Finnegan- AP - History

Finnegan- AP - History

Finnegan

Former name retained.

(AP: dp. 22,400 (f.), 1. 680'; b. 60'2"; dr. 31'4";
s.16k.;cpl.414;a.44",21-pdr.)

Finland was launched by W. Cramp and Son, Philadelphia, Pa., in 1902 for the International Mercantile Marine Co., chartered by the Army Transport Service on 3 June 1917, and employed in carrying cargo and troops to Europe. On 24 April 1918 she was delivered to the Navy, designated a Troop Transport, and commissioned 26 April, Commander W. J. Giles, in command.

Finnegan made 13 round trips from the United States to Europe in this capacity, transporting 12,864 troops to France and returning 28,000 personnel to the United States. On 4 September 1919 she was transferred to the 3d Naval District and on 16 November decommissioned and delivered to the War Department Finnegan

William Michael Finnegan, born 18 April 1897 in Bessemer, Mich., enlisted in the Navy 22 October, 1917, and served continuously, rising to Chief Radio Electrician 8 November 1929. His last of many responsible assignments ashore and afloat was in Oklahoma (BB-37), to which he reported 30 August 1941. Appointed ensign 18 November 1941, Chief Radio Electrician Finnegan was killed in action when his ship was sunk in the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor 7 December 1941.

(DE-307: dp. 1,140; 1. 289'6"; b. 36'1"; dr. 8'3";
s. 21 k.; cpl. 166; a. 3 3"; 8 dcp., 1 dcp. (hh.), 2 dct.;
cl. Evarte)

Finnegan (DE-307) was launched 22 February 1944 by Mare Island Navy Yard; sponsored by Mrs. Charles Schroeder, sister of Ensign Finnegan, and commissioned 19 August 1944, Lieutenant Commander Hoffman, USNR, in command.

Finnegan arrived at Pearl Harbor 8 November 1944 to serve as escort for submarines conducting training exercises prior to their war patrols. She voyaged to Midway escorting a transport between 11 and 20 December, then returned to duty with submarines until 9 January 1946. After amphibious training exercises in the Hawaiian Islands, Finnegan sailed escorting a group of LSTs and submarine chasers, two of which she towed for parts of the passage to Saipan.

On 15 February 1946, the escort ship sailed from Saipan for the assault on Iwo Jima, during which she screened transports as they launched their boats for the initial invasion 19 February. On 26 February, while escorting empty transports to Saipan, Finnegan made a surface contact by radar, and was detached from the screen to locate and sink 1~70 in a 4-hour attack, in 22°45' N., 141°27' E.

From Saipan, Finnegan screened the transports on to Espiritu Santo, arriving 16 March 1946. She sailed 10 days later for Ulithi, the vast base from which the Okinawa assault was staged, and on 9 April, she reached the newly assaulted island. Sailing on antisubmarine patrols, as well as screening assault shipping, Finnegan fired to drive off a would-be suicide plane 28 May. On 10 July she departed Okinawa for duty in the Philippines on local escort and patrol assignments until 16 September. Finnegan then sailed for Eniwetok, Pearl Harbor, and Charleston, where she was decommissioned and placed in reserve 27 November 1946.

Finnegan received three battle stars for world War II service.


‘The Filthy Pigs Theory’: AP Photojournalist in Morocco Has History of Antisemitic Tweets and Public Comments

712 Tiwtter.com/mosaaberizing

An Associated Press (AP) photojournalist based in Morocco has a history of antisemitic tweets and public comments, Breitbart News has learned.

Mosa’ab Elshamy, now an AP staff photojournalist based in Morocco, sent a series of antisemitic tweets between 2010 and 2011, prior to his employment with the AP.

In one Nov. 24, 2010, tweet, a reply to an account that no longer exists, Elshamy tweeted that he believes what he called “the filthy pigs theory,” in his view, “should only be applied to Zionists (and their women).”

Calling Jewish people “filthy pigs” is an antisemitic trope.

According to the Philadelphia Holocaust Museum, throughout Germany, a number of churches have such imagery that Jewish leaders have been fighting for decades to remove. “How often do you look closely at the buildings around you? Really closely? In Germany you might see the judensau, or the Jewish pig,” the Philadelphia Holocaust Museum website says. “There are around 30 churches with stone carvings dating back to the 13th century depicting Jews doing various distasteful acts with pigs. This imagery is meant to mock Jewish people, as in the kosher tradition Jews do not eat pork and pigs are considered unclean. This image in particular is from the church in Wittenberg where Martin Luther preached, and has a stone judensau showing a rabbi inspecting the sow while several people suckle from the animal. Jewish communities have demanded the removal of the carvings on churches throughout Germany but have hit barriers with some preservationists and historians. The tension between preservation and reconciliation can be challenging and is certainly seen all over the world.”

A week later, on Nov. 30, 2010, Elshamy complained about “the Jewish Lobby.” The context of this tweet is unclear and it is in reply to a tweet that no longer exists from an account that does still exist whose biography describes the person as a “thirty-something entertainment publicist.”

In two other tweets, from January and September in 2011, Elshamy mocked Jews for playing “the holocaust card” and said “Jewish kids,” in his view, find it “hard to complain” when their mothers use the “‘So? We got murdered by Nazis!’ card.'”

Another tweet, from June 2011, shows Elshamy saying if he had the opportunity to ask a question of an Israeli solider, he would ask: “How many babies do you have for breakfast?”

His tweet was in reply to an open thread from Al Jazeera, asking their audience what they would ask an Israeli soldier.

Reference to eating children is another antisemitic trope based in centuries of misinformation, according to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). This antisemitic trope is specifically called the “blood libel.”

“The ‘blood libel’ refers to a centuries-old false allegation that Jews murder Christians — especially Christian children — to use their blood for ritual purposes, such as an ingredient in the baking of Passover matzah (unleavened bread),” ADL’s website states. “It is also sometimes called the ‘ritual murder charge.’ The blood libel dates back to the Middle Ages and has persisted despite Jewish denials and official repudiations by the Catholic Church and many secular authorities. Blood libels have frequently led to mob violence and pogroms, and have occasionally led to the decimation of entire Jewish communities.”

Two other tweets from Elshamy demonstrate a history of anti-Israel sentiment. On Dec. 13, 2011, Elshamy tweeted: “#IsraelKills because it is apartheid, because it is temporary.”

Earlier that year, on May 15, 2011, Elshamy tweeted a photograph of people burning the Israeli flag. His tweet included a comment: “Burning Israeli flg. For the umpteenth time. #IsraelEmbassy #Nakba.”

Elshamy was not always a journalist by profession. According to his personal website, he came into the profession in 2011 as part of the Arab Spring where in Egypt, revolution led to the ouster of Hosni Mubarak.

“Mosa’ab Elshamy, born in 1990, is a photojournalist covering daily news stories, as well as in-depth cultural and social documentary projects across the Middle East and North Africa. His work has been described as dedicated, humane and intimate. He is currently based in Morocco as a staff photographer for the Associated Press,” his website states. “When the Egyptians rose up against Hosni Mubarak in 2011, photography was still a hobby for Mosa’ab, who was studying for his Bachelor degree in Pharmacy. But the uprising triggered a shift in focus, and he switched to photojournalism, this time as a career. Since then, his extensive coverage of the Egyptian revolution and its consequences has gained him wide exposure, providing images and stories to TIME Magazine, Paris Match, The New York Times, Rolling Stone and Aljazeera English. As a freelancer, he supplied images to agencies including AFP, EPA and Getty Images and has had images featured on the front pages of multiple newspapers and publications across the globe.”

TIME Magazine even gave him the honor, in 2013, of picking one of his photos in Egypt as one of the publication’s top 10 photographs of the year.

The ADL has not replied to a request for comment in response to Elshamy’s various antisemitic tweets. But Neil Strauss, communications director for the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC), told Breitbart News these and other tweets are “troubling.”

“It’s troubling that someone with those views feels comfortable at AP, but more disturbing is that AP leadership isn’t asking themselves why someone like that feels comfortable at their organization,” Strauss told Breitbart News when asked to respond to these tweets.

Others, including former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, expressed outrage at the AP employing Elshamy.

“In what world is it acceptable for an American news organization to employ people who espouse such hatred and overt anti-Semitism?” Fleischer said in an email. “A.P. needs to address this right away.”

When similar antisemitic sentiments were found among other establishment media outlet staffers, those media organizations did end up taking steps toward accountability. For instance, in 2017, CNN accepted the resignation of editor Mohammed Elshamy after a series of antisemitic tweets he published over the years resurfaced.

On another front, while the New York Times still employs editor Tom Wright-Piersanti despite antisemitic tropes he published — that the publication publicly admitted were antisemitic — the organization did conduct a deep internal investigation and install various controls and checks and balances after the scandal rocked Times staff, following a Breitbart News investigation.

Elshamy has spent the past several days hyping tweets from leftists in the United States and around the world bashing Israel in the wake of the Israeli military’s move to strike a building that housed AP’s Gaza offices among other media because of Hamas assets that shared the building. While the AP initially expressed outrage about the Israeli strike, subsequent reports have indicated that the Israeli government briefed Democrat President Joe Biden’s administration on the rationale behind the strike and Israeli officials told local media there that the Biden team thought the justification was sufficient for the strike.

