DOCSLIB.ORG

An Accession Law Approach to the Inevitable Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Jay L

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Accession Law Approach to the Inevitable Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Jay L View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law American University Law Review Volume 48 | Issue 2 Article 1 1998 From Hoops to Hard Drives: An Accession Law Approach to the Inevitable Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Jay L. Koh Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr Part of the Corporation and Enterprise Law Commons, and the International Trade Commons Recommended Citation Koh, Jay L. “From Hoops to Hard Drives: An Accession Law Approach to the Inevitable Misappropriation of Trade Secrets.” American University Law Review 48, no.2 (December, 1998): 271-357. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in American University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. From Hoops to Hard Drives: An Accession Law Approach to the Inevitable Misappropriation of Trade Secrets Keywords Trade secrets, Doctrine of Inevitable Misappropriation, Economic Espionage, Act of 1996 (“EEA”), corporations, Uniform Trade Secrets Act This article is available in American University Law Review: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/aulr/vol48/iss2/1 ARTICLES FROM HOOPS TO HARD DRIVES: AN ACCESSION LAW APPROACH TO THE INEVITABLE MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRETS * JAY L. KOH TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction........................................................................................ 272 I. The Doctrine of Inevitable Misappropriation......................... 276 A. The Basic Doctrine ............................................................ 276 B. Scope .................................................................................. 278 C. Interests at Issue................................................................. 281 II. Current Approaches and Proposals......................................... 285 A. Current Court Approaches ............................................... 285 1. Specific limitations in determining inevitability......... 286 a. The Standard Brands approach: general fact- intensive analysis..................................................... 286 b. The Cyprus Foote approach: focusing on bad faith or competitor intent ...................................... 288 c. The International Paper approach: requiring technical employment............................................ 291 d. The Merck & Co. approach: objective competition and similarity of position .................. 294 2. Excessive general focus on employer interests ........... 298 3. Inadequate and inconsistent all-or-nothing remedies ....................................................................... 299 * Clerk to the Honorable Michael Boudin, United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. J.D., Yale Law School, 1998; MSc, Oxford University, 1993; A.B., Harvard College, 1992. My thanks to Robert Ellickson, Gerard Magliocca, and Allison Moore for their comments on previous drafts and to Robert Gordon, Roberta Romano, and Judge Boudin for their general guidance. 271 4. General critiques and concerns................................... 304 B. Existing Proposals.............................................................. 308 1. Global rejection or acceptance.................................... 308 a. Total rejection of inevitable misappropriation..... 308 b. Total acceptance of the alienability of human capital...................................................................... 310 2. Concurrent property interests..................................... 313 III. The Accession Law Approach .................................................. 321 A. The Law of Accession ........................................................ 321 1. Analyzing applicability ................................................. 322 a. Combinations: identification and severability...... 322 b. Transformations: identity and value- enhancement.......................................................... 325 c. Bad faith, negligence, and willfulness ................... 326 2. Allocating control and value ....................................... 328 a. Vesting title and control: the tests of principal part, identity transformation, and value- enhancement.......................................................... 328 b. Allocating compensation and value: the costs of raw materials, skill, and labor ............................ 331 c. Bad faith, negligence, and willfulness ................... 333 B. Applicability to Inevitable Misappropriation ................... 334 C. An Accession Law Approach ............................................. 337 1. Determining inevitability: separability, bad faith improver, and comparative valuation ......................... 338 2. Providing a system of remedies ................................... 342 D. Deterring Strategic Litigation ........................................... 352 Conclusion........................................................................................... 355 INTRODUCTION In recent years, U.S. corporations have become concerned about the misappropriation of trade secrets.1 Civil trade secret litigation has grown enormously over the last two decades, and trade secret law has become more popular among legal practitioners.2 In light of these concerns, Congress passed the comprehensive Economic Espionage Act of 1996 (“EEA”)3 which makes certain misappropriations of trade secrets federal felonies.4 Increased access to information through computers and the Internet has heightened concerns regarding the international pilfering of U.S. corporate trade secrets.5 Congress has primarily focused on cases of industrial espionage 1. See Thomas P. Heed, Comment, Misappropriation of Trade Secrets: The Last Civil RICO Cause of Action That Works, 30 J. MARSHALL L. REV. 207, 210-11 (1996) (stating that between 1985 and 1994, reported incidents of misappropriated trade secrets rose 260% and tripled from 1993-1995). 