Property Week 1, 2, & 3

Does your idea meet criteria? Utility, novel and non-obvious

"Novel": e.g., your invention is new, was not described in the prior art "Non-obvious": e.g., the differences between your invention and prior art would not have been obvious to someone in that field

Kentucky Eminent Domain Act of 1976, 416.540(6)

"The right of the Commonwealth to take for public purpose and shall include the right of private persons, corporations or business entities to do so under authority of law." The right of eminent Domain/ taking is created by two things: 1. William the Conqueror 2. Ancient Rome 3. Natural Law

What are some things that constitute a taking?

-a permanent occupation of property -total wipe out of value of land -significant diminishment of one's bundle of ownership (benefit of use of land diminshment)

Elements of abandonment

1) The owner must intend to relinquish all interests in the property with no intention that it be held by any particular person and 2) There must be a voluntary act by the owner effectuating that intent.

Functions of adverse possession of chattels

1)problem of lost evidence: 2)desirability of quieting titles: enables rights that exist as a matter of custom 3)discouraging sleeping owners 4)interested third persons: simplifies transactions by relieving purchasers and mortgagees of the risk

functions of adverse possession

1)problem of lost evidence: 2)desirability of quieting titles: enables rights that exist as a matter of custom 3)discouraging sleeping owners 4)interested third persons: simplifies transactions by relieving purchasers and mortgagees of the risk

Personal Property

1. Chattels personal * Choses in possession (tangible Movables/goods) * Chooses in Action (Intangible Movables) - debts, - commercial paper, - Goodwill, -industrial/intellectual Property - Stocks/Shares * Money * Funds 2. Chattels real

3 questions that justification of private property answer:

1. Should Private Property Prevail Over Others (Common Property Regimes)? (should) 2. If so, in What Circumstances? (what) a. Scope: i. Incidents of Ownership- 3. Allocation (who)

Utalitarianism requires three components:

1. Universality simply means that all property is owned by someone. 2. exclusivity, denotes that the law recognizes the absolute right of an owner to exclude all members of society from the use or enjoyment of the owned resource. 3. transferability means that property rights are freely transferable, so that a resource can be devoted to the most highly-valued use.

Types of patents

1. Utility 2. Design 3. Plant

Types of property.

1. real property 2. personal property

Chakrabarty Vs Diamond

3 types of claims: first, process claims for the method of producing the bacteria; second, claims for an inoculum comprised of a carrier material floating on water, such as straw, and the new bacteria; and third, claims to the bacteria themselves.

Bailment

A bailment is a form of contractual relationship, even if no contract has been signed. The person receiving the property (the "bailee") has possession and control over the property for a specific period of time, during which he or she is responsible to take reasonable care of the property.

The Obligation to Disclose

A patent is a quid pro quo: In exchange for ◦The right to exclude others from making, using, importing, or selling your invention for a limited time period, You must fully disclose your invention so the public can benefit from it and expand on it.

Anatomy of a patent

Abstract ◦A short summary of the invention. Written description ◦How does it work? How is it made or used? Drawings ◦What does it look like? Claims ◦The claim(s) define(s) the legal boundaries of the invention, similar to a deed to a property.

Demand and refusal approach to adverse possession of chattels

Accrual does not commence until the owner has demanded the return of their item from a good faith purchaser and the purchaser has refused.

Exculpatory clause

Apply if accepted by the bailor/ bailee Bailor/bailee has either actual or constructive notice at the time of bailment

Dude A loans his buddy, Dude B, his motorcycle in order for Dude B to make it to work that day. Dude B pops a mad wheelie on his way home from work and loses control of the motorcycle crashing it. What cause of action does Dude A have against Dude B if any?

Bailment. Dude B violated his duty of care by popping a mad wheelie.

Sample claim

Claim 1. A chair comprising: ◦a seat, ◦a back support attached to the seat, ◦support arms attached to the seat and back support, and ◦a base comprising a plurality of legs attached to the seat.

Hannah v. Peel

Claim between owner vs. finder Preferred form of action? The Law on articles found on land/premises? The defendant possess everything on the land/premises from which he intends to exclude others; or he may possess those things of which he has a de facto physical control Owner had never physically controlled house nor did he have intent to control. Why?

Types of trademarks

Collective Certification Ordinary

DMC: Conditional on Death

Conditional on death ◦Gift revocable during life of person ◦It is a present gift conditional upon the happening of death in the future ◦Express or implied Conditionality can be implied from circumstances that warrant the conclusion that gift depends on the death of the donor ◦Revocation ◦Automatic (when contemplated risk ends) ◦Express (Donor calls up donee & say she is not giving anymore) Retaking possession may not be revocation. ◦Note: DMC can't be revoked by will

Three types of delivery

Constructive Delivery: ◦No actual delivery, but the donor gives up all means of access and control to goods and gives these rights ◦All that can be done to divest title is done ◦didn't exist when manual delivery of possible Contra Scherer v. Hyland: when the evidence of donative intent is concrete and undisputed, there is every indication that the donor intended to make a present transfer Symbolic Delivery: ◦Passing on a small item which symbolizes something larger ◦Deed: an instrument of transfer at the CL E.g. "I give this day to my wife ... five hundred shares of American Sumatra Tobacco Company common stock Delivery to Third Person: ◦E.g. R manually delivers a gold watch to T, with instructions that T in turn deliver it to E; T then hands over the watch to E: which transfer constituted delivery

Different concepts of originality:

Creative approach: the skill and force exercised on the work, and the quality of the work as a result Sweat of brow approach: focus on attempt at precision of the result (on how the work was made)

Possession

Definition ◦ Legal test: ◦ (1) Physical control (factum possidendi) context dependant - Diff. degrees in different cases; degree of exclusion, kind of dominion ◦ (2) Intention to possess (animus possidendi) with purpose, or knowing that results are substantially certain to occur The degree of awareness need not be complete

DMC: Intention

Delivery must be done with the intent to part with dominion over the property he knew what he was doing, and that he intended a gift

Bars to patentability

Discoveries and scientific principles: things made by nature and laws of nature cannot be patented.

Bars to protection

Distinctiveness ◦Generic Descriptive ◦Character ◦Function ◦Feature ◦Quality ◦Ingredient ◦Nature ◦Purpose ◦use ◦characteristics

Duty to disclose?

Does the disclosure: Demonstrate that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention? Teach one of ordinary skill to make and use the invention without undue experimentation? Describe the best mode contemplated for carrying out the invention by the inventor?

Delivery

Effective transfer of the property "Courts will not perfect an imperfect gift:" Why focus on delivery? •Donative intention •Flexibility to the donor to change hearts •Mere declaration of intention without actual delivery? •Proof of intention; notice to the outside world •Similarities and differences between gift and bailment? •Manual delivery is impracticable

Eminent Domain

Eminent domain is the power of government to force transfers of property from owners to itself. Private property—> Public Property

The right to abandon (223)

Entails the Unilateral relinquishment of property. One if the two most controversial rights in the bundle of ownership.

