author: Eddie Most

subject: check this

text:
You may be interested on a link i got the other day ! it has all the options
and very user freindly, You get your own private messaging and if someone
replies to your post , you automatically get an email with a link wich will
take you to your reply.
The only downside is poor trafic(pretty empty) , the site is new and dosen't
have many visitors.Yet !!
Eddie


subject: Re: check this

text:
ooops
here is the link  www.ozbind.com

Eddie Most <[email]> wrote in message
news:unBE6.6279$[email]...
options
will
dosen't


author: Steve Hehr

subject: Re: check this

text:
On Mon, 23 Apr 2001 00:20:02 +1000, "Eddie Most"
<[email]> wrote:

Aside from the fact that the site is totally devoid of content, what
does it have to do with pulp and/or paper?


author: rjriley

subject: Re: Educating Congress & The Public

text:
Something you seemed to have missed is that the big business crooks are
spending millions to influence the agencies you mention. It is not the
other way around.

In another post you suggest I missed Lee Hollaar's point.  If this is
the same Lee who was one of Orrin Hatch's hatchet men then I fully
understand where he is coming from.  Hatch has a long history of
pushing the agenda of predatory large companies.  He was bought and
paid for long ago.

During the last fight over patent reform (1994-2000) we learned through
experience that Hatch and his allies use every underhanded sleazy trick
in the book to mislead fellow members of Congress in their efforts to
promote the agenda of their handlers.

Independent inventors do not agree that this makes sense.  I am sure
that you can understand why we want to speak for ourselves and not have
others presuming that

Ronald J. Riley http://www.rjriley.com/contact/


subject: Re: Educating Congress & The Public

text:
Jerry Lemelson produced inventions leading to over 600 US patents in an
amazing number of disciplines.  He commands respect throughout the
inventor community including that of Inventors Hall of Fame inductees
and Nobel Laureates.

Below is the sum total of Lee A Hollaar's inventing career.

 PAT. NO.  Title
1 5,396,613  Method and system for error recovery for cascaded servers

2 4,450,520  Method and system for matching encoded characters

Mr. Hollaar is also a patent agent who has prosecuted a total of eight
issued patents.

By his own admission Mr. Hollaar failed as an entrepreneur.  Both of
his patents are assigned to academic institutions.  They show a long
career in academia and zilch as a business person.  Beyond this his
claim to expertise is having worked as a Hatchet-man for Hatch and his
predatory business allies.

It is clear that Mr. Hollaar is not qualified to speak to what is or is
not good for independent inventors or the businesses which those
inventors found.

Again, the patent reform agenda was soundly trounced by over twenty
Nobel Laureates and the majority of the living Inventors Hall of Fame
inductees the last time around.  This included the full spectrum of
political views from conservative Nobel economist Milton Friedman to
liberal Paul Samuelson.  The full list is available at
http://www.piausa.org/coalition/.

Now addressing the arguments of Tim Jackson.  Mr. Jackson is a young 25
year old articulate writer.  He is deeply involved in the anti software
patent movement which constantly makes ill informed claims about
"technical" issues.  Primarily by claiming that even though hardware
and software solutions are interchangeable that for some nebulous
reason that software inventions do not deserve the same protections as
those based on hardware.

I don't doubt that Mr. Jackson is sincere in his beliefs.  But he is
misinformed and he most certainly is not qualified to speak for
inventors, especially for American inventors.

Take his claim that First to File is the preferred system.  I know
Gordon Gould and studied his life along with a handful of other
inventors.  He invented the Laser.  Under first to File he would have
been cheated of both recognition as the inventor and being compensated
for inventing the laser. He is another one of those Nobel Laureates and
an Inventors Hall Of Fame inductees who has little use for those whose
greed or ignorance of the realities of the patent process drives them
to promote changes to America's patent system which are detrimental to
inventor-entrepreneurs.  By the way, one more point...Gordon Gould
holds Jerry Lemelson in high regard.

The bottom line is that at best Jackson and Hollaar have been duped by
those who routinely take advantage of those who invent.

Ronald J. Riley http://www.rjriley.com/contact/

Also President www.PIAUSA.org & Executive Director www.InventorEd.org

Former advisory board president of the Alliance for American Innovation
1995-2002.


subject: Re: Educating Congress & The Public

text:
Mr. Jackson you are right, I did attempt to do a search.  First of the
UK's patent office in an effort to see who you have prosecuted patents
for and when I found that database unavailable I then did a hasty
Google search because most of my time is being spent networking with
commercially successful inventors concerning this issue. I do not
consider this forum worth much time beyond what will cause people with
similar backgrounds and experience to contact me.  So I do apologize
for miss categorizing you.

I find that understanding the background of those promoting things
which are detrimental to my and other inventors interests is useful to
understand where they are coming from and determining how their
arguments can be neutralized.  Part of the reason I was quick to
categorize you that you appear to be working hand in hand with Hollaar.
 In his case I have few doubts as to what I am dealing with and I
lumped you in with him.

Still, claims that First to File is in inventor's interest is bunk.
The UK has relatively few independent inventors and even fewer who are
commercially successful so arguing that America should follow the UK in
adopting Fist to File carries little weight with me.  Beyond that I
notice that you failed to address the other concerns I raised
concerning the latest effort by corporate crooks to change the patent
system to the detriment of those who are already victims of the
proponents of this ill conceived legislation.

Ronald J. Riley http://www.rjriley.com/contact/

Also President www.PIAUSA.org & Executive Director www.InventorEd.org

Former advisory board president of the Alliance for American Innovation
1995-2002.


author: Lee Hollaar

subject: Re: Educating Congress & The Public

text:
In article <[email]> "rjriley" <[email]> writes:

My point was simply that in in the process of generating a rant, you
said in essence that "first to INVENT" was the spawn of the devil and
nothing but evil could ever come from it.  I doubted that was what you
meant, and tried to point it out in a humorous way.

The response of an honest, sane person would be to say "Oops, I made
a mistake!"  Your response was considerably different, to wit ...

I seriously doubt that you fully understand much of anything.  You
certainly didn't seem to understand that you had ranted about all the
evils of "first to invent" when you likely meant "first to file"
(which is a mischaracterization on your part -- it should more
properly be "first inventor to file").

Instead, you never say that you made a mistake and instead go to a
personal attach, and one based on guilt by association at that.

For the record, my position was as a Committee Fellow of the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary, which was chaired by Senator Hatch.  I
was proud to be helping Congress understand the issues of digital
copyright, encryption, and patents.

If Senator Hatch had "hatchet men" (and he doesn't, nor does he use
black helicopters to attack small inventors), they would be on his
personal staff, not Judiciary Committee staff.

(For the humor-impared, like Riley, that's also a tongue-in-cheek
comment not to be taken seriously.)

I wasn't able to reply immediately, because I was actually helping
a small inventor and patentee in his fight against a large infringer
who is tried to bankrupt him into concession in his suit.

Maybe people would take your arguments seriously if you actually
thought about what you wrote.  In one day, you railed against both
"first to invent" and "first to file", saying both caused the same
problems.


author: Tim Jackson

subject: Re: Educating Congress & The Public

text:
rjriley wrote on 5 Apr 2005 20:06:13 -0700....

At least part of his point, as I saw it, was that in the post he was
replying to you had said the exact opposite of what you presumably
meant.

Or do you really believe that "First to invent is inherently
inequitable", as you said?  If so, I'm glad we can agree on something.

Ah, a conspiracy theory.  It's good to understand where you're coming
from.


subject: Re: Educating Congress & The Public

text:
In article <[email]> "rjriley" <[email]> writes:

That is incorrect.  That only lists issued patents.

And not every invention results in a patent, for a variety of reasons.
Especially in software-related development.

That is also incorrect.  Not every patent that I have prosecuted lists
me as the attorney or agent, because they were done in conjunction
with law firms.

That's the assignments.  Riley knows nothing about how those patents
were then licensed by the assignees.

There are a large number of biotech patents assigned to academic
institutions that form the basis of startup companies.  Should we
just ignore those because they were assigned to an academic
institution or were invented by somebody working there?

It doesn't show my career in software development before software
patents were being allowed, and the role that the software technology
I invented played in bringing a small company to prominence in its
field.

I have never claimed expertise by working as a "Hatchet-man for Hatch".
I know you think that that's a cute phrase, but cute phrases are never
a substitute for facts and a reasoned argument.  In fact, they show a
lack of ability to justify your position.

Again, the only point that Riley seems to make is that only he and
people who think like him can know what might be good for independent
inventors.  And therefore, there is no point in discussing the merits
of anything that differs from his views, because it has no merits.

By Riley's test, how are those Nobel Laurates "qualified to speak
to what is not good for independent inventors"?

Now many patents do they have?  I suspect that I have more than all
20 combined.

How many patent applications have they prosecuted?  I suspect that I
have done more than all 20 combined.

What have been their carreers outside of academia?  How many businesses
have they started to develop and market products, rather than just do
consulting.

Again, the only way Riley can justify his argument is to attach those
who may not completely agree with him, this time calling them dupes.

Pretty pathetic support for his position.


subject: Re: Educating Congress & The Public

text:
In article <[email]> "rjriley" <[email]> writes:

And some of those might even be for things that benefitted somebody
other than Lemelson and his lawyers, through the development of
products based on their technology.

But others didn't contribute anything except a drag on real companies.

As the district court found when some of these patents were challenged:

    Symbol and Cognex insists that no one has ever built a Lemelson
    system because no one could do so. ...

    Lemelson's own experts, Dr. Williamson and Dr. Grindon, acknowledge
    that such a person [of ordinary skiil in the art] could not practice
    the inventions claimed by Lemelson.

The court held the patents invalid because Lemelson did not hold up his
end of the patent bargain by teaching how to make and use the claimed
invention.

When one doesn't actually disclose an invention, it's just a matter of
time and money to get 600 patents in an amazing number of disciplines.

That's not to say that Lemelson didn't ever invent anything, but many
of his patents, as the court found, were just stretching inadequate
disclosures to cover other people's innovation, and then get they to
pay royalties to avoid expensive litigation.


subject: Re: Educating Congress & The Public

text:
rjriley wrote on 9 Apr 2005 06:43:19 -0700....

Ron, how can anyone possibly get so much wrong in a single short
paragraph?

My age: try doubling the figure you give.  (But I'll accept the bit
about being an articulate writer.)

My involvement in the anti-software patent movement: none.  In fact, as
a UK and European patent attorney, over the years I've drafted and filed
a significant number of software patent applications.

I do in fact quite often point out that those who *are* involved in the
anti software patent movement constantly make a huge number of ill
informed claims.  And I state why those claims are ill-informed.

My view is that where hardware and software are interchangeable (which
sometimes they are and sometimes they aren't), that is definitely an
area where software patents should be granted.  [1]

So, Ron, how is it that you've got me so wrong?  Well, I'm aware that if
you do a Google search on my name, you'll find several people with the
same name.  Including one who *is* involved in the anti software patent
movement (though I don't know his age).

I note that you've completely failed to provide any response to my
detailed arguments, in which I showed that the stealing of inventions
from independent inventors (espionage as you called it) can be handled
just as well, or better, under first-inventor-to-file.  And also why
first-inventor-to-file wouldn't lead to a need to "file early, file
often", if combined with the present US grace period.

Instead, you've merely done a Google search in a rather poor attempt to
attack me personally.  I take that as a sign of desparation from someone
who doesn't have any real arguments to offer.

____________________

[1] More generally, in the past I've also stated my view that what's
required is a balanced system when it comes to software patents.  Some
types of software patent are hugely beneficial to society, and should
therefore be patentable.  For some other types the benefit is less
certain.  So Congress should conduct a careful study of where the
dividing line should be, and enact legislation accordingly.  That's a
policy question that they should have addressed many years before the
judges in the State Street case took it upon themselves.


author: Alun L. Palmer

subject: Re: Educating Congress & The Public

text:
"rjriley" <[email]> wrote in news:1113054199.760281.306750
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

I am deliberately replying before seeing what he says himself, but I think
he would say himself that his main involvement in patents has been as an
expert witness. The fact that he has a registration number and two patents
to his name can surely only enhance his ability in that role, and it is
role that gives him a different perspective than most of the protagonists,
one perhaps less biassed?


subject: Re: Educating Congress & The Public

text:
rjriley wrote on 9 Apr 2005 11:52:13 -0700....

Apparently your technique for this is to attack the man rather than
address the argument.

Yet another thing you've got wrong.  My only contact with Lee has been
very occasional posts in these newsgroups.  Rather fewer than I've now
had with you, in fact.

You've still not answered the arguments that say otherwise.

Maybe we need your grace period?  Now that *is* an issue where
independent inventors and big businesses have opposite interests.  For
independent inventors, it gives the advantage Rodney uses, to enable him
to test the market etc. before filing his patent application.  But for
big businesses it increases uncertainty, since it means it takes longer
before patents get published and they can see what they have to avoid.
Yet the US business interests that you term "corporate crooks" aren't
trying to take that away from you.

By the way, I work for a UK-based company which started out as two
entrepreneurs working from their garages in their spare time, exploiting
a patent for an invention one of them had made.  On the back of that
patent, the company has grown into a multinational with an annual
turnover well in excess of GBP 100 million.  And the UK is a first-
inventor-to-file country where apparently that sort of thing doesn't
happen (if you believe the person who has made the highest number of
incorrect statements in this thread).  Hmmm...

I've addressed them in spades, showing why your concerns are unfounded.
But you haven't responded (except by way of personal attacks).


author: Rodney

subject: Re: Educating Congress & The Public

text:
Lee Hollaar wrote:

Ron does not make mistakes, he is perfect, just ask him

This is his M.O. when making a mistake, he attacks the one who catches
him in one. He has just done that to me as well, the smart people who
know us both are starting to see the light, this guy's EGO is out the
roof, I heard he ordered a new ball cap, and they had to ship it by
rail, on a flat car, it still took out three crossing  and four over
passes, in the 5 mile journey :-)

"""But"""" "your" still wrong on first to file being better, for "most"
independents, it would just take them out of the game completely, and
big business wants us out.

First to file would make me file for many more inventions, prior to me
making sure they had a market, it would make many more companies require
a patent aplication before they would even review an invention from an
independant, Now how in hell is this going to help me ? It will end up
costing me over 50,000 dollars a year, every year.

The only real problem with first to invent, is inventors not keeping the
proper records, With the proper records, many of the big guys would more
than likly fold up, and license, instead of fight. (except for the mega
companies, hell they don't care either way really, as they steal more
patents than non patented inventions)

Patent professionals rarely instruct their "potential" clients into how
to use first to invent properly,, this would take about 95% of their
income away from them. It's not easy for a new inventor to find out
about how to go about using it properly, the USPO should publish a book
to show new inventors how to do this, and should be a required hand out
to every new inventor, from every licensed patent attorney and agent.

In a perfect world, where every invention had value, and a market, then
I would be all for first to file, this risk of wasting thousands on
applications, would not be there. Little inventors are not mega
companies, and "can not afford" to file on every invention they come up
with. This would take away the "American Dream",, something that we are
the only country that has, and "first to invent" is the main reason we
have it. A person with no money to file for a  patent, can still become
a millionaire


subject: Re: Educating Congress & The Public

text:
When Riley started this thread, he titled it "Educating Congress & The
Public".  Since then, he has done little to "educate" anybody, instead
just saying that we should accept that "first inventor to file" is
inherently evil (and also, in a momemt of ranting and perhaps a
Freudian slip, also railing against "first to invent").

Anybody who has the nerve to disagree with his views is unqualified,
a dupe, a "Hatchet-man for Hatch", or the spawn of the devil.

As an academic, I know that one educates by presenting facts to the
people you want to educate.  So far, Riley hasn't.

Instead, what he wants people to do is to parrot his ideas without
thinking about them, to Congress and the public.  It's easy to
join his movement, since no thought is required.


subject: Re: Educating Congress & The Public

text:
In article <Xns96338288DF921elektrosmdonet@81.174.12.30> "Alun L. Palmer" <[email]> writes:

I've had a number of roles with respect to intellectual property,
including patentee, patent agent for others, and  expert witness.
But I primarily consider myself an educator, not only teaching
classes on intellectual property but also working with inventors
in small companies in Utah helping them understand the different
forms of intellectual property and how they can use them as part
of the business strategy.

But you misunderstand.  Nobody who doesn't believe in the religion
of Riley is unbiased.


subject: Re: Educating Congress & The Public

text:
How about you start with the data and show us how piddly the savings
would be.  There are not very many interferences in the first place.
As to Mossignhoff, he is not and never has been a friend to independent
inventors.  If you want to impress me get Don Banner to buy your
arguments.  He is a patent commissioner I respect.  While you are at it
address why we should believe you or Mossignhoff when so many truly
illustrious Hall of Fame inductees and Nobel Laureates did not buy your
arguments the last time we crossed swords?

You have virtually no business experience, having spent your career in
academia, yet you claim to know more about these issues then those of
us who actually have spent our lives building companies and fending off
the patent predators.

Ronald J. Riley http://www.rjriley.com/contact/

Also President www.PIAUSA.org & Executive Director www.InventorEd.org

Former advisory board president of the Alliance for American Innovation
1995-2002.


author: Ronald J Riley

subject: Re: Educating Congress & The Public

text:
"Tim Jackson" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

"Maybe we need your grace period?  Now that *is* an issue where
independent inventors and big businesses have opposite interests."

Personally I do not care if you want to adopt the grace period.  What I care
about is rather or not America adopts patent system changes which are
detrimental to OUR inventors.

Ronald J. Riley, President

The Alliance for American Innovation, LLC., www.AAIUSA.org

Also President www.PIAUSA.org & Executive Director www.InventorEd.org


subject: Re: Educating Congress & The Public

text:
Rodney wrote on Thu, 07 Apr 2005 09:14:57 -0500....

Only because you haven't understood that a first-inventor-to-file system
with a grace period can be used in exactly the same way that you
currently operate.

Similarly, the vast majority of independent inventors haven't understood
the hoops they need to jump through under first-to-invent.  And would
therefore get a nasty surprise in the unlikely event that they ever had
to prove their date of invention.  Even you yourself admitted:

However, that's not the only problem with it.  Another big problem is
the cost of a dispute.  That cost means that a large, well-funded
company has an in-built advantage over an independent inventor.  Even
when the independent inventor ought to win because he was in fact both
the first to file as well as being first to invent (but not having the
records or the money to prove it).


subject: Re: Educating Congress & The Public

text:
In article <lfb5e.3962$[email]> Rodney <[email]> writes:

Since I never made the statement about first to file being better,
it is hard to say that I'm wrong ...


subject: Re: Educating Congress & The Public

text:
Since Riley doesn't seem to want to put forth any facts to support his
position, here's an actual study that we can discuss ...


subject: Re: Educating Congress & The Public

text:
Lee Hollaar wrote:

Even if you agree with him on this issue, you can be those in his eyes,
if you just prove him wrong in anything, he attacks this way. Dang I bet
he is a Democrat


subject: Re: Educating Congress & The Public

text:
"Whatever you post here is available to all interested members of the
public."

That is the whole point.  Namely to expose the truth about so called
"patent reform", the crooked companies who routinely steal the fruits
of inventors work, and those who would gut our country's engine of
prosperity for a few pieces of gold.

This is all about unethical companies trying to gain advantage at the
expense the public.  They are out to stifle competition, to stop the
upstart companies who use invention to challenge their position.  It is
a bold attempt by and for vested interests to cement their position.

Ronald J. Riley, President

The Alliance for American Innovation, LLC., www.AAIUSA.org

Also President www.PIAUSA.org & Executive Director www.InventorEd.org


subject: Re: Educating Congress & The Public

text:
As I predicted, Riley does not question the data or the methodology used
to analyze it.  Instead, he just attacks Mossignhoff (and me).

It should be clear that Riley has no argument to put forward to support
his view, and certainly nothing that could be used to educate Congress
and the public.

Just personal attacks.

In article <[email]> "rjriley" <[email]> writes:

You still have not answered how many patents those Nobel Laureates have,
or how many applications they have prosecuted.  If you consider my low
numbers disqualifying, why should we listen to them?  Just because
they say what you want to hear?

But since Mossinghoff published his paper a while ago, you should be
able to post something by Don Banner refuting it if that's your gold
standard.

Let's see something refuting the study ...

Again, you have no idea what I'm done in my career, just as you didn't
know the background of somebody else you attacked.


subject: Re: Educating Congress & The Public

text:
Riley makes a big deal about the letter sent to Congress by the
Nobel Laureates, but doesn't ever say what they wrote.  Here it is:

    We urge the Senate to oppose the passage of the pending U.S. Senate
    Bill S. 507. We hold that Congress, before, embarking on a revision
    of our time tested patent system, should hold extensive hearings on
    whether there are serious flaws in the present system that need to
    be addressed and if so, how best to deal with them. This is especially
    important considering that a delicate structure such as the patent
    system, with all its ramifications, should not be subject to frequent
    modifications. We believe that S. 507 could result in lasting harm
    to the United States and the world.

    First, it will prove very damaging to American small inventors and
    thereby discourage the flow of new inventions that have contributed
    so much to America's superior performance in the advancement of
    Science and technology. It will do so by curtailing the protection
    they obtain through patents relative to the large multi-national
    corporations.

    Second, the principle of prior user rights saps the very spirit of
    that wonderful institution that is represented by the American
    patent system established in the Constitution in 1787, which is
    based on the principle that the inventor is given complete
    protection but for a limited length of time, after which the
    patent, fully disclosed in the application and published at
    the time of issue, becomes in the public domain, and can be
    used by anyone, under competitive conditions for the benefit
    of all final users. It will do so by giving further protection
    to trade secrets which can be kept secret forever, while reducing
    the incentive to rely on limited life patents.

Certainly nothing to back up their opinions (just like Riley's
posts).  And I don't remember ever seeing any sort of study,
even one as simple as Mossignhoff's, to back their letter up.

The last paragraph is rather interesting.  They are concerned about
people not filing for patents.  Seems like a "first inventor to
file" system could promote early filing, since if you aren't the
first inventor to file, you don't get a patent.  With "first to
invent" you might keep your invention a secret (their concern)
until you see somebody else file or have a patent issued, and
then provoke an interference, hoping that it won't be held that
you have concealed the invention.

Their concern that prior user rights would encourage people
not to file patent applications, but instead use trade secret
protection, is quite interesting.  The prior commercial user
right in S.507 was limited to a "method of doing or conducting
a business" in the law finally enacted in 1999.  (See 35 U.S.C.
273.) We now have over five years of data to see whether the
the prediction was correct.

So, has the number of patents and patent applications for business
methods gone down because prior user rights are causing companies
to use trade secrets instead?  I doubt it.


subject: Re: Educating Congress & The Public

text:
"Insults aren't an argument.  But that's all he seems to have."

I have more but don't think it would do any good to offer it to you.
Better to save my arguments for Congress.  Besides, you have been so
slow to digest what I did give you that I doubt you could handle the
rest.

Who's fault is it that you lack the stature to impress?  Is it my fault
that you made the decision to associate with the wrong crowd?  This was
your choice.

If I could afford the luxury I would show you a bit of mercy.

Ronald J. Riley http://www.rjriley.com/contact/

Also President www.PIAUSA.org & Executive Director www.InventorEd.org

Former advisory board president of the Alliance for American Innovation
1995-2002.


subject: Re: Educating Congress & The Public

text:
Lee Hollaar wrote:

Sorry I must have got confused (made a mistake) with so many posting to
the topic


author: James White

subject: Re: Educating Congress & The Public

text:
First, Mr. Mossinghoff did NOT do a study in any real sense of the word. He
KNEW his conclusions in advance then attempted to support them. The
following is my article from the Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office
Society of April 2004, Vol 85, No. 4 that rebuts Mr. Mossinghoff's "logic."
I don't KNOW the answer because NO STUDY HAS EVER BEEN DONE on the issue but
simple logic leads me to the conclusion that "first to file," while
certainly eliminating "interference costs" also STRONGLY favors those who
can afford to "file early and often." One can look at auto accident deaths
and correctly conclude that eliminating automobiles will eliminate
automobile related deaths----------but, that doesn't mean at all that the
tradeoff of automobile deaths is not worth it relative to all the other
positives----including FANTASTIC REDUCTIONS in horse related deaths.

------------------------article start

The U.S. First-To-Invent System, the Mossinghoff Conclusion, ...and
Statistics

This article is written in response to "The U.S. First-To-Invent System Has
Provided No Advantage To Small Entities" by Gerald Mossinghoff and appearing
in "IPFrontline Eye on IP Newsletter Wednesday May 22, 2002 vol.6 No. 016"
put out by PatentCafe.com, Inc. and also scheduled for appearance in JPTOS.

Recap

It was very good that Mr. Mossinghoff's article started by clearly noting
that first-to-file should more aptly be called first-inventor-to-file
because many budding inventors do misinterpret just what first-to-file
actually means in the non-US patenting world. I would suggest going one step
further to be even more correct and that is that much of the world actually
has a first-inventor/owner-to-file system since they allow non-inventors
that have ownership rights in the invention to file without even noting who
the inventor actually is, some require the inventor information to be
provided later and some don't. At least the big market countries such as in
Europe orAsia do have clear law or case law that "rights" to a patent or
patent ownership are essential or any patent gotten is invalid but
inventorship is not required to be the filer.

There is also no doubt that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has
a "complex of substantive and procedural rules and regulations governing
what are called ï¿½interferences'" but Mr. Mossinghoff's characterization of
"arcane and burdensome" (...well maybe just "arcane") is not substantiated
in his article. From just a quick read of a couple of USPTO Interference
Roundtables
(http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/bpai/forms/9910/inter101598.pdf,
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/bpai/forms/9910/inter102099.pdf) from
1998 and 1999 it does seem the game is complexï¿½and geared to the desires of
APJs (Administrative
Patent Judges) more than practical business considerations.

