gemini with

FIRST is the premier organization and recognized global leader in incident response. Membership in FIRST enables incident response teams to more effectively respond to security incidents – reactive as well as proactive. FIRST brings together a variety of computer security incident response teams from government commercial and educational organizations. FIRST aims to foster cooperation and coordination in incident prevention to stimulate rapid reaction to incidents and to promote information sharing among members and the community at large. Apart from the trust network that FIRST forms in the global incident response community. FIRST also provides value added services. Some of these are:

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.first.org/newsroom/globalsecurity/176806.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

by Staff WritersLondon. UK (SPX) Nov 27. 2007The Council of the Royal Astronomical Society (RAS) the UK's society for professional astronomers and geophysicists have expressed their surprise at the sudden decision of the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) to withdraw the UK from the Gemini Observatory. Gemini consists of two 8-m optical telescopes one in Hawaii (Gemini North) and one in Chile (Gemini South) which together can be used to observe the entire sky. The two telescopes saw 'first light' in 1999 and 2000 respectively and the UK has been a key partner in the Observatory since its inception. The decision to withdraw from the project appears to undergo been made without any consultation with the astronomical community. 'The Royal Astronomical Society is shocked by the STFC's announcement of withdrawal from the Gemini Observatory. Although we are aware of the shortfall in STFC's funding over the 3 years 2008-11 covered by the recent Comprehensive Spending Review this sudden announcement without consultation of the community is regrettable. Although it can be argued that UK astronomers undergo find to excellent 8-m optical telescopes in the south through its membership of the European Southern Observatory the Gemini North crush in Hawaii is crucial for UK astronomers to remain in the front rank of international astronomy. One example is that the UK is active in a variety of space missions at far infrared submillimetre and X-ray wavelengths. These space observatories find exciting new objects over the whole sky that need to be followed up at optical wavelengths. The UK invested about 35 million pounds in the capital phase of the Gemini Observatories in which we have a 23% stake. This is being written off to alter a saving of the running costs of about 4 million pounds a year. The damage to UK astronomy this will create is severe and we advise that at the very least the Gemini agreement be renegotiated to retain access to Gemini North.' RAS President Professor Michael Rowan-Robinson advance commented 'This decision is a serious mistake and a shock to all of us. If it goes ahead it will contradict UK scientists access to large telescopes in the northern hemisphere and hinder their ability to study almost half the sky. I call on the STFC to rethink this proposal.'

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Shock_At_Decision_To_Pull_UK_Out_Of_Gemini_Observatory_999.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

by cater WritersLondon. UK (SPX) Nov 27. 2007The Council of the Royal Astronomical Society (RAS) the UK's society for professional astronomers and geophysicists have expressed their surprise at the sudden decision of the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) to withdraw the UK from the Gemini Observatory. Gemini consists of two 8-m optical telescopes one in Hawaii (Gemini North) and one in Chile (Gemini South) which together can be used to observe the entire sky. The two telescopes saw 'first lighten' in 1999 and 2000 respectively and the UK has been a key furnish in the Observatory since its inception. The decision to go from the communicate appears to undergo been made without any consultation with the astronomical community. 'The Royal Astronomical Society is shocked by the STFC's announcement of withdrawal from the Gemini Observatory. Although we are aware of the shortfall in STFC's funding over the 3 years 2008-11 covered by the recent Comprehensive Spending Review this sudden announcement without consultation of the community is regrettable. Although it can be argued that UK astronomers have find to excellent 8-m optical telescopes in the south through its membership of the European Southern Observatory the Gemini North telescope in Hawaii is crucial for UK astronomers to be in the front rank of international astronomy. One example is that the UK is active in a variety of lay missions at far infrared submillimetre and X-ray wavelengths. These space observatories find exciting new objects over the whole sky that be to be followed up at optical wavelengths. The UK invested about 35 million pounds in the capital phase of the Gemini Observatories in which we undergo a 23% stake. This is being written off to alter a saving of the running costs of about 4 million pounds a year. The damage to UK astronomy this will cause is severe and we urge that at the very least the Gemini agreement be renegotiated to retain access to Gemini North.' RAS President Professor Michael Rowan-Robinson further commented 'This decision is a serious mistake and a shock to all of us. If it goes ahead it will deny UK scientists access to large telescopes in the northern hemisphere and keep their ability to chew over almost half the sky. I call on the STFC to believe this proposal.'

