Scott Joplin: His Greatest Hits
Richard Zimmerman, Piano
Music 1899-1912
Recording 2005
TOMORROW
EXTENDED CLASS FOR
BOTH SECTIONS
Here 7:55-9:55
Fajer’s Exam Technique
Workshop
Encore Presentation
Tuesday 11/11
in Room F309
@ 12:30-1:50 pm
Argument By Analogy
Oil & Gas: Escape
Oklahoma Statute (p.97: fn2) (Summary)
Reinserted gas remains property of Gas Co. (G) and other owners
(Os) of pool cannot take reinserted gas or bring trespass action ,
BUT G doesn’t have any rights to gas in portions of the pool that
it has not paid to use.
• If G doesn’t buy rights from Os, doesn’t own gas in
those parts of pool.
– Means Os can extract, but not bring trespass action.
– Might mean Gs will take risk that small Os can’t afford to
extract and not pay them for rights.
QUESTIONS?
Argument By Analogy
Oil & Gas: Escape
Possible Alternatives to ACs
DQ2.34 (OXYGEN): Oklahoma Statute (p.97 fn2)
PROS & CONS: Include
• Injecting Gas Cos. have more control than in Hammonds; keep
property rights so long as they pay for space; can choose to
risk not paying small surface owners.
• Owners of large surface plots likely to be paid for use of space.
• Easier to Use than Full ACs Analysis
• Higher costs of storage than Airspace Solution (both costs of
purchasing space & administrative costs of negotiation or
Eminent Domain)
• Smaller surface owners might get nothing.
Argument By Analogy
Oil & Gas: Escape
Possible Alternatives to ACs
DQ2.35 (KRYPTON): Airspace Solution
Possible State Regulation (from Last Week):
• Reinserted gas stays property of Gas Co.(G)
• BUT Surface Owners have no right to trespass action
even if Gs haven't leased/bought space
• Like rule about airspace over surface: above certain
height, no rights. Here, below certain depth, Surface
Oner has no rights (once gas extracted).
PROS & CONS: I’ll Post Some
Argument By Analogy
Oil & Gas: Escape
Possible Alternatives to ACs
DQ2.35 (KRYPTON): Airspace Solution
PROS & CONS: Include
•
•
•
•
Injecting Gas Cos. have complete control of space.
Lower costs of storage than Oklahoma or White.
Easier to Use than Full ACs Analysis
Owners of surface plots likely get nothing.
– May result in Takings Litigation
– May Result in Negative Political response
Argument By Analogy
Oil & Gas: Escape
Possible Alternatives to ACs
DQ2.36 (URANIUM): Best Solution?
• White Rule: Reinserted Gas = Property of Gas Co.
• Hammonds Rule: Reinserted Gas = Unowned
(Simplified ACs)
• More Complex ACs (Consider marking, control, etc.)
• DQ 2.34 Oklahoma Statute (White footnote 2)
• DQ 2.35. “Airspace Solution to Hammonds problem.”
• Other??
URANIUM: REV. PROB. 2D
st
1997 XQ1 (1 Possession):
•
•
•
•
•
•
For Ryan
Comparato, Nicole
Fernandez, Nick
Prado, Nick
Centofanti, Gabriela
Crosby, Shannon
Dilican, Lori
•
•
•
•
•
•
For Matt
Bautz, Josh
Comparato, Paige
Howard, Chase
Kropkof, Josh*
Layug, Malcolm
Price, Spencer
* S.Gomez in Relief
URANIUM: REV. PROB. 2D
Factual Background
• “Update Program”(UP): Potentially very valuable program
to update old software to make it usable on newer systems.
Did not exist prior to 1996.
• By 1991, Ryan develops general approach to UP in his head
– R has spent lot of time on, but couldn’t figure out rest
– 1991: R tells Matt (M thinks R has solved half the problem.)
• 1991-96: Both M & R think about intermittently
• 1996: M develops UP using R’s approach plus 2 additional
steps of his own.
URANIUM: REV. PROB. 2D
Q & Partial Analysis
Discuss whether R had acquired property rights
to the UP under the 1st Poss. ACs by the time
he told his idea to M in 1991.
• Were R’s actions more than “mere pursuit”?
• Were R’s actions the kind of “useful labor” that
we should reward with property rights?
• Other approaches from the cases?
RADIUM: REV. PROB. 2H
1997 XQ2 (1st Possession):
Discuss whether the 1st Possession Animals Cases
(1PACS) are good tools to resolve disputes about
property rights in multi-step software programs.
Assume these disputes are between programmers
who wrote different portions of the final programs.
