Podcasts about ipr

Join us for a timely webinar examining the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) titled “Revision to Rules of Practice Before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board,” which proposes significant changes to how inter partes review (IPR) petitions are instituted. This session will present arguments from both sides while covering how the proposed rules aim to curb serial and duplicative challenges, shift institution discretion, and bolster patent­holder certainty, while also covering concerns about limiting access to review and adverse impacts on operating companies. With the official public comment deadline extended to December 2, 2025, this webinar aims to provide informative insight before the comment window closes. Don’t miss this chance to hear competing views on one of the most consequential patent-policy debates of the year. Featuring: Hon. Andrei Iancu, Partner, Sullivan & Cromwell LLPDavid Jones, Executive Director, High Tech Inventors AllianceJoseph Matal, Principal, Clear IP, LLCBrian O'Shaughnessy, Partner, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP(Moderator) Robert Rando, Partner, Patrick Doerr

Most agencies can tell you how their clients are doing but ask how they are doing and the room gets quiet. The truth is that even the best run firms skip their own checkups. Margins thin out, teams burn out, and culture drifts while the spotlight stays fixed on the next pitch. But what if agencies treated their operations the way a doctor treats a patient, tracking vital signs, diagnosing problems early, and prescribing real solutions before things spiral.From hidden symptoms to running a full-scale agency fitness test, in this episode we look at what separates a healthy firm from one that just looks good on paper.  Listen For3:56 What vital signs show if your agency is healthy or just surviving?5:25 Are agency leaders really surprised by their own problems?8:57 Is AI a threat or a tool for agencies to grow?12:25 What four pillars make an agency profitable and strong?18:15 What aha moment helped an agency turn things around?20:03 Answer to Last Episode's Question from Lionel ZetterGuest: Andy West, West of CenterWebsite | Email | LinkedIn | X | Substack Rate this podcast with just one click Follow Farzana on SubstackFollow Doug on SubstackCurzon Substack Stories and Strategies WebsiteCurzon Public Relations WebsiteAre you a brand with a podcast that needs support? Book a meeting with Doug Downs to talk about it.Apply to be a guest on the podcastConnect with usLinkedIn | X | Instagram | You Tube | Facebook | Threads | Bluesky | PinterestRequest a transcript of this episodeSupport the show

This week, we look into the murky ethics of media leaks and their growing role in shaping political, corporate, and cultural narratives. From leaked peace plans that spark international diplomacy to budget details released minutes before parliamentary debate, we dissect whether leaks are ethical whistleblowing or manipulative PR tactics. Farzana argues that leaks often reveal broken internal cultures, while Doug, from a journalistic perspective, explores how leaks are used to test narratives and steer public perception. Also in this episode, David wonders if written reports are becoming relics in a world obsessed with video and visual storytelling.  And we ask: Can AI help restore strategic thinking in PR? And should public relations finally be regulated like other professions?  Watch/Listen For1:45 How will AI reshape PR, tactically or strategically?5:36 Should PR be regulated like law or finance?9:28 Are media leaks ethical, or just PR strategy?14:33 Can visual storytelling replace traditional comms?22:04 Are algorithms killing media access for everyone?The Week Unspun is a weekly livestream every Friday at 10am ET/3pm BT. Check it out on our YouTube Channel or via this LinkedIn channelFolgate AdvisorsCurzon Public Relations WebsiteStories and Strategies WebsiteRequest a transcript of this livestream Support the show

