Cheap Cialis Blogger | Search results for "invention"

Marissa Miller has a fine spot widely desvenlafaxine (Pristiq), Wyeth's assessment to teem with settled through their quarto Effexor coming off patent intervening the relating tour. Coverup? Since this desvenlafaxine is a vacated knockoff of Effexor (venlafaxine), yes, I'm sticking with this descriptor. Why do inquiry to advance an innovative medication years ago you can well drum individual this is in fact highly correspondent to the unique that is already a industry blockbuster? The idea is not new – make a drug that very closely resembles your existing product, then get it FDA-approved slightly before the old one goes off patent. Lexapro-Celexa, Invega-Risperdal, and now Effexor-Pristiq. The new drug offers no advantage over the drug that is about to go generic, and why would it – if you have a red 1975 Ford Pinto or a green 1975 Pinto, you still have the same crappy car. Aren’t patents supposed to protect inventions that possess the potential to benefit people? Aren’t patents supposed to reward creativity? There is no creativity here – we’re talking a slight manipulation of a molecule to create a new compound that is no better than the first one. But the blame does not just lie with the patent process. Why are physicians prone to fall for this game? Why do so many physicians prescribe Lexapro (escitalopram), which is pert-near a clone of Celexa (citalopram), when Lexapro is much more pricey? In fact according to Walgreens, 90 pills of 10mg generic citalopram will run $127.59, whereas the same supply of Lexapro costs $210.79. The marketing miracle that constitutes the heart and soul of modern psychiatry is damn good at convincing physicians that newer equals better. Perhaps if physicians received adequate training in research methods and statistics during medical school, they could actually learn to critically review clinical trial data to discover that the ploy of near-clone medicines usually does nothing but increase costs. Then doctors could also laugh their way through continuing medical education or, better yet, insist that CME start to resemble education rather than advertising. generic cialis cheap viagra Cheap Viagra viagra

Tags: patent, lexapro, physicians, effexor, pristiq

At the IBM site (http://www-106.ibm.com/developerworks/library/pa-microhist.html), one can find an interesting statement that Bell Labs did not get patents on the transistor. Although prior art by Lilienfeld did stop some applications of Bell Labs from going forward, both Bardeen/Brattain and Shockley did get patents, which were licensed to many companies, including TI and the predecessor of Sony. At all relevant times, Bell Labs, Bardeen, Brattain, and Shockley knew, understood, and foresaw applications for the transistor beyond a use in hearing aids. The relevant text at ibm.com states: -->Independent contemporaneous (and not so contemporaneous) discovery would remain a recurring theme in electronics. So it was with the invention of the vacuum tube -- invented by Fleming, who was investigating the Effect named for and discovered by Edison; it was refined four years later by de Forest (but is now rumored to have been invented 20 years prior by Tesla). So it was with the transistor: Shockley, Brattain and Bardeen were awarded the Nobel Prize for turning de Forest's triode into a solid state device -- but they were not awarded a patent, because of 20-year-prior art by Lilienfeld. So it was with the integrated circuit (or IC) for which Jack Kilby was awarded a Nobel Prize, but which was contemporaneously developed by Robert Noyce of Fairchild Semiconductor (who got the patent). And so it was, indeed, with the microprocessor. **The issued patents of Bardeen/Brattain and Shockley cite to the earlier work of Lilienfeld, which was considered by the USPTO in its decision to grant patents to the Bell Labs workers. **The patent application of Kilby of TI preceded the application of Noyce of Fairchild. Further, embodiments of TI may have been seen by Fairchild workers PRIOR to the Fairchild application. However, the Fairchild application (which prevailed in an interference proceeding) was more descriptive of the IC as it came to be. **Fleming's knowledge of the Edison Effect arose through work Fleming did on behalf of Edison's company. Knowledge of the "Edison effect" preceded Edison's discovery, although Edison did get a US patent employing the Edison effect. Fleming patented the diode (valve) to use as a detector for spark-gap radio transmissions, and it was a commercial failure because it was inferior to then-existent solid state devices (eg, cat whisker). Generic Viagra cheap cialis Cheap Viagra generic cialis