2. See Suellen Lowry, Note, Inevitable Disclosure Trade Secret Disputes: Dissolutions of Concurrent Property Interests, 40 STAN. L. REV. 519, 519 (1988) (noting that “trade secret litigation is burgeoning”). 3. See Economic Espionage Act of 1996 § 101(a), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1831-1839 (Supp. 1997). 4. See id. §§ 1831-1832 (providing for individual fines of up to $500,000 and imprisonment for up to 15 years, as well as organizational fines of up to $10,000,000 for violations of the Act). 5. See Marc S. Friedman & Kristin Bissinger, “Infojacking”: Crimes on the Information Superhighway, J. PROPRIETARY RTS., May 1997, at 2, 5-6 (describing the EEA as one response to the increasing concern over computer-related theft of trade secrets). involving foreign agents and corrupt employees.6 A more subtle, long-term trend, however, is the growth in civil litigation over the unintentional, or even inevitable, transfer or disclosure of employers’ trade secrets by former employees to their new employers. Employers have argued that under certain conditions, employees who leave an employer to work for a competitor will inevitably, inappropriately, and thus illegally disclose or use their former employers’ trade secrets in the course of their new employment.7 Former employers of key employees have raised this argument, known as “inevitable misappropriation,” in support of motions to enjoin employees from working for competitors.8 These employer- plaintiffs have brought suit under common law as well as state law versions of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (“UTSA”).9 Over the last thirty years, a growing number of federal and state courts have wrestled with employers’ concerns regarding the disclosure of trade secrets in an attempt to develop a coherent approach to the doctrine of inevitable misappropriation.10 6. See Spencer Simon, The Economic Espionage Act, 13 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 305, 309 (1998) (contending that federal legislation is necessary to combat the growing scourge of economic espionage by both domestic and foreign agents); Robert L. Tucker, Industrial Espionage as Unfair Competition, 29 U. TOL. L. REV. 245, 246 (1998) (commenting on the increasing number of American companies subject to industrial espionage sponsored by foreign governments); Darren S. Tucker, Note, The Federal Government’s War on Economic Espionage, 18 U. PA. J. INT’L ECON. L. 1109, 1142 (1997) (suggesting that one of the main purposes of the EEA is to combat foreign trade secret theft); see also, e.g., FBI Charges Taiwanese Tried to Steal Taxol Trade Secrets from BMS, 1998 Andrews Intell. Prop. Litig. Rep. (Andrews Publications) 3 (June 18, 1997) (reporting the first indictments of international trade secret theft under the EEA involving Taiwanese nationals attempting to buy anti-cancer drug production secrets from an executive posing as a “corrupt [company] scientist”); Louis Lavelle, Spies and Spy Catchers; Espionage Thrives in Business World, RECORD (Bergen County, N.J.), Sept. 6, 1998, at A1 (reporting that five prosecutions of international agents have taken place under the EEA as of September 1998). 7. See, e.g., PepsiCo, Inc. v. Redmond, 54 F.3d 1262, 1272 (7th Cir. 1995) (upholding an injunction against the employment of a beverage company employee by a competitor on the grounds that the employee would inevitably disclose the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Navigability Concept in the Civil and Common Law: Historical Development, Current Importance, and Some Doctrines That Don't Hold Water
    Florida State University Law Review Volume 3 Issue 4 Article 1 Fall 1975 The Navigability Concept in the Civil and Common Law: Historical Development, Current Importance, and Some Doctrines That Don't Hold Water Glenn J. MacGrady Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr Part of the Admiralty Commons, and the Water Law Commons Recommended Citation Glenn J. MacGrady, The Navigability Concept in the Civil and Common Law: Historical Development, Current Importance, and Some Doctrines That Don't Hold Water, 3 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 511 (1975) . https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr/vol3/iss4/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida State University Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW VOLUME 3 FALL 1975 NUMBER 4 THE NAVIGABILITY CONCEPT IN THE CIVIL AND COMMON LAW: HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT, CURRENT IMPORTANCE, AND SOME DOCTRINES THAT DON'T HOLD WATER GLENN J. MACGRADY TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ---------------------------- . ...... ..... ......... 513 II. ROMAN LAW AND THE CIVIL LAW . ........... 515 A. Pre-Roman Legal Conceptions 515 B. Roman Law . .... .. ... 517 1. Rivers ------------------- 519 a. "Public" v. "Private" Rivers --- 519 b. Ownership of a River and Its Submerged Bed..--- 522 c. N avigable R ivers ..........................................- 528 2. Ownership of the Foreshore 530 C. Civil Law Countries: Spain and France--------- ------------- 534 1. Spanish Law----------- 536 2. French Law ----------------------------------------------------------------542 III. ENGLISH COMMON LAw ANTECEDENTS OF AMERICAN DOCTRINE -- --------------- 545 A.
