text:
< Return To Hearing
Mark A. Lemley
Professor Patent Reform Legislation Testimony of Mark A. Lemley, Stanford Law School before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary June 14, 2005 Introduction and Executive Summary Reforming the patent system is important. Patents are critical to innovation, and the patent system generally works well in encouraging invention. But the system also has problems, and is in need of an overhaul. In particular, improvements can be made in two main areas: (1) streamlining the law by simplifying unnecessarily complex rules and harmonizing our laws with foreign laws to the extent possible; and (2) preventing abuses of the system by people who use patents not for their intended purpose of supporting innovation, but to hold up legitimate innovators. Let me be clear at the outset that these are both important problems, and patent reform that addresses those problems will be an important step in encouraging innovation in the United States. It is particularly important that Congress act to prevent abuses of the patent system by so-called "patent trolls," who use the patent system not to develop and make products but to squeeze money out of those who do. While there are no reliable statistics on the extent of the troll problem, there is no question that it is a widespread and extremely serious problem in the semiconductor, computer, and telecommunications industries. Large, innovative companies such as Intel and Cisco never have a week go by without threats of suit from a non-manufacturing patent owner claiming rights in technology that the defendants did not copy from the patent owner - usually they've never even heard of the patent owner - but instead developed independently. While there is a legitimate role for small and individual inventors who patent their technologies and license their ideas to others, increasingly the patent owners are not contributing ideas at all, but popping up years or even decades later and trying to fit an old patent to a different purpose. Trolls do this because the law permits it, and because it gives them a chance to make a lot of money - under current law, far more money than their technology is worth. Patent reform needs to deal with these abuses of the system without interfering with the normal, legitimate use of the system to protect and encourage innovation. Doing so requires careful balancing of the interests of patent owners, technology companies, and the public. One fact that complicates patent reform efforts.is that the patent system works very differently in different industries. See Dan L. Burk & Mark A. Lemley, Policy Levers in Patent Law, Va. L. Rev. (2003). While innovators in the semiconductor, computer, Internet and telecommunication industries identify abusive patent litigation as the major problem they face, there is no similar problem in the medical device, biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. Those industries have very different characteristics - pharmaceutical patents are more likely to cover a whole drug, rather than one of 5,000 different components of a semiconductor chip. So patent owners in the pharmaceutical industries don't have to worry about and endless stream of patent owners asserting rights in their drugs. Further, innovators in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries consider patent protection far more important to their R&D efforts than do the information technology industries. The challenge is to craft a unitary patent law that can accommodate the very different needs of each of these important industries. Because patents are so important to a large group of stakeholders, and those stakeholders have such diverse interests, it may not be possible to get universal agreement on all aspects of a comprehensive reform bill. A workable bill will necessarily involve compromises, and won't leave everyone happy. That is not a reason to abandon the effort. Rather, it suggests the need to take measured steps towards reforming the system. To date, the only patent reform legislation introduced in this Congress is H.R. 2795 (Rep. Smith). As a result, I will organize my specific thoughts on particular proposed reforms around that bill. H.R. 2795 is an important step improving the patent system. In general, I am in favor of virtually all of the reforms in the bill. I do have a few suggestions for improvement, however. What follows is a section-by-section analysis. Summary: This is an important change, and this section of H.R. 2975 needs no revision. However, the section works only if the bill continues to include the provisions of section 9 requiring publication of all patent applications and expansion of prior user rights. If those provisions are not included, Congress should oppose the move to first inventor to file. The move to a first-inventor-to-file system is an important step for several reasons. First, it simplifies the complex of rules for deciding whether a patent applicant is the first inventor. One way a focus on the filing date simplifies things is to eliminate the need to determine when an invention occurred in the vast majority of cases, an inquiry that has proven difficult. But the changes to section 102 also get rid of three other confusing rules that add uncertainty to the patent system: the "secret prior art" rules governing commercial but nonpublic use, and that differ depending on whether the user is the patentee or not; the "experimental use" exemption based on a totality of the circumstances analysis; and the perplexing definition of when an invention is on sale. All these rules have created inconsistent judicial guidance and made it hard to know when an inventor was entitled to a patent. Second, first inventor to file recognizes the international nature of today's markets. The current statute defines prior art differently depending on whether a sale or a conference occurs in the U.S., Canada or Europe. Eliminating this distinction makes sense in the modern world. Because the rest of the world already uses filing rather than invention date to measure priority, first inventor to file will take an important step towards global harmonization, permitting U.S. inventors to more easily seek patent protection not just in the U.S. but in other countries as well. In the past, small inventors have expressed concern that a first to file system will disadvantage them because large companies have the resources to file patents more quickly. More recent evidence demonstrates that that is not true. It is large inventors, not small inventors, who most benefit from the complex and expensive interference system that determines who was first to invent. And large inventors challenge the patents of small inventors in an interference proceeding more often than the reverse. Eliminating interferences will help, not hurt, small inventors. Further, H.R. 2795 contains an important deviation from a pure first-to-file system: it gives inventors who sell, use or publish their invention a year to get a patent application on file. This is a reasonable grace period. A small inventor concerned about losing a race to the patent office can publish the invention on a Web site. Doing so will prevent anyone else from getting a patent, while giving the inventor a year to find a patent attorney and file a patent application. Given the existence of simple provisional applications, that is a reasonable accommodation. Summary: H.R. 2795 needs no revision. The National Academy of Sciences recommended the elimination of unnecessary mental states in patent law. This would simplify patent litigation, reducing its uncertainty and hopefully its cost. The most important change in this section is the elimination of the best mode requirement. That requirement invalidates patents when the inventor has not disclosed her preferred way of implementing the invention, even if she has given enough information to enable scientists in the field to make and use the invention. The best mode requirement does serve a purpose - it prevents inventors from obtaining the benefits of a patent without giving the public the full benefit of disclosure. But on balance, the benefits of the doctrine aren't worth the costs. Because the best mode doctrine is based on the beliefs and intent of the actual inventor, the doctrine serves as a "gotcha" that can invalidate novel and nonobvious patents regardless of the good faith of the company that owns them. Indeed, the doctrine has been responsible for more than 10% of all the patents invalidated in court during the 1990s. John R. Allison & Mark A. Lemley, Empirical Evidence on the Validity of Litigated Patents, 26 AIPLA Q.J. 185 (1998). The enablement and written description requirements, properly applied, can require sufficient disclosure to benefit the public. Summary: Eliminating inequitable conduct from litigation is a major change that should not be entered into lightly because it will encourage deceit by unscrupulous patent applicants. This section should be included in patent reform legislation only if counterbalanced by significant limitations on abuse of the patent system. Even if it is, some textual changes could improve the operation of H.R. 2795. The doctrine of inequitable conduct discourages deception by patent applicants during the ex parte patent examination process. It is very important to discourage that deception, because the patent examiner can't independently verify what the applicant tells him. At the same time, the doctrine of inequitable conduct is often abused by litigation defendants, who assert bogus claims of inequitable conduct. H.R. 2795 as currently drafted essentially abolishes the litigation defense of inequitable conduct, replacing it with an administrative system within the patent office. Courts could not consider inequitable conduct unless and until a patent claim had already been invalidated. This tightens up the inequitable conduct standard, requiring that a deception of the patent office actually have led to a patent that would not otherwise issue. Even then, they could not render the patent unenforceable unless a business person within the company, rather than just an in-house or outside lawyer, participated in the fraud. This tightening of the standard may be appropriate as a means of preventing abuse of the defense in litigation. But as the statute is currently drafted, it raises the prospect that an unscrupulous patent owner could get away with filing fraudulent patent applications in certain circumstances. This is a particular risk if the bill does not contain adequate provisions deterring patent "trolls," who have particular incentives to mislead the PTO. Limiting abuse of the patent system is an important element of the reform package. Eliminating inequitable conduct could actually make the problem worse, not better. So, while there are reasons to do so, Congress should take such a drastic step only if there are other provisions in the legislation that effectively limit abuse, such as appropriate restrictions on injunctive relief, excessive damages, and continuation applications. Even if Congress decides to go forward with the effective elimination of the inequitable conduct defense, the specific provisions of H.R. 2795 could be improved in several ways, detailed below. Problem 1: Patent owners could avoid rulings of inequitable conduct by strategically deciding not to litigate particular claims in the patent. They may assert claims, then drop them when it becomes apparent that their claim will be invalidated or their misconduct discovered. Because H.R. 2795 as currently written requires that the validity of a claim be an issue in the litigation, and actually be adjudged invalid, a patentee who strategically drops claims will avoid ever being called to account for its conduct. Solution: Section 136(d)(2) in H.R. 2795 should be modified by adding at the end of subsection (A): ". If a claim is asserted by the patentee in the action, the court shall have jurisdiction to determine its validity even if the patentee later withdraws that claim;" Problem 2: The newly created administrative bureaucracy will work well only if people take it seriously. The administrative sanction is relatively small, and patent applicants with a lot of money at stake may decide to "roll the dice" and lie to the PTO because even if they are caught, they will receive only a relative slap on the wrist. Solution: The penalties need to be increased. Section 136(e)(6)(B) in H.R. 2795 should be modified by striking "$1,000,000" and replacing it with "$10,000,000" and by striking "$5,000,000" and replacing it with "$50,000,000." Further, section 136(d)(2)(B) should be modified by adding at the end ", or the Director has made a nonappealable adjudication of misconduct under this section;" Problem 3: The language of H.R. 2795 regarding preemption of other actions is self-contradictory. Section 136(g) provides that other proceedings can be brought based on a final determination of misconduct, but then says "except that nothing in this subsection shall authorize any investigation or determination of misconduct that is otherwise preempted under this section." But section 136(c)(1) preempts all such other proceedings, rendering section 136(g) of no effect. Solution: The language "except that nothing in this subsection shall authorize any investigation or determination of misconduct that is otherwise preempted under this section." should be deleted from section 136(g) of H.R. 2795. Problem 4: Finally, one apparently unintended consequence of H.R. 2795 would be to prevent the government from asserting inequitable conduct as a party to litigation, whether when defending itself in a patent suit or engaging in an antitrust investigation. This flows from the language of section 136(c)(1), which forbids not just courts but any "federal department or agency" and any "other Federal or State governmental entity" from investigating claims of inequitable conduct. Read literally, this would prevent the federal government or any state from asserting the defense even when private defendants could do so. It would also prevent the Antitrust Division or the Federal Trade Commission from investigating or charging antitrust violations based on fraud on the patent office (so-called "Walker Process fraud"). Solution: These problems could be solved by changing the language "may investigate or make a determination or an adjudication" in section 136(c)(1) of H.R. 2795 to read "may adjudicate", and to add at the end of that subsection "or in the antitrust laws." Summary: The change to the entire market value rule in reasonable royalty damages and the limitation of willfulness claims are both extremely important. The reasonable royalty portion of H.R. 2795 does not need any modification. The willfulness provision of that bill improves the current law in certain respects, but could be made better still. The reasonable royalty provisions in the existing law create significant problems in those industries in which patented inventions relate not to an entire product, but to a small component of a larger product. Because courts have interpreted the reasonable royalty provision to require the award of royalties based on the "entire market value," juries tend to award royalty rates that don't take into account all of the other, unpatented components of the defendant's product. This in turn encourages patent trolls, who can obtain damages or settlements that far exceed the actual contribution of the patent. There are numerous cases of just this problem occurring. I am currently conducting an empirical study to determine the extent of the problem, but there is no doubt that it exists. The bill solves this problem by encouraging the courts to consider the contribution of other elements of the invention. The doctrine of willfulness is a mess. Over 90% of all patent plaintiffs assert willful infringement, even though most of the defendants in those cases developed their products independently and had never heard of the plaintiff or its patent. They are not "willful" in any ordinary meaning of the term. Rather, the way the courts have interpreted patent law has created a bizarre game. By sending a carefully crafted letter, patent owners can cause companies to have to obtain written opinion letters and waive the attorney-client privilege, and if they don't can declare them willful infringers for continuing to sell products they designed in good faith. It is important to clean up the willfulness doctrine. [While some have proposed eliminating it altogether, I think that goes too far. Enhanced damages for willfulness serve as an important deterrent in those cases where the defendant really does steal the technology from the patent owner.] H.R. 2795 makes two important changes that reduce the abuse of willfulness. First, it requires a letter that puts the defendant on notice of a patent to be sufficiently specific that a defendant can file a declaratory judgment action asserting its innocence. This should reduce the casual, off-hand sending of such letters. Second, by requiring the pleading and litigation of willfulness only after a defendant has been found to infringe, H.R. 2795 eliminates many of the harms associated with the court's reliance on advice of counsel, because the defendant will not have to decide whether to waive the privilege until after the primary trial has ended. Further, by requiring bifurcation of willfulness, the bill simplifies the patent litigation process by separating out discovery as to willfulness and eliminating the need for that discovery in the cases where the patent is ultimately held invalid or not infringed. However, H.R. 2795 as currently written leaves intact the opinion letter "game" for many patent lawsuits. Because a defendant's only defense to willfulness under the statute is the existence of "an informed good faith belief" in invalidity or noninfringement, defendants are as a practical matter extremely likely to decide they have to obtain an opinion, rely on the advice of counsel, and therefore waive the attorney-client privilege. This waiver distorts legal advice in difficult ways, making settlement more difficult. See Mark A. Lemley & Ragesh K. Tangri, Ending Patent Law's Willfulness Game, Berkeley Tech. L.J. (2003). This problem could largely be solved if defendants could rely on strong (though ultimately unsuccessful) arguments to avoid a finding of willfulness. To do this, section 284(b)(3) of H.R. 2795 should be modified by adding after "under paragraph (2)" the following: "if the infringer offered an objectively reasonable defense in court or". This would make either an objectively reasonable argument or a subjectively good faith belief grounds for avoiding willfulness. It makes little sense to conclude that defendants are acting willfully if the case was a close one. Adding an objective reasonableness defense would permit defendants who think they have a strong argument to rely on that argument, rather than having to waive privilege. Summary: Injunctive relief is an important part of the patent right, but it is subject to abuse by patent trolls. It is important to preserve the right of injunctive relief in the case of legitimate patent claims, while preventing those who abuse the system from using the threat of injunctive relief to extort money from legitimate innovators. H.R. 2795 takes a small step in the right direction by giving courts the power to stay injunctive relief pending appeal where doing so wouldn't harm the patentee. It takes a more significant step by explicitly introducing fairness concerns, but doing so may have unintended consequences. Limiting injunctions based on patents that cover only a small part of a product would be a significant improvement, and need not raise any of the concerns that have been expressed about compulsory licensing. The goal of any revision to the injunctive relief sections of the patent law should be to ensure that people who actually need injunctive relief to protect their markets or ensure a return on their investment can get it, but that people can't use the threat of an injunction against a complex product based on one infringing piece to hold up the defendant and extract a greater share of the value of that product than their patent warrants. Some have suggested that any restriction on the right to injunctive relief amounts to compelling patent owners to license their competitors. That's not true. The presumptive right to injunctive relief is an important part of the patent law, and in most cases there will be no question as to the patentee's entitlement to such relief. To begin, an injunction is warranted if the patentee practices the patent. Even if they don't, if the patentee sells a competing product in the marketplace, they should be entitled to an injunction to prevent their own invention (in the hands of an infringer) from competing with themselves. Similarly, if they assign or exclusively license the patent to someone who competes in the marketplace, they should also be entitled to injunctive relief. And even if the patentee hasn't done these things in the past, if they begin to do so in the future they should have a right to injunctive relief. Patentees also ought to be entitled to an injunction in cases of willful infringement, even if they are not participating in the market and have no plans to do so. Infringers shouldn't be able to intentionally take the patented technology knowing they will only have to pay a royalty. Even if none of these things are true, some injunctions won't lead to a risk of holdup, and so even patentees who don't meet any of the criteria listed above should be entitled to an injunction in ordinary circumstances. That said, an absolute entitlement to injunctive relief can and does permit patent trolls to "hold up" defendants by threatening to enjoin products that are predominantly noninfringing. In numerous cases, the parties settle for an amount of money that significantly exceeds what the plaintiff could have made in damages and ongoing royalties had they won. In these cases it is not the value of the patent, but the costs to the defendant of switching technologies midstream, that are driving the high price being paid. For example, on patent owner charges a 0.75% royalty for patents that don't cover industry standards, and 3.75% for patents that do cover industry standards. The technology isn't any better, but they can demand five times as much money once the industry has made irreversible investments. This is of particular concern when the patent itself covers only a small piece of the product. An Intel microprocessor may include 5,000 different inventions, some made at Intel and some licensed from outside. If Intel unknowingly infringes a patent on one of those inventions, the patent owner can threaten to stop the sale of the entire microprocessor until Intel can retool its entire fab to avoid infringement. Small wonder, then, that patentees regularly settle with companies in the information technology industries for far more money than their inventions are actually worth. The companies are paying holdup money to avoid the threat of infringement. That's not a legitimate part of the value of a patent; it is a windfall to the patent owner that comes at the expense not of unscrupulous copyists but of legitimate companies doing their own R&D. The question is how to accommodate these competing concerns. H.R. 2795 takes a two-pronged approach. First, it provides that courts have the power to stay injunctions pending appeal if they find that doing so won't irreparably harm the patent owner. This has long been the law, until the Federal Circuit's decision this year in MercExchange v. eBay suggested stays are inappropriate. The old rule permitting stays caused no mischief. Restoring the equitable power of courts to stay injunctions is a good idea. It will give companies time to retool their factories to avoid infringement. At the same time, the irreparable harm limitation ensures that patent owners that actually need injunctive relief, like pharmaceutical companies litigating against generics, will be entitled to get it. The second change H.R. 2795 would make is to require a court to consider the fairness of injunctive relief to all parties in deciding whether to issue an injnction at all. This is a fairly minimal change to the statute, which already provides that courts should only issue injunctions "consistent with principles of equity" and "on such terms as they deem reasonable." 35 U.S.C. § 284. In short, permitting courts to consider equitable principles in deciding whether to grant injunctions was what Congress intended in writing the 1952 Patent Act; it's just that the Federal Circuit has strayed from the statutory language. The "fairness" provision merely highlights for the courts the duty they already have in the existing statute. There are reasonable concerns, however, that a general "fairness" exemption could be misused to deny patent owners injunctive relief when they should in fact be entitled to it. While it is possible that this will happen in U.S. courts, the greater risk is that developing countries will seize on this language to try to deny any rights to pharmaceutical patent owners. Because of this concern, I think it preferable to try to tackle the troll problem more directly while protecting the general right to injunctive relief. Thus, rather than grant general powers to consider fairness, I would specify a limited set of cases in which courts could - not must, but could - deny injunctive relief. A logical way to proceed would be to take the language H.R. 2795 introduces to deal with a similar problem in the context of damages, modifying it slightly to further insure that the normal right to injunctive relief is protected both in cases where the patentee is in the market and where the infringer acts willfully. Summary: Abuse of continuation practice remains a significant problem in the patent system. H.R. 2795 as currently written does not adequately address that problem. While there are some legitimate reasons to use patent continuation practice, there are also a number of problematic reasons to do so. I have detailed those problems elsewhere; see Mark A. Lemley & Kimberly A. Moore, Ending Abuse of Patent Continuations, 84 B.U. L. Rev. 63 (2004). H.R. 2795 as currently drafted gives the Director authority to limit continuations, but does not compel him to act. Because this is such an important issue, I would prefer to see Congress act to limit abuse of patent continuations, either by restricting the total number of continuations that can be filed, or by preventing patentees from broadening their patent claims during a continuation application. At a bare minimum, however, even if Congress does not act more directly to forbid abuse of continuations, Congress should ensure that the Director acts by changing "The Director may" to "The Director shall". It should also draft the statutory provision in such a way that the PTO actually limits the abuse of continuation applications, rather than merely permitting such use so long as the applicant pays a fee. Summary: Requiring publication of all patent applications, expanding prior user rights, and creating a post-grant opposition system are all important changes that will improve the patent system. The provisions of H.R. 2795 need no revision. Section 9 of H.R. 2795 contains three important reforms that are critical to making a first-inventor-to-file system work. If the first inventor to file system is to work, it is absolutely essential that the patent system require prompt publication of all U.S. patent applications. The definition of who is first to file in section 102(a)(2) of H.R. 2795 treats as filings only issued patents and patents published under section 122(b). Because section 122(b) currently permits some patent applications to avoid publication, it would eliminate those applications both as prior art and for priority purposes. A small inventor who filed such an application would not have their filing date count for priority purposes if it were unpublished. Section 9 of H.R. 2795 solves this problem. Second, the move to first inventor to file makes it important that the bill be amended to provide prior user rights for those who engage in non-public use before the patentee files his application. The bill eliminates the existing categories of non-public prior art. Doing so risks permitting more, not fewer, patents to issue to people who were not truly the first inventor. Granting prior user rights to those who were already using the invention is a reasonable counterweight, because it gives the owners of such secret prior art at least the right to continue using technology they invented. The modifications to section 273 solve this problem by expanding a limited right that has been in the law for six years without creating any problems. Finally, post-grant oppositions are a valuable addition to the patent system that will help identify and weed out bad patents without the cost and uncertainty of litigation. The post-grant opposition bill is well-written and will significantly improve the patent system. H.R. 2795 adds new section 323, which permits a post-grant opposition to be filed either within 9 months after a patent issues or within 6 months after the opposer is notified of infringement, whichever comes later. The addition of the second, 6-month window has been controversial in some circumstances, but it is critical to the success of the post-grant opposition procedure. Because of the long timelines associated with many patents, and the fact that patent trolls often wait for years after patents issue before asserting them, limiting opposers to a 9-month window after the patent issued would render post-grant opposition ineffective for the majority of patents. An example is pharmaceutical patents. Because of the long FDA approval process, potential generic manufacturers will likely have no idea at the time a patent issues whether the drug it covers will survive clinical trials and be approved for sale. By the time they know which patents are actually important, it would be too late to oppose them. This problem may extend to other industries as well. Submarine patentees and other trolls often sit on patent rights for many years before asserting them against manufacturers. In order to take advantage of the bill's opposition procedure, those manufacturers would have to guess which of the millions of patents in force might become important a decade from now. Since only 1% of patents are ever litigated, forcing them to make such a guess would make the system worthless to most of the people who would use it. H.R. 2795 solves this problem appropriately, by including a second window for defendants who were not on notice of the patent when it issued. This gives a short period in which to oppose patents once they are brought to a company's attention, without permitting undue delay. Finally, there are a few other matters not included in H.R. 2795 that deserve Congressional attention. Experimental Use Defense: Traditionally, courts have not held defendants liable for using a patented invention in the course of experimentation to try to design a new product that does not infringe the patent. That changed in 2002, when the Federal Circuit essentially eliminated that defense. Major bar groups such as AIPLA have endorsed the creation of a limited experimental use defense, and I agree that doing so would be a good idea. In doing so, however, Congress should take care not to eliminate the incentives for investing in research tools. While experimenting on a commercial product in order to improve on it or design around it is legitimate activity that deserves to be exempt from patent infringement, the use of a patented research tool for its intended purpose in research should not be exempt from patent infringement. Fee Diversion. Every year, Congress diverts user fees paid by patent applicants away from funding the PTO to the general federal revenue. Title III of the COMPETE Act, S. 1020 (Sen. Coleman) would end that diversion. I support ending fee diversion. In an environment where there are numerous reports of bad patents issuing, we should make sure the PTO has the resources to do its job. I want to emphasize, however, that merely giving the PTO more money is not a substitute for real reform of the patent litigation process. No reasonable amount of money spent at the PTO will end the problem of patent trolls so long as they have incentives to game the system. Federal Circuit Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court's interpretation of the patent jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a), in the Vornado v. Holmes case has eliminated the uniformity that came with the Federal Circuit hearing all patent appeals. After Vornado, regional circuit courts and even state courts are now hearing some patent cases. The Federal Circuit Bar Association has proposed statutory changes to section 1338(a) that would restore to the Federal Circuit exclusive jurisdiction over patent cases, and that proposal was the subject of a hearing in the House in March 2005. I support the Federal Circuit proposal. |


text:
Offer - Kingsmill 50 / 50 Thick 800g
Buy any 2 for £2 - Buy any 2 for £2. Order by 11/3/2014, offer subject to availability. Maximum 20 promotional items per customer.
3 days guaranteed (avg. 4.5)*
Product Description
Soft white bread with hidden wholegrain, no bits.
Soft white bread made with 50% wholemeal.
Wheat flour (33% of the baked loaf).
50% of your daily wholegrain in 2 slices*.
*Based on 2010 US Dietary Guidelines of 48g of whole grain a day.
Product Information
- Brands: Kingsmill
- Preparation: Sliced
- Dietary & Lifestyle: Vegetarian, Kosher
- Options: On Offer
Keep your Kingsmill fresh!
For best before see bag closure. Store in a cool, dry place - ideally not refrigerated. Under warm conditions life may be reduced.
Suitable for home freezing. Place in freezer as soon as possible after purchase and consume within 3 months.
Country of Origin
United Kingdom.
Allied Bakeries,
Vanwall Road,
Package Type
Plastic Bag.
Allergen Information
- Contains: Gluten, Wheat, Soya, Yeast
Wheat Flour (33%), Wholemeal Wheat Flour (33%), Water, Yeast, Salt, Vinegar, Soya Flour, Vegetable Oil, Emulsifiers: E471, E472e, Preservative: Calcium Propionate (added to inhibit mould growth), Flour Treatment Agent: Ascorbic Acid (Vitamin C).
Dietary Information
Suitable for Vegetarians
Contains Gluten
Contains Wheat
Contains Soya\Soybeans
Nutritional Data
Typical Values | per 100g | Per slice |
Energy | 993kj | 437kj |
Energy | 235kcal | 103kcal |
Protein | 9.9g | 4.4g |
Carbohydrate | 41.2g | 18.1g |
of which sugars | 3.4g | 1.5g |
Fat | 2.3g | 1g |
of which saturates | 0.4g | 0.2g |
Fibre | 4.9g | 2.2g |
Sodium | 0.39g | 0.17g |
- Life guarantee
- * Minimum life based on 'use-by' date of product. Average life based on last week's deliveries. Life guarantee shown based on delivery tomorrow and includes day of delivery. Please book a slot to view Life guarantee for your chosen delivery day. See Terms and Conditions for further details.
- Tesco Price Match
- ** Matched to Tesco's standard retail price on 06-Mar-2014 at 03:38. See our Terms and Conditions for full details.
- Disclaimer
- These summary details have been prepared for information purposes only, and are designed to enhance your shopping experience on the Ocado website. While we have taken care in preparing this summary and believe it is accurate, it is not a substitute for your reading the product packaging and label prior to use. You should note that products and their ingredients are subject to change. If you do require precise ingredient information you should consult the manufacturer, whose contact details will appear on the packaging or label.
- Ocado is therefore unable to accept liability for any incorrect information. Where this description contains a link to another party's website for further information on the product, please note that Ocado has no control over and no liability for the contents of that website.
- You should also note that the picture images show only our serving suggestions of how to prepare your food - all table accessories and additional items and/or ingredients pictured with the product you are purchasing are not included.
- This data is supplied for personal use only. It may not be reproduced in any way whatsoever without Ocado Limited's prior consent, nor without due acknowledgement.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
American Experience: Abraham and Mary Lincoln: A House Divided DVD 3PK
List Price: $49.99
Our Price: $34.99
Our Price: $34.99
American Experience: The Assassination of Abraham Lincoln DVD
List Price: $24.99
Our Price: $19.99
Our Price: $19.99
NOVA: Lincoln's Secret Weapon DVD
List Price: $24.99
Our Price: $19.99
$10 off orders of $49 or more
Details >
Item No.: NOVA6232
Single DVD
The Union's USS Monitor was a decisive factor in the Civil War. Today it rests in the nation's first marine sanctuary. Join a team of Navy divers as they attempt to recover priceless artifacts; meet the ship designer who built the Monitor; see a realistic reenactment of the battle that changed the course of the Civil War; and discover a powerful military past as the secrets of the Monitor's service emerge from the deep.
More >
AVAILABILITY: In Stock, leaves warehouse in 1 - 2 full bus. days
Details >
GIFT WRAP is available for this item.


