text:
Patent troll on the verge of winning 1% of iPhone revenue (arstechnica.com)
183 points by kenjackson on June 7, 2014 | hide | past | web | favorite | 120 comments
x0054 on June 7, 2014
Have you guys looked at the patents in this case? They look thick and serious, but if you actually read the claims, you will soon realize that it's nothing but an obvious and straightforward procedure for deciding when and with whom to establish a VPN. None of these patents make sure that a VPN connection is more secure, more reliable, or in any way better.
Majority of the patent is explanation on how a VPN works, different mathematical explanations on how to generate random numbers, the theory behind secure communications. But none of that stuff is actually covered by the patent, so don't be impressed by it. What is covered is basically the straightforward and logical application of the explained VPN concepts, but the VPN concepts them selves are not patented.
I am not sure if the patent examiner of this patent was dazzled by the 50+ pages of VPN theory and just granted this thing. To me it's stunning! It's like filing a patent that in intricate detail explains how an automobile works and than sneaking in a claim that you invented that an automobile can be used to move personal belonging from place to place.
ScottBurson on June 8, 2014
Okay, I'm looking at 6502135...
Claim 1 is a joke. How does this not apply to HTTPS? I would toss it and all its dependents.
Claim 13 is almost as obvious, but in this case I am not sure about the dependent claims. Some of them sound to me like they might be inventions.
Claim 10 seems stronger to me. Networking is not my field, so I am not at all sure there is not prior art, but at least it seems to contain an actual idea.
I'm not going to read the whole description, but a quick scan seems to support your contention that there is a lot of material here that is not referenced by the claims.
analog31 on June 8, 2014
IANAL, but Including material that is not referenced by the claims, gives you the chance to submit amended claims at a later date if your original claims are invalidated.
ttctciyf on June 8, 2014
Reminds me of http://www.google.com/patents/US20070258329 : "Method and apparatus for the exploitation of piezoelectric and other effects in carbon-based life forms."
Despite the huge prolegomena which would in fact work as a crash course in fringe geometry and pseudoscience, it turns out to be a patent for a golf club (I think.)
The point being, how does stuff like this even get past USPTO? Don't they employ people to weed out the nonsense?
jonyt on June 8, 2014
It's possible that people employ weed to come up with this nonsense.
piyush_soni on June 8, 2014
You mean they are just a little less baseless than the patent for 'rounded corners'?
stephenr on June 8, 2014
Apple doesn't have a patent for rounded corners.
They have a design patent for the ornamental design of the iPad. Just like Google has design patents for the ornamental design of a smiley face, a usb cable, a "computer icon" etc etc. Just like Samsung has a design patent for the ornamental design of a "Terminal for portable mobile communication", which based on the images looks like a tablet.
In 1981 some company got a design patent for the ornamental design of a briefcase, with rounded corners.
Please stop talking shit.
JohnTHaller on June 8, 2014
D670,286 is, quite literally, a design patent on a rectangle with rounded corners (it's about the solid lines in the drawing). And they sued Samsung over it and Samsung was forced to make the rounded corners on the top and bottom of their phone different sizes. Despite the fact that multiple phones and tablets predated the iPad and iPhone and were rectangles with rounded corners.
They sued samsung over a number of combined similarities:
"Closely comparing Apple's patented design with Samsung's products reinforces the conclusion of substantial similarity. Samsung copied every major element of Apple's patented design:
* a flat, clear, black-colored, rectangular front surface with four evenly rounded corners [emphasis mine];
* an inset rectangular display screen centered on the front surface that leaves very narrow borders on either side of the display screen and substantial borders above and below the display screen; and
* a rounded, horizontal speaker slot centered on the front surface above the display screen,
* where the rectangular front surface is otherwise substantially free of ornamentation outside of an optional button area centrally located below the display."
And ALL of that already existed in the marketplace before the iPhone. Heck, the things that are claimed to be unique in what you quote above is an almost exact description of the LG Prada which came out before the iPhone.
Seriously, look at this a moment: http://i.imgur.com/iBD3A1z.jpg
Remove the phone answer/end keys from the bottom row, and it basically is the front of the iPhone. Re-read what you wrote above and look at that picture of the LG Prada. That design patent should have never been issued.
Its not about whether those individual attributes existed already.
Samsung blatantly copied apple product designs, from the physical appearance of the device, to the design of the packaging right down to the design of the chargers and cables.
This is not speculation, it's fact.
I don't deny that most modern smartphones, including the iPhone, look vaguely similar to that LG. No way you would confuse them for the same product though.
Now look at this image: http://i.imgur.com/TmUj2.jpg
This isn't some case of "oh but Apple's design is obvious how can it not be the same?"
This is Samsung's business model.
Motorola RAZR (copied Samesung Blade) - even the name is a pun on the fact that its a copy (hint: razor blade)
Blackberry (copied as Samsung BlackJack) - again the even the name is a ridiculous rip off. This one went to court and funnily enough RIM won.
Samsung Innov8 (copied from Nokia N96)
In 2012 Samsung released their Chromebox, which copies the circular cover on the 2 year old MacMini. The MacMini has it there to allow RAM upgrades. The ChromeBox has no reason for it, besides copying the MacMini design.
In their advertising they have a history of either reproducing Apple ads (e.g. the way a phone and the earbuds are arranged). In one case, they literally photoshopped the iOS Google Maps app onto their own device.
Their "iRemote Control 4" is a ridiculously blatant copy of the iPhone 4
Do a quick search for "Dyson Samsung clone"
There is no question that Samsung copies it's competitors designs, packaging and advertising. Apple was granted a design patent and used that in its fight with Samsung.
Show me a case where Apple has used its design patent against a competitor that is not obviously trying to blatantly copy their devices?
I never said Samsung didn't copy Apple. I said the design patent was bullshit. You're setting up convenient strawmen to knock down.
You reaffirmed this by quoting that "They sued samsung over a number of combined similarities:" and then listing design features that the iPhone copied from the LG Prada.
Not exactly a 'design pattern' (I'll find and report those cases here too), but these two examples should suffice to show you their unethically greedy intentions:
1) Apple tries to sue a small German coffee shop over logo: http://gawker.com/5853402/apple-threatens-to-sue-tiny-german... (Now tell me honestly, does the logo of the 'fruit' apple really look similar at all to Apple's logo? I mean, that poor lady running the coffee shop was not even in electronics business, just serving some coffee! What did they think, the fruit apple is their property now? This is inhuman to do that to a small coffee shop in my opinion.
2) Apple sues Polish Grocery store over name "a.pl": http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2409669,00.asp - Apple said they are trying to use their 'reputation' by using a name similar to theirs. really? Come on, .pl is Poland's top level domain for god's sake. 'a' is the first letter of English alphabet. And they are in Grocery business! How would they snatch Apple's customers?
A company which can do the above, can sue anyone, for just anything. They have money, they are big. They're the electronics equivalent of Monsanto.
On the other hand, it's not that Apple doesn't copy blatantly. They stole Swiss railway's clock blatantly and 'exactly', without taking permission or paying. Finally Swiss railway sued and Apple had to pay $21 million for theft. Many, many other such examples.
The crux is, incremental evolution is the only way the industry learns and progresses. Suing others for getting inspiration (while doing the same yourself) is dangerous.
The most obvious example of trying to copy the design is the charge cable of the galaxy tab. Apple's charge cable was ridiculously and unnecessarily wide, as is evident by the fact that later on they switched to the new design of the lightning cable. Samsung made their cable plug also very wide, and very similar that I personally, on one occasion have grabbed an off brand white Samsung cable, tried to shove it into my iPad, and was rather surprised when it did not fit.
Rather then looking at weather or not Samsung copied apple, let's look at the motivations. Because I believe that imitating someones design because you think its the best and the most practical way to do something should be perfectly ok. However, it is wrong to copy a design of your competitors in the hopes that consumers will confuse your product for your competitors. For instance, I would call BS on Apple arguing that a black rounded rectangle with rounded corners is somehow their design. It's just the most obvious and straightforward way of making an glass touch tablet. But then look at the power / sync cord. Can you justify that choice? No, there is no practical reason to make your cord look like that other than to make your product look more like an iPad.
They do say that imitation is the sincerest from of flattery, and I do tend to believe it, as long as the motivation is right. A company can look at the fact that iPads are doing really well in the market and tell it's designers and engineers: "Let's get a few of those iPads, play with them, figure out why people love them, and than make better one our selves, incorporating some of the features that we thing people really love about the iPad." I think that's what ASUS did with their Transformer line. They observed that a lot of people liked the simple and clean look of the iPad, and they made it even cleaner by removing all buttons. They also decided that people really want a option to have a keyboard on a tablet, as evidenced by the abundance of the keyboard cases for the iPad, so they added that function as well.
On the other hand, Samsung told its engineers: "Here is an iPad, copy it! No, don't bother figuring out why people like it, use those ideas, build on them, and maybe come up with something better. Just copy it. You see that idiotic, unnecessarily wide connector that only made any kind of sense when it was first installed in the original iPod, and not even then really. Copy that too."
So, to finish my thought, yes Apple is a bit bitchy when people copy their stuff. In case of most manufacturers I think they are wrong. In case of Samsung, I can see it, they copied Apple, and they did it for all the wrong reasons.
I think the complete unabashed copying is specifically why Apple sued Samsung.
Companies have been getting design patents on generic looking devices for years, this one just got a lot of attention because it actually ended up in court. If Samsung's devices were simply the same shape as the iPad but weren't otherwise so similar, Apple would have had no case to argue, (and probably never filed the lawsuit) and no one would care about this patent.
For reference, the 30 pin connector wasn't actually on the first iPod - it was introduced with the 3rd gen. Previously they used a full sized Firewire 400 (1394A) port on top next to the headphone port.
_3u10 on June 8, 2014
Apple was not saying that Samsung had a similar design, they were saying that Samsung had the SAME design. Which was nicely proved when even Samsung's lawyers couldn't tell the difference.
ZoFreX on June 8, 2014
> Remove the phone answer/end keys from the bottom row, and it basically is the front of the iPhone
That's not how designs work. A design is violated if you copy multiple elements, giving an overall impression that is substantially similar. If I copy just the buttons from a dress, or just the cut, or just the colour - no infringement. If I copy all of them, then I have infringed.
As people said above, all of those things, except one or two, were already there in their entirety (in their combined form, like LG Prada) in the market before Apple released their first iPhone.
