text:
Pledge Trilogy
By (author) Kimberly Derting
CD-Audio US$7.87
In the violent country of Ludania, the language you speak determines what class you are, and there are harsh punishments if you forget your place--looking a member of a higher class in the eye can result in immediate execution. Seventeen-year-old Charlaina (Charlie for short) can understand all languages, a dangerous ability she's been hiding her whole life. Her only place of release is the drug-filled underground club scene, where people go to shake off the oppressive rules of the world they live in. There, she meets a beautiful and mysterious boy who speaks a language she's never heard, and her secret is almost exposed. Through a series of violent upheavals, it becomes clear that Charlie herself is the key to forcing out the oppressive power structure of her kingdom....
Publication date 15 Nov 2011
Publisher Simon & Schuster
Publication City/Country New York, NY, United States
Bestsellers rank 129,626
Kimberly Derting
The Pledge Trilogy
The Final Sacrifice
Kyrsten Newlon
Derting's chilling dystopia envisions an America ruled by monarchy, most of its cities razed, and its citizens straitjacketed in a caste system divided by language...[and is] right on when depicting the bonds of family, friendship, and first love.--Publishers Weekly
2 8% (2,345)
THE PLEDGE pairs dystopian setting with a classical form of government, the monarchy. Kimberly Derting takes us to a future world ruled by Queen Sabara. To the land of Ludania, where people are divided by their language. They could be executed if they ever try to speak or understand another than their own language. Those numerous languages were occasionally mentioned, unfortunately we don�t get a sample of their sounds. It�s an interesting concept that Kimberly Derting gave a woman the power to rule the kingdom and decide over life and death. We are fast introduced to all the rules and restrictions determining daily life of citizens and our heroine Charlaina. She understands every language and that mystery really got me. How come she can do that? I was so eager to find out what was behind that special ability of hers. The story is told from two point of views. Our main character is Charlie who tells the story in the perspective of 1st person narrator. Then we got a third person POV of the Queen which creates a great contrast between protagonist and antagonist. It took some time for the story to lure me in. Since that one point where a few secrets and a growing romance start becoming a more dominant part of the story, I got more involved in Charlie's story. Unfortunately sometimes the love story between Charlie and that guy, Max, felt a bit too vague. Kimberly Derting captures the moment of Charlie being on the fence about her growing feelings for Max, but at some point Charlie�s struggles were just too much for me to take any longer. It was not that turbulent and cute love story that I�m a fan of, but effortlessly fit the overall style of THE PLEDGE. THE PLEDGE shows that the same author can write books that couldn�t be more different. I�m a huge fan of Kimberly Derting�s THE BODY FINDER series and am a bit spoiled when it comes to mystery-action factor and super sweet romance. THE PLEDGE is much slower in pace and even Kimberly�s writing, which I know is really really good, didn�t feel that impressive in her first book in the THE PLEDGE series. 3,5/5 ***/* THE PLEDGE- A dystopian read, highlighted by historical character! THE PLEDGE is definitely no comparison to Kimberly Derting�s THE BODY FINDER series, which is one of my favourites. Several moments of surprise, a well developed course of actions and the general good intuition for an interesting world though, make THE PLEDGE a book worth giving a try.show more
by MissPageTurner
4.5 stars Ludania is a country made up of classes kind of like we have in our world -- upper, middle, and lower. But the similarities end there. The classes in Ludania are very strict and you are not really allowed to mingle with another class -- right down to there being completely separate languages within the upper classes just to segregate those below them in rank. But while the upper classes may seem to rule the society, they are all ruled by a single queen, and this queen is not a softy. When I first dived into The Pledge, I was excited because a few friends had told me it was very good. But then again there were also some not-so-good reviews for it as well. So going in I wasn't sure what to expect entirely. The common trend with the negative reviews though seemed to be when comparing it to Derting's Body Finder series. But I haven't read her Body Finder series yet (although it's on my list), so I didn't have that to compare it to. Perhaps that's a good thing because I really loved this book. This was a book that was very hard for me to put down once I picked it up. It's fast-paced for most of the book, which I really liked. Ludania is sort of in the middle of a revolution, so there's a lot of external stuff going on outside of Charlie's personal life. Of course, her own little world is about to collide with the big one around her, but that's for you to discover if you decide to read this book. But anyways, I loved the pacing and the writing style flowed very well and was easy to get hooked into. Charlie was sort of your typical underdog heroine in the beginning. She has the oh-so-pretty friend who get's all the guys' attention and Charlie's left in the shadows. It's been a bit overdone, but I think that's because most of us have felt that way at one point or another so it's easy to relate to. But Charlie holds her own too. She may be of a lower class and she may be the underdog of her little clique, but she's strong and level-headed. She's a good person and being inside her head was a pleasure. Of course, the nice thing about this book is that we get more than just Charlie's point-of-view. We get several others as well. My other favorite would probably be Max. I really loved his character. He's very sweet and romantic and even though Charlie pushes him away for pretty valid trust reasons, he doesn't give up, which I loved. So overall I really enjoyed this one and had a hard time putting it down. I was thinking it was five-star material for most of the book, but the ending felt a little too abrupt for me. Although there will be more books in the series and it didn't really leave off with a cliffhanger. But I still felt like the ending was kind of rushed compared to the pacing in the rest of the book. Even so, I loved it overall and I will definitely be reading on in the series!show more
by I\'m Loving Books
Once I started reading The Pledge, I couldn't stop! I didn't think that I would like this book as much as I did, because something about the description of the language barrier in the blurb didn't connect with me, but once I started reading Charlie's story, I fell in love with her character and had to know more. Derting is a master of characters, I was suspicious yet charmed by Max, fiercely wanting to protect Angelina, and not only that, she is great at giving only the information you need in that moment, and not a smidge more to keep me asking questions, being surprised, and needing to know more. The world building and the pacing was great, and this makes me think that I have really missed something by not reading The Body Finder. There were so many things that I wasn't expecting that effected the storyline and it's a pleasant surprised to be completely blindsided by things like that when I can sometimes sniff a dystopia "twist" a mile away. If you like fantasy or dystopias, then I recommend to give The Pledge a chance, you might fall in love like I did.show more
by Brandi Kosiner (Brandi Breathes Books)
In the violent country of Ludania, where merely looking at someone who speaks a different language than you can condemn you to the gallows, Charlie lives in fear of her neighbors discovering her unique ability to understand all languages. When she meets a boy who speaks a language she has never heard before, Charlie is swept up into centuries old intrigue and a forbidden romance.show more
by Safari


text:
/** section: wysihat
 *  class WysiHat.Toolbar
**/
WysiHat.Toolbar = function() {
  var editor;
  var element;

  /**
   *  new WysiHat.Toolbar(ed)
   *  - ed (WysiHat.Editor): the editor object that you want to attach to.
   *
   *  This was renamed from 'editor' in the original wysihat code, since I
   *  had to add a class level 'editor' object, causing a conflict with the
   *  names.
   *
   *  Creates a toolbar element above the editor. The WysiHat.Toolbar object
   *  has many helper methods to easily add buttons to the toolbar.
   *
   *  This toolbar class is not required for the Editor object to function.
   *  It is merely a set of helper methods to get you started and to build
   *  on top of. If you are going to use this class in your application,
   *  it is highly recommended that you subclass it and override methods
   *  to add custom functionality.
  **/
  function initialize(ed) {
    editor = ed;
    element = createToolbarElement();
  }

  /**
   *  WysiHat.Toolbar#createToolbarElement() -> Element
   *
   *  Creates a toolbar container element and inserts it right above the
   *  original textarea element. The element is a div with the class
   *  'editor_toolbar'.
   *
   *  You can override this method to customize the element attributes and
   *  insert position. Be sure to return the element after it has been
   *  inserted.
  **/
  function createToolbarElement() {
    var toolbar = $('

');
    editor.before(toolbar);
    return toolbar;
  }

  /**
   *  WysiHat.Toolbar#addButtonSet(set) -> undefined
   *  - set (Array): The set array contains nested arrays that hold the
   *  button options, and handler.
   *
   *  Adds a button set to the toolbar.
  **/
  function addButtonSet(set) {
    $(set).each(function(index, button){
      addButton(button);
    });
  }

  /**
   *  WysiHat.Toolbar#addButton(options[, handler]) -> undefined
   *  - options (Hash): Required options hash
   *  - handler (Function): Function to bind to the button
   *
   *  The options hash accepts two required keys, name and label. The label
   *  value is used as the link's inner text. The name value is set to the
   *  link's class and is used to check the button state. However the name
   *  may be omitted if the name and label are the same. In that case, the
   *  label will be down cased to make the name value. So a "Bold" label
   *  will default to "bold" name.
   *
   *  The second optional handler argument will be used if no handler
   *  function is supplied in the options hash.
   *
   *  toolbar.addButton({
   *    name: 'bold', label: "Bold" }, function(editor) {
   *      editor.boldSelection();
   *  });
   *
   *  Would create a link,
   *  "Bold"
  **/
  function addButton(options, handler) {
    if (!options['name']) {
      options['name'] = options['label'].toLowerCase();
    }
    var name = options['name'];

    var button = createButtonElement(element, options);

    var handler = buttonHandler(name, options);
    observeButtonClick(button, handler);

    var handler = buttonStateHandler(name, options);
    observeStateChanges(button, name, handler);
  }

  /**
   *  WysiHat.Toolbar#createButtonElement(toolbar, options) -> Element
   *  - toolbar (Element): Toolbar element created by createToolbarElement
   *  - options (Hash): Options hash that pass from addButton
   *
   *  Creates individual button elements and inserts them into the toolbar
   *  container. The default elements are 'a' tags with a 'button' class.
   *
   *  You can override this method to customize the element attributes and
   *  insert positions. Be sure to return the element after it has been
   *  inserted.
  **/
  function createButtonElement(toolbar, options) {
    var button = $('' + options['label'] + '');
    button.addClass("button");
    button.addClass(options['name']);
    button.addClass(options['cssClass']);
    toolbar.append(button);

    return button;
  }

  /**
   *  WysiHat.Toolbar#buttonHandler(name, options) -> Function
   *  - name (String): Name of button command: 'bold', 'italic'
   *  - options (Hash): Options hash that pass from addButton
   *
   *  Returns the button handler function to bind to the buttons onclick
   *  event. It checks the options for a 'handler' attribute otherwise it
   *  defaults to a function that calls execCommand with the button name.
  **/
  function buttonHandler(name, options) {
    if (options.handler)
      return options.handler;
    else if (options['handler'])
      return options['handler'];
    else
      return function(editor) { editor.execCommand(name); };
  }

  /**
   *  WysiHat.Toolbar#observeButtonClick(element, handler) -> undefined
   *  - element (Element): Button element
   *  - handler (Function): Handler function to bind to element
   *
   *  Bind handler to elements onclick event.
  **/
  function observeButtonClick(element, handler) {
    $(element).click(function() {
      handler(editor);
      //event.stop();
      $(document.activeElement).trigger("selection:change");
      return false;
    });
  }

  /**
   *  WysiHat.Toolbar#buttonStateHandler(name, options) -> Function
   *  - name (String): Name of button command: 'bold', 'italic'
   *  - options (Hash): Options hash that pass from addButton
   *
   *  Returns the button handler function that checks whether the button
   *  state is on (true) or off (false). It checks the options for a
   *  'query' attribute otherwise it defaults to a function that calls
   *  queryCommandState with the button name.
  **/
  function buttonStateHandler(name, options) {
    if (options.query)
      return options.query;
    else if (options['query'])
      return options['query'];
    else
      return function(editor) { return editor.queryCommandState(name); };
  }

  /**
   *  WysiHat.Toolbar#observeStateChanges(element, name, handler) -> undefined
   *  - element (Element): Button element
   *  - name (String): Button name
   *  - handler (Function): State query function
   *
   *  Determines buttons state by calling the query handler function then
   *  calls updateButtonState.
  **/
  function observeStateChanges(element, name, handler) {
    var previousState;
    editor.bind("selection:change", function() {
      var state = handler(editor);
      if (state != previousState) {
        previousState = state;
        updateButtonState(element, name, state);
      }
    });
  }

  /**
   *  WysiHat.Toolbar#updateButtonState(element, name, state) -> undefined
   *  - element (Element): Button element
   *  - name (String): Button name
   *  - state (Boolean): Whether button state is on/off
   *
   *  If the state is on, it adds a 'selected' class to the button element.
   *  Otherwise it removes the 'selected' class.
   *
   *  You can override this method to change the class name or styles
   *  applied to buttons when their state changes.
  **/
  function updateButtonState(elem, name, state) {
    if (state)
      $(elem).addClass('selected');
    else
      $(elem).removeClass('selected');
  }

  return {
    initialize:           initialize,
    createToolbarElement: createToolbarElement,
    addButtonSet:         addButtonSet,
    addButton:            addButton,
    createButtonElement:  createButtonElement,
    buttonHandler:        buttonHandler,
    observeButtonClick:   observeButtonClick,
    buttonStateHandler:   buttonStateHandler,
    observeStateChanges:  observeStateChanges,
    updateButtonState:    updateButtonState
  };
};

/**
 * WysiHat.Toolbar.ButtonSets
 *
 *  A namespace for various sets of Toolbar buttons. These sets should be
 *  compatible with WysiHat.Toolbar, and can be added to the toolbar with:
 *  toolbar.addButtonSet(WysiHat.Toolbar.ButtonSets.Basic);
**/
WysiHat.Toolbar.ButtonSets = {};

/**
 * WysiHat.Toolbar.ButtonSets.Basic
 *
 *  A basic set of buttons: bold, underline, and italic. This set is
 *  compatible with WysiHat.Toolbar, and can be added to the toolbar with:
 *  toolbar.addButtonSet(WysiHat.Toolbar.ButtonSets.Basic);
**/
WysiHat.Toolbar.ButtonSets.Basic = [
  { label: "Bold" },
  { label: "Italic" },
  { label: "Underline" }
];

/**
 * WysiHat.Toolbar.ButtonSets.Standard
 *
 * The most common set of buttons that I will be using.
**/
WysiHat.Toolbar.ButtonSets.Standard = [
  { label: "Bold"},
  { label: "Italic"},
  { label: "Underline"},
  { label: "Bullets", handler: function(editor) { return editor.toggleUnorderedList(); } },
  { label: "Numbers", handler: function(editor) { return editor.toggleOrderedList(); } }
];

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


Quality spun steel wok 28 cm is made traditionally in England. It has the features of a cast iron and a carbon steel pan but it is much lighter.
For a natural non-stick finish the pan is pre-seasoned with flax oil so you can use it right away! Re-seasoning is highly recommended in order to maintain and improve pan's cooking features f.ex. non-stick coating. Pan is durable 99,1% pure iron. Strong handle is riverted allowing easier handling. Pan is designed for frying and browning in high temperatures. Wooden handle covers are removable allowing you to use the pan in oven or grill. Suitable for all types of hobs, grills and ovens.
Hand made in England. Wooden handle is British oak. Family business focuses on making quality traditional cookware in Shropshire. Materials are sourced locally and from neighbouring counties. Products are packed in recycled materials.
Netherton Foundry manufactures traditional hand-made kitchenware in Shropshire, England. 75% of all raw materials used in the products are sourced from Shropshire and its neighbouring counties. Products are pre-seasoned at the factory and are therefore ready for use. The spun steel products are almost 50% lighter than traditional carbon steel, but have similar features and products are made for lifetime use.


text:
Maye lifts North Carolina A&T past East Tennessee St. 69-67
Posted: Dec 14, 2021 / 10:45 PM MST / Updated: Dec 14, 2021 / 10:45 PM MST
JOHNSON CITY, Tenn. (AP)Tyler Maye had a season-high 21 points and made the game-winning shot as North Carolina A&T edged East Tennessee State 69-67 on Tuesday night.
Kameron Langley drove to the left of the arc and then passed to Maye, who scored from under the net with 7.2 seconds remaining. Ty Brewer missed for East Tennessee State at the buzzer.
Marcus Watson had 19 points and 10 rebounds for North Carolina A&T (4-8), which won its first road game of the season. Langley finished with 10 points, six rebounds and six assists.
Jordan King had 15 points for the Buccaneers (7-4). Ledarrius Brewer added 14 points. Ty Brewer had 13 points and three blocks.
Elements of this were generated by Automated Insights, http://www.automatedinsights.com/ap, using data from STATS LLC, https://www.stats.com
Owner of Albuquerque smoke shop accused of trafficking drugs

