DOCSLIB.ORG

Intellectual Property

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Intellectual Property (PDF Draft) 2 / Intellectual Property: Moral Legal and International Dilemmas Edited by Adam D. Moore Rowman & Littlefield Lanham • Boulder • New York • London / 3 To Kimberly 4 / Contents Acknowledgments 6 1. Introduction 9 Adam D. Moore Part I The Moral Foundations of Intellectual Property 2. Justifying Intellectual Property 24 Edwin C. Hettinger 3. Trade Secrets and the Justification of Intellectual Property: A Comment on Hettinger 46 Lynn Sharp Paine 4. The Foundations of Intangible Property 65 James W. Child 5. Toward a Lockean Theory of Intellectual Property 92 Adam D. Moore Part II Intellectual Property Issues and the Law 6. The Philosophy of Intellectual Property 113 Justin Hughes 7. Intellectual Property: A Non-Posnerian Law and Economics Approach 188 Tom G. Palmer / 5 8. Property, Monopoly, and Intellectual Rights ? Michael I. Krauss 9. The TRIPS Agreement: Imperialistic, Outdated, and Overprotective 233 Marci A. Hamilton 10. International Copyright: An Unorthodox Analysis 255 Hugh C. Hansen Part III Information and Digital Technology 11. Why Software Should Be Free 272 Richard Stallman 12. The Virtues of Software Ownership 285 David H. Carey 13. Are Computer Hacker Break-Ins Ethical? 292 Eugene H. Spafford 14. National and International Copyright Liability for Electronic Systems Operators 305 Charles J. Meyer 15. The Economy of Ideas: Everything You Know About Intellectual Property Is Wrong 334 John Perry Barlow Selected Bibliography Index 6 / Acknowledgments Many people have contributed their ideas and time to this anthology. I would especially like to thank my advisors and friends at Ohio State University, Don Hubin, Peter King, Richard Garner, and Dan Farrell; David Mayer of Capital University, Scott Rothwell, James Summerford, Mark VanHook, Larry Sanger, Kimberly Moore, and Nancy Moore. I would also like to thank Jennifer Ruark and Julie Kuzneski of Rowman & Little- field for all of their help in preparing and editing the manuscript. A special thanks to the contributors: John P. Barlow, Electronic Frontier Foundation; David H. Carey, Whitman College; James W. Child, Bowling Green State University; Hugh C. Hansen, Fordham University School of Law; Marci A. Hamilton, Benjamin Cardozo School of Law; Edwin C. Het- tinger, Hollins College; Justin Hughes; Michael I. Krauss, George Mason University; Charles J. Meyer, Woodard, Emhardt, Naughton, Moriarty & McNett; Lynn Sharp Pain, Harvard Business School; Tom G. Palmer, The Cato Institute; Eugene H. Spafford, Purdue University; and Richard Stallman, The League for Programming Freedom. The reprinted articles in this anthology appear in full, unless indicated. "Justifying Intellectual Property" by Edwin Hettinger, originally appeared in Philosophy & Public Affairs (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989). Copyright © 1989 by Princeton Univer- sity Press. Reprinted by permission of Princeton University Press. "Trade Secrets and the Justification of Intellectual Property: A Comment on Hettinger" by Lynn Sharp Pain, originally appeared in Philosophy & Public Affairs (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991). Copyright © 1991 by Princeton University Press. Reprinted by permission of Princeton University Press. "The Moral Foundations of Intangible Property" by James W. Child, originally appeared in The Monist (La Salle: The Hegeler Institute, 1990). Copyright © 1990 by The Hegeler Institute. Reprinted by permission of publisher. "The Philosophy of Intellectual Property" by Justin Hughes, originally appeared in the Georgetown Law Journal (Washington / 7 D.C.: Georgetown University Law Center, 1988). Copyright © 1988 by the Georgetown Law Journal and Georgetown Universi- ty. Reprinted by permission of publisher. "Intellectual Property: A Non-Posnerian Law and Economics Approach" by Tom Palmer, originally appeared in the Hamline Law Review (Saint Paul: Hamline University School of Law, 1989). Copyright © 1989 by Hamline University School of Law. Reprinted by permission of publisher. "Property, Monopoly, and Intellectual Rights" by Michael Krauss, originally appeared in the Hamline Law Review (Saint Paul: Hamline University School of Law, 1989). Copyright © 1989 by Hamline University School of Law. Reprinted by permission of publisher. "The TRIPS Agreement: Imperialistic, Outdated, and Overpro- tective" by Marci Hamilton, originally appeared in the Vander- bilt Journal of Transnational Law (Nashville: Vanderbilt University, 1996). Copyright © 1996 by Vanderbilt University. Reprinted by permission of publisher. "International Copyright: An Unorthodox Analysis" Hugh Hansen, originally appeared in the Vanderbilt Journal of Trans- national Law (Nashville: Vanderbilt University, 1996). Copy- right © 1996 by