Tags: transistor, patent, labs, bell, shockley

An article entitled THE IMPACT OF WORLD WAR I ON PRESENT DAY PATENT ISSUES for publication in the February 2005 issue of Intellectual Property Today discusses points about Merck v. Integra. Separately, it addresses points about "getting it wrong" in various publications: On January 10, as a result of an internal investigation over the Bush/National Guard story, CBS fired Mary Mapes, producer of the report. Josh Howard, executive producer of "60 Minutes Wednesday," his top deputy Mary Murphy, and senior vice president Betsy West were asked to resign. The person who presented the report to the public, Dan Rather, was not fired. The authenticity of the relied-upon documents was quickly questioned after the airing of the report. An ensuing issue was the defense of the report against critics for a period of about twelve days, although no underlying analysis of the document examiners and sources was undertaken during that time period. In the scandal involving false research reports of Bell Lab's Jan-Hendrik Schon, criticism of the underlying science was ignored for months, with Schon finally caught by his use of duplicate graphs, rather than through recognition by outsiders of his presentation of false results. Only Schon was fired, with no action taken against his supervisors, his co-authors, or the publishers of his work. Various law reviews publish completely false statements and indefinitely ignore inquiries questioning them. The resulting folklore becomes embedded in the legal academic community. ***** Speaking of law reviews, many discuss the Merck v. Integra case. In 30 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 1059 (2004), Kevin Sandstrom states: This note argues Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd. v. Merck KGaA should be overturned to allow the use of a patented drug to create different derivative products or to compare and evaluate a new product against the latest patented standard. Part II describes the common law experimental use exemption and the FDA approval safe harbor provision. n11 Part III reviews the facts, holding, and dissent in Integra. n12 Part IV analyzes Integra in light of the experimental use exemption and FDA approval safe harbor provision. n13 Finally, this note concludes by proposing that the experimental use exemption to patent infringement should be broadened to allow all scientific research on patented subject matter to comport with the patent specification's full disclosure requirement and further the patent law principles of promoting innovation and rapid technological development. n14 In 2004 Wis. L. Rev. 81, Katherine J. Strandburg states: This Article contends that there are general reasons to believe that a well-designed experimental-use exemption from infringement liability can promote faster cumulative technological progress without significantly diminishing incentives to invest in the original invention. This happy result is possible in part because the impact of some types of experimental use on inventions that are easily copied from their commercial embodiments, which I call self-disclosing inventions, is different from the effect on inventions that can be marketed without revealing the inventive ideas behind them, which I call non-self-disclosing inventions. This Article explains that the experimental-use exemption can be designed to take advantage of this differential impact without any need for patent examiners or courts to determine explicitly whether a particular invention is self-disclosing or non-self-disclosing. (...) This Article supports Mueller's proposal [76 Wash. L. Rev. 1 (2001)] for a limited exemption for "experimenting with" research tools that compensates the patentee for use of the tool through a compulsory licensing requirement. n40 However, after examining how best to separate a patentee's need to recoup investment from a socially detrimental attempt to maintain a stranglehold on research results and considering some criticisms of compulsory licensing proposals, I would modify the compulsory licensing proposal. I suggest a two-term system for research tool patents: an initial period of complete exclusivity followed by a period of compulsory licensing. *** Rochelle Dreyfuss in 46 Ariz. L. Rev. 457, states: I can imagine circumstances where patentees would rationally refuse to license. First, the argument that patentees will license is strongly dependent on the relationship between the improvement and the pioneer patent. Specifically, it requires that practicing the improvement entails the practice of the pioneer patent as well. In some fields - biotech is a prime example - this relationship is not necessarily present, even in cases where the pioneer patentee is in the