To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
A scenario well known to Beowulf scholars alleges that after Beowulf has slain the monsters and gone home, Hrothulf, nephew of the Danish king Hrothgar, will murder prince Hrethric to gain the throne when the old king dies. This story, that many Anglo-Saxonists assume is integral to the ancient legend of these kings, is a modern misreading of the poet's allusions to events associated with the Scylding dynasty — a legendary history that the poet arguably takes care to follow. The present essay, in two parts, first shows how the idea of Hrothulf's treachery arose and became canonical under the influence of prestigious English and American scholars, then finds fault with this idea, refuting its “proof” from Saxo Grammaticus and showing how some Anglo-Saxonists have doubted that Beowulf supports an interpretation making Hrothulf a murderer. But when the poet's allusions to future treachery are ambiguous, at least for modern readers, in order to exonerate Hrothulf fully one must go to traditions about the Scylding dynasty outside the poem. Scandinavian regnal lists (including one that Saxo himself incorporates) consistently contradict the event the Saxo passage has been used to prove, as they agree on a sequence of Scylding rulers with names corresponding to those of persons in Beowulf. Attention to this traditional sequence exposes Hrothulf's murder of Hrethric as a logical impossibility. Moreover, the early medieval method of selecting rulers suggests that neither did Hrothulf usurp the throne of Denmark. In sum, careful scrutiny of the best Scandinavian evidence and rejection of the worst reveals Beowulf's “treacherous Hrothulf” to be a scholarly fantasy.
Rheumatic fever, an immune sequela of untreated streptococcal infections, is an important contributor to global cardiovascular disease. The goal of this study was to describe trends, characteristics, and cost burden of children discharged from hospitals with a diagnosis of RF from 2000 to 2012 within the United States.
Using the Kids’ Inpatient Database, we examined characteristics of children discharged from hospitals with the diagnosis of rheumatic fever over time including: overall hospitalisation rates, age, gender, race/ethnicity, regional differences, payer type, length of stay, and charges.
The estimated national cumulative incidence of rheumatic fever in the United States between 2000 and 2012 was 0.61 cases per 100,000 children. The median age was 10 years, with hospitalisations significantly more common among children aged 6–11 years. Rheumatic fever hospitalisations among Asian/Pacific Islanders were significantly over-represented. The proportion of rheumatic fever hospitalisations was greater in the Northeast and less in the South, although the highest number of rheumatic fever admissions occurred in the South. Expected payer type was more likely to be private insurance, and the median total hospital charges (adjusted for inflation to 2012 dollars) were $16,000 (interquartile range: $8900–31,200). Median length of stay was 3 days, and the case fatality ratio for RF in the United States was 0.4%.
Rheumatic fever persists in the United States with an overall downwards trend between 2003 and 2012. Rheumatic fever admissions varied considerably based on age group, region, and origin.
Childhood adversities have been associated with chronic inflammation and risk for cardiovascular disease. With some exceptions, existing knowledge of this relationship is based on retrospective self-reports, potentially subject to recall bias or memory problems. We seek to determine whether childhood maltreatment is associated with higher C-reactive protein (CRP) later in life and whether individuals with official and retrospective self-reports of maltreatment and men and women show similar increases in risk.
Data are from in-person interviews in 2009–2010 with 443 offspring (mean age = 23.4) of parents in a longitudinal study of the consequences of childhood maltreatment. Official reports of maltreatment were abstracted from 2011–2013 Child Protective Services records. Eleven measures were used to assess self-reported maltreatment retrospectively. Seventeen percent of offspring had official reports, whereas self-reported prevalence rates ranged from 5.4% to 64.8%. CRP was assessed through blood spot samples. Regression models were used to estimate the effect of maltreatment on inflammation, adjusting for age, sex, race, parent occupational status, current depression, smoking, and heavy drinking.
Individuals with official reports of child maltreatment and, specifically, physical abuse, had significantly higher levels of CRP than non-maltreated individuals. Maltreated females showed elevated CRP, independent of control variables, whereas no significant association was observed in males. Retrospective self-report measures of child maltreatment did not predict elevated CRP.
