Blog Feed
Twitter
LAW PUNDIT Friday, August 31, 2007 8/31/2007 09:20:00 PM [Home]
[Print]
Microsoft Eolas Patent Dispute Ended by Settlement
Nate Anderson at artechnica writes today thatMicrosoft and Eolas settle, ending patent battle over plug-ins, ActiveX, citing to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer (see Todd Bishop's Microsoft Blog). To quote Anderson:
"The Seattle Post-Intelligencer broke the story after obtaining a copy of the Eolas letter. The companies have yet to issue any official statements, but the settlement agreement closes the long-running court case between them over an Eolas patent that was said to apply to Microsoft's method of handling ActiveX controls on web pages."
Read arstechnica for more, and here for a bit of background.
KSR (LawPundit in this regard is cited at BlogRunner and see also the WSJ.com Law Blog)
and the US Supreme Court's new common sense approach to patents
surely were among the main patent "climate" factors leading to this settlement.
See in this regard O'Reilly Radar and "Microsoft Reaches Settlement on EOLAS Patent", which already anticipated this development in a July 31, 2007 posting.
See also our posting about New York Times agrees with us ....
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 8/31/2007 09:20:00 PM
Microsoft Eolas Patent Dispute Ended by Settlement
Nate Anderson at artechnica writes today that
"The Seattle Post-Intelligencer broke the story after obtaining a copy of the Eolas letter. The companies have yet to issue any official statements, but the settlement agreement closes the long-running court case between them over an Eolas patent that was said to apply to Microsoft's method of handling ActiveX controls on web pages."
Read arstechnica for more, and here for a bit of background.
KSR (LawPundit in this regard is cited at BlogRunner and see also the WSJ.com Law Blog)
and the US Supreme Court's new common sense approach to patents
surely were among the main patent "climate" factors leading to this settlement.
See in this regard O'Reilly Radar and "Microsoft Reaches Settlement on EOLAS Patent", which already anticipated this development in a July 31, 2007 posting.
See also our posting about New York Times agrees with us ....
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 8/31/2007 09:20:00 PM
LAW PUNDIT Friday, August 24, 2007 8/24/2007 01:52:00 AM [Home]
[Print]
Spankly Freaking and Balking Tackwards : Did you say Demosthenes? Speak Up!
Spankly Freaking and Balking Tackwards : Did you say Demosthenes? is a follow-up posting on our previous announcement about the new book Um. There seems to be quite a market out there for this stuff, so here are some interesting links about ... uh ... well ... words.
Grammar Girl's Quick and Dirty Tips for Better Writing (Podcast)
Russell Frank's blog Spankly Freaking
Away With Words and Wordworking
Dave Brondsema
The Wunder Blog and their Daily Bug posting titled Balking Tackwards
VKpedia
The Grumpy Old Man has some Pedantic Moans in this direction and gives a nice list of Spoonerisms
Goonerisms Spalore! has a list (Parental Guidance recommended)
Joho the Blog has an on-the-borderline list (Parental Guidance definitely recommended)
Home is where The Horse is in the posting The man behind the muddle talks about Spooner
Vox Lucens On Being Brilliant writes that he loves spoonerisms and creates the following:
"Jadies and lentlemen of je thury, her jient is a clerk."
and see, generally,
Figures of Speech
with "Many definitions from: The American Heritage ® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from InfoSoft International, Inc. All rights reserved."
I have a private theory that Spoonerisms and similar verbal derailments occur when we are thinking one thing while trying - or having - to say another - but I have no proof of this, only my own experience. It is a bit like getting a mental block - your mind is not where your thought is.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 8/24/2007 01:52:00 AM
Spankly Freaking and Balking Tackwards : Did you say Demosthenes? Speak Up!
Spankly Freaking and Balking Tackwards : Did you say Demosthenes? is a follow-up posting on our previous announcement about the new book Um. There seems to be quite a market out there for this stuff, so here are some interesting links about ... uh ... well ... words.
