What is the most deadly organization to the United States economy? If you answered Al Queda you are just an ignorant member of those who have surrendered their minds to the mass media hysteria on the six o’ clock news. Oh really you say and ask well then hot shot what is it? Well, it is simple the most deadly and destructive organization is the American Bar Association and its members and thus the most deadly profession is that of the Lawyers.

The lawyers in America have done more to screw over America and our nations economy than back-to-back Hurricanes, locust plagues, Earthquakes, Super Volcanoes or those Al Queda idiots combined. In fact the lawyers are so destructive they are the single biggest problem in the world today. And no where on Earth are there more of these maggots than right here in the United States.

It is sure interesting that we spend billions to stop Al Queda and refuse to come to the reality that the real enemy is the sleeper cells calling themselves Law Firms. So, does that mean we should also hunt down all lawyers and kill them at time and place of their choosing you ask? Well, I did not say that you did. But I will refer to my good friend Caesar who had by for the best idea I have ever heard. Do consider this in 2006, we must stop them or all will be lost.

“Lance Winslow” - Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; http://www.WorldThinkTank.net/wttbbs/

With cases such as NTP v. RIM on the BlackBerry, eBay v. MercExchange on a possible injunction against eBay, and Metabolite v. Lab Corp. on the patenting of “laws of nature,” there has been a lot of criticism about the U.S. patent system. The Wall Street Journal has been especially harsh in its discussion of the patent system, including comments from Professors Jaffe and Lerner, such as the following:

Then, a decade later [ca. 1991], Congress turned the USPTO into a “profit center.” The office has been pushed to return “excess” revenue to the U.S. Treasury. This shift led to pressures to grant more patents, difficulties in attracting and retaining skilled examiners, and a torrent of low-quality patent grants. These include such absurdities as patents on wristwatches (paw-watches?) for dogs, a method of swinging on a swing (”invented” by a five-year-old), and peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. But they also include the patents on broad ideas related to mobile email — virtually devoid of any details of implementation — that have imposed a $612 million tax on the maker and users of BlackBerries.

The idea that there has been a torrent of low-quality grants arises from certain legal academic publications suggesting that the patent grant rate might be as high as 97%, a number that was suggested by eBay to the US Supreme Court in its brief in eBay v. MercExchange. If this were an area of science, rather than one of law, I would expect that Bob Park would be referring to the 97% number as voodoo science. The bad math and bad law underlying the 97% number are detailed in 4 Chi-KJ Intell. Prop. 108, available on the internet at jip.kentlaw.edu.

As to the general issues of an “out-of-control” patent office–>

The editorial “Patently Absurd” (A14, March 1, 2006) depicts an out-of-control Patent Office approving almost 90% of submitted applications and a powerless court system constrained by a “clear and convincing evidence” standard. In reality, patent grant rates have been steadily declining since 1999, when the rate was 70.8%; the rate was 62.5% in 2004. Efforts to fashion adjusted patent grant rates, initiated by Quillen and Webster and later relied upon by Jaffe and Lerner, have been shown to be flawed on both numerical and legal bases. If there were indeed a tide of questionable patents, the court system would readily invalidate them over prior work, under any evidentiary standard. Studies by Lunney have shown that invalidation of patent claims by the court system has declined over the last twenty years. In situations wherein there is published prior work, either dead-on to the later work or rendering the later work obvious, the procedure of re-examination is available to invalidate claims on a preponderance of evidence standard. The patents asserted against RIM, Microsoft, and eBay have been placed in the re-examination process. The patent system is about disclosure of inventions that meet the requirements of patent law, which disclosure increases the public knowledge base. It is up to businessmen to innovate, with attention to the disclosed knowledge. People who disregard public disclosures may suffer, but ignoring the work of others should be made perilous so that society can operate efficiently.

Of the Metabolite case, on the matter of “patenting” a law of nature, one notes some background information. First, the patent in question was allowed through the Bayh-Dole Act, and is the work of three university professors, two at Colorado (still alive and represented by a different university professor, from the Stanford Law School, who otherwise advocates patent reform) and one at Columbia (now deceased). It does indeed rely on a correlation, first identified by the professors and not accepted by the scientific community initially, rather than a law of nature. There was no evidence at trial that anyone else had discovered the correlation previously, and the current issue is on the indefiniteness of the claim. Second, the present two corporate litigants were previously in a posture of licensee and sublicensee, so this litigation has the appearance of a business deal gone bad.

One can debate whether this sort of patent claim is of the type that fosters innovation. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that the business community does not want to hear about its role in the problems: the failure to conduct negotiations that, if implemented, would decrease the involvement of the court system in the market and the failure to treat the patent system seriously (the RIM case being a notable example of something that could have turned out differently, but for some bad decisions on the front end).

Although one can certainly point to many sound byte examples of bad patents (which largely have been eliminated through re-exam), it is a sad day when the Wall Street Journal and the eBay brief rely on false figures of patent approval rates to advance their arguments.

Lawrence B. Ebert is a registered patent attorney in central New Jersey. He maintains a blog at IPBiz.blogspot.com. He is the author of several articles in the Journal of the Patent and Trademark Office Society, including one on embryonic stem cells published at 88 JPTOS 239 (March 2006). He has an upcoming article in the April 2006 issue of Intellectual Property Today entitled: Edison’s Light Bulb and the Future of Stem Cell Research.

Accreditaiton and what it means to you. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary the definition of accreditation is “to recognize (an educational institution) as maintaining standards that qualify the graduates for admission to higher or more specialized institutions or for professional practice.” Law schools generally fall into three catagories of accreditation, American Bar Association (ABA) accredited, state accredited or unaccredited.

ABA accreditation - According to the American Bar Association, “Law schools approved by the American Bar Association (ABA) provide a legal education which meets a minimum set of standards as promulgated by the ABA. Every jurisdiction in the United States has determined that graduates of ABA-approved law schools are able to sit for the bar in their respective jurisdictions. The role that the ABA plays as the national accrediting body has enabled accreditation to become unified and national in scope rather than fragmented, with the potential for inconsistency, among the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,

and other territories. The Council of the ABA Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar is the United States Department of Education recognized accrediting agency for programs that lead to the first professional degree in law. The law school approval process established by the Council is designed to provide a careful and comprehensive evaluation of a law school and its compliance with the Standards for Approval of Law Schools.”

State accreditation - Most states have their own accreditation process and in most cases give accreditation status to ABA accredited schools. However, there are many law schools that for one reason or another do not meet all of the ABA accredition requirements. Some of these schools, however, do meet the states requirements. Note: State requirements can vary by state. If a school meets state requirements it can apply to that state for state accreditation.

Unaccredited - According to the California Bar Association “An unaccredited law school is one operating as a law school in the State of California that is neither accredited nor approved by the Committee, but must be registered with the Committee and comply with the requirements contained in Rules XIX and XX of the Admission Rules, applicable provisions of the California Rules of Court and relevant sections of the California Business and Professions Code. A law school operating wholly outside of California is unaccredited unless it has applied for and received accreditation from the Committee or is provisionally or fully approved by the American Bar Association.”

Rules in many other states are the same.

Most states require that you meet certain requirements prior to being eligible to take their bar examination. The California Bar states “To be eligible to take the California Bar Examination, one must have completed at least two years of college before beginning the study of law or must have passed certain specified College Level Equivalency Program examinations before beginning law study and must have graduated from a law school approved by the American Bar Association or accredited by the Committee of Bar Examiners of The State Bar of California or have completed four years of law study at an unaccredited or correspondence law school registered with the Committee or studied law in a law office or judge’s chambers in accordance with

the Rules Regulating Admission to Practice Law in California.” Most states have similar requirements.

The foregoing suggests that many states will not allow, non ABA accredited out of state law school graduates to take their bar examination, unless they attended school in that state or a school that is certified by that state. Therefore students graduating from non ABA accredited law schools may not be allowed to practice in any state other than the state they attended school. Note: Some states have reciprocal agreements with other states allowing attorneys registered in one state to become a member of the bar in another state without taking a bar examination in the new state.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, there are many fine law schools in this country that are not ABA accredited. Additionally, many ABA accredited schools do not offer night time or part time classes. Finally, there are many more applicants that spaces available in ABA accredited schools, forcing many good students to attend other schools. Therefore, accreditation should not be your only criteria in choosing a law school or in deceiding whether or not to hire a particular law school graduate.

