Fab Essay Research Paper The history of free essay sample

Fab Essay, Research Paper The historical backdrop of the registering machine started 2000 mature ages prior with the advancement of the math device. Despite the fact that this advancement just took into account straightforward math calculations, it was still extremely useful. A large number of mature ages after this, another calculation gadget, the main computerized reckoner, was made by Blaise Pascal so as to help his male parent who was an income upgrade aggregator. A spot in excess of 200 mature ages after this, Charles Babbage made the principal programmed reckoner that was controlled by steam. This is especially of import in the advancement of the figuring machine since this machine could hive away informations and plan the machine with imputs. These were the early yearss of registering machines. By the 1890? s processing machines became utilized considerably more regularly and were especially of import for the US Census. The populace was turning quick and the specialists required a superior way to keep up way of the considerable number of individuals. We will compose a custom article test on Fab Essay Research Paper The historical backdrop of or on the other hand any comparative theme explicitly for you Don't WasteYour Time Recruit WRITER Just 13.90/page Herman Hollerith and Jmes Powers made a punch card informations stockpiling gadget that was profoundly quick and productive by the standards of those yearss. One administrator could treat up to 8000 clout cards for every twenty-four hours. The first to the full programmed machine was made in the 1930? s by IBM ( International Business Machines ) . It acknowledged contribution from punch cards and had the option to execute calculations with no human guide since it was electric. This advancement lead to the improvement of the principal high-speed figuring machine called ENIAC. This could execute 300 age calculations for each second and started mathematician John von Neumann to break down the processing machine and make sense of how to exceed sort out figuring machines for the great beyond. This grown-up male is liable for the idea of RAM ( Random Access Memory ) , an amazing disclosure in logical control. Starting here figuring machines advanced endlessly. Processors were made that kept on surging things up and registering machines got littler and littler. What individuals can make grovel on a basic manus held PDA, they couldn? Ts have even longed for in the 1950? s.

Intrapreneuship-Global

Slide: Many huge organizations had profited by the thoughts of their workers that bringing advancement as well as adding to its income stream. A few worldwide cases have been prestigious particularly to large companies’ history on how their separate ambitious innovators made the business to be the pioneer of a specific business thought. 1. Most prestigious â€Å"Skunk Works† 2. Spencer Silver and Art Fry’s advancement of post-it notes at 3 M organization Modern Day 1. Steve Jobs and a gathering of 20 Apple Computer engineers made the Macintosh PC 2. Intel's center chip-production business. . Google 4. Microsoft 5. Sony playstation I. Worldwide Case Intrapreneurs take existing organizations and change them. While a business person would take a thought and assemble a business around it, an ambitious innovator takes a current business and branches it out into unknown waters. In a September 1985 Newsweek article, Steve Jobs was cited as saying, â€Å"The Macintosh g roup was what is regularly known as business endeavor; just a couple of years before the term was coinedâ€a gathering of individuals going, basically, back to the carport, yet in a huge organization. (http://infospace. ischool. syr. edu/2012/06/25/business endeavor what-who-and-why-its-significant/) Intrapreneurship is being rehearsed in a corporate administration style that coordinates hazard adopting and development strategies, just as the prize and persuasive procedures that are all the more generally thought of similar to the region of enterprise. Numerous huge organizations had profited by the thoughts of their workers that bringing development as well as adding to its income stream.Several worldwide cases have been eminent particularly to large companies’ history on how their individual ambitious innovators made the business to be the pioneer of a specific business thought. I. Worldwide Case * Skunk Works is an official nom de plume for Lockheed Martin’s Advan ced Development Programs (ADP), once in the past called Lockheed Advanced Development Projects. This working gathering inside the notable guard producer has been answerable for the advancement of various bleeding edge airplane and different developments since 1943, when it was set up to take a shot at mystery ventures for the United States Air Force.In a few organizations, a working gathering of ambitious innovators might be alluded to as a â€Å"skunkworks project† regarding Lockheed's well known region. (http://www. wisegeek. com/what-is-a business visionary. htm#did-you-know) Skunk Works is liable for various well known airplane structures, including the U-2, the SR-71 Blackbird, the F-117 Nighthawk, and the F-22 Raptor. As of now its biggest authoritatively realized venture is the F-35 Lightning II, which will be utilized noticeable all around powers of a few countries.Skunk works committed their work progressive activities outside of the company’s * Spencer Silver and Art Fry’s advancement of post-it notes at 3m is likewise a great case of business undertaking. Path back in when a 3m representative couldn't keep his psalms checked appropriately in his congregation ensemble book. In the wake of endeavoring different techniques, he chose he'd have a go at utilizing some non-perpetual cement that was accessible at his working environment. By setting this cement on the rear of his markers, he discovered he could keep them made sure about set up and afterward effectively strip them off when he was done.Modern day * Intel additionally has a convention of actualizing business endeavor. Intel set up an in-house â€Å"new business initiative† in 1998 to bootstrap new