傳統上認為不斷地專利化生醫研究所用的研究工具，將可能釀成「反共有之悲劇」，阻礙整體學術研究的發展。惟最近亦有文獻指出，專利本身恐怕非為真正阻礙生醫學術研究的罪魁禍首，反而是近用生物材料以及未公開之研究成果所造成，而且阻礙的程度可能逐漸增加。因此，本文試圖從生物材料移轉契約的角度切入，來解決遲延研究與拒絕分享之問題，分析雙方之間無法達成共識的要求為何？法律上又如何看待此種他方認為不合理之要求？
因此，本文於第二章先論述生物材料之定義、內容與特性，描繪出生物材料的藍圖。對於生物材料有基本的認識後，在第三章則進一步說明生物材料移轉之歷史演變，生物材料移轉契約之內容以及當代所面臨之問題。瞭解問題所在之後，第四章回歸法律層面，從法律的角度檢視若雙方無擬定移轉契約時，權益該如何分配，以及雙方所擬之生物材料移轉契約是否可能違反法律規定。此部分限縮在雙方有體或無體財產權該如何歸屬之問題。第五章則公平交易法之角度再次檢視第四章所遺留之問題，探討公平交易法解決剩餘問題的可能性。最後，在第六章敘明適用各法律後之結論。
本文所提出的結論為，雖然仍得以以公平交易法為法律手段來解決問題，然因該法實際能解決之範圍不大，能落入該範圍之案例少之又少，再加上複雜的事實調查與涵攝等，所耗費的時間可能讓材料需求者望之卻步。因此建議研究人員不應依恃法律為手段，應以參與相關推廣的活動與組織，自發性地推動材料分享。也建議技轉中心、大學及政府各單位於各種的政策下增訂促進生物材料利用之條文。

Traditionally, it is recognized that numerous patent of research tools would lead to “Tragedy of the Anticommons”, hindering the development of academic research . Recently, some articles, however, pointed out that patent by itself isn’t the real reason causing hindrance, but the access to biological material or unpublished result instead, and the extent of delay could grow increasingly. Consequently, this article analyzes the problem of research delay from the aspect of biological material transfer agreement, investigates why providers and recipients couldn’t reach a consensus, and sees how the law regards this kind of severe requirement.
In this article, the second section briefly describes the definition, content and characteristic of biological material. The third section provides the history of biological material transfer, clauses of biological material transfer agreement, and the problems we’re facing nowadays. The forth section evaluates whether the requirement that provider asked would violate Civil Law or Patent Law, and discovers how these laws distribute rights under the condition without agreement. This part only focuses on the issue of property ownership. The fifth section inspects the problems that forth section left through the view of Fair Trade Law. Finally, the last section concludes that although Fair Trade Law could be the means to solve problems, the extent is limited and it costs excessive time due to complicated investigation of legal fact. Therefore, this article suggests that researchers should participate related activities or organization aiming to share, and promote share of material spontaneously, rather than rely on law. This also suggests that office of technology transfer, university and government need to establish some policies for promoting the flow of biological material.

