Thesis (doctoral)--Universität Heidelberg.

Univ., Diss.--Saarbrücken, 2004. / Literaturverz. S. [289] - 298 . Text überw. dt., teilw. franz.

Text in Afrikaans / This thesis deals with the nature and operation of liens in South African law. Whereas enrichment liens are classified as real rights, debtor creditor liens are not (sometimes they are referred to as personal rights). The South African law of lien is principally founded on Roman Dutch law and is similar to Dutch law before the enactment of the current Burgerlijk Wetboek (BW). In Dutch law the BW specifies which persons have a lien and under what circumstances. In South African law a creditor can establish a lien against an owner who has a duty to perform in terms of an agreement between the parties or, in the absence of such an agreement, on the basis of unjustified enrichment. My research has shown that a lien is not a subjective right but a capacity vested in a creditor by operation of law. It empowers him to retain an owner’s (debtor) thing until the creditor’s claim against him has been discharged. Extra-judicially the lien holder can rely on his lien or he can raise it as a defence against the owner’s rei vindicatio. The categorisation of liens as either enrichment liens, or debtor creditor liens is at the most an indication of the different sources of the creditor’s right to which the lien is accessory. In Dutch law liens are classified as verhaalsrechten on the owner’s estate. These rights (verhaalsrechten) are further classified as specific opschortingsrechten. A lien is therefore a capacity granted to certain creditors by law to retain an owner’s (debtor) thing. Regarding the operation of liens against third parties (derdenwerking), Dutch law distinguishes between a third party with an older right to the thing and a third party with a later right to the thing. In South African case law derdewerking (real operation) of liens is often used to explain the fact that the lienholder may, in the absence of an agreement with the owner, retain the owner’s thing until his claim against the owner has been discharged. In South African law a lien is a defence to the owner’s rei vindicatio. Reliance on real operation (derdewerking) is often a means of explaining that a lien exists against an owner with whom the creditor had no agreement. Real operation, however, refers to the question against whom other than the owner the lien may be enforced once its existence has been established. A lien can be enforced against the creditors of the owner (debtor), the curator of the debtor’s insolvent estate, heirs, mortgagees and servitude holders. In Dutch law the BW grants preference to liens. Owing to the particular provisions of the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936 liens in South African law enjoy preference above other secured creditors of the insolvent owner (debtor). / Hierdie proefskrif handel oor die aard en werking van retensieregte in die Suid- Afrikaanse reg. Verrykingsretensieregte word algemeen as saaklike regte bestempel en skuldeiser-skuldenaar-retensieregte nie. Laasgenoemde word soms as persoonlike regte tipeer. Die Suid-Afrikaanse reg insake retensieregte is hoofsaaklik op die Romeins-Hollandse reg geskoei en stem in ‘n groot mate ooreen met die posisie in die Nederlandse reg voor die inwerkingtreding van die huidige Burgerlijk Wetboek (BW). In die Nederlandse reg bepaal die BW uitdruklik watter persone in watter omstandighede ‘n retensiereg het. In die Suid-Afrikaanse reg kan ‘n skuldeiser ‘n retensiereg vestig teen ‘n eienaar wat prestasiepligtig is op grond van ‘n ooreenkoms met die skuldeiser of, in die afwesigheid van ‘n ooreenkoms, op grond van verryking. My navorsing toon dat ‘n retensiereg nie ‘n subjektiewe reg is nie, maar ‘n terughoudingsbevoegdheid wat deur regswerking totstandkom. Dit stel die skuldeiser in staat om die eienaar (skuldenaar) se saak te hou totdat die eienaar voldoen aan die vorderingsreg wat die skuldeiser teen hom het. Die retensiereghouer kan buitegeregtelik daarop steun, of dit as ‘n verweer teen die eienaar se rei vindicatio aanwend. Die kategorisering van retensieregte in skuldeiser-skuldenaar-retensieregte en verrykingsretensieregte is hoogstens aanduidend van die verskillende ontstaansbronne van die vorderingsreg waartoe die retensiereg aksessoor is. In die Nederlandse reg word retensieregte in die BW as verhaalsregte op die eienaar se boedel geklassifiseer. Hierdie verhaalsregte word uitdruklik as besondere opskortingsregte getipeer. ‘n Retensiereg is dus ‘n terughoudingsbevoegdheid wat deur die objektiewe reg aan sekere skuldeisers verleen word. Ten aansien van die derdewerking van retensieregte tref die Nederlandse reg ‘n onderskeid tussen ‘n derde met ‘n later reg op die saak en ‘n derde met ‘n ouer reg op die saak. In die Suid-Afrikaanse regspraak word “derdewerking” dikwels aangewend om te verklaar waarom die retensiereghouer ‘n eienaar se saak mag terughou totdat hy vergoed is vir uitgawes wat hy aan die eienaar se saak aangebring het, terwyl hy geen ooreenkoms met die eienaar gehad het nie. In die Suid-Afrikaanse reg is ‘n retensiereg ‘n verweer wat teen die eienaar se rei vindicatio geopper kan word. Die beroep op “derdewerking” is dus dikwels die kapstok om te bepaal of ‘n retensiereg teen die eienaar geopper kan word, terwyl dit eintlik verwys na die afdwingbaarheid van ‘n bestaande retensiereg teen ander persone as die eienaar. ‘n Retensiereg kan teen skuldeisers van die skuldenaar, die kurator van die skuldenaar se insolvente boedel, erfgename, verbandhouers en serwituutgeregtigdes afgedwing word. In die Nederlandse reg verleen die BW voorkeur aan retensieregte. Vanweë die besondere bepalings in die Insolvensiewet 24 van 1936 geniet retensieregte in die Suid-Afrikaanse reg ook voorkeur bo ander versekerde skuldeisers van die insolvente eienaar (skuldenaar). / Private Law / LL.D.