organizations that representatives propose, whether or not the ideas had anything to do with Intel's center chip-production business. Rather than a funding program that Intel has had set up for 10 years, the new business activity gives financing to organizations that the or ganization's own workers start. The thought for the entire thing originated from our representatives, who continued revealing to us they needed to do enterprising things,† said Craig Barrett, president and CEO of Intel. â€Å"They saw that we were placing a great deal of speculations into outer organizations and said that we ought to put resources into our own thoughts. † (http://www. utdallas. edu/~chasteen/Reinventing%20the%20intrapreneur. htm) * Steve Jobs and a gathering of 20 Apple Computerâ engineers made the Macintosh PC without â€Å"adult supervision,† primarily to contend with Apple's pillar, the Apple II †also Mr.Jobs' adversary, Apple CEO John Scully * Microsoft , one of the organizations that poached incredible Xerox innovation, has experienced a mind channel that may represent a greater danger than any U. S. Preeminent Court choice, as veteran administrators utilize their own millions to begin their own organizations. That is the reason both of these organizations are currently underscoring inward enterprising endeavors. They are among the accompanying ten partnerships that have made enterprise endeavor a cornerstone of their business. Seamus Blackley, a game planner, joined Microsoft in mid 1999.His last large task, â€Å"Trespasser,† a dinosaur-shooting match-up dependent on Michael Crichton's The Lost World (Knopf, 1997), besieged in the market. He figured he'd stay under the radar as an illustrations developer, yet then he concocted another thought on a plane flight and immediately united with three different designers to make a computer game comfort utilizing PC innovation. (http://www. utdallas. edu/~chasteen/Reinventing%20the%20intrapreneur. htm) * Google is additionally known to be business visionary benevolent, permitting their representatives to spend up to 20% of their opportunity to seek after activities of their decision.

Ethics of public health policies Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Morals of general wellbeing arrangements - Essay Example regardless of whether the administration can displace an individual choices and decisions on his human services and to what degree this interruption is justified or permitted. Citing the Supreme Court’s Jacobson v Massachusetts deciding in 1905 that restrictions on an individual’s freedom are fundamental for the open basic great, Buchanan (2008) declares that paternalism is depended upon by general wellbeing experts to legitimize approach and organization of projects that usurp singular decision. Dworkin’s meaning of paternalism as intercession in an individual dynamic freedom for government assistance reasons for existing is in accordance with Blacksher’s (2014) finding that medicinal services projects can be implemented by remuneration or pressure and is proposed exclusively for the people great or government assistance. This usurpation of choice or decision making depends on the assumptions that; the open social insurance arrangement is right, for example, that antibodies will take care of the issue, for example, the destruction of polio or maladies that people are constrained to be inoculated against, and that strategic distances would hurt the general population. A weakened adaptation of paternalism has been applied to causative conduct, for example, smoking and other way of life changes. As per al Amin et al (n.d.), immunization of preteens with the Human Papilloma Virus antibody to prepare for reinfections that later reason cervical malignant growth was empowered by a law empowering the minors to offer agree to inoculation in California. Firmly identified with paternalism, the utilitarian hypothesis gives that any general wellbeing activity bringing about the best useful for the best number is the most sensible reason for activity (Buchanan, 2008). The utilitarian methodology is usually condemned as utilization of any way to accomplish the general wellbeing objectives. Case of this methodology has been media crusades, for example, tranquilize commercials imparting no important data, yet expected to stun the focused on populaces towards specific headings. This hypothesis underlines the required outcome more

Machiavelli's view of human nature in The Prince Essay

Machiavelli's perspective on human instinct in The Prince - Essay Example Machiavelli's perspective on human instinct in The Prince In part 15, Machiavelli composes, â€Å"men†¦and princes†¦, are momentous for a portion of those characteristics which bring them either fault of praise† (Machiavelli, 1961). The sovereigns show those characters that won't deny him of his state. For this situation, men follow what brings them advantage regardless of whether it is a bad habit †â€Å"it will be discovered that something which resembles an ideals, whenever followed, would be his ruin; while something different, which appears as though a bad habit, yet followed brings him security and prosperity.† Being in the most noteworthy situation of the land, and with the most noteworthy position, the sovereign should place as a result strategies that will serve his wellbeing (Machiavelli, 1961). This shows Machiavelli bolstered any activity of sovereigns that will give them fulfillment, regardless of whether it will hurt the residents. He accepted that the prince’s supporters are now and again inconsistent, and the sovereign may lose their devotion. This is shown in section 11: â€Å"For such a sovereign can't depend upon what he sees in calm occasions, when residents have need of the state, since then everybody concurs with him; they all guarantee, and when demise is far removed they all desire to kick the bucket for him; yet in grieved times, when the state has need of its residents, at that point he finds however few† (Machiavelli, 1961). The ruler ought to along these lines guarantee that at each second residents are needing the state, and they will consistently be dev oted to him.