    [Show full text]
  • Views of the Blackstone River and the Mumford River
    THE SHlNER~ AND ITS USE AS A SOURCE OF INCOME IN WORCESTER, AND SOUTHEASTERN WORCESTER COUNTY, MASSACHUSETTS By Robert William Spayne S.B., State Teachers College at Worcester, Massachusetts 19,3 A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Oberlin College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in the Department of Geography CONTENTS Ie INTRODUCTION Location of Thesis Area 1 Purpose of Study 1 Methods of Study 1 Acknowledgments 2 II. GEOGRAPHY OF SOUTHERN WORCESTER COUNTY 4 PIiYSICAL GEOGRAPHY 4 Topography 4 stream Systems 8 Ponds 11 Artificial 11 Glacial 12 Ponds for Bait Fishing 14 .1 oJ Game Fishing Ponds 15 Climatic Characteristics 16 Weather 18 POPULATION 20 Size of Population 20 Distribution of Population 21 Industrialization 22 III. GEOGRAPHICAL BASIS FOR TEE SHINER INDUSTRY 26 Recreational Demands 26 Game Fish Resources 26 l~umber of ;Ponds 28 Number of Fishermerf .. 29 Demand for Bait 30 l IV. GENERAL NATURE OF THE BAIT INDUSTRY 31 ,~ Number of Bait Fishermen 31 .1 Range in Size of Operations 32 Nature of Typical Operations 34 Personality of the Bait Fishermen 34 V. THE SHINER - ITS DESCRIPTION, HABITS AND , CHARACTERISTICS 35 VI. 'STANDARD AND IlIIlPROVISED EQUIPMENT USED IN .~ THE IhllUSTRY 41 Transportation 41 Keeping the Bait Alive 43 Foul Weather Gear 47 Types of Nets 48 SUCCESSFUL METHODS USED IN NETTING BAIT 52 Open Water Fishing 5'2 " Ice Fishing 56 .-:-) VII. ECONOMIC IMPORTANCE OF THE SHINER INDUSTRY ~O VIII. FUTURE OUTLOOK FOR THE SHINER INDUSTRY 62 IX. BIBLIOGRAPHY 69 x. APPENDIX 72 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Following Page .
    [Show full text]
  • Wenham Great Pond
    Wenham Great Pond BY JOHJV C. PHILLIPS SALEM PEABODY MUSEUM Copyright, 1938, by The Peabody Museum, Salem, Massachusetts Printed by The Southworth-A nthoensen Press, Portland, Maine \VEN HAM GREAT POND MosT of the source material for this book was collected for me by Mr.Arthur C. Pickering of Salem in 1913. He had access to the town records of Wenham and Beverly, the libraries of Boston, Salem and Beverly, the files of the Salem Register, Water Board Records) the Registry of Deeds in Salem) etc.) etc. He talked with various of the older men of that time) Mr. John Robinson of Salem, Mr. Robert S. Rantoul (author of the paper on Wenham Lake from which I quote largely), Alonzo Galloupe of Beverly) Mr. William Porter) then town clerk of Wenham) Mr. George E. Woodbury of the Beverly Historical Society) and others. For a good many years these notes of Mr. Pickering's lay around my desk) but in 1933 they were used to prepare an article on Wen­ ham Lake) partly historical) partly dealing with the water short­ age) which appeared in the Salem Evening News in March and April of that year. Ahead of us lies 1943, when Wenham will celebrate her three hundredth anniversary, and it seems possible that a collection of notes such as these) dealing with one of our best known "Great Ponds)" might be acceptable )for the lives of the earlier people must always have centered around this beautiful lake. I was greatly disappointed, at the time we were looking up the history of the lake) to find so few references to it, almost nothing of Indian l()re, of the fisheries and wild lift, or the earliest settlers.
