Chapter 66 - Commerce and Business.
Article 1 - Regulation and Inspection.
§ 66-1. County commissioners to appoint inspectors.
§ 66-2. Repealed by Session Laws 1973, c. 108, s. 22.
§ 66-3. Bond of inspector; fees.
§ 66-4. Falsely acting as inspector.
§ 66-5. Penalty for sale without inspection.
§ 66-6. Penalty on master receiving without inspection.
§ 66-7. Who to pay inspectors' fees; penalty for extortion.
§ 66-8: Repealed by Session Laws 1995, c. 379, s. 18.3.
§ 66-9. Gas and electric light bills to show reading of meter.
§ 66-10. Failure of dealers of scrap, salvage, or surplus to keep record of purchases of certain items misdemeanor.
§ 66-11: Repealed by Session Laws 2012-46, s. 26, effective October 1, 2012, and applicable to offenses committed on or after that date.
§ 66-11.1: Repealed by Session Laws 2012-46, s. 26, effective October 1, 2012, and applicable to offenses committed on or after that date.
§ 66-11.2: Recodified as G.S. 66-426 by Session Laws 2012-46, s. 27, effective October 1, 2012, and applicable to offenses committed on or after that date.
Article 2 - Manufacture and Sale of Matches.
§ 66-12. Requirements for matches permitted to be sold.
§ 66-13. Packages to be marked.
§ 66-14. Storage and packing regulated.
§ 66-15. Shipping containers regulated.
§ 66-16. Violation of Article a misdemeanor.
§ 66-16.1. Retail sale of novelty lighters prohibited.
Article 3 - Candy and Similar Products.
§§ 66-17 through 66-22: Repealed by Session Laws 1998-98, s. 37.
Article 4 - Electrical Materials, Devices, Appliances and Equipment.
§ 66-23. Sale of electrical goods regulated.
§ 66-24. Identification marks required.
§ 66-25. Acceptable listings as to safety of goods.
§ 66-26. Legal responsibility of proper installations unaffected.
§ 66-27. Violation made misdemeanor.
Article 4A - Safety Features of Hot Water Heaters.
§ 66-27.1. Certain automatic hot water tanks or heaters to have approved relief valves; installation or sale of unapproved relief valves forbidden.
§ 66-27.1A. Water heater thermostat settings.
§ 66-27.2. Certain hot water supply storage tank or heater baffles, heat traps, etc., to be tested before installation or sale.
§ 66-27.3. Violation of Article made misdemeanor.
§ 66-27.4. Local regulation of hot water heater safety features.
Article 4B - Safety Features of Trailers.
§ 66-27.5. House trailers to have two doors.
§ 66-27A: Recodified as 66-27.01 by Session Laws 1997-456, s. 27.
Article 5 - Sale of Phonograph Records or Electrical Transcriptions.
§ 66-28. Prohibition of rights to further restrict or to collect royalties on commercial use.
Article 6 - Sale of Nursery Stock.
§ 66-29: Repealed by Session Laws 1973, c. 918.
Article 7 - Tagging Secondhand Watches.
§§ 66-30 through 66-34: Repealed by Session Laws 1995, c. 379, s. 18.4.
Article 8 - Public Warehouses.
§ 66-35. Who may become public warehousemen.
§ 66-37. Person injured may sue on bond.
§ 66-38. When insurance required; storage receipts.
§ 66-39. Books of account kept; open to inspection.
§ 66-40. Unlawful disposition of property stored.
Article 9 - Collection of Accounts.
§§ 66-41 through 66-49: Recodified as §§ 66-49.24 through 66-49.50.
Article 9A - Private Detectives.
§§ 66-49.1 through 66-49.8: Repealed by Session Laws 1977, c. 712, s. 2.
Article 9B - Motor Clubs and Associations.
§§ 66-49.9 through 66-49.23: Recodified as Article 69 of Chapter 58.
Article 9C - Collection Agencies.
§§ 66-49.24 through 66-49.50: Recodified as Article 70 of Chapter 58.
Article 10 - Fair Trade.
§§ 66-50 through 66-57. Repealed by Session Laws 1975, c. 172.
Article 10A - Inventions Developed by Employee.
§ 66-57.1. Employee's right to certain inventions.
Article 11 - Government in Business.
§ 66-58. Sale of merchandise or services by governmental units.
Article 11A - Electronic Commerce In Government.
§ 66-58.3. Certification authority licensing.
§ 66-58.4. Use of electronic signatures.
§ 66-58.5. Validity of electronic signatures.
§ 66-58.12. Agencies may provide access to services through electronic and digital transactions; fees authorized.
§§ 66-58.13 through 66-58.19. Reserved for future codification purposes.
Article 11B - Electronic Access to State Services.
§ 66-58.20. Development and implementation of Web portals; public agency links.
Article 12 - Coupons for Products of Photography.
§§ 66-59 through 66-64: Repealed by Session Laws 1995, c. 379, s. 18.5.
Article 13 - Miscellaneous Provisions.
§ 66-65. Indemnity bonds required of agents, etc., to state maximum liability and period of liability.
§ 66-66. Manufacture or sale of antifreeze solutions compounded with inorganic salts or petroleum distillates prohibited.
§ 66-67. Disposition by laundries and dry cleaning establishments of certain unclaimed clothing.
§ 66-67.1. Disposal by repair businesses of certain unclaimed property.
§ 66-67.2. Persons who sell used goods on consignment must keep certain records.
§ 66-67.3. Disposal of dies, molds, forms, and patterns.
§ 66-67.4. Film and photographic print processor or computer technician to report film or computer images containing pictures of a minor engaging in sexual activity.
§ 66-67.5. Requirements for maintenance fees for gift cards.
Article 14 - Business Under Assumed Name Regulated.
§§ 66-68 through 66-71: Repealed by Session Laws 2016-100, s. 1, as amended by Session Laws 2017-23, s. 1, effective December 1, 2017.
Article 14A - Assumed Business Name Act.
§ 66-71.2. Statement of purpose.
§ 66-71.4. Filing of certificate; exception.
§ 66-71.5. Contents of certificate.
§ 66-71.6. Execution of certificate.
§ 66-71.7. Amendment of certificate.
§ 66-71.8. Withdrawal of assumed business name.
§ 66-71.9. Secretary of State to maintain a centralized, statewide database of assumed business name information.
§ 66-71.10. Register of deeds to index certificates; transmission of data to central database.
§ 66-71.12. Effect of filing certificate.
§ 66-71.13. Copy of certificate prima facie evidence.
§ 66-71.14. Consequences of signing false certificate or violating Article.
§ 66-71.15. Expiration of certificates filed under Article 14; transition provisions.
Article 15 - Person Trading as "Company" or "Agent."
§ 66-72. Person trading as "company" or "agent" to disclose real parties.
Article 16 - Unfair Trade Practices in Diamond Industry.
§ 66-74. What constitutes unfair trade practice.
§ 66-75. Penalty for violation; each practice a separate offense.
Article 17 - Closing-Out Sales.
§ 66-77: Repealed by Session Laws 2015-103, s. 2(a), effective July 1, 2015.
§ 66-78. Additions to stock in contemplation of sale prohibited.
§ 66-79. Replenishment of stock prohibited.
§ 66-80. Continuation of sale or business beyond termination date.
§ 66-81. Advertising or conducting sale contrary to Article; penalty.
§ 66-82. Sales excepted; liability for dissemination of false advertisement.
§ 66-83. Restraining or enjoining illegal act.
§ 66-84: Repealed by Session Laws 1981, c. 633, s. 8.
Article 18 - Labeling of Household Cleaners.
§ 66-85. Labeling cleaners containing volatile substances capable of producing toxic effects; definition.
§ 66-86. Penalty for selling product in violation of Article.
§ 66-88. Application of Article after enactment of federal legislation.
§§ 66-89 through 66-93. Reserved for future codification purposes.
Article 19 - Business Opportunity Sales.
§ 66-94.1. Responsible sellers exemption.
§ 66-95. Required disclosure statement.
§ 66-96. Bond or trust account required.
§ 66-97. Filing with Secretary of State.
§ 66-99. Contracts to be in writing; form; provisions.
§§ 66-101 through 66-105. Reserved for future codification purposes.
Article 20 - Loan Brokers.
§ 66-107. Required disclosure statement.
§ 66-108. Bond or trust account required.
§ 66-109. Filing with Secretary of State.
§ 66-110. Contracts to be in writing.
§§ 66-113 through 66-117. Reserved for future codification purposes.
Article 21 - Prepaid Entertainment Contracts.
§ 66-121. Buyer's right to cancel.
§ 66-122. Rights and responsibilities after cancellation.
§ 66-124. Bond or escrow account required.
§ 66-124.1. Record keeping; provision of records to the Attorney General.
§§ 66-126 through 66-130. Reserved for future codification purposes.
Article 22 - Discount Buying Clubs.
§ 66-132. Contracts to be in writing.
§ 66-133. Customer's right to cancel.
§ 66-135. Bond and trust account required.
§§ 66-138 through 66-141: Reserved for future codification purposes.
Article 23 - Rental Referral Agencies.
§ 66-143. Fees and deposits.
§ 66-144. Representations of availability.
§ 66-145. Bond or trust account required.
§§ 66-147 through 66-151. Reserved for future codification purposes.
Article 24 - Trade Secrets Protection Act.
§ 66-153. Action for misappropriation.
§ 66-155. Burden of proof.
§ 66-156. Preservation of secrecy.
§ 66-157. Statute of limitations.
§§ 66-158 through 66-162. Reserved for future codification purposes.
Article 25 - Regulation of Precious Metal Businesses.
§ 66-163: Recodified as Part 2 of Article 45 of Chapter 66, G.S. 66-405 through 66-414, by Session Laws 2012-46, s. 15, effective October 1, 2012, and applicable to offenses committed on or after that date.
§ 66-164: Recodified as Part 2 of Article 45 of Chapter 66, G.S. 66-405 through 66-414, by Session Laws 2012-46, s. 15, effective October 1, 2012, and applicable to offenses committed on or after that date.
§ 66-165: Recodified as Part 2 of Article 45 of Chapter 66, G.S. 66-405 through 66-414, by Session Laws 2012-46, s. 15, effective October 1, 2012, and applicable to offenses committed on or after that date.
§ 66-166: Repealed by Session Laws 2009-482, § 3, effective October 1, 2009.
§ 66-167: Recodified as Part 2 of Article 45 of Chapter 66, G.S. 66-405 through 66-414, by Session Laws 2012-46, s. 15, effective October 1, 2012, and applicable to offenses committed on or after that date.
§ 66-168: Recodified as Part 2 of Article 45 of Chapter 66, G.S. 66-405 through 66-414, by Session Laws 2012-46, s. 15, effective October 1, 2012, and applicable to offenses committed on or after that date.
§ 66-169: Recodified as Part 2 of Article 45 of Chapter 66, G.S. 66-405 through 66-414, by Session Laws 2012-46, s. 15, effective October 1, 2012, and applicable to offenses committed on or after that date.
§ 66-170: Recodified as Part 2 of Article 45 of Chapter 66, G.S. 66-405 through 66-414, by Session Laws 2012-46, s. 15, effective October 1, 2012, and applicable to offenses committed on or after that date.
§ 66-171: Recodified as Part 2 of Article 45 of Chapter 66, G.S. 66-405 through 66-414, by Session Laws 2012-46, s. 15, effective October 1, 2012, and applicable to offenses committed on or after that date.
§ 66-172: Recodified as Part 2 of Article 45 of Chapter 66, G.S. 66-405 through 66-414, by Session Laws 2012-46, s. 15, effective October 1, 2012, and applicable to offenses committed on or after that date.
§ 66-173: Recodified as Part 2 of Article 45 of Chapter 66, G.S. 66-405 through 66-414, by Session Laws 2012-46, s. 15, effective October 1, 2012, and applicable to offenses committed on or after that date.
§ 66-174: Reserved for future codification purposes.
§ 66-175: Reserved for future codification purposes.
§ 66-176: Reserved for future codification purposes.
§ 66-177: Reserved for future codification purposes.
§ 66-178: Reserved for future codification purposes.
§ 66-179: Reserved for future codification purposes.
Article 26 - Farm Machinery Franchises.
§ 66-181. Usage of trade.
§ 66-182. Notice of termination of agreements.
