abstract: The Vesta Veterans Head which often sees notable entries under the title the Vesta Veterans International Head of the River Race is a rowing race held annually on the River Thames over the Championship Course.

text:
# Vesta Veterans International Eights Head of the River Race

The **Vesta Veterans Head** which often sees notable entries under the title the **Vesta Veterans International Head of the River Race** is a rowing race held annually on the River Thames over the Championship Course.

## Course

The direction in which it is raced will be advertised as the preferred ebb tide, if that occurs fairly near the middle of the day. The direction is confirmed from many weeks ahead on the race website. It is raced from Mortlake to Putney or vice versa.

## Categories and entries

It is open to veteran (also known as masters) eights and quads, who race in prize categories determined by their average ages, plus novice prizes for the least-race-points crews in the men's, women's and mixed categories, which are further sub-categories of each category. The race always takes place on the day after the Head of the River Race. There is on-water marshalling provided and an entry fee applies. Any surplus money is applied to further the sport of rowing.

## Organiser

It is organised by Vesta Rowing Club.

## InfoBox

| Vesta Veterans International Head of the River Race | |
| --- | --- |
| Date(s) | One-day |
| Frequency | Annual |
| Location(s) | Championship Course, River Thames in London, England |
| Years active | 1954Present |
| Next event | 27 March 2022 |
| Website | www.vestarowing.co.uk/veterans-head-of-the-river/ |


title: Shooting Livien

abstract: Shooting Livien is a 2005 American drama film written and directed by Rebecca Cook and starring Jason Behr, Sarah Wynter, Dominic Monaghan, Joshua Leonard and Ally Sheedy.

text:
# Shooting Livien

***Shooting Livien*** is a 2005 American drama film written and directed by Rebecca Cook and starring Jason Behr, Sarah Wynter, Dominic Monaghan, Joshua Leonard and Ally Sheedy.

## Cast

## Production

Principal photography occurred in November 2003 in New York.

## InfoBox

| Shooting Livien | |
| --- | --- |
|  | |
| Directed by | Rebecca Cook |
| Screenplay by | Rebecca Cook |
| Produced by | Rebecca Cook
Isen Robbins
Aimee Schoof |
| Starring | Jason Behr
Sarah Wynter
Dominic Monaghan
Joshua Leonard
Ally Sheedy |
| Cinematography | Harlan Bosmajian |
| Edited by | Paul Zucker |
| Production
companies | Velveteen Films
Intrinsic Value Films |
| Distributed by | TLA Releasing |
| Release date |  |
| Running time | 90 minutes |
| Country | United States |
| Language | English |


title: Uncothedon

abstract: Uncothedon is a genus of moths in the family Sesiidae.

text:
# Uncothedon

***Uncothedon*** is a genus of moths in the family Sesiidae.

## Species

## InfoBox

| *Uncothedon* | |
| --- | --- |
|
| Scientific classification | |
| Domain: | Eukaryota |
| Kingdom: | Animalia |
| Phylum: | Arthropoda |
| Class: | Insecta |
| Order: | Lepidoptera |
| Family: | Sesiidae |
| Tribe: | Synanthedonini |
| Genus: | *Uncothedon*<br>Gorbunov & Arita, 1999 |
|
| Species | |
| See text | |


title: Uncountable set

abstract: In mathematics, an uncountable set, informally, is an infinite set that contains too many elements to be countable. The uncountability of a set is closely related to its cardinal number: a set is uncountable if its cardinal number is larger than aleph-null, the cardinality of the natural numbers.

text:
# Uncountable set

In mathematics, an **uncountable set**, informally, is an infinite set that contains too many elements to be countable. The uncountability of a set is closely related to its cardinal number: a set is uncountable if its cardinal number is larger than aleph-null, the cardinality of the natural numbers.

## Characterizations

There are many equivalent characterizations of uncountability. A set *X* is uncountable if and only if any of the following conditions hold:

* There is no injective function (hence no bijection) from *X* to the set of natural numbers.
* *X* is nonempty and for every ω-sequence of elements of *X*, there exists at least one element of X not included in it. That is, *X* is nonempty and there is no surjective function from the natural numbers to *X*.
* The cardinality of *X* is neither finite nor equal to $\aleph \_{0}$ (aleph-null).
* The set *X* has cardinality strictly greater than $\aleph \_{0}$.

The first three of these characterizations can be proven equivalent in Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory without the axiom of choice, but the equivalence of the third and fourth cannot be proved without additional choice principles.

## Properties

* If an uncountable set *X* is a subset of set *Y*, then *Y* is uncountable.

## Examples

The best known example of an uncountable set is the set **R** of all real numbers; Cantor's diagonal argument shows that this set is uncountable. The diagonalization proof technique can also be used to show that several other sets are uncountable, such as the set of all infinite sequences of natural numbers and the set of all subsets of the set of natural numbers. The cardinality of **R** is often called the cardinality of the continuum, and denoted by $\mathfrak {c}$, or $2^{\aleph \_{0}}$, or $\beth \_{1}$ (beth-one).

The Cantor set is an uncountable subset of **R**. The Cantor set is a fractal and has Hausdorff dimension greater than zero but less than one (**R** has dimension one). This is an example of the following fact: any subset of **R** of Hausdorff dimension strictly greater than zero must be uncountable.

Another example of an uncountable set is the set of all functions from **R** to **R**. This set is even "more uncountable" than **R** in the sense that the cardinality of this set is $\beth \_{2}$ (beth-two), which is larger than $\beth \_{1}$.

A more abstract example of an uncountable set is the set of all countable ordinal numbers, denoted by Ω or ω1. The cardinality of Ω is denoted $\aleph \_{1}$ (aleph-one). It can be shown, using the axiom of choice, that $\aleph \_{1}$ is the *smallest* uncountable cardinal number. Thus either $\beth \_{1}$, the cardinality of the reals, is equal to $\aleph \_{1}$ or it is strictly larger. Georg Cantor was the first to propose the question of whether $\beth \_{1}$ is equal to $\aleph \_{1}$. In 1900, David Hilbert posed this question as the first of his 23 problems. The statement that $\aleph \_{1}=\beth \_{1}$ is now called the continuum hypothesis, and is known to be independent of the Zermelo–Fraenkel axioms for set theory (including the axiom of choice).

## Without the axiom of choice

Without the axiom of choice, there might exist cardinalities incomparable to $\aleph \_{0}$ (namely, the cardinalities of Dedekind-finite infinite sets). Sets of these cardinalities satisfy the first three characterizations above, but not the fourth characterization. Since these sets are not larger than the natural numbers in the sense of cardinality, some may not want to call them uncountable.

If the axiom of choice holds, the following conditions on a cardinal $\kappa $ are equivalent:

* $\kappa \nleq \aleph \_{0};$
* $\kappa \>\aleph \_{0};$ and
* $\kappa \geq \aleph \_{1}$, where $\aleph \_{1}=|\omega \_{1}|$ and $\omega \_{1}$ is the least initial ordinal greater than $\omega .$

However, these may all be different if the axiom of choice fails. So it is not obvious which one is the appropriate generalization of "uncountability" when the axiom fails. It may be best to avoid using the word in this case and specify which of these one means.

## Bibliography


title: Unatara

abstract: Unatara atinga is a species of beetle in the family Cerambycidae, the only species in the genus Unatara.

text:
# Unatara

***Unatara atinga*** is a species of beetle in the family Cerambycidae, the only species in the genus ***Unatara***.

## InfoBox

| *Unatara atinga* | |
| --- | --- |
|
| Scientific classification | |
| Kingdom: | Animalia |
| Phylum: | Arthropoda |
| Class: | Insecta |
| Order: | Coleoptera |
| Suborder: | Polyphaga |
| Family: | Cerambycidae |
| Genus: | ***Unatara*** |
| Species: | ***U. atinga*** |
| Binomial name | |
| ***Unatara atinga***<br>Martins & Napp, 2007 | |
|


title: Ulster Publishing

abstract: Ulster Publishing is a newspaper publisher in Kingston, New York, established in January 1972 by Geddy Sveikauskas.

text:
# Ulster Publishing

**Ulster Publishing** is a newspaper publisher in Kingston, New York, established in January 1972 by Geddy Sveikauskas.

## Newspapers

* *Kingston Times*, weekly,, through 2020
* *New Paltz Times* OCLC 47137338, weekly, 2001-2020
* *Saugerties Times* OCLC 41303107, weekly, 1996-2020
* *Woodstock Times*, weekly, through 2020

Some of those newspapers either predate the Ulster Publishing company or the same name has been used for different publications. An insert styled the "@lmanac" was included in each issue toward the end of the run.

### Hudson Valley One

As a result of the worldwide pandemic which occurred in 2020, all printing of publications was stopped in March of that year. When publication was resumed, all the earlier titles were replaced with a regional newspaper called *Hudson Valley One*.

1. "ULSTER PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC". *Division of Corporations, Department of State, New York*. Retrieved 2007-03-05.
2. "Kingston Times | News of Uptown, Midtown and The Strand". *kingstonx.com*. 2012. Retrieved 13 April 2012.
3. "New York State Newspapers : Ulster County (NY) newspapers on microfilm and paper at all NYS locations". *www.nysl.nysed.gov*.
4. "Hudson Valley One". *Ulster County Regional Chamber Of Commerce*. Retrieved 28 October 2022.


title: Union State Bank, Wisconsin

abstract: The Union State Bank headquartered in Kewaunee, Wisconsin, United States, traces its history since 1910, when the Farmers and Merchants State Bank was established in Kewaunee. The Union State Bank was established in 1934 after the merger of the Farmers and Merchants with the Dairyman's State Bank. In 1987 the Green Bay, Wisconsin office was added and in 2004 the Two Rivers, Wisconsin office was added. In 2015, Baylake Corp agreed to buy NEW Bancshares, the parent company of Union State Bank, for $9.7 million.

text:
# Union State Bank, Wisconsin

The **Union State Bank** headquartered in Kewaunee, Wisconsin, United States, traces its history since 1910, when the Farmers and Merchants State Bank was established in Kewaunee. The Union State Bank was established in 1934 after the merger of the Farmers and Merchants with the Dairyman's State Bank. In 1987 the Green Bay, Wisconsin office was added and in 2004 the Two Rivers, Wisconsin office was added.

