Filed Subject To Attached Disclaimer 1: Fill & Download for Free

There may be a copyright infringement issue in the generic situation you are describing, but it may not be formed the way you think. Though, in the very specific link that you sent, the drawings were made prior to 1/1/1978 without a copyright notice indicating that the work has entered into the public domain.Patent attorneys usually contract out drafting, which would make the copyright in the drawings the property of the drafter, not the inventor. Once the drafter completes the drawings, the attorney usually provides a numbering markup. So, now the attorney and drafter are co-authors. Unless, they are both employees of the inventor, this is not a work made for hire.To have subject matter jurisdiction for a copyright lawsuit both the attorney and the drafter need to get to file a copyright application, which is then granted. At that point, they can send out a letter asking the copyist to stop. Given all that inertia and that statutory damages are unavailable unless the copyright filing is made shortly after the drawings were published, these lawsuits are unlikely. In fact, I was only able to find one and the copyright issue never surfaced because of personal jurisdiction problems Rozenblat v. Sandia Corp. 69 USPQ2d 1474 (7th Cir 2003).There is a little tension between the Patent and Copyright regulations regarding the extent of copyright protection in these applications. 37 CFR 1.71 requires a partial disclaimer in order to attach a copyright notice (like the one in 37 CFR 1.84(s)). However, 37 CFR 202.10 provides that drawings are copyright eligible without such a notice (though the notice would affect damages). The solution would seem to be publish the patent drawings without the notice (and disclaimer) and the file the copyright application shortly after publication.If this is a situation you have found yourself in, PM me and we can discuss some solutions and whether fair use might apply.

A lot of students have chosen IIMC over IIMA and/or IIMB. I am going to be one of them, when I join IIMC this June. A lot of students do it every year, a lot of students did it this year, and I firmly believe a lot of students will continue to do it year after year. Because, there are minuscule differences between B and C (as a matter of fact, between A,B and C)- the differences are mostly related to culture, pedagogy and alumni base.Coming to the rankings, I believe the most comprehensive survey (but still not very useful) is carried out by Financial Times (FT). The NIRF is a good initiative, but the data provided there is subject to verification (Referring to the disclaimer : 'Responsibility for accuracy and authenticity of data lies with the concerned institution' at the bottom of every .pdf file attached), hence they cannot be relied on with absolute certainty. Also, if you look at the NIRF 2017 data for management colleges (Link : MHRD, National Institute Ranking Framework (NIRF) ), the data provided for IIMC is presumably inaccurate (Referring to fields such as Citations and Research Projects).Now, coming to the FT rankings, you must realize that before they give a final rank, they take into account everything - I mean, EVERYTHING, including factors which might not be relevant to you. For Example: They take into account all programs in the institute, which includes the 1 year programs too. Now since IIMC has less 1 year programs than both IIMA and IIMB, it wouldn't be a surprise if its rankings took a hit because of that. Unfortunately for us, detailed breakup of the data is seldom provided with these rankings, so we can never do a comparative analysis between PGP (or 1 year programs) of IIMA/B/C from their data. Also IIMC's infrastructure (which is not a very important factor for some, including me) has been a bit lower on the scale than that of A and B, and its effect on the rankings cannot be determined since the relative weights of parameters are not disclosed by FT. The above mentioned criteria (1-year programs and infrastructure) have been used to present the idea that there may be factors contributing to the equation which do not carry importance for you, and the weights assigned to them relative to other factors are also not disclosed. Other factors important from my perspective (not necessarily yours)like ‘Career Progress Rank’ and ‘Employment at three months’ are those in which IIMC comfortable trumps IIMB. Again, the weights assigned to them relative to other factors are also not disclosed, so I cannot possibly discern their effect on the final rank.Basically, the rankings are a good source of data only for quoting in Group Discussions :p , or when they provide certified raw numbers (which they seldom do). But if you are still intent on using them, do them with the required pinch of salt. You can find the FT rankings in the links below: (It is better to select all fields and import data to an excel - comparison between the Big-3 become much more easier, although not much would come out of it :D)http://rankings.ft.com/businessschoolrankings/global-mba-ranking-2017?mhq5j=e2Business school rankings from the Financial TimesRegarding what you should refer to when it comes to choosing one of A/B/C, here is a good article which compiles data on some very relevant factors (which should be relevant to all) and presents them in a pretty concise format : The A, B, C of Indian B-Schools: IIM A vs IIM B vs IIM CAs for my two cents, I believe choosing between A,B or C is a largely personal decision. Apart from the factors mentioned in the article provided above, the others are :· Your past profile - both academic plus extra-curricular, to determine where you stand in the incoming batch and what shortlists you will get during your Summer Internships.