Permission is given to reprint this article providing credit is given to the author, David G. Hallstrom, and a link is listed to Resources For Attorneys the owner of this article. Anyone or any company reprinting this article without giving proper credit and the correct link, is doing so without permission and will be subject to legal action.

David G. Hallstrom, Sr. is a retired private investigator and is currently the publisher of several internet directories, including http://www.resourcesforattorneys.com a directory of legal and lifestyle resources.

The legal protection known has “copyright” has come front and center over the past few years with major legal rulings regarding peer-to-peer networks on the Internet. Copyright protection, however, can be a confusing area of the law. This article details what can and cannot be protected by copyright.

Copyright Protection? - Yes

Copyright protects “original works of authorship” in a tangible, fixed form of expression. The material does need to be directly perceptible as long as it can be expressed with the aid of technology. A good example of this is a movie, which requires a projection device of some sort.

Materials that can be copyrighted include:

1. Literary works;

2. Musical works, including any accompanying words

3. Dramatic works, including any accompanying music

4. Pantomimes and choreographic works

5. Pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works

6. Motion pictures and other audiovisual works

7. Sound recordings

8. Architectural works

Each of these categories is traditionally given a very broad reading. For instance, “literary works” include computer programs and plans for building a home are considered “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works.” While copyright cuts a broad path, it doesn’t cover everything.

Protected by Copyright? - No

If a work is not tangible, copyright protection will not apply. This can lead to confusion, so here are a few categories not eligible for protection from copyright:

1. Works that are not fixed. For example, the statements made by experts at a round table discussion or a comedian’s stage act.

2. Titles, names, short phrases, and slogans. These materials may be eligible for patent protection.

3. Ideas, procedures and methods.

Copyright protection is a valuable intellectual property tool. If it all possible, copyright the material you produce to prevent others from misusing it.

Richard A. Chapo is a San Diego business lawyer with www.sandiegobusinesslawfirm.com - providing legal services and legal advice to businesses in San Diego, California.

Fund to pay legal fees for litigation threatened by SCO against Linux users and will cover Linus Torvalds’ legal fees

BEAVERTON, OR. January 12, 2004 - The Open Source Development Labs (OSDL), a global consortium of leading technology companies dedicated to accelerating the adoption of Linux, today announced the creation of a Linux legal defense fund. The fund will defray legal expenses of Linux users involved in litigation with The SCO Group on issues that affect the Linux community and industry. OSDL aims to raise $10 million for this fund and will accept donations from individuals, organizations and companies.

‘Customers deploy Linux solutions in good faith based on its technical merits and lower cost of ownership,’ said Stuart Cohen, CEO of OSDL. ‘As the emerging center-of-gravity for Linux, OSDL is responding to a call for leadership on this issue. This fund sends a clear message that OSDL, in cooperation with others throughout the Linux industry, will stand firm against legal threats levied by The SCO Group.’

OSDL created the Linux Legal Defense Fund after consulting with its members, participants in its Linux User Advisory Council, and key members of the Linux development community. The fund will be wholly supported by independent contributions. To date the Lab has received more than $3 million in pledges from companies, including IBM, Intel, MontaVista Software, and others.

More information and details about the OSDL Linux legal defense fund and how to contribute can be found on the OSDL Web site at OSDL Linux Legal Defense Fund.

About Open Source Development Labs (OSDL) OSDL - home to Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux - is dedicated to accelerating the growth and adoption of Linux. Founded in 2000 and supported by a global consortium of Linux customers and IT industry leaders, OSDL is a non-profit organization that provides Linux expertise and computing and test facilities in the United States and Japan available to developers around the world. OSDL members include Alcatel, Cisco, Computer Associates, Dell, Ericsson, Force Computers, Fujitsu, HP, Hitachi, IBM, Intel, Linuxcare, Miracle Linux Corporation, Mitsubishi Electric, MontaVista Software, NEC Corporation, Network Appliance, Nokia, Novell, NTT COMWARE, NTT DATA INTELLILINK, Red Hat, Sun Microsystems, SUSE LINUX, TimeSys, Toshiba, Transmeta Corporation, Turbolinux, Ulticom, Unilever, VA Software and Wind River Systems. Visit OSDL on the Web at http://www.osdl.org/.

