Prior Research. Subject to EMCC’s prior agreement, as evidenced by EMCC’s execution of the statement set forth in Section 15.27 hereof, this Agreement shall supercede the CRDLA, and the CRDLA is terminated, as of the Effective Date. All work remaining to be performed under the CRDLA with respect to the * Research Projects active under the CRDLA as of the Effective Date, as described in Section 2.01, shall be performed under this Agreement, and shall be managed pursuant to the provisions of Article 3. Research activities performed under the CRDLA (including research activities performed under the Interim Agreement) and the Interim Alliance Agreement shall be considered to be work performed in the Research Program for all purposes of this Agreement, including without limitation license payment obligations set forth in Article 8 of this Agreement; provided, however, that payments made to Symyx Tech under the CRDLA, the Interim Agreement and the Interim Alliance Agreement shall not offset or reduce the payments provided for under this Agreement, except as expressly set forth in Sections 8.01.3, 8.05 and 8.06. In addition, Confidential Information supplied by one party to another party under the CRDLA, the Interim Agreement and the Interim Alliance Agreement shall be considered as Confidential Information supplied under this Agreement and shall be governed by the provisions of Article 11 below.
Prior Research. The presence of sentencing disparities along the lines of ethnicity/race has attracted immense scholarly attention, with most attention devoted to the preferential treat- ment of White versus Black defendants at sentencing in the U.S. (Xxxxxxx and Xxxxx, 1998; Xxxxx, 2000; Xxxxx, 1998; Xxxxxxx, 1981; Xxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxxx, 1997; Xxxxxxxx- xxxxx et al., 1998; Xxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxx, 1981; Xxxxx and Xxxxxx, 1996). Recently, a growing literature also focuses theoretically and empirically on Hispanic defendants Xxxxx Xxxxxxx et al. in the U.S. to provide for White-Black-Hispanic comparisons (e.g., Xxxxxxxxxxxxx and Xxxxxx, 2001; Xxxxxx, Xxxxxxxx, and Xxxxx, 2012). On the whole, effects of race and ethnicity tend to be small and, in certain contexts, affect judges’ decisions in sentenc- ing only indirectly or in combination with other offender characteristics, such as age, employment, and sex (Xxxxxxxxxxxxx et al., 1998; Xxxxx and Xxxxxxxx, 2000).1 As sug- gested by Xxxxx (2009: 190) about this work, The fact that . . . African Americans and . . . Hispanics were more likely than whites to be sentenced to prison, even after taking crime seriousness and prior criminal record into account, suggests that racial discrimination in sentencing is not a thing of the past. Limited work on other minority groups, such as Native American offenders (e.g.,Xxxx- rez and Xxxxxxx, 1996) or Asian offenders (Xxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxxx, 2009), and work in other contexts, such as Australia and Canada (Xxxx and Xxxxxxxx, 2011; Xxxxxxx and Xxxx, 1997; Xxxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxxxxx, 2007;Xxxxxxxx, 1999; but see Xxxxx and Xxxxxx, 2008) reaches similar conclusions. Also in Europe, a long research tradition focuses on sentenc- ing. In particular, scholars have focused on normative issues surrounding aggravating and mitigating factors in sentencing (e.g., Xxxxxxx, 2011; Xxxxxx, 2014); public opinions regarding sentencing practices (Xxxxx and Xxxxxxx, 1999; Xxxxxxxx and Xxxxxx, 2011); and consistency and discretion within criminal justice systems (Xx Xxxxxxx, 2000; Xxxxx and Xxxxxxxx, 2014; Xxxx-Xxxxxxx, 2015; Xxxxxxxˇxx, 2013). But, in Europe, with its unique immigrant groups, quantitative multivariate research on the effects of race or ethnicity on punishment decisions is virtually non-existent.2 Research is impeded by the lack of available data on offenders’ ethnicity (Xxxxx, 2014). Although it is common knowl- edge that some immigrant groups are overrepresented in European prisons, it is unclear wh...
Prior Research. 2.2.1 The Parties acknowledge that Kymera has performed certain Research Activities with respect to Collaboration Target 1 prior to the Execution Date, and agree that for purposes of this Agreement, [***].
Prior Research. 2.2.1 The Parties acknowledge that Xxxxxx has performed certain Research Activities with respect to Collaboration Target 1 prior to the Original Agreement Execution Date, and agree that for purposes of this Agreement, [***].
Prior Research. First of all, we defined the core goal the platform should fulfill. As described in the initial project proposal, a well-functioning platform should serve to close the gap between investors and innovators involved in the market for climate adaptation and disaster risk reduction solutions and give structural guidance and support in doing this, outlasting the BRIGAID project period. In order to achieve these goals, the platform would need to be valuable and useful to both the innovators and the investors, and develop a sustainable income source for itself at the same time. In order to serve the innovators, the platform should give the innovators exposure to sources of funding that they would otherwise have trouble reaching. However, in order to allow for this, investors should benefit from the platform as well, by being presented with innovators that are of sufficient quality and that provide opportunities and value to the investor beyond those that he or she will have easy access to through their own channels. Though only broadly defined here, these goals are considered a minimum requirement for the platform to be successful, because providing value to these two classes of users is necessary in order for it to start creating the desired impact. This requirement does introduce some challenges that need to be tackled. First of all, any solution that is suggested that offers this value should be built to outlast the BRIGAID project period. This requires the platform to be financially self-sustaining. Related to this, the platform should make sure to fill a niche, that provides value that is not already offered by existing platforms, specifically providing benefit to the innovators that fall within the scope of BRIGAID. This is required, not only to achieve the core goals of the platform, but also to ensure financial viability. It speaks to reason to obtain this unique value from the core value that the BRIGAID market analysis and business development support currently offers innovators. However, this value is heavily reliant on the professional support that innovators currently receive from the BRIGAID partners - which is currently not accounted for after the end of the project. The following paragraphs show the results of the competitor analysis that was performed in order to find the gaps where the Funding Platform might add unique value; the feedback gathered from potential platform users, both on the side of the investor and the innovator; key insights fro...
Prior Research. The presence of sentencing disparities along the lines of ethnicity/race has attracted immense scholarly attention, with most attention devoted to the preferential treat- ment of White versus Black defendants at sentencing in the U.S. (Bridges and Xxxxx, 1998; Xxxxx, 0000; Xxxxx, 0000; Radelet, 1981; Xxxxxxx and Xxxxxxxxx, 1997; Xxxxxxxx- xxxxx et al., 1998; Thomson and Zingraff, 1981; Xxxxx and Xxxxxx, 1996). Recently, a growing literature also focuses theoretically and empirically on Hispanic defendants Xxxxx Wermink et al. in the U.S. to provide for White-Black-Hispanic comparisons (e.g., Xxxxxxxxxxxxx and Xxxxxx, 2001; Warren, Chiricos, and Xxxxx, 2012). On the whole, effects of race and ethnicity tend to be small and, in certain contexts, affect judges’ decisions in sentenc- ing only indirectly or in combination with other offender characteristics, such as age, employment, and sex (Xxxxxxxxxxxxx et al., 1998; Xxxxx and Xxxxxxxx, 2000).1 As sug- gested by Xxxxx (2009: 190) about this work,
Prior Research. 10.1 If I have based any of my research for the Project on work I may have performed prior to being assigned to the Project, I must bring this to the attention of my Faculty Supervisor so that UPEI and I can reach agreement on the ownership or protection of prior work. Although not a requirement, it is strongly recommended that Three Oaks Innovations Inc. be involved in these discussions.