Mr. Mossinghoff then goes on to propose that U. S. adoption of the
"otherwise universal first-to-file system[, g]iven the increasing use of
low-cost and easily filed provisional applications... would be of
significant benefit to small entities..." He then supports this, after
presentation of many interesting but generally non-contributing statistics,
with one pair of statistics from his Table 6, Small Entities Advantaged and
Disadvantaged by the First-to-Invent System FY 1983-2000, that shows
Independent Inventors Advantaged 98 and Independent Inventors Disadvantaged
115. Somehow overlooked in the discussion of Table 6 is that, sheerly in
numeric terms, it completely rebuts the conclusion of the title of his paper
by showing that Small Entities Advantaged is 203 to the 201 Disadvantaged.

Earlier in his paper he had been careful to point out his definitions but in
his conclusion, "the data provided by the USPTO confirm empirically that the
current first-to-invent system of priority provides no advantage to small
entities," the small entity definition ("the class that comprises
independent inventors, small businesses and nonprofit institutions") is
completely tossed out the window and twisted to mean only "independent
inventors." I maintain that such definitional shenanigans are not acceptable
and should not be allowed in prestigious publications such as JPTOS. Further
a closer examination of Mr. Mossinghoff's definitions of "advantaged" and
"disadvantaged" is warranted given their centrality to his conclusion.

Per Mr. Mossinghoff, a small entity, by the first-to-invent system, is
"advantaged" if they receive a favorable decision when a junior party
(second to file) in an interference and is "disadvantaged" if they receive
an adverse decision when a senior party (first to file). As definitions go
this is fine but the question arises as to what actually does it mean?

Logic 101, a Review

Let's first do a quick refresher on the rules of logic.

 MAJOR PREMISE: Aristotle is a Man.
 MINOR PREMISE: All men have facial hair.
 CONCLUSION: Aristotle has facial hair.

The above is consistent and logical (given the accepted factualness of the
premises).

 MAJOR PREMISE: Aristotle has facial hair.
 MINOR PREMISE: All men have facial hair.
 CONCLUSION: Aristotle is a man.

While the conclusion may be true it does not follow from the premises
because Aristotle could be a cat or a dog or a mole or an ape or even a moth
or a fly. Could we fix this second syllogism so that it would be logical
instead of illogical? Certainly!

 REVISED MINOR PREMISE: All men, and only men, have facial hair.

Given the factualness of this revised premise then the conclusion becomes
correctly "logical" even though we may know it to be false in reality
because the revised premise is false and, in fact in this instance,
Aristotle is still a cat.

The Mossinghoff "Logic"

Let's now examine Mr. Mossinghoff's premises and conclusion in syllogistic
terms. We will be generous and only use his numerically shown Table 6
Independent Inventor conclusion and not his broader and already numerically
disproved Small Entity conclusion.

 MAJOR PREMISE (MjP1): The first-to-invent system results in interference
decisions.
 MINOR PREMISE(MnP1): Adverse interference decisions are bad for those
receiving them.
 CONCLUSION (& MjP2): The first-to-invent system is bad for those receiving
adverse interference decisions.
 MINOR PREMISE (MnP2): Independent inventors mostly receive adverse
interference decisions.
 CONCLUSION: First-to-invent is bad for independent inventors.

Note I've simply continued the first conclusion into the second syllogism
and I've allowed the reader to make some small logic leaps on their own for
brevity. Also let me state here that I am making an assumption that Mr.
Mossinghoff explicitly used the term "interference decisions" to apparently
only count those times that an APJ decision was reached in a declared
interference. Intentionally omitted from the discussion then would be all
the cases where one party or the other explicitly abandoned their
application or otherwise settled the interference or avoided the declaration
of an interference without an APJ decision. Further, I'm assuming that there
was no follow-up after APJ decisions to determine if they were taken to
court and decided the same or differently than the APJ did. Since this paper
is only to show that Mr. Mossinghoff's conclusion was not supported by his
presentation I will make the assumption here that the above considerations
are not material to the direction of the actual statistics.

MjP1 is clearly true since interferences do not occur under the
first-to-file system (other, non-interference, situations of course occur,
such as non-inventor/owner filings but they are left, as I understand it,
for the courts and are therefore outside the purview of non-U.S. PTOs). Is
MnP1 true? Certainly those who are decided against will not like the
decision but does that make it bad for them? What if they feel justice was
served? What if the preponderance of interferences affecting a specific
someone were decided in their favor, would one adverse one still be bad for
that someone? What is left out of MnP1? Aren't "favorable interference
decisions good for those receiving them?" Doesn't exactly one "favorable"
decision match with exactly one adverse one so that on the whole they
balance out?

To be clear let me note that I cheated above. I merely stated Mr.
Mossinghoff's Minor Premise 1 (MnP1) as he wanted you to see it. It was
originally (intentionally or accidentally) couched in negative terms such
that most readers would miss the whole because they know that the negative
is explicitly a limiter and I've merely followed through with Mr.
Mossinghoff's negative. The correct premise actually encompasses the
following, still presented in the negative:

 MINOR PREMISE(MnP1): Adverse interference decisions are bad for those
receiving them AND interference decisions, good or bad, are the ONLY factor
relevant to deciding if first-to-invent is good or bad for (1) any class of
inventor and (2) versus first-to-file AND (3) the balance of costs across
losers, or a class of losers, and profits across winners in interference
decisions is exactly reflected by favorable and adverse decision counts
AND... (supply your own that even I may have forgotten).

When it's spelled all out like this it should suddenly become easy to see
the omitted benefits missing from the premise Mr. Mossinghoff presented in
his paper and why Mr. Mossinghoff's conclusion is illogical. He has allowed
for cats to have facial hair but he's either forgotten about cats or is
hoping you'll forget about cats. Playing the same game he would have allowed
Babe Ruth as a failure because of 1,330 strikeouts while the world acclaimed
Babe as a hero for 851 home runsï¿½not to mention RBIs and fielding outs
against the opposition. He would have allowed for the "disaster" of the 1998
El Nino in the U.S. where damages were estimated at $4 billion yet total
benefits (not heavily reported in the bad news biased press) were estimated
at $19 billion (pg. 41, The Skeptical Environmentalist, Bjorn Loomborg).

The Omitted Benefits (by number)

(1) What could the benefits of the first-to-invent system be that might
totally outweigh a few (and maybe even a few extra to independent inventors)
adverse interference decisions? The biggest one, at least to me, by four and
a half miles or so, is that I can squelch a mad desire to rush to file a
patent application or a provisional application and that saves me money, not
to mention extreme mental anguish between conception and filing. The
first-to-invent system, in other words,  may not be bad, on the whole, even
for those who might receive rare excess adverse interference decisions.
Apparently in Mr. Mossinghoff's world the simple fact that there is a risk
that one "might" break a leg going to get an ice cream cone would be used to
dictate that ice cream cone purveyors be abolished in total disregard for
the tremendous excess of ice cream cone enjoyment by those who do not break
their legs on the way. I'll even bet that the gal that broke her leg will
complete the journey to get her ice cream cone as quick as it's practical
and, of course, in total defiance of the Mossinghoff "logic."

(2) I certainly realize, as I'm aware many budding inventors do not, that
the first-to-invent system does not solely chose the winner based on who
conceived an invention first and/or who actually or constructively reduced
it to practice first. All of the following must be weighed before a decision
is reached: date of conception, proof of conception and date, diligent
pursuit, reduction to practice, non-abandonment, and even patentability. I
am also quite aware that interference costs are high and detrimental to both
parties when the rare interference occurs. But, on the whole, it appears to
me that the U.S. system is working better than any other patent system in
the world and I would hold that part of that is because of the, not
"arcane," but fair, liberating, and economical first-to-invent rule.

(3) What if, in any given year, there were 97 $1 million profit invention
ownership decisions made by interference decisions and there were 3 $10
billion profit invention ownership decisions made the same way? What if it
were shown that for the past 18 years those 3 ownership decisions a year all
went to independent inventors while the rest were generally split
proportionally between small entities and large entities by the numeric
"disadvantagedness" shown in Table 6 for independent inventors? Not being
greedy or anything, to me the independent inventor wins of $540 billion in
profits would make the comparatively small $1.75 billion of other "winners"
seem irrelevant. From this example it should be absolutely clear that Mr.
Mossinghoff's equating one win as equivalent to any other win is total
nonsenseï¿½what counts is the value of the win to the inventor and to society.

A Closer Look at Who Benefits

How do I, as an independent inventor, benefit from the first-to-invent rule?
The economic advantages of not having to file ASAP are overwhelming in my
view. I cannot spend the hundreds of thousands it would take to adopt an
early-and-often filing strategy. I can use the leeway allowed by proper
recording and diligent pursuitï¿½and even the 1 year from public
disclosure/sale rulesï¿½to determine if filing is a viable business decision
before investing in a patent application or even an $80 Provisional
Application for Patent (PAP). The major disadvantage to an independent
inventor of filing a PAP is that the year after its filing rapidly
evaporates while they are concentrating on putting bread on the table and
fitting-in their side business of inventing. The desire then to "rush" into
paying a patent practitioner starting at 9 or 10 months for the full, formal
application can become overwhelming rather than "lose" the "benefits" of the
PAP priority date. Might not small businesses, non-profits, and at least
most large entities also enjoy the low filing pressure from the
first-to-invent system too?

