A Brief Introduction to Soccer Scholarships

All Colleges and Universities these days have various scholarship programs in place to help a multitude of students procure a quality education. Scholarships are a form of financial aid to help students from weak financial backgrounds to attain further education. Each scholarship is awarded based of different criteria. The most common types of scholarships are Merit-based, Need-based, Student-specific and Career-Specific. Merit-based scholarships are based on the student's superior skills in academic, athletic or artistic field. When the student's ability is recognized, scholarships are awarded by private organizations or by the college itself, to which the student has applied. Need-based scholarships are given to those students who are incapable of putting together the tuition fees and related expenses. Student-specific scholarship contenders are generally assessed on race, gender, medical history or religion. These scholarships are often given to students from minority groups. Career-based scholarships are given by the college or university to students pursuing a particular field of education. Some scholarships may even come with a "bond", stating that after he or she has finished the required study he or she must join the organization that provided the scholarship for a stipulated time period. The most common form of such scholarships is offered by the defense associations of various countries.

Sports scholarships or Athletic Scholarships are a form of Merit-based scholarship. They are awarded based entirely on the student's ability to play a sport. These scholarships are generally hard to come by because the competition is very fierce. A Soccer scholarship is an example of such a scholarship. Universities have in their employment scouts who assess the skill of players in various high schools and recommend players to the scholarship lists. These scouts are often approached by the high school coach who has noticed a rising star on his team. The scouts often come to important matches and judge the player's performance. If the performance is everything the coach promised, the player can expect a spectacular windfall. But not all scholarships cover the entire tuition cost. The reason for this is though the university offers a certain number of scholarships the scouts end up recruiting double the number of players and offering them half the scholarship.

Of course the player's expertise on the field is not the only factor towards a scholarship assessment. Being able to score the highest number of goals in a soccer game can only get you so far. His or her academic record also plays an important role in getting the scholarship. The player has to be able to keep up respectable grades so as to not side-track education altogether. Not only does a contender have to maintain at least a "B" to apply for the scholarship but must also be able to get those grades once he or she joins university as well. A continual drop in grades can be grounds for revoking the scholarship. Though the soccer scholarship is awarded to the next soccer superstar out there, equal stress is placed on an overall growth of the student. These scholarships literally push you to be all that you can.

An Introduction to Patent Monetization Resources For Corporations and Entrepreneurs

For corporations and entrepreneurs seeking to monetize their un- or under-utilized IP rights for the first time, it can be difficult to know where to begin. The patent monetization market is not yet mature and, as with other emerging marketplaces, no established methodologies and few experts exist to guide owners through the process. Today, there are as many as 17 different business models used. More will likely spring up as the market continues to evolve, even while some of the current models will certainly fall away. With such a range of options, it is not surprising that those seeking to sell their patent rights may be confused about what path to take. This article is intended to provide an overview of ways that corporate and individual IP owners can most effectively monetize their rights in today's market. The models discussed in this article were chosen because they are currently the most common. Significantly, due to the great variability in patents and the individual needs of IP owners, the best model for a particular person or organization might actually one that is not discussed here.  Nonetheless, it is hoped that after reading this, a corporation or entrepreneur seeking to sell their rights for the first time will be better able to understand and execute on the opportunities and challenges present today in the patent monetization market.

Thinking of Selling a Patent Directly to a Corporation Without an Intermediary? Forget About It Most IP owners assume that it is possible to sell their rights directly to a company that might play or seek to play in the product or technology space covered by the patent. This is rarely the case, however. When I was employed as a senior attorney in a consumer products company, it was corporate policy to reject all unsolicited offers to purchase or license patents that came into the organization. Thus, an owner did not stand a chance to get their rights sold to my company. This absolute prohibition on unsolicited ideas is not the policy at all companies, but, in truth, few companies today actively seek to acquire products and technology from outside sources (although this is starting to change with the drive toward open innovation at many companies). Thus, even if a patent is a perfect fit for a company's offerings, most organizations will nonetheless prefer to pass on a purchase opportunity because external acquisition is not part of their technology development model. It is therefore doubtful that most patent owners can hope to successfully sell their rights directly to a corporation because the latter is not in the business of buying patents generally, and specifically not from individual owners.

