Podcasts about Nokia

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 »

  In the first episode of 2026, Roger Moore and Marx open up the "Phone Graveyard" to take a nostalgic trip back to the golden age of mobile technology. Before the iPhone dominated the world, Nokia was king, snake was the only game that mattered, and texting was an art form.   Join the guys as they dig through a box of retro treasures found in Roger's shed, exploring the evolution from the "brick" phones of the 90s to the business-class BlackBerrys that changed how we communicate.   In This Episode: The Phone Graveyard: Roger unearths a box of battery-acid-covered history, including his life before the iPhone 5. The Nokia Era: A look back at the legendary Nokia 5110 with its customizable "Xpress-on" covers and the indestructible build quality. The Matrix Debate: Was it the 8110 "Banana Phone" or the 7110 with the spring-loaded slide? The guys break down which phone was actually used in the movie versus which one had the cool action. Gaming on the Go: How Snake revolutionized mobile gaming and the stress of high scores. The Business Phones: The shift to the "Boss Man" phones like the Nokia 6310i and the introduction of the E-Series. The Death of BlackBerry: Roger and Marx discuss their love for the BlackBerry Bold and how the arrival of WhatsApp eventually killed the platform. Why Nokia Fell: A candid discussion on how Nokia lost the war to Android and Apple by failing to adapt their operating systems. Featured Tech: Sony Ericsson K50i & A6010 Nokia 5110 & 3410 Nokia 8110 (The Banana Phone) Nokia 7110 (The WAP Phone) Nokia N91  HTC Wildfire S (Android) BlackBerry Bold 9700 & More Hosts: Roger Moore Marx   #TechXtra #RetroTech #Nokia #LifeBeforeiPhone #BlackBerry #TheMatrixPhone #MobileHistory #SnakeGame #TechNostalgia #RogerMoore #AffinityXtra #2000sTech   https://youtu.be/2OXOHIirrPw       https://youtu.be/2OXOHIirrPw

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. “

In 2026, 40 new submarine cables go live. Most won't land in Europe. Europe is losing the sea cable race, and most people haven't noticed yet.In this second part of our sea cables conversation, host Peter Ernst sits down with Ernst Noorman, the Netherlands' Cyber Ambassador-at-Large and a member of the ITU Advisory Body on Submarine Cable Resilience, to move from the “how” of sea cables to the “why it matters.”We compare two places that were once called the two hardest spots in the world to build digital infrastructure, Amsterdam and Singapore, and unpack how Singapore solved its crunch with 32 cable landings, five years of zero cable faults, and a green-energy-first tender process, while the Netherlands risks resting on a 30-year-old head start.Along the way: the difference between sovereignty and autonomy, why “always the cheapest option” no longer works, the EU Cyber Resilience Act and security by design, what NIS2 means for boards and CEOs personally, and why Europe needs to stop being modest about Airbus-sized wins.Chapters00:00 — 40 new cables, most skip Europe00:30 — Meet Ernst Noorman & the ITU advisory body02:00 — The sea cable map is being redrawn04:08 — Why the Netherlands risks losing its head start06:26 — How Singapore solved it: 32 landings, zero faults08:09 — Tax cuts for digital, would Europe ever?08:59 — Sovereignty vs autonomy: it's about choice15:02 — You can't own the whole stack (ASML, Nokia, Ericsson)15:53 — Why “always the cheapest” stops working17:47 — The Cyber Resilience Act & security by design18:51 — The water-from-the-tap analogy19:51 — What boards and CEOs must actually ask25:30 — Back to Singapore: government-led, by design29:39 — The good news: Europe's real strengths36:15 — What needs to happen in the next 3–5 yearsThreat Talks is a podcast by ON2IT and AMS-IX. Subscribe for more on Zero Trust, cyber resilience, and the infrastructure behind the internet.

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

Die Wall Street startet nach dem Ausverkauf vom Freitag teils deutlich fester in die neue Woche. Vor allem der Nasdaq und S&P 500 profitieren von Stabilisierungskäufen im Technologiesektor, nachdem Halbleiter- und KI-Werte zuletzt massiv unter Druck geraten waren. Corning profitiert von einem Multi-Milliarden-Deal mit Amazon, im Zusammenhang mit den Data Center des Tech-Riesen. Bei der Bank of America werden die Kursziele für Arista Networks, Cisco, Datadog und Nokia angehoben. Die Aktien werden mit Kaufempfehlungen bestätigt. TD Cowen sieht bei Fortinet durch KI und Rechenzentren neues Wachstumspotenzial und Wells Fargo erhöht das Kursziel für Micron von 550 auf 1.220 US-Dollar. Oracle meldet nach dem Closing am Mittwoch Zahlen und wird heute von Oppenheimer als Top-Pick für 2026 eingestuft. Im Fokus steht heute auch die Entwicklerkonferenz von Apple, mit der Rede von CEO Tim Cook um 19 Uhr MEZ. Insgesamt bleibt das Umfeld an der Wall Street fragil. Die Eskalation zwischen Israel und Iran treibt den Ölpreis nach oben, die Renditen steigen, und nach den robusten Arbeitsmarktdaten richtet sich der Blick auf die US-Inflationsdaten zur Wochenmitte. JPMorgan bleibt taktisch vorsichtig und warnt, dass ein heißer CPI-Report neue Zinssorgen auslösen könnte. Abonniere den Podcast, um keine Folge zu verpassen! ____ Folge uns, um auf dem Laufenden zu bleiben: • X: http://fal.cn/SQtwitter • LinkedIn: http://fal.cn/SQlinkedin • Instagram: http://fal.cn/SQInstagram

Die Wall Street startet nach dem Ausverkauf vom Freitag teils deutlich fester in die neue Woche. Vor allem der Nasdaq und S&P 500 profitieren von Stabilisierungskäufen im Technologiesektor, nachdem Halbleiter- und KI-Werte zuletzt massiv unter Druck geraten waren. Corning profitiert von einem Multi-Milliarden-Deal mit Amazon, im Zusammenhang mit den Data Center des Tech-Riesen. Bei der Bank of America werden die Kursziele für Arista Networks, Cisco, Datadog und Nokia angehoben. Die Aktien werden mit Kaufempfehlungen bestätigt. TD Cowen sieht bei Fortinet durch KI und Rechenzentren neues Wachstumspotenzial und Wells Fargo erhöht das Kursziel für Micron von 550 auf 1.220 US-Dollar. Oracle meldet nach dem Closing am Mittwoch Zahlen und wird heute von Oppenheimer als Top-Pick für 2026 eingestuft. Im Fokus steht heute auch die Entwicklerkonferenz von Apple, mit der Rede von CEO Tim Cook um 19 Uhr MEZ. Insgesamt bleibt das Umfeld an der Wall Street fragil. Die Eskalation zwischen Israel und Iran treibt den Ölpreis nach oben, die Renditen steigen, und nach den robusten Arbeitsmarktdaten richtet sich der Blick auf die US-Inflationsdaten zur Wochenmitte. JPMorgan bleibt taktisch vorsichtig und warnt, dass ein heißer CPI-Report neue Zinssorgen auslösen könnte. Ein Podcast - featured by Handelsblatt. ► Entdecke den exklusiven NordVPN Deal! Jetzt risikofrei testen mit einer 30-Tage-Geld-zurück-Garantie: https://nordvpn.com/wallstreet * ► Erhalte einen exklusiven 15% Rabatt auf Saily eSIM Datentarife! Lade die Saily-App herunter und benutze den Code wallstreet beim Bezahlen: https://saily.com/wallstreet +++ Alle Rabattcodes und Infos zu unseren Werbepartnern findet ihr hier: https://linktr.ee/wallstreet_podcast +++ ► Mehr Einblicke: https://bit.ly/360wallstreetpc * Impressum: https://www.360wallstreet.de/impressum *Werbung