§ 66-183. Supplier's duty to repurchase.
§ 66-185. Exceptions to repurchase requirement.
§ 66-186. Uniform commercial practice.
§ 66-188. Failure to repurchase; civil remedy.
§ 66-189. Reserved for future codification purposes.
Article 27 - Sales Representative Commissions.
§ 66-191. Payment of commissions; termination.
§ 66-192.1. Revocable offers of commission; entitlement.
§§ 66-194 through 66-199. Reserved for future codification purposes.
Article 28 - Rental Car Advertising and Sales Practices.
§ 66-202. Rental car advertising.
§ 66-205. Agent licenses required.
§ 66-206. Effects of violations.
§ 66-207. Rental car companies assist in publicizing law.
§ 66-208. Reserved for future codification purposes.
Article 29 - Invention Development Services.
§ 66-210. Disclosures made prior to contract.
§ 66-211. Standard provisions for cover notice.
§ 66-213. Mandatory contract terms.
§§ 66-217 through 66-219. Reserved for future codification purposes.
Article 30 - Credit Repair Services Act.
§ 66-220. Short title and purpose.
§ 66-222. Bond or trust account required.
§§ 66-227 through 66-229. Reserved for future codification purposes.
Article 31 - Membership Camping Act.
§ 66-233. Administration; unlawful offer or execution of membership camping contract.
§ 66-234. Registration of membership camping operator.
§ 66-235. Time of effect of registration.
§ 66-237. Registration of salespersons.
§ 66-238. Membership camping operator's disclosure statement.
§ 66-243. Provision of records to the Secretary of State.
§ 66-244. Limitation on duration of contract term.
§ 66-248. Reserved for future codification purposes.
§ 66-249. Reserved for future codification purposes.
Article 32 - Peddlers, Itinerant Merchants, and Specialty Markets.
§ 66-251. Itinerant merchant and peddler must have permission of property owner.
§ 66-252. Display and possession of certificate of registration.
§ 66-253. Display of identification upon request.
§ 66-254. Records of source of new merchandise.
§ 66-254.1. Certain sales prohibited.
§ 66-255. Specialty market or operator of an event registration list.
§ 66-256. Exemptions from Article.
§ 66-258. Local regulation not affected.
§ 66-259. Reserved for future codification purposes.
Article 33 - Telephonic Seller Registration and Bond Requirement.
§ 66-261. Registration of telephonic sellers.
§ 66-263. Bond requirement; prizes and gifts.
§ 66-264. Calls made to minors.
§ 66-265. Offers of gifts or prizes.
§§ 66-267 through 66-269. Reserved for future codification purposes.
Article 34 - Certificates of Authentication.
§ 66-270. Authority of Secretary of State to authenticate documents.
§ 66-272. Certificate of authentication.
§ 66-273. Prerequisites for authentication.
§ 66-274. Limitations on authentication.
§ 66-275. Other methods of authentication not precluded.
§§ 66-276 through 66-279. Reserved for future codification purposes.
Article 35 - Agreements Between North Carolina and Foreign Governments.
§ 66-280. Agreements between North Carolina and foreign governments to be filed.
§§ 66-281 through 66-284. Reserved for future codification purposes.
Article 36 - Truthful Advertisements of Costs of Servicing or Repairing Private Passenger Vehicles.
§ 66-285. Advertisements of servicing or repairing private passenger vehicles.
§§ 66-286 through 66-289. Reserved for future codification purposes.
Article 37 - Tobacco Reserve Fund and Escrow Compliance.
§ 66-293. Sale of certain cigarettes prohibited.
§ 66-294. Duties of manufacturers.
§ 66-294.1. Duties of Attorney General.
§ 66-294.2. Joint and several liability of importers of cigarettes manufactured by nonparticipating manufacturers located outside the United States.
Article 38 - Year 2000 Liability and Damages.
§§ 66-295 through 66-299: Expired.
§ 66-300. Reserved for future codification purposes.
§ 66-301: Reserved for future codification purposes.
§ 66-302: Reserved for future codification purposes.
§ 66-303: Reserved for future codification purposes.
§ 66-304: Reserved for future codification purposes.
Article 39 - Self-Service Storage Rental Contracts.
§§ 66-308 through 66-310. Reserved for future codification purposes.
Article 40 - Uniform Electronic Transactions Act.
§ 66-315. Use of electronic records and electronic signatures; variation by agreement.
§ 66-316. Construction and application.
§ 66-317. Legal recognition of electronic records, electronic signatures, and electronic contracts.
§ 66-318. Provision of information in writing; presentation of records.
§ 66-319. Attribution and effect of electronic record and electronic signature.
§ 66-320. Effect of change or error.
§ 66-321. Notarization and acknowledgment.
§ 66-322. Retention of electronic records; originals.
§ 66-323. Admissibility in evidence.
§ 66-325. Time and place of sending and receipt.
§ 66-327. Consumer transactions; alternative procedures for use or acceptance of electronic records or electronic signatures.
§ 66-328. Procedures consistent with federal law.
§ 66-329. Choice of law in computer information agreement.
§§ 66-331 through 66-339. Reserved for future codification purposes.
Article 41 - Manufacturing Redevelopment Districts.
§ 66-347. Reserved for future codification purposes.
§ 66-348. Reserved for future codification purposes.
§ 66-349. Reserved for future codification purposes.
Article 42 - State Franchise for Cable Television Service.
§ 66-351. State franchising authority.
§ 66-352. Award of franchise and commencement of service.
§ 66-353. Annual service report.
§ 66-354. General filing and report requirements.
§ 66-355. Effect on existing local franchise agreement.
§ 66-356. Service standards and requirements.
§ 66-357. Availability and use of PEG channels.
§ 66-358. Transmission of PEG channels.
§ 66-359: Repealed by Session Laws 2010-158, s. 11(a), effective July 1, 2010.
§ 66-360. Service to public building.
Article 43 - Service Agreements.
§ 66-370. Motor vehicle service agreement companies.
§ 66-371. Home appliance service agreement companies.
§ 66-372. Miscellaneous requirements for motor vehicle and home appliance service agreement companies.
§ 66-373. Insurance policy requirements.
§ 66-374. Mechanical breakdown service agreements.
§ 66-375: Reserved for future codification purposes.
§ 66-376: Reserved for future codification purposes.
§ 66-377: Reserved for future codification purposes.
§ 66-378: Reserved for future codification purposes.
§ 66-379: Reserved for future codification purposes.
Article 44 - Free Insurance.
§ 66-382. Unfair trade practice.
Article 45 - Pawnbrokers, Metal Dealers, and Scrap Dealers.
§ 66-390. Requirements for licensure.
§ 66-391. Record-keeping requirements for pawnbrokers.
§ 66-392. Record-keeping requirements for currency converters and e-buyers.
§ 66-393. Pawnbroker fees; interest rates.
§ 66-397. Municipal or county authority.
§ 66-400: Reserved for future codification purposes.
§ 66-401: Reserved for future codification purposes.
§ 66-402: Reserved for future codification purposes.
§ 66-403: Reserved for future codification purposes.
§ 66-404: Reserved for future codification purposes.
§ 66-409. Bond or trust account required.
§ 66-410. Records to be kept.
§ 66-411. Items not to be modified.
§ 66-412. Purchasing from juvenile.
§ 66-414. Portable smelters prohibited.
§ 66-415: Reserved for future codification purposes.
§ 66-416: Reserved for future codification purposes.
§ 66-417: Reserved for future codification purposes.
§ 66-418: Reserved for future codification purposes.
§ 66-419: Reserved for future codification purposes.
§ 66-421. Required records and receipts for regulated metals transactions.
§ 66-422. Inspection of regulated metals property and records.
§ 66-423. Hold notices for nonferrous metals; retention of nonferrous metals.
§ 66-424. Prohibited activities and transactions.
§ 66-425. Permissible payment methods for nonferrous metals purchasers.
§ 66-426. Issuance of nonferrous metals purchase permits by Sheriff; form; fees; recordkeeping.
§ 66-431. Forfeiture of vehicles used to transport unlawfully obtained regulated metals property.
§ 66-432: Reserved for future codification purposes.
§ 66-433: Reserved for future codification purposes.
§ 66-434: Reserved for future codification purposes.
§ 66-435: Reserved for future codification purposes.
§ 66-436: Reserved for future codification purposes.
§ 66-437: Reserved for future codification purposes.
§ 66-438: Reserved for future codification purposes.
§ 66-439: Reserved for future codification purposes.
Article 46 - Guaranteed Asset Protection Waivers.
§ 66-441. Scope of Article.
§ 66-442. Guaranteed asset protection waivers not subject to insurance laws.
§ 66-443. Insurance of guaranteed asset protection waivers.
Article 47 - Zip Line and Challenge Course Financial Responsibility.


text:
'(a) An owner, not the issuer of the security, who disposes of his own property, for his own account; when such disposal is not made in the course of repeated and successive transactions of a similar character by such owner; or a natural person, other than the underwriter of the security, who is a bona fide owner of the security and disposes of his own property for his own account; . . .
The Geiger-Jones Company is an Ohio corporation, licensed to do the business of buying and selling investment securities, and of buying and selling the stocks and bonds of industrial corporations. It has a regularly established clientage, it alleges, of about 11,000 persons residing in the state of Ohio and other states, and has sold and there are now outstanding in the hands of persons to whom it has sold, securities of about twenty to twenty-five million dollars, par value, and has stockholders in Ohio and other states. That the securities above referred to consist of securities of over twenty corporations of Ohio and other states and foreign countries. That it is still selling such [242 U.S. 539, 542] securities and is and has been engaged in intrastate, interstate, and foreign commerce.
The appellee, Don C. Coultrap, in No. 439, repeats the allegations made by Geiger-Jones Company, with enumeration of some of the companies in whose stocks and securities that corporation is engaged in dealing, and alleges that he is the owner and holder of its stocks and of the stocks of other companies, and is engaged in buying and selling and offering to sell such stocks in the state of Ohio and in the state of Pennsylvania, and in the course of such transactions travels back and forth between those states and conducts a correspondence from Pennsylvania to Ohio, and receives certificates evidencing the ownership of stock from the state of Ohio, and sends them from Pennsylvania to Ohio.
William R. Rose, one of the appellees in No. 440, alleges himself to be a citizen of Ohio and engaged in that state in the business of buying and selling investment securities, and particularly the stocks and bonds of industrial corporations, and that he has built up and maintained a large and profitable business and an enviable reputation.
The RiChard Auto Manufacturing Company, the other appellee, is a corporation of West Virginia, but has its principal place of business in Cleveland, Ohio, and has a contract to manufacture and is ready to manufacture automobiles under certain patents obtained by Francois RiChard as soon as and not until the stock of the company can be put upon the market and a sufficient amount realized therefrom for such purposes.
That on September 25th he was arrested upon an affidavit filed by one H. R. Young, a subordinate and deputy of the state superintendent of banks and banking for the state of Ohio, under whose immediate direction and control he was then acting. Rose, upon being taken before a magistrate, waived examination and was 'bound over to the grand jury' of Cuyahoga county, which jury subsequently returned an indictment against him for violation of the law.
The grievance alleged in Nos. 438 and 439 is that, under the laws of the state, the attorney general is threatening to give an opinion to Hall, the superintendent of banks and banking, that the law is valid, and that it is the duty of Hall to cancel appellees' license, and that this will result in irreparable injury to appellees and to their security holders from the publicity they will obtain. And it is apprehended that Hall will act on such advice, believing that he is bound by the opinion of the attorney general.
The statute is attached to the bills, and is asserted to be unconstitutional, invalid, and void, and the particulars are enumerated to be that it will deprive appellees of their property without due process of law, deny them the equal protection of the laws, impose burdens on interstate commerce, confer executive powers, delegate such powers and legislative powers, in violation of the Constitution of Ohio. Appellees consider themselves remediless except in equity, and pray injunctions interlocutory and permanent.
The complaint of Rose and the Auto Company is that Hall, superintendent of banks and banking, is actively engaged in the prosecution of the proceedings against Rose, and has, together with the prosecuting attorney, interfered with, interrupted, and completely prevented Rose from carrying on his business in the state of Ohio, and especially in attempting upon his part to dispose of and [242 U.S. 539, 544] sell the stock of the Auto Company, and that the prosecuting attorney and the sheriff of Cuyahoga county, unless restrained, will assist and actively cooperate with Hall, to the great and irreparable injury of both Rose and the Auto Company.
The charge is amplified by details which it is unnecessary to give, and the law is charged to be unconstitutional in the same particulars as those enumerated by the Geiger-Jones Company.
Injunctions temporary and perpetual are prayed.
The district court in the Geiger-Jones Case considered that it was without power to enjoin the attorney general, but decided that it could and should, under the charges of the bill, restrain Hall from further action under the law, the restraint to continue until the hearing and determination of the applications of the respective complainants for interlocutory injunctions.
The applications subsequently came to be heard before three judges, and Hall and all of his employees and subordinates were enjoined from attempting to enforce the provisions of the law. There was an exception in No. 440, as follows: '. . . except such proceedings as may be deemed proper in any criminal action pending against said complainants or either of them when the complaint in this cause was filed.' The injunctions in all the cases were to continue until final decision of further order of the court. The court declared the law to be obnoxious to all of the charges made by the respective complainants against it. 230 Fed. 233.
Mr. Edward C. Turner, Attorney General of Ohio, for appellant.
Messrs. John A. Shauck, Timothy S. Hogan, A. M. McCarty, E. N. Huggins, M. B. Johnson, H. H. Johnson, and Francis R. Marvin for appellees.
[242 U.S. 539, 548] Messrs. Robert R. Reed, George W. Wickersham, and Charles K. Allen as amicl curiae.
It will be observed that these cases bring here for judgment an asserted conflict between national power and state power, and bring, besides, power of the state as limited or forbidden by the national Constitution.
The assertion of such conflict and limitation is an ever-recurring one; and yet it is approached as if it were a new thing under the sun. The primary postulate of the state is that the law under review is an exercise of the police power of the state, and that power, we have said, is the least limitable of the exercises of government. Sligh v. Kirkwood, 237 U.S. 52 , 59 L. ed. 835, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 501. We get no accurate idea of its limitations by opposing to it the declarations of the 14th Amendment that no person shall be deprived of his life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denied the equal protection of the laws. Noble State Bank v. Haskell, 219 U.S. 104, 110 , 55 S. L. ed. 112, 116, 32 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1062, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 186, Ann. Cas. 1912A, 487. A stricter inquiry is necessary, and we must consider what it is of life, liberty, and property that the Constitution protects.
What life is and what may or may not affect it, we have quite accurate tests; and what liverty is in its outside sense, and, in like sense, what property is. We know that it is of the essence of liberty- indeed, we may say, of life-that there shall be freedom of conduct, and yet there may [242 U.S. 539, 549] be limitations upon such freedom. We know that, in the concept of property, there are the rights of its acquisition, disposition, and enjoyment,-in a word, dominion over it. Yet all of these rights may be regulated. Such are the declarations of the cases, become platitudes by frequent repetition and many instances of application.
'(c) The general plan and character of the business of said applicant, together with references which the 'commissioner' shall confirm by such investigation as he may deem necessary, establishing the good repute in business of such applicant, directors, officers, partners, and agents.
The applicant is alos required to file a written instrument irrevocably consenting to be sued in a particular county, and, if personal service there cannot be had, consenting to service upon the sheriff of the county.
It is also provided that all of the applications shall be published in a daily newspaper, and if the commissioner be satisfied that the applicant is of good repute, he shall, upon payment of certain fees, register the applicant as a licensed dealer in securities. Pending disposition of the application, temporary permission to transact business may be given. Yearly renewals of the licenses are provided for.
The commissioner may revoke a license upon ascertaining that the licensee: (a) Is of bad repute; (b) has violated any provision of the act; or (c) has engaged, or is about to engage, under favor of such license, in illegitimate business or fraudulent transactions.
It will be observed, therefore, that the law is a regulation of business, constrains conduct only to that end, the purpose being to protect the public against the imposition of unsubstantial schemes and the securities based upon them. Whatever prohibition there is, is a means to the same purpose, made necessary, it may be supposed, by the persistence of evil and its insidious forms and the experience of the inadequacy of penalties or other repressive measures. The name that is given to the law indicates the evil at which it is aimed; that is, to use the language of a cited case, 'speculative schemes which have no more basis than so many feet of 'blue sky;" or, as stated by counsel in another case, 'to stop the sale of stock in fly-by-night concerns, visionary oil wells, distant gold mines, and other like fraudulent exploitations.' Even if the descriptions be regarded as rhetorical, the existence of evil is [242 U.S. 539, 551] indicated, and a belief of its detriment; and we shall not pause to do more than state that the prevention of deception is within the competency of government, and that the appreciation of the consequences of it is not open for our review. Trading Stamp Cases, Rast v. Van Deman & L. Co. 240 U.S. 342 , 60 L. ed. 679, L.R.A.1917A, 421, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 370; Tanner v. Little, 240 U.S. 369 , 60 L. ed. 691, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 379; Pitney v. Washington, 240 U.S. 387, 391 , 60 S. L. ed. 703, 706, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 385. Therefore, the purpose being legal, the question only remains whether the manner in which it is accomplished is illegal. This is contended, and the provisions which render the law void are found, it is stated, in: (1) Power conferred upon the commissioner to grant or refuse licenses; (2) the authority given the commissioner to place forbidden restrictions and burdens on the conduct of the business of one who has obtained a license.
The basis of these contentions is that the law confers arbitrary power upon the commissioner. In considering the contentions we must keep in mind that the law is addressed to a complex situation. Its purpose is, as we have seen, to give a basis for judgment of the securities offered the purchasing public; assure credit where it is deserved and confidence to investment and trading; prevent deception and save credulity and ignorance from imposition, as far as this can be done by the approved reputation of the seller of the securities and authoritative information.
As broadly made, we cannot assent to these propositions. The reason and extent of the law we have indicated and the control to which individual transactions are subjected, and we think both are within the competency of the state. It is to be remembered that the value of securities consists in what they represent, and to determine such value is a complex problem even to the most skilful and informed.
We have very lately decided a case upon the principle of the power of the state to prevent frauds and impositions. Hutchinson Ice Cream Co. v. Iowa, 242 U.S. 153 , 61 L. ed. 217, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 28. The principle applies as well to securities as to material products, the provisions of the law necessarily varying with the objects. As to material products the purpose may be accomplished by a requirement of inherent purity. The intangibility of securities, they being representatives or purporting to be representatives of something else, of property, it may be, in distant states and countries, schemes of plausible pretensions, requires a difference of provision, and the integrity of the securities can only be assured by the probity of the dealers in them and the information which may be given of them. This assurance the state has deemed necessary for its welfare to require; and the requirement is not unreasonable or inappropriate. It extends to the general market something of the safeguards that are given to trading upon the exchanges and stock boards of the country,-safeguards that experience has adopted as advantageous. Inconvenience may be caused and supervision and surveillance, but this must yield to the public welfare; and against counsel's alarm of consequences, we set the judgment of the state.
We turn back, therefore, to consider the more specific objections to the law. The basis of them is, as we have seen, the power conferred upon the commissioner, which is [242 U.S. 539, 553] asserted to be arbitrary. The objection is somewhat difficult to handle. It centers in the provision that requires the commissioner, as a condition of a license, 'to be satisfied of the good repute in business of such applicant and named agents,' and in the power given him to revoke the license or refuse to renew it upon ascertaining that the licensee 'is of bad business repute, has violated any provision of the act, or has engaged or is about to engage, under favor of such license, in illegitimate business or fraudulent transactions.' It is especially objected that, as to these requirements, no standard is given to guide or determine the decision of the commissioner. Therefore, it is contended that the discretion thus vested in the commissioner leaves "room for the play and action of purely personal and arbitrary power."
We are a little surprised that it should be implied that there is anything recondite in a business reputation or its existence as a fact which should require much investigation. If in special cases there may be controversy, those cases the statute takes care of; an adverse judgment by the commissioner is reviewable by the courts. 6373-8. So also as to the other judgments.
Besides, it is certainly apparent that, if the conditions are within the power of the state to impose, they can only be ascertained by an executive officer. Reputation and character are quite tangible attributes, but there can be no legislative definition of them that can automatically attach to or identify individuals possessing them, and necessarily the aid of some executive agency must be invoked. The contention of appellees would take from government one of its most essential instrumentalities, of which the various national and state commissions are instances. But the contention may be answered by authority. In Gundling v. Chicago, 177 U.S. 183 , 44 L. ed. 725, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 633, an ordinance of the city of Chicago was passed on which required a license of dealers in cigarettes, and, as a condition [242 U.S. 539, 554] of the license, that the applicant, if a single individual, all of the members of the firm, if a copartnership, and any person or persons in charge of the business, if a corporation, should be of good character and reputation, and the duty was delegated to the mayor of the city to determine the existence of the conditions. The ordinance was sustained. To this case may be added Red 'C' Oil Mfg. Co. v. Board of Agriculture, 222 U.S. 380, 394 , 56 S. L. ed. 240, 245, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 152, and cases cited; Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Commission, 236 U.S. 230 , 59 L. ed. 552, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 387, Ann Cas. 1916C, 296; Brazee v. Michigan, 241 U.S. 340, 341 , 60 S. L. ed. 1034, 1035, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 561. See also Reetz v. Michigan, 188 U.S. 505 , 47 L. ed. 563, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 390; New York ex rel. Lieberman v. Van De Carr, 199 U.S. 552 , 50 L. ed. 305, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 144.
The discretion of the commissioner is qualified by his duty, and besides, as we have seen, the statute gives judicial review of his action. Pending such review, we must accord to the commissioner a proper sense of duty and the presumption that the functions intrusted to him will be executed in the public interest, not wantonly or arbitrarily to deny a license to or take one away from a reputable dealer. (Plymouth Coal Co. v. Pennsylvania, 232 U.S. 531, 545 , 58 S. L. ed. 713, 719, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 359 ); and, as we have said, in cases where there can be a dispute of fact, the statute provides for judicial review, and we see no legal objection to the designation of a particular court for such review.
We are not disposed to give serious attention to the contention that while the statute in form prohibits sales, 'it at the same time necessarily prevents purchases, and thereby shields contemplated purchasers from loss of property by the exercise of their own 'defective judgment,' and puts them as well as the sellers under guardianship. If we may suppose that such purchasers would assert a liberty to form a 'defective judgment,' and resent means of information as a limitation of their freedom, we must wait until they themselves appear to do so. Besides, there are examples in legislation of unsolicited protection, and there is much in the business we are con- [242 U.S. 539, 555] sidering which urges to an imitation of the examples. It is not wise to put out of view the tendencies of the business, and that it tempts to and facilitates speculative judgments, if the purpose be trading, improvident judgments, if the purpose be investment. Whatever detriment may come from such judgments the law may be powerless to prevent; but against counterfeits of value the law can give protection, and such is the purpose of the statute under review. It must be judged of upon that consideration, not upon the assertion of an absolute liberty of conduct which does not exist.
We cannot give separate attention to the asserted discriminations. It is enough to say that they are within the power of classification which a state has. A state 'may direct its law against what it deems the evil as it actually exists without covering the whole field of possible abuses, and it may do so none the less that the forbidden act does [242 U.S. 539, 557] not differ in kind from those that are allowed. . . . If a class is deemed to present a conspicuous example of what the legislature seeks to prevent, the 14th Amendment allows it to be dealt with although otherwise and merely logically not distinguishable from others not embraced in the law.' Central Lumber Co. v. South Dakota, 226 U.S. 157, 160 , 57 S. L. ed. 164, 169, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 66. The cases were cited from which those propositions were deduced. To the same effect is Armour & Co. v. North Dakota, 240 U.S. 517 , 60 L. ed. 776, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 440, Ann. Cas. 1916D, 548.