That has not stopped leftists and socialists like the so-called “Squad” in the U.S. Congress from viciously attacking Israel. Ocasio-Cortez, for instance, tweeted that “Apartheid states aren’t democracies,” a tweet retweeted by the AP’s Elshamy:

Apartheid states aren’t democracies.

&mdash Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) May 15, 2021

More information is likely forthcoming after this first investigation.

UPDATE 1:42 p.m. 5/16/2021: After the publication of this article, Elshamy deleted some of the tweets. Screenshots have now been embedded for all of them.

Update 2:30 p.m. 5/16/2021: AP spokeswoman Lauren Easton responded after publication of this investigation to Breitbart News to condemn Elshamy’s tweets.

Full statement: “AP condemns antisemitism and all forms of discrimination.We require all of our journalists to follow AP’s News Values and Principles and social media policy. See here: https://www.ap.org/about/news-values-and-principles/downloads/ap-news-values-and-principles.pdf And here: https://www.ap.org/assets/documents/social-media-guidelines_tcm28-9832.pdf AP was unaware of such tweets, which were sent prior to his joining AP, but as soon as we became aware we took steps to ensure they are deleted.The tweets do not reflect the views of the AP, which strives to cover the Israeli-Palestinian conflict fairly and factually.”

It remains unclear if any other disciplinary actions are planned, including whether the wire service will continue to employ Elshamy.


6.1.1 What is an exam security violation?

Students who submit exam responses that are not entirely their own are committing an exam security violation. Students’ exam responses should not include aid in any kind from external sources, including websites, social media, and any person. Aid includes, but is not limited to, advice, feedback, or actual exam responses.

Students who contact any other person during the exam—including online, in-person, by mobile or other device—are also committing an exam security violation. Contact with assistants approved by the College Board Services for Students with Disabilities (SSD) office does not constitute a violation, so long as there is no inappropriate discussion of exam content.

College Board will not differentiate between actual giving or receiving aid from requesting or offering aid when assigning consequences.

6.1.2 Does a student’s response violate exam security if it uses an appropriate citation?

Students’ exam responses are expected to be entirely their own. AP Exam questions are designed for the student to apply concepts they have learned in their AP courses and exam rubrics do not reward the use of external data, research, or opinions, even if cited appropriately.

We advise students not to search for external data, research, or opinions when taking AP Exams. Properly cited resources will not answer the exam questions, and inappropriate use of resources will be considered an exam violation.

6.1.3 How will College Board determine if an exam security violation has occurred?

College Board will use a range of digital security tools and techniques to determine if an exam violation has occurred, including but not limited to plagiarism detection software and post-administration analytics.

In addition, each student’s AP teacher will receive copies of the work the student submits to us, enabling teachers to spot inconsistencies with students’ known work.

6.1.4 How do teachers or other education professionals report a suspected exam security violation?

We encourage anyone with knowledge of any dishonest behavior with respect to the Advanced Placement ® Exams to contact College Board Test Security. Reports can be digitally submitted confidentially at our Test Security Web Hotline.

6.1.5 What are the consequences for an exam security violation?

College Board may apply several consequences for exam security violations, including but not limited to:

  • Score cancellation—students whose responses mirror online content or other students’ submissions will have their scores canceled.
  • Ban on College Board exams—students who attempt to gain an unfair advantage also may be prohibited from taking a future Advanced Placement Exam as well as the SAT, SAT Subject Tests TM , or CLEP assessments.
  • High school notification—if we determine that a student gained or provided an unfair advantage on an AP Exam, we’ll notify their high school so the school can choose to take necessary disciplinary action, as appropriate.
  • College admissions notification—if we determine that a student gained or provided an unfair advantage on an AP Exam, we’ll provide information about the incident to colleges or other organizations to which the student has already sent any College Board scores (including SAT scores)—or to which the student would send scores in the future.
  • Law enforcement—under certain circumstances, College Board may inform law enforcement of any incident to determine if prosecution of the test taker, or anyone assisting the test taker in misconduct, is warranted.

6.1.6 What if there are two students taking the same exam in in the same household?

It is fine for students in the same household to take the same exam. These students should make every effort to test separately—i.e., in separate rooms—and not discuss the exam in any way.

6.1.7 What is the protocol for AP teachers who have a child taking an at-home exam for the same subject that the parent teaches?

To avoid a testing violation, teachers should not provide any assistance to their children or discuss the exam with them.


Mother Of American Sentenced To Life In Italy Fears Her Son Won't Survive Prison

Leah Elder told "Good Morning America" that her son, Finnegan Elder, said he feels that the sentence handed down last week is worse than the death penalty.

Create a free profile to get unlimited access to exclusive videos, sweepstakes, and more!

The mother of the young American man found guilty by an Italian jury last week of murdering an Italian police officer during a botched drug deal has said that she doesn’t know if he will survive spending the rest of his life in prison — a sentence she said he feels is a fate worse than death.

“He was utterly devastated by the verdict, just devastated. It was completely unexpected for him,” Leah Elder told “Good Morning America” in an interview that aired Monday. “He feels like he has been sentenced to something worse than the death penalty.”

After a three-month trial, Finnegan Elder, 21, and Gabriel Natale-Hjorth, 20, were found guilty last week of homicide and four other charges for the July 26, 2019 stabbing death by Elder of 35-year-old Vice Brigadier Mario Cerciello Rega. The verdict and maximum possible sentence were delivered to a shocked courtroom by a jury of six civilians and two judges, who deliberated for 12 hours.

Elder and Natale-Hjorth, then teenagers, were on vacation in Italy when they spent 80 euro on what turned out to be fake cocaine. In an attempt to get their money back, Elder had snatched a bag and phone belonging to the man who’d duped them. They arranged for the dealer to meet them and it was agreed he would give them their money in exchange for his phone and bag. When Cerciello Rega and another officer, tipped off about an extortion attempt, arrived at the scene of the anticipated exchange, a tussle ensued with the young men that ended with Elder stabbing the officer 11 times and the teens escaping to stash the weapon in their hotel room.

During the trial in Rome, Leah Elder testified about her son’s struggles with mental health and a previous attempt on his own life as a teen. The defense argued that the teens thought the officers, who were in plain clothes, were gangsters. Speaking alongside her husband, Leah Elder detailed her son's mental health struggles to “GMA.”

“He has a noted history of attempted suicide, and we’re really worried and really concerned,” she said. “He struggles with anxiety and depression, and his current situation is really perilous.”

She pointed out that her son has not changed his version of events leading to Cerciello Rega’s death, and said that at times he “vomits the truth,” adding that her son is “incredibly kind, he’s incredibly sensitive.”

“I understand that a man’s life was lost that night. I understand that Finnegan should serve some time,” she said.“I would like Finnegan to have some sort of sentence that’s proportionate and something that helps at least acknowledge his mental health issues,”

“We just want Finn to be able to survive this,” she told producers.

Defense Attorney Craig Peters told the show that he believed that the Italian jury gave the young men a sentence befitting a mob boss.

“How could these two boys possibly be in that same league?” he asked.

In addition to the homicide charge, the young men were found guilty of attempted extortion, assault, resisting a public official, and carrying an attack-style knife without just cause. The legal teams for both young men plan to appeal last week’s verdict. As per Italian law, the jury now has 90 days to detail its reasoning for its decisions this forms the basis for a potential appeal.


Contents

The football poll is released Sundays at 2pm Eastern time during the football season, unless ranked teams have not finished their games.

History Edit

The AP college football poll has a long history. The news media began running their own polls of sports writers to determine who was, by popular opinion, the best football team in the country at the end of the season. One of the earliest such polls was the AP College Football Poll, first run in 1934. [3] In 1935, AP sports editor Alan J. Gould declared a three-way tie for national champion in football between Minnesota, Princeton, and Southern Methodist. Minnesota fans protested, and a number of Gould's colleagues led by Charles "Cy" Sherman suggested he create a poll of sports editors instead of only using his own list, and the next year the poll was born. [4] It has run continuously from 1936. [5]

Due to the long-standing historical ties between individual college football conferences and high-paying bowl games like the Rose Bowl and Orange Bowl, the NCAA had not held a tournament or championship game to determine the champion of what is now the highest division, NCAA Division I, Football Bowl Subdivision (the Division I, Football Championship Subdivision and lower divisions do hold championship tournaments). As a result, the public and the media began to acknowledge the leading vote-getter in the final AP Poll as the national champion for that season.

While the AP Poll currently lists the Top 25 teams in the nation, from 1936 to 1960 the wire service only ranked 20 teams. From 1961 to 1967 only 10 teams were recognized. From 1968 to 1988, the AP again resumed its Top 20 before expanding to the current 25 teams in 1989.

The AP began conducting a preseason poll starting in 1950. [6] [7]

At the end of the 1947 season the AP released an unofficial post-bowl poll which differed from the regular season final poll. [8] Until the 1968 college football season, the final AP poll of the season was released following the end of the regular season, with the lone exception of the 1965 season. In 1964, Alabama was named the national champion in the final AP Poll following the completion of the regular season, but lost in the Orange Bowl to Texas, leaving Arkansas as the only undefeated, untied team after the Razorbacks defeated Nebraska in the Cotton Bowl Classic. In 1965, the AP's decision to wait to crown its champion paid handsomely, as top-ranked Michigan State lost to UCLA in the Rose Bowl, number two Arkansas lost to LSU in the Cotton Bowl Classic, and fourth-ranked Alabama defeated third-ranked Nebraska in the Orange Bowl, vaulting the Crimson Tide to the top of the AP's final poll (Michigan State was named national champion in the final UPI Coaches Poll, which did not conduct a post-bowl poll).