  Aggregators: Buyers of Patents if a Patent Owner Can Get a Foot in Their Door In recent years, companies have emerged that hold business models centered on the buying of patents held by others. Well known aggregators today include Intellectual Ventures, RPX and Allied Security Trust. Each of these companies has a different reason that it seeks to acquire patents, but each can serve as a great resource for owners seeking to sell their IP rights in certain technology areas. Nonetheless, there are many more patent owners seeking to sell their rights than existing aggregator buying opportunities. As a result, if an owner obtains a "no" answer, how does he know it is because his patent is worth nothing to the aggregator or whether it's because he did not know the right person to get his rights in front of at the aggregator company? For most IP owners, especially those participating in the monetization market for the first time, patent aggregators will not serve as a likely direct purchaser of their rights.  

Brokers: Facilitors of Patent Sales, For a Price Brokers such as ThinkFire, IPotential and IP Transactions Group can assist IP owners in presenting their patent to a likely buyer, the most likely of which are patent aggregators, non-practicing entities ("NPE's") and, sometimes, corporations. By leveraging their relationships and reputations, brokers effectively serve as "filters" for potential patent acquirers to streamline and improve the quality of patent buying opportunities.  Put simply, patent buyers trust their patent brokers to "separate the wheat from the chaff" to make it easier for them to identify and act on good patent buying opportunities.  A broker who is trusted by a patent buyer can thus present the latter with a buying opportunity that the buyer would not have given a second glance to if the same patent had been offered to them outside of the broker-buyer relationship.   There is a substantial cost to hiring a broker, however--typically about 25 % of the total sale price. Patent brokers also require exclusivity. Thus, when a patent owner selects a particular broker to represent him in the sale, he must trust that the broker will find the best deal. I nonetheless believe that the knowledge and expertise available with a good broker can allow a patent owner to obtain a final purchase price for his rights that more than justifies the broker fee. In particular, the best brokers maintain a large network of potential purchasers of patents, including aggregators, NPE's and, in some cases, corporations that have expressed an interest in buying third party IP rights.  

I believe such broad networks serve a critical function in improving the efficiency of the monetization market by possibly raising the final purchase price.  When a patent is offered through a quality broker, he will ensure that each party participating in the process also knows who else is being offered the opportunity. Such transparency could also result in an increase in the final purchase price when one potential purchaser seeks to ensure that another potential purchaser not acquire that same right. For example, a corporation might increase its offer to prevent an NPE from obtaining that patent for the purpose of bringing suit against the corporation. This scenario means that those most interested in acquiring the patent will bring their best offer to the table, a fact which should improve the final price paid.   A further benefit of selling through a good broker is that they will typically conduct market analysis of the rights to set a rationally-based entry level price. Specifically, the broker will set the price based upon what comparable patents have been sold for in the past. These figures normally are not public, so a broker with several sales under his belt will likely set a more accurate initial sale price by virtue of the fact that he is privy to information that allows him to do so. Notably, even an experienced broker might incorrectly estimate the likely floor price, but when the patent is offered to many likely buyers, the market will typically act to reset the price to one more acceptable to potential buyers.    