Who does win from Mr. Mossinghoff's conclusion and supposing that
first-to-file is adopted as the U.S. law of the land? Basically two classes
of people win. The first are those who have already made the economic
decision to file early-and-often. Firms such as IBMï¿½but IBM and other such
large firms do have the resources to adopt the early-and-often filing
strategy. IBM, for example, in internal patent studies done a few years back
determined that of 10,000 patents studied only 40 had real value. But, and
this is the important part from a business decision standpoint, the
licensing revenue alone from that .4% of their patent stable in the year
2000 was in excess of $1.6 billion (yes, with a B) while the cost was in the
mere millions. That $1.6 billion does not count the internal value to IBM of
inventions where they chose to exclusively exploit their patent or where
they could use their patents to provide picket fence deterrence of
competitors or where they could simply use their patent to avoid paying
royalties to others who would have garnered patent rights in the absence of
IBM's filing and patent issue.

The second class of people who stand to benefit substantially from a
first-to-file rule are patent practitioners. Just knowing that, under the
current first-to-invent rules,  less than 2% of all patents ever make money
for anyone leads to the simple calculation that, if patent practitioners
charge $6,000 plus filing fees for each application they will collect
$300,000 for every $6,000 (plus fees) valuable patent they get for their
clients. Any switch to a first-to-file system can be reasonably expected to
raise the number of applicationsï¿½because inventors/owners will likely often,
to be safe, apply before doing the commercializeability researchï¿½while
simultaneously reducing the percentage of applications (and presumably
patents) which make the filer money. A solid study, particularly in any
country that switched from first-to-invent to first-to-file, to check the
differences in applications filed, prosecuted, issued, and successful under
first-to-invent versus first-to-file system rules should be conducted to see
if this hypothesis holds.

Maybe there is also a benefitted third class of folks if you assume PTO
personnel would benefit from not having the aggravation of, ahem, doing what
they are paid to do and what their fees have been set to include under the
first-to-invent system. A read of the two Interference Roundtables cited
before will show, at least in my interpretation, the prevalence of the PTO's
internal "oh woe is me" attitude to handling "another" interference. (The
fact that so many employees in all walks of life today, not just examiners
and APJs, feel entitled to a days pay for merely clocking 8 hours is a
discussion for another day and another forum.)

... And Statistics

While I think I've made my case pretty convincingly so far, namely that Mr.
Mossinghoff's presentation does not support his conclusion, let me just note
another couple of holes in Mr. Mossinghoff's numbers. For example the
interesting data in Tables 2 and 4. More importantly, it's again what's left
out. Wouldn't it be important to know not just the number of interference
decisions for or against but the number of situations in which it was large
entities versus large entities, small entities versus small entities, and
small entities versus large entities? After all, the intent is to show that
the little guys are losing too much (as opposed to "just right") against the
big guys isn't it? If all the times, no matter how unlikely, a small entity
was disadvantaged by an interference decision turned out to be in small
entity versus small entity interferences then wouldn't you have to count
that as a wash rather than saying the losing small entity was
"disadvantaged" or the winning small entity "advantaged?" Yes, both Table 6
columns would shrink equally but then so would their respective percentages
of the whole.

As Table 6 clearly shows, independent inventors were, by Mr. Mossinghoff's
reckoning, excessively disadvantaged by interference decisions in exactly
0.0005393% of all patent application filings over the last 18 years. That's
a rate of 1 a year out of, assuming about 20% of filers are independent
inventors, about 37,000 independent filers a year. It is my personal opinion
that filing an application into those odds only after I've taken my
deliberate time to determine commercializability is not near as high a risk
as first spending $6,000 filing an application (or even an $80 PAP or two)
which, with a couple years off-and-on effort, is determined to be worthless.
But it gets worse.

And it may just be my ignorance but how were "Independent Inventors"
determined in the presented statistics? Don't a lot of independent inventor
filers think that filing with a DBA or Inc. business assignee will look
better for their application/patent then file accordingly? Don't a large
percentage of small business owners (more real-world savvy than the
preceding group) take the opposite tack and make it clear they own their IP
by not including an assignment or even a business name in their address on
their application? If we assume that Table 6 should, on those grounds, have
100% of the Independent Inventor and Small Business lines combined then the
percentage of the excessively disadvantaged drops to 0.0002855% of
applications or about 1 small business/independent inventor every 2 years
accidentally gets disadvantaged (1 of 74,000). Scary odds indeed! Nah, I
just don't see where the first-to-invent system warrants Mr. Mossinghoff's
fear mongering among independent inventors. Or misapplication of logic and
statistics among the professionals reading JPTOS.

Copyright 2002 James E. White, Inventor, Marketer, and Author of "Will It
Sell? How to Determine If Your Invention Is Profitably Marketable (Before
Wasting Money on a Patent)" www.willitsell.com

------------------------article end

Unfortunately access to the IPFrontline articles now require a paid
subscription.


author: Steve Marcus

subject: Re: Educating Congress & The Public

text:
"rjriley" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

BS of the rankest kind.

Do you think that stuff you post in reply goes to Prof. Hollaar's private
mailbox?  Here's a hint:  it doesn't.  Whatever you post here is available
to all interested members of the public.

So, it seems to me that if you did have anything in rebuttal of Prof.
Hollaar's position (other than insults, of course), you certainly could lose
nothing by posting it here.  You might even gain some supporters.  On the
other hand, he who posts nothing generally has nothing worth posting ...

<snip balance>
Steve


subject: Re: Educating Congress & The Public

text:
James White wrote on Sun, 10 Apr 2005 12:49:10 -0400....

[snip]

The following is copied and pasted (with minor edits) from something I
wrote the last time you trotted this out.

Mossinghoff looked at the actual results of interference actions.  He
defines a person as "advantaged" by the first-to-invent system if it
gave him a *better* result than he would have got under first-inventor-
to-file.  That is, if he was second to file but won nevertheless.

He defines a person as "disadvantaged" if first-to-invent gave him a
*worse* result than he would have got under first-inventor-to-file.
That is, if he was first to file but still lost.

So far, that looks broadly neutral: 203 versus 201 in the case of small
entities.  If you restrict it to individual, independent inventors
instead of *all* small entities, then Mossinghoff's data suggests that
first-to-invent produces more inventors who are disadvantaged then
advantaged.  But the difference is not large: 115 against 98.

However, the flaw in *your* logic is as follows.

There is a *third* category: people who got the *same* result under
first-to-invent as they would have done under first-inventor-to-file.
That is, an interference action took place at enormous expense to both
parties, but in the end it was won by the first person to file.

As Mossinghoff pointed out, everybody in this third category is also
hugely disadvantaged by first-to-invent, compared to first-inventor-to-
file. The system caused them to incur great expense, when first-
inventor-to-file would have given the same result at virtually no cost.

So, what's the true number of small entities disadvantaged by the first-
to-invent system?  According to Mossinghoff's Tables 2 and 4, 336 small
entities won their interference, when first-to file would have produced
the same result without the expense.  And 458 lost, when first-to-file
would have produced the same result without the expense.

In total, therefore, the number who were disadvantaged was 201 plus 336
plus 458, a total of 995.  Compare that to the 203 who were advantaged.

In other words, out of the 1198 small entities involved, 17% were
advantaged, while 83% were disadvantaged.


subject: Re: Educating Congress & The Public

text:
But still SO WHAT? The little guy would and should NOT expect, nor does he
WANT to be "ADVANTAGED" --- he wants to be equal and have his fair shot. I
also don't doubt that if there is some bias toward "disadvantaged" in the
latter case of "independent inventors" (however selected) it is very
probable that it is the IGNORANCE of those inventors in not having sound
records that puts them at a disadvantage. (And just who, I wonder, wants to
see those little guys stay ignorant?)

I've never disagreed that that third group isn't there. But I strongly
suspect that the MAJOR part of the expense is occasioned by the "system"
carefully built up and nurtured over the years by ATTORNEYS to work to their
advantage regardless. There very well may also be a "bigger money" component
in that cost both in the sense that a bully tries to unfairly win by
bankrupting and in the "lets keep our costs down on potential future
litigation by going for a fell swoop now on whatever legal 'theory' we can
afford to have generated."

But neither concerns itself with the costs of wasted filings or wasted speed
of effort even on things which are never filed for. And for certain neither
concerns itself with the abandoned-in-the-mind inventions that are delayed
or entirely LOST to society when inventors simply can't afford the
early-and-often filing game so they opt out.

In other words it ignores the 34,000 independent inventors last year who
applied in what to them was an appropriate time frame with deliberate study
to decide whether to file or not and it ignores perhaps thousands more who
had the time to do their due diligence and decide NOT to file at all. And it
very well may ignore tremendous BENEFITS to society that will be LOST (or
delayed) when the little guys feel it's not worth bothering to play the
game. Where do independent Japanese inventors WANT, DESPERATELY, to get
their patents, the US or Japan---it ain't Japan, just ask them.

