6 Domesticated animals and escapees domesticated animals are not wild and

6 domesticated animals and escapees domesticated

This preview shows page 3 - 6 out of 22 pages.

6. Domesticated animals and escapees— domesticated animals are not wild, and continue to belong to their prior possessor when they wander off the possessor’s land. An animal is tame and domesticated when it has a propensity to return . Policy: it is beneficial to society to have domesticated animals. Exception: if someone brings in wild animals that have no natural habitat in the location of the owner’s property, and they escape and someone shoots them, then the prior possessor keeps possession of them because the location of the strange animal should have been enough to tell the hunter that someone owns the animals. Can be argued the other way. 7. Oil and Gas a. Treated like wild animals, and regulated by the rules of capture.
Image of page 3
b. Re-injected oil and gas into an underground reservoir (who owns it)? Mechanical application says prior possessor loses ownership b/c it is like sending an animal back to its natural state. But apply a policy doctrine and prior possessor retains ownership b/c society benefits and fosters gas industry. 8. Water a. Water rights are highly regulated by the government today. b. Western States —explicit rule of first in time (prior appropriation). The person who first captures water and puts it to reasonable and beneficial use has a right superior to later appropriators. c. Eastern States —riparian rights—each owner of land along a water source (riparian land) has a right to use the water, subject to the rights of other riparians. C. Acquisition by Creation—title goes to the creator. 1. Copycats—granting exclusive rights to information does not necessarily promote a market economy. Competition depends upon imitation. a. International News v. Associated Press—INS was taking news written by AP and selling it as their own. (1) ROL—copying and imitation are OK b/c they increase competition, therefore the law should not protect intangible property unless the freedom to imitate destroys the incentive to create. (2) Holding—court ordered an injunction on INS, news is quasi property in the effect that
Image of page 4
how it is put together and formatted could have property rights. (3) Policy—we don’t want unfair competition. AP put the time and work into writing the news and formatting it and the money into distributing it, thus court could not let INS “reap what it did not sow.” b. Cheney Bros. v. Doris Silk Co.—Cheney Bros. sued Doris silk for copying one of their silk designs and undercutting their price. (1)Holding—court ruled in favor of Doris Silk Co. b/c they wanted to promote competition and discourage monopoly, so they allow for imitation and copying. c. Smith v. Chanel, Inc.—smith advertised its perfume as being the same as Chanel no. 5. (1) Holding: imitation is ok, but can’t advertise that it is the same because that would be unfair business competition.
Image of page 5
Image of page 6

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 22 pages?

  • Fall '08
  • lew
  • Adverse possession, Future interest

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture