Guys, welcome to a new vlog. So I'm so excited because we are doing my roots and I know you guys have been waiting for this vlog. So not gonna ramble too much in the intro, but I'm going to set up my tripod and I'll show you guys all the stuff that we use. We're doing it inside today. So that's a change. Sheree. Hi. Look at this lighting though. Oh, that's better. We're doing it in this bathroom. And as you can see, mother's got new lights and they're like cool tones. So everything's going to be perfect. We're doing it inside because it's going to get dark pretty soon. So, yeah, I just need to get this on the tripod. And then we are going to brush out my hair and stuff. Is this all the bleach we have? No, we have more. Oh, cool. Yeah, it's just in my closet. We are using foils today because, okay. So I wanted to address this in my vlog, but as you guys can see this part of my hair is like really, really weak.  Every time that laps over, it touches. You know what I'm saying? So it makes sense to not like over bleach slash over process with foil. So your hair is not touching one another. So we're challenging Sheree to this and we are going to get this show on the road. Also the time lapse is going to be great because my camera is on the correct settings. So now I'm going to go get my brush and brush all my hair. We're using quick blue bleach. We also have 30 volume developer. We have 20 volume developer with T-Wella 18 toner. We have foils, which is new to our layout. We have mixing bowl, that brush, clips, everything like that, I think. Oh, non latex gloves for mother. Don't forget your gloves, Sheree. And I'm not wearing any pants right now. TMI, I know. And an extra camera battery and brush because like I said, I need to brush this baby on out. So.  Yes. Start the time off now. Process like this. I'm going to leave it on still for like 40 ish minutes but this is just a new technique I'm trying because I try not to incur a lot more breakage than last time and to have like not as much bleach on bleach, you know what I mean? So anyway, mother was super stressed during the whole thing. I'm sorry. I was. She was like literally, yeah, she's done. So I think I'm going to put this bag on my head to just like keep in the heat. You know, I don't want to put a hairdryer to it because I think that's just like too strong and I don't want to like literally kill my hair. So no heat, but it's going to be in this bag. So, yeah. So we are about halfway there with the hair and yeah, this is what it looks like right now. I just, like I said, I put this in my hair so the heat will stay in there because I'm not going to put the hairdryer on it because I'm too scared. Also this bleach said not to use metal tools which these oils are metal, but I mean, it's not like a tool, like it's not like a clip or I don't know, so I'm praying for the best. You guys can probably think I'm like dumb, but also I just wanted to chat with you guys because a lot of people that come to my channel are from my hair videos, so I want to know from you guys. Where are you guys from? I'm really excited to get to know you guys. Don't forget to check out my social media because I'm trying to have a really good Instagram theme and I follow back on all my social media. So yeah, self promo. Follow me and I'll follow you back. I'd love to get to know you guys and I am thankful for you guys who watch this video if you guys made it this far and we're waiting for the results now, so I am just loving this lighting. Guys, can we take a moment? It's not even daylight. It is currently 6.20. I have 18 more minutes. I don't know if I said this, but my head is stinging because I washed my hair on Wednesday and that's not a long time because it actually is Friday right now so I've only had one day that I haven't washed my hair. So it is kind of stinging. I did use a 30 volume developer. I'm gonna stop rambling now because you guys probably just wanna see the results. So let's go. Yes, we are going to take this down. Ooh, I'm like super orange. Ugh. No, I hope not either. My mom said, I hope not your hair. When I said, it's so orange, but we're gonna see how this turned out, guys. I'm trying to get this tripod thing on. Valerie, you haven't been in the vlog today? Well, actually, this is a hair vlog, so there's one mother and the other mother somewhere else. If you guys didn't know, have two gay moms and welcome to the channel. They're in my vlogs a lot. Sherry, my head's a little burning. We need to get towels. Oh, I didn't bring any in. That was recording. Oh, geez. How I did last time. I think it was actually a little older last time, but overall it looks pretty much the same and Sherry said we did wait too long to do it, but our schedules just didn't really let us do it. This is what we're working with. We need to tone it so it won't be as bright orange, but it's all right. We're gonna eat dinner and then we're gonna tone so it can have a little break. Sherry, thoughts? Yep. It's pretty much the same. Yeah. But I think I lost less hair because of the foils, so I think that goal was good. I don't know. Sherry's just kind of negative when it comes to this. She just gets stressed out. Okay, so we've kind of concluded, or maybe it's because this is so white. Maybe. It's almost like the orange didn't change colors. This is like the black one orange and the orange stayed orange. Which is okay. I mean, well then again, it makes it less harsh. Okay, anyway, we are going to tone this baby now and let's see how it turns out. I'm not gonna do a time lapse because I kind of stopped doing time lapses when we do the toner. I think I'm gonna do an Oluplex treatment too tonight because it's been through the ringer. So this is one and a half ounces. Let the bleach, I have the bleach now. I have the toner in my head. I think I didn't lose as much hair as I did last time, which is amazing.  Anyway, I just wanna give you the update. I leave this on for 25 minutes. Then Sherry rinses it out and then what I do is I put my Oluplex number three treatment because you're supposed to do that after you bleach and tone and everything. And then I'm gonna use Valerie's special shampoo that makes my hair always look good, which has like a lot of keratin in it. So that is what I'm gonna do. And also she has the conditioner to go with that. So it's all like sulfate-free, paraben-free, really like healthy. It makes your hair a lot stronger. So I'm glad I used that. It is time to rinse this out. All right, Sherry, you ready? Oh my gosh, yeah. I need to get it washed because I don't wanna sleep with it wet either. It looks a lot natural. It looks like a natural blonde faded into. Okay, oh my gosh, guys. I was so scared. I'm bald right now, but like, trust me guys, I am not bald. I am going to throw some Oluplex on it and then I'm going to wash it and condition it. Like I just told you guys. And then I'll come back on here and show you what the final look is when we dry it and everything because I don't wanna sleep with it. It's like currently like 924. We did a pretty darn good job, Sherry. Was some stress? It looks good. It looks good. I mean, there's a couple spots I'm sure are still darker. It's just like a darker blonde underneath. Yeah. So it's not like- There's a little orangey here and there, but you know. It's not as worse as last time. If you guys watched last vlog, hair vlog, which I'll have a playlist, so I'll link it down below. Please be gentle, mother. Sherry, it actually looks really good. It just looks like an ash blonde. I don't think she can hear me. So if you're wondering what Oluplex I use, I get it on Amazon and I know some people are like, don't buy it on Amazon because it's sketchy, but like this hasn't done anything to my hair and it's actually like kind of held my hair. So it's the Oluplex number three. I'm doing the old beauty guru hack thing that takes forever. This is what I use. It looks like this. If you guys are curious, I did a video on it, but I always use this after I actually bleach my hair and it hasn't harmed my hair. Sherry, I was gonna say it looks really nice. Like it's an ash blonde. Like in this lighting, it's like ash. It's not like platinum. It actually kind of fades into gray because of the toner, but it'll wear out. So anyway, yeah, so this is what I use and then for shampoo and conditioner, these things are amazing. And I'm gonna talk about this in my February favorites, but it's called Keranique. I think that's what it's called. Scalp Stimulating Shampoo and Conditioner. This is what they look like. So this is what it looks like. This is what the shampoo looks like and this is what the conditioner looks like. And I'm not gonna go into full detail about this product because I'm gonna talk about it either in a hair care routine video or I'm going to talk about it in my February favorites. I don't know yet. Everyone wants me to make a hair care routine because they say my hair looks healthy. Guys, I can guarantee you my hair is not healthy. It looks healthy. Thanks, mother. My mom thinks it looks healthy, but it's not healthy. Yeah, these three products right here is basically what I use. I don't use this on a daily basis yet because I'm actually trying to finish out this Aveeno Shampoo and Conditioner. I use this Shampoo and Conditioner Duo for years. And when I say years, since like junior year of high school, I believe, it's called Ker Renewal Aveeno Sulphate Free. And I definitely highly recommend these for just like every day, anyone can use them. They're good on all hair types. I love these things so much, but currently like the other shampoo has more keratin, I think, and I just agree with it more. And my hair likes it more. If you guys were wondering that is what I'm going to be talking about in a future video probably, but right now I'm just blabbing to you because I know a lot of people watch my hair videos and as an informative thing, I wanted to share what I've been using on my hair. I'm not a lot. I'm pretty lazy with my hair. It shows in the hair a little bit, but I mean, when it's dry and looking good, I mean, no one can tell. So that is basically it. Okay guys, so here is my hair. It looks amazing and I am really happy with it. It blends really well and everything. I don't know if you guys can see that, but it blends really well.  It's still a little damp too. So like, I mean, I still have to give it time. The ends basically look exactly the same, but overall, overall guys, like my hair has not looked this good. Yeah, I'm not going to deal with that right now. I can't be more happy with my hair and I thank you guys for your positive and negative comments about my hair. I love my hair. Thank you guys so much for joining me on this hair journey and watching this video. Give it a big thumbs up if you enjoyed it. So don't forget to subscribe to my channel because I post every day and I'm trying to get to 5,000 subscribers. It would mean the world to me if you subscribed and I will see you guys. Oh, leave a comment down below because I like reading the comments and I'll see you guys tomorrow. Bye.


Well, thanks a lot, Janice. What did I do? Thanks a lot. You left the door open and we got robbed. We have nothing now. You have anything to say? No, because I didn't do anything. Well, I'm giving a sneak peek of what's in the back. Oopsies. No. Oopsies. Anyway, yeah, guys, so yeah, we got robbed because Janice thought it was a good idea to leave the door open overnight. Silly me.  Oddly enough, they didn't take the TV. The most expensive thing. Well, actually, the couch was the most expensive thing. Yeah, they wanted our couches really, really bad since they're gone. I don't know how we didn't hear them take everything. Yeah, I don't know. Maybe because you probably gave me a sleeping pill and I didn't wake up. All right, here you go. It's a munt. What's going on, if you're a fan? Welcome back to another video. If you guys are new to the channel, make sure you guys hit that subscribe button. Turn on your post notification bell. Leave a positive comment down below for a chance to get a quack. Or a chance to get a shout out in the next video. That's right, and if you don't, we're not telling you the special news. So I'm going to give you guys another three seconds to go subscribe right now where you guys aren't going to get the news at all. One, two, three, be subscribed. Great. So yeah, great news. We got robbed and thanks to Janice, you want to leave the door unlocked. All right, we did not get robbed. Do you want to tell them what's really going on? All right, we got mugged. Dude, what? No, so all right guys, obviously, if you guys can put two and two together, there's an empty living room. We've been talking about moving to Florida for the past couple of months. So if you kind of put two and two together, you would get that. We are finally moving. I'm so excited. Guys, it's been a long, long journey. We've been trying to do this for like what, a year and a half or so? No, like over, I feel like a year, like two years probably. That sounds like a year and a half going on too. It's been really crazy like we said in past videos. It was always something that was just like holding us back. If something happened, we had to stay here. It was just a big mess every single time we tried. But this time, finally, everything fell through. And yeah, it's just sad that Janice won't be living with us. What? You're not moving? Yes, I am. I'm the first one out the door. You're staying here. I'm moving into the new house. You said it. What? You said house. It's a house we got. All right. See, hold on. Now it's that we didn't buy a house. Okay. We're not going to pretend like we bought a house because we did it. We're renting a house and the dream home is it wasn't the works. We kind of take a little pause on it. But the dream home is looking for sometime like spring, summer. Well, no, I don't I don't really want to like guarantee that like cause we do like the place that we got now. So maybe we want to stay in it for a little longer cause we're still trying to figure out. Yeah, I kind of like it a lot. So you like the new house a lot. Yeah, I don't I don't really know if we're thinking about going that route. What? Like actually getting out in a house or like building a house. Like we don't really know what route we're going on, but I know we get in a house next year. Okay, whether it's buying or building or whatever. And we get in a house next year. Okay. All right. Well, I don't gotta be in the spring of the summer. It could be in the fall or the winter or whatever. We're going to be living in Florida. So it's going to be hot all year round. Yeah, that's true. But guys, I do want to say that besides this announcement, there is another big announcement that's going to be coming up pretty soon. Oh my God. And yo, I've been, oh, this one's going to be crazy. I'm not going to lie to me. This one's crazier than the house because you know how I feel about it. I agree. But this one, this announcement, the next one that's coming up. We're not going to say today, but it's going to be a little emotional. It's definitely going to be emotional. Um, yeah, but I'm going to give you guys the details. Well, you can give them the details of the house since you love it. I think more than I do. Hey, I like the house. Don't get me wrong. I love it. I love it. It's great. I feel like you like fell in love with it. All right, guys. So let me just talk about first. We found the perfect home that we wanted to rent 90% perfect. It, no, the first one had a yard. Oh, you're going to tell them about that? So much. Like everything was perfect, right? And they were scammers. They kept on giving us like a month out appointments to go into it. Yeah. Then we had another one that was perfect. It was like right around the corner for my mom's house. This is the one that I thought you were talking about. This one we actually applied for. We paid to apply for it, guys. And you don't get that refund back. Yeah, exactly. We're so upset. Like we went through a whole mission trying to get this house for us to get denied because two doctors got the house that aren't even going to be living in it. Yeah. But it's like, think about it. You got two doctors that seems more financially stable than, you know, two YouTubers plus they had no kids and no pets. So that was a plus for, you know, for the owners. Yeah. People see pads and they're like, oh liability. Even though he's just like, you guys can't even see him. That's how small he is. He's so light. I don't do anything. I just sit down and watch TV with mommy and daddy. But yeah, guys. So the new house that we finally got, the only thing we wish it has was a fenced yard. It has a yard. It's just not fenced. But the details of it are it's a four bedroom. It's a two and a half bath. So I don't have to wait on Janice when she's using the bathroom or if she's showering or whatever. And we have double sinks.  And we have a private toilet. I know you're like so ecstatic about that. Like Jesus anyway. Yeah. So it's a four bedroom, two and a half bath. It has a loft. It has what's called a den area as well. So whenever Janice gets kicked out of the bedroom, she goes to sleep over there and wow. No retaliation to that comment. I made a face. Okay. Well anyway. Yeah. So it has a den. It has a loft, a four bedroom, two and a half bath. It's a really nice sized living room. It has a two car garage. Your boy is going to be sleeping in there the first week we move in. And am I missing anything? Honestly, it was me paying attention because then it was distracting me. I think that's pretty much it as far as like the details of it. I don't want to get into like square footage and all that because I feel like why do you guys need to know that? But yeah, so four bedroom, two and a half bath, a den, a loft, two car garage and it's a modern apartment. So it's everything's like black and white and gray and like Alright, let's not get all of that. Okay. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But alright, I'm just saying colors.  Yeah, you're giving away too much. Like they don't, they're supposed to go in like not knowing what they're about to get into. Okay, but I will say that you guys, one, you guys are going to get a tour of the house. Two, you guys are also going to get a furnished home tour or house tour soon after that because we already started ordering a bunch of stuff and it's been coming in. Yeah, and we actually had to like do some stuff. So my family is actually there assisting us and like building everything and putting everything together. Cause I don't know if you guys know this, but my family is living in Florida. So yeah, they're helping us with that stuff. Hopefully we'll have a furnished one soon after, like very soon after because I'm the type of person. I need stuff done ASAP. Guys, she's been shopping for furniture like all night every day and it's been stressing me out and I'm not even the one doing the shopping. Literally. It's so like, I don't want to say annoying. It's just so stressful like day and night. Scroll it. Don't ever do that again. All right. So is there anything else for missing? I think that's pretty much everything. Yeah, that's pretty much it. I mean, we'll tell them we're going to be there. All right. So we're going to be there in about give or take two weeks. Give us about two weeks. There's some other things that are in the works. Yeah. But yeah, we're not going to talk about that. However, we will fill you guys in on it when the time comes. But I think that's pretty much it. Yeah. That's all for now. We don't want to get too many details with that. I think Isaiah already said a little bit too much. I gave you guys a lot. Yeah, a little bit too much. Oh, I'm so excited for you guys to see it. That's all that we have to say right now. I know you guys think that we were like the boy who cried wolf when we were saying we're moving to Florida. We get the comments still to the say. I thought you guys were going to Florida. Well, here it is final. We already got the place and we're on our way there. We haven't even told a lot of people. So this is like our announcement to the world. Yeah. Honestly, we try to keep it as low key as possible. And that's what I feel like that's what everything we do. We try to keep everything low key until it's set in stone because we don't want to like jinx anything. Yeah. And I don't want anybody giving me my day over on that. So, um, but yeah, guys. So that's pretty much it. That was our big announcement. Stay tuned for the next big announcement coming pretty soon. And yes, stay tuned for the videos in this empty apartment other than our bedroom. Until we get to our new house and with all that being said, this is going to be a journey. It really is. There's a whole series of videos we're going to be doing. But, um, yeah. So with all that being said, we will catch you guys in the next video.


