text:
Study finds food insecurity issues halved by guaranteed annual income
A new study has found that food insecurity for the country's poorest seniors is cut nearly in half once they achieve the age of 65 and are eligible for the guaranteed annual income provided through the Old Age Security (OAS) program. It subsequently poses the question of why 65 has been established as the golden age for access to the program and whether an age-based demogrant is appropriate, given the substantial impact a guaranteed annual income can achieve.
The University of Lethbridge's Dr. Daniel Dutton co-authored the study along with Drs. Lynn McIntyre, Cynthia Kwok and Herb Emery of the University of Calgary. The age of 65 was established as the benchmark for eligibility to receive OAS in 1968 and only recently was under threat to be moved to 67 by the Harper government. With food security issues so interconnected with OAS, Dutton questions the age-based approach.
The next question to be asked is why 65 has been established as the golden age for access to the Old Age Security program and whether an age-based demogrant is appropriate.
"Currently, age 65 is the magic number for some reason. The question we ask ourselves, why age 65, why not at 63? What is it about 65 that makes these people more deserving of Old Age Security?" he asks. "Obviously, the program itself isn't designed to target food insecurity but it does, so now we have to have the discussion."
The study utilized seven years of national-level data from the Canadian Community Health Survey to examine food insecurity prevalence among those aged 55 to 74. Focusing on low-income, single-person households (those making less than $20,000 per year), the study found that as these seniors became eligible for OAS, the prevalence for food insecurity was cut nearly in half.
"Remember, the amount of money they receive is not a lot by any standard, it certainly isn't making them rich by any means, but what it is doing is giving them a measure of stability," says Dutton. "These people are now no longer unsure of what their future holds in terms of supplemented income from the government and that's very important."
Dutton is a post-doctoral fellow at the U of L's Prentice Institute for Global Population and Economy. His training is in population health and economics and he has a special interest in how policy can change population-level health outcomes.
As food insecurity leads to higher health-care costs and utilization, policy that reduces the prevalence of food insecurity has an important impact on low-income seniors and similarly, on the costs borne by the rest of society.
"This study demonstrates that even small amounts of guaranteed annual income can have a potentially important impact on poverty," he says. "Now, we have to ask ourselves if an age-based demogrant is the way to go or is there a better way to distribute Old Age Security that will provide the stability of a guaranteed annual income to our poorest seniors and in turn, reduce food insecurity on a broader scale."
Reduction of Food Insecurity among Low-Income Seniors as a Likely Impact of a Guaranteed Annual Income is available online: http://bit.ly/CPP423d.
Daniel Dutton
Newest Research Headlines
Online group therapy helps adults with anxiety and depression, new review finds
University of Lethbridge unveils Mootookakio'ssin website, creates bridge to historical belongings
U of L study shows gaps in services for youth with mental health disorders
Biophysical Society of Canada recognizes Dr. Trushar Patel with 2021 Young Investigator Award
U of L art professor's research program boosted by Canada Foundation for Innovation funding
Kenow Wildfire study shows burning soil biomass led to significant carbon dioxide release to atmosphere
View more headlines
Canada Research Chair appointments support U of L expertise in water and agriculture
Research group patenting urinary analysis to diagnose concussion and enhance recovery protocols
U of L researcher wins national award for study on empowering long-term care staff
Tweets from @ULethbridge
Tweets by uLethbridge
Abbondanza 2020
Big Bang Opening Weekend
BBC/PBS documentary...
View more galleries on UNews
Happy Holidays 2021 from ULethbridge
SHINE: The Campaign for the University of Lethbridge
Mootookakio'ssin
View more videos on UNews
View more videos on YouTube
Alberta's Destination University
CONNECT WITH THE U OF L
Lethbridge, Alberta T1K 3M4
Ulethbridge on YouTubeUlethbridge on FacebookUlethbridge on TwitterRSS Feed
Lethbridge | Campus map
Calgary | Website
issuu.com/ulethbridge
For monthly newspapers and publications
Uweekly
A look ahead at the week's activities via e-newsletter
News Release Archives
Contact Public Relations
A735, University Hall
© 2022 University of Lethbridge | Web Privacy Statement


Although this isn't as pricey as the La Sphère, Cabasse has unveiled the latest Karissima Speaker, an improved version of the Kara speakers of Artis series. The Karissima utilizes Cabasse's TriCentric technology for pinpoint imaging, smooth off-axis dispersion and seamless frequency response. You can pick from three elegant finishes that include a traditional wild cherry natural wood veneer finish, a warm Santos finish made of wild cherry veneer and dark trendy Wenge finish. The captivating Karissima weighs in at 154 pounds and boasts power handling of 1260 watts. I'm sure at least one of them will complement your décor.
At the heart of design is the company's new TC23 three-way Spatially Coherent System (SCS) driver specially designed for Karissima. This third-generation drive unit incorporates a new tweeter that features an exclusive polyether diaphragm, with HF response linear up to 25kHz. Its dimensions are 55.1″H x 27.6″W x 27.6″D. Ideal for music enthusiasts seeking higher end and having deeper pockets, this speaker comes with a price tag of $24,400 each. Naturally you cannot do with one……so you will have to shell out double for a set of two!


Hiring expert oven cleaning in Eltham is the perfect way to eliminate all uninvited grime that is built up inside your furnace. Our expert oven cleaners are fully trained work with the latest equipment and methods to deliver supreme results for you. Our entire staff is fully insured so you can sit back and relax while we work hard for you.
We, Prolux Oven Cleaners, take pride of our name as the highest quality oven cleaning company in Eltham. Furthermore - just take a look at our price page and discover our incredible prices! Even better, we offer substantial savings when you book multiple cleaning services with us at the same time.
Keeping the perfect hygiene of your oven is very important part for maintaining a nice atmosphere at home. Besides, a lot of efforts are needed and needs proper maintenance which you should do every day of all the kitchen surfaces and single ovens. Maybe the most heavy and nasty part of cleaning is oven maintenance. If you clean the oven every time after use, you will not have to scrape tanned fat on the walls and the glass on the oven. Then, you can overcome this problem by using a slice of lemon - cut the fruit into slices and rub them with the walls of the oven. After that wash the oven with a cloth which you have placed in hot water before that, finally wipe with a dry cloth. Keep in mind that, if you do not want to invest so much time every day to wash the oven every time after you cook something, it will gain so much dirt on its parts, that is very difficult to remove.
Prolux Oven is popular for giving the most preferred deep oven washing process in Eltham, SE18,SE2,SE28,SE9. Our expert team has an organized method which is very powerful for maintaining surprising outcomes. First of all our specialist cleaners do is detailed investigation of every single part of the oven. The experts examine if the hot-plates, heaters, buttons and sensors work as they should do. Next they disjoint every single part of the kitchen appliance - doors, gaskets, grills and other parts and place them into a special solution that cleans all the dirt from them. Prolux Oven uses this method for steaming various kitchen appliances including refrigerators, microwaves, barbeques, ceramic hot-plates, gas stoves and aspirators.


Physiofit Chartered Physiotherapists offer professional assessment, treatment and rehabilitation of a range of injuries and conditions.
Pilates aims to rebalance the body improving posture, strength, core stability, flexibility and balance.
Based at Walnut Tree Physiotherapy Centre, Physiofit is a team of highly qualified and experienced Chartered Physiotherapists and Pilates instructors offering a wide range of services.
Dizziness and Balance clinic - Our physio Suzie Crellin is developing this new service offering help to people suffering from dizziness. We can offer assessment and treatment for many common causes of dizziness and balance problems. Ring or email us for more details.