Yes, you can theorize all you want but NO STUDY HAS EVER BEEN DONE to the
best of my knowledge yet people of your ilk want to toss the system used by
THE WINNING COUNTRY simply based on your own say so. Whoopee! (And, of
course, you're fully supported by the early-and-often filers because they've
already committed to the wasted filing costs regardless, now their issue is
how to reduce other costs----and the one they tout is, of course,
interference costs. But what they DON'T dare mention that might be even of
MORE value to them is the REDUCED competition due to making it less probable
that hundreds of thousands of little guys can even play in the game.


author: [redacted]

subject: November issue available - and still free

text:
- as are all 31 previous editions of Applied Derivatives Trading
magazine - at http://www.adtrading.com

If you like what you see, sign up for the no strings, free subscription.

Tony Webb
Publishing Director


author: TEACHES

subject: Re: Ping Mark

text: Technically, it puts him on the chain of credibly real people; right?


author: Nancy Manos

subject: Real Person status was Re: Ping Mark

text:
"TEACHES" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

I was going to say that <g> ... you can't attain Real Person status without
meeting BOB!! in person, iirc.  Does MaG count as a viable substitute for
BOB!! since they are related at all.  Somewhere in the recesses of my mind,
it seems she was dubbed an official alternate giver of Real Person status.
Are they any other alternates or is that it?

Nancy


author: Marty Carts

subject: Re: Ping Mark

text:
alt.religion.christian axed.  What
*is* it with you people?  Yikes!
TEACHES wrote:

Hey listen bubba, I was establishing the real pPerson status of posters
here while BOB!! was still in *diapers*!  Well, ok, not really, but I
really *did* meet a few people from this ng well before BOB!! scooped
the mo and the trademark.  So tho I don't have the brand name I claim to
have as authentic an imprimatur as the COBCRPS (or whatever it is).

Speaking of meeting people, in January on the anniversary of Roe V Wade
(~1/22?) the Right To Life march in DC will happen as it always does.
Anyone who is interested in making the trip is more than welcome to
crash on our floor.  And we'll feed you and transport to to/fro.  Lemme
know; give me an email. ______________________Marty


author: Snapper

subject: Re: Real Person status was Re: Ping Mark

text:
"Nancy Manos" wrote

How about a special category for those who've met Jenny?


author: Dalene Barnes

text:
Snapper <[email]> wrote:

How about a new Real Person status giver since BOB!! has been missed for so
long??

I nominate Marty!

Dalene
    (hoping her subtle ploy to suddenly attain Real Person status via this
nomination is mostly unnoticed...!)


text:
Emailed too.  Dalene Barnes wrote:

I'm pretty sure that since I've met BOB!! and I've met you that you have
   a type of RealPerson status.  The question I've had is whether the
quality of RP is more attenuated the further one gets from the original
source (BOB!!).  It doesn't seem like it ought to.  Like grace of the
Gospel message, which doesn't seem to get attenuated the further we get
from the original apostles.

Anyway, I could not keep up with the work load that BOB!! demonstrated
was needed for the job.  I think we need to find a person who travels
wantonly and frequently as BOB!! did before he got corralled into
domestic bliss.  I definitely don't fit that bill (tho I'd *love* to
meet some more people). ______________________________Marty


author: -=DirtBag™

subject: IMF bombshell: Age of America nears end, China’s economy will surpass the U.S. in 2016

text:
IMF bombshell: Age of America nears end

Commentary: Chinaï¿½s economy will surpass the U.S. in 2016

BOSTON (MarketWatch) ï¿½ The International Monetary Fund has just dropped
a bombshell, and nobody noticed.

For the first time, the international organization has set a date for
the moment when the ï¿½Age of Americaï¿½ will end and the U.S. economy will
be overtaken by that of China.

And itï¿½s a lot closer than you may think.

According to the latest IMF official forecasts, Chinaï¿½s economy will
surpass that of America in real terms in 2016 ï¿½ just five years from now.

Put that in your calendar.

It provides a painful context for the budget wrangling taking place in
Washington right now. It raises enormous questions about what the
international security system is going to look like in just a handful of
years. And it casts a deepening cloud over both the U.S. dollar and the
giant Treasury market, which have been propped up for decades by their
privileged status as the liabilities of the worldï¿½s hegemonic power.

More China news:U.S., China to hold economic talks in early May,Shanghai
hit by tightening,China 2011 trade surplus may shrink to 2% of GDP

According to the IMF forecast, which was quietly posted on the Fundï¿½s
website just two weeks ago, whoever is elected U.S. president next year
ï¿½ Obama? Mitt Romney? Donald Trump? ï¿½ will be the last to preside over
the worldï¿½s largest economy.

Most people arenï¿½t prepared for this. They arenï¿½t even aware itï¿½s that
close. Listen to experts of various stripes, and they will tell you this
moment is decades away. The most bearish will put the figure in the
mid-2020s.

But theyï¿½re miscounting. Theyï¿½re only comparing the gross domestic
products of the two countries using current exchange rates.

Thatï¿½s a largely meaningless comparison in real terms. Exchange rates
change quickly. And Chinaï¿½s exchange rates are phony. China artificially
undervalues its currency, the renminbi, through massive intervention in
the markets.

The comparison that really matters
In addition to comparing the two countries based on exchange rates, the
IMF analysis also looked to the true, real-terms picture of the
economies using ï¿½purchasing power parities.ï¿½ That compares what people
earn and spend in real terms in their domestic economies.

Under PPP, the Chinese economy will expand from $11.2 trillion this year
to $19 trillion in 2016. Meanwhile the size of the U.S. economy will
rise from $15.2 trillion to $18.8 trillion. That would take Americaï¿½s
share of the world output down to 17.7%, the lowest in modern times.
Chinaï¿½s would reach 18%, and rising.

Just 10 years ago, the U.S. economy was three times the size of Chinaï¿½s.


author: Jared

subject: Re: IMF bombshell: Age of America nears end, China’s economy will surpass the U.S. in 2016

text:
On 2/22/2012 9:56 AM, -=DirtBagï¿½ wrote:

China has about 4.5 times the population of the U.S., so only a complete
idiot would think surpassing the U.S. GDP indicates American decline.

What do people think, if China's GDP per capita is 20% of the U.S.
everything's fine, and if it's 25%, it's the end of the world?

--
Jared


author: Lubow

text:
"-=DirtBagï¿½" <[email]> wrote in message
news:4f450205$0$12043$[email]...

I don't think it's as significant as you would think.

First, China's currency is closed, controlled and not traded.

China's stock market is nowhere as regulated and observed as in North
America or Europe.

China has no environmental controls in place to the point where its
environmental issues are about to hit critical mass.  Even Rick Santorum,
who bitches daily about the Federal EPA, would not be comfortable there.

China is an authoritarian police state.  History points out that such a
governmental configuration will not last too long.  It could be argued China
would be an exception since it has been an authoritarian state for the last
3000 years but I would add it never had to face a free flow of information
as it currently exists.

China's labor force is unorganized, somewhat abused and is ripe for massive
trade union organizing which in turn could topple the authoritarian
government.

In short, too many "ifs" to say what will happen in China for the long term.


text:
On 2/22/12 7:51 AM, Lubow wrote:

Those are valid point but more importantly is that THEY (CHINA) has
taken all but a few manufacturing jobs away from the USA without as much
as a fight from us.  We (USA) have pretty much GIVEN China what used to
to be the backbone of America. The Jobs of the working man. We replaced
those wage earners with what?  We knew China was playing currency games
and we jumped in never-the-less.  Greed seduced CEO's and Bonuses came
before National Pride.  We supplanted the lost manufacturing with HOME
BUILDING.  We built the shit out of houses and see what that came too
since you can only build so many while reducing your middle class
earners.. it all came to a dead end and were pretty much screwed.  Cant
bring back those jobs we sent to China now.  We sent all the machinery
to China.  It is not like we can tool up for something that took 60-yrs
to build overnight. And if we could, we have the issues of taxes which
have been increased due to the shrinking wage earners lack of ability to
support the many social programs and giveaways they schemed to get poor
peoples votes come election time.

We built up Germany, and Japan, while we screwed ourselves.  We then
allowed China to have our wage earning jobs while promising the
unemployed that they would care for there needs. That has drained our
treasury and put our Grandchildren in debt in the about of $40,000 the
day they are born.. and going higher..  Seem anyone who can balance a
check-book ought to be able to figure out that this IS NOT WORKING!

High Tech solutions seemed like a good idea 20 yrs ago but that has
backfired on the working class.  We allowed CEO/s to make a ton of Bonus
money via cost cutting by offshore manufacturing thus screwing  the
average wage earner.. Never did question how this would play out.. The
morons in Congress I felt that we would all manufacture houses for 10
years.. then have Government backed Loans to pay for them.  That now
looks totally irresponsible and has caused a world wide financial
meltdown once Wall St. figured out how to PACKAGE C-quality paper as
A-rated and hand it all over the world investment world.

