Knowledge assets: Securing competitive advantage in the Information Economy, Oxford University Press, 1998.Google Scholar

Bureau of Industry Economics, The Economics of Intellectual Property, BIE Other Publication, June 1995.

Burk, D, ‘Intellectual property and the firm’ (2004) The University of Chicago Law Review, 71, 3.Google Scholar

Caine, E and Christie, A, ‘A quantitive analysis of Australian intellectual property law and policy-making since federation’ (2005) 16 AIPJ 4, 185.Google Scholar

Castells, M, The rise of the Network Society, Blackwell, 1996.Google Scholar

Chamberlin, E, Theory of Monopolistic Competition, Harvard University Press, 1959.Google Scholar

Conceicao, P et al (eds), Science, technology and innovation policy: opportunities and challenges for the knowledge economy, Quorum Books, 2000.Google Scholar

Coombe, RJ, ‘Objects of property and subjects of politics: intellectual property laws and democratic dialogue’ (1991) Texas LR 69, 1853.Google Scholar

Corones, S, ‘Reconciling Intellectual Property Rights and Competition Law: the Magill TV guide case’ (1992) 20 Australian Bus LR265.Google Scholar

Coulter, M, Property in ideas, Thomas Jefferson University Press, 1991.Google Scholar

David, P, ‘The evolution of intellectual property institutions’ MERIT Research Memorandum 93-009 (1993).Google Scholar

Denicola, R, ‘Freedom to Copy’ (1999) 108 Yale LJ1661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Drahos, P, ‘The regulation of public goods’ (2004) Journal of International Economic Law, 7, 2, 321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Drahos, P —A Philosophy of Intellectual Property, Dartmouth, 1996.Google Scholar

Drahos, P —‘Intellectual Property Law and Basic Science: Extinguishing Prometheus?’ in Arup, C (ed), Science Law and Society (1992) 10 Law in Context Special Issue 56.Google Scholar

Duysters, G, The Dynamics of Technical Innovation, Edward Elgar, 1996.Google Scholar

Edvinsson, L and Malone, M, Intellectual Capital, HarperBusiness, 1999.Google Scholar

Fitzgerald, B and Fitzgerald, A, Intellectual property in principle, LBC, 2004.Google Scholar

Flueckiger, G, Control, information and technological change, Kluwer, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gans, J, Hsu, DH and Stern, S, ‘When does start-up innovation spur the gale of creative destruction?’ (2002) Rand Journal of Economics, 33, 4, 571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Geller, PA, ‘Dissolving intellectual property’ [2006] EIPR 139.Google Scholar

Granstrand, O (ed), Economics, Law and Intellectual Property, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Green, J and Scotchmer, S, ‘On the division of profits in sequential innovation’ (1995) 26 Rand J Econ 20.

Hall, P, Innovation, Economics and Evolution: Theoretical Perspectives on Changing Technology in Economic Systems, Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1994.Google Scholar

Hall, P and Lea, G, ‘Standards and Intellectual Property Rights: An Economic and Legal Perspective’ (2004) Information Economics and Policy 16(1) 67.

Holmstrom, B and Milgrom, P, ‘The firm as an incentive system’ (1994) The American Economic Review, 84, 4, 972.Google Scholar

Hope, J, Open Source Biotechnology project, RSSS, ANU, available at: http://rsss.anu.edu.au/∼janeth/home.html

Horibe, F, Managing knowledge workers: new skills and attitudes to unlock the intellectual capital in your organization, Wiley, 1999.Google Scholar

Imparato, N (ed), Capital for our time: the economic, legal and management challenges of intellectual capital, Hoover Institution Press, 1999.Google Scholar

Industrial Property Advisory Committee (Industrial Property Advisory Committee), Patents, Innovation and Competition in Australia (August 1984).

Intellectual Property & Competition Review Committee (IPCRC), Review of Intellectual Property Legislation under the competition Principles Agreement (Final Report, 30 September 2000).