· The specialization you seek - the placements, faculty and research associated with it in the Big-3· Location advantage - if any, from both personal and professional point of view.· Culture of the school - the most important according to me and also the hardest to quantify. The culture determines where you fit - the hectic environment of a B-School will be a lot more pleasant if you enjoy the B-school. And, the culture at all 3 B-schools is very different.You need to figure out the how much each factor is important to you and then make your decision. The best way to do this is to talk to the current students and recent alumni (maximum 5 years in industry since graduation) of all three schools, regarding all three schools. Talking to faculties will help little, as they often are unaware of ground realities. Talking to seniors about the opportunities that will be available to you (not just placements ; a B-School is much more than placements) at both B and C is the best place to start.Having said all this, I would like to add that I had a similar dilemma, and it took me 2 weeks to figure it out. Though the above mentioned approach will get you some good data, if pressed for time, just go with what feels right to you. You have to choose between 2 schools which form part of the 'Holy Trinity' and wherever you go, you will be fine!

David S. Rose is 100% correct – To paraphrase his response:Yes, it's complicated, but speak to an experienced corporate securities attorney before you do anything.Nothing in the law expressly prohibits an issuer from raising two types of securities concurrently, but your attorney will have major concerns, including: (1) general securities compliance; (2) the integration doctrine, and (3) antifraud liability, for failure to disclose all material information.GENERAL SECURITIES COMPLIANCEEach time you raise money or issue securities, you must comply with state and federal securities laws in connection with your offering. Securities laws require that all offers and sales of securities be either registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under the Securities Act of 1933 or made in reliance upon an exemption from registration. In other words, you have two options if you offer securities: Rely on an exemption or go public (IPO) – there is no other option.When raising private capital through the sale of securities to potential investors, the offering is generally subject to investor restrictions and/or offering amount limits.The good news is that you can rely on some tried-and-true exemptions. The bad news is that it can get extremely complicated. Echoing Mr. Rose's comments, an experienced corporate securities lawyer will help guide you through the labyrinth of securities laws to make a well informed decision (ignorance of the law is no excuse).For discussion purposes, let's review some of the exemptions you might rely upon:Regulation D contains three main rules that provide safe harbors from the registration requirements: Rule 504, Rule 505 and Rule 506. These rules allow some companies to offer and sell their securities in private placements, without having to register the transaction with the SEC.Rule 504 and Rule 505 under Regulation D are available for certain offerings with an aggregate offering price of up to $1 million and $5 million, respectively.Rule 506 is without a doubt the clear favorite of all three safe harbor rules (between 2009-2014, it accounted for almost 99% of the total capital raised under Regulation D). See https://www.sec.gov/dera/staff-papers/white-papers/unregistered-offering10-2015.pdfWhy? Because you can raise an unlimited amount of capital under Rule 506. In 2014, more than $2 trillion in private capital was raised through exempt offerings, largely through offerings made in reliance on Regulation D. By contrast, only $1.2 trillion was raised through SEC registered offerings (IPOs). This is considerably larger than the amount of public debt (straight and convertible debt) and public equity (common and preferred) offerings over the same offering.BEWARE OF INTEGRATIONYour lawyer's next concern should be the integration doctrine.As stated above, every offering must either be registered or exempt from public registration as a discrete transaction or series of transactions (you cannot string multiple offers together if doing so would make the offer public). The determination as to whether separate sales of securities are part of the same offering (i.e., are considered integrated) depends on the particular facts and circumstances.The integration doctrine is used to determine whether:two or more purportedly discrete exempt offerings are really one offering that does not qualify as an exempt offering, oran exempt offering is really part of a registered public offering.Rule 502(a) provides a safe harbor for Regulation D private offerings spaced 6 months or more apart. If two