The closing phase of Pater’s 1868 review, ‘Poems by William Morris’, reappeared in 1873 as his Conclusion to The Renaissance. This chapter takes Pater’s engagement with Morris – both initially, and in these altered contexts – as a basis for thinking about his contribution to the development of English Studies. His evaluative criteria and methodology are also germane: what Pater values in Morris also envisions what he values in literature more generally. His account of ‘flux’ and perceptualism are familiar; but in the Morris review Pater is drawn more insistently to analogies with water – a fluidity expressing his aversion to walls, whether cultural or material, and a toleration of literature in dilution. Dilution is not commonly associated with literary virtues, not least because the twentieth-century re-founders of English tended to value concentration and concretion over any impression of looseness or dispersal. It is argued, however, that Pater recovers value from dilution – indeed, a dynamisation – though engagement with the language of cures associated with the then-fashionable alternative medicine of homeopathy.

ADE with macrodispersion (Fickian) and non-Fickian models rely on the aquifer-scale ensemble mean concept. They satisfy our needs only in the ensemble mean sense, rather than at one field site unless the tracer cloud reaches ergodicity or the tracer plume has experienced enough heterogeneity. The applicability of current theories to an aquifer (one realization of the ensemble) is inadequate at our interest and observation scales. Such scale issues demand a high-resolution delineation of the multi-scale heterogeneity in the aquifer. This chapter introduces new technologies (hydraulic and geophysical tomographic surveys) that minimize reliance on the large-scale ensemble mean models. Most importantly, it demonstrates the effects of interaction between different regional-scale velocities on mixing, dilution, and dispersion---a testimony of the importance of dominant large-scale flow on solute transport. This chapter, in essence, promotes a better understanding of solute migration in field-scale geologic media to minimize our prediction uncertainty.

The touchstone of any trademark lawsuit is the likelihood of consumer confusion. Courts calculate this likelihood through a series of notoriously unreliable proxies, lamenting that their effort to understand the consumer must be a “shaky kind of guess.” Through the burgeoning field of consumer neuroscience, scientists can now determine when a subject is thinking about one brand versus another. Take, for example, recent research measuring changes in brain blood flow and oxygenation while subjects viewed several well-known trademarks. According to the researchers, each trademark has a different neural signature, with different brain regions reflecting perceptions like “excitement,” “ruggedness,” or “sophistication” upon exposure to the brand stimulus. By viewing these neural signatures and nothing else, researchers could distinguish whether the subject was thinking about Apple or Microsoft, Coke or Pepsi. Studies like this hint at a near future where fMRI readings replace today’s judicial guesswork about consumer perception.

This chapter is written for the researcher who may encounter immunohistochemistry (IHC) in a slightly different context when compared to diagnostic applications. There are many moving parts to IHC assays, and this chapter covers all of the important aspects the researcher needs to consider when employing IHC for their projects. This objective is achieved by employing a request form for IHC services. The questions posed on the form build towards piecing together a protocol that is fit for purpose and can be used in many applications. Practical explanations about epitope retrieval, diluting antibodies from concentrates and the use of detection kits are provided. The need to block endogenous enzyme activity is also explained, as is the technique for antibody optimization. Borrowing the basic fundamental IHC protocol used in diagnostic histopathology, the researcher should be able to adopt and change parameters to suit their research applications.

In addition to summarizing the arguments made throughout this book, the concluding chapter anticipates and responds to two critiques of the book’s theory. The first of those anticipated critiques is that by recognizing what could arguably be deemed a “loophole” in the equivalency principle which allows for greater restriction of commercial speech when the harms caused by commercial speech are greater than those caused by comparable noncommercial speech, the theory advocated here would change the current doctrinal framework very little. This critique, however, ignores the numerous situations in which the Court has consistently provided reduced protection to commercial speech even though it fails to give rise to any more harm than comparable noncommercial speech. Acceptance of the theory advocated here, then, would dramatically alter the existing doctrinal framework, while preserving a common sense safety valve to take account of situations involving the compelling danger of harm. The second anticipated critique comes from the opposite perspective, namely that by so dramatically increasing the level of protection given to commercial speech, the equivalency principle would inevitably lead to a form of constitutional “dilution.” In other words, if both commercial and noncommercial speech are to receive equivalent protection, the Court will have to reduce protection for both categories to some form of lowest common denominator. Such an argument, however, begs the question that is the subject of debate: If, as argued in this book, commercial and noncommercial speech are of equivalent value, then there is no reason to fear application of equivalent constitutional treatment. In any case, this chapter argues that the greater danger is a form of “reverse dilution.” People are either sheep, or they are not. They are either capable of being trusted to make lawful choices on the basis of free and open debate, or they are not. Thus, if suppression of commercial speech is grounded in the fear that the people cannot be trusted to make such lawful choices and therefore debate must be censored by government, there is no basis for finding the people any more trustworthy to make political choices. The dilution debate thus reinforces the argument for the constitutional equivalency advocated throughout this book.

This chapter treats developments in trademark in the context of the development of brand capitalism.Traditional trademark analysis displayed the features of a public biopolitics; developments around branding push it in a neoliberal direction.I focus on three developments.The first is trademark dilution, which protects brands as valuable in themselves. An extended analysis of Victoria’s Secret’s successful attempt to shut down a sex-toy shop that called itself “Victor’s Little Secret” shows how dilution also functions as a kind of subjectification.The second is a recent Supreme Court case ruling that, PTO rules against registration of disparaging trademarks violated the First Amendment.The result transfers power to brand owners.The third is the use of Geographic Indicators to protect “traditional” cultural indicia.This resistance strategy is a difficult one, as it risks entrenching conservative and stereotypical views of cultural groups, often at the expense of dissident forms. It thus illustrates an unexpected way that branding can function as a form of subjectification, and the potential limits of using trademarks and branding as strategies of resistance.

Chapter 7 describes how 3D printing technology will disrupt trademark law’s core function of indicating the source or origin of manufactured goods. The technology dissociates product design from product manufacturing. Design is embodied in a 3D printable file, while manufacturing is commoditized and democratized. When 3D printable files, as opposed to manufactured goods, are offered for sale, symbols appearing “inside” of the digital files (i.e., on the digital object) do not indicate the source of the file. Rather, source indicators are found “outside” of the file, on the websites that offer the files for sale. 3D printing technology will also radically disrupt the doctrine of post-sale confusion. At the same time, current, expanded theories of trademark law condemn uses of symbols that might dilute a trademark or suggest a connection to a trademark owner. These stronger versions of trademark protection, which are widely criticized, would give trademark owners to the right to control most uses of their marks “inside” of files. This would inhibit innovation and creative expression without a clear benefit to the public. Therefore, I recommend against these stronger protections for DMFs.