Grammar Girl's Quick and Dirty Tips for Better Writing (Podcast)
Russell Frank's blog Spankly Freaking
Away With Words and Wordworking
Dave Brondsema
The Wunder Blog and their Daily Bug posting titled Balking Tackwards
VKpedia
The Grumpy Old Man has some Pedantic Moans in this direction and gives a nice list of Spoonerisms
Goonerisms Spalore! has a list (Parental Guidance recommended)
Joho the Blog has an on-the-borderline list (Parental Guidance definitely recommended)
Home is where The Horse is in the posting The man behind the muddle talks about Spooner
Vox Lucens On Being Brilliant writes that he loves spoonerisms and creates the following:
"Jadies and lentlemen of je thury, her jient is a clerk."
and see, generally,
Figures of Speech
with "Many definitions from: The American Heritage ® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition copyright © 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic version licensed from InfoSoft International, Inc. All rights reserved."
I have a private theory that Spoonerisms and similar verbal derailments occur when we are thinking one thing while trying - or having - to say another - but I have no proof of this, only my own experience. It is a bit like getting a mental block - your mind is not where your thought is.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 8/24/2007 01:52:00 AM
LAW PUNDIT Monday, August 13, 2007 8/13/2007 01:08:00 AM [Home]
[Print]
Golf and Business - A Successful Relationship : The PGA Disqualification of Sergio Garcia and the Win by Tiger Woods
We ran across the Business Golf Blog in researching Sergio Garcia's disqualification at the 2007 PGA Championship just held at Southern Hills Country Club in Tulsa, Oklahoma and won by Tiger Woods. The Business Golf Blog is written by attorney Suzanne Woo of Berkeley, California, who describes her blawg site as follows:
"I'm an attorney who turned her passion for golf into her profession. In 1996, I founded BizGolf Dynamics, a company dedicated to teaching business people how they can use the game of golf to enhance their business relationships and increase sales. I am a professional speaker, author of On Course for Business and 72 Secrets for Successful Business Golf. I also publish BizGolf E-Tips, which are sent bi-weekly. You can subscribe at www.bizgolfetips.com."
We play in the German golf league regularly and it is standard procedure after every round for each player to compare his own hole-by-hole unofficially marked score with the hole-by-hole results marked down by his official marker, who is always one of the competing players in the respective player group. This score comparison is essential, because it is always possible, and occasionally occurs, that the official marker absent-mindedly, generally while preoccupied with his own game, marks down a wrong score.
Accordingly, in a clear boo to Sergio, we have little sympathy for a professional golfer like Garcia to have signed a wrong scorecoard without having checked it before leaving the scoring tent, as his marker Boo Weekley had inadvertently put down a 4 for a hole on which Sergio had scored a 5. Nor can the fault for Garcia's "BOOt" from the tournament be ascribed to Boo's boo-boo since it is the PLAYER'S own responsibility to make sure that the score he signs is correct. It is much like contract-signing in law - KNOW what you are signing.
Garcia's diqualification also points to one significant difference between the successes of Tiger Woods and the travails of Sergio. Sergio is at his best perhaps an equally gifted golfer as Tiger, but Tiger seems to have a certain equanimity, a command of his self, which in Sergio appears to be lacking some of the time, as one can read in Golf Digest.
At the level of the weekend golfer, golf is a game played primarily for the enjoyment of the golf players themselves. At the level of professional golf, golf is a game played for the enjoyment and appreciation of the spectators, both on the course and through the media. It is a handsomely paid sport at the top level and a wonderful way to make a living, if you are good enough to do it.
When Sergio understands that it is a PRIVILEGE to be out there competing for big money at the top level of pro golf and that he is an integral part of a much bigger show than he is himself, win or lose, then more wins might come his way. The breaks, good and bad, even out in the long run, and in the end, the best player with the best command of himself and of his golf game wins. And not even Tiger has reached perfection yet. Otherwise he would have to retire. But there is still room for improvement, even for Tiger, and that in part must be what keeps him going.
A top player is potentially good enough to birdie every hole, but no one ever does, or has yet. And who is at fault for that. Only each player for himself.
The tragedy of Sergio's wrong scorecard is a good lesson for every golfer. Each player is responsible for his own game and for the correctness of his own scorecard. YOU - not the ball, not the golf clubs, not the course, or anyone else - ARE RESPONSIBLE. The drive that you just put out of bounds by an "unlucky" half a foot, could also have been driven in the middle of the fairway. The putt that just "unluckily" lipped out of the hole, could have been stroked into the middle of the cup. The approach shot that by "some quirk of fate" just caught the edge of the sand trap rather than bounce directly toward the hole could have been hit dead to the flag.
A 90 could have been an 85. An 80 could have been a 75. A 75 could have been a 70. A 70 could have been a 65. A 65 could have been a 60.
