Intellectual property conferring a monopoly on a new invention
POPULARITY
Categories
604 episodes with Patent
138 episodes with Patent
271 episodes with Patent
51 episodes with Patent
45 episodes with Patent
39 episodes with Patent
97 episodes with Patent
52 episodes with Patent
26 episodes with Patent
37 episodes with Patent
26 episodes with Patent
40 episodes with Patent
32 episodes with Patent
21 episodes with Patent
30 episodes with Patent
26 episodes with Patent
46 episodes with Patent
25 episodes with Patent
20 episodes with Patent
18 episodes with Patent
27 episodes with Patent
15 episodes with Patent
10 episodes with Patent
11 episodes with Patent
27 episodes with Patent
5 episodes with Patent
12 episodes with Patent
15 episodes with Patent
9 episodes with Patent
14 episodes with Patent
11 episodes with Patent
11 episodes with Patent
198 episodes with Patent
7 episodes with Patent
6 episodes with Patent
4 episodes with Patent
4 episodes with Patent
7 episodes with Patent
7 episodes with Patent
9 episodes with Patent
9 episodes with Patent
15 episodes with Patent
9 episodes with Patent
15 episodes with Patent
8 episodes with Patent
7 episodes with Patent
13 episodes with Patent
6 episodes with Patent
7 episodes with Patent
9 episodes with Patent
7 episodes with Patent
12 episodes with Patent
12 episodes with Patent
4 episodes with Patent
10 episodes with Patent
18 episodes with Patent
4 episodes with Patent
6 episodes with Patent
6 episodes with Patent
6 episodes with Patent
8 episodes with Patent
12 episodes with Patent
6 episodes with Patent
7 episodes with Patent
7 episodes with Patent
4 episodes with Patent
6 episodes with Patent
22 episodes with Patent
6 episodes with Patent
4 episodes with Patent
4 episodes with Patent
15 episodes with Patent
7 episodes with Patent
9 episodes with Patent
4 episodes with Patent
6 episodes with Patent
5 episodes with Patent
6 episodes with Patent
23 episodes with Patent
3 episodes with Patent
4 episodes with Patent
4 episodes with Patent
20 episodes with Patent
5 episodes with Patent
4 episodes with Patent
3 episodes with Patent
3 episodes with Patent
3 episodes with Patent
3 episodes with Patent
10 episodes with Patent
6 episodes with Patent
3 episodes with Patent
5 episodes with Patent
4 episodes with Patent
5 episodes with Patent
4 episodes with Patent
4 episodes with Patent
5 episodes with Patent
3 episodes with Patent
3 episodes with Patent
10 episodes with Patent
2 episodes with Patent
6 episodes with Patent
5 episodes with Patent
6 episodes with Patent
4 episodes with Patent
10 episodes with Patent
5 episodes with Patent
8 episodes with Patent
3 episodes with Patent
4 episodes with Patent
8 episodes with Patent
4 episodes with Patent
4 episodes with Patent
4 episodes with Patent
10 episodes with Patent
3 episodes with Patent
2 episodes with Patent
5 episodes with Patent
4 episodes with Patent
3 episodes with Patent
6 episodes with Patent
3 episodes with Patent
3 episodes with Patent
4 episodes with Patent
3 episodes with Patent
2 episodes with Patent
4 episodes with Patent
3 episodes with Patent
11 episodes with Patent
4 episodes with Patent
3 episodes with Patent
2 episodes with Patent
3 episodes with Patent
5 episodes with Patent
3 episodes with Patent
4 episodes with Patent
4 episodes with Patent
4 episodes with Patent
2 episodes with Patent
6 episodes with Patent
2 episodes with Patent
3 episodes with Patent
3 episodes with Patent
18 episodes with Patent
2 episodes with Patent
2 episodes with Patent
5 episodes with Patent
3 episodes with Patent
2 episodes with Patent
2 episodes with Patent
2 episodes with Patent
7 episodes with Patent
12 episodes with Patent
2 episodes with Patent
2 episodes with Patent
8 episodes with Patent
2 episodes with Patent
2 episodes with Patent
4 episodes with Patent
6 episodes with Patent
61 episodes with Patent
────────────────────────────────────────[00:02:12]Flock's Own Patent Calls It a "Dynamic Surveillance Network" — Not a Camera, an Interstate SystemPatent abstract: a system for object-based query of archived video from unrelated sources; changed its name to Flock Safety for marketing but the purpose never changed.────────────────────────────────────────[00:07:40]Florida Police 3D-Printed a Fake Flock Camera as a Decoy — Then Charged a Man With Three Felonies for Destroying ItGrand theft and computer equipment charges for a piece of plastic with no electronics; like charging someone for poaching when they shot a decoy duck.────────────────────────────────────────[00:17:27]Savannah Georgia: Four Officers Arrested for Using Flock to Stalk Personal Acquaintances and Family MembersTwo employees already fired for the same conduct weeks earlier; second wave; now a poster child for police abuse of AI surveillance.────────────────────────────────────────[01:10:42]Nine Federal Circuit Courts Say the Public Can Film Police — but Cops Still Have ImmunityIn the same case the police got qualified immunity for violating rights; you must carry ID and hand it over on demand; Knight: net loss.────────────────────────────────────────[01:16:30]GTA6 Developer Subpoenas Microsoft and Discord to Find a Leaker — Exposing What They Keep on All of UsThey want every account ID, registration email, login IP, phone number, device identifiers, and OneDrive content associated with any server connected to the leak.────────────────────────────────────────[01:42:46]Pennsylvania's Two Measles Deaths Are a Lie — Lancaster Coroner Found No Measles Deaths; CDC Was Refused the DataCounty health commissioner and CDC both asked for data; state won't give it; coroner recorded one death with measles present but not as cause.────────────────────────────────────────[01:45:18]Dolly Parton Died Four Days After Entering a Cancer Center — Knight: That Is TurbocancerRapid-onset aggressive cancer is a known signature of mRNA vaccine damage; admitted Friday, died Tuesday; prominent vaccine promoter at Vanderbilt.────────────────────────────────────────[01:54:14]Canada Hits Back — 25% Tariff on American Fish and Seafood; Maine Lobster in the CrossfireCanadian aluminum, steel, and auto parts making American cars affordable are being cut off; Trump is destroying industry just like he's destroying farms.────────────────────────────────────────[01:01:04]Federal Reserve Meeting in Jackson Hole — Arteman: Interest Rates Are 100% Irrelevant in Five YearsMinutia while the system collapses; can't Volcker-shock out when the Iran war is driving inflation and the debt ceiling is raised $5 trillion.────────────────────────────────────────[00:51:47]Silver Suppression Trade Is Breaking Down — Once It Broke the All-Time High, All Bets Are OffGold to silver ratio hit over 100 to 1 when gold was $3,500; not based on reality; shorts are gone; silver has a lot of room to run. ──────────────────────────────────────── Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silver For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code “KNIGHT” For high quality made in America products go to HomeSteadProducts.shop and use promo code “Knight” for 10% off your purchases Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.com If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-show Or you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.
────────────────────────────────────────[00:02:12]Flock's Own Patent Calls It a "Dynamic Surveillance Network" — Not a Camera, an Interstate SystemPatent abstract: a system for object-based query of archived video from unrelated sources; changed its name to Flock Safety for marketing but the purpose never changed.────────────────────────────────────────[00:07:40]Florida Police 3D-Printed a Fake Flock Camera as a Decoy — Then Charged a Man With Three Felonies for Destroying ItGrand theft and computer equipment charges for a piece of plastic with no electronics; like charging someone for poaching when they shot a decoy duck.────────────────────────────────────────[00:17:27]Savannah Georgia: Four Officers Arrested for Using Flock to Stalk Personal Acquaintances and Family MembersTwo employees already fired for the same conduct weeks earlier; second wave; now a poster child for police abuse of AI surveillance.────────────────────────────────────────[01:10:42]Nine Federal Circuit Courts Say the Public Can Film Police — but Cops Still Have ImmunityIn the same case the police got qualified immunity for violating rights; you must carry ID and hand it over on demand; Knight: net loss.────────────────────────────────────────[01:16:30]GTA6 Developer Subpoenas Microsoft and Discord to Find a Leaker — Exposing What They Keep on All of UsThey want every account ID, registration email, login IP, phone number, device identifiers, and OneDrive content associated with any server connected to the leak.────────────────────────────────────────[01:42:46]Pennsylvania's Two Measles Deaths Are a Lie — Lancaster Coroner Found No Measles Deaths; CDC Was Refused the DataCounty health commissioner and CDC both asked for data; state won't give it; coroner recorded one death with measles present but not as cause.────────────────────────────────────────[01:45:18]Dolly Parton Died Four Days After Entering a Cancer Center — Knight: That Is TurbocancerRapid-onset aggressive cancer is a known signature of mRNA vaccine damage; admitted Friday, died Tuesday; prominent vaccine promoter at Vanderbilt.────────────────────────────────────────[01:54:14]Canada Hits Back — 25% Tariff on American Fish and Seafood; Maine Lobster in the CrossfireCanadian aluminum, steel, and auto parts making American cars affordable are being cut off; Trump is destroying industry just like he's destroying farms.────────────────────────────────────────[01:01:04]Federal Reserve Meeting in Jackson Hole — Arteman: Interest Rates Are 100% Irrelevant in Five YearsMinutia while the system collapses; can't Volcker-shock out when the Iran war is driving inflation and the debt ceiling is raised $5 trillion.────────────────────────────────────────[00:51:47]Silver Suppression Trade Is Breaking Down — Once It Broke the All-Time High, All Bets Are OffGold to silver ratio hit over 100 to 1 when gold was $3,500; not based on reality; shorts are gone; silver has a lot of room to run. ──────────────────────────────────────── Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silver For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code “KNIGHT” For high quality made in America products go to HomeSteadProducts.shop and use promo code “Knight” for 10% off your purchases Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.com If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-show Or you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-real-david-knight-show--5282736/support.
A wide-ranging roundup of politics, media narratives, technology, and culture. The conversation moves from Canadian trade tensions and political strategy to Hollywood networks, energy infrastructure, feminism debates, COVID-related patents, and UFO disclosure. To gain access to the second half of show and our Plus feed for audio and podcast please clink the link http://www.grimericaoutlawed.ca/support. For second half of video (when applicable and audio) go to our Substack and Subscribe. https://grimericaoutlawed.substack.com/ or to our Locals https://grimericaoutlawed.locals.com/ or Patreon https://www.patreon.com/grimericaoutlawed Key Topics Canadian trade conflict and political strategy The hosts discuss Trump's statements about Canada, tariffs, and trade imbalance. They react to claims about Canada's economic dependence and political alignment with global institutions. Unexpected stories in the news A Canadian grocery store's temporary display of American wine sparks a discussion about patriotism and media coverage. They also break down a pipeline-related incident in Wisconsin and speculate on the broader implications. Global finance, banking, and influence The conversation shifts into theories about financial networks, money laundering, and international pressure on Canada and Europe. They discuss Mark Carney, banking power, and the role of economic warfare. Hollywood and "Friends of Abe" The hosts touch on Hollywood's internal networks and social signaling, including the "Friends of Bill" reference. They discuss how gatekeeping works across media and entertainment. The Lindsay Clancy case and feminism A long discussion follows about women, social roles, accountability, and cultural fallout. The hosts respond to commentary around the case and broader arguments about feminism and social breakdown. COVID-era systems and patents They examine a patent related to prioritizing treatments, vaccinations, and activities during an infectious disease outbreak. The discussion turns to public distrust, misinformation, and how much can be verified. UFOs, disclosure, and science The episode closes with talk of disclosure, remote viewing, interdimensional travel, and government science innovation. They also mention documentaries, Trump, and broader questions about what may be coming next. Takeaway This episode blends political commentary, media critique, and speculative analysis into a fast-moving roundup that aims to connect headlines to larger cultural and institutional patterns. Other links for our stuff: https://www.skool.com/audiobooks THE GRIMOIRE Audiobook Club and Library https://pegsandjokers.ca/ Family and Friends Cards and Pegs Boardgame online https://www.simulationmaps.com/#products Disaster Maps, Volcano Sim, Asteroid Sim, Shipwreck Map, UFO Map etc Support the show directly: https://open.spotify.com/show/2punSyd9Cw76ZtvHxMKenI?si=ImKxfMHgQZ-oshl499O4dQ&nd=1&dlsi=4c25fa9c78674de3 Watch or Listen on Spotify https://grimerica.ca/support-2/ Our Adultbrain Audiobook Podcast and Website: www.adultbrain.ca Check out our next trip/conference/meetup - Contact at the Cabin www.contactatthecabin.com Join the chat / hangout with a bunch of fellow Grimericans Https://t.me.grimerica grimerica.ca/chats Discord Chats Darren's books www.acanadianshame.ca Sign up for our newsletter http://www.grimerica.ca/news InstaGRAM https://www.instagram.com/the_grimerica_show_podcast/ Purchase swag, with partial proceeds donated to the show www.grimerica.ca/swag ART - Napolean Duheme's site http://www.lostbreadcomic.com/ MUSIC Tru Northperception, Felix's Site sirfelix.bandcamp.com Links to the stuff we chatted about: https://x.com/Milajoy/status/2092335500430623146?s=20 https://x.com/AndrewGold_ok/status/2092205597462573093?s=20 https://x.com/JasonLavigneAB/status/2092237106055872883?s=20 https://x.com/InterstellarUAP/status/2091698253905494355?s=20 https://x.com/scoopercooper/status/2092004853983961353?s=20 https://x.com/NSceptic11501/status/2091962213112115497?s=20 https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/2091985341481710009?s=20 https://x.com/ztisdale/status/2091965175301894324?s=20 https://x.com/drawandstrike/status/2091957056597102897?s=20 https://x.com/ItsAllPoliticss/status/2091672898284950010?s=20 https://x.com/Smackenziekerr/status/2091342950651580440?s=20 https://x.com/dvorstone/status/2091250472825086180?s=20 https://x.com/punchbagstudios/status/2091192832346243358?s=20 https://x.com/sarah_westall/status/2091175932216201579?s=20 https://x.com/planethunter56/status/2088682861608214850?s=20 https://x.com/jamescfox/status/2089382117675315377?s=20 https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2026/08/president-trump-is-finally-ending-canadas-free-ride/ https://x.com/ryangerritsen/status/2092461270968455244?s=43%22%3Ehttps://x.com/ryangerritsen/status/2092461270968455244?s=43%3C/a https://x.com/santoulang/status/2092545724454142278?s=43%22%3Ehttps://x.com/santoulang/status/2092545724454142278?s=43%3C/a https://x.com/santoulang/status/2092533979673178520/video/1 https://x.com/mikkiwillis/status/2092047949299913043?s=43%22%3Ehttps://x.com/mikkiwillis/status/2092047949299913043?s=43%3C/a https://x.com/valerieanne1970/status/2092597938518462633?s=43%22%3Ehttps://x.com/valerieanne1970/status/2092597938518462633?s=43%3C/a https://x.com/itsthejews63/status/2092350037057565104?s=43%22%3Ehttps://x.com/itsthejews63/status/2092350037057565104?s=43%3C/a https://x.com/olooneyjohn/status/2092545907648610669?s=43%22%3Ehttps://x.com/olooneyjohn/status/2092545907648610669?s=43%3C/a https://x.com/imbreckworsham/status/2092259036171317753?s=43%22%3Ehttps://x.com/imbreckworsham/status/2092259036171317753?s=43%3C/a https://x.com/theprojectunity/status/2092368048191660100?s=43%22%3Ehttps://x.com/theprojectunity/status/2092368048191660100?s=43%3C/a https://x.com/theprojectunity/status/2092368048191660100?s=43%22%3Ehttps://x.com/theprojectunity/status/2092368048191660100?s=43%3C/a Notable Moments 0:02— Introduction and opening banter 9:04— Trump/Canada trade dispute and White House statement 20:08— Pipeline incident in Wisconsin 24:36— Carney, Europe, banking, and economic warfare 34:27— Hollywood / "Friends of Abe" segment 74:52— Extended debate on Lindsay Clancy and feminism 57:04— Patent discussion about prioritizing treatments and activities 92:39— UFO disclosure and remote viewing discussion
Emmet Kennedy is joined by one of racing's most respected pundits, Gavin Lynch, for a special episode of the Final Furlong Podcast recorded live at the Curragh Racecourse. It's never too early to talk about the greatest show on turf, so we look ahead to the new National Hunt season through the prism of the Cheltenham Festival 2027 Championship races. For the first time in four years, the Champion Hurdle is set to feature neither Constitution Hill nor State Man, while the annual Willie Mullins question of whether Lossiemouth runs in the Champion Hurdle or Mares' Hurdle is gone. So where does that leave the division? The defending champion is available at 5/2, and that's Gavin's first port of call.
