Deceased/Not Found Canada - Alvin, 66, & Kathy Liknes, 53, Nathan O'Brien, 5, Calgary, 30 Jun 2014 - #11

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've been wondering that too, and haven't read anything about it. He wasn't at any of the press conferences, and hasn't spoken on behalf of his identical twin at all. I find that surprising.

Me three. Normally twins are extremely close, and IMO form the closes bonds as far as human relationships are concerned.

I also wonder if there has been any funeral or memorial church service as I gleamed that this was a religious family.

I have some very religious family members and I imagine that a church service would be their number one priority in these circumstances.

But in the end that would be a private event and maybe it has been concealed from the media.
 
Hi, this is my first post. I wonder if the white spot near the window of the truck could be a white piece of plastic of some sort. If it is a white shirt, then it could be a long sleeve white shirt as it appears closer to the steering wheel as opposed to an elbow resting on the window. JMO
Could be white disposable coveralls.
 
I sent an e-mail to a chemist friend of mine for clarity about the role mercury, sodium, and zinc phosphide would play in a meth making operation. I'll keep you all posted.
 
bullish, MSc, DDS, LLB, OBE
^ Just because it's in print doesn't make it true.

I'm thinking DG must be a fan of Frank Abignale, Jr. :liar: He aims high.

He can't have an MSc without first having a BSc, and how is he supposed to have one (a real one) if he was expelled from uni for cheating?

But on the subject of his education, I keep wondering why he went to study at U of A. U of C has a very respectable science program.
Wondering why he went away - possibly to get away from parents, possibly U of A had a better program.
 
I sent an e-mail to a chemist friend of mine for clarity about the role mercury, sodium, and zinc phosphide would play in a meth making operation. I'll keep you all posted.
BBM

You need to ask him about zinc phosPHATE, not zinc phosphide. It was zinc phosPHATE that DG was trading in, according to your original long post.
 
Wondering why he went away - possibly to get away from parents, possibly U of A had a better program.

Likely this. Also, living in Airdrie wouldn't automatically mean you'd choose the UofC since you'd have to drive in or live in town. The UofA's reputation is generally believed to be stronger and if you are going to live away from home, and with aims of medical school, it might make more sense to choose it. As a (described) "genius" I imagine his grades were excellent so he could have gotten in to either one.

Also on the matter of being expelled from Alberta. It wouldn't be usual (IMO) to expel a student for run-of-the-mill cheating so to me, this means it may have been quite clear cut and perhaps severe. All MOO.
 
Likely this. Also, living in Airdrie wouldn't automatically mean you'd choose the UofC since you'd have to drive in or live in town. The UofA's reputation is generally believed to be stronger and if you are going to live away from home, and with aims of medical school, it might make more sense to choose it. As a (described) "genius" I imagine his grades were excellent so he could have gotten in to either one.

Also on the matter of being expelled from Alberta. It wouldn't be usual (IMO) to expel a student for run-of-the-mill cheating so to me, this means it may have been quite clear cut and perhaps severe. All MOO.

Run of the mill cheating is very common today, but I think that in the 1980s, straight forward cheating was still a serious offence resulting in expulsion. Today, schools are more concerned with completion rates, so they overlook all sorts of unethical student practices. I know a man that plagiarized portions of an essay assignment in the late 80s. He was expelled.
 
Run of the mill cheating is very common today, but I think that in the 1980s, straight forward cheating was still a serious offence resulting in expulsion. Today, schools are more concerned with completion rates, so they overlook all sorts of unethical student practices. I know a man that plagiarized portions of an essay assignment in the late 80s. He was expelled.

Yes, true and I'd forgotten it was the 1980s (I'd imagined 1990s) that he attended the school.

Having said that, it isn't completion rates, as much as the sheer volume of academic misconduct (so the administrative burden of dealing with them all, leading to overlooking more minor ones or having those dealt with at lower levels where expulsion isn't an option - you're more likely to assign a 'zero' rather than expel the person), and also, the burden of proof since students have learned better their rights of appeal, etc.
 
Leaping back to possible reasons why AL would not have given DG a joint inventorship of the patent on which apparently DG had done some work.

Each person named on a patent must have contributed to the "conception" of the invention described in the patent claims.
My guess is that AL believed that DG had not done this. It was really important to AL because "incorrectly naming inventors on a patent application can have devastating consequences; the named inventor and possibly the patent owner can lose the patent and all rights associated with it, including the right to the royalty stream generated from any patent licensing." (http://www.rpitechnology.com/files/Getting_Inventorship_Right.pdf)

I think AL may have become convinced that DG was trying to get credit for something he had no right to. And, given DG's history, this was quite possibly true. Even though the pump was produced for Vecto, it was never marketed and did not generate a cash flow.
...Vecto was working on a type of pump that could keep water out of oil and gas wells, allowing them to be productive for longer stretches of time; however, Mr. Liknes’s invention didn’t work out, and the plan was dropped.
(http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/0...in-bid-to-find-him-his-wife-and-his-grandson/)

In terms of patent authorship, if DG had been given clear instructions by AL regarding the work he was to complete (and DG was, in fact, paid for the work), and from those instructions anyone with ordinary skill in the field could have carried out that work, DG would not have been considered a co-inventor.

Under these rules, the lab technician who performs, but does not design or modify, experiments is not an inventor, regardless of the amount of tedious, hard work contributed. The laboratory technician is the inventor’s “pair of hands” in carrying out the reduction to practice of the invention.
(http://www.rpitechnology.com/files/Getting_Inventorship_Right.pdf)

As well, if DG believed he had made an independent modification, but had not kept records of his work, and could not provide other proof of his work, he would never have been able to make a case as a co-inventor.

...any claim of inventorship must be corroborated by evidence from either contemporaneous documents or the testimony of non-inventors. Standing in the research community, reputation, past accomplishments are not considered.
(http://www.rpitechnology.com/files/Getting_Inventorship_Right.pdf)
 
Leaping back to possible reasons why AL would not have given DG a joint inventorship of the patent on which apparently DG had done some work.

My guess is that AL believed that DG had not done this. It was really important to AL because "incorrectly naming inventors on a patent application can have devastating consequences; the named inventor and possibly the patent owner can lose the patent and all rights associated with it, including the right to the royalty stream generated from any patent licensing." (http://www.rpitechnology.com/files/Getting_Inventorship_Right.pdf)

I think AL may have become convinced that DG was trying to get credit for something he had no right to. And, given DG's history, this was quite possibly true. Even though the pump was produced for Vecto, it was never marketed and did not generate a cash flow.
(http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/0...in-bid-to-find-him-his-wife-and-his-grandson/)

In terms of patent authorship, if DG had been given clear instructions by AL regarding the work he was to complete (and DG was, in fact, paid for the work), and from those instructions anyone with ordinary skill in the field could have carried out that work, DG would not have been considered a co-inventor.

(http://www.rpitechnology.com/files/Getting_Inventorship_Right.pdf)

As well, if DG believed he had made an independent modification, but had not kept records of his work, and could not provide other proof of his work, he would never have been able to make a case as a co-inventor.

(http://www.rpitechnology.com/files/Getting_Inventorship_Right.pdf)

We don't know anywhere near the whole story. It could be as extreme as AL mentioning that it would be great to invent something to remove water from gas, and DG creating the whole thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
96
Guests online
2,569
Total visitors
2,665

Forum statistics

Threads
592,181
Messages
17,964,721
Members
228,714
Latest member
hannahdunnam
Back
Top