A 60 could have been a 55 - but no one has ever had that much "luck" yet. Objectively seen, a player who would hit every drive long into the middle of the fairway, whose approach shots would all stop dead at the flag, and who just had easy short putts to make for birdies, might be "lucky enough" to birdie all 18 holes, but luck would really have nothing to do with it.
Sergio is quoted as follows:
""You know what's the saddest thing about it?" Garcia said. "It's not the first time. It's not the first time, unfortunately. So, I don't know, I'm playing against a lot of guys out there, more than the field.""
That of course is the wrong attitude. Sergio is playing only against an enemy of ONE - the self. When that is mastered, everyone will know it and see it and the wins will start to increase. As long as one thinks the "other guys" are at fault, failure is guaranteed.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 8/13/2007 01:08:00 AM
Golf and Business - A Successful Relationship : The PGA Disqualification of Sergio Garcia and the Win by Tiger Woods
We ran across the Business Golf Blog in researching Sergio Garcia's disqualification at the 2007 PGA Championship just held at Southern Hills Country Club in Tulsa, Oklahoma and won by Tiger Woods. The Business Golf Blog is written by attorney Suzanne Woo of Berkeley, California, who describes her blawg site as follows:
"I'm an attorney who turned her passion for golf into her profession. In 1996, I founded BizGolf Dynamics, a company dedicated to teaching business people how they can use the game of golf to enhance their business relationships and increase sales. I am a professional speaker, author of On Course for Business and 72 Secrets for Successful Business Golf. I also publish BizGolf E-Tips, which are sent bi-weekly. You can subscribe at www.bizgolfetips.com."
We play in the German golf league regularly and it is standard procedure after every round for each player to compare his own hole-by-hole unofficially marked score with the hole-by-hole results marked down by his official marker, who is always one of the competing players in the respective player group. This score comparison is essential, because it is always possible, and occasionally occurs, that the official marker absent-mindedly, generally while preoccupied with his own game, marks down a wrong score.
Accordingly, in a clear boo to Sergio, we have little sympathy for a professional golfer like Garcia to have signed a wrong scorecoard without having checked it before leaving the scoring tent, as his marker Boo Weekley had inadvertently put down a 4 for a hole on which Sergio had scored a 5. Nor can the fault for Garcia's "BOOt" from the tournament be ascribed to Boo's boo-boo since it is the PLAYER'S own responsibility to make sure that the score he signs is correct. It is much like contract-signing in law - KNOW what you are signing.
Garcia's diqualification also points to one significant difference between the successes of Tiger Woods and the travails of Sergio. Sergio is at his best perhaps an equally gifted golfer as Tiger, but Tiger seems to have a certain equanimity, a command of his self, which in Sergio appears to be lacking some of the time, as one can read in Golf Digest.
At the level of the weekend golfer, golf is a game played primarily for the enjoyment of the golf players themselves. At the level of professional golf, golf is a game played for the enjoyment and appreciation of the spectators, both on the course and through the media. It is a handsomely paid sport at the top level and a wonderful way to make a living, if you are good enough to do it.
When Sergio understands that it is a PRIVILEGE to be out there competing for big money at the top level of pro golf and that he is an integral part of a much bigger show than he is himself, win or lose, then more wins might come his way. The breaks, good and bad, even out in the long run, and in the end, the best player with the best command of himself and of his golf game wins. And not even Tiger has reached perfection yet. Otherwise he would have to retire. But there is still room for improvement, even for Tiger, and that in part must be what keeps him going.
A top player is potentially good enough to birdie every hole, but no one ever does, or has yet. And who is at fault for that. Only each player for himself.
The tragedy of Sergio's wrong scorecard is a good lesson for every golfer. Each player is responsible for his own game and for the correctness of his own scorecard. YOU - not the ball, not the golf clubs, not the course, or anyone else - ARE RESPONSIBLE. The drive that you just put out of bounds by an "unlucky" half a foot, could also have been driven in the middle of the fairway. The putt that just "unluckily" lipped out of the hole, could have been stroked into the middle of the cup. The approach shot that by "some quirk of fate" just caught the edge of the sand trap rather than bounce directly toward the hole could have been hit dead to the flag.
A 90 could have been an 85. An 80 could have been a 75. A 75 could have been a 70. A 70 could have been a 65. A 65 could have been a 60.
