Suchergebnisse

Aliens — Expulsion of — Right of expulsion — Discretionary nature of — Lack of permanent right to stay without express legislation — Effect of principle of non-discrimination upon right of expulsion — The law of Burma.

Nationality — Acquisition of — Alien born within territory of State — Alien resident within State at date of its acquisition of independence — The law of Burma.Aliens — Expulsion of — Right of expulsion — Existence of right independent of statute — The law of Burma — Scope of Immigration (Emergency Provisions) Act, 1947.

Measures of the air traffic controller are reviewed and critically assessed. There are many reasons for measuring the controller, and no measure can yet be treated as either indispensable or useless. Some of the most successful studies have employed many different measures. There has been a bias toward measuring the controller as part of the system rather than in his or her own right. It has proved difficult to establish adequate measurement criteria because of uncertainty about the relative importance of the factors involved. The development of new measures and the refinement of existing ones may lead to progress. A reinterpretation of the controller's tasks and functions in relation to psychological constructs should be attempted.

A hierarchical controller with two levels is proposed. One level is based on dynamic optimization while the second is responsible for tracking the optimal trajectory and rejecting disturbances. Its implementation using the FEMLAB system is described. Some simulations are presented at the end of the paper, together with an evaluation of the performance.

AbstractThe most commonly provided economic rationale underlying the patent system is that it incentivizes inventive effort that may not be carried out in its absence. In addition to this utilitarian rationale, economic and legal scholars frequently refer to a second rationale: the dissemination of technological information to the public. This notice function is thought of as an important mechanism to enable a more efficient investment in innovation by stimulating further (cumulative) innovation, reducing wasteful duplicate innovative efforts, and limiting unnecessary litigation. Courts have placed a great deal of emphasis on the notice function and have described it as the quid pro quo of granting patent owners the right to exclude. Whereas the notice function is traditionally confined to the adequate disclosure of inventions, we propose that in light of the recent trend towards rapidly growing markets for patent monetization it should also encompass the adequate disclosure of holders of patent rights. Specifically, we argue that knowing the identity of rightsholders is a fundamental prerequisite for any patent transaction to occur. Based on a comparative analysis of the provisions of six patent offices, we illustrate that even though current provisions warrant an adequate disclosure of the identity of initial patent applicants, they provide the public with only limited opportunities to track subsequent changes of ownership. Whilst most patent authorities require to file notice when patent rights are assigned, strict enforcement mechanisms are absent. This allows for a lack of transparency of patent ownership, which may hamper rather than facilitate technology transactions.