But you have to take a look at the entire product as a whole. No consumer would confuse the LG Prada with Apple iPhone. LG has a physical keyboard, much sharper edges, 3 physical buttons on the front, different software layout, etc. Even though LG has claimed that Apple copied there designs, the general look an feel of the iPhone was fixed in 2005, long before the LG released the Prada.
Also, I think that a grate confusion stems from USPTO using the word "patent" to describe design patents. Design patents are not like utility patents. Utility patents are interpreted broadly. Design patents are usually interpreted very specifically. Meaning, for instance, that apple would not be able to enforce it's design patent against the Prada (if it had come out subsequent to iPhone), or most of the Android phones, including the Galaxy line. But you have to admit that the Galaxy Tab looks remarkably like the iPad. I am not saying that that alone should have permitted apple to sue Samsung. But when you take the entire product as a whole, including the packaging, the charger, the ridiculous and unnecessarily wide charging cable, and the look of the device, you can see where Apple had a point.
Samsung blatantly copied, and for all the wrong reasons.
mcintyre1994 on June 8, 2014
Samsung is a bad example because like you said, they actually did copy a lot more than the rounded corners. The patent though is incredibly broad, and regardless of who else has such broad patents nobody should. https://www.google.com/patents/USD670286
So, the fact that they sued Samsung on a 'number of combined similarities', doesn't take away the fact that they quite literally have a patent for a rectangle with rounded corners. So probably it was not me who was talking shit.
nicky0 on June 8, 2014
Who has a patent for rounded corners?
ljf on June 8, 2014
Apple. They have a design patent on a rectangle with rounded corners.
http://mobile.theverge.com/2012/11/7/3614506/apple-patents-r...
cLeEOGPw on June 9, 2014
It seems that patent examiners have way too much power and way too little understanding of what are they doing. Shouldn't there be some procedure to throw away such invalid patents?
steven2012 on June 8, 2014
At some point, the patent trolls will force software companies like Apple, Google, and IBM to admit to themselves that software patents themselves have no value and cause more bad than good.
So we need more of these patent trolls to win substantially more and more revenue from these companies, until the pain is so great that the big companies do something about it.
EGreg on June 8, 2014
In this case I don't think this is a patent troll. They are an NPE but they aren't trying to bully small companies to settle out of court. If they win maybe more people will want to join the dark side and make large corporations pay. Maybe then they will put pressure on Congress to finally pass the bipartisan bill that Leahy and Harry Reid forced to be shelved.
eridius on June 8, 2014
Are patent trolls only patent trolls if they go after small businesses?
AnthonyMouse on June 8, 2014
There is an argument to be made that going after a big fish means it's more likely you have a real claim, because it's not like Apple won't hire good lawyers, and if you lose you get nothing, so why bother if you have no chance?
The problem is that argument is complete bunk when you're talking about software patents. The plaintiffs also get nothing if they don't sue, and if they do they have a chance at a huge windfall. Imagine how many bad patents you could litigate with and lose if you could win one claim for $200 million dollars.
One of the (many) problems with software patents is that because the scope of what software does is so broad, what an individual patent would rightly be worth sounds extremely small, and so their worth tends to be vastly overestimated when not taken in the proper context.
You look at something like an iPhone, it's probably covered by thousands of patents. Cellular wireless, wifi, video codecs, audio codecs, encryption algorithms, web browsers, app stores, music stores, digital telephony, media library functions, printing, Airplay, etc. etc. Each of those will be claimed by dozens if not hundreds of patents. And "1% of revenue" sounds small when you're not taking that into consideration, even though in reality 1% is huge. Even calling it 1% of the value of all patents covering the device is ridiculous, and revenue has to cover at least a couple of non-patent sources of costs like manufacturing, distribution, marketing, etc.
There is an obvious absurdity if there exist 1000 patents that could each be considered to be worth 1% of revenue when you only look at them one at a time.
shasta on June 8, 2014
I think "patent troll" should be applied to be anyone who waits for accidental infringement. That's not quite everyone who's an NPE, and I view this behavior as tacit admission that you know you shouldn't have a patent.
That said, I doubt banning this behavior would solve much. It's easy to pretend to be well intentioned and there are truly well intentioned people with bad patents.
lucian1900 on June 8, 2014
I would argue anyone that uses an obvious or old patent offensively is a troll. That includes Microsoft and, more recently, Apple.
That's a pretty broad statement. The definition of "obvious" is different to a lot of people, and there are a lot of things that seem obvious in retrospect that weren't obvious at the time. So it's hard to use that as a way to define troll.
As for old, if the patent is still valid, does the age matter in isolation? Sure, you can argue that patents stay valid for too long, but I don't think I can call a company a troll for using an old patent if the age alone is how you're labelling them a troll.
They are patent trolls if they push the business to settle out of court, which usually is only possible with small businesses.
nl on June 8, 2014
A lot of patent suits are settled out of court. Look up the IBM/Sun case, or the Apple/Microsoft cross licensing deal. All settled out of court.
An NPE which pushes to settle out of court.
tempestn on June 8, 2014
AFAIK it's pretty common in any lawsuit to try to convince the other party to settle out of court.
rayiner on June 7, 2014
I don't know if it's fair to call VirnetX a "patent troll." They're an NPE, but there's no indication that they're abusing the process or trying to get a low-ball settlement just to avoid actually going to court. Furthermore, the patents aren't just something they churned out. The technology in question was developed by SAIC for the CIA. SAIC is a major defense contractor and R&D company: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/contr....
Also, the inventor listed on the patents, Dr. Robert Short, who previously worked at SAIC, is CTO at VirnetX: http://virnetx.com/company/executive-management ("Dr. Short has been the Chief Scientist for VirnetX since May 2007 . . . . From February 2000 to April 2007, Dr. Short was Assistant Vice President and Division Manager at Science Applications International Corporation, or SAIC. . . . Dr. Short is named as a co-inventor on substantially all of the patents in the VirnetX patent portfolio.")
I haven't studied the patents in question and am not commenting on whether they're any good or not. But considering how much of the core internet technologies were developed by private defense contractors working for the government, it's not far-fetched that some of them would hold key patents.
ghayes on June 8, 2014
> VirnetX is a company some call a "patent troll" because its only business is now patent enforcement.
I believe this viewpoint is shared by a number of people. Specifically, that a litigious NPE is, by colloquial definition, a "patent troll." There is a conversation to be had as to whether the practice is good or bad, or if they are acting more appropriately than their peer group, but I think the term fits in this case.
I don't disagree it's a common viewpoint, I'm just saying it's not very useful to call every NPE a patent troll. It lumps universities together with companies that seek nuisance settlements using the cost of litigation as leverage.
In general, the law allows you to sell your cause of action to someone else. For example, many investors who had suits against big banks over mortgage-backed securities sold their causes of action to funds that could bring them efficiently in one go. That's just property rights in action. At least in theory, it's more efficient to allow rights of action to be sold like property.
Now, maybe you think that these sorts of suits shouldn't be brought at all. There's arguments to be made for that. But in that case, I think you need to lump companies like Apple in with companies like these.
Natsu on June 8, 2014
> I just think it's not very useful to call every NPE a troll.
Simple explanation: if they make their money from suing people, it's a troll.
chrismcb on June 8, 2014
No, not really. If they developed they technology and are trying to license it, and suing people that don't license it... That is not a troll. That is someone who is doing exactly what patents were meant to do... Patents we're meant to encourage people to invent.
dTal on June 8, 2014
You are confusing patents with copyright. Patents were meant to encourage people to disclose. It was taken for granted that people will invent things regardless of patent protection - they will just keep their inventions trade secrets.
kvb on June 8, 2014
Depends on the industry; there are plenty of places where trade secrets aren't viable (e.g. medicinal chemistry, where it's trivial to reverse engineer a drug).
Maybe so, but nevertheless patents were not "meant to encourage people to invest".
crazy1van on June 8, 2014
Debating the finer points of what constitutes a troll really isn't helpful. It takes the focus off of the real debate -- improving the patent system.
tekacs on June 8, 2014
Meta-comments[1] explaining that the conversation above isn't useful aren't useful. They take the focus off of the real debate -- that which people choose to talk about in the comment thread. Ignoring comments is easy.
proceeds to take own advice
[1]: such as this one, but this wouldn't be necessary if folks didn't find it necessary to waste space dictating what's worth talking about.
Retric on June 8, 2014
A patent troll only uses patents to sue people and return money to it's investors.
So, I think there is a reasonable argument that if your actively doing research your not really a NPE. AMD and University's both make money from both obvious and non obvious patents but they have positive contributions where companies that only buy existing patents and sue don't contribute anything as the patents already exist.
msabalau on June 8, 2014
If universities can't manage to exist in the US off the 70 billion the feds spend on tuition support, or by snagging a share of the 150 billion the US government spend on research, let them die.
The fact that a viewpoint is shared by a number of people is hardly an argument for its validity.
We need to understand what we're fighting. Defining a patent troll as any NPE who files an infringement suit is clearly too broad, because the only way to prevent trolling under that definition is to shut down the patent system. As long as patents are issued, and can be bought and sold, it will be possible for NPEs to own them. Furthermore, independent inventors, of whom I believe there are still a few left, and whom I think we all believe the patent system should protect if it protects anyone, are generally NPEs.
wutbrodo on June 8, 2014
> The fact that a viewpoint is shared by a number of people is hardly an argument for its validity.
This is actually _exactly_ how language works, and that's precisely what's under discussion here: whether the term patent troll is accurate.
There's a different discussion to be had (which rayiner is also alluding to in his comment) about whether this definition has negative side-effects (like being too broad), but being clear on the terms being used in a discussion is important.
bsder on June 8, 2014
> I don't know if it's fair to call VirnetX a "patent troll."
Filing in East Texas pretty much defines you as a patent troll. If you have a real case, you don't have to go to East Texas to litigate it.
tptacek on June 8, 2014
Is that actually true? Did you research it? A good data set to back this claim up would be a list of non-trollish patent suits that weren't filed in EDTX. As it stands, the properties that make EDTX attractive for trolls could logically make EDTX a better venue for all kinds of patent cases.
jackowayed on June 8, 2014
If it was developed for the CIA, why aren't the resulting patents owned by the government?
lutorm on June 8, 2014
It's not clear if this particular "invention" was developed for CIA, but there are also different types of government contracts, some of which assign IP to the government, some of which do not.
brudgers on June 8, 2014
[IANAL]
My understanding is that the US Federal government cannot be sued for patent infringement. If correct, there would be no value for it to acquire patent rights and if the technology was to be controlled, classifying the design would be better than filing patents.
maaku on June 8, 2014
1) yes, you can sue the government or contractors fir patent infringement.