Beginning in the 1968 season, the post bowl game poll became permanent and the AP championship reflected the bowl game results. The UPI did not follow suit with the coaches' poll until the 1974 season.

No. 1 vs. No. 2 Edit

As of the completion of the 2018 season the number one ranked team has faced the number two ranked team 52 times since the inception of the AP Poll in 1936. [9] [ failed verification ] The number one team has a record of 29–21–2 against the number two team.

No. 1 vs. No. 2 games
Light blue indicates bowl game
Season No. 1 Result No. 2 Site Event Ref.
1943 Notre Dame 35–12 Michigan Michigan Stadium • Ann Arbor, MI 1943 Michigan–Notre Dame football rivalry game
1943 Notre Dame 14–13 Iowa Pre-Flight Notre Dame Stadium • Notre Dame, IN
1944 Army 23–7 Navy Municipal Stadium • Baltimore, MD 1944 Army–Navy Game
1945 Army 48–0 Notre Dame Yankee Stadium • Bronx, NY 1945 Army–Notre Dame football rivalry game
1945 Army 32–13 Navy Philadelphia Municipal Stadium • Philadelphia, PA 1945 Army–Navy Game
1946 Army 0–0 Notre Dame Yankee Stadium • Bronx, NY 1946 Army vs. Notre Dame football game
1962 USC 42–37 Wisconsin Rose Bowl • Pasadena, CA 1963 Rose Bowl
1963 Oklahoma 7–28 Texas Cotton Bowl • Dallas, TX 1963 Red River Shootout game
1963 Texas 28–6 Navy Cotton Bowl • Dallas, TX 1964 Cotton Bowl Classic
1966 Notre Dame 10–10 Michigan State Spartan Stadium • East Lansing, MI 1966 Notre Dame vs. Michigan State football game
1968 Purdue 37–22 Notre Dame Notre Dame Stadium • Notre Dame, IN 1968 Notre Dame–Purdue football rivalry game
1968 Ohio State 27–16 USC Rose Bowl • Pasadena, CA 1969 Rose Bowl
1969 Texas 15–14 Arkansas Razorback Stadium • Fayetteville, AR 1969 Texas vs. Arkansas football game
1971 Nebraska 35–31 Oklahoma Oklahoma Memorial Stadium • Norman, OK 1971 Nebraska vs. Oklahoma football game
1971 Nebraska 38–6 Alabama Miami Orange Bowl • Miami, FL 1972 Orange Bowl
1978 Penn State 7–14 Alabama Louisiana Superdome • New Orleans, LA 1979 Sugar Bowl
1981 USC 28–24 Oklahoma Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum • Los Angeles
1982 Georgia 23–27 Penn State Louisiana Superdome • New Orleans, LA 1983 Sugar Bowl
1985 Iowa 12–10 Michigan Kinnick Stadium • Iowa City, IA
1986 Oklahoma 16–28 Miami Miami Orange Bowl • Miami, FL
1986 Miami 10–14 Penn State Sun Devil Stadium • Tempe, AZ 1987 Fiesta Bowl
1987 Nebraska 7–17 Oklahoma Memorial Stadium • Lincoln, NE 1987 Nebraska–Oklahoma football rivalry game
1987 Oklahoma 14–20 Miami Miami Orange Bowl • Miami, FL 1988 Orange Bowl
1988 Notre Dame 27–10 USC Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum • Los Angeles 1988 Notre Dame–USC football rivalry game
1989 Notre Dame 24–19 Michigan Michigan Stadium • Ann Arbor, MI 1989 Michigan–Notre Dame football rivalry game
1991 Florida State 16–17 Miami Doak Campbell Stadium • Tallahassee, FL Wide Right I
1992 Miami 13–34 Alabama Louisiana Superdome • New Orleans, LA 1993 Sugar Bowl
1993 Florida State 24–31 Notre Dame Notre Dame Stadium • Notre Dame, IN 1993 Florida State vs. Notre Dame football game
1993 Florida State 18–16 Nebraska Miami Orange Bowl • Miami, FL 1994 Orange Bowl
1995 Nebraska 62–24 Florida Sun Devil Stadium • Tempe, AZ 1996 Fiesta Bowl
1996 Florida 21–24 Florida State Doak Campbell Stadium • Tallahassee, FL 1996 Florida–Florida State football rivalry game
1998 Tennessee 23–16 Florida State Sun Devil Stadium • Tempe, AZ 1999 Fiesta Bowl
1999 Florida State 46–29 Virginia Tech Louisiana Superdome • New Orleans, LA 2000 Sugar Bowl
2002 Miami 24–31 2OT Ohio State Sun Devil Stadium • Tempe, AZ 2003 Fiesta Bowl
2004 USC 55–19 Oklahoma Pro Player Stadium • Miami Gardens, FL 2005 Orange Bowl
2005 USC 38–41 Texas Rose Bowl • Pasadena, CA 2006 Rose Bowl
2006 Ohio State 24–7 Texas Darrell K Royal–Texas Memorial Stadium • Austin, TX
2006 Ohio State 42–39 Michigan Ohio Stadium • Columbus, OH 2006 Michigan vs. Ohio State football game
2006 Ohio State 14–41 Florida University of Phoenix Stadium • Glendale, AZ 2007 BCS National Championship Game
2007 Ohio State 24–38 LSU Louisiana Superdome • New Orleans, LA 2008 BCS National Championship Game
2008 Alabama 20–31 Florida Georgia Dome • Atlanta, GA 2008 SEC Championship Game
2008 Florida 24–14 Oklahoma Dolphin Stadium • Miami Gardens, FL 2009 BCS National Championship Game
2009 Florida 13–32 Alabama Georgia Dome • Atlanta, GA 2009 SEC Championship Game
2009 Alabama 37–21 Texas Rose Bowl • Pasadena, CA 2010 BCS National Championship Game
2010 Auburn 22–19 Oregon University of Phoenix Stadium • Glendale, AZ 2011 BCS National Championship Game
2011 LSU 9–6 OT Alabama Bryant–Denny Stadium • Tuscaloosa, AL 2011 LSU vs. Alabama football game
2011 LSU 0–21 Alabama Mercedes–Benz Superdome • New Orleans, LA 2012 BCS National Championship Game
2012 Notre Dame 14–42 Alabama Sun Life Stadium • Miami Gardens, FL 2013 BCS National Championship Game
2013 Florida State 34–31 Auburn Rose Bowl • Pasadena, CA 2014 BCS National Championship Game
2015 Clemson 40–45 Alabama University of Phoenix Stadium • Glendale, AZ 2016 College Football Playoff National Championship
2018 Alabama 16–44 Clemson Levi's Stadium • Santa Clara, CA 2019 College Football Playoff National Championship
2019 LSU 46–41 Alabama Bryant–Denny Stadium • Tuscaloosa, AL 2019 Alabama–LSU football rivalry game [10]

AP Poll inclusion in the BCS Edit

In 1997, the Bowl Championship Series (BCS) was developed to try to unify the poll results by picking two teams for a "real" national championship game. For the first several years the AP Poll factored in the determination of the BCS rankings, along with other factors including the Coaches Poll and computer-based polls. Because of a series of controversies surrounding the BCS, the AP demanded in December, 2004, that its poll no longer be used in the BCS rankings, [11] and so the 2004–2005 season was the last season that the AP Poll was used for this purpose.

In the 2003 season the BCS system broke down when the final BCS standings ranked the University of Southern California (USC) at No. 3 while the two human polls in the system had ranked USC at No. 1. As a result, USC did not play in the BCS' designated national championship game. USC went on to decisively defeat No. 4 ranked Michigan in the Rose Bowl, while No. 2 Louisiana State University (LSU) (who had lost to Florida earlier in the season) defeated the No. 1 Oklahoma Sooners (who had lost the Big 12 championship game to Kansas State) in a national title game widely derided as a sloppy and lackluster contest. As a result, the AP Poll kept USC at No. 1 while the Coaches Poll was contractually obligated to select the winner of the BCS game as the No. 1 team. The resulting split national title was the very problem that the BCS was created to solve, and has been widely considered an embarrassment. [12]

In 2004, a new controversy erupted at the end of the season when Auburn and Utah, who both finished the regular season 12–0 , were left out of the BCS title game in favor of Oklahoma who also was 12–0 and had won decisively over Colorado in the Big 12 Championship game. USC went on to a win easily over Oklahoma in the Orange Bowl while Auburn and Utah both won their bowl games, leaving three undefeated teams at the end of the season. Also, in that same year, Texas made up late ground on California (Cal) in the BCS standings and as a result grabbed a high-payout, at-large spot in the Rose Bowl. Previous to that poll, Cal had been ranked ahead of Texas in both human polls and the BCS poll. Going into their final game, the Golden Bears were made aware that while margin of victory did not affect computer rankings, it did affect human polls and just eight voters changing their vote could affect the final standings. [13] Both teams won their game that week, but the Texas coach, Mack Brown, had made a public effort to lobby for his team to be moved higher in the ranking. When the human polls were released, Texas remained behind Cal, but it had closed the gap enough so that the BCS poll (which determines placement) placed Texas above Cal, angering both Cal and its conference, the Pac-10. [14] The final poll positions had been unchanged with Cal at No. 4 AP, No. 4 coaches, and No. 6 computers polls and Texas at No. 6 AP, No. 5 coaches, and No. 4 computer polls. [14] The AP Poll voters were caught in the middle because their vote changes were automatically made public, while the votes of the Coaches poll were kept confidential. Although there had been a more substantial shift in the votes of the Coaches Poll, the only clear targets for the ire of fanatical fans were the voters in the AP Poll. While officials from both Cal and the Pac-10 called for the coaches' votes to be made public, the overtures were turned down and did little to solve the problem of AP voters. Cal went on to lose to Texas Tech in the Holiday Bowl. Texas defeated Michigan in the Rose Bowl.

