LawPundit

Federal Transportation Preemption Limited by U.S. Supreme Court in Dan's City Used Cars, Inc. v. Pelkey -- Statutory Interpretation Voiced by Justice Scalia in a Previous Dissent is Found Important by Justice Ginsburg and a Unanimous Court

2013-05-16T20:10:00.000+02:00

Deepak Gupta at SCOTUSblog provides an analysis of the unanimous Supreme Court opinion written by Justice Ginsburg in Dan's City Used Cars, Inc. v. Pelkey, a decision which relies in part on statutory interpretation voiced by Justice Scalia in a previous dissent.

The liberal and conservative wings of the Court thus found common legal ground in this case.

See Unanimous Justices recognize “massive” limit on transportation preemption.

The Supreme Court is to be applauded here for issuing a unanimous decision and voicing a clear standard that can be understood by all.

The Court relied in part for its decision on the reasoning found in a statement in Justice Scalia's dissent in Ours Garage, 536 U. S., at 449 (Scalia, J., dissenting), and notes in footnote 4 that:

"Although this statement appears in the Ours Garage dissent, nothing in the Court's opinion in that case is in any way inconsistent with the dissent's characterization of § 14501(c)(1)."

This kind of legal "congruence" on the Supreme Court makes us optimistic as to the Court's future jurisprudential decision-making.

#Hashtags and #hashtag Ownership: Intellectual Property and Company Trademarks vs. Descriptive #hashtags

2013-05-15T17:03:00.004+02:00

Via LexisNexis
the blog Business Law Post
has a nice piece on Who Owns #Hashtags?

An interesting intellectual property question
is posed by Twitter #Hashtags
as regards #hashtag ownership,

which can arguably be viewed from the standpoint of

company #trademarks ( probably #hashtagprotectable )

and/or

descriptive #hashtags ( probably #hashtagunprotectable ).

Descriptive names of companies such as in the hashtags
#Apple viz. #apple
present a more complex legal issue
since such generic-appropriating companies
have essentially taken such general terms
from the public good (together with the goodwill affiliated with such terms)
without payment of any compensation to the common weal
and thus should not be afforded any protection by law
for what is essentially a "stolen" word.

Trademarks and copyrights
have something to do
with the sometimes perplexing legal question of
"who owns the words?"

We see nothing wrong with protecting "invented" one-word combinations of words applying to specific products, i.e. something like #applecomputer, or in our own right #lawpundit, but a company should not be able to obtain monopoly rights on the words #apple or #computer any more than we could impossibly obtain monopoly rights on the words #law or #pundit.

Can it be that some legislatures and courts out there
do not understand the difference?

Self-Replicating Products: In Bowman v. Monsanto Co. the U.S. Supreme Court Limits the Doctrine of Patent Exhaustion by Prohibiting Purchasers from Making and Marketing Replicas of the Patented Invention

2013-05-14T14:03:00.001+02:00

As we previously predicted at LawPundit on the basis of the oral arguments to the case, the U.S. Supreme Court decided unanimously in favor of the patent holder in Bowman v. Monsanto Co., holding as follows in an opinion by Justice Kagan:

"Under the doctrine of patent exhaustion, the authorized sale of a patented article gives the purchaser, or any subsequent owner, a right to use or resell that article. Such a sale, however, does not allow the purchaser to make new copies of the patented invention. The question in this case is whether a farmer who buys patented seeds may reproduce them through planting and harvesting without the patent holder’s permission. We hold that he may not."

The Court ALSO stated by way of limitation as follows:

"Our holding today is limited—addressing the situation before us, rather than every one involving a self-replicating product. We recognize that such inventions are becoming ever more prevalent, complex, and diverse. In another case, the article’s self-replication might occur outside the purchaser’s control. Or it might be a necessary but incidental step in using the item for another purpose. Cf. 17 U. S. C. §117(a)(1) (“[I]t is not [a copyright] infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make . . . another copy or adaptation of that computer program provide[d] that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program”). We need not address here whether or how the doctrine of patent exhaustion would apply in such circumstances. In the case at hand, Bowman planted Monsanto’s patented soybeans solely to make and market replicas of them, thus depriving the company of the reward patent law provides for the sale of each article. Patent exhaustion provides no haven for that conduct.