State v. Shack:

FACTS: A farmer who employs migrant workers, allows them to be housed on his property. The defendant works for "The Farm Workers Division of the southwest Citizens Organization for Poverty Elimination." Defendant wanted to go onto the farmer's property to look for a migrant worker who was in need of medical aid and another who wanted legal advice. The Farmer actually complied with Shack and his conspirator, stating that all he wanted was for the legal advice to be given to him in the room. Shack and his conspirator stated that they wanted privacy with the Migrant workers. then the farmer called State Troopers. ISSUE: Whether the camp operator's rights in his lands may stand between migrant workers and those who would aid them. RULES: * Real property does not bar access to gov. services available to M.W. * Title to real property cannot include dominion over the destiny of persons the owner permits to come upon the premises. (their well-being must remain paramount.) ***One should not use their property to injure the rights of others. HOLDING: While the farmer is entitled to pursue his farming activities without interference. He does not have a right to isolate the M.W. in any respect significant for the worker's wellbeing. Therefore the Defendants did not invade any possessory right of the farmer.

Hawkins v. Mahoney

FACTS: Hawkins escaped from prison. The Prison officials "packed up Hawkins property, sealed it with security tape, placed Hawkins' name on each box, and removed the boxes from his cell and was placed in the storage room." Hawkins was then apprehended and returned to prison. The disciplinary hearings only offered punishments but DID NOT ORDER HAWKINS PROPERTY DESTROYED. The prison Officials then took Hawkins to the storage room, allowed him to take out important legal documents and informed him that his property was considered abandoned when he escaped and was therefore going to be destroyed or sold. P.H.: Hawkins Filed his action against MSP and the State of Montana. The D.C. Concluded that Hawkins abandoned his property, and therefore had no action. ISSUE: Hawkins appealed contending that the D.C. erred in finding that he abandoned his property when he escaped from prison, as he was returned within two days, and he requested that his property be returned to him when he returned, while the Police contend that Hawkins escaping is him abandoning his property and those rights are mutually exclusive "he could keep his rights to his property or he could escape." REASONING: *Herron is factually distinguishable from Hawkins as the state did not take Herron's property into protective custody after his escape. * Hawkins asked for his property to be returned. ***Personal Property, ceases to be the property of any person, unless and until it is reduced to possession with the intent to acquire title to, or ownership of it. The property may be appropriated by anyone if it has not been reclaimed by the former owner. *Intent to abandon property is a requisite element of abandonment and may be inferred by the acts of the owner. HOLDING: * It does not appear that at any point after Hawkins' escape and before Hawkins' request for the return of his property, that the M.S.P reduced his property to possession with the intent to acquire title to, or ownership of it. * The presumption or inference of intent to abandon one's property, based solely upon the acts of the owner, is a rebuttable presumption. Therefore, Hawkins's return to prison and request for his property prior to it being claimed by anyone else effectively rebutted the presumption that he ever intended to abandon his property.

In re Estate of Kievernagel

FACTS: In this case the court must decide whether widow has the right to use her late husband frozen sperm to attempt to conceive a child where her late husband signed an agreement with the company storing the frozen sperms providing that the sperm was to be discarded upon his death. As part of the storage program the center required an IVF backups perm storage and sent agreement. Essentially meaning that this section of the late husband's sperm was his private property. The wife iris contends that the decision from the probate court ignores the fundamental rights of her property in accordance to Davis. ISSUE: The intent of the decedent regarding use of his sperm. REASONING: * Josephs signature on the document, stating that his sperm be destroyed is a clear indicator that he wished for his sperm to be destroyed upon his death. * Hecht discusess what is known as Unequivocable intent, meaning that there is only one way to interpret the meaning. * there are two rights of equal significance: the right to procreate and the right to avoid procreation. HOLDING: In this case the issue at hand is just sperm and not a pre-embryo but only that Joseph had an interest in the nature and ownership to the extent that decision making authority As for the use of the frozen sperm does not implicate ours is right to procreative autonomy that would be so only if she could show that she could become pregnant only with Joseph sperm.

Davis v. Davis

FACTS: Mrs. Davis and her husband are life estate owners of a property in a highly vacationed area, that they would also rent out during high vacation times. They allowed three of their children to form a LLC (limited liability company) and become partial owners of this property. After Mr. Davis passed away Mrs. Davis became the sole life estate owner of the property, but was met with a letter from her children stating that the "property was for her personal use only, and is not to be used to provide income to her." Meaning that she couldn't rent out the property anymore. Though Mrs. Davis ignored this letter and was then sued by her children who pointed to the language in their contract. ISSUE: Does the contract that both of the parties sign actually prevent Mrs. Davis from renting out the property during her life tenancy, as she is both the grantor who created the restraint and the life tenant who is subject to the restraint? REASONING: The Deed language creates an unreasonable restraint on the alienation of Mrs. Davis's life estate. * This deed creates an "unlimited restraint" on alienation. which is per see invalid. **"Provide only that someone's estate may be forfeited or be terminated if he alienates, or that provides damages must be paid if he alienates may be upheld if REASONABLE" HOLDING: The creator of the life estate is irrelevant. An unlimited restraint is against public policy; it makes no difference if that restraint is self-imposed. An otherwise invalid restraint on alienation is not validated merely because the life tenant assented to the restraint by signing the instrument.

Jacque v. Steenberg Homes:

FACTS: Steenberg Homes had a mobile home to deliver. Though in order to deliver this home they would have to go through Jacque's property. The Jacque's denied them access to their property, but Steenberg plowed a path through their field anyway. Though the only other path that Steenberg could take was through a private road that was covered in 7 feet of snow. HOLDING: In sum, the individual has a strong interest in excluding trespassers from his or her land. Society has an interest in punishing and deterring intentional trespassers beyond that of protecting the interests of the individual landowner. Society has an interest in preserving the integrity of the legal system. Private landowners should feel confident that wrongdoers who trespass on their land will be appropriately punished. When landowners have confidence in the legal system, they are less likely to resort to self-help remedies

Eyerman v. Mercantile Trust Co. (1975)

FACTS: Louise Woodruff Johnston, the owner of the property, died and by her will directed the executor to "cause our home to be razed and sell the land upon which it is located, transferring the proceeds of the sale to the residue of my estate." Plaintiffs asserted that Razing the home would adversely affect their property rights, violate the terms of the subdivision trust indenture, produce an actionable private nuisance, and is contrary to public policy. Besides one vacant lot, the subdivision that the house is located is occupied by handsome, spacious three-story homes, and all must be used exclusively as private residences. ISSUE: Whether the house should be razed is an issue of public policy involving individual property rights and the community at large. The Plaintiffs have pleaded and proved facts to show personal, legally protected interests. REASONING: * No individual, group of individuals nor community generally benefits from the senseless destruction of the house, and all are harmed causing at a minimum $39,000 loss. * McClintock v. Guinotte shows that the taking of property by inheritance or will is not an absolute or natural right. Is one that is created by laws of the sovereign power. * Egerton v. Brownlow, The owner of an estate may themself do many things which he could not compel his successor to do. I.E. One who does not cultivate their land cannot prevent their successor from doing so. * In re Scott's Will: Although a person may deal capriciously with his own property, his self interest ordinarily will restrain him from doing so. there is no restraint and it is against public policy to allow one who is given no interest in the property the ability to exercise the power if the purpose is merely capricious. HOLDING: It is evident that this senseless destruction serving no apparent good purpose is to be held in disfavor. A well-ordered society cannot tolerate the waste and destruction of resources when such acts directly affect the important interests of other members of that society.