    [Show full text]
  • Professor Crusto
    Crusto, Personal Property: Adverse Possession, Bona Fide Purchaser, and Entrustment New Admitted Assignment, Monday, May 11, 2020 ************************************** Please kindly complete in writing and kindly prepare for discussion for the online class on Friday, May 15, 2020, the following exercises: I. Reading Assignments (see attached below, following Crusto’s lecture notes): 1. Adverse Possession, Bona Fide Purchaser, Entrustment: pp. 116-118, 151-163: O’Keeffe v. Snyder (see attachment) and 2. Crusto’s Notes (below) II. Exercises: Exercise 1 Based on the cases and the reading assignment (above) and Crusto lecture notes (below), write an “outline” listing five legal issues for the personal property topics of 1. Adverse Possession, Bona Fide Purchaser, and Entrustment, and ten rules and authorities (one word case name or other source). Exercise 2 Answer the following questions, providing a one sentence answer for each question: 1. Provide three examples of personal (not real) property. 2. What are the indicia (evidence) of ownership of personal property? 3. How does a person normally acquire title to personal property? 4. What role does possession play in evidencing ownership of personal property? 5. What is meant by the maxim that “possession is 9/10s of the law”? 6. How, if ever, can a person acquire title to personal property by adverse possession? 7. What is a statute of limitations? 8. What role did the statute of limitations play in the O’Keefe case? 9. How does a person qualify as a bona fide purchaser? 10. What benefits result from such a qualification? 11. What is the rule of discovery? 12.
    [Show full text]
  • Chattel Mortgages on Property Not in Possession A
    Cornell Law Library Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository Historical Theses and Dissertations Collection Historical Cornell Law School 1889 Chattel Mortgages on Property Not in Possession A. C. Burnett Cornell Law School Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/historical_theses Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Burnett, A. C., "Chattel Mortgages on Property Not in Possession" (1889). Historical Theses and Dissertations Collection. Paper 95. This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Historical Cornell Law School at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Historical Theses and Dissertations Collection by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Chattel CMortgagesa at e1 On Property Not In Possession By A. C. B u r n e t t Cornell University, School of Law. 1889. I Under the old Common Law the similarity between chattel mortgages and mortgages on real estate was much greater than at the present time. With the Corn- mon Law mortgage on realty the title to the property passed with the mortgage to the mortgagee, while at present the mortgagor retains the legal title, the mortgagee having only an equitable lien on the property mortgaged. This was indeed a wise invasion on the rights of the mortgagee, but owing to the character of chattels a similar change would perhaps be impracti- cable. As has always been in the law of chattel mort- gages, they still retain the character of a conditional sale, absol~te title passing to the mortgagee subject to revertment upon performance of the condition; and they differ from a pledge in that the property is retained 2 by the mortgagor, while in the latter the title remains in the pledgor and the property itself passes to the pledgee.
    [Show full text]
  • Art & Cultural Heritage Law Newsletter
    american bar association section of international law winter 2012, vol. iv, issue no. 1 Art & Cultural Heritage Law Newsletter A Publication of the Art & Cultural Heritage Law Committee the treasure act and Portable antiquities scheme in england and wales ROger BlaNd, HEad Of PortaBlE AntiquiTies aNd TreaSure, BRiTish MuseuM his article describes the solution Background: Treasure Trove adopted in England and Wales to Until 1996 England and Wales very the universal problem of how to unusually had no legislation governing Tdeal with objects of archaeological, portable antiquities. The old feudal right historical or cultural importance found by to Treasure Trove (under which the king CONTENTS members of the public. All countries have claimed all finds of gold or silver that had legal frameworks and other systems in- been deliberately buried in the ground) the treasure act and Portable tended to protect such objects found by had been adapted as an antiquities law in antiquities scheme in england members of the public in their territory ei- 1886 when the Government started paying and wales ther by chance or as a result of deliberate finders rewards for finds of Treasure Trove PaGe 1 searching. While these approaches vary that museums wished to acquire, but widely, in most countries there is a legal re- this was just an administrative act and common law, statutory law and quirement to report all objects of archaeo- no law setting out a sensible definition of the Disposition of archaeological logical importance and normally the state Treasure Trove was ever passed. Instead resources in the united states claims ownership of them.
