Finally, examiner decides on patentablility of invention based on information found during novelty search. Assuming examiner is eventually satisfied that patent claims are narrow enough to distinguish it from "prior art," and inventor is satisfied that claims are still broad enough to have value, patent will then be issued.

Patent law does allow an inventor to "act for himself" in obtaining a patent, meaning inventor can do everything himself. However, without some prior experience or some legal training there is danger of applying for protection that is so broad that your patent is never issued, or is so specific that your invention is not fully protected.

Invention Development Organizations (IDOs) are private and public consulting and marketing businesses that have come into existence to help inventors bring their products to market, or to otherwise profit from their ideas. While many of these organizations are legitimate, some are not. Be extremely wary of any IDO that is willing to promote your invention or product without making a detailed inquiry into merits of your idea and giving you a full range of options which you may pursue.

To fully protect your creative works and your potential profits, you should always consider obtaining services of a competent and reliable patent attorney. While costs may appear expensive, protection offered by a U.S. patent for a commercially valuable invention more than justifies cost.

Even after your patent has been granted, you may still require professional patent assistance. Patent professionals can monitor marketplace for inventors (or copycats) who are infringing on your ideas. The strongest patent in world is worthless if you do not ensure that it is being enforced.

Mona Charen continues, “In 1949, Court declared that retribution was ‘no longer dominant objective of criminal law.’ With naïve optimism, it declared that goal of incarceration would henceforth be ‘reformation and rehabilitation.’”

In 1961 in Mapp v. Ohio, US Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained without a warrant could not be used in state criminal trials—the birth of exclusionary rule. The exclusionary rule has done more to damage innocent and reward criminally charged than any other court ruling in past 40 years. Mona points out, and I agree whole heartedly—why not just punish rogue police officer for abusing system instead of punishing society by enacting an exclusionary rule? Why do good people have to suffer at hands of a few rogue police tactics, and “knee-jerk” Court rulings while rewarding criminal by releasing him on technicalities—the fruit of poisoned tree? Such is way of “over reacting.”

Charen writes, “There is no question that a liberal approach to crime—leniency in sentencing, greater procedural protections for accused, rationalizations (poverty, rage, or frustration) for criminal conduct, and a tendency to blame society rather than perpetrator for criminal acts—created a climate in 1960s and 1970s that helped to boost crime rate. Other liberal initiatives and ideas further weakened restraints on lawlessness: decline of family, welfare dependency, and overall withdrawal of respect for authority.” It’s true that middle class can move out of bad neighborhoods but very poor are stuck to bear burden of criminal victimization. The poor have to rely on police (who are held subject to search and seizure restrictions of Fourth Amendment) and court systems to rescue them and keep them safe. Have you ever had to rely on overly burdened court system for justice?

More on this later…Pastor T.dash…Keep faith. Stay course. Jesus alone is perfect justice.