Let's be honest – the occlusion after Aligner cases can be a little ‘off' (even after fixed appliances!) How do you know if your patient's occlusion after aligner treatment is acceptable or risky? What practical guidelines can general dentists follow to manage occlusion when orthodontic results aren't textbook-perfect? Jaz and Dr. Jesper Hatt explore the most common challenges dentists face, from ClinCheck errors and digital setup pitfalls to balancing aesthetics with functional occlusion. They also discuss key strategies to help you evaluate, guide, and optimize occlusion in your patients, because understanding what is acceptable and what needs intervention can make all the difference in long-term treatment stability and patient satisfaction. https://youtu.be/e74lUbyTCaA Watch PDP250 on YouTube Protrusive Dental Pearl: Harmony and Occlusal Compatibility Always ensure restorative anatomy suits the patient's natural occlusal scheme and age-related wear. If opposing teeth are flat and amalgam-filled, polished cuspal anatomy will be incompatible — flatten as needed to conform. Need to Read it? Check out the Full Episode Transcript below! Key Takeaways Common mistakes in ClinCheck planning often stem from occlusion issues. Effective communication and documentation are crucial in clinical support. Occlusion must be set correctly to ensure successful treatment outcomes. Understanding the patient’s profile is essential for effective orthodontics. Collaboration between GPs and orthodontists can enhance patient care. Retention of orthodontic results is a lifelong commitment. Aesthetic goals must align with functional occlusion in treatment planning. Informed consent is critical when discussing potential surgical interventions. The tongue plays a crucial role in orthodontic outcomes. Spacing cases should often be approached as restorative cases. Aligners can achieve precise spacing more effectively than fixed appliances. Enamel adjustments may be necessary for optimal occlusion post-treatment. Retention strategies must be tailored to individual patient needs. Case assessment is vital for determining treatment complexity. Highlights of this episode: 00:00 Teaser 00:59 Intro 02:53  Pearl – Harmony and Occlusal Compatibility 05:57 Dr. Jesper Hatt Introduction 07:34 Clinical Support Systems 10:18 Occlusion and Aligner Therapy 20:41 Bite Recording Considerations 25:32 Collaborative Approach in Orthodontics 30:31 Occlusal Goals vs. Aesthetic Goals 31:42 Midroll 35:03 Occlusal Goals vs. Aesthetic Goals 35:25 Challenges with Spacing Cases 42:19 Occlusion Checkpoints After Aligners 50:17 Considerations for Retention 54:55 Case Assessment and Treatment Planning 58:14 Key Lessons and Final Thoughts 01:00:19 Interconnectedness of Body and Teeth 01:02:48 Resources for Dentists and Case Support 01:04:40 Outro Free Aligner Case Support!Send your patient's case number and get a full assessment in 24 hours—easy, moderate, complex, or referral. Plus, access our 52-point planning protocol and 2-min photo course. No uploads, no cost. [Get Free Access Now] Learn more at alignerservice.com If you enjoyed this episode, don't miss: Do's and Don'ts of Aligners [STRAIGHTPRIL] – PDP071 #PDPMainEpisodes #OcclusionTMDandSplints #OrthoRestorative This episode is eligible for 1 CE credit via the quiz on Protrusive Guidance. This episode meets GDC Outcomes A and C. AGD Subject Code: 370 ORTHODONTICS (Functional orthodontic therapy) Aim: To provide general dentists with practical guidance for managing occlusion in aligner therapy, from bite capture to retention, including common pitfalls, functional considerations, and case selection. Dentists will be able to – Identify common errors in digital bite capture and occlusion setup. Understand the impact of anterior inclination and mandibular movement patterns on occlusal stability. Plan retention strategies appropriate for aligner and restorative cases. Click below for full episode transcript: Teaser: The one thing that we always check initially is the occlusion set correct by the aligner company. Because if the occlusion is not set correctly, everything else just doesn't matter because the teeth will move, but into a wrong position because the occlusion is off from the beginning. I don't know about you, but if half the orthodontists are afraid of controlling the root movements in extraction cases, as a GP, I would be terrified. Teaser:I don’t care if you just move from premolar to premolar or all the teeth. Orthodontics is orthodontics, so you will affect all the teeth during the treatment. The question’s just how much. Imagine going to a football stadium. The orthodontist will be able to find the football stadium.  If it’s a reasonable orthodontist, he’ll be able to find the section you’re going to sit in, and if he’s really, really, really good, he will be able to find the row that you’re going to sit in, but the exact spot where you are going to sit… he will never, ever be able to find that with orthodontics. Jaz’s Introduction: Hello, Protruserati. I’m Jaz Gulati. Welcome back to your favorite dental podcast. I’m joined today by our guest, Dr. Jesper Hatt. All this dentist does is help other dentists with their treatment plans for aligners. From speaking to him, I gather that he’s no longer practicing clinically and is full-time clinical support for colleagues for their aligner cases. So there’s a lot we can learn from someone who day in day out has to do so much treatment planning and speaking to GDPs about their cases, how they’re tracking, how they’re not tracking, complications, and then years of seeing again, okay, how well did that first set of aligners actually perform? What is predictable and what isn’t? And as well as asking what are the most common errors we make on our ClinChecks or treatment plan softwares. I really wanted to probe in further. I really want to ask him about clinical guidelines for occlusion after ortho. Sometimes we treat a case and whilst the aesthetics of that aligner case is beautiful, the occlusion is sometimes not as good. So let’s talk about what that actually means. What is a not-good occlusion? What is a good occlusion? And just to offer some guidelines for practitioners to follow because guess what? No orthodontist in the world is gonna ever get the occlusion correct through ortho. Therefore, we as GPs are never gonna get a perfect textbook occlusion, but we need to understand what is acceptable and what is a good guideline to follow. That’s exactly what we’ll present to you in this episode today. Dental PearlNow, this is a CE slash CPD eligible episode and as our main PDP episode, I’ll give you a Protrusive Dental Pearl. Today’s pearl is very much relevant to the theme of orthodontics and occlusion we’re discussing today, and it’s probably a pearl I’ve given to you already in the past somewhere down the line, but it’s so important and so key. I really want to just emphasize on it again. In fact, a colleague messaged me recently and it reminded me of this concept I’m about to explain. She sent me an image of a resin bonded bridge she did, which had failed. It was a lower incisor, and just a few days after bonding, it failed. And so this dentist is feeling a bit embarrassed and wanted my advice. Now, by the way, guys, if you message me for advice on Instagram, on Facebook, or something like that, it’s very hit and miss. Like my priorities in life are family, health, and everything that happens on Protrusive Guidance. Our network. If you message me outside that network, I may not see it. The team might, but I may not see it. It’s the only way that I can really maintain control and calm in my life. The reason for saying this, I don’t want anyone to be offended. I’m not ignoring anyone. It’s just the volume of messages I get year on year, they’re astronomical. And I don’t mind if you nudge me. If you messaged me something weeks or months ago and I haven’t replied, I probably haven’t seen it. Please do nudge me. And the best place to catch me on is Protrusive Guidance. If you DM me on Protrusive Guidance, home of the nicest and geekiest dentists in the world, that’s the only platform I will log in daily. That’s our baby, our community. Anyway, so I caught this Facebook message and it was up to me to help this colleague. And one observation I made is that the lower teeth were all worn. The upper teeth were really worn, but this resin bonded bridge pontic, it just looked like a perfect tooth. The patient was something like 77 or 80. So it really made me think that, okay, why are we putting something that looks like a 25-year-old’s tooth in a 77-year-old? But even forgetting age and stuff, you have to look at the adjacent teeth in the arch. Is your restoration harmonious with the other teeth in the arch, and of course is the restoration harmonious with what’s opposing it? Because it’s just not compatible. So part one of this pearl is make sure any restoration you do, whether it’s direct or indirect, is harmonious with the patient’s arch and with the opposing teeth and with their occlusal scheme. Because otherwise, if you get rubber dam on and you give your 75-year-old patient beautiful composite resin, it’s got all that cuspal fissure pattern and anatomy, and you take that rubber dam off and you notice that all the other teeth are flat and the opposing teeth are flat amalgams, guess what? You’re gonna be making your composite flat, whether you like it or not. You created a restoration that’s proud, right? That’s why you did not conform to the patient’s own arch or existing anatomical scheme. So the part B of this is the thing that I get very excited to talk about, right? So sometimes you have a worn dentition, but then you have one tooth that’s not worn at all. It’s like that in-standing lateral incisor, right? Think of an upper lateral incisor that’s a bit in-standing, and you see some wear on all the incisors, but that lateral incisor does not have any wear in it because it was never in the firing line. It was never in function. It was never in parafunction. Now, if you give this patient aligners or fixed appliances, you’re doing ortho and you’re now going to align this lateral incisor. So it’s now gonna eventually get into occlusion and it will be in the functional and parafunctional pathways of this patient. Do you really think you can just leave that incisor be? No. It’s not gonna be compatible with the adjacent teeth. It’s not going to be compatible with the opposing tooth and the occlusal scheme. So guess what? You have to get your bur out or your Sof-Lex disc out, and you have to bake in some years into that tooth. Or you have to build up all the other teeth if appropriate for that patient. You’ve just gotta think about it. And I hope that makes sense so you can stay out of trouble. You’re not gonna get chipping and you can consent your patient appropriately for enamel adjustment, which is something that we do talk about in this episode. I think you’re in for an absolute cracker. I hope you enjoy. I’ll catch you in the outro. Main Episode: Doctor Jesper Hatt, thank you so much for coming to Protrusive Dental Podcast. We met in Scandinavia, in Copenhagen. You delivered this wonderful lecture and it was so nice to connect with you then and to finally have you on the show. Tell us, how are you, where in the world are you, and tell us about yourself. [Jesper] Well, thank you for the invitation, first of all. Well, I’m a dentist. I used to practice in Denmark since I originally come from Denmark. My mother’s from Germany, and now I live in Switzerland and have stopped practicing dentistry since 2018. Now I only do consulting work and I help doctors around the world with making their aligner business successful. [Jaz] And this is like probably clinical advice, but also like strategic advice and positioning and that kinda stuff. Probably the whole shebang, right? [Jesper] Yeah. I mean, I have a team around me, so my wife’s a dentist as well, and I would say she’s the expert in Europe on clear aligners. She’s been working for, first of all, our practice. She’s a dentist too. She worked with me in the practice. We practiced together for 10 years. Then she became a clinical advisor for Allion Tech with responsibility for clinical support of Scandinavia. She was headhunted to ClearCorrect, worked in Basel while I was doing more and more consulting stuff in Denmark. So she was traveling back and forth, and I considered this to be a little bit challenging for our family. So I asked her, well, why don’t we just relocate to Switzerland since ClearCorrect is located there? And sure we did. And after two years she told me, I think clinical support, it’s okay. And I like to train the teams, but I’d really like to do more than that because she found out that doctors, they were able to book a spot sometime in the future, let’s say two weeks out in the future at a time that suited the doctors… no, not the doctors, ClearCorrect. Or Invisalign or whatever clear aligner company you use. So as a doctor, you’re able to block the spot and at that time you can have your 30 minutes one-on-one online with a clinical expert. And she said it’s always between the patients or administrative stuff. So they’re not really focused on their ClearCorrect or clear aligner patient. And so they forget half of what I tell them. I can see it in the setups they do. They end up having to call me again. It doesn’t work like that. I would like to help them. [Jaz] It’s a clunky pathway of mentorship. [Jesper] Yes. And so she wanted to change the way clinical support was built up. So we do it differently. We do it only in writing so people can remember what we are telling them. They can always go back in the note and see what’s been going on, what was the advice we gave them, and we offer this co-creation support where we take over most of the treatment planning of the ClearCorrect or Clear Aligner or Spark or Invisalign or Angel Aligner treatment planning. So we do all the digital planning for the doctor, deliver what we think would be right for the patient based on the feedback we initially got from the doctor. And then the doctor can come back and say, well, I’d like a little more space for some crowns in the front, or I would like the canines to be in a better position in order to achieve immediate post disclusion. And so we can go into this discussion back and forth and adjust the digital setup in a way that is more realistic and predictable and do it all for the doctors. So they, on an average, they spend four to six hours less chair time when they use that kind of service compared to if they do everything themselves. And on top of that, you can put your planning time. She was responsible for that and it works quite well. I still remember when we initially got on all these online calls and we would see fireworks in the background and confetti coming down from the top and all of that. [Jaz] Exactly. So excuse that little bit, but okay. So essentially what you’re doing is, for an aligner user myself, for example, you’re doing the ClinChecks, you are helping, supporting with the ClinChecks, the planning. And I’ve got a lot of questions about that. The first question I’ll start with, which is off the script, but there’s probably a hundred different mistakes that could happen in a ClinCheck, right? But what is the most repeatable, predictable, common mistake that you’ll see when a new user sends a case to you to help them with their planning? What’s the most common mistake that you will see in a setup? [Jesper] Two things, actually. The one thing that we always check initially is the occlusion set correct by the aligner company. Because if the occlusion is not set correctly, everything else just doesn’t matter because the teeth will move but into a wrong position because the occlusion is off from the beginning. And so we always check that as the first part. How does this— [Jaz] So let’s talk about that ’cause that might be confusing for a younger colleague because they’re like, hey, hang on a minute. I scanned the bite left and right. What do you mean the occlusion is wrong? Because surely that gets carried through into what I see on the ClinCheck. So what do you think is the mechanism for this to happen? [Jesper] Two different reasons. I’m from a time when I graduated in 2003, so that was before digital dentistry. So when I went to the Pankey Institute and learned everything about functional occlusion and all of that stuff, I also found out that most of my patients, when I put silicone impression material between the teeth and asked the patients to bite together, they would always protrude a little bit unless I instructed them to bite hard on the posterior teeth. And when we got the scanners, when we put a scanner into the cheek and pull the cheek, most patients, when we asked them to bite together to do the intraoral scan of the bite, they also protruded a little bit, not much, but enough to set the bite wrong. So that is the one challenge when the technicians of the aligner companies put the models together. The other challenge is that some of the aligner companies, they let the technicians set the models. We always, as the first thing when we see a case, we always look at the photos, the clinical photos. And that’s why the clinical photos have to be of great quality. So we look at the clinical photos of the patient— [Jaz] And also in those clinical photos, Jesper, you have to coach them correctly to bite. You have to notice if they’re biting wrong even in the photos ’cause then it just duplicates the error. And that’s why good photography and actually being able to coach the patient is so imperative. [Jesper] Yes, that’s correct. But we compare the two and usually if we see a difference, we ask the doctor, is what we see in the photo correct, or is what we see on the digital models correct? And because we don’t like differences. So that would be the first step to look for. And what’s the second? The second thing is that when you look at the setup, the anterior teeth are usually—I’m trying to show you—the anterior teeth are very, very steep. Typically with aligners it’s a lot easier to tip the crowns. So when you have a class II patient, deviation one, where the anteriors are in a forward position, proclined, and you have a lot of space between the anteriors of the maxilla and the mandible, then the easiest thing on a digital setup is to just retrocline the anteriors of the upper to make them fit the lowers, which you could then procline a little bit, but usually you have very steep relationships between the two and this— [Jaz] So you’re more likely to restrict the envelope of function, functional interference anteriorly. You are obviously reducing the overjet, but you may end up reducing like a wall contact rather than an elegant, more open gate. [Jesper] Yes. And there’s another dimension to this because when we work with orthodontics, one of the most important things to look for is actually the profile of the patient. Because let’s say I’m trying to illustrate this now, so I hope you get a 90— [Jaz] So describe it for our audio listeners as well. So we’re looking at a profile view of Jesper. [Jesper] Yes. So I’m turning the side to the camera. I hope you can see my profile here. So let’s say I had flared anterior maxillary teeth and I wanted to retrocline them. It would have an effect on my upper lip, so the lip would fall backwards if I just retrocline everything. And every millimeter we move the anteriors in the maxilla in a posterior direction, we will have a potential lip drop of three millimeters. In addition, if we don’t get the nasolabial angulation correct, we risk the lower face will simply disappear in the face of the patient. So soft tissue plays a role here, so we cannot just retrocline the teeth. It looks great on the computer screen, but when it comes to reality, we’ll have a functional challenge. We’ll have a soft tissue support challenge, and in addition we’ll have long-term retention challenges as well. Because when you have a steep inclination, the anterior teeth in the mandible, they don’t have any kind of support. They will not be stopped by anything in the maxillary teeth, which you would if you had the right inclination between the teeth, which would be about 120 degrees. So why do aligner companies always set the teeth straight up and down in the anterior part? We wondered about this for years. We don’t have a strict answer. We don’t know exactly why it’s like this, but I have a hunch. I think there are two things to it. First of all, the easiest thing to do with aligners is to move the crown, so we can just tip the teeth. You take them back, you make a lot of IPR, and then you just tip them so they’re retroclined. Secondly, all aligner companies, they come from the United States. And in the United States there is a higher representation of class III patients. Now why is that important? All our patients can be put into two different categories in regards to how they move their mandible. They are the crocodiles that only open and close, like move up and down, and then we have the cows. And then we have the cows that move the mandible around, or the camels. I mean, every camel, if you’ve seen a camel chew, it’s just moving from side to side. [Jaz] Horses as well. Horses as well. [Jesper] They kind of do that. [Jaz] But I’m glad you didn’t say rats ’cause it’s more elegant to be a crocodile than a rat. [Jesper] Exactly. And I usually say we only tell the crocodiles. So why is this a challenge and why isn’t it a challenge with class III patients? Well, all real class III patients act like crocodiles, so they don’t move them side to side. From a functional perspective, it’s really not a problem having steep anterior inclination or steep relationships as long as you have a stable stop where the anteriors—so the anteriors will not elongate and create the red effect. So they just elongate until they hit the palate. If you can make a stop in the anterior part of the occlusion, then you’ll have some kind of stability with the class III patients. But with class II patients, we see a lot more cows. So they move the mandible from side to side and anterior and back and forth and all… they have the mandible going all kinds of places. And when they do that, we need some kind of anterior guidance to guide the mandible. I usually say the upper jaw creates the framework in which the mandible will move. So if the framework is too small, we fight the muscles. And whenever we fight the muscles, we lose because muscles always win. It doesn’t matter if it’s teeth, if it’s bone, if it’s joints, they all lose if they fight the muscles— [Jaz] As Peter Dawson would say, in the war between teeth and muscles or any system and muscles, the muscles always win. Absolutely. And the other analogy you remind me of is the maxilla being like a garage or “garage” from UK, like a garage. And the mandible being like the car, and if you’re really constrained, you’re gonna crash in and you’re gonna… everything will be in tatters. So that’s another great way to think about it. Okay. That’s very, very helpful. I’m gonna—’cause there’s so much I wanna cover. And I think you’ve really summed up nicely. But one thing just to finish on this aspect of that common mistake being that the upper anteriors are retroclined, really what you’re trying to say is we need to be looking at other modalities, other movements. So I’m thinking you’re saying extraction, if it’s suitable for the face, or distalisation. Are you thinking like that rather than the easier thing for the aligners, which is the retrocline. Am I going about it the right way? [Jesper] Depends on the patient. [Jaz] Of course. [Jesper] Rule of thumb: if you’re a GP, don’t ever touch extraction cases. Rule of thumb. Why? Because it is extremely challenging to move teeth parallel. So you will most—especially with aligners—I mean, I talk with a very respected orthodontist once and I asked him, well, what do you think about GPs treating extraction cases where they extract, you know, two premolars in the maxilla? And he said, well, I don’t know how to answer this. Let me just explain to you: half of my orthodontist colleagues, they are afraid of extraction cases. And I asked them why. Because it’s so hard to control the root movement. Now, I don’t know about you— [Jaz] With aligners. We’re specifically talking about aligners here, right? [Jesper] With all kinds of orthodontic appliances. [Jaz] Thank you. [Jesper] So now, I don’t know about you, but if half the orthodontists are afraid of controlling the root movements in extraction cases, as a GP, I would be terrified. And I am a GP. So I usually say, yeah, sometimes you will have so much crowding and so little space in the mandible, so there’s an incisor that is almost popped out by itself. In those cases, yes. Then you can do an extraction case. But when we’re talking about premolars that are going to be extracted, or if you want to close the space in the posterior part by translating a tooth into that open space, don’t. It’s just the easiest way to end up in a disaster because the only thing you’ll see is just teeth that tip into that space, and you’ll have a really hard time controlling the root movements, getting them corrected again. [Jaz] Well, thank you for offering that guideline. I think that’s very sage advice for those GPs doing aligners, to stay in your lane and just be… the best thing about being a GP, Jesper, is you get to cherry pick, right? There’s so many bad things about being a GP. Like you literally have to be kinda like a micro-specialist in everything in a way. And so sometimes it’s good to be like, you know what, I’ll keep this and I’ll send this out. And being selective and case selection is the crux of everything. So I’m really glad you mentioned that. I mean, we talked and touched already on so much occlusion. The next question I’m gonna ask you then is, like you said, a common error is the bite and how the bite appears on the ClinCheck or whichever software a dentist is using. Now, related to bite, vast majority of orthodontic cases are treated in the patient’s existing habitual occlusion, their maximum intercuspal position. Early on in my aligner journey, I had a patient who had an anterior crossbite. And because of that anterior crossbite, their jaw deviated. It was a displaced—the lower jaw displaced. And then I learned from that, that actually for that instance, perhaps I should not have used an MIP scan. I should have used more like centric relation or first point of contact scan before the displacement of the jaw happens. So that was like always in my mind. Sometimes we can and should be using an alternative TMJ position or a bite reference other than MIP. Firstly, what do you think about that kind of scenario and are there any other scenarios which you would suggest that we should not be using the patient’s habitual occlusion for their bite scan for planning orthodontics? [Jesper] Well, I mentioned that I was trained at the Pankey Institute, and when you start out right after—I mean, I spent 400 hours over there. Initially, I thought I was a little bit brainwashed by that because I thought every single patient should be in centric relation. Now, after having put more than 600 patients on the bite appliance first before I did anything, I started to see some patterns. And so today, I would say it’s not all patients that I would get into centric relation before I start treating the teeth. But when we talk about aligner therapy and orthodontic treatment, I think it’s beneficial if you can see the signs for those patients where you would say, hmm, something in the occlusion here could be a little bit risky. So let’s say there are wear facets on the molars. That will always trigger a red flag in my head. Let’s say there are crossbites or bite positions that kind of lock in the teeth. We talked about class III patients before, and I said if it’s a real skeletal-deviation class III patient, it’s a crocodile. But sometimes patients are not real class III skeletal deviation patients. They’re simply being forced into a class III due to the occlusion. That’s where the teeth fit together. So once you put aligners between the teeth and plastic covers the surfaces, suddenly the patients are able to move the jaws more freely and then they start to seat into centric. That may be okay. Usually it is okay. The challenge is consequences. So when you’re a GP and you suddenly see a patient moving to centric relation and you find out, whoa, on a horizontal level there’s a four- to six-millimeter difference between the initial starting point and where we are now, and maybe we create an eight-millimeter open bite in the anterior as well because they simply seat that much. And I mean, we have seen it. So is this a disaster? Well, it depends. If you have informed the patient well enough initially and said, well, you might have a lower jaw that moves into a different position when we start out, and if this new position is really, really off compared to where you are right now, you might end up needing maxillofacial surgery, then the patient’s prepared. But if they’re not prepared and you suddenly have to tell them, you know, I think we might need maxillofacial surgery… I can come up with a lot of patients in my head that would say, hey doctor, that was not part of my plan. And they will be really disappointed. And at that point there’s no turning back, so you can’t reverse. So I think if you are unsure, then you are sure. Then you should use some kind of deprogramming device or figure out where is centric relation on this patient. If there isn’t that much of a difference between maximum intercuspation and centric— [Jesper] Relation, I don’t care. Because once you start moving the teeth, I don’t care if you just move from premolar to premolar or all the teeth. Orthodontics is orthodontics, so you will affect all the teeth during the treatment. The question’s just how much. And sometimes it’s just by putting plastic between the teeth that you will see a change, not in the tooth position, but in the mandibular position. And I just think it’s nicer to know a little bit where this is going before you start. And the more you see of this—I mean, as I mentioned, after 600 bite appliances in the mouths of my patients, I started to see patterns. And sometimes in the end, after 20 years of practicing, I started to say, let’s just start, see where this ends. But I would always inform the patients: if it goes totally out of control, we might end up needing surgery, and there’s no way to avoid it if that happens. And if the patients were okay with that, we’d just start out. Because I mean, is it bad? No. I just start the orthodontic treatment and I set the teeth as they should be in the right framework. Sometimes the upper and the lower jaw don’t fit together. Well, send them to the surgeon and they will move either the upper or the lower jaw into the right position, and then we have it. No harm is done because we have done the initial work that the orthodontist would do. But I will say when I had these surgical patients—let’s say we just started out with aligners and we figured, I can’t control this enough. I need a surgeon to look at this—then I would send them off to an orthodontist, and the orthodontist and the surgeon would take over. Because then—I mean, surgical patients and kids—that’s the second group of patients besides the extraction cases that I would not treat as a GP. ‘Cause we simply don’t know enough about how to affect growth on kids. And when it comes to surgery, there’s so much that is… so much knowledge that we need to know and the collaboration with the surgeons that we’re not trained to handle. So I think that should be handled by the orthodontists as well. [Jaz] I think collaborative cases like that are definitely specialist in nature, and I think that’s a really good point. I think the point there was informed consent. The mistake is you don’t warn the patient or you do not do the correct screening. So again, I always encourage my guests—so Jesper, you included—that we may disagree, and that’s okay. That’s the beauty of dentistry. So something that I look for is: if the patient has a stable and repeatable maximum intercuspal position, things lock very well, and there’s a minimal slide—like I use my leaf gauge and the CR-CP is like a small number of leaves and the jaw hardly moves a little bit—then there’s no point of uncoupling them, removing that nice posterior coupling that they have just to chase this elusive joint position. Then you have to do so many more teeth. But when we have a breakdown in the system, which you kind of said, if there’s wear as one aspect, or we think that, okay, this patient’s occlusion is not really working for them, then we have an opportunity to do full-mouth rehabilitation in enamel. Because that’s what orthodontics is. And so that’s a point to consider. So I would encourage our GP colleagues to look at the case, look at the patient in front of you, and decide: is this a stable, repeatable occlusion that you would like to use as a baseline, or is there something wrong? Then consider referring out or considering—if you’re more advanced in occlusion studies—using an alternative position, not the patient’s own bite as a reference. So anything you wanna add to that or disagree with in that monologue I just said there? [Jesper] No, I think there’s one thing I’d like the listeners to consider. I see a lot of fighting between orthodontists and GPs, and I think it should be a collaboration instead. There’s a lot of orthodontists that are afraid of GPs taking over more and more aligner treatments, and they see a huge increase in the amount of cases that go wrong. Well, there’s a huge increase of patients being treated, so there will be more patients, just statistically, that will get into problems. Now, if the orthodontist is smart—in my opinion, that’s my opinion—they reach out to all their referring doctors and they tell them, look, come in. I will teach you which cases you can start with and which you should refer. Let’s start there. Start your aligner treatments. Start out, try stuff. I will be there to help you if you run into problems. So whenever you see a challenge, whenever there’s a problem, send the patient over to me and I’ll take over. But I will be there to help you if anything goes wrong. Now, the reason this is really, really a great business advice for the orthodontists is because once you teach the GPs around you to look for deviations from the normal, which would be the indication for orthodontics, the doctors start to diagnose and see a lot more patients needing orthodontics and prescribe it to the patients, or at least propose it to the patients. Which would initially not do much more than just increase the amount of aligner treatments. But over time, I tell you, all the orthodontists doing this, they are drowning in work. So I mean, they will literally be overflown by patients being referred by all the doctors, because suddenly all the other doctors around them start to diagnose orthodontically. They see the patients which they haven’t seen before. So I think this is—from a business perspective—a really, really great thing for the orthodontists to have a collaboration with this. And it’ll also help the GPs to feel more secure when they start treating their patients. And in the end, that will lead to more patients getting the right treatment they deserve. And I think that is the core. That is what’s so important for us to remember. That’s what we’re here for. I mean, yes, it’s nice to make money. We have to live. It’s nice with a great business, but what all dentists I know of are really striving for is to treat their patients to the best of their ability. And this helps them to do that. [Jaz] Ultimate benefactor of this collaborative approach is the patient. And I love that you said that. I think I want all orthodontists to listen to that soundbite and take it on board and be willing to help. Most of them I know are lovely orthodontists and they’re helping to teach their GPs and help them and in return they get lots of referrals. And I think that’s the best way to go. Let’s talk a little bit about occlusal goals we look for at the end of orthodontics. This is an interesting topic. I’m gonna start by saying that just two days ago I got a DM from one of the Protruserati, his name is Keith Curry—shout out to him on Instagram—and he just sent me a little message: “Jaz, do you sometimes find that when you’re doing alignment as a GP that it’s conflicting the orthodontic, the occlusal goal you’re trying to get?” And I knew what I was getting to. It’s that scenario whereby you have the kind of class II division 2, right? But they have anterior guidance. Now you align everything, okay, and now you completely lost anterior guidance. And so the way I told him is that, you know what, yes, this is happening all the time. Are we potentially at war between an aesthetic smile and a functional occlusion? And sometimes there’s a compromise. Sometimes you can have both. But that—to achieve both—needs either a specialist set of eyes or lots of auxiliary techniques or a lot more time than what GPs usually give for their cases. So first let’s touch on that. Do you also agree that sometimes there is a war between what will be aesthetic and what will be a nice functional occlusion? And then we’ll actually talk about, okay, what are some of the guidelines that we look for at the end of completing an aligner case? [Jesper] Great question and great observation. I would say I don’t think there’s a conflict because what I’ve learned is form follows function. So if you get the function right, aesthetics will always be great. Almost always. I mean, we have those crazy-shaped faces sometimes, but… so form follows function. The challenge here is that in adult patients, we cannot manipulate growth. So a skeletal deviation is a skeletal deviation, which means if we have a class II patient, it’s most likely that that patient has a skeletal deviation. I rarely see a dental deviation. It happens, but it’s really, really rare. So that means that in principle, all our class II and chronic class III patients are surgical patients. However, does that mean that we should treat all our class II and class III patients surgically? No, I don’t think so. But we have to consider that they are all compromise cases. So we need to figure a compromise. So initially, when I started out with my occlusal knowledge, I have to admit, I didn’t do the orthodontic treatment planning. I did it with Heller, and she would give me feedback and tell me, I think this is doable and this is probably a little bit challenging. If we do this instead, we can keep the teeth within the bony frame. We can keep them in a good occlusion. Then I would say, well, you have a flat curve of Spee. I’d like to have a little bit of curve. It’s called a curve of Spee and not the orthodontic flat curve of Spee. And then we would have a discussion back and forth about that. Then initially I would always want anterior coupling where the anterior teeth would touch each other. I have actually changed that concept in my mind and accepted the orthodontic way of thinking because most orthodontists will leave a little space in the anterior. So when you end the orthodontic treatment, you almost always have a little bit of space between the anterior teeth so they don’t touch each other. Why? Because no matter what, no matter how you retain the patient after treatment, there will still be some sort of relapse. And we don’t know where it’ll come or how, but it will come. Because the teeth will always be positioned in a balance between the push from the tongue and from the cheeks and the muscles surrounding the teeth. And that’s a dynamic that changes over the years. So I don’t see retention as a one- or two-year thing. It’s a lifelong thing. And the surrounding tissues will change the pressure and thereby the balance between the tongue and the cheeks and where the teeth would naturally settle into position. Now, that said, as I mentioned initially, if we fight the muscles, we’ll lose. So let’s say we have an anterior open bite. That will always create a tongue habit where the patient positions the tongue in the anterior teeth when they swallow because if they don’t, food and drink will just be splashed out between the teeth. They can’t swallow. It will just be pushed out of the mouth. [Jaz] So is that not like a secondary thing? Like that tongue habit is secondary to the AOB? So in those cases, if you correct the anterior open bite, theoretically should that tongue posture not self-correct? [Jesper] Well, we would like to think so, but it’s not always the case. And there’s several reasons to it. Because why are the teeth in the position? Is it because of the tongue or because of the tooth position? Now, spacing cases is one of those cases where you can really illustrate it really well. It looks really easy to treat these patients. If we take away all the soft tissue considerations on the profile photo, I mean, you can just retract the teeth and you close all the spaces—super easy. Tipping movements. It’s super easy orthodontically to move quickly. Very easy as well. However, you restrict the tongue and now we have a retention problem. So there are three things that can happen. You can bond a retainer on the lingual side or the palatal side of the teeth, upper, lower—just bond everything together—and after three months, you will have a diastema distal to the bonded retainer because the tongue simply pushes all the teeth in an anterior direction. [Jaz] I’ve also seen—and you’ve probably seen this as well—the patient’s tongue being so strong in these exact scenarios where the multiple spacing has been closed, which probably should have been a restorative plan rather than orthodontic plan, and the retainer wire snaps in half. [Jesper] Yes, from the tongue. [Jaz] That always fascinated me. [Jesper] Well, you’ll see debonding all the time, even though you sandblast and you follow all the bonding protocol. And debonding, breaking wires, diastemas in places where you think, how is that even possible? Or—and this is the worst part—or you induce sleep apnea on these patients because you simply restrict the space for the tongue. So they start snoring, and then they have a total different set of health issues afterwards. So spacing—I mean, this just illustrates the power of the tongue and why we should always be careful with spacing cases. I mean, spacing cases, in my opinion, are always to be considered ortho-restorative cases. Or you can consider, do you want to leave some space distal to the canines? Because there you can create an optical illusion with composites. Or do you want to distribute space equally between the teeth and place veneers or crowns or whatever. And this is one of those cases where I’d say aligners are just fabulous compared to fixed appliances. Because if you go to an orthodontist only using fixed appliances and you tell that orthodontist, please redistribute space in the anterior part of the maxilla and I want exactly 1.2 millimeters between every single tooth in the anterior segment, six years later he’s still not reached that goal because it just moves back and forth. Put aligners on: three months later, you have exactly—and I mean exactly—1.2 millimeters of space between each and every single tooth. When it comes to intrusion and extrusion, I would probably consider using fixed appliances rather than aligners if it’s more than three millimeters. So every orthodontic system—and aligners are just an orthodontic system—each system has its pros and cons, and we just have to consider which system is right for this patient that I have in my chair. But back to the tongue issue. What should we do? I mean, yes, there are two different schools. So if you have, let’s say, a tongue habit that needs to be treated, there are those that say we need to get rid of the tongue habit before we start to correct the teeth. And then there are those that say that doesn’t really work because there’s no room for the tongue. So we need to create room for the tongue first and then train the patient to stop the habit. Both schools and both philosophies are being followed out there. I have my preferred philosophy, but I will let the listener start to think about what they believe and follow their philosophy. Because there is nothing here that is right or wrong. And that is— [Jaz] I think the right answer, Jesper, is probably speak to that local orthodontist who’s gonna be helping you out and whatever they recommend—their religion—follow that one. Because then at least you have something to defend yourself. Like okay, I followed the way you said. Let’s fix it together now. [Jesper] That’s a great one. Yeah, exactly. [Jaz] Okay, well just touching up on the occlusion then, sometimes we do get left with like suboptimal occlusions. But to be able to define a suboptimal occlusion… let’s wrap this occlusion element up. When we are completing an orthodontic case—let’s talk aligners specifically—when the aligners come off and the fixed retainers come on, for example, and the patient’s now in retention, what are some of the occlusal checkpoints or guidelines that you advise checking for to make sure that, okay, now we have a reasonably okay occlusion and let things settle from here? For example, it would be, for me, a failure if the patient finishes their aligners and they’re only holding articulating paper on one side and not the other side. That’s for me a failure. Or if they’ve got a posterior open bite bilaterally. Okay, then we need to go refinement. We need to get things sorted. But then where do you draw the line? How extreme do you need to be? Do you need every single tooth in shim-stock foil contact? Because then we are getting really beyond that. We have to give the adaptation some wiggle room to happen. So I would love to know from your learning at Pankey, from your experience, what would you recommend is a good way for a GP to follow about, okay, it may not be perfect and you’ll probably never get perfect. And one of the orthodontists that taught me said he’s never, ever done a case that’s finished with a perfect occlusion ever. And he said that to me. [Jesper] So—and that’s exactly the point with orthodontics. I learned that imagine going to a football stadium. The orthodontist will be able to find the football stadium. If it’s a reasonable orthodontist, he’ll be able to find the section you’re going to sit in. And if he’s really, really, really good, he will be able to find the row that you’re going to sit in. But the exact spot where you are going to sit, he will never, ever be able to find that with orthodontics. And this is where settling comes in and a little bit of enamel adjustments. [Jaz] I’m so glad you said that. I’m so glad you mentioned enamel adjustment. That’s a very dirty word, but I agree with that. And here’s what I teach on my occlusion courses: what we do with aligners essentially is we’re tampering with the lock. Let’s say the upper jaw is the lock. It’s the still one. We’re tampering with the key, which is the lower jaw—the one that moves—we tamper with the key and the lock, and we expect them both to fit together at the end without having to shave the key and to modify the lock. So for years I was doing aligners without enamel adjustment ’cause my eyes were not open. My mind was not open to this. And as I learned, and now I use digital measuring of occlusion stuff and I seldom can finish a case to get a decent—for my criteria, which is higher than it used to be, and my own stat—is part of my own growth that’s happened over time is that I just think it’s an important skill that GPs are not taught and they should be. It’s all about finishing that case. And I think, I agree with you that some adjustment goes a long way. We’re not massacring enamel. It’s little tweaks to get that. [Jesper] Exactly. I like the sound there because sometimes you hear that “ahh,” it doesn’t really sound right, but “tsst,” that’s better. [Jaz] That’s the one. You know, it reminds me of that lecture you did in Copenhagen. You did this cool thing—which I’ve never seen anyone do before. You sat with one leg over the other and you said, okay guys, bite together. Everyone bit together. And then you swapped the legs so the other leg was over the other and bite together. And then you said, okay, whose occlusion felt different? And about a third of the audience put their hand up, I think. Tell us about that for a second. [Jesper] Well, just promise me we go back to the final part because there are some things we should consider. [Jaz] Let’s save this as a secret thing at the end for incentive for everyone to listen to the end—how the leg position changes your occlusion. Let’s talk about the more important thing. I digressed. [Jesper] Let’s talk about the occlusal goals because I think it’s important. I mean, if you do enamel adjustments in the end—so when we finish the treatment, when we come to the last aligner in the treatment plan—I think we should start by breaking things down to the simplest way possible. Start by asking the patient: are you satisfied with the way the teeth look? Yes or no? If she’s satisfied, great. How do you feel about the occlusion? “Well, it fits okay.” Great. Now the patient is happy. There’s nothing she wants to—or he wants to—change. Then you look at the occlusion. Now, it is important to remember that what we see on the computer screen, on the aligner planning tools, will never, ever correspond 100% to what we see in the mouth of the patient. And there are several reasons for that. But one of the things that we have found to be really interesting is that if you take that last step and you say, okay, the occlusion doesn’t fit exactly as on the screen, but it’s kind of there… if you use that last step and you don’t do a re-scan for a retainer, but you use the last step of the aligner treatment as your reference for your aligner retainer… We sometimes see that over six months, if the patient wears that aligner 22 hours a day for another three to six months, the teeth will settle more and more into the aligner and create an occlusion that looks more and more like what you see on the screen. Which to me just tells me that the biology doesn’t necessarily follow the plan everywhere in the tempo that we set throughout the aligner plan. But over time, at the last step, if it’s just minor adjustments, the teeth will actually move into that position if we use the last stage as a reference for the retainer. Now, if we do a scan at that point and use that as a reference for creating an aligner retainer, then we just keep the teeth in that position. Now, if the teeth are a little bit more off— [Jaz] I’m just gonna recap that, Jesper, ’cause I understood what you said there, but I want you to just make sure I fully understood it. When we request, for example, Align, the Vivera retainer, it gives you an option: “I will submit a new scan” or “use the last step.” And actually I seldom use that, but now I realize you’re right. It makes sense. But then on the one hand, if the occlusion is—if the aesthetics are good and the patient’s occlusion feels good, what is your own judgment to decide whether we’re still going to allow for some more settling and occlusal changes to happen over a year using the Vivera retainers based on the ClinCheck last-aligner profile, rather than, okay, let’s just retain to this position? What is making you do the extra work, extra monitoring? [Jesper] To me, it’s not extra monitoring. It’s just basic. I mean, it’s just part of my protocol. I follow the patients. And honestly, to me, it’s just time-saving to just use the last step in the aligner. Because I mean, if the plan is right and if the teeth have been tracking well, they should be in that position. Why do I then need to re-scan for Vivera retainers or for other kinds of retainers? Now, if the occlusion is a little bit more off—and in a minute you’ll probably ask me when do I see which is which, and I can’t really tell you; it’s about experience—but that’s the beauty of this. If I see there’s a little bit more deviation and I like some teeth, the occlusion isn’t really good on one side compared to the other side, I would rather have a bonded retainer from first premolar to first premolar in the mandible, combined with a Hawley or Begg or something like that retainer for the upper. And you can order them with an acrylic plate covering some of the anterior teeth so they keep that position, but that allows the teeth to settle. And over three months you should see some kind of improvement. If you don’t see enough improvement and let’s say you still have a tendency for a kind of an open bite on one side, you can always add some cross elastics, put some buttons on the upper, on the lower, instruct the patient to use these, and then in three months you will have the occlusion you want. Now, once that is established—you have that kind of occlusion—you need to keep the teeth there for at least six months before you do some kind of equilibration or enamel adjustment. Because if you do the enamel adjustment right after you have reached your final destination for the teeth, the teeth will still settle and move. So you do the equilibration, two weeks later everything looks off again. You do the equilibration, two weeks later things have changed again. So I prefer to wait six months before I do the final equilibration. Now, in this equation what we’ve been talking about here, it goes from very simple to more and more complex. And then we have to consider, well, did I expand the mandible posterior segment? If so, I can’t just use a bonded retainer on the lower and I need to add something to keep the teeth out there in combination with whatever I want in the upper. Do I want to keep the Begg retainer or the Hawley, or do I want to change to something differently? So these kinds of considerations have to be there from the beginning of the treatment because, I mean, it costs additional money to order a Begg retainer compared to just an aligner. [Jaz] A Begg retainer is the same as Hawley? [Jesper] Well, no. It has a little different design. [Jaz] Oh, a Begg as in B-E-G-G? [Jesper] Yes. [Jaz] Yeah, got it. Got it. Okay. [Jesper] And then in Denmark we use the Jensen retainer, which is a Danish invention, which goes from canine to canine or from first premolar to first premolar but with a different type of wire which keeps the teeth more in place compared to a round wire. So there are different variations. The most important part here is it allows the posterior teeth to settle so they can move, which they can’t in an aligner to the same degree at least. Now, this is all really nice in teeth that only need to be moved into the right position, but most of our patients are adult patients, or they should at least be adult patients. Most of my patients were more than 30 years old. So if you have a patient with anterior crowding and you move the teeth into the right position where the teeth should be, the teeth are in the right position, but they still look ugly because they have been worn anteriorly by the position they were in when they were crooked. So when we position them, we still need to do some restorative work. Then what? We still need to retain those teeth. The patient wants to be finished now as fast as possible, so we can’t wait the six months to make the final touches. So we have to figure out: what do we do? And then we have to think of some kind of retention strategy to keep the teeth in place during that restorative procedure. And I mean, at the end of an aligner treatment or any orthodontic treatment, two days is enough to have relapse in some patients. Some patients it’s not a problem. The teeth are just there to stay in the same position for three months, and then they start to move a little bit around. But other patients—I mean, you just have to look away and then go back to the teeth and they’re in a different position. You can’t know what kind of patient you have in your chair right now. So you have to consider the way you plan your restorative procedure in regards to how you retain the teeth during that phase. So if you want to do anterior composites or veneers, do it all at once. Put in a bonded retainer, scan, and get your aligner retainer as fast as possible. Or use a Begg or a Hawley or something like that that’s a little bit more flexible. If you want to do crowns, then we have a whole different challenge and then we have to consider how do we then retain the teeth. [Jaz] Okay. Well I think that was lovely. I think that gives us some thoughts and ideas of planning sequence of retention, which is the ultimate thing to consider when it comes to occlusion. Okay, yeah, you get the occlusion, but how do you retain it? But in many cases, as the patient’s wearing aligners, the occlusion is embedding in and is fine. And you take off the aligners, the patient’s happy with how it looks. They bite together. It feels good. You are happy that yes, both sides of the mouth are biting together. Now, it might not be that every single contact is shim-hold, but you got, let’s say, within 20 microns, 40 microns, okay? Then some bedding happens. In that kind of scenario, would you be happy to say, okay, I’m gonna scan your teeth as they are because I’m happy with the occlusion, the occlusal goals are good, and they’re near enough the ClinCheck, and go for the retainers to that position? Or is your default preference as a clinician to go for the Vivera or equivalent based on the last aligner, on the ClinCheck projection? [Jesper] I would still go for the last aligner because I think the planning I’ve done is probably a little bit more precise than what I see clinically. However, I still expect that I will have to do a little bit of enamel reshaping at the end after six months, but that’s okay. I mean, the changes are so small, so you can still use the last aligner or the Vivera retainer that you already have ordered. So it’s not that much of a problem. [Jaz] Which goes back to your previous point: if it’s a big deviation, then you’ve gotta look at the alternative ways, whether you’re gonna go for refinement or you’re gonna allow some occlusal settling with a Hawley and a lower fixed-retainer combination, or the elastics like you said. Okay. Just so we’re coming to the end of the podcast—and I really enjoyed our time—I would like to delve deep into just a final thing, which is a little checklist, a helpful checklist for case assessment that you have for GDPs. [Jesper] Yeah, thank you. First of all, one of the big challenges in a GP practice is being able to take a full series of clinical photos in two minutes without assistance. I think most dentists struggle with that, but that is a foundational prerequisite to any aligner treatment. Once you have the photos, I would sit down with the photos and I would consider six different steps. One: is this a patient that I could treat restoratively only? Because that would be the simplest for me to do. Next, moving up in complexity: would be, do I need periodontal crown lengthening? Or next step would be: do I need to change the vertical dimension, or is there something about centric relation that I should consider? Moving up a little bit on the complexity: are there missing teeth? Do I need to replace teeth with implants? Next step would be orthodontics. So this is step five. The next most complex case we can treat is actually an aligner case—orthodontics in general. And the last part would be: are the teeth actually in the right position in the face of the patient, or do I need surgery to correct the jaw position? So these six steps, I think they’re helpful to follow to just think, how can I break this case down into more easy, digestible bits and pieces to figure out what kind of patient I have in front of me? Now, if you consider it to be an orthodontic case or ortho-restorative case, here comes the challenge: case selection. How do you figure out is this an easy, moderate, complex, or referral case? And here’s the trick: do 500 to 1000 treatment plans or treatments with clear aligners. And then you know. But until then, you really don’t. This is where you should rely on someone you can trust who can help you do the initial case selection. Because you can have two identical patients—one is easy and one is super complex—but they look the same. So it’s really nice if you have done less than 500 cases to have someone who can help you with the case selection. And I don’t say this to sell anything, because we don’t charge for that. Because it’s so essential that we don’t do something that is wrong or gives us a lot of challenges and headaches in the practice. I mean, the practice runs really fast and lean-oriented, so we need to make things digestible, easy to work with. And I think that’s really important. [Jaz] It goes full circle to what we said before about having that referral network, staying in your lane, knowing when to refer out, cherry-picking—it all goes back full circle with that. And not even orthodontics, but restorative dentistry—case selection is just imperative in everything we do. [Jesper] Yes. And there is—we always get the question when we do courses and we do consulting—can’t you just show me a couple of cases that are easy to start with? And it works with implants, kind of. But with orthodontics where we move—I mean, we affect all the teeth—it’s just not possible. I know the aligner companies want to show you some where you say, you can only just do these kinds of cases and they are really easy. The fact is they’re not. But they want to sell their aligners. [Jaz] I get it. They are until they’re not. It’s like that famous thing, right? Everyone’s got a plan until they get punched in the face. So yeah, it can seemingly be easy, but then a complication happens and it’s really about understanding what complications to expect, screening for them, and how you handle that. But thanks so much. Tell us—yeah, go on, sorry. [Jesper] There are three things I’d like to end on here. So, first of all, we’ve been talking together for about an hour about a topic that, if you want to take postgraduate education, it takes three years to become an orthodontist. And there is a reason it takes three to four years. However, I want to encourage the listener to think about this: Mercedes has never, ever excused last year’s model. Meaning that they always strive for perfection. So if we go into the practice and we do the very best we can every single day, there is no way we can go back and excuse what we