The provisions of the law, it will be observed, apply to dispositions of securities within the state, and while information of those issued in other states and foreign countries is required to be filed ( 6373-9), they are only affected by the requirement of a license of one who deals in them within the state. Upon their transportation into the state there is no impediment,-no regulation of them or interference with them after they get there. There is the exaction only that he who disposes of them there shall [242 U.S. 539, 558] be licensed to do so, and this only that they may not appear in false character and impose an appearance of a value which they may possess,-and this certainly is only an indirect burden upon them as objects of interstate commerce, if they may be regarded as such. It is a police regulation strictly, not affecting them until there is an attempt to make disposition of them within the state. To give them more immunity than this is to give them more immunity than more tangible articles are given, they having no exemption from regulations the purpose of which is to prevent fraud or deception. Such regulations affect interstate commerce in them only incidentally. New York ex rel. Hatch v. Reardon, 204 U.S. 152 , 51 L. ed. 415, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 188, 9 Ann. Cas. 736; Ware & Leland v. Mobile County, 209 U.S. 405 , 52 L. ed. 855, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 526, 14 Ann. Cas. 1031; Engel v. O'Malley, 219 U.S. 128 , 55 L. ed. 128, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 190; Brodnax v. Missouri, 219 U.S. 285 , 55 L. ed. 219, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 238; Banker Bros. Co. v. Pennsylvania, 222 U.S. 210 , 56 L. ed. 168, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 38; Savage v. Jones, 225 U.S. 501 , 56 L. ed. 1182, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 715; Standard Stock Food Co. v. Wright, 225 U.S. 540 , 56 L. ed. 1197, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 784; Trading Stamp Cases, supra. With these cases International Textbook Co. v. Pigg, 217 U.S. 91 , 54 L. ed. 678, 27 L.R.A.( N.S.) 493, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 481, 18 Ann. Cas. 1103; Buck Stove & Range Co. v. Vickers, 226 U.S. 205 , 57 L. ed. 189, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 41, and the Lottery Case (Champion v. Ames) 188 U.S. 321 , 47 L. ed. 492, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 321, 13 Am. Crim. Rep. 561, are not in discordance.
We might, indeed, ask, When do the designated securities cease migration in interstate commerce and settle to the jurisdiction of the state? Material things, choses in possession, pass out of interstate commerce when they emerge from the original package. Do choses in action have a longer immunity? It is to be remembered that though they may differ in manner of transfer, they are in the same form in the hands of the purchaser as they are in the hands of the seller, and in the hands of both as they are brought into the state. We ask again, Do they never pass out of interstate commerce? Have they always the freedom of the state? Is there no point of time at which the state can expose the evil that they may mask? Is anything more necessary for the supremacy of the national power than that they be kept free when in actual trans- [242 U.S. 539, 559] portation, subjected to the jurisdiction of the state only when they are attempted to be sold to the individual purchaser? The questions are pertinent, the answer to them one way or the other, of consequence; but we may pass them, for, regarding the securities as still in interstate commerce after their transportation to the state is ended and they have reached the hands of dealers in them, their interstate character is only incidentally affected by the statute.
Decree reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.


State practice establishes this rule as a norm of customary international law applicable to orders given in both international and non-international armed conflicts.
This rule flows from the duty to respect international humanitarian law (see Rule 139) and is also a corollary of the rule that obeying a superior order is not a defence of a war crime, if the subordinate should have known that the act ordered was unlawful because of its manifestly unlawful nature (see Rule 155). In finding that superior orders, if manifestly unlawful, cannot be a defence, several courts based their judgements on the fact that such orders must be disobeyed.
Besides the practice related to the defence of superior orders, practice specifying that there is a duty to disobey an order that is manifestly unlawful or that would entail the commission of a war crime is contained in the military manuals, legislation and official statements of numerous States. This rule is confirmed in national case-law.
This practice, together with the fact that a subordinate who commits a war crime pursuant to an order which is manifestly unlawful cannot invoke that order as a defence and remains guilty of that crime (see Rule 155), means that there is a duty to disobey such an order.
With respect to the position of a combatant who disobeys an order that is unlawful, but not manifestly so, practice is unclear. Many countries specify in their military law that it is the duty of all subordinates to obey “lawful” or “legitimate” orders and that not to do so is a punishable offence. Although this could be interpreted as implying that subordinates must not obey unlawful orders, no practice was found stating such an obligation. Some practice was found providing for a right to disobey an unlawful order. Disobedience of an unlawful order should not entail criminal responsibility, under domestic law, as subordinates only have a duty to obey lawful orders.
As mentioned above, this rule flows from the duty to respect international humanitarian law (see Rule 139) and is also a corollary to the rule that obeying a superior order is not a defence of a war crime, if the subordinate should have known that the act ordered was unlawful because of its manifestly unlawful nature (see Rule 155), both of which apply equally to State armed forces and to armed opposition groups. However, no specific practice was found to confirm this conclusion, as the military manuals, national legislation and case-law referring to this rule relate essentially to members of State armed forces.
 See, e.g., Belgium, Court-Martial of Brussels, Sergeant W. case (cited in Vol. II, Ch. 43, § 820); Israel, District Military Court for the Central Judicial District and Military Court of Appeal, Ofer, Malinki and Others case (ibid., § 825); Netherlands, Special Court in Amsterdam, Zühlke case (ibid., § 827); United States, Army Court of Military Appeals, Calley case (ibid., § 829).
 See, e.g., the military manuals of Australia (ibid., § 766), Belgium (ibid., § 767), Cameroon (ibid., §§ 769–770), Canada (ibid., § 771), Congo (ibid., § 772), Dominican Republic (ibid., § 773), El Salvador (ibid., § 774), France (ibid., § 775), Germany (ibid., §§ 776 and 916), Italy (ibid., § 777), Netherlands (ibid., § 778), New Zealand (ibid., § 779), Rwanda (ibid., § 782), South Africa (ibid., §§ 783–784 and 886), United Kingdom (ibid., § 785) and United States (ibid., § 788), the legislation of Belgium (ibid., § 796), Germany (ibid., § 803), South Africa (ibid., § 814), Spain (ibid., §§ 816 and 932), the reported practice of India (ibid., § 981), Philippines (ibid., § 843), Spain (ibid., § 845), the statements of Israel (ibid., § 984), Italy (ibid., § 838) and Jordan (ibid., § 839) and the practice of Kuwait (ibid., §§ 840 and 987).
 See, e.g., Belgium, Court-Martial of Brussels, Sergeant W. case (ibid., § 820); Chile, Santiago Council of War, Guzmán and Others case (ibid., § 822); Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. T-409 and Constitutional Case No. C-578 (ibid., § 823); Israel, District Military Court for the Central Judicial District and Military Court of Appeal, Ofer, Malinki and Others case (ibid., § 825); Italy, Military Tribunal of Rome, Military Appeals Court and Supreme Court of Cassation, Hass and Priebke case (ibid., § 826); Netherlands, Special Court in Amsterdam, Zühlke case (ibid., § 827); United States, Army Court of Military Appeals, Calley case (ibid., § 829).
 See, e.g., the legislation of Armenia (ibid., § 792), Australia (ibid., § 793), Brazil (ibid., § 797), Chile (ibid., § 798), Croatia (ibid., § 799), Egypt (ibid., § 801), India (ibid., § 804), Jordan (ibid., § 805), Kenya (ibid., § 806), Malaysia (ibid., § 807), Nigeria (ibid., § 808), Pakistan (ibid., § 809), Peru (ibid., § 811) and Philippines (ibid., § 781) and the reported practice of Egypt (ibid., § 834), India (ibid., § 835) and Pakistan (ibid., § 842).
 See the practice of Argentina (ibid., § 830), Cuba (ibid., § 833) and Egypt (ibid., § 834).
 See, e.g., the legislation of Armenia (ibid., § 792), Austria (ibid., § 794), Poland (ibid., § 812), Spain (ibid., § 816) and Tajikistan (ibid., § 818). The practice which makes it a punishable offence not to execute an order, without distinguishing between a lawful and an unlawful order, is unclear. See, e.g., the legislation of Belarus (ibid., § 795, but see § 904), Cuba (ibid., § 800, but see § 833) and Russian Federation (ibid., § 813, but see § 844).


text:
Nominations for the medals of the CAS are submitted by the Directors of the relevant CAS institute after discussion with the institute council and the Council for Sciences of the CAS. Nominations for the Vojtěch Náprstek Honorary Medal for Merit in Science Popularisation are submitted also by the Council for Academic Media and Popularisation of the CAS and the Editorial Board of the CAS. Nominations for the František Křižík Honorary Medal for Merit in the Technical Sciences and for the Implementation of Results of Scientific Research are submitted also by the Council for the Cooperation of the CAS with the Business and Application Sphere.
Nominations for the medals are submitted in writing by March 31 of the calendar year and by September 30 of the calendar year.
Prof. PhDr. Jaroslav PÁNEK, DrSc., dr. h. c. multi., Institute of History of the CAS, v. v. i.
Doc. RNDr. Marián FABIAN, DrSc., Institute of Mathematics of the CAS, v. v. i.
Prof. RNDr. Vladimír MÜLLER, DrSc., Institute of Mathematics of the CAS, v. v. i.
Doc. RNDr. Petr HADRAVA, DrSc., Astronomical Institute of the CAS, v. v. i.
Prof. RNDr. Jaroslav POLÁK, DrSc., dr. h. c., Institute of Physics of Materials of the CAS, v. v. i.
Prof. Ing. Pavel VLASÁK, DrSc., FEng., Prof. h .c. Institute of Hydrodynamics of the CAS, v. v. i.
Ing. Milan HÁJEK, CSc., Institute of Chemical Process Fundamentals of the CAS, v. v. i.
Prof. Ing. František KAŠTÁNEK, DrSc., Institute of Chemical Process Fundamentals of the CAS, v. v. i.
Prof. Emil PALEČEK, DrSc., Institute of Biophysics of the CAS, v. v. i.
Prof. Ing. Pavel HOBZA, DrSc., FRSC, dr. h. c., Institute of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry of the CAS, v. v. i.
Prof. Ing. Jiří KOPÁČEK, Ph.D., Biology Centre of the CAS, v. v. i.
Prof. RNDr. Boris VYSKOT, DrSc., Institute of Biophysics of the CAS, v. v. i.
Prof. PhDr. Lubomír KONEČNÝ, Institute of Art History of the CAS, v. v. i.
Prof. PhDr. Josef ŽEMLIČKA, DrSc., Institute of History of the CAS, v. v. i.
PhDr. Zdeněk VEJVODA, Ph.D.,Inbstitute of Ethnology of the CAS, v. v. i.
Prof. MUDr. Josef SYKA, DrSc., dr. h. c., Institute of Experimental medicine of the CAS, v. v. i.
Prof. RNDr. Petr HEINZEL, DrSc., Astronomical Institute of the CAS, v. v. i.
RNDr. Jan PETZELT, DrSc., Institute of Physics of the CAS, v. v. i.
Prof. Ing. Karel HRBÁČEK, DrSc., Institute of Physics of Materials of the CAS, v. v. i.
Prof. Mgr. Pavel JUNGWIRTH, CSc., DSc., Institute of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry of the CAS, v. v. i.
RNDr. Zdenka NEUHÄUSLOVÁ, CSc., Institute of Botany of the CAS, v. v. i.
RNDr. Robert NEUHÄUSL, DrSc. - in memoriam, Institute of Botany of the CAS, v. v. i.
Prof. MUDr. Bohuslav OŠŤÁDAL, DrSc., Institute of Physiology of the CAS, v. v. i.
Prof. RNDr. Karel ŠIMEK, CSc., dr. h. c., Biology Centre of the CAS, v. v. i.
Prof. RNDr. Michaela VORLÍČKOVÁ, DrSc., Institute of Biophysics of the CAS, v. v. i.
PhDr. Josef HEJNIC, CSc., Institute of Philosophy of the CAS, v. v. i.
PhDr. Zdenka RIBAROVA, Institute of Slavonic Studies of the CAS, v. v. i.
Prof. PhDr. Pavel OLIVA, DrSc., Institute of Philosophy of the CAS, v. v. i.
RNDr. Radek MIKULÁŠ, CSc., DSc., Institute of Geology of the CAS, v. v. i.
Prom. fyz. Pavel BOHÁČEK, Institute of Physics of the CAS, v. v. i.
Ing. Josef MATOUŠEK, DrSc., Institute of Animal Physiology and Genetics of the CAS, v. v. i.
RNDr. Pavel KREJČÍ, CSc., Institute of Mathematics of the CAS, v. v. i.
Prof. RNDr. Jan PALOUŠ, DrSc., Astronomical Institute of the CAS, v. v. i.
RNDr. Jan STŐCKEL, CSc., Institute of Plasma Physics of the CAS, v. v. i.
