Friday, December 17, 2010
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Monday, November 29, 2010
Monday, November 22, 2010
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Vision Board Builder | Day Blocks
Vision Board Builder | Day Blocks
Vision Board Builder is a free program that lets you combine images on a single canvas. You can resize and reshape each photo. You can also add text to give your vision board a message.
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Turn photos into text art
Ascii Generator 2.0 | Download Ascii Generator 2.0 software for free at SourceForge.net
Ascii Generator dotNET (ascgen2) is an application to convert images into high quality ASCII art - text that accurately represents the original image. The first program of its kind to support variable width fonts, and real-time output adjustment.
Monday, November 8, 2010
Monday, November 1, 2010
Monday, October 18, 2010
Opt out of receiving the yellow pages
Yellow Pages Association | Environmental
You can search for the local yellow pages directory publishers and opt out of receiving the book.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Cool Sports Site
Thuuz - Home
Thuuz tracks many major sporting events. Each game is given a real-time excitement rating. A quick glance tells you how exciting the game is. It rates games that have already been played and it suggests a point to start watching. It also links to some games for online viewing and if you register, you get real-time notices about in-progress games. You can opt for e-mail or text message alerts.
Cool Sports Site
Thuuz - Home
Thuuz tracks many major sporting events. Each game is given a real-time excitement rating. A quick glance tells you how exciting the game is. It rates games that have already been played and it suggests a point to start watching. It also links to some games for online viewing and if you register, you get real-time notices about in-progress games. You can opt for e-mail or text message alerts.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Friday, October 8, 2010
Microsoft WebMatrix
Microsoft WebMatrix
Microsoft's WebMatrix helps make many kinds of Websites. It has built-in support for advanced Web technology. So you can can design and test a website on your computer then upload it to the Internet only when you're ready. |
|
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Convert HTML to PDF
Convert HTML to PDF | Online HTML to PDF API
Turn the Web page into a PDF using PDFCrowd. It will capture the page exactly as it appears. Of course, PDF files are easy to view and store.
Laptop alarm security software
LAlarm - free laptop alarm security software
LAlarm™ is free laptop alarm security software. LAlarm sounds an alarm when a laptop is in danger of being stolen or losing data, and it can recover and destroy data if the laptop is stolen. LAlarm consists of seven alarms and other security functions designed to protect laptops, sensitive data and laptop users.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Thursday, September 2, 2010
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Friday, August 6, 2010
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Family Communication, Event Calendars, Gift Corner, Emergency Alerts ? Chattertree
Family Communication, Event Calendars, Gift Corner, Emergency Alerts ? Chattertree
It allows you to create a private social network. Only people you invite can join your network and see what you post. The site allows photo and video posting. It can help keep track of important family dates and events. It allows six-way video chatting. And it's free.
It allows you to create a private social network. Only people you invite can join your network and see what you post. The site allows photo and video posting. It can help keep track of important family dates and events. It allows six-way video chatting. And it's free.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Monday, August 2, 2010
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Monday, July 19, 2010
Cool Sites of the Day
Hot Cal - Calorie Calculator & Fitness Tracker
Hot Cal - Calorie Calculator & Fitness Tracker
HotCal is an online calorie and fitness tracker that helps you keep track of your daily meals and exercise goals. Designed to be fast and easy to use, our tools help you meet your fitness goals without the hassles of many other online calorie calculators. Best of all, HotCal is 100% free.
ePub Bud - Publish, Convert, Store.
ePub Bud - Publish, Convert, Store, and Download
calibre - E-book management
calibre - E-book management
Calibre lets you download e-books from all over the Web. You can manage them all in a single program. And they can be easily converted into a useable format. You even have the option to read them on your computer.
Hot Cal - Calorie Calculator & Fitness Tracker
HotCal is an online calorie and fitness tracker that helps you keep track of your daily meals and exercise goals. Designed to be fast and easy to use, our tools help you meet your fitness goals without the hassles of many other online calorie calculators. Best of all, HotCal is 100% free.
ePub Bud - Publish, Convert, Store.
ePub Bud - Publish, Convert, Store, and Download
calibre - E-book management
calibre - E-book management
Calibre lets you download e-books from all over the Web. You can manage them all in a single program. And they can be easily converted into a useable format. You even have the option to read them on your computer.
Friday, July 16, 2010
FoodPair | Recipe Search Engine
FoodPair | Recipe Search Engine
Simply enter some of the ingredients you have lying around. The Website comes up with recipes using those ingredients.
Simply enter some of the ingredients you have lying around. The Website comes up with recipes using those ingredients.
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Cell Phone Plans, Credit Cards & CD Rates, Compare & Save Money on BillShrink
Bill Shrink
It seems like there is never enough money. And there are certain things that you just don't want to live without.
It can be hard to cut certain things, like cell phone service, out of your life. But maybe you don't need to. You just need to find a better deal.
That is the goal of BillShrink. This free Website gathers your spending information for a number of areas. This includes cell phone plans, television service, credit cards and fuel use.
It then combs through a database of service plans and options. You are presented with alternatives that can save you money instantly. And you won't have to change your usage patterns.
BillShrink can also send you regular e-mail updates. It will let you know if better service options have become available. You don't have to go searching for savings yourself.
It seems like there is never enough money. And there are certain things that you just don't want to live without.
It can be hard to cut certain things, like cell phone service, out of your life. But maybe you don't need to. You just need to find a better deal.
That is the goal of BillShrink. This free Website gathers your spending information for a number of areas. This includes cell phone plans, television service, credit cards and fuel use.
It then combs through a database of service plans and options. You are presented with alternatives that can save you money instantly. And you won't have to change your usage patterns.
BillShrink can also send you regular e-mail updates. It will let you know if better service options have become available. You don't have to go searching for savings yourself.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Free online 360 panoramic photos software, fullscreen flash viewer
Dermandar
Upload several pictures of an area. The Website will intelligently stitch them together for you. It can even create 360-degree views!
How To Clean Anything
Upload several pictures of an area. The Website will intelligently stitch them together for you. It can even create 360-degree views!
How To Clean Anything
Friday, July 9, 2010
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Language Learning with Livemocha | Learn a Language Online - Free!
Livemocha
Livemocha is the world's largest online language learning community! 6 million Livemocha members appreciate our simple, effective approach to language learning: the most natural way to learn a language is with help from real native speakers.
Livemocha is the world's largest online language learning community! 6 million Livemocha members appreciate our simple, effective approach to language learning: the most natural way to learn a language is with help from real native speakers.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Friday, July 2, 2010
Discover Events, Shows & Things To Do - Zvents
ZVENTS
That's where today's Cool Site comes in. It lists all the events going on in your area. To find Fourth of July festivities, scroll down to Browse by Holiday. You can also find movies, concerts, art shows and activities for kids. And that's only a fraction of the events listed. It's a handy site to have when looking for something to do.
That's where today's Cool Site comes in. It lists all the events going on in your area. To find Fourth of July festivities, scroll down to Browse by Holiday. You can also find movies, concerts, art shows and activities for kids. And that's only a fraction of the events listed. It's a handy site to have when looking for something to do.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
FINRA - Tools & Calculators
www.finra.org
The site offers many free financial resources. For example, you’ll find research tools and terms. You can even get risk and scam meters.
There are also handy calculators and simulations. You can calculate retirement, college and savings strategies. There are also simulations for playing the stock market. You don't have to risk real money.
The site offers many free financial resources. For example, you’ll find research tools and terms. You can even get risk and scam meters.
There are also handy calculators and simulations. You can calculate retirement, college and savings strategies. There are also simulations for playing the stock market. You don't have to risk real money.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Small Basic
Microsoft Small Basic
Microsoft's Small Basic helps you take baby steps into the world of programming. It's intended to be an educational tool for kids. But it's a good starting place for anyone. It guides you through building simple programs in BASIC.
An introductory guide will help you build your first program. Once you have the basics down, you can start experimenting. Small Basic will help you write working code every step of the way. Save your best programs and share them with other users. Or you can post them online for everyone.
Microsoft's Small Basic helps you take baby steps into the world of programming. It's intended to be an educational tool for kids. But it's a good starting place for anyone. It guides you through building simple programs in BASIC.
An introductory guide will help you build your first program. Once you have the basics down, you can start experimenting. Small Basic will help you write working code every step of the way. Save your best programs and share them with other users. Or you can post them online for everyone.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Hump Day Stuff
General disarray and other fun stuff
PriceBlink
PriceBlink lets you know when the product you're viewing can be purchased elsewhere at a lower price or when it has found coupons for the retailer you're shopping. PriceBlink stays hidden in the background, appearing only when it can save you money.
Keep secure when using Wi-Fi or a public server
P90X Newsletter Issue #034 06/23/10 The 4-1-1 on Fiber
Roadside America
This site lists crazy and interesting attractions in every state. You'll find suggestions that are good for a day out or a week-long trip.
A fly lands on President Barack Obama's face as he delivers remarks on the Affordable Care Act and the New Patients Bill of Rights, Tuesday, June 22, 2010, in the East Room of the White House in Washington. From the AP.
News
Blagojevich Wanted To 'Get A Good Gig' In D.C.
Ex-Governor Heard On Tapes Discussing Possible Cabinet Appointment, Ambassadorship For Senate Appointment
Black SC Republican poised to go to Congress
Voters in South Carolina nominated a black Republican lawmaker for an open congressional seat Tuesday, rejecting a legendary political name and adding diversity to the national party.
State Rep. Tim Scott defeated Paul Thurmond, an attorney who is son of the one-time segregationist U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond. Scott, who won the runoff with 69 percent of the vote, is now poised to become the nation's first black GOP congressman since 2003.
Millionaires' Riches Return to Pre-Crisis Levels, Study Finds
Global millionaires’ ranks increased by about 17 percent in 2009, with the Asia-Pacific region posting a 26 percent gain, according to a report by Capgemini SA and Merrill Lynch & Co. The number of millionaire households, or those with at least $1 million in investable assets, excluding primary residences, expanded to 10 million from 8.6 million a year earlier ...
Federal Gov't Halts Sand Berm Dredging
The federal government is shutting down the dredging that was being done to create protective sand berms in the Gulf of Mexico.
Business leaders say Obama's economic policies stifle growth
The chairman of the Business Roundtable, an association of top corporate executives that has been President Obama's closest ally in the business community, accused the president and Democratic lawmakers Tuesday of creating an "increasingly hostile environment for investment and job creation."
PriceBlink
PriceBlink lets you know when the product you're viewing can be purchased elsewhere at a lower price or when it has found coupons for the retailer you're shopping. PriceBlink stays hidden in the background, appearing only when it can save you money.
Keep secure when using Wi-Fi or a public server
P90X Newsletter Issue #034 06/23/10 The 4-1-1 on Fiber
Roadside America
This site lists crazy and interesting attractions in every state. You'll find suggestions that are good for a day out or a week-long trip.
A fly lands on President Barack Obama's face as he delivers remarks on the Affordable Care Act and the New Patients Bill of Rights, Tuesday, June 22, 2010, in the East Room of the White House in Washington. From the AP.
News
Blagojevich Wanted To 'Get A Good Gig' In D.C.
Ex-Governor Heard On Tapes Discussing Possible Cabinet Appointment, Ambassadorship For Senate Appointment
Black SC Republican poised to go to Congress
Voters in South Carolina nominated a black Republican lawmaker for an open congressional seat Tuesday, rejecting a legendary political name and adding diversity to the national party.
State Rep. Tim Scott defeated Paul Thurmond, an attorney who is son of the one-time segregationist U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond. Scott, who won the runoff with 69 percent of the vote, is now poised to become the nation's first black GOP congressman since 2003.
Millionaires' Riches Return to Pre-Crisis Levels, Study Finds
Global millionaires’ ranks increased by about 17 percent in 2009, with the Asia-Pacific region posting a 26 percent gain, according to a report by Capgemini SA and Merrill Lynch & Co. The number of millionaire households, or those with at least $1 million in investable assets, excluding primary residences, expanded to 10 million from 8.6 million a year earlier ...
Federal Gov't Halts Sand Berm Dredging
The federal government is shutting down the dredging that was being done to create protective sand berms in the Gulf of Mexico.
Business leaders say Obama's economic policies stifle growth
The chairman of the Business Roundtable, an association of top corporate executives that has been President Obama's closest ally in the business community, accused the president and Democratic lawmakers Tuesday of creating an "increasingly hostile environment for investment and job creation."
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Computer Jargon
http://www.komando.com/tips/index.aspx?id=9007
I'll explain the most important computer terminology to you. You should also look at my budget laptop buying guide. It covers the most important things to look for in a budget laptop.
Let’s start by talking about the processor, or microchip. This is also known as the central processing unit (CPU). These days, processor speed is measured in gigahertz, for example 1.6GHz.
The processor is the brain of the computer. It performs all the computations. Without it, the software wouldn’t run. It used to be that faster was better. But that's not always the case anymore. Multiple-core processors change the equation a little.
