Podcast appearances and mentions of petra moser

As two cis-gendered men without children, talking about motherhood in academia isn't really our forte. So, with Lachlan travelling, we took the opportunity to invite Hélène Draux from Digitial Science as guest co-host with Jakob for a conversation about motherhood in academia with Lisette Espín-Noboa and the role it plays in the gender gap. Lisette is a postdoc at the Complexity Science Hub and Central European University.We discuss the structural issues within academic institutions that disproportionately affect mothers and offer recommendations for creating a more supportive environment for women researchers. We also touch on the role of fathers in sharing parental responsibilities and the positive aspects of motherhood that can enhance academic productivity.  We end the conversation with a chat about actionable steps that can be taken to improve conditions for parents in academia, including better childcare options, flexible contracts, and the need for role models.The presenting sponsor if this episode is Digital Science.It's produced and edited by Peter Xiong. You can find Lisette and Hélène here:Lisette's website: https://www.lisetteespin.info/Lisette at LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lisetteespin/Hélène at LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/h%C3%A9l%C3%A8ne-draux-4059233a/Organisations mentioned in the episodeMothers in Science | @mothersinsci. Global non-profit organization that advocates for mothers in STEMM and creates evidence-based solutions to promote workplace equity & inclusion of caregivers. mothersinscience.com. Parenthood in Academica (@parenthood_ns) Selected articles and resources mentioned in the episode:Anne Sophie Lassen, and Ria Ivandić. "Parenthood and Academic Career Trajectories." In American Economic Association (AEA) Papers and Proceedings, 2024.Stephanie D. Cheng "Careers versus children: How childcare affects the academic tenure-track gender gap." Working Paper (2020).Scott Daewon Kim & Petra Moser. “BOOM, BABY. WOMEN IN SCIENCE LESSONS FROM THE BABY BOOM." (2020).Gemma Derrick, E., Pei-Ying Chen, Thed van Leeuwen, Vincent Larivière, and Cassidy R. Sugimoto. "The relationship between parenting engagement and academic performance." Scientific Reports 12, no. 1 (2022): 22300.Allison C. Morgan, Samuel F. Way, Michael JD Hoefer, Daniel B. Larremore, Mirta Galesic, and Aaron Clauset. "The unequal impact of parenthood in academia." Science Advances 7, no. 9 (2021): eabd1996.A Simple Act of Defiance Can Improve Science for WomenResearcher parents are paying a high price for conference travel — here's how to fix it (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01571-x) Lindsey Smith Taillie “​​Being a parent is a hidden scientific superpower — here's why” Nature (2024)Kendall Powell “The parenting penalties faced by scientist mothers”Cecilie Steenbuch Traberg “I had three children during my PhD: here's what I learnt” Nature (2024)Thanks for listening. Please share, rate, review and follow us on Twitter @Divrespod .If you're interested in our work with diversity and internationalisation in research, please visit www.diversiunity.com.