Bottom like is our Congress WAS and IS stupid. They were blinded by PAC
money bribes.  Screw the bastards in Washington who allowed all this.
Many have moved on and the recent Congresses have not a clue how to fix
it so they keep kicking the can down the road.  We (USA) are screwed.

Why we allow this sort of Government is beyond me.  Seems they just
power hungry and elitist wannabees.  They passed legislation that
protect themselves from insider trading and other self-serving rules
that have made politics a joke.  We need REAL hard core changes..  But
we are not going to get it.  We have the FOX in the hen-house and he is
not about to leave without a fight.

We have a lot of the world pissed at us for the dirty deeds we have done
a lot of damage in this world under the pretext that we were freeing
people.. We are not freeing anyone.  We are killing them.  Wiki-Leaks
points out some of our shit moves ( killing 10K non-combatants) and THEY
become the bad guy.

Seems that the real "Bad GUY" is the US Government.


author: Khazar

text:
On Feb 22, 10:51 am, "Lubow" <[email]> wrote:

. . . your forgot one:
"The Opium Wars“:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eRvKKDy6nM&feature=related

or two:
And:
“Britain is protecting the biggest heroin crop of all time“:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-469983/Britain-protecting-biggest-heroin-crop-time.html

or three:
"Fighting And Dying In Afghanistan For Opium”:
http://servv89pn0aj.sn.sourcedns.com/~gbpprorg/judicial-inc/Dying_for_afghan_opium.htm
“Nation Of Lies - Another Look at the "War" in Afghanistan“:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHOtq3oLBMU
And:
US Soldiers guarding opium in Afghanistan:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChIF6yvTL6k&NR=1

Everytime, by turning a blind eye on truth, by insisting on keeping
Satan and his children out of the equation you lose . . . China is
being groomed to be Rothschild's new bitch, because The United States
Of America is finally all sucked out . . . time for the parasite to
leave the withered vine of freedom, stretched out helpless and
bloodless on the cold, wet ground.

+++  +++  +++  +++  +++  +++  +++  +++  +++  +++  +++  +++

Bible truths will set you free John 8:32


author: Nick C

subject: Re: Kerry, the Campaign Finance Reform Prez

text:
"Old Salt card carrying Curmudgeon" <[email]> wrote in
message news:[email]...

Substitute "aroma" for "stink.' Democrats stink but republicans have an
aroma.

Did you hear on TV news where Kerry had written 27 memorandum requests to
the Pentagon (who in the Pentagon was not mentioned) asking for procurement
approval be given to a small aerospace manufacturing company, after the
company contributed $25,000 to Kerry's re-election fund?

The aerospace company was later found to be producing parts that were
unreliable. Upon that discovery, Kerry had the $25,000 taken out of his
re-election fund and donated to a charity.

However, the bottom line is that Kerry accepted money for favors; so long as
the practice was not brought to light.

nick

make their life fulfilled.
computing dept.


author: Allan Smith (whereever

text:
Nick,

Did Bush return the half million from Enron when it tanked?

Allan

"Nick C" <[email]> wrote in message
news:bInZb.22065$Xp.98857@attbi_s54...


text:
What favors did Bush provide for Enron? In this case it was be the same
situation that Kerry is in.

Kerry claimes he didn't provide any favors to his lobbyest brother who gave
Kerry over $600,000 so there was no reason to return that money.

nick

"Allan Smith" <netsmith@(whereever).com> wrote in message
news:zgoZb.38091$[email]...


subject: John Zhu is now JohnnyC8@aol.com

text:
I'm sorry to keep posting the same emails, but john zhu refuses to
give up.  First he ripped lots and lots of people off from his
account [email].  Then, after I warned everyone about
that account, he started using [email].  That was
last week.  This week, after I warned everyone about his new
account, he started posting from [email].

If you see any of these addresses, DO NOT DO ANY BUSINESS! He
has ripped off lots of people, I can send you a list of email
address if you want confirmation.  I can also give you his
home address and phone number if you want to chat with him.

And if you are reading this, johnny, you can run but you can't hide.
You can use a different aol address every day of the week and I
will find you.  You are a piece of shit and we will not rest until
your sorry ass is in jail.

-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
      http://www.dejanews.com/     Search, Read, Post to Usenet


author: john

subject: Protein Alternatives

text:
Hello,

regarding weight lifting / muscle building..

are there any decent protein alternatives to Dairy and Meat...  Either in powder
and/or food  ?

I have psoriasis and flare up pretty bad with those 2 groups.  (eggs & fish are ok
though)

Whey protein seems to flare my P the most.

any help is appreciated.

john


author: Keiron

subject: Re: Protein Alternatives

text:
On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:08:32 -0400, john wrote:

beans, peas and rice. They don't provide the same high ratios of meat but
it's better than nothing. I'm still amazed by soya; soya nuts (cooked
then dry roasted soya beans) are 40% protein! As has been said by other
posters fish and eggs are excellent. Eggs have one of the most complete
amino acid profiles I understand, and Cod has more protein per weight
(60% I read) than red meat or chicken. Other fish come close, google is
comprehensive on this. Nuts! I think most of the really huge guys eat
these for fats but the protein is good especially if you're meat/dairy
free. Seeds too.


subject: Re: Protein Alternatives

text:
On Thu, 16 Jul 2009 12:21:58 +0000, Keiron wrote:

OH! And Avacado!


author: Uncle bob

subject: Re: Protein Alternatives

text:
On 15 jul, 17:08, "john" <[email]> wrote:

Eggs are all you need. Combined with fish is allready perfect.

You can easily eat 8-12 eggs a day without health problems. I eat 8
eggs each morning and my cholesterol is low, and my entire
cardiovascular system is better than most 25 year olds.

If you are unsure that fish and eggs do the job properly, add protein
powder. Problem is, most them them are milk/dairy based. I really
suggest you stick to eggs and fish. Or try what Omelet said...


author: Omelet

subject: Re: Protein Alternatives

text:
In article <4a5df036$0$25007$[email]>,
 "john" <[email]> wrote:

Have you tried Soy?  I don't generally recommend it, but in your case it
might be called for.  If eggs work well, why not stick with them? There
are a number of ways to prepare them that are quick and easy, and they
are relatively cheap gram for gram.

Dr. Earl Mindel recommends L-Cysteine supplementation for your
condition. Sometimes L-lysine can help too.  I have a female neighbor
that had that stuff all over her face and arms. She was ashamed to go
out in public and no dermatologist was able to help her

She tried that combo for awhile and it cleared up in 3 months.


author: Jim Janney

subject: Re: Protein Alternatives

text:
"john" <[email]> writes:

Mike Mahler sells a rice protein powder as a Vegan alternative.  I
haven't tried it so I have no opinion on its quality.

http://www.mikemahler.com/store_riceprotein.html


subject: Re: Protein Alternatives

text:
john wrote:
Eggs and fish are great protein sources so I would
say just to stick with those!
In fact, I have had some amazing dishes that
combined both.
You are getting the both worlds then, right? Great
protein sources + something neutral for your
condition.
I would start researching and collecting a bunch
of egg and fish recipes.


subject: Re: Protein Alternatives

text:
In article
<[email]>,
 Uncle bob <[email]> wrote:

I've currently got a nice batch of pickled eggs going. I cheat on the
brine and use my favorite grocery store pickle brine. Claussen's.

Buy a jar of your favorite pickles, eat the pickles and save the brine.
Add some canned beet juice. Hardboil and peel some eggs and put the eggs
into the combination pickle juice and beet juice. (Dyes them that
classic pink color). Refrigerate the jar for one week.

Pics to follow when I finally decant the eggs, probably later this
afternoon.  I've got some yard work to do while it's still cool out,
then I'm babysitting the nephews this afternoon while sis' and the
brother in law go watch the new Harry Potter movie. <g>

I've got Cantaloupe for the boys to graze on...


subject: Re: Protein Alternatives

text:
In article <67e58$4a5e095c$c650990a$[email]>,
 rabbits77 <[email]> wrote:

There is always the standard tuna taco...
;-)


author: David

subject: Re: Protein Alternatives

text:
"Omelet" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Om - I'm looking for an idea to make pockets and stuff them with minced
chicken and veg like those chinese dumpling things or dim sims whatever you
call them over there.
So my question is - do you have ideas for what the pocket could be made of
that might be low carb i.e. -  like rice paper - or an alternative to rice
paper that has some nutriton going for it? was thinking of  kelp they make
sushi with but I dont know if a person can eat a lot of that without getting
sick of it


subject: Re: Protein Alternatives

text:
In article <4a61d0d3$0$21180$[email]>,
 "David" <[email]> wrote:

Kelp might work, or you could hollow out some zucchini and make a
stuffed version of it but that's not quite what you are looking for.