Multi-core processors are single microchips that contain several processor cores. Each core essentially works like an individual processor. The two most common versions are dual-core and quad-core. Dual-core processors have two cores, while quad-core processors have four.
The benefit of more cores is better multitasking. Each core can be working on a separate task simultaneously. A slower multi-core processor is often more useful than a fast single-core processor.
Single-core processors are still available, and they're very inexpensive. But I'd go with a multi-core instead. Multi-core processors have become quite common; you won’t pay much more for a dual-core processor.
Few budget laptops offer quad-core processors. That’s ok. A dual-core processor will be fine for general computing.
You’ll also see 64-bit and 32-bit processors. Basically, 64-bit processors can work through twice as much data at a time. To get the full benefit, you’ll need a 64-bit version of Windows.
There are two major processor manufacturers: Intel and AMD. Both make good products. AMD has the edge on price, but Intel has better performance.
You might see information on something called a chipset. The chipset is part of the motherboard. It allows the CPU to interact with all the other components. There are several different kinds of chipsets for every processor.
For a budget laptop, you don't need to worry about chipsets. Chipsets are more important in high-end computers.
The graphics card is what generates information for display. This includes basic computing, gaming, and media. There are two types of graphics cards: integrated and discrete.
Integrated means the graphic system is built into the motherboard. A common integrated graphic system is the Intel GMA 4500MHD. It's ok for basic computing. Just don't expect to run intensive video games.
Discrete graphics cards are much more powerful. That's good for gaming and heavy visual media creation. But they aren't great for battery life or price. Discrete cards are manufactured by ATI and Nvidia.
Next up is the RAM, which stands for Random Access Memory. It is often just called memory. RAM acts as a temporary storage space for information.
Hard drives store a lot of information, but they're slow. So frequently accessed information is loaded into RAM, which is much faster. The more RAM you have, the smoother your computer will run.
You want at least 2 gigabytes of RAM. For Windows 7, 4GB would be preferable. It will make a difference when a lot of programs are open. The amount of RAM your computer can use will depend on whether you’re using 32- or 64-bit Windows. Click here to find out what you need to know about selecting RAM.
Computers also have storage. There are HDDs and SSDs. This is where programs and data are kept. HDD stands for hard disk drive. These use magnets and spinning platters. There relatively fragile. But, most computers still use them.
SSD stands for solid-state drive. Unlike HDDs, SSDs have no moving parts. That makes them faster and studier than regular hard drives. However, they also store less and are much more expensive. You won’t see these on budget laptops.
HDDs are pretty inexpensive these days. Most laptops will come with at least a 160GB drive. More are shipping with 320GB drives. That’s more storage than most people need.
Any laptop drive should hold all your data. Just don't try storing an entire library of movies. Photos and music will also take up space, but not as quickly. If you need more storage, you can always get an external hard drive.
Sometimes you will see an RPM number for HDDs. On a laptop, this number will be either 5,400RPM or 7,200RPM. As with all mechanical equipment, RPM stands for rotations per minute. It's how fast the hard drive's mechanism spins.
Laptop hard drives usually run at 5,400RPM. That makes them slower to access information, but they use less energy. That's better for battery life, and the speed difference usually isn't noticeable.
The optical drive is what reads and burns CDs and DVDs. Don’t worry too much about specifications when it comes to optical drives. Just make sure they burn DVDs as well as CDs.
Higher-end laptops may come with Blu-ray Disc drives (BD). These can read Blu-ray discs. And they work for CDs and DVDs. It's up to you if you want to spend the extra money.
Most laptops have built-in networking options. Almost all of them come with an Ethernet connection. That's what you use for a wired network. All modern Ethernet connections go up to 100 megabits per second (Mbps). That's fine for most situations. However, 1000Mbps, or gigabit, connections are also available.
Gigabit connections are great for transferring large files over a network. However, you will also need a gigabit router. And all your other computers will need gigabit connections. Otherwise the extra speed is wasted.
Laptops also ship with wireless networking capability. You will see the number 802.11 followed by a letter. The letter will be "a," "b," "g," "n" or a combination. You want 802.11n or 802.11g, which are the most common choices.
The newest wireless standard is 802.11n. It's the fastest and has the longest range. However, you need an 802.11n wireless router to reap the advantages of it. The 802.11g standard is even more common. All laptops should have this by default. The 802.11a and 802.11b standards are rarely used anymore.
It would be good for the laptop to have 802.11n. That makes it more future-proof. But 802.11n can be added later with an adaptor, if needed.
Laptops come with many types of connections. USB, or Universal Serial Bus, is one of the most important connections. You use it to connect mice, printers and external drives.
You might see VGA or DVI for video output. Go with DVI if possible, as VGA is the older connector. Some laptops also have an HDMI port. This allows easier connections to HDTVs. You won't see too many of these on budget laptops.
The laptop's screen resolution is determined by screen size. Pick a screen size that works for you. This is where in-store testing comes in handy.
Speaking of screens, laptops use LCDs, or liquid-crystal displays. You may see some higher-end laptops labeled LED. LED, or light-emitting diode, is a type of LCD backlighting. Click here to learn about the advantages it offers.
Buying the correct computer is just the beginning. Make sure you set up your new computer with security in mind:
Connecting to the Internet is dangerous. But it doesn't have to be. Learn more before you take a new computer online.
Even security software doesn't completely protect against user error. Malicious sites can be tricky to spot. These free software tools can help you.
More people are setting up wireless networks. These are convenient, but can be unsafe. Make sure your wireless network keeps the bad guys out.
I'll explain the most important computer terminology to you. You should also look at my budget laptop buying guide. It covers the most important things to look for in a budget laptop.
Let’s start by talking about the processor, or microchip. This is also known as the central processing unit (CPU). These days, processor speed is measured in gigahertz, for example 1.6GHz.
The processor is the brain of the computer. It performs all the computations. Without it, the software wouldn’t run. It used to be that faster was better. But that's not always the case anymore. Multiple-core processors change the equation a little.
Multi-core processors are single microchips that contain several processor cores. Each core essentially works like an individual processor. The two most common versions are dual-core and quad-core. Dual-core processors have two cores, while quad-core processors have four.
The benefit of more cores is better multitasking. Each core can be working on a separate task simultaneously. A slower multi-core processor is often more useful than a fast single-core processor.
Single-core processors are still available, and they're very inexpensive. But I'd go with a multi-core instead. Multi-core processors have become quite common; you won’t pay much more for a dual-core processor.
Few budget laptops offer quad-core processors. That’s ok. A dual-core processor will be fine for general computing.
You’ll also see 64-bit and 32-bit processors. Basically, 64-bit processors can work through twice as much data at a time. To get the full benefit, you’ll need a 64-bit version of Windows.
There are two major processor manufacturers: Intel and AMD. Both make good products. AMD has the edge on price, but Intel has better performance.
You might see information on something called a chipset. The chipset is part of the motherboard. It allows the CPU to interact with all the other components. There are several different kinds of chipsets for every processor.
For a budget laptop, you don't need to worry about chipsets. Chipsets are more important in high-end computers.
The graphics card is what generates information for display. This includes basic computing, gaming, and media. There are two types of graphics cards: integrated and discrete.
Integrated means the graphic system is built into the motherboard. A common integrated graphic system is the Intel GMA 4500MHD. It's ok for basic computing. Just don't expect to run intensive video games.
Discrete graphics cards are much more powerful. That's good for gaming and heavy visual media creation. But they aren't great for battery life or price. Discrete cards are manufactured by ATI and Nvidia.
Next up is the RAM, which stands for Random Access Memory. It is often just called memory. RAM acts as a temporary storage space for information.
Hard drives store a lot of information, but they're slow. So frequently accessed information is loaded into RAM, which is much faster. The more RAM you have, the smoother your computer will run.
You want at least 2 gigabytes of RAM. For Windows 7, 4GB would be preferable. It will make a difference when a lot of programs are open. The amount of RAM your computer can use will depend on whether you’re using 32- or 64-bit Windows. Click here to find out what you need to know about selecting RAM.
Computers also have storage. There are HDDs and SSDs. This is where programs and data are kept. HDD stands for hard disk drive. These use magnets and spinning platters. There relatively fragile. But, most computers still use them.
SSD stands for solid-state drive. Unlike HDDs, SSDs have no moving parts. That makes them faster and studier than regular hard drives. However, they also store less and are much more expensive. You won’t see these on budget laptops.
HDDs are pretty inexpensive these days. Most laptops will come with at least a 160GB drive. More are shipping with 320GB drives. That’s more storage than most people need.
Any laptop drive should hold all your data. Just don't try storing an entire library of movies. Photos and music will also take up space, but not as quickly. If you need more storage, you can always get an external hard drive.
Sometimes you will see an RPM number for HDDs. On a laptop, this number will be either 5,400RPM or 7,200RPM. As with all mechanical equipment, RPM stands for rotations per minute. It's how fast the hard drive's mechanism spins.
Laptop hard drives usually run at 5,400RPM. That makes them slower to access information, but they use less energy. That's better for battery life, and the speed difference usually isn't noticeable.
The optical drive is what reads and burns CDs and DVDs. Don’t worry too much about specifications when it comes to optical drives. Just make sure they burn DVDs as well as CDs.
Higher-end laptops may come with Blu-ray Disc drives (BD). These can read Blu-ray discs. And they work for CDs and DVDs. It's up to you if you want to spend the extra money.
Most laptops have built-in networking options. Almost all of them come with an Ethernet connection. That's what you use for a wired network. All modern Ethernet connections go up to 100 megabits per second (Mbps). That's fine for most situations. However, 1000Mbps, or gigabit, connections are also available.
Gigabit connections are great for transferring large files over a network. However, you will also need a gigabit router. And all your other computers will need gigabit connections. Otherwise the extra speed is wasted.
Laptops also ship with wireless networking capability. You will see the number 802.11 followed by a letter. The letter will be "a," "b," "g," "n" or a combination. You want 802.11n or 802.11g, which are the most common choices.
The newest wireless standard is 802.11n. It's the fastest and has the longest range. However, you need an 802.11n wireless router to reap the advantages of it. The 802.11g standard is even more common. All laptops should have this by default. The 802.11a and 802.11b standards are rarely used anymore.
It would be good for the laptop to have 802.11n. That makes it more future-proof. But 802.11n can be added later with an adaptor, if needed.
Laptops come with many types of connections. USB, or Universal Serial Bus, is one of the most important connections. You use it to connect mice, printers and external drives.
You might see VGA or DVI for video output. Go with DVI if possible, as VGA is the older connector. Some laptops also have an HDMI port. This allows easier connections to HDTVs. You won't see too many of these on budget laptops.
The laptop's screen resolution is determined by screen size. Pick a screen size that works for you. This is where in-store testing comes in handy.
Speaking of screens, laptops use LCDs, or liquid-crystal displays. You may see some higher-end laptops labeled LED. LED, or light-emitting diode, is a type of LCD backlighting. Click here to learn about the advantages it offers.
Buying the correct computer is just the beginning. Make sure you set up your new computer with security in mind:
Connecting to the Internet is dangerous. But it doesn't have to be. Learn more before you take a new computer online.
Even security software doesn't completely protect against user error. Malicious sites can be tricky to spot. These free software tools can help you.
More people are setting up wireless networks. These are convenient, but can be unsafe. Make sure your wireless network keeps the bad guys out.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Cool site of day
Stykz is a simple computer animation tool. It lets you create movies with stick figures. You’ll manipulate the figures and build the animation frame by frame.
Stykz - The first multi-platform stick figure animation program
Stykz - The first multi-platform stick figure animation program
Friday, June 18, 2010
Friday
Today's Cool Site can help. It lists all current and upcoming events in your area. All the major things like movies and concerts are included.
Local Events: Concerts, Festivals & More Upcoming Events - Eventful
Beach Body News Letter
Hangover...
What is a hangover exactly? Believe it or not, no one really knows. The science is still unclear, but a prominent theory held by many scientists is that the main trigger for hangovers are chemicals called congeners. A Brown University study noted that congeners can "interfere with cell function and leave some lasting physical marks." The same study identified that darker drinks have more concentrated levels of congeners, and can therefore lead to more severe hangovers, so it's probably best to avoid spirits such as brandy, red wine, and rum. Alcohol also blocks the release of an antidiuretic hormone in our bodies, which causes us to urinate more and lose water—hence the dehydration. It also prevents kidneys from absorbing water effectively.
We know for a fact that symptoms such as headaches, dry mouth, nausea, sleep abnormalities, and dizziness are signs that you are doing actual physical damage to your brain, stomach, liver, and kidneys through the consumption of alcohol, but the actual culprit for the hangover has not been identified to a satisfactory degree of medical certainty. As we get older, our liver also produces lower amounts of an enzyme called alcohol dehydrogenase, which is used by the body to break down alcohol into a harmless chemical as it enters the bloodstream. This is what leaves many feeling like their hangovers worsen with age.