Track Your Sites Popularity In and With Pinterest

Track Your Sites Popularity In and With Pinterest Make Money Online Queries? Struggling To Get Traffic To Your Blog? Sign Up On (HBB) Forum Now!Track Your Sites Popularity In and With PinterestUpdated On 23/04/2017Author : Arun SathiyaTopic : PinterestShort URL : http://bit.ly/2ozpRnn CONNECT WITH HBB ON SOCIAL MEDIA Follow @HellBoundBlogWhen it comes to Social Media Marketing, most of the bloggers are mostly obsessed  in getting to know their sites popularity in each of the big social network out there. If you a Social Media freak, you might have noticed that Pinterest, though launched two years back or so, has now been making revolution by  generating millions and millions of visits each day. Thanks to Facebook for its Timeline integration. Earlier we shared 10 B2B Strategies To Win With Pinterest. Now here is a ultra cool tip that will help you to track how much people Pin images from your site and in turn how much it drives traffic to your site.If you might have noticed, Pinterest has a ultra cool URL format that will help you to see how much Pins are made from a particular site. If you type the following URL http://pinterest.com/source/website.com in the address bar and hit Enter, the page will load showing the list of Pins made by various users of Pinterest, from your website.A Look Into A SampleAs of now, hitting the URL http://pinterest.com/source/axleration.com will show all the Pins made by the Pinterest users right from the Axleration site. Take a look at the image below. You can see that the URL section reads http://pinterest.com/source/axleration.com/ and below lie the list of Pins made from the Axleration site. You can scroll the whole way down and you can take a look at all the Pins made from the site with the Pin It button that Pinterst provides for Pinning images and videos from any site.READWrite Killer Articles For Killer TrafficFew Tips Worth Knowing While Using This ToolYou can use this tool to track the number of visits you get from Pinterest and get to know the your sites presence in t he world of Pinterest.A few things to keep in mind while you use this tool :With this tool, you can see only the original Pins made by the users. It neglects the number of Repins made by the users. To know the number of Repins too, you ought to click the image and below lies the Repins count.Pinterest neglects the www section of the domain name. Typing the domain name with the www section would give a 404 error, which in turn does not revert you with the Pins made from your site.This tools algorithm gives a different result when you search for a particular subdomain. If you search for Pins from http://pinterest.com/source/subdomain.maindomain.com, it could vary from the results of the original site, thats  http://pinterest.com/source/website.com. So, do check for each subdomain to know more about your sites presence on Pinterest.With these tips in your mind, you can make sure to get know your sites online presence on Pinterest and how much it has been driving traffic to your site. A lso, make sure to follow those users who have Pinned content from your website, to get to know more about them. Sharing is caring, right? Go ahead and check out those users and friend them.

Biotechnological innovations and Patent Law - Free Essay Example

The issue of biotechnological innovations in many respects represents a substantial challenge to law.[1] The provisions in the European Patent Convention 2000(EPC) and the Biotech Directive are lacking in managing this challenge, in light of the fact that they are vague and cant be utilized to reject indecent advancements. Opinions on patents in the field of biotechnology are divided, with support for unfettered scientific progress at one end of the spectrum and a commitment to uphold the basic values of society at the other. Where many see an important contribution to social progress, others are concerned about potential risks and ethical questions.[2] This note will critically analyse the statement by looking deep into patent laws and their interpretation by European Patent Office (EPO). First, this text will define à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Biotechnologyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  and label the provisions of EPC and the Biotech Directive dealing with biotechnology. Moreover the text will discuss briefly how morality influences the patent rights that are granted to biotech inventions. Furthermore some cases showing the uncertainties and controversies (arouses out while interpreting and imposing provisions of EPC and The directive) will also be highlight, proving the provisions of EPC and bio directive are unclear and not even able to identify weather an inventions is immoral. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Biotechnologyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  means any technological application that uses biological systems, living organisms, or derivatives thereof, to make or modify products or processes for specific use.[3] According to the European Patent Convention (EPC), biotechnological inventions are inventions which concern a product consisting of or containing biological material or a process by means of which biolog ical material is produced, processed or used.[4] To be patentable, biotechnological inventions have to meet the same criteria as those in any other field of technology. Patents can only be granted for inventions that are new, involve an inventive step and are susceptible of industrial application[TM1]. A specific legal definition of novelty has developed over the years, with new meaning made available to the public[TM2]. This means, for example, that a human gene, which existed before but was hidden from the public in the sense of having no recognised existence, can be patented when it is isolated from its environment or when it is produced by means of a technical process and as long as its industrial application is disclosed in the patent application[TM3]. All other requirements of patentability must also be fulfilled[TM4]. While biotechnological inventions are in principle patentable, due to the nature of biotechnology and its ethical implications there are specific rules wh ich apply when considering the patentability of an invention in this field.