text:
Patent advocates, large successful businesses, and politicians are so enthusiastic about the patenting of software that it's hard to accept arguments from people like the FFII and Free Software Foundation who claim that the software industry simply does not need software patents and would be far better off without them. In this article I'll try to explain why software patents are necessary, and in the sake of fairness I'll look at the other side of each argument. Here is the "defense of Software Patents". I report, you decide.
We have the natural right to own our work
The Natural Law defense
When we work, natural law says we have the right to own our work. To let others steal this is to destroy the basis of civilization, to cast us into slavery. If I cut a tree and make a table, it is mine. If I write a story, it is mine. If I invent a new compression algorithm, it is mine. When someone takes my ideas, it is theft, and a just society must punish theft, or it falls apart. Software patents are thus a natural and necessary protection for original ideas.
To which some might answer:
- It was the French who first decided that ideas could be property by natural law. The French patent law of 1791 said, that every novel idea whose realization or development can become useful to society belongs primarily to him who conceived it, and that it would be a violation of the rights of man in their very essence if an industrial invention were not regarded as the property of its creator.
- However common sense tells us there are fundamental differences between owning a table and owning an idea and the "naural right" to own ideas seems very far-fetched. While the post-revolution French raised ideas to the status of private property, and called for them to be granted for ever, and hereditary, in 1863 the Society of German Economists dismissed patents—already marketed as "intellectual property" even then—as an untenable political fabrication.
- Further, there is no such thing as a natural law of property, even for tables. Property is a pure construction of the state, and property laws can be good (the right to own a business) or bad (the right to own other people), or insane (all property belongs to the state). As Prince-Smith, the leading German free-trade economist of the time said, Any claim for protection of private property is a demand for the intervention of the power of the state, which should follow exclusively the dictate of common welfare. With regard to property in things the dictate of common welfare is firmly established. How is it with regard to the so called intellectual property, and above all, patents of invention?
- The use of the word "property" to cover ideas was part of a propaganda campaign to establish patent laws in France in 1791 and again in 1843. The previous, more accurate term was "exclusive privilege", perhaps not the best thing to discuss after the French Revolution.
On balance, it does seem difficult to justify "owning" ideas simply on the basis that some natural law gives us that right. Still, the term "intellectual property" has stuck, and in some countries the theft of patented ideas is indeed punishable under criminal law. Is this good or bad? Well, let's look at some more arguments.
It is fair and just to reward software inventors
The Fair and Just Reward defense
Granted, software inventors may not have a natural right to their algorithms and designs, but a wise and progressive society will realize that it is just and fair to reward these inventors for their hard work by giving them exclusive rights to their inventions, and enshrining those exclusive rights in law.
To which a skeptical and ungrateful programmer who seeks only to avoid destitution through obscurity might answer:
- What on earth do you mean by "software inventor" and "invention"? Software is written, like any creative work, by assembling bits and pieces into original compositions. There is no "invention" in a computer program. But, OK, for the sake of argument, let's assume there is... Sigh.
- Does society really have a moral obligation to reward the mythical software inventor? How about musicians, writer, poets, philosophers, and mimes? What is special about software inventors, apart from being mythical? Why should a just society allow talented composers to die in poverty, while granting these invisible inventors the exclusive right to certain ideas? This does not make a lot of sense. Besides, hungry inventors, if they even existed as a species, are likely to be a lot more creative. Let them starve, I say!
- Invention has social origins. We work together to create new ideas. The expression of those ideas—music, poetry, writing, and software, of course!—can be an individual work. But ideas never are. So how can a just society award exclusive ownership of an idea to single person? This seems highly unjust.
- Inventors, if they really are original and not purely mythical, surely get a head start in the market. The first-to-market advantage is huge in most industries. Everyone knows Viagra. No-one knows its competitors, even if they use the exact same formula.
- Even if the mythical software inventor needed rewarding, and competition could wipe-out a head-start advantage too rapidly, what proof do we have that exclusive privileges are the best reward? As the Economist once wrote, ...what the community requires is that inventors be rewarded; that skillful men who contribute to the progress of society be well paid for their exertions. The Patent Laws are supported because it is erroneously supposed that they are the means to this end.
- We're assuming that patents are a better reward than say, prizes, but there is no way to be sure patent rewards go to the real inventors (the real mythical inventors, I guess) and it's impossible to prevent such exclusive privileges from doing real damage to others, albeit of mythical proportions. R.I.P. Vonage.
So all in all, the argument that the patent system delivers fair rewards seems a bit weak. In too many cases the rewards go to the wrong people or even a totally mythical category of people, hurt too many other people, and are not necessary in the first place. Well, we're not going to give up. There have to be some valid arguments for software patents. Let's keep digging...
It is the best incentive to innovate
The Best Incentive to Innovate defense
Exclusive privilege, fair or unfair, is the best way to stimulate innovation, through invention. Inventors will not invent, and businessmen will not invest, unless they are guaranteed exclusive rights to their inventions. Just look at the progress of countries with strong patent systems—USA, UK, Sweden. It's obvious that the patent system is responsible for their economic might.
To which the economist with a taste for history and geography might reply:
- Historically, Germany, Switzerland, and the Netherlands built up strong industrial sectors when they had no patent system at all. It seems more likely the US, UK, and Sweden became strong industrial powers because they have excellent geography—for commerce—and never suffered heavy damage from war.
- Where are the economic studies to show a causal relationship between patents and innovation? It could just as well be the other way around—new technologies like biotech and software attract the patent advocates like flies to... well, like wolves to the flock.
- Let me break down the patents "promote innovation" argument. You assume industrial progress is desirable, which is fair enough. You assume invention is a necessary part of industrial progress, which is fair enough in most industries if not in software. Then you assume that not enough invention will happen unless effective incentives are used, unless the state actively messes with the market. Now here we have solid counter evidence: the software industry is most innovative in those sectors with the least intervention, namely free software. In general, invention will happen with or without legislative interference. Lastly, you assume patents are the cheapest and most effective form of incentive. Where is the proof? What about prizes like the X-Prize?
- Most people who file software patents are not software developers at all, but patent lawyers working for large firms or "patent trolls". In the USA by 2003, 80% of software startups had not claimed a single patent after four years of getting venture capital funding in 1988-89. So software patents don't go to those who innovate, just those who file the patents.
It looks like my defense of software patents is actually undermining the whole basis for the patent system. Maybe the key question is costs and benefits. If we could measure the cost of patents, and their benefits, we would know whether they worked or not. And in fact some people are now doing that, across different industries. James Bessen has concluded: "Pharma plus, software minus minus".
Without admitting defeat, we should maybe consider the costs of the patent system:
- The cost of having to divert activity away from patented areas;
- The cost of having to abandon investments when patents are granted to others;
- The bureaucratic cost of administering the patent system;
- The economic cost of monopolies sustained by patents;
- The cost to the market from not having access to the most efficient processes;
- The cost to society of not developing the best ideas more widely.
As a thought exercise, imagine software was the only industry, and we had the web, someone came along and proposed to institute the above costs, in return for granting "inventors" the exclusive right to any ideas they could get onto paper.
In 1851 the Economist wrote:
The privileges granted to inventors by patent law are prohibitions on other men, and the history of inventions accordingly teems with accounts of trifling improvements patented, that have put a stop, for a long period, to other similar and much greater improvements... Every patent is a prohibition against improvements in a particular direction, except by the patentee, for a certain number of years; and, however beneficial that may be to him who receives the privilege, the community cannot be benefited by it.
It is the best incentive to disclose
The Best Incentive to Disclose defense
Patents are the result of a fair bargain between inventors and society. Inventors get an exclusive right to their inventions in return for disclosing their ideas on paper. Without such a bargain, geniuses would take their secrets to the grave, and society would not get its precious store of "prior art", its library of knowledge.
To which the skeptical programmer, who knows that ideas are cheap, whereas the really hard work goes into products, might respond:
- Most ideas develop simultaneously and independently in many places at once. No single disclosure is worth very much, and definitely not worth exclusive ownership of the whole domain covered by an idea. Useful inventions depend on general social progress, not key individuals.
- Technological secrets are very hard to keep for long in any case, so the bargain with society, if this is really the basis, is unfair. Why should society give exclusive rights in exchange for a secret that will leak in any case?
- In the cases when inventors think they can keep their techniques secret, they won't claim patents in any case. The patent system in fact protects the otherwise unprotected ideas, and it does nothing to prompt disclosure of the true secrets.
- The patent system creates a disincentive for inventors to publish their ideas early on, since premature publication can ruin the chance of getting patents. So rather than promote disclosure the patent system actually hurts it.
Once again, I have to concede that the arguments in favor of software patents seem to undermine the rationale for the entire patent system. If there is no rational explanation for the patent system except "it exists, so we have to accept it", there seems no rational explanation for allowing patents on software either. But before we reject software patents as an "untenable political fabrication", let's try the argument that was used to actually justify patents on software in the first place.
Industry needs continuity
The Industry Needs Continuity defense
As industry moves from hard engineering to software, it surely is only sensible to carry forward the patent system into this new sector so that new software designs can be protected as the old hardware ones were. Patents underpin progress in all industries. Software is not special. Without software patents, the very existence of large technology firms is at risk.
When our economist, historian, and programmer sit together to discuss this argument, they see the historical demise of the industrial age, and the rise of a new digital age, and patents as a weapon in the war between these two domains. They reply:
- Past performance is no guarantee of future success. The computer giant IBM who worked to enable software patents in the US and then Europe, used this very argument to build up a large portfolio of software patents, and a huge licensing business. But today IBM is more and more dependent on free software and open standards, and patents no longer protect its business, except in a lose-lose escalation with enemies like Microsoft.
- Software is not like any other industry at all except maybe the music or movie industries: the creative push comes from small independent artists and the big bucks are made by the dominate marketing machines. Software depends a lot more on network effects, both during development and in the market. Music patents would be insane. Software patents doubly so.
- The appearance of continuity is itself an illusion, says the historian. The switch from hardware to software happens once, and then the economy floats in a sea of software. And it's friction costs, says the economist, which makes the difference. Allow any barriers at all to stand, and you risk killing entire sectors of innovation. The programmer, meanwhile, just wonders whether he will still want to work in a business where he needs to consult a lawyer before publishing a program.
Miscellaneous arguments
While I've presented the main arguments in defense of software patents, you may come across several other plausible ones. These seem to convince politicians, see if they convince you.
The More is Better defense
Patents are a measure of innovation and economic power. Look, Audi files more patents than NASA. My iPhone is heavily patented, and look how cute it is. So more patents are better. So patents in new areas like biotech and software are obviously desirable.
- Pollution, cancer, divorce, noise, and stress are all measures of economic power as well. Do you seriously think promoting more of these would mean more prosperity? Does the term "correlation does't imply causation" mean anything to you?
- If patents are just meant as a "mine is bigger" exercise, why do we need the exclusive privilege that does so much damage. Just give patents as prizes to the sexiest gadgets and cars. Surely that'll be cheaper and easier for everyone.
- If you want to start measuring things, how about looking at the cost of patents. Think of patents as costly political interference in a free market. Now does "we interfere more in our market, so we're a powerful country" still make sense?
The Chinese are Coming defense
The Chinese are patenting very heavily. They have cloned the European patent system. They are filing tens of thousands of patents in the USA and Europe. If we lag behind we risk being unable to innovate, because the Chinese will own all the new technology.
- If all else fails, appeal to the xenophobes in the room. Surely if the Chinese are registering patents in our systems, that's great. More is better, remember? Disclosure and all that?
- If it is true that Chinese patents are bad for Europe and the USA, then European patents are bad for the USA, and vice versa. Worse, patents filed by one firm are bad for other firms. If Chinese software patents are bad—which perhaps it is—then this is actually argument against all software patents.
The Patents are Profitable defense
Patent licensing sustains many large and profitable businesses, these create jobs and economic growth. It seems evident that software patent licensing also creates jobs and growth. Especially when we fight with cheaper competitors. Let's just license our patents to them!
- Focussing on patent licensing produces patent thickets, which destroy research, and patent trolls, which destroy product-making businesses. Firms that depend on licensing, like Qualcomm and Thomson, actually stop making products and stop innovating.
- Innovation is tied to the market, and to product making. Firms that don't make products stop innovating, so a licensing business is a dead-end. So for a business, so for an entire country.
- A patent licensing economy is incompatible with free software. So if this is the way a country wants to go, it will lose its free software community. This was perhaps not significant in 2000, but in 2020 it will make a very big difference.
The You are an anti-Property Anarchist defense
Software patents are property, and by arguing against them you prove yourself to be an ignorant anti-property anarchist or left-wing extremist. Grow up! Stop posting that nonsense and accept that the world works this way. And stop stealing other peoples' ideas, you hippy.
- Copyright is also property, and much more relevant to the software business. Fighting the attempts of patent advocates to expropriate my property does not make me "anti-property".
- As for stealing ideas, or "using other people's intellectual property", kindly remember that patents are not property but rather a state-sanctioned monopoly right over a certain market. One cannot steal a monopoly right.
- The world works the way we make it work. We do not accept that software patents are a legitimate, fair, or necessary tool.
The arguments against software patents
In the interests of balance, I'll summarize the key arguments against software patents:
- The economic evidence shows that software patents damage the software sector.
- They conflict directly with copyright law, creating uncertainty and risk for innovative firms.
- They are harmful to free software and open standards, both increasingly vital technologies.
- They promote litigation, especially from incumbents against startups, and patent trolls against product producers.
- They prolong monopolies, historically in the telecoms market, and more recently in desktop computing.
- They were instituted both in Europe and the USA by subterfuge, by dominant software firms and patent advocates, without proper economic analysis or legislative study.
- The time it takes to grant a patent, its lifespan, and its overall costs don't match the needs of the software industry.
- Software patenting enables an arms race where litigation wins over innovation and small innovative firms are excluded.
- They are barely linked to real achievements, but instead to speculative claims for how technology might be used.
- Their proper examination is impossible—too little documented prior art, too little time to examine, and strong economic incentives to grant, not refuse, software patents.
We can also speak of the patent establishment's independence and power, to the point where the European Patent Office sits outside any legislative or judicial system, lobbies governments, drafts legislative proposals for the EU and member states, and promotes patent "education" policies. Or the Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit, which was recently slapped down by the Supreme Court for lowering barriers to patent beyond all common sense. But discussion of the capture of the patent system by its clients goes beyond software patents—it is a general concern, and we have enough of these already.
Prince-Smith wrote if the patent system was abolished then secret and isolated work on inventions would cease and its place would be taken by a cooperation of all qualified talent and predicted a meritocracy that looks more or less like today's free software communities.
Continuing the historical theme, I can point out that the main arguments in support of patent systems, and the rather convincing counterarguments were developed in the mid-to-late 19th century when the European patent systems reformed and became simpler to use, and overall more friendly to their users, the patent lawyers known as "inventors".
Modern patent systems sprung from the same belief system as trade protectionism. In the 1870's people really did not know whether economic prosperity depended on free trade or on barriers. Economists argued that free trade was the basis for prosperity. Others argued that unrestricted competition was fatal to young, growing industries.
To be fair, politicians have held onto their protectionist beliefs for long after they seemed to be disproved. It is hardly the fault of the patent establishment that governments still prefer a kind of "gunboat free trade" in which poorer countries can import freely but not export. Patents are just a very convenient cover for the trade policies of the US and European governments.
Maybe the question of patents will become a defining political question of our age. Some, like the FFII, argue that the software sector is so dependent on network effects and so vital to the stack of service and product industries it supports that software patents will cause serious economic problems in countries that allow them.
Others hold onto their beliefs and argue that it's the lack of enforcement, the cost and difficulty of translation, and the tendency of others to independently reinvent ("pirate") ideas that really harms the software industry. Open standards and free software, they argue, exist only because those teams invest nothing real, steal the work of others, and create unfair competition to existing, established business models.
It is an interesting question. Does protectionism help aging industries survive technological changes? One would think that the answer was clear and the debate settled long ago, but there are still people arguing furiously on both sides.
Further reading
- How the French turned exclusive privilege into property, by Pieter Hintjens, (2007).
- The U.S. patent system in transition: policy innovation and the innovation process (PDF) by Adam B. Jaffe (2000).
- Study shows most VC-funded software startups don't patent, by Pieter Hintjens, (2007).
- The Software Patent Experiment (PDF) by James Bessen and Robert M. Hunt (2003).
- Patent Failure: How Judges, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers Put Innovators at Risk by James Bessen and Michael J. Meurer (to be published in 2008).
If you choose not to publish information, then that is ok. Keep it hidden and do not tell another soul. If you choose to publish information, don't expect to control it. Protecting what should be public information is a massive mistake.
If I take your sandwich, you will no longer have a sandwich and you will grow hungry. If I take your coat, you will get cold. If I take your passport, you will no longer have the right to travel overseas.
Information is different to natural property. When you share ideas and information, nobody is deprived of that information. If I tell you my birthday, I do not suddenly forget when I was born. If I tell you my recipe for chicken and lentil broth, I do not suddenly forget how to make it. The value of information is greatest when it is shared. People do not create ideas in a vacuum. Ideas are always influenced by the experiences of people. Ideas are always built upon the ideas created before them. Ideas and information work best when it is shared. Information that is supposed to serve the public should not have the same protections as real property. The nature of duplicating information is usually trivial.
Computer software is a tool. Software is a series of instructions that work together to perform a task or solve a problem. Software is information. The nature of digital information is that it is trivial to share. Therefore, no user should lose access to software when users share software. Users should not be penalised by helping their neighbours by sharing the tool known as software.
The potential for the supply of copies of software is essentially unlimited because of their nature of being trivially duplicated. Something that is not limited is support. Not everybody wants to be a programmer. Not everybody wants to learn arcane technical details to get their computers to work for them. The supply of providing services for software are a limited resource. This does not have to be protected because the act of providing services is limited by natural law.
Software patents are a travesty because they effectively grant monopolies to ideas. Therefore, software patents hinder the progress of the software industry as software is a collection of ideas that are supposed to solve problems. It hinders the industry because when someone independently comes up with an idea that has been patented, patent law prevents society from profiting from the idea and forces the industry to reinvent the wheel over and over again.
The article...
I think you might have missed the point of the article, which is fact shows a lot of the flaws of software patent laws.
Please contact me (t.mobily @ freesoftwaremagazine dot com)!
In defense of the defense of software patents
Two points.
First, all patents grant monopolies to ideas, or rather to the market that depends on that idea. A patent on a mechanical puppy or a drug is as much an exclusive right to an idea as a patent on a compression algorithm. So, if monopolies on ideas are wrong, then all patents are wrong (and I'd tend to take this line). Software patents are extra wrong for other reasons, which are explained in my article.
Secondly, the article title is well, not a joke, but a little ironic. There is really no defense for software patents. None. They are bogus, a fraud, a hoax, a con, a sham, a scandal, a travesty, an unmitigated abuse of power by a privileged elite. We know this. The article is meant to provide you with better arguments with which to fight pro-patent propaganda - since the real support for software patents all depends on extending existing patent dogma - than "monopolies on ideas are bad" and "information is different to natural property".
A few more arguments for patents
1. Any program is formally equivalent to an arithmetic expression. So patenting software is equivalent to patenting arithmetic expressions. Now just consider the enormous increment in knowledge as each and every school boy/girl is forced to carry out a thorough patent search while doing homework. On the other hand the perennial "dog ate my homework" excuse, will have the perfect replacement in: "Its patented. Sorry".
2. As business methods become susceptible to patenting, far seeing eyes turn to cooking recipes. I cannot see any difference between the two activities. Perhaps I'm just blind.
However, there will now be a real need for that sublime gizmo, the Internet connected refrigerator (stove, toaster, etc..). After all, it will be imperative to assure that cooking is not interrupted by a "cease and desist" letter from the RIAA equivalent handling cooking IP, followed by stiff fines and jail sentences for housewives trying to feed their families.
Neglected to provide name and clearance.
Sorry, I neglected to provide my name in my previous post.
In addition I would like to formally place these ideas in the public domain, to be freely re-used.
Yes, it appears he might
Yes, it appears he might have missed the point.
I started reading the article expecting you to defend software patents. I was pleasantly surprised when I was halfway through reading it and realised that in fact you were highlighting all the arguments in favour of software patents and arguing against them using historical and economic reasoning.
A bit lengthy, but nicely written :)
The problem is with trivial and obvious patents
Mathematical Formulae have never been patentable anywhere to my knowledge. Most algorithms are just that. Prior art invalidates it. Or if it isn't novel, or if someone else reasonably skilled in the art would come up with it.
Most software patents are things undergraduate students could come up with over a weekend when presented with a similar problem, not the effort of years of research (something like finally proving Fermat's last theorem).
Can you find an example of an existing software patent that you or one of the brighter programmers you know couldn't have come up with in a week, please point to it. Lets argue actual cases instead of abstractions. FIND SOMETHING PURELY SOFTWARE THAT IS TRULY INNOVATIVE.
There is a difference between taking care of a forest - I may then claim ownership - and merely walking through it. Between building a table from a tree, and taking one branch from a tree felled by lightening.
The USPTO is completely understaffed and tends to grant patents for trivia.
You missed a big con for software patents...
...the time it takes to get a patent.
The Software Industry itself changes greatly in a 2 to 5 year time span, yet it takes up to 8 years to get a patent. So by the time the patent is granted, it is basically useless to the owner. True - they have protection while they have the application in, but that only hinders innovation in that area during that time period - and that produces the same negative innovation effect regardless of whether the patent is valid or invalid.
If the Software Industry worked more like the Airline industry or Drug industry where innovation takes a lot of research and years to produce and verify, then there might be a case to grant patents; however, it doesn't. The Software Industry works with R&D in the months timeframe, and if you don't get the work out quick enough, the industry passes you buy and your work is all for naught. That is the key differentiator between the Software Industry and the rest of the industries - even music, art, books, etc.
Let's also not forget that there is Trade Secret Law and Copyright Law too - both of which better suite to the arguments you provided above. Copyright law lets disclosure take place - though the ideas could be reproduced in different forms of expression, even so lawsuits could be brought but would be just as hard to prove. Trade Secret protects what companies (or individuals) have not released to the public.
Software patents ARE defensible if ANY patent is defensible
>There is really no defense for software patents
Rubbish. Suppose I develop a widget that uses an analogue computer - discrete logic and LCR filters and the like.
Let us suppose that this is innovative and non-trivial in a manner that merits a patent.
Now I take the same box and manage the external inputs and outputs with ADCs, DACs, volt-free switches and relays. And I use a micro to emulate the previous circuitry, using similar transfer functions in my (digital) filters and so on.
Is this now no longer worthy of a patent, simply because I have implemented in software?
That would be bizarre in the extreme. Take your politicised stance that all patents are bad if you want (I won't - that would stifle investment) but patents are a reality and discriminating on the basis that software is involved in the implementation is absurd. So there is necessarily a situation where patenting of something which has a software component - and where possibly the whole of it is software - is quite reasonable.
Your truism can be destroyed with just one counterexample.
I argue that historically the wrong things have been accepted for patenting, and I argued as much when I wrote to the EU commission urging them to reject the software patent process - until such time as we have a way to assess applications (and existing awards) appropriately. Also, we need to acknowledge that the software artisan continually makes little inventions, solving each problem as she goes, which makes the process somewhat different to that of many professions.
The problem is not that software inventions can be patented per se, it is that we have allowed the wrong things to be patented - trivia and obvious things, that would come about through incremental refinements and reuse of approaches in different circumstances.
But that's a whole different thing to saying that all software patents are bad. 'We know this' you write. And yet experience is that 'everybody knows' is a spectacularly poor basis for making any decision.
If you wish to argue that retention and protection of 'intellectual property' is flawed in and of itself in all forms, then do so - and see how far you get. Its a different matter though.
You don't defence your main premise
You are correct about stating that:
"Software patents ARE defensible if ANY patent is defensible".
But then you go on to write a lengthy comment describing the above relation without offering any defense whatsoever about your main premise:
"Take your politicised stance that all patents are bad if you want (I won't - that would stifle investment)"
I disagree and I would offer that patents stifle innovation (which investment follows). There should be no patents at all, and maybe only limited copyright (3-7 years).
Historically for example, the USA after its independence didn't accept patents and copyrights (something that infuriated the then status quo in Europe), something that helped it to innovate, create and prosper. It seems that the "need" for patents is only created when there are entrenched big players that need protection to shield them from competition.
Btw, please don't use language such as "your politicised stance", that only distort and try to ridicule the opposite side, without offering any arguments. Are we to suppose that your opinion in contrast is not politicized and thus more correct and maybe "noble"? Plueash!
"Is this now no longer
"Is this now no longer worthy of a patent, simply because I have implemented in software?"
Impossible to answer. Firstly, you haven't said what it is you would be claiming patent rights over. The digital/analogue, hardware/software issues are not relevant: excluding software patents really means excluding claims over inventions in information processing. (cf. FFII amendments to CII Directive, comments in CFPH LLC* etc.) -
Secondly, whether 'software patents' should be allowed or not is not an issue that can be settled (or even illuminated) by considering the 'worthiness' of individual real or hypothetical inventions.
* http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Patents/2005/1589.html
"It was the policy of the "computer program" exclusion [EPC] that computer programs, as such, could not be foreclosed to the public under patent law. (Copyright law is another matter.) They would be foreclosed if it was possible to patent a computer when running under the instructions of the program, for example, or magnetic disk when storing the program."
Patents stimulate innovation...
Very interesting piece, I had to read it twice before I caught on to Pieter's intent, mainly due to the high levels of "kneejerk" the topic causes me. So we all know, innovation is not directly stimulated by software patents. One thing I can concede: it is important to be able to protect yourself against the theft of property, but that should be a copyright issue, not a patent issue. Even so, copyright is a grey area, very much akin to patents (for instance, you only have to look at the printed sheet music industry to find out the interesting ways companies can twist copyright laws. Good example would be the IMSLP [1] debacle). Where patents effectively stifle innovation is in the private sector, where small companies (and even private individuals) innovate with radical ideas, scratching individual itches and so forth. Software patents are a real danger to this fertile melting pot, because these individuals have to constantly look over their shoulders or do research in patents (a very expensive pastime, totally out of reach of private individuals). If I have to do patent research before I write that little BASH script, would it ever get written? Not likely. OK, I'm not a good enough coder that the world would mourn the loss of my l33t code, but the principle stands. What if Linus could not write the Linux kernel, or RMS couldn't write Emacs, all due to patent interference? Or none of the BSD's could be created due to patents? Hmm, my Netgear router would have been running something like CE or a proprietry OS like QNX, and would have cost at least 3 times as much! :-)
Why should people with such a great potential be kept at ransom even before they have written a single line of code, out of fear of possible litigation from "Large Company X"? This is "patently ridiculous"! By all means, copyright your code with a proper license! It still gives you a powerful platform from which to protect your work. However, to stifle innovation by patenting "ideas" (which most software patents really are, we have "single click online shopping" and other interesting patents out there to trip us up...) instead of actual "code", simply creates a stream of revenue for the legal systems of various countries. No-one in the software industry, whether they be plaintiff or defendant, will be clear winners in this situation. The whole idea of "The Chinese Are Coming" is rather funny in a very alarming way - who's fault is that anyway? The very fact that the Chinese are capitalizing (communists capitalizing on capitalism, wow, supreme irony...) points to the true problem here: It's possible to patent software! And now the Chinese are indeed coming, with loads of big sticks designed by yourself (meaning the pro-patent frats, not the author of this article), and boy are you going to receive a beating! :-) So, who will be the clear winners here? I suppose time will tell. But it's going to be a very bumpy ride.
Link from above:
[1] IMSLP, International Music Score Library Project - http://www.imslp.org/wiki/Main_Page
Patents are for implementations, not ideas.
The U.S. Constitution granted limited rights to "inventions" for the furtherance of society. Thus, you can't patent the "idea" of a carburetor, mousetrap, solid state transistor, or laser. What you are only supposed to be able to patent are specific implementations, which is why patents must disclose the "invention." If you don't want to disclose your specific implementation then don't patent, keep it a secret (if you can).
So the US Founding Fathers did not believe ideas were property which deserved privileged ownership. Some people in this country want to conveniently ignore this reality.
The purpose of patents
A thing most people miss when it comes to patents, is the reason why patents where originally introduced: This wasn't done to provide a money printing machine for the inventor of some technology (as patents are nowadays seen by proponents), but in order to encourage the publishing of ideas of the technological innovations so that others could build on them. In exchange the patent holder got a limited monopoly on his idea. So the idea was to _promote_ progress.
Now look at how patents - and especially software patents - are implemented today: Their ideas are often trivial design decisions that naturally emerge during the course of solving a problem. Heck, in most cases there is even prior art, but since there is such a flood of patent applications the prior art usually stays below the radar. The end result is that the _currently implemented_ patent system _discourages_ progress instead of promoting it as it should. Honestly in most areas we would be better of if the "innovations" covered by patents would simple be kept secret. (And for software that's easy!)
Software Patents
The way to get rid of bad software patents is to increase the quality of examination and prior art review. Getting rid of software patents all together is a bad idea in my view. Please see my post on this topic.
The problem with the piece is that it poses as a defense of software patents, but contents itself with positing and knocking down strawmen, presenting only one side of the debate. I agree with the author that many software patents should be invalidated and that we don't really need them, but there's a certain intellectual dishonesty in pretending to present the other side's case while doing so only superficially.
Yes, I agree with this sentiment. I actually tried to post a couple of statements to that effect, but got bogged down and side-tracked so I dropped them.
But I think you've summed it up nicely. It's not that the arguments presented aren't valid -- possibly even valid enough to make the whole issue rather clearcut -- but rather that the presentation undercuts the point by ignoring the valid arguments of the opposition.
For example, it is clear that the ability to get patents does attract capital and that capitalization is necessary for people to spend money developing software. So, if the only model you understand for writing software is the proprietary one, which involves paying professional programmers money up front (which must therefore come from your capital), then as an entrepreneur, you would certainly be exasperated by the inability to attract that capital which would result from banning software patents.
The inability to develop software under this old model is a legitimate shortcoming of an anti-software-patents stance.
That's a real argument, which according to the title, should've been presented as such. Now, it has holes -- but they're mostly of a paradigmatic type: you must retrain yourself to frame the problem in a completely different way in order to fully understand what's wrong with it.
The real argument here is not that that isn't a drawback, but rather that it is not enough of a drawback to counter the benefits of eliminating software patents.
This article doesn't succeed so well, because it doesn't help anyone from the old mindset to transition to your PoV. Thus, it ultimately succeeds only in "preaching to the choir" -- those of us who already understand the newer paradigm (and apparently doesn't do that too well, since many of the choir appeared to believe your title rather than your article).
So the article could've been a lot better, but on the plus side, the raw material of the arguments themselves is very useful for those of us in the choir.
No software industry without patents?
I'm curious to know how you can claim that patents attract capital and that this is needed to develop software. The software industry is most vigorous in exactly those areas that are not patented. Patents have been shown, in studies, to divert resources from R&D. Patents are a protectionist mechanism, it is impossible that these help what is essentially a collaborative innovation process. Protectionism vs free trade. That is the key clash of theories when it comes to software patents.
If you support software patents, in any sense at all, you should also support tariffs on foreign software, grants to local software producers, taxes on all programming, licenses to limit the number of programmers per city, exclusive rights to accredited software houses, etc. etc.
Free trade in ideas and information is what drives the software industry. Patents are barriers to that.
I do not know of a single case where patents have driven innovation or investment in software. If you can show some, that would be useful. Otherwise your claims cannot be supported.
Patents attract capital, indeed, but that capital is used for very counter-productive things. Litigation, maintenance of monopolies, purchasing of state favors, and so on. I see a lot of capital being put into patent war chests like Intellectual Ventures. I don't see that being spent on code.
The alternative protection mechanisms for software are not perfect. Copyright is far too long. So a kind of narrow, cheap, safe, and limited design right could give the stated (theoretical) benefits of patents without the many (proven) costs and dangers.
As for the form of the article, I found it rather fun to write in this form. The point was to deconstruct the main arguments for patents in general and software patents in specific. There is no convincing of patent advocates to be done; anyone affected by patents has economic motives to like or hate them. Dialog does not change this. The arguments I presented are tools for discussion with more neutral minds: politicians, academics, judges.
More strawman problems...
"I'm curious to know how you can claim that patents attract capital and that this is needed to develop software."
Well, that's easy: "I didn't." ;-)
I made the former claim (which you later concede: "Patents attract capital, indeed"), but not the latter claim (which you refute as if I did claim it). This is the classical construction of a strawman (opponent claims A, so you refute A+B by disproving B), which may be useful as propaganda but is not constructive as an argument.
What I did claim, which you ignore, is that the people you need to convince believe that significant capital investment is needed to create software, and that you are not effectively communicating to them if your point is that it isn't (or that 'the amount of lost capital due to losing software patents is more than compensated by the lack of negative effects due to software patents' which is a more realistic position).
"There is no convincing of patent advocates to be done; anyone affected by patents has economic motives to like or hate them. Dialog does not change this."
Deeply cynical, though perhaps true.
"The arguments I presented are tools for discussion with more neutral minds: politicians, academics, judges."
I'm amused that you think politicians are "neutral". My turn to be cynical perhaps.
But the real point is that I think you will fail to get any point across even to such a "neutral" audience. They are actually who I'm thinking of when I say "the opposition" -- people who presently believe that software patents are necessary or at least beneficial, but who can be persuaded. Of course, there are 'lost causes', but you may be giving up too easily, or else you don't understand the problems of this "neutral" audience.
Their problem is that they are stuck in a certain mental model -- a model which has been hard-sold to them by patent advocates for decades (about 30 years for software patents themselves, and more than a 100 for patents in general).
In this model, all innovative progress occurs in entrepreneurial business start-ups, which must have capital to get anywhere. In order to attract that capital they must prove a competitive advantage, something that creates a barrier to entry for other start-ups with similar ideas and goals. You need this, because the capitalist system relies on concentrating resources, via the mechanism of capital investment, in order to avoid duplication of effort and spreading resources too thinly to accomplish anything.
Now once you are locked into this mental paradigm, the pro-software patents argument makes sense (note that this model is even more likely to be believed by people who are NOT software developers or entrepreneurs).
Our job, therefore, must be to smash this paradigm.
Because what's really going on is that software patents uphold this paradigm to the detriment of others (such as free software development in the 'bazaar' paradigm) which rely on the free exchange of information. But this system is diametrically opposed to the requirements of the centralized, entrepreneurial development approach.
The overall negative impact of patents on innovation which you allude to via studies is (IMHO) most likely due to the superiority of the open paradigm in software development (or any development where collaboration and creativity are fundamental and genuine capital expenses are small).
Even today, however, that is not a mainstream idea.
Capitalization and software development
Terry, you said, "the ability to get patents does attract capital and that capitalization is necessary for people to spend money developing software", and then that "if the only model you understand for writing software is the proprietary one... then as an entrepreneur, you would certainly be exasperated by the inability to attract that capital which would result from banning software patents."
In other words, the class pro-software patent argument that without patents, people will not invest in the proprietary software industry.
A US study of VC-funded software startups in 2000 found that after four years only 20% had applied for one or more patents, 80% had not.
The US software industry grew at a time when capital flowed freely without the ability to patent anything. The European software industry never really had this ability except in some fields such as telecoms.
The ability to patent is not a prerequisite for attracting funding or capital. And capital in any significant quantity is not needed for investment in software, free or proprietary: software products typically develop based on rapid market response, not heavy capital investment.
As for the neutrality of politicians, yes, I believe that they accept anyone's money in much the same way.
"but rather that the
"but rather that the presentation undercuts the point by ignoring the valid arguments of the opposition."
Continuing my reply to the parent... I honestly don't recall reading or hearing any valid arguments put forward by the opposition. I'm sure this one:
"you would certainly be exasperated by the inability to attract that capital which would result from banning software patents."
did turn up at some point, and perhaps Pieter hasn't dealt with it thoroughly enough, but it's both laughable from the perspective of swpat and sw industry history and a non sequitur.
I'm surprised Pieter hasn't
I'm surprised Pieter hasn't addressed your criticism directly. There is no pretence or intellectual dishonesty in his article. All the pro-software arguments he makes and counters were used by the pro-swpat lobby in the run-up to the CII Directive vote and appeared in forums, press articles and even letters from MEPs. They cannot therefore be described as strawman arguments.


text:
I got nothing but time baby. It'll get back up…..evetually. Right?!??
In on UPRO today...double long SP 500 ETF
the markets can stay irrational longer than you can remain solvent my friend
I doubt that he has enough money in a single ETF such that a decline will render him insolvent.
I bought XXV on the same principle in August but it is taking longer than expected.
lol…If a $300 play on UPRO makes me insolvent I got bigger fish to fry.
It's just a saying, and I think it's a terrible idea. Ultra ETFs in general, and your timing in particular, S&P will hit sub 1000, then buy.
You shouldn't buy any ultra (2x or 3x) if you are unsure of the direct right now.
even in 1x you lose money when the market dips and regains.
$10 lose 50% becomes $5 then regains 50%, it's only $7.50. Ultra just magnifies that even more.
who said anything about being unsure? high risk= high reward
Yeah, baby, yeah!! The best way to get a high return is to take really big risks! :-)
SkipE99 Wrote:
> who said anything about being unsure? high risk=
> high reward
the 4 words I live by
Well, you did good today!
^ Was just going to say that. 6% just today. Many people will be very happy if they make that for the year.
I find your ideas interesting and would like to subscribe to your newsletter…
$300 * 6% = A steak dinner at Ruth Chris'
Maybe you should have put a little bit more on the table.
Zesty Wrote:
> $300 * 6% = A steak dinner at Ruth Chris'
Yes, someday I hope to eat at Ruth Chris' every night.
Sounds like the only way to make money in this market is to be irrational, or is it fearless?
BTW, UPRO takes you 3x long, not just double.
Zesty Wrote:
> $300 * 6% = A steak dinner at Ruth Chris'
> Maybe you should have put a little bit more on the
> table.
I haven't been to Ruth Chris' in a while… but aren't their steaks a bit more than $18?
$18, that's an appetizer there.
In DC….
Ribeye = $41
NY Strip = $43
Tbone = $48
I'm pretty sure UPRO is 3x. I'd be buying SPXU (triple short S&P) if I had to pick between the two.
Oct. 5 (Bloomberg) – U.S. stocks rallied, giving the Standard & Poor's 500 Index its biggest two-day gain in more than a month, as economic data topped estimates and investors speculated Europe will act to contain the region's debt crisis.
off to a good start. it isnt too late to hop on this train.
It was a good call - do you have a target, timeframe, etc?
higher risk does not equal higher reward….not all the time. the most successful investors do not take the most risk (i.e. buffet).
2-12 months or longer if necessary. Target 1300.
I'd have a stop in place.
Lol SkipE99 it's funny how so many people are worried about your $300.
Lots of bears in here.
Look at the returns on Leveraged ETFs like FAS and FAZ. They don't correlate over long periods of time. Look at FAZ vs FAS for 3 months/ 6 months …etc. Couldn't you just SHORT both ETFs?????
robber07 Wrote:
> Look at the returns on Leveraged ETFs like FAS and
> FAZ. They don't correlate over long periods of
> time. Look at FAZ vs FAS for 3 months/ 6 months
> …etc. Couldn't you just SHORT both ETFs?????
Yes, I've done it a few times in the past. The two biggest problems are if you face a slow, steady rise in the price of the underlying; or, what happened to me every time I did it, the shares get called away from you by your broker forcing you to cover. It's good in theory, but hard in practice.
Looks like another good day for you today.
SkipE99 Wrote:
> 2-12 months or longer if necessary. Target 1300.
Seeing that you have done so well, I would take the profits at this point. These are day trading vehicles. The daily rebalancing makes them not so good for longer term investing.
Please read: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/exchangetradedfunds/07/leveraged-et...
Cant deny I called that bottom within a couple hours of it happening. Admittedly luck, but up 28% since first post. If it were not for a 2 month holding requirement on my positions I would sell today and take my $83 ($63 net of tax) and take the wife out to Applebees for some of that high life living!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Personal | Banking | Online Services | Money Movement
Money Movement is a convenient part of Digital Banking 2.0's Money Movement feature, allowing you to complete the task of paying bills or transferring funds quickly, easily, and securely online. Best of all, when you follow our guidelines for scheduling bill payments, we guarantee they get delivered on time, or we'll pay the late fees (up to $50).
Questions about enrollment and system requirements? Click here.
¹Reimbursement for late fees only when paid through Bill Pay Online and First Tennessee is responsible for errors related to payment processing.
*Customers must set up payees through Digital Banking before using Mobile Bill Pay. Mobile Bill Pay is available through Mobile Web Browser and Downloadable Applications. Mobile Bill Pay is not available through Text Banking (SMS).
November 25, 2012
caroltnFrom: BARTLETT, TNAge: Over 65Customer Length: Over 15 Years
This is a great way to pay your bills and make sure they are paid on line and exactly when you want them to be paid. I hesitated to take advantage of this service and now that I am doing it I cannot imagine why anyone wouldn't take advantage of it.
September 10, 2011
Debbers1From: Murfreesboro, TNAge: 35-44Customer Length: Less than a year
I really love First Tennessee not only is there bill pay easy, fast and convienent but they have awesome customer service like no other bank I've been to. Someone stole my debit card number and First Tennessee immediately caught it before anything could be charged. By looking at my history they knew that was something I wouldn't buy nor was it some where I would shop normally. They called me immediately and cancelled my card and sent me a new one right away. More recently I had a check come through that was very important but it was (2) days before my direct deposit would hit and they covered with it with a minimal fee. I can't express how happy I am with this bank. Your awesome!!!! Thanks for all that you do to make my life easier.
August 21, 2011
Lynn3From: Knoxville, TNAge: 55-65Customer Length: Over 15 years
Bills are paid in a timely fashion and are paperless, saving the environment. I like the email notifications when our renewal is up for continuing the payments.
August 18, 2011
JMac52From: Blountville TNAge: 55-65Customer Length: 10-15 years
Since I first got this feature on my account, several years ago, I have found the convenience and capability a stunning time saver. Since I use Quicken, I can complete a number of transactions in less than 5 minutes, and send them on the way. No checks, no stamps, just done and done. I would never have an account without this feature. thanks, First Tennessee.
August 14, 2011
Dori909From: NashvilleAge: 45-54Customer Length: 1-3 years
I like online bill pay and use it to pay bill without out having to buy more checks. It takes the money right out and I send the check to what ever bill I pay. I know exactly how much left.
August 11, 2011
LorespFrom: Southaven, MSAge: 35-44Customer Length: 10-15 years
Transactions with certain companies take a long time to be processed
bulldogsFrom: Coldwater, MSAge: 55-65Customer Length: 4-9 years
I like not having to write checks and going to the post office.
August 10, 2011
LindamemFrom: GermantownAge: 55-65Customer Length: Over 15 years
Very easy to use and I feel very secure about using it.
terried63From: olive branch, msAge: 45-54Customer Length: 4-9 years
I have had a few security issues with my account and the communication and message alert system thru oline service has been extremely useful in making my life easier. I would recommend all first tennessee customers to utilize this great service
Forgot User ID?
Not signed up? Enroll now
Digital Banking
Mobile Banking
An identity theft scheme targeting financial accounts is circulating through text messages, social media platforms and/or by telephone. This scheme is an attempt to get the username, password, Social Security number, or other sensitive information from account holders.
© 2016 First Tennessee Bank
Banking products and services are provided by First Tennessee Bank National Association. Member FDIC. Equal Housing Lender.


text:
What's black and white and loved all over? This panda is over two feet tall and ready to hug. Featuring excellent quality construction, soft, furry fabric and an endearing expression. Soft and huggable, this will appeal to bear lovers of every age.
Dimensions: 27″ x 30″ x 30″
We are offering one lucky reader our Giant Panda Stuffed Animal!
ENTER Thru midnight EST FEBRUARY 2, 2010.
How to Enter: Just head on over to MelissaAndDoug.com and come back and tell us (with a comment) one other product your little one would love to have.
How to leave a comment: Click here and then Click on "Add your Own."
That's all you have to do to enter. We'll make it even easier…copy and paste the beginning of your comment from right here: ONE OTHER TOY I'D LOVE TO HAVE IS
48 Continental UNITED STATES TO ENTER & WIN!
Extra Entries:
- Tweet this contest. You can do this 1 time a day for 1 daily entry through 02.02.2010.
- Join the Melissa & Doug Newsletter for 5 entries (leave 5 comments that say Joined Newsletter #1, Joined Newsletter #2 and so on until you submit 5 entries.)
- Blog about this giveaway with a link back here for 5 entries. Send us the link in 5 separate comments.
- Subscribe to our Blog for 1 entry.
- Follow Melissa & Doug on Twitter: @MelissaAndDoug for 1 entry.
- Bookmark this post on Delicious for 1 entry.
- Favor Melissa & Doug on Technorati for 1 entry.
- Digg this Post for 1 entry.
- Make a Purchase at www.MelissaAndDoug.com for 5 entries. Send us the order number in 5 separate comments.
- Entries for this giveaway will only be accepted thru 02.02.2010 at midnight EST.
- Comments that are not properly submitted (ie., You don't include "ONE OTHER TOY I'D LOVE TO HAVE…") will be deleted and not included in the final drawing.
- If you do not enter the proper amount of comments (ie., You join the newsletter but only submit 1 entry) it will not be corrected. It is up to the entrant to submit the correct number of entries to be included in the final drawing.
- The winner is picked using random.org and will be posted here within 48 hours of the drawing deadline. The random number generated will be matched to that same comment number to determine the winner. Winner's first name and last initial will be posted here on our blog. Additionally, the winner will be contacted directly through email.
*Each entry needs it's own comment. Unfortunately, we can not accept combined entries as more than one entry. For example, sending in one entry that says you blogged and tweeted about this post and that you'd love to have the cupcakes set will only count as 1 entry.
Make sure you receive all your entries by doing the following:
-Comment once for each entry point. That means you will comment 5 times for 5 entries when you blog about this post AND comment 1 time for the tweet AND comment 1 time for the item you'd love to have.
Comments will not post immediately. They are moderated before they are posted. This can take a few minutes to 24 hours depending on the volume of comments.
ENTER Thru FEBRUARY 2, 2010.
Good Luck!
Buy It:
Purchase the Panda Stuffed Animal for $79.99 at MelissaAndDoug.com
Did you know that you can find over FORTY different Stuffed Animals at MelissaAndDoug.com? Find Wild Plush Stuffed Animals & Dog Stuffed Animals Now! Wonderful for nurseries and pretend play.


