Federal Circuit Court concludes "...Knight's Response contains multiple amorphous and illogical arguments that do not pertain to the issue of royalties."
The Albuquerque Tribune reported on Nov. 11th, 2004 that "The most expensive, most contentious and longest court battle involving the University of New Mexico and its scientists is over. A federal appeals court this week upheld a 2001 trial court decision giving UNM ownership of a potential cancer cure discovered two decades ago in a campus laboratory. 'We do consider this the end of the litigation,' said Charles N. 'Nick' Estes Jr., university counsel emeritus. The university spent approximately $541,000 on the case. Of that amount, $85,000 was spent on appeals. 'Undoubtedly, it was the most expensive case and the longest,' Estes said. 'It was in a class by itself.' The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Tuesday affirmed UNM's rights to the patents on the discoveries and ordered two former UNM scientists to pay $63,887.33 in court costs for the four-year legal battle. ..."
There is more information on the resolution of this case in the proceedings of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, at http://fedcir.gov/opinions/04-1281.pdf . Here is a key finding by the court:
With respect to Knight's royalties claim in particular, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the University dismissing the claim due to Knight's lack of evidence. Regents of the Univ. of N.M. v. Knight, No. CIV 99-577 (D.N.M. Jan. 8, 2004) (Mem. Op. & Order). In granting summary judgment, the district court noted that the University argued that it did not owe Knight royalties until the patents produced a net income, which the University asserted had not yet occurred. Id. The district court held that Knight had not raised a material issue of fact challenging these assertions, stating, 'Instead, Knight's Response contains multiple amorphous and illogical arguments that do not pertain to the issue of royalties.' Id., slip op. at 6. Knight has not directed this court to any evidence that a material issue of fact existed precluding summary judgment or that the district court incorrectly applied the law in reaching its decision. ... CONCLUSION For the above reasons, Scallen and Knight's arguments presented on appeal are without merit. Thus, we affirm the district court's dismissal of Scallen and Knight's counterclaims and award of costs.
> Federal Circuit Court concludes "...Knight's Response contains > multiple amorphous and illogical arguments that do not pertain to the > issue of royalties."
I do hope Ch(K)ristopher Dale is reading this..............
> > Federal Circuit Court concludes "...Knight's Response contains > > multiple amorphous and illogical arguments that do not pertain to the > > issue of royalties."
> I do hope Ch(K)ristopher Dale is reading this..............
He will. As far as I've been able to tell, he usually browses this newsgroup only on weekends. I'm betting he'll see the post on Saturday or Sunday and explain everything to us. ;-)
-- Orac |"I am not interested in trying to compensate | for your amazing lack of observation." | | Orac
> He will. As far as I've been able to tell, he usually browses this > newsgroup only on weekends. I'm betting he'll see the post on Saturday > or Sunday and explain everything to us. ;-)
> --
Hey Ch(K)riss..........
Like some diatomaceous earth with those sour grapes?
>> He will. As far as I've been able to tell, he usually browses this >> newsgroup only on weekends. I'm betting he'll see the post on Saturday >> or Sunday and explain everything to us. ;-)
>> --
>Hey Ch(K)riss..........
>Like some diatomaceous earth with those sour grapes?
ROTFLMAO!
And, for the conspiracy freaks out there, lets chalk up another victory of EOM over independent researchers. Another _OBVIOUS_ Cancer Cure is now being supressed! Ah, the humanity!