same business as the so-called improver. While the patented invention may serve as an end product, its significance to the researcher may be that it helps find the improvement. Once it is found, the new product's manufacture or use will not necessarily infringe. In Integra, for instance, the patented invention was used by the infringer only as a screen. Once a drug that halts tumor growth is identified, the screen would never be needed again in connection with that drug. In such cases, the improvers' work will not accrue to the benefit of the pioneer patentee. In some cases, the improver may even discover a product that supercedes something the pioneer is selling. Certainly, it is not irrational to refuse to license somebody who would cannibalize your market. Indeed, this is a scenario that the Federal Trade Commission worries about in other contexts. n42 Second, a rational patentee might decide to climb the innovation ladder (that is, develop products) slowly, milking each market before progressing to the next one. Licensing others could interfere with this plan. Again, this concern is familiar. It has surfaced in patent cases from time to time. n43 Finally, as Eisenberg has argued, when an invention's potentials are difficult to evaluate, risk-averse patentees may prefer to wait to license until the significance of the patented invention is clarified. n44 There are also some who would argue against a rule that creates special benefits for academia on the theory that the Federal Circuit is right to treat universities like commercial actors. Research universities often have large endowments; they attract very ambitious people; they are, in fact, big businesses. Again, I do not agree. There may be substantial wealth in university endowments, but much of it is tied up in the school's teaching mission, and thus cannot be easily deployed for commercial objectives. Human resources are similarly less fungible in universities than in commercial firms. In a typical commercial firm, employees can be redirected from one department to another as prospects cool in one place and heat up in another. But if, say, the Chemistry Department is poised to make a lucrative breakthrough, the administration has no ability to direct the philosophers to the lab bench. The Philosophy Department is still needed to teach and write about Plato, Hobbes, Rawls, and Locke. (...) Of course, my approach also has problems. Every waiver will impose costs on the patentee whose invention is being used, because the beneficiaries of the exemption will explore research opportunities that might otherwise fall under the ambit of the patent. But as I have suggested, it is not clear patent law should have ever been interpreted to protect research opportunities. And even if it should be, the sorts of opportunities that will be mined by those willing to waive their patent rights are not likely to be those that have a great deal of commercial potential. Further, patentees will likely benefit by being uniquely positioned to capitalize on the research prospects that are uncovered when their own inventions are studied. Another question is whether anyone would ever file a waiver. Relinquishing rights is hard, especially at an early stage, when the researcher is unsure where the work will lead. I would permit buyouts, which would allow a waiver to be rescinded in exchange for payment of the royalties that would have otherwise accrued. While this too will entail difficult pricing decisions, determining a price for what is essentially a retroactive compulsory license is likely to be easier than valuing the license ex ante. Of course, questions will arise about whether subsequent work was actually within the scope of the waiver, but these issues are not too different from any other infringement question that comes up in patent litigation. The university setting will also create some difficulties. Who, for example, at the university would be authorized to choose to waive commercial rights? Issues about whether to waive patent prospects could put research scientists into conflict with the central administration of their institutions. In sum, mine is far from a perfect plan. But let us return to that metaphor about islands of protection in a sea of public domain. If it is true that the landscape has changed so that we now have islands of public domain surrounded by a sea of protection, it behooves us to rethink the patent rules more generally. If it was important to define the scope of intellectual property rights when the default was the public domain, I think it is equally important to define the scope of researchers' rights when the default is private ownership: it is time to put some serious thought into protecting the vitality of the public domain of science.