Text in Afrikaans / This thesis deals with the nature and operation of liens in South African law. Whereas enrichment liens are classified as real rights, debtor creditor liens are not (sometimes they are referred to as personal rights). The South African law of lien is principally founded on Roman Dutch law and is similar to Dutch law before the enactment of the current Burgerlijk Wetboek (BW). In Dutch law the BW specifies which persons have a lien and under what circumstances. In South African law a creditor can establish a lien against an owner who has a duty to perform in terms of an agreement between the parties or, in the absence of such an agreement, on the basis of unjustified enrichment. My research has shown that a lien is not a subjective right but a capacity vested in a creditor by operation of law. It empowers him to retain an owner’s (debtor) thing until the creditor’s claim against him has been discharged. Extra-judicially the lien holder can rely on his lien or he can raise it as a defence against the owner’s rei vindicatio. The categorisation of liens as either enrichment liens, or debtor creditor liens is at the most an indication of the different sources of the creditor’s right to which the lien is accessory. In Dutch law liens are classified as verhaalsrechten on the owner’s estate. These rights (verhaalsrechten) are further classified as specific opschortingsrechten. A lien is therefore a capacity granted to certain creditors by law to retain an owner’s (debtor) thing. Regarding the operation of liens against third parties (derdenwerking), Dutch law distinguishes between a third party with an older right to the thing and a third party with a later right to the thing. In South African case law derdewerking (real operation) of liens is often used to explain the fact that the lienholder may, in the absence of an agreement with the owner, retain the owner’s thing until his claim against the owner has been discharged. In South African law a lien is a defence to the owner’s rei vindicatio. Reliance on real operation (derdewerking) is often a means of explaining that a lien exists against an owner with whom the creditor had no agreement. Real operation, however, refers to the question against whom other than the owner the lien may be enforced once its existence has been established. A lien can be enforced against the creditors of the owner (debtor), the curator of the debtor’s insolvent estate, heirs, mortgagees and servitude holders. In Dutch law the BW grants preference to liens. Owing to the particular provisions of the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936 liens in South African law enjoy preference above other secured creditors of the insolvent owner (debtor). / Hierdie proefskrif handel oor die aard en werking van retensieregte in die Suid- Afrikaanse reg. Verrykingsretensieregte word algemeen as saaklike regte bestempel en skuldeiser-skuldenaar-retensieregte nie. Laasgenoemde word soms as persoonlike regte tipeer. Die Suid-Afrikaanse reg insake retensieregte is hoofsaaklik op die Romeins-Hollandse reg geskoei en stem in ‘n groot mate ooreen met die posisie in die Nederlandse reg voor die inwerkingtreding van die huidige Burgerlijk Wetboek (BW). In die Nederlandse reg bepaal die BW uitdruklik watter persone in watter omstandighede ‘n retensiereg het. In die Suid-Afrikaanse reg kan ‘n skuldeiser ‘n retensiereg vestig teen ‘n eienaar wat prestasiepligtig is op grond van ‘n ooreenkoms met die skuldeiser of, in die afwesigheid van ‘n ooreenkoms, op grond van verryking. My navorsing toon dat ‘n retensiereg nie ‘n subjektiewe reg is nie, maar ‘n terughoudingsbevoegdheid wat deur regswerking totstandkom. Dit stel die skuldeiser in staat om die eienaar (skuldenaar) se saak te hou totdat die eienaar voldoen aan die vorderingsreg wat die skuldeiser teen hom het. Die retensiereghouer kan buitegeregtelik daarop steun, of dit as ‘n verweer teen die eienaar se rei vindicatio aanwend. Die kategorisering van retensieregte in skuldeiser-skuldenaar-retensieregte en verrykingsretensieregte is hoogstens aanduidend van die verskillende ontstaansbronne van die vorderingsreg waartoe die retensiereg aksessoor is. In die Nederlandse reg word retensieregte in die BW as verhaalsregte op die eienaar se boedel geklassifiseer. Hierdie verhaalsregte word uitdruklik as besondere opskortingsregte getipeer. ‘n Retensiereg is dus ‘n terughoudingsbevoegdheid wat deur die objektiewe reg aan sekere skuldeisers verleen word. Ten aansien van die derdewerking