Specialist classes including ante and post natal, neuro, older adult, rehabilitation and under 16s classes.


text:
Does Obviousness Type Double Patenting Survive the AIA?
September 23, 2014 Patentanticipation, First to Invent, obviousnessDennis Crouch
by Dennis Crouch
In Abbvie Inc. v. Kennedy Institute, the Federal Circuit confirmed that the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting (OTDP) continues to be a viable defense following the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) even though the change to a priority-date-based patent term greatly reduced the potential for abuse. Looking forward, the decision begs the question as to whether the OTDB doctrine has been eliminated as to patents examined under new the America Invents Act of 2011 (AIA). For the first time the rewritten patent statute particularly defines what evidence counts as prior art — now leaving little room for the judiciary to create further categories.
Obviousness-type double patenting (OTDB) has long been an element of patent law that operates to prevent a patent applicant from chaining-together a time-series of multiple patents in order to extend the exclusive rights beyond the expected 20-year term. Historically, the potential term expansion was made possible by filing a second or subsequent patent application (often a continuation application) that issues several years after the original patent. Because the patent term was 17-years from the issue date, later-issued patents would have additional patent term beyond the expiry date of the first-issued patent. The OTDP doctrine operates to block this outcome of extended patent term whenever the invention claimed in the extended-term-patent would be obvious (not patentably distinct) in light of the invention claimed in the first-expiring patent. In that situation, the extended-term patent is held invalid or unenforceable unless the patentee had submitted a "terminal disclaimer" that disclaims the potential extra term and also links the two patents together as if they were one big patent. Writing on this topic in a 1963 CCPA decision, Judge Rich noted:
The public should also be able to act on the assumption that upon expiration of the patent [the public] will be free to use not only the invention claimed in the patent but also any modifications or variants thereof which would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, taking into account the skill of the art and prior art other than the invention claimed in the issued patent.
See MPEP 804.
Declining Policy Concerns: Much of the need for the OTDB doctrine evaporated with the 1995 patent term transformation enacted with the URAA. Under the new law, US patent term is now calculated from the application priority date rather than the issue date with the result being that the a divided application no longer necessarily extends the patent term.
Of course, there are some caveats to the notion that OTDB is now an unnecessary relic: First, the term of a patent may be adjusted or extended due to a variety of factors with the result that family member applications may have differing expiry dates. The second source of potential term-separation comes from the statutory definitions of prior art that excludes certain prior applicant disclosures from the scope of prior art. These prior-art exclusions include certain pre-filing disclosures by the applicant as well as prior applications on file with the PTO that are not yet published as of the application latter filing date. The first situation (PTA) was a focus of Gilead Sciences v. Natco Pharma (Fed. Cir. 2014) and the second situation was the focus of AbbVie.
In AbbVie, the patentee held two separate patents both covering aspects of a rheumatoid arthritis treatment. Although both patents were part of the same patent family, only one claimed priority to a certain earlier application. It turns out that the early priority date was not needed because no intervening prior art had been identified. Under the 20-year term rules, the two patents were scheduled to have two different expiry dates. In the appeal, however, the Federal Circuit affirmed that the second patent was invalid for obviousness type double patenting because it was not patentably distinct from the claims of the first patent.
An interesting aspect of the decision involves the court's attempt to ground the doctrine in statute rather than the judicial creation heritage that Judge Rich had accepted and recognized. Judge Dyk writes:
While often described as a court-created doctrine, obviousness-type double patenting is grounded in the text of the Patent Act. . . . § 101 forbids an individual from obtaining more than one patent on the same invention, i.e., double patenting. As this court has explained, "a rejection based upon double patenting of the
obviousness type" is "grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the patent statute)."
Although the policy notion may be grounded in Section 101, the court explains that the practical application of the doctrine "looks to the law of obviousness generally" and is "analogous to an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 103." (quoting Amgen).
While unimportant for the AbbVie decision, the particular grounding of the doctrine may be important going forward because the law of obviousness has been rewritten as part of the America Invents Act of 2011.
The AIA redefines prior art in a number of particular ways. Notably for this discussion, the law spells out the scope of prior art along with certain "exceptions." These exceptions include disclosures originating from the inventors (Section 102(b)); as well as prior patent applications from the same patent-owned and that were still unpublished by the latter filing date (Section 102(b)(2)(c)). Section 102 has also been rewritten to expressly state that it is defining "prior art" — presumably the entire scope of potential prior art. When the obviousness provision in Section 103 refers to "prior art" it is now clear that we are talking about prior art as defined in Section 102 with the exceptions as noted.
Although a seeming small change in the statute, these alterations repeatedly make clear that certain prior disclosures by an inventor/owner simply don't count as prior art either for novelty or obviousness purposes. At the margins there continues to be potential for applicants to "play games" with the filing system in order to extend their effective patent term. However, that potential is so reduced from ages past and the statute now defines prior art at such an explicit level of detail that we leave little room for a judicially created doctrine that further eliminates patents.
Creating versus Eliminating Prior Art: At this point, it would be rather odd for the court to create additional forms of prior art that extend beyond the statute. What is unclear is whether the courts will be willing to apply the rewritten statute in a way that eliminates old forms of prior art that are no longer part of the statute. Like OTDP 'prior art,' the court will be faced with a similar situation involving prior secret sales or non-public commercial uses by the patentee that previously served as prior art but that do not seem to fit within the re-written definition of Section 102.
One problem with the doctrine is that it is slowly developing. The first challenges may come from a patent applicant who refuses to file a terminal disclaimer in order to get its patent allowed.
I should say that Congress potentially recognizes that double patenting doctrine is potentially problematic and Rep. Goodlatte has proposed an amendment that would codify double patenting.
About Dennis Crouch
Law Professor at the University of Missouri School of Law.	View all posts by Dennis Crouch →
← What would you ask a District Judge?	Software Business Method Patent Fails Again →
42 thoughts on "Does Obviousness Type Double Patenting Survive the AIA?"
Double Patenting when you have a Common Assignee but No Common Inventors | Patently-O says:
[…] that statutory-double patenting is said to stem from 35 U.S.C. 101 and, likewise, we learned in AbbVie v. Kennedy Institute that obviousness-type-double-patenting also finds its roots in Section 101. The problem with that […]
Dennis, you say:
"The first situation (PTA) was a focus of Gilead Sciences v. Natco Pharma (Fed. Cir. 2014)…"
PTA was not at issue in Gilead as neither patent had a PTA award. Their differences in term were the result of different earliest non-provisional filing dates.
Since I agree with several of the below comments, I would only add that as I understand AIA 102, if commonly owned or same inventive entity application B is filed before their A is published then apparently A is not prior art, and the only possible rejection of B based on A is for §101 "double patenting," or for judicially created "obviousness-type double patenting" [which is curable by effective terminal disclaimers tied to the first to expire and retained common ownership]. [Note that double patenting rejections could be applied before either A or B are published.] Unless the PTO also adopts an anticipatory or provisional §102(a)(1) rejection in anticipation of application A being published (as occurs in the 90%+ of applications where non-publication is prohibited by foreign filing, or is not requested). Akin to the MPEP §706.02(k) "Provisional Rejection (Obviousness) Under 35 U.S.C. §102(e)/103" for copending applications having different effective filing dates wherein each application has a common assignee or a common inventor. The practice tip is to try to file "improvement" applications B within 18 months of the filing date of the earlier application A, thus before A publishes, to avoid A being prior art against B.
