Labor & Investment; IP; Commons; Relativity Of Title & Sequential Possesion Cases

Question 1

P accused D for using their information by bribing employees and using bulletins to print news. A.k.a. D not doing legwork because couldn’t get membership to European news bulletin for news on World War I. Not a copyright violation (news, not copyrightable when not copied verbatim/ ideas not copyrightable). P claimed unfair, competition and misappropriation. D responded that property rights are lost once un copyrighted news is published.

Is D liable?

Answer 1

News is on an absolute property right but quasi property right there is property past the first publication on INS did participate in unfair competition in business.

Pitney is not recognizing a property right (a quasi-property right) but instead says this is a tort and we’re punishing for that.

1. Labor & investment
2. Fairness
3. Incentive

News is a quasi property right where operating the published news gathered by another for further commercial purposes is unfair competition in trade

Dissent (Holmes): value doesn’t make it property, exclusion does
Dissent (Brandeis): courts I’ll-equipped to decide this

AP vs. INS (1918)

Question 2

P owned a piece of land and D (trespasser intruder) ejected P from the land. He sued Dee and Dee‘s defense was that P did not actually own the land because he held no valid title.

Who prevails?

Answer 2

P is the rightful possessor.

1. Possessor > trespasser to land
2. Court cannot use a jus terti defense
3. Ruling on rule of relativity title = we know D doesn’t own, but independent of who actually owns, P has better title than D
   - courts wanna support security

Possessor has greater stake in land than trespasser

Christy v. Scott (1852)

Question 3

Chimney sweeps boy finds a diamond and Goldsmith store apprentice steals it. Chimney sweep files trover = action for damages for wrongful interference, personal property against master.

Is it the chimney sweep boy’s diamond?

Answer 3

Yes. The chimney sweeps boy has ownership superior to anyone except the rightful owner.

Efficiency, judicial economy, and considering who the parties were (personhood)

if no TO —> any case in finder v. Not TO = finder keeps

no obvious stopping point for inquiry so courts just stop it at some point

Armory v. Delamirie (1722)

Question 4

Amateur archaeologist, excavated graves sites without permission (didn’t come from true owner, but true owner’s caretaker and not sure that’s enough) and took artifacts. He saw a declaratory judgment that the artifacts were his because he found abandoned property. Native Americans originally owned the property and the artifacts were part of burials.

Is he entitled?

Answer 4

No.
The artifacts are not his they belong to the true owner of the Tunica Biloxi tribe .

Grave artifacts property associated with burials are not abandoned because there’s no intent to relinquish their rights

Doing this would lead to grave robbing. Native Protection Repatriation Act was meant to stop this

Flavor of trespass with Converter v. Innocent taker

buried artifacts go to the landowner, not the finder

Chattier v. Bell (1986)

Question 5

Guys family had Civil War records for over a century worth $2.4 million found in shopping bags in a closet before he auction them. He allowed government to take microphone pics of the documents. Then the government issued a restraining order preventing him from selling them because the government wanted them said it was their property.

Is it?

Answer 5

No. Wilcox and his family possess the property which is a prima facie case/presumption of ownership.

Presumption promotes (1) stability and settled expectations and (2) prevents disorder and violence

Wilcox v. Stroup (2006)