text:
stories filed under: "patent exhaustion"
Strike Three: Lexmark Can't Use Patents, Trademarks Or Copyright To Block Third Party Ink Cartridges
from the good-to-see dept
Tue, May 30th 2017 11:55am — Mike Masnick
Printer companies have long used the fairly straightforward business model of "sell cheap printers, and make all the money by price gouging the ink." As we've noted, one study found that a swimming pool filled with printer ink would cost you almost $6 billion at retail (and that was almost 15 years ago, so the number is likely much higher today). For this business model to function at truly monopolistic pricing levels, it requires that the printer manufacturers figure out ways to block third parties from selling cheaper ink for their printers. Lexmark has been among the most aggressive in doing so, and has gone for the intellectual property trifecta: abusing copyright, trademark, and patent laws to try to block third party ink sales. Back in 2004, it lost its attempt to abuse copyright law to block sales. In 2014, the Supreme Court told Lexmark to stop abusing trademark law to scare off customers of third party ink sellers. And, today, the Supreme Court has completed the triad and told Lexmark that it cannot abuse patent law to stop third party ink cartridges as well. In the process, the Supreme Court, once again, smacked down the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), the appeals court that is supposed to be the "experts" in patent law, but keep getting the basics wrong.
The specific issue here was one of patent "exhaustion." That is, when a manufacturer (legally) sells a patent product, has it "exhausted" its rights to its patents regarding that particular product, or can it continue to hang onto those rights and block legal purchasers from doing things with it. This is important, if you believe in the right to actually own what you buy. Lexmark tried to argue that even after it sold its printers, it could block third party ink (or, in this specific case, laser toner) cartridges, by claiming that using such cartridges violated its patents. If you follow this stuff, you may remember two previous big Supreme Court cases, dealing with the concept of "exhaustion." There was the Kirtsaeng case regarding copyright exhaustion (once you've sold a copyrighted work, you can't stop the buyer from reselling it) and Quanta v. LG that said the same basic thing for patents.
But CAFC twisted itself in knots to argue that this case was different, saying that Quanta was only about blocking sales, and this case -- titled Lexmark v. Impression Products at CAFC and now Impression Products v. Lexmark at SCOTUS -- was different because it involved a "limited license" rather than a direct sale. That is, Lexmark basically sold its products with a license agreement, saying "hey, don't use third party cartridges, and if you do, we effectively are pulling our patent license and will sue you for infringement."
The Supreme Court is not impressed with the CAFC's pretzel logic and notes that it's pretty damn obvious that once you've sold a patented product, you've exhausted the right to pull back the license on that product and claim infringement:
We conclude that Lexmark exhausted its patent rights in these cartridges the moment it sold them. The single-use/no-resale restrictions in Lexmark's contracts with customers may have been clear and enforceable under contract law, but they do not entitle Lexmark to retain patent rights in an item that it has elected to sell.
The Patent Act grants patentees the "right to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling [their] invention[s]." ... For over 160 years, the doctrine of patent exhaustion has imposed a limit on that right to exclude.... The limit functions automatically: When a patentee chooses to sell an item, that product "is no longer within the limits of the monopoly" and instead becomes the "private, individual property" of the purchaser, with the rights and benefits that come along with ownership.... A patentee is free to set the price and negotiate contracts with purchasers, but may not, "by virtue of his patent, control the use or disposition" of the product after ownership passes to the purchaser.... The sale "terminates all patent rights to that item." ...
This well-established exhaustion rule marks the point where patent rights yield to the common law principle against restraints on alienation. The Patent Act "promote[s] the progress of science and the useful arts by granting to [inventors] a limited monopoly" that allows them to "secure the financial rewards" for their inventions.... But once a patentee sells an item, it has "enjoyed all the rights secured" by that limited monopoly.... Because "the purpose of the patent law is fulfilled . . . when the patentee has received his reward for the use of his invention," that law furnishes "no basis for restraining the use and enjoyment of the thing sold."
Simple, right? And, once again, the (unanimous) SCOTUS ruling is not kind to the lower judges at CAFC:
This venerable principle is not, as the Federal Circuit dismissively viewed it, merely "one common-law jurisdiction's general judicial policy at one time toward anti-alienation restrictions." ... Congress enacted and has repeatedly revised the Patent Act against the backdrop of the hostility toward restraints on alienation. That enmity is reflected in the exhaustion doctrine.The patent laws do not include the right to "restrain[ ] . . .further alienation" after an initial sale; such conditions have been "hateful to the law from Lord Coke's day to ours" and are "obnoxious to the public interest."... "The inconvenience and annoyance to the public that an opposite conclusion would occasion are too obvious to require illustration."
And then, to help the CAFC out, after quoting another case saying that this result is "too obvious to require illustration"... immediately provides an illustration. In other words, "hey CAFC, how can you be this stupid? You even need us to draw you a picture."
But an illustration never hurts. Take a shop that restores and sells used cars. The business works because the shop can rest assured that, so long as those bringing in the cars own them, the shop is free to repair and resell those vehicles. That smooth flow of commerce would sputter if companies that make the thousands of parts that go into a vehicle could keep their patent rights after the first sale. Those companies might, for instance, restrict resale rights and sue the shop owner for patent infringement. And even if they refrained from imposing such restrictions, the very threat of patent liability would force the shop to invest in efforts to protect itself from hidden lawsuits. Either way, extending the patent rights beyond the first sale would clog the channels of commerce, with little benefit from the extra control that the patentees retain. And advances in technology, along with increasingly complex supply chains, magnify the problem.
As an aside, this "illustration" being used to mock CAFC is likely to come in handy elsewhere. We've been writing a bunch lately about companies trying to kill off "right to repair" laws, and here's the Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision written by the Chief Justice, using the right to repair as a fundamental and obvious point. "That smooth flow of commerce would sputter..." Indeed.
The opinion continues to smack down CAFC later, noting that it "got off on the wrong foot."
The Federal Circuit reached a different result largely because it got off on the wrong foot. The "exhaustion doctrine," the court believed, "must be understood as an interpretation of " the infringement statute, which prohibits anyone from using or selling a patented article "without authority" from the patentee.... Exhaustion reflects a default rule that a patentee's decision to sell an item "presumptively grant[s] 'authority' to the purchaser to use it and resell it." ... But, the Federal Circuit explained, the patentee does not have to hand over the full "bundle of rights" every time.... If the patentee expressly withholds a stick from the bundle—perhaps by restricting the purchaser's resale rights—the buyer never acquires that withheld authority, and the patentee may continue to enforce its right to exclude that practice under the patent laws.
The misstep in this logic is that the exhaustion doctrine is not a presumption about the authority that comes along with a sale; it is instead a limit on "the scope of the patentee's rights."... The right to use, sell, or import an item exists independently of the Patent Act. What a patent adds—and grants exclusively to the patentee—is a limited right to prevent others from engaging in those practices.... Exhaustion extinguishes that exclusionary power.... As a result, the sale transfers the right to use, sell, or import because those are the rights that come along with ownership, and the buyer is free and clear of an infringement lawsuit because there is no exclusionary right left to enforce.
There was a separate, but related question in the case as well, concerning "international" exhaustion. The above parts were about what happened to cartridges Lexmark sold within the US. But Lexmark had argued separately that products sold outside the US shouldn't be subject to patent exhaustion, so if those cartridges were then sold back into the US, they should be subject to infringement cases, since the exhaustion had not occurred under US patent law (the same issue that came up under copyright in the Kirtsaeng case). And, here, SCOTUS (at 7 to 1, with Justice Ginsburg dissenting) found that the same applies to patent law, pointing to the ruling in Kirtsaeng, ans saying that the analysis is effectively the same here:
Applying patent exhaustion to foreign sales is just as straightforward. Patent exhaustion, too, has its roots in the antipathy toward restraints on alienation... and nothing in the text or history of the Patent Act shows that Congress intended to confine that borderless common law principle to domestic sales. In fact, Congress has not altered patent exhaustion at all; it remains an unwritten limit on the scope of the patentee's monopoly.... And differentiating the patent exhaustion and copyright first sale doctrines would make little theoretical or practical sense: The two share a "strong similarity . . . and identity of purpose," ... and many everyday products—"automobiles, microwaves, calculators, mobile phones, tablets, and personal computers"—are subject to both patent and copyright protections.... There is a "historic kinship between patent law and copyright law," ... and the bond between the two leaves no room for a rift on the question of international exhaustion.
The opinion also makes fun of the White House for weighing in on this case with little relevant to add, and with a confusion about the fact that patent law is based on the public interest, rather than as what's in the best interest for the two parties in the transaction:
The Government has little more than "long ago" on its side. In the 1890s, two circuit courts—in cases involving the same company—did hold that patentees may use express restrictions to reserve their patent rights in connection with foreign sales.... But no "coalesc[ing]" ever took place: Over the following hundred-plus years, only a smattering of lower court decisions mentioned this express-reservation rule for foreign sales.... And in 2001, the Federal Circuit adopted its blanket rule that foreign sales do not trigger exhaustion, even if the patentee fails to expressly reserve its rights.... These sparse and inconsistent decisions provide no basis for any expectation, let alone a settled one, that patentees can reserve patent rights when they sell abroad.
The theory behind the Government's express-reservation rule also wrongly focuses on the likely expectations of the patentee and purchaser during a sale. Exhaustion does not arise because of the parties' expectations about how sales transfer patent rights. More is at stake when it comes to patents than simply the dealings between the parties, which can be addressed through contract law. Instead, exhaustion occurs because, in a sale, the patentee elects to give up title to an item in exchange for payment. Allowing patent rights to stick remora-like to that item as it flows through the market would violate the principle against restraints on alienation. Exhaustion does not depend on whether the patentee receives a premium for selling in the United States, or the type of rights that buyers expect to receive. As a result, restrictions and location are irrelevant; what matters is the patentee's decision to make a sale.
As for Ginsburg's dissent over international exhaustion, she also dissented from Kirtsaeng, and more or less repeats that argument here.
In the end, this is a big win for consumer rights, and blocks companies from trying to abuse patent law from restricting how people can actually use products they bought.
Filed Under: cafc, ink cartridges, patent exhaustion, patents, scotus, supreme court
Companies: impression products, lexmark
After Failing To Use Copyright & Trademark Law To Stop Printer Ink Resellers, Lexmark Finally Scores A Victory With Patent Law
from the all-about-the-control dept
Tue, Feb 16th 2016 3:40pm — Mike Masnick
Intellectual property: if you fail to block competition with one kind, apparently you can try, try again with another kind -- and eventually you'll end up in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, who will mess everything up and kill off the competition. Printer company Lexmark has been at war with alternative suppliers of ink for well over a decade. As you may be aware, printer ink is sold at a ridiculously high markup, such that one estimate (from over a decade ago) noted that in order to fill an Olympic-sized swimming pool with printer ink, it would cost you $5.9 billion (yes, with a "b") at the checkout counter of your local office-supply retailer. The printer makers have notably taken a "give away cheap crappy printers at a low cost, and make it up in seriously overpricing the ink" strategy to their businesses. This kind of thing works great until someone tries to step in and sell competing ink.
The various printer companies have tried all sorts of tricks to fight back against this, with Lexmark being one of the most aggressive (though, others, including HP and Epson, have been fairly aggressive as well). Back in the early 2000s, Lexmark started out by arguing that replacement inkjet cartridges violated copyright law. Their claim rested on the idea that resellers were "circumventing" the technological protection measures that Lexmark placed on its ink cartridges, and thus were violating Section 1201 of the DMCA, which made it copyright infringement to "circumvent" technological protection measures. While a lower court agreed, the Sixth Circuit appeals court overturned the ruling, and smacked Lexamark around a bit for abusing the DMCA -- properly noting the ridiculous end result that would occur if it bought Lexmark's argument:
"If we were to adopt Lexmark's reading of the statute, manufacturers could potentially create monopolies for replacement parts simply by using similar, but more creative, lock-out codes. Automobile manufacturers, for example, could control the entire market of replacement parts for their vehicles by including lock-out chips. Congress did not intend to allow the DMCA to be used offensively in this manner, but rather only sought to reach those who circumvented protective measures "for the purpose" of pirating works protected by the copyright statute."
That case, somewhat surprisingly, did not end there. The reseller that it had sued originally, Static Control Components (SCC), then countersued Lexmark, arguing that Lexmark violated trademark law when it basically sent a letter to every SCC customer it could find, telling them that SCC had broken the law. That case then made its way through the courts, and just about two years ago, the Supreme Court ruled against Lexmark again, and basically rewrote the rules for who could sue over a "false advertising" trademark claim by effectively throwing out all previous tests.
In that case, Lexmark didn't technically use trademark law to try to stop SCC, but very well may have abused trademark law to scare off SCC's customers.
And, of course, there was still a third option. While Lexmark had also used patent claims against SCC, the jury in the case ruled against Lexmark as well, even saying that Lexmark had misused its patents. However, Lexmark was also suing other ink sellers for patent infringement as well, and suing in the courts and using the ITC loophole as well. Basically, Lexmark will use and abuse any and all tools at its disposal to stop competition in ink sellers.
And it finally won one. Last week, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) -- the court that is somewhat infamous for so frequently getting things wrong -- finally gave Lexmark the victory it so desperately had sought for over a decade, saying that Impression Products violated Lexmark's patents in selling its laser printer toner cartridges (which, yes, are slightly different than inkjet ink cartridges).
In this case, the key issue was basically over patent "exhaustion" and the question of if you first allowed for a sale overseas, could that product then be refurbished and resold back in the US. If this sounds familiar, you may remember that the Supreme Court ruled a few years ago in the Kirtsaeng case that you can resell goods you bought outside the US back in the US and it doesn't violate copyright law. However, CAFC in this case basically says "Sure, but that's not true with patents."
Kirtsaeng is a copyright case holding that 17 U.S.C. § 109(a) entitles owners of copyrighted articles to take certain acts "without the authority" of the copyright holder. There is no counterpart to that provision in the Patent Act, under which a foreign sale is properly treated as neither conclusively nor even presumptively exhausting the U.S. patentee's rights in the United States.
Of course, there are other cases, mainly the well-known Quanta v. LG case that said that "exhaustion" applies to patents as well, and once you've sold a product, you can no longer use patent law to block future sales. But here, the court spends a lot of time trying to distinguish the differences between the Quanta case and this case -- basically saying that there is no exhaustion when there's a limited license, rather than a direct sale.
And the crux of its reasoning: "if we rule otherwise, that would really upset pharmaceutical companies who want to charge cheaper rates overseas and don't want to see those cheap drugs resold back in the US." Basically, there are neat business models that would be upset by geographical arbitrage:
At the same time, the conduct challenged here can have benefits. Lexmark's Return Program provides customers an immediate up-front benefit: a choice between two options, one offering them a lower price in exchange for the single-use/no-resale limitation. And a company in Lexmark's position could have a plausible legitimate interest in not having strangers modify its products and introduce them into the market with the quality of modifications (including ink refills) not subject to Lexmark's control: lower quality of remanufactured cartridges could harm Lexmark's reputation.... A medical supplier in Mallinckrodt's position plausibly may have similar reason to believe that reuse, when not under its own control, carries a significant risk of poor or even medically harmful performance, to the detriment of its customers and its own reputation. Such interests are hardly unrelated to the interests protected by the patent law—the interests both of those who benefit from inventions and of those who make risky investments to arrive at and commercialize inventions.
Of course, that was the same argument that publishers made in the Kirtsaeng case, and the Supreme Court rejected it, so it seems like there's at least a decent chance that should SCOTUS take this up on appeal, it may be yet another opportunity to smack CAFC around for getting things totally backwards (now becoming something of an annual tradition at SCOTUS).
There is a dissent from Judge Dyk (with Judge Hughes) that suggests that the majority's decision here does not make sense in following Supreme Court precedent -- and recognizing that the majority has just set up CAFC for yet another smackdown. The dissent notes a long line of cases saying that patent exhaustion is a thing and finds it troubling that the ruling ignores all that, and suggests SCOTUS won't particularly like CAFC ignoring it all.
The majority's justifications for refusing to follow Supreme Court authority establishing the exhaustion rule misconceive our role as a subordinate court.
First, the majority characterizes the statement of the exhaustion rule in the Supreme Court cases as mere dictum because in those cases there was either no restriction imposed or the restriction would otherwise violate the antitrust laws. But the cases impose no such qualification on the rule announced. The Supreme Court has repeatedly advised the courts of appeals that our task is to follow the rules proclaimed by the Court, and not to attempt to distinguish Supreme Court cases on their facts...
Not surprisingly, Impression Products has suggested it will appeal to the Supreme Court, so this case is far from over. However, once again, we see how companies will use intellectual property law however they can to try to block out competition.
Filed Under: cafc, copyright, copyright exhaustion, dmca, exhaustion, false advertising, ink, patent exhaustion, patents, printer ink, printers, supreme court, trademark
Companies: lexmark
EFF And App Developers Alliance To Court: Don't Let Patent Troll Lodsys Avoid Apple's Attempt To Intervene In Bogus Threats
from the patent-exhaustion-is-exhausting dept
Thu, Sep 19th 2013 11:27pm — Mike Masnick
We've covered patent troll Lodsys a bunch of times. If you don't recall, it's one of many patent trolls using patents it obtained via Intellectual Ventures, to shake down tons of mobile app developers, not for anything unique that they developed, but rather because they use Apple and Google's basic in-app payment mechanisms to let people buy stuff from within the app. Lodsys has been particularly aggressive in going after smaller independent developers who likely can't afford a full defense. Lodsys has claimed that Apple and Google each have licensed the patents, and that shows the validity of the patents in question, but they ignore that those licenses came from deals with IV that covered a wide portfolio of patents, not this one in particular. Furthermore, Lodsys, really, really wants to avoid anyone pointing out that the fact that Apple and Google already licensed these patents suggests that developers who use Apple and Google's tools are covered by those licenses under the concept of patent exhaustion, which says that if a supplier licenses a patent to build it into a product, the patent holder doesn't get to double/triple/quadruple collect, by demanding licenses from everyone up and down the supply chain.
Apple, in fact, has tried to intervene in the cases that Lodsys has actually filed (against a subset of the companies to which it has sent threatening demand letters). However, it appears that Lodsys has been quite aggressive in getting companies in such cases to settle (likely by making such a settlement super cheap -- much cheaper than actually going to court) and then arguing that Apple cannot intervene since the case is actually settled.
EFF and the App Developers Alliance (disclosure: the App Developers Alliance sponsors this blog, but we've been covering Lodsys since long before they existed, and will continue to cover them going forward as is newsworthy) have now filed an amicus brief arguing that the court should deny Lodsys' attempt to keep Apple out of one of these cases, because it should be determined once and for all if app developers are immune from Lodsys' questionable threats via Apple's own license. As the brief notes, without this, app developers have significant uncertainty when receiving a threat letter -- and with it a strong incentive to just settle, even if they strongly believe they do not infringe upon the patent (or that the patent is invalid).
If this Court rules in Apple's favor, it would also grant certainty to the millions of app developers in this country who face an open-ended threat from Lodsys. It would have the added benefit of putting litigants and potential targets in other en masse end-user suits on notice of the scope of risk they might be undertaking when they face these demands.
Filed Under: patent exhaustion, patent trolls, patents
Companies: app developers alliance, eff, intellectual ventures, lodsys
Monsanto Wins Case Of Seed Patents; Planting Your Own Legally Purchased & Grown Seeds Can Be Infringing
from the this-is-the-world-we-live-in dept
Mon, May 13th 2013 12:49pm — Mike Masnick
We've written a few times now about Vernan Bowman's legal fight against Monsanto, concerning patents over so-called "Roundup Ready" seeds, which Monsanto has patented. Here's the quick version of the details from an earlier post:
The farmer, Vernan Bowman, bought official Monsanto seeds and planted his crops. Yet, Monsanto has rules that say you can't re-use "Roundup Ready" seeds, but you can apparently sell "second-generation" seeds to grain elevators for use as "commodity seeds," and doesn't require that there be any restriction on the sale. Bowman later bought a bunch of such "commodity seeds," which included some Roundup Ready seeds, and some that weren't. Bowman was able to determine which of the plants came from Roundup Ready seeds... and then saved those seeds for replanting. Monsanto claimed this was infringement, even though the seeds were legally sold to the grain elevator and then from the elevator to Bowman without restrictions. On top of that, while Bowman had signed an agreement for his original seeds, he did not with this batch (and, indeed, even Monsanto admits he didn't break the user agreement -- just patent infringement for using the seeds).
Note the key things here. Bowman did not break any license agreement over seeds that he bought. He also legally purchased other seeds that had been legally provided to grain elevators to be sold. All he did was plant those legally purchased seeds, for which he was not violating any license agreement, and then harvest and replant the seeds that came from them. And this, apparently, is illegal under our patent system.
Given the fire power that came out in support of Monsanto -- including the federal government -- it shouldn't come as a huge surprise that the Supreme Court just gave a complete and total victory to Monsanto. The key issue was whether or not this was a case of "patent exhaustion." There was a key case a few years ago that mostly said that once a patent holder sells a product, the patent is "exhausted" so that the patent holder can't demand licensing fees up and down the supply chain. However, they distinguish this case by saying that this is different because it's a "copy" of the legally purchased seed. I could see how that would make sense if we were talking about someone building a copy of a machine in a garage or something, but this is a seed. Copying itself is what seeds do. That's kind of their entire purpose.
Yet, throughout the decision, the court (with a decision written by Justice Kagan) acts as if Bowman just built a replica. But that ignores the fact that this is nature we're talking about seeds that replicate themselves naturally, because that's what seeds do. The court has no problem with this, but it seems somewhat ridiculous that someone can legally buy something, have it do what it naturally does (and has done for nearly all of history) and then be told that violates a patent. When addressing Bowman's point concerning the fact that seeds by nature, replicate themselves, they basically brush that aside by noting that Bowman then harvested them. As if he's supposed to ignore what's happening?
But we think that blame-the-bean defense tough to credit. Bowman was not a passive observer of his soybeans' multiplication; or put another way, the seeds he purchased (miraculous though they might be in other respects) did not spontaneously create eight successive soybean crops. As we have explained... Bowman devised and executed a novel way to harvest crops from Roundup Ready seeds without paying the usual premium.
The decision keeps restating the myth that patent holders wouldn't innovate if they weren't blocked from any and all competition.
That is because, once again, if simple copying were a protected use, a patent would plummet in value after the first sale of the first item containing the invention. The undiluted patent monopoly, it might be said, would extend not for 20 years (as the Patent Act promises), but for only one transaction. And that would result in less incentive for innovation than Congress wanted. Hence our repeated insistence that exhaustion applies only to the particular item sold, and not to reproductions.
That's a pretty bold statement, and one not supported by any evidence. There are plenty of reasons to innovate that have little to do with patents, and competition in the marketplace is a big one. The process Bowman used above may have created some competition for Monsanto, but hardly in a way that destroyed the value of the patent. Monsanto was still first to market and still could control various uses via licensing agreements. Furthermore, the process that Bowman went through was inexact and required a few years of harvests.
The one thing that the ruling does say, however, is that no one should take this ruling to apply to other self-replicating products, such as technology:
Our holding today is limited—addressing the situation before us, rather than every one involving a self-replicating product. We recognize that such inventions are becoming ever more prevalent, complex, and diverse. In another case, the article's self-replication might occur outside the purchaser's control. Or it might be a necessary but incidental step in using the item for another purpose. ... ("[I]t is not [a copyright] infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make . . . another copy or adaptation of that computer program provide[d] that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program"). We need not address here whether or how the doctrine of patent exhaustion would apply in such circumstances.
While it's good that they acknowledge this, you can bet that this case will be cited heavily when the same issue comes up in court concerning self-replicating software and hardware...
Filed Under: patent exhaustion, patents, seed patents, seeds, self-replicating, supreme court, vernan bowman
Companies: monsanto
Read More | 125 Comments
Supreme Court Set To Hear Case On Whether Or Not Planting Legally Purchased Seeds Infringes On Monsanto Patent
from the please-get-this-right dept
Mon, Feb 18th 2013 3:33pm — Mike Masnick
The Supreme Court will be hearing a big patent case tomorrow. We wrote about it back in 2011 when the federal circuit appeals court (CAFC) put forth an absolutely horrible ruling basically saying that a farmer who legally purchased "community seeds" that included (legally) some Monsanto "Roundup Ready" seeds, violated Monsanto's patent. The case is a bit complex, but I'll just rerun my summary from back then:
As we noted at the time, this seemed to be a clear case of patent "exhaustion," which the Supreme Court has supported in the past. Under patent exhaustion, once you sell a "licensed" offering, reselling it further down the supply chain does not infringe on the patent, since the initial purchase was authorized and the patent holder's rights over that specific product have been "exhausted." CAFC said exhaustion didn't apply here because the seeds are "new." That seems like a very troubling interpretation, and hopefully the Supreme Court (yet again) smacks a bad CAFC patent ruling down.
Lots of big farms have come out in support of Monsanto and, tragically, so has the federal government (pdf). Believe it or not, the Business Software Alliance (mostly a Microsoft front) has also sided with Monsanto (pdf), ridiculously arguing that a ruling against Monsanto could "facilitate software piracy on a broad scale." That makes no sense, especially since software "piracy" is a copyright issue, not a patent issue. However, they're arguing that people will interpret this to mean that "temporary additional copies" of software are made all the time (i.e., in RAM) and somehow that leads to piracy. Having read the brief a few times, they never really explain how they make that leap in logic, but they sure do bring up the totally debunked bogus stats about how copyright infringement is costing the industry "billions."
The case really is ridiculous on many levels, but seeing how much firepower has come out in support of Monsanto (basically tons of big companies, lawyers groups and the US government), you can see that a lot of people have a lot of money tied up in keeping this broken system in place. Hopefully the Supreme Court sees through all of that and realizes that this entire case is ridiculous.
Filed Under: patent exhaustion, patents, seeds, supreme court, vernan bowman
Companies: bsa, monsanto
Monsanto Wins Patent Dispute Against Farmer Who Bought Legal Seeds
from the patent-insanity dept
Tue, Sep 27th 2011 10:04am — Mike Masnick
We've had numerous stories of Monsanto's rather aggressive patent enforcement efforts, and unfortunately it appears the company has chalked up another victory in the courts. Glyn Moody points us to the story of CAFC (the nation's patent appeals court) siding with Monsanto against yet another farmer.
The details of this story are really quite incredible. The farmer, Vernan Bowman, bought official Monsanto seeds and planted his crops. Yet, Monsanto has rules that say you can't re-use "Roundup Ready" seeds, but you can apparently sell "second-generation" seeds to grain elevators for use as "commodity seeds," and doesn't require that there be any restriction on the sale. Bowman later bought a bunch of such "commodity seeds," which included some Roundup Ready seeds, and some that weren't. Bowman was able to determine which of the plants came from Roundup Ready seeds... and then saved those seeds for replanting. Monsanto claimed this was infringement, even though the seeds were legally sold to the grain elevator and then from the elevator to Bowman without restrictions. On top of that, while Bowman had signed an agreement for his original seeds, he did not with this batch (and, indeed, even Monsanto admits he didn't break the user agreement -- just patent infringement for using the seeds).
It's difficult to see how this is possibly infringement. In common patent law terms, the patent issue should be "exhausted." Setting aside the insanity of using patents to tell farmers they can't re-use their own seeds, once Monsanto has given farmers the rights to sell second-generation seeds to the grain elevators for resale with no restrictions, it's hard to see how Monsanto should have any subsequent patent claim on any further use of those seeds or their progeny. In fact, Bowman was so sure that he was doing absolutely nothing wrong, that he freely shared the details of what he did with people from Monsanto. But the court, as it seems to do with alarming frequency, seems to see no trouble with granting a patent holder significantly extended control.
Patent exhaustion is supposed to cover these situations. A few years ago, the Supreme Court, in the Quanta case, made it clear (or so we thought) that a legal sale of a licensed component "exhausts" the patent holder's rights to go after later buyers in the supply chain for infringement. Bowman correctly pointed out that if this isn't a clear cut case of patent exhaustion, then the concept is pretty useless.
Monsanto's bizarre argument is that while it agrees to let farmers sell the seeds as a commodity without restriction, it still doesn't want anyone to plant with them, so anyone who does so did not make an authorized purchase, and thus no exhaustion has occurred. I can't see how that makes any sense at all. First of all, no restrictions were placed on the sale, so later claiming restrictions makes no sense. Furthermore, retroactively declaring a sale by two separate independent parties "unauthorized," after the fact, based on what the buyer does, is flat out crazy.
The court here says that exhaustion is meaningless, because the seeds Bowman planted are new seeds, and thus newly infringing -- yes, despite the legal purchase:
Patent exhaustion does not bar an infringement action. Even if Monsanto�s patent rights in the commodity seeds are exhausted, such a conclusion would be of no consequence because once a grower, like Bowman, plants the commodity seeds containing Monsanto�s Roundup Ready technology and the next generation of seed develops, the grower has created a newly infringing article.
It's hard to read decisions like this and not realize how horribly broken the patent system is, aided by courts like CAFC and a Congress that fails to fix such clear abuses.
Filed Under: cafc, patent exhaustion, patents, roundup ready, seeds, vernon bowman
Apple Says Lodsys Has No Case Against Developers; Will Defend Them Against Suits
from the patent-exhaustion? dept
Tue, May 24th 2011 6:06am — Mike Masnick
With Lodsys providing an excellent case study in the patent system run amuck with its plan to sue a bunch of independent iOS developers for offering Apple's official in-app payment offering, one of the big questions was how Apple would respond. Lodsys insisted that Apple had a license, but that it only applied to Apple, not to any Apple developers. Apple has now publicly disagreed and claimed that it would defend developers against any such claims.
I was wondering if Apple would even contest the validity of the Lodsys patent or whether the in-app payment offerings were infringing, but the company didn't even bother. Instead, it notes that Apple has indeed licensed the patent, and any of the developers using the in-app payment solutions aren't doing their own thing, but are using the already licensed Apple technology, and under the famous Supreme Court ruling in the Quanta case, if a patent holder licenses a product to one player in the supply chain, it can't then go after others down the stream. While some are claiming that this will still involve a fight between Apple and Lodsys over the exact terms of Apple's license, I don't actually think that's the case. Apple's not arguing the nature of the license, but is claiming that since these developers are using Apple technology, the patent has been exhausted in this case. In fact, it seems like a pretty direct parallel to the Quanta case, which is going to make it difficult for Lodsys to get very far.
Filed Under: in-app payments, patent exhaustion, patent trolls, patents
Companies: apple, lodsys
Is It Patent Infringement To Reuse Recycled Apple Magsafe Connectors?
from the patent-exhaustion dept
Thu, Sep 23rd 2010 1:15pm — Mike Masnick
AppleInsider has the details of yet another patent infringement lawsuit filed by Apple, who has become a lot more aggressive on the patent front lately. This lawsuit is against Sanho, a company that makes a variety of external batteries for Apple products. There are six patents listed in the lawsuit, but two are design patents, which are pretty narrow. The four (really three) utility patents are
7,517,222: Magnetic connector for electronic device
7,627,343 & 7,751,853 (really the same patent, as one is a continuation of the other: Female receptacle data pin connector
7,783,070: Cable adapter for a media player system
All of them, obviously, have to do with the connectors Apple uses to charge its various products, including the famed "MagSafe" charger found on Apple laptops that connect via a magnet, which break away easily (such as if someone trips over the cord). I do remember when this first came out, that Apple indicated it had patented up the technology and would block others from using it.
However, where this gets interesting is that, according to Sanho's website, it doesn't make its own magnetic connectors, but simply recycles official Apple connectors:
"Our charging cables use original Apple MagSafe connectors for maximum compatibility,"
If that's the case, it seems to raise some questions about patent exhaustion, where a company can't license a patent for one player in a supply chain, but then claim that later buyers, who are buying from the original licensee need to re-license the patent. Think of it as being similar to the principle of "first sale" in copyright. I would think that, on those connectors at the very least, Sanho could make a case for patent exhaustion if it really is just buying up official Apple MagSafe connectors and repurposing them.
Filed Under: first sale, magsafe, patent exhaustion, patents
Companies: apple, sanho
Supreme Court Says Patent Holders Can't Shake Down Entire Supply Chain
from the big-win dept
Mon, Jun 9th 2008 11:52am — Mike Masnick
The Supreme Court continues to bring a bit of common sense back to the patent system. While most of the tech world was sitting around paying attention to whatever Steve Jobs has to say this morning, the really big news in the tech industry may be the Supreme Court's decision that patent holders can't shake down the entire supply chain, by forcing each level of the supply chain to also license the patent (even if they bought a product from someone who had licensed the patent).
This the LG v. Quanta case that the Supreme Court agreed to hear last fall. Basically, LG had some patents that it licensed to Intel. Intel then sold products based on those patents, which its customers used to build other products. LG demanded license fees from those customers as well, even though they bought fully licensed products from Intel. LG insisted that since its contract with Intel said that the license didn't cover any additional products, then the patents had to be relicensed by each player down the supply chain. To some extent, this question of "patent exhaustion" is similar to questions about first sale doctrine when it comes to copyright, in determining if you have a right to actually resell a product that was legally purchased. And, thankfully, the Supreme Court agrees that patent exhaustion is an important concept.
This is yet another very important limitation on patent holders, preventing them from stifling innovation at every step of the product process, and double-, triple- and quadruple-dipping off a product based on a single use of their patented invention. Hopefully this will lead to the quick dismissal of a bunch of cases that were filed last fall against a ton of companies up and down various supply chains. A lot of patent hoarders, fearing this exact decision, tried to just sue everyone at once, hoping for quick settlements before the Supreme Court stepped in. It's great to see the Supreme Court taking such an active interest in rolling back massive abuses of the patent system. Update: The EFF has a good take on the ruling, noting some of the holes in it, suggesting that it's unfortunate the the Supreme Court wasn't as clear as it could/should have been.
Filed Under: contracts, first sale, patent exhaustion, patents, supply chain, supreme court
Companies: lg, quanta
20:01 Free Access To Academic Papers For Everyone In India: Government Proposes 'One Nation, One Subscription' Approach As Part Of Major Shift To Openness (7)
15:43 Illinois Legislature Sends Massive Police Reform Bill To The Governor's Desk (12)
13:30 Techdirt Podcast Episode 266: In Defense Of Section 230 & A Decentralized Internet (5)
12:04 Parler Attempting to Come Back Online, Still Insisting The Site's Motivation Is 'Privacy' Despite Leaking Details On All Its Users (63)
10:39 Daily Deal: MyDraw Diagramming Software (0)
09:39 Trump's Facts-Optional Assault On Chinese Tech Continues With Blocking Of Xiaomi (9)
06:35 Trump's Support Of Cops Pays Off: Multiple Police Officers Under Investigation For Illegal Invasion Of The Capitol Building (57)
11:00 Gaming Like It's 1925: Less Than Two Weeks Left To Join The Public Domain Game Jam! (6)
12:00 Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt (12)
12:00 This Week In Techdirt History: January 10th - 16th (3)
17:39 A Few More Thoughts On The Total Deplatforming Of Parler & Infrastructure Content Moderation (383)
15:30 Content Moderation Case Study: Dealing With Demands From Foreign Governments (January 2016) (4)
13:45 Another Day, Another Location Data Privacy Scandal We'll Probably Do Nothing About (2)
12:11 Former FCC Boss Tom Wheeler Continues To Misunderstand And Misrepresent Section 230 And The Challenges Of Content Moderation (63)
10:44 Nintendo Hates You: Gaming Giant Lobs A DMCA Nuke At Hundreds Of Fan Games (14)
10:39 Daily Deal: The Premium 2021 Project And Quality Management Bundle (1)
06:32 Broadband Market Failure Keeps Forcing Americans To Build Their Own ISPs (27)
19:43 Esports' Wild 2020 Ride Culminates In 69 Percent Growth And A Continuing Rising Trend (4)
15:28 Judge Not Impressed By Parler's Attempt To Force Amazon To Put It Back Online (34)
13:43 Parler's CEO Promises That When It Comes Back... It'll Moderate Content... With An Algorithm (45)
10:45 Sheryl Sandberg Makes Disingenuous Push To Argue That Only Facebook Has The Power To Stop Bad People Online (24)
10:40 Daily Deal: Create Your Own Website with WordPress Bundle (0)
09:34 Jack Dorsey Explains The Difficult Decision To Ban Donald Trump; Reiterates Support For Turning Twitter Into A Decentralized Protocol (29)


