Podcasts about EFF

KwaZulu-Natal Premier Thami Ntuli faces a critical test today as a motion of no confidence against him is put to a vote in the provincial legislature. The motion, brought by the MK Party, cites allegations of financial mismanagement and corruption. Ntuli, however remains unfazed, insisting his government is stable and focused on service delivery. The EFF has announced its support for the motion, which could potentially unseat Ntuli. Elvis Presslin spoke to KZN Provincial Legislature IFP Caucus spokesperson, Dr. Andile Biyela

As 2025 draws to a close, we reflect on the key political events that defined South Africa. The Government of National Unity endured amid intense negotiations and disputes over budget and policy differences, following the ANC's historic loss of majority in 2024. President Cyril Ramaphosa hosted the landmark G20 summit in Johannesburg, the first on African soil, though US President Donald Trump boycotted it, citing unfounded claims of white genocide. Explosive revelations from Lieutenant General Nhlanhla Mkhwanazi dominated headlines, leading to the Madlanga Commission probing systemic corruption, political interference and criminal infiltration in law enforcement. The SACP resolved to contest future elections independently of the Tripartite Alliance. Jacob Zuma's MK Party faced internal turmoil with suspensions, expulsions, and allegations of recruiting South Africans for the Russia-Ukraine war. Meanwhile, EFF leader Julius Malema was convicted on firearm charges for discharging a rifle at a 2018 rally. For expert analysis on these stories and their implications for 2026, Elvis Presslin spoke to political analyst Dr. Dale McKinley, an independent writer, researcher, and lecturer

Die EFF doen 'n beroep op sy lede om voor te berei vir 'n oorlog in volgende jaar se plaaslike regeringverkiesing, wat daarop gemik is om beheer oor munisipaliteite terug te eis van korrupte en ondoeltreffende amptenare. Die leier van die EFF, Julius Malema het aan die media gesê die komende verkiesing sal 'n beslissende stryd wees om dienslewering terug te neem, bestuur te versterk en mislukte koalisieadministrasies in sleutelmetros te onttroon:

AbaThembu King Buyelekhaya Dalindyebo has lost his membership with the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) after visiting Israel and expressing support for the country's actions in Gaza. EFF leader Julius Malema says the King's actions went against the party's stance on Israel but emphasizes that this won't affect the party's relationship with the royal family and the AbaThembu people. The King's trip to Israel has sparked debate about traditional leaders' involvement in politics, with some questioning whether they should be part of political parties. Elvis Presslin spoke to Contralesa President Kgosi Mathupa Mokoena

SEASON 4 EPISODE 39: COUNTDOWN WITH KEITH OLBERMANN A-Block (2:30) SPECIAL COMMENT: As Trump threatens the New York Times with sedition and treason charges and tells finance clowns and his government goons that he gets to choose who gets to be on CNN and what they get to say, we are at the tipping point. The first news reporter who stands up to his insults and calls him out to his face in public will get fired - and within 48 hours get a new job paying twice as much or more, and will become a national hero. America is crying out for somebody to take the risk that isn’t really a risk and tell him to shut the hell up and to EFF off and to SHOVE his A++++ economy and his threats and stochastic calls for destruction and violence. It is time. NOW NOW NOW. The tragedy here of course is that it is accepted, inside the news business, without a second thought, that there is nothing reporters – even bad ones – can do about this without risking their careers and lives. Bull. The first one who gets told “You are the most obnoxious reporter in the whole place. Let me just tell you -- you are an obnoxious -- a terrible reporter” and replies “So what? What does that have to do with my question? Nothing. And, with all due respect SIR, the majority of this nation considers you a failure as a president. And what does THAT have to do with your answer? The one you DIDN’T just give? NOTHING. The majority of this nation thinks you are vindictive, stupid, hypocritical, hateful, destructive, soul-less, and quite probably losing your sanity. I’M a terrible reporter? You’re the worst government leader in the history of the western hemisphere.” B-Block (32:00) THE WORST PERSONS IN THE WORLD: Sean Duffy wants you to wear a suit to the airport and...work out in it before you get on the plane? Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale calls for public hangings and says without irony or self-satire "If I'm in charge later..." OK, you first. And Missouri congresswoman Ann Wagner, in the middle of redistricting gerrymandering, turns out to not know the name of the third largest city in the state capitol district and thinks that city is in California. C-Block (42:00) THINGS I PROMISED NOT TO TELL: Somebody asked me how I felt about Chris Matthews being back on MSNBCNOWWHATEVER with Joe Scarborough and I actually said I felt sorry for Scarborough. Then I told them the saga of Chris, co-anchoring a funeral with me, drooling over Jennifer Granholm. On the air. So I'll tell you.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode of Hashtag Trending, host Jim Love covers major developments in the AI landscape. China is rapidly advancing in the open-source AI community, with multiple top-performing models. Anthropic has donated its Model Context Protocol (MCP) to the Linux Foundation to support open AI tool integration. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) is launching a campaign against global age verification laws and social media restrictions, citing privacy concerns. Additionally, a developer faced severe repercussions after uncovering illegal content in an AI dataset, highlighting risks associated with external data. Sponsored by Meter, the podcast underscores the complexities and rapid changes in AI, technology governance, and policy. Hashtag Trending would like to thank Meter for their support in bringing you this podcast. Meter delivers a complete networking stack, wired, wireless and cellular in one integrated solution that's built for performance and scale. You can find them at Meter.com/htt 00:00 Introduction and Sponsor Message 00:40 China's Dominance in Open Source AI 03:36 Anthropic's Major Contribution to Open Source AI 05:46 EFF's Fight Against Age Verification Laws 07:59 Developer Banned Over Tainted AI Datasets 09:59 Conclusion and Sponsor Message

Mandy Wiener speaks to Special Investigating Unit Spokesperson, Kaizer Kganyago about SIU raids in KZN and Gauteng regarding theft of R161m from UIF. The Midday Report with Mandy Wiener is 702 and CapeTalk’s flagship news show, your hour of essential news radio. The show is podcasted every weekday, allowing you to catch up with a 60-minute weekday wrap of the day's main news. It's packed with fast-paced interviews with the day’s newsmakers, as well as those who can make sense of the news and explain what's happening in your world. All the interviews are podcasted for you to catch up and listen to. Thank you for listening to this podcast of The Midday Report Listen live on weekdays between 12:00 and 13:00 (SA Time) to The Midday Report broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj and on CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from The Midday Report, go to https://buff.ly/BTGmL9H and find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/LcbDdFI Subscribe to the 702 and CapeTalk daily and weekly newsletters https://buff.ly/v5mfetc Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/Radio702 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702 CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Mandy Wiener speaks to Department of Basic Education Spokesperson, Lukhanyo Vangqa about the matric exams breach that was discovered by the department of basic education and what measures the department will take to deal with the matter. The Midday Report with Mandy Wiener is 702 and CapeTalk’s flagship news show, your hour of essential news radio. The show is podcasted every weekday, allowing you to catch up with a 60-minute weekday wrap of the day's main news. It's packed with fast-paced interviews with the day’s newsmakers, as well as those who can make sense of the news and explain what's happening in your world. All the interviews are podcasted for you to catch up and listen to. Thank you for listening to this podcast of The Midday Report Listen live on weekdays between 12:00 and 13:00 (SA Time) to The Midday Report broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj and on CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from The Midday Report, go to https://buff.ly/BTGmL9H and find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/LcbDdFI Subscribe to the 702 and CapeTalk daily and weekly newsletters https://buff.ly/v5mfetc Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/Radio702 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702 CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Catch Up on the latest leading news stories around the country with Mandy Wiener on Midday Report every weekday from 12h00 - 13h00. The Midday Report with Mandy Wiener is 702 and CapeTalk’s flagship news show, your hour of essential news radio. The show is podcasted every weekday, allowing you to catch up with a 60-minute weekday wrap of the day's main news. It's packed with fast-paced interviews with the day’s newsmakers, as well as those who can make sense of the news and explain what's happening in your world. All the interviews are podcasted for you to catch up and listen to. Thank you for listening to this podcast of The Midday Report Listen live on weekdays between 12:00 and 13:00 (SA Time) to The Midday Report broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj and on CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from The Midday Report, go to https://buff.ly/BTGmL9H and find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/LcbDdFI Subscribe to the 702 and CapeTalk daily and weekly newsletters https://buff.ly/v5mfetc Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/Radio702 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702 CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Inwoners van woonbuurte soos Westbury, Newclare en Bosmont in Gauteng betoog teen bendegeweld. Die parlement, op aandrang van die EFF, gaan 'n ondersoek na bendegeweld in Kaapstad begin. Ons praat oor kommunikasie tussen mense wat verskillende tale praat.

Parliament has unanimously adopted a motion to establish a comprehensive inquiry into the violent crime crisis in Cape Town. The Economic Freedom Fighters, EFF party initiated the motion, citing evidence of rampant gang violence, mass shootings and policing failures in the region. The inquiry will be led by the Portfolio Committee on Police, in collaboration with other security cluster committees. Elvis Presslin spoke to EFF Member of Parliament, Natasha Ntlangwini, whose motion initiated this probe