[5] Articles 52 and 53 of EPC say what can and cant be patented. Biotechnological developments are essentially patentable. Nonetheless, no European patent can be allowed for any of the accompanying: Any invention whose commercial exploitation would be contrary to à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“ordre public or moralityà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ .[6] Plant and animal varieties.[7] Essentially biological processes for the production of plants and animals,[8] i.e. classical breeding comprising crossing and selection. Methods for treatment of the human or animal body by surgery or therapy, and diagnostic methods practised on the human or animal body.[9] Discoveries (e.g. the mere discovery of natural substances, such as the sequence or partial sequence of a gene) are not patentable. However, if an inventor provides a description of the technical problem they are intended to solve and a technical teaching they move from being a discovery to being a patentable invention.[10] Here, Article 52 of the EPC defines patentability in the European Community.'[11] Specifically, Article52(1) states that European patents shall be granted for any inventions which are susceptible of industrial application, which are new, and which involve an inventive step.[12] Subsequent provisions of the EPC narrow the broad language of potential patentability declared in Article 52(1). First, the EPC details with some clarity matter which does not have a sufficient inventive step to be patentable. Such materials include mathematical models, aesthetic creations, and presentations of information.[13] Next, categorical exclusions from the general rule of patentability are listed under Article 53.[14] Particularly relevant to this discussion, Article 53(b) excludes plant or animal varieties and essentially biological processes from patentability.[15] However, in contrast to the foregoing explanation of matter not rising to the level of an invention under Article 52, the terms variet ies or essentially biological are not defined under Article 53 or elsewhere in the EPC.[16] While the Guidelines for Examination of Patents (Guidelines) issued by the EPO attempt to define these terms,[17] However the Guidelines are not binding on the member states.[18] Thus, a lack of uniformity in patent protection among member states is distinctly possible under the existing definitional system.[19] In addition to the ambiguities surrounding the key definitions discussed above, the Article 53 exclusions from patentability are problematic with regard to biotechnological patents for several reasons. First, as noted by the European Parliament (Parliament), the patent system, when applied to living matter, must be adapted to the problems linked to the special nature of such matter.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ [20] In light of changing technology, the ECs international competitors have explicitly declared living matter and even animals to be patentable and have enacted special rules to deal wit h problems unique to patenting living matter.[21] However, under Article 53 of the EPC, only microbiological inventions[22] can be patented.[23] Some member states have responded to the inadequacies of the outdated EPC provisions in this area by enacting national laws to deal specifically with biotechnology.[24] Second, the interpretation of the plant and animal varieties exclusion may be problematic. The basis of this exclusion was that,under the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV), another method exists besides patenting through which to obtain legal protection for plant varieties. The Convention declared that plant varieties were entitled either to a special title of protection or to a patent, but not both.[25] Unlike plants, however, animals do not have protection outside the scope of the EC patent system, under the UPOV or any other convention. Nonetheless, this exclusionary provision was invoked in the HARVARD/Onco-mouse decision by the Examining Division, which considered the Onco-mouse to be a type of animal variety.[26] The member states of the EC also have inadequate guidance on patenting biotechnological inventions because of inconsistent EPO decisions. Two prior decisions by the EPO Technical Board of Appeal indicate a proatent protection attitude[27] and seem initially to forecast fundamental change to the patent system.[28] In the Hybrid Plants/LUBRIZOL decision, the Technical Board of Appeal narrowly construed one of the stated exceptions to the general rule of patentability.[29] Also, in the CIBAIn the Article 53(b) exclusion clause and held that no general exclusion of inventions in the sphere of animate nature could be inferred from the EPC.[30] In HARVARD/Onco-mouse, however, the Examining Division initially refused to construe Article 53(b) narrowly and thus broke with the preceding opinions on the basis that there was different legislative intent behind the provision for plant and animal varieties.[31] The Appeals Board disagreed and noted that any such exception must, as repeatedly pointed out by the Boards of Appeal, be narrowly construed.[32] Because of HARVARD/Onco-mouse, the interpretation of Article 53(b) is unsettled.[33] In addition, by introducing Article 53(a) as a consideration in its patentability decision, the Examining Division thus set forth another consideration for member states to apply when determining patentability without any guidance other than the dicta from the HARVARD/Onco-mouse decision itself.This environment of inconsistent EPO case law may have a chilling effect on commercial biotechnology-a field where the economic incentive of the patent system is necessary to stimulate biotechnology research and development. This is true because biotechnology research is very expensive.