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Sofia Kenin Edges Out Kvitova To Reach French Open Final
Sofia Kenin produced an impressive performance to beat Petra Kvitova 6-4 7-5 and advance to her second Grand Slam final at the 2020 French Open.
Michael Stafford-Jones
Sofia Kenin (@rolandgarros on Twitter)
The American, 21, beat Ashleigh Barty and Garbine Muguruza in successive rounds to claim the Australian Open in January. But she has had to work hard to reach the same stage at Roland Garros. She has needed three sets to defeat four of her six opponents so far.
"Kvitova's such a tough player," Kenin said in her on-court interview. "She's got a great aggressive game and a huge serve. So I knew I needed my bring my A game to win and I'm super-proud of myself (that I did that)."
Kenin made a very strong start to the match. She played high-class tennis to establish a 4-1 lead after just 12 minutes.
However, Kvitova dialled up the aggression and hit a couple of winners to get one of the breaks back. She then battled hard in the next two games. Unfortunately for the Czech, she did not manage to break again and the American stayed ahead at 5-3.
Although Kvitova then held to love to apply pressure, Kenin held her nerve to get through a tough service game and clinch the first set.
Kvitova pays for missed chances
Petra Kvitova (@rolandgarros on Twitter)
The second set mostly hinged on three crucial games which could have gone either way. In the first, Kenin saved a break point to make it 2-2.
In the second, the American dragged Kvitova around the court cleverly to take the game to deuce. Then she hit a winner on break point to seize the advantage.
In third critical game, the Czech really should have broken. She had three chances to do it but she failed to put enough pressure on Kenin's serve and the World No.6 eventually held to move 4-2 ahead.
The American suffered a brief lapse in game ten when she made three unforced errors to hand the Czech a break. However, Kvitova wasted her lifeline. She missed far too many first serves in the next game and Kenin punished her by breaking again to move to within one game of victory.
The final game summed up a frustrating afternoon for the World No.11. She earned her 12th break point of the match with a scintillating forehand winner. Then she wasted it by making three consecutive unforced errors which handed the American the win.
Kenin must deal with Swiatek's excellent return game in the final
Break points are always vital in any tennis match. But they could be particularly important when Kenin takes on Iga Swiatek in the 2020 French Open final.
The Pole has returned brilliantly throughout the tournament, so if she earns and takes enough break points against the American, she has a great chance of victory.
On the other hand, if Kenin can restrict the number of opportunities Swiatek has on her serve, and save most of the break points she faces, then her chances of winning will increase dramatically.
Related Topics:2020 FRENCH OPENPetra KvitovaSofia Kenin
Underdog Iga Swiatek Clinches Historic French Open Title
Iga Swiatek Blazes Into First Grand Slam Final
Maria Sakkari Upsets Top Seed Kenin, Faces In-Form Sabalenka Next In Abu Dhabi
WTA Abu Dhabi Daily Preview: All Third Round Singles Matches to be Played on Sunday
Freak Flipkens Injury Sends Sofia Kenin Into Abu Dhabi Third Round
WTA Abu Dhabi Daily Preview: Sofia Kenin Headlines Friday's Action
Sofia Kenin could meet Garbine Muguruza in the quarter final in Abu Dhabi
Dayana Yastremska Heads To Australia Despite Doping Violation
Did the 20-year-old break the rules with her trip?
Tennis Australia says they are 'investigating' after it emerged that Dayana Yastremska boarded a plane funded by the governing body despite failing a drugs test.
Last week the International Tennis Federation issued a statement confirming that the Ukrainian tennis star has been issued with a provisional suspension after testing positive for the banned substance mesterolone metabolite. An anabolic agent prohibited by the World Anti-Doping Agency which can be used for the treatment of people with low testosterone. Yastremska was pictured boarding a plane to Australia on Thursday in a post uploaded by two-time Grand Slam champion Svetlana Kuznetsova which has since been deleted.
Dayana Yastremska may be provisionally suspended after failing a drugs test but still appears to be on her way to Australia… pic.twitter.com/Ilsn71ZmIg
— George Bellshaw (@BellshawGeorge) January 14, 2021
Yastremska has denied any wrongdoing and says she has 'scientific evidence' that her positive test was a result of contamination. Although she didn't elaborate any further as to what that evidence is. The world No.29 has the right to appeal her provisional suspension but according to the latest ITF statement she hasn't done so. One way her ban can be lifted is if the appeals board accepts her contamination argument which would allow her to play right away.
"Only a very low concentration of mesterolone metabolite was detected in my urine," Yastremska wrote in a statement. "Given that low concentration and my negative test two weeks earlier, I have received scientific advice that the result is consistent with some form of contamination event."
Despite Yastremska's plea, it is unclear as to if she or Tennis Australia has broken any rules. As of January 15h the ITF still lists her as a player who is provisionally suspended from the sport. Richard Ings, who is the former chair of the Australian anti-doping agency, points out that suspended players are not allowed to participate in any activity organised by a tournament. Raising questions as to if a Tennis Australia funded plane journey counts as one of these 'activities.'
The only scenarios I can see are:
(1) She appealed and was successful but no one announced it. A very long shot that one.
(2) She has a pending appeal and she is being allowed to travel just in case.
I hope she reimburses everyone involved should she (inevitably IMO) lose.
— Richard Ings : Stay COVID Safe (@ringsau) January 14, 2021
Yastremska is currently on the Australian Open entry list and is set to be allowed to train during her 14-day quarantine like other players unless anything changes. Tennis Australia has not made a public statement but news agency AAP has confirmed that an investigation has been launched. Should it turn out that the 20-year-old is ineligible to play, it is unclear if she would be required to pay back the cost of her plane trip.
The Australian Open starts on February 8th.
Madison Keys latest player to test positive for Coronavirus
Madison Keys ruled out of the Australian Open after testing positive for COVID-19.
Elias Laradi
Madison Keys (@SporArena - Twitter)
The American tested positive for the first time and will miss the first grand slam of the year.
Madison Keys has officially tested positive for the coronavirus. She announced the news on social media and says she will, unfortunately, miss the Australian Open.
"Hi everyone, I just wanted to let you know that I, unfortunately, tested positive for Covid-19 before I was suppose to fly to Australia. I'm very disappointed to not be able to play in the coming weeks after training hard in the off-season and knowing Tennis Australia and the tours did so much to make these events happen.
"I am self isolating at home and will continue to follow all the necessary health precautions. I look forward to be back on tour next month.
"Thank you for all your support.
"Stay Healthy and safe.
Keys is the latest player to have tested positive after Andy Murray revealed he had a positive test while Tennys Sandgren had tested positive but was given the green light to travel.
Two players in men's qualifying in Doha tested positive and were immediatly removed from the draw. Apparently if you test positive for the first time you are not allowed to travel but if you already tested positive and show no symptoms there is a chance you will continue to test positive before the effects go away.
Players are traveling this week to Australia and will be mandated to follow the 14 day quarantine with the exception of training five hours a day. The Australian Open begins on February 8th.
While most players will be quarantining in Melbourne both Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic have confirmed they will do their quarantine in Adelaide.
Unstoppable Aryna Sabalenka Storms To Abu Dhabi Title
Another clinical performance has secured the Belarusian her third consecutive title and a new career-high ranking position.
Aryna Sabalenka's winning run shows no signs of stopping anytime soon after she powered her way to the Abu Dhabi title on Wednesday.
The fourth seed needed just over an hour to defeat Russia's Veronika Kudermetova 6-2, 6-2, in what was a largely one-sided encounter in the Middle East. Sabalenka utilized her power to her advantage as she fired five aces and 18 winners past her opponent who was playing in her first WTA final at the age of 23. Overall she won almost twice as many points (63-37) than Kudermetova.
With both players holding their ground early on, Sabalenka started to dominate midway through the opening set with the help of a four-game winning streak. Leading 3-2 on serve, she broke her Russian rival twice in a row to clinch the 6-2 lead. Throughout the opener the world No.10 dropped just five points behind her serve.
It was a familiar pattern in the second frame with Sabalenka continuing to dismantle Kudermetova's fragile serve. Overall, she broke six consecutive times in the final with four of those occurring in the second set alone. Easing to a game away from victory, she did experience a blunder after losing one of her breaks. However, there would be no chance of a Kudermetova comeback as Sabalenka closed out the match in the following game with her rival hitting a forehand error on match point.
"I'm really proud of the fact that I was fighting no matter what this week," the new champion reflected on her performance. "Some matches I didn't feel my serve and some matches I didn't feel my backhand or forehand, but I just kept fighting and finding my shots, and this is what I'm really proud of. I'm really happy with this title."
The win extends Sabalenka's unbeaten run on the Tour to 15 wins. She has now won three titles in a row after ending 2020 triumphing in both Ostrava and Linz. As a result of her latest triumph, Sabalenka will rise to a ranking high of seventh in the world on Monday.
There is also a silver lining for underdog Kudermetova who defeated Elina Svitolina and Marta Kostyuk earlier in the tournament. Her run to the final will move her up the rankings to a career high of 36th. She has already scored five wins over top 10 opponents so far in her career.
"Aryna's playing good. She played unbelievable today," Kudermetova said. "She didn't give me a lot of chances. She tried to keep every ball on the court, she tried to attack, and when she had her chances she went full power on the court. She also fights until the end—that's why she's a top player."
Sabalenka's surge on the Tour has sparked high expectations for her going into the Australian Open where she is hoping to break new ground in a Grand Slam.
"I was doing everything I could in each match from the beginning (in Abu Dhabi) and I'm happy to start the season with a title," Sabalenka said. "I'm going to Australia, I'm confident with one thing, that I will do everything I can to win matches."
Despite her success on the WTA Tour, she has only reached the fourth round of a major once at the 2018 US Open.


Futeki has been mixing records since the beginning of 2004 but his love for electronic music started much earlier in the late 90′s with Prodigy albums and Sasha & Digweed mix cd's.
His record collection is nowadays focused on different styles of house and techno and in the music the common thing has always been bass driven rhythms with a soulful groove and a beat that makes the dance floors move.
Up until today Futeki has spinned records in clubs and festivals all over Sweden with focus on his hometown of Gothenburg, Sweden. International gigs have taken him to clubs such as Salon zur wilden Renate in Berlin, Double Six Club in Bali Indonesia and Culture Box in Copenhagen.
In 2007 he launched the house/techno club Lokita together with two dj friends which was a success with internationally well known dj's as guests! Lokita was also nominated at 2008′s SMC (Scandinavian Music Convention) in the "Best Club" category.
In 2008 he was picked as one of the winners in the Arvika Festival's and WESC's dj competition winning a gig at a dj stage at the 15 000 people festival in Arvika, Sweden.


Showing "Black Polka Flower" search results as seen on April 23, 2019.
Shop for Black Polka Flower - top sales, deals, offers, and Flower Black Polka discounts are available 24/7/365 at Shopneter.com.
Customers who search Black Polka Flower also buy this items: Jelly Pack, Style Combat Boots, lx400 Acf Telescope.


Antimicrobial stewardship is ensuring the best use of available antimicrobial agents like antibiotics, so they continue to work effectively.
Taking antibiotics when they are not needed can cause some bacteria to become resistant to the antibiotic. Each year in the United States, an estimated 2 million people get serious infections with bacteria that are resistant to antibiotics, and at least 23,000 people die each year as a result of these infections.
The best way to help prevent antimicrobial resistance is to learn the ABCs of antibiotics.
A – Ask. Ask your child's healthcare provider, "Are these antibiotics necessary?".
B – Bacteria. Antibiotics do not kill viruses. They only kill bacteria. Antibiotics are not needed for common illnesses like colds, most sore throats, the flu, and even some ear infections. These illnesses are often caused by viruses.
C – Complete. If an antibiotic is prescribed, administer all of it exactly as instructed (even if your child is feeling better).


And are these the men, I thought to myself, that I must live with so long? these the men I am to eat with, and sleep with all the time? And besides, I now began to see, that they were not going to be very kind to me; but I will tell all about that when the proper time comes.
I have dwelt on this point, as being a necessary part of a perfectly just conception of Utility or Happiness, considered as the directive rule of human conduct. But it is by no means an indispensable condition to the acceptance of the utilitarian standard; for that standard is not the agent's own greatest happiness, but the greatest amount of happiness altogether; and if it may possibly be doubted whether a noble character is always the happier for its nobleness, there can be no doubt that it makes other people happier, and that the world in general is immensely a gainer by it. Utilitarianism, therefore, could only attain its end by the general cultivation of nobleness of character, even if each individual were only benefited by the nobleness of others, and his own, so far as happiness is concerned, were a sheer deduction from the benefit. But the bare enunciation of such an absurdity as this last, renders refutation superfluous.
slot casino games free download,The merchant started, apparently, almost as if to retreat. Part ii., c. i.As I was standing looking round me, the chief mate approached in a great hurry about something, and seeing me in his way, cried out, By sound of conch-shell it was proclaimed before the palace, on the beach, and at the head of the valley, that Noomai, King of Hannamanoo, and friend of Hardee-Hardee, the white, kept open heart and table for all tattooers whatsoever; but to entitle themselves to this hospitality, they were commanded to practise without fee upon the meanest native soliciting their services.
Now, our doctor was a serious old fellow, much given to metaphysics, and used to talk about original sin. All that Sunday morning, he sat over his boiling pots, reading out of a book which was very much soiled and covered with grease spots: for he kept it stuck into a little leather strap, nailed to the keg where he kept the fat skimmed off the water in which the salt beef was cooked. I could hardly believe my eyes when I found this book was the Bible.


Looking for something fun and different to do? These glass classes are fun and easy!
Think you are not artistic or creative? You will be amazed at what beautiful pieces you can create with glass.
We can even schedule a private class if you have friends/family that would like to participate too.
What a great way to celebrate a special occasion or to simply get together to have fun creating!
There needs to be 3 minimum and 5 max participants.
Browse the list of scheduled classes by clicking this link.
Additional classes are being added regularly so check back often.
Admission: Classes range from $40 to $55. Please contact Michelle via email, phone or text before registering for a class or to schedule a private class as classes will need a minimum of three students to hold.


text:
Putting Some News In Our News Feeds
Comments Off on Putting Some News In Our News Feeds
photo by Mohamed Nanabhay
Picking up some news as an afterthought remains a familiar practice even in the digital age, whether it's grabbing a New York Times with your Starbucks or a USA Today while waiting to board an airplane.
For a company with deep pockets, CNN may become the next great news impulse buy.
Rupert Murdoch has made a bold, $75 billion bid for Time Warner. While the purchase is far from a certainty, one of the many possible side effects of such a deal would be CNN going up for sale, in order to avoid antitrust problems due to conflicts with Fox News. CNN's sale, if it happened, could fetch an estimated $6 billion to $8 billion, an unnamed person familiar with the matter told Bloomberg.
Speculation abounds regarding which company would want to pick up CNN, should the cable network become available. Popular guesses include CBS, Disney and Yahoo. Google, while less likely, has also been mentioned as a contender; Porter Bibb, managing partner at Mediatech Capital Partners, pointed out that the network could be a perfect complement to Google-owned YouTube.
This speculation got me thinking: What about Facebook?
Facebook announced earlier this year that it would acquire WhatsApp for $19 billion. That price was around three times the estimated value of CNN, for a company that had, at most, $300 million in revenues at the time the deal was announced. I have no opinion about the WhatsApp deal, mostly because I have almost no idea what WhatsApp does. (At my age, this ignorance is permitted, though not encouraged. Thanks to Google I understand, vaguely, that WhatsApp lets users send messages and share information, which I thought I was already doing.) I do know, however, that CNN has real viewers and makes real, though not vast, profits.
I spend a big portion of each day gathering information. I troll a variety of news sites to find out about things that are important to me. I also check Facebook to find out about people who are important to me. Because those people often share and comment upon news items, and because I sometimes react to the things they share, Facebook undoubtedly already has some idea which topics are important to me. If Facebook wanted to save me the trouble of scanning six news sites a day, I'd be happy to tell them more.
It has long been a given that Facebook wants to know as much as possible about what its users do all over the Internet. And of course Facebook wants to maximize the amount of time its users spend on Facebook itself. So why wouldn't Facebook want to get into the business of providing me with news that I, in turn, might share with my friends? It would mean my friends and I would all spend more time on the social network, which is exactly what Facebook and its advertisers ultimately want.
Facebook also has a history of acquisitions, not all of which were intuitive from the outside. In a smaller deal than its WhatsApp purchase, the company acquired virtual reality start-up Oculus VR earlier this year. Bystanders have guessed that the acquisition was everything from a vanity purchase by CEO Mark Zuckerberg to a long-term attempt to develop a Google Glass competitor. Either way, Facebook has demonstrated that it is willing to reach outside its existing model. Comparatively, a news organization would not be much of a stretch.
Zuckerberg is a bright guy who has some cash at his disposal. He doesn't need me to tell him how to spend it. If he can snag CNN for, say, $7 billion, it would be roughly the equivalent of me picking up People magazine at the checkout counter. (In my case, just a copy of the latest issue, not the actual publication itself.) If CNN catches Zuckerberg's eye, there is no doubt he'll know what to do with it.
So it wouldn't shock me if Facebook got into the news business. It would seem to be one of the more logical ways for the social network to go about filling its users' news feeds.
Larry M. Elkin is the founder and president of Palisades Hudson, and is based out of Palisades Hudson's Fort Lauderdale, Florida headquarters. He wrote several of the chapters in the firm's book, Looking Ahead: Life, Family, Wealth and Business After 55. His contributions include Chapter 1, "Looking Ahead When Youth Is Behind Us" and Chapter 4, "The Family Business."
A Summer Labor Drought Continues
When A Journalist's 'Borrowing' ...
No Bumps On JetBlue
Who Built My Business?
The views expressed in this post are solely those of the author. We welcome additional perspectives in our comments section as long as they are on topic, civil in tone and signed with the writer's full name. All comments will be reviewed by our moderator prior to publication.
Business, CNN, Facebook, Fox, Mark Zuckerberg, WhatsApp
⇐ Vengeance In The Death Chamber
Eric Meermann in The New York Times ⇒
Investment China Politics History Media: Ben Sullivan Barack Obama Personal Financial Planning Business Law Media: Shomari Hearn Publication: U.S. News & World Report The U.S. Supreme Court Media: Anthony Criscuolo Publication: The Street Tax Issues Congress Journalism Media: Paul Jacobs Economics Florida


If your 12-year-old son was playing in the park by himself with a toy gun and you saw video of a policeman shoot him and stand over him watching him die, and you spoke out against that injustice... what would you say if someone responded by saying All Lives Matter?
Alton Sterling. Shot dead by Police. Selling CDs. Caught on video. Another one.
Don't bother watching the gruesome video. You've seen it before... many times. There will be more.
A hi-res phone video camera is not the luxury item for black Americans that it is for other communities. Sadly, it's now a necessary tool of self defence. One of the nuances of being black in America.
Stop saying "All Lives Matter." Start proving it. Be a human being and not an arrogant, judgmental catch phrase.
A black man selling CDs is shot several times while lying on his back, yet white supremacist Dylan Roof guns down nine black people in a church and is captured peacefully by police. They even took him to Burger King!
Twelve-year old Tamir Rice was playing in a park with a toy gun in an open carry state and was shot by police, yet three white biker gangs shot up Waco, Texas, killing nine people, injuring 20 and shooting at police, and somehow 177 of these armed men were peacefully arrested. All are currently out free and none have gone to trial.
Freddie Gray had his spine partially severed and his larynx crushed, according to the lawyer his family hired, and died a week later after having not received prompt medical attention. A police report claimed he miraculously shattered his own spine and crushed his own larynx. No one has explained how a man with a crushed larynx and spine walked so normally out of the police van into his cell, answering all the obligatory questions without a single police officer noticing as he died over the course of days with no medical attention. None of the six police offers charged in the death of Freddie Gray have gone to jail for this.
Sandra Bland earned two university degrees and was heading to a job at a university when she was pulled over by police. She was found dead in her cell three days later. The officer responsible was indicted for perjury and was fired, but no one has gone to jail for this.
A Guardian study reveals that in the U.S., one in 65 deaths of young black males is caused by being shot by police.
In 2015, 41 per cent of people killed by police were black, despite making up only 20 per cent of the population in the cities the shootings occurred.
And before someone brings it up, police deaths are thankfully at their lowest number since Reagan was president, but deaths by police this year are at a record high.
When black people facing this type of brutality, which has gone on for centuries, speak out in protest, they're told to be patient. To be respectful, and told where and when they can protest... and how.
People who I never see post a single comment asking how the hell in 2016 the leading cause of death of young black males can be getting killed by police have tons to say to disparage the people who bring up this issue and demand change.
Why can't you ask, "What if that was my child/father/brother/sister/friend?" Why is it so hard to have empathy for a 12-year-old black kid playing in a park, or a woman with two degrees going for her first big job? Or a poor young black man who's hustling selling CDs to look after his family, instead of begging on the streets?
What ever happened to empathy? Be a human being.
I'm tired of wasting time and energy arguing with people who are more concerned with their convenience and comfort than with the fact that black Americans are standing in a pool of their own blood. I'm tired of explaining right and wrong to people who should have learned it in kindergarten.
I'm tired of people, who in the words of Martin Luther King, "... are more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says 'I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;' who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom..."
Stop saying All Lives Matter until it's true.
By the way -- I'll save you some time. We will learn every sordid detail of this latest victim's life to justify why he deserved to die. There will be marching for two weeks, with counter-marching from the growing All Lives Matter movement, maybe even sprinkled in with a KKK presence and armed white supremacist "Patriot groups."
The policemen will be exonerated by a carefully manipulated grand jury. And quietly, a year from now, Alton Sterling and Philando Castile's families will be paid $5 to $6.5 million (the going rate of these settlements, it seems) in taxpayers money in a civil settlement by the city while "not admitting any wrongdoing."
It's now a cost of doing business built into police budgets. It's normal.


text:
Q: How to enable "Better Performance" on an External USB HD programatically in C/C++ How do I enable "Better Performance" on an External USB HD programatically in C/C++.
Specifically I am talking about the device properties pane in the control panel in Microsoft Windows. That enables a form of OS level write caching.

A: You need to send the IOCTL_DISK_SET_CACHE_INFORMATION Control Code using DeviceIoControl.

I suggest you use the Dskcache.exe tool to configure the "Power Protected" Write Cache option.
With W2K SP3 MS introduced the "Power Protected" Write Cache Option in additon to the "Write Caching" option.
 Basically, to have the FS driver to issue Flush/Write-Through commands you will need to set  "Write Caching" option to Enabled and
 the "Power Protected" option to Disabled (see more info here: http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=332023).1
.
1 source

A: This link Provided by Alex K. is my accepted answer: It deals with the IOCTL_DISK_SET_CACHE_INFORMATION DeviceIoControl()
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/dhawan/archive/2009/10/05/enable-or-disable-enable-write-caching-on-disk-behavior-on-disk.aspx
#define _WIN32_WINNT 0x0503

#include <windows.h>

DISK_CACHE_INFORMATION info;
DISK_CACHE_INFORMATION rinfo;

void main(void)
{
    DWORD rr;
    HANDLE hDevice;
    DWORD err;
    DWORD returned;

    hDevice = CreateFile("\\\\.\\C:", // drive to open
                GENERIC_READ | GENERIC_WRITE,
                FILE_SHARE_WRITE | FILE_SHARE_READ,
                // share mode
                NULL, // default security attributes
                OPEN_EXISTING, // disposition
                FILE_ATTRIBUTE_SYSTEM, // file attributes
                NULL); // do not copy file attributes
    if(hDevice==INVALID_HANDLE_VALUE)
    {
        return;
    }

    rr = DeviceIoControl(hDevice,IOCTL_DISK_GET_CACHE_INFORMATION,NULL,
                        0,(LPVOID)&info,(DWORD)sizeof(info),(LPDWORD)&returned,    (LPOVERLAPPED)NULL);
    if (!rr)
    {
        err = GetLastError();
        return;
    }

    info.WriteCacheEnabled = true;
    info.ReadCacheEnabled = false;
    info.DisablePrefetchTransferLength = 1;

    rr = DeviceIoControl(hDevice,IOCTL_DISK_SET_CACHE_INFORMATION,(LPVOID)&info,(DWORD)sizeof(info),
                        NULL,0,(LPDWORD)&returned,(LPOVERLAPPED)NULL);
    if (!rr)
    {
        err = GetLastError();
        return;
    }

    rr = DeviceIoControl(hDevice,IOCTL_DISK_GET_CACHE_INFORMATION,NULL,0,
                        (LPVOID)&rinfo,(DWORD)sizeof(rinfo),(LPDWORD)&returned,(LPOVERLAPPED)NULL);
    if (!rr)
    {
        err = GetLastError();
        return;
    }

