Podcasts about IP

In this episode, we explain all things Zendaya. From shedding her child-star exoskeleton to her breakout role in Spiderman, we discuss her career highs and lows, whether we need to close the Straight of Zendaya, and if the opportunity cost of big IP has paid off.Relevant links: Our full show notes are at knoxandjamie.com/662Looking for some Patriotic and Chaotic merch goodness? Head to knoxandjamie.shop for all your famously nonpartisan and apolitical needsThe Dossier: Wiki | IG | IMDb | Spotify | Red Carpet | Relationship timeline (see also: Lip Sync Battle & Tom's hard launch) Watch Mentions: Shake it Up | K.C. Undercover | Spider-man: Homecoming | The Greatest Showman | Euphoria | Malcolm & Marie | Challengers | Dune, Part Two & Part Three | The Odyssey | The DramaDrive-bys: Tornado Alley update | Euphoria S3 | Red Notice | Upon Jamie's Untimely Death | Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates | The Iron Claw | Mervyn's vs Braums | Law Roach | Katharine Foster, Mila Kunis & Gal Gadot | Kellie Pickler vs Zendaya | Dua Lipa wedding | Descendants | Tom Holland IMDb Red light mentions: Europeans complaining about the heat | Not recommending Widow's Bay strongly enough (see also: Rooster | Beef | Task) | Texas Tech vs Florida Softball | Knox's Newsletter | Solo Mio Green Lights:Jamie: movie - Obsession | movie - TunerKnox: web stuff - A24 Movie Log | movie - BackroomsBonus segment: Join us on Patreon to listen ad-free and get exclusive weekly and monthly content. Episode sponsors: Square | Boll & Branch (code: POPCAST) | Bombas (code: POPCAST) | Shopify Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Topics: (00:00:00) - Intro (00:03:27) - Nat joins Alpha School to launch Founder School (00:04:11) - The million-dollar business guarantee (00:04:44) - Why no program like this exists yet (00:09:09) - How AI tutors compress academics into three hours (00:13:00) - Teenagers are capable of real work (00:15:27) - The Alpha School platform and expansion model (00:25:35) - Founder School's September 2026 launch (00:29:21) - Reproducing Stanford's entrepreneurial advantages (00:38:00) - Year one curriculum: sales first (00:48:28) - Building expertise and avoiding hustle culture (00:53:42) - The institutional skin in the game (00:56:22) - Who's applying and the $150K tuition (01:01:04) - Ten-year vision: 10,000 students across ten campuses (01:08:04) - How to learn more and get involved Links:   Eric Jorgenson     LinkedIn — https://www.linkedin.com/in/erjorgenson     Twitter / X — https://x.com/EricJorgenson     Website — https://www.ejorgenson.com/   Nat Eliason     LinkedIn — https://www.linkedin.com/in/nateliason/     Twitter / X — https://twitter.com/nateliason     Website — https://www.nateliason.com/   Alpha School — https://alpha.school/   Founder School — https://founders.school To support the costs of producing this podcast:  >> Buy a copy of the Navalmanack: www.navalmanack.com/  >> Buy a copy of The Anthology of Balaji: https://balajianthology.com/ >> Sign up for my online course and community about building your Personal Leverage: https://www.ejorgenson.com/leverage  >> Invest in early-stage companies alongside Eric and his partners at Rolling Fun: https://angel.co/v/back/rolling-fun >> Join the free weekly email list at ejorgenson.com/newsletter >> Text the podcast to a friend >> Or at least give the podcast a positive review to help us reach new listeners! Important Quotes from the podcast on Business and Entrepreneurship   There is no skill called “business.” Avoid business magazines and business classes. - Naval Ravikant   You have to work up to the point where you can own equity in a business. You could own equity as a small shareholder where you bought stock. You could also own it as an owner where you started the company. Ownership is really important.     Everybody who really makes money at some point owns a piece of a product, a business, or some IP. That can be through stock options if you work at a tech company. That's a fine way to start. 

Bankruptcy feels like the end of the road, but what happens to your patents when the money runs out is anything but simple. In this episode, we dig into whether patent rights survive bankruptcy, when they can be sold off to pay creditors, and why inventors are often shocked to learn they no longer control the IP they created. If you own patents, license them, or build a business around them, this is a conversation you really don't want to miss.   Connect with Adam Diament E-mail: adiament@nolanheimann.com   Website: https://www.nolanheimann.com/legal-team/adam-diament   Phone/Text: (424)281-0162   YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5cTADZzJfPoyQMjnW-rtRw Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/trademarkpatentlaw/   LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-diament-j-d-ph-d-180a005/   Amazon Book Page: https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B005SV2RZC/allbooks?ingress=0&visitId=831aff71-513b-4158-ad73-386ede491e93

In this episode of the Inspire Podcast, Bart Egnal speaks with Rachel Cossar, co-founder and CEO of Virtual Sapiens, about how AI is transforming leadership communication training. Drawing on her own journey from the professional world of ballet to expert in non-verbal communication, Rachel explains how her experience in performance and body awareness led to the creation of an AI-powered communication coaching platform. Together, Bart and Rachel explore why AI can be such a powerful complement to facilitated training and executive coaching, especially when it comes to practice, repetition, feedback, and accountability. They discuss their collaboration with The Humphrey Group, including how THG has trained the platform on their own IP and is integrating AI coaching into their programs to help participants build confidence and measure improvement over time. The conversation also examines the limits of AI, why human facilitation remains essential, and how the future of communication training will combine technology with human connection. A fascinating look at the evolving role of AI in helping people become more effective, authentic, and inspiring communicators. Learn more at https://www.virtualsapiens.co/ Show Notes: 00:19 Show intro 00:57 Introducing Rachel and Virtual Sapiens 02:29 Rachel's background 02:48 Started off in ballet 03:17 Body awareness and presence 04:21 What dance training made her realize about office life 05:04 Starting her new career 05:26 Consulting with the hospitality industry 06:34 The “always on” nature of hospitality 07:23 Silent service 08:36 How this applies to executive and leadership development 09:06 How the COVID disruption changed her work and business 09:28 The idea for Virtual Sapiens 09:49 How do you take training and truly make it muscle memory? 10:55 Rapid adoption of video during COVID changed things 12:57 How did Virtual Sapiens come to be? 13:30 Initial product: a video sidekick coach 15:02 How did people respond to AI feedback? 15:53 People now have overly high expectations of AI 16:53 The complexities of video avatars 17:55 Why Virtual Sapiens was a natural fit for coaching firms 18:31 The asynchronous practice tool 19:26 How Virtual Sapiens fits with The Humphrey Group 19:47 The Humphrey Group's “ELI” tool 20:13 Learners can see measurable improvements 20:49 Where is AI used best in facilitation and training? 21:44 Designing programs with more longevity 23:59 Scalable and concurrent learning 24:36 Why people find AI to be a safe space to practice 25:03 The fear of being judged 25:41 Why people prefer first reps with AI 26:23 Built-in accountability for learners 27:15 Post-facilitation tools and practice 29:36 Do people use it? 29:50 Why getting people on early is key 31:52 What is the future of Virtual Sapiens? 32:40 More task-specific LLMs 33:29 Where can people learn more

Fantasy Baseball Live! – May 31, 2026Segments 1 and 2 – Review this weekend's gamesAdditional Discussion Points1.Finally, Tatis gets on the board with his first home run.a.Over/Under 20 home runs for the season2.Kumar Rocker had a strong game on Saturday – 6.0 IP, 3 hits, 0 ER, 2K/3BBa.He has a 3.54 ERA but his xERA is 4.55. He's also only striking out 7.5 per nine. Is he anything more than a number four/five starter?3.Lucas Erceg has been awful this week and not much better over the past two. He completely imploded yesterday – giving up five hits and 3 ER, taking a blown save and the loss.a.There has to be someone better in Kansas City to grab for saves. Tell us who?4.Mike Trout hit his 14th home run and has pushed his average to .241 with an impressive .412 OBP. Is there any chance he gets moved at the deadline to try be on a team that at least wins a playoff game?Segment 3 – Waiver WireSegment 4 – Closer ReportClose

Trent Kusters chats with Gregory Louden, Creative Director behind Housemarque's latest dark sci-fi bullet-ballet, Saros. Together they discuss his early work in film with directors such as Alfonso Cuarón and Ridley Scott; transitioning into games and his path from VFX, to narrative, and ultimately direction; creating a spiritual successor to Returnal while developing a brand new IP; focusing on challenging but rewarding gameplay; and building a narrative around the roguelike gameplay.  This episode is supported by Xsolla iam8bit Episode Host: Trent Kusters Producers: Claudio Tapia and Josh Chu, The Academy of Interactive Arts & Sciences If you enjoyed this episode, please consider subscribing and leaving us a rating and review. Support the show and get all of our episodes early/ad-free: https://bit.ly/4kU34Lt Follow us: linktr.ee/AIAS Please consider supporting game dev students with: AIAS Foundation

