kawbet online casino

Thankfully, the field for the inaugural 12-team College Football Playoff was set Sunday morning. Had the process lasted another week, it might have ripped the sport apart and pitted conference commissioners against each other in steel-cage matches. Not everything sparked outrage when the CFP selection committee revealed the pairings. Oregon and Georgia were the top-two seeds, as expected. Boise State, champion of the Mountain West, and Arizona State, which won the Big 12, received the No. 3 and 4 seeds, respectively, and will have opening-round byes. Texas, Penn State, Notre Dame and Ohio State will play home games in the opening round. But that’s where the relative peace and tranquility ended. The committee granted the final at-large berth to SMU, not Alabama, and you could instantly imagine smoke billowing from the nostrils of SEC commissioner Greg Sankey. Alabama (9-3) had more quality wins and played a vastly tougher schedule than the Mustangs (11-2) but also had uglier losses than the ACC runner-up. That wasn’t the only flashpoint. Boise State was seeded higher than Arizona State despite a weaker schedule — an outcome that sends the Broncos to the Fiesta Bowl (Glendale) for their quarterfinal game and forces the Sun Devils to play in the Peach Bowl (Atlanta). The debate Sunday was simply a continuation of the past five weeks, which featured athletic directors squabbling on social media, conference commissioners squawking over resumes and the committee chair himself, Michigan athletic director Warde Manuel, seemingly contradicting the stated selection criteria. All of it unfolded under the threat of demolition. Two months ago, executives from the SEC and Big Ten gathered in Nashville to discuss the future of the sport. At the conclusion of the summit, Sankey, the most powerful figure in the sport, told reporters that the CFP process “just has to go incredibly well.” You did not need a master’s degree in political gamesmanship to grasp the meaning. If the SEC and Big Ten were less than satisfied with their allotments of bids and seeds, they would force changes to the selection process. Specifically, the behemoths would grant themselves a truckload of automatic bids, reduce access for the other conferences and, potentially, disband the selection committee altogether. Needless to say, the process did not go “incredibly well” for the SEC. In fact, it could not have gone much worse. In addition to Alabama’s exclusion, Tennessee lost the No. 8-9 seed showdown against Ohio State and will open the playoff in Columbus. Meanwhile, three-loss South Carolina was left out entirely one week after winning at three-loss Clemson, while the Tigers advanced to the CFP with the ACC’s automatic bid. (In the committee’s final rankings, South Carolina was one spot above Clemson.) The repercussions could ripple through the sport for years. Earlier this week, another warning flare went skyward from SEC country when Alabama athletic director Greg Byrne posted the following note on the social media platform X: “When you look at the @CFBPlayoff Principles for its Selection Committee, the first bullet point on the list of considerations is strength of schedule. Not all schedules and conferences are created equal. We’ve worked diligently to add more challenging non-conference home-and-homes, which is good for college football ...” The implication was clear: If Alabama’s schedule strength wasn’t rewarded, the Crimson Tide would rethink the merits of playing A-level non-conference games in the first half of September. Alabama faced Wisconsin this season and has booked upcoming series with Florida State, Ohio State and Notre Dame. Those could be in jeopardy. Why risk the loss when the benefits of scheduling the game are limited? And if Alabama cancels marquee matchups, other SEC schools will assuredly follow — potentially sapping the sport of must-see intersectional duels that energize the September competition calendar. Asked on ESPN about the non-conference scheduling issue, Manuel, the committee chair and Michigan’s athletic director, offered the following: “I would just say, you need to schedule the games you feel are best for your team and your fan base.” Given the unprecedented nature of the season — with the expanded playoff and engorged conferences — there was no reason to expect a smooth ride from early November, when the first CFP rankings were released, through selection day. But the gaffes, misreads and contradictions by the 13-person committee were frequent and severe. Head-to-head results, schedule strength and quality wins were shoved to the background as the committee, loaded with former coaches, prioritized win-loss record. It was as if the coaches were collectively channeling their inner Lou Holtz — the former Notre Dame coach was the ultimate sandbagger — and determined a 74- point win over Western Illinois (by Indiana) was equivalent to a 15-point win at Texas (by Georgia). “One of the things we really need to do,” said Nick Saban, the ESPN analyst and former Alabama coach, “is (recognize) all wins are not the same as the other wins.” There were risks to selecting Alabama over SMU, as well. Had the committee excluded the Mustangs following their loss to Clemson in the ACC championship — on a walk-off field goal, no less — the decision would have undermined the credibility of conference title games. “The committee is going to lose no matter what they do,” ESPN analyst Kirk Herbstreit said. But just as not all wins are created equal, neither are all losses. Alabama’s out, the SEC is seething and major changes are coming to the CFP as a result. *** Send suggestions, comments and tips (confidentiality guaranteed) to wilnerhotline@bayareanewsgroup.com or call 408-920-5716 *** Follow me on the social media platform X: @ WilnerHotlineHighlights The Federal Circuit revisited the conditions under which prior commercial offers for sale can invalidate a patent Application of the on-sale bar requires a fact-intensive inquiry into an alleged commercial offer for sale within a proposed transaction The geographic limitation of the pre-AIA on-sale bar focuses on where the offer is directed, not where the product is intended to be used On Dec. 10, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Crown Packaging Technology, Inc. v. Belvac Production Machinery, Inc. reversing a district court’s ruling by finding that