The “major overhaul patent bill” Mr. Obama signed Friday 9/16/11 is an example of government thinking and dealing with a simple problem.
Remarkably, SB 23 takes some litigation out of patents. Inventors have long been plagued by people claiming to have invented their creations after they’re up and running. Suits predicated on vague evidence, like high school notebooks, generate huge expert witness and attorney bills for the hapless inventor. Now, when you file it you own it, per SB23, Section 2.
700,000 patent filings await 7,000 US Patent and Trademark Office, USPTO, Examiners, 100 for each. SB 23 is supposed to reduce the three to five year normal examination period. Doubtful; that pile is job security for Federal bureaucrats. They know how to milk this cash cow.
Each of my patent filings generated 600 pages of correspondence from these folks. All are cranky. They pick fights. One rejected my application because I had not defined Claims in “steps.” I searched their system to find 80% of all patents granted did not include the word “step” and it has no synonym! They relented, but stuck me for re-filing fees.
In another filing I called for a fermentate, “must,” to be chilled in an underground tank to reduce energy to separate butanol. The Examiner rejected my application because Spanish Sherry had been stored in “solera,” barrels in caves! I have been to Jerez, Spain and learned caves were cheap, cold storage not for decanting, but “casting” yeast. Many letters and phone calls to USPTO superiors got reinstatement, more fees, of course.
On my next filing an Examiner called objecting to my not having a patent attorney. I replied I had one who had been Head of the Patent Department of a major corporation for 31 years, but he made many mistakes and violated our partnership agreement so I fired him.
I had done a study of 250 patents where I have expertise: 25% prepared by inventors were perfect in language, concept and science. Every attorney written patent had at least one error in language, concept and science plus three were provable frauds! While reciting those numbers I heard a “click.” I got that patent without additional fees.
If they really want to accelerate the patent process they will pay Examiners $500 for each patent examined. They are typically ten pages of text and a few of drawings. That stack will vanish in a few months in spite of the new patent bill.
Adrian Vance
Monday, September 19, 2011
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Bachmann 1, Ethics 0
In debating Perry, Bachmannn called him out on his executive order that all school children in Texas receive the HPV vaccine. Fair enough, since this is reasonably a contention of philosophy. However, she couldn't leave it there; she had to add the vaccine caused mental retardation.To be accurate, she said a mother came up to her after a speech, and told her that the vaccine had cause her child to become mentally retarded. Gives Bachmann squirm room while compounding the point against Perry.
Chances are overwhelming the vaccine did not cause retardation, assuming the mother even exists, but correlation is not causation. She did not, of course, cover the factoid that any Texas parent could have opted out of the inoculation. She did let the assertion remain that HPV vaccinations can cause mental retardation, even though CDC lists the worst side effects as a rash around the inoculation site. She also did not bring up the factoid that her own children had to comply with Wisconsin's mandatory inoculation requirements to enter school.
Because of her assertions, how many parents--dozens, hundreds, thousands?--will not have their daughters vaccinated, leading in twenty or forty years to how many--dozens, hundreds, thousands?--of premature, unnecessary deaths. Bachmann will not be held responsible, and even the parents may not remember their irresponsible decision or illogical reason why their daughter died prematurely.
However, Bachmann, for a shallow political point, contributed to those premature deaths. If she is this ethically unconstrained with but the power of a microphone, I would not care to see her further empowered.
Tuesday, September 13, 2011
American Stasi
Read this account of a lady detained on 9/11, then tell me who won the War on Terror. The Patriot Act was enacted five days after 9/11, reputedly having been written by Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their ilk, for continuity of the country after atomic attack. If its actions instead remind one of the East German Stasi, there might be reason.
http://shebshi.wordpress.com/2011/09/12/some-real-shock-and-awe-racially-profiled-and-cuffed-in-detroit/
http://shebshi.wordpress.com/2011/09/12/some-real-shock-and-awe-racially-profiled-and-cuffed-in-detroit/
Saturday, September 3, 2011
Entitlement, My Ass!