    [Show full text]
  • Establishing Ownership: First Possession Versus Accession
    UC Berkeley Law and Economics Workshop Title Establishing Ownership: First Possession versus Accession Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4zw6x2ds Author Merrill, Thomas Publication Date 2007-02-12 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California draft of 2-11-07 Establishing Ownership: First Possession and Accession Thomas W. Merrill I. Introduction One of the most intriguing issues in property law is how persons come to have property rights in previously unowned things. The dominant understanding, certainly in the Anglo-American tradition, is that original ownership is established by first possession.1 Resources are imagined as originally existing in some kind of open-access commons or the “public domain.” Individuals acquire property rights in a portion of this common pool by being the first to reduce particular things to individual control or possession. John Locke’s famous account of the origins of property looms large here.2 Locke posited that “in the beginning all the World was America,”3 by which he meant a world rich in natural resources and thinly populated by people who survived by hunting, fishing, or gathering acorns in the forest. In this paper I challenge first possession’s claim to preeminence as a mode of establishing original ownership. There is a second, analytically distinct mode, which I call the principle of accession. The principle of accession holds that ownership of new or 1 See, e.g., Dean Lueck, The Rule of First Possession and the Design of the Law, 38 J. L. & Econ. 393, 393 (1995) (“First possession rules are the dominant method of initially establishing property rights.”); Richard A.
    [Show full text]
  • Lesson 4: Transferring Ownership 2 Title Title: Abstract Concept Referring to Real Property Ownership Rights
    1 Real Estate Principles of Georgia Lesson 4: Transferring Ownership 2 Title Title: Abstract concept referring to real property ownership rights. Cloud on title: Problem with owner’s title (such as interest claimed by someone else). Also called a title defect. 3 Alienation Alienation: Process of transferring real property ownership (title) from one party to another. y May be voluntary or involuntary. 4 Alienation Voluntary alienation Voluntary alienation: Owner voluntarily transfers interest in land to someone else. Examples: y Patents y Deeds y Wills 5 Voluntary Alienation Patents and deeds Patent: Instrument used to convey government land to a private individual. Deed: Instrument used to convey title to real property from a grantor to a grantee. 6 Deeds Parties to a deed Grantor: One who grants interest in real property to another. Grantee: One who receives grant of real property. 7 Deeds Types of deeds General warranty deed Special warranty deed 1 Grant deed Bargain and sale deed Quitclaim deed Deeds executed by court order 8 Types of Deeds General warranty deed General warranty deed contains grantor’s covenants to grantee: y covenant of seisin y covenant of right to convey y covenant against encumbrances y covenant of quiet enjoyment y covenant of further assurance y covenant of warranty forever 9 Types of Deeds General warranty deed Covenant of seisin: Promise that grantor actually owns property interest being transferred. Covenant of right to convey: Promise that grantor has legal power to make conveyance. 10 Types of Deeds General warranty deed Covenant against encumbrances: Promise that property is not burdened by undisclosed easements, liens, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Ownership – Acquisition, Proof and Extinction
    Ownership Acquisition of ownership Modalities of Acquisition of Individual Ownership . Generally, the law recognizes two types/class of acquiring ownership: Original acquisition, and Derivative acquisition . Ownership is said to be acquired through original acquisition when an individual acquires ownership over a given thing by his own, without depending on anyone's title/ownership. Ownership may be acquires in this manner over a thing which: - has never been owned, res nullius - has had owner but abandoned, res derelictae - has owner, but the new owner doesn’t depend on the pre-existing OP as a source . Derivative acquisition refers to the acquisition of ownership through transfer of ownership. This is a case of buying/taking the right rather than establishing original ownership. It is a derivative mechanism of acquiring ownership. It requires juridical acts and is dependent on the quality of ownership of the original acquirer. Original Acquisition of Ownership . The CC recognizes 4 modes of original acquisition of OP: - Occupation - Possession in good faith - Usucaption - Accession . Some apply to acquisition of OP only on corporeal movables, others to immovable only & some for both. Acquisition of OP by Occupation . No clear definition of the term in the CC . From a systematic reading of Art 1151 we can describe Occupation as: a mode of acquiring OP whereby a person becomes an owner of a masterless corporeal chattel by taking possession of the thing with the intention of becoming owner. Thus, in order to become owner by occupation, the following elements must be fulfilled cumulatively: - The thing must be a corporeal movable - The thing must be susceptible of private appropriation - The thing must be masterless - The person must have taken possession of the thing - The possession must be with intention of becoming owner of the thing.
