Podcasts about Nokia

A.M. Edition for July 23. Oil futures are rising again today, after Iran-backed Houthi militants claimed attacks on a pair of Saudi tankers in the Red Sea, and as the U.S. surges special-operations forces to the Middle East. Plus, Alphabet and Tesla shares tumble as the big-spending tech giants turn cash-flow negative. WSJ reporters Meghan Brobowsky and Becky Peterson break down the numbers and what to make of Elon Musk's most boring earnings call ever. And the FDA investigates a new outbreak of cyclospora. Luke Vargas hosts. Sign up for the WSJ's free What's News newsletter. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Dans cette nouvelle édition du Top Ganne, Vincent fait la mise à jour habituelle de l'analyse technique du marché actions. Il attire aussi votre attention sur 5 actions qui sont intéressantes selon lui sur le long terme. Attention, ce ne sont pas des conseils en investissement, faite vos propres recherches de votre coté.

Tom Hollingsworth joins Scott Robohn to share his professional journey from a hands-on network engineer and CCIE to his current role leading events at Tech Field Day. He talks about the cyclical nature of networking hype, and advocates for specialized, subject-specific tech models over broad AI solutions. They also discuss the delicate art of facilitating... Read more »

Tom Hollingsworth joins Scott Robohn to share his professional journey from a hands-on network engineer and CCIE to his current role leading events at Tech Field Day. He talks about the cyclical nature of networking hype, and advocates for specialized, subject-specific tech models over broad AI solutions. They also discuss the delicate art of facilitating... Read more »

Muy buenos días, el presidente de Panamá visita México y la casa de Carlos Slim, seguimos con los récords de los gigantes financieros, Stripe quiere comprar Paypal, Nubank ya tiene CEO para Latinoamérica, una stablecoin se suma como inversionista de Ualá, Nokia finalmente revela por dónde va su estrategia con Nvidia y hoy vamos a conocer al creador de modelos de inteligencia artificial más rico del mundo y no, no es ni de OpenAI ni de Anthropic.Patrocinado | Aeroméxico, la aerolínea más puntual del mundo por segundo año consecutivo. Conoce más aquí. https://www.bloomberglinea.com/brandedcontent/aeromexico-es-la-aerolinea-mas-puntual-del-mundo-por-segundo-ano-consecutivo-segun-el-reporte-de-cirium/

Stefan Lampinen är en av de mest prominenta figurerna i svensk spelhistoria. Arbetsplatser som Electronic Arts, Nokia, Microsoft och Warner Bros har avlöst varandra – men det kanske största avtrycket gjorde han som spelexpert på BRIO när Sega utmanade Nintendo om tronen under tidigt 90-tal. Häng med när vi gräver ner oss i Stefans förflutna och hans nyskrivna bok Bakom Kulisserna.

張炤和

Pablo García, director de Divacons Alpha Value, analiza los títulos de Solaria, Nokia, Goldman Sachs, PayPal, Arcelor Mittal y Meta, entre otros.

Is banning smart phones for kids a dumb idea? That would leave them with dumb phones, sans apps and the internet, just texts and phone calls. Remember the old Nokia? Or Alcatels? They came in that weird light orangey-peachy colour and a purpley-blue. David Seymour's talking about this after a blog post suggesting it'd be easier, and less restrictive for everyone else, if we banned the hardware not the software. Make smartphones like cigarettes or beer – if you saw a 12-year-old with one, you'd judge the parents, wouldn't you? At present, parents hand them out like candy, caving by osmosis to the their kid's peer pressure to own one. The social media bans don't seem to work very well —as we've spoken about before— half the Aussie kids get around theirs. Where there's a will, there's a way. Banning the actual device itself does, on the face of it, make more sense. You can still communicate, but not with the entire world. And not with the entire sum of human knowledge —good and bad— at your unsupervised fingertips. This way, adults can keep using social media and not have to use some ID or date of birth test to log in. Which all sounds great. Except the real problem here is parents themselves. They're often the ones on their phones and ignoring their kids in the first place. If you were a child, wouldn't you want to be doing whatever your parents are doing too? It doesn't really matter what the law says, and changing it won't change everything, it's ultimately up to adults raising those kids to teach them right from wrong, good from bad, and whether 8 hours a day doom scrolling is a behaviour that's acceptable – for them or their kids. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Too many global strategies are written for boardrooms, not the markets they're meant to serve and it's a mistake that's costing companies real growth. Janice B Gordon dives deep with Jane Egerton-Idehen on the high price of ignoring local nuance in international sales. Together, they unpack how adaptive strategies and authentic stakeholder engagement are defining the next generation of winning CEOs. What you'll learn: a) Why treating Africa as a single market sabotages growth b) The business case for local presence and on-the-ground leadership c) How listening to the market reveals new revenue opportunities Jane Egerton-Idehen is the MD and CEO of Nigeria Communications Satellite Limited, an experienced tech executive and author, who has led commercial growth for over 15 years across Africa's telecom sector. She's held senior leadership roles at Meta, Ericsson, Avani Communications, Nokia, and Siemens, and is the author of Be Fearless.   Timestamps: 05:39 Localizing products for diverse markets 07:45 Understanding B2B and client relationships 10:49 Understanding Local Market Needs 15:48 Understanding Market Needs 19:09 Adapting to Market Disruptions 22:38 Finding opportunity in a crisis 23:49 Building Trust with Stakeholders 32:11 Listening to client needs 35:14 Evaluating and aligning team competencies 37:20 Challenges of Pivoting in Business   Connect with Jane Egerton-Idehen LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jane-egerton-idehen-6716a39/   Connect with Janice Book Janice to speak at your next sales or leadership event: https://janicebgordon.com LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/janice-b-gordon/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/janicebgordon Scale Your Sales Podcast: https://scaleyoursales.co.uk/podcast Enjoy the episode? Share your takeaway in the comments and leave a review on Apple Podcasts to help more leaders discover the show.

This Week: We finish chapter 8 of Digimon Story Cyber Sleuth: Hacker's Memory Next Week: We play some more! Visit rpgbook.club to pitch in and unlock cool rewards, including a weekly bonus episode! Check out https://linktr.ee/rpgbookclub for our Discord server and our socials!