Tags: patent, invention, research, patentee, exemption

Interview with Ron E. Shulman at businessweek.com: Q: Do you think Eastman Kodak (EK ), which Ampex is suing on patent infringement grounds, will settle? A: Kodak is going to fight fiercely. If it has a future, it is in digital photography. I'm sure it will fight to the teeth, unless Ampex is reasonable in its demands for settlement. Q: How do you determine royalties for a judgment? A: The law lists a bunch of criteria for determining royalties. It is based on a "hypothetical deal" standard. In the electronics area, it's rare that you get more than a 10% royalty. Typically, it's 1% or 2% of sales. You should assume they are going after a royalty of 1% to 5%. But it depends on what you decide is the royalty base. Is it the whole price, or part of the price? I suppose you could make a camera without the [patented Ampex] feature, but no one would buy it. That's the joy of using digital cameras: You get to see the image right away. Royalties may also include what are known as "convoid" sales. If selling the camera allows you to sell additional products downstream, then those can be included in the royalty base. That will certainly be explored by the plaintiff. Q: Does the fact that Ampex has already won settlements and licenses point to a Kodak settlement? A: Ampex will try and rely on that. [The past settlement history] is pretty persuasive stuff. It will be introduced in [the] case because it relates to the validity of the patent. It is some evidence of commercial success. And commercial success would be evidence of nonobviousness. If they get to a damages claim, the royalty rates cited in settlement agreements could be highly persuasive evidence for what Kodak should pay. [LBE note: commercial success may be used to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.] Q: In Silicon Valley, how is Ampex viewed these days? A: Ampex is basically a research shop. Ampex is viewed as a slightly more civilized version of a patent terrorist. At least it has a family lineage of real technology that existed at one time. People respected Ampex. It did real stuff. [Now] what it is doing is no different from what other patent trolls do. Q: Is so-called patent trolling on the rise? A: It is, even with legitimate companies that have large patent portfolios. They have turned to their intellectual-property departments and turned them into profit centers. Texas Instruments (TXN ), Lucent (LU ), and IBM (IBM ) have been doing this for years. Plus, the damage awards are huge. [The practice] has grown more vigorously over the past 10 years. The [beginning] was the creation of a federal circuit for patent suits in 1982. Patents are a powerful economic weapon. People sue left and right. The outgrowth of that is patent holding companies. They're like venture funds. They go around holding people up for lots of money. Q: What is the cost to society? A: Most people suing didn't do any of the invention. Money isn't going to the inventors. There's no socially useful purpose. It's a waste of resources. Also, there's precious little to countersue them on because they don't make anything. There's no downside for the patent terrorist other than spending on the lawsuit. [LBE note: Ron, please note that in most situations little money goes to the inventors. Check out the patent awards procedure in places like IBM, Kodak, Exxon. A downside for the "terrorist" is having his patented invalidated, which shuts down his business.] Q: Is there any way to curtail the lawsuits? A: Not without legislation. That would be very difficult to do. Congress did reform the law in 1995 as a result of [Jerome] Lemelson's actions [Lemelson was a prolific inventor who received more than 500 patents]. He did nothing but file patent applications. He has the largest number of issued patents. He acquired patents in key areas of technology such as bar codes. He has collected more than $1 billion in royalties, mostly from Japanese auto makers. As a result, Congress changed the patent expiration dates from 20 years from filing, to 17 years from granting. Q: Who else could Ampex sue? A: The major digital photography companies will be targeted. Computer companies could be targeted. I can't say for sure since I haven't reviewed the patent. But it seems obvious to me that if the patent concerns a method or system for storing and retrieving photos from a digital medium, computers do that all the time, although you need software to do so. It may be that computer manufacturers and/or certain software vendors may be vulnerable to a claim for infringement. [Ampex] can go after Motorola (MOT ), Nokia (NOK ), Samsung and all those guys. It's hard to sell a phone that doesn't have a camera