Học có phải bước lùi của sự phát triển?Năm 2010, có một thí nghiệm cực kỳ kinh điển tên là Marshmallow Challenge.Luật chơi đơn giản: cho bạn 20 que mì Ý, một cuộn dây, một cuộn băng keo, một cục marshmallow. 18 phút. Ai xây cái tháp nào đứng được, đỡ được cục marshmallow trên đỉnh, cao nhất, thắng.Tom Wujec, diễn giả TED Talk nổi tiếng, đã cho hàng ngàn người chơi: kỹ sư, kiến trúc sư, MBA, CEO, luật sư, và mấy bé mẫu giáo. Đố bạn, ai chiến thắng?Không phải những người có bằng MBA. Không phải luật sư. Hai nhóm đó là nhóm kết quả thấp nhất.  Người thắng - gây sốc cả hội trường - là mấy đứa nhỏ mẫu giáo. Mấy đứa nhỏ xây tháp cao hơn cả CEO, cao hơn luật sư, những người, (tạm gọi) là học ở bậc cao hơn.Tại sao?Vì người lớn có quy trình. Có công thức. Có "kinh nghiệm." Dân MBA dành phần lớn thời gian ngồi bàn ai sẽ là leader, vẽ kế hoạch, phân vai, thảo luận cấu trúc. Rồi 17 phút sau mới đặt cục marshmallow lên đỉnh. Sập. Hết giờ. Còn mấy đứa nhỏ thì không có công thức nào hết. Tụi nó không tranh nhau làm leader. Tụi nó bắt đầu chơi luôn. Đặt marshmallow lên trước, xây nhỏ, sập, xây lại, sập tiếp, xây lại nữa. Tới phút 18, tháp tụi nó đứng vững, vì đã được test sập rất nhiều lần rồi. Trong ngôn ngữ khởi nghiệp, tụi nhỏ đang làm điều mà MBA mất 2 năm để học: test MVP liên tục.Người lớn không thua vì kém thông minh. Người lớn thua vì có quá nhiều công thức thành công trong đầu. Công thức đó từng đúng trong một bối cảnh nào đó, một thị trường nào đó, một thời điểm nào đó. Rồi họ tưởng nó đúng mãi mãi.Tui làm kinh doanh đủ lâu để nhận ra một sự thật hú hồn:"Thứ giêt chế.t một người thành công, chính là công thức thành công của họ."Nokia có làm gì sai đâu. Họ chỉ làm đúng cái họ đã giỏi. Hết.Cá nhân tui thấy, lúc mà bản thân vỗ ngực: lúc mình nói được câu "tao có quy trình rồi, làm vậy là chắc ăn" đó cũng là lúc nguy hiểm nhất. Vì quy trình là con dao hai lưỡi. Nó cho mình tốc độ nhưng nó cũng vẽ sẵn lối mòn để mình không thấy đường nào khác.Bạn có nhận ra công thức thành công cũ của mình đang biến thành cái bẫy chưa?Tập mới Cà Phê Khởi Nghiệp cùng Tùng BT nằm trong một series hoàn toàn mới mang tên "Lãnh đạo tuổi 20", với chủ đề "Học - Bước lùi của sự phát triển" cùng Tiểu My, một bạn 22 tuổi nhưng có hơn 5 năm kinh nghiệm trong lĩnh vực khởi nghiệp, từng nhận học bổng Fulbright rồi dừng giữa chừng, hiện đang là Business Development của một tổ chức về giáo dục. Tụi tui nói về marshmallow, về lối mòn của người thành công, về sự học và về cách thoát ra khỏi cái bẫy do chính mình tạo ra. Xem ngay dưới bình luận.Coi xong thử ngẫm lại: công thức thành công nào của bạn đang bắt đầu thành cái bẫy rồi mà bạn chưa dám thừa nhận? Và nếu bạn thích series này, cho tui một comment, một tương tác phản hồi để tui có thêm xí động lực làm nhiều nội dung hay hơn, "Khởi nghiệp real Kết quả thật" nữa nhaa

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

LE THERMOMÈTRE DE WALL STREET EXPLOSE ! Le marché enchaîne les records, le S&P 500, le Dow Jones et le Nasdaq enchaînent les ATH… et pourtant, un indicateur historique vient de déclencher l'alerte rouge. Le CAPE Ratio de Shiller vient de passer la barre des 42,84. Dans l'histoire moderne de la bourse, ce niveau n'a été touché qu'en 1929 (la Grande Dépression) et en 1999 (la bulle Internet).Alors, faut-il paniquer ? Pas si vite. Dans cette vidéo, on fait un point complet et sans filtre sur l'état du marché en ce mois de juin 2026. Entre une inflation qui repart, les tensions au Moyen-Orient et un nouveau patron de la FED qui pourrait bien remonter les taux (malgré le marché obligataire à 5 %), les symptômes d'un krach sont tous là. Et pourtant, tout monte. Pourquoi ? Parce que l'arbre de l'IA cache la forêt ! Si on retire les 7 Fantastiques (Nvidia, Microsoft, Apple…), le CAP ratio s'effondre à 23.On analyse ensemble la rotation du marché vers la seconde ligne (Intel, Qualcomm, mon pari fou sur Nokia), mon énorme conviction sur Microsoft face à OpenAI, et on termine sur mes deux gros dossiers du moment : le scandale financier chez Fender et le fiasco boursier de la Ferrari Luce à 550 000 € !Date d'enregistrement: 03 juin 2026#Bourse #CAPEratio #krachboursier

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.

