text:
January 30-February 12, 2018 Updates

Here are some updates on IP developments in China from prior two weeks.

  1. China’s tough cyber rules raise risk of infiltration US business group says In a report released on Monday, the US-China Business Council urged Beijing to loosen limits on data flow and storage that raise the risk of security breaches for foreign companies. The council said China should follow best international practice by opening access to cloud computing services, levelling the playing field in technology procurement and allowing foreign firms to send copies of data abroad for analysis and processing. The Council’s report also recommended that foreign partners in joint ventures be allowed to own and control software and other technology licensed to the joint ventures.
  2. MIIT Chief says China does not force foreign enterprises to transfer technology, says MIIT chief China did not and cannot force foreign enterprises to transfer technology to the country, and any cases of technology transfers are enterprises’ own choices driven by the market, Miao Wei, head of the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT), said at a press conference on Tuesday, adding that China has been taking steps to better protect intellectual property rights.
  3. .The Supreme Court of China Issued Seven Typical Cases on Property Rights Protection最高法发布7起保护产权典型案例 on “property rights protection” last Tuesday. Among those seven cases, two focused on intellectual property rights, with one on trademark infringement and unfair competition, and the other on criminal trade secret protection in an employment context. Details of those typical cases are available here.
  4. FTC, Justice Department Officials Meet in China On Antitrust Enforcement The head of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and a representative from the Justice Department met with Chinese officials from NDRC, MOFCOM and SAIC in Beijing this week to discuss efforts to ensure effective antitrust enforcement and increased interagency cooperation. This is the U.S. delegation’s fourth meeting in China since the between the countries signed an antitrust memorandum of understanding on July 27, 2011.
  5. Baidu Accused of Not Playing Fair by Popular News Aggregator Beijing ByteDance Technology, which runs the Jinri Toutiao app that had 232 million monthly active users as of December last year, said on Tuesday that it filed the lawsuit against Baidu at the Haidian District People’s Court in the Chinese capital. In a post on its official WeChat account, ByteDance said Baidu used its “monopoly advantage” to mislead users and damage Toutiao’s reputation, the details of which it has filed in court. Ahead of the ByteDance filing on Tuesday, Baidu issued a statement that described ByteDance’s lawsuit, like its public relations efforts, as reflecting “anxiety over its own challenges in development”.
  6. China sees robust growth in technology transactions More than 367,000 technical contracts were signed in China in 2017, up 14.7 percent from the previous year, according to the Ministry of Science and Technology. The transaction value of the contracts totaled 1.34 trillion yuan (213 billion U.S. dollars), with a year-on-year increase of 17.7 percent. Electronic information, urban construction and social development, and transportation are the top three fields that gained the most value.  Among four types of technical contracts, technical service contracts (技术服务合同) and technological development contracts (技术开发合同) had strong growth. However, technology licensing contracts (技术转让合同) and technical consulting contracts (技术咨询合同) in fact had a decline.  Over 40 percent of transactions were contracts involving intellectual property rights. Biotechnology and pharmaceutical contracts had a strong growth of 62.94%, with a total overall transaction value of 1.19 billion yuan. The transaction volume of invention patents grew by 19.2 percent in overall transaction value year on year.    IP utilization has been a focus of China’s IP efforts since the third plenum of the Communist Party in 2014. However, foreigners continue to view China as very challenging licensing environment. In the US Chamber’s recently released IP Index, it was noted that IP commercialization in China was hampered by “[s]ubstantial barriers to market access and commercialization of IP, particularly for foreign companies.” China received zero points for “Regulatory and administrative barriers to the commercialization of IP assets”  Here is a link to the discussion of Chinese licensing practices. The US Chamber’s conclusion is not unlike that of the Global Innovation Index (2016) which, as we previously reported, scored intellectual property payments according to a formula as a percentage of total trade. China came out at 72nd place, while it ranked number 1 in high tech exports.
  7. The rise of Chinese groups applying for US patents The breakdown of patents granted in the U.S. per country changed little in 2017 from previous years, with China the glaring exception, according the analysis by patent service and analytics company IFI CLAIMS.  China’s overall slice of the pie remains relatively small. Just 11,240, or 3.5%, of the 320,003 utility patents granted in the U.S. last year went to Chinese companies, compared with 31% to other Asian businesses. But it is the pace at which certain Chinese tech companies have risen in the rankings that will have rivals from the U.S. and elsewhere taking note. For instance, BOE Technology Group (京东方科技集团股份有限公司), whose core business centers on display sensor technology and the Internet of Things, was granted 1,414 patents during the year, compared with 19 in 2013.
  8. Guangdong’s accumulated invention patents top China Guangdong Province topped the country in the number of valid invention patents granted over the past eight years, according to local authorities. By the end of 2017, the accumulated number of valid invention patents in the province reached 208,500, said He Jufeng, deputy director of the Guangdong Intellectual Property Office. Note that although Guangdong has the most accumulated patent grants, in recent years Guangdong has met some competition.  Jiangsu Province, for example, was the No.1 for invention patent application in 2015, while Guangdong was No. 2, based on data from SIPO for 2015. Meanwhile, in 2014, Jiangsu was the No.1 for invention patent application and Guangdong was No.3. Guangdong has also been a source of many of China’s PCT filings, from companies like Huawei and ZTE.
  9. Conference proposes int’l e-commerce cooperation An e-commerce conference held in Beijing called for coordinated regional cooperation on areas including supervision and standard setting to promote sustainable development of the emerging sector. The first global regulatory framework for e-commerce was put forward during the conference. Proposed by Chinese customs, the document listed eight core principles in e-commerce management including clearance procedures and the role of online retailers.
  10. New Intellectual Property initiative extends Berkeley Law’s reach in Asia China’s push to create a dynamic economy with innovative companies is creating opportunities for new academic, commercial, and government partnerships. Eager to maximize those opportunities—and to deepen its foothold overseas—Berkeley Law has launched the Asia IP Project.  Led by Professor Mark Cohen, and powered by the school’s Berkeley Center for Law & Technology (BCLT), the initiative seeks to enhance existing collaborations and develop new ones with academic institutions and other partners in Asia. Center leaders will bring together Chinese and U.S. academics, government officials, and practicing lawyers to better understand Asia’s intellectual property law issues through research, workshops, conferences, and other eventst. The program had its first US meeting on February 9, 2018.

We hope to be providing more updates in the year ahead from the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology. As usual the information contained herein does not necessarily represent the opinion of any government agency, company, individual or the University of California.

By Berkeley staff.

Summarizing the SPC’s 2015 White Paper

WP_20160420_005China releases much of its IP data in April, on the margins of World IP Day (April 26).  This year there have been important conferences summarizing these reports in advance of their release, including reports from the Supreme People’s Court on IP litigation, as well as white paper reports on specialized IP courts in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangdong.  In addition, there are SPC reports on fifty model cases and 10 big IP casesThe Western media has also reported on some of these reports, as have state run media in Chinese and in English.   This blog has reported on SPC whitepapers and model cases for some time.  As in prior years many provincial courts, such as Hubei, are also reporting out white papers of various kinds, as have IP and administrative agencies, such as Beijing municipality.

As in prior years, interpretation of the data, particularly for the foreign business community, can be challenging.  Here is my digest of the SPC’s important 2015 White Paper:

Foreign Cases Are a Shrinking Share

Perhaps the most dramatic national news from the official national data involving foreigners is that in 2015 foreign related IP cases dropped 22% in absolute numbers from last year, despite an overall increase of 7.2% of total decided IP cases. The total number of civil cases involving foreigners was 1,327.   As a consequence, foreign related IP civil cases as a share of total cases dropped from 1.9% (2013), to 1.8% (2014), to 1.2% (2015).   By contrast, total administrative cases in 2015 were 10,926, of which 4,928 were foreign or about 45%, continuing the trend of an outsized foreign administrative presence, with an undersized infringement role.

Data from other sources also casts some doubt on the “foreign-related” data in the SPC’s report.  The Shanghai IP courts reported that approximately one in six lawsuits received involved an overseas party, with most pursuing trademark or patent infringement claims.  A newly set up database company, IP House, also reported that over 20% of the IP litigation in Beijing involved foreigners.  Former SIPO Commissioner Tian Lipu also cast doubt on data suggesting that the amount of foreign-related IP litigation is under 5%, in a letter to then USPTO Director Kappos.  Conflicting data on foreign-related cases is likely due to the manner of reporting.  Although there is no official explanation I know of, I believe that foreign-related cases are likely those cases reported as foreign related for purposes of suspension of mandatory time frames for adjudication under China’s civil procedure law.  However, litigation commenced by a foreign invested entity in China may be characterized by the SPC as a domestic case.

Another explanation may be that the high level of foreign-related administrative cases may be due to the centralization of IP prosecution in the headquarters of many foreign companies which file these cases in the name of the parent company.  After China’s patent office or trademark office grants the right, the foreign company might then transfer the rights to the subsidiary.  This transfer is validated by the high percentage of related party IP licensing activity which US census also reports. I have not, however, seen any studies that seek to correlate foreign licensing activity, foreign investment and foreign-related litigation, which might support this hypothesis.

As I have noted elsewhere, comprehensive data must, however, await publication of the relevant source cases or data by the SPC and other courts.

