包含微生物在內的生物資源，早年被定位為公有財或人類共同遺產。近年由於生物科技的發達，微生物的利用價值提高，利益相關人為了更容易對微生物掌握並加值，微生物的財產規則有重新調整之動力。1992年的生物多樣性公約，將生物資源的財產規則，調整為各國主權範圍，各主權國之政府得以內國之財產規則，決定生物資源之分配與限制。
包含動物、植物、與微生物三大類之生物資源中，微生物的生命系統相對簡單而容易操控；其在生物科技領域之重要性較動植物有過之而無不及。微生物因其為小性及可複製性有別於動植物；且具有部分智慧財產之特性。微生物之財產議題有獨立討論之必要。微生物之財產歸屬在無特別立法之現況下，可運用既有財產規則歸屬為個人財產。然其歸屬結果可能因所運用的規則不同，而產生財產歸屬之衝突。微生物財產歸屬的不明，衍生出加速探勘、商業化研發卻步、以及流通困難等負面影響。
本文嘗試就微生物之財產屬性、歸屬、權利範圍提出可能的答案，期望藉由問題的釐清以降低微生物歸屬不明的負面影響。為了便於討論，本文將微生物區分為在地(in situ)形式存在者、移地(ex situ)形式存在者、培養物、以特徵界定者，作為本文討論之標的；以動物、植物等自然資源為類推適用之參考，討論微生物在現有規範下的財產法則。
關於微生物財產化之必要性及正當性，以公有與反公有之論點檢討微生物之財產化問題，由於在地微生物並無資源枯竭之疑慮不生公有悲劇之問題；但在地微生物財產化造成阻礙流通與研發問題；因此在地微生物無須財產化。其他形式之微生物，經各種財產理論之檢討，應有財產化之必要。
關於微生物之財產屬性，經以現行法規與實務之解釋與適用，存在在地環境中尚未分離的在地微生物非歸屬特定人之有主物；移地微生物為無主物或加工物；微生物培養物為透過繼受取得之有主物；具有特定特徵之微生物則為智慧財產之範疇。
關於微生物之財產歸屬，首先，本文以勞動代價法則為基礎，運用與微生物相關之先占及添附財產歸屬規則，提出微生物所有權歸屬。本文認為在地微生物非屬物，不生所有權歸屬問題，僅有採集樣品過程侵犯在地環境所有權（如，越界）之問題；生物剽竊之指控對微生物本身並無財產上之請求權基礎，欲從生物探勘者分享利益，在必須透過探勘同意過程以契約約訂。移地微生物歸屬於微生物分離者。微生物培養物之歸屬依契約關係而定；生物材料移轉契約已廣泛於微生物培養物移轉時使用；菌種保存中心提供微生物培養物的流通平台，其在微生物取得、提供、媒介等服務，所生契約關係有寄託、讓與、授權、買賣、媒介等，對應出不同之微生物培養物財產歸屬。以特徵界定之微生物則以專利之申請專利範圍為表現，歸屬於發明人；相對於專利制度對微生物利用者的全球制度性保障，目前缺乏有效保障微生物提供者之制度，微生物提供者因此提案修改專利制度，希望通過微生物來源地之新的專利揭露要件落實利益分享機制。
關於微生物財產權利之範圍，國家對微生物有管轄權，是國家賦予個人財產權之權利基礎；有別於國家對國有財產所享有之財產權；國家基於保護生態及天然資源之考量，得限制微生物之探勘。在地環境所有人基於對在地環境之所有權，得行使權利束中之主張權，排除他人越界進行採集。微生物分離者對移地微生物有所有權，包含權利束的全部。歸屬於發明人之特徵界定微生物專利權，為權利束中主張權之部分排他權；得排除他人未經其同意而製造、為販賣之要約、販賣、使用或進口專利物品。未經同意進入或取得所有人之財產範圍者構成侵權，對權利人負損害賠償之責；惟權利人可得主張之所受損害與所失利益之金額微乎其微，侵權行為之主張對微生物相關權利人不利。微生物相關權利人若欲分享衍生利益必須透過契約安排，進行權利範圍之交換，例如，以提供微生物交換收受者的部分利益；常見的契約安排有以利益分享之延伸主張條款。利益分享之合理定價，可參考受微生物稀少性或可替代性影響之市場供需，或參考勞動投入之貢獻比例，或基於政策考量之政府介入。若採主張政府最少干預者、市場自行達成平衡之論點，政府只需透過立法確保事前取樣同意之落實，透過意定方式定價即可達成利益分享之合理安排。為避免延伸授權之談判成本，專利權的延伸主張可得到簽屬延伸授權條款之目的；惟專利權之延伸主張之核准與否，仍需回歸揭露要件及產業利用性等專利要件之審查；專利主管機關傾向對生物科技延伸主張之為嚴格審查，僅准予極為有限的延伸主張範圍，遠小於延伸授權條款所延伸之範圍。
明確的歸屬原則及權利範圍有助於解決商業化研發卻步的問題。基於各國利益考量，可透過立法對他國微生物探勘者要求利益分享。為解決流通困難的問題，可運用菌種保存中心之流通平台加上政府對補助研究成果的介入得到部分解決。