We have a very exciting seminar today which is on trademarks and we are very fortunate to have with us Professor Georg von Grevenets from the University of East Anglia and Georg is one of the relatively few economists who work on trademarks and especially if you compare the research that exists in the field of trademarks to the research that exists in the field of patterns it is much more at its infancy but hopefully this is going to change you know one of the things that really has driven research in the patent area was the availability of new patent databases and I think something similar is happening in the field of trademarks where now researchers increasingly have access to unit record trademark filing and registration data from trademark offices and Georg is one of the economists who has employed these data for a number of studies the study that he's going to present today is on the phenomenon of trademark cluttering and he will give the full motivation but what is interesting if you read one of the I guess seminal economic treatments on trademark law by Landers and Posner which was written in the late 1980s they essentially say that you know the name is unlimited and as such you know there's no shortage of possible names that could be converted into brands if you contrast that with you know the registries in many trademark offices and you know if you talk to some of the practitioners in the field they very much say well you know they're concerned about the namespace possibly running out and their increase in costs company phase and coming up with new trade names whether or not you know we phase situations of of clutter trademark registers you know I don't want to pass judgment on this I think that's ultimately an empirical question but I think the first at least as far as I'm aware of the first study that sort of tries to rigorously look at this is Georg's study on trademark cluttering in Europe and he uses a natural experiments that was given by the enlargement of the European Union to study what effect it had on possible cluttering behavior. Before I give the floor to Georg just one or two words of biographical background Professor van Gravenet is a professor at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom he's also affiliated with a Center for Competition Policy at that university as well as with the Oxford Intellectual Property Research Center at Oxford University he was previously a professor at the Ludwig Maximilian's University of Munich and he has studied and taught economics in both Germany and in the United Kingdom and as I mentioned he's one of the relatively few economists and hopefully it's a growing community and that does research on trademarks so we are very happy you're you're here and we look forward to your presentation. I'm very pleased to speak about the topic here because I hope that there are people in the room who may know something about this topic that I haven't found out yet it's it's as Carsten said a very new topic and I've been going through a review process and in this process my referees have motivated me to look at certain aspects of this more and more and so I keep learning and I'm sure that some of you will have additional points to make so please if there's anything you don't understand or anything where you think I've got it wrong or whether you have information then please just interrupt me. Yeah so let's start so the the the data I'm going to use comes from the European Trademark Office which started in 1996 in Alicante and they've been very generous in allowing me to use their data for various studies and so I'm very grateful for that so this particular study let me just oh wait this is not connected of course so I'm actually gonna have to go like this so this I'm going to jump over this you're going to so this particular study was motivated really by a piece of work that we did for the European Commission several years ago so the Max Planck Institute in Munich was asked by the European Commission to evaluate the European trademark system after it had been set up and had been running for a while and I was asked to supply some economic analysis and so I was party to some of the meetings that the Max Planck Institute organized with various people stakeholders of the system and so at one of these meetings the representatives of the pharmaceutical industry made plain this worry that Carsten just pointed out that they had the feeling that in their particular domain if you like it was getting more difficult to register trademarks and that this had something to do with the fact that there were maybe too many trademarks or a lot of trademarks on the register and so I got interested in that and we are we tried to put that into the study and this is really where this began so as as you just pointed out Landers and Posner argue that in principle the supply of names for trademarks is unlimited we can you know we can come up with new variations letters figurative elements infinitely and so in in a sense there's no issue here of of too much being on the register there's always space for more what what changes in this particular context a little bit is that in the context of medicines the the regulators became aware in the early 90s mid 90s of cases where particular patients are given example in a minute were prescribed the wrong medicine because somebody made a mistake and it wasn't the doctor it was actually at the hand at the process where the medicine was handed out and gave them the wrong medicine and this can be very dangerous for the individual involved and so the the authorities have tried to limit the scope for this kind of thing by basically regulating the namespace and making sure that the names are distinct enough for these kinds of mistakes not to happen and this introduces an element of scarcity suddenly we have a second authority it's not just the trademark office now but there's an independent agency which has totally different considerations which comes along and says you cannot have that particular name for this particular medical product so you might be able to get a trademark for it but the trademark is useless to you as a pharmaceutical company because you can't employ it in the course of trade okay so the the response and I've got quite a lot of anecdotal evidence for this and also some evidence in the data that the companies have come up with the obvious responses to file multiple names if you don't know whether a particular name is going to run into trouble then you just file a lot of them and hope for the best and typically that's what happens in the firms have worked out how many they need to file so then the interesting question is well what happens to all the names you didn't end up using after you've gone through the process that end up on the trademark register because contrary to what I've heard from some people at this at the medical agencies it's not that the firms go to the medical regulator first and wait for the medical regulator to make a decision and then file the trademark they will file the trademarks first to make sure that those are covered you know and then they go to the medical regulator so as a consequence we have excess names on the register and in some cases maybe the firms will reuse the names for other projects but in many cases they will just be there and be unused and so the interesting question is does this matter and when we did the study for the commission with the numbers I could come up with at the time the the lawyers involved basically said well this is trivial this is not important does not you know the clutter might be there but it's more an academic issue it's not really a big empirical problem okay so in this particular paper what I'm doing is I'm using the expansion of the European trademark system in 2004 which was just a consequence of the fact that the European Union was enlarged 10 extra members joined the 15 at the time to see what happens because essentially what happens in the regulatory space here is that before you're facing one European regulator who farms out the actual decision to 15 member states and all of a sudden there are 10 more and each one of those local agencies could say well this particular name in our particular context doesn't work because it's misleading or there could be a miss you know people could make a mistake so essentially it becomes more difficult to get the names through this particular approval process and as a consequence you might expect that the firms will apply for more trademarks simultaneously that's essentially what I'm trying to find out okay so first of all let's just have a look at how this office operates and how it sort of works so in 96 you see the office beginning and there's a big spike of applications simply because people had lined up they knew this office was going to start so they all sent their trademarks there and then we can see that over time there's an increase obviously in demand for these types of European trademarks there's a big bump here which reflects the internet bubble because a lot of companies that went into business at the time were taking out names and there was a big discussion about the connection between the domains and the and the patents and the trademarks then you have this very distinct spike here and this is your EU enlargement and the basic context here is that the way the European Union the accession countries the negotiations worked in such a way that essentially the new countries had to accept all the trademarks that were in the system there was no re-examination of existing trademarks so essentially if you could get into the Ohim system before the deadline then your trademark automatically got extended to these new countries without further examination and so obviously it's very interesting to meet that particular deadline and that's why you get this spike okay and then we get an increase and the decline here at the end is a is a truncation issue that's just because the data end there and so I don't have more recent data which would tell me what's happening there okay so as I already mentioned the the work we did for for the commission basically suggested that there might be an issue yeah I found this study by Lalmont which is a is basically a piece of commissioned work for by by a company that supplies trademark data where he analyzes this particular market and says and I find the analysis very interesting he says that five to ten different trademarks for each trial drugs are sort of routinely filed okay and I talked to the farmer the trademark council of one of the German companies that works in this air in this context and and he said to me it's very simple if I don't have a trademark when the product is ready I lose my job so I will do everything to prevent that from happening and so I will file as many trademarks as is necessary and he completely confirmed the numbers he said that that was the same so what we see in 2004 is the following countries as I'm sure you're aware joined the European Union and thereby they also joined the European trademark office and the European Medicines Agency became the agency that governed the pharmaceutical names in these countries as well okay so the interesting question now is is can can we see any effects of this kind of behavior and so before we go on to that let me show you a little bit why this really is an issue so here's a particular example we have a product which is taken by people who have problems with their stomach so if you have you know ulcers or a danger of ulcers then you would be prescribed this losec and then lasex is a product which is a product prescribed against hypertension so high blood pressure so as you can imagine these are very different conditions and if both of these conditions are potentially very dangerous if they're extreme and so if you've got the wrong medicine you would you know you wouldn't alleviate the symptoms this could get very bad for you so the FDA actually forced AstraZeneca to change the name losec to prelosec because there were concerns about confusion here and what then happened is that somebody mistake prelosec for prozac in a pharmacy and the person who was supposed to get prelosec had a gastric ulcer so again prozac wasn't going to do much good there so um so you know you I mean when you and I guess when you look at these things yeah when you look at these things when we look at them I I guess it doesn't seem likely that you would confuse this yeah but what does happen often in many countries