Does the Supreme Court appreciate the patent eligibility chaos?
Does the Supreme Court even appreciate the patent eligibility chaos they created?
At the beginning of this decade the United States Supreme Court embarked on a path that would ultimately result in a significant re-writing of the law of patent eligibility in America. While this Supreme Court first became intrigued with patent eligibility in Bilski v. Kappos in 2010, it wasn’t until Mayo v. Prometheus (2012), AMP v. Myriad (2013) and Alice v. CLS Bank (2014) that the law became a chaotic mess that no longer resembled the well-established view of patent eligibility that dates back to at least the 1952 Patent Act.
It is difficult to believe, but thanks to the Supreme Court the most exciting scientific discoveries, technological advances and innovations of the twenty-first century are no longer patent eligible in America. Things like personalized medicine, artificial organs, artificial intelligence, and medical diagnostics are not patent eligible. For a patent system that is supposed to foster innovation and progress, wholesale elimination of wide swaths innovative solutions to technological problems is extraordinarily shortsighted.
The legislative history of the 1952 Patent Act, which had been quoted repeatedly and relied upon repeatedly by the Supreme Court prior to 2012, clearly and unambiguously says that anything made by man is patent eligible. Without explicitly overruling any of their prior decisions that stand for that simple, clear, and correct proposition, the Supreme Court has fundamentally changed the law, acting as a Super Congress. Without any public hearings or testimony, the Supreme Court acting ultra vires as a Super Congress has rendered numerous innovations made by man no longer patent eligible in America, which is why America is losing the innovation battle for the future.
And despite the Supreme Court having created an unintelligible, irreconcilable, and untenable test test (see here and here) the Court’s continues to refuse to take on patent eligibility appeals and to attempt to offer clarity to 35 U.S.C. §101. Indeed it is entirely predictable that the Supreme Court will refuse any and all petitions for writ of certiorari raising questions about the chaotic Alice/Mayo framework and its uneven and unpredictable application by different panels at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Is this Supreme Court really content with the subjective, extra-statutory test they have foisted upon the industry while changing the law? Does the Supreme Court even appreciate the chaos they have created?
The Supreme Court has stepped well beyond its Constitutional role with respect to its decisions on patent eligibility. The Court ignores the statute, applies its own extra-statutory test that weeds out innovations if they fall within judicial exceptions to the statute, and as it turns out the future of innovation relies on the fields of technology the Supreme Court sees as exceptions to patent eligibility. Of course, when laws of natureand abstract ideas are among the judicial exceptions problems were bound to happen.
On some level every innovation starts off with an idea, and medical advances and innovations, particularly in the realm of personalized medicine, medical diagnostics and artificial organs are fundamentally and foundationally built upon laws of nature. The entire idea is to create the perfect solution that the body will accept. But if you are ingenious enough to do that no patent for you in America. How utterly ridiculous is that? But that is where we are in America thanks to the United States Supreme Court.
It is clear with ever new case the Supreme Court refuses to accept that the Court will not take another patent eligibility appeal in the short term. Just recently the Court refused to take a case where the decision seems to be completely irreconcilable with the Federal Circuit’s Berkheimer and Aatrix decisions, which found that questions of fact underlie a patent eligibility determination at step two of the Alice/Mayo framework. So what does that mean? Do they think the case the contradicts Berkheimer and Aatrixis correct? Do they think Berkheimer and Aatrix is correct? Who knows, because they won’t tell us anything.
The Supreme Court has severely screwed up the law of patent eligibility – the one area of patent law that up until eight years ago was so settled it would be crazy talk to believe there could be any disagreement over what is patent eligible in America. Everything made by man was patent eligible in America. Not anymore.
It is time for two things to happen. First, the Federal Circuit needs to come to terms with the fact that the Supreme Court is not going to provide any more guidance, which means they actually have to fulfill their Constitutional duties and start to make sense of this mess with more en banc decisions that will then actually be followed by three-judge panels. Second, it is time for the industry to get behind either the AIPLA/IPO proposal or the ABA proposal and demand Congress fulfill its Constitutional duties and put an end to the Supreme Court legislating regarding what is and what is not patent eligibile in America.
There are currently 58 Comments comments.
Agree with both of your two conclusions, plus I’ve got a third and fourth: (3) strip SCOTUS of any appellate review of patent law matters; and (4) add more judges to the Federal Circuit who have the appropriate/science background and have “real” patent law/practice experience. The fourth is particularly relevant, given that two of the judges that have chemical backgrounds (Newman and Lourie) could take senior status right now.
Gene, in response to your question, I believe the answer is a resounding “YES”! Because that is precisely what this anti-patent court had in mind all along. To sow uncertainty and predictability so that patents are ultimately rendered useless and worthless.
For far too long we’ve implicitly or explicitly assumed that SCOTUS really didn’t “get it” vis-a-vis the big picture (i.e. the impact upon patents writ large and the innovation economy) in cases which did away with injunctive relief, patent eligibility, damages, the constitutionality of the AIA, etc, etc, etc.
But its time to call it what it is: This is a rogue SCOTUS which has taken upon itself the role of judge, jury, and executioner of patents and the rights of inventors.
It’s time to strip SCOTUS of appellate jurisdiction over patent appeals. These seven cretins (leaving out Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh) have lost the right to adjudicate over patent cases. Their concerted destruction of the greatest innovation engine in the history of the world demands no less.
My colleagues have congratulated me on my discovery while the patent examiner quotes court cases that have nothing to do with my field and concludes my process is routine, well understood and conventional. How is this situation even possible? How can facts and evidence not matter in a legal setting?
SCOTUS has earned the right to be recused from patent cases, without question.
Excellent as always, good recommendations. But we also have the antiquated patent office, anyone try uploading documents today (EFS or contingency)? The number of errors the system is throwing is ridiculous. Are we in v.2 of August 2018? The issues exist on multiple fronts, all pointing to devaluation/lack of appreciation of IP. USPTO should be able to keep all fees and have a world class agency with world class systems (that are paperless).
Is this a trick question? Just FYI, Judge Stoll’s opinion in Real Estate Alliance v. Move was published on February 1, 2018, which is EXACTLY one week before Berkheimer was published. Need I remind anyone that Judge Stoll was on the Berkheimer panel? Berkheimer holds evidence is necessary; Real Estate Alliance holds the opposite as does In re Villena — another product of Stoll’s lack of honesty..
Anyway, the attorney for Real Estate Alliance characterized the fact versus pure law issue a “split” within the Federal Circuit. However, it is not a “split” given Judge Stoll was in on the Berkheimer panel and “split” infers different judges having different opinions.
A cynic can argue that the if the Federal Circuit were to “make sense of this mess”, then the Supreme Court would swiftly act to overrule the Federal Circuit and recreate the mess.
The AIA was signed into law in 2011 and was soon followed by Mayo v. Prometheus (2012), AMP v. Myriad (2013) and Alice v. CLS Bank (2014) to form the Four Horsemen of the 101 apocalypse. It has been a concerted effort to ensure that no objective criteria can stop a ruling of ineligibility. Any judge at any time can strike down any patent with a straw man argument by separating the inventive concept from the structure implementing that concept, calling the inventive concept an ineligible abstract idea, and complaining that the structure without the inventive concept is “not enough”.
From this perspective, the situation is not likely to be fixed without congressional action.
Since when the effort it takes to program an innovation is a factor on its patentability?
When CJ Roberts assumed his position, shortly thereafter there were commentaries in newspapers such as the New York Times and Washington Post that described the “opaque” decisions and opinions of the Roberts’ court which read more like corporate committee reports. The Court lost its focus and decisions such as Alice, Mayo, and KSR are a natural consequence.
I hope you have a good patent practitioner.
BTW, This is not a pitch for your business. Nevertheless, inventor impressions of a rejection vs practitioner understanding of the rejection (and how to effectively amend/traverse) are two entirely different things.
People (from this forum) have read my attorney’s arguments and stated they were well argued.
Also the author who reached out to me for his upcoming book thought I got the shaft.
I want more discussion about the solution. Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you know the problem. Waiting for the Supreme Court to fix it is wishful thinking. They don’t know how to fix it.
Rewriting the statute to include exceptions of abstract ideas and/or products of nature is not the solution. The problem is with the implementation of the words. No one knows how to determine that something is abstract. The comments on this site constantly talk about examiners, PTAB judges, and article III judges getting it wrong on a regular basis. Judge Michel testified before Congress and told them so, and still nothing happens.
I would opt to remove 101, open the door, and let examination settle the issues. However, for this to happen, examination has to improve a lot. Most 101 issues, can be addressed by 112, but examiners don’t know how to apply those rejections and the rejections take too much time. Mayo is a perfect example.
The 101 fiasco started with overclaiming. Let description and enablement rejections deal with overclaiming and 102 and 103 for the rest. I think that would solve the issue and provide predictable outcomes. The proposed 101 solutions will only increase the damage as they do not address implementation.
It probably is time for a rant about the lack of understanding the Supreme Court has on software, and how it is utterly ridiculous that this group of people — who according to Justice Kagan do not even use e-mail — have taken it upon themselves to act in a Super Legislative capacity to kill the software industry.
Yes, Your Honor, IBM could have coded Watson over a weekend while sipping a mocha at a local Starbucks, sir!
This case is Judge Reyna’s most retarded baby as it decoupled preemption from Alice/Mayo. The patent holder correctly argued that there could not possibly be preemption and gave specific examples as to why. Rather than face reality, Judge Reyna declared that legal theory drove reality and that his legal theory, correct or not, made the issue moot.
Anything short of the abolishment of the unneeded s101 will still allow SCOTUS to find a way to slip their collective noses under the patent tent.
