| | |
|
AndrewHerink-FirstPaper 3 - 10 Feb 2008 - Main.AndrewHerink
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper%25" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | | Early Anglo-American Cases | |
<
< | In pre-industrial Anglo-American law, judges employed a Lockean notion of labor to justify property rights. In Keeble v. Hickering (1707), defendant had fired a gun, scattering birds that had landed in plaintiff’s fowl trap. The court gave plaintiff title to these birds for he had caught the birds “in the use of that employment of his freehold, his art, and skill.” Plaintiff’s individual labor created the property right. In Pierson v. Post (1805), the court used a similar argument to determine hunters’ rights of original acquisition. Title to wild animals was given to those who, “by their industry and labour, have used such means of apprehending them.” | >
> | In pre-industrial Anglo-American law, judges employed a Lockean notion of labor to justify property rights. In Keeble v. Hickering (1707), defendant had fired a gun, scattering birds that had landed in plaintiff’s fowl trap. The court gave plaintiff title to these birds for he had caught the birds “in the use of that employment of his freehold, his art, and skill.” Plaintiff’s individual labor created the property right. In Pierson v. Post (1805), the court used a similar argument to determine hunters’ rights of original acquisition. Title to wild animals was given to those who, “by their industry and labour, have used such means of apprehending them.” Again individual effort meant a property right.
The Lockean concept of individual labor creating property continued to hold weight, even as the Industrial Revolution began. For instance in Weatherbee v. Green (1871), where plaintiff greatly increased the value of wood he had accidentally appropriated, the court stated that “when the right to the improved article is the point in issue, the question, how much the property or labor of each has contributed to make it what it is, must always be of first importance.” Here, one’s labor is directly equated with one’s property. | | | | | | Section II: A Change in Property Views
Subsection A: Turn of the century cases (INS v. AP, Presto Lite Co v. Davis, Cablevision) | |
>
> | Capitalism is inconsistent with the Lockean view of labor. If individual effort produces property, then proletarians, and not capitalists, should control the property they produce. Thus, as capitalism grew, judges had to tweak the Lockean argument in order to justify the status quo. In INS v. AP (1918), the court held that the information AP acquired was given a property right because AP had “as the result of organization and the expenditure of labor, skill, and money” discovered the hot news. The AP court used wordplay to convert the traditional Lockean concept to a more capitalist-friendly form. The justices still employed the word “labor,” but the term no longer represented individual effort. Instead “labor” was defined as a resource (like skill and money) employed by a firm to conduct its activities.
AP was emblematic of a general trend. In Prest-O-Lite Co. v. Davis (1913), the court held that defendant wrongfully appropriated the gas-tank model of plaintiff business owner. The court stated: “The great value of [plaintiff’s] business lies in the interchangeability of its tanks. This quality the [plaintiff] has created. It is his, and no one has the right to appropriate it for his own gain to the detriment and even destruction of [plaintiff’s] business.” Like in AP, the court deems the business (or its owner) the principal creator of the object and thus gives the property right to the capitalist, not the proletarian. | | | Subsection B: A total phasing out of the labor --> property argument (Midler case, p 231) |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |