Podcasts about inventive

[powerpresss] My co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 175 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Bruce Dearling, patent attorney and partner at Hepworth Browne in the UK, and we talk about how non-technical features must be considered when assessing inventive step of patents at least according to recent decisions of the UK supreme court and the Unified Patent Court. Profile of Bruce Dearling UK Supreme Court Emotional Perception AI Limited UPC Abbot vs Sinocare But before we jump into this interesting interview, I have news for you: On May 20, 2026, the Swiss Federal Council adopted the fully revised Patent Ordinance, which will enter into force on January 1, 2027, together with the revised Patent Act. In the future, the Swiss Federal Institute of Intellectual Property will prepare a mandatory search report for each application; applicants can choose between a partially examined version and a full examination that assesses novelty and inventive step. The full examination costs an additional 300 Swiss francs, and renewal fees will increase by a total of eight percent over the 20-year term. On May 19, 2026, Asus entered into a licensing agreement with the Wi-Fi multimode patent pool managed by Sisvel, thereby ending all ongoing infringement proceedings. Sisvel bundles standard-essential patents in the pool from, among others, Atlantia, ETRI, and Mitsubishi Electric. On May 18, 2026, the UPC Local Chamber in Düsseldorf rejected Align Technology's application for a preliminary injunction against its Chinese competitor Angelalign. Angelalign may continue to sell its clear aligners within the UPC jurisdiction. Our partners Dirk Schulz, Ulrich Storz, and Wanze Zhang, together with Arnold Ruess, successfully represented Angelalign. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced midweek that, since October of last year, it has invalidated or is seeking to invalidate approximately 10,500 trademark applications and registrations in eleven administrative orders. Reasons include forged attorney signatures and the fabrication of non-existent filing requirements. This stems from ongoing abuse of the U.S. trademark system, primarily by non-U.S. applicants, which can lead to conflicts with validly registered trademarks for legitimate businesses. On May 12, 2026, the British Court of Appeal overturned a lower court decision that would have required Nokia to grant interim licenses for video coding patents. The court found that Nokia's license offer to the Taiwanese manufacturers Acer and Asus had already been made on RAND terms. In May, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a brief in the ongoing Corteva v. Inari litigation, expressing antitrust concerns regarding certain patent practices in the field of plant breeding. This marks the first time the agency has actively intervened in a biopharmaceutical patent dispute with implications for seed innovations. Episode 175 of the IP Fridays podcast was a conversation I will not forget quickly. My guest Bruce Dearling, partner at Hepworth Brown in the UK and a patent attorney for 36 years, took a case through every level of the British court system up to the Supreme Court and, in doing so, fundamentally changed patent law for AI inventions in the UK. The case is called Emotional Perception, and its effects reach well beyond British borders. Below I summarize the key points from our conversation. The full episode is available at IP Fridays. A. What Is the Emotional Perception Case About? The underlying invention concerns artificial neural networks. Specifically, it relates to a method of closing what is called the semantic gap at the output of a neural network. That sounds abstract, but the idea is straightforward: a neural network always produces an output that does not fully correspond to what a human would actually expect or feel. Closing that gap brings the system closer to human perception and human expectations. Bruce Dearling drafted this application himself and filed it at the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO). The Office rejected it as excluded subject matter, characterizing it as essentially a computer program as such. The legal basis for that rejection was the Aerotel decision from 2006. The case then went to the High Court, which found in favor of the applicant. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision. Then the UK Supreme Court stepped in and changed everything. B. The Aerotel Test and Its Flaws Since 2006, the Aerotel test had been the standard British method for assessing whether an invention falls within the excluded categories under patent law. It was a four-step approach: construe the claim, identify the actual contribution the invention makes to human knowledge, ask whether that contribution falls solely within excluded subject matter, and finally check whether the contribution is technical in nature. The problem Dearling described in our conversation is that Aerotel reverses the logical order of the analysis. You start with the contribution and only then ask about the exclusions under Article 52 EPC. The UK Supreme Court described Aerotel in its judgment as “unsound law” and overturned it. The EPO’s Technical Boards of Appeal had previously called Aerotel “disingenuous,” which at the time led to a public dispute between the British courts and the Boards. With the Emotional Perception ruling, that conflict has now been resolved in favor of harmonization with the EPO. C. What the UK Supreme Court Decided The Supreme Court made two central findings. First, the exclusion of computer programs “as such” is overcome as soon as a claim includes any piece of hardware. It does not matter whether that is a processor, a memory module, or any other component. The threshold is deliberately low. Dearling described this as the “any hardware” approach, which aligns fully with the EPO’s position following G1/19. Second, and in Dearling’s assessment the more important finding: when assessing inventive step, the invention must be considered as a whole. The Court introduced what it called an “intermediate step,” an analytical stage in which the interactions between all features of a claim are examined before the question of inventive step is addressed. Non-technical features cannot simply be struck out if they contribute to the overall technical effect of the invention. D. Inventive Step: The Intermediate Step This is the heart of the judgment. In EPO practice, Dearling said, it happens regularly that examiners strike through features they consider non-technical and thereby fail to assess the invention’s inventive step correctly. A recent Technical Board of Appeal decision, T 1249/22, already criticized this approach: a claim directed at a technical solution to a problem can be patentable even if the underlying problem is non-technical in nature. Dearling recalled a remark made by a Board of Appeal member at a hearing he attended years ago: “We understand that examining divisions can operate with a degree of mental laziness and that it’s too easy to throw too many things out of the basket when considering the issues of inventive step.” That quote stayed with him because it names a structural problem that the intermediate step now addresses directly. The British method for assessing inventive step is the Pozzoli test, which differs from the EPO’s problem-solution approach. The Supreme Court explicitly retained Pozzoli because the problem-solution approach, in its view, is structurally infected with hindsight reasoning: you already know the invention, you work backwards to formulate an objective technical problem, and then you ask whether it would have been obvious for the skilled person to arrive at precisely that solution. Dearling sees this as a source of unfairness toward genuine inventions. E. Alignment with the Unified Patent Court In April 2025, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued a decision in Abbott v. Sinocare (APP_000000901/2025, judgment of 17 April 2025). Dearling pointed out that this decision uses language and reasoning strikingly similar to the UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception ruling of February 2025. That is significant because the UPC is bound neither by UK courts nor by the EPO. The overlap suggests voluntary convergence. Dearling reported a conversation with a person close to the EPO, whom he did not name, who used the word “permissive” to describe the UK Supreme Court’s approach and indicated that the EPO might move toward it. Whether and how quickly that happens remains to be seen. What is clear is that the UPC, as the new European patent court, is setting its own standards, and the question of how to handle non-technical features in inventive step assessment is now being asked at multiple levels simultaneously. F. Implications for the EPO and Practice The EPO is not directly bound by the ruling. It is an administrative body, not a court. Dearling is nonetheless optimistic that change is coming. On one hand, external pressure is building: when the UK Supreme Court and the UPC articulate similar principles, convergence becomes hard to resist. On the other hand, Article 27.1 TRIPS requires all contracting states to make patents available in all fields of technology. Examiners routinely striking non-technical features from AI claims and rejecting them on that basis sits uncomfortably with that obligation. For the underlying application in the Emotional Perception case, the ruling has a pointed consequence. The Supreme Court did not grant the patent itself; it referred the matter back to the UKIPO for reconsideration under the intermediate step. The Office’s subsequent response was, in Dearling’s words, unconvincing. He suspects the Office is attempting to reintroduce the Aerotel test through the back door. As a last resort, he has not excluded a judicial review, a procedure that does not simply challenge the substantive decision but holds the Comptroller General of Patents to account for whether the Office is deliberately circumventing the Supreme Court’s direction on the intermediate step. That is, as Dearling put it, “a nuclear option,” but one he would not rule out if the evidence in the file already suggests the Office is in contempt of court. There is also an international dimension. Singapore’s Intellectual Property Office launched a public consultation shortly after the ruling, asking whether Singapore should adopt the Emotional Perception approach into national law. That is British soft power operating in real time within the Commonwealth. G. Three Takeaways for Patent Practitioners At the end of our conversation I asked Bruce Dearling to distill the most important practical points. His first takeaway: make sure the claim contains hardware. This applies not only to UK and European applications but is simply good drafting hygiene. Without hardware in the claim, the application remains exposed. The second takeaway concerns the description. Anyone filing an AI invention needs to explain clearly which function is achieved by which piece of hardware, circuit, or software. Not as boilerplate, but as a complete technical account that describes the real-world effects. Dearling’s experience is that practitioners who write the claim first and fill in the description afterward run into trouble. The third takeaway emerged from the conversation itself: how the EPO assesses inventive step for AI inventions is not a settled question. It is worth following the development of UPC case law and any shifts in EPO practice closely. Anyone advising on AI patent applications today needs to know these arguments. H. Conclusion The UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception ruling is not a British footnote. It has declared the Aerotel test dead, introduced the intermediate step that brings non-technical features back into the inventive step analysis, and set off a convergence movement that is already visible at the UPC and still pending at the EPO. For everyone working in AI patent practice, whether in prosecution, examination, or counseling, this ruling is required reading. Rolf Claessen: Our interview guest on IP Fridays podcast is Bruce Dearling. He has been in the IP field and a patent attorney for 36 years and is partner at Hepworth Brown in the UK. Thank you very much for being on the podcast. Bruce Dearling: My pleasure, Rolf. Thank you for inviting me. Rolf Claessen: All right. We just met at the INTA annual meeting in London. And you talked about the UK Supreme Court case where you were involved. And the core questions were whether non-technical features would be considered when assessing inventive step of patents. Can you briefly summarize this case? Bruce Dearling: It’s a bit more than that. It started — I actually wrote the case. And I prosecuted it through the patent office. The patent office rejected the case for being excluded subject matter. So pretty much the excluded subject matter provisions in the UK are nearly identical. They’re as near as practical to the language of the EPC, so those of the European Patent Office — Article 52.2. But again, they apply as such. The actual technology relates to artificial neural networks. And the invention related to a very clever way of what is termed closing the semantic gap at the output of the neural network. So that means that in a neural network, there is always a discrepancy between the output of the neural network in terms of what it’s telling you you should be thinking essentially, and what reality is. So if you can close the semantic gap, then you align the neural network or the artificial intelligence system to better reflect human knowledge or human reactions and human expectations. So that’s really what the invention is about. There’s no point in going into too much detail with it — that’s the way it is. It’s very clever. So the UKIPO rejected this because they said it was essentially a computer program excluded from patentability as such. And they used a decision which is called Aerotel, which has been around since 2006. And that decision has caused considerable consternation and tension between the EPO Technical Boards of Appeal and the UK courts. Aerotel was described as being essentially disingenuous by the EPO Technical Board of Appeal. And the UK courts pushed back and said, you don’t know what you’re talking about. So that’s where it fell apart. So that’s where they rejected it for essentially being a computer program as such, possibly with a bit of business methods thrown in as well. But let’s leave that for the time being. So the case then went to the High Court and at the High Court, we won. The judge said, actually, it’s not a computer program. Neural networks aren’t computers. They’re not programs themselves. There’s more to them than that. And the invention as claimed is not excluded from patentability as such. The UKIPO obviously weren’t very happy about that because they liked their Aerotel case and so they appealed it. And they appealed it on several grounds, including a new one, which was that it was a mathematical method. The Court of Appeal decided that the UKIPO was right and that we were wrong, so we lost the case. So we then went to the Supreme Court. Well, actually, they denied us an ability to go to the Supreme Court. The court said no appeal. We went — actually, no, I think there is a bigger issue here — because we realized, or I realized at that point, that the work that we were doing was much broader than this. It requires real consideration of what an invention is at a fundamental level. So not only exclusions, but how inventive step is applied. And these issues were built into the case from the very beginning. And they sort of — I wouldn’t say crept up on the court as we went through — but they became more and more prominent to the extent that ultimately, when we made an application to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court went, yeah, we’ve got some issues here. We want to hear the full arguments on why this is not excluded from patentability, why Aerotel is potentially bad and how we more or less try to align ourselves with the European Patent Office. So that’s essentially what happened. And the Supreme Court hearing was last July. It took them the thick end of eight months to come out with a decision, which was issued in early February, at which point the entire legal landscape in the UK changed because they said we were right. The Patent Office doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Aerotel is bad. It’s unsound. That’s what they described it as — unsound law. It needs to be removed and we’re going to harmonize with the European Patent Office. So before I — I’m just going on a bit of a rant here, standing on my soapbox telling you what you already know. But the Aerotel test essentially was — it was a four-step test, past tense. So you firstly had to construe the claim. That’s pretty straightforward. Then you actually had to identify the actual contribution. This is what they said — identify the contribution. Really in this aspect, you’re asking what, as a matter of substance rather than form, the inventor has added to human knowledge. So that’s what they said the contribution was. And then they said, the next step in Aerotel was to ask, well, does that contribution fall solely within the excluded subject matter field or realm? And then they said, well, if you get through that question, then you check the actual contribution or the alleged contribution to see whether it’s technical in nature. So that’s the Aerotel test as it was. And what the Supreme Court in their unanimous final decision said was that Aerotel at best jumbles up the order. It reverses the logical order of the analysis by starting with the contributions and then addressing the Article 52 exclusions. And then finally it goes back to what the technical nature of the invention is about. So they really went, no, we don’t like any of this stuff. It’s bad, it’s stupid, it puts the cart before the horse. So, in the intervening period between finding the case and actually seeing it progress all the way to the Supreme Court, we obviously had the G1/19 decision from the EPO Enlarged Board. And they basically said that they are going to validate any hardware as the approach. And that’s essentially what the UK also went with. The UK Supreme Court said we’re going to say that the threshold of patentability — or the exclusion to patentability — is simply overcome by the inclusion in a claim of any piece of hardware, whether it’s a processor or a piece of memory or whatever. It doesn’t matter. Any hardware makes the invention a technical invention. So it’s a really low threshold to consider. And they then went, well, actually, if we now align and harmonize with the European Patent Office sensibly, then we need to look at how we assess inventive step, which is the other thing that we raised with the Supreme Court. In fact, we probably raised it at other times and in all the other instances as well, but it came to a head at the Supreme Court. So the Supreme Court then also went a bit further and said, well, actually, whilst we do like the global approach to assessing inventive step for all fields of technology — whether it’s chemistry or biotech or electronics or software or AI — we use a test called Pozzoli. So that isn’t problem-solution. We don’t like problem-solution. We think it’s not codified in the European Patent Office. It’s just a mechanism that the EPO has come up with to try to objectively assess inventive step. We don’t particularly think that’s appropriate. We like our approach called Pozzoli. That’s it. So we’re going to say with Pozzoli, however, in order to actually understand — particularly in the context of mixed inventions having technical and non-technical features — it’s necessary for the examiner to undertake the so-called intermediate step, where you have to look at the interactions between features within a claim. The invention is defined by the claim. That’s what the act says. That’s what everyone understands. It’s the invention defined by the claim. So you look at the claim features and then you have to understand the interactions that take place. And even if they are between technical and non-technical features, if they bring about an overall technical effect when you consider the invention as a whole, then your claim should be good and you can assess it for classical inventive step. So that’s really where we’re at. There’s a lot to unpack there already. It’s probably a podcast in its own right, but that’s the positive history of where we’re at. And I can keep going if you wish me to for a second and talk about why I think this is — we’ll just contrast it quickly with the problem-solution approach at the EPO and COMVIK. So for inventions in the computer-implemented field, they use COMVIK and the problem-solution approach. The Supreme Court said, as I said, they don’t like problem-solution. I think the problem-solution issue is that it is also inherently pre-baked with hindsight because you have to look at the invention and then step back and exclude those features which are common. And then you formulate a problem based on the function that the claim achieves. And then you’re asking whether or not it would be obvious for a skilled person to arrive at the claimed invention, having been given that hindsight-developed problem. So COMVIK is not great by any means. And we know from a practical perspective that examiners are only too willing to look at a claim and simply line through features which they believe are non-technical, whereas they don’t actually look at the interaction of those features in the context of the claim as a whole. There is also a decision — very recent one actually, about a year ago — T 1249/22, where the Technical Board of Appeal told the examiners and the examining division, you cannot do this. It’s okay to have a claim directed towards an invention in a non-technical field, as long as the invention is directed to a technical solution of that problem. I think it’s paragraphs 11 and 12 or 10 of that decision that are worth looking at. But they’re saying that in all fields of technology, it doesn’t matter as long as the technical solution is about technology — therefore, you should be able to obtain a patent as long as there is a realistic and appropriate technical effect. Be careful actually, Bruce — I don’t mean technical contribution, I mean technical effect. There’s a reason for that distinction. Rolf Claessen: The non-technical features are nevertheless used to assess inventive step in the UK now after this decision, right? Bruce Dearling: Yes, that is the intermediate step. The decision says you must look at the invention as a whole. It’s the important thing. There are a couple of issues that arise out of this. The first one is that you have to provide context for the invention. The Supreme Court never provided any specific guidance about how we deal with the intermediate step or what the exact test is, which is in some