Law Commons^™

One For All: The Problem Of Uniformity Cost In Intellectual Property Law, Michael W. Carroll

Working Paper Series

Intellectual property law protects the owner of each patented invention or copyrighted work of authorship with a largely uniform set of exclusive rights. Historically, this uniformity may have been justified in light of the relative homogeneity of market conditions applicable to protected subject matter, such as books or mechanical inventions. Technological progress since the founding has led to considerable growth in the range of inventions and expressive works to which patent and copyright law apply, respectively. In the modern context, it is clear that innovators’ needs for intellectual property protection vary substantially across industries and among types of innovation. Applying …

Rev. Proc. 2005-24 And The Upc Elective Share, Lawrence W. Waggoner

Law & Economics Working Papers Archive: 2003-2009

This article discusses Revenue Procedure 2005-24, which came as a bombshell to the estate-planning bar. The Rev. Proc. requires a spousal waiver of elective-share rights in order for a charitable remainder annuity trust (CRAT) or a charitable remainder unitrust (CRUT) created on or after June 28, 2005, to qualify for a charitable deduction. The elective share is a statutory provision common to most probate codes in non-community-property states that protect a decedent’s surviving spouse against disinheritance.

The Rev. Proc. is primarily though apparently not exclusively addressed to the elective share of the Uniform Probate Code (UPC). Unfortunately, the Rev. Proc. …

Overcoming Poletown: County Of Wayne V. Hathcock, Economic Development Takings, And The Future Of Public Use, Ilya Somin

George Mason University School of Law Working Papers Series

County of Wayne v. Hathcock is an important step forward in public use takings law. The Michigan Supreme Court was right to overturn its notorious 1981 Poletown decision and forbid condemnations that transfer property to private parties solely on the grounds that the new owners will contribute to “economic development.” Poletown was the best known and most widely criticized decision justifying a nearly unlimited condemnation power.

As the Poletown case dramatically demonstrates, the economic development rationale is a virtual blank check for eminent domain abuse for the benefit of private parties. Poletown upheld a condemnation as a result of which …