一、中文
（一）專書：
□王澤鑑，民法總則，台北：王慕華發行，2004年3月十三刷。
□王澤鑑，民法物權(1)：通則、所有權，台北：王慕華發行，2006年9月八刷。
□史尚寬，物權法論，自行出版，1987年1月。
□何之邁，公平交易法實論，自行發行，2001年。
□陳自強，契約之內容與消滅，學林出版，2004年1月。
□張靜，我國營業秘密法學的建構與開展—第一冊營業秘密的基礎理論，新學林出版，2007年4月。
□范建得、莊春發，公平交易法系列一：獨占、結合、聯合市場力量之管制，漢興書局，1999年3月。
□黃茂榮，公平交易法理論與實務，自行發行，1993年。
□施啟揚，民法總則，三民書局，2003年8月修訂版。
□鄭玉波，民法總則，三民書局，1998年8月修訂十一版。
□楊崇森，專利法理論與應用，三民書局，2003年修訂二版。
□廖義男（計畫主持人），公平交易法之註釋研究系列（一）—第一條至第十七條，行政院公平交易委員會92年度合作研究報告，2003年。
□劉孔中、歐陽正，公平交易法，國立空中大學，2003年。
□臺大醫學院主編，進階版生物技術，臺北市：教育部，1998年。
□謝在全，民法物權論（上冊），自刊，2004年8月修訂三版。
□醫藥基因生物技術教學資源中心主編，後基因體時代之生物技術，臺北市 : 教育部顧問室，2003年。
□Bernard R. Glick,Jack J. Pasternak, 江善宗校閱，分子生物技術—重組DNA的原理與應用，新文京開發出版股份有限公司，2007年8月。
（二）期刊：
□陳文吟，專利法上受雇人發明之權益歸屬，華岡法粹，第22期，頁121-151頁，1994年。
□陳志民，反托拉斯法規範掠奪行為之現在與未來—新經濟制度下之省思（三），政大法學評論，第82卷，頁225-294，2004年12月。
□李素華，專利權行使與公平交易法─以近用技術標準之關鍵專利為中心，公平交易季刊，第16卷第2期，頁85-121，2008年4月。
□宋皇志，瓶頸設施理論在智慧財產權之適用，月旦法學雜誌，第115期，頁160-179，2004年12月。
□吳秀明，獨占性訂價管制新近實務案例研析，競爭法制之發軔與展開，元照出版公司，頁273-305，2004年。
□吳秀明，獨占性訂價與市場績效管制，競爭法制之發軔與展開，元照出版公司，頁173-271，2004年。
□莊春發，獨占事業獨占力量的濫用—獨占性訂價的探討，經濟研究，第33卷第1期，頁29-54，1995年1月。
□馮震宇，論營業秘密之權利歸屬問題權利歸屬問題，法學叢刊，第43卷，第3期，頁23-34，1998年7月。
□黃銘傑，專利法授權與公平交易法，競爭法智慧財產法之交會-相生與相剋之間，自行出版，頁163-183，2006年。
□黃銘傑，國民中小學教科書、參考書市場競爭行為公平交易法，競爭法智慧財產法之交會-相生與相剋之間，自行出版，頁185-232，2006年。
□黃銘傑，專利集管(patent pool)與公平交易法，競爭法智慧財產法之交會-相生與相剋之間，自行出版，頁233-285，2006年。
□楊宏暉，創新誘因的維護與競爭法規範—以專利拒絕授權為例—，公平交易季刊，第12卷第2期，頁67-112，2004年4月。
□劉孔中，以關鍵設施理論限制專利強制授權之範圍，公平交易季刊，第15卷第1期，頁25-58，2007年1月。
□謝銘洋，智慧財產權與公平交易法之關係—以專利權為中心，台大法學論叢，第二十四卷第二期，頁495-584，1995年6月。
□謝銘洋，研發成果之智慧財產權歸屬與管理—兼述德國之相關制度，收錄在〈智慧財產權之基礎理論〉，自行發行，頁89-148，1995年。
□蘇永欽，論動產加工的物權及債權效果，民法經濟法論文集(一)，自行出版，頁205-325，1988年。
（三）碩士論文：
□李素華，從公共衛生之觀點論醫藥專利權之保護與限制，國立台灣大學法律學研究所博士論文，2006年6月。
□陳玉芬，微生物之財產歸屬及權利範圍，國立清華大學科技法律研究所碩士論文，2008年1月。
□邱玟惠，臍帶血幹細胞及其衍生物之法律地位，東吳大學法律系法律專業碩士班碩士論文，2005年7月。
□葉紀伶，MTF-1磷酸化與細胞週期之關聯性研究，國立清華大學分子與細胞生物研究所碩士論文，2005年7月。
□劉承慶，生物科技智慧財產權歸屬之研究—以人體組織所衍生之權利為中心，國立成功大學法律學研究所碩士論文，2004年1月。
□賴淑青，由公平交易法觀點探討專利授權行為之管制界限—以飛利浦等CD-R光碟授權案為中心，國立台灣大學法律學研究所碩士論文，2005年6月。
□鍾詩敏，生物科技研究工具之專利法與競爭法交錯，國立台灣大學法律學院法律系碩士論文，2008年7月。
（四）網路資料：
□3極端耐鹽菌種 研發藥妝生技新鑰，自由時報，2009/06/07。Available at http://tw.news.yahoo.com/article/url/d/a/090607/78/1ktjk.html （last visited on 2009/6/30）
□公平交易法立法目的與條文說明（上）。Available at http://www.rootlaw.com.tw/products/pdf%5C080007%5C0800070090031.pdf (last visited on 2009/08/23)
□台灣創用CC，available at http://creativecommons.org.tw/ (last visited on 2009/08/23)
□行政院公平交易委員會對於結合申報案件之處理原則。Available at http://www.ftc.gov.tw/internet/main/doc/docDetail.aspx?uid=161&docid=217 (last visited on 2009/08/23)。