    CloseHandle(hDevice);
}

Old Information:
Windows 2K did contain a "Power Protected" Write Cache Option, but it was never carried over to Windows XP. Which makes a comment about using Dskcache.exe invalid. Was "Power Protected Mode" ever put back into e.g. Windows Vista? I do not know.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Lionsgate Home Entertainment Puts James Franco's The Disaster Artist In Heavy Home Entertainment Traffic On Mar. 13
With a shrug of the shoulders and a ho-hum publicity launch effort, Lionsgate Gate Entertainment appears to be trying to fly under the radar with its Mar. 13 home entertainment release of DVD and Blu-ray/Combo Pack editions for actor/director James Franco's The Disaster Artist.
The film earned Franco the Golden Globe for Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy, but the Mar. 13 street date selected by Lionsgate Home Entertainment all but assures that there will be hard-to-come-by sales action for the film in the home entertainment marketplace as it will be up against (get ready, it's a long list) the likes of Warner Bros. Home Entertainment's Justice League, both 20th Century-Fox Home Entertainment's The Shape of Water (the likely Best Picture-winner) and Ferdinand (competing in the Best Animated Picture category), Universal Pictures Home Entertainment's I, Tonya (both Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress nominations) and even Sony Pictures Home Entertainment has one of the Best Actor contenders on that same mid-March street date with Call Me by Your Name.
You would think that both A24 and producer/director James Franco would have to be just a little miffed over that bit of strategic planning … but, as they say, "oh well."
The ARR is 102 days and domestic box office revenues currently stand right at $21 million.
Bonus features include commentary from actor/director James Franco, his co-star (and brother) Dave Franco and the real-life Tommy Wiseau and Greg Sestero, plus a trio of featurettes — "Oh, Hi Mark!: Making a Disaster," "Directing a Disaster" and "Just a Guy Leaning on a Wall: Getting to Know Tommy."
Posted by DVD & Blu-ray Release Report at 6:15 PM
Labels: DVD and Blu-ray Release Report, Lionsgate Home Entertainment Puts James Franco's The Disaster Artist In Heavy Home Entertainment Traffic On Mar. 13
▼ February 11 - February 18 (11)
For the period ending February 09, 2018 ... New DV...
Mill Creek Entertainment Expands Apr. 3 Release Sl...
MVD Entertainment Group Restores Director Pierre D...
Icarus Films Selects Mar. 6 For The Domestic DVD D...
Tad The Lost Explorer And The Secret Of King Midas...
Cleopatra Music And Films Salutes David Cassidy On...
20th Century-Fox Home Entertainment Looks To Mar. ...
Sony Picture Home Entertainment Moves Jumanji: Wel...
Kino Lorber Pick Mar. 20 For The Blu-ray Debut Of ...
Universal Pictures Home Entertainment Selects Apr....
Lionsgate Home Entertainment Puts James Franco's T...


Kids at Heart believes that every child deserves a family and the opportunity to be successful. Their programs seek to establish positive networks of support for their children and families.
Development of a new WordPress website with donation integration.


To celebrate the release of Ace of Arenas on the App Store & Google Play Store, we have 3 sets of Plantronics Backbeat GO 2 Wireless Earbuds to give away.
Ace of Arenas delivers the real-time strategy and action of PC-born MOBAs with a streamlined design and interface that play to the unique tastes of mobile gamers.
You can download Ace of Arenas from the App Store HERE and the Google Play store HERE.


What is Landfall and how does it work? Let us sort this out by taking Lotus Cobra as example. And while we are at it, we'll refresh our knowledge about mana abilities.
Lotus Cobra is a mythic rarity card. It doesn't mean anything in terms of the game mechanic. It is just harder to encounter such cards in boosters.
Landfall, just as Heroic, is an ability keyword. The word "Landfall" on a card by itself means only that the rules text after this word will be related to a land entering the battlefield under your control.
The land may enter the battlefield under your control in any way: you may play it, you may get it through an effect, for instance, that of Rampant Growth.
The opponent may sneak in a Forest under your control through Yavimaya Dryad's trigger. This counts for Landfall.
It's not enough to take someone's land under control to trigger Landfall: that land was already on the battlefield, it has only changed its controller.
In the first Zendikar block, Landfall appeared in two different forms: as triggered abilities and spell abilities. These two function quite differently, and it is therefore important to be able to tell one from another. To analyze that, let us have a look at how Landfall works on Steppe Lynx and Groundswell.
Steppe Lynx's ability begins with the word "Whenever". This shows it is a triggered one. Its triggered event is a land entering the battlefield under your control. Whenever that happens, the Lynx's ability triggers.
If multiple lands hit the battlefield under your control at once, Steppe Lynx's trigger goes off that many times, so the Lynx will get bigger by +2/+2 that many times, provided the triggers resolve successfully.
You should remember that triggers do not resolve all at once. If multiple lands enter the battlefield simultaneously, for instance, through Harrow, the Lynx doesn't get the bonus all that soon. Your opponent will have opportunities to fling in before each trigger resolves. However, one may not respond to playing a land — that is a special action which doesn't use the stack.
Groundswell's ability text has no triggers (the word "if" doesn't signal one), but there is the word "instead" that shows that the ability generates a replacement effect. The effect checks whether a land has entered the battlefield under your control in the current turn. If so, the effect is changed. This check occurs at Groundswell's resolution.
+4/+4, if at least one has.
Lotus Cobra's ability is also a triggered one, so each land that enters the battlefield under your control gives you mana of any color off that trigger.
Despite the fact that Lotus Cobra's ability gives mana, it is not a mana ability. It is so because its triggered event is not activating a mana ability, but a land entering the battlefield under your control.
Only as the trigger resolves do you get the mana. The color is also chosen at resolution. If your opponent asks you about the color of mana, it means that he is passing in response to the trigger, and that it is already resolving.
Just as any other trigger, Lotus Cobra's one is easy to miss due to it not being represented physically. Since the Cobra's trigger supposes a choice at resolution, that choice must be voiced at that moment so that the trigger isn't considered missed.
Finally, in case you lived the last couple of years in seclusion, let me remind you that currently mana pools are emptied at the end of each step and each phase. If you get mana off the Cobra by putting a land onto the battlefield through Braids, Conjurer Adept's trigger, you cannot use it in your main phase, unless you also control Omnath, Locus of Mana besides Braids and the Cobra.
The abilities of the Retreat cycle are of the triggered type. They trigger each time a land enters the battlefield under your control. But they are also modal. What does it mean?
Each of them allows you to choose either of the two effects it can produce. Unlike the ability of Lotus Cobra, where you make the choice of the color of mana as the ability resolves, you must choose the mode you wish to apply as you put the ability on the stack. If the ability is targeted, as in case with Retreat to Kazandu's first mode, you also need to announce the target right after that.
In case you control multiple Retreats, they all trigger at once each time a land hits the battlefield under your control. After SBA are performed, it is time to put the triggers that have gone off so far onto the stack. You put your triggers in the order you like, but only in APNAP order related to all other players whose abilities have triggered. Do have in mind that they will obviously attempt to resolve in the opposite order.
While controlling Lotus Cobra, we play Wooded Foothills, the Cobra's trigger goes off. We activate the ability of Wooded Foothills and find a Forest, the Cobra's trigger goes off again. As we resolve the Cobra's two triggers, we get mana, and we may cast Myr Superion.
If we count the mana from the Forest we just found, we can cast a spell with total mana cost equal to three.
As soon as the trigger goes off and is put onto the stack, it becomes an independent object. Treacherous slaughter of the Cobra by your opponent does not change the fate of that trigger.
Since the active player is the one to get priority after a spell resolves, we may cast the Cobra in our hand, then immediately play a land and put the trigger onto the stack. The opponent will gain priority and will be able to respond only after the Cobra's trigger is put onto the stack.
If the cunning opponent controls Hushwing Gryff, a Dryad Arbor entering the battlefield under your control will not trigger Lotus Cobra's Landfall, because Dryad Arbor is a creature, and the Gryff's ability effect does not allow creatures to trigger abilities.
Lotus Cobra is a great second drop that works as mana ramp and color stabilizing. It can charge into attack a few times while the table is empty, and naturally, it can always chump-block.
The cobra comboes well with Fetchlands, Harrow, Explore, Khalni Heart Expedition and Primeval Titan. You will most likely meet this reptile in Valakut decklists.