respects fine. It seems to be fairly clear that you just have to engage your gray matter — your neurons — to work out what is going on in the real world. And once you work out what’s going on in the real world, what the benefits are, then you look at whether or not the actual implementation of the invention fundamentally has a technical flavor to it, which is not just coding, not just simple coding, but it does something smarter. There’s a real technical impetus. There’s a technical effect. Now that actually brings me onto something I’ve postulated or said. I think the intermediate step will follow something like what I’ve termed the holistic character test, which essentially is: work out what’s going on in the real world. Then once you’ve worked out what’s actually being achieved, what the benefits are, what the invention’s concerned with, then you ask the question, how am I achieving it technically? And how is there a technical effect? How does the technical effect arise? That brings out a couple of issues. The first one is that it’s actually about the word “contribution” because it depends on how the word is used. So if you look at head note one in COMVIK, it uses the word “contribute” — how the non-technical feature contributes to the invention. So that’s an additive inclusive concept. The UK IPO historically, and arguably at the moment today whilst they’re trying to retrain their 400 examiners — which this has caused them to have to do — their idea of contribution is this backward-looking concept. So technical contribution and technical effect, I think — although we mix them up and interchange them — are distinct. Technical contribution: you’re looking backwards. Technical effect is what you look at when you look forward into what’s going on. So this is subtle — it’s really subtle, but it’s important. And once you realize that you are actually looking for the technical effects, then you’re on much safer ground. It’s much more objective in terms of the assessment. This might be somewhat contentious, because it’s the way I’m looking at this, but I’ve been working on this a long, long time and thinking about it for probably decades, worryingly so. So technical contribution and technical effects are probably not the same, where they are interchangeably used to mean the same thing within existing decisions. Rolf Claessen: And in the beginning you said, now that Aerotel is dead basically, it’s more harmonized with the EPO’s approach. But what I take from the discussion now is that maybe — especially in view of the problem-solution approach — it’s not fully harmonized with the EPO’s approach at the moment, right? Or did the UK Supreme Court get something wrong, or was that a desired outcome from your point of view that this is not so completely harmonized with the EPO? Bruce Dearling: Well, the EPO — the any-hardware solution is fully harmonized, no doubt. So it’s now a question of inventive step under Article 56 or Section 3 of the Act. The EPC nowhere mandates the use of problem-solution. And we know that there are many different ways of actually assessing inventive step, including the concrete elaboration test from last year and problem-of-invention approaches. So there are numerous ways of assessing inventive step. So the UK says, “Pozzoli — we like Pozzoli.” Interestingly, I had a discussion with someone I probably can’t mention. They’re saying that the UK approach may actually be more permissive now. It might even influence how the EPO operates. So they may move away from COMVIK towards more of a Pozzoli approach, which basically says this: You identify the notion of the skilled person — step one. You identify the common general knowledge of that skilled person — step one B. You identify the inventive concept of the claim in question, where you construe it if you can’t work out what it is. You then identify what the differences are. And then you ask the question, is it obvious to the skilled person, given knowledge of the common general knowledge? This is entirely not artificial because, as I said beforehand, when you look at problem-solution, you are formulating a problem by backtracking from what the claimed invention is to a situation where you say, well, these are the common features and I’m going to project a problem to try and solve. Now that is already tainted with hindsight reasoning. It’s not safe, it’s not thoroughly objective. There is an inherent problem with this which sees good inventions cast by the wayside. Although it’s a preferred mechanism, it’s not fully baked. There are situations where examiners are inherently lazy, or they just simply use something like the requirements specification argument, which is just factual. It just demonstrates that they can’t be bothered to actually argue it properly or think about what the invention is. Sorry to any examiners listening to this, but this is just my personal view, that sometimes there are problems. I’m reminded of a quote from an EPI hearing I was at a long time ago, where the Legal Board of Appeal member said: “We understand that examining divisions can operate with a degree of mental laziness and that it’s too easy to throw too many things out of the basket when considering the issues of inventive step.” Now that one has stayed with me because you think — did someone just say that? And the answer is yes, they did. But it just goes to show that there is some tension between the TBA and the examining divisions, and they don’t always get it right. Rolf Claessen: So there might be a small difference now between the UKIPO’s future approach of assessing inventive step and the EPO? Bruce Dearling: Yeah, it might do. But the other interesting thing here — and thank you for pointing this out, I hadn’t entirely caught up with it, I’ve been traveling beforehand and I missed some of the UPC case law. So the UPC case law — in, was it — yeah, we talked about that. Rolf Claessen: Yeah. There was a decision in April, Abbott versus Sinocare. Bruce Dearling: Yeah, 901 of 2025. So a Court of Appeal decision from the UPC. It was APP_000000901, I believe, 2025. Decision 17th of April, hearing 27th of March. The UPC is not bound by — it’s a court. The European Patent Office is not a court, it’s an agency that administers and looks after the administrative rule of law. So the fact that this decision came out from the UK Supreme Court in February, and you see almost identical language used in the UPC decision, suggests that there is some alignment here, or some convergence in thought. Now, whilst the UPC decision also references G1/19 and uses problem-solution, there is enough — you’ve got to bear in mind that high-level courts do look at each other’s decisions. And this is really a question of influence and the desire to converge. So the fact that they’ve done this at this time is quite interesting. Again, I can’t quote someone directly from the EPO, although I would love to. They were saying — at a very high level — and they used the words “converge UPC practice towards UK Supreme Court practice on interpretation of the law.” So this may actually be happening in real time. Again, it would be wrong to actually refer to anyone by name, but it’s an observation that when I looked at the case, I can see why this is going ahead. And I can see why the judiciaries — they want to maintain independent judicial controls. They won’t reference the UK Supreme Court decision, not least because we’re not in the UPC. But if you look at the arguments in sections 106 and 107 of the UK Supreme Court’s Emotional Perception decision and head note one, you go — wow, this is very close. Rolf Claessen: Very close and nearly identical wording. Yeah. And the UPC also now uses non-technical features for assessing inventive step. Is that a problem for the EPO that has historically been aggressive in throwing out non-technical features for inventive step analysis? Bruce Dearling: Well, I think they really need to get to the situation — I don’t know — this holistic character test that I’m sort of proposing, where you really have to think about what the invention is achieving, and then look at how it’s technically being achieved. And then if you look at that again in the context of that other decision I mentioned — T 1249/22 — it says something like, in the case of an invention that amounts to a technical implementation of a non-technical method, provided the non-technical method does not contribute to the technical character of the invention. The board validated the approach of identifying the non-technical method and then goes through and says it’s patentable. There are decisions like this which suggest that examining divisions have to give it a bit more thought, because the Technical Board will realize that to satisfy the WTO requirements — which pretty much everyone is bound by — Article 27.1 TRIPS, which requires that you protect all fields of technology. And that means whether it’s data processing or business methods, because business methods can be patentable so long as they are implemented on a technical basis. That essentially seems to be what T 1249/22 is saying, although it doesn’t explicitly say “allowing business methods.” The exclusion is only “as such.” So does this decision, in combination with the Supreme Court case and the movement of the UPC, say: well, actually, let’s look at this properly? It requires objective assessments, not just superficial “let’s strike through that feature because I don’t like it, it looks non-technical.” Rolf Claessen: So are you hopeful that the EPO is adjusting and will reshape their case law in view of the UPC decision and the UK Supreme Court decision? Bruce Dearling: It’s a bit unfortunate that the corresponding UK case at the EPO was dropped by the applicants, because it was heading towards an examination hearing at the examining division. It would have gone to the TBA, and I’m sure it would then have gone from the TBA to the Enlarged Board. I’m pretty sure that’s the case. There is another case from the same client which will probably argue the same thing because the specs are almost identical. It’s just lagged in time. So is it going to change? I hope so, because I think the EPO have got it wrong — more often than not in this field. Well, maybe not more often than not — they get it wrong more times than they should do. Would I like to see it changed? Yes, I would, because I want the examiners to actually think about the technology as opposed to just — oh, it’s not — I don’t want to engage the gray matter. That serves no one. That doesn’t serve technology. That doesn’t serve industry. These patent rights are there for a reason. They are property rights. I’m referring to the award of the 2025 Nobel Prize for Economics — they are a core driver for society’s development. So the 2025 Nobel Prize was for something called creative destruction — the replacement of old technology with new — and it’s based on the patent paradigm. So all this stuff is coming to a head now. It’s just a question of how quickly the EPO actually catch up, and maybe they have something to catch up on. It’s just understanding that the examiners have to start to think. As I said, we’ve got the issues at the UKIPO where they’re going to have to retrain 400 examiners. Rolf Claessen: Yeah, right. Bruce Dearling: The Emotional Perception case wasn’t granted by the Supreme Court. They referred it back to the patent office for consideration under the intermediate step. So the patent office produced a response that I would describe as — I’d say arguably — not well reasoned, which I’ve filed the response to, which basically says you don’t really know what you’re talking about. What really worries me a bit is that I think they’re trying to introduce the Aerotel case through the back door. It’s backsliding. It’s a mechanism for trying to apply it in a different way or a different context, which would be wrong. I think they believe that the applicant will appeal this if they get a bad decision — they will appeal it back to the courts again via the High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court route. I say maybe not. I say maybe the client will file what they call a judicial review, which is a nuclear option. That’s when you actually hold the Comptroller General of Patents to account and get full discovery of whether or not there’s internal documentation showing that they are deliberately circumventing the direction of the Supreme Court on the intermediate step. This is basically holding them to account and saying: if you’re not applying the intermediate step appropriately, you are in contempt of the law. So judicial review is a really serious thing to do, but it’s certainly something I would not exclude from consideration. We’ll see what happens. It’s not saying we’re just going to go through the courts and make them decide on this. We’re going to say you’re wrong. And there’s already enough evidence in the files to suggest that they are probably in contempt of court and they’re not applying the intermediate step appropriately. They may not know any better at the moment — they need to be guided — but the consequences for them are potentially severe. Rolf Claessen: I have another question for you. You were the instructing attorney — do you think the decision was perfect? What argument that you made was the most underappreciated by the court? And where do you think the judgment got it wrong, or was it all perfect? Bruce Dearling: No, it got 90% or 95% correct. The intermediate step is right. That’s the most important thing in the decision — it’s the intermediate step. The any-hardware thing — that’s logical, that makes some sense — but if people say “if the any-hardware rule is the important bit,” no it isn’t. It’s the intermediate step. That’s the important thing. Where do they go wrong? I think they went wrong because — and you’ve got to bear in mind that unlike German courts, I’ve got to be careful about how I express this — generally, as I understand it, and correct me if I’m wrong, but the judiciary in Germany on patent cases are generally more technically able. They’re normally technically qualified. I look at the Supreme Court justices and the Court of Appeal justices — we had one who was a humanities undergrad, one was a chemist. Good luck with trying to argue complex artificial neural network technologies, which are difficult even for me to understand. And I’ve been working in the field. They’re hard to understand. They require real understanding, real appreciation. They could say, well, actually we don’t need to look at the technology — but frankly, if you’re looking at the statutes and exclusions to patentability and asking what a computer program is, then you need to understand what these technical terms really are. And if you can’t, then the judgment is potentially flawed. Their finding that the neural network is a computer program is, I think, technically obtuse. You know that the Singaporean government — the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore — released about six weeks ago a consultation note to the Singaporean profession and population, asking: is the Emotional Perception case right, and do we need to adopt it into Singaporean national law? So this is direct soft power from the UK Supreme Court changing Commonwealth legislation and statutes. We’ll see what happens. But from what I’ve seen of a draft response from the attorneys, they’re saying essentially: we agree any hardware is right, the intermediate step is right. The assessment of the neural network as a computer program is wrong, or it just doesn’t make any sense. And I’ve made the same comments before in SIPA, in the relevant round in March. There’s a disconnect. I mean, it’s like they equate a computer program with being able to be run on an analog computer. Now, an analog computer has no central processing unit. An analog computer just has resistors and transistors and capacitors. So if they’re saying that an analog computer can run a program — that’s essentially what they’re saying in part of the judgment. Where is the program in an analog computer? And if they’re saying it’s in the values of the resistors and the capacitors, then that has implications for any circuit we’ve got — it’s potentially a computer program — which is just madness, because it doesn’t sit well with the legislation and decisions we’ve looked at over the last 50 years. This is a real problem. It may be a storm in a teacup because you can overcome the objections by having any hardware, but it’s an argument they shouldn’t have been making. It seems to be abstract legal argumentation which has little credibility in my personal view, although it’s now law. It may be that someone can take that, have an argument with the Supreme Court, get them to fix this. The other thing is the EPO looks at a neural network as a mathematical method, and the UK now says it’s a computer program. Neither is right. The EPO is wrong as well. If you look at the actual decision which they regularly quote — the Vicom case — if you actually read the claim and look at the case, you see that it doesn’t make a huge amount of sense. A neural network has applied mathematics in it. It can be based on a computer program because it’s required to set up the learning objectives and the loss function. Mathematical processes — it tweaks the weighting factors of neurons over the course of the training epochs. But at the end of the day, if the function performed by the neural network is new and it’s directed towards a technical implementation which is technically relevant, then it shouldn’t fail for being a mathematical method. And I think the EPO guidelines actually say that. Even recommendations — the UK court said that a recommendation is not technical. Well, actually it is, because it’s data processing, and you’ve got to work out how does the data processing work to provide an improved recommendation? Again, it goes back to the T 1249/22 decision. There’s a whole raft of these things which are left not entirely resolved. There’s enough here to keep someone busy for a few more years. Rolf Claessen: Right. So I have a question for you now that we’ve talked about the decision of the UK Supreme Court and the UPC — the Unified Patent Court — with very, very similar wording. What do you say are the three most important takeaways for patent practitioners in the US, in Europe, in the UK, before the EPO? Are there any things that you really want patent practitioners to take away from our discussion here? Bruce Dearling: Yeah, okay. So first: make sure the claim has some structure in it. You need to have any hardware. That’s number one — in terms of claim drafting. In terms of the description, you really have to understand what the invention is about. And you’ve got to make sure that you explain what function is achieved by what piece of hardware, kit or software. And if you do that — don’t nickel-and-dime this by writing the claim first — I would suggest that you run into problems. You need to understand what the invention is about. And you need to make sure that the description is complete and full to describe the functionality and the effects that are achieved in the real world. And if you can do that, then you’re on a much sounder basis — much, much stronger. There’s a much stronger foundation for this. So that’s two things. Is there a third one? That’s me being a bit cheeky, but I suppose I know what’s going on. Rolf Claessen: Yeah, but maybe the third takeaway is that maybe the EPO will rethink the way — at least how AI inventions are assessed for inventive step. Bruce Dearling: Well, as I said to you before, it could be that that’s the case. I don’t want to repeat myself again. The word “permissive” was used in a conversation I had with respect to the UK Supreme Court approach. COMVIK fundamentally still breaks with me and has done for years, because the way it’s set up and the way it’s applied distorts fundamentally what the invention is about. And until such time as that distortion is removed, there is a problem of objectivity versus subjectivity. And I think that’s really what the EPO has to grapple with. It’s not an easy thing to deal with, but maybe there are things going on. Bruce Dearling: It’s not an easy thing to deal with. I don’t know who’s going to argue it. It would have been useful for me to still have the original case up and running at the EPO because these arguments would have been fleshed out. I’m pretty sure they would have been referred to the Enlarged Board. We would have got it resolved. So it’s whether or not I can now work this into the existing case to try and get the examining division to — well, they will refuse, I suspect. And then it’ll go to the TBA. And then the TBA will have to look at this, hopefully with the referrals to the Enlarged Board. And then that fixes the problem on a national and international basis. Rolf Claessen: Yeah. Let’s see. [Laughs] Bruce Dearling: No, we don’t know. I mean, you might have a different view. What do you think? Do you think COMVIK is fundamentally right or fundamentally wrong? Rolf Claessen: Well, I’m not so much into AI inventions. I’m a chemist and I usually deal with chemistry inventions. But from the discussion that we had, I think that the EPO might rethink their position. I don’t know. Let’s see. Let’s hope so. Bruce Dearling: Well, they liked it. They liked problem-solution. It’s been with us for 25 years. It suggests that it’s a compromise. It’s not mandated by the European Patent Convention — that’s the point. It’s something they think works. And these things only work until such time as someone comes along and says, actually, you’re wrong, and this is the reason. Rolf Claessen: Let’s see if they choose a different route at least for AI inventions. So Bruce, thank you very much for your insight and for talking about the case that you were involved in with the UK Supreme Court. Where could people reach you if they have more questions about this field — basically patents, AI protection in the UK and Europe — and if they want to ask you more questions about this case? Bruce Dearling: Sure. Through the Hepworth Brown website or my LinkedIn profile, I suppose. The Hepworth Brown website has an email link. I’m trying to post things on it as well to try and provide a bit more context. But if people have fundamental questions on this stuff, then I’m happy to try and answer them. I suppose that I can be considered to be quite knowledgeable in the area. Rolf Claessen: Right. Certainly more than I am. [Laughing] Bruce Dearling: So I was fortunate. As a consequence of the work I’m doing, I was appointed last year to the WIPO Standing Committee on Patents and Privacy. That was discussed for the issues of where WIPO goes and what the direction of the problems are that we have in high-tech areas. So there seems to be some degree of understanding that I might know what I’m talking about. I think I probably do. Rolf Claessen: Thank you, Bruce. Thank you very much for being on IP Fridays. Bruce Dearling: My pleasure. Thank you very much, Rolf.

