[1] Margaret Llewelyn, "The Legal Protection Of Biotechnological Inventions: An Alternative Approach", European Intellectual Property Review, 1997, Vol. 19 (3), p. 115.
[2] International Union for the Protection of Varieties of Plants, http://www.upov.int/
[3] Bernard Edelman. "Vers Une Approche Juridique Du Vivant", in Bernard Edelman and Marie-Angele Hermitte (eds) L'Homme, La Nature Et Le Drot. Paris: Christian Bourgois, 1988, p. 28-29, as translated by John Frow. Time And Commodity Culture: Essays In Cultural Theory And Postmodernity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997, p 195-197.
[4] Bernard Edelman. "Entre Personne Humaine et Materiau Humain: Le Sujet de Droit", in Bernard Edelman and Marie-Angele Hermitte (eds) L'Homme, La Nature Et Le Drot. Paris: Christian Bourgois, 1988, p. 142, as translated by John Frow. Time And Commodity Culture: Essays In Cultural Theory And Postmodernity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997, p 197.
[5] Diamond v Chakrabarty (1980) 447 US 303.
[6] Bernard Edelman, "International Symposium on Ethics, Intellectual Property, and Genomics", February 2001, as reported by the rapporteur Justice Kirby. "Intellectual Property And The Human Genome", Australian Intellectual Property Journal, May 2001, Vol. 12, p. 61 at 77.
[7] Grain Pool Of Western Australia v Commonwealth (2000) 46 IPR 515.
[8] JEM Ag Supply v Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc (2001) 534 US 124.
[9] Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patents) [2002] SCC 76.
[10] Monsanto v Percy Schmeiser (2001) FCT 256; and Percy Schmeiser v Monsanto [2002] FCA 309.
[11] Grain Pool Of Western Australia v Commonwealth (2000) 46 IPR 515.
[12] Department of Primary Industry Tasmania. "Franklin Barley", Plant Varieties Journal, Vol. 2 (2), Application No. 1989/018, Received: 04-Apr-1989, Accepted: 06-Apr-1989, and Granted: 19-Jan-1990.
[13] Cultivaust Pty Ltd v Grain Pool of WA [2000] FCA 974.
[14] The joint judgment consisted of Chief Justice Gleeson and Justices Gaudron, McHugh, Gummow, Hayne and Callinan.
[15] Attorney-General (NSW) v Brewery Employees Union of NSW (the Union Label Case) (1908) 6 CLR 469.
[16] Australian Tape Manufacturers Association Ltd v Commonwealth (1993) 176 CLR 480.
[17] Nintendo v Centronics Systems (1994) 181 CLR 134.
[18] George Williams, "Are Service Marks Trade Marks? Commonwealth Power Over Intellectual Property", Australian Intellectual Property Journal, 1995, Vol. 6, p 133.
[19] Geraldine Chin, "Technological Change And The Australian Constitution", Melbourne University Law Review, 2000, Vol. 24 (3), p. 609-644.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Grain Pool Of Western Australia v Commonwealth (2000) 46 IPR 515 at 522.
[22] Grain Pool Of Western Australia v Commonwealth (2000) 46 IPR 515 at 520.
[23] Brad Sherman and Lionel Bently. The Making Of Modern Intellectual Property Law: The British Experience, 1760-1911. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, p 138-139.
[24] Imazio Nursery Inc. v Dania Greenhouses (1995) 69 F 3d 1560
[25] Grain Pool Of Western Australia v Commonwealth (5 October 1999) transcript.
[26] Grain Pool Of Western Australia v Commonwealth (2000) 46 IPR 515 at 523.
[27] NRDC v the Commissioner of Patents (1959) 102 CLR 252.
[28] There has been a similar enthusiasm for following United States patent law in the field of information technology. Justice Heerey in Welcome Real Time SA v Catuity Inc [2001] 51 IPR 327 comments: " It may be true, as the respondents argue, that US patent law has a different historical source owing little or nothing to the Statute of Monopolies... But the social needs the law has to serve in that country are the same as in ours. In both countries, in similar commercial and technological environments, the law has to strike a balance between, on the one hand, the encouragement of true innovation by the grant of monopoly and, on the other, freedom of competition". By contrast, the Australian courts display a great reluctance to adopt United States copyright law.
[29] Grain Pool Of Western Australia v Commonwealth (2000) 46 IPR 515 at 527-528.
[30] Diamond v Chakrabarty (1980) 447 US 303.
[31] JEM Ag Supply v Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc (2001) 534 US 124.
[32] Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patents) [2002] SCC 76.
[33] S 43 of the Plant Breeder's Rights Act 1994 (Cth).