[34] On the other hand, beside all these circumstances , in Europe, a debate on biotechnology patents started in the late 1980s with the aim of clarifying the dis tinction between what is patentable and what is not, and harmonising EU member states laws in this area. This led to the adoption on 6 July 1998 of EU Directive 98/44/EC on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions. The directive has been implemented by all EU member states. As early as 1999, the EPC contracting states decided to incorporate the directive as secondary legislation into the Implementing Regulations to the EPC. Together with the EPC articles on substantive patent law, these rules now provide the basis for deciding on the patentability of biotechnology applications at the EPO. The incorporation of the EU directive into the EPC strengthened the practice of the EPO in biotechnology, whilst putting greater focus on ethical considerations. [35] Though the Directive only lists four specific types of invention as being unpatentable on moral grounds ((i) processes for cloning human beings,[36](ii) processes for modifying the germ line genetic identity of human bei ngs,[37] (iii) uses of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes,[38] (iv)processes for modifying the genetic identity of animals which are likely to cause them suffering without any substantial medical benefit to man or animal, and also animals resulting from such processes.[39])It also confirms that elements of the human body, such as genes, can be patentable when isolated from the human body.[40]The Directive basically settled a lot of the ethical debates about patentability of biotech inventions in Europe.[41] On the other hand discussing about immoral inventions it can be taken into consideration that the moral concerns currently raised in conjunction with biotechnology patents are misplaced because they stem from a lack of understanding of the patent system. A patent system is not a means of safeguarding the public interest. It is primarily a commercial and industrial tool that encourages innovation, divorced from social and moral concerns.[42] Because a patent gr ant affords a limited commercial monopoly to use only what is already in existence, the grant of a patent is not an ethical event.[43] Instead, it is the regulatory system of a given nation that monitors social concerns as it implements general legislation-concerns which frequently encompass ethics and morality.[44]Thus, a patent makes the existing research on genetic engineering open and available to the public, which, in turn, permits public monitoring of genetic engineering.[45] In the context of the FDA decision on genetically engineered foods,[46] it was noted that genetic technology is too promising, to dismiss it out of a free-floating mistrust. If the public understood the technology, they would understand that part of their emotional reaction is irrational.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ [47] It is evident, then, that ethical concerns raised about the patent system reflect concerns about biotechnology itself rather than the grant of the patent for that biotechnology. Ethical issues assoc iated with patents are inappropriately channeled fears of insufficient regulation.[48] Nevertheless, the patent system has become another arena for the campaigns of the Green Party, environmental groups, and animal rights activists to try to regulate science and technology.[49] In fact, biological patents have been granted routinely since the 1800s,[50] but ethical concerns did not enter the realm of the patent system until genetic engineering blossomed. Public concern over patenting biotechnology may reflect a public reaction to the scope and sophistication of genetic engineering involved in biotechnology due to misperceptions and unfounded fearof genetic engineering. This is illustrated by a series of decisions in the Europe. In 1970, the German Supreme Court allowed a living organism to be patented in the Red Dove case.[51] That case preceded the development of genetic engineering and was not followed by any significant public controversy. [52]However, following the advent o f genetic engineering the 1980 United States Supreme Court holding in Chakrabarty, which paralleled the Red Dove decision in principle by holding genetically engineered bacteria to be patentable, was followed by a public debate over the morality of patenting living matter.[53] Then, in 1987 the United States Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences determined in Ex Parte Allen that higher life forms, such as oysters, were patentable.[54] That decision triggered significantly more controversy [55]than a typical Board decision.[56] Finally, the 1987 PTO decision to allow genetically engineered animals such as the Onco-mouse to be patented stimulated tremendous controversy.[57] This litany indicates that debate over patenting biotechnology has sharpened with the sophistication and use of biotechnology despite the fact that the underlying scientific principles and patent procedures remain the same. There is a distinct paucity of case law that discusses ethical issues as a preclus ion to patentability. This is the case even in the EPO decisions despite the existence of Article 53(a), which explicitly allows a consideration of ethics for patentability. The EPO Guidelines indicate that Article 53(a) is to be invoked only in rare and extreme cases[58] and is aimed at preventing extreme situations such as riots and criminal behavior[59]The lack of discussion prior to HARVARD/Onco-mouse may indicate that ethics were generally not considered in patenting decisions. In fact, the Examining Division initially stated in HARVARD/Onco-mouse that it does not consider patent law an appropriate legislative tool and therefore declined to rule under Article 53(a).