Kelly, RJ, ‘Private Data and Public Knowledge: Intellectual Property Rights in Science’ (1989) 13 Legal Studies Forum365.Google Scholar

Kingston, W, ‘Reducing the cost of resolving intellectual property disputes’ (1995) European Journal of Law and Economics 2, 85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kingston, WKingston, W ‘Intellectual property needs help from accounting’ [2002] EIPR, 11, 508.Google Scholar

Klein, A, The strategic management of intellectual capital, Butterworth Heinemann, 1999.Google Scholar

Laddie, Hon Mr Justice , ‘Copyright: Over-strength, Over-regulated, Over-rated?’ [1996] 5 EIPR253.Google Scholar

Lamberton, D, Science, technology and the Australian economy, Tudor Press, 1970.Google Scholar

Lange, D, ‘Recognizing the Public Domain’ (1981) 44 Law & Contemporary Problems 4, 147.CrossRef

Lasch, C, The true and only heaven: progress and its critics, WW Norton, 1991.Google Scholar

Leijonhufvud, A, ‘Information costs and the division of labour’ (1989) International Social Science Journal 120, 165–76.Google Scholar

Lemley, M and McGowan, D, ‘Legal implications of Network Economic Effects’ (1998) California Law Review 86, 481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lemley, M, ‘Ex ante versus ex post justifications for intellectual property’ (2004) The University of Chicago Law Review, 71, 129.Google Scholar

Levin, R et al, ‘Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development’ (1987) 3 Brookings Papers on Econ. Activity783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Link, A and Scherer, F (eds), Essays in Honor of Edwin Mansfield, Springer, 2006.Google Scholar

Litman, J, ‘The Public Domain’ (1990) 39 Emory LJ965.Google Scholar

Long, P, ‘Invention, authorship, intellectual property, and the origin of patents: notes toward a conceptual history’ (1991) Technology & Culture, 846–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mansfield, E, ‘Academic Research and Industrial Innovation’ (1991) 20 Research Policyl.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mansfield, E —The Economics of Technological Change, Norton & Co, 1968.Google Scholar

McGinnis, P, Intellectual Property Commercialisation: A Business Manager's Companion, Butterworths, 2003.Google Scholar

McKeough, J, Stewart, A and Griffith, P, Intellectual Property in Australia, Butterworths, 2004.Google Scholar

Melzer, A, Weinberger, J and Zinman, M. (eds), History and the idea of progress, Cornell University Press, 1995.Google Scholar

Merges, R, ‘Intellectual Property Rights and the New Institutional Economics’ (2000) 53 V and L Rev 1957.Google Scholar

Merges, RP, ‘Property rights theory and the commons: the case of scientific research’ (1996) 13 Soc Phil & Policy145–67.CrossRef

Metcalfe, S, Evolutionary Foundations of Technology Policy, Edward Elgar, 2000.Google Scholar

Mokyr, J, The lever of riches, Oxford University Press, 1990.Google Scholar

Neef, D, ‘Rethinking Economics in the Knowledge-based Economy’, in The Economic Impact of Knowledge, Butterworth Heinemann, 1998.Google Scholar

Neef, D—A little knowledge is a dangerous thing: understanding our global knowledge economy, Butterworth Heinemann, 1998.Google Scholar

Neef, D—The knowledge economy, Butterworth Heinemann, 1998.Google Scholar

Nelson, R, Understanding Technical Change as an Evolutionary Process, North Holland, 1987.Google Scholar

Nelson, R and Winter, S, An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, Harvard University Press, 1982.Google Scholar

Nonaka, I and Takeuchi, H, The Knowledge-creating Company: How Japanese Companies Create the Dynamics of Innovation, Oxford University Press, 1995.Google Scholar

Pavitt, K, Technology, Management and Systems of Innovation, Edward Elgar, 1999.Google Scholar

Petrusson, U, Intellectual Property and Entrepreneurship, CIP Gothenburg, 2004.Google Scholar

Porter, R, The enlightenment, 2nd edn, Paragon, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Prager, FD, ‘A History of Intellectual Property Law from 1545 to 1787’ (1944) 26 JPTO712.Google Scholar

Rassokhin, VP, ‘Centralisation and Freedom of Creativity in Science and Technology’ (1988) 27 Soviet Law and Government55.Google Scholar

Reichman, J, ‘Of Green Tulips and Legal Kudzu: Repackaging Rights in Subpatentable Innovation’ (2000) 53 Vanderbilt Law Review174.Google Scholar

Rescher, N, Unpopular essays on technological progress, University of Pittsburgh Press, 1980.Google Scholar

Reynolds, R and Stoianoff, N, Intellectual Property: Text and Essential Cases, The Federation Press, 2005.Google Scholar

Ricketson, S, ‘The Future of Australian Intellectual Property Law Reform and Administration’ (1990) 1 AIPJ3.Google Scholar

