To patent, or not to patent. . .

For most of us on the Western Slope, the topic of patents is pretty dull.

Yet, from the iPhone to e-cigarettes; aspirin to airplanes, all these great inventions we love and loath are the product of inventors, innovators, and entrepreneurs, who, in exchange for sharing the technology with the public, are granted a monopoly (patent) over the invention for a limited number of years, usually twenty.

Patents allow inventors to recoup the cost of research and development and to be able to make a profit from their hard work. Strong patents rights also have a consumer benefit. When competitors are blocked from copying and flooding the market with cheap knock-offs, it means real innovation has to occur in order to avoid infringement. If a copycat is merely tweaking, society’s knowledge base isn’t being expanded.

US Supreme Court hear 90 minutes of arguments in
Oil States v. Greene on Nov. 27, 2017. Matt Soper photo.

On Monday, Nov. 27th, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Oil States Energy v. Greene's Energy, a case which could drastically change whether an inventor opts to patent new technology, or, like the Coca-Cola recipe, keep it as a trade secret.

The legal question is fairly simple: whether patents are property rights, like land or cars, or whether they are public rights, similar to a marriage licence, driver’s licence, or licence to practice medicine.

If patents are held to be property rights, then only a Federal Court has the power to take that property away from its owner. If the Supreme Court decides patents are akin to licences, then the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (PTO), as an administrative agency, may invalidate the patent at any time after its been issued.

Let’s say you have spent thousands of dollars and hours researching and developing an invention, then several thousands more in attorney and PTO fees, and then, after a cumbersome multi-year process of examination against prior art, the PTO finally issues you a patent. With this patent you build a business and hopefully are successful. At this point in time, you aren’t going to take too kindly to the Patent Trial and Appeals Board within the PTO accepting a petition to review the validity of your patent, especially since the Board doesn’t afford parties the same due process and procedural protections as courts.

The America Invents Act 2011, among other reforms, created the Inter Partes Review (IPR) process for administratively reviewing the validity of issued patents.

Congress created IPR on the presumption that the PTO had issued too many bad or weak patents over the years. Patent trolls take these “bad patents” and assert frivolous lawsuits with the goal of scaring the end user into a settlement. IPR was designed to make challenging bad patents cheaper and faster. However, as of Jan. 2018, it will cost a petitioner $30,500 to initiate an IPR and the patent owner will spend at least $300,000 defending the patent.

Instead of juries determining whether a patent was nonobvious or novel, Congress moved this determining process to the PTO – an executive agency. Such a change also meant patents were no longer treated as property and presumed valid, unless proven otherwise, but instead, IPR treats issued patents as if they are still in the application process.

Currently, roughly 75% of patents subjected to the IPR process are declared invalid. The losing party may appeal to the D.C.-based Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). However, CAFC has only reversed 10% of the PTO’s IPR decisions.

The Court's liberal justices appeared to voiced support for IPR. Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted during oral arguments that the ability to appeal “saved” the IPR system.

Colorado’s-own Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned the fairness of a system that could allow a government agency to take property after it had been granted.

Conservatives on the Court seemed concerned about the government’s ability to void patents too easily.

The fact that an overwhelming majority of patents subjected to IPR are revoked and CAFC acts as a rubber stamp for the PTO means small businesses and micro inventors are discouraged from pursuing and developing patented technology.

This author believes issued patents are vested rights that should only be taken away through a court of law and not via an administrative board.

A decision is expected in June 2018.

* Matt Soper, a legal scholar, is a CMU alumnus and resident of Delta, Colo. He holds law degrees from the Universities of Edinburgh and New Hampshire. Contact him at matt.soper@alumni.law.unh.edu. 

_________________________________

Matthew Soper, "To patent, or not to patent." Grand Junction Daily Sentinel (Dec. 3, 2017) p. B5.