text:
Editor's Foreword
to This Precious Life: Buddhist Tsunami Relief and Anti-Nuclear Activism in Post 3/11 Japan
Before the tragic triple disaster of earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear meltdown occurred on March 11, 2011, Japan was already a nation in crisis. The high growth period of the 1980s and Japan's rise to global economic power had given way to nearly two decades of economic stagnation. This was accompanied by a widespread deterioration in the quality of life—increased strains on workers at all levels and increasing personal bankruptcy; widening socio-economic gaps between rural and urban, rich and poor; community breakdown and personal alienation resulting in a chronically high rate of suicide amongst all ages—to make a short list. The Japanese Buddhist world has been in similar such crisis—marginalization of social roles and a pejorative image as "Funeral Buddhism", declining numbers of believers, and more recent moves by the state to revoke its tax-exempt privileges.
When the disasters of 3/11 struck, all these problems and more were brought into intensified focus. Japan has always coped with previous devastating earthquakes in various regions in the country—as recent as the Great Hanshin Earthquake of 1995 and the Chu-etsu Earthquake of 2004. However, the scale of devastation of the ensuing tsunami not only brought a heightened sense of trauma but also precipitated the nuclear meltdowns at the Fukushima #1 nuclear facility. This latter incident is still ongoing and has brought many of these aforementioned social issues into the forefront of social debate as yet to be answered questions: After two decades of economic stagnation, what is the economic vision for Japan in the 21st century? Can such an economic vision not entail the exploitation of people in the rural areas for their labor and their hosting of nuclear power facilities? What is the source of real happiness for the nation's citizens: modern virtues of economic growth and consumer accumulation or more traditional Japanese virtues of continuing bonds and human interconnection?
While Japanese Buddhism continues to grapple with its own issues, many positive developments can be seen from this past year. Japanese Buddhism showed in its efforts to aid tsunami victims that it is still alive and quite prepared to step back into the lives of the common people through service to them and their communities. While this marks a continuation of traditional roles, especially in Northeast Japan where Buddhist faith has remained strong, it also shows a resurgence in working for society among Buddhist priests, especially younger ones who continue to do tremendous work as individuals and with their various youth associations. On the other hand, Japanese Buddhism's slow response to the core issues of the nuclear issue has been in keeping with their many years of social conservatism. However, in the latter stages of 2011, we have seen a growing courage for Buddhists to come out on this issue—first, in encouraging people to re-embrace a Buddhist lifestyle of contentment over consumerism, and second, to challenge the economic and political system that has exploited many of its parishioners in rural regions.
In this volume, we have attempted to give a feel of the unfolding events of the year by structuring essays roughly in a chronological order. Part I opens with recollections and experiences from 3/11 and the immediate difficult days afterwards, focusing on the emergency relief work by Buddhist priests, their temples, and Buddhist based relief organizations. As the weeks and months passed, the relief work changed in character, and the latter essays in this section reflect that with stories of helping survivors deal with their experience of trauma and grief.
Part II focuses on the nuclear issue. Although this crisis unfolded in tandem with the tsunami one, the Buddhist world in particular was slow to address it in comparison to their timely work in the tsunami areas. This section begins with a wide-ranging essay by one of Japan's top development economists, Jun Nishikawa, who provides an excellent context for understanding the nuclear issue in Japan and Buddhism's connection to it. We are then introduced to the most radical Japanese Buddhists, involved in the nuclear issue long before the Fukushima incident. Then, we see the gradual awakening to the issue by mainstream Japanese Buddhism—a still ongoing awakening.
Part III is a shorter section on some of the important voices from the international Buddhist world directed to Japan during the year of crisis. They are voices of both sympathy and of challenge to Japanese Buddhists to take affirmative social leadership, not only in the healing of the nation but in guiding their people to a new society rooted in the perennial Buddhist virtues of non-harming (as non-exploitation) and personal contentment (as opposed to material avarice).
The editor would like to express his deepest gratitude firstly to the many authors and contributors to this volume who so generously offered their articles and stories. I would also like to express great thanks to our immediate circle of friends in the Japan Network of Engaged Buddhists (JNEB) (Rev. Kobo Inoue, Rev. Jin Sakai, and Rev. Yuzuki Matsushita in particular) for their assistance in translation, providing photos, and, most importantly, making connections to important people in the field who became contributors for this volume. A final debt of thanks goes to my wife, Naomi Takasawa, for her help in translation and support during this challenging year.
This volume represents the work of the International Buddhist Exchange Center's Engaged Buddhism Project to document in English for the world outside of Japan the experiences, activities, struggles, challenges, and hopes of the Japanese Buddhist world in confronting the 3/11 disasters and the larger implications of them. The International Buddhist Exchange Center (IBEC) was founded in 1966 by the 1st President of the Kodo Kyodan Buddhist Fellowship, Rev. Shodo Okano. Its general goals are to develop modern, international perspectives on Buddhism through study and research, to create opportunities for those interested in Buddhism to learn and study further through lectures and events, and to cooperate with Buddhists inside and outside Japan on various social issues. IBEC's Engaged Buddhist Project (EBP) was created in April 2006 by Kodosan's 3rd President, Rev. Shojun Okano. The core focus of the project has been to investigate the activities of Japanese Buddhists, especially from traditional denominations, on social issues; that is the engaged Buddhist activities of Japanese Buddhists. The deeper emphasis of the research has been on grassroots activities focused on critical Japanese social issues, like suicide, poverty, problem youth, and since March 11th, 2011, emergency relief aid and nuclear activism.
Jonathan Watts
Jonathan Watts has been a research fellow at IBEC since its founding. He is also a research fellow at the Jodo Shu Research Institute working on Buddhist care for the dying and bereaved with Rev. Yoshiharu Tomatsu and at the Rinbutsuken Institute for Engaged Buddhism with Rev. Jin Hitoshi. He teaches contemporary Japanese Buddhism and social issues at Keio University. He also serves on the Executive Committee of the International Network of Engaged Buddhists (INEB). Living in Japan since 1993, he presently resides in Kamakura, just south of Tokyo, with his wife and daughter.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


