Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
looks like a podium right there in front, where someone gave a speech.
new app on the android page: PhoneGuard Portal
https://market.android.com/details?id=com.phoneguard.portal&feature=search_result#?t=W251bGwsMSwyLDEsImNvbS5waG9uZWd1YXJkLnBvcnRhbCJd
thnx. hopefully it will prompt someone to do a better job ... tomorrow.
LVCC
got there too early. they just started setting up. nice people.
said st clair would be there tomorrow.
zynga offers free games. they generate revenue by virtual sales and advertising. sound familiar? also, their numbers are like this:
os= 700 mil
eps= -.24
profit= 90 mil
margin= 15%
pps= $8.81
sales are clearly not the only consideration. and if phoneguard is preloaded, opmg could very well pass zyngo.
moo
if it has become essentially mandatory (behind the scenes) that disabling technology be implemented on each phone manufactured or activated ... worldwide ... then his continued endorsement could be ... pointless.
may be a done deal ... imo ... let it ride!
i wouldnt want to be insuring manufacturers or carriers against product liability right now.
imho
good incentive to buy out and install phoneguard technology on every cell phone manufactured or activated, worldwide, right now:
The Next Wave of Product Liability Litigation: Distracted Driving
The cellular phone industry’s alleged cover-up regarding the dangers of using a cellular phone while driving may prove to be the next wave of product liability litigation. This past week, the New York Times published an article titled, “Promoting the Car Phone, Despite Risks,” which detailed the cell phone industry’s promotion of cellular phone use while driving, despite being aware of the risks of increased accident rates as early as the 1960s.
To date, there has not been a successful distracted driver product liability lawsuit against the cellular phone industry and many experts argue that such a suit will never succeed. However, that may speak less to the potential validity of the claim, than to the fact that the right case has yet to be filed. Of the two major cases that have been brought against the cellular phone industry regarding distracted driving, neither was filed by a party that owned or was using the cellular phone involved in the accident. Furthermore, neither case cited expert opinions, data, and evidence of former cellular phone industry engineers and executives suggesting that it was foreseeable that promoting cellular phone use while driving would result in a marked increase in car accidents. The Times article appears to provide much of this missing data.
Why cellular phone companies could be targeted in distracted driving product liability lawsuits.
The three most likely product liability causes of action against cell phone companies would be: (1) Design Defect - when the foreseeable risks of harm posed by the product could have been reduced or avoided; (2) Inadequate Instructions or Warnings - an omission of a warning that renders the product not reasonably safe; and (3) Failure to Warn - the seller’s failure to provide a warning after the time of sale.
Regarding design defect, the Times article indicated that as early as the 1960s, cellular phone engineers were aware of the need for a locking device to restrict phone calls while driving. If that lock had been added, drivers would not have had the ability to answer the phone, thus averting many accidents. In terms of inadequate instructions or warnings, the Times article suggests that the wireless companies’ goals were to keep consumers talking in their cars. There were no prominent warnings about the risk of using a cellular phone while driving. As the cellular phone industry’s chief spokesman, Steve Largent, admitted in the article, the industry’s efforts to educate drivers on the dangers of distracted driving have fallen short. Finally, regarding the cellular phone industry’s failure to warn after the time of the sale, the Times article indicates that executives and engineers at these companies were aware that distracted driving was causing accidents, but did not proactively warn consumers. And although the industry recently has supported stringent laws and robust efforts to eliminate such things as texting while driving, plaintiffs’ lawyers undoubtedly will argue that this is too little, too late.
The issue of distracted driving is here to stay.
In September 2009, the United States Department of Transportation hosted a two-day “Distracted Driving Summit” that included academics, trade unions and consumers who discussed how to reduce the thousands of deaths, injuries and accidents caused by distracted driving. The federal government, state legislatures and consumer interest groups are all looking to curb distracted driving. Consequently, it is quite likely that the next front in the battle to reduce distracted driving may be product liability lawsuits against businesses that manufacture or provide services that purportedly distract drivers.
Other businesses may be targets of product liability lawsuits.
Cellular phone manufacturers and cellular service providers are not the only businesses that may be targets of product liability litigation related to distracted driving. Manufacturers of in-car entertainment systems, MP3 players, Bluetooth devices, GPS systems, and companies that produce software, manufacture parts or provide services which are deemed distracting to drivers, are all potentially vulnerable to this potential new wave of product liability lawsuits.
Michael Best
tic tock ...
IMHO
nice. these are the parts that interest me:
19. The process of claim 12 wherein the thin stillage stream is conducted to an evaporator to produce a syrup stream containing less than about 15 wt. % water, which syrup stream is itself conducted to an oil removal stage wherein at least of the oil is removed from the syrup.
20. The process of claim 19 wherein the oil is removed from the syrup by centrifugation to produce a mixture of oil and water stream.
which i think the court wrongly expanded to this:
19. The process of claim 12 wherein the thin stillage stream is conducted to an evaporator to produce a [concentrate] stream [ ], which [concentrate] stream is itself conducted to an oil removal stage wherein at least of the oil is removed from the [concentrate].
20. The process of claim 19 wherein the oil is removed from the [concentrate] by centrifugation to produce a mixture of oil and water stream.
because: seems a clear distinction between the lightly concentrated thin stillage intercepted by the company during the evaporation process (insert-text-here) and the syrup described in prevost, and the court identified absolutely nothing to indicate anyone skilled in the art [blurred] that distinction prior to ... 858. isnt the evidence to the contrary?
moo
Corn Ethanol Targets in RFS2
• RFS1 set a total volume use requirement for
all renewable fuels added to gasoline:
•7.5 billion gallons
•By 2012
• RFS2 sets separate requirements by fuel type,
for a total of 36 billion gallons by 2022.
• Targets for corn ethanol are:
•No minimum in 2010
•15 billion gallons projected in 2022
Krablin 6/28/10
maybe 1 gal + 1 gal = 2 gals biodeseil
so then 270 gals of corn oil + 270 gals of [gas] = 540 gals of bd
or 540/2 = 270
all times a million.
had to tell what tense the guy was talking in----now or after the 60% adoption.
ats ok ... we can slap da ask at closin time
because a 7% conversion rate cant apply to a product that is not available?
the go to app? viable?
is this an app that interested businesses are obligated by patent or copyright law to purchase or one they can design and market themselves for profit, like sprint appears to be doing?
without DD on this point, your post seems speculative pumping that disregards the charitable motivations behind the anti-texting and driving movement, AON or not. until the world-wide intellectual property rights are defined, i doubt few will invest here other than pimple poppers, regretful moms or men infatuated with a 17 year old boy.
sorry. missed the post showing that the "competitors" are not licensees of our world wide rights. can someone bring me up to speed please?
thanks.
hahaha. right before he got massacred!
i mean promotion as opposed to non-promotion--- fostering advance as opposed to decline.
yes, promoting the company tends to promote the stock, at least indirectly.
new shares priced in ... good point.
so you think they are promoting the stock?
do you believe they are deliberately not promoting the stock?
for the reasons already discussed.
why do you suppose the volume is down?
i agree with you. only i though the mumbles and fumbles might have been less than accidental. just couldnt figure out why. now i have a reason.
imho
a new type of infringer???
Green Shift (canada)
looks to me like icm is the mischaracterizer:
"Anyone may request ex parte reexamination,97 including a patentee who wishes to have her patent reevaluated and strengthened98 in light of newly discovered prior art [ ] [ ]."
__________________________________
97 See 35 U.S.C. § 302 (2006).
98 See In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 857 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc). Upon discovery of
pertinent reference not considered during the original examination, a patentee may wish to have
the PTO reexamine her patent to ensure that a future defendant asserting invalidity will not be
able to relax the clear and convincing standard for establishing factual predicates of invalidity.
_____________________________
pasted from the cardozo law review
_____________________________________
interesting icm did not, at least from what i can see, state what its bomshell is??? if they had such a claim i would think they would have spit it out there for the press, given the hooplaa. just my guess.
ya,
america's up and coming, sweetheart, premiere green energy company that is single-handedly revamping the [entire] ethanol industry is gonna do what?
hahaha.
i dont think so either.
they wont accept Play Dough
new article with a link to the today show segment
Virtualization
should be renamed graham crackers ...
with greenshfit melted all through the middle.
SWEEET!
Graham factors
The factors a court will look at when determining obviousness and non-obviousness in the United States were outlined by the Supreme Court in Graham et al. v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City et al., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) and are commonly referred to as the "Graham factors". The court held that obviousness should be determined by looking at
the scope and content of the prior art;
the level of ordinary skill in the art;
the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art; and
objective evidence of nonobviousness.
In addition, the court outlined examples of factors that show "objective evidence of nonobviousness". They are:
commercial success;
long-felt but unsolved needs; and
failure of others.
Other courts have considered additional factors as well. See Environmental Designs, Ltd. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 713 F.2d 693, 697-98, 218 USPQ 865, 869 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (considering skepticism or disbelief before the invention as an indicator of nonobviousness); Allen Archery, Inc. v. Browning Mfg. Co., 819 F.2d 1087, 1092, 2 USPQ2d 1490, 1493 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (considering copying, praise, unexpected results, and industry acceptance as indicators of nonobviousness); Diversitech Corp. v. Century Steps, Inc., 850 F.2d 675, 679, 7 USPQ2d 1315, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (considering copying as an indicator of nonobviousness).
cut and pasted from wiki
what news ...christmas is coming too.
too hot to fish ...
method 1 pretreats the ~syrup
method 2 pretreats the whole stillage
in a plug and play fashion
sounds good to me
is there more?
the boshwazee v. the pro-lataiot or mow's general horatio v. the world??? phonetically spelled of course.
i'd say theres a lot riding on the markman hearing which i understand to 1 re-consider validity and 2 fashion jury construction instructions.
suits, counter suits and legal fees can cut both ways; multiple counts can result in one or more valid, or non-valid, findings; infringments and/or non-infringment, from a single ... triall---half a can of worms!
the injunction motion, and, incidentally, its argument, was withdrawn but 858 sounds to me like a cintrufuge modification. can anyone confirm this, or otherwise distinguish povost?
on the bright side, if 239 is already in there, in all fairness, why cant its language be used for the limited purpose of interpretatioin given the seemingly legitimate rock and procedural hard palce sought to be rectified by the motion for a contiinuance?
"thou shalllt not exalt form over substance" ... least thy judge be a cs!
think i'll go fishin
i dont think we can expect damages to exceed icm's net worth, in bankruptcy, because they indemnified the other companies---or many of them. any idea how much that could be?
up late getting ahead of myself; expecting the worse, hoping for the best.
its a can of worms!
normally, things like res judicata and collateral estopell prevent or limit a second law suit covering the same issue. unless there is an exception, a need for a second suit here could at least represent a cut-off point for damages.
infringement is strict liability but inducement is not and if icm indemnified and induced the other companies who pays if icm lacked the requisite intent for inducement of an unclear patent?
imo