is much more difficult(but still possible) to justify regulations that interfere with the management of a business enterprise, and even more difficult to justify the >regulatory= creation of any given interference with intangible property can be considered and discussed more easty il of a state monopoly or the >regulatory= cancellation of a state debt. It follows that the legitimac within a framework that allows a fundamental evaluation of the nature and effect of d ifferent kinds of regulatory action that affects property. This classification also makes it possible to judge the comparative value of foreign case law in a more rational and justifiable manner Contents 1. Introduction 2. A South african case stud 3. Regulatory cancellation of state debts 4 >Regulatory= creation of state monopolies 5. Regulatory interference with the management of business enterprises 6. Regulation by way of licences, permits and quotas 7. Regulation of immaterial property rights 8. Conclud ing remarks and evaluation 1. Introduction Comparative constitutional case law presents the analyst with a quite bewildering array of precedents regarding the valid ity, in terms of a constitutional property guarantee, of state interferences with private property interests. The reported cases cover a diversity of topics, ranging from the content and meaning of >property=to the calculation of just and equitable compensation in cases where the property in question is expropriated In addition to the cases there is an equally extensive volume of academic commentary, often accompanied by an apology for the confusing state of learning in this field. The purpose of this paper is to suggest an avenue of avoiding at least some of the confusions in this field by introducing a number of distinctions that highlight the dangers of using decisions in one area as authority for cases in another. I focus on a limited category of cases, defined by three considerations: Firstly, the property in question consists of some kind of intangible commercial right or interest; secondly, the purpose of the state interference with the said property is to regulate, in terms of the state=s police power, the use and exploitation of that property in some way or another; and, thirdly, the effect of the regulation in question is so harsh or extreme that the property interest is lost, destroyed or rendered worthless in the process The first consideration narrows the analysis down to cases regard ing intangible property and particularly intangible property with some form of commercial interest or value. Included in company; debts, a business interest in a commercial licence, permit or quota; imate es in a this category are business enterprises in general; the goodwill of a business concern; share property interests deriving from or connected with patents, copyrights, trademarks and confidential commercial information; and so forth. Occasionally, reference will be made to2 is much more difficult (but still possible) to justify regulations that interfere with the management of a business enterprise, and even more difficult to justify the >regulatory= creation of a state monopoly or the >regulatory= cancellation of a state debt. It follows that the legitimacy of any given interference with intangible property can be considered and discussed more easily within a framework that allows a fundamental evaluation of the nature and effect of different kinds of regulatory action that affects property. This classification also makes it possible to judge the comparative value of foreign case law in a more rational and justifiable manner. Contents 1. Introduction 2. A South African case study 3. Regulatory cancellation of state debts 4. >Regulatory= creation of state monopolies 5. Regulatory interference with the management of business enterprises 6. Regulation by way of licences, permits and quotas 7. Regulation of immaterial property rights 8. Concluding remarks and evaluation 1. Introduction Comparative constitutional case law presents the analyst with a quite bewildering array of precedents regarding the validity, in terms of a constitutional property guarantee, of state interferences with private property interests. The reported cases cover a diversity of topics, ranging from the content and meaning of >property= to the calculation of just and equitable compensation in cases where the property in question is expropriated. In addition to the cases, there is an equally extensive volume of academic commentary, often accompanied by an apology for the confusing state of learning in this field. The purpose of this paper is to suggest an avenue of avoiding at least some of the confusions in this field, by introducing a number of distinctions that highlight the dangers of using decisions in one area as authority for cases in another. I focus on a limited category of cases, defined by three considerations: Firstly, the property in question consists of some kind of intangible commercial right or interest; secondly, the purpose of the state interference with the said property is to regulate, in terms of the state=s police power, the use and exploitation of that property in some way or another; and, thirdly, the effect of the regulation in question is so harsh or extreme that the property interest is lost, destroyed or rendered worthless in the process. The first consideration narrows the analysis down to cases regarding intangible property, and particularly intangible property with some form of commercial interest or value. Included in this category are business enterprises in general; the goodwill of a business concern; shares in a company; debts; a business interest in a commercial licence, permit or quota; immaterial property interests deriving from or connected with patents, copyrights, trademarks and confidential commercial information; and so forth. Occasionally, reference will be made to a