During an extensive talk of Stéphanie Lacour on the law concerning nanoscience, the following question came in to my mind:

In what exactly differs nano-science from other innovative science or technology branches when (patent) law is concerned?

Often it has been insisted that the development within the field is so fast that the legislative situation is difficult to adjust concurrently. Furthermore, it is almost impossible to recruit personnel competent in both, law and science.

Nevertheless, I claim that these aspects are equally true for other disciplines, in particular for every invention. Does an invention not per se involve knowledge that has not been known before?

Another debatable point is the border between an invention and a discovery. Whereas the former is patentable the latter is not. But where is the end of the first and the beginning of the second?