Popov v. Hayashi

Facts: And all American baseball game a record setting ball went into this crowd where a whole bunch of fans were positioned to catch said ball. Mr P and Mr H or in a tussle because Mr P had caught the ball almost. Though the crowd had advanced forward started tackling slash attacking slash falling on top of Mr Pfor the ball. Mr H luckily was knocked down near the ball and saw it loose grabbed it and put it in his pocket and walked away. Perhaps the most crucial finding is that all is one that can be made. We will never know if Mr p would have been able to retain control of the fall had the crowd not interfered with his efforts to do so. Resolution that the question is the work of a psychic not a judge Issue: did Mr H come in an active conversion, trespass to shadow, injunctive relief and constructive crush. When he picked up the ball put it in his pocket and walked away after it had made contact with Mr H and he was assailed by the crowd. Though Mr P is not coming to Mr H damaged the ball or that he interfered with Mr Pease using enjoyment of the ball. He claims instead that Mr H intentionally took it from him and refused to give it back. There is no trespassing chattel. If there is a walk at all, it is conversion At the end of the day the question is whether Mr P did enough to reduce the ball to his exclusive dominion control period where his ex-efficiently create a legally cognizable interest in the ball? Holding Mr hayashi was not a wrongdoer he was a victim of the same bandits add attack Mr P. The difference is that he was able to extract himself from their assault and move to the side of the road. He would say that he discovered the loose ball. When he picked it up and put his pocket he obtained unequivocal dominion neck control. If Mr P had a chief complete possession for Mr H got the ball, those actions would not have divested Mr P of any rights, or would have created any rights to which Mr H they claim. Mr P however was able to establish only qualified pre possessory interest in the ball. That interest does not establish a full right to possession that is protected from a subsequent legitimate claim. Mr H claimed is compromised by Mr P pre possessory interest. Mr P cannot demonstrate full control, their legal claims are of equal quality and they are equally entitled to the ball. Reasoning/Rule: conversion does not exist unless the ball rifle belongs to mid to Mr P. One who has neither title nor possession, nor right to possession, cannot sue for conversion. That decides in question in this case then, is whether Mr piaci possession with a right to possession as he attempted to catch and hold the ball. Both parties agree that prior to the time of the ball was hit it was possessed and owned by MLB. At the time it hit became intentionally abandoned property. The first person came possession of the ball became its new owner. Mr H argues that possession does not occur until a fan has complete control of the ball. A ball is called if the person has achieved complete control of the ball at the point in time that the momentum of the ball and the momentum of the fan while attempting to catch the ball ceases. Incidental contact with another person is contact that is not intended by the other person the first person to pick up the loose ball is accurate becomes a possessor. Mr P argues that his definition requires that a person seeking to establish possession must show unequivocal dominion and control, a standard projection by several legal cases stead he offers a prayer spective professor Bernhard and professor Paul finkelman who suggests possession occurs when an individual tends to take control of the ball and manifests that intent by stopping the four momentum of the ball whether or not complete control is achieved. Though these rules are contextual in nature. They are crafting response to the unique nature of the conduct they seek to regulate. Moreover they are influenced by the custom and practice of each industry. The reason that absolute dominion control is not required to establish possession in the cases cited by Mr P is that the rule would be unworkable and unreasonable. The nature and situation of the property it issued does not immediately lend itself to an unequivocal dominion that control period it is impossible to wrap one's arms around a whale, a fleeing fox or a second ship the opposite is true of the ball came into the hands of the stadium. The customer practice at the stains creates a reasonable expectation that a person will achieve full control of the ball before claiming possession. There's no reason for the legal rule to be inconsistent with the expectation. Mr P did not establish a preponderance of the evidence that he would have retained control of the ball after the momentum ceased and after any incidental contact with the people or objects. Consequently, he did not achieve full possession. The court adopts the following rule. Where an actor undertakes significant incomplete steps to achieve possession of a piece of abandoned personal property and the effort is interrupted by the unlawful acts of others, the actor Has a legally cognizable pre possessory interest in the property. that pre possessor interest constitutes a qualified right to possession which can support A cause of action for conversion. Equitable division: Where more than one party has a valid claim to a piece of property, undivided interests in the property in proportion to the strength of the claim Decision: the court therefore declares that both plaintiff and defendant have an equal and undivided interest in the ball. Plaintiff's cause of action for conversion is sustained only as to its equal and undivided interest. In order to officiate this ruling, the ball must be sold and the proceeds divided equally between the parties appeared

Hinman v. Pacific Air Transport

Facts: Appellants allege that they are owners and in possession of a 72 1/2 acres of real property in the city of Burbank. And their property they believe goes upwards into the sky into airspace. Without limiting said altitude are defining the upward extent of substratum airspace of the plaintiffs ownership utilization and possession thereof, plaintiffs allege that they made reasonably expect now and hereafter to utilize, use and occupy set airspace and each and every portion thereof to an altitude of not less than 150 feet above the surface of land Issue: it is settled by California law that the owner of land has no property rise in the SuperJacent airspace. Either by enactments or judicial decrees and that the add column doctrine does not apply in California. Though examining the statutes of California, nothing there in gives a negative to the add column formula. Holding This case differs than the usual case of enjoining trespass. Ordinarily, if a trespasses committed upon land, the point of his entitled to at least nominal damages without proving or alleging any actual damage. In this case traversing the airspace above the appellants land is not, in itself, a trespass at all, but is a lawful act unless it is done under circumstances which will cause injury to the appellant possession Reasoning/Rule: The appellants case rests upon the assumption that as owners of the soil they have an absolute and present title to all the space above the earth surface, owned by them, just such a height as is, or may become useful to the enjoyment of their land. This height, the appellants assert in a bill, is of an indefinite distance, but not less than 150 feet. Though the courts believe that this is unsound. The question resented as applied to a new status in little aid can be found in the actual precedent. The solution is found in the application of the elementary legal principles. The first and foremost of these principles is that the very essence and origin of their legal right of property is dominion over it. Property must have been reclaimed from the general masses of the earth, and it must be capable by nature of exclusive possession without possession, no right can be maintained. The air like the sea is by nature incapable of private ownership, except insofar as one might actually use it.