Prof. RNDr. Vladislav ŠIMÁK, DrSc., Institute of Physics of the CAS, v. v. i.
Doc. RNDr. Jaromír ULRYCH, DrSc., Institute of Geology of the CAS, v. v. i.
RNDr. Vlasta JANKOVSKÁ, CSc., Institute of Botany of the CAS, v. v. i.
RNDr. Bohdan SLAVÍK, DrSc., Institute of Experimental Botany of the CAS, v. v. i.
Prof. JUDr. Václav PAVLÍČEK, CSc., dr. h. c., Institute of State and Law of the CAS, v. v. i.
Prof. PhDr. Petr SOMMER, CSc., DSc., Institute of Philosophy of the CAS, v. v. i.
Prof. PhDr. František ŠMAHEL, DrSc., Dr. h. c. mult., Institute of Philosophy of the CAS, v. v. i.
RNDr. Adolf FILÁČEK, CSc., Institute of Philosophy of the CAS, v. v. i.
PhDr. Markéta PRAVDOVÁ, Ph.D., Researcher, deputy director of the Institute of the Czech Language of the CAS, v. v. i.
PhDr. Jitka STAŇKOVÁ, DrSc., Institute of Ethnology of the CAS, v. v. i.
RNDr. Zdeněk HAVLAS, DrSc., Institute of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry of the CAS, v. v. i.
Prof. Ing. Zdeněk STRAKOŠ, DrSc., Institute of Computer Science of the CAS, v. v. i.
Prof. Ing. František MARŠÍK, DrSc., Institute of Thermomechanics of the CAS, v. v. i.
Prof. Ing. Rudolf ZAHRADNÍK, DrSc., J.Heyrovsky Institute of Physical Chemistry of the CAS, v.v.i.
RNDr. Jan KVĚT, CSc., Institute of Botany of the CAS, v. v. i.
Prof. RNDr. František SEHNAL, CSc., Biology Centre of the CAS, v. v. i.
Prof. MUDr. Pavel MAREŠ, DrSc., Institute of Physiology of the CAS, v. v. i.
MUDr. Radim ŠRÁM, DrSc., Institute of Experimental Medicine of the CAS, v. v. i.
PhDr. Emilie BLÁHOVÁ, CSc., Institute of Slavonic Studies of the CAS, v. v. i.
Prom. fil. Václav KONZAL, Institute of Slavonic Studies of the CAS, v. v. i.
Vít NAŠINEC, CSc., Biology Centre of the CAS, v. v. i.
Božena PETSCHOVÁ, Institute of Organic Chemistry and Biochemistry of the CAS, v. v. i.
Prof. Ing. Dr. Pavel CHRÁSKA, DrSc., Institute of Plasma Physics of the CAS, v. v. i.
Ivo Vrkoč, DrSc., Institute of Mathematics of the CAS, v. v. i.
Ing. Karel Jungwirth, DrSc., the PALS Research Center of the Institute of Plasma Physics of the CAS, v. v. i. and the Institute of Physics of CAS, v. v. i.
Prof. RNDr. František Vyskočil, DrSc., Dr.h.c., Institute of Physiology of the CAS, v. v. i.
Prof. PhDr. Pavel Říčan, CSc., Institute of Psychology of the CAS, v. v. i.
Ing. Květa Stejskalová, CSc., J. Heyrovsky Institute of Physical Chemistry of the CAS, v. v. i.
Ing. Jaroslav Bulička, CSc., Head Office of the CAS, v. v. i.
PhDr. Jarmila Burgetová, Library of the CAS, v. v. i.
RNDr. Dana Wagnerová, DrSc., Institute of Inorganic Chemistry of the CAS, v. v. i.
RNDr. Věra Kůrková, DrSc., Institute of Computer Science of the CAS, v. v. i.
PhDr. Jan Balhar, CSc., Institute of the Czech Language of the CAS, v. v. i.
Ing. Kamil Sedláček, CSc., Oriental Institute of the CAS, v. v. i.
doc. PhDr. Vilém Herold, CSc., Institute of Philosophy of the CAS, v. v. i.
RNDr. Zdeněk Ceplecha, DrSc., Astronomical Institute of the CAS, v. v. i.
Prof. Erazim Kohák, Ph.D., Institute of Philosophy of the CAS, v. v. i.
prof. RNDr. Emil Paleček, DrSc., Institute of Biophysics of the CAS, v. v. i.
doc. RNDr. Luboš Perek, DrSc., Astronomical Institute of the CAS, v. v. i.
prof. PhDr. František Šmahel, DrSc., Dr.h.c.mult, Institute of Philosophy of the CAS, v. v. i.
Ing. Vratislav Kafka, DrSc., Institute of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics of the CAS, v. v. i.
prof. Ing. Ondřej Fischer, DrSc., Institute of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics of the CAS, v. v. i.
prof. Ing. Ladislav Frýba, DrSc., Dr.h.c., Institute of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics of the CAS, v. v. i.
Ing. Blanka Wichterlová, DrSc., J.Heyrovsky Institute of Physical Chemistry of the CAS, v. v. i.
prof. MUDr. Josef Syka, DrSc., Institute of Experimental Medicine of the CAS, v. v. i.
doc. JUDr. Josef Blahož, DrSc., Institute of State and Law of the CAS, v. v. i.
prof. JUDr. Monika Pauknerová, CSc., Institute of State and Law of the CAS, v. v. i.
RNDr. František Kotlaba, CSc., Institute of Botany of the CAS, v. v. i.
Michael Londesborough, Dr., Institute of Inorganic Chemistry of the CAS, v. v. i.
JUDr. Jan Bárta, CSc., Institute of State and Law of the CAS, v. v. i.
Karel Melichar, Institute of Physics of the CAS, v. v. i.
prof. Ing. Jiří Niederle, DrSc. Institute of Physics of the CAS, v. v. i.
Ing. Vladimír Pekárek, CSc., Institute of Chemical Process Fundamentals of the CAS, v. v. i.
prof. Ing. Miroš Pirner, DrSc., Dr.h.c., Institute of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics of the CAS, v. v. i.
prof. Ing. Jaromír Příhoda, CSc., Institute of Thermomechanics of the CAS, v. v. i.
RNDr. Rudolf Polák, CSc., J. Heyrovský Institute of Physical Chemistry of the CAS, v. v. i.
RNDr. Jaroslav Kuneš, DrSc., Institute of Physiology of the CAS, v. v. i.
prof. PhDr. Ivan Vojtěch, Institute of Ethnology of the CAS, v. v. i.
RNDr. Jiří Grygar, DrSc., Institute of Physics of the CAS, v. v. i.
JUDr. Jaroslav Seidl, Institute of Plasma Physics of the CAS, v. v. i.
Prof. RNDr. Helena Illnerová, DrSc., Institute of Physiology of the CAS, v.v.i.
Prof. Ing. Pavel Kratochvíl, DrSc., Dr.h.c., Institutce of Macromolecular Chemistry of the CAS, v.v.i.
RNDr. Jiří Velemínský, DrSc., Institute of Experimental Botany of the CAS, v.v.i.
Doc. Ing . Jiří V. Outrata, DrSc., Institute of Information Theory and Automation of the CAS, v.v.i.
Ing . Jiří Náprstek, DrSc., Institute of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics of the CAS, v.v.i.
RNDr. Ivan Šolc, CSc., Institute of Plasma Physics of the CAS, v.v.i.
Prof. RNDr. Jiří Komárek, DrSc, Institute of Botany of the CAS, v.v.i.
RNDr. Ivana Macháčková, CSc., Institute of Experimental Botany of the CAS, v.v.i.
PhDr. Ivan Dubský, CSc., Institute of Philosophy of the CAS, v.v.i.
Doc. Ing. Jan Krekule, DrSc., Institute of Experimental Botany of the CAS, v.v.i.
PhDr. Dušan Třeštík, CSc., Institute of History of the CAS, v.v.i.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. V.


text:
I am senior researcher with INRIA leading project-team TEA: "Time, Events and Architectures". TEA is interested in formally modelling time, concurrency, composition in cyber-physical systems and developing tools to support modular system design using formally specified analysis, verification and synthesis algorithms.
On this page are information on projets I participate to, pointers to the scientific communities I collaborate with, and links to most of my publications.
"Synthesis of embedded systems". Shukla, S., Talpin, J.-P., Editors. ISBN 978-1-4419-6399-4, Springer, 2010.
"Formal methods and models for system design". Gupta, R., Le Guernic, P., Shukla, S., Talpin, J.-P., Editors. ISBN 978-1-4020-8051-7, Springer, 2004.
"Cyber-Physical System Design from an Architecture Analysis Viewpoint". S. Nakajima, Talpin, J.-P., M. Toyoshima, H. Yu, Editors. Communications of the NII Shonan Meetings, Springer, 2017.
"Towards verified programming of embedded devices". J.-P. Talpin, J.-J. Marty, S. Narayan, D. Stefan, R. Gupta. Design, Automation and Test in Europe (DATE'19). IEEE, 2019.
"Formal Modeling and Verification of Blockchain System". Z. Duan, H. Mao, Z. Chen, X. Bai, K. Hu, J.-P. Talpin. 10th International Conference on Computer Modeling and Simulation. ACM, 2018.
"Polychronous automata and their use for formal validation of AADL models". T. Gautier, C; Guy, A. Honorat, P. Le Guernic, J.-P. Talpin, L. Besnard. Frontiers of Computer. Springer, 2018.
"Toward efficient many-core scheduling of partial expansion graphs". H. N. Tran, S. S. Bhattacharyya, J.-P. Talpin, T. Gautier. Software and Compilers for Embedded Systems (SCOPES'18). ACM, 2018.
Keynote on "Refinement types for system design". J.-P. Talpin. Forum on Specification and Design Languages (FDL'18). IEEE, 2018.
Keynote on "Compositional methods for CPS design". J.-P. Talpin. Symposium on Dependable Software Engineering: Theories, Tools and Applications (SETTA'17). Springer, 2017.
"ADFG: a scheduling synthesis tool for dataflow graphs in real-time system". A. Honorat, H. N. Tran, L. Besnard, T. Gautier, J.-P. Talpin, A. Bouakaz. International Conference on Real-Time Networks and Systems (RNTS'17). ACM, 2017.
"An Abstraction Technique For Parameterized Model Checking of Leader Election Protocols: Application to FTSP". O. Sankur, J.-P. Talpin. International Conference on Tools and Algorithms for the Construction and Analysis of Systems (TACAS'17). Springer, 2017.
"Formal Semantics of Behavior Specifications in the Architecture Analysis and Design Language Standard". L. Besnard, T. Gautier, P. Le Guernic, C. Guy, J.-P. Talpin, B. R. Larson, E. Borde. Chapter in Cyber-Physical System Design from an Architecture Analysis Viewpoint, Communications of the NII Shonan Meetings. Springer, 2017.
"Parallel Code Generation from Synchronous Specifications". K. Hu, T. Zhang, L.-H. Shang, Z.-B. Yang, J.-P. Talpin. Journal of Software. ISCAS, 2017.
"Formal Semantics of Behavior Speciﬁcations in the Architecture Analysis and Design Language Standard (extended abstract)". L. Besnard, T. Gautier, P. Le Guernic, C. Guy, J.-P. Talpin, B. R. Larson, E. Borde. High-Level Design, Verification and Test (HLDVT'16). IEEE, 2016.
"Integration of polychrony in the QGen model compiler". C. Junke, T. Gautier, J.-P. Talpin, L. Besnard. European Congress on Embeddd Real-Rime Software and Systems (ERTS'16), 2016.
"Towards refinement types for time-dependent data-flow networks". J.-P. Talpin, P. Jouvelot, S. Shukla. ACM-IEEE Conference on Methods and Models for System Design (MEMOCODE'15). IEEE, 2015.
"Polychronous automata". T. Gautier, P. Le Guernic, J.-P. Talpin, L. Besnard. Theoretical Aspects of Software Engineering (TASE'15), Awarded best paper. IEEE, 2015.
"Modular translation validation of a full-sized synchronous compiler using off-the-shelf verification tools (abstract)". V. C. Ngo, J.-P. Talpin, T. Gautier, L. Besnard, P. Le Guernic. International Workshop on Software and Compilers for Embedded Systems (SCOPES'15), invited presentation. ACM, 2015.