IP Cases Continue to Grow Overall

The shrinking reported foreign share contrasts with the rapid growth of IP cases in China.  The SPC reported that newly reported first instance IP cases increased to 130,200, up 11.73% from 2014.  Total cases adjudicated were 123, 059, an increase of 11.68%, of which 101,324  were civil cases, an increase of 7.22%.  Administrative cases adjudicated constituted 10, 926, an increase of 123.57%, most likely due to changes in China’s trademark law which establish a more direct role for the courts.   Criminal cases adjudicated were 10,809, maintaining their slightly decreased level since 2013 (the SPC report notes that the cases are “stable” 同比基本持平)。

Patent Cases Continue to Grow

The SPC reported that patent and licensing cases continued grow, and that they increasingly involved complex areas of technology, with an increase of 22.1% to 13,087 cases.   However, I have not yet seen a breakdown of cases by type of patent or technology type which fully documents this observation.  The data appears too general at this point, considering that perhaps 2/3 of China’s patent cases involve unexamined utility models and designs of varying technological complexity, the relatively small share of licensing disputes, and the reality that many software and unfair competition cases may in fact involve high technology cases (but may not otherwise be reported as such).

Unfair Competition Cases on the Rise

The SPC report shows that unfair competition cases have increased, including those involving the internet and software technologies. Civil cases increased to 2,181, with antitrust cases increasing to 156. The total increase was 53.38%. Trade secret cases have not yet been separately reported out. They are generally a significant share of this relatively small portion of the IP docket. In 2009, for example, there were 1,282 cases under the Law to Counter Unfair Competition in the courts, of which 253 involved trade secrets.

What the Data Suggests on Courts Foreigners May Want to Pay Attention To

A foreigner traveling to China who is considering where to bring a case, or risks of being sued in a particular venue, should not consider all court as equally well situation.  The Beijing courts, for example, clearly play a key role in foreign related IP adjudication. As administrative cases are overwhelmingly located in Beijing, the Beijing IP court hears perhaps 80% of the combined civil/administrative foreign docket.

In addition, the SPC reports that Beijing, Shanghai, Jiangsu, Zhejiang and Guangdong accounted for 70 percent of the first instance IP litigation of all types. Shanghai is also a good place to engage, as it has the SPC has established an international exchanges base there. Indeed, the Shanghai white paper also reported out on its exchange activities, including singling out a significant conference last year with the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Still, several courts are assuming increasing importance, and some may pose defensive risks and opportunities for foreigners.   Jiangsu’s docket increased by 38.71%; the docket in Tianjin increased by 50.41%. Anhui saw an increase of 101.26%, while courts in Shandong, Shaanxi, Hunan and Helilongjiang all saw increases of over 30%.

Just as the specialized IP courts were releasing their white papers, the SPC reported that NPC delegates from a number of provinces had been asking to establish their own IP courts in their region, and that the SPC would report out in August on these proposals.  In my opinion, these requests reveal the problem of this otherwise noble experiment in specialized IP courts: if multiple regions have specialized IP courts at the intermediate level, then efforts to insure national unity in reduce local protectionism in IP litigation through a national appellate court may be compromised. However, it is also important to note that these specialized IP courts would replace specialized IP tribunals – a significant difference from US trial court litigation, which  involves courts of general jurisdiction.

At the same time as these papers were being released, a judicial delegation from China was engaging with US federal and state judiciary to discuss the role of IP courts and possibility of future cooperation (see picture above by me from the Wisconsin Supreme Court).  I also believe that we can expect more discussion on these important issue in the months and years ahead.

Justice Tao Kaiyuan and the Role of the Judiciary

Justice Tao Kaiyuan of the Supreme People’s Court, who had been to the United States in 2015 delivering important speeches on rule of law, has recently published an article on “Giving Full Play to the Leading Role of Judicial Protection of IP Rights“ 充分发挥司法保护知识产权的主导作用”(Dec. 31, 2015).  The article is receiving considerable attention in China, as it was published by Qiu Shi, 求是(“Seeking Truth”), a bimonthly political theory published by the Central Party School and the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China.  The publication of the article appears to be timed with the release of the recent draft of the Patent Law Amendments, comments for which were due the day after publication (January 1).  The proposed patent amendments would strengthen the role of administrative agencies in IP enforcement, to the possible detriment of the judiciary.

The author of the article is no less important than its contents.  Madame Tao knows patents.  She was the former Director General of the Guangdong Patent Office and therefor once had “vertical” reporting responsibility to SIPO (see picture above taken by me of Madame Tao [on the right] with USPTO Director Michelle Lee taken in 2015).  Although the article was authored in her name, many in China were speculating that the article was approved by higher authorities – perhaps Zhou Qiang, the President of the Supreme People’s Court, with Madame Tao serving as an appropriate messenger.

The concerns about this draft on patent law enforcement are not that different from those in the earlier (2012) draft when I blogged in “Why the Proposed Amendments to the Patent Law Really Matter … and Maybe Not Just For Patents” that “the changes strike me as a rather sudden about face in China’s march towards better civil protection of IP.” Madame Tao takes this several steps further.

Madame Tao’s article is divided into three parts: (1) The important meaning of giving full play to the leading role of the judicial protection of IP rights; (2) The key factors that constrain the leading use role of judicial protection of IP; and (3) Key measures in giving full play to the leading role of judicial protection of IP rights.   Here are some of the points she makes:

Madame Tao refers back to the National IP Strategy and related documents, such as the Third Plenum, the NPC’s decision to establish IP courts, and the Action Plan for the National IP Strategy to underscore the well-established, leading role of the courts in enforcing IP.

Her article compares certain key elements of judicial protection versus administrative protection.  In her view, judicial enforcement can curtail abuses of administrative enforcement.  It also has other advantages.  It has clear rules.  It is transparent.  It can help establish guidance for businesses by establishing clear standards for similar disputes (a possible nod to efforts at developing case law/guiding cases).  Moreover, civil enforcement comports with notions of private ownership and the development of markets and creation of a fair competitive environment in China.  Madame Tao especially underscores the role of the courts in supervising administrative agencies.  As I have noted, this is also an important part of the foreign IP docket in China.  Madame Tao states that the judiciary should also actively guide administrative law enforcement in investigation and review of evidence, and determination of infringements.

Madame Tao also calls for greater coordination in administrative and judicial roles in IP protection, noting that administrative enforcement played an important leading role in the beginning of China’s IP enforcement environment.  Administrative enforcement has “in a short time met the need for building effective IP protection.”  However, the “growing maturity” of the judicial system has caused increasing problems in the coordination process.

Madame Tao also calls for specific policy initiatives, many of which are already underway.  She calls for greater deterrent civil damages, including by revising patent, copyright and unfair competition laws based on experience of the trademark law revisions.   She also suggests that a discovery system should be considered.  Civil and criminal divisions in IP should be unified.  She suggests that a specialized national IP court should be researched and promoted, and she calls for the unification of technical appellate cases, perhaps like the CAFC.  She also notes that the division between infringement and validity determinations in the courts in patents and trademarks should be addressed, and calls for improvements in the availability of provisional measures.

She calls for greater improvements in judicial protective measures, including in obtaining evidence and the convenience and effectiveness of remedies.  Among other specific judicial reforms, she also suggests exploring intellectual property case law, improving judicial accountability and developing judicial professionalism.  Finally, Madame Tao also calls for expanding international awareness by IP judges to better protect national interests and to increase China’s IP influence.

Altogether, a tour de force.

Here’s what her speech looks like in a machine-translated wordcloud:taowordcloud

A Deeper Dive Into the Jurisdiction and Role of Specialized IP Courts

As we previously reported the NPC’s Standing Committee established three Specialized IP Courts in Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou.  The Supreme People’s Court and the cities’ High Courts are now in the process of implementing the NPC’s decision.

On November 3, 2014, the Supreme Court issued a decision and held a news conference outlining the jurisdiction of the Specialized IP Courts of Shanghai, Beijing, and Guangzhou. The court detailed the Specialized IP Courts’ jurisdiction over cases of first instance, over different types of IP cases, and over IP right authorization and verification.

The Specialized IP Courts have jurisdiction over three types of cases:

1.  Civil and administrative cases involving patents, new plant varieties, layout designs of integrated circuits, technical secrets, computer software and other technology cases; 2.  Administrative cases involving copyright, trademark, and unfair competition against the administrative action of the State Council department or above the county level departments; and 3. Civil cases involving the affirmation of well known trademarks.

The Specialized IP Courts will review civil and administrative IP cases challenging the judgment of lower courts. Additionally, the Higher People’s Courts, where the Specialized IP Courts are located, will review appeals against the judgment of the Specialized IP Courts.   Probably the two most important impacts of the jurisdiction of the courts in terms of its impact upon foreigners aspect of the jurisdiction are the jurisdiction of the Beijing Specialized IP Court over appeals over patent and trademark office final decisions and jurisdiction over well-known marks

Foreigner-related cases constitute a large percentage of these appeals from the patent and trademark office while the infringement cases brought by foreigners are about 2% of the docket.  According to various press reports, the overall share of administrative cases brought by foreigners in Beijing hovers near 50%.  Interestingly, in January of 2014, Beijing had already divided its intermediate IP court into two divisions one of which would hear patent appeals and the other would hear trademark appeals.  This experiment, which likely was intended to anticipate one national IP court like the Federal Circuit in the United States,  has necessarily become short-lived.  Nonetheless, in its jurisdiction over patent and trademark appeals, the Beijing Specialized IP Court does retain jurisdiction that is in many ways similar to the Federal Circuit’s  “administrative” jurisdiction over the USPTO.