Re "double patenting" case law note that as illustrated recently in In re Hubbell, a patent examiner may reject an applicant's pending patent claims based on obviousness-type double patenting even where there is no common ownership with the conflicting patent. Also, as very recently noted in In re Dinsmore, common ownership is a requirement for an effective terminal disclaimer. Note also Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Natco Pharma Ltd. re respective issue and expiration dates. Some other Fed. Cir. decisions on double patenting in recent years are not models of clarity or consistency.
Paul, do you have any information whether the folks who lost Gilead plan to petition the Supreme Court? Such a violent refusal to follow controlling precedent to the contrary, upsetting well established law of very long vintage, by a panel nonetheless, has got to merit some attention by someone.
It is a pity that the Federal Circuit did not take the case en banc.
GB says:
While I don't understand why disclaimers of the patent term were required since 1995, I do see value in requiring agreeing to common ownership, which is a part of the terminal disclaimer. Otherwise, potential infringers are going to have to deal with two or more parties for what could be essentially the same invention.
I agree that maintaining common ownership is now the primary value of disclaimer practice in these cases.
But don't forget patent term adjustments, which could still give different expiration dates for various members of a patent family, depending on PTO-caused delays in prosecution.
Mellow Marsher says:
Good point as to PTA. I recall seeing a discussion between Prof. Crouch and a commenter a few months ago where the commenter thought perhaps he had gotten "The Longest PTA, Evah!". But DC said no, someone else (IBM?) had it. But that one was, IIRC, on the order of 8 years or more.
So, anyway, a lot of words to say I agree with your comment and that PTA can be significant in some cases.
For an example of the truly lame "reasons" examiners give for OTDP rejections, see 12/287,481. The APJ who affirmed it needs some serious remedial training.
RH says:
Typo in the s/n? I don't see an ODP or Board decision in 12/287,481.
Sorry for the typo, see 12/287,471.
Awful. Truly awful.
DanH says:
Eh. There are much better cases to get outraged about. I think I agree with the board – the examiner's assertion that "all limitations of the present invention are met by the conflicting claimed invention" seems like a pretty straightforward (albeit very brief) explanation of anticipation. I don't know what additional information a claim chart would have provided. Note that the applicant didn't challenge this at all, which suggests that maybe the examiner was right?
A plurality of thresholding units says:
Huh? If your claims are strictly broader (and therefore anticipated by) the claims in your other patent, then your claims are obvious in view of the claims of your other patent. All the appellant had to do was point out a single limitation in their claims on appeal that wasn't recited by the claims in the conflicting patent, but instead, they made a lame argument about the sufficiency of the rejection and didn't address the merits. No wonder they lost.
Even if they won, they would still be left with claims that they know are anticipated by their earlier patent's claims. So what was the point of not filing a terminal disclaimer, anyway?
I didn't see your comment before I posted mine, plurality. I think you're right.
"…they made a lame argument about the sufficiency of the rejection and didn't address the merits."
The rejection had no merits. There was nothing to respond to. The examiner did not point out a single difference between the pending claims and the applied claims, or provide any explanation at all as to how the pending claims were "merely broader" than the applied claims.
"All the appellant had to do was point out a single limitation in their claims on appeal that wasn't recited by the claims in the conflicting patent…"
You have the burden backwards. Explaining the difference between the pending claims and the applied claims, and providing a reason why the differences would have been obvious, is the examiner's burden, not the applicant's.
Explaining the difference between the pending claims and the applied claims, and providing a reason why the differences would have been obvious, is the examiner's burden, not the applicant's.
That would be true if the examiner were asserting that the conflicting claim rendered the pending claim obvious. But he wasn't. He said that the conflicting claim anticipated the pending claim, because the pending claim was "merely broader." That's a succinct way of explaining both the difference between the claims and why the pending claim is anticipated.
plurality is correct – if the examiner's assertion was wrong, it would have been really easy to traverse. But that didn't happen. The OTDP argument in the appeal brief was a throwaway argument and the APJ recognized it as such.
Not gonna dispute that the appellant's argument was a throwaway. But in my experience the use of "anticipated" and "merely broader" in the OTDP rejections is almost always an indication of examiner laziness. In those instances I will always point out one difference that is not a "merely broader" distinction and instruct the examiner to point out all the differences and explain why they would have been obvious, or withdraw the rejection. And I don't wait until the appeal brief to do that.
JDPHD says:
There is absolutely no requirement for the reference used in an OTDP rejection to be prior art. This post confuses obviousness with OTDP. MPEP 804 is pretty clear.
David Silver says:
Strictly a personal opinion does not reflect the views of my employer:
You will note the CAFC's legislative basis for Obviousness Type Double patenting:
Page 9 AbbVie, Inc. v. Mathilda & Terence Kennedy Inst. of Rheumatology Trust,
"While often described as a court-created doctrine, obviousness-type double patenting is grounded in the text of the Patent Act.
Section 101 reads: "Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, . . . may obtain a patent therefor."
35 U.S.C. § 101 (emphasis added). Thus, § 101 forbids an individual from obtaining more than one patent on the same invention, ….."
Actually a more texturally correct interpretation of section 101 is that each "composition of matter" etc is entitled to a single patent rather than each "invention" encompassed within it.
This is extremely radical but the language of section 101 certainly equally supports this interpretation.
Forgive me if I'm being dense, but what do you see as the practical distinction among a prohibition of multiple patents on an "invention" and a prohibition on multiple patents on a "process, machine, manufacture, or composition…"?
OTDP is one solution I suppose, but there are others, to the ubiquitous problem of how to manage a stream of patents coming off of a research project, a stream in which each successive application is directed to subject matter that is new relative to the earlier filings but might not be inventive over them.
Ned, are you familiar with the concept of the "Patent of Addition" an artefact of First to File patent Systems, notably that of the former British Empire. It is an elegantly simple concept: designating your patent application as one for a "Patent of Addition" renders it invulnerable to Prior art attacks which invoke Applicant's earlier filings, the catch being that the Patent of Addition expires with the end of the term of the patent to which it is designated a patent "of Addition".
But all that nonsense was swept away by the EPC, in which the statutory Art 54 definition of what is prior art simply eliminates any "double patenting" issues before they ever arise.
The EPC was a step too far for the USA I guess, when moving to a First to File framework. So be it. No shortage of work for patent lawyers, eh?
Dan Feigelson says:
Long-winded comment coming.
Dennis, as someone whose practice includes representation before the Israel PTO, I've paid a lot of attention to the OTDP doctrine over the years, because the ILPTO hasn't yet figured out the distinction between real, 101-type same-invention double-patenting and OTDP, and the results have been unpleasant (and illogical). On my own blog I have argued for some time for the ILPTO to adopt a terminal disclaimer policy akin to that in the US, something I think is within the scope of the ILPTO's powers.
It's not clear to me if you're asserting that under the AIA, rejections that previously would have been raised as OTDP rejections should now be made as 101 same-invention double-patenting rejections, or if you're saying there's no basis for OTDP rejections, and only 101 DP rejections are left. Even if the latter, I would be concerned that the USPTO would start to fold both types of rejections together, as the ILPTO now does. Either way, based on the Israeli experience, I think it would be prudent to retain the OTDP doctrine.
Turning to your analysis, I don't think the AIA did away with OTDP, as I think you've confused prior art with OTDP, which has nothing to do with prior art. Perhaps calling it "non-statutory double patenting" instead of OTDP would remove the basis for the confusion. Prior art comes into play when I compare the claims of my application to the entire disclosure of a prior art document, to determine if my claims are obvious in view of the prior art and therefore not allowable.