[60] To a limited extent, the EPO Guidelines on Article 53(a) and the cases are illuminating on the role ethics should play in the area of patentability. Ethics have been considered regarding the usefulness requirement that all patentable inventions must meet in both the EC and the United States. The issue is whether ethical issues render an invention useless according to statutory requirements for patentability.[61] In the United States, courts historically have been reluctant to deny patents based solely on ethical concerns[62] and consider an invention patentable so long as it has some moral use.[63] The drafters of the EPO Guidelines seem to concur in this result. The Guidelines state that a patent may be granted if an invention has both an offensive and non-offensive use.[64] The Guidelines set forth as an example a process for breaking open safes; that is a process that may be offensive if used by burglars, but which is potentially non-offensive and very useful if used by a locksmith in an emergency. [65] Imposing barriers to biotechnological patents will not prevent the advance of genetic engineering or address the ethical issues raised by scientific advancement. These issues will persist regardless of whether patents are granted.[66] Furthermore, even if the EC ignores the field of bi otechnology, its international competitors will not.[67] As the United States Supreme Court stated, The grant or denial of patents on micro-organisms is not likely to put an end to genetic research however whether claims are patentable may determine whether research efforts are accelerated by the hope of reward or slowed by want of incentives.[68] In Germany a special Commission of Inquiry on the Opportunities and Risks of Genetic Technology echoed these insights and stated that the types of criticism of genetic engineering are often simultaneously or primarily criticisms of over-arching strategies which have developed independently of genetic engineering involving basic problems of industrialization. [69] The Directive enacted by the EC because it recognizes the potential ethical concerns and the reality of scientific progress.[70] The international competitors of the EC are capitalizing on biotechnology and encouraging scientific innovation by allowing biotechnological patents t o issue under systems more lenient than the EPC. The Directive begins to address the EC gap in protection for biotechnological inventions, which are crucial to the commercial and international competitiveness of the EC, by mandating uniform legal protection. Although the scope of protection for biotechnological inventions under the EPC and the directive is limited, passage of the Directive was still a necessary step to take in narrowing the gap between the EC and its international competitors. Whether the Directive will achieve its goals remains to be seen. However, the history of the European Onco-mouse has shown that the current outlook for biotechnological innovations will remain bleak if no action is taken.The Onco-mouse currently stands alone in an area of inadequate and murky protection for biotechnology innovations. Without immediate action on the part of the Commission and member states, the EC will stand alone in its ethical debate as other nations simultaneously commerci alize biotechnology and manage ethical concerns associated with biotechnological inventions. [1] Roberto Bin, Sara Lorenzon, Nicola Lucchi, Biotech Innovations and Fundamental Rights (1st, Springer Science Business Media, 2012) 3 [2] European Patent office, Patent on Biotechnology (epo.org 2013) https://www.epo.org/news-issues/issues/biotechnology.html accessed 29 January 2015 [3] Convention on biological diversity 1992 Art. 2 [4] European Patent Convention 2000 Art. 26 (2) [5] European Patent office, Patent on Biotechnology (epo.org 2013) https://www.epo.org/news-issues/issues/biotechnology.html accessed 29 January 2015 [6] European Patent Convention 2000 Art. 53(a) [7] Ibid. Art. 53 (b) [8] Ibid. [9] European Patent Convention 2000 Art. 53 (c) [10] Ibid. Art. 52 (2) (a) [11] Ibid. Art. 52 [12] Ibid. Art. 52 (1) [13] Ibid. Art. 52 (2) [14] Ibid. Art. 53 [15] Ibid. Art. 53(b) [16] Kevin W. OConnor, Patenting Animals and Other Living Things [1991] S.CAL. L. REV 65, 597,617 [17] European Patent Office, IV, Guidelines for exa mination in the European Patent Office (1992).p 3,4, [18] Exxon, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Aluminia Spineà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  [1998] Eur. Pat. Off. Rep. p.389,391 [19] Andrew J A Parkes, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“The Significance of the European patent convention and the community patent conventionà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ , (Marry Robinson, 1999) p.51 [20] Proposal for a Council Directive on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions Approved with the Following Amendments, 1992 (C 125) 183, 183 (Amendment No. 3) [21] See infra notes 62-74, 100 and accompanying text. [22] European Patent Convention 2000 Art. 53 [23] Convention on the Unification of Certain Points of Substantive Law on Patents for Invention 1963, Art. 2(b) [24] John Hodgson, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Dutch Regulations Now in Force biotechnologyà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  (1990) p. 284 [25] International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants 1978, art. 2(1), [26] See infra note 77 and accompanying text. [27] LUBRIZOL /Hybrid plants [1990] Eur. Pat. Off. Rep. 173 (EPO); CIBAGEIGY/ Propagating material, [1985] C Eur. Pat. Off. Rep. 758 (EPO) [28] Fundamental changes in patent law have been previously sparked by court decisions, at least in the United States. See Exparte Allen, 2 U.S.P.Q.2d 1425 (PTO Bd. Pat. App. int. 1987) (genetically engineered oysters are potentially patentable, even though they are living matter); In re Bergy, 596 F.2d 952,972,976 (manmade, biologically pure culture of microorganism is patentable because it only occurs in an impure form in nature). These decisions foreshadowed the PTO announcement, although it was most immediately prompted by the ruling in Allen. See Donald 3. Quigg, Animals-Patentability, Statement