Beware of Finders Who Say They are Brokers A significant problem with many people who hold themselves out as patent brokers is that some are not "brokers" at all. Rather, they are "finders" for aggregators or other buyers of patents such as NPE's (but likely not corporations). Like regular brokers, these finders maintain relationships with likely buyers. When accepting a patent for sale to a potential buyer, the finder likely already knows whether it will be purchased by its contact. In this scenario, the finder actually does little to earn his 25% fee other than maintain a relationship with the ultimate purchaser. Moreover, many of these brokers actually "double dip" because they obtain a fee from the purchaser for bringing the opportunity to them, as opposed to another potential buyer. The finder thus might hold divided loyalties: should they try to maximize the price obtained for his client's patent when they might never see an opportunity from that seller again, or should they keep the price reasonable so they don't ruin their relationship with their buyer to whom they might bring several buying opportunities to each year?   Clearly, this scenario is rife with questionable ethics, but the reality of the current monetization market is that no licensing is required for someone to call himself a "patent broker," and the rule is definitely "buyer beware." As things stand in today's unregulated broker market, the best way to find a quality patent broker is to seek referrals from someone who understands the market and/or who has successfully sold patents through a broker in the past.   

Patent Auctions: Selling in the Open to the Highest Bidder The final common vehicle for selling patent rights is the public auction setting. Today, the most prevalent auction is conducted by Ocean Tomo, which currently holds 2 auctions each year. Ocean Tomo is very selective about what patents it takes into each auction, a fact that limits the ability of many patent owners to participate in this model. Ocean Tomo obtains a fee from the seller and the buyer, and it is my understanding that the net fee amounts to approximately 25 % paid to the auction house. While I have not personally been involved in an auction, I have heard mixed things from people who have participated as both buyers and sellers in these auctions. My sense is that an auction allows one to sell his patent in a transparent setting where the price is set by competitive bidding. This can be good when a patent is desired by multiple parties who are influenceable by the "heat" of a public auction process to increase their bids to result in a higher price for the seller.   In my view, one downside of the open auction process is that all participants know the price being offered, a fact that can lead to a lower final sale price if a patent does not garner excitement from the participants. This view was borne out in the most recent (April 2009) Ocean Tomo auction which was almost universally considered a failure. Buyers were lacking and, as a result, not only did few patents sell, the tenor of the auction itself was said to be very quiet and unexcited. This lack of enthusiasm from the auction participants no doubt reduced the overall success of the auction itself.   In contrast, in a private auction--such as that effectively set up when a quality broker sells a patent into a large network of potential buyers--the lack of transparency can result in a higher final price because the participants know who has been provided the opportunity to purchase but not the amount they have offered (if at all). A further possible downside to a public auction is that one can only sell his patent to someone who shows up to participate in the auction. With a broker-conducted private auction, however, someone who may not actively be seeking to buy a patent at that time will be presented with the opportunity to buy. Thus, the number of potential buyers can be expanded with the use of a broker.  

It's as Clear as Mud Now, Right? As noted at the outset of this article, the IP monetization market is only just now emerging as a viable way to obtain value from un- or under-utilized assets. In view of this, most patent owners just starting into will be confused about how to proceed in a manner that maximizes the price obtained. If one owns patent rights and seeks to sell them today, it is my recommendation that he learn as much as possible about the process. And, as with many business situations, checking references and seeking recommendations from those with experience as patent sellers and counselors to IP owners will be critical to success in monetization.  Personally, I am looking forward to the day when more openness exists in the marketplace so that patent owners can better gauge the quality and qualifications of those participants in the process.               

Introduction to the Old Testament, A Book Summary

a. The development of Old Testament study (pp.1-82)

The teachings of Scripture have been perverted even in the first century of the Christian era. Cassiodorus' work entitled De Institutione Divinarum Scripturarum (d. A.D. 562) is seen as a valuable contribution to the beginnings of Biblical criticism as applied to the text of the Hebrew Bible. The tenth and eleventh centuries witnessed a number of critical attacks in Spain upon various parts of the Hebrew Scriptures, one of which was made by Ibn Hazam of Cordova about A.D. 994. The Reformation introduced biblical criticism even though individual Reformers sometimes adopted a standpoint towards certain books in the canon which was not in complete harmony with earlier ecclesiastical traditions. A more developed critical approach to the Old Testament appeared in the writings of several men who were not professional theologians in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Source criticism is discussed in its relationship with eighteenth-century enlightenment. The Graf-Wellhausen hypothesis, reactions to the afore-mentioned hypothesis and Old Testament scholarship since World War I are also discussed.

