Sea O stock prices soaring

PETALING JAYA: Unconsciously, the price of health and multi-level marketing (MLM) Hai-O Enterprise Bhd

On the basis of growing distributors, there is a strong demand for food and beverage and fashion and beauty products.

Because of its high dividend yield, it is seen as a defensive stock, and Haiou’s share price is more like a high beta or volatility stock.

The company’s share price rose 85.52% year on year corsets wholesale , the market value reached 142 million ringgit. The appreciation also makes its yield (PE) 24.33 times, although the consensus is expected next year, PE will drop to 17.54 times.

The company’s growth is driven by the rise of e-commerce and social media marketing. The net profit for the past decade has been in teens.

For the financial year ended 30 April 2011, operating income increased by 35.74% year-on-year to RM403.93 billion, representing a year-on-year increase of 63.07% to HK $ 5.926 billion. As of July 31, 2017, net profit rose 83.35% year-on-year to Rmb1.787bn, with revenue up 58.32% to RM12,244 million. Taking into account the seasonal weakness of the first quarter sales, this is a surprise.

Higher sales growth is due to its strong sales activity, its recently launched fashion products, pirates and large-scale sales campaign to its 25th anniversary celebration of the strong reaction.

“We are adding 5,000 dealers every month, and social media is actively affecting our sales, and most of our distributors now sell their products on these platforms,” ​​said Tan Keng Kang, managing director of Haiao, His father, Tan Kai Hee, is the current executive chairman and founded the company in 1975.

He added that about 70% of the distributors were women, and most were between the ages of 25 and 40. About 90% of its members are raised.

“Most of our 150,000 members are active, and the members of the entrepreneur have played a significant role in driving our diversification growth, and Tan Qichen said that their creative culture is the key between us and others Of the competitive advantage.

Haio Group Chief Financial Officer Hou Zhenjian added that Haiao conscious decision has begun to gain some, to provide smaller stocks. Previously, we were selling large-scale purchasing goods, such as our filters and corsets.

Those that are durable and repeat orders are slow. Since the provision of food and beverage, food additives and fashion beauty products, we have seen more sales. Most of our members are women, and women and beauty products, one of our best-selling products, “Hew explains.

Tan said consumer sentiment has also picked up, and the improvement of the retail sector is also the case.

Bumiputras dominates Haio’s MLM market, while the Chinese are mainly engaged in retail stores. In more than 500 kinds of products, there are about 200 kinds of MLM market for the Chinese market and other products.

At present, Haiou nearly 80% of the profits from the MLM sector, wholesale accounted for 12%, retail sector accounted for 2%.

Haiao takes dividends of 50% of the after-tax profit at the expense of RM1 billion in cash (including short-term investments). Despite the stock price rise, but the stock price is still about 3.05% dividend.

Since listing in 1996, Haiao has paid about 30 million ringgit of dividends. In addition, the nature of the business means that the company does not need too much capital expenditure.

“Our business is mainly very cash and requires only a small amount of investment.Hew said that the establishment of new retail outlets and the MLM branch or upgrade our factory does not require much capital expenditure. About 2%.

“Slowly and certainly, Haiao is digitizing all of its operating platforms. Due to the efforts of social media and digital marketing, our operating efficiency has increased by 2% in the previous quarter.We have greatly reduced postage and printing costs, Hew said.

Tan said that in order to develop MLM business, the company will launch in the next few months a new way of life and leather products.

Verox waist training corset and exercise band has become second place in the United States from Anne Chery selling Anne Chery

Wear a training band to a fitness center or jogging to affect healthy lifestyles. The Verox corset is wrapped around the middle of the body, compressing in the body’s core, stimulating heat activity and increasing sweat. This process allows toxins and impurities to cheap wholesale sexy corsets leave the skin while mobilizing fat cells. The band ensures workouts. It consists of a latex core with a soft cotton outer and inner lining. It is sitting on the waist and extending to the upper abdomen. Two sets of crochet and closed glasses can make the clothes glue to fit the body. Felix Boning insists on working hard and prevents migration. Those who want to supplement their active lifestyle will love Veron’s waistline training corset and the strength of the exercise band.
Verox Styles are available in sizes: 32, 34, 36, 38 and 15 colors. Corset body shaper, double hook eyes closed, control and slim waist and abdomen provide beautiful silhouette.
Verox’s sales are fast approaching Archie’s sales, and its sales continue to double each quarter. In the tens of thousands of products offered by underwear stores, Verox and Ann Chery waist training corset and exercise bands are still the largest wholesale distributor of exclusive wholesale distributors.
LingerieMart is the official and exclusive wholesale distributor of all # 1 sales in the United States in Colombia, Anne Chery and Verox Waist Training Corset and stylist.
Lingeriemart is the “source” of all 45 styles # 1 sales of An Chery and all 15 styles of Verox Waist Training Corset and stylist.
“Underwear Martin will continue to meet the higher requirements of these products and continue to provide the best for Verox Waiston training corset, exercise band and stylist,” said Steven Rapp, chief executive officer of the underwear brand. Wholesale prices, the fastest delivery and the fastest turnaround time. “Our Verox style is particularly popular throughout the US, UK, Canada and European underwear Mart customers,” he added.
Lingerie shop was established in 1997, has sold tens of thousands of customers around the world wholesale and retail underwear. Their Atlanta warehouse is open to the public from Monday to Saturday.
The underwear store offers a complete source of wholesale underwear. They offer a variety of commercial sites, including traditional lingerie stores and boutiques, retail stores, discounts and flea market types of outlets, family gatherings, eBayers, mass distributors and other sites. The underwear store is also the world’s largest online retailer’s main performing center.
Underwear stores enjoy a variety of sizes of customers and orders. Whether the product demand is large or small, welcome from national orders and buyers. Professional, friendly and experienced customer service team ready to help, and the most advanced transport department to quickly and effectively handle orders.