I do not have precise current data on foreign-related well known mark cases.  However, well known mark status has been of concern to foreign brand owners for some time.  Former China Trademark Office Director-General An Qinghu 安青虎published an extensive analysis in English in 2005 on recognition of well-known marks in China, including the various circumstances by which foreign well known marks have been recognized, which as I recall from prior personal review of that article, was intended in part to address the concern of foreigners over how well-known marks were being protected in China  As DG An noted at that time “Among the 153 well-known trademarks affirmed by SAIC or Trademark Review and Adjudication Board, 132 are registered by Chinese registrants …, 21 by foreign registrants …” (fn. 7), and “SAIC had affirmed some well-known trademarks  in objection decisions in the 1990s, most of which were registered by foreign registrants.” (final endnote).  I do not have current data on well known mark ownership by foreigners.

The Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou Specialized IP Courts have different focuses and differing impact upon foreigners.  As noted, the Beijing court is distinguished by its largely administrative docket.  The Shanghai and Guangzhou courts will deal with hear comparatively more civil IP cases and will hear relatively fewer administrative cases, mostly involving administrative enforcement decisions.  Guangdong has the largest IP docket in China although not the largest foreign-related docket.  Guangdong’s handling of intra-provincial IP disputes could become a model for a national appellate IP court.  Interestingly, an important and rapidly rising part of the overall IP docket in Guangdong involves online infringement owing to the large Internet business community in Guangdong.  However online copyright is not part of the Guangdong Specialized IP Court’s jurisdiction, despite many of those cases involving different regions of China and their rapid rise and complexity.  For example, from 2010-2013, the online infringement docket in the Pearl River Delta of Guangdong increased from 4058 to 9449, increasing from 21% to 38% of the overall IP docket.

The Supreme People’s Court also issued guidance regarding the selection of judges for the Specialized Court.  The judges can be selected either from those judges engaged in IP or related trials, or the judges can be selected if they have the same qualifications and conditions and are engaged in law practice, legal research or are law teaching professionals.

  1. A judge should also have the following qualifications: more than 6 years of relevant trial work experience; a bachelors or higher degree in law; a strong capacity for leading trials and drafting judgments; and Senior judge qualifications.
  2. The standards for other legal professionals as judges of the Specialized IP Court are referenced in further comments.

The candidates for the president of the Specialized Court are appointed by the city’s People’s Congress Standing Committee. The new President of the Beijing IP Court, Su Chi 宿迟, and his deputies, Chen Jinchuan 陈锦川 and Song Yushui 宋鱼水 appear to have such credentials.  Indeed, as if to underscore my analysis on the importance of Beijing to foreigners, the press reports  also underscore their experience in adjudicating foreign-related disputes.

Beijing’s Specialized IP Court will also include “Technology Experts,” (技术调查官)  who will help resolve technology issues that come up in the cases.  The High Court pointed to Taiwanese and Japanese courts that make use of such officials, noting that in those courts the Technology Experts are senior officials.  However, the SPC has also cautioned that the courts should not rely on such experts exclusively.

Here are three charts that demonstrate the jurisdiction of the Specialized IP Court in Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangzhou. See also the Chinese version.

Written by Mark Cohen with the support of Marc Epstein and Yao Yao from Fordham Law School.

Update on Specialized IP Courts

There are a number of developments in China’s efforts to roll out China’s three new specialized IP courts by the end of the year.  Information is being shared at conferences, via weibo (microblog) postings, emails and other media – along with lots of friendly speculation. Here’s our current summation:

Background: On August 31, 2014, the NPC’s Standing Committee enacted a decision to establishing specialized IP courts in Beijing, Shanghai and Guanghou.  These courts are intended to be a three year experiment in adjudicating technologically complex cases.  I have previously blogged about this issue on two separate occasions, while other commentators such as He Jing have also offered their analysis.

The roll out of the courts have now entered into a less theoretical stage of implementation.  In addition, other developments, such as the recently concluded Fourth Plenum also influences our understanding of what is going on in this important area, and the potential impact of this experiment on other legal reforms.

At a conference on October 25 that I attended at Tongji University (photo above),  IPR Tribunal Deputy Chief Judge Jin Kesheng 金克胜 updated a large crowd of academics, officials, lawyers and students on how the court was going to develop. . Judge Jin had a long experience as a legal academic, and has often commented on the relationship between IP and other legal developments.

He noted that the SPC is actively drafting a judicial interpretation on the jurisdiction of the courts.   He stated that the three specialized IP courts will adjudicate both first and second instance cases.  They will also adjudicate both civil and administrative matters. Current “three in one” adjudication experiments (combining civil, criminal and administrative jurisdiction) will be largely unaffected.   He referred to the Foruth Plenum several times, and pointed out that the pilot in cross-region jurisdiction in specialized IPR court is a pilot for the future court’s reform in cross-region jurisdiction on other subject matters.

In terms of subject matter jurisdiction, he specifically mentioned that antimonopoly law cases and well-known trademark cases will also be under the jurisdiction of the specialized IPR courts.

Regarding court administration, Judge Jin noted that judges in the specialized IP courts will be higher paid, which is attracting interest from other judges.  He also expected that the courts would have an impact on the professionalism and expertise of the judiciary in IP cases, which is already relatively high.

In the past the courts have used experts, such as examiners from SIPO to assist in technologically complex matters.  In the future, technology experts (技术调查官) will serve as the assistant to the judge. In fact these technology experts are set to be included in the Beijing Specialized IP Court launch, which will take place in the first half of November.   Jin cautioned, however, that judges should avoid replying on the technology experts exclusively.

Jin acknowledged the disappointment many observers had that the NPC had not authorized establishment of a national appellate IP court, such as the CAFC, but had instead decided to establish a pilot project involving intermediate level courts.  The views of several prominent academics were conveyed at a meeting of the Legal Affairs Committee of the NPC on August 7.   Some academics urged a specialized IP court like the CAFC to break the problem of territoriality in IP adjudication while others urged that this court should set the standard for a national appellate court. Judge Jin nonetheless believed that the specialized IP courts are a milestone in China’s IP and legal reforms.

What will be the impact of this self-described experiment? In terms of size of their docket, Guangdong has by far the largest docket. Beijing is second and Shanghai is last. Guangdong is about twice the size of Beijing, and Beijing is a bit more than twice the size of Shanghai.  Beijing, however, has the oversized docket of foreign-related cases and administrative cases. Guangdong has the biggest size and population and its experiment in setting up a provincial level intermediate court could be an important precedent for IP and non-IP related jurisdictional experiments.  The loss of jurisdiction of Shenzhen and other important cities in Guangdong over patent, trade secret and AML matters is likely a significant concern to tech companies there.

Beijing’s continuing role in administrative litigation means that Beijing would be a natural venue for a national appellate IP court, such as the CAFC. Shanghai, with the smallest docket and a relatively modest foreign related docket compared to Beijing may appear to have the least “experimental value.”  However, Shanghai brings several important developments to the table. First it is the home to a large and active foreign business community and an active R&D community, especially in the life sciences. Second, it is home to the important foreign trade zone pilot project, with its own IP tribunal. Third and not least, Shanghai is the home to the Chinese Courts International Exchanges Base for Judicial Protection of Intellectual Property Rights (中国法院知识产权司法保护国际交流（上海）基地) which was opened on September 25, and promises to support a wide range of IPR judicial exchanges and educational efforts.   Since foreigners file more cases in Beijing, the Shanghai IP court will need to work hard to attract IP litigation from Beijing, particularly since the Beijing IP court is likely to continue to have a large foreign-related docket with its jurisdiction over the patent and trademark offices.

The Beijing court has already been sighted by one microblogger, and a picture is available on line: http://www.weibo.com/136766637#_rnd1414651625018.   There have also been numerous postings, emails and rumors about assignments of judges – which I will decline to repeat here. In any event, it is only a matter of weeks before those appointments are officially disclosed.

Prof. Don Clarke in his recent blog on the recently concluded Fourth Plenum noted that there is a proposal to establish courts “that will cross jurisdictional boundaries, again to try cases that are in some sense cross-jurisdictional. Such a proposal would require legislative and possibly constitutional amendments.” The IP courts are part of that initial experiment.    Judge Jin referred to other specialized IP courts and cross boundary proposals, such as in labor and childrens courts. In another related development, Judge Jin also noted that the specialized IP courts will have higher paid, more professional judges – a development consistent with the Fourth Plenum.   –

In sum, these new courts are are a part of the continuing effort to “cross the rule of law river by feeling the IP stones.”

Recent Chinese efforts at developing specialized IP courts and in promoting greater judicial independence suggest that the system may significantly improve in the years ahead. According to press reports, some of these efforts may take final form at the 10th meeting of the 27th Session of the Chairman’s Council of the 12 Session of NPC Standing Committee which will be held on August 25 through 30. At that meeting, the NPC Standing Committee will review the bill submitted by the Supreme People’s Court which is the Draft Resolution of SPC to Establish IPR Courts in Beijing, Shanghai and Guangzhou.

