text:
Quick Links
by Donna O. Perdue
Agricultural biotechnology is a rapidly developing industry in which the global market for crop protection and genetically enhanced seeds alone is estimated to be $50 billion per year.1 In the United States, the use of genetically engineered, or "transgenic" crop varieties, has risen dramatically since approval was granted in 1996: in 1999, about half of the seventy-two million acres planted in soybeans is expected to be genetically engineered, as will more than half of the thirteen million acres of cotton and about twenty-five percent of the eighty million acres of corn.2 Companies involved in developing genetically engineered crops have invested many years and millions of dollars on research and development of commercial products such as corn containing the gene for a toxin that kills insects when they eat the plant, or crops that are resistant to common herbicides used to kill weeds.3 Companies have spent billions of dollars to acquire other companies that control commercially useful genetic engineering technologies and the genetic material used to develop these new crops. Strong intellectual property protection is seen as essential to recoup the money spent on developing genetically engineered crops and protect a company's control of these crops.4
The biotechnology industry in Europe has not developed on the same scale as in the United States.5 One factor hindering the biotechnology industry in Europe is the lack of certainty concerning intellectual property protection for biotechnological inventions.6 Companies want to know they will receive strong patent protection for transgenic plants before they invest in development, testing, and distribution. There are currently two avenues for obtaining a patent in Europe. One is through the European Patent Office (EPO) acting under the authority of the European Patent Convention (EPC), in conjunction with national patent offices.7 A single application is submitted to the EPO, where it is examined and a "European Patent" is issued. The European Patent is actually a bundle of national patents issued by the national patent office of each state designated in the EPO application. The other route for obtaining a patent is by applying directly to the national patent office of each state in which protection is desired. The national patent office is responsible for examination and granting (or rejecting) applications made directly to that office.
The EPO currently grants patent protection for processes and genetic materials used to create transgenic plants, but does not allow product claims to transgenic plants. The EPO considers modification of a plant's genetic material equivalent to creating a new plant variety, and the EPC expressly prohibits patenting plant varieties. The EPC classifies plant varieties as unpatentable subject matter, even when the transgenic plant would otherwise satisfy the criteria for patentability, namely: novelty, inventive step, and industrial utility. Although transgenic plants can be claimed using product-by-process claims, most applicants would prefer the stronger protection afforded by product claims to transgenic plants. The national patent laws of most European states also prohibit the patenting of plant varieties.
The problem of legal uncertainty concerning patent protection for biotechnological inventions in the EU was addressed by a directive aimed at strengthening and harmonizing patent protection for biotechnology. The Biotechnology Patent Directive was issued in July 1998, after a ten-year battle that included rejection of an earlier version in 1995.8 The Biotechnology Patent Directive has been praised for providing a "legal framework for recouping the huge R&D outlays that is almost as favourable for Europe's [biotechnology] firms as for those in the United States."9
The Biotechnology Patent Directive permits the patenting of transgenic plants. Although the Directive also classifies plant varieties as unpatentable subject matter, the term "plant variety" is defined in a narrow way that does not encompass most transgenic plants. The Member States of the Europen Union (EU) are required to implement the objectives of this Directive through national legislation by July, 2000. National implementation of the Directive will create a situation in which the national patent laws of EU Member States will permit the patenting of transgenic plants, while the EPO may continue to exclude transgenic plants from patent protection.
The near future holds the possibility that two different standards for patentability of transgenic plants will coexist in Europe: the EPO may continue to prohibit patenting of transgenic plants, while national patent laws of EU Member States may permit patenting as a result of implementing the Biotechnology Patent Directive. No predictions can be made at the present time, as the intellectual property regimes of Europe are in a state of flux. A recent proposal by the European Parliament and Commission has revived the possibility of creating a unitary Community patent for EU Member States, and draft legislation will be released soon. If Community patent legislation is adopted, it will provide a third avenue for EU Member States to obtain a patent. The Community patent would follow the standard of the Biotechnology Patent Directive and allow patenting of transgenic plants. The EPC is also currently being revised, with the EU applying pressure (via its Member States) to conform EPO policies on patenting transgenic plants with the EU policy set forth on the Biotechnology Patent Directive.
The European Patent Convention (EPC) excludes "plant and animal varieties" from patentability in Article 53(b).10 Historically, living matter had not been considered patentable under two distinct lines of thought: first, a legal view that biological material could not satisfy the criteria for patentability; and second, a strong ethical objection to granting a patent monopoly on any form of life. In addition, at the time the EPC was signed in 1973, most Contracting States to the EPC provided a type of non-patent intellectual property protection called "plant variety protection" either through pre-existing national laws, or laws implementing the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV Convention).11 Plant variety protection laws have traditionally been considered an acceptable way to reward the developer of a useful new variety with some property rights while also preserving public rights of access and use of the genetic material of the variety. Breeders of a new plant variety have the right to control the sale and distribution of propagating material (seeds or cuttings) of the variety they developed, while farmers are permitted to save and replant seeds of the variety and breeders are permitted to use the variety as a basis for further plant breeding.
With the rise of biotechnology, the EPO has had to consider whether inventions using plant or animal material are eligible for patent protection. Many biotechnological inventions can satisfy the criteria of novelty, inventive step, and industrial utility required for patentability under Article 52 of the EPC. Biotechnological inventions can dramatically alter a plant or animal through chemical treatments, physical treatments, or by modification of its genetic material through recombinant DNA technology. This situation gives rise to the challenging question of deciding whether the modified plant or animal can properly be claimed as part of an invention, or whether the modification has created a new variety of the type excluded under Article 53(b). Early decisions by the EPO Boards of Appeal indicated a willingness to allow claims to plant-based inventions that did not add new genetic material to the plants. With respect to transgenic plants, however, the current EPO policy is that the creation of a transgenic plant through genetic engineering creates a new plant variety.12 Thus, although an inventor may make claims to the genetic material transferred, the process of transferring that genetic material into a plant and "product-by-process" claims to plants produced by the claimed method, they may not make product claims to the transgenic plant itself.
A. Critical Decisions of the EPO Boards of Appeal
1. Decision T40/83, Ciba Geigy (1984)13
In 1983 the Technical Board of Appeal of the EPO stated that "[n]o general exclusion of inventions in the sphere of animate nature can be inferred from the EPC." This indicated that the EPO had no categorical objection to extending patent protection to biological material, as long as it satisfied the criteria for patentability and did not create new plant or animal varieties. In Ciba Geigy, the Board of Appeal considered claims to plant "propagating material" treated with a chemical to confer herbicide resistance. The examiner had rejected the disputed claims on the grounds that plants treated with the invention were "plant varieties" and thus, excluded under Article 53(b).
To review the examiner's finding, the EPO needed to define "plant variety" because the EPC does not define the term. In Ciba Geigy, the Board of Appeal adopted the definition of "plant variety" found in the UPOV Convention:
Plant varieties in this sense are all cultivated varieties, clones, lines, strains and hybrids which can be grown in such a way that they are clearly distinguishable from other varieties, sufficiently homogenous, and stable in their essential characteristics (Article 2(2) in conjunction with Article 6(1)(a), (c) and (d)) [of the UPOV Convention]. 14
The Board held that this definition applied to entire plants and to propagating material such as seeds. The Board of Appeal reversed the examiner's decision, stating that the claimed invention "does not lie within the sphere of plant breeding, which is concerned with the genetic modification of plants" and held that chemically treating seeds did not create new plant varieties.
2. Decision T320/87, Lubrizol (1990)15
The Lubrizol decision represents a case in which the EPO found that a novel combination of traditional plant breeding techniques resulted in plants and seeds that did not fall within the definition of plant variety.16 First, the Board of Appeal found that the arrangement of steps in the claimed process represented an essential modification of known biological processes, and the efficiency and high yield of the product showed important technological character. Thus, the claimed processes could not be considered "essentially biological" within the meaning of Article 53(b) EPC and were patentable. In the second part of the decision, the Board considered "product-by-process" claims to hybrid plants and seed in light of the UPOV definition of "plant variety." The characteristics of homogeneity and genetic stability were found to be prerequisites for a plant variety. The population of heterozygous hybrid plants produced by the claimed method would not breed true when propagated by traditional breeding methods. Thus, although the population of hybrid plants was homogeneous, these plants lacked the genetic stability to be classified as a "variety." The Board noted that these plants would not be eligible for plant variety protection under UPOV, so patent protection was the only form of intellectual property protection available. Because they did not fall with the "plant variety" exclusion of Article 53(b) EPC, the Board allowed product-by-process claims to these plants and seeds.
3. Decision T356/93, Plant Genetic Systems (1995)17
This decision represents the first time the EPO Board of Appeal considered the question of patentability of transgenic plants. Ciba Geigy and Lubrizol appeared to signal a willingness to grant claims on plants that are an integral part of practicing an invention, especially when they are not eligible for UPOV-style plant variety protection. The 1990 EPO Board of Appeal Harvard Oncomouse decision upholding a patent on a genetically engineered mouse supported the view that Article 53(b) does not generally preclude patent protection for living matter, and that patents could be granted for genetically engineered animal varieties produced by a microbiological process.18 Extrapolating from these earlier decisions, it was assumed that transgenic plants would also be granted patent protection under the EPC in the Plant Genetic Systems case.
In 1990, a European patent was granted to Plant Genetic Systems for processes and products relating to conferring resistance to the herbicide 'Basta' by genetic engineering. The patent contained claims to seeds, plants, and plant cells that are herbicide-resistant due to having a foreign nucleotide sequence incorporated into its genome, and methods for making and using the transgenic plant.19 The Greenpeace organization filed an opposition in the EPO in 1992. After the Opposition Division upheld the patent, Greenpeace appealed the decision to the Technical Board of Appeal.
Greenpeace contended that the claimed material constituted an unpatentable plant variety excluded by Article 53(b). Plant Genetic Systems argued that their patent covered plants generically and was not confined to a single variety; in fact, some plants made according to the invention "could not be recognized as a variety in any sensible way." In order to decide whether the claimed transgenic plant was excluded by Article 53(b), the Board of Appeal found that the term "plant variety":
Refers to any plant grouping within a single botanical taxon of the lowest-known rank which, irrespective of whether it would be eligible for protection under the UPOV Convention, is characterized by at least one single transmissible characteristic distinguishing it from other plant groupings and which is sufficiently homogeneous and stable in its relevant characteristics . . .20
Using this definition, the Board of Appeal found that the transgenic plant being claimed was a new plant variety and "a product claim which embraced within its subject-matter 'plant varieties' [as defined above] is not patentable under Article 53(b)." Cells from a transgenic plant were held not to fall within the definition of plant variety, and were patentable "microbiological products" under current EPO practice.
The definition of plant variety in the Plant Genetic Systems decision uncoupled the scope of Article 53(b) EPC with respect to "plant varieties" from the scope of plant variety protection afforded by the UPOV Convention. By expanding the scope of the definition of "plant variety" as used in Article 53(b) EPC, the Board of Appeal has almost removed the distinction between "plants" and "plant varieties" established in Ciba Geigy and Lubrizol. By removing the requirement that a claimed plant be eligible for plant variety protection under the UPOV Convention, Plant Genetic Systems indicated that the EPO no longer regards the first half-sentence of Article 53(b) as merely carving out the legal space occupied by the UPOV Convention.21 This decision may exclude some plant material from either type of intellectual property protection, for example, a transgenic plant that is found to be an unpatentable variety under Article 53(b) but does not have sufficient distinctiveness, stability or homogeneity to qualify for UPOV-style plant variety protection. This is precisely the situation that the Board in Lubrizol wanted to avoid. This decision also uncouples the Article 53(b) exclusion of "plant varieties" from the "morality" principle of Article 53(a).
4. Appeal of the Plant Genetics Systems decision to the Enlarged Board of Appeal22
Because of a perceived contradiction between the Plant Genetic Systems decision and prior EPO decisions interpreting Article 53(b) regarding plant and animal varieties, the President of the EPO requested clarification from the Enlarged Board of Appeal. The following question was presented:
Does a claim which related to plants or animals but wherein specific plant or animal varieties are not individually claimed contravene the prohibition on patenting in Article 53(b) EPC if it embraces plant or animal varieties?
The Enlarged Board ruled that the question was inadmissible, as there was no conflict among the decisions. The disputed claims in Ciba Geigy "conferred protection inter alia upon known plant varieties" by using a particular chemical treatment, but did not claim "propagating material in the genetically fixed form of the plant variety."23 The disputed claims in Plant Genetics Systems specifically recited a plant variety because "the claimed genetic modification itself makes the [transgenic] plants 'plant varieties' in the sense of the revised UPOV Convention, 1991, and for this reason [the disputed claim] defines unpatentable subject-matter within the meaning of Article 53(b) EPC."24 By reviewing and upholding Plant Genetic Systems, the EPO signaled a strong commitment to a policy of regarding stably transformed transgenic plants as "plant varieties" created by modification of their genetic material, and rejecting claims to such genetically modified plants.
5. Recent Novartis case before Technical Board of EPO
A recent appeal by Novartis was widely regarded as a test case to determine the patentability of transgenic plants under current EPO practice.25 The decision took into consideration both the EU Directive on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions, and the entry into force of UPOV 1991, which permitted "double protection" of plant varieties by patent and plant variety protection.26
In Novartis, the Board maintained the view enunciated in Plant Genetic Systems that stable insertion of a new gene into plant material inevitably produces a new plant variety. Thus, claims to genetically modified plants are not allowable before the EPO unless they are amended to specifically disclaim plant varieties. The Board made a distinction between "literal" and "substantive" approaches to claim content. Under the literal approach, a claim is for a plant variety only if it names one or more specific varieties. The substantive approach considers the full scope of a claim, on the principle that "a patent is granted for everything falling within the scope of the claim. If a claim to a plant also covers varieties, then a patent is being granted in respect of those varieties."27 The Board adopted the substantive approach to claims with respect to determining whether they fall under Article 53(b), because the literal approach does not allow a reviewer to examine the substance of the claim.28
The Board rejected the argument that genetically modified plants are patentable because they fall under the 'exception to the exclusion' of Article 53(b) EPC-i.e., although Article 53(b) excludes plant and animal varieties and essentially biological processes for their production, it makes an exception for "microbiological processes or the products thereof." Although the techniques of genetic engineering utilize many steps that could be considered "microbiological processes," the Board found that genetically modified plant or animal varieties are not purely the products of "microbiological processes." Instead, they are to be considered unpatentable varieties in the sense of the first half-sentence of Article 53(b) EPC. The Board defended its position against pleas that generic plant innovations should receive generic protection via patents by noting that protection is available for other categories of claims to the invention such as gene constructs and method claims. "If the need for product claims is real, it cannot override the express prohibition against patenting plant varieties. Judges are to apply the law, not create it."29
B. The Future of EPO policy: Questions Pending Before the Enlarged Board of Appeal Regarding the Patentability of Genetically Modified Plants
At the October 13, 1997 hearing for the Novartis appeal, the Technical Board decided to refer to the Enlarged Board of Appeal four questions relating to the patentability of genetically modified plants.30 These questions reflect the issues at the core of the controversy over whether transgenic plants are patentable inventions or unpatentable "plant varieties."
1. To what extent should the instances of the EPO examine an application in respect of whether the claims are allowable in view of the provision of Article 53(b) that patents shall not be granted in respect of plant varieties or essentially biological processes for the production of plants, which provision does not apply to microbiological processes or the products thereof, and how should a claim be interpreted for this purpose?
2. Does a claim which relates to plants but wherein specific plant varieties are not individually claimed ipso facto avoid the prohibition on patenting in Article 53(b) EPC even though it embraces plant varieties?
3. Should the provision of Article 64(2) EPC be taken into account when considering what claims are allowable?31
4. Does a plant variety, in which each individual plant of that variety contains at least one specific gene introduced into an ancestral plant by recombinant gene technology, fall outside the provision of Article 53(b) EPC that patents shall not be granted in respect of plant varieties or essentially biological processes for the production of plants, which provision does not apply to microbiological processes or the products thereof?
These questions, if admissible, will provide an opportunity for the EPO to authoritatively state its policy on claims to transgenic plants. The period for public comment on these questions lasted until the end of March 1999 and a decision may be handed down sometime during 1999.32
A. The Biotechnology Patent Directive
1. History of the Directive
Directive 98/44/EC on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions came into force on July 30, 1998,33 nearly ten years after the European Commission first proposed a draft directive to establish guidelines regarding biotechnology inventions. The goals of the original 1988 proposed Directive had been to stimulate the European biotechnology industry by providing legal certainty in obtaining patent protection for biotechnology inventions, and to prevent disparities between the national patent laws of the EC member states from hindering the commercial exchange of patented products.34 The 1988 proposed Directive singled out national patent laws "originating in certain international patent and plant variety conventions which have given rise to considerable uncertainty as to the possibility of protecting biotechnological inventions" as an impediment to investment in and development of the European biotechnology industry.35
The 1988 proposed Directive was sent to several working committees of the European Parliament (EP), where debates concerning the economic, social, ethical, and ecological issues involved in biotechnology patenting delayed its progress for two years. After the first reading in 1992, the EP drafted forty-six amendments to the Commission's proposal, many of which were incorporated in the 1993 Amended Proposal for a Council Directive on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions.36
The 1993 Amended Proposal removed ambiguity concerning the patentability of living matter in the EU by affirming that "[b]iological material, including plants and animals as well as parts of plants and animals, except plant and animal varieties, would be eligible for patent protection."37 The 1993 Amended Proposal also granted patent protection to "uses of plant or animal varieties or of processes for their production, other than essentially biological processes" and to "microbiological processes." A joint conciliation meeting between the Council of Ministers and the EP to resolve disputes over the patenting of human cells, genes and proteins finally took place in November 1994, but ended in deadlock when the EP would not change its view that there should be no patent protection for any parts of the human body.38
In March 1995, the European Parliament rejected the modified directive by a vote of 240 to 188, with 23 abstentions.39 This event represented the first time in the history of the EP that a compromise drawn up with the Council of Ministers in Conciliation Committee had been rejected. The Commission drafted a new proposal for a Biotechnology Patent Directive, which it adopted in December 1995 and presented to the EP Legal Affairs Committee in January 1996. The draft directive was further revised to incorporate significant changes regarding the patentability of human parts: the revised version prohibited patenting of human body parts, made a clear distinction between a patentable "invention" and an unpatentable "discovery," and addressed the issue of animal suffering.
This revised proposal was adopted by the Council of Ministers in November 1997 and approved by Parliament on the first reading. The EP formally approved the revised proposal on May 12,1998, by 432 votes to 78, with 24 abstentions (534 of the total of 626 EP Members participating).40 A majority of the Council of Ministers adopted the revised proposal for the directive on June 16, with the Netherlands voting against adoption and Italy and Belgium abstaining. The Biotechnology Patent Directive came into force upon publication in the Official Journal on July 30, 1998. Member states have until July 30, 2000 to implement its provisions.
2. Effect of the Directive on national patent laws on EU Member States
Article 1 makes it clear that this directive is intended to put EU policy on patenting biotechnological inventions into effect in each Member State, regardless of the currently existing current patent laws and policies: "Member States shall protect biotechnological inventions under national patent law. They shall, if necessary, adjust their national patent law to take account of the provisions of this Directive."
Chapter II on the scope of protection furthers the goal of removing barriers to patenting biological material and allowing patent monopoly rights to extend as far as possible. Protection conferred by a patent on a biological material shall extend to any biological material derived through propagation or multiplication of the original material. Process patents to produce patentable biological material shall also extend to cover any biological material derived from the original material. Patents on genetic information shall extend to all material in which the genetic material is contained. The Biotechnology Patent Directive also demands compulsory cross-licensing to allow a breeder to exploit a plant variety right that would otherwise infringe a patent, and allow a patent holder to exploit a patent that would otherwise infringe a plant variety right.
The Biotechnology Patent Directive is backed by the enforcement powers of the EU, which can coerce legislative action in Member States with the threat of sanctions. The power to coerce and enforce implementation of the objectives of the Biotechnology Patent Directive contrasts with the relative lack of power of the EPC, which did not replace or supercede national laws.
3. The Biotechnology Patent Directive and patenting transgenic plants
The Directive confirms that inventions comprising "biological material" are not per se unpatentable. Inventions having the required novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability shall be patentable even if they comprise biological material or utilize a "process by means of which biological material is produced, processed or used."41 Naturally occurring biological material may be the subject of an invention when it has been "isolated from its natural environment or produced by means of a technical process."42 Inventions produced by means of a "microbiological process or other technical process" may be patentable.43 Even a full or partial gene sequence may be patentable if the industrial application of the sequence is disclosed in the application.44
Article 4(1) states that plant and animal varieties, and essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals, are not patentable.45 Article 4(2) narrows that exclusion to avoid the result reached by the EPO in Plant Genetic Systems: "[i]nventions which concern plants or animals shall be patentable if the technical feasibility of the invention is not confined to a particular plant or animal variety."
The definition of "plant variety" for purposes of interpreting the Directive is incorporated by reference to Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No. 2100/94 on Community plant variety rights. The relevant paragraph of Article 5 states:
2. For the purpose of the Regulation, "variety" shall be taken to mean a plant grouping within a single botanical taxon of the lowest known rank, which grouping, irrespective of whether the conditions for the grant of a plant variety right are fully met, can be:
-defined by the expression of the characteristics that results from a given genotype or combination of genotypes,
-distinguished from any other plant grouping by the expression of at least one of the said characteristics, and
-considered as a unit with regard to its suitability for being propagated unchanged.46
Because this definition appears in an article of an EC Regulation, a piece of Community legislation which is automatically binding upon EU Member States, the definition of "plant variety" adopted in the Directive is already authoritative in the EU.
The intended scope of the definition of "plant variety" is addressed in recitals 30 and 31 in the Directive:
(30) Whereas the concept plant variety is defined by the legislation protecting new varieties, pursuant to which a variety is defined by its whole genome and therefore possesses individuality and is clearly distinguishable from other varieties; (Emphasis added)
(31) Whereas a plant grouping which is characterised by a particular gene (and not its whole genome) is not covered by the protection of new varieties and is therefore not excluded from patentability even if it comprises new varieties of plants[.]
The interpretation of "plant variety" found in Recital 30 relies on the statement in Article 5(2) of the Regulation on Community plant rights, namely that a plant variety means a grouping "defined by the expression of the characteristics that results from a given genotype." By equating "genotype" with "whole genome," Recital 30 lays the logical foundation for Recital 31, which states that modification of a single gene (i.e., creation of a transgenic plant) does not represent enough change to the entire genome to qualify as a new plant variety. The position articulated in Recital 31 and Article 4(2) of the Directive clearly conflicts with the most recent EPO caselaw on the definition of "plant variety" with respect to transgenic plants. In Plant Genetic Systems, the EPO Enlarged Board of Appeal held that inserting a single foreign gene "rendered the modified plant itself a new plant variety within the meaning of Article 53(b)"47 and recently upheld this view in Novartis.
In the Novartis decision, the EPO Board of Appeals briefly discussed the Biotechnology Patent Directive. According to the Board, the Directive advocates the "literal" approach to claims to transgenic plants. The Directive's literal approach means that when the invention is a genetic engineering technique which can be applied to more than one variety, the resulting products are patentable, even if they are plant varieties. The EPO Board would apply the "substantive" approach to claims to transgenic plants and reach the opposite result. However, the Board suggests that Article 4 of the Biotechnology Patent Directive could be interpreted to allow only "product by process" claims-i.e., claims to plant or animal varieties as products of the biotechnological process being claimed-which would be compatible with the "substantive" approach of current EPO practice.48
4. Netherlands' suit before the European Court of Justice opposing the Biotechnology Patent Directive
On October 19, 1998, the Kingdom of the Netherlands brought an action before the European Court of Justice (ECJ) seeking to have the Directive declared invalid due to procedural errors.49 The pleas in law asserted the following errors: incorrect legal basis under applicable EU law; infringement of the principle of subsidiarity; breach of the principle of legal certainty, breach of obligations under international law, breach of fundamental rights; and infringement of Article 100(a) of the EC Treaty. The gist of the complaint is that the Directive creates new substantive patent rights and therefore should have been issued as a regulation instead of as a directive. A directive can be passed by a qualified majority under Article 100(a) of the EC Treaty, which means the Council of Ministers was able to adopt the Biotechnology Patent Directive despite the opposition of the Netherlands. A regulation under Article 235 of the EC Treaty must have unanimous approval to be adopted. The case also asserted infringement of the EPC. Although this case will take years to resolve, Member States are still required to prepare to implement the objectives of the Directive by July 30, 2000.
B. Possible Future Directions for Patent Practice in Europe: A Community Patent System and Revision of the EPC
1. Renewed plans for a Community Patent System
The European Community first began working on a Common Market patent in the early 1960s, eventually leading to the Community Patent Convention (CPC) signed in Luxembourg in 1975.50 As envisioned, the CPC would create a single supranational community-wide patent, and a common court of appeal for litigating patent cases. The CPC never entered into force after being signed in 1975 and revised in 1985 and 1989, because it has not been ratified and acceded to by a sufficient number of EU Member States.
In 1997, a Commission Green Paper entitled The Community Patent and the Patent System in Europe: Promoting Innovation Through Patents criticized the current patent system in the European Union as inefficient, calling it a brake on the competitiveness of European companies.51 The Green Paper asked whether and to what extent interested parties would be prepared to make use of a Community patent system established as a directly binding Community regulation, instead of intergovernmental conventions such as the Luxembourg Convention on the Community Patent, which has never entered into force because certain national governments refused to ratify it.
In response to the 1997 Green Paper on the Community patent, the European Parliament passed a resolution proposing that the Community patent form the subject of a Community regulation having article 235 of the EC Treaty as its basis.52 The resolution states that "patent law in the European Union must be harmonised in order to consolidate the internal market" because "a consistent, effective Community law on patents is an essential element contributing to the competitiveness of EU companies." Harmonization of specific provisions in national patent laws through implementation of Community directives is regarded as insufficient to meet the need for unitary protection of patents within the EU. Thus, a Community regulation laying down rules that are binding both at the Community and national levels is considered the appropriate legislative means to achieve a uniform patent law.
The EP Resolution considers that the Community patent system should coexist with the systems now in place, noting that "the current combination of the EPC and national patent systems constitutes an efficient and flexible patent system in the European Economic Area." The resolution proposes that the EPO, in cooperation with national authorities, be the technical operator of the Community patent, in view of the already-existing expertise and infrastructure for patent examination in the EPO and various national patent offices. National courts will have jurisdiction in patent infringement or revocation actions, and the European Court of Justice should be the court for appeals on points on law.
On February 5, 1999, the Commission issued a follow-up communication to the 1997 Commission Green Paper on the Community patent, presenting a summary of actions and recommendations.53 This communication reiterated the view that "a unitary patent to cover the entire Community has become a political priority" and is an appropriate subject for Community action. The proposed Community patent must be unitary, affordable, must guarantee legal certainty, and must coexist with existing patent systems. As early as possible in 1999, the Commission will present a draft Regulation aimed at creating a Community patent.
2. Relevance of the proposed Community patent regulation to the question of patenting transgenic plants
The proposed regulation on the Community patent will have direct effects on the national laws of the Member States concerning patenting of transgenic plants, and will probably have indirect effects on the EPC and the EPO. The Community patent regulation will incorporate the standards of the Biotechnology Patent Directive regarding transgenic plants, and those standards will be imported into the national patent laws of Member States. Thus, an applicant seeking patent protection for a transgenic plant would be allowed to make product claims to the transgenic plant in a Community patent application. This creates a somewhat ironic situation if the EPO is the technical operator of the Community patent system: the EPO may have to allow claims to transgenic plants in a Community patent application that it would not allow in a European patent application for the same invention. The creation of a Community patent will provide a mechanism by which the EPO opposition to patenting transgenic plants can be avoided.
3. The EU view of current revisions of the EPC
The Commission communication of February 5, 1999 also encourages Member States to participate in the revision of the EPC currently underway, in order to adapt it to recent technological developments and to take account of Community legislation, namely, the Biotechnology Patent Directive. The Commission notes that, when the Community adopts provisions laying down common rules, the Member States no longer have the right to enter into obligations with third countries which affect those rules or alter their scope. This restriction may be invoked because Switzerland, Lichtenstein, and Monaco are Contracting States of the EPC but not Member States of the EU. The EU has also entered discussions to move from observer status to becoming a Contracting Party by accession to the EPC. The EU's influence on the revision of the EPC, whether exercised directly or through Member States, may be powerful enough to alter the current EPO policy of denying patent protection for transgenic plants on the grounds that they are unpatentable plant varieties.
The issue of patent protection for transgenic plants is being simultaneously addressed by the EPO and the EU, leading to a confusing mix of possible outcomes. Transgenic plants are currently unpatentable "plant varieties" before the EPO. Contracting States to the EPC have pledged, and are directly obligated, to harmonize national patent practice with EPO practice. Thus, most Contracting States currently treat transgenic plants as unpatentable. However, the EPO is currently undergoing revision and will soon answer specific questions concerning its policy on patenting transgenic plants. The revisions and answers to the questions may confirm the present EPO policy, or may abruptly shift toward allowing product claims for transgenic plants.
The EU is in favor of granting patent protection to transgenic plants, with the idea that strong intellectual property protection for transgenic crops will help stimulate the development of the European biotechnology industry. In mid-1998, the EU issued the Biotechnology Patent Directive, which advocates granting patent protection to transgenic plants as long as the invention is not confined to a single variety. Member States of the EU must implement the objectives of the Directive through national legislation within two years. Contemporaneous with implementation of the Directive by Member States, the European Court of Justice will be considering the validity of the Directive. In late 1998, the European Parliament proposed a Community regulation creating a unitary Community patent. The Commission has promised draft legislation on the Community patent as early as possible in 1999. The Community patent will incorporate the standards of the Directive regarding patenting transgenic plants. However, it is hard to predict whether the Directive will survive an attack on its validity and whether the Community patent regulation will be passed.
There are many possible scenarios for the future situation regarding patenting transgenic plants in Europe. The EPO policy may continue to dominate, especially if the Directive is found invalid. If the Directive is upheld and is implemented by EU Member States, then applicants seeking patent protection for transgenic plants will have to apply to individual national patent offices of EU Member States to benefit from the relaxed standards of the Directive. If, however, the EPC is revised in accordance with the Directive, the EPO policy may change and applicants may seek patent protection for transgenic plants under the EPC. Finally, if the Community patent regulation passes, an applicant could seek patent protection for transgenic plants through a Community patent. In all of these scenarios, the national patent offices and national courts responsible for enforcement of patents in EU Member States will face the dilemma of choosing between their commitment to harmonize practice and case law with the EPO and their obligations to uphold Community legislation.
The landscape for patenting transgenic plants in Europe is rapidly changing. Possible new configurations can be proposed, but it is impossible to predict which changes will occur and when. Powerful forces lobbying for patent protection for transgenic plants on the scale of that found in the US and Japan will probably succeed in the EU. Ironically, if the Biotechnology Patent Directive takes effect before the Community patent, patent practice in Europe will become highly splintered before it becomes unitary. Patent applicants do, indeed, "live in interesting times."
© Copyright 2015, All Rights Reserved University of Washington School of Law
4293 Memorial Way Northeast, Seattle, WA 98195


text:
Interview: The Disappearance of Alice Creed's Gemma Arterton
By Perri Nemiroff 2010-08-02 19:47:38 comments
If youve only seen Gemma Arterton in big budget productions like Quantum of Solace, Clash of the Titans and Prince of Persia, youre really missing out. Lucky for you, Arterton has something new hitting theaters on August 6th and while The Disappearance of Alice Creed may not have been showered with cash and effects like those other productions, its certainly far more powerful.
Arterton stars as Alice Creed, the poor young woman Vic and Danny (Eddie Marsan and Martin Compston) target in their kidnapping scheme. They confine their terrified victim to a room while they move along with their plan to make some quick cash at her expense. What Vic and Danny dont know is that Alice has no intentions of being a good hostage and obeying their orders; she wants to fight back and survive.
For someone who only knows big budget Gemma, Alice Creed Gemma is absolutely going to blow them away. The actress was well aware of the stereotype she was developing and signed on for this project in an effort to show what shes capable of and boy does she, but it wasnt easy. During our recent chat, Arterton talked about the difficulties that came along with playing the role as well as the massive payoff and so much more. Check it all out in the interview below.
Howd you get involved? Did the just script come your way or did J approach you?
No, he didnt. The script came my way because the casting director, Lucy [Bevan], is an advocate of mine, but J wasnt really at the time because hed only seen me in [Quantum of Solace]. She said to him, Oh, you should meet Gemma, and he was like, I dont know. I dont think shes up to it. Is she? I mean, shes a Bond girl. But Lucy said, Just meet her. Anyway, so I came in and I didnt know any of this, I just came in and I loved the script and I really wanted to do it and had to do this really demanding scene in the audition, which is just horrible to have to do that in the audition, but I did it.
He offered it to me on the spot and then when he told me that story months later, I said, How could you have made such an assumption? He said, Well, you know. I said, Fair enough. Thats the reason I did the movie as well, because I had an idea that people are thinking that I couldnt do this sort of movie and I needed to test myself. Until then if I was going up for stuff it was always the girl who is in love with the guy, the girl who is hot, the girl who is oh whatever, no substance, no interest. And then this one came along and I was like, wow. First of all, shes a woman, shes not just a girl and shes flawed and complex and shes kind of like an animal in this film and it would require some acting. [Laughs] But also, more than the role, it was the film itself. I just loved the story. For a British film as well it was so tight and it felt European, French. It felt like a movie I would go and see. My favorite directors are like [Michael] Haneke and [Lars] von Trier. It had that kind of feel.
Even if this is the type of material you want to work with, its still tough stuff to handle. Did you have any apprehensions about it?
No, there wasnt apprehension, it was more fear of not being able to do it. Id wake up in the morning and dread the scene ahead, not for the physical demands, but I didnt know if I was able to convey what the scene needed; act it, I didnt know if I was going to be able to act it because Ive never been terrified in my life. I didnt really know how you act that.
Wow, you would never think that!
Oh, thank you. I dont know, I just work with the actors really. Every time I got freaked out that I wasnt going to be able to do it, Martin or Eddie would give me this amazing performance, which you cant help but be affected by. And that was how we did it really. I just used to get myself worked up into a state and they would then come in and we did the scene and it was really full on. Some days I was crying all day and Id be like, I dont want to cry anymore! I really would try not to cry and I couldnt see at the end of one day and J was going, Just one more, and youre not really supposed to do that to your body. Youre not really supposed to put yourself into that position. It was really exhausting, but it was so satisfying, the most satisfying job Ive ever done.
Did you have any rehearsal time with Martin and Eddie or even just some time to get to know each other and get a little more comfortable with each other?
I think, as an actor anyway, you get used to not having that time really. You kind of get to know each other as the job goes on. We kind of all threw ourselves into this situation and everybody knew we were going to just trust each other. But we did, we had three days of rehearsal, three days to like five days or something of rehearsal, which was mostly spent rehearsing the moves of the kidnap, which is kind of a real icebreaker, Hello, my name is Gemma, now you can carry me and Ill kick and scream and punch and then you can pretend to be cutting off my clothes. I learned very quickly that these were people to trust and they were very respectful, ultra respectful actually, too respectful to some degree because they were very careful with me.
I swear to God, in my short career Ive worked with some amazing actors, some of the best actors in the world, but Ive never felt anything like what I felt in this film because they just went for it and they gave me everything that they had every single time, even if the camera wasnt on them. And Id do the same for them; you get something out of doing that. Ive worked on movies before where the actor doesnt hang around for the reverse and you have to do it to x and the box and whatever and its so not acceptable in my book. You get so much out of reacting off of somebody. And so they would just do that and they would stop, check I was all right, snap out of character, be silly and jump on the bed and then theyd get back into it. Proper acting, none of this walking around as the character all day, it was proper acting, snapping in and out.
Whered this one fall in terms of all of the other films youve done?
[Alice Creed] happened right in between Prince of Persia and Clash, so I just finished Prince of Persia, which was six months, I went on to do this, which was a month, took a week or so off and went and did Clash.
This was a fast shoot.
Four weeks, which is nuts. I dont think it ever happens where you make a feature in four weeks. The minimum Ive done is nine weeks before this.
Were they ridiculously long days?
Because we were working in a studio most of the time we didnt have the light issue, so I think we were starting at like eight and finishing at eight, which is a usual day I suppose.
Sounds pretty reasonable.
But it just felt like forever. [Laughs] And also, we were doing six-day weeks, so it was really full on. But it was right that it was full on because it was a relentless piece and we all needed to be like, ahhh, all the way through it, so I didnt really get a breather. Martin didnt get it. I think he had one day off, Martin, because hes in pretty much every scene. It was really exhausting, but the characters are exhausted. It all fed in, it all worked. We were filming it on this island, called The Isle of Man, which is really close to the mainland in England, but not quite, so you really are sort of stranded there. So we werent able to go back home and it was a bit claustrophobic and we were all feeling a bit of cabin fever when were making it, which actually worked.
Whats it like going from massive production to something smaller like this?
It is a different world. I just felt liberated to be honest. Even though making a big budget movie is thrilling because you see all these special effects and stunts and amazing costumes and sets and the money is just being chucked at everything and you dont have to use your imagination much because everything is there. You can also, on the flipside of that, get completely lost within that and the story can get lost within that as well. The spectacle takes over. I was just like, Oh what is it, acting again? Oh yeah. I need to find a piece where I can really act and its not about anything but the story and telling the story in the best simplest way possible. It was liberating because we didnt ever think this movie was going to be a #1 box office hit, that it was going to change the world or change movie making; it was always just a movie that we wanted to make. There was no expectation of it. We didnt even think that people were going to like it really because of the content. We knew it would shock or it would make people feel uneasy.
The first portion of the film is certainly hard to watch, but when you get past it, you realize how necessary it was.
Its true. That was my initial reaction when I started reading the script because I was like, They want me to play woman, the woman? She was called woman and shes woman being kidnapped and it was kind of like, why would I want to play this, its horrid. But it was, it was necessary. Shes petrified, she thinks shes going to die, she thinks shes going to be raped, she thinks all of these terrible things happening to her, then shes humiliated and so she hates these people and you need to see her be that humiliated so that youre on her side when she gets it. I remember then I was like, Oh, okay, alright. The audience is just about to walk out when it changes, just about to. I think if it had gone on for a minute longer they would walk out. [Js] very clever in that way. He really knows film and hes a real film geek, he really loves it and dissects films and really knows about it. It was really great working with someone that planned everything so meticulously because this was his first movie, this was his baby. And so we didnt need to worry about anything; he was on it.
Thats unbelievable for a first feature.
Its funny because hes a friend of mine, now, and we hook up occasionally. Ever since this film screened at Toronto last year, its just taken off for him. He gets like six scripts a week sent to him with offers of huge money and all that and I love him because hes still not found the right thing even though hes getting offered everything. He really cares about the integrity of filmmaking. I really hope that he finds the right thing and just becomes the well-respected director that he deserves to be because hes a real talent.
So what else do you have coming up?
I have another film coming out in about two months called Tamara Drewe, which I love. Im really proud of it. It was my favorite job ever to work on; I had the best time on it. Stephen Frears directed that and its kind of black comedy. Very British, but its very well received. Its already out in France and there are pictures of me in these bloody hot pants everywhere. I cant stand the hot pants shots, sorry [laughs]. Anyway, so theres that and then Im doing a play in London over Christmas called The Master Builder with Steve Dillane and then next year I will be doing Clash, but Ive got a few other really exciting films happening, but I cant talk about them yet because theyre not 100%. But its all starting to go into the direction that I feel like, yeah, its because of this movie, because of Tamara Drewe, Im starting to get the roles that interest me, that I really want to make.
Is that a hint that youre doing more comedy?
Actually, no. One of them is kind of weird, like really weird and another one is sort of comedic in its kind of strangeness as well, but not particularly, not necessarily; quite serious.
Back to top

subset: commoncrawl


text:
- UCAR Home
- About Us
- News
- Research+Resources
- Education
- For Staff
Do not use a colon to introduce a bulleted (or numbered) list if it separates an item in the introductory sentence from its complement. "The ground rules are:" is wrong. You could say, "The ground rules are" or "The ground rules are as follows:" or "The ground rules follow."
If the list is introduced by a sentence that gets completed by the list, use commas (or semicolons) within the list, and DO end with a period or other appropriate ending punctuation.
The style of bulleted lists depends to some extent on the style of the document. In general, Sentences are given normal punctuation. Only items that are complete sentences should begin with a capital letter. Full paragraphs may wrap to the left margin; words, phrases, and sentences should be block indented unless space is a problem.
Bulleted lists may be set off from the surrounding text by additional space above and below the list. Line spacing between each bulleted item depends on the style of the document.
Phrases or mixed phrases and sentences:
Full sentences:
List of phrases that together could be read as a complete sentence: (therefore the list requires sentence-style punctuation, in this case, commas, and a period at the end.)
See also "lists, numbered or lettered."


text:
Glove, A7-L, Cooper
This Intra-vehicular glove is part of the pair worn by Gordon Cooper for training purposes during the Apollo era.
The Intra-vehicular gloves were identical to those used during mission launch. They were made with a bladder, which was dip molded from a hand cast of the individual's hand. The interior had an inner restraint core of nylon tricot which had been dipped in a neoprene compound. A convoluted section was incorporated into the wrist with anodized aluminium connectors for attachment to the spacesuit. A fingerless glove restraint was attached to the bladder at the wrist and enclosed the entire hand excluding the fingers and thumb.
Transferred to the National Air and Space Museum from NASA in 1978.
Transferred from NASA - Johnson Space Center
- Country of Origin
- United States of America
- Manufacturer
- ILC Industries Inc.
- Type
- PERSONAL EQUIPMENT-Handwear
- Materials
- Glove: Neoprene/Rubber compound, nylon, aluminum, Velcro
- Wrist: Beta cloth, rubber/neoprene compound
- Wrist Bearing: Anodized aluminium
- Dimensions
- 3-D: 30.5 x 15.2 x 15.2cm (12 x 6 x 6 in.)


text:
How to Make a Double Star from a Rubber Band
Want to show off to your friends that you can pull off making a double star from a mere rubber band?? Well then read the steps below to see how to do it! Note that if you already know how to make one star, you'll have to skip to the steps that lead to two stars. And if you're left handed, everything here will just be the opposite. Enjoy this trick for parties, when traveling and just for fun!!
This article has been tagged as a stub.
That means it's off to a good start, but still has room to grow into a more helpful resource. Until the article reaches its full potential, it will be hidden from search results. Can you help it flourish? If you think the article offers complete and accurate instructions, feel free to remove this tag.
1Select a suitable rubber band. Note that you need a specific type of rubber band that can stretch with ease and does not break when stretched for an amount of time. Perhaps the picture will help you to work out the type needed.
2Stretch the rubber band between your index finger and your thumb.
3Go under the band length closest to you, then grab and pull the one furthest from you down towards you. Follow the way it's done in the picture.
5From the thumb, insert your left hand index finger inside that little triangle. Go under to the band length between the little and the index finger, pulling it down in the same hole with your thumb to make a cross-like shape as you can see in the picture.
6Now from the little finger, using your middle finger, go upwards and grab the band length that goes downwards, closest to your little finger. Pull it down to make a star.
7Release your little finger and your thumb, getting a triangle-like shape with three holes in each finger. Don't release the two fingers on the bottom two holes; just place you little finger and your thumb in there, as shown in the picture.
8In that triangle in the middle, put your left hand index and middle finger together in it. However, make sure that your nails are pointing to your hand, and while doing that, grab the top band length down and twist it to the right. Then (and here's the confusing bit), keeping hold of that, grab the band length closest to you from the length from your thumb, and use the middle finger to grab the band length from the little finger.
9Keeping hold of that still, put your thumb in the little triangle between your middle and your index finger, pulling it down as you bring your middle and your index finger down as well, finishing with two stars.
Community Q&A
- If you have a new-ish rubber band, stretch it a bit so later it'll be easier to make two stars.
- If your fingers start to ache, take a quick break. Relax your hand and stretch it.
- If you make a mistake, keep trying. You'll get it soon enough.
- If you are really struggling ask someone who knows how to do it to make it easier for you.
Things You'll Need
- Strong rubber band (and some spares)
Article Info
Featured Article
Categories: Stub | Featured Articles | Tricks with Objects
In other languages:
Español: hacer una estrella doble con una liga, Italiano: Fare una Doppia Stella con un Elastico, Português: Fazer uma Estrela Dupla com um Elástico, Русский: сделать двойную звезду из резинки
Thanks to all authors for creating a page that has been read 139,491 times.


text:
You are about to report the comment below to the Crash.Net moderators as being abusive.
An abusive comment may contain profanity, personal attacks or commercial SPAM.
Please do not report this comment as being abusive if you simply disagree with the
comment posted. If this is the case then you can click on the "disagree" icon () in the upper right
of the comment's post to show your dissatisfaction.
Crash.Net moderators will view all reported comments and will act as they deem necessary.
This may be editing the comment or total deletion.
@ Ridge Racer - Oh, its NOT about championships now. LOL.
Seriously dude. Take the advice. Stop trying to labour this point. You're just plain wrong. Rossi is one of the greatest of all time. Casey definitely had the potential too, but he was unlucky to start on a Ducati, but at the end of the day he couldn't defend his title with a Honda. There is therefore a question mark over Casey too. However, they are both brilliant. Dont try and put someones achievements down. Especially when its one of the most impressive records in sporting history!!
Are you resorting to name calling now to prove your point?? Lol, does baby want his bottle???? hahahaha


text:
About Seraphinangel
I love music, and being spontanious. I love tattoos!!! Most people don't get me ....but that's okay....I don't mind. I start hair school in September and I'm hoping to pick up piercing as well
I love the smell of fresh GLAD garbage bags, leather and lilacs. I go cemetary hopping. I go taboozin and I played road hockey when I was a kid.
Any questions?
I'm looking to meet fellow Roach fans online and maybe hook up at concerts. Nothing worse than going to a concert with a bunch of ppl who don't know and love the band like we do. ;)
"Imperfection is beauty, madness is genius and it's better to be absolutely ridiculous than absolutely boring."
-Marilyn Monroe


text:
Elizabeth Barrett Browning1806–1861
Elizabeth Barrett Browning began writing as a young girl in Durham, England. Despite a nervous collapse, a period of grief occasioned by the untimely deaths of two brothers, and a lifetime of illness, she continued to write poetry and essays about politics and social injustices, eventually becoming one of the greatest writers of the Victorian Era. In 1846 she eloped to Florence, Italy, with Robert Browning, to whom she dedicated her best-known book, Sonnets from the Portuguese.


text:
Under mounting pressure from constituents, fellow lawmakers, and investigators, embattled Speaker Ray Sansom is temporarily stepping down as leader of the Florida House.
Earlier Friday Miami Republican Rep. J.C. Planas publicly called for Sansom's resignation. A Leon County Grand Jury is investigating Sansom for funneling more than 25 million dollars to a Destin college, then taking a six figure job with the school. House lawmakers have also called for a special investigator to review Sansom's dealings with the school.
Sansom notified House members of his decision early Friday. His office released this statement.
"Effective immediately, I have decided to recuse myself from the exercise of my duties as Speaker of the House of Representatives. Ongoing legal proceedings have temporarily created an inability for me to carry out my responsibilities as Speaker. Under the House rules, during this temporary inability, Speaker pro tempore Larry Cretul will exercise all the duties, powers and prerogatives of Speaker."
"I know Larry will manage the House with distinction and it will be an honor for me to serve under him at this time, until any legal proceedings I face are resolved. The allegations and reports associated with these proceedings have caused my family grave pain and this has prompted my decision. I expect positive outcomes and am confident that when the facts are known, my honesty and integrity will be confirmed," said Sansom.
Governor Charlie Crist, who has been reluctant to speak against the speaker, released this statement.
"I respect Speaker Sansom's difficult decision today. There is important work ahead of us in the upcoming session, and I am eager to work with members of the House and Senate to address the challenges facing Floridians," said Crist.
Investigations into Sansom's dealings with the college will likely carry on for months.
In an interview with a Pensacola television station, Sansom called the allegations "politics as usual."
"Unfortunately, the speaker is allegedly caught in a massive criminal corruption conspiracy where he got six million dollars for his friend and major donor Jay Odem so he could build an airplane covered hangar after Jay Odem gave a 500,000 dollars to the Republican Party of Florida. That's not politics as usual. That's what sends people to jail," says Eric Jotkoff with the Florida Democratic Party.
Sansom says he expects his name to be cleared.


text:
Hi guys,
If someone could send me the manual as well I'd really appreciate it! I think my # is 5319B ..but hopefully this manual will be similar! We're having trouble getting one of the wheels off (sad, I know)
My email is darren_ricci AT hotmail.com
(replace the at with @)
- Forum >
- Lawn & Garden >
- Older Craftsman snowthrower 536.886510
I am another person who would appreciate a manual.Just bought a 5/23 at a garage sale and no manual.Any help appreciated.
[email protected]
Thank You
[email protected]
Thank You
I am trying to locate a manual for this 5hp craftsman snowblower. It appears that Sears does not supports this product anymore.
- 15 Old House Features We Shouldn't Abandon
- 13 Lazy Cleaning Tricks for a Spotless Home
- Laundry Room Ideas to Knock Your Socks Off
- Insanely Easy 60-Minute Home Improvements
- 12 Sheds You Could Live (or Work) In
- Assembly Required: 15 DIY Kit Homes
- 7 House Sounds You Never Want to Ignore
- 10 Surprisingly Simple Woodworking Projects
- Worth It: 8 Renovations That Pay You Back
- Organize Your Life with 12 Dollar-Store Buys
- 9 Totally Amazing Mobile Home Makeovers
- Don't Make These 7 Mistakes in Small Spaces
- 20 Sneaky Storage Ideas
- 15 Totally Unexpected DIY Flooring Alternatives
- 7 Easy Budget-Friendly Backyard Makeovers
- 10 Closet Cures That Cost Less Than $100
- 11 Easy DIY Projects to Declutter Your Home
- 10 "Zero Dollar" Garden Hacks
- 10 Killproof Plants for a No-Effort Landscape
- 9 Insanely Easy 1-Hour Backyard Projects


text:
AUSTIN, TX – The No. 1-ranked University of Texas men's swimming and diving team exhibited great depth, with six Longhorns capturing nine individual-event victories, to give Texas a 133-108 win over seventh-ranked Georgia on Saturday night at the Lee and Joe Jamail Texas Swimming Center. With this win, head coach Eddie Reese's Longhorns improve to a perfect 5-0 this season.
Texas was paced by sophomore Troy Dumais (Ventura, Calif. / Buena) and seniors Bryan Jones (College Station, Texas / A&M Consolidated) and Jon Younghouse (Cape Girardeau, Mo. / Cape Central), each of whom won two individual events.
Dumais, the 1999 NCAA Champion on the three-meter springboard, swept the one- and three-meter diving competitions to remain unbeaten on both boards this season. While comprehensive results are unavailable at this time, Dumais posted what is believed to be the best three-meter springboard dual-meet score in UT history to complete the diving sweep. On January 8 in competition for the Austin Cup at the All-American Diving Invitational, Dumais scored the highest total in collegiate history to capture the three-meter title.
Jones captured first place in both the 50- and 100-meter freestyle events, while Younghouse claimed victory in both the 400- and 800-meter freestyle. Junior Jamie Rauch (Houston, Texas / Cypress Creek) also finished first in the 200-meter freestyle, giving Texas a clean sweep of all of the individual freestyle events.
Also claiming individual-event wins for the Longhorns were junior Nate Dusing (Villa Hills, Ky. / Covington Catholic) and freshman Austin-native Ross Binkley (Austin, Texas / McCallum), who captured first-place honors in the 200-meter butterfly and 200-meter breaststroke, respectively.
The dual-meet victory marks the final home competition for Texas this season. The Longhorns return to competition on Friday-Saturday, January 28-29 when they travel to Tucson, Ariz. to take on the second-ranked Arizona Wildcats and 15th-ranked Arizona State in a triangular meet.


text:
Bankruptcy Law
Bankruptcy Law Questions? Ask a Bankruptcy Lawyer Now.
Hello and thank you for allowing me to address your legal question.
The lawsuit does not help you with regard to your creditors that are not being paid. Unfortunately, they'll want their money regardless of the circumstances that left you destitute, and they have a legal right to pursue you for the debts. However, your situation could be a factor in your lawsuit. If you win your case and are entitled to punitive damages, your financial problems should be presented as a factor in determining your award.
Does that answer your question? I truly wish you luck!
If the information that I provided was helpful, please remember to ACCEPT my post as that is the only way I will receive credit and compensation for my answer. Thank you and good luck!
DISCLAIMER: Please understand that the complexities of most legal problems cannot be sufficiently addressed in this setting. Accordingly, my post is intended as general information only, and should neither be construed as specific legal advice, nor as an adequate substitute for the retention of legal counsel.
Yes I think this is my only option, and probably chapter 13 as I cannot secure a job that makes enough money to pay my debt. My concern is will I ever be able to buy a house again, and do I have to give up my automobile. With my credit, I could not qualify to buy another car and do not have money to purchase one.
What is your opinion on filing bankruptsy in my situation?
DISCLAIMER: Answers from Experts on JustAnswer are not substitutes for the advice of an attorney. JustAnswer is a public forum and questions and responses are not private or confidential or protected by the attorney-client privilege. The Expert above is not your attorney, and the response above is not legal advice. You should not read this response to propose specific action or address specific circumstances, but only to give you a sense of general principles of law that might affect the situation you describe. Application of these general principles to particular circumstances must be done by a lawyer who has spoken with you in confidence, learned all relevant information, and explored various options. Before acting on these general principles, you should hire a lawyer licensed to practice law in the jurisdiction to which your question pertains.
The responses above are from individual Experts, not JustAnswer. The site and services are provided "as is". To view the verified credential of an Expert, click on the "Verified" symbol in the Expert's profile. This site is not for emergency questions which should be directed immediately by telephone or in-person to qualified professionals. Please carefully read the Terms of Service (last updated February 8, 2012).


text:
AHMEDABAD: Senior BJP leader LK Advani on Saturday expressed confidence that NDA will form the government with Narendra Modi as the Prime Minister. "With Narendra Modi as PM, we will form the government," Advani said.
"I had never intended not contesting from Gandhinagar," LK Advani said as he arrived for filing his nomination from the Lok Sabha constituency.


text:
Sept. 16, 2013
IRVING, Texas - Fox Sports and Conference USA officials announced Monday that Louisiana Tech's Sept. 28 game against Army in the Heart of Dallas Classic will be televised nationally on Fox Sports 1.
Last week the network announced the game would change to a 3 p.m. CT kickoff to accommodate TV.
The contest against Army will be held in the historic Cotton Bowl Stadium in Dallas. The broadcast will mark the third consecutive Louisiana Tech game carried on the new national 24-hour sports network.
Justin Kutcher (play-by-play), James Bates (analyst) and Brady Poppinga (sideline) will call the action, the same crew that will call the Sept. 21 game at Kansas which is also televised on Fox Sports 1.
Tickets for the Heart of Dallas Classic are still available through the LA Tech Ticket Office (318-257-3631 or online at LATechSports.com).
For complete coverage of Bulldog Football, please follow @LATechFB on Twitter or visit the official home of Louisiana Tech Athletics at LATechSports.com.


text:
Newegg.com - A great place to buy computers, computer parts, electronics, software, accessories, and DVDs online. With great prices, fast shipping, and top-rated customer service - once you know, you Newegg.
If you are reading this message, Please click this link to reload this page.(Do not use your browser's "Refresh" button). Please email us if you're running the latest version of your browser and you still see this message.
Newegg.com - Computer Parts, Laptops, Electronics, HDTVs, Digital Cameras and More!
Sold and Shipped by GizmosForLife
Filter Results
Not sure Wireless Charing works?!?
This review is from: dreamGEAR XBOX 360 Power Base Wireless Induction Charger
Pros: Excellent idea and it did work once or twice...
Cons: One battery is completely dead after 2 charges and the other one holds a charge for 3 minutes. I've been using my controllers on cable for weeks now. I've tried everything I can imagine but the lights just don't come on no matter how careful I am about positioning.
Other Thoughts: I really want this to work and am VERY disappointed that it doesn't.
Did you find this review helpful?
Well, could have been designed better, but great overall.
This review is from: dreamGEAR XBOX 360 Power Base Wireless Induction Charger
Pros: Low profile. Glossy black to match new Xbox hardware, lights inform you when batteries are completely charged. then unit can be turned off to save power. Includes 2 same-brand battery packs -- 3rd party or no, thats a good deal.
Cons: if your not careful you may set the controller down in a position that isn't actually charging, according the "indicator." though I think with this tech, if it's close enough in the magnetic field it will still charge in some capacity.
Other Thoughts: I bought for $20 not sure I would have paid more than about $35 for the unit.
2 out of 2 people found this review helpful. Did you?
This item is eligible for Newegg Premier benefits. Are you a Newegg Premier Member? If not, sign up today and get:
|Volume Discounts Available
Your request will be processed within the next 24 hours.
Please add "email@example.com" to your address book to ensure delivery.See Today's E-Blast Promo


text:
Wednesday Nov 19 2008
Bear River players suspended
By: Mike Ray Gold Country News Service
Three football players to miss playoffs after violating athletic code
The Bear River varsity football team has lost three players, likely for the rest of the season, due to a violation of the school's athletic policy. "Our district has a 30-day suspension policy from extra curricular activities so that's basically the rest of the season," Bear River co-coach Terry Logue said Tuesday. Two of the three suspended players were held out of last Friday's game with El Dorado. Despite playing shorthanded, the Bruins defeated El Dorado, 35-14, to cinch the Pioneer Valley League's No. 2 playoff berth. The Journal has learned that the alleged violation of the school's athletic code stemmed from members of the school's football team attending a Halloween party where alcohol was being consumed. "All I can say is that there has been a violation of our athletic code and we're trying to see where we're at right now," said Logue. "Yes, we have lost some players for the rest of the season but I can't divulge who," Logue added. The current incident at Bear River follows last winter's violation of the school's athletic code by members of the girls basketball team attending a party in which alcohol was involved. In that case, the girls team forfeited the second half of its league games because they did not have enough members left to field a team. Because of that incident, the Nevada Union High School District rewrote its athletic policies in regards to penalties. Earlier this season, the Granite Bay football team held out 16 to 20 players in a game against Oakmont after school officials were alerted that there was a violation of that school's athletic policy.


text:
August 24, 2011 - HHS Grants Relief to HRAs With Respect to Annual Limit Restrictions – But Don't Start Celebrating Yet!
On August 19, 2011, the Department of Health and Human Services issued new guidance regarding health reimbursement arrangements ("HRAs") and the need to seek waivers from the annual limit restrictions under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("PPACA"). The new guidance addresses HRAs otherwise subject to the wavier requirement.
Caution: Not all HRAs are subject to the annual maximum limitation (e.g., HRAs that qualify as excepted benefits for purposes of HIPAA Portability requirements). If not subject to the limitation, there is no need to request a waiver from its application. In addition, some HRAs have been exempted from the annual maximum limitation by regulation (e.g., HRAs integrated with major medical plans that are subject to the annual maximum limitation). They also do not require a waiver. For additional information regarding HRAs, the application of the annual maximum limitation, and the need for waivers, please see our November 3, 2010 Client Alert on the topic, available here.
Under the new guidance, all HRAs established prior to September 23, 2010, which were otherwise subject to the annual maximum limitation, have been granted a waiver without the need to actually request the waiver. Theywill be treated as if they requested and received a waiver from the annual maximum limitation.
Caution: The new guidance does not provide an exemption from the annual limit restrictions. The exemption is only from the requirement to apply for a waiver from the annual limit restrictions.
In light of the guidance, there is no longer a need to determine whether an HRA is integrated or not integrated, retiree only, etc. for the purpose of requesting a waiver. HRAs established prior to September 23, 2010, which are otherwise subject to the annual maximum limitation,do not need to apply for a waiver or an extension of a previously granted waiver. They have been granted a waiver for all plan years beginning prior to January 1, 2014.
Note: However, the guidance makes clear that such HRAs must still comply with the record retention and annual notice requirements applicable to plans receiving the waivers. Those requirements are described in prior guidance available at the waiver website: http://cciio.cms.gov/programs/marketreforms/annuallimit/index.html.
Unfortunately, the new guidance leaves several key issues unresolved:
- For HRAs established prior to September 23, 2010, what happens in 2014? Will they then be fully subject to the annual limit restrictions? Will there be an exemption from the requirement itself?
- What about HRAs established on or after September 23, 2010? Because there is no ability to request or obtain a waiver from the annual limit restrictions, are "new" HRAs in violation? If you amend a plan that was in existence prior to September 23, 2010, to now provide HRA features, does the waiver apply?
- What about insurance policies designed to accomplish the same result as an HRA integrated with a major medical plan? They operate like integrated HRAs but are they covered by the guidance?
- What about self-insured medical expense reimbursement plans (a/k/a MERPs) designed to accomplish the same result as an HRA integrated with a major medical plan (i.e., pay expenses that but for the deductible or other cost sharing provisions would be paid under the major medical plan)? They operate like integrated HRAs but are they covered by the guidance?
Unless and until HHS or Congress provides an exemption from the annual limit restrictions themselves for all HRAs, these issues remain open.
Please contact us if you have any questions regarding HRAs and the annual limit restrictions or if you need assistance complying with the record retention and/or notice requirements for waiver recipients.
The information contained in this ALERT is intended for general information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice relative to a specific situation.


text:
Live Life to the Fullest
31 Superfood Secrets for a Long and Healthy Life
Grains and seeds
Getting more fiberspecifically by switching from refined bread and pasta to whole grainscan reduce your risk of death from any cause by 22%, according to a 2011 study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine.
Experts say that fiber can protect against diabetes, heart disease, some cancers, and obesity, and can reduce cholesterol, blood sugar, and blood pressure.
Next: Booze, in moderation
Get the latest health, fitness, anti-aging, and nutrition news, plus special offers, insights and updates from Health.com!


text:
When most of us think of making a backup of a computer file, it typically consists of taking all of your information on the hard drive and...
When most of us think of making a backup of a computer file, it typically consists of taking all of your information on the hard drive and making a copy of it onto some other kind of mass storage medium. Optical media — CDs and DVDs — can hold large amounts of data at a low cost. But you still need lots of these discs, given the large capacities of hard drives.
Flash drives are good for quick, minimal backups, but their capacities are relatively small and they're expensive.
So given the low cost of hard drives these days, many of us make our backups to another hard drive. The cost per megabyte used to make such backups prohibitive, but multigigabyte hard drives can be had for about a hundred bucks, so it's a viable alternative.
But there's one major problem with all of the above backup methods. When you're done, the backup you just made is usually where your computer is. So if your place burns down or your office is burglarized, there go your backups.
- Seattle fifth-graders will get their camp trip, but teachers refuse to go
- Designed in Seattle, this $1 cup could save millions of babies
- Five things to watch as Seahawks begin OTAs Monday
- Ivar's looks to sell, lease back two venerable restaurant sites
- What the national media are saying about Robinson Cano and the Mariners' hot start to the season
Most Read Stories
But there is another solution and it's really coming into its own now that broadband connections to the Internet are becoming commonplace. It's called online or off-site backup.
Seamless integration
Online backup lets you back up any or all of your data and safely stores it at a remote location. Typically, online backup works in the background or overnight when you're not using the computer. I recently discovered one that I really like because it does all of the above, but it does it by seamlessly integrating with your computer's operating system.
Carbonite.com (www.carbonite.com) is an automatic, online backup utility that installs on your Windows-based PC. The yearly fee of $49.95 gives you what the company calls unlimited backup storage.
After installation, Carbonite's online backup service automatically begins to back up all of your computer's data via your broadband Internet connection.
It has safety in mind because no one can see your data since your files are encrypted before they leave your computer.
I like how Carbonite works within Windows. The folders that are backed up have a small blue dot on the lower left corner. If a folder is not backed up but contains subfolders that are, a small gray dot appears in the same location.
Files work in a similar fashion. A small green dot means the files have been backed up; a yellow dot means it's awaiting backup; no dot means it's not backed up.
As you continue your normal computing day, Carbonite monitors what has been changed and updates your backups. Changing a file's backup status is quick and easy. Just right-click on a folder, for example, and you'll see a Carbonite sub-menu.
If it has a blue dot, the option will be to change its status to not being backed up. If no dot is there, you can add one. If a file has a yellow dot and you want to back it up immediately, there's an option that lets you do so at that moment.
Carbonite's really very simple and intuitive.
Background work
All of the backing up goes on in the background and never interferes or slows down your Internet connection. It does its thing only when you're not using the bandwidth it needs.
But whenever you add or modify files, Carbonite keeps track of everything and will make its backups automatically. It's always on.
Restoring data works much the same way. Right-click on the drive or folder to restore and select the options.
Carbonite works with the Windows platform; a Macintosh version is in the works.
If you're looking for a neat, safe, inexpensive, easy and secure method of backing up your computer, then check out the Carbonite Web site for a free 15-day trial.


text:
Skip to Content
Friday, February 01, 2013
Low vision means that even with regular glasses, contact lenses, medicine, or surgery, people find everyday tasks difficult to do. Reading the mail, shopping, cooking, and writing can seem challenging. The chief causes of vision loss in older people are age-related macular degeneration, diabetic retinopathy, cataract, and glaucoma. Among younger Americans, low vision is most often caused by inherited eye conditions, infectious and autoimmune eye disease, or trauma.
A 2012 report cosponsored by the National Institutes of Health estimates that 2.9 million Americans are living with low vision. The number is projected to increase 72 percent by 2030 when the last of the baby boomers turn 65. Most people with low vision are 65 years old or older.
Anyone with low vision is encouraged to seek guidance about vision rehabilitation from a low vision specialist. For many people, vision rehabilitation can improve daily living and overall quality of life.
A low vision specialist is an ophthalmologist or optometrist who specializes in the care of patients with low vision. A low vision specialist can develop a rehabilitation plan that identifies strategies and assistive devices appropriate for a person's particular needs, which vary depending on the person's age and the source and severity of vision loss. As described in the new NIH booklet and videos, vision rehabilitation services include:
"A vision rehabilitation plan helps people reach their true visual potential when nothing more can be done from a medical or surgical standpoint," said Mark Wilkinson, O.D., a low vision specialist at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics and a NEI National Eye Health Education Program (NEHEP) planning committee member. "Vision rehabilitation can make a world of difference to a person adjusting to vision loss and should be considered part of the continuum of care. I urge health professionals to help their patients with low vision seek vision rehabilitation services."
Statistics on low vision are taken from the report, 2012 Fifth Edition of Vision Problems in the U.S., available on the NEI website at http://www.nei.nih.gov/eyedata.
The new NEI booklet and videos along with other resources for people with low vision can be viewed and downloaded at http://www.nei.nih.gov/lowvision.
Copyright © 2015 The University of Iowa. All Rights Reserved.
Web Privacy Policy


text:
hello everyone, has anyone bought and had good luck with these china made steel bob type trailers i bought one based on amazon reviews so im not expecting much i can braze and mig-weld to correct anything if necessary. these are sold under various names
ebay: epicsellers = Aosom
ebay: mhcorp = HOMCOM
amazon: MH Union = frugah
aosom seems to be the main corp. name. 30 day return, 90 day warranty
attached is a stock pic.
Attachment 348706


text:
Nigella to grill ChurchDomestic Goddess Nigella Lawson is going to give Charlotte Church a grilling on her new daytime talk show.
The celebrity chef is launching 'Nigella' next week and is reportedly determined to squeeze some secrets out of the stunning pop babe.
The ITV1 show - which will combine the 45-year-old's love of food, cooking and chatting - will feature a star-studded list of Nigella's high profile celebrity friends being interviewed around her kitchen counter while she prepares the delicious dishes she is famous for.
Charlotte, whose pop single 'Crazy Chick' is set to storm the UK charts this weekend, will be one of the first guests to appear on the programme.
A source is quoted by Britain's Daily Star newspaper as saying: "I'm sure Charlotte will be expecting an easy ride when it comes to questions.
"But Nigella has such a relaxed approach that some gossip is bound to come out."
Have an question? Get it answered by AskMen's guyQ.


text:
Skip to content
The aim of this project is to improve the management of chronic conditions through informing policy and practice. As many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people with conditions such as end-stage renal disease need to be relocated in regional centres to undertake appropriate treatment, this primary care integration project provides support to patients in their new locations.
Initiated in May 2008, this partnership project was funded through the Council of Australian Governments' Australian better health initiative (ABHI) agreement to improve service integration. It involved the Department of Health and Ageing, Department of Health and Families, General Practice Network NT, AMSANT, Healthy Living NT and NT Consumers.
Abstract adapted from Department of Health and Families
Northern Territory Medicare Local offices:
Stuart House
5 Shepherd Street
Darwin NT 0800
PO Box 2562
Darwin NT 0801
Ph: (08) 8982 1000
Fax: (08) 8981 5899
Email: email@example.com
Alice Springs
Remote Health Precinct
5 Skinner Street
PO Box 1195
Alice Springs NT 0870
Ph: (08) 8950 4800
Fax: (08) 8952 3536
Email: email@example.com
Report broken link


text:
I'm 22 weeks pregnant and feeling uncomfortable... I've gained around 15 lbs thus far. Anyone else?
My normal clothes are starting not to fit anymore and my camis and stuff are tighter... I can feel my stomach stretching...
Posted: 02/08/2012 by a BabyCenter Member
Mom Answers
Sort by: best answers | most recent answers
1 - 2 of 2 answers
Sounds like it's time for some new clothes. I know some of the maternity clothes are not that appealing, so I've just been buying larger sizes in regular clothes. They are much more stylist, IMO, and a lot cheaper most of the time than trying to buy clothing from those specialty maternity stores that jack their prices way up. Good luck to you!posted 02/14/2012 by MochaJam
Oh, yeah, this is about when my clothes starting getting uncomfortable. As long as your doctor says your weight gain is okay, go with it and don't worry. Pregnancy is not the time to be dieting, that's for sure.posted 02/08/2012 by schnauzymomma
Answer this question


text:
Young British artist turned into dance artist
Young British artist Taylor-Wood is veritable volcano of activity. Aside from her film work and award winning photography she has also found time record songs with none other than the Pet Shop Boys, some of which has been released on legendary German label Kompakt.
Sam Taylor-Wood


text:
The ribbon and card are in an undisclosed location....the boy took off with them before I snapped the photo and I was too lazy to look for it.
The fabulously talented and sweet Lynn, sent me some Changitos, Stampendous Bees, and Riley images. And a gorgeous card, which again, has been kidnapped and being held for ransom.
The images at the top are from Michelle, a great stamper and friend. She sent Kettos, Gorjuss Girls, Magnolias, and all sorts of other images. I can't wait to get coloring!
Thanks to all of you for thinking about me, I am lucky to have such great blogging friends.


text:
Jan. 7, 1998
Lady Raiders Dominate Second Half to Beat Baylor 82-63
The Lady Raiders trailed Baylor for much of the first half Wednesday before going on a 10-2 run in the final 3:45 of the half and scored the first twelve points of the second half as they established a comfortable 17 point lead and went on to a 82-63 win.
Guards Melinda Schmucker and Katrisa O'Neal sparked the team by turning a pair of Bear turnovers into quick points in the middle of Tech's crucial first half spurt.
"I don't think that there's any question that (O'Neal) and Schmucker turned it around with intensity on defense," Coach Marsha Sharp said. "They shot through some passing lanes and made some layups."
Coach Sharp also got a key performance from her post players as Alicia Thompson, Angie Braziel, and Cara Gibbs combined for 51 points in the game. Thompson rang up her fifth double-double of the season scoring 22 points and grabbing 14 rebounds. Braziel and Gibbs scored 18 and 11 respectively.
"Our guards did a great job of finding our post players and the posts really attacked the basket when they got it inside," Sharp said.
Tech shot 74% from the field in the second half on their way to a season best 65% shooting.
The Lady Raiders improved their season record to 9-2 (2-0 in Big 12 play) and will travel to Austin to play Texas on Saturday.