Many members of the press who voted in the AP Poll were upset by the controversy and, at the behest of its members, the AP asked that its poll no longer be used in the BCS rankings. The 2004 season was the last season that the AP Poll was used in the BCS rankings, it was replaced in the BCS equation by the newly created Harris Interactive College Football Poll. [15]

Final AP football polls Edit

Other media football polls Edit

The AP Poll is not the only college football poll. The other major poll is the Coaches Poll, which has been sponsored by several organizations: the United Press (1950–1957), the United Press International (1958–1990), USA Today (1991–present), CNN (1991–1996), and ESPN (1997–2005). Having two major polls has led to numerous "split" national titles, where the two polls disagreed on the No. 1 team. This has occurred on eleven different occasions (1954, 1957, 1965, 1970, 1973, 1974, 1978, 1990, 1991, 1997, 2003).

In Division I men's and women's college basketball, the AP Poll is largely just a tool to compare schools throughout the season and spark debate, as it has no bearing on postseason play. Generally, all top 25 teams in the poll are invited to the men's and women's NCAA basketball tournament, also known as March Madness. The poll is usually released every Monday and voters' ballots are made public. [16]

Men's basketball Edit

The AP began compiling a ranking of the top 20 college men's basketball teams during the 1948–1949 season. It has issued this poll continuously since the 1950–1951 season. Beginning with the 1989-1990 season, the poll expanded to 25 teams. Duke has the most appearances atop the rankings. [17]

Women's basketball Edit

The women's basketball poll began during the 1976–1977 season, and was initially compiled by Mel Greenberg and published by The Philadelphia Inquirer. At first, it was a poll of coaches conducted via telephone, where coaches identified top teams and a list of the Top 20 team was produced. The initial list of coaches did not include Pat Summitt, who asked to join the group, not to improve her rankings, but because of the lack of media coverage. Summitt believed it would be a good way to stay on top of who the top teams were outside of her own schedule. [18] The contributors continued to be coaches until 1994, when the AP took over administration of the poll from Greenberg, and switched to a panel of writers. [19] In 1994, Tennessee started out as No. 1 in the polls with Connecticut at No. 4. After losses by the No. 2 and No. 3 teams, Tennessee and Connecticut were ranked No. 1 and No. 2, headed into a showdown, scheduled as a special event on Martin Luther King day, the only women's basketball game scheduled on that day. Because of the unusual circumstances, the decision was made to hold off the AP voting for one day, to ensure it would be after the game. Connecticut won the game, and moved into first place in the AP poll, published on Tuesday for the only time. (Connecticut went on to complete an undefeated season.) [20] Over the history of the poll, over 255 coaches have had a team represented in polls. [21]

Beginning in 2012, the AP began issuing a weekly pro football ranking, the AP Pro32 rankings. [22]


Dante's Divine Comedy to float among the stars

The privileged San Francisco teenager accused of fatally stabbing a police officer in Rome once pummeled a classmate at a party, causing a severe brain injury, according to a recent report.

Finnegan Lee Elder — who allegedly knifed undercover cop Mario Cerciello Rega to death last week — was 16 when he punched one of his high school football teammates during a late-night bash in Stern Grove park in October 2016, sources told the San Francisco Chronicle.

The victim, who was also 16, struck his head when he fell and was hospitalized with “life-threatening injuries,” police said at the time.

It took a long time for the teen to recover, but he has since graduated high school and is attending college, the article said.

Elder turned himself in after the incident and was arrested on suspicion of battery involving serious bodily injury.

His case was adjudicated in juvenile court, which found that he committed a felony offense, the sources said. It’s unclear what, if any, punishment he faced.

Elder’s uncle, Sean Elder, said the incident was part of a “a mutual pre-agreed upon fight, which many football team members knew about and egged on.”

“I’ve known Finn for his entire life and have never seen him be violent, or even lose his temper,” Elder said, adding that the school, Sacred Heart Cathedral Preparatory School, didn’t discipline his nephew.

Finnegan Lee Elder, now 19, later transferred schools when his dad moved to Mill Valley, his uncle said.

Both Elder and the other teen charged in the cop’s death, Gabriel Christian Natale-Hjorth, 18, graduated from Tamalpais High School in Mill Valley in 2018.


Top Five Dangers for the AIA Unwary

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), signed into law on September 16, 2011, marked the first fundamental patent reform in the United States since the 1952 Patent Act (pre-AIA). 1 The 130-page AIA legislation transformed foundational aspects of the U.S. law of patentability and patent enforceability with the intent to deliver greater transparency, objectiveness, predictability, and simplified patent law principles. Whether or not any of those lofty objectives will pan out in reality, inventors, patent applicants, patent owners, and the patent professionals who assist them must understand the changes to avoid significant "dangers" that lurk for the unwary, both in formulating patent filing strategies and in evaluating existing U.S. patents and patent applications, including those of third parties. This article highlights some of the more significant and immediate of those dangers.

Failing to Understand the Expanded Definition of Prior Art

A first challenge is to be able to identify applicable prior art and thus avoid overlooking potentially fatal prior art. As of March 16, 2013, 35 U.S.C. § 102 changes fundamental assumptions defining what will and will not be considered prior art under the AIA, for any application containing at least one claim having an effective filing date after March 15, 2013. Public disclosures before the effective filing date of the claimed invention anywhere in the world in any language will have prior art effect. 2 In other words, the new definitions remove geographic and language restrictions on prior art, exponentially expanding, in view of U.S. litigation discovery, which does not exist in other first-to-file systems, the universe of what now may be considered prior art.

In addition, the temporal window for additional prior art is wider in one respect through the change in focus from "date of invention" to "effective filing date," because the effective filing date of any claimed invention is almost always later than the pre-AIA date of invention. However, the window is narrower in other respects because prior inventions of others under pre-AIA § 102(f) and (g) are generally no longer prior art under the AIA, Metallizing Engineering forfeiture apparently may no longer exist, 3 and common ownership may now provide a defense against documents that would otherwise be prior art under the AIA.

Under the AIA, what is prior art under the new law (presumably absent an In re Nomiya-type admission by the patent applicant 4 ) must be either: (1) a public disclosure anywhere in the world (in any language), or (2) an "effectively filed" patent filing disclosure, and both must have a date prior to the "effective filing date" of the claimed invention at issue. 5

"Effectively filed" requires that eventually at least one of the following three "special publications" publish: (1) a U.S. patent (2) a U.S. patent application or (3) a Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) application designating the United States, whether or not that PCT application ever enters into the U.S. national stage. An "effectively filed" patent filing disclosure may still be prior art as of an earlier filing date even though it is not published until after the effective filing date of the relevant claimed invention.

AIA prior art may constitute a danger even to those fully aware of the Act's expansion of the body of prior art. For example, it may be extremely difficult for a patent owner or potential patent licensee to find out about every public disclosure in every language everywhere in the world. Unfortunately, it may first be brought to a patent owner's attention by opponents during discovery in U.S. litigation. Hence, a potential license may conclude that a particular U.S. patent claim or U.S. patent application claim is strong when, in fact, that claim is anticipated by an earlier public disclosure at a conference in China in Chinese.

Here are two examples of what will be considered prior art under the AIA:

  1. An earlier-filed patent application, relative to the claimed invention at issue, with no claim for the benefit of an even earlier-filed patent application, will be considered prior art if effectively filed as of its actual filing date, for all it describes that is relevant to the patentability of the claimed invention and
  2. A later-filed patent application with a claim for the priority/benefit of an earlier patent filing will be considered prior art as of the earlier patent filing date, as long as the earlier patent filing contains a description (not necessarily an enablement) of the same subject matter found in the later-filed patent application and relevant to the patentability of the claimed invention. 6 The earlier patent filing may be in any language and may be filed outside of the United States as long as it can be considered "effectively filed" with respect to the relevant subject matter set forth in one of the three special publications described above.