[34] Grain Pool Of Western Australia v Commonwealth (2000) 46 IPR 515 at 534.
[35] Sun World International Inc v Registrar, Plant Breeder's Rights (1995) 33 IPR 106; (1997) 39 IPR 161; (1998) 42 IPR 321 [1998].
[36] Attorney-General (NSW) v Brewery Employees Union of NSW (the Union Label Case) (1908) 6 CLR 469.
[37] Grain Pool Of Western Australia v Commonwealth (2000) 46 IPR 515 at 544.
[38] Grain Pool Of Western Australia v Commonwealth (2000) 46 IPR 515 at 549.
[39] Grain Pool Of Western Australia v Commonwealth (2000) 46 IPR 515 at 550.
[40] Lawrence Lessig. Code And Other Laws Of Cyberspace. New York: Basic Books, 1999.
[41] Diamond v Chakrabarty (1980) 447 US 303.
[42] Grain Pool Of Western Australia v Commonwealth (2000) 46 IPR 515 at 551.
[43] Grain Pool Of Western Australia v Commonwealth (2000) 46 IPR 515 at 550.
[44] Matthew Rimmer. "Beyond Blue Gene: Intellectual Property And Bioinformatics", International Review of Industrial Property And Copyright Law, January 2003, Vol. 34 (1), p. 31-49.
[45] Grain Pool Of Western Australia v Commonwealth (5 October 1999) transcripts.
[46] Grain Pool Of Western Australia v Commonwealth (5 October 1999) transcripts.
[47] Grain Pool Of Western Australia v Commonwealth (5 October 1999) transcripts.
[48] Advisory Council on Intellectual Property. Innovation Patent - Exclusion Of Plant And Animal Subject Matter. Canberra: Department of Industry, 2002, http://www.acip.gov.au/library/Innovation%20Patent%20Issues%20Paper.PDF
[49] Grain Pool Of Western Australia v Commonwealth (2000) 46 IPR 515 at 551.
[50] Brian Fitzgerald. "Case Comment: Grain Pool Of WA v The Commonwealth: Australian Constitutional Limits Of Intellectual Property Rights", European Intellectual Property Review, 2001, Vol. 23 (2), p. 103.
[51] Ibid.
[52] Vandana Shiva, for instance, has written: "Patents on seed are a direct undermining of the human rights of farmers to save, exchange, and multiply seed. Patents allow corporations to prevent farmers from saving seed. When those patents are broad species patents, it is not just the human rights of farmers but everyone's right to food security that is threatened". Vandana Shiva. "Food Rights, Free Trade, And Fascism", In Matthew Gibney (ed). Globalizing Rights: The Oxford Amnesty Lectures 1999. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003, p 97.
[53] Grain Pool Of Western Australia v Commonwealth (6 October 1999) transcripts.
[54] Grain Pool Of Western Australia v Commonwealth (2000) 46 IPR 515 at 539.
[55] Grain Pool Of Western Australia v Commonwealth (2000) 46 IPR 515 at 539.
[56] Grain Pool Of Western Australia v Commonwealth (6 October 1999) transcripts.
[57] Justice Kirby. "Report of the International Bioethics Committee on Ethics, Intellectual Property and Genomics", International Bioethics Committee, 10 January 2002, p 6, http://portal.unesco.org/shs/en/file_download.php/0f8d8bed17083342b45db84beef431acFinalReportIP_en.pdf
[58] Justice Kirby. "The Human Genome And Patent Law", Reform, 2000, Issue 79, p. 10.
[59] Jill McKeough and Andrew Stewart. Intellectual Property In Australia: Second Edition. Sydney: Butterworths, 1997, p. 3.
[60] Grain Pool Of Western Australia v Commonwealth (5 October 1999) transcripts.
[61] Australian Constitutional Commission. Final Report of the Constitutional Commission. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 1988, Vol. 2, paras 10.140-10.153.
[62] JEM Ag Supply Inc v Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc (2001) 534 US 124
[63] William Niebur, Raymond Riley and Stephen Noble. "Hybrid Corn Plant And Seed", US Patent No 5,491,295, 13 February 1996.
[64] Justice Thomas in JEM Ag Supply Inc v Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc (2001) 534 US 124 at 127.
[65] Diamond v Chakrabarty (1980) 447 US 303.
[66] Jack Kloppenburg, First The Seed: The Political Economy of Plant Biotechnology 1492-2000. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
[67] Richard Hindmarsh and Geoffrey Lawrence (ed.). Altered Genes II: The Future? Melbourne: Scribe Publications, 2001.
