|
...to convey it to private developer did not constitute "public use" and hence violated her constitutional rights. Ms. Kelo's plight fell squarely within PRM's core agenda of safeguarding the liberty interests of property owners against governmental interference. Nor was it surprising to see PRM organizations mobilize in Rapanos v. United States, involving the scope of federal authority to regulate wetlands; San Remo Hotel v. City & County of San Francisco, challenging the constitutionality of a hotel conversion ordinance under the Takings Clause; Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., seeking to overturn a state statute limiting the rent that oil companies could charge dealers leasing company-owned service stations; or Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, asserting that a temporary moratorium on development effected an unconstitutional taking of private property.
By contrast, eBay v. MercExchange did not seem to fit the PRM mold. The "property" at issue--a patent on a method of selling goods through an "electronic network of consignment stores"--could hardly have been more different in character and economic underpinning than Susette Kelo's home. MercExchange had prevailed in a patent infringement action and sought to enjoin eBay, the popular online auctioneer, from further use of the patented method in the hope of forcing a favorable licensing deal. The patentability of such methods was itself quite controversial because of the abstract nature of business method claims. Furthermore, the governmental "interference" with the patent owner's property was limited. The district court denied MercExchange's request for a permanent injunction based on the patent owner's willingness to license to other parties, the adequacy of monetary damages, the fact that the patentee did not itself practice the invention, and "growing concern" over the effects of business method patents on competition and innovation. The U.S. Court of Appeals overturned the denial of the permanent injunction, holding that, as a "general rule," injunctions must follow all patent infringement findings absent "exceptional circumstances" such as a grave risk to public health. As a result, eBay appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari in late 2005.
In an amicus brief filed in the Supreme Court on behalf of "various law and economics scholars," Prof. Richard Epstein, one of the PRM's leading theorists, contended that the Merc-Exchange patent deserved much the same protection as real estate. By analogizing patent infringement to trespass, the brief argued that injunctive relief should be presumed in cases of patent infringement. It pushed the boundaries of patent law advocacy by citing land encroachment precedent.
The property rights rhetoric in the eBay case marked an important new front in the campaign to establish a strict and broad interpretation of property rights and their enforcement. Professor Epstein's expansion of his property rights advocacy into the intellectual property domain over the past several years coincides with the growing importance of intangible assets in the modern economy. The digital revolution has displaced General Motors and other manufacturing enterprises from the top of the economic food chain. Knowledge-based companies such as Google, Microsoft, and Apple reflect the new economic order.
[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]
Other property rights advocates have joined the effort to "port" the absolutist libertarian vision to the realm of intellectual property. In a May 21, 2007 op-ed page advertisement in the New York Times, the Washington Legal Foundation led:
Stolen Property, Stolen Future What if strangers showed up in your backyard and held a block party? America's fiercely defended tradition of private property rights wouldn't tolerate this. But that is in essence what's happening to the intellectual property ... of American businesses overseas.
Should "intellectual property" be so blithely equated with tangible forms of "property"? While there are certainly historical connections and functional parallels between "intellectual property" and "property," philosophical, legal, economic, and political bases for protecting intellectual property and tangible property differ in significant ways. Those underpinnings suggest that the effort to bring intellectual property into the "property" tent may well backfire.
SEMANTICS AND SUBSTANCE
Private property in land and other tangible resources is perhaps the oldest human institution and has long occupied a prominent position in law and philosophy. But to what extent does intellectual property--rights in intangible resources--fall within the relatively uniform right structure applied to land and other tangible resources?
The law has long treated land and intellectual property within the general rubric of "property." The first use of the term "intellectual property" in a reported legal decision can be traced to an 1845 patent case in which the court observed that "a liberal construction ... given to a patent" will encourage "ingenuity and perseverance" and "only in this way can we protect intellectual property, the labors of the mind,...
NOTE: All illustrations and photos
have been removed from this article.
More articles from Regulation
The drug quagmire., September 22, 2007
Regulation overview (mostly in Britain).(International Handbook on Eco..., September 22, 2007
Fluctuating power.(Competitive Electricity Markets And Sustainability)..., September 22, 2007
Job half-finished.(The Unsustainable Costs of Partial Deregulation)(Bo..., September 22, 2007
FDR at breakfast.(The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depres..., September 22, 2007
Looking for additional articles?
Search our database of over 3 million articles.
Looking for more in-depth information on this industry?
Search our complete database of Industry & Market reports by text, subject, publication
name or publication date.
About Goliath
Whether you're looking for sales prospects, competitive information, company
analysis or best practices in managing your organization,
Goliath can help you meet your business needs.
Our extensive business information databases empower business
professionals with both the breadth and depth of credible,
authoritative information they need to support their business
goals. Whether it be strategic planning, sales prospecting,
company research or defining management best practices -
Goliath is your leading source for accurate information.
|
%20%20&position=1)