A persistent bunch they be.
Concerned, your attorney did a great job. He touched on everything short of the 1952 Patent Act, which even the CAFC refuses to address or even mention even when openly (but respectfully) mocked – and I know this first-hand. Hell. when Judge Newman is affirming a 101 rejection because there is no “invention” or appropriate “transformation” of a composition of matter / manufacture, we’re in trouble.
Unfortunately, Alice/Mayo isn’t about making decisions on the merits of a case. “Void for vagueness” is a term another commenter on this page uses, and he’s correct. The statutory language of s101 has been made moot by judicial fiat.
The AIA is a mixed bag at best, and a giveaway to large corporations, but s101 was not altered in the slightest by the AIA.
Alice and Mayo were the product of Justices unable to read the statutory language of s101 or bother to understand the purpose of the 1952 Patent Act.
This is a methodological and ideological conviction from which Courts appear to be unable to move. Especially because they find support in prior decisions.
Night Writer (I assume jokingly) maintains that SCOTUS believes that “the Sun revolves around the Earth.” But methodologically and ideologically that is where they are. Their feeling seems to be that the patent eligibility is going in the wrong direction and that “ideas” are being patented. This may not even be a malicious intent, it is just a misunderstanding of advanced technology.
They are waiting, I believe, for a case that fits their belief system to put another if not final nail in what they think is the wrong direction of patent eligibility.
The real elephant in the room (or the biggest one) is that patent rights and especially ‘patent protection’ is now – effectively – only available to the 1%! This ISN’T what the Founders intended – obviously! They never said (or anticipated) that it could take a boatload of money to obtain either patent rights, or patent protection! They intended the concept of patent protection to be class and financial status blind! They never intended that patents should only be reserved for the rich or large corporations (since there weren’t any large corporations at the time). I believe this alone now renders our ‘oppressive’ and ‘unfairly burdensome’ patent laws, unconstitutional. Clearly they are NOT what the Founders intended. What they intended and expected Congress to flesh out, was an ‘egalitarian’ set of rules and laws that would be accessible to all! Certainly not what we have now! What we have now is an anathema to what the Founders intended! How is that not obvious to all (especially patent attorneys, members of Congress and the courts)? Article I, Section 8 is as clear as it is brief! The Founders never envisioned patents becoming complicated or highly contentious. They could never have imagined that it could take years to decide who invented what! The whole purpose of a ‘letters patent’, was to allow describing what was being claimed as new and significant ‘technology’ in purely technical terms, rather than having to describe these inventions in highly obtuse legal terms intended solely for the purpose of obfuscating what was actually being claimed as new and broadly applicable. The ‘patent’ was mostly supposed to be a concise and detailed technical document, not a ‘tortured’ and confusing legal document. It would become a legal document by reason of it being approved by the government as a form of time-limited property right (such as a mining right). It was simply a technical property claim, in the way that title to a surveyed piece of land was a legal property claim. It was the plainly described and easily understood borders of that property claim that mattered most, not the legalese that may have accompanied title to such property. Land disputes were always easy to resolve when their boundaries were not allowed to overlap. The USPTO no longer ensures that the boundaries of new inventions don’t overlap! They do a very poor job of this and that is what causes so many problems. Far fewer (good) patents should be allowed to issue. But, far too many bad patents are still being issued (including perpetual motion patents). That’s why we have the mess and endless and inconsistent arguments we have today! At most 50K patents should be granted in the U.S. each year and maybe even far fewer than that! Makes no sense and it is a waste of incredible amounts of money to issue patents that will only be deemed invalid later on! It is a waste of huge amounts of time and money that could be put to much better uses, including improving our way of life and even technical advancement. Fewer patents means much less confusion as to who invented what and when!
Except how do you adequately describe a 10 million line piece of software in which 80% may not be novel or non-obvious at all (but it would take years of research to prove)? Was much easier when code was only a few pages long. Also humans perform ‘AI’ all the time (especially when writing ‘boilerplate’)! So how can you claim as novel a process that humans may be doing naturally (and is therefore ‘naturally occurring’ everyday)? The irony, of course, being that the closer AI gets to duplicating human performance, it may be less and less patentable, as it would then become more of a scientific ‘discovery’, as opposed to patentable subject matter! Also, any process (not requiring new hardware) that is able to be performed by humans (especially just as efficiently) is not considered patentable subject matter, anyway! Programs are just a set of instructions to perform certain actions. If humans already operate with the same or similar internal instructions, then those instructions (i.e. code) is not likely to be patentable. Proving this to be the case, however, is another matter altogether and cannot even be done presently! I think it is actually the complexity of software today that makes issuing patents on it extremely difficult and controversial. What is the ‘abstract’ vs. non-abstract portion of software? If the software is intended to control a machine in ways that is not possible for a human to do (at least for very long), then those kinds of computer instructions probably are patentable subject matter. But that’s why the Europeans don’t even bother trying to deal with purely software centered patents and prefer such IP to be primarily protected by copyright and trade secret! It’s just gotten far to complex to sort out (particularly in the case of self-teaching machines). If you have a machine that learns on its own, who gets credit for what they learn and/or patent rights over it? And, if a machine ever does becomes conscious, could you patent and thereby ‘own’ such a machine? Yeah . . . try to answer that one in a technical or legal way!!!
Bottom line is that we don’t know what the SCOTeties “think” (and I use that latter quoted term with hesitation).
We only know what they write and what they espouse at oral arguments.
All of it is mythological nonsense with no basis in science and fact.
Will they ever appreciate their incompetence in these matters? No.
Will they ever admit their incompetence in these matters and apologize? Never.
In New Zealand we were very fortunate to have a patent attorney on our Supreme Court for a number of years who contributed to excellent jurisprudence for our country.
That simply cannot be the law. It has never been the law at any time in the history of the world that something that could be done previously but now could be done faster, more efficiently, with less error, is not patentable. Of course improvements are patentable.
For example, a human could perform with pencil and paper the mathematics required to intercept a ballistic missile. The human would require far more time than granted and the city the missile was aimed at would be destroyed. So if software could instruct a machine to intercept the missile in real time there are some that would say there is no innovation at all because the human over several lifetimes could have performed the relevant calculations. All the people who would be alive because of the interception being successful would easily understand there to be a meaningful invention.
It would be interesting to see an article that compares how the Scotus has decimated other areas of law in a similar way as Alice. I think with anti-trust law what they did was create the “rule of reason”, which essentially made it possible for a judge to decide whatever they felt like. All they had to do was plug in some reasons why it made sense to only have two competitors in a market and there goes the Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
I think the Scotus plays this game a lot. They know how to burn down any legislation and any law.
I also believe they are not being malicious. However, I believe they would be receptive to hear a case which raises conflicting legal theories regarding the role of advanced technology in forensic science and protecting the inventions that are used to advance forensic science. They currently hold contrary to certain scientific truths and facts which, when followed logically, lead to the nullification of aspects of forensic science. The SCOTUS simply cannot allow areas of forensic science to be nullified, especially computer and biological scientific advances, that have advanced the use of forensic science in law.
A case which highlights the relationship that intellectual property law has in supporting forensic science would inevitably reconcile the divert legal theories currently being applied in these areas. The law must follow established scientific principles. The SCOTUS has this responsibility, it only needs the opportunity.
Gentlemen, you’re 100% wrong. They’re intentionally malicious.
Why else would Judge Taranto deliberately lie about MCRO to reject Investpic. Why else would Judge Stoll lie about Berkheimer to reject Villena? How else can you explain why McRo was held valid but not Recognicorp. Also, explain why Judge Newman deliberately misrepresented 101 in Bhagat, which was rejected because a “product-by-process” claim didn’t have a “process.” (stupid isn’t it)? It’s as if Judge Newman or any of her lackluster clerks couldn’t be bothered to read Bilski.
I’m sorry, but like many other patent attorneys who have gone threw the shyte-mill of the courts, I no longer believe its about confusion. The courts are like children who’ve lit their 50th apartment building on fire and can’t give a rational reason.
This is anathema to the patent system, science, and technology. I know that Taranto pushes this point. But the basic principle of innovation is often involved in automating processes that human perform and seldom are they automated in the same way as the human. They are often improved or by necessity performed differently. In Deener, a method of processing grain was disclosed. Each of the steps and indeed the entire method could have been performed by a human, but the justices did not say it was unpatentable because it could be performed by a human body. Indeed, a shovel is similar to a hand, etc.
The very essence of progress is often automating what we already know. The argument that if a person does it then it is unlikely to be patentable is a naked attempt at stripping patentability from a large subject area.
Not according to Electric Power Group, Investpic and Villena. In Electric Power Group, Taranto lied about there not being an improvement or new data source. In Villena, Stoll refused to address the indisputable advantages or the multiple violations of the APA. Investpic was an all out f.u. to improvement by Taranto.
Hey, go back to Eli Whitney’s cotton gin. Patentable? Was in the 1800s but not under Judge Taranto.
George appears to be operating under a mistaken appreciation of patent law (and what software IS, all in relation to patent law, in relation to the history of computing devices, and to the actual physics of a computing device).
In Copyright (and operating under the same Constitutional clause), one may NOT obtain copyright on math. Period. Yet, it is under the understanding of “the configuration of” – (and to return to patent parlance) the “claim as a whole” – in which such items DO create something more – something to which an aspect of protection does become available.
In an atomic view, 100% of merely three items make up every single “hard goods” item (in more than one statutory category) for every item in those categories that has ever been patented. Further, these three items are combined purely according to the Laws of Nature, and there has been NO CHANGE in how that combination is effected since the first few moments of the universe.
