Save Left Shark: Katy Perry, Intellectual Property, and 3D Printing

There has been much interest in how intellectual property law, policy and practice will adapt to the emergence of 3D printing and the maker movement. Intellectual property lawyers will have to grapple with the impact of additive manufacturing upon a variety of forms of intellectual property — including copyright law, trade mark law, designs law, patent law and trade secrets. The disruptive technology of 3D printing will both pose opportunities and challenges for legal practitioners and policy makers.A performance by pop princess Katy Perry at the 2015 Super Bowl has sparked a public controversy over intellectual property, internet memes and 3D printing.

Account of Isaac and Abraham de Peyster vs. Isaac Seixas and other papers

Digital image

On the Rademacher maximal function

Tools known as maximal functions are frequently used in harmonic analysis when studying local behaviour of functions. Typically they measure the suprema of local averages of non-negative functions. It is essential that the size (more precisely, the L^p-norm) of the maximal function is comparable to the size of the original function. When dealing with families of operators between Banach spaces we are often forced to replace the uniform bound with the larger R-bound. Hence such a replacement is also needed in the maximal function for functions taking values in spaces of operators. More specifically, the suprema of norms of local averages (i.e. their uniform bound in the operator norm) has to be replaced by their R-bound. This procedure gives us the Rademacher maximal function, which was introduced by Hytönen, McIntosh and Portal in order to prove a certain vector-valued Carleson's embedding theorem. They noticed that the sizes of an operator-valued function and its Rademacher maximal function are comparable for many common range spaces, but not for all. Certain requirements on the type and cotype of the spaces involved are necessary for this comparability, henceforth referred to as the “RMF-property���. It was shown, that other objects and parameters appearing in the definition, such as the domain of functions and the exponent p of the norm, make no difference to this. After a short introduction to randomized norms and geometry in Banach spaces we study the Rademacher maximal function on Euclidean spaces. The requirements on the type and cotype are considered, providing examples of spaces without RMF. L^p-spaces are shown to have RMF not only for p greater or equal to 2 (when it is trivial) but also for 1 < p < 2. A dyadic version of Carleson's embedding theorem is proven for scalar- and operator-valued functions. As the analysis with dyadic cubes can be generalized to filtrations on sigma-finite measure spaces, we consider the Rademacher maximal function in this case as well. It turns out that the RMF-property is independent of the filtration and the underlying measure space and that it is enough to consider very simple ones known as Haar filtrations. Scalar- and operator-valued analogues of Carleson's embedding theorem are also provided. With the RMF-property proven independent of the underlying measure space, we can use probabilistic notions and formulate it for martingales. Following a similar result for UMD-spaces, a weak type inequality is shown to be (necessary and) sufficient for the RMF-property. The RMF-property is also studied using concave functions giving yet another proof of its independence from various parameters.

Contract with John Moore for building house on Mill Street

Digital image

Digitaalisten teosten maailmanlaajuinen rekisteröinti ja käyttömaksujen kerääminen internetissä

The vastly increased popularity of the Internet as an effective publication and distribution channel of digital works has created serious challenges to enforcing intellectual property rights. Works are widely disseminated on the Internet, with and without permission. This thesis examines the current problems with licence management and copy protection and outlines a new method and system that solve these problems. The WARP system (Works, Authors, Royalties, and Payments) is based on global registration and transfer monitoring of digital works, and accounting and collection of Internet levy funded usage fees payable to the authors and right holders of the works. The detection and counting of downloads is implemented with origrams, short and original parts picked from the contents of the digital work. The origrams are used to create digests, digital fingerprints that identify the piece of work transmitted over the Internet without the need to embed ID tags or any other easily removable metadata in the file.