If your business uses Office 365, you may not have considered disaster recovery, as your data is safe and backed up in the cloud, right? Wrong.
Did you know that Microsoft Office 365 isn't backed up as standard?
This means that your emails, configurations, public folders, SharePoint and OneDrive data isn't automatically recoverable. There is no independent copy of the data which can be used to restore your files and systems in the event of an emergency such as a cyber-attack (eg. ransomware) or accidental deletion.
Responsibility for data backup and recovery lies with you and your business, rather than with Microsoft, so it's vital to ensure you have your own solution in place.
One of the great advantages of Office 365 is the collaborative environment it offers, with multiple users able to access and work on individual documents with ease. This, however, increases the risk of human error and accidental data deletion.
Combine this with the ever-increasing risk of cyber-attacks, and it's now more important than ever to ensure you have a robust backup and restore solution in place which you can use to ensure business continuity if needed.
Office 365's retention policies are complex, vary between services, and are always evolving, so implementing your own backup solution is often the best and most cost-effective way to reliably retain your data.
Protecting your cloud data is especially important as Office 365 only retains deleted information temporarily, with data not always recoverable after the expiry of the retention period. Plus, users don't always have direct access to this data in order to easily restore it.
What's more, Office 365's standard policies on data retention and recoverable items are often unlikely to be aligned with your company's own corporate policies. You also need to consider industry regulations and standards regarding data storage, as Office 365 alone may not be fully compliant without having your own backup and restore solutions in place.
Speak to our experts to discuss Office 365 backup for your business.
Your Office 365 data is not backed up as standard.
Human error and cyber-attacks pose a risk to your business.
Office 365's standard policies are unlikely to align with your own corporate data retention policies.
Office 365's data policies may not meet your legal requirements or industry regulations.
Your business is responsible for its own data backup and recovery.
Implementing a separate backup solution is often the most cost-effective option.