Tags: patent, ampex, kodak, royalty, settlement

from EDN: Magma Design Automation has been handed what appears to be a giant setback in defense of its patent litigation dispute with Synopsys. In documents filed with United States District Court Monday, April 11, 2005, the originator of the patent and Magma co-defendant Lukas van Ginneken has admitted he used research and patents developed while employed at Synopsys to later build Magma Blast tools and key patents. Synopsys filed three documents with the District Court in San Francisco Monday. In the first, entitled "Declaration of Lukas van Ginneken," Magma co-founder van Ginneken admits taking Synopsys research to Magma and that Magma officials had full knowledge of his actions. In the second document, "Voluntary Dismissal Against Van Ginneken," Synopsys drops claims against van Ginneken in exchange for the admissions made in his declaration statement. The third document, entitled "Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Against Magma," seeks a quick judgment against Magma on Synospys' "unfair competition" claim. (...) "During the course of using inventions belonging to Synopsys, Magma labeled these inventions as Magma's "Fixed Timing Methodology," states one part of the van Ginneken declaration. "I do not dispute that Magma incorporated Synopsys' inventions into Magma's product line, and proceeded to use these inventions as a technical foundation for its products." Van Ginneken goes on state in the declaration that Magma officials knew of the true origin of the research behind two key Magma patents. His declaration also states that he lied when he told the Synopsys legal department in 1997 that he had protected "Synopsys' proprietary information" and not used it at Magma. "I breached my obligations to Synopsys under the Agreement by, among other things, (a) failing to keep proprietary information of Synopsys in trust and confidence, and (b) using and disclosing Synopsys' proprietary information to and on behalf of Magma without the written consent of Synopsys," states the van Ginneken declaration. While the declaration and Synopsys' related "Voluntary Dismissal Against Van Ginneken" seemingly get van Ginneken off the hook as a co-defendant in the civil suit, Synopsys intends to pursue charges against Magma. "With Dr. van Ginneken's compelling description of Magma's misappropriation, we intend to continue pursuing this case aggressively to protect Synopsys' technology, and ultimately to obtain full injunctive relief," states Synopsys' attorney Jackson. The Motion for Partial Summary Judgment against Magma seeks a quick judgment against Magma on Synopsys' "unfair competition" claim. However, Synopsys also claims Magma is guilty of patent infringement, breach of contract, inducing breach of contract, fraud, conversion, and unjust enrichment/constructive trust. Magma issued a statement responding to the Synopsys actions. "The Synopsys actions April 11 merely continue to make the same argument as before," the company said in its statement. "Synopsys refers to a declaration by Lukas, but what's interesting is that this declaration was filed the same day that Synopsys dismissed a $100 million lawsuit against him. This doesn't change our position that Synopsys' claims have no merit." cheap viagra buy cheap cialis Generic Viagra cialis