Ricketson, S—The law of intellectual property, LBC, 1984.Google Scholar

Roos, J, Roos, G, Edvinsson, L and Dragonetti, N, Intellectual capital: Navigating in the New Business Landscape, NYUP, 1998.Google Scholar

Rose, M, Authors and owners, Harvard UP, 1993.Google Scholar

Rushing, F and Ganz, C Brown (eds), Intellectual Property Rights in Science, Technology, and Economic Performance: International Comparisons, Westview Press, 1990.Google Scholar

Sackville, R, ‘Monopoly vs Freedom of Ideas: the expansion of intellectual property’ (2005) 16 AIPJ65.Google Scholar

Sahal, D, Patterns of Technological Innovation, Addison Wesley, 1981.Google Scholar

Schumpeter, JA, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Harper, 1975 [orig. pub. 1942]) (at pp. 82–85: ‘gale of creative destruction’).Google Scholar

Shavell, S and Ypersele, T, ‘Reward versus intellectual property rights’ (2001) The Journal of Law and Economics, 44, 525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sherman, B and Bently, L, The making of modern intellectual property law, Cambridge University Press, 1999.Google Scholar

Shulman, B, Owning the future, Houghton Mifflin, 1999.Google Scholar

Staff of Senate Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks and Copyrights, 85th Congress, ‘An economic review of the patent system: study No 15 (Comm Print 1958; Fritz Machlup concluded that it would be irresponsible to create a patent system if the US did not have one, but also irresponsible to abolish the one they had).

Standing Committee on Science and Innovation, Inquiry into Business Commitment to Research and Development in Australia, Riding the Innovation Wave: The Case for Increasing Business Investment in R&D (23 June 2003).

Steindl J, ‘Technical progress and evolution’, in: Sahal, D (ed), Research, development and technological innovation, Lexington, 1980.Google Scholar

Sullivan, PH, Profiting from Intellectual Capital: Extracting value from innovation, John Wiley & Sons, 1998.Google Scholar

Suthersanen, U and Dutfield, G, ‘The Innovation Dilemma: Intellectual Property and the Historical Legacy of Cumulative Creativity’ [2004] 8 Intellectual Property Quarterly379–421.Google Scholar

Todd, E, The causes of progress, Basil Blackwell, 1987.Google Scholar

Caenegem W, , Butterworths Tutorial Series, Intellectual Property, 2nd edn, 2005.Google Scholar

Van, Caenegem W—‘Intellectual property law and the idea of progress’ (2003) IPQ 3, 237.Google Scholar

Van, Caenegem W—‘Intellectual property and intellectual capital’ (2002) Intellectual Property Forum4810.Google Scholar

Van, Caenegem W—‘The public domain: scientia nullius?’ (2002) 24 EIPR324.Google Scholar

Van, Caenegem W—‘Inventions in Russia: From public good to private property’ (1993) 4 AIPJ232.Google Scholar

Whitley, R, ‘Competition and pluralism in the public sciences: the impact of institutional frameworks on the organization of academic science’ (2003) Research Policy, 32, 6, 1015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Whitt, , ‘Indigenous peoples, intellectual property and the new imperial Science’ (1998) Oklahoma City University Law Review 211.Google Scholar

Ancori, B, Bureth, A and Cohendet, P, ‘The economics of knowledge: the debate about codification and tacit knowledge’ (2000) Industrial and Corporate Change, 9, 2, 255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blackler, F, ‘Knowledge, knowledge work and organizations: an overview and interpretation’ (1995) Organization Studies, 16, 6, 1021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Butler, D, ‘A Tort of invasion of privacy in Australia?’ (2005) Melbourne Law Review 11.Google Scholar

Casselman R and D Samson, ‘Moving beyond tacit and explicit: four dimensions of knowledge’, IPRIA Working Paper, June 2004.

Cohendet, P and Steinmueller, W, ‘The codification of knowledge: a conceptual and empirical exploration’ (2002) Industrial and Corporate Change, 11, 2, 195.Google Scholar

Cooper, DP, ‘Innovation and reciprocal externalities: information transmission via job mobility’ (2001) Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, 45, 4, 403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cowan, R, David, P and Foray, D, ‘The explicit economics of knowledge codification and tacitness’ (2000) Industrial and Corporate Change, 9, 2, 211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Darby M, Q Liu and L Zucker, ‘Stakes and stars: the effect of intellectual human capital on the level and variability of high-tech firms’ market value', NBER Working Paper Series No 7201 (1999).