In 2015, Baylake Corp agreed to buy NEW Bancshares, the parent company of Union State Bank, for $9.7 million.


title: Uniscope

abstract: Uniscope was a class of computer terminals made by Sperry Rand Corporation, Univac Division, and successors since 1964 that were normally used to communicate with Univac mainframes. As such, it was the successor to various models of Teletype. Due to the text color on the original models, these terminals are informally known as green screen terminals. Unlike Teletype terminals, the Uniscope minimizes the number of I/O interrupts required by accepting large blocks of data, and uses a high speed proprietary communications interface, using coaxial cable and hardware devices known as multiplexors. A Uniscope operator awaits a prompt from the remote mainframe. The prompt indicates that the mainframe is ready to receive input. The operator enters data, offline from the mainframe, and then presses the Transmit button. The terminal locks the keyboard and sends to the mainframe what the operator entered. All the data goes in a single transmission and that causes a single interrupt at the mainframe. Eventually, the mainframe responds, sometimes with a single line; other times with a screen-load of data. And the cycle repeats.

text:
# Uniscope

**Uniscope** was a class of computer terminals made by Sperry Rand Corporation, Univac Division, and successors since 1964 that were normally used to communicate with Univac mainframes. As such, it was the successor to various models of Teletype. Due to the text color on the original models, these terminals are informally known as *green screen terminals*.

Unlike Teletype terminals, the Uniscope minimizes the number of I/O interrupts required by accepting large blocks of data, and uses a high speed proprietary communications interface, using coaxial cable and hardware devices known as multiplexors. A Uniscope operator awaits a prompt from the remote mainframe. The prompt indicates that the mainframe is ready to receive input. The operator enters data, offline from the mainframe, and then presses the Transmit button. The terminal locks the keyboard and sends to the mainframe what the operator entered. All the data goes in a single transmission and that causes a single interrupt at the mainframe. Eventually, the mainframe responds, sometimes with a single line; other times with a screen-load of data. And the cycle repeats.

## Models

**Uniscope** was a registered trade mark for a set of Sperry Univac dumb terminal products. The trademark was applied for October 13, 1969. Several models were produced: the Uniscope 100, Uniscope 200, Uniscope 300, the UTS 400, the UTS 10, the UTS 20, the UTS 30, the UTS 40 and the color UTS 60. The UTS 10, UTS 20, UTS 30, UTS 40 and the color UTS 60 were "intelligent terminals" powered by 8-bit microprocessors. There was also the UTS 4000 cluster controller and terminal line, and the SVT-1120. Various models supported 16x64, 12x80, and 24x80 display formats. The UTS 4000 line had a COBOL compiler available that made it possible to do local processing in the cluster controller, and the UTS 60 was also capable of being programmed. This line of terminals roughly paralleled the similar IBM product, the IBM 3270. The UTS-400-TE was specialized terminal that had a powerful text editing program burned into firmware intended at first to allow for the editing of simple copy such as that for a newspaper, and later adapted as a prototype word processor with 8-inch floppy disks and letter-quality daisy wheel printers.

## Technical details

All members of the Uniscope product line used a variant of the Binary Synchronous Communications protocol. Groups of terminals were generally dropped off a common communications line via a multiplexer (mux) and identified by *remote identifier* and *station identifier* symbols. Some terminals may have been equipped with peripheral devices such as printers and recording devices (cartridge tape or floppy disk) which were identified on the communications line by a device identifier. Terminals on a drop were sequentially polled for traffic, sometimes with a general poll to which any terminal with traffic could respond. A fairly complex data presentation protocol permitted application programmers to format a screen for any number of business purposes. For example, fields could be defined that would accept only numeric or alpha-numeric characters. Some fields could not be changed by the terminal operator. A protocol extension permitted programmers to specify color for each field and lines on the borders of each cell (underline, or vertical bars, etc.) The Uniscope display protocol, while proprietary, roughly parallel the ANSI X3.64 standard ("additional controls for use with American national standard code for information interchange").

Screen size of the original Uniscope 100 was 12 X 80 or 16 x 64 characters. All letters were in capital. Each character was individually drawn as a series of splines using technology developed for displays in military cockpits. Later Uniscopes supported a 24 X 80 screen using raster technology, and upper and lower case characters. There were versions that had the various national code sets for different European countries to enable pound signs, and various accented characters, etc. There were also versions that had Katakana code sets for Japanese.

## UTS 60

The color UTS 60 terminal using two Motorola processors arrived on the market in 1984 at about the same time as desktop computers with EGA monitors. The general consensus was that the UTS 60 was over-engineered and overpriced for the emerging market. Eventually emulation software for the Uniscope line running on desktop computers ended manufacturing of Uniscope hardware.

## Emulators

Unisys developed the INFOConnect terminal emulators for PCs that included use of the Uniscope protocols in the early 1990s. There continue to be vendors that sell terminal emulators for these machines.


title: Uncobasidium luteolum

abstract: Uncobasidium luteolum is a species of crust fungus in the family Meruliaceae, and the type species of genus Uncobasidium. The holotype was collected in Øvre Dividal National Park, in Målselv Municipality (Norway), where it was growing on Salix. The fungus has a monomitic hyphal system, with individual hyphae measuring 2.5–4 μm and having a clamp connection and oily refractive contents. The basidia are four-sterigmate, measure 30–50 by 8 μm, and feature a hook-shaped protuberance. Its spores are ellipsoid to obovate in shape, measuring 9 by 6 μm. Uncobasidium roseocremeum, found in South America, differs microscopically from U. luteolum in its larger, spherical spores, and the presence of encrusted hyphidia.

text:
# Uncobasidium luteolum

***Uncobasidium luteolum*** is a species of crust fungus in the family Meruliaceae, and the type species of genus *Uncobasidium*. The holotype was collected in Øvre Dividal National Park, in Målselv Municipality (Norway), where it was growing on *Salix*. The fungus has a monomitic hyphal system, with individual hyphae measuring 2.5–4 μm and having a clamp connection and oily refractive contents. The basidia are four-sterigmate, measure 30–50 by 8 μm, and feature a hook-shaped protuberance. Its spores are ellipsoid to obovate in shape, measuring 9 by 6 μm. *Uncobasidium roseocremeum*, found in South America, differs microscopically from *U. luteolum* in its larger, spherical spores, and the presence of encrusted hyphidia.

## InfoBox

| *Uncobasidium luteolum* | |
| --- | --- |
|
| Scientific classification | |
| Kingdom: | Fungi |
| Division: | Basidiomycota |
| Class: | Agaricomycetes |
| Order: | Polyporales |
| Family: | Meruliaceae |
| Genus: | *Uncobasidium* |
| Species: | ***U. luteolum*** |
| Binomial name | |
| ***Uncobasidium luteolum***<br>Hjortstam & Ryvarden (1978) | |
|
| Synonyms | |
| * *Cerocorticium luteolum* (Hjortstam & Ryvarden) Tellería (1985) | |


title: Uncobasidium roseocremeum

abstract: Uncobasidium roseocremeum is a species of crust fungus in the family Meruliaceae. Found in South America, it was described as a new species in 2012 by mycologists Sergio Gorjón, Alina Greslebin, and Mario Rajchenberg. The holotype was collected in Nahuel Huapi National Park, Argentina, where it was found growing on the bark of a living tree of Saxegothaea conspicua. The specific epithet roseocremeum refers to the colour of the fruit body—cream with pinkish tints. Microscopic features of the fungus include its basidia that have two sterigma and lateral protuberances, encrusted hyphae that resemble paraphyses, and spherical spores.

text:
# Uncobasidium roseocremeum

***Uncobasidium roseocremeum*** is a species of crust fungus in the family Meruliaceae. Found in South America, it was described as a new species in 2012 by mycologists Sergio Gorjón, Alina Greslebin, and Mario Rajchenberg. The holotype was collected in Nahuel Huapi National Park, Argentina, where it was found growing on the bark of a living tree of *Saxegothaea conspicua*. The specific epithet *roseocremeum* refers to the colour of the fruit bodycream with pinkish tints. Microscopic features of the fungus include its basidia that have two sterigma and lateral protuberances, encrusted hyphae that resemble paraphyses, and spherical spores.

## InfoBox

| *Uncobasidium roseocremeum* | |
| --- | --- |
|
| Scientific classification | |
| Kingdom: | Fungi |
| Division: | Basidiomycota |
| Class: | Agaricomycetes |
| Order: | Polyporales |
| Family: | Meruliaceae |
| Genus: | *Uncobasidium* |
| Species: | ***U. roseocremeum*** |
| Binomial name | |
| ***Uncobasidium roseocremeum***<br>Gorjón, Gresl. & Rajchenb. (2012) | |
|


title: United Kingdom Climate Change Programme

abstract: The United Kingdom's Climate Change Programme was launched in November 2000 by the British government in response to its commitment agreed at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). The 2000 programme was updated in March 2006 following a review launched in September 2004. In 2008, the UK was the world's 9th greatest producer of man-made carbon emissions, producing around 1.8% of the global total generated from fossil fuels.

text:
# United Kingdom Climate Change Programme

The United Kingdom's **Climate Change Programme** was launched in November 2000 by the British government in response to its commitment agreed at the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED). The 2000 programme was updated in March 2006 following a review launched in September 2004.

In 2008, the UK was the world's 9th greatest producer of man-made carbon emissions, producing around 1.8% of the global total generated from fossil fuels.

## Aim and progress

The aims of the programme are not only to cut all greenhouse gas emissions by the agreed 12.5% from 1990 levels in the period 2008 to 2012 (the international Kyoto commitment), but to go beyond this by cutting carbon dioxide emissions by 20% from 1990 levels by 2010.

When the original programme was published in 2000, it confirmed that UK emissions were already forecast to be around 15% lower by 2010.

As of March 2006, government projections were in line with the official energy policy of the United Kingdom) so that, by 2010, the UK will have reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by about 15-18% below 1990 levels, thus missing the government's internal target but achieving its Kyoto Protocol target, with a projected reduction of emissions from the basket of all greenhouse gases (including carbon dioxide) of about 23-25% from 1990 levels.

## 2000 Climate Change Programme

The stated strategies of the 2000 programme were to:

* Improve business’ use of energy, stimulate investment and cut costs;
* Stimulate new, more efficient sources of power generation;
* Cut emissions from the transport sector;
* Promote better energy efficiency in the domestic sector, saving householders money;
* Improve the energy efficiency requirements of the building regulations;
* Continue cutting emissions from agriculture;
* Ensure the public sector took a leading role.

## Government actions

The following are among the actions taken to implement the strategy:

### Climate Change Act

On 26 November 2008, after cross-party pressure over several years, led by environmental groups, the Climate Change Act became law. The Act puts in place a framework to achieve a mandatory 80% cut in the UK's carbon emissions by 2050 (compared to 1990 levels), with an intermediate target of between 34% by 2020 which would have risen in the event of a strong deal at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen.

### Renewables Obligation

Introduced on 1 April 2002, the Renewables Obligation requires all electricity suppliers who supply electricity to end consumers to supply a set portion of their electricity from eligible renewables sources; a proportion that will increase each year until 2015 from a 3% requirement in 2002–2003, via 10.4% in 2010-2012 up to 15.4% by 2015–2016. The UK Government announced in the 2006 Energy Review an additional target of 20% by 2020–21. For each eligible megawatt hour of renewable energy generated, a tradable certificate called a renewables obligation certificate(ROC) is issued by OFGEM.