OSDL is a trademark of Open Source Development Labs, Inc. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds. Third party marks and brands are the property of their respective holders.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Lonn Johnston for OSDL
Page One PR
Phone : +1 650-473-0600 x101
E-mail : lonn@pageonepr.com

Intel
Chuck Mulloy
Phone : +1 408- 765-3484
E-mail : cmulloy@intel.com

IBM
Trink Guarino
Phone : +1 914-766-4084
E-mail : guarino@us.ibm.com

MontaVista Software
Joe Samagond
Phone : +1 408-328-9234
E-mail : jsamagond@mvista.com

About the author:

Press Release

Marriage and U.S. Citizenship

An extremely common practice in the USA is for an American citizen (or legal permanent resident) to have a spouse who is a foreign national. When this happens, the citizen most often desires that their spouse shares in the same opportunities and privileges they have as an American citizen. The process of securing a green card for the spouse is a long and complicated process, and can take anywhere from a couple months to several years. When seeking a green card for a spouse there are two options that one can take.

Because spouses of U.S. citizens are considered an “immediate relative,’ they can apply for a green card without the traditional waiting period. It takes around ten months for the application to be reviewed but while they are waiting, the spouse can usually obtain a work permit in about a month’s time.

A spouse of a legal permanent resident of the U.S. can apply for a green card, but the waiting period is much longer and in addition, the spouse is subject to annual quotas. One of the primary sources of investigation is the nation of origin.

If your application for citizenship takes longer than expected don’t worry. Immigration is a very time consuming process and many times you are treated as a number and not an individual. By consulting an experienced immigration lawyer you can make your case stand out. Contact an experienced immigration lawyer today!

About the Author

For more information on immigration law and citizenship please visit http://www.immigration-law-usa.com This article may be freely reprinted as long as this resource box is included and all links stay intact as hyperlinks.

Medical malpractice refers to the case where a doctor or medical practitioner caused harm or damage to a patient due to negligence. This area of the personal injury law can either happen in diagnosis, treatment or management of the disease or illness. It is more often the theme of newspaper columns and articles. The most common victims of this case are movie actors and actresses, TV personalities, and the like.

The topic on medical malpractice cases always grabs the attention of the public. However, on a deeper sense, we must know that this kind of personal injury is a serious and complex area of law. If you’ve been a victim of a medical malpractice, you may be entitled to proper compensation for all the damages that you’ve endured financially, physically, mentally and emotionally. However, to win a medical malpractice lawsuit is normally a very difficult task due to several factors.

First, the negligence of the doctor must cause damage or injury to the patient. Second, the lawsuit must establish that the harm was really caused by the physician’s acts. Third, a medical professional must confirm that the treating physician made a mistake in order to prove malpractice which is often an intricate and expensive task. Fourth, the legislations protecting doctors and hospitals make medical malpractice cases more complicated because they limit the amount of compensation that the victims can obtain from the lawsuit.

Furthermore, the statute of limitations that is usually set to two years on almost all state laws on personal injury also makes medical malpractice lawsuits harder to prove. This can only be broken by unusual circumstances affecting the case. Therefore, it is advisable for a malpractice victim to seek legal assistance from a personal injury lawyer as soon as he recovers from the incident. Gathering the necessary information and evidences is also important to a speedy preparation for a possible lawsuit.

Therefore, if you’ve been injured or you have a loved one who has died in a surgery or operation, look an experienced medical malpractice lawyer who can evaluate if you have a possible lawsuit and determine the right amount of compensation that you must have. You have to act immediately because you might lose your legal rights when you’ll wait too long before you start a criminal case. However, most victims usually don’t pursue such cases because they don’t work especially when the malpractice didn’t cause serious or permanent damages.

About the Author

This article by Personal Injury Lawyers was created for the sole purpose of propagating information that may be related to Car Accident and Personal Injury Lawyers Attorneys and Law Firms and other industries to which it may be of interest.

