S O U N D   O F F

May 12, 2008

You seem so emotionally distraught over these issues that I promise to refrain from using loaded political terminology and from making legal accusations that are NOT factually based.

You see, my statements are based on fact (I can present much documentary evidence) concerning high-cost and non-science-based Euro-over-regulation creep within America. I can also provide documentary evidence which clearly points to which one of the two main US political parties embraces the moribund welfare-stated-based European Dream and along with it, the Euro-regulatory creep, especially as concerns the environment, universal healthcare and notions of weaker private property rights, including IP, which can be more readily overriden by claims of ‘public interests’.

So, when I state that I can prove that policies favored by Madame Clinton and Monsieur Obama who glowingly speak of their European ‘friends’, I CAN, IN FACT, trace them directly to Europe, and even to particular EU member states.

Can you back up your assertions similarly?? I strongly doubt it!!

What Americans need to do, is ask Madame Clinton and Monsieur Obama about how they will grow American government through exhorbitant welfare-like ’spending’ programs modeled after those in Europe and other socialist governments around the world (e.g., Brazil). Americans should also ask these candidates about how they will call for the imposition of layer upon layer of new opaque high cost regulations (e.g., carbon dioxide cap and trade) and all kinds of new taxes on economic activity, based on a strong notion of ‘public interest’ to correct the wrongs of the marketplace which have ‘endangered’ public health and the environment of the planet.

Oh, I almost forgot. The policy positions of Madame Clinton, Monsieur Obama and their US Senate colleagues (e.g., Sen. Leahy) also seem to favor the weakening of US intellectual property rights which are presently the envy of the world, namely patents and trade secrets. Can you demonstrate how their policies will NOT impair America’s ability to invent and innovate and generate small business investment in new technologies during this 21st knowledge-based century?

Interestingly, the stance of Madame Clinton and Monsieur Obama on patents, technology transfer and international trade seems to resemble and dovetail with that of the European Commission! Whoaa!!! Unfortunately the unions in the US only see this in connection with the current patent reform debate; they do not yet see how blocking bilateral trade agreements with Colombia, Korea, etc. on the grounds that there are relatively weaker labor and labor laws in these countries, has no impact on the US government’s ability to preserve jobs here in America! But give them some time to see through the campaign rhetoric.

American unions already realize that (they are NOT the ‘Joe six-pack’ chumps these candidates take them for), if US patents are weakened and compulsory licenses which can diminish patent rights can be issued by the US government at less than fmv, as Senator Leahy has sought to do in his prior bill (The Life-Saving Medicines Export Act Of 2006), based on the pretense of preserving an ‘important public interest’ (e.g., to improve America’s image abroad), then the chance of union members, once retrained, to capitalize from becoming garage inventors themselves - i.e., to reap the pecuniary rewards of temporary but exclusive market-based patent royalties for the time, discovery efforts and monies they have expended, will ultimately vanish.

You see, patent rights will become effectively weakened if patent infringement damage awards are limited as a matter of statute. Foreign competitors would be provided the wrong signal and would be encouraged to infringe upon US technologies and products containing them, knowing what the maximum all-out cost of a damage award could yield. Such arbitrage would also occur among compulsory license-loving centrally-planned foreign governments enamored of the ‘public interest’.

Can you provide evidence that candidates Clinton and Obama won’t pursue any of these ‘changes’? That foreign governments and foreign competitors won’t engage in patent infringement arbitrage at the market and government levels???

The public and I welcome your response.

Once the facts get out that candidates Clinton and Obama will give away American constitutional sovereignty, cutting-edge technologies, private property rights and yet-as-known sources of new 21st century American jobs, as a gesture of foreign policy - international charity and solidarity - and for the sake of ‘improving America’s ‘tattered’ image abroad’, these candidates will need to answer to the public. Only the American people, through transparent and open public debate, can sanction such initiatives. Do you not agree?

All the Best,

Informed Lawyer USA

Posted by: Informed Lawyer USA