Trust isn't built in boardrooms or over Zoom. It's built in the quiet moments. A conversation that lingers, a promise kept, a drink shared between people who still believe words matter. In this episode, we explore how the foundations of influence have shifted from handshakes to hyperlinks, and what that means for anyone trying to shape opinion or policy in a world that's forgotten how to connect.You'll hear stories from inside the world of public affairs, where relationships once forged in the late hours of party conferences now play out on screens and social feeds. We unpack why the human side of persuasion still decides who gets heard, who gets trusted, and who gets left behind. Because in the end, every message, every movement, and every bit of influence still comes down to people.Listen For6:42 Can you build real relationships online?9:13 Is polarization killing cross-party lobbying?12:52 Are autocrats on the rise?15:00 How is public affairs different from stakeholder work?16:05 Answer to Last Episode's Question from Guest Nick UsborneGuest: Lionel ZetterWebsite | X | LinkedIn Lionel's new book The Lobbyist Rate this podcast with just one click Follow Farzana on SubstackFollow Doug on SubstackCurzon Substack Stories and Strategies WebsiteCurzon Public Relations WebsiteAre you a brand with a podcast that needs support? Book a meeting with Doug Downs to talk about it.Apply to be a guest on the podcastConnect with usLinkedIn | X | Instagram | You Tube | Facebook | Threads | Bluesky | PinterestRequest a transcript of this episode Support the show

Pianists, friends and Interlochen Arts Academy students Helen Nguyen and Kieran Alston brought music of Felix Mendelssohn, John Corigliano and George Gershwin to IPR's Studio A.

What happens when PR meets scandal, tech chaos, and gender bias? This episode of The Week UnSpun is a whirlwind of explosive headlines. The trio of David Gallagher, Doug Downs, and guest host Miranda Mitchell look into the renewed Epstein files controversy and its potential to dominate headlines well into 2025. They unravel Cloudflare's swift crisis response and debate the alleged gender bias in LinkedIn's algorithm. Add a healthy dose of Cracker Barrel branding blunders and viral live-TV moments, and you've got a jam-packed show.Listen For2:03 What's coming with the Epstein files and who could be impacted?6:57 How could media coverage of the Epstein case harm innocent people?10:46 How did Cloudflare's apology turn disaster into a win?13:27 Does LinkedIn's algorithm favor male voices?18:47 Is AI helping or hurting your brand voice? Watch For2:10 What will the release of the Epstein files reveal, and who gets hurt?6:00 Should we worry about innocent people in raw investigative data dumps?13:21 Is LinkedIn's algorithm biased against women, and how do we know?20:02 Will AI kill or save PR agencies in the era of LLMs and brand drift?26:09 Did Cracker Barrel's rebrand backfire, and what's the PR lesson?Guest Host Miranda Mitchell, PretailWebsite | LinkedIn | ContactThe Week Unspun is a weekly livestream every Friday at 10am ET/3pm BT. Check it out on our YouTube Channel or via this LinkedIn channelWe publish the audio from these livestreams to the Stories and Strategies podcast feed every Friday until Sunday evening when it's no longer available.Folgate AdvisorsCurzon Public Relations WebsiteStories and Strategies WebsiteRequest a transcript of this livestreamSupport the show

What if Tehachapi once had a path to true water independence? In this episode of Follow the Water, we uncover the story of the IPR project—a long-planned, state-approved solution that promised stability and sustainability for Tehachapi's water.  Former Development Services Director Jay Schlosser walks us through how the project worked, why it mattered, and how political gridlock and shifting decisions ultimately stopped it in its tracks. Narrated by Key Budge, Community Engagement Director. Written, produced, and edited by Mya Acosta, Community Engagement Specialist. Featuring interviews and insights from Jay Schlosser, Executive Director of the Kern Council of Governments

AI can imitate your voice, your words, even your face, but it can't steal your story. What happens when companies hand their storytelling to machines that don't understand who they are? As businesses race to automate, they risk losing the very thing that makes them distinct: the human truth that built their brand.Listen For3:15 How are story, narrative, and voice different?7:00 What is brand drift and how does AI cause it?10:04 Why do people distrust AI-generated content?11:33 How does story protect brand identity?14:54 How can you fight disinformation about your brand?15:25 Answer to Last Episode's Question from Guest Jessica HopeGuest: Nick UsborneWebsite | Email | LinkedIn | Instagram | Link to Nick's CoursesFollow Farzana on SubstackFollow Doug on SubstackCurzon SubstackStories and Strategies WebsiteCurzon Public Relations WebsiteAre you a brand with a podcast that needs support? Book a meeting with Doug Downs to talk about it.Apply to be a guest on the podcastConnect with usLinkedIn | X | Instagram | You Tube | Facebook | Threads | Bluesky | PinterestRequest a transcript of this episodeSupport the show