Mikä on ihme ja mitä ihmeistä voidaan tietää? : Keskustelu ihmeistä uusimmassa englanninkielisessä uskonnonfilosofiassa

What is a miracle and what can we know about miracles? A discussion of miracles in anglophone philosophy of religion literature since the late 1960s. The aim of this study is to systematically describe and philosophically examine the anglophone discussion on the subject of miracles since the latter half of the 1960s. The study focuses on two salient questions: firstly, what I will term the conceptual-ontological question of the extent to which we can understand miracles and, secondly, the epistemological question of what we can know about miracles. My main purpose in this study is to examine the various viewpoints that have been submitted in relation to these questions, how they have been argued and on what presuppositions these arguments have been based. In conducting the study, the most salient dimension of the various discussions was found to relate to epistemological questions. In this regard, there was a notable confrontation between those scholars who accept miracles and those who are sceptical of them. On the conceptual-ontological side I recognised several different ways of expressing the concept of miracle . I systematised the discussion by demonstrating the philosophical boundaries between these various opinions. The first and main boundary was related to ontological knowledge. On one side of this boundary I placed the views which were based on realism and objectivism. The proponents of this view assumed that miraculousness is a real property of a miraculous event regardless of how we can perceive it. On the other side I put the views which tried to define miraculousness in terms of subjectivity, contextuality and epistemicity. Another essential boundary which shed light on the conceptual-ontological discussion was drawn in relation to two main views of nature. The realistic-particularistic view regards nature as a certain part of reality. The adherents of this presupposition postulate a supernatural sphere alongside nature. Alternatively, the nominalist-universalist view understands nature without this kind of division. Nature is understood as the entire and infinite universe; the whole of reality. Other, less important boundaries which shed light on the conceptual-ontological discussion were noted in relation to views regarding the laws of nature, for example. I recognised that the most important differences between the epistemological approaches were in the different views of justification, rationality, truth and science. The epistemological discussion was divided into two sides, distinguished by their differing assumptions in relation to the need for evidence. Adherents of the first (and noticeably smaller) group did not see any epistemological need to reach a universal and common opinion about miracles. I discovered that these kinds of views, which I called non-objectivist, had subjectivist and so-called collectivist views of justification and a contextualist view of rationality. The second (and larger) group was mainly interested in discerning the grounds upon which to establish an objective and conclusive common view in relation to the epistemology of miracles. I called this kind of discussion an objectivist discussion and this kind of approach an evidentialist approach. Most of the evidentialists tried to defend miracles and the others attempted to offer evidence against miracles. Amongst both sides, there were many different variations according to emphasis and assumption over how they saw the possibilities to prove their own view. The common characteristic in all forms of evidentialism was a commitment to an objectivist notion of rationality and a universalistic notion of justification. Most evidentialists put their confidence in science in one way or another. Only a couple of philosophers represented the most moderate version of evidentialism; they tried to remove themselves from the apparent controversy and contextualised the different opinions in order to make some critical comments on them. I called this kind of approach a contextualising form of evidentialism. In the final part of the epistemological chapter, I examined the discussion about the evidential value of miracles, but nothing substantially new was discovered concerning the epistemological views of the authors.

Committee report

Digital image

Minutes of the congregation

Digital image

Zapys zemelʹnyĭ Na pravo korystovanni︠a︡ zemli︠u︡, shcho znakhoditʹsi︠a︡ v Odeskoï guberni Peryletravenʹsʹkyĭ okruzi Kantakuzenʹsʹy raʹoni pid nazvoi︠u︡ Trudovyshyĭ artilʹ Slava

Digital image

Zapys zemelʹnyĭ Na pravo korystovanni︠a︡ zemli︠u︡, shcho znakhoditʹsi︠a︡ v Odeskoï guberni Peryletravenʹsʹkyĭ okruzi Kantakuzenʹsʹy raʹoni pid nazvoi︠u︡ Trudovyshyĭ artilʹ Slava

Digital image

The White Possessive : Property, Power and Indigenous Sovereignty

The White Possessive explores the links between race, sovereignty, and possession through themes of property: owning property, being property, and becoming propertyless. Focusing on the Australian Aboriginal context, Aileen Moreton-Robinson questions current race theory in the first world and its preoccupation with foregrounding slavery and migration. The nation, she argues, is socially and culturally constructed as a white possession. Moreton-Robinson reveals how the core values of Australian national identity continue to have roots in Britishness and colonization, built on the disavowal of Indigenous sovereignty. Whiteness studies are central to Moreton-Robinson’s reasoning, and she shows how blackness works as a white epistemological tool that bolsters the social production of whiteness—displacing Indigenous sovereignties and rendering them invisible in a civil rights discourse, sidestepping issues of settler colonialism. Throughout this critical examination Moreton-Robinson proposes a bold new agenda for critical Indigenous studies, one that involves deeper analysis of the prerogatives of white possession within the role of disciplines.