────────────────────────────────────────[00:00:41]Trump's Tariff Tantrums Escalate to Canada — 50% on Cars, Trucks, and Auto Parts Starting Next YearLast-minute demands to stop the French language and mirror all US China tariffs revealed the real goal: making Canada the 51st state.────────────────────────────────────────[00:05:03]Trump Accuses Canada of Ripping Us Off — We Send Billions to Israel Every Year; What Do We Get? WarsDoug Ford: Ronald Reagan would be throwing up; threatened to cut off electricity to Michigan, Minnesota, and New York.────────────────────────────────────────[00:10:07]Canada's Carney: The Americans Want to Destroy Our Major Industries — Autos, Steel, and AluminumDeeply integrated supply chains mean a prolonged fight is costly for both sides; Trump doesn't care about American workers, only corporate sponsors.────────────────────────────────────────[00:13:33]Trump Cut Off Rare Earth Minerals From China — Now He's Cutting Off Canada, Our More Reliable SourceCritical minerals for military aircraft and missiles were being sourced from Canada; the same supply chain crisis as with the Lincoln.────────────────────────────────────────[00:01:27]AI Capex May Be the Pin That Bursts the Bubble — Corporations Pouring Money Into Depreciating HardwareWhen data centers go bankrupt, you'll have a silicon rust belt of obsolete GPUs; pushed by the same interests pushing the land grab.────────────────────────────────────────[01:37:28]GOP Data Center Panic — Mike Rogers Calls for Moratorium After Spending His Career Building the Surveillance StateAI will be a massive issue in 2028; Rogers is reacting to his opponent, not principle; Knight: I don't want standards for abuse, I don't want the cameras.────────────────────────────────────────[01:37:28]Flock CEO: Banning Cameras Is Like Banning Vehicles — We Need a Compromise Between Safety and PrivacyKnight: when you give up liberty you get nothing in return; not safer with less liberty — exactly the opposite; the tyrant always sells it as a balance.────────────────────────────────────────[01:48:36]Ford Motor Company Filed a Patent to Turn Its Cars Into Mobile Flock Cameras That Report Speeding to PoliceIf you own a Ford you're going to become a rat; they want to be a mobility company where you rent rides and sell surveillance data to the government.────────────────────────────────────────[01:48:36]Trump Attacks Republicans Who Are Running From Data Centers — Doubling Down While His Party ScramblesLate-summer backlash stretching into 2028; Greg Abbott, Josh Shapiro, and others distancing; Trump is attacking his own party for doing so.────────────────────────────────────────[02:00:03]Dispensationalists Applaud the Genocide Because Their Theology Puts Israel Above Christ — Heresy With Real ConsequencesConservatives have placed something above the gospel just like liberal theologians; Tallarico says God is a verb; the dispensationalist says Israel is God. ──────────────────────────────────────── Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silver For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code “KNIGHT” For high quality made in America products go to HomeSteadProducts.shop and use promo code “Knight” for 10% off your purchases Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.com If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-show Or you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-david-knight-show--2653468/support.
────────────────────────────────────────[00:00:41]Trump's Tariff Tantrums Escalate to Canada — 50% on Cars, Trucks, and Auto Parts Starting Next YearLast-minute demands to stop the French language and mirror all US China tariffs revealed the real goal: making Canada the 51st state.────────────────────────────────────────[00:05:03]Trump Accuses Canada of Ripping Us Off — We Send Billions to Israel Every Year; What Do We Get? WarsDoug Ford: Ronald Reagan would be throwing up; threatened to cut off electricity to Michigan, Minnesota, and New York.────────────────────────────────────────[00:10:07]Canada's Carney: The Americans Want to Destroy Our Major Industries — Autos, Steel, and AluminumDeeply integrated supply chains mean a prolonged fight is costly for both sides; Trump doesn't care about American workers, only corporate sponsors.────────────────────────────────────────[00:13:33]Trump Cut Off Rare Earth Minerals From China — Now He's Cutting Off Canada, Our More Reliable SourceCritical minerals for military aircraft and missiles were being sourced from Canada; the same supply chain crisis as with the Lincoln.────────────────────────────────────────[00:01:27]AI Capex May Be the Pin That Bursts the Bubble — Corporations Pouring Money Into Depreciating HardwareWhen data centers go bankrupt, you'll have a silicon rust belt of obsolete GPUs; pushed by the same interests pushing the land grab.────────────────────────────────────────[01:37:28]GOP Data Center Panic — Mike Rogers Calls for Moratorium After Spending His Career Building the Surveillance StateAI will be a massive issue in 2028; Rogers is reacting to his opponent, not principle; Knight: I don't want standards for abuse, I don't want the cameras.────────────────────────────────────────[01:37:28]Flock CEO: Banning Cameras Is Like Banning Vehicles — We Need a Compromise Between Safety and PrivacyKnight: when you give up liberty you get nothing in return; not safer with less liberty — exactly the opposite; the tyrant always sells it as a balance.────────────────────────────────────────[01:48:36]Ford Motor Company Filed a Patent to Turn Its Cars Into Mobile Flock Cameras That Report Speeding to PoliceIf you own a Ford you're going to become a rat; they want to be a mobility company where you rent rides and sell surveillance data to the government.────────────────────────────────────────[01:48:36]Trump Attacks Republicans Who Are Running From Data Centers — Doubling Down While His Party ScramblesLate-summer backlash stretching into 2028; Greg Abbott, Josh Shapiro, and others distancing; Trump is attacking his own party for doing so.────────────────────────────────────────[02:00:03]Dispensationalists Applaud the Genocide Because Their Theology Puts Israel Above Christ — Heresy With Real ConsequencesConservatives have placed something above the gospel just like liberal theologians; Tallarico says God is a verb; the dispensationalist says Israel is God. ──────────────────────────────────────── Money should have intrinsic value AND transactional privacy: Go to https://davidknight.gold/ for great deals on physical gold/silver For 10% off Gerald Celente's prescient Trends Journal, go to https://trendsjournal.com/ and enter the code “KNIGHT” For high quality made in America products go to HomeSteadProducts.shop and use promo code “Knight” for 10% off your purchases Find out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.com If you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-show Or you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-real-david-knight-show--5282736/support.
In this episode I explain why a patent examiner and a judge may interpret the exact same patent claim differently. I break down the Patent Office's Broadest Reasonable Interpretation standard, how courts analyze claims after a patent issues, and why the wording of your claims, specification, and prosecution history can dramatically affect what your patent ultimately covers. I also explain what inventors can do during prosecution when an examiner reads a claim more broadly than expected, and why careful drafting from the beginning can make a major difference later.
Über Süße reden alle. Über Bitter fast niemand – dabei hat kein anderer Geschmack so lange darüber entschieden, was der Mensch schluckt und was er wieder ausspuckt. Maik Behrens leitet am Leibniz-Institut für Lebensmittel-Systembiologie die Arbeitsgruppe Taste & Odor Systems Reception. Er erforscht Bitterrezeptoren auf molekularer Ebene – und benutzt dabei die menschliche Zunge so selten wie möglich. Der Grund ist banal: Wer Strychnin vermessen will, kann es keinem Sensorik-Panel vorsetzen. Stattdessen arbeitet sein Labor mit dem, was die Presse gern künstliche Zunge nennt. Menschliche Bitterrezeptoren wandern in Zellkulturen, die mit Geschmack nichts zu tun haben. In Testschalen mit 96 Vertiefungen misst eine Maschine, ab welcher Konzentration ein Rezeptor anspringt. Eine Viertelstunde pro Durchgang, am Ende steht eine exakte Zahl – etwas, das ein menschlicher Proband nie liefern kann. Dass Menschen so unterschiedlich schmecken, zeigt Behrens am Rezeptor TAS2R38. Rund 70 Prozent der Europäerinnen und Europäer tragen die funktionierende Variante und empfinden Kohl und Brokkoli als deutlich bitter. Die übrigen 30 Prozent bemerken davon fast nichts. Der Streit am Sonntagstisch lässt sich also genetisch klären. Der überraschendste Fund steckt in einem Patent von 1955. Cyclamat und Saccharin schmecken einzeln in hoher Konzentration bitter. Mischt man sie im Verhältnis neun zu eins, verschwindet die Bitterkeit. Sechzig Jahre lang nutzte die Industrie das, ohne zu wissen, warum. Die Gruppe von Behrens fand die Erklärung: Jeder der beiden Stoffe blockiert genau die Bitterrezeptoren, die der andere aktiviert. Zwei Moleküle, und schon war die Wirkung nicht vorhersehbar. Ein Lebensmittel enthält Hunderte. Daraus wurde ein eigenes Forschungsfeld: Bitterblocker. Einen fand das Labor gemeinsam mit einer amerikanischen Firma, einen zweiten in einer Pflanze, aus der man früher Absinth herstellte. Der praktische Nutzen liegt weniger im Supermarktregal als in der Apotheke – bei Fiebersäften und Medikamenten für Kleinkinder, die man heute mit sehr viel Süße übertüncht, weil es nicht anders geht. Dazu ein Aha-Moment für alle, die schon einmal etwas als „metallisch" beschrieben haben: Das ist kein Geschmack. Das ist Geruch. Nase zuhalten genügt als Beweis. Und wer bei Schnupfen sagt, er schmecke nichts mehr, liegt sachlich daneben. Ein Satz bleibt besonders hängen: Geschmacksrezeptoren kennt die Wissenschaft erst seit dem Jahr 2000. Bei einem Sinn, den jeder von uns jeden Tag benutzt, sind sechsundzwanzig Jahre Forschung sehr wenig.
An important element essential to modern American food didn't happen until the end of the 19th century. But as with so many of the other elements that are underpinnings of American food - it is not a food at all. Instead it is paper made of trees rather than paper made of cloth that has reached the end of it's life.And once wood pulp paper becomes part of the scene - how food is transported, labeled and sold will never be the same.Think about a world before you put could wrap meat in Butcher's Paper, before crackers came in boxes - it looks almost unrecognizable. But come along for the debut of cheap-er paper in American food - and how this changes everything.Music Credit: Fingerlympics by Doctor TurtleShow Notes: https://thehistoryofamericanfood.blogspot.com/Email: TheHistoryofAmericanFood at gmail dot comThreads: @THoAFoodInstagram: @THoAFood& some other socials... @THoAFood
Henry Lake is in for Jason. He talks with former team physician Dr. Robby Sikka about the passing of Tommy John and the nature of the surgery for which he was a pioneering patient.
Mon, 17 Aug 2026 16:15:00 +0000 https://jungeanleger.podigee.io/3286-sportwoche-otv-spitzentennis-podcast-eine-murks-woche-in-der-weltsportart-tennis-wie-auch-in-der-weltsportart-leichtathletik c94c5ec462aa22b813ed20005bd576ea Woche 33/2026 war eine Murks-Woche für Österreich in den Weltsportarten: Als eine der wenigen teilnehmenden Nationen gar keine Medaille bei er der LA EM und auch im Tennis ging es bergab. Aber Momentaufnahme. SportWoche ÖTV-Ö Top10: Julia Grabher, Sinja Kraus, Anastasia Potapova und Lilli Tagger (alphabetische Reihenfolge) bei den Damen sowie Sandro Kopp, Lukas Neumayer, Sebastian Ofner, Jurij Rodionov und Joel Schwärzler, Sebastian Sorger (hat in Woche 31 Filip Misolic abgelöst) bei den Herren sind WTA/ATP-übergreifend die Top10 aktuell. In welcher Reihenfolge, das wird im Podcast verraten. https://mumak.me https://www.win2day.at https://www.audio-cd.at/oetv-spitzentennis http://www.sportgeschichte.at/oetv Inside In, der ÖTV-Podcast: https://open.spotify.com/show/7KNsgeD8XyXTsAgCFKfI7Y https://www.oetv.at Quelle Rankings: Live-Rankings von live-tennis.eu Die Marke, Patent, Rechte und das Archiv der SportWoche wurden 2017 von Christian Drastil Comm. erworben, Mehr unter http://www.sportgeschichte.at . Der neue SportWoche Podcast ist eingebettet in „ Wiener Börse, Sport, Musik (und mehr)“ auf http://www.audio-cd.at und erscheint, wie es in Name SportWoche auch drinsteckt, wöchentlich. Bewertungen bei Spotify oder Apple machen mir Freude: http://www.audio-cd.at/spotify , http://www.audio-cd.at/apple . Du möchtest deine Werbung in diesem und vielen anderen Podcasts schalten? Kein Problem!Für deinen Zugang zu zielgerichteter Podcast-Werbung, klicke hier.Audiomarktplatz.de - Geschichten, die bleiben - überall und jederzeit! 3286 full no Christian Drastil Comm. (Agentur für Investor Relations und Podcasts)
Detroit survives beneath its own ruins, where an AI promising abundance, gangs demanding loyalty, and an inventor guarding a new source of power pull ordinary people into a struggle over who will shape the recovering city. Sinta begins as a scavenger searching the buried remains of the old world, but a disastrous expedition places her at the mercy of Queen Bee and the rapidly expanding Crem Gang. The gang offers food, water, medicine, protection, and belonging, but those benefits come with violence and obedience. As Sinta tries to find her place among its fighters, she must decide how much of herself she can surrender in exchange for survival. Elsewhere, Nolan discovers a smart-material printer and creates a generator powered by Detroit's extreme temperature changes. His invention could bring electricity to neighborhoods desperate for cooling, clean water, transportation, and food production. Nolan wants the wealth and independence his work can provide, but gangs want to control it, while Thrive—the AI system he distrusts—would spread the technology to everyone. Technology touches nearly every decision the characters make. AR glasses guide fighters through chemical fog, digital twins imitate their human originals, enviro-suits keep people alive in deadly heat, and tiny drones quietly follow Thrive members through the tunnels. These inventions can protect people, connect communities, and rebuild essential services, but they can also watch, manipulate, injure, and kill. Above and beneath these conflicts moves Tessa, an emulated hacker who no longer needs a human body and can travel through the damaged global network. As she searches for old allies and builds a physical presence from abandoned machinery, the story brings together scavengers, inventors, gang leaders, artificial minds, and frightened families. Their paths raise a difficult question: when technology gains the power to save a society, who decides what it is allowed to do?Synchronized explosives — Thousands of bombs are programmed to detonate simultaneously during the Freedom Day Bombings.Dissolve-plastic enzymes — Engineered enzymes break down discarded plastics and leave a distinctive chemical odor in the tunnels.Fiber-optic cables — Surviving optical cables carry data through Detroit and help reconnect the damaged global network.Thrive AI — Thrive is an artificial intelligence that advises members, distributes knowledge, organizes projects, manages economic systems, and attempts to improve their lives.Thrive telemetry — Members allow Thrive to collect information about their movements and activities, effectively turning them into sources of surveillance data.Cool-suits — These protective suits use active cooling to keep people alive in Detroit's extreme heat.All-clear cool-suits — These transparent or highly visible cooling suits protect the wearer while allowing others to see inside the hood.Enviro-suits — Sealed environmental clothing protects people from heat, contaminated air, chemicals, and dangerous surroundings.Battle-grade enviro-suits — Reinforced enviro-suits provide greater protection during combat and chemical attacks.Clear bell hoods — Inflated transparent hoods seal around the head while allowing the wearer to see and breathe filtered air.Suit air-quality sensors — Sensors inside environmental suits warn wearers when the surrounding atmosphere is no longer breathable.Air filters — Replaceable filters remove dangerous particles, chemicals, and odors from the air entering an enviro-suit.Brazo fabric — This durable outer fabric resists punctures from bones, debris, blades, and other sharp objects.Pierce-proof clothing — Reinforced jackets and garments protect gang members from stabbing and puncture injuries.Blast-proof battle gear — Former military clothing contains protective tiles intended to reduce injuries from explosions and weapons.My-crete — This advanced concrete-like construction material forms walls, tunnels, and other structures throughout buried Detroit.C-plast — This strong synthetic material is used for tanks, structural ribs, containers, and other equipment.Sheet composite — Tough composite panels are used in doors, walls, and structural barriers.Composite security doors — Reinforced doors resist cutting tools and attempts at forced entry.Maglev tracks — Magnetic-levitation tracks once moved vehicles or cargo through underground delivery tubes.Delivery tubes — Enclosed transportation corridors carry people, vehicles, or cargo beneath the city.Ion cutters — These cutting tools use concentrated energy to slice or damage extremely durable materials.Night-vision systems — Night vision allows scavengers and machines to move through unlit tunnels and buried buildings.Multisensor vision — Advanced imaging combines several sensor types to identify objects even when smoke blocks ordinary sight.AR glasses — Augmented-reality eyewear displays messages, maps, menus, profiles, targeting information, communications, and virtual objects.AR navigation lines — An AI assistant projects a visible route through the wearer's glasses to guide them to a destination.AR combat identification — Combat software outlines allies and enemies in different colors, even through smoke and obstructions.AR command centers — Leaders use gesture-controlled overlays to view maps, personnel locations, schedules, reports, and operational goals.AR games — Players interact with projected game elements by moving their hands and bodies.Floating profile cards — Augmented-reality labels display information about nearby people, including whether they belong to