A 60 could have been a 55 - but no one has ever had that much "luck" yet. Objectively seen, a player who would hit every drive long into the middle of the fairway, whose approach shots would all stop dead at the flag, and who just had easy short putts to make for birdies, might be "lucky enough" to birdie all 18 holes, but luck would really have nothing to do with it.
Sergio is quoted as follows:
""You know what's the saddest thing about it?" Garcia said. "It's not the first time. It's not the first time, unfortunately. So, I don't know, I'm playing against a lot of guys out there, more than the field.""
That of course is the wrong attitude. Sergio is playing only against an enemy of ONE - the self. When that is mastered, everyone will know it and see it and the wins will start to increase. As long as one thinks the "other guys" are at fault, failure is guaranteed.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 8/13/2007 01:08:00 AM
LAW PUNDIT Friday, August 10, 2007 8/10/2007 02:36:00 PM [Home]
[Print]
Issues of the 2008 Presidential Election : National Health Insurance (Public Health Care Insurance)
The World Health Organization (WHO) in its much criticized 2000 report (.pdf of full report) on the health systems of the countries of the world ranked the United States in 37th place, one spot ahead of Slovenia and one spot behind Costa Rica. Research published in the British Medical Journal in 2003 turned out a new list, in which the USA fares somewhat better in 16th place, but America still lags behind almost all countries having national health insurance programs:
1. Sweden
2. Norway
3. Australia
4. Canada
5. France
6. Germany
7. Spain
8. Finland
9. Italy
10. Denmark
11. Netherlands
12. Greece
13. Japan
14. Austria
15. New Zealand
16. United States
17. Ireland
18. United Kingdom
19. Portugal
Due to American reliance on local solutions rather than on a more uniform federal system of health insurance, health care throughout the United States also varies greatly from state to state, as shown by the United Health Foundation in providing the 2006 America's Health Rankings.
National Health Insurance (Public Health Care Insurance) is not a New Issue
The debate about national health care and national health insurance has been around for a long time.
The NDT National Debate Tournament for collegians in 1960-1961 had as its topic: "That the United States should adopt a program of compulsory health insurance for all citizens."
The national high school debate topic in 1963-1964 was Medicare. I remember this well, having debated that topic for my high school in my senior year.
In 1977-78 the National High School Debate focused on "How Can the Health Care of United States Citizens Best Be Improved?"
National Health Care was the national debate topic for high schools in 1993-1994.
National Health Insurance is not an issue about collectivism, socialism or communism but about HEALTH CARE
The first thing that must be dispensed with is the antiquated argument that national health insurance is somehow collectivistic, socialistic or communistic.
I recently talked to someone from the US military who confided that the military, judged by the benefits it provides, was about the most "socialistic" organization around, if one wanted to use that term. The medical benefits that the US military provides through TRICARE are as follows:
"Health benefits are available for all seven branches of the Uniformed Services: the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Commissioned Corps of the Public Health Service, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration....
TRICARE provides benefits for Active Duty personnel, Retirees, Reservists & Guard members called to Active Duty, and certain family members....
Active Duty personnel are automatically enrolled in TRICARE Prime. Others may choose from several options.
Civilian inpatient and outpatient care is provided for the following three general categories of recipients:
1. Family members of Active Duty uniformed service members.
2. Family members of uniformed service retirees and family members of uniformed service members who died while on active duty or during retirement.
3. Certain individuals who were either voluntarily or involuntarily separated from a uniformed service member (for example, by divorce)."
As written at About.com:
"Depending upon their status, active duty members, retired members, members of the Guard/Reserves, family members, and certain veterans receive free or government subsidized medical and dental care. For the most part, this care falls under an overall program known as "Tricare." While the Tricare system may appear to be complicated at first glance, it's really not all that hard to understand."
Nobody seems to find great "socialistic" fault with this universal system of taking care of military personnel and their civilian families through a comprehensive government tax-payer funded medical care program, even though nothing would prohibit using a system of private medical care insurance. TRICARE is preferred, because it works better.
It is then foolish - and logically inconsistent - to argue that providing this same kind of national care to the rest of the US population is some kind of a contradiction of American principles. To put it mildly, anyone who argues that way is just talking corn-fed hogwash.
National Health Insurance is a Question of Form, Costs and Financing
The legitimate problems with providing any type of system of national health insurance or universal health care relate to form, costs and financing. The USA has many successful models to learn from.
