To the foundational pluralists, I present this gem:
THOMPSON, Circuit Justice, charged the jury that the privilege of an author to the exclusive sale of his works for a limited term of years, although a monopoly, was not so in the odious meaning of the term; it was but a proper reward for his labor provided by law, and to which he was as much entitled as to the exclusive enjoyment of any other kind of property. . . .
The law was intended to secure to authors the fruits of their skill, labor and genius, for a limited time; and if in this instance the defendant had availed himself of the surveys of the plaintiff in compiling his chart, the plaintiff was entitled to a verdict. . . .
The jury retired, and in less than five minutes brought in a verdict for the plaintiff.
Blunt v. Patten, 3 F. Cas. 762, 763 (C.C.S.D.N.Y. 1828).
Follow me on Twitter: @devlinhartline
© 2014 Devlin Hartline. Licensed under the Law Theories Public License 1.0.