still is that the doctor actually writes the prescription in handwriting on a piece of paper they don't type it yeah and then you take it to the pharmacy and the pharmacist has to work out what this means so I guess that's where these things happen you know and and um these kinds of mistakes happen also in hospitals and you know there's a lot of evidence for this kind of mix ups happening um so the naming committees were established to prevent these mistakes and and they work on the premise that these mistakes can and will happen and they are very restrictive so they're very strict what's quite interestingly is that when you look at the context of the european uh trademark office uh the opposition chambers at the ohem actually when they're dealing with opposition cases between uh names for pharmaceuticals argue that because this is such a vital kind of space where people are really you know in danger of making uh fatal mistakes people are going to be very attentive and very careful and therefore their standard of proof for confusion is actually very high in this context so they're coming at it from exactly the opposite uh sort of uh so let's say viewpoint you know um which maybe you know from the from the two agencies uh perspectives make sense but it's interesting when you can contrast that you know so they're both regulating this space and um I had a very interesting I tried at some stage when I was starting this work I called up the european medicines agency and tried to contact them to see whether they had any statements to make about what you know what was going on here and they weren't even aware that people take out trademarks for these names before the names come to them so they didn't believe that this was the case so it shows you that there's a total disconnect between these two um operators here okay so here's an interesting bit of data from lalmo I don't know whether it's terribly reliable because it really is quite difficult to get data from from the european medicines agency they they publish only the the the things they approve so all the the rejected names you don't actually get to see they're not on the internet you can't um see them so how he got this data I'm not quite sure but um if we take it at face value then it suggests that before 2004 it was indeed slightly easier to get trademarks so to get names approved then it became after 2004 which suggests that this idea that extending to 10 additional countries actually did make it more difficult okay so you know a big international pharmaceuticals company is going to face not only the european medicines agency but they're going to face the europe the american trademark office the european trademark office the american food and drug administration and the european medicines agency so these are the four principal sort of hurdles but there are probably many more you know in terms of the other jurisdictions um so and just to point this out again the rejection of a name would mean that the product launch would be delayed which in in context of pharmaceutical products is really uh can can quickly add up to very large numbers so it can be very expensive now one of the things that the refereeing process threw up that I didn't initially investigate very heavily was well what does it actually cost to create these names you know if we go back to landerson posner who say it's actually very easy to make names and you know the variation here is is is very sort of there's a lot of possibilities what's the big deal well it so I I initially found only evidence from the web and then finally I actually did find a few uh publications so this one uh by kenage and stein and then more recent one by wick who suggest various numbers for the cost of producing a set of names so this would be your five or 10 names that you're trying to generate to protect your pharmaceutical product and and these numbers are not you know they may seem high if you're coming from the perspective that it's fairly easy for any of us to doodle around and you know make up fake names um but it's not extreme when you compare it to some of the numbers that let's say the olympic committee pays for a for a for a you know the device for the olympic games in london or that you know oxfam recently paid to have a new logo for that it could use uniformly across its shops in the uk so this is a an NGO and and you know so they all spend around about this kind of money for for these types of trade marks or figurative devices um so what actually goes on here at the pharmaceutical sort of in the pharmaceutical context is that the the consultants who will work in this context will hire people who work in the uh in the medical context in different countries and ask them to perform prescription simulation exercises so exactly the kind of thing we just said they will write down the names and then we will take it to the pharmacy and see what the pharmacist thinks this is and whether there any there is any confusion they will perform tests of name similarity tests of implied claims so this is also something that's very important to the agencies that the name of the pharmaceutical product shouldn't suggest that the pharmaceutical product is going to do anything particularly well or particularly badly you know so it shouldn't imply that it's good for this or that particular ailment and it should be a neutral name tests of visual and verbal similarity linguistic analysis so there's a fairly large number of tests that these things have to run through and i guess the costs really come from the fact that the people you hire here to perform these tests with are professionals you just you don't just go on the street and take a random focus group so there's probably an element of cost of time so now the interesting question of course is and this is one that i'm not able to really admit sort of address in this study because i don't really see how to identify it is is what proportion of these costs is due to the fact that there are many other names on the register you know so it stands to reason that there's going to be an issue here if there are more names on the register then this group of people is going to have more work to do to figure out whether there could be confusion but saying exactly which proportion of these costs is due to that is difficult so the only other thing that i found is another study by these two gentlemen here who sent out some questionnaires to us companies in in the mid 90s and they asked them to try and figure out how much it costs them to create trademark names and i adjusted this number so the number they report in the paper is slightly lower but i've adjusted it because it came out in 97 so i took a sort of inflation adjustment here so essentially the you can see that there's a factor of 10 here if not more difference some proportion of that factor of 10 difference must be coming from this cluttering but as i say it remains open to debate which proportion that is okay so the the idea that i had was that i could use the european union enlargement in 2004 as a kind of shock and economists like studying these shocks because if they are if they're unanticipated then they have direct sort of responses on the parties which reveal something about underlying economic mechanisms that we normally can't see we can we can see a sort of causal effect that's very hard to detect otherwise so what i wanted to try and do is actually to try and use this particular shock to see whether i could see what the difference in cluttering was as a consequence of this enlargement okay so there are a couple of questions you have to answer here so first of all is this an experiment so one way this could maybe not end up being an experiment if if actually things that were happening in the trademark context were driving EU enlargement yeah then the causal effect that i'm trying to identify is actually sort of not there because it's actually the trademark filing which is causing european enlargement and not the other way around that it's european enlargement which is causing a change in trademark filing so in this particular case i think it's it's pretty safe to argue that european enlargement had nothing to do with what was happening in trademarks okay that was a political process there are lots of other things going on but i don't think there's much of a link to the trademark system so in that sense we can probably argue that there's an ex you know that there's a sort of an exogenous shock here okay now the other thing that's interesting is to ask well what are the outcomes here so if we're looking at this in a particular economic framework the interesting question is if there hadn't been the shock what would pharmaceutical firms have done in the alternative case and so that's also important to bear in mind exactly what we're studying so what we're studying here now is how does the behavior of the pharmaceutical firms change as a consequence of enlargement and that's not just as trivial as saying they apply for more or less trademarks it's a little bit more complicated than that we may have to take into account that if they anticipate that enlargement is coming and if it's sufficiently costly to them that may have effects on their decisions to actually continue operating in this particular space you know so if you thought that the cost increment was very large some of the firms might switch out of the whole thing entirely and say we give up you know now again that's probably not likely here although the costs are there they're not that big you know relative to the profits that pharmaceutical companies make these costs are still relatively small okay but we have to take the reactions of the pharmaceutical firms into account and and deal with them and so the last question here is so what happens how does the pharmaceutical firm decide to stay a pharmaceutical firm or not and I think the the mainly so the main point you have to bear in mind here is when does the pharmaceutical firm make which decision so essentially the pharmaceutical firm will do r&d quite a number of years before the product comes to market yeah and there are studies which show that this delay can be anything from five to eight years it might even be longer than that you know so if you think the r&d decision is taken um in the 90s for products that come out around about when EU enlargement happens okay so now the interesting question is so at that time did they know that European enlargement would happen in 2004 so is it conceivable that they factored that into their decision of how much money to spend on a particular class of drugs you know and I think that's very unlikely they may have and you know obviously there was a discussion of whether this could happen or not but the actual decisions the political decisions that were taken for for exactly when it would happen were taken later so what we can assume is that the pharmaceutical firms had a program of research which was running and then at some stage the political decision gets taken for enlargement and then the pharmaceutical firm has to respond to the implications of that which is that it becomes more difficult to get trademarks or names accepted for particular products that are in the pipeline so what I've done uh this was also in response to some of these uh referee comments was that I I haven't done I haven't given you the full formal model here because it that I think that would take us too far into sort of a fairly non-productive territory right now but essentially I'm making the argument I just made so firms make a long-run decision to undertake R&D and they make short-run marketing and regulatory compliance investments so here these are the investments in the names okay so essentially if you think that R&D investments pay off in period T they are made sorry they've they've undertaken period T the they pay off two periods later and the name investment is done somewhere in the middle okay and then what I can so show is that a regulatory regulatory change in period capital T that is announced one period before will lead to increase trademark applications for products that were in the cohort of R&D investments made one period before that so really what I'm trying to say is there is a group of pharmaceutical research uh products which essentially the firm has spent the R&D on so it can't adjust there anymore but what it can adjust is the number of names that it might apply for yeah but there's no other adjustment that's going to happen okay that's the