Like almost all hornbooks or outlines, this one glosses over Trademark law. Copyright, Patents, and Trademarks are all taught seperately, so I don't understand why they are lumped together and glossed over superficially by almost all hornbooks.

Much has changed since 1990, particularly in patent law, with the advent of the provisional patent application. Still useful, but many details will be incorrect.

I don't know whether or why the 2d edition would be on sale, as the first reviewer implies in his or her nevertheless good review. The third edition has been out for two years and it is complete, accessible, understandable, and better than the competition--by far! If you want to understand patents, copyrights, trademarks, this book will make you an expert in an afternoon.

How can anyone find this confusing? This is a pretty simple work, and I find it difficult to believe that anyone can be confused as to what it's about. And why would you need Cliff Notes for this?

In any event, my problem with this play is that its just too simple: not enough meat and the characters aren't all that interesting. Yes, it shows us how narrow-minded the Puritans were. It's also an allegory for McCarthyism, for those of you who don't know. But do we really need this play to point out what it tells us about human nature? I personally find it overly long and overly dull for what it's trying to convey.

i was required to read this book for an english class, and am glad i did, because it really made one think about how narrow minded the puritans were and how that really brought on the hangings of the so called witches. this is definately a book to read.

this is a great piece of art by arthur miller. he catches your attention with the lies and injustices of the 1600's. this is a good book because of it's content. the speech is, as it was in that time. it tells a tale of a little girl who gets caught being "naughty" and blames it on the circumstances of those she doesn't like or has problems with. this book teaches that to lie about something that could have been small makes it much larger and much more complicated to deal with. the girl in this this book is in witchcraft and is caught dancing naked in the woods by her uncle who is the reverend. with her are two other girls, a servant, and a cousin. the town is brought down to a level where every one is accusing every one else for past happeneings. farmowners are accusing neighbors of it so that the land is auctioned off at low prices so that they can increase the quality of their own land. it becomes a big issue when it could have been solved completely with a simple confession. the subject is blown out of proportion and it destryos a lot of lives and families. the truth is finally found after nine-teen people are hanged for the crime of witchcraft. i reccomend this book to anyone who enjoys "a good book".

I listened to an Audio CD version of the play and I regret to say that I found it unmoving. The Brooklyn accents of the characters seemed to fade in and out on occasion and they deep dark revelations about their personal lives seemed to be revealed without much emotion most of the time.

I really had high hopes for the drama but felt it was more gimmick than gripping.

I found Broken Glass interesting but disappointing. One expects the film to hold a much deeper secret and comes away from it thinking "This story has already been told." The three main actors, Margot Leicester, Mandy Patinkin and Henry Goodman, are all marvelous and far better than the script allows. I found Elizabeth McGovern a rather strange choice for the role of Dr.Hyman's wife. I own this film because I'm a huge Mandy Patinkin fan, but I wouldn't have spent the money otherwise.

The dimensions of healing placed in contradistinction to the tyranny of complaint.

In Arthur Miller's one act play, A Memory of Two Mondays, we explore an automobolie parts factory during the depression era. We follow Burt as he works there and the scene is two different Mondays. He grows to love his co-workers there, and they leave a lasting impression on him. This mirrors Arthur Miller's own experience. Burt, like Arthur, is only working there to be able to save money to go to college, but while at the factory he gets another sort of education in the realm of life experience.

Arthur Millers A Memory of two Mondays is a great work. I think it is a good one act play. The part where Burt leaves the automobile parts factory was my favorite part. It is a good short play that is easy to read. I recommend it to any age group.

Arthur Miller is a Professor of History and Philosophy of Science at London's University College. Equal parts biography and art-science history, his interesting book follows the parallel lives of physicist Albert Einstein (1879-1955) and painter Pablo Picasso (1881-1973) into the 20th Century. Although the two lives never actually intersected, Miller demonstrates that as a result of the intellectual atmosphere of 1905, Einstein and Picasso "began exploring new notions of space and time almost coincidentally" (p. 4). "I wrote EINSTEIN, PICASSO," Miller tells us, "for lovers of art and science practiced at their most fundamental and exciting level, for aficionados of thinking across disciplines and generally for readers interested in the drama of high creativity. We wonder about the moment when everything comes together to produce incredible insights. How does this happen? How do thoughts emerge that go beyond the information at hand?" (p. 8).

While it does not ultimately succeed as a biography in bringing either Einstein or Picasso to life in its 357 pages, Miller's book shows that his subjects were able to achieve "enormous successes under conditions that would have defeated most people" (p. 266), and to this limited extent, Miller gives us insight into what made both men tick. However, Miller's real strength is in exploring how Einstein and Picasso "processed information in order to make their momentous breakthroughs" (p. 245) resulting in Einstein's 1905 theory of relativity, and the cubism of Picasso's 1907 painting, "Les Desmoiselles d'Avignon." The theory of relativity, like cubism, Miller shows, represents "a profound response to changes in the philosophical and scientific climate as well as to dramatic technological innovations" (p. 174). While his book demonstrates time and again how Einstein and Picasso were equally fond of work and women, it only really soars when it reveals how these two men were able to simultaneously move the world into modernity through science and art.

G. Merritt

The idea that there may be a connection between the appearance of relativity and cubism at the beginning of the twentieth century is not a new one. Though it has been shown quite convincingly that Picasso was not aware of Einstein's work when he and Braque invented cubism, it is still possible to say that BOTH Einstein and Picasso were influenced by some common elements that had appeared in western culture at that time. This, in itself, would be unremarkable; Both Einstein and Picasso lived in the same continent at the same time, it would be very surprising if they did NOT have some common influences. But professor Miller tries to stretch this comparison to the breaking point and well beyond. The result is a book in which excellent summaries of their early life and careers are marred by clichéd and overblown psychobabble and cultural theorizing.
The book is still interesting because it deals in detail with the lives of two such gifted and unique individuals. But the comparisons are frequently forced, and the author seems to have failed to take the advice of either of the masters. Picasso was dismissive of most attempts to retrospectively slot his art into some art historian's version of "influences and phases" and he would certainly have resisted any attempt to "explain" his genius in this manner. Einstein, too, was willing to leave the mystery of creativity unsolved. Mr. Miller would have done well to present us with two separate books about Einstein and Picasso, or one bigger book on the cultural ferment of the early nineteen hundreds. This attempt to find "the secret of creativity" fails to rise above the level of the self-help manuals that crowd our bookshops. Einstein loved music, so music is listed as one of the routes to creative "non-verbal" thought. But the fact that Picasso was never interested in music does not constitute a counter-example for Mr. Miller. Meanwhile, Picasso smoked hashish and took opium with great regularity through this period, but while the slightest hint that he might have heard of geometry is inflated beyond belief, this significant aspect of his life gets only two lines in the book.
Last, but not the least, while science and art are both human products, their natures are very different. Much of Modern art has moved beyond mere representation and become more like music (an esthetic experience which may or may not represent a particular "story") but science is nothing if it's not a coherent story. Einstein rebuilt the foundations of modern science by systematically and LOGICALLY questioning the basic assumptions of Newtonian physics and the discoveries of electro-magnetism. This achievement may have involved intuition and unconscious influences, but it would be useless if scientists could not eventually understand and agree on its meaning. Modern art may well deal with matters even more important than the physical structure of the universe (love, sex, death, loss, meaning, values, rebellion, rage...) but it would not be art if all artists were to agree on its significance and meaning.

What factors can be motivations of a genius's reformative work? Is it possible that the same notions affect geniuses in science and art? What is the daily life of geniuses? What processes are going on when a genius does a monumental work? We often have such questions as above. Arthur I. Miller, Professor of History and Philosophy of Science at University College London, wrote a wonderful book to answer all of those questions and to tell us more about creative activity by the example of the two giants of the twentieth century, Albert Einstein and Pablo Picasso.

This dual biography centers on the special relativity theory discovered by Einstein in 1905 and the Cubism painting "Les Demoiselles d'Avignon" produced by Picasso in 1907. In the first chapter, the author mentions that Poincare's book "La Science et l'hypothese" gave a spur to both of the two geniuses and led them to explore new notions of space and time. Tracing their respective lives in later chapters, the author clarifies how both men sought representations of nature that transcend those of classical thought and reach beyond appearances. The reader would be convinced of the fact that the effect of Poincare's book is not a superficial similarity between the works of Einstein and Picasso but a common denominator deeply rooted in the culture and science of the early twentieth century.

In the last chapter the author insists that at the creative moment boundaries between disciplines dissolve. Namely, aesthetics becomes paramount also in science; on the other hand, artists solve problems just like scientists. So, if you are a scientist, you would find direct interest in the chapters on Einstein and also find it profitable to read the chapters on Picasso; and if you are an artist, the reverse would be true. Laypersons would also get a lot of stimuli to a productive life from this book.

This is one of the worst travel guides I have ever used. It is poorly organized, poorly researched, filled with misinformation, and riddled with gaps. Don't buy it unless you enjoy wasting your time with worthless information.

I used this book to plan my vacation to Vancouver and Victoria. It was GREAT! I found terrific B&B's, restaurants, sights, and a lot of interesting information I didn't see anywhere else. I had to order a new copy because the owner of a B&B in Vancouver liked the book so much I gave it to him.

The book was very insightful int A. Millers life and the problems he faced as an artist in the time of the Communist trials.

This is a collection of three of playwright Arthur Miller's short stories. The stories all take place in New York--before, during, and after WWII. I did not enjoy the title story "Homely Girl, a Life." I found it overly simplistic and offensive overall, although there were passages of beautiful language. The opening scene of the story is wonderful. The second story, "Fame," seems fairly lightweight but enjoyable. I loved the last story, "Fitter's Night," about an unhappy man's shot at redemption working in a Navy Yard during the war. That one, where the plot is intertwined with a background of the protagonist's life, was just stunning. The language, again, was beautiful. This was Miller at his best, I think. For short story fans, it's a mixed bag. Fans of Miller's plays might enjoy seeing the author at work in a different genre. The last story alone is probably worth the price of the book.

It is never revealed but this play is written about a real person whom Miller had intimate knowledge of. Although disguised somewhat, it is a second hand description of my mothers psychiatric hospitalization in 1968. Much of the the dialogue were exact quotes from my father(Hamilton in the story).
It documents an outsiders view of a deeply traumatic, turbulent time in my family, that only skims the surface of one of the characters(Hamilton). It was so much more than that.

This is a good, clear, no-nonsense book that assumes the reader has some existing knowledge of lighting techniques and advises on how to adapt to a smaller stage and budget. Hand-drawn diagrams and sketches helpful but sometimes a little too detailed for the technicial novice. No glossary. Absolute beginners might like to try Light on the subject by David Hays instead