    [Show full text]
  • Good Faith in Louisiana Property Law
    Louisiana Law Review Volume 78 Number 4 Spring 2018 Article 11 5-30-2018 Good Faith in Louisiana Property Law John A. Lovett Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev Part of the Law Commons Repository Citation John A. Lovett, Good Faith in Louisiana Property Law, 78 La. L. Rev. (2018) Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol78/iss4/11 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Louisiana Law Review by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Good Faith in Louisiana Property Law Dedicated to A.N. Yiannopoulos John A. Lovett** TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................ 1163 I. Encroaching Buildings: Article 670 ........................................... 1172 II. Good Faith Purchaser Doctrine .................................................. 1179 A. Lost or Stolen Things ........................................................... 1182 B. Annullable Title ................................................................... 1187 C. The Double Sale .................................................................. 1189 D. The Faithless Pledgee, Lessee, or Depositary ...................... 1193 III. Accession ................................................................................... 1200 IV. Acquisitive Prescription with Respect to Immovables
    [Show full text]
  • Planning for Accession and Coronation
    DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE INAUGURATING A NEW REIGN: PLANNING FOR ACCESSION AND CORONATION BOB MORRIS INAUGURATING A NEW REIGN: PLANNING FOR ACCESSION AND CORONATION Dr Bob Morris The Constitution Unit University College London May 2018 i ISBN: 978-1-903903-82-7 Published by: The Constitution Unit School of Public Policy University College London 29-31 Tavistock Square London WC1H 9QU United Kingdom Tel: 020 7679 4977 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit © The Constitution Unit, UCL, 2018 This report is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, hired out or otherwise circulated without the publisher’s prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser. First published May 2018 Front cover image: Nathan Hughes Hamilton; licenced under Creative Commons, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/legalcode ii CONTENTS Preface……………………………………………………………………………….v Executive summary………………………………………………………………….vi 1.1-1.25 Conceptual changes since 1952……………………………………………...1 1.1-1.5 Social…………………………………………………………..1 1.6-1.8 Religion……...………………………………………………....1 1.9-1.10 Political…………………………………………………….....2 1.11-1.14 Geopolitics and security……………………………………..2 1.15-1.23 Constitutional……………………………………………….3 1.24-1.25 Machinery of government…………………………………...5 2.1-2.22 Accession…………………………………………………………………....6 2.1 Demise…………………………………………………………….6 2.2-2.4
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright and Good Faith Purchasers
    University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law 2016 Copyright and Good Faith Purchasers Shyamkrishna Balganesh University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Business Law, Public Responsibility, and Ethics Commons, Common Law Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, Law and Economics Commons, Law and Society Commons, Political Economy Commons, Property Law and Real Estate Commons, Public Law and Legal Theory Commons, and the Public Policy Commons Repository Citation Balganesh, Shyamkrishna, "Copyright and Good Faith Purchasers" (2016). Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law. 1535. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/1535 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law by an authorized administrator of Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. California Law Review Copyright © 2016 by California Law Review, Inc., a California Nonprofit Corporation Copyright and Good Faith Purchasers Shyamkrishna Balganesh* Good faith purchasers for value—individuals who unknowingly and in good faith purchase property from a seller whose own actions in obtaining the property are of questionable legality—have long obtained special protection under the common law. Despite the seller’s own actions being tainted, these purchasers obtain valid title and are free to transfer the property without restriction. Modern copyright law, however, does just the opposite. Individuals who unknowingly, and in good faith, purchase property embodying an unauthorized copy of a protected work are altogether precluded from subsequently alienating such property without running afoul of copyright’s distribution right.
    [Show full text]