In contrast, for OTDP, as you point out, the concern is different: OTDP aims to prevent a temporal extension of my term of protection, and to prevent the possibility that the two patents with claims on obvious variations wind up two different hands, thus raising transactions costs for potential infringers. In my mind, the question in OTDP analysis is really, "Could the applicant in principle have obtained these claims in the earlier application, i.e. is he now claiming an obvious variation of what's claimed in his earlier application?" Hence, ,unlike 101 DP analysis, for OTDP I compare the claims of my application to the *claims* of my earlier-filed application/patent, and the question is whether the later pending claims are obvious in view of the earlier *claims*. Even if my earlier application doesn't count as prior art for 103 obviousness purposes – say, for example, that it hadn't yet published at the time I filed the follow-on application – the question of whether or not I am effectively multiplying the number of patents I have that claim obvious variations of one another remains.
I think the invention of the terminal disclaimer, which as you note effectively makes the later and earlier filings into a single patent, is a great solution to this policy problem. It effectively allows the patentee to take a mulligan, adding claims to its portofolio that it theoretically could have had granted in the first application but didn't, but without extending patent term, and while ensuring that potential licensees or infringers will need to negotiate with a single party. And the patentee pays a fine in the form of twice as many renewal fees to pay (with a nice windfall for the PTO as a result).
Dan, all this talk about "earlier/later" shows that you have not figured out the consequences of Gilead.
The new rule is that order of issuance is irrelevant.
All patents claiming obvious variations must expire on the same date.
This can create chaos because patent terms do not reliably expire 20-yrs. from filing due to extensions.
It's a combination of extensions and the language in the terminal disclaimers that is causing the problem.
As noted by Dan, the underlying policy concern is over-extension of a patent's term. One straightforward way to avoid the creation of a rat's nest is a rule that says that the term of co-owned patents whose claims are obvious in view of each other is the term of the first patent in the "family" (related by the obviousness of the claims in view of each other) to grant.
There are other similar straightforward rules that might work and maybe other "tweeks" that could address perceived unfairness to the patentee (e.g., if the first patent granted has no extensions and also has narrower claims that fall within the scope of a broader patent, granted later and with an extended term). But the weirdest scenario — the one that I think needs to be avoided — is to extend the term of a first patent (or revive it?) based on extensions given to a later granted co-owned patent with claims that are obvious in view of the first patent.
Tourbillon says:
TD fees are a huge (and easy) money maker for the PTO. Expect this enormous lobby to vociferously oppose any curtailment of OTDP rejections.
Dennis Crouch says:
up from $40 a few years ago
I'll look forward to hearing what this "enormous lobby" has to say.
Law firms make a bit of change off filing TDs. It takes about twenty seconds for the attorney to push the button after his/her secretary prepares the TD. But nobody does timekeeping in increments that small.
Aren't you forgetting about the other public policy reasons for OTDP? That is the policy with respect to the "common ownership" requirement to prevent multiple infringement suits by different assignees asserting essentially the same patented invention.
For some case law, see the following:
In re Hubbell, 709 F.3d at 1145 ("The second rationale is to prevent multiple infringement suits by different assignees asserting essentially the same patented invention."); see also In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 944–48 (C.C.P.A. 1982).
Annie Mouse, but the patents are not invalid if held by different parties. They are just unenforceable for that period. When and if ownership is again restored, the patents become enforceable once more.
Ned, can you cite a case for the proposition that if common ownership is restored "the patents become enforceable once more." There are cases that hold that the conflicting patents must be commonly owned at the time the TD is filed, so that would run counter to your proposition.
IN RE DINSMORE, No. 2013-1637 (Fed. Cir. June 10, 2014).
Thanks, Ned. Dinsmore held that a TD was proper to remove an ODP rejection when the TD recited the language specified by Rule 321 and that common ownership at the time of the TD's filing is not a requirement for the TD to be proper and therefore there was no defective TD that could provide the basis for a reissuable error. Dinsmore did not speak to re-establishing common ownership to render patents "enforceable once more" – nor could it, because any such commentary would have been dicta in an ex parte proceeding. I want a case that supports your proposition, and Dinsmore certainly does not conflict, but I don't think it goes far enough.
Double patenting is a 101 problem as noted by the courts. Prior art is a separate and distinct issue, and has, since 1790, been exclusively related public knowledge and use of the invention.
Whether one can obtaining two patents on the same invention does not involve issues of prior art because one's own knowledge of the invention is not public knowledge. Pennock v. Dialogue. 27 U.S. 1, 7 L. Ed. 327 (1829).
It would be better Dennis not to confuse the issues.
Thanks Ned. I appreciate your comment and suggestion to consider Pennock v. Dialogue. (link to scholar.google.com)
I would actually use Pennock to support my view. That case serves as an ancestral origin of the statutory bar rules that patent applicants have lived with for so many years. Perhaps not properly identified as "prior art," but in recent years many of us have identified them colloquially as such. However, the AIA eliminates the statutory bars in favor of a detailed system only looking to prior art (created by anyone) with exceptions for certain actions taken by the inventors or owners.
The obviousness type double patenting doctrine has been used as a backstop for a time when there was a strong policy argument in favor and a patent statute that was not fully fleshed-out. That scenario has largely changed now. In my mind, this is much akin to the Laches issue that I raised earlier this week.
Dennis, did you know that in England, prior to 1792, that one grounds for invalidating a patent (scire facias) was that an earlier patent had issued on the same invention, albeit, to another? Mowry v. Whitney, 81 U.S. 620, 20 L. Ed. 860, 8 S. Ct. 273 (1872).
link to scholar.google.com
It seems that the courts only extended the very well known principle to two patents on the same invention regardless of who invented.
(On a slightly different point, also note the caveat about the necessity of government involvement in writs to invalidate a patent because unless the government were involved, the patentee would be subject to numerous vexatious suit to cancel his patent for invalidity.)
Thanks Ned. Yes, and I agree with you that the scire facias doctrine should (as a policy matter) certainly be in force today. And, most of the 19th century US cases on "double patenting" were actually focused on this type of issue — i.e., earlier patenting by someone else.
A good description of the entire procedure for scire facias is set for in Chapter XXI, pages 194-211 of John Paxton Norman, Treatise on the Law & Practice relating to Letters Patent for Invention, (London, Butterworths, 1853). link to archive.org
Note the patent owner had a right to a trial by jury in the common law courts on disputed facts. The petitioner had to post a bond of 1000 pounds.
The Federal Circuit has the procedure for the writ all screwed up, thinking that because the writ was filed in Chancery, that the was no right to a trial by jury. There was. As usual, the Supreme Court has it right. Ex parte Wood & Brundage, 22 U.S. 603, 6 L. Ed. 171, 32 S. Ct. 589 (1824). link to scholar.google.com
2.1.1.1.1.1
Interesting. I had not researchd this issue.
qu3s7 says:
If congress meant to eliminate ODP when passing the AIA why did it leave the ODP escape hatch for Divisionals in 35 USC 121?
Wouldn't eliminating the doctrine of ODP make part of 121 redundant.
q, Dennis confuses prior art and 101. I do not know why.
Its a good question. Although it doesn't mention double patenting by name, Section 121 is certainly directed, in part, to preventing OTDP from applying in the divisional situation. The question would be whether there is some other non-OTDP purpose for the following sentence:
A patent issuing on an application with respect to which a requirement for restriction under this section has been made, or on an application filed as a result of such a requirement, shall not be used as a reference either in the Patent and Trademark Office or in the courts against a divisional application or against the original application or any patent issued on either of them, if the divisional application is filed before the issuance of the patent on the other application.
Commentariat says:
That's interesting. I had been thinking about cons & divs as basically interchangeable, not appreciating the differences wrt patent term.