On or before 31 September following the RO year (1 Apr - 31 Mar) Suppliers can meet their Renewables Obligation by:

* acquiring and redeeming ROCs,
* paying a buy-out price equivalent to £33.24/megawatt hour in 2006/07 and rising each year with retail price index;or
* a combination of redeeming ROCs and paying the buy-out price.

When a supplier meets all or part of its obligation by paying the buy-out price for each MWh of its obligation not discharged by the redemption of ROCs, the money is put into a holding account called the buy-out fund. The buy-out fund is recycled before 1 November to those electricity suppliers who presented ROCs against their Renewables Obligation. This 'recycling' is distributed equally for each ROC redeemed, those suppliers who did not redeem any ROCs will receive no 'recycling' from the buy-out fund.

The renewables obligation also makes requirements about how the electricity can be generated. An example is that the co-firing of biomass with coal is to be phased out - and will not be eligible for Renewable Obligation Certificates after 2016 (although the government has announced its intention to revisit the co-firing rules as part of the 2006 Energy Review).

The renewables transport fuel obligation is a separate law, which although is not in force yet, is set to become law. It would require bio-ethanol and bio-diesel to be added to road fuel, up to a limit of 2 or 5.75%. The land required for this would be considerable. It has been estimated (by the NFU) that the biomass could be grown by using all of the UK's net wheat exports, and growing wheat on 1,200 square kilometres of land.

### Housing and community grants

Grants to assist with the installation of renewable energy sources in domestic properties and for community groups were made available through the Clear Skies organisation, and the Major Photovoltaics Demonstration programme. In 2006 these were replaced by the Low Carbon Buildings Programme (LCBP).

### CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme

The CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme is a mandatory cap and trade scheme, announced in May 2007, that will apply to large non energy-intensive organisations in the public and private sectors, including hotel chains, supermarkets, banks, central government and large Local Authorities. It is anticipated that the scheme will have cut carbon emissions by 1.2 million tonnes of carbon per year by 2020.

The CRC scheme will apply to organisations that have a mandatory half-hourly metered electricity consumption greater than 6,000 MWh per year. This roughly equates to an electricity bill above 500,000 (US$1,000,000), although it would apply to emissions from direct energy use as well as electricity purchased.

### The Green Deal

The Green Deal is a policy to encourage energy efficiency improvements in the UK's building stock. It will be financed through loans attached to the energy bills of the improved properties - The green deal was dropped by government in 2015.

### Electricity Market Reform

Electricity Market Reform is a UK programme seeking to decarbonise electricity generation in the UK by providing low carbon generators guaranteed income through a contract for difference arrangement.

It is made up of 2 mechanisms: Contracts for Difference (CfD) and the Capacity Market (CM).

## Nottingham Declaration

Although not part of the central government programme, in local government, over 300 councils have signed up to the *Nottingham Declaration*, launched on 25 October 2000, committing them to work towards reducing emissions.

## Further reading


abstract: The Accession State Worker Registration Scheme was a temporary measure used in the period from 2004 to 2011 by the UK to restrict incoming workers from the eight member states of the European Union in Central Europe and the Baltic region of northern Europe. It attempted to help the UK's government to be able to keep track of the way that the UK labour market was affected by the workers from the A8 countries. The scheme is no longer in operation as the last day on which a new worker in the U.K. was required to register was 30 April 2011.

text:
# United Kingdom EU Worker Registration Scheme

The **Accession State Worker Registration Scheme** was a temporary measure used in the period from 2004 to 2011 by the UK to restrict incoming workers from the eight member states of the European Union in Central Europe and the Baltic region of northern Europe (the "A8 countries"). It attempted to help the UK's government to be able to keep track of the way that the UK labour market was affected by the workers from the A8 countries. The scheme is no longer in operation as the last day on which a new worker in the U.K. was required to register was 30 April 2011.

## A8 countries

The A8 countries were eight of the ten countries that joined the European Union in 2004, namely:

Note: In 2007, Bulgaria and Romania became members of the European Union but did not become subject to WRS regulations. Bulgarians and Romanians still needed a work permit in order to work legally in the UK until 2014 when the maximum extent (7 years) of this temporary measures allowed by their Treaty of Accession to the EU was reached.

## Registration and benefits

Workers from the above countries were required to register on the WRS scheme within a month of joining a new employer. However, there were no incentives to do this: registration took time and money, immigrants were able to work (illegally) without it, and no immigrant has ever been prosecuted for not having registered on the scheme. Consequently, immigration data from the WRS was indicative at best.

There were, however, consequences for workers who later sought to become British citizens. Those who could not prove that they had registered on the scheme were unable to count any time prior to May 2011 towards the minimum five year qualifying period of residence in the UK, and so could not become eligible to apply for British citizenship until 2016 at the earliest.

By registering, immigrants were able to claim some basic benefits, such as Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit and Tax Credits. However, the worker must have been employed to be able to claim these benefits. If the worker was able to prove that they had worked legally for at least a 12-month period (without a break in employment of more than 30 days) then they gained the ability to claim social security benefits such as Jobseeker's Allowance.

## Exemption

Workers that were exempt from registering on the scheme included:

* those who were self-employed
* those who were students
* those who were working legally in the UK on 30 April 2004 and continued in their employment
* those who were in continuous employment for a period of at least 12 months falling partly or wholly on or after 30 April 2004
* those who had left to enter on the SAWS scheme before 1 May 2004 and had started working in the UK under the SAWS scheme on or after 1 May 2004
* those who were providing services in the UK on behalf of an employer who is not established in the UK.

## Abolition

On 30 April 2011 the worker registration scheme was abolished. By the time the A8 countries had been in the EU for over seven years (1 May 2004 to 20 April 2011) and the maximum extent of the temporary measures, which were allowed by the Treaty of Accession to the EU (from 2003), had been reached and therefore since then their nationals enjoy the same rights as those of the older member states. While registration was no longer possible from 1 May 2011, because the scheme only required people to register if they were working for longer than one month, this meant that anyone starting work after 1 April 2011 no longer required to register.


title: United National Gridiron League

abstract: The United National Gridiron League (UNGL) was a proposed professional american football minor league. The league was formed in August 2007 and was originally called the United National Football League. The league's inaugural draft took place January 8–9, 2009. The league had planned to begin the season on February 8, 2009 but, after a multiple postponements of the kick-off date, the inaugural season was pushed back to March 2010, and later cancelled altogether, because of financing problems.

text:
# United National Gridiron League

The **United National Gridiron League** (**UNGL**) was a proposed professional american football minor league. The league was formed in August 2007 and was originally called the ***United National Football League***.

The league's inaugural draft took place January 8–9, 2009. The league had planned to begin the season on February 8, 2009 but, after a multiple postponements of the kick-off date, the inaugural season was pushed back to March 2010, and later cancelled altogether, because of financing problems.

## Financial struggles

The league pushed back its season three times. According to the UNGL's Web site, the start of the season had been pushed back from February to May because of a "dishonest commitment made by the league's primary investor. reported in February that the investor "suddenly withdrew its $15 million contribution." There has also been scrutiny surrounding the Salem team. The League originally struck a deal with the City of Salem for use of their Stadium in April 2009, then 10 days later canceled their season. Then in August 2009 the League announced that Salem would be home to a team in 2010. That was news to Salem officials, who learned about it when the press release was posted on roanoke.com.

Salem civic facilities director Carey Harveycutter said UNGL officials have not been talking with him about getting back in business with the city. CEO Marvin Tomlin's response, to the surprise of Salem officials, was "We are very interested in coming and playing in Salem, We haven't confirmed the facility yet out there in Salem, but we are very eager to talk. I just wanted everybody to know that this is where we want to come back to play."

An August 2009 news release said there was to be teams in Miami; Columbus, Ga.; Birmingham, Ala.; and Akron, Ohio, as well as teams in unnamed cities in North Carolina, Texas and Louisiana. Tomlin refused to say how many actual facility agreements he had with those cities for 2010.

Harveycutter called UNGL president Ben Eison on Friday, August 21, 2009 after learning of the league's announcement. He said Eison told him that Friday, "We're not announcing facilities; we're just announcing areas, and you should not read into it that they have contracted any facilities."

Harveycutter said he told Eison, "As I left it last spring, if you will execute the contract and provide the cash deposits called for, then we will talk."

Tomlin refused to name his investors or say how much financing was in place. "Our financing is strong," Tomlin said. The league had planned to debut last February, but the start of the 2009 season was postponed because of a "dishonest commitment made by the league's primary investor," according to an announcement that used to be on the UNGL's Web site.

The league had originally turned down Salem in favor of Norfolk, but the UNGL called Harveycutter in April to say that Norfolk didn't work out and that the league would be starting its season in May.

The UNGL reached a deal with Salem, but 10 days later—on April 27—a UNGL official e-mailed Harveycutter to say the league was suspending operations for the 2009 season. April 27 had been the deadline to mail the contract back to Salem, along with a $10,000 down payment.

On March 10, 2010, the league announced via an email to the media, that it was canceling the 2010 season and suspending league operations indefinitely. In the statement to the media, the league said, "We were very hopeful that this announcement would not have to be made (or at the very least we might have been able to delay our season start a bit), if we had been able to secure certain assurances and arrangements from the investor group we had been working with these past 4 months. Unfortunately, as of this past Monday, we were unable to confirm these arrangements which prohibited us, in good conscience, from announcing our league start date, along with the other announcements everyone was expecting regarding our player draft, camp report date, etc.."

## League structure

The United National Gridiron League was to have the same professional rules as the NFL. The teams were named and selected by the Board of Directors. All teams were slated to be owned by the league.

## Inaugural draft

On January 8 and 9, 2009 the UNGL held its inaugural draft. Those selected were primarily college players, however the draft also included players from other leagues, such as the All-American Football League (AAFL), Arena Football League (AFL), American Indoor Football Association (AIFA), Continental Indoor Football League (CIFL), af2, Indoor Football League (IFL), and some from practice squads of National Football League (NFL) franchises.

## Teams

The teams planned for the 2010 season were:

## InfoBox

United National Gridiron League
|  | |
| --- | --- |
| Sport | American football |
| Founded | 2007 |
| Founder | Marvin Tomlin |
| Ceased | 2010 |
| CEO | Joe Cribbs |
| No. of teams | 8 |
| Country | United States |
| Official website | Official Site |


abstract: The United States Council for International Business (USCIB) is an independent business advocacy group that was founded in 1945 to promote free trade and help represent U.S. business in the then-new United Nations. One of its primary goals is expanding market access for U.S. products and services abroad. The organization is strongly in favor of open markets and sensible regulation.

text:
# United States Council for International Business

The **United States Council for International Business** (**USCIB**) is an independent business advocacy group that was founded in 1945 to promote free trade and help represent U.S. business in the then-new United Nations. One of its primary goals is expanding market access for U.S. products and services abroad. The organization is strongly in favor of open markets and sensible regulation.