text:
The First Word in Protective & Marine Coatings
A Product of Technology Publishing / PaintSquare JPCL | PaintSquare News | Durability + Design | Paint BidTracker
Main News Page
Friday, January 25, 2013 More items for Health & Safety
A high-tech laser scanner was recently implemented to enhance gas pipeline safety and detect corrosion at Pacific Gas & Electric.
PG&E announced on Jan. 17 that it is testing a 3D laser scanner to look at pipe corrosion and recently used it to map the surface of a 16-inch gas pipe.
Accurate and Fast
While being held a few inches above a section of pipeline, the scanner produces a 3D, color-coded view of the pipeline on a monitor and can detect potential concerns, according to PG&E. Accurate within 40 microns, the technology can provide information for an entire pipeline section within minutes, versus the traditional manual inspections.
PG&E is trying out 3D laser scanners to identify possible safety concerns on pipelines.
The hand-held scanner is called EXAscan and is manufactured by Creaform, located in Quebec.
"Using the laser scanner, compared to conventional means, would save, literally, hours and hours and hours," said Alexander Gutierrez, PG&E's senior welding engineer.
"When it comes to finding the nooks and crannies of pipeline dents or external corrosion, the EXAscan provides speed and detail far and above the mechanical way of doing things," said Gutierrez.
The company said that the scanner will work in conjunction with other pipeline safety tools to test, repair and replace segments of pipeline as needed, as set forth in PG&E's Pipeline Safety Enhancement Plan (PSEP).
"This is one of several technologies that PG&E has invested in and is testing right now," said Brittany Chord, spokesperson for the company.
San Bruno Settlement
However, the new equipment would likely not have found the internal pipe problems that caused the 2010 San Bruno pipeline explosion, according to KGO-TV 7, an ABC affiliate in San Francisco.
The explosion on Sept. 9, 2010, caused a 28-foot-long rupture in 30-inch-diameter pipeline, blowing open a massive crater and launching the ruptured section of pipe 100 feet into the air. The blast leveled a neighborhood and killed eight people.
The deadly 2010 San Bruno pipeline explosion launched a ruptured pipe 100 feet high.
In 2012, the company agreed to pay a $70 million municipal restitution package, in addition to earlier commitments to replace and repair the city's infrastructure.
A recent lawsuit settlement with a family that lost a mother and daughter in the explosion requires the utility to strengthen its gas pipeline safety and keep closer watch on the life span of its pipelines.
"[The family] wanted to make sure something came out of this tragedy," said family attorney Steve Campora. "I think they want to make sure what happened to their wife and daughter won't be in vain."
In addition to an undisclosed payment, the settlement requires the utility to calculate a minimum safe life span for pipes in populated areas and give the family reports on their progress. The family will also be able to demand an audit of the company's progress on the work.
Join the Conversation:
The Next Generation of Blasting • Lightest • Coolest • Most Comfortable • Most Dependable
Powerful Protection in a Small Package Mounts inside blast helmet, alerts operator to dangerous breathing-air condition by audible, visual, and vibratory alarms. Easily calibrated, battery operated.
Blastox - One Step Lead Abatement Don't waste $$ on added labor steps with other methods. Don't mix, meter or apply at the job-site. Avoid strict hazardous waste rules. Let your painters paint!
Surface Prep Tools for Hazardous Conditions CS Unitec's Trelawny™ line of surface prep tools is safe and efficient for use in marine & protective coatings applications including Ex Zones & Hot Work Zones.
LS Blasters: Optimum Steel Cleaning Efficiency Simplify surface prep with the precise shot control of LS Blasters. Our blast technology delivers optimum coverage and finish. 800-533-8008
Dustless Coatings Removal Strip it, clean it, and profile it, all dust free! High production rates and Blast like finishes. Comply with new lead standards.
PREMIUM SLAG ABRASIVES Visit mrrinc.com. In surface preparation tests run for NIOSH by an independent company, Sharpshot® was shown to be the best slag abrasive for cutting speed and cost per sq. ft. Call Steve: 520-297-4626
The Technology Publishing Network
© Copyright 2000-2014, Technology Publishing / PaintSquare, All rights reserved 2100 Wharton Street, Suite 310, Pittsburgh PA 15203-1951; Tel 1-412-431-8300; Fax 1-412-431-5428; E-mail email@example.com