Dean, R, The Law of Trade Secrets and Personal Secrets, 2nd edn, Law Book Company, Sydney, 2002.Google Scholar

Di, Gregorio D and Shane, S, ‘Why do some universities generate more start-ups than others?’ (2003R) Research Policy, 32, 2, 209.Google Scholar

Freedman CD, ‘The Extension of the Criminal Law to Protecting Confidential Commercial Information: Comments on the Issues and the Cyber-Context’, 14th BILETA Conference: “CYBERSPACE 1999: Crime, Criminal Justice and the Internet”, at p 5 (available at www.bileta.ac.uk).

Friedman, D, Landes, W and Posner, R, ‘Some Economics of Trade Secret Law’ (1991) Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5, 161–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Friedmann D, ‘Restitution for wrongs: the basis of liability’ in Cornish, WR et al (eds), Restitution: Past present and future, Hart, 1998.Google Scholar

Gray, B, ‘Ocular Sciences: a new vision for the doctrine of breach of confidence?’ (1999) Melbourne University Law Review, 23, 1, 241.Google Scholar

Gurry, F, Breach of Confidence, Oxford University Press, 1990.Google Scholar

Johnson, B, Lorenz, E and Lundvall, B-A, ‘Why all this fuss about codified and tacit knowledge’ (2002) Industrial and Corporate Change, 11, 2, 245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Law Commission of England and Wales: ‘Legislating the criminal code: misuse of trade secrets’, Consultation Paper 150, 1997.

Merges, R, ‘The law and economics of employee inventions’ (1999) Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 13, 1.Google Scholar

Monotti, A, ‘Who owns my research and teaching materials: my university or me?’ (1997) Sydney Law Review, 19, 4, 425.Google Scholar

Narayanan, S, ‘The economics of intrapreneurial innovation’ (2005) Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 58, 4, 487.Google Scholar

Nelson, R, ‘On the uneven evolution of human know-how’ (2003) Research Policy, 32, 6, 909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Nightingale, P, ‘If Nelson and Winter are only half right about tacit knowledge, which half? A Searlean critique of “codification”’ (2003) Industrial and Corporate Change, 12, 2, 149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Polanyi, M, Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-critical Philosophy, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1958.Google Scholar

Polanyi, M—‘The logic of tacit inference’ (1966) Philosophy, 41, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Riley, J, ‘Who owns human capital? A critical appraisal of legal techniques for capturing the value of work’ (2005) Australian Journal of Labour Law 18, 1, 1.Google Scholar

Roberts, J, ‘The drive to codify: implications for the knowledge based economy’ (2001) Prometheus, 19, 2, 99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Caenegem W, , ‘Inter-firm migration of tacit knowledge: law and policy’ (2005) Prometheus 23, 3, 285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Advisory Council on Intellectual Property (Advisory Council on Intellectual Property), Should plant & animal subject matter be excluded from protection by the innovation patent? (November 2004).

Advisory Council on Industrial Property (Advisory Council on Intellectual Property) —Final Report, Patents and Experimental Use (October 2005).

Advisory Council on Industrial Property (Advisory Council on Intellectual Property) —Review of crown use provisions for patents and designs (November 2005).

Australian Law Reform Commission (Australian Law Reform Commission), Report No 99, Genes and Ingenuity: Gene Patenting and Human Health (2004).

Barton, J, ‘Patents and antitrust: a rethinking in light of patent breadth and sequential innovation’ (1997) Antitrust Law Journal 65, 449.Google Scholar

Barton, J—‘Reforming the Patent System’, Science, Vol 287, 17 March 2000, 1993.Google Scholar

Blows, J and Clark, D, ‘Is an innovative step so easy that “any fool could do it”?’, (2006) Australian Intellectual Property Law Bulletin, 18, 8, 129.

Brennan, D, ‘Springboards and Ironing Boards: Confidential information as a restraint of trade’ (2005) Journal of Contract Law 71.Google Scholar

Bucknell, et al, Australian Patent Law, Butterworths, 2004.Google Scholar

Bureau of Industry Economics, The Economics of Patents, BIE Occasional Paper, Feb. 1994

Burk, D and Lemley, M, ‘Policy levers in patents law’ (2003) 79 Va L Rev101.Google Scholar

Burk, D and Lemley, M. —‘Is patent law technology specific?’ (2002) Berkeley Tech. Law Journal, 17, 1155.Google Scholar

Christie, A, ‘Some Observations on the Requirement of Inherent Patentability in the Context of Business Methods Patents’ (2000) Intellectual Property Forum 43.Google Scholar

Dreyfuss, R, ‘Are business method patents bad for business?’ (2000) Santa Clara Computer & High Technology Law Journal 16(2).Google Scholar

Drummond, D, ‘Are the courts down under properly handling patent disputes?’ (2000) Intellectual Property Forum 42, 10.Google Scholar

Duffy, J, ‘Rethinking the prospect theory of patents’ (2004) The University of Chicago Law Review, 71, 439.Google Scholar

Ellis, T, ‘Distortion of patent economics by litigation costs’, in Hill, et al (eds), CASRIP, Streamlining International Intellectual Property, 1999.