[68] Mark Janis and Jay Kesan. "U.S. Plant Variety Protection: Sound And Fury...?", Houston Law Review, 2002, Vol. 39, p. 730-745.
[69] Jack Kloppenburg, First The Seed: The Political Economy of Plant Biotechnology 1492-2000. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988, p 132.
[70] JEM Ag Supply Inc v Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc (2001) 534 US 124 at 127.
[71] Jack Kloppenburg, First The Seed: The Political Economy of Plant Biotechnology 1492-2000. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988, p 132.
[72] Cary Fowler. "The Plant Patent Act of 1930: A Sociological History Of Its Creation", Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, 2000, Vol. 82 (9) p. 621-644.
[73] JEM Ag Supply v Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc (2001) 534 US 124 at 135.
[74] Jack Kloppenburg, First The Seed: The Political Economy of Plant Biotechnology 1492-2000. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988, p 151.
[75] JEM Ag Supply v Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc (2001) 534 US 124 at 142.
[76] JEM Ag Supply v Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc (2001) 534 US 124 at 143.
[77] See § 2543 ("[I]t shall not infringe any right hereunder for a person to save seed produced by the person from seed obtained, or descended from seed obtained, by authority of the owner of the variety for seeding purposes and use such saved seed in the production of a crop for use on the farm of the person ..."); see also Asgrow Seed Company v Winterboer et al (1995) 513 US 179.
[78] See 7 U.S.C. § 2544 ("The use and reproduction of a protected variety for plant breeding or other bona fide research shall not constitute an infringement of the protection provided under this chapter").
[79] JEM Ag Supply v Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc (2001) 534 US 124 at 140.
[80] JEM Ag Supply v Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc (2001) 534 US 124 at 130
[81] The judgment of Chief Justice Berger was joined by Justices Stewart, Blackmun, Rehnquist and Stevens.
[82] Diamond v Chakrabarty (1980) 447 US 303 at 312.
[83] Diamond v Chakrabarty (1980) 447 US 303 at 317.
[84] JEM Ag Supply v Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc (2001) 534 US 124 at 152.
[85] JEM Ag Supply v Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc (2001) 534 US 124 at 152.
[86] President's Commission on the Patent System, To Promote the Progress of Useful Arts, S. Doc. No. 5, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 20-21 (1967).
[87] JEM Ag Supply v Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc (2001) 534 US 124 at 153.
[88] JEM Ag Supply v Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc (2001) 534 US 124 at 155.
[89] Asgrow Seed Company v Winterboer et al (1995) 513 US 179; and Seth Shulman. Owning The Future. New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1999, p 83-106.
[90] Diamond v Chakrabarty (1980) 447 US 303.
[91] The judgment of Justice Brennan was joined by Justices White, Marshall, and Powell.
[92] Diamond v Chakrabarty (1980) 447 US 303 at 319.
[93] Diamond v Chakrabarty (1980) 447 US 303 at 322.
[94] JEM Ag Supply v Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc (2001) 534 US 124 at 156.
[95] Mark Janis and Jay Kesan. "Intellectual Property Protection For Plant Innovation: Unresolved Issues After JEM v Pioneer", Nature Biotechnology, November 2002, Vol. 20, p. 1161-1165.
[96] Ibid.
[97] Mark Janis and Jay Kesan. "U.S. Plant Variety Protection: Sound And Fury...?", Houston Law Review, 2002, Vol. 39, p. 727.
[98] Id, at 776.
[99] Id, at 770.
[100] Chris McManis. "Are There TRIPS-Compliant Measures For A Balanced Co-Existence Of Patents And Plant Breeders' Rights Some Lessons From The U.S. Experience To Date", WIPO-UPOV Symposium On The Co-Existence Of Patents And Plant Breeders' Rights In The Promotion Of Biotechnological Developments, Geneva, 25 October 2002.
[101] J H Reichman, "Legal Hybrids Between The Patent And Copyright Paradigms", Columbia Law Review, 1994, Vol. 94, p 2432.
[102] Brad Sherman and Lionel Bently. The Making Of Modern Intellectual Property Law: The British Experience, 1760-1911. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, p. 211.
[103] Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patents) [2002] SCC 76.
[104] Philip Leder et al, "Transgenic Non-Human Mammals", US Patent No: 4,736,866, 12 April 1988.
[105] Mark Leese. "Is An American Mouse A European Mouse? Towards A Sociology Of Patents", in Andrew Webster, and Kathryn Packer. (ed.) Innovation And The Intellectual Property System. London: Kluwer Law International Ltd, 1996, p 171; and Barry Mandelker. "Commentary: Harvard College v Canada", Intellectual Property Journal, 1998, Vol. 13, p 87.