Tags: synopsys, magma, ginneken, van, declaration

As a matter of ensuring support under 35 USC 112 P1 (written description), I file provisional applications with claims. As a philosophical matter, this exercise forces the inventor to think about what really is different in the present invention and write down the invention that the inventor possesses that did not exist before. Recently, I learned that some attorneys, particularly at universities, believe that filing provisionals without claims is preferable. For example, at http://www.yale.edu/ocr/invent_guidelines/provisionals.html, we have text by Howard M. Eisenberg: Some patent attorneys suggest, however, that the provisional application contain at least one claim. One reason for this is because the decision to file a continuation regular application is often made at the last moment, very close to the one year anniversary of the provisional application filing date. There is always the possibility that the applicant may neglect to add claims for the regular application. If the regular application is filed without any claims, it will not be entitled to a filing date. On the other hand, if the provisional application contains at least one claim, even if it is not a very good claim, the regular application will be entitled to its filing date. A set of new claims may always be added at some time in the future before the application is examined. [LBE note: filing a nonprovisional application claiming priority to a provisional application is probably best not viewed as filing a continuation application under 35 USC 120. The above paragraph is simply wrong.] Other patent attorneys believe that it is best to avoid having any claims in the provisional application. The reason for this is that usually any claim that exists in the provisional patent application will be changed when the application is filed as a regular, non-provisional application. There is concern that this changing of the claims when filing the regular application might be construed by a court as an amendment of the claims which, according to the recent ruling in Festo Corp. v. Shoketsu Kinzoku, 187 F.3d 1381, 56 U.S.P.Q.2d 1865 (2000), would severely limit the extent to which the claims could be broadened under the doctrine of equivalents. Because the issue has not yet been litigated in a court, it is not at all certain that changing the claims during the filing of a regular from a provisional application would indeed be considered an amendment that would limit the scope of the doctrine of equivalents. However, until the issue has been cleared up, I concur that provisional applications are best filed without claims. [LBE note: as of 2005, I don't believe anyone has ever asserted Festo estoppel because of a narrowing amendment between a nonprovisional and an earlier provisional. I doubt this will ever happen. "Claims" in a provisional are not claims presented for consideration to the USPTO and are never examined. How can one have narrowing for a reason related to patentability when the patentability of the initial "claim" is never assessed?] Does anyone believe filing a provisional without claims is preferable to one with claims? ****UPDATE. 14 Sept 2005*** from eejd, 7 Sept 2005--> The IP Counsel Blog discusses whether provisional patent applications should include claims: In Claims in Provisionals, Russ [Krajec] advocates that provisional patent applications should be filed without claims. Russ' reasoning is that provisional applications filed with claims can only have a negative effect in view of prosecution history estoppel. . . . I feel that it is prudent to include the broadest claims in the original application. If the validity of the patent is ever attacked, there is a record of the broadest claim in the application with the earliest filing date or priority date. At the risk of establishing a record for prosecution history estoppel, it is necessary to preserve a record for claim interpretation and to satisfy written description requirements. LBE note. Krajec's reasoning is not persuasive. Hard to believe there would be estoppel arising from a provisional. If the use of the word "claims" bothers anyone, have a numbered list preceded by "I disclose." In a case wherein a provisional comes into play, the PTO is looking for written description support for priority. They are not looking for estoppel on claims.

Tags: claim, application, provisional, filing, regular

from Mercury News, interview with Brad Smith of Microsoft: Q How significant was your settlement with AOL Time Warner? A The Time Warner agreement was very important. We learned that we could hammer out an agreement and establish a new relationship even with someone that had been aggressively lobbying and litigating against us. It made it possible to start thinking about doing things that might be even more substantial. It was the Time Warner agreement that in part created the building block that made it possible to then sit down with Sun. Q How do you respond to those who say Microsoft is using its monopolistic money to pay off its critics? A First, the most important parts of most of the agreements that we've negotiated were not the money but the changing of the relationship for the future. (Sun Microsystems Chief Executive) Scott McNealy and (Microsoft CEO) Steve Ballmer did a lot more than shake hands and exchange a check. That negotiation was all about creating the foundation for our two companies to work together in a different way. Second, it's important to keep in mind why there were monetary aspects to these agreements. Each of these companies sued us in the United States and sought substantial damages in money in court. Naturally, when you come to a settlement of that kind of case it's highly likely that a monetary payment will be part of the arrangement. Q Can you talk about why Microsoft thinks patent reform is important? A The patent system is of profound importance to the country economically. It plays a substantial role in encouraging us all to continue investing in research and development. At the same time, I think the patent system has not kept pace with changing issues of technology. We see some weaknesses. . . . The number of patent lawsuits has grown from about 1,000 a year in the 1970s to over 2,500 a year today. I think the law has tilted too heavily in favor of those who hold patents. They're able to sue for treble damages by proving what's called willfulness, which is applied as too low a standard today, in our view. Q So what are you proposing? A Improve the quality of patents in this country . That can be done by ensuring that the Patent and Trademark Office -- PTO, as it's called -- has the resources necessary to really scrutinize patent applications. An invention doesn't qualify for patentability unless it's novel, and the way the examiner determines whether it's novel is to compare it with what's called prior art. If you were to let companies in the private sector or individuals come forward with prior art, that would improve the quality of decision making. And then, third, there's what's called a post-grant opposition procedure. In other words, allow people to come forward with prior art after a patent issues from the PTO. Q How much patent litigation is Microsoft involved with? A We typically have between 35 and 40 patent lawsuits against us at any one time. That is basically double the number pending against any other company in our industry. Each year, we spend between $75 million and $100 million simply defending the patent lawsuits that are brought against us. Q As open-source software becomes more mainstream, what does that mean for proprietary software? How has it changed the strategy of Microsoft? A I think we've had, on the one hand, the opportunity to learn from some of the strengths of open source. We've focused on some community-oriented projects. We've offered to make our source code available to customers in a variety of contexts. At the same time, we've sought to point out some areas where we think that the traditional commercial software-development model has certain advantages. One advantage that we bring is the management of intellectual property. We stand behind our products with our customers. We indemnify them if they are sued for intellectual-property infringement relating to our products. . . . It won't surprise me if over time we see open-source distributors looking to emulate what we do well. buy cilais cheap cialis buy cheap cialis generic viagra online