Vanderbilt University. Reprinted by permission of publisher. "Why Software Should Be Free" by Richard Stallman and appeared in Computers, Ethics, & Social Values, edited by Deborah Johnson and Helen Nissenbaum (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1995). Copyright © 1990 by the Free Software Foundation, Inc. Verbatim copying and redistribution is permitted without royalty. "The Virtues of Software Ownership" by David Carey, originally appeared in Software Ownership and Intellectual Property Rights, edited by Walter Maner and John L. Fodor (New Haven: Research Center on Computing & Society, 1992). Copyright © 1992 by the Research Center on Computing & Society. Reprint- ed by permission of publisher. "Are Computer Hacker Break-Ins Ethical?" by Eugene Spafford, appeared in the Journal of Systems Software 17 (Elsevier Science 8 / Inc., 1992). Copyright © 1992 by Eugene Spafford. Reprinted by permission of Eugene Spafford. "National and International Copyright Liability for Electronic System Operators" by Charles Meyer, originally appeared in the Indiana Journal of Global and Legal Studies (Bloomington: Indiana University School of Law, 1995). Copyright © 1995 Indiana University School of Law. Reprinted by permission of publisher. "The Economy of Ideas: Everything You Know About Intellec- tual Property is Wrong" by John Perry Barlow, originally appeared in Wired Magazine (March 1994). Copyright © 1994 by Wired Magazine Group, Inc. Reprinted by permission of publisher. / 9 1 Introduction Adam D. Moore With the rise of the information age where digital recording, storage, and transmission are the norm, problems centering on the ownership of intellectual property have become acute. Computer programs costing thousands of research dollars are copied in an instant. Digital bootleg versions of almost any musical artist are available at rock-bottom prices. Moreover, there is a general asymmetry between the attitudes individuals have about physical property and intellectual property. Many who would never dream of stealing cars, computers, or VCRs regularly copy software or duplicate their favorite music from a friend's CD. The information superhighway, better known as the internet or the world wide web, is poised to become the scene of information superhighway robbery. Finally, a salient feature of an on-line information age is that these concerns take on a global perspective. Needless to say, developing answers to these problems is philosophically challenging. This anthology was put together so that a number of important articles centering on the ownership of intellectual property and digital information could be found in one work. My hope is that this volume will help education and research in this rapidly expanding area. Before providing a summary of the articles included in this volume, I have given a brief overview of the subject matter or domain of intellectual property. Apart from owning cars, computers, land, or other tangible goods, intellectual property law enables individuals to obtain ownership rights to control works of literature, musical compositions, processes of manufac- ture, computer software, and the like. Setting aside concerns of justifying rights to intellectual property, which is the primary focus of this volume, a brief exposition of what counts as intellectual property would be helpful. The Domain of Intellectual Property At the most practical level the subject matter of intellectual property is codified in Anglo-American copyright, patent, and trade secret law, as well as in the moral rights granted to authors and inventors within the continental European doctrine.1 Alt- hough these systems of property encompass much of what is 10 / thought to count as intellectual property, they do not map out the entire landscape.2 Even so, Anglo-American systems of copy- right, patent, and trade secret law, along with certain Continental doctrines, provide a rich starting point. We'll take them up in turn. Copyright The domain of copyright is expression. Section 102 of the 1976 Copyright Act determines the subject matter of copyright protection. § 102: (a) Copyright protection subsists, in accord- ance with this title, in original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which they can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. Works of authorship include: literary works; musical works, including any accompanying words; dramatic works, including any accompanying music; pantomimes and choreographic works; pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works; motion pictures and other audiovisual works; sound recordings; architectural works; and computer software.3 The scope or subject matter of copyright, as protected under federal
Recommended publications
  • TANGIBLE PROPERTY TAX RETURN (REVENUE FORMS 62A500, 62A500-A, 62A500-C, 62A500-L and 62A500-W)