EPISODE DESCRIPTIONIn this episode, I sit down with Vaibhav from Astranova, the AI-driven entertainment IP studio that has been quietly building one of the most ambitious ecosystems in Web3. Vaibhav walks me through everything from their half a million ecosystem users, their high-profile partnerships with brands like Shiba Inu, Simon's Cat, and Mansory, to how they have raised $48.6 million and what they are doing with it. We dig into the RVV token buybacks, the real utility being built across gaming, comics, and social platforms, and why Vaibhav believes the market is massively underestimating this project. He also drops a teaser about a major RVV utility announcement coming very soon, so you will want to tune in and follow their socials closely after this one. DISCLAIMERNothing mentioned in this podcast is investment advice and please do your own research. It would mean a lot if you can leave a review of this podcast on Apple Podcasts or Spotify and share this podcast with a friend. Be a guest on the podcast or contact us - https://www.web3pod.xyz/CONNECTAstranova Website:https://astranova.world/Twitter/X - Astranova: https://twitter.com/AstranovalPTelegram - : https://t.me/AstraNovaPortalWeb3 with Sam Kamani: https://www.web3pod.xyz/KEY POINTS WITH TIMESTAMPS• [00:00] Sam introduces Vaibhav from Astranova and outlines what the episode will cover• [01:08] Vaibhav shares his background in crypto, including time at CoinStore, Unix Gaming, and two years building Astranova• [02:35] Astranova explained: an AI-driven entertainment IP studio with comics, gaming, UGC, and community platforms• [04:39] Adoption metrics revealed: close to half a million ecosystem users, over 250K on their social platform• [06:21] The reasoning behind $6-7 million in on-chain RVV token buybacks and what it signals to the community• [08:02] High-profile partnerships with Shiba Inu, Simon's Cat, Mansory, and Imaginary Ones and how they were built• [10:40] Why Vaibhav believes the market is undervaluing Astranova by a huge margin• [12:02] RVV utility today and where it is heading: hotels, flights, gift cards, staking, and more• [13:45] Why the intersection of AI, entertainment, gaming, and community is such a powerful long-term position• [15:04] $48.6 million raised and how it is being deployed across the ecosystem• [16:14] What is coming in Phase 3: eSports with RVV prize pools, Creator Economy, NovaToonz IP expansion, and Blacklist Season 3• [17:25] A teaser dropped: a major RVV utility and adoption announcement is coming soon• [19:45] Future vision: RVV as the connective layer of the whole ecosystem, BNB integration, and massive growth ahead

Star Wars falling behind Backrooms is wild. And that's only counting those LEGO sets Bricks & Minifigs can't seem to find. Plus, Disney is losing its grip on its own IP. From Home Depot hacks to Toy Story tributes, fans are remixing, recreating, and reshaping their favorite characters. And Hasbro is launching Yo Joe June with some deep-cut Classified reveals that should have longtime Joe fans saluting.  It's The Reluctant Adult Podcast. Email TheReluctantAdultPodcast@gmail.com TikTok @TheReluctantAdultPodcast Instagram @TheReluctantAdultPodcast Facebook The Reluctant Adult Podcast YouTube The Reluctant Adult Podcast Paul's eBay Auctions Save 10% with code RAP101 at New Meta Save and get Free Shipping from Entertainment Earth

Howie is joined by guest host Megan Ranney, dean of the the Yale School of Public Health, for a live episode recorded at the Yale Innovation Summit, featuring conversations with five innovators at the intersection of healthcare, public health, and entrepreneurship. Jaya Dadwal, a recent graduate of the School of Public Health and founder of forEVA Health, focused on raising healthcare standards for the female body Monique Rainford, a Yale School of Medicine ob-gyn and founder of Enrich Health, focused on addressing disparities in maternal health Kimberley Steele, a bariatric surgeon and program director at the federal Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) Yusuf Ransome, a faculty member at the School of Public Health and founder of Soul Health, a faith tech solution focused on addressing the mental wellbeing of the "missing middle" Janani Ramaswamy, head of IP and licensing services at Yale Ventures Show notes: The Yale Innovation Summit Yale Innovation Summit 2026 Yale Ventures Jaya Dadwal forEVA  FDA: Essure Permanent Birth Control "Problems Reported with Essure" Jennifer McFadden "Women's Health Strategy for England" A UK government report including the finding that 84% of women report that their voices have not been listened to in the healthcare system. Polyendocrine metabolic ovarian syndrome (PMOS) Monique Rainford Megan Ranney and Monique Rainford: "Opinion: Over-the-counter birth control pill could make a huge difference" Enrich Health Monique Rainford: Pregnant While Black: Advancing Justice for Maternal Health in America Sejal Hathi: "Nine Months of Medical Attention. Then Almost Nothing" Kimberley Steele Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) Lymphatic System: Function, Conditions & Disorders ARPA-H: Lymphatic Imaging, Genomics, and Phenotyping Technologies (LIGHT) ARPA-H: Groundbreaking Lymphatic Interventions and Drug Explorations (GLIDE) "GLIDE set to prevent and cure human disease by targeting the lymphatic system" Yusuf Ransome Yusuf Ransome  on LinkedIn: "The hardest part of building a solution is when your own family depends on it" SOCAH Lab Pew Research: "Spirituality Among Americans" Janani Ramaswamy "Arvinas Announces FDA Approval of VEPPANU (vepdegestrant) for the Treatment of ESR1m, ER+/HER2- Advanced Breast Cancer" Arvinas Yale Ventures: Accelerators, Programs, and Innovation Centers HealthTech Works In the Yale School of Management's MBA for Executives program, you'll get a full MBA education in 22 months while applying new skills to your organization in real time. Yale's Executive Master of Public Health offers a rigorous public health education for working professionals, with the flexibility of evening online classes alongside three on-campus trainings. Email Howie and Harlan comments or questions.

Kenny Wood is the newly appointed CEO of Sleepagotchi, the Solana-based platform building what it calls the intelligence layer for the wellness economy. A two-decade veteran of the games industry, Wood cut his teeth as an artist on Mattel's Barbie titles before working on chart-topping franchises including Mat Hoffman's Pro BMX, Transformers, Formula 1 and World Rally Championship, later moving into ship-simulation work at VSTEP in the Netherlands and serving as CTO of AI world-generation startup Moonlander prior to its acquisition by Alpha 3D. Why you should listen Sleep is the foundation almost every other health metric rests on, and that is precisely why Wood argues it is the right wedge into a much larger market. Fix sleep and mood, energy and recovery tend to follow; neglect it and the deficit cascades through everything else. Sleepagotchi began life as a gamified sleep-to-earn app, but under Wood the thesis has sharpened: the real prize is not the streak mechanic but the data exhaust it generates. The company reports that roughly three-quarters of users open the app within ten minutes of waking, and its Telegram-based Lite version has touched two million all-time users, the kind of daily habit loop most wellness startups never achieve. The question Wood keeps returning to is who should capture the value of all that biometric signal. The product architecture he describes is ambitious. Rather than a single sleep score, Sleepagotchi runs four cooperating AI agents: a sleep coach that explains causally why a night went the way it did, a wellness agent that checks in on mood, diet, caffeine and alcohol through the day, a meal planner that turns those insights into recipes, and a shopping agent that sources the ingredients or supplements and can have them delivered. If you are tired despite doing everything right, the system might infer low iron and nudge you toward leafy greens, then route that recommendation downstream into an actual basket. A built-in marketplace lets vendors offer supplements, courses and the like, knitting recommendation and commerce into one loop. It is a bold attempt to make wellness advice actionable rather than merely informational, and it leans on integrations with Whoop, Oura and Apple Watch to pull in the raw signal. The thornier and more interesting argument is about ownership. Wearable terms of service generally bar reselling raw device data, a constraint Wood acknowledges candidly, but he draws a line between that raw feed and the processed, AI-derived record of a person's life built on top of it, which he believes the user should own and, eventually, permission or monetize on their own terms via the platform's $SLEEP token. Wood inherits the company from founding CEO Anton Kraminkin, now a strategic advisor, and a cap table that includes Sfermion, 6th Man Ventures, Inception and others. In a relaxed closing stretch, he talks up the strength of the underlying game IP, its outsized following across Japan, the Philippines and Korea, and the new levels arriving in the months ahead, while staying refreshingly honest about the work still to do. The result is a conversation that doubles as a preview of where the AI agent economy and personal health data may be heading. Supporting links Stabull Finance Sleepagotchi Sleepagotchi on Twitter Andy on Twitter Brave New Coin on Twitter Brave New Coin If you enjoyed the show please subscribe to the Crypto Conversation and give us a 5-star rating and a positive review in whatever podcast app you are using.

In this Episode Nate and Trent talk about IP 28 and other Oregon Hunting Issues.

Natsue Ishida shares her journey from sociology student to general counsel and executive officer advising boards, across many well known global companies. This is part one of a two part conversation filled with literal lightning moments, unconventional career choices, and profound leadership lessons. You will learn lessons from each stage of Natsue's career and what it means to be an officer of the law inside an organisation.If you enjoyed this episode and it inspired you in some way, we'd love to hear about it and know your biggest takeaway. Head over to Apple Podcasts to leave a review and we'd love it if you would leave us a message here!In this episode you'll hear:How Natsue's personal mission that has guided her careerThe importance of focusing on the experience you'll get from a jobWhy taking on responsibilities outside your normal expertise builds supporters for legal and complianceHow Natsue changed the trajectory of her career in the moment she said "I'll do it" to a role she wasn't offered! Her favourite movies and other fun facts About NatsueNatsue is a seasoned General Counsel and senior executive with over 20 years of international experience advising senior management, Boards of Directors, and Audit Committees across Asia, North America, and Europe. She brings extensive expertise in legal strategy, IP, compliance, risk management, corporate governance, global subsidiary management, M&A, and data privacy.Her career spans highly regulated industries—including financial services, medical devices, automotive, and gaming—where she has consistently guided organisations through complex regulatory landscapes while shaping strong cultures of compliance and ethical leadership.Natsue is a widely recognised award winning thought leader, deeply committed to advancing excellence within the legal profession.On the weekends, she enjoys rock climbing (shower climbing in the summer). She would like to do more photography (medium format film photo printing), maybe when she retires, if the technology still exists!Connect with NatsueLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/theflyingcat/ LinksTender Bar: https://tabelog.com/en/tokyo/A1301/A130101/13259123/ Roger and Me: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098213/ In the Name of the Father: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107207/  Connect with Catherine LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/oconnellcatherine/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawyeronair

Take 10 with Tim – May 29, 2026 @ 9:15 am1.David Sandlin and Gage Jump made their MLB debut this week.a.Sandlin (RHP, CHW) – 6.0 IP, 1 hit, 1 ER, 4K/0BB; FB: 97.7 mph (T 99.3), CB: 29% whiff rateb.Gage Jump (LHP, ATH) – 5.0 IP, 9 hits, 4 ER, 5K/1BB; FB: 95.9 mph (T 97.9); SL 45% whiff rate; sweeper 33% whiff ratec.Jump is the more heralded as the Red Sox had moved Sandlin to the bullpen, but after the trade to the White Sox and moving back to the rotation, and had him throw his curveball more, he's been better. Jump of course pitches half his games in Sacramentod.Who will you make the larger bid this weekend?2.Teoscar Hernandez pulls a hammy and will be lost for a few weeks. Tommy Edman is due back soon, and then there's Alek Thomas or Ryan Ward. I'm guessing you're not too interested, given the situation, or are you?a.I'm assuming when Tommy Edman is ready to return, he'll be the Dodgers' second baseman. Is that how you see it?b.I got an interesting text from a Patreon member discussing all the potential bad contracts looming for the Dodgers. Let's look at their roster and see if we can figure out what they will do in a few years.i.Los Angeles Dodgers 2026 Financial Summaryii.Here's how I responded:1.Question: We hold up the Dodgers as the exemplar org in baseball, but many of their big contracts are going to start looking very bad, as soon as next year. Is it possible that their model actually turns sour? 2.My Response: “I think that's been their strategy. Play for today and worry about tomorrow some other day. Remember, they also have a bunch of deferred money kicking in with Ohtani, etc. one thought is as they deal with the bad contracts, they promote all their young kids as cheap alternatives as the Mookies of the world become backup players. So cheap everyday players and expensive backups. Besides Betts and Smith, freeman, Tucker, Teoscar all are done in three more years. The strategy might work. I will say that Smith's contract looks the worse but he's also the most reasonable. They might have to buy him out. Mookie should be ok for next 2 years and then, his will really look ugly”3.Tatsuya Imai was involved in a no-hitter this week. He danced around four walks over six innings and then turned it over to the bullpen. It wasn't pretty, but he's in the history books.a.I'm assuming you are still concerned?b.How should I view him moving forward?4.Let's take a look at the standings5.Top Ranked Fantasy Players according to Fantrax. WOW – no Judge, no Ohanti, no ANYBODY! The first two months have truly been unique this season.a.Mason Miller – 23.2 IP, 16 saves, 47K, 0.76 ERSb.James Wood – .276 BA, 15 HR, 10 SB, 37 RBI, and 50 runs! Second in runs scored is Brice Turang with 43.c.Cam Schlitter – 72 IP, 7 wins, 81K, 1.50 ERAd.Oneil Cruz – .260 BA, 11 HR, 17 SB, 38 runs, 35 RBIe.Chris Sale – 62 IP, 7 wins, 72K, 1.89 ERAf.Chase Burns – 64.1 IP, 7 wins, 72K, 1.96 ERAg.Jordan Walker - .300 BA, 15 HR, 7 SB, 38 runs, 42 RBIh.Jacob Misiorowski – 64 IP, 5 wins, 100K, 1.83 ERA – Sanchez is second in Ks with 95 and is number 13 on this list.i.Andy Pages - .303 BA, 13 HR, 7 SB, 34 runs, 50 RBIj.CJ Abrams - .294 BA, 12 HR, 8 SB, 34 runs, 47 RBIk.Davis Martin – 61.2 IP, 7 wins, 66K, 2.04 ERA6.Questions related to #5 above a.Which two players do you think are the most securely locked in to a Top 25 rankings in fantasy baseball at the end of the season?b.Which two player do you think will NOT finish in the Top 25 in fantasy baseball at the end of the season?c.I got an email from a Patreon member during draft season – I've brought this up before, but it's proved to be prescient. He asked of the young pitchers in that 45 to 55 pitcher range: Schlitter, Sheehan, Misio, Burns, Nolan McLeani.Rank the order of these player for the rest of the season?ii.Rank the order of these players over the next five years – time on the IL WILL be considered a factor.7.What hitter are you targeting for this weekend's FAAB?8.What pitcher are you targeting for this weekend's FAAB?

Festinvitasjon på digipost - Facebooksamtale om stolrens - Atle avslører Jon Fosse Episoden kan inneholde målrettet reklame, basert på din IP-adresse, enhet og posisjon. Se smartpod.no/personvern for informasjon og dine valg om deling av data.

Hey friends! Today we're going deep on external network pentesting — something I realize we've barely touched in however many episodes we've done. I'm currently in a long stretch of back-to-back external assessments, so it felt like a good time to talk about it. Here's what we get into: Scoping headaches — why the old "count your public IPs and multiply by a big hourly rate" approach drives me crazy, and how we actually scope external tests to be fair to everyone Web apps in scope or not? — this needs its own conversation before the test starts, and skipping it causes pain later Testing under real conditions — the debate around whether to request an allowlist vs. scanning as-is, and why I lean toward creating the best testing environment possible Multi-tool enumeration — why we run Nessus, Project Discovery, and Shodan together, and what each catches that the others miss Reporting the surface — why just walking a customer through what's exposed to the internet (ports, services, screenshots) has more value than I used to give it credit for SNMP and NTP findings — two protocols that keep showing up open when they really (probably) shouldn't be OSINT phase — how we've grown externals to include open-source intelligence work on the customer's domains, not just IP-level scanning WordPress hygiene — it keeps coming up on these assessments, and I've got some practical recommendations Dorking and metadata searches — using AI to quickly sift through publicly exposed documents for things attackers could use to pretext a social engineering attack Subdomain hijacking — a sneaky attack path I've seen in the wild that flies right in the face of all the "check if the URL is spelled right" advice we give users Even when the technical findings are pretty quiet, there's a lot you can do to punch up an external pentest report with stuff that's genuinely valuable to customers!

[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.

The Smokestack Twins are OFFICIALLY coming to Halloween Horror Nights 35 this August! We got our first IP announcement and it started with a BANG! Bringing in the film with the MOST Oscar nominations in history with a staggering 16 nominations! Are you ready to enter Club Juke and come face to face with Remmick and his merry band of vampires? This one has all the makings of an instant classic; music, atmosphere, vampires and absolute chaos. HHN35 is already looking STACKED. What scene are you hoping makes it into the house?

Hetebølgedødsfall - Steintyven i Bergen - Tynne folk i matprogram - Golden resetter insta Episoden kan inneholde målrettet reklame, basert på din IP-adresse, enhet og posisjon. Se smartpod.no/personvern for informasjon og dine valg om deling av data.

What if one person noticing something in you changed the entire trajectory of your life? In this episode, Samyr Laine, Haitian-American Olympian, attorney, and managing partner of Freedom Trail Capital, shares how a high school track coach who noticed a kid with leaping ability in gym class set off a chain of events that led to the Olympic Games, a call from the president of Haiti, boardrooms with Jay-Z and the NFL, and a venture fund investing at the intersection of culture, lifestyle, and influence. Samyr was user number 14 on Facebook, roommates with Mark Zuckerberg at Harvard, and has built one of the most unusual and compelling careers in venture capital. But none of it traces back to a famous name or a prestigious institution. It traces back to Coach Burks, who saw something and said something.   [00:06:00] What He Does and Who He Serves Managing partner of Freedom Trail Capital, a consumer-focused venture fund Invests at the intersection of culture, lifestyle, and influence Raising a $50 million first fund with investments across baby care, hair care, pet care, and beverages [00:07:40] What Inspires Him Driven by the pursuit of excellence in whatever role he is in Meets with founders even when he can't invest; every conversation teaches him something Reads nonfiction constantly to learn how others persevere Measures progress in bite-sized steps just like he did as an Olympic athlete [00:13:00] How He Got Here After Harvard, got a master's at UT Austin then attended Georgetown Law Competed professionally in track and field for 10 years including the 2012 London Olympics Represented Haiti at seven world championships and three Pan American Games Started his real career as legal counsel in DC before moving into sports business [00:14:00] From Sports Law to Roc Nation Started his real career as legal counsel for the Washington Wizards, Capitals, and Mystics Was happy in sports law when a recruiter called with an offer he couldn't refuse Jay-Z was looking for someone to handle operations at Roc Nation Left the sports world for a completely new chapter as an operator [00:15:40] From Roc Nation to Westbrook Left Roc Nation after a couple of years and joined Westbrook Inc as SVP of Operations Helped oversee Will and Jada Pinkett Smith's entire media and production enterprise Moved to lead their consumer product division covering brands, licensing, and IP monetization Worked with talent ranging from Pelé and Patrick Mahomes to DJ Jazzy Jeff [00:19:40] The Vision for Freedom Trail Capital Goal is to move from fund one to fund two to fund three Wants to be the tip of the spear for culturally relevant consumer brands Mission is to prove talent-backed businesses work when paired with discipline and rigor Model: find scalable, defensible businesses then add the right person of influence [00:23:40] The First Relationship That Changed Everything: Coach Burks Got cut from his track team in eighth grade; came back junior year to find a new coach Coach Burks noticed his leaping ability in gym class and introduced him to the triple jump Had no idea what the triple jump was; just wanted to be a sprinter That one introduction led him to the 2012 London Olympics and seven world championships [00:25:40] The Second Relationship: Desiree Perez of Roc Nation Working under Desiree shaped the pace, discipline, and operating style he carries today She put him in boardrooms with Facundo Bacardi and Roger Goodell of the NFL Was in the early rooms when Roc Nation partnered with the NFL on Super Bowl halftime entertainment The people he met in her orbit opened doors he could never have reached on his own [00:27:40] What Coach Burks's Introduction Made Possible Chose to represent Haiti at the Olympics; the Haitian team had six athletes, the US had nearly 600 After qualifying for the finals, received a personal call from the president of Haiti Town squares across Haiti filled with thousands watching the Olympic triple jump final He now sits on the board of a school and orphanage in Haiti; it all started with one introduction [00:33:00] The Value of One Right Relationship One right relationship can pay dividends for decades in ways you never expected His introduction to the triple jump led to the Olympics, which still opens doors today Every stop was about gaining skills and being more useful at the next one One introduction can be worth as much as a check   KEY QUOTES "Your network and your relationships, man, it cannot be overstated how valuable it is." - Samyr Laine "The value of one right relationship. Sometimes it's gotta be at the right time. But the value of one right relationship is tremendous." - Samyr Laine CONNECT WITH SAMYR LAINE Website: https://www.freedomtrail.capital LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/samyrlaine Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/samyrlaine   Thanks for tuning in! If you liked my show, please LEAVE A 5-STAR REVIEW, like, and subscribe! Find me on: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | iHeart Radio | Stitcher