What can I do to prevent a hangover? There is a lot of confusion out there about what so-called miracle hangover cures actually do. While genetics do play a part in some people's resistance to hangovers, the truth is, the only 100 percent effective way to avoid a hangover is to abstain from drinking in the first place. You can't prevent alcohol from being absorbed by your body in much the same way that there is no cure for the common cold, so all you can hope to do is lessen the symptoms. Compare alcohol to a cold virus invading your bloodstream. You can take medicine to ease the cough and congestion it causes, but not to kill the virus directly. Only time can do that.
Another cause of hangovers is low blood sugar; eating a large meal before drinking will raise your levels, and cause the alcohol you're about to consume to be absorbed at a slower rate. Many people believe that eating a large meal while already drunk will prevent a hangover the next morning, but at this point, the alcohol is already in your system, and the damage has been done.
As we've discussed, dehydration is a side effect of alcohol consumption, so interspersing your drinks with glasses of water will slow down the rate at which this occurs. It might also be prudent to drink a glass of orange juice before bed to raise your blood sugar, and give your immune system an extra boost of vitamin C to battle the onslaught of toxins it's just received. If you're prone to headaches, popping an ibuprofen before you crash could be beneficial. Unfortunately, if you damage your body with enough toxins, you're going to get a hangover, no matter how many measures you take to lessen the blow.
Oops! I already have a hangover. What do I do? Alcohol is a drug, and as with any other narcotic, your body goes through withdrawal symptoms when that drug leaves your system. This phenomenon is what leads many people to the conclusion that a Bloody Mary is the only thing that will set you straight the morning after a big night out. While giving your body more of the drug that damaged it in the first place will provide a temporary "fix," you wouldn't tell a heroin addict that the best solution to his withdrawal is to take another hit, now would you? Obviously, this is a drastic comparison, but the logic holds up. So let's look at four steps you should take to get your body back to feeling its best:
Hydrate – Dehydration is the reason behind pretty much all of the worst hangover symptoms. Although alcohol makes us sleepy, it is often short and unrestful sleep, because your body wakes you up as a way of telling you to give it water and/or release it. A lack of proper REM sleep means you don't produce enough serotonin, leaving you cranky and irritable. Drink as much water as you can.
Rest – After you drink said water, go back to bed. As with any form of sickness, your body needs rest more than anything to restore your energy levels. If you must get up, avoid strenuous activity in the morning, and give your body the chance to recover.
Eat – Many people believe that a big plate of fried food is the best way to get rid of a hangover. The truth is, your body never needs unhealthy things, and you would be far better off eating a balanced meal of protein, carbohydrates, and healthy fats without the grease, because that might just irritate your stomach even further.
Combine 1 and 3, the Beachbody way – As always, we've got you covered. If eating is the last thing on your mind, you can hydrate your body and restore vital nutrients at the same time with Results and Recovery Formula™. Designed for use after workouts, it works just as well during a hangover to replenish your body with electrolytes and nutrients to get you back to your best. It tastes great, too!
Moderation is the key to enjoying your night out, and the day after. A little bit of foresight and self-control will go a long way toward helping you enjoy alcohol in a safe and healthy way.
Local Events: Concerts, Festivals & More Upcoming Events - Eventful
Beach Body News Letter
Hangover...
What is a hangover exactly? Believe it or not, no one really knows. The science is still unclear, but a prominent theory held by many scientists is that the main trigger for hangovers are chemicals called congeners. A Brown University study noted that congeners can "interfere with cell function and leave some lasting physical marks." The same study identified that darker drinks have more concentrated levels of congeners, and can therefore lead to more severe hangovers, so it's probably best to avoid spirits such as brandy, red wine, and rum. Alcohol also blocks the release of an antidiuretic hormone in our bodies, which causes us to urinate more and lose water—hence the dehydration. It also prevents kidneys from absorbing water effectively.
We know for a fact that symptoms such as headaches, dry mouth, nausea, sleep abnormalities, and dizziness are signs that you are doing actual physical damage to your brain, stomach, liver, and kidneys through the consumption of alcohol, but the actual culprit for the hangover has not been identified to a satisfactory degree of medical certainty. As we get older, our liver also produces lower amounts of an enzyme called alcohol dehydrogenase, which is used by the body to break down alcohol into a harmless chemical as it enters the bloodstream. This is what leaves many feeling like their hangovers worsen with age.
What can I do to prevent a hangover? There is a lot of confusion out there about what so-called miracle hangover cures actually do. While genetics do play a part in some people's resistance to hangovers, the truth is, the only 100 percent effective way to avoid a hangover is to abstain from drinking in the first place. You can't prevent alcohol from being absorbed by your body in much the same way that there is no cure for the common cold, so all you can hope to do is lessen the symptoms. Compare alcohol to a cold virus invading your bloodstream. You can take medicine to ease the cough and congestion it causes, but not to kill the virus directly. Only time can do that.
Another cause of hangovers is low blood sugar; eating a large meal before drinking will raise your levels, and cause the alcohol you're about to consume to be absorbed at a slower rate. Many people believe that eating a large meal while already drunk will prevent a hangover the next morning, but at this point, the alcohol is already in your system, and the damage has been done.
As we've discussed, dehydration is a side effect of alcohol consumption, so interspersing your drinks with glasses of water will slow down the rate at which this occurs. It might also be prudent to drink a glass of orange juice before bed to raise your blood sugar, and give your immune system an extra boost of vitamin C to battle the onslaught of toxins it's just received. If you're prone to headaches, popping an ibuprofen before you crash could be beneficial. Unfortunately, if you damage your body with enough toxins, you're going to get a hangover, no matter how many measures you take to lessen the blow.
Oops! I already have a hangover. What do I do? Alcohol is a drug, and as with any other narcotic, your body goes through withdrawal symptoms when that drug leaves your system. This phenomenon is what leads many people to the conclusion that a Bloody Mary is the only thing that will set you straight the morning after a big night out. While giving your body more of the drug that damaged it in the first place will provide a temporary "fix," you wouldn't tell a heroin addict that the best solution to his withdrawal is to take another hit, now would you? Obviously, this is a drastic comparison, but the logic holds up. So let's look at four steps you should take to get your body back to feeling its best:
Hydrate – Dehydration is the reason behind pretty much all of the worst hangover symptoms. Although alcohol makes us sleepy, it is often short and unrestful sleep, because your body wakes you up as a way of telling you to give it water and/or release it. A lack of proper REM sleep means you don't produce enough serotonin, leaving you cranky and irritable. Drink as much water as you can.
Rest – After you drink said water, go back to bed. As with any form of sickness, your body needs rest more than anything to restore your energy levels. If you must get up, avoid strenuous activity in the morning, and give your body the chance to recover.
Eat – Many people believe that a big plate of fried food is the best way to get rid of a hangover. The truth is, your body never needs unhealthy things, and you would be far better off eating a balanced meal of protein, carbohydrates, and healthy fats without the grease, because that might just irritate your stomach even further.
Combine 1 and 3, the Beachbody way – As always, we've got you covered. If eating is the last thing on your mind, you can hydrate your body and restore vital nutrients at the same time with Results and Recovery Formula™. Designed for use after workouts, it works just as well during a hangover to replenish your body with electrolytes and nutrients to get you back to your best. It tastes great, too!
Moderation is the key to enjoying your night out, and the day after. A little bit of foresight and self-control will go a long way toward helping you enjoy alcohol in a safe and healthy way.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Pajamas Media » Renewable Energy: There Ain’t No Free Lunch
June 14, 2010 - by Chris J Kobus
Pajamas Media » Renewable Energy: There Ain’t No Free Lunch
Catch words these days for the favored form of energy include “green,” “clean,” “renewable,” and “sustainable” — among others. Yet nobody can quite quantify what exactly “green” means.
Examples pointed to by proponents include wind and solar, with a few pointing to hydroelectric power, biomass, and fuel cells. But those examples, and the logic behind them, fail the very definition of renewable (or clean, green, or sustainable for that matter). As the logic goes, there will always be wind, and the sun will always shine (I’ll ignore for now that wind, just like hydro power and biomass, is just another form of solar). That logic, however, is short sighted and inaccurate, because to harness that raw energy and convert it to a more useful form, we have to manufacture the means to do so, and that in and of itself is not renewable.
It appears that the hopes and dreams of proponents are for a mythical creature that cannot coexist with physical law, specifically, the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. The First Law, also called conservation of energy, is most familiar especially in its implication that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. We can only convert energy from one form to another, and transport it from one place to another.
Most people have far more familiarity, in terms of actual experience, with the Second Law even though it is a harder law to pin down. Basically, the Second Law dictates the direction of any changes including energy conversions. Without the Second Law, we could collect tailpipe emissions and heat rejected from our radiators and reconstitute gasoline without any net loss of energy (indeed, a truly renewable energy). That process, however, is impossible. The Second Law demands that any energy transfer or conversion is accompanied by increased disorder. It is this natural direction from order to disorder that demands a certain amount of pollution or loss in conjunction with whatever energy source we desire to use: wind, solar, coal, oil or nuclear.
In the case of “renewable” technologies, the manufacturing of the systems is where the majority of the pollution is generated. Unfortunately, that pollution is invisible to the general public. They don’t consider the effects of manufacturing when they see a wind turbine turning without a smoke stack, or a solar panel operating seemingly without environmental effect, or a hydrogen fuel cell converting electricity with water and steam appearing to be the only byproducts. This gives a false impression as to the true environmental cost of the technology.
When confronted with the revelation that systems need to be built to harness “free” energy, many people are perplexed as it is not something they have thought about. The reason, I suspect, is that the liberal media has dumbed down the science and inserted environmental propaganda in its place.
I recently had a chance to interview people attending the Rochester Earth Day Festival in Michigan. My first question: “What is renewable energy?” I followed that with a question on manufacturing the harnessing technology. Here is a compilation of the answers:
Wind and solar are far and away the #1 answer. Let me just take solar as an example of what I mean by necessary pollution as dictated by the Second Law. Although there are no emissions when in operation (although it shades a swath of ground that is itself an environmental impact — which is why politicians have essentially stopped further production of large-scale solar facilities in places like Southern California), there are plenty of emissions, energy usage, and chemical waste in the production.
For example, many solar panels rely on polysilicon being manufactured in large quantities and at high quality. A byproduct of polysilicon production is silicon tetrachloride, a highly toxic substance that poses a major environmental hazard. Wherever silicon tetrachloride is dumped, the land becomes totally infertile. Even liberal outlets like the Washington Post have taken note:
“The land where you dump or bury it will be infertile. No grass or trees will grow in the place. … It is like dynamite — it is poisonous, it is polluting. Human beings can never touch it,” said Ren Bingyan, a professor at the School of Material Sciences at Hebei Industrial University. Even recycling that compound takes huge amounts of energy, itself generating its own pollution.
Farther down the production line, the gaseous compound nitrogen triflouride (NF3) is required for thin film solar cells (and “environmentally friendly” energy-efficient LCD TVs). The problem? That gas is 17,000 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2. In fact, the atmospheric concentration of nitrogen triflouride has quadrupled, and according to NASA is increasing at a rate of about 11 percent per year.
Thus my point — no technology in existence, either in the real world or in someone’s imagination, is exempt from the Second Law. There will always be necessary pollution no matter the technology. It’s just that the pollution will take on different forms and exist in different places. Some pollution like that in solar technology is produced far away from where the panels operate, masking its negative impact, an impact that the MSM has been slow to report on which in turn cloaks it from a public willing to believe in fairy tales painted green.
Truly renewable energy does not and cannot exist. Some technologies are more renewable, cleaner, greener, more sustainable, but none have zero environmental impact. In my opinion, the best way to compare all technologies on a level playing field is to account for all pollution created over its entire life cycle from mining raw material through manufacturing, construction, maintenance and finally decommissioning, and weigh that against the amount of energy generated by that technology over its lifetime. In all cases, the Second Law will be there staring you right in the face. Unless, of course, Congress tries to repeal the Second Law of Thermodynamics. With those running Congress these days, it wouldn’t be beyond them to try.
*Chris Kobus is an Associate Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University where he has worked since receiving his Ph.D. in 1998. He is the Director of the Clean Energy Research Center (CERC), and his research focus is in the broad field of energy transport and conversion.
Pajamas Media » Renewable Energy: There Ain’t No Free Lunch
Catch words these days for the favored form of energy include “green,” “clean,” “renewable,” and “sustainable” — among others. Yet nobody can quite quantify what exactly “green” means.
Examples pointed to by proponents include wind and solar, with a few pointing to hydroelectric power, biomass, and fuel cells. But those examples, and the logic behind them, fail the very definition of renewable (or clean, green, or sustainable for that matter). As the logic goes, there will always be wind, and the sun will always shine (I’ll ignore for now that wind, just like hydro power and biomass, is just another form of solar). That logic, however, is short sighted and inaccurate, because to harness that raw energy and convert it to a more useful form, we have to manufacture the means to do so, and that in and of itself is not renewable.