It is fairly obvious that the dominant, i.e. Western mechanism for generating new knowledge is rather different from the traditional Indian mechanism, and this shows up in all sorts of ways. One is that Indian epistemology seems to be empirical and practical, based on observation; whereas the Western tradition seems to prefer grand theories that must then be proved by observation.Another difference is the Western idea that Intellectual Property is a private right that the State confers on an inventor or a creator. The Western gaze is fixed on the potential monetary gains from a monopoly over the use of the IP Right (for a fixed period of time, after which it is in the public domain): the argument is that it eventually helps everybody, while incentivizing the clever. The Indian concept is vastly different. It was assumed that a creator created, or an inventor invented, as a result of their innate nature, their god-given gifts. In a way they could not avoid being creative or inventive, which would be a negation of the blessing they had received from the Supreme Brahman. Therefore no further incentive was needed: benevolent patrons like kings or temples would take care of their basic needs, allowing them to give free rein to creativity and innovation.This seems to us today to be a radical idea, because we have been conditioned by the contemporary epistemological idea that incentives are a necessary condition for knowledge creation. Although this seems common-sensical, there is no real evidence that this is true. Petra Moser, then at MIT, discovered via comparing 19th century European countries that the presence of an IPR culture with incentives made little difference in the quantum of innovation, although it seemed to change the domains that were the most innovative.. In fact, there is at least one counter-example: that of Open Source in computing. It boggles the imagination that veritable armies of software developers would work for free, nights and weekends, in addition to their full-time jobs, and develop computing systems like Linux that are better than the corporate versions out there: the whole “Cathedral and Bazaar” story as articulated by Eric Raymond. Briefly, he argues that the chaotic ‘bazaar' of open source is inherently superior to the regimented but soul-less ‘cathedral' of the big tech firms.It is entirely possible that the old Indian epistemological model is efficient, but the prevailing model of WIPO, national Patent Offices, and all that paraphernalia massively benefits the Western model. As an example, the open-source model was predicted to make a big difference in biology, but that effort seems to have petered out after a promising start. Therefore we are stuck for the foreseeable future with the IP model, which means Indians need to excel at it.In passing, let us note that the brilliant Jagdish Chandra Bose was a pioneer in the wireless transmission of information, including the fundamental inventions that make cellular telephony possible. However, as a matter of principle, he refused to patent his inventions; Guglielmo Marconi did, and became rich and famous. India has traditionally been quite poor in the number of patents, trademarks, copyrights, geographical indications, semiconductor design layouts etc. that it produces annually. Meanwhile the number of Chinese patents has skyrocketed. Over the last few years, the number of Indian patents has grown as the result of focused efforts by the authorities, as well as the realization by inventors that IP rights can help startup firms dominate niche markets. India also produces a lot of creative works, including books, films, music and so on. The enforcement of copyright laws has been relatively poor, and writers and artistes often do not get fair compensation for their work. This is deplorable. Unfortunately, things will get a lot worse with generative AI. Most of us have heard of, and probably also tried out, the chatbots that have been the object of much attention and hype in the past year, such as chatGPT from OpenAI/Microsoft and Bard from Google. Whether these are truly useful is a good question, because they seduce us into thinking they are conscious, despite the fact that they are merely ‘stochastic parrots'. But I digress.The point is that the digital revolution has thrown the edifice of copyright law into disarray. At the forefront of this upheaval stands generative AI, a technology with the uncanny ability to mimic and extend human creative output. Consider two stark examples: the contentious case of J.K. Rowling and her copyright battle with a Harry Potter-inspired fanfic, and the recent Japanese law that grants broad exemptions for training large language models (LLMs). J.K. Rowling's spat with Anna M. Bricken, the author of a Harry Potter fanfic titled "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Wine," ignited a global debate about fair use and transformative creativity. Bricken's work reimagined the Potterverse with an adult lens, but Rowling, citing trademark infringement, sought to have it taken down. While the case eventually settled, it exposed a fundamental dilemma: can AI-generated works, even if derivative, be considered distinct enough from their source material to warrant copyright protection? The answer, shrouded in legal ambiguity, leaves creators navigating a tightrope walk between inspiration and infringement.On the other side of the globe, Japan enacted a law in 2022 that further muddies the waters. This controversial regulation grants LLMs and other AI systems an almost carte blanche to ingest and remix copyrighted material for training purposes without seeking permission or paying royalties. While proponents laud it as a catalyst for AI innovation, critics warn of widespread copyright infringement and a potential future where authorship becomes a nebulous concept. The Japanese law, echoing anxieties around J.K. Rowling's case, raises unsettling questions: who owns the creative spark when AI fuels the fire?For India, a nation at the precipice of the AI revolution, these developments raise crucial questions. With a burgeoning AI industry and a large creative sector, India must tread carefully. Adapting existing copyright laws to encompass the nuances of AI-generated works is paramount. Robust fair use guidelines that incentivize transformative creativity while safeguarding original authorship are urgently needed. Furthermore, fostering ethical AI development practices that respect intellectual property rights is crucial.The debate surrounding AI and copyright is not merely a legal tussle; it's a battle for the very definition of creativity. In this fight, India has the opportunity to carve a path that balances innovation with artistic integrity. By acknowledging the complexities of AI while upholding the cornerstone principles of copyright, India can become a global leader in navigating the uncharted territory of digital authorship. The future of creativity, fueled by both human imagination and AI's boundless potential, hangs in the balance, and India has the chance to shape its trajectory.Disclaimer: The last few paragraphs above were written by Google Bard, and lightly edited. A chatbot can produce coherent text, but it may be, and often is, completely wrong (‘hallucinations'). Now who owns the copyright to this text? Traditionally, it would be owned by me and Firstpost, but what is the right answer now? Would we be responsible for any errors introduced by the AI?On the other hand, the ‘mining' of text, audio/video and images to train generative AI is an increasingly contentious issue. As an example, the New York Times sued OpenAI and Microsoft, arguing that they weren't being paid anywhere near the fair market value of their text that the tech companies mined. This sounds familiar to Indians, because Westerners have been ‘digesting' Indian ideas for a long time. Some of the most egregious examples were patents on basmati, turmeric and neem, which are absurd considering that these have been in use in India for millennia. The fact that these were documented in texts (‘prior art') enabled successful challenges against them.An even more alarming fact is the capture and ‘digestion' (a highly evocative term from Rajiv Malhotra, who has warned of the dangers of AI for years) of Indian personal and medical data. Unlike China, which carefully firewalls away its data from Western Big Tech, and indeed, does not even allow them to function in their country, Indian personal data is being freely mined by US Big Tech. India's Data Privacy laws, being debated now, need to be considered defensive weapons.Paradoxically, there is also the concern that Indic knowledge will, for all intents and purposes, disappear from the domain of discourse. Since the chatbots are trained on the uncurated Internet, they are infected by the Anglosphere prejudices and bigotry therein, not to mention deliberate misinformation and ‘toolkits' that are propagated. Since most Indic concepts are either not very visible, or denigrated, on the Internet (eg Wikipedia), chatbots are not even aware of them. For instance, a doctor friend and I published an essay in Open magazine comparing allopathy to generative AI, because both are stochastic (ie. based on statistics). We mentioned Ayurveda positively several times, because it has a theory of disease that makes it more likely to work with causation rather than correlation.However, when the article summarized by chatGPT, there was no mention whatsoever of the word ‘Ayurveda'. It is as though such a concept does not exist, which may in fact be true in the sense that it is deprecated in the training data that the chatbot was trained on.One solution is to create Indian foundational models that can then become competent in specific domains of interest: for example an Arthashastra chatbot. These can also be trained, if sufficient data sets are created, on Indian languages as well, which could incidentally support real-time machine translation as well. Thus there can be an offensive as well as a defensive strategy to enable Indic knowledge systems to thrive.India is at a point of crisis, but also of opportunity. If India were to harness some of the leading-edge technologies of today, it might once again become a global leader in knowledge generation, as it was a millennium ago with its great universities. 1680 words, Jan 10, 2024 This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit rajeevsrinivasan.substack.com