text:
Belknap commission refuses to pay county convention's legal bill to fight suit filed by former mayor
Disregarding the advice, the convention instead voted to hire the Mitchell Group to defend itself against a lawsuit brought by former Laconia Mayor Tom Tardif, which charged that it had violated the state Right-to-Know Law by electing its officers by secret ballot last December.
Post a comment
You must sign in before you can post comments. If you are experiencing issues with your account please e-mail firstname.lastname@example.com.


text:
Today Paula Deen filled in for Kathie Lee and shared her personal speculations about her grandchildren's sonograms: seeing a "big round, rosebud" and "two little balls." The proud Grandma exclaimed, "We gonna have three buttholes and six balls by July!"
Later, Hoda brought up some selections from Paula Deen Riding Things. This is morning television at its finest, folks!


text:
There's a reason why they call Mike Darnell the "dark prince" of reality TV. Darnell, who on Friday announced his exit as the president of alternative entertainment at Fox, is still best known for his in-your-face fare like Joe Millionaire, Alien Autopsy: Fact or Fiction, The Swan, When Animals Attack and Man vs. Beast.
Some of those shows, like Who Wants to Marry a Multi-Millionaire and Temptation Island, led to juicy TV scandals. (It's why the New York Times once billed him as TV's "point man for perversity.") But Darnell also oversaw the biggest TV phenomenon of the past decade: American Idol, a show that was unbeatable in its prime...
Read More >
Other Links From TVGuide.com
Location, ST | website.com


text:
We provide free basic exam scanning services to any instructor who uses the standard orange or green answer sheets for an official class at UT Austin. Learn More
Assess Learning
Without assessments of learning, one cannot truly know whether students are meeting the learning goals and expectations for your course. Often instructors are disappointed when they grade exams or final products [e.g. papers, projects, or presentations] to discover substantial gaps between what was taught and what students actually learned. Unfortunately, finding these gaps at the end of learning means it is too late to remedy the problem.
Assessing learning is not the same as grading. With grading, the instructor simply scores student work. With assessment, the instructor may assign a grade, but the focus is on exploring how to improve student learning.
For example, an instructor assessing learning might ask:
- How many students met this learning outcome?
- Should I provide an additional explanation or opportunity?
- How can I modify the presentation of the material?
Effective assessment of learning enables you to monitor student learning throughout the course and gives you the ability to make necessary adjustments to improve learning.
Benefits of an assessment
- Improves students' learning.
- Identifies instructional, course, or assignment challenges.
- Improves instruction by identifying what instructional adjustments might be needed. Ensures grading is reflective of students' learning towards course outcomes.
- Makes grading more systematic and objective.
Learn More
Methods of Assessment
Assess Your Assessments
Assess During Learning
Checks for Understanding
Canvas Learning Modules
Team-based Learning 4-S Activity
Assess at End of Learning
Papers, Projects, and Presentations
Multiple Choice
Open-Ended Questions
Short Answer
Metacognition and Feedback
Peer Assessment


text:
Highlander Women Drop Season Opener at Webster U. Tournament
November 15, 2013
The MacMurray College women's basketball team fell 70-50 Friday night against Nebraska Wesleyan University at the Webster University Tip-Off Tournament. It was the season opener for the Highlanders and the coaching debut for new Head Coach Derek James.
Ashley Jenkins led MacMurray with sixteen points and Carley Prince added nine points in the loss. The Highlanders committed 26 turnovers and shot a frosty 26.8% from the field.
"Tonight we came out flat and didn't execute," said Coach James. "We didn't play our style and it showed."
The Highlanders (0-1) will look to bounce back tomorrow, when they face Sewanee at 1PM at Webster University. You can listen to the game on the Highlander Radio Network.