or more exempt offerings are issued contemporaneously or within 6 months of each other, the SEC provides a five-factor test to determine whether the offerings are integrated:part of a single plan of financing;involve the issuance of the same class of securities;made at or about the same time;involve the receipt of the same type of consideration; and,made for the same general purpose. See SEC Release No. 33-4552 (1962); see also 17 C.F.R. 230.502 - General conditions to be met.So what does this all mean?It means all your relied upon exemptions must match all your investors. In other words, if any investor would cause you to lose an exemption for any integrated offering, you lose the exemption for all investors and all offerings. It becomes a domino effect (or it poisons the well, however you want to look at it) if just one investor causes you to lose your reliance on any exemption.Of course, the SEC won't hold you to a strict scrutiny standard, but the penalties are so severe that it would be wise of you to follow them as such.Let's look at two examples:1. Can you raise under 506(b) and 506(c) concurrently?A: Probably not, but let's analyze it anyways.Because you are considering concurrently raising two exempt offerings, the six-month safe harbor in Rule 502(a) is unavailable.Accordingly, the analysis must follow the SEC's traditional five-factor test to determine whether the concurrent offerings are deemed integrated for purposes of the exemptions listed under Regulation D. Unfortunately, these five factors are vague and subjective and although the SEC has issued hundreds of no-action letters on this topic, it is not known what relative weights should be given to each factor or how many factors need to be present to find in favor of or against integration.The analysis will turn on whether the investors in the Rule 506(b) offering were attracted to the offering by general solicitation used in the Rule 506(c) offering. If there is any advertising that targets these potential investors, the exemption fails. From the SEC:“We are of the view that an issuer will not be permitted to check both boxes at the same time for the same offering. We remind issuers that once a general solicitation has been made to the purchasers in the offering [FN142], an issuer is precluded from making a claim of reliance on Rule 506(b), which remains subject to the prohibition against general.” FN142: That is, the purchasers became interested in the offering because of, or through, the general solicitation, and not through some means other than the general solicitation, such as through a substantive, pre-existing relationship with the company or direct contact by the company or its agents outside of the general solicitation. See Revisions of Limited Offering Exemptions in Regulation D, Release No. 33-8828 (Aug. 3, 2007) [72 FR 45116, 45129 (Aug. 10, 2007)].If there is no advertising, this approach is consistent with the SEC's guidance in the area of Section 4(a)(2) private placements, where the Commission has recognized that although the filing of a registration statement could be considered general solicitation, it should not per se eliminate an issuer’s ability to conduct a concurrent private placement.2. Can you conduct contemporaneous Regulation S and Rule 506(c) offerings?A: Yes:Offshore transactions made in compliance with Regulation S will not be integrated with…domestic offerings that satisfy the requirements for an exemption from registration under the Securities Act, even if undertaken contemporaneously." Securities Act Release No. 6863, ¶III.C.1, 46 SEC Docket 52, 74 (1990).However, a foreign private issuer that is planning an offshore offering under Regulation S with no concurrent US offering (registered or unregistered) must:include a prominent disclaimer on its website making clear that the offer is directed only to countries other than the US. For example, the website can state that the securities are not being offered in the US or to US persons; andimplement procedures on its website that are reasonably designed to guard against sales to US persons. Before allowing a prospective investor to view materials online, for example, the investor could verify the person's IP address and/or self-certify as a foreign person using a mailing address or telephone number outside the US. The website could automatically reject any person who refuses to provide such information or whose IP address originates from the US.ANTIFRAUD LIABILITYThe final significant legal concern (although there are plenty of concerns) is whether the information you provide (or omit) to your investors is material.Companies must decide on what information to provide to investors, but even if no specific information disclosure is required because all your investors are accredited investors, you must still provide as much information so as not to violate antifraud prohibitions. That means disclosing all material facts."a material fact as one to which there is a substantial likelihood that a reasonable investor would attach importance in making a decision because the fact would significantly alter the “total mix” of available information." TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc., 426 U.S. at 449 (1976).PLEASE READ MY DISCLAIMER BEFORE YOU DO ANYTHING! I am not your attorney, and this is not legal advice.