Here's a strategy I could see being employed: for a very valuable invention (the kind where you'd probably ultimately file 4 or 5 serial cons, and where cost isn't really an issue), file the original app with a multitude of claims — when you get restricted, you have a bunch of divs, which will inevitably be delayed different amounts at the PTO and therefore have different expiration dates. You'd potentially get more term that way, compared to filing serial cons that all have TDs, where you'd be tied back to the shortest term in the family.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Please note we are no longer accepting internship applications until further notice.
The GEM Report occasionally has a need for consultants. A consultant is a recognized specialist with particular skills, expertise or knowledge who is contracted by UNESCO for a short period, either in an advisory or consultative capacity or to provide a product or service. All consultants hired by the GEM Report Team must be registered on the Education Sector's roster of consultants. Click on the following link to register as a consultant: Roster of consultants of the UNESCO Education Sector.


text:
Jon Hamilton appears in the following:
A brain circuit linking pain and breathing may offer a path to prevent opioid deaths
Opioids can kill because they reduce breathing along with pain. Now brain scientists have made a discovery that could lead to potent pain drugs that don't affect breathing.
Studies into how pain and breathing are connected could lead to safer pain drugs
Scientists may have learned why opioids depress breathing while relieving pain. The finding could lead to pain drugs that don't cause respiratory failure, the usual cause of death in opioid overdoses.
From blood clots to infected neurons, how COVID threatens the brain
The virus that causes COVID-19 can cause strokes, inflammation, oxygen deprivation and infection in the brain. And each of these may lead to long-term neurological problems.
COVID can cause long-term injuries to the brain. Here's what scientists have learned
Scientists are beginning to understand how COVID can cause brain injuries. The virus can lead to a stroke, starve the brain of oxygen, cause inflammation brain and might infect and kill brain cells.
Cost and controversy are limiting use of new Alzheimer's drug
A new Alzheimer's drug isn't reaching many patients. Doctors say reasons include its high cost, and lingering questions about its effectiveness.
After a concussion, the brain may no longer make sense of sounds
A concussion can make it difficult to converse in a noisy room. Scientists say that's because the injury has impaired the brain's ability to process sounds.
Concussions don't necessarily affect ears — but they can affect the ability to hear
People who sustain a concussion can develop an unusual hearing problem. Their ears work fine, but their brain struggles to process sounds.
New brain maps could help the search for Alzheimer's treatments
Scientists have created detailed maps of the brain area that controls movement in mice, monkeys and people. The maps could help explain human ailments like Alzheimer's and Lou Gehrig's disease.
Nobel Prize awarded to U.S. scientists for research on how we sense of heat and touch
Two scientists who helped explain how we sense temperature and touch have received the Nobel prize in physiology or medicine. Their research could lead to new pain treatments.
The Best Time For Rehabilitation After A Stroke Might Actually Be 2 To 3 Months Later
Intensive rehabilitative therapy that starts two to three months after a stroke may be key to helping the injured brain rewire, a new study suggests. That's later than covered by many insurance plans.
Pufferfish Toxin Holds Clues To Treating 'Lazy Eye' In Adults
The visual problem is usually treated in kids by temporarily covering the other eye with a patch. But that doesn't always work. Research now shows crucial brain rewiring can happen in adulthood, too.
Surfers Are Trading Natural Waves For Artificial Ones In Waco, Texas
The surf is always up in Waco, Texas, thanks to an artificial wave so good it's attracting top professionals and casual riders. It's a sign of just how far the technology of wave making has come.
Waco, Texas, Has Become An Unlikely Destination For Surfers. Why?
The reason Waco has become a must-visit for surfers from around the world, is a surf park with state-of-the-art artificial waves. It can make 120 waves an hour and costs surfers about $10 a ride.
Future Alzheimer's Treatments Aim To Do More Than Clear Plaques From The Brain
Alzheimer's researchers are trying new treatment approaches, including trying to boost the immune system, remove toxic tangles of protein and stimulate brain waves with light and sound.
Weeks after the Food and Drug Administration approved the Alzheimer's drug Aduhelm, doctors are struggling to figure out who should get the drug and how to use it safely.
Medical Experts Are Still Figuring Out How To Use Controversial Alzheimer's Drug
At a scientific meeting in Denver, Colo., doctors who treat Alzheimer's patients are figuring out how they will use the newly approved drug Aduhelm, which has had conflicting evidence of its efficacy.
Doctors Worry That Memory Problems After COVID-19 May Set The Stage For Alzheimer's
Some patients who have had COVID-19 develop symptoms resembling early Alzheimer's. Researchers are trying to figure out whether these people are more likely to develop the disease itself.
Experimental Brain Implant Lets Man With Paralysis Turn His Thoughts Into Words
A stroke left a man paralyzed and speechless. Now a device that decodes brain signals is letting him generate words and sentences.
For Those Facing Alzheimer's, A Controversial Drug Offers Hope
A plaque-busting Alzheimer's drug called Aduhelm has yet to prove it can preserve memory and thinking. Even so, its approval by the Food and Drug Administration is making some patients opitimistic.
New Device Taps Brain Signals To Help Stroke Patients Regain Hand Function
After a stroke, people often lose dexterity in one hand. Now, the Food and Drug Administration has authorized a device that can restore function by encouraging the brain to rewire.
Jon Hamilton Newsfeed


text:
Tammy Bond, 47, is a Christian, a veteran, a parent and a registered sex offender. (Courtesy of Tammy Bond)
Features » February 18, 2016
We're Rethinking Prisons. Is It Time to Rethink Sex Offender Registries?
Criminal justice reform is in the air. But not for everyone.
BY Erica R. Meiners
Despite their failure to prevent or interrupt injury to children, registries are resilient. People want to feel safe, and policy makers are invested in delivering these feelings.
When police arrived at her house to arrest her on May 8, 2013, Tammy Bond turned to her niece and said: "Aunt Tammy did something wrong."
At age 45, she had a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old. She was convicted of aggravated criminal sexual abuse and, like 26,000 others in Illinois, required to register as a sex offender for the rest of her life.
She has great difficulty finding housing or employment. She cannot eat in fast-food restaurants with playgrounds. If a recent Chicago ordinance had passed, she would have been banned from public libraries during the summer. No other conviction results in this level of interference with daily life once time behind bars has been served.
Prison reform is the topic of the day. Last year, former President Bill Clinton renounced the 1994 omnibus crime bill that helped fill the nation's prisons. The Black Lives Matter movement has insistently called attention to structural racism throughout the justice system. A strange coalition is building in favor of reform at the federal level, made up of Democrats such as President Obama and anti-big-government Republicans such as Rand Paul and Jeb Bush.
Yet for the hundreds of thousands of adults like Bond who must register as sex offenders, penalties are only getting harsher. In one high-profile example, President Obama signed a law earlier this month requiring that sex offenders' passports have a "unique identifier."
In this reformist moment, the treatment of sex offenders could set a problematic precedent. In 2015, New York state Sen. Thomas Croci (R) introduced a bill to create a public registry for people convicted and suspected of terrorism. For politicians seeking to cut prison costs, why not repurpose the tools used to surveil and contain sex offenders—public registries, community notification apps, restrictions on mobility and employment, even passport stamps—to control other populations defined as dangerous or undesirable?
Bond believes that what she did was wrong. She was a teacher; the 16-yearold was her student. The relationship lasted two months. "I knew it shouldn't have happened," she says. "I am sorry for what I did. But it is too late for regret—at this point, it is done."
She pled guilty and was sentenced to 180 days in jail and four years of probation. That's a comparatively light sentence, likely because she had no prior criminal history and a private attorney, and because, according to Bond and her lawyer, the student initiated the relationship and did not say that he was coerced. Sentencing trends for sex offenses indicate that her gender and sexual orientation may also have worked in her favor, although her race—African American—likely worked against her.
