Reasoning The news property (knowledge). How it is – itself isn’t presented (the story, video footage) is protected. INS was engaging in unfair business practices (similar to a tortious interference), which gives rise to the injunction. Cheney Brothers v. Doris Silk Corp. Facts a corporation, manufactures silk patterns, which copied one – Π, Δ of the designs, undercutting price. Π’s Issue Whether the patterns designed by may be protected by law – Π Rule a property is limited to the chattels which embody his – man’s invention. Others may imitate these at their pleasure Reasoning If designs are protected, the be able to stop – court wouldn’t there. Processes, machines, and secrets would have equal claim. Smith v. Chanel, Inc. Facts perfume claimed in advertisements to be the equivalent of the – Δ’s more expensive Chanel No. 5. Issue Whether Chanel could exclude from using the same scent and so – Δ advertise Without a patent, others are free and encouraged to copy Rule – Reasoning A large expenditure create legally protectable rights – doesn’t without a patent. The by serves an important public “free ride” taken Δ interest by offerning comparable goods at lower prices. Right to Include/Exclude Include-right to give or sell to another; Exclude-law of trespass protects the right to exclude. Laws of conversion protect exclusion from chattels. Jacque v. Steenberg Homes, Inc. Facts had to deliver a mobile home and the easiest route was across – Δ land. Despite adamant refusal, plowed a path through their Π’s Δ property. sued for trespass Π Issue Whether right to exclude supports punitive damages where – Π’s nominal damages are awarded. Rule Private right to exclude others from his/her land is one – landowner’s of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property. The right to exclude people from property has no value Reasoning – one’s unless protected by the state (where nominal constitute state awards don’t protection). State v. Shack Facts entered farm (unauthorized) to aid migrant farmworkers – Δ Π’s employed and housed there. were convicted of trespassing to which Δ they appealed. Whether the right to exclude may stand between the migrant Issue – Π’s workers who live on his land and those who they would wish to be on the property
Reasoning – The news itself isn’t property (knowledge). How it is presented (the story, video footage) is protected. INS was engaging in unfair business practices (similar to a tortious interference), which gives rise to the injunction. Cheney Brothers v. Doris Silk Corp. Facts – Π, a corporation, manufactures silk patterns, which Δ copied one of the designs, undercutting Π’s price. Issue – Whether the patterns designed by Π may be protected by law Rule – a man’s property is limited to the chattels which embody his invention. Others may imitate these at their pleasure Reasoning – If designs are protected, the court wouldn’t be able to stop there. Processes, machines, and secrets would have equal claim. Smith v. Chanel, Inc. Facts – Δ’s perfume claimed in advertisements to be the equivalent of the more expensive Chanel No. 5. Issue – Whether Chanel could exclude Δ from using the same scent and so advertise Rule – Without a patent, others are free and encouraged to copy Reasoning – A large expenditure doesn’t create legally protectable rights without a patent. The “free ride” taken by Δ serves an important public interest by offerning comparable goods at lower prices. Right to Include/Exclude Include-right to give or sell to another; Exclude-law of trespass protects the right to exclude. Laws of conversion protect exclusion from chattels. Jacque v. Steenberg Homes, Inc. Facts – Δ had to deliver a mobile home and the easiest route was across Π’s land. Despite adamant refusal, Δ plowed a path through their property. Π sued for trespass Issue – Whether Π’s right to exclude supports punitive damages where nominal damages are awarded. Rule – Private landowner’s right to exclude others from his/her land is one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property. Reasoning – The right to exclude people from one’s property has no value unless protected by the state (where nominal awards don’t constitute state protection). State v. Shack Facts – Δ entered Π’s farm (unauthorized) to aid migrant farmworkers employed and housed there. Δ were convicted of trespassing to which they appealed. Issue – Whether the Π’s right to exclude may stand between the migrant workers who live on his land and those who they would wish to be on the property
Property-Law-Keyed-to-Dukeminier.docx