Other conclusions of the report include:

• the Texas Medical Board conducts its reviews in secret, and even affected patients don't get to hear the doctor's side of the story;
• since tort reform was enacted in 2003, complaints to the medical board have nearly doubled, but the Texas Medical Board only investigates 25% of the claims;
• neither of the injured women in the story had health insurance, so the treatment they received after being injured by bad doctors was paid for by the taxpayers.

By and large, most doctors are good doctors. The rule of thumb is that 5% of doctors account for 50% of malpractice claims. Unfortunately, after tort reform was enacted, Texas legislators have fallen short on their promise to beef up enforcement against bad doctors. My Texas lawyer friends tell me that since there are limits on malpractice cases, they cannot invest the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars necessary to take malpractice cases to trial. The patient loses.

In Arkansas, we don't have caps on damages. However, we expect this to be a fight in the Arkansas legislature in the upcoming session. Please write or call your local legislators and tell them you oppose tort reform, because it lets bad doctors off the hook! If they want proof, send them this link.

• Texas has the highest percentage of uninsured residents of any state in the country;
• Texas citizens pay more in healthcare premiums than the average American, so any alleged savings of tort reform haven't been passed on to consumers;
• The number of new doctors in Texas as a percentage of population actually lags behind the rest of the country;
• Texans who can't afford healthcare for disabled children rely on Medicaid, which is funded by taxpayers; and
• Texans whose family members are injured or killed by incompentent doctors and nurses have nowhere to turn.

What the clip for yourself here.

Tort reform is bad for ordinary citizens who pay taxes, buy health insurance, and want to receive competent medical treatment. It is good for insurance companies, lobbyists, and other special interest groups who make money by shifting financial burdens to the government, instead of the parties responsible for causing financial harm to innocent people. Whose side do you want to be on?

As a parent, I'm glad that he's interested in knowing how things work, and that he gets excited about learning how to do those new things. The play is fun, but learning how the new activity works is important so he can play and learn and ask questions when I'm not around. Teach a man to fish, as they say. And it's not just my son — all little kids like learning new things.

Which brings us to the title line, which is from Corinthians and is something my wife really enjoys. It talks about how we did things differently as children, yet now our knowledge remains incomplete. We see through the glass darkly. We don't question things, nor do we seek out new knowledge in its own right like our kids do. That's why my three year old can pick up my phone and show me how to do things I never dreamed it would do. I suspect if we thought more like children do, for knowledge itself, the glass might be a little clearer.

The people we read about in history books are the ones who weren't afraid to ask questions and then look for the answers. Of course, you're not always going to get the right answers. In many instances, you're probably not even asking the right questions.

In my work as a patent lawyer and a trial lawyer dealing with medical issues, I run into two types of people. First, there are the people who question how a product or medical test works and how it could be made better. They may try new designs, tests, or treatments. Some might not work, but usually these people wind up figuring out a creative answer that is an improvement on their practices. These folks are the innovators, the reason we have advancement in technology, science, and medicine.

Second, there are people who are resistant to things they don't understand, or don't bother to learn about new things. I've seen businessmen refuse to consider that their tech business could be displaced by the next best thing. I've also seen doctors refuse to consider strong empirical evidence of effective new tests in favor of decades-old tests with half the diagnostic resolution. Without asking questions, how do these folks know what they're doing is ultimately helpful to their customers, clients, or patients? If only those who see through the glass darkly would merely begin with the question, what if I'm wrong?

Option 1 — Test market first, then patent

This option involves talking to people in the industry about your idea before seeking patent protection. Your goal is to find out if there are any potential investors/purchasers for your idea before you invest much money. The risks here include: (1) public disclosure of your idea starts a 1-year clock ticking for you to file a patent application, and if you don't, you cannot get a patent; and (2) industry insiders could take your idea and run with it, and you would face an uphill battle proving it was your idea in court. This is the most risky option because it provides no protection whatsoever.

Option 2 — Nondisclosure agreement

This option is similar to step 1, except that you ask the potential investor/purchaser to sign a nondisclosure agreement (NDAs) before you tell them what your idea is. In the abstract, this option makes it less likely that a third party would steal your idea. However, practically speaking, you might still have to prove what you disclosed to industry insiders and that they did not already know what you disclosed to them. Many companies are unwilling to sign NDAs for unsolicited idea submissions, in part due to these proof issues. This is a reasonable option for inventors who have already identified serious potential "angel" investors (that is, investors who are not in the same field and thus have little incentive to steal the idea) or have existing partnerships with trusted associates.

Option 3 — Patent pending

The patent pending option means that you begin marketing as soon as you file a patent application. This option allows you to prove what you've invented to interested parties, since you've already submitted your idea to the patent office and have received a dated confirmation. It also avoids complications about when you disclosed your idea to the public vs. when you filed your patent application. For these reasons, the patent pending option shows that you are serious about your invention and what it takes to protect it. The downside is primarily the cost of getting a patent application on file. This option is the one taken by most of my individual inventor clients, as it represents a good balance between the risk of theft by a third party and getting your product onto the market (and making money) as soon as possible.

Option 4 — Full patent protection

The final option, securing full patent protection before marketing your product, is the least risky. It means that others will not know about your product until it is already patented. Under this situation, a potential thief of your idea would be on notice of the patent and would be subject to additional penalties in a civil patent case for stealing your idea. Most of the time, when I see this approach, it is from existing businesses whose R&D departments are coming up with ideas that are several years from production.

I get lots of calls from individuals who have an idea for a great new product or service and are looking to take the next step. Lots of these folks have different day jobs and are just looking to sell the idea. What hurdles do they face?

The first hurdle many people face with their idea is it is just that: an idea. This is one of the most common misconceptions about patents — patents protect inventions, not ideas. You have to describe an actual physical product or service in a patent application. That is, you have to know all the components it will take to build the invention and what the function of each component is. A person without a clear picture of how to make a product out of the idea doesn't have enough information to get a patent.

The second hurdle is that many companies aren't willing to invest in a new idea unless one of two things happens. First, you can sign a complete release letting them use your idea without paying you anything. This is like sending an email to your favorite software company and asking them to put a new feature in the next version of their software. They may do it, but you would have no claim to any money from the feature.

The second thing companies look for is a patent. Not a patent pending, but an actual patent. But why? A patent pending is not a guarantee that the government will grant a patent. Without a patent, the company would have nothing to protect the idea from copying by others. A company could hire a patent attorney to look at the pending patent application, but this requires a pretty significant cost, and many companies would rather let the individual get the patent first.

The third hurdle is that patents take a while to obtain and, for individuals who are pursuing one outside of a routine business research and development budget, they are also fairly expensive. However, the hard cost of a patent is small compared to the investment of time and money it takes to market a successful product. In order to get a company to buy a patent, an inventor needs to be prepared to make prototypes, go to trade shows, and pitch the product to as many people in the industry as possible.

Like any good investment, a patent is a long-term project that requires patience. It also requires lots of hard work. For people with good ideas and a clear marketing plan, a patent can be a great way to start a new business or to expand an existing one.

• 21% of excess spending was caused by high administrative costs (underwriting, sales, and marketing), mostly by private insurance companies
• Preventable medical errors are higher in the United States than in any other developed country except Switzerland and New Zealand
• The United States badly trails Canada, Japan, Germany, Britain, France, Brazil, India, and China on 19 measures of health value scores, meaning that our citizens are generally unhealthier than those in other countries

One thing the article addressed was the effect of medical malpractice lawsuits on total U.S. healthcare costs. Fear of lawsuits is often cited as a reason healthcare costs are so high. However, according to the Congressional Budget Office:

• Aggressive reforms to the medical malpractice system "would reduce total national health care spending by about 0.5 percent." That's one-half of one percent, or fifty cents out of a hundred dollars.

No one likes high healthcare costs. However, in order to reign in those high costs, it seems like we should pick all the low-hanging fruit possible. If private insurers are soaking up nearly a quarter of the cost increases through high administrative costs, then their administrative processes should be streamlined or eliminated.

Leah Sexton, another Chaney Firm team member, is the president-elect of the local chapter of Junior Auxillary. She was on hand for the awards banquet to help accept the Volunteer Organization of the Year award to Junior Auxillary. As a few examples of JA's contributions to our community, the annual Angel Tree drive raises enough money to provide clothing and toys to over 500 local children each winter. JA also throws a charity ball each spring to raise money for other community projects, including backpacks for schoolchildren. To donate, send checks to Junior Auxiliary of Arkadelphia, to P.O. Box 565, Arkadelphia, AR 71923.

Congratulations to Cindy and Leah! We are proud of you!

Here is Channel 7's news coverage of the event:

Now, here is the letter from my friend and colleague, Tre' Kitchens:

Dear Mates,

I am proud to represent the families of the two soldiers who where gunned down by a terrorist outside the Army Recruiting Center in Little Rock on 6/1/09. Private Long lost his life and Private Ezeagwula still carries a bullet on his spine and will for the rest of his life.

The man who shot them was a Muslim terrorist who had traveled to Yemen from the US for terrorist training, was arrested in Yemen and interviewed by the FBI while in a Yemen jail, brought back to this country and interviewed again by the FBI, was able to walk into his local Wal-Mart and purchase a gun legally, and then shot these two soldiers as declared act of war for American "aggression" in the mid-east. He entered a guilty plea in State Court and the Feds never charged him.

The federal government has decided that these two soldiers were the victims of a drive by shooting, a "street crime", and not a terrorist act. Therefore, they are not entitled to a Purple Heart or other medal. This is important to the memory of Private Long who comes from a military family (mother, father, brother, grandfather, uncles, have all served or are serving our Country), and the continued care and treatment of Private Ezeagwula at the VA.

Tomorrow night on Channel 7, at 10, their story will air. I encourage you all to watch. Private Long's father, a life long Marine, has testified before Congress on this issue. Not recognizing these young men is wrong. It should be fixed.

If you know your Congressman or Senator, or anyone else in Washington, I encourage you to make a call. If you need more information let me know.

I am representing these families without a fee. I am doing it because its right and I anticipate that most of my friends on this list would do the same thing, and probably do a better job. I am grateful I work with someone who allows me to do these kind of things when it really matters, and that I'm part of an organization that cares.
Thanks.

Tre' Kitchens

The Brad Hendricks Law Firm
(501) 221-0444