Three days after her release from jail, Bond registered at the local police station as a "sexual predator." She felt "embarrassed, unworthy, just like people think of sex offenders—the scum of the earth." She couldn't afford the $100 registration fee; the police waived it.
She couldn't go home. Her house, which she owns, is catty-corner from a part-time child care facility. Illinois law prohibits registered sex offenders from living within 500 feet of a "school, playground, or any facility providing programs or services exclusively directed toward people under age 18."
Some laws are even more extreme. In Florida's Miami-Dade County, sex offenders may not live within 2,500 feet of parks or schools. Unable to reside within city limits, a group of registered sex offenders lives under a causeway.
Bond, luckily, had a friend who could take her in temporarily, but finding an apartment of her own was a struggle. Before renting a place, Bond had to wait for the police department to check whether there were childcare facilities nearby, a process that can take days—by which time apartments were often unavailable.
She also struggled to find a job, despite having worked steadily since she was a teenager. If she wasn't automatically screened out by her answer to the routine interview question, "Have you ever been convicted of a crime?", she says that in second interviews the question would come up, "OK, so you were teaching for five years—why did you stop?"
"And the only way I could think to answer was to be honest, because it would come out," Bond says. Background checks, routine for any employer, would flag Bond as a sexual predator with a conviction for aggravated criminal sexual abuse.
She can't help but contrast her experience with that of three other women incarcerated with her. All three secured employment shortly after their releases, despite having fewer formal educational credentials than Bond. None were sex offenders.
Even Walmart, where Bond had worked to put herself through university, turned her down. "I thought that they knew me and my work ethic," she says, "and they would not hire me."
Nine months after she was released, she finally did find work as a homebased telemarketer and transcriber. The employer willing to hire her? Another registered sex offender who created an agency explicitly to employ people on the registry.
No 'typical' sex offender
The term "sex offender" conjures up the worst of the worst, and many registered sex offenders have harmed children in unfathomably awful ways. According to the National Child Traumatic Stress Network, 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 6 boys will potentially experience some form of sexual abuse before the age of 18. Younger children are often most at risk. The Department of Health and Human Services reported in 2012 that of 62,936 people under age 18 who were reported as sexually abused to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, about one-quarter were between the ages of 12 and 14, and one third younger than 9.
The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children estimates that there are approximately 850,000 registered sex offenders in the various state and local registries across the United States. Tammy Bond is not a very representative example: About 98 percent are men. At the same time, African Americans like Bond are disproportionately represented, accounting for 22 percent of those convicted of sex offenses and only 13 percent of the population.
In more meaningful ways, however, we don't know what a "typical" sex offender looks like. There is little centralized national data on registered sex offenders, so it is difficult to know how many reflect our idea of the worst of the worst. Research by University of Washington Tacoma professor Alissa Ackerman and colleagues suggests that the overwhelming majority of victims of registered sex offenders are minors—as high as 90 percent in states where the age range of the victim is available. Yet, complicating matters, data makes it hard to identify how many people in the registries were 18 or under themselves at the time of the crime. According to a 2009 research brief from the U.S. Department of Justice, juveniles—most of them teenagers—account for one-quarter of those convicted of sex offenses (although not necessarily of those registered). Federal law requires people as young as 14 to publicly register for sex crimes, but states vary in their compliance with this law.
We also don't know much about the nature of registered offenders' crimes. A patchwork of federal, state and local laws determines who must register, and can include those convicted of sexting, possessing child pornography, soliciting prostitution, even public urination. The language of a charge may not convey much about the risk someone poses: For example, Bond was convicted of "aggravated criminal sexual abuse." And a myriad of charges reflect our attempts to untangle the unresolved thicket surrounding age, sex and consent: Is a person convicted of "lewd and lascivious behavior," a charge still levied against gay men who engage in public sex, a danger? Can a 16-year old consent to any sexual activity? If a 14-year-old emails out naked photos of himself on a dare, is he distributing child pornography?
Registries and recidivism
While there is no easy answer to what to do about people who sexually harm children, research illustrates that registries fail to deliver on their promise of public safety. Amanda Agan, a post-doctoral fellow in economics at Princeton who studies registries, published an influential article in a 2011 issue of The Journal of Law & Economics: "Sex Offender Registries: Fear without Function?"
Agan analyzed the effectiveness of registries in three different ways. First, she analyzed arrest rates in each state before and after registry laws were initiated, and she concluded that there were no significant changes in sex offense rates following the implementation of a registry.
Second, Agan examined the re-arrest data for approximately 9,600 sex offenders who were released from prison in 1994. About half of those people lived in states where they were required to register, while the other half lived in states where they did not need to register. There was no significant difference in the two groups' recidivism rates.
Third, Agan explored whether the public knowledge of where a sex offender resides would predict where sex crimes might occur. Agan researched specific blocks in neighborhoods in Washington D.C. and concluded there was no statistically significant relationship between the number of registered offenders in a city block and rates of arrests related to sexual offenses.
Taken as a whole, Agan says, the existing research shows that "registries and post-release notification laws do not on balance seem to be effective at reducing sex crimes or recidivism by sex offenders."
The most-cited theory for their ineffectiveness is the simple fact that children are rarely abused by strangers, making it pointless to ban sex offenders from schools and playgrounds. According to a landmark 2000 study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, which utilized sexual assault victimization data from a newly available database—the National Incident-Based Reporting System—strangers account for only 7 percent of sexual assaults against children.
Another theory, Agan notes, is that "these laws reduce opportunities for sex offenders to reintegrate into society," perversely facilitating potential recidivism. Registries isolate people by stigmatizing them and cutting them off from housing, legal employment and social services.
What, then, works to reduce sexual abuse of children?
Anti-violence organizer and Reverend Jason Lydon is founder and national director of Black and Pink, the world's largest organization for incarcerated people who identify as LGBTQ. Some of the 10,000 members inside prison are serving time for sex offenses and some have also experienced sexual violence.
"Ending sexual violence against children requires a deep cultural shift that includes efforts of ending poverty, dismantling patriarchy and all other forms of oppression," says Lydon. Acknowledging that may sound utopian, he offers a concrete starting point: meaningful sex education, beginning in early elementary school. Good trainings, he says, include discussions of consent and create spaces "for children to understand their bodies and sexuality in a way that is not stigmatizing, while simultaneously educating adults on healthy ways to interact with children."
Other solutions are being built. The survivor-founded organization Stop It Now! frames child abuse as a public health problem and works to educate adults and communities about prevention. The Secret Survivors initiative, a film and theater project by nationally acclaimed troupe Ping Chong + Company, uses oral history to raise the visibility of sexual violence against children.
In 2009, the Justice Policy Institute calculated how much the 2006 federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) would cost each state to implement in the first year. The estimates ranged from $848,009 (Wyoming) to $20,846,306 (Illinois) to $59,287,816 (California). What if these funds were channeled from registries to comprehensive sexual education for all?
The will to change
When Bond learned that her sex offender classification would mean she couldn't return to her home, she began writing state officials "from the governor on down." Receiving few answers, she requested in-person meetings. "You wouldn't believe how many responses I got back after that," she says. Legislative assistants quickly replied to dissuade her from visiting.
The exception was former Illinois Lt. Gov. Sheila Simon, who wrote back to say that she found Bond's perspective useful. She helped connect Bond with Illinois Voices for Reform, a statewide advocacy network founded in 2010 by Tonia Maloney. At age 19, Maloney's son was convicted of criminal sexual assault for a consensual relationship with a 16-year-old—and of child pornography for possessing a topless photo of the girl. The network's mission is to promote "the elimination of sexual abuse and the preservation of civil rights for all individuals through the use of effective legislation based on empirical research."