What if the biggest threat to your health didn't come with a warning? Mother of two Zuleyma Santos had a pregnancy and postpartum journey that suddenly turned life altering, testing her strength and instincts. Connect with the guest: @inspirational.lifecoach motivationallifecoach.net Go Red for Women Grow with us on ⁠IP+⁠! Informed Pregnancy Media presents two all new intimate short-form video series following Garrett and HeHe's real-time pregnancy journeys as they prepare for an empowered birth and postpartum experience. Each episode features weekly updates with personal photos and videos to help bring these raw stories to life, a visually dynamic guide through each mother's emotional and physical experiences. ⁠Watch Growing with Garrett⁠ ⁠Watch Growing with HeHe⁠ Keep up with Dr. Berlin and Informed Pregnancy Media online! ⁠⁠⁠informedpregnancy.com⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠@doctorberlin⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠Youtube⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠LinkedIn⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠Facebook⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠X⁠⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

My wife and family are special, and I want the world to see how special they are.Entrepreneur David Grutman, co-owner of Groot Hospitality, shares how to build a lasting legacy and why nurturing relationships is key to success. He explains why focusing on intellectual property and an exit strategy, even if you never plan to sell, are critical for any business leader.WHAT YOU'LL LEARN- The critical importance of building an ecosystem around your business- How David Grutman uses AI in his hospitality ventures- Why your intellectual property and name are everything- The one thing David is most proud of to date- Why building an exit strategy for your business is crucialQUOTES THAT HIT"If I see a guest that I know that we take care of all the time doing their birthday party at another venue and not ours. I'm upset." - David Grutman"Don't being a gatekeeper. I hate these gatekeeper people." - David Grutman"You should always build a company that that's why IP is very important that you're not going to have a mess if you do exit trying to tie up all these people that are part of your IP." - David GrutmanCHAPTERS00:00 Welcome David Grutman01:32 David's Entrepreneurial Because and Next Steps02:36 Groot Hospitality's Las Vegas Expansion04:41 Taking Things Personally in Business06:37 Building Your Business Ecosystem09:53 David Grutman's Unique Value Proposition15:47 The Importance of Being in the Right Rooms19:53 Your Name and IP are Everything22:22 The Exit Strategy Mindset25:51 Mick's Rapid Fire Five with DavidQUESTIONS THIS EPISODE ANSWERSQ: What does David Grutman mean by "Take It Personal"?A: David Grutman applies "Take It Personal" to his business, meaning he fully immerses himself in the customer experience, observing competitor venues, and ensuring his team provides the best service to keep guests loyal.Q: How can entrepreneurs build a strong ecosystem around their business?A: Entrepreneurs build a strong ecosystem by focusing on relationships and curating experiences, both within their own venues and by recommending other valuable experiences, adding value for their guests beyond their direct offerings.Q: Why is having an exit strategy important, even if you don't plan to sell?A: Having an exit strategy is important because it forces you to run your business like a public company, ensuring it is structured for sustainability, making it easier to pass on to the next generation or sell if the opportunity arises. Connect & Discover David:Instagram: @davidgrutmanGroot Hospitality: groothospitality.comLinkedIn: David GrutmanTikTok: @davidgrutmanX: @DavidGrutmanBook: Take It Personal: How to Succeed by Building Relationships and Playing the Long Game

In this episode of Live Well, Earn Well, guest host Donna Lynn Price sits down with leadership expert Jimmy Burroughes, founder of JBL High Performance, to unpack what it really takes to lead without burning out. A former British Military officer turned corporate executive, Jimmy knows firsthand how complexity and constant firefighting destroy performance. After hitting his own spectacular burnout in 2017, he rebuilt his life and business around one central truth: high performance comes from simplification, not doing more. Jimmy shares his Simplify to Amplify methodology, how he helps leaders reclaim hours every week, and why a simple 15–20 minute weekly practice can literally change your brain, your performance, and your career trajectory. From "wizard brain vs lizard brain" to the "village fisherman" trap, this conversation is packed with practical ways to step out of survival mode and into strategic leadership — whether you're running a team of thousands or your own small business. If you've ever felt like you're sprinting on a hamster wheel, this episode will show you how to step off, think clearly, and focus on what actually moves the needle.    

We have quite a a lot to discuss this week as we were not only gifted our first IP house announcement for Halloween Horror Nights, but we also saw the release of the full range of HHN 2026 tickets for Hollywood, and also had Horror Night Nightmares release v4 of their spec maps for both coasts. Hop on board the Sinners train and prepare for HHN 35 in Orlando and HHN 2026 in Hollywood. Want to be on the show? Leave us a voicemail! (407) 906-4134 Follow HHN 365 on social media: Instagram HHN365 Twitter @HHN365 TikTok: @HHN365pod Join our Discord Server: https://discord.gg/jUD9nZav2U Merch: HHN365.com Featured audio is courtesy of White Bat Audio

Grace Clarke went viral for her annual planning template, then left her job, moved, and became a teacher running AI for Normal People classes in NYC. She and David talk about why your plan should go off the rails, building your own AI "board of directors," and the messy open questions about personal IP, jobs, and what it means to own your career in the age of AI.

Send us Fan MailAngelo, Rhea, and Jay — and they're leading with a question nobody in late night wants to answer: what happens when you spend your final week trying to "kill it" instead of doing what made the show great? Stephen Colbert's finale gave Billy Crystal, Ben Stiller, and Robert De Niro thirty seconds each, closed with green screen gimmicks, and ended with an 83-year-old Paul McCartney — who can't hit the notes anymore — turning off the lights on 11 years of television. Angelo, who hosted for over 30 years, gets unexpectedly honest about the ending he wishes he'd had. The gang debates whether any live show has ever actually nailed its goodbye... and the answer might surprise you.THEN: The Mandalorian and Grogu opened to $100 million over Memorial Day weekend.  That makes it the lowest-grossing Star Wars debut in franchise history, and Jay, a lifelong fan, chose a Gordon Ramsay burger over buying a ticket. Meanwhile, a $1 million horror movie called Obsession has made $75 million on word-of-mouth alone, and Backrooms, made by a 20-year-old YouTube creator, is tracking for a $50 million opening. Is this the year audiences stop showing up for IP and start demanding good movies?ALL THAT PLUS: The FCC is threatening to reclassify The View as a news program, Rhea recommends I Fought the Law on PBS Masterpiece, Angelo brings Crime 101 on Amazon Prime, and much MUCH MORE!MAKE SURE TO VISIT OUR SPONSOR: Steven Singer Jewelers!The TV Show is a weekly podcast hosted by Jay Black, with regular guests Angelo Cataldi and Rhea Hughes. Each week, we dive into the new Golden Age of Television, with a discussion of the latest shows and news.AskSonnet 4.6

In this episode of Girl Talk with Tay, I sit down with Annabel Hay, founder of Clutch Glue, to talk about building one of Shark Tank's most viral pitches, creating a product from scratch, owning your intellectual property, and raising capital without losing control of your company.Annabel shares the story behind Clutch Glue, which started after a wardrobe malfunction made her realize traditional fashion tape wasn't designed for sweat, movement, or real life situations. She spent four years developing a liquid fashion adhesive that is sweat resistant, water soluble, hypoallergenic, vegan, and non toxic.We also talk about the early days of building the company, including launching with 5,000 units stored in her parents' garage and packing orders by hand from her bedroom with the help of friends. Annabel shares how a simple 10 second TikTok showing her fixing a falling spaghetti strap completely changed the trajectory of the business after the video hit 9 million views overnight and sold out the company's inventory almost immediately.The conversation dives into entrepreneurship, bootstrapping a business, and why owning your IP and patents matters so much when building a long term brand. Annabel explains why founders should avoid shortcuts with formulas they don't fully own, how patents protect longevity, and why investors care so much about intellectual property ownership.We also discuss raising capital, startup funding, preparing for Shark Tank, protecting equity, choosing the right investors, and why she ultimately turned down a $400,000 investment deal after the show to maintain control of her company. Annabel shares insights on viral marketing, customer loyalty, scaling a product based business, and what it really takes to build a sustainable brand from the ground up.xo, Tay⸻Follow Annabel Hay!