text:
What We Learn From Clinical Trials
What We Learn From Clinical Trials
04.04.13 | By Stephanie Fischer
A recent op-ed in Forbes offers a welcome rebuttal to misguided criticism of the conduct of clinical trials by the biopharmaceutical industry by refuting the notion that "medicine is broken" partly due to the hiding of "negative" clinical trial results. First, it explains how even clinical trials that do not validate the premise that they were intended to evaluate are not necessarily "negative": Clinical studies that yield unexpected or unwanted results are seldom negative in the sense of revealing actual net harm to patients from the drug or medical device being tested; far more often and for a variety of reasons, a "negative" study simply fails to show that it's effective for certain indications, or uses. The author, Dr. Henry Miller, would know. He spent 15 years at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as a medical reviewer and founder of the Office of Biotechnology. He explains that potential new medicines are often tested in parallel for different indications such as for different types of cancer or infections. Clinical trials may fail for various reasons such as having too few participants to be statistically significant or focusing on an inappropriate route, dose or frequency of administration.
Learning from Setbacks
The drug discovery process is long and difficult, costing more than $1 billion over 10-15 years. Only one out of 10,000 potential new medicines makes it through pre-clinical and clinical trials and is approved by the FDA to be used by patients. Fortunately, we learn from the many failures as well as the rare successes. Dr. Miller explains how even unsuccessful or inconclusive clinical trials can contribute to science: If the methodology and execution are sound, even data from unsuccessful studies can provide important leads - a reminder that the nuances of clinical trials are complex and that understanding their limitations is essential to our discovering which therapies work and which do not.
Sharing Data from Successful -and Unsuccessful- Trials
The column dismisses criticism of a lack of transparency in clinical trials by explaining how the clinical trials of any potential medicines that would seek FDA approval are registered and the results - positive or negative - shared with regulators. Clinical trials are also registered on a public database maintained by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). ClinicalTrials.gov currently has information on more than 140,000 clinical trials in all 50 states and 183 countries. The NIH reports that the website receives more than 95 million page views per month and more than 60,000 unique visitors daily. In addition, PhRMA member companies have voluntarily committed to share summary results of all clinical trials in patients for discontinued research programs. The biopharmaceutical research sector is proud to be part of a complex clinical trial ecosystem that develops and evaluates potential new medicines in order to make safe and effective new therapies available to the patients who need them. In addition to learning from individual setbacks, the industry continues to look for ways to improve the clinical trials process in order to speed the delivery of safe and effective new medicines to patients, and to encourage innovation.


text:
SAN JOSE -- San Jose State University, in the heart of the Silicon Valley, is also at the heart of a big American education experiment: low-cost online classes offered for credit.
If it works, high school and college students nationwide could by this summer have access to cheap, entry-level or remedial college courses.
Offering for-credit courses at $150 each, a fraction of the cost of other university online courses, is a significant leap forward in the rapidly changing world of online college education.
"I hope this will be such a game-changer," Mo Qayoumi, San Jose State's president and one of the driving forces behind the partnership with Palo Alto-based Udacity, said at a news conference along with Gov. Jerry Brown.
Udacity offers free online courses to anyone in the world with an Internet connection -- massive open online courses, or MOOCs. The difference here: granting students college credits.
The courses -- entry level mathematics, elementary statistics and college algebra -- are often stumbling blocks for students seeking degrees. Citing long waiting lists and high failure rates in remedial courses, Brown said at the Tuesday gathering that the state's public higher education systems must find a way to help people succeed and to buoy its aging workforce.
"This could be not the solution but the key part of the solution," Brown said. "We know that because of the billions we're spending on schools, we have the right to better results."
The pilot project, San Jose State University Plus, will start small, with 100 students in each of the three classes. If it works, the for-credit courses could be available by this summer to any high school or community college student in the nation, said Udacity's CEO Sebastian Thrun, a Stanford professor who cofounded the startup about a year ago.
The option of online courses, especially for high-demand classes, sounds good to Kateryna Komlyk, a junior animation and illustration major. She hasn't had trouble getting the classes she needs, but, she said, "for some people I know, it's a struggle."
Thrun cautioned that this was, in fact, an experiment. If not enough students complete the courses, Udacity will rethink the concept. "There's a big if here because we are very skeptical ourselves whether this actually works," he said. "We set it up as an experiment of scale, but we don't know if this is a viable path to education."
An outside evaluation will be made under a grant from the National Science Foundation.
San Jose State professors designed the courses using Udacity's online platform and technical expertise. Students at their own pace will watch videos, take interactive quizzes and will have mentors checking in on them and setting up study sessions with other students, said Ellen Junn, San Jose State's provost.
The experience will be more interactive than a typical free online course, Junn said, which is important.
"It's easy to get lost in an online course," she said.
Most of Udacity's funding -- more than $20 million so far, much of it unspent -- comes from venture capital, Thrun said, adding that it was too soon to put a dollar figure on the program's cost.
San Jose State officials said the university has spent $45,000 in stipends for the professors to develop the initiative. The money comes from the university's nonprofit, not tax dollars.
Meanwhile, the University of California has been developing its own online platform, which it built using a small foundation grant and a $6.9 million line of credit from its Office of the President. In addition to creating systemwide online courses for UC students, particularly in popular "gateway" classes, UC Online Education aimed to make money by selling for-credit courses to non-UC students.
But its prices are much steeper: $2,100 for a semester course or $1,400 for a quarter course, and just five non-UC students have signed up.
Setbacks are OK, Brown said. "First of all, failure is the precursor for success. ... I've even had a few failures myself," he said. "We will learn from what others have done that haven't quite worked out."
Follow Katy Murphy at Twitter.com/katymurphy.


text:
Ever since the spotlight was placed on Dominican-born eye doctor Salomon Melgen and his large campaign contributions to Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), the question for us has been "What has Menendez done for Melgen?"
We believe that we have answer. After an extensive review of publicly available documents that link the two men, the answer relates to unusual actions on behalf of a port security company known as ICSSI.
Ray Hernandez and Frances Robles detail in a New York Times story how Menendez sought to help ICSSI "in ways that could bring the doctor a highly lucrative windfall." From the article:


text:
Police Report: Nov. 9 - 12, 2012
Published: Monday, November 12, 2012 at 7:00 p.m.
Last Modified: Monday, November 12, 2012 at 7:00 p.m.
Nov. 9, 2012
Portions of the following information are based on facts provided by the arrested individuals. Those individuals have been booked with, not convicted of, the offenses shown. All accused should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Terrebonne Sheriff's Office
Dantrell Berdell Matthews, 28, 1 Stonesthrow Drive, No. 173, Houma, failure to appear.
Caleb Kent Landry, 23, 147 Presquile Isle Drive, Houma, two counts failure to appear.
Neisha Joann Lee, 18, 223 Eureka Drive, No. 12-B, Gray, disturbing the peace by fighting.
Charles Dawayne Anderson, 32, 1208 Palmisano Drive, Houma, two counts failure to appear.
Terrebonne Narcotics Task Force
Colin Anthony Martin, 32, homeless, disturbing the peace by offensive language, possession schedule I drug, unlawful possession drug paraphernalia, obstruction of justice, resisting arrest by false information.
Nov. 10, 2012
Terrebonne Sheriff's Office
David Paul Trosclair Jr., 28, 123 Nicole St., Houma, entry after being forbidden, resisting an officer, possession with intent to distribute schedule II drug, illegal transaction involving drug proceeds, possession of marijuana, unlawful possession drug paraphernalia.
Carl Randal Evans Jr., 28, 67 East 23rd St., Larose, holding for other agency.
Lance Arthur Avila, 34, 108 Mason Drive, Bourg, felony carrying illegal weapon, domestic abuse battery.
Dale Ann Guidry, 59, homeless, disturbing the peace by intoxication, entry after being forbidden.
Andre Ahmond Flores, 25, 4849 Bayouside Drive, Chauvin, failure to appear, aggravated battery.
Ninh Phan, 60, 3954 Friendswood Drive, Houma, aggravated second degree battery.
Terrebonne Narcotics Task Force
Katie Jo Daigle, 26, 636-D Olive St., Thibodaux, entry after being forbidden, resisting an officer, possession with intent to distribute schedule I, illegal transactions involving drug proceeds, possession of marijuana, unlawful possession drug paraphernalia.
Nov. 11, 2012
Lafourche Parish Sheriff's Office
Annette Dubois, 52, 108 W. 11th St., Larose, DWI, driving left of center.
Tarkus Pitre, 39, 15626 Hwy. 3235, Cut Off, contempt.
Terrance Vicks, 18, N. Thibodaux St. Apt J, Thibodaux, probation violation warrant.
Travis Scioneaux, 30, 935 Hwy. 307, Thibodaux, third DWI, reckless operation of a motor vehicle.
Timothy Bucher, 33, 333 E. 75th St., Cut Off, terrorizing.
Kendrall Smith, 28, 109 Ridgeway St., Thibodaux, 2nd possession of marijuana, three counts contempt.
Thibodaux Police Department
Patrick Carter, 34, 1410 Eagle Dr., Thibodaux, resisting, cruelty to a juvenile.
Alvin Bates, 44, 113 Ridgeway St., Thibodaux, theft.
Malcolm Bell, 56, 1027 Jackson St., Thibodaux, two counts contempt, tail lamps required, operating a vehicle while under suspension for certain prior offenses.
Nov. 12, 2012
Thibodaux Police Department
Thaddeus Richard, Jr., 31, 4828 N Bayou Black Dr., Gibson, illegal carrying of weapons (felony), possession of firearm on premises of alcholic beverage outlet.
Charles Walls, 52, homeless, aggravated obstruction of a highway, criminal trespassing, disturbing the peace, misrepresentation during booking.
Lafourche Parish Sheriff's Office
Christopher Terrebonne, 20, 3526 Hwy. 90 E., Des Allemands, entering/remaining after being forbidden.
Kendall Johnson, 28, 1015 General Nichols St. Apt A, Thibodaux, domestic abuse battery with child endangerment, entering/remaining after being forbidden.
Norris Punch, 21, 4029 Beech St., Marrero, driving under suspension for prior offenses, careless operation of a motor vehicle.
Marshall Prevost, 22, 106 Reynaold Rd., Montegut, Writ of Habeas Corpus, contempt, violation of probation.
Ernest Bennett, 42, 106 Plain Dr., Chackbay, contempt.
Jared Breaux, 30, 400 Hanson Dr., Houma, Writ of Habeaus Corpus, contempt.
Hector Cadengo, 35, 137 Odile Ln., Amelia, three counts contempt.
Reader comments posted to this article may be published in our print edition. All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be re-published without permission. Links are encouraged.


