US Patent Reform Agreement Allegedly Finally Achieved in the U.S. Congress

Diane Bartz for Reuters reported from Washington on February 25, 2010 at Tentative US patent reform pact reached [acc. to] Sen. Leahy writing that:

“Leading U.S. lawmakers have reached a tentative agreement to reform the nation’s patent system, said Senator Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Judiciary Committee and a leader in the effort.”

That report was updated by Bartz with more details at UPDATE 2-Tentative US patent reform pact reached-Sen. Leahy where she writes:

“[S]ources working on the issue said that the bill would require judges hearing patent infringement cases to play a gatekeeper role in helping identify appropriate damages.

The measure also gives the patent office the authority to set its own fees, said the sources, who asked to speak privately since they were not authorized to discuss the matter.

One has to be cautious about expecting anything this field since a nearly identical report of Congressional progress was made nearly one year ago, with little result.

The wheels of “comfortable” government and Congress itself sometimes seem to move slower than USPTO patent applications, and THAT is slow.

Administration Asks For Public Input On Intellectual Property Enforcement | Techdirt

Outsourcing and Data Protection in the European Union: EU Standard Contract Clauses Must Be Changed Regarding Overseas Transfers of Personal Data

Out-law.com alerts us to the fact that a recent formal Decision of the European Commission requires that Model clauses for overseas transfers of personal data be updated, writing

“Outsourcing companies outside the EU will now have to get written permission to subcontract the processing of personal data after the European Commission changed arrangements permitting the export of such information.

The EU’s data protection regime limits the export of personal data outside the European Economic Area (EEA) which comprises the EU, Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein.

A small handful of countries have proved their data protection regimes the equivalent of the EU’s and so are permitted to receive personal data without further steps (Switzerland, Canada, Argentina, Guernsey, the Isle of Man and Jersey), while the US has a special arrangement, the Safe Harbour scheme, under which participating US companies can receive data if they promise to abide by rules over and above US law.

For transfers to all other countries there must be specific data protection contractual arrangements in place before the personal data of EU residents can be sent to companies based there for processing. The European Commission produces standard clauses that are used in such contracts.

The Commission has changed the terms of those clauses to allow companies in non-European Economic Area (EEA) countries to sub-contract work, but only with the explicit permission of client companies.” [emphasis added]

Read the full article here for more details and a link to an Out-law.com guide to overseas transfer of personal data.

Intellectual Ventures and Invention Capital : Financing Inventors and Monetizing Creations : Making Big Money out of Patents : The "New" Software ?

Intellectual Ventures has been labelled “Intellectual Vultures” as a consequence of its acquisition of 30,000 patents and collection thus far of more than $1 billion in license fees. That is big business. What goes on?

In Investment Firm Hopes to Turn Patents Into Invention Capital Market, Steve Lohr at the New York Times reports on this “nonpracticing entity” – called a patent troll by its detractors – that makes no products of its own but deals in patents only.

The March 2010 Issue of the Harvard Business Review under the title Funding Eureka! features an article written by Nathan Myhrvold, former chief technology officer at Microsoft and Founder and CEO of Intellectual Ventures, in which Myhrvold makes the case that his company is not a patent troll but is trying to “create a capital market for inventions” and “to make applied research a profitable activity that attracts vastly more private investment than it does today”.

Is it possible that Myhrvold represents the future of patents?

Law and Copyright: Oral Arguments at the GBS Fairness Hearing : The Google Books Amended Settlement Agreement : Should it be Approved?

The Laboratorium has a summary of the oral arguments at the GBS Fairness Hearing.

Prior to that, Ivy Anderson, Director of Collections at the California Digital Library wrote:

“Late last week, Google and the plaintiffs filed their final briefs in defense of the Google Books Amended Settlement Agreement (ASA) that is before the New York Southern Federal District Court. As the rhetoric around the Settlement heats up to white-hot intensity in the final days before the Fairness Hearing on February 18th, I’d like to offer a few personal thoughts from my vantage point at the California Digital Library….

I like to compare this to the building of the great Temple of the Sagrada Familia in Barcelona, a city with which my family has an ancestral connection. When my husband’s grandmother left Barcelona as a young girl in the late 19th century, the Sagrada Familia had barely erected its first stone. In 2006 more than 125 years later, her great-granddaughter traveled to Barcelona for the first time, where she was able to observe Gaudi’s monumental edifice, still under construction. At this writing, completion is projected for 2026.