2) the government can issue secret patents
IANAL, but I was a government contractor for many years.
Peaker on June 8, 2014
Secret patents that can be accessed by anyone with a high-enough classification?
It seems to defeat the original purpose of patents, which was to promote openness of inventions rather than secrecy.
deciplex on June 8, 2014
Because if Big Government owned those patents then Job Producers wouldn't be able to make so many jobs for Hard-Working Americans.
(speculation)
rosser on June 8, 2014
They were probably acquired by VirnetX, like so many NPEs' portfolios are built.
argumentum on June 8, 2014
In this overwhelmingly depressing article, I saw a ray of hope, an enchanting possibility .. a silver lining if you will:
> Instead, two other mysterious companies came forward seeking to challenge VirnetX's patents. First was a shell company called New Bay Capital, which filed an IPR and then reportedly asked VirnetX for 10 percent of its massive jury award in exchange for backing off. New Bay dropped its case on April 4 without getting any money—and without revealing who was behind the claim.
Then came RPX, a defensive patent aggregator that has become increasingly well-known, and increasingly profitable, in recent years. RPX works by selling memberships to companies that feel harangued by patent trolls, including Apple and many other tech companies.
How wonderful it would be if the ultimate demise of patent trolls was brought about by other patent trolls :)
georgemcbay on June 7, 2014
At this point I honestly believe the only way the patent system gets any better is by becoming so overbearing that it collapses under its own weight. The lobbying machine in place to protect patents essentially as they are now (with maybe some token changes to look like progress) is way too big and way too strong for reform otherwise.
So in that sense, I'm happy about this.
bediger4000 on June 8, 2014
That was my emotional reaction too, but my thought was different. I saw the article and thought, "Maybe if 2 or 3 more trolls win big against Google, Microsoft and GM or GE, we'll see some legislative action."
reddit_clone on June 8, 2014
I remember RIM was nearly brought down with patent litigation. I expected some backlash since a lot of people in US government were affected by the potential outage.
Sadly nothing happened. Rim paid up I believe.
valar_m on June 8, 2014
I actually hope the trolls win.[0]
I believe that the current state of IP law does far more to stifle innovation than to support it, and I fear that it will only change when sufficient monied interests become inclined to support a change.
Put another way, I believe change will come when the juggernauts like Apple stand to lose more than they gain from the current state of the law. Until then, I suspect that the status quo will continue.
[0] Others have made similar arguments, including Mark Cuban in re: Yahoo's patent suit vs. Facebook: http://blogmaverick.com/2012/03/13/i-hope-yahoo-crushes-face...
SeanLuke on June 7, 2014
> The patents (1, 2, 3, 4) originated at a company called Science Applications International Corporation, or SAIC; they are now owned by VirnetX.
It's worth mentioning that SAIC is not a lightweight. It is a large government contractor with $4 billion in annual revenue.
throwawaykf05 on June 8, 2014
On a mobile device, so can't research much, but a couple of things:
1) The claims are incredibly broad, and I'm surprised they have held up so far. Many such patents issued back then (it happens much more rarely these days) but even by those standards this is broad. Without indulging too much in the sin of simplifying claims, they basically cover detecting if a server supports secure connections, and if so, establishing a VPN instead of a normal connection. One of the patents covers a DNS server which indicates whether a server supports secure connections.
2) One of the comments on TFA, which is significant if true (would be good if someone could verify):
> If you read through the court docs, the actual royalty imposed was 0.52%. It was Apple's various shenanigans and lies (partial and outright) to the court that prompted additional penalties up to a 0.98% rate.
Similar things have happened in the past, e.g. In i4i, where a Microsoft lawyer was sanctioned for insisting plaintiff was a patent troll. However, in that case the lawyer paid the price rather than the company as a whole. In any case, even 0.52% is incredibly high a single minor feature. I guess the lesson here is clear: don't piss off the court.
lorddoig on June 7, 2014
We shouldn't blame patent trolls for acting the way they do in the same way that we shouldn't blame banks and stockbrokers for acting the way they do.
If there is big money to be made, and it's legal, somebody is going to do it - and if it's not you, well, your loss.
This is, and always has been, a problem of bad legislation. It is a structural problem in the system. The human race would save so much time, money, and energy if it tackled problems at their root instead of dossing around in the details, oblivious to the actual issue.
zmmmmm on June 7, 2014
This line always comes out, for some reason, regarding patents. In other discussions we get completely different logic - eg: people get terribly riled up about whether Google is "evil" or not and it is rarely connected to whether it's legal or not.
The ultimate with your logic is that it would call for massive legislation to cover every facet of our lives - everything bad must be made illegal, otherwise nobody can even be criticised for doing it. I don't want to live in a world like that. Laws are far too crude for that, they can only work at extremes where it is clear you can put down a blanket rule. In between, people and companies behaving badly should be held to account through criticism and public pressure. We should expect companies to behave honorably and ethically and criticise them heavily when they don't.
vanwesson on June 7, 2014
Google gets grief over being "evil" because they publicly claimed not to be, and got a lot of popularity and goodwill in the marketplace as a result. When people get "riled up" about Google, they are threatening to take away that popularity and goodwill, that's all. It's not the same thing.
Also, what makes you think we don't already have "massive legislation to cover every facet of our lives"? Have you ever heard of the book "Three Felonies a Day"?
I take exception to being accused of delivering 'a line'. I commented, as I only ever do, when I see a truth that for whatever reason I decide to broadcast publicly. The veracity of my statement may be the source of its ubiquity you observe.
Increased legislation is rarely the answer. I do not have a pre-rolled solution for the 'patent problem', but - contrary to popular opinion - this is not required to point out flaws in the current system. Perhaps the current system is the best we can do, but that does not excuse its flaws. We should always aim for what could be - and what we could, maybe, come up with is a system that encourages innovation (through financial reward) yet disallows this kind of destructive behaviour. How? Who knows.
I bet 10 years ago if you applied such thinking to finance you wouldn't have got very far - "central bankers supplying fiat money is good enough"...yet now we have Bitcoin et. al., a whole host of currencies whose aggregate behaviour is mathematically provable.
Focus on the could, anything less is not worthy of the tag 'innovation'.
jusben1369 on June 7, 2014
"This line always comes out" - as does yours. We can only solve patent trolls by legislating every small piece of our lives is a fallacy of logic. One doesn't inevitably mean the other.
skoob on June 8, 2014
"Don't hate the player, hate the game" is a false dichotomy. It's perfectly possible to conclude that the system is rotten and still call out those who take advantage of it in ways which hurt others. The fact that there's money to be made and that it's legal doesn't make it any less sleazy and immoral.
nitrogen on June 8, 2014
The human race would save so much time, money, and energy if it tackled problems at their root instead of dossing around in the details, oblivious to the actual issue.
Nobody's oblivious to the actual issue; it's just that the root of the problem is inaccessibly mired in a tangled web of lobbying networks, conflicting interests, and impenetrable committees.
Opportunists are just as guilty of making the world worse as the laws that enable them.
Nonsense.
Opportunists are faced with the decision "Should I attempt to make a bucketload of cash, and secure my family's - and my stakeholders families' - future, or should I take a moral stance, make no money, and console myself in poverty because I'm a 'good' person?"
Contrarily, lawmakers have all of the tools required to make a better system, and yet choose not to, for the same indecipherable reasons so many political decisions are made.
yohui on June 8, 2014
They could have chosen other ways to make a living. Patent trolling is hardly a blue collar enterprise.
higherpurpose on June 7, 2014
What about when they lobby to keep the current patent system in place. Can we blame them then, or is that the nature of the game, too?
The very idea that lobbying is a) a thing, and b) a thing that works is a failure of the political system in a massive but completely unsurprising way.
kryptiskt on June 7, 2014
Apple has a lot of money they could use to finance lobbying for patent reform. Maybe this will help them see the wisdom in that.
Maarten88 on June 8, 2014
A strong signal would be if Apple raised prices for affected products (iPhones and iPods) by exactly 0.98% and send out a press release that this is necessary to offset increased patent-related costs and will only affect US prices. Further increases are not expected, but can't be ruled out. Foreign pricing will not be affected.
I'd like to see politicians react to that...
meepmorp on June 8, 2014
I doubt politicians would give a shit, perhaps notwithstanding a few minutes of grandstanding during some floor speech or committee hearing. Certainly, no action would come of it.
Lobbying, though, would get their attention. Like it or not, that's how one operates the levers of power in Washington at the moment
If we didn't find patent trolls worthy of blame, where would the motivation to stamp out their behavior come from?
> This is, and always has been, a problem of bad legislation.
Exactly. The legislation and regulatory apparatus built around it allow people to claim exclusivity on ideas and techniques that are already obvious to most people in the field. This must be fixed with legislation.
Calling companies trolls on internet forums unread by the vast majority of citizens really doesn't help the cause. These companies make their living enforcing patents. They aren't going to stop because people say mean things about them. They are going to stop when the law makes their business obsolete.
pkill17 on June 7, 2014
Begrudgingly, I agree. I don't consider a patent holder to be a troll unless they're clearly not the first party to develop said technology. If there's clear prior art, only then would I consider someone a troll.
Unfortunately, patents are becoming more commoditized than healthcare in our country. It seems silly to me that someone is permitted to sue on the basis of patent violation when a) they weren't the original inventor, b) they bought the patent for the entire reason of profiting from litigation, or c) they're suing people who 'violated' their patent prior to the time they purchased it.
Istof on June 7, 2014
The root cause of lots of bad legislations can be linked to corporate bribes (lobby)... which is legal in the USA.
nslocum on June 8, 2014
If VirnetX were on the verge of winning 1% of iPhone revenue, their stock price would reflect it. However, it does not.
https://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSEMKT%3AVHC&ei=h-WTU4DYNs...
VirnetX's market cap is $850 million, which would be a very steep discount if the company were "on the verge" of being paid $340 million/year from Apple.