New Yorkers are refused to accept HIV / AIDS prevention drugs for high-risk homosexual acts

Insurance companies refuse to accept homosexual HIV prevention drugs because of “engaging in high-risk homosexual acts”.
The men living in New York applied for wholesale corsets sexy  TruVada’s PrEP in July. The drug is the only FDA-approved antiretroviral treatment to protect someone from HIV infection.
But a few days later, he received a letter from the joint health care company, which said: “The information sent indicates that you are using this drug for high-risk homosexual behavior.
The company claims that the health plan covers only Truvada patients with HIV or have been exposed to the virus and added that his request in the “New York State Act” is not technically necessary.
However, the letter also lists a list of United Healthcare Truvada standards, which stipulate that each drug with a wholesale cost of $ 1,450 should cover adults with a high risk of acquiring HIV 1.
HIV organizers will deny illegal acts and refer to this letter as “homosexual discrimination”.
Truvada is the product name of a PrEP (“pre-exposure prevention”) drug.
The combination of these drugs, especially the two antiretroviral drugs, tenofovir and FTC in a fixed dose is combined in a pill.
They intervene in HIV to infect new cells with enzymes that slow down the virus or completely stop it.
The drug is designed for people who have not yet touched the virus to protect themselves from viruses.
Or, people who have been exposed can take PEP (post-exposure prophylaxis) and one month’s medication starts within 72 hours of contact.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the Department of HIV / AIDS at the National Institutes of Health, said in a speech on the Internet Friday that he was very confused by the idea that insurance companies had denied certain precautionary drugs.
“It seems to be an inherent contradiction,” he said.
“PrEP is designed for people who are actually at risk of HIV infection, not those at risk.
“PrEP has proven to be a very effective way to prevent HIV infection, which is why Truvada is approved.
After receiving this letter on 11 July, anonymous patients went to the support of the HIV Action Group to appeal the decision.
He sent the document to Jeremiah Johnson of the Action Action Team (TAG), who had called the insurance company and the national health department to admit that the refusal was a violation of the guidelines.
Johnson told the Daily Mail, “at best, the insurance company to implement its own policy is absolutely powerless.” “Worst of all, it’s right to discriminate, it’s illegal.
“We are all shocked by the patient.
“The words they use are themselves contemptible terms, but when you send UHC letterheads,” you are deprived of this necessary medicine because you are gay “… we’re just scared.
“This is clearly a violation of policy, immoral, denying the disadvantaged groups is malicious.”
The patient has called for a doctor to overturn the decision and has issued PrEP.
However, the activist group has launched a petition to the New York State Department of Health to condemn the joint health care department’s refusal letter.
ACT Jean NYC’s James Krellenstein said after the letter and petition that this was not the first unfounded case.
He told the “Daily Mail Online” that we were listening to the story after the patient was rejected by Truvada, despite full compliance with the CDC, federal and state guidelines.
“Usually you can appeal to the decision and get approval, but research shows that these refuses are hindering people and lead to lower overall coverage.
The language in this letter indicates that this situation is based on patient-oriented black and white cases.
Kleinstein noted that the New York City Health Department last year issued a guideline to doctors, stressing that gay men were candidates for PrEP.
The Federal Guide to the National Institutes of Health states that the LGBT community is one of the most vulnerable groups of HIV infection and should therefore receive PrEP.
“Joint health care is endangering the health of patients because of sexual orientation,” says Kleinstein.
“Every time this happens, insurers endanger the health and well-being of the entire LGBT community.”
“We apologized for the insensitive language that appeared in the letter and regretted any difficulties it had caused,” he said in a statement: “We have corrected our letter, removed Truvada’s prior authorization request, and members Can be in their choice of online pharmacy to fill the prescription.
CDC said last year that 1.5 million Americans could benefit from taking PrEP to reduce their risk of using HIV for HIV or by intravenous drug use.
At present, the data show that only 10 million people take medicine.
Kleinstein called on insurers to contact HIV organizations to discuss coverage, standards and costs.
“We are interested in solving this problem and we are willing to work with UHC or any insurance company,” he said.
“But we will not remain silent, but at the same time endanger the health and well-being of our community.”
Johnson forced to reject PrEP people to visit the National LGBT Health Alliance, allowing patients to share stories anonymously and get support to appeal the decision if necessary.
Johnson added: “If you are deprived, do not be ashamed of yourself.
“This is a shameful drug, just like a few years ago, any person who takes shame drugs needs to be very insistent.
“Continue your appeal decision with your doctor and try to let HIV activists know that you are denied.”

47-year-old Mariah Carey in New York City and 34-year-old toy Bryan Tanaka cordial hand, her spacious bust pushed into the sexy satin

Full of Maria with tight black tight jeans and fashionable leather jacket.

Although New York City is involved in a lot of walking, Maria is dancing in the sky high heels, like a professional who, like their own greedy shoes to work.

The singer chooses a pale makeup instead of her usual dramatic play and uses her dark shadow to shelter her eyes from the summer sun.

Bryan dressed in cheap sexy corsets a more casual ensemble, completely juxtaposed with the charm of the city scenery.