Like the Sagrada Familia, without the Google Books Project we could still be building the digital library of the future 100 years from now.”

Read the rest at Hurtling Toward the Finish Line: Should the Google Books Settlement Be Approved?: California Digital Library

Tutankhamun and "Where the Great Akhenaten Lies" : Asharq Alawsat Newspaper (English)

Tutankhamun and “Where the Great Akhenaten Lies” : Asharq Alawsat Newspaper (English)

Zahi Hawass reports on the great discovery made regarding the identification of Akhenaten among the mummies of Egypt, inter alia writing:

“At a press conference for international media figures held by the Supreme Council of Antiquities last Wednesday at the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, I announced that important [archeological] discoveries had been made that shed more light on the dynasty of the golden pharaoh Tutankhamen. These discoveries marked the beginning of a new chapter in using modern techniques and advanced technology in the field of archeological discoveries.”

Read the rest here, where it appears quite clearly from the Hawass statements that Akhenaten has been convincingly identified.

EU Commission and EU Competition Law vs. Microsoft : The "Browser Ballot" and Windows 7 : EU and Microsoft Near Agreement on User Choice of Browsers

See Stan Schroeder at Mashable in
EU and Microsoft Near Browser Agreement

EVIDENCE? Tut Revisited: But is the Evidence so Clear that KV55 is Akhenaten and not Tut’s brother Smenkhkare

Mark Rose at Archaeology Magazine in Tut: Disease and DNA News, February 16, 2010, asks however, based on an age estmitaion of KV55 at death as being a younger man, perhaps in his 20’s, whether the evidence is so clear that KV55 is Akhkenaten according to the DNA rather than Tut’s brother Smenkhkare (Smenchkare).

EVIDENCE? The DNA Evidence is Clear: Tutankhamun was the Son of Akhenaten (Echnaton) : The Cause of Tut’s Death Is Speculative as a Matter of Science

The manner in which the medical community and archaeologists handle evidence is hair-raising and can be exemplified again with current events in the case of the DNA and CT study of Tutankhamun.

Who was Tutankhamun and was he murdered by the Philistines?

Nearly five years ago I made a posting to the LexiLine group on the History of Civilization at 33 LexiLine Newsletter 2005 Who was Tutankhamun – Jonathon Aton – The Me’il in which I identified the young “co-regent” Tutankhamun as the son of Akhenaten (Echnaton). Tut was NEVER the Pharaoh himself. My identification has now been proven correct by DNA evidence in a study conducted by Egypt’s Supreme Council of Antiquities (SCA) under the leadership of Secretary General Zahi Hawass, a study published in Vol. 303 No. 7, February 17, 2010 of the Journal of the American Medical Association, of which the following is the Abstract:

Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun’s Family

Zahi Hawass, PhD; Yehia Z. Gad, MD; Somaia Ismail, PhD; Rabab Khairat, MSc; Dina Fathalla, MSc; Naglaa Hasan, MSc; Amal Ahmed, BPharm; Hisham Elleithy, MA; Markus Ball, MSc; Fawzi Gaballah, PhD; Sally Wasef, MSc; Mohamed Fateen, MD; Hany Amer, PhD; Paul Gostner, MD; Ashraf Selim, MD; Albert Zink, PhD; Carsten M. Pusch, PhD

JAMA. 2010;303(7):638-647.

Context The New Kingdom in ancient Egypt, comprising the 18th, 19th, and 20th dynasties, spanned the mid-16th to the early 11th centuries BC. The late 18th dynasty, which included the reigns of pharaohs Akhenaten and Tutankhamun, was an extraordinary time. The identification of a number of royal mummies from this era, the exact relationships between some members of the royal family, and possible illnesses and causes of death have been matters of debate.

Objectives To introduce a new approach to molecular and medical Egyptology, to determine familial relationships among 11 royal mummies of the New Kingdom, and to search for pathological features attributable to possible murder, consanguinity, inherited disorders, and infectious diseases.

