A New Bot Fly Species (Diptera: Oestridae) From Central Texas

The bot fly Cephenemyia albina (Diptera: Oestridae) is described from a relict pine forest in east-central Texas. This species presumably lives as a parasitic larva in the throat of white-tailed deer as do its two close relatives previously reported from both Texas and the Great Lakes region (C. phobifera (Clark) and C. jellisoni Townsend). Only the adult male is currently known

The Egg of \u3ci\u3eStylogaster Neglecta\u3c/i\u3e Williston (Diptera: Conopidae)

Adults of both sexes and the previously unknown eggs of the parasitoid conopid fly Stylogaster neglecta Williston are illustrated and measurements are provided, including the total clutch size and the lengths and widths of eggs from random samples

Introduction: Special Project - Current Issues in Intellectual Property

A single legal concept has produced some of the greatest achievements of the human mind: intellectual property. Thousands of years ago, Aristotle denounced the then novel notion of rewarding those who create inventions beneficial to the state. History has been kind to Aristotle, but not because of his insights on intellectual property. The Venetian Senate\u27s passage of the 1474 Act marked the beginning of systematic patent protection on European soil. Along with blown glassware, Venice later exported its penchant for patent protection to the rest of Europe, including Great Britain by the mid- sixteenth century. During the same era, the British crown granted the first copyright after the printing press came to England. Across the Atlantic two centuries later, the drafters of the United States Constitution held protecting intellectual property in such high esteem that they reserved the founding document\u27s sole reference to right for Congress\u27s power [t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. Shortly after the Constitution\u27s ratification, Thomas Jefferson, a-key proponent of American intellectual property law, elaborated on this right: That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. As Jefferson envisioned, American ingenuity-from inventions like Bell\u27s telephone and Edison\u27s light bulb to the artistry of Hollywood and Nashville-has spread throughout the world, fueled by intellectual property law\u27s twin competing goals of providing an incentive for authors and inventors to create while granting the public access to the fruits of their creativity

Copyright Deja Vu : A New Definition of Publication Under the Copyright Act of 1909

I have a dream, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., declared from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial during the March on Washington in 1963. About 200,000 people had gathered to listen to Dr. King\u27s famous speech and to participate in the events of the day. Millions more witnessed the live broadcast on major television and radio stations. Others read the text of the speech in newspapers across the country. Just over a month later, Dr. King applied for federal copyright protection for the speech. Under federal copyright law at the time, an owner who published a work prior to complying with statutory formalities lost his ownership rights. Thus, the question arose: did Dr. King\u27s delivery of the speech coupled with its extensive reproduction and dissemination constitute a publication of the speech, thereby forfeiting his ownership rights? Although the speech was delivered over forty years ago, litigation concerning the existence of this copyright has persisted into the twenty-first century. Others continue to litigate their own copyright disputes regarding musical compositions and other works created decades ago. The problem stems from an almost one- hundred-year-old statute with a glaring gap. The statute, the Copyright Act of 1909 ( 1909 Act ), which governs disputes of whether a work was published before 1978, fails to provide the definition of its key term- publication. \u27 Accordingly, for nearly a century, courts and scholars have disputed the definition of publication under the 1909 Act and the application of that definition to cases. Discrepancies exist not only between jurisdictions, but also within them, as manifested by the Eleventh Circuit\u27s decision in Estate of Martin Luther King, Jr., Inc. v. CBS, Inc., in which each member of the three-judge panel disagreed either on the appropriate definition of publication or on its application to the facts of the case. This Note proposes a new definition that is simple, complete, and consistent with the 1909 Act as written and with the Act\u27s dual purposes of promoting the free dissemination of ideas through a reward of a limited monopoly to authors. Part II presents a background of the 1909 Act by examining its continued relevance, its dual policies, some of its methods for implementing those policies, and the significance of publication to the 1909 Act. Part III analyzes leading definitions of publication, areas of consensus and disagreement in their application, and exploitations of works not generally considered publication. Part IV offers a new definition of publication under the 1909 Act: subject to three exceptions, publication is the exploitation of a work authorized by the author and/or owner of the work. Part V applies this definition to the facts of several notable cases and demonstrates how it serves the purposes of the 1909 Act

Special Project: Current Issues in Intellectual Property

A single legal concept has produced some of the greatest achievements of the human mind: intellectual property. Thousands of years ago, Aristotle denounced the then novel notion of rewarding those who create inventions beneficial to the state. History has been kind to Aristotle, but not because of his insights on intellectual property. The Venetian Senate\u27s passage of the 1474 Act marked the beginning of systematic patent protection on European soil. Along with blown glassware, Venice later exported its penchant for patent protection to the rest of Europe, including Great Britain by the mid- sixteenth century. During the same era, the British crown granted the first copyright after the printing press came to England. Across the Atlantic two centuries later, the drafters of the United States Constitution held protecting intellectual property in such high esteem that they reserved the founding document\u27s sole reference to right for Congress\u27s power [t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. Shortly after the Constitution\u27s ratification, Thomas Jefferson, a-key proponent of American intellectual property law, elaborated on this right: That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. As Jefferson envisioned, American ingenuity-from inventions like Bell\u27s telephone and Edison\u27s light bulb to the artistry of Hollywood and Nashville-has spread throughout the world, fueled by intellectual property law\u27s twin competing goals of providing an incentive for authors and inventors to create while granting the public access to the fruits of their creativity. Mixing this ingenuity with technological advances, competing policy rationales, and the complexity of marking the metes and bounds of intangible property rights has produced some of the most challenging legal issues of our time. Internet file-swapping technology, which has facilitated the free downloading of millions of songs at a cost of billions to the music industry, has recently come to the Supreme Court. Drug manufacturers stock the United States\u27 shelves with pharmaceuticals that can prolong by decades the lives of those infected with HIV, but twenty-five million Africans with AIDS remain untreated because national patent laws enable manufacturers to set prices those suffering from the disease cannot afford

The Three-Component System

n/

Irrigation and disease management of vegetables

Wise use of irrigation may help farmers to reduce fungicide applications on vegetable crops. Such a reduction is potentially significant when one considers that irrigation, fertilizer, and pesticide use account for more than 50 percent of the energy expended in fresh vegetable production

Montana Forestry Notes, June 1964

This is issue 1: Soil Temperatures in the Lubrecht Experimental Foresthttps://scholarworks.umt.edu/montana_forestry_notes/1000/thumbnail.jp