Kinsella on Liberty Podcast: Episode 490. This is my interview by Cody Cook (@CantusFirmusCC) of the Libertarian Christian Institute (@LCIOfficial), whose show I've been on previously, (( KOL388 | Cantus Firmus with Cody Cook: Against Intellectual Property. )) and whose book, Faith Seeking Freedom: Libertarian Christian Answers to Tough Questions, I endorsed, to discuss my recent book Rothbard at 100: A Tribute and Assessment (2026). Episode: Rothbard at 100: Why His Ideas Still Matter, with Stephan Kinsella (May 22, 2026 (recorded May 5, 2026)). Cody was an excellent interviewer, which is one reason I think this was one of my most comfortable and relaxed performances ever. https://youtu.be/VrxyNvzTonE?si=YWammoXzdzEmFfJo From his longer article Rothbard at 100: Why His Ideas Still Matter, with Stephan Kinsella (May 22, 2026): *** If he hadn't passed away in 1995, Murray Rothbard would have turned one hundred this year. Why do his ideas still endure, inspire, and provoke? The answer isn't nostalgia. It's that Rothbard's ideas continue to shape libertarian thought, economics, and the case for a free society in ways few thinkers ever have. His influence is visible in the modern liberty movement, in the resurgence of Austrian economics, and in the ongoing debates about property, the state, and intellectual freedom. Stephan Kinsella (@NSKinsella), co-editor of the new book Rothbard at 100, joins Cody Cook to explain why Rothbard's legacy endures. The episode argues that Rothbard still matters because he built a framework that remains indispensable for understanding political economy, human action, and the moral limits of state power. The Case for Rothbard: Ten Reasons Why Rothbard Still Matters 1. Rothbard helped define the modern libertarian movement Rothbard stands at the foundation of the post‑war libertarian tradition, synthesizing Austrian economics, natural rights theory, and radical anti‑statism into a coherent worldview. The episode argues that without him, the movement would lack its intellectual backbone. This is one of the core reasons Rothbard still matters: he built the architecture others now inhabit. 2. He systematized libertarianism into a full philosophy Where earlier thinkers offered fragments, Rothbard produced treatises. Man, Economy, and State, Power and Market, and The Ethics of Liberty form a unified system of economics, ethics, and political theory. That system continues to anchor libertarian scholarship. 3. Rothbard advanced Austrian economics beyond Mises Rothbard didn't merely popularize Mises; he extended him. His corrections to monopoly theory and his insistence that state‑created privilege—not market structure—is the real source of monopoly remain central to Austrian analysis. This refinement is one of the reasons Rothbard still matters for anyone studying markets and state intervention. 4. He embraced radical conclusions others avoided Rothbard took the logic of liberty to its endpoint: anarcho‑capitalism. Even those who reject that conclusion must grapple with his arguments. His willingness to follow principles to their logical end continues to challenge libertarians who prefer half‑measures. 5. His contract theory remains groundbreaking Kinsella argues that Rothbard's “title‑transfer theory of contract,” is one of his most overlooked achievements. It reframes contracts not as promises but as transfers of property titles. This innovation still shapes libertarian legal theory and is a key reason Rothbard still matters in debates about consent, obligation, and ownership. 6. Rothbard influenced the thinkers who influence us Hans‑Hermann Hoppe, one of the most important living libertarian theorists, was one of Rothbard's closest students. The intellectual lineage from Mises → Rothbard → Hoppe forms a framework Kinsella calls “indispensable.” Understanding that lineage is essential for understanding today's liberty movement. 7. He built institutions that still shape the movement Rothbard helped launch the Mises Institute and mentored scholars who now lead major libertarian organizations. His institutional legacy ensures that his ideas continue to shape research, education, and activism. 8. Rothbard's historical works remain unmatched Conceived in Liberty and his Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought demonstrate a breadth few libertarian thinkers have matched. His historical method—tracing ideas, incentives, and power—still informs how libertarians analyze political development. 9. His mistakes sharpened later libertarian theory The episode doesn't hide Rothbard's errors, especially on intellectual property. Kinsella argues that Rothbard's missteps helped clarify why scarcity, not creation, grounds property rights. Even his mistakes are reasons Rothbard still matters, because they pushed the theory forward. 10. Rothbard's work remains accessible and alive The new Rothbard at 100 Festschrift—featuring scholars who knew him and those shaped by him—shows that his ideas continue to inspire serious scholarship. The fact that this book exists is itself a reason Rothbard still matters: his intellectual world is still expanding. Conclusion Rothbard still matters because he built something durable. His synthesis of Austrian economics, natural rights, and radical anti‑statism remains the most coherent framework for understanding liberty. The episode argues that his influence is not a relic but a living force shaping how libertarians think about property, the state, and human action. Kinsella's case is that Rothbard's work forms part of an indispensable triad with Mises and Hoppe. That framework continues to guide scholars, pastors, activists, and anyone seeking a principled defense of a free society. The reasons Rothbard still matters are not sentimental—they are structural. His ideas continue to do real work in the world.   Additional Resources From the Libertarian Christian Podcast “We Don't Need No Stinkin' Intellectual Property” — Kinsella's earlier appearance on LCP discussing why IP conflicts with libertarian principles. “Faith Seeking Freedom (2nd Edition)” — Mentioned in the episode; LCI's expanded guide to Christian libertarianism. External Reads Rothbard at 100 — The Property and Freedom Society's tribute to Murray Rothbard, edited by Stephan Kinsella and Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Murray Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty — Rothbard's core moral and political treatise; foundational for natural‑rights libertarianism. Murray Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State — His major economic work, extending Misesian praxeology. Hans‑Hermann Hoppe, A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism — Represents the next step in the Mises‑Rothbard‑Hoppe lineage. Stephan Kinsella, Legal Foundations of a Free Society — Kinsella's own contribution, heavily influenced by Rothbard and discussed in the episode. Stephan Kinsella, Against Intellectual Property — Kinsella's robust and persuasive argumentation for abandoning the notion of intellectual property.

Luiz Domingos has spent 25 years watching enterprise communications evolve, from IP telephony to cloud to AI, and his assessment of where things stand now is unusually concrete. Companies have moved past the strategy deck phase. AI is being embedded directly into contact centers, compliance workflows, and communication pipelines, and the question executives are asking has shifted from "which model is smartest" to "which deployment reduces friction and stays compliant." Domingos is direct about what gets in the way: you cannot pour AI into a legacy architecture and expect transformation, and cloud-only AI doesn't solve the latency or data sovereignty problems that regulated industries face every day. In this conversation with Craig Smith, Domingos covers the practical mechanics of how Mitel is applying AI across its portfolio, from real-time transcription and sentiment analytics in contact centers, to agentic workflows that turn conversations into automated tickets and follow-ups. He draws a clear line between AI agents (which give recommendations) and agentic AI (which takes actions), a distinction the market consistently confuses. He also makes a prediction worth noting: within five years, voice will replace the traditional app interface as the primary way people interact with enterprise AI systems. For any CIO or CTO trying to move from experimentation to real ROI, his framework - start with workflow friction, not pilots - is the most actionable takeaway in the episode.

Are you worried about what happens if your employer finds out about your side business? Are you ready to stop letting fear hold you back and start turning your 15 or 20 years of experience into an impactful asset? Have you been wondering whether a portfolio career could be your next move, but you're feeling stuck on how to navigate the corporate boundaries? In this episode, I share a personal story about what happened when a previous employer found out about the coaching business I was building on the side. Instead of the negative response I had braced myself for, they ended up inquiring about my return-to-work course and paying me to pilot it internally! Handled well, this conversation doesn't have to be a risk - it can actually become your very first opportunity. Building a portfolio career isn't about being disloyal to your role. It's about moving with intention and strategically leveraging the incredible value already sitting in your toolkit.What you'll learn in this episode:Your expertise is an under utilised asset. The experience you have spent decades building is highly valuable. You don't need a perfect business plan, a website, or a fully formed idea to get started; you just need to realize that you are sitting on far more value than you think.The 4 steps to getting your employer's support. I break down the exact framework to position your side build professionally: starting on your idea first, auditing your employment contract (checking for outside interests, conflicts, and IP clauses), identifying the mutual value add, and framing the disclosure conversation around the what, the how, and the why it isn't a conflict.Turning corporate boundaries into career value. Discover how building a side practice actually sharpens your communication, commercial thinking, and leadership skills - ringing an upgraded strategic skill set and brand visibility right back to your day job.Ready to build your portfolio career? Join the waitlist for the Portfolio Career Academy launching at the end of June! I will be sharing exclusive details about the program, how it works, and opening up our founding member cohort to those on the waitlist first. Send us Fan MailInvest in Yourself and Your Career:Community — Join our Network for mid-career women redesigning what's next in their careersCoaching — Join the Waitlist for The Portfolio Career Academy. Turn Your Expertise Into Multiple Streams of Income & Impact Through Building A Portfolio Career. Join The Waitlist Connect with me!Website: careerchangemakers.comEmail: podcast@careerchangemakers.comLinkedIn:  Janine EsbrandInstagram: @careerchangemakerspodcastCareer Change Makers on Apple Podcasts

In this episode,Kiaun will discuss Media Molecule working on a new IP,why the Game Pass Family plan never happened,Take 2 is about to ramp up production on multiple games releasing in a short release window,and Sony is coming up with a way to make your loading screen a little more entertaining. Be sure to reach out to us to be a part of the next Listener Feedback episode by calling in at 667-284-9057 or Email us at theanalogcirclepodcast@gmail.com .

As AI changes the video game industry, Matt Cost, from Morgan Stanley's U.S. Internet team, takes us through the game play and what could drive the next level of engagement.Read more insights from Morgan Stanley.----- Transcript -----Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I'm Matt Cost, from Morgan Stanley's U.S. Internet team. Today – how new AI tools are reshaping the video game industry. It's Wednesday, May 27th, at 10am in New York. We've all done it at some point. You think you'll open your phone for just a few minutes. But end up in a game, a match, or a virtual world for much longer than you planned. Now, that window of attention is at the heart of one of the biggest battles in entertainment. Americans over 15 years old spend about 22 minutes per day playing games – that's more than they spend socializing, playing sports, or reading. And the next big shift in gaming may stem from who gets to create games and how they do it. We expect consumers to spend more than $275 billion on video games in 2026. And the industry is reinvesting over $50 billion of that into game development and operations. But AI could cut that by nearly half. Today, making a major game is expensive, slow, and labor-intensive. A typical AAA title – the gaming equivalent of a studio blockbuster – can cost hundreds of millions of dollars and take four years to build. More than 90 percent of that cost is people: so that's developers, designers, artists, writers and many more. But AI could change that math. New tools could increase productivity multiple times over, helping smaller teams do more in less time. Even after accounting for AI compute and asset-generation expense, we think that cost savings could exceed 40 percent. That's over $100 million per game project. Across the industry, that could generate savings of roughly $22 billion. But that money won't just go straight to profits. Increased competition may erode those savings. And studios might put more money into marketing in response. So, AI could still meaningfully shift value across the gaming ecosystem.The positives are clear. AI can speed up coding, asset creation, testing, and many other processes that are manual today. That'll let studios spend less time on repetitive work and more time on higher-value creative tasks. But it's tough for newcomers to level up. AI does open the door for new players, but we think the industry looks more insulated from near-term disruption than the market fears – especially for companies with strong IP and advantages in live operations, data, and distribution. AI can help generate worlds, characters, and digital assets, but great gameplay is harder. Gameplay is the feel, the challenge, the feedback, and the fun. Models still struggle to measure that, let alone deliver it consistently. Live operations are another moat for established gaming companies. Many successful games don't end at launch. Teams run them for years through updates, events, and passionate communities. That skill is hard to copy. And often it determines whether a game becomes a lasting franchise or fades quickly. So gradual integration of AI looks more likely than overnight replacement. Finally, the largest opportunity may still be on the horizon. Beyond lowering the cost of making today's games, AI could unlock entirely new types of interactive experiences that didn't exist until now. And the game industry has been through this process before, when new technologies like smartphones changed games forever. But ultimately, the prize is still the same: building something that people can't stop playing.Thanks for listening. If you enjoy the show, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share Thoughts on the Market with a friend or colleague today.