Design From September 2007 to October 2009, royal mummies underwent detailed anthropological, radiological, and genetic studies as part of the King Tutankhamun Family Project. Mummies distinct from Tutankhamun’s immediate lineage served as the genetic and morphological reference. To authenticate DNA results, analytical steps were repeated and independently replicated in a second ancient DNA laboratory staffed by a separate group of personnel. Eleven royal mummies dating from circa 1410-1324 BC and suspected of being kindred of Tutankhamun and 5 royal mummies dating to an earlier period, circa 1550-1479 BC, were examined.

Main Outcome Measures Microsatellite-based haplotypes in the mummies, generational segregation of alleles within possible pedigree variants, and correlation of identified diseases with individual age, archeological evidence, and the written historical record.

Results Genetic fingerprinting allowed the construction of a 5-generation pedigree of Tutankhamun’s immediate lineage. The KV55 mummy and KV35YL were identified as the parents of Tutankhamun. No signs of gynecomastia and craniosynostoses (eg, Antley-Bixler syndrome) or Marfan syndrome were found, but an accumulation of malformations in Tutankhamun’s family was evident. Several pathologies including Köhler disease II were diagnosed in Tutankhamun; none alone would have caused death. Genetic testing for STEVOR, AMA1, or MSP1 genes specific for Plasmodium falciparum revealed indications of malaria tropica in 4 mummies, including Tutankhamun’s. These results suggest avascular bone necrosis in conjunction with the malarial infection as the most likely cause of death in Tutankhamun. Walking impairment and malarial disease sustained by Tutankhamun is supported by the discovery of canes and an afterlife pharmacy in his tomb.

Conclusion Using a multidisciplinary scientific approach, we showed the feasibility of gathering data on Pharaonic kinship and diseases and speculated about individual causes of death.

The results of the study were released within the last 24 hours (February 16/17, 2010) to the public and have already been summarized in part at the Wikipedia:

Scholars had not reached consensus on the identity of Tutankhamun’s parents. An inscription calls him a king’s son [emphasis added], but it was not clear which king was meant. An extensive DNA analysis whose results were publicized in February 2010 confirmed that he was the son of Akhenaten and Akhenaten’s sister (also his wife).[8]

At one time Tutankhamun had been thought to be a son of Amenhotep III and his Great Royal Wife Queen Tiye [added insert from us: the hieroglpyh from which this erroneous idea came actually reads “ancestor” rather than “father”]. Instead, he has been confirmed as their grandson, child of their son and daughter.[9] Later research claimed that he may have been a son of Amenhotep III, although not by Queen Tiye. She would have been more than fifty years old at the time of Tutankhamun’s birth.

DNA results released in February 2010 confirm Tutankhamun as the biological son of Akhenaten and grandson of Queen Tiye. Tutankhamun’s mother has been confirmed as Mummy KV35YL, a sister of Akhenaten. Her identity as of this date is still unidentified.[10]

A common hypothesis held that Tutankhamun was the son of Akhenaten, also known as Amenhotep IV, and his minor wife Queen Kiya. Queen Kiya’s title was “Greatly Beloved Wife of Akhenaten” so it is possible that she could have borne him an heir. Supporting this theory, images on the tomb wall in the tomb of Akhenaten show a royal fan bearer standing next to Kiya’s death bed, fanning someone who may be a princess. Researchers also thought the figure was a wet nurse holding a baby, considered to be the boy king-to-be.

Professor James Allen [link added: President of the International Association of Egyptologists] argued that Tutankhamun was more likely to be a son of the short-lived king Smenkhkare rather than Akhenaten. Allen argued that Akhenaten chose a female co-regent named Neferneferuaten as his successor, rather than Tutankhamun. He thought that would have been unlikely if the latter were his son.[11][12] Smenkhkare appears when Akhenaten entered year 14 of his reign. Scholars believe that during this time Meritaten married Smenkhkare. Smenkhkare, as the father of Tutankhamun, would have needed at least a three-year reign to bring Tutankhamun to the right age to have inherited the throne. However, if there had been lengthy co-regency between Amenhotep III and Akhenaten, Amenhotep could have been Tutankhamun’s father (later disproved by DNA testing).[12][13]

Recently, Zahi Hawass, Secretary General of the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities, announced the recovery of a part of a limestone block depicting Tutankhamun and his wife Ankhesenamen, along with text. These identify both Tutankhamun and his wife Ankhesenpaaten as “children of the king’s body” or the biological son and daughter of Akhenaten. This shows the repetition of marriage between royal siblings.

