You are looking at 1 - 6 of 6 items

  • Author or Editor: M. O’Connor x
Clear All Modify Search
You do not have access to this content

Sean M. O’Connor

This Chapter examines the curious contrast in United States law that corporations can be author but not inventors. Further, while U.S. patent law has an implicit right to attribution for natural person inventors - regardless of whether the individual retains any ownership rights to the patent - there is no such right in the copyright law, covering creative self-expression. This Chapter sets out the roots of corporate personhood as a means for understanding the concept that a corporation could be an “author,” before contrasting the different historical outcomes for copyrights and patents.

You do not have access to this content

J. Martinez-Alier and M. O’Connor

You do not have access to this content

Cecilia M. Bailliet and Simon O’Connor

This chapter addresses the character of the obligations in the UN Charter with respect to the maintenance of international peace and security as articulated in Article 1(1), (2), and (3), and Chapters VI and VIII. This contribution discusses the sequential nature of the Charter to emphasize the obligations, first and foremost, to resolve disputes peacefully and prevent escalation. The chapter presents the framework of UN Bodies, including the Security Council, General Assembly, and office of the Secretary-General and their practice in implementing these obligations. Additionally, it underscores the importance of recourse to these fora in pursuing negotiations between States and non-State actors. Finally, it delineates the role of regional mechanisms in enabling States to fulfil their primary duty of pacific settlement. It concludes by examining whether future implementation should be strengthened within existing UN and regional institutions addressing the pacific settlement of disputes.

You do not have access to this content

Alan C. O'Connor, Albert N. Link, Brandon M. Down and Laura M. Hillier

The Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) allied to analyze the impact of their investments in medical imaging research. The CFI funds capital and operating programs for research infrastructure, and CIHR’s mandate concentrates its funding on research activity. It happens that CIHR funded research consumes CFI-funded infrastructure as an input in the innovation process. Apart from a few partnered programs, by design there is no coordination between CFI and CIHR funding decisions. Together, these agencies invested $916 million over a 14 year-period. In this paper, we evaluate the economic and health benefits from advancements in one funded area, namely computed tomography perfusion (CTP). CTP is an imaging technique that uses computed tomography to measure blood flow in organs and tissues. It is mostly used to assess acute ischemic stroke. The net social benefits attributable to these investments are substantially positive: the benefit-to-cost ratio is estimated to be between 6.66-to-1 and 9.99-to-1. We review how public investments from multiple funders comingle in the innovation process to deliver social value and improved health outcomes.