Osias Beert or Osias Beert the Elder was a Flemish painter active in Antwerp who played an important role in the early development of flower and "breakfast"-type still lifes as independent genres in Northern European art. He has been recognized as one of the most influential artists of the earliest generation of still life painters in Flanders, he contributed in particular to the development of still lifes placed on table tops featuring festive culinary delights as well as of sumptuous floral bouquets displayed in Wan Li vases. Little is known about this artist's early life, it is believed that he was born in Antwerp or Kortrijk around 1580. His family was established in Antwerp by 1582. Here he studied under the little-known Andries van Baesrode, he joined the city's Guild of St. Luke in 1602, he married Margriet Ykens on 8 January 1606. in 1622 the couple had a son, Osias Beert the younger, who became a master of the guild of St. Luke in 1645. Osias Beert the younger, as well as the students of Osias Beert the Elder, are responsible for the many replicas and variant versions of Beert the Elder's compositions that still exist today.
Osias Beert the Younger is unlikely to have studied under his father since his father is believed to have died when the son was young. Margriet Ykens was the aunt of Frans Ykens. Beert was not only a painter but traded as a cork merchant; the fact that he had a second occupation suggests that he did not gain a high income from his artistic work. He lived in a modest district of Antwerp. After his death, his widow Margriet Ykens had to sell the couple's furniture and paintings to pay a debt to the painter David Rijckaert II who had lent money to them to open their business. Beert was a member of one of the local Chambers of rhetoric, which suggests he was involved in intellectual pursuits other than painting, he is believed to have died in Antwerp at the end of 1623. His pupils included Frans Ykens, Paulus Pontius and Jan Willemsen. Osias Beert is known as a painter of flowers and banquet pieces, genres in which he played a pioneering role, he signed or monogrammed and never dated his work. Of his works created on copper three bear the mark of the panel maker Pieter Stas and the dates 1607, 1608 and 1609.
While a lack of dated works has made it difficult to date his work, stylistic analysis allows a tentative chronology. The works with a high viewpoint and little overlapping of objects are regarded as earlier than those with a lower viewpoint and a compacter arrangement of objects; these works have a better spatial coherence. Only four signed works by him are known and from these it has been possible to attribute four works in the Museum of Grenoble to him. Since knowledge about this early stage of the Flemish still life is still fragmentary there has been a tendency to attribute too many works to Beert; some works attributed to him are by his pupils, while some attributed to Osias Beert the younger were painted by his father. Osias Beert painted on oak panels, using a glazing technique. By using multiple superimposed layers of fluid oil he was able to obtain a transparency and a wide variety of colours; some of his works are on copper. He was one of the first artists to specialize in still life painting when the production of works in this genre was still minor and anonymous.
His breakfast pieces referred to by their Dutch name ontbijtjes, represent the scene from a high viewpoint with a forced perspective. This technique is seen in early Flemish and Dutch still life painting, his compositions show dense groupings in a balanced arrangement. His style shows an eye for detail, he displayed a strong sense of plasticity. His still lifes are bathed in an and diffused light. An example is Still life with cherries and strawberries in China bowls, which shows a banquet piece on a table, tilted so that the objects on it can be viewed without obstruction; the painting represents the last course of an eight to nine course banquet. The dragonfly and the butterfly have an emblematic meaning and represent the fight between good and evil, he was known for his paintings of oysters and confectionery goods displayed orderly on tabletops together with precious wine glasses and Chinese porcelain. He was unmatched in his ability to depict oysters with light playing on the viscous and pearly flesh and the wetness distinguishing the oysters from the hard surface of the shell's interior.