Wikipedia has a nice article titled Universal Health Care which discusses those three aspects. The data provided show that health care in national health care systems in Europe, Canada, Australia and Japan is better than that in the USA - and it also costs less. Per capita expenditure for health in the USA is about twice that of countries with national health care plans - and yet, the countries with national health insurance have better health statistics then America does.
Those who argue that one can not compare Europe with the USA should then look to Canada, which instituted a universal health care plan some years ago and now beats the USA in every health category listed.
Canada also provides a model for meshing public and private systems, a solution definitely required in the USA as well.
As the Supreme Court of Quebec ruled in Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General), [2005] 1 S.C.R. 791, 2005 SCC 35, private services must be allowed to compete with the public program, citing to the fact that many countries with national health insurance systems mesh those with private enterprise and capitalism (English version of the reasons delivered by DESCHAMPS J):
"In a number of European countries, there is no insurance paid for directly out of public funds. In Austria, services are funded through decentralized agencies that collect the necessary funds from salaries. People who want to obtain health care in the private sector in addition to the services covered by the mandatory social insurance are free to do so, but private insurance may cover no more than 80 percent of the cost billed by professionals practising in the public sector. The same type of plan exists in Germany and the Netherlands, but people who opt for private insurance are not required to pay for the public plan. Only nine percent of Germans opt for private insurance.
Australia’s public system is funded in a manner similar to the Quebec system. However, Australia’s system is different in that the private and public sectors coexist, and insurance covering private sector health care is not prohibited. The government attempts to balance access to the two sectors by allowing taxpayers to deduct 30 percent of the cost of private insurance. Insurance rates are regulated to prevent insurers from charging higher premiums for higher‑risk individuals (C. H. Tuohy, C. M. Flood and M. Stabile, “How Does Private Finance Affect Public Health Care Systems? Marshaling the Evidence from OECD Nations” (2004), 29 J. Health Pol. 359). [Link added by LawPundit]
The United Kingdom does not restrict access to private insurance for health care (The Health of Canadians — The Federal Role, vol. 3, Health Care Systems in Other Countries, Interim Report (2002), at p. 38). Nor does the United Kingdom limit a physician’s ability to withdraw from the public plan. However, physicians working full‑time in public hospitals are limited in the amounts that they may bill in the private sector to supplement income earned in the public sector (p. 40). Only 11.5 percent of Britons had taken out private insurance in 1998 (Tuohy, Flood and Stabile, at p. 374), and only 8 percent of hospital beds in the United Kingdom are private (Quebec and France, Health Indicators: International Comparisons: 15 years of Evolution: Canada, France, Germany, Québec, United Kingdom, United States (1998), at p. 55). New Zealand has a plan similar to that of the United Kingdom with the difference that 40 percent of New Zealanders have private insurance (Tuohy, Flood and Stabile, at p. 363). [Link added by LawPundit]
Sweden does not prohibit private insurance, and the state does not refund the cost of health care paid for in the private sector. Private insurance accounts for only two percent of total health care expenditures and there are only nine private hospitals (The Health of Canadians — The Federal Role, at pp. 31‑33)."
Obviously, the USA will have to design a public health care insurance system suited to the particular needs of America, but there is no doubt that such a system is definitely needed and would be beneficial to the health care system in the United States.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 8/10/2007 02:36:00 PM
Issues of the 2008 Presidential Election : National Health Insurance (Public Health Care Insurance)
The World Health Organization (WHO) in its much criticized 2000 report (.pdf of full report) on the health systems of the countries of the world ranked the United States in 37th place, one spot ahead of Slovenia and one spot behind Costa Rica. Research published in the British Medical Journal in 2003 turned out a new list, in which the USA fares somewhat better in 16th place, but America still lags behind almost all countries having national health insurance programs:
1. Sweden
2. Norway
3. Australia
4. Canada
5. France
6. Germany
7. Spain
8. Finland
9. Italy
10. Denmark
11. Netherlands
12. Greece
13. Japan
14. Austria
15. New Zealand
16. United States
17. Ireland
18. United Kingdom
19. Portugal
Due to American reliance on local solutions rather than on a more uniform federal system of health insurance, health care throughout the United States also varies greatly from state to state, as shown by the United Health Foundation in providing the 2006 America's Health Rankings.