It appears that the hopes and dreams of proponents are for a mythical creature that cannot coexist with physical law, specifically, the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. The First Law, also called conservation of energy, is most familiar especially in its implication that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. We can only convert energy from one form to another, and transport it from one place to another.
Most people have far more familiarity, in terms of actual experience, with the Second Law even though it is a harder law to pin down. Basically, the Second Law dictates the direction of any changes including energy conversions. Without the Second Law, we could collect tailpipe emissions and heat rejected from our radiators and reconstitute gasoline without any net loss of energy (indeed, a truly renewable energy). That process, however, is impossible. The Second Law demands that any energy transfer or conversion is accompanied by increased disorder. It is this natural direction from order to disorder that demands a certain amount of pollution or loss in conjunction with whatever energy source we desire to use: wind, solar, coal, oil or nuclear.
In the case of “renewable” technologies, the manufacturing of the systems is where the majority of the pollution is generated. Unfortunately, that pollution is invisible to the general public. They don’t consider the effects of manufacturing when they see a wind turbine turning without a smoke stack, or a solar panel operating seemingly without environmental effect, or a hydrogen fuel cell converting electricity with water and steam appearing to be the only byproducts. This gives a false impression as to the true environmental cost of the technology.
When confronted with the revelation that systems need to be built to harness “free” energy, many people are perplexed as it is not something they have thought about. The reason, I suspect, is that the liberal media has dumbed down the science and inserted environmental propaganda in its place.
I recently had a chance to interview people attending the Rochester Earth Day Festival in Michigan. My first question: “What is renewable energy?” I followed that with a question on manufacturing the harnessing technology. Here is a compilation of the answers:
Wind and solar are far and away the #1 answer. Let me just take solar as an example of what I mean by necessary pollution as dictated by the Second Law. Although there are no emissions when in operation (although it shades a swath of ground that is itself an environmental impact — which is why politicians have essentially stopped further production of large-scale solar facilities in places like Southern California), there are plenty of emissions, energy usage, and chemical waste in the production.
For example, many solar panels rely on polysilicon being manufactured in large quantities and at high quality. A byproduct of polysilicon production is silicon tetrachloride, a highly toxic substance that poses a major environmental hazard. Wherever silicon tetrachloride is dumped, the land becomes totally infertile. Even liberal outlets like the Washington Post have taken note:
“The land where you dump or bury it will be infertile. No grass or trees will grow in the place. … It is like dynamite — it is poisonous, it is polluting. Human beings can never touch it,” said Ren Bingyan, a professor at the School of Material Sciences at Hebei Industrial University. Even recycling that compound takes huge amounts of energy, itself generating its own pollution.
Farther down the production line, the gaseous compound nitrogen triflouride (NF3) is required for thin film solar cells (and “environmentally friendly” energy-efficient LCD TVs). The problem? That gas is 17,000 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2. In fact, the atmospheric concentration of nitrogen triflouride has quadrupled, and according to NASA is increasing at a rate of about 11 percent per year.
Thus my point — no technology in existence, either in the real world or in someone’s imagination, is exempt from the Second Law. There will always be necessary pollution no matter the technology. It’s just that the pollution will take on different forms and exist in different places. Some pollution like that in solar technology is produced far away from where the panels operate, masking its negative impact, an impact that the MSM has been slow to report on which in turn cloaks it from a public willing to believe in fairy tales painted green.
Truly renewable energy does not and cannot exist. Some technologies are more renewable, cleaner, greener, more sustainable, but none have zero environmental impact. In my opinion, the best way to compare all technologies on a level playing field is to account for all pollution created over its entire life cycle from mining raw material through manufacturing, construction, maintenance and finally decommissioning, and weigh that against the amount of energy generated by that technology over its lifetime. In all cases, the Second Law will be there staring you right in the face. Unless, of course, Congress tries to repeal the Second Law of Thermodynamics. With those running Congress these days, it wouldn’t be beyond them to try.
*Chris Kobus is an Associate Professor in the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University where he has worked since receiving his Ph.D. in 1998. He is the Director of the Clean Energy Research Center (CERC), and his research focus is in the broad field of energy transport and conversion.
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Monday, June 14, 2010
IveyLaw -- Law Offices of James D. Ivey
IveyLaw -- Law Offices of James D. Ivey
Taken from Jim Ivey:
"I don't like provisional applications. However, you should be aware that a number of patent attorneys still recommend provisional applications. In short, opinions differ on this topic.
Provisional applications serve a very specific and narrow purpose. They came about as a patch for a specific quirk in U.S. patent law resulting from the change of a patent term from the former 17 years from the date of issue to the current 20 years from the original U.S. filing date. The quirk relates to U.S. applications claiming priority on foreign applications. To understand the purpose of provisional applications, it helps to first understand the odd quirk patched by provisional applications. For purposes of illustration, consider the following two scenarios.
Suppose Application A is filed in the U.S. on January 1, 2001 and claims no priority of any earlier filed application. Enforceability of any patent issuing on Application A would normally expire on January 1, 2021 (assuming no term extensions). Thus, the time gap between the filing date (which all prior art must pre-date) and the expiration date is twenty years.
Suppose Application B is filed in the U.S. on January 1, 2001 and claims priority of a patent application filed in Mexico on January 1, 2000. The same rules for expiration apply within the U.S, so Application B would normally expire on January 1, 2021. However, the time gap between the priority date (which all prior art must pre-date) and the expiration date is twenty-one years.
Thus, U.S. law as recently modified favors foreign inventors. So here comes the patch....
In the U.S., you can file a dummy priority application to put yourself in the same position as a foreign inventor. That dummy priority application is a provisional patent application.
Here's why I don't like provisional applications. To properly claim priority on a provisional application, the provisional application must properly support any claims in the subsequently-filed non-provisional application. However, the provisional application contains no claims. In my opinion, to properly prepare a provisional application, the claims should be drafted and the description of the provisional application should be analyzed in view of the drafted claims. The drafted claims should then be withheld for later filing.
It only makes sense to do this if you believe the value of your patent is back-end-loaded -- that the patent is more valuable at the end of its term than at the beginning. The provisional application allows the patent owner to time-shift the patent term into the future up to one year.
This is valuable generally to the pharmaceutical industry in which the lengthy FDA approval process typically delays release of a drug and in which makers of generic versions of drugs eagerly await expiration of patents. However, in most industries (particularly for new companies hoping to build a patent portfolio quickly), most of the value of a patent is front-loaded -- that is, the patent is most valuable to the patent owner at the beginning of the patent term.
Generally, outside of the pharmaceutical industry, provisional patent applications are only filed as emergency measures on the theory that a quickly thrown-together provisional application filed at the eleventh hour is better than filing nothing at all. Obviously, this should be avoided by proper planning and consulting with a patent attorney well before any planned public demonstrations, sales, or descriptions of the invention."
Taken from Jim Ivey:
"I don't like provisional applications. However, you should be aware that a number of patent attorneys still recommend provisional applications. In short, opinions differ on this topic.
Provisional applications serve a very specific and narrow purpose. They came about as a patch for a specific quirk in U.S. patent law resulting from the change of a patent term from the former 17 years from the date of issue to the current 20 years from the original U.S. filing date. The quirk relates to U.S. applications claiming priority on foreign applications. To understand the purpose of provisional applications, it helps to first understand the odd quirk patched by provisional applications. For purposes of illustration, consider the following two scenarios.
Suppose Application A is filed in the U.S. on January 1, 2001 and claims no priority of any earlier filed application. Enforceability of any patent issuing on Application A would normally expire on January 1, 2021 (assuming no term extensions). Thus, the time gap between the filing date (which all prior art must pre-date) and the expiration date is twenty years.
Suppose Application B is filed in the U.S. on January 1, 2001 and claims priority of a patent application filed in Mexico on January 1, 2000. The same rules for expiration apply within the U.S, so Application B would normally expire on January 1, 2021. However, the time gap between the priority date (which all prior art must pre-date) and the expiration date is twenty-one years.
Thus, U.S. law as recently modified favors foreign inventors. So here comes the patch....
In the U.S., you can file a dummy priority application to put yourself in the same position as a foreign inventor. That dummy priority application is a provisional patent application.
Here's why I don't like provisional applications. To properly claim priority on a provisional application, the provisional application must properly support any claims in the subsequently-filed non-provisional application. However, the provisional application contains no claims. In my opinion, to properly prepare a provisional application, the claims should be drafted and the description of the provisional application should be analyzed in view of the drafted claims. The drafted claims should then be withheld for later filing.
It only makes sense to do this if you believe the value of your patent is back-end-loaded -- that the patent is more valuable at the end of its term than at the beginning. The provisional application allows the patent owner to time-shift the patent term into the future up to one year.
This is valuable generally to the pharmaceutical industry in which the lengthy FDA approval process typically delays release of a drug and in which makers of generic versions of drugs eagerly await expiration of patents. However, in most industries (particularly for new companies hoping to build a patent portfolio quickly), most of the value of a patent is front-loaded -- that is, the patent is most valuable to the patent owner at the beginning of the patent term.
Generally, outside of the pharmaceutical industry, provisional patent applications are only filed as emergency measures on the theory that a quickly thrown-together provisional application filed at the eleventh hour is better than filing nothing at all. Obviously, this should be avoided by proper planning and consulting with a patent attorney well before any planned public demonstrations, sales, or descriptions of the invention."
StillTasty: Your Ultimate Shelf Life Guide - Save Money, Eat Better, Help The Environment
Your Ultimate Shelf Life Guide - Save Money, Eat Better, Help The Environment
StillTasty: Your Ultimate Shelf Life Guide - Save Money, Eat Better, Help The Environment
StillTasty: Your Ultimate Shelf Life Guide - Save Money, Eat Better, Help The Environment
Friday, June 11, 2010
A History of the Patent Law of the United States
A History of the Patent Law of the United States
A Brief History of the Patent Law of the United States
Public perception of the patent system has swung widely over the years from highs, such as those in the late nineteenth century when Mark Twain could write "a country without a patent office and good patent laws was just a crab and couldn't travel anyway but sideways or backwards" [1] to lows in the mid twentieth century when it could be written "the only patent that is valid is one which this (the Supreme) Court has not yet been able to get its hands on." [2] The value and philosophical basis underpinning the patent system has been a matter for debate over the years.
Patent Systems in Medieval Times
In medieval times, the grant of exclusive rights "monopolies" by the sovereign had been a convenient way in which the sovereign could raise money without the need to resort to taxation. Such grants were common in many European countries. Some of these, for example in mining regions or in respect of production of certain textiles seem to have had a relation to innovations. Although there seems to have been an earlier law directed specifically at inventions relating to the manufacture of silk, the first law providing for the grant of exclusive rights for limited periods to the makers of inventions in general as a deliberate act of economic policy seems to have been in Venice in 1474. It does not seem coincidental that this was during a long war between Venice and the Turks during which Venice lost most of its trading empire in the Eastern Mediterranean and consequently had to refocus its economy on manufacture rather than trade. Indeed, as Venice's domination of trade with the East weakened, it adopted a number of measures to establish and maintain a preeminence in manufacture including laws prohibiting emigration of skilled artisans and the export of certain materials, while at the same time encouraging the immigration of skilled workers from other countries, for example by a tax holiday for two years after their arrival in Venice.
Towards the end of Elizabeth's reign the English courts, probably at least to some extent noting developments on the Continent started to restrict the rights ofthe sovereign to grant monopolies unless they were for the introduction of anew industry to the country.[3]
In 1624 as part of the skirmishing between Parliament and the Crown leading up to the English Civil War, the English Parliament passed the statute of monopolies. This had the effect of limiting the power of the Crown to the grant of monopolies to making such grants only to inventions for limited periods (14 years - the duration of two training periods for craft apprentices) and most importantly only for "manners of new manufacture" that were introduced into the realm by the recipient of the monopoly. Such grants were, however, conditioned on their not being "mischievous to the state" (for example by raising prices of commodities) or "generally inconvenient"
As noted above the original English approach, which was followed in the American Constitution, was to place emphasis on the advantage to society as a whole of developing new inventions. Section 1 of the French law of 1791 took a somewhat different approach: "All new discoveries are the property of the author; to assure the inventor the property and temporary enjoyment of his discovery, there shall be delivered to him a patent for five, ten or fifteen years". The emphasis here was on the inventor having property in his discovery - an emphasis on the rights in the invention rather than on the benefits to society. Today this approach is of limited importance in the patent field but it is still significant in the area of copyright - where the Anglo Saxon approach is focussed heavily on the bundle of economic rights associated with control over whether others are entitled to copy a work, whereas the French approach focusses more heavily on the moral rights of authors - a fact that is emphasized by the fact that the word generally used as the French translation of the word "Copyright" is "droit d'auteur" (literally Author's Rights).