of April 7, 1989, reprinted in ANIMAL PATENTS, supra note 9, at 159 (outlining the holding of Allen and the rationale behind it, as well as the scope of patentability under 35 U.S.C. 101). For a more detailed discussion of case law preceding and the PTO decision, see Bradford Chaucer, Note, Life, The Patent Office and Everything: Patentability foreshadowing of Lifeforms Created Through Bioengineering Techniques, 9 BRIDGEPORT L. REV. 413 (1988). [29]LUBRIZOJHybrid plants, [1990] Eur. Pat. Off. Rep. 173,177. (EPO) [30] CIBA-GEIGY/Propagating material, [1985] Eur. Pat. Off. Rep. Vol. C. 758, 759 [31] HARVARD/Onco-mouse, [1990] Eur. Pat. Off. Rep.4,7. [32] Ibid. [33] Ibid.; [34] IRA H. CARMEN, CLONING AND THE CONsTITbTON: AN INQUIRY INTO GOVERNMENTAL POLICYMAKING AND GENETIC EXPERIMENTATION 23, 26 (1985) [35] European Patent office, Patents on life? European law and practice for patenting biotechnological inventions (tomkins.com ) https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=2ved=0CCoQFjABurl=https://www.tomkins.com/uploads/what-we-do/patenting_biotechnological_inventions.pdfei=00_KVJuIJMHR7Qa59IGgDAusg=AFQjCNGgxAV_9Nyekl73ByDXVZeUXW-6Bwbvm=bv.84607526,d.ZGUcad=rja accessed 29 January 2015 [3 6] Directive 44/EC 1998, Art 2(a) [37] Ibid. Art 2 (b) [38] Ibid. Art 2 (c) [39] Ibid. Art 2 (d) [40] Ibid. Art 5 (2) [41] Suleman Ali , The ethics of biotech patenting: a dialogue about monopolies, human dignity and the cost of medicines (https://ipkitten.blogspot.co.uk/ 2015) https://ipkitten.blogspot.co.uk/2015/01/the-ethics-of-biotech-patenting.html accessed 29 January 2015 [42] Robert P. Merges, Intellectual Property in Higher Life Forms: The Patent System and Controversial Technologies, (1988) 47 MD. L. REV. 1051, 1067-68 [43] See Bent, supra note 69, at 7; Debates, supra note 50, at 18 (right of prohibition only). [44] 148. See BIOTECHNOLOGY GLOBAL, supra note 2, at 203-04; Bent, supra note 69, at 7-8; Merges, supra note 146, at 1067-68. [45] 149. Debates, supra note 50, at 18. Rapporteur Rothley stated that: [46] Gene-Altered Food Called Safe, Facts on File World News Digest, (www.lexisnexis.co.uk/ 1992,) accessed 29 January 2015 [47] Molly ONeill, Geneticists, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢Latest Discovery: Public Fear of Frankenfood, N.Y. TIMESà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢Ãƒ ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ (1992) [48] 152. See generally Cantley, supra note 112, at 14-15 [49] (1991) 59 U. Mo. Kan. City L. Rev. 409,410; (1989) 42 OKLA. L. REV. 131 [50] Alex Barnum, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Biotech Labs Enraged by Bid to Patent Human Genesà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ , S.F. CHRON. (1991) [51] Rote Taube (Red Dove), 1 Int. Rev. of Indus. Prop. Copyright. (IIC) 136 (1970) [52] 156. See Straus, supra note 4, at 17-18. [53] 157. See generally id at 17-18 (indicating public concern about patenting higher organisms stems from the novelty of genetic engineering and a general lack of understanding of how the patent system functions). [54] (1987) 2 U.S.P.Q.2d 1425 [55] 159. See Manspeizer, supra note 9, at 418-19; Merges, supra note 146, at 1052. [56] 160. See Merges, supra note 146, at 1052. [57] 161. See supra notes 68-70 and accompanyin g text (discussing legislative activity following the grant of the Onco-mouse patent). [58] EPO Guidelines, IV, 3.1. [59] Ibid. [60] Harvard/Onco-mouse, (1990) Eur. Pat. Off. Rep. 4, 11. [61] See Merges, supra note 146, at 1062-63 [62] (1977) 200 U.S.P.Q. 801, 802;Fuller v. Berger, 120 F. 274,275-76 (7th Cir. 1903);Lowell v. Lewis 15 F. Cas. 1018,1019 (C.C.D. Mass. 1817) [63] Klein v. Russell, 86 U.S. 433, 467 (1873) [64] EPO Guidelines, IV, 3.3 [65] Ibid. [66] 181.COOK Er. AL, supra note 2,at 120. [67] 182. See supra notes 51-59 and accompanying text. [68] Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. at 317. [69] BIOTECHNOLOGY IN FUTURE SOCIETY: SCENARIOS AND OPTIONS FOR EUROPE 117, 123 (Edward Yoxen Vittorio Di Martino eds., 1989). [70] [TM1]Add reference [TM2]Refer [TM3]ref [TM4]ref

Women Characters in The White Queen (Wars of the Roses)

In June, 2013, BBC One debuted a 10-part series, The White Queen, a depiction of the Wars of the Roses seen through the eyes of key women, and based on a series of historical novels by Philippa Gregory. The White Queen refers to Elizabeth Woodville, and The White Queen is the title of Gregorys first book in the series that is being adapted. Dont expect it to be exactly history -- but Gregory has respect for history, and that will likely show through in the series as well, even though there will be lots of poetic license taken. The other books in the series are The Red Queen  (about Margaret of Anjou), The Kingmakers Daughter  (about Anne Neville),The Lady of the Rivers (about Jacquetta of Luxembourg), The White Princess  (about Elizabeth of York)  and  The Kings Curse  (about Margaret Pole.) The sequel BBC One series,  The White Princess,  debuted in 2017. You can also see this as something of a prequel to the popular series, The Tudors. Elizabeth Woodville was the grandmother of King Henry VIII, featured in that series. Here are some of the women youll likely encounter in the series, and some of their interconnections -- youll see why Gregory called the series on the Wars of the Roses The Cousins War -- many close relatives found themselves on opposite sides. Many of the key characters traced their ancestry to the sons of Edward III of England, or to other kings of England. The White Queen and Her Family Elizabeth Woodville (1437 - 1492), widow of Sir John Grey who was on the Lancastrian side in the Wars of the Roses, and who was killed in the battle at St. Albans. The legend of her meeting with Edward IV under an oak tree by the side of a road is a very early one. That they secretly married and thwarted the marriage plans for Edward being made by Edwards uncle, the Earl of Warwick (known as the Kingmaker), is historical. One of her sons by John Grey was an