## Membership

The USCIB has an active membership roster of over 300 multinational companies, law firms and business associations. Membership is on a company basis, and member firms may assign as many individual executives as they like to various policy-focused committees. Committees cover a variety of issues including trade and investment policy, environment and energy, information technology and Internet policy, taxation, and labor and employment. In 2010, Harold McGraw III was elected as Chairman of the USCIB, succeeding William G. Parrett. The current President and CEO of USCIB is Peter Robinson. USCIB has Officers, a Board of Directors, and Trustees who all play an important role in running the organization.

## International affiliations

The USCIB is the U.S. affiliate of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the Business and Industry Advisory Committee to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and the International Organization of Employers (IOE). It functions as the U.S. representative to the ICC's multifaceted dispute resolution services, including the ICC International Court of Arbitration which is charged with settlement of international business disputes and the legal and procedural aspects of arbitration.

## Functions

The USCIB's three function areas are policy advocacy, dispute resolution and ATA Carnet administration.

* The organization promotes business interests both to U.S. policy makers and to international groups like the United Nations. Current, stated policy priorities include advancing sustainable development, expanding international trade and investment, ensuring strong intellectual property rights and supporting information & communication technology (ICT) enabled growth.
* Dispute resolution is accomplished through the USCIB's affiliation with the ICC and its dispute resolution service which includes the ICC International Court of Arbitration. The USCIB provides assistance in the nomination of arbitrators, makes referrals to parties seeking attorneys, organizes seminars and corporate roundtables, and answers questions from U.S. businesses regarding the arbitration process and other ICC dispute resolution services.
* Since 1968, when U.S. Customs assigned them the task, the USCIB has been handling the administration of international customs documents known as ATA Carnets. In this capacity the organization issues and guarantees Carnets, which allow temporary, duty-free imports overseas for goods generally qualified for use in trade shows or as commercial samples and professional equipment. U.S. ATA Carnets can be obtained through appointed service providers as USCIB no longer issues carnets.

## Notable members

* Abraham Katz (1926–2013), former president of the Council, diplomat, United States Ambassador to the OECD


abstract: The United States Code Congressional and Administrative News (U.S.C.C.A.N.) is a publication that collects selected congressional and administrative materials. U.S.C.C.A.N. was first published in 1941 and has continued to be published in monthly pamphlets. Among other documents, U.S.C.C.A.N. publishes the full text of new federal laws, presidential proclamations, executive orders, federal regulations and sentencing guidelines. Prior to the 99th Congress, the legislative history materials in contained only a House or Senate report. It is recommended by the Bluebook as a citation source.

text:
# United States Code Congressional and Administrative News

The ***United States Code Congressional and Administrative News*** *(U.S.C.C.A.N.)* is a publication that collects selected congressional and administrative materials. *U.S.C.C.A.N.* was first published in 1941 and has continued to be published in monthly pamphlets. Among other documents, *U.S.C.C.A.N.* publishes the full text of new federal laws, presidential proclamations, executive orders, federal regulations and sentencing guidelines. Prior to the 99th Congress, the legislative history materials in contained only a House or Senate report. It is recommended by the *Bluebook* as a citation source.

## History

The *United States Code Congressional and Administrative News* *(U.S.C.C.A.N.)* is a West Group publication that collects selected congressional and administrative materials for publication in a single resource. *U.S.C.C.A.N.* was first published in 1941 with the 1st Session of the 77th Congress and has been published with every session of Congress since.

## Content

*U.S.C.C.A.N.* is published in monthly pamphlets that contain a cumulative subject index and cumulative *Table of Laws Enacted* in addition to the selected documents. The pamphlets are then reissued in bound volumes after each session of Congress concludes. Among other documents, *U.S.C.C.A.N.* publishes the full text of new federal laws, selected committee reports from the House and Senate, signing statements, presidential proclamations, executive orders, reorganization plans, President's messages, federal regulations, proposed constitutional amendments, federal court rules, and sentencing guidelines all arranged in chronological order.

When published in bound volumes, the legislative history documents are placed in separate volumes apart from the rest of the materials published by *U.S.C.C.A.N*. Prior to the 99th Congress, the legislative history materials in *U.S.C.C.A.N.* contained only a House or Senate report. Since the 99th Congress (1985–87), the legislative history materials in *U.S.C.C.A.N.* have included the House or Senate report, the committee report, and any presidential signing statements. *U.S.C.C.A.N.* is considered a more readily accessible source for some of these materials, like committee reports, than the originals. As a result, it is recommended by the *Bluebook* as a citation source in addition to the original document.


abstract: The United States Colored Troops Memorial Statue is a memorial to the more than 700 African-American soldiers and sailors from St. Mary's County, Maryland who served in the Union forces during the American Civil War. It is located in the city of Lexington Park, Maryland. The memorial was completed and dedicated in 2012. The memorial includes an educational kiosk with a written history and also features two African-American men, William H. Barnes and James H. Harris, from St. Mary's County who received the Medal of Honor. A photograph of William H. Barnes is included.

text:
# United States Colored Troops Memorial Statue (Lexington Park, Maryland)

The **United States Colored Troops Memorial Statue** is a memorial to the more than 700 African-American soldiers and sailors from St. Mary's County, Maryland who served in the Union forces during the American Civil War.

It is located in the city of Lexington Park, Maryland. The memorial was completed and dedicated in 2012.

The memorial includes an educational kiosk with a written history and also features two African-American men, William H. Barnes and James H. Harris, from St. Mary's County who received the Medal of Honor. A photograph of William H. Barnes is included.

## History

### Soldiers and sailors

About 700 African-American soldiers from the county served on the Union side during the war. These included many men who escaped slavery and joined the Union cause. There were also many free Black citizens of the county, mostly tenant farmers, who also served. White soldiers from all walks of life in the county served as well.

### Recruitment

Most men were recruited by the Union Army at special stations in St. Mary's County, which offered freedom to slaves who volunteered for service. Many in the county risked escape, regardless of the risk of incurring severe punishment from plantation owners, and signed up for military duty. Many free African Americans from the county, many of whom were tenant farmers or sharecroppers, also enlisted. A number of White county residents enlisted as well. Together, their service would ultimately contribute to the liberation of all enslaved peoples of St. Mary's County and the United States as a whole.

### Medal of Honor recipients

Two African-American St. Mary's County men who served, William H. Barnes and James H. Harris, had both been free tenant farmers before the war. They had both volunteered for service in the Union Army. Both saw heavy fighting and each was awarded the Medal of Honor for their actions in the Battle of Chaffin's Farm (also called the "Battle of New Market Heights"). They served in the 38th United States Colored Infantry regiment alongside other St. Mary's County men, including many who had escaped slavery.

### Memorial dedication

The memorial was dedicated in 2012. The dedication was officiated by Congressman Steny Hoyer, former Majority Leader of the United States House of Representatives. Officials from St. Mary's County, including St. Mary's County Commissioner Dan Raley and officials from the nearby Patuxent River Naval Air Station were in attendance as well. The event was also attended by historians, archeologists and members of the general public.

## Juneteenth celebrations

A yearly Juneteenth celebration gathering is now held at the memorial.


abstract: The United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma is a federal court in the Tenth Circuit. The District was established on February 16, 1925, with the transfer of a judgeship in the Eastern District to the newly established Northern district.

text:
# United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma

The **United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma** (in case citations, **N.D. Okla.**) is a federal court in the Tenth Circuit (except for patent claims and claims against the U.S. government under the Tucker Act, which are appealed to the Federal Circuit).

The District was established on February 16, 1925, with the transfer of a judgeship in the Eastern District to the newly established Northern district.

## Organization of the court

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma is one of three federal judicial districts in Oklahoma. Court for the District is held at Tulsa.

The court's jurisdiction comprises the following counties: Craig, Creek, Delaware, Mayes, Nowata, Osage, Ottawa, Pawnee, Rogers, Tulsa, and Washington.

The United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Oklahoma represents the United States in civil and criminal litigation in the court. As of December 26, 2021 the **United States attorney** for the Northern District of Oklahoma is Clint Johnson.

## Current judges

As of January 4, 2024:

| # | Title | Judge | Duty station | Born | Term of service | | | Appointed by |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | | | | Active | Chief | Senior | |
| 20 | Chief Judge | John F. Heil III | Tulsa | 1968 | 2020–present | 2021–present |  | Trump |
| 18 | District Judge | Gregory Kent Frizzell | Tulsa | 1956 | 2007–present | 2012–2019 |  | G.W. Bush |
| 21 | District Judge | Sara E. Hill | Tulsa | 1977 | 2024–present |  |  | Biden |
| 22 | District Judge | John D. Russell | Tulsa | 1963 | 2024–present |  |  | Biden |
| 13 | Senior Judge | Terence C. Kern | Tulsa | 1944 | 1994–2010 | 1996–2003 | 2010–present | Clinton |
| 16 | Senior Judge | Claire Eagan | Tulsa | 1950 | 2001–2022 | 2005–2012 | 2022–present | G.W. Bush |
| 17 | Senior Judge | James H. Payne | *inactive* | 1941 | 2001–2017 |  | 2017–present | G.W. Bush |
| 19 | Senior Judge | John E. Dowdell | Tulsa | 1955 | 2012–2021 | 2019–2021 | 2021–present | Obama |

## Former judges

| # | Judge | State | Born–died | Active service | Chief Judge | Senior status | Appointed by | Reason for<br>termination |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|
| 1 | Franklin Elmore Kennamer | OK | 1879–1960 | 1925–1940 |  | 1940–1960 | Coolidge/Operation of law | death |
| 2 | Alfred P. Murrah | OK | 1904–1975 | 1937–1940 |  |  | F. Roosevelt | elevation to 10th Cir. |
| 3 | Bower Slack Broaddus | OK | 1888–1949 | 1940–1949 |  |  | F. Roosevelt | death |
| 4 | Royce H. Savage | OK | 1904–1993 | 1940–1961 | 1949–1961 |  | F. Roosevelt | resignation |
| 5 | William Robert Wallace | OK | 1886–1960 | 1950–1960 |  |  | Truman | death |
| 6 | Luther L. Bohanon | OK | 1902–2003 | 1961–1974 |  | 1974–2003 | Kennedy | death |
| 7 | Frederick Alvin Daugherty | OK | 1914–2006 | 1961–1982 |  | 1982–2006 | Kennedy | death |
| 8 | Allen E. Barrow | OK | 1914–1979 | 1962–1979 | 1962–1979 |  | Kennedy | death |
| 9 | H. Dale Cook | OK | 1924–2008 | 1974–1992 | 1979–1992 | 1992–2008 | Ford | death |
| 10 | Thomas Rutherford Brett | OK | 1931–2021 | 1979–1996 | 1994–1996 | 1996–2003 | Carter | retirement |
| 11 | James O. Ellison | OK | 1929–2014 | 1979–1994 | 1992–1994 | 1994–2014 | Carter | death |
| 12 | David Lynn Russell | OK | 1942–present | 1981–1990 |  |  | Reagan | seat abolished |
| 14 | Michael Burrage | OK | 1950–present | 1994–2001 |  |  | Clinton | resignation |
| 15 | Sven Erik Holmes | OK | 1951–present | 1994–2005 | 2003–2005 |  | Clinton | resignation |

1. Reassigned from the Eastern District of Oklahoma.
2. Jointly appointed to the Eastern, Northern, and Western Districts of Oklahoma.
3. Recess appointment; formally nominated on January 15, 1962, confirmed by the United States Senate on February 7, 1962, and received commission on February 17, 1962.