You've been fitting in for so long, you've started to wonder if the full version of you was ever real. That is not a character flaw. It is a code, running underneath everything you do, protecting you from a threat that no longer exists in the room you are actually in. This is the fifth episode of season two of The Polymathic Perspective. There is a moment in this episode where a man sits across from Dov. Head down. Jaw tight. He is trying to find the words to admit he used to be a neo-Nazi recruiter. A true believer. A man who had stood in front of cameras advocating for the removal of Jews from the world.  He does not know yet that Dov is Jewish.  He looks up. And Dov is smiling. That moment is what genuine belonging looks like. Not agreement. Not forgiveness handed across a desk. A room where the worst of you is already on the table, and the other person is still there.  Most of us have never had that kind of room.  So we learned to fit in instead. And the code kept running.  The same code crushes three entirely different things in three entirely different kinds of people. It crushes the ADHD mind, which spent its life in environments designed for a system it does not have, and learned to edit its own operating system into something the room could accommodate.  It crushes nuance, in the tribally loyal person for whom exclusion registers as existential danger, and in every conversation flattened into a loyalty test at the moment nuance was needed most. It crushes paradoxical thinking, in the mind that can hold two truths simultaneously as a genuine cognitive achievement, and that learned early this complexity was too much for the room. Different neurologies. Different histories. Same code underneath. Same ask unmade.IN THIS EPISODE Oppenheimer at Trinity, at the peak, alone What the last four episodes were mapping Welcome to The Polymathic Perspective Five lenses on fitting in versus belonging Why belonging is not the problem The question this episode is built around The thesis, three minds, one code How the code runs through ADHD, loyalty, and paradox Which of the three landed in your body Personal scale, the ask that requires the unedited self Nokia's touchscreen prototype and the culture that could not receive it Intelligence, flattening, and the rooms that need clear eyes What happens to a person after years of fitting in Contextual adjustment is not the same as fitting in Tony McAleer and the impossible moment of belonging What actually helps, in this order Oppenheimer at the peak of his fitting in What to carry into your week Did he ever know who he actually was? THIS SERIES What We Want But Refuse To Accept is a ten-episode arc. Episodes one through three mapped the phenomenon and the cage. Episode four named the operating system. Episode five shows what the system crushes in three different kinds of minds. Next episode: Luck, Merit, and the Stories We Tell About Deserving.

GUEST BIO: Tim Richardson is a nationally recognized leadership, sales, and customer experience speaker with over 30 years entertaining and engaging audiences worldwide. Drawing from his background with IBM, resort management, and consulting across healthcare, hospitality, and financial services, Tim helps leaders and teams maximize peak performance. Clients include Abbott, Merrill Lynch, Nokia, and State Farm. He's also the author of Jump Starts, Wit, and Wisdom to Super Charge Your Day.   HIRE THEM TO SPEAK: Follow Tim Richardson: eSpeakers Bio Follow Scott Bloom: eSpeakers Bio Follow eSpeakers: eSpeakers Marketplace   ABOUT NO MORE BAD EVENTS: Brought to you by eSpeakers and hosted by professional emcee, host, and keynote speaker Scott Bloom, No More Bad Events is where you'll hear from some of the top names in the event and speaking industry about what goes on behind the scenes at the world's most perfectly executed conferences, meetings, and more. Get ready to learn the secrets and strategies to help anyone in the event industry reach their goal of putting on nothing less than world-class events. Learn more at nomorebadevents.com.   ABOUT THE HOST: A veteran comedian and television personality who has built a reputation as the go-to choice for business humor, Scott has hosted hundreds of events over two decades for big and small organizations alike. Scott has also hosted his own weekly VH1 series and recently co-hosted a national simulcast of the Grammy Awards from the Palace Theater. As the son of a successful salesman, he was exposed to the principles of building a business at an early age. As a comedian, Scott cut his teeth at renowned improv and comedy clubs. As a self-taught student of psychology, he's explored what makes people tick and has written a book (albeit a farce) on how to get through life. He's uniquely positioned to deliver significant notes on connecting people and making business seriously funny. And who doesn't like to laugh? Learn more about Scott: scottbloomconnects.com   PRODUCED BY eSpeakers: When the perfect speaker is in front of the right audience, a kind of magic happens where organizations and individuals improve in substantial, long-term ways. eSpeakers exists to make this happen more often. eSpeakers is where the speaking industry does business on the web. Speakers, speaker managers, associations, and bureaus use our tools to organize, promote, and grow successful businesses. Event organizers think of eSpeakers first when they want to hire speakers for their meetings or events. The eSpeakers Marketplace technology lets us and our partner directories help meeting professionals worldwide connect directly with speakers for great engagements. Thousands of successful speakers, trainers, and coaches use eSpeakers to build their businesses and manage their calendars. Thousands of event organizers use our directories every day to find and hire speakers. Our tools are built for speakers, by speakers, to do things that only purpose-built systems can. Learn more at eSpeakers.com.   SHOW CREDITS: Scott Bloom: Host | scottbloomconnects.com Joe Heaps: eSpeakers | jheaps@eSpeakers.com

Mardi 7 juillet, François Sorel a reçu Philippe Dewost, strategic advisor chez Jolt Capital, président de Phileos et cofondateur de Wanadoo, Frédéric Simottel, journaliste BFM Business, et Clément David, président de Theodo Cloud. Ils se sont penchés sur l'opération « reset » faite par Microsoft chez Xbox, et la nouvelle vague de suppressions de postes chez Nokia, dans l'émission Tech & Co, la quotidienne, sur BFM Business. Retrouvez l'émission du lundi au jeudi et réécoutez la en podcast.

