230582 research outputs found
Sort by
Demand Versus Desire: "Fair Balance Between Intellectual Property Protection and Public Interest"?
No full textWhen East "Writes Through" West: Adapting the Euro-American Canon in Contemporary Asian Literature and Media
No full text
Within- and between-family genetic effects on educational achievement vary across countries and ages
No full textPolygenic score (PGS) predictions of educational achievement are sizeable at the population level. Yet, population-level PGS predictions are environmentally confounded, due to gene-environment correlations, assortative mating, and population stratification. This confounding complicates the interpretation and application of PGS predictions of educational achievement. Here, we charted the variability of PGS predictions in N = 8115 dizygotic twins from UK, US, Swedish, and German samples aged 7 to 19 years. Population-level PGS predictions of educational achievement ranged from β = 0.16 to β = 0.37 across ages and countries. Discerning within- and between-family level estimates, we found that 10 to 65% of the population-level PGS predictions were due to environmental confounding, of which 29 to 100% were accounted for by family socioeconomic status. Variability in within-family and population-level PGS predictions was largely unsystematic across countries’ school systems (multi-tiered vs. comprehensive) and children’s ages. Therefore, interpretations regarding the sources of environmental confounding effects on educational achievement remain, at present, speculative.</p
Home-country effects of outward foreign direct investment:A systematic review of empirical and policy evidence
Get PDFThis article offers a first aggregated insight on the merits and risks of outward foreign direct investment (OFDI) for the economies and development of home countries, based on a systematic review of 130 empirical studies. The review finds strong evidence for the prevalence of eight home-country effects, with 71 % of studies reporting a positive impact on home countries. Several influencing factors were found to affect the magnitude of these effects. We also find that many governments facilitate OFDI through home-country measures, suggesting that they consider OFDI to be beneficial. Yet, this is a latecomer area of inquiry, with some effects under- or not investigated, and the impact of home-country measures has yet to be conclusively studied. A reversed analytical perspective focusing on OFDI as an activity aimed at generating financial and other worthwhile and beneficial returns that manifest themselves as home-country effects can considerably enrich FDI research.</p
Parental income and psychiatric disorders from age 10 to 40:a genetically informative population study
No full textBackground: Lower parental income is associated with more psychiatric disorders among offspring, but it is unclear if this association reflects effects of parental income (social causation) or shared risk factors (social selection). Prior research finds contradictory results, which may be due to age differences between the studied offspring. Methods: Here, we studied psychiatric disorders in the entire Norwegian population aged 10 to 40 years between 2006 and 2018 (N = 2,468,503). By linking tax registries to administrative health registries, we described prevalence rates by age, sex, and parental income rank. Next, we grouped observations into age groups (adolescence, ages 10–20 years; early adulthood, 21–30 years; adulthood, 30–40 years) and applied kinship-based models with extended families of twins and siblings to decompose the parent–offspring correlation into phenotypic transmission, passive genetic transmission, and passive environmental transmission. Results: We found that lower parental income rank was associated with higher prevalence of nearly all psychiatric disorders, except for eating disorders, for both men and women at all ages from 10 to 40 years. Comparing the top with the bottom paternal income quartile, the prevalence ratio of any psychiatric disorder was 0.47 among 10-year-olds and decreased to 0.72 among 40-year-olds. The parent–offspring correlation was −.15 in adolescence, −.10 in early adulthood, and −.06 in adulthood. The kinship-based models indicated that phenotypic transmission could account for 39% of the parent–offspring correlation among adolescents (p <.001), but with no significant contribution in early adulthood (p =.181) or adulthood (p =.737). Passive genetic and environmental transmission contributed to the parent–offspring correlation in all age groups (all p's <.001). Conclusions: Our findings are consistent with a significant role of social causation during adolescence, while social selection could fully explain the parent–offspring correlation in adulthood.</p
Visual Culture Fourth Edition
No full textA fourth, revised, and expanded edition, with Joaquim Negreiros, Henrik Linden, and Sara Linde
Cart before the Horse? <i>BSH Hausgeräte v Electrolux</i> and Exclusive Jurisdiction over Patent Validity
Get PDFIn a much-anticipated judgment, the Grand Chamber of the CJEU in BSH Hausgeräte GmbH v Electrolux AP reshaped the landscape of cross-border patent litigation in the EU. The case concerned the interpretation of Article 24(4) of Regulation 1215/2012 (Brussels Ia), under which the courts of the European Member State of deposit or registration have exclusive jurisdiction “in proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of patents, trade marks, designs, or other similar rights required to be deposited or registered, irrespective of whether the issue is raised by way of an action or as a defence”. In its judgment, the Court of Justice clarified that a court seised of an infringement claim relating to a patent registered in a EU Member State does not lose jurisdiction merely because the defendant has challenged validity. It also confirmed that Article 24(4) does not apply to patents registered in third States, and – crucially – permitted courts to assess the validity of such patents inter partes. This note examines the practical implications of this landmark ruling, identifies unresolved questions, and criticises the inconsistency it introduced between patents registered inside and outside the EU