Unified Patent Court question illustrates complexity of Brexit, Europe & the EU

Rare are the times that intellectual property questions sneak into the conversation of a major Brookings Institution, who were discussing, “Europe and the U.S.: The old order faces a new world,” in front of a live audience and the nation, via C-SPAN, were hit with a very specific, “in the weeds” type question from one audience member. “When can we expect to see the [European] Uniform Patent Court treaty ratified and why is Germany holding up the process?” The panel of experts made a good faith attempt at an answer, but admitted their knowledge in this particular area was limited. After the question was addressed, a sea of diplomats, lawyers, academics, and scholars in the audience could be seen googling “Uniform Patent Court.”

European Patent 0080627B1
Opening & closing for retractable fountain pen nib
25 Feb. 1987 European Patent Office

Washington think tank. Experts at the

The UPC may not be sexy like Brexit, Russia, or China in terms of US – European wonk talk, but the entangled mess is worthy of analysis, because it is directly related to Brexit, domestic state parochialism, harmonization of patents, and a developing a more integrated EU.

In June 2017, a complaint was submitted to Germany’s Constitutional Court, asking the court for an einstweilige Anordnung, to temporarily enjoin the ratification of the German Unified Patent Court Agreement Act. At the request of the court, the Office of the Federal President agreed to suspend the ratification process until a decision on the merits has been rendered by the court.

The complaint was submitted by Düsseldorf IP lawyer Ingve Björn Stjerna, and alleges a violation of the right to democracy, "democratic deficits and deficits in rule of law with regard to the regulatory powers of the organs of the UPC", "perceived lack of an independent judiciary under the UPC", and non-conformance of the UPC with EU law.

At the end of August 2017, the Federal Constitutional Court “invited the German Government, the German Bar Association and the European Patent Lawyers' Association to provide observations in response,” according to Lexology.

As of 15 September 2017, there is still no indication on a timeline for resolving the stay of ratification. Germany is an essential element for the UPC to come into force, as the treaty requires at least 13 EU states ratify the UPC under their domestic constitutional framework, plus the three largest patent filing states at the time of adoption. Those three states, as of 19 February 2013, were France, Germany, and the UK.

Courts for resolving patent disputes will be in France, Germany, and the UK, along with regional courts in other states. The registry and court of appeals will be located in Luxembourg.

In contrast to Germany, the UK did ratify acts which pave the way for the UPC to come into force, however, in navigating its exit from the EU, the UK has to make the case that the Unified Patent Court is the product of an independent treaty and not an EU institution. According to BNA, the May Government has said Brexit will end the Court of Justice of the European Union’s “direct legal authority” over the UK. On 23 August 2017, the UK government released a position paper which emphasised that parties to international treaties commonly agree to submit disputes to a non-state court.

The future of the European Patent Court is an analogy for the future of Europe; a complex web of rules, state sovereignty, Brexit, pressure from international business, and a general lack of leadership to define a future and pursue it. The experts at Brookings should rest assured that the question they were posed is one that even constitutional judges in Germany are having a difficult time answering. 

Legal Perspective: Does repealing ACA violate International law?

UN Headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland.
2017/UN photo

Through the journalism of Dana Milbank, in a recent Washington Post column, the world became aware of a secret memo sent from the UN to the US which declared the provisions of the Affordable Care Act to be protected under international law and that repeal would violate US commitments under international agreements.

The argument is based on a 2 February 2017, five-page, confidential memo sent from the Office of the UN High Commissioner on Human Right in Geneva to the US Department of State in Washington, DC. The memo expresses “serious concerns” about the prospective loss of health insurance coverage for nearly 30 million Americans. The memo goes on to urge the US Government to take “all necessary interim measures [. . .] to prevent the alleged violations”. As if the Commission’s memo wasn’t clear enough, there is a bold threat that if the “allegations” of loss of health coverage are proved accurate, then the person(s) responsible for failing to prevent said loss are guaranteed to be held accountable.

The memo was written by Dr Dainius Puras, Special Rapporteur on the Right of Everyone to the Enjoyment of the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health, cites three specific areas of treaty law as grounds for why repealing the ACA would constitute a violation of public international law.

First is that Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights “establishes everyone’s right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being, including food, medical care and necessary social services.”

Next, Dr Puras cites Article 5(e) of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, ratified by the United States in 1994, calls on states to “guarantee the right of everyone,” including “the rights to public health, medical care, social security and social services” without regard to race or color.