The junk that the mainstream media have written about the new – mostly DNA evidence – is further proof that mainstream academia and mainstream journalists feed the clueless public with more-or-less pablum nonsense, concentrating not on important matters of the identity of Pharaohs but rather on the speculatively sensationalistic question of Tut’s cause of death, whereas the identity question is far more important to Egyptology and the reconstruction of man’s ancient history. The mainstream media and Egyptologists have already announced that the cause of Tut’s death is clear, whereas the actual study says:

These results suggest avascular bone necrosis in conjunction with the malarial infection as the most likely cause of death in Tutankhamun.

That “suggestion” is pure IDLE speculation given the fact that 4 of the 11 mummies examined showed signs of malaria and that Tut’s foot malformation must have been of very long standing.

As written at Why Evolution is True in What killed King Tut?

“… Hawass, with his usual penchant for publicity, is going around telling reporters, with no reservations, that malaria definitely killed the young king. Well, maybe, but falciparum malaria isn’t always fatal. Two of of Tut’s great-grandparents had it, and, as the authors note, they died in their 50s, and the infection might have been chronic, or suppressed by their immune systems.”

Already in the year 1923, as can easily be seen from a photograph of Tut’s body, which is reproduced at page 297 of the 1996 British Museum Dictionary of Ancient Egypt (reproduced there courtesy of the Griffith Institute), it was well known already nearly 87 years ago that Tut had suffered a broken leg in his life and that there was a serious problem with his unequally sized feet – as can be seen from our cut-out and coloring of the lower half of that image (our added red circles show the leg break and the foot malformation):
The notion that the new DNA and CT study dispells the possibility that King Tut met a violent death is sadly mistaken – it proves nothing, merely adding the malaria element to an already shaky theory.

As written at TourEgypt.net in Who Killed King Tut? by The Government of Egypt and edited by Jimmy Dunn:

“The possibility that Tutankhamen did not die of natural causes was first raised 28 years ago when an X-ray analysis of his mummy was made by the anatomy department of the University of Liverpool. It revealed that the king may have died from a blow to the back of his head.

Early this year, a new X-ray analysis cast more light on the subject, this time suggesting that Tutankhamen may have been murdered in his sleep. The examination was conducted by a trauma specialist at Long Island University, USA, “The blow was to a protected area at the back of the head which you don’t injure in an accident, someone had to sneak up from behind,” said the specialist.

X-rays also show a thickening of a bone in the cranium which could occur only after a build-up of blood. This would indicate that the king might have been left bleeding for a long time before he actually died. In short, scientists suggest that the king was most probably hit on the back of his head while asleep and that he lingered, maybe for as long as two months, before he died….

[O]n the pedestal of one of Horemhab’s statues is a text in which he left a message to all Egyptians, indicating that he was not the man who committed the crime. He declared in writing that he was loyal to his king and carried out all his orders faithfully. He also warned any Egyptian who may read the text, against ‘normalizing’ relations with foreigners and told them never to trust them: “Egyptian brothers, don’t ever forget what foreigners did to our King Tutankhamen”, Horemhab wrote.”

Why the mainstream scholars continue to ignore other evidence and seek to force a speculative interpretation upon the public is something that we can not understand. But it is typical for Egyptology.

To recall our own article, 5 years ago at 33 LexiLine Newsletter 2005 Who was Tutankhamun – Jonathon Aton – The Me’il:

I recently received a letter asking me for an illustration of the robe or Me’il of the Cohen Gadol, the Hebrew High Priest, and also asking me who in my opinion Tutankhamun was. The two questions are inter-related.

See the following website for one interpretative drawing of the Cohen Gadol’s priestly garments http://messianic-torat-chayim-sg.org/Torah/kohengadol.html. That is pretty much a fantasy drawing, but a good attempt.