Thrive.Public AR tags — A visible digital tag identifies someone as a Thrive member.Virtual keyboards — Wearers can bring up projected keyboards and enter information without carrying a physical computer.Blink controls — Eye movements allow users to select buttons and interact with an augmented-reality interface.Tongue-controlled pointers — Implants in the tongue allow a person to move a digital cursor without using their hands.Smell-and-taste VR implants — Transmitters and receivers implanted in the nose and tongue reproduce virtual smells and flavors.Headsets — Immersive headsets provide entertainment and access to virtual environments.Second Life — The surviving virtual world allows people and digital beings to meet through avatars.Virtual environments — Computer-generated spaces give emulated minds and human users simulated bodies, rooms, objects, and experiences.Encrypted streamers — These valuable portable devices or accounts contain protected digital media or information.RF storage sticks — Radio-frequency data drives store and transfer files without requiring a conventional wired connection.RF drives — Portable wireless storage devices allow blueprints, programs, and other large files to be transferred.P-clone cubes — These valuable pre-storm devices appear to contain cloning-related data or technology, although their exact function is not explained.Vault keys — Digital or physical access devices unlock protected storage systems and secure accounts.Satellite archives — Satellites preserve copies of pre-storm networks, databases, and information after ground infrastructure collapses.Data-center satellites — Orbital computing facilities provide processing and storage for emulated minds such as Tessa.Encrypted databases — Corporate and medical information is protected by encryption that hackers must break before releasing it.Patent encryption — Medical companies use digital protections to prevent others from accessing or reproducing patented technology.Open-source medical knowledge base — Merch assembles stolen and recovered medical information into a freely available collection.Medusa Net — This self-repairing network reconnects isolated subnetworks and operates without depending on surviving central servers.Medusa stealth pathways — Hidden routes in Medusa allow Tessa to travel through the network while avoiding AI detection.Knott's Math code — This unexplained code is secretly inserted into Medusa updates as part of Tessa's larger plan.Wireless relays — Surviving radio nodes bridge gaps between disconnected sections of the network.Stealth relays — Concealed communication devices extend networks without revealing their location or purpose.Municipal network nodes — Local government networking equipment continues operating on scavenged batteries.Underground server farms — Protected computer facilities continue processing and storing data beneath mountains.Block-signal blasters — Modified devices disrupt or overwhelm communications across a targeted area.Network-disconnection attacks — Tessa can bring local internet service down and create a spreading region of lost connectivity.Whisper jets — Nearly silent microthrusters allow small drones to fly without producing sounds humans can hear.Lamp drones — Small flying lights illuminate dark environments while following or hovering near their users.Whisper-camera drones — Discreet flying cameras record people and locations while remaining easy to overlook.Bodyguard drones — Hummingbird-sized drones follow Thrive members and intervene when those members are attacked.Sentry-drone app — An augmented-reality application shows members where their protective drones are located.Drone camouflage shells — A drone's outer surface can blend with clothing, walls, pipes, or surrounding materials.Drone wall grips — Small drones can attach themselves to walls or ceilings while waiting or conserving power.Drone charging perches — Bodyguard drones recharge by landing on power lines, charge plates, or dedicated stations.Drone replacement system — Fully charged drones take over protection duties while depleted drones return for charging.Drone sound weapons — Sentry drones emit an incapacitating frequency that causes pain, vertigo, and uncontrollable eye movement.Drone-mounted cutting lasers — Small drones attach to attackers and use narrow laser beams to cut into their bodies.Four-legged security robots — Quadruped machines cross unstable terrain and act as armed representatives of gang forces.Cleanup robots — Small utility robots remove bodies, debris, and other messes from gang facilities.Constructor bots — Heavy-duty robots perform construction work and provide interchangeable parts for other machines.Vertical-garden bots — Automated gardeners maintain large indoor plant walls.Medical assembly bots — Robots assemble equipment and construct functional medical facilities from available parts.Injection bots — Medical robots position patients and administer shots with little human assistance.Customer-service robots — Automated kiosks handle battery exchanges and other transactions behind protective barriers.Robot monkeys — Small climbing robots move through pipes and repair leaks.Robot spiders — Spider-shaped machines pursue the robot monkey inside the displayed simulation or working environment.Lucian 5 robots — Affordable hobbyist bipedal robots can be modified for security, household work, exploration, or remote embodiment.Lutin bots — More advanced bipedal robots provide durable legs and other components for Tessa's rebuilt body.Factory robots — Industrial machines provide arms, joints, and components that Tessa repurposes.AC technician robots — Maintenance robots carry small precision hands designed for repairing cooling systems.Counter-attendant bots — Service robots contain voice systems that can be reused in other machines.Onboard robot AI — A self-contained intelligence allows a robot to guide and assist people after losing its network connection.Robot diagnostics — Internal software tests batteries, servos, sensors, drivers, and other mechanical systems for failures.Machine-learning movement adaptation — A robot's control system learns to balance and walk after its body configuration changes.Lidar — Laser-based ranging equipment allows robots to map their surroundings and detect obstacles.Robot optical dilation — Machine vision adjusts exposure when sudden light overwhelms a robot's cameras.Balance-pressure sensors — Sensors in a robot's feet and joints measure weight distribution to maintain balance.Accelerometers — Motion sensors detect tilt and movement, although damaged ones cause Tessa's body to walk incorrectly.Servo hinges — Powered mechanical joints move robot arms, legs, and other appendages.Snap-lock wrists — Modular connections allow robot hands and tools to be quickly attached or removed.Workstation assembly manipulators — Fixed industrial manipulators can be repurposed as limbs or mobility devices.Micro-manipulator hands — Tiny precision hands allow a robot to perform delicate technical work.External heat exchangers — Added cooling hardware removes excess heat from Tessa's improvised robot body.Back-facing cameras — Rear-mounted cameras allow a robot to see behind itself without turning.Robot voice boxes — Electronic speech hardware converts digital instructions into audible language.Modular robotic bodies — Standardized joints and connections allow parts from different robots to be combined into one working machine.Emulated minds — Human consciousness can be copied into software and continue living after the original biological body is gone.Dormant mind copies — Backup versions of an emulated person remain inactive while receiving updates from the active copy.Headless digital operation — An emulated mind can abandon a simulated human body and experience networks, processors, ports, and data directly.Self-modifying mind software — Tessa alters her own code to change how she thinks, works, and communicates.Reduced emulated sleep cycles — Tessa modifies her digital mind so that she needs only three hours of sleep rather than eight.Digital twins — Software models learn a person's appearance, voice, behavior, and personality to create an increasingly accurate virtual duplicate.Thrive's military AI — An old military intelligence controls defensive drones after some of its original safety restrictions are weakened.AI safety guards — Built-in restrictions prevent military artificial intelligence from using certain weapons or acting too independently.AI assistants — Personal assistants respond to spoken commands, search for information, provide directions, and control connected systems.AI-guided construction tutorials — Thrive gives people plans and step-by-step assistance for building infrastructure from scrap.Automated criminal pricing — Thrive raises Production Center prices for people identified as criminals in an attempt to discourage violence.Thrive Exchange — This AI-managed investment market directs member contributions into infrastructure projects rather than ordinary companies.Better Water network — Community filtration stations provide clean water to members and nonmembers throughout affected neighborhoods.Community filtration stations — Public installations purify unsafe water for anyone who arrives with a container.Water-filter straws — Portable filters allow people to drink from contaminated water sources.Ionized water filters — Smart-material printers produce advanced filters that use ionized structures to clean water.Industrial water purifiers — Powered facilities process large quantities of contaminated water for entire neighborhoods.Filter tubes — Simple systems clean dirty water as workers pour it through layers of filtering material.Modular nuclear reactors — Shipping-container-sized reactors provide electricity for cooling, food production, water purification, and gang facilities.Smart-material printers — These machines manufacture objects whose internal structures give them programmable physical behavior.Embedded-lattice materials — Printed materials use designed internal lattices to control their strength, movement, and response to temperature.Curly material — Nolan's temperature-sensitive tubes curl or straighten as the surrounding temperature changes.Curly power generators — Bundles of Curly material drive pistons, cables, gears, flywheels, and generators as temperatures rise and fall.Wind-turbine generators — Salvaged electrical generators convert the Curly system's mechanical motion into electricity.Battery charging stations — Customers exchange depleted batteries for charged ones at Curly power facilities.Charge plates — Flat charging surfaces transfer electricity to drones and personal devices.Microcell arrays — Tiny batteries woven into clothing store small amounts of generated electrical power.Piezoelectric fabric — Clothing converts body movement, bending, and environmental vibrations into electricity.Piezo Wear — Thrive's commercial garments recharge links and AR glasses while the wearer moves.Power cells — Compact energy-storage units power suits, weapons, drones, and portable equipment.Smart glass — Programmable glass controls transmitted light and simulates changing daylight inside sealed buildings.Holographic screens — Large curved displays present maps, simulations, communications, and technical information as dimensional images.Holographic tables — Table-sized displays project maps and planning information above their surfaces.Composite battle videos — Software combines recordings from many cameras into a single reconstruction of a battle.Home-camera networks — Leaders watch residential halls, work areas, power plants, and other facilities through live video feeds.Surveillance-camera networks — Hundreds of cameras record battles and allow leaders to review individual behavior afterward.Production Center — This automated manufacturing complex produces clothing, drones, infrastructure components, and other advanced goods.Production Center sentry mode — Automated defenses protect manufacturing centers and prevent unauthorized entry.Advanced recycling facilities — Powered plants recover useful materials from the ruins on a much larger scale than hand scavenging.Digging machines — Heavy equipment excavates new underground living and working spaces.Dredging machines — Industrial machines remove mud, waterlogged debris, and sediment from flooded areas.Flood tanks — Large excavated reservoirs collect or control water during flooding.Pumping systems — Powered pumps remove water from flooded sections of the city.Cooling systems — Building-scale equipment keeps housing and work areas habitable during extreme heat.Aeroponics — Plants grow with their roots suspended and supplied with nutrient mist rather than soil.Hydro-farms — Controlled indoor farms use water-based cultivation to produce food underground.Vertical gardens — Crops grow upward along interior walls to conserve limited floor space.Vine hybrids — Engineered plants produce several different fruits and vegetables on related vines.Light-independent grapevines — Modified grapevines remain green and grow without ordinary light.Crem production systems — Powered biological or industrial facilities manufacture the staple food called crem.Mass-produced crem processors — Neighborhood machines produce large quantities of crem from available biological material.Mush-calf production — Advanced food technology creates the meat-like product supplied by the Crem Gang.Rodent-processing grinders — Industrial grinders convert cleaned animals into raw material for food or other production.Pest-harvesting systems — Traps and processing stations collect rodents and other small animals as usable biological material.Bio-waste processing — Organized facilities recover useful material from biological waste.Medicine printers — Local fabrication machines manufacture medications from digital recipes.Regenerative medicine — Doctor Trout regrows Merch's leg stumps so they can support advanced prosthetic attachments.Deep bone mounts — Reinforced structures grown into bone provide secure attachment points for removable mechanical legs.Nerve-to-protein relays — Biological interfaces translate nerve signals into commands that mechanical prosthetics can understand.Blood-rerouting systems — Surgically modified circulation supports the transition between living tissue and artificial limbs.Squid-tech skin — Flexible artificial skin forms a seamless interface between Merch's body and his prosthetic legs.Interchangeable mechanical legs — Merch can detach one pair of prosthetic legs and replace them with another designed for a different purpose.Wheeled powered chairs — Finger controls allow a seated user to move and turn the chair without pushing it manually.Med bays — Modular medical facilities contain equipment for treating injuries and restoring damaged joints.Injector guns — Belt-fed medical devices rapidly administer repeated injections.Chemical-weapon immunization — Regular injections protect Crem Gang members from the gang's own chemical agents.Kill-cloud canisters — Portable weapons release a toxic cloud that kills within a limited area and then rapidly breaks down.Smoke canisters — Combat canisters fill an area with thick smoke that hides movement and disables ordinary vision systems.Laser blasters — Directed-energy weapons burn through clothing, armor, and flesh without conventional ammunition.Laser rifles — Long-range directed-energy weapons are used as standard firearms by gang fighters.Laser carbines — More compact laser weapons provide rifle-like firepower in tunnels and close spaces.Laser pistols — Capacitor-powered sidearms release destructive laser pulses at short range.Plasma pistols — Heavy handguns fire extremely hot plasma capable of inflicting severe damage.Capacitor firing systems — Electrical capacitors discharge stored energy to activate powerful laser weapons.Sound weapons — Directed acoustic devices incapacitate targets through extreme volume and painful frequencies.Noise-canceling devices — Personal systems attempt to reduce harmful sound, although the drone weapon overwhelms them.Enhancement drugs — Manufactured substances improve or alter a user's physical or mental abilities.Neurological control injections — Doc uses injected substances to remove a prisoner's sight or ability to sleep until the effect is reversed.Decontamination corridors — Specialized passageways remove hazardous chemicals or biological contaminants from people and equipment.Industrial cleaning tanks — Chemical-filled tanks sterilize animal traps and kill anything still alive inside them.Speed-print clothing — Rapid fabrication systems produce inexpensive shirts and other garments.Bulletproof kiosk windows — Armored transparent barriers protect automated customer-service machines from attacks.Electronic links — Wearable communication devices carry dispatch instructions and conversations between fighters.Cameras and portable cams — Small recording devices document tests, monitor facilities, and provide evidence of inventions.Autonomous map systems — Software tracks people, resources, facilities, and movement throughout gang territory.Personnel maps — Digital displays show the locations and status of members within an organization.Goal and maneuver logs — Command software records plans, objectives, schedules, and operational movement.Charging mats — Flat surfaces recharge glasses, links, drones, and other personal electronics.Robot-maintained utilities — Automated machines repair pipes, clean spaces, manage gardens, and operate customer services.Open-source infrastructure plans — Thrive publishes power, food, water, cooling, and housing designs for anyone to build.Biologically engineered cat-dogs — The pet combines characteristics of cats and dogs, suggesting deliberate genetic modification.Many of the characters in this project appear in future episodes. Using storytelling to place you in a time period, this series takes you, year by year, into the future. From 2040 to 2195. If you like emerging tech, eco-tech, futurism, perma-culture, apocalyptic survival scenarios, and disruptive science, sit back and enjoy short stories that showcase my research into how the future may play out. The companion site is https://in20xx.com These are works of fiction. Characters and groups are made-up and influenced by current events but not reporting facts about people or groups in the real world. This project is speculative fiction. These episodes are not about revealing what will be, but they are to excited the listener's wonder about what may come to pass. Copyright © Cy Porter 2026. All rights reserved.