Lastly, Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, under which states have “the core obligation to ensure the right of access to health facilities, goods and services on a non-discriminatory basis, especially for vulnerable or marginalized groups.” The agreement was signed but not ratified by the US, which is still “obliged to refrain from acts that would defeat the covenant’s object or purpose, in conformity with Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.”

When I worked in the diplomatic world, I was taught that the epithet “serious concerns” is kind of like saying “we are so f—ng angry right now that we are ready to fly in a start shooting someone!!” Couple this language with the bold threat of “guarantee the accountability of any person responsible” for the loss of health coverage and now you have a complete cease and desist demand with scathing undertones.

Making demands and threats is not good diplomacy. The UN, through the said declaration, convention, and covenant, has reiterated that the aspirational standard of living includes not only includes food and shelter, but access to medical care and social security and other social services. This is agreeable, but it is a long stretch to say health care is a universal human right.

UN Council on Human Rights Chamber.
2017/UN photo.

What are human rights? According to the UN Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, “Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination.”

The principle of universal rights was first emphasized in the 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which lists free speech, freedom from fear and want, and the freedom to rebel against tyranny and oppression if freedoms are not protected by rule of law as values recognized the by the international community. Other core values listed are the dignity and worth of the individual human life, equality between men and women, and the promotion of better standards of life.

Within the Declaration are listed the articles, which resemble the US’ Bill of Rights and a few later amendments. They include right to due process under law, right of a speedy and fair trial, prohibition on slavery, prohibition against torture and inhuman punishment, right of privacy, right to have a nationality, right to flee persecution and seek asylum, right to movement, right to marry and have a family life, right to own property, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of expression and opinion, right to assemble and associate, right to work and seek employment, et cetera.  

In addressing Dr Puras’ Article 25 Human Rights claim, he stopped shy of reading the entire clause, which indicates that “right of a standard of living adequate for health and well-being” can mean many clean air, pure water, transparency about what is in food and drugs, adequate law enforcement, etc. However, the clause goes on to read that the right to adequate food, clothing, housing, medical care, social security in the event of circumstances beyond the individual’s control, such as disability, widowhood, old age, or sickness.

It is pretty safe to say that the Declaration on Human Rights may be broadly interpreted to suit a person’s needs, falls short in declaring universal affordable health insurance a human right. The Declaration makes clear an obligation on nations to take care of citizens who have fallen through the cracks – the disabled, sick, old, and widowed. The connecting factor between these groups is that they cannot contribute to the economic output of a nation.

Dr Puras’ memo fails to consider the notion that repealing the ACA might actually make health insurance in American more affordable and more accessible. There would have to be some tweaks to the law, but certainly allowing consumers to buy across state lines and to allow insurers to offer a la carte plans would reduce the cost.

Considering healthcare costs for the US are three times the OECD average currently (OECD health statistics 2016), the idea of affordable healthcare being only tied to insurance premiums is absurd economics.

The average self-employed Colorado family with a special needs child could expect to pay in 2016 around $50,000 in health insurance premiums. According to the US Census ACS survey, the 2015 real median household income in Colorado was just under $64,000. Assuming that family pays 20% in taxes, that leaves about $1,000 (after health insurance) for rent/mortgage, food, water, clothing, transportation, leisure activities, etc.

According to the Economist, Americans in the lowest 20% of income are 15.5% better off, whereas all other income decile are worse off by 0.3-1.1%. It seems tough to put a number to Americans being worse or better under the ACA, as there are many moving parts, such as Medicaid Expansion, which would have most certainly helped the lowest 20%.

The Economist also reported that in the first quarter of 2017, American household income reached its highest level since the 2007-08 Financial Crisis began. Considering the ACA was signed into law by Pres Obama on 23 March 2010, it is hard to say how much improvement, if any, the law made since American’s earnings ratcheted down and health care and education costs began raising prices astronomically.

Recently I visited Connect for Health Colorado, Colorado’s health insurance marketplace, after plugging in my age, and a few key health stats (note, under the ACA you cannot be turned down for a pre-existing condition, but your premium can increase) and the lowest monthly quote I received was $750! Multiplied by 12 to see a full year’s cost and the number is $9,000! In 2016-17, the penalty for not having health insurance is 2.5 percent of income or $695, whichever is greater. Economically speaking, it is cheaper to pay the penalty, and then quickly enroll in an exchange plan if my health takes a dramatic turn for the worse.