By so doing, the Supreme Court took the simplest path of decision in this case and applied a clear legal standard to the undenied facts, as the Court should do, without problematical hair-splitting concurrences or dissents. Well done.

Austerity and The Chutzpah Caucus from Paul Krugman

2013-05-06T20:52:00.001+02:00

See Paul Krugman at the New York Times on austerity and The Chutzpah Caucus at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/06/opinion/krugman-the-chutzpah-caucus.html?hp&_r=0

Criminal Law: Back to the Basics in the U.S. Supreme Court Case Metrish v. Lancaster: What is Mens Rea? and Who Defines It? What About Retroactive Denials of Rights?

2013-04-26T19:21:00.004+02:00

Oral argument on Metrish v. Lancaster was just held, a Supreme Court case of substantial interest to criminal law circles, primarily involving the issue of mens rea, i.e. "intent" as a material element of crimes.

See Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog in Argument recap: Who makes law?

The case looks simple at first glance, but is in fact hard as a matter of law, involving the core concept of culpability, which is at the root of nearly all criminal laws -- asking who decides, and when, that culpability exists.

One of the first things taught to every new student at law school is the doctrine of mens rea in Criminal Law, found in the Latin phrase
actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea,
which has been translated as:
the act is not culpable unless the mind is guilty.

At common law, criminal guilt or innocence depended not only on whether the accused committed the crime (actus reus) but also on whether the accused intended to commit the crime (mens rea).

In modern law, mens rea as a "mental state" is a critical element in the prosecution of crimes, where the material element of intent, i.e. the state of mind of the accused, distinguishes, for example, premeditated first degree murder from the charge of lesser crimes such as second degree murder or voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.

Some jurisdictions permit a defense of insanity, properly proven, and nothing inbetween to a finding of full intent as the presumed state of mind for a perpetrated crime. Whether that either/or approach is constitutional?

A complete lack of intent, on the other hand, can exculpate a perpetrator, as especially Justice Scalia should know. Scalia in the past was at least a one-time hunting partner of former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, who some years ago was involved in the non-fatal accidental shooting of attorney Harry Whittington during a hunting expedition. Cheney was exculpated by the fact that he did not intend to shoot his hunting partner but was in fact shooting at quail. It was accepted to be an accident, but could have a been a crime if the shooting had been proven purposeful, or even reckless. Mens rea decided.

The mens rea claim in the case of Metrish v. Lancaster involves a former Detroit police officer accused of murdering his girlfriend. The accused tried to raise the defense that he suffered from "diminished capacity" in committing the offense, a defense recognized in the State of Michigan 40 years ago, and perhaps also at the time of the act, but since removed, either because of new state laws that left out the defense, or because of a later state court decision that negated the defense. See Kimberly Reed Thompson, The Untimely Death of Michigan's Diminished Capacity Defense. Could that defense be denied retroactively to the accused in this case?

The questions that the Supreme Court must answer here are:

"12-547 METRISH V. LANCASTER
DECISION BELOW: 683 F.3d 740
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 10-2112
QUESTION PRESENTED:

1. Whether the Michigan Supreme Court's recognition that a state statute abolished the long-maligned diminished-capacity defense was an "unexpected and indefensible" change in a common-law doctrine of criminal law under this Court's retroactivity jurisprudence.
See Rogers v. Tennessee, 532 U.S. 451 (2001).

2. Whether the Michigan Court of Appeals' retroactive application of the Michigan Supreme Court's decision was "so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement" so as to justify habeas relief.
Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770, 786-87 (2011).

CERT. GRANTED 1/18/2013"

It would seem to us that the defense was still available to the accused in this case at the time of the act, since such a right can arguably not be denied retroactively and still make claim to be constitutional.

This may seem like it gives advantage to a criminal perpetrator, but the principle of not permitting retroactive denials of rights is more important for the law and citizenry in general than the end result in any one given case.

UEFA Champions League: Borussia Dortmund over Real Madrid 4-1 in their 1st Leg of Semi-Final

2013-04-25T20:49:00.004+02:00

Sid Lowe has the story for The Guardian at Borussia Dortmund 4-1 Real Madrid | Champions League semi-final first leg match report.

Robert Lewandowski scored all four of the Dortmund goals in matching the Bayern Munich 4-goal output in their 1st leg semifinal game against FC Barcelona.

Real Madrid will have it nearly as difficult as Barca to get into the final now, as a German-German final match at Wembley now seems imminent.