Illinois Voices is swimming against the legislative tide. Illinois lawmakers have recently barred sex offenders from fast food restaurants with playgrounds. They've also introduced legislation to ban sex offenders from county fairs, require them to register—and pay the $100 fee—in the county where they work as well as where they live, and compel them to notify the police department if their employment is terminated. Most of these proposals are still pending in committee. Proposed legislation would also expand the registry to include people convicted of "sexually motivated" battery. In November 2014, Chicago Alderman Marty Quinn proposed an ordinance that would ban sex offenders from using libraries in the summer.
At the same time, with prison reform in the air, Illinois is rethinking facets of its criminal justice system. Under former Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn, the state shuttered seven correctional facilities between 2012 and 2013.
In 2015, incoming Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner continued to look for ways to trim costs and reduce prison overcrowding. He established the Illinois State Commission on Criminal Justice and Sentencing Reform with the goal of reducing the prison population by 25 percent over the next decade. The 28-member commission has a sweeping mandate for a "comprehensive review of the State's current criminal justice and sentencing structure, sentencing practices, community supervision and the use of alternatives to incarceration."
Registries would seem to fall under this rubric. Maintaining the software, physical space and the trained personnel needed for registration costs time and money. Public radio journalist Rob Wildeboer has documented that as registration requirements escalate, many sex offenders in Chicago violate the conditions of their parole and are reincarcerated at substantial cost.
On June 3, 2015, Bond drove alone to Springfield and sat through the commission's four-hour meeting. The public comment period was scheduled to start at 4:20 p.m. A day away from work, plus gas and parking, cuts into her tight budget. Why did she go?
"I know who I am," she says. "If I hide, nothing is going to happen. I can't wait for the next person to come along and fight the fight. I am not willing to sit still and let law after law pass, and then I might be like the people in Florida living under a bridge."
Stepping up to speak, Bond identifies herself as a registered sex offender and described the onerous requirements that she and others on the registry face: how challenging it is to find work and housing. She does not claim innocence. She does not ask for her case to be reevaluated. Plainspoken, she asks the commission to consider those convicted of sex offenses in their recommendations.
The detailed, 24-page initial report from the commission, released July 1, 2015, includes many public comments, but not Bond's. Nor does it mention sex offenders or sex offenses. Neither does the first part of the final report, published in December 2015; the second part will be released in spring 2016.
Only so much registry reform can happen on a state level. Federal legislation governs many of the requirements that shape the lives of people convicted of sex offenses across the United States. The Wetterling Act in 1994 and Megan's Law in 1996 created national frameworks for sex offender registration and community notification. The 2006 Adam Walsh Act, which included SORNA, established more stringent registry requirements and opened the door to civil commitment for federal sex offenders deemed sexually violent: the indefinite detention in treatment centers or prisons after serving their sentences.
As of 2014, only 17 states were in full compliance with SORNA, and several states refuse to comply, citing the exorbitant cost of full implementation. The penalty for failing to comply is a 10 percent decrease in federal money available to a state to support anti-crime initiatives from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant, and for some states forfeiting these resources is less expensive than full compliance.
Given the costs of registries and their ineffectiveness at reducing sexual violence, it is misguided to exclude them from current prison reform debates. Part of any such examination should be looking past the extreme stigma attached to people convicted of sex offenses and listening to how registries have ruined lives. Shutting people in the registry out of the conversation will push those who require social services and support farther to the margins. And monitoring this expanding population will require new surveillance technologies and practices that can be used against other communities in unforeseeable ways.
Conversely, looking squarely at sex offenders raises a core question: If not registries and endless surveillance, then what will make our children, and our communities, safer? This question forces us to consider meaningful ways to protect children from sexual violence and other harm—such as poverty, in which 14.7 million American children live, according to the federal definition.
Among people with convictions for sex offenders, Bond is one of the lucky ones. She has a strong support network, caring family members, a welcoming church, no other criminal history, access to good healthcare and some employment, although not enough.
"Most sex offenders are hiding behind the stigma," she says. "If I have to put myself out there and be criticized or ridiculed or whatever people might do—I don't find that beneath me."
Erica R. Meiners
Erica R. Meiners is author of several books, including Right to Be Hostile: Schools, Prisons, and the Making of Public Enemies (2009), (2009) and For the Children? Protecting Innocence in a Carceral State (forthcoming from University of Minnesota 2016), and articles in wide range of academic journals, magazines, blogs and anthologies, including Meridians, Windy City Times, Women's Studies Quarterly, ReThinking Schools, Captive Genders, and Jacobin. The Bernard J. Brommel Distinguished Research Professor at Northeastern Illinois University, she is currently a Soros Justice Fellow writing on reducing our nation's reliance on criminalization to end sexual violence.
125 Years After the Pullman Uprising, We Could Be on the Verge of Another Sympathy Strike Wave
I, unfortunately, am in the same boat. I made a terrible choice in 2010 with someone I honestly believed was of age, and found out they were underage. We didn't have sex, but in the state I was convicted in, touching one another and kissing even over clothing is a serious sexual offense, even when consensual. Again, I know I was in the wrong, and accepted my responsibility in the whole thing. I served my time and expired my sentence. I had 2 children with my ex wife before getting involved in the crime. Afterwards, I have moved on and restarted my life, with an awesome wife and 3 more kiddos. Where I live currently I am a low risk to re-offend, and I am able to pretty much do anything and go anywhere including on school properties, playgrounds, etc.That law was changed last year in my state, and there has been no issues of an increase of recidivism. I am also not posted on the state or federal sex offender websites due to the low risk. I am also able to have email and social media accounts. Again only low risk offenders were freed up a bit, and now all they must do is register once a year. before then you couldn't be on school grounds, playgrounds, etc but you could live near one as a low risk. National studies show that only about 6% of sexually based offenses are done by a previous sex offender. 94% are first time offenders. The problem I run into now is my wife is deciding to make a life change and join the military. Military bases don't allow sex offenders to live on base, even though I am a Veteran myself and served almost a decade ago. So when she does go in and gets to a base, we have to live off base. The issue with that is I will have to adhere to that state's laws with sex offenders, which unlike mine, it doesn't matter what your crime was, you will be restricted to not live in child populated areas such as schools etc... from 1,000 ft all the way up to 2,500 ft. You meet me in life, you would think this guy is a well rounded guy with his head on his shoulders, and a great dad and husband. Underneath it all though, I have baggage, that I have to live with for 15 years according to my state regulations. Currently I have another 8 years till that day comes, but even then there are states that require any sex offender to register for life, for example SC, regardless of crime and location. You could be off the sex offender national registry and your local state, then move and still be required to register in a state that requires any sexual offender convicted in any state to register with them for the rest of their lives. My quarrel with the whole thing is, make it a federal regulation for registry not state. Federally I could be off the registration at the 10 year mark which is less than 3 years away, and I could live my life happily with my wife and kiddos. Not all people registered as sex offenders are "predators". Some honestly, like myself, made an error in judgement, learned from that error, and changed ways to live as a law abiding citizen. And again I say only 6% ever re-offend and commit another sex offense. So there is no need to really live in fear.