The second example shows that the AIA eliminated the effect of two old U.S. patent cases: Hilmer I and II. 7 Under the Hilmer cases, one needed a U.S. filing date to use as offensive prior art under pre-AIA § 102(e) or (g). Now, a foreign priority date can be used offensively as prior art under the AIA's § 102(a)(2) against the patent claims of others, as long as the subject matter in one of the three special publications was at least described in a foreign priority document that was "effectively filed" relative to the relevant subject matter. 8

On a different note, practitioners are cautioned against interpreting "disclosure" in the AIA as replacing a patent application filing publishing is not a substitute for filing to obtain a strong patent position on the invention. An inventor who has publicly disclosed should file a patent application promptly or, better yet, before disclosure. Why? Because, a mere public disclosure will never provide an effective filing date. Moreover, even assuming a statutory exception can be established under § 102(b)(2) for the prior disclosure, that prior disclosure arguably protects a claimed invention only against anticipatory subject matter, not against obvious variants. 9

In contrast, an earlier effective filing date protects against both post-filing date anticipatory and obviousness prior art, assuming that some earlier patent filing is not "effectively filed" for relevant subject matter for purposes of § 102(a)(2) before that earlier effective filing date. Furthermore, disclosure before filing may be almost fatal with respect to international patent rights.

As briefly mentioned above, some good news is the expanded zone of protection under the § 102(b)(2)(C) exception to § 102(a)(2) prior art, for commonly assigned patent applications and subject matter developed under joint research agreements. Importantly, the AIA recognizes common ownership as an exception effective against § 102(a)(2) or § 103 prior art as long as that ownership is in place by the effective filing date (as opposed to the invention date) of the claimed invention, even if the earlier subject matter was not developed under a joint research agreement.

The date of invention is almost always earlier than the effective filing date of the claimed invention. This AIA change thus has a broadening effect also. In fact, the AIA change to "on or before the effective filing date" may mean that a patent applicant can purchase potential, even independently developed, § 102(a)(2) prior art before filing a patent application, thereby removing the potential prior art as a threat.

Failing to Understand "Entitled to Priority" ("Effective Filing Date") v. "Entitled to Claim the Benefit of Priority" ("Effectively Filed")

As discussed above, the effective filing date for the claimed invention is critical to define the window of prior art for both novelty and nonobviousness purposes. It is also critical to establish the applicable law, i.e., pre-AIA, AIA, or both. 10

Generally, the "effective filing date" is the actual patent application filing date in the case of a still pending application, unless the claimed invention is entitled to priority/benefit of an earlier patent filing. This entitlement to priority/benefit exists where (1) a claim for priority/benefit is made, and (2) the earlier patent filing contains a written description and enablement support of the claimed invention, as the AIA expressly removed the requirement of disclosing the best mode in an earlier application for the purposes of showing entitlement to priority/benefit. 11

Practitioners must be aware that there is a potentially very significant difference between the language "entitled . . . to a right" of priority/benefit in the AIA's § 100(i) and the language "entitled to claim a right" of priority/benefit in § 102(d). There are those who argue that being entitled to actual benefit is not the same as being entitled to claim a right to benefit. That argument is based upon the legislative history, which distinguishes between the alleged "core requirement of section 120 et al.&mdashthat the application include an enabling disclosure" (necessary to be entitled to an earlier filing date)&mdashand "the ministerial requirements of that section&mdashthat the application be copendent and specifically referenced" (allegedly satisfying the "entitled . . . to claim the benefit" of priority of § 102(d), which can result in relevant subject matter being "effectively filed" under § 102(a)(2)). 12

But is that legislative history dispositive? Most certainly not, as U.S. courts are not bound by legislative history. 13 Accordingly, until future litigation clarifies this issue, practitioners must carefully consider both the legislative history and the AIA statutory context 14 in determining what both "entitled to claim the benefit of priority" and "effectively filed" require.

Failing to Evaluate Whether Pre-AIA or AIA Law Is Desired

Practitioners must evaluate and decide, particularly for U.S. patent applications that can be filed around March 16, 2013, whether pre-AIA, AIA, or a mixture of pre-AIA and AIA law is desired.

AIA section 3(n)(1) defines the effective date of new 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103 (March 16, 2013) for all applications containing at least one claim having an effective filing date after March 15, 2013. AIA section 3(n)(2) defines that a mixture of pre-AIA and AIA law will apply to all claims of an application containing at least one claim with an effective filing date before March 16, 2013, and at least one claim with an effective filing date after March 15, 2013. 15

For example, if the effective filing date of all claims in a patent application is on or after March 16, 2013, the prior art provisions, exceptions, and definitions of the AIA apply under transition section 3(n)(1) to all those claims. And as a further example, if all claims in an application have an effective filing date before March 16, 2013, only pre-AIA law applies and neither section 3(n)(1) nor (2) applies.

If the AIA applies to the application as a whole&mdashi.e., all claims have an effective filing date on or after March 16, 2013&mdashthe patent applicant can rely only upon the effective filing date for each claim, not the date of invention. By the same token, if the AIA does not apply at all&mdashi.e., all claims in an application have an effective filing date before March 16, 2013&mdashonly pre-AIA law applies and the patent applicant as needed can rely on the date of invention.

Disputes have already arisen as to whether amendments to pre-AIA claims or presentation of new claims after March 15, 2013, should flip a patent application into the AIA world. In our view, no such flipping should occur as long as the effective filing date of each claim in the application, as amended or newly presented, is before March 16, 2013.

But what if claims presented after March 15, 2013, in an application filed before March 16, 2013, fail to satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (enablement)? Arguments have been made that such "improper" claims should flip a patent application otherwise subject to pre AIA law into the AIA world. To the authors, that result seems unwarranted. Simply put, such improper claims have no effective filing date. And the touchstone of whether a claim is in the pre-AIA, AIA, or mixed pre-AIA and AIA world is "effective filing date." Hence, if a claim has no effective filing date, it is simply an improper claim and should have no effect on whether other proper claims in the application somehow change status from pre-AIA to AIA.

Is there a mixed world of pre-AIA and AIA in a single application? That Rubik's Cube ® appears to be provided for under AIA section 3(n)(2). Under special circumstances, therefore, there will be patent practitioners who deliberately create a "Jedi Master Mixer" (JMM) and invoke section 3(n)(2), which can be invoked only if section 3(n)(1) also applies. Simply put, the JMM application is engineered to contain at least one claim with an effective filing date prior to March 16, 2013, and at least one claim having an effective filing date after March 15, 2013. Both AIA section 3(n)(1) and (2) apply to that JMM application. And subject to having to deal with pre AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(g), 135, and 291, the JMM patent applicant gets the following illustrative benefits of the AIA for all claims: (1) apparently no forfeiture, 16 and (2) liberalized common ownership/CREATE Act (§§ 102 and 103) advantages.

In the JMM application, one objective is to secure whatever benefits might exist in both the first-to-invent and the first-inventor-to-file AIA section 3(n)(1) and (2) worlds, subject to having to fend off vestiges of pre-AIA in the form of §§ 102(g), 135, and 291. Advantageously, the JMM application strategy may, depending on all facts and circumstances, avoid pre-AIA bars to patentability of the claimed invention, as long as those bars are not also AIA bars to patentability.

Thus, the practitioner may elect to file before March 16, 2013, a pre-AIA application, and after March 15, 2013, both an AIA application and a JMM application. In so doing, it is important to remember that patents with identical claims will still be barred, so the three patent filings will need to stand alone. In addition, unless claims presented are patentably distinct from each other, a terminal disclaimer may be required.

As March 16, 2013, approaches, many patent filers are wondering if they should hurry and file by March 15, 2013, and stay in pre-AIA law (the "devil-you-know" strategy). The danger lurking in this strategy, however, is that an application filed before it is ready&mdashi.e., without full written description and/or enablement support in the specification relative to the claimed invention&mdashmay ultimately require refiling after March 16, 2013. No benefit will have been gained by rushing to preserve a first-to-invent pre-AIA status. Patent filings should not be made before their time&mdashunder pre-AIA or AIA law&mdashbut nonetheless should be timely made once the requisite supporting information has been developed.

Practitioners should focus on the effective filing dates for each claim and try to ensure that any and every claim made stays on one side or the other of the effective date divide between pre-AIA and AIA, unless one purposefully wants to bring pre-AIA claims into AIA land through a JMM application and have the benefits occasioned by both AIA section 3(n)(1) and (2). If you mix claims, do so deliberately via the JMM application.

Misunderstanding Which Law Applies to U.S. Patents and Applications and Therefore What Is the Relevant Prior Art

It is conservatively estimated that U.S. patents subject to pre-AIA, AIA, and both pre-AIA and AIA law under AIA section 3(n)(1) and (2) will be in existence until at least 2034. 17 Hence, practitioners need to be alert to the dangers of misunderstanding which law applies to their clients' patents and applications, as well as to the patents and applications of third parties. It can make all the difference in terms of what is relevant prior art.

As noted, AIA prior art provisions will apply to all applications filed after March 15, 2013, wherein all claims in that application (and any patent issuing thereon) have effective filing dates after March 15, 2013. Pre-AIA prior art provisions will apply to any application where all claims in the application have an effective filing date before March 16, 2013. And for any JMM application filed after March 15, 2013, and containing at least one claim with an effective filing date before March 16, 2013, and at least one claim with an effective filing date after March 15, 2013, both pre-AIA and AIA law apply under AIA section 3(n)(1) and (2).

For JMM applications, this means that the claims will be subject to the broader prior art provisions of the AIA (e.g., worldwide disclosures in any language) and subject to the "first-to-invent" pre-AIA provisions of 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(g), 135, and 291 (e.g., proof of earlier invention). But as noted, the JMM application claims will not be subject to pre-AIA impediments to patentability, unless those impediments also apply under the AIA.