Contemporary: Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991

Facts: Rural Telephone Service is a public utility company providing telephone service to several communities in Kansas. Pursuant to state regulation, Rural publishes a typical telephone directory, consisting of white pages and yellow pages. It obtains data for the directory from subscribers, who must provide their names and addresses to obtain telephone service. Feist Publications, Inc., is a publishing company that specializes in area-wide telephone directories covering a much larger geographic range than directories such as Rural' s. When Rural refused to license its white pages listings to Feist for a directory covering 11 different telephone service areas, Feist extracted the listings it needed from Rural' s directory without Rural' s consent. Although Feist altered many of Rural' s listings, several were identical to listings in Rural' s white pages. District and Appellate Courts found copyright infringement. Feist petitioned. Issue: Did Feist, by taking 1,309 names, towns, and telephone numbers from Rural' s white pages, copy anything that was "original" to Rural? Rule: Originality, not "novel" or "good," but modicum of creativity the work was independently created by the author possesses at least some minimum degree of creativity (low - just some creative spark, not just a copy) Held: information contained in Rural' s phone directory was not copyrightable and therefore no infringement existed

Johnson V. M'intosh (1823)

Facts: Title claimed to a large amount land in southern Illinois and southern Indiana. The defendant had acquired title by patent from the United States in 1819. If the grant from the Indian chiefs was good, then the plaintiffs would prevail both because their grant was prior in time, and because, so they argued, whatever claim the United States had was dependent on the same grant by the Indians. First occupancy theory: Indians got there before the white settlers. Marshall's answer: Possession is a social fact the meaning of which is culturally contingent

Moore v. Regents of the University of California

Facts? Causes of action: conversion, lack of informed consent, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, etc. Ruling: breach of fiduciary duty and lack of informed consent (i.e. nondisclosure) give Moore sufficient relief and protection; conversion is unnecessary and also unwise in light of the troubles to which it gives rise. Reasoning: Moore must establish ownership or a right of possession in order to show conversion. But he never expected to retain possession of the parts of his body that were removed in the course of treatment, and did not retain any ownership interest in them. the structure of California statutory law (in particular, the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, or UAGA) so limits the rights of patients over excised cells as to amount to a denial of the proposition that patients have property rights in them. Defendants' patented cell line a thing distinct from Moore's cells Arabian, concurring: Mosk, dissenting: property as a "bundle of rights" ◦Moore at least had the right to do with his tissue what the defendants did with it

Authors Guild vs Google

Facts? Issue: Whether it was fair use to digitally copy entire books from library collections, without permission or payment, and to make the digital copies available for library collections and for the public to search electronically using a search engine. Purpose Nature of the work Amount of the dealing Effect of the dealing on the work

re Estate of Evans

Facts? Were safe deposit box contents a gift to Kellow during Evan's life? intent ? Delivery? ("if there is no delivery, the gift must fail.") ◦The day after Evans' visit to the box the keys were turned over to Kellow vs Delivery of the contents How about "impractical and inconvenient for Mr. Evans to manually deliver the contents of his box to her because of his physical condition and the hazards of taking such a l

Law of Finders

First principle: •The true owner, if he/she hasn't abandoned the property, always has the best claim •Is there any prior/antecedent possession claim to what was found that would prevent the finder from gaining possession? Claimant Parties: Without the involvement of the true owner - two situations: •Dispute between finder and 3rd party unconnected with the premises or the finding (Armory) •Dispute between finder and the person who is the owner or occupier of premises where the good was found •Property embedded in the land •Property unattached, on the land

The patent application journey

First, you need an idea! ◦Is your idea worth protecting? Present your idea Draft application File application

donatio mortis causa (DMC)

Gift in the contemplation, but not necessarily with the expectation, of the donor's death upon the express or implied condition that the gift is not to be absolute and complete until the donor dies. ◦Four requirements for an effective DMC Contemplation of death Conditional on death Delivery Intention

Gift

Gift: - A voluntary transfer of personal property without consideration. ◦Three types of gift: testamentary inter vivos donatio mortis causa (DMC)

Dude B is going on a date and is very nervous. Dude A loans his buddy, Dude B, his lucky pair of underwear to give him a better chance at making a good impression on the date. Dude B crashes and burns on the date and walks home alone. On his way home Dude B is struck by a meteor. Dude B is shocked to find that he is entirely unscathed as the underwear took the full brunt of the blow completely vaporizing them off of his body. What cause of action does Dude A have against Dude B if any?

He has no claim because Dude B did not violate his duty of care.

Stop the Breach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental protection

Holding The order eliminated two of the members littoral rights: 1. The right to receive accretions to their property; and 2. The right to have the contact of their property to the water remain intact. Reasoning/Rule: Decision: Certiorari

Keeble v. Hickering (1707)

Holding: A property owner making lawful use of his land is free to do so without interference. Where the landowner uses his property for a profit-making venture, it constitutes as a trade, and interfering with a person's livelihood subjects the interferer to liability for damages.

International News Service v. Associated Press (1918)

Holding: A quasi-property right exists in published news such that appropriating the published news gathered by another for further commercial purposes constitutes unfair competition in trade. Competitor news sources owe each other a duty to conduct their own business in a manner that will not unnecessarily or unfairly injure the business of others.

In re Cordua Restaurants, Inc. (2016)

Holding: Generic terms are public domain and cannot be trademarked. A term is generic for a trademark applicants' goods or services if the term is merely synonymous with the product and doesn't indicate that the applicant is the product's source.

McAvoy v. Medina (1866)

Holding: Mislaid property isn't subject to the rule that a finder of lost property has a valid claim to the property against everyone except the true owner. Mislaid property is property that the owner voluntarily placed somewhere and then neglected to remove.

Amory v. Delamirie (1722)

Holding: The finder's possessory rights are superior to everyone else's except for those of the true owner.

Defences: fair use

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors

Copyright Ownership

Initial Ownership. - Copyright in a work protected under this title vests initially in the author or authors of the work. The authors of a joint work are co-owners of copyright in the work. 17 U.S.C. § 201(a) (2016) Works Made for Hire. - In the case of a work made for hire, the employer or other person for whom the work was prepared is considered the author for purposes of this title, and, unless the parties have expressly agreed otherwise in a written instrument signed by them, owns all of the rights comprised in the copyright. 17 U.S.C. § 201(b) (2016)

Gruen v. Gruen

Intent? ◦Present intent? Delivery: ◦"physical delivery of the painting itself is the best form of delivery and should be required"?