[106] Donna Haraway. Modest Witness, Second Millennium: FemaleMan Meets OncoMouse. Feminism And Technoscience. New York: Routledge, 1997 and, George Myerson. Donna Haraway And GM Foods. Cambridge: Icon Books, 2000.
[107] Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patents) [1998] 3 FC 510 (Fed T.D.).
[108] Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patents) [2000] 4 FC 528 (Fed C.A.)
[109] Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patents) [2002] SCC 76.
[110] Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patents) [2002] SCC 76 [166].
[111] Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patents) [2002] SCC 76 [203].
[112] Editorial. "Patenting Pieces of People", Nature Biotechnology, April 2003, Vol. 21 (4).
[113] William Leiss. "Higher Life Forms Before The Law", 2002, http://leiss.ca/chronicles/90
[114] Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patents) [2002] SCC 76 [159].
[115] Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patents) [2002] SCC 76 [155].
[116] Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patents) [2002] SCC 76 [158].
[117] Seth Shulman. "Of Oncomice And Men", Owning The Future, Technology Review, September 2002; and Matthew Rimmer, "The Attack Of The Clones: Patent Law And Stem Cell Research", Journal Of Law And Medicine, May 2003, Vol. 10 (4), p. 488-505.
[118] Natalie Derzko. "Plant Breeder's Rights In Canada And Abroad: What Are These Rights And How Much Must Society Pay For Them?", McGill Law Journal, 1994, Vol. 39, p. 144.
[119] Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patents) [2002] SCC 76 [188].
[120] House of Commons, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-15, An Act Respecting Plant Breeders' Rights, Issue No 1, October 11, 1989 at p. 1115.
[121] Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patents) [2002] SCC 76 [170].
[122] Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patents) [2002] SCC 76 [171]; and Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee. Patenting Of Higher Life Forms. Ottawa: Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee, June 2002, p. 12.
[123] Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patents) [2002] SCC 76 [172]; and Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee. Patenting Of Higher Life Forms. Ottawa: Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee, June 2002, p. 13-14.
[124] Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patents) [2002] SCC 76 [196].
[125] Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patents) [2002] SCC 76 [18].
[126] Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patents) [2002] SCC 76 [25]/
[127] Martin Brookes. Fly: The Unsung Hero Of 20th Century Science. New York: Ecco, 2002.
[128] Mice are the closest model organism to humans, and are used in developmental, genetic, and immunological studies. For instance, Professor Christopher Goodnow of the John Curtin Medical Research Centre has pioneered the use of transgenic mice to understand the regulation of the immune system. He has showed how transgenic, mutant, and knockout mice could be combined with cellular immunology, biochemistry, and gene chip technology to decipher many of the cellular checkpoints and signaling networks that control immune cell responses and autoimmunity. Christopher Goodnow. "Australian Phenomics Centre", 21 August 2001, http://jcsmr.anu.edu.au/group_pages/mgc/phenomics/phenomics.htm
[129] Guy Nolch. "Wallaby Genome A Short Hop Away: Professor Jenny Graves And The Centre For Kangaroo Genomics". Australasian Science, August 2003, Vol. 24 (7), p. 5.
[130] The zebra fish is a good model for aspects of human biology. It has a transparent and readily accessible embryo for developmental biology work: http://www.nih.gov/science/models/zebrafish
[131] Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patents) [2002] SCC 76 [20].
[132] Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patents) [2002] SCC 76 [45].
[133] Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patents) [2002] SCC 76 [57].
[134] Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patents) [2002] SCC 76 [52].
[135] Harvard Onco-Mouse T 19/90 [1990] OJ EPO 476, Tech Bd. App.; [1991] EPOR 525, Ex. D.; European Patent Office. "Oncomouse Opposition Proceedings Resume At EPO", Munich, 5 November 2001: http://www.european-patent-office.org/news/pressrel/2001_11_05_e.htm; European Patent Office. "European Patent Office Limits Harvard's 'Oncomouse' Claim", Munich, 7 November 2001: http://www.european-patent-office.org/news/pressrel/2001_11_07_e.htm The European Patent Office modified claim number 1 to include only "transgenic rodents" rather than "transgenic non-human mammals". Peter Drahos, "Biotechnology Patents, Markets And Morality", European Intellectual Property Review, 1999, Vol. 21 (9), p 441.
[136] Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patents) [2002] SCC 76 [2].
[137] Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patents) [2002] SCC 76 [3].
[138] JEM Ag Supply v Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc (2001) 534 US 124.