Munich over Barcelona 4:0 in 1st Leg of Champions League Soccer Semifinal

2013-04-24T19:39:00.000+02:00

Bayern Munich scored a sensationally decisive 4:0 win over FC Barcelona in the 1st leg of the Champions League semifinal, leaving Barcelona little chance via the 2nd leg of making it into the May 25 final at Wembley Stadium in London, though the 2nd game must still be played on the field, so no one should get overconfident.

The winner here will meet the winner of the semifinal matches between Spain's Real Madrid and Germany's Borussia Dortmund.

The current strength of German and Spanish soccer (association football) viz. the rest of Europe is evident from the semifinal pairings.

Andrew Das has the story at the New York Times:

In Champions League, Bayern Munich Subdues a Stunned Barcelona.

Persistent Identifiers and Invasive Tracking via Flash Cookies viz. LSOs or Local Shared Objects (LSOs) are leading to Increased Litigation

2013-04-20T00:21:00.000+02:00

Alycia N. Broz and Robert J. Krummen of Vorys Sater Seymour and Pease LLP report at Lexology on an increasing number of lawsuits being filed regarding an increasingly new threat to computer user privacy in:

Flash Cookies Litigation: the next wave or a “Flash” in the pan?

Nothing useful has come out of the courts on this issue up to now. The courts generally lag far behind actual developments, and that is due to the inherently conservative nature of law and jurisprudence. Only when things really begin to get out of hand do courts (and legislatures) act, if at all.

Just look at the legal mess that exists today in intellectual property law (patents, copyrights, trademarks).

We were reminded again recently of the burgeoning legal problem of flash cookies as Spy Bot - Search & Destroy ® told us that it had identified and removed nearly 70 so-called "flash cookies" from our PC computer.

"Normal cookies" (also known as "HTTP cookies", "web cookies", or "browser cookies", and in function, often "authentication cookies") perform many essential functions, and to our way of thinking are not particularly invasive,

while "flash cookies" are more correctly referred to as LSOs, i.e. Local Shared Objects, which perform invasive tasks on the user's computer, tasks which to our way of thinking clearly invade user privacy without the user's knowledge.

Indeed, flash cookies are being used as "persistent identifiers" because they are able to restore "normal cookies" deleted by a user, which then allows advertisers to track the behavior of users even though they have "opted out" of tracking by the fact of their having deleted the normal tracking cookies. Flash cookies also are able to persist across browsers, so it makes no difference whether you visited a site once with Firefox, another time with Chrome and a third time with Internet Explorer. Flash cookies can handle that.

See Web Browsing Tracking Technologies ("Flash Cookies") at CASRO.org (Council of American Survey Research Organizations).

New York Times Editorial Board Asks: Are Human Genes Patentable?

2013-04-18T22:28:00.000+02:00

The New York Times Editorial Board asks: Are Human Genes Patentable?.

As we noted in our previous posting at

Patenting Human Genes: Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics: U.S. Supreme Court Oral Argument Indicates Natural Genes Will be Found Unpatentable as a Matter of Composition but Genes Worked by Human Ingenuity May Be Patentable as to Use

the U.S. Supreme Court will undoubtedly find that human genes themselves are not patentable, but that is not the end of it.

The editorial board at the New York Times oversimplifies the legal question involved in the Myriad case, which essentially also involves snippets of DNA called cDNA that have been "worked" by human hand and for which a practical diagnostic use has subsequently been developed.

There is every likelihood, although we do not welcome the prospect at all, that the Justices on the nation's highest court will find such snippets, if "worked" by human hand (i.e. in the lab), to be patentable subject matter as to use.

That is a less troubling prospect for the future, but still one fraught with many dangers if the scope of patentability is set too high by SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States). cDNA "creation" is a snap with modern lab kits and the created "entities" are eminently obvious, so that an overbroad definition of the type of modified genes than can be patented could open the doors to a practical "research parcelling" of the human genome, which is certainly not what the doctor ordered.

We argue additionally by the way, that all natural, unmodified human genes serve as "prior art", made by the Almighty, to whatever minor commercial modifications man makes to them in order to modify DNA diagnostically or otherwise make genes medically useful beyond procreation itself.

Patents should be sensibly limited somewhere, and genes, modified or not, would be a good place to start. What the Almighty has created is still massive as compared to man's comparatively less important, in the long term ephemeral inventions and discoveries.

