scholarly journals A Utility Function for Examining Policy Affecting Salmon on the Skeena River

1977 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 49-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ralph L. Keeney
Keyword(s):  
Interest Groups ◽  
Utility Function ◽  
Utility Functions ◽  
Multiple Objectives ◽  
Utility Model ◽  
Multiattribute Utility ◽  
Utility Models ◽  
Constructive Discussion ◽  
Skeena River ◽  
Comparative Examination

The interests of many groups, some with multiple objectives, are important to include in evaluating strategies affecting salmon in the Skeena River. A multiattribute utility model is proposed for addressing these issues. Two first-cut utility functions are assessed using the preferences of two individuals familiar with the problem. These utility functions provide a basis for constructive discussion to arrive at a reasonable utility function for examining alternative policies. Two unique features of this study are the explicit focus on value tradeoffs and equity considerations among interest groups, and a comparative examination of the two first-cut multiattribute utility models. This examination indicates the range of fundamental preferences which can be captured using multiattribute utility functions and illustrates the potential of the theory for conflict illumination and resolution.

Differing Goals of Salmon Management on the Skeena River

1977 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-72 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ray Hilborn ◽  
Carl J. Walters
Keyword(s):  
Decision Analysis ◽  
Interest Groups ◽  
Analysis Tool ◽  
Management Process ◽  
Multiattribute Utility ◽  
Utility Analysis ◽  
Analysis Technique ◽  
Skeena River ◽  
Multiattribute Utility Analysis ◽  
Conflicting Goals

In this paper we describe the use of a specific decision analysis tool, multiattribute utility analysis, to investigate conflicting goals in the management of salmon on the Skeena River. We used this technique to determine the preferences of 10 individuals representing several interest groups and different management agencies. It is shown how individuals differ in their preferences, how conflicts can be identified, and how decision analysis can be used to refine an individual's understanding of his preferences. Individuals assessed possible outcomes of different alternative enhancement proposals using two techniques, the decision analysis technique and an intuitive approach. These two methods produced different results. The use of these techniques in the management process is discussed.

DECISION ANALYSIS WITH MULTIPLE OBJECTIVES IN A FRAMEWORK FOR EVALUATING IMPRECISION

2005 ◽  
Vol 13 (05) ◽  
pp. 495-509 ◽  
Author(s):  
ARON LARSSON ◽  
JIM JOHANSSON ◽  
LOVE EKENBERG ◽  
MATS DANIELSON
Keyword(s):  
Decision Tree ◽  
Utility Function ◽  
Evaluation Method ◽  
Convex Sets ◽  
Utility Functions ◽  
Probability Measures ◽  
Decisions Under Risk ◽  
Closed Intervals ◽  
Pros And Cons ◽  
Tree Evaluation

We present a decision tree evaluation method for analyzing multi-attribute decisions under risk, where information is numerically imprecise. The approach extends the use of additive and multiplicative utility functions for supporting evaluation of imprecise statements, relaxing requirements for precise estimates of decision parameters. Information is modeled in convex sets of utility and probability measures restricted by closed intervals. Evaluation is done relative to a set of rules, generalizing the concept of admissibility, computationally handled through optimization of aggregated utility functions. Pros and cons of two approaches, and tradeoffs in selecting a utility function, are discussed.

A class of multiattribute utility functions

2007 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 591-602 ◽  
Author(s):  
András Prékopa ◽  
Gergely Mádi-Nagy
Keyword(s):  
Utility Functions ◽  
Multiattribute Utility

scholarly journals FEATURES OF FORMULATION THE CLAIM OF INVENTION OR THE UTILITY MODEL AS OBJECTS OF LEGAL PROTECTION

2020 ◽  
pp. 161-172
Author(s):  
Oleksandr Kholodyuk ◽  
Ruslan Bulin
Keyword(s):  
Legal Protection ◽  
Scientific Work ◽  
State Enterprise ◽  
Technical Solution ◽  
Clear Understanding ◽  
Utility Model ◽  
Patent Licensing ◽  
Urgent Task ◽  
Analysis And Synthesis ◽  
Utility Models

Inventive and patent licensing work is an integral part of the activities of engineering, technical and scientific workers in all spheres of the economy. Invention is creation of technological (technical) solution that meets the conditions of patentability (novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability). Such solutions may, in particular, be inventions or utility models. Therefore, the processing of applications, in particular its component, which are the claim of invention and the utility mode formulal, is an urgent task when preparing the application materials for obtaining the security document - patent. The object of the study in this article was the preparation, the sequence of presentation, taking into account the structure of the interrelated elements and parts of the formula, as a component of an application for an invention or utility model. The purpose of the work was to fully and comprehensively investigate the proper execution of the claim of invention and the utility model as an integral part of the application, and one that defines the scope of legal protection. The task of the work was: to consider the creativity and inventive activity of man as a form of self-realization; analyze the properties of the invention and utility model as objects of legal protection; investigate the features of the claim of invention and utility models. The research methodology was based on the method of materialistic dialectics, methods of analysis and synthesis of both information from official sources and information from the works of other researchers. The scientific work considers the peculiarities of execution of the claim of invention or utility model as an integral part of the application, which is submitted to the state enterprise "Ukrainian Institute of Intellectual Property" for a patent. The purpose of the claim of invention and its requirements have been analyzed. Thus, the features of the invention (utility model) in the claim of invention (utility model) are laid out in such a way as to enable them to be identified, that is, a clear understanding of their content by a person skilled in the art. The composition of the claim containing limiting, separating and distinguishing parts has been analyzed. The features of the content of the application for the invention of "device", "method" and "new application of a known product or process" are considered.

scholarly journals Comparing utility functions between risky and riskless choice in rhesus monkeys