Not only do workers contribute to Social Security; their employers do, too. It totals 15.3% of income before taxes. If a worker averaged $30K over his or her working years, the total is close to $220,500.
Calculate the future value of $4,500 per year (worker’s and employer's contributions) at 5% interest after 49 years of working gives $892,919.98. Withdrawing 3% per year, provides one $26,787.60 per year, which would last better than 30 years (say from age 65 to 95) and that's with no interest! Purchasing an annuity paying 4% per year, gives a lifetime income of $2,976.40 per month.
The average worker gets half that! The folks in Washington operate a bigger Ponzi scheme than Bernie Madhoff! And they call it an entitlement!
Just because they spent all the money does NOT make it a handout or charity. Bad investment, maybe, but that is why they make it mandatory.
But what really, really tics me off: My kids and grandkids generation now have to pay so I can draw my returns on investment. You "leaders" have stolen from me, now steal from them. Madhoff got 150 years for $60 billion; how much should you get?
Calculate the future value of $4,500 per year (worker’s and employer's contributions) at 5% interest after 49 years of working gives $892,919.98. Withdrawing 3% per year, provides one $26,787.60 per year, which would last better than 30 years (say from age 65 to 95) and that's with no interest! Purchasing an annuity paying 4% per year, gives a lifetime income of $2,976.40 per month.
The average worker gets half that! The folks in Washington operate a bigger Ponzi scheme than Bernie Madhoff! And they call it an entitlement!
Just because they spent all the money does NOT make it a handout or charity. Bad investment, maybe, but that is why they make it mandatory.
But what really, really tics me off: My kids and grandkids generation now have to pay so I can draw my returns on investment. You "leaders" have stolen from me, now steal from them. Madhoff got 150 years for $60 billion; how much should you get?
Friday, September 2, 2011
What Our Leadership Has Wroth
This is an essay in progress. In the end, it will be much longer, contain references, and cover the nitty gritty to demonstrate my contentions. I also hope to have suggestions of what each of us might do to protect ourselves and to even correct the situation.
The political and bureaucratic leadership of the United States is responsible for this by screwing with the economy without end and spending monies they did not have. They didn't do it on purpose, but accomplished it with thousands of things, because they did not know they could kill it.
Basically, what they have done is allow whoever would donate to them to suck the country dry, and finally, in the case of banks, act flagrantly against the interests of the citizens without limit or fear of punitive redress. Fortunately a few state Attorneys General did not get the word, so are pursuing the "banksters" in spite of federal discouragement. One might notice that after the banksters trashed the world economy, none were even charged. Instead, trillions were made available so they would not self-destruct.
Now the government leaders have no clue what to do to correct it, and even would deny they did it.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Government lying about debt crisis!
by Martin D. Weiss, Ph.D.
Monday, June 27, 2011 at 7:30am
Do you believe what government officials and experts are saying about the debt crisis?
If so, you're taking your financial life into your hands.
Just consider how many times they've been wrong, issued deliberately misleading statements, or simply lied:
In 2007, they swore on a stack of Bibles that the debt crisis was limited to subprime mortgages.
In 2008, they admitted it had spread, but swore that it was strictly contained to the housing and mortgage sector.
In late 2009, they rescued the bankrupt banks and mortgage lenders using the $700 billion in emergency capital approved under the Trouble Asset Relief Program (TARP). Then, they ran deliberately lenient "stress tests" on the biggest banks to "prove" to the public that the emergency had passed.
In 2010, the European Union and the International Monetary Fund put together a sovereign debt rescue package that was even larger than TARP. They pulled Greece from the precipice and vowed never to let the contagion reel out of control.
Clearly, each outbreak of the contagion, each government rescue, and each new happy-talk pronouncement has merely spawned a bigger disaster, impacting bigger institutions ... gutting the portfolios of more investors ... and ruining the lives of millions more Americans.