□科學天地：改造猴基因 血現螢光綠，2009/06/02 。Available at http://paper.wenweipo.com/2009/06/02/ED0906020008.htm （last visited on 2009/08/23）
□智慧局，現行專利審查基準彙編，第二篇發明專利審查，第十一章生物相關發明。Available at http://www.tipo.gov.tw/ch/Download_DownloadPage.aspx?path=1626&Language=1&UID=21&ClsID=42&ClsTwoID=92&ClsThreeID=0&Page=2 (last visited on 2009/08/23)
□莊榮輝，吳建興，《細胞融合與單株抗體》。Available at http://juang.bst.ntu.edu.tw/ECX/monoclonal.htm#細胞融合法 (last visited on 2009/08/23)
□遺傳資源法草案條文二稿(學者版)。Available at http://seed.agron.ntu.edu.tw/agra.htm (last visited on 2009/08/23)
□基因體醫學國家型計畫基因轉殖鼠核心實驗室，available at http://140.112.133.74/index.html (last visited on 2009/08/23)
□黃鵬林、王愛玉、劉瑞芬、莊榮輝，生物技術方法卷一生物技術核心實驗，國立台灣大學生物技術研究中心，2005年，頁21。Available at http://juang.bst.ntu.edu.tw/BCT/Chapters/BCT%202005.pdf (last visited on 2009/08/23)

二、英文
（一）專書：
□Anderman, Steven D., EC Competition Law and Intellectual Property Rights- The Regulation of Innovation, Oxford university press (1998).
□Areeda, P. and Hovenkamp, H., Antitrust Law III ¶600-¶749, Boston : Little, Brown and Company (1996).
□Areeda, P. and Hovenkamp, H., Antitrust Law IIIA ¶755-¶810, Boston : Little, Brown and Company (1996) .
□Campbell, Neil A. et al., Biology, Benjamin-Cummings Pub Co, 8th edition (2008).
□Committee on Federal Policy for Access to Research Resources, National Research Council, Finding the Path: Issues of Access to Research Resources, National Academies Press (Oct. 1999).
□Committee on Responsibilities of Authorship in the Biological Sciences, National Research Council Sharing Publication-related Data and Materials/Responsibilities of Authorship in the Life Sciences, National Academies Press (2003).
□Hovenkamp, Herbert, Federal Antitrust Policy: The Law of Competition and its Practice, Thomson/West, third edition (2005)
□Korah, Valentine, An Introductory Guide to EC Competition Law and Practice, Hart publishing (2004).
□National Academies, Reaping the Benefits of Genomic and Proteomic Research: Intellectual Property Rights, Innovation, and Public Health, Washington, DC: National Academies Press (2005).
（二）期刊：
□Alder, Reid G., Sharing Materials: An Analysis of the Issues is Overdue, The New Biologist, Vol.2, No. 6 ,495 (Jun,1990).
□Areeda, Phillip, Essential Facilities: An Epithet in Need of Limiting Principles, 58 Antitrust L.J. 841 (1990).
□Bennett, Alan B., Steritz, Wendy D. and Gacel, Rafael A., Specific Issues with Material Transfer Agreement, in Intellectual Property Management in Health and Agricultural Innovation: A Handbook of Best Practices. Volume 1, MIHR-USA,699. (May 2007).
