Chapter 9 explores the many situations in which new IP is developed under a licensing or other agreement, and how that IP is owned and licensed. Attention is given both to licensee developments (improvements and derivative works of licensed rights), which may be subject to grantback and license-back arrangements (Kennedy v. NJDA) and new IP developed by a licensor under a services arrangement (e.g., commissioned works, customizations) (IXL v. AdOutlet) and the incorporation of third party components in developed technologies. The chapter also addresses the complex issues that arise from joint development of IP, including treatment of foreground, background and sideground IP, and how IP is used in the context of joint ventures (Pav-Saver v. Vasso). The chapter concludes with a discussion of the allocation of responsibility for IP management, maintenance and prosecution.

Confirm the patient’s identity, age, state(s) of recording, and the presence of any skull defects. Confirm the technical parameters of including the filter settings, sensitivity, paper speed, and time base. Note the montage you are reading in and the calibration signal. Identify the background from the foreground. Describe the background based on symmetry, continuity, voltage, organization, variability-reactivity, and sleep architecture. Categorize the foreground components as cerebral activity or artifact. Describe cerebral activity based on its location (general or lateral), occurrence (sporadic or repetitive), and morphology (slow or sharp). Then categorize the activity as normal (normal variant) or abnormal. Decide if the abnormality is epileptogenic (associated with seizures) or ictal (ongoing seizure). Evolution is the hallmark of electrographic seizure activity. Remember that isolated changes in amplitude are not evolution. Look for the use of any provocation methods, such as hyperventilation and photic stimulation, and their effect on the EEG. Before you finish up, make sure you’ve looked at the single-channel EKG and the technologist’s log.

Many legal scholars over the past 120 years have commented on“The Path of the Law.” Part IV selects from this abundant commentary and profiles thirteen ways of looking at the“bad man.” The opinions vary as to why Holmes introduced him in“The Path of the Law.” Apart from sustaining the thesis that Holmes intended the“bad man” as a projection, this part seeks to show how one might through scholarship create dimensionality in American law. Scholarship becomes a stereoscope to make law 3D. The most well-known commentary and commentators on Holmes and the“bad man” are discussed – ranging from Jerome Frank, Hessel E. Yntema, and Walter Wheeler Cook to Francis E. Lucey, Lon Fuller, Mark DeWolfe Howe, Henry M. Hart, Jr., and Yosal Rogat. It also includes a subsection on the distinctive view of the legal pragmatists (Frederic R. Kellogg, Thomas C. Grey, Catharine Pierce Wells, Susan Haack). The part notes the deficiencies in scholarship and, more important, the repeated instances of scholars not attempting to understand, connect, or differentiate in good faith their scholarship from that of their predecessors or contemporaries.