[139] E. Richard Gold, Body Parts: Property Rights and the Ownership of Human Biological Materials. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 1996; E. Richard Gold, "Making Room: Reintegrating Basic Research, Health Policy, and Ethics Into Patent Law" in Tim Caulfield and Bryn Williams-Jones, eds., The Commercialization of Genetic Research: Ethical, Legal, and Policy Issues. New York: Kluwer Academic, 1999, p. 63; Tim Caulfield. "Underwhelmed: Hyperbole, Regulatory Policy, and the Genetic Revolution" McGill Law Journal, 2000, Vol. 45, p. 437; Bartha Knoppers, "Reflections: The Challenge of Biotechnology and Public Policy", McGill Law Journal , 2000, Vol. 45, p. 559; P. R. Mooney. The Impetus for and Potential of Alternative Mechanisms for the Protection of Biotechnological Innovations. Ottawa: Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee, March 2001, p. 13.
[140] Michael Heller and Rebecca. Eisenberg, "Can Patents Deter Innovation? The Anticommons in Biomedical Research", Science, 1998, Vol. 280, p. 698; "Biomedical Patents and Ethics: A Canadian Solution", McGill Law Journal, 2000, Vol. 45, p. 413.
[141] Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patents) [2002] SCC 76 [114].
[142] Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patents) [2002] SCC 76 [1].
[143] Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patents) [2002] SCC 76 [109]
[144] Diamond v Chakrabarty (1980) 447 US 303.
[145] Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patents) [2002] SCC 76 [48].
[146] For a comprehensive account of the case, see Brad Sherman "Biological Inventions and the Problem of Passive Infringement", Australian Intellectual Property Journal 2002, Vol. 13 (3), p. 146-154; Maria Lee and Robert Burrell, "Liability for the Escape of GM Seeds: Pursuing the 'Victim'?", Modern Law Review, 2002, Vol. 65 (4), pp. 517-537 and the official Percy Schmeiser website: http://www.percyschmeiser.com
[147] Monsanto v Percy Schmeiser (2001) FCT 256.
[148] Pioneer Hi-Bred v Canada (Commissioner of Patents) [1989] 1 SCR 1623.
[149] JEM Ag Supply v Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc (2001) 534 US 124.
[150] Monsanto v Percy Schmeiser (2001) FCT 256.
[151] Percy Schmeiser v Monsanto [2002] FCA 309.
[152] Monsanto v Percy Schmeiser (2001) FCT 256; and Percy Schmeiser v Monsanto [2002] FCA 309.
[153] Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patents) [2002] SCC 76.
[154] Council of Canadians. "A Law That Punishes The Victim And Rewards The Perpetrator Has To Be Changed", Ottawa, 8 May 2003, http://www.percyschmeiser.com/Council%20of%20Canadians.htm
[155] Press Release. "Supreme Court of Canada Grants Schmeiser's Application For Leave To Appeal Patent Infringement Judgment", Monsanto Canada Inc, 8 May 2003.
[156] Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patents) [2002] SCC 76.
[157] Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patents) [2002] SCC 76.
[158] Jason Scott Alexander. "Mouse Trap", Canadian Bar Association, October 2003, p. 29.
[159] Harvard College. "Statement Regarding Canadian Supreme Court 5-4 Decision Dec. 5, 2002 Denying The Patentability Of 'Oncomouse' In Canada". Boston, 5 December 2002.
[160] BIOTECanada. "BIOTECanada Responds To Supreme Court Decision On Harvard Mouse Case. Ottawa, 5 December 2002.
[161] Jason Scott Alexander. "Mouse Trap", Canadian Bar Association, October 2003, p. 30.
[162] Id., p. 32.
[163] Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee. Advisory Memorandum: Higher Life Forms And The Patent Act. Ottawa: Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee. 24 February 2003.
[164] Id., p. 5.
[165] Id., p. 5.
[166] Keith Aoki. "Weeds, Seeds And Deeds: Recent Skirmishes In The Seed Wars", Cardozo Journal Of International And Comparative Law, 2003, Vol. 11, p. 247.
[167] Diamond v Chakrabarty (1980) 447 US 303.
[168] Margaret Llewelyn, "The Legal Protection Of Biotechnological Inventions: An Alternative Approach", European Intellectual Property Review, 1997, Vol. 19 (3), p. 125.
[169] Grain Pool Of Western Australia v Commonwealth (2000) 46 IPR 515.
[170] JEM Ag Supply v Pioneer Hi-Bred International Inc (2001) 534 US 124.
[171] Harvard College v Canada (Commissioner of Patents) [2002] SCC 76
[172] Graham Dutfield. Intellectual Property Rights And The Life Science Industries. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2003, p. 193.
[173]
Ibid, p. 193.
[174] Ibid, p. 193.