Dr Puras then uses the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination as grounds that repealing the ACA would unjustly discriminate against some people. Having the ACA in place unjustly discriminates against the middle class and the way the ACA targets self-employed persons is particularly disturbing. Assuming Medicaid Expansion stays in place, it is a tough argument to say that repealing the ACA is discriminatory.

The last part of Dr Puras’ legal authority is the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which the US signed, but has not ratified, thus its bindingness is persuasive only. The key argument is over “access to health facilities.” In the US, if you are injured or in need of medical attention, you will receive it at the nearest hospital, with top facilities, highly skilled doctors and nurses, and never will you be discriminated against on the basis of race, economic status, lack of health insurance, religion, sex, gender, political persuasion, et al. The reason is the adherence to the Hippocratic Oath, which is a core principle in American medicine and treatment. If you are unable to pay, the local government will pick up the tab, with reimbursements coming from the state level. This is not the preferred way of doing business and the medical provider will want to work out a payment plan, but at no point in time was access to health facilities denied before or after the ACA.

Under UN General Assembly Resolution A/67/L.36 (6 Dec 2012), affordable universal healthcare became part of the UN's Post-Millennium Development Goals. The resolution is a way to hold member states accountable if they fail to comply. The Commission on Human Rights is charged with overseeing compliance, since spending on healthcare is treated as a fundamental human right. Poorer states may rely on foreign states for financial assistance.

A major problem with basing interpretation and authority on UN General Assembly resolutions is that the United Nations doesn’t consider UNGA resolutions to be legally binding.

Further, United States courts traditionally have not considered UNGA resolutions to be authoritative sources of international law, unless the resolution merely restates legal principles that could be verified by reference to recognised sources such as customary international law, treaties, and judicial decisions.

Even as some US courts are more receptive now days to UNGA resolutions, there is a danger here, as many UNGA resolutions contradict treaties, other resolutions, member state’s constitutions, and member state’s domestic law.

Quick example: UNGA Resolutions 339 A and B - Delegations voted in favour of both resolutions which called for maintaining a UN Command on the North/South Korean border and dissolving the UN Command and remove all foreign troops from South Korea.

Only 58 out of 200+/- nations have a form of affordable universal health care hardly constitutes sufficient state practice to establish customary international law (other element required is opinion juris, which is the belief that practice is legally obliged).

Even if affordable health care is deemed a right under treaty or convention, enforcement will be a problem.

It seems that if the UN is so concerned about the domestic affairs of nations, they should fund and provide the services they are desirous of compelling.

At a time when nations are ever more sceptical of large International organisations, perhaps flaming the dissatisfaction is inimical diplomacy.

Washington, DC Area Restaurant Guide

As I have spent more and more time inside the Beltway, friends keep asking me where is a good place to  eat. The following list are places I have eaten at and would recommend. I have added links to Yelp so that you can read the reviews of others. The asterisk denote places that are personal favourites.

Vietnamese:

·         Huong Viet (Seven Corners)*

·         Four Sisters

·         Pho 75 (Rosslyn-Arlington)*

Chinese:

Ø  Dim Sum:

o   Fortune (Seven Corners)*

o   Mark’s Duck House (Seven Corners)

Ø  Hot Pot:

o   Hot Spot (Fairfax)*

Ø  Classic Chinese:

o   China Garden (Rosslyn)*

Taiwanese:

·         TNR (Courthouse-Arlington)*

·         A&J (Annandale)

Korean:

·         Yechon (Annandale) – open 24/7

·         Breeze Bakery Café (Annandale)* – next to Yechon, it is an Asian café.