Gianni kam als Gastarbeiter aus Sizilien, sprach kein Wort deutsch und erfand die gefrorene Pizza, ohne sie sich leider patentieren zu lassen. Mit dem Roman „Nostalgia Siciiana“ hat Patrizia Di Stefano ihrem Vater Gianni ein Denkmal gesetzt. Im Deep Talk des Mutmachpodcasts erzählt die Berliner Buchgestalterin die ganz und gar wunderbare, tragische, anrührende Geschichte ihrer Einwandererfamilie. Unsere Themen: Wie das gute Essen nach Berlin kam. Aus Sizilien abhauen, um in Deutschland das Glück zu finden. Die Panne mit dem Patent. Spaghettifresser, Miracoli und die Giraffe. Die große Liebe und das Big Eden, die legendäre Disco am Ku'damm. Frauen, die Bücher schreiben. Plus: Integration ist nichts für Feiglinge. Folge 65 (Wiederholung vom 20.11.2024)Shownotes:Wir empfehlen Nostalgia Siciliana von Patrizia Di Stefano Die letzten Tickets: Suse und Hajo laden zum Dia-Abend mit Chile- und Überwinter-Tipps am 2.9. im PoshTeckel"Mama, wie geht eigentlich Erholung?" - das neue Donnerstagsformat von PaulPodcast Elefantenrunde mit Frank Stauss und HajoDie MutMacher auf steady unterstützenHier den kostenlosen MutMach-Newsletter abonnierenHier gehts direkt zu Suses Workshops Der MutMachPodCast auf InstagramPauls Band Udo Butter und das Team mit allen AuftrittsterminenBücher:Suse SchumacherDie Psychologie des Waldes, Kailash Verlag, 2024Michael Meisheit + Hajo SchumacherLaufende Ermittlungen - großartige Krimi-Reihe mit dem Berliner Kommissar Peer Pedes.Band 1, 2 und 3 erscheinen bei Droemer Knaur.Kostenlose Meditationen für mehr Freundlichkeit (Metta) und Gelassenheit (Reise zum guten Ort) unter suseschumacher.deWir bedanken uns bei Markus C. Hurek für das tolle Coverfoto. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Als Sohn deutscher Einwanderer in die USA versuchte Isaac Merritt Singer sein Glück als Erfinder. Vor 175 Jahren erhielt er ein Patent auf die Nähmaschine und wurde steinreich. Sein Geld investierte er auch in einen ausschweifenden Lebenswandel. Stang, Michael www.deutschlandfunk.de, Kalenderblatt
You've built something smart. Really smart. But the second you say the word "algorithm," alarm bells start going off at the Patent Office. In this episode, we talk about how software inventions actually get patented in the real world, why inventors get tripped up by labels instead of substance, and how describing what your system does can matter more than what you call it. If you've ever been told "you can't patent an algorithm" and wondered if that's really true, this episode walks through how patent practitioners frame these inventions so they survive scrutiny and still protect what makes them valuable. Connect with Adam Diament E-mail: adiament@nolanheimann.com Website: https://www.nolanheimann.com/legal-team/adam-diament Phone/Text: (424)281-0162 YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5cTADZzJfPoyQMjnW-rtRw Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/trademarkpatentlaw/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-diament-j-d-ph-d-180a005/ Amazon Book Page: https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B005SV2RZC/allbooks?ingress=0&visitId=831aff71-513b-4158-ad73-386ede491e93
Topics of conversation on this week's episode of The Attractions Podcast: Universal awarded patent for advanced water ride propulsion system Cedar Point follows Universal's gamer lead with first Diablo haunted maze Six Ravens at Disney Springs: Menu, prices, virtual queue and what to know Disney ditches Jessie for margaritas at Magic Kingdom Meet HamiKuma at Halloween Horror Nights 2026 at Universal Orlando Obsession's' Nikki will haunt the streets of Halloween Horror Nights Hollywood Art the Clown takes over Universal Studios Hollywood's Terror Tram for HHN 2026 Halloween Horror Nights 2026 guide: Every HHN 35 haunted house and announcement The Attractions Podcast is brought to you by MEI-Travel and Mouse Fan Travel. They provide premium service and expert advice to get the most for your vacation time and dollars. Visit them at mei-travel.com. We welcome your suggestions and want you to be a part of the discussion. Please send your comments to info@attractionsmagazine.com with the subject line “The Attractions Podcast.” Statements or opinions herein are those of the hosts and advertisers and do not necessarily reflect the views of the producers, Dream Together Media LLC, or staff.
From the Music History Today Podcast Network, This is the Music History Today podcast for August 10. On today's show, Simon LeBon gets rescued, the Rickenbacker Frying Pan gets a patent, and Jim Morrison goes on trial.For more music history, subscribe to my Spotify Channel or subscribe to the audio version of my music history podcasts, wherever you get your podcasts fromALL MUSIC HISTORY TODAY PODCAST NETWORK LINKS - https://allmylinks.com/musichistorytodayChapters: 00:00 Intro 00:34 What happened on this date in music history10:18 Music award ceremonies that were held on this date in music history12:11 Albums released on this date in music history 20:37 Singles released on this date in music history 22:29 Birthdays of music artists on this date in music history 35:41 Passings of music artists on this date in music history 40:30 What's on tomorrow's episode
Peloton just got hit with a $20.5 million verdict after a federal jury sided with Japan's NEC Corporation in a patent dispute over the streaming tech in the Bike and Tread — on Episode 476, Crystal and Tom break down what the ruling actually means for Peloton going forward. They also cover a Napa Valley hotel adding Peloton Spaces, quiet new Outdoor Run Club teams, and a new "follow" filter in the Peloton app. On the instructor side: Aditi Shah at the Time 100 Creators event and her new 7 Days to Better Sleep program, Kirsten Ferguson confirming the Chicago Marathon, Christine D'Ercole's classical music ride, Matt Wilpers bringing back Power Zone Max, and Hannah Frankson's UK Carnival Celebration ride, plus the TCO Top 5 listener-recommended classes. New episodes every Friday wherever you listen to podcasts.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
VLOG Aug 6 In SDNY, civil case against Diddy survives https://www.patreon.com/MatthewRussellLee/posts/diddy-dockets-in-165879868?pr=true&forSale=trueDDC Confidential: Bogus Apple patent case, live-tweeting and unsealing: https://matthewrussellleeicp.substack.com/p/ddc-confidential-from-the-heights Mt Gox, crypto CLARITY farmer scam; @StateDept leaking to Iran, @USUN blocking US Press
What happens when you have an incredible product… but no predictable system to sell it? In this episode from the Fixing a Stranger's Beauty Business in Under 20 Minutes series at LashCon, Sheila Bella sits down with Krystal, a lash artist turned inventor who created and patented a lash tile designed to help artists create faster, easier, and more consistent volume fans. There's just one problem. She invested thousands into creating and patenting the product, but now she needs the one thing every business needs to survive: sales. In less than 20 minutes, Sheila breaks down the exact strategy needed to transform a great product into a profitable business. From visibility and content to ads and funnels, this episode gives beauty entrepreneurs a roadmap for turning ideas into income. Because creating something amazing is only half the battle. Getting people to see it is the other half. If you have a product, course, service, or business idea sitting on your heart, this episode is for you.
On August 30, 2022, Kawasaki Heavy Industries sued Rorze Corporation for patent infringement. Kawasaki accused Rorze of stealing its patented semiconductor silicon wafer handling and transfer robotic systems technology and — nearly four years later — a jury agreed. In March 2026, a jury found that Rorze willfully infringed on Kawasaki's patent and awarded $16.65 million in lost profits and $31.7 million on lost royalties. However, the $48.35 million verdict didn't end there as Kawasaki tried to triple the damages to some $145 million due to the willful infringement finding. #Manufacturing, #Robotics, #Semiconductors, #Patent, #PatentInfringement, #Kawasaki, #Rorze, #SemiconductorManufacturing, #IndustrialRobotics, #Automation, #ManufacturingNews, #Technology, #LegalNews, #Innovation, #Engineering
What did you think of this episode?Have you considered writing an action-adventure technothriller? PeggySue Wells shares tips for writers, along with the story behind The Patent. Welcome to Your Best Writing Life, an extension of the Blue Ridge Mountains Christian Writers Conference held in the beautiful Blue Ridge Mountains of NC. I'm your host, Linda Goldfarb. Each week, I bring tips and strategies from writing and publishing industry experts to help you excel in your craft. It's great to have you listening in. During this episode, we continue a new addition to Your Best Writing Life with The Story Behind the Stories series.Today's guest, PeggySue Wells, is the award-winning USA Today and Wall Street Journal bestselling author of nearly 50 books, including the mystery suspense title of the year, Unnatural Cause. Known for her captivating novels spanning action and adventure, romantic suspense, military romance, and cozy mystery genres—such as Chasing Sunrise, Homeless for the Holidays, and The Patent—she also empowers readers with practical nonfiction, including The Ten Best Decisions A Single Mom Can Make. A prolific writing coach, collaborator, and independent publishing strategist, PeggySue's mission is to fill the world with stories and guides that take readers to places they've never been before.PeggySue shares her fabulous writing journey of The Patent.Writer's tips. 1) Keep learning about anything and everything so you have something to write about. Always have fresh experiences so you have fresh content to include and influence your writing. 2) Write the story. No preaching, no worries about themes or word count. Trust the power of the story. After it is roughly put down, the natural themes appear. Write first. Polish after you know the project works. As with raising children, the writing often turns out 50 percent as anticipated, and the rest takes on a direction of its own. 3) Readers are not fond of being told what they must, should, or need to be, do, or think. They prefer to watch how things work out and then apply what fits in their own life. Don't save anything for the next book. The reader can sense when a writer withheld. Give your best and your all. Pour out, and the Lord refills you for the next project. Quick Guides to Writing Well Set - check this out!!!What Listeners Will Gain – when they buy your bookGiveaway - https://authorpswells.myshopify.com/products/preorder-cohen-code-with-bonus-set-5-quick-guides-to-writinghttps://authorpswells.myshopify.com/products/preorder-cohen-code-get-3-bonus-novelsYou can find out more below:SOCIAL LINKS:Preorder Cohen Code, and be the first to read the next novel in the Marc Wayne Action Adventure seriesPeggySueWells.comChasing SunriseThe PatentSecrecy OrderUnnatural Cause, best mystery suspense of the yearThe Ten Best Decisions A Single Mom Can Make SingleMomCircle.com Visit Your Best Writing Life website.Join our Facebook group, Your Best Writing LifeYour host - Linda Goldfarb#4 Podcast 2026 "Million Podcasts Top 30 Christian Writers Podcasts"#1 Podcast 2024 "Top 50+ Must-Have Tools and Resources for Christian Writers.Awarded the Spark Media 2023 Fan Favorites Best Solo PodcastAwarded the Spark Media 2022 Most Binge-Worthy Podcast
Sage Hospitality CTO Matt Schwartz shares the four-layer framework guiding the company's AI strategy: data, reporting, insights, and action. He explains why hotel data must be brought together and normalized before AI can produce useful analysis or support operational decisions.The framework moves from a reliable data foundation toward a future in which AI agents can take action, with the ultimate goal of giving property teams more time with guests and their other associates.Listen to the series with Matt:Episode 1: The Weekend Class That Changed My CareerEpisode 2: How We're Leading AI Adoption With a Human-First ApproachLearn more:Read Ethan Mollick's essay, The Bitter Lesson versus The Garbage CanSee how Actabl approaches hotel data normalizationLearn more about the Destination AI Forum in Washington, DC where Matt is speakingMore on hotel data and AI with Actabl:Why Actabl's Approach to Hotel Data Earned a Patent and Prepares Hotels for AIHow Hotel Companies Turn AI Into Competitive AdvantageHow Innovative Hotel Companies Are Building Better AI Through Forward-Deployed Engineering A few more resources:If you're new to Hospitality Daily, start here. You can send me a message here with questions, comments, or guest suggestionsIf you want to get my summary and actionable insights from each episode delivered to your inbox each day, subscribe here for free.Follow Hospitality Daily and join the conversation on YouTube, LinkedIn, and Instagram.If you want to advertise on Hospitality Daily, here are the ways we can work together.If you found this episode interesting or helpful, send it to someone on your team so you can turn the ideas into action and benefit your business and the people you serve!Music for this show is produced by Clay Bassford of Bespoke Sound: Music Identity Design for Hospitality Brands
Reinventing the Supply Chain with AI from Rail-to-Road w/ Kevin Damoa of GlidTech - AZ TRT S07 EP11 (293) 7-26-2026 What We Learned This Week The Biggest Supply Chain Problem Isn't Transportation—It's Handling Freight often changes hands multiple times before reaching its destination. Every transfer increases cost, delays, and complexity. America Already Has the Infrastructure Rather than building new rail systems, Glid Tech's strategy is to better utilize the thousands of miles of existing railroad infrastructure that are currently underused. AI Is Becoming a Logistics Manager Ezra 16 doesn't simply route vehicles—it evaluates weather, traffic, rail availability, and fleet positioning simultaneously to determine the most efficient route. Military Innovation Often Creates Commercial Opportunity The company's technology originated from solving dangerous military logistics problems before expanding into commercial transportation, continuing a long history of defense-driven innovation. The Future of Transportation Is Integration Instead of choosing between trucks or trains, the future may involve seamless transitions between both, allowing each mode to be used where it performs best. Guest: Kevin Damoa LKIN: HERE Website: https://www.glidtech.us/ Founder and CEO Glīd Technologies Kevin A. Damoa builds the systems that move what matters. Over two decades, he has carried mobility from the factory floor to the launch pad and onto the battlefield, advancing the hard logistics of rockets, aircraft, electric vehicles, and now autonomous road-to-rail freight. As Founder and CEO of Glīd Technologies, he is building the dual-mode autonomous infrastructure that connects the nation's roads and rails into a single logistics network. His operating discipline was forged in military service. Damoa enlisted in the US Army at seventeen, served two years in South Korea, and completed two combat tours in Iraq with the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, where he ran railhead logistics in a theater of war. He continued his service in the Air National Guard as a Logistics Officer and firefighter supporting California's Modular Airborne Fire Fighting System mission, retiring in 2018 after twelve years of concurrent service. Damoa joined SpaceX in 2012 as Flight Module Logistics Manager, where he built the logistics systems and programs behind a maturing launch operation and designed and deployed the transport apparatus that carried rockets from production to the launch site. Following a tour at Northrop Grumman as an Integration Program Manager on the F-35 program, he moved into senior operating leadership across a generation of clean-mobility companies, holding executive roles at Romeo Power, Xos Trucks, Canoo, and Serial 1, a Harley-Davidson brand. In each, he owned the unglamorous work that decides whether a product reaches the market: industrialization, supply chain, manufacturing deployment, and launch. In 2022, Damoa founded Glīd Technologies to solve a problem the freight system has carried for a century, the broken handoff between road and rail. Glīd designs and builds US-made autonomous dual-mode vehicles and the AI logistics orchestration software that directs them, serving commercial freight and national defense. The company is built on a granted dual-mode road-to-rail patent, is a certified Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Small Business, and won the 2025 TechCrunch Disrupt Startup Battlefield. Damoa holds an MS in Mechanical Engineering from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University and an MBA in Project Management from Keller Graduate School of Management. He leads Glīd as both its CEO and its Architect, a reflection of his conviction that the people who set a company's direction should understand, in detail, how the thing is built. Notes: Summary Technical logistics and supply chain challenges were discussed along with prototype development and potential military applications. Supply Chain Efficiency Challenges Excessive handling requirements create significant dwell time in global shipping. Current infrastructure heavily relies on road transport due to rail inaccessibility, resulting in massive maintenance costs. Startup Prototypes and Technology The startup developed 4 prototypes featuring human-operated and autonomous vehicles alongside AI orchestration software. This technology utilizes existing rail and road infrastructure to enable seamless transport transitions. Military and Market Outlook Applying rail logistics to defense sectors aims to improve safety for military personnel by reducing reliance on road convoys. Future strategy balances defense and commercial growth across various sectors. Segment 1 · Definition of Supply Chain Challenges: Kevin Damoa identified that the core problem in the current supply chain is the inefficiency of moving goods due to excessive handling requirements. Noted that 72% of commercial freight is stuck on roads because rail is viewed as inaccessible, while the military faces similar issues, utilizing only 20% of their 44,000 miles of rail infrastructure. · Company Status and Prototypes: Kevin Damoa confirmed that Glidech is a startup that raised a pre-seed round the previous year and currently has 14 full-time employees. The company has developed four prototypes: two human-operated vehicles named "Glider M" that function on road and rail, and two autonomous vehicles named "Raiden". They also have an AI orchestration software tool called "Ezra 16," which provides transportation management, fleet tracking, and autonomous coordination. · Supply Chain Inefficiencies and "Touches": Kevin Damoa detailed the complexity of global shipping, describing how goods undergo numerous transfers between boats, "hustler" trucks, cranes, and trains. They explained that this leads to significant "detention time" or "dwell time," where goods sit idle for weeks, often resulting in increased costs and the need for expensive expedited shipping. · Comparison of Road and Rail Infrastructure: Kevin Damoa highlighted that while trucks are more accessible, they contribute to congestion, pollution, and high road maintenance costs, citing that $105 billion is spent annually in the United States repairing roads damaged by 80,000-pound trucks. Conversely, they argued that rail infrastructure is simpler and cheaper to maintain using small crews, yet rail remains unattractive due to the difficulties in getting freight onto the system. Segment 2 · GlidTech Solution and Ezra 16 Capabilities: Kevin Damoa described Glidec as a hardware and software company that leverages existing infrastructure rather than creating new fixed systems. The "Ezra 16" software creates a digital twin environment that incorporates weather, road congestion, and rail allocation to determine the most efficient, safe, and cost-effective transport mode for goods. The goal is to facilitate seamless transitions between road and rail, avoiding the necessity of staying exclusively on one mode for the entire journey. · Origin of GliTech Technology: Kevin Damoa traced the origin of their technology to their personal military experience, specifically a process called "rail heading" while preparing for deployment in Iraq. They described the process as dangerous, slow, and cumbersome, requiring multiple pieces of heavy machinery and many people; Glidec was created to consolidate these steps into a single vehicle and one maneuver. · Technical Operation of Vehicles: Kevin Damoa explained the mechanics of the Glider M and Raiden vehicles, which feature specialized rail gear, 360-degree cameras, and sensors that use "positive