Why specialized IP courts? On August 12, 2014, Deputy Chief Judge Jin Kesheng (金克胜), of the third civil (IPR) division of the Supreme People’s Court, said: “In recently years, the speed of increasing IP court was grow slow smoothly, however, there are more and more the new style cases and complicated cases involving foreign parties so that these cases were difficult to judge and the attention from the public to these cases were enhanced. The number of case filed at the Supreme Court was increasing, especially in patent cases with more complicated technology and huge market value and interest. Additionally, the administrative cases are growing rapidly, the proportion of cases involving the fields of medicine, electronic, telecommunication patents are increasing. The proportion of cases in competition cases involving network technology and new business models is large, business secrets and counterfeiting cases continue to increase, and the Supreme People’s Court is hearing antimonopoly cases for the first time… Therefore, this year the Central Committee of the Party and some related departments did some investigations with regard to establishing a specialized IP courts…”

 China has had specialized IP tribunals (ting 庭), beginning with an initial experiment in 1993 in Beijing. Currently there are about 3,000 judges in sit these tribunals. In addition, there are 560 tribunals throughout the country, including basic, level, intermediate, high court and supreme people’s court tribunals or divisions.   In recent years, China has been experimenting with more basic courts (e.g. Yi Wu People’s Court and Kun Shan People’s Court) hearing IP cases including patent cases. Historically, these tribunals had sometimes been called “No. 3 Civil Tribunals” (e.g. No.3 Civil Tribunal of Shanghai Higher People’s Court, No.3 Civil Tribunal of Pudong District People’s Court), “No. 5 Civil Tribunals” (No.5 Civil Tribunal of Shanghai No.1 Intermediate People’s Court, No.5 Civil Tribunal of Shanghai No.2 Intermediate People’s Court) or IP Tribunals (IP Tribunal of Zhuhai People’s Court). Increasingly these tribunals may combine civil IP jurisdiction with administrative review and criminal jurisdiction (“three in one tribunals”).

 As civil enforcement is the lion’s share of judicial IP litigation, the civil experience of these judges has in a sense helped also to develop the capacity of China’s judiciary to handle criminal and administrative litigation. In addition, by combining civil, criminal and administrative jurisdiction there is a greater likelihood of consistent handling of matters that may cross jurisdictional boundaries such as use of administrative evidence in civil cases, providing civil compensation in criminal matters, referring administrative or civil matters to criminal litigation, or handling patent and trademark validity matters in conjunction with an ongoing civil case. Today all of these matters may be handled in one tribunal.

 What prior work has been done in this area by the Chinese government? While specialized IPR courts have been talked about for some time, institutional improvements in the IPR tribunals were set forth as a national goal in the Outline of the National IP Strategy (2008) which was coordinated by SIPO. The NIPS stated “Studies need to be carried out on establishing special tribunals to handle civil, administrative or criminal cases involving intellectual property”. The SPC took an important step in this direction in July 2009, when it directed the civil IP tribunals in the Beijing No. 1 Intermediate Court to handle validity matters on appeal from China’s patent and trademark offices. (最高人民法院关于专利、商标等授权确权类知识产权行政案件审理分类的规定).

 The impetus to develop specialized IP courts in China took an even greater leap forward back on November 12, 2013, at the Third Plenum Session of Eleventh Communist Party Central Committee (the “Third Plenum”). The Third Plenum set as a goal to “explore the establishment of intellectual property court(s).” Since that time, Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Nanjing, Chengdu, Zhengzhou had started to apply for establishing the IP court with the Supreme Court. On March 10, 2014, Zhou Qiang(周强), the President of the SPC discussed the work schedule of 2014 and said that the Supreme Court would promote to establish the specialized IP court. On July 9, 2014, the Supreme Court at its press conference outlining judicial reforms for the Supreme Court (2014-2018) discussed establishing Specialized IP courts at places where IP cases are concentrated. Professor Tao Xinliang (陶鑫良) had proposed establishing the IP Intermediate Court at some places where IP cases concentrated to judge the civil IP cases and administrative IP cases of the first instance and the civil IP cases, administrative IP cases of the second instance and some criminal IP cases. (Prof. Tao Xinliang 陶鑫良<Some thoughts on Establishment of Specialized IP Court建立知识产权法院的若干思考> Madame Tao Kaiyuan (陶凯元) , a Vice President of the Supreme Court, and a former Director General of the Guangdong IP Bureau (where she likely worked with Vice Premier Wang Yang（汪洋）) has also said that the SPC should continue to promote three-in-one IP tribunals.

Why might China be adding a new emphasis on a specialized IP court in additional to combined tribunals? A specialized IP court may promote and improve the civil judicial enforcement system by providing more resources, promote the independence of the judiciary, and provide for more training of judges, particularly on technical patent matters. The judges of a specialized IP court might be even more professional and autonomous. They might be better able to handle the administrative cases, criminal cases and civil cases at the same time. Like other specialized courts (e.g maritime, military, railway court), civil/criminal and administrative jurisdiction would also combined, reflecting the subject matter expertise of the judges in that court and likely reducing subject matter and venue conflicts for IP litigation.

 The SPC has not yet published the detailed program for implementation of specialized IP courts. In addition, we have heard little about important areas of the IP tribunals’ jurisdiction which are not as directly related to IP, such as antimonopoly law, unfair competition and licensing, and whether these areas will also remain within the specialized court jurisdiction. We assume they will be, and would actually hope that other IP-related areas could be specifically included (such as consumer protection, substandard products, and geographical indications). However, we have seen nothing to date discussing these areas.

Will a specialized IPR court be good for foreigners? Most foreign rights holders have continuing concern with local protectionism and political influence in IP adjudication. Beijing, which appears to be a focus for development of a specialized IP court is the jurisdiction that appears to hear the most foreign cases. As we have previously blogged, foreign parties are involved in approximately 47% of their administrative appeal docket (which is primarily based in Beijing); or about 1349 cases, nearly equal to the number of infringement cases in 2013 of 1429. Hopefully, giving the Beijing courts more independence and confirming their “three in one” approach will provide greater judicial autonomy for the Beijing courts.

One concern is whether specialized IP courts will indeed function in a more independent manner than IP tribunals. The US experience with our specialized national patent court, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, has generally been that the CAFC has some impact on correcting local biases at the trial court level, including possible anti-foreign jury bias. This is borne out by data which shows that in general, reversal rates in favor of foreigners is higher at the CAFC than reversal rates in favor of domestic entities.

 U.S.: Patent Infringement Civil Litigation Appellate Win Rates

Foreign Companies

Patent Owner Win Rate

Accused Infringer Win Rate

Source：Paul M. Janicke & LiLan Ren, Who Wins Patent Infringement Cases?, 34 AIPLA Q.J. 1 (2006).

However, according to data from the CIELA database (www.ciela.cn), second instance patent appeals in China generally show an inclination to support the Chinese domestic party against the foreigner.

China : Invention Patent Litigation Data

All Plaintiff

1st instance win rate

2nd instance win rate

Overturn rate

Mean compensation

RMB 439,614

RMB 230,827

RMB 525,939

Medium compensation

RMB 100,000

RMB 125,000

RMB 100,000

（Courtesy of Tim Smith of Rouse & Co. ）

Why might appellate IP courts or tribunals behave differently in each country? First, the CAFC is a national court, not a regional or local court. In this sense, it may be more accountable to national law and reputation than local courts. The CAFC under former Chief Judge Rader had in fact been a leading global proponent of national specialized IP courts. Second, the CAFC has a different jurisdictional role. It does not retry cases, rather it hears appeals. In addition, it hears both patent validity and infringement matters in one court. Moreover, its decisions on matters of law are binding on lower courts. As such, it has more authority in deciding legal matters, and in instructing lower courts on proper adjudication. For example, the CAFC had taken an active role in addressing venue issues at the E.D Texas on patent litigation issues. A third reason is found in China’s political situation. In general, Chinese courts are much less independent than US courts. Local Chinese courts, particularly in remote areas, may also tend to be even less accountable to national law and policy. Second instance Chinese courts may be more susceptible to receiving national policy directives and may therefore be more susceptible to national political influence in adjudicating disputes. Moreover, local statutes enacted by local people congress are at a higher political hierarchy than national administrative rules (部门规章). The local political congresses that enact these statutes also appoint judges. When a second instance case is heard, for example, in a provincial high court, there may in fact be a problem of more direct political influence through political actors in the provincial capital.

The limited data available to date suggests to me that while specialized IP courts have promise, their potential impact will also be affected by national judicial reform efforts and may continue to be constrained by existing limitations in the political independence of the Chinese judicial structure. As Susan Finder has noted in her blog, there are several efforts under way to address some of these systemic issues in the Chinese judicial system, which may also bear promise for Chinese IP adjudication. In sum, specialized IP courts may not be the panacea that foreigners might otherwise seek in minimizing anti-foreign bias in local adjudication in China, but I do believe they offer some hope for a better and stronger judiciary.

 By Mark Cohen, with Ms. Yao Yao of Fordham Law School (LLM Candidate, 2015).

Forecasting the Impact of the Third Plenum on IP Adjudication

What are the impacts of the resolution and spirits of the recent Third Plenum of the 18th Communist Party on rule of law in China, particularly commercial rule of law and IP?

The morning of December 11, from 10:00 to 11:30, George Washington University Law School will be hosting its third annual China IP Program to discuss what China’s recent rule of law developments mean.    I will attend this program along with Don Clarke  of GWU, Xuan-Thao Nguyen (Southern Methodist University), Chief Judge Rader of the CAFC and others.   By my reckoning there have been three important streams of change affecting IP and rule of law in the past few months.