Modern thinking on the rationale for a patent system effectively sees this as a contract between the invention and society at large. This was well expressed in a report to the French Chamber of Deputies in the debates preceding adoption of the French Patent Law of 1844 (a law that remained in effect with little change up to the 1960's):
"Every useful discovery is, in to Kant's words 'the presentation of a service rendered to Society'. It is, therefore, just that he who has rendered this service should be compensated by Society that received it. This is an equitable result, a veritable contract or exchange that operates between the authors of a new discovery and Society. The former supply the noble products of their intelligence and Society grants to them in return the advantages of an exclusive exploitation of their discovery for a limited period".
As Abraham Lincoln once put it "The Patent System added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius."
This paper attempts to summarize the way in which the patent system has developed in the United States, noting the different attitudes that have prevailed at different times and the effects that these have had on development of the patent law.
The United States Constitution, on which U.S. Patent Law depends, was drafted at the height of the industrial revolution at a time when the impact of patents was first being seriously felt in England.[4] Additionally, while the Constitution was being drafted in Philadelphia, John Fitch’s steam boat was undergoing trials on the Delaware River and the Constitutional Convention apparently adjourned one afternoon to watch them. A pro-patent climate endured in the United States through much of the nineteenth century leading to the comments by President Lincoln and Mark Twain noted above. [5] However, the last two decades of the nineteenth century and the twentieth century have seen a number of climate changes. In the last two decades of the nineteenth century there was a period of economic depression and increasing concern about the power of "big business" leading to the passage of the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890. This climate was reflected in the patent field by an increasing tendency of the courts to hold patents invalid. By the late 1890's the depression had run its course and patents came back into favor with the reviving economy.
In general the twentieth century has seen a dynamic interrelationship between the patent system and the application of antitrust laws. Although the first antitrust law, the Sherman Act, was enacted in 1890, the courts did not start to give it teeth until Theodore Roosevelt‘s administration (1901-1909). It was not until the 1930's that the patent system started to come under attack, being viewed as assisting in the maintenance of monopolies that were seen as being at least a contributing factor to the economic misery of the thirties. This skepticism about the patent system survived World War II and blossomed again in the depressed economic conditions of the 1970's, a period of strong anti-trust enforcement.[6]
In the early 1980's, the thinking of the Chicago School of economists came to the fore and with the election of President Reagan enthusiasm for antitrust enforcement went out of fashion. At about the same time the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was created at least in part to remedy a scandalous disarray between the regional circuit Courts of Appeal in dealing with patent cases. The new court initially seemed pro-patent in its attitude and this has resulted in a generally more favorable attitude to the value of patents throughout American business. [7] One manifestation of this change has been the court's assertion that the patent statute means what it says when stating that "a patent shall be presumed valid. [8] The court has held that anyone challenging the validity of a patent needs "clear and convincing" evidence to succeed. [9] This contrasts with the normal standard of proof in civil cases in which a party asserting a cause need only establish his case on the balance of probabilities. On the other hand more recently decisions of the court have cautioned against giving too wide an interpretation to patents and reiterated the importance of the public having a clear understanding of what does or does not fall within the ambit of any given patent. Thus over the past two decades patents have been back in favor, but the pendulum will probably swing again.
The earliest grants of a patent for an invention in what is now the United States seems to have been by the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the 1640's. Although pre-independence patent custom in the American colonies owes much to the English Statute of Monopolies of 1624, which restricted the right of the crown to grant monopolies so that henceforth they could be granted only for a limited period and only for manners of new manufacture. [10] The Statute of Monopolies was never made directly applicable to the American colonies. [11] During the period of the Confederation after independence had been achieved but before the adoption of the Federal Constitution of the United States, most of the states had their own patent laws, although only that of South Carolina specifically set out a provision granting inventors an exclusive privilege of using their new machines for a defined period (14 years). However, as noted by James Madison in the Federalist "the States cannot separately make effectual provision" for the protection of invention and so in drafting the Constitution of the United States, responsibility for providing such protection was entrusted to the Congress of the United States.
The Constitutional basis for federal patent and copyright systems is to be found in the Constitution of the United States Article 1, Section 8, clause 8 which states:
Congress shall have power ... to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.
Federal patent laws have existed since 1790
The first United States Patent Act, that of 1790 was a short act of seven sections only entitled "An act to promote the Progress of Useful Arts". [12] Under its terms any two of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of War and the Attorney General were empowered to grant patents for terms of up to fourteen years for inventions that were "sufficiently useful and important" provided that the grantee submitted a specification describing the invention (and where appropriate a model thereof) to the Secretary of State at the time of the grant.
In 1793 this act was repealed and replaced by a slightly longer act, the drafting of which is largely attributed to Thomas Jefferson, who was at the time Secretary of State and therefore intimately involved in the administration of the 1790 Act. The Act is notable for its definition of what constitutes patentable subject matter in the United States, which definition is almost unchanged up to now:
any new and useful art, machine, manufacture or composition of matter and any new and useful improvement on any art, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. [13]
A short description had to be filed with the application. However, before grant could occur it was necessary to submit a written description of the invention and of the manner of using or process of compounding the same in such full, clear, and exact terms, as to distinguish the same from all other things before known and to enable any person skilled in the art or science of which it is a part, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make, compound and use the same". [14] Another notable feature of the law was its early recognition that one patent might have a dominating effect over another and it specifically set out the principle that securing a patent on a particular improvement of a previously patented invention did not give the patentee of the improvement patent any right to use the invention that was the subject of the original patent or vice versa. [15] However, the only examination of the application was a purely formal one.
Rights to patents under the 1793 Act were confined to citizens of the United States.
The 1793 Act was amended in 1800 to allow foreigners who had been resident in the United States for two years to obtain patents, subject to them making an oath that the invention in question had not to their knowledge or belief been known or used previously in the United States or abroad. This act also provided for the first time the possibility of an award of treble damages for patent infringement.
What was meant by the term "new" in the early statutes varied somewhat but after 1800 the courts considered simply whether the invention was known before the date on which the applicant for a patent claimed to have made his or her invention. [16] In 1829 the Supreme Court in the case of Pennock v. Dialogue[17] recognized the potential dangers of such an approach which enabled the inventor to delay filing a patent application until competition was imminent and construed the statute so as to create a statutory bar to deny patent protection to one who had previously publicly used his invention.
In 1832 a new act expanded the category of potential patentees to cover all resident aliens who had declared an intention to become citizens of the United States, provided however, that any patents granted to the class of patentee become void if they did not work the invention publicly in the United States within one year of grant. It also became possible to obtain reissue of a patent to correct errors in it. [18]
In the same year the Supreme Court in Grant v. Raymond[19] made it clear that failure to provide an adequate description of the invention was a defense which a defendant might use when sued for patent infringement, it being held that
as a preliminary to a patent a correct specification and description of the thing discovered (was required). This is necessary in order to give the public, after the privilege shall expire, the advantage for which the privilege is allowed and is the foundation of the power to issue the patent ...
A major review of the law was undertaken in 1836 in response to complaints about the grant of patents for things that lacked novelty. Under this revision the Patent Office was set up as part of the State Department and a specification had to be submitted to it and be examined for novelty before a patent would be granted. As a consequence, the provision of the 1793 Act requiring the inventor to distinguish his invention from the prior art was expanded to require the applicant to "particularly specify and point out the part, improvement or combination, which he claims as his own invention or discovery". [20] This provision is the antecedent for modern claim drafting worldwide. Other features of the 1836 law were to codify the law relating to statutory bars, [21] to clarify the law relating to cases of conflict between competing applications and to provide a mechanism for establishing this. [22] The Act also provided for the possibility of obtaining a seven year extension to the basic fourteen year term in certain circumstances. The 1836 Act also finally removed all limitations on the nationality or residence of those who could obtain United States patents. However, it did not end all discrimination on this score. U.S. citizens or residents intending to become citizens were charged $30.00, British subjects were charged $500.00 and all other foreigners $300.00. [23]
In1839 the law was amended to provide for a grace period (of two years) forpublication or use of the invention by the applicant before filing his or her patent application. [24] The act also provided for an appeal from rejection of a patent application by the Patent Office to the Chief Justice of the District of Columbia. [25]
In 1842 a statute was passed to provide for the grant of patents for "any new and original design for a manufacture or for printing on a fabric. However, the right to obtain a patent for such a design was confined to U.S. citizens or residents who were intending to become citizens.
In 1849 responsibility for the Patent Office was transferred from the State Department to the Department of the Interior.
The next major step forward was the introduction of the concept that to be patentable an invention not only had to be new and useful but also non-obvious. This charge was effected by the courts rather than by statute, notably in the Supreme Court case of Hotchkiss v. Greenwood.[26]
In 1861 a number of amendments were made. Among the more important were: the appointment of three examiners-in-chief to hear appeals from the primary examiners of any application that had been rejected twice [27]; the changing of the term of a utility patent to seventeen years from the date of grant [28]; and the provision of terms of three and a half, seven, or fourteen years for design patents at the choice of the applicant. Other features of the 1861 revision provided for the printing of copies of the description and claims of patents and a requirement that to secure damages for patent infringement either the patented article had to be marked as such or the infringer had to have been given notice in some other way of the existence of the patent.
The 1836 Act had provided that the applicant had the right to amend his or her specification if the Patent Office raised objections to it. In 1864 the Supreme Court imposed limits on this right to amend thereby forming the basis for the present rule that no new matter can be added during prosecution of an application. [29]
In 1866, the Supreme Court, in the case of Suffolk Mfg Co v. Hayden,[30] laid the foundation for the modern doctrine of double patenting by holding that where the same inventor held two patents for the same invention, the second one was void.
In 1870 the legislation relating to patents was consolidated into a single act but without many significant amendments as to substance. Among the changes that were made were the following: removal of the requirement that if a patent had been granted abroad a U.S. application had to be filed within six months and replacement by a provision that the U.S. patent must expire at the same time as the foreign patent, subject to a maximum term of seventeen years from the grant of the U.S. patent; codification of a requirement that the specification described the best mode known to the applicant for "applying the principle" of his invention; set up a mechanism for resolving disputes as to who had first invented a particular invention (by creating the post of an "examiner in charge of interference"). It was also made clear that any public sale or use of the invention before the start of the two year grace period was destructive of novelty irrespective of whether that sale or use was by the applicant for the patent.
The 1870's and 80's were a period in which many international organizations were created. Among them was the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property which came into being in 1883 and which the United States joined in 1887. Its most important provision was to give applicants who were nationals or residents of one member state the right to file an application in their own country and then as long as an application was filed in another country that was a member of the treaty within a specified time, to have the date of filing in the home country count as the effective filing date in that other country. [31] The United States became a member of the Paris Convention on May 30, 1887. [32]
The 1890's saw two developments that, while not directly applicable to patents had a significant effect on the development of patent law: the passage of the Sherman Act in 1890 forming the basis for antitrust law and of the Evarts Act in 1891 creating the Circuit Courts of Appeals. In 1893 appeals from the Patent Office were transferred to the newly created Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia. [33]
In 1897 some of the statutory bars to the grant of a patent were revised: 1) if a foreign patent had already granted, a U. S application had to be made within seven months of filing of the foreign [34] and 2) it was made clear that prior knowledge or use was only a bar if it occurred in the United States before the applicant had made his invention.
In 1925 responsibility for the Patent Office was transferred to the Department of Commerce and Labor.
In 1929, appellate review of decisions of the Patent Office was transferred from the Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia to the newly created Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
In 1930, the Plant Patent Act provided for the possibility of patent protection for asexually reproduced plants.
The 1930's and 40's (i.e. during the depression and World War II), was one in which the courts were generally not sympathetic to patents. Indeed in 1941, in Cuno Engineering v. Automatic Devices Corp.[35] the Supreme Court suggested that to be patentable an invention must "reveal the flash of creative genius not merely the skill of the calling".
In 1939 the two year grace period that had existed since 1839 with respect to some statutory bars was reduced to one year on the ground that "under present conditions two years appears unduly long and operates as a handicap to industry."
In 1940, the duration of the grace period relating to acts of prior use or prior publication by the inventor which were to be excused as novelty-destroying acts was reduced from two years to one.
In 1946, the law was amended to overrule the Supreme Court's decision in Electric Storage Battery v. Shimadzu[36], which had applied the U.S. laws "first to invent" principle on a world wide basis. The statute confined the first to invent principle to situations where evidence of the invention could be found in the United States.