The property issues on microorganisms are discussed, including justification of making microorganism become properties, property nature of microorganisms, entitlements, and scope of rights. In situ microorganisms, ex situ ones, and those defined by characteristics are discussed independently. Property rules of plants, animals, and intellectual properties are used as references in discussion.
In situ microorganisms are neither justified as properties, nor belong to anyone. There is no entitlement issue for In situ microorganisms. The property issue related to In situ microorganisms focuses on bioprospecter’s trespass to their in situ environment. Governments’ sovereign rights over microorganisms give governments power to restrict property rights under public trust; the sovereign rights should not mean government’s property rights.
Ex situ microorganisms originally belong to those who isolate them from in situ environment (isolators). Isolators may transfer ownership or certain rights of the ex situ microorganisms (or cultures, replicates, etc.) to others by contractual transactions. Biological resources centers play important roles in those transactions.
Microorganisms defined by characters, such as those defined by certain scientific name, can be protected by patents. The patents entitled to the inventors, usually the isolators. Microorganisms covered by patent scope are theoretically numerous; to balance the broad scope, patents only enjoy exclusion rights for certain time period, instead of a whole bundle rights of ownership.
Some issues related to Convention on Biological Diversity, and some suggestions for solving problems aroused from microorganism property issues are discussed as well.

中文書籍
1. 史尚寬，物權法論，三民書局(1979)。
2. 王澤鑑，民法總則，三民書局(2000)。
3. 王澤鑑，民法物權－通則、所有權，三民書局(2005)。
4. 陳自強，契約之成立與生效，學林文化(2002)。
5. 吳庚，憲法的解釋與適用，三民書局(2004)。
6. ROBERT COOTER & THOMAS ULEN（溫麗琪編譯），法律經濟學，華泰文化事業公司(2003)。
中文論文
1. 廖桂勳，原住民遺傳物質之權利歸屬－以財產理論檢視人類基因多樣性研究，國立清華大學科技法律研究所碩士論文(2004)。
2. 黃居正，無主物、共同遺產與公有物－遺傳與生物資源公約中的財產意識，政大法學評論第94期31-81頁(2006)。
3. 黃居正，時間、勞動與生態－原住民族財產權的核心論題，清華科技法律與政策論叢，第2卷1期5-48 頁(2005)。
4. 倪貴榮，調和生物多樣性公約與WTO與貿易有關之智慧財產權協定關於遺傳資源之取得與利益分享機制之研究，中國國際法與國際事務年報，第17卷212-252頁(2005)。
