[This is the third in a series of postings regarding the various proposals in the Patent Act of 2005.]
Duty of Candor in Front of the USPTO
The Code of Federal Regulations mandates that a patent is affected with a public interest and that this interest is best served when the USPTO is aware of and evaluates the teachings of all information material to patentability. Therefore, each individualassociated with the filing and prosecution of a patent application (including, but not limited to, the inventors and their attorneys) has a duty to disclose to the USPTO all information material to patentability. The penalty for failing to disclose a material reference is severe. No patent will be granted on an application where the duty of disclosure was violated through bad faith or intentional misconduct. Your attorney may also be subject to disciplinary proceedings. (Always a bad thing from our point of view!)
The proposed legislation is pro-patentee. Unless the withheld reference would result in a patent being unenforceable, then the patent remains valid. This should lessen the fear which results in patent prosecutors preparing kitchen sink disclosures which include lists of every patent they have ever laid eyes upon that might be deemed as possibly relevant to the application at hand. The whole process supports the legal fiction that the Patent Examiner has reviewed all the references cited in the disclosure and determined whether or not they affect patentability. This presumption then carries a higher burden to overturn during litigation.
But who really thinks that the Patent Examiners actually have time to review all those references and still get home before it is time to collect Social Security? Tailoring this duty will allow prosecutors the freedom to truly list those references that are actually relevant to the patent thus resulting in better communication between them and the USPTO and, hopefully, better examinations. If there is a downside to this proposal, it’s certainly not apparent.
[This is the second in a series of postings regarding the various proposals in the Patent Act of 2005.]
Assignee Filing
Currently, a patent application can only be filed in the United States in the name of the inventors. The Patent Act of 2005 would amend the law to allow the assignee of the invention to file as well. This proposal, one of the few non-controversial provisions of the Act, is clearly pro-business: Nobody seems to dispute the legality of filing a patent application in the corporations name rather than the inventors’ names. As far as it goes, this will reduce the time spent chasing down signatures from the various inventors. It will also reduce those pesky Missing Parts notices and the penalty fees associated therewith.
Best Mode Repeal and Publication of Applications after Eighteen (18) Months
Currently, a patent application requires a tangled WEB (Written description, Enablement, and Best mode). It is this disclosure of the invention which is the quid pro quo for the limited exclusivity provided by the patent. (The best mode requirement was codified around 1870 so it was not part of the original quid pro quo designed by the Founding Fathers).
This pro-patentee proposal seeks to remove the best mode requirement. Proponents of this change state that this will have the effect of eliminating a subjective element in patent litigation, thereby reducing litigation costs, and increasing the predictability of litigation. Others argue that this will allow patent holders to maintain trade secrets in addition to obtaining patent protection. The proposal is also directed toward greater international harmonization since few other countries require this type of disclosure.
Interestingly enough, the same groups against this change are also arguing against the publication of all patent applications after eighteen (18) months. But, when taken together, both of these provisions actually complement each other. Yes, one loses the possibility of trade secret protection after eighteen (18) months but they retain the ability to protect some trade secrets by not having to disclose their best mode anymore. Furthermore, publication of all patent applications will increase the availability of prior art to allow potential patent applicants more data from which to determine whether their current project may or may not be patentable.
The lines have been drawn in the sand regarding the Patent Reform Act of 2005 (HR 2795). Most recently, testimony was given (Legislative Hearing on “The Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 2795, the ‘Patent Act of 2005’ ” (September 15, 2005) before the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property representing widely divergent interests including, among others, the software industry, pharmaceutical companies, biotech start-ups, and independent inventors.
By and large, the provisions are directed toward three issues existing in patent law today: 1) patent quality; 2) international harmonization; and 3) unwarranted or abusive patent litigation. (Senator Orrin Hatch: Remarks to Generic Pharmaceutical Association (Sept. 20, 2005)). Some of the provisions benefit patent holders while others benefit those defending themselves from patent infringement lawsuits.
This series will include postings regarding the various proposals in the Patent Act of 2005 including the 1) First-Inventor-to-File; 2) Assignee Filing; 3) Best Mode Requirement Repeal & Publication of Applications after 18 Months; 4) Duty of Candor in Front of the USPTO; 5) Willful Infringement; 6) Repeal of §271(f) for Software; 7) Apportionment of Damages for Infringement in the Case of a Combination; 8) Injunctions; 9) Continuation Applications; 10) Inter Partes Reexamination; 11) Prior User Rights; 12) Post-Grant Opposition Proceeding in the USPTO; 13)Submissions by Third Parties; and 14) Venue.
Since the Patent Act of 2005 was not [a] front burner issue (Senator Orrin Hatch: Remarks to Generic Pharmaceutical Association (Sept. 20, 2005)) as the first session of the 109th Congress came to an end this fall, there is plenty of time to contact your representatives and let them know what you think of these provisions.
First-Inventor-to-File
The United States is currently a first-to-invent system but this legislation would change it to a first-to-file system. This proposal serves Senator Orrin Hatch’s objective of international harmonization. If passed, the legislation would align the United States with the rest of the patent world by granting a patent to the first person to seal an application in an Express Mail envelope and have it stamped by a U.S. postal worker.
The current system allows a later filer to prove to the USPTO that they actually invented their claimed subject matter before the earlier filer. If they succeed, the later filer may receive the patent grant.
This change has those representing the independent inventors howling that this is clearly a pro-business stab into the heart and soul of United States patent law. No longer will the solitary inventor, toiling away in his garage lab by candlelight receive the recognition he so richly deserves! They fear that well-heeled businesses will too easily nab patent rights away from the true inventor. (35 U.S.C. 102(f) actually prevents the awarding of a patent to a quick filer that did not invent the subject matter so don’t throw away those lab notebooks yet!) Their fears have served as a rallying point to amass support to defeat similar proposals in the past.
This rhetoric clouds the issue but there is an easy solution to their fears: the provisional patent application. For a nominal fee, this trick buys an inventor a place in line and an extra year to fully develop their patent application. No claims are required at this point – only a written, enabling description of the invention and the best mode known of practicing the invention (as of the provisional filing). (35 U.S.C. Section 112).
Many inventors delay filing their patent applications (both independent inventors and those who work for corporations) because of the misconception that the USPTO requires a perfected, working embodiment before they can file for a patent (provisional or non-provisional). Not so! It may require years to make a marketable product out of an invention. If you can describe what your invention is, how someone else can create it, and the best way known of practicing it (even if you have never actually created the final product), then a valid provisional patent application may be submitted. As inventors make further developments, additional provisional applications may be filed (up to the one year time limit).
The proposed legislation is not really against the independent inventor. (Besides, only 15-20% of the claims that an earlier inventor, who did not file their patent application first, should receive a patent succeed.) Mostly, it is aimed at encouraging early filing of patent applications (which merely comports with the spirit of United States patent law to encourage early disclosure in exchange for a short-term monopoly). As far as the United States is concerned, it gives a nod to the rest of the world that the United States doesn’t always insist on things being done their way.
Blawg Review #42, is up at Cyberlaw Central bringing the answer to life, the universe and everything! In his memory, the theme for Blawg Review #42 revolves around the most famous work of Douglas Adams [1952-2001].
Don’t miss David Maister’s post at Passion, People and Principles. In his recent post entitled Warlords and Dickensian Factory Owners, he looks at the practice of law noting:
“Why do law firms find it so hard to understand that a feudal warlord system forcing everyone to work harder is not the height of mankind’s achievement in civilization? I have spent twenty years trying to say all professions look similar and can learn from each other, but I’m finally prepared to concede that lawyers are different – and it has nothing to do with economics.”
The Federal Circuit recently addressed the issue of collateral estoppel in a jury’s determination of a reasonable royalty where two infringing products were sold at different times, thus making the hypothetical royalty negotiations different.
In Applied Medical Resources Corporation v. United States Surgical Corporation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (05-1149, Jan. 24, 2006) upheld a $64.5 million award stating that collateral estoppel doesn’t apply in setting the reasonable royalty rate in a judgment of willful infringement.
United States Surgical Corporation (“U.S. Surgical”) tried to appeal an earlier District Court decision finding U.S. Surgical willfully infringed U.S. Patent 5,385,553 of Applied Medical Resources Corporation (“Applied”), awarding damages, enhanced damages, attorney fees, and prejudgment interest of $64.5 million.
The ’553 patent relates to surgical devices called trocars, which are used as access ports into the abdomen during laparoscopic surgery. Laparoscopic surgery is performed by inflating the abdomen and inserting instruments through trocars. It is important for the trocar to maintain a seal with the instrument; otherwise, the insufflation gas used to inflate the abdomen would leak and potentially cause serious complications.
Early trocars did not accommodate instruments of different diameters. For example, inserting a relatively small instrument through a large seal would produce a gap between the instrument and the seal, allowing the insufflation gas to leak out from the abdomen. The invention of the ’553 patent eliminates the need for adapters, describing a trocar which maintains a seal around instruments of various sizes, using a “floating seal.”
Specifically, claim 3 recites a trocar whose seal includes excess material at its outer portions, which permits the seal orifice to move without allowing gas to leak. Claim 4, which depends from claim 3, further requires that the excess material be configured in a bellows shape.
Earlier, a District Court found that U.S. Surgical’s sale of its original Versaport trocars infringed the ’553 patent, as well as two other Applied patents. In 1997, a jury found that U.S. Surgical willfully infringed claims 4 and 18 of the ’553 patent as well as two other Applied patents, and awarded damages in the form of a 7% reasonable royalty.
Before trial in the present case, U.S. Surgical moved to establish as a matter of law that the reasonable royalty for infringing sales of new, improved version of the trocar now found to infringe was 7%, arguing that the reasonable royalty established in earlier case for infringing sales of first design was binding under principles of collateral estoppel. The District Court denied the motion saying that the jury would make “its own ‘independent’ determination of the reasonable royalty rate in 1997.”
The Federal Circuit then held that:
We agree with Applied that the district court properly denied collateral estoppel effect to the 7% reasonable royalty rate found by the jury in Applied I. “Under collateral estoppel, once a court has decided an issue of fact or law necessary to its judgment, that decision may preclude relitigation of the issue in a suit on a different cause of action involving a party to the first case.”
Collateral estoppel is appropriate only if: (1) the issue to be decided is identical to one decided in the first action; (2) the issue was actually litigated in the first action; (3) resolution of the issue was essential to a final judgment in the first action; and (4) the parties had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first action. Here, collateral estoppel is not appropriate because the necessary reasonable royalty determination in Applied II is not identical to that decided in Applied I.
…
When an established royalty does not exist, a court may determine a reasonable royalty based on “hypothetical negotiations between willing licensor and willing licensee.” Fromson, 853 F.2d at 1574. We have held that a reasonable royalty determination for purposes of making a damages evaluation must relate to the time infringement occurred.
…
Consistent with our precedent, reasonable royalty damages are not calculated in a vacuum without consideration of the infringement being redressed. Id. We are required to identify the infringement requiring compensation, and evaluate damages based on a hypothetical negotiation at the time that infringement began, not an earlier one. Id. Here, the issue of reasonable royalty damages in Applied II is not identical to the issue of reasonable royalty damages in Applied I because the infringements requiring compensation began at separate and distinct times.
…
Because the determination of reasonable royalty damages is tied to the infringement being redressed, a separate infringement beginning at a different time requires a separate evaluation of reasonable royalty damages. To argue otherwise, U.S. Surgical would have to concede that it has willfully violated the permanent injunction in Applied I.
When properly maintained, a laboratory notebook is important in establishing a permanent record that can be referred to in the future to prove what was done during the course of research. When improperly kept, it may fail to prove what was conceived or invented, and it may fail to fix important critical dates.
Laboratory notebooks often play an important role during the patent prosecution process and even after a patent has issued. A properly kept notebook is invaluable in cases in which another party claims a patent to be invalid or in interference cases in which two or more patents have been issued on the same invention and the true inventor must be ascertained. As shown in the Stern v. Columbia University case, having a properly witnessed notebook can make all the difference in whether you have a case at all.
An inventor may be asked to document the chronology of events from the first concept through reduction to practice. All ideas, experimental designs, data and interpretations should be recorded in ink in bound notebooks and the notebooks kept in a secure place. Any potential for broad application of an experimental result should be recorded at the end of an experiment. Each page of the notebook should be signed by the inventor and by a witness who understands the work, but who has not made an inventive contribution.
Key points to remember:
To show conception of an invention, disclosure of a complete and operative method or means to accomplish a particular purpose or result.
Do not erase any part of an entry – draw a line throughout the material to be deleted. Initial and date any corrections. Do not change drawings in the notebook – make new ones. Make entries in ink to avoid any suspicion of alteration. Do not leave empty spaces – if you skip a page or part of a page, draw a cross-diagonal line throughout the blank portion.
Any entry which relates to a possibly patentable invention should be signed and dated by 2 witnesses – with their signatures under the caption “disclosed to and understood by.”
Sign and date every page as completed. Separate sheets and photographs affixed to pages should be referred to in an entry. Use pages in consecutive order. Entries should be in chronological order. Keep your notebook intact. Do not tear out pages or remove affixed material.
To show reduction to practice of an invention, an entry should describe the purpose of an experiment or test, the method or means chosen to perform it, and the results obtained from the performance – both favorable and unfavorable.
Sign and date affixed material such that the signature is partially on the laboratory notebook page and partially on the affixed material that cannot be entered directly.
Witnesses who have observed and understood the performance of an experiment or test should sign their signatures under the caption “performance observed and understood by.”
Joint work should be signed by all the contributors. The text should set forth who is responsible for each part.
Other key things to remember:
Because computer programs can be patented these instructions apply to be development of computer software. In this case a description of the structure and operation of the program should be recorded in the notebook, together with a basic flow diagram which illustrates the essential features of the program. In the course of developing the code, the number of lines of code written each day should be recorded in the notebook, together with a statement of the portion of the flow diagram to which the section of code is directed. Also all print out of compilations and test runs should be included.
Your primary guiding principle in the laboratory should be to maintain your notebook so carefully and completely that, at some later time, you or any other scientist could repeat any experiment or operation using only your lab notebook as a resource.
In Fredric A. Stern v. Columbia University and Laszlo Z. Bito, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (05-1291) affirmed a District Court motion for summary judgment that Stern failed to present sufficient evidence to be added as co-inventor of U.S. Patent No. 4,599,353 (“the ’353 patent”), a patent owned by Columbia University.
The’353 patent is directed towards the use of prostaglandins in treating glaucoma and names Lazlo Bito, a faculty member at Columbia University, the inventor of the patent. In 1980, while Stern was a medical student at Columbia University, he approached Bito about doing a one semester ophthalmology research elective in his laboratory. Bito agreed and directed Stern to begin his project by reviewing Bito’s papers on prostaglandins and intraocular pressure (“IOP”).
Bito had published numerous papers on the effects of prostaglandins on the IOP in various animals and had concluded that rhesus monkeys would be good subjects for further studies on the effects of prostaglandins on IOP. Experiments Stern conducted while working in Bito’s laboratory showed that topical application of a single dose of prostaglandin reduced IOP in rhesus monkeys and cats. Stern’s experiments did not prove whether tachyphylaxis would develop in primates, the absence of which is required for successful glaucoma treatment. After Stern’s departure from Columbia, Bito conceived the ’353 patent while studying the effects of repeated prostaglandin application on the IOP in rhesus monkeys. Bito applied for the patent in 1982 and, in 1986, it was issued.