    TANGIBLE PROPERTY TAX RETURN (REVENUE FORMS 62A500, 62A500-A, 62A500-C, 62A500-L and 62A500-W)

    INSTRUCTIONS TANGIBLE PROPERTY TAX RETURN (REVENUE FORMS 62A500, 62A500-A, 62A500-C, 62A500-L and 62A500-W) Classification of Property—Real property includes all lands within Definitions and General Instructions this state and improvements thereon. Intangible property consists of any property or investment that represents evidence of value or The tangible personal property tax return includes instructions to the right to value under law or customs. Tangible personal property assist taxpayers in preparing Revenue Forms 62A500, 62A500-A is every physical item subject to ownership, except real and intan- and 62A500-W. These instructions do not supersede the Kentucky gible property. Constitution or applicable Kentucky Revised Statutes. Depreciable Assets—List depreciable assets on the appropriate Taxpayer—All individuals and business entities who own, lease schedule(s) at original cost. Apply appropriate factor(s) to obtain or have a beneficial interest in taxable tangible property located reported value. Do not use book depreciation for computing the within Kentucky on January 1 must file a tangible property tax fair cash value of depreciable assets. Do not include noncommer- return. All tangible property is taxable, except the following: cial aircraft, documented boats, non-Kentucky registered watercraft and assets used in farming. See line-by-line instructions for details. personal household goods used in the home; crops grown in the year which the assessment is made and in the Lessors and Lessees of Tangible Personal Property—Leased hands of the producer; property must be listed by the owner on Revenue Form 62A500, tangible personal property owned by institutions exempted under regardless of the lease agreement’s terms regarding tax liability.
  • What Is So Special About Intangible Property? the Case for Intelligent Carryovers Richard A

    What Is So Special About Intangible Property? the Case for Intelligent Carryovers Richard A

    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics Economics 2010 What Is So Special about Intangible Property? The Case for intelligent Carryovers Richard A. Epstein Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/law_and_economics Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Richard A. Epstein, "What Is So Special about Intangible Property? The asC e for intelligent Carryovers" (John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics Working Paper No. 524, 2010). This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Economics by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CHICAGO JOHN M. OLIN LAW & ECONOMICS WORKING PAPER NO. 524 (2D SERIES) What Is So Special about Intangible Property? The Case for Intelligent Carryovers Richard A. Epstein THE LAW SCHOOL THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO August 2010 This paper can be downloaded without charge at: The Chicago Working Paper Series Index: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/Lawecon/index.html and at the Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection. WHAT IS SO SPECIAL ABOUT INTANGIBLE PROPERTY? THE CASE FOR INTELLIGENT CARRYOVERS by Richard A. Epstein* ABSTRACT One of the major controversies in modern intellectual property law is the extent to which property rights conceptions, developed in connection with land or other forms of tangible property, can be carried over to different forms of property, such as rights in the spectrum or in patents and copyrights.
  • Imagereal Capture