text:
News & Public Affairs
Bipartisanship on both sides of Florida's redistricting process listen
05/18/11 Kate BradshawWMNF Drive-Time News Wednesday Listen to this entire show:
Progressives may not be happy with many of the outcomes of the 2010 midterm elections, but many see the two Fair Districts amendments voters adopted as a victory. But Not everyone is happy that they passed, and there's even a bipartisan effort to challenge the law, which changes the way legislative districts are drawn.
Some say Florida voters overwhelmingly elected Republicans to the state legislature because the GOP's election year strategy bro...
Be the first to commentWill the Fair Districts Amendments improve representation for Florida's citizens?
10/12/10 Robert LoreiRadioactivity: Live Call-In (Tuesday) Listen to this entire show:
Every 10 years, after the U.S. Census count, lawmakers in Tallahassee battle over how Florida's legislative and congressional districts should be redrawn.
But before districts are redrawn, there's an effort to take the politics out of redistricting.
Two proposed amendments to the Florida Constitution on the Nov. 2 ballot would set new standards for how the districts are sketched. Amendment 5 deals with legislative districts, while Amendment 6 addresses U.S. congressional districts. L...
Be the first to commentInterview With An Independent Candidate For Governor
09/16/09 Robert LoreiRadioactivity: Live Call-In (Wednesday) Listen to this entire show:
Our guest in this segment is Peter Allen, a member of The Independence Party of Florida and a candidate for Governor in 2010.
Be the first to commentThe Politics Of Drawing Congressional And Legislative Districts
07/28/09 Robert LoreiRadioactivity: Live Call-In (Tuesday) Listen to this entire show:
Welcome to WMNF's Radioactivity program. I'm Rob Lorei. Coming up we'll hear from the leader of an effort to take the politics out of drawing legislative and Congressional districts here in Florida. But first one listener comment about last Thursday's program on which we talked about the Canadian health insurance system and whether it should be a model for American health care insurance.
A group called Fair Districts Florida is leading a bi-partisan...
Be the first to commentGood government groups try to eliminate gerrymandering listen
11/26/08 Mitch E. PerryWMNF Drive-Time News Wednesday Listen to this entire show:
Even with a huge Democratic wave across the country, in Florida, Republicans had no trouble holding their big majorities in the Florida Senate and House. Three Florida seats turned over in the U.S. House, but one of those was held by a scandal-plagued Democrat. In the presidential race, Barack Obama won Florida handily, but his momentum didn't extend to state contests. That's because the districts have been gerrymandered to favor incumbents, which in Florida, are heavily Republican.
Be the first to comment


text:
- Northern New York Newspapers
- Watertown Daily Times
- The Journal
- Daily Courier-Observer
- NNY Ads
- NNY Business
- NNY Living
- Malone Telegram
UTICA Immaculate Heart Central product and Rodman native Ben Winkler, a senior attackman on the Utica mens lacrosse team, was named the Mohawk Valley Collegiate Athlete of the Month for March.
Winkler finished the month with 17 goals and five assists in seven games, leading the Pioneers to a 4-3 mark. He also recorded his 100th career goal the third Pioneer to reach that milestone in an overtime win last month.
The award is given out based on academic and athletic achievements along with community involvement.


text:
Hi, I dont know if this is the sort of thing you like to blog about.. we fly a 2 seat glider around the south of england. This summer (?) we had a close encounter with a Tornato ( no i didnt get a picture of it) we have just had the report back and there was 150 feet seperation which we thought was about right although it seemed closer at the time..It came from behind us and over our heads.
Having lived in the north of England under low flying airspace i am very aware of the jets and what they get up to.
I hope everyone out there who flies around any day of the week 'thinks Glider'... Bit like 'think bike'!
We are there we are slim,quiet and usually about when the sky looks pretty..Gliding is a small part of the aviation world its a fabulous way to fly but often we are very vunurable. Glider pilots are taught from day one LOOK OUT all the time.
I trust that all other aviators are taught the same and hope they give us a wave when they see us...
Posted: Wed, Nov 28 2007 1:55 PM by sandy with no comments
If you havent looked into gliding then take a peak at this utube it will give you a taste.
Posted: Tue, Nov 27 2007 2:28 PM by sandy with no comments


text:
Boise, ID
15 records found for Patricia Murphy in Boise, ID .
Pinpointing information about Patricia Murphy is quite simple if you know how to search. PeopleFinders.com allows you easy access to various kinds of info about Patricia Murphy like age, recent addresses, phone numbers, and relatives. First Name] Murphy was born in [YOB] and is 69 years old. Her most recent address is located in Boise, ID . Based on our records, her relatives include [RELATIVES], among others.
To help you find the exact Patricia Murphy, we have assembled all the info that we have in our records. This data will let you point out the correct Patricia and includes facts such as age, phone numbers, and recent addresses. If the Patricia on this page does not coincide with the Patricia you are looking for, you can explore the list of people with the Murphy above.
Control your search by entering additional details into the search fields. By giving us extra facts—first name, middle name, last name, city, state and/or age—we will be able to return the right responses for your search of Patricia Murphy. When you locate the exact Patricia Murphy you are looking for, you can leisurely surf through all the public records data we have in our extensive database for Patricia Murphy.


text:
Camera Selector
Request a Quotation
The GC655 is a fast, VGA resolution, high-performance machine vision camera with Gigabit Ethernet interface (GigE Vision®). The 1/2" CCD sensor has excellent image quality and sensitivity.
* 5–16 VDC for Cameras with SN: 02-XXXXX-0XXXX
Download Prosilica GC655 technical drawing (click here)
The GC655 features include:
The GC655 is ideal for a wide range of applications including:


text:
Article: |
When Linux Runs Out of Memory | |
Subject: | OOM Behaviour | |
Date: | 2006-12-04 06:41:45 | |
From: | Teresa3455 | |
First of all, thanks for the article. I found it very useful.
Showing messages 1 through 1 of 1.
OOM Behaviour
2006-12-05 22:53:09 mulyadi_santosa [View]
Hi Teresa
It's good to hear that you found this article to be useful. Please don't be hesitate to write further comments about it.
About FF (Firefox) got killed instead ofloop-calloc
, I have a pretty good guess that FF had bigger VM size thanloop-calloc
when OOM killer was working in your case. Recall that running time is just one of the killer's criteria, so to predict which application get killed, you need to carefully check all those 7 criterias I have mentioned in the article.
I have tried to mimic your case, simply by doingtail -f /dev/zero
while FF 1.0.4 was running. Instead of killingtail
right away, FF was killed together with other application such as KDE panel and KMail.Top
reported that FF consumed ~33MB of virtual memory while free+reclaimable RAM was about ~30 MB before loop-calloc was started.
My suggestion, instead of looking ways to disable OOM killer, is to useulimit
whenever you want to start a memory hogger application. Start a shell (possibly via xterm or Konsole),ulimit -v <some amount of memory>
and start the application after that. Assuming the application does proper checking aftermalloc()
and strict overcommit is enabled, there is no need for OOM-killer to randomly kills application..which is in your case, ended up with killing innocent FF.


text:
Mar. 12, 2014
March 22
Oh, Yes She Did! Starring HBO Actress/Comedienne Sandy Brown in a Historical One-Woman Show
April 4
All grandparents of current Biola students are invited to attend a day full of fun and fellowship!
March 12
Called to cross-cultural ministry? Find out more about our certificate, MA and doctoral programs in ...
January 28 - May 30
Complement your education with Torrey Academy's Economics and the City of God course, designed ...
March 19
Biola alumnus Arnold Geis, tenor, returns to our stage as a guest artist.
March 22 - April 22
Learn more about admissions and academic requirements for the School of Education and hear from ...
March 24
This series brings a selection of accomplished business leaders to campus to share their varied ...
March 26
Join Biola in celebrating National Women's History Month
March 27
Come to this free information session to learn about Talbot's M.A., M.Div ...
March 29
With technical brilliance and probing interpretation, the duo of Bin Huang, violin, and our own ...
March 5 - June 3
Would a graduate degree help you at work, or advance your career? Wish you could ...
More events
Submit an event
Category: AllAdmissionsAlumniArtAthleticsMiscellaneousMusicPublic LecturesStudent LifeUniversity-Wide
Date: AllNext 7 DaysNext 14 DaysNext Month
Show Events
May 3
The Biola Media Conference is the nation's largest conference for Christians in the entertainment ...
On the evening of February 22nd, Biola had the opportunity to host An Evening with ...
More event recaps


text:
Part of your role is to help the speakers at your meeting to shine. Here are some tips.
Rehearse your speakers in front of an audience, not an empty room. This will make them more comfortable and offer an opportunity for feedback.
Alert them to vocal fillers (Um, Uh, etc.) These can be distracting. Remind your speaker instead to take a breath, pause, and then continue.
Repeat instructions again and again. It sounds simple, but details can quickly be forgotten when someone takes the stage.
Keep it conversational. Remind presenters that they are really just having a conversation with the audience. They know the material and can deliver it one on one. This is the same thing—just with a few more people!
Review the slides. Of course, the speaker will review the PowerPoints for typos and style, but also make sure they read well on the big screens and confidence monitors, and that the type is big enough to see from the back of the room.
Do a dry run on stage. Practicing in an office is not the same as being up high and in the spotlight. Don't skip this important step.
Have water handy. Have a bottle of room temperature water on the lectern. Ice water can sometimes cause a speaker to cough.
Use confidence monitors. These are the large screens at the front of the stage that only the speaker can see (also called teleprompters). They keep speakers from looking over their shoulders to see the slides.
Always have a timer. Not a watch or a cellphone. It will keep your presenter from running too long or short and can't go off in the middle of the speech.
Choose the mic that's right. If your speaker is a "lectern hugger," there's no need for a lavaliere, but that is definitely the best choice for those "walk and talkers."
Christy Lamagna, CMP, CMM, CTSM, is president and chief strategist, Strategic Meetings & Events, New York