In deze aflevering zetten we de bril op van Generatie Z: de eerste generatie die opgroeide mét een smartphone in de hand. Eva gaat op bezoek bij Matteo, een bijna twintigjarige die bewust koos voor een gewone Nokia en zijn leven zo goed als smartphonevrij inricht. Niet uit nostalgie, maar uit zelfbescherming: hij wil niet voortdurend afgeleid worden en merkt dat hij daardoor met andere ogen naar de wereld kijkt. In de studio duiken we in wat dat constante schermgebruik doet met onze aandacht, en waarom dat veel meer is dan een persoonlijk probleem. Want onze aandachtsspanne neemt af, en dat is niet onze schuld. Het is het gevolg van algoritmes, informatieovervloed en een maatschappij die almaar sneller en drukker wordt. Maar er is goed nieuws: in plaats van harder te proberen minder op je telefoon te zitten, werkt het beter om bewust meer flow te zoeken - opgaan in iets wat je echt boeit en vervult. Matteo vindt die flow in zijn tekenboekjes, Eva in sporten en reizen, Maaike in lezen en zingen. En ons Generatie Alpha-panel Peri en Ferre? Die pleiten voor verplichte schermtijd. Voor iedereen. Extra bronnen: Het boek ‘De aandacht verloren’ van Johann Hari pluist uit wat er met ons vermogen tot aandacht en concentratie gebeurd is en waarom dat een probleem is Het Ruigrok-rapport What's Happening Online 2025 laat zien hoe verschillende generaties naar hun schermgebruik kijken Deze studie van de Universiteit van Paderborn (Skowronek et al., 2023, gepubliceerd in Scientific Reports) toonde aan dat deelnemers tussen 20 en 34 jaar significant slechter prestaarden op aandachts- en concentratietests wanneer er een smartphone aanwezig was in de ruimte, in vergelijking met wanneer die er niet was. Ook onderzoek van de University of Texas bevestigt dat je brein minder goed werkt als je smartphone naast je ligt. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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.

Companies that you haven't talked about in a long time like Nokia and Ford are posting significant gains. Why? Find out from Pete Najarian on Friday Football and Finance.

ยังจำโทรศัพท์มือถือเครื่องแรกของตัวเองกันได้มั๊ยครับ? หลายคนคงนึกถึงหน้าจอขาวดำและเกมงูของ Nokia เราทุกคนรู้ดีว่าตอนจบของยักษ์ใหญ่รายนี้ คือการพ่ายแพ้ให้กับ iPhone และ Android จนต้องขายกิจการและหายไปจากหน้าประวัติศาสตร์ แต่ความจริงที่คนส่วนใหญ่ไม่เคยรู้ก็คือ Nokia ยังไม่ตาย วินาทีที่คุณกำลังดูคลิปนี้ รู้หรือไม่ว่าอินเทอร์เน็ตที่คุณใช้และข้อมูลที่คุณกำลังส่ง ล้วนวิ่งอยู่บนโครงข่ายและเทคโนโลยีของ Nokia จากอดีตราชามือถือที่พังทลาย สู่การเป็นผู้กุมชะตาโครงสร้างพื้นฐานระดับโลกที่ฟันกำไรปีละหลายหมื่นล้านบาท พวกเขาพลิกนรกกลับมาได้อย่างไร เรื่องราวนี้มีคำตอบ เลือกฟังกันได้เลยนะครับ อย่าลืมกด Follow ติดตาม PodCast ช่อง Geek Forever's Podcast ของผมกันด้วยนะครับ #Nokia #โนเกีย #ประวัติNokia #ธุรกิจNokia #กรณีศึกษาธุรกิจ #บทเรียนธุรกิจ #เทคโนโลยี #สมาร์ทโฟน #สิทธิบัตร5G #โทรคมนาคม #ธุรกิจเทคโนโลยี #การปรับตัวทางธุรกิจ #เรื่องเล่าธุรกิจ #ความรู้ธุรกิจ #geekstory #geekforeverpodcast

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.

El programa 2880 de Radiogeek, les habló de varios temas importantes. Motorola intercepta tus compras en Amazon para cobrar comisiones sin que lo sepas; YouTube detectará y etiquetará automáticamente los vídeos generados por IA; CapCut Pad promete edición de vídeo "a nivel de PC de sobremesa" para tabletas Android; Apple está trabajando en una función de bloqueo automático para iPhones robados; Meta lanza planes de suscripción para Instagram, Facebook y WhatsApp; y por último YouTube ahora te permite crear un "feed personalizado" sobre cualquier tema. Toda esta información la pueden encontrar desde nuestra web www.infosertec.com.ar o bien desde el canal de Telegram/Whastapp, o Instagram. Esperamos sus comentarios.

En Capital Intereconomía seguimos la apertura del Ibex 35 y del resto de bolsas europeas en una jornada en la que la tecnología vuelve a liderar las subidas y el mercado mantiene el foco sobre Irán, la deuda y las expectativas de paz. En el análisis de mercados, Juan Enrique Cadiñanos, CEO Global de Bullfy, destaca que los inversores siguen encontrando motivos para mantener posiciones compradoras pese al aumento de la deuda y a unos datos macroeconómicos poco brillantes. A su juicio, las buenas referencias empresariales y las expectativas de estabilización geopolítica continúan sosteniendo a la renta variable. La inteligencia artificial vuelve a ser protagonista, con el impulso de compañías como Salesforce, Marvell Technology y Snowflake, esta última disparándose tras elevar previsiones y firmar un acuerdo multimillonario con Amazon para el uso de servicios cloud y chips. También se analiza el mercado de bonos y las advertencias de Kazuo Ueda y Neel Kashkari sobre el riesgo de que el impacto inflacionario derivado del conflicto en Oriente Próximo se prolongue en el tiempo. En el consultorio de bolsa, José María Lerma, analista independiente, repasa valores destacados del mercado como Banco Sabadell, Siemens Energy, Iberdrola, Grifols, PharmaMar y Nokia, además de analizar la elevada volatilidad de compañías como FuelCell Energy o Intellia Therapeutics.

Fredrik och Johan Thelin snackar mjukvara i bilar. Varför är det ens svårt? Varför har begreppet software defined vehicle ens blivit en grej? Conways lag gäller även här, och när man fått ordning på en del tekniska grunder så blir allt som vanligt ett organisationsproblem. Kan biltillverkarna komma på nästa stora grej kring tjänster och mjukvara för bilar? Eller är de för bilcentrerade? Vi diskuterar också hemautomatisering, hur kul det kunde bli med fler öppna API:er mot ens bil, varför man med mjukvara sparar en massa pengar på kabeldragning, och mycket mer. Ett stort tack till Cloudnet som sponsrar vår VPS! Har du kommentarer, frågor eller tips? Vi är @kodsnack, @thieta, @krig, och @bjoreman på Mastodon, har en sida på Facebook och epostas på info@kodsnack.se om du vill skriva längre. Vi läser allt som skickas. Gillar du Kodsnack får du hemskt gärna recensera oss i iTunes! Du kan också stödja podden genom att ge oss en kaffe (eller två!) på Ko-fi, eller handla något i vår butik. Länkar Johan Tidigare avsnitt med Johan Wirelesscar Påskägg i Mercedes infotainmentsystem VECS - konferens i Göteborg Foss-north - öppen källkodskonferens som Johan varit med och drivit under lång tid SDV - Software defined vehicle ECU - electronics control unit CAN S80 Functional safety ISO 26262 Freedom of interference Hypervisor Conways lag Termodynamikens lagar Remotivelabs - bygger abstrakt bil Android automotive Genevi - heter numera COVESA - standardorganisation inom fordonssystem VSS - vehicle signal specification ID buzz Eclipse SDV-organisation FEDERATE-projektet "aims to collect and evaluate future trends, derive a common understanding (glossary), prepare and maintain a road-map, help to create a vibrant SDV community in Europe and furthermore, foster a European initiative and to orchestrate a strong open European collaborative community." QNX Stöd oss på Ko-fi! BMW försökte ta betalt för sätesvärme Android auto Tibber EU data act Öl-appen för tidiga iPhone Carplay ultra Home assistant Volvo cars utvecklarportal Teslas öppna API:er AVAS-puck - liten GPS-nod The innovator's dilemma av Clayton Christensen Titlar Jag jobbar data Alla påskägg på en gång Det är alltid ledigt varje vecka Nästan ett skällsord En knapp för alla funktioner Ett organisationsproblem Ett kabeldragningsproblem Man centraliserar datorkraften Funktionell säkerhet Garantera att du inte kan störa Hur många team tar det Det blir ju en bil Ingen abstrakt bil Någon form av representation av din bil Alltid lite open source när jag är med Hundra miljoner rader kod i en bil Hundratusen buggar i varje bil Fler färger till mina LED-lister Från bilen och ut Ett väldigt dyrt tillbehör till min telefon Koka hela det havet Sällan så ser man bilen boota Titta inte på mig Vem blir den nya Nokia?

In this episode, Kul explores the subtle but dangerous phenomenon of leadership drift - how good leaders and organisations slowly lose their way over time. Through powerful examples from NASA, Nokia, and real-world leadership experiences, he reveals how small compromises, unchecked pressure, and gradual cultural shifts can erode values without anyone noticing. He highlights the importance of reflection, psychological safety, and honest feedback in staying aligned with purpose and integrity.Kul Mahay has over 3 decades experience in the leadership space.  He works with organisations and leaders to develop powerful cultures of high value, and performance which is built all around their people._____________________________ABOUT THE PODCAST SERIESDuring these shows, you‘ll hear Kul chatting with fellow leaders from around the world, who are recognised as being at the top of their game.  Together they‘ll explore what emotional intelligence in practice actually looks like, and the benefits it could bring to your teams.It‘s a movement to transform the way we see leadership, and to create powerful cultures where people feel seen, heard, valued and appreciated.Please join the movement and FOLLOW/SUBSCRIBE to this Podcast.FOLLOW ► https://www.linkedin.com/in/kulmahay-leadership/

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.

Démar and Adriel discuss Drake's latest three albums, but primarily 'Iceman", whether current Drake is Lakers Lebron and if this is a true comeback for The Boy. Timecodes:2:14 The Biggest Comeback in Music History7:15 Comparisons to Taylor Swift12:32 Jordan/LeBron comparisons24:22 Past Drake Reviews32:49 What does lyrical growth look like for Drake?41:00 Ran to Atlanta43:44 Brat vs Iceman51:25 Are there too many similes?54:44 Too Hard for the Radio57:19 Adriel's favourites1:06:44 Government-mandated 21 Savage feature1:10:15 Make Them Series1:22:41 Maid of Honour & Habibti1:33:31 The Nokia test1:37:39 The Covers1:47:47 The ScoreFollow us: TikTok:Album Mode: https://www.tiktok.com/@albummodepodAdriel: https://www.tiktok.com/@adrielsmileydotcomDémar: https://www.tiktok.com/@godkingdemiInstagram:Album Mode: https://www.instagram.com/albummodepod/Adriel: https://www.instagram.com/adrielsmileydotcom/Démar: https://www.instagram.com/demarjgrant/Twitter:Album Mode: https://twitter.com/AlbumModepodAdriel: https://twitter.com/AdrielSmiley_Démar: https://twitter.com/DemarJGrant===================================Démar's rating: 4.5 / 10 Adriel's rating: 6.5 / 10The Love List: Shabang, Make Them Remember, Little Birdie 

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!

黃世聰 封開平 張禹宣 劉寶傑

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

Send us Fan MailWhat is the next big disruptor threatening to widen the Digital Divide?  In this episode, recorded at the Connected America Conference in Dallas, host Jessica Denson tackles the urgent state of U.S. broadband policy with Nokia's leadership team. From emerging tech shifts to policy bottlenecks, we unpack the immediate actions required to secure connectivity for every American. Recommended links:Lori Adams LinkedInNokia Corporation websiteNokia Corporation LinkedIn

Is "Old Tech" the new shiny toy? Mark, Uncle Mike Tosaw, and Andrew "The Rock Lobster" Giovinazzi break down a market where legacy names are exploding and the "magical letters" of AI are breathing new life into forgotten tickers. From all-time highs in the S&P 500 to volcanic eruptions in semiconductor names, the panel navigates the latest trends, unusual activity, and protective strategies for this high-flying environment. On this episode, the team discusses: The Trading Block: A look at the S&P 500 hitting north of 7,400, VIX hovering near 18, and the "Everything Old is New Again" theme driving Apple, Intel, and Qualcomm. Single Name Surge: Breaking down the massive volume and price action in Nvidia, Tesla, Intel, Micron, and AMD. Plus, what's behind the resurgence of Nokia? The Odd Block: Unusual options activity in Sony Group (SONY), the minerals and geosciences play Ivanhoe Electric (IE), and the earnings-driven flow in Plug Power (PLUG). The Strategy Block: Uncle Mike explains how to use a 1x2 ratio put spread to get paid for buying stocks you want at a lower price while hedging for a potential pullback. Around the Block: Predictions for the rest of the week, the upcoming Nvidia earnings, and why now might be the time to look at protective puts.

Is "Old Tech" the new shiny toy? Mark, Uncle Mike Tosaw, and Andrew "The Rock Lobster" Giovinazzi break down a market where legacy names are exploding and the "magical letters" of AI are breathing new life into forgotten tickers. From all-time highs in the S&P 500 to volcanic eruptions in semiconductor names, the panel navigates the latest trends, unusual activity, and protective strategies for this high-flying environment. On this episode, the team discusses: The Trading Block: A look at the S&P 500 hitting north of 7,400, VIX hovering near 18, and the "Everything Old is New Again" theme driving Apple, Intel, and Qualcomm. Single Name Surge: Breaking down the massive volume and price action in Nvidia, Tesla, Intel, Micron, and AMD. Plus, what's behind the resurgence of Nokia? The Odd Block: Unusual options activity in Sony Group (SONY), the minerals and geosciences play Ivanhoe Electric (IE), and the earnings-driven flow in Plug Power (PLUG). The Strategy Block: Uncle Mike explains how to use a 1x2 ratio put spread to get paid for buying stocks you want at a lower price while hedging for a potential pullback. Around the Block: Predictions for the rest of the week, the upcoming Nvidia earnings, and why now might be the time to look at protective puts.

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 »

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 »

Klassenfahrt in der ersten Klasse. Ohne Handy. Ohne Updates. Ohne Mama. Fanny ist stabil. Also ungefähr so stabil wie ein Koffer mit unbekanntem Zahlencode. Während Fannys großes Kind mutig loszieht, sitzt Alina emotional schon im Fluchtwagen und würde notfalls heimlich ein Nokia in den Schlafanzug nähen. Dazu geht's um Kita-Bewerbungen mit leichter Bestechungsenergie, Elternstunden, große Sorgen, kleine schöne Momente und diese fiese Erkenntnis: Man kann Angst haben und trotzdem weiterleben. Manchmal sogar mit Eis, Gänseblümchen und Country-Musik im Tierpark. Und am Ende natürlich die große Frage: Wie oft baden eure Kinder wirklich? Ehrlich jetzt. Anonym, versprochen. Schickt eure MOMSPLAINING-Geschichten an fanny@mamaleisa.de, damit Fanny und Alina sie hier besprechen und judgen. Du bist schwanger und fühlst dich gerade überfordert, unsicher oder allein? Das Hilfetelefon „Schwangere in Not“ ist jederzeit für dich da – anonym, kostenlos und in 19 Sprachen. Du bist nicht allein: www.hilfetelefon-schwangere.de Du möchtest mehr über unsere Werbepartner erfahren? Hier findest du alle Infos & Rabatte: https://linktr.ee/mama_leisa Du möchtest Werbung in diesem Podcast schalten? Dann erfahre hier mehr über die Werbemöglichkeiten bei Seven.One Audio: https://www.seven.one/portfolio/sevenone-audio

Alejandro Szilágyi es un business mentor de alta dirección y cofundador de Campus2SP. Su experiencia le ha enseñado que grandes empresas con poderosas marcas como Kodak, Nokia, PanAmerican o Palm Pilot, así como muchas otras pequeñas y medianas, han visto desplomar su éxito por no tomar ciertas decisiones a tiempo. En esta columna enseña cómo tomar decisiones estratégicas y operativas para mantener el ritmo empresarial adecuado, que depende de las buenas decisiones.

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.

The market is caught in a tug-of-war between geopolitical tensions in the Strait of Hormuz and the relentless AI spending boom. In this episode, Mark Longo, Andrew "The Rock Lobster" Giovinazzi, and "Uncle Mike" Tosaw break down why the indices are shaking off war jitters to focus on massive server farm investments. The panel explores the "post-ceasefire" volatility environment, the surprising resilience of Mag Seven earnings, and the massive $700 billion projected spend on AI infrastructure. Plus, a deep dive into unusual activity in names you haven't heard in years—including a legacy giant's attempt to pivot to AI. On the Block: The Trading Block: VIX cash flirts with an 18 handle, while Nokia and Caterpillar become unexpected AI plays. The Odd Block: Unusual options activity in Aurora Innovation (AUR), a "Viceroy Special" in Xerox (XRX), and haptic tech plays in Immersion Corp (IMMR). The Strategy Block: Uncle Mike breaks down Timeframe Selection—the pros and cons of daily vs. monthly covered calls and how to maximize time decay. Mail Block: Listener questions on rising gas prices, EV interest in Tesla and Rivian, and the panel's take on the new Hulk Hogan documentary. Featured Partner: Join TastyTrade today and earn a double commission rebate of up to $3,000 on your stock and ETF options trades for 30 days—visit tastytrade.com/insider for details.