Actually, the robe of the Cohen Gadol will not have been substantially different than that worn by the Pharaohs of Egypt, based on the following example ramsesIII.jpg of the garment of Ramses III which I have [also] uploaded to our LexiLine files at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LexiLine/files/Egypt/


You can see there both the top and bottom robe, the ephod, the belt in layers, as well as the tassels on the robe, some of which, also on Ramses III, appear to be small bells – as allegedly also on the robe of the Cohen Gadol in descriptions of the me’il. This picture is a scan from a superb book by Peter A. Clayton, Chronicle of the Pharaohs, Thames and Hudson Ltd., London, 1994, available at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0500050740/. The book is a must buy for anyone in this field as the best book of this kind in Egyptology (i.e. it is an understandable overview of all the pharaohs and their reigns according to the mainstream views). No other book comes even close. I use it all the time, even though it of course carries forward many mainstream errors in Egyptology.

Remnants of the Hebrew High Priest’s robe were in my opinion found in the Tomb of Tutankhamun. Such a robe would have been far more Egyptian in nature than the drawing above and the Cohen Gadol would not have had a beard – quite the contrary, priests were bald: (quoted from http://snipurl.com/fetq viz.
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/prehistory/egypt/dailylife/hairstyles.html.

“Priests were required to keep their entire bodies cleanly shaved.
They shaved every third day because they needed to avoid the danger
of lice or any other uncleanness to conduct rituals. This is the
reason why priests are illustrated bald-headed with no eyebrows or
lashes.”

In addition, both the bearded Asiatics (Assyrians, etc.) and the black peoples were arch enemies of the clean-shaven Pharaohs, as shown at the Tomb of Tutankhamun on the prow of a miniature ship. In discussing the origin of the Pharaohs, it is rather remarkable that such important pieces of evidence are ignored by Egyptology.

For an extensive review of the items found in the Tomb of Tutankhamun, see generally

http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi80.htm and more specifically
http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi25.htm and also
http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi600.htm

The identity of Tutankhamun can be explained as follows:

In my opinion, the evidence is incontrovertible that King Saul =Echnaton (Akhenaten), King David = Sethos and King Solomon = Ramses II with Shishak = Ramses III.

Accordingly, Tutankhamun can only be ATON, i.e. JON-ATHON (“young Aton, young Adonis, “Jaun-(IE)donis”), one of the sons of Saul in the Bible. Saul was Echn-ATON viz. Akhen-ATEN (“old Aton”, old Adonis, “Vec-(IE)Donis”). The other brother was Semenchkare, Biblical Ish-Boshet, who served a short time as Pharaoh before being executed. The hieroglyphs which the Egyptologists read as SE-Mench are actually ISH-Boshet. SE = ISH. The other error occurs because there are two alternative readings for the small chisel – one is MNCH (Indo-European e.g. latvian MI(N)CHA), MIEC- “to knead, strike” but the other is B[…..] which is Indo-European viz. Latvian PASIT (=BOSHET) “to strike at”. The Egyptologists have chosen the wrong alternative of the two for Semenchkare.

Young ATON (Jon-ATHON) saved David’s life and was his best friend, but was killed at an early age – according to the Bible – battling the Philistines, in a battle in which Saul (“old Aton”) also lost his life. According to the Bible, the latter’s body was mutilated by the Philistines and has thus never been found by the Egyptologists, probably having been buried somewhere in Canaan.

Tutankhamun never served as Pharaoh but was heir to the throne. This explains his having a royal cartouche but being excluded from the ancient lists of the kings of Egypt. He never manned the throne. His untimely death brought his best friend David onto the throne, and so Jonathon was buried in regal style by David, who had become King David = Sethos (Setoy).

Note in this regard that the alleged pharaoh Haremhab viz. Horemhab at this time was actually Hiram (also written Huram), King of Tyre, one of King David’s best friends. Horemhab never served as sovereign Pharaoh of Egypt, contrary to the erred opinion of Egyptology, but was only a vice-regent (see http://www.varchive.org/tac/harcrown.htm) later given a royal status – whence the cartouche – by King David. Haremhab built many buildings for David (so the Bible) upon which he also placed his name as the builder of them – but pharaoh himself he was not, but only King of Tyre. The kingly reign attributed to him actually belonged to King David (Sethos viz. Setoy) and this is why in spite of two tombs being attributed to Haremhab by the Egyptologists, his mummy is not found among the mummies of the kings which have been recovered in the mummy depots. The Egyptologists incorrectly read “Tyre” on the hieroglyphs as DJOSER whereas Haremhab’s cartouched hieroglyph showing the hand holding an object
is clearly to be read as TUR (“hold”) i.e. TYRE and not DJOSER.