One of the important developments is administrative transparency and accountability.  As previously reported,  Premier Li Keqiang is seeking to establish greater transparency in administrative enforcement decisions, through the State Council’s enactment of an “Opinion on Making Publicly Available According to Law Information on Administrative Penalties Concerning the Production and Sale of Fake, Counterfeit and Sub-standard Goods and Intellectual Property Rights Infringement” (关于依法公开制售假冒伪劣商品和侵犯知识产权行政处罚案件信息的意见).  At a conference this past December 5 sponsored by MofCOM, we were told that this regulation is likely to be made public available in the near future.  Moreover, as many as 300,000 cases each year involving IP infringements and fake and shoddy goods are likely to be affected.

At the same time, an equally important September 2012 decision that I previously reported on: the “Opinion Concerning How to Improve The Work of Coordinating Administrative and Criminal Enforcement in Striking at IP Infringements and the Manufacture and Sale of Fake and Shoddy Goods”  (关于做好打击侵犯知识产权和制售假冒伪劣商品工作中行政执法与刑事司法衔接的意见), remains non-public.  However, it appears that this effort at administrative coordination in criminal IP from September 2012 has now “migrated” to a higher level.  Improvements in administrative/criminal coordination were also discussed in the November 12, 2013 Resolution Concerning Some Major Issues in Comprehensively Deepening Reform, passed at the  Third Plenum (“CCP Resolution”) (Chinese language version is found here.  That Resolution called for China to “resolve issues of overlapping responsibilities and many-headed law enforcement, and establish administrative law enforcement systems with unified powers and high-efficiency authority” and to “perfect mechanisms to link administrative law enforcement with the criminal judiciary”.  China is once again “crossing the legal reform river by feeling the IP stones.”

Another important area is in general judicial transparency and reform.  SPC President Zhou Qiang discussed the importance of publishing court decisions involving intellectual property in an important exchange he had with Chief Judge Rader on October 16 of this year.  Since that time, according to press reports, the newly appointed SPC President has vowed to increase transparency in the judicial process in light of the spirit of the recently concluded Third Plenum.

But transparency includes more than publications of decisions.  Chief Judge Rader has informed me that at the meeting between SPC President Zhou and Chief Judge Rader, Zhou inquired at length about the CAFC practice of publishing the verbatim version of arguments within minutes on the internet, a practice that Zhou might have compared with broadcasts made during the Bo Xilai trial.  In addition, Chief Judge Rader expressed praise for the civil procedure and trademark reforms, which have introduced greater transparency and accountability, including permitting a measure of compulsory discovery of adverse evidence held by an opposing party.  The transparency of judicial decisions generally was also raised in the CCP Resolution, which provided that China should:  “Move towards open trials and open prosecutions, record and maintain materials from the entire court process, strengthen the rationality of legal documents, and promote openness of valid court judgment documents.”

Another important judicial reform that could be significant for IP in the CCP Resolution involves “explor[ing] the establishment of judicial jurisdiction systems that are suitably separated from administrative areas, guarantee the uniform and correct implementation of State laws” and to “reform the trial committee system, perfect case handling responsibility systems for presiding judges and collegiate benches, let those hearing the case judge, and those judging the case be responsible.” The former, if fully implemented, would support greater independence of the courts from the local governments that fund them, and the latter would dilute influence from adjudication committees and return decision-making power to judges who hear cases.  As it is possible that a disproportionate number of foreign-related cases are decided by adjudication committees, this could be a significant development.

A third area of reform is in specialized IP courts.  The 2008 National IP Strategy stated that China would “study the jurisdictional issues for the appropriate concentration for adjudication of patent and other technologically complex cases, and will investigate establishing an appellate IP court.”  The CCP Resolution states that China would “explore the establishment of intellectual property rights courts.”

Compared to the National IP Strategy, the CCP Resolution is a higher political statement.  Moreover, its substance is not limited to appellate courts, nor constrained to “technologically complex cases”.  While in 2008 an appellate IP court had been considered necessary to provide protection from local influence, the CCP Resolution notes elsewhere and more generally that China should establish “judicial jurisdiction systems that are suitably separated from administrative areas”.   One conclusion: the necessity of having courts that are less tied to local influence has migrated from an IP-related topic in the 2008 National IP Strategy, to one involving general legal reform.

Several courts are already moving to establish specialized IP courts.  At a recent program I attended in Suzhou sponsored by Renmin University, the President of Jiangsu’s High Court noted that Jiangsu is actively preparing for establishing such a court.  Moreover, the media has noted that Guangdong is also conducting research efforts for its establishment. Both jurisdictions are pioneers in combining civil/criminal and administrative IP jurisdiction in one tribunal.  Beijing was the first jurisdiction to establish IP tribunals in its intermediate courts (1993), and is probably the most important place where greater improvements could assist both foreign and domestic rights holders, as it is the jurisdiction where appeals from the patent and trademark offices are held.  As I have noted in a prior blog,  foreign parties are involved in approximately 47% of that IP administrative appeal docket.

Former Supreme People’s Court IPR Tribunal Chief Judge Jiang Zhipei has also been a strong advocate for specialized IP courts in Beijing because of its national and international influence.   I share the hope of my friend Chief Judge Jiang that the CCP Resolution will help accelerate the establishment of these specialized IP courts and even more importantly, improve the adjudication of all legal issues matters for Chinese and foreigners alike.

Here’s the flyer for the GW Program:GWU Dec 11 Program


Content-Type: application/http; msgtype=response

WARC-Identified-Payload-Type: text/html

WARC-Type: response

text:
Say It Right Series

Emergency Situations

We hope you never find yourselves in these situations, but the right phrases in Chinese could make a huge difference when there is an emergency. Knowing how to ask for help in Chinese is essential. From losing a passport to calling an ambulance, we have some of the language you might need if you find yourself in an emergency situation. Better safe than sorry! Give it a browse, it might save your day.

warcinfo:
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-179-198-159.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2018-13
operator: Common Crawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for March 2018
publisher: Common Crawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf


WARC-Truncated: length

text:
Let’s Get Musical

What should I name my uke?
What should I name my uke?

My mental health is kinda rocky at the moment. I have some really terrible moments where I want to smash the reset button and other times, I am what they call “living in the moment” and just enjoying everything as it comes. I was doing pretty well last week but today’s been pretty crappy because of body image issues. URGH!

Anyway, last week, I bought myself a ukulele! I had a wonderful ukulele lesson with musician Georgia Fields a few weekends ago and I couldn’t stop thinking about music and how much fun it was. I actually wanted to buy myself a ukulele for my birthday but I never got the chance.

I’ve been trying to practice about two hours a day but it’s so hard to fit in time so I sometimes just do four to five hour chunks on the weekends. I’ve learned how to play Tegan and Sara‘s ‘Call It Off‘ and I have maybe seven chords memorised so I’ve been playing some Taylor Swift, Bon Jovi, Coldplay and Miley Cyrus. I’ve started to notice a lot of pop songs have the same four chords so that’s been fun.

One of the toughest things is singing while playing, especially when what you’re strumming is at a different tempo/rhythm (sorry I don’t know what the correct term is!) to what you’re singing. For example, Tegan and Sara’s ‘Walking With A Ghost‘ is really easy to play, just three chords. But the way you’re meant to strum it is (for me at least) really different to what you’re singing, so I’m trying to practice that as well. If anyone has any tips, please let me know!

In other exciting news, the first issue of the Grapple Annual is out now! I have three artworks in the lit journal and I couldn’t be more proud of this little publication. If you’re interested, please grab a copy of the Grapple Annual. There are only 365 issues printed!

let's get musical

What song should I learn on the ukulele?

One thought on “Let’s Get Musical

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


WARC-Identified-Payload-Type: application/xhtml+xml

text:
The mentality of the apparent majority of TEXANS resembles that of a numbing anti social society hell-bent on maintaining the cowboy “shoot to kill” philosophies that were prevalent in the 19th and early 20th century.

My ex-wife and her con artist husband kidnapped my kids in the 70’s and went to live in Dallas. I had to visit Dallas to see my kids through the years. It was a really strange and debilitating experience .

Texas killed John Kennedy..keep that in mind. …GEORGE BUSH is from TEXAS he killed hundreds and thousands of people and nearly killed this country’s economy.

In TEXAS …one of their claims to fame is their tally of executions.They even kill innocent people and retarded people too…

When you arrive in TEXAS you do feel that you’ve come to another country.

A killing field.

The airport alone seems alien …many guys are walking about with cowboy hats on…this is a fashion and political statement at the same time…it just looks strange…and you have a feeling that many of them are packing…just a feeling that goes along with the hats…and the boots.

Of course this is a total simplification of the great state of TEXAS..

And we know that TEXANS have warmth and they love people and they’re as down home as can be Y’ All !

Texas has a large population…including a major Hispanic and black  contingent.

All this is overshadowed by the plain fact that TEXANS… on a whole… put State first,God second and country third or fourth probably after after steak dinners, rodeos and oil.

The GOP have a virtual lock on the politics of TEXAS with large margins in both state houses…This means they do what they damn well please…

Okay all you good TEXANS with the liberal thoughts and the progressive ideas we all know most of you hang in Austin where having a decaf cappuccino doesn’t make you a homo! ..

