The comprehensive solution for online business

Internet is full of ad networks, link farms and keyword mills. It is a mindbogglingly meticulous collection of must-haves that requires a user to remember a username, a password, and other account-associated data for each of those services. Moreover, the user must keep track of campaigns and activities on each one of the services. This rigmarole is counterproductive, and cancels all of Internet's time-saving advantages. A great solution to online marketing is pay per click marketing. I see that one such solution is found at www.networksolutions.com. Small businesses receive more than a one-stop website promotion service at Networksolutions. They research keywords, analyze user's website, create ads, purchase keywords and offer an drill-down report on any campaign. There are two affordable, fully-managed PPC advertising plans, tailored to user's needs. There are options that include customized landing pages and business ads targeted for user's locale. Their Fully Managed Custom Plans features Custom Landing Pages service, by maximizing the ad message in a PPC ad. Customized landing pages are known to increase conversions for a better ROI. The Full Service feature provides keyword research, web site analysis, ad copy creation, keyword buys, and campaign reporting. Budget Control uses bidding for keywords based on a pre-determined budget to help control ad costs. An advertiser can easily

• Set monthly or quarterly budget starting at $400 per month.
• Get daily monitoring of the campaign by a dedicated search expert
• Get advanced analytics with on-demand reports to explain the campaign results

Pre-Packaged Starter Plans feature, among others, Local Business ads. They get greater exposure in local searches. Regional ads display your business address, phone, and driving directions. This is great for for businesses, such as restaurants, with a large local customer base. Enhanced Reporting & Analysis pores over and monitors the PPC campaign results and site stats. Expert Campaign Management feature has highly trained and certified search engine advertising experts work closely with an advertiser to ensure that the PPC campaigns succeed from start to finish. Pay Per Phone Call® really get one's attention - phone leads are driven to the advertiser by adding the Pay Per Phone Call option to the Performance Clicks - Maximized plan. This type of a comprehensive service makes it obvious that the best solution for an advertiser is to call the NetworkSolutions at 866-472-8665.

Allied Security Trust comes out with the latest patent policy scam

Newswires report that a group of big high tech companies have combined some of their monies to buy up patents that "tr-lls" might assert against them. Yet another patent policy scam to avoid addressing the real issue - incompetent PTO management that allows too many crappy patents to issue. Some of the companies in the combination, the Allied Security Trust, include Verizon, Google, Cisco, Ericsson, HP and others. Companies will have to pay $250,000 to join, and ante up $5,000,000 for an escrow account to be available to buy up patents. Why is this a complete joke? First, this anti-tr-ll scam has as a chief executive office Brian Hinman, former VP of IP for the biggest and first patent tr-ll, IBM. Since IBM created most of the tr-ll tactics being used, I suppose Himan is in a good position to recognize and fight such tactics. Let's face it folks - this whole tr-ll scare is the patent world version of swiftboating, drenched in tons of hypocrisy spewed by tr-lls themselves. I mean, if Google wants to help the patent system a bit, it will immediately stop wasting the time of the Patent Office, drop all appeals related to its 1-click patent, and dedicated the patent application to the public. Otherwise, Google should shut the frk up about obnoxious players in the patent world. Second, this defensive tactical move is probably too late, given that the big tr-lls bought up a lot of patents before anti-tr-llism became popular, and that the tr-ll companies bought a lot of the higher hanging fruit. I ask, what's left to be bought that is obnoxiouslly assertable? Companies like Acacia have had enough time and enough money to sweep through the issued patents to find crap to assert. Anything left can be laughed out of court. Third, and most importantly, the only legitimate complaint is when people assert crappy patents that should have never issued in the first place. If you have a really good patent, one searched well, I say sue everyone you can find. If these companies, and others, didn't know about your technology, that's their fault for not taking the patent system seriously, which includes monitoring patents in your field of technology. The high tech companies are the biggest bunch of whining crybagies I know of in the patent world, as compared to the pharma companies, which for decades have had mature patent monitoring programs. The high-tech industry, thinking itself above the mechanics of the patent system, refuse to do any of this, and then whine when hit by a crappy patent. So the real problem is people wrongly and unethically asserting crappy patents. But what are the companies in this Allied Security Trust, or the Coalition for Patent Fairness, doing to help fight the issuance of crappy patents? Are they: - submitting less of their own crappy patent applications to the PTO (hey Google, drop your 1-click appeals), so the PTO has a lesser workload and more time to issue higher quality patents? NO - organizing prior art in their respective fields of technology, to use themselves, plus make available to the Patent Office, to help lessen the level of crap being issued by the PTO? NO - are they using the political clout to get Congress to investigate and clean up incompetence and corruption in PTO management? NO - are they pooling their monies together to develop software tools to analyze patents that they can use themselves and donate to the PTO to help lessen the level of crap being issued? NO - are they using their clout to fight the unconstitutionality and excessive costs of Markman hearings - (a specification is not fully enabled under 112 if you need a friggin claims construction done after the defendant has been sued)? NO So much like the Software Patent Institute, the Public Patent Peer review initiative, various PTO-business partnerships, the Public Patent Advisory Committee - this new Allied Security Trust is another patent policy scam that will do nothing to change things and once again deflect attention and resources from the real problems plaguing the patent system.

Specification stylistics

For example, in the technical description,. i.e., the specification section of the appication, the discussion of the drawings must be introduced by this legalistic sentence:

...the accompanying drawing in which like reference numerals refer to like parts throughout the figures of the drawing

The language must be definite, the following are too nebulous to enable any claims that follow the section:

would... may... it ...It is then possible... can...

Pronouns must be decidedly avoided: it, them

The claims section is so serious that pronouns are never used therein.

The present tense is the king:

“surface to be free of at least…” should be “enabling at least … to be removed”

“can be” should be “is”

“capability” is rewritten as “structural characteristic”

“with” is too amaturish, weak, nebulously fuzzy (in parallel, or including, internal to?) the thought idea related as “containing”

Thus: no such verbiage as would, could, may, possible, can, will

No pronouns it, its, them, this

"It is" always means something that can be expressed more clearly.