Property Interests and a Cure for AIDS  Property Interests and A Cure For AIDS  Th

This paper will examine the possible types of property interests which may be asserted in a future cure for AIDS and the argument that there should be no property interests allowed in such a cure. In particular, this paper will examine the argument that no person or entity should be able to assert the traditional property right of excludability in a cure for AIDS.

 Property has traditionally been described as an aggregate, or bundle, of rights over a subject, including the rights of possession, enjoyment, use, disposition, and exclusion. Of coarse, these rights may be asserted over tangible and intangible property, intangible property being rights rather than physical objects. As relating to the human body, tangible, or corporeal, property includes physical substances taken from the human body and their derivatives; intangible, or incorporeal, property include patent protection of a human cell line, for example, or a claim to a body's commercial potential. Thus a property interest in a disease cure will usually be the ability to assert certain rights concerning this cure, such as the right to receive profits from the use of this cure, the right to exclude others from profiting from the cure, and the right to sell the previous two rights to others. There are three possible sources of these rights over disease cures: patent law, trade secrets, and personal property law. This third source involves a patient's property interest in

. . .
ody is part of the basic dignity of human beings."The second principle is that of beneficence; whether the commercialization of tissue would be more beneficial then its prohibition. Finally, any decision regarding such commercialization must be made with regards to notions of fairness and equality. One commentator has stated that the whole debate boils down to a dispute between dualistic and monistic views of the human body, the dualistic view separating the body from the mind while the monistic view regarding the two as one entity.  On the other hand, denying patients property rights in their tissue seems a bit harsh when researchers are allowed to profit from items derived from this same material. The California Supreme Court suggested that this problem could be alleviated by ensuring that patients are aware that scientists may conduct research on any excised material and commercially exploit this same tissue. This doctrine, however, may possibly inhibit research if patients refuse to consent to procedures which would give scientists access to their tissue. This even cause some patients to forego necessary procedures and eventually result in researchers paying certain patients with unique traits for access to their tissue, reg
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Supreme Court, Cure AIDS, Patent Office, Unfortunately Gray, John Locke, Victoria Park, Court Australia, California Supreme, United Constitution, University California, property rights, intellectual property, trade secret, human tissue, human body, patent protection, exclude using, trade secrets, property law, commercial value, intellectual property law, intellectual property rights, california supreme court, trade secrets law, secrets law protects,
Approximate Word count = 4066
Approximate Pages = 16 (250 words per page)

More Essays on Property Interests and a Cure for AIDS  Property Interests and A Cure For AIDS  Th