5. 郭華仁、謝銘洋、陳昭華、倪貴榮、李崇僖，我國遺傳資源法草案初稿之介紹，生物科技與法律研究通訊，第21期16-19頁(2006)。
6. 范建得、胡均立、邱永和，自經濟分析之觀點論我國生物科技應有之財產法制，全國律師，2002年12月號9-28頁(2002)。
英文書籍
1. JOSEPH WILLIAM SINGER, INTRODUCTION TO PROPERTY (2005).
2. ALAN RYAN, PROPERTY (1987)
3. JESSE DUKEMINIER & JAMES E. KRIER, PROPERTY (2002).
4. BARLOW BURKE, PERSONAL PROPERTY IN A NUTSHELL (1993).
5. MICHAEL BRIDGE, PERSONAL PROPERTY LAW (2002).
6. GOLD E. RICHARD, BODY PARTS: PROPERTY RIGHTS AND THE OWNERSHIP OF HUMAN BIOLOGICAL MATERIALS (1997).
7. BONNIE J. MCCAY, OYSTER WARS AND THE PUBLIC TRUST: PROPERTY, LAW, AND ECOLOGY IN NEW JERSEY HISTORY (1998).
8. THE CRUCIBLE II GROUP, SEEDING SOLUTION: VOLUME 1, POLICY OPTIONS FOR GENETIC RESOURCES (PEOPLE, PLANTS, AND PATENTS REVISITED) (2000).
9. THE CRUCIBLE II GROUP, SEEDING SOLUTION: VOLUME 2, OPTIONS FOR NATIONAL LAW GOVERNING ACCESS TO AND CONTROL OVER GENETIC RESOURCES (2001).
10. KENNETH J. BURCHFIEL, DALE H. HOSCHEIT, LISA M. HEMMENDINGER, BIOTECHNOLOGY AND THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT (2005).
11. RICHARD A. EPSTEIN, SIMPLE RULES FOR A COMPLEX WORLD (1995).
12. UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE (2006).
13. MARGARET J. RADIN, REINTERPRETING PROPERTY (1993).
14. JOSEPH WILLIAM SINGER, ENTITLEMENT, THE PARADOXES OF PROPERTY (2000).
英文論文
1. David G. Victor, The Regime Complex for Plant Genetic Resources: an Overview, 97 Am. Soc'y Int'l L. Proc. 29 (2003).
2. Sabrina Safrin, Hyperownership in a Time of Biotechnological Promise: the International Conflict to Control the building Blocks of Life, 98 A.J.I.L. 641 (2004).
3. Thomas W. Merrill and Henry E. Smith, What Happened to Property in Law and Economics, 111, 2 Yale Law Journal 357 (2001).
4. Leif Wenar, Original Acquisition of Private Property, 107, 428 Acda. Res. Libr. 799 (1998).
5. John F. Henry, Keynes’ Economic Program, Social Institutions, Ideology, and Property Rights, 35 J. Econ. Issues 633 (2001).
6. Jeffery Evans Stake, The Uneasy Case for Adverse Possession, 89 Geo. L.J. 2419 (2001).
7. Anupam Chander and Madhavi Sunder, The Romance of the Public Domain, 92 Cal. L. Rev. 1331 (2004).
8. The Complex Realities of Sharing Genetic Assets, 392 Nature 525 (1998).
9. Benjamin G. Damstedt, Limiting Locke: A Natural Law Justification for the Fair Use Doctrine, 112, 5 the Yale L.J. 1179 (2003).
10. Dean Lueck, Property Rights and the Economic Logic of Wildlife Institutions, 35 Nat. Resources J. 625 (1995).
11. Craig Anthony (Tony) Arnold, The Reconstitution of property: Property as a Web of Interests, 26 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev. 281 (2002).
12. M. Patricia Marchak, Who Owns Natural Resources in the United States and Canada? 3 (Working Paper No. 20, N. Am. Series, Oct. 1998) http://agecon.lib.umn.edu/cgi-bin/pdf_view.pl?paperid=1032&ftype=.pdf (accessed Jan. 26, 2006).
13. Carol B. Thompson, International Law of the Sea/Seed: Public Domain versus Private Commodity, 44 Nat. Resources J. 841 (2004).