On this 50th anniversary of the crowning achievement of Chief Justice Earl Warren, the unanimous decision in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education case ending segregation in public schools, it is fitting to consider the important legacy of Brown and see just how far we have come. In terms of educational institutions, public universities in Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, Mississippi, and the rest of the country that were once all-White are now racially integrated. Yet America remains racially polarized and divided at times. We saw evidence of that polarization in the typical Black American’s reaction and the typical White American’s reaction to the verdict in the O.J. Simpson criminal trial.

Elsewhere, most White Americans have no idea that Chief Justice Bill Rehnquist, while he served as a law clerk to Justice Robert Jackson in 1952-53, wrote a legal memo defending the old and reviled “separate but equal” doctrine. But Black Americans are well aware that Rehnquist espoused beliefs that would have kept them out of public schools, out of public colleges and universities, using filthy and cracked public toilets, drinking out of separate water fountains, etc.

In his own defense, Rehnquist insisted during his 1971 confirmation hearings that he had merely been distilling Jackson’s views. But this type of defense displays a shameless streak. You don’t collaborate with the devil and then seek to avoid guilt by saying “the devil made me do it.” It is hard to believe that Justice Jackson, who witnessed first-hand atrocities of the Nazi regime as a judge of the Nuremburg trials, would espouse beliefs of race superiority. If there is any question in White Americans’ or Black Americans’ minds as to whether Bill Rehnquist espoused the beliefs stated in the memo he penned, they need only look to his track record on the court.

Without exception, Rehnquist has voted against nearly every civil rights action before the court on which he sits. He has endeavored to make job discrimination claims harder to win in court. He has rejected the use of statistics showing that the death penalty in Southern states continues to be applied, and always has been applied, in a racially biased way. For Rehnquist, that is not a problem, and it is enough to make the lips of any rabid segregationist smile with glee.

Rehnquist fought with all of his meager intellect as a law clerk to prevent Justice Jackson from voting in favor of the majority in Brown v. Board of Education. Black Americans know that Rehnquist’s memo from his law clerk days entitled “A Random Thought on the Segregation Cases,” stated in part: “I realize that it is an unpopular and unhumanitarian position, for which I have been excoriated by ‘liberal’ colleagues, but I think Plessy v. Ferguson was right and should be re-affirmed.” Plessy, of course, was the infamous 1896 case holding racial segregation to be constitutional. Plessy effectively gutted the progress made in reforming the former Confederate states, and it permitted Jim Crow laws to remain on the books for another sixty years with all the strife and bitterness and lynchings that ensued.

Plessy is routinely taught to law school students across the land as an example of the lowest, darkest days of the U.S. Supreme Court, when the justices caved in to political pressure and did not adhere to the mandates of the U.S. Constitution. Plessy is uniformly cited as an example of one of the worst decisions ever rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court, second only to the infamous Dred Scott decision holding Black people did not have a right to be free under the U. S. Constitution. It is thus remarkable that Rehnquist would write a memo saying Plessy was good case law. He might just as well have donned a Ku Klux Klan hood and said that the Negro is an inferior race. Black Americans are not likely to forget Rehnquist’s words. No forgiveness is necessary, because Rehnquist remains defiant and has never apologized or sought forgiveness from anyone for his words, no matter how much hurt they may have caused.

During Rehnquist’s confirmation hearing in 1986, his opponents again raised the memo as a sign of his latent prejudice. Rehnquist once again defended himself by claiming that he wrote the memo in response to a request from Justice Jackson for a discussion of the legal arguments favoring segregation. But several scholars - most convincingly, Richard Kluger in his epic book Simple Justice on Brown v. Board - have concluded that Rehnquist wrote the memo to express his personal views on the case. In any event, Rehnquist’s voting record on the court speaks louder than any excuses offered during his confirmation hearings. He has sought to gut the holding of Brown v. Board, whenever possible, as with other civil rights holdings, including the important Miranda warnings that police officers must give suspects upon detaining them.