text:
"The ride picked up speed, and by the second time around the loop, Molly was pushed by the centrifugal force of the circling ride to the outer edge of her seat. As the cars sped around and around, she looked smaller and smaller in her seat, her fingers gripped tightly to the metal bar in front of her. I saw the terror imprinted on her face, the paralyzing fear that the ride would not end, that she would be holding tight, spinning in circles, alone, for time unimaginable."
I'm sure that all parents have moments that they regret, moments when they witnessed as their child lost his or her sense of security--and could not, for whatever reason, come to the rescue quickly enough. "The Force of Love" is a story of one of those moments. It is about a small, rather ordinary event, but it is one that I hold close in my memory because I could not save my increasingly independent, not-quite-four-year-old daughter from a ride that was meant to bring joy, not terror. Thankfully, the ride eventually came to an end (though not quickly enough), and all was right with her world again--until the next time she ventured out beyond her zone of comfort. But she always had--and has--parents to return to, where she may catch her breath and be safe.
Today, as I reread and share this story, which I wrote many months ago, I cannot but think of the thousands of children who have recently been separated from their families in this country, held without comfort or loved ones, spinning round and round on a ride that they cannot get off of. And I think of the white-knuckled, worried parents, not knowing who is feeding, and holding, and comforting the frightened children torn who are impossibly out of sight and out of reach.
The force of a parent's love is overwhelming and fiercely strong, motivating parents to do impossible things, but in this instance, it cannot reunite them with their separated children. That work requires, I both fear and am hopeful, the force of an entire nation's conscience...and love.
You can read "The Force of Love," published in The Same on June 18, 2108, here.
On Children Lost
Graduation Season


