Intellectual property rights (IPR) regulation in preferential trade agreements (PTAs) has often been controversial. The increased appetite to strengthen multilateral standards for protection, as well as, in some cases, to expand the subject matter of IPR protection, often serving commercial interests, has been seen as conflicting with larger public interests. When faced with twenty-first century challenges, such as the digital revolution, climate change, or pandemics, the international IPR framework needs to adapt to reconcile with contemporary commercial, political, and public interests.

In this chapter, we discuss how the future design of PTAs can contribute towards this objective. First, we introduce the current international IPR framework and trace the main trade-offs for policymaking in this area, including those particular to PTAs. We emphasise the need for a balanced approach for IPR negotiation and protection in PTAs. Second, we discuss the role of trade secrets in the context of the digital economy, technology transfer in the context of climate change, and, lastly, the role of private–public partnerships in providing equitable access to medicines.

This chapter crosses the bridge from music industry practice to the analysis of the legal regimes deemed most relevant in securing a fair(er) balance in music contracts in the streaming age. Particular focus lies with the effect of the law on contracts entered into between musicians and record companies and/or music publishers as to individually managed exclusive rights. First, the chapter analyses the role of the legal framework in achieving this book’s policy objective of moving towards a fair(er) balance in the streaming age, fleshing out both the substantive and procedural dimensions of what may be perceived as ‘fair’ in this particular context. It then goes on to provide a typology of the relevant legal regimes, categorising these limitations to parties’ freedom of contract in terms of substantive, geographical and temporal scope and analysing the interplay between them. Finally, the chapter sets out to establish the appropriate level(s) and method(s) of further potential policy initiatives aimed at contributing to the elusive fair balance that this book advocates.

A theme that comes up time and again in our research is the importance of balance. Being with people 24/7/365 doesn’t benefit anyone, not the person doing it nor the people they’re hanging out with. If we’re constantly marinating in others’ thoughts and opinions, we can lose track of our own. By the same token, being on our own day-in-and-day-out isn’t good either. The trick is to have equilibrium between the two, the right amount of social time to fulfill an evolutionary imperative and the ideal amount of solitude to reap its reward. Ultimately, the needs for both belonging and separation are not opposing drives so, how can we achieve psychological integration? This chapter elaborates on how to do that and on the true cause of loneliness.

“Interface” in present usage is a modern concept whose roots lie in physical science and engineering disciplines. For serendipitous reasons it happens to work well as a conceptual tool for structuring Sun Tzu’s approach to leadership topics, starting with the political level (the ruler) and extending in the military realm down to the level of common soldiers. That is the focus of Theme #13.

Markets do not arise in a vacuum, nor are they self-sustaining. They are undergirded by foundational institutions. They are sustained by formal and informal rules that are enforced through legal means or public moral suasion (forte of justice). There is a requisite minimum level of trust and mutual solicitude among its participants (forte of agape). Agape and justice complement each other—mutually reinforcing, substituting, or making up for each other’s limitations. Akin to “homeostasis” in biology wherein the human body balances various fluids, cells, and organisms to function properly, there is a delicate equilibrium that must be maintained between agape and justice for a functional socioeconomic life.

This chapter examines trimming as a face of moderation. It starts from the definition of trimming given by the Marquess of Halifax in a famous essay, “The Character of a Trimmer” (1684), and compares trimmers to tightrope walkers. It argues that trimmers tend to support the parties they dislike least and search for a “wise mean between barbarous extremes.”

This chapter focuses on eclecticism as a face of political moderation. Starting from the definition of eclecticism given by Michel de Montaigne in his Essays, it shows that eclecticism has important implications for the ways in whicb we conceive of our political attachments. It then considers the justification of eclecticism given by Daniel Bell in his book The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism (1976) and compares it to the eclecticism at the heart of the fusionist movement initiated by Frank Meyer in the 1960s. Finally, it presents eclecticism as a way to avoid any form of “blueprint thinking.”

This chapter, while acknowledging that there are certain differences and similarities in how the law treats standards development organizations (SDOs) that develop voluntary standards, offers a holistic analysis of the procedural principles introduced in the WTO, EU, and US regulatory frameworks, namely, transparency, openness/participation, consensus, impartiality, balance, effectiveness, relevance, coherence, coordination, concerns of developing countries, appeal, and access to standards, which this study collectively refers to as “due process” principles. This chapter further explores the relevance and suitability of these principles to the different types of standards bodies and identifies the shortcomings of each of the legal mechanisms with regard to ICT standardization. It concludes that these principles are formulated rather flexible and, to be effective, need further concretization by SDOs.

This chapter analyses the extent to which the legal instruments discussed in Chapters 3, 4, and 5 apply to the examined SDOs. It also evaluates these organizations’ rules and procedures against the due process requirements of the applicable regulatory frameworks discussed in Chapter 6. While acknowledging the heterogeneity of the organizations’ operational frameworks, this chapter also emphasizes that their organizational rules – while designed in self-regulatory processes – should yet be considered within the legal constraints of the applicable regulatory frameworks. Indeed, SDOs enjoy a wide discretion not only to implement the due process requirements, but also to determine what these requirements mean, defining such terms as “consensus,” “openness,” and “balance” in their procedural rules. While observing that there are different ways to implement due process principles into the organizations’ procedures, this chapter notes that the level of procedural guarantees offered during the different stages of decision-making differs per organization, but is often insufficient from the perspective of legitimacy.

Falls are common in older adults. Falls are the number one cause of injury and death in the geriatric population. Fortunately, falls can be prevented. When evaluating falls acute triggers of falls should be distinguished from chronic predisposing factors. Syncopal/pre-syncopal episodes comprise the minority of falls causes. Gait and balance deficits are the most important culprits contributing to falls. Exercise is the only single intervention shown to prevent falls in older adults. Multicomponent medical and biomechanical interventions should be utilized to successfully treat falls.