text:
What is AI Match Machines?
AI Match Machine is a progressive artificial intelligence cryptocurrency builder.
We use an extraordinary PIF, pay it forward, strategy to amass massive amounts of primarily Bitcoin and other Altcoiins.
There are three components to our progressive AI system:
1. Instant Payouts – receive instant payouts direct to your wallet of choice.
2. PIF – we utilize a robust PIF'inn or Pay It Forward system to catapult your success (we recommend PIF'ing your first 4 or more immediately at a small cost that you get right back plus, profit and AI advancement to the next higher paying Tier for even more Instant Payouts).
3. Finally, and most important of all, our system intelligently tracks and pays all who PIF, a matching bonus that can set you financially free (we recommend you PIF 4 or more).
Here's a quick example:
You PIF four. Your total outlay is $20.
This action completely fills your Tier 1 (you get the $20 right back so, you spent $0 or nothing to PIF four).
The $20 is used to buy you into Tier 2 where you cash out $30 (more than your PIF seed), and more importantly, it buys you an entry into Tier 3.
Tier 3 is Paid As You Go – 8 payments of $25 totalling $200. Plus, you earn a $200 entry into Tier 4.
Tier 4 is Paid As You Go – 16 payments of $75 totalling $1200. Plus, you earn a $2000 entry into the final Tier, Tier 5.
Tier 5 is Paid As You Go – 32 payments of $1250 totalling a whopping $40,000. Plus, we pay your way back in with $2000 for another Tier 5 entry (over and over again and again).
So, why do we call it Matching Machines and why use the PIF automation strategy?
You earn a matching bonus on Tier 5 for every PIF'ed or referred member.
PIF 4 – you earn over $120,000+ (your earnings and PIF matching bonus). Over and over.
PIF or refer 10 – you earn over $240,000+. Again and again.
Our AI automation handles all tracking, placements, payouts, everything.
Tier 1 (4×1) – $5 entry – payout = $0 (cycle out)
Tier 2 (4×1) – $20 entry (from profits) – payout = $30 (cycle out)
Tier 3 (8×1) – entry (from profits) – payout = $200
Tier 4 (16×1) – entry (from profits) – payout = $1200
Tier 5 (32×1) – entry (from profits) – payout = $40,000
Spillover? Yes. But, there's a better way with AI. Here's how it works:
Spillover does not work in the same way as a conventional matrix where sponsor referrals are placed on other levels if their current level is full. For instance, in a conventional matrix if the sponsor level 1 was full then the next referral would be placed on level 2.
In the AI Match Machines matrices, this does not happen because each matrix has only 1 level or Tier in our case.
What does happen is when a sponsors level 1 is full their next referrals are placed under their existing referrals in the matrix filling their matrix and moving them up to the next level under the sponsor.
Example: Referrals 4 and 5 would be placed under referral 1, referrals 6 and 7 would be placed under referral 2 and so on.
We know many people think they cannot refer other members but, AI Match Machines is different because, for a seed of ONLY $5, and our AI PIF automation, you have potential earnings of $120,000+ again and again, forever.
All you need to to do is to send an email to your contacts, post banners and links on traffic exchanges, facebook, twitter etc and the system sells itself, once you start your network will grow exponentially.
Sign Up HERE It's FREE To Sign Up And Take A Look Around!
Do not make any investment decisions based on this post. This post is offered as opinion and for informational purposes only. It is not a recommendation to buy or sell any financial instrument. I do not provide investment advice. I am not a registered investment adviser and thus cannot make any recommendations about making any currency or crypto-currency trades, etc. et al. Please use your own research, judgement and risk capital. And as with all online opportunities do not invest capital you can't afford to lose!