To then posit “in which 80% may not be novel or non-obvious at all (but it would take years of research to prove)? Was much easier when code was only a few pages long” is to simply not grasp what it is that is protected by “software patents,” nor how novelty or non-obviousness is to be evaluated (or, for that matter, how patent eligibility is supposed to be evaluated, notwithstanding what nonsense the Supreme Court chooses to write).
From an historical perspective, one also needs to remember that software is nothing more than an equivalent (and equivalent is not to be taken as “an equal,” as in, the two need not have an identical relationship) to other wares which an innovator concerned with computing devices may choose to avail for themselves. That is, when it comes to protecting innovation by way of patent, it matters not whether a computing device is a dedicated hardware device or a combination of hardware and additional software (or firmware). Those attempting to insert such a distinction are merely obfuscating. The analogy in this case is to take the thought experiment labeled “The Grand Hall” experiment, wherein two identical hardware computing devices (with each having absolutely NO software) are placed in a Grand Hall next to each other. One (and only one) of the two pure hardware machines is then changed by being configured with software. Then the two machines are compared as to actual (and immediate) capabilities (that is, capabilities without any further improvements to the computing devices).
@26 B Gentlemen, you’re 100% wrong. They’re intentionally malicious.
I think this is exactly right. I predicted that Obama would appoint non-patent attorneys (in general he did), and other that are anti-patent. My guess is that Obama allowed Google to select the nominees and that there were conversations about agreeing to “get the patents under control.” But many of the people selected were already very anti-patent and judicial activists prior to appointment.
If Trump wanted to really clean up patents, on the list of things to do would be to dissolve the CAFC and reform it with patent attorneys with at least 10 years experience and with people that have a history of integrity.
You’re analogy to children playing with matches is spot on.
Yes the SCOTeties and Federallies (CAFC and Districts) are just like precocious children playing with matches, burning whole cities down and then proclaiming that they tread lightly lest their actions burn whole cities down.
Are they malicious? Well, at minimum they have reckless and depraved disregard for the consequences of their irrational actions. Isn’t that bad enough?
Good point about observing how SCOTUS has burned own other areas of law including anti-trust, corruption in politics (Citizens United), voting rights, labor law, etc.
Patent law is a special case though. It alone is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Congress has the choice (per an enumerated empowerment clause, clause number 8) to “secure” for inventors the “exclusive” rights to their Discoveries. Congress has chosen to do so via Title 35. SCOTUS has nonetheless gone ahead and de-secured inventors, stripping them of right to injunctive relief, presumption of validity and statutorily permissive eligibility (“any” new and useful machine, process, etc.).
SCOTUS has also interfered with a quid pro quo contract made between inventors and the US government (the USPTO). Suddenly (and ex post factually), subject matter that was deemed eligible at the time inventors paid their issue fee, their maintenance fees is no longer eligible at the moment the inventors try to enforce their exclusive rights. What kind of sanctity of the contract is that?
They’re deliberately malicious. When not just one but a series in CAFC judges openly lie, expressly and by omission, that’s malicious. I’ve seen it all first hand. They’ll never have credibility with me again, and it’s clear from the available record just how dishonest these judges are.
Anon, of course you are right in your explanation. Unfortunately we are beyond scientific explanations being convincing.
@34 B >>They’ll never have credibility with me again, and it’s clear from the available record just how dishonest these judges are.
That is what I have been saying for many years now. I think that Obama allowed a corporation to select the judges. Obama appointed most of the judges O’Malley through Stoll. I think they all were talked to before the appointment and agreed to get patents under control.
And what I’ve noticed is that some of the selections are of people that had a not very good reputation in terms of integrity prior to their appointment.
The short of it is that Obama allowed a corporation to stack the CAFC with anti-patent people.
I get the feeling too that people aren’t savvy enough to get a lot of the games these judges play.
I want to disagree – if only because the non-scientific approach can be combatted.
Yes, using only scientific approach does not appear to be the winning strategy, and using a spectrum of approaches (including “appealing soundbytes” as well as fighting the “guerrilla war” of not ignoring the vapid propaganda) will be required. Note that some have criticized engaging the likes of “Malcolm Mooney” on that other blog, indicating that such merely “feeds the Tr011,” but without engaging and showing just how vapid the propaganda is, that propaganda will be picked up by those not engaging in critical thinking.
Yes, fighting the propaganda is not easy in a day and age in which critical thinking is taught little and appreciated less. But the alternative is to simply not care and surrender to the chaos. I refuse to not care.
I wish I could be as hopeful as you seem to be about getting people to “think” critically and fighting the good fight against the tsunami of anti-inventor propaganda.
Yes Virginia and ex-Justice Kennedy, there really is a coffee shop in Silicon Valley where one easily finds a bunch of nerds sitting around sipping their mocha grande java eager to jump at the chance of coding up up over a weekend and on their home computers any implementation of any “abstract idea/concept” you might have. You want cloud based secure hedging? No problem. You want a bank escrow system? Heck even grandma and King Tut’s abacus man knew how to do that. You want DNA fragments plucked off the double helix like leaves off a tree? Guess what? We denizens of the caffeine dungeon can do that too. Yes as a side job. And over the weekend on our home DNA and me kits. Easy peasy.
Call this nightmarish movie, Revenge of the Anti-nerds. While you’ve been sticking your face into the deep tech grindstone, some out there have been honing their skills in the dark arts of deceptive manipulation. They’ve gotten really good at it. Knowing how to stroke the egos of our Supreme Court Justices and lower court judges just right. Yes your honor, those inventor types aren’t smarter than you. It’s just that they have these scheming scriveners with their warlock draftsman’s spells to spin a pile of gobbledygook. But just like that emperor who before his parade could see the fine quality of his tailor’s toolings, you too can spot the abstract idea hidden among the conventional and routine other words found in all these obfuscating patent claims. Here is a simple magic potion to throw at them all and strike them down before they interfere with the working of our good enough economy.
I will take you well-written reply to be the very type of “more than scientific approach” that I deem needed to combat the scourge of anti-patentists.
Woe to us all if you decided to simply quit trying (and for all of your pesmissism towards my post, the evidence of you NOT quitting is found in your own writing!).
Anon, My response was caught in a “page was removed error.” Let me try again with my complete response.
Explaining the principles of computers to people who do not want to be convinced does not help. There was no longer science involved in believing that the Sun revolves around the Earth after Galileo. It took the Catholic Church until 1822 before it let go of its medieval beliefs. In the mean time only a stubborn ideological conviction remained.
Despite all of its actions regarding unexplained “abstract ideas”, “law of nature” and “natural phenomena” still some patents deemed to be undeserving slip through the net of SCOTUS decisions.
This is why Alice, now includes “directed to an abstract idea” which is a new judicial exception. It means, as I understand it, but who knows, that an invention originates from an “abstract idea” but the conversion of the idea into a physical realization (such as a programmed computer) is for some metaphysical reason not sufficient to make it patent eligible. Despite the fact that measurements and observations can be made that prove that the device is a physically observable device, most likely in its performance different from other devices, SCOTUS maintains that too much of the “abstract idea” still resides in the device. This “abstract idea” is as metaphysical as the aether. You cannot see it, touch it, or measure it. But SCOTUS maintains it is there, right in the device.
There is a growing and increasingly unbridgeable gap between what SCOTUS decides and the current state of science and technology. This has eroded both the quality of patents and the credibility of SCOTUS. The SCOTUS decisions in the field of computer technology stand out by their amateurish and naive scientific nature. They are an embarrassment to our stature as a country that developed computer science and technology and form an unneeded barrier to new business activity in this field.
A higher authority must step in. And that higher authority is Congress.
Unfortunately when SCOTUS goes low, Congress goes even lower.
It will take another Pearl Harbor, another Sputnik moment before America wakes up. Who knows, perhaps we are in in a permanent opiod induced coma? All that is good news for our global competitors. You know, the ones who pay the anti-patent traitorous shills in our country to keep doing what they’re doing.
Enablement STILL a significant factor in PTAB decisions! Make sure your invention ‘really works’ – as claimed (i.e., don’t file Theranos-like applications)! Easiest way to invalid a patent is to prove ‘it doesn’t really work’ (like all perpetual motion machines).
Another recently rejected, algorithm-based, application, this time from Facebook (and nice to see they get rejections too)! Provides more clues as to what won’t be allowed after Alice. Seems that if an idea can be described (or executed) as just a set of mathematical, economic, or other abstract steps, even when using proprietary data input/output, then you probably won’t be able to patent it! The resulting actions (or output) of any such algorithm(s) would seem to have to actually DO or CREATE ‘something tangible’ that represents more than just a speed up, improvement in accuracy, or even productivity improvement, over that which could be done previously by a person of ordinary skill in the art (i.e., in this particular case, having to do with sales and marketing). Also implies that most business method patents will, likely, not survive closer scrutiny by the PTAB (or the courts), since they too will now have to result in the creation of something ‘tangible’ and probably something that didn’t exist before or wasn’t possible (or ‘almost’ impossible) to do at all, before (say something ‘very difficult’ or expensive to do before). Definitely looks like Ideas by themselves (even those using a computer) still won’t cut it, even if they might ‘require’ a computer for their execution, utility, or ‘full expression’ (such as a graphical representation). Seems we are back to the original interpretations of what is and is not patentable (which, despite seeming arbitrary to some, may be a good thing if only for ‘practical reasons’)! We (including big corporations) may have to just accept this new reality (at least for the time being) and adjust to it accordingly, or seek to change it by legislation (a long shot).
How is that “an idea” can require a computer to execute?
Also implies that most business method patents will, likely, not survive closer scrutiny by the PTAB (or the courts), since they too will now have to result in the creation of something ‘tangible’ and probably something that didn’t exist before or wasn’t possible (or ‘almost’ impossible) to do at all, before (say something ‘very difficult’ or expensive to do before).
Or implies the examiner will reject, reject and reject and force the PTAB or courts to remand the approval of the application if you are lucky (95% affirmed rate of the examiner’s rejection at the PTAB in my art). My examiner only approved 2 applications out of 114 the last 12 months. I proved that my process was not achieved before by experts and professionals in the 62 years since the benefit program existed and proved it with overwhelming evidence.
My level of evidence may have been unprecedented or close to it: 2 university studies from experts with 25 years and 35 years of experience, documents from every possible end user from all 50 states in our nation, handbooks and applications from the administering agency. Reject, reject reject. Examiner’s evidence: Nothing, did not even acknowledge the evidence.
The new technology was rooted in computers as that is where the problem resides (think McRO). Reject, reject, reject even though McRO computerized a known process whereas my process produced a solution that was never known by experts and professionals before or after computers were invented.
No pre-exemption: Process only kicks in when professions make unavoidable mistakes as the solution was unknown to them. Reject, reject, reject.
George: Let’s call whats really happening. Even though the SCOTUS did not say anything with a computer is rejected regardless of what problem was solved, yes they did in the reality. Alice was the case SCOTUS was waiting for and they pounced on it with their “perfect” solution: Add words to the law and refuse to define said words. Make 112 patent attorneys look incompetent and approve 2 applications to somehow make the “perfect” solution look legitimate.
Please do not give a free pass to a legal process where truth, facts or evidence is dismissed and not even acknowledged. SCOTUS will not even take a brief to affirmed whether truth, facts or evidence is a consideration (as it might reveal the real agenda- kill software patents). Walks and quacks like a duck, must be a duck.
There is no proper “original” in the rewritings by the Supreme Court.
The “good thing” to accept for “practical reasons” is the opposite of using critical reasoning.
“… that represents more than just a speed up, improvement in accuracy, or even productivity improvement, over that which could be done previously by a person of ordinary skill in the art.” But that is exactly what almost all inventions do: from the cotton gin, to knitting machines to snow-throwers. It baffles the mind why computers are deemed to be so special in this context. Opposition to patent eligibility appears to have reached the same level of irrationality as for example opposition to evolution theory.
“CREATE ‘something tangible’” Tangible in science and technology is something that is observable/measurable. Almost everything a programmed computer does is observable/measurable.
It seems that the only reason why there is opposition to patent eligibility of computer implemented inventions is because opponents “do not like it.” That is all. So far all arguments against this type of inventions are based on metaphysical arguments, not on rational, or empirical arguments. Even SCOTUS has to invent its metaphysical “directed to an abstract idea” to defend its irrational decision in Alice.
My turn to agree with you: your rationality and my critical thinking are two sides of the same coin — coin that is desparately needed to protect innovation in the current Kondratiev wave (see Schumpeter).
So, in your opinions, ANY ‘new’ piece of software that computes some new data, does it faster, more accurately, or maybe allows the software to also work on phones and not just computers, deserves to get patent protection, even if later it can be proven to do the same things as some other piece of software (or pseudo-code) out there, that may have just been overlooked? What if you just copied something out of a textbook,or based your code ‘roughly’ on what you found there? Still deserves a patent? What if you didn’t even know you did ‘accidentally’ did that? How about subroutines, or even just pseudo-code? Should that be patentable too?
That would mean millions of ‘pieces’ of code could be patented and held hostage or ransomed for its use! REALLY? Who’s going to check all of those new applications against millions of prior art references? The inventor? The PTO? Examiners? How would that even be possible (even using computers) and how much would that cost? Do you ever ‘think’ before you comment on things? Do you ever think about HOW things which would make your life a lot easier and more to your liking, could be done? It’s not just about YOUR patent rights and what you think of your own invention (which I am sure cannot be overstated), it’s about what your patent rights would do to other innovators too (including university researchers). They don’t want to have to check millions of software patent applications before doing research! No one would want (or could) do that!
Much, much easier, faster, and infinitely cheaper to use copyright law and trade secret law, to do all of the above! In the former case you just publish what your idea or code does, in a publication that will be available in perpetuity (i.e. not on a blog site) and in the later case you can just keep it all secret and then USE the results to ‘do something’ or offer ‘a service’. And, you can also release executable code which is very difficult to reverse-engineer if you don’t have any good clues as to how the program does what it does (which you don’t publish or give out to other than trusted parties). If executable code is copied (even a part of it), then that is de facto copyright infringement. If your idea is really original, revolutionary, or just unique, and then it is copied (even if not verbatim), without credit or citation, then that also constitutes ‘plagiarism’ (though most people and even many lawyers appear not to know that). While you can’t directly take legal action for plagiarism per se (since its not a legally prohibited offense – yet), if it also constitutes copyright infringement (i.e., literal copying), then you can take legal action. But, even if only plagiarism is what is being charged, you might be able to do something just as effective or even better than filing a lawsuit for patent infringement, by just shaming those who you can ‘clearly and irrefutably prove’ have done it. That’s pretty easy to do if your software description has been published or you have other (witnessed) and well written records. Incidentally (non-PTO) documentation of invention, is no longer helpful, post AIA (for more than a year before filing) in proving who was indeed the first to invent something, or who will be first to receive a patent on an invention and possibly obtain economic rewards therefrom, even if an invention may have been stolen as a result of difficult to prove ‘hacking’ This later problem should now be a MUCH bigger concern for small-time inventors, but ‘amazingly’ doesn’t seem to be a big problem for corporations who can much more easily reduce inventions to practice or even commercial introduction within a year or less and who can also easily afford to apply for patent and other IP protection(s), within that same narrow window of time (again, thanks to the AIA). Funny how that worked out, eh?!
Put some real money behind those predictions! Then people might take you more seriously and there would be a ‘tangible’ way for us to keep score! How about $10K to charity if your economic predictions don’t hold? Just more nonsense and economic pseudo-science to confuse people even more.
You are so off base with your mix of strawman, lack of legal knowledge and mantra of Efficient Infringers that I am embarrassed for you.
You “deserve” to learn a lot more about patent law, patent practice and the history of patents before posing your seemingly brilliant arguments.
Part of the evil done by them who don’t and never did like American inventors much is to change the language. The term “eligibility” was contrived by these haters and swallowed hook plus sinker by the legal “scholars” on the Supreme bench.
It used to be referred to as the question of “patentable subject matter”. It was a highly filtered and legally refined issue. The term “eligibility” was conjured up to confuse people like you (and the Supreme bench warmers) who don’t know what they are talking about. The haters thank you for biting on their bait and misunderstanding the whole question, what is “patentable subject matter” and what is not? The answer is printed in clear language in 35 USC 101: ANY new and useful process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter or improvement thereof.
Except that I get ‘good’ patents issued – eventually! Some take up to 8-9 years, but I get broad ones in the end (because I don’t accept narrow ones). I make whatever changes are needed to get broad patent protection or (now) to pass muster under ‘Alice’. Not really that hard, but a lot more time consuming and expensive and multiple CIP’s may need to be pursued in order to be successful. People who expect to get a good patent on the first go around, or in 2-3 years, are setting themselves up for big disappointment. Want a good patent? Prepare for a long (potentially very long), grueling and bloody battle. But, again, that’s not even the worst problem with our patent laws. It’s the inequity baked into them that’s a much bigger problem! A bad patent, even if it might ‘superficially’ look the same as a good one, is absolutely worthless! Inventors have to always fight for good patents, otherwise it’s just a lost cause and complete waste of time and money! I have yet NOT to get patent allowance in the end, and it’s usually broader that when it started out! I don’t like to lose!
“ANY new and useful process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter or improvement thereof.” . . . (notice, that seems to imply only ‘tangible’ things or processes that produce tangible things).
You seem to think that ANY new ‘process’ or idea should be patentable – including any new food recipe, or an ordered list of actions. If you really take that ‘literally’ (rather than as general guidance) then you are ‘literally’ talking about the issuance of BILLIONS of patents! Want billions of patents that you would then, also, have to worry about? I sure don’t want to have to search millions or billions of prior art patents (much less, academic papers)? Who does? I want FAR FEWER patents to be issued but also much ‘broader’ ones (like in the good old days)! I want ‘universal patents’ that are enforceable anywhere in the world and don’t require separate applications. I also want technical and historical experts involved in helping to resolve patent eligibility and validity disputes or appeals. Only experts in a field can determine what is truly new and significant, and what is not. If you don’t have something ‘really new’ it’s probably commercially (and historically) worthless! Want more worthless patents being issued? I don’t! That only devalues ALL inventions and patents!
A programmed machine is a technological device, not an abstract idea. I thought it funny that you doubt the patent eligibility of subroutines and pseudo-code. You really don’t seem to have a clue about what you are talking about in relation to inventions and patents.
You insult us: “Do you ever ‘think’ before you comment on things?” Absolutely, we do. Responses by Anon and Step show a knowledge of the patent and legal system and a reasoned assessment of its current status. Reading your responses I doubt your basic knowledge about the system and I wonder: “Do you ever verify your thoughts on patents against known facts?” You may start the process by reading MPEP Chapter 2100.
Pardon my skepticism, but based on the number of fallacies in your post at 50, ranging from your creating strawmen to attack, to your lack of realization that claims are NOT code, to your “it would be easier” view, to your “copyright is good enough” conflation as to what different aspects the different forms of IP protection provide, to your off-base “accusation” of “do you even think,” I simply do not believe that you obtain ANY “good patents” of anything except perhaps some exceedingly narrow picture claim patents.
Your reply to step back (Billions of patents) — really? only confirms to me that you are nothing but a poser. You make grand pronouncements that defy credibility and seem to think that your sheer force of ego suffices.
I am just not buying anything that you are selling.
People like George (if only he were a Lakoff) is precisely the reason why the Efficient Infringers changed the framing in the language from “patentable subject matter” to “eligibility”.
He and the Supreme bench warmers are easily fooled by the changed framing. Mission accomplished.


text:
Tiberio Nicola, AKA the “Tibe” (1931-2002) is the icon of Jazz in the town of La Spezia.
Passionate connoisseur of jazz music since the early fifties, he played the tuba in the “Original Sprugolean Jazz Band”, a local lineup, with which he performed in the first six editions of the International Jazz Festival of La Spezia (often in the company of such guests as Albert Nicholas, Charlie Beal or Max Kaminsky), and in Bologna, Pescara Toulon Jazz Festivals, as well as in many jazz clubs around Italy.
In the late sixties, in July 1969, with the friends of the Original Sprugolean Jazz Band and other jazz-loving artists living in La Spezia, he gave life to the first edition of the International Jazz Festival of La Spezia.
Since that first unforgettable and memorable edition, Tiberio never ceased to devote himself with all his generous passion to the Jazz Festival, creating new relationships and friendships with the greatest musicians around the world, including Bill Evans, Charles Mingus, Art Blakey, Horace Silver, George Coleman, and witnessing the growth of other great artists such as Keith Jarrett, Gary Burton, Michel Petrucciani, Franco D’Andrea, Enrico Rava, Massimo Urbani and many others.
From 2011 the International Jazz Festival of La Spezia chooses to organize, besides the concerts, workshops for musicians, and establishes the “Tiberio Nicola Award” dedicated to the memory of its founder.
The seminar formula and the Tiberio Nicola Award are back with the 50° La Spezia International Jazz Festival.
Art. 1 The “Tiberio Nicola Award” is held within the framework of the International Jazz Festival of La Spezia.
Art. 2 The Tiberio Nicola Award is reserved to Italian soloists and is open to all musical instruments (including singers).
Art. 3 The application for registration is made through the registration to the International Jazz Workshops of La Spezia.
Art. 5 Among all the members 4 semi-finalists will be selected who will perform on 27 July 2018 in the International Jazz Festival of La Spezia.
Among them the winner will be chosen and will be announced on July 28th, 2018.
The selected candidates will be admitted to the final stage of the award by the Organizing Committee and the professors of the International Jazz Seminars.
Art. 6 Competitors will be evaluated by the artistic management through listening during lessons and classes of the Workshop.
The songs to be prepared will be sent during the first week of June to all members.
Art. 7 The selection jury will be formed by the Festival Artistic Director, the Festival professors, and a representative of the Municipality of La Spezia.
1st place: Journey to New York and performance in the Italian Jazz Days 2018 edition.
2nd place: free entry to the International Jazz Seminars of 2018 and 2019.
3rd place: free entry to the International Jazz Seminars of 2019.
Art. 9 Registration for the Tiberio Nicola Award implies full acceptance of the present competition Regulations.
The Regulations are published in Italian and English.

matches:
Art. 1
Art. 2
Art. 3
Art. 5
Art. 6
Art. 7
Art. 9


The Court is on recess again (until February 20) but before departing it issued three new decisions. The lead case was another example of the carnage that the Court hath wrought in its recent criminal sentencing jurisprudence. If that doesn't get your juices flowing, you can skip ahead for cases on the Prison Litigation Reform Act and removal jurisdiction under the Westfall Act for suits against federal employees (or maybe you'll be interested to see the Court's latest cert grants even further ahead . . . .).
The drama of the week came in Cunningham v. California (05-6551), where a 6-3 Court invalidated California's criminal sentencing guidelines. The case requires a bit of background: In 2000, the Court held in Apprendi v. New Jersey that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial requires that a defendant cannot get more than the statutory maximum sentence for his offense unless the jury finds all the facts justifying the increase to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In 2004, the Court followed up with Blakely v. Washington, where it invalidated that state's sentencing guidelines because they authorized upward departures from standard sentences based on post-trial judicial factfinding rather than on the jury's verdict. In its 2005 decisions in United States v. Booker and United States v. Fanfan, two different five-Justice majorities (bridged only by Justice Ginsburg, who strangely wrote nothing at the time) held on the one hand that the same rule applied to the federal sentencing guidelines, but on the other hand that the guidelines could remain in place so long as they were merely "advisory" for judges (five Justices being unwilling to graft a jury-trial requirement onto the whole of the guidelines). You can find our predecessor Sandy Glover's June 28, 2004 summary of Blakely, and our January 12, 2005 summary of Booker/Fanfan, at http://www.wiggin.com/practices/group_scupdates.asp?groupid=5.
Cunningham turned the Court's attention to California, where a rather unsympathetic defendant was convicted of continuous sexual abuse of a child. Under California's sentencing system, the judge had to sentence him to a standard term of 12 years unless the judge found certain "circumstances in aggravation," which could yield an "upper" term of 16 years (there also was a "lower" term option, not relevant here, of 6 years). Cunningham got the upper term, and he argued that the whole scheme ran afoul of Apprendi and its progeny. The Court agreed. Justice Ginsburg (silent in Booker) wrote for the majority, which included the Chief and Justices Stevens, Scalia, Souter and Thomas. Given the background, the result in Cunningham is hardly surprising: By giving sentence-elevating factfinding to the judge, the California guidelines violate the right to a jury trial. The California courts had tried to avoid Apprendi by reasoning that the judge had not sentenced Cunningham beyond the statutory maximum – the statute did provide for 16 years, only subject to a judge's "traditional discretion" in choosing a sentence within a given range. The Court didn't buy it: "If the jury's verdict alone does not authorize the sentence, if, instead, the judge must find an additional fact [beyond the verdict] to impose the longer term, the Sixth Amendment requirement is not satisfied." The judge here had no discretion – he could impose 12 years, nothing more, unless he found aggravating circumstances allowing the upper term. So California has to junk its current system, though the ball is in California's court as to what to do in future cases – have juries find all sentencing facts, or give judges truly discretionary sentencing power.
Justice Alito wrote the principal dissent, which Kennedy and Breyer joined. Apprendi and its successors make clear that fully discretionary sentencing decisions, subject to reasonableness review, can be based on judicial factfinding. California's system gives judges broad discretion, in that they can look to "practically everything which has a legitimate bearing on the case" to decide whether to depart from the middle term for a crime (and many of these factors, Alito argued, are not necessarily "facts" within the meaning of the term as used in the context of jury trials and the Sixth Amendment). Given those similarities to the new federal system, Alito (a former prosecutor, for what it's worth) would have let the California system stand. Kennedy wrote his own dissent (which Breyer joined) to say that the Court has gone off the reservation since Apprendi. He suggests limiting that case's holding to enhancements based on the nature of the offense (heinousness, etc., which easily could go to the jury), but not to enhancements based on the nature of the offender (i.e., prior convictions, remorse or lack thereof).
The next decision was Osborn v. Haley (05-593), another Ginsburg opinion, which concerned the Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act, more commonly known as the Westfall Act (no one liked "FELRTCA"). The Act gives federal employees absolute immunity from tort suits arising out of their official actions. The way it works is that once the Attorney General certifies that a defendant employee was acting within the scope of his duties, the employee is dismissed and the United States is substituted in his place; moreover, if the action was brought in state court, it is removed to federal court, with the AG's certification being "conclusive" for removal purposes according to the statute. Here, Osborn alleged in Kentucky state court that Forest Service employee Haley tortiously interfered with her employment with a private contractor. The AG certified, contrary to Osborn's allegations, that Haley was acting in his official capacity; the case was removed to federal court, where the government denied that Haley did anything at all. The district court, accepting all of Osborn's allegations as true, rejected the AG's Westfall Act certification – removing the government from the case and sending it back to state court – essentially holding that the AG cannot certify that an employee was acting in his official capacity if the employee denies that he acted at all.
The Court (Ginsburg, joined in whole by the Chief, Stevens, Kennedy and Alito, and in part by others as noted below) agreed with the Sixth Circuit that the trial court made a mistake. Of note to appellate jurisdiction junkies, the Court first concluded that the lower court ruling was reviewable. Under 28 U.S.C. 1447, remand orders on jurisdictional grounds generally cannot be appealed, but the Westfall Act's language that an AG certification is "conclusive" for removal purposes meant that the district court simply could not remand; there was no jurisdictional inquiry for the district court to undertake in this "extraordinary" case where Congress "has ordered the intercourt shuttle to travel just one way." On the substance, the Court held that Westfall Act certification is proper even when a defendant denies that he acted at all. Because the Act was supposed to shield employees from suit, not just liability, a court cannot reject a certification based solely on bare allegations in a complaint. Moreover, it would seem odd to deny Westfall Act protection to employees who did nothing but give it to employees who admit conduct but claim official capacity ("It is illogical to assume that Congress intended to protect guilty employees but desert innocent ones."). Instead, where conduct is contested the court must undertake its own investigation of the facts before ruling on the immunity issue as quickly as possible. Recognizing that this might deprive a plaintiff of a jury trial, the Court noted that upon certification the suit is against the government, and there is no Seventh Amendment jury trial right as against the sovereign.