The writer believes that it is only when criticism is properly established that Old Testament scholarship can expect to reflect something of the vitality, dignity and spiritual richness of the law, prophecy and the sacred writings.

b. Old Testament archaeology (pp.83-144)

In discussing the historical survey of scientific archaeology, the writer discusses the pre scientific archaeology taking into consideration pilgrimages, Napoleon in Egypt and surface explorations. He studies the spread and development of archaeological techniques and radiocarbon dating in the analysis of scientific archaeology since Flinders Petrie. One of the functions of archaeology is to awaken a sense of the vitality of the Hebrew past in the student of Old Testament life and times. His analysis of the archaeology of early Mesopotamia reveals that archaeological activity in the land of the Tigris and Euphrates has now demonstrated conclusively that culture originated in that general geographical area rather than Egypt. The archaeological study of the background of the Old Testament tremendously assists the researcher to understand patriarchal history, the exodus and the Israelite kingdom. Perhaps the most famous archaeological discovery of all times was the findings of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Much that was known in earlier days has been amply confirmed, thus furnishing a more secure basis for future advances in the field of Biblical scholarship.

c. Ancient Near Eastern chronology (pp.145-198)

The writer admits that despite the enormous amount of information available for the modern scholar as the result of historical and archaeological research, there is still an insufficiency of primary source materials to adequately trace the chronology from Adam to Abraham. Extra-biblical sources are naturally of very great importance when they furnish fixed dates, and it is often in the light of such material that schemes of Biblical dating have to be modified. However, it was proved impossible in the light of available statistics to assign precise dates to the Hebrew patriarchs, or to associate them with any detailed chronological scheme amenable to control by means of extra-biblical sources. In discussing the chronology of Israel's early history, Harrison observes that the nature of the genealogical scheme associated with the patriarchs in Genesis 14 has raised important problems of Old Testament chronology. Although the problems with chronology cannot be solved completely, a recognition of the customs of the ancient scribes, taken together with the archaeological findings that require an interval of some two hundred and thirty years between Joshua and David, should go far towards resolving most of the difficulties arising from a strictly literal interpretation of the figures in Judges. The writer admits that the discussion on the Old Testament history (the monarchy and after) deals with much more exact numbers.

d. The Old Testament text and canon (pp.199-288)

This section is a discussion on the history of Hebrew writing, the Old Testament text, textual criticism and the Old Testament canon. The study of the Hebrew text in its own right is a matter of great importance, since the judgements that are made by scholars in this field are basic to all other areas of Old Testament investigation. As a discipline, textual criticism is independent of the history and growth of the Scriptural writings, as well as of the formation of the canon. The primary concerns of this study are the transmission of the text, the rise and development of revisions, the nature and scope of scribal activities during the process of transmission, the incidence of vocalization and the emergence of the Massocretic text. The ultimate aim of the textual critic is to recover the text of Scripture as nearly as possible in its original form. However, this laudable objective cannot always be realized, for none of the original drafts of the Old Testament compositions has survived, and the copies that exist have of course been subjected both to the frailty of human nature and the ravages of the centuries. There are undoubtedly numerous instances in which cogent arguments can be adduced for the adoption of one of several plausible variants.

e. The study of Old Testament history (pp.291-348)