Posted by Michael Abbott on 2017-03-05 01:12:47
The tide will change when the there is enough research that will most definitely prove that the manner in which we use these registries, due to the unintended consequences, make our communities LESS safe. Common sense will also need to come into play as we ask ourselves if these people are so dangerous that we cannot allow them to eat at a Mcdonald's with a playground or live in the house they OWN, then why the hell aren't they behind bars? We are being fooled into thinking that Registries make us safer. If a person is dead set on attacking and abusing children (really the only fear that people have) they will not be deterred by a Registry. Registries should be reserved for those very few who, after a long prison sentence are being released into society and who pose a real danger. By grouping every single person who ever committed a crime of a sexual nature onto a public registry is nothing more than modern day public shaming, distracting our attention from those who do pose a real danger. Registries also perpetuate the idea of "Stranger Danger" and that is not where the majority of abuse occurs. The research is unanimous that the majority of abuse occurs in the home or in a familiar place with someone the victim already knows.
Posted by Paulie Abque on 2016-08-17 02:53:00
Of course, one of the biggest lies of the "sex offender" witch hunt is that being listed on the SOR is not punishment. Anyone with a brain knows that is a lie.
So instead of saying the only "significant consequence", you could have said that it is the only "significant punishment". It is also punishment that will protect no one in the future. Quite the opposite, it will put the public in more danger as long as Labrie is Registered and likely for very long afterward. And the Registries will continue to divide America, erode its morals, and destroy any hope of that hilarious, non-existent "American exceptionalism".
Posted by ieee on 2016-02-26 07:07:38
N*GGERS ARE CRIMINALS
Posted by Beelzebub on 2016-02-25 21:02:31
Good article. Only problem is that, as noted by other comments, right now the prosecution of rape cases in the US is utterly miserable. And while its easy to cherry pick examples of the 19 year old who was stuck on the sor for consensual sexting, there are also lots of cases - like the recent highly publicized case with Owen Labrie, where literally the only significant consequence that the prosecution could get to stick is being put on the sor.
Posted by David on 2016-02-25 16:28:07
My children would not be among them. Because I am not one of those people who idiotically wishes ridiculous harm against other people. I actually think it is a very big deal to put a person in prison for even a few years, let alone life.
But for you people who think it is not, it is you and yours who should suffer the most. If you think it is not a big deal to imprison someone else's child for 20 years or execute them, then you are not really a human and need to go first. People like you are what is wrong with America. And why so much of the world hates the self-righteous, entitled lot of you.
Please. The Sex Offender Registries (SORs) are not just negligibly beneficial, they are worse than worthless. People who protect themselves and their children from sex crimes have no use or need for the SORs. For people who do not, the SORs will provide no practical protection at all.
The simple fact that we did not create 100 different, national, public Registries decades ago is complete proof that the SORs are not worth EVEN CLOSE to their total waste. It is also proof that the SORs are not really for "public safety", "protecting children", or any of those other lies. Candidly, they exist to make stupid people feel a little better.
As much as I may agree with most of your statement, the blanket 'all ex cons go through a period of probation' is simply wrong. Some fully discharge their sentence day for day or the commonly used phrase 'long way'.
Posted by Marty Plummer on 2016-02-23 01:04:23
thank you for taking a serious look into sex offender laws and bringing some factual information and common sense into the discussion
Posted by paulshannon on 2016-02-22 13:24:38
That sweet young thing you met on the adult site was really cute. She even met you in a bar and even though you looked at the ID and it passed muster it was fake. You got busted and now you are one of them. They made claim they are of age and lied, nothing will be done about that. Another weird game played is that the police give underage kids fake id's and then arrest a business for selling goods to underage kids. This has become one sick game, yet the college prof can offer treats to get that "A" and nothing is done. This is not keeping kids safe, a feel good con anmd in time will destroy what ever it does touch.
If rape is under prosecuted, then what good are registries in the first place? Why do you want to continue punishing people who have already paid their price? They are not just let back on the streets, so stop lying about that. You know very well that all ex cons go through a period of probation, which can last years or even decades.
How are ex cons every going to become productive members of society if you keep trying to push them out?
Ironically, you want to rape and destroy their future.
Posted by Kevin Schmidt on 2016-02-21 15:49:22
The only way I'm in favor of eliminating registries is if the money to maintain them is used to train police and prosecutors in how to secure more rape convictions. Rape is the most under prosecuted crime in the U.S. Violent stranger rapes and child rapes seem to be the only circumstances that regularly result in any kind of conviction. Not upset about having those people on a registry until we can find a way to invest in actual restorative reintegration methods either. Just letting folks back on the streets with no checks? No thank you.
Posted by Mercy G on 2016-02-21 12:34:40
awesome article!! it brings out many truths in the mess that is called sex offender laws and the registry!
Posted by Echo Moon on 2016-02-19 13:07:39
I'm all for the content of this piece, the headline, though, is problematic We are not "Rethinking Prisons." We are not even THINKING prisons. Public discourse on CJ reform has not said WORD ONE about the basic design of our prisons, let alone adjusting that basic design. Right now action and discussion is limited to sentencing, clemency, drug laws--all are worthwhile, but do not address HOW we incarcerate in this country.
Posted by Kendra on 2016-02-19 10:13:58
would not be a problem and yours would be next. but this is the result of when our society has degenerated into narcissistic buffoonery and no longer able to tell the difference between good and evil and right and wrong
Posted by lilbear68 on 2016-02-19 08:56:44
There are zero Americans who support the Sex Offender Registries (SORs).
The people who do have no excuses for why they have failed to get the rest of their nanny big government Registries created. Those Registries have not been created because the SORs do not protect anyone, are idiotic social policy, and are not REALLY for "public safety", "protecting children", or any of those other lies.
There is a list of pedophiles? Wasn't aware of it.
Unfortunately, there will be more pedophiles in America. They will all be someone's child and I pray that yours are among them. Perhaps you can execute your children yourself?
yeah instead of registries the list of pedophiles should be turned into a schedule/timetable for executions with repeaters at the head of the list
Articles such as this one--and there have been others and are more every day--prove that it is not a complete failure, and it certainly isn't irreversible.
Posted by ShellyStow on 2016-02-19 07:16:55
You may well be correct. The media have done a wonderful job of completely programming those brutal people, too. We have seen a complete failure of journalism and media in regards to "sex offenders".
Posted by davidkennerly on 2016-02-18 21:46:15
This is a well written article and makes some great, albeit obvious, points.
However, things will not change in the US for sex offenders unless it comes from the Supreme Court. Americans are a vengeful, unforgiving, and brutal people. The democratic process will never produce any significant loosening of sex offender requirements.
Posted by Owen Michaels on 2016-02-18 14:47:55
Dear Ms. Bond - you did something inappropriate - wrong, if you will. While there should be consequences this is absolutely no reason to ruin the rest of your life in order to make others 'feel safe' or allow politicians a whipping boy. If I were in the position to do so, I would absolutely rent to you or hire you. Keep up the fight. You are not alone in your quest for reason and sanity.
Posted by Talulah on 2016-02-18 12:23:35
Humans are entirely rational animals. Politicians and the ruling classes would never use emotionally charged issues to distract people. Criminal justice is blind. Rapist is not practically, historically synonymous with black man. Willie Horton lives! Paedophile is not synonymous with gay man. "I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness..." People will never have knee jerk reactions to labels like "sex offender" and "drug user".
The facts don't support treating sex offenders any differently from other criminals. (For example, sex offenders are far less prone to recidivism). But to hell with the facts! Donald Trump is a successful businessman who tells it like it is!
Posted by GrinwithoutaCat on 2016-02-18 09:38:42
This is an awesome, incredible, essential article. Yes, it is time to rethink public registries and the stigma they create--actually, the stigma they ARE--in our society. Many thanks go to the author, to the publisher, and to Tammy Bond for her courage and determination.