Is the BBC losing its grip on journalistic credibility? Or is it being pushed?  This episode of The Week Unspun unpacks a chaotic week in media and politics with sharp insight from PR veterans Farzana Baduel, David Gallagher, Doug Downs, and special guest Adrian Monck. The BBC's controversial editing of a Donald Trump speech for Panorama sparks a fierce debate on ethics, institutional accountability, and media governance. From internal BBC politics to the broader implications for press freedom, the team dissects why this incident led to resignations at the highest levels.  The conversation then pivots to the political circus of the U.S. government shutdown and the erosion of trust in public institutions, before exploring the branding brilliance behind Dubai's appeal to wealthy expatriates fleeing taxation and uncertainty in the UK.  Audio Chapters4:06 Should One Edit lead to Top BBC resignations?13:49 Are Governments Held to the Same PR Standards as Corporations?17:45 Why are UK Tech Billionaires Fleeing to Dubai?20:58 Is the UAE Winning the Global Nation Branding Game?  Video Chapters2:02 What did the BBC really edit out of Trump's speech, and why does it matter?4:06 Should one error lead to top BBC resignations?13:49 Are governments held to the same PR standards as corporations?17:45 Why are UK tech billionaires fleeing to Dubai?20:58 Is the UAE winning the global nation branding game?Guest: Adrian MonckWikipedia | Website The Week Unspun is a weekly livestream every Friday at Noon ET/5pm BT. Check it out on our YouTube Channel or via this LinkedIn channel We publish the audio from these livestreams to the Stories and Strategies podcast feed every Friday until Sunday evening when it's no longer available. Folgate AdvisorsCurzon Public Relations WebsiteStories and Strategies WebsiteRequest a transcript of this livestreamSupport the show

In this episode of the Post-Grant Podcast, Andy Zappia and Bryan Smith break down the USPTO's proposed rule for IPR and PGR proceedings designed to limit multiple validity challenges to patents. They discuss how the proposed rule would limit access to those proceedings, including a mandatory stipulation requirement, an automatic denial of institution if another tribunal has rendered a determination on validity, timing-based denials when parallel cases are likely to finish first, and a proposed narrow "extraordinary circumstances" exception. They also discuss practical implications for forum selection and strategy ahead of the November 17 comment deadline for the proposed rule. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In public relations, success often depends on one quiet skill: knowing how to adapt. The best communicators read the room, sense the temperature, and adjust their tone without losing their message. In this episode, we explore what it really means to be a PR chameleon – someone who can blend into the cultural landscape enough to connect, yet still stand out enough to be remembered. Jessica Hope, founder of Wimbart, has built one of Africa's most respected tech PR agencies by mastering that balance. From WhatsApp-based storytelling to navigating privilege, identity, and power across 54 distinct markets, Jessica reveals how empathy, adaptability, and emotional intelligence have become the true currencies of influence in global communications. Listen For4:36 How Do You Break the “One Africa” Myth in PR?7:40 What Is Emotional Intelligence in African Business?9:22 How Do Comms Channels Differ in Africa?12:06 Should Brands Adjust Their Values in Africa?16:26 What's Africa's Media Landscape Really Like?18:30 Answer to Last Episode's Question from Jo JamiesonGuest: Jessica Hope, WimbartWebsite | Contact Page | Email | LinkedIn | X | InstagramChimamanda Ngozi Adichie Ted Talk Farzana mentionedhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9Ihs241zeg  Rate this podcast with just one click Follow Farzana on SubstackFollow Doug on SubstackCurzon SubstackStories and Strategies WebsiteCurzon Public Relations WebsiteAre you a brand with a podcast that needs support? Book a meeting with Doug Downs to talk about it.Apply to be a guest on the podcastConnect with usLinkedIn | X | Instagram | You Tube | Facebook | Threads | Bluesky | PinterestRequest a transcript of this episodeSupport the show

In this audience-driven “mailroom” episode of The Week Spun, the conversation opens with a provocative idea from the PRovoke Summit: AI is now being discussed in full-time equivalent (FTE) terms, signaling a shift in how agencies and organizations think about synthetic labor. Guest host Kim Sample, President of the PR Council, joins Doug Downs and David Gallagher to explore what this means for the future of work in PR.From there, the trio digs into listener-submitted questions on everything from Apple's conspicuous silence in the podcasting space, to why PR professionals struggle with personal branding, how fairness is driving consumer outrage, gender representation in politics, and the surprising TikTok-fueled backlash to a Halloween ad campaign from Hatch Sleep.Audio Episode Chapters 1:51 What is a “synthetic FTE” and how is AI reshaping PR teams 4:29 Are brands finally taking owned content like blogs and podcasts seriously 8:11 Does Apple still care about podcasts or is their silence a statement 13:05 Why do PR pros struggle with confidence and self promotion 21:03 Does visibility for women in politics actually equal shared power Video Episode Chapters1:54 What is a “Synthetic FTE” and How Will AI Change PR Teams? 5:16 Are Brands Finally Getting Serious About Owned Media and Podcasts? 10:51 Does Apple Still Care About Podcast? Or Are They Quietly Quitting? 13:15 Why Do PR Pros Struggle With Their Own Personal Branding? 26:14 Does Representation Equal Power in Politic? Or Just PR Optics? Guest Kim Sample, PR CouncilWebsite | Email | LinkedInThe Week Unspun is a weekly livestream every Friday at 10am ET/3pm BT. Check it out on our YouTube Channel or via this LinkedIn channelWe publish the audio from these livestreams to the Stories and Strategies podcast feed every Friday until Sunday evening when it's no longer available.Folgate AdvisorsCurzon Public Relations WebsiteStories and Strategies WebsiteRequest a transcript of this livestreamSupport the show

Afraid of posting on LinkedIn? You're not alone, and it's not about time or talent, it's about confidence.In this episode we look at why communicators, especially women, struggle to show up confidently on LinkedIn. Fear, not time or skill, is the biggest barrier to visibility. PR professionals who are used to writing for others often stumble when the byline is their own. From how to post authentically without oversharing, to navigating gendered expectations in professional visibility, to practical LinkedIn content strategies (yes, including algorithm hacks!), we've got smart, tactical advice for anyone looking to show up and stand out online. Whether you're battling imposter syndrome or just wondering what to post next, this conversation is your confidence booster and content guide in one.Listen For4:25 Why don't communicators post on LinkedIn?6:44 How do you stay authentic without oversharing?9:40 Why is visibility harder for women online?13:25 What's a simple LinkedIn strategy?16:07 Can you beat the LinkedIn algorithm?17:59 Answer to Last Episode's Question from Tina McCorkindaleGuest: Jo JamiesonEmail | X | LinkedIn | Website Rate this podcast with just one click Follow Farzana on SubstackFollow Doug on SubstackCurzon Substack Stories and Strategies WebsiteCurzon Public Relations WebsiteApply to be a guest on the podcastConnect with usLinkedIn | X | Instagram | You Tube | Facebook | Threads | Bluesky | PinterestRequest a transcript of this episodeSupport the show

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), created under the America Invents Act (AIA) of 2011, has long been a source of debate. The Supreme Court has reviewed several of its procedures, and Congress has introduced PTAB reform bills in every session since 2017.A core PTAB function is deciding Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions that challenge patent validity. Under new PTO leadership, IPR institution rates have sharply declined, prompting complaints from companies like SAP America and Motorola, which claim they were unfairly harmed by the shift and that the PTO has not provided adequate legal justification. PTO Director John Squires has defended the new direction, announcing he will personally decide all preliminary IPR institutions—a task previously handled by three-judge panels. The PTO has also proposed rules requiring petitioners to waive future prior art challenges to qualify for IPR institution.This webinar will examine the SAP and Motorola petitions, Director Squires’s policy memo, and their implications for PTAB reform, the AIA framework, and the constitutional foundations of U.S. patent law.Featuring: Arthur Gollwitzer, Partner, Jackson Walker LLPJamie Simpson, Chief Policy Officer and Counsel, The Council for Innovation PromotionRobert Taylor, Founder and Owner, RPT Legal Strategies PC[Moderator] Philip Nelson, Partner, Knobbe Martens

What do a billionaire climate pivot, AI-fueled layoffs, and a scandalous Italian election have in common? They all got the PR treatment in this episode.  Farzana Baduel, David Gallagher, and Doug Downs peel back the media layers behind some of the week's most buzzworthy stories, from Bill Gates' controversial “climate realism” memo and its impact on corporate sustainability narratives, to Amazon's AI-framed mass layoffs and what that messaging means for employer branding.  They also take a wildly entertaining detour into Italian politics where ex-lovers are facing off at the polls, with leaked documents and social media drama in full swing.  Add in royal baseball cap faux-pas and you've got a sharp, witty, and deeply PR-savvy breakdown of the week's biggest headlines. Listen For:58 Is Bill Gates backtracking? Or just reframing climate change?7:54 How is Amazon using AI to spin layoffs as progress?13:43 How does branding tie into an Italian political scandal?16:05 What if your opponent knows all your political secrets?19:26 Did Prince Harry's hat choice betray Canada?The Week Unspun is a weekly livestream every Friday at 10am ET/3pm BT. Check it out on our YouTube Channel or via this LinkedIn channelWe publish the audio from these livestreams to the Stories and Strategies podcast feed every Friday until Sunday evening when it's no longer available.Folgate AdvisorsCurzon Public Relations WebsiteStories and Strategies WebsiteRequest a transcript of this livestreamSupport the show

IPR's James Kelley shares his investigation into Flock surveillance cameras. Then, legal scholar Megan Graham on the legal limits of surveillance.

We live in a moment where artificial intelligence can write our emails, plan our meetings, even give us life advice. But here's the problem: these systems are often too agreeable for our own good. They're less like truth tellers and more like digital echo chambers. They nod along, validate our choices, and tell us exactly what we want to hear. To use an outdated term… GenAI is too often like a Yes Man.In this episode we're looking at the rise of sycophancy in generative AI, the tendency of machines to flatter us instead of challenging us. What does this mean for employees, for leaders, and especially for communicators who rely on AI as a tool? And how do we make sure our AI mirrors are giving us clarity, not just compliments? Listen For3:49 Is ChatGPT too nice for our own good?6:55 Can AI flattery mislead leaders?8:52 Do AIs just tell you what you want to hear?14:36 Is generative AI breaking social unity?20:45 Answer to Last Episode's Question from Mark Lowe Guest: Tina McCorkindale, PhDWebsite | LinkedIn | Google Scholar ProfileLink to Tina's LinkedIn article on The Danger of Sycophancy in GenAICheck out the IPR Video Series In a Car with IPR Rate this podcast with just one click Stories and Strategies WebsiteCurzon Public Relations WebsiteAre you a brand with a podcast that needs support? Book a meeting with Doug Downs to talk about it.Apply to be a guest on the podcastConnect with usLinkedIn | X | Instagram | You Tube | Facebook | Threads | Bluesky | PinterestRequest a transcript of this episodeSupport the show

In Episode 332, die zugleich die letzte Episode der 1. Staffel von Irgenwas mit ESG ist, beleuchtet mit Professor Leonhard Hübner von der Universität Augsburg zusammen mit Marc und Professorin Anne Mittwoch die Entstehung, Systematik und Zukunft des Lieferkettenrechts. Warum liegen dessen Wurzeln im völkerrechtlichen Soft Law? Warum zwangen Governance Gaps in Produktionsländern den Gesetzgeber zum Handeln? Wie verpflichtet das Lieferkettensorgfaltspflichtengesetz (LkSG) zu Risikoanalysen, Prävention und Abhilfe? Was ändert sich, wenn künftig die europäische CSDDD greift und eventuell eine Haftungspflicht einführt? Wird das IPR zur entscheidenden Weichenstellung für Geschädigte aus dem Ausland und schaffen Eingriffsnormen den Durchgriff auf deutsches Recht? Inwiefern beeinflusst Nachhaltigkeitswerbung den Mangelbegriff des Kaufrechts und könnte eine faire Jeans plötzlich mangelhaft sein, obwohl sie tadellos sitzt? Für Experten: Wie verknüpfen sich hier öffentlich-rechtliche Aufsicht, gesellschaftsrechtliche Schwellenwerte und klassische BGB-Dogmatik in Klausuren und Praxis? Antworten auf diese und viele weitere Fragen erhaltet Ihr in dieser Folge von IMR. Viel Spaß!

Can a cyclist-turned (accused) communist New York mayoral candidate teach the PR world a thing or two about emotional storytelling?  This week we unpack the “Mamdani effect” how Zohran Mamdani is rewriting the rules of political communications with cultural fluency, TikTok charm, and unforgettable soundbites.  Other topics, what are the comms implications of the Omnicom-IPG mega-merger, and what is the likely impact on agency identities, client retention, and the war for talent? From Alberta, Canada… a Teacher's Stike and the Government is paying parents. Is that to help them manage or is it a PR bribe? Are there ethical implications here? Listen For:34 What makes Mamdani a standout communicator?3:10 Can Mamdani's social strategy work outside NYC?10:00 What's the real impact of the Omnicom-IPG merger?14:55 Is Alberta's $30/day tactic good PR or spin?18:49 Are PR communities key in turbulent times? The Week Unspun is a weekly livestream every Friday at 10am ET/3pm BT. Check it out on our YouTube Channel or via this LinkedIn channelWe publish the audio from these livestreams to the Stories and Strategies podcast feed every Friday until Sunday evening when it's no longer available.Folgate AdvisorsCurzon Public Relations WebsiteStories and Strategies WebsiteRequest a transcript of this livestream Support the show

From Carnegie Hall to the Metropolitan Opera, renowned baritone Gordon Hawkins has shared the operatic stage with Mirella Freni, Placido Domingo, and Grace Bumbry. His roles over his career have included title roles in "Rigoletto" and "Porgy and Bess," as well as Alberich in the "Ring" cycle, Baron Scarpia in "Tosca" and Marcello in "La boheme." He currently serves on the faculty at Arizona State University. He visited IPR's Studio A, where he reflected on his distinguished career and recorded Samuel Barber's "Sure on this shining night" with collaborative pianist Casey Robards.

Is attention the new currency? Politicians, brands, influencers, even your neighbor's viral TikTok are all competing for the same scarce resource: your focus. But attention is slippery. It can make you a household name overnight and it can vanish just as quickly. In an age where algorithms decide what we see and artificial intelligence rewrites how we discover information, the fight for attention has never been more intense.What happens when public relations and communications agencies find themselves at the same crossroads media once faced? How do you win attention when the competition is everything else in the feed? How do you turn fleeting visibility into lasting credibility? And how do you build narratives that not only go viral but endure?Listen For5:14 What is attention as a commodity in PR?8:48 How has the attention economy changed branding?11:22 What can PR learn from politics?14:05 Are we paying too much for lost attention?17:51 Are attention spans shorter or content louder?18:53 Answer to Last Episode's Question from Richard BagnallGuest: Mark Lowe, Third CityWebsite | Email | X | Instagram | YouTubeRate this podcast with just one click Stories and Strategies WebsiteCurzon Public Relations WebsiteApply to be a guest on the podcastConnect with usLinkedIn | X | Instagram | You Tube | Facebook | Threads | Bluesky | PinterestRequest a transcript of this episodeSupport the show

The call for better measurement in public relations is not new. For decades, leaders in the field have warned that counting impressions, likes, and advertising value equivalents is not enough. Yet here we are, still leaning on the same empty numbers while the C-suite is asking for proof of outcomes that matter.  The urgency has been with us for years, but too often the industry has not listened to its own advice.  We aren't listening to ourselves! Now, as budgets are cut and communications teams risk being sidelined, the pressure to finally get measurement right has never been greater. Richard Bagnall is recognized as one of the world's foremost experts in PR measurement, past chair of AMEC, and co-creator of the Integrated Evaluation Framework. He has worked with global organizations from NATO to the World Bank and continues to remind practitioners that vanity metrics will not protect their budgets or their jobs.  Listen For4:48 Why does PR measurement matter now?7:27 What are outputs, outtakes, and outcomes?11:41 How do you measure with no budget?14:05 What is “crawl, walk, run”?18:40 Jonathan Mast's answer to last episode's question?Guest: Richard BagnallX | LinkedIn   Rate this podcast with just one click Stories and Strategies WebsiteCurzon Public Relations WebsiteApply to be a guest on the podcastConnect with usLinkedIn | X | Instagram | You Tube | Facebook | Threads | Bluesky | PinterestRequest a transcript of this episodeSupport the show

Violinist Blaise Sytsma-Reed, the 2025 winner of the Great Lakes Chamber Orchestra's annual Young Artist Competition, will be performing with the orchestra this weekend. She is a senior at Charlevoix High School and studies with David Reimer in the Dorothy Gerber Strings Program. Blaise visited IPR's Studio A to play her winning piece, the first movement of Lalo's Symphonie Espagnole, with collaborative pianist Ya-Ju Chuang. She spoke about how she balances music, sports, academics and life. She also talked about her eclectic musical tastes.

Search is changing faster than most PR professionals realize. For years, SEO was about keywords and backlinks. Now, with AI-driven tools like ChatGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity shaping how people find information, the game is shifting to AEO (Answer Engine Optimization).Instead of tricking algorithms, brands need to prove expertise, authority, and trustworthiness at every turn. To stay discoverable, we need to craft smarter prompts, produce content that actually engages, and choose the right AI tools for visibility. AI is rewriting the rules of credibility and your PR efforts might get left behind. Listen For5:32 What's the difference between SEO, AEO, and GEO?8:32 Is Google losing its dominance in the search space to tools like ChatGPT?11:24 Can AI-generated thought leadership be trusted?13:28How should PR professionals train AI tools to deliver better content results?18:19 Answer to Last Episode's Question from Susana MendozaGuest: Jonathan MastWebsite | Email | X | Facebook Rate this podcast with just one click Stories and Strategies WebsiteCurzon Public Relations WebsiteAre you a brand with a podcast that needs support? Book a meeting with Doug Downs to talk about it.Apply to be a guest on the podcastConnect with usLinkedIn | X | Instagram | You Tube | Facebook | Threads | Bluesky | PinterestRequest a transcript of this episodeSupport the show

Health insurance expert Pete Damiano shares what is at stake for healthcare as it is wrapped up in a Congressional impasse. Also, IPR's Isabella Luu gives the latest on the Ian Roberts case.