Business storytelling is one of the great untapped advantages in professional presenting. Most executives compete in crowded markets, red oceans and data-heavy meetings, yet very few use stories well. That creates a blue ocean opportunity for leaders, salespeople and professionals who want to be remembered. Data, statistics and charts matter, but they rarely stay in the audience's mind by themselves. When information is wrapped inside a clear story, it becomes easier to understand, easier to remember and far more persuasive. In Japan, Asia-Pacific, Europe and the US, business audiences still respond to a good story because persuasion has never gone out of fashion. Why does storytelling matter in business presentations? Storytelling matters because it turns dry information into memorable, persuasive communication. Data can inform an audience, but stories help people remember, feel and act. Many business leaders still treat presentation delivery as fluff, smoke and mirrors. They believe the audience only wants facts, numbers and the latest update. Wrong. A presentation full of statistics can become crusty and dry, like week-old bread left outside. In boardrooms, sales meetings, investor updates and leadership town halls, the speaker must help the audience connect the dots. Stories create that connection by giving the facts a human shape. Do now: Do not just deliver data. Wrap the key information in a story so the audience can remember the message. What is the first step in building a business story? The first step is choosing the main characters because audiences need people to picture in their minds. A story without recognisable characters quickly becomes an abstract explanation. The characters might be the founder, CEO, CFO, senior leadership team, researchers, scientists, clients, suppliers or customers. If the audience already knows the person, even better. Mentioning Elon Musk, Akio Toyoda or a well-known internal executive immediately gives listeners a face to imagine. In a Japanese company, the founder's story or a client's struggle can carry strong emotional weight because relationships and reputation matter. Do now: Choose one or two main characters the audience can clearly visualise before building the rest of the story. How do presenters create context in a business story? Presenters create context by describing when, where and why the story is happening. The goal is to transport listeners into the scene so they can see what the speaker saw. Context needs guideposts. Was it last month or two years ago? Was it a snowy February morning in Sapporo, a brutal August day in Tokyo, a boardroom at headquarters, a hotel restaurant in Osaka, a convention in Singapore or a research lab in Yokohama? These details are not decoration. They paint word pictures. Without context, the audience hears information. With context, they enter the story. Do now: Add time, place, season and situation so the audience can mentally step into the business moment. Why do business stories need conflict or opportunity? Business stories need conflict or opportunity because tension is what keeps people listening. Every strong drama has stakes, obstacles and pressure, and business is full of all three. The antagonist may be the market, currency movement, competition, regulator, bank, supplier, customer, government policy or a technology shift. Supply chain disruption, Covid, the war in Ukraine, inflation, AI adoption and digital transformation all create business tension. Nokia facing the iPhone is a classic example of technological disruption changing the rules. In Japan, a shrinking labour force or slow digital transformation can also become the conflict driving the story. Do now: Identify the pressure point. Show what is at stake and why the audience should care now. How should a business story end? A business story needs an outcome because audiences feel unsatisfied when the story is left hanging. The ending may be positive, negative or unresolved, but it must give the listener closure. The outcome could be a win, a loss, a warning, a turning point or a current situation with an expected next step. In sales presentations, the ending may show how a client improved results. In leadership talks, it may show what the organisation learned. In investor briefings, it may explain what management expects next. The speaker must tie a ribbon around the story so the audience knows what the point was. Do now: Give every story a clear finish. Do not leave the audience wondering, "So what happened?" What insight should follow a business story? The insight is the business lesson the audience should take away and apply. A story without insight is entertainment; a story with insight becomes leadership communication. Audiences love learning from business disasters because failure reveals what to avoid. "How I lost $100 million" often sounds more compelling than "How I made $100 million" because people want the juicy train wreck and the warning signs. This does not mean leaders should be negative. It means they should extract practical lessons from both success and failure. The best business stories move from characters to context, conflict, outcome and insight. Do now: End by stating the lesson clearly. Tell executives, leaders or salespeople what they should do differently now. Final Summary Successful business storytelling is not mysterious. It has structure. Choose memorable characters, create vivid context, introduce conflict or opportunity, explain the outcome and finish with a practical insight. This structure helps presenters make data easier to remember and messages easier to act on. Every executive, salesperson and professional already has business stories inside them. Client wins, missed opportunities, market shocks, supply chain problems, leadership decisions and competitor moves all provide material. The key is not waiting for a perfect story. The key is learning how to structure the stories already sitting in front of you. Author Bio Dr. Greg Story, Ph.D. in Japanese Decision-Making, is President of Dale Carnegie Tokyo Training and Adjunct Professor at Griffith University. He is a two-time winner of the Dale Carnegie "One Carnegie Award" (2018, 2021) and recipient of the Griffith University Business School Outstanding Alumnus Award (2012). As a Dale Carnegie Master Trainer, Greg is certified to deliver globally across all leadership, communication, sales and presentation programs, including Leadership Training for Results. He has written several books, including three best-sellers — Japan Business Mastery, Japan Sales Mastery and Japan Presentations Mastery — along with Japan Leadership Mastery and How to Stop Wasting Money on Training. His works have been translated into Japanese, including Za Eigyō (ザ営業), Purezen no Tatsujin (プレゼンの達人), Torēningu de Okane o Muda ni Suru no wa Yamemashō (トレーニングでお金を無駄にするのはやめましょう), and Gendaiban "Hito o Ugokasu" Rīdā (現代版「人を動かす」リーダー). Greg also publishes daily business insights on LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter, and hosts six weekly podcasts. On YouTube, he produces The Cutting Edge Japan Business Show, Japan Business Mastery and Japan's Top Business Interviews, which are widely followed by executives seeking success strategies in Japan.

Under våren har Nokiaaktien gått som en raket på börsen. Aktien ligger på +110 procent sedan årsskiftet. Orsaken ligger, som ofta just nu, i AI och datacenter. En Tech Brief-lyssnare har sett sina gamla Nokia-aktier rusa på börsen. De ligger nu nästan i nivå med glansdagarna på 00-talet. Hur kommer det sig? Henning Eklund berättar om Nokias två stora uppköp som gjort dem ledande när det kommer till ”optiska nätverk”. Sophia Sinclair spår en del av framgången till Jensen Huang – som vanligt. Björn Jeffery ser med fasa hur allt på börsen att blir datacenter. Med humor och initierade källor tar SvD:s journalister med dig när framtiden skapas. Med Björn Jeffery, Sophia Sinclair och Henning Eklund. Producent och redaktör Tove Friman Leffler.

Ritavan joins Excess Returns to explain The System Gambit, a new framework for understanding competitive advantage, business strategy, AI disruption and long-term compounding. We discuss why traditional moat checklists can miss the real source of value, how companies can build systems competitors cannot copy, and what investors should look for when AI changes the game.The System Gambithttps://amzn.to/4b0J32IMain topics coveredWhy the traditional moat checklist can fail investorsThe three requirements for a true System GambitHow investors can evaluate business strategy from the outsideWhy code is not always the moat in the age of AIWhat history can teach investors about asymmetry and leverageWhy AI adoption is not the same as AI value creationThe difference between moving fast and understanding the gameLessons from Nokia, ASML, Amazon and WalmartHow intangible investment and J curves can hide long-term valueWhy the best companies build compounding systems competitors cannot copyHow investors can identify companies changing the game rather than optimizing the old oneTimestamps00:00 Opening preview and introduction04:00 The three ingredients of a System Gambit08:49 Why code is not the moat in AI software13:00 Skanderbeg and changing the rules of the game17:00 Good moats, good narratives and asymmetric advantage22:31 Microscope vs telescope as a lesson for AI28:35 AI winners, losers and high dispersion markets32:08 Signal quality, bottlenecks and why AI adoption is not enough36:00 Nokia, agility and the failure to build a causal model40:15 Why understanding the game beats speed44:00 Intangible investment, the J curve and ASML's hidden edge49:54 The contrarian AI thesis behind The System Gambit54:00 How to recognize a real System Gambit58:27 Amazon, Walmart and multi-paradigm compounding1:03:00 Prime, FBA and platform leverage1:07:00 Walmart's answer to Amazon1:11:06 Closing thoughts and where to find Ritavan

Technology is advancing at an astonishing pace. The number of connected devices per square kilometer is expected to grow from one million to ten million, and the transition to 6G is paving the way with dazzling new levels of speed and capability.  This week on Feds At the Edge, Arup Bhuyan from Idaho National Laboratory, Eric Freer from Sterling, and Jorge Escobar from Nokia explore how download speeds could increase from 1 GB per second to 100 GB per second, dramatically reducing latency and making it possible for federal agencies to monitor networks in real time and respond more quickly to cyber threats.  We'll also explore Integrated Sensing and Communication (ISAC) and its potential to transform everything from drone defense to intelligent network management. Hear why experts believe agencies will need creative approaches that leverage AI, advanced encryption, and zero-energy sensors to secure the next generation of networks.  Tune in on your favorite podcast platform as government and industry thought leaders discuss the need for international collaboration, significant investments in research and development, and the integration of AI to build faster, smarter, and more secure networks.             

'¡Buenos días, Javi y Mar!' en CADENA 100 informa de la primera ola de calor del verano en España, con hasta 40 grados. El Ministerio de Trabajo recuerda el permiso remunerado de hasta cuatro días por fenómenos extremos si la seguridad laboral no está garantizada. La factura de la luz sube 20-30 euros por hogar por aire acondicionado y gas. WhatsApp estrena mensajes de visualización única sin capturas. Tocar un producto en tiendas aumenta el deseo de compra un 40%. La ciencia asocia un mayor parpadeo con el pensamiento profundo. Se juega a distinguir noticias reales de falsas: un hombre con 41 mosquitos mascota (falsa) y otro que encuentra su Nokia 3310 con batería tras 22 años (verdadera). Un hombre es arrestado en Boston por hacerse pasar por guía de museo e inventar historias. Se repasan canciones de Alex Warren, Nil Moliner, Katy Perry, Lewis Capaldi, Taylor Swift, Cher, Dani Fernández y Efecto Mariposa. El coreógrafo de NSYNC demanda por los derechos del baile 'Bye Bye Bye'. Se ...

En '¡Buenos días, Javi y Mar!', Javi relata su viaje a Toledo para cortarse el pelo, mientras Mar cuenta una boda en Asturias. Reflexionan sobre reacciones inesperadas al dar noticias importantes, como llamar "cariño" al jefe. Aconsejan no tocar productos para no gastar de más y explican que parpadear mucho indica pensamiento profundo. Fernando reta a los oyentes con noticias, incluyendo la de un Nokia 3310 con batería. Abordan castigos infantiles con resultados sorprendentes, como el niño que ama el repollo. Un hombre en Boston se hace pasar por guía de museo, inventando historias. Irene y Nerea ganan en los concursos. Comparten trucos como pasear tras el café y dejar compras online 72 horas en el carrito. Lorena confiesa cambiar cápsulas de café por cafeína. Destacan buenas noticias: un vecino alimenta a un perro de un hospitalizado, una violinista toca con Manuel Carrasco y un conductor deja una nota. Finalmente, comentan nombres curiosos como Emma Zorrilla o Rey León. Y siempre, ...

Scott sits down with Wi-Fi engineer Eva Santos to explore the realities of modern wireless operations. Eva shares insights on navigating site surveys, the differences between Wi-Fi bands, and the challenges of troubleshooting inconsistent client performance. The conversation also explores the evolving standards of Wi-Fi 6, 7, and 8, the role of security protocols like... Read more »

Scott sits down with Wi-Fi engineer Eva Santos to explore the realities of modern wireless operations. Eva shares insights on navigating site surveys, the differences between Wi-Fi bands, and the challenges of troubleshooting inconsistent client performance. The conversation also explores the evolving standards of Wi-Fi 6, 7, and 8, the role of security protocols like... Read more »

Cathy Hackl, futurist for Nokia and advisor to the Boston Consulting Group (BCG), joins the podcast to discuss her fascinating work across the Middle East and her insights on the next generation of AI and connectivity. Learn how nations like the UAE and KSA are strategically positioning themselves to lead in spatial computing, quantum supremacy, and a hopeful, future-forward vision of AI.Cathy details her work in the Middle East, including her residency in the UAE and her advisory roles on massive projects like NEOM and Qiddiya, explaining how these regions are embracing technology as a means to modernize. She shares her perspective on the shift in global venture capital, noting how Europe and the Middle East are providing significant funding that is moving beyond traditional Silicon Valley terms.AI XR News You Should Know:The hosts discuss massive AI funding rounds, including a $1 billion seed round for Advanced Machine Intelligence and a $500 million round for Mind Robotics, highlighting the intense capital war for chips and the boom in robotics. They also cover the rise of YouTube as the world's largest media company and the ethical questions surrounding the collection of human data to train robots.Key Moments[00:01:19] Intro: Friday the 13th and geopolitical news.[00:02:17] Mind Robotics & Advanced Machine Intelligence: Discussing the $500M and $1B seed rounds for robotics and AI startups.[00:04:04] Headband Camera for Robot Training: Debate on the ethics of companies paying people to wear cameras to collect training data for robots, comparing it to "Gargoyles" from Snow Crash.[00:10:12] YouTube Surpasses Disney & Netflix: Discussion on YouTube becoming the world's largest media company with $62 billion in revenue.[00:11:29] AI & Media Market Dominance: Questioning whether today's AI music and video companies will eventually surpass all big film, music, and streaming companies.[00:14:40] Cathy Hackl Interview Begins: Cathy discusses her work as a futurist for Nokia, focusing on AI-native networks.[00:16:26] KSA Projects: Cathy's experience working on the virtual and gaming strategy for Qiddiya and on the KSA Pavilion at the World Expo.[00:22:07] Golden Visa & Gifted Residency: The privileges associated with becoming a resident of the UAE or KSA for highly skilled talent.This conversation offers a vital global perspective on technology, innovation, and culture that is often missed when focusing solely on Silicon Valley. Understanding these geopolitical and technological movements is key for anyone trying to anticipate where the next wave of global innovation will truly come from.This episode of The AI XR Podcast is brought to you by Zappar, the folks behind Mattercraft, a leading visual development environment for building immersive 3D web experiences—mattercraft.io. Subscribe wherever you get your podcasts or watch the full episode on YouTube. https://youtu.be/Mw0yM_qpGG8 Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Geoff, Gavin and Andrew talk about what we're into, James Bond animal, hedgehog, Sonic, Don Zimmer, Old Man 1, Talkin Baseball with Grandpa, new sleep position, filming sleep, schoolyard controversy, showering before pool, prepool pool, cattle grid, seeing someone alive, Uno, Flash Flood, Pinball Playlist, Songs about rats, height difference day, a baby is as tall as you can pull it apart, and being That Guy. Sponsored by Factor. Thanks Factor! Head to FACTORMEALS.com/REGULATION50OFF and use code REGULATION50OFF to get 50% off and free daily greens per box, with new subscription only, while supplies last until 09/27/2026. (See website for more details). Also sponsored by Shopify. Sign up for a $1/month trial at shopify.com/regulation Support us directly at https://www.patreon.com/TheRegulationPod Stay up to date, get exclusive supplemental content, and connect with other Regulation Listeners. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Take a Network Break! Our Red Alert covers critical vulnerabilities in Ivanti Sentry, including OS command injection and authentication bypass, for which patches are now available. On the news front, we dig into Arista's new 1.6Tbps rack-scale portfolio for AI infrastructure and Nokia's Deepfield Genome Shield, designed to proactively stop DDoS from residential proxy botnets. We... Read more »