BTW, the lower and apellate courts steadfast refusal to acknowledge the ample evidence of fraud and collusion is not adequately hidden behind their vague, amorphous "decisions". The very fact that Knight and Scallen maintained a pro se defense and appeal for 5+ years in the federal court system speaks loudly to the legitimacy of their case. How many people do you know have accomplished anything similar? If anyone here recalls, UNM initially claimed more or less unlimited damages against the inventors, stating a minimum of several hundred thousand dollars in damages and punitive measures. After admitting to spending a half million (probably a conservative estimate) to maintain this pathetic kangaroo court proceeding, they were awarded a paltry $60K, so the inventors, again pro se, gained not only a significant reduction in the amount they must pay for the opportunity of defending themselves, they also were able to force UNM to divulge crucial information that had not been forthcoming until well into the end of the appeal process. Conway's decision was so inept and ridiculous, there is now basically no US patent coverage for the authentic vitaletheine compounds, since Taub's machinations have so thoroughly ensnared and compromised both UNM and the USPTO with his sick "shell game". Everyone involved knows full well there will never be any royalty stream for UNM under such circumstances, hence Knight and Scallen's ongoing fight to recover their unlawfully abandoned property. As Dr. Scallen intimated in the Lobo article, this is merely the end of one battle, a battle that will prove to have cost UNM, the USPTO, and especially Floyd Taub and his cronies dearly in the loss of investments, prestige, credibility, and public trust. "C'est la guerre..."
But what the people want to know, Ch(K)ris, is "Do you want some sour grapes with that diatomaceous earth?" You could share them in a consolation dinner with your boyfriend.
The blood serum of a healthy person contains a substance which causes cancer cells to lyse. (Freund 1934 Vienna Austria) Christini and Wolf independently were able to identify this as a proteolytic-lipolytic enzyme. Today is conjected that these enzymes are trypsin/chymotrypsin(ogen) and their analoguues Does Galen's work show an increase in these enzymes and activity in the blood in the animals he tested his compounds on, or indeed an absence of these enzymes in the blood in the animals with cancer? Thanks Anth
> BTW, the lower and apellate courts steadfast refusal to acknowledge the > ample evidence of fraud and collusion is not adequately hidden behind > their vague, amorphous "decisions". The very fact that Knight and > Scallen maintained a pro se defense and appeal for 5+ years in the > federal court system speaks loudly to the legitimacy of their case. How > many people do you know have accomplished anything similar? If anyone > here recalls, UNM initially claimed more or less unlimited damages > against the inventors, stating a minimum of several hundred thousand > dollars in damages and punitive measures. After admitting to spending a > half million (probably a conservative estimate) to maintain this > pathetic kangaroo court proceeding, they were awarded a paltry $60K, so > the inventors, again pro se, gained not only a significant reduction in > the amount they must pay for the opportunity of defending themselves, > they also were able to force UNM to divulge crucial information that had > not been forthcoming until well into the end of the appeal process. > Conway's decision was so inept and ridiculous, there is now basically no > US patent coverage for the authentic vitaletheine compounds, since > Taub's machinations have so thoroughly ensnared and compromised both UNM > and the USPTO with his sick "shell game". Everyone involved knows full > well there will never be any royalty stream for UNM under such > circumstances, hence Knight and Scallen's ongoing fight to recover their > unlawfully abandoned property. As Dr. Scallen intimated in the Lobo > article, this is merely the end of one battle, a battle that will prove > to have cost UNM, the USPTO, and especially Floyd Taub and his cronies > dearly in the loss of investments, prestige, credibility, and public > trust. "C'est la guerre..."
> In misc.health.alternative Thomas Huxley <th_hux...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > Regards, Th. Huxley, Esq.
> Ah, here's a bit more to round out your presentation:
> (BTW thanks for your "attendance", as in the following excerpt from > Merriam-Webster:
> esquire- "serving as shield bearer and attendant to a knight...
> rather ironic, eh?)
> Now on to Knight and Scallen's Most Excellent Adventure: > ... > The very fact that Knight and > Scallen maintained a pro se defense and appeal for 5+ years in the > federal court system speaks loudly to the legitimacy of their case. How > many people do you know have accomplished anything similar? ...
It appears Knight and Scallen are mere pikers. Their 5-year case is insignificant next to the case of Professor Saburo Ienaga of Japan, whose case challenging the Japanese Ministry of Education over changes to his textbook _The New History Of Japan_ went on for 32 YEARS.