text:
L'avenue de la Porte-de-Plaisance est une voie du  de Paris, en France.

Situation et accès
L'avenue de la Porte-de-Plaisance est une voie située dans le  de Paris. Elle débute boulevard Lefebvre et au 1, rue Gaston-Boissier et se termine avenue Albert-Bartholomé.

Origine du nom

Elle porte ce nom car elle est située en partie sur l'emplacement de l'ancienne porte de Plaisance de l'enceinte de Thiers à laquelle elle mène.

Historique
Cette avenue a été créée en 1928 et nommée en 1929 sur l'espace de l'ancienne Zone de Paris et des fortifications de l'enceinte de Thiers au niveau du bastion .

Jusqu'en 1946, elle finissait avenue Victor-Hugo à la limite du territoire de Vanves.

Bâtiments remarquables et lieux de mémoire

Références

Annexes

Articles connexes
 Liste des voies du 15e arrondissement de Paris

Liens externes
 Avenue de la Porte-de-Plaisance (mairie de Paris)

Porte-de-Plaisance
Plaisance

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Texas is still leading the West division and is tied for the lead in the American League with the New York Yankees, but the Angels have come dangerously close. A series with the Red Sox should improve their recent record, but the opening game was lost by two runs to nine, which sounds like bad news for Ryan Dempster.
Recently acquired from Chicago, Ryan was hit hard in his first game for the Rangers and needs to rebound at Fenway against a team that Texas has recently dominated. Before this series, the Red Sox lost four of its previous five matches and their opponents scored three times as many runs, but their fortunes seem to have changed. Dustin Pedroia, Carl Crawford and Jacob Ellsbury were in superb form last night and retired Darvish in less than seven innings. It will be slightly more difficult against Ryan Dempster who has an ERA of 2.82 and lost just five decisions this season while playing for the Cubs.
It is quite a shame that such a skilled starting pitcher would waste his talent playing for a team such as the Cubs, that was unable to provide him with a minimal number of runs of support. Ryan hoped that this problem would vanish the moment he stepped on the mound for the Rangers and tonight his theory will probably be confirmed. The Red Sox did a brilliant job offensively last night, but the role of their starting pitcher shouldn't be underestimated.
The hosts would probably miss Aaron Cook tonight and will remember his performance with nostalgia, while seeing how Lester struggles to win his first game in more than a month. 2012 has been a terrible year for the veteran pitcher who is en route to losing his stand decision and wth an earned-run average of 5.36 he would be unfair to blame his teammates for insufficient support. Jon knows better than that and he will do his best to last for at least six innings, to give his team a fighting chance against the favorites.
Speaking of which, Bet365 seems to favor the hosts in the second game of the series which means that the bookmaker has changed its approach following last night's game. This is the moment to take advantage of generous odds that exceed 2.00 and even though it is expected for the odds to fluctuate as the kickoff draws near, they should retain their value.