□Campbell, Eric G., Clarridge, Brian R., Gokhale, Manjusha, Birenbaum, Lauren, Hilgartner, Stephen, Holtzman Neil A. and Blumenthal, David, Data Withholding in Academic Genetics: Evidence from a National Survey., JAMA, Vol. 287 No. 4, 473 (Jan 2002).
□Carrier, Michael A., Two Puzzles Resolved: Of The Schumpeter-Arrow Stalemate and Pharmaceutical Innovation Markets, 93 Iowa L. Rev. 393 (2008).
□Caulfield, Timothy, Cook-Deegan, Robert M, Kieff, F Scott & Walsh, John P, Evidence and Anecdotes: an Analysis of Human Gene Patenting Controversies, Nature Biotechnology, Vol.24, No.9 1091 (Sep. 2006).
□Cohen, Jon, Share and Share Alike Isn't Always the Rule in Science, Science, New Series, Vol. 268, No. 5218.,1715 (Jun 1995).
□Davis, Ronald W., Innovation Markets and Merger Enforcement: Current Practice in Perspective, 71 Antitrust L.J. 677(2003).
□Dove, Alan, When Science Rides the MTA,J. Clin. Invest.110,425 (2002).
□Eisenberg, Rebecca S., Bargaining Over the Transfer of Proprietary Research Tools: Is This Market Failing or Emerging?, in Expanding the Boundaries of Intellectual Property: Innovation Policy for the Knowledge Society,223 (2001).
□Ezrachi, Ariel and Gilo, David, Are Excessive Prices Really Self-correcting? 5 J. Competition L. & Econ. 249 (2009).
□Frischmann, Brett M., An Economic Theory of Infrastructure and Commons Management, 89 Minn. L. Rev. 917 (2005).
□Gal, Michal S., Monopoly Pricing as an Antitrust Offense in the U.S. and the EC: Two Systems of Belief About Monopoly?, 49 Antitrust Bulletin 343(2004).
□Gerber, David J., Constitutionalizing the Economy: German Neo-liberalism, Competition Law and the “New Europe” , 42 Am. J. Comp. L. 25 (1994).
□Gilbert, Richard J. and Sunshine, Steven C., Incorporating Dynamic Efficiency Concerns in Merger Analysis: The Use of Innovation Markets, 63 Antitrust L.J. 569 (1995).
□Hay, George A., Innovations in Antitrust Enforcement, 64 Antitrust Law Journal 7 (1995).
□Heller, Michael A. and Eisenberg, Rebecca S., Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research, 280 Science 698 (1999).
□Hoerner, Robert J., Innovation Markets: New Wine in old bottles? , 64 Antitrust Law Journal 49 (1995).
□I, Potrykus, Golden Rice and beyond, Plant Physiology, Vol. 125,1158 (March 2001).
□Ku, Katharine & Henderson, James, THE MTA—Rip it up and Start Again?, Nature Biotechnology, Vol.25, No.7, 721 (Jul. 2007).
□Landman, Lawrence B., Did Congress Actually Create Innovation Markets?, 13 Berkeley Tech. L.J. 721 (1998).
□Lei, Zhen, Juneja, Rakhi & Wright, Brian D, Patents Versus Patenting: Implications of Intellectual Property Protection for Biological Research, Nature Biotechnology, Vol.27, No.1, 36.(Jan. 2009).
□Lipsky, Abbott B. and Sidak, J. Gregory, Essential Facilities, 51 Stan. L. Rev. 1187 (1999).
□Marquardt, Paul D. and Leddy, Mark, The Essential Facilities Doctrine and Intellectual Property Rights: A Response to Pitofsky, Patterson, and Hooks, 70 Antitrust L.J. 847 (2003).
□Marshall, Eliot, Data Sharing: A Declining Ethic?, Science, Vol. 248. no. 4958, 952 ( May 1990).
□Marshall, Eliot, Need a Reagent? Just Sign Here...,Science, New Series, Vol. 278, No. 5336.,212 (Oct. 1997).
□Mccurdy, Gregory V.S., Intellectual Property and Competition: Does the Essential Facilities Doctrine Shed Any New Light ?, E.I.P.R. 2003, 25(10), 472 (2003).