14. Craig H. Allen, Protecting of the Oceanic Gardens of Eden: Internation Law in Deep-Sea Vent Resource Conservation and Management, 13 Geo. Int’l Envtl. L. Rev. 563 (2001).
15. Jefferson H. Weaver, Illusion or Reality? State Sovereignty in Outer Space, 10 B.U. int’l L.J. 203 (1992).
16. Diane E. Hoffmann, Lawrence Sung, Facing the Agricultural and Microbial Genomics Sectors of the Biotechnology Industry, 24 Biotechnology L. Rep. 10 (2005).
17. Christopher J. Hunter, Sustainable Bioprospecting: Using Private Contracts and International Legal Principles and Policies to Conserve Raw Medicinal Materials, 25 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 129 (1997).
18. John Ntambirweki, Biotechnology and International Law within the North-South Context, 14 Transnat'l Law. 103 (2001).
19. Anne C. Dowling, “Un-Locke-ing” a “Just Right” Enbiromental Regime: Overcoming the Three Bears of International Environmentalism—Sovereignty, Locke, and Compensation, 26 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 891 (2002).
20. Michael C. Blumm and Lucus Ritchie, The Pioneer Spirit and the Public Trust: the American Rule of Capture and State Ownership of Wildlife, 35 Envtl. L. 673 (2005).
21. Carol M. Rose, Romans, Roads, and Romantic Creators: Traditions of Public Property in the Information Age, 66-SPG Law & Contemp. Probs. 89 (2003).
22. Sandra Bourgasser-Ketterling, Bioprospecting on Public Lands: Should Private Companies Compensate the Government for Their Use of Public Land Resources? 8 J.L. & Pol'y 481 (2000).
23. Arthur Allen Leff, The Leff Dictionary of Law: A Fragment, 94 Yale L.J. 1855, 1887 (1985).
24. Kimberlee A. Stafford, Reach-Through Royalties in Biomedical Research Tool Patent Licensing: Implications of NIH Guidelines on Small Biotechnology Firms, 9 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 699 (2005).
25. Stephen G. Kunin, et al, Reach-Through Claims in the Age of Biotechnology, 51 Am. U.L. Rev. 609 (2002).
26. J.E. Penner, The “Bundle of Rights” Picture of Property, 43 UCLA L. Rev. 711 (1996).
27. Michael D. Coughlin, Jr., Using the Merck-INBio Agreement to Clarify the Convention on Biological Diversity, 31 Colum. J. Transnat’l L. 337 (1993).
28. Chatham House, Disclosure of Origin in IPR Applications: Options and Perspectives of Users and Providers of Genetic Resources, IPDEV, Work Programme 8: Final Report (2006), available at http://www.iprsonline.org/resources/docs/IPDEV WP8 Final report May 2006 (2).doc
29. Anil K. Gupta, WIPO-UNEP Study on the Role of Intellectual Property Rights in the Sharing of Benefits Arising from the Use of Biological Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge (2006), available at http://www.wipo.int/tk/en/publications/769e_unep_tk.pdf
30. Salvatore Arico and Charlotte Salpin, Bioprospecting Of Genetic Resources In The Deep Seabed: Scientific, Legal And Policy Aspects, UNU/IAS Report (June 2005), available at http://www.ias.unu.edu/binaries2/DeepSeabed.pdf
31. Corinna Heineke, Franziska Wolff, Access to Genetic Resources and the Sharing of Benefits: Private Rights or Shared Use for Biodiversity Conservation? Environmental Law International Network Review (2004), available at http://www.agrobiodiversitaet.net/download/Corinna_Heineke_Fraenzi_Wolff.pdf
32. UNU/IAS, The International Regime for Bioprospecting: Existing Policies and Emerging Issues for Antarctica, UNU/IAS Report (2003), available at http://www.ias.unu.edu/research/antarctica.cfm
33. Kent Nnadozie, Integrating African Perspectives and Priorities into Genetic Resource Regulations: A Resource Guide for Policymakers, Policy & Global Change Series, Trade and Biodiversity (March 2004), available at http://www.iprsonline.org/ictsd/docs/KentNnadozieMarch04.pdf
34. Michael Blakeney, The Disclosure Of Origin Of Genetic Resources In Patent Applications, WIPO Doc. WIPO/IP/GR/05/01 Annex (2005), available at http://www.economia.uniroma2.it/conferenze/icabr2005/papers/Blakeney.pdf
35. Johanna Gibson, Patenting Lives, Patenting Alternatives: Commercializing Agricultural Biotechnologies In The Developing World. (June 2005) (unpublished manuscript), at http://www.economia.uniroma2.it/conferenze/icabr2005/papers/GIBSON_paper_1.pdf
36. Carsten Fink and Patrick Reichenmiller, Tightening TRIPS: The Intellectual Property Provisions of Recent US Free Trade Agreements, The World Bank Group Trade Note 20 (2006). available at http://www.ictsd.org/dlogue/2006-05-10/Docs/Fink papel 2.pdf