There were three other opinions in the case. Justice Breyer agreed that the case was reviewable, but dissented on the substance. He would allow Westfall Act certification only if the AG accepts, at least conditionally, that something happened (call it the O.J. Simpson Pleading: "Nothing happened, but if it did, it was in Haley's official capacity."). Justice Souter went a step further, dissenting from the bulk of the ruling on jurisdictional grounds: Under 28 U.S.C. 1447, remand orders are never reviewable, no matter how obvious the error (see our June 19, 2006 summary of Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust, available at the link posted in the Cunningham discussion). In an attempt to save "half a loaf," however, he would allow appellate courts to review resubstitution orders – meaning here that the Sixth Circuit could not fix the remand, but could stop Haley from being added back into the case. Souter hoped that this would allow appellate courts to highlight errors that the district courts could self-correct before any mistaken remands took effect (good luck with that). Finally, Justice Scalia (with Thomas) dissented entirely, writing that the Court's ruling "eviscerated" 28 U.S.C. 1447. He rejected Souter's half-a-loaf approach, pointing out that remand orders and resubstitution orders are inseparable – this case could not be remanded to Kentucky as "Osborn v. United States" because federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction over Federal Tort Claims Act cases.
Last up was Jones v. Bock (05-7058), in which a unanimous Court struck down the Sixth Circuit's procedural rules governing litigation under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The PLRA requires prisoners challenging prison conditions or bringing civil rights claims to exhaust prison grievance procedures before filing suit. To weed out many of these suits (which clog the federal system), the Sixth Circuit "implemented" this exhaustion rule by (1) requiring a prisoner plaintiff within its jurisdiction to allege and demonstrate exhaustion within their complaints, (2) permitting suit only against defendants identified in the plaintiff's earlier grievance, and (3) requiring dismissal of the whole case if the plaintiff did not satisfy the exhaustion requirement as to any one of his claims, even if he did so for all the rest. Three Michigan inmates whose suits were dismissed succeeded in convincing the entire Court, led by the Chief, that the Sixth Circuit rules were out of bounds. The opinion is very thorough, but here's the gist: (1) the PLRA is silent on pleading requirements, so the standard federal practice applies that the plaintiff need not plead exhaustion, but failure to exhaust remains an affirmative defense for the defendants; (2) exhaustion is not per se inadequate because a defendant was not named in the earlier grievance – the issue is whether the inmates complied with the relevant state grievance procedures (Michigan's did not require them to name anyone specifically), not Sixth Circuit rules; and (3) if a complaint contains exhausted and unexhausted claims, a court cannot dismiss them all but must "proceed with the good and leave the bad."
Office of Senator Mark Dayton v. Hanson (06-618): This is a rare direct appeal case that asks: Does the Speech or Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution . . . bar federal court jurisdiction of an action brought under the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 by a congressional employee whose job duties are part of the due functioning of the legislative process? In addition, the Court asked the parties to address the following: (1) Was the Office . . . entitled to appeal the [D.C. Circuit] judgment directly to this Court? (2) Was this case rendered moot by the expiration of the term of office of Senator Dayton?
FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (06-969) and McCain v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (06-970): These consolidated cases deal with the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, asking whether a three-judge district court panel erred in holding that Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act is unconstitutional as applied to the three advertisements that Wisconsin Right to Life sought to broadcast in 2004.
Beck v. Pace International Union (05-1448): More ERISA! This case asks: Whether a pension plan sponsor's decision to terminate a plan by purchasing an annuity, rather than to merge the pension plan with another, is a plan sponsor decision not subject to ERISA's fiduciary obligations.
Permanent Mission of India v. New York (06-134): (1) Does the exception to sovereign immunity for cases "in which . . . rights in immovable property situated in the United States are in issue," 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(4), provide jurisdiction for a municipality's lawsuit seeking to declare the validity of a tax lien on a foreign sovereign's real property when the municipality does not claim any right to own, use, enter, control or possess the real property at issue? (2) Is it appropriate for U.S. courts to interpret U.S. statutes by relying on international treaties that have not been signed by the U.S. Government and that do not accurately reflect international practice because they have only been signed by a limited number of other nations?
United States v. Atlantic Research Corp. (06-562): In a follow-up to a case two terms ago on contribution actions under CERCLA, this case asks: Whether a party that is potentially responsible for the cost of cleaning up property contaminated by hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, but that does not satisfy the requirements for bringing an action for contribution under Section 113(f) of CERCLA, may bring an action against another potentially responsible party under Section 107(a).
Brendlin v. California (06-8120): Whether a passenger in a vehicle subject to a traffic stop is thereby "detained" for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, thus allowing the passenger to contest the legality of the traffic stop.
Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Services (05-85): Whether an entity that is wholly and beneficially owned by a foreign state's instrumentality, and whose sole purpose is to perform international treaty and trade agreement obligations for the benefit of the foreign state's citizens, may nonetheless be denied status as an "organ of a foreign state" under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, based on an analysis of sovereignty that ignores the circumstances surrounding the entity's creation, conduct, and operations on behalf of its government. In addition, the Court asked the parties to address whether the court of appeals had jurisdiction to review the remand order notwithstanding 28 U.S.C. 1447.
And with that, we are done, at least for a while. Barring any unusual orders or per curiam opinions, we'll see you when the Court comes back in late February. Until then, thanks for reading!


problems such as coughing, wheezing, chest tightness, or shortness of breath.
medication therapy. An individual's severity classification can change over time.
Individuals at any severity level can experience mild, moderate, or severe asthma attacks.
hives, faintness, loss of consciousness, severe difficulty breathing, and throat closing.
anaphylaxis and establish an emergency plan for rapid treatment and medical attention.
exercise-induced symptoms and allow a child to participate ful y in exercise activities.
recommended for children with asthma.
as inhaled corticosteroids in improving asthma outcomes.
medications. The nebulizer is plugged into an electrical outlet or may be battery powered.
regular nebulizer treatments may need to keep the nebulizer at school.
occur. Children over five years old are generally able to use these devices.
exposure to asthma triggers or an asthma episode.
Code (CEC) Section 49423.5 and California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 3051.12.
the condition adversely affects their educational performance.
mold, furry animals, odors, respiratory infections, changes in weather, and exercise.
known to increase the student's asthma symptoms.
assistance from trained school staff (for students with severe and frequent asthma episodes).
with a history of mild intermittent asthma may experience a life-threatening asthma episode.
• Activity limitations should not be necessary.
best peak flow value and have minimal or no asthma symptoms.
zone. No change in asthma medications wil be needed at this level.
guardian and health care provider.
wil decrease to between 50 to 80 percent of the expected personal best.
zone, the child's asthma should gradual y become stabilized again in the green zone.
The child's activity level should be adjusted to accommodate compromised lung function.
have difficulty completing sentences and appear breathless, weak, or pale.
an almost certain asthma crisis.
child's parent or guardian should be notified of the child's condition.
The child must not be left unsupervised.
are available in liquid form for nebulization (Albuterol, Xoponex®, Pulmicort®).
quieting to a verbal command or loud voice.
The student only responds to a painful stimulus. The student should withdraw from the stimulus.
Moaning or crying may also be elicited.
The student shows no spontaneous responses and no responses to verbal or painful stimuli.
*Weight is approximate median of boys and girls combined, except for age 17 **Systolic blood pressure for the 90th – 95th height percentiles Adapted from National Institutes of Health Clinical Center Website (www.cc.nih.gov/) and Pediatrics, v98, p654, 1996.
NEVER LEAVE A STUDENT WITH BREATHING PROBLEMS ALONE.
DO NOT SEND A STUDENT WITH BREATHING PROBLEMS ANYWHERE.
GET HELP AND HAVE MEDICATION BROUGHT TO THE STUDENT.
• Current health status of student.
• Specific triggers that exacerbate the student's asthma.
My signature below provides authorization for the above written orders. I understand that all procedures will be implemented in accordance with state laws and regulations. I understand that specialized physical health care services may be performed by unlicensed designated school personnel under the training and supervision provided by the school nurse. This authorization is for a maximum of one year. If changes are indicated, I will provide new written authorization. I have instructed the above named student in the proper way to use his/her medications. It is my professional opinion that they should be allowed to carry and use that medication by him/herself. I request that the school nurse provide me with a copy of the completed Individualized School Health Care Plan.
I (we) the undersigned, the parent(s)/guardian(s) of the above named student, request that the above authorization for specialized physical health care service for management of asthma in school be administered to my (our) child in accordance with state laws and regulations. I (we) will: 1. Provide the necessary supplies and equipment. 2. Notify the school's nurse if there is a change in student health status or attending authorized health care provider. 3. Notify the school nurse immediately and provide new consent for any changes in authorized health care provider's I (we) give consent for the school nurse to communicate with the authorized health care provider when necessary.
I (we) understand that I (we) will be provided a copy of my (our) child's completed Individual School Health Care Plan.
My signature below provides authorization for the above written orders. I understand that all procedures will be implemented in accordance with state laws and regulations. I understand that specialized physical health care services may be performed by unlicensed designated school personnel under the training and supervision provided by the school nurse. This authorization is for a maximum of one year. If changes are indicated, I will provide new written authorization. I request that the school nurse provide me with a copy of the completed Individualized School Health Care Plan.
I (we) the undersigned, the parent(s)/guardian(s) of the above named student, request that the above authorization for specialized physical health care services for management of asthma in school be administered to my (our) child in accordance with state laws and regulations. I (we) will: 1. Provide the necessary supplies and equipment. 2. Notify the schools nurse if there is a change in student health status or attending authorized health care provider. 3. Notify the school nurse immediately and provide new consent for any changes in authorized health care provider's I (we) give consent for the school nurse to communicate with the authorized health care provider when necessary.
coughing, shortness of breath, chest tightness, or breathing difficulty.
2. All equipment and supplies necessary for administering medication.
1. Determine if the student is displaying symptoms such as wheezing, coughing, shortness of breath, chest tightness, or difficulty breathing.
As the airway becomes inflamed, swollen, or narrowed, breathing becomes difficult.