Kirkon vai valtion kirjat? : Uskontokuntasidonnaisuuden ongelma Suomen väestökirjanpidossa 1839-1904

The Population Register – run by the Church or the state? The problem posed by the obligation to belong to a religious community in the registration of births and deaths in Finland between 1839 and 1904 The Lutheran Church of Finland is the nation’s largest church; approximately 82 per cent of Finns were members in 2007. The Church ran an official register of its members until 1999, when the state then undertook this task. The registration of births and deaths by the Church has a long history dating back to the 17th century, when Bishop Johannes Gezelius Sr. decreed that all parish members would have to be recorded in parish registers. These registers were used to control how well parish members knew the Christian doctrine and, gradually, also if they were literate. Additionally, the Church attempted to ensure by means of the parish registers that parish members went to Holy Communion annually. Since everyone was a member of the Lutheran Church, the state also took advantage of the parish registers and used them for the purposes of tax collection and conscription. The main research theme of “The Population Register – run by the Church or the state?” goes back to these times. The actual research period covers the years of 1839–1904. At that time Finland was under Russian rule, although autonomous. In the late 19th century the press and different associations in Finland began to engage in public debate, and the country started moving from a submissive society to a civic one. The identity of the Lutheran Church also became more prominent when the Church Act and the General Synod were realised in 1869. A few years earlier, municipal and parish administrations had been separated, but the general registration of births and deaths was left to the Church to see to. In compliance with the constitution of the country, all the inhabitants in principle still had to be Lutheran. In practice, the situation was different. The religious and ideological realms diversified, and the Lutheran concept of religion was no longer acceptable to everyone. The conflict was reflected in the registration of births and deaths, which was linked to the Lutheran Church and its parish registers. Nobody was allowed to leave the Church, there was no civil register, and the Lutheran Church did not consent to record unbaptized children in the parish registers. Therefore such children were left without civil rights. Thus the obligation to belong to a religious community had become a problem in the registration of births and deaths. The Lutheran clergy also appealed to the 1723 privileges, according to which they had been exempted from the drawing up of additional population registers. In 1889 Finland passed the Dissenters Act. By virtue of this act the Baptists and the Methodists left the state Church, but this was not the case with the members of the free churches. The freethinkers had to retain their church membership, as the law did not apply to them. This meant that the unbaptized children of the members of the free churches or those of freethinkers were still not entered in any registers. The children were not able to go to school, work for the state or legally marry. Neither were they able to inherit property, as they did not legally exist. The system of parish registers was created when everyone was required to be a member of the Lutheran Church, but it did not work when liberal attitudes eventually penetrated the sphere of religion, too. The government´s measures to solve the problem were slow and cautious, partly because Finland was part of Russia, partly because there were only about 100 unbaptized children. As the problem group was small and the state´s resources were limited, no general civil register was established. The state accepted the fact that in spite of the problems, the Evangelical Lutheran Church and the congregations of dissenters were the only official establishments to run populations registers in the country, and for social purposes, too. In 1900 the Diet of Finland finally approved a limited civil register, which unbaptized children and unregistered foreigners would be recorded in. Due to political reasons the civil register did not come into existence until 1917, after the actual research period.