In one final footnote to this story, it goes without saying the Bill Rehnquist is no hero to the Black community in America. On Meet the Press on Sunday, Feb. 15, 2004, Democratic Congressmen Charlie Rangel of New York City stated that many Black Americans regard George W. Bush as the first president appointed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Furthermore, where White Americans feel that stopping the vote count in Florida was correct and that Bush would have won the popular vote there even if the vote count had continued, Rangel stated that most Black Americans felt their votes were not properly counted in Florida. According to Rangel, Black Americans worked hard to register to vote, and then the Supreme Court took away their votes by stopping the count. Rangel suggested the result will be a backlash against the Supreme Court (led by Rehnquist) with increased voter turnout for the 2004 presidential election.

© Copyright 2004 by Michael A. S. Guth. All Rights Reserved. No portion of this article, including this web page, may be copied, retransmitted, reposted, or duplicated in significant portion without the express written permission of Dr. Michael Guth. Users are always welcome to establish links to this web page or to quote from it freely.

Michael A. S. Guth, Ph.D., J.D., is a constitutional law attorney, legal brief writer, and health care researcher based in Oak Ridge, TN. A web page describing his law practice and other legal writings is available at http://michaelguth.com His current research comprises inefficiencies in health care insurance, pharmaceutical pricing, and best available treatments for Alzheimer’s disease, osteoporosis, and high cholesterol. He has developed and/or taught more than twenty on-line courses at more than a dozen educational institutions in the areas of economics, finance, business strategy, business law, health care administration, politics, and criminal justice. Interested students are encouraged to view his web page at http://michaelguth.com/economist.htm and click on some of the papers and articles he has written.

Every injured victim that walks into a lawyers office wants to know how much their case is worth. Some don’t really care about the money; some want revenge. Some want the doctor’s license revoked; some want the hospital punished. Then again, some want total and full compensation.

“YOUR CASE IS WORTH $2 MILLION DOLLARS,” says Jim Bob, Lawyer extraordinaire. “Oh no, your case is worth more than that,” says lawyer Dewey Cheatem. “Just sign right here with me and I promise you I’ll get you millions!” screeched the TV advertising lawyer.

Whatever the motivation, a civil lawsuit for medical malpractice and personal injury seeks money for the injured victim. But how are you to know how much your injury is worth?

The answer is not so easy to answer, and here’s why…

If you listen to each of those attorneys above, they all promise you something that they can’t do. How do I know? Just ask each of them to put that guarantee IN WRITING. They’ll never do it. That I guarantee!

In every State, and in every County there are multiple factors that go into the mix to determine what your case is worth. It is important to remember that no two cases or injuries are the same. Having said that, I’m going to explain the basics:

1. Economic loss: This one is easy. How much money did you lose because you were injured? Were you out of work for days, weeks or months? Did your employer pay your salary during that time? If not, you can calculate the amount of money you would have been paid had you not been injured.

What if you have a permanent disability that prevents you from working in the future? Well, now things get a little more complicated. Your lawyer will need to hire an economist to predict what your earnings would have been for years into the future. He will also have to predict what perqs and benefits you’d have received if you worked to retirement age.

This gives us hard numbers that we can use to show the extent of your permanent injury.

But what if you didn’t lose time or money from work? What if you were a housewife (or househusband), or unemployed at the time of the injury? Does that mean that you’re not entitled to collect any economic loss? Yes. But all is not lost. There is still pain and suffering, and possible claims for loss of services that I’ll explain in a moment.

2. Pain & Suffering: How do we know that your fractured hip in Brooklyn, New York is worth the same as in Cincinatti, Ohio? Your lawyer is usually able to do research which will tell him (or her) what similar cases have settled for or resulted in jury verdicts and appeals.

Here are important points to know which will help you answer the original question, ‘how much is your case worth?’:

1. What is your race or nationality?

2. What town do you live in?

3. What is the race or nationality of the people you have sued?

4. What County have you brought your lawsuit in?

5. How old are you?

6. What is your life expectancy (based upon statistical tables)?

7. How long were you in the hospital?

8. Over what period of time have you received medical care for your injuries?

9. What problems do you still have from your malpractice?

10. How are you disabled or limited from doing those daily activities that you used to be able to do?

11. Do you have kids?

In the case of an 80 year old woman who fractures her leg, her case has less value than say, a 35 year old executive who lost 1 month from work, was in the hospital for 3 weeks and now limps from the injury.