    Imagereal Capture

    Some Aspects of Theft of Computer Software by M. Dunning I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this paper is to test the capability of New Zealand law to adequately deal with the impact that computers have on current notions of crimes relating to property. Has the criminal law kept pace with technology and continued to protect property interests or is our law flexible enough to be applied to new situations anyway? The increase of the moneyless society may mean a decrease in money motivated crimes of violence such as robbery, and an increase in white collar crime. Every aspect of life is being computerised-even our per­ sonality is on character files, with the attendant )ossibility of criminal breach of privacy. The problems confronted in this area are mostly definitional. While it may be easy to recognise morally opprobrious conduct, the object of such conduct may not be so easily categorised as criminal. A factor of this is a general lack of understanding of the computer process, so this would seem an appropriate place to begin the inquiry. II. THE COMPUTER Whiteside I identifies five key elements in a computer system. (1) Translation of data into a form readable by the computer, called input; and subject to manipulation by the introduction of false data. Remote terminals can be situated anywhere outside the cen­ tral processing unit (CPU), connected by (usually) telephone wires over which data may be transmitted, e.g. New Zealand banks on­ line to Databank. Outside users are given a site code number (identifying them) and an access code number (enabling entry to the CPU) which "plug" their remote terminal in.
  • Real & Personal Property

    Real & Personal Property

    CHAPTER 5 Real Property and Personal Property CHRIS MARES (Appleton, Wsconsn) hen you describe property in legal terms, there are two types of property. The two types of property Ware known as real property and personal property. Real property is generally described as land and buildings. These are things that are immovable. You are not able to just pick them up and take them with you as you travel. The definition of real property includes the land, improvements on the land, the surface, whatever is beneath the surface, and the area above the surface. Improvements are such things as buildings, houses, and structures. These are more permanent things. The surface includes landscape, shrubs, trees, and plantings. Whatever is beneath the surface includes the soil, along with any minerals, oil, gas, and gold that may be in the soil. The area above the surface is the air and sky above the land. In short, the definition of real property includes the earth, sky, and the structures upon the land. In addition, real property includes ownership or rights you may have for easements and right-of-ways. This may be for a driveway shared between you and your neighbor. It may be the right to travel over a part of another person’s land to get to your property. Another example may be where you and your neighbor share a well to provide water to each of your individual homes. Your real property has a formal title which represents and reflects your ownership of the real property. The title ownership may be in the form of a warranty deed, quit claim deed, title insurance policy, or an abstract of title.
  • Fashion Law 2018

    Fashion Law 2018

    Fashion Law 2018 Presented by Anthony Lupo, Arent Fox Smart In Your World Hot Topics − Omni-Channeling and CRM − AI, IoT and VR − Data Collection and Privacy − False pricing 2 Omni-Channeling and CRM Omni-Channel − Macy’s is implementing Apple’s iBeacon technology. − Will let customers receive personalized discounts, rewards and recommendations on their mobile phones when they visit Macy’s stores. − In 2013, Nordstrom tested technology that allowed it to track customers’ movements by following the wi-fi signals from their smartphones. 4 Omni-Channel − Omni-channel: tracking consumers across all brand platforms through data integration. − Consumers no longer have single brick and mortar point-of-contact with brands. − Companies collecting data from consumers in brick and mortar stores, websites, mobile apps, social media, etc. − Example Privacy Policy disclosure: − “We collect information from our website, our mobile applications, our stores, and certain third parties. We may combine all the information we collect and we may disclose this information within the corporate family.” 5 Omni-Channel and In-store Tracking − Brands can easily track online shopping patterns, but what about in-store shopping? − In-Store Tracking: Using “mobile location analytics” retailers can use mobile phones to track customers in brick and mortar stores. − Tracks repeat customers, customer shopping patterns, check-out waiting time, optimal store layout, etc. − Could allow retailers to see a customer’s purchase history as soon as they walk in. 6 Omni-Channel and In-store Tracking − Industry Code of Conduct attempts to set limits on use of in-store tracking. − Requires conspicuous in-store notice to consumers − Example Privacy Policy Disclosure: − “We may collect certain non-personally identifiaBle information from you when you visit our stores.
  • Business Owner's Guide to Tangible Taxes