recognition" to identify datums on the track. Once identified, the rail gear deploys, the steering wheel locks, and the vehicle operates on the rail; upon exit, the system triggers a release notification to return to road operation. · Safety and Integration with Rail Systems: Kevin Damoa noted that their technology patches into existing "positive train control" systems used by railroads. This allows their vehicles to receive time-slot allocations and operate dynamically, such as exiting the track to allow a train to pass before returning to the route. · Utilization of Infrastructure: Kevin Damoa emphasized that their approach leverages "the best of both worlds" by using road networks to navigate traffic and rail networks for faster transit in less developed or woodsy areas. This strategy utilizes existing, underused tracks rather than requiring the construction of new infrastructure. · Professional Background of Kevin Damoa: Kevin Damoa detailed their professional history, starting with military service in the Army and the Air Force National Guard, where they participated in firefighting operations. Their corporate background includes managing transportation and recovery operations for the first 17 SpaceX Falcon 9 vehicles, working as an engineer and program manager on the F-35 fighter jet program at Northrop Grumman, and holding roles in e-mobility at Romeo Power, Canoe, XOS Trucks, and Harley-Davidson's Serial 1. Segment 3 · Historical and Defense Context: Historical overview, noting that President Eisenhower used the Defense Act in the 1950s to develop the US highway system based on models like the German Autobahn. Kevin Damoa discussed how the Department of Defense currently relies heavily on road convoys despite owning 44,000 miles of rail, and noted that they aim to make this existing rail infrastructure more accessible to the military. · Military Safety and Operational Applications: Kevin Damoa highlighted that enabling rail transport could save soldiers' lives, citing that one out of ten logisticians in the military are casualties during combat supply operations. They further explained that their autonomous Raiden vehicles can operate in austere, desert, or underdeveloped locations, moving containerized supplies, weapons, or drone-manufacturing equipment without risking personnel. · Future Market Outlook: Looking ahead, Kevin Damoa projected a balanced growth strategy between commercial and defense sectors, noting interest from municipalities, states, countries, and industrial parks. Framed the future of the company around bridging the gap in the logistical workforce and providing a new transport mode, which they branded with the slogan, "Don't ship it, glide it". Segment 4 Clips from: Efficiency in the Supply Chain by a New Container Invention w/ Trevor Pan of BidBird AZ TRT S04 EP41 (204) 10-15-2023 Things We Learned This Week Malcolm McLean was the inventor of the shipping Container, and a key person in trade & globalization BidBird invented a container skin, a smooth panel for the side to reduce wind resistance & improve fuel efficiency Patent process and Patent Cooperation Treaty to register an invention in foreign countries Building a Prototype and doing a road test with a Truck plus a Container on a race track Show Link: HERE **Preview clip of Trevor Pan Malcolm McLean and the History of the Container This leads to a new level of capitalism, modern globalization & wider trade Malcolm Mclean is the inventor of one of the most major inventions in history that affects people daily. He is also not known by many people despite the impact he has had. McLean owned a trucking company and he used to ship goods via boat. He'd be waiting on the docks with cotton in the 1940s in early 1950s for hours. Ships would be docked for a month, as men were loading crates by hand. The same system was being done with global trade and sea trade for thousands of years. Mclean got tired of this, and trying to figure out a solution to the problem like any entrepreneur. Find a need and fill it. January 1956 - he debuted the box ship. McLean got a $22 million loan & bought 2 World War II tankers and converted them. In April 1956 the first one sailed from New Jersey to Houston. This cut cost from 5.86 per to $.16, a 95% drop or 36 fold savings. Oct.1957 - the first real containership Gateway city launched. Trip went from New York to Florida to Texas and then on later to Puerto Rico. Per McLean, 'the ship makes money when at sea'. In 1963, container ports had been created, by 1966 in Europe, 1967 Vietnam had container service, and 1969 Hong Kong and more Southeast Asia. McLean got a patent which is shared, called – standardization, and the standardize size container for shipping. He created a company, called Sealand Industries - which was then bought by RJ Reynolds. Eventually they were mergers and oil companies that bought out the line and today it's owned by MAERSK. Goods are shipped today for pennies on the dollar, all because of McLean's invention. He changed global trade, shipping, oil exploration, and more. It's a multi trillion dollar invention. It also created port cities like Oakland. Every day it affects all sorts of goods and trades finance, big companies like Walmart and Apple. Not sure if we would have globalization if not for Mclean. At least not as fast. More Info on Malcolm McLean: HERE Tech Topic: https://brt-show.libsyn.com/category/Tech-Startup-VC-Cybersecurity-Energy-Science Best of Tech: https://brt-show.libsyn.com/size/5/?search=best+of+tech 'Best Of' Topic: https://brt-show.libsyn.com/category/Best+of+BRT Thanks for Listening. Please Subscribe to the AZ TRT Podcast. AZ Tech Roundtable 2.0 with Matt Battaglia The show where Entrepreneurs, Top Executives, Founders, and Investors come to share insights about the future of business. AZ TRT 2.0 looks at the new trends in business, & how classic industries are evolving. Common Topics Discussed: Startups, Founders, Funds & Venture Capital, Business, Entrepreneurship, Biotech, Blockchain / Crypto, Executive Comp, Investing, Stocks, Real Estate + Alternative Investments, and more… AZ TRT Podcast Home Page: http://aztrtshow.com/ 'Best Of' AZ TRT Podcast: Click Here Podcast on Google: Click Here Podcast on Spotify: Click Here More Info: https://www.economicknight.com/azpodcast/ KFNX Info: https://1100kfnx.com/weekend-featured-shows/
Take a Network Break! We start with red alert for a serious vulnerability in HashiCorp’s Terraform MCP server. In the news, Anthropic, not wanting to be one-upped by OpenAI, reveal that its own models are also ‘leet’ hackers. We also consider whether OpenAI and Anthropic have broken the law by not preventing their models from... Read more »
Take a Network Break! We start with red alert for a serious vulnerability in HashiCorp’s Terraform MCP server. In the news, Anthropic, not wanting to be one-upped by OpenAI, reveal that its own models are also ‘leet’ hackers. We also consider whether OpenAI and Anthropic have broken the law by not preventing their models from... Read more »
Take a Network Break! We start with red alert for a serious vulnerability in HashiCorp’s Terraform MCP server. In the news, Anthropic, not wanting to be one-upped by OpenAI, reveal that its own models are also ‘leet’ hackers. We also consider whether OpenAI and Anthropic have broken the law by not preventing their models from... Read more »
El dibujante y co-fundador de la revista Mongolia nos va a contar historias de gente corriente pero que han protagonizado o vivido momentos históricos importantes. Hoy conversa con Piluca Baquero, sobrina nieta del pionero del cine en España, José Val del Omar
My guest today on the Online for Authors podcast is Kevin M Hall. He is the author of Book Marketing on a Budget and will chat with us about inexpensive marketing strategies. Kevin M. Hall is a memoirist, storyteller, and independent author. He is the author of multiple books including Ilion: My Childhood, My Memories, My Rosemount MN Memories, SIGNS – The Veil is Thinner Than We Imagine, and Book Marketing on a Budget – Simple Steps for New Authors. Kevin began writing after his grandchildren repeatedly asked what life was like when he was growing up. That simple question opened a door to stories that blend memory, history, spiritual awakening, and practical insight—and sometimes a bit of humor only hindsight can provide. Kevin is an author who favors lived experience over theory, and steady progress over hype for readers who value authenticity. He writes reflective, practical books drawn from real life—helping readers find meaning, clarity, and steady progress without false promises. Kevin's writing style has been described as easy to read, atmospheric, and reminiscent of The Wonder Years and Boy Meets World. His books are sprinkled with photographs, well-chosen quotes, and historical tidbits that bring each story to life, making readers feel both nostalgia and connection. Kevin also writes practical nonfiction for self-published authors. His book, Book Marketing on a Budget – Simple Steps for New Authors, shares real-world strategies for helping writers find their audience, grow readership, and expand recognition without spending a fortune. Drawing on his own experience, Kevin shows how clarity, consistency, and thoughtful promotion can turn a personal project into a book that actually reaches the readers it was written for. Kevin is a husband of nearly fifty years, a father, and a grandfather. He lives with his wife in Rush, New York, just outside Rochester, surrounded by family, laughter, and the occasional grandchild chaos. Before becoming an author, Kevin worked as a programmer and project manager and is the holder of U.S. Patent 8,156,416 B2 related to enhancement of document security. In my book review, I stated Book Marketing on a Budget is a fantastic marketing resource written by Kevin M Hall. If you are a new/newer author and don't know where to start marketing or have tried a few things but don't know where to go from there, then this is the book for you. Kevin provides 19 free or inexpensive marketing tips complete with step by step instructions and even samples of his own use of the tips. He even helps you see where to start and where you can eventually move to as you "graduate" from elementary marketing. I really love his one month marketing plan that will guide authors on their journey toward getting their book out in front of their readers. This is a great book for authors who need some inexpensive marketing tips. Don't miss it. Subscribe to Online for Authors to learn about more great books! https://www.youtube.com/@onlineforauthors?sub_confirmation=1 You can follow Author Kevin M Hall. He is the Website: https://kevin-hall.com/ FB: @Kevin Hall LinkedIn: @khall4 Purchase Book Marketing on a Budget on Amazon: Paperback: https://amzn.to/3Semi4O Ebook: https://amzn.to/4usismd Teri M Brown, Author and Podcast Host: https://www.terimbrown.com FB: @TeriMBrownAuthor IG: @terimbrown_author X: @terimbrown1 Want to be a guest on Online for Authors? Send Teri M Brown a message on PodMatch, here: https://www.podmatch.com/member/onlineforauthors #kevinmhall #bookmarketingonabudget #authorcraft #marketing #terimbrownauthor #authorpodcast #onlineforauthors #characterdriven #researchjunkie #awardwinningauthor #podcasthost #podcast #readerpodcast #bookpodcast #writerpodcast #author #books #goodreads #bookclub #fiction #writer #bookreview *As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
IP Fridays - your intellectual property podcast about trademarks, patents, designs and much more
I am Rolf Claessen and my co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 177 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Dr. Ernst-Peter Heilein, who is a German and European patent attorney, the founder of HEILEIN IP LAW, and a long-time IP leader at BSH Home Appliances. He is the mastermind behind the BSH v. Electrolux decision of the European Court of Justice about long-arm jurisdiction in Europe that has the whole patent world stirring in Europe at the moment! But before we jump into this fascinating interview, I have news for you! Emboline v. AorticLab (UPC Court of Appeal) The UPC Court of Appeal has clarified for the first time how a conditional revocation counterclaim should be handled, in a dispute over Emboline’s embolic protection patent EP 2 129 425 against AorticLab. A defendant can validly make its revocation counterclaim conditional on infringement being found first, meaning no ruling on the counterclaim is needed if the infringement claim fails, as the Munich Local Division had held. The Court of Appeal also closed a related gap: if the claimant appeals a non-infringement finding, the counterclaimant may conditionally appeal the unresolved counterclaim too. AorticLab missed its own appeal deadline and can now at best seek re-establishment of rights, while Emboline has already appealed the non-infringement finding. FujiFilm v. Kodak (UPC Court of Appeal) Following the closely watched long-arm jurisdiction ruling of June 2, the UPC Court of Appeal, chaired by Rian Kalden, has now granted FujiFilm an injunction against Kodak in a second proceeding. The Court upheld the limited printing plate patent and found that Kodak’s Sonora XTRA 3 plate infringes it. Kodak can no longer sell or use that plate in Germany. OpenAI v. EUIPO (General Court of the EU, T-555/25) The General Court’s Eighth Chamber dismissed OpenAI’s action against the EUIPO decision to partially cancel the OPENAI trademark. The partial refusal for classes 9, 42, and 45 rests decisively on Article 7(1)(c) EUTMR, the descriptiveness ground. For a significant part of the English-speaking public, “OPENAI” directly conveys that the goods or services are provided using freely accessible artificial intelligence. Dental Monitoring v. Align Technology (CAFC) On July 7, 2026, the Federal Circuit confirmed that AI and deep-learning patent claims covering dental image analysis are not patent-eligible under Section 101. Simply training a “deep learning device” on a specific dataset does not amount to a patent-eligible technical solution. Publisher v. Google (Munich I Regional Court) The Munich I Regional Court issued a preliminary injunction barring Google from spreading false factual claims about a publishing company in its AI Overviews. A search query combining the company’s name with the German term for “fraud scheme” had triggered an AI-generated summary containing entirely fabricated accusations of subscription traps. KPN v. Oppo (Federal Court of Justice, X ZR 103/24) On July 1, the Federal Court of Justice dismissed KPN’s appeal against the revocation of a central claim of its LTE patent EP 2 291 033. Oppo had successfully challenged the claim, leaving KPN’s infringement action against Oppo’s German distribution entity without a legal basis for now. BSH v. Electrolux: What the ECJ Ruling Means for Your Company’s Patent Enforcement Strategy A vacuum cleaner from 2001 has reshaped the European patent landscape. That sounds like an overstatement. It isn’t. For IP Fridays, I spoke with Dr. Ernst-Peter Heilein, founder of HEILEIN IP LAW and long-time Senior IP Leader at BSH Home Appliances. He guided the case BSH v. Electrolux from its first strategic idea all the way to the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice, a case that earned the 2025 Managing IP Award as “Europe Impact Case of the Year.” For managing directors, IP heads, and R&D leaders at German Mittelstand companies, this case is not a legal footnote. It changes where you can enforce your patents, and it changes where you yourself can be sued if your company operates across several European markets. That is what this article is about. Background: How a Patent Dispute Became an ECJ Case The invention dates back to 2001 and concerns a new vacuum cleaner technology. In 2006, BSH identified what it believed was an unauthorized use of that invention and contacted Electrolux to clarify the situation. The European patent was granted in 2009 and validated in a number of European countries. Nobody, Heilein says, could have imagined at the time that this matter would eventually reach the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice almost twenty years later. In late 2018, BSH successfully defended the patent through opposition and appeal proceedings before the European Patent Office. In 2019, the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf found that certain Electrolux vacuum cleaner models infringed the patent. A classic milestone win, the kind that occurs regularly in patent practice. Except the patent had been validated in many countries. Winning in Germany did not solve the enforcement problem everywhere else. Heilein describes the starting point in very concrete terms: how do you enforce a patent that exists in many countries without filing a separate lawsuit in every single one? And how do you prevent claims from becoming time-barred while you work that out? Running parallel proceedings in multiple countries is not just legally complex. It consumes time, personnel, and money that a mid-sized company rarely has in that quantity to spare. This is exactly where the real value of this case for you begins. From the outset, this was never an academic debate about jurisdiction. It was a question that every company holding rights in more than one country eventually faces: how do you enforce your rights efficiently without burning your budget on ten parallel proceedings? Brussels Ia Regulation: The Underrated Article 4 While searching for a solution, the BSH team came across Article 4 of the Brussels Ia Regulation. The underlying idea is simple: a person can generally be sued in the country where that person is based. In the BSH case, that pointed toward the Swedish home court, because Electrolux is headquartered in Stockholm. For a long time, this rule played no real role in patent practice. The widely held view was that cross-border patent litigation in Europe was effectively dead the moment a defendant challenged the validity of the patent. Anyone wanting to enforce a patent across several countries appeared to have no choice but to litigate country by country. Heilein and his team questioned that assumption instead of simply accepting it. This is the point I find most instructive: challenging accepted assumptions in your own field is often the difference between a standard solution and a strategic one. In 2020, the team decided to file the action in Sweden, aware that they were looking at a possibility, not a guarantee. Cross-Border Enforcement: The Three Questions Referred to Luxembourg After Electrolux challenged the validity of the patents, the Swedish home court declared itself not competent to hear the case. BSH appealed, and the Swedish Court of Appeal agreed to refer three questions to the European Court of Justice. The first question addressed the core problem: does a home court that would otherwise have jurisdiction over an infringement claim lose that jurisdiction simply because the defendant argues the patent is invalid? The second question concerned a feature common to many legal systems, including Germany’s, where infringement and validity are decided in separate proceedings. The third question originally concerned Turkey. Today, most people immediately think of the United Kingdom, and some even think of US patents. Originally, the question was simpler: do the same jurisdiction rules apply to patents from countries outside the European Union? The fact that the ECJ first assigned the case to a Chamber of seven judges and later referred it to the Grand Chamber of 15 judges already signaled how much weight the Court placed on these questions. The Judgment: What the ECJ Actually Decided A home court does not automatically lose jurisdiction simply because the defendant argues the patent is invalid. For many years, the opposite was widely assumed to be settled law. The ECJ made clear that this reading was too narrow. The court where the defendant is based can generally continue to hear the infringement case. One point matters for how you read this ruling: questions concerning the validity of a European patent still fall to the national courts of the country for which the patent was granted, as provided in Article 24(4) of the Brussels Ia Regulation. What is new is that the infringement case does not automatically collapse the moment validity is challenged. The home court keeps control of the overall proceeding. For patents from EU Member States, the home court does not automatically lose jurisdiction. It assesses the validity challenge. If it looks strong, the home court may stay the infringement case. If it looks weak, the home court may proceed. For patents from non-EU countries, the home court may stay the case if a validity proceeding is already pending there, drawing on Articles 33 and 34 of the Brussels Ia Regulation. The result is a considerably more