How many profit from finding, discovering, inventing and using God's works?
Well, how about nearly everyone.

Can One Really Patent A Gene?

2013-04-17T21:46:00.002+02:00

Nice article at The Financialist by Carmel Melouney on Can You Really Patent A Gene?

Patenting Human Genes: Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics: U.S. Supreme Court Oral Argument Indicates Natural Genes Will be Found Unpatentable as a Matter of Composition but Genes Worked by Human Ingenuity May Be Patentable as to Use

2013-04-15T23:10:00.000+02:00

Oral argument on U.S. Supreme Court case 12-398, Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. (see the transcript) took place today, Monday, April 15, 2013.

Essentially, it appears to us that the ultimate decision of the Supreme Court Justices in this case could fall along the following line of decision-making:

A natural human gene, i.e. DNA, is NOT patentable,
but a gene worked by human hand, such as cDNA,
could be patentable subject matter ....

That is an alternative weighed by Justice Kennedy during oral argument:

"And -- and that avoids giving special industries special subsidies, which is very important it seems to me. Let me ask you this, and it's consistent with my -- my preface. If we were to accept the Government's position that the DNA is not patentable but the cDNA is, would that give the industry sufficient protection for innovation and research? And if not, why not?"

Viewing cDNA to be patentable has two judicial options, i.e.

either

1) as "patentable" composition of matter in its own right, limited by the doctrines of prior art and obviousness, but without any monopolistic patent attaching to the actual DNA involved, whether in whole or part (i.e. snipped or unsnipped)

The problem with that option is Justice Sotomayor's question:

"Now, how do you understand Judge Bryson's dissent with respect to cDNA? I think he's saying that a gene created from -- into cDNA as a whole is okay, but that he had a problem with the description of that claim because it included 15 nucleotide long segments or fragments which he says reoccur in nature."

There is no convincing good answer to that question. Just try copying 15 notes exactly from one song into a "new" song and then try to claim you are not infringing on the original. No way.

or (the alternative which we prefer)

2) as patentable subject matter in terms of the use to which the genetic discovery, e.g. the cDNA, is put, limited by the doctrines of prior art and obviousness, but excluding its patentability as patentable composition of matter, i.e. a finding of the narrowest possible scope of patentability in the "use" of the cDNA.

Justice Sotomayor asked about the value of the isolated cDNA:

"That's the whole point, isn't it? The isolation itself is not valuable; it's the use you put the isolation to. That's the answer, isn't it?
MR. HANSEN: That's exactly correct. Thank you. Yes, that is the answer."

Justice Scalia said nearly the same thing in the argument about recombinant DNA:

"Yes. But, of course, to profit from -- from that recombinant DNA, you have to not just isolate the gene, but then you have to do something with it afterwards."

In other words, our view here at LawPundit is that DNA is not patentable subject matter, whereas cDNA could be, but only for a specific, narrow use discovered by the inventor. Nothing more. cDNA should be free for use by others for other uses, including, e.g. discovering improved tests via further research, also as regards breast and ovarian cancer, as in the case of BRCA.

No selfish lab like Myriad should ever be allowed by law to shut down competing labs engaged in genetic research just because they are using the same genes, or cDNA. Competing BRAC tests of course can not be carbon copies of the Myriad tests, but improved tests should be welcomed and encouraged, also by competing labs in the industry. That is the nature of invention and discovery and always has been, especially in the pharmaceutical and biochemical sector. Monopoly means stagnation, paid for by those who suffer needlessly. Patents should always be granted for the narrowest possible claims, not for the broadest. Monopolies should be avoided.

In general, we most closely thus accord with the basic reasoning of Justice Breyer in questioning Gregory A. Castanias, counsel for Myriad, in James Baker-like fashion [excerpted and with more paragraph division than in the original transcript], where Breyer observed:

"I had thought ... and ... I'd be interested in your view -- that the patent law is filled with uneasy compromises, because on the one hand, we do want people to invent; on the other hand, we're very worried about them tying up ... a thing that itself could be used for further advance. And so that the compromise that has been built historically into this area is:

Of course, if you get a new satisfying process to extract the sap from the plant in the Amazon, patented.

Of course, if you get the sap out and you find that you can use it, you manipulate it, you use it, you figure out a way to use it to treat cancer, wonderful, patented.