Hence, one evaluating a U.S. patent, for example, should conclude that if there is a pre-AIA claim in an application or patent that also contains an AIA claim, then both AIA section 3(n)(1) and (2) apply. In that case, all the claims in the patent are subject to all of the AIA plus §§ 102(g), 135, and 291. And because "all" is a clear term, that conclusion applies even to those claims that have an effective filing date after March 15, 2013, and would otherwise be "pure" AIA claims.

Let's look at an example. Suppose a practitioner is evaluating the validity of a U.S. patent. The AIA's § 102(a)(2) can be relevant to that analysis in two different ways. First, if there is a patent filing or U.S. patent that resulted in one of the three special publications discussed above, that publication is § 102(a)(2) prior art as of its filing date against a claimed invention if it was filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention and thereafter published. In other words, the relevant subject matter of the prior art was "effectively filed" as of its filing date, assuming that the subject matter is, as noted above, at least described in that special publication.

Second, assume the filing date associated with the special publication is after the effective filing date of the claimed invention. That does not necessarily mean that the special publication cannot be prior art under § 102(a)(2) for subject matter relevant to patentability of a claimed invention of interest. In fact, that relevant subject matter in the special publication can still be § 102(a)(2) prior art if, relative to the relevant subject matter, an earlier patent filing existed for which priority/benefit was sought in a ministerially proper way and in which the relevant subject matter was at least described. In such case, the earlier filing was "effectively filed" relative to the relevant subject matter and constitutes, as of the date of that earlier filing, prior art under § 102(a)(2). 18 In other words, the practitioner should conclude that a publication is § 102(a)(2) prior art against a claimed invention if the relevant subject matter was effectively filed prior to the date of the claimed invention.

Abandoning Laboratory Notebooks

In the nuts and bolts of everyday patent practice in the pre-AIA first-to-invent system, laboratory notebooks were the bedrock upon which the patent was built. The unwary may conclude that the first inventor-to-file provisions of the AIA make laboratory notebooks unnecessary however, laboratory notebooks may be even more important than before.

Why? The naming of the inventor on the application for patent remains a fundamental requirement, and all pre AIA inventorship case law seemingly remains relevant. The proper and correct naming of the inventor permits the legal chain of title to be established from the inventor to the assignee-applicant for patent. And as noted above, if applicable because of a JMM application, AIA section (3)(n)(2) expressly brings into play 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(g), 135, and 291, where proof of first inventorship may be critical.

In addition, determination of inventorship is still important in the AIA's derivation proceedings under 35 U.S.C. § 135. 19 If a derivation proceeding is instituted, the newly formed Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) will determine whether an inventor named in an earlier-filed application derived the claimed invention from another and, without authorization, filed the earlier application. A district court litigation avenue is also available for derivation proceedings under the AIA. 20 The new derivation proceeding recognizes the importance of a patent being awarded to a true inventor/innovator, not a thief. An inventor may be the second to invent but the first to file and will get a patent. However, a party that steals an invention from another (by claiming it in an earlier-filed application) is not entitled to a patent.

The AIA provides a bona fide patent owner with opportunities to correct all errors and omissions in the inventor-naming process. However, proof of the facts and such other requirements may be imposed, highlighting the importance of the maintenance and retention of traditional laboratory notebook practice. 21

Finally, laboratory notebooks remain important because for those U.S. patents and applications with claims having effective filing dates prior to March 16, 2013, the old "first to-invent" system continues to apply. This means that proving a prior date of invention will still establish who is entitled to the patent. Thus, a determination of inventorship remains an important consideration in preparing and prosecuting patent applications, and therefore careful laboratory notebook practice should remain a best practice procedure.

Conclusion

This article highlights only a few of the dangers for unwary practitioners brought about by the passage of the highly complex AIA. It is key to remember that patent practice will involve both the old and new laws until at least March 15, 2034. Practitioners will have to keep track of pre-AIA and AIA law to deliver the best counsel possible for the management of U.S. patent portfolios, for potential licensing scenarios involving patents and applications of third parties, and for evaluating one's own patents.

Practice Tips for the AIA Wary

  • The AIA definition of prior art in 35 U.S.C. § 102 no longer includes geographic and language restrictions.
  • Prior art applies against claims in AIA patent applications and patents depending on the effective filing date of the claimed invention, not the date of invention.
  • Pay attention to the grace period, as disclosure is never a substitute for filing.
  • Under the AIA, common ownership can protect against anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2).
  • Be aware of the argument that there is a difference between "entitled to priority" (to establish "effective filing date" of the claimed invention) and "entitled to claim the benefit of priority" (to determine whether subject matter is "effectively filed" for purposes of 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2)).
  • Consider the relative advantages of pre-AIA claims, AIA claims, and JMM claims.
  • If the effective filing date of all claims in a patent application is after March 15, 2013, the AIA prior art provisions apply and the patent applicant can rely only upon the effective filing date for each claim, not the date of invention.
  • If all claims in an application have an effective filing date before March 16, 2013, only pre-AIA applies and the patent applicant can (and may need to) rely on the date of invention.
  • If at least one claim in an application has an effective filing date after March 15, 2013, and at least one claim in that application has an effective filing date before March 16, 2013, the application is a JMM and all claims are subject to both the AIA and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(g), 135, and 291. This is so even if the one claim with the effective filing date after March 15, 2013, is later canceled.
  • Laboratory notebooks should be utilized and preserved as a best practice.

Endnotes


1 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011) (to be codified as amended in 35 U.S.C.). On January 14, 2013, the president signed H.R. 6621 into law, making certain technical corrections to the AIA. Technical Corrections&mdashLeahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-274, 126 Stat. 2456 (2013). This article was written before sections 102 and 103 of 35 U.S.C. became effective on March 16, 2013.

3 See Metallizing Eng'g Co. v. Kenyon Bearing & Auto Parts Co., 153 F.2d 516 (2d Cir. 1946).

4 See In re Nomiya, 509 F.2d 566 (C.C.P.A. 1975).

7 In re Hilmer (Hilmer II), 424 F.2d 1108 (C.C.P.A. 1970) In re Hilmer (Hilmer I), 359 F.2d 859 (C.C.P.A. 1966).

11 AIA § 15. Note that the best mode requirement still exists at least for all U.S. nonprovisional patent filings because it remains in 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).

12 157 CONG. REC. S1370 (daily ed. Mar. 8, 2011).

13 Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft v. Quigg, 917 F.2d 522 (Fed. Cir. 1990), provides an example wherein the Federal Circuit disregarded volumes of legislative history clearly intending that no one would get more than five years for patent term extension, and granted Hoechst 6.8 years of patent term extension for the drug Trental ® .

14 Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, 132 S. Ct. 1670 (2012).

15 AIA section 3(n) provides: (1)

(1) IN GENERAL&mdashExcept as otherwise provided in this section, the amendments made by this section shall take effect upon the expiration of the 18-month period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, and shall apply to any application for patent, and to any patent issuing thereon, that contains or contained at any time&mdash

(A) a claim to a claimed invention that has an effective filing date as defined in section 100(i) of title 35, United States Code, that is on or after the effective date described in this paragraph or

(B) a specific reference under section 120, 121, or 365(c) of title 35, United States Code, to any patent or application that contains or contained at any time such a claim.

(2) INTERFERING PATENTS&mdashThe provisions of sections 102(g), 135, and 291 of title 35, United States Code, as in effect on the day before the effective date set forth in paragraph (1) of this subsection, shall apply to each claim of an application for patent, and any patent issued thereon, for which the amendments made by this section also apply [in other words, AIA section 3(n)(1) also applies], if such application or patent contains or contained at any time&mdash

(A) a claim to an invention having an effective filing date as defined in section 100(i) of title 35, United States Code, that occurs before the effective date set forth in paragraph (1) of this subsection or

(B) a specific reference under section 120, 121, or 365(c) of title 35, United States Code, to any patent or application that contains or contained at any time such a claim.

16 See Metallizing Eng'g Co. v. Kenyon Bearing & Auto Parts Co., 153 F.2d 516 (2d Cir. 1946).

17 If a provisional application is filed pre-AIA on March 15, 2013, followed by a nonprovisional application on March 14, 2014, the 20 year term from filing will expire on March 14, 2034, and that patent will be a pre-AIA patent. If the patent is eligible for patent term adjustment and/or patent term extension, pre-AIA and AIA law will coexist even beyond 2034!

18 As discussed above, there are those who argue that "effectively filed" requires only description, not enablement.


Sending AP Scores

After you take an AP Exam, we send your score report to the college or university that you designated in My AP. Your score report is cumulative and includes scores for all the AP Exams you have ever taken, unless you requested that one or more scores be withheld from a college or canceled. When you go online you will be able to see your entire score report and score-send history. If you wish to send additional score reports to colleges, universities, and scholarship programs you can do so online for a fee. Learn more about sending your scores to colleges and universities.