The writer observes that while the sources available for determining the idea of history among the ancient Hebrews are of an accredited literary nature, they are quite unlike the cuneiform and hieroglyphic inscriptions of Babylonia and Egypt. At least one Moabite ruler has a royal inscription; the Hebrews possessed none. Despite this lack of official records, however, there were a great many other sources in existence upon which the writers of the Old Testament books were able to draw. The rise of the nineteenth-century critical school, with its emphasis upon literary analysis and its evolutionary view of Hebrew origins, brought with it an extremely skeptical evaluation of the Old Testament historical narratives. Whereas at the end of the nineteenth century one of the most pressing questions of debate among Old Testament historians was the nature of the progression from polydaemonism to monotheistic faith in the experience of ancient Israel, the situation had changed by the middle of the twentieth century to the point where scholars were concerned to grapple with the entire question of the origins of Israel. It is evident that there is a need for a reliable methodological approach that will bridge the gap between the Biblical events and the extant written form of the narratives describing them, if the writing is not contemporary with the event. A much more satisfactory approach to the problems of Hebrew historiography has been provided by W.F. Albright, a distinguished Biblical archaeologist. Though Albright himself and some of his followers appear to concur in a kind of documentary analysis of the Pentateuch that has affinities with that propounded by Wellhausen, they are quick to recognize the breakdown of the classical pattern of source-analysis as the primary means of reconstructing Hebrew history and religion, and are willing to avail themselves of other cognate areas of information.

f. Old Testament religion (349-414)

The writer observes that the study of Old Testament religion took a somewhat different turn as a result of Julius Wellhausen's speculative ideas about the development of Hebrew history. Starting from the Positivish premise that religion was merely an offshoot or product of human cultural activity, he applied the evolutionary philosophical concepts of Hegelianism to the study of the faith of Israel. Following the lead of Kittel and Sellin, scholars began to look for traces of Canaanite religious influence during the settlement period and the monarchy upon the faith of Israel. An entirely new and unexpected source of information concerning the culture of ancient Canaan came to light with the discovery in 1929 of a great many cuneiform tablets at Ras Shamra, the Ugarit of the Armarna Age, on the coast of northern Syria. In the eleven campaigns at the site prior to World War II, many hundreds of tablets were unearthed whose contents placed the culture of ancient Canaan in an entirely new perspective. Harrison also discusses the influences of the methodological approach, animism, totemism, tabu and ancestor worship on the religion of the Hebrews. He systematically traces the religion of the Patriarchs, the religion of Moses, the tabernacle and Canaanite influences, the sacrificial system, the religion of the monarchy and the prophets and later Judaism in his discussion on the history of Old Testament religion.

Essay with an introduction

There is no way a research paper or any other kind of serious academic work may, without an introduction is provided in which will be made on the document. This can usually made a part of this introductory document for the entire duration or by the entire legislative period available. Although the document for the entire period of the introduction, body and covers the conclusion, this document will be considered only speak of the introduction.

Many scientific papers will call for an introduction.What we need to know is that a paper be considered a very good introduction as one of the best in terms of curricula. If you write an essay or a dissertation, you should be aware that most teachers and found even players in general look at the introduction of the type of material in the body of the paper to be determined. Therefore, its introduction should be clear and precise. Must be written in one language.

TheIntroduction is twofold. The primary objective of each contribution will be to give the reader aware that something serious to be adequately addressed in the body of the paper deadline. Second, the introduction will serve readers attract attention. This will keep their attention and encourage them to want to read from page to page. By introducing your readers to know is what happens in the body of the paper deadline.

When you write,the introduction of the concept, you have to base your first concern to your readers. You must already know that the first reader and writer. Therefore, how to write an introduction, you need a writer and read about it, what you write. Must be independent and objective in your writing. If you think that you do not, you should ask someone else to do the evaluation for you. In his introduction, you should always have the what they think readers know,remember what you write about. What they say and how they should be known to them, there is a chance to aggressively on the path of rapprochement, it will introduce in a position to complete their attention is to link the end of the document?

Essay with an introduction should be specifically examined the object and purpose. Only the introduction of the housing is not an easy task. Along the lines, you can swing the introductoryMaterials and make finding things in the body, or the conclusion. Their primary focus was to ensure that the materials are only an introduction and that your readers are given due consideration.