1. 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

2. 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?

3. 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.

4. Argument By Analogy Oil & Gas: Escape Possible Alternatives to ACs DQ2.35 (KRYPTON): Airspace Solution Possible State Regulation (f rom 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

5. 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

6. 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??

7. URANIUM: REV. PROB. 2D 1997 XQ1 (1 st 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

8. 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.

9. 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?

10. RADIUM: REV. PROB. 2H 1997 XQ2 (1 st 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.

11. RADIUM: REV. PROB. 2H 1997 XQ2 (1 st Possession): Discuss whether 1PACS are good tools to resolve disputes re property rights in multi-step software programs. Arguments from Factual Comparisons Similarity Identify a Factual Similarity between i.Situations Involving Pursuit & Capture of Wild Animals; ii.Situations Involving Development of Multi-Step Software Programs Similarity Explain why the Similarity suggests that the 1PACs would be good tools for resolving the latter situations.

12. RADIUM: REV. PROB. 2H 1997 XQ2 (1 st Possession): Discuss whether 1PACS are good tools to resolve disputes re property rights in multi-step software programs. Arguments from Factual Comparisons Difference Identify a Factual Difference between i.Situations Involving Pursuit & Capture of Wild Animals; ii.Situations Involving Development of Multi-Step Software Programs Difference Explain why the Difference suggests that the 1PACs might not be useful for resolving the latter situations.

13. RADIUM: REV. PROB. 2H 1997 XQ2 (1 st Possession): Discuss whether 1PACS are good tools to resolve disputes re property rights in multi-step software programs. Arguments re Legal Rules or Factors Useful What Rules/Factors from 1PACs Would Be Useful for Disputes re Multi-Step Software Programs (and Why)? Less Useful 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)?

14. 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.

15. 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??

16. Mahon v. Pennsylvania Coal Co. (1922) Introduction to Set Up Discussion for Next Two Classes

17. 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

18. 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.

19. 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.

20. 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

21. Mahon v. Pennsylvania Coal Co. (1922) Read Carefully; Important Differences between Holmes Majority & Brandeis Dissent

22. Hadacheck v. Sebastian (1915) OXYGEN: DQs 3.06-3.09 Bricks: Safety Device or Health Risk?