Penn Central Transportation Company v. City of New York

Issue: Whether a city may, as part of a comprehensive program to preserve historic landmarks and historic districts, place restrictions on the development of individual historic landmarks. Whether the application of NY Landmarks preservation Law to the parcel of land occupied by Grand Central Terminal has "taken" its owners' property in violation of the fifth amendment. Holding The application of NYC landmark laws has not affected a taking of appellants property. Reasoning/Rule: Decision: Affirmed 3. Another Categorical Rule 1068If regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking. If then, a regulation wipes out all value, won't this always be going "too Far"? limitations might be things like: Regulations to control a nuisance, property owners that have no "investment-backed expectations"

O'Keeffe v. Snyder

Issue: ◦Sub issue: whether the statute of limitations of New York or New Jersey applies ◦Rule: "if an artist diligently seeks the recovery of a lost or stolen painting, but cannot find it or discover the identity of the possessor, the statute of limitations will not begin to run." How did the court determine whether O'Keeffe is entitled to the benefit of the discovery rule?

Bridges v. Hawkesworth

Issue: Who has better claim to the money in a parcel which P found on the floor Reasoning? The notes were never in the custody of the D, nor were they within his protection when they were found, as they would have been had they been intentionally deposited there If D is the finder, then he will be liable as a gratuitous Bailee - The D owed a duty to owner Interpretations of court's reasoning? matter of two intents lack of de facto control: Importance of place where the item is found? first to acquire possession

Liberty or Civic Republican Theory

Liberty theory argues that the ownership of private property is necessary for democratic self-government. As it developed before the American Revolution, this approach posited that property rights provided citizens with the economic security that allowed independent political judgment. Citizen C1, owning 1,000 acres of land, could support his family by farming his own land, without any external assistance. He was accordingly free to serve the common good through voting, political discussion, holding office, and so forth. In contrast, landless citizen C2 would be dependent on the good will of others for sustenance, somewhat like the feudal serf; C2 was thus subject to manipulation, bribery, or other economic pressure. If offered a bribe to vote for a particular candidate, for example, C2 might well prefer his private self-interest over the common good. [B] Critique of Theory The influence of liberty theory waned during the nineteenth century in the face of changing economic, political, and social conditions. Modern scholars are skeptical of the original assumption that property ownership is essential to political freedom. Developments over the last 50 years—notably the civil rights movement—demonstrate that even our poorest citizens have the political courage to fight for the common good. Moreover, even assuming that economic security is vital for political independence, today most citizens derive that security not from "property" in the traditional sense, but rather from wages earned through relatively secure employment.

JUSTIFICATIONS for private property

Major Categories: ◦Enhances the Human Condition ◦Promotes Justice, Peace, Prosperity & Liberty

What is public use with no debate and debated public use?

No debate: hospitals, roads, utilities, schools Debated: private businesses and things with collateral benefit. Ex. creation of jobs or increase in tourism.

Adverse Possession of Chattels

Operation of doctrine: a non-owner gains title to property (personal property or land) after the expiration of the statute of limitations for the owner to recover possession. History: ◦statutes of limitation: eliminated a rightful owner's ability to regain possession after the passing of a certain number of years ◦1623 statute of King James I restricted the right of entry to recover possession of land to a period of twenty years.

Pennsylvania Coal Co. V. Mahon

PH: Facts: PCC wants to mine under Mahon's house, and Mahon's deed only lays claim to the surface property. Though the mining under the house would cause the surface to be severely damaged. A bill called the Kohler Act came out in 1921. The statute forbids the mining of coal that would cause the subsidence of any structure used as human habitation. Issue: This Statute that covers coal mining, does it apply to a privately owned property, owned by a single person. Holding There is no reason to give private property owners more rights than they bought, as they only own "surface" rights. Reasoning/Rule: Private property may be taken, but compensation is required Diminution in value is a legal term of art used when calculating damages in a legal dispute and describes a measure of value lost due to a circumstance or set of circumstances that caused the loss. Specifically, it measures the value of something before and after the causative act or omission creating the lost value to calculate compensatory damages. Decision: Judgement reversed

Murr v. Wisconsin (1088)

PH: Circuit court of St. Croix county granted summary judgement to the State, stating that the perteitioners retained several available options for the use and enjoyment of their property. Wisconsin COA affirmed. Facts: There are two lots F & E, petitioner's parent bought lot F in 1960 and built a small cabin on it. The two properties have the same topography on them. The lots remained under separate ownership. Both lots merged together. Petitioners wished to move the cabin on lot F and wished to sell lot E to fund the project. Though the unification of the lots voided this plan. As the petitioners merged to lots. Issue: What is a proper unit of property against which to assess the effect of the challenged governmental action? Holding Considering petitioners property, the state court was correct to conclude that petitioners cannot establish a compensable taking in these circumstances. Petitioners have not suffered, and have not been deprived of their economically beneficial use of their property. Reasoning/Rule: First courts should give substantial weight to the treatment of the land, how it is bounded or divided, under state and local law. The reasonable expectations of an acquirer of land must acknowledge legitimate restrictions affecting their use and dispensation of their property Second, Courts must look to the physical characteristics of the landowner's property. Including physical relationships of any distinguishable tracts Third, courts should assess the value of the property under the challenged regulation, with a special attention to the effect of the burdened land on the value of other holdings.

Kelo v. City of New London

PH: DEC 2000 petitioners brough the action to the New London Superior Court. Claiming that the taking of their properties would violate the "public use" restriction provided by the fifth amendment. The Superior Court Granted a permanent restraining order prohibiting the taking of the properties. Both sides appealed to the Supreme Ct of Connecticut. Holding that all the city's proposed takings were valid. Facts: In 2000, the city of New London approved a development plan that, in the words of the Supreme Court of Connecticut, was "projected to create more than 1,000 jobs, to increase tax and other revenues, and to revitalize an economically distressed city. In assembling the land needed for this project, the cities development agent has purchased property from willing sellers and proposes to use the power of eminent domain to acquire the remainder of the property from unwilling owners in exchange for just compensation. Issue: The question presented is whether the city's proposed disposition of this property qualifies as a "public use" within the meaning of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Holding The necessity and wisdom of using eminent domain to promote economic development are certainly matters of public debate. Reasoning/Rule: Two Polar propositions: A. Sovereign may not take the property of A for the sole purpose of transferring the property to B B. State may transfer property from one Private party to another if future use is "by the public" is the purpose of taking Decision: Judgement of the SC of Connecticut is affirmed.

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council

PH: Lucas filed suit in state court, claiming a taking. T.C. agreed, but the South Carolina supreme court reversed, holding that when a land use regulation is designed to "prevent serious public harm" Facts: Lucas was constructing on his coastal land in South Carolina. Building two small lots. Before the Coastal Zone Management Act in 1972, Lucas did not need a permit to build on this property. His plans were haulted by new legislation. The Beachfront management Act. Enacted by the state. The act had the direct effect of barring lucas from building any permanent habitable structures on his lots. Essentially making his property valueless. Issue: When and under what circumstances, a given regulation would be seen as going "too Far" for the purpose of the Fifth amendment. Holding To win its case, South Carolina must do more than proffer the legislators declaration that the uses that Lucas desires are inconsistent with the public interest Reasoning/Rule: There are two discrete categories of regulatory action as compensable without case specific inquiry into the public interest: 1. Regulations that compel the property owner to suffer a physical invasion of his property. 2. Regulation denies all economically beneficial or productive use of land. A taking- when the owner of a real property has been called upon to sacrifice all economically beneficial uses in the name of the common good, that is, to leave his property economically idle. Opposite side considered a Harmful or Noxious use- where the government might, in consistent to the "takings clause" affect property values by regulation without incurring an obligation to compensate." If there Because the property was not met with pre-existing limitations, there is no justification for a taking of this property without compensation. Decision: Judgement reversed and cause remanded for proceedings.