The basic structure of the present law was adopted in 1952. [37] The two major changes made at that time were to include in the statute for the first time a requirement that to be patentable an invention had not only to be novel, thereby codifying a century of case law, and to include a definition of infringement, which had hitherto been left to the courts. [38] Other changes included a minor change in the definition of what constituted patentable subject matter by replacing the eighteenth century word "art" by "process"; an express statement that when an invention involved a combination of elements it was possible to define such elements in functional terms (i.e. as a "means for" doing something) [39]; a relaxation of the formalities relating to applications by joint inventors and where an inventor cannot be found or refuses to apply for a patent even though bound by contract to do so; imposed a maximum time limit of two years within which to request reissue of a patent with broadened claims; abrogated the common law rule that a patent could not be partially valid and permitted actions to proceed on the basis of valid claims even if there were invalid claims in the same patent.
Since 1952, the law has been amended several times and has continued to develop by way of case law. Changes were relatively infrequent prior to the establishment of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 1982. The increased interest in the patent system that at least in part led to the creation of this court has also resulted in an increased rate of change in the law. In part this has come from decisions of the new court, and the occasional intervention by the Supreme Court; other changes have come through legislation. The creation of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has, if nothing else, led to a more coherent body of law than existed previously. In its first decade the court seemed to focus heavily on issues of patent validity and to reverse the perception that had existed in the 1970's that few patents that came before the court were likely to be upheld. In its second decade, the perception was that, having established that patents needed to be taken seriously, the court’s focus shifted to try to ensure that the protection given by any one patent was not overly broad compared to the significance of the invention that had been made.
Legislative developments up to the mid 90's came largely to deal with specific and relatively minor issues that arose either as a result of case law or particular developments in the economy, most notably in the compromise reached in 1984 to make it easier to obtain approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the sale of generic drugs after a patent had expired in return for the possibility of obtaining an extension to the term of a patent for a pharmaceutical invention to compensate the original inventor for the delays in marketing to which the original manufacturer had been subject while waiting for FDA approval. In 1994, a new trend started, at least in part as a result of renewed attempts at globalization of the patent system. In 1994, the law was amended to comply with a new international agreement that had been grafted on to the Uruguay round of amendments to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. This agreement, commonly known as TRIPS (Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property rightS) imposed certain minimum standards in patent protection on all member countries. This required changes in U.S. law relating in particular to the minimum duration of a patent and to prevent discrimination between the protection of inventions made in the United States and those made elsewhere. Further changes made in 1999, also had international norms as a guide and were at least in part the result of a bilateral agreement with Japan in which both countries agreed to remove some of the features of their patent system that the other found objectionable.
Some of the major changes that have been made since 1952 are as follows:
1954 Provisions relating to plant patents were amended to make it clear that cultivated sports, mutants, hybrids and newly found seedlings were patentable.
1964 Commissioner given the power to accept a declaration in lieu of an oath in "any document" and to give provisional acceptance to a defective document. 35 USC 25 and 26.
1965 Presumption of validity applied independently to each claim of a patent 35 USC 282.
1966 Supreme Court decision in Graham v. John Deere[40] set out the proper test for deciding whether or not a claimed invention is obvious.
1968 Patent Cooperation Treaty signed.
1971 Supreme Court decision in Blonder-Tongue v. University of Illinois [41] held that once a patent had finally been held to be invalid after full and fair litigation, that finding could be used as a defense in subsequent litigation on that patent even if the parties differed.
1975
1. Name of "The Patent Office" changed to "The Patent and Trademark Office".
2. Amendments to accommodate the Patent Cooperation Treaty. 35 USC 102(e), 104, 351- 376.
3. Liberalized the law having regard to the writing of claims in multiply dependent form. 35 USC 112.
1978
1. European Patent Office opened.
2. Patent Cooperation Treaty came into effect.
1980
1. Requirement to pay maintenance fees to keep patent in force introduced. 35 USC 154.
2. Special provisions made for inventions made with Federal assistance. 35 USC 200 - 211.
3. Provision made for third parties to cite prior art to USPTO. 35 USC 301.
4. Possibility of requesting reexamination created. 25 USC 302-7.
5. United States rebuffs attempts by developing countries to amend Paris Convention to permit exclusive compulsory licensing.
6. Supreme Court upholds the patentability of a genetically modified bacterium quoting the Congressional report leading up to the 1952 Act that "anything made by man under the sun" should be patentable. [42]
1982
1. Applications permitted to be filed without signature by the inventor as long as the inventor had authorized the application to be filed. 35 USC 111
2. Law relating to correction of wrongly named inventors liberalized. 35 USC 116.
3. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit created. 35 USC 141, 28 USC 1295. [43]
4. Term of all design patents fixed at fourteen years from grant. 35 USC 173.
5. Arbitration of disputes relating to patent infringement or validity authorized 35 USC 294.
6. It became possible for United States applicants to request an international search under the PCT by the European Patent Office.
1984
1. Possibility of extending patent term to compensate for delay in securing marketing authority from FDA to sell new drugs for humans. (Waxman Hatch Amendments) [44] 35 USC 156
2. Protection from finding of obviousness over work of co-employees etc. 35 USC 103 (c).
3. Clarification that to be a joint inventor the inventors did not have to work together or each be an inventor of subject matter of every claim. 35 USC 115(a).
4. Settlement of interferences by arbitration became permissible. 35 USC 135(d).
5. Definition of infringement amended to include exports of kits of parts that can be used to make a product which if made in the U.S. would be an infringement of a U.S. Patent. [45] 35 USC 271(f)
6. Boards of Patent Appeals and Interferences consolidated into a single Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. 35 USC 141.
7. Statutory Invention Registration scheme introduced 35 USC 157.
8. United States succeeds in causing inclusion of intellectual property issues in Uruguay Round of GATT negotiations.
1987
1. United States implements Chapter II of PCT. 35 USC 362.
2. It became possible for United States' applicants to request an international preliminary examination under the PCT by the European Patent Office.
1988
1. Possibility of extending patent term to compensate for delay in securing marketing authority from FDA to sell new drugs for animals. 35 USC 156.
2. Requirements for securing permission to file patent application abroad if on file in U.S. for less than six months relaxed to some extent. 35 USC 184 and 185.
3. Definition of infringement amended to include importation into the United States of products made abroad by a process covered by a U.S. patent and to reverse the burden of proof in certain cases of alleged infringement of a process patent. (Process Patents Amendment Act) 35 USC 271(g), 35 USC 287, 35 USC 295.
4. Definition of infringement amended to include application to FDA for marketing approval of a patented drug to be effective before the expiration of the patent but to remove from patent infringement acts relating to collecting data for use in submissions to the FDA for marketing approval of a drug etc. 35 USC 271(e).
5. Patent Misuse Reform Act made it clear that patent was not unenforceable for misuse on the basis that patentee had refused to license the patent or on the basis of tying arrangements unless the patentee had market power in the relevant market. 35 USC 271(d).
1990 Extension of definition of patent infringement to acts in outer space on a "space object or component thereof under the jurisdiction or control of the United States". 35 USC 105
1992 State governments made liable for acts of patent infringement. 35 USC 271(h), 35 USC 296
1993 Extension of right to prove prior invention to acts carried out in NAFTA countries (35 USC 104)
1994
1. Uruguay Round of negotiations for revision of the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade (GATT), concludes an agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) which include enforceable minimum standards for patent protection.
2. Extension of right to prove prior invention to acts carried out in WTO countries (35 USC 104)
3. Introduced the possibility of filing provisional patent applications. 35 USC 111(b) and 119(e)
4. Subject to transitional provisions, the term of a patent is now twenty tears from its earliest filing date (instead of seventeen years from grant), subject to the possibility of extension to compensate for delays due to interferences or the need to appeal in order to secure the grant of the patent. 35 USC 154
5. Definition of infringing acts extended to include offers for sale and acts of importation. 35 USC 271
6. Reversal of burden of proof in certain cases where infringement of process patent is alleged. 35 USC 295
1995 Protection of biotechnology processes from finding of obviousness if it is for the production of new and nonobvious product. (35 USC 103 (b))
1996 Removal of remedies for infringement of patents for surgical processes. (35 USC 287(c).
1998 The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in State Street Bank v. Signature Financial.[46] holds that there is no prohibition in U.S. law on patents for business methods as long as they are new, useful and non-obvious.
1999
1. The 1992 amendment to make state governments liable for act of patent infringement is held to be an unconstitutional abridgement of the states' sovereign immunity in Florida Prepaid Postsecodary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank. [47]
2. The Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999 is passed. This law makes a number of amendments to the United States Patent Law and also includes provisions intended to curtail cybersquatting and to deal with satellite home viewing and rural local television signals. The changes to the United States Patent Law include providing for early publication of patent applications where equivalent applications are published abroad, the protection of inventors using the services of invention promotion services and first inventor (prior user) defense for prior users of business methods. Other changes were also made to the US Patent Law. You can learn more by referring to the following articles: US Patent Law Amendments 1999 and United States - 1999 - 2000 Revisions of the Patent Law and Rules.
2001 The first publication of a pending United States Patent Application, as provided for by the 1999 amendment, occurs on March 15, 2001.
2002 Amendments relating to re-examination practice to try to make this option more useful and to clarify the law on the effect of a third party’s prior PCT application on a later-filed U.S. application.
2003 Amendment to the Hatch-Waxman Amendments[48] to try to rectify some problems that had emerged.
2004 Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement Act [49] removes prior unpublished work by joint venture partners from scope of prior art to be considered in obviousness determinations.
2005 Legislation introduced proposing major reforms, including a switch to a first-to-file system. (Not enacted due to lack of agrement on how to calculate damages).
2006 Supreme Court holds that since the grant of an injunction against patent infringement is an equitable remedy, the traditional requirements of equity must be complied with if an injunction is to be granted. [50]
2007
1. The Supreme Court reviews the standards to be used in assessing obviousness in KSR v. Teleflex.[51]
2. Introduction of non-traditional examination routes such as patent prosecution highways and peer to patent reviews to try to expedite and improve quality of patent examination.
3. Further attempt at patent law reform legislation (not enacted).
2009 Patent law reform legislation introduced to Congress based on compromise to deal with the issues that had thwarted reform in two previous Congresses.
A Brief History of the Patent Law of the United States
Public perception of the patent system has swung widely over the years from highs, such as those in the late nineteenth century when Mark Twain could write "a country without a patent office and good patent laws was just a crab and couldn't travel anyway but sideways or backwards" [1] to lows in the mid twentieth century when it could be written "the only patent that is valid is one which this (the Supreme) Court has not yet been able to get its hands on." [2] The value and philosophical basis underpinning the patent system has been a matter for debate over the years.
Patent Systems in Medieval Times
In medieval times, the grant of exclusive rights "monopolies" by the sovereign had been a convenient way in which the sovereign could raise money without the need to resort to taxation. Such grants were common in many European countries. Some of these, for example in mining regions or in respect of production of certain textiles seem to have had a relation to innovations. Although there seems to have been an earlier law directed specifically at inventions relating to the manufacture of silk, the first law providing for the grant of exclusive rights for limited periods to the makers of inventions in general as a deliberate act of economic policy seems to have been in Venice in 1474. It does not seem coincidental that this was during a long war between Venice and the Turks during which Venice lost most of its trading empire in the Eastern Mediterranean and consequently had to refocus its economy on manufacture rather than trade. Indeed, as Venice's domination of trade with the East weakened, it adopted a number of measures to establish and maintain a preeminence in manufacture including laws prohibiting emigration of skilled artisans and the export of certain materials, while at the same time encouraging the immigration of skilled workers from other countries, for example by a tax holiday for two years after their arrival in Venice.
Towards the end of Elizabeth's reign the English courts, probably at least to some extent noting developments on the Continent started to restrict the rights ofthe sovereign to grant monopolies unless they were for the introduction of anew industry to the country.[3]
In 1624 as part of the skirmishing between Parliament and the Crown leading up to the English Civil War, the English Parliament passed the statute of monopolies. This had the effect of limiting the power of the Crown to the grant of monopolies to making such grants only to inventions for limited periods (14 years - the duration of two training periods for craft apprentices) and most importantly only for "manners of new manufacture" that were introduced into the realm by the recipient of the monopoly. Such grants were, however, conditioned on their not being "mischievous to the state" (for example by raising prices of commodities) or "generally inconvenient"
As noted above the original English approach, which was followed in the American Constitution, was to place emphasis on the advantage to society as a whole of developing new inventions. Section 1 of the French law of 1791 took a somewhat different approach: "All new discoveries are the property of the author; to assure the inventor the property and temporary enjoyment of his discovery, there shall be delivered to him a patent for five, ten or fifteen years". The emphasis here was on the inventor having property in his discovery - an emphasis on the rights in the invention rather than on the benefits to society. Today this approach is of limited importance in the patent field but it is still significant in the area of copyright - where the Anglo Saxon approach is focussed heavily on the bundle of economic rights associated with control over whether others are entitled to copy a work, whereas the French approach focusses more heavily on the moral rights of authors - a fact that is emphasized by the fact that the word generally used as the French translation of the word "Copyright" is "droit d'auteur" (literally Author's Rights).