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philipe M. Bujold ◽  
Simone Ferrari-Toniolo ◽  
Leo Chi U Seak ◽  
Wolfram Schultz
Keyword(s):  
Utility Function ◽  
Utility Theory ◽  
Utility Maximization ◽  
Choice Behavior ◽  
Expected Utility Theory ◽  
Utility Functions ◽  
Random Utility Maximization ◽  
Risky Choices ◽  
Neuronal Mechanisms ◽  
Subjective Value

AbstractDecisions can be risky or riskless, depending on the outcomes of the choice. Expected Utility Theory describes risky choices as a utility maximization process: we choose the option with the highest subjective value (utility), which we compute considering both the option’s value and its associated risk. According to the random utility maximization framework, riskless choices could also be based on a utility measure. Neuronal mechanisms of utility-based choice may thus be common to both risky and riskless choices. This assumption would require the existence of a utility function that accounts for both risky and riskless decisions. Here, we investigated whether the choice behavior of macaque monkeys in riskless and risky decisions could be described by a common underlying utility function. We found that the utility functions elicited in the two choice scenarios were different from each other, even after taking into account the contribution of subjective probability weighting. Our results suggest that distinct utility representations exist for riskless and risky choices, which could reflect distinct neuronal representations of the utility quantities, or distinct brain mechanisms for risky and riskless choices. The different utility functions should be taken into account in neuronal investigations of utility-based choice.

scholarly journals The partial waiver of the rights and partial invalidation of rights to the invention

2021 ◽  
pp. 51-59
Author(s):  
Petro Borovyk
Keyword(s):  
Legal Protection ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Utility Model ◽  
Patent Owner ◽  
The Third ◽  
Utility Models ◽  
The Law ◽  
State Registration ◽  
The Right

Borovyk P. The partial waiver of the rights and partial invalidation of rights to the invention. In view of changes in the Law of Ukraine «About protection of rights for inventions and utility models» introduced according to the Law No. 816-IX as of 21.07.2020, it is implied that a patent owner can waive rights provided by a state registration of an invention (utility model) fully or partially, and a court can render the rights for the invention (utility model) invalid fully or partially. The partial waiver of the rights or rendering the rights invalid causes a number of issues on a rather frequent basis, in particular, regarding a certain procedure of defining the entire scope of rights according to the patent and a portion of these rights. Since the scope of rights is defined by claims, the partial waiver of the rights or the partial rendering the rights invalid substantially represents a change of the scope of rights, which are defined by the claims as published. The patent may be granted for a group of inventions. In such case, the scope of rights shall be defined by the claims that comprise several independent claims. Here, the partial waiver of the rights for the invention may be carried out by waiving one or several independent claims at the discretion of the patent owner or by rendering one or several independent claims invalid by the court. Therewith, the scope of rights that is defined during conduction of an examination for another invention of the group of inventions, which are mentioned in a single protection document (patent), is not changed. The partial waiver or the partial rendering the rights for the invention invalid for the claims having one independent claim is a more problematic case. A key aspect of this problem is an influence of the proposed amendments of the claims onto the scope of rights for the invention and its correspondence with the requirements for granting a legal protection. More specifically, it is an establishment of a fact of reduction of the scope of rights when introducing the proposed amendments into the independent claim and examination of a new version of the independent claim for compliance with the requirements of patentability. An important aspect also lies in establishment of a balance of interests of the patent owner and third parties. The patent owner will receive a mechanism of implementation of the right for protection of allowable embodiments of the invention, while the third parties will receive a right for a legal certainty by means of an analysis of the scope of rights of the new version of the claims. The article discloses grounds for waiving the rights for the invention and the mechanism for implementation of the waiver under the legislation in force both for the case of the group of inventions and for the partial waiver or the partial rendering the rights for the invention invalid with the claims having one independent claim. Keywords: scope of rights, independent and dependent claims, amendment to claims, proceedings

CHOQUET INTEGRAL MODELS AND INDEPENDENCE CONCEPTS IN MULTIATTRIBUTE UTILITY THEORY

2000 ◽  
Vol 08 (04) ◽  
pp. 385-415 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. MUROFUSHI ◽  
M. SUGENO
Keyword(s):  
Utility Function ◽  
Utility Theory ◽  
Choquet Integral ◽  
Fuzzy Measure ◽  
Multiattribute Utility ◽  
Preference Relations ◽  
Multiattribute Utility Theory ◽  
A Value ◽  
Utility Independence

This paper discusses multiattribute preference relations compatible with a value/utility function represented by the Choquet integral with respect to a fuzzy measure, and shows that the additivity of the fuzzy measure is equivalent to each of mutual preferential independence, mutual weak difference independence, mutual difference independence, mutual utility independence, and additive independence.

Ukrainian patent reform: render harmless a utility model

2020 ◽  
pp. 61-63
Author(s):  
Irina Kirichenko ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Russian Federation ◽  
Civil Code ◽  
Innovation Activity ◽  
Technical Solution ◽  
Chemical Formula ◽  
Utility Model ◽  
Intellectual Activity ◽  
Ukrainian Patent ◽  
Utility Models ◽  
The Russian Federation

The patent is an amazing thing, it’s like a narcotic: nothing but a chemical formula known for more than one century, registered as a utility model, but can subjugate all other licenses and permits in a way that no other “gun” can. According to Article 1 of the Law of Ukraine “On Protection of Rights to Inventions and Utility Models”, a utility model (just as an invention) is the result of human intellectual activity in any sphere of technology i.e. the object of the utility model (UM) may be any product (device, substance etc.) or a process (unlike us, unfortunately our Russian colleagues severely limited innovation activity. For example, Article 1351, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation allows you to protect as a utility model only a technical solution relating to an apparatus).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document