Send us Fan MailEpisode 264 of the Hey You Guys Podcast is here, and this week, Liam and Rob are looking back at the Wachowski's divisive take on Tatsuo Yoshida's iconic 60s manga, 2008's, Speed Racer. Inventive avant-garde film making or an expensive eyesore? A bit of both perhaps? Whatever the case, one thing is for sure - 18 years after its original release, and there is still nothing quite like Speed Racer. Listen in via your podcast platform of choice to find out if this utterly unique slice of big budget film making has stood the test of time. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Guest host Dr. Earl Showerman welcomes returning guest Cheryl Eagan-Donovan to this episode to discuss her latest documentary film project on Shakespeare and the invention of modern theatre in London. Support the show by picking up official Don't Quill the Messenger merchandise at www.dontquillthepodcast.com and becoming a Patron at http://www.patreon.com/dontquillthemessenger  Made possible by Patrons: Clare Jaget, Courtney L, David Neufer, Dean Bradley, Deduce, Earl Showerman, Edward Henke, Ellen Swanson, Frank Lawler, Garrett Jackson, Heidi, Ina Cu, James Warren, Jen Swan, John Creider, John Eddings, John Shahan, Jon Foss, Michael Hannigan, Name Withheld, Neal Riesterer, Patricia Carrelli, quizzi, Richard Wood, Sandi Boney, Sheila Kethley, Stephen Hopkins, Teacher Mallory, Tim Norman, Tim Price, Vanessa Lops Don't Quill the Messenger is a part of the Dragon Wagon Radio independent podcast network. For more great podcasts visit www.dragonwagonradio.com