·         Lighthouse Tofu (Annandale)*

French:

·         Bistro du Coin (DuPont)*

·         LeRefuge (Old Town-Alexandria)

·         Paul Café (Navy Memorial-Archives)*

Germany:

·         Old Europe (Embassy Row-Naval Observatory)*

·         Mozart Café (McPherson Sq-downtown-DC)

Japanese:

·         Momo (Old Town-Alexandria)

·         Ichiban (King St-Alexandria)

·         Daikaya (China Town-DC)

American:

·         Old Ebbitts (White House) – oldest restaurant in DC – Lincoln ate here.

·         The Hamilton (White House)* – fusion style, includes sushi bar – a favourite of Mrs Obama.

·         Virtue Feed and Grain (Old Town-waterfront-Alexandria)*

·         Gadsby’s Tavern (Old Town-Alexandria) – historic tavern frequented by George Washington and other founders.

·         Oval Room (White House)

Italian:

·         Vapiano (Chinatown)*

·         Vapiano (DuPont-White House)

·         Pupatella (Balston-Arlington)*

Moroccan:

·         Fettoosh (Balston-Arlington)*

Middle East-Afghan-Pakistani:

·         Kabob Palace (Crystal City-Arlington)*

Ethiopian:

·         Hawwi Ethiopian Café (Alexandria)*

·         Keren Restaurant (north-DuPont)

Mexican-El Salvadorian:

·         Guajillo (Rosslyn-Arlington)*

·         Mexicali Blues (Clarendon-Arlington)*

·         Boccato Gelato & Espresso (Clarendon-Arlington)* – Latin American café famous for empanadas, exotic gelato flavours, & espressos.

Pub / Taverns:

·         Churchkey (Logan Cir-DC)* - largest collection of beers in eastern seaboard.

·         Elephant & Castle (Farragut West-White House)* - where the British University clubs meet from time to time.

·         Jack Rose Saloon (Adams Morgan) – famous whisky collection.

Civil War Sesquicentennial: Ira Howard & the 50th New York Engineers

Priv. Ira Howard, Co E, 50th NY Eng.

Days away from Ira Howard’s 14th birthday, news of the first shots fired at Fort Sumter flooded the newspapers in the small town of Maine, New York. April 12, 1861 saw the beginnings of war, from what had previously been politically divisive national debate. By December 1861 at least six of Ira’s cousins had enlisted in the military. Two of them would not return home alive. By 1864, the Howard family would supply three more soldiers for the war effort, including Ira, who lied about his age to join.

Maine is a town about the size of Orchard City, a few miles north of Binghamton in New York’s central region and was part of a 230,000 acre land deal, in which a group of 60 investors from Berkshire County, Massachusetts made in 1787, commonly referred to as the “Boston Purchase” or the “Boston Ten Townships.”

It was Ira’s great-uncle, Nathan Howard III, who became the patriarch of the family when Nathan Howard II and his second-wife Sarah died of small pox in the spring of 1777 in New London, Connecticut. At the time, Ira’s grandfather, at age five, was nearly the same age as Nathan III’s children. The following year, the Howards moved to Berkshire County, Massachusetts. Nathan used his inheritance to invest in the “Boston Purchase” and in 1790 the Howards moved to Union, New York. Perhaps the New York move was inspired by war stories of Nathan Howard II’s military service in Capt. Coit’s Co. during the French and Indian War of 1757, or perhaps new opportunities in the expanding “American West.”

On 28 March 1806, Broome County was formed, set-off from Tioga County, and named in honour of then-New York Lt. Gov. John Broome. Initially Broome County contained three towns – Chenango, Lisle, and Union. Other towns were established from a part of the initial towns, such as Maine, which was formed from Union in March 1848.

President-Elect Abraham Lincoln
Photo courtesy Library of Congress

President-Elect Abraham Lincoln’s train stopped in Syracuse and Utica, New York on Monday, February 18, 1861 and it is known that several hundred folks from Broome County made the 70 mile journey to see and hear the soon-to-be president on his way to Washington, DC.

The region in and around Binghamton boasted a population of over 30,000 from the mid-1850s onwards. When the railroad reached Broome County in the spring of 1851, some of the first passengers included President Millard Fillmore and statesman Daniel Webster. By 1837 the Chenango Canal connected Utica and Binghamton, which provided an important link between the Erie Canal and the Susquehanna River. This canal system meant a boat could traverse from the Great Lakes to the Hudson River and New York City.