text:
Make Patents Great Again – PTO Speculation: Judge Rader?
January 11, 2017 PatentUSPTO DirectorDennis Crouch
Scott Graham of The National Law Journal reports that Chief Judge Rader is in the mix to be the next USPTO Director. Rader wrote hundreds of patent opinions during his 25 years on the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, including four as Chief Judge. Prior to joining the judiciary, Rader spent eight years as counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Patents, Trademarks, and Copyrights. He is a recipient of the Jefferson Medal for exceptional contributions to the field of intellectual property law. In a fairly minor scandal, Judge Rader resigned from the bench in 2014. At that time, I wrote:
Judge Rader is a longtime member of the court and has been a gregarious Chief Judge. His willingness to have frank and open discussions on a variety of patent law issues has been welcomed by the bar as has his work to build ties with patent law authorities from around the globe. Those connections will continue to serve the court well into the future. However, this outgoing approach has also been criticized as contrary to the traditions of judicial detachment and seclusion.
Judge Rader has the patent law and political expertise to do this job — question whether he would really want to run a 10,000 person organization. Rader likely has strong support from President Pro Tempore of the United States Senate Orin Hatch.
In my mind, the other leading candidate is Phil Johnson. The PTO directorship would serve as a capstone to a truly incredible career. Trump and his team have substantial trademark experience, and so an internal dark-horse candidate is always likely.
Because of her ties to the Obama Administration, I see it as highly unlikely that current PTO director Michelle Lee would be asked to stay-on even temporarily in that position.
PTO Director wears many hats, but I see the primary job as leading the 10,000+ examiners and judges to ensure a high quality work product at a reasonable cost and speed. Patent and trademark experience are certainly necessary – but I would think it is also important to have experience or understanding of managing such a large workforce of unionized employees.
Congratulations to Harold McElhinny on his retirement from MoFo; he has apparently refused calls from Trump Tower.
← Separation of Powers Restoration Act	Post-PTO Trials: Party must Prove Injury-in-Fact for Appellate Standing →
70 thoughts on "Make Patents Great Again – PTO Speculation: Judge Rader?"
Greg DeLassus says:
Congratulations to Harold McElhinny…[, who] has apparently refused calls from Trump Tower.
Same here. He was so impressed with my comments here on this blog that he called to offer me the PTO director's job. I politely declined, but subtly hinted that I would not be averse to consideration for the SCotUS vacancy.
Tower to DeLassus: We offered SCotUS. Instead, you wanted Director. Fake News.
The ethically challenged Rader would be an obvious choice for the deeply ethically challenged orange maniac.
On top of that, we've got Rader's incompetence in the area of subject matter eligibility, resulting in massive giveaways to Rader's friends. That also appears to be in perfect alignment with the swamp-filler elect's modus operandi.
I agree that he is not an ideal choice for 101 given Bilski, Mayo and Alice. Do you think the Google/Wall Street lobby would sink his ship because of this?
I at least think there's a pretty good chance.
I think what "Google/Wall Street" want is far, far, far less important than what the orange maniac's bestest buddies want. If Trmp has a bff out there who's a bigtime patent tr0ll and that bff wants Rader, then Rader it will be.
Likewise, if Trmp's bff thinks Rader will really, really tick off some "liberal silicon valley types" then that's what will matter most to Team Trmp. Ideology and competence, of course, are utterly beside the point in this case, as long as the nominee isn't remotely "liberal."
I really think Team Trmp could care less about what would be best for Google or Wall Street. Google and Wall Street will be just fine in a Trmp Presidency, regardless of whether they are being pecked at by patent attorneys, right up until the point where just about nobody is fine anymore.
"I agree that he is not an ideal choice for 101 given Bilski, Mayo and Alice."
Malcolm appeals to the Ned Windmill Chase, and not surprisingly, Ned flip-flops.
Malcolm calling anyone "ethically challenged"….
iwasthere says:
Delassus said: Fundamentally, the problem is that once a patent system is in place, there is no additional law Congress can pass that makes it more rewarding for a U.S. resident to invent. If we are to privilege U.S. innovation over ex-U.S. innovation, we can only do so by making the latter less rewarding. In other words, the result of your policy suggestion is not more U.S. inventions, but rather fewer foreign inventions.
As I recall, the very early US Patent law – had the implication that a US 'inventor' could bring a foreign invention (i suppose a foreign trade secret invention), disclose the invention in a US patent application and claim to be the US inventor – and get a valid patent wherein the foreign invention would not be prior art against the claims of the US 'inventor.' In other words, an extreme (by todays standard) pro-invention and pro-patent nationalistic system – which provided direct incentives to bring technology to the US shores and disclose to the US industrial (albeit infant at the time) base. So there is an example of a law that provides extra rewards for US domestic patent 'inventor.' I am air quoting 'inventor' here because this is not quite the same way we view 'inventorship' (I had the eureka in the shower) in the modern era.
Fair enough. That is sort of historically interesting, but of no real relevance to the discussion below. Back at that time, news traveled slowly, so an incentive to bring news of new technologies from foreign shores could materially advance the state of the art in the U.S. Not so any more. If a technology is developed in (e.g.) China, U.S. industry will be aware of it the same day as it is released in China. It might take a while for it to filter to U.S. consumers, but that relates more to the time it takes for U.S. retailers to devise marketing campaigns and the like—not to any delay in the information per se.
In other words, such a law would have no technology enhancing effects today. Indeed, quite the contrary. If we allowed some lucky first-in-line American to acquire monopoly rents on a foreign technology—a technology that Americans would have received anyway, even without the first-in-line fellow filing on it here—then we simply prevent U.S. consumers from enjoying the consumer surplus that they might otherwise have enjoyed from a new technology in the public domain.
"In other words, such a law would have no technology enhancing effects today. "
True, but if we enhanced the lawl to require domestic manufacturing in addition to "importing/translating to English" for the tech then we may well see some MAGAing effects.
Or we could concentrate and support "patent strength" where the patent is being manufactured domestically, by a domestic company employing local human beings.
As opposed to, say, encouraging foreign companies employing foreign workers to obtain patents that turn people writing decent software in the US into criminals.
MM, why I say! You seem to be coming around.
It would be interesting if there were a requirement to enforce a patent in the US against US made products or services that the patent owner or a licensee be making the patented invention in the US.
Perhaps require marking?
That would be interesting indeed. Does anyone know if any large economy has ever tried to enforce such a policy? It sounds plausibly promising in theory, but this is a situation where an ounce of actual experience would be worth a ton of theory, so I would be interested to hear whether such a policy were ever tried.
I expect that U.S. exporters would not cotton to such a policy, for fear of the knock-on reprisal policies that would emerge in our larger trading partners. Exporters, however, are not such an influential or well-organized bloc that they could likely scuttle such an proposal if it were well supported in other sectors of the economy.
your false flag of Big Corp is showing:
"a requirement to enforce a patent in the US
against US made products or services
that the patent owner or a licensee be making the patented invention
in the US."
The subtle injection of a "must make" is a ploy of the Efficient Infringer crowd.
Such a notion does not – and cannot – sit within the US patent jurisprudence.
12.1.1.1.1.3.1
Yes anon but we're only talking about with respect to patent rights that are being brought in from abroad. Not with respect to the native population's/native created inventions.
MAGA!
No kiddin' right there.
"Back at that time, news traveled slowly, so an incentive to bring news of new technologies from foreign shores could materially advance the state of the art in the U.S."
Sounds like you want to change some of the fundamentals of US patent law (without really changing them)…
It all sounds good Greg, when you gloss everything in your (false) "one world order" views…
Reality is a bit different though.
Delassus, your lack of faith is disturbing. You must be French ; ). Let's go back to my hypo k?
1. Assume the invention is something important, like CRISPR-CA9.
2. It's discovered and KEPT secret in some non-patent land, like China.
3. An incentive to bring the invention to the US – the exceptional American experiment – with strong private property patents with a double protected trial right of an independent judiciary and a jury – disclose it and claim it in a patent is strong, IF the statutory scheme, as discussed, was still present.
Good point, IWasThere. I agree that our current law would not allow for that scenario, because the person filing the U.S. application could not honestly claim to be an "inventor" of the claimed technology as we define "invention" in this country. Nevertheless, there is probably a social benefit to allowing the scenario you describe. We would have to amend § 101 to say "[w]hoever: (1) invents or discovers; or (2) discloses a trade secret invented or discovered outside the Unites States which enables the working of, any new and useful…"
My only hesitation with this gambit is that it essentially amounts to the U.S. placing a bounty on foreign trade secrets. This would essentially flush all of our recent work getting China to agree to treaties against trade secret piracy. Presumably the rest of the world would retaliate by placing bounties on our trade secrets.
On the other hand, maybe this is not such a bad thing. An international system of bounties on trade secrets would make it harder to keep trade secrets. This in turn would make it more attractive, at the margin, to disclose and patent rather than keep trade secrets, and the extra disclosure would be better for the innovation ecosystem overall.
In short, I think that yours is a good idea.
Johnson comes from the pharmaceutical industry, and Trump does not seem to be a fan of that industry.
link to ft.com
Currently the job of PTO director is to keep pumping out crap patents, echoing the system is broken – and the only fix is the AIA IPR star chambers. It's a feedback loop, that grows the PTO. It will take strong leadership to reverse that momentum.
iwasthere, what makes them crap?
What makes them crap? The need for PTO to justify the IPR bureaucracy. In other words, without a mountain of dubious patents there is no need for the IPR establishment/power. And, therefore, under public choice theory, because a mountain of bad patents expands the power of the agency, you will almost certainly get it. In fact, if you think about it, the IPR scheme itself, in terms of power/stakes, is MUCH MUCH greater than the issuance of a patent in the first place. Ergo, the PTO, as an entity that seeks power/growth/justification, because that is what organizations do under public choice theory, will fight like heck to preserve that beach head. Thus, the existence of the IPR schema itself, creates the incentive to perpetuate and expand itself, and that incentive is only satiated with a mountain of crap patents. Just look at the exponential growth link to patentlyo.com for your proof. We got the AIA put in effect according to wiki around September 16, 2012?
I think that this is regrettably accurate. Ordinary examiners have a plausibly decent set of incentives, but the PTO as a whole has a terrible set of incentives.
The PTO needs fees to keep the lights on, and the fee payers want patents, not rejections. The PTO knows this, so the strategy for maximizing fees lies in relaxing the standards for grant, so that as large a percentage of applicants as plausible reach allowance. This way a would-be applicant can believe that there is a plausible chance of reaching grant, so she is willing to pay her money to file her application. There is no incentive for the PTO to apply rigorous standards to applicants.
On the other hand, the fee payers for the IPR/PGR system are the challengers. Once again, the PTO knows what it is that the fee payers want, so the PTO does its best to give the customers what they want. While the standards for patentability applied by the examiners are generous, the standards applied by the PTAB in IPRs & PGRs are notoriously strict.
In other words, a profit maximizing entity in the PTO's situation would be generous in granting patents to applicants, but harsh in its approach to those same patents when they are reviewed in IPRs & PGRs. Distressingly, but perhaps not surprisingly, this is frequently what we observe. The degree of generosity or harshness seems to change according to the party in control of the White House, but the basic dynamic of easy grant/harsh review is a constant.
I wish I knew a way to make the PTO's incentive structure different, to improve on this untoward outcome, but I cannot. Short of switching to a pure registration system, I cannot think of how to change the incentives, and I think a pure registration system would be even worse.
"There is no incentive for the PTO to apply rigorous standards to applicants."
FAR too narrow of a view, Greg.
Anyone worth their salt realizes that merely obtaining a grant is not enough – what is needed rather is an enforceable grant.
…and as I have always stated: rubber stamping of either Reject Reject Reject or Accept Accept Accept is not what the job of the Office is.
Do the Fn job, Office….
Charles Barton says:
Unless the next director makes public all the documents associated with SAWS, 2nd Look, and similar unlawful secret internal USPTO "quality assurance" programs, the USPTO will remain broken.
So far in analyzing public USPTO and District Court documents, I find evidence:
of breach of implicit contract in fact to carry out a genuine examine upon applicant's payment of fees;
of numerous criminal violations of 18 USC 1001 (document falsification) & 18 USC 371 (criminal conspiracy); and
of subordination of perjury in the District Court in USPTO experts' testimony and reports.
The magnitude of the crimes and of the numbers of USPTO employees (including high ranking USPTO officials) involved makes me suspect large pay-off either in money or in some other medium of exchange.
When the scandal finally breaks, we will probably find corruption that is bigger than Teapot Dome, Watergate, Iran-Contra, AIPAC (Franklin, Rosen, Weissman), and the Valerie Plame Leak all combined together.
Incidentally, why are Mike McKeon and Steve Pinkos not getting a mention on this blog as possible PTO directors (based on nothing more than idle speculation and unsubstantiable rumors)?
Greg, other than that these two gentlemen appear to be competent patent lawyers and have prior experience in the USPTO, I have no idea how they stand on IPRs in the AIA or anything else.
If you could help us on this, I would deeply appreciate it.
Sorry, Ned, but other than the fact that Hal Wegner mentioned these two as names that he has heard are in the running, I know almost nothing about them. Pinkos used to work at a fairly senior level in the PTO during the second George W. Bush term. McKeon is a partner with Fish & Richardson. I am not aware of any writings or public remarks by either of them on the subject of the AIA.
As long as we get Rader sorted out about the whole appearance of bias thing I think he'll be ok. Someone really needs to walk him through that, though I guess he may not have quite so high a bar as a director.
I think Rader may have learned his lesson.
The fact that Judge Rader said that IPRs had become "death squads" warms the heart. I think the choice of the next director more depends upon his or her attitude about IPRs and the patent system, i.e. whether recognizing that patents are valuable property and deserve the same due process is recorded any other property, is the most critical criteria for choosing the next director.
I would also hope that the next director recognizes that the entire purpose of the United States patent system is to promote invention in the United States and that removing the advantages for invention in the United States provided by the AIA in earlier statutes was wrongheaded.
What we need, and I hope the next director would agree, is to restore a strong grace period that favors American invention while still providing that the first to file and claim the same invention prevails that we might eliminate interferences.
There are numerous other things wrong with the AIA that need fixing, including universal prior art, keeping patent applications is prior art for obviousness purposes, recognizing filing date foreign applications as prior art, etc. etc. etc.
Anybody who strongly favors undoing the AIA in any way will be strongly opposed by the efficient infringer lobby and by the likes of the IPO and by the AIPLA, who by in large, gave us harmonization. The degree of opposition from this direction should be a measure of his or her merit.
The bottom line, I think Judge Rader might be an excellent choice.
The fact that Judge Rader said that IPRs had become "death squads" warms the heart. I think the choice of the next director more depends upon his or her attitude about IPRs and the patent system…
This is a very good point. The Director appoints the PTAB, so if the next director has in mind to scale back the "death squad" aspect of the PTAB, that would be a very significant change.
I would also hope that the next director recognizes that the entire purpose of the United States patent system is to promote invention in the United States… [emphases added]