    Business Owner's Guide to Tangible Taxes

    Larry D. Hart DELINQUENT TANGIBLE PERSONAL IMPORTANT CONTACTS PROPERTY (DELQTPP) LEE COUNTY Lee County Tax Collector Tax Collector Tangible personal property taxes become delinquent April Delinquent Tangible Taxes 1 of each year, at which time interest and additional fees 239.533.6000 are due and added to the bill for collection. A reminder www.leetc.com notice is mailed to the property owner showing the [email protected] additional fees. Tangible personal property accounts that remain unpaid on May 1 of each year will be referred to Lee County Property Appraiser Revenue Recovery Solutions, Inc. for collection. Accounts Tangible Tax Department referred for collection will be subject to an additional fee 239.533.6140 BUSINESS OWNER’S assessed by the vendor. www.leepa.org [email protected] GUIDE TO TANGIBLE A list of delinquent tangible personal property taxpayers are advertised in a local newspaper, the cost of which is TAXES added to the tax bill. TAX COLLECTOR This information is provided to assist you in Pursuant to Florida Statute 197.413, tax warrants are understanding the requirements associated with issued by the Tax Collector prior to April 30 of the next Tangible Personal Property Taxes. Local Business Tax year on all unpaid tangible personal property taxes. The September 30 Tax Collector will also apply to the circuit court for an order renewals due granting levy and seizure of the tangible personal property for the amount of the unpaid taxes and costs. Visit our official website at November 1 – March 31 Current year taxes due www.leetc.com If the delinquent taxes cannot be made in one payment and the amount due is at least $40.00, a payment plan OFFICE HOURS AND LOCATIONS may be available.
  • Non-Level Rents: Issues and Opportunities

    Non-Level Rents: Issues and Opportunities

    Note: This is an expanded version of the Federal Insight column that was published in the November/December 2015 issue of ELFA’s Equipment Leasing & Finance Magazine. Non-Level Rents: Issues and Opportunities Detailed Analysis By Glenn Johnson and Joe Sebik Pricing Analysis by David Holmgren Background The leasing industry is known for creativity as well as its ability to adapt to industry changes such as the types of assets leased and tax law changes. Congress long ago recognized that tax benefits can promote investment in capital assets by lowering the net present value cost of acquiring assets. Similarly within the tax leasing world, long ago leasing professionals realized the power of the time value of money and of tax benefits. They recognized the benefit of accelerating tax deductions and deferring taxable revenues. These practitioners realized that there was little they could do to affect the existing tax depreciation rules that established the basis and method for depreciating assets, but they continued to seek the benefits from deferring rental income, suitable especially for lessees with excellent credit. Perceived abuses prompted the Treasury to establish tax rules to limit the deferral of rents. Application of Tax Laws (in general) For many years Congress sought to craft tax rules to rein in the perceived structuring abuses. As it turned out, not all lease payment structuring was purely tax-motivated. Often rental structuring was to accommodate the seasonality of the lessee’s business or underlying cash flow availability. In the real estate market, lessors argued that leases were often for extended terms and the norm was to start rents at a defined level and escalate them annually consistent with usual inflationary trends to cover rising operating expenses such as maintenance and energy costs.
  • Recommended Practices to Determine That a Non Real Estate Business Is a Qualified Active Low- Income Community Business (“QALICB”) Page 1

    Recommended Practices to Determine That a Non Real Estate Business Is a Qualified Active Low- Income Community Business (“QALICB”) Page 1