National Health Insurance (Public Health Care Insurance) is not a New Issue
The debate about national health care and national health insurance has been around for a long time.
The NDT National Debate Tournament for collegians in 1960-1961 had as its topic: "That the United States should adopt a program of compulsory health insurance for all citizens."
The national high school debate topic in 1963-1964 was Medicare. I remember this well, having debated that topic for my high school in my senior year.
In 1977-78 the National High School Debate focused on "How Can the Health Care of United States Citizens Best Be Improved?"
National Health Care was the national debate topic for high schools in 1993-1994.
National Health Insurance is not an issue about collectivism, socialism or communism but about HEALTH CARE
The first thing that must be dispensed with is the antiquated argument that national health insurance is somehow collectivistic, socialistic or communistic.
I recently talked to someone from the US military who confided that the military, judged by the benefits it provides, was about the most "socialistic" organization around, if one wanted to use that term. The medical benefits that the US military provides through TRICARE are as follows:
"Health benefits are available for all seven branches of the Uniformed Services: the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Commissioned Corps of the Public Health Service, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration....
TRICARE provides benefits for Active Duty personnel, Retirees, Reservists & Guard members called to Active Duty, and certain family members....
Active Duty personnel are automatically enrolled in TRICARE Prime. Others may choose from several options.
Civilian inpatient and outpatient care is provided for the following three general categories of recipients:
1. Family members of Active Duty uniformed service members.
2. Family members of uniformed service retirees and family members of uniformed service members who died while on active duty or during retirement.
3. Certain individuals who were either voluntarily or involuntarily separated from a uniformed service member (for example, by divorce)."
As written at About.com:
"Depending upon their status, active duty members, retired members, members of the Guard/Reserves, family members, and certain veterans receive free or government subsidized medical and dental care. For the most part, this care falls under an overall program known as "Tricare." While the Tricare system may appear to be complicated at first glance, it's really not all that hard to understand."
Nobody seems to find great "socialistic" fault with this universal system of taking care of military personnel and their civilian families through a comprehensive government tax-payer funded medical care program, even though nothing would prohibit using a system of private medical care insurance. TRICARE is preferred, because it works better.
It is then foolish - and logically inconsistent - to argue that providing this same kind of national care to the rest of the US population is some kind of a contradiction of American principles. To put it mildly, anyone who argues that way is just talking corn-fed hogwash.
National Health Insurance is a Question of Form, Costs and Financing
The legitimate problems with providing any type of system of national health insurance or universal health care relate to form, costs and financing. The USA has many successful models to learn from.
Wikipedia has a nice article titled Universal Health Care which discusses those three aspects. The data provided show that health care in national health care systems in Europe, Canada, Australia and Japan is better than that in the USA - and it also costs less. Per capita expenditure for health in the USA is about twice that of countries with national health care plans - and yet, the countries with national health insurance have better health statistics then America does.
Those who argue that one can not compare Europe with the USA should then look to Canada, which instituted a universal health care plan some years ago and now beats the USA in every health category listed.
Canada also provides a model for meshing public and private systems, a solution definitely required in the USA as well.
As the Supreme Court of Quebec ruled in Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General), [2005] 1 S.C.R. 791, 2005 SCC 35, private services must be allowed to compete with the public program, citing to the fact that many countries with national health insurance systems mesh those with private enterprise and capitalism (English version of the reasons delivered by DESCHAMPS J):
"In a number of European countries, there is no insurance paid for directly out of public funds. In Austria, services are funded through decentralized agencies that collect the necessary funds from salaries. People who want to obtain health care in the private sector in addition to the services covered by the mandatory social insurance are free to do so, but private insurance may cover no more than 80 percent of the cost billed by professionals practising in the public sector. The same type of plan exists in Germany and the Netherlands, but people who opt for private insurance are not required to pay for the public plan. Only nine percent of Germans opt for private insurance.