Garde, T, ‘Legal certainty, stare decisis and the doctrine of equivalents’ [2005] EIPR365.Google Scholar

Gee, O, ‘The description-claims relationship – “A fair balance?”. A comparison of the Australian, USA and EPO jurisdictions’ (2006) Intellectual Property Forum 64, 44.Google Scholar

Grady, MF and Alexander, JI, ‘Patent law and rent dissipation’ (1992) 78 Virginia Law Review305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grushcow, J, ‘Measuring secrecy: a cost of the patent system revealed’ (2004) The Journal of Legal Studies, 33, 59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haines, T, ‘Patenting legal strategies – Does the utility justify the ends?’ (2005) Intellectual Property Forum 62, 24.Google Scholar

Hauhart, R, ‘The origin and development of the British and American patent and copyright laws’ (1983) 5 Whittier L R539.Google Scholar

Heath, , ‘Remuneration of employees’ inventions in Europe and Japan', AIPPI: Bimonthly Journal of the International Association for the Protection of the Industrial Property of Japan, Vol. 27 No. 6, November 2002, pp 398–407.Google Scholar

Heller, M and Eisenberg, R, ‘Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anti-commons in Biomedical Research’ (1998) 280 Science698.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, ‘Genetic manipulations: the threat or the glory?’ (1992).

IPAustralia, Issues Paper, Review of the Innovation Patent (September 2005).

IPAustralia, Issues Paper —Review of Patent Grace Period (August 2005).

Janis, M, ‘Patent Abolitionism’ (2002) 17 Berkeley Technology Law Journal899.Google Scholar

Jensen PH and E Webster, ‘Achieving the optimal power of patent rights’, IPRIA Working Paper No 15/04, December 2004.

Kingston, W, ‘Why harmonization is a Trojan horse’ [2004] 26 EIPR10, 447–60.Google Scholar

Kingston, W —‘Innovation needs patent reform’ (2001) Research Policy 30, 3, 403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kitch, EW, ‘The nature and function of the patent system’ (1978) J of L & Eco 20, 165.Google Scholar

Lamberton D, Dissenting Statement, ‘Patents, Innovation and Competition in Australia’, Industrial Property Advisory Group, Attorney General's Department, 1984.

Lemley, M, ‘Reconceiving patents in the age of venture capital’ (2000) The Journal of Small and Emerging Business Law137.Google Scholar

Lemley, M —‘The economics of improvement in intellectual property law’ (1997) Texas Law Review 75, 989.Google Scholar

Levin, R et al, ‘Appropriating the returns from industrial research and development’ (1987) 3 Brookings Papers on Economic Activity783.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lithgow, T, ‘Patent infringement immunity for medical practitioners and related health care entities’ (1997) Jurimetrics Journal251.Google Scholar

Lo, VI, ‘Employee inventions and works for hire in Japan: A comparative study against the US, Chinese and German systems’ (2002) 16 Temp Int'l & Comp LJ279.Google Scholar

Long, P, ‘Invention, authorship, “Intellectual property” and the origin of patents: Notes toward a conceptual history’ (1991) Technology and Culture 32, 846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Loughlan, P, ‘Of patents and professors: Intellectual Property, Research Workers and Universities’ [1996] 6 EIPR345.Google Scholar

Macdonald, S, ‘When Means Become Ends: Considering the Impact of Patent Strategy on Innovation’ (2004) Information Economics and Policy, 16, 1, 135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Machlup F, ‘Patents’ in Sills, D (ed), The international encyclopaedia of the social sciences II, Macmillan, 1968, pp 468–71.Google Scholar

Macleod, C, Inventing the industrial revolution: the English patent system 1660–1800, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge University Press 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mandeville, Lamberton, Bishop , The economic effects of the Australian Patent System, 1982.