But what you can't patent is the sap itself.

Now, in any individual case that might be unfortunate or fortunate. But consider it in the mine run of things.

It's important to keep products of nature free of the restrictions that patents [trigger? ("there are" in the transcript can not be correct)], so when Captain Ferno goes to the Amazon and discovers 50 new types of plants, saps and medicines, discovers them, although that expedition was expensive, although nobody had found it before, he can't get a patent on the thing itself. He gets a patent on the process, on the use of the thing, but not the thing itself.

Now, that's my understanding of what I'd call hornbook patent law, which you I confess probably understand better than I."

Counsel countered by citing the ignominious "precedent" of USPTO practice on gene patents over the years, saying that the "decision by the Patent Office is entitled to respect", i.e. he "begs the question" by offering the thing in dispute as proof of its correctness, or, to put it into Bakeresque terms, he puts the cart before the horse. It is is an argument which in our opinon has no chance in the decision-making on this case, and, indeed, as Justice Ginsburg then correctly rebutted: "even though the Government has disavowed it".

For more about the oral argument, see e.g. Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog in Justices debate gene patenting issues: In Plain English.

See also Patently-O.

See also Greg Stohr & Susan Decker at Bloomerg in High Court Justices Seek Compromise in Gene-Patent Case.

We posted previously about the Myriad gene patent case at LawPundit in:

Can Human Genes Be Patented? U.S. Supreme Court Answer Likely to Be "No", but the Ultimate Issue Down the Road is the Patentability of cDNA (Complementary DNA) viz. Is a Split Hair viz. Split Gene an Invention?

The Unteachables on the Federal Circuit: If Citizens Are Obligated to Obey Laws They Do Not Agree With, Are Lower Courts Also Not Obligated to Follow the Precedents of the United States Supreme Court Even if The Judges Disagree?

Myriad Human Gene Patent Case Vacated and Remanded by U.S. Supreme Court in Light of Prometheus

Split Federal Circuit in Myriad Case Partially Reverses District Court and Finds Isolated Human Genes to be Patentable: Subsequent Supreme Court Review of this Case is Surely Essential

How SWEET It Is! Gene Patents Ruled Invalid as Genes are Found to be Non-patentable Subject Matter

Stephen Colbert on Gene Patents and the Myriad Case : Humor

The Body Snatchers are Alive and Well : In ACLU v. Myriad, the Battle over DNA Patents Rages

Successful Networking Principles: Spreading Awareness and Increasing Followers in Social Media

2013-04-11T14:57:00.000+02:00

Sam Milbrath in #MyDash with Booooooom ~ Spreading Brand Awareness in Social Media - HootSuite Social Media Management shows how Jeff Hamada has picked up a following that accounts for 3 million page views per month -- in the arts!

So what is his secret?

Hamada's basic social media networking principles in the arts are surely applicable to many other fields and to many other ventures, also to social media networking in the legal profession. Take a look.

United States Chamber of Commerce Tops Amicus “All Stars" as the Pendulum Moves to the Right

2013-04-06T20:54:00.001+02:00

Prevailing political and business opinion can be found reflected in even such things as amicus briefs filed at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Adam Chandler has the story at SCOTUS Blog in

Cert.-stage amicus “all stars”: Where are they now?

showing that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the amicus champion
and that the amicus trend is overwhelmingly a politically rightward tilt.

Timekeeping Precedents to the Billable Hour: Time, Dates, Chronology and the World of Watches (or) What's in a Chronometer?

2013-04-04T18:09:00.002+02:00

Day-to-day time and longer term dates, dating and chronology are the clocks for all that we humans do, including and especially the law, where "time" is billed in law practices and represents the monetary basis of the profession.

We at LawPundit are always amazed that more people in the legal profession do not share our interest in prehistoric stargazing, ancient astronomy and megalithic cultures, all of which involved man's time-keeping long ago -- and all of which serve as timekeepers' precedents for what we call "time" now.

In this vein, the new Jaquet Droz Bird Repeater is featured at the Robb Report at FrontRunners: Jaquet Droz.

For a description of the mechanical complications of this watch, which costs about a half a million dollars and includes movable birds, see the Robb Report.

Please keep in mind that our interest in these watches is not so much how much they cost, but rather the human ingenuity and creativity that they represent.

This is just a beautiful watch, whose complex machinery is a joy to behold.