I strongly disagree. First, there is no textual justification in either the constitution or the statute to indicate that this is the "entire purpose" of the U.S. patent system. Second, it is a good thing that no such wrongheaded purpose is expressed. We should want to incentivize innovation, but we should be indifferent to the question of where that innovation happens.
If a clever Italian working in Milan should invent a cheaper or less toxic cancer therapy, I will bless him for it and so will millions of other Americans. You will be able to count on one hand the number of cancer patients or their family members who will say "I will not have that therapy. It was invented by a foreigner."
What does it matter if the Director does agree with that policy preference? This is not a matter in the Director's control. You should wish for a Senate Judiciary Committee chair with this preference, or a Speaker of the House with this preference. The Director does not make the law.
Translation: the best way to "fix" the AIA is to repeal it root and branch.
Perhaps. I disagree, but not strongly. Really though, it is pointless to vent these preferences in a discussion about the next PTO director. None of these points are matters within the director's discretion.
Greg, nothing will pass Congress unless supported by the administration. This is plain and simple. That is why the next director must be on board policy wise with fixing the AIA to the extent it needs fixing.
Regarding the purpose of the American patent system, certainly it was not intended to secure patents on inventions made outside United States so that the manufacturers abroad might protect American markets against domestic competition. We fought a revolution because the English controlled access to American markets through a patent to the British East Indies Company. It is very unlikely that the colonies would have even considered a patent system were it to understand that it would effectively authorized the English to protect American markets for English manufactured goods.
There is no doubt in my mind that the purpose of the American patent system was to promote invention in the United States. To this end, the Patent Act of 1793 allowed only American citizens obtain patents. This notion is entirely inconsistent with your idea that the founders intended that the purpose of the American patent system was promote invention everywhere in the world.
It is very unlikely that the colonies would have even considered a patent system were it to understand that it would effectively authorized the English to protect American markets for English manufactured goods.
I am sure you are right about this, because Mercantilism was still all the rage back in the 18th century. Still and all, we know better now. We are not obliged to make the same mistakes as our colonial forebears, merely because they held these mistaken ideas at the time that they wrote our constitution.
If the framers had inserted such a Mercantilist preference for domestic invention into the constitution, I would have to concede your point. As it happens, however, they did not.
This notion is entirely inconsistent with your idea that the founders intended that the purpose of the American patent system was promote invention everywhere in the world.
The founders' personal preferences are irrelevant. What matters is the text that was actually adopted in the constitution. No such preference for domestic invention was expressed in the constitutional text.
Greg, "Paul Samuelson, writing within a Keynesian framework, wrote of mercantilism, "With employment less than full and Net National Product suboptimal, all the debunked mercantilist arguments turn out to be valid."
"In an essay appearing in the 14 May 2007 issue of Newsweek, business columnist Robert J. Samuelson wrote that China was pursuing an essentially neo-mercantilist trade policy that threatened to undermine the post–World War II international economic structure."
Greg, I think it is self-evident that free trade works best between two countries similarly developed. In this circumstance, efficiency determines the location of farming, mining, manufacturing and the like. When two countries do not have similar developmental structures, such as the United States in 1789 versus England, allowing England free importation of its manufactured products into the United States would have massively retarded the ability of American manufacturers to get off the ground. Adding insult to injury, protecting English imports with patents originated in England would have exasperated the problem enormously.
I think there is no doubt that America pursued its own mercantilist policies for very long time until our own manufacturing became dominant. At that time, we began to favor three trade in order to open markets abroad for our manufacturers.
I think it is somewhat obvious to anybody who actually considers the realities of the situation for more than just a few moments that uniform policies that favor free trade and no borders is not uniformly in America's interests. China is one of those examples. Mexico is another.
[I]n 1789… allowing England free importation of its manufactured products into the United States would have massively retarded the ability of American manufacturers to get off the ground. Adding insult to injury, protecting English imports with patents originated in England would have exasperated the problem enormously.
Fair enough, I agree with this. That is a good argument for why U.S. patent law should have favored domestic invention back then. It is less clear to me that it implies that we should favor domestic invention over foreign invention today.
I disagree. I have considered the situation of both Mexico and China for more than a few moments, and I think that free trade with both of them is and long has been a net benefit to the United States and her citizens. That is as much as I will say on the matter, however. I do not wish to derail the discussion from patents onto trade more generally.
Let us set aside irrelevant distractions like what Dr. Samuelson had to say about Mercantilism or whether we should have agreed to trade agreements with China, and stick to the subject of patents. Why should Americans care more about incentivizing innovation here than abroad.
Do medicines developed abroad work less well than U.S. medicines? The example of penicillin would suggest not.
Do Americans enjoy foreign-invented electronics less than domestic-invented electronics? The Sony Walkman would suggest not?
Do American businesses suffer from using foreign machines, but benefit from American machines? One would not know it, to see the number of machines that U.S. factories buy from Siemens. How many fewer U.S. factory jobs would there still be, were it not for such machines?
Americans benefit from innovation—full stop. We want innovation from whatever source, domestic or foreign. If we reduce the returns to innovation outside the U.S., we cut off our own noses to spite some foreigner's face. Why bother?
Your non-sovereign views Greg are more than just a bit Polly Anna.
Until there is a "one world" political state, it matters very much where the details of trade and innovation come down.
To so blissfully dismiss these things is to profess not only ig norance, but a deep carelessness that boggles the mind.
Greg, we either invent, make and sell, or we buy. How do we pay for what we buy? Sell oil? Sell food?
No, Greg. America became great because America invented, made and sold. Keep that in mind.
Fundamentally, the problem is that once a patent system is in place, there is no additional law Congress can pass that makes it more rewarding for a U.S. resident to invent. If we are to privilege U.S. innovation over ex-U.S. innovation, we can only do so by making the latter less rewarding. In other words, the result of your policy suggestion is not more U.S. inventions, but rather fewer foreign inventions.
Innovation begets further innovation. If we reduce the returns to foreign inventions, then we can expect fewer of them. This results in fewer innovations on which U.S. inventors can build.
Nobody gains from your suggestion. Everyone loses.
You remain Polly Anna and presume no other effects of the innovation.
So while you are correct that innovation begets innovation, there remain sovereign effects to innovation from different sovereigns.
You want to pretend that some "one world order" already exists in your pretending that sovereign effects are absent from reality and that is just not so.
Greg, I agree with anon. This is not a zero sum game from America's point of view. It might be from a planet earth point of view where every place on earth is just like every other place on earth. But that day, if ever it comes, is millennia in the future. Until then, we have to make sure that the US is strong in order to keep us all safe; and to do that we must be economically strong. Economic strength is the same as potential military strength. Military strength in the hands of America has historically meant peace on earth. Unfortunately, we have had a tendency to intervene in other peoples wars recently, from Kuwait, to Iraq, to Libya, to Syria; all the while getting us deeper and deeper into a quagmire.
We did not learn anything from Vietnam, it seems.
This is not a zero sum game from America's point of view.
This is a rather strange response. I am not the one whose argument depends on a zero-sum understanding of innovation. You are.
You are telling a story where there is only so much innovation in the world, and the goal of the U.S. patent system is to see that as large a piece of that finite pie is served to U.S. inventors.
I am telling a story in which there is no limit to innovation. One inventor builds on another's work, and therefore innovation made abroad takes nothing away from America's domestic innovation.
America has a lot of coal. If we had to dig that coal out by hand (as once we did), then the value of that resource is diminished and the rate of its extraction constrained by the enormous human effort necessary. If some German invents a machine that can extract this coal more efficiently than human miners do, then we get more coal, more cheaply. That is economic growth. Of course the same outcome would obtain if the machine were invented by an American, but that is just my point—America's economy grows when new technologies are introduced, and it does not matter whether those technologies are invented here or abroad.
Similarly, if one in ten Floridian babies die of some tropical disease, that is a major drag on the economy (fewer working age adults in each age cohort, and more time spent tending sick children instead of growing crops or building houses, or whatever other productive effort is foregone). If a Mexican inventor discovers a cheap and reliable vaccine against that disease, then Florida's economy grows accordingly. Once again, the story would be equally true if it were a Texas inventor, but that is just the point. It does not matter from where the invention comes. Its benefits flow across borders.
It is in America's own sovereign interest to give liberal encouragement to innovation world wide.
Incidentally, if we really do mean to try (the crabbed and counterproductive) strategy of confining as large a percentage of all innovation as possible within our own borders, someone needs to tell Mr. Trump that the immigration system needs to accommodate that goal. To have all innovation in this country requires that we have all people with inventive talent in this country, which means more H1B visas. Mr. Trump and Sen. Sessions want fewer H1B visas. That is a problem if we mean to (waste our time on a counterproductive effort to) increase the relative proportion of invention that occurs within our borders.
Fundamentally, the problem is that once a patent system is in place, there is no additional law Congress can pass that makes it more rewarding for a U.S. resident to invent.
To be more clear, I should say that there is no additional patent-based law that Congress can use. Congress could pour more federal funds into R&D, or create contests with large cash prizes to the first entity to bring X technology to market. These would provide additional incentive to technological development, but the incentive would not be a patent-law incentive.
#mindblown
Both falsehoods.
Or to be less kind, both are half-truths (something worse than outright falsehood).
First, Ned is NOT telling a story so constrained as to ONLY innovation within the US. His story is rewarding US innovation in the US. Huge difference.
Second, as you have been doing throughout the topic, you omit sovereign effects in your "story." It is NOT that Americans cannot "build upon" foreign innovation. It is that you continue to think that there are zero transnational effects (a world-frictionless state that does NOT exist).
I "get" that you refuse to respond to me – such is your choice – but please, don't pretend that you do not understand the error in your other choice of a far too simplistic view of nation-to-nation political jockeying.
Innovation may indeed by "limitless," but that surely does not mean that it is frictionless.
"It is less clear to me that it implies that we should favor domestic invention over foreign invention today."
MAGA MAGA MAGA MAGA MAGA MAGA MAGA MAGA MAGA!
The idea that the United States has—at any time since ~1860—ever ceased to be "great" strikes me as absurd on its face. Therefore, I cannot see my way clear to the idea of making America great "again" (as if we are not presently a great nation).
I am, however, all in favor of American greatness. If we want to make America even more great, I am totally on board.
My objection to the idea of favoring domestic innovation over foreign innovation is that policies to advance this goal will make America less great. Those advancing this idea probably have their hearts in the right place, but the universe does not award gold stars for good intentions. Bad public policy produces bad results, regardless of intentions.
"We should want to incentivize innovation, but we should be indifferent to the question of where that innovation happens."
Absolutely disagree, Greg.
Patent law has always been sovereign-centric.
It is only with treaties and trying to gain "equal footing" in other sovereigns did we introduce the notion of trans-nationalism.
That notion of trans-nationalism is a p0is0n and a blight, mainly because the entities that take advantage of trans-nationalism are simply not beholding to ANY sovereign, and influence the sovereign-centric nature of patent law to their non-sovereign benefit.
Leave it to a democrat to advocate the giving away of exclusive rights in the US to promote innovation in other countries. Greg wants to make ROW great again. #mindblown #MAGAinstead
Why not just give the whole country away to some foreign power while we're at it? I mean, who really cares about owning things or having a country?
Also I note that greg's comment is yet another reason why we really need to look into adjusting congresscritter's and every other public servant's oaths of office.
Is this an elaborate piece of performance art? If so, I tip my hat to you, sir. It is masterfully done.
Where I come from, we strain our voices and raise our eyebrows when we mean to be sarcastic. I have never really learned how to recognize irony in written text. You will please forgive my unseemly density, therefore, if there is a degree of irony in this response that I am missing.
It is somewhat sarcastic sure, but in all realness brosef, you have to remember what gets "given away" in "reward" for the disclosure of innovation in the US system. Those exclusive rights (closely akin to what many used to call a "monopoly") come all too often with $$$ attached.
I really did take from your comment way above to which I responded that you seemed to be super in favor of handing out exclusive rights in the US for innovations made elsewhere literally with the express purpose of spurring innovation in other countries. If that wasn't your point then I must have been mistaken.
". I have never really learned how to recognize irony in written text."
LOL – and when others are more forceful due to the limitations of written words on a blog, you simply dismiss them and pay them no heed.
How awfully nice to live in that type of self-induced bubble…
(and yes, there is a – s a r c a s m – sign being held up with that "nice")
David Westergard says:
Pretty sure Judge Rader was sworn in in 1990. Ergo, 25 years on the court, or thereabouts. ;-)
Thanks – I was formerly a math teacher…
Judge Rader taking on the role of Director Rader would be much akin to Justice Abe Fortas, after he resigned from the SCotUS and returned to work as an appellate litigator arguing in front of his former colleagues. It would almost be the stuff of a novel.
Incidentally, didn't I just read that Judge Rader has accepted a job in a Chinese law school? How is that going to work alongside a gig as head of the PTO? The director's job is quite demanding. I do not see a lot of time left over for jetting to China to give regular lectures.
"Judge Rader has accepted a job in a Chinese law school?"
That's almost comical.
But I'm sure he just took the job to make $$$, nothing is confirmed for him getting the nomination.
>>Because of her ties to the Obama Administration
Nothing to do with her Google ties and her anti-patent judicial activist positions?
The interesting thing will be to watch her career post USPTO to see how Google slips her $20 million for her service to Google at the USPTO.
"Top US Patent Judge Resigns In Email Ethics Violation."
Yup. That sure fits Trump's Drain The Swamp agenda. Are you sure they aren't considering Rader for prison Rather than PTO?
Atari Man says:
Owen…you wouldn't be the guy who used to write the patenthawk blog, would you? You know, the guy who made fun of everybody else until his own patent was declared invalid and he was exposed as a troll?
In any event, Judge Rader's mistake was sending an email to a lawyer who often appeared before the CAFC, praising that lawyer's professionalism. Hardly a major ethics slip, and not one that necessitated his retiring, an act he undertook voluntarily. As a judge, he was one of the few on the CAFC who consistently got things right. His retirement couldn't have come at a worse time, as he would have undoubtedly worked to limit the effects of Myriad/Mayo/Alice. (It's difficult to see the Sequenom decision coming from a panel with Judge Rader on it.)
I don't know if he would make a good PTO head, but that's only because, as Dennis points out, it's a 10,000-employee organization, and running such an organization may not be his strong suit. It's got nothing to do with his IP bona fides.
Good post Atari Man.
I echo Night Writer in saying "well said, Atari Man."
Doubtful – the PatentHawk believes in patents at a gen eral level – whilst Owen is a firm anti-patent belieber.
dissmani says:
Michelle Lee is having a "farewell event" on Thursday. So, no, she's not staying on.


