1. Misappropriation rationales Unlike economic efficiency rationales, misappropriation rationales posit that th inherent wrongfulness of some acts requires intervention by the state to prevent undesirable outcomes and deter socially reprehensible acts. At a basic level, misappropriation of intellectual property resembles theft or conversion. Much like other tort-based rationales, the misappropriation notion sets duties of commercial morality. In the context of intellectual property, the misappropriation doctrine has long prohibited the use by a competitor of the fruits of anothers efforts Commentators have noted that the misappropriation doctrine is traditionally traced to the Supreme Courts decision in International News Service v. Associated Press held that a competitor's appropriation of news from early editions of Associated Press newspapers constituted unfair competition under federal law. The heart of a misappropriation claim is that a taker of intellectual property has"reap[ed] where it has not sown. For decades, the INS-style misappropriation claim had been a backwater The parameters of such conduct are necessarily murky: it has been noted that"courts reach for misappropriation when the competitive situation seems unfair according to the readings of their personal internal, fairness barometers. See Maya Alexandri, The International News Quasi-Property Paradigm and Trademark Incontestability: A Call for Rewriting the Lanahm Act, 13 HARV. J. L. TECH 303, 333 (2000 Robert C Denicola, Freedom to Copy, 108 YALE L.J. 1661, 1680(1999). Professor Denicola's perceptive article outlines IP scholar Ralph Browns view on the misappropriation doctrine Id. citing the INS case, 248 U.S. 215, 239(1918)12 1. Misappropriation Rationales Unlike economic efficiency rationales, misappropriation rationales posit that the inherent wrongfulness of some acts requires intervention by the state to prevent undesirable outcomes and deter socially reprehensible acts. At a basic level, misappropriation of intellectual property resembles theft or conversion. Much like other tort-based rationales, the misappropriation notion sets duties of commercial morality.46 In the context of intellectual property, the misappropriation doctrine has long prohibited the use by a competitor of the fruits of another’s efforts. Commentators have noted that the misappropriation doctrine “is traditionally traced to the Supreme Court’s decision in International News Service v. Associated Press, held that a competitor’s appropriation of news from early editions of Associated Press newspapers constituted unfair competition under federal law.”47 The heart of a misappropriation claim is that a taker of intellectual property has “reap[ed] where it has not sown.”48 For decades, the INS-style misappropriation claim had been a backwater 46 The parameters of such conduct are necessarily murky: it has been noted that “courts reach for misappropriation when the competitive situation seems unfair according to the readings of their personal, internal, fairness barometers.” See Maya Alexandri, The International News Quasi-Property Paradigm and Trademark Incontestability: A Call for Rewriting the Lanahm Act, 13 HARV. J.L. & TECH. 303, 333 (2000). 47 Robert C. Denicola, Freedom to Copy, 108 YALE L.J. 1661, 1680 (1999). Professor Denicola’s perceptive article outlines IP scholar Ralph Brown’s view on the misappropriation doctrine. 48 Id., citing the INS case, 248 U.S. 215, 239 (1918)