Conrad Summenhart's theory of individual rights and its medieval background

This study focuses on the theory of individual rights that the German theologian Conrad Summenhart (1455-1502) explicated in his massive work Opus septipartitum de contractibus pro foro conscientiae et theologico. The central question to be studied is: How does Summenhart understand the concept of an individual right and its immediate implications? The basic premiss of this study is that in Opus septipartitum Summenhart composed a comprehensive theory of individual rights as a contribution to the on-going medieval discourse on rights. With this rationale, the first part of the study concentrates on earlier discussions on rights as the background for Summenhart s theory. Special attention is paid to language in which right was defined in terms of power . In the fourteenth century writers like Hervaeus Natalis and William Ockham maintained that right signifies power by which the right-holder can to use material things licitly. It will also be shown how the attempts to describe what is meant by the term right became more specified and cultivated. Gerson followed the implications that the term power had in natural philosophy and attributed rights to animals and other creatures. To secure right as a normative concept, Gerson utilized the ancient ius suum cuique-principle of justice and introduced a definition in which right was seen as derived from justice. The latter part of this study makes effort to reconstructing Summenhart s theory of individual rights in three sections. The first section clarifies Summenhart s discussion of the right of the individual or the concept of an individual right. Summenhart specified Gerson s description of right as power, taking further use of the language of natural philosophy. In this respect, Summenhart s theory managed to bring an end to a particular continuity of thought that was centered upon a view in which right was understood to signify power to licit action. Perhaps the most significant feature of Summenhart s discussion was the way he explicated the implication of liberty that was present in Gerson s language of rights. Summenhart assimilated libertas with the self-mastery or dominion that in the economic context of discussion took the form of (a moderate) self-ownership. Summenhart discussion also introduced two apparent extensions to Gerson s terminology. First, Summenhart classified right as relation, and second, he equated right with dominion. It is distinctive of Summenhart s view that he took action as the primary determinant of right: Everyone has as much rights or dominion in regard to a thing, as much actions it is licit for him to exercise in regard to the thing. The second section elaborates Summenhart s discussion of the species dominion, which delivered an answer to the question of what kind of rights exist, and clarified thereby the implications of the concept of an individual right. The central feature in Summenhart s discussion was his conscious effort to systematize Gerson s language by combining classifications of dominion into a coherent whole. In this respect, his treatement of the natural dominion is emblematic. Summenhart constructed the concept of natural dominion by making use of the concepts of foundation (founded on a natural gift) and law (according to the natural law). In defining natural dominion as dominion founded on a natural gift, Summenhart attributed natural dominion to animals and even to heavenly bodies. In discussing man s natural dominion, Summenhart pointed out that the natural dominion is not sufficiently identified by its foundation, but requires further specification, which Summenhart finds in the idea that natural dominion is appropriate to the subject according to the natural law. This characterization lead him to treat God s dominion as natural dominion. Partly, this was due to Summenhart s specific understanding of the natural law, which made reasonableness as the primary criterion for the natural dominion at the expense of any metaphysical considerations. The third section clarifies Summenhart s discussion of the property rights defined by the positive human law. By delivering an account on juridical property rights Summenhart connected his philosophical and theological theory on rights to the juridical language of his times, and demonstrated that his own language of rights was compatible with current juridical terminology. Summenhart prepared his discussion of property rights with an account of the justification for private property, which gave private property a direct and strong natural law-based justification. Summenhart s discussion of the four property rights usus, usufructus, proprietas, and possession aimed at delivering a detailed report of the usage of these concepts in juridical discourse. His discussion was characterized by extensive use of the juridical source texts, which was more direct and verbal the more his discussion became entangled with the details of juridical doctrine. At the same time he promoted his own language on rights, especially by applying the idea of right as relation. He also showed recognizable effort towards systematizing juridical language related to property rights.

Changes in preservice teachers’ personal epistemologies

While much has been written about the relationship between personal epistemologies and learning-teaching approaches, outcomes, and intentions, little has focused specifically on these relationships in the context of teacher education. This chapter addresses changes in preservice teachers’ personal epistemologies by overviewing this emerging body of research and arguing for a new approach to conceptualizing and supporting changes in personal epistemologies based on reflexivity. The overview includes definitions of key concepts and research traditions that have been used since the 1970s and a discussion of the emerging role of epistemic justification as a key mechanism of change in the process of belief development.