8/25/03 Keeble v. Hickeringill p. 31, Queen’s Bench, 1707 Facts: Keeble has a decoy pond in his yard for the use of trapping ducks and using them for profit. Hickeringill, knowing that Keeble uses this pond for his trade and with the intent to damnify and take away his profits, shoots a gun in the air on his own land. This action scares away the ducks. Keeble is suing for damages. Court awarded Keeble 20L in damages, Hickeringill is appealing.
Procedure: Issue:
General Rule: Where a violent or malicious act is done to a man’s occupation, profession, or way of getting a livelihood, there an action lies in all cases. Policy: What is best for society, free market of ducks so price of ducks is low to society. If Hickeringill is competitor then he is free to hunt the ducks as well. If he is maliciously trying to prevent ducks from coming to market then he is wrong. Destructive competition is malicious, and constructive competition is not malicious.
Analysis:
International News Service v. AP p.60 U.S. 1918 Facts: The AP gathered news from several member newspapers. This collection of news was then made available to all of the members of AP. International News service copied news from one of the papers and published it. Is there a property interest in freshly printed news that allows the creator to prevent others from copying it? Where a company has expended resources in creating news and information, the creator can exclude others from copying it until its commercial value as news has passed away.
Issue:
Rule:
Cheney Brothers v. Doris Silk Corp. p. 64 U.S. App 2 nd Circuit, 1929
Facts:
Doris Silk Corp creates patterns on silk and produces many of them each season. Each season a small percentage of those patterns becomes popular and sells well. They can not copyright or patent the patterns. Cheney Bros. put out a pattern that is almost identical to that of Doris Silk and Doris is suing.
Procedure: Rule: A man’s property is limited to the chattels which embody his invention. There is no common law patent protection.