Acquisition By Creation Flashcards
Copyrights
- Protect the expression of ideas in books, articles, and magazines
- Last until 70 years after author’s death
Patents
- Granted for novel, useful, and non-obvious processes or products
- Last for twenty years, after which they are open for anyone to copy
Trademarks
- Words or symbols indicating the source of a product or service
- Help the consumer to identify the company they trust
International News Service v. Associated Press
Sup. Ct. 1918- AP is suing because INS is bribing employees to get stories earlier for publication before AP publishes. News cannot be copyrighted, it’s common property and for the common good, but court rules the defendant was competing with the AP which was unfair business practice
Cheney Brothers v. Doris Silk Corp. (imitation problems)
- 2nd Cir. 1930- Impossible to patent silk designs because one never knows which ones will be popular. Plaintiff sold many silk designs. Defendant copied one of the designs and then sold it for a lower price
- Court dismisses the case because he does not want to establish a system of monopolies, whereas only the creator can make the silks forever
- A man is limited to the chattel which embody his invention
- Clothing is functional
Copyright and patent policy
- We use patents, copyrights, and trademarks to grant a limited monopoly over protected material to promote activity, but it is limited in order to advance competition in the market.
- Unfair competition to copy someone else’s creation?
- Moral side- unfair
- Efficiency side- competition
- Public goods
- Tradeoffs in ends want to encourage
- We want encourage progress, we want to build on others work
Smith v. Chanel perfume
9th Cir. 1968- Company was imitating the Chanel perfume in an advertisement.
Court held that a company could claim their perfume was the equivalent of Chanel No.5 because it was unpatented and serves a public interest of offering comparable goods at lower prices.
• Chanel owns the name but they can’t prevent others from competing with them
• Imitation is the lifeblood of competition
• In INS, the company was using AP’s product
• We want to create competition, we don’t want to restrict
White v. Samsung Electronics America (Vanna case)
9th cir., 1993- A advertisement had a robot that looked like Vanna standing in front of a Wheel of Fortune game board . Vanna sued for infringement of intellectual property rights. Court ruled that the commercial infringed Vanna’s right of publicity.
Case was heavily criticized by Kosinski for Overprotecting intellectual property and destroying creativity
Creators draw on prior works to make new works
Creative genius will not flourish
Impoverishes the public domain, who profit and have the right to mock
Harms certainty- where do we draw the line?
It’s now a tort just to evoke the celebrity’s image in the publics mind
Moore v. Regents of the University of California
Sup ct. of Cal, 1990- Moore v. Regents of UC: D used P’s spleen cells without telling him and they created a cell line worth a lot of $ which they patented.
P sued D for conversion and breach of fiduciary duty (physician’s disclosure obligations).
Court found no conversion because cells are not property of the person once they are excised. Use of human tissue for research is not conversion because there is no ownership interest in it once it leaves the body. If the patient had an ownership interest it could be sold (moral problem with selling the human body).
Court feared monopolies by patients that would stifle research, but in effect authorized monopolies by medical researchers. The remedy was informed consent, court found breach of fiduciary duty.
• This is an issue of consent and fiduciary duty rather than an issue of conversion
Who owns human embryos?
Are they property? And if they are property who owns them?
o The lab that created them
o The human female who contributed the egg
o The human male who contributed the sperm
o Female and male
o Embryos are not property
• Should it be governed by property analysis or by disclosure and consent?
Right to include/ exclude
Include/exclude: allow/deny use or possession of the owned property by others; both are necessary for transferability (alienability) of property. This right is generally absolute, subject to some exceptions, such as for government aid.
o Trespass laws protect this interest in the landowner
o Owners can grant licenses to enter/use the land
Jacque v. Steenberg Homes (guy barely trespasses with truck)
Wis, 1997- Steenberg Homes had to deliver a mobile home and the easiest way was across the Jacques property. Steenberg did so and the Jacques sued for intentional trespass. Court ruled that the Jacques could sue for intentional trespass.
o It is every person’s right to exclude for the exclusive enjoyment of his own property, so long as he does not invade the rights of another person
o We also don’t want to promote trespassing, and people should have trust the legal system will protect them.
State v. Shack
- NJ, 1971- Defendants were sent to Farmers house to interview and inform migrant farm workers about rights. Farmer demanded he be in on the discussions and then commenced action for trespass after the defendants refused to comply. Court ruled farmer could not sue for trespass when the workers were there to investigate civil rights.
- Human rights take precedence over property rights, so there is never an absolute right to exclude.
- In serving the purpose of enforcing human rights, the defendants’ conduct was outside of the scope of the trespass statute
Armory v. Delamirie (Chimney sweep finds jewel)
- King’s Bench, 1722- Chimney sweep found jewelry and took it to a jeweler to be appraised. The jewelers apprentice took the jewels out and gave him a low price. The boy refused and was given back the jewelry with the jewels removed. Court ruled the sweep had a property right to the jewelry, and gave him the price of the most expensive jewel that would fit in the setting.
- A finder’s title is good against the whole world except the true owner, prior finders, and (sometimes) the owner of the land where an object is found
- A prior possessor prevails in title over a subsequent possessor
- If B trespassed on A’s land to obtain a possession and then C subsequently takes the possession from B, B still has a right to the possession over C.
- We want to encourage the return of property to the rightful owner, instead of encouraging stealing
- Overbroad rule.
Rules of types of finders
- Trespassing finders of lost/mislaid property always lose, don’t want to encourage stealing
- Employee finders must surrender the find of their employer if the employee has a contractual duty to report finds.
• Carpenter allowed to keep property found in hotel room repair. Did not have duty to report - Invitee finders must surrender the property to the landowner.
• Pool cleaner must give rings found in a pool back to the owner - Treasure trove- objects found in the soil belong to the land owner
• Modern rule- Treated as found property so result depends on category (lost, mislaid, abandoned)