Getting Hispanic communications wrong is not just a slip. It can cost brands credibility, trust, and millions in wasted campaigns. Too often, companies think a simple translation is enough, only to find their carefully crafted message falls flat or even offends the very audience they are trying to reach. With more than 65 million Hispanics in the United States, representing one of the fastest growing and most influential communities, PR professionals cannot afford cultural blind spots.In this episode Susana Mendoza, who helps brands authentically connect with Hispanic audiences, shares where campaigns most often go wrong, how to segment messaging without stereotypes, and why understanding generational and cultural nuances is critical to success. From Univision and Telemundo to influencers and radio, Susana lays out the media landscape and offers practical insights for PR teams navigating sensitive issues such as immigration, healthcare, and public safety.Listen For4:38 Translation Traps & Cultural Missteps 8:27 The Power of Spanish-Language Radio 11:17 Can ChatGPT Really Translate Culture? 15:38 Build Trust Before the Campaign Starts 17:21 Answer to Last Episode's Question from Jackson Wightman Guest: Susana MendozaLinkedIn Rate this podcast with just one click Stories and Strategies WebsiteCurzon Public Relations WebsiteApply to be a guest on the podcastConnect with usLinkedIn | X | Instagram | You Tube | Facebook | Threads | Bluesky | PinterestRequest a transcript of this episodeSupport the show

What do Tylenol, Jimmy Kimmel, and Disney all have in common? They're all caught in the crosshairs of public opinion this week. On this episode hosts David Gallagher and Doug Downs are joined by B2B PR powerhouse Michelle Garrett to dissect a week of PR minefields. From President Trump's dangerous misinformation about Tylenol and pregnancy, to the backlash and brand gymnastics following Jimmy Kimmel's controversial monologue.  The trio also touches on the shifting global perception of American brands and how companies can (and must) navigate reputational risk in polarized times.  Listen For5:42 What did President Trump say about Tylenol? And how should PR teams respond to misinformation?14:52 Why did Jimmy Kimmel get pulled off the air, and what does it say about Disney's PR strategy?26:33 How can political polarization affect brand trust and corporate reputation?Special Guest Michelle GarrettWebsite | Email | X | LinkedInThe Week Unspun is a weekly livestream every Friday at 10am ET/3pm BT. Check it out on our YouTube Channel or via this LinkedIn channelWe publish the audio from these livestreams to the Stories and Strategies podcast feed every Friday until Sunday evening when it's no longer available. Folgate AdvisorsCurzon Public Relations WebsiteStories and Strategies WebsiteRequest a transcript of this livestream Support the show

What happens when your newsfeed becomes a battlefield?In the US and UK, political leaders trade accusations, social media thrives on outrage, and communities are left simmering in distrust. What used to be disagreements over policy now look more like open hostility, with violence creeping closer to the center of public life. Attacks on lawmakers, threats to schools, and the killing of high-profile figures are no longer shocking outliers but part of a troubling pattern.This episode asks a difficult but urgent question: how much of this violence is rooted in the way we communicate? Words frame identities, assign blame, and sometimes push people toward radical action. Sticks and stones may break bones… but in today's world, it's the words that are drawing blood. Listen For3:17 Identity-Based Polarization6:22 How Algorithms Divide Us10:20 The Rush to Blame14:49 Messaging That Can Prevent Violence19:33 Teaching Kids to Resist Radicalization and DisinformationGuest: Amy PateEmail | Website | X Rate this podcast with just one click Stories and Strategies WebsiteCurzon Public Relations WebsiteApply to be a guest on the podcastConnect with usLinkedIn | X | Instagram | You Tube | Facebook | Threads | Bluesky | PinterestRequest a transcript of this episodeSupport the show

Google Search still holds about 90% of global search volume as of mid‑2025, but change is underway as more users begin turning to AI. AI search is rewriting the rules of discovery, and PR needs to adapt. With ChatGPT, Gemini, and Perplexity each scraping different corners of the web, the old focus on big-name publications is no longer enough. The most influential sources may now be niche review sites, specialized forums, or content hubs you have never pitched. Knowing what each Large Language Model (LLM) values and how to optimize for it, is becoming a core PR skill.In this episode, we explore how Answer Engine Optimization (AEO) is reshaping PR. From the rise of “dual websites” for humans and bots to the ethical tensions between LLMs and media outlets, we discuss how PR teams can rethink targeting, adapt content, and position clients for visibility in an AI‑first world. Listen For5:49 Dual Websites: One for Humans, One for Machines8:39 LLMs as New Media Channels11:38 What AI Tools Scrape (and Why It Matters)14:45 Can Bots Get Past Paywalls? The Legal and Ethical Minefield17:01 Answer to Last Episode's Question From Heather Blundell Guest: Jackson Wightman, Founder Proper PropagandaWebsite | Email | LinkedIn  Rate this podcast with just one click Stories and Strategies WebsiteCurzon Public Relations WebsiteAre you a brand with a podcast that needs support? Book a meeting with Doug Downs to talk about it.Apply to be a guest on the podcastConnect with usLinkedIn | X | Instagram | You Tube | Facebook | Threads | Bluesky | PinterestRequest a transcript of this episodeSupport the show