3. Encourage student to take slow, deep breaths. Seat student comfortably. Do not allow student to lie down or go to sleep.
Expansion of the lung and movement of the diaphragm are greatest in this position.
4. Give asthma quick-relief medication (e.g., Albuterol inhaler or Albuterol nebulizer treatment) as authorized in student's ISHP.
Asthma quick-relief medication should relax and open airway to improve breathing.
Quick-relief asthma medication will general y provide improvement.
6. Follow ISHP directions for when to al ow student to return to class or resume school activities.
Response time from medication may vary.
7. If no improvement in five minutes after medication administration, and student has: • Very fast or hard breathing • Skin sucking in over child's stomach or ribs with breathing • Breathing so hard they cannot walk or speak • Lips or fingernail beds turn blue Cal for help. Call 9-1-1. Repeat quick-relief medication every 20 minutes or as authorized in student's ISHP. Stay with the student and be prepared to do CPR.
Student may have a respiratory infection or more severe exacerbation.
1. To improve the ability to document the onset of and to assess the severity of asthma 2. To detect the small changes in airflow that occur at the start of an asthma attack.
3. To identify exercise-induced asthma.
4. To monitor the need for, or the response to, prescribed medication.
5. Measures peak expiratory flow (PEF).
1. Determine the need for the student to use the peak flow meter at school by reviewing ISHP.
Some students with asthma may not wheeze even though they are in acute distress.
They may not be moving enough air through the airways to cause audible wheezing.
Make sure that the pointer is on zero.
Be sure there is no candy or gum in the student's mouth.
5. Have the student hold the meter without obstructing the outflow vent. Fingers must not obstruct the vent.
the meter cylinder paral el to the floor.
Poor inspiration may produce a false low PEF reading.
7. Have the student place the mouthpiece on the tongue with lips around the outside of the mouthpiece.
Be sure that lips form a tight seal.
the measurement that registers on the meter.
9. Replace the marker at zero. Repeat the procedure two more times for a total of three exhalations.
10. Record the best PEF measurement. Compare this reading with the personal best PEF documented in the student's ISHP.
breathing easier, able to cough and clear secretions, and resume usual activity.
12. If measurement is in the yel ow zone, administer asthma quick-relief medication and control medication according to student's ISHP.
school nurse with PEF reading. Notify parent.
13. If measurement is in the red zone, administer asthma quick-relief medication and control medication according to student's ISHP.
student in sitting position and keep student calm. Be prepared to do CPR.
Notify school nurse and parent of unusual findings and actions.
15. Refer to the manufacturer's guide for cleaning and maintenance of the peak flow meter.
Wear gloves for cleaning. Remove gloves and wash hands.
authorized by their authorizing health care provider.
Review authorized health care provider's order and student's ISHP.
3. Shake the metered dose inhaler wel ten times. Dry power/disk inhalers do not require shaking.
The right amount of medication may not spray out if the inhaler is not shaken wel .
open or closed mouth technique. Please see education references, pages 57-58.
directions for the correct position.
If sprayed at the end of a breath, the medication wil not work as wel .
than being delivered to the lungs.
Do not let the student take more puffs than directed by physician.
9. Determine if medication has improved signs and symptoms and observe for five minutes.
authorized in student's ISHP. Stay with student and be prepared to do CPR.
Have help notify site administrator, school nurse, and parent.
depth, effort, noise, color, restlessness, and level of consciousness.
comparison after medication is given.
3. Monitor heart rate during and after treatment by taking pulse when bronchodilators are administered.
has any of these signs and symptoms.
Use students own medication cup, mouthpiece, or mask.
7. Place the appropriate amount of medication and saline solution or water in the nebulizers.
Do not exceed the ordered amount.
allowing for maximum treatment of the basilar areas of the lungs.
Demonstrate the procedure if needed.
10. Attach the nebulizer hose to the air compressor and turn it on. A fine mist should be visible.
trouble shooting. If nebulizer does not mist, cal the school nurse.
Use the mask if the student cannot use the mouthpiece.
breathing until time for the next deep breaths.
14. Observe the expansion of the student's chest. 15. Remove the mouthpiece or mask if a cough occurs during the treatment and al ow the student to clear the secretions completely and then continue the treatment.
Turn off the machine when it is not being used.
Treatment may take 8 to 20 minutes depending on equipment used.
student, and have help cal school nurse.
19. Upon completion of the treatment have the student take several deep breaths, cough, and spit out the secretions.
Instruct and demonstrate the technique as needed.
20. Obtain and record student's pulse and respirations and observe student for ten minutes.
are within a normal range, then the student may return to their classroom.
Pursuant to Section 49423 and subdivision (b) of Section 49423.6 of the Education Code, any pupil who is required to take, during the regular school day, prescribed medication may be assisted by a school nurse or other designated school personnel if both of the fol owing conditions are met: (a) The pupil's authorized health care provider executes a written statement specifying, at a minimum, the medication the pupil is to take, the dosage, and the period of time during which the medication is to be taken, as wel as otherwise detailing (as may be necessary) the method, amount, and time schedule by which the medication is to be taken. (b) The pupil's parent or legal guardian provides a written statement initiating a request to have the medication administered to the pupil or to have the pupil otherwise assisted in the administration of the medication, in accordance with the authorized health care provider's written statement. Authority cited: Sections 33031 and 49423.6, Education Code. Reference: Sections 49423 and 49423.6, Education Code. New article 4.1 (sections 600-611) and section filed 11-20-2003; operative 11-20-2003 pursuant to Government Code section 11343.4 (Register 2003, No. 47). §601. Definitions.
As used in Section 49423 and subdivision (b) of Section 49423.6 of the Education Code and in this article: (a) "Authorized health care provider" means an individual who is licensed by the State of California to prescribe medication. (b) "Medication" may include not only a substance dispensed in the United States by prescription, but also a substance that does not require a prescription, such as over-the-counter remedies, nutritional supplements, and herbal remedies. (c) "Medication log" may consist of a form developed by the local education agency for the documentation of the administration of the medication to the pupil or otherwise assisting the pupil in the administration of the medication. The medication log may include the fol owing: (1) Pupil's name; (2) Name of medication the pupil is required to take; (3) Dose of medication; (4) Method by which the pupil is required to take the medication; (5) Time the medication is to be taken during the regular school day; (6) Date(s) on which the pupil is required to take the medication; (7) Authorized health care provider's name and contact information; and (8) A space for daily recording of medication administration to the pupil or otherwise assisting the pupil in administration of the medication, such as date, time, amount, and signature of the individual administering the medication or otherwise assisting in administration of the medication. (d) "Medication record" may include: (1) The authorized health care provider's written statement; (2) The written statement of the parent or legal guardian; (3) The medication log; and (4) Any other written documentation related to the administration of the medication to the pupil or otherwise assisting the pupil in the administration of the medication. (e) "Other designated school personnel" may include any individual employed by the local education agency who: (1) Has consented to administer the medication to the pupil or otherwise assist the pupil in the administration of medication; and (2) May legal y administer the medication to the pupil or otherwise assist the pupil in the administration of the medication. (f) "Parent or legal guardian" means the individual recognized by the local education agency as having authority to make medical decisions for the pupil. (g) "Regular school day" may include not only the time the pupil receives instruction, but also the time during which the pupil otherwise participates in activities under the auspices of the local education agency, such as field trips, extracurricular and cocurricular activities, before- or after-school programs, and camps or other activities that typical y involve at least one overnight stay away from home. (h) "School nurse" means an individual employed by the local education agency who is a currently licensed registered nurse and is credentialed pursuant to Education Code section 44877. Authority cited: Sections 33031 and 49423.6, Education Code. Reference: Sections 44877, 49423 and 49423.6, Education Code. 1. New section filed 11-20-2003; operative 11-20-2003 pursuant to Government Code section 11343.4 (Register 2003, No. 47). § 602. Written Statement of Authorized Health Care Provider.
§ 603. Written Statement of the Parent or Legal Guardian.
(a) A school nurse may administer medication to a pupil or otherwise assist a pupil in the administration of medication as al owed by law and in keeping with applicable standards of professional practice. (b) Other designated school personnel may administer medication to pupils or otherwise assist pupils in the administration of medication as al owed by law and, if they are licensed health care professionals, in keeping with applicable standards of professional practice for their license. (c) The pupil's parent or legal guardian may administer medication to the pupil or otherwise assist the pupil in the administration of medication as al owed by law. (d) An individual designated to do so by the parent or legal guardian may administer medication to the pupil or otherwise assist the pupil in the administration of medication as allowed by law. A local education agency may establish rules governing the designation of an individual by a parent or legal guardian in order to ensure that: (1) The individual is clearly identified; (2) The individual is wil ing to accept the designation; (3) The individual being designated is permitted to be present on the school site; (4) Any limitations on the individual's authority in his or her capacity as designee are clearly established; and (5) The individual's service as a designee would not be inconsistent or in conflict with his or her employment responsibilities, if the individual being designated is employed by the local education agency. Authority cited: Sections 33031 and 49423.6, Education Code. Reference: Sections 49423 and 49423.6, Education Code. §605. Self-Administration of Medication.
With the approval of the pupil's authorized health care provider and the approval of the pupil's parent or legal guardian, a local education agency may allow a pupil to carry medication and to self-administer the medication. A local education agency may establish rules governing self-administration in order to protect the health and safety both of the pupil and of the whole student body and staff at the schoolsite. Through such rules, a local education agency may describe circumstances under which self-administration may be prohibited. Authority cited: Sections 33031 and 49423.6, Education Code. Reference: Sections 49423 and 49423.6, Education Code. § 606. Delivery and Storage of Medication.
§ 608. Deviation from Authorized Health Care Provider's Written Statement.