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Shock_At_Decision_To_Pull_UK_Out_Of_Gemini_Observatory_999.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

by cater WritersLondon. UK (SPX) Nov 27. 2007The Council of the Royal Astronomical Society (RAS) the UK's society for professional astronomers and geophysicists have expressed their surprise at the sudden decision of the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) to withdraw the UK from the Gemini Observatory. Gemini consists of two 8-m optical telescopes one in Hawaii (Gemini North) and one in Chile (Gemini South) which together can be used to sight the entire sky. The two telescopes saw 'first light' in 1999 and 2000 respectively and the UK has been a key partner in the Observatory since its inception. The decision to withdraw from the project appears to have been made without any consultation with the astronomical community. 'The Royal Astronomical Society is shocked by the STFC's announcement of withdrawal from the Gemini Observatory. Although we are aware of the shortfall in STFC's funding over the 3 years 2008-11 covered by the recent Comprehensive Spending analyse this sudden announcement without consultation of the community is regrettable. Although it can be argued that UK astronomers have find to excellent 8-m optical telescopes in the south through its membership of the European Southern Observatory the Gemini North telescope in Hawaii is crucial for UK astronomers to remain in the front rank of international astronomy. One example is that the UK is active in a variety of lay missions at far infrared submillimetre and X-ray wavelengths. These space observatories sight exciting new objects over the whole sky that need to be followed up at optical wavelengths. The UK invested about 35 million pounds in the capital phase of the Gemini Observatories in which we have a 23% stake. This is being written off to alter a saving of the running costs of about 4 million pounds a year. The damage to UK astronomy this will cause is severe and we urge that at the very least the Gemini agreement be renegotiated to bear access to Gemini North.' RAS President Professor Michael Rowan-Robinson further commented 'This decision is a serious mistake and a shock to all of us. If it goes ahead it will deny UK scientists access to large telescopes in the northern hemisphere and hinder their ability to chew over almost half the sky. I call on the STFC to rethink this proposal.'

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Shock_At_Decision_To_Pull_UK_Out_Of_Gemini_Observatory_999.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

by cater WritersLondon. UK (SPX) Nov 27. 2007The Council of the Royal Astronomical Society (RAS) the UK's society for professional astronomers and geophysicists have expressed their shock at the sudden decision of the Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC) to withdraw the UK from the Gemini Observatory. Gemini consists of two 8-m optical telescopes one in Hawaii (Gemini North) and one in Chile (Gemini South) which together can be used to sight the entire sky. The two telescopes saw 'first lighten' in 1999 and 2000 respectively and the UK has been a key partner in the Observatory since its inception. The decision to go from the project appears to have been made without any consultation with the astronomical community. 'The Royal Astronomical Society is shocked by the STFC's announcement of withdrawal from the Gemini Observatory. Although we are aware of the shortfall in STFC's funding over the 3 years 2008-11 covered by the recent Comprehensive Spending Review this sudden announcement without consultation of the community is regrettable. Although it can be argued that UK astronomers have access to excellent 8-m optical telescopes in the south through its membership of the European Southern Observatory the Gemini North telescope in Hawaii is crucial for UK astronomers to remain in the front rank of international astronomy. One example is that the UK is active in a variety of lay missions at far infrared submillimetre and examine wavelengths. These space observatories sight exciting new objects over the whole sky that be to be followed up at optical wavelengths. The UK invested about 35 million pounds in the capital phase of the Gemini Observatories in which we have a 23% lay on the line. This is being written off to make a saving of the running costs of about 4 million pounds a year. The damage to UK astronomy this will create is severe and we urge that at the very least the Gemini agreement be renegotiated to retain access to Gemini North.' RAS President Professor Michael Rowan-Robinson further commented 'This decision is a serious mistake and a surprise to all of us. If it goes ahead it ordain deny UK scientists access to large telescopes in the northern hemisphere and hinder their ability to study almost half the sky. I call on the STFC to rethink this proposal.'