Now, here we are halfway into 2011 and they're at it again — this time with a complete package of misleading statements and lies that make all previous ones seem candid by comparison.
Lie #1. They're again saying that the debt crisis of 2008-09 is "history."
The truth: The core cause of the crisis — the gigantic pyramid of high-risk derivatives — has never gone away.
Quite the contrary, the pile-up of derivatives on the books of major U.S. banks is now much larger — $244 trillion, compared to less than $200 trillion before the debt crisis, according to the U.S. Comptroller of the Currency (OCC).
Lie #2. They say that America's largest banks have virtually no exposure to a Greek debt default or a broader European sovereign debt crisis.
The truth: All major European and U.S. banks are linked through an even larger global network of derivatives, now representing more than $600 trillion, according to the Bank of International Settlements.
Therefore, even though U.S. banks may not hold large amounts of European debts themselves, they are directly exposed to European banks that do hold large amounts of loans to Greece, Ireland, Portugal, and others in jeopardy.
Lie #3. They insist that America's largest banks are safe.
The truth: The largest U.S. banks continue to hold nearly all of the derivatives in the country.
Goldman Sachs has $44.9 trillion in derivatives.
Bank of America has $52.5 trillion.
Citibank has $54.1 trillion.
And JPMorgan Chase towers over all others with $79.5 trillion of these potentially dangerous investments.
In total, JPMorgan, Goldman, Citibank, and the BofA alone are exposed to $234.7 trillion in derivatives. In contrast, among the thousands of other U.S. banks, the grand total of derivatives is a meager $9.3 trillion. In other words, these four banks are exposed to more than 25 times the sum total of all derivatives held by every other bank in the United States.
Never before has so much financial power — and risk — been concentrated in the hands of so few!
Yes, these numbers, reflecting the "notional" value of the financial instruments at play, are far larger than the actual amounts invested. But still, the risks are huge ...
The derivatives held by Bank of America are 36 times larger than TOTAL assets;
At JPMorgan Chase, they're 46.1 times larger than the assets;
At Citibank, 46.6 times larger; and
At Goldman Sachs Bank, a shocking 533 times larger!
Yes, in recent months, some banks have reduced somewhat their exposure to defaults by their counterparties. But here again, the exposure remains massive: According to the OCC, for each dollar of capital ...
Bank of America has $1.82 in credit exposure to derivatives;
Citibank also has $1.82;
JPMorgan Chase has $2.75; and
Goldman Sachs is, again, at the greatest risk of all — with $7.81 in credit exposure for each dollar of capital.
That means that if JPMorgan's counterparties defaulted on 36% of their derivatives, every last dime of the company's capital would be wiped out. And at Goldman Sachs, defaults on just 13% of its derivatives would wipe out its capital.
Lie #4. Misinformation about the government's supersized debts is equally egregious. They want you to believe that, although large, the government's debts are far below the danger zone — thought to be around 100% of GDP.
The truth: According to the Fed's latest Flow of Funds report, the U.S. Treasury owes a total of $9.6 trillion, 64% of GDP, which isn't too bad. But the U.S. government is also responsible for $7.6 trillion in debts owed by government agencies, such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The U.S. government's total debt burden: $17.2 trillion or 115% of GDP — similar or WORSE than that of countries like Greece, Ireland, Portugal, and Spain!
Lie #5. They argue that America is special because it controls the world's dominant reserve currency.
The truth: Yes, that gives Washington the ability to print money with impunity ... press other rich countries to accept its debts ... and borrow huge amounts abroad to finance its deficits. But it's more of a curse than a blessing!
It means that, more so than any other major nation, the U.S. government is beholden to investors overseas — often the same investors who have repeatedly attacked countries like Greece and Ireland. Ultimately, that could make the U.S. even more vulnerable than Europe.
Monday, June 27, 2011 at 7:30am
Do you believe what government officials and experts are saying about the debt crisis?
If so, you're taking your financial life into your hands.
Just consider how many times they've been wrong, issued deliberately misleading statements, or simply lied:
In 2007, they swore on a stack of Bibles that the debt crisis was limited to subprime mortgages.
But the crisis promptly spread to all kinds of mortgages, ripping through giant mortgage lenders like Countrywide, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac.
In 2008, they admitted it had spread, but swore that it was strictly contained to the housing and mortgage sector.
But in a few short months, it had enveloped commercial paper, money markets, and nearly all of Wall Street. Nearly every one of America's largest banks either failed or came within a hair of insolvency.
In late 2009, they rescued the bankrupt banks and mortgage lenders using the $700 billion in emergency capital approved under the Trouble Asset Relief Program (TARP). Then, they ran deliberately lenient "stress tests" on the biggest banks to "prove" to the public that the emergency had passed.
But with the government now assuming liability for trillions of mortgages and other bank obligations, they transformed a Wall Street debt disaster into an even larger Washington debt disaster: The federal deficit ballooned to four times its pre-crisis size. And in the euro zone, where governments had also pumped massive sums into bankrupt banks, the weakest countries like Greece began to collapse.
In 2010, the European Union and the International Monetary Fund put together a sovereign debt rescue package that was even larger than TARP. They pulled Greece from the precipice and vowed never to let the contagion reel out of control.
But within a few short months, the contagion toppled Ireland and Portugal ... threatened a similar fate for Spain, Italy, and Belgium ... and even raised serious questions about the financial fate of the two largest economies in the euro zone — France and Germany.
Clearly, each outbreak of the contagion, each government rescue, and each new happy-talk pronouncement has merely spawned a bigger disaster, impacting bigger institutions ... gutting the portfolios of more investors ... and ruining the lives of millions more Americans.
Now, here we are halfway into 2011 and they're at it again — this time with a complete package of misleading statements and lies that make all previous ones seem candid by comparison.
Lie #1. They're again saying that the debt crisis of 2008-09 is "history."
The truth: The core cause of the crisis — the gigantic pyramid of high-risk derivatives — has never gone away.
Quite the contrary, the pile-up of derivatives on the books of major U.S. banks is now much larger — $244 trillion, compared to less than $200 trillion before the debt crisis, according to the U.S. Comptroller of the Currency (OCC).
Lie #2. They say that America's largest banks have virtually no exposure to a Greek debt default or a broader European sovereign debt crisis.
The truth: All major European and U.S. banks are linked through an even larger global network of derivatives, now representing more than $600 trillion, according to the Bank of International Settlements.
Therefore, even though U.S. banks may not hold large amounts of European debts themselves, they are directly exposed to European banks that do hold large amounts of loans to Greece, Ireland, Portugal, and others in jeopardy.
Lie #3. They insist that America's largest banks are safe.
The truth: The largest U.S. banks continue to hold nearly all of the derivatives in the country.Goldman Sachs has $44.9 trillion in derivatives.
Bank of America has $52.5 trillion.
Citibank has $54.1 trillion.
And JPMorgan Chase towers over all others with $79.5 trillion of these potentially dangerous investments.
In total, JPMorgan, Goldman, Citibank, and the BofA alone are exposed to $234.7 trillion in derivatives. In contrast, among the thousands of other U.S. banks, the grand total of derivatives is a meager $9.3 trillion. In other words, these four banks are exposed to more than 25 times the sum total of all derivatives held by every other bank in the United States.
Never before has so much financial power — and risk — been concentrated in the hands of so few!
Yes, these numbers, reflecting the "notional" value of the financial instruments at play, are far larger than the actual amounts invested. But still, the risks are huge ...
The derivatives held by Bank of America are 36 times larger than TOTAL assets;
At JPMorgan Chase, they're 46.1 times larger than the assets;
At Citibank, 46.6 times larger; and
At Goldman Sachs Bank, a shocking 533 times larger!