#error "`ft2build.h' hasn't been included yet!"
#error "Please always use macros to include FreeType header files."
* horizontal metrics (this is true for all font formats though).
* @FT_HAS_VERTICAL can be used to check for vertical metrics.
* vertical metrics (and not only synthesized ones).
* data that can be accessed with @FT_Get_Kerning.
* and PFR font formats.
* names that can be accessed through @FT_Get_Glyph_Name.
* are then available to choose the exact design you want.
* of a GX variation font.
* A macro that returns true whenever a face represents a `tricky' font.
* See the discussion of @FT_FACE_FLAG_TRICKY for more details.
* tables for color glyphs.
* what kind of operations to perform during glyph loading.
* face's current size. If one is found, the function returns.
* the glyph slot (see note below).
* behaviour to more specific and useful cases.
* Don't scale the loaded outline glyph but keep it in font units.
* subglyphs must be scaled and positioned with hinting instructions.
* setting the character size to `font->units_per_EM'.
* also the note below.
* This flag is implied by @FT_LOAD_NO_SCALE.
* overridden by @FT_LOAD_TARGET_XXX or @FT_LOAD_MONOCHROME.
* This flag is unset by @FT_LOAD_NO_SCALE.
* @FT_LOAD_NO_SCALE always sets this flag.
* `vertAdvance' value of the `metrics' field.
* hinter. See also the note below.
* in fonts. By default, FreeType tries to handle broken fonts also.
* subglyphs can then be accessed with @FT_Get_SubGlyph_Info.
* This flag implies @FT_LOAD_NO_SCALE and @FT_LOAD_IGNORE_TRANSFORM.
* 8~pixels packed into each byte of the bitmap data.
* monochrome-optimized hinting algorithm is used.
* Disable auto-hinter. See also the note below.
* metrics tables (for example, the `hdmx' table in TrueType fonts).
* Currently, this flag is only implemented for TrueType fonts.
* (affecting only a handful of Asian fonts).
* hinting algorithm to use. See @FT_LOAD_TARGET_XXX for details.
* `load_flags' when calling @FT_Load_Glyph.
* @FT_LOAD_FORCE_AUTOHINT to ensure that the auto-hinter is used.
* `load_flags'. They can't be ORed.


text:
import moment from "lib/moment";

import chartReducer from "reducers/chart";

describe("`chart` reducer", () => {

    describe("`charts` reducer [CASE: single object in default state array]", () => {

        const defaultChartStateObject = Object.freeze({
            alarms: [1449157137862],
            site: "site",
            sensorId: "sensorId",
            fullPath: ["site", "sensorId"],
            measurementType: {
                label: "labelType",
                key: "keyType"
            },
            date: {
                type: "dateFilter",
                valueType: {label: "calendario", key: "calendar"},
                start: 1449157137862,
                end: 1449157157862
            },
            source: {
                label: "labelSource",
                color: "color",
                key: "keySource"
            }
        });

        const charts = chartReducer.__get__("charts");
        const chartState = Object.freeze([defaultChartStateObject]);

        before(() => {
            chartReducer.__Rewire__("defaultChartState", chartState);
        });

        after(() => {
            chartReducer.__ResetDependency__("defaultChartState", chartState);
        });

        describe("`SELECT_SINGLE_ELECTRICAL_SENSOR_CHART` type", () => {

            it("returns single charts state with selected sensor", () => {
                const valuePassedFromAction = {
                    type: "SELECT_SINGLE_ELECTRICAL_SENSOR_CHART",
                    payload: ["newSiteId", "newSensorId"]
                };
                const ret = charts(chartState, valuePassedFromAction);
                expect(ret).to.deep.equal([{
                    ...defaultChartStateObject,
                    alarms: undefined,
                    site: "newSiteId",
                    fullPath: ["newSiteId", "newSensorId"],
                    sensorId: "newSensorId"
                }]);
            });

        });

        describe("`SELECT_SINGLE_ELECTRICAL_SENSOR_REAL_TIME` type", () => {

            it("returns single charts state with selected sensor", () => {
                const valuePassedFromAction = {
                    type: "SELECT_SINGLE_ELECTRICAL_SENSOR_REAL_TIME",
                    payload: ["newSiteId", "newSensorId"]
                };
                const ret = charts(chartState, valuePassedFromAction);
                expect(ret).to.deep.equal([{
                    ...defaultChartStateObject,
                    alarms: undefined,
                    site: "newSiteId",
                    fullPath: ["newSiteId", "newSensorId"],
                    sensorId: "newSensorId"
                }]);
            });

        });

        describe("`SELECT_SINGLE_ELECTRICAL_SENSOR_CONSUMPTION` type", () => {

            it("returns single charts state with selected sensor", () => {
                const valuePassedFromAction = {
                    type: "SELECT_SINGLE_ELECTRICAL_SENSOR_CONSUMPTION",
                    payload: ["newSiteId", "newSensorId"]
                };
                const ret = charts(chartState, valuePassedFromAction);
                expect(ret).to.deep.equal([{
                    ...defaultChartStateObject,
                    alarms: undefined,
                    site: "newSiteId",
                    fullPath: ["newSiteId", "newSensorId"],
                    sensorId: "newSensorId"
                }]);
            });

        });

        describe("`SELECT_ELECTRICAL_TYPE` type", () => {

            it("returns the new electrical type", () => {
                const valuePassedFromAction = {
                    type: "SELECT_ELECTRICAL_TYPE",
                    payload: [{
                        label: "labelTypeModify",
                        key: "keyTypeModify"
                    }]
                };
                const ret = charts(chartState, valuePassedFromAction);
                expect(ret).to.deep.equal([{
                    ...defaultChartStateObject,
                    alarms: undefined,
                    measurementType: {
                        label: "labelTypeModify",
                        key: "keyTypeModify"
                    }
                }]);
            });

        });

        describe("`SELECT_MULTIPLE_ELECTRICAL_SITE` type", () => {

            it("returns multiple charts with selected sensors", () => {
                const valuePassedFromAction = {
                    type: "SELECT_MULTIPLE_ELECTRICAL_SITE",
                    payload: ["site", "pod", "sensorId1", "sensorId2"]
                };
                const ret = charts(chartState, valuePassedFromAction);
                expect(ret).to.deep.equal([{
                    ...defaultChartStateObject,
                    alarms: undefined
                }, {
                    ...defaultChartStateObject,
                    alarms: undefined,
                    fullPath: ["site", "pod", "sensorId1", "sensorId2"],
                    site: "site",
                    sensorId: "sensorId2"
                }]);
            });

        });

        describe("`SELECT_DATA_RANGES_COMPARE` type", () => {

            var clock;
            before(() => {
                clock = sinon.useFakeTimers();
            });

            after(() => {
                clock.restore();
            });

            it("returns multiple chart with different dateRange", () => {
                const valuePassedFromAction = {
                    type: "SELECT_DATE_RANGES_COMPARE",
                    payload: {
                        period: {
                            label: "Years",
                            key: "years"
                        },
                        dateOne: new Date("Thu Dec 03 2015 16:38:57 GMT+0100 (CET)").getTime()
                    }
                };
                const ret = charts(chartState, valuePassedFromAction);
                const startOne = moment(valuePassedFromAction.payload.dateOne)
                    .startOf("month").subtract({days: 2}).weekday(1).valueOf();
                const startTwo = moment(valuePassedFromAction.payload.dateOne).startOf("day")
                    .subtract({weeks: moment().weeksInYear()}).weekday(1).valueOf();
                expect(ret).to.deep.equal([{
                    ...defaultChartStateObject,
                    date: {
                        type: "dateCompare",
                        period: {
                            label: "Years",
                            key: "years"
                        },
                        start: startOne,
                        end: moment(startOne).add({weeks: 5}).endOf("isoWeek").valueOf()
                    }
                }, {
                    ...defaultChartStateObject,
                    date: {
                        type: "dateCompare",
                        period: {
                            label: "Years",
                            key: "years"
                        },
                        start: startTwo,
                        end: moment(startTwo).add({weeks: 5}).endOf("isoWeek").valueOf()
                    }
                }]);
            });

        });

        describe("`SELECT_ENVIRONMENTAL_SENSOR` type", () => {

            it("returns the environmental sensor as second selection of charts", () => {
                const valuePassedFromAction = {
                    type: "SELECT_ENVIRONMENTAL_SENSOR",
                    payload: {
                        sensorId: ["environmentalSensorId"],
                        type: [{
                            label: "labelEnvironmentalMod",
                            key: "keyEnvironmentMod",
                            color: "color",
                            icon: "icon",
                            selected: "iconSelected"
                        }]
                    }
                };
                const ret = charts(chartState, valuePassedFromAction);
                expect(ret).to.deep.equal([{
                    ...defaultChartStateObject
                }, {
                    ...defaultChartStateObject,
                    alarms: undefined,
                    site: "site",
                    sensorId: "environmentalSensorId",
                    fullPath: undefined,
                    measurementType: {
                        label: "labelEnvironmentalMod",
                        key: "keyEnvironmentMod",
                        color: "color",
                        icon: "icon",
                        selected: "iconSelected"
                    }
                }]);
            });

        });

        describe("`SELECT_SOURCE` type", () => {

            describe("returns the charts state with new source", () => {

                it("[CASE: single source]", () => {
                    const valuePassedFromAction = {
                        type: "SELECT_SOURCE",
                        payload: [{
                            label: "labelSourceMod",
                            color: "color",
                            key: "keySourceMod"
                        }]
                    };
                    const ret = charts(chartState, valuePassedFromAction);
                    expect(ret).to.deep.equal([{
                        ...defaultChartStateObject,
                        alarms: undefined,
                        source: {
                            label: "labelSourceMod",
                            color: "color",
                            key: "keySourceMod"
                        }
                    }]);
                });

                it("[CASE: multiple source]", () => {
                    const valuePassedFromAction = {
                        type: "SELECT_SOURCE",
                        payload: [{
                            label: "labelSourceMod1",
                            color: "color1",
                            key: "keySourceMod1"
                        }, {
                            label: "labelSourceMod2",
                            color: "color2",
                            key: "keySourceMod2"
                        }]
                    };
                    const ret = charts(chartState, valuePassedFromAction);
                    expect(ret).to.deep.equal([{
                        ...defaultChartStateObject,
                        alarms: undefined,
                        source: {
                            label: "labelSourceMod1",
                            color: "color1",
                            key: "keySourceMod1"
                        }
                    }, {
                        ...defaultChartStateObject,
                        alarms: undefined,
                        source: {
                            label: "labelSourceMod2",
                            color: "color2",
                            key: "keySourceMod2"
                        }
                    }]);
                });

            });

        });

        describe("`SELECT_DATE_RANGES` type", () => {

            it("returns the new charts filtered by date [CASE: empty valueType in payload]", () => {
                const valuePassedFromAction = {
                    type: "SELECT_DATE_RANGES",
                    payload: {
                        type: "dateFilter",
                        start: 1498749876543,
                        end: 1516543214890
                    }
                };
                const ret = charts(chartState, valuePassedFromAction);
                expect(ret).to.deep.equal([{
                    ...defaultChartStateObject,
                    date: {
                        type: "dateFilter",
                        valueType: {},
                        start: 1498749876543,
                        end: 1516543214890
                    }
                }]);
            });

            it("returns the new charts filtered by date [CASE: valueType in payload]", () => {
                const valuePassedFromAction = {
                    type: "SELECT_DATE_RANGES",
                    payload: {
                        type: "dateFilter",
                        valueType: {label: "calendario", key: "calendar"},
                        start: 1498749876543,
                        end: 1516543214890
                    }
                };
                const ret = charts(chartState, valuePassedFromAction);
                expect(ret).to.deep.equal([{
                    ...defaultChartStateObject,
                    date: {
                        type: "dateFilter",
                        valueType: {label: "calendario", key: "calendar"},
                        start: 1498749876543,
                        end: 1516543214890
                    }
                }]);
            });

