The Results. 5.1 The [Institution]OR[Collaborator] will own the results of the Project (the Results). OR Ownership of the results of the Project (the Results) will be split between the Institution and the Collaborator as follows: the Institution: [insert details]; and the Collaborator: [insert details].
The Results. (a) The report containing the results of the Index will be delivered in the first instance via email in pdf format (the “Report”).
The Results. The license in respect of the Results shall permit use of the Results in applications for regulatory clearance and such licenses (generally) shall be to make, use, sell and otherwise dispose of products failing within the scope of the claims of any of the applications or patents for the LICENSEE Inventions, or which utilize the Results, and shall include full Sub-licensing rights and shall continue, in the case of the LICENSEE Inventions until *********************** ***************************************************, and in the case of the Results until *********************************************** (other than through the LICENSEE's default). The license in respect of the Results shall include the physical transfer of the Results (or copies) by the LICENSEE to LKS, at LKS's expense.
The Results. Upon completing a successful Offering (“Closing”), you will promptly receive full payment of the Cash within 3 business days of escrow closing, for the percentage of the item(s) you offered on Collectable. Closing is defined as: all the trades and investments are fully settled and secured in Collectable’s escrow account. This typically takes 10 days from IPO completing funding. If you elected to retain any Equity in the Asset, it will be issued to you by Collectable. If you retain any Equity in the Asset (i.e. Retained Equity), you will continue to possess/hold the asset after Closing. In the unlikely event the Offering is unsuccessful, you can choose to: (1) buy up the balance of stock through Collectable’s platform and accept the amount raised through the Offering at the close of the Period (2) relist the asset with Collectable under amended acquisition terms, or (3) retain full title to your Asset.
The Results. The Service Web 3.0 results include:
The Results. To begin with we note that if the random part of the dynamics (1) is omitted the land possession becomes fractalized. As a mathematical result about iterative maps with Bernoulli variables it was demonstrated not so long ago – see, for instance, [19]. The essence of the effect, however, was a fact well known to our ancestors and it was behind various juridical acts attempting to prevent a land structure disintegration. One can mention the so-called birthright edict – a part of the legal reform of the Habsburg Emperor Xxxxxx XX dated 1787 – which did not allow to split the land below 40 “measures”, which is roughly 7.6 ha or 19 acres. This law was valid until the year 1869 when the rural land market – representing the random part of the dynamics (1) – became vivid enough and the edict became obsolete. The imperial act allowing the free divisibility and exchangeability of land (in Moravia, from which our data are taken, it was valid already one year earlier, in 1868) caused an unprecedented increase of the land exchange. For example, according to [20] in average 10% of estates changed the proprietary relations yearly during the period 1869–87. What we find in the present cadastral data is thus a result of a process that started in 1868, some five generations ago. At the beginning it was marked by an boosted land exchange and the dynamics became steady only about a generation later. While these fact are documented, one may speculate about other factors having impact of the dynamics, in particular, changes in the population structure. It is obvious that that the natality and the number of offsprings living up to the adulthood were considerably higher at the beginning of the process, and as a result, the distribution of the land co-ownership was different from the present data. Unfortunately, the digitalized Czech land registry does not contain such a history record – all we see is a snapshot of the recent situation. In the light of these comments indicating how simplified our model dynamics (1)) is, it is surprising and worth of attention how well do its result agree with the observed acreage probability distribution. One more comment is needed before the results can be presented. We are dealing with all the plots contained in digitalized cadastral map with the exception of the build up areas. The reason for this methodical choice is simple: build up areas are places where building stand. In the cadastral map, however, we see only the ground plane, i.e. the pr...