Dancers and dancers choose jeans, cuffs with ankles and dark blue t-shirts.

He wore a white baseball cap and pilot glasses to finish his cool appearance, accompanied by blue shoes.

They looked happy to be off the busy streets in each other’s company.

Maria and Brian began dating after she was interrupted with her marriage with Australian billionaire James Packer.

The princess married the actor, the US Got Talent host Nick Garnon, 36, was married in the Bahamas in 2008 for six years.

The former couple raised their six-year-old twins with Morocco and Monroe.

October Grammy Award winning artists back to Las Vegas, in the Caesars Palace to obtain the right of abode.

“This is a NEGLIGEE! Rebekah Vardy explosion Kim Kardashian in the” corset “dressed in four-year-old daughter North

Earlier this week, Kim Kardashian wore a corset, wearing a four-year-old daughter north, causing anger.

Now Rebekah Vardy has joined the war, in order to encourage her little girl wearing a “satin negligence”, exploded the reality of the star.

This is a saturress with a fake corset ragged, why would he wear the 4-year-old daughter? Recently he and her football player Jamie Vardy (Jamie Vardy) together to welcome her The second child of Ripa on Twitter raging.

She said: “I have never been used to judge other people’s parenting options, but cheap wholesale corsets is not it?

When North was found through New York’s illegal clothes, all the social media was broken.

So Venus on Wednesday to defend himself, insisted: “I will never put my daughter in the corset!”

“Relax is the one I bought for a dress, which is a cotton fabric, dressed, looks like a corset! Just decorate.

Uploading the film about the clothes, she continued, “I did not design this dress, actually bought, it was not a corset, just fabric in front.

“So I think it ‘s really cute, I bought it from a designer, just the fabric, it’ s not a real corset.

But some of her followers did not do so, one insisted that the material itself is not suitable for a little girl.

Of course, Kim is not familiar with the corset itself.

In addition to the use of tight-fitting corset waist training, you can also use old-fashioned clothing to stratify her clothes.

New season, new design – Sexybvds proudly introduced 2013 new sexy underwear and Halloween costumes

Sexybvds, a well-known sexy lingerie and garment manufacturer and distributor, proudly announced the launch of the new Halloween and Christmas season from pop designers.

Sexybvds is a professional manufacturer and wholesaler of wholesale corsets sexy lingerie for nearly eight years and has thousands of customers from all over the world. Sexybvds offers a wide range of commercial sites, including traditional lingerie stores and boutiques, retail stores, discounts and flea market type outlets, family gatherings, EBayers, and mass distributors. A variety of sexy underwear can be in their stock, such as:

Sexy dress, corset, club dress, leggings, baby pajamas, bikini suits, sexy ladies underwear, men’s underwear, sexy suits, porn dresses, sexy stockings and sexy leather series.

“We just want to help our retail customers build a successful business.” Sexybvds spokesman Li Lanqing said. “We have enabled our customers to keep this trend, and in fact, even before other sexy lingerie wholesale companies or even fashion shows, we have also introduced new products to our customers to provide our customers with a competitive advantage.”

With the popularity of Halloween and Christmas, young people gradually increase, Sexybvds knows that their fanatical loyal customer fan team hopes for a new exciting look, which will help them out of the other parties and cause the most attention. To meet this need, Sexybvds is pleased to be able to offer more sexy lingerie and clothing than any other sexy lingerie dealer online. These new and exciting Halloween and Christmas costumes, plus more than 3000 other sexy lingerie, make Sexybvds a female, group and couple find sexy underwear and clothing that will make 2013 the best ever Halloween and Christmas The best place.

E-commerce is on the rise while SexyBvds is one of the biggest online wholesalers on the network with sexy underwear, sexy Halloween and Christmas costumes, cheap corsets, swimsuit and club dresses. Sexybvds was founded in 2006 with more than 3,000 products at wholesale prices. Sexybvds in the wholesale underwear market to provide the best quality products, has become a leader in e-commerce. In addition, Sexybvds’ customer service team is unparalleled. Please note that with the help of the operator, if there is a problem or problem, Sexybvds’ customer service team is always willing and able to assist.

Corset and Wines: Coordinated Secret Gifts and Secret Sales Secrets of Modern Art

The secret modern art doesctrine represents one of the more complex and conflicting areas of American patent law. In 1946, when the metallization project was decided and accelerated by Hobbes v. United States, the court had an impact on the effectiveness of sales, gifts, knowledge, public use, private use, advertising and sales patents in different ways, each Are dependent on a series of changes, often a common series of factors, most of which is the US Patent and Trademark Office in the review of patent applications can not be assessed. The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and many patent attorneys agree that 35 U.S.C.’s new US Invention Act (AIA) Article 102 aims to completely eliminate the secret prior art. However, the court may also use the language as an opportunity to coordinate the field.

The secret principles of the existing technology are rooted in important policy considerations: the inventor may keep the invention as a trade secret for long-term retention, and only when the competitor begins to uncover the secret to get the invention quickly, thus greatly extending the effective grant patent. In order to avoid this result, the United States Former US No. 35 §102 provides that “[a] an individual is entitled to a patent unless the invention [b] is publicly used or sold in Date of application more than one year before the patent.

At the turn of the century, and explaining similar language, the Supreme Court considered the notorious case of the tights, Egbert v. Lippmann. An inventor gave a woman who later became his wife a new set of corsets or steel. Eight years later, he invited a friend to study the invention, so his wife “out, with a pair of corsets and a pair of scissors back, these corsets torn open, and out. ] Then explained how they were made and used. “Ten years later, the inventor applied for a patent.

The court has made a decision on the secret matter whether the sale, the gift, the knowledge or the use of the disclosure involves: “the inventor, giving or selling his equipment to another, being used by the insured or the defendant, unrestricted or Limited, or confidential, and so used, this use is public, even if the use and use of knowledge may be limited to one person.

The separation of the way from the thousands of years after the metalworking (metal 2) gift, disclosure and use of the case, the case of the appeal, elaborated on the basic facts (metallization 1). The inventors have discovered a new method of roughening a hard metal surface so that additional metal can be more closely integrated so that the mechanic can reconstruct the worn engine parts. In the first thirty months of applying for a patent, “he solicited the advice of a friendly engineer, who told him to thoroughly test the patent before the actual service.” In the first 29 months of the submission, the inventor commissioned Patent search. Twenty-three months before the submission, the inventor advertised in a trade magazine, announcing that he had a new hardened metallization process, despite no notice. The inventor also made a statement to the Executive Officer who provided him with a patent for the inventor and granted a patent license. “After thirty to twelve months, the inventor solicited and received sixty-six orders for the reconstruction of the part,” the practice of this process is so guarded, not openly aware; its nature is only to the employees of a few inventors and Consultants disclose that in all cases, in the case of distrust, not being abused. “The amount of uncertainty in the work is done at the expense of the inventor, and the other sales are the parties who know the” secret process. “An order for the first eight months of the patent application is to understand that the job is Experimental customer carried out.

Rely on Egbert, the Metallic Court 1 decided that the above sale and use were not open and therefore not a condition of patentability. “The inventor’s patent is the condition that, after preparing for the patent, he will not use his findings competitively; he must be in his own secret or” Legal monopoly. “However, for subsequent doctrinal consistency, the court has never determined which activities produced a patentable column. Perhaps the event that is defined is the discussion with the engineer or the ad. Perhaps this bar is triggered by the genius part, and perhaps only those who lead to the use of the inventor secret sales before getting the patent to get “competitive advantage over others”, although the metal 1 did not find out which sales might be, Did not provide factors to determine the competitive advantage.

Thirty years later, Hobbes v. American clarified that the general sale – regardless of purpose, confidentiality or the identity of the seller – produced 35U.SC Section 102 “Sale” patentable column, as long as the equipment was fully developed, patents and experiments The use has ended. However, it is determined whether the contract is and when to invent the “sale”, whether the inquiry or order is counted as sales, and whether the use of the experiment is over, and even in Hobbes there is no quick task.

The complexity soon hung up. Considering a few related doctrines, all of these are legally applicable laws: the sale itself may be experimental use, thus exempting Section 102 “sell” the patentability clause; the sale rights do not make the equipment “sold”; between legal entities The seller and the end user do not need to know or agree to sell; if no sample is provided to the customer, the entity may be in the presence of the product, and the seller may not be required to sell the goods; The “temporary” model presented to potential buyers may hinder patentability unless the details of the invention of the potential buyer are described as unsuitable prior to the sale of the agreement; similarly, the disposition of the origin of the income may No; the list of prices is sufficient to be invented; third-party experimental use may trigger a fatal bar, except under the supervision and control of the patent applicant.

Doctrine multiplication has a side effect: an independent inventor who seeks an investor or an independent inventor before seeking an investor or a client – itself is an increasingly expensive sport – is likely to be in conflict with at least one “sale” exception. Complex inventors and large innovative entities are better able to navigate these deceptive waters, and the courts must deal with strong de facto cases of specific sales and scattered in a better part of the century.

Perhaps the United States Invention Act amended 35U.S.C.102, now states that “an individual is entitled to a patent unless the claimed invention is publicly available, sold or otherwise made available to the public”. According to many read, “or other available for public” language modified the “use” and “selling” terms, the ability to eliminate the secret prior art, the formation of patent licensing. It remains to be seen whether the court will take such an analysis, since the patent submitted under the United States Invention Act is usually not yet released, let alone questioned in court.

However, in addition to the secret prioritized wholesale classification of the existing technology, if the “public use” is read into the “use” and “sales” terms, you can choose a wholesale corsets choice: sales can simply be used with the current processing, gifts, and other disclosures The Article 102 of the Pre-Trial Law has been required, and the public can access the case for non-economic purposes (such as gifts or demonstrations) that meet the conditions of public use. Full secrets may prevent gifts, disclosures and use of the “pre-emptive rights” Article 102 “Public Use” column, just as the lack of safety makes the corset steel available to the public. In fact, the Federal Circuit may have been in this direction to the controversial “sale” situation.

At the Delano farm, after deciding on AIA, but explaining the patent application before the AIA and applying the former AIA law, the third party gets under the control of improved grape varieties under oral confidentiality conditions. However, the third party then handed the grape plant to the other two grape growers within four years. They all knew that the improved grapes were the main competitive advantage, all of which were planted on hundreds of places visible on public roads plant.

By most of the measures, if any of these transfers or activities are offered for sale, then they will make these plants not affected under the metallization. There is evidence that, as the lower court has pointed out, one of the third parties sold the other grapes and served as mentors and exchanged “grafts” between the two sides. The two sides may exchange the social or non-monetary benefits of the plant and may allocate plants to each other to understand the future sale of grapes. Test briefings and complaints vary, claiming that a third party has grafted grapes during normal business, and the patent is not valid under 35 U. S. C. Article 102 (b) – although it does not specify whether the plaintiff wishes to apply the “public use” or “sale” bar. If the harvest is good, as long as the conditional offer to sell grapes, and perhaps a few samples of grapes together, should be enough to quote.

But the gift is essentially selling the problem has not been resolved. On the contrary, the Federal Circuit in the “public use” principle to determine the problem, the application of “full secret” test is very reminiscent of Egbert and its descendants. The court cited factors such as the inability to identify grape varieties by simply looking at grapes, compared to the size of the site, the limited number of sown areas, the unqualified cultivation, and the fact that no other person recognized the evidence to test the breed, especially the third party Rattan test is confidential.

In function, the back of the AIA $ 102 ‘[open] sale of the bar’s application may look much like the Delano farm. The decision of the court will depend on whether the sale or offer is “publicly sold” – that is, the party that does not have sufficient confidentiality obligations and whether there is a public use. Under this system, a backyard inventor does not need to pass several rigorous restrictions on the sale of samples to find his patent invalid: at least if these secret sales did not cause new art, reverse engineering or more than one year before the public application patent application The Like secret use, secret sales may become publicly sold in the case of too much distribution.

It is important that, for the courts that hear such cases, records will be a public issue and a measure taken by the Parties for confidentiality. The court may turn to decide what kind of “restricted or restricted or confidential ban” is sufficient to prevent sales from becoming “provided to the public” rather than sorting old sales receipts and oral testimony.

Finally, the Delano farm should provide a pacification solution to the courts that are plagued by the potential impact of the US Department of Defense 35 U.C.C. Section 102 – Review of gifts based on more reasonable “public access” criteria, rather than metallized sales rules, did not lead to any terrible march. At least should provide and sell similar reviews should be worse.

So you can feel sexy and still pay student loans to affordable underwear

I like dress up, I like lace, I like to watch a special night. But unfortunately, the bill still exists. Recently,  I noticed that most underwear seems to be for the rich, because for me, the rich means that you have all the money, in addition to groceries and rents, you have to spend money.

Note that it makes me pursue cheap sexy corsets, which is actually affordable, which makes me straightforward and affordable and affordable whole: Amazon. While I am a little disappointed about the lack of goods like those who like the buttocks, but I still find some cute works that I may even invest for myself, you know, research and all.

In any case, I gathered them here to prevent you from trying to see. happy shopping!

Varsbaby pushed on embroidery bra

If you like me pinch your wallet string, you might be thinking about how $ 30 can also make you a lot of lovely tops that you can wear in public places This may be my most important about the purchase of underwear for their own pendant. But taking into account the fact that in this case, $ 30 can make you three in the collection. Not only will you get a bra and underwear, but you also get a matching garter. So when you think of it, $ 10 per piece is actually affordable underwear.

This is basically the whole package and cabo odle to get your character, maybe you can even mix mix when you expand your collection online.

XAKALAKA Plus size Baby Doll underwear dress

I like this lovely, clumsy, super women’s nightlife. The front of the silky pink panel gives you the support of the body, leaving your imagination, and the pure behind is perfect so that your lace does not pass.

As a bonus, it’s designed to fit your sweetness without increasing costs! I hate it when the underwear makes it seem that only very thin people are making love. More work for all – i mean all of us, please!

Avidlove sexy lace harness mini Cami underwear pajamas


Wait, is this a shorts and a tank’s top sleep suit? Either way, I like the material to fit the shape of the body. In addition, this piece has four different colors, so if it applies to you, you are basically set forever.

To be honest, this work is very cute, I think I may just sleep and sleep, no matter that night no one sleep.

Avidlove Babydoll Chemise

This soft blue is so bright, soft knee hem is super charming, waist bow adds a good little accent. As an added benefit, it looks like the bust to fit the size of the range, so you will not try to squeeze a baby that actually makes a doll for your head.

And as a lady of love lady, I can personally say that this small number will make me blush. Everyone needs a strange vote of confidence, right?

AKAUFENG sleeveless fur corset

I just assume that every woman and woman’s life for some time, she said: “Yes, today is my day to buy leather corset,” I tell the truth, I have not arrived, this is a bit scary me. But fear is to turn on the lights, right?

In addition, this work fascinated me. It is no cup-like, which may release your slot machine bounce, if the product description is believed, its design also through the “avoid friction” to keep your skin “healthy”. Whether there is a corset caused by the carpet burns popular I do not know what i do not know but i need to find out!

Anyway, once you enter a market, 20 counter glasses seem to be a perfectly reasonable price adjustable leather corset. In addition, harnesses even fit your size!
Google Translate for Business:Translator ToolkitWebsite Translator

Corset and Wines: Coordinated Secret Gifts and Secret Sales Secrets of Modern Art

The secret modern art doesctrine represents one of the more complex and conflicting areas of American patent law. In 1946, wholesale corsets when the metallization project was decided and accelerated by Hobbes v. United States, the court had an impact on the effectiveness of sales, gifts, knowledge, public use, private use, advertising and sales patents in different ways, each Are dependent on a series of changes, often a common series of factors, most of which is the US Patent and Trademark Office in the review of patent applications can not be assessed. The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and many patent attorneys agree that 35 U.S.C.’s new US Invention Act (AIA) Article 102 aims to completely eliminate the secret prior art. However, the court may also use the language as an opportunity to coordinate the field.

The secret principles of the existing technology are rooted in important policy considerations: the inventor may keep the invention as a trade secret for long-term retention, and only when the competitor begins to uncover the secret to get the invention quickly, thus greatly extending the effective grant patent. In order to avoid this result, the United States of America No. 35 §102 provides that “[a] an individual is entitled to a patent unless the invention (b) the invention is publicly used or sold in the country for more than one year from the date of the patent application The

At the turn of the century, and explaining similar language, the Supreme Court considered the notorious case of the tights, Egbert v. Lippmann. An inventor gave a woman who later became his wife a new set of corsets or steel. Eight years later, he invited a friend to study the invention, so his wife “out, with a pair of corsets and a pair of scissors back, these corsets torn open, and out. ] Then explained how they were made and used. “Ten years later, the inventor applied for a patent.

The court has made a decision on the secret matter whether the sale, the gift, the knowledge or the use of the disclosure involves: “the inventor, giving or selling his equipment to another, being used by the insured or the defendant, unrestricted or Limited, or confidential, and so used, this use is public, even if the use and use of knowledge may be limited to one person.

The separation of the way from the thousands of years after the metalworking (metal 2) gift, disclosure and use of the case, the case of the appeal, elaborated on the basic facts (metallization 1). The inventors have discovered a new method of roughening a hard metal surface so that additional metal can be more closely integrated so that the mechanic can reconstruct the worn engine parts. In the first thirty months of applying for a patent, “he asked the advice of a friendly engineer, who told him that he would be thoroughly tested before attempting to obtain a patent.” In the first 29 months of submission, the inventor Commissioned a patent search. Twenty-three months before the submission, the inventor advertised in a trade magazine, announcing that he had a new hardened metallization process, despite no notice. The inventor also made a statement to the Executive Officer who provided him with a patent for the inventor and granted a patent license. “After thirty to twelve months, the inventor solicited and received sixty-six orders for the reconstruction of the part,” the practice of this process is so guarded, not openly aware; its nature is only to the employees of a few inventors and Consultants disclose that in all cases, in the case of distrust, not being abused. “The amount of uncertainty in the work is done at the expense of the inventor, and the other sales are the parties who know the” secret process. “An order for the first eight months of the patent application is to understand that the job is Experimental customer carried out.

Rely on Egbert, the Metallic Court 1 decided that the above sale and use were not open and therefore not a condition of patentability. “The inventor’s patent is the condition that, after preparing for the patent, he will not use his findings competitively; he must be in his own secret or” Legal monopoly. “However, for subsequent doctrinal consistency, the court has never determined which activities produced a patentable column. Perhaps the event that is defined is the discussion with the engineer or the ad. Perhaps this bar is triggered by the genius part, and perhaps only those who lead to the use of the inventor secret sales before getting the patent to get “competitive advantage over others”, although the metal 1 did not find out which sales might be, Did not provide factors to determine the competitive advantage.

Thirty years later, Hobbes v. American clarified that the general sale – regardless of purpose, confidentiality or the identity of the seller – produced 35U.SC Section 102 “Sale” patentable column, as long as the equipment was fully developed, patents and experiments The use has ended. However, it is determined whether the contract is and when to invent the “sale”, whether the inquiry or order is counted as sales, and whether the use of the experiment is over, and even in Hobbes there is no quick task.

The complexity soon hung up. Considering a few related doctrines, all of these are legally applicable laws: the sale itself may be experimental use, thus exempting Section 102 “sell” the patentability clause; the sale rights do not make the equipment “sold”; between legal entities The seller and the end user do not need to know or agree to sell; if no sample is provided to the customer, the entity may be in the presence of the product, and the seller may not be required to sell the goods; The “temporary” model presented to potential buyers may hinder patentability unless the details of the invention of the potential buyer are described as unsuitable prior to the sale of the agreement; similarly, the disposition of the origin of the income may No; the list of prices is sufficient to be invented; third-party experimental use may trigger a fatal bar, except under the supervision and control of the patent applicant.

Doctrine multiplication has a side effect: an independent inventor who seeks an investor or an independent inventor before seeking an investor or a client – itself is an increasingly expensive sport – is likely to be in conflict with at least one “sale” exception. Complex inventors and large innovative entities are better able to navigate these deceptive waters, and the courts must deal with strong de facto cases of specific sales and scattered in a better part of the century.

It may be appreciated that the United States Invention Act amended 35U.SC §102 and now states that “[a] an individual is entitled to a patent unless the claimed invention is publicly available, sold or otherwise obtained.” According to many readings, “Or publicly available” language has changed the “use” and “sales” provisions, eliminating the ability of secret prior art to form a patent. It remains to be seen whether the court will take such an analysis, since the patent submitted under the United States Invention Act is usually not yet released, let alone questioned in court.

However, in addition to the secret prioritized wholesale classification of the existing technology, if the “public use” is read into the “use” and “sales” terms, you can choose a choice: sales can simply be used with the current processing, gifts, and other disclosures The Article 102 of the Pre-Trial Law has been required, and the public can access the case for non-economic purposes (such as gifts or demonstrations) that meet the conditions of public use. Full secrets may prevent gifts, disclosures and use of the “pre-emptive rights” Article 102 “Public Use” column, just as the lack of safety makes the corset steel available to the public. In fact, the Federal Circuit may have been in this direction to the controversial “sale” situation.

At the Delano farm, after deciding on AIA, but explaining the patent application before the AIA and applying the former AIA law, the third party gets under the control of improved grape varieties under oral confidentiality conditions. However, the third party then handed the grape plant to the other two grape growers within four years. They all knew that the improved grapes were the main competitive advantage, all of which were planted on hundreds of places visible on public roads plant.

By most of the measures, if any of these transfers or activities are offered for sale, then they will make these plants not affected under the metallization. There is evidence that, as the lower court has pointed out, one of the third parties sold the other grapes and served as mentors and exchanged “grafts” between the two sides. The two sides may exchange the social or non-monetary benefits of the plant and may allocate plants to each other to understand the future sale of grapes. Test briefings and complaints vary, claiming that a third party has grafted grapes during normal business, and the patent is not valid under 35 U. S. C. Article 102 (b) – although it does not specify whether the plaintiff wishes to apply the “public use” or “sale” bar. If the harvest is good, as long as the conditional offer to sell grapes, and perhaps a few samples of grapes together, should be enough to quote.

But the gift is essentially selling the problem has not been resolved. On the contrary, the Federal Circuit in the “public use” principle to determine the problem, the application of “full secret” test is very reminiscent of Egbert and its descendants. The court cited factors such as the inability to identify grape varieties by simply looking at grapes, compared to the size of the site, the limited number of sown areas, the unqualified cultivation, and the fact that no other person recognized the evidence to test the breed, especially the third party Rattan test is confidential.

In function, the back of the AIA $ 102 ‘[open] sale of the bar’s application may look much like the Delano farm. The decision of the court will depend on whether the sale or offer is “publicly sold” – that is, the party that does not have sufficient confidentiality obligations and whether there is a public use. Under this system, a backyard inventor does not need to pass several rigorous restrictions on the sale of samples to find his patent invalid: at least if these secret sales did not cause new art, reverse engineering or more than one year before the public application patent application The Like secret use, secret sales may become publicly sold in the case of too much distribution.

It is important that, for the courts that hear such cases, records will be a public issue and a measure taken by the Parties for confidentiality. The court may turn to decide what kind of “restricted or restricted or confidential ban” is sufficient to prevent sales from becoming “provided to the public” rather than sorting old sales receipts and oral testimony.

Finally, the Delano farm should provide a pacification solution to the courts that are plagued by the potential impact of the US Department of Defense 35 U.C.C. Section 102 – Review of gifts based on more reasonable “public access” criteria, rather than metallized sales rules, did not lead to any terrible march. At least should provide and sell similar reviews should be worse.

Corset and Wines: Coordinated Secret Gifts and Secret Sales Secrets of Modern Art

The secret modern art doesctrine represents one of the more complex and conflicting areas of American patent law. In 1946, when the metallization project was decided and accelerated by Hobbes v. United States, the court had an impact on the effectiveness of sales, gifts, knowledge, public use, private use, advertising and sales patents in different ways, each Are dependent on a series of changes, corsets wholesale often a common series of factors, most of which is the US Patent and Trademark Office in the review of patent applications can not be assessed. The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and many patent attorneys agree that 35 U.S.C.’s new US Invention Act (AIA) Article 102 aims to completely eliminate the secret prior art. However, the court may also use the language as an opportunity to coordinate the field.

The secret principles of the existing technology are rooted in important policy considerations: the inventor may keep the invention as a trade secret for long-term retention, and only when the competitor begins to uncover the secret to get the invention quickly, thus greatly extending the effective grant patent. In order to avoid this result, the United States Former US No. 35 §102 provides that ” an individual is entitled to a patent unless the invention [b] is publicly used or sold in Date of application more than one year before the patent .

At the turn of the century, and explaining similar language, the Supreme Court considered the notorious case of the tights, Egbert v. Lippmann. An inventor gave a woman who later became his wife a new set of corsets or steel. Eight years later, he invited a friend to study the invention, so his wife “out, with a pair of corsets and a pair of scissors back, these corsets torn open, and out. ] Then explained how they were made and used. “Ten years later, the inventor applied for a patent.

The court has made a decision on the secret matter whether the sale, the gift, the knowledge or the use of the disclosure involves: “the inventor, giving or selling his equipment to another, being used by the insured or the defendant, unrestricted or Limited, or confidential, and so used, this use is public, even if the use and use of knowledge may be limited to one person.

The separation of the way from the thousands of years after the metalworking gift, disclosure and use of the case, the case of the appeal, elaborated on the basic facts . The inventors have discovered a new method of roughening a hard metal surface so that additional metal can be more closely integrated so that the mechanic can reconstruct the worn engine parts. In the first thirty months of applying for a patent, “he solicited the advice of a friendly engineer, who told him to thoroughly test the patent before the actual service.” In the first 29 months of the submission, the inventor commissioned Patent search. Twenty-three months before the submission, the inventor advertised in a trade magazine, announcing that he had a new hardened metallization process, despite no notice. The inventor also made a statement to the Executive Officer who provided him with a patent for the inventor and granted a patent license. “After thirty to twelve months, the inventor solicited and received sixty-six orders for the reconstruction of the part,” the practice of this process is so guarded, not openly aware; its nature is only to the employees of a few inventors and Consultants disclose that in all cases, in the case of distrust, not being abused. “The amount of uncertainty in the work is done at the expense of the inventor, and the other sales are the parties who know the” secret process. “An order for the first eight months of the patent application is to understand that the job is Experimental customer carried out.

Rely on Egbert, the Metallic Court 1 decided that the above sale and use were not open and therefore not a condition of patentability. “The inventor’s patent is the condition that, after preparing for the patent, he will not use his findings competitively; he must be in his own secret or” Legal monopoly. “However, for subsequent doctrinal consistency, the court has never determined which activities produced a patentable column. Perhaps the event that is defined is the discussion with the engineer or the ad. Perhaps this bar is triggered by the genius part, and perhaps only those who lead to the use of the inventor secret sales before getting the patent to get “competitive advantage over others”, although the metal 1 did not find out which sales might be, Did not provide factors to determine the competitive advantage.

Thirty years later, Hobbes v. American clarified that the general sale – regardless of purpose, confidentiality or the identity of the seller – produced 35U.SC Section 102 “Sale” patentable column, as long as the equipment was fully developed, patents and experiments The use has ended. However, it is determined whether the contract is and when to invent the “sale”, whether the inquiry or order is counted as sales, and whether the use of the experiment is over, and even in Hobbes there is no quick task.

The complexity soon hung up. Considering a few related doctrines, all of these are legally applicable laws: the sale itself may be experimental use, thus exempting Section 102 “sell” the patentability clause; the sale rights do not make the equipment “sold”; between legal entities The seller and the end user do not need to know or agree to sell; if no sample is provided to the customer, the entity may be in the presence of the product, and the seller may not be required to sell the goods; The “temporary” model presented to potential buyers may hinder patentability unless the details of the invention of the potential buyer are described as unsuitable prior to the sale of the agreement; similarly, the disposition of the origin of the income may No; the list of prices is sufficient to be invented; third-party experimental use may trigger a fatal bar, except under the supervision and control of the patent applicant.

Doctrine multiplication has a side effect: an independent inventor who seeks an investor or an independent inventor before seeking an investor or a client – itself is an increasingly expensive sport – is likely to be in conflict with at least one “sale” exception. Complex inventors and large innovative entities are better able to navigate these deceptive waters, and the courts must deal with strong de facto cases of specific sales and scattered in a better part of the century.

It may be appreciated that the United States Invention Act amended 35U.SC §102 and now states that ” an individual is entitled to a patent unless the claimed invention is publicly available, sold or otherwise obtained.” According to many readings, “Or publicly available” language has changed the “use” and “sales” provisions, eliminating the ability of secret prior art to form a patent. It remains to be seen whether the court will take such an analysis, since the patent submitted under the United States Invention Act is usually not yet released, let alone questioned in court.

However, in addition to the secret prioritized wholesale classification of the existing technology, if the “public use” is read into the “use” and “sales” terms, you can choose a choice: sales can simply be used with the current processing, gifts, and other disclosures The Article 102 of the Pre-Trial Law has been required, and the public can access the case for non-economic purposes (such as gifts or demonstrations) that meet the conditions of public use. Full secrets may prevent gifts, disclosures and use of the “pre-emptive rights” Article 102 “Public Use” column, just as the lack of safety makes the corset steel available to the public. In fact, the Federal Circuit may have been in this direction to the controversial “sale” situation.

At the Delano farm, after deciding on AIA, but explaining the patent application before the AIA and applying the former AIA law, the third party gets under the control of improved grape varieties under oral confidentiality conditions. However, the third party then handed the grape plant to the other two grape growers within four years. They all knew that the improved grapes were the main competitive advantage, all of which were planted on hundreds of places visible on public roads plant.

By most of the measures, if any of these transfers or activities are offered for sale, then they will make these plants not affected under the metallization. There is evidence that, as the lower court has pointed out, one of the third parties sold the other grapes and served as mentors and exchanged “grafts” between the two sides. The two sides may exchange the social or non-monetary benefits of the plant and may allocate plants to each other to understand the future sale of grapes. Test briefings and complaints vary, claiming that a third party has grafted grapes during normal business, and the patent is not valid under 35 U. S. C. Article 102 (b) – although it does not specify whether the plaintiff wishes to apply the “public use” or “sale” bar. If the harvest is good, as long as the conditional offer to sell grapes, and perhaps a few samples of grapes together, should be enough to quote.

But the gift is essentially selling the problem has not been resolved. On the contrary, the Federal Circuit in the “public use” principle to determine the problem, the application of “full secret” test is very reminiscent of Egbert and its descendants. The court cited factors such as the inability to identify grape varieties by simply looking at grapes, compared to the size of the site, the limited number of sown areas, the unqualified cultivation, and the fact that no other person recognized the evidence to test the breed, especially the third party Rattan test is confidential.

In function, the back of the AIA $ 102 ‘[open] sale of the bar’s application may look much like the Delano farm. The decision of the court will depend on whether the sale or offer is “publicly sold” – that is, the party that does not have sufficient confidentiality obligations and whether there is a public use. Under this system, a backyard inventor does not need to pass several rigorous restrictions on the sale of samples to find his patent invalid: at least if these secret sales did not cause new art, reverse engineering or more than one year before the public application patent application The Like secret use, secret sales may become publicly sold in the case of too much distribution.

It is important that, for the courts that hear such cases, records will be a public issue and a measure taken by the Parties for confidentiality. The court may turn to decide what kind of “restricted or restricted or confidential ban” is sufficient to prevent sales from becoming “provided to the public” rather than sorting old sales receipts and oral testimony.

Finally, the Delano farm should provide a pacification solution to the courts that are plagued by the potential impact of the US Department of Defense 35 U.C.C. Section 102 – Review of gifts based on more reasonable “public access” criteria, rather than metallized sales rules, did not lead to any terrible march. At least should provide and sell similar reviews should be worse.