In this episode, we talk about new or unorthodox ways of measuring innovation with Petra Moser. Are patents a necessary condition for innovation? Which one is better: a patent system or secrecy? How does immigration affect innovations? How does motherhood affect productivity? And her experience and suggestions as an economist and economic historian. Let us know what you think! Email: lsepoidcast@gmail.com X: @POID_cast Hosts: Ruveyda Gozen (@ruveyda_gozen) and John Van Reenen (@jvanreenen)

Objections to overly broad intellectual property laws. Some critics of intellectual property, such as those in the free culture movement, point at intellectual monopolies as harming health (in the case of pharmaceutical patents), preventing progress, and benefiting concentrated interests to the detriment of the masses, and argue that the public interest is harmed by ever-expansive monopolies in the form of copyright extensions, software patents, and business method patents. More recently scientists and engineers are expressing concern that patent thickets are undermining technological development even in high-tech fields like nanotechnology. Petra Moser has asserted that historical analysis suggests that intellectual property laws may harm innovation: Overall, the weight of the existing historical evidence suggests that patent policies, which grant strong intellectual property rights to early generations of inventors, may discourage innovation. On the contrary, policies that encourage the diffusion of ideas and modify patent laws to facilitate entry and encourage competition may be an effective mechanism to encourage innovation. In support of that argument, Jörg Baten, Nicola Bianchi and Petra Moser find historical evidence that especially compulsory licensing – which allows governments to license patents without the consent of patent-owners – encouraged invention in Germany in the early 20th century by increasing the threat of competition in fields with low pre-existing levels of competition. Peter Drahos notes, "Property rights confer authority over resources. When authority is granted to the few over resources on which the many depend, the few gain power over the goals of the many. This has consequences for both political and economic freedom within a society." The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) recognizes that conflicts may exist between the respect for and implementation of current intellectual property systems and other human rights. In 2001 the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights issued a document called "Human rights and intellectual property" that argued that intellectual property tends to be governed by economic goals when it should be viewed primarily as a social product; in order to serve human well-being, intellectual property systems must respect and conform to human rights laws. According to the Committee, when systems fail to do so, they risk infringing upon the human right to food and health, and to cultural participation and scientific benefits. In 2004 the General Assembly of WIPO adopted The Geneva Declaration on the Future of the World Intellectual Property Organization which argues that WIPO should "focus more on the needs of developing countries, and to view IP as one of many tools for development—not as an end in itself". Ethical problems are most pertinent when socially valuable goods like life-saving medicines are given IP protection. While the application of IP rights can allow companies to charge higher than the marginal cost of production in order to recoup the costs of research and development, the price may exclude from the market anyone who cannot afford the cost of the product, in this case a life-saving drug. "An IPR driven regime is therefore not a regime that is conducive to the investment of R&D of products that are socially valuable to predominantly poor populations". --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

SINOPSE:Poucas mulheres ganharam um Nobel.Poucas mulheres singram na academia.Poucas mulheres ainda frequentam os cursos das chamadas áreas STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics - Ciência, Tecnologia, Engenharia, Matemática) Mais uma vez, a história repete-se; mas a Joana Pais e o Hugo van der Ding quiseram abordar o tema das diferenças de género de forma diferente. Trouxeram estudos e factos para cima da mesa, falando dos números que constatam o tão falado gender gap e que explicam como as próprias características de um género condicionam e definem as suas possibilidades de crescer numa carreira.REFERÊNCIAS E LINKS ÚTEIS:LIVROS:Claudia Goldin. Career & Family: Women's Century-Long Journey toward Equity. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press. 2021.Linda Babcock, Brenda Peyser, Lise Vesterlund e Laurie Weingart. The No Club: Putting a Stop to Women's Dead-End Work. Simon & Schuster. 2022.ARTIGOS:Amartya Sen (1990). More Than 100 Million Women Are Missing. The New York Review of BooksMuriel Niederle e Lise Vesterlund (2007). Do Women Shy Away From Competition? Do Men Compete Too Much?, The Quarterly Journal of Economics 122(3): 1067–1101, Scott Daewon Kim e Petra Moser (2021). WOMEN IN SCIENCE. LESSONS FROM THE BABY BOOM. NBER.Antecol, Heather, Kelly Bedard e Jenna Stearns (2018).  Equal but Inequitable: Who Benefits from Gender-Neutral Tenure Clock Stopping Policies? American Economic Review, 108 (9): 2420-41.Heather Sarsons, Klarita Gërxhani, Ernesto Reuben, and Arthur Schram (2021). Gender differences in recognition for group work. Journal of Political Economy 129(1).BIOS:JOANA PAISJoana Pais é professora de Economia no ISEG da Universidade de Lisboa. Obteve o seu Ph.D. em Economia na Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona em 2005. Atualmente é coordenadora do programa de Mestrado em Economia e do programa de Doutoramento em Economia, ambos do ISEG, e membro da direção da unidade de investigação REM - Research in Economics and Mathematics. É ainda coordenadora do XLAB – Behavioural Research Lab, um laboratório que explora a tomada de decisão e o comportamento económico, político e social, suportado pelo consórcio PASSDA (Production and Archive of Social Science Data). Os seus interesses de investigação incluem áreas como a teoria de jogos, em particular, a teoria da afetação (matching theory), o desenho de mercados, a economia comportamental e a economia experimental.HUGO VAN DER DING Hugo van der Ding nasceu nos finais dos anos 70 ao largo do Golfo da Biscaia, durante uma viagem entre Amesterdão e Lisboa, e cresceu numa comunidade hippie nos arredores de Montpellier. Estudou História das Artes Decorativas Orientais, especializando-se em gansos de origami. Em 2012, desistiu da carreira académica para fazer desenhos nas redes sociais. Depois do sucesso de A Criada Malcriada deixou de precisar de trabalhar. Ainda assim, escreve regularmente em revistas e jornais, é autor de alguns livros e podcasts, faz ocasionalmente teatro e televisão, e continua a fazer desenhos nas redes sociais. Desde 2019 é um dos apresentadores do programa Manhãs da 3, na Antena 3. 