Claim 1 states:
[a] method for treating hypertension or glaucoma in a primate subject’s eye comprising periodically contacting the surface of the eye with an amount of an eicosanoid or an eicosanoid derivative effective to reduce intraocular pressure in the eye without any substantial initial increase in said pressure and to maintain reduced intraocular pressure.
Stern then sued to be added to the patent as a co-inventor of the patent’s independent claim one and dependent claims 3, 5, and 9 through 12. Stern also asserted state law claims for fraudulent concealment, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.
In determining inventorship, the trial court first construed the claims of the ’353 patent. The only disputed phrase was the meaning of “to maintain reduced intraocular pressure” in claim 1. The trial court found that Columbia’s proposed construction of the phrase to mean “maintenance of reduced intraocular pressure throughout the course of treatment without development of tachyphylaxis, i.e., throughout the period of time that the claimed method is being used to treat glaucoma” was correct. Using that construction, the trial court determined that Stern failed to present clear and convincing evidence of inventorship, as required to be added as a co-inventor to a published patent. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Aradigm Corp., 376 F.3d 1352, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Accordingly, the trial court granted Columbia’s motion for summary judgment. Because the state law claims for fraudulent concealment, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment depended on the addition of Stern as a co-inventor of the ’353 patent, the trial court also granted summary judgment to Columbia on those claims.
The Court found that:
Because “[c]onception is the touchstone of inventorship,” each joint inventor must generally contribute to the conception of the invention. Burroughs Wellcome Co. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 40 F.3d 1223, 1227-28 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Additionally, courts require corroborating evidence of conception. Id. at 1228. However, contribution to one claim is sufficient to be a co-inventor. Ethicon, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 135 F.3d 1456, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Conception is defined as “the ‘formation in the mind of the inventor, of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention, as it is hereafter to be applied in practice.’” Hybritech Inc. v. Monoclonal Antibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). Conception is complete when “the idea is so clearly defined in the inventor’s mind that only ordinary skill would be necessary to reduce the invention to practice, without extensive research or experimentation.” Burroughs Wellcome, 40 F.3d at 1228.
Stern did not have an understanding of the claimed invention, did not discover that prostaglandins have an effect on IOP, did not discover that repetitive application of prostaglandins to the eyes of primates can maintain reduced IOP, and did not conceive of the idea of the use of prostaglandins to reduce IOP in primates. Furthermore, there was no collaboration between Stern and Bito in developing a glaucoma treatment. Stern simply carried out an experiment previously done by Bito on different animals—animals that Bito had already determined would be good models for prostaglandins research. Stern’s contribution is insufficient to support a claim of co-inventorship.
While Stern argued that material in his laboratory notebooks would have proved his claim of co-inventorship, but that they were destroyed by Bito, the Court noted this wouldn’t have saved him noting that:
“…regardless of the contents of the notebooks, unwitnessed laboratory notebooks on their own are insufficient to support his claim of co-inventorship. See Hybritech, 802 F.3d at 1378. Thus, the evidence Stern presented was insufficient to corroborate his claim of co-inventorship.”
Well, here it is. The 120th Edition of Carnival of the Capitalists. Our hat tip to Jay Solo for letting the Baristas host this week. We have to admit, this was a very difficult task given the lack of sunlight around the Midwest in January – hence, our dire need for coffee. We’d rather just stay in and watch movies instead.
We tried to include most posts but not everyone made the cut-off. No offense is meant here to anyone and we’ll be happy to refund your full price of admission. Try as we might, our attempts to label, rank, sort or otherwise filter the posts just seem to fall flat. We tried to group the posts based on some loosely-affiliating, thematic elements but even that turned out to be lame. I hope you can enjoy this as it is.
We must first note that the opinions expressed herein are those of the bloggers cited and are not presented as those of anyone associated with Patent Baristas, nor are they endorsed by this site or its affiliates. We hereby legally disclaim any and all responsibility, warranties and representations, whether expressed or implied. Nothing herein is to be mistaken for business, investment or legal advice. Be careful out there.
So, without further ado, grab a stiff cup o’ joe, sit back and enjoy some Capitalistic fun while the Baristas go to the movies:
The Color of Money
37Singnals points out that meetings are harmful to your health. A study shows that the amount and length of meetings correlate with negative effects (burnout, anxiety, and depression) on participants.
Jack Yoest at Yoest.org ponders the first two actions a new (Female) manager must take? According to the former head of the Office of Personnel Management, she should fire someone and cut someone’s budget. Apparently, in order to strike terror in all the underlings.
Neelakantan at interim thoughts… notes that in a corporate setting, everybody has to “Justify Their Existence” (or JTE to you) for the salary they receive. Do some survive only by default?
Mover Mike draws our attention to the implication that the opening of the bourse where oil will be traded in Euros is a very serious threat to the USD as a reserve currency and, by implication, brings a threat of war.
Free Money Finance, a blog dedicated to a free and simple discussion on money and finance, offers some guiding principles to having a successful– and widely read– blog. Step One is “Pick the Right Topic.” What’s the right topic for your blog? Find the answer here. On another note, a quick scan of the blog reveals a site packed with useful information — Must-Know IRA Terms, 8 Common Household Hazards, and The Hidden Costs of Homeownership. A good site to visit often.
A recent post at Marketing Monger reminds us that the “norm” in business and marketing is not necessarily scripture. The post offers that sports teams that think outside the box can be a good source of inspiration, offering as an example the Oakland A’s in the book Moneyball. Pointing to successes in sports achieved by changing the status quo (for example, basketball teams who win by focusing on three-point shots and a strong defense), this post at Marketing Monger posits that some of the best successes come from challenging conventional methods.
Different River offers a commentary blog on economics, politics, history, law, science, medicine, technology, religion, mathematics, and “some other things”. A Ph.D. in economics, the author questions the logic of Whole Foods’ recent advertising campaign. The ad goes something like this: “We might possibly use wind energy sometime in the future, so since you’re an environmentally-enlightened customer, drive past three or four other stores to shop with us.” We’re paraphrasing, of course. An interesting comment on an interesting ad campaign nonetheless.
Looking for a little discourse on politics, current events, or trivia related to Akron, Ohio? Look no more. At The Boring Made Dull, your hosts will deliver. The latest post tackles eminent domain, Kelo and the Lost Liberty Hotel — a possible development that could take the home of Justice Souter by, no coincidence, eminent domain.
Bruce MacEwen, host of Adam Smith, Esq. explores the economics of law firms. In “Your Money or Your Reputation,” MacEwen cites Adam Smith, Esq., an 18th century economist, as the source of sound business advise. The author highlights a few essentials: obtain your client’s trust, use praise and status as motivational tools, and don’t forget about the importance of a good reputation. Good advice, indeed.–
Douglas Sorocco over at Rethink(IP) lays out his final installment of a six part series on the 6 Life Stages of Inventors written by Dr. Bill Meade, the former director of IP for HP.
Matt Homann at the [non]billable hour asks: “Will All Our Future Clients be Stupider?” According to a study funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts, more than half to students at four-year colleges – and at least 75 percent at two-year colleges – lack the literacy to handle real-life tasks such as understanding credit card offers.
Marketplace Monitor looks at the role of unemployment in civilization showing that if you see unemployment (and the market is left free to function) it shows that the ability for labor to shift from low demanded production to high is still possible. It still sucks being unemployed, though.