essential point because for for later uh cohorts what could happen is that not only do they change the number of names they apply for but they could also adjust the R&D investment and so then I have two effects going on in the data and these may counteract each other so it's not so clear anymore what I'm seeing when I'm looking at the data okay okay so and this is the second result yeah so if if uh sort of later on the firms may factor in these additional costs into their uh decisions okay so how do economists study this well there's this this very scary looking expression here which is the empirical specification that I'm going to estimate yeah but it's actually fairly simple this is a differences in differences model so the idea is this you have two groups of companies you have the pharmaceutical companies and you have all the others yeah and you look at those before and after the shock yeah and so the idea is that the other companies will give me the baseline they tell me what would have happened to the pharmaceutical companies if there hadn't been a shock yeah and so then I can work out the the the so the difference for the non-pharmaceutical firms tells me what is the underlying trend yeah so are the firms anyway applying for more trademarks or less trademarks simultaneously yeah and then the difference between that and the difference for the pharmaceutical companies tells me what is the actual effect of the shock okay that's that's what what I'm trying to identify here and so what this is really doing is that I'm here on the left hand side what I have is a measure which is the simultaneous applications for names on a given day by a particular firm that's what I'm actually looking at okay and when I've discussed this with various people they've they've said well you know there are all sorts of issues how can you be sure that that all these names are actually going for the same product and the answer is I can't be so there's going to be some some measurement error as we call that in there but it still seems to be the case that in many cases the firms are actually making these applications for one particular product on a given day yeah I've checked that a little bit if you look at the data it looks quite good there are a couple of outliers so there are a couple of cases in my data where a firm is putting in several hundred names on a given day yeah and that's quite clearly not for one particular product this is a firm entering the system and so I've run specifications where those particular instances are not part of them you know not that they're removed from the data it doesn't make any difference okay so down here I don't know how well you can see this there are a couple of things that are important when you run this kind of model and you'll see that I'll show it in the data again so the first one is that the two groups are actually if you like affected by the same forces yeah if there are totally different forces affecting the incentives of these two types of firms to make investments in names then the comparison of the two groups doesn't give me anything yeah because they're they did they're just not comparable yeah essentially so the technical term for this is common trends so we'll have to look at the data to see that whether somewhere before the shock became sort of part of the you know before we started discussing European enlargement seriously are the firms behaving more or less in the same way if that's not the case then then we have to worry about the quality of the empirical results okay now another thing that's important here is that the pharmaceutical firms tend to be quite different from the vast majority of the other trademark applicants because they're much larger you know they operate in much more concentrated markets so that's going to be an issue do I have to control for that how do I how do I deal with this so if that doesn't affect the trend but it just affects the absolute number of simultaneous applications it doesn't matter okay now there's another way of doing this so this this difference in differences model was one way of doing it another way of doing this is is essentially what's called a matching process so there what I do is I take the pharmaceutical company and I look at its characteristics and then I try and look in my data for another company that has the same characteristics so same size you know has been active in pharmaceutical has been active in trademarks for the same duration you know maybe comes from the same country okay that these kinds of things has a similar size stock of trademarks all sorts of characteristics of the company that you might think were important in this context and then I just compare those two companies before and after you know and so here what I'm doing is I'm essentially moving into a framework where we really think of this as an experiment you know now in a in a natural science experiment it's a controlled experiment you know and I normally do what's called random assignment so I pick randomly the people who get the pill and the other people don't get the pill and then I can do a comparison right so obviously in this context here I don't have that you know pharmaceutical firms are not randomly picked to be pharmaceutical firms so this is the assignment issue again and so the interesting question is can I can I apply the the sort of methodology of a random experiment to this particular context or is it actually not possible because the group of firms I'm looking at is selected in a specific specific way they've become pharmaceutical firms for particular reasons so there's a there's a sort of set of very technical sort of discussions in the economics literature where people essentially argue and this is immense here he says so if the participation so being a pharmaceutical firm here is separated from the outcome so in this case how many names we apply for then we can argue that we can use the analogy to a natural science experiment anyway even though assignment isn't random you know okay so the question is whether treatment uptake depends on variables that have no effect on outcomes okay even if we don't see those variables so we then we go back to the model and we can have a long discussion about what motivated these companies to become pharmaceutical companies at the time when they were doing the r&d or to stay pharmaceutical companies and whether this is in any way related to the decision about how many names to apply for several years later and so my argument here would be that actually these decisions are fairly far apart and probably the reasons for doing the two things are fairly different so I'm quite happy to apply this particular analogy okay that's that's the kind of implicit story here and I'll show you the results from the two it's quite interesting to compare those right so when you do this kind of study what's important now is to determine who are the groups the group which is the group of firms that is being affected by enlargement and which is the group of firms because they're pharmaceutical companies and who are all the others and here the problem is that I just have registered data and so what I can do in the registered data and this is what I do do is I can go into the niche classes so the trademark system is separated up into different classes and each class is specific for a particular group of products and what I can do is is say well here's a class that is clearly contains the pharmaceutical applications but it may also contain applications for pharmaceutical products that are not regulated by this name regulator so it will contain other pharmaceutical products like this bandage where the name of the bandage is is not regulated in any sense okay so that's an issue with the data so in my group of treated firms those ones which are affected I will have some which are actually not really treated they shouldn't be in that particular group but I can't perform the identification who is really producing medicines that are subject to name regulation and who is not okay what I can do is I can identify companies who are applying for trademarks in a completely different space so for ice cream or cheese or cars or something like that you know so I can separate so essentially what I did was that I started out saying there's class five which has all these pharmaceutical products in them and then I looked at all the other niche classes and said well how often do firms simultaneously apply for that particular niche class in conjunction with class five so a pharmaceutical firm may go for class five class three and class one fairly often whereas other class firms will go for class 11 24 and 32 in a combination yeah and so I separated the classes into two set of three sets those which are really closely related to class five those are that never really have any connection to class five and then sort of more amorphous intermediate group okay and then using that I created four different groups I said if the application falls into into classes that are very closely connected to pharmaceuticals then it's a pharmaceuticals application if it falls into classes that are very different from pharmaceuticals only then it's an artifacts this is a name that I made up application if it falls into that intermediate group then it's this and then there's also an overlap between the pharmaceuticals and the artifacts so there's a sort of mixed group yeah so these are basically the sets of groups that I identified and I'm really only interested in how the applications that go into this group differ from any of these okay the differences between these don't really matter they're helpful in the sense that in my study I don't expect very big differences between these two groups so if I did find big differences between these two groups that would open up questions about the the way I'm looking at the data and there's obviously something going on that I don't necessarily understand so just to take you back to what is it I'm looking at so the fundamentally it's quite simple I'm just looking at the number of names that a firm puts to the trademark office on a given day in a particular set of niece classes so the pharmaceutical firm will take out five eight ten simultaneously and other companies may take out two or three simultaneously or only just one and so what you have here on the left hand is the logarithm of the average number of simultaneous applications in a particular class at a given date okay and the red line here are the pharmaceutical applicants the black line are the artifacts and these are the two other groups and I have put around these numbers these these lines the confidence intervals okay so these this is basically the range of 95 percent of the observations instead of in that particular class okay um all right so what you can see is that until just before the internet bubble well I don't know whether you want to call this common trends but essentially the things seem to be moving more or less in the same direction you know it's fairly flat you know there's not much variation and then you can see that the internet bubble has an effect in all of these areas the number of simultaneous applications seems to go up a little bit it goes up particularly in pharmaceuticals and then it stays up there at a higher range you know increases again just before enlargement and then drops down and that difference between the groups stays the same okay so now there's something that's important here which is that the the shock I'm interested in is the one that happens here in 2004 this is where enlargement happens so in in the canonical type of application of this particular method what you would really like to see is this red line more or less on a par with the black line until about here and then suddenly jumping up and then staying up here okay so that's quite clearly not what we see you know so what we see is the two lines the two sets of lines are separating much earlier so when I saw that I started thinking about this I thought well you know does this mean that the whole thing is is is sort of that is we can forget about this and then I realized well actually what's important here is the Treaty of Nice which is the treaty that established that in 2004 we would have enlargement and that's really the political statement where all the countries come together and say okay now we make a legal binding agreement that we will enlarge in three years time so then you could say well actually the shock if you like for the