Licensing Framework Research Articles

The New Technology Transfer Block Exemption: A Welcome Reform, After All

<p>This article discusses the most important changes introduced at the final stage of the Commission’s review of the technology transfer block exemption regulation (``TTBER’’), and examines the benefits and the challenges of the new regulatory framework for technology licensing.</p><p>The new TTBER represents a significant improvement over the Commission’s draft TTBER, published in October 2003. Most importantly, the Commission agreed to revise the list of hardcore restrictions between competitors, which was over-inclusive and had the potential to seriously hinder technology licensing in horizontal agreements. In addition, the list of hardcore restrictions between non-competitors and the interpretation of ``know-how’’ (and thus the scope of the TTBER) were adjusted to reflect the comments submitted during the consultation period preceding the publication of the final TTBER. Significant changes were also made to the Guidelines, for instance, with respect to cross-licence agreements between competitors. Some difficulties remain in the final TTBER, mainly concerning the introduction of market share ceilings. However, on balance, the new TTBER can be considered to represent a desirable regulatory change. The final regulation promotes dynamic competition through innovation and contains a number of provisions that contribute towards a more liberal, flexible and economic oriented regulation of technology transfer agreements.</p>

A First-Quarter 2004 Report: State Democracy

IN THE FIRST quarter of the 2004 legislative sessions, some states continued to amend existing laws to meet the requirements of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, while others began to move beyond compliance to improve the means by which they intend to leverage greater student achievement. Still others addressed health issues, fiscal officers, and even coaches - all parts of education that affect the quality of school life and the security of the system. All the bills mentioned below were enacted. OHIO'S NEW LAW S.B. 2 in Ohio dealt with numerous issues. Some of the more interesting details follow. Instructional quality. S.B. 2 creates an Educator Standards Board and directs the state department to establish an office to support this board. School districts are required to use professional development standards developed by the board. Immunity. S.B. 2 also provides qualified immunity for teacher performance assessors, trainers, and coordinators and for teacher performance assessment entities in civil actions concerning performance assessments of candidates for the Professional Educator License. Staffing. S.B. 2 directs the Legislative Office of Education Oversight to study minimum teacher salaries in Ohio and selected other states and report its findings by 30 September 2004. It charges the department with defining a hard-to-staff school within 90 days of the bill's effective date. Low-performing schools. School districts in Ohio are limited to spending a combined total equal to 20% of their Title I funds to pay for transportation for students transferring under public school choice and for supplemental educational services. In districts with a three- year average graduation rate of 75% or less, schools must administer practice versions of the Ohio Graduation Tests to ninth-graders. Testing. S.B. 2 requires the eighth-grade social studies achievement test to be phased in beginning in the 2006-07 school year (one year earlier than under current law). NCLB-RELATED BILLS Performance measures. States continue to amend their laws to comply more fully with NCLB. For example, West Virginia H.B. 4111 requires the state board to adopt system standards, including measures of student, school, and system performance and progress. Performance measures must include graduation rate, dropout rate, attendance, student performance, percentage of graduates who enroll in college immediately and within one year, and percentage of graduates who receive certification above what was required for graduation. The bill establishes a system of performance audits that are primarily based on achievement. It requires technical assistance, establishes rewards for exemplary performance or practices, and sets sanctions for schools performing below standards; it includes restructuring for schools seriously impaired over time; it requires that students be allowed to transfer from seriously impaired schools; and it requires intervention in districts with nonapproval status. Paraprofessionals. In H.B. 304, New Mexico established a three-tiered framework for career licensing of educational assistants and has provided for minimum salaries for that group of employees. The Utah state board established standards for paraprofessionals that are consistent with NCLB, as did the Delaware state board. Assessment. In Michigan, S.B. 787 allows schools whose answer sheets were lost by the state department or by an assessment contractor to be exempt from school accreditation requirements. The exemption does not, however, preclude the department from determining if a public school or school district has achieved adequate yearly progress for the purposes of NCLB. No penalty may be assessed for the loss of records. Utah S.B. 51 allows the state board to award grants to districts and charter schools to implement a system for the online delivery of tests required under U-PASS (Utah Performance Assessment System for Students). …

Strengths and limitations of taguchi's contributions to quality, manufacturing, and process engineering

Autonomous vehicles (AVs) represent a potentially disruptive yet beneficial change to our transportation system. This new technology has the potential to impact vehicle safety, congestion, and travel behavior. All told, major social AV impacts in the form of crash savings, travel time reduction, fuel efficiency and parking benefits are estimated to approach $2000 to per year per AV, and may eventually approach nearly $4000 when comprehensive crash costs are accounted for. Yet barriers to implementation and mass-market penetration remain. Initial costs will likely be unaffordable. Licensing and testing standards in the U.S. are being developed at the state level, rather than nationally, which may lead to inconsistencies across states. Liability details remain undefined, security concerns linger, and without new privacy standards, a default lack of privacy for personal travel may become the norm. The impacts and interactions with other components of the transportation system, as well as implementation details, remain uncertain. To address these concerns, the federal government should expand research in these areas and create a nationally recognized licensing framework for AVs, determining appropriate standards for liability, security, and data privacy.