A good example is the Still life with oysters, which shows oysters on a plate together with precious objects on a table extending on both sides outside of the canvas against a dark background. His flower still lifes showing a vase of flowers in a shallow niche or a basket full of flowers, as is visible in Basket of Flowers at the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston are reminiscent of the works of Ambrosius Bosschaert. In his flower pieces each flower is displayed with great detail; the flowers depicted in the same bouquet bloomed in different seasons and could never in reality have been displayed in the same vase. As such they symbolize the transitory nature of man's earthly existence. An example is the Bouquet in a niche in the Rockox Antwerp, he collaborated with Peter Paul Rubens on at least one painting and Glycera. He influenced his nephew Frans Ykens as well as other Antwerp artists, such as Jacob Foppens van Es and Jacob van Hulsdonck. Media related to
Attarius Norwood is a retired American professional basketball player and current assistant principal at Crystal Springs Middle School in Mississippi. He is best known for his collegiate basketball career at Mississippi Valley State University in which he was named the Southwestern Athletic Conference Player of the Year as a senior in 2003–04, he was a two-time First Team All-SWAC player in 2002–03 and 2003–04, the Associated Press tabbed him as an honorable mention All-American in 2004. In Norwood's senior season he averaged 14.3 points and 5 rebounds per game en route to the player of the year award. After graduating from MVSU, Norwood has a brief professional career, he played for the Gulf Coast Bandits in the short-lived World Basketball Association in 2005, followed by stints in Argentina, Portugal back in the United States in 2008 before retiring. He has since become a school administrator in Copiah County, Mississippi
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act, informally known as the Hatch-Waxman Act, is a 1984 United States federal law which encourages the manufacture of generic drugs by the pharmaceutical industry and established the modern system of government generic drug regulation in the United States. Representative Henry Waxman of California and Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah sponsored the act. Although the Federal Food and Cosmetic Act made it possible for generic companies to get regulatory approval for drugs by filing an Abbreviated New Drug Application, in the early 1980s it became clear that few generics were coming to market. Congress studied the issue and realized that under patent and regulatory law, it was easy for innovator companies to make it difficult for generic companies to file ANDAs and that the regulatory pathway to get ANDAs approved was irregular and uncertain. In response, the Hatch-Waxman Act was enacted. Hatch-Waxman amended the Federal Food and Cosmetic Act. Section 505 of the Act, codified as 21 U.
S. C. § 355, outlines the process for pharmaceutical manufacturers to file an Abbreviated New Drug Application for approval of a generic drug by the Food and Drug Administration. The Act provides some protection for drug innovators while facilitating and providing incentives for companies to file ANDAs. Drug innovators were provided protections in two ways. First, a new kind of market exclusivity was introduced, by means of a new five-year period of data exclusivity awarded when the FDA approves marketing of a drug, a new chemical entity; this provides market exclusivity for the drug innovator outside of any patent rights. Second, the Act allowed the life of patents covering a drug to be extended by a portion of the time the drug is under regulatory review by the FDA, ensuring innovator companies that regulatory review will not unduly consume patent life; the Act requires the drug innovator to provide the FDA with the numbers of patents it believes cover its drug. The Act facilitates the filing of ANDAs by generic companies, by preventing the FDA from asking generic companies to provide anything other than information on how it is going to manufacture the drug and assure its quality and a study showing that the drug they manufacture acts the same in a human as the innovator drug – this is called "bioequivalence".
This part of the Act is one of few pieces of legislation that restricts the powers and reach of a federal agency. The Act provided generic companies with safe harbor from patent infringement lawsuits during the time when the generic company is preparing its ANDA – during that time the generic company needs to learn how to manufacture the drug, manufacture a test batch, run bioequivalence studies with it, which are all activities that it could be sued for infringement for; this protection is called the "research exemption". When a company is ready to file its ANDA, the Act requires it to declare how its activities when it begins to market the drug will relate to patents listed in the Orange Book; these four alternative statements are referred to as the Paragraph I, II, III, IV certifications. The Act incentivized companies to file paragraph IV certifications by rewarding the first company to file an ANDA with such a certification with 180 days of administrative exclusivity if their ANDA is approved – during that period the FDA cannot approve another generic.
Because the Act made it clear that the act of filing an ANDA with a paragraph IV certification was an act of patent infringement, the law promotes litigation between private parties. Passage of the law prompted a gold rush into the generic industry and a crush of applications, which the FDA was not prepared to handle. A series of scandals soon arose. With time the law became successful in promoting the introduction of generics. There have been issues with litigation incentivized by the Act. Once the parties are in litigation, they can choose to fight the litigation to the end, or they may choose to settle the litigation; some of these settlements have been found to be invalid reverse payment patent settlement agreements and have been struck down in court. The FDA has been slow to adopt regulations for the introduction of generic versions of biopharmaceutical drugs because the manufacturi