37. UNU/IAS, Industry Involvement In Antartic Bioprospecting, UNU/IAS report (March 2004).
案例
1. Pierson v. Post, 3 Cai. R. 175, 2 Am. Dec. 264 (1805).
2. Ghen v. Rich, 8 F. 159 (1881). United States District Court, District of Massachusets.
3. Gillet v. Mason (1810).
4. Ferguson v. Miller (1823).
5. Geer v. State of Connecticut, 161 U.S. 519, 16 S.Ct. 600, 40 L.Ed. 793 (1896).
6. Moore v. Regents of the University of California, 499 U.S. 936 (1991).
7. Diamond v. Chakrabarty
8. Arnold v. Mundy, 6N.J.L. 1(N.J. Sup. Ct. 1821).
9. Edmonds Institute v. B
法案
1. Draft CBD text of international regime on access and benefit sharing (3 February 2006)
2. AU Model Law on Rights of Local Communities, Farmers, Breeders and Access (2000, formally endorsed)。An explanatory booklet of the AU Model Law 。
3. Andean Community Decision 391: Common Regime on Access to Genetic Resources (1996, in force)。http://www.sice.oas.org/trade/JUNAC/decisiones/DEC 391e.asp
4. ASEAN Framework Agreement on Access to Biological and Genetic Resources (2000, draft)
5. Brazil Provisional measure on access to genetic resources and traditional knowledge (2001, in force as provisional measure)
6. Costa Rica Biodiversity Law (1998, in force)。Rules on access to biodiversity (2003, in force)
7. India Biological Diversity Act (2002, in force)。Biological Diversity Rules (2004)
8. Peru Law introducing a protection regime for the collective knowledge of indiginous peoples derived from biological resources (2002, in force)
9. Philippines Guidelines on Bioprospecting (1995, in force)。Implementing Rules and Regulations on the Prospecting of Biological and Genetic Resources (1996, in force) 。Wildlife Resources Convservation and Protection Act (RA 9147) (2001, in force)。
10. South Africa Biodiversity Act (2004, in force)
11. Draft Guidelines of Switzerland on Access and Benefit Sharing Regarding the Utilization of Genetic Resources, Oct. 30- Nov. 1, 2000, at http:// www.unctad.org/trade_env/docs/swiss.pdf (last visited Jan. 26, 2006).
簡報資料
1. Disclosure of Origin- towards equity or another exercise in futility?, March 2006. Presentation by Mr. Brendan Tobin, UNU-IAS
2. David Dutton, Australia’s experience in implementing the access and benefit sharing of genetic resources under the Convention on Biological Diversity and implications for international negotiations on ABS, Address at APEC ATCWG: Workshop on prior informed consent and access and benefit sharing regimes for genetic resources (Dec.12, 2006).
網站資料
1. http://www.grain.org/brl/?typeid=20。有關各區域、國家之Access and Benefit-Sharing 立法。
2. http://www.iprsonline.org/resources/biodiversity.htm。有關CBD與智慧財產權競合之文章。
3. http://www.iprsonline.org/submissions/article273.htm。有關TRIPs27.3b議題之官方報告。