text:
- Case law home
- CJEU Huawei v ZTE
- German court decisions
- OLG Düsseldorf –
- OLG Düsseldorf – I-2 U 23/17
- Sisvel v Haier – I-15 U 66/15
- Sisvel v Haier – 15 U 65/15
- Canon v Carsten Weser – I-15 U 49/15
- Sisvel v Haier – I-15 U 66/15
- Canon v Sieg/Kmp Printtechnik/Part Depot – I-15 U 47/15
- Saint Lawrence v Vodafone – I-15 U 36/16
- Saint Lawrence v Vodafone – I-15 U 35/16
- OLG Düsseldorf – I-2 U 31/16
- OLG Düsseldorf – I-2 W 8/18
- Unwired Planet v Huawei, Higher District Court (Oberlandesgericht) of Düsseldorf – I-2 U 31/16
- Tagivan (MPEG-LA) v Huawei, District Court (Landgericht) of Düsseldorf – 4a O 17/15
- OLG Karlsruhe –
- LG Düsseldorf –
- Sisvel v Haier – 4a O 93/14
- Sisvel v Haier – 4a O 144/14
- Saint Lawrence v Vodafone – 4a O 73/14
- Unwired Planet v Samsung – 4b O 120/14
- Saint Lawrence v Vodafone – 4a O 126/14
- France Brevets v HTC, LG Düsseldorf – 4b O 140/13
- District Court, LG Düsseldorf – 4c O 81/17
- Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft (MPEG-LA) v ZTE. – Case-No. 4a O 15/15
- LG Mannheim –
- OLG Düsseldorf –
- Italian court decisions
- English court decisions
- TQ Delta LLC v Zyxel Communications and Ors., EWHC – HP-2017-000045, [2018] EWHC 1515 (Ch)
- Apple v Qualcomm, [2018] EWHC 1188 (Pat) – HP-2017-000015
- TQ Delta LLC v Zyxel Communications, [2017] EWHC 3305 (Pat) – HP-2017-000045
- Unwired Planet v Huawei, [2017] EWHC 711 (Pat) – HP-2014-000005
- Unwired Planet v Huawei, [2017] EWHC 1304 (Pat) – HP-2014-000005
- Unwired Planet v Huawei, EWHC – HP-2014-000005
- VRINGO Infrastructure v ZTE, [2015] EWHC 214 (Pat) – HC 2012 000076, HC 2012 000022
- Unwired Planet v Huawei, [2017] EWHC 711 (Pat) – HP-2014-000005
- Conversant v Huawei and ZTE, [2018] EWHC 808 (Pat) – HP-2017-000048
- Unwired Planet v Huawei, UK Court of Appeal – A3/2017/1784, [2018] EWCA Civ 2344
- TQ Delta LLC v Zyxel Communications UK Ltd. and Ors., UK High Court of Justice – HP-2017-000045, [2018] EWHC 2577 (Pat)
- TQ Delta v Zyxel Communications, UK High Court of Justice – HP-2017-000045 - [2019] EWHC 745 (Pat)
- English/Irish court decisions
- Romanian court decisions
- French court decisions
- Dutch court decisions
- Archos v. Philips, Rechtbank Den Haag – C/09/505587 / HA ZA 16-206 (ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2017:1025)
- Koninklijke Philips N.V. v Asustek Computers INC., Court of Appeal of The Hague – 200.221.250/01
- Philips v Wiko, Court of Appeal of The Hague – C/09/511922/HA ZA 16-623
- Sisvel v Xiaomi, Court of The Hague – C/09/573969/ KG ZA 19-462
- Sisvel v Sun Cupid, District Court of The Hague – C/09/582418 HA ZA 19-1123
- Sisvel v Xiaomi, Court of Appeal of The Hague – C/09/573969/ KG ZA 19-462
- National Courts Guidance
- Authors & contributors
National Courts Guidance
Negotiating Licenses for Essential Patents in Europe
Increased clarity provided on the principles established by the Court of Justice of the European Union in Huawei v ZTE.
The Court of Justice of the European Union clarified, in Huawei v ZTE (Case No. C-170/13), European law relating to the availability of injunctive relief for infringements of FRAND-based standard essential patents. In doing so, the Court provided a legal framework focused on the good faith conduct to be expected of both parties. Since the Court's decision in 2015, national courts have been steadily exploring the scope of these obligations, providing further clarity on what is or is not to be considered appropriate behaviour. Below is a summary of these steps drawn from 4iP Council's post-Huawei v ZTE case search tool.
This information is not intended as legal advice and, in the event of dispute, independent advice should be sought. In addition, the precedential nature of these decisions depends on the jurisdiction and instance in which they were delivered.
Huawei v ZTE process
As of December 2019
Case reference
Step 1
Notification of infringement
SEP holder's notification of infringement does not have to contain either the original written FRAND declaration, nor proof that a FRAND declaration has been made during the development of the standard, provided that SEP holder leaves no doubt that it is bound by a FRAND licensing commitment.
SEP holder's notification of infringement has to (1) specify the infringed patent, including its number, (2) inform that the patent has been declared standard-essential, (3) name the relevant standard, (4) inform that the implementer uses patent's teachings as well as (5) indicate which technical functionality of the challenged embodiment makes use of the patent. The level of detail depends on the specific circumstances of the case, particularly the technological knowledge of the implementer (or the availability of external expertise gained by reasonable efforts). However, the information does not need to be as substantiated as facts submitted with a statement of claim in patent litigation. As a rule, reference to claim charts succes.
SEP holder's notification of infringement has to take place before an action is filed, at the latest, prior to the advance payment on costs by the SEP holder. The notification must indicate, at least, (1) the number of the patent, (2) the contested embodiments and (3) the alleged acts of use performed by the implementer. The court did not rule on whether additional information, such as an interpretation of the patent claims or information regarding the part of the standard the patent reads, are also required. SEP holder is not obliged to notify the patent infringement to third parties (for instance to suppliers of the implementer), unless third parties submit a request for a license on FRAND terms to the SEP holder.
The notification of infringement can be made by the SEP holder itself, or by any other affiliated company within the same group of companies, especially by the patent holder's parent company. In general, it is sufficient to address the notification to the parent company of the (alleged) infringer. The notification must name the patent in suit (including the patent number) and indicate the contested embodiments as well as the (allegedly) infringing acts of use. A detailed (technical and/or legal) explanation of the infringement is not required. The SEP user is also not required to inform about the essentiality of the patent to the standard and/or attach claim charts to the notification. The notification can be made alongside with SEP holder's offer for a FRAND licence to the SEP user (prior to the initiation of court proceedings).
SEP holder's obligation to notify the implementer of the infringing use of its SEP is also met, when the respective notification is addressed to the parent company of the (alleged) infringer.
A notification of infringement addressed to the parent company within a group of companies is, as a rule, sufficient, especially if the parent company handles licensing affairs at group level.
SEP holder's notification of infringement has to contain the following information: (1) an overview, including each SEP and its filing date, (2) the parts of the standard implementing the respective patented technology, (4) an indication of the devices embodying such use (4) an indication of the consequences of acts of unauthorized use as well as (5) information to the recipient about its option to contest both the communicated information and the validity of the patents at issue.
A notification of infringement towards the parent company of the implementer does not meet the Huawei requirements, if the SEP holder brings an action only against the implementer.
The notification of infringement is a mandatory condition which the SEP holder must satisfy before initiating infringement proceedings against an implementer. The precise content of such a notification depends upon all circumstances of the particular case. In general, if an implementer is familiar with the technical details and the SEPs it may be infringing, but has no intention of taking a FRAND licence, the SEP holder should not be denied an injunction, simply because it had not made a formal notification prior to the initiation of infringement proceedings.
By providing information about (1) a number of patents that are (allegedly) infringed and (2) the relevant standards, (3) naming a number of the products (allegedly) infringing the patents in question, and (3) declaring its willingness to offer a licence on FRAND terms, the patent holder fulfills its notification obligation under the Huawei framework.
Claim charts
Presenting claim charts to the implementer, which according to commercial practice are also used in licensing negotiations, is an adequate way to give notification of infringement.
Presenting customary claim charts (containing the relevant patent claims and the corresponding passages of the standard) to the implementer is an adequate mean to give notification of infringement.
The SEP holder is not obliged to share claim charts along with the notification of infringement.
Case reference
Step 2
Willingness (to conclude licensing agreement)
The Huawei requirement of "willingness to enter into a license" refers to a willingness which is unqualified. In other words, a willing licensee must be one willing to take a FRAND licence on whatever terms are in fact FRAND.
The declared willingness of a device manufacturer to enter into a FRAND license could preclude the granting of an injunction requested by SEP holder against the distributor of the same devices.
Given the circumstances of the specific case, SEP user's declaration of willingness to obtain a FRAND licence can be made even implicitly. The time frame within which the SEP user must declare its willingness must be determined on a case-by-case basis. If the SEP holder's notification of infringement contains only the minimum required information, a reaction within a period of five or even three months could be expected. In case that the infringement notification contains information going beyond the required minimum, an even quicker reaction could be required from the SEP user under certain circumstances.
The court should, in principle, consider a declaration of willingness made by the implementer during the course of pending infringement proceedings. This could, however, not apply, when such declaration is made at a very late point in time (e.g. shortly before the closing of the oral arguments).
Without delay
The more detailed the infringement notification is, the less time is available to the implementer to express its willingness to conclude a FRAND licensing agreement. The implementer did not comply with the Huawei requirements, since it took more than five months to react to SEP holder's notification of infringement and its reaction consisted only in asking for proof of the alleged infringement.
The implementer did not succiently express its willingness to conclude a FRAND licensing agreement, since it took him more than three months to request a license from the SEP holder, after it had become aware of the court action brought by the SEP holder against the distributor of its products using the SEP in question.
The time available to the implementer for expressing its willingness to obtain a licence after receipt of a notification of infringement will – as a rule– not exceed two months.
Case reference
Step 3
SEP owner's offer
SEP holder's offer made only towards the parent company of the implementer is in line with the Huawei requirements. It is not required that SEP holders submit an individual offer to each company within a group of companies.
SEP holder's offer must contain all essential contractual terms and specify the conditions in a way that, in order to conclude a licensing agreement, the implementer only has to accept the offer. The calculation of the license fee must be explained in a manner that enables the implementer to objectively assess its FRAND conformity. SEP holder meets the Huawei requirements, even if its offer lies slightly above the FRAND threshold. This is, however, no longer the case, if the SEP holder offers conditions to the implementer that are manifestly economically less favourable than the conditions offered to other licensees without objective justification. In this context, the court is only required to determine on the basis of a summary assessment, whether SEP holder's licensing offer evidently violates FRAND. (In variance with the decision Pioneer v Acer, LG Mannheim, 8 January 2016, Case No 7 O 96/14)
If the implementer does not express its willingness to conclude a licensing agreement in due time, the SEP holder can submit a licensing offer on FRAND terms even in the course of ongoing litigation against the implementer.
SEP holder's offer has to fully qualify as FRAND. offers, which lie even slightly above the FRAND threshold, are not in line with the Huawei requirements. The court competent for the injunction proceedings has to finally assess the FRAND compatibility of SEP holder's offer. A summary assessment of whether SEP holder's offer is evidently non-FRAND does not suce.
SEP holder's offer must contain all essential contractual terms and specify the conditions in a way that, in order to conclude a licensing agreement, the implementer only has to accept the offer. The calculation of the license fee must be explained in a manner that enables the implementer to objectively assess its FRAND conformity. In the case of quota license agreements, it is not sucient to indicate the royalties per unit without substantiating their FRAND character. The royalty amount must be made suciently transparent, for instance by reference to an existing standard licensing program or by indicating other reference values allowing to deduce the royalty demanded, such as a pool license fee covering patents also relevant for the standard in question. The court repeated that in this context, the court competent for the injunction proceedings is only required to determine on basis of a summary assessment, whether SEP holder's licensing offer evidently violates FRAND (and not to fully assess FRAND conformity as requested in OLG Karlsruhe, 31 May 2016, Case No. 6 U 55/16).
The possibility of remedying a flawed licensing offer during pending infringement proceedings by reacting to (justified) objections of the SEP user shall not be ruled out (principle of procedural economy); it is, nevertheless, subject to narrow limits.
An offer complying with the Huawei requirements is only given, when the SEP holder provides the SEP user with all information required for assessing the FRAND conformity of the offer. In particular, the SEP holder must make the requested royalty amount transparent with reference to a standard licensing programme implemented in the market or to rates actually paid by third parties to a patent pool, covering also patents relevant to the standard. For the assessment of the non-discriminatory character of the offer, information on comparable agreements is needed.
SEP holder's offer for a licensing agreement towards the parent company of the implementer does not need to meet the Huawei requirements, if SEP holder brings an action only against the implementer.
Recognised commercial practices
SEP holder's offer for a worldwide portfolio license addressed to the parent company of a group of companies complies with the Huwaei requirements, since it corresponds to the respective recognised commercial practice in the field of standards applicable worldwide.
Recognised commercial practice in the relevant sector has to be considered, when determining whether the (geographical) scope of the licensing agreement offered by the SEP holder complies with FRAND.
Portfolio license
SEP holder's offer for a (worldwide) portfolio license is in line with the Huawei requirements.
SEP holder's offer for a (worldwide) portfolio license is not contrary to competition law.
Worldwide portfolio license
SEP holder's offer for a worldwide portfolio license addressed to the parent company of a group of companies complies with the Huwaei requirements, since it corresponds to the respective recognised commercial practice in the field of standards applicable worldwide.
SEP holder's offer for a (worldwide) portfolio license is in line with the Huawei requirements, unless the circumstances of the specific case (for instance, if the implementer limits its market activity to one geographical market) require a modification.
As far as a corresponding commercial/industry practice exists, offers for worldwide portfolio licences are, in general, in line with the Huawei framework, unless the circumstances of the individual case require a different approach (for instance a limitation of the geographical scope of the licence, in case that the user is active only in a single market).
SEP holder's offer for a worldwide portfolio license is not contrary to competition law. As willing and reasonable parties would agree on a worldwide portfolio licence, the insistence by the implementer on a license which was limited to a single market (UK) is not FRAND compliant.
An offer for a worldwide licence may be FRAND. What is more, there may be circumstances in which only a worldwide licence or at least a multi-territorial licence would be FRAND.
FRAND range
FRAND refers to a range of acceptable royalty rates. As a rule, there is not only a single FRAND-compliant royalty rate.
In each individual case, there is only a single FRAND compliant set of terms (including royalty rates); the so-called "true FRAND" terms. However, the fact that an opening offered rate is higher than the "true FRAND" rate does not mean of itself that a SEP holder has failed to take a FRAND approach.
A number of sets of terms may all be FRAND in a given set of circumstances. The court will normally declare one set of terms as FRAND; the patent holder would then have to offer that specific set of terms to the implementer. In case that the court finds two different sets of terms as being FRAND, then the SEP holder will satisfy its FRAND undertaking, if it offers either one of them to the implementer (In variance with the decision Unwired Planet v Huawei, UK High Court of Justice, 5 April 2017, [2017] EWHC 711(Pat) Case No. HP-2014-000005).
SEP holder's non-discrimination obligation applies only to similarly situated users. An unequal treatment resulting in a discrimination is also at hand, when a dominant patent holder chooses to bring infringement actions only against certain, but not all competitors in a (downstream) market (or their suppliers). However, such a conduct is discriminatory only if, depending on the overall circumstances of each case, it would have been possible for the SEP holder with reasonable efforts to enforce its patent rights against other infringers too. Especially in the early stages of the implementation of a standard, the SEP holder could lack the means required to enforce its rights against a large number of infringers; in this case, the choice to enforce its rights first only against infringers with market strength appears reasonable.
The new patent holder is, in general, bound to the actual licensing practice of the previous patent holder. Deviations from the existing 'licensing concept' are allowed only and to the extent that (existing and new) licensees are not discriminated through less favourable conditions.
The non-discrimination element of a SEP holder's FRAND undertaking does not imply a so-called "hard-edged" component, obliging the patent holder to offer the same rate to all potential licencees. The FRAND undertaking prevents the SEP holder from securing rates higher than a "benchmark" rate which mirrors a fair valuation of its patent(s), but it does not prevent the patent holder from granting licences at lower rates.
The Non-discriminatory element of FRAND does not require that the patent holder offers the exact same licensing structure and rate to every licensee.
Comparable agreements
In court proceedings, SEP holders relying upon existing comparable licensing agreements with third parties for specifying a FRAND licensing offer need to particularly justify the existence of confidentiality interests, in case they seek protection of confidential information contained in such agreements. In general, considering the non-discriminating element of SEP holders' FRAND undertaking, it is not directly apparent which interest worthy of legal protection SEP holders could have in keeping conditions agreed in comparable licensing agreements confidential.
Presenting all existing comparable agreements has priority over other means for establishing the FRAND-conformity of an offer. In addition, SEP holders have to produce court decisions rendered on the FRAND-conformity of the rates agreed upon in the comparable agreements, if such decisions exist. In case that no or not enough comparable agreements exist, SEP holders must (additionally) present decisions referring to the validity and/or the infringement of the patents in question as well as agreements concluded between other parties in the same or a comparable technical field, which they are aware of.
The new SEP holder needs to make sure that it will be able to present also licensing agreements of the prior SEP holder in court proceedings. An exception could be made only when presenting such agreements would violate contractual confidentiality obligations. Agreeing to comprehensive confidentiality clauses will, however, as a rule, bar the SEP holder (and/or its successor) from invoking confidentiality with respect to comparable licences in pending court proceedings.
The SEP holder's duty to make a FRAND licensing offer entails also an 'information duty' regarding its 'licensing practice'. As a rule, this 'information duty' will extend to comparable licensing agreements. The SEP holder is, however, not obliged to disclose the full content of all existing comparable agreements in any case.
The implementer has no legal claim to request full disclosure of comparable agreements signed by the SEP holder.
In infringement proceedings, existing comparable licensing agreements between the patent holder and third parties can, as a rule, not be subject to "external-eyes-only" restrictions, since such agreements can be highly relevant documents as comparators for determining Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory licensing terms.
Parties to court proceedings seeking protection of confidential information, upon which they rely for specifying a FRAND licensing offer, must (1) identify such information and concretely explain why it constitutes a business secret; (2) present in detail which measures were taken so far for securing confidentiality with respect to the information in question; (3) demonstrate in a substantiated and verifiable manner (for each information separately), which concrete disadvantages would be suffered, if the information would be disclosed and (4) explain, with which degree of certainty the said disadvantages are expected to occur.
The party seeking access to confidential information in pending proceedings is obliged to sign an NDA, if the holder of such information establishes the need for protection and demonstrates which concrete disadvantages would be suffered with which degree of certainty, if the information would be disclosed. In this case, the refusal to sign an NDA would allow the party holding confidential information to limit its pleadings in trial to 'general, indicative statements'.
Unless the parties to the proceedings agree otherwise, the use of "external eyes only" mechanisms for protecting documents containing confidential information in litigation can be applied only to exceptional cases. Documents of limited, if any, relevance to the proceedings can be subject to "external eyes only"restrictions, if their disclosure could be unnecessarily damaging for the party seeking protection. On the other hand, documents key to the case cannot, as a rule, be subject to such a regime (Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights).
In accordance with the newly introduced Article L. 153-1 of the French Commercial Code, the court ordered the disclosure of confidential documents, including comparable licensing agreeements, under the following conditions: First, the relevant documents will be made available (unredacted) only to the parties' counsels, within a deadline of one month after the court's order. The parties' counsels will then be given the opportunity to argue by written submissions which parts or elements of these documents may affect business secrets. On this basis, the court will decide whether further measures are required for the protection of potential confidential information, or not.
Non-disclosure agreement
Prior to disclosing confidential information in court proceedings, parties seeking protection of such information must undertake efforts to sign a Non-disclosure agreement (NDA) with the opposing party (and any intervener). If the opposing party (or an intervener) unjustifiably refuses to enter into an NDA, the party seeking protection of confidentiality can meet its obligation to specify its FRAND licensing offer just by making "merely indicative observations" in the trial, to the extent (and not beyond) that is required for protecting its justified confidentiality interests.
ETSI declaration / FRAND declaration
A patent holder requested by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) to give a FRAND declaration is not under an obligation to make such declaration. The ETSI IPR Policy does not oblige ETSI members which do not hold patents to make a FRAND declaration. In case that the parent company of an ETSI member made a FRAND declaration towards ETSI, the ETSI member is not obliged under the ETSI IPR Policy to make sure that its parent company performed its FRAND commitment. Moreover, the fact that the parent company's FRAND declaration towards ETSI refers also to its "Affiliates" does not establish a FRAND obligation for subsidiaries which themselves do not hold patents subject to the declaration.
Case reference
Step 4
Obligation to respond
Even if SEP holder's licensing offer is not FRAND, the implementer still has to react. (In variance with the decision Sisvel v Haier, OLG Düsseldorf, 13 January 2016, Case No. 15 U 65/15)
The implementer has to submit a FRAND counter-offer, irrespective of whether the preceding licensing offer made by the SEP holder is FRAND. Implementer's obligation is triggered, when SEP holder's offer formally contains all information (in particular regarding the royalty calculation) required for the implementer to make a FRAND counter-offer.
The implementer is not required to respond to a SEP holder's license offer, if the terms of such an offer are not FRAND.
The implementer is required to respond to SEP holder's license offer, even if, in his view, this offer is not FRAND. This is not the case, when SEP holder's offer is evidently not FRAND on basis of a summary assessment. (Contrary to the decision Sisvel v Haier, OLG Düsseldorf, 13 January 2016. Case No. 15 U 65/15).
Without delay
Submitting a counter-offer only 1,5 years after receiving SEP holder's licensing offer and half a year after the SEP holder brought an action against the implementer is not in line with the Huawei requirements.
Recognised commercial practices
The implementer's obligation to respond to SEP holder's offer is a manifestation of its due diligence obligations arising from the principle of good faith as well as recognised commercial practice in the business field in question.
A counter-offer needs to be made in due course, which means as soon as possible, taking into account the recognised commercial practice in the field and the principle of good faith.
Implementer's counter-offer
Implementer's counter-offer is not "specific" in terms of the Huawei requirements, when the royalty amount is not specified in the counter-offer itself, but shall be determined by an independent third party, instead.
Implementer' s counter-offer limited to a license for one single market (Germany) is non-FRAND, particularly if implementer (or the group of companies it belongs to) distributes products using the SEP in question also in other markets.
Implementer's counter-offer does not meet the Huawei requirements, when the royalty amount shall be determined by an independent third party and the counter-offer is limited to a license for one single market (Germany), although the implementer (potentially) infringes the SEP in question in several countries in which the SEP is protected.
SEP user's obligation to make a FRAND counter-offer to the SEP holder is only triggered, when the SEP holder has provided all information required for assessing the FRAND conformity of its offer to the SEP user.
SEP user's obligation to make a FRAND counter-offer to the SEP holder is only triggered, when the SEP holder has provided all information required for assessing the FRAND conformity of its offer. SEP user should be given sufficient time to assess the SEP holder's offer and eventually make a counter-offer, before infringement proceedings are initiated by the SEP holder.
A counter-offer made by the implementer for the first time during the course of infringement proceedings initiated by the patent holder does not constitute -in retrospect- the infringement action abusive in terms of Art. 102 TFEU.
In each individual case, there is only a single FRAND compliant set of terms (including royalty rates), the so-called "true FRAND" terms. However, the fact that an offered rate is lower than the "true FRAND" rate does not mean of itself that an implementer has failed to take a FRAND approach.
Case reference
Step 5 & 6
Provision of security
The implementer is obliged to both render accounts regarding acts of use and to provide security for potential royalties, both based on its counter-offer. The implementer has to fulfil this obligation after the rejection of its first counter-offer, regardless of whether subsequent offers and counter-offers were made. Fulfilling this obligation more than a month after implementer's first counter-offer was rejected, does not meet the Huawei requirements.
The fact that the implementer has - allegedly - terminated its use of the SEP, does not remove its obligation to provide security for past periods of use.
Security has to be provided after the rejection of the implementer's first counter-offer by the SEP holder, regardless of whether subsequent offers and counter-offers were made. Payment of security several months after implementer's first counter-offer was rejected does not meet the Huawei requirements. This is also true, if implementer provides security only with respect to acts of use in one market (Germany). The Huawei requirements are also not met, when the implementer only proposes to have the security - if requested by the SEP holder - determined by an arbitration tribunal or by a different (English) court.
Rendering of accounts
The fact that the implementer has - allegedly - terminated its use of the SEP, does not remove its obligation to render accounts for past periods of use.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Contact Burnham Law today
Call 303.647.9767 or fill out this form to get started
COVID-19 Update: Burnham Law remains fully operational and available to those in need of legal help and consultations. Learn MoreCovid-19 Court Updates
Ashlee is an Associate Attorney in the Civil Litigation Division at Burnham Law. She is based in the Boulder office, where she works closely with Aaron Belzer, the Director of Civil Litigation.
After graduating with university honors from Carnegie Mellon University, Ashlee earned her M.Ed. while working full time for Teach for America. She went on to attend the Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University, where she was a Note and Comment Editor for the Arizona State Law Journal. She graduated magna cum laude and with highest distinction for pro bono hours.
Ashlee went on to serve serve as a law clerk for the Honorable Samuel A. Thumma on the Arizona Court of Appeals.
Prior to joining Burnham Law, she worked as an Assistant Attorney General for the State of Arizona, where she represented two large state agencies. She was also a member of the office's eDiscovery Committee and was designated an "Arkfeld eDiscovery Advanced Specialist." Her dedication at the Attorney General's Office resulted in two separate awards for being a member of the units that were granted the "Most Outstanding Team" awards.
As a Civil Litigation Associate, Ashlee is licensed to practice law in Colorado and Arizona and focuses on litigating complex contract, property, and tort disputes. She lives in Boulder County with her husband.
Arizona, 2014
Colorado, 2019


text:
What I appreciate most about TURN members is their willingness to make a difference by speaking up. In my first six months at TURN, you have spoken up to make a difference by opposing Edison's rate hike, fighting to end privacy fees for unlisted numbers, and helped us cut the lag time in recording and responding to your donations–which we deeply appreciate.
What I appreciate most about TURN members is their willingness to make a difference by speaking up. I can think of three different ways members have spoken up to make a difference during my first six months at TURN.
Opposing Edison's Rate Hike
We asked you to fill out postcards stating your opposition to Southern California Edison's attempt to raise your electric bills by more than $100 per year,and boy did you respond.
You sent back over 1,000 postcards which I had the privilege of delivering in person to the public participation hearing on the Edison rate hike held in Long Beach on April 28 (see page 5, Consumers Unite). Sometimes it is just too hard to attend some of these hearings, with the distances being so far, the price of gasoline being sky high, so many of us working long hours or two jobs just to make ends meet, or our health not being good enough to make long trips.
The beauty of sending in these postcards is that your voices were heard, even if you could not be there in person, and you have made it harder for Edison to raise your bills.
Fighting to End Fees for Unlisted Numbers
When asked to send letters to your state senators to voice your support for privacy rights and an end to fees for unlisted numbers, you responded in even larger numbers.
Over 2,000 of you sent letters supporting Senate Bill 1423, which we hand-delivered to each of the Senate offices in Sacramento. You should take pride in the fact that your letters emboldened sixteen senators to find the courage to vote yes on this bill, in defiance of AT&T, who hired sixteen full-time lobbyists and spent millions to defeat this simple consumer protection.
Even with all of the money AT&T spent, this bill came very close to passing, and you can count on TURN to be back next year prepared to win this fight, with your continued support.
Cutting the Time Lag for Recording Donations
I want to thank each member who has taken the time to write to me during the past several months.
Several people have written to ask why they keep getting letters asking them to renew their memberships after they have sent in a check for their dues, sometimes weeks or even months after they have already paid. It took a while to figure out that the problem was too many hands were handling the checks before they were recorded, as with the adage that too many cooks spoil the broth. So we have come up with a solution to reduce the time lag for recording donations by eliminating the middleman and rerouting all of your donations directly to TURN.
By September, we will be recording dues and donations within one week, and we will see that you are given the credit you deserve and taken off of the renewal list as quickly as possible.
It is good to know you hold your representatives at the Legislature, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), and even here at TURN accountable when necessary. Your voices are being heard


text:
"Choices for federal spending and taxes," a lecture by Doug Elmendorf
Monday, September 10, 2012
"Choices for federal spending and taxes," a Policy Talks @ the Ford School lecture by Doug Elmendorf.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
1:00-2:30 p.m.
Rackham Graduate School
Rackham Amphitheatre
915 East Washington Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48109
Free and open to the public.
Reception to follow.


text:
Lone Star Retreat #1
Fully renovated 2018!
Magnificent lake & mountain views all four seasons at Lone Star Retreat Apt # 1.
Cozy studio apt with private entrance sleeps 4. Enjoy fabulous 60′ deck overlooking Lake Junaluska.
Fresh & new fully remodeled 400 sq. ft studio apartment. Pet friendly.
60′ deck with views of Lake Junaluska.
Private entrance, full kitchen, ceiling fans, new heat/air & laundry.60′ Deck with plentiful patio seating, gas grill & outdoor fire pit. Queen bed plus daybed with trundle sleeps four. 55″ flat screen TV with cable, Netflix, Amazon Prime, WiFi, Linens, laundry essentials & basic toiletries provided. Lake Junaluska Conference Center grounds just across the lake.
Access to Lake Junaluska amenities included June – August.
No Smoking 25 minutes to Asheville.
Check In 4PM
Check Out 10AM
CategoriesVacation Home Rentals
AmenitiesExercise/Fitness Facilities, Free Parking, Golf Packages Available, Kitchen, Laundry On Site, Linens, Non-Smoking, Open Year Round, Pet Friendly, Playground, Pool, Wifi
410 Tillman Road Lake Junaluska


text:
How To Use FameChain
Click on any name in red.
Then explore..... or search again.
Trevor Meen
Partners of
Trevor Meen
Trevor Meen
Dr. Trevor Meen
Trevor Meen Bio Details
Full name
Dr. Trevor Meen
Partners of
Trevor Meen
Trevor Meen
Trevor Meen Children
born 1965, age 53 (approx.)
with Jennifer Goode
born 1978, age 40
step-child with Jennifer Goode
British Actor
Trevor Meen Partner(s) Other Children
Trevor Meen Family
View Trevor Meen's Family Tree and History, Ancestry and Genealogy
Trevor Meen's children:
Trevor Meen's step-son is Matthew Goode Trevor Meen's daughter is Sally Meen
Trevor Meen's current partners:
Trevor Meen's wife is Jennifer Goode
Trevor Meen's grandchildren:
Trevor Meen's granddaughter is Tilly Lindsay Trevor Meen's granddaughter is Flora Lindsay
Trevor Meen's in laws:
Trevor Meen's son in law is Russ Lindsay Trevor Meen's son in law is Nick Chesworth


text:
When sightseeing in London, it's easiest to focus on old places and ancient buildings. Iconic landmarks like Westminster Abbey and the Tower Of London have been around for centuries, and in a way places like Trafalgar Square, the Houses of Parliament, and even the British Museum are all about history. This sort of thing is what ultimately makes urban tourism throughout Europe so interesting. In the case of London, however, focusing only on what's old and historical can mean missing out on a lot of stunning modern buildings and attractions.
To make sure that doesn't happen, this is our list of some of the best modern sights in London.
The Shard
London is more famous for its older attractions, but The Shard is far and away its most noteworthy modern skyscraper. It's 95 stories high and gleams as if it's made entirely from glass shooting up above the rest of the London skyline. It's awfully impressive just to look at either up close or from a distance, and its top floor restaurant and viewing platform are also highly recommended for tourists.
The London Eye
Designed as part of a landmark for the new millennium, the London Eye is basically a gigantic Ferris wheel that sits right alongside the River Thames and provides people with a gentle climb and a view over London. Inside the compartments are large, and some involve serving champagne. On the outside however, it's one of the most visually striking aspects of London, and certainly something most great cities can't match or imitate.
The Empire
Some may be surprised to learn that London actually has casinos at all. England is responsible in large part for a boom in online gaming that has resulted in innumerable slot gaming platforms that render large portions of casinos less than necessary. The London nightlife still supports a handful of awesome casinos though, and the Empire is one that stands proudly over Leicester Square and makes for a gorgeous nighttime attraction.
Millennium Bridge
Another attraction built to commemorate the new millennium, this bridge is best approached as a means for seeing the city, as opposed to being its own landmark. It's a pretty bridge and a very artistically designed one, but the real treat is the views you get of the city walking along it either way. In particular, walking north toward St. Paul's Cathedral is breathtaking.
Tottenham Hotspur Stadium
The new Tottenham Hotspur football stadium in London actually isn't ready for action as of this writing, and the team is struggling to secure naming rights for it as well. When it's ready however it looks as if it's going to be London's top stadium, and a gleaming, modern masterpiece of construction. It may well be one of the prettiest buildings in London.


text:
Red Giant Keying Suite v11.1.8 (x64) | 104.7 Mb
Red Giantâs Keying Suite 11 is a complete set of professional tools for seamless keying that amps up the realism of your composite. Get great results for basic keying situations as well as multi-step composites and difficult shots like low light or choppy footage. The three plug-ins work fluidly between After Effects and Final Cut Pro, and save you time with a wide range of powerful features like spill removal, edge detail and wire rigging. From frizzy hair to transparent glass, Keying Suite takes you successfully from the initial matte to the final composite.
Keying Suite is a collection of three cross-platform plug-ins for professional keying compatible with Adobe After Effects, Premiere Pro, Final Cut Pro and Motion.
With Keying Suite, you will be able to achieve realism in your composites and great results for basic keying situations. You can also work with multiple composites and difficult shots at the same time.
The three plug-ins feature various powerful features such as edge detail, spill removal or wire rigging.
Fast, Automatic Chroma-keying, with Pro-level control and accuracy.
⢠Remove your green/blue-screen with the touch of a single button
⢠The best user experience with the best results
⢠Correct uneven lighting, remove spill, and fine tune the important details
Compositing cleanup and enhancement.
⢠Keep your composites looking natural
⢠Improve results from popular keyers
⢠Fine-tune alphas, color-match foregrounds to backgrounds, and remove unwanted elements
Shadows, reflections, glows, and corner pinning.
⢠Corner-pinning is easy with advanced After Effects integration
⢠Control perspective, falloff and more for reflections and shadows
⢠Now including 3 tools for unique glows and glimmers
⢠Adobe After Effects CC (2015), CC (2014), CC, CS6
⢠Adobe Premiere Pro CC (2015), CC (2014), CC, CS6
Whatâs New
⢠Added support for CC 2015.3
OS: Windows 7 / 8 / 8.1 / 10 (64-bit)
Download Via UploadGIG
Download Via RapidGator


text:
Saint Tropez Slim Fit Jeans Mid Blue
Brand Saint Tropez
Style Notes
These mid-blue jeans from Saint Tropez offer a mid-rise, slim leg silhouette. The denim is woven with a touch of stretch to make them super comfy and flattering. They are the ultimate wardrobe staple which will see you from season to season.
- Slim fit
- Zip fly
- Pockets
- 98% Cotton 2% Polyester
- Model is a size 8/5ft 9.5"and wears size 26 waist
- See our Size Chart for more information
About the brand
Saint Tropez designs for the woman who wants to feel stylish and modern -whatever the occasion. This Danish brand creates an accessible collection featuring seasonal must haves, the everyday heroes and perfect party looks all with a hint of femininity and element of playfulness.


text: Is your 100 lb glossy paper text or cover? We print on 100 lb book weight text with an aqueous coating. You Might Also Want to ReadWhat is the difference between 100 lb glossy paper and cardstock?Can you print on other paper stocks?What paper stock do you print on?What is Book Weight?


text:
When the skin has been stretched too far or too fast, it may develop stretch marks. This is a common part of life for both women and men and can develop as a result of puberty, pregnancy, or weight fluctuations. Fortunately, those who live with stretch marks now have the option to undergo a treatment that can help restore their smooth skin.
The ICON laser treatment utilizes fractional technology that delivers pulses of laser light into the skin to target and break down stretch marks. It can help generate healthy tissue for a smoother texture and a more even skin tone. The treatment does not require surgery or downtime. Each session is comfortable and can be performed in as little as 30 minutes.
If unsightly stretch marks are affecting your confidence or causing you to feel insecure about how you look, then the ICON laser is the treatment for you. Contact us to schedule a consultation with Dr. Sara Yegiyants, a double-board-certified plastic surgeon, to learn more.


text:
Experienced graphics professionals
With full in-house production, our own digital print bureau has over 15 years experience with digital wide format printing, offset, flatbed and screen printing. We offer the best quality outcomes for any application using the latest UV stable, environmentally conscious technology. Our production techniques use dye, pigment, latex, solvent inks, laminators, & vinyl cutters. Our team can produce the graphic content required for any project ensuring a seamless integration between printing and building.


text:
The next time you walk down the laundry products aisle in your supermarket, notice the intense smells wafting your way. From the best known "tried and true" that we grew up with to the more recent "all natural" selections, there's so much heavy fragrance coming at you, it's hard to miss.
But there's more to it than just smell.
Filed under: Health concerns | Tagged: carcinogen, detergent, emissions, environmental, GoodGuide, health, natural, polluntants, toxic, University of Washington, volatile organic compounds | 2 Comments »


text:
After the completion of the Temple it was dedicated by King Solomon in 953 BC Solomon's speech to the people and his marvelous prayers were followed by an enormous offering of 22,000 oxen and 120,000 sheep. A great public feast followed.
The on-going, intensive research now being conducted by The Temple Institute, and other groups in Jerusalem, will soon bring us more published and accessible information on the Temple of Solomon. Until now most of the published descriptions of the temple have been based on the Bible only. Extra-biblical sources (Ref. 2) describe the Sanhedrin, the Supreme Court of ancient Israel as being housed in a special building in the Temple courtyard named the Chamber of Hewn Stone (Lishkat ha-Gazith).We have descriptions of the ritual bath (mikvah) used by the high priest. The mikvah was supplied by flowing ("living") water from the spring called Ein Eitam which is in the hills of Bethlehem near the Pools of Solomon which are still extant. The spring was 23 cubits above the level of the Temple court.
Two chambers in the Temple are named in the Mishnah. One, the Chamber of Secrets, was where the devout placed their gifts in secret. The poor received support from these gifts also in secret. The Chamber of Utensils was also a room for storing gifts from which distribution was made every 30 days.The vaulted Chamber of the Hearth (also mentioned in the Mishnah) was the room the eldest sons could stay and young priests sleep with the keys of the Temple Court in their custody. A fired burned continuously there to keep the occupants warm.Incense for the temple was prepared by a family named Abtinas in the upper story of a special building in the courtyard, the Chamber of Abtinas.We can easily imagine that rooms were needed for wood storage, for extra copies of the sacred vessels, for priestly garment storage, for temple records. Access tunnels came into the temple underground (according to more than one historical account) and some of the storage rooms were underground. These underground rooms and tunnels have apparently not been cleared, entered nor explored since the destruction of Solomon's Temple on the 9th of Av, 586 BC!
Passing the Torch
John LeBlanc
Most of you know that both my dad and my father in law died in the same week this past July. Since then my wife and I have been busy literally selling the farm my parents lived on and disposing of all the farm equipment and 75 years accumulation of business, farm and personal stuff. Just going through it is a long process, not to mention disposing of it.
I found a few really neat things I had not seen since I was a kid right away. I decided then and there that there would not be any wholesale removal of anything. The memories those things brought back were just too valuable.After many hours, days and weeks of blood, sweat and tears literally, on the top shelf of my Dad's workshop covered with dirt daubers and spider webs was a Gerber baby food jar. Inside it was a key ring. On the key ring was a Nickel alloy almost round magnet the size of a dine and about 4 mm thick. My dad was a radiator repairman and welder. One of the problems right after WWII was radiators had a lot of iron parts on them that caused repair problems. Dad needed a handy magnet to sort out these parts. His uncle was a metallurgist at a local refinery and made that magnet for him. As a kid I always remember it on his key ring. About 10 years ago I asked what happened to it and he told me he did not know.He obviously put it in a safe place. I found it.Dad, it is on my key ring just like it was on yours. The torch is passed.When it came time to do the same thing at my father in law's house my brother in law "I just can't do it" is what he told me. Too sensitive of a guy. My dad took that sensitivity out of me with a little strip of leather and the admonition to "suck it up and take it like a man". My Dad's parents were both killed when he was 16 in 1932 in the midst of the depression. Dad knew what "suck it up and take it like a man" meant. He had been there, done that. I often thought of him telling me that and it got me through many a dismal hour in my youth, the U S Army, at Philmont and all along life's path.I even passed it along to my daughters. My 23 year old is often heard telling her whining friends to "suck it up and take it like a man" and they do!Anyway, the time came to clean out my father in law's attic. He notoriously saved EVERYTHING, packaged it in an appropriate box or bag, tied it with string and labeled it. This was brought to my attention when my wife and I had our first child (the 23 year old) and she was ready to start coloring with Crayolas.Grandpa fetched my wife's coloring books and Crayolas from the attic where he put them some 35 year earlier.OK, I approached my brother in law about cleaning out the attic. He told me he just couldn't put his mind to it that it was too painful and anyway almost everything up there was mine. He told his sister she could have anything that was up there. True my wife had put a lot of baby stuff in her dad's attic as ours is not very big so we got after it. Yesterday we started working on the attic. Besides five computers that belonged to her brother and three degrees worth of engineering notes and texts stored there we also found his Cub Scout uniform from 50 years ago.She also found a silver tray and coffee and tea service that she had never seen before. The note in the box told that it was her great grandmothers. We had it appraised today at $500.00. It is not the monetary value, but the fact that it is a family heirloom she had never seen or heard about.Today I found her brother's A. C. Gilbert No 6-1/2 Erector Set complete with instruction booklet and the electric motor and gear box. Mine gave up the ghost long ago and what is left of the "customized" parts is in some landfill. If you have never built things with an Erector Set, you just have never lived.I don't think the gear box on the motor drive would pass OSHA standards today but back then kids didn't go sticking their fingers into gears to see what it would do. We knew without trying.Since he told me the stuff was all mine I am enjoying playing with MY Erector Set even though his name is written on the box. I just got off the phone from telling him how much fun it was to play with it again after a 50 year hiatus.I told him that when I got through playing with MY new toy, he could borrow it someday so long as he returned it the same day. No overnight loans. I did not want him to become attached to it.In reality, I'll clean it up and give it to him for a Christmas present. In the meantime, I'm gonna make him sweat. I'll throw in his Cub Scout uniform for good measure. He doesn't even know I found it.His daddy always put the things into the attic and Gene and Susan had no idea where or what was there. The attic was their dad's sanctum sanctuary.Now I am the custodian of the attic. And again, the torch is passed.
The Teacher
Author Unknown
Stories like this, always have a way of putting the right perspective on life.
Jean Thompson stood in front of her fifth-grade class on the very first day of school in the fall and told the children a lie. Like most teachers, she looked at her pupils and said that she loved them all the same, that she would treat them all alike. And that was impossible because there in front of her, slumped in his seat on the third row, was a little boy named Teddy Stoddard.
Mrs. Thompson had watched Teddy the year before and noticed he didn't play well with the other children, that his clothes were unkept and that he constantly needed a bath. And Teddy was unpleasant.
It got to the point during the first few months that she would actually take delight in marking his papers with a broad red pen, making bold X's and then marking the F at the top of the paper biggest of all. Because Teddy was a sullen little boy, no one else seemed to enjoy him, either.
At the school where Mrs. Thompson taught, she was required to review each child's records and put Teddy's off until last. When she opened his file, she was in for a surprise. His first-grade teacher wrote, "Teddy is a bright, inquisitive child with a ready laugh." "He does his work neatly and has good manners...he is a joy to be around."
His second-grade teacher wrote, "Teddy is an excellent student well-liked by his classmates, but he is troubled because his mother has a terminal illness and life at home must be a struggle."
His third-grade teacher wrote, "Teddy continues to work hard but his mother's death has been hard on him. He tries to do his best but his father doesn't show much interest and his home life will soon affect him if some steps aren't taken."
Teddy's fourth-grade teacher wrote, "Teddy is withdrawn and doesn't show much interest in school. He doesn't have many friends and sometimes sleeps in class. He is tardy and could become a problem."
By now Mrs. Thompson realized the problem, but Christmas was coming fast. It was all she could do, with the school play and all, until the day before the holidays began and she was suddenly forced to focus on Teddy Stoddard.
Her children brought her presents, all in beautiful ribbon and bright paper, except for Teddy's, which was clumsily wrapped in the heavy, brown paper of a scissored grocery bag. Mrs. Thompson took pains to open it in the middle of the other presents.
Some of the children started to laugh when she found a rhinestone bracelet with some of the stones missing, and a bottle that was one-quarter full of cologne. She stifled the children's laughter when she exclaimed how pretty the bracelet was, putting it on, and dabbing some of the perfume behind the other wrist. Teddy Stoddard stayed behind just long enough to say, "Mrs. Thompson, today you smelled just like my mom used to."
After the children left she cried for at least an hour. On that very day, she quit teaching reading, writing, and speaking. Instead, she began to teach children. Jean Thompson paid particular attention to one they all called "Teddy."
As she worked with him, his mind seemed to come alive. The more she encouraged him, the faster he responded. On days where there would be an important test, Mrs. Thompson would remember that cologne. By the end of the year he had become one of the smartest children in the class and...well, he had also become the "pet" of the teacher who had once vowed to love all of her children exactly the same.
A year later she found a note under her door, from Teddy, telling her that of all the teachers he'd had in elementary school, she was his favorite. Six years went by before she got another note from Teddy.
He then wrote that he had finished high school, third in his class, and she was still his favorite teacher of all time.
Four years after that, she got another letter, saying that while things had been tough at times, he'd stayed in school, had stuck with it, and would graduate from college with the highest of honors. He assured Mrs. Thompson she was still his favorite teacher.
Then four more years passed and yet another letter came. This time he explained that after he got his bachelor's degree, he decided to go a little further. The letter explained that she was still his favorite teacher, but that now his name was a little longer. The letter was signed, Theodore F. Stoddard, M.D.
The story doesn't end there. You see, there was yet another letter that Spring. Teddy said he'd met this girl and was to be married. He explained that his father had died a couple of years ago and he was wondering...well, if Mrs. Thompson might agree to sit in the pew usually reserved for the mother of the groom. And guess what, she wore that bracelet, the one with several rhinestones missing. And I bet on that special day, Jean Thompson smelled just like...well, just like the way Teddy remembered his mother smelling on their last Christmas together.
THE MORAL: You never can tell what type of impact you may make on another's life by your actions or lack of action. Consider this fact in your venture thru life.
Kid Talk
We were at my husband's grandmother's funeral with our four year old son. We were at the graveside and the casket was about to be lowered.
Our son, being a keen Sunday School student, knew that when Jesus died, he rose again. When the casket began to be lowered, and many of our family were crying, our son said in his loudest voice "When is Great Nan going to rise again?!" It certainly relieved the tension of the moment.
The 'Reed Sea' Miracle
"Wow! Amazing!" Forrest Gump said. "My bible says that God parted the Red Sea and let all His people through on dry ground! That sure is amazing!"
"Sorry," said the biblical 'expert'. "But that wasn't the Red Sea; it was the Reed Sea. And its water is only about one foot deep. No miracle was involved."
"Oh," said Forrest, disappointed, and he read a little more.
Suddenly, he yelled "Wow! What a fantastic miracle! God drowned all those Egyptians in only one foot of water!"
Did you know ?
Sign in|Recent Site Activity|Report Abuse|Print Page|Powered By Google Sites


text:
Winter Travel | Sand Springs Auto Care
Before you set out on a winter road trip, make sure you consult a Sand Springs auto care technician like those at Same Day to make sure your car is ready.
When most people think of road trips, they think of summer fun. If they think of winter road trips, they likely think of holiday travel. But there are a lot of things to do and see on winter road trips. And, like those trips at other times of the year, taking the whole family – including the members who have fur and four feet – is part of the fun.
But before you decide to head out on the road rather than stick around town for the home show, you want to make sure your car is ready for the trip and ready for your fuzzy travel partners. PetMD.com has travel tips for folks who plan to take Fluffy or Baily with them on the road:
- Make sure your pet is healthy and fit enough to travel
- Prepare before the trip. For example, make sure hotels, resorts, or friends will accept pets.
- Pack products to keep your pet warm.
- Make sure your car is pet friendly. Use carriers or safety harnesses, for example.
- Consider joining an auto club or other organization to provide roadside service in case you have a flat tire or break down on the road.
And, like any trip, be sure your car is ready for the road. Have a Sand Springs auto care professional like the trusted Sand Springs auto care pros at Same Day Auto Repair check your car and your tires to lessen the chance that you'll have car trouble while traveling.
Same Day is an AAA-approved auto repair facility. Same Day is the No. 1 AAA-approved auto repair service center in Oklahoma and has been for years. AAA members get a 10 percent discount on labor.
Same Day is the trusted locally owned service center for Tulsa auto care and auto repair. Same Day has five conveniently located Tulsa auto care and auto repair centers to help you – Berryhill, Sheridan, Bixby, Sand Springs, and Southern Hills. For the best local Tulsa auto care and auto repair, call Same Day. Call today.
If you're worried about cost. Don't. Ask your Sand Springs auto care technician about Same Day's payment options that can keep you on the road for as little as $40 per month. Your Sand Springs auto care technician can explain the program in detail and walk you through the easy three-minute application process.
#SandSpringsAutoCare #BerryhillAutoCare #BixbyAutoCare #TulsaAutoCare #SameDayAutoRepair


text:
CJTT was originally launched in 1967 at 1230 kHz on the AM band as a semi-satellite station of CJKL. The station became a stand alone station on March 27, 1978. CJTT was originally owned by Kirkland Lake Broadcasting Ltd. CJTT was a CBC affiliate from 1987-1996. Connelly Communications Corporation purchased CJTT and CJKL in Kirkland Lake in 1985. In 1998, CJTT moved from 1230 AM to its current FM frequency at 104.5 FM.
In 2002, CJTT won the Community Builder Award for its longstanding community involvement. It was presented in Haileybury, during An Evening of Excellence.
The station hosts a series of community events, including The Christmas Wish program for needy children and The Spooktacular Halloween program. In addition, CJTT presents the CJTT-FM Citizen of the Year award and CJTT-FM Lifetime Achievement award each year at the local Chamber of Commerce annual dinner


text:
Being successful is not something comes to you all on your own, you do not just wake up and that's it! You're successful! NOPE!! It is a series of good choices, a positive mindset, and determination that makes one successful. Over the years, I have had made some huge, even some may say life-altering mistakes, that hindered my process of becoming successful. The saving grace, though, is that you can always start over. Every day's a new day that encloses new gift and opportunity.
I'm going somewhere with this. Stay with me.
How do you gain knowledge on things you don't know? Google? Friends or family opinions? There are many different ways. My choice form of gaining information is through books. I love to read. I believe being a well-versed woman (knowledgeable) gives you so many different benefits. You are able to be more articulate (speak well), you sound more educated, and you are more confident because you have a wealth of information to pull from. So here at Mendez Moments, you will always continue to see reviews on books from me. I don't care how technologically advanced we become as a society. I will never ever stop reading books!! This leads me to my next point!
I have another book I want to share with you and encourage you to read!:
Steve Harvey's "Act Like a Success, Think Like a Success"
One thing I have a learned on this road to success is that a major key to success is to put yourself around people that are MORE successful than you. Because they will be a daily reminder of where you want to be. But I know for some people that is not possible. Maybe you live in the hood and no one around is trying to get out, maybe you a young mom in foster care and there's no positive role model. Here is where this book comes into play. It's a very easy read, he speaks in terms that can relate to anybody, and you can use this fuel your desire to be successful even when all you have is you. Here some highlights:
Identifying your gift
Everyone has a gift; Something that they're good at, something that they excel at so well as they could probably use that to help other people. Maybe you're a good singer, or maybe you have a knack for caring for kids, or maybe you're an amazing athlete. In this book, Steve shows you the steps you can take to identify what your greatest gift truly is.
Formulating a plan
Once you have figured out your gift, it is time to formulate a plan in which your gift will allow you to be successful. What I like about this is that Steve give mini exercise in each section to help you with each requirement of each step. Some examples of exercises include:
- Top 3 of your personal excuses
- How to clean out your personal circle
- creating a REAL goal
His insight
Mostly what I enjoy about a Steve Harvey book is that he always come to you from a realistic familiar perspective. You feel like your dad is talking to you, Or a loving uncle. He keeps it real without being too preachy or sounding like he is speaking from a place of judgment.
As always I won't give away the book, If you go the Libray section there's a link to purchase!


text:
- Courses
- Services
- Reports
- Resources
FBM Mahler
Industry: Investment Banking
Annual Revenue Estimate: NA
Email Convention: NA
Overall Ranking (NA)
The Overall Ranking is a score from 1 star (very bad) to 5 stars (excellent) generated based on the Company Reviews of current and former employees at this company, taking everything into account.
The number you see in the middle of the donut pie chart is the simple average of these scores. If you hover over the various sections of the donut, you will see the % breakdown of each score given.
The percentile score in the title is calculated across the entire Company Database and uses an adjusted score based on Bayesian Estimates (to account for companies that have few reviews). Simply put, as a company gets more reviews, the confidence of a "true score" increases so it is pulled closer to its simple average and away from the average of the entire dataset.
The Overall Ranking is generated based on the Company Reviews.
Not Enough Data
- 5 Stars
- 4 Stars
- 3 Stars
- 2 Stars
- 1 Star
Company Stats
Click here to collapse
2) The top undergraduate schools, majors and degrees this company targets
3) Interview stats breakdown on race, gender, military and sports data on the applicants,
Please click on the lock on the blue arrow and follow the instructions.
To gain access to more statistics on this company and thousands of others including:1) % of interns receiving full time offers
2) The top undergraduate schools, majors and degrees this company targets
3) Interview stats breakdown on race, gender, military and sports data on the applicants,
Please click on the lock on the blue arrow and follow the instructions.
Want Access To These Statistics & Rankings?
- Free 1 month access by adding just 1 salary datapoint (here)
- REAL salary bonus data across 1,000+ companies
- Plus free 1 month access to 10,000+ interview insights
Company Details
FBM is an independent advisory company that provides financial advisory services and capital raising solutions to clients in connection with debt and capital structures, mergers and acquisitions, restructurings and other strategic matters.
FBM was founded in 1990 and operates out of two offices, located in Amsterdam and Nieuwegein. We offer a broad range of independent advisory services ranging from:
Debt Advisory by FBM
Merger & Acquisitions Advisory by FBM Mahler
Restructuring & Turnaround by FBM Themis
WTC H-Toren, 19e etage
See in Google Maps
Zuidplein 158, Amsterdam, 1077 XV, Netherlands
Nieuwegein Office | FBM & FBM Themis
See in Google Maps
'Villa Forte' Rond het fort 42, Nieuwegein, 3430 AS, Netherlands