text:
Truth & Rumors > NFL
Chiefs GM, coaches may receive pay cuts
- Views
- 11680
- Comments
- 22
09:39 AM ET 03.02 | All Chiefs employees -- including general manager Scott Pioli, coach Todd Haley and president Mark Donovan -- would see a pay reduction if the NFL experiences a work stoppage. The salary-reduction plan would be phased in over eight months, according to a Chiefs source with knowledge of the plan. No employees will be laid off or furloughed. Employees would retain full benefits.
Not so bad to have full benefits... I know some folks that would take partial ones.
Total Comments (40504)
Total Comments (1222)
All the secretaries and hot dog vendors are going to take a hit for the millionaires. If the teams start laying people off the taxpayers will take a hit.
Lets all agree to boycott the first regular season game just to remind them who really pays the bills.
And he will still make more than the majority of us...
Total Comments (1149)
Total Comments (23470)
Make the playoffs and get a pay cut, nice incentive there.
And the owners still get paid the billions from the TV deal. Games or no games.
" ESPN, NBC, CBS, Fox and DirecTV have agreed to fork over an estimated $4 billion regardless of whether football is played or not."
And the owners still get paid the billions from the TV deal. Games or no games." ESPN, NBC, CBS, Fox and DirecTV have agreed to fork over an estimated $4 billion regardless of whether football is played or not."
But it may be different? I hope so.
"Judge Doty ruled that the NFL breached its duties to the NFLPA under a previously negotiated settlement agreement when it re-negotiated television rights deals with the various partners, including CBS, FOX, NBC, ESPN, and DirecTV. (for those that are into that sort of thing, you can see the full 28-page opinion laying out the facts and reasoning here)
Basically, Judge Doty found that the NFL had an obligation under the terms of the SSA (stipulation and settlement agreement) to exercise good faith and best efforts to maximize total revenue for the NFL and the players. Television contracts comprise about half of the total revenue, and soon after the owner???s opted out early from the current agreement with the players that expires this week, they began renegotiations to extend the television deals with the various providers."
The NFL insisted on altered lockout provisions
OMG! Does this mean they might actually have to get real jobs?
OMG! Does this mean they might actually have to get real jobs?
High schools need gym teachers...
Chiefs GM, coaches may receive explosive diarrhea!
That might be better than what the owners would like them to receive.
Remember to keep your posts clean. Profanity will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
Truth & Rumors
Report: Phil Jackson 'real close' to taking Knicks job
- Views
- 9291
- Comments
- 206
Report: Texans interested in Ryan Mallett
- Views
- 4260
- Comments
- 171
How long will Stars be without Kari Lehtonen?
- Views
- 424
- Comments
- 39
Red Sox owner's beef with Marlins goes way back
- Views
- 900
- Comments
- 29
Will Devils extend Jaromir Jagr?
- Views
- 384
- Comments
- 23


text:
Looking for a Great Space in a Well-Maintained
Building in a Prime Location?!
Look No
further...We have a large database with thousands of
listings...Call or text ME for an appointment to VIEW this
apartment and the many others that might work for you as
The Summer Rental Market is Heating
Up...things are renting quickly....Act fast!!
Call Silvio @ ..For your own private viewing. Helping you
find the perfect apartment in the best location is my
I had a great experience
working with Silvio. He was helpful and informative without being
pushy. He found us the perfect fit. Thanks! AJ Lambert.


text:
Submit Review
Campground Search
204641 User submitted reviews online!!
Location :
Oakland Park, Florida
Easterlin Park Campground
[ 8/10 ]
We made a one night stop here and really enjoyed the atmosphere and the people. Our first time here but we will definitely stop by on our return trip in April.
Fountain, Florida
Pine Lake RV Park
[ 10/10 ]
We stayed there for three nights and had a wonderful time; our last stay was about three years ago. Overall the park is bright, spacious and airy. It's got great Wi-Fi and plenty of walking trails. It's clean as a whistle. We also used their newly renovated clubhouse for a planned activity for a large group and enjoyed the red cedar siding and new appliances, it was fantastic. They have just added 50 new 50 amp waterfront sites and are putting in cabins. The owners were very friendly and treated us all like VIPS. It was easy to find off I-10 or SR 20.
Holt, Florida
Eagles Landing RV Park
[ 8/10 ]
We spent one night in this park while heading south to Orlando. Clean and Neat. Friendly owners. We'd stay here again.


text:
Ordering a printer
Printers can be leased or purchased from vendors such as Computer Systems (Australia)Pty Ltd.
Users should seek advice from IT Services prior to purchasing a printer. Not all brands of printer are compatible with the University IT environment.
IT Services can install and connect users to these printers, however maintenance support is the responsibility of the user (ie. School, Faculty, Unit or Division).
Support of the printers under warranty is handled by the vendor or manufacturer. Warranty extension options should be discussed with the vendor at the time of purchase.
Contact the 17triplezero IT Service Desk
How | When |
Service Portal |
24/7 |
Phone |
Monday - Friday |


text:
If you have a girl in your life in grades K-12 who hasn't signed up for Girl Scouts yet, you haven't missed your chance! There is still time to get her enrolled in the program and signed up to sell Girl Scout cookies and earn her way to lots of fun and adventure.
Girl Scouts across the state are still forming new troops (and still need adult volunteers to make this happen). There is also the opportunity for girls wanting to join to sign up as an individual member until a troop becomes available. Individual members can sell Girl Scout cookies just like those girls in troops, and they also can earn funds to pay for summer camp, community service projects and other leadership programming. No matter your Girl Scout pathway, there's so much fun and learning available in Girl Scouting! Get enrolled today at www.girlscoutsofcolorado.org.
blog comments powered by Disqus


text:
Tom Cannavan's wine-pages.com
tasting note search
organised tastings
meet the winemakers
wines of the month
value wines
wine of the week
video review: wine of the week
24th April 2011
SPAR Australian Chardonnay Reserve
This non-vintage Chardonnay from high street convenience chain SPAR is what I would describe as a 'useful', decent wine. I will be honest and say SPAR's range is rather lacklustre by and large, but as there are over 2,600 SPAR stores in the UK alone, there's a good chance that at least some wine-pages visitors will pick up the odd bottle from their local branch. At its regular price of £5.99 this would not get my vote, but from 28th April 2011 until 8th June 2011 it is on offer at £4.49 and that might make it a handy white wine standby. It is lightly oaked, with a pleasantly vanilla-touched nose giving some oatmeal to tropical, ripe melon and mango fruit. On the palate it is full-bodied, with sweet fruit and nothing challenging, the gentle acidity and creamy touch of oak making it quaffable and food friendly. More information and food match ideas in the video. £4.49 of offer, SPAR.
Visit our
YouTube channel
for all wine videos
See previous wines of the week in the
value archives


text:
Top 10 Comedians Turned Serious Actors
Hawkeye Art for 'The Avengers' Revealed
Christian Bale Ready for 4th Batman
They Are Rebooting Twilight Already?!?
9 Facts The Dark Knight Series
5 Shows That Have Us Literally Yelling at the TV
The Sexiest Women From Action Movies
45 Of Your Childhood Crushes (Then And Now)
Glenn Beck Makes Astonishing Admission
15 People Who Have Been Banned from SNL
Teresa Giudice's Latest RHONJ Confessions
11 Avengers We MUST See in an Avengers Sequel
Ron Perlman Puts on the Hellboy Make-Up Again
The Return of Peggy Carter
Megan Fox is April O'Neal
Six Different Faces of Tom Hardy
The 10 Worst Films of 2013
The 14 Worst Films of 2013
Ben Affleck Talks Differences in His Batman
Watch Every Transformation Every Transformer Made in All Three 'Transformers'
Warner Bros. Animation to Release Three DC Animated Films a Year
You Have to Hear this about Jurassic World Plot and Characters
James Cameron Gives Update on the Avatar Sequels
27 Fascinating Movie Facts You Never Knew
Upcoming Spinoffs: Which Has You Most Excited?
RHOBH: Muhamed Hadid's Fiance to Replace Joyce and Carlton?
Tamra Barney Already Feuding with New Real Housewife of Orange County
Batman Vs. Superman Costume Designer Teases Wonder Woman Outfit
22 Titanic Movie Blunders You Will Never Unsee
32 Fun Facts About The Movie Fight Club


text:
Is library's checkout process really most efficient?
Issue: A reader wants to know why the Brookfield Public Library doesn't have a single line at the checkout area instead of multiple lines that move at different speeds.
Status: Edell Schaefer, library director, said she has considered this idea, but one line would not be possible because of the building design. People are coming to the checkout from both the adult side and the children's side of the library so it would be difficult to have one line.
Schaefer added that there is a wall that restricts where the line could go and because of the limited space, one line would cause congestion and block people as they try to walk through that area.
Brookfield NOW .com
Want us to track down a rumor?
Fix a problem? Send an email to
email@example.com or visit
BrookfieldNOW.com/Ask to post a question or see some answers.
This site uses Facebook comments to make it easier for you to contribute. If you see a comment you would like to flag for spam or abuse, click the "x" in the upper right of it. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use.
E-mail Newsletter
Your link to the biggest stories in the suburbs delivered Thursday mornings.
Enter your e-mail address above and click "Sign Up Now!" to begin receiving your e-mail newsletter
Get the Newsletter!
- Ask NOW: Who were the Ebles and what did they want for their land?
- Ask NOW: Are there plans for improvements at Calhoun and Burleigh roads?
- Ask NOW: What's going on in the old Ethan Allen store?
- Ask NOW: How many dump trucks of dirt will be coming out of the Corners?
- Ask NOW: Does Brookfield pay its interns?
- Ask NOW: What's happening to Applebee's?
- Ask NOW: Will residents soon have to take trash to the curb?
- Ask NOW: Has moving fire station caused delays for responses to Brookfield Square?
- Ask NOW: How can the city get a park on the Sileno property?
- Ask NOW: Does BRAD group have conflict of interest?
- Ask NOW: Who is Goerke?
- Ask NOW: What is required of school buses crossing tracks?
- Ask NOW: When do the street lights go on?
- Ask NOW: What is the procedure for plowing snow?
- Ask NOW: Are there local families who will use a food pantry this Thanksgiving?
- Ask NOW: Why are there barriers at Brookfield Road and North Avenue?
- Ask NOW: Will sidewalks on Capitol Drive be cleared of snow this winter?
- Ask NOW: Are little roadside libraries allowed in Brookfield?
- Ask NOW: What are costs of maintaining and demolishing Eble Park barn?
- Ask NOW: Who is responsible for cutting the grass along the new sidewalk on Capitol Drive?


