i don't know the specifics of what rubbermaid's position would be.here are efforts by people, once the product is released, or they were about -- learn about it, to try to do a work around. is the subsequent invention is sufficiently different from the filed application that both are entitled to protection? the examiner, if yours was patented first, with a padded and they might attract -- object , saying there is not sufficientl originality to the second one. there is a cost, of course, to prosecuting patents. in many cases, small inventors look to larger companies to sell or license goods in hopes that they can carry some of the legal costs. the other point he says, why doesn't the government do this -- the idea of the government would be able to do it, it is one way, but it is more efficient that someone who has an economic interest in the patent rather than have the government make these cases, because in some cases be patent examiner may have failed, made a mistake, failed to notice prior art that would have invalidated the earlier patent. by and

i don't know the specifics of what rubbermaid's position would be. there are efforts by people, once the product is released, or they were about -- learn about it, to try to do a work around. is the subsequent invention is sufficiently different from the filed application that both are entitled to protection? the examiner, if yours was patented first, with a padded and they might attract -- object, saying there is not sufficient originality to the second one. there is a cost, of course, to prosecuting patents. in many cases, small inventors look to larger companies to sell or license goods in hopes that they can carry some of the legal costs. the other point he says, why doesn't the government do this -- the idea of the government would be able to do it, it is one way, but it is more efficient that someone who has an economic interest in the patent rather than have the government make these cases, because in some cases be patent examiner may have failed, made a mistake, failed to notice prior art that would have invalidated the earlier patent. by and

>> new rubbermaid. long stock and options. >> pete. >> love starbucks. look at china and the pipeline, this stock's going higher. >> atlantics international. >> follow me on twitter. power begins right now. >>> we begin "power lunch" with breaking news. eamon javers is live in washington with new information on two corporate bribery investigations. eamon. >> good afternoon, sue. as you say, dramatic new allegations of corporate bribery moving markets this afternoon. let's bring you up to speed on what's going on starting with bristol meyer squid. reading now from their filing saying in march 2012 the company received a subpoena from the s.e.c. this is new information. the subpoena issued in conjunction with an investigation under the fcpa or foreign corrupt practices act. primarily relates to sales in marketing practices in various countries. the company says it is cooperating now with this investigation. let's take a look at an intraday chart here. you can see there's a real dramatic impact right there about 12:30. you can see the stock moves as this ne