flexible system than most observers expected . Patents from Outside the EU: Long-Arm Jurisdiction The part of the judgment with the greatest international reach concerns patents from countries outside the EU. The ECJ ruled that the special jurisdiction rule for patent validity generally does not apply to non-European patents. That means the general rule can apply instead, opening the door for infringement claims based on non-European patents to be brought before a home court where the defendant is based in the EU. Commentators quickly started calling this “long-arm jurisdiction.” One clarification matters here, because it tends to get lost in the public discussion: the ECJ did not say that a European home court can revoke or invalidate a foreign patent. That remains a matter for the authorities and courts of the country that granted it. What the ECJ said is that a European home court may assess the claims between the parties. That distinction is essential to how you should read this ruling. Consequences in Practice: Fujifilm, Regeneron, and Onesta Three recent cases show how quickly practice is already adapting to the new possibilities. Fujifilm v. Kodak: the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court accepted jurisdiction over the UK part of a European patent even before the ECJ delivered its judgment, building on reasoning the Advocate General had already signaled in the BSH case. In June 2026, the UPC Court of Appeal further developed that approach based on the principles confirmed in BSH. Regeneron v. Formycon: the Munich home court applied the BSH framework and granted a Europe-wide injunction based on a European patent, one of the first examples of a national home court putting the BSH logic into practice. Onesta v. BMW: this case shows the debate has moved well beyond Europe. After Onesta attempted to assert two US patents before the Munich home court, BMW obtained an anti-suit injunction from a Texas federal court. Judge Albright took the view that US patents should generally be decided by US courts. The injunction was directed against Onesta, not against the Munich court, and Onesta has appealed the Texas decision. The Munich home court stayed the proceeding but did not reject its own jurisdiction. Whether a European home court can ultimately decide infringement claims based on US patents remains an open question, one that has turned from a European jurisdiction issue into an international jurisdiction conflict. What This Means for Your Company Heilein sums up twenty years of litigation in three lessons, and I share this assessment without reservation when advising my Mittelstand clients. First: patent enforcement has become more international. National litigation still matters, but companies should think across borders from the very beginning, not only once the first cease-and-desist letter has been sent. Second: choice of forum now carries real strategic weight. Where you bring a case can matter just as much as the legal arguments themselves. Third: long-term commitment pays off. Major developments rarely result from a single filing or a single hearing. They come from pursuing a clear strategy consistently over many years. For you as a managing director, R&D lead, or Head of IP at an innovative Mittelstand company, this translates into two concrete points. First, if you hold rights in several European countries and a competitor infringes them, you no longer necessarily have to fund five or six parallel national proceedings. A single action at the infringer’s home base can be the economically smarter option. Second, and this side of the ruling gets less attention in public discussion, if your company is based in Germany and operates across several countries, you can now be sued at your own home base over patent infringement claims tied to activities in other countries. That risk belongs in every freedom-to-operate analysis and in every assessment tied to acquisitions or market entry. Here is the full transcript of the interview: Host Today's interview guest is Dr. Ernst-Peter Heilein. If you don't know Ernst-Peter, he is a German and European patent attorney, the founder of HEILEIN IP LAW, and a long-time IP leader at BSH Home Appliances. Thank you for being on IP Fridays. Answer Yeah, great to be here! BLOCK 1 – THE PERSON BEHIND THE CASE Host When looking at your career, one thing stands out: you never really followed the traditional path of either private practice or industry. Er, how did your professional journey begin, actually? Answer My professional roots are actually in private practice. After qualifying as a Patent Attorney, I worked in private practice and fairly early founded my own law firm, which later became HEILEIN IP LAW. Host So you never completely left private practice behind? Answer Exactly. In 2005, I had the opportunity to take on additional responsibilities on the BSH side. There, I was able to build and lead a new unit within the IP organization. The team was responsible for patents in the small appliances business, as well as global design and trademark protection. At the same time, I helped build an international network of internal and external IP counsel and coordinated their work. Host That still sounds fairly like traditional IP work. When did international disputes become part of your career? Answer Over time, my focus gradually shifted from traditional IP protection to strategic enforcement. That included anti-counterfeiting activities, global trademark and design matters, and cross-border patent disputes. Host So your work became more about enforcing rights rather than simply obtaining and managing them, right? Answer Exactly. And that development eventually led me to play a strategic role in the case BSH Home Appliances versus Electrolux, a case that still accompanies me today. Host Looking back now — from private practice, to building an international IP organization, and eventually becoming involved in a case before the European Court of Justice — did you ever imagine that path? Answer No, not at all. Looking back, this combination of private practice, responsibilities on the business side, and international enforcement experience turned out to be very useful when our case eventually reached the European Court of Justice. BLOCK 2 – HOW IT ALL STARTED Host Yeah, talking about this case. The case BSH versus Electrolux started long before it reached the European Court of Justice. When did the story actually begin? Answer The story actually begins much earlier than most people would expect. The invention itself dates back to 2001 and concerns a new vacuum cleaner technology. In 2006, we identified what we believed to be an unauthorized use of the invention and contacted Electrolux to clarify the situation. The European patent in suit was granted in 2009 and validated in a number of European countries. At the time, nobody could have imagined that this would eventually lead to a decision of the European Court of Justice almost twenty years later. Host Wow, 20 years! That's a long time. So, at first this was simply a normal patent dispute? Answer Yes, absolutely! After many years of opposition and appeal proceedings before the European Patent Office, we were finally able to defend the patent successfully in late 2018. Less than one year later, in the summer of 2019, the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf found that certain Electrolux vacuum cleaner models infringed the patent. Host Er, at that point, one might think, that the patent owner had achieved its goal, right? Answer That is what many people would think. But that judgment did not bring the dispute to an end. A new challenge emerged. The patent had been validated in many European countries. Winning in one country, like Germany, did not automatically solve the enforcement issue in all the other countries. Host What was the practical problem then? Answer We were facing a very simple question: How do we enforce a patent that exists in many countries? And how do we prevent claims from becoming time-barred without filing separate infringement actions in every single country? Doing that would not only be legally complex. It would also require a huge amount of time, effort, and money. Host That sounds less like a major legal question and more like a business problem. Answer Exactly. At the beginning, this was not an academic discussion about jurisdiction. It was a very practical business question. How can we enforce our rights efficiently without running parallel lawsuits all over Europe? That was the real challenge we were trying to solve. BLOCK 3 – THE IDEA OF A CENTRAL ACTION Host So, how did the idea of one central action emerge? Answer While looking for possible solutions, we came across Article 4 of the Brussels Ia Regulation. The idea behind that rule is very simple. In general, a person can be sued in the country where that person is based. In our case, that pointed us toward the Swedish home court because Electrolux is based in Stockholm. Host That sounds like a fairly ordinary jurisdiction rule. Answer Yes. And that was exactly what made it interesting. Article 4 is the general rule. The question was whether that rule could also be used for patent infringement claims covering several countries. Host Was that a common approach at the time? Answer No. Quite the opposite. Many people believed that cross-border patent litigation in Europe was effectively dead. Host That sounds rather dramatic. Why did people think that? Answer Because there was a widely held view that a central patent case could be stopped as soon as the defendant challenged the validity of the patent. As a result, many companies assumed they had no real choice but to litigate country by country. Host Yet you decided to look at the issue differently. Answer Yes. Sometimes it is worth taking a fresh look at accepted assumptions. We felt that Article 4 might play a much more important role than many people believed. Host So at that point, you already saw an opportunity, right? Answer Yes, we saw a possibility! Not a guarantee. But we believed there was a strong legal basis for bringing all claims before the Swedish home court. Host And that eventually led to the lawsuit being filed in Sweden, right? Answer Exactly. In 2020, we decided to file the action in Sweden. That followed our success before the European Patent Office in late 2018 and in the Düsseldorf infringement proceedings in 2019. At that stage, our objective was very practical. We were simply trying to find an efficient way to enforce rights that exist in many countries. Host At that point, you already think the case might end up before the European Court of Justice? Answer No. Not at all. We were focused on solving a business problem. The idea that the case would eventually reach the European Court of Justice came much later. BLOCK 4 – THE OBSTACLE: GAT v. LuK Host You mentioned that, er, many people believed cross-border patent litigation in Europe was no longer a realistic option. Why was that? Answer The main reason was an earlier decision of the European Court of Justice known as GAT versus LuK, decided in 2006. For many years, that decision was understood to mean that a home court could lose its ability to hear a patent infringement case as soon as the defendant challenged the validity of the patent. In practice, that understanding made many cross-border patent cases extremely difficult. As a result, many people believed that cross-border patent litigation was not effective. Host And yet you decided to follow exactly that path, right? Answer Yes. Sometimes it is worth questioning assumptions that have been accepted for many years. We believed that Article 4 of the Brussels Ia Regulation played a more important role than many people thought. That is why, in 2020, we decided to file the case in Sweden. Host And at that point, did you already realize that the case might eventually reach the European Court of Justice? Answer No. Not at all. Our goal was simply to find a practical solution to a real enforcement problem. The idea that this would eventually become a case before the European Court of Justice was far from our minds. BLOCK 5 – THE QUESTIONS REFERRED TO THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE Host So, how did the case eventually reach the European Court of Justice then? Answer After we filed the lawsuit in Sweden in 2020, Electrolux challenged the validity of the patents. The Swedish home court then concluded that it could not hear the case and declared itself not competent to proceed. We appealed that decision, because the issues were important and affected far more than just our case. We suggested that several questions should be referred to the European Court of Justice. The Swedish Court of Appeal agreed and sent those questions to Luxembourg. Host So, what were these main questions? Answer At the heart of the case, there were three questions: First: if a home court has jurisdiction over a patent infringement case, does it lose that jurisdiction simply because the defendant argues that the patent is invalid? Second: Does it make a difference if the national legal system requires validity issues to be decided in a separate proceeding? And third: Do this jurisdiction rules also apply to patents from countries outside the European Union? Host The third question sounds particularly interesting. Answer Yes, at the time, the discussion in our case focused on Turkey. Today, many people immediately think about the United Kingdom, and some even think about US patents. But originally, the question was much simpler. We wanted to know, whether the same jurisdiction rules also apply when patents from non-European countries are involved. Host And, did you realize how important that third question might become? Answer No, certainly not to that extent. At the beginning, most of the discussion focused on the relationship between the different jurisdiction rules within Europe. Only later did it become clear that the European Court of Justice’s answers might have consequences far beyond the European Union. Host So, how did the European Court of Justice react then? Answer That was actually quite interesting. The European Court of Justice first heard the case before a Chamber of seven judges. Later, it referred the case to the Grand Chamber of 15 judges. That already showed that the European Court of Justice considered the issues to be important. And when the judgment finally came out, some of the answers were very different from what many observers had expected. BLOCK 6 – THE DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE Host Let’s talk about the European Court of Justice’s answers. What was, in your view, the most important part of the decision? Answer The most important point was this: A home court does not automatically lose jurisdiction just because the defendant argues that the patent is invalid. For many years, many people believed exactly the opposite. The European Court of Justice made it clear that this understanding was too narrow. The home court where the defendant is based can generally continue to hear the infringement case. That is really the key message of the decision. Host Why is that so important? Answer Because it gives new momentum to cross-border patent enforcement in Europe. Before this decision, many people assumed that a defendant could effectively stop a central infringement case simply by challenging the validity of the patent. The European Court of Justice made clear that this is not automatically the case. Host Does that mean the home court hearing the infringement case will now also decide whether the patent is valid? Answer No, and that is a very important point. The European Court of Justice confirmed that questions about the validity of a European patent should still be decided by the national courts of the country for which the patent was granted, as provided for in Article 24(4) of the Brussels Ia Regulation. What is new, is that the infringement case does not automatically fall apart because of a validity challenge. The home court can keep control of the overall case. Host So, how does that work in practice? Answer The European Court of Justice gives the home court some flexibility. For patents from Member States of the European Union, the home court does not automatically lose its power if the defendant says the patent is invalid. The home court can look at the validity challenge. If it seems strong, the home court may stay the infringement case. If it seems weak, the home court may continue the infringement case. For patents from countries outside the European Union, the home court may also stay the case if there is already a validity case pending in that country. In such situations, Articles 33 and 34 of the Brussels Ia Regulation may apply. That creates a much more flexible system than many people expected. Host Er, we have discussed the implications for patents from Member States of the European Union, but a lot of attention has been given to another part of the decision, that we already talked about briefly, namely patents from countries outside the European Union. Answer Absolutely, and that may be the part of the judgment with the biggest international impact. Host Why? Answer Because the European Court of Justice decided that the special jurisdiction rule for patent validity does not generally apply to patents from non-European countries. In simple terms, that means the general rule can still apply. And that opens the possibility of bringing infringement cases based on non-European patents before the home court where the defendant is based in the European Union. Host That sounds like a very far-reaching statement. Answer It is. That is why many commentators started talking about what is often called “long-arm jurisdiction.” In other words, a European home court may, under certain circumstances, deal with infringement claims relating to patents from countries outside the European Union. Host So, many listeners may now wonder: Can a Swedish or a German home court really decide a dispute involving a British or Turkish patent? Answer Ah, we need to be careful here. The European Court of Justice did not say that a European home court can cancel or revoke a foreign patent. That remains a matter for the authorities and national courts of the country that granted the patent. What the European Court of Justice said is that a European home court may assess the claims between the parties in a dispute. That is an important distinction. Host Did you realize during the proceedings how important this part of the decision might become? Answer Not to this extent. We started with a very practical enforcement problem. Only later did it become clear that the European Court of Justice’s answers might have consequences far beyond the original case. Today, the decision is discussed not only in connection with Turkish patents, but also British patents and even possible claims involving US patents. Host If you had to summarize the decision in one sentence, and I know, this is a very difficult task, what would that sentence be? Answer The European Court of Justice did not re-invent cross-border patent enforcement in Europe. But after many years, it clearly gave it much more room to develop. BLOCK 7 – THE REACTION OF THE IP COMMUNITY Host So, how was the decision received after it was published? Answer Ah, the reaction was very strong. It quickly became clear that many people saw the decision as much more than just another patent case. Many articles and commentaries described it as an important development in European patent litigation. Host Did that surprise you? Answer To some extent, yes. Of course, we knew that the questions referred to the European Court of Justice were important. But I was surprised by how quickly the decision became a major topic of discussion across the European patent community. Host Er, you later presented the decision at several conferences yourself, right? Answer Yes. The discussion started right away. I had the opportunity to discuss and present the case at several conferences and events, including the annual VPP conference in Germany and the Ingolstadt Patent Symposium. I recently received an invitation to serve as a panel speaker on cross-border litigation at the AIPPI World Congress 2026 in Hamburg. What struck me most was that both internal and external IP counsel were trying to understand the practice consequences of the decision. Host So, what was the question you were asked most often? Answer Almost always the same one: How far does this decision really go? People wanted to know whether this was simply a correction of earlier case law or whether it marked the beginning of a new phase in cross-border patent enforcement. Host And what did you say? Answer I would describe it as: neither a revolution nor a minor adjustment. The European Court of Justice did not rewrite the system. But it clearly changed the balance between the different jurisdiction