TomGullen on June 8, 2014
Good catch, will be interesting to see how this plays out. I tend to believe indicators like this over news reports.
octonion on June 8, 2014
The real problem is that patents have become an intellectual land grab, no matter how obvious, whether or not violators were even aware of the patents, and whether or not the patenting company has any interest whatsoever is using the patent in an actual product. The majority of inventions are not strokes of genius - when the time is right, ideas emerge naturally and tend to be invented by multiple people around the same time.
eliben on June 8, 2014
Could someone explain what the thing with East Texas is?
A district where juries and judges are more favorable than usual towards patents? This sound kind-of ridiculous, no? Can't the defending companies find similar anti-patent areas and file counter-suites there?
rando289 on June 8, 2014
> Could someone explain what the thing with East Texas is? A district where juries and judges are more favorable than usual towards patents?
It started a bit randomly, based on the politics of the region the judges/juries were slightly more favorable toward patents than anywhere else. Then it became self perpetuating since it helps the local economy & the judges own careers.
> This sound kind-of ridiculous, no?
Absolutely ridiculous. Patents are federal law, but 1 small region is effectively making serious changes to that legislation.
> Can't the defending companies find similar anti-patent areas and file counter-suites there?
They do. There are a range of locations, never in east texas. No one place has emerged as THE anti-patent location. For example, Microsoft files suit in Seattle since it's based there, has influence, people want it to win since it's a benefit to their local economy, etc.
flipped_bit on June 8, 2014
The core of the issue (if any) is that historically, the patent system is inextricably tied into the free-market/laissez-faire economic system, which for all its flaws, did create the world as we know it for the last ~ 200 to 300 years which led to an exponential rise in technological development - a unique phase started in the Western world, where now some of the 'successful and well-developed' countries in the Eastern world (e.g. Japan, South Korea, Singapore) have incorporated into their respective systems.
From Stallman's article which did show up here:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html
"Patent law was intended to promote the publication of useful ideas, at the price of giving the one who publishes an idea a temporary monopoly over it—a price that may be worth paying in some fields and not in others."
The real question is does all software patents come in the last part of the aforesaid sentence: ".....—a price that may be worth paying in some fields and not in others."
A knee-jerk reaction to throw out the baby out with the bathwater by abolishing the whole patent system may not be the right solution here.
quink on June 8, 2014
> A knee-jerk reaction to throw out the baby out with the bathwater by abolishing the whole patent system may not be the right solution here.
To further that analogy, if that bathwater is a toxic brew with, at least in the software industry, a serious chilling effect on innovation and enterprise is that really a bathwater the baby should be in?
If you can point out to me more success stories because of software patents than nightmare scenarios like the above and the X-Plane saga, then I might agree. But as it stands, the biggest success story, Uniloc, that's relevant to Australia, which is where I am, makes me just pissed off.
Sorry to get back too late for the response as I hadn't seen it earlier.
I do agree that the patent system as it is applied to software (and possibly other areas too like biotechnology) needs to be reformed. I am not defending the status quo but just pointing out that people who argue for abolishing the whole system needs to first understand its historical role before taking a drastic action.
At the risk of over-simplifying, there is a tussle between 'software as a collection of algorithms which in turn are defined as a special class of mathematics' which is not patentable, vs software as a 'product' that provides useful functions which is in-line with how patents have been applied in other areas. Things get a little more complicated with 'process patents' as applied to software.
It is hard to draw a fine line here and I don't claim to have any answers except looking at each case individually and deciding to apply it, sort of like the early definition of art vs porn: "I know it when I see it" (or something to that effect).
Even if you were to grant a expansive protection for functional cases or business methods (implemented by the software), you will still have ridiculous ones like the 'Amazon one-click patent'.
Regarding examples of 'success stories', I am not sure if these apply but the entire model of software business was driven on licenses during its critical growth period in the 1980s. One example is the core functionality of Excel which is probably one of the most successful software ever built:
http://www.google.co.in/patents/US5272628
Even Google's core search ranking algorithm was patented:
https://www.google.com/patents/US6285999
I should leave with this comment from PG:
http://www.paulgraham.com/softwarepatents.html
"Frankly, it surprises me how small a role patents play in the software business. It's kind of ironic, considering all the dire things experts say about software patents stifling innovation, but when one looks closely at the software business, the most striking thing is how little patents seem to matter."
quellhorst on June 7, 2014
If this happens, then maybe Apple will get behind real patent reform.
You mean, like they publicly stated they would when the Googlrola Android lawsuits were settled just recently?
Lip service from the company that patented a rectangle with rounded corners (D670,286).
dm2 on June 8, 2014
Could someone explain to me how companies are suppose to avoid infringing on patents?
With a device as complicated as a smartphone it's inevitable that someone holds the patents for numerous parts of the device and the software.
Is there a lawyer that is supposed to check out every single aspect of a device and check for prior patents? If so, then shouldn't the lawyer be responsible in this instance?
Note: I personally don't care if Apple loses patent cases, they've done enough damage with their own frivolous patent lawsuits.
jeffdavis on June 7, 2014
The fact that this is being heard in court and the patent holder is winning means, according to my definition, they aren't patent trolls.
I define "patent troll" as an entity that has a sliver of a chance of winning, but 100% chance that they will impose high costs on the defendant at little cost to themselves. They use this assymetry as a form of legal extortion. They limit their downside by holding few assets aside from the patent.
EDIT: I am in no way commenting on the merit of the case or the 1% figure.
larrys on June 8, 2014
The "definition" of a patent troll (per google search):
"A patent troll, also called a patent assertion entity, is a person or company who enforces patent rights against accused infringers in an attempt to collect licensing fees, but does not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question."
This is always the definition that I understood.
The problem with this definition is that one of the purposes of the patent system is to enable companies that don't produce products but rather produce R&D.
That works fine when you develop a new technology and then offer to license it to people who wouldn't have thought of it before you told them about it. Patenting an obvious concept and then threatening everyone who independently came to the same conclusion is a different matter entirely.
So sort of like Universities?
marcosdumay on June 8, 2014
And independent inventors, and basically anybody that is not a huge corporation and creates something useful.
That popular definition looks too much like political propaganda.
adventured on June 8, 2014
Some universities are absolutely on the list of most aggressive and abusive patent trolls. Some universities are also among those fighting hardest to keep the status quo in place so they can continue to harm the US economy with frivolous patents and milk a broken system.
Yes! We need to get rid of those fat cats in Washington! LULZ.
It is a common definition, but a very unfortunate one. See my reply to 'ghayes upthread.
It is an excellent and fortunate definition. If all you do is hold patents, sue people and companies, and do not make anything or sell goods or services, you're a patent troll. And that's exactly the label that should be slapped on this company.
Hopefully we can get all entities that fit the definition of a patent troll abolished. Also fortunately it's inevitable that the patent troll business will be destroyed. It will be made so difficult and unprofitable, few will attempt it. It's merely a matter of how long it takes and much economic damage is caused by the trolls first.
So you believe that independent inventors and universities are causing great economic damage? Why?
In my mind, the people who are doing damage are those who are taking advantage of the fact that defending oneself against a patent infringement suit is expensive, by suing small businesses with little or no regard to whether they actually infringe; and those taking advantage of low-quality patents that should never have been issued, like the infamous scan-to-email patent.
I think that by equating trolls with NPEs, you are losing an important distinction between the ones doing this damage and entities with valid patents that took real R&D to develop, and who are enforcing them against actual infringers. I don't know how you can say that the latter group don't deserve to be able to enforce their patent rights, unless you want to discard the entire patent system.
In any case I don't think your proposal is going to fly. In contrast, we almost had a bill pass Congress to limit the worst abuses. I still don't understand why this failed.
tluyben2 on June 8, 2014
So we shouldn't be thinking about trolls / not trolls, but just how to rapidly identify and throw out trivial patents and prior art. The fact that you can patent most of these things in the first place is crazy; you didn't do 'real R&D' on these. You just had someone with patent knowledge identify as much patents as possible in a grand collection of things which might well have taken real R&D to come up with. But then you should be forced to patent the whole of things, not every trivial part in it. The infringers / trolls are the ones who sue over trivial stuff which a 4 year old can think up while sitting on the toilet. And that's what most of these are. And most of the others (and a lot of these) are prior art. Making it sound official doesn't change that. What is left might well be the result of real and costly R&D and should be (if it's not software imho) protected for a few years so the investment can be earned back.
neurobro on June 8, 2014
I define "patent troll" as anyone who has and defends patents that should have never been issued. So, everyone who has and defends software patents is a troll, and I have no sympathy if they get sued into oblivion by other trolls.
blackoil on June 8, 2014
Considering how new the term is we shouldn't so easily define it else we end up like hackers, which is broadly defined but has a negative perception in public.
rmrfrmrf on June 8, 2014
Your definition is wrong.
ps4fanboy on June 8, 2014
There will be great irony if Apple complains about patent reform after this.
Yetanfou on June 8, 2014
Live by the sword, die by the sword. It won't come that far, but Apple certainly has no leg to stand on when it comes to spurious patent claims. Given the size of their war chest, legal department and political clout (reaching as far as the current president of the US, it seems) they'd have a good chance at instigating effective patent reform. Now all that is needed it the will to do so.
hopefully they will loose more money then they made from patents
mrslave on June 8, 2014
If patents are in any way good (bullshit, but assume true for now) then I'm ok with this. Why can one person own imaginary property and another cannot? If Amazon can one-click some bullshit, why cannot someone else have exclusive rights to another idea?
Good. When the big companies have to pay real money, they'll fix the software patents problem.
valvar on June 8, 2014
Well, at least they are hitting other (albeit larger) patent trolls... Karma!
jbb555 on June 8, 2014
What? Apple already get more than 1% of iPhone revenue!
einarlove on June 8, 2014
Read "Patient troll on The Verge, winning 1% of iPone revenue"
SeanDav on June 8, 2014
This is a good illustration for Karma, or "what goes around, comes around". Apple have only paid lip service (at best) to patent reform, so now there might be some serious consequences to that decision.
dsugarman on June 7, 2014
what goes around comes back around - Justin Timberlake


A crowd of almost 200 people attended last Saturday night's North Cork IFA social in The Firgrove Hotel, Mitchelstown.
The dinner dance was slightly behind schedule because of interest in the rugby match between Ireland and the New Zealand All Blacks. This historic win put everyone in great form and those in attendance enjoyed a fine meal.
Guest speaker was Prof Thia Hennessy – Dean of Business and chair of Agri Food Economics in UCC. Other dignitaries in attendance included: Sean O'Sullivan, CEO Cork Marts; AIB representatives Michael Murphy, Elaine Butler and Sinead O'Connor; Eurogene CEO Tom Baker; Honorary President of North Cork IFA Michael Ryan; Imelda Walsh, chairperson North Tipperary IFA; chairperson of South Tipperary IFA Erica O'Keeffe, along with other IFA guests.
It was a special night for the new North Cork IFA chairperson Anne Baker, a beef farmer from Ballindangan. Anne said she was delighted with the attendance and thanked staff at The Firgrove for their courtesy and expertise. Members of Anne's family also attended.
Music was by Wall Street and the event was very much enjoyed by everyone in attendance.


Our fence project is finally done, at last after two months of working on it! Oh let me tell you how relieved I am now that this big project is done. We ordered the panel kits in April and it did not get delivered until the first week of May. It took almost an hour to assemble the very first panel, the first is always the most difficult but as the time goes on, it got easier and we assembled it a bit faster.
We decided to buy the kits although we knew that it would take us an extra time to do it. There is no design that we like on the pre-assembled ones. At first, my husband got frustrated but he was okay after we got done with the initial shock lol.
There are many pieces that comes in a kit so it takes a while to put it together.
The kids had their summer job working for us staining the panels after we assembled all of it. He did a really good job. I love including our children in doing projects like this because it teaches them to be a team player. They might not realize it but it is a good lesson for them in real life when they get older.
I think if we dedicated time just to do this project all day long, the project would have last for a week but since we could only work on it full days on Saturdays and a couple of hours during the weekdays, it took us almost two months.
There's no instruction how to attach this kind of panels to a post so we figured it out as we go. On regular fence panels (see the fence we put at our old home here), you attach the panels at the back of the posts but on this specific kind of panels, we have to attach it on the side of the posts so every holes that we dig has to be precised in measurement.
We were kind of worried but at the same time finding humor when the top of our street burst in flood. All the water ran to our yard and flooded our new fence that wasn't even finish. My husband said, now is the true testament to test the panels if the stain we put would protect the wood from water, and it held up pretty good so it was a relief.
I am so glad that the fence is up already because our dogs can stay in our own backyard. They used to love running around our neighbor's yard and I feel awful because they feel terrorized by our pets. Granted that our dogs don't bite but for them it was scary.
Anyway, as soon as the fence was almost done, I did not waste time and did some gardening around the fence.
We had to order the hinges and other hardware online because we couldn't find something that my husband like on our local stores. Our order took a week before it arrive so it made the timeline of pour project a lot longer.
The empty dishwasher detergent bucket was a great tool to use for the stain.
We had to buy additional wood panels to put on the side of the doors.
We couldn't find a matching panels for the side of the garage so we decided to use this picket fencing. These are made of cedar wood also so after staining them, it kind of looks similar to the other side of the fence.
The bunnies can slide in between the panels so I put plants in front of it to serve as a barricade. I made two planters for this specific sports but that would be another post next time.
I also chronicled our project via Instagram so it serves as our timeline. Now I can breath and relax before school start again.
Coming up are some projects that we did in the yard.
Your fence is awesome! I know it took a long time and was a whole lot of work, but I know you are proud of it knowing you and your family did it all. What a great DIY project - it's beautiful!
That looks great! I love that you got the kids involved. It shows them that hard work pays off.
Oh wow how nice does your fence look, I am loving the topper of it! I would love something like it in my back garden.
Wow, your fence is beautiful! We never stain ours, but that's a great idea. I love the top too, just a small touch of beauty.
It may have taken awhile, but the finished product looks fantastic! I love the design at the top, as well as the stain you chose.
Your fence looks fantastic! We need to try and do our own. The fence we have now is pretty old and drab.
You did a really nice job, your fence looks amazing! And I love your kids helping you, great family work!!
Wow the fence looks amazing. You did a great job on it. I would love to put up a new fence in our back yard.
The fence looks great! Y'all put a lot of work into getting it done, but I bet the puppies are happy to have a nice safe area to run around in.
Oh wow! Your DIY project rocks! That lattice touch is gorgeous. What a great way to get the entire family involved.
Wow, that is one gorgeous fence! I love making my own stuff like this!
Damn that looks so good! I mean better than professional work. I know you must be so proud.
Haha, what a cute and creative fence. I love how it was made and painted. Surely the kids loves doing it with you.
The fence looks lovely. I can understand the sense of satisfaction you guys felt when it stood finally ready.
There is nothing better than successfully completing a project! It makes you so excited and this feeling of accomplishment is overwhelming. You did a great job love the fence.


JOB SUMMARY Assists in the maintenance and dissemination of the Location Intelligence and GIS services platform knowledge base, including training new and existing employees about the various systems, data, resources, techniques, and uses of Location Intelligence for the purposes of CRE.
Conduct individual and web-based GIS training with existing staff and new hires.Develop training materials on existing and future processes.
Organize and create training content.Host live and pre-recorded webinars.Work with GIS staff to identify and further develop teams skill-sets.
Communicates with Data Management team and GIS Managers to create best-in-class work-flows on usage of these datasets.
Understand the business/CRE and training location intelligence staff to use GIS concepts in new and innovative way to further the goals of CRE.Supports Sr. Coordinators in research functions as it pertains to GIS concepts, data, methods, products, technologies.
Assists in the implementation of GIS into web-based spatial solutions and geospatial products, so end-users can fulfill their needs through self-service.
SUPERVISORY RESPONSIBILITIES No formal supervisory responsibilities in this position. May provide informal assistance such as technical guidance, and/or training to coworkers. May coordinate and assign tasks to co-workers within a work unit and/or project.
Bachelor's degree from four-year college or university with a major or minor in Geography or related field; or Associates degree or equivalent from two-year college or technical school, with training in GIS technology. Requires 3 - 5 years of experience.
Excellent written and verbal communication skills. Strong organizational and analytical skills. Ability to provide efficient, timely, reliable and courteous service to customers. Ability to effectively present information in a group setting.
Ability to comprehend, analyze, and interpret documents. Ability to efficiently solve problems in a very fast paced environment. Requires analytical & quantitative skillsets. Self sufficient learner with ability to stay ahead of the learning curve and the ability to quickly regurgitate learnings with team.
Mastery of ArcGIS Suite and all related extensions including Business Analyst, 3D analyst, Spatial Analyst, and Model Builder. Proficiency in Adobe Creative Suite, Alteryx, and the Microsoft suite is highly preferred. Knowledge of GIS terms, concepts and definitions with the ability to clearly teach all levels of users also heavily preferred. Knowledge of CRE preferred and the ability to work with complex mathematical concepts and apply operations such as linear and regression formula and other standardized industry modeling concepts is preferred.


text:
On this day, Religion
October 16, 2015 thetudorchronicles 1 Comment
When Queen Mary I ascended the throne she instantly took to bringing England back in line with the Roman Catholic Church. One of the first acts she performed as she began to reconnect with Rome was to order the arrests of Bishop Hugh Latimer, Bishop Nicholas Ridley and Archbishop Thomas Cranmer. These three men were influential during the reign of her brother, King Edward VI, and were figureheads for the Protestant religion.
After spending time in the Tower of London the three were moved to the Oxford Bocardo Prison on charges of heresy in September 1555 where they would be examined by the Lord's Commissioner in Oxford's Divinity School. Ridley was questioned in particularly regarding his opinion on whether he believed the Pope was the heir to the authority of Peter as the foundation of the Church. Ridley replied that the Church was not built on one man and therefore Ridley could not honour the Pope as he was seeking glory for Rome and not God.
Ridley and Latimer also both confessed that they could not accept mass as a sacrifice of Christ with Latimer stating; "Christ made one oblation and sacrifice for the sins of the whole world, and that a perfect sacrifice; neither needeth there to be, nor can there be, any other propitiatory sacrifice."
Ridley and Latimer were both sentenced to be burned at the stake outside Balliol College, Oxford on 16th October 1555. Ridley openly prayed as he was being tied to the stake saying "Oh, heavenly Father, I give unto thee most hearty thanks that thou hast called me to be a professor of thee, even unto death. I beseech thee, Lord God, have mercy on this realm of England, and deliver it from all her enemies."
In order to speed up their deaths Ridley's brother gave the men gunpowder to wear around their necks, however the flames failed to come up higher than Ridley's waist, it was reported that Ridley repeatedly said, "Lord have mercy upon me! I cannot burn…Let the fire come unto me, I cannot burn."
Latimer would die a lot quicker than Ridley and tried to comfort Ridley as he approached his own death by saying, "Be of good comfort, Mr. Ridley, and play the man! We shall this day light such a candle by God's grace, in England, as I trust never shall be put out."
Ridley and Latimer were decreed martyrs and are commemorated by a Martyr's statue in Oxford alongside Cranmer.
The Martyr's statue in Oxford
John Foxe described Ridley and Latimer's burning in his Book of Martyrs, he wrote;
"Dr. Ridley, the night before execution, was very facetious, had himself shaved, and called his supper a marriage feast; he remarked upon seeing Mrs. Irish (the keeper's wife) weep, 'though my breakfast will be somewhat sharp, my supper will be more pleasant and sweet.'
The place of death was on the north side of the town opposite Baliol College:- Dr. Ridley was dressed in a black gown furred, and Mr. Latimer had a long shroud on, hanging down to his feet. Dr. Ridley as he passed Bocardo, looked up to see Dr. Cranmer, but the latter was then engaged in disputation with a friar. When they came to the stake, Dr. Ridley embraced Latimer fervently, and bid him be of good heart. He then knelt by the stake, and after earnestly praying together, they had a short private conversation. Dr. Smith then preached a short sermon against the martyrs, who would have answered him, but were prevented by Dr. Marshal, the vice-chancellor. Dr. Ridley then took off his gown and tippet, and gave them to his brother-in-law, Mr. Shipside. He gave away also many trifles to his weeping friends, and the populace were anxious to get even a fragment of his garments. Mr. Latimer gave nothing, and from the poverty of his garb, was soon stripped to his shroud, and stood venerable and erect, fearless of death.
Dr. Ridley being unclothed to his shirt, the smith placed an iron chain about their waists, and Dr. Ridley bid him fasten it securely; his brother having tied a bag of gunpowder about his neck, gave some also to Mr. Latimer. Dr. Ridley then requested of Lord Williams, of Fame, to advocate with the queen the cause of some poor men to whom he had, when bishop, granted leases, but which the present bishop refused to confirm. A lighted fagot was now laid at Dr. Ridley's feet, which caused Mr. Latimer to say, 'Be of good cheer, Ridley; and play the man. We shall this day, by God's grace, light up such a candle in England, as, I trust, will never be put out.' When Dr. Ridley saw the flame approaching him, he exclaimed, 'Into thy hands, O Lord, I commend my spirit!' and repeated often, 'Lord receive my spirit!' Mr. Latimer, too, ceased not to say, 'O Father of heaven receive my soul!' Embracing the flame, he bathed his hands in it, and soon died, apparently with little pain; but Dr. Ridley, by the ill-adjustment of the fagots, which were green, and placed too high above the furze was burnt much downwards. At this time, piteously entreating for more fire to come to him, his brother-in-law imprudently heaped the fagots up over him, which caused the fire more fiercely to burn his limbs, whence he literally leaped up and down under the fagots, exclaiming that he could not burn; indeed, his dreadful extremity was but too plain, for after his legs were quite consumed, he showed his body and shirt unsinged by the flame. Crying upon God for mercy, a man with a bill pulled the fagots down, and when the flames arose, he bent himself towards that side; at length the gunpowder was ignited, and then he ceased to move, burning on the other side, and falling down at Mr. Latimer's feet over the chain that had hitherto supported him.
Every eye shed tears at the afflicting sight of these sufferers, who were among the most the most distinguished persons of their time in dignity, piety, and public estimation. They suffered October 16, 1555."
Bishop Ridley and Bishop Latimer at the stake
Archbishop CranmerBalliol CollegeBishop Hugh LatimerBishop Nicholas RidleyBocardo PrisonBook of MartyrsheresyJohn FoxeMary IOn this dayOxford Divinity SchoolTower of LondonTudor ChroniclesTudor courtTudor eraTudor HistoryTudors
On this day in 1536 – William Tyndale was executed
October 6, 2015 thetudorchronicles Leave a comment
William Tyndale was born in Melksham Court, Stinchcombe between 1484 and 1496, his family also went by the name of Hychyns at times and Tyndale was enrolled at Magdalen College, Oxford as William Hychyns. Tyndale studied a Bachelor of Arts degree at Mgadelen Hall in 1506 receiving his degree in 1512, in the same year he became a subdeacon. In July 1515 he was made Master of Arts and this allowed him to begin studying theology although his official studies did not include the systematic study of Scripture. Tyndale later said on this
"They have ordained that no man shall look on the Scripture, until he be noselled in heathen learning eight or nine years and armed with false principles, with which he is clean shut out of the understanding of the Scripture".
Tyndale whilst studying theology also became fluent in Spanish, Italian, French, Greek, Hebrew, German and Latin. In 1517 until 1521 he was at the University of Cambridge before becoming chaplain at the home of Sir John Walsh at Little Sodbury in 1521, he also became a tutor to Walsh's children. His opinions caused Tyndale to be summoned before the Chancellor of the Diocese of Worcester, John Bell, in 1522 but no formal charges were laid against Tyndale.
In 1523 Tyndale left Little Sodbury and travelled to London to ask permission to translate the Bible into English, he sought the help of Bishop Cuthbert Tunstall, a classicalist who worked with Erasmus on a Greek New Testament. However, Tunstall denied Tyndale his patronage saying he had no room for him within his household. Instead Tyndale preached and studied in London and took help from Humphrey Monmouth, a cloth merchant, also during this time he lectured across the city including at St Dunstan-in-the-West.
Tyndale left England and landed in Europe in 1524 where it is believed he travelled to Wittenberg, an entry in the registers of the University of Wittenberg has been translated to William Tyndale of England. During his time here he began his translation of the New Testament and it was completed in 1525 with the help of William Roy, an Observant friar.
In 1525 publication of the work by Peter Quentell, in Cologne, was interrupted following the impact of anti-Lutheranism. A full edition was however printed in 1526 by Peter Schoeffer in Worms, Germany, a city that was adopting Lutheranism. More copies were printed in Antwerp and were smuggled into England and Scotland before Bishop Tunstall condemned it in October 1526. Tunstall issued severe warnings to booksellers and burned many copies in the streets.
Tyndale remained in Worms for a year before moving to Antwerp and then Hamburg in 1529 when he continued revising his New Testament and began work on translating the Old Testament and writing treatises. Cardinal Wolsey declared Tyndale as a heretic in open court in January 1529.
In 1530 Tyndale wrote The Practyse of Prelates, which opposed King Henry VIII divorce from Katherine of Aragon on the grounds that it was unscriptual and a plot by Cardinal Wolsey to get Henry entangled in the papal courts. Henry demanded that the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V captured Tyndale and sent him to England under the terms of the Treaty of Cambrai. However, Charles demanded formal evidence before he would do anything.
Tyndale was betrayed by Henry Phillips who alerted the Imperial authorities as to his position and he was captured in Antwerp in 1535 and held in the castle of Vilvoorde near Brussels. He was charged with heresy in 1535 and stood trial where he was condemned to be burnt at the stake. Tyndale's date of death is typical marked as 6th October 1536 and it was reported that his final words before death were 'Lord! Open the King of England's eyes.'
Just four years after Tyndale's death English translations of the Bible were published at the King's request.
Bishop Cuthbert TunstallCharles VErasmushenry VIIIJohn BellKatherine of AragonOn this daySir John WalshTudor ChroniclesTudor courtTudor eraTudor HistoryTudorsUniversity of WittenbergWilliam HychynsWilliam RoyWilliam Tyndale
Henry VIII, On this day, Religion
On this day in 1521 – Pope Leo X received a copy of Henry VIII's The Defence of the Seven Sacraments
The Defence of the Seven Sacraments also known as Assertio Septem Sacramentorum was a theological treatise written in 1521 and was officially attributed to King Henry VIII. Henry began writing it in 1519 whilst he was reading Martin Luther's attack on indulgences and denounced the Papal system. By June 1519 Henry had shown his work to Cardinal Wolsey, Wolsey would be the only to read it for the next three years.
The original manuscript would become the first two chapters of Assertio Septem Sacramentorum with the rest of the treatise being made up of new material that related to Luther's De Captivitate Babylonica, many believe that Sir Thomas More was involved in the working of this piece.
Henry ended his treatise by saying to readers that they should not be influenced by the likes of Luther and other heretics. He wrote;
"Do not listen to the Insults and Detractions against the Vicar of Christ which the Fury of the little Monk spews up against the Pope; nor contaminate Breasts sacred to Christ with impious Heresies, for if one sews these he has no Charity, swells with vain Glory, loses his Reason, and burns with Envy. Finally with what Feelings they would stand together against the Turks, against the Saracens, against anything Infidel anywhere, with the same Feelings they should stand together against this one little Monk weak in Strength, but in Temper more harmful than all Turks, all Saracens, all Infidels anywhere."
Henry dedicated the treatise to Pope Leo X who received a copy on 2nd October 1521 who upon reading it rewarded Henry with the title of Fidei Defensor – Defender of the Faith on 11th October. Although the title was officially revoked following Henry's break with Rome and the Catholic Church.
There has been some debate whether Henry did indeed write the book himself or whether it was written by someone such as Cardinal Wolsey, Sir Thomas More or Bishop Fisher and it was published under the King's name in order to give it more substance.
Assertio Septem SacramentorumBishop FisherCardinal WolseyDe Captivitate BabylonicaDefence of the Seven Sacramentshenry VIIIMartin LutherOn this dayPope Leo XSir Thomas MoreTudor ChroniclesTudor courtTudor eraTudor HistoryTudors
On this day in 1534 – Pope Clement VII died
September 25, 2015 thetudorchronicles Leave a comment
Pope Clement VII was born on 26th May 1478 as Giulio di Giuliano de'Medici. He was born in Florence one month after his father had been assassinated after the Pazzi Conspiracy. Giulio's parents were not formally married, however, a loophole in canon law allowed for his parents to be betrothed which allowed Giulio to be considered legitimate. Giulio's mother, Fioretta Gorini, died when he was a young age and was educated by his uncle, Lorenzo de'Medici, ruler of Florence.
In 1513 Giulio's cousin Giovanni de'Medici was made Pope Leo X and made Giulio a Knight of Rhodes and Grand Prior of Capua and as a result he became one of the most powerful figures in Rome. He became one of Pope Leo X's principal ministers and confidant.
On 23rd September 1513 Guilio was made Cardinal. Giulio was credited with being the main director of papal policy during his cousin's reign. Between 1521 and 1522 he was Apostolic Administrator of the Diocese of Worcester.
Pope Leo X died in 1521 and Guilio was considered to be papabile in conclave however, he was not elected despite being one of the Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V, preferred candidates. Guilio was a leading Cardinal during the papacy of Pope Adrian VI, who reigned less than a year before his unexpected death on 14th September 1523.
With Pope Adrian VI's death a new conclave convened and Guilio was elected as Pope Clement VII. Upon his election one of Pope Clement's first tasks was to send the Archbishop of Capua to the Kings of France, Spain and England in the hope of ending the Italian Wars, his attempt at peace failed. Following King Francis I of France's invasion of Milan in 1524 Clement quit the Imperial-Spanish side of the Italian Wars and allied himself with the Italian princes which included the Republic of Venice and France in January 1525. The treaty was considered patriotic at the time, however, the unstable economy led to attacks from the Roman barons and the intervention of the Holy Roman Emperor. A month later Francis I was defeated and captured following the Battle of Pavia and Clement returned to his previous alliance with Charles V after signing an alliance with the viceroy of Naples.
Clement, however, once again switched his allegiance following the release of Francis I after the Treaty of Madrid in 1526. The Pope entered into the League of Cognac alongside France, Venice and Francesco Sforza of Milan.
Pope Clement's change in politics caused the rise of the Imperial party inside the Curia; Cardinal Pompeo Colonna's troops pillaged Vatican Hill and took control of Rome. Clement was forced to return the Papal States to an alliance with the Imperial side; however, Cardinal Colonna left the siege in Rome and headed to Naples leaving Clement to not follow through on his promise and remaining in alliance with the French. Clement also dismissed the Cardinal from his charge. Clement found himself alone in his alliance with France after the Duke of Ferrara, Alfonso d'Este, sided with the Imperial troops therefore leaving the road to Rome open for the German Landsknechts led by Charles III, Duke of Bourbon.
The Duke of Bourbon died during the siege and had left his army unpaid, starving and with no clear leader. On the 6th May 1527 the desolate army worked their way through Rome with many reports of vandalism, murder and rape. Pope Clement had no choice but to surrender on 6th June from Castel Sant'Angelo where he had taken refuge. In exchange for his life he agreed to pay 400,000 ducati in exchange for his life with the conditions that Parma, Piacenza, Civitavecchia and Modena were handed over to the Holy Roman Empire, whilst Venice also took advantage of the situation by capturing Cervia and Ravenna. For the six months following his surrender Clement was kept prisoner in Castel Sant'Angelo before he escaped after paying some Imperial officers. Clement disguised himself as a peddler and went first to Orvieto before heading to Viterbo he eventually returned to Rome in October 1528 to find is destroyed and depopulated.
During the Sack of Rome, in 1527, Clement received a request from King Henry VIII asking for his marriage to Katherine of Aragon to be annulled on the basis that it was unlawful in the eyes of God due to her previous marriage to his brother, Arthur. A dispensation had been issued from Pope Julius II before the marriage took place and Clement ruled that the dispensation was lawful and the marriage could not be annulled. The English clergy and lawyers advised Henry's Privy Council that they could not forced the Archbishop of Canterbury, William Warham, to go against the Pope's rulings. Warham died soon after and Henry persuaded the Pope to appoint Thomas Cranmer as the next Archbishop. Cranmer was a friend to Anne Boleyn and a reformer. Pope Clement issued the Papal Bulls that would allow Cranmer to take the position on the condition that he took an oath of allegiance to the Pope. Cranmer was consecrated as Archbishop but declared that he did not agree with the oath he was being asked to take. Cranmer granted Henry the annulment that he required and Henry swiftly married Anne Boleyn. Both Henry and Cranmer were excommunicated from the Catholic Church as a result of their actions. Henry would eventually lead Parliament in passing the Act of Supremacy that declared that Henry was the head of the Church of England and the papacy had no authority within the country.
On 25th September 1534 Pope Clement VII died, it was believed that he died after eating a poisonous mushroom; his body was interred in Santa Maria sopra Minerva. Just days prior to his death Clement had ordered Michelangelo to paint The Last Judgment in the Sistine Chapel.
Pope Clement VII
Anne BoleynCharles VDuke of Bourbonhenry VIIIKatherine of AragonMediciOn this dayPope Adrian VIPope Clement VIIPope Leo XSack of RomeTreaty of MadridTudor ChroniclesTudor courtTudor eraTudor HistoryTudorsVatican Hill
On this day in 1571 – Bishop John Jewel died
John Jewel was born in Buden, Devon and was educated originally by his uncle John Bellamy, rector of Hampton along with other private tutors until he matriculated at Merton College, Oxford in July 1535 where he was taught by John Pankhurst.
On 19th August 1539 Jewel was elected scholar of Corpus Christi College, Oxford where he graduated with a BA in 1540 and an MA in 1545 and was elected fellow of the college in 1542. After 1547 Jewel became of the chief disciples of Pietro Martire Vermigli, also known as Peter Martyr in England.
In 1552 Jewel graduated BD and was made vicar of Sunningwell as well as public orator of the university during which time he was required to write a congratulatory message to Queen Mary I upon her accession to the throne.
Despite signing a series of Catholic articles he was still suspecting of supporting Protestantism and he fled first to London before reaching Frankfurt in March 1555. He soon joined Martire Vermigli at Strasbourg before accompanying him to Zurich and Padua.
Bishop John Jewel
With the accession of Queen Elizabeth I Jewel returned to England and began to secure a Low Church settlement and made it known that he was committed to Elizabeth's reforms. Jewel was selected as one of nine Protestant disputants that were called upon to attend the Westminster Conference in 1559 where they would face nine Catholic representatives where they would dispute three articles that would help shape the future of Elizabethan England.
Jewel was also a select preacher at St. Paul's Cross on 15th June and in the on 27th July his congé d'élire as Bishop of Salisbury had been made out although he was not consecrated until 21st January 1560.
Whilst preaching at St. Paul's Cross on 26th November 1559 Jewel issued a challenge for anyone to prove the Catholics case out of the Scriptures or the councils or Fathers for the first 600 years after Christ. He issued the challenge again in 1560 when Dr Henry Cole took on the challenge. The outcome of this challenge was Jewel's 'Apologia ecclesiae Anglicanae' published in 1562. According to Bishop Creighton, Jewel's work was the first methodical statement of the position of the Church of England against the Church of Rome.
Jewel's work received criticism from Thomas Harding, an Oxford contemporary and Catholic that entered a battle of words and thoughts with Jewel. Harding and Jewel would debate over the Anglo-Roman controversy; Jewel's theology was eventually enjoined upon the Church of England by Archbishop Bancroft during the reign of King James I.
Jewel was consulted by the government on questions such as the English attitude towards the Council of Trent, a highly important ecumenical council of the Catholic Church.
Jewel was giving a sermon at Lacock, Wiltshire when he collapsed, he was taken to Monkton Farleigh, a manor house built on the site of a Cluniac priory, where he died on 23rd September 1571. He was buried in Salisbury Catherdral.
Monkton Farleigh Manor
Bishop of SalisburyDr Henry ColeElizabeth IJohn JewelMary IMonkton FarleighOn this dayPeter MartyrPietro Martire VermigliTudor ChroniclesTudor courtTudor eraTudor HistoryTudors
On this day in 1557 – Sir John Cheke died
Sir John Cheke was born on 16th June 1514 to Peter Cheke and he was educated at St John's College, Cambridge where he became a fellow in 1529, whilst at Cambridge Cheke adopted the principal beliefs of the Reformation. His learning and reputation earned him the chair of Greek in 1540. Amongst his pupils were William Cecil, who later married Cheke's sister, and Roger Ascham, who later in The Scholemaster praised Cheke.
On 10th July 1544 Cheke was appointed as tutor to the future King, Edward. He was appointed to teach him 'of toungues, of the scripture, of philosophie and all liberal sciences.' Cheke continued in this position after Edward's ascension to the throne.
Cheke was active in his public life; he was the Member of Parliament for Bletchingley in 1547 and 1552-53. In 1548 he was made provost of King's College, Cambridge and was a commissioner that visited that the college along with the University of Oxford and Eton College and he was appointed alongside seven divines to draw a body of laws for the governance of the church.
On 11th October 1551 Cheke was knighted and in June 1553 he was appointed as one of the secretaries of state and joined the Privy Council.
Following the death of King Edward VI, Cheke followed the Duke of Norfolk in backing Lady Jane Grey and was appointed to the office of Secretary of State during her nine days as Queen. When Queen Mary I took the throne she placed Cheke in the Tower of London and confiscated all his property. He was released on 3rd September 1554 and was given permission to travel abroad where he first visited Basel before moving onto Italy and then finally settled in Strasbourg where he taught Greek.
In 1556 Cheke travelled to Brussels to visit his wife but on the return journey between Brussels and Antwerp he was arrested with Sir Peter Carew on the orders of King Philip II and taken back to England where he was sent to the Tower of London. Whilst imprisoned in the Tower he was visited by two priests and Dr John Feckenham, dean of St Paul's, Cheke had attempted to convert them to Protestantism and now in prison he feared being burned at the stake and so in an attempt to be saved he converted to Catholicism. On 15th July Cheke wrote a letter from the Tower regarding his belief in Catholicism in the hope that he would be spared making a public recantation. Cheke also wrote to the Queen in which he declared that he was willing to obey the law regarding religion.
Cheke was forced to make a public recantation on 4th October after a further two months in the Tower. He was made to read the longer form of recantation in front of the court and agreed to perform whatever penances the legate wished to pass. With all the humiliating recantations out of the way he was finally released from the Tower and was allowed to regain his lands that he was earlier forced to give up.
Ashamed of abandoning his faith Cheke died on 13th September 1557 in London at the home of Peter Osborne, friend and remembrancer of the exchequer. He was buried in the north chapel of St Alban's where a momument was built in his memory.
Sir John Cheke
Dr John FeckenhamEdward VIMary IOn this dayPhilip IIReligionSir John ChekeTudor ChroniclesTudor courtTudor eraTudor HistoryTudors
On this day in 1555 – Robert Samuel was burned at the stake
Robert Samuel was an English priest with the parish church of East Bergholt in the Stour Valley during King Edward VI's reign. Edward had allowed priests to marry and so Samuel lived peacefully with his wife within his parish.
When Queen Mary I took the throne she issued a law forbidding priests to be married and that any priest that was already married had to put aside their wives and return to a life of celibacy, Samuel's wife went to live in Ipswich.
Samuel's was a Protestant and believed in the reformed faith and therefore gained the attention of William Foster, an anti-reformist from Copdock, Foster was a Justice of the Peace. Foster was known to go after priests when he first found John Averth, celebrating mass in the home of Dr Rowland Taylor. Foster had Taylor arrested and deemed a traitor and after interrogation was burnt at the stake. Foster then set his sight on Samuel.
Samuel was removed from his parish but continued to secretly visit the homes of his congregation who still adhered to the reformed faith. Spies were sent to investigate these claims and a trap was laid out to catch him whilst visiting his wife, he was captured and dragged away from his wife's home. Samuel's was first imprisoned in the Ipswich town gaol.
Samuel wrote two letters to the Christian Congregation and his fellow sufferers saying;
"Be constant in obeying God, rather than men. For, although they slay our sinful bodies for God's verity, yet they cannot do it but by God's sufferance and goodwill, to His praise and honour, and to our eternal joy and felicity. For our blood shed for the Gospel shall preach it with more fruit, and greater furtherance, than did our mouths, lives and writings, as did the blood of Abel, Stephen, with many others more."
Samuels was moved to Norwich and then a prison within Norwich Castle to await the inquisition by Bishop Dr Hopton, it was here Samuel was subjected to torture where he was chained upright in a position where only the tips of his toes could touch the floor whilst only being fed a couple of mouthfuls of bread and water daily. After a few days of this Samuel claims that he was visited by Christ and he did not eat or drink again until he was sent to his death.
Samuel was sentenced to death by burning at the stake with the date set for 31st August 1555 on Corn Hill, Ipswich.
A woodcut depicting the burning of Robert Samuel
Mary IOn this dayReformationRobert SamuelTudor ChroniclesTudor eraTudor HistoryTudorsWilliam Foster
On this day in 1583 – William Latymer died
William Latymer was the third son of William Latymer and his wife Anne and was born in Freston, Suffolk in approximately 1498. His early life is unknown but he first became noticed when he became one of Anne Boleyn's chaplains and was a patron of the Reformation.
In 1536 he graduated Corpus Christi College, Cambridge with an M.A after seven years of studying.
Latymer was in Europe collecting books for the Queen when she was arrested and sent to the Tower of London Latymer was arrested at Sandwich upon his arrival back in England accused of bringing foreign books about the Protestant reformers into the country, Latymer handed the books over to the authorities and with that was released. After the fall of Anne Boleyn Latymer was the rector of Witnesham, Suffolk between 1538 until 1554 and also in 1538 he was appointed by King Henry VIII to Master of the College of St Laurence, Pountney.
In 1549 Latymer was involved in the trial of Edmund Bonner, a Catholic who in the reign of King Edward VI opposed the first Act of Uniformity and Book of Common Prayer and failed to enforce them in his church. As a punishment the Council required him to speak at St. Paul's Cross regarding royal authority. Bonner spoke but made significant omissions and as a result he was called to stand trial in which Thomas Cranmer presided over and Latymer was the principal witness.
In 1560 Latymer married Ellen English and when Queen Mary I took the throne as a married clergyman he was dismissed and retired to Ipswich.
When Queen Elizabeth I took the throne Latymer became her chaplain and also wrote 'The Cronickile of Anne Bulleyne' he focused on Anne's time as Queen and the speeches she gave regarding religion, education and charity. He is the only author to have written about Anne Boleyn that actually knew her.
Latymer died on 28th August 1583 and was buried in Peterborough Catherdral.
Peterborough Cathedral – the final resting place of William Latymer
Anne BoleynEdmund BonnerEdward VIElizabeth IMary IOn this dayReformationThe Cronickile of Anne BulleyneTudor ChroniclesTudor courtTudor eraTudor HistoryTudorsWilliam Latymer
On this day in 1590 – Pope Sixtus V died
Pope Sixtus V was born 13th December 1521 as Felice Peretti di Montalto at Grottammare. His parents were Pier Gentile and Marianna da Frontillo, they were a poor family. At an early age Felice entered a Franciscan friary at Montalto where he demonstrated the ability as a preacher and dialectician, a fable surrounds Felice as a young friar – it was said that Nostradamus approached Felice and he knelt in front of him and kissed the friar's robes exclaiming that he was kissing the robe of a future pope!
In 1552 Felice was noticed by Cardinal Rodolfo Pio da Carpi, the protector of the Franciscan order, Cardinal Ghislieri, the future Pope Pius V and Cardinal Caraffa, the future Pope Paul IV. With those three Cardinal's backing him Felice began to advance. He was sent to Venice as inquisitor general but he was recalled in 1560 as his conduct was too severe and arguments broke out regarding his behaviour.
After spending a short time as procurator of his order Felice in 1560 was attached to the Spanish legation that was being led by Cardinal Boncampagni, the future Pope Gregory XIII, they were sent to investigate claims of heresy against the Archbishop of Toledo, Bartolomé Carranza. Felice disliked Boncampagni and soon returned to Rome when Cardinal Ghislieri ascended to Pope Pius V. During the reign of Pope Pius V Felice was made an apostolic vicar of his order and then in 1570 a Cardinal. He took the name Cardinal Montalto.
Upon the death of Pope Pius V and the reign of Pope Gregory XIII whom Montalto disliked, Montalto lived in enforced retirement at his home the Villa Montalto that was originally built by Domenico Fontana and overlooked the Baths of Diocletian.
Pope Gregory's reign ended in 1585 when conclave began to seek a new Pope, it is believed that Montalto was selected due to his physical vigour as the other Cardinal's believed that it would lead to a long pontificate. Pope Gregory had left the ecclesiastical states in a bad way and Montalto who had chosen to become Pope Sixtus V became to correct the mess that had been left to him. He began by bringing thousands of brigands (highway robbers and plunderers) to justice bringing peace to his country. Sixtus also ordered the executions of anyone who had broken their vow of chastity.
Sixtus also set about restoring the finances of the church by selling offices and levying new taxes, he quickly built a surplus which he banked for emergencies such as a crusade or the defence of the Holy See. Sixtus also spent a large amount of money improving the country which included bringing water to the Acqua Felice hills, laying out new arteries in Rome which would connect the basilicas, he even made plans to replan the Colosseum as a silk spinning factory, plans that did not come to fruitation.
Pope Sixtus V completed the dome of St. Peter's, restoration of the aqueduct of Septimius Severus and the placing of four obelisks including one in Saint Peter's Square amongst many other projects. Sixtus also restricted the Catholic Church by limited the College of Cardinals to just 70 but he did double the number of congregations.
Pope Sixtus renewed the excommunication of Queen Elizabeth I but at the same time mistrusted King Philip II of Spain. By renewing Elizabeth's excommunication he granted Spain a large subsidy that would go towards the Armada, but only when they landed on English soil, saving the Papacy a fortune. In the events that the Spanish did land in England Sixtus had Cardinal Allen prepare 'An Admonition to the Nobility and Laity of England' that would be published and distributed across England.
Pope Sixtus V died on 27th August 1590
Pope Sixtus V
Baths of Diocletiancounter reformationElizabeth IFelice Peretti di MontaltoMontaltoOn this dayPope Gregory XIIIPope Pius VPope Sixtus VReligionTudor ChroniclesTudors
On this day in 1534 – 140 Friars Observant were evicted from their convent
On 11th August 1534 140 Friars Observant were evicted from their convent in Greenwich by King Henry VIII and his council over their support for Katherine of Aragon as well as their refusal to accept the King as the Supreme Head of the Church. Henry was hoping that if he could get the Friars at Greenwich on side then the rest of the country would follow.
Out of the 140 evicted some were relocated to the Grey Friars where they were treated worse than if they were imprisoned, other friars were able to flee abroad whilst a few were imprisoned in London. Out of those expelled 31 died soon after. In the state Letters and Papers they were listed as followed;
"John Spens died at London; also Thos. Artte, Thos. Kellam, Jeremy Manson, John Kinge, John Kyxe and Nic. Harfforthe. Judocus Asterdam died at Canterbury; Andrew Danolde at Greenwich; John Scryvner at Reading; also Ant. Lenes. Alex. Hyll died in patria; Theodoric Barkham at Greenwich; James Wylyamson at Colchester; Cornelius Symondys in patria; also Edw. Pope and John Biltone. Wm. ELlel at Dancaster. Gerard Dyryson in partia. John Martyne at Newcastle. Rob Bynkys at Reading. Fras. Caro at Bristol. Hen. Heltryne in partia; also Adrian Dehohe, Thos. Danyell and Fras. Carre. Lewis Wylkynson at Canterbury. Bryan Fysshborne at Yarmouth. Wm Hasarde at Dunwyche. John Wells at Ipswich. Robt. Bakare at Doncaster."
Of those who did move to other friaries their time there was not long as the dissolution of the monasteries soon began.
Some of the friars were later beatified by Rome including John Forest who was eventually freed after he succumbed to Henry's demands and signed anti Catholic oaths. However, he later regretted this decision and in 1538 was burned at the stake.
Stained glass window of John Forest
Friars Observanthenry VIIIKatherine of AragonObservant Friars of GreenwichOn this daySupreme Head of the Church of EnglandTudor ChroniclesTudor eraTudor HistoryTudors

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Founded 1946. Organisation established to promote the interests of Poles living in the UK and to promote the history and culture of Poland among British people. Submitted evidence to the Inquiry of more than 50 incidents of hate crime around the country and their subsequent reporting in the local press.


text:
XEMP-AM è una stazione radio operante in Messico con sede a Città del Messico. Di proprietà dell'Instituto Mexicano de la Radio, XEMP-AM trasmette sulla frequenza 710 AM programmi principalmente a contenuto regionale messicano sotto il nome di "La Nueva 710".

Storia
XEMP-AM fu creata il 1º novembre 1961 con il nome di "La charrita del cuadrante", una stazione quasi completamente dedicata alla musica ranchera. All'inizio era di proprietà di Mercedes Rivero Arredondo de Turro che, nel 1965, chiese una controparte ad onde corte che avrebbe trasmesso sulla frequenza 11,740 kHz come XEMP-OC. Il 30 settembre 1976, XEMP fu venduta a Radio Visión Mexicana, S.A.
Nel 1983 l'IMER la incorporò ed assunse il nome di Opus 710, con una programmazione orientata alla cultura, tuttavia, nel settembre 1985, in occasione del terremoto che colpì Città del Messico, XEMP divenne una stazione orientata all'informazione con il nome di Radio Información. Ulteriori cambiamenti avvennero nel 1990 quando la stazione si focalizzò sulla musica tropicale e nel 2008 quando, sotto il nome di "Interferencia 7Diez", orientò la sua programmazione verso il rock in lingua spagnola.

Infine, il 1º febbraio 2014 la stazione tornò alle sue radici con una programmazione volta principalmente alla musica regionale messicana.

Note

Collegamenti esterni
 Sito di La Nueva 710
 Informazioni su XEMP

Emittenti radiofoniche messicane

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself.  Now God had brought Daniel into favour and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs.  And the prince of the eunuchs said unto Daniel, I fear my lord the king, who hath appointed your meat and your drink: for why should he see your faces worse liking than the children which are of your sort? then shall ye make me endanger my head to the king.  Then said Daniel to Melzar, whom the prince of the eunuchs had set over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah,  Prove thy servants, I beseech thee, ten days; and let them give us pulse to eat, and water to drink.  Then let our countenances be looked upon before thee, and the countenance of the children that eat of the portion of the king's meat: and as thou seest, deal with thy servants.  So he consented to them in this matter, and proved them ten days.  And at the end of ten days their countenances appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than all the children which did eat the portion of the king's meat.  Thus Melzar took away the portion of their meat, and the wine that they should drink; and gave them pulse.
It was abnormal for them to look healthy and be healthy and strong on that diet.
In the new testament no food is forbidden.The only instruction we are given in the new testament that still remains is we should not be gluttons.