Take a Network Break! Our Red Alert covers critical vulnerabilities in Ivanti Sentry, including OS command injection and authentication bypass, for which patches are now available. On the news front, we dig into Arista's new 1.6Tbps rack-scale portfolio for AI infrastructure and Nokia's Deepfield Genome Shield, designed to proactively stop DDoS from residential proxy botnets. We... Read more »

Take a Network Break! Our Red Alert covers critical vulnerabilities in Ivanti Sentry, including OS command injection and authentication bypass, for which patches are now available. On the news front, we dig into Arista's new 1.6Tbps rack-scale portfolio for AI infrastructure and Nokia's Deepfield Genome Shield, designed to proactively stop DDoS from residential proxy botnets. We... Read more »

¿Apple se ha quedado atrás en la carrera de la IA o es que simplemente prefieren jugar a la larga? En este episodio nos metemos de lleno en las razones por las que los últimos movimientos y filtraciones del ecosistema nos han dejado un tanto fríos.Analizamos si la apuesta por la estabilidad es una jugada maestra o si, en realidad, estamos viendo cómo la competencia (desde Huawei hasta Google) nos adelanta por la derecha. Desgranamos los rumores más jugosos: desde el polémico iPhone plegable y la posibilidad de unos Mac con pantalla táctil, hasta la cruda realidad de lo que implica ejecutar IA de forma local frente a la nube.También ponemos sobre la mesa el futuro de Siri, las limitaciones actuales de "Image Playground" y por qué algunos usuarios ya están empezando a mirar otros dispositivos si Apple no da un salto definitivo. Si quieres saber si estamos ante un "momento Nokia" o una evolución necesaria para que los productos envejezcan bien, tienes que escuchar este episodio.En este episodio:- La realidad de la IA y el desfase con la competencia.- Rumores sobre el iPhone plegable y Mac táctil.- ¿Es suficiente la estabilidad frente al hype?- Apps de nicho y proyectos del equipo.Conviértete en un supporter de este podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/el-garaje-de-cupertino--3153796/support.

A wild trading session produced one of the biggest intraday swings we've seen in months, and options traders responded with aggressive positioning across the market. In this episode of The Hot Options Report, Mark Longo examines the names generating the most options volume, including Nvidia, Tesla, Apple, Micron, Intel, Amazon, Palantir, Nokia and Marvell. He also dives into today's Death Cross scan and highlights the short-dated options trades that captured traders' attention. Highlights include: ✅ Nvidia 210 calls dominate the tape ✅ Tesla traders pile into the 390 puts ✅ Apple continues its post-WWDC slide ✅ Micron volatility reaches another level ✅ Intel breaks below key levels intraday ✅ Amazon traders target the 250 strike ✅ Death Cross scan names surge Get more options data, custom scans and unusual activity analysis at: https://TheHotOptionsReport.com

Paco Pérez, analista independiente, analiza la actualidad de los mercados. En un contexto en el que vemos como hoy el IBEX 35 se recupera con 18.300 puntos, al igual que Wall Street que se ha logrado reponer después del batacazo sufrido el viernes. “Tanto en Europa como en Estados Unidos es la resistencia de la inflación, y del IPC. Lo que significa que las reuniones de los bancos centrales son fundamentales para aclarar si el BCE sube esta semana tipos de interés y si Estados Unidos lo deja las semanas de verano o de septiembre.” También vemos que el crudo enfría su escalada tras el anuncio de Teherán de las operaciones contra Israel, el precio por barril ha subido el 5% ante el riesgo de escalada por el intercambio de misiles con las fuerzas israelíes. Se palpa la incertidumbre en la subida de tipos del petróleo. Asegura  “Al final el tema de Irán está ya descontado en el mercado, pero lo que no está descontado es la subida del petróleo máximos”. El analista ha comentado varios valores por los que el público de este medio preguntaban. Uno de ellos ha sido TALANX, la multinacional alemana de servicios financieros que ocupa el lugar del tercer grupo asegurador más grande de Alemania con presencia en más de 150 países, a pesar de ser alcista a largo plazo la realidad es que está presentando una gráfica con mínimos decrecientes en techo “Sí puede recoger beneficios, yo los cogería. Actualmente se evidencia una zona lateral de desequilibrio entre compradores y vendedores.” asegura el invitado. El foco en el Consultorio no sólo ha estado en Europa. Otro de los valores comentados ha sido Nokia, la multinacional de telecomunicaciones y tecnología con sede en Finlandia, el analista Pérez asegura que “presenta unos gráficos de carácter alcista”. Según Bloomberg la empresa ha subido más de un 140% en lo que va de año debido a un giro de proyección por parte de los inversores que pretenden transformarse en una pieza fundamental para sostener a la IA, su apoyo ya no son los móviles, sino que lo son sus equipos ópticos para centros de datos. “

Jim Grisanzio from Oracle Java Developer Relations talks with Martin Chalupa from Netflix at JavaOne 2026. Martin is a software developer with about eight years at Netflix and about twenty years working with Java. At Netflix, Martin works on the JVM ecosystem team, which grew from the build tooling team and now also handles broader JVM work such as tuning, garbage collection, and upgrading. In his session at JavaOne Martin covered Java ahead of time compilation and Project Leyden, and he shared what Netflix has learned from experimenting with the technology. Just as many software developers, Martin found his way into engineering through this experience gaming as a kid. He built his first game in Java for the old Nokia phones as a school project. He has watched Java change a great deal over the years. The language keeps getting more comfortable and more approachable for young developers. His advice for students is to explore different options and find their own passion in the work. "With a little bit of work you can achieve some cool stuff," he says. So, get out there and "discover your passion." Martin at LinkedIn Jim at LinkedIn

Scott is joined by Brett Lykins, a Senior Systems Development Engineer at Amazon. Brett works with software-defined infrastructure built around SONiC (Software for Open Networking in the Cloud). Together they dig into what it's actually like to use, maintain, and operate a network this way. They also discuss not just the architecture, but the day-to-day... Read more »

Scott is joined by Brett Lykins, a Senior Systems Development Engineer at Amazon. Brett works with software-defined infrastructure built around SONiC (Software for Open Networking in the Cloud). Together they dig into what it's actually like to use, maintain, and operate a network this way. They also discuss not just the architecture, but the day-to-day... Read more »

Zombie phone brands are back from the grave. This episode of The Option Block dives into the surprising resurgence of Nokia and BlackBerry as traders chase AI-fueled momentum, while Broadcom suffers one of the largest market-cap wipeouts in history. Mark Longo, Henry Schwartz (Cboe), and Uncle Mike Tosaw (St. Charles Wealth Management) break down the latest options activity, unusual trades, market rotation, volatility trends, and the continuing explosion in options volume. You'll also hear discussion on: Broadcom's post-earnings collapse Nvidia's latest rally Micron's wild ride above 1,000 Nokia and BlackBerry's AI-fueled comeback Record-setting options volume in May Small-cap and Russell 2000 strength The end of the Pattern Day Trader rule Unusual activity in NextNav, BlackBerry and 10X Genomics SpaceX IPO excitement and what it could mean for options traders