    Recommended Practices to determine that a non real estate business is a Qualified Active Low- Income Community Business (“QALICB”) Page 1 Objective: Determination that the non real estate business (“Borrower/Investee”) is a QALICB in accordance with Internal Revenue Code Section 45(d)(2). Background: In accordance with Section 45(d)(2)(A)(i)-(v), an entity can be termed as a QALICB with respect to a taxable year if for such year it derives at least 50% of its total gross income from the active conduct of a qualified business in any low-income community, a substantial portion of its tangible property is within any low-income community, a substantial portion of its employee services are performed in any low-income community, less than 5 percent of its average aggregate unadjusted cost basis of its assets are attributable to collectibles other than collectibles held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business, and less than 5 percent of its average aggregate unadjusted cost basis of its assets are attributable to nonqualified financial property. Recommended Practices: Ø Information to be obtained from the management of the proposed QALICB: Ø Name of the business Ø Nature of the business Ø Street address of principal location Ø Street address, census tract numbers, county names of locations where employee services are performed and/or where tangible property is used. Ø List of documents that should be obtained from management of proposed QALICB: Ø Trial balance as of beginning of current tax year or end of prior year (if available) Ø Year-to-date (working) trial balance (i.e.
  • Crimes Against Property

    Crimes Against Property

    9 CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY Is Alvarez guilty of false pretenses as a Learning Objectives result of his false claim of having received the Congressional Medal of 1. Know the elements of larceny. Honor? 2. Understand embezzlement and the difference between larceny and embezzlement. Xavier Alvarez won a seat on the Three Valley Water Dis- trict Board of Directors in 2007. On July 23, 2007, at 3. State the elements of false pretenses and the a joint meeting with a neighboring water district board, distinction between false pretenses and lar- newly seated Director Alvarez arose and introduced him- ceny by trick. self, stating “I’m a retired marine of 25 years. I retired 4. Explain the purpose of theft statutes. in the year 2001. Back in 1987, I was awarded the Con- gressional Medal of Honor. I got wounded many times by 5. List the elements of receiving stolen property the same guy. I’m still around.” Alvarez has never been and the purpose of making it a crime to receive awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor, nor has he stolen property. spent a single day as a marine or in the service of any 6. Define forgery and uttering. other branch of the United States armed forces. The summer before his election to the water district board, 7. Know the elements of robbery and the differ- a woman informed the FBI about Alvarez’s propensity for ence between robbery and larceny. making false claims about his military past. Alvarez told her that he won the Medal of Honor for rescuing the Amer- 8.
  • Oregon Taxation of Nonresidents and Non-Oregon Assets

    Oregon Taxation of Nonresidents and Non-Oregon Assets

    Online CLE Oregon Taxation of Nonresidents and Non-Oregon Assets .5 Oregon Practice and Procedure credit From the Oregon State Bar CLE seminar Basic Estate Planning for Oregon Taxable Estates, presented on November 15, 2019 © 2019 Philip Jones. All rights reserved. ii Chapter 8 The Oregon Estate Tax and Its Fractional Formula for Residents and Nonresidents PHILIP JONES Duffy Kekel LLP Portland, Oregon Contents Oregon Residents . 8–2 Oregon Nonresidents . 8–2 Gross Estate vs. Taxable Estate . 8–2 Summary of the Fractional Formula . 8–3 Odd Results . 8–3 Limited Liability Companies . 8–6 Conclusion . 8–7 Chapter 8—The Oregon Estate Tax and Its Fractional Formula for Residents and Nonresidents Basic Estate Planning for Oregon Taxable Estates 8–ii Chapter 8—The Oregon Estate Tax and Its Fractional Formula for Residents and Nonresidents The Oregon estate tax applies to both residents and nonresidents, but in different ways. In both cases, however, the Oregon estate tax statutes employ a fractional formula that can produce surprising results. Particularly surprising is the fact that a nonresident with only a small amount of Oregon assets might still be subject to the Oregon tax. Equally surprising is the fact that a nonresident could leave all of his or her Oregon assets to a surviving spouse or to a charity, and Oregon tax might still be due. All of this is caused by the fractional formula, and estate planners need to be familiar with that formula, both when planning estates and when administering estates. For an article that discusses the factors that will be taken into account to determine whether or not a decedent was an Oregon resident, see Stephen J.
  • Mastering Intellectual Property 00 Kuney Cx3 10/1/08 4:28 PM Page Ii