Francois Daost is a W3C staff member and co-chair of the Web Developer Experience Community Group. We discuss the W3C's role and what it's like to go through the browser standardization process. Related links W3C TC39 Internet Engineering Task Force Web Hypertext Application Technology Working Group (WHATWG) Horizontal Groups Alliance for Open Media What is MPEG-DASH? | HLS vs. DASH Information about W3C and Encrypted Media Extensions (EME) Widevine PlayReady Media Source API Encrypted Media Extensions API requestVideoFrameCallback() Business Benefits of the W3C Patent Policy web.dev Baseline Portable Network Graphics Specification Internet Explorer 6 CSS Vendor Prefix WebRTC Transcript You can help correct transcripts on GitHub. Intro [00:00:00] Jeremy: today I'm talking to Francois Daoust. He's a staff member at the W3C. And we're gonna talk about the W3C and the recommendation process and discuss, Francois's experience with, with how these features end up in our browsers. [00:00:16] Jeremy: So, Francois, welcome [00:00:18] Francois: Thank you Jeremy and uh, many thanks for the invitation. I'm really thrilled to be part of this podcast. What's the W3C? [00:00:26] Jeremy: I think many of our listeners will have heard about the W3C, but they may not actually know what it is. So could you start by explaining what it is? [00:00:37] Francois: Sure. So W3C stands for the Worldwide Web Consortium. It's a standardization organization. I guess that's how people should think about W3C. it was created in 1994. I, by, uh, Tim Berners Lee, who was the inventor of the web. Tim Berners Lee was the, director of W3C for a long, long time. [00:01:00] Francois: He retired not long ago, a few years back. and W3C is, has, uh, a number of, uh. Properties, let's say first the goal is to produce royalty free standards, and that's very important. Uh, we want to make sure that, uh, the standard that get produced can be used and implemented without having to pay, fees to anyone. [00:01:23] Francois: We do web standards. I didn't mention it, but it's from the name. Standards that you find in your web browsers. But not only that, there are a number of other, uh, standards that got developed at W3C including, for example, XML. Data related standards. W3C as an organization is a consortium. [00:01:43] Francois: The, the C stands for consortium. Legally speaking, it's a, it's a 501c3 meaning in, so it's a US based, uh, legal entity not for profit. And the, the little three is important because it means it's public interest. That means we are a consortium, that means we have members, but at the same time, the goal, the mission is to the public. [00:02:05] Francois: So we're not only just, you know, doing what our members want. We are also making sure that what our members want is aligned with what end users in the end, need. and the W3C has a small team. And so I'm part of this, uh, of this team worldwide. Uh, 45 to 55 people, depending on how you count, mostly technical people and some, uh, admin, uh, as well, overseeing the, uh, the work, that we do, uh, at the W3C. Funding through membership fees [00:02:39] Jeremy: So you mentioned there's 45 to 55 people. How is this funded? Is this from governments or commercial companies? [00:02:47] Francois: The main source comes from membership fees. So the W3C has a, so members, uh, roughly 350 members, uh, at the W3C. And, in order to become a member, an organization needs to pay, uh, an annual membership fee. That's pretty common among, uh, standardization, uh, organizations. [00:03:07] Francois: And, we only have, uh, I guess three levels of membership, fees. Uh, well, you may find, uh, additional small levels, but three main ones. the goal is to make sure that, A big player will, not a big player or large company, will not have more rights than, uh, anything, anyone else. So we try to make sure that a member has the, you know, all members have equal, right? [00:03:30] Francois: if it's not perfect, but, uh, uh, that's how things are, are are set. So that's the main source of income for the W3C. And then we try to diversify just a little bit to get, uh, for example, we go to governments. We may go to governments in the u EU. We may, uh, take some, uh, grant for EU research projects that allow us, you know, to, study, explore topics. [00:03:54] Francois: Uh, in the US there, there used to be some, uh, some funding from coming from the government as well. So that, that's, uh, also, uh, a source. But the main one is, uh, membership fees. Relations to TC39, IETF, and WHATWG [00:04:04] Jeremy: And you mentioned that a lot of the W3C'S work is related to web standards. There's other groups like TC 39, which works on the JavaScript spec and the IETF, which I believe worked, with your group on WebRTC, I wonder if you could explain W3C'S connection to other groups like that. [00:04:28] Francois: sure. we try to collaborate with a, a number of, uh, standard other standardization organizations. So in general, everything goes well because you, you have, a clear separation of concerns. So you mentioned TC 39. Indeed. they are the ones who standardize, JavaScript. Proper name of JavaScript is the EcmaScript. [00:04:47] Francois: So that's tc. TC 39 is the technical committee at ecma. and so we have indeed interactions with them because their work directly impact the JavaScript that you're going to find in your, uh, run in your, in your web browser. And we develop a number of JavaScript APIs, uh, actually in W3C. [00:05:05] Francois: So we need to make sure that, the way we develop, uh, you know, these APIs align with the, the language itself. with IETF, the, the, the boundary is, uh, uh, is clear as well. It's a protocol and protocol for our network protocols for our, the IETF and application level. For W3C, that's usually how the distinction is made. [00:05:28] Francois: The boundaries are always a bit fuzzy, but that's how things work. And usually, uh, things work pretty well. Uh, there's also the WHATWG, uh, and the WHATWG is more the, the, the history was more complicated because, uh, t of a fork of the, uh, HTML specification, uh, at the time when it was developed by W3C, a long time ago. [00:05:49] Francois: And there was been some, uh, Well disagreement on the way things should have been done, and the WHATWG took over got created, took, took this the HTML spec and did it a different way. Went in another, another direction, and that other, other direction actually ended up being the direction. [00:06:06] Francois: So, that's a success, uh, from there. And so, W3C no longer works, no longer owns the, uh, HTML spec and the WHATWG has, uh, taken, uh, taken up a number of, uh, of different, core specifications for the web. Uh, doing a lot of work on the, uh, on interopoerability and making sure that, uh, the algorithm specified by the spec, were correct, which, which was something that historically we haven't been very good at at W3C. [00:06:35] Francois: And the way they've been working as a, has a lot of influence on the way we develop now, uh, the APIs, uh, from a W3C perspective. [00:06:44] Jeremy: So, just to make sure I understand correctly, you have TC 39, which is focused on the JavaScript or ECMAScript language itself, and you have APIs that are going to use JavaScript and interact with JavaScript. So you need to coordinate there. The, the have the specification for HTML. then the IATF, they are, I'm not sure if the right term would be, they, they would be one level lower perhaps, than the W3C. [00:07:17] Francois: That's how you, you can formulate it. Yes. The, the one layer, one layer layer in the ISO network in the ISO stack at the network level. How WebRTC spans the IETF and W3C [00:07:30] Jeremy: And so in that case, one place I've heard it mentioned is that webRTC, to, to use it, there is an IETF specification, and then perhaps there's a W3C recommendation and [00:07:43] Francois: Yes. so when we created the webRTC working group, that was in 2011, I think, it was created with a dual head. There was one RTC web, group that got created at IETF and a webRTC group that got created at W3C. And that was done on purpose. Of course, the goal was not to compete on the, on the solution, but actually to, have the two sides of the, uh, solution, be developed in parallel, the API, uh, the application front and the network front. [00:08:15] Francois: And there was a, and there's still a lot of overlap in, uh, participation between both groups, and that's what keep things successful. In the end. It's not, uh, you know, process or organization to organization, uh, relationships, coordination at the organization level. It's really the fact that you have participants that are essentially the same, on both sides of the equation. [00:08:36] Francois: That helps, uh, move things forward. Now, webRTC is, uh, is more complex than just one group at IETF. I mean, web, webRTC is a very complex set of, uh, of technologies, stack of technologies. So when you, when you. Pull a little, uh, protocol from IETFs. Suddenly you have the whole IETF that comes with you with it. [00:08:56] Francois: So you, it's the, you have the feeling that webRTC needs all of the, uh, internet protocols that got, uh, created to work Recommendations [00:09:04] Jeremy: And I think probably a lot of web developers, they may hear words like specification or standard, but I believe the, the official term, at least at the W3C, is this recommendation. And so I wonder if you can explain what that means. [00:09:24] Francois: Well. It means it means standard in the end. and that came from industry. That comes from a time where. As many standardization organizations. W3C was created not to be a standardization organization. It was felt that standard was not the right term because we were not a standardization organization. [00:09:45] Francois: So recommend IETF has the same thing. They call it RFC, request for comment, which, you know, stands for nothing in, and yet it's a standard. So W3C was created with the same kind of, uh thing. We needed some other terminology and we call that recommendation. But in the end, that's standard. It's really, uh, how you should see it. [00:10:08] Francois: And one thing I didn't mention when I, uh, introduced the W3C is there are two types of standards in the end, two main categories. There are, the de jure standards and defacto standards, two families. The de jure standards are the ones that are imposed by some kind of regulation. so it's really usually a standard you see imposed by governments, for example. [00:10:29] Francois: So when you look at your electric plug at home, there's some regulation there that says, this plug needs to have these properties. And that's a standard that gets imposed. It's a de jure standard. and then there are defacto standards which are really, uh, specifications that are out there and people agree to use it to implement it. [00:10:49] Francois: And by virtue of being used and implemented and used by everyone, they become standards. the, W3C really is in the, uh, second part. It's a defacto standard. IETF is the same thing. some of our standards are used in, uh, are referenced in regulations now, but, just a, a minority of them, most of them are defacto standards. [00:11:10] Francois: and that's important because that's in the end, it doesn't matter what the specific specification says, even though it's a bit confusing. What matters is that the, what the specifications says matches what implementations actually implement, and that these implementations are used, and are used interoperably across, you know, across browsers, for example, or across, uh, implementations, across users, across usages. [00:11:36] Francois: So, uh, standardization is a, is a lengthy process. The recommendation is the final stage in that, lengthy process. More and more we don't really reach recommendation anymore. If you look at, uh, at groups, uh, because we have another path, let's say we kind of, uh, we can stop at candidate recommendation, which is in theoretically a step before that. [00:12:02] Francois: But then you, you can stay there and, uh, stay there forever and publish new candidate recommendations. Um, uh, later on. What matters again is that, you know, you get this, virtuous feedback loop, uh, with implementers, and usage. [00:12:18] Jeremy: So if the candidate recommendation ends up being implemented by all the browsers, what's ends up being the distinction between a candidate and one that's a normal recommendation. [00:12:31] Francois: So, today it's mostly a process thing. Some groups actually decide to go to rec Some groups decide to stay at candidate rec and there's no formal difference between the, the two. we've made sure we've adopted, adjusted the process so that the important bits that, applied at the recommendation level now apply at the candidate rec level. Royalty free patent access [00:13:00] Francois: And by important things, I mean the patent commitments typically, uh, the patent policy fully applies at the candidate recommendation level so that you get your, protection, the royalty free patent protection that we, we were aiming at. [00:13:14] Francois: Some people do not care, you know, but most of the world still works with, uh, with patents, uh, for good, uh, or bad reasons. But, uh, uh, that's how things work. So we need to make, we're trying to make sure that we, we secure the right set of, um, of patent commitments from the right set of stakeholders. [00:13:35] Jeremy: Oh, so when someone implements a W3C recommendation or a candidate recommendation, the patent holders related to that recommendation, they basically agree to allow royalty-free use of that patent. [00:13:54] Francois: They do the one that were involved in the working group, of course, I mean, we can't say anything about the companies out there that may have patents and uh, are not part of this standardization process. So there's always, It's a remaining risk. but part of the goal when we create a working group is to make sure that, people understand the scope. [00:14:17] Francois: Lawyers look into it, and the, the legal teams that exist at the all the large companies, basically gave a green light saying, yeah, we, we we're pretty confident that we, we know where the patterns are on this particular, this particular area. And we are fine also, uh, letting go of the, the patterns we own ourselves. Implementations are built in parallel with standardization [00:14:39] Jeremy: And I think you had mentioned. What ends up being the most important is that the browser creators implement these recommendations. So it sounds like maybe the distinction between candidate recommendation and recommendation almost doesn't matter as long as you get the end result you want. [00:15:03] Francois: So, I mean, people will have different opinions, uh, in the, in standardization circles. And I mentioned also W3C is working on other kind of, uh, standards. So, uh, in some other areas, the nuance may be more important when we, but when, when you look at specification, that's target, web browsers. we've switched from a model where, specs were developed first and then implemented to a model where specs and implementing implementations are being, worked in parallel. [00:15:35] Francois: This actually relates to the evolution I was mentioning with the WHATWG taking over the HTML and, uh, focusing on the interoperability issues because the starting point was, yeah, we have an HTML 4.01 spec, uh, but it's not interoperable because it, it's not specified, are number of areas that are gray areas, you can implement them differently. [00:15:59] Francois: And so there are interoperable issues. Back to candidate rec actually, the, the, the, the stage was created, if I remember correctly. uh, if I'm, if I'm not wrong, the stage was created following the, uh, IE problem. In the CSS working group, IE6, uh, shipped with some, version of a CSS that was in the, as specified, you know, the spec was saying, you know, do that for the CSS box model. [00:16:27] Francois: And the IE6 was following that. And then the group decided to change, the box model and suddenly IE6 was no longer compliant. And that created a, a huge mess on the, in the history of, uh, of the web in a way. And so the, we, the, the, the, the candidate recommendation sta uh, stage was introduced following that to try to catch this kind of problems. [00:16:52] Francois: But nowadays, again, we, we switch to another model where it's more live. and so we, you, you'll find a number of specs that are not even at candidate rec level. They are at the, what we call a working draft, and they, they are being implemented, and if all goes well, the standardization process follows the implementation, and then you end up in a situation where you have your candidate rec when the, uh, spec ships. [00:17:18] Francois: a recent example would be a web GPU, for example. It, uh, it has shipped in, uh, in, in Chrome shortly before it transition to a candidate rec. But the, the, the spec was already stable. and now it's shipping uh, in, uh, in different browsers, uh, uh, safari, uh, and uh, and uh, and uh, Firefox. And so that's, uh, and that's a good example of something that follows, uh, things, uh, along pretty well. But then you have other specs such as, uh, in the media space, uh, request video frame back, uh, frame, call back, uh, requestVideoFrameCallback() is a short API that allows you to get, you know, a call back whenever the, the browser renders a video frame, essentially. [00:18:01] Francois: And that spec is implemented across browsers. But from a W3C specific, perspective, it does not even exist. It's not on the standardization track. It's still being incubated in what we call a community group, which is, you know, some something that, uh, usually exists before. we move to the, the standardization process. [00:18:21] Francois: So there, there are examples of things where some things fell through the cracks. All the standardization process, uh, is either too early or too late and things that are in spec are not exactly what what got implemented or implementations are too early in the process. We we're doing a better job, at, Not falling into a trap where someone ships, uh, you know, an implementation and then suddenly everything is frozen. You can no longer, change it because it's too late, it shipped. we've tried, different, path there. Um, mentioned CSS, the, there was this kind of vendor prefixed, uh, properties that used to be, uh, the way, uh, browsers were deploying new features without, you know, taking the final name. [00:19:06] Francois: We are trying also to move away from it because same thing. Then in the end, you end up with, uh, applications that have, uh, to duplicate all the properties, the CSS properties in the style sheets with, uh, the vendor prefixes and nuances in the, in what it does in, in the end. [00:19:23] Jeremy: Yeah, I, I think, is that in CSS where you'll see --mozilla or things like that? Why requestVideoFrameCallback doesn't have a formal specification [00:19:30] Jeremy: The example of the request video frame callback. I, I wonder if you have an opinion or, or, or know why that ended up the way it did, where the browsers all implemented it, even though it was still in the incubation stage. [00:19:49] Francois: On this one, I don't have a particular, uh, insights on whether there was a, you know, a strong reason to implement it,without doing the standardization work. [00:19:58] Francois: I mean, there are, it's not, uh, an IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) issue. It's not, uh, something that, uh, I don't think the, the, the spec triggers, uh, you know, problems that, uh, would be controversial or whatever. [00:20:10] Francois: Uh, so it's just a matter of, uh, there was no one's priority, and in the end, you end up with a, everyone's happy. it's, it has shipped. And so now doing the spec work is a bit,why spend time on something that's already shipped and so on, but the, it may still come back at some point with try to, you know, improve the situation. [00:20:26] Jeremy: Yeah, that's, that's interesting. It's a little counterintuitive because it sounds like you have the, the working group and it, it sounds like perhaps the companies or organizations involved, they maybe agreed on how it should work, and maybe that agreement almost made it so that they felt like they didn't need to move forward with the specification because they came to consensus even before going through that. [00:20:53] Francois: In this particular case, it's probably because it's really, again, it's a small, spec. It's just one function call, you know? I mean, they will definitely want a working group, uh, for larger specifications. by the way, actually now I know re request video frame call back. It's because the, the, the final goal now that it's, uh, shipped, is to merge it into, uh, HTML, uh, the HTML spec. [00:21:17] Francois: So there's a, there's an ongoing issue on the, the WHATWG side to integrate request video frame callback. And it's taking some time but see, it's, it's being, it, it caught up and, uh, someone is doing the, the work to, to do it. I had forgotten about this one. Um, [00:21:33] Jeremy: Tension from specification review (horizontal review) [00:21:33] Francois: so with larger specifications, organizations will want this kind of IPR regime they will want commit commitments from, uh, others, on the scope, on the process, on everything. So they will want, uh, a larger, a, a more formal setting, because that's part of how you ensure that things, uh, will get done properly. [00:21:53] Francois: I didn't mention it, but, uh, something we're really, uh, Pushy on, uh, W3C I mentioned we have principles, we have priorities, and we have, uh, specific several, uh, properties at W3C. And one of them is that we we're very strong on horizontal reviews of our specs. We really want them to be reviewed from an accessibility perspective, from an internationalization perspective, from a privacy and security, uh, perspective, and, and, and a technical architecture perspective as well. [00:22:23] Francois: And that's, these reviews are part of the formal process. So you, all specs need to undergo these reviews. And from time to time, that creates tension. Uh, from time to time. It just works, you know. Goes without problem. a recurring issue is that, privacy and security are hard. I mean, it's not an easy problem, something that can be, uh, solved, uh, easily. [00:22:48] Francois: Uh, so there's a, an ongoing tension and no easy way to resolve it, but there's an ongoing tension between, specifying powerful APIs and preserving privacy without meaning, not exposing too much information to applications in the media space. You can think of the media capabilities, API. So the media space is a complicated space. [00:23:13] Francois: Space because of codecs. codecs are typically not relative free. and so browsers decide which codecs they're going to support, which audio and video codecs they, they're going to support and doing that, that creates additional fragmentation, not in the sense that they're not interoperable, but in the sense that applications need to choose which connect they're going to ship to stream to the end user. [00:23:39] Francois: And, uh, it's all the more complicated that some codecs are going to be hardware supported. So you will have a hardware decoder in your, in your, in your laptop or smartphone. And so that's going to be efficient to decode some, uh, some stream, whereas some code are not, are going to be software, based, supported. [00:23:56] Francois: Uh, and that may consume a lot of CPU and a lot of power and a lot of energy in the end. So you, you want to avoid that if you can, uh, select another thing. Even more complex than, codecs have different profiles, uh, lower end profiles higher end profiles with different capabilities, different features, uh, depending on whether you're going to use this or that color space, for example, this or that resolution, whatever. [00:24:22] Francois: And so you want to surface that to web applications because otherwise, they can't. Select, they can't choose, the right codec and the right, stream that they're going to send to the, uh, client devices. And so they're not going to provide an efficient user experience first, and even a sustainable one in terms of energy because they, they're going to waste energy if they don't send the right stream. [00:24:45] Francois: So you want to surface that to application. That's what the media, media capabilities, APIs, provides. Privacy concerns [00:24:51] Francois: Uh, but at the same time, if you expose that information, you end up with ways to fingerprint the end user's device. And that in turn is often used to track users across, across sites, which is exactly what we don't want to have, uh, for privacy reasons, for obvious privacy reasons. [00:25:09] Francois: So you have to balance that and find ways to, uh, you know, to expose. Capabilities without, without necessarily exposing them too much. Uh, [00:25:21] Jeremy: Can you give an example of how some of those discussions went? Like within the working group? Who are the companies or who are the organizations that are arguing for We shouldn't have this capability because of the privacy concerns, or [00:25:40] Francois: In a way all of the companies, have a vision of, uh, of privacy. I mean, the, you will have a hard time finding, you know, members saying, I don't care about privacy. I just want the feature. Uh, they all have privacy in mind, but they may have a different approach to privacy. [00:25:57] Francois: so if you take, uh, let's say, uh, apple and Google would be the, the, I guess the perfect examples in that, uh, in that space, uh, Google will have a, an approach that is more open-ended thing. The, the user agents has this, uh, should check what the, the, uh, given site is doing. And then if it goes beyond, you know, some kind of threshold, they're going to say, well, okay, well, we'll stop exposing data to that, to that, uh, to that site. [00:26:25] Francois: So that application. So monitor and react in a way. apple has a more, uh, you know, has a stricter view on, uh, on privacy, let's say. And they will say, no, we, the, the, the feature must not exist in the first place. Or, but that's, I mean, I guess, um, it's not always that extreme. And, uh, from time to time it's the opposite. [00:26:45] Francois: You will have, uh, you know, apple arguing in one way, uh, which is more open-ended than the, uh, than, uh, than Google, for example. And they are not the only ones. So in working groups, uh, you will find the, usually the implementers. Uh, so when we talk about APIs that get implemented in browsers, you want the core browsers to be involved. [00:27:04] Francois: Uh, otherwise it's usually not a good sign for, uh, the success of the, uh, of the technology. So in practice, that means Apple, uh, Microsoft, Mozilla which one did I forget? [00:27:15] Jeremy: Google. [00:27:16] Francois: I forgot Google. Of course. Thank you. that's, uh, that the, the core, uh, list of participants you want to have in any, uh, group that develops web standards targeted at web browsers. Who participates in working groups and how much power do they have? [00:27:28] Francois: And then on top of that, you want, organizations and people who are directly going to use it, either because they, well the content providers. So in media, for example, if you look at the media working group, you'll see, uh, so browser vendors, the ones I mentioned, uh, content providers such as the BBC or Netflix. [00:27:46] Francois: Chip set vendors would, uh, would be there as well. Intel, uh, Nvidia again, because you know, there's a hardware decoding in there and encoding. So media is, touches on, on, uh, on hardware, uh, device manufacturer in general. You may, uh, I think, uh, I think Sony is involved in the, in the media working group, for example. [00:28:04] Francois: and these companies are usually less active in the spec development. It depends on the groups, but they're usually less active because the ones developing the specs are usually the browser again, because as I mentioned, we develop the specs in parallel to browsers implementing it. So they have the. [00:28:21] Francois: The feedback on how to formulate the, the algorithms. and so that's this collection of people who are going to discuss first within themselves. W3C pushes for consensual dis decisions. So we hardly take any votes in the working groups, but from time to time, that's not enough. [00:28:41] Francois: And there may be disagreements, but let's say there's agreement in the group, uh, when the spec matches. horizontal review groups will look at the specs. So these are groups I mentioned, accessibility one, uh, privacy, internationalization. And these groups, usually the participants are, it depends. [00:29:00] Francois: It can be anything. It can be, uh, the same companies. It can be, but usually different people from the same companies. But it the, maybe organizations with a that come from very, a very different angle. And that's a good thing because that means the, you know, you enlarge the, the perspectives on your, uh, on the, on the technology. [00:29:19] Francois: and you, that's when you have a discussion between groups, that takes place. And from time to time it goes well from time to time. Again, it can trigger issues that are hard to solve. and the W3C has a, an escalation process in case, uh, you know, in case things degenerate. Uh, starting with, uh, the notion of formal objection. [00:29:42] Jeremy: It makes sense that you would have the, the browser. Vendors and you have all the different companies that would use that browser. All the different horizontal groups like you mentioned, the internationalization, accessibility. I would imagine that you were talking about consensus and there are certain groups or certain companies that maybe have more say or more sway. [00:30:09] Jeremy: For example, if you're a browser, manufacturer, your Google. I'm kind of curious how that works out within the working group. [00:30:15] Francois: Yes, it's, I guess I would be lying if I were saying that, uh, you know, all companies are strictly equal in a, in a, in a group. they are from a process perspective, I mentioned, you know, different membership fees with were design, special specific ethos so that no one could say, I'm, I'm putting in a lot of money, so you, you need to re you need to respect me, uh, and you need to follow what I, what I want to, what I want to do. [00:30:41] Francois: at the same time, if you take a company like, uh, like Google for example, they send, hundreds of engineers to do standardization work. That's absolutely fantastic because that means work progresses and it's, uh, extremely smart people. So that's, uh, that's really a pleasure to work with, uh, with these, uh, people. [00:30:58] Francois: But you need to take a step back and say, well, the problem is. Defacto that gives them more power just by virtue of, uh, injecting more resources into it. So having always someone who can respond to an issue, having always someone, uh, editing a spec defacto that give them more, uh, um, more say on the, on the directions that, get forward. [00:31:22] Francois: And on top of that, of course, they have the, uh, I guess not surprisingly, the, the browser that is, uh, used the most, currently, on the market so there's a little bit of a, the, the, we, we, we, we try very hard to make sure that, uh, things are balanced. it's not a perfect world. [00:31:38] Francois: the the role of the team. I mean, I didn't talk about the role of the team, but part of it is to make sure that. Again, all perspectives are represented and that there's not, such a, such big imbalance that, uh, that something is wrong and that we really need to look into it. so making sure that anyone, if they have something to say, make making sure that they are heard by the rest of the group and not dismissed. [00:32:05] Francois: That usually goes well. There's no problem with that. And again, the escalation process I mentioned here doesn't make any, uh, it doesn't make any difference between, uh, a small player, a large player, a big player, and we have small companies raising formal objections against some of our aspects that happens, uh, all large ones. [00:32:24] Francois: But, uh, that happens too. There's no magical solution, I guess you can tell it by the way. I, uh, I don't know how to formulate the, the process more. It's a human process, and that's very important that it remains a human process as well. [00:32:41] Jeremy: I suppose the role of, of staff and someone in your position, for example, is to try and ensure that these different groups are, are heard and it isn't just one group taking control of it. [00:32:55] Francois: That's part of the role, again, is to make sure that, uh, the, the process is followed. So the, I, I mean, I don't want to give the impression that the process controls everything in the groups. I mean, the, the, the groups are bound by the process, but the process is there to catch problems when they arise. [00:33:14] Francois: most of the time there are no problems. It's just, you know, again, participants talking to each other, talking with the rest of the community. Most of the work happens in public nowadays, in any case. So the groups work in public essentially through asynchronous, uh, discussions on GitHub repositories. [00:33:32] Francois: There are contributions from, you know, non group participants and everything goes well. And so the process doesn't kick in. You just never say, eh, no, you didn't respect the process there. You, you closed the issue. You shouldn't have a, it's pretty rare that you have to do that. Uh, things just proceed naturally because they all, everyone understands where they are, why, what they're doing, and why they're doing it. [00:33:55] Francois: we still have a role, I guess in the, in the sense that from time to time that doesn't work and you have to intervene and you have to make sure that,the, uh, exception is caught and, uh, and processed, uh, in the right way. Discussions are public on github [00:34:10] Jeremy: And you said this process is asynchronous in public, so it sounds like someone, I, I mean, is this in GitHub issues or how, how would somebody go and, and see what the results of [00:34:22] Francois: Yes, there, there are basically a gazillion of, uh, GitHub repositories under the, uh, W3C, uh, organization on GitHub. Most groups are using GitHub. I mean, there's no, it's not mandatory. We don't manage any, uh, any tooling. But the factors that most, we, we've been transitioning to GitHub, uh, for a number of years already. [00:34:45] Francois: Uh, so that's where the work most of the work happens, through issues, through pool requests. Uh, that's where. people can go and raise issues against specifications. Uh, we usually, uh, also some from time to time get feedback from developers and countering, uh, a bug in a particular implementations, which we try to gently redirect to, uh, the actual bug trackers because we're not responsible for the respons implementations of the specs unless the spec is not clear. [00:35:14] Francois: We are responsible for the spec itself, making sure that the spec is clear and that implementers well, understand how they should implement something. Why the W3C doesn't specify a video or audio codec [00:35:25] Jeremy: I can see how people would make that mistake because they, they see it's the feature, but that's not the responsibility of the, the W3C to implement any of the specifications. Something you had mentioned there's the issue of intellectual property rights and how when you have a recommendation, you require the different organizations involved to make their patents available to use freely. [00:35:54] Jeremy: I wonder why there was never any kind of, recommendation for audio or video codecs in browsers since you have certain ones that are considered royalty free. But, I believe that's never been specified. [00:36:11] Francois: At W3C you mean? Yes. we, we've tried, I mean, it's not for lack of trying. Um, uh, we've had a number of discussions with, uh, various stakeholders saying, Hey, we, we really need, an audio or video code for our, for the web. the, uh, png PNG is an example of a, um, an image format which got standardized at W3C and it got standardized at W3C similar reasons. There had to be a royalty free image format for the web, and there was none at the time. of course, nowadays, uh, jpeg, uh, and gif or gif, whatever you call it, are well, you know, no problem with them. But, uh, um, that at the time P PNG was really, uh, meant to address this issue and it worked for PNG for audio and video. [00:37:01] Francois: We haven't managed to secure, commitments by stakeholders. So willingness to do it, so it's not, it's not lack of willingness. We would've loved to, uh, get, uh, a royalty free, uh, audio codec, a royalty free video codec again, audio and video code are extremely complicated because of this. [00:37:20] Francois: not only because of patterns, but also because of the entire business ecosystem that exists around them for good reasons. You, in order for a, a codec to be supported, deployed, effective, it really needs, uh, it needs to mature a lot. It needs to, be, uh, added to at a hardware level, to a number of devices, capturing devices, but also, um, uh, uh, of course players. [00:37:46] Francois: And that takes a hell of a lot of time and that's why you also enter a number of business considerations with business contracts between entities. so I'm personally, on a personal level, I'm, I'm pleased to see, for example, the Alliance for Open Media working on, uh, uh, AV1, uh, which is. At least they, uh, they wanted to be royalty free and they've been adopting actually the W3C patent policy to do this work. [00:38:11] Francois: So, uh, we're pleased to see that, you know, they've been adopting the same process and same thing. AV1 is not yet at the same, support stage, as other, codecs, in the world Yeah, I mean in devices. There's an open question as what, what are we going to do, uh, in the future uh, with that, it's, it's, it's doubtful that, uh, the W3C will be able to work on a, on a royalty free audio, codec or royalty free video codec itself because, uh, probably it's too late now in any case. [00:38:43] Francois: but It's one of these angles in the, in the web platform where we wish we had the, uh, the technology available for, for free. And, uh, it's not exactly, uh, how things work in practice.I mean, the way codecs are developed remains really patent oriented. [00:38:57] Francois: and you will find more codecs being developed. and that's where geopolitics can even enter the, the, uh, the play. Because, uh, if you go to China, you will find new codecs emerging, uh, that get developed within China also, because, the other codecs come mostly from the US so it's a bit of a problem and so on. [00:39:17] Francois: I'm not going to enter details and uh, I would probably say stupid things in any case. Uh, but that, uh, so we continue to see, uh, emerging codecs that are not royalty free, and it's probably going to remain the case for a number of years. unfortunately, unfortunately, from a W3C perspective and my perspective of course. [00:39:38] Jeremy: There's always these new, formats coming out and the, rate at which they get supported in the browser, even on a per browser basis is, is very, there can be a long time between, for example, WebP being released and a browser supporting it. So, seems like maybe we're gonna be in that situation for a while where the codecs will come out and maybe the browsers will support them. Maybe they won't, but the, the timeline is very uncertain. Digital Rights Management (DRM) and Media Source Extensions [00:40:08] Jeremy: Something you had, mentioned, maybe this was in your, email to me earlier, but you had mentioned that some of these specifications, there's, there's business considerations like with, digital rights management and, media source extensions. I wonder if you could talk a little bit about maybe what media source extensions is and encrypted media extensions and, and what the, the considerations or challenges are there. [00:40:33] Francois: I'm going to go very, very quickly over the history of a, video and audio support on the web. Initially it was supported through plugins. you are maybe too young to, remember that. But, uh, we had extensions, added to, uh, a realplayer. [00:40:46] Francois: This kind of things flash as well, uh, supporting, uh, uh, videos, in web pages, but it was not provided by the web browsers themselves. Uh, then HTML5 changed the, the situation. Adding these new tags, audio and video, but that these tags on this, by default, support, uh, you give them a resources, a resource, like an image as it's an audio or a video file. [00:41:10] Francois: They're going to download this, uh, uh, video file or audio file, and they're going to play it. That works well. But as soon as you want to do any kind of real streaming, files are too large and to stream, to, to get, you know, to get just a single fetch on, uh, on them. So you really want to stream them chunk by chunk, and you want to adapt the resolution at which you send the stream based on real time conditions of the user's network. [00:41:37] Francois: If there's plenty of bandwidth you want to send the user, the highest possible resolution. If there's a, some kind of hiccup temporary in the, in the network, you really want to lower the resolution, and that's called adaptive streaming. And to get adaptive streaming on the web, well, there are a number of protocols that exist. [00:41:54] Francois: Same thing. Some many of them are proprietary and actually they remain proprietary, uh, to some extent. and, uh, some of them are over http and they are the ones that are primarily used in, uh, in web contexts. So DASH comes to mind, DASH for Dynamic Adaptive streaming over http. HLS is another one. Uh, initially developed by Apple, I believe, and it's, uh, HTTP live streaming probably. Exactly. And, so there are different protocols that you can, uh, you can use. Uh, so the goal was not to standardize these protocols because again, there were some proprietary aspects to them. And, uh, same thing as with codecs. [00:42:32] Francois: There was no, well, at least people wanted to have the, uh, flexibility to tweak parameters, adaptive streaming parameters the way they wanted for different scenarios. You may want to tweak the parameters differently. So they, they needed to be more flexibility on top of protocols not being truly available for use directly and for implementation directly in browsers. [00:42:53] Francois: It was also about providing applications with, uh, the flexibility they would need to tweak parameters. So media source extensions comes into play for exactly that. Media source extensions is really about you. The application fetches chunks of its audio and video stream the way it wants, and with the parameters it wants, and it adjusts whatever it wants. [00:43:15] Francois: And then it feeds that into the, uh, video or audio tag. and the browser takes care of the rest. So it's really about, doing, you know, the adaptive streaming. let applications do it, and then, uh, let the user agent, uh, the browser takes, take care of the rendering itself. That's media source extensions. [00:43:32] Francois: Initially it was pushed by, uh, Netflix. They were not the only ones of course, but there, there was a, a ma, a major, uh, proponent of this, uh, technical solution, because they wanted, uh, they, uh, they were, expanding all over the world, uh, with, uh, plenty of native, applications on all sorts of, uh, of, uh, devices. [00:43:52] Francois: And they wanted to have a way to stream content on the web as well. both for both, I guess, to expand to, um, a new, um, ecosystem, the web, uh, providing new opportunities, let's say. But at the same time also to have a fallback, in case they, because for native support on different platforms, they sometimes had to enter business agreements with, uh, you know, the hardware manufacturers, the whatever, the, uh, service provider or whatever. [00:44:19] Francois: and so that was a way to have a full back. That kind of work is more open, in case, uh, things take some time and so on. So, and they probably had other reasons. I mean, I'm not, I can't speak on behalf of Netflix, uh, on others, but they were not the only ones of course, uh, supporting this, uh, me, uh, media source extension, uh, uh, specification. [00:44:42] Francois: and that went kind of, well, I think it was creating 2011. I mean, the, the work started in 2011 and the recommendation was published in 2016, which is not too bad from a standardization perspective. It means only five years, you know, it's a very short amount of time. Encrypted Media Extensions [00:44:59] Francois: At the same time, and in parallel and complement to the media source extension specifications, uh, there was work on the encrypted media extensions, and here it was pushed by the same proponent in a way because they wanted to get premium content on the web. [00:45:14] Francois: And by premium content, you think of movies and, uh. These kind of beasts. And the problem with the, I guess the basic issue with, uh, digital asset such as movies, is that they cost hundreds of millions to produce. I mean, some cost less of course. And yet it's super easy to copy them if you have a access to the digital, uh, file. [00:45:35] Francois: You just copy and, uh, and that's it. Piracy uh, is super easy, uh, to achieve. It's illegal of course, but it's super easy to do. And so that's where the different legislations come into play with digital right management. Then the fact is most countries allow system that, can encrypt content and, uh, through what we call DRM systems. [00:45:59] Francois: so content providers, uh, the, the ones that have movies, so the studios here more, more and more, and Netflix is one, uh, one of the studios nowadays. Um, but not only, not only them all major studios will, uh, would, uh, push for, wanted to have something that would allow them to stream encrypted content, encrypted audio and video, uh, mostly video, to, uh, to web applications so that, uh, you. [00:46:25] Francois: Provide the movies, otherwise, they, they are just basically saying, and sorry, but, uh, this premium content will never make it to the web because there's no way we're gonna, uh, send it in clear, to, uh, to the end user. So Encrypting media extensions is, uh, is an API that allows to interface with, uh, what's called the content decryption module, CDM, uh, which itself interacts with, uh, the DR DRM systems that, uh, the browser may, may or may not support. [00:46:52] Francois: And so it provides a way for an application to receive encrypted content, pass it over get the, the, the right keys, the right license keys from a whatever system actually. Pass that logic over to the, and to the user agent, which passes, passes it over to, uh, the CDM system, which is kind of black box in, uh, that does its magic to get the right, uh, decryption key and then the, and to decrypt the content that can be rendered. [00:47:21] Francois: The encrypted media extensions triggered a, a hell of a lot of, uh, controversy. because it's DRM and DRM systems, uh, many people, uh, uh, things should be banned, uh, especially on the web because the, the premise of the web is that the, the user has trusts, a user agent. The, the web browser is called the user agent in all our, all our specifications. [00:47:44] Francois: And that's, uh, that's the trust relationship. And then they interact with a, a content provider. And so whatever they do with the content is their, I guess, actually their problem. And DRM introduces a third party, which is, uh, there's, uh, the, the end user no longer has the control on the content. [00:48:03] Francois: It has to rely on something else that, Restricts what it can achieve with the content. So it's, uh, it's not only a trust relationship with its, uh, user agents, it's also with, uh, with something else, which is the content provider, uh, in the end, the one that has the, uh, the license where provides the license. [00:48:22] Francois: And so that's, that triggers, uh, a hell of a lot of, uh, of discussions in the W3C degenerated, uh, uh, into, uh, formal objections being raised against the specification. and that escalated to, to the, I mean, at all leverage it. It's, it's the, the story in, uh, W3C that, um, really, uh, divided the membership into, opposed camps in a way, if you, that's was not only year, it was not really 50 50 in the sense that not just a huge fights, but the, that's, that triggered a hell of a lot of discussions and a lot of, a lot of, uh, of formal objections at the time. [00:49:00] Francois: Uh, we were still, From a governance perspective, interestingly, um, the W3C used to be a dictatorship. It's not how you should formulate it, of course, and I hope it's not going to be public, this podcast. Uh, but the, uh, it was a benevolent dictatorship. You could see it this way in the sense that, uh, the whole process escalated to one single person was, Tim Burners Lee, who had the final say, on when, when none of the other layers, had managed to catch and to resolve, a conflict. [00:49:32] Francois: Uh, that has hardly ever happened in, uh, the history of the W3C, but that happened to the two for EME, for encrypted media extensions. It had to go to the, uh, director level who, uh, after due consideration, uh, decided to, allow the EME to proceed. and that's why we have a, an EME, uh, uh, standard right now, but still re it remains something on the side. [00:49:56] Francois: EME we're still, uh, it's still in the scope of the media working group, for example. but the scope, if you look at the charter of the working group, we try to scope the, the, the, the, the updates we can make to the specification, uh, to make sure that we don't reopen, reopen, uh, a can of worms, because, well, it's really a, a topic that triggers friction for good and bad reasons again. [00:50:20] Jeremy: And when you talk about the media source extensions, that is the ability to write custom code to stream video in whatever way you want. You mentioned, the MPEG-DASH and http live streaming. So in that case, would that be the developer gets to write that code in JavaScript that's executed by the browser? [00:50:43] Francois: Yep, that's, uh, that would be it. and then typically, I guess the approach nowadays is more and more to develop low level APIs into W3C or web in, in general, I guess. And to let, uh. Libraries emerge that are going to make lives of a, a developer, uh, easier. So for MPEG DASH, we have the DASH.js, which does a fantastic job at, uh, at implementing the complexity of, uh, of adaptive streaming. [00:51:13] Francois: And you just, you just hook it into your, your workflow. And that's, uh, and that's it. Encrypted Media Extensions are closed source [00:51:20] Jeremy: And with the encrypted media extensions I'm trying to picture how those work and how they work differently. [00:51:28] Francois: Well, it's because the, the, the, the key architecture is that the, the stream that you, the stream that you may assemble with a media source extensions, for example. 'cause typically they, they're used in collaboration. When you hook the, hook it into the video tag, you also. Call EME and actually the stream goes to EME. [00:51:49] Francois: And when it goes to EME, actually the user agent hands the encrypted stream. You're still encrypted at this time. Uh, encrypted, uh, stream goes to the CDM content decryption module, and that's a black box well, it has some black, black, uh, black box logic. So it's not, uh, even if you look at the chromium source code, for example, you won't see the implementation of the CDM because it's a, it's a black box, so it's not part of the browser se it's a sand, it's sandboxed, it's execution sandbox. [00:52:17] Francois: That's, uh, the, the EME is kind of unique in, in this way where the, the CDM is not allowed to make network requests, for example, again, for privacy reasons. so anyway, the, the CDM box has the logic to decrypt the content and it hands it over, and then it depends, it depends on the level of protection you. [00:52:37] Francois: You need or that the system supports. It can be against software based protection, in which case actually, a highly motivated, uh, uh, uh, attacker could, uh, actually get access to the decoded stream, or it can be more hardware protected, in which case actually the, it goes to the, uh, to your final screen. [00:52:58] Francois: But it goes, it, it goes through the hardware in a, in a mode that the US supports in a mode that even the user agent doesn't have access to it. So it doesn't, it can't even see the pixels that, uh, gets rendered on the screen. There are, uh, several other, uh, APIs that you could use, for example, to take a screenshot of your, of your application and so on. [00:53:16] Francois: And you cannot apply them to, uh, such content because they're just gonna return a black box. again, because the user agent itself does not see the, uh, the pixels, which is exactly what you want with encrypted content. [00:53:29] Jeremy: And the, the content decryption module, it's, if I understand correctly, it's something that's shipped with the browsers, but you were saying is if you were to look at the public source code of Chromium or of Firefox, you would not see that implementation. Content Decryption Module (Widevine, PlayReady) [00:53:47] Francois: True. I mean, the, the, um, the typical examples are, uh, uh, widevine, so wide Vine. So interestingly, uh, speaking in theory, these, uh, systems could have been provided by anyone in practice. They've been provided by the browser vendors themselves. So Google has Wide Vine. Uh, Microsoft has something called PlayReady. Apple uh, the name, uh, escapes my, uh, sorry. They don't have it on top of my mind. So they, that's basically what they support. So they, they also own that code, but in a way they don't have to. And Firefox actually, uh, they, uh, don't, don't remember which one, they support among these three. but, uh, they, they don't own that code typically. [00:54:29] Francois: They provide a wrapper around, around it. Yeah, that's, that's exactly the, the crux of the, uh, issue that, people have with, uh, with DRMs, right? It's, uh, the fact that, uh, suddenly you have a bit of code running there that is, uh, that, okay, you can send box, but, uh, you cannot inspect and you don't have, uh, access to its, uh, source code. [00:54:52] Jeremy: That's interesting. So the, almost the entire browser is open source, but if you wanna watch a Netflix movie for example, then you, you need to, run this, this CDM, in addition to just the browser code. I, I think, you know, we've kind of covered a lot. Documenting what's available in browsers for developers [00:55:13] Jeremy: I wonder if there's any other examples or anything else you thought would be important to mention in, in the context of the W3C. [00:55:23] Francois: There, there's one thing which, uh, relates to, uh, activities I'm doing also at W3C. Um. Here, we've been talking a lot about, uh, standards and, implementations in browsers, but there's also, uh, adoption of these browser, of these technology standards by developers in general and making sure that developers are aware of what exists, making sure that they understand what exists and one of the, key pain points that people, uh. [00:55:54] Francois: Uh, keep raising on, uh, the web platform is first. Well, the, the, the web platform is unique in the sense that there are different implementations. I mean, if you, [00:56:03] Francois: Uh, anyway, there are different, uh, context, different run times where there, there's just one provided by the company that owns the, uh, the, the, the system. The web platform is implemented by different, uh, organizations. and so you end up the system where no one, there's what's in the specs is not necessarily supported. [00:56:22] Francois: And of course, MDN tries, uh, to document what's what's supported, uh, thoroughly. But for MDN to work, there's a hell of a lot of needs for data that, tracks browser support. And this, uh, this data is typically in a project called the Browser Compat Data, BCD owned by, uh, MDN as well. But, the Open Web Docs collective is a, uh, is, uh, the one, maintaining that, uh, that data under the hoods. [00:56:50] Francois: anyway, all of that to say that, uh, to make sure that, we track things beyond work on technical specifications, because if you look at it from W3C perspective, life ends when the spec reaches standards, uh, you know, candidate rec or rec, you could just say, oh, done with my work. but that's not how things work. [00:57:10] Francois: There's always, you need the feedback loop and, in order to make sure that developers get the information and can provide the, the feedback that standardization can benefit from and browser vendors can benefit from. We've been working on a project called web Features with browser vendors mainly, and, uh, a few of the folks and MDN and can I use and different, uh, different people, to catalog, the web in terms of features that speak to developers and from that catalog. [00:57:40] Francois: So it's a set of, uh, it's a set of, uh, feature IDs with a feature name and feature description that say, you know, this is how developers would, uh, understand, uh, instead of going too fine grained in terms of, uh, there's this one function call that does this because that's where you, the, the kind of support data you may get from browser data and MDN initially, and having some kind of a coarser grained, uh, structure that says these are the, features that make sense. [00:58:09] Francois: They talk to developers. That's what developers talk about, and that's the info. So the, we need to have data on these particular features because that's how developers are going approach the specs. Uh. and from that we've derived the notion of baseline badges that you have, uh, are now, uh, shown on MDN on can I use and integrated in, uh, IDE tool, IDE Tools such as visual, visual studio, and, uh, uh, libraries, uh, linked, some linters have started to, um, to integrate that data. [00:58:41] Francois: Uh, so, the way it works is, uh, we've been mapping these coarser grained features to BCDs finer grained support data, and from there we've been deriving a kind of a, a batch that says, yeah, this, this feature is implemented well, has limited availability because it's only implemented in one or two browsers, for example. [00:59:07] Francois: It's, newly available because. It was implemented. It's been, it's implemented across the main browser vendor, um, across the main browsers that people use. But it's recent, and widely available, which we try to, uh, well, there's been lots of discussion in the, in the group to, uh, come up with a definition which essentially ends up being 30 months after, a feature become, became newly available. [00:59:34] Francois: And that's when, that's the time it takes for the, for the versions of the, the different versions of the browser to propagate. Uh, because you, it's not because there's a new version of a, of a browser that, uh, people just, Ima immediately, uh, get it. So it takes a while, to propagate, uh, across the, uh, the, the user, uh, user base. [00:59:56] Francois: And so the, the goal is to have a, a, a signal that. Developers can rely on saying, okay, well it's widely available so I can really use that feature. And of course, if that doesn't work, then we need to know about it. And so we are also working with, uh, people doing so developer surveys such as state of, uh, CSS, state of HTML, state of JavaScript. [01:00:15] Francois: That's I guess, the main ones. But also we are also running, uh, MDN short surveys with the MDN people to gather feedback on. On the, on these same features, and to feed the loop and to, uh, to complete the loop. and these data is also used by, internally, by browser vendors to inform, prioritization process, their prioritization process, and typically as part of the interop project that they're also running, uh, on the site [01:00:43] Francois: So a, a number of different, I've mentioned, uh, I guess a number of different projects, uh, coming along together. But that's the goal is to create links, across all of these, um, uh, ongoing projects with a view to integrating developers, more, and gathering feedback as early as possible and inform decision. [01:01:04] Francois: We take at the standardization level that can affect the, the lives of the developers and making sure that it's, uh, it affects them in a, in a positive way. [01:01:14] Jeremy: just trying to understand, 'cause you had mentioned that there's the web features and the baseline, and I was, I was trying to picture where developers would actually, um, see these things. And it sounds like from what you're saying is W3C comes up with what stage some of these features are at, and then developers would end up seeing it on MDN or, or some other site. [01:01:37] Francois: So, uh, I'm working on it, but that doesn't mean it's a W3C thing. It's a, it's a, again, it's a, we have different types of group. It's a community group, so it's the Web DX Community group at W3C, which means it's a community owned thing. so that's why I'm mentioning a working with a representative from, and people from MDN people, from open Web docs. [01:02:05] Francois: so that's the first point. The second point is, so it's, indeed this data is now being integrated. If you, and you look, uh, you'll, you'll see it in on top of the MDN pages on most of them. If you look at, uh, any kind of feature, you'll see a, a few logos, uh, a baseline banner. and then can I use, it's the same thing. [01:02:24] Francois: You're going to get a baseline, banner. It's more on, can I use, and it's meant to capture the fact that the feature is widely available or if you may need to pay attention to it. Of course, it's a simplification, and the goal is not to the way it's, the way the messaging is done to developers is meant to capture the fact that, they may want to look, uh, into more than just this, baseline status, because. [01:02:54] Francois: If you take a look at web platform tests, for example, and if you were to base your assessment of whether a feature is supported based on test results, you'll end up saying the web platform has no supported technology because there are absolutely no API that, uh, where browsers pass 100% of the, of the, of the test suite. [01:03:18] Francois: There may be a few of them, I don't know. But, there's a simplification in the, in the process when a feature is, uh, set to be baseline, there may be more things to look at nevertheless, but it's meant to provide a signal that, uh, still developers can rely on their day-to-day, uh, lives. [01:03:36] Francois: if they use the, the feature, let's say, as a reasonably intended and not, uh, using to advance the logic. [01:03:48] Jeremy: I see. Yeah. I'm looking at one of the pages on MDN right now, and I can see at the top there's the, the baseline and it, it mentions that this feature works across many browsers and devices, and then they say how long it's been available. And so that's a way that people at a glance can, can tell, which APIs they can use. [01:04:08] Francois: it also started, uh, out of a desire to summarize this, uh, browser compatibility table that you see at the end of the page of the, the bottom of the page in on MDN. but there are where developers were saying, well, it's, it's fine, but it's, it goes too much into detail. So we don't know in the end, can we, can we use that feature or can we, can we not use that feature? [01:04:28] Francois: So it's meant as a informed summary of, uh, of, of that it relies on the same data again. and more importantly, we're beyond MDN, we're working with tools providers to integrate that as well. So I mentioned the, uh, visual Studio is one of them. So recently they shipped a new version where when you use a feature, you can, you can have some contextual, uh. [01:04:53] Francois: A menu that tells you, yeah, uh, that's fine. You, this CSS property, you can, you can use it, it's widely available or be aware this one is limited Availability only, availability only available in Firefox or, or Chrome or Safari work kit, whatever. [01:05:08] Jeremy: I think that's a good place to wrap it up, if people want to learn more about the work you're doing or learn more about sort of this whole recommendations process, where, where should they head? [01:05:23] Francois: Generally speaking, we're extremely open to, uh, people contributing to the W3C. and where should they go if they, it depends on what they want. So I guess the, the in usually where, how things start for someone getting involved in the W3C is that they have some