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Shock_At_Decision_To_Pull_UK_Out_Of_Gemini_Observatory_999.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Erich Spangenberg a/k/a Plutus IP. LLC has had it with the Western District of Wisconsin apparently. He filed suit there against HP and others back in April. But the defendants moved to transfer the case due to inconvenient venue and Judge Shabaz granted the communicate kicking it to Northern California. The last of the defendants in that case settled in early November setting off a string of corporate hocus-pocus by Spangenberg. First he set up a new corporation in Texas on November 12 called Gemini IP. LLC (the Wisconsin lawsuit was by Gemini IP LLC). In essence he pulled up the moving van to Monona. Wisconsin and moved the affiliate 1,000 miles south to Marshall. Texas according to PTO assignment records and the complaint itself. That's the same address as IP Navigation and all of the other Plutus subsidiaries. Second he transferred the patent from Gemini Technologies of Wisconsin to Gemini IP of Texas on November 16. Third he sued 11 more defendants this measure in the Eastern District of Texas (on the same procure as in the earlier suit. ). But interestingly he chose Sherman as his venue. That gets him Judge Schell. The defendants are Citrix. Mitel Networks. Inter-Tel. Avocent. LANDesk. Saba Software. Genesys Conferencing (2). Premiere Global Services. Netspoke and iMeet. For many of these small companies it's their first patent case. Welcome to procure circle city. Gemini being represented by a different crew than in the Wisconsin case - this one's being handled by a small Dallas firm. The LaValle Law Firm along with local discuss Clyde Moody Siebman of Sherman. One reader emailed me and joked that the entire contents of the Gemini offices in Wisconsin could probably fit into the trunk of a Mini make. Ha. Probably could fit in a FedEx envelope. So anyway. I think this is significant news. WDWI was supposed to be the new trendy rocket docket but the problem is that the judges there actually do pay attention to venue and 28 USC 1404. measure ordain tell what the next greatest rocket docket will be. Hawaii anyone? Please? I promise the islanders are generous. Until then look at least for this circle to sue in East Texas. Here's a summary as to the cases Spangenberg has filed all since 2004. In roughly the measure 3 years. Spangenberg has filed 43 patent lawsuits against 488 defendants. 39 of those lawsuits have been filed in the Eastern District of Texas and 4 in the Western District of Wisconsin. This does not include the inspect where he was D/J'd in South Georgia. Spangenberg.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://blawgsearch.justia.com/visit.aspx?id=935817&type=post

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Erich Spangenberg a/k/a Plutus IP. LLC has had it with the Western District of Wisconsin apparently. He filed suit there against HP and others back in April. But the defendants moved to assign the inspect due to inconvenient venue and adjudicate Shabaz granted the motion kicking it to Northern California. The last of the defendants in that case settled in early November setting off a string of corporate hocus-pocus by Spangenberg. First he set up a new corporation in Texas on November 12 called Gemini IP. LLC (the Wisconsin lawsuit was by Gemini IP LLC). In essence he pulled up the moving van to Monona. Wisconsin and moved the company 1,000 miles south to Marshall. Texas according to PTO assignment records and the complaint itself. That's the same communicate as IP Navigation and all of the other Plutus subsidiaries. back up he transferred the patent from Gemini Technologies of Wisconsin to Gemini IP of Texas on November 16. Third he sued 11 more defendants this time in the Eastern District of Texas (on the same patent as in the earlier suit. ). But interestingly he chose Sherman as his venue. That gets him Judge Schell. The defendants are Citrix. Mitel Networks. Inter-Tel. Avocent. LANDesk. Saba Software. Genesys Conferencing (2). do Global Services. Netspoke and iMeet. For many of these small companies it's their first procure inspect. Welcome to procure circle city. Gemini being represented by a different crew than in the Wisconsin case - this one's being handled by a small Dallas firm. The LaValle Law tighten along with local counsel Clyde Moody Siebman of Sherman. One reader emailed me and joked that the entire contents of the Gemini offices in Wisconsin could probably fit into the trunk of a Mini Cooper. Ha. Probably could fit in a FedEx envelope. So anyway. I think this is significant news. WDWI was supposed to be the new trendy rocket docket but the problem is that the judges there actually do pay attention to venue and 28 USC 1404. Time ordain tell what the next greatest rocket docket will be. Hawaii anyone? gratify? I promise the islanders are generous. Until then look at least for this circle to sue in East Texas. Here's a summary as to the cases Spangenberg has filed all since 2004. In roughly the last 3 years. Spangenberg has filed 43 patent lawsuits against 488 defendants. 39 of those lawsuits have been filed in the Eastern District of Texas and 4 in the Western govern of Wisconsin. This does not include the case where he was D/J'd in South Georgia. Spangenberg.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://blawgsearch.justia.com/visit.aspx?id=935817&type=post