The word-of-mouth BookTok hit about a supervisor at a top-secret government facility running experiments on human beings. He's always been able to tell himself it's for the greater good—until the day his work follows him home.“Inventive, scary, wholly entertaining, and deeply thought-provoking . . . T. J. Payne is the real deal.”—Jose Molina, writer/producer on The Vampire Diaries, Sleepy Hollow, and FireflyJoe works for an organization known only as “The Company.” He cannot speak about what he does in public. He and his employees live in a constant state of paranoia that The Company is listening to their phones and watching their search histories. Why? Because on the bottom floor of the facility, rows of padded cells keep a group of humans in a constant state of extreme sensory deprivation. With their minds awake but their senses unable to ground themselves, they have gone insane, oscillating between vegetative states and fits of violent rage.These experiments have a purpose, though—when the minds of these inmates transcend their physical selves, they're able to “intercept” the sights and senses of anyone in the world. The process, however, is painful. Torturous.Joe likes to think that his work, helping the government track down bad guys, makes the world a better place. He has no regrets. Until the day when his ex-wife dies by suicide. He learns that a woman who looks very much like one of Joe's inmates had been haunting her. After his ex-wife's death, Joe's daughter Riley comes to live with him. And then she begins to have visions of the woman too...Has Joe somehow played a role in turning the government's most sinister weapon against his own daughter? And, most important of all: how far will he go to save her?Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/houseofmysteryradio. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Young people getting after it in the business is refreshing! Congrats to Mitch on firing up the Next Gen Cattle Podcast, please make sure y'all search it and subscribe on your favourite podcast platforms and YouTube. Mitch has a deep passion for the cattle industry and mentoring the up and coming youth show enthusiasts. Along with his finance Sam, they are building up a piece of their business and promoting their brand. Inventive and an outside of the box thinking Mitch does not seem like he will ever quit working on something new and sharing it with everyone. Mock Stock, ever heard of it? If you haven't it is for sure worth a look. What a great idea for practicing fitting cattle without the extra of having to deal with one! Thank y'all so much for tuning in for the 6th season. Thank you to Season 6 sponsors:Klassen Industries BoviGen Reproductive ServicesRK Animal Supply F'd Up Farming PodcastPlease leave us a 5 star rating and review on your favorite app. Kurtis ReidContact us:Lifestockpodcast@gmail.comFacebook @LifestockPodInstagram @LifestockPodX @LifestockPodYouTube: Lifestock Podcast

About this episode: A collaboration between the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, KFF Health News, and Shatterproof is tracking how communities across the country are spending opioid settlement funds. In this episode: Abigail Winiker of the Bloomberg Overdose Prevention Initiative details the good, bad, and the ugly of the expenditures the team has tracked, from EMS-delivered harm reduction methods to punitive law enforcement investments to... D.A.R.E magicians? Guest: Abigail Winiker, PhD, MSPH, is an assistant scientist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and the program director of the Bloomberg Overdose Prevention Initiative. Host: Lindsay Smith Rogers, MA, is the producer of the Public Health On Call podcast, an editor for Expert Insights, and the director of content strategy for the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Show links and related content: Six Innovations in Settlement Fund Spending—Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Innovations in Opioid Settlement Fund Spending | CMAP Nexus Series—Health Policy and Management – BSPH via YouTube From Narcan to Gun Silencers, Opioid Settlement Cash Pays Law Enforcement Tabs—KFF Health News Edgecombe County honored for its innovative approach to opioid crisis—Rocky Mount Telegram Transcript information: Looking for episode transcripts? Open our podcast on the Apple Podcasts app (desktop or mobile) or the Spotify mobile app to access an auto-generated transcript of any episode. Closed captioning is also available for every episode on our YouTube channel. Contact us: Have a question about something you heard? Looking for a transcript? Want to suggest a topic or guest? Contact us via email or visit our website. Follow us: @‌PublicHealthPod on Bluesky @‌PublicHealthPod on Instagram @‌JohnsHopkinsSPH on Facebook @‌PublicHealthOnCall on YouTube Here's our RSS feed Note: These podcasts are a conversation between the participants, and do not represent the position of Johns Hopkins University.

"We did it by playing football. Pure, beautiful, inventive football." Jock Stein's words are etched into the DNA of Celtic FC, establishing a standard where winning isn't enough - you have to entertain. But as we enter the final stretch of the 2025–26 Scottish Premiership season, that "beautiful" game feels like a distant memory. This season has been anything but pure. From the mid-season managerial shift to Martin O'Neill following Brendan Rodgers' departure in October, the flair has been replaced by a "grind-it-out" mentality. We've seen 112 goals last season plummet to just 59 this term, with fans growing frustrated by sideways passing and late, scrappy winners. And yet, somehow, we are still right in there. Despite the poor perfromances at times, Celtic remain locked in a fierce three-way title race with Heart of Midlothian and Rangers. With only a few points separating the top three, the manner of victory has taken a backseat to the sheer necessity of the three points. In this video, we analyze: The Philosophy Gap: Why Stein's "inventive" football has vanished this season. The O'Neill Effect: Can grit and spirit alone defend the title? The Run-In: Breaking down the post-split fixtures, including the massive Glasgow Derby on May 10. It isn't "pure, beautiful, or inventive" - but will it be enough to bring the trophy back to Parkhead? Let's discuss in the comments: Would you take five more ugly 1-0 wins if it guaranteed the league title? Don't forget to LIKE, SUBSCRIBE, and hit the BELL to stay updated on all things Celtic! #CelticFC #Green Brigade #Scottish Premiership #CelticPark #Paradise #COYBIG #CelticNews #SPFL #NorthCurve #CelticFans

Play. Discover. Be discovered.Join award-winning fantasy and dreampunk author, Anna Tizard, in a funny and dark Alice in Wonderland-style journey into creative writing. Brainstorming and writing short stories has never been so rich in discovery and surprises, using the surrealist word game of Exquisite Corpse. Listeners' words are drawn from the legendary Socks of Destiny and mixed into writing prompts which lead to the most unexpected story ideas—and a fascinating exploration of writing craft.Listeners are also warmly invited to share their own microfiction and poetry based on the previous show's prompts. Subscribe for free to Anna Tizard's private email list and receive an e-book to begin your journey into The Book of Exquisite Corpse (includes exclusive material not published anywhere else). Go to www.annatizard.com.The list of categories for the second round of brainstorms (chosen with a roll of the dice) is: 1) a book or magazine 2) a job or role, taken on reluctantly, 3) a pub or café, 4) a portalor means of travel, 5) a piece of treasure or magical, sought-after object, 6) a monster or creature, 7) an invention, 8) a weapon, 9) a hidden identity or disguise, 10) a scar (physical or psychological), 11) a ghost, or 12) or a cocktail or special tea (which, let's face it, is likely to be a magic potion or poison).

Inventive guitar wizard talks about influences like Les Paul, Wes Montgomery and his latest album revolving around Action Park in New Jersey.

A.F. Temple was a businessman, inventor, and politician. In this episode we look back at his life, some of his creations, and his legacy in Muskegon.

An AFC East team has made their fourth-year coach the NFL's eighth to be fired this season. Correspondent Gethin Coolbaugh reports.

The word Hello showed up just as the world was changing . . . in the absolute biggest ways ever. Nothing was the same after "Hello". In this episode we cross paths with Michigan J Frog, Tin Pan Alley, the Phonograph, Western Union, Laura Ingalls Wilder, Alexander Graham Bell, Scott Joplin, the telephone operator, Thomas Edison and J. N. Pattison.

Friday, 26 December 2025   Do you not yet understand that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and is eliminated? Matthew 15:17   “Not yet you grasp that all, the ‘entering into the mouth,' into the stomach it contains, and into the john it ejects?” (CG).   In the previous verse, Jesus chided the disciples, noting their still being unintelligent. He now explains their question with basic information that any child could understand, beginning with, “Not yet you grasp.”   Two new words are seen here. The first is oupó, yet. It is not found in all manuscripts. Instead, some say, “Not you grasp.” Either way, the word will be found in all manuscripts starting in Matthew 16:9.   The second new word is noeó, to exercise the mind. Thus, it means to understand, comprehend, etc. To keep it distinct from other similar words in a translation, saying “grasp” satisfies the need.   HELPS Word Studies says that this word “underlines the moral culpability we all have before God – for every decision (value-judgment) we make. This follows from each of us being created in the divine image – hence, possessing the inherent capacity by the Lord to exercise moral reasoning.”   What Jesus wonders if they yet grasp is “that all, the ‘entering into the mouth,' into the stomach it contains.”   Jesus gives them a lesson in basic human physiology. In fact, it is characteristic of life everywhere. In these words are two more new words. The first is eisporeuomai, to enter. When a person feeds himself, food enters his mouth. From the very first moments of a baby's existence, this is understood. They know exactly what to do to obtain nourishment.   The next new word is chóreó, to be in space or to give space. Thus, it gives a sense of holding. When a person eats, the food doesn't just stay in his mouth. Rather, it takes a journey down the alimentary canal. As it heads down, it stops in the stomach. While there, the stomach contains it and processes it.   Anyone who has had a meal knows this. The feeling is sensational each time we eat as the stomach whirls and churns, breaking down the food. If there was something upsetting in the food, the feeling may still be sensational, but in a bad way. Maybe we would call the sensation miserable. Whatever way it affects us, it eventually leads to Jesus' next words, which finish His question, “and into the john it ejects?”   Here is yet another new word, aphedrón, a place of sitting. Eventually, the food is processed in the stomach, continues on a long meandering journey through the bowels, and eventually it is ejected in the place of sitting.   In English, we have innumerable words to describe the location. There are locative descriptions, such as outhouse. There are accommodating descriptions, such as privy. We have coyly deceptive descriptions, such as powder room. And then there are colorful descriptions that every schoolboy knows, and many build upon.   And there is, of course, the memorial word john. That is most likely named after Sir John Harington. He was a 6th-century godson of Queen Elizabeth I. Being Mr. Inventive, he designed an early type of flushing toilet. Even though he wasn't the first to invent a flushing toilet, his invention, along with a satirical pamphlet he wrote about it, popularized the word john. Thus, his name became slang for his device.   Jesus' basic physiology course ends. He will next teach a truth about this process, making a contrast with it to something else.   Life application: Imagine your name is associated with such an invention, being repeated millions of times every day. There are lots of ways to be remembered that are far more tasteful. However, the best way of all is to be remembered on the day the Lord comes for His church.   Paul describes the event –   “Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed— 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.” 1 Corinthians 15:51-53   You may not be famous now, but you are important to God if you have trusted the gospel. So get ready for transformation day when Jesus calls us out of this corruptible body. We are talking about a name with eternal fame, simply by believing. So be ready by trusting Jesus!    Lord God Almighty, You designed us according to Your wisdom, and we are wonderfully made. But what will we be like when we have our change? The thought captures our attention. How we long for that day. May it be soon. Amen.

durée : 00:10:31 - Les Midis de Culture - par : Antoine Leiris - Avec French Theory, François Cusset et Thomas Daquin explore la manière dont les idées des penseurs français comme Deleuze, Foucault ou Derrida, devenus incontournables aux États-Unis transforment nos vies encore aujourd'hui. La bande dessinée est adaptée de l'essai éponyme de François Cusset. - réalisation : Laurence Malonda - invités : Joseph Ghosn Directeur adjoint de la rédaction de Madame Figaro; Victor Macé de Lépinay Rédacteur en chef adjoint du Pèlerin

Ben and Amory share two stories about some out-of-the-box internet trolling. First, Amory tries to untangle a web of rumors surrounding an unusual dish from New Zealand. Then, Ben takes us aboard Terri's Tourz, an alleged Everglade tourist attraction claiming to offer the nation's first ever tours of the South Florida Detention Center known as Alligator Alcatraz. Show notes: 3 Facts About New Zealand I Didn't Know Until I Moved Here (Medium) Was this post a joke? (r/newzealand) Terri's Tourz

Annie Davis' career began far from boardrooms and tech startups — it started at IKEA and McDonald's. In this episode of The Inventive Journey, host Devon Miller sits down with Annie to explore how her bold move from Reno to Utah on a whim evolved into a thriving entrepreneurial career.Annie shares how she learned to lead teams across borders, embrace remote collaboration long before it was mainstream, and grow from project manager to CEO in a digital development firm. Her story is one of fearless adaptability, pragmatic leadership, and turning challenges into streamlined systems — including her “one-touch” policy for productivity that helped her scale a web business efficiently.Listeners will gain insights into:Building business structure before burnout.Managing global teams remotely with empathy and precision.The art of balancing process and passion in startup life.Buying back your own company — and why doing so can be your smartest move.If you're a startup founder or small business owner ready to refine your operations and culture, Annie's practical journey will resonate.

Being inventive

Procurement doesn't just have a measurement problem. It has a motivation problem. Behind every misaligned target, every “savings” claim, and every missed opportunity is the same invisible culprit: incentives that quietly tell people to do the wrong things well. In this episode of Buy: The Way…To Purposeful Procurement, Jason Brown, accounting professor at Indiana University and longtime corporate incentives expert, joins co-hosts Philip Ideson and Rich Ham to expose how organizational reward systems shape behavior far more powerfully than strategy or mission statements ever could. He explains why even the most principled teams end up chasing metrics that distort procurement's purpose, and why rethinking incentive design may be the key to unlocking true business alignment. Drawing from decades of academic research and corporate consulting, Jason unpacks the subtle ways procurement incentives drift off course: how bonus structures reward volume over value, how finance and procurement end up speaking different dialects of “performance,” and how organizations confuse compliance with contribution. He also brings attention to the rare examples of companies that have broken these patterns by tying procurement's rewards directly to shared outcomes that improve EBITDA, resilience, and stakeholder trust. This conversation challenges a fundamental assumption: can procurement ever be purposeful if its people are rewarded for something other than real impact?  As Jason argues, until incentives reflect what actually matters to the business and society, procurement will remain stuck in a cycle of performative alignment where everyone looks busy but the enterprise stands still. According to Jason, the truth may be uncomfortable, but it's exactly what procurement needs to hear. Incentive design isn't a soft topic or a side project. It's the operating system of purposeful procurement, and it's long overdue for an upgrade. Links: Jason Brown on LinkedInRich Ham on LinkedInLearn more at FineTuneUs.com

Water scarcity is among the foremost challenges to national and regional financial security and public health in India. This week on World Ocean Radio we outline a sampling of water tech innovations that are demonstrating the ingenuity and extent of invention in response to the water crisis.About World Ocean Radio World Ocean Radio is a weekly series of five-minute audio essays available for syndicated use at no cost by college and community radio stations worldwide. Peter Neill, Founder of the World Ocean Observatory and host of World Ocean Radio, provides coverage of a broad spectrum of ocean issues from science and education to advocacy and exemplary projects.World Ocean Radio 15 Years, 760+ Episodes Ocean is climate Climate is ocean The sea connects all thingsWorld Ocean Radio: 5-minute weekly insights in ocean science, advocacy, education, global ocean issues, challenges, marine science, policy, and solutions. Hosted by Peter Neill, Founder of W2O. Learn more at worldoceanobservatory.org

durée : 01:28:41 - Elsa Dreisig, soprano brillante et inventive - par : Aurélie Moreau - Quand Elsa Dreisig aborde les répétitions d'un opéra, « il ne s'agit pas d'arriver avec un rôle entièrement ficelé mais de proposer assez de matière pour la déconstruire et bâtir sur ses ruines » (La Croix). Aujourd'hui : de Mozart à Villa-Lobos. Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les autres épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France.

Host: Peter Neill Producer: Trisha Badger ABOUT THIS EPISODE Water scarcity is among the foremost challenges to national and regional financial security and public health in India. This week on World Ocean Radio we outline a sampling of water tech innovations that are demonstrating the ingenuity and extent of invention in response to the water crisis. WORLD OCEAN RADIO 5-minute weekly insights dive into ocean science, advocacy and education hosted by Peter Neill, lifelong ocean advocate and maritime expert. A catalog of more than 730 episodes offering perspectives on global ocean issues and solutions, and celebrating exemplary projects. Available for RSS feed and broadcast by college and community radio stations worldwide via Exchange.prx.org and Audioport.org. Visit WorldOceanObservatory.org for the full catalog, searchable by theme. The post World Ocean Radio 9/24/25: Inventive Water Conservation Projects in India first appeared on WERU 89.9 FM Blue Hill, Maine Local News and Public Affairs Archives.