'He's not an assassin': Father of Marin teen accused in Italy cop slaying speaks to media

1 of 36 In this photo obtained from Italian Carabinieri, Gabriel Christian Natale-Hjorth sits blindfolded in a police station in Rome on Friday July 26, 2019. Natale-Hjorth, a suspect in the slaying of police officer Deputy Brigadier Mario Cerciello Rega, was blindfolded before he was interrogated in Rome, an Italian police commander said Sunday July 28 after the emergence of a photo showing the young tourist restrained with handcuffs and with his head bowed. Natale-Hjorth and another suspect from California, 19-year-old Finnegan Lee Elder remain jailed, while the murdered police officer Mario Cerciello Rega is to be buried in southern Italy on Monday. (Italian Carabinieri via AP) Associated Press Show More Show Less

2 of 36 In this photo release by Italian Carabinieri, Gabriel Christian Natale Hjorth sits in his hotel room in Rome. Two American teenagers were jailed in Rome on Saturday as authorities carry out a murder investigation in the killing of Italian police officer Mario Cerciello Rega, 35. A detention order issued by prosecutors was shown on Italian state broadcaster RAI, naming the suspects as Gabriel Christian Natale Hjorth and Finnegan Lee Elder. (Italian Carabinieri via AP) Associated Press Show More Show Less

4 of 36 In this photo release by Italian Carabinieri, Finnegan Lee Elder sits in his hotel room in Rome. Two American teenagers were jailed in Rome on Saturday as authorities carry out a murder investigation in the killing of Italian police officer Mario Cerciello Rega, 35. A detention order issued by prosecutors was shown on Italian state broadcaster RAI, naming the suspects as Gabriel Christian Natale Hjorth and Finnegan Lee Elder. (Italian Carabinieri via AP) Associated Press Show More Show Less

5 of 36 Buy Photo Family attorney Craig Peters (left) makes a statement to members of the news media on behalf of Ethan Elder (second from right) and his family outside their home on Saturday, Aug. 3, 2019, in San Francisco, Calif. Elder is the father of Finnegan Elder, 19, who is accused in the stabbing death of 35-year-old Carabinieri police officer Mario Cerciello Rega in Italy. Ethan recently returned to S.F. after visiting his jailed son in Italy. Santiago Mejia / The Chronicle Show More Show Less

7 of 36 Ethan Elder, father of Finnegan Elder, in custody for the stabbing Carabinieri officer Mario Cerciello Rega, leaves the Regina Celi prison after visiting his son in Rome, on August 1, 2019. - Finnegan Elder has confessed to stabbing Cerciello, 35, with a US Marine partially-serrated, close-quarters combat knife, according to police. But he says he mistook the plain-clothes officer for a dangerous drug dealer and used the weapon in self-defence. His father, Ethan Elder, visited the teen for the first time in Rome's Regina Coeli jail on August 1, 2019 but made no comment to the crowds of journalists outside. (Photo by Filippo MONTEFORTE / AFP)FILIPPO MONTEFORTE/AFP/Getty Images Filippo Monteforte/AFP/Getty Images Show More Show Less

8 of 36 Carabinieri officer Andrea Varriale, leaves a Carabinieri police station, in Rome, early Saturday, July 27, 2019. Varriale was with his colleague Mario Cerciello Rega when he was stabbed to death early Friday. A young American tourist has confessed to fatally stabbing an Italian paramilitary policeman who was investigating the theft of a bag and cellphone before dawn Friday, (Claudio Peri, Giuseppe Lami/ANSA via AP) Claudio Peri - Giuseppe Lami/Associated Press Show More Show Less

10 of 36 American teenager Finnegan Lee Elder, who was allegedly questioned in the case of a slain Carabinieri policeman is seen on a Carabinieri car as it leaves a police station, in Rome, early Saturday morning, July 27, 2019. A young American tourist has confessed to fatally stabbing an Italian paramilitary policeman who was investigating the theft of a bag and cellphone before dawn Friday, the Italian news agency ANSA and state radio reported. Andrew Medichini/Associated Press Show More Show Less

This picture taken on July 30, 2019 shows a printed picture of the knife used in the murder of Carabinieri's officer Mario Cerciello Rega prior to a press conference in Rome.

FILIPPO MONTEFORTE/AFP/Getty Images Show More Show Less

13 of 36 In this combo photo released by Italian Carabinieri, Gabriel Christian Natale Hjorth, right, and Finnegan Lee Elder, sit in their hotel room in Rome. Two American teenagers were jailed in Rome on Saturday as authorities carry out a murder investigation in the killing of Italian police officer Mario Cerciello Rega, 35. A detention order issued by prosecutors was shown on Italian state broadcaster RAI, naming the suspects as Gabriel Christian Natale Hjorth and Finnegan Lee Elder. Italian Carabinieri via Associated Press Show More Show Less

14 of 36 In this photo obtained from Italian Carabinieri, Gabriel Christian Natale-Hjorth sits blindfolded in a police station in Rome on Friday July 26, 2019. Natale-Hjorth, a suspect in the slaying of police officer Deputy Brigadier Mario Cerciello Rega, was blindfolded before he was interrogated in Rome, an Italian police commander said Sunday July 28 after the emergence of a photo showing the young tourist restrained with handcuffs and with his head bowed. Natale-Hjorth and another suspect from California, 19-year-old Finnegan Lee Elder remain jailed, while the murdered police officer Mario Cerciello Rega is to be buried in southern Italy on Monday. Associated Press Show More Show Less

16 of 36 People carry a banner bearing the photo of Carabinieri officer Mario Cerciello Rega and reading "Sempre con noi" ("ever with us") at the end of the funeral mass at Santa Croce church in Somma Vesuviana, near Naples, on July 29, 2019. - Mario Rega Cerciello died after being stabbed eight times as he and a colleague tried to arrest two men following a complaint for theft. Two US teenagers appeared in court in Rome on July 27 after they were arrested over the police officer's murder whose death has sparked a national outcry. Eliano Imperato/AFP/Getty Images Show More Show Less

17 of 36 Carabinieri officer Mario Cerciello Rega's wife, Rosa Maria, touches the coffin of her husband as it arrives to be laid in state, in Rome, Sunday, July 28, 2019. In a statement Saturday, Carabinieri officers investigating the death of Cerciello Rega, 35, said two young American tourists have been detained for alleged murder and attempted extortion. Angelo Carconi / Associated Press Show More Show Less

Carabinieri officers and people look on as the coffin of officer Mario Cerciello Rega arrives at the Santa Croce church in Somma Vesuviana, southern city near Naples, on July 29, 2019, for the funeral mass. Cerciello, 35, was stabbed early July 26, 2019 after recently returning from his honeymoon. An Italian judge has charged two Americans, Christian Gabriel Natale Hjorth and Elder Finnegan Lee, both 19, with aggravated homicide and attempted extortion.

ELIANO IMPERATO/AFP/Getty Images Show More Show Less

A general view of the funeral of police officer Mario Cerciello Rega, 35, who was allegedly stabbed to death by American teenage tourists on July 29, 2019 in Naples, Italy. Christian Gabriel Natale Hjorth, 18 and Elder Finnegan Lee, 19, are accused of murder after a drug deal went wrong. (Photo by Paolo Manzo/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

NurPhoto/NurPhoto via Getty Images Show More Show Less

22 of 36 People unfold a banner reading in Italian: "Forever with us", and bearing a photograph of Carabinieri's officer Mario Cerciello Rega during his funeral in his hometown of Somma Vesuviana, near Naples, southern Italy, Monday, July 29, 2019. Two American teenagers were jailed in Rome on Saturday as authorities investigate their alleged roles in the fatal stabbing of the Italian police officer on a street near their hotel. Andrew Medichini/Associated Press Show More Show Less

23 of 36 Carabinieri officers hold a floral wreath in front of the Santa Croce church where the funeral of Carabinieri officer Mario Cerciello Rega will be held, in Somma Vesuviana, southern Italy, Monday, July 29, 2019. In a statement Saturday, Carabinieri officers investigating the death of Cerciello Rega, 35, said two young American tourists have been detained for alleged murder and attempted extortion. Andrew Medichini / Associated Press Show More Show Less

25 of 36 A car of the Italian Carabinieri, paramilitary police, is parked near a blood stain, the site where Carabiniere Vice Brigadier Mario Cerciello Rega was stabbed to death by a thief in Rome, Friday, July 26, 2019. Cerciello Rega was chasing a suspect man for a robbery and he was stabbed repeatedly when he tried to arrest him, Italian Police said. The murder happened in a central neighborhood, a few meters away from a police station and in front of the Italian Court of Cassation. Angelo Carconi Show More Show Less

26 of 36 In this photo released by Carabinieri, is portrayed officer Mario Cerciello Rega, 35, who was stabbed to death in Rome early Friday, July 26, 2019. Italian police said Saturday that two 19-year-old American tourists have confessed to fatally stabbing the Italian paramilitary policeman who was investigating the theft of a bag with a cellphone. Italian Carabinieri Show More Show Less

28 of 36 People and Carabinieri arrive to pay their respects in the church where Italian police officer Mario Cerciello Rega lies in state, in downtown Rome on July 28, 2019. - Mario Rega Cerciello died after being stabbed eight times as he and a colleague tried to arrest two men following a complaint for theft. Two US teenagers appeared in court in Rome on July 27 after they were arrested over the police officer's murder whose death has sparked a national outcry. Vincenzo Pinto / AFP / Getty Images Show More Show Less

29 of 36 People arrive to pay respect in the church where Carabinieri officer Mario Cerciello Rega was laid in state, in Rome, Sunday, July 28, 2019. In a statement Saturday, Carabinieri officers investigating the death of Cerciello Rega, 35, said two young American tourists have been detained for alleged murder and attempted extortion. Andrew Medichini/Associated Press Show More Show Less