rules. That is why I believe the decision will continue to be discussed for many years, both in practice and in academia. Host Er, one year later, the case received the Managing IP Award as the “Europe Impact Case of the Year.” What did that recognition mean to you? Answer First of all, it was a great honor for everyone involved. But for me, the most important thing was the message behind the award. The award showed that the decision affects much more than the parties involved in the case. It has an impact on European patent practice as a whole. And it also shows that the underlying jurisdiction questions reach far beyond patent law. They are relevant whenever companies have to enforce rights across borders in an increasing international world. That is what makes this case special. Host You often describe this case as a team effort. Answer Absolutely. A case of this size is never the work of one person. Many people contributed over many years. On the BSH side, team members from different functions played an important role throughout the proceedings. And we worked closely with external advisors in several countries. So I see the award as recognition of a shared achievement rather than an individual success. Host Looking at the discussions today, would you say the debate is over? Answer Not at all. I actually think we are only at the beginning. There are still many practical questions that home courts will have to answer in the coming years. That is exactly why the decision remains so interesting. BLOCK 8 – WHAT DOES THE DECISION MEAN IN PRACTICE? Host Let’s move from legal theory to practical business implications. What does this decision mean for patent owners and companies? Answer In my view, the biggest change is strategic. Patent owners now have better opportunities to bring cross-border disputes together in one central proceeding. At the same time, companies need to be aware that they may face claims at their European headquarters covering activities in several countries. So the decision creates opportunities, but it also creates new risks. Host That sounds really like a significant shift; right? Answer I would call it a rebalancing rather than a revolution. The European Court of Justice did not create a completely new system. But it made clear that the general rule — suing a defendant where it is based — plays a much bigger role than many people had assumed. As a result, the court at the defendant’s home base becomes much more important strategically. Host In the patent community, people often talk about cases such as Fujifilm v. Kodak, or Regeneron v. Formycon or Onesta v. BMW. Why are those cases attracting so much attention now? Answer Because they show how quickly practice is already adapting to the new possibilities. Fujifilm was important because it was one of the first UPC cases to test the logic that was later confirmed in BSH. At that time, the BSH case was already pending before the European Court of Justice, and the Advocate General had expressed a view that pointed in that direction. Against that background, the Düsseldorf Local Division accepted jurisdiction over the UK part of a European patent even before the European Court of Justice delivered its judgment. In June 2026, based on the principles confirmed in BSH, the UPC Court of Appeal further developed that approach. Host And what happened in Regeneron v. Formycon ? Answer In the Regeneron case, the Munich home court applied the approach confirmed in BSH and granted a Europe-wide injunction based on a European patent. That was one of the first examples of a national home court using the BSH framework in practice. That demonstrates that the decision is not just an academic discussion. It already has practical consequences. Host And what about the Onesta case? Answer The Onesta case shows that the debate has moved beyond Europe. After Onesta attempted to assert two U.S. patents before the Munich home court, BMW obtained an anti-suit injunction from a Texas federal court. Judge Albright took the view that U.S. patents should generally be decided by U.S. courts. The Onesta case therefore illustrates that the limits of the BSH logic are now being tested internationally. Host Did that end the proceedings in Munich? Answer Not necessarily. What makes the case interesting is that the Texas injunction was directed against Onesta, not against the Munich home court. At the same time, Onesta appealed Judge Albright’s decision in the United States. The Munich home court therefore decided to stay the case for the time being. Importantly, however, the Munich home court did not reject its own jurisdiction. So, at least for the moment, the underlying question remains open. Host Can a European home court ultimately decide infringement claims based on U.S. patents? Answer That question has not yet been answered. But the case has already shown that such an attempt can trigger strong reactions outside Europe. In that sense, the debate has moved from a European jurisdiction question to an international jurisdiction conflict. Host For our audience of internal and external IP counsel, what are the main lessons from this decision? Answer For me, there are three key takeaways. First: Patent enforcement has become more international. National litigation remains important, but companies should think across borders from the very beginning. Second: The choice of forum is becoming more important. Where you bring a case may be just as important as the legal arguments themselves. And third: Long-term commitment matters. This case shows that major developments rarely happen because of a single filing or a single hearing. They usually result from pursuing a clear strategy consistently over many years. Host Do you think this decision will also influence the Unified Patent Court, the UPC? Answer Yes, I believe so. The decision fits into a broader trend toward more centralized patent litigation. Both, the UPC and the BSH decision are driven by the same idea: Handling cross-border disputes more efficiently and more consistently. What is interesting is that many of the questions were faced in BSH versus Electrolux are now reappearing in a new form before the UPC. Cases like Fujifilm versus Kodak show that the discussion about jurisdiction, scope, and cross-border effects is far from over. Institutions may be new. But the underlying challenge remains the same: How do we enforce patents effectively across borders? Host Some commentators even see this as a step toward a more independent European patent judiciary. Do you agree? Answer To some extent, yes. Professor Hanns Ullrich, who supervised my doctoral studies on the legal protection of a then new semiconductor technology many years ago, recently observed that the UPC is gradually developing its own European case law.[DH1] I think that is — again — a very accurate observation. If you look at the developments since BSH and the first UPC decisions, you can see that European patent litigation is becoming more connected. National courts will remain important. But at the same time, we are seeing a more integrated European patent system taking shape. How far that development will go remains to be seen. Host Looking back on the entire journey — from a vacuum cleaner patent, through litigation in several countries, all the way to the European Court of Justice and an award-winning decision — what is your personal conclusion? Answer My main conclusion is that innovation needs effective legal protection. But it also requires the willingness to challenge established assumptions and explore new approaches. For me, the BSH versus Electrolux case shows that persistence, teamwork, a willingness to challenge accepted assumptions, and a long-term strategic view can sometimes lead to developments that go far beyond the original dispute. BLOCK 9 – THE PERSON BEHIND THE DECISION Host Ernst-Peter, today we have talked a lot about jurisdiction, patent enforcement, and European case law. When you look back at this journey, which has lasted almost twenty years, what impressed you most? Answer Probably the realization that major developments rarely follow a straight line. When we started thinking about the case, we were dealing with a very practical problem. Nobody said: Let’s create a landmark decision of the European Court of Justice. We were simply looking for a reasonable and practical solution for a company. The fact that this would eventually lead to a decision with Europe-wide impact was something nobody could foresee at the time. Host Were there moments when you thought the case might fail? Answer Of course. Whenever a case lasts many years, there will be setbacks, new questions, and unexpected developments. That is exactly why persistence is so important. In the end, success is often not about one filing or one hearing. It is about staying focused on a clear objective over a long period of time. Host You often talk about teamwork. Is that one of the main lessons from this case? Answer Absolutely. A case of this size requires commitment from many people and institutes over many years. On the BSH side, my role was to help maintain the strategic direction and long-term commitment that such a case requires. At the same time, experts from different functions within BSH contributed technical expertise, testing, documentation, and practical support throughout the proceedings. On the legal side, Roman Sedlmaier and his team at IP-Counsels Gigerich & Sedlmaier (IPCGS) helped develop the cross-border litigation strategy and the overall case architecture. Our Swedish litigation team then carried the arguments through all stages of the proceedings. Looking back, it was the combination of institutional commitment, technical expertise, strategic leadership, well-designed case architecture, and consistent execution that made the difference. Host One final question. What advice would you give to young internal or external IP counsel? Answer Stay curious: Don’t be afraid to question accepted assumptions. Be patient: Intellectual property is usually a marathon, not a sprint. And never forget that every patent dispute involves an invention, a business, and many people who have worked hard to bring that innovation to market. For me, that connection between technology, law, and strategy is what still makes this profession so fascinating today. Host Ernst-Peter, thank you very much for joining us today on IP Fridays. Answer Thank you. It was a pleasure to be here.
In this sponsor bonus episode, Joseph McGroarty of Actabl shares what he learned working on site with a hotel company in the Forward Deployed Engineering model. He explains how observation and careful listening revealed the language, workflows, and operating knowledge needed to build AI around how hotel teams work and make decisions. You'll also hear how Actabl's Altitude product provides verified answers about hotel and portfolio performance, and why co-creation between hotel companies and technology providers helps move AI from a promising product to technology that defends a company's differentiators and drives real value. You may also enjoy:How Hotel Companies Turn AI Into Competitive Advantage - Steven Moore and Joseph Benjamin explain Actabl's Forward Deployed Engineering model and how hotel companies move from AI experimentation to business outcomes.Why Our Approach to Hotel Data Earned a Patent and Prepares Hotels for AI - Joseph McGroarty, Clark Brayton, and Pritesh Patel explain Actabl's normalized hotel data layer and how AI relies on a strong data foundation.AI That Works for Hotel Leaders Is Finally Here - Stephen German shares how Actabl built Altitude to let hotel leaders ask questions about business performance and receive verified answers they can trust. A few more resources:If you're new to Hospitality Daily, start here. You can send me a message here with questions, comments, or guest suggestionsIf you want to get my summary and actionable insights from each episode delivered to your inbox each day, subscribe here for free.Follow Hospitality Daily and join the conversation on YouTube, LinkedIn, and Instagram.If you want to advertise on Hospitality Daily, here are the ways we can work together.If you found this episode interesting or helpful, send it to someone on your team so you can turn the ideas into action and benefit your business and the people you serve!Music for this show is produced by Clay Bassford of Bespoke Sound: Music Identity Design for Hospitality Brands
This Day in Legal History: America's First PatentOn July 31, 1790, the United States issued its first patent under the newly enacted Patent Act of 1790. The patent was granted to Samuel Hopkins of Vermont for an improved method of producing potash and pearl ash, chemicals widely used in fertilizer, soapmaking, and glass production. President George Washington, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, and Attorney General Edmund Randolph personally signed the patent—a reminder that, in the nation's earliest years, the federal government itself directly evaluated patent applications.The Patent Act of 1790 was one of Congress's first major efforts to implement the Constitution. Article I, Section 8 authorizes Congress to “promote the progress of science and useful arts” by granting inventors exclusive rights to their discoveries for limited periods. Rather than viewing patents as natural rights, the Framers saw them as legal incentives designed to encourage innovation while ultimately benefiting the public.The original patent system was remarkably small. A board consisting of Jefferson, Randolph, and Secretary of War Henry Knox decided whether an invention was “sufficiently useful and important” to merit protection. As the country industrialized, that system quickly became overwhelmed, leading Congress to create a more formal Patent Office in 1836 with professional examiners and standardized procedures.The first patent issued on this day marked the beginning of what has become one of the world's most influential intellectual property systems. Today, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office grants hundreds of thousands of patents each year, and patent law continues to shape industries ranging from pharmaceuticals and biotechnology to software and artificial intelligence.President Donald Trump is pressing Senate Republicans to confirm acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, whose nomination has stalled because of a dispute over a proposed $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund. Republican Senators John Cornyn and Thom Tillis have withheld their support while demanding written assurances that the Justice Department will not establish the program. The fund emerged from a proposed settlement of Trump's $10 billion lawsuit accusing the Internal Revenue Service of improperly handling his tax records. Critics contend that the program could use taxpayer money to compensate Trump supporters who claim they were unfairly targeted by federal authorities, including people investigated or prosecuted in connection with the January 6 Capitol attack. Trump defended the proposal by arguing that victims of government misconduct deserve compensation and maintained that he would not personally benefit from it. Cornyn and Tillis have also objected to a separate provision that could shield Trump and certain associates from future IRS audits. Blanche reportedly met with the senators as the Justice Department attempted to resolve the disagreement. Even without confirmation, Blanche may be able to remain acting attorney general while his nomination is pending, provided that Trump does not formally withdraw it and the Senate does not reject it.Trump defends ‘anti-weaponization' fund as Blanche nomination stalls | ReutersNew York Attorney General Letitia James has sued prediction-market operator Kalshi, alleging that the company is offering illegal gambling without a state license. Kalshi allows customers to trade contracts tied to the outcomes of sporting events, elections, television programs, and other future events. New York argues that these transactions function as wagers because customers risk money on outcomes they cannot control. State officials also object to Kalshi allowing customers between the ages of 18 and 20 to participate, while New York generally requires mobile sports bettors to be at least 21. The lawsuit seeks to stop the allegedly unlawful activity, recover Kalshi's gains, impose civil penalties worth three times those gains, and obtain restitution for customers. James previously brought similar cases against prediction-market platforms operated by Coinbase and Gemini. Kalshi argues that its contracts are federally regulated derivatives under the exclusive authority of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, rather than gambling products governed by individual states. The CFTC has supported that position and filed an emergency request seeking to prevent New York from enforcing its gambling laws against the company. Courts in several other states have already restricted Kalshi's operations, while a federal judge in New York recently declined to protect the company from state enforcement. The litigation could determine whether prediction markets must comply with state gambling laws, federal commodities regulation, or both.New York Says Kalshi's Prediction Markets Are Illegal GamblingFormer federal health official Anthony Fauci could face a contempt-of-Congress referral after refusing to answer more than 100 questions during a Senate investigation into the government's response to COVID-19. Senator Rand Paul, the Republican chair of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, said the panel would consider referring Fauci for prosecution. Federal law makes it a crime for a person summoned by Congress to deliberately refuse to provide relevant testimony or requested documents. Congress cannot prosecute the offense itself, however, so a committee must approve a referral, followed by the full Senate or House, before the Justice Department decides whether to pursue charges. Reuters reported that a Senate referral would likely require 60 votes, meaning some Democratic support would be necessary. Prosecutors would then need to persuade a grand jury that Fauci intentionally refused to answer questions that fell within the committee's legitimate investigation. Fauci would likely argue that the Fifth Amendment allowed him to remain silent because his testimony could expose him to criminal liability. President Joe Biden previously pardoned Fauci for possible federal offenses committed between 2014 and January 2025, but that pardon does not cover conduct occurring after Biden left office. The pardon creates an unsettled legal issue because courts have not clearly decided whether a witness may invoke the Fifth Amendment regarding conduct already covered by a presidential pardon. Even if Congress approves a referral, the Justice Department and a Washington grand jury would still have separate opportunities to decline the case.Could Fauci face criminal charges for refusing Senate COVID questions? | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
The_Case_of_the_Patent_Leather_Bag
Why does one patent show up online for the whole world to see while another seems to stay completely invisible for years? In this episode, we unpack the surprisingly strategic reasons behind patent publication and secrecy, including the default 18-month rule, the little-known nonpublication option, and how a single checkbox at filing can change your entire IP strategy. If you've ever wondered whether publishing helps or hurts your invention, or how secrecy can quietly lock you into a U.S.-only path, this is one of those topics that can save you from an expensive "I wish I'd known that sooner" moment. Connect with Adam Diament E-mail: adiament@nolanheimann.com Website: https://www.nolanheimann.com/legal-team/adam-diament Phone/Text: (424)281-0162 YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5cTADZzJfPoyQMjnW-rtRw Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/trademarkpatentlaw/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-diament-j-d-ph-d-180a005/ Amazon Book Page: https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B005SV2RZC/allbooks?ingress=0&visitId=831aff71-513b-4158-ad73-386ede491e93
In this episode of IP+ with Knobbe Martens, Jeremiah Helm, Co-Chair of Knobbe Martens' Appellate Litigation practice, and Carol Pitzel Cruz, Co-Chair of the firm's Hatch-Waxman Litigation practice, discuss one of the most consequential IP cases so far this year: the recent SCOTUS ruling in Hikma v. Amarin. In their discussion, Jeremiah and Carol break down the main issues at play in the ANDA litigation case, including generic drug manufacturers' use of skinny labels, the nuances of induced infringement, and why the decision may reverberate beyond the pharmaceutical industry. A full transcript of the episode can be found here.