□Motta, Massimo and de Stree, Alexandre, Exploitative and exclusionary excessive prices in EU law, 15 (2003). Available at http://www2.dse.unibo.it/mmotta/Papers/ExcessivePrices18122003.pdf (last visited on 2009/08/23)
□Nielsen, Jane, Reach-Through Rights in Biomedical Patent Licensing: A Comparative Analysis of Their Anticompetitive Reach, 32 Federal L. Rev. 169 (2004). Available at http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/FedLRev/2004/8.html#Footnote9 (last visited on 2009/08/23)
□Pitofsky, Robert, Patterson, Donna and Hooks, Jonathan, The Essential Facilities Doctrine Under U.S. Antitrust Law, 70 Antitrust L.J. 443 (2002).
□Rai, Arti K. and Eisenberg, Rebecca S., Bayh-Dole Reform and the Progress of Biomedicine, Law & Contemporary Problems ,Vol.66 ,289 (Winter/Spring 2003)
□Rai, Arti K., Regulating Scientific Research: Intellectual Property Rights and the Norms of Science, 94 Nw.L.Rev. 77 (1999).
□Rapp, Richard T., The Misapplication of the Innovation Market Approach to Merger Analysis, 64 Antitrust L.J. 19 (1995).
□Robinson, Glen O., On Refusing to Deal with Rivals, 87 Cornell L. Rev. 1177 (2002).
□Rodriguez, Victor, Material Transfer Agreements: Open Science vs. Proprietary Claims, Nature Biotechnology, Vol.23,No.4, 489 (Apr. 2005).
□Rosch, J. Thomas ( Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission), "Antitrust Regulation of Innovation Markets", ABA Antitrust Intellectual Property Conference,(2009). Available at http://wwfw.ftc.gov/speeches/rosch/090205innovationspeech.pdf (last visited on 2009/08/23)
□Streitz, Wendy D. and Bennett, Alan, Materials Transfer Agreements a University Perspective,Plant Physiology, Vol.133,10 (Sep. 2003).
□Waller, Spencer Weber, Areeda, Epithets, and Essential Facilities, 2008 Wis. L. Rev. 359 (2008).
□Waller, Spencer Weber & Frischmann, Brett M., Revitalizing Essential Facilities, 75 Antitrust L.J. 1 (2008).
□Walsh, John P., Cho, Charlene and Cohen, Wesley M., View from the Bench: Patents and Material Transfer, Science, Vol.309, No. 5743 2002 (Sep. 2005).
□Walsh, John P., Cohen, Wesley M. and Cho, Charlene, Where excludability Matters: Material Versus Intellectual Property in Academic Biomedical Research, Research Policy Vol.36, 1184 (2007).
□Walsh, John P. and Cohen, Wesley M., Real Impediments to Academic Biomedical Research, Innovation Policy and Economics, Vol. 8, 1 (May15,2007) .Available at http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~jwalsh6/CJIPE8_ch1.pdf (last visited on 2009/08/23)
（三）官方資料：
□Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intelectual Property, issued by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, April 6 1995
□Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property, available at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/guidelines/0558.pdf (last visited on 2009/08/23)
□National Institutes of Health. Principles and Guidelines for Recipients of NIH Research Grants and Contracts on Obtaining and Disseminating Biomedical Research Resources. Final notice. Fed Register. Vol.64, No.246,72090 (1999)
□National Institutes of Health, Report of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Working Group on Research Tools, available at : http://www.nih.gov/news/researchtools/index.htm (last visited on 2009/08/23)
□UBMTA, available at http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/resources/tt/docs/ubmta.pdf (last visited on 2009/08/23)
□US 1992 Horizontal Merger Guidelines, available at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/guidelines/hmg.pdf (last visited on 2009/08/23)
（四）網站資料：
□Biological Innovation for Open Society, available at http://www.bios.net/daisy/bios/home.html (last visited on 2009/08/23)
□Council on Governmental Relations (COGR), Materials Transfer In Academia,2003, available at : http://www.cogr.edu/docs/MTA_Final.pdf (last visited on 2009/08/23)
□Public Intellectual Property Rights for Agriculture, available at http://www.pipra.org/index.en.html (last visited on 2009/08/23)
□Science Commons,available at http://sciencecommons.org/ (last visited on 2009/08/23)