More Than an Academic Question: Defining Student Ownership of Intellectual Property Rights

Intellectual property is increasingly important due to technology’s rapid development. The importance of intellectual property is also reflected within universities as traditional centers of research and expression, where students and faculty are encouraged to develop inventions and creative works throughout the educational experience. The commercialization potential of the intellectual property that emerges from these efforts has led many universities to adopt policies to determine ownership of intellectual property rights. Many of these policies take different approaches to ownership, and most students are unaware of their rights and are unlikely to consider whether the university has a claim to ownership. The purpose of this Article is to outline how intellectual property rights arise in the academic environment and to analyze how university policies determine ownership rights for students and the university. This Article concludes by urging universities and students to acknowledge the existence of these issues, adopt policies to address ownership rights, and make these policies known to members of the university community

Crimes against property & ownership

The most primeval crimes in all countries are crimes against property such as: Burglary, Larceny, Arson, Embezzlement, False pretenses, Extortion, forgery, fraud, robbery, and etc these crimes engender when ownership existed. Lord can do any possession in his/her property .If anyone trespasses to another one ownership prevailing law punishment him/her. Also we define these crimes in Islamic criminal law; because Islamic rules are strange and prober must study very hard to understand the principle of Islamic rules because most of them don't have reasonable source hence our definitions are so epitome because reader must study jurisprudence.

Fairness and the Optimal Allocation of Ownership Rights

We report on several experiments on the optimal allocation of ownership rights. The experiments confirm the property rights approach by showing that the ownership structure affects relationship-specific investments and that subjects attain the most efficient ownership allocation despite starting from different initial conditions. However, in contrast to the property rights approach, the most efficient ownership structure is joint ownership. These results are neither consistent with the self-interest model nor with models that assume that all people behave fairly, but they can be explained by the theory of inequity aversion that focuses on the interaction between selfish and fair players

Clearings and Thickets

Intellectual property law, which includes patents and copyright law, establishes the ownership of innovations by people. It conveys a bundle of rights to creators as determined by rules. Applied to intellectual property law, the normative question of growth economics is, “Which ownership rules maximize innovation?” In order to increase the pace of innovation, ownership rules should increase venture profits. So the question of this essay is, “Which ownership rules maximize venture profits?".Institutions; property rights; intellectual property rights; law and economics

Property as Prophesy: Legal Realism and the Indeterminacy of Ownership

Property law, like all law, is indeterminate. This means that ownership itself is indeterminate and every owner is vulnerable to challenges based on unexpected legal rules or newly created ones. Even the most seemingly secure rights can be defeated or compromised if a clever-enough lawyer is retained to mount a challenge. The casebooks used in first-year property courses are full of examples. In the case of particularly valuable property, such as works of art, the motivation to fashion arguments to support ownership challenges is obvious. Short and strictly interpreted statutes of limitations can mitigate the risks to ownership by cabining the timeframes from which title challengers can draw facts to support their claims

Ownership Structure, Property Performance, Multifamily Properties and REITs

This research extends literature that empirically evaluates the impact of ownership and management structure on property level performance. The results show that multifamily properties owned and managed by real estate investment trusts (REITs) generate higher effective rents at the property level than non-REIT-owned properties. After controlling for positive operating scale and brand effects, REIT property level performance is better than non-REIT property level performance in the market studied. The REIT structure represents diversified scale operators with property management skills. The results imply that the structure of property ownership can impact property performance.

Property Owners in Australia: A Snapshot

Property represents more than half of all household assets in Australia and its share has been rising in recent years. Since most property purchases require debt financing because of the size of the purchase, property makes up a large part of both sides of households’ balance sheets. This paper uses household-level data to examine what determines the ownership of residential property and the holding of property debt by households in Australia. We examine these decisions for both owner-occupied and investment property. The results suggest that the household’s age, composition, income and wealth are important factors determining property ownership and gearing decisions. Income and wealth are found to be more influential in determining the value of property owned, while the household’s age is more influential in determining the gearing. Household composition is important for decisions on owner-occupied property, but has a limited influence on investment property decisions.home ownership; investment property; gearing

Children hold owners responsible when property causes harm

Since ancient times, legal systems have held owners responsible for harm caused by their property. Across 4 experiments, we show that children aged 3–7 also hold owners responsible for such harm. Older children judge that owners should repair harm caused by property, and younger children may do this as well. Younger and older children judge that owners should apologize for harm, even when children do not believe the owners allowed the harm to occur. Children are also as likely to hold owners responsible for harm caused by property as for harm caused by the owners themselves. The present findings contribute to psychological accounts of ownership by showing that ownership not only confers rights to control property, but also responsibility for harm caused by property. The findings also contribute to our understanding of the attribution of responsibility, and challenge accounts claiming that directly causing harm, or allowing it to happen, is a prerequisite for responsibility. The findings provide support for an account claiming that property is an extension of its owner, and likewise reveal that responsibility for harm caused by property is an early developing aspect of the psychology of ownership. 2018 APA, all rights reserved

Owning Marijuana

Legal marijuana is the fastest-growing industry in the United States. It is premised on the assumption that marijuana ownership will be protected by law. But can marijuana be owned? This Article is the first scholarship to explore the issue. Federal law classifies marijuana as contraband per se in which property rights cannot exist. Yet the Article demonstrates that marijuana can now be owned under the law of most states, even though no state statutes or decisions expressly address the issue. This conflict presents a fundamental question of federalism: Can property rights exist under state law if they are forbidden by federal law? The Article explains why federal law does not preempt state law on marijuana ownership. This result creates a paradox: state courts and other state authorities will protect property rights in marijuana, but their federal counterparts will not. The Article analyzes the challenges arising from this hybrid approach to marijuana ownership. It also examines the fragmented status of marijuana ownership in the interstate context, where personal relationships or business transactions involve states with conflicting approaches to the issue

Relational ownership and CEO continuity : a property rights perspective

Inspired by agency theory, research on CEO succession often focuses on turnovers as a mechanism to discipline CEOs in the event of poor firm performance. Recent research extends this view by showing that CEO turnovers can also lead to substantial disruption in a firm’s management. Less is known, however, about the antecedents of disruption and continuity in the context of CEO turnovers. Drawing on modern property rights theory, this paper investigates how CEO continuity varies across different types of firms. Using a sample of Swiss, publicly traded firms, we find that relational ownership enhances the likelihood of CEOs staying in office or moving to the position of board chair. Firms with little relational ownership, in contrast, display a high degree of CEO continuity only when capital intensity is high. Provided that a CEO turnover occurs, relational ownership and capital intensity reduce the likelihood of interim CEO successions. These findings highlight the importance of a nuanced view of CEO continuity, taking into account owner types as well as contextual factors