Mandich, G, ‘Venetian Patents (1450–1550)’ (1948) JPTOS 30, 166.Google Scholar

Mansfield, E, Schwartz, M and Wagner, S, ‘Imitation costs and patents: an empirical study’ (1981) The Economics Journal 91, 907–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Martin, DL, ‘Reducing anticipated rewards from innovation through patent: or less is more’ (1992) 78 Virginia Law Review351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

McBratney, A, ‘Does the fair basing “problem child” escape Lockwood?’ (2005) 16 AIPJ4, 210.Google Scholar

McBratney, A—‘The Problem Child in Australian Patent Law: “Fair” Basing’ (2001) 12 AIPJ 4, 211.Google Scholar

Merges, R, ‘As many as six impossible patents before breakfast: property rights for business concepts and patent system reform’ (1999) Berkeley Technology Law Journal 14, 577.Google Scholar

Merges, R—‘The law and economics of employee inventions’ (1999) Harvard Journal of Law and Technology 13, 1.Google Scholar

Merges, R—‘Rent control in the patent district: observations on the Grady-Alexander thesis’, 78 (1992) Virginia Law Review359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Merges R and R Nelson, ‘Market structure and technical advance: the role of patent scope decisions’, in Jorde, T and Teece, D (eds), Antitrust, innovation and competitiveness, Oxford University Press, 1992.Google Scholar

Merges, R and Nelson, R—‘On the complex economics of patents scope’ (1990) Columbia Law Review 90, 839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mills, O, Biotechnological inventions: Moral Restraints and Patent Law, Ashgate, 2005.Google Scholar

Monotti, A and Ricketson, S, Universities and Intellectual Property, Ownership and Exploitation, Oxford University Press, 2003.Google Scholar

Mossinghoff, G, ‘Remedies under patents on medical and surgical procedures’ (1996) 78 JPTOS789.Google Scholar

Parchomsky, G and Polk, R Wagner, ‘Patent portfolios’ (2005) University of Pennsylvania Law Review 154, 1, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pendleton, M, ‘Construe Widely and Face Invalidity – Construe Narrowly and Miss Infringements: The Dilemma of Interpreting Patent Specifications’, Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law, Volume 11, Number 3 (September 2004).Google Scholar

Scotchmer, S, ‘Standing on the shoulders of giants: cumulative research and the patent law’ (1991) Journal of Economic Perspectives 5, 29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Caenegem W, , ‘The technicality requirement, patents scope and patentable subject matter in Australia’ (2002) Australian Intellectual Property Journal 13, 309.Google Scholar

Overwalle G, , The legal protection of biotechnological inventions in Europe, Leuven Law Series, Vol 10, Leuven University Press, 1997.Google Scholar

Walterscheid, E, ‘The early evolution of the United States Patent Law: Antecedents’ (Part I) (1994) JPTOS697; (Part II) (1994) JPTOS849.Google Scholar

Weatherall, K and Jensen, P, ‘An empirical investigation into patent enforcements in Australian courts’ (2005) Federal Law Review 33, 2, 239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Australian Law Reform Commission (Australian Law Reform Commission), Report No 74, Designs (1995).

Bently, L, ‘Visuality and Textuality in Nineteenth Century Intellectual Property Law: The Utility Designs Act 1843’ (1997) Intellectual Property Forum, Issue 29.Google Scholar

Brown, D and Cameron, E, ‘Designing the interface’, (2005) International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 19, 1, 65–81.CrossRef

Bureau of Industry Economics, The Economics of Intellectual Property Rights for Design, BIE Occasional Paper, June 1995.

Commission of the European Communities, Green Paper on the Legal Protection of Industrial Designs, III/F/5131191-EN (1991).

Franzosi, M and Sanctis, G, ‘Moral Rights and New Technology: Are Copyright and Patents Converging?’ [1995] 2 EIPR63.Google Scholar

Fraser, G and Hall, K, ‘Copyright protection for works of artistic craftsmanship’ (1999) Law Institute Journal 73, 9, 47–9.Google Scholar

Golder, T, ‘Australian Designs Law – A Commentary on the Lahore Committee Report and the Need for Legislative Reform’ (1993) Intellectual Property Forum Journal 19.Google Scholar

Gotzen, F (ed), ‘The green paper on the legal protection of industrial design’, CIRLeuven (1992).Google Scholar

Hansmann, H and Santilli, M, ‘Authors and artists’ moral rights: A comparative legal and economic analysis (1997) 26 J Legal Stud95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Haungs, MJ, ‘Copyright of Factual Compilations: Public Policy and the First Amendment’ (1990) 23 Colum J L & Soc Problems347.Google Scholar

Izquierdo, Peris JJ, ‘Registered Community Design: First two-year Balance from an Insider's Perspective’ (2006) 28 EIPR3, 146.Google Scholar

Ladas, and Parry, , ‘Intellectual Property Law, the European Design Regulation in Context’, Chapter 5, The position in Europe, available at www.ladas.com/Patents/PatentPractice/EUDesignRegulation/EUDesi05.html

Laddie, Prescott and Vitoria, , The Modern Law of Copyright and Designs, 2nd edn 1995.