Last week, the F84 team got out of the studio to visit the SpaceX headquarters in Hawthorne, California. Former F84 employee Jacob Portukalian gave them a tour of the private space exploration company. Inside the facility they had an opportunity to see firsthand some of the up and coming projects this innovative company is working on. The F84 team left with inspiration from the up close and personal look into the future of the final frontier!


Veterans for Foster speak out for change in Iraq.
As veterans, we strongly support our troops and the magnificent job they have done. However, we firmly believe that the greatest and most important support we can give them now is to change course and bring them home from Iraq.
Having served in all branches of the US Military, we are intimately familiar with the need to maintain high morale and prevent our forces from being stretched too thin. The war in Iraq is hurting our military's ability to stand vigilant against the threats we face at home and abroad.
Now is the time for a Congressman who is committed to changing course in Iraq. We have come together because we know that, on March 8, Bill Foster will become an immediate voice for change.
Air Force Vet Don Cassidy, who is also a member of Republicans for Foster, is co-chair of this new group.
Remember, you read it here first! Be sure to shoot me an e-mail (yinnATcitybarbs.com) if you are interested in this group and I'll hook you up with Mr. Reed.


text:
A Clever Umbrella That Won't Get Your Stuff Wet
By Margaret Rhodes 1 minute Read
The umbrella is a remarkably enduring piece of design that has somehow remained flawed since it first appeared in Paris in the early 1700s. The basic umbrella does a fine job for anyone strolling in a rain that's falling straight from the sky to the ground. We've seen updates meant to resolve the problem of rain and wind, but what about the issue of taking dripping umbrellas indoors?
This umbrella by Japanese studio H Concept has reinvented the ubiquitous accessory so that it no longer leaks rainwater onto the floor.
It's the Unbrella, and it has an inverted design, meaning the framework usually found on the underside of the umbrella shade now sits on top. Instead of collapsing downwards, toward the user, the Unbrella folds outwards, trapping all the excess rainwater inside and away from its owner. Industrial designer Hiroshi Kajimoto–who spent a decade improving the design–built the Unbrella with reinforced glass fiber to give it strong wind resistance. Luckily, that fortitude also allows the Unbrella to stand upright, and dry off by draining rainwater.
The Unbrella costs about $95, and will be available in the United States in spring 2014.
[h/t Spoon & Tamago]
In this new neighborhood, every building will be made entirely out of wood
Microsoft is going carbon negative, will reduce more carbon than it has emitted in its history as a company
NBCUniversal's Netflix-killer Peacock features ads, Spotify-like playlists—and a lot of 'Law & Order'
Can a shoe make you run too fast? Nike may find out the hard way
4 ways to get over the new-job jitters
How to reinvent your email as a productivity tool
Happiness doesn't always mean what we think it means