Modern thinking on the rationale for a patent system effectively sees this as a contract between the invention and society at large. This was well expressed in a report to the French Chamber of Deputies in the debates preceding adoption of the French Patent Law of 1844 (a law that remained in effect with little change up to the 1960's):
"Every useful discovery is, in to Kant's words 'the presentation of a service rendered to Society'. It is, therefore, just that he who has rendered this service should be compensated by Society that received it. This is an equitable result, a veritable contract or exchange that operates between the authors of a new discovery and Society. The former supply the noble products of their intelligence and Society grants to them in return the advantages of an exclusive exploitation of their discovery for a limited period".
As Abraham Lincoln once put it "The Patent System added the fuel of interest to the fire of genius."
This paper attempts to summarize the way in which the patent system has developed in the United States, noting the different attitudes that have prevailed at different times and the effects that these have had on development of the patent law.
The United States Constitution, on which U.S. Patent Law depends, was drafted at the height of the industrial revolution at a time when the impact of patents was first being seriously felt in England.[4] Additionally, while the Constitution was being drafted in Philadelphia, John Fitch’s steam boat was undergoing trials on the Delaware River and the Constitutional Convention apparently adjourned one afternoon to watch them. A pro-patent climate endured in the United States through much of the nineteenth century leading to the comments by President Lincoln and Mark Twain noted above. [5] However, the last two decades of the nineteenth century and the twentieth century have seen a number of climate changes. In the last two decades of the nineteenth century there was a period of economic depression and increasing concern about the power of "big business" leading to the passage of the Sherman Antitrust Act in 1890. This climate was reflected in the patent field by an increasing tendency of the courts to hold patents invalid. By the late 1890's the depression had run its course and patents came back into favor with the reviving economy.
In general the twentieth century has seen a dynamic interrelationship between the patent system and the application of antitrust laws. Although the first antitrust law, the Sherman Act, was enacted in 1890, the courts did not start to give it teeth until Theodore Roosevelt‘s administration (1901-1909). It was not until the 1930's that the patent system started to come under attack, being viewed as assisting in the maintenance of monopolies that were seen as being at least a contributing factor to the economic misery of the thirties. This skepticism about the patent system survived World War II and blossomed again in the depressed economic conditions of the 1970's, a period of strong anti-trust enforcement.[6]
In the early 1980's, the thinking of the Chicago School of economists came to the fore and with the election of President Reagan enthusiasm for antitrust enforcement went out of fashion. At about the same time the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit was created at least in part to remedy a scandalous disarray between the regional circuit Courts of Appeal in dealing with patent cases. The new court initially seemed pro-patent in its attitude and this has resulted in a generally more favorable attitude to the value of patents throughout American business. [7] One manifestation of this change has been the court's assertion that the patent statute means what it says when stating that "a patent shall be presumed valid. [8] The court has held that anyone challenging the validity of a patent needs "clear and convincing" evidence to succeed. [9] This contrasts with the normal standard of proof in civil cases in which a party asserting a cause need only establish his case on the balance of probabilities. On the other hand more recently decisions of the court have cautioned against giving too wide an interpretation to patents and reiterated the importance of the public having a clear understanding of what does or does not fall within the ambit of any given patent. Thus over the past two decades patents have been back in favor, but the pendulum will probably swing again.
The earliest grants of a patent for an invention in what is now the United States seems to have been by the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the 1640's. Although pre-independence patent custom in the American colonies owes much to the English Statute of Monopolies of 1624, which restricted the right of the crown to grant monopolies so that henceforth they could be granted only for a limited period and only for manners of new manufacture. [10] The Statute of Monopolies was never made directly applicable to the American colonies. [11] During the period of the Confederation after independence had been achieved but before the adoption of the Federal Constitution of the United States, most of the states had their own patent laws, although only that of South Carolina specifically set out a provision granting inventors an exclusive privilege of using their new machines for a defined period (14 years). However, as noted by James Madison in the Federalist "the States cannot separately make effectual provision" for the protection of invention and so in drafting the Constitution of the United States, responsibility for providing such protection was entrusted to the Congress of the United States.
The Constitutional basis for federal patent and copyright systems is to be found in the Constitution of the United States Article 1, Section 8, clause 8 which states:
Congress shall have power ... to promote the progress of science and useful arts by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.
Federal patent laws have existed since 1790
The first United States Patent Act, that of 1790 was a short act of seven sections only entitled "An act to promote the Progress of Useful Arts". [12] Under its terms any two of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of War and the Attorney General were empowered to grant patents for terms of up to fourteen years for inventions that were "sufficiently useful and important" provided that the grantee submitted a specification describing the invention (and where appropriate a model thereof) to the Secretary of State at the time of the grant.
In 1793 this act was repealed and replaced by a slightly longer act, the drafting of which is largely attributed to Thomas Jefferson, who was at the time Secretary of State and therefore intimately involved in the administration of the 1790 Act. The Act is notable for its definition of what constitutes patentable subject matter in the United States, which definition is almost unchanged up to now:
any new and useful art, machine, manufacture or composition of matter and any new and useful improvement on any art, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. [13]
A short description had to be filed with the application. However, before grant could occur it was necessary to submit a written description of the invention and of the manner of using or process of compounding the same in such full, clear, and exact terms, as to distinguish the same from all other things before known and to enable any person skilled in the art or science of which it is a part, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make, compound and use the same". [14] Another notable feature of the law was its early recognition that one patent might have a dominating effect over another and it specifically set out the principle that securing a patent on a particular improvement of a previously patented invention did not give the patentee of the improvement patent any right to use the invention that was the subject of the original patent or vice versa. [15] However, the only examination of the application was a purely formal one.
Rights to patents under the 1793 Act were confined to citizens of the United States.
The 1793 Act was amended in 1800 to allow foreigners who had been resident in the United States for two years to obtain patents, subject to them making an oath that the invention in question had not to their knowledge or belief been known or used previously in the United States or abroad. This act also provided for the first time the possibility of an award of treble damages for patent infringement.
What was meant by the term "new" in the early statutes varied somewhat but after 1800 the courts considered simply whether the invention was known before the date on which the applicant for a patent claimed to have made his or her invention. [16] In 1829 the Supreme Court in the case of Pennock v. Dialogue[17] recognized the potential dangers of such an approach which enabled the inventor to delay filing a patent application until competition was imminent and construed the statute so as to create a statutory bar to deny patent protection to one who had previously publicly used his invention.
In 1832 a new act expanded the category of potential patentees to cover all resident aliens who had declared an intention to become citizens of the United States, provided however, that any patents granted to the class of patentee become void if they did not work the invention publicly in the United States within one year of grant. It also became possible to obtain reissue of a patent to correct errors in it. [18]
In the same year the Supreme Court in Grant v. Raymond[19] made it clear that failure to provide an adequate description of the invention was a defense which a defendant might use when sued for patent infringement, it being held that
as a preliminary to a patent a correct specification and description of the thing discovered (was required). This is necessary in order to give the public, after the privilege shall expire, the advantage for which the privilege is allowed and is the foundation of the power to issue the patent ...
A major review of the law was undertaken in 1836 in response to complaints about the grant of patents for things that lacked novelty. Under this revision the Patent Office was set up as part of the State Department and a specification had to be submitted to it and be examined for novelty before a patent would be granted. As a consequence, the provision of the 1793 Act requiring the inventor to distinguish his invention from the prior art was expanded to require the applicant to "particularly specify and point out the part, improvement or combination, which he claims as his own invention or discovery". [20] This provision is the antecedent for modern claim drafting worldwide. Other features of the 1836 law were to codify the law relating to statutory bars, [21] to clarify the law relating to cases of conflict between competing applications and to provide a mechanism for establishing this. [22] The Act also provided for the possibility of obtaining a seven year extension to the basic fourteen year term in certain circumstances. The 1836 Act also finally removed all limitations on the nationality or residence of those who could obtain United States patents. However, it did not end all discrimination on this score. U.S. citizens or residents intending to become citizens were charged $30.00, British subjects were charged $500.00 and all other foreigners $300.00. [23]
In1839 the law was amended to provide for a grace period (of two years) forpublication or use of the invention by the applicant before filing his or her patent application. [24] The act also provided for an appeal from rejection of a patent application by the Patent Office to the Chief Justice of the District of Columbia. [25]
In 1842 a statute was passed to provide for the grant of patents for "any new and original design for a manufacture or for printing on a fabric. However, the right to obtain a patent for such a design was confined to U.S. citizens or residents who were intending to become citizens.
In 1849 responsibility for the Patent Office was transferred from the State Department to the Department of the Interior.
The next major step forward was the introduction of the concept that to be patentable an invention not only had to be new and useful but also non-obvious. This charge was effected by the courts rather than by statute, notably in the Supreme Court case of Hotchkiss v. Greenwood.[26]
In 1861 a number of amendments were made. Among the more important were: the appointment of three examiners-in-chief to hear appeals from the primary examiners of any application that had been rejected twice [27]; the changing of the term of a utility patent to seventeen years from the date of grant [28]; and the provision of terms of three and a half, seven, or fourteen years for design patents at the choice of the applicant. Other features of the 1861 revision provided for the printing of copies of the description and claims of patents and a requirement that to secure damages for patent infringement either the patented article had to be marked as such or the infringer had to have been given notice in some other way of the existence of the patent.
The 1836 Act had provided that the applicant had the right to amend his or her specification if the Patent Office raised objections to it. In 1864 the Supreme Court imposed limits on this right to amend thereby forming the basis for the present rule that no new matter can be added during prosecution of an application. [29]
In 1866, the Supreme Court, in the case of Suffolk Mfg Co v. Hayden,[30] laid the foundation for the modern doctrine of double patenting by holding that where the same inventor held two patents for the same invention, the second one was void.
In 1870 the legislation relating to patents was consolidated into a single act but without many significant amendments as to substance. Among the changes that were made were the following: removal of the requirement that if a patent had been granted abroad a U.S. application had to be filed within six months and replacement by a provision that the U.S. patent must expire at the same time as the foreign patent, subject to a maximum term of seventeen years from the grant of the U.S. patent; codification of a requirement that the specification described the best mode known to the applicant for "applying the principle" of his invention; set up a mechanism for resolving disputes as to who had first invented a particular invention (by creating the post of an "examiner in charge of interference"). It was also made clear that any public sale or use of the invention before the start of the two year grace period was destructive of novelty irrespective of whether that sale or use was by the applicant for the patent.
The 1870's and 80's were a period in which many international organizations were created. Among them was the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property which came into being in 1883 and which the United States joined in 1887. Its most important provision was to give applicants who were nationals or residents of one member state the right to file an application in their own country and then as long as an application was filed in another country that was a member of the treaty within a specified time, to have the date of filing in the home country count as the effective filing date in that other country. [31] The United States became a member of the Paris Convention on May 30, 1887. [32]
The 1890's saw two developments that, while not directly applicable to patents had a significant effect on the development of patent law: the passage of the Sherman Act in 1890 forming the basis for antitrust law and of the Evarts Act in 1891 creating the Circuit Courts of Appeals. In 1893 appeals from the Patent Office were transferred to the newly created Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia. [33]
In 1897 some of the statutory bars to the grant of a patent were revised: 1) if a foreign patent had already granted, a U. S application had to be made within seven months of filing of the foreign [34] and 2) it was made clear that prior knowledge or use was only a bar if it occurred in the United States before the applicant had made his invention.
In 1925 responsibility for the Patent Office was transferred to the Department of Commerce and Labor.
In 1929, appellate review of decisions of the Patent Office was transferred from the Court of Appeals for the District of Colombia to the newly created Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
In 1930, the Plant Patent Act provided for the possibility of patent protection for asexually reproduced plants.
The 1930's and 40's (i.e. during the depression and World War II), was one in which the courts were generally not sympathetic to patents. Indeed in 1941, in Cuno Engineering v. Automatic Devices Corp.[35] the Supreme Court suggested that to be patentable an invention must "reveal the flash of creative genius not merely the skill of the calling".
In 1939 the two year grace period that had existed since 1839 with respect to some statutory bars was reduced to one year on the ground that "under present conditions two years appears unduly long and operates as a handicap to industry."
In 1940, the duration of the grace period relating to acts of prior use or prior publication by the inventor which were to be excused as novelty-destroying acts was reduced from two years to one.
In 1946, the law was amended to overrule the Supreme Court's decision in Electric Storage Battery v. Shimadzu[36], which had applied the U.S. laws "first to invent" principle on a world wide basis. The statute confined the first to invent principle to situations where evidence of the invention could be found in the United States.