My co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 174 of our podcast IP Fridays! In today's interview, Ken Suzan interviews Brian McGinnis, partner at Barnes & Thornburg and co-chair of the firm’s data security and privacy practice, about why companies need to stop treating data privacy as a compliance burden and start treating it as a core business asset. McGinnis argues that data is either a managed asset or an unmanaged liability, with no middle ground. But before we jump into this interview, I have news for you! The EPO saw a Record Year with 200,000+ Patent Applications in 2025: German filings dropped 2.2% while China grew 9.7%, overtaking Japan for the first time. Germany remains Europe’s top patent nation but loses ground globally. SMEs and universities now account for nearly half of all Unitary Patents granted to European innovators. News from the UPC Court of Appeal: Non-Technical Features Count for Inventive Step. An April 17 ruling clarifies that all claim features must be evaluated in their combined effect, including non-technical ones. Companies with software-related or mixed-technology inventions pending at the EPO or UPC should reassess recent inventive step objections at the UPC in light of this decision. Nokia Withdraws UPC and Munich Suits After Global FRAND Settlement; Following a global FRAND rate-setting decision by the UK High Court, Nokia withdrew parallel suits against Warner Bros. and Paramount at the UPC and in Munich. One UK ruling resolved litigation spanning Germany, the UPC, the US, and Brazil simultaneously. China Abandons Anti-Suit Injunctions in SEP Disputes: After a WTO arbitration ruling from July 2025, China withdrew its practice of blocking SEP holders from filing suits abroad. The EU Commission continues monitoring compliance, since the former policy was largely informal rather than codified in statute. The Trump Administration has put 100% Tariffs on Imported Patented Pharmaceuticals: Based on Section 232, the Trump administration imposed 100% tariffs on patented drugs and biologics effective April 2, 2026, with a 120-day transition period until July 31. EU member states face a reduced rate of 15%. Generics and biosimilars are explicitly excluded. China Rejects 1.27 Million Trademark Applications in Three-Year Crackdown: China’s CNIPA rejected over 1.27 million trademark applications and invalidated more than 3,300 marks, targeting so-called edge-ball marks designed to mislead consumers about product quality or origin. The announcement was made at an official press conference on April 23, 2026. Now let's jump into the interview with Brian McGinnis! Brian McGinnis is a partner at Barnes & Thornburg and co-chair of the firm’s data security and privacy practice. In this episode of IP Fridays, he argues that companies treating data privacy as a compliance burden are missing the point entirely and leaving significant value on the table. Data Is Either an Asset or a Liability Most companies still treat their data as invisible and costless. They do not manage it the way they would manage a patent portfolio or a trademark. That, McGinnis argues, is a fundamental strategic error. Data is either a managed asset or an unmanaged liability. There is no middle ground. When companies invest in understanding what data they collect, how it is used, and who has access to it, they unlock opportunities to drive real revenue and growth. Done right, a data governance program is not a cost center. It is a foundation for trust, operational efficiency, and competitive advantage. One Program, Not Twenty With more than 20 US state privacy laws now in effect, and major economies worldwide introducing their own frameworks, building separate compliance programs for each jurisdiction is neither practical nor smart. McGinnis recommends a single, comprehensive governance framework designed around the core purpose and intent of privacy law, flexible enough to absorb new requirements as they emerge. Companies that threw together a quick program when California’s CCPA came into force in 2020 are now overdue for an upgrade. The goal is to move from reactive compliance to a mature, proactive program that positions the company ahead of the regulatory curve rather than perpetually catching up. Website Tracking Tools: An Underestimated Risk One of the fastest-growing areas of privacy litigation involves tracking technologies built into company websites: pixels, session replay tools, analytics scripts, and chat widgets. Legal teams are often entirely unaware of what IT or marketing has deployed. That gap is expensive. Plaintiffs’ attorneys are applying 1970s-era telephone wiretapping statutes, including the California Invasion of Privacy Act, to argue that collecting any personal information, including IP addresses, before a user has consented constitutes illegal interception. Demand letters are being sent at industrial scale, with settlements typically running between $10,000 and $20,000 per case. What makes this particularly difficult is that a company can be fully compliant with statutory privacy law and still face these wiretapping claims, because the legal theory turns on the timing of data collection rather than the existence of a privacy notice. Vendor Contracts: The Hidden Exposure Marketing and technology agreements are another major source of unmanaged data risk. When a company deploys a third-party tool that handles personal data, the underlying contract needs to define precisely who owns that data, what the vendor is permitted to do with it, and what obligations flow down to any sub-processors involved. McGinnis draws a direct parallel to IP licensing: owning valuable data and then handing it to a vendor under a poorly drafted agreement is the equivalent of signing a bad IP license. Data processing agreements need to cover ownership, use restrictions, sub-processor obligations, breach notification timelines, audit rights, and deletion obligations. Many companies simply do not have these terms in place. Without them, a vendor who suffers a breach of non-personal business information has no contractual obligation to disclose it. Consumer Rights Requests: Process Matters Privacy laws give individuals the right to access, correct, delete, and opt out of the use of their personal data. Responding to these requests effectively requires pre-built processes, trained staff, and the technical ability to locate and act on individual data across all systems and sub-processors. Most companies, before engaging in formal data mapping, are not in a position to do this reliably. Staff failing to recognize a deletion request as a legal data subject request and routing it through a standard customer service queue instead is one of the most common failures McGinnis sees. The consequences can include regulatory complaints and class action lawsuits, particularly when a company continues to send emails to someone who has already requested deletion of their data. A newer risk involves Global Privacy Controls: browser-level opt-out signals that regulators and courts are now treating as legally binding deletion and non-collection requests. Companies receiving these signals daily without acting on them face growing exposure under several state laws. AI Governance: Policy Before Tools Generative AI tools are now embedded across business functions, from contract review and customer service to content creation and internal search. McGinnis is direct: every company needs an AI acceptable-use policy, and the absence of one is not a neutral position. Without clear rules, employees will use unapproved or publicly available tools regardless, feeding proprietary and sensitive information into open models with no control over how that data is used or retained. He draws a precise parallel to patent law. Posting proprietary information into an open AI system carries the same risk as publishing it publicly, potentially destroying patentability. The distinction between closed, organization-specific AI systems and open, publicly accessible ones is something employees need to understand explicitly. Making compliance easier than non-compliance is the practical goal. The Regulatory Outlook: More Laws, More Enforcement McGinnis expects the regulatory landscape to continue expanding. The EU AI Act is already setting the direction, and several US states have introduced or are developing AI-specific legislation. The pattern mirrors what happened with data privacy: Europe leads, US states follow in a patchwork, and federal legislation remains uncertain. Enforcement of existing privacy laws is also intensifying. GDPR has been in force since 2018, CCPA since 2020, and regulators are now past the period of extended tolerance for companies that are still catching up. Companies with immature compliance programs should expect less patience from regulators going forward. McGinnis closes with a clear point of view: if you have to comply anyway, get credit for it. A well-built governance program is a trust signal to customers, a sales asset, and a foundation for responsible AI use. Compliance done right is not a tax. It is a differentiator. The Full Transcript: Ken Suzan: Our guest today on the IP Fridays podcast is Brian McGinnis. Brian is a partner with Barnes and Thornburg and a founding member and co-chair of the firm’s data security and privacy law practice group. Brian serves as a member of the intellectual property department and the internet and technology practice. Brian is a Chambers Global and national ranked privacy and data security attorney, a certified information privacy professional, and the firm’s chief privacy officer. Brian brings nearly two decades of experience at the intersection of law and technology. Brian advises on a wide range of technology-driven legal matters, including privacy and data security, intellectual property, artificial intelligence, corporate transactions, software, and internet law. His deep understanding of privacy and technology law enables him to guide clients through rapidly evolving regulatory and operational challenges. Welcome Brian to the IP Fridays podcast. Brian McGinnis: Hey, thanks Ken. I appreciate it. Great to be here and thanks for having me. Ken Suzan: Excellent. Brian, the C-suite tends to treat data privacy as a compliance tax, something to hand off to legal and forget about. But when you see how companies actually get into serious trouble, what’s really going on? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, well, it’s a great place to start Ken and looking forward to the conversation today covering some of these privacy issues and AI issues, which I found in my own practice is really bled into the straight privacy stuff. Companies can’t really handle these things in a silo anymore. It’s really about managing and coming together as a coherent program for governance for the organization. I think if you do that right, the good news is we can become revenue generators and show growth for the company and not just compliance centers and a compliance tax. But I think the core problem that we face in working with most companies is that a lot of companies still treat their data as invisible, costless. They don’t treat it, in other words, like they would a patent portfolio or trademark or other IP portfolio. It’s just not managed as an asset in the ways that we’ve seen more sophistication around IP. And it really should be. Data is either a managed asset for the company or it’s an unmanaged liability. There’s really not an in between. And so for those companies that haven’t gotten their arms around all this data and what can be done with it, I think they’re really missing an opportunity. Having an understanding of what data the organization is collecting, how it’s being used, and having the proper governance around it really unlocks a lot of opportunity for use of that data in new ways — ways that can drive revenue and growth for the company. So I approach privacy not just about compliance, not just about avoiding penalties or doing it because some law out there says that we have to do it. It’s really about knowing and controlling one of the company’s core assets. And if you’re not doing that, you’ve got unmanaged data that you’re not getting value out of and that potentially could be a huge liability for the company. Managed well, it really supports trust, efficiency, and growth of the organization. Otherwise, I think it’s a missed opportunity. Ken Suzan: Yes, well said. Now let’s talk about state laws. With 20-plus state privacy laws now in effect, how should companies build a program that actually works across the board without starting over every time a new state law kicks in? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, so the first answer is don’t build 20 separate programs. This really goes back to having a comprehensive, sophisticated, well thought out program that really takes into account not only the 20 state laws, but obviously we’ve got international exposure with laws like GDPR and upcoming privacy laws internationally. Most of the larger economies in the world have some form of laws around privacy and AI. So you can’t really anymore build programs that account for the one, two, three, four, five different laws that in the past we had experience with — where you could just treat California as its own thing, treat New York as something else, and treat Europe as something else. The laws and the pace of these have really forced companies into having comprehensive programs. I don’t expect to see fewer laws. You’re only looking at potentially additional state laws, additional federal laws here in the US, and then certainly additional laws throughout the world. So a lot of the strategy these days is not only where are we today with these laws, but how do we set up our governance program in a way that really cuts to the core of the purpose and intent behind these laws so that we can be better prepared when new laws come about in the future. Historically, at least in the US, most companies just haven’t had laws that force them into compliance postures. As these laws have started to come along, a lot of companies have been playing from behind and saying, oh, the California Consumer Privacy Act, I just read about it and it goes into effect next week — let’s throw something together and call that our compliance program. We’ve now got years of these laws being in place, CCPA came into effect in 2020, and what we’re seeing much more of are companies looking to get more sophisticated in their programs and stop feeling like they’re always rushing to catch up. The goal is to level up their program, going from level one — constantly playing from behind — to level two and then level three, so that they really feel like they’re on top of it and have a sophisticated program that not only accounts for all the various privacy requirements that come at them, but also positions them to take advantage of the data and all the things that come along with having a good governance program. Ken Suzan: Brian, there’s an explosion of litigation targeting something most companies barely think about — the tracking tools baked into their own websites: pixels, session replay tools, analytics scripts, chat widgets, the list goes on and on. What’s happening, Brian, and what should companies do? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, and I think a lot of companies — the executives, the business teams — don’t even realize a lot of these tools are on their sites. IT deployed them years ago, the web team deployed them, marketing teams are constantly using them and certainly have a good understanding of it. But in a lot of cases, legal has never touched them and has no idea what’s happening on the website. We also see a lot of cases of companies who, even if they’re generally aware these tools are in use, aren’t aware what other teams are putting on the site or what those pieces of technology are tracking. And that gap can be really expensive. What we’re seeing right now — and this has been a trend for a number of months now and is really continuing to pick up steam — is a series of what I call gotcha lawsuits, where you have some enterprising plaintiffs’ counsel who have taken a look at some 1970s-era telephone wiretapping laws, including a law called CIPA, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, passed in the 70s with the idea that you shouldn’t be able to wiretap people’s telephone conversations. They’ve taken that and applied that theory to the internet. The way it works is: if a website has some sort of cookie, pixel, or other tracking technology on it that collects personal information about an individual — and that can be as simple as an IP address and device ID — and if that collection occurs as soon as the individual shows up at the website, prior to them being able to have notice provided to them or opt in and consent to that collection, then the theory under these lawsuits is that it constitutes wiretapping. We see a lot of this with the Meta pixel, with LinkedIn pixels, and the like. What they’re doing is effectively showing up and suing, threatening to sue, trying to take you to arbitration, depending upon what’s included in the company’s existing privacy notice. If you don’t have a cookie banner, if you don’t have a cookie notice, if you’re not getting opt-in on these things, they’re leaning on those failures and effectively trying to force you into a position where you are forced to make a settlement. Because the cost to litigate one of these to their conclusion would be expensive, whereas a lot of these cases will settle for $10,000 to $15,000 somewhere in that range. They’ve got technology crawling the internet looking for websites that don’t have these risks covered, sending demand letters and then collecting settlements, $10,000 to $20,000 at a time. It’s been very profitable for them and a very dangerous thing for our clients. And it’s a bit unusual because you can be fully compliant with the statutory privacy laws that require notification of the use of tracking technologies and cookies and banners — and still be subject to these lawsuits because of the wiretapping arguments being made. The timing wherein the data is collected from the individual could still subject you to these lawsuits. So it’s a tricky problem, one that I hate seeing companies get hit with and one that we spend a lot of time helping companies avoid. Ken Suzan: Yes, let’s talk about contracts, Brian, because I know you work with contracts probably on a daily basis. A lot of data risk lives inside vendor and technology agreements — the contracts companies sign with marketing platforms, analytics providers, cloud infrastructure, and SaaS tools. What should those agreements actually contain? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, so there’s quite a lot of things. You’ve got a world where marketing is constantly under pressure to learn more about their customers. The way they can do that is through any number of different tools and data gathering techniques, and we have all this technology available to help marketing and sales do better at their jobs. But we, at least in this country, got to a position where people really felt like they lost control of their information and their data. And so these privacy laws came along and really started to provide more rights to individuals — to have an understanding of what data exists within various companies that they do business with, who they’re sharing it with, trading it with, selling it to for advertising purposes; to have the right to opt out; the right to delete their information. Not checking through the agreements by which these teams are implementing these tools is a huge issue for companies. As part of an overall compliance program, having some kind of process where people who are aware of the growing numbers of privacy laws are reviewing these marketing contracts to make sure they are aligned with that program and aligned with those laws is absolutely critical. To talk about IP, given the IP Fridays audience: it’s kind of the equivalent of having really bad IP licenses. In other words, you own and control this information and data, and you need to control what the other side can do with one of your most valuable assets — or you’ve effectively given it away. So thinking about it in that way could be useful. In terms of more specifics: a big one is ownership of the data. The agreement itself may or may not have anything that addresses data. If there’s personal information involved, you probably need what we call a data processing agreement or addendum — a DPA — that specifically controls what that third party is able to do with that data, how they’re able to use it, whether they’re able to share it, whether they’re able to get value out of it on their own, or if they’re only allowed to be what we call a service provider, just providing services to the business that hired them. There needs to be explicit prohibition on retaining, using, and disclosing personal information for any purpose other than performing the exact services in the contract. Whether or not they’re permitted to sell or share data under CCPA terms is another key point. Certification that the provider will comply with any restrictions and security requirements you have on your data, and making sure those obligations flow down to any sub-processors they might use. You hire Company A, but Company A works with Company B and C to provide parts of their service. You’re effectively responsible for the protection of personal information throughout its lifecycle. A couple of other key provisions: breach notification triggers and timeline. It’s very possible under a lot of agreements that one of your vendors can suffer the world’s worst hacker breach and have no legal obligation to tell the company that hired them about it — unless there’s personal information involved. State data breach laws apply to personal information, not to other types of sensitive business information. Unless you have a contract that explicitly requires notification, there’s a good chance that vendor may not want to disclose it. And then other things like audit rights and deletion obligations go in there as well. Ken Suzan: Certainly a lot to cover. Let’s talk about privacy laws and consumer rights. Privacy laws give consumers real rights — to access their data, correct it, delete it, and opt out of how it’s being used. Most companies have a process for this on paper. What does it actually take to get it right, and what happens when it breaks down? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, it takes pre-planning. It takes a process. Some companies receive many more of these requests than others — some B2B companies receive none or a couple per year, while companies heavily involved in marketing to consumers might receive tens or hundreds a day. To be able to respond to these effectively and efficiently requires some forethought. It requires policy and procedure internally to be set up, and it requires the education of the team. Some of the common ways we see this go wrong: staff isn’t trained to know the difference between what we call a DSR — data subject request — versus a regular customer service inquiry. Maybe somebody submits what would be construed by law to be a deletion request and you just put it into your normal customer service response flow — and then you’re potentially missing timelines and the like. There also need to be systems in place to respond in accordance with the individual’s rights. Somebody submits a request saying, you have my information — what information do you have about me? Can your company determine that right now? Can you look through all your systems and down the line to all the processors and sub-processors you’ve worked with and hired, and identify what information you have about that individual? Most companies, until they engage in a governance program and data mapping, are at a real disadvantage to be able to do that. Why is that a problem? Because two weeks from now your company could be sending emails to the individual who just told you to delete their data, and they get really upset. That’s when they go and complain to regulators or start class action lawsuits. The lack of planning can be really, really expensive for a lot of companies. Making sure you’ve got some kind of process to understand what’s coming in, that the people receiving those requests know the difference between a regular customer service request and a data subject request, and that it gets to the appropriate parties for action — all of that is really, really key. Another one that we’re seeing pop up is what we call GPC, or Global Privacy Controls. It used to be that people would say “do not track” in their browser and most companies would ignore those signals. Now we’ve got advancements in law and browser technology where the browser you’re using to visit a company’s website sends a signal saying, opt me out of this. Regulators and courts are construing those as deletion requests, as opt-out requests that companies are now required to respond to. If your company hasn’t gone through an exercise to understand that, and is probably receiving GPC opt-out requests on a daily basis without acting on them, there’s some exposure there. At the end of the day, a lot of this really is about getting the appropriate people from across the organization — really each department — around a table, figuring out what data you collect, how you use it, who you share it with, where it comes from. That starts the process of your data map. Then you set about mapping that to the various legal requirements and figuring out how to respond, how to make it easy for people to exercise their rights so they’re not complaining, not suing, not going to regulators. Letting these squeaky wheels out of the process — the ones who don’t want you to be processing their information any longer — is really key. Ken Suzan: Let’s switch gears a bit and talk about AI. I know we’re hearing about it every day. Generative AI tools are now embedded in how companies work — contract review, customer service, content creation, internal search. Before employees start using these tools with customer data, confidential business information, or proprietary content, what has to be in place first? Brian McGinnis: Yeah. I think we’re long past the days when companies provided individuals access to corporate technology — computers, devices, and the like — without having some kind of acceptable use policy that governs that. We don’t want you downloading stuff that could harm our network or create security issues. We don’t want you using our technology in certain ways, whether that’s a BYOD policy or just general use of company internet or company devices. An AI acceptable use policy is really a continuation of those. Every company needs to have an AI acceptable use policy. Period. In my opinion, things like that are as important as the fire escape policy out in the hallways for these companies. I can tell you with absolute certainty: if your organization has not provided rules to your employees and personnel about the use of AI, what they can and can’t use — or if you’ve said you can’t use any AI — the personnel is still using AI. They’re just not using any approved tools. They’re probably using their own private tools that they subscribe to, or even worse, tools they don’t pay for, in which case they’re putting company information into a wide open public model. The more companies can do to think through this ahead of time, reduce it to policy, and then train and educate people on that company’s particular policy, the better. You need to make it easier for people to comply than not comply. An acceptable use policy should talk about: here’s how we can and can’t use it, here’s the data that should and should not go into the system, here’s some proper uses of AI, here’s some data that’s on the fringe that we need to keep out — more sensitive information, proprietary information, etc. Making sure you’re funneling and educating people about the difference between closed systems and open systems. In other words, this is a tool that only looks at our organization, only uses the data within a certain box, and is not publicly available — the AI system is not training on our data. You have more leeway to put more sensitive information into those types of systems than you do with open systems which potentially lose control of your data. It’s almost like a patent consideration in terms of keeping information secret. If something potentially has some patentability that you want to seek to file in the future, you can’t just go out and post it publicly and use public search engines and all this other stuff at the risk of exposing it. Similar concepts here — really getting a handle and control over what tools people can use and providing some education to them about how the company wants to think about what’s acceptable and what’s not in those uses is really the key starting point. Ken Suzan: Very useful information. Indeed, we’re coming towards the end of today’s episode. One final question for you, Brian. Where do you think we’ll be two years from now in this developing field, and how best for companies to stay ahead of the curve? Brian McGinnis: Yeah, this kind of takes us full circle, Ken. I think it’s kind of back to the beginning comments about the privacy space — and we’ve only got more of these laws coming. It’s still a developing field. We’re still really in the early days of enforcement. I mean, GDPR has been around since 2018, CCPA in the US really kicked us off in about 2020, and so there’s been a settling-in period as companies adjust and get used to having these laws and get compliance programs in place at various levels — from not at all prepared to highly sophisticated. We’re still pretty early on in terms of enforcement of these things. We’re already starting to see enforcement of more egregious violations of these various laws, and we’ll only continue to see more enforcement as the laws exist currently and as they continue to come along. The days of not having to pay attention to this are kind of over. And I always tell clients: if you’re going to have to do these things, you’re going to have to be compliant — you might as well get credit for it. By which I mean, let’s put all the policies in place, let’s do all the compliance activities, let’s have a sophisticated governance program, but then let’s also use that as a sales tool, as a way to help grow the company, as a way to sell new products and gain trust and earn trust with our customers — so that they know when they’re doing business with us, or when they’re giving us information, or when they’re using our AI tool, that we respect that and are going to take care of their information and have the structure in place internally to be able to do that. With respect to AI, what I’m seeing is very similar to what we have seen with the growth of privacy law — again led by Europe, with the EU AI Act in this case. Now you’ve got a handful of states in the US that already have AI laws, and others that are interested in continuing to roll those out. There’s friction with the federal government around whether there’s going to be a comprehensive law there. Like the privacy space, you’ve got varying factions — some of which want to develop really quickly with very little guardrails, others which say we’re threatening the future of humanity if we don’t get those guardrails in place. I think ultimately, at least in the US, we’re going to end up with another patchwork of AI laws for the foreseeable future that we’ll have to navigate. So really having a company position, a company philosophy of how do we handle all these various laws, how do we treat people’s data, how do we get our arms around it, how do we respond to whatever legal rights they currently have, and what principles do we put in place so that we can adapt for the future — and then, once we’ve done those things, how do we actually get value out of this and move the business forward. So it’s not a compliance tax, but a benefit to the business. That’s the end goal here, and I think the North Star for us. Ken Suzan: Fantastic, Brian. This has certainly been a very comprehensive interview. Really appreciate you taking the time to talk about it with us here on the IP Fridays podcast. Brian McGinnis: Happy to do it, Ken. Thanks for asking me and good to see you. Thank you.

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

Scott Robohn sits down with Andy Smith, a distinguished engineer with Arrcus Networks, where he and his team work to advance networking with modern software and new architectures. He’s also a lecturer at the School of Engineering and Applied Science at the University of Pennsylvania. Andy shares his networking journey, talks about how networks and... Read more »

Magnetic monopoles are hypothetical particles with a single magnetic charge — north without south. Predicted by grand unified theories, they may be incredibly massive and could bind together into “magmatter,” an ultra-dense material stronger than anything known in nature.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 Nokia 3310 CT Scan: https://nebula.tv/videos/realengineering-the-anatomy-of-the-nokia-3310?ref=isaacarthur

Magnetic monopoles are hypothetical particles with a single magnetic charge — north without south. Predicted by grand unified theories, they may be incredibly massive and could bind together into “magmatter,” an ultra-dense material stronger than anything known in nature.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 Nokia 3310 CT Scan: https://nebula.tv/videos/realengineering-the-anatomy-of-the-nokia-3310?ref=isaacarthur