a pre-critical date agreement triggered pre-America Invents Act (AIA) U.S.C. Section 102(b)’s on-sale bar. Specifically, the court held that a “quotation” letter with all the hallmarks of a commercial offer to sell could trigger the on-sale bar and clarified that the pre-AIA Section 102(b)’s “in this country” limitation pertains to the location of the offer, not the product’s eventual destination. The on-sale bar, codified in both pre-AIA and current patent statutes, prevents an invention from being patented if it was for sale before the patent filing and ensures that inventors do not exploit an invention’s commercial potential without starting the patent clock. To that end, a sale or offer for sale of the patented invention more than one year prior to the critical date (i.e., the earliest date to which priority can be claimed) will invalidate the patent. With respect to an offer for sale, the offer must relate to an invention that is ready for patenting. Generally, what constitutes an invalidating offer is determined using commercial contract law principles. Patents in Dispute The dispute was premised on patents directed to the manufacture of metal beverage cans. Crown, the owner of the asserted patents, and CarnaudMetalbox Engineering, an English corporation related to Crown, sued Belvac for infringement. Crown makes and sells necking machines that practiced the asserted patents. Before the critical date of the asserted patents, Crown sent a directed letter to a third party that provided a “quotation” regarding Crown’s necking machine. The letter included a description of the product, specific delivery options, and definite payment terms. The letter also stated that quotations are “subject to [Crown’s] written acceptance of your order.” The district court concluded that the letter was merely “an invitation to make an offer” and not a commercial offer for sale. As a result, the district court declined to find that the on-sale bar applied. On-Sale Bar at the Federal Circuit On appeal, the parties disputed whether the letter invoked pre-AIA Section 102(b)’s on-sale bar. The Federal Circuit disagreed with the district court, finding that the letter constituted a commercial offer for sale and thus rendered the patents invalid. Applying general commercial contract principles, the Federal Circuit found that the agreement included terms consistent with a commercial offer for sale, such as a defined price, a detailed description of the product, delivery terms, and conditions for sale. The court further noted that the letter was specifically directed to the third party and not just a general advertisement soliciting offers. Although the letter used the term “quotation,” the Federal Circuit noted that it had “all the hallmarks of an offer for sale.” In addition, the Federal Circuit confirmed that the presence of a written acceptance provision does not alone prevent a letter from being a commercial offer for sale. While such express provisions can provide helpful evidence, the ultimate analysis focuses on the “communication when taken as a whole.” In this case, the letter obligated the recipient to commence performance by paying 50 percent of the purchase price immediately with receipt of the order. The letter also suggested that Crown would immediately begin performance upon order request, further undermining the practical application of Crown’s written acceptance provision. The Federal Circuit said the substance of the letter demonstrated an intent to be bound; thus, it was a commercial offer for sale. While not discussed by the district court, the Federal Circuit also clarified the geographic limitation under pre-AIA Section 102(b)’s “in this country” requirement. Crown argued that an offer made from outside the U.S. would only qualify if the resulting product was intended for use in the U.S. The Federal Circuit rejected that argument, holding that the geographic limitation applies to where the offer is directed, not the eventual use of the product. In this case, the offer was addressed to the third party’s Colorado address. In fact, Crown’s own internal customer database listed the offer recipient followed by “USA.” Accordingly, this commercial offer for sale was covered by pre-AIA Section 102(b)’s geographic scope. Note that this geographic issue is moot for patents effectively filed on or after March 16, 2013, because under the AIA, all sales and offers for sale – regardless of whether domestic or abroad – trigger the on-sale bar. Takeaways This decision provides a good reminder for both litigants and patent holders to scrutinize pre-patent-filing commercial activities. Pre-filing communications and agreements may contain terms that inadvertently trigger the on-sale bar. Even documents bearing the label “quotation” may constitute a commercial offer for sale upon further examination. It is not sufficient to look only at those business records showing when products that practice the invention were first invoiced, shipped, or recorded for accounting purposes.kawbet online casino 。

A teacher and girls’ soccer coach was recently charged with possessing child pornography after police found more than 600 images on his electronic devices, authorities said. These include 10 or more images of someone under 12, according to the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office. Justin Akio Yasutake, 39, of Pasadena worked as a youth soccer coach in Arcadia and other settings in L.A. County, the DA’s Office said. But authorities didn’t say where he taught. Yasutake couldn’t be found among educators listed with the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing . He was charged Dec 10 with one felony count of possessing child pornography. If convicted as charged, he faces a possible maximum sentence of six years in prison and would be required to register as a sex offender for life. Arcadia police arrested Yasutake around 3 p.m. on Dec. 11 at his home. He posted bond and was released the same day, booking records show. A Nov. 11 tip eventually led to the suspect, police said. Police searched his electronic devices, they say, discovered multiple videos and images of child sexual abuse. Police asked that anyone with information on the case to call them at 626-574-5188. Anonymous tipsters can call Crime Stoppers at 800-222-8477 or go to lacrimestoppers.org.

Wage Theft Allegations Target $13.8B Tech Giant Scale AI