Take a look at a recent settlement in New York City…

It involved a young man who had both legs amputated when the Staten Island Ferry crashed because of negligence of the crew. The City of New York decided that this injury was worth almost $9 Million dollars. This was one of the largest settlements ever for an injured victim in New York. Why is his injury worth more than a family who lost their father when doctors misdiagnosed his lung cancer?

The answers can be confusing. The answer can also depend on which lawyer you hire and how experienced he (or she) is in negotiating and trying cases.

So beware the lawyer who tells you what your case is worth as soon as you walk in the door. A thorough investigation of your case, your injuries, your disabilities and limitations all go into the mix to determining what your case is worth. Even then, there’s no guarantee you can get that magical number. But try you must. Remember, keep an open mind and ask your lawyer lots of questions.

Attorney Oginski has been in practice for over 17 years as a trial lawyer practicing exclusively in the State of New York. Having his own law firm, he is able to provide the utmost in personalized, individualized attention to each and every client. In our office, a client is not a file number. Client’s are always treated with the respect they deserve and expect from a professional. Mr. Oginski is always aware of every aspect of a client’s case from start to finish.

Gerry represents injured people in injury cases and medical malpractice matters in Brooklyn, Queens, New York City, the Bronx, Staten Island, Nassau and Suffolk Counties. You can reach him at http://www.oginski-law.com, or 516-487-8207. All inquiries are free and totally confidential.

More frequently, many of my clients have been approaching me regarding the topic of patenting their unique business model, i.e. methods of doing business. So can a method of doing business be patentable? Yes. In 1998, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that the patent laws did extend to protect any method so long as it produced a “useful, concrete and tangible result.” The case spawned a slew of “business method patents” and “Internet patents.” The most cited example of business method patents has been Amazon’s “One-Click” system, which allows a prior customer to place a new order without having to reenter the customer’s address and credit card data when placing an order online (U.S. Pat. No. 5,960,411). Some other examples of business method patents are: an internet auction system in which a user names the highest prices they are willing to pay and the first seller gets the purchase (U.S. Pat. No. 5,794,207); a method that gives a monetary incentive to citizens to view political messages on the Internet (U.S. Pat. No. 5,855,008).

Business method patents have raised quite a controversy over the years, primarily because many felt that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (”USPTO”) had issued many undeserving business method patents. What may have been a response to the criticism, in 2001 the USTPO required that business method inventions must apply, involve, use or advance the “technological arts.” The requirement essentially meant that it could be met by requiring that the invention be carried out by a computer.

However, in October 2005, the USPTO held that there is no requirement of the “technological arts.” The USPTO reached that conclusion in Ex parte Lundgren, Appeal No. 2003-2088 (BPAI 2005) which focused on a patent application that claimed a “method of compensating a manager.”

So what does all this mean to prospective inventors? The Lundgren case has essentially expanded the scope of business methods patents by giving inventors the opportunity to pursue patent protection for inventions that do not have a technological aspect. Therefore, business method patent applications such as the one in Lundgren, (which claimed a method of steps for determining the salary of an executive so as to foster competition among other executives) which were initially rejected by the USPTO, are now getting allowed and ultimately issued. Now before everyone starts getting trigger happy for business method patents, the USPTO did provide guidelines that should be met. The patent should either transform an article or physical object to a different state or thing, or, the claim method should produce a useful, concrete and tangible result. For now, it appears that the Lundgren case has rekindled some of the optimism of business method patents that has been extinguished for quite some time.

Michael N. Cohen, Esq. is a licensed patent attorney and is the principal of the Law Office of Michael N. Cohen, P.C., located in Beverly Hills, California. Mr. Cohen can be contacted at info@patentlawip.com or 323-556-0648.

© 2006 Michael N. Cohen, Esq.
This article is not intended as a substitute for legal advice. The specific facts that apply to your matter may make the outcome different than would be anticipated by you. You should consult with an attorney familiar with the issues and the laws.