Keble v. hickeringill

PH: The verdict was found for the plaintiff and 20L damages Facts: The defendant took guns out and began shooting them to scare off the wildfowl near his yard and the pond where pint if typically hunts and the fowls were frightened away and forsake the pond Issue: Was the act of the defendant consider a possession did he actually own the wild foul in the pond to the point where he could scare them away Holding in order to be taken for the profit the owner of the pond who is at the experience of servants, engines are there management whereby the markets of the nation may be furnished there's a great reason to give encouragement thereunto that the people who were instrumental to their skill and industry so to furnish the markets will reap the benefit of and have their action but in short that was his true reason is that the action is not brought to recover damage for the loss of the foul comic book further disturbance Reasoning/Rule: or violent malicious actions done to him and occupation, profession, or way of getting their livelihood there an action lies in all cases. But if a man Duff him damaged by using the same employment; As if Mr hingle had set up another decoy on his own ground near the plaintiffs, and that had spoiled the customer of the plaintiff, no action would like, because he had as much liberty to make and use it equally as the plaintiff. This is like the case 11 H. 4, 47 one schoolmaster sitzman new school which at the damage of the ancient school the bad scores are lower from the old school to come to his new. Decision: so is the usual common way of declaring

Johnson V. M'Intosh

PH: This was an action of adjustment for lanes in the state by district of illinois's, claimed by the plaintiffs under a purchase and conveyance of the panca Shaw Indians, and by the defendant, under a grant from the US. It came up on a case stated upon there was a judgment below for the defendant Facts: Issue: The point is in this case claimed the land in their declaration mentioned, under two grants, proportions to be made, the first in 1773, the last in 1775 by the chiefs of certain Indian tribes, constituting the Illinois and pankuch all nations; And the question is, whether this title can be recognized by the courts of the US? Holding It has been contended that the Indian title mounted in nothing. The row possession has never been questioned. They claim the government extends at the complete ultimate title, charged with the spread of possession, and they exclusive power of acquiring that right Therefore the pointers do not exhibit a title which can be sustained in the courts of the US Reasoning/Rule: basically, the government believes that they've always had complete control of it because in the past they've always had complete control of Indian land. And the Indian inhabitants are only considered merely as occupants not rightful owners Decision: judgment affirmed with costs. 1. John Locke and Johnson BM. Return of the Johnson case where we left in the end of note two above walk appears to have shared the common European youth the Native Americans have no substantial claim to the new world, they had so long occupied. The Indians were not owners but merely had the right of occupancy. Rights to land flowed from the legitimate sovereign government only from that source they will get lands at the least cost of themselves

Pierson v. Post

PH: this cause comes before us on a return to a sushi Ari directed to one of the justices of queen county Facts: This was an action of trespass on the case commenced and a justices court, by the president defended against the now point. The declaration stated that post, being a possession of certain dogs and hounds under his command, did, upon a certain wild and uninhibited, unpossessed and waste land, called the beach, fine and start one of those noxious beasts called the fox, and whilst there hunting, chasing and pursuing the same with his hounds and dogs, and when in view thereof, piercing, while knowing the fox was so haunted and pursued, did, in the sight of post, to prevent his catching the same kill carrying it off. Issue: It is admitted that a fox is an animal ferina cherry, and the property is such animals is acquired by occupancy only. These missions narrow the discussion is a simple question of what acts amount to occupancy, applied to acquiring right to wild animals? Holding the case under consideration is one of my pursuit and presents no circumstances or acts which can bring it within the definition of occupancy by the former described. If the first seeing starting or pursuing such animals without having so wounded, circumvented or ensnared them, so as to deprive them of their natural liberty, and subject them to the control over their pursuer, should afford the basis of actions against others for intercepting and killing them, you approve for fertile source of quarrels and litigation Reasoning/Rule: Most cases which have occurred in England relating to property in wild animals have either been discussed and decided upon the principles of their positive statute regulations or have arisen between the Huntsman and the owner of the land upon which beasts have been apprehended the former claiming them by title of occupancy in the latter rationale solely little satisfactory aid can therefore be deprived from the English report Barbeyrac in his notes in putting dorf, just not a seed the definition of occupancy by the latter, but On the contrary affirms that actual bodily seizure is not in all cases necessary to constitute possession of wild animals. This description describes occupancy as reasonable and correct. That is to say that actual bodily seizure is not indispensable to acquire a right to or possess of wild beasts but that On the contrary the mortal wounding of such beasts, by one not abandoning his pursuit may with the most property be deemed possession of him Pursuit of an animal does not constitute possession. Incapacitating an animal does though. Decision: we are in the opinion of the judgment low was heironeous and ought to be reversed

Personhood Theory

Personhood theory justifies private property as essential to the full development of the individual. Under this approach, certain things—for example, a wedding ring—are seen as so closely connected to a person's emotional and psychological well-being that they virtually become part of that person. 33 Thus, a person should have broad property rights over such things. [B] Critique of Theory Personhood theory might be classified as a variant on utilitarian theory. It seeks to maximize utility by protecting a person's emotional or psychological happiness. Yet, at best, it explains the existence of private property rights only in those "things" seen as central to personhood. It does not seek to justify the existence of what Radin terms "fungible property," that is, rights in money, stocks, bonds, commercial real estate, and other "things" that are less connected to personhood.

2 Types of Takings

Physical: If the government either seizes possession of property or makes a permanent physical invasion of property. The scale of invasion generally doesn't matter in deciding whether a taking has occurred. Regulatory: occurs if a law restricts property rights in certain ways. Two laws that count as regulatory takings: 1) a law that destroys all economically viable use of the property UNLESS the owner's proposed use could have been forbidden as a nuisance before the law was passed, and 2) a law that excessively or unforeseeably restricts the property's use without destroy it's value. *in these cases, apply the Penn Central Test!!!*

What is prior art?

Prior art includes: patents, printed publications, and other disclosures in the field of your invention that have been published before your effective filing date.

What is an avulsion and who owns it?

Rapid increases in land. Could be as a result of land development. This land belongs to the public/the state.

Role of the USPTO examiner

Read and understand the application Search for prior art Evaluate the specification and claim(s) Respond by office action(s) describing findings Hold interviews, as requested

INS Vs AP

Relevant Issue: Is there property in news? Copyright? What is the decision of the majority: ◦Property implies something which may be owned and possessed to the exclusion of all others, which can be "maintained" Property does not describe ideas ◦Ideas are non-exclusive ◦Ideas are non-rivalrous Can only get copyright protection for the expression of ideas, not for the ideas/facts themselves Quasi-property Majority's reasoning Dissent's view

Social Values and Property Rights: the Heinz Dilemma

Should the Law Place the Pharmacist's Rights to Property? Why or why not?