"Translation Validation for Synchronous Data-flow Specification in the SIGNAL Compiler". V. C. Ngo, J.-P. Talpin, T. Gautier. International Conference on Formal Techniques for Distributed Objects, Components and Systems (FORTE'15). IFIP, 2015.
"Model-Based Integration for Automotive Control Software". H. Yu, P. Joshi, J.-P. Talpin, S. Shukla, S. Shiraishi. Digital Automation Conference (DAC'15), Automotive Special Session. ACM, 2015.
"Translation validation for clock transformations in a synchronous compiler". V. C. Ngo, J.-P. Talpin, T. Gautier. International Conference on Fundamental Approaches to Software Engineering (ETAPS/FASE'15). Springer, 2015.
"Mapping Functional Behavior onto Architectural Model in a Model Driven Embedded System Design". P. Joshi, S. K. Shukla, J.-P. Talpin, H. Yu. Symposium On Applied Computing (SAC'15). ACM, 2015.
"Earliest-Deadline First Scheduling of Multiple Independent Dataflow". A. Bouakaz, T. Gautier, J.-P. Talpin. IEEE International Workshop on Signal Processing Systems (SIPS'14). IEEE, 2014.
"Towards an architecture-centric approach dedicated to model-based virtual integration for embedded software systems (position paper)". H. Yu, J.-P. Talpin, S. Shukla, P. Joshi, S. Shiraishi. Workshop on Architecture Centric Virtual Integration (ACVI'14), 2014.
"A constraint-solving approach to Faust program type checking". I. Frotier de la Messelière, P. Jouvelot, and J.-P. Talpin. Constraint Programming meets Verification (CP/CAV'14), 2014.
"Efficient deadlock detection for polychronous data-flow specifications". C. Ngo, J.-P. Talpin, T. Gautier. Electronic System Level Synthesis Conference (ESLSYN'14). IEEE, 2014.
"Logically timed specifications in the AADL : a synchronous model of computation and communication (recommendations to the SAE committee on AADL)". L. Besnard, E. Borde, P. Dissaux, T. Gautier, P. Le Guernic, J.-P. Talpin. INRIA Technical Report n.446, 2014.
"Timed behavioural modelling and affine scheduling of embedded software architectures in the AADL using Polychrony". L. Besnard, A. Bouakaz, T. Gautier, P. Le Guernic, Y. Ma, J.-P. Talpin, H. Yu. In Science of Computer Programming (SCP). Elsevier, 2014.
"From AADL to timed abstract state machine: a certified model transformation". Z. Yang, K. Hu, D. Ma, J.-P. Bodeveix, L. Pi, J.-P. Talpin. In Journal of System and Software (JSS). Elsevier, 2014.
"Constructive Polychronous Systems". J.-P. Talpin, J. Brandt, M. Gemünde, K. Schneider, and S. Shukla. In Science of Computer Programming (SCP). Elsevier, 2014.
"Polychronous modeling, analysis, verification and simulation for timed software architectures". H. Yu, Y. Ma, T. Gautier, L. Besnard, P. Le Guernic, J.-P. Talpin. In Journal of Systems Architecture (JSA). Elsevier, 2013.
"Formal verification of synchronous data-flow program transformations toward certified compilation". V.-C. Ngo, J.-P. Talpin, Gautier, P. Le Guernic, L. Besnard. In Frontiers of Computer Systems (FCS). Special issue on synchronous programming. Springer, 2013.
"Exploring software architectures with Polychrony and Syndex". H. Yu, Y. Ma, T. Gautier, L. Besnard, J.-P. Talpin, P. Le Guernic, Y. Sorel (FCS). In Frontiers of Computer Systems. Special issue on synchronous programming. Springer, 2013.
"Design of Safety-Critical Java Level 1 Applications Using Affine Abstract Clocks". A. Bouakaz and J.-P. Talpin. International Workshop on Software and Compilers for Embedded Systems (M-SCOPES'13). ACM, June 2013.
"Buffer minimization in earliest-deadline first scheduling of dataflow graphs". A. Bouakaz and J.-P. Talpin. Conference on Languages, Compilers and Tools for Embedded Systems (LCTES'13). ACM, June 2013.
"Toward polychronous analysis and validation for timed software architectures in AADL". Y. Ma, H. Yu, T. Gautier, L. Besnard, P. Le Guernic, J.-P. Talpin and Maurice Heitz.Design Analysis and Test in Europe (DATE'13). IEEE, April 2013.
"Embedding polychrony into synchrony". J. Brandt, M. Gemünde, K. Schneider, S. Shukla, and J.-P. Talpin. In Transactions on Software Engineering (TSE). IEEE, 2012.
"Representation of synchronous, asynchronous, and polychronous components by clocked guarded Actions". J. Brandt, M. Gemünde, K. Schneider, S. Shukla, and J.-P. Talpin. In Design Automation for Embedded Systems (DAES), Special Issue on Languages, Models and Model Based Design for Embedded Systems. Springer, 2012.
"Constructive polychronous systems". J.-P. Talpin, J. Brandt, M. Gemünde, K. Schneider, and S. Shukla. Logical Foundations in Computer Science (LFCS'12). Springer, December 2012.
"Affine data-flow graphs for the synthesis of hard real-time applications". A. Bouakaz, J.-P. Talpin, and J. Vitek. Application of Concurrency to System Design (ACSD'12). IEEE Press, June 2012.
"Formal verification on compiler transformations on polychronous equations". V. C. Ngo, J.-P. Talpin, T. Gautier, P. Le Guernic, and L. Besnard. International Congerence on Integrated Formal Methods (IFM'11). Springer, June 2012.
"From concurrent multi-clock programs to deterministic asynchronous implementations". Potop-Butucaru D., Sorel, Y., de Simone, R., Talpin, J.-P. In Fundamenta Informaticae (FI). IOS Press, 2011.
"Integrating system descriptions by clocked guarded actions". J. Brandt, M. Gemünde, K. Schneider, S. Shukla, and J.-P. Talpin. Forum on Design Languages (FDL'11). IEEE, September 2011.
"System synthesis from AADL using Polychrony". Y. Ma, H. Yu, T. Gautier, J.-P. Talpin, L. Besnard and P. Le Guernic. Electronic System Level Synthesis Conference (ESLSYN'11). IEEE, June 2011.
"From concurrent multi-clock programs to concurrent multi-threaded implementations". V. Papailiopoulou, D. Potop-Butucaru, Y. Sorel, R. de Simone, L. Besnard and J.-P. Talpin. Electronic System Level Synthesis Conference (ESLSYN'11). IEEE, June 2011.
"Polychronous controller synthesis from MARTE's CCSL constraints". Yu, H., Talpin, J.-P., Besnard, L., Gautier, T., Marchand, H., Le Guernic, P. ACM-IEEE Conference on Methods and Models for Codesign (MEMOCODE'11). IEEE, July 2011.
"Two formal semantics for a subset of the AADL". Yang, Z., Hu, K., Bodeveix, J.-P., Pi, L., Ma, D., Talpin, J.-P. UML&AADL workshop at the IEEE International Conference on Engineering of Complex Computer Systems (ICECCS'11) . IEEE, 2011.
"System-level co-simulation of integrated avionics using polychrony". Yu, H., Ma, Y., Glouche, Y., Talpin, J.-P., Besnard, L., Gautier, T., Le Guernic, P., Toom, A., and Laurent, O. ACM Symposium on Applied Computing (SAC'11). ACM, 2011.
"Compositional design of isochronous systems". Talpin, J.-P., Ouy, J., Gautier,T., Besnard, L., Le Guernic, P. In Science of Computer Programming (SCP), Special Issue on APGES. Elsevier, 2011.
"Synoptic : a domain-specific modeling language for space on-board application software". Cortier, A., Besnard, L., Bodeveix, J.-P., Buisson, J., Dagnat, F., Filali, M., Garcia, G., Ouy, J., Pantel, M., Rugina, A., Strecker, M., Talpin, J.-P. . Chapter in Synthesis of embedded software. Springer, 2010.
"Compilation of polychronous data flow equations". Besnard, L., Gautier, T., Le Guernic, P., Talpin, J.-P. Chapter in Synthesis of embedded software. Springer, 2010.
"A module language for typing Signal programs by contracts". Glouche, Y., Gautier, T. Le Guernic, P., Talpin, J.-P. Chapter in Synthesis of embedded software. Springer, 2010.
"Interpretation of the AADL Behavior Annex into a Synchronous Formalism Using SSA". Ma, Y., Talpin, J.-P, Gautier, T. International Conference on Computer and Information Technology (ICCIT'10). IEEE Press, 2010.
"A synchronous approach to threaded program verification". Johnson, K., Besnard, L., Gautier, T., Talpin, J.-P. Automated Verification of Critical Systems (AVOCS'10). EASST, 2010.
"A higher-order extension for imperative synchronous languages". Vecchie, E., Talpin, J.-P, Boisgérault, S. Software and Compilers for Embedded Systems (SCOPES'10). ACM Press, 2010.
"Synoptic: a domain-specific modeling language for onboard real-time software design". A . Cortier, J.P. Bodeveix, M. Filali, G. Garcia, E. Morand , M. Pantel, A. Rugina, M. Strecker, J.P. Talpin. Embedde Real-Time Software and Systems, Neptune Workshop (NEPTUNE'10). Génie Logiciel , 2010.
"Modular interpretation of heterogeneous modeling diagrams into synchronous equations using static single assignment". Talpin, J.-P, Ouy, J., Gautier, T., Besnard, L., Cortier, A. Application of Concurrency to System Design (ACSD'10). IEEE Press, 2010.
"Polychronous analysis of timing constraints in UML MARTE". Yue, H., Talpin, J.-P.,Besnard, L., Gautier, T., Mallet, F., André, C., de Simone, R. International Workshop on Model-Based Engineering for Real-Time Embedded Systems Design (MOBE-RTES'10). IEEE Press, 2010.
"The synchronous hypothesis and polychronous languages". Potop-Butucaru D., De Simone, R., Talpin, J.-P. Chapter in Networked Embedded Systems. CRC Press, 2009.
"Programming models for multi-core embedded systems". Jose, B., Xue, B., Shukla, S., Talpin, J.-P. Chapter in Multi-core Embedded Systems. Taylor and Francis, 2009.
"Clock-driven distributed real-time implementation of endochronous synchronous programs". Potop-Butucaru D., De Simone, R., Sorel, Y., Talpin, J.-P.Embedded Software Conference (EMSOFT'09). ACM Press, 2009.
"Automatic translation of C/C++ parallel code into synchronous formalism using an SSA intermediate form". Besnard, L., Gautier, T, Moy, M., Talpin, J.-P., Johnson, K., Maraninchi, F. Automated Verification of Cirtical Systems (AVOCS'09). EASST, 2009.
"Synoptic: a domain-specific modeling language for embedded flight-software". A. Cortier, L. Besnard, J.-P. Bodeveix, J. Buisson, F. Dagnat, M. Filali, G. Garcia, T. Gautier, J. Ouy, M. Pantel, A. Rugina, M. Strecker, J.-P. Talpin. FM'09 Workshop on Formal Methods for Aerospace (FMA'09). Elsevier, 2009.
"A boolean algebra of contracts for assume-guarantee reasoning". Glouche, Y., Le Guernic, P., Talpin, J.-P., Gautier, T. Formal Aspects of Component Software (FACS'09). Elsevier, 2009.
"A module language for typing by contracts". Glouche, Y., Talpin, J.-P., Le Guernic, P., Gautier, T. NASA Formal Methods Symposium (NFM'09). Springer, 2009.
"From concurrent multiclock programs to deterministic asynchronous implementations". Potop-Butucaru D., De Simone, R., Sorel, Y., Talpin, J.-P. Application of Concurrency to System Design (ACSD'09). IEEE Press, 2009.
"Distributed simulation of AADL specifications in a polychronous model of computation". Ma, Y., Talpin, J.-P.,Shukla, S., Gautier, T. International Conference on Embedded Software and Systems (ICESS'09). IEEE Press, 2009.
"Separate compilation and execution of imperative synchronous modules". Vecchie, E., Talpin, J.-P., Schneider, K. Design Analysis and Test in Europe (DATE'09). IEEE, April 2009.