McGowan G, Paper concerning the new Designs Act, available at: www.vicbar.com.au/pdf/CLESeminar_30062004GMc.pdf

Posner, RA and Landes, WM, ‘An Economic Analysis of Copyright Law’ (1989) 18 Journal of Legal Studies325.Google Scholar

Ricketson, S, The Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, 1886–1986, Kluwer, 1987.Google Scholar

Rothnie, W, ‘The vexed problem of Copyright/Designs overlap’ (2005) Intellectual Property Forum 60, 33.Google Scholar

Rushton, M, ‘An Economic Approach to Copyright in Works of Artistic Craftsmanship’ [2001] Intellectual Property Quarterly 3, 255.Google Scholar

Abbot, J, ‘Reverse engineering of software: Copyright and interoperability’ (2003) Journal of law and information science 14, 7.Google Scholar

Advisory Council on Intellectual Property (Advisory Council on Intellectual Property), Review of enforcement of Plant Breeder's Rights (Current; 2006).

Australian Committee on Industrial Property (Advisory Council on Intellectual Property) —Patents & Experimental Use, Options Paper (Dec 2004); Final Report (Oct 2005).

Australian Committee on Industrial Property (Advisory Council on Intellectual Property) —Should plant & animal subject matter be excluded from protection by the innovation patent? (Nov 2004).

Alexandra, A, Lee, J and Vanclay, F, ‘Innovation, exclusion and commodification of plant types: a social and philosophical investigation of Plant Variety Rights in Australia’ (2004), Rural Society 14, 1, 46.CrossRef

Australian Centre for Intellectual Property in Agriculture (ACIPA), ‘Understanding Plant Breeder's Right's’, available at www.acipa.edu.au/frame_pbr.html

Australian Law Reform Commission (Australian Law Reform Commission), Report No 99, Genes and Ingenuity: Gene Patenting & Human Health (2004).

Bently, L and Burrell, R, ‘The requirement of trade mark use’ (2002) AIPJ, 18, 1.Google Scholar

Burchfield, KJ, ‘The Constitutional Intellectual Property Power: Progress of the Useful Arts and the Legal Protection of Semiconductor Technology’ (1988) 28 Santa Clara LR473.Google Scholar

Christie, A, ‘Final Report of the Copyright Law Review Committee on Protection of Computer Software – An Overview of Recommendations and Issues In relation to Copyright in computer programs’ (1996) Intellectual Property Forum 27.Google Scholar

Christie, A—Integrated Circuits and their Contents: International Protection, LBC Information Services, 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright Law Review Committee, Final Report on Computer Software Protection (1995).

Davis, J, ‘To Protect or Serve? European trade mark law and the decline of the public interest’ [2003] EIPR180.Google ScholarPubMed

Davis, M, ‘Death of a Salesman's Doctrine: A critical look at trademark use’ (1985) 19 Georgia LR233.Google Scholar

Economides, N, ‘The Economics of Trademarks’ (1988) 78 Trademark Reporter523.Google Scholar

Eisenberg, R, ‘Proprietary Rights and the Norms of Science in Biotechnology and Research’ (1988) 97 Yale LJ 2 177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Expert Panel on Breeding, ‘Clarification of plant breeding issues under the Plant Breeder's Rights Act 1994’, Report, December 2002.

Folie, A, ‘Trade-offs in trade mark protection: an economic analysis’ (2004) AIPJ 15, 2, 87.Google Scholar

Forsyth, M, ‘Biotechnology, Patents and Public Policy: A Proposal for Reform in Australia’ (2000) 11 AIPJ 202.Google Scholar

Helth, TS, ‘Beer with lime? A trade mark assembled by the bartenderAIPJ (2005) Australian Intellectual Property Law Bulletin, 18, 6, 93.Google Scholar

Honey, R and Sinden, P, ‘The Interface between Trademark, Designs and Passing Off under Australian Law: The Philips Case’ (2000) Murdoch e-law Journal Vol 7 No 4.Google Scholar

House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, ‘Genetic Manipulation: the Threat or the Glory’, Canberra (1992).