pharmaceutical companies is here and it's important to bear in mind here that the pharmaceutical companies will take out the name several years in advance they will anticipate that they want the product on the market two or three years from now or four years from now and will take out the names then okay so then then it looks more likely if you like that there was actually an effect here okay so statistically what we now do is we just transfer this visual idea into a statistical model which allows us to filter out a couple more effects and we can add sort of variables that may filter out effects for the size of the company to some extent and and maybe the country the company's coming from and things like that which might also affect the tendency of the company to apply for more or less names okay this is a sort of descriptive data we were just describing the the data here so what I did is once as I told you before I did I've done it for the whole sample and then I threw out all these outliers so the cases where the firm applies for 127 marks at the same time and you can see here there's an extreme outlier here where one company is applying for 634 trade marks on one day yeah this is quite I see this sometimes this is clearly a company which has decided they you know what often happens is the companies watch this new trademark system for a while and they may even participate to the extent that they oppose other applicants but they don't file and then at some date they suddenly decide okay now it's it's important for us to take out trademarks within this system and then they enter and then it's an avalanche they come in with everything they have on one day yeah and so that's what we're seeing over here okay now but as I said in this in this in this particular sample here where I'm giving you these means I've basically filtered those out okay and these are some of the variables that I try and use as additional controls to kind of make sure that the comparison I'm making is actually even handed as far as possible with this data okay so here are the results the the statistical results and what we're looking for now is the interaction of the dummy which identifies the particular shock I'm interested in so here we have anticipation so this is the effect of applications between 2001 and 2004 and the applicant coming from the group of pharmaceutical firms okay and this and this this effect here is a comparison against a baseline which is all those companies that are not in pharmaceuticals not in artifacts and not in food and household yeah in that period okay so it's a comparison of the difference in the behavior of the pharmaceutical firm before and after 2001 relative to the difference in the behavior of the sort of comparison group and so what you can see is there's a significant positive increase in the number of simultaneous applications at that time okay that's what this blue thing is showing you and even if we compare after 2004 with the period before 2001 we still have that effect it's a little bit weaker but there's still an effect okay so essentially what this shows is that European enlargement had a effect on the simultaneous applications of the pharmaceutical companies relative to all other companies okay now there are various things you can do to see whether this effect is real you could you could argue them there may be something wrong with the econometric model that I'm using so first I threw out all these outliers I kicked out all these companies applying for large numbers of fur trade marks to see whether this was robust and essentially you see the effect doesn't change very much then you might say well the way I've controlled for time effects so for macroeconomic shocks that are happening over time might be uh wrong or not sort of fine enough so I introduced instead of controlling for years I and controlled for the quarter that also has no effect and doesn't change anything very much and then there's an important test which you can do which is to include a time trend so you just say that instead of allowing things to vary from quarter to quarter you could argue there's an underlying trend upward or downward in the data okay so it's interesting what happens when you put that in because in the context of this kind of study that often means that the effect vanishes the one that you're studying yeah and in fact here we can see that now um the comparison of uh sort of what happened before 2001 and what happens after 2004 is no longer sort of statistically significant there's no the effect isn't strong enough for an economist to say okay this matters yeah um but still the period between 2001 and 2004 we still have that effect okay so that there was something at least for a short period of time if we include the time trend and it's important to notice that if you're sort of happier with this particular specification then there is still the effect of time there is still that trend so it's clearly and that is if it's significant so it's it's clear that something is happening to simultaneous applications it may not be as radical as the the shock at enlargement but it's sort of something did happen okay so this is one set of results and now the interesting question becomes okay we've seen there was an effect is it economically important do we care about this is this does it matter you know should we should we worry about it um and I'll I'll talk about that in a minute so before that I have one last test I'm sorry I'd forgotten about this so one thing you can do is you can make this model terribly spent sort of flexible in the sense that you can allow every quarter to have its own effect yeah so what you're looking for here now again is is basically you would want the the average of this to be below zero and these bars here indicate a range of statistical sort of significance so essentially I'm saying that if this effect here if this bar crosses zero then this effect that I'm measuring here is statistically not distinguishable from zero so every time the zero is inside this particular range that's indicated here by the by these by the lines you know then the effect that I'm measuring for that particular quarter could also be zero and we couldn't distinguish the two so it turns out that before 2001 there are a couple of quarters where we get significant sort of negative effects and after 2001 we get a couple of quarters where there are significant positive effects so again the data suggests there was some increase in simultaneous applications um but it's perhaps not quite as pretty as I would like it to be yeah so if I could choose of course then I would have all the error bars below zero here and all of them way above afterwards and then I'd be really confident that there was a significant shift okay here it looks more incremental okay right so now let's try and figure out whether we can say a little bit more than just okay there was a positive effect and it was significant so as I told you before what I'm measuring in the class of pharmaceuticals is actually a mixture of the pharmaceutical applicants who are applying for names that are regulated and other companies that are applying for names for pharmaceutical products that are not regulated by name regulation yeah so that's this number here this is the average and it's an average of a group of unregulated firms and their simultaneous applications and the regulated firms and their simultaneous applications so capital N here's the number of regulated firms capital O is the number of non-regulated firms and this expression is basically just giving me this average and then what I did was I introduced a factor which says that the proportion of these two groups within this set of pharmaceutical applicants is constant over time yeah I can rewrite the whole thing like this and what I'm doing by blue here is I'm marking numbers that I can observe in the data yeah so I know this number for before and after the shock and I know this number if I'm willing to make the assumption that the firms that are inside my pharmaceutical group but that are not regulated by the name regulator are behaving in exactly the same way as all the other firms in the system that are outside pharmaceuticals yeah then I can also get this number okay and then I did a couple of more things I assumed that name review is equally tough in each of the countries and then I used this data that you saw earlier by Lalmore to calculate how difficult it is actually to convince the regulator in each country yeah then I assume that these two probabilities here don't or proportions and probabilities don't change at the shock and then finally I put that all back into my economic model and so what I can then work out from that is that between 2001 and 2004 every year we spent about 17.7 million US dollars on inventing surplus names okay so that's you can do this with this with this economic model now there's quite a lot we have to just you know I wouldn't put too much sort of emphasis on this number there are a lot of very strong assumptions going into this calculation here okay but I did it because basically one of my referees was asking me well can you tell me a little bit more about what your results imply you know is there anything any number that can come out of these and and so I was really tempted to try and figure out something and so I pushed the model as far as I could go yeah and I would say that for example the model using the estimates that I have is suggesting that this proportion of pharmaceutical real pharmaceutical applicants in that group of firms applying in that pharmaceutical class is quite high it's saying it's 96% and my expectation is that that that number is too high I would I would have expected that proportion to be a bit lower and so I guess some of the assumptions I'm making here to get to that to identify that particular variable is are probably too strong but anyway so what we have is a number which gives us some indication of how expensive this is this has been and an important assumption going into that number is that each new pharmaceutical trademark costs $25,000 which is at the lower end of that range that I showed you before yeah so the journal suggested that this could go up by a factor of seven and so then we can scale up this number by a factor of seven as well okay right so if we do that if we say that we're spending about 50 million dollars on invented names that we don't necessarily really need yeah so then the interesting question is can we can we reduce that cost would that be something we could do and so there are two answers to that one answer is probably a little bit yeah because if we didn't have as much clutter then maybe we wouldn't have to invent quite so many names simultaneously but we're never going to get back to a situation where the pharmaceutical applicant applies for only one name because there's always the risk that the name regulator says this particular name doesn't work in my jurisdiction and I think there's I can't think of any intervention that we could create to regulate this system that would remove that you know the pharmaceutical firm is always going to face the risk that it's picked a name that doesn't work you know so all that we can do is we can try and make it easier for them to pick the names but we can't totally remove this this phenomenon of simultaneous applications I would think okay right so just to contrast the number that I came up with here before okay so this is the number that comes out of this diff and diff framework if you use the other empirical framework that I was talking about earlier on so I'll just jump over to the results here now you get significantly and I'd like you to just focus on this particular column here and all these numbers are derived under slightly different assumptions on how you use this estimator which are technical and we don't really have to go into because they're all more or less in the same range yeah they're significantly higher than the numbers you saw before yeah the numbers you saw before were 0.06 and now we've got numbers in the range between 14 and 18 yeah so you can see the effect here is bigger so what's happening here now is that the estimator is really picking the pharmaceutical firm with a particular set of characteristics and comparing it to another firm with similar characteristics and then trying to see how do they differ in their behavior okay and there is an argument to be made for the fact that this estimator is more appropriate here because the