text:
Andy Boynton
Andy Boynton is Dean of Boston College's Carroll School of Management, one of the world's leading business schools, the author of several books and co-creator of DeepDive™, the world's leading methodology for helping executives harness the power of teams to significantly improve problem-solving speed, innovation and results.
Prior to joining Boston College, Boynton was a professor of strategy at the International Institute for Management Development (IMD) in Lausanne, Switzerland for 10 years. At the IMD he led a faculty team and was program director of one of the world's top ten Executive MBA programs, as recognized by Business Week.
Boynton has recently launched new research projects to explore how distinguished experts from a variety of knowledge-domains work with ideas to achieve professional success and improve their effectiveness in social networks. His latest book, The Idea Hunter: How to Find the Best Ideas and Make them Happen (Jossey-Bass), is based on this research and is co-authored with Bill Fischer and William Bole.
Get Business Insider Emails & Alerts
Your Money
NASDAQ Composite | 4,260 | -62.91 | (-1.455%) |
NYSE Composite | 10,298 | -121.25 | (-1.164%) |
Login with LinkedIn to see what your friends are reading on Business Insider.
Login with LinkedIn


text:
What Does DogFriendly.com Offer? Select From Our Pull-Down Menu Dog-Friendly Hotels & Lodging Dog-Friendly City Guides ...Attractions, Restaurants & More Dog-Friendly Ski Resorts Dog-Friendly Camping/RV Parks Dog-Friendly Beach Guide Dog-Friendly Outdoor Dining Dog-Friendly Attraction Guide Dog-Friendly Park Guide Off-Leash Dog Parks Public Transportation & Dogs Dog Camps Dog-Friendly Events Dog Photo Gallery Dog & Pet Store Dog Travel Guide Books Top 10 Dog-Friendly Cities Top 10 Dog-Friendly Resorts DogFriendly.com's Newsletter Book Reseller Information Advertise with DogFriendly.com Online Press Kit About Us/Contact Us
U.S. Dog Travel Guides
Dog City Guides
Outdoor Dining
Dog Parks
Dog & Pet Store
Campgrounds & RV Parks
Dog Travel Books
Mobile Apps
Dog Photos
Best Western Plus Big America
Best Western Plus Big AmericaDog-Friendly Hotels1725 North BroadwaySanta Maria,California 93454Call 866-676-3077 To Book This Hotel Get Map or Directions Stay at this full-service, pet friendly Santa Maria, California hotel offering convenient access to Vandenberg Air Force Base, Pismo Beach and the quaint town of Solvang. Situated in central California's beautiful Santa Maria Valley, the BEST WESTERN PLUS Big America proudly offers friendly customer service and comfortable accommodations for an affordable rate. This full-service Santa Maria area hotel boasts well-appointed guest rooms and suites, each featuring Thomasville Early-American furniture, cable television with HBO? and free wireless high-speed Internet access. Begin each morning with a complimentary deluxe, full breakfast or choose a delicious meal at Francisco's Country Kitchen, located on the hotel premises. Guests will also enjoy an array of amenities including an outdoor heated swimming pool, hot tub, airport shuttle (7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.), full business services and meeting facilities accommodating up to 35 people. Pets are welcome with some restrictions. This Central Coast area hotel's Interstate 101 location provides guests with convenient access to a variety of key attractions including the Santa Maria Speedway, the Santa Maria Museum of Flight and the Guadalupe/Nipomo Dunes Reserve. Spend an afternoon at Pismo Beach, just 15 miles away or visit the quaint Danish village of Solvang. Golf enthusiasts will enjoy being minutes away from Blacklake Golf Course and The Dunes Golf Course. Traveling on business? Vandenberg Air Force Base and Lockheed Martin are also close by. Guests will also enjoy an afternoon of wine tasting at nearby wineries in Paso Robles or visiting the famed Hearst Castle. The friendly, helpful staff at the BEST WESTERN PLUS Big America is ready to ensure a fun-filled memorable stay in Santa Maria, California. Make a reservation today and save!Dogs up to 80 pounds are allowed. Up to two dogs are allowed per room.
=indicates DogFriendly.com's dog-friendly advertisers!
Air Travel
Highway Guides
Books and Ebooks
List Your Property
About Us
Press Kit
Contact Us
Recommend Places