Nearly all of the furniture and treasures in the tomb of Tutankhamun are from a later period. The tomb was reopened and the holy vessels of the Mishnayot were hidden there, including the Ark of the Covenant (also called the Ark of the Law, Ark of the Testimony, Ark of God) with the tomb being resealed by the priests and the entrance being covered by tons of rubble – such tomb only having been found in our modern era by Howard Carter as the Tomb of Tutankhamun.

See in this regard
http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi80.htm and
http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi000.htm
for the hiding of the Ark of the Covenant and the holy vessels.”

The NEW SOCIALISM : Bailing out the Rich and "Acquiring" Foreign Countries via Credit Squeezes : The Risks and Costs are "Socialized" to the Taxpayers

If you oppose socialism, you are in for a real surprise, because you may – unknowingly – be among the biggest socialists of all – something that we have labeled the “NEW SOCIALISM”.

We trace our initial political and economic understanding of this new socialism directly to a key insight of John Lanchester, who we refer to in a previous LawPundit posting at Laughing All the Way to the Bank – Dwight Garner reviews I.O.U.: Why Everyone Owes Everyone and No One Can Pay – by John Lanchester. Garner benignly identifies Lanchester’s brilliant recognition of the NEW SOCIALISM as “black satire” when he writes as follows:

“I.O.U.” crosses over into black satire when Mr. Lanchester describes how bankers used their new tools to make money from poor people, the worst credit risks, by prying their cash loose through predatory lending, then pooling this money and selling it off. Who cared if these people defaulted on their mortgages? The risk had already been passed along to others, and ultimately, when banks failed, to taxpayers. Mr. Lanchester calls this “a 100 percent pure form of socialism for the rich.”

That’s quite right – but it is NOT really satire at its core. It is reality.
The rich continue to get richer and the poor continue to get poorer. How is that achieved?

Our first example of the NEW SOCIALISM is the bank impact – one year later – of last year’s “bailout” of US financial institutions by the government, speak by the taxpayers. The Wall Street Journal at WSJ.com in Geithner Gets Some Credit—But Still No Cheers writes:

“The most biting critique isn’t that the Obama-Geithner plan failed to stabilize the banks; rather, it’s that it was too generous and worked so well that surviving banks are hampering the rewrite of finance rules needed to prevent a repeat. “Reform was put off until after the most powerful banks had grown even bigger, returned to profitability, and regained their political clout,” economist Simon Johnson of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology writes in a forthcoming book.”

The surviving “bailed out” banks are flourishing again splendidly as winners of the bailout lottery – at the expense of the taxpayers and the little guys who essentially fund the banks’ risks. That is all completely contrary to the economic and philosophical concepts of true capitalism, where the classic justification for permitting capitalists or entrepreneurs to take unconscionable profits is – by capitalist thinking – to greatly reward the capitalists’ (alleged) economic risk-taking. But in fact, a smart capitalist today bears virtually NO RISK at all in financial dealings, preferring to speculate, as it were, with other people’s money, i.e. the risk is “socialized” in a variety ways to the poorer “mass” of society, who bear the ultimate consequences as increasingly overburdened taxpayers, foreclosed mortgagees, unemployed persons, etc. The NEW SOCIALISM.

What is true at the level of the banks is equally true at the level of nation-states, where weaker countries are permitted to pile up exorbitant amounts of credit — often to buy the goods and services offered by the countries who are providing that credit. Countries such as Latvia or Greece have put themselves into dire financial straits because WESTERN banks have extended too much credit to people and institutions in those countries, credit which was often used to buy things that the borrowers did not really need, such as armies of gas-guzzling motor vehicles.

As a good example, instead of the provision of sensible and futuristically viable public or private transportation in Riga and the Baltic States generally, everyone now has obtained a car for the now hopelessly clogged streets of the few large cities – all on credit of course, in countries which have not yet been retooled industrially or agriculturally to cope with the demands of world markets. How, except for selling off their lands and depleting their forests – the only natural economic resources that a country like e.g Latvia has – can such countries hope to pay off their debts? Where is the repayment money to come from?