Hughes, S, ‘Protection of Shape Marks in Australia: Extending the permanent monopoly’ (2002) 49 Intellectual Property Forum28.Google Scholar

Janis, M, ‘Sustainable Agriculture, Patent Rights, and Plant Innovation’ (2001) 9 Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies91.Google Scholar

Jones, N, ‘Biotechnology patents: a change of heart’ [1994] 1 EIPR37.Google Scholar

Kang, PH and Snyder, K, ‘A practitioner's approach to strategic enforcement and analysis of business method patents in the post-State Street era’ (2000) IDEA – The Journal of Law and Technology 40, 267.Google Scholar

Landes, WM and Posner, R, ‘Trademark law: an economic perspective’ (1987) 30 J of Law & Eco265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lawson, C, ‘Patents and plant breeder's rights over plant genetic resources for food and agriculture’ (2004) Federal Law Review 32, 107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lawson, C—‘Patenting Genes and Gene Sequences and Competition: Patenting at the Expense of Competition’ (2002) 30 Federal Law Review97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lemley, M and Cohen, JE, ‘Patent scope and innovation in the software industry’ (2001) 89 California Law Review1.Google Scholar

Lemley, M and McGowan, D, ‘Legal Implications of Network Economic Effects’ (1998) 86 California Law Review479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Marschak J, ‘The economics of language’, in Lamberton, D (ed), The Economics of Communication and Information, Edward Elgar, 1996.Google Scholar

McCutcheon, J, ‘Monopolised product shapes and factual distinctiveness under s 41(6) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth)’ (2004) 15 AIPJ 1, 18.Google Scholar

Moens, A, ‘Streamlining the Software Development Process Through Reuse and Patents’ [2000] EIPR 22(9) 418.Google Scholar

Moens, A—‘The Use of Copyright and Patents for Software Protection’ (1998) 4 Computer & Telecommunications Law Review35.Google Scholar

Nicol, D, ‘On the legality of gene patents’ [2005] MULR25.Google Scholar

Nicol, D and Nielsen, J, ‘The Australian Medical Biotechnology Industry and Access to Intellectual Property: Issues for Patent Law Development’ (2001) 23 Sydney Law Review347.Google Scholar

Nott, R, ‘The proposed directive on biotechnological inventions’ [1994] 5 EIPR191.Google Scholar

Nuffield Council on Bioethics, ‘The Ethics of Patenting DNA – A Discussion Paper’ (2002).

Outterson, K, ‘The vanishing public domain: antibiotic resistance, pharmaceutical innovation and intellectual property law’ (2005) University of Pittsburgh Law Review, 1, 67.Google Scholar

Png, I and Reitman, D, ‘Why are some products branded and others not?’ (1995) 38 Journal of Law & Economics207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rangnekar, D, ‘Technology paradigms and the Innovation-Appropriation Interface: An examination of the nature and scope of Plant Breeders’ Rights' (1999) 17 Prometheus 2, 125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Registrar of Plant Breeder's Rights, Clarification of Plant Breeding Issues under the Plant Breeder's Rights Act 1994 (2002).

Rimmer, M, ‘Franklin Barley: patent law and Plant Breeders’ Rights' (2003) Murdoch e-Law Journal 10 4.Google Scholar

Roberts, C, ‘The prospects of success of the National Institute of Health's Human Genome Application’ [1994] 1 EIPR30.Google Scholar

Roberts, T, ‘Broad claims for biotechnological inventions’ [1994] 9 EIPR371.Google Scholar

Schulze, C, ‘Registering colour trade marks in the European Union’ [2003] 25 EIPR 2, 55.Google Scholar

Smith, C, ‘Trade mark protection for product shape – Where does the public interest lie?’ (2005) Intellectual Property Forum 63, 32.Google Scholar

Suthersanen, U, ‘The European Court of Justice in Philips v Remington: Trade Marks and Market Freedom’ [2003] 7 Intellectual Property Quarterly257–83Google Scholar

Turkevich, L, ‘An end to the “Mathematical algorithm” confusion?’ [1995] 2 EIPR91.Google Scholar

Willchon, D, ‘Broad Trade Mark Specifications’ [2002] 24 EIPR228.Google Scholar