text:
John Lasseter
John Lasseter | |
Lasseter at the Austin Film Festival on October 22, 2011.
Born | John Alan Lasseter January 12, 1957 Hollywood, California, U.S. |
Alma mater | Pepperdine University, California Institute of the Arts |
Occupation | Animator film director Chief Creative Officer, Pixar, Walt Disney Animation Studios Principal Creative Advisor, Walt Disney Imagineering |
Years active | 1978–present |
Notable work(s) | Luxo Jr. Toy Story A Bug's Life Toy Story 2 Cars Cars 2 |
Spouse(s) | Nancy Lasseter (1988–present)[1] |
Signature |
John Alan Lasseter (born January 12, 1957) is an American animator, film director, screenwriter, producer and the chief creative officer of Pixar and Walt Disney Animation Studios. He is also currently the Principal Creative Advisor for Walt Disney Imagineering.[2]
Lasseter's first job was with The Walt Disney Company, where he became an animator. Fired from Disney for promoting computer animation, he joined Lucasfilm, where he worked on the then ground breaking use of CGI animation. The Graphics Group of the Computer Division of Lucasfilm was sold to Steve Jobs and became Pixar in 1986. Lasseter oversees all of Pixar's films and associated projects as executive producer. In addition, he directed Toy Story, A Bug's Life, Toy Story 2, Cars, and Cars 2. Since 2007, he also oversees all of Walt Disney Animation Studios' films and associated projects as executive producer.
He has won two Academy Awards, for Animated Short Film (for Tin Toy), as well as a Special Achievement Award (for Toy Story).[3]
Early years[edit]
Lasseter was born in Hollywood, California. His mother, Jewell Mae (née Risley), was an art teacher at Bell Gardens High School, and his father, Paul Eual Lasseter, was a parts manager at a Chevrolet dealership and a Veteran of World War II.[4][5][6] Lasseter grew up in Whittier, California. His mother's profession contributed to his growing preoccupation with animation. He often drew cartoons during church services at the Church of Christ his family attended. As a child, Lasseter would race home from school to watch Chuck Jones cartoons on television. While in high school, he read The Art of Animation by Bob Thomas. The book covered the history of Disney animation and the making of a book about Sleeping Beauty, which made Lasseter realize he wanted to do animation himself. When he saw Disney's 1963 film The Sword in the Stone, he finally made the decision that he should become an animator.[7]
His education began at Pepperdine University. It was the alma mater of both his parents and his siblings. However, he heard of a new program at California Institute of the Arts and decided to leave Pepperdine to follow his dream of becoming an animator. His mother further encouraged him to take up a career in animation, and in 1975 he enrolled as the second student in a new animation course at the California Institute of the Arts. Lasseter was taught by three members of Disney's "Nine Old Men" team of veteran animators – Eric Larson, Frank Thomas and Ollie Johnston – his classmates included Brad Bird, John Musker, Henry Selick and Tim Burton.[8] During his time there, he produced two animated shorts; Lady and the Lamp (1979) and Nitemare (1980), which both won the student Academy Award for Animation.[9]
First years at Disney[edit]
On graduation, Lasseter joined The Walt Disney Company, and was promoted quickly up the ranks to a Jungle Cruise skipper at Disneyland in Anaheim.[10] Lasseter later obtained a job as an animator at Walt Disney Feature Animation, but felt something was missing; after 101 Dalmatians, which in his opinion was the film where Disney had reached its highest plateau, the studio had lost momentum and was criticized for often repeating itself without adding any new ideas or innovations.[11][12]
The first Disney animated feature that Lasseter worked on was The Fox and the Hound, which he worked alongside other animation artists such as Tim Burton, Brad Bird and Henry Selick.[citation needed] In 1980 or 1981, he coincidentally came across some video tapes from one of the then new computer-graphics conferences, who showed some of the very beginnings of computer animation, primarily floating spheres and such, which he experienced as a revelation.[13] But it wasn't until shortly after, when he was invited by his friends Jerry Rees and Bill Kroyer, while working on Mickey's Christmas Carol, to come and see the first lightcycle sequences for an upcoming film entitled Tron, featuring (then) state-of-the-art computer generated imagery, that he really saw the huge potential of this new technology in animation. Up to that time, the studio had used a multiplane camera to add depth to its animation. Lasseter realized that computers could be used to make films with three-dimensional backgrounds where traditionally animated characters could interact to add a new, visually stunning depth that had not been conceived before.
Later, he and Glen Keane talked about how great it would be to make an animated feature where the background was computer animated, and then showed Keane the book The Brave Little Toaster by Thomas Disch, which he thought would be a good candidate for the film. Keane agreed, but first they decided to do a short test film to see how it worked out, and chose Where the Wild Things Are, a decision based on the fact that Disney had considered producing a feature based on the works of Maurice Sendak. Satisfied with the result, Lasseter, Keane and Thomas L. Wilhite went on with the project, especially Lasseter who dedicated himself to it, while Keane eventually went on to work with The Great Mouse Detective.[14]
Lasseter and his colleagues unknowingly stepped on some of their direct superiors' toes by circumventing them in their enthusiasm to get the project into motion. During a pitch meeting for the film to two of them, animation administrator Ed Hansen, and head of Disney studios, Ron W. Miller, the project was cancelled, due to lack of perceived cost benefits for the mix of traditional and computer animation.[15] A few minutes after the meeting, Lasseter was summoned by Hansen to his office, where he was told that his employment in the Walt Disney Studios had been terminated. The Brave Little Toaster would later become a 2D animated feature film directed by one of Lasseter's friends, Jerry Rees, and some of the staff of Pixar would be involved in the film alongside Lasseter.
While putting together a crew for the planned feature, he had made some contacts in the computer industry, among them Alvy Ray Smith and Ed Catmull at Lucasfilm Computer Graphics Group. After being fired, Lasseter visited a computer graphics conference at the Queen Mary in Long Beach, where he met and talked to Catmull again. Before the day was over, Lasseter had made a deal to work with Catmull and his colleagues on a project that resulted in their first computer animated short: The Adventures of André and Wally B. Because Catmull was not allowed to hire animators, he was given the title "Interface Designer";[16] "Nobody knew what that was but they didn't question it in budget meetings".[17] The short turned out to be more revolutionary than Lasseter first had visualized before he joined Lucasfilm. His original idea had been to create only the backgrounds on computers, but in the final short everything was computer animated, including the characters. After this short CGI film, things would continue to grow until it became Toy Story, the first ever computer-animated feature film.
Due to George Lucas's financially crippling divorce, he was forced to sell off Lucasfilm Computer Graphics, by this time renamed the Pixar Graphics Group. It was acquired by Steve Jobs in 1986. Lasseter oversees all of Pixar's films and associated projects as executive producer. He also personally directed Toy Story, A Bug's Life, Toy Story 2, Cars, and Cars 2.
He has won two Academy Awards, for Animated Short Film (Tin Toy), as well as a Special Achievement Award (Toy Story).[3] Lasseter has been nominated on four other occasions – in the category of Animated Feature, for both Monsters, Inc. (2001) and Cars (2006), in the Original Screenplay category for Toy Story (1995) and in the Animated Short category for Luxo, Jr. (1986), while the short Knick Knack (1989) was selected by Terry Gilliam as one of the ten best animated films of all time.[18]
Lasseter received a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame in Hollywood on November 1, 2011. It is located at 6834 Hollywood Boulevard.[19]
Lasseter was also the recipient of the Austin Film Festival's 2011 Extraordinary Contribution to Filmmaking Award.
Back at Disney[edit]
Disney purchased Pixar in April 2006, and Lasseter was named chief creative officer of both Pixar and Walt Disney Animation Studios. He was also named principal creative adviser at Walt Disney Imagineering, where he helps design attractions for Disney's theme parks. Since 2007, he oversees all of Walt Disney Animation Studios' films and associated projects as executive producer. He reports directly to Disney President and CEO Robert Iger, bypassing Disney's studio and theme park executives. He also received green-light power on films with Roy E. Disney's consent.
In December 2006, he announced that Disney will start producing animated shorts that will be released theatrically once more. Lasseter said he sees this medium as an excellent way to train and discover new talent in the company as well as a testing ground for new techniques and ideas. The shorts will be in 2D, CGI or a combination of both.[20]
Lasseter is a close friend and admirer of Japanese animator Hayao Miyazaki, and has been executive producer on several of Miyazaki's films for their release in the United States, also overseeing the dubbing of the films for their English language soundtrack. The gentle forest spirit Totoro from Miyazaki's My Neighbor Totoro makes an appearance as a plush toy in Toy Story 3.
Other work[edit]
Lasseter drew the most widely known versions of the BSD Daemon, a cartoon mascot for the BSD Unix operating system.[21]
He owns the "Marie E." steam locomotive, which is an H.K. Porter engine. The "Marie E." was once owned by Ollie Johnston, who was one of Walt Disney's "Nine Old Men". In May 2007 and again in June 2010, the locomotive visited, and was run by Lasseter at the Pacific Coast Railroad in Santa Margarita, CA alongside the original Santa Fe & Disneyland Railroad "Retlaw 1" coaches.[22]
Personal life[edit]
Lasseter lives in Glen Ellen, California with his wife Nancy, a graduate of Carnegie Mellon University, whom he met at a computer graphics conference. Nancy majored in computer graphics applications, and worked for a while as a household engineer and a computer graphics engineer at Apple Computer.[23] They married in 1988,[1] and have five sons,[23][24] born between 1979/1980 and 1997.[25]
The Lasseters own Lasseter Family Winery, located in Glen Ellen, CA.[26]
On May 2, 2009, Lasseter received an Honorary Doctorate degree from Pepperdine University.[27] He gave a commencement address where he encouraged the graduating class of more than 500 students never to let anyone tarnish their dreams.
His influences include Walt Disney, Chuck Jones, Frank Capra and Preston Sturges.[28]
Feature films[edit]
Year | Title | Role | Notes |
1981 | The Fox and the Hound | inbetweener (uncredited) | |
1985 | Young Sherlock Holmes | computer animation: ILM | |
1987 | The Brave Little Toaster | story artist | |
1991 | Beauty and the Beast | executive producer: 3D version | |
1992 | Porco Rosso | executive creative consultant: US version | |
1995 | Toy Story | Green alien (on helium) | director/story/modeling & animation system development |
1998 | A Bug's Life | Harry the fly | director/story |
1999 | Toy Story 2 | Blue Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robot | director/story |
2000 | Buzz Lightyear of Star Command: The Adventure Begins | characters | |
2001 | Monsters, Inc. | executive producer | |
2002 | Spirited Away | executive producer: US version | |
2003 | Finding Nemo | executive producer | |
2004 | The Incredibles | executive producer | |
2005 | Howl's Moving Castle | executive producer: US version | |
2006 | Cars | director/story/screenplay | |
Tales from Earthsea | executive producer: US[29] | ||
2007 | Meet the Robinsons | executive producer | |
Ratatouille | executive producer | ||
2008 | WALL-E | executive producer | |
Tinker Bell | executive producer | ||
Bolt | executive producer | ||
2009 | Up | executive producer/senior creative team: Pixar | |
Ponyo | executive producer: US, Director: English Dub | ||
Tinker Bell and the Lost Treasure | executive producer | ||
The Princess and the Frog | executive producer | ||
2010 | Toy Story 3 | story/executive producer/senior creative team: Pixar | |
Tinker Bell and the Great Fairy Rescue | executive producer | ||
Tangled | executive producer | ||
2011 | Cars 2 | John Lassetire | director/story/characters |
Winnie the Pooh | executive producer | ||
The Muppets | creative consultant[30] | ||
2012 | Secret of the Wings | executive producer | |
Brave | executive producer | ||
Wreck-It Ralph | executive producer | ||
2013 | Planes | story/executive producer | |
Monsters University | executive producer | ||
Frozen | executive producer | ||
2014 | The Pirate Fairy | executive producer | |
Planes: Fire & Rescue | executive producer | ||
Big Hero 6 | executive producer | ||
2015 | Legend of the NeverBeast | executive producer | |
Inside Out | executive producer | ||
The Good Dinosaur | executive producer | ||
2016 | Zootopia (working title) | executive producer | |
Finding Dory | executive producer |
Short films[edit]
Year | Title | Notes |
1983 | Mickey's Christmas Carol | creative talent |
1984 | The Adventures of André and Wally B. | character design and animation, models: André/Wally B. |
1986 | Luxo Jr. | writer, director, producer, models, animation |
1987 | Red's Dream | writer, director, animator |
1988 | Tin Toy | story, director, animator, modeler |
1989 | Knick Knack | writer, director |
1997 | Geri's Game | executive producer |
2000 | For the Birds | executive producer |
2002 | Mike's New Car | executive producer |
2003 | Boundin' | executive producer |
2005 | Jack-Jack Attack | executive producer |
One Man Band | executive producer | |
2006 | Mater and the Ghostlight | original story, director |
Lifted | executive producer | |
2007 | How to Hook Up Your Home Theater | executive producer |
Your Friend the Rat | executive producer | |
2008 | Presto | executive producer |
Glago's Guest | executive producer | |
BURN-E | executive producer | |
Cars Toons | director | |
2009 | Super Rhino | executive producer |
Partly Cloudy | executive producer | |
Dug's Special Mission | executive producer | |
Prep & Landing | executive producer | |
2010 | Day & Night | executive producer |
Prep & Landing: Operation: Secret Santa | executive producer | |
2011 | Prep & Landing: Naughty vs. Nice[31] | executive producer |
La Luna | executive producer | |
The Ballad of Nessie | executive producer | |
Pixie Hollow Games | executive producer | |
2012 | Tangled Ever After | executive producer |
Paperman | executive producer | |
2013 | The Blue Umbrella | executive producer |
Party Central | executive producer | |
Get a Horse! | executive producer |
See also[edit]
- ^ a b O'Connor, Stuart (February 12, 2009). "How to tell a great toy story". The Guardian. Retrieved May 11, 2013. "I was doing a lot of amateur 3D photography – in 1988, when I got married to my wife Nancy, we took 3D wedding pictures."
- ^ Grover, Ronald (March 10, 2006). "The Happiest Place on Earth – Again". Bloomberg Businessweek. Retrieved April 20, 2012.
- ^ a b IMDb. "John Lasseter – Awards".
- ^ Baillie, Russell (June 3, 2006). "John Lasseter king of Toon town". The New Zealand Herald. Retrieved April 20, 2012.
- ^ "John Lasseter Addresses Graduating Class at Seaver College Commencement Ceremony". Pepperdine University. April 2009. Retrieved April 20, 2012.
- ^ "Jewell Risley Lasseter". The Whittier Daily News. November 1, 2005. Retrieved December 15, 2009.
- ^ McCracken, Harry (1990). "Luxo Sr. – An Interview with John Lasseter". Animato. Retrieved April 20, 2012.
- ^ Garrahan, Matthew (January 17, 2009). "Lunch with the FT: John Lasseter". Financial Times. Retrieved April 20, 2012.
- ^ "Pixar Filmmaker John Lasseter To Receive "Contribution To Cinematic Imagery Award" From Art Directors Guild". Pixar. Januar 12, 2004. Retrieved April 20, 2012.
- ^ "John Lasseter does AM Radio, too?". The Blue Parrot's perch. February 2, 2007. Retrieved April 20, 2012.
- ^ Lyons, Mike (November 1998). "Toon Story: John Lasseter's Animated Life". Animation World Magazine. Retrieved October 13, 2010.
- ^ Lazarus, David (January 25, 2006). "A deal bound to happen". SFGate.com. Retrieved April 20, 2012.
- ^ Schlender, Brent (May 17, 2006). "Pixar's magic man". CNN Money. Retrieved April 20, 2012.
- ^ Ghez, Didier (May 2, 1997). "Interview with Glen Keane". The Ultimate Disney Books Network. Retrieved April 20, 2012.
- ^ Hill, Jim (November 28, 2007). ""To Infinity and Beyond!" is an entertaining look back at Pixar's first two decades". Jim Hill Media. Retrieved April 20, 2012.
- ^ M. Buckley, A. Pixar: The Company and Its Founders. Google Books. p. 27. Retrieved April 20, 2012.
- ^ Day, Aubrey (June 3, 2009). "Interview: John Lasseter". Total Film. Retrieved April 20, 2012.
- ^ Gilliam, Terry (April 27, 2001). "Terry Gilliam Picks the Ten Best Animated Films of All Time". The Guardian.
- ^ Sperling, Nicole (November 1, 2011). "John Lasseter receives star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved April 20, 2012.
- ^ Solomon, Charles (December 3, 2006). "Disney tries out new talent in an old form, the cartoon short – Business – International Herald Tribune". The New York Times. Retrieved April 20, 2012.
- ^ "The BSD Daemon". FreeBSD. Retrieved April 20, 2012.
- ^ Pcrailroad at Gmail.Com (May 14, 2007). "Pacific Coast Railroad Co.: The 2007 Round-Up". Pcrailroad.blogspot.com. Retrieved December 31, 2010.
- ^ a b "Trustees of Sonoma Academy 2011-12". Sonoma Academy. Retrieved December 25, 2013.
- ^ "VIDEO: 'A Day in the Life of John Lasseter' Read more: VIDEO: 'A Day in the Life of John Lasseter'". Stitch Kingdom. July 12, 2011. Retrieved March 8, 2012.
- ^ Swartz, Jon (November 23, 1998). "Pixar's Lasseter -- This Generation's Walt Disney". SFGate. Retrieved December 25, 2013. "Lasseter says he depends heavily on his and wife Nancy's "own test audience" of five sons -- ages 16 months to 18."
- ^ Boone, Virginie (September 26, 2011). "Lasseter winery coming into its own". The Press Democrat. Retrieved October 7, 2011.
- ^ "John Lasseter Addresses Graduating Class at Seaver College Commencement Ceremony". Pepperdine University. April 2009. Retrieved June 9, 2011.
- ^ Goodman, Stephanie (November 1, 2011). "'Pixar's John Lasseter Answers Your Questions'". Arts Beat. Retrieved February 20, 2014.
- ^ Honeycutt, Kirk (October 14, 2010). "Tales From Earthsea -- Film Review". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved December 27, 2013.
- ^ Kit, Borys (October 14, 2010). "Disney Picks Pixar Brains for Muppets Movie". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved November 24, 2011.
- ^ ""PREP & LANDING: NAUGHTY VS. NICE," PRODUCED BY WALT DISNEY ANIMATION STUDIOS, AIRS MONDAY, DECEMBER 5 ON THE ABC TELEVISION NETWORK". ABC Medianet. Retrieved November 12, 2011.
External links[edit]
Wikimedia Commons has media related to John Lasseter. |
- John Lasseter at the Internet Movie Database
- Richard Verrier and Dawn C. Chmielewski, Fabled Film Company May Get a Reanimator, Los Angeles Times, January 25, 2006
- Fortune Magazine interview with John Lasseter – includes biographic information
- KCRW's The Treatment: John Lasseter and Andrew Stanton (02/04)
- KCRW's The Treatment: John Lasseter (06/06)
- 1957 births
- American animators
- American film directors
- American screenwriters
- Animated film directors
- California Institute of the Arts alumni
- Directors of Best Animated Short Academy Award winners
- Disney people
- Living people
- People from Hollywood, Los Angeles
- Animated film producers
- Academy Special Achievement Award winners
- Computer animation people
- Film directors from California