The Worker Bees blog is dedicated to helping small business, arts and other non-profit organization leverage the online world. In the post “Customer Service Lost & Found” the author points out that inconveniencing the customer can be fatal where the service isn’t necessary.
Escape from Cubicle Nation offers up advice for those interested in becoming an entrepreneur. A recent post gives greater meaning to the term “targetmarket.” The advice aims to help you find the people your business is meant to serve.
Evelyn Rodriguez at Crossroads Dispatches wanted to do an innovation post on global fusion this week. But after reading Paul Graham’s new essay, “How to Do What You Love”, she decided that addressing the “doing what you love” theme was an all-important business topic. Even if you don’t care, your employees may be plotting their escape right now.
Paul Kedrosky’s Infectious Greed writes about the Venture Capital mood this week. It looks like while some geographies are seeing oodles of deal flow (even if much of it is whimsical and suspect), many areas are seeing virtually nothing, especially in information technology, the former stalwart of venture investing. Kedrosky notes that if you don’t see the deals you want, then originate more deals.
For a Few Dollars More
In this installment of Sitting Pretty, Nina Smith shares her temptation to buy a franchise, cut short by an accidental meeting with an article in a Fortune magazine. In a well-written post, Smith pulls highlights from the Fortune article, adding her own commentary and perspective.
The TaxUpdate blog has a clever and interesting post about the taxes Ben Franklin would be paying if he were alive today, pointing out that even though Franklin did a lot of stuff harder than taxes, if alive today he would no doubt be appalled at the diversion from inventions and civic work created by filing taxes.
Jim Glass at Scrivener points out the paradox of how a tax credit can increase the cost of hybrid cars. Millions of people won’t be able to use it because they will be subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) … while the rest will find sellers raise prices to take part of the credit for themselves … meaning for most people the credit will be worth less than it appears — while for those subject to the AMT the credit will make hybrids *more* expensive than they would have been without the credit. Nice.
The Big Picture offers a macro perspective on capital markets, economy and geopolitics. The latest installment looks at the pitfalls of the single variable analysis. While I took statistics in graduate school, this still makes my vision blur.
Rob, self-proclaimed business junkie at BusinessPundit, talks a bit about ethics. In this post, the author considers two very different approaches to making ethical business decisions: ends-focused and means-focused.
Also note that the Carnival of the Capitalists has launched a new project called Jotzel. It’s a daily version of the CotC, in which you can submit posts and then vote on what gets published. Each week, any CotC entry that was submitted to Jotzel and scored high enough to make it to the front page will be flagged so that readers will know that many other readers found it to be an excellent post. This will help those of you that only have time to read a handful of posts each week, and want the best of the best. You can read more about Jotzel here, or check out the FAQ.
Million Dollar Baby
And finally, this weeks’ post represents the debut of our newest Barista, Nicole Tepe. Barista Nicole is an associate with Frost Brown Todd LLC, practicing in the area of intellectual property law, with an emphasis on the prosecution of biotechnological patents. She has a Ph.D. in Pharmacology and Cell Biophysics. A big thank you goes out to Nicole for tolerating her intro to blogging by being thrown head-first into the Carnival of the Capitalists.
That’s it for this week. Thanks for dropping by and visiting our place. We’ll meet at your place next time. Carnival of the Capitalists has information about next week’s host, and instructions how to get your blog posts reviewed in upcoming issues.
Editor-in-Chief Barista Stephen Jenei is a patent attorney and Owner of Jenei LLC. When not serving up patent chat over a steaming cup of java, he's handling a diverse intellectual property practice in the biotechnology, pharmaceutical and chemical fields. More info @ Jenei LLC
Well, here it is. The 120th Edition of Carnival of the Capitalists. Our hat tip to Jay Solo for letting the 
And finally, this weeks’ post represents the debut of our newest Barista, Nicole Tepe. Barista Nicole is an associate with 