Tags: patent, time, microsoft, agreement, important

...to nominate your favorite Middle Grade/Young Adult Nonfiction book published in 2007. I know some of you are busy polishing the silverware and preparing the nut cups for Thanksgiving next week, but please consider taking a break to give the nod to your favorite book. Some titles still awaiting nomination: The Voyage of the Beetle: A Journey around the World with Charles Darwin and the Search for the Solution to the Mystery of Mysteries, as Narrated by Rosie, an Articulate Beetle by Anne H. Weaver Einstein Adds a New Dimension (from The Story of Science series) by Joy Hakim; Psst, Rebecca! The geeky physics post can wait. Your nomination can't (unless of course there's another title you'd prefer to nominate). Carol, did you get it yet and read it? The Many Rides of Paul Revere by James Cross Giblin The Trailblazing Life of Daniel Boone and How Early Americans Took to the Road by Cheryl Harness The Remarkable Rough-Riding Life of Theodore Roosevelt and the Rise of Empire America by Cheryl Harness Who's Saying What in Jamestown, Thomas Savage? by Jean Fritz When Fish Got Feet, Sharks Got Teeth, and Bugs Began to Swarm: A Cartoon Prehistory of Life Long Before Dinosaurs by Hannah Bonner The Dangerous Book for Boys (US edition) by Conn Iggulden and Hal Iggulden Daring Book for Girls by Andrea J. Buchanan and Miriam Peskowitz The Art Book for Children / Book Two , compiled by Amanda Renshaw and the editors of Phaidon Press Amazing Ben Franklin Inventions You Can Build Yourself (from the Build It Yourself series) by Carmella Van Vleet Great Pioneer Projects You Can Build Yourself (from the Build It Yourself series) by Rachel Dickinson Amazing Maya Inventions You Can Build Yourself (from the Build It Yourself series) by Sheri Bell-Rehwoldt Down the Colorado: John Wesley Powell, the One-Armed Explorer by Deborah Kogan Ray Up Close: Robert F. Kennedy, Crusader: A Twentieth-Century Life by Marc Aronson One Thousand Tracings: Healing the Wounds of World War II by Lita Judge; I know Chris Barton at Bartography thought highly of this one. And Karen, who knows a thing or two about good World War II books for children, calls it "fascinating". Of course, Mary at Our Domestic Church could nominate it too. Yoohoo.... River Roads West: America's First Highways by Peter and Connie Roop Tales of Famous Americans by Connie and Peter Roop Stories of the Zodiac (from the Dot to Dot in the Sky series) by Joan Marie Galat 600 Black Spots: A Pop-up Book for Children of All Ages by David A. Carter (I'm not 100 percent sure about the category for this one, but it's definitely fun for all ages) Labels: art, children's historical nonfiction, children's nonfiction, Cybils, science books Cheap Viagra Generic Viagra viagra buy cilais