31 of 36 The coffin containing the body of Carabinieri's officer Mario Cerciello Rega is carried to his funeral in his hometown of Somma Vesuviana, near Naples, southern Italy, Monday, July 29, 2019. Andrew Medichini/Associated Press Show More Show Less

32 of 36 People stop by flowers and messages left on the spot, in Rome, Saturday, July 27, 2019, where Carabinieri officer Mario Cerciello Rega was stabbed to death early Friday. In a statement Saturday, Carabinieri officers investigating the death of Cerciello Rega, 35, said two young American tourists have been detained for alleged murder and attempted extortion. Angelo Carconi / Associated Press Show More Show Less

34 of 36 In this photo release by Italian Carabinieri, Gabriel Christian Natale Hjorth sits in his hotel room in Rome. Two American teenagers were jailed in Rome on Saturday as authorities carry out a murder investigation in the killing of Italian police officer Mario Cerciello Rega, 35. A detention order issued by prosecutors was shown on Italian state broadcaster RAI, naming the suspects as Gabriel Christian Natale Hjorth and Finnegan Lee Elder. (Italian Carabinieri via AP) Associated Press Show More Show Less

35 of 36 In this photo release by Italian Carabinieri, Finnegan Lee Elder sits in his hotel room in Rome. Two American teenagers were jailed in Rome on Saturday as authorities carry out a murder investigation in the killing of Italian police officer Mario Cerciello Rega, 35. A detention order issued by prosecutors was shown on Italian state broadcaster RAI, naming the suspects as Gabriel Christian Natale Hjorth and Finnegan Lee Elder. (Italian Carabinieri via AP) Associated Press Show More Show Less

The family of Gabriel Natale-Hjorth, one of two Bay Area teens accused in the murder of a Carabinieri officer in Rome, continues to insist that, although he was present at the crime scene, he had nothing to do with the slaying.

"He was there, he made a mistake, but he's not an assassin," father Fabrizio Natale told Italian daily Corriere della Sera on Tuesday.

Natale says, like the rest of the world, he found out his son was a suspect in a murder inquiry when he saw it on television. When Natale-Hjorth's photo was shown on a news broadcast, Natale says his brother rushed to the hotel where the teen was staying and discovered he was in police custody.

Natale, who was born in Italy but immigrated to the United States as a boy, returns to Italy every summer with his family. His son has dual citizenship.

According to police, Finnegan Lee Elder, 19, and Natale-Hjorth, 18, were attempting to extort a local drug dealer when they were approached by police officer Mario Cerciello Rega and his partner. Court documents indicate police believe Elder stabbed Cerciello Rega 11 times, killing him, while Natale-Hjorth assaulted the other officer. In Italian law, anyone involved in a murder can be charged with the crime, even if they did not do the killing themselves.

In the Corriere della Sera interview, Natale says the teens, who graduated from Tamalpais High in Mill Valley last year, weren't close friends they happened to meet up in Rome after exchanging messages on social media. He also claims his son does not use drugs police say the men were attempting to buy cocaine from a dealer when the deal took a turn. They weren't given the cocaine they supposedly paid for, police said, and so they stole a backpack belonging to an alleged intermediary.

Prosecutors say that in exchange for a gram of cocaine and 100 euros, they promised to return the backpack. When they showed up for the exchange around 2:30 a.m. on July 26, police say they immediately attacked the plainclothes police officers.

Police claim they later found a military-style knife in the drop-ceiling of the hotel room where the teens were staying.

Natale-Hjorth and Elder are both being held at Regina Coeli prison in Rome, although they have not yet been charged. Unlike in the United States, where prosecutors must decide to charge suspects within a set period of time, charges in Italy are laid out after the criminal investigation is complete. Prosecutors in this case are still completing the investigation.


The AP U.S. History course is designed to provide the same level of content and instruction that students would face in a freshman-level college survey class. AP U.S. History classes generally use a college-level textbook as the foundation for the course.

Textbooks Edit

Commonly used textbooks that meet the curriculum requirements [1] include:

  • America's History (Henretta et al.)
  • American History: A Survey (Brinkley)
  • American Passages (Ayerset al.)
  • The American Pageant (Baileyet al.)
  • The American People (Nashet al.)
  • By the People (Fraser)
  • The Enduring Vision (Boyeret al.)
  • Give Me Liberty! (Foner)
  • Liberty, Equality, Power (Murrin et al.)
  • Out of Many (Faragher et al.)
  • A People and a Nation (Nortonet al.)

Conservative criticism Edit

American conservatives have criticized the course framework for downplaying American exceptionalism and failing to foster patriotism. In 2015, a bill to replace the course framework was passed by the Oklahoma House of Representatives’ Education Committee, but later withdrawn. [2] [3] The course framework was revised in 2015 in response to the criticism. In 2014, student protests in Colorado were held over plans by the Jefferson County Public Schools district board to revise the AP US History curriculum to emphasize citizenship, patriotism, and respect for authority. [4]

The AP U.S. History exam lasts 3 hours and 15 minutes and consists of two sections additionally, each section is divided into two parts. Section I, part A includes 55 multiple choice questions with each question containing four choices. The multiple choice questions cover American History from just before European contact with Native Americans to the present day. Questions are presented in sets of two to five questions organized around a primary source or an image (including, but not limited to, maps and political cartoons). Section I, part B includes three short-answer questions. The first two questions are required, but students choose between the third and fourth questions. In total, students are given 95 minutes (55 for the multiple choice section and 40 for three short-answer questions) to complete section I.

Section II of the exam is the free-response section, in which examinees write two essays. Section II, part A, is a document-based question (DBQ), which provides an essay prompt and seven short primary sources or excerpts related to the prompt. Students are expected to write an essay responding to the prompt in which they utilize the sources in addition to outside information. Section II, part B, provides three thematic essay prompts. Students must respond to only one of the three essay prompts. (In 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, the AP exams were administered remotely as drastically shortened open-note exams. The AP US History exam consisted of a single modified DBQ essay. [5] )

Each long essay question on the AP exam may address any one of three possible historical reasoning processes: patterns of continuity and change, comparison, or causation. Each of the essay questions will address the same historical reasoning process. There is a fifteen-minute reading period for students to read the essay prompts, take notes, and brainstorm, but students may begin to write the essays before this period ends. Students will then have 85 minutes to write the two essays 45 minutes are recommended for the DBQ and 40 minutes for the long essay, but students are free to work on the two essays as they see fit. [6]

In May 2011, the AP U.S. History Test was taken by 402,947 students worldwide, [7] making it second in terms of number of examinees, behind the AP English Language and Composition exam. [8]

Scoring Edit

Section I is worth 60% of the total AP exam score, with 40% of the total exam score derived from the student's performance on the multiple choice section and 20% of the total exam score derived from the student's performance on the short answer questions. The remaining 40% of the total exam score is derived from section II the document-based question is worth 25% of the total exam score, while the long essay question is worth 15% of the total exam score. [6]

The score distributions since 2007 were:

Score 2007 2008 [9] 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 [10] 2016 [11] 2017 [12] 2018 [13] 2019 [14] 2020 [15]
5 11.1% 8.5% 11.0% 11.0% 11.0% 11.8% 10.6% 11.0% 9.3% 11.7% 10.9% 10.4% 12.1% 13.0%
4 19.9% 18.2% 19.5% 18.8% 20.8% 21.4% 21.5% 21.3% 17.8% 17.9% 17.9% 18.2% 18.7% 19.2%
3 22.2% 21.4% 22.1% 22.9% 21.0% 21.7% 21.8% 20.1% 23.6% 22.5% 22.6% 22.5% 23.5% 26.6%
2 26.2% 25.4% 25.2% 25.9% 26.7% 26.5% 27.2% 28.0% 25.0% 23.4% 23.5% 23.1% 22.0% 20.4%
1 20.6% 26.5% 22.2% 21.4% 20.5% 18.6% 18.9% 19.6% 24.3% 24.5% 25.1% 25.8% 23.7% 21.0%
% of Scores 3 or Higher 53.2% 48.1% 52.6% 52.7% 52.8% 54.9% 53.9% 52.4% 50.7% 52.1% 51.4% 51.1% 54.3% 58.7%
Mean 2.75 2.57 2.72 2.72 2.75 2.81 2.78 2.76 2.63 2.69 2.66 2.64 2.74 2.83
Standard Deviation 1.29 1.28 1.30 1.29 1.29 1.29 1.27 1.29 1.28 1.33 1.31 1.32 1.33 1.31
Number of Students 333,562 346,641 360,173 387,416 406,086 427,796 442,890 462,766 469,689 489,281 505,302 501,530 472,697

Composite score range Edit

The College Board has released information on the composite score range (out of 180) required to obtain each grade: [16] [17]

Final Score Range (1996) Range (2001) Range (2002) Range (2006)
5 117-180 114-180 115-180 106-180
4 96-116 92-113 94-114 85-105
3 79-95 74-90 76-93 68-84
2 42-73 46-75 47-67 47-67
1 0-50 0-41 0-45 0-46

Note: The above composite score cut points reflect the pre-2011 grading formula which deducted 0.25 points for every incorrect multiple choice answer.


Watch the video: Finnegan and Fox