That is the diabolical beauty of credit extended to developing nations who have no chance to repay the large sums of credit extended to them – the debt is then in fact used by the lender nations to gain other advantages. A country which can not be bought directly is bought indirectly. A few profit and the mass of citizens pays through the loss of their nation’s natural resources.

Greece has put itself into such a difficult situation that we read headlines such as this one at the New York Times:

Germany, Forced to Buoy Greece, Rues Euro Shift – NYTimes.com

and even America itself is implicated as a potential buy-out candidate:

Niall Ferguson: The Next Greece? It’s The US!

Is it time to learn to speak Chinese?

Computer-implemented Claims Continue to be Rejected by USPTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Computer-implemented Claims Continue to be Rejected by USPTO Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

As written by Eric M Shelton of McDermott Will & Emery:

“In a decision applying the Bilski “machine-or-transformation test” (see IP Update, Vol. 11, No. 11), the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (the Board) continued its practice of invalidating computer implemented method claims under § 101. Ex parte Gutta, Appeal No. 2008-3000 (BPAI, Jan. 15, 2010) (Pate, III, APJ).” [link added]
. . .

Practice Note: The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently issued guidelines for examination under § 101 (see IP Update, Vol. 12, No. 9 ).”

Read Shelton’s analysis here.

Law and Ancient Texts? The Last UK University Palaeographer? King’s College London to Shut Down UK’s Only Palaeography Chair

Not much money in studying ancient texts.
Just ask the author of the posting you are now reading.

Hence, we are not surprised to read at The Guardian in Writing off the UK’s last palaeographer that:

“The decision by a London university to axe the UK’s only chair in palaeography has been met by outrage from the world’s most eminent classicists. John Crace on why the study of ancient writings matters – and why history will be lost without it….”

As Crace writes:

“Indus Valley script

Plenty more work to be done . . . palaeographers are yet to decipher the Indus Valley script….

Palaeographers are used to making sense of fragments of ancient manuscripts, but King’s College London couldn’t have been plainer when it announced recently that it was to close the UK’s only chair of palaeography….

Not that palaeography has the answer to everything. No one has still made head or tail of Linear A (dating back to around 1900BC), and the Indus ­Valley script of the third millennium BC is still a mystery.

[Our comment: Maybe the politicians, journalists and academic mainstreamers alike, should first do their homework about the Phaistos Disc and about the Indus Valley Script, before they go into uninformed decisionmaking and propagandizing.

For example, in the Indus Valley Script pictured by Crace –


– as can easily be seen from my graphic at the top of the page of my blog at Indus Valley Script, with the human to be replaced by the upturned arrows and the comparable bow-type symbol, the Indus Valley script pictured by Crace marks the stars from the Winter Solstice to the Autumn Equinox ca. 2000 B.C. Obviously this a stamp – so the reverse is intended, i.e. from the Autumn Equinox to the Winter Solstice.]

But just days before King’s made the announcement, its sister London institution, University College, was boasting how two of Ganz’s former students, Dr Simon ­Corcoran and Dr Benet Salway, had pieced together 17 fragments of parchment that form an important ­Roman law code – believed to be the only original evidence yet discovered of the Gregorian Codex (a collection of constitutions upon which a substantial part of most modern European civil law ­systems are built) that had been thought lost for ever.” [emphasis added]

Copyright Infringing Plagiarism or Literary Remix? AXOLOTL Roadkill a Literary Sensation in Berlin : Originality vs. Authenticity as a Legal Defense?

Copyright infringing plagiarism or literary remix? Will the real author please stand up.

In Author, 17, Says It’s ‘Mixing,’ Not Plagiarism, Nicholas Kulish at the NYTimes.com informs us that Helene Hegemann, a mere 17 years old – but daughter of Carl Hegemann, one of the most prominent and innovative dramaturgs in Europe, now a Professor at the Department of Dramaturgy in Leipzig – seems to be following in her father’s footsteps and has landed a beststeller in Germany with her first book, Axolotl Roadkill, a novel just announced as a finalist for the $20,000 fiction prize of the Leipzig Book Fair – a nice gesture to one of their own?

It was Carl Hegemann:

“[W]ho developed the theoretical superstructure for this hybrid artistry: “A reality is no longer encountered, but brought forth by the ‘members’ of a culture.”