        });

        describe("`DISPLAY_ALARMS_ON_CHART` type", () => {

            it("returns single charts notification of alarms associated to a selected sensor [CASE: empty valueType in payload]", () => {
                const valuePassedFromAction = {
                    type: "DISPLAY_ALARMS_ON_CHART",
                    payload: {
                        siteId: "site1",
                        sensorId: "sensorId",
                        alarms: [1498749876543, 1516543214890]
                    }
                };
                const ret = charts(chartState, valuePassedFromAction);
                expect(ret).to.deep.equal([{
                    ...defaultChartStateObject,
                    alarms: [1498749876543, 1516543214890],
                    site: "site1",
                    sensorId: "sensorId",
                    fullPath: ["site1"],
                    date: {
                        start: moment(1516543214890).startOf("month").valueOf(),
                        end: moment(1516543214890).endOf("month").valueOf(),
                        type: "dateFilter",
                        valueType: {}
                    }
                }]);
            });

        });

        it("returns the previous state if any correct `type` is checked", () => {
            const valuePassedFromAction = {
                type: "NOT_A_CORRECT_TYPE_CASE"
            };
            const ret = charts(chartState, valuePassedFromAction);
            expect(ret).to.deep.equal(chartState);
        });

    });

});

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
package Slim76Compat::Plugin::OPMLBased;

# Allow Plugins to use 7.6 Onebrowser XMLBrowser interface

use strict;
use base 'Slim::Plugin::OPMLBased';

use Slim::Utils::Prefs;
use Slim::Utils::Strings qw(string);

use Slim76Compat::Control::XMLBrowser;
use Slim76Compat::Buttons::XMLBrowser;

if ( main::WEBUI ) {
 	require Slim76Compat::Web::XMLBrowser;
}

my $prefs = preferences('server');

my %cli_next = ();

my $init;

# ensure our button mode is initialised
sub initPlugin {
	my $class = shift;

	if (!$init) {
		Slim76Compat::Buttons::XMLBrowser::init();
	}

	$class->SUPER::initPlugin(@_);
}

# this is a direct copy with the alternative Slim::Control::XMLBrowser called
sub initCLI {
	my ( $class, %args ) = @_;

	my $cliQuery = sub {
	 	my $request = shift;
		Slim76Compat::Control::XMLBrowser::cliQuery( $args{tag}, $class->feed( $request->client ), $request );
	};

	# CLI support
	Slim::Control::Request::addDispatch(
		[ $args{tag}, 'items', '_index', '_quantity' ],
	    [ 1, 1, 1, $cliQuery ]
	);

	Slim::Control::Request::addDispatch(
		[ $args{tag}, 'playlist', '_method' ],
		[ 1, 1, 1, $cliQuery ]
	);

	$cli_next{ $class } ||= {};

	$cli_next{ $class }->{ $args{menu} } = Slim::Control::Request::addDispatch(
		[ $args{menu}, '_index', '_quantity' ],
		[ 0, 1, 1, $class->cliRadiosQuery( \%args, $args{menu} ) ]
	) if $args{menu};
}

# this is a direct copy but pushes into mode xmlbrowser76compat
sub setMode {
	my ( $class, $client, $method ) = @_;

	if ($method eq 'pop') {

		Slim::Buttons::Common::popMode($client);
		return;
	}

	my $name = $class->getDisplayName();

	my $type = $class->type;

	my $title = (uc($name) eq $name) ? $client->string( $name ) : $name;

	if ( $type eq 'link' ) {
		my %params = (
			header   => $name,
			modeName => $name,
			url      => $class->feed( $client ),
			title    => $title,
			timeout  => 35,
		);

		Slim::Buttons::Common::pushMode( $client, 'xmlbrowser76compat', \%params );

		# we'll handle the push in a callback
		$client->modeParam( handledTransition => 1 );
	}
	elsif ( $type eq 'search' ) {
		my %params = (
			header          => $title,
			cursorPos       => 0,
			charsRef        => 'UPPER',
			numberLetterRef => 'UPPER',
			callback        => \&Slim::Buttons::XMLBrowser::handleSearch,
			item            => {
				url     => $class->feed( $client ),
				timeout => 35,
			},
		);

		Slim::Buttons::Common::pushModeLeft( $client, 'INPUT.Text', \%params );
	}
}

# this is a direct copy and is only need as $cli_next is local to the package and we can't access the one in Slim::Plugin::OPMLBase
sub cliRadiosQuery {
	my ( $class, $args, $cli_menu ) = @_;
	my $tag  = $args->{tag};

	my $icon   = $class->_pluginDataFor('icon') ? $class->_pluginDataFor('icon') : 'html/images/radio.png';
	my $weight = $class->weight;

	return sub {
		my $request = shift;

		my $menu = $request->getParam('menu');

		$request->addParam('sort','weight');

		my $name  = $args->{display_name} || $class->getDisplayName();
		my $title = (uc($name) eq $name) ? $request->string( $name ) : $name;

		my $data;
		# what we want the query to report about ourself
		if (defined $menu) {
			my $type = $class->type;

			if ( $type eq 'link' ) {
				$data = {
					text         => $title,
					weight       => $weight,
					'icon-id'    => $icon,
					actions      => {
							go => {
								cmd => [ $tag, 'items' ],
								params => {
									menu => $tag,
								},
							},
					},
					window        => {
						titleStyle => 'album',
					},
				};
			}
			elsif ( $type eq 'search' ) {
				$data = {
					text         => $title,
					weight       => $weight,
					'icon-id'    => $icon,
					actions      => {
						go => {
							cmd    => [ $tag, 'items' ],
							params => {
								menu    => $tag,
								search  => '__TAGGEDINPUT__',
							},
						},
					},
					input        => {
						len  => 3,
						help => {
							text => $request->string('JIVE_SEARCHFOR_HELP')
						},
						softbutton1 => $request->string('INSERT'),
						softbutton2 => $request->string('DELETE'),
					},
					window        => {
						titleStyle => 'album',
					},
				};
			}

			if ( main::SLIM_SERVICE ) {
				# Bug 7110, icons are full URLs so we must use icon not icon-id
				$data->{icon} = delete $data->{'icon-id'};
			}
		}
		else {
			my $type = $class->type;
			if ( $type eq 'link' ) {
				$type = 'xmlbrowser';
			}
			elsif ( $type eq 'search' ) {
				$type = 'xmlbrowser_search';
			}

			$data = {
				cmd    => $tag,
				name   => $title,
				type   => $type,
				icon   => $icon,
				weight => $weight,
			};
		}

		# Exclude disabled plugins
		my $disabled = $prefs->get('sn_disabled_plugins');

		if ( main::SLIM_SERVICE ) {
			my $client = $request->client();
			if ( $client && $client->playerData ) {
				$disabled  = [ keys %{ $client->playerData->userid->allowedServices->{disabled} } ];

				# Hide plugins if necessary (private, beta, etc)
				if ( !$client->canSeePlugin($tag) ) {
					$data = {};
				}
			}
		}

		if ( $disabled ) {
			for my $plugin ( @{$disabled} ) {
				if ( $class =~ /^Slim::Plugin::${plugin}::/ ) {
					$data = {};
					last;
				}
			}
		}

		# Filter out items which don't match condition
		if ( $class->can('condition') && $request->client ) {
			if ( !$class->condition( $request->client ) ) {
				$data = {};
			}
		}

		# let our super duper function do all the hard work
		Slim::Control::Queries::dynamicAutoQuery( $request, $cli_menu, $cli_next{ $class }->{ $cli_menu }, $data );
	};
}

# this is a copy with the alternative Slim::Web::XMLBrowser called
sub webPages {
	my $class = shift;

	# Only setup webpages here if a menu is defined by the plugin
	return unless $class->menu;

	my $title = $class->getDisplayName();
	my $url   = 'plugins/' . $class->tag() . '/index.html';

	Slim::Web::Pages->addPageLinks( $class->menu(), { $title => $url } );

	if ( $class->can('condition') ) {
		Slim::Web::Pages->addPageCondition( $title, sub { $class->condition(shift); } );
	}

	Slim::Web::Pages->addPageFunction( $url, sub {
		my $client = $_[0];

		Slim76Compat::Web::XMLBrowser->handleWebIndex( {
			client  => $client,
			feed    => $class->feed( $client ),
			type    => $class->type( $client ),
			title   => $title,
			timeout => 35,
			args    => \@_
		} );
	} );
}

1;


Comments: Isn't it time for a Ford?!! This tip-top Truck, with its grippy 4WD, will handle anything mother nature decides to throw at you.. A real head turner!!! Great MPG: 24 MPG Hwy* Optional equipment includes: Trailer Tow Package, Engine: 2.7L V6 EcoBoost...Isn't it time for a Ford?!! This tip-top Truck, with its grippy 4WD, will handle anything mother nature decides to throw at you.. A real head turner!!! Great MPG: 24 MPG Hwy* Optional equipment includes: Trailer Tow Package, Engine: 2.7L V6 EcoBoost...Must finance with Ford Motor Credit Company, LLC. Must trade eligible vehicle. Price after all factory incentives and may vary based upon zip codes. In stock units only. Photos for illustrative purposes only.