text:
Washington University's Olin Business School is a place where you'll discover and develop your talents. Learn through challenging academics and real-world experiences. Collaborate closely and push yourself to achieve more.
Compare the options that best fit your needs.
Corporate Programs
Olin's corporate programs are learning laboratories that drive sustainable growth, performance, and competitive advantage. Develop executives. Clarify strategic vision and values. And create value for your organization and stakeholders.
The programs are engines of insight, changing the way you think, approach management challenges, and make decisions. But they also are engines of action that alter the way you conduct business, measure results, and serve your community.
What separates Olin's corporate programs from competitors' programs? "We're extremely high service, and we deliver extremely good content," says Sam Chun, assistant dean of Executive Programs and senior lecturer in management practice. "As a result, we add value to the Midwest region by making businesses more strategic and productive."
Every program is designed and developed in partnership with members of your organization. Olin professors address your leadership team's needs and concerns and incorporate benchmarks to evaluate progress. Most programs are held at the Charles F. Knight Executive Education & Conference Center on Washington University's campus. But the Olin Executive Education team can conduct programs at venues around the world.
Olin has offered corporate programs since 1993, successfully serving thousands of employees from a diverse client base. Corporate program clients include:


text:
5.2-8 CUTPA - Breach of Contract
Revised to January 1, 2008
The plaintiff claims that the
defendant breached a contract by <specify details> and that this
breach violated CUTPA. A simple breach of contract does not violate CUTPA
unless the breach was an unfair trade practice or deceptive act or practice
as defined in these instructions. Under certain circumstances, parties may
breach contracts without offending traditional notions of fairness.
However, under other circumstances, a breach of contract may be so unfair or
offensive as to constitute a violation of CUTPA. The plaintiff must prove
that the contract was breached and that the breach meets the requirements
for unfair trade practices or deceptive acts or practices as defined in
these instructions.
Hudson United Bank v. Cinnamon Ridge Corp.,
81 Conn. App. 557, 569-71 (2004); Paulus v. LaSala, 56 Conn. App.
139, 153 (1999); Lester v. Resort Camplands International, Inc., 27
Conn. App. 59, 71-73 (1992); Greene v. Orsini, 50 Conn. Sup. 312,
314-316 (2007); Harold Cohen & Co., Inc. v. Harco International, LLC,
Superior Court, judicial district of Middlesex, Docket No. CV 99 0089169
(May 2, 2001); Enviro Express, Inc. v. Bridgeport Resco Co.,
Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield, Docket No. CV 00 0374626
(February 15, 2001); Groglio v. Elrac, Inc., Superior Court,
judicial district of Stamford-Norwalk at Stamford, Docket No. CV 97 0160928
(January 19, 1999); Production Equipment Co. v. Blakeslee Arpaia Chapman,
Inc., Superior Court, judicial district of New Haven at Meriden, Docket
No. CV 94 0247485 (January 3, 1996) (15 Conn. L. Rptr. 558).
Jury Instructions |
Criminal Jury
| Case Look-up | Courts |
Directories |
Educational Resources | E-Services |
Español | FAQs |
Information | Media |
Opinions | Opportunities |
Self-Help |
Common Legal Words | Contact Us |
Site Map | Website Policies and
Copyright © 2016,
State of Connecticut Judicial Branch


text:
November 4, 2005
It's a choice not all parents would agree with: putting your child through two hours of surgery for the sake of appearance. But News 12 found one family who did just that to avoid bullying later on. In a News 12 special assignment, we're on your side with how Otoplasty changed a little boy's life.
Jason Patskanick is about as typical as they come. He's a 7-year-old who likes playing outdoors and most of all, football. But not too long ago he didn't fit in with everyone else.
"The left one was bigger than the right," said Tracey Patskanick, Jason's mother.
Jason's mother Tracey remembers the day her son told her he wasn't happy with how he looked.
"He had a class picture done and he came home and said look at me, I look like an elf," Tracey said.
"I just looked at 'em, just pulled 'em back and I thought I look better with my ears back than out," Jason said.
All Tracey could see was a handsome boy. But, she and her husband still did some research and found there was a surgery called Otoplasty, or ear pinning. It was a way to reduce the size of Jason's ears.
Tracey called Dr. Jack Yu at the Medical College of Georgia. Her family lives in Anderson, but they'd come to visit Dr. Yu for something else when Jason was little.
"Over the past 11 years, we probably do one of these everyone three months on average," Dr. Yu said.
Dr. Yu says ear pinning is especially common during the summer months when children are out of school. And kids as young as four years old get the surgery to simple avoid ridicule later on.
"Even in kindergarten or 1st, 2nd grade these kind of interactions can have some long lasting and traumatic effects if they're constantly being picked on," Dr. Yu said.
No one picked on Jason, but Tracey couldn't stand the idea of it ever happening. She wasn't sure if plastic surgery was the right thing, so she asked a lot of questions.
"Do we do it? Do we not do it? Does he grow into it? Maybe he will, maybe he won't. He can't get it done when he's older?" Tracey said.
And then Jason got his ears pinned in June. He wore a different kind of helmet for two weeks after the surgery. And what once stuck out, is now pulled in.
It's been about four months and Jason's almost back to normal playing for his favorite football team. In fact, his mother says since the surgery, she hasn't heard him say anything else about his ears.
"I think he's very happy with it. I'm glad I got it done. I was very apprehensive at first," Tracey said.
A decision that Dr. Yu says is ultimately up the family. And if a child's ears are not normal, shouldn't be considered a wrong choice.
"Some people will say, in this day and age, you can not afford to not look normal," Dr. Yu said.
And Jason just knows that he looks like everyone else now.
"It feels good to just have it done and it looks good and stuff," Jason said.
Dr. Yu says one of the things families will run into is insurance not covering the surgery because it's considered cosmetic. The Patskanick's had to pay out of pocket. The total cost for Otoplasty surgery is between $2,500 and $3,500 depending on the extent of the procedure.


text:
You have no items in your shopping cart.
2005-2015 Tacoma
2005-2015 Toyota 4WD Tacoma Suspension Lift Kits. We carry reputable brands such as Fabtech, Pro Comp, ReadyLift, Zone, and more, to provide you with custom fit lift kit applications for your Tacoma.
2.75-3" 2012-2016 Tacoma 6 lug Toyota$359.95
Free Shipping!
(to lower 48 states)2.75-3 inch SST Suspension Lift Kit Learn More


text:
Definition of superstructure in English:
1A structure built on top of something else.
Example sentences
- Despite our lack of information about the superstructures of the nearby tombs (lining the Via Labicana and adjacent to Eurysaces' monument), we know that Eurysaces' tomb had to contend with at least one of his neighbors.
- Add to this the fact that superstructures can be altered or replaced entirely, allowing a mask to be updated while keeping the same substructure.
- The British style is more careful and thorough, with the foundation work in sources revealed as proudly as any part of the superstructure.
1.1The parts of a ship, other than masts and rigging, built above its hull and main deck.
Example sentences
- The 4,600t ship will have five decks and two superstructures.
- Up close are jungle-top toucans, and perhaps a sloth; further away, ship superstructures appear to part the steaming foliage as they glide slowly along the canal.
- Like the boats in all these paintings, it's just a hull, without masts or any kind of superstructure, adrift and empty, a kind of ghost ship.
1.2The part of a building above its foundations.
Example sentences
- In plan, the superstructure of the building consists of three zones.
- The building comprises 18 superstructure stories and two basement levels.
- The base, below ground level, is in-situ concrete, but the superstructure above the cross-aisle is prefabricated.
1.3A concept or idea based on others.
Example sentences
- Certainly the dismantling of received superstructures of knowledge, driven by the engines of critique and systematic skepticism, suggests that these days almost anything goes.
1.4(In Marxist theory) the institutions and culture considered to result from or reflect the economic system underlying a society.
Example sentences
- How far do the demands of the capitalist economy shape the political and cultural superstructure?
- The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society - the real foundation, on which rise legal and political superstructures and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness.
- A socialist critic who focuses on the reciprocity between infrastructure and superstructure would argue back that modes of cultural representation cannot but be saturated with the material base of the society.
- Example sentences
- In one of his many well-observed insights Marx pointed out that superstructural ideas often have a tendency to lag behind developments in the economic base of any society under examination.
- This shows an apparently round open-air structure with a superstructural hut like that at the Swan, but artistic distortion of proportion (especially height) limits this picture's usefulness concerning the Theatre's size.
- Globalisation is thus often defined as a relationship between material capability and the superstructural institutionalisation that has been constructed to realise this capability.
For editors and proofreaders
Syllabification: su·per·struc·ture
Definition of superstructure in:
What do you find interesting about this word or phrase?
Comments that don't adhere to our Community Guidelines may be moderated or removed.
= trending


