{"id":4948,"date":"2026-05-27T23:00:50","date_gmt":"2026-05-28T03:00:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlpp\/?page_id=4948"},"modified":"2026-05-27T23:00:50","modified_gmt":"2026-05-28T03:00:50","slug":"volume-13-2","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlpp\/volume-13-2\/","title":{"rendered":"Volume 13"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Issue 3<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Symposium on Law and Philosophy<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
757<\/td>Foreword: Owning Ideas<\/a><\/td>Dale A. Nance<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
775<\/td>What is Property?<\/a><\/td>Boudewijn Bouckaert<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
817<\/td>Are Patents and Copyrights Morally Justified? The Philosophy of Property Rights and Ideal Objects<\/a><\/td>Tom G. Palmer<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
867<\/td>Economic Incentives in Markets for Information and Innovation<\/a><\/td>Ejan Mackaay<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
911<\/td>Patents, Copyrights, and Trademarks: Property or Monopoly?<\/a><\/td>Roger E. Meiners & Robert J. Staaf<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
Note<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
949<\/td>A “Frightful Political Dragon” Indeed: Why Constitutional Challenges Cannot Subdue the Gerrymander<\/a><\/td>Allan B. Moore<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
Recent Developments<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
1017<\/td>Child Abuse and the Fifth Amendment: Baltimore City Department of Social Services v. Bouknight<\/em>, 110 S. Ct. 900 (1990).<\/a><\/td><\/td><\/tr>
1027<\/td>Double Jeopardy, Due Process, and Evidence from Prior Acquittals: Dowling v. United States<\/em>, 110 S. Ct. 668 (1990)<\/a><\/td><\/td><\/tr>
1037<\/td>Foreigners, Foreign Property, and the Fourth Amendment: United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez<\/em>, 110 S. Ct. 1056 (1990).<\/a><\/td><\/td><\/tr>
1049<\/td>Legislative Immunity and City Councils: Spallone v. United States<\/em>, 110 S. Ct. 625 (1990).<\/a><\/td><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Issue 2<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Symposium: Labor & Employment Law in the 1990s<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
435<\/td>Foreword<\/a><\/td>Charles Fried<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
441<\/td>The Railway Labor Act–Time for Repeal?<\/a><\/td>Herbert R. Northrup<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
517<\/td>Unions, Politics, and Public Policy: A (Somewhat) Revisionist Account<\/a><\/td>Dan C. Heldman<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
583<\/td>Will a More Interventionist NLRA Revive Organized Labor?<\/a><\/td>Leo Troy<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
635<\/td>Revolution Ahead: Communications Workers v. Beck<\/em><\/a><\/td>Rex H. Reed<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
657<\/td>A Subjectivist Economic Analysis of Government-Mandated Employee Benefits<\/a><\/td>Don Bellante & Philip K. Porter<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
689<\/td>AIDS in the Workplace: Public and Corporate Policy<\/a><\/td>Marian V. Heacock & Gregory P. Orvis<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
Note<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
715<\/td>Age Discrimination, Wages, and Economics: What Judicial Standard?<\/a><\/td>Peter H. Harris<\/em><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Issue 1<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Symposium<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
Panel I: The Idea of Property<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
1<\/td>Introduction: Property and Justice<\/a><\/td>Tom Bethell<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
2<\/td>Property and Necessity<\/a><\/td>Richard Epstein<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
10<\/td>Natural Rights and Property Rights<\/a><\/td>Ellen Frankel Paul<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
Debate: Liability–The New “New Property”?<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
17<\/td>Introduction<\/a><\/td>Alex Kozinski<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
22<\/td>Who Owns the Cherry Pit?<\/a><\/td>Peter Huber<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
30<\/td>Tort Law and Deterrance: A Response to Peter Huber<\/a><\/td>Joseph A. Page<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
Panel III: Property and the Constitution<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
37<\/td>Forty Acres and a Mule: A Republican Theory of Minimal Entitlements<\/a><\/td>Akhil Reed Amar<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
44<\/td>Protecting Property–Law and Politics<\/a><\/td>Charles Fried<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
54<\/td>Private Property and Public Office<\/a><\/td>Jeremy Rabkin<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
60<\/td>Property as Politics<\/a><\/td>Frederick Schauer<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
75<\/td>The (Unlikely) Death of Property<\/a><\/td>James E. Krier<\/em><\/em><\/td><\/tr>
84<\/td>Takings Analysis of Regulations<\/a><\/td>Gale A. Norton<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
91<\/td>PrivProp, RegProp, and Beyond<\/a><\/td>Richard B. Stewart<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
Panel IV: Intellectual and Informational Property Rights<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
97<\/td>Introduction<\/a><\/td>Lee C. Bollinger<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
99<\/td><\/a>Owing What Does Not Exist<\/a><\/td>Stephen L. Carter<\/em><\/em><\/td><\/tr>
104<\/td>Intellectual Property is Still Property<\/a><\/td>Frank Easterbrook<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
119<\/td>Property Rights in Inventions, Writings, and Marks<\/a><\/td>Edmund W. Kitch<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
Panel V: Ownership of Life<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
125<\/td>Surrogate Motherhood from the Perspective of Family Law<\/a><\/td>Carl E. Schneider<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
132<\/td>The Social Utility of Surrogacy<\/a><\/td>Peter H. Schuck<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
139<\/td>Surrogacy, Slavery, and the Ownership of Life<\/a><\/td>Anita L. Allen<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
150<\/td>The Personhood of Unborn Children: A First Principle in “Surrogate Motherhood” Analysis<\/a><\/td>Walter M. Weber<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
Final Address<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
159<\/td>Rights and Realism–Making the Constitution Work<\/a><\/td>Edwin Meese III<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
Articles<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
167<\/td>Regulation: Past, Present and Future<\/a><\/td>Robert W. Harn<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
229<\/td>Confirmation Ethics: President Reagan’s Nominees to the Supreme Court<\/a><\/td>Steven Lubet<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
Notes<\/strong> & Comments<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
263<\/td>Judicial Restraint and the Non-Decision in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services<\/em><\/a><\/td>Christopher A. Crain<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
319<\/td>The Constitutionality of the Delaware Anti-Takeover Statute<\/a><\/td>C. William Baxley<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
355<\/td>Judge Versus Professor: Frank Easterbrook and the Wisconsin Anti-Takeover Statute<\/a><\/td>Douglas A. Madsen<\/em><\/td><\/tr>
Recent Developments: The U.S. Supreme Court, 1989 Term<\/strong><\/td><\/tr>
369<\/td>Constitutional Limits to Punitive Damage Awards: Browning-Ferris Industries of Vermont, Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc<\/em>., 109 S. Ct. 2909 (1989).<\/a><\/td><\/td><\/tr>
383<\/td>Disparate Impact Doctrine Revisited: Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio<\/em>, 109 S. Ct. 2115 (1989)<\/a><\/td><\/td><\/tr>
415<\/td>Youth, Mental Retardation, and Capital Punishment: Penry v. Lynaugh<\/em>, 109 S. Ct. 2934 (1989), and Stanford v. Kentucky<\/em>, 109 S. Ct. 2969 (1989).<\/a><\/td><\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Issue 3 Symposium on Law and Philosophy 757 Foreword: Owning Ideas Dale A. Nance 775 What is Property? Boudewijn Bouckaert 817 Are Patents and Copyrights Morally Justified? The Philosophy of Property Rights and Ideal Objects Tom G. Palmer 867 Economic Incentives in Markets for Information and Innovation Ejan Mackaay 911 Patents, Copyrights, and Trademarks: Property or Monopoly? Roger E. Meiners & Robert J. Staaf Note 949 A “Frightful Political Dragon” Indeed: Why Constitutional Challenges Cannot […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":209,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","ast-disable-related-posts":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"default","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-4948","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/PeZSiL-1hO","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/4948","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/209"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4948"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/4948\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/journals.law.harvard.edu\/jlpp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4948"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}