Congrats to Hearts & Wheels, who won week 2 of #moxiemillion, by sharing the show to help it reach 1 million downloads this month! Necessity is the mother of invention and who was in a more necessitous position than victims of the Atlantic slave trade?  You may revolutionize industries, but good luck getting a patent. 00:47 Patents and law  06:40 Benjamin Bradley 09:10 Benjamin Montgomery 16:30 Thomas Jennings 23:15 Henry Boyd Links to all the research resources are on the website. Hang out with your fellow Brainiacs.  Reach out and touch Moxie on Facebook, Twitter,  or Instagram.  Become a patron of the podcast arts! Patreon or Ko-Fi.  Or buy the book and a shirt. Music: Kevin MacLeod, David Fesilyan, Dan Henig. Sponsors: History's Trainwrecks, What Was That Like, Sambucol Want to start a podcast or need a better podcast host?  Get up to TWO months hosting for free from Libsyn with coupon code "moxie."   The U.S. legal system has both helped and hindered racial justice through our history.  – high points like Brown v. Topeka Board of Education, which said that separate but equal inherently isn't equal, and one of my favorites, Loving v. Virginia. This aptly titled ruling finally overturned laws against interracial marriage, and low points like the notorious Dredd Scott decision, which said that no Black person could be a citizen or sue someone in court.  It's not just the Supreme Court.  As above, so below and that trickles all the way down to the USPTO.  My name's Moxie…   Real quick before we get stuck in: what is a patent?  A patent is a type of intellectual property that gives its owner the legal right to exclude others from making, using, or selling an invention for a set period of time.  Not to be confused with trademark or copyright, which you can hear more about in the episode Copy-wrong, link in the show notes.  Do you *need a patent to sell an invention?  No, but you need one if you want to be the only one to sell your invention.  A patent can't actually stop other people before they steal your idea, as anyone whose had to deal with cheap foreign knockoffs knows.  (That happened to a fellow who designed these amazing motion-sensing LED eyelashes I bought back in my burlesque days; the Chinese knockoffs hit Amazon before his Kickstarter had even finished.)  What the patent does is gives you ammo to go to court for legal remedy… if going to court is fiscally feasible and for most people it's not.   Patents are a form of property, a thing you can own.  When you live in a place were certain people, specifically those from Africa and their descendants kept in bondage in the US, are barred from *having property, that means no patents for enslaved people.  A 19th century law specified that patent applicants had to sign a Patent Oath that, among other things, attested to their country of citizenship.  When the Dredd Scott decision effectively denied Black Americans any citizenship at all, that meant an automatic dismissal of patent applications by slaves.   Nonetheless, Black inventors persisted and were often successful at the patent office despite staggering legal impediments.  As a well known example, George Washington Carver was born a slave but was still issued three patents in his lifetime, a number that is but a shadow of his inventive genius.  The first known patent to a Black inventor was issued to Thomas Jennings in 1821 for a dry cleaning method.  And the first known patent to a Black woman inventor was issued to Martha Jones in 1868 for an improved corn husker and sheller. Well, she might be the first, she might not be; more on that later and by later I mean next week, because my research exceeded my grasp again.   Despite being removed from their homes, intentionally mixed with people from other regions with whom they had no common language, denied an education or even the right to educate themselves, and of course all the outright abuse and atrocities, the enslaved people of America were no less clever than their white counterparts and no less driven to improve their lives.  More so, likely.  When a white man invented a new farming tool, it was saving his tired back.  When a black slave invented a new and improved tool, he was saving his family.  The new idea could save him from lashings, spare his wife working herself to death, save the limbs of his children from the machines of the time.  And of course making yourself more valuable to the person who dictates your fate doesn't hurt.      You'll notice a certain pattern to the stories today, not that that means the stories need telling any less.  And there are always individual details, though most of them will make you face-palm so hard you'll get a cyst.  That's a real thing that happened to my sister back in like 1990 when you made fun of someone else's intelligence with a dramatic slap to your own forehead.  And my husband thinks I'm the critical one.  There are face-palmy stories like a man named Ned, who invented the cotton scraper.  The man who kept Ned in bondage, Oscar Stuart, tried to patent Ned's invention, but was denied because he couldn't prove he was the inventor, because he wasn't.  Stuart went as far as to write to the Secretary of Interior in 1858, asserting that “the master is the owner of the fruits of the labor of the slave, both manual and intellectual.”  Enslaved people weren't actually barred from getting a patent…until later that year, when it was codified that enslaved Blacks were barred from applying for patents, as were the plantation owners.  Undeterred by his lack of patent, Stuart began manufacturing the cotton scraper and reportedly used this testimonial from a fellow plantation owner, and this is the bit where you might do yourself a minor battery: “I am glad to know that your implement is the invention of a Negro slave — thus giving the lie to the abolition cry that slavery dwarfs the mind of the Negro. When did a free Negro ever invent anything?”  Oy vey.     Free Blacks invented *tons of things.  For further reading, look up Granville T Woods, often called “the black Edison,” Woods was a self-taught engineer who received over 50 patents, which is over 50 more than most of us have, but he was clearly able to get patents, so he's outside our focus today.  We're looking at people like Benjamin Bradley, born a slave around 1830 as a slave in Maryland.  Unusually, and illegally, he was able to read and write.  While being made to work in a print shop as a teenager, Bradley began working with some scrap materials, modeling a small ship.  He quickly built his skills until he'd graduated from model ships to building a working steam engine from a piece of a gun-barrel and some random handy junk.  You can't not be impressed by that and the people around Bradley suitably were.  He was placed in a new job, this time at the United States Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland as a classroom assistant in the science department.  He helped to set up and conduct experiments, working with chemical gases.  The faculty were also impressed with Bradley in his understanding of the subject matter and also with his preparedness in readying the experiments.     Praise is nice, but a paycheck is even nicer.  Bradley was given a salary but he still “belonged” to a white man, who took most of his money; Bradley was allowed to keep about $5.00 a month, or about $180 today.  Despite having a pretty good set-up at Annapolis, Bradley had not forgotten his steam engine.  He'd sold an early prototype to a student and used that and the money he'd been able to squirrel away from his pay to build a larger model.  He worked his way up to an engine large enough that his engine became the first to propel a steam-powered warship, he was with Navy types after all, at 16 knots, which is about 18 mi/29km.  Because Benjamin Bradley was a slave, he was unable to secure a patent for his engine. His master did, however, allow him to sell the engine and he used that money to purchase his freedom.  So if you have an idea you really believe in, stick with it.   Another Benjamin with a penchant for tinkering was Benjamin Montgomery, born in 1819 in Loudon County, Virginia.  A *lot of these stories start in my home state.  He was sold to Joseph E. Davis of Mississippi planter, the older brother of Jefferson Davis, future President of the Confederate States of America.  Joseph must have been more liberal than Jefferson, because he recognized Montgomery's intelligence and tasked him to run the general store on the Davis Bend plantation.  Montgomery, who'd been taught to read and write by Davis' children, excelled at retail management and Davis promoted Montgomery to overseeing the entirety of his purchasing and shipping operations.     Montgomery also learned a number of other difficult tasks, including land surveying, flood control, drafting, and mechanics.  The golden spike wouldn't be driven in the transcontinental railroad until four years after the end of the civil war, so that meant that natural waterways were still the best and most important way to get widgets, kajiggers, and doodads from A to B.  This wasn't as as simple as those of us of the interstate highway system epoch might imagine.  Nature, in her beauty, is inconsistent and varying and variable depths of rivers made them difficult to navigate.  Heavy spring rains could cause sand bars to shift and, boom, now the boat is stuck and your cargo is delayed.  They lacked the benefit of the comparatively tiny backhoe that tried to dig the Ever Given out of the Suez canal.   Montgomery set out to address that problem – he was in shipping & receiving after all – and created a propellor that could cut into the water at different angles.  With it, boats could easily and reliably navigate through shallow water.  Joseph Davis attempted to patent the device in 1858, but the patent was denied, not because Davis wasn't the inventor, but because Montgomery, as a slave, was not a citizen of the United States, and thus could not apply for a patent.  If this were a YT video, I'd use that clip from Naked Gun of a whole stadium of people slapping their foreheads.  You can actually listen to the podcast on YT, btw.  Later, both Joseph *and Jefferson Davis attempted to patent the device in their names but were denied again.  Ironically and surprisingly, when Jefferson Davis later assumed the Presidency of the Confederacy, he signed into law the legislation that would allow a slaves to receive patent protection for their inventions.  