First Possession
Discovery
-McConico v. Singleton
-Unimproved and unenclosed land is susceptible to encroachment and capture
-Custom and practice
-Necessity
-Promote commerce
-Fair access to common resource
-Legislative recognition of rule (giving legitimacy and authority)
-Sets precedent
-Protection of free institutions
-Limitation on individual power
-Stiglianese v. Vallone
-Person has right to enjoy their property, without the interference, intentional and substantial in nature of others
-Wanton and reckless noisemaking intervenes with this right
-Defendant was not doing this as part of an art or to make a living
– Miller et al. v. Schoene, State Entomologist. No. 199
-State has the right to infringe on property
-Court held not violation of Due Process as public interest of protecting a valuable crop was greater than private interest in cedar trees (regulatory takings)
-Johnson v. McIntosh
-Indians have right to occupy land, but not right to sell it as they do not own the land US owns it by discovery, and only US can convey title
-Discovery rules give rights of ownership to the person who discovers it first, then they can conquer the natives (If natives can assimilate, they can keep land)
-Land was considered to belong to no one, except discoverers (some labor theory in there)
-Locke’s Mixed Labor Theory – original owner is the person who mixes his labor with the thing – work hard, you’ll get more – encourages people to invest their labor
-Policy
-Efficiency – Most productive use of land
i. For US: Cultivate: Productive
ii. For Indians: Preservation (Long Term Goals)
-Instrumental Ends
i. For US: Settlers here so create/make better communities
ii. For Indians: first come, first served
-Justice/Fairness:
i. For US: We know better and make more informative decisions
ii. For Indians: 1st Possession
Capture
-Pierson v. Post
– There has to be occupancy of the animal, mere pursuit is not enough.
-Pursuer must deprive ani
-Does not give creator ownership, but does give creator exclusive rights to exploit and profit (bundle of sticks)
-No right to the news itself, but a right to the way it is presented
-Policy
-Rewards labor/skill (INS was unfairly competing b/c they were copying the news that AP had already obtained)
-Protects “title” to prevent unfair competition
-Decision for INS would discourage AP from further news gathering (“reap where they did not sow”)
-Cheney Bros. v. Doris Silk
-No property rights in design patterns (often not original/generic)
-Court prefers competition/Discourages monopoly
-Smith v. Chanel
-Even a reference to the trademark/tradename does not infringe on property right
-Imitation promotes competition
Property Rights in Oneself
-Moore v. Regents of California
-No property rights in one’s own body
-No conversion
-Doctors had altered cells so dramatically that they cells were not considered to be plaintiff’s anymore
-Policy