Bettair® was born for a single, simple reason: to help provide the solution to the world's growing air quality problem. Bettair® is a Platform as a Service (PaaS) that allows cities, for the first time, to map air pollution on a previously unimaginable scale, based on a large deployment of outstandingly accurate gas sensors by using an advanced post-processing algorithm.
Historically, air quality monitoring has been conducted for two main purposes: legislation surveillance and scientific research. Currently, air pollution concentrations are monitored by professional personnel (i.e., government authorities, scientists, health experts) using static monitoring stations equipped with certified reference instruments for measuring regulatory pollutants, such as carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, ozone, and particulate matter. The traditionally used air pollutant analysers are relatively large, heavy, and expensive, with prices ranging between €5,000 and €30,000 per device.
Bettair® is a network of autonomous devices that are installed in streetlights (or in city furniture) in a dense matrix distanced, with a distance between nodes form 0.5 km to 1 km, allowing a high spatial and temporal resolution. This information allows urban planners to make appropriate urban plans to improve air quality and to take smart and better decisions to mitigate air pollution.
The FIWARE Context Broker manages the air pollution information sent by the Bettair® Static Nodes. The nodes do not require any external power supply and transmit data directly to a server for cloud processing.
Before using FIWARE, the Bettair® platform was developed with a monolithic architecture. Back then, all the system's running services were deployed as a single, united solution. Such applications are easier to develop if they are not too big and scalability is achieved by running multiple instances of the application behind a network load balancer. However, such scalability is only possible in one dimension, and monolithic applications are difficult to understand and modify. As scalability is our main priority, a new approach was required.
With the addition of FIWARE, we designed the new platform using a micro-service architecture. In this architecture, some components are out-of-the-box FIWARE Generic Enablers and, crucially, because each service is absolutely independent of the others, they can be deployed independently.
With our platform's new architecture, monitoring the interactions between the micro-services allows us to easily detect any performance bottlenecks, without requiring code-level visibility. These can then be corrected with ease.
From the performance point of view, each service was written in a particular programming language, combining specific technologies and each one runs their own specialized instance. This allows us to deploy each component without any additional, unnecessary overheads.
Finally, our architecture allows the creation of sub-networks between components in order to improve the performance of the platform. It also increases security as only specific components are exposed to external networks.
Using the FIWARE-powered platform, we carried out a study in which two nodes with three electrochemical sensors (NO2, O3, NO) were installed in the same location as an air quality monitoring station of the Generalitat de Catalunya, located in Barcelona (Gràcia – Sant Gervasi). The main purpose was to compare the nodes measurements of NO2, O3, and NO with a calibrated reference instrument for a long period.
From the scatter plots shown on the right-hand side of the images below, the high correlation of the nodes' results when compared with a tradition AQM station can be observed. These are the most comprehensive results ever achieved for a modern, alternative air quality monitoring system, as they include the system's performance throughout the year, including the summer – which often proves the most difficult period to accurately measure, and which is seldom represented in results released by new air quality measuring systems.
The results of this experiment clearly show that the Bettair® technology used to measure NO2, O3, and NO can accurately match the ratified air quality monitoring stations for these pollutants.
Bettair Cities has demonstrated that using low-cost air quality sensor networks is feasible in order to provide cities with high spatial and temporal resolution measures, which are essential for understanding and spatially monitoring environments with complex and highly variable emission sources, such as in urban areas.
In order to handle the amount of data coming from the Bettair® nodes a reliable IoT platform was also necessary. FIWARE has provided Bettair® with the core components to accelerate the development of our Smart Solution. Additionally, the open standard nature of FIWARE NGSI offers the ability to connect our solution with other existing "Powered by FIWARE" platforms that the cities might already have.
Discover more about Bettair® in the FIWARE Marketplace.
How Can We Design, Govern and Regulate the Smart City?


The prevailing story of Machu Picchu is that it was built by the Inca as a royal estate and religious retreat in 1460-70. It would have been practically impenetrable, since reaching them would have meant ascending a steep slope covered with dense vegetation. The whys and wherefores are still open to speculation. One is the Incas wanted to protect themselves from the Spanish.
Whatever the reason, after a hundred years the site was abandoned and forgotten for 500 years. Due to the nearly insurmountable terrain, it became well hidden and many thought it to be only a city of myth. Indeed there is not one sign of the Spanish culture nor the Catholic religion to be found there to this day.
Then along came Hiram Bingham, an explorer in charge of a Yale University expedition, who wanted to see if the legendary capital of the governing Inca's descendants was real. Although disputes continue about other explorers having made the discovery as early in 1894, without question it was Bingham who introduced Machu Picchu to the outside world after his re-discovery on June 24, 1911.
There are several ways to reach the famous ruins. One is the classic and famous Inca Trail Bingham and other explorers used, which takes even seasoned hikers four days to cover with a guide, or the way we arrived there, by train from Ollantaytambo to our abode in the village of Aguas Calientes and from there a tourist bus over the zig-zag road you see here in a photograph taken by international traveler Brian McMorrow who graciously gave me permission to use it here. He has a very impressive photo-journal of his extensive travel in Peru and you can access all his travel albums by clicking here.
In the past five years, another trail–the Camino Salcantay–has begun to emerge as a popular alternative to the Inca Trail. In fact, a network of high-end lodges have opened for business along the route. You can either set up your own camps along the way or book the lodges, indulging in a hot shower, Jacuzzi, and a home-cooked meal at the end of the day.
Maybe if we had done this trip in our 20's, 30's–even our 40's–I would have chosen the alternative trail, but for this stage of my life, the bus was just fine–thank you very much–and at the end of the ride, I was no less impressed with my first glimpse of the ancient citadel.
Our guide Ivanoff explained the city's design. Terraces were built for purposes of farming, the sizes varying according to the slope of the mountain, but some also may have had other purposes, such as securing the mountains from seismic activity of earthquakes.
Whether the ancient city was built as a sanctuary for noblemen or as a religious sanctuary of sorts, it functioned much like any other city with areas set aside for residences. Others were reserved for temples to the gods (Condor, Sun, Three-Windows, as well as the principal temples, all named by Bingham) for for the houses of the priests, as well as a uniquely designed water works area built with stone. For stone walls assembled in 1460 and still standing in the 21st century, the walls of these temples are excellent examples of Inca masonry.
Some visitors, after seeing this area of the Temple of the Condor (see the head in the foreground) have suggested this as a torture site with cavernous cave like areas (background) built to hold prisoners awaiting execution.
From all accounts, however, Incas were an extremely advanced civilization in many ways. They developed a distinctly organized hierarchical class system with the nobility at the top as supreme leaders, religious leaders or chief priests second, then the relatives of those two in third rank. Last were all the other Incas.
As the empire grew, Incas were organized by a pecking order of privilege, beginning with those who had lived in Cuzco for a long time and spoke the ancient language (Quechua), under them were the public administrators, then the former leaders of the conquered states, and then came the artisans. The most important point of the whole civilization, however, was that everyone contributed to the whole society, not just themselves or their family.
How the terraced areas were landscaped and maintained during the 15th century is up to interpretation and speculation by thousands of real and armchair explorers before us and the thousands more that will follow, but it's easy to speculate that these modern-day inhabitants who have become popularly referred to as living lawn mowers are one of if not THE most photographed.
We ate lunch that day at the famous Sanctuary Lodge located a short distance away. I had seen the lodge and restaurant featured on a television travel show in high definition and had been so looking forward to having lunch there. It turned out to be one of the few disappointments of the trip though. Obviously the strict class system continues in Machu Picchu, which a capsule room rate description will further clarify.
The cheapest STANDARD rooms available (no views) at the only lodge available outside Aguas Calientes where our group is staying is at this writing $852 per night. A suite with mountain views commands $1490. Food service likewise. I found there are TWO restaurants in the lodge. There's the Tampu Restaurant with seating for 72, where you can enjoy Peruvian cuisine with spectacular views of the countryside.
Then there's the Tinkuy that hosts a daily lunch buffet. Guess which one we lunched at? The food, Peruvian as well as international dishes, was definitely good, and there was even a local band trying to play loud enough above the noise of the crowd so as to be heard, but it was really difficult–even with the most positive of open minds–to enjoy it while feeling like a herd of cattle being shunted through the feeding stations. By the way, the relatively small dining area holds a maximum of 200 people. There were at least 188 already seated by the time we arrived.
After lunch, we were free to board any one of the many buses headed back to Agua Calientes, or re-enter Machu Picchu. Hubby and I chose to do a little more looking on our own. Nearly all the tourists crawling the terraces were now gone–I suspect to the lodge restaurant–and we saw the lost city in a far prettier, less crowded light.
We were both really happy we'd decided to go back, as it was one of the quietest periods of the whole day. And nobody messed with Texas that day either as far as we could tell. Then we walked up to the bus lot to head back down that curvaceous road.
You may be surprised to learn the road is two-way! Looking at the road here, I find it extremely difficult to imagine the severe turns or the agility of the hundreds of tourist bus drivers who make the drive each day, but we made it safely. On the way back down, I remember thinking we would be stuck for hours at the very least when our driver was headed into the curve itself and a couple of automobiles coming the opposite direction pushed ahead ignoring the apparent protocol (the driver in or near the curve has right-of-way). None of us could believe it when the driver not only stopped, but began backing up. I think you could have heard the proverbial pin drop.
Luckily I was sitting on the side nearest the mountain and wouldn't see us slipping off the edge of the road and bouncing all the way back to Machu Picchu. I think all our hat's all went off to the driver after he deftly managed maneuvering that one! The cars, by the way, were those of the police.
The class system of the ancient Inca not only continues, apparently it thrives!
This entry was posted in International Travel, Peru by Alice. Bookmark the permalink.
One of the places on my dream list to visit is Machu Picchu. Thanks for the tour, since I may never make it that far in real life.
Thank you for the link Michele. There is still so much intrigue surrounding Machu Picchu–even all these years later. For instance, I understand there's a pending lawsuit against Yale in which Peru is demanding the return of all the archeological treasures he shipped back to the U.S. for "educational study". Seems he didn't quite live up to promises contracted, in using the items for study only. When you delve into things a bit more deeply, you find questionable ethics surround almost every incident involving people, which would make a very interesting post in and of itself. Perhaps things haven't changed all that much, eh? Or to put it another way, the more things change the more they stay the same! Thanks for stopping by.
Simply amazing. Thanks for the photos as I the visual person can now see you there so high in the sky. Thank you!!!
About 12,000 feet above sea level to be more precise, Mage! Don't you love the road? I wouldn't drive up in a small car, much less a bus! I'm sure glad there are people who are not only willing but able to do this. Thanks for stopping by.
That's one hack of a place, I cannot think about a more magical, more beautiful place on Earth than Machu Picchu.