It's like the opposite of a silver lining and honestly a bad place for an ad-break, but here we are.   MIDROLL   After the civil war and the emancipation proclamation, when Montgomery, no longer a slave, he filed his own patent application… but was once again rejected.  Joseph Davis sold his plantation as well as other properties to Montgomery and his son Isaiah on a long-term loan in the amount of $300,000.00.  That's a big chunk of change if that's in today dollars, but back then?  Benjamin and Isaiah wanted to use the property to establish a community of freed slaves, but natural disasters decimated their crops, leaving them unable to pay off the loan.  The Davis Bend property reverted back to the Davis family and Benjamin died the following year.  Undeterred, Isaiah took up his father's dream and later purchased 840 acres of land where he and other former slaves founded the town of Mound Bayou, Mississippi in 1887, with Isaiah as its first mayor.   My research didn't indicate why the free Montgomery's application was refused, but oe assumes racism.  The new language of patent law was written to be color-blind, but it's humans reading the applications, so some black inventors hid their race by doing things like using initals instead of their name if their name “sounded black.”  Others “used their white partners as proxies,” writes Brian L. Frye, a professor at the University of Kentucky's College of Law, in his article Invention of a Slave. This makes it difficult to know how many African-Americans were actually involved in early patents.  Though free black Americans like Jennings were able to patent their inventions, in practice obtaining a patent was difficult and expensive, and defending your patent?  Fuggedaboutit.    “If the legal system was biased against black inventors, they wouldn't have been able to defend their patents,” says Petra Moser, a professor of economics at New York University's Stern School of Business.  “Also, you need capital to defend your patent, and black inventors generally had less access to capital.”  If an issue were raised, credibility would automatically go to the white man.     It's impossible to know how many inventions between the 1790 establishment of the patent office and the 1865 end of the Civil war were stolen from slaves.  For one thing, in 1836, all the patents were being kept in Washington's Blodget's Hotel temporarily while a new facility was being built, when a fire broke out, which is bad.  There was a fire station next door, which is good,  but it was winter and the firefighters' leather hoses had cracked in the cold, which is bad.  They tried to do a bucket brigade, but it wasn't enough, and all 10k patents and 7,000 related patent models were lost.  These are called X-patents not only because they'd been lost but because, before the fire, patents weren't numbered, just their name and issue date, like a library without the Dewey decimal system.  They were able to replace some patents by asking inventors for their copy, after which they were numbered for sure.  As of 2004, about 2,800 of the X-patents have been recovered. The first patent issued to a black inventor was not one of them.   That patent belonged to one Thomas Jennings, and you owe him a big ol' thank you card if you've ever spilled food on your favorite fancy formalwear and had it *not been irrevocably ruined.  Jennings invented a process called ‘dry scouring,' a forerunner of modern dry cleaning.  He patented the process in 1821, to wit he is widely believed to be the first black person in America to receive a patent, but it can't really be proved or disproved on account of the fire.  Whether he was first or not, Jennings was only able to do this because he was born free in New York City.     According to The Inventive Spirit of African-Americans by Patricia Carter Sluby, Jennings started out as an apprentice to a prominent New York tailor before opening his own clothing shop in Lower Manhattan, a large and successful concern.  He secured a patent for his “dry scouring” method of removing dirt and grease from clothing in 1821, or as the New York Gazette reported it, a method of “Dry Scouring Clothes, and Woolen Fabrics in general, so that they keep their original shape, and have the polish and appearance of new.”  I'll take eight!     What was this revolutionary new method?  No freaking clue.  Because fire.  But we do know Jennings kept his patent letter, signed by then Secretary of State and future president John Quincy Adams, in a gold frame over his bed.  And that Jennings put much of his earnings from the invention towards the fight for abolition, funding a number of charities and legal aid societies, the Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem, and Freedom's Journal, the first black-owned newspaper in America.  Dry-scouring put all of his children through school and they became successful in their careers and prominent in the abolition movement.  His daughter Elizabeth, a schoolteacher, rose to national attention in 1854 when she boarded a whites-only horse-drawn streetcar in New York and refused to get off, like Rosa Parks 101 years before Rosa Parks, except she fought bodily the effort of the conductor to throw her off, hanging on to the window frame.  A letter she wrote about the incident was published in several abolitionist papers, and her father hired a lawyer to fight the streetcar company.  Amazingly, they won – again this was before the civil war, let alone civil rights.  The judge ruled that it was unlawful to eject black people from public transportation so long as they were “sober, well behaved, and free from disease.”  Their lawyer was a young Chester A. Arthur, who would later be the 21st president.   [segue] review   Henry Boyd's story began like the others we've heard, but in Kentucky in 1802.  He was apprenticed out to a cabinet maker, where he displayed a tremendous talent for carpentry.  So proficient and hard-working was Boyd that he was allowed to take on other work of his own, a side hustle as we say these days, and earn his own money and Boyd eventually made enough to buy his freedom at age 18.     At 24-years-old, a nearly-penniless Boyd moved to Cincinnati.  Ohio *was a free state, but Cincinnati sat too close to slave state of Kentucky to be a welcoming city for blacks, and I'm sure a few Cincinnatians would say it's too close to KY for their liking nowadays too.  Our skilled carpenter Boyd couldn't find anyone willing to hire him.  One shop had considered hiring him, but all the white employees threatened to quit, so no joy there.  Boyd finally found work on the riverfront, with the African Americans and Irish immigrants working as stevedores and laborers; Boyd himself was a janitor in a store.   One day, when a white carpenter showed up too drunk to work, Boyd built a counter for the storekeeper. This impressed his boss so much that he contracted him for other construction projects. Through word of mouth, Boyd's talent began to bring him some of the respect he deserved and a good amount of work.  He diligently saved up to buy his brother and a sister out of bondage too and purchase his own woodshop.  Not just a corner garage space; his workshop grew to spread across four buildings.  This was where came up with his next big idea - a bedframe.  Wait, it's interesting, I promise.  Everybody needs a bed and a bed needs a frame.  The Boyd Bedstead was a sturdier, better designed bedframe that was an immediate success…that he couldn't a patent for.  But a white cabinetmaker named George Porter did.  It is not known if Boyd was working with Porter and Porter was his white face for the patent office or if Porter ripped Boyd off.  Either way, the Boyd bedstead became extremely popular, with prominent citizens and hotels clamoring to get them.  The H. Boyd Company name was stamped on each one to set them apart from the knockoffs that such success inevitably breeds.   Not only was his bedstead breaking new ground, but his shop of up to 50 employees was racially integrated.  This social advance was, politely put, not popular.  The factory was the target of arsonists and was burnt to the ground.  Twice.  Twice Boyd rebuilt, but after a third fire, no insurance company would cover him and in 1862 the doors closed for good.  But don't worry about Boyd.  He'd saved enough to live out his retirement comfortably, but he wasn't lounging around.  Boyd had been active in the Underground Railroad and housed runaway slaves in a secret room.  His home was welcoming to the needy as well.  Henry Boyd passed away at the age of 83 and was laid to rest in an unmarked grave in Spring Grove Cemetery.  While you may not be able to find Boyd's grave, you can easily find original Boy bedsteads fetching high prices in antique stores and auctions.   And that's…You might have noticed today's episode was a bit of a sausage party so it's a good thing we'll pick up again next week with the stories, triumphs and tribulations of female inventors of color.  The world has so many fascinating facts in it and I am just a humble weekly half-hour podcaster, so see you next week for part two.  Remember…Thanks     Sources: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/with-patents-or-without-black-inventors-reshaped-american-industry-180962201 https://atlantablackstar.com/2014/02/11/5-inventions-by-enslaved-black-men-blocked-by-us-patent-office/4/ https://www.blackenterprise.com/black-history-month-inventions-black-slaves-denied-patents/ https://amsterdamnews.com/news/2021/08/05/sarah-boone-inventor-ironing-board-and-first-black/ https://theconversation.com/americas-always-had-black-inventors-even-when-the-patent-system-explicitly-excluded-them-72619 https://www.blackenterprise.com/black-history-month-inventions-black-slaves-denied-patents/ http://www.blackpast.org/aah/reed-judy-w-c-1826 https://web.archive.org/web/20180802193123/https://www.uspto.gov/about-us/news-updates/uspto-recognizes-inventive-women-during-womens-history-month https://www.yesmagazine.org/health-happiness/2016/03/21/10-black-women-innovators-and-the-awesome-things-they-brought-us https://www.nkytribune.com/2019/02/our-rich-history-henry-boyd-once-a-slave-became-a-prominent-african-american-furniture-maker/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/first-african-american-hold-patent-invented-dry-scouring-180971394/ https://blackinventor.com/benjamin-bradley/ https://www.blackpast.org/african-american-history/goode-sarah-e-c-1855-1905/