"A metamodel for the design of polychronous systems". Brunette, C., Talpin, J.-P., Gamatié, A., Gautier, T. Journal of Logic and Algebraic Programming (JLAP), Special Issue on Applying Concurrency Research to Industry. Elsevier, 2008.
"On the automatic inference of synchronization logic for multi-threaded software synthesis from polychronous specifications". Jose, B., Shukla, S., Patel, H., Talpin, J.-P. ACM-IEEE Conference on Methods and Models for Codesign (MEMOCODE'08). IEEE, June 2008.
"Virtual prototyping AADL architectures in a polychronous model of computation". Ma, Y., Talpin, J.-P.,Gautier, T. ACM-IEEE Conference on Methods and Models for Codesign (MEMOCODE'08). IEEE, June 2008.
"Analysis of periodic clock relations in polychronous systems". Talpin, J.-P., Métivier, H., Gautier, T., Le Guernic, P. IFIP Working Conference on Distributed and Parallel Embedded Systems (DIPES'08). Springer, September 2008.
"Compositional design of isochronous systems". Talpin, J.-P., Ouy, J., Besnard, L., Le Guernic, P. Design Analysis and Test in Europe (DATE'08). IEEE Press, March 2008.
"Generating multi-threaded code from polychronous specifications". Jose, B., Patel, H., Shukla, S., Talpin, J.-P. Synchronous Languages, Applications, and Programming (SLAP'08). Elsevier, March 2008.
"On the polychronous approach to embedded software design". Shukla, S. K., Suhaib, S. M., Mathaikutty, D. A., Talpin, J.-P. Next generation design and verification methodologies for distributed embedded systems (GM R&D WORKSHOP'07). Springer Verlag, 2007.
"Separate compilation of polychronous specifications". Ouy, J., Talpin, J.-P., Besnard, L., Le Guernic, P. Formal Methods for Globally Asynchronous Locally Synchronous Design (FMGALS'07). Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science, Elsevier, 2007.
"Polychronous design of embedded real-time systems"Gamatié, A., Gautier, T., Le Guernic, P., Talpin, J.-P. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology (TOSEM). ACM Press, 2006.
"An algebraic theory for behavioral modeling and protocol synthesis in system design". Talpin, J.-P, Le Guernic, P. In Formal Methods in System Design (FMSD), Special Issue on formal methods for GALS design. Springer Verlag, 2006.
"Polychronous mode automata". Talpin, J.-P., Brunette, C.,Gautier, T., Gamatié, A. Embedded Software Conference (EMSOFT'06). ACM Press, 2006.
"Polychronous methodology for system design, a true concurrency approach". S. Suhaib, D. Mathaikutty, S. Shukla, J.-P. Talpin. High-level design, validation and test workshop (HLDVT'06). IEEE Press, November 2006.
"A modeling paradigm for integrated modular avionics design". Brunette, C., Delamare, R., Gamatié, A., Gautier, T., Talpin, J.-P. Software Engineering and Advanced Application (SEAA'06). IEEE Press, 2006.
"The Topcased project - a toolkit in open-source for critical application and system development". Vernadat, F., Percebois, C., Farail, P., Vingerhoeds, R., Rossignol, A., Talpin, J.-P., Chemouil,D. International Space System Engineering Conference - Data Systems in Aerospace (DASIA'06). Eurospace, May 2006.
"Modeling multi-clocked data-flow programs using the Generic Modeling Environment". Brunette, C., Talpin, J.-P., Besnard, L., Gauthier, T. Synchronous Languages, Applications, and Programming (SLAP'06). Elsevier, March 2006.
"Automated translation of C/C++ programs into a synchronous formalism". Kalla, H.,Talpin, J.-P., Berner, D., Besnard, L. International Conference on the Engineering of Computer Based Systems (ECBS'06). IEEE, March 2006.
"A verification approach for GALS integration of synchronous components". F. Doucet, M. Menarini, I.H. Krueger, R. Gupta, and J.- P. Talpin. Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science (ENTCS), v. 146(2). Elsevier, 2006.
"Compositional behavioral modeling of embedded systems and conformance checking". Talpin, J.-P, Le Guernic, P., Shukla, S., Gupta, R. In International Journal on Parallel Processing (IJPP), special issue on testing of embedded systems. Springer, 2005.
"The synchronous hypothesis and synchronous languages". Potop-Butucaru D., De Simone, R., Talpin, J.-P. Chapter in Embedded Systems Handbook. CRC Press, 2005.
"Automated clock inference for stream function-based system level specifications". Talpin, J.-P., Shukla, S.High-level design, validation and test workshop (HLDVT'05). IEEE Press, November 2005.
"From multi-clocked synchronous specifications to latency-insensitive systems". Talpin, J.-P., Potop-Butucaru, D., Ouy, J., Caillaud, B. Embedded Software Conference (EMSOFT'05). ACM Press, September 2005.
"SystemCXML: an open-source extensible SystemC front-end using XML". Berner, D., Patel, H., Mathaikutty, D., Shukla, S., Talpin, J.-P. Forum on Specification and Design Languages (FDL'05). ECSI, September 2005.
"A verification approach for GALS integration of synchronous components". Doucet, F., Menarini, M., Krueger, I.,Talpin, J.-P., Gupta, R. International Workshop on Formal Methods for Globally Asynchronous locally Synchronous Design (FMGALS'05). Electronic Notes in Computer Science. Elsevier, June 2005.
"A functional programming framework for latency insensitive protocol validation"Suhaib, S.,Mathaikutty, D., Shukla, S., Berner, D.,Talpin, J.-P. International Workshop on Formal Methods for Globally Asynchronous locally Synchronous Design (FMGALS'05). Electronic Notes in Computer Science. Elsevier, June 2005.
"Behavioral type inference for compositional system design". Talpin, J.-P., Berner, D., Shukla, S., Le Guernic, P., Gamatié, A., Gupta, R. Chapter in Formal Methods and Models for System Design. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004.
"Algebraic theory for behavioral type inference". Talpin, J.-P., Le Guernic. Chapter in Formal Methods and Models for System Design. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004.
"Capturing formal specifications into abstract models". Berner, D., Suhaib, S., Shukla, S., Talpin, J.-P. Chapter in Formal Methods and Models for System Design. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2004.
"Formal refinement checking in a system-level design methodology". Talpin, J.-P., Le Guernic, P., Shukla, S. K., Gupta, R., Doucet, F. Fundamenta Informaticae (FI), Special Issue on Applications of Concurrency to System Design. IOS Press, 2004.
"Encapsulation and behavioural inheritance in a synchronous model of computation for embedded system services adaptation". Kerboeuf, M., Talpin, J.-P. Journal of Logics and Algebraic Programming (JLAP), special issue on process algebra and system architectures. Elsevier, 2004.
"Modular design through component abstraction". Berner, D., Talpin, J.-P., Le Guernic, P., Shukla, S. K. International conference on compilers, architectures and synthesis for embedded systems (CASES'04). ACM Press, September 2004.
"A behavioral type inference system for compositional system-on-chip design". Talpin, J.-P., Berner, D., Shukla, S. K., Gamatié, A., Le Guernic, P., Gupta, R. Application of Concurrency to System Design (ACSD'04). IEEE Press, June 2004.
"Modeling and validation of asynchronous systems in synchronous frameworks". Mousavi, M., R., Le Guernic, P., Talpin, J.-P., Shukla, S., Basten, T. Design Analysis and Test Europe (DATE'04). IEEE Press, March 2004. Available as INRIA Research Report 4935.
"Méthodes formelles pour la modélisation et l'analyse de systèmes". Talpin, J.-P. Thèse d'Habilitation à Diriger les Recherches (HDR). Université de Rennes, November 2003.
"Polychrony for system design". Le Guernic, P., Talpin, J.-P., Le Lann, J.-C. Journal for Circuits, Systems and Computers (JCSC). Special Issue on Application Specific Hardware Design. World Scientific, August 2003.
"Formal proof of a polychronous protocol for loosely time-triggered architectures". Kerboeuf, M., Nowak, D., Talpin, J.-P. International conference on formal engineering methods (ICFEM'03). Lectures Notes in Computer Science. Springer Verlag, November 2003.
"Hard real-time implementation of embedded systems in JAVA". Talpin, J.-P., Gamatié, A., Berner, D., Le Dez, B., Le Guernic, P. International Workshop on Scientific Engineering of Distributed JAVA Applications (FIDJI'2003). Lectures Notes in Computer Science. Springer Verlag, November 2003.
"Polychrony for formal refinement-checking in a system-level design methodology". Talpin, J.-P., Le Guernic, P., Shukla, S. K., Gupta, R., Doucet, F. Application of Concurrency to System Design (ACSD'03). IEEE Press, June 2003.
"A polychronous model for high-level component-based system design". Talpin, J.-P., Le Guernic, P., Shukla, S. K., Gupta, R., Doucet, F. Design Analysis and Test Europe (DATE'03). IEEE Press, March 2003.
"A protocol for loosely time-triggered architectures". Benveniste, A., Caspi, P., Le Guernic, P., Marchand, H., Talpin, J.-P., Tripakis, S. Embedded Software Conference (EMSOFT'02). Lectures Notes in Computer Science. Springer Verlag, October 2002.
"Model checking robustness to desynchronization". Talpin, J.-P. Distributed and parallel embedded systems, IFIP World Computer Congress (DIPES'2002). Kluwer Academic Publishers, August 2002.
"Specification and verification of a steam-boiler with Signal-Coq". Kerboeuf, M., Nowak, D., Talpin, J.-P. International Conference on Theorem Proving in Higher-Order Logics (TPHOLs'00). Springer Verlag, October 2000.
"A new methodology for real-time distributed systems". Wang, Y., Talpin, J.-P., Benveniste, A., Le Guernic, P. IFIP International Conference on Formal Methods for Open Object-Based Distributed Systems (FMOODS'00). Kluwer Academic Publishers, September 2000.
"A semantics of UML state-machines using synchronous pre-order transition systems". Wang, Y., Talpin, J.-P., Benveniste, A., Le Guernic, P. In International Symposium on Object-Oriented Real-Time Distributed Computing (ISORC'00). IEEE Press, March 2000.
"Timed polyhedra analysis for synchronous languages". Besson, F., Jensen, T., Talpin, J.-P. Static Analysis Symposium (SAS'99). Springer Verlag, September 1999.
"Synchronous structures". Nowak, D., Talpin, J.-P., Le Guernic, P. International Conference on Concurrency Theory (CONCUR'99). Springer Verlag, August 1999.
"A synchronous semantics of higher-order processes for modeling reconfigurable reactive systems". Talpin, J.-P., Nowak, D. International Conference on Foundations of Software Technology and Theoretical Computer Science (FSTTCS'98). Springer Verlag, December 1998.
"Co-inductive axiomatization of a synchronous language". Nowak, D., Beauvais, J.-R., Talpin, J.-P. International Conference on Theorem Proving in Higher-Order Logics (TPHOLs'98). Springer Verlag, October 1998.
"BDL, a language of distributed reactive objects". Talpin, J.-P., Benveniste, A., Caillaud, B., Jard, C., Bouziane, Z., Canon, H. International Symposium on Object-Oriented Real-Time Distributed Computing (ISORC'98). IEEE Press, April 1998.
"Region-based memory management". Tofte, M., Talpin, J.-P. Information and Computation (I&C), Vol. 132, pages 109-176. Academic Press, 1997.
"An ML-like module system for the synchronous language SIGNAL". Nowak, D., Talpin, J.-P., Gautier, T., Le Guernic, P. European Conference on Parallel Processing (EUROPAR'97). Springer Verlag, August 1997.
"Reactive types". Talpin, J.-P. International Joint Conference on the Theory and Practice of Software Development (TAPSOFT'97). Springer Verlag, April 1997.
"Benchmarking implementations of functional languages with Pseudoknot, a float-intensive benchmark". Hartel, P., & al. Journal of Functional Programming, Vol. 6. Cambridge University Press, 1996.
"The type and effect discipline". Talpin, J.-P., Jouvelot, P. Information and Computation (I&C), vol. 111, pages 245-296. Academic Press, 1994.
"Implementation of the typed lambda calculus using a stack of regions". Tofte, M., Talpin, J.-P. Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL'94). ACM Press, January 1994. Received the 2004 ACM SIGPLAN Award for the most influential POPL paper.