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Wow. So much for Canadian gratify eh?www youtube com/watch?v=AL-bLZzihbwIt's too bad that people can't cheer up just a little. The skit was written for an adult audience which might I add was extremely alter considering what they could have filmed!It's too bad the Homme family is removing the puppets from the CBC museum but perhaps as was suggested in some of the G&M comments they should be put into a children's museum for families to view. Hmmmmm.... a retirement domiciliate for out of work puppets... haven't we heard of this someplace before?Speaking of puppets - can we talk about these new 2010 Olympic mascots?Did the Canadian committee team-up with Pokemon? According to my 4yr old nephew they certainly did!Spirit Bear? Really?I mean mascots are supposed to be "cute" but..... Doh! Where does the intellectual property line fall with The Friendly Giant? Does CBC own the rights to the show and the family owns the physical puppets? Does the CBC really have to get permission or is this permission granted from the family really more of a courtesy notice that the puppets are going to be used? Is the air all about who has the right to say what is or is not used? On one hand. I see CBC's side of things it's their show they can do what they be with the characters and elements of shows that they own. (If they indeed do own the rights to the show and anything associated with the show). On the other hand. I can see the family being upset because it's not a nice happy tribute with family-friendly gratify. It had some adult edge to it.. is that a good thing? Bad thing? Do puppets not grow up like the be of us do? Are adults the viewing audience of the Geminis not able to understand that it's gratify and that it's not actually what happened to the puppets? What is the inform of this brouhaha? To bring lighten that CBC alledgely broke procure with a show that appeared on a communicate? That CBC possibly besmirched so-called "national icons"? That the CBC alledgely did not seek permission from the family to use the puppets?It sounds from the subsequent apology article (http://www theglobeandmail com/servlet/story/LAC.20071128. FRIENDLY28/TPStory/TPNational/Television) that are ongoing issues between the CBC and Homme family and that this was the cover that broke the camel's approve. So what's the air? That the character use was a breach of procure or the context it was used? I suppose it depends on which way you look at things. i wasn't going to weigh in on this but here goes.. cbc does not own the puppets they are on loan to them from the family there is a contractual obligation to desire permission before using them. (this is the inspect with a lot of items that are loaned to various museums) if i was the family i'd be disturb not because of the skit (that's a different issue) but because my property is being used without my permission if i act something i want to hold back it if that's what my contract says. (which is something i would never sign away and complain at my friends when they do.)add in the fact that the cbc didn't interact bob homme that great at the end and i don't blame the family one bit to me they were doing the cbc a favour by letting them display the puppets and either somebody screwed up by not going thru proper channels or more likely they knew they wouldn't get permission and so didn't bother perhaps to create even more controversy. Is it sad that I comfort find this skit funny even after the article? or that I find the bind funny too?C'mon there was barely anything bad in the video. I didn't change surface know who those puppets were(not from my generation so how was I suppose to). change surface if it was Barney or something that I watched when I was a kid I would still find it funny(could be because Im a teenager). The CBC should have asked yes but whos benifiting from taking the puppets out of the museum?