Monsanto is one of the most influential and controversial companies in the history of global agriculture. But beyond the headlines, what can its evolution teach us about how value is created and captured in ag? As agriculture enters a new era shaped by technological advances, climate pressures, and macroeconomic uncertainty, understanding where power sits in the system and how it shifts has never been more important. Monsanto's story offers insight into how control points are built, defended, and transformed over time. In this episode, Sarah Nolet is joined by Tenacious Ventures co-founder Matthew Pryor and the creator of Upstream Ag Insights, Shane Thomas, to break down the business model evolution of Monsanto. Together, they trace Monsanto's journey from a chemical manufacturing company built on waste stream transformation, through the rise of glyphosate and innovation in crop protection, to its defining move into seeds and traits. They dig into how Monsanto layered in strategies around licensing, branding, regulation, and distribution to build one of the most powerful positions in modern agriculture. This episode is our second Business Model Breakdown, where we explore how agricultural systems, companies, and structures actually work and what that means for the future of agtech. This format is an experiment and we'd love your feedback! Sarah, Matthew, and Shane discuss: How Monsanto evolved from industrial chemicals to seeds and traits Why control points like germplasm and genetic IP became central to value capture  How regulatory strategy and “knowledge environments” shaped Monsanto's success. The role of patents, licensing, and branding in scaling adoption What Monsanto's story suggests about future control points in agtech, including data and AI. Got a business model you'd like for us to break down in a future episode? Let us know! Useful Links: Breaking Barriers in Crop Innovation Bayer Rounds Up Monsanto Monsanto wins Pioneer appeal of patent dispute | Reuters Mapping Power in the Seed Value Chain: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why Corteva at Wolfe Research Conference: Strategic Growth and Challenges Silent Spring Lords of the Harvest: Biotech, Big Money, and the Future of Food For more information and resources, visit our website.  The information in this post is not investment advice or a recommendation to invest. It is general information only and does not take into account your investment objectives, financial situation or needs. Before making an investment decision you should seek financial advice from a professional financial adviser. Whilst we believe the information is correct, we provide no warranty of accuracy, reliability or completeness.

Why are most brands still stuck licensing royalty-free tracks nobody recognizes while short-form content runs on music?  This week, we're sharing a conversation Jade Prieboy had at SXSW with Ferris Bseiso, founder of Cipher Music, breaking down how TikTok rewrote the economics of sync licensing, why major brands are getting hit with eight-figure copyright lawsuits over Instagram posts, and how Cipher is creating a volume-driven sync market designed specifically for the creator economy. Also on this episode, Jade and Dmitri swap takeaways from Music Biz in Atlanta and Mo Forum in New York. They dig into AI voice cloning and the concept of style laundering, Andrea Gleason's provocative idea about generative AI and streaming platforms, the rise of institutional catalog investment from companies like Apollo and Primary Wave, and what the KISS hologram deal signals about the future of artist IP. Music, technology, and internet culture are colliding in real time. This episode is right in the middle of it.   The Music Tectonics podcast goes beneath the surface of the music industry to explore how technology is changing the way business gets done. Visit musictectonics.com to find shownotes and a transcript for this episode, and find us on LinkedIn, Twitter, and Instagram. Let us know what you think! Get Dmitri's Rock Paper Scanner newsletter.

AI adoption looks very different when mistakes can create legal, financial, and reputational risk.Vijay Gandra, Global CDO at Acrisure, joins The Tech Trek to talk about AI transformation inside a regulated industry, where explainability, data quality, governance, cost, and team readiness matter just as much as model capability.The conversation covers the trust gap in AI, how data teams are shifting from dashboard production to conversational data access, when to buy versus build, and why AI proof of concepts need to be judged by business value, operational efficiency, and customer impact.Practical Takeaways• Regulated industries cannot treat AI as a black box. Decisions need traceability, consistency, and often a human review layer.• Data quality has to be addressed from the start. AI can amplify bad data as easily as it can create value.• Data teams are moving beyond dashboard factories toward conversational data access and generative interfaces.• Most companies can likely use existing AI tools for many needs, but sensitive IP and core business logic may require internal capabilities.• AI cost will become a bigger production question as companies move from experimentation to scaled deployment.Timestamped Highlights00:47, Acrisure's shift from insurance brokerage toward fintech and financial tools.01:44, Why regulated industries face a trust gap with AI and need explainable decisions.04:41, How data teams are evolving from dashboards to conversational data enablement.08:28, The build versus buy question and where internal AI tools may still make sense.10:52, Why AI experimentation can get expensive before companies know what works.16:15, How to evaluate AI proof of concepts based on customer value, efficiency, and business impact.18:14, Why data governance and data quality need to be treated as day one requirements.One Line That Stuck“In an industry like this, a 5 percent deviation is not just a simple glitch. It is actually a legal liability.”Subscribe to The Tech Trek for more conversations with technical leaders building, operating, and adapting modern teams around AI, data, platform, product, and engineering execution.

Este contenedor Docker es capaz de actualizar nuestros dominios en Cloudflare y otros registradores con la IP pública de nuestra conexión. Es algo que siempre viene bien tener automatizado.

Vi besøker Sanna Sarromaa på Lillehammer, i leiligheten hun endelig har fått solgt! Vi får Hellas-tips av Ronny Brede Aase og Tuva Fellman, og samtidig mener Øystein og Bjørn at deres reisetips er veldig gode! Eirin tar oss med til Maihaugen, hvor hun pleide å jobbe - og der skjer det noe skummelt! Episoden kan inneholde målrettet reklame, basert på din IP-adresse, enhet og posisjon. Se smartpod.no/personvern for informasjon og dine valg om deling av data.

Kira Shishkin is the CEO and founder of Informed.now — a news-by-SMS service that sends you one text per day covering what actually changed the world in the last 24 hours. No ads. No bias. No storytelling. Just primary sources, direct quotes, and a link so you can read the original yourself. Kira grew up in Ukraine, came of age in Israel, and built this company after watching both countries get torn apart by information warfare. He knows what happens when people can't trust what they're reading — and he built something to fix it. We got into: why American news is designed to exhaust and trigger you; how Informed.now sources directly from government agencies; why they link to the actual PDF instead of a story about the PDF; what today's top stories were (OPEC output increases, China blocking US sanctions on Iran oil traders, Vietnam getting flagged for IP theft); how real humans — not bots — answer your follow-up texts; and why the only way to keep news unbiased is to make the reader the client, not the advertiser. Try it → informed.now TIMESTAMPS: 0:00 — Intro — who is Kira Shishkin and what is Informed.now? 1:45 — Why reading the news in America has become exhausting 3:10 — How it works: one SMS per day, primary sources only 5:20 — Why they link directly to the source — and why no one else does 7:30 — The UN, the White House, and healthy skepticism of primary sources 10:15 — Facts vs. storytelling — why Informed.now doesn't tell you what to think 13:40 — How they decide what makes the cut: the significance filter 16:55 — Today's top stories live: OPEC output, China-Iran oil, Vietnam IP 20:10 — The two-way SMS — real humans, not chatbots 24:30 — Lou suggests FOIA requests — Kira puts it on the roadmap 27:15 — What to do when there are no primary sources (war reporting) 30:40 — Growing up in Ukraine and Israel — information warfare up close 34:20 — AI-generated war images, radicalization, and the social media echo chamber 37:50 — Kira's background: think tanks, TurboTax, private equity, crypto 41:10 — The business model: reader-funded, no ads, no investors, profitable 44:00 — Outro and where to find Informed.now Watch full episodes on YouTube → https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4Vb53s4I0A&list=PLb5trMQQvT077-L1roE0iZyAgT4dD4EtJ Listen on Apple Podcasts → https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-lou-perez-podcast/id1535032081 Listen on Spotify → https://open.spotify.com/show/2KAtC7eFS3NHWMZp2UgMVU  Lou's book — That Joke Isn't Funny Anymore: https://amzn.to/3VhFa1r  TheLouPerez.com |  info@thelouperez.com  Newsletter: https://substack.com/@louperez #MediaBias #UnbiasedNews #InformedNow #KiraShishkin #NewsLiteracy #FakeNews #MediaCriticism #LouPerezPodcast #LionsOfLiberty Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Jubilee Media founder and CEO Jason Y Lee joins Next in Media to break down how the digital-first studio builds scalable, format-driven IP that captures Gen Z's massive attention span without relying on a single face. Discover the monetization strategies behind their unscripted content, why creators are turning down Hollywood, and how authentic human conversation is outperforming AI in the modern creator economy. Key Takeaways: The Creator Economy Flip: Top digital creators no longer view Hollywood as the ultimate graduation point, reversing the media power dynamic as traditional studios now seek out digital-first strategies to survive. The Attention Span Myth: Massive engagement metrics on 90-minute videos prove that younger audiences aren't suffering from short attention spans; they are simply starving for unscripted, long-form authenticity. Format Over Face: Designing repeatable, host-agnostic IP rather than relying on a single charismatic personality eliminates key-person risk and unlocks true operational scalability for digital studios. Contextual Brand Storytelling: The next frontier of monetization rejects one-off, disruptive advertisements in favor of naturally embedding brands into existing, high-performing video franchises. The Anti-Echo Chamber Demand: Algorithms have hyper-fragmented public discourse, creating a massive, untapped market of viewers who actively seek out raw, multi-perspective content to escape their own echo chambers. The TV Screen Takeover: Digital-first production must now default to cinema-grade standards like 4K, as YouTube's massive growth on connected televisions blends the boundary between streaming networks and independent creators. The Human Premium in an AI Era: As artificial intelligence commoditizes automated content creation, media companies that double down on raw, real-life human connection will hold the ultimate competitive advantage. IP Upcycling and Windowing: Legacy distribution strategies like FAST channels and AVOD licensing represent the most lucrative secondary revenue streams for creators sitting on deep libraries of episodic content. Resources & Next Steps: Subscribe to Next in Media on Apple Podcasts and Spotify Key Episode Timestamps: 00:00 Jubilee's Mission and Content Philosophy 1:09 Introduction and Background 2:07 Jubilee's Format Strategy and Studio Approach 3:44 Building a Scalable Business Model 4:57 Format Development and Longevity 6:16 YouTube's Evolution and Connected TV 7:54 Multi-Platform Strategy 8:54 Brand Partnerships and Controversial Content 10:01 Successful Brand Integration Examples 11:23 Brand Partnership Philosophy 12:19 YouTube's Creator Economy Evolution 13:44 Creator Content Boosting vs Investment 15:19 Hollywood and Streaming Industry Relations 16:32 Content Licensing and Distribution 17:41 Short-Form Fiction and Experimentation 18:25 Microdrama and Asian Market Trends 19:05 AI Integration and Human-Centered Content 20:09 Generational Media Habits and Public Discourse 21:34 Gen Z's Media Consciousness 22:21 Future Political Engagement and Partnerships