van retensieregte tref die Nederlandse reg ‘n onderskeid tussen ‘n derde met ‘n later reg op die saak en ‘n derde met ‘n ouer reg op die saak. In die Suid-Afrikaanse regspraak word “derdewerking” dikwels aangewend om te verklaar waarom die retensiereghouer ‘n eienaar se saak mag terughou totdat hy vergoed is vir uitgawes wat hy aan die eienaar se saak aangebring het, terwyl hy geen ooreenkoms met die eienaar gehad het nie. In die Suid-Afrikaanse reg is ‘n retensiereg ‘n verweer wat teen die eienaar se rei vindicatio geopper kan word. Die beroep op “derdewerking” is dus dikwels die kapstok om te bepaal of ‘n retensiereg teen die eienaar geopper kan word, terwyl dit eintlik verwys na die afdwingbaarheid van ‘n bestaande retensiereg teen ander persone as die eienaar. ‘n Retensiereg kan teen skuldeisers van die skuldenaar, die kurator van die skuldenaar se insolvente boedel, erfgename, verbandhouers en serwituutgeregtigdes afgedwing word. In die Nederlandse reg verleen die BW voorkeur aan retensieregte. Vanweë die besondere bepalings in die Insolvensiewet 24 van 1936 geniet retensieregte in die Suid-Afrikaanse reg ook voorkeur bo ander versekerde skuldeisers van die insolvente eienaar (skuldenaar). / Private Law / LL.D.

自從美國最高法院在廣達與LGE案中作出解釋後，便將權利耗盡理論亦稱為第一次銷售理論帶往另一個層次。此案已被普遍認為對於美國過去的判例影響甚鉅，對於產業界的商業活動發展更是具有深遠的影響。智慧財產權旨在保護發明及創造公眾利益間取得一平衡點，權利耗盡理論長久以來已被視為專利法中重要的一環，並藉以杜絕專利權人的過當控制。而最高法院對於第一次銷售理論的解釋，則進而撼動專利權人長此以往對限制性銷售策略的仰賴。 即便銷售後限制(Post-sale restriction)確實提供了專利權人避免耗盡其權利的好方法，但專利權範圍則限縮了專利權人所享有的權利控制範圍，換言之，專利權人僅能擁有專利法所賦予的權利，且其加諸於被授權人的購買條件限制僅限於該專利之功能及使用目的。而超越該專利功能及使用目的的過分限制，則可能導致專利權濫用。而在開放WTO框架下，國際貿易的頻繁也使得權利耗盡衍生出了在散佈等方面的相關討論，平行輸入/輸出的議題亦隨著跨國交易的興盛而隨之重要。 故此篇論文的研究目的不僅僅探討權利耗盡理論及其相關議題，更旨在藉由廣達案的啟發，提供台灣的IT產業一有效的專利授權策略，並提供不論專利權人或被授權人於制定授權契約時，能有一更具有策略性的思考方向。 / The Supreme Court’s current decision in Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. brings the exhaustion doctrine also known as first sale doctrine up to a new phase. This case is believed significantly overcome quite a lot of past precedents and will effectively influent industry business operations in the future. The core goal of intellectual property right aims to find a balance between protecting the incentives to create and innovate, and providing the benefits to public interests. Exhaustion doctrine has been long standing as part of patent law to prevent patentees’ over control. The interpretation made by Supreme Court regarding the first sale doctrine does vibrate the conditional sale strategies long believed by patentees. Now the Supreme Court brings the issue from the phase of patent law down to the contract law level. Subsequently, the litigations of antitrust and fair trade are therefore involved while patentees are tempting to make an “end-run” control over the downstream purchasers. Though applying post-sale restriction provides a way out for intellectual property owner from triggering the exhaustion, however, the scope of the patent claims determine how far the privilege is given to the inventors. A patent owner or licenser can only enforce its patent right while the right is truly granted by the patent law. Subsequently, the restriction set forth to limit the licensees or purchasers must be accordance with the function or feature of the patent claims for. On the contrary, the patentee intends to restrict its purchasers by holding the exclusive right which beyond the scope of the patent granted may result to patent misuse, for instance, the resale price maintenance, prohibition of manufacturing the competing products, the conditional license which incorporates another license, and overwhelming royalties on the price of the whole product instead of the actual usage of the patented article. Under WTO, the concern of intellectual property protection has become more critical in the perspective of international trade, different issues and disputes regarding exhaustion have also been generated. Not alike the traditional domestic exhaustion, the discussion regarding distribution has therefore been derived. Moreover, the issues related to parallel import/export are generated in accordance with the frequent cross-border transaction. The purpose of this research does not merely lead us look into the doctrine and restriction patentees used to impose for avoiding exhaustion. But I intend to further illustrate a guideline based on the inspiration from Quanta and the explanation of the Courts. This guideline should provide both patentees and licensees an orientation while considering making a licensing agreement.