Quickly ranching and farming became the support industries for manufacturing and processing. By the time the Civil War began, Binghamton was home to the nation’s largest cigar manufacturing facility, a famed tannery and shoe industry, along with a timber industry that supported carriage making and construction. Ira’s fourth cousins, Barzilla and Morgan Howard, owned and operated a sawmill and rake factory in Union during the war. Ira’s uncle, James Howard built stores and homes, including the Pitkin Store which is still standing in Union Center. Three of James’ sons served in the war, the middle son, Asa, died of “lung fever” in an army field hospital at Falmouth, during the 1862 Fredericksburg’s Campaign. Ira’s father, Henry Channing Howard, was a farmer.

At age 16, Ira attempted to enlist in the army. The recruiter told Ira he was too young, and then a superior, who overheard the conversation, said, “You should take him, and then we’d have a whole company of Howards.” On the Declaration of Recruit, Ira’s father placed an “x” under the section entitled “Consent in Case of a Minor.” On February 16th, 1864, Ira had mustered in as a private in Company E of the 50th New York Volunteer Engineer Regiment.

Pontoon wagon 1864. Photo curtsey Library of Congress.

The 50th New York Engineers had already built a distinction during the war as the “bridge builders.” Their fame was enshrined in history when they became the first ever “combat engineers” during the Battle of Fredericksburg in 1862.

On the morning of December 11, 1862, as the fog cleared along the Rappahannock River, the 50th NY Engineers were assigned to build a pontoon bridge over to Fredericksburg so the Federal infantry could capture the city. Captain James McDonald was ordered to lead the building of the bridge. Before two-thirds of the bridge was built, Confederate snipers and sharpshooters hiding in the city buildings on the heights above the river began picking off the engineers one-by-one. Like the Army Rangers at Pointe du Hoc during D-Day, as one of the 50th would be killed, another would take his stead to move another segment of the bridge in place.

Watching 60 engineers die in less than an hour, Gen. Ambrose Burnside decided killing off his entire

battalion of engineers may not be the smartest move. The orders were given to have the artillery batteries of the 89th NY Infantry bombard the area where the Confederate sharpshooters were hiding, then have the engineers run 100 yards over open water to complete the final third of the bridge. This plan failed too, as friendly fire from the cannons killed off more engineers.

The 50th’s arch rivals, the 15th NY Engineers were called up from reserve, as the battalion assigned to Gen. Burnside had now been decimated. The 7th Michigan was called in to help secure the pontoon in what became history’s first ever “bridgehead landing secured under fire.”

On March 24, 1864 Ira joined the roll of Co. E, which already included cousins: Lt. Amos, Priv. Darwin, along with Priv. Edgar, Priv. Edwin, Corp. Jeremiah, and Serg. Joseph, Corp. Orrin, Corp. Charles, and Priv. Levi. It practically was an entire company of Howards in the 50th NY Engineers!

The majority of the engineers died from diseases, rather than enemy bullets. Levi Howard died of Diphtheria in the regiment’s Washington, DC hospital on April 28, 1864. Charles Howard chose not to re-enlist and returned home in September 1864. By the time Ira joined, many of the engineers’ three year contracts were expiring and rampant diseases, poor nutrition, and other realities made re-upping not as romantic as joining in the first place.

Pontoon bridge constructed by the 50th NY Engineers at
Petersburg, Virginia. Photo curtsey Library of Congress.

On April 9, 1864, Lt. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant reviewed the troops. Gen. Winfield Scott Hancock had the 50th NY Engineers placed to his right, as he was most impressed with the regiment’s training, discipline, and diligence. Gen. Grant reviewed the troops again on April 21st, only on this occasion Ira was sick in the Engineer Brigade Hospital with fever and diarrhea. Being practical, Col. William Pettes, who succeeded Col. Charles Stuart as regiment commander, placed Ira in charge of ambulances. During the 1864 Campaign, Pettes was based out of the Engineer’s Depot at the Navy Yard in Washington, DC. The Brigade Hospital was also located at the Navy Yard.