This week on TellyCast, Justin Crosby is joined by Andrew Eastel, Managing Director of Middlechild Productions, for a fascinating conversation about how traditional TV production companies can adapt to the digital-first production economy.Andrew explains how Middlechild launched the hugely successful Gardening With Alan Titchmarsh YouTube channel, why factual producers may be better placed for social video than they realise, and how TV indies can build long-term IP businesses beyond traditional commissioning.The discussion explores YouTube strategy, digital monetisation, brand partnerships, broadcaster pre-sales, connected TV viewing habits, audience behaviour, and why producers should think like entrepreneurs when building social video channels.Andrew also reveals how Middlechild's new digital division Wildchild is developing future-facing content brands in areas including pets and survival, and explains why digital-first production could eventually create more stable long-term work for freelancers.This episode is essential listening for anyone working in TV production, social video, YouTube strategy, digital-first content, or the wider creator economy.Key Topics: • The success of Gardening With Alan Titchmarsh on YouTube • Why TV producers still have valuable advantages in digital • How broadcasters may increasingly acquire digital-first IP • Building long-term content brands beyond commissioning • YouTube as a search engine and connected TV platform • Monetisation strategies beyond YouTube ad revenue • Why producers need a business model before a format idea • The future of factual TV and digital-first productionVisit Tubular Labs Sign up for The Drop newsletterSupport the showEnrol on the TellyCast Digital BootcampAttend the Digital Video AwardsSubscribe to the TellyCast YouTube channel for exclusive TV industry videosFollow us on LinkedInConnect with Justin on LinkedINTellyCast videos on YouTubeTellyCast websiteTellyCast instaTellyCast TwitterTellyCast TikTok

Welcome to the True Chicago Sports Fans Podcast…BIG-Z and the boys got a LOT to talk about today!”

Will Unbound Gravel be the proving ground for 32-inch wheels? In episode 145 of the ShiftLess podcast, we dive into the latest industry rumors, including the highly anticipated debut of 32-inch gravel bikes by top-tier pros. We also break down major cycling news, from the unfortunate closure of Niner Bikes to the triumphant return of Paragon Machine Works and SRAM's groundbreaking legal victory over the UCI.Beyond the bikes, we preview the Traka gravel race's push to become Europe's premier event, discuss optimal sous vide steak techniques, and outline a detailed business plan for bringing authentic New Orleans-style po'boys to Texas.Unbound Gravel Preview & Rumors: Speculating on course conditions, wildcard contenders, and the potential debut of 32-inch wheels from major brands like Scott and Specialized.Industry Shakeups: Discussing the end of Niner Bikes, the legacy of 29ers, and the rescue of Paragon Machine Works by Firsthand Framebuilding.SRAM vs. The UCI: Breaking down SRAM's successful appeal against the UCI's restrictive gearing rules.The Global Gravel Scene: Analyzing the Gravel Earth Series and whether the Traka will rival Unbound as the premier international gravel event.Culinary Ventures: Debating the ideal sous vide times for dry-aged Wagyu and brainstorming the logistics of opening a dedicated, nostalgic po'boy shop.Unbound Gravel 2024, 32 inch wheels gravel bike, Niner Bikes closing, Paragon Machine Works, SRAM UCI gearing rule, Traka gravel race, ShiftLess Podcast, gravel cycling news, custom frame building, sous vide steak, cycling industry updates.Unbound Gravel Rumors, 32-Inch Wheels, and Bike Industry UpdatesTwo hosts record at Casa Verde on Memorial Day and preview Unbound Gravel, focusing on a rumor that a top-tier pro—possibly Cam Jones on a Scott—will race a 32-inch wheel bike, debating sponsor-driven exposure vs performance, estimating how many 32s might appear, and noting muddy conditions could change equipment choices. They discuss elite start list curiosities, wild-card threats, course changes, weather forecasts, and Lauren potentially being the oldest Lifetime Grand Prix athlete with podium chances. Industry news includes Niner ceasing production to focus on Huffy, Paragon Machine Works being revived via acquisition of stock, machinery, and IP by a Portland custom builder, and SRAM winning an appeal against the UCI's proposed 54x11 gearing limit. They touch on DT Swiss dynamo hub internals, Tour Divide timing, Traka's push to become a premier European gravel series, and end with personal updates plus extended talk about sous vide, dry aging, and a potential po'boy shop concept.00:00 Wisdom and Casa Verde01:32 Unbound Rumor Mill02:42 Scott 32-Inch Bombshell07:03 Start List Mysteries09:29 Course and Weather Watch13:54 Over Under on 32s19:09 Wheel Size Talk19:52 Niner Shuts Down24:09 EBB vs Sliding Dropouts26:23 Paragon Returns30:59 Tire Trends Then Now36:20 Dynamo Hub Deep Dive38:42 Tour Divide Preview40:49 Family Updates and Natchez Eats44:27 Pidcock and Pro Chatter46:10 Traka Versus Unbound47:58 Series Drama And Cheating49:43 Routes Dates And Pit Stops51:40 Indoor Camping Hub Idea54:29 Texas Gravel Arrow Wins55:28 SRAM Beats UCI Rule57:43 32 Inch Wheel Speculation01:02:34 Bike Shop Visit And Becky01:04:12 Memorial Day Food Plans01:05:33 Sous Vide And Swordfish01:09:53 Po Boy Shop Blueprint01:16:32 Location POS And Delivery01:26:37 Food Peddler And Minden01:29:05 Wrap Up Ride Your Bike

Eric and Daniel discuss the final film in the Porky's trilogy and also head on over to 2009 to discuss an attempted reboot of this all-important IP. Eric also watches Hollywood Zap, the fabled Porky's 4. 

In today's episode, we'll dive into a fascinating twist on the e-commerce journey — what happens when you buy back the very brand you once sold. Ben will share the lessons, emotions, and strategic insights behind exiting — and then re-entering — your own business. Highlight Bullets> Here's a glimpse of what you would learn…. Ben Leonard's entrepreneurial journey with Beast Gear, from initial investment to seven-figure exit.Challenges faced after selling Beast Gear to Thrasio, including mismanagement and loss of brand identity.Importance of effective inventory management and the consequences of overleveraging.The significance of building a genuine consumer brand beyond basic Amazon tactics.The role of intellectual property protection and the impact of neglecting it.Insights on the operational difficulties during the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects on e-commerce.Strategies for diversifying sales channels and avoiding dependency on a single platform.The importance of quality in products and overall business operations.Marketing strategies for brand awareness, including the use of influencers and social media.Lessons learned from reacquiring and reviving a brand in a competitive market.In this episode of the Ecomm Breakthrough Podcast, host Josh Hadley speaks with entrepreneur Ben Leonard, who built Beast Gear into a seven-figure brand before selling it to aggregator Thrasio. Then buying it back after mismanagement caused revenue to collapse. Ben reveals how Thrasio abandoned the brand-building strategies that drove Beast Gear's success, mishandled inventory, and neglected intellectual property protection. He shares lessons on diversifying beyond Amazon, maintaining product quality, and building genuine customer communities. Ben also discusses his new dad-focused baby carrier brand, Tuco, and offers actionable advice on scaling e-commerce businesses sustainably.Here are the 3 action items that Josh identified from this episode:Build a brand, not just an Amazon listing Engage customers off-Amazon (TikTok, email, events) and create a loyal community—not just traffic.Treat inventory like risk, not just growth Forecast per SKU, avoid over-ordering, and ensure sell-through within ~6 months to prevent cash flow disasters.Diversify early and protect your moat Expand beyond Amazon (Shopify + social channels) and actively enforce IP to protect your brand from copycats.Timestamps:00:00:34 Introduction to the EpisodeThe host introduces the guest, Ben Leonard, and the topic: buying back his brand after selling it to an aggregator.00:02:14 The Brand's Decline Under New OwnershipBen confirms his brand crashed after he sold it to the aggregator Thrasio due to mismanagement and operational failures.00:05:41 The "Magic" Thrasio IgnoredBen explains his original success came from building a true brand with customer relationships, which the new owners dismantled.00:09:27 The Financial FalloutBen reveals the brand's revenue plummeted from $6 million to about half a million dollars under Thrasio's ownership.00:13:13 Three Key Mistakes by the AggregatorThe host summarizes Thrasio's critical errors: inventory mismanagement, ignoring off-Amazon branding, and failing to protect intellectual property.00:19:51 Why You Must Diversify Beyond AmazonBen stresses the need for Amazon sellers to act like real brands and diversify channels to build a sustainable business.00:22:23 The Revival Playbook for Beast GearBen outlines his bootstrapped strategy to revive the brand, focusing on TikTok Shop and rebuilding community goodwill on a budget.00:27:08 Launching a New Brand: TucoThe conversation shifts to Ben's new venture, Tuco, a baby carrier startup designed specifically for dads.00:32:22 When to Implement Brand Awareness StrategiesBen and Josh discuss when a brand should start investing in top-of-funnel marketing and diversifying beyond its primary channel.00:37:40 Three Actionable Takeaways for Brand OwnersThe host summarizes key lessons: diversify with solid processes, avoid inventory leverage, and work with creators for brand awareness.00:42:13 Ben's Final Three QuestionsBen shares his most influential book (The E-Myth), favorite AI tool (Claude), and an e-commerce professional to follow.00:45:51 How to Connect with BenBen shares the best places for listeners to find him online, primarily LinkedIn and his personal email address.Resources mentioned in this episode:Josh Hadley on LinkedIneComm Breakthrough ConsultingeComm Breakthrough PodcastEmail Josh Hadley: Josh@eCommBreakthrough.comTools and Websites"Shopify": "00:03:03""Amazon": "00:03:03""TikTok": "00:09:54""YouTube": "00:19:51""TikTok Shop": "00:23:10""Meta Ads": "00:24:07""WordPress": "00:35:58""Email Marketing": "00:36:33""Claude (AI Tool)": "00:43:03""LinkedIn": "00:45:09""Ecomm Breakthrough Website": "00:46:24"Books"Quit Stalling and Build Your Own Brand by Ben Leonard": "00:01:01""Building a StoryBrand by Donald Miller": "00:21:31""The E-Myth Revisited by Michael Gerber": "00:42:25"Videos"Brand Rescue Mission": "00:08:17""Escaping the Amazon Goldfish Bowl": "00:19:51"Podcasts"Operators Podcast": "00:09:54"Other Mentions"Forbes": "00:01:01""Peregrine Commerce": "00:25:41""Sean Cowie": "00:44:09"Episode Sponsor:This episode is brought to you by eComm Breakthrough Consulting where I help seven-figure e-commerce owners grow to eight figures. I started my business in 2015 and grew it to an eight-figure brand in seven years.I made mistakes along the way that made the path to eight figures longer. At times I doubted whether our business could even survive and become a real brand. I wish I would have had a guide to help me grow faster and avoid the stumbling blocks.If ...