RADIUM: REV. PROB. 2H
1997 XQ2 (1st Possession):
Discuss whether 1PACS are good tools to resolve disputes re
property rights in multi-step software programs.
Arguments from Factual Comparisons
• Identify a Factual Similarity between
i.
ii.
•
Situations Involving Pursuit & Capture of Wild Animals;
Situations Involving Development of Multi-Step Software
Programs
Explain why the Similarity suggests that the 1PACs
would be good tools for resolving the latter situations.
RADIUM: REV. PROB. 2H
1997 XQ2 (1st Possession):
Discuss whether 1PACS are good tools to resolve disputes re
property rights in multi-step software programs.
Arguments from Factual Comparisons
• Identify a Factual Difference between
i.
ii.
•
Situations Involving Pursuit & Capture of Wild Animals;
Situations Involving Development of Multi-Step Software
Programs
Explain why the Difference suggests that the 1PACs
might not be useful for resolving the latter situations.
RADIUM: REV. PROB. 2H
1997 XQ2 (1st Possession):
Discuss whether 1PACS are good tools to resolve disputes re
property rights in multi-step software programs.
Arguments re Legal Rules or Factors
• What Rules/Factors from 1PACs Would Be Useful
for Disputes re Multi-Step Software Programs (and
Why)?
• What Rules/Factors from 1PACs Would Be Less
Useful (Hard to Use or Not Very Relevant) for
Disputes re Multi-Step Software Programs (and
Why)?
LOGISTICS
CLASSROOM FRIDAY
§D Seating §B
Same as Last Time We Did This
• If you normally sit on the side where your section is sitting
Friday, take your usual seat.
• If you normally sit on the side where the other section is
sitting tomorrow, sit on the other side in the back four rows
(i.e., behind the usual seating).
• I’ll update Friday’s assignments on the top of the course
page after class Thursday.
LOGISTICS
• Assignment #3
– “International Waters”
• Point is nearby nations cannot legitimately claim either
– Ownership of treasure due to location; OR
– That treasure hunters are improperly trespassing/invading.
• Like “deserted beach” in Pierson
– Sub-Assignment 3C Choosing Alternative: Can pick from
• Usual Options for Escape Cases: OO always wins; F always
wins; variations on salvage; registration systems
• Different option of your own creation (that you describe very
clearly)
–Other Qs??
Mahon v. Pennsylvania
Coal Co. (1922)
Introduction to Set Up
Discussion for Next Two Classes
Mahon v. Pennsylvania Coal Co.
Background: Pennsylvania Law
Property Rights in Pennsylvania
Three Types; Each is Separate “Estate in Land”
1. Surface
2. Mineral (here, coal extraction)
3. Subsidence:
– Right to Decide Whether to Keep Surface in Place or
Undermine It.
– Can be Held By Surface Owner or Mineral Rights Owner
Mahon v. Pennsylvania Coal Co.
Background: Factual Context
Coal Companies (CCs) Owned Large Tracts of
Land, Initially Holding All Three Estates
• Sell Surface Rights to Individuals, Businesses, Local
Governments (who become “Surface Owners”).
• Contracts of Sale & Deeds for these Sales…
– Explicitly retained for CCs both mineral rights &
subsidence rights;
– Required CCs to give notice to surface owners
before undermining.
Mahon v. Pennsylvania Coal Co.
Background: Factual Context
• Penn. Legislature concerned re widespread
effects of CCs exercising subsidence rights
• Passes Kohler Act
– Forbids CCs from mining in a way that causes
surface to collapse where home or other structure
affected.
– Exception if owner of mineral rights also owns
surface & lot is more than 150 feet from improved
lots owned by others.
– Effect is to bar CCs from exercising some
Subsidence Rights for which they had explicitly
contracted.
Mahon v. Pennsylvania Coal Co.
Background: Procedural History
• Pursuant to contract, D coal co gives notice to P
surface owner that it will exercise its Subsidence
Rights and undermine surface.
• P sued to prevent undermining, relying on Kohler Act
• TCt: Kohler Act bars undermining, but unconstitutional
• Pa SCt: Act = Legit. Exercise of State Power; P Wins
• Appeal to US SCt (via Writ of Error as in Hadacheck)
b/c claiming a State Law violates Federal Constitution
• US SCt Opinion = 1922
Mahon v. Pennsylvania
Coal Co. (1922)
Read Carefully;
Important Differences between
Holmes Majority & Brandeis Dissent
Hadacheck v. Sebastian (1915)
OXYGEN: DQs 3.06-3.09
Bricks: Safety Device or Health Risk?