    Mastering Intellectual Property 00 Kuney Cx3 10/1/08 4:28 PM Page Ii

    00 kuney cx3 10/1/08 4:28 PM Page i Mastering Intellectual Property 00 kuney cx3 10/1/08 4:28 PM Page ii Carolina Academic Press Mastering Series Russell Weaver, Series Editor Mastering Bankruptcy George W. Kuney Mastering Civil Procedure David Charles Hricik Mastering Corporations & Other Business Entities Lee Harris Mastering Criminal Law Ellen S. Podgor, Peter J. Henning, Neil P. Cohen Mastering Evidence Ronald W. Eades Mastering Intellectual Property George W. Kuney, Donna C. Looper Mastering Legal Analysis and Communication David T. Ritchie Mastering Negotiable Instruments (UCC Articles 3 and 4) and Other Payment Systems Michael D. Floyd Mastering Products Liability Ronald W. Eades Mastering Professional Responsibility Grace Giesel Mastering Secured Transactions Richard H. Nowka Mastering Statutory Interpretation Linda D. Jellum Mastering Tort Law Russell L. Weaver, John H. Bauman, Ronald W. Eades, Andrew R. Klein, Edward C. Martin, Paul J. Zwier II 00 kuney cx3 10/2/08 10:32 AM Page iii Mastering Intellectual Property George W. Kuney W.P. Toms Professor of Law and the Director of the James L. Clayton Center for Entrepreneurial Law University of Tennessee College of Law Donna C. Looper Adjunct Professor of Law University of Tennessee College of Law Carolina Academic Press Durham, North Carolina 00 kuney cx3 10/2/08 10:32 AM Page iv Copyright © 2009 George W. Kuney Donna C. Looper All Rights Reserved Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Kuney, George W. Mastering intellectual property / George W. Kuney and Donna C. Looper. p. cm. -- (Carolina Academic Press mastering series) Includes index. ISBN 978-1-59460-392-1 (alk.
  • Distributing Tangible Property: What Families Need to Know

    Distributing Tangible Property: What Families Need to Know

    June 2021 Distributing Tangible Property: What Families Need to Know Executive Summary Who will become the primary decision maker — your spouse, a child or an advisor — through a • The distribution of tangible property — jewelry, power of attorney? If the primary residence is being art, furniture and collectibles — is typically sold to help raise money for assisted living or long- accomplished through a will or revocable term care, will there be other items that should also trust. Some states allow you to write a separate be sold? Having everyone on the same page helps memo or list, signed by you, that outlines the ensure that important caregiving decisions are distribution of your property; however, generally determined in a timely fashion while minimizing the the existence of the memo or list should be likelihood of family stress over “stuff.” specifically referenced in your will or revocable trust to be legally enforceable. We encourage families to discuss the ultimate distribution of nonfinancial assets across generations. • Nonfinancial assets can have both monetary An additional benefit of these discussions is that they and sentimental value. Failing to plan ahead for provide an opportunity to share stories about an the disposition of these assets may incite family object’s family history and significance, especially drama after you’re gone. with younger children — and to confirm the intended • Following a process — determining market value recipient wants it. and identifying heirs’ preferences — can help By proactively discussing these issues, a family preserve the family legacy and relationships can arrive at a meeting of the minds about the and help avoid conflicts following your death.