A guitarist-composer invents her own sound, a young pianist performs Liszt with power and finesse and an all-star cello quartet rocks Piazzolla.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Build Innovation Teams That Thrive in Ambiguity Human Ingenuity: Clever, Inventive and Fearless Thinking Episode 271 (Ken is based in the Greater Toronto Area) In this conversation we explore… why innovation often stalls in organizations the difference between innovation, entrepreneurship, and ingenuity how to measure and manage openness to ambiguity why diversity of thought and background is essential for innovation how leadership roles should rotate during the innovation cycle why bias is the greatest barrier to new thinking the role of students and external control groups in innovation the difference between simple, complex, and wicked challenges why human ingenuity requires clever, inventive, and fearless thinking how the 90% Rule honors the past while pushing toward the future ----- About our guest, Ken Tencer: Ken is a long time entrepreneur, author and global speaker. He is completing a doctorate in human ingenuity - clever, inventive an fearless thinking in the faces of wicked challenges (incomplete information, ambiguity, and uncertainty) Ken works with organizations to help them identify and resolve their wicked challenges, (strategy, team development and tactics). Learn more and contact him at:   https://sayhitothefuture.ca/ ----- Key Learning Points Innovation requires three dimensions: innovation (process), entrepreneurship (team), and ingenuity (thinking). Ambiguity is a core skill: successful innovation teams must measure and embrace tolerance for ambiguity. Diversity fuels innovation: variety in backgrounds, perspectives, and disciplines prevents groupthink. Leadership should rotate: the right leader shifts depending on the stage of the innovation cycle. Bias is the biggest barrier: more than money or time, it blocks new thinking. External voices help: student or alumni “control groups” bring fresh, unbiased perspectives. Understand the three challenge types: simple, complex, and wicked — each requires different approaches. Human ingenuity demands fearlessness: decisions must be made even without certainty. The 90% Rule: honor the past while pushing forward to the next 10%. Future readiness means “saying hi to the future”: embracing macro trends, empathy, and new thinking tools. ----- ----more---- Your Intended Message is the podcast about how you can boost your career and business success by honing your communication skills. We'll examine the aspects of how we communicate one-to-one, one to few and one to many – plus that important conversation, one to self. In these interviews we will explore presentation skills, public speaking, conversation, persuasion, negotiation, sales conversations, marketing, team meetings, social media, branding, self talk and more.   Your host is George Torok George is a specialist in communication skills. Especially presentation. He's fascinated by the links between communication and influencing behaviors. He delivers training and coaching programs to help leaders and promising professionals deliver the intended message for greater success.   Connect with George www.SpeechCoachforExecutives.com https://superiorpresentations.net/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/georgetorokpresentations/ https://www.youtube.com/user/presentationskills  

Fluent Fiction - Serbian: Inventive Romance at the Nikola Tesla Museum Find the full episode transcript, vocabulary words, and more:fluentfiction.com/sr/episode/2025-08-28-22-34-02-sr Story Transcript:Sr: Топао летњи дан обасјао је Београд, а Музеј Николе Тесле био је препун туриста који су бажљиво разгледали славне експонате.En: A warm summer day illuminated Belgrade, and the Nikola Tesla Museum was filled with tourists who were eagerly observing the famous exhibits.Sr: Међу њима је био и Никола, младић са вечитом жељом да научи све о генијалном научнику.En: Among them was Nikola, a young man with a perpetual desire to learn everything about the brilliant scientist.Sr: Чим је ступио у музеј, очи су му засјале од узбуђења.En: As soon as he stepped into the museum, his eyes sparkled with excitement.Sr: Био је одлучан да импресионира Јелену, девојку коју је кришом гледао из даљине и дивио јој се.En: He was determined to impress Jelena, the girl he secretly admired from a distance.Sr: Док је посматрао један од Теслиних изума, упитала га је група туриста: „Извините, да ли сте ви водич?En: While he was observing one of Tesla's inventions, a group of tourists asked him, "Excuse me, are you a guide?"Sr: “ Никола је био изненађен, али је у себи осетио прилику.En: Nikola was surprised, but he felt the opportunity within himself.Sr: Одлучио је да одигра улогу водича, надајући се да ће Јелена приметити његово самопоуздање.En: He decided to play the role of a guide, hoping that Jelena would notice his confidence.Sr: „Да, наравно!En: "Yes, of course!Sr: Хајде да обиђемо овде“, рекао је Никола, иако је знао само основне чињенице о Теслином животу.En: Let's take a tour here," he said, even though he only knew the basic facts about Tesla's life.Sr: Повевши их кроз музеј, причао је како је Тесла изумео тајни уређај за комуникацију са голубовима, врло поносан на своју машту.En: Leading them through the museum, he narrated how Tesla invented a secret device for communicating with pigeons, very proud of his imagination.Sr: Туристима се допадала његова прича, али Никола није приметио Јелену како прилази с осмехом на лицу.En: The tourists enjoyed his story, but Nikola didn't notice Jelena approaching with a smile on her face.Sr: Таман када је измишљао нову причу о маштовитом изуму који кува кафу за само један секунд, прави водич, Марко, појавио се иза угла.En: Just as he was inventing a new story about a fantastic invention that brews coffee in just one second, the real guide, Marko, appeared from around the corner.Sr: „Извините, ја сам прави водич“, рекао је љубазно, док је публика збуњено пенгирала на њега и Николу.En: "Excuse me, I am the real guide," he said politely, while the audience looked confusedly at him and Nikola.Sr: Никола је остао збуњен, али је Јелена, која је све време слушала са стране, почела да се смеје.En: Nikola was left bewildered, but Jelena, who had been listening from the side, began to laugh.Sr: „Врло креативно, Никола“, рекла је.En: "Very creative, Nikola," she said.Sr: „Хајде да послушамо прави обилазак заједно.En: "Let's listen to the real tour together."Sr: “И тако, док су пратили Марка кроз изложбе, Никола је схватио да не мора да буде генијалан као Тесла да би импресионирао Јелену.En: And so, as they followed Marko through the exhibits, Nikola realized that he didn't have to be as brilliant as Tesla to impress Jelena.Sr: Важније је било делити истинску страст за оно што је волео.En: It was more important to share a genuine passion for what he loved.Sr: На крају обиласка, Јелена му је предложила да заједно наставе да истражују Теслине изуме.En: At the end of the tour, Jelena suggested they continue exploring Tesla's inventions together.Sr: Никола је знао да је, овог пута, његова искреност била довољна.En: Nikola knew that this time, his sincerity was enough. Vocabulary Words:illuminated: обасјаоeagerly: бажљивоperpetual: вечитомnarrated: причаоbewildered: збуњенadmired: дивиоobserving: разгледалиsecretly: кришомopportunity: приликуconfidence: самопоуздањеapproaching: прилазиimagination: маштуsparkled: засјалеguide: водичtour: обилазакfantastic: маштовитомbrilliant: генијаланgenuine: истинскуimpress: импресионираexhibits: експонатеdetermined: одлучанinventing: измишљаоpolitely: љубазноconfusedly: збуњеноcontinued: наставеdevice: уређајbrew: куваpigeons: голубовимаsincerity: искреностpassion: страст

Ready to head back to school? DREADING back to school ? Allow Kimberly to make the most of this transition. Spark's masterpiece is brief but wow does it pack a punch. Her prose SEEMS simple but her original, sometimes startling syntax, the way she plays with time, and the unique structure of this work mean there's soooo much for Kimberly to dig in to.

On this episode we are joined by Dr. Melanie Loehwing, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs for the College of Arts & Sciences as well as Kate Sawaya, Academic Coordinator. We discuss the new and inventive curriculum opportunities available to our students, like the 3 + 3 advanced law degree, thrive in five, different interdisciplinary study programs, as well as CAS Pass.

NO SPOILERS! Kimberly picked up this hybrid memoir-novel because she was intrigued by Lacey's inventiveness. Listen in to see which parts of the text met her high expectations and which might have fallen a bit short. And if you haven't thought through the difference between a mobius strip and the infinity symbol, Kimberly promises to add a little insight to your Mobius Book experience..

There are SO MANY REASONS why so many people love this book. Allow Kimberly to help you see how Vonnegut's deceptively simple prose does so much heavy lifting. She dives deep into the book's structure, its sci-fi elements and its humor. She really wants to share her take on why this groundbreaking, post-modern classic is so much more than its postmodern peers. Listen in now for an immersion into one of Time's best 100 novels of the past 100 years.

I was writing in one of the chapters of my book the other day, which is about mantra meditation. I reread one of the paragraphs, it was about concentration. And really, it's a simple process in doing japa: the main point is to listen. That's simple, but it may not be so simple if the mind runs off here and there. So, Kṛṣṇa recommends in the sixth chapter of the Gita that practice that. In normal meditation, focusing on the tip of the nose or on some singular point. It's like building a muscle. But actually, when you chant japa, you're invoking the avatāra. Kṛṣṇa is making His avatār, His descent, in the name. So He actually takes us by the hand. If we extend ourselves through our attention and we actually sincerely try, then He'll lift us up, because He has the power to do that. He can lift us up above the chatter of the mind, above all the modes of material nature."Māṁ ca yo 'vyabhicāreṇa bhakti-yogena sevate sa guṇān samatītyaitān brahma-bhūyāya kalpate (BG 14.26)." By Kṛṣṇa's power, which is fully invested in The Holy name – "nāmnām akāri bahudhā nija-sarva-śaktis"– He is no different. All the śaktis are there within His Holy Name. We can be lifted up above. So, it's the most worthwhile practice to take time every day to fully listen with attention to the name, to ourselves repeating the name over and over again, and then self-examine: "How did I do and why didn't I do as well as I thought? What's the defect?" And in that practice, one makes advancement in devotional service without a doubt. It's very, it's the most powerful of all the practices. That's why Prabhupāda insisted, "At least you do 16 rounds every day." ------------------------------------------------------------ To connect with His Grace Vaiśeṣika Dāsa, please visit https://www.fanthespark.com/next-steps/ask-vaisesika-dasa/ ------------------------------------------------------------ Add to your wisdom literature collection: https://iskconsv.com/book-store/ https://www.bbtacademic.com/books/ https://thefourquestionsbook.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------ Join us live on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/FanTheSpark/ Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/sound-bhakti/id1132423868 For the latest videos, subscribe https://www.youtube.com/@FanTheSpark For the latest in SoundCloud: https://soundcloud.com/fan-the-spark ------------------------------------------------------------ #makejapagreatagain #mantrameditation #chantharekrishnaandbehappy #spiritualawakening #soul #spiritualexperience #spiritualpurposeoflife #spiritualgrowthlessons #secretsofspirituality #vaisesikaprabhu #vaisesikadasa #vaisesikaprabhulectures #spirituality #bhaktiyoga #krishna #spiritualpurposeoflife #krishnaspirituality #spiritualusachannel #whybhaktiisimportant #whyspiritualityisimportant #vaisesika #spiritualconnection #thepowerofspiritualstudy #selfrealization #spirituallectures #spiritualstudy #spiritualquestions #spiritualquestionsanswered #trendingspiritualtopics #fanthespark #spiritualpowerofmeditation #spiritualteachersonyoutube #spiritualhabits #spiritualclarity #bhagavadgita #srimadbhagavatam #spiritualbeings #kttvg #keepthetranscendentalvibrationgoing #spiritualpurpose