Compassion and humility may make an appearance in TEXAS…this may take a return visit from “The Man” whose name you invoke to ply your rhetoric , your cruelty and your lack of respect for real Christian principles.

There are no comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this:


text:
Regulations and Information

Who does it apply to? This information describes the requirements for owners and operators of refrigeration, air conditioning and heat pump systems. The information is taken directly from Regulation (EC) 842/2006 (F-Gas) and is a brief overview of the articles within it relevant to the above equipment which us F-Gas refrigerants.

When did it come into force? 4th July 2007

Most of the key F-gas obligations lie with the operator. An operator is a person or business who has actual power over the technical functioning of the equipment. This includes: free access to the system, eg supervising its components or functioning control over the day-to-day running or function powers, including financial, to decide on technical modifications, F-gas quantity modifications or have repairs carried out. The owner of the equipment is usually the operator.

What is the regulation intended to control? This particular legislation is aimed at the release of global warming gasses used in refrigeration and air conditioning by containment through regular leak checking (Also known as F-Gasses for completeness and listed in the regulation). Companies should have a system in place to carry out these checks and to monitor refrigerant usage. Ideally fixed leak detection equipment used for early detection.

How often do these checks need to be done in order to comply? Only certified personnel can carry out these checks. The frequency is determined by the refrigerant charge in the system and also whether fixed leak detection has been installed. Please note that any leaks detected must be repaired and then checked within a month to ensure the repair was effective with all maintenance carried out recorded.

Does anything else have to be done to meet the requirements of this regulation?

1. Operators have to keep records of the quantity and type of refrigerant that is;

  • Installed
  • Added and recovered during service and maintenance
  • Recovered during final disposal.

2. The above information must be readily accessible for inspection by the relevant authority including the details of who is responsible for service and maintenance and dates of any leaks and checks of equipment containing F-Gas.

3. Proper recovery and disposal of gas must be undertaken. This has to be carried out be certified personnel to ensure recycling, reclamation or destruction of any cooling circuits.

4. When a refillable/non-refillable container is ready to be disposed of the person who last used it is responsible and must follow the appropriate procedure.

5. An operator must ensure that any purchased refrigeration, air conditioning or heat pump systems are clearly labelled as containing fluorinated gasses as well as the quantity using the industry categorisation.

What will the consequences be if these regulations are not complied with? The regulation states that these 'shall be effective, proportionate and dissuasive'. It is therefore recommended that steps are taken as early as possible to comply with the legislation to avoid any such penalties being enforced at a later date. For a full copy of the F-Gas regulation visit here.

In 2001 this scheme was introduced by the government. ECA enabled business that invest in energy saving equipment on the carbon trust list to offset 100% of their capital expenditure against taxable profits in the same financial year the investment is made. For more information on this, please click here.

R22 Refrigerant Phased Out

Be ready for the ban on your existing R22 air conditioning. R22 refrigerant will be banned in 1st January 2015. We offer a free consultation/site survey for R22 air conditioning replacement.

R22 and Energy Efficiency

In the UK today its estimated that over 60% of the air conditioning systems currently in operation are running on R22 refrigerant. Many of these systems are running normally, however the vast majority of these systems use up to and in excess of 40% more energy than a new system.

Planning for replacement

We will work with you to develop a cost effective and common sense plan to replace your old R22 systems, taking into account the age, condition and importance of individual systems to your business.

Domestic Installations - Reduced VAT

VAT reduction for Air Source Heat Pumps. As announced on the 2005 budge year, with effect from April 2005 the installation of air source heat pumps in residential accommodation is subject to a reduced VAT rate. The reduced VAT rate only applies to equipment which is both supplied and fitted to residential accommodation. Supply only equipment is still subject to the standard VAT rate.

For more information on this, please click here:


text:
Stats Review from 2008

I’ve been blogging for just over 2 years now; my first posts were on December 26, 2006. Like many bloggers, I definitely had a slow start: only 44 views in all of January 2007. Now I’m averaging over five times that every day. My numbers aren’t nearly as impressive as someone like Stephen Downes, but I’m not doing this to set records. I’m still quite pleased with the growth I saw in 2008 over my first year of blogging.

Views and Subscribers

Take a look at these comparisons:

  • Total number of views for the year
    • 2007: 16799
    • 2008: 61062
    • That’s 3.6 time more views in 2008
  • Average daily views
    • 2007: 46
    • 2008: 121
  • Highest daily average in a month
    • 2007: 91, in August
    • 2008: 223, in September
Monthly View Statistics
Monthly View Statistics

It’s hard to do a comparison of feed statistics. WordPress quit providing statistics in June of 2007, instead recommending people switch to Feedburner. I’m approaching 300 subscribers on Feedburner now, plus another 200+ on my main WordPress feed. If I could consolidate my subscribers, I’d have over 500. My subscriber numbers have grown a little faster than my views; they don’t seem to dip the same way my views have a couple of times, as you can see in the chart above.

My growth hasn’t been steady, but 2008 was steadier than 2007. Some of the bumps are from external links. June 2007 is when I posted my series on Instructional Design Careers, which generated a link from Don Clark and a lot of great discussion. April 2008 is when I liveblogged the TCC 2008 conference. Stephen Downes linked to me then, and I posted more times in that month than any other month (42 total posts). Since then, I’ve been mostly gaining momentum.

The recent large dip you see in the chart is August 2008, when I only wrote one non-bookmark post. It’s possible there was a problem with tracking that month too, since the numbers seem out of line with the trend. I expect that December dipped because of a combination of less posting and the holidays. The last data point on this chart is January, and since we’re only a few days into the month it’s still pretty low.

Top Posts

My 2008 top posts by views:

  1. One Keyboard and Mouse, Two Computers (4,893)
  2. Instructional Design Skills (4,516)
  3. What does an instructional designer do? (4,306)
  4. Technology Skills for Instructional Designers (2,890)
  5. Telecommute Instructional Design Jobs (2,500)
  6. Getting Into Instructional Design (2,453)
  7. Is Instructional Design the Right Career? (2,315)
  8. Professional Organizations and Career Opportunities (1,569)
  9. New Features in Captivate 3 (1,567)

After that are the pages for Instructional Design Careers and About Me, and the views drop off significantly.

The top post on that list gets a lot of search engine traffic, but no comments. I don’t expect that gets me many long-term readers either. Other than that and the new Captivate features, everything in the top rank by number of views is about instructional design careers. Only 2 of those top 9 posts were written in 2008 (#1 & #5); maybe the more established posts actually have more links to them and therefore rank better in the search engines?

Top Search Engine Terms

These are the top searches which brought people to my blog:

  1. instructional designer (584)
  2. instructional design jobs (276)
  3. instructional design skills (186)
  4. instructional design career (167)
  5. cyber bullying quotes (167)
  6. what is an instructional designer (163)
  7. one keyboard two computers (163)
  8. christy tucker (142)
  9. instructional designer skills (118 )
  10. two computers one keyboard (110)

Many similar phrases turn up too, plus a few interesting ones like “dirty comments,” “ubiquitous learning,” and “birthday reflections.”

Top Referrers

Google Reader and the Google custom home page are the top two referrers to my blog. Pageflakes and the WordPress dashboard also rank highly.

Here’s the top blog posts that send traffic to me. Cammy Bean gets the prize for being on this list twice:

What do the patterns tell me?

  • Lots of people are interested in learning about instructional design as a career. My posts on getting into the field and the skills created an initial bump in traffic and are still getting traffic and comments 18 months later.
  • When I post more regularly, I get more traffic–mostly. Sometimes my traffic still grows even when I don’t write as much as long as what I write is interesting. But, there’s a general correlation between number of posts and views.
  • External links are critical to building traffic, especially early on. Maybe I should be doing more to link to new bloggers myself to pass that traffic along.
  • Search engine traffic is getting to be a bigger driver of traffic for me. I’m not particularly doing anything to optimize my blog for search engines, so I think just writing good content is enough for the kind of traffic I’m getting.

9 thoughts on “Stats Review from 2008

  1. Ooh…ooh! What’s my prize?!

    But seriously, folks… I enjoy all your posts Christy. You have a great analytical mind and the ability to see patterns in the muck. Keep on blogging!

  2. Hmmm, that’s a good question. How about if I’m ever in Boston, or you’re ever in Raleigh, I’ll owe you coffee/hot chocolate/tea/hot beverage of your choice? Not sure what else I can offer of value…

  3. Hello! Christy,
    I really like your posts. It is true that those articles about instructional designer are very useful. I always got useful information from your blog. It is good to see your growth in your profession. I think you have set a good example for many people.

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


text:
OCR Interpretation

The tri-weekly news. (Winnsboro, S.C.) 1865-1876, July 13, 1872, Image 1

Image and text provided by University of South Carolina; Columbia, SC

Persistent link: http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn84026922/1872-07-13/ed-1/seq-1/

What is OCR?