Tags: book, build, children, series, life

The KSR v. Teleflex case on obviousness in patent law has attracted a lot of attention. Many people think KSR v. Teleflex is the most significant case in patent law in recent years. The IBM brief (in favor of neither side) lays out the issue: Whether the Federal Circuit erred in holding that a claimed invention cannot be held "obvious," and thus unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. buy cheap cialis cialis Cheap Viagra generic cialis

Tags: cialis, teleflex, ksr, law, ibm

During the second game of the World Series, Fox television commentators early-on pointed to discoloration at the base of Kenny Rogers' left thumb and raised the specter of a foreign substance. The commentators noted that St. Louis, which would be watching the Fox broadcast, would be all over this. Such does not seem to be the case. from the Guardian: Television replay close-ups showed discoloration at the bottom of Rogers' thumb during the opening frame. Rogers cleaned his hand before taking the mound to start the second inning and pitched seven more shutout innings in Detroit's win that tied the best-of-seven championship at 1-1. "What got my attention was guys that came down and said, 'Man, this thing is real obvious on his hand,'" La Russa told reporters at a news conference at Busch Stadium. "I didn't see it. But I did watch video of the other postseason games, so I had an idea of what it looked like, and I said, let's get rid of it and keep playing. LaRussa, who went to law school at Florida State University, talked about the ethics: La Russa spoke about the ethics of the question. "Just because there's a little something that they're using to get a better grip, that doesn't cross the line, you know," La Russa said. "There's a line that I think that defines the competition. "And you can sneak over the line, because we're all fighting for the edge. I always think, does it go to the point of abuse?" said La Russa, who holds a law degree. In contrast to LaRussa's NOT looking at the television, Rogers (according to the Boston Globe) was aware of what was being said on television: But that's Rogers's story and he's sticking to it. He also said he wiped his hand off because he saw on TV that they were talking about it, not because he was instructed to do so by plate umpire Alfonso Marquez. "I think once I wiped the mud off, the last seven innings were very good," Rogers said, "but I'm sure that will be lost in translation with everything." **** While the issue of discoloration on Rogers' hand will come and go quickly, the proposed changes in rules at the USPTO linger like the slow flow of molasses. A hit came up on news.google on Oct. 24 that began: In an effort to streamline the patenting process, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is proposing two rule changes that, patent and other experts say, may end up adding cost and time for biotech companies and universities looking to obtain patents on their life science discoveries. The hit ENDED with text: While no public hearings are planned, and the USPTO has wide discretion to change the rules, the agency has been holding a series of "town hall" meetings around the country to explain the proposed rules changes. Additionally, those interested in submitting comments to USPTO can do so by mail until May 3, 2006 . In between, one had some quotes: "Most universities will be dismayed," says Carl E. Gulbrandsen, managing director of the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, the tech transfer office of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "At universities, even more so than startup biotech companies, the technology that comes off the bench is very early-stage, and often you need several continuations to understand what the invention is and its full breadth," says Gulbrandsen. Doll rejects this logic. "I have absolutely no sympathy for that because when you file an application, that invention is supposed to be complete," he says. "We are being reasonable, [the refiling process has] been a burden on the examiners." But, he continues, if applicants really do need more continuations "and can show a good and sufficient need, we will grant them." However, says Nancy J. Linck, deputy general counsel for intellectual property and trade at the Biotechnology Industry Organization trade association in Washington, DC, the biotech industry relies on continuation practice. "This [proposed] requirement just puts an increased burden on them." The URL is http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/23177/ See also 88 JPTOS 743 (Sept. 2006). **UPDATE on Oct. 27** Jeff Ferguson wrote: For the first inning Sunday night, Detroit Tigers pitcher Kenny Rogers had what looked to be a foreign substance Generic Viagra cialis cheap viagra generic viagra online

Tags: rogers, rule, television, uspto, inning