## Chief judges

Chief judges have administrative responsibilities with respect to their district court. Unlike the Supreme Court, where one justice is specifically nominated to be chief, the office of chief judge rotates among the district court judges. To be chief, a judge must have been in active service on the court for at least one year, be under the age of 65, and have not previously served as chief judge.

A vacancy is filled by the judge highest in seniority among the group of qualified judges. The chief judge serves for a term of seven years, or until age 70, whichever occurs first. The age restrictions are waived if no members of the court would otherwise be qualified for the position.

When the office was created in 1948, the chief judge was the longest-serving judge who had not elected to retire, on what has since 1958 been known as senior status, or declined to serve as chief judge. After August 6, 1959, judges could not become or remain chief after turning 70 years old. The current rules have been in operation since October 1, 1982.

## Succession of seats

1. U.S. District Courts of Oklahoma, Legislative history, *Federal Judicial Center*
2. 28 U.S.C. § 116
3. "Clinton Johnson Appointed U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Oklahoma" (Press release). December 29, 2021. Retrieved January 4, 2022.

36°09′04″N 95°59′43″W / 36.15123°N 95.99523°W / 36.15123; -95.99523

## InfoBox

| United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma | |
| --- | --- |
| (N.D. Okla.) | |
|  | |
| Location | Tulsa*More locations* |
| Appeals to | Tenth Circuit |
| Established | February 16, 1925 |
| Judges | 4 |
| Chief Judge | John F. Heil III |
| Officers of the court | |
| U.S. Attorney | Clint Johnson |
| U.S. Marshal | Clayton D. Johnson |
| www.oknd.uscourts.gov | |


# United States at the World Athletics Relays

United States has competed at the World Athletics Relays since first edition held in 2014, and until edition held in 2019, Americans athletes have won a total of 31 medals, 22 of them gold. They have won the Golden Baton at all those editions.

## Medals

Americans have won 9 titles in the men's field, 10 in the women's field and 3 in the mixed field.

Multiple wins athletes with three titles are Tony McQuay (4x400m 2014/2015/2017), LaShawn Merritt USA Men's 4x400m 2014/2015/2017), David Verburg USA Men's 4x400m 2014/2015/2017) among men and Natasha Hastings USA Women's 4x400m 2014/2015/2017), Chanelle Price (4x800m 2014/2015/2017), Sanya Richards-Ross (4x400m 2014/2015, Distance Medley Relay 2015) among women.

| Edition |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2014 Nassau | 5 | 2 | 1 |
| 2015 Nassau | 7 | 1 | 0 |
| 2017 Nassau | 5 | 2 | 1 |
| 2019 Yokohama | 5 | 2 | 0 |
|  | 22 | 7 | 2 |

## Details

## InfoBox

| United States at the
World Athletics Relays | |
| --- | --- |
|  | |
| WA code | USA |
| National federation | USA Track & Field |
| Website | www.usatf.org |
| Medals
Ranked 1st | Gold 22 Silver 7 Bronze 2 Total 31 |
| World Athletics Relays appearances (overview) | |
|  | |


abstract: The University of South Florida Tampa Library is the main research library for the University of South Florida. Housing over 1.3 million books, academic journals and electronic resources, including 52,000 e-journal subscriptions, 443,000 e-books, and over 800 databases, the library has more than 2 million visitors each year. The library offers tutoring and writing services, laptops, a career resource center, and course reserves. The facility houses several special and digital collections, including literature, oral histories, photographs, artifacts, and the university archives. The current Dean of USF Libraries is Todd Chavez.

text:
# University of South Florida Tampa Library

The **University of South Florida Tampa Library** is the main research library for the University of South Florida. Housing over 1.3 million books, academic journals and electronic resources, including 52,000 e-journal subscriptions, 443,000 e-books, and over 800 databases, the library has more than 2 million visitors each year. The library offers tutoring and writing services, laptops, a career resource center, and course reserves. The facility houses several special and digital collections, including literature, oral histories, photographs, artifacts, and the university archives. The current Dean of USF Libraries is Todd Chavez.

## History

In 1958, the foundations were poured for the original four buildings that would become the core of the USF master plan. These included the maintenance facility, administrative-classroom building, union-classroom-cafeteria, and the library.

When John S. Allen was named the first USF president in 1957, his first academic appointment to the staff was Elliott Hardaway, at the time the assistant librarian at the University of Florida. As USF librarian, Hardaway was charged with building a university library collection from scratch.

For the first year of classes, the library was temporarily located in the University Center ballroom until the completed five-story facility opened in 1961. The campus was planned so that the library was the tallest, most conspicuous building, to symbolize what John Allen considered to be the heart of the university. The library was designed accommodate 250,000 books but also housed reading rooms, a permanent art gallery, a faculty lounge and conference rooms.

Over the following decade, the USF population grew and a larger library was soon in high-demand. In 1975, the current seven-story, 154,000 square foot building opened with the capacity of up to one million volumes.

## SMART lab

Opened in 2012, the Science, Math, and Research Technology (SMART) Lab, provides a hands-on learning space which includes more than 300 computer work stations.

## Special Collections

In addition to wide-ranging electronic and print resources the library provides other primary research materials through Special Collections. These include Florida history and politics, American literature, medieval manuscripts, Latin American Science Fiction, LGBT literature, Holocaust & genocide literature, juvenile literature, rare books, and sheet music. The Library's Florida Studies Center draws on the Special Collections materials and technological services to promote arts and humanities education on Florida and its people to students, teachers and the public.

Tampa Campus Special Collections supports University of South Florida by encouraging use of primary resources that document the history and culture of both USF and the broader community. At its inception in 1962, Tampa Special Collections was charged with developing a research collection in Florida history and a general monographic collection to house rare and otherwise special items acquired by the USF Libraries. Today, with a strong focus on local and regional records, artifacts, and publications, Special Collections also houses numerous collections of national and international prominence that describe and contextualize diverse experiences from the 1500s to the present day. Major collections include the University Archives, Florida Studies Collections, Florida Environment and Natural History Collections, LGBTQ+ Collections, Children's and Young Adult Literature, and Digital Collections, a collection of more than 67,300 digitized items from the USF Libraries and other partners. Other collections include African American Collections, Rare Books, Maps, Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Science Fiction and Fantasy, Literature and Book Arts Collection, and The Arts. Tampa Campus Special Collections also supports Online Exhibitions, Virtual Classes, and Internship Projects. The more than 500 archival collections are accessible to explore through online finding aids.

Although the University of South Florida consolidated its Tampa and St. Petersburg campuses as of 2021, the Tampa Campus Special Collections and the Special Collections and University Archives (SCUA), at the Nelson Poynter Memorial Library at USF St. Petersburg operate as distinct entities. The Nelson Poynter Memorial Library was established in 1968. Over the last few decades, SCUA has grown dramatically, with most of this growth having taken place since 1996 when the present library building opened with an expanded area for special collections. Materials at SCUA include collections such as Floridiana, rare books, personal papers, and manuscript collections, as well as the institutional archives of the St. Petersburg campus. The Nelson Poynter Memorial Library has also created the USF St. Petersburg Digital Archive as a repository of significant print and “born digital” materials. These print materials are offered from a variety of sources and are in collaboration with multiple other libraries and museums, such as the Tampa University of South Florida campus Special Collections offering materials like pottery for public display in the Tampa Museum of Art, as well as in allowing public access to digitally curated local print materials, like the Temple Terrace Beacon and the Terrace Sentinel being made freely available to the public for viewing.

These collections can be browsed and refined through language, creator, publisher, subject: topic, subject: geographic area, and subject: genre. A sample of the most current additions to the collections is the following: Florida Studies Collection (20 items), Dion Boucicault Theatre Collection (31 items), Hillsborough County (Fla.) Marriage Records (14,471 items), African American Sheet Music Collection (43 items), and the Children's Literature Collection (47 items). The range in subject matter for these digital collections reflects the academic aspirations for students, staff, and faculty within the University of South Florida. Certain collections are open access and the digitized items can be viewed by anyone interested in the subject matter, whether for research or for general interest.

* **Hillsborough County (Fla.) Marriage Records** – The following collections include Marriage Licenses, Marriage License Record Books, and indexes from 1878 to 1912. Over 14,400 marriage licenses are available and digitized from the Hillsborough County Court. Any licenses from 1846 to 1877 and 1912-1964 will need to be consulted through the USF Special Collections Department.
* **Children's Literature Collection** – This collection is a sub-collection to the USF Children's and Young Adult Literature collection, which has over 25,000 titles at present. The collection is primarily American fiction, focusing on younger readers and dates back to the 1870s. Since the main topic deals with a vast timeline of children's literature, researchers, teachers, and students can use this collection to see how education and literature for children have changed over the past century. A few books in the collection include *Chris, The Model Maker: A Story of New York* by William O. Stoddard, *The Cowardly Lion of Oz* by Ruth Plumly Thompson, and *Rootabaga Pigeons* by Carl Sanderburg. All of these books have been digitized and can be read through the digital collection.

## Digital Heritage and Humanities Collections

The DHHC documents heritage sites, landscapes and objects. The DHHC creates digital learning tools to promote heritage tourism. The technologies being used include 3D laser scanners, Nikon DSLR cameras, DJI Phantom and DJI Mavic unmanned aerial vehicles, Agisoft Photoscan Professional, FLIR thermal infrared cameras for imaging. For geo-spatial analysis uses ArcGIS and sends someone to the ESRI conference to make sure the program remains up to date. Some projects include: a 3D survey and imaging of Haghpat Monastery, a terrestrial laser scanning survey of Russell Cave National Monument and a digital tour of Cowpens National Battlefield.