I have a special personal reason for featuring this "bird watch".

See the next posting about a more ancient time-keeping bird.

Patents, The High Price of Pharmaceutical Drugs and Low-Cost "Generics" in Poor Countries

2013-04-02T16:06:00.001+02:00

Pharmaceutical drugs in the context of patents and low cost generics in poor countries is discussed in detail by Gardiner Harris and Katie Thomas at the New York Times in Top Court in India Rejects Novartis Drug Patent.

When the "real pill" of a leukemia drug can cost $70000 per year as opposed to a "generic" copy that costs only $2500 annually, then the battle lines are well drawn for the discussion of SENSIBLE policy in this field.

How much is too much?

Weaknesses of the Patent System and the Actavis Case at the U.S. Supreme Court

2013-04-02T15:43:00.002+02:00

Make sure you read the posting Actavis Case Shows Weak Patents Are System-Wide by David Balto at Patent Progress, which writes inter alia as follows:

"The US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) grants 78% of all original patent applications as opposed to 61% granted by Japan and 55% granted by the European Union.... [O]nly 72.5% of the patents issued in the US were issued by the European Patent Office and only 44.5% were issued by the Japanese Patent Office.... The PTO receives roughly ten times as much money from issuing a patent than it does from denying it....

[S]tatistics cited by the PPF show that 30% of all issued patents reviewed by courts lacked novelty, and 40% of the remaining patents were found invalid for being obvious...."

Read the whole thing here.

Creswell Crags Robin Hood Cave Ochre Horse Rib Bone Carving Decipherment Update 2.0

2013-04-02T00:22:00.001+02:00

This posting is Update 2.0 to my previously posted original decipherment on this topic as also to Update 1 of the Creswell Crags "Ochre Horse" rib bone carving decipherment.

This update provides an image of the details of the rib bone, all except for the Winter stars on the top left of the rib bone, which are already included in the previous posting, and shows that large darkened spots on the rib bone are to some degree intentional carved "placements" marking stars of the heavens, e.g. stars of Ursa Major, but also other stars, some prominent, some not so prominent, and also some that are uncertain, but in general they can be said to confirm that the decipherment is correct.

Update 3.0 will follow at some time in the future with a text explanation of various matters in detail.

The engraved bone, now popularly called the "Robin Hood Cave Horse" after the cave in which it was discovered in 1876, is dated by the archaeologists to the Ice Age ca. 12500 years ago. It is the oldest artifact (British artefact) of this kind ever found in northern Europe and, as a stroke of luck for those interested, is currently on display at the British Museum until May 26, 2013 in the British Museum exhibition: Ice Age Art: Arrival of the Modern Mind.
See the reviews at:

“Not even Leonardo surpassed this” -- The Guardian
“I can’t remember the last time I saw a show with so many rare and beautiful objects” -- The Telegraph
“The exhibition everyone should see” -- The Times
“Astonishing” -- Metro

For today, only this updated decipherment, no text.
In the course of time I will reveal how I arrived at this solution. Enjoy.

Attribution of the source of the photograph above, from which I have removed the black background, is as follows from the Wikipedia:

"Creswell Crags. The Ochre Horse. This original fragment of a rib bone contains the oldest known carving of its type in Britain. The horse was carved approximately 12,500 years ago and was on temporary display at the small museum at Creswell Crags to November 2009 (although a replica of the ochre horse is always on display). It was found on the 29th June in 1876 at the back of the western chamber in the 'Robin Hood Cave' in Creswell Crags. Sieveking 855, British Museum. More information can be found at the original website: www.creswell-crags.org.uk/Home.aspx
Date     23 October 2009, 15:58
Source     The Ochre Horse - 12500 Years Old!
Author     Dave from Nottingham, England
Camera location 53° 15′ 48.48″ N, 1° 11′ 54.74″ W

The image was originally posted to Flickr by DaveKav at http://flickr.com/photos/8089996@N06/4038464041. It was reviewed on 18 December 2010 by the FlickreviewR robot and was confirmed to be licensed under the terms of the cc-by-2.0. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ochre_Horse.jpg"

The astronomical interpretations that surround the photograph are by Andis Kaulins, April 2, 2013, and are not part of the original photograph of the Ochre Horse rib bone.