Episode SummaryJoel Casse spent over two decades inside large global organisations — most recently as Nokia's Global Head of Leadership Development — watching senior teams up close. What he found wasn't a talent problem. It was a behaviour problem: packed agendas with no room for the team itself, leaders competing to showcase expertise rather than build on each other, and decisions perpetually kicked offline.The conversation explores why this happens — egos, function-first loyalty, a bias for action that keeps teams stuck above what Roger Harrison calls the "waterline" — and what actually shifts things. Joel's tool is the balcony move: stepping out of the discussion to name what he observes. One quiet observation ("I've counted eight 'let's take it offline' in 20 minutes") became a two-hour conversation about how that team made decisions. Slow to go fast.Key Themes & TakeawaysMost senior teams debate (I'm right, you're wrong) rather than dialogue (let's understand each other) — and almost never ask genuine questionsThe waterline model: teams focus on task and content; relationships and process stay hidden until something breaksThe SPQA framework: Situation → Problem → Question → Answer. The mistake is jumping straight from problem to answer"Let's take it offline" is a red flag — it means the conditions for real decisions don't exist in the roomIrritating behaviours go unchallenged because peers won't hold each other accountable and leaders see it as babysittingThe balcony move — stepping back to name what you observe — is the most underused act in senior team leadershipWhen senior leaders change, it trickles down: their direct reports start doing check-ins, calling out patterns, working the same wayThree Reasons to ListenListen if your leadership team meetings feel busy but never quite land anywhere. Joel names exactly what's happening — and why the smartest people in the room are often the ones causing it.Listen if you've ever sat in a meeting counting how many times someone said "let's take it offline." There's a two-hour conversation hiding in that habit.Listen if you want one thing to do differently as a leader or coach. The balcony-and-dance move is simple, and Joel has watched it ripple from the C-suite all the way down.Notable Quotes"When a leader is doing 80% of the talking, there's a fair chance that the team isn't doing well. They're not learning." — Joel Casse"Teams tend to be a collection of people — not necessarily having a common goal with interdependency and a common fate. If you fail, well, that's your problem." — Joel Casse"Leadership is your main course. It hass become the side dish — or a tiny pot of condiment you don't even have to have." — Dan HammondJoel's bioJoel Casse is an executive coach and leadership architect with over 20 years of experience developing leaders and teams in global, matrixed organisations. Based in Munich, he has spent the majority of his career at Nokia, where he coaches executive teams and directs high-potential programs. Before Nokia, he worked at Novartis. He has worked with CEOs, Presidents, and VPs and their leadership teams on topics ranging from succession discussions to strategic off-sites to cross-team collaborations. He has led company-wide leadership frameworks, overseen flagship executive programs, and guided multiple leaders to C-suite promotions. Joel also teaches at Duke CE and Emeritus Business School, delivering executive interventions for companies in retail, banking, insurance, and IT. He holds an ILM 7 Executive Coaching accreditation and co-authored the book “Leadership for a New World.”

Zombie phone brands are back from the grave. This episode of The Option Block dives into the surprising resurgence of Nokia and BlackBerry as traders chase AI-fueled momentum, while Broadcom suffers one of the largest market-cap wipeouts in history. Mark Longo, Henry Schwartz (Cboe), and Uncle Mike Tosaw (St. Charles Wealth Management) break down the latest options activity, unusual trades, market rotation, volatility trends, and the continuing explosion in options volume. You'll also hear discussion on: Broadcom's post-earnings collapse Nvidia's latest rally Micron's wild ride above 1,000 Nokia and BlackBerry's AI-fueled comeback Record-setting options volume in May Small-cap and Russell 2000 strength The end of the Pattern Day Trader rule Unusual activity in NextNav, BlackBerry and 10X Genomics SpaceX IPO excitement and what it could mean for options traders

The market hit the brakes and options traders responded in force. On this episode of The Hot Options Report, Mark Longo breaks down another busy day in the options market as put buyers came out swinging while many of the biggest technology names faced renewed selling pressure. Highlights include: • Nvidia gives back more gains as traders pile into short-dated calls • Meta rallies sharply while Microsoft, Amazon, Apple and Alphabet struggle • Tesla dominates with nearly 300,000 contracts trading at the 425 strike • Comcast tops the Put Pump Scan as bearish activity explodes across dozens of names • SoFi, Nokia and Intel attract unusual options attention • A deep dive into the hottest 0DTE trades and what they reveal about trader sentiment • Why expiration-day pin risk continues to create headaches for options traders Plus, Mark explores the latest activity from TheHotOptionsReport.com, including today's Put Pump Scan and the names generating the most unusual options activity.

On today's episode of Coastal Idiots, Shane and Katherine welcome Sarah Tiana for a full-blown Southern cousin cookout of an episode. On the menu we have Nokia drunk-driving tests, high school daycares, beauty pageants, and the kind of small-town stories that absolutely should not be true. Sarah talks growing up between Georgia and California, almost becoming a news anchor, and why her hometown still refuses to claim her as famous. Things somehow get worse when gonorrhea enters the conversation. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Coastal Idiots is a weekly comedy podcast where each week your host Shane and Katherine are joined by a friend or two where they do something very stupid and hilarious. Follow Katherine and Shane so they have a reason to keep going. The show is produced by the marvelous Keida Mascaro. Some of the art on the walls by the great Perry Shall. Music by Gymshorts and Alex Orange Drink. Your favorite idiots are now available wherever you listen to podcasts! Stream video on Spotify or Youtube, to drink in every detail of Katherine Blanford & Shane Torres' shenanigans and insane sketches. Listen to audio on all podcast platforms. Welcome to the ATC family! Let's get weird. Let's get Coastal. Don't forget to call our Coastal Idiots hotline and leave a message, we might just publish it! Coastal Idiots Hotline: (510) 974-3349 More Sarah! IG: https://www.instagram.com/sarahtiana/ More Coastal Idiots! IG: https://www.instagram.com/coastalidiots/ More Katherine! IG⁠: https://www.instagram.com/itskatherineblanford/ More Shane! IG: https://www.instagram.com/shanetorres/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Produced by Keida Mascaro ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠IG: https://www.instagram.com/keidamascaro/ The Cave Podcast Studio https://keidamascaro.com/the-cave Presented by: All Things Comedy IG: https://www.instagram.com/allthingscomedy/ Theme Song by GYMSHORTS IG: https://www.instagram.com/gymshortsmusic/ Logo & Artwork by Perry Shall IG: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/perryshall/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

[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.