"Aspects théoriques et pratiques de l'inférence de types et d'effets". Talpin, J.-P. Thèse de Doctorat en Informatique de l'Université Paris VI. Ecole des Mines de Paris, May 1993.
"Compiling FX on the CM-2". Talpin, J.-P., Jouvelot, P. Workshop on Semantics Analysis (WSA'93). Springer Verlag, September 1993.
"The type and effect discipline". Talpin, J.-P., Jouvelot, P. Conference on Logic in Computer Science (LICS'92). IEEE Press, June 1992. Received the 2012 ACM-IEEE LICS Test-of-Time Award.
"Polymorphic type, region and effect inference". Talpin, J.-P., Jouvelot, P. Journal of Functional Programming (JFP), Vol. Cambridge University Press, 1992.
as well as in many international workshops like FMGALS'03-09, FESCA'04-05, SLAP'08, JTRES'10, HLDVT'11-16, ACVI'14-15, AVICPS'14, FTSCS'15, CRTS'15, IDEA'16.
Doctoral grant co-funded by MSR-Inria and ERC Vesta (2018-2021), thanks to Khartik and David!
I have a Master in Theoretical Computer Science from University Paris VI. I did my PhD Thesis at Ecole des Mines de Paris under the advisory of Pierre Jouvelot. I worked three years at the European Computer-Industry Research Centre in Munich. I joined INRIA in 1995, in the EPART project-team of Paul Le Guernic. I led INRIA project-team ESPRESSO from 2000 to 2012. I lead INRIA project-team TEA since 2015.
I am recipient of both the 2004 ACM SIGPLAN Award for the most influential POPL paper, with Mads Tofte, and of the 2012 ACM-IEEE LICS "Test of Time" Award, with Pierre Jouvelot. I also received the 2014 ITEA Award of Excellence for my contribution as work-package leader in the ITEA2 project OPEES (2010-2012) which, led by Gael Blondel, started the Polarsys Industry Working Group of the Eclipse foundation.

matches: V. V. V. V. V. v.


text:
In A.Z. v. B.Z. (2000), the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in Boston, Massachusetts, affirmed a lower court’s decision, ruling that contracts that require a party to become a parent against his or her will are unenforceable and contrary to public policy. The case centered around A.Z. and B.Z., a divorced couple who had previously used in vitro fertilization (IVF) to start a family together during their marriage and had several preembryos cryopreserved as part of the process. While undertaking IVF, the couple signed multiple consent forms requiring them to decide what should happen to the cryopreserved preembryos in the event of certain listed contingencies, such as death or separation of the couple. The couple indicated their preference that B.Z., A.Z.’s now former wife, could use the cryopreserved preembryos if the couple later separated. When their relationship deteriorated, however, A.Z. objected to B.Z.’s attempt to have additional children using the preembryos, leading to a lengthy legal battle. The court case A.Z. v. B.Z. established Massachusetts public policy that people should not be forced to become a parent against their will, even if they previously agreed to provide their genetic material for reproduction.
A.Z. and B.Z., married in 1977 and residing in Virginia, failed to get pregnant within the first two years of marriage. After B.Z. suffered a miscarriage following an ectopic pregnancy in 1979, she had her left fallopian tube surgically removed. For several years, the couple unsuccessfully underwent further fertility treatments in Virginia and Maryland, eventually relocating to Massachusetts. In 1988, the couple underwent fertility treatments at a Massachusetts clinic.
Initially, the couple chose a procedure called Gamete Inter-Fallopian Transfer (GIFT) to attempt to get B.Z. pregnant. Doctors used the GIFT procedure to remove eggs from B.Z. and then transfer them, simultaneously with A.Z.’s sperm, into B.Z.’s remaining fallopian tube. GIFT attempts to mimic conventional pregnancy, where fertilization occurs in the woman’s fallopian tube, after which the resulting embryo implants itself in the uterus. Although GIFT had a higher success rate than IVF, the procedure was unsuccessful and B.Z. experienced another ectopic pregnancy. Doctors then removed her right fallopian tube, leaving IVF as her only option for having a genetic child.
The couple tried IVF for nearly three years, from 1988 through late 1991. In a typical IVF procedure the woman is injected with hormones that trigger her ovaries to release multiple egg cells. The egg cells are extracted from her body and placed in a petri dish, where sperm is introduced to egg cells deemed suitable for fertilization. Fertilized egg cells develop into four-to-eight celled entities, sometimes called embryos or pre-zygotes, but commonly called preembryos. The doctors at IVF clinics create more preembryos than necessary for a single pregnancy attempt, thereby reducing the number of times the woman must undergo hormonal stimulation and egg extraction. The remaining preembryos, not immediately required for reproductive purposes, are cryopreserved in liquid nitrogen at -196 degrees Celsius, which stops their development while preserving them for possible future use.
Each time the doctors removed eggs from B.Z. for fertilization, the couple signed the clinic’s consent form, which described the IVF procedure and cryopreservation process. B.Z. underwent seven egg retrievals, requiring the couple to sign seven consent forms between 1988 and 1991, with the final consent form governing the later dispute between them. The forms required the couple to decide what would happen to any cryopreserved preembryos under certain contingencies, such as B.Z. reaching menopause, the death of either party, or separation of the couple. B.Z. filled out the first form, and then A.Z. signed it. In court A.Z. claimed that he signed the next six forms while they were blank, which B.Z. later filled out with her preferences. All of the forms, including the first one, stated that B.Z. should be allowed to implant any unused preembryos upon separation of the couple.
The IVF procedure was successful for A.Z. and B.Z., resulting in the birth of their twin daughters in 1992. Then in early 1995, B.Z. attempted to implant one of the cryopreserved preembryos without A.Z.’s knowledge, although pregnancy did not occur. A.Z. filed for divorce later that year and asked the Suffolk County Probate and Family Court in Boston, Massachusetts, to permanently prohibit B.Z. from using the four cryopreserved preembryos that remained at the clinic.
In March 1996, the probate judge ruled in A.Z.’s favor, declining to enforce the couple’s signed consent form. The probate judge concluded that although consent forms should usually be enforced, the circumstances had drastically changed in ways the original signing parties did not anticipate. According to the probate judge, the couple had experienced a significant change in circumstances by becoming parents, experiencing marital difficulties, and ending their relationship. Although the court acknowledged that the preceding events—the success of the IVF process, the couple’s later separation, the potential use of the cryopreserved preembryos in future implantation attempts—were foreseeable in isolation, the court found that the parties could not have foreseen all of those events as a whole. Rather than hold them to the terms of the agreement, the judge balanced each party’s interests and determined that A.Z.’s interest in avoiding procreation outweighed B.Z.’s interest in having additional children using the preembryos, noting that B.Z. could still undergo IVF with another partner or adopt a child. The probate judge’s order prohibiting B.Z. from using the preembryos became part of the final divorce decision.
After B.Z. appealed the decision in May 1996, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts transferred the case to its own court, skipping the appellate court. Although A.Z. did not appear before the court or file a brief, B.Z. filed a lengthy brief in 1999. She argued that the consent form was a valid contract and that, contrary to the probate court’s conclusion that a significant change in circumstances had occurred, the parties had indicated that B.Z. could use the preembryos if the couple separated. She noted that A.Z. had signed consent forms seven times during three years of treatments in Massachusetts. According to B.Z., A.Z.’s involvement in the consent and counseling process was evidence of his consent. She also argued that any balancing of the parties’ interests should tip in her favor because she could not endure another decade of infertility treatments in pursuit of more children, nor did she desire to pursue adoption.
Until the A.Z. v. B.Z. case, Massachusetts had never addressed the allocation of cryopreserved preembryos after a divorce or in cases where the parties disagreed about what to do with their preembryos. Although IVF had been offered for over two decades, very few cases or legislation across the United States had addressed the enforceability of contracts regarding cryopreserved preembryos. When A.Z. v. B.Z. came before the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, two cases with similar facts, Davis v. Davis (1992) and Kass v. Kass (1998), preceded it. In those cases, heard by the highest state courts in Tennessee and New York respectively, the courts expressed an opinion that states should ordinarily enforce agreements directing the allocation of cryopreserved preembryos. Yet neither Davis nor Kass were binding precedents for Massachusetts law, and in neither case would enforcing the agreement have forced someone to unwillingly become a parent.
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts affirmed the probate court’s judgment on 8 February 2000, and Justice Judith Cathy Arnold Cowin authored the court’s unanimous opinion, published on 31 March 2000. The court affirmed the earlier decision to prevent B.Z. from using the preembryos. It did not enforce the consent form due, in part, to the lack of binding agreement between A.Z. and B.Z., the ambiguity of A.Z.’s intent, and the amount of time that had passed since the form was signed. According to the court, the consent form primarily explained the risks and benefits of the IVF procedure and provided guidance to the clinic if the couple mutually decided not to use the preembryos at a later time. In the court’s view, the consent form did not constitute a binding agreement between A.Z. and B.Z. as individuals. The court viewed the form as only defining the relationship between the clinic, on the one hand, and the married couple as a unit, on the other hand.
The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts also decided that the consent form should not be enforced due to lack of legal validity. The form did not directly address the actual circumstances of the case, as it only specified how the clinic would handle the preembryos upon the couple’s separation, which is legally different from divorce. Furthermore, the form did not address the custody rights and child-rearing responsibilities of the parties in the event that B.Z. successfully implanted the preembryos and a child was born. Given these factors, and considering that the couple had divorced since signing the form, the court declared the form unenforceable, concluding that it did not unambiguously represent the couple’s intent under the circumstances.
In reaching its conclusion, the court acknowledged the public’s interest in freedom of contract, or the right to freely choose whether to enter into a contract without unnecessary governmental interference. It also recognized the role of agreements between IVF participants and IVF clinics. Such agreements are essential to a clinic’s ability to function, guiding its actions under certain circumstances. Despite these factors, the court concluded that the state’s public policy against forcing procreation on an unwilling party was the most important consideration.
The court noted several related Massachusetts laws and judicial decisions that supported its public policy interpretation. The legislature, for instance, had passed statutes against forced formation or termination of familial relationships, such as contracts to marry or agreements to give up one’s child for adoption immediately after giving birth. The court itself had also declined to interfere with what it described as delicate and intimate marital matters, and it had previously declined to enforce contracts binding individuals to decisions regarding future family relationships, such as marriage or parenthood.
Based on the inadequacies of the consent agreement, as well as the state’s prior judicial and legislative decisions, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts determined that forcing individuals to enter into undesired family relationships would violate the state’s public policy. It determined that IVF consent forms having this effect should not be legally enforced out of respect for individual privacy and liberty, as well as the freedom to decide regarding familial relationships without compulsion. Furthermore, the court asserted that, as a matter of public policy, it would not have enforced even a legally sufficient agreement under the facts of this case.
A.Z. v. B.Z., 725 N.E.2d 1051 (Mass. 2000). http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=a.z.+v+b.z.&hl=en&as_sdt=806&case=13551484453399319321&scilh=0 (Accessed December 3, 2013).
Brief of B.Z., Defendant-Appellant, A.Z. v. B.Z., 725 N.E.2d 1051 (2000) (No. 98-P-2333).
Davis v. Davis, 842 S.W.2d 588 (Tenn. 1992). http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=Davis+v.+Davis&hl=en&as_sdt=806&case=17302847389043812781&scilh=0 (Accessed December 3, 2013).
J.B. v. M.B., 783 A.2d 707 (N.J. 2001). http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=J.B.+v.+M.B.&hl=en&as_sdt=806&case=3170913480316738770&scilh=0 (Accessed December 3, 2013).
Kass v. Kass, 696 N.E. 2d 174 (N.Y. 1998). http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=Kass+v.+Kass&hl=en&as_sdt=806&case=14938404874386785087&scilh=0 (Accessed December 3, 2013).
Trainor, Elizabeth A. “Right of Husband, Wife, or Other Party to Custody of Frozen Embryo, Pre-embryo, or Pre-zygote in Event of Divorce, Death, or Other Circumstances.” American Law Reports 87 (2001): 253.
Chapman, Jennifer E., "A. Z. v. B. Z. (2000)". Embryo Project Encyclopedia (2013-11-01). ISSN: 1940-5030 http://embryo.asu.edu/handle/10776/6469.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v. v.