Thumbnail for

1.r t "; .
_1 ENS R S Job Prnting I Jointi n
i'U I31111) J '
W IWN N S B 0 R 0, S. C.,
TErMS: $4.00 per annum, in adi+noe. , INVIT,
Transient advertiscments iuserted a PROGIIJ
$1.00 per square for tho first and 50 c -enls - - ---' -O
each suabsequent insertion. VOL. IX.] WINNSBOB SATURDAY JULY 13 1872. 8 'POST)
EXob TE Prntin IP
Special Notices.
Means wthat Ie Says.
The high "confirmations strong as-proofs
of Holy Writ," .and as numerous us the
sands on the seashore, were produced to
prove that Dr. Pierce, thn proprietor of
Dr. Sage's Catarrli Remedy, is in earnest
and ncans what lie says, when he offers
$3000 teward for any case of Catarrh
which he cannot ouro, yet there would be
'oae skeptics and fogies who would con
Sinue to shout, "lfumtbug !" Il unuva I It'
"It cannot be, because Dr. Hlomespun says
Catarrh cannot be cured." Now, this Dr.
homespun is the identical, good natured
old fellow who honestly believes and per
sists in declipring that this earth is not
round of spheribrel, - but flat as a "slap
Jack," and does r.ot turn over, otherwise
the water would all be spilled out of Den
con Bascom's mill pond. But astr ,nomical
scienco has positively. demonstrated and
proven, that-Dr. Honesptin is wrong in
supposing th0s earth to be flat and station
"try, and medical science is daily proving
the fact that ho is no less' mistaken au'1 be
hind the times in regard to the curabili
ty of Catarrh. In short, it has been posi.
tively proven 4tat this world moves, and
that medical sci.nce is progressive-the
opinion of Dr. lomespun to tho contrary not
withstanding. That Dr. Sago's Catarrh
itemedy will cure Catarrh, thousands who
have used it ,.ttost.
Then buy it, and use it, in doubt do net
You will find it in drug stores all over tho
TALK AT Ttte Toa.v.--Evety lady's
maid knows that the bewitching beings
who pave their taiumphant way with con.
quered hearts, regard a splendid head of
hair the most effective of all-nomanly faol
nations. ' hey believe, and they are
right, that- they can lasso as many beaux
with the Luxuriant ringlets and glossy
braids as they can "kill at sight" with'
their beaming,eyes. Iloade'in. theli' "toilet
talk" among -themselves, and with their
attendants, thd merits of preparatioh0 for
the hair are freely oatWasded 'and tho'
latest wesult of this dibOubsion ,eeris to- be
the almost universal adoption af'LYot's
K ATtAtUof -S. an article b4te
Chie tio. e L1On
at present before the worl
that w,lthout irritating the skin of the
head it eradicates dandruff, and that it
penetrates below the ant fhee to the roots of
the har, endowing theta with new life and
An Important Conasideratlona.
LY VE E'A1ILE, and are adapted to
young and eleI, nnle and fernalo, and tnay
be tak3n at all tinei, without restraint of
occupation, wcithout change of living, with
ont diet, and without the fear of taking
cold, during all kie's of weather, and in
all climates.
Dear 8r---'oc: make two preparations
which, it appears to me, are worthy of a
tnore general necepttaco than they have
land as yet, pro:ha' ly bcean se they cae not
been "puffed"' in the newsp.tpe"rs. aIllule
to your Liver Pills and A romatic Elixir of
Citrate of Caffeine. The former have been
used in my own can -torpor of the Liver
--and in my family with a marked success,
and I believe them superior :n all biliary
derang nents to -any plls now m1ade.
The Caffeine is the only remel' that has,
in my experience, proved t, tual for
nervous headaehes. It n*ve -ails, and
the relief it afford.., I deliNfy's ; for not
only does the pain ces, b4 a pleasant
exhilaration superven""nd suffering is
converted to pleasure. Avial of it is kept
a.t home and one at my ofl':o, that I mry
never be without it in case of need.
Very truly yours,
JOSEPIl P CARIR. Attorney at Law.
Dr. Tut's .hair Dye requires bu:t a fto ;,min.
'rts Vtr.-.AOF Ctmuncu.--It thould tot
look like a barn or storehouse. It should
he a building. the very sight. of which
would cause devout feelings tn t'ie breast.
A well.carved cross should point to heaven:
massive pannelled doors should impress the
solemnity of the place into which he is en
tering: stained glass should throw a tmys.
lie light athwart t he isles ;pulpit, altar,
ceilinag and galleries should lhe ortnmented
with figurative tmouldings, andl thle colunmns
that support the galleries, and the baltus
ters that rail them in, shouald lhe of clasric
patterns. Aniy congreg.ation wishing such
a church should send their orders for
finish'ing material to Mr. P. P'. Toal.a
importer of French stained glass, and man
uafacture.r of and dealer in Doors, Sashes,
Blinds, &c., No. 20 Ilayne street, Charles.
t on, 8. C.
25,000 L B. C. B.acon sds
Dry Salt and 8moked For sale low for
eash by
may 14 JNO. Ii. CA TIJCAlRT.
F}'in our Baltimore Correspondent.
July 9th, 2 I'. M.
The gods, in presenting their gift
to Epimetheus, could have scarcely re
ceived more pleasure from the sight of
their present than the honest people
of the United State's this day do, in
the conviction that they, and not poli
cians, are represented in the sterling
cx ponents each moment arriving in this
city. For the first time in many years
the anomaly is presented of unselfish
ness in politics. This exeoptional case
of political heroism shows, I appre
bend, that patriotism has not died out
in the South, but that the same spirit
which has hitherto animated it, still
exists, and manifests its fruition in
.the forgetting of prejudices, and a
generous sacritiee of party predilec
tions for the good of the whole coun
try. llanent vestigia mnorientis liber
tatis, and its pulsations are exhibited
in the stern determination of each of
the delegates to -reinstate honesty and
redeem the fallen prestige of the
Pursuant to the call of the National
Executivo Committee, the National
Democratic Convention inet to-day.
Ford's Grand Opera Ilouse was
aplendi.dly decorated for the occasion.
A magnifcent triumphal arch adorned
the spacious entrance, while the It
terior wra tastefully embellished with.
atreamc's anda4ee4id.ooat, of arts
6f the diffeift,l$ates and -Territoriep.
The reserve orbhestra ehairs were aA.
signed to the respective delegates by
tho naite of their ,States inoribed i
let rsof ld'on hdudsoleoblil G't
ersi out4 tarelinsiPriaher
;i,i h .4he mosteligible F
ons. Ample telegraphiqr faoih ee
were conte ~ently arrangel,'wi'ih a full
corps of operators, and over fifty di
re3t - wire.;, connecting the building
with all parts of the Union. The
press of the count.y was reprenented
by over 180 reporters, who were com
fortably accomodated on; the rear of
the stage. Your corre,obdent,hota'
ever, was fortunate in securing a seat
in one of the commodious and elegant
opera box en, which besides being much
cooler, was especially desirable for
seeing and auditory purposes. The
large hous3 was crowded to suffoca'
tion, and the unique and original
Greeley fans were kept in constant
motion. Within the dais, I notice
lion. August Belmont, Gov. Swann,
Geo. 13aine, Rev. llenry Slicer, and
other distinguishcd gcntlemen.
While the preliminaries were beibg
arranged, a tall, stately woman walked
immediately in frent of the stage and
presented her credentials to one of the
committee. It was whispered among
the crowd that she was Mrs. Cady Stan.
ton, Susan Anthony, Tennie Wood
hull &c., and soon she was greted with
loud, cries, cheers and shouts, which
continued till she took her position in
the rear among the reporters.
After the laughter and excitement
had ina measure subsided' the Honor
able August Belmont cilled the Con.
vention to order and spoke at some
Ile said substantially as follows
At the last National Conv tion on
4th July, 1868, lie predicted that the
election of Gen. Grant would result
in the gradual usurpation of all the
functions of the governanent by the
Exeoutive and by Congress, to be en
forced by the bayonets of a military
despotism. That the vast niajority of
the people ~of the United States has
witnessed with grief and sorrow the
correctness of that prediction, and
wit,h fear and - apprehension looked
forward to the great 4langer wh.ich
threatens if the present head of the
party ia re-elected, and the policy of
the patrty is continued.
Tihat, the thinking men of both par
ties have become alive to the fact that
a military despotism is overriding the
.civil authorities in many 8tates of
the Union, and that by a depraved
innjority in Congroas, the rights of
these States are infring'e4 and tram
pled upon, and t~Ca' .rism and
centralization a uidetmining the
very foundations r".urr fe4eral syc
tem, aud: are oweeping'i ay^tho eon
stitutional, bulwarks :e ted by the
wisdom of the fathers'o the republic.
These abuses have,.bec3ano 'so glar
ing and obtrudite thht dhe wisest and
the best inet of the Republican party
have sovorod thems-:ves from the
power which is now trying to fasten
another four years of corruption and
despotism upon the country and
whatever individyial opinions may ex
ist as to the choice of a-candidate, all
were and must be united in the com
mon purpose to rciustate' honesty.
That we must look to principles not
men; that no personafLas.shotild d6 .
ter us from diso4arging odr uuty to
the American people. Gen. Grant's
war record was good, and he had been
generously rewarded. In accepting
the highest office from the people, his
intentions may have been good, but
he has most signally failud in the dis.
charge of the high trust iinposed upon
him. Ilo is at this moment the very
personification of the misrule which is
oppressing us, and his re-election is
fraught with the most deplorable con.
sequences dangerous to the liberties
of the people.
That, on the nther hand, Mr. Gree
ley did not deserve preference at his
hands, not, only from his vio
lent porsoelt attacks on himself
(the speaker), but for his opposi
tiot' .to the 'Democratio party
yet ht, the ospt time, Mr. Gree
ey ' ropreien -the national and