In this episode of the Cannabis Accounting Podcast, host Raymond Guns sits down with Nick Kenny, Founder of KBS Strategic Advisory, to pull back the curtain on how the world's largest, most established companies have been quietly studying — and entering — cannabis for nearly a decade.Nick spent 18 months inside Imperial Brands educating a FTSE-listed boardroom on cannabis before anyone could say the word publicly. That work led to real investments, a career pivot, and eventually to KBS — a consultancy built around one idea: helping highly regulated, mature industries navigate entry into highly regulated, immature ones.Nick opens up about:

Epic Universe Vice President Jeff Polk sat down with a small group of reporters to mark the park's first year, discuss its unique design elements, and push back on expansion timelines. The design choices, the new Captain Cacao meet-and-greet, and Universal's beta tests of an open Celestial Park hub all point in the same direction: they need smaller experiences to soak up crowds, and they may eventually turn Celestial Park into a CityWalk-style space or charge per portal. Scott makes the case that Celestial Park is "pretty lights with no storytelling," a transition space that's too big for the IP-rich lands it connects to, and why pivoting the use case could work.Then, Disney faces a new class action lawsuit over facial recognition at Disneyland. The complaint argues that Disney doesn't adequately disclose its biometric collection practices. The technology is something we've been discussing for years (whether at airports, sporting arenas, or even the magic bands), yet it seems the main issue is how guests expect to be informed about any AI use of biometrics. Listen to weekly BONUS episodes on our Patreon.

Hello one and all, and welcome back to another spooky episode of Surviving the Horror! In this episode, Colin and Josh take a departure from the more serious fare they've been playing lately, to visit the realm of Nintendo. In 2001 Luigi's Mansion was released for the Nintendo GameCube and became an instant classic. Audiences around the world were delighted at the ways in which Nintendo could take a "side" character and create a whole new IP with him, in a genre that was largely unexplored by first party at that time. In 2013 a follow up was announced and in 2014 Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon graced us all on the 3DS console. Today, Josh and Colin are playing and discussing the HD port of Luigi's Mansion: Dark Moon, for the Switch. Released in 2024, Dark Moon HD ditches much of the open world style exploration of the first game, in favor of a shorter mission based structure in several smaller hubs. Is this a successful change? Well that's for you and us to determine! In general though, Luigi's Mansion is a fun, goofy, heartfelt game that uses it's ghosts and creepy aesthetic to do something different with a character we all know and love. We hope that you enjoy the episode, and thank you for listening!

Nytt stempel? - McDonalds-sjokk - Golden Libido Episoden kan inneholde målrettet reklame, basert på din IP-adresse, enhet og posisjon. Se smartpod.no/personvern for informasjon og dine valg om deling av data.

In this remastered episode I am talking to Dr. Linda Backman about her book 'Souls on Earth: Exploring Interplanetary Past Lives'. In this "groundbreaking" book, a past-life regression therapist "offers credible evidence of evolved interplanetary souls incarnate in human bodies" (Larry Dossey, MD, author of One Mind). In her work as a regression hypnotherapist, Dr. Linda Backman frequently meets with individuals who have had past lives on planets and realms beyond Earth. These individuals—called interplanetary souls—have agreed to come to Earth to help support the evolution of the planet as well as to develop themselves and learn lessons for spiritual advancement. In Souls on Earth, Dr. Backman shares her fascinating work with interplanetary souls. This book explores the characteristics of interplanetary souls so that if you are one, you will be able to understand more about your life purpose and cope with the special challenges that come with an incarnation on Earth. Learn how to identify IP souls and discover how they can assist humanity's evolution. Explore ways to support yourself or loved ones who may be IP souls. For many people struggling with difficult lessons or trying to find meaning, this book opens the door to new understandings and the potential for peace. Bio Dr. Linda Backman, licensed psychologist and regression therapist, has been in private practice for 47 years. Since 1993, Dr. Backman has guided innumerable individuals in regression hypnotherapy to access their past and between lives/higher self. In this way, she assists people to more fully recognize their Soul Essence Psychology, combining our current life experiences with who we are as a soul throughout our many lifetimes and as an immortal soul. Regression hypnotherapy allows the client to understand their Soul Design of past lives, soul origin, soul and life mission, soul progress, soul relationships, and more. Dr. Backman's work, includes guiding soul regressions, speaking and writing, as well as training others in soul regression hypnotherapy both in the US and abroad. Dr. Backman has a profound commitment to deepening and heightening individual spiritual progress, as well as fostering a more universal understanding and awareness of the path of soul development, leading to greater wisdom and acceptance among all people and cultures worldwide. Linda studied and co-taught with Dr. Michael Newton, author of the seminal books on Life Between Lives regression therapy, and was a co-creative, founding member of the Society for Spiritual Regression Board (now The Newton Institute). In 1997, Dr. Backman and her husband, Dr. Earl Backman, established The Ravenheart Center (www.RavenHeartCenter.com), a Mystery School in Boulder, Colorado, dedicated to guiding individuals to discover their soul path. Dr. Backman is the author of Bringing Your Soul to Light: Healing Through Past Lives and the Time Between, published by Llewellyn Worldwide (2009); The Evolving Soul: Spiritual Healing Through Past Life Exploration (Llewellyn 2014); Souls on Earth: Exploring Interplanetary Past Lives (Llewellyn 2018); Soul Design: A Regressionist's Guide to Past Lives, Origins, and Purpose (Llewellyn 2025); and a frequent guest on numerous programs, such as Coast to Coast, Gaia TV, James Van Praagh and others. Linda has earned academic degrees from the University of Oregon, University of North Carolina, and Northern Arizona University. https://www.ravenheartcenter.com/ https://www.amazon.com/Souls-Earth-Exploring-Interplanetary-Lives-ebook/dp/B075W1S6FC https://www.pastliveshypnosis.co.uk/https://www.patreon.com/ourparanormalafterlifeMy book 'Verified Near Death Experiences' https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0DXKRGDFP Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

This Week in Shohei Ohtani News: Leadoff HR + ERA Drops to 0.73… He's BACK! Shohei Ohtani delivered the full superstar experience in the 1st inning! Hitting a leadoff home run (the 2nd time a pitcher has ever done it in MLB history, joining himself) and dominating on the mound. On the mound: 5 IP, 0 ER, 4 K, lowers his season ERA to a ridiculous 0.73 — the lowest through 8 starts in the live-ball era (since 1920) outside of a few all-time great seasons. At the plate: He's absolutely on fire lately! 13 hits in his last 24 at-bats, and he DOMINATED his former team the LA Angels. A “down year” for Ohtani is still a career year for most players. Plus: - The crazy story of the Angels almost trading Ohtani to the Rays for Junior Caminero right before the 2023 deadline - Ohtani's honest post-game comments - Historic two-way dominance Timestamps: 0:00 Intro 0:43 1st Inning Ohtani Experience 1:30 Pitching Performance vs Padres 6:32 Shohei's Offense is BACK 13:40 Ohtani almost traded WHERE?! 18:18 Outro Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Braves crush Marlins 9-1 behind Dom Smith’s homers and Chris Sale’s gem (7 IP, 8K). Roster moves and Strider vs. Alcantara preview. Plus: record $10M UGA basketball donation, Nolan Smith speeding arrest, Kiffin hires Orgeron at LSU, Sarkisian roasts Texas Tech, Kyle Busch hospitalized, Spurs rookie bathroom dash, and WWE star’s PDA arrest.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.