text:
Login/Create Account
Check Out the new Remax App
Ask About This Home
This private and gated, multi-level estate on approx. 6 acres is unparalleled in design & craftsmanship. The 5 br/5 ba Creston home represents the best in luxury living w/Murano glass fixtures, Venetian plastered walls & walnut, Bourgogne & Italian stone floors. A timeless masterpiece w/formal ocean view living/music room w/fireplace; ocean view owner's suite w/antique fireplace & spa-like Carrara marble bathroom w/skylights & vanishing TV mirror; dining room w/custom brass fireplace; gourmet kitchen w/double Islands & breakfast room w/fireplace; sound proof, walnut ceiling library; large family room; media room w/in-wall & projection TV; plus 4 en-suite bedrooms; wine cellar w/Italian tiled floors; pool/spa courtyard & outdoor entertainment area w/custom fire pit & outdoor kitchen Island w/BBQ & pizza oven; lighted tennis court w/cabana; 4-car garage & manicured grounds make this one of the premier estates in Malibu. Buyer to verify and satisfy self to all permits and square footage.


text: Curb appeal is that essential "it" factor which makes your home stand out from its neighbors – in a good way. If you are looking to sell your home but lack a huge amount of time or cash to invest in exterior remodeling, theres no need to despair. See full article.


text:
Apotheke Lotion
- Overview
Replenish with plants. Nourish your skin and rejuvenate your senses with Apotheke's Sage Lemongrass Lotion, which is made from 100% pure plant-based ingredients. Enjoy sweet hints of lemongrass paired perfectly with slightly spicy aromas of sage.
- 8 oz.
- 100% pure plant-based body lotion.
- No petroleum products, parabens or synthetic fragrances.
- See Dimensions + Care for ingredients.
- Made in the USA.
- Details + Dimensions
Overall product dimensions: 2.5"w x 6.5"d x 1.97"h; 8 oz.
Purified water, glycerin, stearic acid, pure palnt oil xomplex, cetyl palmitate and cetearyl alcohol, pure therapeutic grade essential oil blend: lemongrass sage, vetiver, lavendin, pine, atlas cedar, cardaamon, glyceryl stearate, cetyl alcohol phenoxyethanol.
- Shipping + Return Info
Most purchases are shipped from our Distribution Center by UPS, to arrive in your home within 5-7 business days of order receipt.
Shipping Rates
The shipping rate varies depending on your order total and shipping options. View Shipping Rates and Options
Next Day Delivery
For an extra charge of $17.50 per address, we can arrange for rush delivery to most destinations.
Return Policy
We take great pride in the quality of our merchandise. If for any reason you are not happy with your purchase, you may return the item(s) within 30 days of receiving the order for a full refund of the merchandise cost. After 30 days, we will replace or refund your purchase against manufacturer's defects ONLY. Please note that we cannot accept returns on mattresses, monogrammed/personalized items, special order upholstery items and special order rugs, one-of-a-kind rugs, or on items damaged through normal wear and tear. We also cannot accept returns of final-sale items, which are identified by a price ending in .99 or .97.
For further assistance please call our customer service department at 1.888.922.4119 or send an email to firstname.lastname@example.com


text:
Men's Nike Air Max 1 London Running Shoes
Buy Online & Pick Up In-Store
The Nike Air Max 1 London Running Shoes give a new look to running, while providing you with some of the same great Nike features that have been supporting your feet for years. The new London "Home Turf" model has standout style details for a bold, fashion-forward look that celebrates the city across the pond.
The visible Air Max unit in the midsole and heel uses air as a compression tool to give feet a stride that is more comfortable and smooth, while the mesh upper provides feet with the breathability and soft feel that they need when things are heated.
- UPPER: Mesh
- MIDSOLE: Air Max
- OUTSOLE: Rubber


text:
It wasn't hard to come up with this year's list. The smarter the world is getting in the world of human performance, the more options that are being created to facilitate all the right stuff! More options has made for quite a long list. Enjoy!
Get IT | SLEEP!
Before hydration, nutrition and movement strategies should come great sleep strategies. My favorite definition: "The suspension of consciousness when the powers of the body are restored."
Gear to go for: The Zeo Sleep Manager
What gets measured gets improved. Think of it as a power meter for your recovery. Like a power meter for the bike, the tool itself it won't make you sleep more or better, but by having quantitative data to measure, track and analyze, you can get to know more about your sleep habits and implement strategies to make quantitative improvements in your sleep and ultimately your performance.
I first heard about the Zeo Sleep Manager from Dr. Allen Lim who was using it as a training tool with the riders he was working with. He spoke about how on any given day, the squad might have an A, B or C ride (differing in distance and intensity.) Which ride the riders were allowed to do on a particular day was dependent on their quality of sleep the night before as indicated by their Zeo Sleep Score. Something else he mentioned that stood out: if one gets one more hour of sleep per day in the week before a race, they will perform better in the race. How great is that. Sleep to perform better? I love learning things like this.
Zeo Sleep Manager has both a bedside unit (above) and the new mobile version (below right.) On the left is a sample of a graph you'll get every morning of your sleep patterns along with an overall sleep score. My PR is 155! I love sleep.
Work IT | Happy, strong feet!
The human foot is a masterpiece of engineering + a work of art. - Leo da Vinci
So true IF you let them be themselves.
"Phalangeal Freedom + Phalangeal Fitness = Phalangeal Fun"
...says Mark Verstegen of Athletes' Performance.
Gear to go for: Vibram 5 Finger Shoes
Forget about running in them for a moment. Forget about fashion and think function. There are so many things your foot, all of it, would love to do with you: walk, strength train, skip, hike. There are numerous muscles of the foot and they want to be loved and put to work. Most shoes force the foot into an unnatural shape (similar to a cast.) They can limit mobility of the certain joints necessary for natural motion and they often soften the forces the foot has to withstand during activities thereby allowing some muscles to weaken and others to have to compensate, often unhappily. Just like bigger muscles you can see and feel like glutes, quads, biceps and triceps, the muscles of the foot must be strengthed gradually to handle increased loads. Depending on your level of phalangeal fitness, Vibram Five Fingers may be an even better option than simply going barefoot as they also help spread the toes.
I'm amazed I have seen only one, ONE, other person doing their movement/strength training in my local gym in Five Fingers. Running shoes, cycling shoes, casual shoes more the norm. Let's move it!
Your feet are a huge part of your performance. You wouldn't wear mitts when swinging a bat, club or racket would you? Have fun with them this year.
Get IT | Smooth, supple muscles.
How? By hydrating, eating right, massaging tight tissues and activating, strengthening and stabilizing other muscles.
Gear to go for: Self-Massage Tools
Self-massage tools should be just that: tools. Not crutches. Trigger Point Performance has lead the way with their tools and concurrent education. I go no where without my GRID, Quadballer and Massage Ball.
A new kid on the block that I immediately put to use and is now a permanent addition to my gear bag is the Myorope. Although I maintain my movement so well I rarely need to spend much time with the tools, they are an important part of my pre-covery and recovery strategies.
Move IT | Whenever, wherever.
Wherever you are, be there.
Gear to go for: Gaiam's Travel Yoga Mat
Why I love it: It takes up virtually no space. Great for adding to a gear bag so you don't have an additional item to carry. Also perfect for the frequent traveler who doesn't mind others turning their heads while he or she indulges in some pre-flight movement preparation (or post-flight when waiting for a ride while everyone else is in line at Dunkin' Donuts OR when one misses a flight and has to spend a night in the airport in which case it pairs well with the TP Therapy GRID as a head rest.)
Reduce and Reuse IT | For yum on the run.
Gear to go for: To-Go Ware RePEat Utensil Set
I have saved the lives of more plastic forks, spoons, knives and even chopsticks than I can count since I started carrying these with me. Not only great for the environment but for convenience as well. They are incredibly handy, wash easily and are just plain bamboo cool.
Create IT | Au Natural Beauty
If you wouldn't want to eat it, why would want to smear it on your face?"
...says Supermodel Sunny Griffin in this video from The Cool Vegetarian.
Gear to go for: Organic Body Care Recipes
Stephanie Tourles offers a better solution to everyone frustrated with the endless cycle of expensive, synthetic, famous-name cosmetics that often fall short of expectations. With Organic Body Care Recipes you can take control of beauty treatments with homemade products that use safe, nourishing ingredients to pamper the body and soothe the senses. Click on the book to read more about Organic Body Care Recipes.
Prepare IT | Athlete Food Fast
"Skills in the kitchen, rather than skills on the bike, were such a limiting factor for so many of the athletes I was working with." - Biju Thomas
Gear to go for: The Feed Zone by Allen Lim and Biju Thomas
I'm a huge fan of Biju and Allen's work.
Get a glimpse of their genius in the videos below:
Get After IT | Be great. Train great. Race great.
Get after it with...
A week of individualized performance training + nutrition with Jessi
A week of training at Athletes' Performance in PHX, Dallas, LA or Gulf Breeze
A race entry
A mountain bike skills clinic
A massage
Jessi Stensland | Elite Multisport Athlete | MovementU