Every Friday we scan the PR Mega Chat and pick the stories that actually shaped the week. What happens when narrative control collides with tragedy, misinformation, and an unfiltered digital age?In the second episode of The Week Unspun, hosts Farzana Baduel, David Gallagher, and Doug Downs dive into the breaking news of political commentator Charlie Kirk's shocking shooting and the volatile aftermath, both online and off. From exploring how disinformation spreads faster than facts to how leadership (or lack thereof) shapes national reaction, the trio offer PR-savvy analysis of crisis communication, media ethics, and the real-world consequences of social media. They also explore surprising connections between gender inclusion, menopause in the workplace, and how ageism and AI are reshaping the public relations industry.  Listen For4:07 The Vacuum of Information and Divisive Reactions7:58 Unfiltered Violence: Children, Social Media, and Emotional Fallout18:53 Menopause in PR: The Silent Career Killer?24:33 The Great Unbundling of PR Talent30:15 Are Reputations Still Vulnerable in the Teflon Age?The Week Unspun is a weekly livestream every Friday at 10am ET/3pm BT. Check it out on our YouTube Channel or via this LinkedIn channelWe publish the audio from these livestreams to the Stories and Strategies podcast feed every Friday until Sunday evening when it's no longer available. Folgate AdvisorsCurzon Public Relations WebsiteStories and Strategies WebsiteRequest a transcript of this livestream Support the show