## Textbook Affordability Project

Recently, Florida law has required academic institutions to comply with new textbook selection and reporting requirements in order to combat high costs to students. In 2009, the textbook affordability initiative began at USF with a committee survey about awareness of textbook costs. From here, the Textbook Affordability Project (TAP), was created to disperse information to both faculty and students about textbook costs. Currently, the USF Tampa Library facilitates three main activities in order to promote textbook affordability: recommendations to faculty, Course Reserves, and the E-books for the Classroom database. During the early years of TAP, staff was limited to two persons. As of 2018, over 6 full-time staff are dedicated to the Textbook Affordability project. TAP strives to provide affordable textbook options to students, and encourages professors to seek out more affordable options for their courses.

* Ebooks for the Classroom+ - As part of its efforts to promote textbook affordability, TAP uses Ebooks for the Classroom to encourage the use of library-licensed resources in courses. This database was created in 2017, and serves the entire USF system. Within the database, professors can adopt Ebooks that the library has purchased rights to, so that students can access these books for free. This collection has contributed greatly to the efforts of the TAP initiative.

## Building configuration

The library is located in a seven-story facility on the main campus at 4101 USF Apple Drive, Tampa, FL 33620-5400.

* Basement - Quiet zone comprising federal and state government documents, print collections, maps, and the Reference Annex. In 2012 physical print periodicals were moved to this level as electronic access of periodicals became more common. A technical services department takes up a large section of the basement.
* First Floor - Group study area including the learning common study areas, computer work stations, Digital Media Commons, the library services desk, the IT help desk, computer repair shop, the Inter library Loan department, and a Starbucks.
* Second Floor - Group study area housing the learning commons study areas, the writing studio, the office for undergraduate research, tutoring services and the SMART Lab.
* Third Floor - Group study area with circulating areas A through K.
* Fourth Floor - Quiet zone, housing circulating areas L through N, special collections, Juvenile Collection, Classics Collection and the USF Florida Studies Center. The Grace Allen (1908-2007) room, named after the wife of the first president of the university John Allen, is available to recognized USF departments or agencies and contains a retractable screen, ceiling mounted LCD projector, podium, microphone & amplification system.
* Fifth Floor -Quiet Zone, Individual study area including circulating areas P though Z, two large reading rooms and a graduate reading room. LEED Silver Certified Floor.
* Sixth Floor - ATLE, Innovative Education, library administration offices, digital collections and the community engagement offices.

28°03′34.4″N 82°24′44.1″W / 28.059556°N 82.412250°W / 28.059556; -82.412250


title: United States National Maritime Day

abstract: National Maritime Day is a United States federal observance created to recognize the maritime industry. It is observed on May 22, the date in 1819 that the American steamship Savannah set sail from Savannah, Georgia on the first ever transoceanic voyage under steam power. The holiday was created by the United States Congress on May 20, 1933. On May 22, 2002, the Military Sealift Command observed National Maritime Day with a memorial service held in Washington, DC. Rear Adm. David L. Brewer III, Commander, Military Sealift Command, and Gordon R. England, Secretary of the Navy, tossed a wreath into the Anacostia River at the Washington Navy Yard in honor of fallen mariners. In 2013, National Maritime Day was celebrated with family picnics and boat tours at the Port of San Diego, and with maritime career fairs in Seattle and the Port of Baltimore, as well as with traditional memorial ceremonies. On May 22, 2016, the Baltimore events were held at the NS Savannah, Pier 13 of the Canton Marine Terminal in Baltimore, Maryland. Boy Scout Explorer Post # 0438, a re-enactment group representing the First Baltimore Sharpshooters, a.k.a. Aisquith's Sharpshooters, was there in replica uniforms. Battle of North Point Many other groups, both businesses, non-profit groups, and educational groups were present. Docked alongside the NS Savannah was the Golden Bear (ship), a training ship from California that was built nearby in Bethlehem Steel in Sparrows Point, Maryland, in 1986.

text:
# United States National Maritime Day

**National Maritime Day** is a United States federal observance created to recognize the maritime industry. It is observed on May 22, the date in 1819 that the American steamship *Savannah* set sail from Savannah, Georgia on the first ever transoceanic voyage under steam power. The holiday was created by the United States Congress on May 20, 1933.

On May 22, 2002, the Military Sealift Command observed National Maritime Day with a memorial service held in Washington, DC. Rear Adm. David L. Brewer III, Commander, Military Sealift Command, and Gordon R. England, Secretary of the Navy, tossed a wreath into the Anacostia River at the Washington Navy Yard in honor of fallen mariners.

In 2013, National Maritime Day was celebrated with family picnics and boat tours at the Port of San Diego, and with maritime career fairs in Seattle and the Port of Baltimore, as well as with traditional memorial ceremonies.

On May 22, 2016, the Baltimore events were held at the *NS Savannah*, Pier 13 of the Canton Marine Terminal in Baltimore, Maryland. Boy Scout Explorer Post # 0438, a re-enactment group representing the First Baltimore Sharpshooters, a.k.a. Aisquith's Sharpshooters, was there in replica uniforms. Battle of North Point Many other groups, both businesses, non-profit groups, and educational groups were present. Docked alongside the *NS Savannah* was the *Golden Bear (ship)*, a training ship from California that was built nearby in Bethlehem Steel in Sparrows Point, Maryland, in 1986.

Notes Sources


abstract: The United States National Cyclocross Championships is a four-day competition held annually each winter and is sponsored by USA Cycling. The winners at various levels, including elite, U-23, masters, juniors, and collegiate for men and women, wear the coveted stars and stripes jersey and are crowned United States national cyclo-cross champions.

text:
# United States National Cyclo-cross Championships

The **United States National Cyclocross Championships** is a four-day competition held annually each winter and is sponsored by USA Cycling. The winners at various levels, including elite, U-23, masters, juniors, and collegiate for men and women, wear the coveted stars and stripes jersey and are crowned United States national cyclo-cross champions.

## Past winners

### Men

| Year | Location | Gold | Silver | Bronze |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2023 | Louisville, Kentucky | Eric Brunner (2) | Andrew Strohmeyer | Scott Funston |
| 2022 | Hartford, Connecticut | Curtis White | Eric Brunner | Kerry Werner |
| 2021 | Wheaton, Illinois | Eric Brunner | Gage Hecht | Curtis White |
| ~~*2020*~~ | *Cancelled due to COVID-19* |  |  |  |
| 2019 | Lakewood, Washington | Gage Hecht | Curtis White | Stephen Hyde |
| 2018 *(2018-2019 season)* | Louisville, Kentucky | Stephen Hyde (3) | Curtis White | Gage Hecht |
| 2018 *(2017-2018 season)* | Reno, Nevada | Stephen Hyde (2) | Jeremy Powers | Kerry Werner |
| 2017 | Hartford, Connecticut | Stephen Hyde | Jamey Driscoll | Kerry Werner |
| 2016 | Asheville, North Carolina | Jeremy Powers (4) | Stephen Hyde | Logan Owen |
| 2015 | Austin, Texas | Jeremy Powers (3) | Jonathan Page | Zach McDonald |
| 2014 | Boulder, Colorado | Jeremy Powers (2) | Ryan Trebon | Tim Johnson |
| 2013 | Madison, Wisconsin | Jonathan Page (4) | Zach McDonald | Jamey Driscoll |
| 2012 | Madison, Wisconsin | Jeremy Powers | Ryan Trebon | Jonathan Page |
| 2010 | Bend, Oregon | Todd Wells (3) | Ryan Trebon | Jeremy Powers |
| 2009 | Bend, Oregon | Tim Johnson (3) | Ryan Trebon | Jonathan Page |
| 2008 | Kansas City, Missouri | Ryan Trebon (2) | Jamey Driscoll | Jonathan Page |
| 2007 | Kansas City, Kansas | Tim Johnson (2) | Jonathan Page | Todd Wells |
| 2006 | Providence, Rhode Island | Ryan Trebon | Jonathan Page | Tim Johnson |
| 2005 | Providence, Rhode Island | Todd Wells (2) | Ryan Trebon | Jonathan Page |
| 2004 | Portland, Oregon | Jonathan Page (3) | Ryan Trebon | Todd Wells |
| 2003 | Portland, Oregon | Jonathan Page (2) | Todd Wells | Ryan Trebon |
| 2002 | Napa, California | Jonathan Page | Todd Wells | Travis Brown |
| 2001 | Baltimore, Maryland | Todd Wells | Tim Johnson | Marc Gullickson |
| 2000 | Overland Park, Kansas | Tim Johnson | Mark Gullickson | Mark McCormack |
| 1999 | San Francisco, California (Presidio) | Mark Gullickson | Bart Bowen | Tim Johnson |
| 1998 | Fort Devens, Massachusetts | Frank McCormack (2) | Steve Larsen | Jonathan Page |
| 1997 | Lakewood, Colorado | Mark McCormack | Frank McCormack | Dale Knapp |
| 1996 | Seattle, Washington | Frank McCormack | Mark McCormack | Jan Wiejak |
| 1995 | Leicester, Massachusetts | Jan Wiejack (2) | Mark McCormack | Daryl Price |
| 1994 | Seattle, Washington | Jan Wiejack | Don Myrah | Dale Knapp |
| 1993 | Sonora, California | Don Myrah (4) | Pete Webber |  |
| 1992 | Golden, Colorado | Mark Howe | Don Myrah | Steve Tilford |
| 1991 | Waltham, Massachusetts | Don Myrah (3) | Mark McCormack |  |
| 1990 | Bremerton, Washington | Don Myrah (2) | Larry Hibbard | Laurence Malone |
| 1989 | Milwaukee, Wisconsin | Don Myrah | Jan Wiejak | Paul Curley |
| 1988 | Plymouth, Massachusetts | Casey Kunselman | Don Myrah |  |
| 1987 | Bremerton, Washington | Clark Natwick (4) | Don Myrah | Paul Curley |
| 1986 | Scotts Valley, California | Clark Natwick (3) |  |  |
| 1985 | Nutley, New Jersey | Paul Curley |  | Ned Overend |
| 1984 | Santa Cruz, California | Steve Tilford | Roy Knickman | Laurence Malone |
| 1983 | Plymouth, Massachusetts | Steve Tilford | Clark Natwick | Tim Rutledge |
| 1982 | Nutley, New Jersey | Roy Knickman | Clark Natwick | Steve Tilford |
| 1981 | Pacifica, California | Clark Natwick (1) | Myron Lind | Joe Ryan |
| 1980 | Colorado Springs, Colorado | Joe Ryan | Mark Jansen | Davis Phinney |
| 1979 | Eugene, Oregon | Laurence Malone (5) | Joe Ryan | Clark Natwick |
| 1978 | Austin, Texas | Laurence Malone (4) | Clark Natwick | John Howard |
| 1977 | Milwaukee, Wisconsin | Laurence Malone (3) | Clark Natwick | Joe Ryan |
| 1976 | Sunriver, Oregon | Laurence Malone (2) | Joe Ryan | Mark Pringle |
| 1975 | Berkeley, California | Laurence Malone | Dan Nall | Joe Ryan |
| 1970-74 | NOT HELD |  |  |  |
| 1969 | Palos Park, Illinois | John Howard | Herman Kron | Leroy "Tyger" Johnson |
| 1968 | Florissant, Missouri | Mike Carnahan |  |  |
| 1967 | Florissant, Missouri | Leroy "Tyger" Johnson (3) |  |  |
| 1966 | Palos Park, Illinois | Leroy "Tyger" Johnson (2) | Herman Kron | John Hood, Jr |
| 1965 | Palos Park, Illinois | Herman Kron (2) | Bert Kron | John Hood Sr |
| 1964 | Palos Park, Illinois | Herman Kron | Leroy "Tyger" Johnson | Bert Kron |
| 1963 | Palos Park, Illinois | Leroy "Tyger" Johnson | Herman Kron |  |