What is an accretion and who owns it?

Slow land increases. Usually as a result of a long process. Accretions belong to the landowners.

Copyright requires originality. Originality has two aspects:

Source: originates from the author, more than a mere copy Qualitative Standard: some minimal degree of creativity

The right of publicity:

State law Post mortem "identity" or "likeness" Typical focus is on (i) plaintiff's investment (ii) power of self determination Compare TM: typical focus is on risk of consumer confusion. No consumer confusion required in Right of Publicity Origins In privacy law

What is the source of eminent domain and just compensation?

The 5th Amendment

Where does the copyright lie in a live broadcast of an event?

The copyright is in the broadcast itself, not the event. If one also streams the event independently then there is no infringement. If one films the broadcast of another and streams that then there is an infringement.

Public-Use Puzzle

The fifth amendment mention of "Public Use" is read to mean that property may be taken only for such uses; the government may not condemn for "private purposes"

Labor-Desert Theory

The labor-desert theory posits that people are entitled to the property that is produced by their labor. Under this approach, fisherman A owns property rights in the fish he caught because the catch resulted from his labor; A baited the hook, waited patiently, and reeled in the fish. Or suppose sculptor B utilizes her creative powers to transform unowned clay into a valuable statue; again, B owns rights in the statue because of her labor. The respective property rights of A and B arise as a matter of natural justice because they mixed their labor with unowned raw materials, not simply because they were first in time. As developed by its foremost exponent, the seventeenth-century philosopher John Locke, the labor theory assumes a world in a state of nature, without private property ownership. 16 It seeks to explain how unowned natural resources (e.g., wild nuts, game, or unoccupied land) are transformed into private property owned by one person. The theory proceeds in four basic steps: (1) every person owns his body; (2) thus, each person owns the labor that his body performs; (3) so, when a person labors to change something in nature for his benefit, he "mixes" his labor with the thing; and (4) by this mixing process, he thereby acquires rights in the thing. [B] Critique of Theory Legal scholars are almost uniformly critical of Lockean labor theory as a justification for private property rights. At best, critics observe, the theory should permit a person to receive the value that his or her labor adds to a thing, not title to the thing itself. If P's labor adds only 1% to the value of a thing, why should P receive 100% of the thing? Similarly, if P plants, nurtures, and harvests wheat on unowned land commonly known as Goldacre, at most P should hold rights to the resulting wheat, not to the land itself.

An item is lost in a shop in the area open to the public. A man finds the lost item. Who has the better claim to the item the man or the shopkeeper?

The man does because it was found in a public space. Items found in a public space will go to the finder rather than the shop owner.

Claimant parties with relation to finders and thieves. Who has the better claim?

The original owner of an item always has the best claim unless the item was abandoned. A finder of said lost item has a better claim over anyone else but the true owner. The same can be said of a thief.

The right to transfer, and restraints on alienation (213)

The right of Transfer looks to make the best use of the resources on property, limiting the right of transfer in an attempt to ensure that "a person or entity can put the property to its best use. *Restraint on alienation is a restriction in a deed or will conveying real property on future conveyance of that real property. Restraints on alienation may be indefinite or extend for a fixed amount of time.

A parcel of money is found on the roof of a shop. Presume that the roof is a private area of the shop. A man doing parkour stumbles upon the parcel. Who has the better claim to the parcel of money the man or the shop owner?

The shop owner does because it was found in an area not open to the public, therefore, the shopkeeper is presumed to be in control of it.

What determines the value of just compensation given to a victim of eminent domain?

The value of the property as is, not of the property after development.

Duties of Bailee

Three sets of obligations: ◦General Property law Not to convert goods: deliver goods at the end of term Tresspass, detinue ◦Obligations set out in any contract Duty to follow bailor's instructions ◦Principles relating specifically to the bailment relationship Bailee's Duty of Care

Onus of proof

To avoid liability, the bailee must rebut presumption ◦Triggering facts: Bailor proves loss incurred in the course of bailment ◦Short cut to proof: presumed against bailee Why? ◦Escape: bailee proves on balance of probabilities that he/she is not liable System in place up to standards of care Loss not result of failure in system, sth. else

Copyright

Two Approaches: Attributes Approach ◦Does the proposed object of property have the same characteristics as traditional objects of property? inheritance, gift, sale... etc Functional Approach: ◦Policy factors at play ◦"property" serves particular social or economic goals ◦What are the societal functions that would be served by labeling a particular object as property

Penn Central Test

Used in regulatory takings that restrict the property's use without destroying its value. The 3 factors the court considers are: 1) the economic impact factor - the extent to which the law has decreased the property's value. 2) the investment backed factor - whether the owner could reasonably have anticipated the kinds of restraints being challenged when the owner invested in the property. 3) the extent to which the law serves a beneficial public purpose, as opposed to serving private interests and unfairly targeting a particular property.

Utilitarianism: Traditional Theory

Utilitarian theory views property "as a means to an end." This is—by far —the dominant theory underlying American property law. Under this approach, private property exists in order to maximize the overall happiness or "utility" of all citizens. Accordingly, property rights are allocated and defined in the manner that best promotes the general welfare of society. As the New Jersey Supreme Court observed in State v. Shack: "Property rights serve human values. They are recognized to that end, and are limited by it. [B] Critique of Theory How can human happiness be measured? Are the appropriate yardsticks love, wealth, respect, intelligence, leisure time, dignity, self-esteem, health, or other factors? Critics charge that utilitarian theory is effectively meaningless because it is impossible to assess happiness. For example, a particular law might bring more wealth to one group of citizens, but lessen the self-esteem of another equal-sized group. Alternatively, a law might increase the dignity, but impair the health, of all citizens. Although there is widespread agreement that utilitarian theory supports the existence of private property as a general matter, critics argue that it offers no guidance about how property rights should be allocated or defined.

Newman v. Bost Supreme Court of North Carolina

What facts indicate that Van Pelt was contemplating the possibility of death? ... shortly after he was stricken he sent for Enos Houston to nurse him in his last illness; that while helpless in his bed soon after his confinement and in extremis he told Houston he had to go—could not stay here—and asked Houston to call plaintiff into his room

Actual physical delivery

When a gift is physically handed from the giver to the person receiving the gift.

First Occupancy (aka First Possession)

Who was first? The first occupancy theory reflects the familiar concept of first-in-time: the first person to take occupancy or possession of something owns it. 11 Suppose fisherman A uses his fishing gear to catch a wild fish. Under this approach, A owns property rights in the fish simply because he was the first person to capture it. Or suppose F, a farmer in the nineteenthcentury West, diverts irrigation water to her land from a nearby river; over time, F acquires water rights under the prior appropriation doctrine merely because she used the water first. [B] Critique of Theory Most legal scholars hold the same opinion of first occupancy theory: while it helps to explain how property rights evolved, it does not adequately justify the existence of private property. Suppose vagrant V accidentally kicks over a rock and discovers a gold mine. V's claim is first in time, but why should this make a difference? Why should V own the gold, rather than, for example, the residents of the region or the parents of handicapped children?

Landowner A grants Landowner B permission to build a fence on A's property for the convenience of B. SoL for adverse possession has now passed and A now asks B to move the fence. Does B have to move the fence?

Yes, one cannot acquire adverse possession when the landowner has granted them permission to use a section of property.

Testamentary Gift

a gift made through a will

Constructive possession

a legal fiction where when the elements are watered down. an individual has possession of chattels without actually having physical control of the same assets eg.

PATENTS

a limited term monopoly for an invention; given to an inventor by the government to exclude others from making, using or selling one's invention from the day the patent is granted. ◦The term of protection: 20 years. Territorial: A U.S. patent provides protection only in the United States ◦No worldwide patents Two requirements: 1.patentable subject matter, 2.criteria of patentability

Custody

a mere physical holding Keeping, guarding, care or watch of a thing Eg. Employee holding goods belonging to employer Employer-contractor?

Utilitarianism: Law and Economics

incorporates economic principles into utilitarian theory. 24 While traditional utilitarianism defines human happiness in rather vague terms, the law and economics view essentially assumes that happiness may be measured in dollars. Under this view, private property exists in order to maximize the overall wealth of society. [B] Critique of Theory The law and economics approach is, to put it mildly, controversial. 27 One major concern is its assumption that social utility or value is appropriately measured by willingness to pay. Not all human desires or satisfactions can be quantified in dollar terms. Such basic human needs as dignity, love, selfesteem, respect, and honor carry no price tag.

License agreement

licence agreements neither control nor take responsibility for the property transferred between the parties.

Doctrine of Laches

one is barred from raising a claim due to an unreasonable delay in pursing the claim. An owner could be barred from raising a claim before the SoL if they knew they had one and did not act.

Discovery approach to adverse possession of chattels

only when the true owner knows or reasonably should have known that the adverse possessor holds the item does the claim accrue.

Basic requirements: of adverse possession

possession that is: ◦hostile; (2) exclusive; (3) open and notorious; (4) actual; and (5) continuous for the requisite statutory period. apply to chattels, either directly or by analogy

The right to destroy. (232)

the answer to the question of whether it is possible to abandon property depends greatly on what kind of property is at issue. A fee simple interest in a property cannot be abandoned, though lesser interest in land sometimes can be. Personal property can be abandoned end trademarks can't be abandoned quite readily, with the law even presuming abandonment under certain circumstances, though abandon it seems to mean something a bit different in the trademark context. What about an owner who wishes to eliminate property altogether?

The right to exclude its limits (205)

the law of trespass, protects the right to exclude, but then so does the law of conversion at issue in Moore. indeed, conversion developed as part of a substitute for the old action of trespassing chattels. So, Moore Can be seen to involve not just the right to include, but also the right to exclude.

What ownership entails

the rights to exclude, alienate, abandoned, and destroy

Bailee's Duty of Care: three levels

§Entirely for the benefit of the bailor: Bailee liable for only gross negligence (slight diligence) §For the sole benefit of the bailee: Bailee liable for slight negligence (great diligence) §For mutual benefit (for consideration): Liable for ordinary negligence (diligence)

Jurisprudential Foundations of Property Law:

· No property: no one has any rights in the parcel · Common Property: every person holds equal rights in the land · State property: the state owns all rights in the tract · private property: one or more persons hold rights in the land.

Article embedded in the soil/underwater (finders)

•Generally, if the chattel is found embedded in the soil, the owner of the land will prevail over the finder. • •Presumption that the possession of land carries with it possession of everything which is attached to or under the land

South Staffordshire:

•Rings at bottom of pool P had full possession of land including possession of everything attached to or under the land Elwes: prehistoric boat Landowner is in lawful possession of everything in/under land, since true owners clearly would not claim The landowner intend to control the land, even though he has no knowledge of the boat à he can be assumed to have constructive (assumed) knowledge

◦Article found unattached, on the land

•Where a person has possession of land with the intention to exercise control over it and the things which may be upon it, then, if something is found on that land, the presumption is that the owner has possession (South Staffordshire)

Gift Inter Vivos:

•donor's intention to give •delivery (actual transfer of possession) •acceptance (by donee) The gift becomes irrevocable Burden of proof to demonstrate that a gift took place? Donee

Disadvantages of adverse possession

•infringement of a landowner's rights •decrease in value of the servient estate encouraged [over]exploitation and [over]development of land

Intention:

•statements and actions of the donor may be inferred from the donor's act of giving possession of the item to the donee, the nature and value of the item, the relationship between the parties, and other circumstances

Abandonment:

◦ The giving up of possession absolutely ◦ Tests: Sufficient acts of divestment: An act by the owner that clearly shows that he or she has given up rights to the property An intention that demonstrates that the owner has knowingly relinquished control over the property (opposite of intention to possess)

TRADEMARK

◦A mark used by a person for the purpose of distinguishing that person's goods or services from those of others in the marketplace 15 U.S.C. §1127 ◦Various types of marks Ordinary, certification, collective, official, distinguishing guise

Delivery (DMC)

◦Can occur either before or after intention to give the property ◦Courts more willing to accept constructive and symbolic delivery in DMC ◦Contra Newman v. Bost : the law of delivery in this State is the same in gifts inter vivos and causa mortis

Intellectual Property Rights

◦Copyrights: literary and artistic works ◦Patents: Industrial applications ◦ ◦Trade-marks: Distinguishing marks ◦Right of publicity

Term of Copyright

◦Has increased over time ◦§ 302. (a)of the Copyright Act: •A work for the life of the author + the remainder of the calendar year in which she dies + 70 years thereafter ◦(b) joint authorship - •the life of the author who dies last

to Intellectual Property

◦Intangible Property: Property Rights in Information and Ideas ◦Contrasts with real property and tangible personal property for lack of physical characteristics: intangible ◦Ideas and thoughts in one's mind that are not disclosed to others in a tangible form of expression do not enjoy protection ◦ ◦Once the idea is expressed in a tangible form and the expression fulfills conditions for legal protection, intellectual property rights exist

DMC: Contemplation of death

◦State of extremis (sudden peril) Not death at some point in the future Motivating element can be implied No need for a person to be in her "last illness" Subjective belief of danger enough? More than the ordinary rigours of living

Numerous Clausus Principle

◦The principle that the permissible forms of property interests are limited and carefully regulated; ◦Courts are prevented from recognising property interests that fall outside of the 'closed set' ◦There are already enumerated or established categories of property. If any new claim is to be recognized, it has to fit within these categories.