Australia’s public system is funded in a manner similar to the Quebec system. However, Australia’s system is different in that the private and public sectors coexist, and insurance covering private sector health care is not prohibited. The government attempts to balance access to the two sectors by allowing taxpayers to deduct 30 percent of the cost of private insurance. Insurance rates are regulated to prevent insurers from charging higher premiums for higher‑risk individuals (C. H. Tuohy, C. M. Flood and M. Stabile, “How Does Private Finance Affect Public Health Care Systems? Marshaling the Evidence from OECD Nations” (2004), 29 J. Health Pol. 359). [Link added by LawPundit]
The United Kingdom does not restrict access to private insurance for health care (The Health of Canadians — The Federal Role, vol. 3, Health Care Systems in Other Countries, Interim Report (2002), at p. 38). Nor does the United Kingdom limit a physician’s ability to withdraw from the public plan. However, physicians working full‑time in public hospitals are limited in the amounts that they may bill in the private sector to supplement income earned in the public sector (p. 40). Only 11.5 percent of Britons had taken out private insurance in 1998 (Tuohy, Flood and Stabile, at p. 374), and only 8 percent of hospital beds in the United Kingdom are private (Quebec and France, Health Indicators: International Comparisons: 15 years of Evolution: Canada, France, Germany, Québec, United Kingdom, United States (1998), at p. 55). New Zealand has a plan similar to that of the United Kingdom with the difference that 40 percent of New Zealanders have private insurance (Tuohy, Flood and Stabile, at p. 363). [Link added by LawPundit]
Sweden does not prohibit private insurance, and the state does not refund the cost of health care paid for in the private sector. Private insurance accounts for only two percent of total health care expenditures and there are only nine private hospitals (The Health of Canadians — The Federal Role, at pp. 31‑33)."
Obviously, the USA will have to design a public health care insurance system suited to the particular needs of America, but there is no doubt that such a system is definitely needed and would be beneficial to the health care system in the United States.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 8/10/2007 02:36:00 PM
LAW PUNDIT Tuesday, August 07, 2007 8/07/2007 04:25:00 PM [Home]
[Print]
Law and the Preservation of Ancient Sites in Action -- Rotherwas Ribbon - UK
The Campaign to save the ancient Rotherwas Ribbon (Rotherwas Serpent) in the United Kingdom appears to be moving along successfully.
I received the following letter from the UK Department of Culture, Media and Sport
RANSON GERRY <GERRY.RANSON@Culture.gsi.gov.uk>
Sent : Tuesday, August 7, 2007 4:09 PM
To : <kaulinsandis@msn.com>
Subject : CMS 75510 Rotherwas Ribbon
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 8/07/2007 04:25:00 PM
Law and the Preservation of Ancient Sites in Action -- Rotherwas Ribbon - UK
The Campaign to save the ancient Rotherwas Ribbon (Rotherwas Serpent) in the United Kingdom appears to be moving along successfully.
I received the following letter from the UK Department of Culture, Media and Sport
RANSON GERRY <GERRY.RANSON@Culture.gsi.gov.uk>
Sent : Tuesday, August 7, 2007 4:09 PM
To : <kaulinsandis@msn.com>
Subject : CMS 75510 Rotherwas Ribbon
Dear Mr Kaulins,
Thank you for your email of 9 July about the preservation of the 'Rotherwas Ribbon' site. I have been asked to reply.
Under current legislation, adding a site to the Schedule of Monuments is the only legal protection specifically for archaeological sites, although there are alternatives to scheduling such as using the system of local authority control over planning applications to ensure that any development proposals take archaeology fully into account. Scheduling is applied only to sites of national importance, and even then only if it is the best means of protection. Decisions on national importance are guided by criteria laid down by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and cover the basic characteristics of monuments. These are:
- extent of survival
- current condition
- rarity
- representivity, either through diversity or because of one important attribute
- importance of the period to which the monument dates
- fragility
- connection to other monuments, or group value
- potential to contribute to our information, understanding and appreciation
- extent of documentation enhancing the monument's significance
As expert advisors to the DCMS, English Heritage takes the lead in identifying sites in England which should be placed on the schedule by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. DCMS has asked English Heritage to consider and advise the Secretary of State about whether the site of the 'Rotherwas Ribbon' should be placed on the schedule. English Heritage Inspectors visited the site on the afternoon of 9 July. A decision on scheduling will be taken in due course and will be informed by further analysis and interpretation of the site.
In the meantime, the remains are very fragile, and while English Heritage agrees with Herefordshire Council that controlled public access should be afforded, they will ensure the local authority covers the remains to protect them from bad weather. In the long term, English Heritage considers that this is a significant find worthy of being fully recorded for future research and protected in-situ. Each part of the find is very fragile and by keeping the remains in their context they can help us understand how people used to live in this landscape setting. English Heritage will make sure the local authority has access to its expertise in this process.