### Women

| Year | Location | Gold | Silver | Bronze |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 2023 | Louisville, Kentucky | Clara Honsinger (4) | Katie Clouse | Raylyn Nuss |
| 2022 | Hartford, Connecticut | Clara Honsinger (3) | Raylyn Nuss | Austin Killips |
| 2021 | Wheaton, Illinois | Clara Honsinger (2) | Raylyn Nuss | Sunny Gilbert |
| ~~*2020*~~ | *Cancelled due to COVID-19* |  |  |  |
| 2019 | Lakewood, Washington | Clara Honsinger | Rebecca Fahringer | Katie Compton |
| 2018 *(2018-2019 season)* | Louisville, Kentucky | Katie Compton (15) | Sunny Gilbert | Ellen Noble |
| 2018 *(2017-2018 season)* | Reno, Nevada | Katie Compton (14) | Ellen Noble | Kaitlin Keough |
| 2017 | Hartford, Connecticut | Katie Compton (13) | Amanda Miller | Kaitlin Antonneau |
| 2016 | Asheville, North Carolina | Katie Compton (12) | Georgia Gould | Kaitlin Antonneau |
| 2015 | Austin, Texas | Katie Compton (11) | Kaitlin Antonneau | Rachel Lloyd |
| 2014 | Boulder, Colorado | Katie Compton (10) | Elle Anderson | Meredith Miller |
| 2013 | Madison, Wisconsin | Katie Compton (9) | Jade Wilcoxson | Nicole Duke |
| 2012 | Madison, Wisconsin | Katie Compton (8) | Kaitlin Antonneau | Nicole Duke |
| 2010 | Bend, Oregon | Katie Compton (7) | Georgia Gould | Meredith Miller |
| 2009 | Bend, Oregon | Katie Compton (6) | Meredith Miller | Amy Dombroski |
| 2008 | Kansas City, Missouri | Katie Compton (5) | Georgia Gould | Rachel Lloyd |
| 2007 | Kansas City, Kansas | Katie Compton (4) | Rachel Lloyd | Georgia Gould |
| 2006 | Providence, Rhode Island | Katie Compton (3) | Georgia Gould | Kerry Barnholt |
| 2005 | Providence, Rhode Island | Katie Compton (2) | Ann Knapp | Maureen Bruno Roy |
| 2004 | Portland, Oregon | Katie Compton | Gina Hall | Ann Knapp |
| 2003 | Portland, Oregon | Alison Dunlap (6) | Rachel Lloyd | Gina Hall |
| 2002 | Napa, California | Ann Grande | Rachel Lloyd | Gina Hall |
| 2001 | Baltimore, Maryland | Alison Dunlap (5) | Carmen D’Aluisio | Rachel Lloyd |
| 2000 | Overland Park, Kansas | Alison Dunlap (4) | Ann Grande | Rachel Lloyd |
| 1999 | San Francisco, California (Presidio) | Alison Dunlap (3) | Ann Grande | Shari Kain |
| 1998 | Fort Devens, Massachusetts | Alison Dunlap (2) | Ann Grande | Carmen Richardson |
| 1997 | Lakewood, Colorado | Alison Dunlap | Miranda Briggs | Ruthie Matthes |
| 1996 | Seattle, Washington | Shari Kain (2) | Jan Bolland | Alison Dunlap |
| 1995 | Leicester, Massachusetts | Jan Bolland | Shari Kain | Laurie Brandt |
| 1994 | Seattle, Washington | Shari Kain |  |
| 1993 | Sonora, California | Lisa Muhich (2) |  |  |
| 1992 | Golden, Colorado | Lisa Muhich | Nancy Reynolds | Kathy Riggert |
| 1991 | Waltham, Massachusetts | Kathy Riggert |  |  |
| 1990 | Bremerton, Washington | Elizabeth Muhich (3) |  | Dina DiSantis |
| 1989 | Milwaukee, Wisconsin | Elizabeth Muhich (2) | Dina DiSantis |  |
| 1988 | Plymouth, Massachusetts | Elizabeth Muhich |  |  |
| 1987 | Silverdale, Washington | Elizabeth Chapman (2) | Dina DiSantis |  |
| 1986 | Scotts Valley, California | Elizabeth Chapman |  |  |
| 1978-85 | NOT HELD |  |  |  |
| 1977 | Milwaukee, Wisconsin | Joyce Sulanke | Debra Schadewaldt | Joan Johnson |
| 1976 | Sunriver, Oregon | Mary Ann Allan (2) | Carolyn Peterson | Joyce Sulanke |
| 1975 | Berkeley, California | Mary Ann Allan | Linda Searl | Clara Teyssier |


title: United States v. Masonite Corp.

abstract: United States v. Masonite Corp., 316 U.S. 265 (1942), is a United States Supreme Court decision that limited the scope of the 1926 Supreme Court decision in the General Electric case that had exempted patent licensing agreements from antitrust law's prohibition of price fixing. The Court did so by applying the doctrine of the Court's recent Interstate Circuit hub-and-spoke conspiracy decision.

text:
# United States v. Masonite Corp.

***United States v. Masonite Corp.***, 316 U.S. 265 (1942), is a United States Supreme Court decision that limited the scope of the 1926 Supreme Court decision in the *General Electric* case that had exempted patent licensing agreements from antitrust law's prohibition of price fixing. The Court did so by applying the doctrine of the Court's recent *Interstate Circuit* hub-and-spoke conspiracy decision.

## Background

Masonite Corporation, the principal defendant in this case, and defendants Celotex Corporation, Certain-Teed Products Corporation, Johns-Manville Sales Corporation, Insulite Company, Flintkote Company, National Gypsum Company, Wood Conversion Company, Armstrong Cork Company, and Dant & Russell, Inc. were all competitors engaged in manufacturing and selling building materials, including hardboard. Hardboard is a strong, hard, dense, grainless, synthetic board made from heat and pressure treated wood chips, and is claimed in a Masonite patent. Masonite sued Celotex for patent infringement and prevailed. The parties settled the dispute with a 1933 "agency" agreement. Then Masonite sent and proposed the same agreement to others of the defendants, and each executed the agreement between 1933 and 1934. As each agreement was made, Masonite informed the signatory of the existence and terms of each of the agreements that Masonite had previously made with the other companies, and sent copies of the new agreement to those companies that had previously executed similar contracts.

Masonite sent the agency agreement to Insulite, but that company refused to sign; Masonite then sued a dealer who handled Insulite's hardboard, charging infringement of one of Masonite's patents, and Insulite undertook the defense. But Insulite then signed the same agency agreement in 1935. The agency agreements were modified in 1936 and an agreement relating to them was signed by each defendant, so that each party knew at that time that Masonite proposed to make substantially identical agreements with the others. The agreement provided that it should become effective only when all the parties had agreed to it.

The contracts between Masonite and the other defendants each designated the other defendant as an "agent" and appointed it as a "del credere factor" to sell Masonite's hardboard products. The contracts also provided that Masonite would fix uniform prices for itself and the others on hardboard they manufactured and sold:

> Masonite agreed to designate from time to time the minimum selling price and the maximum terms and conditions of sale at which the "agent" might sell Masonite's products. The list prices and terms of sale were to be the minimum prices and maximum terms of sale at which Masonite was either offering or making sales to its customers. The right to change the list prices and terms of sale was vested solely in Masonite. . . . It was agreed that Masonite was bound to adhere to the prices, and terms and conditions of sale which it fixed for its "agents." In case the "agent" sold for less than the minimum price, it was obligated to pay liquidated damages at a specified rate.

For hardboard that Masonite manufactured and shipped to the "agents" for disposition to their customers, Masonite "consigned" the product for sale at the price Masonite prescribed, but the "agent" bore the costs once the product left Masonite's plant:

> On direct shipments to the "agent," the hardboards "shall be received and held on consignment," and "title thereto shall remain" in Masonite until sold by the "agent." The minimum prices were f.o.b. Masonite's factory, the "agent" paying freight and transportation costs and sales and other taxes. The "agent" also agreed at its expense to carry insurance on all products consigned to it. The "agent's" compensation was fixed by way of specified commissions on each sale.

The Government sued the defendants for price fixing and other restraints of trade such as tie ins, division of markets, and agreements to suppress the use of other patents. The district court ruled that the defendants' conduct was permissible under *United States v. General Electric Co.* and dismissed the complaint.

## Ruling of Supreme Court

.

Justice William O. Douglas delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court.

The Court began by observing, "But for Masonite's patents and the *del credere* agency agreements there can be no doubt that this is a price-fixing combination which is illegal per se under the Sherman Act." That was true despite the district court's findings that in negotiating and entering into the first agreement, each of the defendants, other than Masonite, "acted independently of the others, negotiated only with Masonite, desired the agreement regardless of the action that might be taken by any of the others, did not require as a condition of its acceptance that Masonite make such an agreement with any of the others, and had no discussions with any of the others." The reason that was so was that here, as the Court said in *Interstate Circuit*, "It was enough that, knowing that concerted action was contemplated and invited, the distributors gave their adherence to the scheme and participated in it." The circumstances left "no room for doubt that all had an awareness of the general scope and purpose of the undertaking."