two groups of firms are just so different in their characteristics to start out with okay so all that I think we can take away from this exercise is that there's another reason here to believe that the effect is probably larger than the number I gave you earlier on yeah because the estimate is probably you know the estimate of the shock is higher so that's that's what I would take out of that okay and there's some more robustness checks here okay so now that got a little bit technical at the end but really this is a my attempt to summarize what I've got in the data okay so I would say that that graphical evidence I showed you at the beginning or in the middle this picture where I was comparing the different groups of firms doesn't really favor the idea that there's a big jump in cluttering that you can see a signal but it's not like it's overwhelming once you start applying empiric a sort of econometric results then you do get some indication that there was an effect and also when you control for specific periods yeah so when you allow the the estimator to be very flexible about the effects of individual points in time we get some evidence of a jump yeah if we include this time trend in the difference in difference model then the treatment effect is no longer significant the trend is also not significant so here the results are a little bit more ambivalent but I would point out this is something I didn't put here that the the effect for the period 2001 to 2004 was still significant the matching estimator suggests that enlargement did have a big effect and that those effects could be four times bigger than the ones we got from this other method yeah so if you're wondering why the economist is doing this why is he using one model and then he's using another model this is because I tried to be a little bit open about this we can see that there are various assumptions going into each of the models and we can have long discussions about whether these assumptions are justified or not so what we try and do is we apply as many models as possible and try and see whether the results are sort of you know fit together and if they do we have more confidence in them that's essentially what what we try to do here yeah okay so so if the membership in these groups you know so if the fact that you're a pharmaceutical company is exogenous to European expansion of the European Union so it's not affected by that yeah then the results either show that there was a significant increase in simultaneous applications in 2004 or that there is a positive time trend here both of the results suggest that something is happening the matching estimator shows that the effects are pretty significant yeah and the rest here is really just ideas of how we could try and extend the the this particular empirical exercise to try and have more confidence in the results yeah so one thing we could do is we could pull in an extra jurisdiction so we could try and compare let's say to the United States because then we would have more comparisons in the data yeah yeah we could try and be more specific about how we control for pharmaceutical firms which would require much more effort on identifying the individual companies as companies that are regulated or not regulated we might want to control for the rate of conversion of trademarks in the particular areas that's something that I haven't done yet and reassignments of trademarks for different applicants so these are some of the things that might still be done sort of in this work or in other work okay and that's that's it thank you very much Gail for this interesting presentation and particularly appreciated that you know you I think gave quite an extensive motivation of why this is relevant but then went through the details of your approach and your results


I'll tell you a little bit about what I've been working on other than providing my students with high quality math instruction. And I want to start by telling you about some of my students. So this is Jaylin. As a student, Jaylin is patient. He's organized and detail oriented. He's a great collaborator. And he gets lost from time to time, but that's okay because he bounces back. But Jaylin's a lot more than that. Jaylin's also an artist. He's a dancer. He's a poet. And he's a great storyteller. My favorite Jaylin story came when I asked him what he wanted to get for Christmas. And he started telling me about how every year he woke up Christmas morning, went downstairs, and found a toothbrush in his stocking. And he just thought that it was really passive aggressive of Santa. This is Julia. Julia was our salutator in this year. And she's the student I would go to when I needed like an answer copy, but it was too lazy to make one. She also has more than one story about pooping her pants and isn't afraid to tell you about them. This is Manuela. Manuela loves math. And when she grows up, she wants to be a model, but she also wants to own her own business. And she is one of the most headstrong students that I've ever had. For instance, her favorite food is lobster. And every year on her birthday, she orders two lobsters and eats them all. She is also allergic to shellfish. I tell you these stories because I think it's important to realize that my students are just more than just mathematicians. I used to think that it was just crucial for me to know my students inside and out as mathematicians, what they're good at, what they're bad at, what they need help with. But I've realized it's important to know them a lot better than that. And they need to know me better than just a math teacher too. For instance, when I was a first year teacher, my mom passed away and I missed four days of school for bereavement and came back and I didn't tell any of my students about it. I didn't know how to have that conversation with them. Since then, I've told my students all about my mom. I told them about how when she was in the hospital, she'd go to the gift shop and she bought me beanie babies, how she loved word games and puzzles and how I've inherited those passions from her. These conversations don't come up authentically in a math class. I need to make space to talk to my students about who they really are. And I decided to do that by taking one day off from math every other week to have something called a restorative circle. We all know that a circle is a set of points of fixed distance from the center. But this automatically adjusts the structure of the classroom. I am now equal to my students. I have disrupted that hierarchy and I'm sitting there among them. We make this circle space sacred to us by putting things in the middle that have special meaning to us. All right, we start our circles with inspirational quotes and we end them that way too. We use this space to build a community. We start by having fun, by doing some silly ice breakers. We focus on learning to listen to each other by passing around a talking piece. And we share stories about ourselves and about our lives and about our family and friends and how we feel about things. Now, not every student buys into this and it's had its ups and downs but some students have really bought in. This is Daniel Lise and in circles she's talked about how she doesn't get along with her father, how her let me make school hard for her.  But in circle he has talked about how he has started to acknowledge when he's being selfish and arrogant and how he wants to get better at that. I think it's important for me to recognize that my students don't have the same privileges that I grew up with. All right, my students are immigrants and people of color and they have complicated families and just have been oppressed by our society for a long time. This is Rafa and Mateus. They're two great kids with big personalities who just happened to not get along. All right, there have been a couple of times this year where they've lost their tempers and started screaming hateful things at each other and we need to think about how we react to that. All right, what happened was, they got reprimanded and suspended and it happened again and again. All right, they need somebody who can pull them together, figure out what they need and repair the harm. All right, I've been teaching for six years and I've had students who were suspended, expelled, students who have dropped out or gone to jail and I do not want to be a cog in the school to prison pipeline. And that's why I'm working on more than just providing my students with high quality math instruction. Thank you.


Hi again, this is Svaljelm from SuperOffice and I'm the Product Manager of SuperOffice Service.  As a Support Manager you often need to get an overview of all the requests that are open and how they are distributed amongst your user agents. So in order to show you that I will go into Requests and I will choose the Find Requests menu. This will allow me to search into the system amongst all the requests based on the criteria I choose. In this case I have chosen that I will search for all the requests in the Support category with underlying subcategories and with the status of Open. Clicking search will give me the list of these requests and if I want to I can browse up and down and look at the requests. Now if I want to get a better overview of how these requests are distributed I can choose in this context menu to show these requests as a chart instead. View results in chart. Now by default that chart will show the entries per category but clicking the label here allows you to choose another data axis and instead I'm going to choose to show them per owner. Now I get a chart that shows all the requests and how they are distributed amongst my user agents. Clicking on a pie in the chart will show those particular requests in the reading pane so I can see which ones are assigned to which user. Using this feature you should be able as a support manager to get a good overview of what are the pending requests in the system and if you need to you can move some of them between your user agents to better distribute the load. Hopefully this will make it easier for you to control all the requests. Thank you.


I'm Anna Giudizzi and I've been awarded the Alan Maya Poznan Memorial Prize, so this is really important for me because it's recognized both my hard work and the hard work of all the people in environmental science. It shows that people are really caring about the issues facing our generation of resource scarcity, climate change, population growth. And this is something I'm really passionate about and I hope the money will go forward and help me find solutions for these problems. I love studying science at UWA as it gives me the opportunity to pursue what's really important in society today. It was an honour to receive this prize. I worked really hard during honours and it just feels really good to be sort of acknowledged for the hard work you put in. So I hope to take my degree into further postgraduate research, so hopefully I'll be doing my PhD soon, hoping to stay in the field of human disease. Thank you for my prize. It's really appreciative. This is going to make a massive difference to my future studies. This prize represents my drive for science because science has the power to change the world. I also like to embark on my chosen career in the future with this prize as a reminder that ecology and economics are not mutually exclusive. Both are equally as important as the other and as I continue on in my pursuit of science and discovery, I want to keep this prize close to my heart. My name's Tim Parker and I'm studying Human Geography and Planning and Environmental Science. Joseph Gentilly Prize for Geography for 2017, awarded by the faculty and it's a really big honour. I kind of have walked past a board with some names on it and looked at it and thought it's a pretty cool prize and really great to be honoured with that prize. I really appreciate your support for allowing me to continue my studies through university and a field that I'm really passionate about. I think Geography can help people throughout all society to really better people's lives and that's something I'm really passionate about. Hi, my name is Amelia and I'm doing a major in chemistry. I would like to thank the donors for giving me this honour and for encouraging me to do my best and to continue pursuing my studies in a field that I really love. Your donations today help students like me at UWA grow our passion for science. Thank you for helping me make a difference.