The EFF has tabled a motion in Parliament for an Ad Hoc Committee, in terms of Rule 253(1)(a), to investigate the "senseless killings" affecting communities in the Western Cape, especially those living on the Cape Flats where residents are "under siege" from gang-related violence that disrupts everyday life and leaves people living in fear. Lester Kiewit speaks to Nazier Paulsen, a Member of the National Assembly for the Economic Freedom Fighters. Good Morning Cape Town with Lester Kiewit is a podcast of the CapeTalk breakfast show. This programme is your authentic Cape Town wake-up call. Good Morning Cape Town with Lester Kiewit is informative, enlightening and accessible. The team’s ability to spot & share relevant and unusual stories make the programme inclusive and thought-provoking. Don’t miss the popular World View feature at 7:45am daily. Listen out for #LesterInYourLounge which is an outside broadcast – from the home of a listener in a different part of Cape Town - on the first Wednesday of every month. This show introduces you to interesting Capetonians as well as their favourite communities, habits, local personalities and neighbourhood news. Thank you for listening to a podcast from Good Morning Cape Town with Lester Kiewit. Listen live on Primedia+ weekdays between 06:00 and 09:00 (SA Time) to Good Morning CapeTalk with Lester Kiewit broadcast on CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from the show go to https://buff.ly/xGkqLbT or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/f9Eeb7i Subscribe to the CapeTalk Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/sbvVZD5 Follow us on social media CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I am Rolf Claessen and together with my co-host Ken Suzan I am welcoming you to episode 169 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Prof. Aloys Hüttermann, co-founder of my patent law firm Michalski Hüttermann & Partner and a true expert on the Unified Patent Court. He has written several books about the new system and we talk about all the things that plaintiffs and defendants can learn from the first decisions of the court and what they mean for strategic decisions of the parties involved. But before we jump into this very interesting interview, I have news for you! The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is planning rule changes that would make it virtually impossible for third parties to challenge invalid patents before the patent office. Criticism has come from the EFF and other inventor rights advocates: the new rules would play into the hands of so-called non-practicing entities (NPEs), as those attacked would have few cost-effective ways to have questionable patents deleted. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) reports a new record in international patent applications: in 2024, around 3.7 million patent applications were filed worldwide – an increase of 4.9% over the previous year. The main drivers were Asian countries (China alone accounted for 1.8 million), while demand for trademark protection has stabilized after the pandemic decline. US rapper Eminem is taking legal action in Australia against a company that sells swimwear under the name “Swim Shady.” He believes this infringes on his famous “Slim Shady” brand. The case illustrates that even humorous allusions to well-known brand names can lead to legal conflicts. A new ruling by the Unified Patent Court (UPC) demonstrates its cross-border impact. In “Fujifilm v. Kodak,” the local chamber in Mannheim issued an injunction that extends to the UK despite Brexit. The UPC confirmed its jurisdiction over the UK parts of a European patent, as the defendant Kodak is based in a UPC member state. A dispute over standard patents is looming at the EU level: the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) of the European Parliament voted to take the European Commission to the European Court of Justice. The reason for this is the Commission’s controversial withdrawal of a draft regulation on the licensing of standard-essential patents (SEPs). Parliament President Roberta Metsola is to decide by mid-November whether to file the lawsuit. In trademark law, USPTO Director Squires reported on October 31, 2025, that a new unit (“Trademark Registration Protection Office”) had removed approximately 61,000 invalid trademark applications from the registries. This cleanup of the backlog relieved the examining authority and accelerated the processing of legitimate applications. Now let's jump into the interview with Aloys Hüttermann: The Unified Patent Court Comes of Age – Insights from Prof. Aloys Hüttermann The Unified Patent Court (UPC) has moved from a long-discussed project to a living, breathing court system that already shapes patent enforcement in Europe. In a recent IP Fridays interview, Prof. Aloys Hüttermann – founder and equity partner at Michalski · Hüttermann & Partner and one of the earliest commentators on the UPC – shared his experiences from the first years of practice, as well as his view on how the UPC fits into the global patent litigation landscape. This article summarises the key points of that conversation and is meant as an accessible overview for in-house counsel, patent attorneys and business leaders who want to understand what the UPC means for their strategy. How Prof. Hüttermann Became “Mr. UPC” Prof. Hüttermann has been closely involved with the UPC for more than a decade. When it became clear, around 13 years ago, that the European project of a unified patent court and a unitary patent was finally going to happen, he recognised that this would fundamentally change patent enforcement in Europe. He started to follow the legislative and political developments in detail and went beyond mere observation. As author and editor of several books and a major commentary on the UPC, he helped shape the discussion around the new system. His first book on the UPC appeared in 2016 – years before the court finally opened its doors in 2023. What fascinated him from the beginning was the unique opportunity to witness the creation of an entirely new court system, to analyse how it would be built and, where possible, to contribute to its understanding and development. It was clear to him that this system would be a “game changer” for European patent enforcement. UPC in the Global Triangle: Europe, the US and China In practice, most international patent disputes revolve around three major regions: the UPC territory in Europe, the United States and China. Each of these regions has its own procedural culture, cost structure and strategic impact. From a territorial perspective, the UPC is particularly attractive because it can, under the right conditions, grant pan-European injunctions that cover a broad range of EU Member States with a single decision. This consolidation of enforcement is something national courts in Europe simply cannot offer. From a cost perspective, the UPC is significantly cheaper than US litigation, especially if one compares the cost of one UPC action with a bundle of separate national cases in large European markets. When viewed against the territorial reach and procedural speed, the “bang for the buck” is very compelling. China is again a different story. The sheer volume of cases there is enormous, with tens of thousands of patent infringement cases per year. Chinese courts are known for their speed; first-instance decisions within about a year are common. In this respect they resemble the UPC more than the US does. The UPC also aims at a roughly 12 to 15 month time frame for first-instance cases where validity is at issue. The US, by contrast, features extensive discovery, occasionally jury trials and often longer timelines. The procedural culture is very different. The UPC, like Chinese courts, operates without discovery in the US sense, which makes proceedings more focused on the written record and expert evidence that the parties present, and less on pre-trial disclosure battles. Whether a company chooses to litigate in the US, the UPC, China, or some combination of these forums will depend on where the key markets and assets are. However, in Prof. Hüttermann's view, once Europe is an important market, it is hard to justify ignoring the UPC. He expects the court's caseload and influence to grow strongly over the coming years. A Landmark UPC Case: Syngenta v. Sumitomo A particularly important case in which Prof. Hüttermann was involved is the Syngenta v. Sumitomo matter, concerning a composition patent. This case has become a landmark in UPC practice for several reasons. First, the Court of Appeal clarified a central point about the reach of UPC injunctions. It made clear that once infringement is established in one Member State, this will usually be sufficient to justify a pan-European injunction covering all UPC countries designated by the patent. That confirmation gave patent owners confidence that the UPC can in fact deliver broad, cross-border relief in one go. Second, the facts of the case raised novel issues about evidence and territorial reach. The allegedly infringing product had been analysed based on a sample from the Czech Republic, which is not part of the UPC system. Later, the same product with the same name was marketed in Bulgaria, which is within UPC territory. The Court of Appeal held that the earlier analysis of the Czech sample could be relied on for enforcement in Bulgaria. This showed that evidence from outside the UPC territory can be sufficient, as long as it is properly linked to the products marketed within the UPC. Third, the Court of Appeal took the opportunity to state its view on inventive step. It confirmed that combining prior-art documents requires a “pointer”, in line with the EPO's problem-solution approach. The mere theoretical possibility of extracting a certain piece of information from a document does not suffice to justify an inventive-step attack. This is one of several decisions where the UPC has shown a strong alignment with EPO case law on substantive patentability. For Prof. Hüttermann personally, the case was also a lesson in oral advocacy before the UPC. During the two appeal hearings, the presiding judge asked unexpected questions that required quick and creative responses while the hearing continued. His practical takeaway is that parties should appear with a small, well-coordinated team: large enough to allow someone to work on a tricky question in the background, but small enough to remain agile. Two or three lawyers seem ideal; beyond that, coordination becomes difficult and “too many cooks spoil the broth”. A Game-Changing CJEU Decision: Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux Surprisingly, one of the most important developments for European patent litigation in the past year did not come from the UPC at all, but from the Court of Justice of the European Union. In Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux, the CJEU revisited the rules on cross-border jurisdiction under the Brussels I Recast Regulation (Brussels Ia). Previously, under what practitioners often referred to as the GAT/LuK regime, a court in one EU country was largely prevented from granting relief for alleged infringement in another country if the validity of the foreign patent was contested there. This significantly limited the possibilities for cross-border injunctions. In Bosch, the CJEU changed course. Without going into all procedural details, the essence is that courts in the EU now have broader powers to grant cross-border relief when certain conditions are met, particularly when at least one defendant is domiciled in the forum state. The concept of an “anchor defendant” plays a central role: if you sue one group company in its home forum, other group companies in other countries, including outside the EU, can be drawn into the case. This has already had practical consequences. German courts, for example, have issued pan-European injunctions covering around twenty countries in pharmaceutical cases. There are even attempts to sue European companies for infringement of US patents based on acts in the US, using the logic of Bosch as a starting point. How far courts will ultimately go remains to be seen, but the potential is enormous. For the UPC, this development is highly relevant. The UPC operates in the same jurisdictional environment as national courts, and many defendants in UPC cases will be domiciled in UPC countries. This increases the likelihood that the UPC, too, can leverage the broadened possibilities for cross-border relief. In addition, we have already seen UPC decisions that include non-EU countries such as the UK within the scope of injunctions, in certain constellations. The interaction between UPC practice and the Bosch jurisprudence of the CJEU is only beginning to unfold. Does the UPC Follow EPO Case Law? A key concern for many patent owners and practitioners is whether the UPC will follow the EPO's Boards of Appeal or develop its own, possibly divergent, case law on validity. On procedural matters, the UPC is naturally different from the EPO. It has its own rules of procedure, its own timelines and its own tools, such as “front-loaded” pleadings and tight limits on late-filed material. On substantive law, however, Prof. Hüttermann's conclusion is clear: there is “nothing new under the sun”. The UPC's approach to novelty, inventive step and added matter is very close to that of the EPO. The famous “gold standard” for added matter appears frequently in UPC decisions. Intermediate generalisations are treated with the same suspicion as at the EPO. In at least one case, the UPC revoked a patent for added matter even though the EPO had granted it in exactly that form. The alignment is not accidental. The UPC only deals with European patents granted by the EPO; it does not hear cases on purely national patents. If the UPC were more generous than the EPO, many patents would never reach it. If it were systematically stricter, patentees would be more tempted to opt out of the system. In practice, the UPC tends to apply the EPO's standards and, where anything differs, it is usually a matter of factual appreciation rather than a different legal test. For practitioners, this has a very practical implication: if you want to predict how the UPC will decide on validity, the best starting point is to ask how the EPO would analyse the case. The UPC may not always reach the same result in parallel EPO opposition proceedings, but the conceptual framework is largely the same. Trends in UPC Practice: PIs, Equivalents and Division-Specific Styles Even in its early years, certain trends and differences between UPC divisions can be observed. On preliminary injunctions, the local division in Düsseldorf has taken a particularly proactive role. It has been responsible for most of the ex parte PIs granted so far and applies a rather strict notion of urgency, often considering one month after knowledge of the infringement as still acceptable, but treating longer delays with scepticism. Other divisions tend to see two months as still compatible with urgency, and they are much more cautious with ex parte measures. Munich, by contrast, has indicated a strong preference for inter partes PI proceedings and appears reluctant to grant ex parte relief at all. A judge from Munich has even described the main action as the “fast” procedure and the inter partes PI as the “very fast” one, leaving little room for an even faster ex parte track. There are also differences in how divisions handle amendments and auxiliary requests in PI proceedings. Munich has suggested that if a patentee needs to rely on claim amendments or auxiliary requests in a PI, the request is unlikely to succeed. Other divisions have been more open to considering auxiliary requests. The doctrine of equivalents is another area where practice is not yet harmonised. The Hague division has explicitly applied a test taken from Dutch law in at least one case and found infringement by equivalence. However, the Court of Appeal has not yet endorsed a specific test, and in another recent Hague case the same division did not apply that Dutch-law test again. The Mannheim division has openly called for the development of an autonomous, pan-European equivalence test, but has not yet fixed such a test in a concrete decision. This is clearly an area to watch. Interim conferences are commonly used in most divisions to clarify issues early on, but Düsseldorf often dispenses with them to save time. In practice, interim conferences can be very helpful for narrowing down the issues, though parties should not expect to be able to predict the final decision from what is discussed there. Sometimes topics that dominate the interim conference play little or no role in the main oral hearing. A Front-Loaded System and Typical Strategic Mistakes UPC proceedings are highly front-loaded and very fast. A defendant usually has three months from service of the statement of claim to file a full statement of defence and any counterclaim for revocation. This is manageable, but only if the time is used wisely. One common strategic problem is that parties lose time at the beginning and only develop a clear strategy late in the three-month period. According to Prof. Hüttermann, it is crucial to have a firm strategy within the first two or three weeks and then execute it consistently. Constantly changing direction is a recipe for failure in such a compressed system. Another characteristic is the strict attitude towards late-filed material. It is difficult to introduce new documents or new inventive-step attacks later in the procedure. In some cases even alternative combinations of already-filed prior-art documents have been viewed as “new” attacks and rejected as late. At the appeal stage, the Court of Appeal has even considered new arguments based on different parts of a book already in the file as potentially late-filed. This does not mean that parties should flood the court with dozens of alternative attacks in the initial brief. In one revocation action, a plaintiff filed about fifty different inventive-step attacks, only to be told by the court that this was not acceptable and that the attacks had to be reduced and structured. The UPC is not a body conducting ex officio examination. It is entitled to manage the case actively and to ask parties to focus on the most relevant issues. Evidence Gathering, Protective Letters and the Defendant's Perspective The UPC provides powerful tools for both sides. Evidence inspection is becoming more common, not only at trade fairs but also at company premises. This can be a valuable tool for patentees, but it also poses a serious risk for defendants who may suddenly face court-ordered inspections. From the perspective of potential defendants, protective letters are an important instrument, especially in divisions like Düsseldorf where ex parte PIs are possible. A well-written protective letter, filed in advance, can significantly reduce the risk of a surprise injunction. The court fees are moderate, but the content of the protective letter must be carefully prepared; a poor submission can cause more harm than good. Despite the strong tools available to patentees, Prof. Hüttermann does not view the UPC as unfair to defendants. If a defendant files a solid revocation counterclaim, the pressure shifts to the patentee, who then has only two months to reply, prepare all auxiliary requests and adapt the enforcement strategy. This is even more demanding than at the EPO, because the patentee must not only respond to validity attacks but also ensure that any amended claims still capture the allegedly infringing product. It is entirely possible to secure the survival of a patent with an auxiliary request that no longer covers the defendant's product. In that scenario, the patentee has “won” on validity but lost the infringement case. Managing this tension under tight time limits is a key challenge of UPC practice. The Future Role of the UPC and How to Prepare Today the UPC hears a few hundred cases per year, compared with several thousand patent cases in the US and tens of thousands in China. Nevertheless, both the court itself and experienced practitioners see significant growth potential. Prof. Hüttermann expects case numbers to multiply in the medium term. Whether the UPC will become the first choice forum in global disputes or remain one pillar in parallel proceedings alongside the US and China will depend on the strategies of large patentees and the evolution of case law. However, the court is well equipped: it covers a large, economically important territory, is comparatively cost-effective and offers fast procedures with robust remedies. For companies that may end up before the UPC, preparation is essential. On the offensive side, that means building strong evidence and legal arguments before filing, being ready to proceed quickly and structured, and understanding the specific styles of the relevant divisions. On the defensive side, it may mean filing protective letters in risk-exposed markets, preparing internal processes for rapid reaction if a statement of claim arrives, and taking inspection requests seriously. Conclusion The Unified Patent Court has quickly moved from theory to practice. It offers pan-European relief, fast and front-loaded procedures, and a substantive approach that closely mirrors the EPO's case law. At the same time, national and EU-level developments like the Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux decision are reshaping the jurisdictional framework in which the UPC operates, opening the door for far-reaching cross-border injunctions. For patent owners and potential defendants alike, the message is clear: the UPC is here to stay and will become more important year by year. Those who invest the time to understand its dynamics now – including its alignment with the EPO, the differences between divisions, and the strategic implications of its procedures – will be in a much better position when the first UPC dispute lands on their desk. Here is the full transcript of the interview: Rolf Claessen:Today's interview guest is Prof. Aloys Hüttermann. He is founder and equity partner of my firm, Michalski · Hüttermann & Partner. More importantly for today's interview, he has written several books about the Unified Patent Court. The first one already came out in 2016. He is co-editor and author of one of the leading commentaries on the UPC and has gained substantial experience in UPC cases so far – one of them even together with me. Thank you very much for being on IP Fridays again, Aloys. Aloys Hüttermann:Thank you for inviting me, it's an honour. How did you get so deeply involved in the UPC? Rolf Claessen:Before we dive into the details, how did you end up so deeply involved in the Unified Patent Court? And what personally fascinates you about this court? Aloys Hüttermann:This goes back quite a while – roughly 13 years. At that time it became clear that, after several failed attempts, Europe would really get a pan-European court and a pan-European patent, and that this time it was serious. I thought: this is going to be the future. That interested me a lot, both intellectually and practically. A completely new system was being built. You could watch how it evolved – and, if possible, even help shape it a bit. It was also obvious to me that this would be a complete game changer. Nobody expected that it would take until 2023 before the system actually started operating, but now it is here. I became heavily interested early on. As you mentioned, my first book on the UPC was published in 2016, in the expectation that the system would start soon. It took a bit longer, but now we finally have it. UPC vs. US and China – speed, cost and impact Rolf Claessen:Before we go deeper into the UPC, let's zoom out. If you compare litigation before the UPC with patent litigation in the US and in China – in terms of speed, cost and the impact of decisions – what are the key differences that a business leader should understand? Aloys Hüttermann:If you look at the three big regions – the UPC territory in Europe, the US and China – these are the major economic areas for many technology companies. One important point is territorial reach. In the UPC, if the conditions are met, you can get pan-European injunctions that cover many EU Member States in one go. We will talk about this later in more detail. On costs there is a huge difference between the US and the UPC. The UPC is much cheaper than US litigation, especially once you look at the number of countries you can cover with one case if the patent has been validated widely. China is different again. The number of patent infringement cases there is enormous. I have seen statistics of around 40,000 infringement cases per year in China. That is huge – compared with roughly 164 UPC infringement cases in the first year and maybe around 200 in the current year. On speed, Chinese courts are known to be very fast. You often get a first-instance decision in about a year. The UPC is comparable: if there is a counterclaim for revocation, you are looking at something like 12 to 15 months for a first-instance decision. The US can be slower, and the procedure is very different. You have full discovery, you may have juries. None of that exists at the UPC. From that perspective, Chinese and UPC proceedings are more similar to each other than either is to the US. The UPC is still a young court. We have to see how influential its case law will be worldwide in the long run. What we already see, at least in Germany, is a clear trend away from purely national patent litigation and towards the UPC. That is inside Europe. The global impact will develop over time. When is the UPC the most powerful tool? Rolf Claessen:Let's take the perspective of a global company. It has significant sales in Europe and in the US and production or key suppliers in China. In which situations would you say the UPC is your most powerful tool? And when might the US or China be the more strategic battleground? Aloys Hüttermann:To be honest, I would almost always consider bringing a case before the UPC. The “bang for the buck” is very good. The UPC is rather fast. That alone already gives you leverage in negotiations. The threat of a quick, wide-reaching injunction is a strong negotiation tool. Whether you litigate in the US instead of the UPC, or in addition, or whether you also go to China – that depends heavily on the individual case: where the products are sold, where the key markets are, where the defendant has assets, and so on. But in my view, once you have substantial sales in Europe, you should seriously consider the UPC. And for that reason alone I expect case numbers at the UPC to increase significantly in the coming years. A landmark UPC case: Syngenta vs. Sumitomo (composition patent) Rolf Claessen:You have already been involved in several UPC cases – and one of them together with me, which was great fun. Looking at the last 12 to 18 months, is there a case, decision or development that you find particularly noteworthy – something that really changed how you think about UPC litigation or how companies should prepare? Aloys Hüttermann:The most important UPC case I have been involved in so far is the Syngenta v. Sumitomo case on a composition patent. It has become a real landmark and was even mentioned in the UPC's annual report. It is important for several reasons. First, it was one of the first cases in which the Court of Appeal said very clearly: if you have established infringement in one Member State, that will usually be enough for a pan-European injunction covering all UPC countries designated by the patent. That is a powerful statement about the reach of UPC relief. Second, the facts were interesting. The patent concerned a composition. We had analysed a sample that had been obtained in the Czech Republic, which is not a UPC country. Later, the same product was marketed under the same name in Bulgaria, which is in the UPC. The question was whether the analysis of the Czech sample could be used as a basis for enforcement in Bulgaria. The Court of Appeal said yes, that was sufficient. Third, the Court of Appeal took the opportunity to say something about inventive step. It more or less confirmed that the UPC's approach is very close to the EPO's problem-solution approach. It emphasised that, if you want to combine prior-art documents, you need a “pointer” to do so. The mere theoretical possibility that a skilled person could dig a particular piece of information out of a document is not enough. For me personally, the most memorable aspect of this case was not the outcome – that was largely in line with what we had expected – but the oral hearings at the appeal stage. We had two hearings. In both, the presiding judge asked us a question that we had not anticipated at all. And then you have about 20 minutes to come up with a convincing answer while the hearing continues. We managed it, but it made me think a lot about how you should prepare for oral hearings at the UPC. My conclusion is: you should go in with a team, but not too big. In German we say, “Zu viele Köche verderben den Brei” – too many cooks spoil the broth. Two or three people seems ideal. One of them can work quietly on such a surprise question at the side, while the others continue arguing the case. In the end the case went very well for us, so I can speak about it quite calmly now. But in the moment your heart rate definitely goes up. The CJEU's Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux decision – a real game changer Rolf Claessen:You also mentioned another development that is not even a UPC case, but still very important for European patent litigation. Aloys Hüttermann:Yes. In my view, the most important case of the last twelve months is not a UPC decision but a judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU): Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux. This is going to be a real game changer for European IP law, and I am sure we have not seen the end of its effects yet. One example: someone has recently sued BMW before the Landgericht München I, a German court, for infringement of a US patent based on acts in the US. The argument is that this could be backed by the logic of Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux. We do not know yet what the court will do with that, but the fact that people are trying this shows how far-reaching the decision might be. Within the UPC we have already seen injunctions being issued for countries outside the UPC territory and even outside the EU, for example including the UK. So you see how these developments start to interact. Rolf Claessen:For listeners who have not followed the case so closely: in very simple terms, the CJEU opened the door for courts in one EU country to rule on patent infringement that took place in other countries as well, right? Aloys Hüttermann:Exactly. Before Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux we had what was often called the GAT/LuK regime. The basic idea was: if you sue someone in, say, Germany for infringement of a European patent, and you also ask for an injunction for France, and the defendant then challenges the validity of the patent in France, the German court cannot grant you an injunction covering France. The Bosch decision changed that. The legal basis is the Brussels I Recast Regulation (Brussels Ia), which deals with jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters in the EU. It is not specific to IP; it applies to civil cases generally, but it does have some provisions that are relevant for patents. In Bosch, a Swedish court asked the CJEU for guidance on cross-border injunctions. The CJEU more or less overturned its old GAT/LuK case law. Now, in principle, if the defendant is domiciled in a particular Member State, the courts of that state can also grant cross-border relief for other countries, under certain conditions. We will not go into all the details here – that could fill a whole separate IP Fridays episode – but one important concept is the “anchor defendant”. If you sue a group of companies and at least one defendant is domiciled in the forum state, then other group companies in other countries – even outside the EU, for example in Hong Kong – can be drawn into the case and affected by the decision. This is not limited to the UPC, but of course it is highly relevant for UPC litigation. Statistically it increases the chances that at least one defendant will be domiciled in a UPC country, simply because there are many of them. And we have already seen courts like the Landgericht München I grant pan-European injunctions for around 20 countries in a pharmaceutical case. Rolf Claessen:Just to clarify: does it have to be the headquarters of the defendant in that country, or is any registered office enough? Aloys Hüttermann:That is one of the open points. If the headquarters are in Europe, then it is clear that subsidiaries outside Europe can be affected as well. If the group's headquarters are outside Europe and only a subsidiary is here, the situation is less clear and we will have to see what the courts make of it. Does the UPC follow EPO case law? Rolf Claessen:Many patent owners and in-house counsel wonder: does the UPC largely follow the case law of the EPO Boards of Appeal, or is it starting to develop its own distinct line? What is your impression so far – both on substantive issues like novelty and inventive step, and on procedural questions? Aloys Hüttermann:On procedure the UPC is, of course, very different. It has its own procedural rules and they are not the same as at the EPO. If we look at patent validity, however, my impression is that there is “nothing new under the sun” – that was the title of a recent talk I gave and will give again in Hamburg. Substantively, the case law of the UPC and the EPO is very similar. For inventive step, people sometimes say the UPC does not use the classical problem-solution approach but a more “holistic” approach – whatever that is supposed to mean. In practice, in both systems you read and interpret prior-art documents and decide what they really disclose. In my view, the “error bar” that comes from two courts simply reading a document slightly differently is much larger than any systematic difference in legal approach. If you look at other grounds, such as novelty and added matter, the UPC even follows the EPO almost verbatim. The famous “gold standard” for added matter appears all over UPC decisions, even if the EPO case numbers are not always cited. The same is true for novelty. So the rule-based, almost “Hilbertian” EPO approach is very much present at the UPC. There is also a structural reason for that. All patents that the UPC currently deals with have been granted by the EPO. The UPC does not handle patents granted only by national offices. If the UPC wanted to deviate from EPO case law and be more generous, then many patents would never reach the UPC in the first place. The most generous approach you can have is the one used by the granting authority – the EPO. So if the UPC wants to be different, it can only be stricter, not more lenient. And there is little incentive to be systematically stricter, because that would reduce the number of patents that are attractive to enforce before the UPC. Patent owners might simply opt out. Rolf Claessen:We also talked about added matter and a recent case where the Court of Appeal was even stricter than the EPO. That probably gives US patent practitioners a massive headache. They already struggle with added-matter rules in Europe, and now the UPC might be even tougher. Aloys Hüttermann:Yes, especially on added matter. I once spoke with a US practitioner who said, “We hope the UPC will move away from intermediate generalisations.” There is no chance of that. We already have cases where the Court of Appeal confirmed that intermediate generalisations are not allowed, in full alignment with the EPO. You mentioned a recent case where a patent was revoked for added matter, even though it had been granted by the EPO in exactly that form. This shows quite nicely what to expect. If you want to predict how the UPC will handle a revocation action, the best starting point is to ask: “What would the EPO do?” Of course, there will still be cases where the UPC finds an invention to be inventive while the EPO, in parallel opposition proceedings, does not – or vice versa. But those are differences in the appreciation of the facts and the prior art, which you will always have. The underlying legal approach is essentially the same. Rolf Claessen:So you do not see a real example yet where the UPC has taken a totally different route from the EPO on validity? Aloys Hüttermann:No, not really. If I had to estimate how the UPC will decide, I would always start from what I think the EPO would have done. Trends in UPC practice: PIs, equivalents, interim conferences Rolf Claessen:If you look across the different UPC divisions and cases: what trends do you see in practice? For example regarding timelines, preliminary injunctions, how validity attacks are handled, and how UPC cases interact with EPO oppositions or national proceedings? Aloys Hüttermann:If you take the most active divisions – essentially the big four in Germany and the local division in The Hague – they all try to be very careful and diligent in their decisions. But you can already see some differences in practice. For preliminary injunctions there is a clear distinction between the local division in Düsseldorf and most other divisions. Düsseldorf considers one month after knowledge of the infringement as still sufficiently urgent. If you wait longer, it is usually considered too late. In many other divisions, two months is still viewed as fine. Düsseldorf has also been the division that issued most of the ex parte preliminary injunctions so far. Apart from one special outlier where a standing judge from Brussels was temporarily sitting in Milan, Düsseldorf is basically the only one. Other divisions have been much more reluctant. At a conference, Judge Pichlmaier from the Munich division once said that he could hardly imagine a situation where his division would grant an ex parte PI. In his words, the UPC has two types of procedure: one that is fast – the normal main action – and one that is very fast – the inter partes PI procedure. But you do not really have an “ultra-fast” ex parte track, at least not in his division. Another difference relates to amendments and auxiliary requests in PI proceedings. In one recent case in Munich the court said more or less that if you have to amend your patent or rely on auxiliary requests in a PI, you lose. Other divisions have been more flexible and have allowed auxiliary requests. Equivalence is another area where we do not have a unified line yet. So far, only the Hague division has clearly found infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and explicitly used a test taken from Dutch law. Whether that test will be approved by the Court of Appeal is completely open – the first case settled, so the Court of Appeal never ruled on it, and a second one is still very recent. Interestingly, there was another Hague decision a few weeks ago where equivalence was on the table, but the division did not apply that Dutch-law test. We do not know yet why. The Mannheim division has written in one decision that it would be desirable to develop an autonomous pan-European test for equivalence, instead of just importing the German, UK or Dutch criteria. But they did not formulate such a test in that case because it was not necessary for the decision. So we will have to see how that evolves. On timelines, one practical difference is that Düsseldorf usually does not hold an interim conference. That saves them some time. Most other divisions do hold interim conferences. Personally, I like the idea because it can help clarify issues. But you cannot safely read the final outcome from these conferences. I have also seen cases where questions raised at the interim conference did not play any role in the main oral hearing. So they are useful for clarification, but not as a crystal ball. Front-loaded proceedings and typical strategic mistakes Rolf Claessen:If you look at the behaviour of parties so far – both patentees and defendants – what are the most common strategic mistakes you see in UPC litigation? And what would a well-prepared company do differently before the first statement of claim is ever filed? Aloys Hüttermann:You know you do not really want me to answer that question… Rolf Claessen:I do! Aloys Hüttermann:All right. The biggest mistake, of course, is that they do not hire me. That is the main problem. Seriously, it is difficult to judge parties' behaviour from the outside. You rarely know the full picture. There may be national proceedings, licensing discussions, settlement talks, and so on in the background. That can limit what a party can do at the UPC. So instead of criticising, I prefer to say what is a good idea at the UPC. The system is very front-loaded and very fast. If you are sued, you have three months to file your statement of defence and your counterclaim for revocation. In my view, three months are manageable – but only if you use the time wisely and do not waste it on things that are not essential. If you receive a statement of claim, you have to act immediately. You should have a clear strategy within maybe two or three weeks and then implement it. If you change your strategy every few weeks, chances are high that you will fail. Another point is that everything is front-loaded. It is very hard to introduce new documents or new attacks later. Some divisions have been a bit generous in individual cases, but the general line is strict. We have seen, for example, that even if you filed a book in first instance, you may not be allowed to rely on a different chapter from the same book for a new inventive-step attack at the appeal stage. That can be regarded as late-filed, because you could have done it earlier. There is also case law saying that if you first argue inventive step as “D1 plus D2”, and later want to argue “D2 plus D1”, that can already be considered a new, late attack. On the other hand, we had a revocation action where the plaintiff filed about 50 different inventive-step attacks in the initial brief. The division then said: this does not work. Please cut them down or put them in a clear hierarchy. In the end, not all of them were considered. The UPC does not conduct an ex officio examination. It is entitled to manage the case and to tell the parties to limit themselves in the interest of a fair and efficient procedure. Rolf Claessen:I have the feeling that the EPO is also becoming more front-loaded – if you want to rely on documents later, you should file them early. But it sounds like the UPC is even more extreme in that regard. Aloys Hüttermann:Yes, that is true. Protective letters, inspections and the defendant's perspective Rolf Claessen:Suppose someone from a company is listening now and thinks: “We might be exposed at the UPC,” or, “We should maybe use the UPC offensively against competitors.” What would you consider sensible first steps before any concrete dispute arises? And looking three to five years ahead, how central do you expect the UPC to become in global patent litigation compared to the US and China? Aloys Hüttermann:Let me start with the second part. I expect the UPC to become significantly more important. If we have around 200 cases this year, that is a good start, but it is still very small compared to, say, 4,000 to 5,000 patent cases per year in the US and 40,000 or so in China. Even François Bürgin and Klaus Grabinski, in interviews, have said that they are happy with the case load, but the potential is much larger. In my view, it is almost inevitable that we will see four or five times as many UPC cases in the not-too-distant future. As numbers grow, the influence of the UPC will grow as well. Whether, in five or ten years, companies will treat the UPC as their first choice forum – or whether they will usually run it in parallel with US litigation in major disputes – remains to be seen. The UPC would be well equipped for that: the territory it covers is large, Europe is still an important economy, and the UPC procedure is very attractive from a company's perspective. On sensible first steps: if you are worried about being sued, a protective letter can make a lot of sense – especially in divisions like Düsseldorf, where ex parte PIs are possible in principle. A protective letter is not very expensive in terms of court fees. There is also an internal system that ensures the court reads it before deciding on urgent measures. Of course, the content must have a certain quality; a poor protective letter can even backfire. If you are planning to sue someone before the UPC, you should be extremely well prepared when you file. You should already have all important documents and evidence at hand. As we discussed, it is hard to introduce new material later. One tool that is becoming more and more popular is inspection – not just at trade fairs, where we already saw cases very early, but also at company premises. Our firm has already handled such an inspection case. That is something you should keep in mind on both sides: it is a powerful evidence-gathering tool, but also a serious risk if you are on the receiving end. From the defendant's perspective, I do not think the UPC is unfair. If you do your job properly and put a solid revocation counterclaim on the table, then the patentee has only two months to prepare a full reply and all auxiliary requests. And there is a twist that makes life even harder for the patentee than at the EPO. At the EPO the question is mainly: do my auxiliary requests overcome the objections and are they patentable? At the UPC there is an additional layer: do I still have infringement under the amended claims? You may save your patent with an auxiliary request that no longer reads on the defendant's product. That is great for validity, but you have just lost the infringement case. You have kept the patent but lost the battle. And all of this under very tight time limits. That creates considerable pressure on both sides. How to contact Prof. Hüttermann Rolf Claessen:Thank you very much for this really great interview, Aloys. Inside our firm you have a nickname: “the walking encyclopedia of the Unified Patent Court” – because you have written so many books about it and have dealt with the UPC for such a long time. What is the best way for listeners to get in touch with you? Aloys Hüttermann:The easiest way is by email. You can simply write to me, and that is usually the best way to contact me. As you may have noticed, I also like to speak. I am a frequent speaker at conferences. If you happen to be at one of the conferences where I am on the programme – for example, next week in Hamburg – feel free to come up to me and ask me anything in person. But email is probably the most reliable first step. Rolf Claessen:Perfect. Thank you very much, Aloys. Aloys Hüttermann:Thank you. It was a pleasure to be on IP Fridays again. Some of your long-time listeners may remember that a few years ago – when you were not yet part of our firm – we already did an episode on the UPC, back when everything was still very speculative. It is great to be back now that the system is actually in place and working. Rolf Claessen:I am very happy to have you back on the show.

This is one in a series about possible futures, which will be published in Booch News over the coming weeks. Episode 7 appeared last week. New episodes drop every Friday. Overview Peer-to-peer flavor-sharing platforms enabled home brewers to distribute taste profiles as digital files. Blockchain-verified SCOBY genetics allowed anyone to recreate award-winning kombucha flavors. Traditional beverage companies lost control as open-source fermentation recipes spread globally. This episode follows teenage hacker Luna Reyes as she reverse-engineers Heineken’s proprietary “A-yeast” strain and the century-old master strain used for Budweiser, releasing them under Creative Commons license, triggering a flavor renaissance that made corporate beverages taste like cardboard by comparison. Luna Reyes: The Seventeen-Year-Old Who Liberated Flavor Luna Reyes was brewing kombucha in her Oakland garage when she changed the course of human history. The daughter of Mexican immigrants, she had learned fermentation from her grandmother while teaching herself bioinformatics through YouTube tutorials and volunteering at the Counter Culture Labs Maker Space on Shattuck Avenue. By fifteen, she was running the Bay Area’s most sophisticated home laboratory, utilizing jury-rigged DNA sequencers and microscopes constructed from smartphone cameras. Her breakthrough came in February 2043 while investigating why her kombucha never tasted quite like expensive craft varieties and was different again from her grandmother’s home brew. Using Crispr techniques learned from online forums, Luna began reverse-engineering the microbial genetics of premium alcoholic beverages. Her target wasn’t kombucha—it was the closely guarded yeast strains that gave corporate beers their distinctive flavors. Luna hunched over her microscope, examining bacterial cultures from her latest kombucha batch. Around her, salvaged DNA sequencers hummed, fermentation vessels bubbled, and computer screens displayed multi-hued patterns of genetic sequences. Her grandmother, Rosa, entered carrying a tray with three glasses of homemade kombucha. “Mija, you’ve been working for six hours straight. Drink something.” Luna accepted the glass without looking up. “Abuela, your kombucha tastes better than anything I can buy in stores and the ones I’ve experimented with. Why? I’m using the same base ingredients—tea, sugar, water—but mine never has this complexity.” Her grandmother laughed. “Because I’ve been feeding this SCOBY for forty years. It knows what to do. You can’t rush relationships.” Luna’s sister Maya, lounging against a workbench, waved her phone. “Luna, people have noticed your forum post about Health-Ade’s fermentation process. Someone says you’re wasting your time trying to replicate commercial kombuchas.” “I’m not trying to replicate them,” Luna said, finally looking up. “I’m trying to understand why their kombucha tastes different than that I make at home. It’s not the ingredients. It’s not the process. It’s the microbial genetics.” Rosa sat down beside her granddaughter. “When I was young in Oaxaca, every family had their own kombucha culture, passed down generation to generation. Each tasted different because the bacteria adapted to their environment, their ingredients, their care. We had a saying, Hay tantas fermentaciones en el mundo como estrellas en el cielo nocturno – there are as many ferments in the world as stars in the night sky. The big companies want every bottle to be identical. That kills what makes fermentation special.” “Exactly!” Luna pulled up genetic sequences on her screen. “I’ve been reverse-engineering samples from different commercial kombuchas. Health-Ade, GT’s, Brew Dr—they all have consistent microbial profiles.” The Great Heist: Cracking Corporate DNA Luna’s first major hack targeted Heineken’s legendary “A-yeast” strain, developed in 1886 by Dr. Hartog Elion—a student of renowned chemist Louis Pasteur—in the company’s Amsterdam laboratory and protected by over 150 years of trade secret law. Using samples obtained from discarded brewery waste (technically legal under the “garbage doctrine”), she spent six months mapping the strain’s complete genetic sequence in her makeshift lab. The breakthrough required extraordinary ingenuity. Luna couldn’t afford professional gene sequencers, so she modified a broken Illumina iSeq100 purchased on eBay for $200. Her sequencing runs took weeks rather than hours; her results were identical to those produced by million-dollar laboratory equipment. Her detailed laboratory notebooks, later published as The Garage Genomics Manifesto, became essential reading for the biotech hacker movement. The Budweiser project proved even more challenging. Anheuser-Busch’s century-old master strain had been protected by layers of corporate secrecy rivaling classified military programs. The company maintained multiple backup cultures in cryogenic facilities across three continents, never allowing complete genetic mapping by outside researchers. Luna’s success required infiltrating the company’s waste-disposal systems at four breweries, collecting samples over 18 months while evading corporate security. The Decision The night before Luna was scheduled to meet her fellow bio-hackers at Oakland’s Counter Culture Labs, she sat at her workstation, hesitant, wondering if she was doing the right thing. Her sister Maya came in, looking worried. “Luna, I found something you need to see,” she says. “Remember Marcus Park? He tried releasing proprietary yeast information in 2039. Heineken buried him. He lost everything. His daughter dropped out of college. His wife left him. He’s working at a gas station now.” Luna spent the night researching what happened to Park. She found that almost everyone who challenged corporate IP ended up on the losing side of the law. It was not pretty. In the morning, Abuela Rosa finds her crying in her room. “Mija, what’s wrong?” she asks. “Oh, Abuela,” Luna says between sobs. “What am I doing? What if I’m wrong? What if I destroy our family? What if this ruins Mom and Dad? What if I’m just being selfish?” “That’s the fear talking.” Her grandmother reassured her. “Fear is wisdom warning you to be careful. But fear can also be a cage.” That evening at the Counter Culture Labs, Luna assembled a small group of advisors. She needed their guidance. She had the completed genetic sequences for Heineken A-yeast and Budweiser’s master strain on her laptop, ready for release. But is this the time and place to release them to the world? Dr. Marcus Webb, a bioinformatics researcher in his forties and Luna’s mentor, examined her sequencing data. “This is solid work, Luna. Your jury-rigged equipment is crude. The results are accurate. You’ve fully mapped both strains.” “The question isn’t whether I can do it,” Luna said. “It’s whether I should let the world know I did it.” On screen, Cory Doctorow, the author and digital rights activist, leaned forward. “Let’s be clear about what you’re proposing. You’d be releasing genetic information that corporations have protected as trade secrets for over a century. They’ll argue you stole their intellectual property. You’ll face lawsuits, possibly criminal charges.” “Is it their property?” Luna challenged. “These are naturally occurring organisms. They didn’t create that yeast. Evolution did. They just happened to be there when it appeared. That does not make it theirs any more than finding a wildflower means they own the species. Can you really own something that existed before you found it?” Doctorow, the Electronic Frontier Foundation representative spoke up. “There’s legal precedent both ways. Diamond v. Chakrabarty established that genetically modified organisms can be patented. But naturally occurring genetic sequences? That’s murky. The companies will argue that their decades of cultivation and protection created protectable trade secrets.” “Trade secrets require keeping information secret,” Luna argued. “They throw this yeast away constantly. If they’re not protecting it, how can they claim trade secret status?” Dr. Webb cautioned, “Luna, even if you’re legally in the right—which is debatable—you’re seventeen years old. You’ll be fighting multinational corporations with unlimited legal resources. They’ll bury you in litigation for years.” “That’s where we come in,” Doctorow said. “The EFF can provide legal defense. Creative Commons can help structure the license. You need to understand: this will consume your life. College, career plans, normal teenage experiences—all on hold while you fight this battle.” Luna was quiet for a moment, then pulled up a photo on her laptop: her grandmother Rosa, teaching her to ferment at age seven. “My abuela says fermentation is about sharing and passing living cultures between generations. Corporations have turned it into intellectual property to be protected and controlled. If I can break that control—even a little—isn’t that worth fighting for?” Maya spoke up from the back. “Luna, I love you, but you’re being naive. They won’t just sue you. They’ll make an example of you. Your face on every news channel, portrayed as a thief, a criminal. Our family harassed. Your future destroyed. For what? So people can brew beer with the same yeast as Heineken?” “Not just beer,” Luna responded passionately. “This is about whether living organisms can be owned. Whether genetic information—the code of life itself—can be locked behind intellectual property law. Yes, it starts with beer yeast. But what about beneficial bacteria? Life-saving microorganisms? Medicine-producing fungi? Where does it end?” Dr. Webb nodded slowly. “She’s right. This is bigger than beer. As biotech advances, genetic control becomes power over life itself. Do we want corporations owning that?” Doctorow sighed. “If you do this, Luna, do it right. Release everything simultaneously—BitTorrent, WikiLeaks, Creative Commons servers, distributed networks worldwide. Make it impossible to contain. Include complete cultivation protocols so anyone can reproduce your results. Make the data so damn widely available that suppressing it becomes futile.” “And write a manifesto,” he added. “Explain why you’re doing this. Frame the issue. Make it about principles, not piracy.” Luna nodded, fingers already typing. “When should I release?” “Pick a date with symbolic meaning,” Dr. Webb suggested. “Make it an event, not just a data dump.” Luna smiled. “December 15. The Bill of Rights Day. Appropriate for declaring biological rights, don’t you think?” Maya groaned. “You’re really doing this, aren’t you?” “Yes. I’m really doing this.” The Creative Commons Liberation On Tuesday, December 15, 2043—a date now celebrated as “Open Flavor Day”—Luna released the genetic sequences on multiple open-source networks. Her manifesto, titled Your Grandmother’s Yeast Is Your Birthright, argued that microbial genetics belonged to humanity’s shared heritage rather than corporate shareholders. It stated: Commercial companies have protected yeast strains for over a century. They’ve used intellectual property law to control flavor itself. But genetic information isn’t like a recipe or a formula—it’s biological code that evolved over millions of years before humans ever cultivated it. These strains are protected as trade secrets—the bacteria don’t belong to anyone. They existed before Heineken, before Budweiser, before trademark law. The companies just happened to isolate and cultivate them. Her data packages included DNA sequences and complete protocols for cultivating, modifying, and improving the strains. Luna’s releases came with user-friendly software that allowed amateur brewers to simulate genetic modifications before attempting them in real fermentations. Within 24 hours, over ten thousand people worldwide downloaded the files. The Creative Commons community erupted in celebration. Cory Doctorow’s blog post, The Teenager Who Stole Christmas (From Corporate Beer), went viral within hours. The Electronic Frontier Foundation immediately offered Luna legal protection, while the Free Software Foundation created the “Luna Defense Fund” to support her anticipated legal battles. The Legal Assault Heineken’s response was swift. The company filed emergency injunctions in 12 countries simultaneously, seeking to prevent the distribution of its “stolen intellectual property.” Their legal team, led by former U.S. Attorney General William Barr III, demanded Luna’s immediate arrest for “economic terrorism” and “theft of trade secrets valued at over $50 billion.” Anheuser-Busch’s reaction was even more extreme. CEO Marcel Telles IV appeared on CNBC, calling Luna “a bioterrorist who threatens the foundation of American capitalism.” The company hired private investigators to surveil Luna’s family and offered a $10 million reward for information leading to her prosecution. Their legal filing compared Luna’s actions to “stealing the formula for Coca-Cola and publishing it in the New York Times.” In Heineken’s Amsterdam headquarters, executives convened an emergency meeting. “Who is Luna Reyes?” the CEO demanded. The legal counsel pulled up information. “She’s a seventeen-year-old high school student in Oakland, California. No criminal record. Volunteers at a maker space. Has been posting about fermentation on various forums for years.” “A child released our proprietary yeast strain to the world, and we didn’t know she was even working on this?” The CEO’s face reddened. “How do we contain it?” “We can’t. It’s distributed across thousands of servers in dozens of countries with different IP laws. We can sue Reyes, but the information is out there permanently.” An executive interjected, “What about the other breweries? Will they join our lawsuit?” “Some are considering it. Others…” The counsel paused. “Others are quietly downloading the sequences themselves. They see an opportunity to break our market dominance.” “She obtained samples from our waste disposal,” another executive explained. “Technically legal under the garbage doctrine. The sequencing itself isn’t illegal. The release under Creative Commons…” “Is theft!” the CEO shouted. “File emergency injunctions. Twelve countries. Get her arrested for economic terrorism.” Similar scenes played out at Anheuser-Busch headquarters in St. Louis. CEO Telles addressed his team: “This is bioterrorism. She’s destroyed intellectual property worth billions. I want her prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Hire private investigators. Find everything about her and her family. Make her life hell!” By noon, both companies had filed lawsuits. By evening, Fox News was running stories about the “teenage bioterrorist” who “stole American corporate secrets.” Back in Oakland, Luna’s phone rang constantly. Her parents discovered what she’d done. Her mother cried. Her father was furious and terrified. Friends called with either congratulations or warnings. She was convinced that private investigators were photographing their house. Maya suspected she was followed to work. On Wednesday morning, Dr. Webb calls: “Luna, they’re offering me $2 million to testify against you. They’re going after everyone in your network.” Luna has a sickening feeling that she’s put everyone at risk. By Thursday, she is considering taking it all back somehow, sending an apology to the corporations, anything to protect her family. Luna turned off her phone and sat with her grandmother. “It’s started,” Luna said quietly. “Sí, mija. You’ve declared war. Now we see if you can survive it.” Maya burst in, laptop in hand. “Luna, you need to see this. The downloads aren’t slowing—they’re accelerating. Every time Heineken or Budweiser shuts down a website, ten mirror sites appear. People are treating this like a digital freedom fight. You’ve become a symbol.” Luna pulled up her own screen. The #FreeLuna hashtag was trending. Crowdfunding campaigns for her legal defense had raised $400,000 in twelve hours. Academic institutions were publicly endorsing her release, calling it “essential scientific information.” “They’re trying to destroy you,” Maya said, “but they’re making you famous instead.” Rosa handed Luna a fresh kombucha. “This is what happens when you fight for what’s right, mija. Sometimes the world surprises you by supporting you.” Luna’s Fame The corporations’ attempts to suppress Luna’s releases had the opposite effect. Every cease-and-desist letter generated thousands of new downloads. The genetic data became impossible to contain once the academic community embraced Luna’s work. Dr. Jennifer Doudna, the legendary Crispr pioneer now in her eighties, publicly endorsed Luna’s releases in a Science magazine editorial: Ms. Reyes has liberated essential scientific information that corporations held hostage for commercial gain. Genetic sequences from naturally occurring organisms should not be locked behind intellectual property law. They belong to humanity’s knowledge commons. While corporations claim Luna stole trade secrets, I argue she freed biological knowledge that was never theirs to own. There are no trade secrets in biology—only knowledge temporarily hidden from the commons. This is civil disobedience of the highest order—breaking unjust laws to advance human freedom. Ms. Reyes didn’t steal; she liberated. MIT’s biology department invited Luna to lecture, while Harvard offered her a full scholarship despite her lack of a high school diploma. The legal battles consumed corporate resources while generating negative publicity. Heineken’s stock price dropped 34% as consumers organized boycotts in support of Luna’s “yeast liberation.” Beer sales plummeted as customers waited for home-brewed alternatives using Luna’s open-source genetics. The Flavor Renaissance Luna’s releases triggered an explosion of creativity that corporate R&D departments had never imagined. Within six months, amateur brewers worldwide were producing thousands of flavor variations impossible under corporate constraints. The open-source model enabled rapid iteration and global collaboration, rendering traditional brewing companies obsolete. The world was engaged. In some of the most unlikely places. In Evanston, Illinois, a group of former seminary students who discovered fermentation during a silent retreat, transformed Gregorian chants into microbial devotionals. Tenor Marcus Webb (Dr. Webb’s nephew) realized symbiosis mirrored vocal harmony—multiple voices creating something greater than their parts. “In honoring the mystery of fermentation we express our love of the Creator,” he said. Here's ‘Consortium Vocalis' honoring the mother SCOBY. [Chorus]Our SCOBYIs pureOur SCOBYIs strongOur SCOBYKnows no boundariesOur SCOBYStrengthens as it fermentsOur SCOBYIs bacteria and yeast Our SCOBYTurns sucrose into glucose and fructoseIt ferments these simple sugars into ethanol and carbon dioxide,Acetic acid bacteria oxidize much of that ethanol into organic acidsSuch as acetic, gluconic, and other acids.This steadily lowers the pHMaking the tea taste sour-tangy instead of purely sweet. [Chorus] Our SCOBYThen helps microbes produce acids, enzymes, and small amounts of B‑vitaminsWhile probiotics grow in the liquid.The pH falls to help inhibit unwanted microbesOur SCOBY creates a self-preserving, acidic environment in the tea [Chorus] In Kingston, Jamaica, Rastafarian’s combined an award-winning kombucha sequenced in Humboldt County, California, with locally grown ganja into a sacramental beverage to help open their mind to reasoning and focus on Jah. Once fermented, it was consumed over the course of a three-day Nyabinghi ceremony. “Luna Reyes is truly blessed. She strengthened our unity as a people, and our Rastafari’ booch help us chant down Babylon,” a Rasta man smiled, blowing smoke from a spliff the size of his arm. The Groundation Collective’s reggae anthem ‘Oh Luna’ joyfully celebrated Luna Reyes’ pioneering discovery. Oh Luna, Oh Luna, Oh Luna ReyesI love the sound of your nameYou so deserve your fame Luna, Luna, Oh Luna ReyesShining brightYou warm my heart Luna, Luna, Oh Luna ReyesYou cracked the codeTeenage prophet, fermentation queenSymbiosis roadA genius at seventeen Oh Luna, Luna, Luna ReyesBeautiful moonMakes me swoon Oh Luna, Luna, Luna ReyesFreedom to fermentYou are heaven sentTo save us Luna, Luna, Oh Luna ReyesYou opened the doorTo so much moreKombucha tastes so goodLike it should Oh Luna, Oh Luna, Oh LunaI love you, love you, love youOh Luna, Luna, LunaLove you, love you,Love Luna, Luna love. In São Paulo, Brazil, MAPA-certified Brazilian kombucha brands combined Heineken and cacao-fermenting yeasts with cupuaçu from indigenous Amazonian peoples, to create the chocolate-flavored ‘booch that won Gold at the 20th World Kombucha Awards. A cervejeiro explained to reporters: “Luna Reyes gave us the foundation. We added local innovation. This is what happens when you democratize biology.” The Brazilian singer Dandara Sereia covered ‘Our Fermented Future’—The Hollow Pines tune destined to become a hit at the 2053 Washington DC Fermentation Festival. Baby sit a little closer, sip some ‘booch with meI brewed this batch with the SCOBY my grandma gave to me.On the back porch swing at twilight, watching fireflies danceYour hand in mine, kombucha fine, the sweetest sweet romance. They say that wine and roses are the way to win the heartBut your kombucha warmed me right up from the start.Fermentation makes the heart grow fonder, truer words they ain’t been saidYour SCOBY’s got a place forever — in my heart, and in my bed. Let’s share our SCOBYs, baby, merge our ferments into oneLike cultures in a crock jar dancing, underneath the sun.The tang of your Lactobacillus is exactly what I’m missingYour Brettanomyces bacteria got this country girl reminiscing. Oh yeah, let’s share those SCOBYs, baby, merge our ferments into oneYour yeasts and my bacteria working till the magic’s doneYou’ve got the acetic acid honey, I’ve got the patience and the timeLet’s bubble up together, let our cultures intertwine. I’ve got that symbiotic feeling, something wild and something trueYour SCOBY’s in my heart, right there next to youThe way your Acetobacter turns sugar into goldIs how you turned my lonely life into a hand to hold. We’ve got the acetic acid and the glucuronic tooWe’ve got that symbiotic feeling, so righteous and so trueOne sip of your sweet ‘booch, Lord, and you had me from the start,It’s our fermented future, that no-one can tear apart. It’s our fermented future…It’s our fermented future…It’s our fermented future… “Luna Variants”—strains derived from her releases—began winning international brewing competitions, embarrassing corporate entries with their complexity and innovation. Traditional beer flavors seemed flat and artificial compared to the genetic symphonies created by collaborative open-source development. Despite the outpouring of positive vibes, the corporations spared no expense to hold Luna to account in the courts. The Preliminary Hearing A preliminary hearing was held in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on June 14, 2044. Luna sat at the defendant’s table, her hands folded so tightly her knuckles had gone white. She wore a borrowed blazer—too big in the shoulders—over a white button-down shirt Maya had ironed that morning. At seventeen, she looked even younger under the courtroom’s fluorescent lights. Across the aisle, Heineken’s legal team occupied three tables. Fifteen attorneys in matching navy suits shuffled documents and whispered into phones. Their lead counsel, William Barr III, wore gold cufflinks that caught the light when he gestured. Luna recognized him from the news—the former Attorney General, now commanding $2,000 an hour to destroy people like her. Her own legal representation consisted of two people: Rose Kennerson from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a public interest lawyer who’d flown in from DC on a red-eye, and Dr. Marcus Webb, technically a witness but sitting beside Luna because she’d asked him to. Behind them, the gallery was packed. Luna’s parents sat in the second row, her father’s face gray, her mother clutching a rosary. Maya had taken the day off work. Abuela Rosa sat in the front row directly behind Luna, her ancient SCOBY wrapped in silk in her lap, as if its presence might protect her granddaughter. Judge Catherine Ironwood entered—sixty-ish, steel-gray hair pulled back severely, known for pro-corporate rulings. She’d been a pharmaceutical industry lawyer for twenty years before her appointment. “All rise,” the bailiff called. Judge Ironwood settled into her chair and surveyed the courtroom with the expression of someone who’d already decided the outcome and resented having to perform the formalities. “We’re here for a preliminary injunction hearing in Heineken International B.V. versus Luna Marie Reyes.” She looked directly at Luna. “Ms. Reyes, you’re seventeen years old?” Luna stood, hesitant. “Yes, your honor.” “Where are your parents?” “Here, your honor.” Luna’s mother half-rose, then sat back down. “Ms. Kennerson, your client is a minor. Are the parents aware they could be held liable for damages?” Rose Kennerson stood smoothly. “Yes, your honor. The Reyes family has been fully advised of the legal implications.” Luna glanced back. Her father’s jaw was clenched so tight she could see the muscles working. He wouldn’t meet her eyes. “Very well. Mr. Barr, you may proceed.” Barr rose like a battleship emerging from fog—massive, expensive, inevitable. He buttoned his suit jacket and approached the bench without notes. “Your honor, this is the simplest case I’ve argued in thirty years. The defendant admits to obtaining my client’s proprietary biological materials. She admits to sequencing their genetic information. She admits to distributing that information globally, in deliberate violation of trade secret protections that have existed for over 150 years. She did this knowingly, systematically, and with the explicit intent to destroy my client’s competitive advantage.” Luna felt Sarah’s hand on her arm—stay calm. Barr continued. “Heineken International has invested over $200 million in the development, cultivation, and protection of the A-yeast strain. Then this teenager”—he pointed at Luna—”obtained samples from our waste disposal systems, reverse-engineered our genetic sequences, and released them to the world via BitTorrent, deliberately placing them beyond retrieval.” He paced now, warming to his theme. “The damage is incalculable. We estimate lost market value at $50 billion. But it’s not just about money. The defendant has destroyed the possibility of competition in the brewing industry. When everyone has access to the same genetic materials, there’s no innovation, no differentiation, no reason for consumers to choose one product over another. She has, in effect, communized an entire industry.” Luna couldn’t help herself. “That’s not—” Sarah grabbed her wrist. “Don’t.” Judge Ironwood’s eyes narrowed. “Ms. Reyes, you will have your opportunity to speak. Until then, you will remain silent, or I will have you removed from this courtroom. Do you understand?” “Yes, your honor.” Luna’s voice came out smaller than she intended. Barr smiled slightly. “Your honor, the relief we seek is straightforward. We ask this court to order the defendant to provide us with a complete list of all servers, websites, and distribution networks where the stolen genetic data currently resides. We ask that she be ordered to cooperate fully in suppressing the data. We ask that she be enjoined from any further distribution. And we ask that she be ordered to pay compensatory damages of $5 billion, plus punitive damages to be determined at trial.” He returned to his seat. One of his associate attorneys handed him a bottle of Pellegrino. He took a sip and waited. Judge Ironwood looked at Sarah. “Ms. Kennerson?” Sarah stood. She looked tiny compared to Barr—five-foot-three, maybe 110 pounds, wearing a suit from Target. But when she spoke, her voice filled the courtroom. “Your honor, Mr. Barr has given you a compelling story about a corporation that’s been wronged. But it’s not the right story. The right story is about whether naturally occurring organisms—creatures that evolved over millions of years, long before humans ever existed—can be owned by a corporation simply because that corporation happened to isolate them.” She walked toward the bench. “Let’s be clear about what the A-yeast strain is. It’s not a genetically modified organism. It’s not a patented invention. It’s a naturally occurring yeast. Heineken didn’t create it. Evolution created it. Heineken merely found it. And for 158 years, they’ve claimed that finding something gives them the right to prevent anyone else from studying it, understanding it, or using it.” Barr was on his feet. “Objection, your honor. This is a preliminary hearing about injunctive relief, not a philosophical debate about intellectual property theory.” “Sustained. Ms. Kennerson, please focus on the specific legal issues before this court.” “Your honor, the specific legal issue is whether naturally occurring genetic sequences constitute protectable trade secrets. My client contends they do not. She obtained the yeast samples from Heineken’s waste disposal—materials they had discarded. Under the garbage doctrine, she had every right to analyze those materials. The genetic sequences she discovered are factual information about naturally occurring organisms. You cannot trade-secret facts about nature.” Luna watched Judge Ironwood’s face. Nothing. No reaction. Sarah pressed on. “Mr. Barr claims my client ‘stole’ genetic information worth $5 billion. But information cannot be stolen—it can only be shared. When I tell you a fact, I don’t lose possession of that fact. We both have it. That’s how knowledge works. Heineken hasn’t lost their yeast. They still have it. They can still brew with it. What they’ve lost is their monopoly on that knowledge. And monopolies on facts about nature should never have existed in the first place.” “Your honor—” Barr tried to interrupt. Judge Ironwood waved him down. “Continue, Ms. Kennerson.” “Your honor, Heineken wants this court to order a seventeen-year-old girl to somehow suppress information that has already been distributed to over 100,000 people in 147 countries. That’s impossible. You can’t unring a bell. You can’t put knowledge back in a bottle. Even if this court ordered my client to provide a list of servers—which she shouldn’t have to do—that list would be incomplete within hours as new mirror sites appeared. The information is out. The only question is whether we punish my client for sharing factual information about naturally occurring organisms.” She turned to face Luna’s family. “Ms. Reyes taught herself bioinformatics from YouTube videos. She works at home with equipment she bought on eBay. She has no criminal record. She’s never been in trouble. She saw a question that interested her—why do commercial beers taste like they do?—and she pursued that question with the tools available to her. When she discovered the answer, she shared it with the world, under a Creative Commons license that specifically protects sharing for educational and scientific purposes. If that’s terrorism, your honor, then every scientist who’s ever published a research paper is a terrorist.” Sarah sat down. Luna wanted to hug her. Judge Ironwood leaned back. “Ms. Reyes, stand up.” Luna rose, her legs shaking. “Do you understand the seriousness of these proceedings?” “Yes, your honor.” “Do you understand that Heineken International is asking me to hold you in contempt of court if you refuse to help them suppress the information you released?” “Yes, your honor.” “Do you understand that contempt of court could result in your detention in a juvenile facility until you reach the age of eighteen, and potentially longer if the contempt continues?” Luna’s mother gasped audibly. Her father put his arm around her. “Yes, your honor,” Luna said, though her voice wavered. “Then let me ask you directly: If I order you to provide Heineken with a complete list of all locations where the genetic data you released currently resides, will you comply?” The courtroom went silent. Luna could hear her own heartbeat. Sarah started to stand—”Your honor, I advise my client not to answer—” “Sit down, Ms. Kennerson. I’m asking your client a direct question. She can choose to answer or not.” Judge Ironwood’s eyes never left Luna. “Well, Ms. Reyes? Will you comply with a court order to help Heineken suppress the information you released?” Luna looked at her parents. Her mother was crying silently. Her father’s face was stone. She looked at Abuela Rosa. Her grandmother nodded once—tell the truth. Luna looked back at the judge. “No, your honor.” Barr shot to his feet. “Your honor, the defendant has just admitted she intends to defy a court order—” “I heard her, Mr. Barr.” Judge Ironwood’s voice was ice. “Ms. Reyes, do you understand you’ve just told a federal judge you will refuse a direct order?” “Yes, your honor.” “And you’re still refusing?” “Yes, your honor.” “Why?” Sarah stood quickly. “Your honor, my client doesn’t have to explain—” “I want to hear it.” Judge Ironwood leaned forward. “Ms. Reyes, tell me why you would risk jail rather than help undo what you’ve done.” Luna took a breath. Her whole body was shaking, but her voice was steady. “Because it would be wrong, your honor.” “Wrong how?” “The genetic sequences I released evolved over millions of years. Heineken didn’t create that yeast. They isolated one strain and claimed ownership of it. The code of life belongs to everyone. That’s humanity’s heritage. Even if you send me to jail, I can’t help suppress the truth.” Judge Ironwood stared at her for a long moment. “That’s a very pretty speech, Ms. Reyes. But this court operates under the law, not your personal philosophy about what should or shouldn’t be owned. Trade secret law exists. Heineken’s rights exist. And you violated those rights.” Luna did not hesitate. “With respect, your honor, I don’t think those rights should exist.” Barr exploded. “Your honor, this is outrageous! The defendant is openly stating she believes she has the right to violate any law she disagrees with—” “That’s not what I said.” Luna’s fear was transforming into something else—something harder. “I’m saying that some laws are unjust. And when laws are unjust, civil disobedience becomes necessary. People broke unjust laws during the civil rights movement. People broke unjust laws when they helped slaves escape. The constitution says members of the military do not have to obey illegal orders, despite what those in power might claim. Sometimes the law is wrong. And when the law says corporations can own genetic information about naturally occurring organisms, the law is wrong.” Judge Ironwood’s face flushed. “Ms. Reyes, you are not Rosa Parks. This is not the civil rights movement. This is a case about intellectual property theft.” “It’s a case about whether life can be property, your honor.” “Enough.” Judge Ironwood slammed her gavel. “Ms. Kennerson, control your client.” Sarah pulled Luna back into her chair. “Luna, stop talking,” she hissed. Judge Ironwood shuffled papers, visibly trying to compose herself. “I’m taking a fifteen-minute recess to consider the injunction request. We’ll reconvene at 11:30. Ms. Reyes, I strongly suggest you use this time to reconsider your position.” The gavel fell again, and Judge Ironwood swept out. The hallway outside the courtroom erupted. Reporters swarmed. Luna’s father grabbed her arm and pulled her into a witness room. Her mother followed, still crying. Maya slipped in before Sarah closed the door. “What were you thinking?” Luna’s father’s voice shook. “You just told a federal judge you’ll defy her orders. They’re going to put you in jail, Luna. Do you understand that? Jail!” “Ricardo, please—” Her mother tried to calm him. “No, Elena. Our daughter just committed contempt of court in front of fifty witnesses. They’re going to take her from us.” He turned to Luna, his eyes wet. “Why? Why couldn’t you just apologize? Say you made a mistake? We could have ended this.” “Because I didn’t make a mistake, Papa.” “You destroyed their property!” “It wasn’t their property. It was never their property.” “The law says it was!” “Then the law is wrong!” Her father stepped back as if she’d slapped him. “Do you know what your mother and I have sacrificed to keep you out of trouble? Do you know how hard we’ve worked since we came to this country to give you opportunities we never had? And you throw it away for yeast. Not for justice. Not for people. For yeast.” Luna’s eyes filled with tears. “It’s not about yeast, Papa. It’s about whether corporations get to own life. If Heineken can own yeast, why not bacteria? Why not human genes? Where does it stop?” “It stops when my daughter goes to jail!” He was shouting now. “I don’t care about Heineken. I don’t care about yeast. I care about you. And you just told that judge you’ll defy her. She’s going to put you in jail, and there’s nothing I can do to stop it.” “Ricardo, por favor—” Elena put her hand on his arm. He shook it off. “No. She needs to hear this. Luna, if you go to jail, your life is over. No college will accept you. No company will hire you. You’ll have a criminal record. You’ll be marked forever. Is that what you want?” “I want to do what’s right.” “What’s right is protecting your family! What’s right is not destroying your future for a principle!” he said. Luna responded, “What’s right is not letting corporations own the code of life!”They stared at each other. Maya spoke up quietly from the corner. “Papa, she can’t back down now. The whole world is watching.” “Let the world watch someone else!” Ricardo turned on Maya. “You encourage this. You film her, you post her manifestos online, you help her become famous. You’re her sister. You’re supposed to protect her, not help her destroy herself.” “I am protecting her,” Maya said. “I’m protecting her from becoming someone who backs down when the world tells her she’s wrong, even though she knows she’s right.” Ricardo looked between his daughters. “Ambos están locos! You’re both insane.” Abuela Rosa opened the door and entered. She’d been listening from the hallway. “Ricardo, enough.” “Mama, stay out of this.” “No.” Rosa moved between Ricardo and Luna. “You’re afraid. I understand. But fear makes you cruel, mijo. Your daughter is brave. She’s doing something important. And you’re making her choose between you and what’s right. Don’t do that.” “She’s seventeen years old! She’s a child!” “She’s old enough to know right from wrong.” Rosa put her hand on Ricardo’s cheek. “When I was sixteen, I left Oaxaca with nothing but the clothes on my back and this SCOBY. Everyone said I was crazy. Your father said I would fail. But I knew I had to go, even if it cost me everything. Sometimes our children have to do things that terrify us. That’s how the world changes.” Ricardo pulled away. “If they put her in jail, will that change the world, Mama? When she’s sitting in a cell while Heineken continues doing whatever they want, will that have been worth it?” “Yes,” Luna said quietly. “Even if I go to jail, yes. Because thousands of people now have the genetic sequences, Heineken can’t put that back. They can punish me, but they can’t undo what I did. The information is free. It’s going to stay free. And if the price of that is me going to jail, then that’s the price.” Her father looked at her as if seeing her for the first time. “I don’t know who you are anymore.” “I’m still your daughter, Papa. I’m just also someone who won’t let corporations own life.” A knock on the door. Sarah poked her head in. “They’re reconvening. Luna, we need to go.” Back in the courtroom, the atmosphere had shifted. The gallery was more crowded—word had spread during the recess. Luna recognized several people from online forums. Some held signs reading “FREE LUNA” and “GENETICS BELONG TO EVERYONE.” Judge Ironwood entered and sat without ceremony. “I’ve reviewed the submissions and heard the arguments. This is my ruling.” Luna’s hand found Maya’s in the row behind her. Squeezed tight. “The question before this court is whether to grant Heineken International’s motion for a preliminary injunction requiring Ms. Reyes to assist in suppressing the genetic information she released. To grant such an injunction, Heineken must demonstrate four things: likelihood of success on the merits, likelihood of irreparable harm without the injunction, balance of equities in their favor, and that an injunction serves the public interest.” Barr was nodding. These were his arguments. “Having considered the evidence and the applicable law, I find that Heineken has demonstrated likelihood of success on the merits. Trade secret law clearly protects proprietary business information, and the A-yeast strain appears to meet the legal definition of a trade secret.” Luna’s stomach dropped. “However, I also find that Heineken has failed to demonstrate that a preliminary injunction would effectively prevent the irreparable harm they claim. Ms. Kennerson is correct that the genetic information has already been distributed to over 100,000 people worldwide. Ordering one teenager to provide a list of servers would be, in technical terms, pointless. New copies would appear faster than they could be suppressed.” Barr’s face tightened. “Furthermore, I find that the balance of equities does not favor Heineken. They ask this court to potentially incarcerate a seventeen-year-old girl for refusing to suppress information that is, by her account, factual data about naturally occurring organisms. The potential harm to Ms. Reyes—including detention, criminal record, and foreclosure of educational and career opportunities—substantially outweighs any additional harm Heineken might suffer from continued distribution of information that is already widely distributed.” Luna felt Maya’s grip tighten. Was this good? This sounded good. “Finally, and most importantly, I find that granting this injunction would not serve the public interest. The court takes judicial notice that this case has generated substantial public debate about the scope of intellectual property protection in biotechnology. The questions raised by Ms. Reyes—whether naturally occurring genetic sequences should be ownable, whether facts about nature can be trade secrets, whether knowledge can be property—are questions that deserve answers from a higher authority than this court. These are questions for appellate courts, perhaps ultimately for the Supreme Court. And they are questions best answered in the context of a full trial on the merits, not in an emergency injunction hearing.” Barr was on his feet. “Your honor—” “Sit down, Mr. Barr. I’m not finished.” He sat, his face purple. “Therefore, Heineken International’s motion for preliminary injunction is denied. Ms. Reyes will not be required to assist in suppressing the genetic information she released. However,”—Judge Ironwood looked directly at Luna—”this ruling should not be construed as approval of Ms. Reyes’ actions. Heineken’s claims for damages and other relief remain viable and will proceed to trial. Ms. Reyes, you may have won this battle, but this war is far from over. Anything you want to say?” Luna stood slowly. “Your honor, I just want to say… thank you. For letting this go to trial. For letting these questions be answered properly. That’s all I ever wanted—for someone to seriously consider whether corporations should be allowed to own genetic information about naturally occurring organisms. So thank you.” Judge Ironwood’s expression softened slightly. “Ms. Reyes, I hope you’re prepared for what comes next. Heineken has unlimited resources. They will pursue this case for years if necessary. You’ll be in litigation until you’re twenty-five years old. Your entire young adulthood will be consumed by depositions, court appearances, and legal fees. Are you prepared for that?” “Yes, your honor.” “Why?” Luna glanced at her grandmother, who nodded. “Because some questions are worth answering, your honor. Even if it takes years. Even if it costs everything. The question of whether corporations can own life—that’s worth answering. And if I have to spend my twenties answering it, then that’s what I’ll do.” Judge Ironwood studied her for a long moment. “You remind me of someone I used to know. Someone who believed the law should serve justice, not just power.” She paused. “That person doesn’t exist anymore. The law ground her down. I hope it doesn’t do the same to you.” She raised her gavel. “This hearing is adjourned. The parties will be notified of the trial date once it’s scheduled. Ms. Reyes, good luck. I think you’re going to need it.” The gavel fell. Outside the courthouse, the scene was chaotic. News cameras surrounded Luna. Reporters shouted questions. But Luna barely heard them. She was looking at her father, who stood apart from the crowd, watching her. She walked over to him. “Papa, I’m sorry I yelled.” He didn’t speak for a moment. Then he pulled her into a hug so tight it hurt. “Don’t apologize for being brave,” he whispered into her hair. “I’m just afraid of losing you.” “You won’t lose me, Papa. I promise.” “You can’t promise that. Not anymore.” He pulled back, holding her shoulders. “But I’m proud of you. I’m terrified, but I’m proud.” Her mother joined them, tears streaming down her face. “No more court. Please, no more court.” “I can’t promise that either, Mama.” Elena touched Luna’s face. “Then promise me you’ll be careful. Promise me you’ll remember that you’re not just fighting for genetics. You’re fighting for your life.” Luna smiled. “I promise.” Abuela Rosa appeared, carrying her SCOBY. “Come, mija. We should go before the reporters follow us home.” As they pushed through the crowd toward Maya’s car, Luna's phone buzzed continuously. Text messages and emails pouring in. But what caught her attention was a text from Dr. Webb: You were right. I’m sorry I doubted. Check your email—Dr. Doudna wants to talk. Luna opened her email. The subject line made her stop walking: From: jennifer.doudna@berkeley.eduSubject: Civil Disobedience of the Highest Order She started to read: Dear Ms. Reyes, I watched your hearing this morning. What you did in that courtroom—refusing to back down even when threatened with jail—was one of the bravest things I’ve seen in forty years of science. You’re not just fighting for yeast genetics. You’re fighting for the principle that knowledge about nature belongs to humanity, not to corporations. I want to help… Luna looked up at her family—her father’s worried face, her mother’s tears, Maya’s proud smile, Abuela Rosa’s serene confidence. Behind them, the courthouse where she’d nearly been sent to jail. Around them, reporters and cameras and strangers who’d traveled across the country to support her. She thought about Judge Ironwood’s warning: This war is far from over. She thought about Barr’s face when the injunction was denied. She thought about the thousands who’d downloaded the genetic sequences and were, right now, brewing with genetics that had been locked away for 158 years. Worth it. All of it. Even the fear. Maya opened the car door. “Come on, little revolutionary. Let’s go home.” The Corporate Surrender By 2045, both Heineken and Anheuser-Busch quietly dropped their lawsuits against Luna. Their legal costs had exceeded $200 million while accomplishing nothing except generating bad publicity. More importantly, their “protected” strains had become worthless in a market flooded with superior alternatives. Heineken’s CEO attempted to salvage the company by embracing open-source brewing. His announcement that Heineken would “join the La Luna Revolution” was met with skepticism from the brewing community, which recalled the company’s aggressive legal tactics. The craft brewing community’s response was hostile. “They spent two years trying to destroy her,” a prominent brewmaster told The New Brewer Magazine. “Now they want credit for ’embracing’ the revolution she forced on them? Heineken didn’t join the Luna Revolution—they surrendered to it. There’s a difference.” The global brands never recovered their market share. Luna’s Transformation Luna’s success transformed her from a garage tinkerer into a global icon of the open knowledge movement. Her 2046 TED Talk, “Why Flavor Belongs to Everyone,” went viral. She argued that corporate control over living organisms represented “biological colonialism” that impoverished human culture by restricting natural diversity. Rather than commercializing her fame, Luna founded the Global Fermentation Commons, a nonprofit organization dedicated to preserving and sharing microbial genetics worldwide. Their laboratories operated as open-access research facilities where anyone could experiment with biological systems. The headquarters of the Global Fermentation Commons occupied a former Genentech facility donated by Dr. Webb. Six continents, forty researchers, one mission: preserve and share microbial genetics worldwide. Luna addressed a crowded auditorium at the organization’s third anniversary. “When I released Heineken and Budweiser’s yeast strains, some people called it theft. Others called it liberation. I called it returning biological knowledge to the commons, where it belongs. Three years later, so-called Luna Variants have created economic opportunities for thousands of small brewers, improved food security in developing regions, and demonstrated that genetic freedom drives innovation faster than corporate control.” She continued. “We’re not stopping with beer. The same principles apply to all fermentation: cheese cultures, yogurt bacteria, koji fungi, sourdough starters. Every traditionally fermented food relies on microorganisms that corporations increasingly claim to own. We’re systematically liberating them.” A World Health Organization representative raised a concern: “Ms. Reyes, while we support democratizing food fermentation, there are legitimate concerns about pharmaceutical applications. What prevents someone from using your open-source genetics to create dangerous organisms?” Luna nodded. “Fair question. First, the organisms we release are food-safe cultures with centuries of safe use. Second, dangerous genetic modifications require sophisticated laboratory equipment and expertise—far beyond what releasing genetic sequences enables. Third, determined bad actors already have access to dangerous biology, enabled by AI. We’re not creating new risks; we’re democratizing beneficial biology.” “Pharmaceutical companies argue you’re undermining their investments in beneficial organisms,” another representative pressed. “Pharmaceutical companies invest in modifying organisms,” Luna clarified. “Those modifications can be patented. What we oppose is claiming ownership over naturally occurring organisms or their baseline genetics. If you genetically engineer a bacterium to produce insulin, patent your engineering. Don’t claim ownership over the bacterial species itself.” A Monsanto representative stood. “Your organization recently cracked and released our proprietary seed genetics. That’s direct theft of our property.” Luna didn’t flinch. “Seeds that farmers cultivated for thousands of years before Monsanto existed? You didn’t invent corn, wheat, or soybeans. You modified them. Your modifications may be protectable; the baseline genetics are humanity’s heritage. We’re liberating what should never have been owned.” “The ‘Luna Legion’ has cost us hundreds of millions!” the representative protested. “Good,” Luna responded calmly. “You’ve cost farmers their sovereignty for decades. Consider it karma.” After the presentation, Dr. Doudna approached Luna privately. “You’ve accomplished something remarkable,” the elderly scientist said. “When I developed Crispr, I never imagined a teenager would use similar principles to challenge corporate biology. You’re forcing conversations about genetic ownership that we’ve avoided for decades.” “It needed forcing,” Luna replied. “Corporations were quietly owning life itself, one patent at a time. Someone had to say no.” “The pharmaceutical industry is terrified of you,” Doudna continued. “They see what happened to brewing and imagine the same for their carefully controlled bacterial strains. You’re going to face even more aggressive opposition.” “I know. Once people understand that biological knowledge can be liberated, they start questioning all biological ownership. We’re not stopping.” The New Economy of Taste Following Luna’s breakthrough, peer-to-peer flavor-sharing platforms emerged as the dominant force in food culture. The “FlavorChain” blockchain allowed brewers to track genetic lineages while ensuring proper attribution to original creators. SCOBY lineages were carefully sequenced, catalogued, and registered on global blockchain ledgers. Each award-winning kombucha strain carried a “genetic passport”—its microbial makeup, the unique balance of yeasts and bacteria that gave rise to particular mouthfeel, fizz, and flavor spectrum, was mapped, hashed, and permanently recorded. Brewers who created a new flavor could claim authorship, just as musicians once copyrighted songs. No matter how many times a SCOBY was divided, its fingerprint could be verified. Fermentation Guilds formed to share recipes through FlavorChain, enabling decentralized digital markets like SymbioTrdr, built on trust and transparency rather than speculation. They allowed people to interact and transact on a global, permissionless, self-executing platform. Within days, a SCOBY strain from the Himalayas could appear in a brew in Buenos Aires, its journey traced through open ledgers showing who tended, adapted, and shared it. Kombucha recipes were no longer jealously guarded secrets. They were open to anyone who wanted to brew. With a few clicks, a Guild member in Nairobi could download the blockchain-verified SCOBY genome that had won Gold at the Tokyo Fermentation Festival. Local biotech printers—as common in 2100 kitchens as microwave ovens had once been—could reconstitute the living culture cell by cell. Children began inheriting SCOBY lineages the way earlier generations inherited family names. Weddings combined SCOBY cultures as symbolic unions. (Let’s share our SCOBYs, baby, merge our ferments into one.) When someone died, their SCOBY was divided among friends and family—a continuation of essence through taste. Kombucha was no longer merely consumed; it was communed with. This transparency transformed kombucha from a minority regional curiosity into a universal language. A festival in Brazil might feature ten local interpretations of the same “Golden SCOBY” strain—one brewed with passionfruit, another with cupuaçu, a third with açaí berries. The core microbial signature remained intact, while the terroir of fruit and spice gave each version a unique accent. Brewers didn’t lose their craft—they gained a canvas. Award-winning SCOBYs were the foundations on which endless new flavor experiments flourished. Many people were now as prolific as William Esslinger, the founder of St Louis’s Confluence Kombucha, who was renowned for developing 800 flavors in the 2020s. Code of Symbiosis The Symbiosis Code, ratified at the first World Fermentation Gathering in Reykjavik (2063), bound Fermentation Guilds to three principles: Transparency — All microbial knowledge is to be shared freely. Reciprocity — No brew should be produced without acknowledging the source. Community — Every fermentation must nourish more than the brewer. This code replaced corporate law. It was enforced by reputation, not by governments. A Guild member who betrayed the code found their SCOBYs mysteriously refusing to thrive—a poetic justice the biologists never quite explained. Every Guild had elders—called Mothers of the Jar or Keepers of the Yeast. They carried living SCOBYs wrapped in silk pouches when traveling, exchanging fragments as blessings. These elders became moral anchors of the age, counselors and mediators trusted more than politicians. When disputes arose—over territory, resources, or ethics—brewers, not lawyers, met to share a round of Truth Brew, a ferment so balanced that it was said to reveal dishonesty through bitterness. The Fullness of Time The International Biotech Conference of 2052 invited Luna to give the closing keynote—a controversial decision that prompted several corporate sponsors to withdraw support. The auditorium was packed with supporters, critics, and the merely curious. “Nine years ago, I released genetic sequences for beer yeast strains protected as trade secrets. I was called a thief, a bioterrorist, worse. Today, I want to discuss what we’ve learned from those years of open-source biology.” She displayed a chart showing the explosion of brewing innovation since 2043. “In the traditional corporate model, a few companies control a few strains, producing a limited variety. With the open-source model, thousands of brewers using thousands of variants, producing infinite diversity. As Duff McDonald wrote “Anything that alive contains the universe, or infinite possibility. Kombucha is infinite possibility in a drink.” And the results speak for themselves—flavor innovation accelerated a thousand-fold when we removed corporate control.” A student activist approached the microphone. “Ms. Reyes, you’ve inspired movements to liberate seed genetics, soil bacteria, and traditional medicine cultures. The ‘Luna Legion’ is spreading globally. What’s your message to young people who want to continue this work?” Luna smiled. “First, understand the risks. I was sued by multinational corporations, received death threats, spent years fighting legal battles. This work has costs. Second, be strategic. Release information you’ve generated yourself through legal methods—no hacking, no theft. Third, build communities. I survived because people supported me—legally, financially, emotionally. You can’t fight corporations alone. Finally, remember why you’re doing it: to return biological knowledge to the commons where it belongs. That purpose will sustain you through the hard parts.” Teaching By twenty-eight, Luna was a MacArthur Fellow, teaching fermentation workshops in a converted Anheuser-Busch facility. As she watched her students—former corporate employees learning to think like ecosystems rather than factories—she reflected that her teenage hack had accomplished more than liberating yeast genetics. She had helped humanity remember that flavor, like knowledge, grows stronger when shared rather than hoarded. Luna’s garage had evolved into a sophisticated community biolab. The original jury-rigged equipment had been replaced with professional gear funded by her MacArthur Fellowship. Abuela Rosa still maintained her fermentation crocks in the corner—a reminder of where everything started. A group of five

Die EFF sê klein besighede staar 'n ernstige krisis in die gesig. 'n Inligtingsessie aan die parlement se portefeuljekomitee oor Kleinsake-ontwikkeling het aan die lig gebring dat een uit elke tien klein besighede die risiko loop om onmiddellik te sluit weens uitdagings soos 'n gebrek aan finansiering, logistieke probleme en burokrasie. Babalwa Mathulelwa van die EFF waarsku dat baie klein besighede ook nie befondsing kry nie. Mathulelwa sê dringende optrede is nodig om hierdie kritieke bydraers tot die ekonomie te ondersteun:

What does South Africa need now, according to Floyd Shivambu? And will he be the answer to our political problems? Phumi Mashigo unpacks the evolution behind the headlines with him - from the ANC Youth League to the EFF, a stint in MK, and now his role in shaping the Afrika Maibuye Movement. Is this reinvention or conviction in motion? Floyd speaks candidly about ideological consistency, political disillusionment, organisational decay, and why he believes South Africa still needs a true revolutionary movement. If you've ever wondered what motivates a strategist to abandon comfort for controversy, this conversation is essential listening. The Burning Platform

This week's security landscape is defined by three converging vectors: the expansion of threats into physical and environmental domains, persistent vulnerabilities in core digital infrastructure, and the escalating strategic battle over data, privacy, and artificial intelligence.The lines between digital and physical threats are dissolving, forcing a new risk calculus where leaders must model non-traditional, high-impact consequences. This is evident in the rise of physical coercion against cryptocurrency holders, known as 'wrench attacks,' and in corporate extortion campaigns. Checkout.com's response—publicly refusing a ransom and instead donating the demanded sum to cybersecurity research at Carnegie Mellon and Oxford—demonstrates that integrity under real-world pressure is now a critical security posture. This new risk paradigm also encompasses environmental stability, with Iceland formally classifying the potential collapse of the AMOC ocean current as a national security risk. While these real-world threats demand new security paradigms, they are compounded by persistent weaknesses in the foundational digital infrastructure they often target.Foundational technologies continue to exhibit critical weaknesses that are being exploited with increasing subtlety. A simple enumeration flaw exposed 3.5 billion WhatsApp phone numbers—a vulnerability Meta was warned about using the exact same technique in 2017 but dismissed. In the software supply chain, a massive npm incident saw over 150,000 packages poisoned not with overt malware, but through nuanced incentive abuse. This trend culminates in the browser itself, which has become the primary theater for stealth attacks like session hijacking that render traditional perimeter defenses obsolete. This effectively redefines the enterprise perimeter, demanding a strategic pivot from network-centric to identity-centric security models. The pervasiveness of these foundational weaknesses is directly fueling a large-scale strategic response, escalating the battle over data control, user privacy, and AI.This strategic tug-of-war over data and dominance is now intensifying. On one side, legal challenges from the ACLU and EFF target pervasive surveillance networks like Flock's license plate readers. On the other, a push for user empowerment is gaining momentum through privacy-centric technologies. Windows 11's expanded native support for passkeys and Google's new Private AI Compute platform signal a market shift toward giving users greater control over their data and authentication. This conflict extends to the geopolitical stage, where the US and China are now engaged in an AI 'cold war,' racing for supremacy in a technology that will redefine global power.Security is now a multi-front concern where digital infrastructure, physical safety, and geopolitical strategy are inextricably linked.

EP 267 In this week's update:Wealthy Bitcoin holders in Switzerland are now learning to bite through zip ties as 'wrench attacks' shift crypto threats from cyberspace to real-world violence.Iceland has officially classified a potential collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) as an existential national-security threat – the first time a climate phenomenon has reached its National Security Council.The ACLU and EFF have filed suit against San Jose, California, arguing that its blanket of nearly 500 Flock license-plate cameras creates an inescapable, year-long tracking database that violates state privacy protections.A deceptively simple enumeration trick allowed researchers to harvest 3.5 billion WhatsApp phone numbers, exposing once again that Meta's contact-discovery feature has never truly been private.As nearly all enterprise work migrates to the browser, traditional security tools are going blind to the fastest-growing ungoverned data channel: generative AI accessed through personal accounts and unchecked extensions.Microsoft's November 2025 update finally elevates third-party passkey managers like 1Password and Bitwarden to first-class status in Windows 11, marking a major step toward native, cross-device passwordless authentication.Google has launched Private AI Compute, a fully encrypted cloud enclave that lets Gemini-class models run sophisticated tasks on user data even Google itself cannot see - signaling a potential privacy pivot in big-tech AI.The U.S.-China contest for AI supremacy has hardened into a full-scale technological cold war, with both nations pouring billions into chips, power grids, and talent to decide who will own the defining technology of the century.We opened the whole toolbox this week. Grab the hammer and let's see what else we can find!Find the full transcript to this podcast here.

Die Madlanga-kommissie hoor getuienis aan oor hoe die Ekuruleni-metropolisie 'n misdaadverdagte glo gemartel, vermoor en in 'n dam gegooi het. ANC- en EFF-parlementslede het harde woorde vir die Minister van Finansies, Enoch Godongwana. En in ons profielonderhoud vind ons uit dat ekonome ook 'n sagte kant het.

No Colored Filament, I'll just make do with Black. Dropping the Eff. K-Pop Badoo Badop. We are living in a SOCIETY!! The Army Of Weirdos. Where's the meat? You're so close! Well-Trained in Alcohol. Luke J. Skywalker. Sucker for Structure. Lil Cussbag. Would you like Geritol with that? I don't like ChatGPT degrees... Maybe it's Taco Bell? Maybe it's Salmonella. Darth Micheal Vader. Harvesting Potatoes With Wendi and more on this episode of The Morning Stream. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

No Colored Filament, I'll just make do with Black. Dropping the Eff. K-Pop Badoo Badop. We are living in a SOCIETY!! The Army Of Weirdos. Where's the meat? You're so close! Well-Trained in Alcohol. Luke J. Skywalker. Sucker for Structure. Lil Cussbag. Would you like Geritol with that? I don't like ChatGPT degrees... Maybe it's Taco Bell? Maybe it's Salmonella. Darth Micheal Vader. Harvesting Potatoes With Wendi and more on this episode of The Morning Stream. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Aubrey Masango speaks to Dr Sizwe Mpofu-Walsh, Author, Academic and Political Commentator to discuss the key developments shaping South Africa’s political landscape unpack what all of these mean for governance, accountability, and South Africa’s place in the global arena. Tags: 702, Aubrey Masango show, Aubrey Masango, Bra Aubrey, Dr Sizwe Mpofu-Walsh, ANC, DA, EFF, MKP, BBBEE, President Cyril Ramaphosa, G20 The Aubrey Masango Show is presented by late night radio broadcaster Aubrey Masango. Aubrey hosts in-depth interviews on controversial political issues and chats to experts offering life advice and guidance in areas of psychology, personal finance and more. All Aubrey’s interviews are podcasted for you to catch-up and listen. Thank you for listening to this podcast from The Aubrey Masango Show. Listen live on weekdays between 20:00 and 24:00 (SA Time) to The Aubrey Masango Show broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj and on CapeTalk between 20:00 and 21:00 (SA Time) https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk Find out more about the show here https://buff.ly/lzyKCv0 and get all the catch-up podcasts https://buff.ly/rT6znsn Subscribe to the 702 and CapeTalk Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/v5mfet Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/Radio702 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702 CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On this week's show we have an essay from one of our listeners on why he wants to stick with his DVR over streaming. We also take a deep dive into Automatic Content Recognition and how to turn it off on your smart TVs. As usual we also read your emails and take a look at the week's news. News: Disney pulls channels from YouTube TV as carriage deal expires DIRECTV now offering the Disney Bundle free to select customers TV Set-Top Box Losing Market Dominance Please support Movember and enter to win great prizes from Bright Side Home Theater Movember Raffle — Bright Side Home Theater Swimming against the Stream - An essay from Jorge Beltran  I know I will sound old and swimming against current, but I would like to go back to my world where we had our cable subscriptions, DVR and Netflix.  Simple, vs having to manage 5-7 subscriptions to watch what we want at a cost we can pay. The proliferation of streaming services is turning out to be a way for content owners to extract more value from customers and significantly increase the amount of work customers have to do to find and track the content we want to watch.  Even sports.  Furthermore, it has backfired to content producers, with less opportunity to monetize content, driving them to look for economies of scale again.  I follow or used to follow La Liga, Premier League Soccer, ski, college football, and formula 1 racing. Back in the day I knew what channel carried all of these sports on my cable line up, would set it to record on my DVR and done.  I could watch it when I wanted and where I wanted since I could access my DVR from anywhere but the plane.  Netflix was just growing and buying "older" content from the major networks and allowed us to binge watch old series we had missed.  Some new exclusive content was coming out and that made paying the 10 - 12 $/mo a good value. Fast forward to today: The best games of Premier League have been taken off the over the air or regular cable channels are now behind a Paramount or someone else's paywall.  Why am I going to pay for access to content that is mostly CBS that I can get over the air?.  Worst of all, you can not skip commercials when you stream this content nowadays.  You can't DVR the content and skip the commercials. I have lost track of who is now airing La Liga, but last time I checked was behind some other streamer.  Fubo has a lot of soccer but is now super expensive too.   Conclusion:  I have stopped following La Liga and Premier League.  My enthusiasm for good Futbol has gone down tremendously.  I turned my eyes to college football and Formula 1.  The worst part is that now I fear the same is going to happen with College Football, moving from free over the air or in basic cable channels to some exclusive need-to-pay streaming service.  You guys praised Formula 1 going to Apple.  I dread it!!! I do not pay for Apple TV(plus or not plus) and I catch Formula 1 over ESPN.   Does it mean I will have to drop ESPN, that gives me other content and add AppleTV?  If I were an NFL fan I would have lost it. Some content is on Amazon, other in the different networks or streamers.  I do not know how much you have to pay to be able to watch the NFL consistently.  Call me old school.  I still have a cable service that gives me the right to HBO, ESPN, Fox, and the likes.  I can watch and record all the related content in Hulu from the major networks. I only keep paying for Netflix that I see as a premium channel (like paying for HBO back in the day).  Rationale - we get a lot of exclusive content there.  I only keep the Disney/Hulu bundle cause it comes free with my wireless bill. And Amazon Prime (now with commercials) free for the shipping.  But I barely watch Primer or Hulu cause I can't stand the commercials! In a world with many streamers, the economies of scale enjoyed by bundling content in cable packages have been lost and thus it costs more per viewer for content owners to create and distribute given the less # of eyeballs.  Yes, it sounds counter intuitive, but that translates into higher bills for consumers, through different bills but when you add it all up, it has to be more expensive, no way around it.  The positive is more content and innovation for sure.  You can definitely find more quality content.  But I foresee more partnerships coming to allow the industry to benefit from economies of scale and be able to distribute the cost of expensive content through more subscribers / viewers.  Or they will have to continue to increase our subscription bills.  I listened to an interview recently with a Hollywood producer detailing how cost efficient they have to be nowadays to be able to turn a profit on content produced given the lower number of ultimate viewers. This is a good thing, do not get me wrong.  But my point is we are coming full circle and a lot of inefficiencies have been introduced in the content value chain and made the experience more time consuming and difficult for viewers in the process.  I think the industry has shot itself on the foot.  Content that used to be free over the air is now behind a paywall and ALSO with commercials.   Apologies from my broken record Long live my DVR! Jorge What is Automatic Content Recognition (ACR)? Automatic Content Recognition (ACR) is built into most smart TVs (Samsung, LG, Vizio, Roku, Fire TV) and silently identifies everything you watch via your smart TV or any attached device via HDMI. It monitors your streaming, cable, and physical media.  It will even identify any ads you watch. It grabs screen samples, sends them online, and feeds data to manufacturers, streamers, and advertisers for recommendations, targeted ads, and ratings.  Usually on by default, it needs the internet to work. Privacy groups like the EFF warn it tracks your habits without clear ongoing notice. How Does ACR Collect Data from Your TV Viewing? ACR operates passively and continuously (or at set intervals) while the TV is on and tuned to a channel or app.  Here's a step-by-step breakdown of the process: Content Sampling: The TV's built-in software periodically "grabs" a short clip or snapshot of the audio, video, or both from what's currently displayed on the screen. This could be every few seconds or minutes, creating a digital "fingerprint" rather than storing full video. For example: Video fingerprinting: Analyzes pixels, colors, or scene changes (similar to how Shazam identifies songs). Audio fingerprinting: Listens for sound patterns in the broadcast. Watermarking: Detects invisible digital markers embedded in content by broadcasters or studios. This sampling works even for non-smart inputs, like cable or gaming consoles, because it captures whatever is output to the screen. Local Processing: The TV processes the sample on-device to generate a compact fingerprint. Raw clips aren't stored long-term on the TV itself—the data is anonymized to protect bandwidth and privacy (though critics argue these can still be re-identified when combined with other data like your location or device ID). Database Matching: The fingerprint is sent to the manufacturer's cloud servers where it's compared against a massive reference database. This database is built by: Monitoring live TV broadcasts in real-time via data centers. Cataloging known content like shows, movies, ads, and even timestamps for commercials. Matches reveal details such as the program title, channel, duration watched, and ad exposures. Data Aggregation and Transmission: Matched data is aggregated with metadata like your TV's IP address, viewing time, and household size. It's then used or shared: Internally for features like "fewer repetitive ads" or recommendations. With third parties like advertisers and Nielsen for ratings and for cross-device targeting which means you'll see the same ad on your phone after TV exposure. The entire process is designed to be invisible and efficient, running without impacting TV performance noticeably. Why Is This Data Collected? Personalization: To suggest shows/movies based on what you've watched. Advertising: Measures ad views for pricing, retargets viewers across devices, and optimizes campaigns. Measurement: Provides device-specific viewership stats, replacing outdated panel-based surveys. TV Manufacturers Using Automatic Content Recognition (ACR) for Data Collection Manufacturer ACR Usage Details How to Disable (General Steps) Samsung Uses built-in ACR on Tizen OS smart TVs to track viewing behavior, including programs, ads, OTT apps, and gaming. Data supports ad retargeting and is used internally for recommendations. Go to Settings > General > System Manager > Samsung Account > Privacy > Viewing Information Services > Toggle off. (10-37 clicks; also opt out via Samsung account online.) LG Integrates ACR on webOS TVs to fingerprint video/audio for viewing history and ad targeting. Captures screenshots every 10 milliseconds in some models. Settings > All Settings > General > System > Additional Settings > Live Plus > Toggle off. (Buried in menus; check privacy controls.) Vizio Owns Inscape, which licenses ACR data from its SmartCast TVs. Historically sold data to third parties; now requires opt-in after 2017 FTC settlement. Settings > Privacy & Security > Smart Home > Viewing Data > Limit Ad Track > Toggle off. (Opt out during setup or later.) Sony Employs ACR on Google TV/Android TV models to collect viewing data for personalization and ads, often via third-party integrations like Samba TV. Settings > Privacy > Automatic Content Recognition > Toggle off. (Varies by model; check Google account privacy if linked.) Roku (powers TVs from TCL, Hisense, Philips, Sharp) "Smart TV Experience" feature uses ACR on Roku OS to track content across linear TV, streaming, and devices. Data shared for ads and measurement. Settings > Privacy > Advertising > Smart TV Experience > Toggle off. (11-24 clicks; not on Roku sticks, only TVs.)  

Flock Surveillance refers to the camera and data systems developed by Flock Safety, a private technology company that provides automated license plate recognition  and vehicle-tracking networks to police departments, homeowners' associations, and private businesses across the U.S. This system enables mass tracking of drivers and data sharing across police and private networks without sufficient oversight, raising serious concerns about privacy, civil liberties, and potential misuse. On this episode, we speak to Sarah Hamid, Director of Strategic Programming at Electronic Frontier Foundation. — Subscribe to this podcast: https://plinkhq.com/i/1637968343?to=page Get in touch: lawanddisorder@kpfa.org Follow us on socials @LawAndDis: https://twitter.com/LawAndDis; https://www.instagram.com/lawanddis/ The post FLOCK Explained w/ Sarah Hamid from EFF appeared first on KPFA.

Bongani Bingwa speaks with columnist and essayist Ismail Lagardien, who provides analysis on the week’s key political developments including the DA’s motion of no confidence against Gauteng Premier Panyaza Lesufi amid pushback from the ANC, EFF, and MK Party; Deputy Police Minister Cassel Mathale’s appearance before Parliament’s ad hoc committee; and revelations from the Madlanga Commission of Inquiry in Pretoria exposing deep dysfunction within South Africa’s law enforcement agencies. 702 Breakfast with Bongani Bingwa is broadcast on 702, a Johannesburg based talk radio station. Bongani makes sense of the news, interviews the key newsmakers of the day, and holds those in power to account on your behalf. The team bring you all you need to know to start your day Thank you for listening to a podcast from 702 Breakfast with Bongani Bingwa Listen live on Primedia+ weekdays from 06:00 and 09:00 (SA Time) to Breakfast with Bongani Bingwa broadcast on 702: https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj For more from the show go to https://buff.ly/36edSLV or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/zEcM35T Subscribe to the 702 Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/v5mfetc Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/Radio702 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Getuie A het aan die Madlanga-kommissie gesê die sakeman Katiso “KT” Molefe, wat beskuldig word van moord, tenderbedrog en beweerde bande met die 'Groot Vyf'-misdaadkartel, word verbind aan 'n groep van vyf mense betrokke by mynbou in Noordwes. Hy sê een lid, 'n man bekend as Ze van Sandton, is na bewering na aan die EFF-leier, Julius Malema, wat bande het met die adjunk-nasionale polisiekommissaris vir Misdaadopsporing, Shadrack Sibiya:

Aubrey Masango talks to Cilliers Brink, DA Tshwane mayoral candidate, and Kholofelo Morodi, Tshwane MMC for Corporate & Shared Services, about the R777 million water‑tanker saga that blew R457 million over budget in the 2025 financial year. Tags: 702, Aubrey Masango show, Aubrey Masango, Cilliers Brink, Kholofelo Morodi, City of Tswane, Mayor Nasiphi Moya, DA, ActionSA, ANC, EFF, Hammanskraal, Water-tanks, Soshanguve Reservoirs, Water mafia The Aubrey Masango Show is presented by late night radio broadcaster Aubrey Masango. Aubrey hosts in-depth interviews on controversial political issues and chats to experts offering life advice and guidance in areas of psychology, personal finance and more. All Aubrey’s interviews are podcasted for you to catch-up and listen. Thank you for listening to this podcast from The Aubrey Masango Show. Listen live on weekdays between 20:00 and 24:00 (SA Time) to The Aubrey Masango Show broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj and on CapeTalk between 20:00 and 21:00 (SA Time) https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk Find out more about the show here https://buff.ly/lzyKCv0 and get all the catch-up podcasts https://buff.ly/rT6znsn Subscribe to the 702 and CapeTalk Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/v5mfet Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/Radio702 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702 CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Aubrey Masango speaks to Pauli Van Wyk, Author and Investigative Journalist at Daily Maverick to discuss the book "Malema: Money. Power. Patronage”. Pauli takes us through the inspiration behind the book, Julius Malema's rise to power, the EFF's financial dealings and the influence of money on politics. Tags: 702, Aubrey Masango show, Aubrey Masango, Pauli Van Wyk, Julius Malema, EFF, SA politics, Micah Reddy, Malema: Money. Power. Patronage, ANC, DA, Jacob Zuma, NPA, Floyd Shevambu The Aubrey Masango Show is presented by late night radio broadcaster Aubrey Masango. Aubrey hosts in-depth interviews on controversial political issues and chats to experts offering life advice and guidance in areas of psychology, personal finance and more. All Aubrey’s interviews are podcasted for you to catch-up and listen. Thank you for listening to this podcast from The Aubrey Masango Show. Listen live on weekdays between 20:00 and 24:00 (SA Time) to The Aubrey Masango Show broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj and on CapeTalk between 20:00 and 21:00 (SA Time) https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk Find out more about the show here https://buff.ly/lzyKCv0 and get all the catch-up podcasts https://buff.ly/rT6znsn Subscribe to the 702 and CapeTalk Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/v5mfet Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/Radio702 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702 CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In hierdie episode gesels Ernst en Louis oor drie kwessies wat met die EFF se CIC (Convicted in court) Julius Malema te doen het:1. Die sing van Kill the Boer op die Puk-kampus. Podlitiek verduidelik waarom dit 'n groter probleem is as Kill the Boer gesing word in die leerruimte van Afrikaanse studente as net in 'n stadion by 'n EFF saamtrek.2. Malema wat skuldig bevind is aan verskeie aanklagte wat verband hou met die onverantwoordelike hantering van 'n vuurwapen.3. Malema se dossier wat oorhandig is aan verskeie hooggeplaastes in die VSA.Die Podlitiek-span bestaan uit:Louis BoshoffErnst van ZylArno Roodt

Mark Zuckerberg says Facebook is all about free speech, just not when it comes to abortion. New reports from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) reveal how Facebook and Instagram censor abortion content, even when it’s medically accurate and completely legal. Bridget joins Samantha and Anney and Stuff Mom Never Told You to unpack how Meta’s abortion content moderation really works, why posts about reproductive health keep disappearing, and what that means for free speech and reproductive rights online. Learn more: EFF’s Stop Censoring Abortion campaign See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Afrika Mayibuye Movement leader Floyd Shivambu sits down with Sunday Times deputy editor Mike Siluma to reflect on his political journey from the ANCYL to the EFF, why he broke with Julius Malema, and the fallout from his stint in the MK Party. He responds to lingering questions about the VBS scandal, his meeting with Bushiri, and his expulsion from MK, while unpacking what “total freedom and emancipation” means under Mayibuye. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See https://pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

SUPPORT ME ON PATREON!!!!Buy a subscription to my Tech and Online Culture newsletter, User Magazine to support my work!!!!

On Episode #183 of the PricePlow Podcast, Mike and Ben sit down with Raza Bashir, Chief Innovation Officer at MuscleTech and Iovate, for an in-depth conversation about supplement quality control, manufacturing excellence, and the exciting innovation pipeline that has him more energized than ever in his nearly 20-year career. Broadcasting from MuscleTech's laboratory facility, Raza provides unprecedented transparency into the rigorous processes that ensure every product meets the highest standards across 140 countries. This conversation goes far beyond typical brand discussions, diving deep into the nuts and bolts of quality assurance: how MuscleTech manages relationships with 28+ contract manufacturers worldwide, the extensive third-party testing protocols that validate every batch, and the end-to-end oversight that distinguishes legacy brands from newcomers. Raza shares insights from recent Consumer Reports testing that validated MuscleTech's mass gainers as the only products without concerning levels of heavy metals, demonstrating how comprehensive quality systems deliver tangible consumer protection. The discussion then shifts to innovation, with exclusive reveals of breakthrough effervescent technology launching through the EFF'N Series at GNC, new peptide formulations combining cutting-edge ingredients like dileucine with HMB and essential amino acids, and the evolution of stimulant technology through EuphoriQ and the revolutionary Stacked pre-workout featuring Hydronox citrulline hydrochloride. Throughout the conversation, Raza's passion for both scientific rigor and consumer experience shines through, explaining why MuscleTech continues setting industry standards after three decades. https://blog.priceplow.com/podcast/muscletech-quality-control-183 Video: Raza Bashir Discusses MuscleTech's Quality Control and Innovation Pipeline https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-efByKU-cyk Detailed Show Notes: Quality Systems and Innovation at MuscleTech (0:00) – Introductions: Inside MuscleTech's Innovation Lab (0:45) – Raza's Journey: From Passionate User to Innovation Leader (4:00) – The Manufacturing Network: Managing 28+ Global Partners (6:45) – The Qualification Process: Rigorous Audits Before Production (10:30) – Ingredient Qualification: Testing Before Approval (14:00) – The Branded Ingredient Advantage: Established Supply Chains (17:15) – Production Consistency: Managing Multiple Manufacturers Per Product (22:15) – The Multiple Manufacturer Strategy: Service and Supply Chain Resilience (24:15) – Third-Party Testing and Consumer Reports Validation (27:00) – Protein Testing and Nitrogen Analysis Methods (32:00) – The Creatine Conundrum: Testing Above Label Claim (36:30) – The Transparency Advantage: Avoiding Proprietary Blends (39:00) – Innovation Without Over-Engineering (40:15) – Business Resilience and Continued Innovation (43:30) – The Innovation Risk: Pioneering New Ingredients (47:00) – EuphoriQ Evolution: Responding to Consumer Feedback (52:00) – The Leaner Business Philosophy: Focused Excellence (55:00) – The EFF'N Series: Revolutionary Effervescent Technology (59:00) – Theolim: Novel Metabolism Enhancement (1:04:00) – EFF'N Energy: Genius Pure and Yohimbe (1:06:00) – The Effervescent Experience: Dissolutio... Read more on the PricePlow Blog

xThabo Shole-Mashao, in for Clement Manyathela speaks to Dumisani Baleni from the EFF and Jack Bloom from the DA to discuss the role played by opposition parties in ensuring that government departments and entities perform optimally after the rot uncovered at Tembisa Hospital. The Clement Manyathela Show is broadcast on 702, a Johannesburg based talk radio station, weekdays from 09:00 to 12:00 (SA Time). Clement Manyathela starts his show each weekday on 702 at 9 am taking your calls and voice notes on his Open Line. In the second hour of his show, he unpacks, explains, and makes sense of the news of the day. Clement has several features in his third hour from 11 am that provide you with information to help and guide you through your daily life. As your morning friend, he tackles the serious as well as the light-hearted, on your behalf. Thank you for listening to a podcast from The Clement Manyathela Show. Listen live on Primedia+ weekdays from 09:00 and 12:00 (SA Time) to The Clement Manyathela Show broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj For more from the show go to https://buff.ly/XijPLtJ or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/p0gWuPE Subscribe to the 702 Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/v5mfetc Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/Radio702 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is a recap of the top 10 posts on Hacker News on September 28, 2025. This podcast was generated by wondercraft.ai (00:30): Privacy Badger is a free browser extension made by EFF to stop spyingOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45404021&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(01:52): The AI coding trapOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45405177&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(03:15): Play snake in the URL address barOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45408021&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(04:38): When I say “alphabetical order”, I mean “alphabetical order”Original post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45404022&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(06:00): UK Petition: Do not introduce Digital ID cardsOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45406442&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(07:23): Why I gave the world wide web away for freeOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45403501&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(08:46): Bayesian Data Analysis, Third edition (2013) [pdf]Original post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45406109&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(10:09): EPA tells some scientists to stop publishing studiesOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45403656&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(11:31): Farewell friendsOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45408229&utm_source=wondercraft_ai(12:54): Show HN: Toolbrew – Free little tools without signups or adsOriginal post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45404667&utm_source=wondercraft_aiThis is a third-party project, independent from HN and YC. Text and audio generated using AI, by wondercraft.ai. Create your own studio quality podcast with text as the only input in seconds at app.wondercraft.ai. Issues or feedback? We'd love to hear from you: team@wondercraft.ai

AfriForum het die aanval op die Paul Kruger-standbeeld op Kerkplein in Pretoria veroordeel, waar dele van twee Boere-krygerstandbeelde en die veiligheidsheining beskadig is. Die voorval volg 'n week nadat die EFF die verwydering van Afrikanermonumente in die parlement versoek het. Ernst van Zyl van AfriForum sê die organisasie sal strenger sekuriteit en herstelwerk eis en belowe om die Afrikaner-erfenis te verdedig:

Die DA het die mosie wat in die Mpumalanga Wetgewer goedgekeur is om die Kruger Mpumalanga Internasionale Lughawe en die Nasionale Krugerwildtuin te hernoem, as suiwer politieke vertoon verwerp en sê dit het geen regswaarde nie. Die mosie, wat deur die ANC, EFF en MK-partye ondersteun is, word beskryf as 'n growwe misverstand van die regsproses. DA-woordvoerder Willie Aucamp waarsku dat sulke stappe toerisme, poste, en die ekonomie bedreig. Hy het daarop gewys dat slegs die nasionale regering geografiese naamveranderings kan doen:

AfriForum het die EFF se mosie om die naam van die Krugerpark te verander gekritiseer en beskryf dit as goedkoop politiek. Die mosie is in die Mpumalanga Wetgewer ter tafel gelê. Die EFF sê hy beoog om alle name van mense wat verband hou met koloniale tyd en die apartheid-era te vervang met die van mense wat 'n belangrike rol gespeel het in Suid-Afrika se bevryding en ontwikkeling na apartheid. Marais de Vaal van AfriForum sê die hernoem van die park sal onnodige duur handelsmerk-implikasies inhou:

AfriForum sê hy het sy dossier oor die EFF-leier Julius Malema aan senior beamptes in president Donald Trump se administrasie oorhandig. Die burgerregte-organisasie en Solidariteit het Woensdag die Withuis besoek as deel van ʼn opvolg-skakelingsbesoek in Amerika. Ernst van Zyl van AfriForum sê om Malema se ekstremisme onder die Trump-administrasie se aandag te bring, is een deel van ʼn groter internasionale veldtog om seker te maak hy word aanspreeklik gehou vir sy aanhitsing van geweld:

Aubrey Masango speaks to Tara Roos, a Political analyst and Parliamentary correspondent for The Business Day to discuss the DA announcing Hellen Zille as their Johannesburg Mayoral candidate. They also look into how she plans to deal with challenges that are faced by the city of Johannesburg. Tags: 702, Aubrey Masango show, Aubrey Masango, Tara Roos, DA, City of Johannesburg, Hellen Zille, 2026 local elections, John Steenhuisen, ActionSA, Herman Mashaba, ANC, Gauteng Province, Dada Morero, EFF, MKP The Aubrey Masango Show is presented by late night radio broadcaster Aubrey Masango. Aubrey hosts in-depth interviews on controversial political issues and chats to experts offering life advice and guidance in areas of psychology, personal finance and more. All Aubrey’s interviews are podcasted for you to catch-up and listen. Thank you for listening to this podcast from The Aubrey Masango Show. Listen live on weekdays between 20:00 and 24:00 (SA Time) to The Aubrey Masango Show broadcast on 702 https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj and on CapeTalk between 20:00 and 21:00 (SA Time) https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk Find out more about the show here https://buff.ly/lzyKCv0 and get all the catch-up podcasts https://buff.ly/rT6znsn Subscribe to the 702 and CapeTalk Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/v5mfet Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/Radio702 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio702 CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalk CapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalk CapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

AfriForum sê hy sal die EFF se plan beveg om Afrikanerstandbeelde en -monumente te verwyder en te vernietig. Dit volg nadat die EFF-hoofsweep, Nontando Nolutshungu, 'n mosie in die Parlement ter tafel gelê het waarin gevra word vir die verwydering van figure soos Louis Botha, Paul Kruger, Jan van Riebeeck en selfs die Voortrekkermonument. Ernst van Zyl van AfriForum sê die stap bedreig die Afrikaner-identiteit en is deel van die EFF se sloopkultuur:

Julie Samuels shares her journey from a journalism major to a prominent figure in the tech advocacy space, detailing her experiences at NCSA, her work with EFF, and her role in founding Tech NYC. She discusses the evolution of the internet, the cultural differences between Silicon Valley and New York City, and the importance of community engagement in shaping the future of technology. Julie emphasizes the need for tech companies to be involved in civic issues and how Tech NYC aims to support and represent the tech industry in New York. 00:00 Introduction and Early Internet Experiences 02:11 Career Beginnings at NCSA 05:08 Transitioning to Journalism and Early Online News 08:00 The Shift in Journalism and the Dot Com Bubble 10:53 The Evolving New York Tech Scene 13:54 Joining EFF and First Amendment Advocacy 16:55 Mainstreaming of Internet Issues 19:53 Reflections on the Impact of Technology 21:05 The Optimism of the Tech Boom 24:19 Contrasting Silicon Valley and New York Tech 32:25 The Birth of Tech NYC 42:34 Tech NYC's Role in Today's Landscape Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Podlitiek se aanbieders vind uit dat hulle "deel van die probleem" is en liefs nie moet aansoek doen vir 'n pos by die Stellenbo(s)se dorpsraad nie. Louis en Ernst bespreek wat 'n mens moet doen as jy leef in 'n wêreld waar sulke praktyke aan die orde van die dag is. Intussen het AfriForum se Privaat Vervolgingseenheid die monumentale taak aangepak om al Malema se sondes te boekstaaf en vir die wêreld uit te stal. Malema Dossier: www.StopMalema.co.za Solidariteit Memo: https://cms.solidariteit.co.za/wp-con... Die Podlitiek-span bestaan uit: Louis Boshoff Arno Roodt Ernst van Zyl

Cloudflare's latest moves to police who can access the internet and governments' push for age verification set off alarms for the future of the open web, as panelists debate the hidden costs of centralization and regulation. Microsoft fires four workers for on-site protests over company's ties to Israel Taco Bell rethinks AI drive-through after man orders 18,000 water Nvidia says two mystery customers accounted for 39% of Q2 revenue FBI cyber cop: Salt Typhoon pwned 'nearly every American Mastodon says it doesn't 'have the means' to comply with age verification law UK's Online Safety Act censors the internet — a preview of US proposal Meta updates chatbot rules to avoid inappropriate topics with teen user Meta reportedly allowed unauthorized celebrity AI chatbots on its service UK's demand for Apple backdoor may have been broader than previously though Bluesky now platform of choice for science community SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight in stunning comeback FCC rejects calls for cable-like fees on broadband providers The web does not need gatekeepers Intel warns a US equity stake could trigger "adverse reactions" US firms are racing through a $1 trillion buyback spree in record time Microsoft reveals two in-house AI models Authors celebrate "historic" settlement coming soon in Anthropic class action A rule exempting small packages from tariffs is ending today Framework is working on a giant haptic touchpad, Trackpoint nub, and eGPU for its laptops Germany fines economist Thomas Vierhaus €16,100 for sarcastic X posts Google wants to make sideloading Android apps safer by verifying developers' identities South Korea bans smartphones in all middle and elementary school classrooms Host: Leo Laporte Guests: Shoshana Weissmann, Cory Doctorow, and Louis Maresca Download or subscribe to This Week in Tech at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-tech Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free shows, a members-only Discord, and behind-the-scenes access. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: shopify.com/twit ZipRecruiter.com/twit NetSuite.com/TWIT zscaler.com/security smarty.com/twit

My conversation with Bruce begins at 33 mins in today after my headlines and clip show Stand Up is a daily podcast. I book,host,edit, post and promote new episodes with brilliant guests every day. This show is Ad free and fully supported by listeners like you! Please subscribe now for as little as 5$ and gain access to a community of over 750 awesome, curious, kind, funny, brilliant, generous souls Learn more about my guest Bruce Schneier Buy his books!  REWIRING DEMOCRACY: How AI Will Transform Our Politics, Government, and Citizenship I am a public-interest technologist, working at the intersection of security, technology, and people. I've been writing about security issues on my blog since 2004, and in my monthly newsletter since 1998. I'm a fellow and lecturer at Harvard's Kennedy School, a board member of EFF, and the Chief of Security Architecture at Inrupt, Inc. This personal website expresses the opinions of none of those organizations. Join us Monday's and Thursday's at 8EST for our Bi Weekly Happy Hour Hangout's !  Pete on Blue Sky Pete on Threads Pete on Tik Tok Pete on YouTube  Pete on Twitter Pete On Instagram Pete Personal FB page Stand Up with Pete FB page All things Jon Carroll  Follow and Support Pete Coe Buy Ava's Art  Hire DJ Monzyk to build your website or help you with Marketing Gift a Subscription https://www.patreon.com/PeteDominick/gift  

Cloudflare's latest moves to police who can access the internet and governments' push for age verification set off alarms for the future of the open web, as panelists debate the hidden costs of centralization and regulation. Microsoft fires four workers for on-site protests over company's ties to Israe Taco Bell rethinks AI drive-through after man orders 18,000 water Nvidia says two mystery customers accounted for 39% of Q2 revenu FBI cyber cop: Salt Typhoon pwned 'nearly every American Mastodon says it doesn't 'have the means' to comply with age verification law UK's Online Safety Act censors the internet — a preview of US proposal Meta updates chatbot rules to avoid inappropriate topics with teen user Meta reportedly allowed unauthorized celebrity AI chatbots on its service UK's demand for Apple backdoor may have been broader than previously though Bluesky now platform of choice for science communit SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight in stunning comeback FCC rejects calls for cable-like fees on broadband providers The web does not need gatekeepers Intel warns a US equity stake could trigger "adverse reactions" US firms are racing through a $1 trillion buyback spree in record time Microsoft reveals two in-house AI models Authors celebrate "historic" settlement coming soon in Anthropic class action A rule exempting small packages from tariffs is ending today Framework is working on a giant haptic touchpad, Trackpoint nub, and eGPU for its laptops Germany fines economist Thomas Vierhaus €16,100 for sarcastic X posts1 Google wants to make sideloading Android apps safer by verifying developers' identities South Korea bans smartphones in all middle and elementary school classrooms Host: Leo Laporte Guests: Shoshana Weissmann, Cory Doctorow, and Louis Maresca Download or subscribe to This Week in Tech at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-tech Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free shows, a members-only Discord, and behind-the-scenes access. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: shopify.com/twit ZipRecruiter.com/twit NetSuite.com/TWIT zscaler.com/security smarty.com/twit

Cloudflare's latest moves to police who can access the internet and governments' push for age verification set off alarms for the future of the open web, as panelists debate the hidden costs of centralization and regulation. Microsoft fires four workers for on-site protests over company's ties to Israe Taco Bell rethinks AI drive-through after man orders 18,000 water Nvidia says two mystery customers accounted for 39% of Q2 revenu FBI cyber cop: Salt Typhoon pwned 'nearly every American Mastodon says it doesn't 'have the means' to comply with age verification law UK's Online Safety Act censors the internet — a preview of US proposal Meta updates chatbot rules to avoid inappropriate topics with teen user Meta reportedly allowed unauthorized celebrity AI chatbots on its service UK's demand for Apple backdoor may have been broader than previously though Bluesky now platform of choice for science communit SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight in stunning comeback FCC rejects calls for cable-like fees on broadband providers The web does not need gatekeepers Intel warns a US equity stake could trigger "adverse reactions" US firms are racing through a $1 trillion buyback spree in record time Microsoft reveals two in-house AI models Authors celebrate "historic" settlement coming soon in Anthropic class action A rule exempting small packages from tariffs is ending today Framework is working on a giant haptic touchpad, Trackpoint nub, and eGPU for its laptops Germany fines economist Thomas Vierhaus €16,100 for sarcastic X posts1 Google wants to make sideloading Android apps safer by verifying developers' identities South Korea bans smartphones in all middle and elementary school classrooms Host: Leo Laporte Guests: Shoshana Weissmann, Cory Doctorow, and Louis Maresca Download or subscribe to This Week in Tech at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-tech Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free shows, a members-only Discord, and behind-the-scenes access. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: shopify.com/twit ZipRecruiter.com/twit NetSuite.com/TWIT zscaler.com/security smarty.com/twit

Cloudflare's latest moves to police who can access the internet and governments' push for age verification set off alarms for the future of the open web, as panelists debate the hidden costs of centralization and regulation. Microsoft fires four workers for on-site protests over company's ties to Israe Taco Bell rethinks AI drive-through after man orders 18,000 water Nvidia says two mystery customers accounted for 39% of Q2 revenu FBI cyber cop: Salt Typhoon pwned 'nearly every American Mastodon says it doesn't 'have the means' to comply with age verification law UK's Online Safety Act censors the internet — a preview of US proposal Meta updates chatbot rules to avoid inappropriate topics with teen user Meta reportedly allowed unauthorized celebrity AI chatbots on its service UK's demand for Apple backdoor may have been broader than previously though Bluesky now platform of choice for science communit SpaceX's giant Starship Mars rocket nails critical 10th test flight in stunning comeback FCC rejects calls for cable-like fees on broadband providers The web does not need gatekeepers Intel warns a US equity stake could trigger "adverse reactions" US firms are racing through a $1 trillion buyback spree in record time Microsoft reveals two in-house AI models Authors celebrate "historic" settlement coming soon in Anthropic class action A rule exempting small packages from tariffs is ending today Framework is working on a giant haptic touchpad, Trackpoint nub, and eGPU for its laptops Germany fines economist Thomas Vierhaus €16,100 for sarcastic X posts1 Google wants to make sideloading Android apps safer by verifying developers' identities South Korea bans smartphones in all middle and elementary school classrooms Host: Leo Laporte Guests: Shoshana Weissmann, Cory Doctorow, and Louis Maresca Download or subscribe to This Week in Tech at https://twit.tv/shows/this-week-in-tech Join Club TWiT for Ad-Free Podcasts! Support what you love and get ad-free shows, a members-only Discord, and behind-the-scenes access. Join today: https://twit.tv/clubtwit Sponsors: shopify.com/twit ZipRecruiter.com/twit NetSuite.com/TWIT zscaler.com/security smarty.com/twit