The Court then turned to the argument that the 1926 *General Electric* decision saved the arrangement from the antitrust laws. The Court did "not agree that the 'agency' device saved the arrangement from the Sherman Act." To be sure. *del credere*agency is a useful commercial device. "But, however useful it may be in allocating risks between the parties and determining their rights *inter se*, its terms do not necessarily control when the rights of others intervene, whether they be creditors or the sovereign." Even assuming "that the agreements constituted the appellees as *del credere* agents of Masonite," the Court insisted, that "does not prevent the arrangement from running afoul of the Sherman Act." because a patent owner "cannot extend his statutory grant by contract or agreement" and a patent "affords no immunity for a monopoly not fairly or plainly within the grant." Here, the agency agreements were used to fix the prices at which the "agents" disposed of the goods to their customers. Once the patented product "passes to the hands of the purchaser, it is no longer within the limits of the \[patent\] monopoly. It passes outside of it, and is no longer under the protection of" the patent law. "In applying that rule, this Court has quite consistently refused to allow the form into which the parties chose to cast the transaction to govern." Here, the form of the transaction is *del credere* agency, but in fact the other defendants operate their businesses on their own, not as Masonite's agents, and the purpose of the arrangement is to put together a combination among competitors to fix prices:

> \[When a patentee\] utilizes the sales organization of another business—a business with which he has no intimate relationship—quite different problems are posed, since such a regimentation of a marketing system is peculiarly susceptible to the restraints of trade which the Sherman Act condemns. And when it is clear, as it is in this case, that the marketing systems utilized by means of the *del credere* agency agreements are those of competitors of the patentee, and that the purpose is to fix prices at which the competitors may market the product, the device is, without more, an enlargement of the limited patent privilege and a violation of the Sherman Act. In such a case, the patentee exhausts his limited privilege when he disposes of the product to the *del credere* agent. He then has, so far as the Sherman Act is concerned, no greater rights to price maintenance than the owner of an unpatented commodity would have.

For that reason the outward form of the arrangement is immaterial, the Court said, for the purpose here was not that in the *General Electric* case, so that its principle does not apply:

> So far as the Sherman Act is concerned, the result must turn not on the skill with which counsel has manipulated the concepts of "sale" and "agency," but on the significance of the business practices in terms of restraint of trade. . . . In the *General Electric* case, the Court thought that the purpose and effect of the marketing plan was to secure to the patentee only a reward for his invention. We cannot agree that that is true here. In this case, the price regulation was based on mutual agreement among distributors of competing products . . . The power of Masonite to fix the price of the product which it manufactures, and which the entire group sells and with respect to which all have been and are now actual or potential competitors, is a powerful inducement to abandon competition. . . . Control over prices thus becomes an actual or potential brake on competition. This kind of marketing device thus actually or potentially throttles or suppresses competing and noninfringing products, and tends to place a premium on the abandonment of competition.

The normal *per se* rule against price fixing should apply:

> The power of this type of combination to inflict the kind of public injury which the Sherman Act condemns renders it illegal per se. If it were sanctioned in this situation, it would permit the patentee to add to his domain at public expense by obtaining command over a competitor. He would then not only secure a reward for his invention; he would enhance the value of his own trade position by eliminating or impairing competition. . . . As stated in *Standard Sanitary Mfg. Co. v. United States*, rights conferred by patents "do not give any more than other rights a universal license against positive prohibitions. The Sherman law is a limitation of rights, rights which may be pushed to evil consequences, and therefore restrained."

Finally, the defendants argued that in 1941, after the Government sued them, they met together and revised their agreements to remove the objectionable features. They maintained that this "mark\[ed\] an abandonment of the former combination, and that, since the new arrangement is unobjectionable, there is nothing to enjoin." The Court said the modifications were ineffective to remove "the features which we have found to be fatal," because the agreements "still are unmistakable price-fixing agreements with competitors." Furthermore:

> If there were any lingering doubt as to whether the appellees were parties to a conspiracy, it is dispelled at this point. A committee of the appellees was appointed to draft the new agreement. The agreement was completed after meetings at which representatives of all of the appellees attended. The 1941 agreements were the product of joint and concerted action.

## Commentary

A contemporary Comment in the *Yale Law Journal* observes that the "line of demarcation between \[the patent and antitrust\] laws has been blurred by partial judicial acceptance of patent owners' contentions that restrictive patent license agreements are removed from the Sherman Act by the patent monopoly." Focusing on the *Masonite* case, the Comment amplifies the factual picture presented in the Court's opinion by comparing the respective terms of the General Electric and Masonite agency agreements:

> General Electric in its agreements controlled the quantity and kind of stock to be kept on hand by the agents; Masonite made no such provision in its 1933 agreement. Likewise General Electric could order return of stock at any time; Masonite could only recall stock from its agents in special circumstances. With respect to indicia of ownership, Masonite's distributors were to pay the freight on the consigned goods, carry insurance on them, pay taxes in respect of sale, might not use Masonite's trademark, and had to pay for the goods consigned by advancing one-half of the price of the hardboard within a limited time even though the goods had not yet been sold. . . . General Electric, in contrast, paid freight, taxes, and insurance, put its own trade-mark on the goods, and required no payment until the goods had been sold, but did require that the agent pay for any lost or broken stock. Finally, the distributors in the *Masonite* case agreed to save Masonite harmless from any tortious actions by third parties arising out of sale of hardboard.

However. "Changes in the third set of agreements, made in 1941 after the Government had instituted suit and admittedly impelled by the pending action, placed more of the incidents of ownership on Masonite, thus bringing relationship between manufacturer and distributor more in line with that of the *General Electric* case."

Nonetheless, the Comment points out, the agency device is anomalous in this marketing context. In the *General Electric* case, the agents were small retail stores that sold to small buyers. In the *Masonite* case the agents were large competitors of Masonite that "occupied relatively the same position in the chain of distribution as did Masonite itself." The *Masonite* agency contracts, unlike those in *General Electric*, "effectually removed the most important factor in competition between Masonite and its distributors"—price.

Richard Day, in a paper published in the  *Antitrust Law Journal*, saw *Masonite* as a "major step in expanding the *Interstate Circuit* concept of conscious parallelism," in that (he asserted) it eliminated the requirement of interdependence among the spokes. He pointed to the statement in the opinion holding that when each distributor defendant entered into the vertical agreement with Masonite it "desired the agreement regardless of the action that might be taken by any of the others,"' that is, that each acted (he said) without requiring that the others do the same. Day asserts, "The decisive factor in inferring a vertical-horizontal conspiracy among all defendants was the subsequent awareness by each distributor that 'its contract was not an isolated transaction but part of a larger arrangement.' " In other words, the spokes must be conscious of one another's acts but need not consider them necessary for entering into an agreement with the hub. Day explains, "In other words, consciously parallel acquiescence, or continued acquiescence, amounts to a combination or conspiracy." Day's prediction, however, is inconsistent with subsequent development of the law of hub-and-spoke conspiracy law.

Day recognizes the difficulty with the proposition. It does not work in refusal-to-deal cases, he points out, because it is impossible to tell whether a buyer acquiesces in a seller's demand in order to avoid the seller's unilaterally refusing to deal with him if he does not acquiesce, "only to get the product, not caring what others do," or instead does so because "it is necessary that all dealers adhere to the seller's wishes for the restrictive plan to succeed." It is thus "practicably impossible to determine whether the conscious parallelism was dependent or interdependent, in the sense that there was or was not a unity of anticompetitive purpose among the seller and acquiescing dealers." Day concludes that a better legal test "must be found if there is to be any positive means for distinguishing between lawful and unlawful refusals to deal."

He then turns to the so-called "rimless wheel" conspiracy theory considered that the Sixth Circuit considered in *Elder-Beerman Stores Corp. v. Federated Dept. Stores, Inc.* But Day is doubtful of the theory's validity.

Day concludes that "acquiescing in another's communicated anticompetitive plan in order to avoid his preannounced threat of termination certainly meets all of the requisites for finding a vertical combination or conspiracy." He then considers a potential hub-and-spoke conspiracy or rimless conspiracy that might be occasioned by several such episodes:

> Where two or more vertical combinations or conspiracies have been induced or coerced by means of a refusal to deal by the same person, more than mere awareness of the acquiescence by others is required to infer a vertical-horizontal combination or conspiracy. On the one hand, the communication of the plan or policy required to be followed to avoid the threat of termination may be viewed as an "invitation" to join together in such a conspiracy. On the other hand, the fact that each acquiescing party was coerced by the threat of termination tends to negate the horizontal combination hypotheses.

He asks how one chooses between those alternatives, and answers that "it all boils down to a reasonable application of generally recognized rules of evidence under the implied conspiracy doctrine to determine . . . whether or not a conspiracy or combination may be inferred from all of the evidence, direct and circumstantial."

Antitrust lawyer Tommy Austern opined that in the wake of *Masonite* and *Gypsum*, "What is left of the 1926 *G.E. Mazda* decision can be comfortably engraved on the head of a pin."

Antitrust lawyer and MIT economics professor Morris Adelman criticized *Masonite*'s conspiracy doctrine, saying that "the 'conspiracy' consisted in non-simultaneous assent."

Randall Marks, in a 1986 article in the *Maryland Law Review*, argues that *Masonite*, taken together with *Interstate Circuit*, "stand for the proposition that avoidable, interdependent conduct that has an anticompetitive effect may be the basis for finding an implied agreement."

Antitrust Division senior economist Gregory Werden, in a 2004 article in the *Antitrust Law Journal*, interpreted *Masonite* as holding "that simple knowledge of the existence of Masonite's dealings with others created an unlawful concert .of action among all of those \[so-called\] agents." He points to subsequent Supreme Court decisions supporting that theory—*United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.* and  *FTC v. Cement Inst.*—since in *Paramount* the Court stated that "to find a conspiracy . . . \[i\]t is enough that a concert of action is contemplated and that the defendants conformed to the agreement," while in the *Cement* case, the Court held, "It is enough to warrant a finding of a 'combination' with the meaning of the Sherman Act, if there is evidence that persons, with knowledge that concerted action was contemplated and invited, give adherence to and then participate in a scheme."

The citations in this article are written in Bluebook style. Please see the talk page for more information.

## InfoBox

| United States v. Masonite Corp. | |
| --- | --- |
| Supreme Court of the United States | |
| Argued April 9–10, 1942
Decided May 11, 1942 | |
| Full case name | *United States v. Masonite Corporation, et al.* |
| Citations | 316 U.S. 265 (*more*)62 S. Ct. 1070; 86 L. Ed. 1461; 1942 U.S. LEXIS 1238; 53 U.S.P.Q. 396 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | 40 F. Supp. 852 (S.D.N.Y. 1941); probable jurisdiction noted, 62 S. Ct. 302 (1941). |
| Court membership | |
| Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone  Associate Justices Owen Roberts **·**  Hugo Black
Stanley F. Reed **·**  Felix Frankfurter
William O. Douglas **·**  Frank Murphy
James F. Byrnes **·**  Robert H. Jackson | |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Douglas, joined by Stone, Black, Reed, Frankfurter, Murphy, Byrnes |
| Roberts and Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |