Who Pays the Bill
Posted on May 23, 2008 in Impotence causes
My apologies for getting these stats up here late on Tax Day, but you see, Americans spend about 3.6 billion hours a year doing their taxes. I alone I think accounted for 2.3 billion. And truth be known, the marginal utility I derive from spending one additional unit of time on a cute blond exceeds the marginal utility I'd derive from any other activity, thus, to put it in layman's terms, I've also been busy chasing a cute blond. All that being said, I wouldn't leave you aspiring economists without a little stats for Tax Day. First, all of you who are so blinded by your hate for GW and envy for other people's wealth that all you can do is regurgitate the same old, "tax cuts benefit only the rich." Well have a cup of shut the f#ck up and have this fact beaten into your head; Under GW taxes have gone down for everybody. Secondly, I'm getting mighty sick and tired of your greedy scum bucket parasites known as "the poor" who think you have it so rough when in reality, you don't pay a freaking dime for any government service if you're in the bottom 60% of income earners. Free roads, free schools, free health care, free defense. Let alone you have the audacity to demand that the rich pay more in taxes. But then again, of course we all know those on the left aren't concerned as much with facts as they are concerned with coming up with rationalizations (read-lies and falsehoods) to redistribute wealth. I just wish the left would admit to it. cheap viagra buy cheap cialis buy cilais cheap cialis
A New Contender!
Posted on May 22, 2008 in Impotence causes
Well I must admit, this is one heck of a chart. Submitted to us by young Doinkicarus Remember, a $25 prize and a fancy schmancy SIGNED photograph of the Captain in an exquisite Goodwill purchased picture frame will be mailed to the winner! Think you have a better chart? Send it to captcapitalism@yahoo.com
LoDI Refund Claim
Posted on May 18, 2008 in Generic prescription drugs
From: John Wohlberg PBBx The City has reached a settlement with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) involving FICA (i.e. Social Security & Medicare) tax refunds to both the City and eligible uniformed members of the City generic cialis viagra generic viagra online cialis
Uh-oh
Posted on May 17, 2008 in Erectile dysfunction
I really need to find a part time job!! I just about have our savings account depleted! I can't wait for our taxes to be deposited! I am at the point as to where I think I will not be rehired in the medical field, as I have been out of the field for the last thirteen years. If I can find something that will bring in enough per week to take care of our groceries I will be happy! Then the stress will be lifted off my hubby's shoulders. Generic Viagra viagra cialis cheap viagra
USPTO grants PubPat re-exam request on WARF / Thomson stem cell patents
Posted on April 22, 2008 in Diabetes erectile dysfunction
In a letter mailed on 9/29/06 (examiner signature on 8/22/06) the USPTO has granted the request of PubPat / FTCR for re-exam of the '780 (and other patents). IPBiz previously outlined the obviousness arguments in the re-exam request. The USPTO has determined that a substantial question of patentability is raised as to claims in the '780 in view of four different references. IPBiz notes that the USPTO misidentified WARF's Thomson patent as the "Thomason" patent on the fourth page of the letter (6th overall page). Not much proofreading by the USPTO here. The Piedrahita 1990 reference was found to raise a substantial question of patentability. See page five of the letter (7th overall page). The Piedrahita 1990 reference had been applied in the parent case, but was not applied as to this application. The USPTO also noted that the Piedrahita 1990 reference was applied in a new light in the re-exam request. The grant of a re-exam request is distinct from a determination that any claim is invalid over the cited prior art. The USPTO determination of whether any claim is invalid is yet to occur. *** The Wisconsin Technology Network stated: WARF, armed with a $1.5 billion endowment, has said it is prepared to take on any legal challenges to its stem cell patents. Following the PTO decision, Beth Donley, executive director of the WiCell Research Insitute, a subsidiary of WARF, said the decision was not unexpected. "The patent office grants more than 90 percent of the requests for reexamination, so this decision does not come as a surprise," Donley said in a statement. "WARF believes the Thomson patents are valid and will affirm the validity of the patents." While patent reviews have taken anywhere from one year to 10 years to complete, Simpson said that in 70 percent of requested third-party reviews, the patents either have been overturned or narrowed. Of Simpson's comment, IPBiz notes that re-examinations are about CLAIMS . Re-exams in which ALL claims are invalidated are not common. Re-exams in which SOME claims are narrowed are more common. In the director-ordered re-exam of the controversial Eolas/Berkeley patent, NO CLAIMS were altered. The Wisconsin Technology Network also noted: To receive a patent, something must be new, useful, and non-obvious. In challenging the WARF patent, the Public Patent Foundation submitted what it said was unseen "art" or evidence that the previous work of other scientists made the derivation of human embryonic stem cells "obvious and therefore unpatentable." [IPBiz notes that the re-exam request raised issues of both anticipation and obviousness.] The Network also noted: Dr. Jeanne Loring, a stem cell scientist at the Burnham Institute for Medical Research, said the real discovery of embryonic stem cells was made in 1981 by scientists Martin Evans, Matt Kaufman, and Gail Martin. Loring filed a 30-page statement in support of the challenge. Loring's declaration provided no basis to initiate the re-examination. A declaration is not a basis to establish a substantial question of patentability. ***Comment posted to californiastemcellreport.blogspot: Of the comments in the Sacramento Bee: In a break with academic tradition that has stirred controversy, the foundation has required university researchers to negotiate licenses to do virtually any sort of embryonic stem cell research. In addition, it generally negotiates "reach-through" royalty rights, giving it the right to claim a share of the proceeds from cures developed through the research. The actions of WARF about licensing seem to be directed to non-profit (e.g., university) bodies who are affiliated with for-profit entities. WARF does not seem to be after entities who are totally non-profit, and research activities of such entities would likely be insulated from infringement through 35 USC 271(e)(1). As a result, the Patent Office's decision could have financial implications for California taxpayers, who will be funding $3 billion in embryonic stem cell research in the next decade -- if voter-approved Proposition 71 survives its ongoing legal challenges. About 70 percent of patents that are accepted for re-examination by the Patent Office are ultimately altered or thrown out, according to agency figures. It usually takes between two and 10 years for the office to issue a final decision, according to Dan Ravicher, executive director of the Public Patent Foundation. Re-examination itself should be concluded much closer to the "two year" point than the "ten year" point. In the face of an unfavorable decision, WARF would have the right of judicial review, which would add additional time. It is also possible that litigation could move in tandem with re-examination. In the case of the Eolas/Berkeley patent, Eolas survived re-examination at the USPTO without any claim amendment, but is still engaged in a litigation. Separately, note that it is claims, not patents, which are investigated in a re-exam. The majority (88%) of patents involved in re-examination survive with (some) valid claims. [http://ipbiz.blogspot.com/2006/10/uspto-grants-pubpat-re-exam-request-on.html] ** The AP report on the topic contained the text: The patent office is acting in response to challenges brought by two groups who contend the patents should never have been issued because other researchers paved the way for the breakthroughs in Wisconsin. Patent claims are not invalidated because earlier researchers paved the way for later researchers. PubPat's anticipation argument for human embryonic stem cells is based on a prior reference which is not enabled as to human embryonic stem cells. To look in a different area, the work of Galileo (and others) may have paved the way for the Wright Brothers, but no one achieved three dimensional flight control before the Wright Brothers, or taught how three dimensional flight control could be achieved. PubPat's obviousness argument is based on the assertion: recipe for mouse embryonic stem cells renders obvious recipe for human embryonic stem cells. If this were true, it probably would not have taken 15 years between mouse and human. buy cilais cheap cialis cheap viagra cialis