This week, we examine the first half of the '80s to ask the question - which artists had the best run during that span? Bringing us the funny sugar in this episode is our friend Jack (where our fellow '60s music nerds at?!?). That's right, Jack Rabid, publisher/writer for The Big Takeover magazine and drummer for '80s New York hardcore band Even Worse and dreamy '90s indie band Springhouse is our Third Lad this week. And we had such a fab time that this one is a two parter! Part two will be dropping in a few days, so stay tuned... Springhouse released two albums of sparkling, melancholy guitar pop for Caroline Records in the early '90s - 1991's Land Falls and 1993's Postcards From The Attic. They were the first major label signed, nationally touring U.S. "shoegaze" band, with the 'Layers' video getting MTV airplay, and sharing stages with the likes of House of Love, The Chills, Psychedelic Furs, Belly, and the Lemonheads. In 2008, the band returned for a melodic, orchestral-pop masterpiece on Independent Project Records, From Now To OK. Originally released on limited edition CD only, it has now been reissued as a deluxe edition on vinyl, CD, and digital, and presented in a beautiful package from IPR co-owner/master designer Bruce Licher. ⁠https://springhouse.bandcamp.com⁠ The Big Takeover is a bi-annual music magazine founded by Jack Rabid and Dave Stein in May 1980, originally as a fanzine for New York punkers The Stimulators. For over 45 years, Rabid and Big T contributors have been thrilling alternative music fans with in-depth interviews, coverage of lesser known artists, and a huge review section - including Jack's always entertaining "Top 40" section. ⁠https://www.bigtakeover.com⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

More women are now leaving the PR industry because of perimenopause and menopause than because of childbirth. That's a staggering, often invisible, that's shift happening right at the top. It's not burnout or work-life balance pushing them out, but a phase of life that's rarely acknowledged and even more rarely supported.This episode is an unflinching conversation about the real pressures senior women face. Why is menopause still a taboo topic at work? How misunderstood are its impacts on confidence, performance, and retention? And what must organizations and agencies do to support their best talent before they quietly walk away? Listen For4:22 The Invisible Workplace Crisis7:01 The “Rush Hour” of Women's Lives10:01 Emotions, Gender, and Professionalism13:37 Finding Balance in Psychological Safety18:53 Answer to Last Episode's Question from Fred CookGuest: Heather Blundell, CEO GraylingWebsite | X | LinkedIn | EmailStories and Strategies WebsiteCurzon Public Relations WebsiteApply to be a guest on the podcastConnect with usLinkedIn | X | Instagram | You Tube | Facebook | Threads | Bluesky | PinterestRequest a transcript of this episodeSupport the show

PR really is at a crossroads… we've got old playbooks and new players coming in who want to change the rules. In its report Mind the Gap, USC's Center for Public Relations reveals sharp divides between Gen Z and older professionals on everything from AI and hybrid work to media influence and corporate purpose.  While Boomers and Gen X cling to the belief that human creativity will always be irreplaceable, Gen Z is charging ahead, optimistic about technology, eager for flexibility, and expecting brands to stand for something more than just profit. But will that energy survive once they step into leadership — or will they, too, get swallowed by the system?In this episode, we sit down with Fred Cook, Director of USC's Center for Public Relations and author of the Mind the Gap report, to explore whether we're training young professionals for a world that no longer exists. Are we too obsessed with purpose and not focused enough on performance? Are old myths about PR holding us back? And most importantly — can Gen Z avoid the mistakes their predecessors made, or are they destined to repeat them? Listen For3:04 The Weight on Gen Z's Shoulders5:15 Communicating Across Generations in a Fragmented Media Landscape8:08 Polarization as a Business Model12:02 The Death of Corporate Purpose?17:56 Answer to Last Episode's Question From Guest Ayeni Samuels Guest: Fred Cook, Director USC Center for Public RelationsEmail | X | LinkedIn Mind the Gap StudyStories and Strategies WebsiteCurzon Public Relations WebsiteApply to be a guest on the podcastConnect with usLinkedIn | X | Instagram | You Tube | Facebook | Threads | Bluesky | PinterestRequest a transcript of this episodeSupport the show

Ayeni Adekunle Samuel argues that Africa is often misunderstood or reduced to oversimplified stereotypes by global brands, agencies, and even tech platforms.  Despite Africa's complexity, diversity, and economic importance, key decisions — including PR, marketing, and tech strategies — are still shaped in places like New York and London, often without African expertise or context. Ayeni shares his personal journey as a Nigerian entrepreneur building a pan-African and international PR firm, highlighting both the structural barriers (like bias, access to capital, lack of representation) and the opportunities (especially in areas like AI and local innovation).Listen For4:15 The Africa Strategy Mistake Global Brands Keep Making7:41 The Case for Local Advisors12:36 PR Prejudice: The Hidden Hurdles African Firms Face Abroad16:30 Africa Has Talent, But Not Opportunity17:10 Answer to Last Episode's Question from Guest David GallagherGuest: Ayeni Adekunle SamuelWebsite | Email | InstagramStories and Strategies WebsiteCurzon Public Relations WebsiteAre you a brand with a podcast that needs support? Book a meeting with Doug Downs to talk about it.Apply to be a guest on the podcastConnect with usLinkedIn | X | Instagram | You Tube | Facebook | Threads | Bluesky | PinterestRequest a transcript of this episodeSupport the show

IPR's Natalie Krebs shares how the Iowa's abortion law may be driving some physicians out of the state. Plus, unpacking the latest news on the West Nile virus, worker safety issues, regulatory failures at a pork processing facility and more.

Why is the PR industry still having the same tired conversation? Year after year, event after event… while the world moves on without us? We talk about getting a seat at the table, then sit quietly when we do. We debate metrics like we haven't had decades to solve them. We celebrate awards for campaigns that often say nothing and change even less.We hold events that are same panel conversations… different year.Somewhere along the way, the industry built for cultural leadership got stuck in a cycle of repetition, imposter syndrome, and comfort. David Gallagher of Folgate Advisors is a veteran voice who's seen the industry from the inside and isn't afraid to say what others won't. It's time to stop outsourcing our thinking and start redefining what this industry is actually for. Listen For4:58 Are We Really as Dynamic as We Claim?10:22 Why PR Avoids True Innovation11:34 How PR Lost Its Science-Driven Edge17:43 Following the Wrong Model: PR as Advertising's Shadow19:30 Answer to Last Episode's Question from Guest Bill Welser Guest: David Gallagher, Folgate AdvisorsEmail | LinkedIn | Folgate LinkedIn Stories and Strategies WebsiteCurzon Public Relations WebsiteApply to be a guest on the podcastConnect with usLinkedIn | X | Instagram | You Tube | Facebook | Threads | Bluesky | PinterestRequest a transcript of this episodeSupport the show

The Truth About Aligners, Airway & Occlusion—From a Guy Who Practices in Two CountriesIn this episode, I sit down with my good friend, Dr. Bruce McFarlane—one of the most respected names in digital orthodontics and someone who's mastered the art of practicing seamlessly in two different countries. We dive deep into clear aligners, digital efficiencies, occlusion philosophy, and why airway awareness in children is no longer optional.Whether you're just starting to build your aligner practice or you're scaling your ortho empire, Bruce's insights will challenge what you think you know about clinical protocols, patient care, and long-term outcomes. This isn't fluff—it's a masterclass in doing ortho the right way.QUOTES"The teeth will tell you what they need—so stop asking aligners to do things they weren't designed to do."— Dr. Bruce McFarlane"If you're not at least assessing the airway in children, you're not practicing 2025 orthodontics."— Dr. Glenn KriegerKey TakeawaysIntro (00:00)Bruce's dual-country practice model & digital workflow (04:10)The evolution of clear aligners from 1997 to today (13:17)Why he avoids excessive IPR and attachments (16:12)The digital boutique model vs. the big-box practice (23:17)How Bruce designs treatment from anywhere in the world (25:16)His 3 biggest aligner treatment rules (19:48)Airway awareness and its clinical impact on kids (30:02)The future of occlusion & the ModJaw revolution (36:25)Why poor occlusion is often behind the cases that keep you up at night (39:05)If you're ready to rethink how you approach aligners, occlusion, and the future of digital ortho, this episode is your roadmap.

What does it take to rebrand an entire nation? Not just a logo or slogan—but the name itself. Gökhan Yücel helped lead the campaign to officially shift the international name from Turkey to Türkiye.  It's a move that goes far beyond semantics—touching diplomacy, identity, and global perception. Gökhan pulls back the curtain on how such a monumental change has been communicated to the world and why it matters more than most of us think. But this conversation goes even deeper. From repositioning Türkiye as the “nexus of the world” instead of merely a bridge between East and West, to attracting the next generation of global investors, to reshaping the way governments confront disinformation and how strategic storytelling can reshape the image of an entire country. Listen For3:06 Renaming a country… where do you even start?6:53 How “country as brand” became a global strategy9:42 “Hype is the new narrative” 13:57 Branding Türkiye for audiences in the West16:33 From SEO to AEO — marketing in the AI era18:15 Answer to Last Episode's Question from Guest Bill Welser IVGuest: Gökhan Yücel, Campaign Designer Hello Türkiye Country Rebranding CampaignEmail | X | LinkedIn Hello Türkiye Campaign (YouTube)Türkiye Century Campaign (Official Site) Stories and Strategies WebsiteCurzon Public Relations WebsiteApply to be a guest on the podcastConnect with usLinkedIn | X | Instagram | You Tube | Facebook | Threads | Bluesky | PinterestRequest a transcript of this episodeSupport the show

What if the most powerful tool in public relations isn't a pitch deck or media list, but your own story? In this episode, we're joined by technologist-turned-storytelling-evangelist William Welser IV, founder of Lotic, a platform that uses artificial intelligence to help people uncover the data hidden inside their own narrative. From his days building satellites to his unexpected pivot into behavioral science, Bill shares why he believes personal storytelling isn't just therapy, it's strategy. The most powerful communication connects the head and the heart, the human and the machine and yes, the PR and the AI. Listen For4:36 Why Story is the Richest Data Set 6:34 What lotic.ai Actually Does 12:15 Why PR Pros Need Self-Awareness Tools 17:28 How lotic.ai Makes Money (Hint: It's Not Your Data) 21:09 Answer to Last Episode's Question from Guest Brett FarmiloeTry lotic.ai for yourself, FOR FREEGuest: Bill Welser, LoticWebsite | Email | X | Instagram Stories and Strategies WebsiteCurzon Public Relations WebsiteAre you a brand with a podcast that needs support? Book a meeting with Doug Downs to talk about it.Apply to be a guest on the podcastConnect with usLinkedIn | X | Instagram | You Tube | Facebook | Threads | Bluesky | PinterestRequest a transcript of this episodeSupport the show

Superstar pianist Lang Lang first heard "Rhapsody in Blue" on the radio as a child and refined his performances with help from jazz greats Herbie Hancock and Chick Corea. He'll perform it with Interlochen's World Youth Symphony Orchestra this weekend. He visited IPR to share his experience with teaching young musicians, from his classroom initiatives around the world to Interlochen students to his own son. What does a young classical musician need to succeed in the 21st century?

Interlochen's Advanced High School String Quartets recorded Beethoven's String Quartet op. 18, no. 6 in IPR's Studio A. Movement 1: Allegro con brio Halyn Kim, violin, Porter Ranch, CA Alex Gemeinhardt, violin, New York, NY Kasinda Willingham, viola, Hamilton, OH Natalie Helm, cello (faculty coach) Movement 2: Adagio ma non troppo Hannah Schweiger, violin, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA Jiles Defosse, violin, Annapolis, MD Ashton Carter, viola, Memphis, TN Noah Scharback, cello, Eden Prairie, MN Lenny Schranze, faculty coach Movement 3: Scherzo: Allegro - Trio Karis Shin, violin, Incheon, South Korea Kieran Niska, violin, Mason, OH Lake Weeks, viola, Powell, OH Albert Lee, cello, Harrington Park, NJ Tim Shiu, faculty coach Movement 4: La Malinconia: Adagio – Allegretto quasi Allegro - adagio - Allegretto - Un poco adagio - Prestissimo Julia Lee, violin, Ellicott City, MD Evie Chow, violin, Edina, MN Preston Elliot, viola, Kansas City, MO Jisoo Park, cello, Troy, MI Mark Rudoff, faculty coach

What if the expert quote you just read in a news article wasn't written by a human — but by AI? That's already happening.  A PR tool called Synapse is selling agencies the ability to fire off automated expert pitches to journalists, complete with research, personal-sounding anecdotes, and polished email copy — all with minimal human input. It promises one person can do the work of five and crank out twenty media pitches an hour.  But is this innovation, or is it a warning sign for the future of public relations? In this episode, we're unpacking what Synapse means for PR and media. We'll explore why this kind of automation raises ethical alarms, how journalists are likely to respond, and what PR professionals need to do right now to protect trust, credibility, and the real value we bring to the table.  Listen For6:12 Creepy or Clever? How Synapse Targets Reporters7:48 Fabricated Experts: Ethical Red Line Crossed10:35 Should the PR Industry Be Regulated?11:16 How Journalists Will Fight Back With Closed Networks22:40 Don't Blame the AI—Blame OurselvesStories and Strategies WebsiteCurzon Public Relations WebsiteApply to be a guest on the podcastConnect with usLinkedIn | X | Instagram | You Tube | Facebook | Threads | Bluesky | PinterestRequest a transcript of this episodeSupport the show

In today's media landscape, journalists are drowning in pitches while PR professionals scramble for attention—often missing the mark entirely. But what if the problem isn't the story, but the way it's being told—and the tools we're using to tell it? In this episode, we sit down with Brett Farmiloe, the revivalist behind Help a Reporter Out (HARO), to unpack why this once-iconic platform fell off the radar, how he brought it back to life, and what it now takes to genuinely stand out in a journalist's inbox.Listen For5:56 Why Journalists Are Still Drowning in Spam7:05 The HARO Pitch Formula: Helpful, Authentic, Relevant, On-Time10:20 Is the Definition of “Journalist” Changing?14:05 What Journalists Really Want from PR People20:15 Answer to Last Episode's Question From Guest Graham Goodkind Guest: Brett FarmiloeWebsite | Email | X | LinkedIn | HARO LinkedInStories and Strategies WebsiteCurzon Public Relations WebsiteApply to be a guest on the podcastConnect with usLinkedIn | X | Instagram | You Tube | Facebook | Threads | Bluesky | PinterestRequest a transcript of this episodeSupport the show

What if everything you've been taught about pricing your work—tracking time, logging hours, justifying effort—was wrong? What if the real value of what you do isn't how long it takes, but what impact it has? In a world where generative AI can draft press releases in seconds and churn out strategy decks before your coffee cools, PR professionals face a crossroads: race to the bottom by charging less for faster work—or redefine what clients are actually paying for.In this episode, Graham Goodkind, founder and chairman of Frank, one of the UK's most creatively disruptive PR agencies challenges how we think about pricing, pitching, and protecting our creative value—because if you're still selling time, you're selling yourself short.Listen For3:25 Why Time Is Not Your Currency in PR 4:49 Building Frank PR on Selling Ideas Not Hours7:57 Frank PR Revenue and Profitability Stats10:37 AI's Role in Creativity and Workflow17:42 Answer to Last Episode's Question from Lauren Passell21:17 Graham's Best Advice for Starting in PR Guest: Graham Goodkind, Frank PRWebsite | Email | LinkedIn  Rate this podcast with just one click Stories and Strategies WebsiteCurzon Public Relations WebsiteAre you a brand with a podcast that needs support? Book a meeting with Doug Downs to talk about it.Apply to be a guest on the podcastConnect with usLinkedIn | X | Instagram | You Tube | Facebook | Threads | Bluesky | PinterestSupport the show

A state lawmaker from northwest Iowa has died of pancreatic cancer. State auditor and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Rob Sand kicks off a 100 town hall tour. The first GOP candidate has entered the race for Iowa's 4th congressional district, and IPR health reporter Natalie Krebs reports on research into concerns about environmental causes of cancer in Iowa.

John Quinn is joined by Caleb Harris, Co-Founder and CEO of &AI, a startup focused on using artificial intelligence to transform patent litigation.   They discuss how &AI uses AI to accomplish complex patent litigation tasks such as invalidity and infringement analysis, dramatically reducing the time and cost associated with these traditionally labor-intensive efforts.  The service features four components: searches for prior art or infringing products, in-depth legal analysis (including creating claim charts), drafting litigation-ready documents like invalidity contentions or IPR petitions, and automating workflows using AI agents that operate independently.Patent litigation is particularly well-suited to AI because so much of the underlying data—such as patent filings, litigation histories, and prosecution records—is publicly available.  &AI continuously updates its data sets and can provide summaries, detailed claim charts, and customized drafts in as little as 10 minutes.  Unlike generative AI tools, &AI minimizes hallucinations by relying heavily on document retrieval rather than generation, and by providing verified citations in its output.The platform can also help streamline early-stage litigation decisions, such as assessing the strength of a patent portfolio or evaluating potential infringement claims in the marketplace.  It also helps defense teams efficiently assess and respond to weak claims, including those from patent trolls, by producing tailored response letters and evidence.&AI uses AI agents—AI that develops multi-step plans to accomplish tasks and automatically adjusts those plans based on how the work is progressing.  This allows the user to focus on the end product they want rather than the steps needed to get there.  AI agents will enable faster, more scalable, and more economically viable litigation, especially patent litigation.  This may lead to a boon for litigators as more lawsuits are filed and resolved quickly.  Although human performance will remain crucial in areas like persuading a jury or a judge, law firms may gain a competitive edge by pairing their expertise with firm-specific AI tools trained on the firm's proprietary data and preferred styles.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Listen on: Apple Podcasts | Stitcher | Google Podcasts | Spotify | PandoraWe're celebrating our 30th Anniversary on the road, and this week, we make our fourth stop in Iowa City in partnership with IPR. We talk to bakers, chefs, restaurateurs, and farmers about the food of the heartland. First up, Shae and Anna Pesek of Over the Moon Farm and T.D. Holub of The Garden Oasis Farm talk about their personal experiences with farm life, from agricultural challenges to sustainability and the community and passion that contribute to the success and drive of a farm. Then, we talk to Jamie Powers, owner and executive chef of Deluxe Bakery, and Carrie and Andy Schumacher, owners of the restaurant Cobble Hill, about opening their restaurants in Iowa and how building community is the most important part of their businesses.Broadcast dates for this episode:May 30, 2025 (originally aired)Celebrate kitchen companionship with a gift to The Splendid Table today.