Individuals with documented histories of childhood maltreatment are at increased risk for chronic inflammation and may benefit from targeted interventions. The results strengthen inferences about the effects of childhood maltreatment on inflammation in females.
Chapter 7 describes how 3D printing technology will disrupt trademark law’s core function of indicating the source or origin of manufactured goods. The technology dissociates product design from product manufacturing. Design is embodied in a 3D printable file, while manufacturing is commoditized and democratized. When 3D printable files, as opposed to manufactured goods, are offered for sale, symbols appearing “inside” of the digital files (i.e., on the digital object) do not indicate the source of the file. Rather, source indicators are found “outside” of the file, on the websites that offer the files for sale. 3D printing technology will also radically disrupt the doctrine of post-sale confusion. At the same time, current, expanded theories of trademark law condemn uses of symbols that might dilute a trademark or suggest a connection to a trademark owner. These stronger versions of trademark protection, which are widely criticized, would give trademark owners to the right to control most uses of their marks “inside” of files. This would inhibit innovation and creative expression without a clear benefit to the public. Therefore, I recommend against these stronger protections for DMFs.
3D printing technology unquestionably will grow in importance in the coming years. The technology will disrupt the settled processes for the design, manufacture, and dissemination of myriad physical objects. I have used the term physitization to capture the various facets of this disruptive phenomenon whereby objects can move back and forth between digital and physical embodiments and in which economic value has spread from tangible to virtual embodiments.
Chapter 5 turns to patent infringement. It introduces a fundamental tension between patent holders and good faith users of the technology. 3D printing will expose unsuspecting individuals and 3D print shops to patent infringement liability when they print patented objects. To spare unintentionally infringing individuals and 3D print shops the ruinous costs of litigation, I explore options for exemptions and safe harbors. At the same time, if 3D printing enables massive, individualized manufacturing, and if the law exempts each individual act of infringement, patent rights would be eviscerated. Squaring this circle will not be easy, but the chapter explores ways to alleviate the tension, particularly by strengthening indirect infringement claims and limiting exemptions to cases where the accused infringer had no knowledge of the patent. In addition, Chapter 5 demonstrates that 3D printable files will not infringe traditional patent claims directed to tangible objects. Moreover, the most commonly traded 3D printable file format will not infringe a computer-readable medium (Beauregard) claim. Attempting to alleviate some of the protection gaps for patent holders while balancing the needs of users, the chapter considers a novel theory of “digital patent infringement.”
Chapter 4 analyzes the doctrine of patentable subject matter. Delving into American, European, and Japanese patent jurisprudence, it first describes how these legal systems handle software-related inventions in general. Next, it applies that jurisprudence to 3D printable files to demonstrate why only one of the three 3D printing file formats is likely to constitute patentable subject matter. More intriguingly, it turns out that this file format is of least interest to would-be patent holders. In other words, a patent protection gap exists. Chapter 4 also analyzes jurisdictions’ differential treatment of patent claims directed to electronic signals. The Japanese and European patent systems consider these claims to be patentable subject matter, whereas the U.S. system does not. The upshot is that patent protection for software and 3D printable files is weaker in the United States because most 3D printable files are sold as internet signal transmissions. I argue that the United States should provide protection for signal claims.
Chapter 3 provides a short overview of IP law for those not familiar with it. It introduces the major concepts of patent law, copyright law, trademark law, and design patent law, focusing on internationally agreed upon frameworks and treaties such as the Berne Convention, the Paris Convention, and TRIPS. It also walks readers through fundamental concepts like territoriality, validity, direct and indirect infringement, and remedies.
Chapter 2 tackles a key technological concept – the various file formats used in the design and manufacturing process. These include design files (CAD), surface-mesh files (STL), and machine-instruction files (GCODE). Understanding how IP law will apply to 3D printing requires an understanding of these file formats because the law will treat each format differently. Crucially, 3D printing technology shifts economic value from tangible objects to these file formats, particularly to surface-mesh files, which are the most widely sold format. This change in the locus of economic value is important because IP law may not protect 3D printable files in the same manner as tangible objects. The chapter also describes the various kinds of 3D printers on the market and important complementary technologies, like 3D scanners. Finally, it describes the many participants in the IP ecosystem.