oonrtitutioneii ..rinciples of the
Ci ianati, , Mftrn, and has shown
rpanlA lte, he is fully alive
ud it. elected, fully
~thim out llon"stly
, ;Bhould.Aho Conven
t -d ' d' to"pt'opone in .his favor,
the speaker for one would cheerfully
bury all past differences and labor
for his electiop with the 'tame %0al and
energy with which he has pupported
and ever will support the bandidates
of the Democratie party. In earnest
words he, impressed upon his audience
the necessity of'dieo?rdibg party tra
dition, if the' selection of a good and
wiso man outside the party presented
bettor chances of success. That they
were aseembled not us domocrats but
as citizone of a common country, and
that no' sacrifice could he too great
which nbo demands at their hands.
In conclusion, he feelingly offercd
his resignation as 'Chairman, and ex
preSod a deterinination,"that tho' h6
would no longer occupy the prominent
position that fo'r twelve yeare he had
held, yet his 'ceal'should ne1er ibate.
4 Mr. Belmont is'an earnest, energet;
i6 speaker and 'received tbp' marked
attcntion 6f hIs hearoers. Ills allusion'
to a union with Liberal Republicans
and his commendation of the Cincin
nati platfornr' was receided rith
great applause, and oh his allusion
to Greeley, the enthusiasm was tre
mendoun, ladies, dtlegites, visitors,
ushers, pages, every one, cheered
most vigorously.
Mr. Belmont coneluded ly intro
ducing lion. Thos, Jefferson Rsndolph
as.temporary chairman, who after an
nppropri.tc speech, proceeded in the
organization by appointing officers
and' calling on each delegation to
present two members to form a com
mittee on nredentials and resolutions.
The numes' Of the 8tates were called
in alphabetical order, and when South
Carolina was called she received en
thusiastie applause ; ti generous sy m
pathy as it were, fromn bef- sister states
for her unfortunate condition.' h
Conventioi 'then adjourned' till 4 P.
M. I will report further proceedings
to-morroyr, and hasten to close for
afternoon mail. AJAX.
Advices from Europe indioate that
there will be a heavy harvest gene.
ally,- the growing orops looking unu
sually well.
The ladies. of Osage, Iowa, have a
Home HIusband Club.
Speech of Scuator Doolittle.
I thank you for this great honor,
words can hardly toll how mucb, but
you will allow me to pass at once
from what is personal to speak of the
great -occ. eion the duty and the pur
pose which bring us here. Two years
-bearly five years-after the bloody
period of the civil 'war had closed,
the Liberal Republicans of Missouri,
fanpplause] feeling keenly all the evil
of the prosoription, the test oath, the
hates and the strifes, and the passions
of the war which had been left- upon
thom long-afteri the war itself had
ceased, an1 feeling keenly the ex4ou
tive and federal power in their loyal
elections, determined to organize a
movement to restore equal rights to
all our citizens, [applause,] white as
well as black ; [applause,] to restore
local self-government, and to arrest
the further centrali2ation" of federal
power. [Applause]. They then said
this thing has gone far enough, if not
already too far. The timo has come
when honest and patriotic Republicans
must Say "halt!", and must .reassert
the vital doctrine of Fepubl,ican
government that, under the Constitu
tion, the powers of the Yederal Gov
ernment are defined and limited, [ap
plause, and ories of "Good !"
"Good!"] and that the people of the
States have the right to govern them
selves in their own 'donientie affairs,
upon the basis of the equality of all
the States before the higher law
before the Constitution-and the
equality of all. men bofore the law
[applause ;] loyalty, amnesty, suffrage
and peace ; taking no step backwatd
taking no right apd franchise which
had been secured to the blanks. Pledg
ing themselves to support them all
inetheir vigor they at the samotime
4emanded in the name of peace
in the name liberty in tile name
of R1o pl.lioan Governmont itself,
and gedom and equal a11tt
should be restored to th'e white peo
pl, [groat applause.] They organiz.
od nearly forty thousand strong and
called upon B. Gratt Brown [ap
plause,] to lead the movement ; they
placed h im in nomination for Gover
ndr; then what followed ? oighty thou
sand Democrats and Republicans,
(cheers) looking upon the success of
that movement as above any party
triumphs, (cheers,) resolved to sus
tain it with their whole strength.
Jove ^f country, love of Republican
liberty, love of the equal rights of ill
men, inspired that union and taught
men to a't rtogether who had been
politically opposed to each other all
their lives upon other questions and
in other times, and without violating
i'onor, logic, conscience or cnsistency
on either side. ' This patriotic union
was based upon highi- grounds:'than
ordinarilj control political nation.
[Great applause ] Even those who
had fought against each other in bat
tie, clasped hands -over the bloody
chasm, [renewed applause,] and side
by side, like brother,, with hearts
beating in unison-boating strong
with tho came high purpose-they
helped to bear its flag to a glorious
victory. That, gentlemen, is libe.
ral Republicanism, [enthuiasm,] and
that is Democratic Republicanism.
[Great enthusiasm.] The victory
which came from that union was the
end Of proscription and test oaths, of
pain and sttife, and of all disloyalty
in a' word, the real end of the civil
war caine swith that victory, and did
not eome until then in Missouri.
[Intense applause.] It redeemed
that State ; it gave the right of free
men to 70,000 men wh6 had been bound
aind fettered. Misouri 5i now a free
State in this Union, with all her
rights, dignity* and equality under
the Constitution, and not onie mur..
mur of disloyalty is anywhere heard.
By that union for freedom, federal die.
tation in Missouri, in her local elec
tions, was overthrown, and by th at
union, strife and hate have given place
to peace and to good will by that union
liberty, with equal rights, have given
to the State an unbounded prosperity
and to its people a ioy unspeakable.
So great was the joy and complete
their success that the Liberal Repube
lieans of that Stato were not without
making an e'fect to extend the same
union of Liberal and Democratic Ie,
publicans, and with it the same bless
ings of liberty, peace and fraternity
to all the other States. [Round of
applause.] Accordingly in State
Conventions on the 24th of Marel,
last, they resolved to invite the Libe
ral Republicans in all the States to
meet them in National Convention in
Cinoinnati on the 1st day of May.
The invitation was accepted ; tliere
was indeed a great response ; they
came by thousands in such vast num
bers that a delegation Convention
of the representativos of all the States
was formed, both from principle and
necessity, to give form to its proceed
iiqs. Many of the ablest men in the
country', latoly leaders in the Repub
lican party, were there and took part
in its 'deliberations ; they were as
sured that a largo number of Liberal
Republicans, in every State, and from
all portions of the country, stood be.
hind ready to sustain thom, ar.d they
were morally certain that if the niil..
lions at home we this day represenf
would only conic to their support, the
number of Liberal Republicans would,
reach half million or more. (Great
cheers.) That Convention presented
candidates to the country for Presi
dent, Horace a Greeley, (Long and
continued cheering,] and. for Vice.
President, B. Gratz Brown.. |More
enthusiasm,j and that Convention for
the promoting and success of the prin
ciples declared on that platform,.
there enunciated, and the support of
the candidates nominated ,by that
Convention, hav.e cordially welcomed
the co-operatio. of all patrictie citi
zens Without regard to previous po
litica: opinions-theso principles werd
clearly and concisely stated in that
platform itself, and rested on the let
4- -n-oeoptane of Ho race Greeley,
[more cheering,] and they are so well
known to you all, I will not reir.te.
them. For weeks that platform 'and
these candidates have been before the
country. Meanwhile the Convention
called to nominate General Grant,
[hisses], and to endorse and continue
the principles, practices, and policy
of his administration, has done its
work. [hisses.] As between the
Liberal Republicans and the follow..
ers of the Grant administration, the
issue is clearly up. It is Grant or
Greeley. [Immense enthusiasm, and
cries of "Creeley."] While these
events were transpiring, the Demo
cratic Republicans, whom we repre
sent, held their conventions in all the
States. The Liberal movement-the
example of Missouri-the. Cincinnati
Convention, its platform, its candi
dates, with their letteis of acceptance,
were before these Conventions, which
were very largely attended by their
ablest men, and the paramount ques
tions before these Conventions were,
shall we accept this invitation to co
operate with the Liberal Republicans?
[Great applause."]
Shall we adopt the platform ?
[Loud cries of yes, yes, and some
cries of never.] Shall wo nominat'
the same candidates? [Yes, yes.1
And shall we elect them ? ]Yes,
yes ; loud cheering.] Or shall we
co-operato and non;.inate other candi.
dates [no, no; Greeley, Greeley,] and
strive to elect them over both the
other tickets which are already in
the field. Gentlemen, these are the
questions which you are to decide,
and, here. That you will decide
thems wisely I cannot doubt, nor cnn
any one doubt, who looks over this
boa~ly of men, who, representing, as
they do, three millions of citizens,
and who feels as every one here must
feel, the high and patriotic purpose
which inspires you gentlemen. W hat
means this great movement which we
everywhere sec ? What means this
p reposed union of threeo~millions of
Demnora tie Republicans with a mil
lion, may be, of Liberal Republi
cans ? What means this union upon
a common platform, and this- pro.
rContinued on 4th nage>1

xml | txt