> No it isn't, under English law the rules vary depending on the type
> of property. The *only* property to which this applies is Trade
Marks
> where using a trademark unchallenged, particularly an unregistered
> one, gives ownership.
I was thinking about the doctrine of adverse possession or prescription - which is an English legal doctrine. Even copyright runs the risk of equitable estoppel if you've clearly and knowingly been allowing use of the copyright without formal permission.
> Bear in mind that, although the US legal system is mostly based on
> the English one, intellectual property law has only developed since
> the US revolution so it has evolved differently. That's before you
> take into account variations in law between different US states.
You'd surprised - until the late nineteenth century, decisions of English courts interpreting "common law" were generally considereed precedents. For example, the Enabling Clause of my state's constitution adopts the interpretations of the common law by UK courts up to 1889 as the law of the state. Although English common law decisions appear to decline as cited precedents thoughout the nineteenth century (for example, folk like Cooley and Dillon started to develop independent municipal legal doctrines), it took Oliver Wendell Holmes to put the stake in that practice.
Jeff
Powered by hypermail