ancestor of Lady Jane Grey.Jacquetta of Luxembourg, mother of Elizabeth Woodville, was a descendant of Englands King John. Her father was a French count. Jacquettas first husband was the brother of Henry V. She had no children by that first marriage, but at least ten by her second to Richard Woodville. She was accused during her lifetime of using witchcraft.Elizabeth of York (1466 - 1503), eldest daughter of Elizabeth Woodville and Edward IV, became the queen consort of Henry VII and mother of Henry VIII, Mary Tudor and Margaret T udor.Catherine or Katherine Woodville(~1458 - 1497), sister of Elizabeth Woodville, who married advantageously thanks to her connection to her sister the Queen. She became the Duchess of Buckingham and the Duchess of Bedford.Mary Woodville (~1456 - 1481), another sister of Elizabeth Woodville, was able to marry the heir to the Earl of Pembroke through her sisters connections. Her father-in-law was executed by Warwick, the Kingmaker.Cecily of York (1469 - 1507) was the second surviving daughter of Edward IV and Elizabeth Woodville. (An older sister, Mary of York, died in 1482, before she could be married.) Edward tried to marry her to the Scottish royal heir, then to that heirs brother, but Edward died before that could be complete. Then Cecilys marriages were arranged -- and unarranged -- by the next two kings, Richard III (her uncle) and Henry VII (her brother-in-law). The Kingmaker and His Family Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick, (1428 - 1471) was a powerful figure in the drama of the Wars of the Roses. He used his female family connections to advantage, including gaining the Warwick title itself through his wifes inheritance. He was called the Kingmaker, as his presence -- and that of the troops he could muster -- would make a difference in which king won. Lady Anne Beauchamp (1426 - 1492), Countess of Warwick, wife of the Kingmaker, mother of Anne Neville and Isabella Neville. She was an heiress, inheriting the Warwick titles because no male heirs remained, and bringing them to her husband. She was descended on the maternal side from King Edward III and the powerful Despenser family.Cecily Neville (1415 - 1495), was the aunt of the Kingmaker. She was the mother of Edward IV as well as of George, Duke of Clarence, and Richard, Duke of Gloucester, was married to Richard, Duke of York, who was the heir of Henry VI and his protector during his minority and during one or more bouts of insanity. Both Cecily and her husband were descendants of King Edward III of England and his wife, Philippa of Hainault. Cecilys mother was a daughter of John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford.Anne Neville (1456 - 1485), daughter of Richard, Duke of York, called the Kingmaker, who was a nephew of Cecily Neville. She first married Edward of York, son of Henry V I of England, but after his early death, married Richard, Duke of Gloucester, the future Richard III, brother of Edward IV (and son of Cecily Neville). Richard and Anne were first cousins once removed.Isabella Neville (1451 - 1476), sister of Anne Neville, and thus daughter of the Kingmaker and great niece of Cecily Neville. She was also known as Isabel. She married George, Duke of Clarence, a younger brother of Edward IV (and older brother of Richard III, Anne Nevilles second husband), and also a son of Cecily Neville. Isabella and George were first cousins once removed. From the House of Lancaster Margaret of Anjou (1429 - 1482), was the queen consort of the Lancastrian king, Henry VI of England, with whom Edward IV contended in the Wars of the Roses. Margaret of Anjou was herself an active Lancastrian leader. Elizabeth Woodville had been a maid of honor serving Margaret of Anjou when she married Sir John Grey.Margaret Beaufort (1443 - 1509) was the Red Queen to Elizabeth Woodvilles White Queen. She was married to Edmund Tudor when she was only 12, and gave birth to his child after he died in Yorkist captivity. That child later became Henry VII. Though she married twice more, she never had more children, and threw her support to her sons cause in the Wars of the Roses. More? These women arent likely to be in the series, except by reference, but are important to the context of the story. Catherine of Valois (1401 - 1437), sister-in-law of Jacquetta, was the queen consort of Henry V of England and mother of Lancaster king Henry VI. She was also the grandmother of Henry VII, the first Tudor king, via her second husband, Owen Tudor. This is the same Henry VII who married Elizabeth Woodvilles daughter, Elizabeth of York. Catherines father was Charles VI of France. She is not likely to make an appearance in The White Queen: she died the year that Elizabeth Woodville was born.Margaret of Burgundy, a sister of Edward IV who was friendly with Edwards new wife Elizabeth Woodville. Margaret was married off to the Duke of Burgundy a few years after Edward became king, and after the Tudor triumph, her home became a haven for Yorkists in exile.Lady Jane Grey was descended from one of Elizabeth Woodvilles sons by her first husband, John Grey, and from one of Elizabeth Woodvilles daughters, Elizabeth of York, by her second husband Edward IV, through Elizabeth of Yorks and Henry VII s daughter Mary Tudor.Margaret Pole (1473 - 1541) was the daughter of Isabella Neville and George, Duke of Clarence. She was a peeress in her own right, and eventually earned the enmity of Tudor King Henry VIII. The Roman Catholic Church beatified her as a martyr in 1886.Elizabeth Tilney (1447 - 1497) was a lady-in-waiting to Elizabeth Woodville. Whether shell appear in the series I doubt, but it would be a subtle foreshadowing of the Tudor era: she was grandmother to both Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard, second and fifth wives of Henry VIII. One way women often got entangled into the Wars of the Roses: illegitimacy controversies. Learn more about some of those: Birther Controversies and the Wars of the Roses Many of these same women were portrayed in Shakespeares Richard III as well.