Global Political of Intellectual Property Rights †MyAssignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about the Global Political of Intellectual Property Rights. Answer: Introduction: The term property is generally used for governing access to and control the land and other material resources as per the philosophical theory of Stanford. According to this theory the philosophers stated that it governs the access to and control of things that are used by individuals. For example use of natural resources, land, manufactured goods and other intellectual products. Everything around is not considered to be property. A property needs to be recognized based on the objects and subjects involved with it. The essential criteria for establishing whether something is property or not, depends on the location of it. A property can be situated on the land as an immovable object[1]. It can also be considered as movable. Therefore, objects that are situated on the land like houses. Immovable objects like cars also fall under the criteria of being property. Property can be classified into public and private. Private refers to that system which allocates particular objects like piece s of land to specific individuals for using and managing[2]. Public property refers to those objects that are used by every individual. As observed from the given case study, the property of a man after he dies will be inherited by his children unless there is a will made by that particular person stating on whom he has given his property to. Xu has entire estate worth $20 million was given to Benji as his wife Kay was deceased. Thereafter, the moment Xu passed away and Moong alleged himself to be the son of Xu. Legally, Benji was suppose to receive the entire estate, which was worth $20 million but now that Moong is claiming to be the son of Xu. This suggests that $20 million dollars will be divided between these two. This can be proved with the help of a DNA test. However, according to the case study, the tissue of the Xus body remained in the local private hospital where his medical treatment failed. As per the rules of the Court, orders are made in respect of a property. The bodily tissue of Xus property belong to the family of Xu. The present family of Xu consisted of his son Benji and his wife Kay. Moong will a lso be entitled to receive the property of Xu once the DNA test is proved with the help of the tissue. Although Xu is dead but even with his remaining tissue, a DNA test can be arranged which will prove if at all Moong is the blood related child of Xu. Therefore, the property of Xu will be handed over at that time when it is proved that apart from Benji if Moong is also the son of Xu. In respect to the property of a person, the court can pass its verdict but the final decision will come down to the time when the DNA reports are out. The bodily tissues of the deceased will not be considered as a property but it can be used for finding out the DNA results. Till the tissue is undergoing the process of the test, it will belong to the natural heir of Xu. This has been observed in the case of Armory v Delamirie(1722) Until the reports are not out, the tissue will belong to Benji who is the legal heir and blood related. If the DNA report states that Moong is also the child of Xu, then both of them will share the entire estate of $20 million. However, the court orders are made based on the nature and situation of the property. A legal proceeding that generally arises among property and boundary disputes are known as an adverse possession. The justification for adverse property defines a situation where a party should show that they have actually used the property. For instance, an adverse possession can claim over a backyard that requires to show the common activities to the type of property which include gardening[3]. When a real property is acquired by adverse possession, justifications should be provided thereafter. Use of this actual property does not imply to situations when the property is used for a full time. Properties can be used during seasonal occasions as well. For a seasonal property, a party needs to prove that it was in use for the relevant season of the year. In case of an adverse possession claim for a breach property, the claimant need not show if it was used in the winter. The concept of adverse possession requires a party to show that the use was open and notorious[4]. This refers to a situation, where it is visible to others especially the record owner of the property. In the provided case study, Andrew James was known as the adverse claimant[5]. In this scenario, a squatter took over a dilapidated terrace in the inner city of Sydney that has abandoned his bid for adverse possession. Andrew James was the person who had moved out of the property worth $1 million that remained the focus of a legal dispute between his neighbor and the local council. Mr. Andrew James was removed by The Supreme Court of NSW as he was the defendant in the proceedings during a directions that was heard at the court. After that particular hearing, the property was vacated. His neighbor Gerard Knapp was bound to take legal action after James had moved out into abandoned house in a bid to take adverse possession. Gerard was faced with a problem where his run down property was claimed to be a structural risk for himself[6]. Such a situation was defined to be a legalized theft along with thousands of properties in Sydney that were bought by the investors of overseas and led into the real lawlessness. Since Mr. Andrews was out of the picture, the court ca nnot allow him for another hearing. Thereafter, Gerard will be summoned in the court and will be claimed for damages from him against Mr. Fuh between the City of Sydney and the lawyer. The merits of this argument states that the claimant Andrew was out of the picture and therefore he did not owe any kind of damages to his neighbor. Andrew got saved from this problem of paying for the damages caused to the neighbor[7]. Andrew James A.K.A Andy Robert had the upper hand in this situation. He had told his neighbors that his wish was to modernize the terrace and rent it out. Andrew was smart enough to think of his profit ratio out of it. The house of Elizabeth Street in Redfern was last sold in September 1991. The Australian and Chinese owner had visited the property only three or four times a year. Sometime in the month of October, Mr. James had lost his bid for adverse possession when the Supreme Court of NSW had removed him as a defendant during the proceedings after the court heard that the property had been vacated. The neighbors on either side of the Elizabeth Street property had opted for the auction of the house. The neighbors did not create much problem when the house was getting auctioned by James and were happy when he