A local education agency may establish policies regarding any material or significant deviation from the authorized health care provider's written statement in order to ensure that, as quickly as possible upon discovery, appropriate notification of the deviation is made: (a) In accordance with applicable standards of professional practice, if the discovery is made by a licensed health care professional; or (b) To the schoolsite administrator, the pupil's parent or legal guardian, an employee of the local education agency who is a licensed health care professional (if any), and the pupil's authorized health care provider, if the discovery is made by an individual who is not a licensed health care professional. Authority cited: Sections 33031 and 49423.6, Education Code. Reference: Sections 49423 and 49423.6, Education Code. § 609. Unused, Discontinued and Outdated Medication.
A local education agency may establish policies regarding unused, discontinued, and outdated medication in order to ensure that: (a) Such medication is returned to the pupil's parent or legal guardian where possible; (b) Such medication that cannot be returned to the pupil's parent or legal guardian is disposed of by the end of the school year in accordance with applicable law. Authority cited: Sections 33031 and 49423.6, Education Code. Reference: Sections 49423 and 49423.6, Education Code. § 610. Applicability of this Article.
Nothing in this article may be interpreted as creating a state-mandated local program or as affecting in any way: (a) The statutes, regulations, or standards of practice governing any health care professional licensed by the State of California in the carrying out of activities authorized by the license; (b) The statutes or regulations governing the administration of medication to pupils or otherwise assisting pupils in the administration of medication by individuals who are not licensed health care professionals, other than Section 49423 and subdivision (b) of Section 49423.6 of the Education Code; (c) The use of emergency epinephrine auto-injectors pursuant to Section 49414 of the Education Code; (d) The content or implementation of a pupil's individualized education program prepared in accordance with applicable provisions of federal and state law, or a pupil's Section 504 Accommodation Plan prepared in accordance with applicable provisions of the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Authority cited: Sections 33031 and 49423.6, Education Code. Reference: Sections 49414, 49423 and 49423.6, and Part 30 (commencing with Section 56000) of Division 4 of Title 2, Education Code. § 611. Issuance and Periodic Updating of Advisory.
1. Very fast or hard breathing.
2. Skin sucking in over child's stomach or ribs with breathing.
3. Breathing so hard they cannot walk or speak.
4. Lips or fingernail beds turn blue.
1. Stay with student, call for help, and have someone call 9-1-1.
2. Keep student sitting upright.
assist in immediate administration (inhaler or nebulizer).
in student's asthma action plan.
6. Have someone notify the school nurse.
A spacer device is a chamber which attaches to any MDI ordered by your doctor. There are several types of spacer devices available. The most common brands are the Ventahaler® and the Aerochamber®. Spacer devices can be purchased at most local pharmacies.
breathe normal y for three to four breaths through the mouthpiece.
TIP: If you hear a whistle sound from the Aerochamber, you are breathing too fast.
Slow down your breathing. This wil allow more medication to reach your lungs.
Health Care Utilization, and Mortality, Pediatrics, Aug 2002; 110: 315 - 322.
American Academy of Al ergy, Asthma and Immunology, Inc., Academic Services Consortium. Pediatric Asthma: Promoting the Best Practice, Milwaukee, 1999. American Academy of Al ergy, Asthma & Immunology, Inc., The Allergy Report, Volumes I-III, Milwaukee: Wisconsin, 2000. www.theallergyreport.org/reportindex.html American Association of School Administrators, Asthma Wel ness Keeping Children with Asthma in School and Learning, School Governance and Leadership, Vol. 5, No. 1, Spring, 2003. http://www.aasa.org/publications/sgl/Spring_2003.pdf California Department of Health Services, Strategic Plan for Asthma in California, 2002. www.dhs.ca.gov/ps/cdic/cdcb/Medicine/Asthma/Documents/SP/Final%20Strategic%20Plan.pdf Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Strategies for Addressing Asthma Within a Coordinated School Health Program, 2002. http://www.cdc.gov/HealthyYouth/asthma/pdf/asthma.pdf Farber, Harold, M.D. and Michael Boyette. Control Your Child's Asthma: A Break Through Program for the Treatment and Management of Childhood Asthma, New York: Henry Holt & Co., 2001. Gregory, Elizabeth, Empowering Students on Medication for Asthma to be Active Participants in Their Care: An Exploratory Study." The Journal of School Nursing, Vol. 16, No. 1 (February 2000). Illinois Department of Human Services, Division of Community Health and Prevention, Office of Family Health, Asthma Management: A Resource Manual for Schools, January 2001. Mannino DM, Homa DM, Akinbami LJ, et al. Surveil ance for Asthma-United States, 1980–1999. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep2002; 51(SS-1): 1 –13. www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5101a1.htm Michigan Asthma Strategic Planning Initiative Task Force, Asthma in Michigan – A Blueprint for Action, May 2001. National Asthma Education and Prevention Program. Expert Panel Report II: Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma. Bethesda, MD: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/asthma/asthgdln.htm National Asthma Education and Prevention Program. Expert Panel Report: Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Asthma, Update on Selected Topics, 2002. Bethesda, MD: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; June, 2003. www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/asthma/index.htm Newacheck PW and N Halfon. Prevalence, impact, and trends in childhood disability due to asthma. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med.2000; 154: 287 –293. Schering-Plough Corporation, Respiratory Guidelines and Programs, Teaching Tool kit, 2000.
International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic StudiesInt. J. Appl. Psychoanal. Studies (2015)Published online in Wiley Online Library(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/aps.1430 The Skinless Work Group: Facingthe Uncertainty of "Restingon a Void" MATÍAS SANFUENTES This paper examines the conﬂicts and resistances that contemporary organizationsface in the effort of generating new and challenging work opportunities. Assumingthe metaphoric and real character of the ‘body of the organization', differentdilemmas that work groups tackle in the generation of collaborative and productivespaces are described. Based on a socioanalytic consultancy carried out with agroup of Reichian body psychotherapists, the study illustrates the complexities todelineate a common strategy and to overcome the threatening porosity and incon-sistencies of the ‘institutional skin'. The lack of a body support is particularlyparadoxical for a group of psychotherapists that base their therapeutic method onbody techniques, and which crystallizes as an institution the place of rejectionand exclusion that Reich and the concern for the body have historically occupied.Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.


text:
This quantity offers with the rhetoric, the formal and thematic framework, of Psalms 90-150 (the Fourth and 5th ebook of the Psalter). it's the end of the Psalms venture all started with Psalms 1-41, OTS fifty three (2006) , and endured with Psalms 42-89, OTS fifty seven (2010). Formal and thematic units display that the psalms are composed of a constant trend of cantos (stanzas) and strophes. The formal units particularly contain quantitative stability at the point of the cantos when it comes to verselines, verbal repetitions, and (on the extent of the strophes) transition markers. The quantitative method of a psalm by way of verselines, cola and/or phrases often essentially discloses a focal message. this large examine is rounded off by means of an up to date creation to the canto layout of biblical poetry (including the e-book of task, Lamentations, the Songs of Songs, Deutero-Isaiah and different significant poems of the Hebrew Bible).
This is often an necessary and complete source for college kids and students of philosophy of faith. "A Dictionary in Philosophy of Religion" is an imperative resource for college students and students. overlaying historic and modern figures, arguments, and phrases, it bargains an outline of the very important subject matters that make philosophy of faith the becoming, lively box that it really is this present day.
The non secular correct got here to prominence within the early Eighties, however it was once born through the early chilly struggle. Evangelical leaders like Billy Graham, pushed through a fierce competition to communism, led evangelicals out of the political desert they'd inhabited because the Scopes trial and right into a even more lively engagement with the $64000 problems with the day.
Salvation is the wealthy and profitable subject of Scripture. From starting to finish, we see a God who seeks the misplaced with a view to forgive their sins and repair their fellowship. in keeping with 1 Peter 1:10, relating this salvation, the prophets, who mentioned the grace that used to be to come back to you, searched closely and with the best care.
Cf. further Pss. 16,11a (twdy‘ny ’rh. kmh twdy‘ny; last line of Canto I), 143,8c– 10 (the concluding canticle of Canto II; note the anaphora hwdy‘ny [‘let me know’, v. 8c] 17 24 chapter ii: fourth book of the psalter The central Canto II (vv. 7–12) has an uneven number of 7 verselines. And in terms of verselines, it has a concentric strophic structure: vv. 7–8. 2 verselines. The middle verseline of its central 3-line strophe is v. 10a–b. The pivotal position of this verseline is reinforced by a numerical aspect of the canto concerned (vv.
4–5). 2 O Lord, how great are your works (v. 6). A fool cannot understand this; ultimately, the evildoers shall be destroyed (vv. 7–8; metaphor of a plant). 2). 1 You are exalted, O Lord, for ever (v. 9); your enemies will surely be destroyed (v. 10; cf. vv. 7–8). You delivered me from my enemies (vv. 11–12; cf. vv. ). 2 The righteous will enjoy prosperity and dwell in God’s presence (vv. 13–14; metaphor of a plant, also v. 15 and cf. v. 8). In old age, they still praise the Lord (vv. 15–16). twb, v.
1 (vv. 1–4), while v. 4). This means that vv. 14 The following 3-line strophe, vv. 11–13, for the first time explicitly describes in which way God will rescue the faithful: He will charge his messengers to protect them (vv. 11–12) and the god-fearing himself will destroy all hostile forces (v. 13). To crown it all, the psalmist makes use of the literary form of an oracle to create emphasis and underline his message, vv. 14–16 (once again an unmarked quotation): I myself will rescue the faithful and provide him with my ‘salvation’ (yˇsw‘ty, v.

matches: v. v. v. v. v. v.