Establishing an interference management framework for spectrum licensing in Australia

Australia is at the forefront of developing management techniques for the provision of flexible access to radio communications under a new form of licensing called spectrum licensing. Spectrum licenses have already been issued in the 500 MHz band, and auctions are being held in 1998 for lots in the 800 MHz and 1.8 GHz bands. Licensees manage their own space defined in terms of a frequency band and a geographic area for a fixed license term. The Regulator maintains a of regulation just sufficient to keep significant levels of emission within those licenses so that utility is not reduced by either an unacceptable rate of interference or fear of litigation. No channeling plan is employed, and the may be used for any type of radio communications service. New terms such as horizontally radiated power, device boundary, and level of protection have been coined to describe fresh approaches to interference management that take advantage of the capabilities of geographic information systems. The interference management framework is dynamic, and designed to evolve on the basis of both practical experience and requirements of licensees.

An option pricing approach to exploration licensing strategy

Governments in most countries are owners of mineral rights. In order to exploit their natural resources efficiently, states are normally obliged to rely on private mining companies. The government has a challenging task when deciding which exploration opportunities to exercise now through licensing and which blocks to save for future exploration. A large inventory of proven reserves allows scheduling of the production of various deposits more efficiently. But generating proven oil and gas reserves ahead of time entails oil companies and the society incurring extra costs. The value of exploration for petroleum now must be weighted against the value of waiting. This paper uses concepts and methods from option pricing theory to evaluate exploration for deposits of non-renewable resources. Exploration licensing is valued as a compound option, ie as a call option on a call option to develop, with price as the uncertain variable. The Norwegian petroleum licensing framework is used as a background for the specific problem approached, but the problem is familiar to most governments acting as owners of natural resources. Since exploration strategy is the topic of this paper, it is natural to take a look at the many different economic functions exploration serves in order to put the problem in perspective before the model is presented—even though many of the value creating elements are difficult to assess numerically and implement in an economic model.

Onboard processing can be done

Onboard data processing during 3-D marine seismic surveys is a hot topic. The reason is turnaround time, the period between initiation of a survey and delivery of interpretable results. Some large 3-D surveys have turnaround times of 18 months. This is unacceptable to an operator with a tight licensing framework. It might, in the worst case, even preclude use of 3-D seismic.

Economic development in the South Pacific promoting the private sector

Over the past decade the economies of the independent island states of the South Pacific have become sluggish to the point of stagnation. Despite substantial flows of overseas development assistance (ODA), national economic managers have in the past failed to adopt policies which ensured increasing prosperity. Apologists for the poor performance of the islands have suggested a wide range of constraints such as small size, but one of the major causes of slow growth has been the adoption by island governments of import substituting and domestic self-sufficiency policies. Instead of an outward looking private sector which had to fight and be efficient in the international marketplace, governments encouraged production for local needs behind tariff walls, and licensing frameworks which supported inefficiency and a lack of entrepreneurial spirit. The encouragement of the private sector requires the recognition by governments of industry needs. This paper reviews some recommendations put forward by researchers, scholars and business practitioners in this regard. These recommendations include proposals for: the adoption of macroeconomic policies which provide a stable economic environment; the encouragement of niche industries which reflect the skills and capacity to perform of small, isolated states; the adoption of suitable legislation and the recognition that apart from taxation incentives the private sector takes into account law and order, the availability of skilled or semi-skilled workers, common sense union practices and easy access to the incentives offered by governments.

DECOMMISSIONING PLANS AND COSTING IN GERMANY

Prior to reunification, within the borders of the Federal Republic of Germany there were seven reactors of different types and at various stages of decommissioning or planning. In this chapter, Ulrich Löschhorn and Herbert Hollmann highlight several factors which influence economic costs, including timing of dismantlement, site-specific features, lack of final repository, licensing framework, and political scenarios. It is apparent from this discussion that procedures, timing, key considerations, reasoning, and ultimate goals regarding decommissioning are similar from one country to another, with most countries facing similar challenges at about the same time. Although this means that each country can learn from the others’ experience, there is also little experience to use as signposts along the way.