On May 20th, 1864, Ira re-joined his company at the camp at Dunkirk, Virginia. The 50th had been broken down into four battalions, each with three companies. Each battalion was assigned to a corps of the Army of the Potomac. The battalions each carried a full pontoon train of 50 wagons. The speed and efficiency of the 50th NY Engineers was so good that a bridge could be thrown-up in less than two hours. The Confederates knew the speed in which the Federal Army could travel was directly attributed to the engineers’ ability to build bridges, clear roads and railroads, operate ferries, and keep the telegraph lines open to Washington, DC.  Confederates would often try and target the engineers as a means of slowing down the entire Union Army.

Sometime in late July 1864, Ira was treated in a field hospital near City Point, Virginia. Ira was unconscious with a severe fever, which seemed to be a relapse of the earlier illness. From the field hospital, Ira was sent back to the Regimental Hospital in Washington, DC. During his time in the hospital, Ira was visited by President Abraham Lincoln, who would take time every week to visit the sick and wounded.

Ira & Anna Howard, circa 1890.

Eighteen canvass pontoon boats could bridge 400 feet of river, and required 42 wagons in the train and 252 mules to haul. Two companies of men would have managed such a train. These bridges were the keys to capturing Richmond and moving over 100,000 soldiers and supplies all around Virginia.

In October 1864, Ira recovered from his illness enough to be sent from Washington, back down to Virginia and remained with his company until the entire regiment was discharged at Fort Barry, Virginia on June 13, 1865. Ira would continue to suffer from dyspepsia and disease of the liver, of which a disability and pension was granted by the US Government in 1882.

After the war, Ira returned home to Maine, New York, married Anna Dunham in 1872, then headed west in November 1887, settling in Monte Vista, Colorado. It is not known why the Howards left New York, nor why only a few relations remained in New York, but perhaps it was the same sense of opportunity that brought so many pioneers to Colorado.

In 1911, the Howards moved to Read, and have remained in Delta County ever since. Ira passed away on November 23, 1931 and is interned in the Delta City Cemetery.

Howards at home in Read, Colorado. Ira Howard is on the far left. c. late 1920s.

As this final year of the sesquicentennial of the Civil War, it is important to recognize the veterans whose courage not only led them to serve their nation, but to venture West in pursuit of a better life. 

_______________________________________
M. Soper, "One of Delta County's Civil War Connections: Ira Howard." Delta County Historical Society, Quarterly Newsletter. Issue 82 (Apr.-Jun. 2015) p.4-7.

The fountain pen: will written words exist in the future?

In honour of America's National Handwriting Day, I penned this essay for the competition sponsored by Farhrney's Pens in Washington, DC.

As technology evolves and the digital era engulfs traditional forms of communication, handwritten letters, cards, and notes will carry greater weight in the eyes of the recipient. When was the last time you received a personal letter, written in cursive, with the ebb and flow that only a fountain pen can produce? I prefer such personal notes, as girlfriends, family, and clients understand you took the time to write a few words in your own hand.

On a recent snowy day in Washington, DC, I discovered Fahrney´s Pens for the first time and purchased a beautiful Pelikan fountain pen. I prefer fountain pens, as I feel a strong connection between idea and expression of that idea on the paper. As a student, I was unique in that I wrote in cursive. Few of my fellow students took handwritten notes and most typed on their laptops. The exercise of writing served to strength my memory of what the professor lectured about. Typing can be rather soporific, whereas writing requires a modicum of attentiveness.

Recently I rediscovered a weather journal kept by my great-great-great grandfather when he was living in New York in 1835. The pen strokes memorialized on several dozen pages instantly connected me to another era. As handwritten messages become rarer in our society, the letters that are saved will instantly have great sentimental value to future generations.

Fahrney’s will continue to play a vital role in sustaining quality pens to a new era of stylist aficionados. As we write less, the quality of our writing instrument becomes more important. Being in my 20s, it is rare to see colleagues write with fountain pens. I feel enlightened when I write and the ability to reflect on words that are truly mine is something only experienced by individuals with the sole of an artist.

The fountain pen will be a force as long as there are people who view letters as art. As the ink flows, creating sentences and paragraphs, one cannot help but see two beauties – visual and literary. 