We are joined by Harvard researcher, author of The Win-Win Workplace, and founder of Future Forward Strategies, Dr. Angela Jackson, to discuss how organizations can redesign work to strengthen both employee well-being and business performance.  Backed by research across more than 1,700 companies, Dr. Jackson makes a clear, data-driven case for human-centered leadership. She reveals how organizations that invest in employees through practices such as centering worker voice, reimagining benefits, and fostering inclusive innovation see improvements not only in employee morale but also in performance. These strategies directly impact retention, engagement, and long-term financial success, reframing well-being as business-critical, not optional.  Dr. Jackson shares how understanding employees' lived realities, such as caregiving responsibilities and access to childcare, directly impacts retention and performance. She offers a concrete example of a company that introduced on-site childcare after identifying it as a key barrier for employees, resulting in a 98% retention rate among women during the pandemic.  Dr. Angela Jackson is a leading voice on the future of work and CEO of Future Forward Strategies, a labor market intelligence firm focused on helping organizations grow through continuous learning and innovation. A lecturer and researcher at Harvard University, she equips executives with practical strategies to build high-performing workplaces that strengthen engagement, productivity, and long-term growth. Her work has appeared in Harvard Business Review and Stanford Social Innovation Review, and she is frequently featured in The New York Times, Forbes, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, BBC, and The Economist. She has spoken at TED, South by Southwest, and ASU GSV. Previously, Dr. Jackson was managing partner at New Profit, where she launched the Future of Work Grand Challenge, reskilling 25,000 workers into living-wage jobs. She began her career in global leadership roles at Viacom and Nokia. Her debut book, The Win-Win Workplace, is a New York Times bestseller.  Tune in for real-world examples that shift toward more inclusive, responsive, and adaptive workplace cultures where well-being, performance, and innovation are mutually reinforced.

Scott sits down with Avi Freedman, CEO and co-founder of Kentik, to discuss if AI has advanced enough to automate human-centric NetOps. Together they caution against vendor hype regarding closed-loop network automation despite the progress AI has made. Avi also shares his personal experiences in the industry and the hard won lessons he learned along... Read more »

Scott sits down with Avi Freedman, CEO and co-founder of Kentik, to discuss if AI has advanced enough to automate human-centric NetOps. Together they caution against vendor hype regarding closed-loop network automation despite the progress AI has made. Avi also shares his personal experiences in the industry and the hard won lessons he learned along... Read more »

The Hot Options Report wraps up the week with explosive options flow, quantum momentum, Ford's surprising rally, and a surprisingly muted post-earnings reaction in Nvidia. Mark Longo breaks down the names dominating the tape including NVDA, TSLA, AAPL, AMD, Rigetti, Nokia and more — plus the latest edition of the daily Call Pump Scan, highlighting stocks and ETFs seeing outsized call activity. Want more scans, analytics and options flow data? Visit TheHotOptionsReport.com.

Few leaders get the opportunity to reshape a brand as iconic as Nokia—but Stacey Brierley has spent over two decades doing just that. As VP of Brand, she's helped guide Nokia's transformation from a handset giant to the invisible force behind global connectivity.​ In this episode, she joins Lippincott's Louise Cantrill to share why true transformation isn't about sudden pivots, but long-term, intentional evolution. From redefining a legacy brand for new B2B audiences to aligning teams across cultures, Stacey pulls back the curtain on what it takes to drive change across a global business.​ She also reflects on the role of curiosity, strategic thinking, and carving out time to step back, showing how asking better questions and rising above the day-to-day noise can turn complexity into clarity.​

What if many of the behaviors we dismiss as laziness or "not getting it together" are actually signs that someone's brain works differently? In this episode of Finding Brave, Kathy Caprino welcomes Kristen Pressner, a trailblazing people leader helping reshape conversations around neurodiversity, ADHD, and human potential. As Chief People Officer for prominent multinational, Nokia, Kristen is a sought-after voice on equity and inclusion and regularly appears on international "Top HR Influencer" lists. Following the global impact of her TEDx talk, Are you biased? I am, which challenged audiences to confront unconscious bias with greater honesty and self-awareness, Kristen returned to the TEDx stage with a new question: Why is it that so many people just 'can't get it together'? The talk explores how neurodivergent traits are often misunderstood and has sparked conversations across families, workplaces, and the ADHD community. It also led to Kristen joining the World Economic Forum's Global Brain Economy Initiative, launched at Davos. In this conversation, Kristen shares how her family's experiences with ADHD transformed the way she understands motivation, behavior, and potential. She explains why many neurodivergent traits are misunderstood as character flaws and how traditional expectations can unintentionally create shame. Kristen also unpacks the biological differences between neurotypical and ADHD brains, including the role dopamine plays in focus and action, and how to build neuro-inclusive workplaces that help people thrive. Additionally, Kristen highlights the extraordinary strengths that often accompany neurodivergence, from creativity and innovation to future thinking and problem-solving. Tune in for a powerful conversation about neurodiversity, leadership, and creating a more brain-friendly world! Key Points From This Episode: Introducing Kristen Pressner, her TEDx talks, and her revelations around unconscious bias as an HR leader. [02:02] How the pandemic exposed hidden struggles with ADHD and neurodivergence within Kristen's family. [08:45] Diagnostic criteria, why ADHD is often misunderstood, and how neurodivergence exists on a broader spectrum than many realize. [12:15] Biological differences between neurotypical and ADHD brains, and why different brains need different strategies to thrive. [15:07] The necessary conditions for focus and productivity in ADHD minds: challenging, novel, fun, or do-or-die urgent. [20:23] Reframing "hard" and "easy" tasks and recognizing the unique strengths linked to neurodivergence. [22:50] How reducing shame and building brain-friendly conditions helped Kristen's family move from surviving to thriving. [23:57] Kristen's advice for parents: reducing shame, recognizing strengths, and helping neurodivergent kids thrive. [31:33] Her vision for more flexible, neuro-inclusive workplaces that help people thrive. [35:09] Where to learn more about Kristen's work and why spreading awareness around neurodiversity matters. [40:19] For More Information: Kristen Pressner Kristen Pressner on LinkedIn Kristen Pressner on Instagram Kristen Pressner on Facebook Kristen Pressner on X Kristen Pressner on TikTok Be a Brain Friend TEDx on Instagram Be a Brain Friend TEDx on Facebook Links Mentioned in Today's Episode: Kristen's TEDx talk, Why is it that so many people just 'can't get it together'? Kristen's TEDx talk on unconscious bias, Are you biased? I am HR Leaders Podcast with Chris Rainey, How To Create a Neurodiversity-Friendly Workplace LinkedIn Post, The #1 Skill in the Age of AI (It's not what you think) Direct link to free Neurodiversity Learning Pathway The World Economic Forum's Global Brain Economy Initiative ——————— Ready to Take Your Professional Life and Leadership to the Next Level FAST?  Work with Kathy and get hands-on, transformative CAREER & LEADERSHIP GROWTH COACHING SUPPORT today! Join me today in one of my top-requested career and leadership growth 1:1 coaching programs, and break through to a new, more rewarding career, professional and leadership experience and chapter. And take 10% off the price this week with coupon code 'BRAVEPOD10" as my thank-you for tuning in! Click the links below for more information and register today to save 10%: – Jumpstart Your Career Success (3 sessions) – Career & Leadership Breakthrough program (6 sessions) – Build Your Confidence, Success and Impact (10 sessions) ——————— GOT A BURNING CAREER QUESTION? Ask me on Hubble! I'm thrilled to be part of the Hubble Expert Advisory group, a space for straightforward guidance and help from top experts on business, entrepreneurship, startups, and career and leadership growth. For folks who haven't worked with me yet but are seeking guidance on careers, leadership, and making a bigger impact, feel free to book a brief advisory call via Hubble here >> Hubble | One conversation can change everything   ——————— Order Kathy's book The Most Powerful You today! In Australia and New Zealand, click here to order, elsewhere outside North America, click here, and in the UK, click here. If you enjoy the book, we'd so appreciate your giving the book a positive rating and review on Amazon! And check out Kathy's digital companion course The Most Powerful You, to help you close the 7 most damaging power gaps in the most effective way possible.  Kathy's Power Gaps Survey, Support To Build Your LinkedIn Profile To Great Success & Other Free Resources Kathy's TEDx Talk, Time To Brave Up & Free Career Path Self-Assessment Kathy's Amazing Career Project video training course & 6 Dominant Action Styles Quiz ——————— Sponsor Highlight I'm thrilled that both Audible.com and Amazon Music are sponsors of Finding Brave! Take advantage of their great special offers and free trials today! Audible Offer Amazon Music Offer Quotes: "I thought ADHD was nine-year-old boys bouncing off the wall, and that isn't how it manifested in my house at all." — Kristen Pressner [0:14:11] "How it manifested in my house is [through] things that most of us would call character flaws: not getting it together, running around looking for your keys—not adulting." — Kristen Pressner [0:14:18] "I saw all this potential in my family, and then all of this appeared to me to be laziness, not giving a hoot, not trying, not applying themselves, and that's character flaws." — Kristen Pressner [0:14:49] "I have wind at my back, because the world was made for me, and they've got invisible wind in their face, because it wasn't made for them." — Kristen Pressner [0:19:58] "It feels like they're making easy things really hard. [But they] make hard things look really easy, like connecting dots others wouldn't connect, or anticipating the future in ways I couldn't do." — Kristen Pressner [0:23:11] "Our research shows that the accommodations in the workplace that enable someone to be much more effective cost less than 500 bucks. No one's asking to work from Fiji." — Kristen Pressner [0:37:36] Watch our Finding Brave episodes on YouTube! Don't forget – you can experience each Finding Brave episode in both audio and video formats!  Check out new and recent episodes on my YouTube channel at YouTube.com/kathycaprino. And please leave us a comment and a thumbs up if you like the show!