P. Wolfgang Sütterlin SDS (Salvatorianer) und Dr. med. Petra Moser, Traumatherapeutin "Transformation Prayer Ministry" (TPM) hilft Menschen, ihre aktuellen Konflikte zu lösen und inneren Nöte zu bekämpfen. Psychische Probleme wurzeln sehr oft in traumatischen Erlebnissen in der Kindheit. Die daraus entstehenden Selbstbilder beeinflussen den Menschen bis ins Erwachsenenalter. Wir haben nachgefragt: Kann TPM therapeutische Prozesse unterstützen? Wo sind Berührungspunkte und wo sind die Grenzen? Zu Gast in der Lebenshilfe bei Sabine Böhler waren dazu der Salvatorianer P. Wolfgang Sütterlin und die Psychotherapeutin und Ärztin Dr. Petra Moser. www.tpm-gebetsdienst.de Termine TPM-Empfangstage im Salvatorkolleg im Kloster Lochau-Hörbranz finden Sie hier. Der Gründer von TPM kommt nach Lochau/Österreich am Bodensee, direkt neben Lindau. Save the Date: 20. bis 24. Mai 2020 Mehr erfahren Sie im TPM-Sekretariat von Elisabeth Herz: Mail: tpmsalvatorkolleg.at Telefon: 0049-7522-202 03 (AB) Dr. med. Petra Moser Ärztin Psychotherapie Marktstraße 8, 88212 Ravensburg Telefon 0751 3544778 infomoser-psychotherapie.de Weitere Lebenshilfe-Sendungen TPM: 21. 10.2019 - Transformation Prayer Ministry (TPM), ein christlicher Seelsorgeansatz. 02.12.2019 Die Spiritualität des Transformation Prayer Ministry (TPM). 13.01.2020 - Transformation Prayer Ministry (TPM) trügerische Lebensstrategien aufdecken und überwinden.