But who really wrote this book?

One major problem with the book – as it turns out – is that:

[A] blogger last week uncovered material in the novel taken from the less-well-known novel “Strobo,” by an author writing under the nom de plume Airen. In one case, an entire page was lifted with few changes.

As written in Helene Hegemann, the art of cut and paste in the Berliner Zeitung in picking the “European of the ‘Week”:

“Helene Hegemann says she’s sorry, she knows it was wrong “not to mention all the people whose writings helped me”. And yet she stands by her novel: after all, “there’s no such thing as originality anyway, there’s only authenticity”. What’s more, she’s only a “lodger” in her own mind: “I help myself to whatever inspires me.””

Who is Airen? and what if there is some kind of a literary connection to Carl Hegemann?

As the legal mind would say – an interesting case.

Google’s Blogger – Blogger.com – Will Not Support FTP Publishing After March 26, 2010

Blogger recently sent us the following notice, which will require us to shift our 1&1-hosted LawPundit domain to a Google “custom domain” some time this month. This shift should go unnoticed by our readers, unless there are transfer problems – we hope none – and refer to our mirror site at LawPundit II just in case. Here is the notice from Google’s Blogger:
“Dear FTP user:

You are receiving this e-mail because one or more of your blogs at Blogger.com are set up to publish via FTP. We recently announced a planned shut-down of FTP support on Blogger Buzz (the official Blogger blog), and wanted to make sure you saw the announcement. We will be following up with more information via e-mail in the weeks ahead, and regularly updating a blog dedicated to this service shut-down here: http://blogger-ftp.blogspot.com/.

The full text of the announcement at Blogger Buzz follows.

Last May, we discussed a number of challenges facing[1] Blogger users who relied on FTP to publish their blogs. FTP remains a significant drain on our ability to improve Blogger: only .5% of active blogs are published via FTP — yet the percentage of our engineering resources devoted to supporting FTP vastly exceeds that. On top of this, critical infrastructure that our FTP support relies on at Google will soon become unavailable, which would require that we completely rewrite the code that handles our FTP processing.

Three years ago we launched Custom Domains[2] to give users the simplicity of Blogger, the scalability of Google hosting, and the flexibility of hosting your blog at your own URL. Last year’s post discussed the advantages of custom domains over FTP[3] and addressed a number of reasons users have continued to use FTP publishing. (If you’re interested in reading more about Custom Domains, our Help Center has a good overview[4] of how to use them on your blog.) In evaluating the investment needed to continue supporting FTP, we have decided that we could not justify diverting further engineering resources away from building new features for all users.


For that reason, we are announcing today that we will no longer support FTP publishing in Blogger after March 26, 2010. We realize that this will not necessarily be welcome news for some users, and we are committed to making the transition as seamless as possible. To that end:

    • We are building a migration tool that will walk users through a migration from their current URL to a Blogger-managed URL (either a Custom Domain or a Blogspot URL) that will be available to all users the week of February 22. This tool will handle redirecting traffic from the old URL to the new URL, and will handle the vast majority of situations.
    • We will be providing a dedicated blog[5] and help documentation
    • Blogger team members will also be available to answer questions on the forum, comments on the blog, and in a few scheduled conference calls once the tool is released.

We have a number of big releases planned in 2010. While we recognize that this decision will frustrate some users, we look forward to showing you the many great things on the way. Thanks for using Blogger.

Regards,
Rick Klau
Blogger Product Manager
Google
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, CA 9404″

The Blogger decision at Google is a sign of the times, of course, as everyone is scrambling to get users onto their platform and not that of the competition, not the least of which is Google, who two days ago added Google Buzz to Google Mail (GMail) as a clear counter to Facebook.

e-LegalTechnology.org : A Specialist Directory & Resource Tool for Law Professionals

Legal Technology Companies, Law Firm Applications, Events, Conferences, Training, Jobs, White Papers, News

“e-LegalTechnology.org is a specialist directory and resource tool for lawyers, legal professionals and legal technology specialists. Our site offers detailed descriptions of hundreds of service providers, legal applications, events, seminars, webinars, white papers, articles, jobs and press releases all specific to the legal technology sector.”

This is not an ad on our part but merely alerts our readers to this potentially useful website.