Yours sincerely,
Gerry Ranson
Central Information & Briefing Unit
Department of Culture, Media & Sport
2-4 Cockspur Street
London SW1Y 5DH
0207 211 6179
www.culture.gov.uk
**********************************************************************************
This email and its contents are the property of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please delete it.
All DCMS e-mail is recorded and stored for a minimum period of 6 months.
The original of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet Anti-Virus service supplied by Cable&Wireless in partnership with MessageLabs. (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007.) On leaving the GSi this email was certified virus free. Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes. Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 8/07/2007 04:25:00 PM
LAW PUNDIT 8/07/2007 12:09:00 PM [Home]
[Print]
Patent Sanity Slowly Returning to the USA: Judge Rudi Brewster Throws Out Absurd MP3 Jury Verdict in Microsoft Battle against Alcatel-Lucent
As we already noted in discussing the impact of the Supreme Court's KSR decision:
"There is no question that KSR will become one of the most cited decisions in law generally and that it will have a tremendous impact on patent law and litigation."
In KSR (KSR International Co. vs. Teleflex, Inc. (No. 04-1350, slip opinion)), the Supreme Court in its unanimous decision clearly indicated to the legal community that the pendulum of patent law had begun to swing in the direction of common sense and away from the outrageous awards being granted to undeserving patent trolls.
The changed direction of the swing of the patent pendulum is shown by Judge Rudi Brewster's reversal of a record $1.5 billion jury award in an MP3 patent dispute between Microsoft and Alcatel-Lucent.
We posted vociferously about that case in February under the title Patent Insanity in the USA Continues as Jury Awards Record MP3 Verdict. We were one of the few voices on the internet or elsewhere to correctly raise the loud sound of alarm and we express our continued surprise that the legal community in general did not, often being seemingly preoccupied with banalities rather than with the most important cases of our day, such as this case is.
For the details, see:
CNET News Blog at News.com, Tom Krazit, Microsoft wins reversal of MP3 patent decision
Bloomberg News, Jeff St.Onge and Crayton Harrison, Microsoft Judge Negates Alcatel-Lucent MP3 Patent Win (Update3)
Although this case does not involve the KSR obviousness issue, KSR is nevertheless starting to throw its long shadow over patent law generally. The US Supreme Court, by its decision in KSR, has sent off the long-needed signal to the legal community that sanity must return to US patent law application and interpretaton, and this sanity IS returning. Judge Rudi Brewster's decision is strong evidence of that.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 8/07/2007 12:09:00 PM
Patent Sanity Slowly Returning to the USA: Judge Rudi Brewster Throws Out Absurd MP3 Jury Verdict in Microsoft Battle against Alcatel-Lucent
As we already noted in discussing the impact of the Supreme Court's KSR decision:
"There is no question that KSR will become one of the most cited decisions in law generally and that it will have a tremendous impact on patent law and litigation."
In KSR (KSR International Co. vs. Teleflex, Inc. (No. 04-1350, slip opinion)), the Supreme Court in its unanimous decision clearly indicated to the legal community that the pendulum of patent law had begun to swing in the direction of common sense and away from the outrageous awards being granted to undeserving patent trolls.
The changed direction of the swing of the patent pendulum is shown by Judge Rudi Brewster's reversal of a record $1.5 billion jury award in an MP3 patent dispute between Microsoft and Alcatel-Lucent.
We posted vociferously about that case in February under the title Patent Insanity in the USA Continues as Jury Awards Record MP3 Verdict. We were one of the few voices on the internet or elsewhere to correctly raise the loud sound of alarm and we express our continued surprise that the legal community in general did not, often being seemingly preoccupied with banalities rather than with the most important cases of our day, such as this case is.
For the details, see:
CNET News Blog at News.com, Tom Krazit, Microsoft wins reversal of MP3 patent decision
Bloomberg News, Jeff St.Onge and Crayton Harrison, Microsoft Judge Negates Alcatel-Lucent MP3 Patent Win (Update3)
Although this case does not involve the KSR obviousness issue, KSR is nevertheless starting to throw its long shadow over patent law generally. The US Supreme Court, by its decision in KSR, has sent off the long-needed signal to the legal community that sanity must return to US patent law application and interpretaton, and this sanity IS returning. Judge Rudi Brewster's decision is strong evidence of that.
Permalink : Andis Kaulins : 8/07/2007 12:09:00 PM
......Creative Commons License