Yes, in recent months, some banks have reduced somewhat their exposure to defaults by their counterparties. But here again, the exposure remains massive: According to the OCC, for each dollar of capital ...
Bank of America has $1.82 in credit exposure to derivatives;
Citibank also has $1.82;
JPMorgan Chase has $2.75; and
Goldman Sachs is, again, at the greatest risk of all — with $7.81 in credit exposure for each dollar of capital.
That means that if JPMorgan's counterparties defaulted on 36% of their derivatives, every last dime of the company's capital would be wiped out. And at Goldman Sachs, defaults on just 13% of its derivatives would wipe out its capital.
Lie #4. Misinformation about the government's supersized debts is equally egregious. They want you to believe that, although large, the government's debts are far below the danger zone — thought to be around 100% of GDP.
The truth: According to the Fed's latest Flow of Funds report, the U.S. Treasury owes a total of $9.6 trillion, 64% of GDP, which isn't too bad. But the U.S. government is also responsible for $7.6 trillion in debts owed by government agencies, such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The U.S. government's total debt burden: $17.2 trillion or 115% of GDP — similar or WORSE than that of countries like Greece, Ireland, Portugal, and Spain!
Lie #5. They argue that America is special because it controls the world's dominant reserve currency.
The truth: Yes, that gives Washington the ability to print money with impunity ... press other rich countries to accept its debts ... and borrow huge amounts abroad to finance its deficits. But it's more of a curse than a blessing!
It means that, more so than any other major nation, the U.S. government is beholden to investors overseas — often the same investors who have repeatedly attacked countries like Greece and Ireland. Ultimately, that could make the U.S. even more vulnerable than Europe.
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
The EPA's War on Jobs: Coal is from Earth, Lisa Jackson is from mercury
President Obama's jobs council will make its first recommendations today on lifting hiring and strengthening the economy. Too bad the message doesn't seem to be reaching the Administration's regulators, in particular the Environmental Protection Agency.
The EPA is currently conducting a campaign against coal-fired power and one of its most destructive weapons is a pending regulation to limit mercury and other hazardous air pollutants like dioxins or acid gases that power plants emit. The 946-page rule mandates that utilities install "maximum achievable control technology" under the Clean Air Act-and even by the EPA's lowball estimates, it is the most expensive rule in the agency's history.
In 1990, Congress gave the EPA discretion to decide if mercury regulation is "necessary and appropriate," and the Clinton Administration did so in its final days. The Bush Administration created a modest mercury program, only to have it overturned by an appeals court on technical grounds in its final days. The case was still in litigation when Mr. Obama took office, and his appointees used the opening to strafe the power industry, proposing a much more stringent rule.
The EPA issued the utility rule in March, with only 60 days for public comment. Basic administrative practice usually affords between 120 and 180 days, especially for complex or costly regulations of this scale. The proposal was obviously rushed, with numerous errors like overstating U.S. mercury emissions by a factor of 1,000. The word in Washington is that the openly politicized process unsettled even the EPA's career staff.
The agency estimates that the utility rule will cost $10.9 billion annually but will yield as much as $140 billion in total health and environmental benefits. Sounds like a deal. But most of those alleged benefits are indirect-i.e., not from the mercury reductions that the rule is supposed to be for. Rather, they come from pollutants ("airborne particles") that the EPA already regulates under other parts of the Clean Air Act. A good analogy is a corporation double-counting revenue.
According to the EPA's own numbers, every dollar in direct benefits costs $1,847. The reason is that electric generation-yes, even demon coal-results in negligible quantities of air pollutants like mercury. And mercury is on the decline: In 2005, the entire U.S. coal fleet emitted 26% less than the EPA predicted.
The real goal of the EPA's rule is to shut down fossil fuel electric power in the name of climate change. The consensus estimate in the private sector is that the utility rule and eight others on the EPA docket will force the retirement of 60 out of the country's current 340 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity. Reliability downgrades will hit the South and Midwest where coal energy is concentrated. American Electric Power recently announced that the rules will force it to shut down five plants in West Virginia and Ohio, a quarter of its coal fleet.
