Jump to content

Schmidt Meister's Grab Bag


Schmidt Meister
 Share

Recommended Posts

I've lived in Florida almost my entire life and I just learned about a week ago that Florida has a 'State Soil'.

Florida State Soil - Myakka Fine Sand

In 1989 the legislature designated Myakka fine sand as the official state soil. Myakka (pronounced "My-yak-ah;" a Native American word for "big waters") soil, is a native soil of Florida, occurs in more than one-and-a-half million acres of flatwoods, making it the single most extensive soil in the state. Soil conservation is very important in Florida, where agriculture is a significant industry.

Florida State Soil - Myakka Fine Sand.jpg

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I get older, my priorities change. I don’t place a lot of importance on the fleeting self-serving things in life anymore. Don’t get me wrong, I still enjoy myself and I still have times, with the wife and by myself, where I enjoy the small things. But I take the supposed ‘lucky chances’ with a grain of salt and a dash of sarcasm.
The other day I bought a case of Dos Equis at Winn-Dixie, put ’em on the front seat of the truck, and headed back home.
I stopped to gas up, and an underage (18~20 year old) drop-dead gorgeous “almost” blonde was filling up her car at the next pump. It was very warm and she was wearing a very thin, skimpy summer dress.
She glanced at the beer, bent over and knocked on my passenger window. Practically falling out of her dress top, she said, in a sexy voice, “I’m a big believer in barter, ol' man. Would you be up for trading sex for beer?”
I thought for a few seconds and asked, “What kind of beer ya got?”

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Churches And The Squirrel Infestations

The Presbyterian church called a meeting to decide what to do about their squirrel infestation. After much prayer and consideration, they concluded that the squirrels were predestined to be there, and they should not interfere with God’s divine will.
At the Baptist church, the squirrels had taken an interest in the baptistry. The deacons met and decided to put a water-slide on the baptistry and let the squirrels drown themselves. The squirrels liked the slide and, unfortunately, knew instinctively how to swim, so twice as many squirrels showed up the following week.
The Lutheran church decided that they were not in a position to harm any of God’s creatures. So, they humanely trapped their squirrels and set them free near the Baptist church. Two weeks later, the squirrels were back when the Baptists took down the water-slide.
The Episcopalians tried a much more unique path by setting out pans of whiskey around their church in an effort to kill the squirrels with alcohol poisoning. They sadly learned how much damage a band of drunk squirrels can do.
But the Catholic church came up with a more creative strategy! They baptized all the squirrels and made them members of the church. Now they only see them at Christmas and Easter.
Not much was heard from the Jewish synagogue. They took the first squirrel and circumcised him. They haven’t seen a squirrel since.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Barbed Wire Patent Case, 143 U.S. 275 was a significant patent dispute in 1892 between plaintiff Joseph Glidden and the USPTO regarding the right of barbed wire. (USPTO - United States Patent and Trademark Office)
The first patent for barbed wire in the Unites States was issued to Lucien B. Smith on 6.25.1867 and he is considered the inventor. Therefore, at the time he had exclusive rights to produce and sell his product. In 1874, after Glidden made his changes, he was issued a statement denying him a new patent on the grounds that his invention simply was not a novelty. His patent claim was for:
"a twisted fence wire having the transverse spur wire, D, bent at its middle portion about one of the wire strands, a, of said fence wire, and clamped in position and place by the other wire strand, z, twisted upon its fellow, substantially as specified."
The Patenting and Trademark office denied his application believing that the process was already widely known common knowledge and not novel enough to be distinguished from earlier patents.
After Glidden's patent application had been denied, he appealed to the decision and eventually the case went before the Supreme Court.
In the eyes of the court, the question of most importance was whether the invention of Glidden was sufficient in novelty. To answer this they considered for some length the process for producing barbed wire prior to this invention and compared it to Glidden's design. Glidden claimed that his process of adding an extra wire to stabilize the barbs without any other means made them sufficiently stronger and more efficient. However, he apparently did not make this clear until his initial patent application was denied and he had applied for reissue. Therefore, the court ignored this feature at first. Glidden stated:
"I do not claim to have originated the devices known as 'spurs' or 'prongs' on the wires, they having been used before, but confine myself to the means for holding the spurs at proper intervals on the wires and to the means for attaining a uniform tension of the wires, as claimed."
The court remarked that a new device phasing out an older version does not necessarily merit the awarding of a new patent, but it may merit consideration. The court took into account that Glidden's invention had widely replaced older versions and was now commonly in use.
The defense attempted to show that others had made the same design independently before Glidden, but the plaintiff was able to assert that indeed the other productions, which were of virtually similar design, were not made until after he issued his patent. The court agreed that there had been plenty of other attempts to create a similar design and product as Glidden, but none had been successful nor had they been successfully patented.
The circuit court finally decided to reverse the decision of the lower court and ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Joseph Glidden. The majority of the court was convinced that Glidden's invention proved to have enough novelty and technological change to merit the patent and thus exclusive rights to produce and sell the improved barbed wire without the need for licensing. Much of this decision came from the court's inclination to grant a patent to the final step in turning an invention into a useful or more useful product.
This case largely established precedent for future patent law, specifically in questions of first-to-file, or scope of novelty. The first-to-file aspect was largely supported in that whichever party can prove they filed an invention first will have a greater claim over other manufacturers and better their chances of receiving a patent. Secondly, the scope of novelty was determined to not be some significant change, but simply enough to make a noticeable positive difference. Also success of a minor innovation is for grounds for patenting in light of the numerous failed or discontinued minor innovations pursued.
Glidden held sole rights to sell the product and thus established the Barb Fence Company, in Dekalb, Illinois. The invention made him extremely wealthy and by the time of his death he was one of the richest men in the United States.

Joseph Glidden - Patented Improved Barbed Wire - 11.24.1874.png

Joseph F. Glidden's - Barbed Wire - Patent Drawing - Patented 11.24.1874.jpg

Lucien B. Smith - Barbed Wire Patent #7,136 - Issued 6.25.1867 - Reissue Date 5.23.1876 With Change Of Bends In The Wire Holding Barbs Securely From Lengthwise Movement (See Also Joseph Glidden).png

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Please Donate To TBS

    Please donate to TBS.
    Your support is needed and it is greatly appreciated.
×
×
  • Create New...