There's a proverb in my country that goes like this. Hard work is the secret of wealth. I think such proverb exists everywhere in the world. My parents thought I was lazy so all my childhood I was told, hey, you're a man, hard work is the secret of wealth. But when I was a teenager I started questioning this assumption. If hard work is the secret of wealth, why isn't my father rich? I mean my father is the most hard work in human being I ever knew, so if hard work is truly the secret of prosperity, why is my father poor? I started looking for an answer and after a lot of studies I found out something very interesting and that's what I'm about to share with you in today's video. If you're new here, consider subscribing so that you won't miss other interesting videos like this. Let me quickly take this off our to-do list. Working hard is not as important as working right. If you don't get this, I'm going to use an analogy. You see, running fast isn't as important as running on the right track. Let's say there are two men. One is very fast while the other is proud of being very slow. The fast man wakes up early in the morning to start running but he's running with a wrong map, actually going to a wrong destination. Unknowingly, while the slow man gets the right map and slowly follows it, you get the picture here and don't forget that. Working right is more important than working hard but that's not where I'm going today. Today, I want to talk about a different thing and that's doing what is important versus doing what is compulsory. Doing what is important versus doing what is compulsory.  The truth is, most adults I know are very hard-working. So if most adults are hard-working, why are they poor? This is what I found out. Most people do compulsory things, not important things. Let me look for a good example here. Think about when we were in school. We studied so hard but why do we read so much in school? Well, because it's compulsory. You either read in school or have poor grades. Because we needed to read in school, most of us do it. Now, I have a question for you. How many adults do you think read books after school? How many books do you read per month? According to studies, an average American reads one book per year and that's America. In many parts of the world, an average adult reads one book in ten years and I am not joking about this. So, here is the question. What is the difference between reading in school and reading after school? Well, reading in school is compulsory and that's why most people do it. Reading after school is important but since it's not compulsory, most people don't do it. But here is the thing. An average millionaire reads one book every week. You get my message. Your ability to do what is important is probably the single most important indicator of your success. If you leave your life doing what is compulsory, you're doing what everyone can do. Everyone does what is compulsory. What most people don't do is the difficult thing that requires their initiatives and discipline. Let me give you another example. In a city where I live, most people wake up by 4.30 am on Mondays and 5 am every other day. Some people wake up at 3 am to beat traffic. While some even sleep at work because their homes are far away. You get the picture. Most people rarely have any time for themselves but don't make any mistakes here. These people can never do such things for themselves.  If most people have the discipline and courage to do for themselves what they're doing for their employers, they will not have enough employees in the world. The reason why some people wake up at 4 am to rush to work is that it's compulsory. The reason why most people work hard is that it's compulsory. If it's not compulsory, most people wouldn't do it and that's what differentiates the successful people from the rest of the world. If you do compulsory things, you'll be poor. If you do important things, you'll be rich. Compulsory things require that someone stands on your neck and forces you to do it.  My personal story. I went fully into the business world on the 24th of July 2008 and I had to sacrifice the first 8 years of my entrepreneurial life making tons of mistakes and failing. It was painful, no doubt. But today, when I look back at those years, something becomes very obvious and that is, almost all of my mates went through as many difficulties that I did go through.  Some of them lost their jobs. They never get a better one and some of them are even poorer when working than when unemployed. You get the picture. This people went through as many headaches as I did but our results are different as day and night. What happened here? The pains that come to you when you do compulsory things does not lead you to any significant success. The only pains that lead to real success is the pains that come to you because you're doing what is important. In other words, it's more glorious to intentionally go to the battlefield than to suddenly wake up and find out that your enemy has invaded your home. When you intentionally go to the battlefield, though you'll still go through tough times, you can end up as a hero. But when you wait till your enemy invades you, you may not survive it. I once read something that goes like, the road to success and the road to failure have the same pain. In other words, the difference between success and failure is a difference between the people who only do compulsory things and people who do important things. What is the message of this video? It's very simple. I want you to start doing important things, even if they are difficult. I don't want you to wait till someone forces you before you do what you ought to do. It's not compulsory to eat fruits, but it's important. Do it. It's not compulsory to avoid sugar, but it's important. Do it. It's not compulsory to read books about money, but it is important. Do it. It's not compulsory to take difficult actions towards your dreams, but it's important. Do it. Stop waiting for external motivation. Stop waiting till someone threatens you. Stop waiting until it's compulsory. Most people make themselves poor because they do what is compulsory. If you like this video, you might like one of our new YouTube channels, where we share with you the inspiring stories of the most successful people in the world and even some villains. We call this channel Fame TV. Look at the description box to see the link where you can join the Fame TV. We love you.


He's like, I realize they do want me here. I realize that I'm in a good situation. And he realizes like he can make a lot of money. And I think with a good healthy season, I mean, there is risk that you don't stay healthy. But either way, I think that Patrick Quinn could get paid pretty well. And I think the same could happen for JK Dobbins, obviously on a smaller scale because of the running back market.


Oh, that makes everything better done. Okay, today we're gonna talk about hydration. This might sound kind of boring, but it's essential for peak athletic performance or just day-to-day living for that matter. I've been a runner and cyclist all my life and I've learned through trial and error about how to keep my body happy and hydrated. If you're new to my channel, I have tons of videos that will inspire you to get off your couch and get out there. And if you like what you see, you can really help me by subscribing, sharing my videos, or joining my Patreon. Okay, let's talk about water, agua, vaten, voda, odas, vasa. Proper hydration is very important and can mean the difference between an enjoyable experience in the outdoors or a serious suffer fest. Somebody just turned on the wind machine. Ah! Here's some things you should consider when preparing for your next adventure. You are beautiful, get it? Up to 60% of our bodies is made up of water. The other 40% of my body is made of beans. It's a great mix. Water helps with all kinds of important day-to-day functions like delivering oxygen to every corner of the body, regulating temperature through sweating and respiration, forming saliva for digestion, getting rid of waste, poo poo, and lubricating our joints. The body relies on having enough water to balance our electrolytes, which conduct electricity and allow us to perform basic automatic tasks like the transmission of nerve impulses and muscle contractions. Bottom line here, you need to stay hydrated to keep that awesome body of yours functioning. Now you might be wondering, wow, Ryan, you sure know a lot about the science behind proper hydration. Well, to tell you the truth, I got a lot of these facts from the Polar Bottle HydroPak website, and those guys are way smarter than me. According to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, adult men need to consume 3.7 liters of fluid each day while adult women should be taking in a minimum of about 2.7 liters. And this is pretty cool. About a fifth of those fluids comes from the foods we eat, like fruits and veggies. Typically, being well hydrated means that you need to go to the bathroom every two to four hours. Whenever I'm on a long bike adventure, I always make sure that I pack tons of water. You do not want to run out, especially for hot places like the desert. If you do run out, I hope you have a water purifier of some sort. Good old H2O is still the best way to hydrate, but adding sports drinks is often helpful for high intensity workouts. But sugary drinks can be tough on the digestive system. During some of my 100 mile races, I get so sick of sugary drinks that the thought of them grosses me out. I'm sure some of you can relate. Pace yourself with that stuff. I'm by far drinking more water today than any other day. Let's talk about some signs of dehydration. Conventional wisdom says that you shouldn't rely on thirst to remind you to drink water. If you're feeling thirsty, you're already dehydrated. At a cellular level, being dehydrated simply means that more water is leaving the body. First from the individual cells, and then from the body altogether, via sweat, urination, or water vapor when you exhale. That cottony, dry feeling in your mouth is one of the first signs of dehydration. You may also notice a headache and eventually muscle cramps. Dehydration can also cause feelings of confusion or even anger. I've seen some pretty crazy behavior at races, and I bet that a lot of that has to do with dehydration. Also, infrequent urination means you don't have enough water in your system. When you do go, pay attention to the color and smell. Urine should be light yellow and odorless. If it's darker in color and has a strong smell to it, you're overdue for some fluids. How to stay hydrated. Hydration is an ongoing process. Start to hydrate the day before a big outing. Let's go over some ways to stay hydrated. Drink one cup of water 15 minutes to half an hour before you start moving and continue to sip five to 10 ounces of fluid while you're working out. For high-intensity workouts every 15 to 20 minutes is a good target. Adding salt. When you're sweating profusely, you're losing tons of fluid and salt, which is when experts generally recommend supplementing your water with electrolytes or salt. Electrolytes are minerals in the bloodstream that perform key muscular functions and maintain fluid and nutrient balance in the cells. Try out a bunch of different brands to see what your body likes best. If you're replacing electrolytes during exercise, you'll need to do that every hour or so. I sometimes use salt tablets, but I prefer real food like salty chips, burritos, or ramen soup. I love Pringles at seven a.m. Yeah. Be careful with the salt tablets. Taking in too much sodium at once can overwhelm your body's ability to regulate it. And the Center for Disease Control and Prevention recommends limiting daily sodium intake to 1500 milligrams per day. This is especially true for people with high blood pressure like me. You know what one of the most horrible feelings is? Bunking. Every step is pain. Pure pain. If you start to notice signs of dehydration, you need to rehydrate quickly. This has happened to me in a few races and it's very uncomfortable. You feel super weak and dizzy. I am doing very okay. Very okay. I'm highly uncomfortable. My legs hurt. Feet hurt. Stomach hurts.  Flying on into the finish here. Now let's talk about hydration and hot weather. The importance of hydration and hot weather is crucial because you sweat more and your body has to work harder in order to regulate its temperature. So how do you stay hydrated and hot weather? Taking small sips as you go versus chugging down lots of water when you take a break. Consuming at least 20 ounces of water per hour of activity is recommended. Last summer when I was riding through Nebraska, it was a heat index of 115. It was the hottest I've ever felt. I was constantly drinking from my bottles and refilling them at gas stations while also drinking things like Gatorade. The more you sweat in hot weather, the faster your body loses essential minerals like sodium. Stay on top of this and you'll be a happy, sweaty camper. I don't know if I've ever sweat this much in my entire life. My body, my shirt, this is not from soaking it with water. That is straight sweat. Also, during hot weather, cool liquids are absorbed into your body more quickly than warm or hot liquids. These polar bottles which are made in Boulder have insulation to keep your drinks cooler. Bonus tip, put some ice in there as we all know, cold water tastes better. And obviously it's very important to hydrate the inside of your body but I also like jumping into bodies of water or pretty much finding any way to cool myself down on a hot day. Oh my God, it's like being in the North Pole. Wonder how long it takes until they kick me out of here. Okay, that was a lot of somewhat complicated water talk. Don't get jumbled up with all the numbers and ounces in milligrams. Just remember, drink regularly, listen to your body and eat healthy foods. If you plan on a lifetime of exercise and epic outdoor adventures, you need to be nice to your body. Now thank you so much for watching. I'll link to lots of other adventure videos down below and now it's time to get out there.