The power industry estimates that the true costs of the utility rule will far exceed the EPA estimates, which of course will be passed to consumers and businesses as higher prices. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, normally a White House union ally, says the rule will destroy 50,000 jobs and another 200,000 down the supply chain. That's more jobs lost than if Boeing went bust.
Astonishingly, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson claimed in March that the utility rule is "expected to create jobs," because it will "increase demand for pollution control technology" and "new workers will be needed to install, operate, and maintain" it. In other words, the government should harm an industry and force it to ruin working assets so maybe other people can clean up the mess.
Such theories help explain why the economic recovery and job creation are far weaker than they ought to be, but the good news is that even many Democrats are beginning to push back against the EPA's willful damage. The least Congress can do is force the EPA to delay the final utility rule to allow for more public debate, though a better option would be to junk it.
Katie Brown
The EPA is currently conducting a campaign against coal-fired power and one of its most destructive weapons is a pending regulation to limit mercury and other hazardous air pollutants like dioxins or acid gases that power plants emit. The 946-page rule mandates that utilities install "maximum achievable control technology" under the Clean Air Act-and even by the EPA's lowball estimates, it is the most expensive rule in the agency's history.
In 1990, Congress gave the EPA discretion to decide if mercury regulation is "necessary and appropriate," and the Clinton Administration did so in its final days. The Bush Administration created a modest mercury program, only to have it overturned by an appeals court on technical grounds in its final days. The case was still in litigation when Mr. Obama took office, and his appointees used the opening to strafe the power industry, proposing a much more stringent rule.
The EPA issued the utility rule in March, with only 60 days for public comment. Basic administrative practice usually affords between 120 and 180 days, especially for complex or costly regulations of this scale. The proposal was obviously rushed, with numerous errors like overstating U.S. mercury emissions by a factor of 1,000. The word in Washington is that the openly politicized process unsettled even the EPA's career staff.
The agency estimates that the utility rule will cost $10.9 billion annually but will yield as much as $140 billion in total health and environmental benefits. Sounds like a deal. But most of those alleged benefits are indirect-i.e., not from the mercury reductions that the rule is supposed to be for. Rather, they come from pollutants ("airborne particles") that the EPA already regulates under other parts of the Clean Air Act. A good analogy is a corporation double-counting revenue.
According to the EPA's own numbers, every dollar in direct benefits costs $1,847. The reason is that electric generation-yes, even demon coal-results in negligible quantities of air pollutants like mercury. And mercury is on the decline: In 2005, the entire U.S. coal fleet emitted 26% less than the EPA predicted.
The real goal of the EPA's rule is to shut down fossil fuel electric power in the name of climate change. The consensus estimate in the private sector is that the utility rule and eight others on the EPA docket will force the retirement of 60 out of the country's current 340 gigawatts of coal-fired capacity. Reliability downgrades will hit the South and Midwest where coal energy is concentrated. American Electric Power recently announced that the rules will force it to shut down five plants in West Virginia and Ohio, a quarter of its coal fleet.
The power industry estimates that the true costs of the utility rule will far exceed the EPA estimates, which of course will be passed to consumers and businesses as higher prices. The International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, normally a White House union ally, says the rule will destroy 50,000 jobs and another 200,000 down the supply chain. That's more jobs lost than if Boeing went bust.
Astonishingly, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson claimed in March that the utility rule is "expected to create jobs," because it will "increase demand for pollution control technology" and "new workers will be needed to install, operate, and maintain" it. In other words, the government should harm an industry and force it to ruin working assets so maybe other people can clean up the mess.
Such theories help explain why the economic recovery and job creation are far weaker than they ought to be, but the good news is that even many Democrats are beginning to push back against the EPA's willful damage. The least Congress can do is force the EPA to delay the final utility rule to allow for more public debate, though a better option would be to junk it.
Katie Brown
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)