Ochre Horse Rib Bone Carving of Creswell Crags Decipherment Update 1.0

2013-04-02T00:01:00.000+02:00

This posting is Update 1.0 to my previously posted decipherment of the Creswell Crags "Ochre Horse" rib bone carving, showing that the calendric astronomy of stars is continued on the rib bone if it is turned 180 degrees, thus covering all the heavens and all the seasons and marking divisions of the heavens that would suggest a lunar and solar mesh. This update also puts the date closer to 10500 B.C. and shows that the deeply incised lines on the rib bone were added to separate the stars noted on one half of the rib bone.

A more detailed posting will follow as Update 2.0.

That engraved bone, now popularly called the "Robin Hood Cave Horse" after the cave in which it was discovered in 1876, is dated by the archaeologists to the Ice Age ca. 12500 years ago. It is the oldest artifact (British artefact) of this kind ever found in northern Europe and, as a stroke of luck for those interested, is currently on display at the British Museum until May 26, 2013 in the British Museum exhibition: Ice Age Art: Arrival of the Modern Mind.
See the reviews at:

“Not even Leonardo surpassed this” -- The Guardian
“I can’t remember the last time I saw a show with so many rare and beautiful objects” -- The Telegraph
“The exhibition everyone should see” -- The Times
“Astonishing” -- Metro

"Creswell Crags. The Ochre Horse. This original fragment of a rib bone contains the oldest known carving of its type in Britain. The horse was carved approximately 12,500 years ago and was on temporary display at the small museum at Creswell Crags to November 2009 (although a replica of the ochre horse is always on display). It was found on the 29th June in 1876 at the back of the western chamber in the 'Robin Hood Cave' in Creswell Crags. Sieveking 855, British Museum. More information can be found at the original website: www.creswell-crags.org.uk/Home.aspx
Date     23 October 2009, 15:58
Source     The Ochre Horse - 12500 Years Old!
Author     Dave from Nottingham, England
Camera location 53° 15′ 48.48″ N, 1° 11′ 54.74″ W

The image was originally posted to Flickr by DaveKav at http://flickr.com/photos/8089996@N06/4038464041. It was reviewed on 18 December 2010 by the FlickreviewR robot and was confirmed to be licensed under the terms of the cc-by-2.0. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ochre_Horse.jpg"

The astronomical interpretations that surround the photograph are by Andis Kaulins, April 2, 2013, and are not part of the original photograph of the Ochre Horse. The forms of stellar constellations are taken from Starry Night Pro as is also the sky map of the stars turned 180 degrees to emphasize the stars that the ochre horse rib bone portrays when it is turned, i.e. those stars on or between the Winter Solstice and Spring Equinox in ca. 10500 B.C.

Happy Easter! The British Museum Exhibition on Ice Age Art and Arrival of the Modern Mind Continues until May 26 and the Creswell Crags Robin Hood Cave Ochre Horse Could Lay Some Claim to Fame

2013-03-31T01:57:00.000+01:00

Happy Easter!

In honor of the day of resurrection celebrated today by the Christian faith, a general theme of hope and renewal that is the backbone of religious life for many religions and denominations, I would like to share with you my recent research success in bringing back to life (via decipherment) the ancient message found on the Creswell Crags "Ochre Horse" rib bone carving.

That engraved bone, now popularly called the "Robin Hood Cave Horse" after the cave in which it was discovered in 1876, is dated by the archaeologists to the Ice Age ca. 12500 years ago. It is the oldest artifact (British artefact) of this kind ever found in northern Europe and, as a stroke of luck for those interested, is currently on display at the British Museum until May 26, 2013 in the British Museum exhibition: Ice Age Art: Arrival of the Modern Mind.
See the reviews at:

“Not even Leonardo surpassed this” -- The Guardian
“I can’t remember the last time I saw a show with so many rare and beautiful objects” -- The Telegraph
“The exhibition everyone should see” -- The Times
“Astonishing” -- Metro

For today, only the decipherment, no text.
In the course of time I will reveal how I arrived at this solution. Enjoy.

Once again, Happy Easter!