Hello～歡迎來到「寶博朋友說」，我是葛如鈞 寶博士！ 「科技始終來自於人性。」Nokia 曾經是芬蘭的驕傲，一間公司就貢獻了全國 4% 的 GDP。但當這棵擎天大樹倒下後，芬蘭卻走過低谷，開始轉向多元化發展，從量子電腦、6G、太空科技到綠能，短短十年間，芬蘭的新創生態快速成長，甚至孵化出超過 10 家獨角獸。 今天，我們繼續邀請《商業周刊》資深研究員黃惠群，一起來聊聊，當一個國家把資源高度集中在特定產業時，可能會面臨哪些風險？芬蘭又是怎麼走到今天這一步？而這些經驗，有哪些值得台灣借鏡的？ 歡迎今天的大來賓：商業周刊資深研究員 黃惠群 - - - - - -- - - - - - 【寶博朋友說千萬粉絲專屬社群頻道 Discord 開張啦

Scott Robohn is joined by networking legend Jeff Doyle to help us understand SONiC: Software for Open Networking in the Cloud. SONiC is an open-source network operating system and has been adopted by hyperscalers to run some of the world’s largest data centers. But SONiC can also be used by enterprises and service providers. Jeff... Read more »

In this era of relentless connectivity, taking an exit ramp from our digital lives has never looked more inviting. In fact, emerging science is now confirming what many of us feel: Smartphones are draining our cognitive reserves, shattering our focus, and keeping us in a state of low-level chronic anxiety. To see if there's a better way, reporter Courtney Lindwall shelved her iPhone for a $45 Nokia flip phone. Courtney is on the show today to discuss  the "dumb phone" movement, the logistical friction of navigating an app-dependent world, and why research says our brains are so desperate for a break. Here's a preview: [7:00] Continuous partial attention, instinctual muscle memory, and other ways in which our smartphones are working against us [9:00] Gray scale? screen limits? Here's why the tools and tricks don't work for the vast majority of us [14:00] Thoughts on our emotional attachments to our phones—and the emotional experiences they provide [22:00] The psychological benefits of embracing a bit more "friction" [33:00] Our brains are malleable, and we get used to a new normal quite quickly. Lean into that! Resources mentioned: How an old-school flip phone changed my life (via Consumer Reports) This detox may erase 10 years of social media brain damage, researchers say (via The Washington Post) The Brick phone access blocker device This show is listener-supported. Thank you for supporting! Join our (free!) Facebook community here. Find your tribe. Sustainable Minimalists are on Facebook, Instagram + Youtube @sustainableminimalists Say hello! MamaMinimalistBoston@gmail.com. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

How would real space war actually work? From stealth myths to fuel limits, explore the brutal physics shaping starships, tactics, and survival in deep space combat.Get Nebula using my link for 50% off an annual subscription: https://go.nebula.tv/isaacarthurWatch my exclusive video Settling Saturn's Rings: https://nebula.tv/videos/isaacarthur-settling-saturns-rings-exploring-the-origins-resources-and-future-habitats-of-a-halo-worldCheck out The Anatomy of the Nokia 3310: https://nebula.tv/videos/realengineering-the-anatomy-of-the-nokia-3310/?ref=isaacarthur

How would real space war actually work? From stealth myths to fuel limits, explore the brutal physics shaping starships, tactics, and survival in deep space combat.Get Nebula using my link for 50% off an annual subscription: https://go.nebula.tv/isaacarthurWatch my exclusive video Settling Saturn's Rings: https://nebula.tv/videos/isaacarthur-settling-saturns-rings-exploring-the-origins-resources-and-future-habitats-of-a-halo-worldCheck out The Anatomy of the Nokia 3310: https://nebula.tv/videos/realengineering-the-anatomy-of-the-nokia-3310/?ref=isaacarthur