The basic structure of the present law was adopted in 1952. [37] The two major changes made at that time were to include in the statute for the first time a requirement that to be patentable an invention had not only to be novel, thereby codifying a century of case law, and to include a definition of infringement, which had hitherto been left to the courts. [38] Other changes included a minor change in the definition of what constituted patentable subject matter by replacing the eighteenth century word "art" by "process"; an express statement that when an invention involved a combination of elements it was possible to define such elements in functional terms (i.e. as a "means for" doing something) [39]; a relaxation of the formalities relating to applications by joint inventors and where an inventor cannot be found or refuses to apply for a patent even though bound by contract to do so; imposed a maximum time limit of two years within which to request reissue of a patent with broadened claims; abrogated the common law rule that a patent could not be partially valid and permitted actions to proceed on the basis of valid claims even if there were invalid claims in the same patent.
Since 1952, the law has been amended several times and has continued to develop by way of case law. Changes were relatively infrequent prior to the establishment of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 1982. The increased interest in the patent system that at least in part led to the creation of this court has also resulted in an increased rate of change in the law. In part this has come from decisions of the new court, and the occasional intervention by the Supreme Court; other changes have come through legislation. The creation of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has, if nothing else, led to a more coherent body of law than existed previously. In its first decade the court seemed to focus heavily on issues of patent validity and to reverse the perception that had existed in the 1970's that few patents that came before the court were likely to be upheld. In its second decade, the perception was that, having established that patents needed to be taken seriously, the court’s focus shifted to try to ensure that the protection given by any one patent was not overly broad compared to the significance of the invention that had been made.
Legislative developments up to the mid 90's came largely to deal with specific and relatively minor issues that arose either as a result of case law or particular developments in the economy, most notably in the compromise reached in 1984 to make it easier to obtain approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the sale of generic drugs after a patent had expired in return for the possibility of obtaining an extension to the term of a patent for a pharmaceutical invention to compensate the original inventor for the delays in marketing to which the original manufacturer had been subject while waiting for FDA approval. In 1994, a new trend started, at least in part as a result of renewed attempts at globalization of the patent system. In 1994, the law was amended to comply with a new international agreement that had been grafted on to the Uruguay round of amendments to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. This agreement, commonly known as TRIPS (Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property rightS) imposed certain minimum standards in patent protection on all member countries. This required changes in U.S. law relating in particular to the minimum duration of a patent and to prevent discrimination between the protection of inventions made in the United States and those made elsewhere. Further changes made in 1999, also had international norms as a guide and were at least in part the result of a bilateral agreement with Japan in which both countries agreed to remove some of the features of their patent system that the other found objectionable.
Some of the major changes that have been made since 1952 are as follows:
1954 Provisions relating to plant patents were amended to make it clear that cultivated sports, mutants, hybrids and newly found seedlings were patentable.
1964 Commissioner given the power to accept a declaration in lieu of an oath in "any document" and to give provisional acceptance to a defective document. 35 USC 25 and 26.
1965 Presumption of validity applied independently to each claim of a patent 35 USC 282.
1966 Supreme Court decision in Graham v. John Deere[40] set out the proper test for deciding whether or not a claimed invention is obvious.
1968 Patent Cooperation Treaty signed.
1971 Supreme Court decision in Blonder-Tongue v. University of Illinois [41] held that once a patent had finally been held to be invalid after full and fair litigation, that finding could be used as a defense in subsequent litigation on that patent even if the parties differed.
1975
1. Name of "The Patent Office" changed to "The Patent and Trademark Office".
2. Amendments to accommodate the Patent Cooperation Treaty. 35 USC 102(e), 104, 351- 376.
3. Liberalized the law having regard to the writing of claims in multiply dependent form. 35 USC 112.
1978
1. European Patent Office opened.
2. Patent Cooperation Treaty came into effect.
1980
1. Requirement to pay maintenance fees to keep patent in force introduced. 35 USC 154.
2. Special provisions made for inventions made with Federal assistance. 35 USC 200 - 211.
3. Provision made for third parties to cite prior art to USPTO. 35 USC 301.
4. Possibility of requesting reexamination created. 25 USC 302-7.
5. United States rebuffs attempts by developing countries to amend Paris Convention to permit exclusive compulsory licensing.
6. Supreme Court upholds the patentability of a genetically modified bacterium quoting the Congressional report leading up to the 1952 Act that "anything made by man under the sun" should be patentable. [42]
1982
1. Applications permitted to be filed without signature by the inventor as long as the inventor had authorized the application to be filed. 35 USC 111
2. Law relating to correction of wrongly named inventors liberalized. 35 USC 116.
3. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit created. 35 USC 141, 28 USC 1295. [43]
4. Term of all design patents fixed at fourteen years from grant. 35 USC 173.
5. Arbitration of disputes relating to patent infringement or validity authorized 35 USC 294.
6. It became possible for United States applicants to request an international search under the PCT by the European Patent Office.
1984
1. Possibility of extending patent term to compensate for delay in securing marketing authority from FDA to sell new drugs for humans. (Waxman Hatch Amendments) [44] 35 USC 156
2. Protection from finding of obviousness over work of co-employees etc. 35 USC 103 (c).
3. Clarification that to be a joint inventor the inventors did not have to work together or each be an inventor of subject matter of every claim. 35 USC 115(a).
4. Settlement of interferences by arbitration became permissible. 35 USC 135(d).
5. Definition of infringement amended to include exports of kits of parts that can be used to make a product which if made in the U.S. would be an infringement of a U.S. Patent. [45] 35 USC 271(f)
6. Boards of Patent Appeals and Interferences consolidated into a single Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. 35 USC 141.
7. Statutory Invention Registration scheme introduced 35 USC 157.
8. United States succeeds in causing inclusion of intellectual property issues in Uruguay Round of GATT negotiations.
1987
1. United States implements Chapter II of PCT. 35 USC 362.
2. It became possible for United States' applicants to request an international preliminary examination under the PCT by the European Patent Office.
1988
1. Possibility of extending patent term to compensate for delay in securing marketing authority from FDA to sell new drugs for animals. 35 USC 156.
2. Requirements for securing permission to file patent application abroad if on file in U.S. for less than six months relaxed to some extent. 35 USC 184 and 185.
3. Definition of infringement amended to include importation into the United States of products made abroad by a process covered by a U.S. patent and to reverse the burden of proof in certain cases of alleged infringement of a process patent. (Process Patents Amendment Act) 35 USC 271(g), 35 USC 287, 35 USC 295.
4. Definition of infringement amended to include application to FDA for marketing approval of a patented drug to be effective before the expiration of the patent but to remove from patent infringement acts relating to collecting data for use in submissions to the FDA for marketing approval of a drug etc. 35 USC 271(e).
5. Patent Misuse Reform Act made it clear that patent was not unenforceable for misuse on the basis that patentee had refused to license the patent or on the basis of tying arrangements unless the patentee had market power in the relevant market. 35 USC 271(d).
1990 Extension of definition of patent infringement to acts in outer space on a "space object or component thereof under the jurisdiction or control of the United States". 35 USC 105
1992 State governments made liable for acts of patent infringement. 35 USC 271(h), 35 USC 296
1993 Extension of right to prove prior invention to acts carried out in NAFTA countries (35 USC 104)
1994
1. Uruguay Round of negotiations for revision of the General Agreement of Tariffs and Trade (GATT), concludes an agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) which include enforceable minimum standards for patent protection.
2. Extension of right to prove prior invention to acts carried out in WTO countries (35 USC 104)
3. Introduced the possibility of filing provisional patent applications. 35 USC 111(b) and 119(e)
4. Subject to transitional provisions, the term of a patent is now twenty tears from its earliest filing date (instead of seventeen years from grant), subject to the possibility of extension to compensate for delays due to interferences or the need to appeal in order to secure the grant of the patent. 35 USC 154
5. Definition of infringing acts extended to include offers for sale and acts of importation. 35 USC 271
6. Reversal of burden of proof in certain cases where infringement of process patent is alleged. 35 USC 295
1995 Protection of biotechnology processes from finding of obviousness if it is for the production of new and nonobvious product. (35 USC 103 (b))
1996 Removal of remedies for infringement of patents for surgical processes. (35 USC 287(c).
1998 The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in State Street Bank v. Signature Financial.[46] holds that there is no prohibition in U.S. law on patents for business methods as long as they are new, useful and non-obvious.
1999
1. The 1992 amendment to make state governments liable for act of patent infringement is held to be an unconstitutional abridgement of the states' sovereign immunity in Florida Prepaid Postsecodary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank. [47]
2. The Intellectual Property and Communications Omnibus Reform Act of 1999 is passed. This law makes a number of amendments to the United States Patent Law and also includes provisions intended to curtail cybersquatting and to deal with satellite home viewing and rural local television signals. The changes to the United States Patent Law include providing for early publication of patent applications where equivalent applications are published abroad, the protection of inventors using the services of invention promotion services and first inventor (prior user) defense for prior users of business methods. Other changes were also made to the US Patent Law. You can learn more by referring to the following articles: US Patent Law Amendments 1999 and United States - 1999 - 2000 Revisions of the Patent Law and Rules.
2001 The first publication of a pending United States Patent Application, as provided for by the 1999 amendment, occurs on March 15, 2001.
2002 Amendments relating to re-examination practice to try to make this option more useful and to clarify the law on the effect of a third party’s prior PCT application on a later-filed U.S. application.
2003 Amendment to the Hatch-Waxman Amendments[48] to try to rectify some problems that had emerged.
2004 Cooperative Research and Technology Enhancement Act [49] removes prior unpublished work by joint venture partners from scope of prior art to be considered in obviousness determinations.
2005 Legislation introduced proposing major reforms, including a switch to a first-to-file system. (Not enacted due to lack of agrement on how to calculate damages).
2006 Supreme Court holds that since the grant of an injunction against patent infringement is an equitable remedy, the traditional requirements of equity must be complied with if an injunction is to be granted. [50]
2007
1. The Supreme Court reviews the standards to be used in assessing obviousness in KSR v. Teleflex.[51]
2. Introduction of non-traditional examination routes such as patent prosecution highways and peer to patent reviews to try to expedite and improve quality of patent examination.
3. Further attempt at patent law reform legislation (not enacted).
2009 Patent law reform legislation introduced to Congress based on compromise to deal with the issues that had thwarted reform in two previous Congresses.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Online Books, Poems, Short Stories
Check out Read Print. It's a collection of more than 8,000 books. And they are all available for free.
Online Books, Poems, Short Stories - Read Print Library
Online Books, Poems, Short Stories - Read Print Library
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Cool LInk
ObjectDock™ is a program that enables users to organize their shortcuts, programs and running tasks into an attractive and fun animated Dock. By allowing users to have more control over how they organize their desktop, users can take control of their desktop icons and shortcuts to have them be available when where and how they need them. With ObjectDock, you can make your computer more usable, and more fun at the same time!
Stardock ObjectDock
Stardock ObjectDock
where is my milk from?
Find out about your milk, yogurt, chocolate milk, soy and organic milk, coffee creamer, cottage cheese, ice cream...see full list.
where is my milk from?
where is my milk from?
Monday, June 7, 2010
Friday, June 4, 2010
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Estimates OK for speeding tickets, court rules
Estimates OK for speeding tickets, court rules
The Associated PressUpdated 11:42 AM Wednesday, June 2, 2010
COLUMBUS, Ohio — Ohio's highest court has ruled that a person may be convicted of speeding purely if it looked to a police officer that the motorist was going too fast.
The Ohio Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that an officer's visual estimation of speed is enough to support a conviction if the officer is trained, certified by a training academy, and experienced in watching for speeders. The court's 5-1 decision says independent verification of a driver's speed is not necessary.
The court upheld a lower court's ruling against a driver who challenged a speeding conviction that had been based on testimony from police officer in Copley, 25 miles south of Cleveland. The officer said it appeared to him that the man was driving too fast.
___
June 02, 2010 01:54 PM EDT
Copyright 2010, The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Easy way to move old data to a new computer - Tips, Reviews and Advice on All Things Digital - The Kim Komando Radio Show
Easy way to move old data to a new computer
- Tips, Reviews and Advice on All Things Digital - The Kim Komando Radio Show
- Tips, Reviews and Advice on All Things Digital - The Kim Komando Radio Show
You probably use plenty of free software, too. You’ll need to download this from the Internet. I have a free tool that will speed up the process. Ninite lets you select a number of popular free programs. It then creates a single install file.
Just run the installer; all of the programs will be installed automatically. It saves a lot of time. You won’t have to download a ton of individual programs. Nor do you have to install them all yourself.
Subscribe made easy | Fliptop for Consumers
Cool site:
Subscribe made easy | Fliptop for ConsumersGet alerts when your favorite websites or blogs are updated. Filter to just receive what you're interested in.
Control how and when you get updates.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
The Survivalist Blog
M.D. Creekmore over at the The Survivalist Blog – a survival blog dedicated to helping others prepare for and survive disaster – with articles on bug out bag contents, survival knife choices and a wealth of other survival information is giving away a Go Berkey Water Filter System (a $139.00 value)! To enter, you just have to post about it on your blog. This is my entry. Visit The Survivalist Blog for the details.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