Attribution of the source of the photograph above, from which I have removed the black background, is as follows from the Wikipedia:

"Creswell Crags. The Ochre Horse. This original fragment of a rib bone contains the oldest known carving of its type in Britain. The horse was carved approximately 12,500 years ago and was on temporary display at the small museum at Creswell Crags to November 2009 (although a replica of the ochre horse is always on display). It was found on the 29th June in 1876 at the back of the western chamber in the 'Robin Hood Cave' in Creswell Crags. Sieveking 855, British Museum. More information can be found at the original website: www.creswell-crags.org.uk/Home.aspx
Date     23 October 2009, 15:58
Source     The Ochre Horse - 12500 Years Old!
Author     Dave from Nottingham, England
Camera location 53° 15′ 48.48″ N, 1° 11′ 54.74″ W

The image was originally posted to Flickr by DaveKav at http://flickr.com/photos/8089996@N06/4038464041. It was reviewed on 18 December 2010 by the FlickreviewR robot and was confirmed to be licensed under the terms of the cc-by-2.0. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ochre_Horse.jpg"

The astronomical interpretation below the photograph is by Andis Kaulins, March 31, 2013, and is not part of the original photograph of the Ochre Horse.

The 10th Justice Anthony Lewis and the U.S. Supreme Court at The New Yorker as Marriage Cases Meet

2013-03-29T15:10:00.000+01:00

Hendrik Hertzberg at The New Yorker reports on the passing of The Tenth Justice (Anthony Lewis, R.I.P.), whose life, work and spouse, now widow, Margaret H. Marshall, coincidentally have a special significance for the "marriage cases" currently under review at the U.S. Supreme Court, a court which Lewis covered, leaving an indelible mark on American jurisprudence.

Marshall was Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court when she authored a significant majority opinion on marriage.

Read the full article here.

What's in a Word: "Ungoogleable" as a Trademark Violation? And What About "Retina"?

2013-03-27T12:56:00.000+01:00

Google gets ungoogleable off Sweden's new word list is the title of an article by Sean Fanning at BBC News that goes to the heart of word "trademarks" as law.

After all, what's in a word?

A similar question is whether a basic language word like "retina" belongs to us or to some profit-gouging commercial enterprise that steals some of our most basic and popular common words for their own selfish purposes.

To our way of thinking, trademarks should protect specific PRODUCTS, not serve as monopolies on words.

I was recently "googling" the Rosetta Stone for my ancient megalithic land survey researches and was not too happy that the first thing that turns up is some commercial enterprise that has appropriated that name and sells a popular language program under that "trademark".

One way to finance government would be to put exorbitant fees on trademarks that appropriate generic or specific terms clearly causing confusion with "the real thing", sort of a reverse protection of marks.

Will Google Ultimately Wind Up as a Public Utility? Krugman to the Fore at NYTimes.com

2013-03-25T20:00:00.000+01:00

Paul Krugman at the NYTimes.com discusses The Economics of Evil Google.

We can not quite agree with Krugman on all points, although we have had our moments of ire with Google practices, but we gladly use Google's services and were among the first to recognize that their search engine was the best out there and still is.

Since then, Google has done many marvelous things and easily ranks as our favorite tech company, in spite of numerous weaknesses caused by their failure to listen to the users who are their customers. The awful platform Google+ is one example of not paying attention.

On the other other hand, things like YouTube and the Android operating system show that Google still focuses on the needs of the broad masses, something which can not be said for many of the really evil price-gouging overhyped tech outfits out there in the digital world.

Cyprus Bailout Deal of 10 Billion Euros Reached at the Last Minute

2013-03-25T19:40:00.000+01:00

See the story of the Cyprus bank bailout deal in an article by Jan Strupczewski and Michele Kambas of Brussels and Nicosia at Reuters in Cyprus reaches last-minute deal on 10 billion euro bailout.

See also at the Guardian by Graeme Wearden:
Eurogroup head says Cyprus shows future of bank rescues - live

Employers and The Affordable Care Act: What Needs to be Done Now to Plan for 2014

2013-03-25T18:42:00.001+01:00

The Labor and Employment Law Community at LexisNexis Communities via Sands Anderson PC has the story by Jessica Rogers in The Affordable Care Act: What Employers Need to Do Now to Plan for 2014.

News Media in America 2013 Pew Project Report Presents a Changing Scene of Erosion and Conversion in American Journalism

2013-03-25T18:35:00.000+01:00

See the story at Erosion and Conversion Are Main Themes Found in State of the News Media 2013 | Newstex - Authoritative Content Syndication.

Disclosure: LawPundit is syndicated by Newstex.

The full Pew Project Report is at The Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism, The State of the News Media: 2013: An Annual Report on American Journalism.