Murder rate way down, unsolved murder rate way up*

As unbelievable as Hadiya Pendleton’s ruthless murder, less than a mile from President Obama’s home in Chicago, is the reality that only 66% of those who murder are ever brought to justice. Pendleton’s murderer continues to remains at-large.

Marred by the mass-shootings of 2012 was America’s statistical achievement of seeing the lowest murder rate in the past 50 years. Hidden by the smoke of the gun debate is the disturbing reality that unsolved murders are nearing an all-time high.

Pendleton was murdered a mile from Pres Obama's home.

In 2011, according to the US Department of Justice, the murder rate was 4.8 per 100,000 people, which is contrasted to the 1980 high-water-mark of 10.2 per 100,000. It is estimated that after non-culpable homicide cases for 2012 are wound-up, the statistic will be around 4.6 – the rate hit back in 1963.

When graphed on a chart, the national murder rate looks like a bell-curve, with murders steadily increasing from 1960 to 1980 and then decreasing ever since. The lowest murder rate during the past 100-years was in 1957 – there were 4.0 per 100,000. If society does nothing, the projection is such that the US will near the 4.0 mark in a few years.

Vice President Joe Biden, outlined nine proposals for reducing homicides, which include: requiring background checks for all gun sales, banning assault weapons, limiting ammunition magazines to ten rounds, providing tax dollars for gun violence research, school emergency preparedness, and mental health coverage. Each recommendation noted that ‘no single law, or even a set of laws, can prevent an act of violence.’ Yet none focus on apprehending perpetrators.

The US has serious problems, for example, from 2011 to 2012 murders in Chicago increased by 38% to a devastating 506. Pendleton’s murder marks number 42 for 2013. By contrast, 418 people were murdered in New York City last year and seven so far have been murdered in 2013.

According to the UNODC, every US Territory, over the past decade, has seen a general increase in murders. Puerto Rico has the highest murder rate at 26.2 per 100,000 people. A record breaking 1,136 murders occurred in 2011 alone. Yet, Puerto Rico boasts twice as many police officers per capita as any US state.

Shockingly, only 25% of the murders in Puerto Rico result in the police apprehending the culprit. This was the case in New Orleans in 2010. Last year, homicide investigators improved this number to 39%, and were able to reduce murders by 3%. It is unfathomable that over half of the 193 murders during 2012 resulted in an accused being brought before the courts.

From 1980 to 2008 nearly 185,000 homicides went unsolved in the US, according to a Scripps Howard News Service study. Some cities, like New Orleans, have low murder clearance rates. Meaning the police were able to present the court with an accused. Others, like Washington, DC, have nearly doubled their success rate to a laudable 96%. Nearly 6,000 homicides go unsolved every year in the US. A national average of 66% is unacceptable.

While the Biden working group and the emotions of the nation cling to media images of recent shootings, a larger problem is law enforcement’s inability to bring more suspects before the courts.

If America truly cares about justice for victims’ families, society needs to invest resources to bring perpetrators to justice. Sophisticated investigating techniques and the quashing of minor criminal offences that are working in Washington, DC and New York City should be used to help municipalities like Chicago and New Orleans and territories like Puerto Rico.

When does society begin the conversation of addressing low murder clearance rates? Society needs to move beyond looking at the sensationalizing effect of recent mass shootings and see the big picture.

The US murder rate is at a 50 year low and dropping, despite recent outliers in the data. Concern, which should be sounding alarms, is the low national average of solving these murders.

To quote former President Bill Clinton, “There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America.” The US has the knowledge and the resources to better solve homicides; there is void of political will power. It is time to implement successful techniques to bring murderers to justice.

If society truly cares about tackling murders, the debate needs to be about unsolved crimes, supporting local law enforcement, and not about the implementation devices (eg guns) used to commit the offence. 
__________________________________________
*M Soper, Murder rate way down, unsolved murder rate way up, OpEd, Western Slope Watchdog 17 February 2013: 4+ <http://westernslopewatchdog.com/2013/02/murder-rate-way-down-but-unsolved-murders-way-up/> accessed 18 February 2013