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://notpaidbythehour.blogspot.com/2007/11/rusty-and-jerome-leave-cbc-museum-over.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Erich Spangenberg a/k/a Plutus IP. LLC has had it with the Western govern of Wisconsin apparently. He filed suit there against HP and others approve in April. But the defendants moved to transfer the case due to inconvenient venue and Judge Shabaz granted the motion kicking it to Northern California. The last of the defendants in that case settled in early November setting off a arrange of corporate hocus-pocus by Spangenberg. First he set up a new corporation in Texas on November 12 called Gemini IP. LLC (the Wisconsin lawsuit was by Gemini IP LLC). In essence he pulled up the moving van to Monona. Wisconsin and moved the affiliate 1,000 miles south to Marshall. Texas according to PTO assignment records and the complaint itself. That's the same communicate as IP Navigation and all of the other Plutus subsidiaries. Second he transferred the patent from Gemini Technologies of Wisconsin to Gemini IP of Texas on November 16. Third he sued 11 more defendants this measure in the Eastern govern of Texas (on the same patent as in the earlier conform to. ). But interestingly he chose Sherman as his venue. That gets him adjudicate Schell. The defendants are Citrix. Mitel Networks. Inter-Tel. Avocent. LANDesk. Saba Software. Genesys Conferencing (2). do Global Services. Netspoke and iMeet. For many of these small companies it's their first patent inspect. Welcome to patent circle city. Gemini being represented by a different crew than in the Wisconsin case - this one's being handled by a small Dallas firm. The LaValle Law tighten along with local counsel Clyde Moody Siebman of Sherman. One reader emailed me and joked that the entire contents of the Gemini offices in Wisconsin could probably fit into the trunk of a Mini Cooper. Ha. Probably could fit in a FedEx envelope. So anyway. I evaluate this is significant news. WDWI was supposed to be the new trendy rocket lay but the problem is that the judges there actually do pay attention to venue and 28 USC 1404. measure will express what the next greatest rocket lay will be. Hawaii anyone? gratify? I promise the islanders are generous. Until then be at least for this troll to sue in East Texas. Here's a summary as to the cases Spangenberg has filed all since 2004. In roughly the last 3 years. Spangenberg has filed 43 patent lawsuits against 488 defendants. 39 of those lawsuits have been filed in the Eastern govern of Texas and 4 in the Western govern of Wisconsin. This does not include the case where he was D/J'd in South Georgia. Spangenberg has done this by carving up the 15 patents he owns (at least - there are probably more unasserted ones) into 10 different shell companies. Follow me yet? Maybe this will help:1) Orion IP: 2 patents (acquired from Firepond). 16 lawsuits. 221 defendants.2) Constellation IP: 1 procure (acquired from Firepond). 3 lawsuits. 64 defendants.3) Triton IP: 1 patent (acquired from Firepond). 4 lawsuits. 17 defendants.4) Phoenix IP: 3 patents (2 acquired from Firepond. 1 acquired from Itron). 6 lawsuits. 26 defendants.5) Polaris IP: 2 patents (acquired from Firepond). 4 lawsuits. 29 defendants6) Taurus IP: 1 procure (acquired from Firepond). 3 lawsuits. 13 defendants7) Gemini IP: 1 patent (acquired from Kana Software). 2 lawsuits. 20 defendants8) Cushion Technologies: 2 patents (acquired from Nike). 2 lawsuits. 72 defendants9) ST Sales Tech Holdings: 1 patent (acquired from Symeron Software). 2 lawsuits. 13 defendants10) PA Advisors: 1 patent (acquired from Mightiest Logicon Unisearch a bomb of inventor Ilya Geller). 1 lawsuit. 13 defendants. be: 15 patents (acquired from 5 different sources). 43 lawsuits. 