I guess I don't quite see the rationale for this argument. Would Scott Peterson have been "less guilty" if his trial had taken a year, instead of 6 months?
Gee, isn't this digression "amorphous and illogical" too? Like Knight and Scallen, so goes Dale, eh?
In misc.health.alternative Anth <s...@spam.com> wrote:
> Does Galen's work show an increase in these enzymes and activity in the > blood in the animals he tested his compounds on, or indeed an absence of > these enzymes in the blood in the animals with cancer?
I will forward your post to Galen, "stay tuned"...
In misc.health.alternative Thomas Huxley <th_hux...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> It appears Knight and Scallen are mere pikers. Their 5-year case is > insignificant next to the case of Professor Saburo Ienaga of Japan, > whose case challenging the Japanese Ministry of Education over changes > to his textbook _The New History Of Japan_ went on for 32 YEARS.
Heh, you cite another individual who probably did not find having his opinions trashed acceptable. Was he "pro se" as well? How many briefs were filed in total? I think the Knight-Scallen case approached 500...
> I guess I don't quite see the rationale for this argument. Would > Scott Peterson have been "less guilty" if his trial had taken a year, > instead of 6 months?
Of course you don't see, your just another "lie-yer"...
> Gee, isn't this digression "amorphous and illogical" too? Like Knight > and Scallen, so goes Dale, eh?
As "amorphous and illogical" as suing your own inventors for protesting the theft of intellectal property already assigned to you, claiming that in so doing, they have created a "cloud on the title" of that property? This "Through-the-Looking-Glass" world that UNM, the courts, and the USPTO live in is very curious indeed. Black is white, down is up, wrong is right. Q.E.D...
> (not "squire", Khris)
Hmm, struck a nerve there, did I? Keep up the good work, "esquire"...
> This "Through-the-Looking-Glass" world that UNM, the courts, and the > USPTO live in is very curious indeed. Black is white, down is up, wrong > is right. Q.E.D...
Ah the basis for your world view, Ch(K)ris........ Everyone is wrong except you and your boyfriend
Like some sour grapes with that diatomaceous earth?
> In misc.health.alternative Anth <s...@spam.com> wrote: >> Does Galen's work show an increase in these enzymes and activity in the >> blood in the animals he tested his compounds on, or indeed an absence of >> these enzymes in the blood in the animals with cancer?
> I will forward your post to Galen, "stay tuned"...
> In misc.health.alternative Anth <s...@spam.com> wrote: >> Thanks, there's a lot of threads in this group - where are you going to >> post >> your results? >> Anth
> If I get an answer, I will post it under the heading > "trypsin/chymotrypsin(ogen)"...
Stephalococcus wrote: > Like some sour grapes with that diatomaceous earth?
BTW, speaking of sour grapes, that little rat bastard piece of fucking shit, David E. Thomas, of New Mexicans for Science and Reason has posted a link to this thread, so I'll take this opportunity to share some of his chicken-shit exploits with his readers... ;^]
"D.T." ( nmsrd...@swcp.com or alcaza...@yahoo.com )is highly incensed that I used his email to hoist him with his own petard, so to speak, and has gone through great lengths and much compensatory posturing to basically make himself out to be an even bigger fuckhead than he was previously. Nevertheless, and in the spirit of humility and comraderie, I posted this apology:
> Stephalococcus wrote: >> Like some sour grapes with that diatomaceous earth?
> BTW, speaking of sour grapes, that little rat bastard piece of fucking > shit, David E. Thomas, of New Mexicans for Science and Reason has > posted a link to this thread, so I'll take this opportunity to share > some of his chicken-shit exploits with his readers... ;^]
> "D.T." ( nmsrd...@swcp.com or alcaza...@yahoo.com )is highly incensed > that I used his email to hoist him with his own petard, so to speak, > and has gone through great lengths and much compensatory posturing to > basically make himself out to be an even bigger fuckhead than he was > previously. Nevertheless, and in the spirit of humility and comraderie, > I posted this apology:
|