Petra fotografiert im Theater. Daneben ist sie bei Radio FRO.

Air Date: 4/30/2019 Today we take a look at just the economic side of immigration including the effects from low-skilled immigrants and high-skilled immigrants and then look at an alternative vision for how we should debate the issue from the left Be part of the show! Leave a message at 202-999-3991   Episode Sponsors: Primary 2020 Ride Home Podcast  |  MadisonReed.com(Promo Code: LEFT) Amazon USA| Amazon CA| Amazon UK| Clean Choice Energy Get AD FREE Shows & Bonus Content: Support our show on Patreon! SHOW NOTES Ch. 1: Immigration Economics with Jennifer Hunt - Science Vs - Air Date 3-9-17 What happens when low skilled labor is removed from areas that need it? And Jennifer Hunt talks when immigrants and native-born actually do fight over the same jobs. Ch. 2: Kara Miller, Petra Moser and Jennifer Hunt discuss Immigration and innovation - Innovation Hub - Air Date 2-3-17 Has anyone tried to measure how much immigrants have advanced the US. Immigrants bring innovation to people. Keeping students out will hurt our science advantage worldwide. Ch. 3: The economics of immigration - BEME News - Louis Foglia - Air Date 10-11-18 It's assumed that Americans are hurt by immigration, but that isn't the right conversation. Immigrants help create a bigger economic pie, more innovation and more skills. Ch. 4: Cardiff and Jennifer Hunt discuss Immigrants relationships in the Labor Force - FT Alphachat - Air Date 9-15-17 Immigrants percentage of the workforce has remained flat, and the U.S. is in the middle worldwide for immigrant increases. In most cases, immigrants take the jobs that need to be taken. Ch. 5: Trump's 4 Biggest Immigration Myths - Robert Reich - Air Date 10-19-15 Robert Reich debunks Donald Trump's dangerous lies about immigration. Ch. 6: The Immigration Issue and Capitalism - Economic Update with Richard Wolff - Air Date 10-15-18 Brexit, Trump, Italy and Sweden are all being conned by the myths of immigration hate. Capitalism is the truer villain. VOICEMAILS Ch. 7: Comparing liberalism and progressivism - Zach from Georgia FINAL COMMENTS Ch. 8: Final comments asking for your thoughts on the primary race so far and Biden’s entrance into the White Guy candidate category MUSIC(Blue Dot Sessions): Opening Theme: Loving Acoustic Instrumental by John Douglas Orr  The Rampart - Castle Danger Celestial Navigation - Aeronaut Turning - Lathe LaBranche - Bayou Birds Heather - Migration Voicemail Music: Low Key Lost Feeling Electro by Alex Stinnent Closing Music: Upbeat Laid Back Indie Rock by Alex Stinnent   Produced by Jay! Tomlinson Thanks for listening! Visit us at BestOfTheLeft.com Support the show via Patreon Listen on iTunes | Stitcher| Spotify| Alexa Devices| +more Check out the BotL iOS/AndroidApp in the App Stores! Follow at Twitter.com/BestOfTheLeft Like at Facebook.com/BestOfTheLeft Contact me directly at Jay@BestOfTheLeft.com Review the show on iTunesand Stitcher!