Looking For A Cold Brew Coffee and Fruit Juice Blends Mix? Meet Java Twist Founder, Steve Schuyler, the founder and creator of Java Twist, a unique beverage company that crafts cold brew coffee and fruit juice blends. Steve explains how he developed the idea after running out of iced tea while making an Arnold Palmer, leading him to mix coffee with lemonade. His initial creation led to a range of nine distinctive flavors, including coffee with cranberry, pineapple, and even apple, alongside two non-coffee lemonade options like chocolate and blueberry.Java Twist uses simple, clean ingredients and offers sugar-free alternatives, with products available for purchase on their website and at select retail locations.FAQs about this episodeWhat is Java Twist and how did it start?Java Twist creates unique and refreshing beverages, primarily cold brew coffee mixed with various fruit juices. The business launched in 2019 in Wisconsin, with its first flavor, cold brew coffee with lemonade, an invention born when the founder, Steve Java, ran out of iced tea while making an Arnold Palmer. He experimented with coffee and lemonade, tweaked the recipe, and found customers were "blown away" by the taste. Initially a grassroots effort, bottling the drink himself, Steve discovered that coffee, much like wine, pairs well with many fruits, leading to the expansion of their product line.What are the key ingredients and characteristics of Java Twist beverages?Java Twist prioritizes simple and clean ingredients: cold brew coffee, water, sugar (or monk fruit for zero-sugar options), and fruit juice. The use of cold brew coffee is a key secret, as it removes the acidity often found in hot-brewed coffee, allowing it to perfectly mirror the natural acidity of the fruit juices.What are Java Twist's most popular flavors?While popularity can vary by region and season, some consistently top-selling flavors include the cranberry coffee, which is a sweet-tart coffee with a subtle, almost chocolatey finish. The chocolate lemonade is also a bestseller, especially in retail stores like Meyer, likely because it offers a familiar lemonade base without coffee, making it an approachable entry point for new customers. The blueberry lemonade is also performing very strongly, particularly at events. The original lemon and lime flavors also do well, with lime being particularly popular in the southern U.S. and apple more so in northern regions.How can customers purchase Java Twist products and connect with the company?The simplest way to purchase Java Twist is through their website, www.java-twist.com, where customers can order individual flavors or a "mix six-pack" to sample a variety. The products are shelf-stable and can be shipped directly to customers' homes. For those in Wisconsin, there's also a physical storefront where the products are bottled. Java Twist actively participates in special events, fairs, and farmers markets, which are announced on their social media platforms. The company is also active on Instagram, Facebook, LinkedIn, TikTok, and YouTube, and the founder's personal cell phone and email are available on the website for direct inquiries.>> Buy your Java Twist Flavors Online Now

4b Inventive Theatre, Up Close by

【欢迎订阅】 每天早上5:30，准时更新。 【阅读原文】 标题：Japan's civil war over surnames Inventive schemes help women dodge inflexible marriage laws 正文：For a couple that has divorced three times, Uchiyama Yukari and Koike Yukio get along remarkably well. The two teachers, who live in the city of Nagano in central Japan, have never fallen out of love. Yet they have parted several times on paper, in order to sidestep a law that requires married people to have the same surname. Most of the time the couple lives happily outside wedlock. Each time they have a child they remarry (because that makes registering the birth simpler) and then divorce again. 知识点：get along phr.v. /ɡet əˈlɒŋ/ to have a harmonious relationship. 相处融洽 e.g. Despite their differences, the two colleagues get along quite well. 尽管存在分歧，这两位同事相处得相当融洽。 获取外刊的完整原文以及精讲笔记，请关注微信公众号「早安英文」，回复“外刊”即可。更多有意思的英语干货等着你！ 【节目介绍】 《早安英文-每日外刊精读》，带你精读最新外刊，了解国际最热事件：分析语法结构，拆解长难句，最接地气的翻译，还有重点词汇讲解。 所有选题均来自于《经济学人》《纽约时报》《华尔街日报》《华盛顿邮报》《大西洋月刊》《科学杂志》《国家地理》等国际一线外刊。 【适合谁听】 1、关注时事热点新闻，想要学习最新最潮流英文表达的英文学习者 2、任何想通过地道英文提高听、说、读、写能力的英文学习者 3、想快速掌握表达，有出国学习和旅游计划的英语爱好者 4、参加各类英语考试的应试者（如大学英语四六级、托福雅思、考研等） 【你将获得】 1、超过1000篇外刊精读课程，拓展丰富语言表达和文化背景 2、逐词、逐句精确讲解，系统掌握英语词汇、听力、阅读和语法 3、每期内附学习笔记，包含全文注释、长难句解析、疑难语法点等，帮助扫除阅读障碍。

In our chaotic world, at the heart of its frenzied acceleration, we invite you to reset the time on the big clocks to the rhythm of their own pendulums, ticking away nicely! Enough with the metaphors, to hell with labels, let's take a look at recent architectural and urban news stories that intersect, dealing with materiality, immateriality, a former teacher hero, constructive genius, and radical (absurd) deconstruction!Anne-Charlotte takes a critical stance here! It's rare, but hey...Audio editing comdarchipodcastAudio advice NyreTeaser image © comdarchipodcast under the vaulted ceiling of the amphitheater at the Centre Niemeyer, Paris____If you like the podcast do not hesitate:. to subscribe so you don't miss the next episodes,. to leave us stars and a comment :-),. to follow us on Instagram @comdarchipodcast to find beautiful images, always chosen with care, so as to enrich your view on the subject.Nice week to all of you ! Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

durée : 00:23:48 - L'invité de 8h20 : le grand entretien - par : Simon Le Baron - La sociologue et politologue Anna Colin Lebedev était l'invitée du Grand Entretien de France Inter ce lundi. Elle publie vendredi "Ukraine, la force des faibles", aux éditions du Seuil. - invités : Anna Colin Lébédev - Anna Colin Lebedev : Maîtresse de conférences en science politique à l'université Paris-Nanterre

durée : 00:23:48 - L'invité de 8h20 : le grand entretien - par : Simon Le Baron - La sociologue et politologue Anna Colin Lebedev était l'invitée du Grand Entretien de France Inter ce lundi. Elle publie vendredi "Ukraine, la force des faibles", aux éditions du Seuil. - invités : Anna Colin Lébédev - Anna Colin Lebedev : Maîtresse de conférences en science politique à l'université Paris-Nanterre Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les autres épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France.

Dans notre monde déréglé, au coeur de son accélération affolante, nous vous proposons ici de remettre le temps des grandes horloges au rythme de leurs propres balanciers, bien cadencés ! Trève de métaphore, au diable les étiquettes, penchons nous sur des actualités architecturales et urbaines récentes qui s'entrecroisent, où il est question de matérialité, d'immatérialité, d'un ex prof héro, de génie constructif et de déconstructions à l'emporte pièce !Anne-Charlotte prend ici une posture critique ! C'est rare, mais bon...Montage audio comdarchipodcastConseil audio NyreImage teaser © comdarchipodcast sous la voûte de l'amphithéâtre du Centre Niemeyer, Paris____Si le podcast COM D'ARCHI vous plaît n'hésitez pas :. à vous abonner pour ne pas rater les prochains épisodes,. à nous laisser des étoiles et un commentaire, :-),. à nous suivre sur Instagram @comdarchipodcast pour retrouver de belles images, toujours choisies avec soin, de manière à enrichir votre regard sur le sujet.Bonne semaine à tous ! Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

On Monday evening, just after the 2025 Met Gala arrivals wrapped up, Who What Wear Shopping Director Bobby Schuessler sat down with Editorial Director Lauren Eggertsen and senior fashion and social media editor Tara Gonzalez to debrief on the most successful and creative interpretations of this year's theme, Superfine: Tailoring Black Style. After a night full of touching homages and nuanced references, our editors are breaking down the impeccable storytelling told through fashion at the Met Gala this year. Plus, they discuss Diana Ross's triumphant return to the Met, Doechii's logo face stamp, and Colman Domingo's numerous flawless looks.Shop our editor's eBay picks here!See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The Cinematography Podcast Episode 309: Scott Siracusano The Hulu original horror film, Control Freak, plunges audiences into the unraveling world of Val (Kelly Marie Tran), a motivational speaker tormented by an unrelenting itch on the back of her head. Is it a manifestation of her own mind, or is she falling prey to a parasitic demon from her homeland? Control Freak is a body horror film that delves deep into themes of control, perfectionism, mental health, and generational trauma. Cinematographer Scott Siracusano has known Control Freak writer and director Shal Ngo since 2019. The two made a short, The Box, which went to the prestigious Cameraimage Film Festival in Poland. Their creative partnership continued on another short film, Control, for season two of Hulu's Bite Size Halloween. When Ngo was invited to expand Control into a feature-length film, Control Freak was conceived. Scott was captivated by the script and eager for the creative challenges it presented. Unfortunately, the film hit several roadblocks and delays before shooting was finally greenlit by the network. As a first-time feature DP, Scott had to meet with producers and pitch himself as the best cinematographer for the film. Championed by Ngo, Scott meticulously prepared a lookbook and presented his scene-by-scene shooting strategy in an hour-long meeting, ultimately securing his role as the film's cinematographer. One of the most significant cinematographic challenges on Control Freak was executing its underwater sequences. Due to a limited budget, there wasn't enough time or money to shoot the actors in real tanks of water. Scott chose to use dry for wet film techniques, where smoke, specialized filters, and dynamic lighting effects are skillfully combined to simulate an underwater environment. Inspiration for this approach came from Dan Laustsen's masterful work in The Shape of Water. “What I realized is that it is truly a less is more situation,” Scott says. “We need to have the caustics of water and moving lights that you would feel on your subject in tandem with atmosphere, and particles that could be added as effects. I was like, 'I think we could pull this off. I think we could actually do this.'” The biggest concern was creating realistic hair and body movement floating in water, so the actors' hair was tied back for these scenes. The production team found a music performance space where they could build a wire rig, enabling the actors to “float.” For close ups, Scott found simply having the actors sit and move around on a yoga ball effectively created a floating effect. Two projectors helped simulate water patterns, and the room was filled with atmospheric haze. Subtle fill light and slight camera movements completed the effect. Ultimately, these practical in-camera effects were so successful that the film required minimal visual effects for its underwater scenes. The lighting and color palette of Control Freak were crucial in establishing a claustrophobic atmosphere and exploring the film's central duality between sanity and madness. "We really wanted to lean into the surrealism and the dreamlike state of everything,” explains Scott. “Moonlight definitely allowed us a little bit more shaping, and being able to hide the monster. I really wanted to have rich, detailed shadows that were never true black—always some detail, no matter how dark the shadows.” Val's house was intentionally kept as an enclosed space, with curtains constantly drawn, immersing the audience in her confinement and heightening their sense of being trapped alongside her. As a horror fan himself, Scott loved creating the look and feel of Control Freak. “It's so cool and fun being on set, in the actual world with the creature there.” His takeaways from lensing his first feature included the importance of faithfully executing the director's vision while remaining adaptable to the unpredictable nature of filmmaking. “Going into a feature,