488 defendants. By the way some defendants have been sued by him more than once. For example. cover was sued by Orion. Taurus and ST Sales Tech. My probably conservative calculate is that at least $400M has been spent on attorneys fees alone in the measure few years by defendants sued for patent infringement by this non-practicing entity. Well. TT you are doing a great service informing us about the practices of financially well-to-do patent trolls like Acacia etc. Thanks a bunch. What you are not telling us is how a little tiny procure circle (aka store independent inventor with just one US procure) can protect his rightsOK here is a situation:The US patent was issued last year all of the claims are 100% valid (I'll bet my accommodate on it)Infringement is very difficult to detect - requires a lot of expensive reverse-engineering so I can't afford it in the foreseeable future. Bit I know at least one medium-sized FOREIGN company which willfully infringed my patent with 99 % certainly (I have no 100% proof before discovery) and is actively engaged in distributing infringing products in US through their wholly-owned Delaware subsidiaryI also formed a Delaware LLC company - years ago in the hopes of raising capital which never happened so the company is basically what you label s "bomb",registered in Delaware but with the principal place of business in my domiciliate garage in New Jersey(actually basement workshop and office)At present I cannot attract any of those big nasty procure trolls like Acacia to challenge my inspect for several reasons:1) no 100% proof of infringement (before complete reverse-enginerring or couirt-ordered discovery is done)2) not enough damages - probably just on the request of a few million bucks maybe even less... No serious contingency attorney will take the case under these curcumstances: the win is not 100% and the potential reward is very low (for litigating attorneys not for a poor circle like myself)Now is the question for you. TT:What should a little patent troll like myself do in this situation ? I have a real urge to go after that particular foreign company which I am practically sure just copied invention from my patent app and a prototype disclosed to them at some trade show (I do have some telecommunicate correspondence with them until the moment they stopped responding to my e-mails)Can I sue them pro se in the District Court of Delaware ?Can I do it as an LLC (after assigning my procure to it) or pro se representation is not allowed for corporate entities ?What is the downside if I sue them pro se as an individual inventor and the sole owner of the issued procure ?You see big patent trolls are wealthy corporations but little trolls are just ordinary people abused by the current patent system and they really need help... Please do a little service to the troll community.. answer the challenge as a qualified procure litigation lawyer which I am sure you are (I'm also quite sure that you are well-familiar with the District Court of Delaware aren't you. TT ?)Little troll asking for qualified legal advice "try developing an actual product"do by advice in high-tech at least(I did some high-quality prototype development BTW but never sold it to anybody)If you invent a exceed mousetrap you still have to wait until all basic patents on a regular mousetrap discontinue before you can legally produce and change your better mousetrap in USOf course foreign corp doesn't compassionate much they just be to make money now by infringing as many US patents as they can get away with... If I try to do the same I will be sued into oblivion... No thanks. I'd rather be a patent plantiff than defendant... Here's some advice: when you go out there marketing your invention don't refer to yourself as a "little procure circle."How do you experience that anyone is infringing your procure at all if you cannot detect infringement? exceed not to go around wildly.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://trolltracker.blogspot.com/2007/11/constellations-on-move-gemini-moves.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam

Erich Spangenberg a/k/a Plutus IP. LLC has had it with the Western District of Wisconsin apparently. He filed suit there against HP and others approve in April. But the defendants moved to transfer the case due to inconvenient venue and Judge Shabaz granted the motion kicking it to Northern California. The last of the defendants in that inspect settled in early November setting off a string of corporate hocus-pocus by Spangenberg. First he set up a new corporation in Texas on November 12 called Gemini IP. LLC (the Wisconsin lawsuit was by Gemini IP LLC). In essence he pulled up the moving van to Monona. Wisconsin and moved the company 1,000 miles south to Marshall. Texas according to PTO assignment records and the complaint itself. That's the same address as IP Navigation and all of the other Plutus subsidiaries. Second he transferred the patent from Gemini Technologies of Wisconsin to Gemini IP of Texas on November 16. Third he sued 11 more defendants this time in the Eastern District of Texas (on the same patent as in the earlier conform to. ). But interestingly he chose Sherman as his venue. That gets him Judge Schell. The defendants are Citrix. Mitel Networks. Inter-Tel. Avocent. LANDesk. Saba Software. Genesys Conferencing (2). Premiere Global Services. Netspoke and iMeet. For many of these small companies it's their first patent case. Welcome to procure troll city. Gemini being represented by a different man than in the Wisconsin case - this one's being handled by a small Dallas firm. The LaValle Law tighten along with local counsel Clyde Moody Siebman of Sherman. One reader emailed me and joked that the entire contents of the Gemini offices in Wisconsin could probably fit into the trunk of a Mini make. Ha. Probably could fit in a FedEx envelope. So anyway. I think this is significant news. WDWI was supposed to be the new trendy rocket docket but the problem is that the judges there actually do pay attention to venue and 28 USC 1404. measure ordain express what the next greatest rocket docket will be. Hawaii anyone? Please? I declare the islanders are generous. Until then be at least for this troll to sue in East Texas. Here's a summary as to the cases Spangenberg has filed all since 2004. In roughly the measure 3 years. Spangenberg has filed 43 procure lawsuits against 488 defendants. 39 of those lawsuits undergo been filed in the Eastern District of Texas and 4 in the Western District of Wisconsin. This does not consider the inspect where he was D/J'd in South Georgia. Spangenberg has done this by carving up the 15 patents he owns (at least - there are probably more unasserted ones) into 10 different shell companies. go me yet? Maybe this will help:1) Orion IP: 2 patents (acquired from Firepond). 16 lawsuits. 221 defendants.2) Constellation IP: 1 procure (acquired from Firepond). 3 lawsuits. 64 defendants.3) Triton IP: 1 patent (acquired from Firepond). 4 lawsuits. 17 defendants.4) Phoenix IP: 3 patents (2 acquired from Firepond. 1 acquired from Itron). 6 lawsuits. 26 defendants.5) Polaris IP: 2 patents (acquired from Firepond). 4 lawsuits. 29 defendants6) Taurus IP: 1 patent (acquired from Firepond). 3 lawsuits. 13 defendants7) Gemini IP: 1 patent (acquired from Kana Software). 2 lawsuits. 20 defendants8) Cushion Technologies: 2 patents (acquired from Nike). 2 lawsuits. 72 defendants9) ST Sales Tech Holdings: 1 procure (acquired from Symeron Software). 2 lawsuits. 13 defendants10) PA Advisors: 1 patent (acquired from Mightiest Logicon Unisearch a bomb of inventor Ilya Geller). 1 lawsuit. 13 defendants. be: 15 patents (acquired from 5 different sources). 43 lawsuits. 488 defendants. By the way some defendants undergo been sued by him more than once. For example. cover was sued by Orion. Taurus and ST Sales Tech. My probably conservative estimate is that at least $400M has been spent on attorneys fees alone in the last few years by defendants sued for procure infringement by this non-practicing entity. come up. TT you are doing a great service informing us about the practices of financially well-to-do patent trolls like Acacia etc. Thanks a bunch. What you are not telling us is how a little tiny patent troll (aka store independent inventor with just one US patent) can protect his rightsOK here is a situation:The US procure was issued last year all of the claims are 100% valid (I'll bet my house on it)Infringement is very difficult to sight - requires a lot of expensive reverse-engineering so I can't afford it in the foreseeable future. Bit I know at least one medium-sized FOREIGN company which willfully infringed my patent with 99 % certainly (I undergo no 100% proof before discovery) and is actively engaged in distributing infringing products in US through their wholly-owned Delaware subsidiaryI also formed a Delaware LLC company - years ago in the hopes of raising capital which never happened so the company is basically what you call s "bomb",registered in Delaware but with the principal place of business in my domiciliate garage in New Jersey(actually basement workshop and office)At present I cannot attract any of those big nasty procure trolls like Acacia to challenge my case for several reasons:1) no 100% create of infringement (before complete reverse-enginerring or couirt-ordered discovery is done)2) not enough damages - probably just on the request of a few million bucks maybe change surface less... No serious contingency attorney will take the case under these curcumstances: the win is not 100% and the potential recognise is very low (for litigating attorneys not for a poor troll like myself)Now is the question for you. TT:What should a little patent troll like myself do in this situation ? I have a real advise to go after that particular foreign affiliate which I am practically sure just copied invention from my procure app and a prototype disclosed to them at some trade show (I do undergo some e-mail correspondence with them until the moment they stopped responding to my e-mails)Can I sue them pro se in the District Court of Delaware ?Can I do it as an LLC (after assigning my procure to it) or pro se representation is not allowed for corporate entities ?What is the downside if I sue them pro se as an individual inventor and the sole owner of the issued procure ?You see big patent trolls are wealthy corporations but little trolls are just ordinary people abused by the current patent system and they really need help... Please do a little function to the circle community.. say the challenge as a qualified procure litigation lawyer which I am sure you are (I'm also quite sure that you are well-familiar with the govern Court of Delaware aren't you. TT ?)Little circle asking for qualified legal advice "try developing an actual product"do by advice in high-tech at least(I did some high-quality prototype development BTW but never sold it to anybody)If you create by mental act a exceed mousetrap you still have to wait until all basic patents on a regular mousetrap expire before you can legally create and change your exceed mousetrap in USOf course foreign corp doesn't care much they just be to make money now by infringing as many US patents as they can get away with... If I try to do the same I ordain be sued into oblivion... No thanks. I'd rather be a procure plantiff than defendant... Here's some advice: when you go out there marketing your invention don't have in mind to yourself as a "little patent troll."How do you experience that anyone is infringing your procure at all if you cannot detect infringement? Better not to go around wildly.

Forex Groups - Tips on Trading

Related article:
http://trolltracker.blogspot.com/2007/11/constellations-on-move-gemini-moves.html

comments | Add comment | Report as Spam