What your disgust level says about your politics, how Napoleon influenced opera, why New York City’s subways may finally run on time, and more. Five compelling guests tell Stephen Dubner, co-host Angela Duckworth, and fact-checker Jody Avirgan lots of things they didn’t know.

The effects of copyright and patent laws on artistic creativity and technological innovation are gaining more and more significance in today’s economy driven to a large part by content. Economic historian Petra Moser uses data from 19th century Italian operas and world fairs to examine the economic implications of basic copyright and patent protection for innovators. In this podcast, Moser describes how Napoleon’s military victories in Italy in the late 1700s changed the copyright landscape and created an excellent model to study the effects on Italian opera composers. Petra Moser is an associate professor of Economics at New York University, and was invited by the IMF’s Institute for Capacity Development to present her research on the economic impact of creativity and innovation. Petra Moser is an economic historian at the Stern School of Business, New York University. You can find all of her research papers at PetraMoser.net.

Some of America’s best scientists (think Einstein and Tesla) immigrated here from other countries. We talk with a few economists who’ve calculated their impact on American innovation.

First, Walter Isaacson walks us through the historical links between innovation and immigration. Then, how’s Silicon Valley taking Trump’s immigration orders? And finally, Americans are moving less because new jobs aren’t worth it. Abigail Wozniak explains the declining dynamism of the job market.

Petra Moser and Melanie Hetfield encourage us to learn the silent language of horses - EQUUS - a gestural language like signing for the deaf, and use it in our day to day interactions with our horses. Endurance champion Beverly Gray give us a tip from her lifetime of experience. Listen in...Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/user?u=87421)

Petra Moser is an expert Psychic, Medium, Seer of the Future Past Lives Spiritual Teacher Mentor. Dive into your Destiny with Petra as your guide. Her desire is to communicate the intricate details of many healing modalities in a way that makes easily makes sense and that you can quickly understand, integrate, and become part of your personal journey.

Petra Moser is an expert Psychic, Medium, Seer of the Future Past Lives Spiritual Teacher Mentor. Dive into your Destiny with Petra as your guide. Her desire is to communicate the intricate details of many healing modalities in a way that makes easily makes sense and that you can quickly understand, integrate, and become part of your personal journey.