text:
Root Catalog
Shop by Brand
Airway Canister Vacuum Bags +
These are Canister Vacuum Bags comes in a pack of 12. Learn More -
BlueAir 200 & 300 Series SmokeStop Carbon Odor Control Filter 200SSF
One Each - One complete filter change: 1 standard Carbon filter of polypropylene (traps particles). Blue Air Filters are of the highest quality and are in stock..Product Code: 689122000442 Learn More -
BlueAir 400 Series Replacement Air Particle HEPA Filter, Part 400SPF.
The Blueair 402 replacement particle filter equals one complete filter change (1 standard HEPASilent filter). Blueair recommends changing this filter every 6 months. Learn More -
BlueAir 500SSF 500 & 600 Series SmokeStop Carbon Filter
Replace every six months.For Blueair models: 501 & 601. Learn More -
Blueair AirPod Replacement Filter - Pink Paisley Design
Blueair AirPod Replacement Filter is a Set of 2 filters for the AirPod - Black Paisley Design. Learn More -
Blueair 201SF Replacement VOC Smokestop Filter for 200/300 Series Units
Blueair VOC Smokestop replacement filter for Blueair 200 series units. Learn More -
$22.95 As low as: $17.68
Bosch BBZ51AFG1U Type G Vacuum Cleaner Bags
Bosch G Vacuum Cleaner Bags BBZ51AFG1U. These Bosch Vacuum Bags Are OEM Original Bosch Type Style G Vacuum Bags Made By Bosch & Ship At No Cost! Learn More -
Tristar Compact Vacuum Bags for All Tristar Compact Vacuum Models
This is a 12 Pack Of Tristar Compact Vacuum Bags which fit All Canister Tri Star Compact Vacuum Cleaners. Learn More -
Electrolux Style C Canister Vacuum Cleaner Bags 100 pack in bulk
This is a box of 100 loose Electrolux Style C canister vacuum cleaner bags. Fits most all models since 1952! Bulk Buy Type C Bags For Elux! GoVacuum! Learn More


text:
Jan 25, 2013 (Morning Edition) — The Los Angeles Times has released decades-old personnel files of Catholic priests accused of child sex abuse. The documents show church officials kept the cases private, and many are addressed to, or written by, Cardinal Roger Mahoney, who retired nearly a year ago. Steve Inskeep talks to Victoria Kim, one of the paper's reporters covering the story.
Missing some content? Check the source: NPR
Copyright(c) 2014, NPR


text:
Hepatitis B Treatment (cont.) Medical Author:
Mary D. Nettleman, MD, MS, MCAP
Medical Editor:
Melissa Conrad Stöppler, MD, Chief Medical Editor
Melissa Conrad Stöppler, MD, Chief Medical EditorMelissa Conrad Stöppler, MD, is a U.S. board-certified Anatomic Pathologist with subspecialty training in the fields of Experimental and Molecular Pathology. Dr. Stöppler's educational background includes a BA with Highest Distinction from the University of Virginia and an MD from the University of North Carolina. She completed residency training in Anatomic Pathology at Georgetown University followed by subspecialty fellowship training in molecular diagnostics and experimental pathology. Medical Editor:
Jay W. Marks, MD
Jay W. Marks, MDJay W. Marks, MD, is a board-certified internist and gastroenterologist. He graduated from Yale University School of Medicine and trained in internal medicine and gastroenterology at UCLA/Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles. IN THIS ARTICLEFor More InformationHepatitis B Foundation Next Page: Must Read Articles Related to Hepatitis B Treatment
Hepatitis B
Hepatitis is a general term that means inflammation of the liver. Hepatitis B is caused by infection with the hepatitis B virus (HBV, Hep B). Hepatitis B is tra...learn more >>
Women's Health
Find out what women really need.


text:
Enteral Nutrition as Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in Critically Ill Patients.
This study is not yet open for participant recruitment.
Verified July 2013 by University of Louisville
Rodrigo Cavallazzi
Abbott Nutrition
University of Louisville
Information provided by (Responsible Party):
Rodrigo Cavallazzi, University of Louisville
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:
First received: October 4, 2011
Last updated: July 1, 2013
Last verified: July 2013
- Full Text View
- Tabular View
- No Study Results Posted
- Disclaimer
- How to Read a Study Record
study is to determine if proton pump inhibitors plus enteral nutrition is superior to enteral nutrition alone as a stress ulcer prophylaxis strategy in critically ill patients in terms of incidence of overt and significant GI bleeding related to stress gastropathy.
Condition | Intervention |
Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage Clostridium Difficile Colitis |
Drug: Pantoprazole 40 mg IV daily and tube feed. Other: Placebo and tube feed |
Study Type: | Interventional |
Study Design: | Allocation: Randomized Endpoint Classification: Safety/Efficacy Study Intervention Model: Parallel Assignment Masking: Double Blind (Subject, Caregiver, Investigator) Primary Purpose: Prevention |
Official Title: | Enteral Nutrition as Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in Critically Ill Patients. Prospective, Double-blind, Randomized, Placebo-controlled Study. |
Resource links provided by NLM:
Further study details as provided by University of Louisville:
Primary Outcome Measures:
- GI bleeding [ Time Frame: Time to event :Subjects will be followed from date of randomization until discharge from the ICU or cessation of Enteral Nutrition (EN) and successful initiation of oral feeds ] [ Designated as safety issue: Yes ]
- Incidence of overt GI bleeding (as defined by the presence of coffee ground emesis, hematemesis of bright red blood, melena, or hematochezia) seen with Proton Pump Inhibitor (PPI) and EN versus EN alone in critically ill patients.
- Incidence of significant GI bleeding, defined by a 3-point decrease in hematocrit within 24 hours accompanied by signs of overt GI bleeding, or by an unexplained 6-point decrease in hematocrit during any 48 hour period.
Secondary Outcome Measures:
- 1. Cost to the pharmacy for care related to stress ulcer prophylaxis and treatment of GI bleeding. 2.Incidence of ICU-acquired C. Difficile pseudomembranous colitis. [ Time Frame: Time to event: Subjects will be followed until discharge from the ICU or cessation of EN and successful initiation of oral feeds. ] [ Designated as safety issue: Yes ]Cost to the pharmacy for care related to stress ulcer prophylaxis and treatment of GI bleeding (overt or significant) for patients receiving a PPI agent plus EN versus patients placed on EN alone.
Estimated Enrollment: | 198 |
Study Start Date: | August 2013 |
Estimated Study Completion Date: | March 2015 |
Estimated Primary Completion Date: | August 2014 (Final data collection date for primary outcome measure) |
Arms | Assigned Interventions |
Active Comparator: Pantoprazole 40mg IV daily and tube feed |
Drug: Pantoprazole 40 mg IV daily and tube feed.
Patients randomized to the control group "active Comparator" will receive tube feed plus an Pantoprazole 40 mg IV daily.
Other Name: Tube feed formula:(Vital AF 1.2 Cal(TM),Abbott,Columbus,OH)
Placebo Comparator: Placebo and tube feed. |
Other: Placebo and tube feed
Patients randomized to Placebo group "placebo Comparator" will receive tube feed plus an Placebo.
Other Name: Tube feed formula:(Vital AF 1.2 Cal(TM),Abbott,Columbus,OH)
Ages Eligible for Study: | 18 Years and older |
Genders Eligible for Study: | Both |
Accepts Healthy Volunteers: | No |
Inclusion Criteria:
- Age 18 years or older
- Admission to the medical ICU at University of Louisville Hospital or Jewish Hospital
- Expected need for mechanical ventilation > 48 hours
- No contraindication to EN within the first 24 hours after admission to the ICU
Exclusion Criteria:
- Evidence of active GI bleeding during current hospitalization prior to study entry
- Admission to ICU with primary diagnosis of burn injury
- Closed head injury or increased intracranial pressure
- Partial or complete gastrectomy
- Pregnancy or lactation
Contacts and Locations
Please refer to this study by its ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01477320
Contact: Crissie DeSpirito, RN | 502-852-0026 | email@example.com | |
Contact: Karim El-Kersh, MD | 502-852-5841 | email@example.com |
United States, Kentucky | |
University of Louisville hospital | Not yet recruiting |
Louisville, Kentucky, United States, 40202 | |
Contact: Crissie DeSpirito, RN 502-852-0026 email@example.com | |
Principal Investigator: Rodrigo Cavallazzi, MD |
Sponsors and Collaborators
Rodrigo Cavallazzi
Abbott Nutrition
University of Louisville
Principal Investigator: | Rodrigo Cavallazzi, MD | University of Louisville |
More Information
No publications provided
Keywords provided by University of Louisville:
Additional relevant MeSH terms:
ClinicalTrials.gov processed this record on March 13, 2014
No publications provided
Responsible Party: | Rodrigo Cavallazzi, Primary Investigator, University of Louisville |
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: | NCT01477320 History of Changes |
Other Study ID Numbers: | 11.0170 |
Study First Received: | October 4, 2011 |
Last Updated: | July 1, 2013 |
Health Authority: | United States: Institutional Review Board |
Keywords provided by University of Louisville:
Enteral Nutrition Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis Critically Ill Patients Overt and significant GI bleeding Stress gastropathy |
Clostridium Difficile pseudomembranous colitis Vital AF Small peptide fish oil structured lipids Fructose oligosaccharide |
Additional relevant MeSH terms:
Gastrointestinal Hemorrhage Colitis Critical Illness Hemorrhage Ulcer Gastroenteritis Gastrointestinal Diseases Digestive System Diseases Colonic Diseases Intestinal Diseases |
Disease Attributes Pathologic Processes Pantoprazole Proton Pump Inhibitors Enzyme Inhibitors Molecular Mechanisms of Pharmacological Action Pharmacologic Actions Anti-Ulcer Agents Gastrointestinal Agents Therapeutic Uses |
ClinicalTrials.gov processed this record on March 13, 2014