was removed as the defendant by the Supreme Court of NSW[8]. James had claimed the rights of the squatters and his intention was to capture or acquire the property and then renovate it. It was an unusual situation at that time. Sometime in June, Mr. Knapp had won a court order for selling off the property sold. The purpose was to improve the cost for extensive damage caused by water through the common wall. This way he got access to the property, he wanted. Through this property, he can manage to get to the common wall. The amount is important, as the squatter had already paid out the unpaid rates. This process-involved risk as the amount was quite high. The neighbors were aware of such condition and therefore they took the decision accordingly[9]. Therefore, the neighbors of the Elizabeth Street property had known the fact that Andrew was a claimant of the adverse possession. The case study stated that the Chinese owner had bought the house but he has not visited or seen in the last nine years after returning to China. Thereafter, Mr. James wanted to take over the property, as no one wanted to. The neighbors opposed in the beginning saying that he was too young but he did try to take the premises. Mr. Andrews was accused of trespassing but he defended himself to the City of Sydney Council stating that only the owner can oppose such a complaint on him. Therefore, he obtained access and started making claim of adverse possession[10]. In Sydney, such an incident was known as legalized theft. In Australia, adverse possession was referred to as the rights of the squatter if a property is occupied by someone for a long time. Due to this, the real owners lose their own rights over it naturally. The City of Sydney Council had summoned the Chinese owner to the court as he had neglected the house[11]. Due to this condition, the neighbors thought that it would damag e their homes as well. The neighbors had requested the Council for putting up that house for public auction[12]. However, the role of City of Sydney Council was to take care of the situation of Mr. James. Mr. Andrew had abandoned his claim for adverse possession since he had acquired that property because the Chinese owner did not visit that property even once in the last 12 years. There were controversies of trespassing the property by the neighbors of Elizabeth Street. He had claimed adverse possession of the property because he had actually used that property. Sometime during 2016, this house was the centre of a bizarre dispute with a squatter who had recognized himself as Andrew James. He had tried taking the ownership by adverse possession. Later he had abandoned his claim for the adverse possession as the Supreme Court of NSW removed him as the defendant[13]. If he had not abandoned the claim then the property acquired by him would have been a disputed one. As an advice for Andrews, it can be said that if he had fought back with the lawyers of the opposite party then he would have won the property. Adverse possession should be claimed only when the owner of the property has granted or passed over the ownership. The purpose of adverse possession is to damage the title of an individual who is not possessed. Therefore, it does not destroy the rights of other persons who have an enforceable interest in the lands. After such a confusion and abandoning the land property, the Council of Sydney had sold the land if the charges imposed on it was not paid for a period of more than five years. Andrew was accused of being a legalized theft in the city[14]. Andrew was bound to abandon the claim also because a claim is usually made against an owner of common law after a period of 12 years. As per the case study, it was observed that Andrews had a strong claim to the property of Elizabeth Street. The City of Sydney Council had defended Andrew and his activities. The City of Sydney Council exclaimed that it has no rights to take the occupation of the property. If the rates of a particular house is not paid then it is the duty of the city to sell the property to recover the expenses that was owed. If not selling completely, the city council might consider the fact of selling it[15]. Since, Andrew had taken care of the property and was residing in it the Council could not impose much allegations on him. The neighbors of the Elizabeth Street opposed and complained about Mr. James for trespassing. According to the Local Government Act, the Council has the right to sell any land on which any charge or rate has remained not paid for more than a period of five years from the date of payable. The City Council of Sydney had made an independent assessment of the structural integri ty of the house that carried out with the access that was provided by Mr. James himself[16]. The issue creating such problems lies between the owner and the person living in the property. The concept gets more complicated than taking adverse possession of the house. The City of Sydney Council could not have defeated Mr. James much. References: Berkowitz, Daniel, Chen Lin, and Yue Ma. "Do property rights matter? Evidence from a property law enactment."Journal of Financial Economics116.3 (2015): 583-593. Bradbrook, Adrian, Susan MacCallum, and Anthony Moore. Australian real property law. Australia, 2002. DeScioli, Peter, and Rachel Karpoff. "Peoples judgments about classic property law cases."Human Nature26.2 (2015): 184-209. Dickens, Bernard M. "Living tissue and organ donors and property law: more on Moore."Organ and Tissue Transplantation. Routledge, 2017. 37-57. Fitzpatrick, Daniel, and Andrew McWilliam.Property and social resilience in times of conflict: land, custom and law in East Timor. Routledge, 2016. Ginzberg, Eli.The institutions of private law and their social functions. Routledge, 2017. Hines, N. William. "Real Property Joint Tenancies: Law, Fact, and Fancy."Iowa L. Rev.51 (1965): 582. May, Christopher.The global political economy of intellectual property rights: The new enclosures. Routledge, 2015. McDonald, Paula, and Paul Thompson. "Social media (tion) and the reshaping of public/private boundaries in employment relations."International Journal of Management Reviews18.1 (2016): 69-84. Mossman, Mary Jane, and Philip Girard. Property law: cases and commentary. Emond Montgomery Publications, 2014. Murphy, Richard S. "Property rights in personal information: An economic defense of privacy."Privacy. Routledge, 2017. 43-79. Paul, Ellen Frankel.Property rights and eminent domain. Routledge, 2017. Rabin, Edward, et al. "Fundamentals of Modern Property Law." (2017). Roness, Paul G. "Types of state organizations: Arguments, doctrines and changes beyond new public management."Transcending new public management. Routledge, 2017. 77-100. Williamson, Claudia R. "Praise for Property."Journal of Private Enterprise32.4 (2017): 83-94.