There are low carb bake mixes such as "carb quick" that you can make low
carb baked goods and noodles if you don't mind making pasta from scratch.

Imo, rice papers are an excellent idea.  My sister has been using those
to make spring rolls and they don't seem to affect my glucose levels at
all, but I don't pig out on them either.

Are you looking to deep fry these?


subject: Re: Protein Alternatives

text:
In article <7b22a$4a5e2fc1$c650990a$[email]>,
 rabbits77 <[email]> wrote:

Indeed...  Or jut good old fashioned Chorizo and eggs with cheddar. ;-d
That's not bad stuffed into a tortilla for a "breakfast taco" too.

Breakfast tacos are very common and popular around here. Barbacoa is one
of my favorites...

Standard offers for various ones are beans, bacon, eggs, sausage,
barbacoa, chorizo, cheese, carne guisada, and potatoes.

Bean, bacon and cheese with eggs is a good combo, but I'm still strictly
dieting. <g>


subject: Re: Protein Alternatives

text:
"Omelet" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

 am thinking to steam this -
Good idea about zucchini - will try that - will stuff a whole zucchini and
slice it up after it is cooked and cooled - if the filling stays and doesnt
fall apart that would be a perfect think - if that doesnt work will do it
with  rice paper.
thanks Om


subject: Re: Protein Alternatives

text:
In article <4a625077$0$7463$[email]>,
 "David" <[email]> wrote:

Cheers!

I've been using my electric grill on zucchini lately and have considered
trying to make stuffed "boats" out of it as well.


author: Anonymous

subject: Arabic Fortune falls, Ariel rest assured

text:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Leo Sun transits 3rd to 2nd house of the horoscope,
Moon to Polaris is 12th of horoscope, Mercury Virgo
rules 3rd house, Venus Cancer rules 2nd house, Mars
to Apex 6th -- ARABIC PART OF FORTUNE FALLS THEREIN
Sagittarius, Jupiter Gemini rules in the 12th house,
Saturn Taurus rules 11th, Uranus in Capricorn exalts
8th house, Neptune Capricorn 7th, with head of Draco
Vulcan takes his flames fall down under ruling Venus,
head of the dragon Gemini debilitates 12th--the Moon
indebted, while Aquarian Tail of the dragon rules in
the 8th house Urania extreme, Arabic Part of Spirit
Libra 4th house, Sun Moon Mercury Jupiter Saturn are
closing benefic, Mars verily receding malefic tugging
the souls whose souljourn is (of the Martial faction)
nearest of the planets. --Adjudicated by Daniel J Min
Ariel in the que, assuredly him to go out with a bang:

Astrolog 5.41F chart for World Trade Center
Mars' day Sept 11, 2001 8:50 AM EDT New York, NY 74:01W 40:43N
Body         Location  Ret. Latitude Rul. House Rul.  Velocity
Sun       : 24Leo02'22"   - 0:00'00" (R) [12th] [-R] +0.9727619
Moon      :  3Gem18'25"   - 0:26'24" (-) [ 9th] [-e] +13.584335
Mercury   : 19Vir28'56"   - 1:42'39" (R) [12th] [Fd] +1.2259890
Venus     : 23Can35'45"   + 0:30'24" (-) [11th] [--] +1.2081321
Mars      :  6Sag38'06"   - 3:22'04" (-) [ 3rd] [-R] +0.5251805
Jupiter   : 16Gem46'51"   - 0:12'00" (F) [ 9th] [R-] +0.1458397
Saturn    : 19Tau56'33"   - 1:47'26" (-) [ 8th] [-d] +0.0280668
Uranus    : 27Cap01'44" R - 0:45'22" (-) [ 5th] [F-] -0.0340522
Neptune   : 11Cap32'00" R + 0:07'55" (-) [ 4th] [-e] -0.0181576
Pluto     : 17Sco49'41"   +10:11'27" (R) [ 2nd] [F-] +0.0103652
Node      :  8Gem17'27"   + 0:00'00" (-) [ 9th] [--] +0.0028906
Lilith    :  7Aqu24'07"   - 4:27'25" (-) [ 5th] [--] +0.1117563
Fortune   : 29Gem35'40"   __________ (d) [10th] [-d] __________
Vertex    : 14Ari07'52"   __________ (F) [ 7th] [Re] __________
East Point: 25Vir51'44"   __________ (-) [ 1st] [R-] __________
Ascendant : 20Vir19'37"   __________     [12th]      __________
Nadir     : 22Sag48'39"   __________     [ 4th]      __________
Descendant: 20Pis19'37"   __________     [ 6th]      __________
Midheaven : 22Gem48'39"   __________     [10th]      __________
11th Cusp : 21Can49'51"   __________     [11th]      __________
12th Cusp : 23Leo19'51"   __________     [12th]      __________
Aldebaran : 15Tau00'00"   - 5:28'00"     [ 8th]          alTau
Polaris   :  3Gem46'31"   +66:05'48"     [ 9th]          alUMi
Rastaban  : 17Sco10'24"   +75:16'59"     [ 2nd]          beDra
Solar Apex:  7Sag21'49"   +53:26'19"     [ 3rd]          HerA*

Body     Angle         X axis        Y axis        Z axis        Length
Eart: [  0.0000000] [  0.0000000] [  0.0000000] [  0.0000000] [  0.0000000]~
Sun : [144.0393623] [ -0.8147533] [  0.5910981] [ -0.0000010] [  1.0065883]+
Moon: [ 63.3070237] [  0.0011312] [  0.0022499] [ -0.0000193] [  0.0025184]+
Merc: [169.4822958] [ -1.0618834] [  0.1971479] [ -0.0322580] [  1.0805110]+
Venu: [113.5958094] [ -0.5504160] [  1.2601037] [  0.0121634] [  1.3751244]-
Mars: [246.6350298] [ -0.3015656] [ -0.6980475] [ -0.0447479] [  0.7617181]-
Jupi: [ 76.7807165] [  1.2427838] [  5.2906257] [ -0.0189823] [  5.4346658]+
Satu: [ 49.9424288] [  5.7558404] [  6.8455625] [ -0.2796037] [  8.9481620]+
Uran: [297.0287961] [  8.6686693] [-16.9921039] [ -0.2517427] [ 19.0772324]-
Nept: [281.5333421] [  5.8681258] [-28.7570917] [  0.0676109] [ 29.3497835]-
Plut: [227.8281800] [-20.1613675] [-22.2568790] [  5.3984977] [ 30.5121808]-
Node: [ 68.2909587] [  0.0009266] [  0.0023273] [  0.0000000] [  0.0025050]-
Lili: [307.4019395] [  0.0016415] [ -0.0021468] [ -0.0002106] [  0.0027106]~

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBO55uCJljD7YrHM/nEQJ9cQCg7J3297BXTLG3pg16qM9PUYXsXqYAoJXn
nFX5evZwvRQ9g43p0B242dOZ
=BhRo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


author: Shun Yan Cheung

subject: Re: Arabic Fortune falls, Ariel rest assured

text:
In article <[email]>,
Anonymous  <[email]> wrote:

Are you trying to tell us that this horoscope crap
have predicted what happened today ?


author: WRE (remove nospam

text:
Where do these planets get the money to buy all these houses?? Seems to like
they move alot from house to house.

"Anonymous" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
0.0000000]~
1.0065883]+
0.0025184]+
1.0805110]+
1.3751244]-
0.7617181]-
5.4346658]+
8.9481620]+
19.0772324]-
29.3497835]-
30.5121808]-
0.0025050]-
0.0027106]~


text:
Holy crap!!!!!!!! They've published the DELTA secret!! Welles will be on
your asses now...........

Anonymous <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
 0.0000000]~
 1.0065883]+
 0.0025184]+
 1.0805110]+
 1.3751244]-
 0.7617181]-
 5.4346658]+
 8.9481620]+
 19.0772324]-
 29.3497835]-
 30.5121808]-
 0.0025050]-
 0.0027106]~


author: Winston Edmond

text:
"WRE" <[email] (remove nospam)> asks:

I think you misunderstand.  Though the planets are into real estate in a
big way, their movement from house to house is more like that of
door-to-door salesmen, not buyers and sellers.  :-)
 -WBE


author: Ken Johnson

text:
I doubt it. This kind of seemingly benign bullshit was all over the
newsgroups about a week and a half ago. I think it is merely terrorist code
advising agents of plan actions. Anyone care to decode it? Beats me!?!


author: [redacted]

text:
I dont get it......

"Spamster" <[email]> wrote in message news:[email]...


text:
In article <i0Cn7.1009$[email]>,
[email] <[email]> wrote:

What, the acronym?  FOAD means "f*** off and die."


author: Gary C

text:
SEND BEER

"Unlike competitive diving, there are no points awarded to investors for degree
of difficulty."

-Gary C.