On Monday evening, just after the 2025 Met Gala arrivals wrapped up, Who What Wear Shopping Director Bobby Schuessler sat down with Editorial Director Lauren Eggertsen and senior fashion and social media editor Tara Gonzalez to debrief on the most successful and creative interpretations of this year's theme, Superfine: Tailoring Black Style. After a night full of touching homages and nuanced references, our editors are breaking down the impeccable storytelling told through fashion at the Met Gala this year. Plus, they discuss Diana Ross's triumphant return to the Met, Doechii's logo face stamp, and Colman Domingo's numerous flawless looks.Shop our editor's eBay picks here!See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In today's episode of The Edge of Excellence podcast, co-host Sean Phelps is joined by Ian Beacraft, a futurist, AI expert, and CEO of Signal and Cipher.You'll hear about the journey of an entrepreneur who has carved out a unique path through persistence, adaptability, and a relentless pursuit of knowledge. From an intense early business experience that tested the limits of endurance to later navigating the fast-evolving landscape of innovation, the discussion highlights the mindset and skills necessary to thrive in an ever-changing world.Sean and Ian explore how unconventional career paths often lead to groundbreaking opportunities, emphasizing the value of embracing uncertainty and taking risks. A powerful analogy suggests that if a path is clearly visible, it may not be the right one—true growth comes from forging ahead into the unknown. Through personal anecdotes and philosophical insights, the episode paints a picture of success as a series of calculated leaps, rather than a predetermined route.This episode will leave you with a sense of anticipation, as well as an eagerness to explore what's on the horizon.Don't miss another episode of The Edge of Excellence podcast. Leave a review and subscribe today!What You Will Learn In This Show:Ian's journey from music major to pre-med to entrepreneurship, influenced by his College Works experience.The challenges of working in a large marketing agency, including the overwhelming nature of meetings with large teams.The importance of embracing emotions like fear and anger as tools for self-improvement.Ian's experience of speaking at South by Southwest and the challenges of creating unique and impactful presentations.The transformative nature of entrepreneurial experiences and their long-term impact on one's career.And much more...Resources:Ian's LinkedInSignal and Cipher

House Passes G.O.P. Budget Plan; Inventive food and faith ministry provides for western NC; Colorado colleges tap NYC program to get homegrown talent into good jobs; Social Security changes could have biggest impacts for rural ID.

White published the four-part volume in 1938 and 1958--all in the shadow of WWII. If he only knew how well the chaos of that historical moment would mirror 2025! This 700-page novel is haunting, intelligent, absorbing and charming. NO NEED TO READ the book. Just treat yourself to Kimberly's wander through it now!

It's the first ball of the season and the host is approaching matchmaking not as an art, but as a science!Bitcherton is an improvised comedy podcast inspired by the stories of Jane Austen that tells the tale of a wealthy family's secrets, scandals and shenanigans.Credits:Cassie Willson as Lady Patience Bitcherton Carolyn Page as Gwendoline BitchertonAlex Song-Xia as Ester “Estie” BitchertonIfy Nwadiwe as Vicar Glennwald DevoutlyBrian Flaherty as Davis DevoutlyKatie Marovitch as Violet BitchertonFeaturing Guest Star Tao Yang as Horatio Oliver PottsInspired by Good Society by StorybrewersSpecial Thanks to Dr. Emily FriedmanBitcherton is produced under the SAG-AFTRA independent podcast contract. Produced by Elliot DavisAssociate Producers: Judith Hepworth, Zac Zane Nelson, Andrew SechenEditing and Sound Design by Brian FlahertyTheme Song by BE/HOLDAdditional Music and SFX courtesy of Artlist.ioProduced by Many Sided MediaAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brands

Bhaktivinod Ṭhākura recommends that in Harinām Cintāmani, you should dominate that you can try various ways and be inventive. Another very realistic way to become focused is to remember Queen Kuntī's admonition that if you're puffed up, feeling that you have something, then you won't take shelter of The Holy Name. And the best way to concentrate, of course, is to have love. Then, you automatically have that sense of thinking of the person and saying his name. But if you also feel helpless, then there's a sense of crying out that is very natural for us because we're in a precarious situation. So, Queen Kuntī advises us to remember that we are 'akiñcana.' We don't have anything, meaning that whatever we think we do have is a facade. It can't really help us. It's just borrowed plumes, as Prabhupāda says. So, if we can have that sense that I need help and there's only one person who can really help me, and it's Kṛṣṇa, then I'll have that sense of helplessness where I can call out. That helps to concentrate the mind also. (excerpt from the talk) ------------------------------------------------------------ To connect with His Grace Vaiśeṣika Dāsa, please visit https://www.fanthespark.com/next-steps/ask-vaisesika-dasa/ ------------------------------------------------------------ Add to your wisdom literature collection: https://iskconsv.com/book-store/ https://www.bbtacademic.com/books/ https://thefourquestionsbook.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------ Join us live on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/FanTheSpark/ Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/sound-bhakti/id1132423868 For the latest videos, subscribe https://www.youtube.com/@FanTheSpark For the latest in SoundCloud: https://soundcloud.com/fan-the-spark ------------------------------------------------------------ #vaisesikaprabhu #vaisesikadasa #vaisesikaprabhulectures #spirituality #bhaktiyoga #krishna #spiritualpurposeoflife #krishnaspirituality #spiritualusachannel #whybhaktiisimportant #whyspiritualityisimportant #vaisesika #spiritualconnection #thepowerofspiritualstudy #selfrealization #spirituallectures #spiritualstudy #spiritualexperience #spiritualpurposeoflife #spiritualquestions #spiritualquestionsanswered #trendingspiritualtopics #fanthespark #spiritualpowerofmeditation #spiritualgrowthlessons #secretsofspirituality #spiritualteachersonyoutube #spiritualhabits #spiritualclarity #bhagavadgita #srimadbhagavatam #spiritualbeings #kttvg #keepthetranscendentalvibrationgoing #spiritualpurpose

Margaret E. Knight was an ingenious woman. She started tinkering with things when she was still just a tiny child, and the first invention that really improved the lives of those around her came about at the age of 12.  Research: “A Lady in a Machine Shop.” Woman's Journal, December 21, 1872. Accessed online: https://iiif.lib.harvard.edu/manifests/view/drs:48852547$409i Bedi, Joyce. “Margaret Knight.” Lemelson Center, Smithsonian. March 22, 2021. https://invention.si.edu/node/28532/p/609-margaret-knight Britannica, The Editors of Encyclopaedia. "Margaret E. Knight". Encyclopedia Britannica, 10 Feb. 2024, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Margaret-E-Knight “Gained Fame as Inventor.” The Boston Globe. Oct. 13, 1914. https://www.newspapers.com/image/430883835/?terms=%22margaret%20e.%20knight%22%20&match=1 “The Inspiring Story of Margaret E. Knight.” National Inventors Hall of Fame. https://www.invent.org/blog/inventors/margaret-e-knight-paper-pag Knight, M.E. “Clasp.” U.S. Patent Office. Oct. 14, 1884. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/1d/93/e6/029e560778fcd4/US306692.pdf Knight, Margaret E. “Bag Machine.” U.S. Patent Office. July 11, 1871. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/8b/67/0a/1fa1f5f32874bc/US116842.pdf Knight, M.E. “Improvement in Paper Bag Machine.” U.S. Patent Office. Oct. 28, 1879. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/bb/4b/1a/218335d174188c/US220925.pdf Knight, M.E. “Rotary Engine.” U.S. Patent Office. January 6, 1903. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/de/9a/87/cea123cb8ba55a/US717869.pdf Knight, M.E. “Skirt Protector.” U.S. Patent Office. Aug. 7, 1883. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/3a/cc/e8/cf6943b96a868f/US282646.pdf Knight, Margaret E. “Sole Cutting Machine.” U.S Patent Office. Sept. 16, 1890. https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/19/16/34/0c57840da89f4c/US436358.pdf “Margaret E. Knight, ‘Woman Edison,' Dead.” The Sun. Oct. 15, 1914. https://www.newspapers.com/image/145292345/?clipping_id=31861882 “Patent Model for Paper Bag Machine.” Smithsonian – National Museum of American History. https://www.si.edu/object/patent-model-paper-bag-machine%3Anmah_214303 “Patented By Women.” Pittsburgh Dispatch. April 10, 1892. https://www.newspapers.com/image/76571393/?terms=%22margaret%20e.%20knight%22%20&match=1 PETROSKI, HENRY. “The Evolution of the Grocery Bag.” The American Scholar, vol. 72, no. 4, 2003, pp. 99–111. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/41221195 Sisson, Mary, and Doris Simonis, ed. “Inventors and Inventions.” Marshall Cavendish. 2007. Smith, Ryan P. “Meet the Female Inventor Behind Mass-Market Paper Bags.” Smithsonian. March 15, 2018. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/meet-female-inventor-behind-mass-market-paper-bags-180968469/ “The Ames Manufacturing Company … “ Boston Evening Transcript. Oct. 17, 1873. https://www.newspapers.com/image/734890555/?terms=%22margaret%20e.%20knight%22%20&match=1 “Women As Inventors.” The Philadelphia Times. April 10, 1892. https://www.newspapers.com/image/52506300/?terms=%22margaret%20e.%20knight%22%20&match=1 “Women Who Are Inventors.” New York Times. October 19, 1913. https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1913/10/19/100654443.pdf?pdf_redirect=true&ip=0 See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.