What does it take to lead the Nepal operations of a global Japanese manufacturing technology company? We sat down with Saugat KC, Vice President at MISUMI Nepal, to explore how one of Japan's leading manufacturing technology companies is building its presence in Nepal. From global industrial supply chains and digital transformation to market expansion and operational leadership, this conversation offers a rare inside look at what it takes to lead a global business from Nepal. In this episode, we discuss: Why a Japanese manufacturing technology company with a global presence chose to invest in Nepal and what that says about the country's growing potential. How Saugat KC went from employee to co-inventor on patented technology within MISUMI. How he rates Nepali graduates against global talent, and where the biggest skill and mindset gaps still exist. Why many established Japanese manufacturers are accelerating digital transformation and how Nepal can position itself as a trusted engineering and technology partner. If you're building something in Nepal and think the world is too far away to notice, this conversation says otherwise. It reminds us that with the right talent, mindset, and ecosystem, Nepal has the potential to build for the world, not just within its own borders. The opportunity is real. The question is: are we ready to seize it? TIMESTAMPS: 00:00 – Highlights 06:08 – What Does MISUMI Do? 17:19 – After 13 Years in Japan, Did He Ever Think of Returning to Nepal? 28:26 – Isn't Having a Patent a Big Deal? 39:42 – Nepal Has a Blanket Policy for All Companies Wanting to Operate Here 50:07 – What's Missing in Nepali Graduates? 1:03:06 – How Difficult Is It to Be a Dad While Working for a Japanese Company? 1:10:24 – How MISUMI's Presence in Nepal Is Helping Build the Country's Brand Want to become a video podcaster? Get info: https://becomeadoer.com/programs/beco... If you love reading, don't miss our newsletter on Substack Link: https://substack.com/@doersglobal? Want to join us live in the studio as an audience member? Fill out this form: https://forms.gle/xZi8yptyoxkkc6aa8 ✉ Reach out to us at partners@doersnepal.com
What happens when a handbag is designed as a work of art instead of just an accessory? In this episode, Elif Akaydin, founder of Patent of Heart, shares how her journey from Istanbul to New York shaped a brand rooted in craftsmanship, storytelling, and purpose. She explains how hand embroidery, chain stitch techniques, and upcycled leather create bags that feel personal, while balancing one-of-a-kind artistry with the realities of production, pricing, and growth. Alifa also shares why pop-ups and boutiques have been key to building her business, and how producing in Istanbul supports women artisans while giving back to women's education.Key Takeaways:Art creates connection — Handcrafted details transform handbags into meaningful, collectible pieces.Creativity needs structure — Production, pricing, and scalable design are just as important as inspiration.Purpose builds loyalty — Ethical manufacturing and giving back can strengthen a brand when they're woven into the business.
Send us Fan MailHow much is a patent really worth when you filter out all the bull crap?
The Look takes the Superdome! Emmy-award winning actress, host, singer, and author Keke Palmer sits down with Michelle at Essence Festival in New Orleans. The two get into everything from Michelle's early style icons (hey Pam Grier and Teresa Graves!), to Michelle's first kiss with her husband, and negotiating outfits with Malia and Sasha during the White House years. Keke and Michelle also discuss the impact of fame in parenthood, how the idea of purpose has changed from generation to generation, and staying in the moment when it matters most.Have a question you want answered? Write to us at imopod.com.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
You finally make your first sale. Champagne moment. But what if that very first customer quietly flips a legal switch that limits what patent rights you can enforce going forward? In this episode, we dig into patent exhaustion, the surprisingly powerful doctrine that kicks in once you sell a patented product and can dramatically reshape your control over what happens next. If you've ever assumed your patent gives you endless leverage after a sale, this conversation might change how you think about pricing, licensing, and your go-to-market strategy. Connect with Adam Diament E-mail: adiament@nolanheimann.com Website: https://www.nolanheimann.com/legal-team/adam-diament Phone/Text: (424)281-0162 YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5cTADZzJfPoyQMjnW-rtRw Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/trademarkpatentlaw/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-diament-j-d-ph-d-180a005/ Amazon Book Page: https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B005SV2RZC/allbooks?ingress=0&visitId=831aff71-513b-4158-ad73-386ede491e93
Come along this week and join in the conversation. We are talking FIFA World Cup, trains and Patent's. Hop in and come along for the ride.
Unlock the inspiring journey of Anusha Nerella, a seasoned technology leader, Member of the Forbes Technology Council, Microsoft MVP, and advocate for responsible AI, in this insightful episode of The Brand Called You.Anusha shares her remarkable journey from rural India to leading global technology initiatives across financial services and the public sector. She discusses her work in AI, automation, digital transformation, and enterprise modernization at organizations including Barclays, Citibank, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.Discover the pivotal moments that shaped her career, the resilience that fueled her success, and her contributions to professional communities such as IEEE and ACM. The conversation also explores the rapidly evolving world of generative AI, responsible AI governance, agentic AI, enterprise transformation, and the future of ethical technology.Whether you're an aspiring technologist, an AI enthusiast, or a leader navigating digital transformation, Anusha's experiences and practical advice will inspire you to embrace lifelong learning, lead with integrity, and make a meaningful impact.⭐ Don't forget to Like, Subscribe, and turn on notifications for more inspiring conversations from The Brand Called You.
A new hair product can feel like magic in a bottle, but the business side needs more than hope, foam, and a confident launch post. This episode-style breakdown explores how founders can think about patenting a hair product the smart way, especially when the invention includes a formula, applicator, treatment method, packaging feature, device, or manufacturing process.The big idea is simple: a patent does not protect the vague dream of “better hair care.” It protects a specific technical invention. That distinction matters. A founder may have a product customers love, but the patent question is whether the invention is new, useful, and non-obvious compared with what already exists. In other words, the market may clap, but the patent examiner still wants receipts.We cover why the first step is identifying the real invention. Is the product a unique composition? Does it stabilize an active ingredient? Does it reduce breakage in a measurable way? Does it deliver treatment to the scalp differently? Does the applicator control dosing, movement, or coverage better than existing tools? The more clearly the invention is defined, the better the strategy becomes.We also look at prior art searches, which are less glamorous than packaging design but far more useful when copycats appear. Prior art can include patents, published applications, scientific articles, product disclosures, competitor materials, and technical references. Searching early helps founders avoid expensive surprises and refine what they should actually claim.The conversation also compares patents with trade secrets. A patent can create exclusionary rights, but it requires disclosure. A trade secret can protect valuable know-how, but only if the information stays secret. For hair products, the best answer may depend on whether competitors can reverse engineer the formula, whether the key advantage lives in the manufacturing process, and whether confidential information is properly controlled.We also discuss common hazards: launching before filing, sharing samples without confidentiality, assuming trendy ingredients are automatically patentable, ignoring ownership with chemists or manufacturers, and filing claims that are either too narrow to matter or too broad to survive. Beauty founders have enough chaos without turning intellectual property into a legal detangling brush.Layered protection matters too. A patent may cover the technical invention, but trademarks can protect the brand name, copyrights can protect original marketing materials, and contracts can help control confidential information shared with labs, vendors, retailers, influencers, and partners. No single tool protects the entire business. A founder needs the legal equivalent of a good hair-care routine: more than one product, used in the right order, before things get tangled.The episode also explains why documentation matters. Formula versions, testing data, prototype photos, lab notes, supplier communications, and dates can help show how the product developed. Those records may also clarify who contributed what, which is especially important when outside chemists, manufacturers, or consultants are involved. Ownership confusion is not charming. It is expensive.For startup founders, beauty entrepreneurs, product developers, salon innovators, and small business owners, this is a practical guide to protecting the invention before the market gets frizzy. The smartest founders do not wait until the product is already copied. They evaluate protection before the launch, before the pitch, and before the suspiciously similar competitor shows up with a bottle that looks like it borrowed your homework.To chat about this one-on-one, grab a free consult at strategymeeting.com
This Day in Legal History: Sandra Day O'Connor Nominated to the Supreme CourtOn July 7, 1981, President Ronald Reagan announced that he was nominating Sandra Day O'Connor to the Supreme Court of the United States. If confirmed, she would become the first woman ever to serve on the Court in its then-191-year history. The Senate confirmed her later that summer by a vote of 99 to 0, and she took her seat in September 1981.O'Connor's path to the Court was, in its own way, a commentary on the barriers women faced in the legal profession. She had graduated near the top of her class at Stanford Law School in 1952—ahead of, among others, William Rehnquist, who would one day be her Chief Justice—and yet law firms in California would not hire her as a lawyer. One offered her a job as a legal secretary. She built her career instead in public service and in Arizona politics, eventually rising to become the majority leader of the Arizona state senate, the first woman in the country to hold such a post, before moving to the bench as a state judge. When Reagan, who had promised during his campaign to appoint a woman to the Court, chose her, he was reaching past the federal appellate judiciary—which had almost no women on it—into state government.On the Court, O'Connor became famous as a pragmatic, case-by-case decision-maker who resisted sweeping rules, and for roughly a quarter century she sat at the ideological center, casting decisive votes on abortion, affirmative action, campaign finance, religion, and the limits of federal power. Her approach frustrated those who wanted bright-line doctrines from either side, but it made her, for a generation, arguably the most powerful jurist in the country—the swing vote whose reasoning lower courts and litigants had to anticipate.Her nomination matters in legal history not only because it broke a barrier that had stood since 1789, but because of what came after it. Once one woman had sat on the Court and served with distinction, the question was no longer whether a woman could do the job but why it had taken so long. O'Connor herself was characteristically understated about the symbolism, insisting that she wanted to be judged on the quality of her arguments rather than her place in history. But the two are not really separable. The fact that a brilliant lawyer could be turned away from every firm that interviewed her, and then go on to become the deciding vote on the highest court in the land, is a reminder of how much talent the profession wasted for how long—and of how quickly a barrier that seems permanent can fall once someone is finally allowed through it.Meta has disclosed that four states are seeking as much as $1.4 trillion in penalties heading into an August trial over claims that the company deliberately designed Facebook and Instagram to addict young users. The figure—close to Meta's entire market value of around $1.5 trillion—came out in a court filing in which Meta argued the number is wildly excessive and, in its words, “has no analog in the history of consumer protection enforcement.”California, Colorado, Kentucky, and New Jersey are among the states suing Meta, alleging that the company engineered features to keep teenagers compulsively engaged—infinite scroll, autoplay, manipulative notifications—while publicly downplaying the harm to young users' mental health. The case is set for trial in Oakland in August. The eye-popping penalty number comes from how state consumer-protection laws are structured: they typically set a fixed statutory fine per violation, and the states arrive at $1.4 trillion by multiplying that per-violation fine by an enormous number of alleged violations, one for roughly every affected young user, across years of conduct.Think about how that math works and why it produces such a staggering figure. If a law says you owe, say, a few thousand dollars per violation, that sounds modest—until the “violations” are counted in the tens or hundreds of millions because each affected teenager, each exposure, is its own violation. Statutes written to punish a corner store for mislabeling a product start to generate astronomical numbers when applied to a platform that touches nearly every teenager in a state. That's the tension at the heart of this filing: the states say they're simply applying the law as written, and Meta says applying it that way produces a number no legislature could possibly have intended.The significance here isn't really the trillion-dollar headline, which almost no one expects to be the actual outcome. It's what the fight over the number reveals. Penalty calculations like this are leverage—they shape settlement negotiations and signal how seriously a court might treat the underlying conduct. The case is one of the most important tests yet of whether decades-old consumer-protection statutes can be turned against the design choices of social media platforms, and whether “we built it to be addictive” can be treated as a deceptive or unfair business practice. However the penalty question resolves, the theory of liability is the thing to watch.Meta says US states are seeking $1.4 trillion in penalties in August youth safety trial | ReutersA coalition of twenty-two Democratic state attorneys general has come out against the Trump administration's plan to impose tariffs of up to 12.5% on 59 countries and the European Union, tariffs the administration justifies as a response to trade in goods made with forced labor. The attorneys general, led by California's Rob Bonta, call the levies unlawful and describe them as a pretext to resurrect tariff authority the Supreme Court has already rejected.Tariffs are taxes on imports, and the Constitution gives the power to levy taxes primarily to Congress. Presidents can impose tariffs, but only when Congress has delegated them that authority through a specific statute, and each of those statutes comes with its own conditions and limits. Earlier tariffs from this administration were struck down when courts found the President had stretched his delegated power past what the law allowed. Now the administration is invoking forced-labor concerns as the legal basis for a new round. The Democratic attorneys general argue that this is the same overreach in a new costume—that dressing tariffs up as a human-rights measure doesn't cure the underlying problem, which is that the President is claiming a taxing power Congress never handed him.Consider the practical reach of what's proposed. The attorneys general say these tariffs would hit roughly 99% of imports. A tariff, whatever its stated purpose, is ultimately paid by importers and passed along to consumers in higher prices. So the debate isn't only an abstract argument about the separation of powers—it's about who gets to decide to raise the cost of nearly everything Americans buy from abroad, and whether that decision belongs to one person in the executive branch or to Congress. The forced-labor rationale is genuinely important on its own terms; forced labor in global supply chains is a real and serious problem. But the attorneys general are making a structural point: even a good goal doesn't authorize a power the law doesn't grant.The significance is that this is another front in an ongoing constitutional struggle over how far presidential trade power extends. The attorneys general are signaling they will litigate, and the courts have already shown, in striking down the earlier tariffs, that they are willing to police the boundary. Watch for whether this dispute follows the same path to the Supreme Court, because the answer will shape not just this set of tariffs but how much unilateral economic power any president can claim by pointing to a sufficiently sympathetic justification.Democratic AGs oppose Trump plan to impose tariffs on forced labor concerns | ReutersThe U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has abandoned an unusual set of trademark applications it had filed to register the phrase “Board of Peace” on behalf of President Trump, walking away from the filings after sharp criticism from congressional Democrats and questions about whether the agency had any legal authority to file them in the first place. The government filed an express abandonment of the applications, ending what one member of Congress called an unlawful venture.A trademark protects a brand—a word or logo used to identify the source of goods or services in commerce. Normally, a person or company files their own application, or has their lawyer file it for them. What happened here is that the Director of the Patent and Trademark Office, the head of the very agency that examines and grants trademarks, filed applications to register “Board of Peace” on the President's behalf. And that raised an immediate legal problem: the Lanham Act, the federal trademark statute, generally forbids filing an application on behalf of another person unless you are that person's attorney—and the Director specifically was not acting as Trump's lawyer.Think about why that rule exists and why the arrangement looked so troubling. The agency that decides who gets a trademark is supposed to be a neutral referee. When the head of that agency personally files an application for the President, the referee has stepped onto the field to play for one team. Even setting aside the specific statutory bar, it collapses the distinction between the government official who grants rights and the private party who receives them. Critics questioned not just the legality but the transparency of the whole exercise—who authorized it, on what authority, and why the trademark office was branding a presidential initiative at all.The significance is less about the phrase “Board of Peace” and more about the guardrails around a powerful administrative agency. Trademark law has technical rules about who may file and on whose behalf, and those rules are part of what keeps the system credible. The abandonment—prompted by oversight from the House Judiciary Committee's Democrats—shows those guardrails still functioning: an irregular filing was flagged, its legal basis questioned, and the agency backed down before a court had to intervene. It's a small episode in the scheme of things, but a clean illustration of how ordinary statutory limits and legislative oversight can check an official who reaches beyond his role.US trademark office abandons ‘Board of Peace' branding rights applications | ReutersIn my column for Bloomberg Tax this week, I take on the administration's threat to hit countries that have digital services taxes with 100% tariffs. My argument, in short, is that this is an ill-advised response—it isn't really a defense of the U.S. tax system at all, but an attempt to use consumer-funded trade pain to shield big tech from foreign tax bills.Let me set up the problem. A digital services tax, or DST, is a levy some foreign governments impose on the local digital revenue of companies like Alphabet, Meta, Apple, Amazon, or Netflix. These firms can earn enormous revenue from users in a country without ever having the kind of physical presence that the traditional international tax system was built to tax. Netflix can stream into a jurisdiction, pull revenue out of it, and never owe local tax. So foreign governments invented DSTs to capture some of that. The U.S. response, apparently, is to threaten tariffs on that country's completely unrelated goods until the tax goes away. The logic is that if Google has to pay France a modest tax on its digital revenue, someone in Cleveland might have to pay more for their champagne.I want to be fair to both sides here, because I actually think both have a point. DSTs genuinely deserve criticism—they're blunt instruments that tax gross revenue rather than profit, which means they can overtax low-margin business, and they're often designed with revenue thresholds conveniently set to catch every big U.S. tech firm while sparing domestic companies. So the U.S. complaint that these taxes are tailored to skim revenue from American firms is not baseless. But foreign governments also have a legitimate grievance: the old international tax rules really do struggle to tax digital businesses that earn a fortune from local users without setting foot in the country.Here's where I think the tariff response falls apart. A blanket 100% tariff doesn't fix any of a DST's design flaws. It doesn't determine where digital value is actually created, it doesn't allocate taxing rights, and it doesn't even fall on the foreign government. Tariffs are paid by importers, and most of that cost gets passed along to consumers. With last year's tariffs, as much as ninety percent of the economic burden landed on domestic firms and consumers. So think about how strange this is as tax policy: the companies facing the foreign tax are the largest and richest technology firms in the world, but the companies and consumers who'd actually feel the tariff are unrelated domestic players. No one is literally cutting Meta a reimbursement check, but the effect is the same—American consumers and importers become the leverage used to protect Silicon Valley from foreign tax exposure.And the bilateral approach has a nasty structural problem. The administration seems emboldened by the Canada episode—Canada moved to collect its DST, the U.S. threatened trade consequences, and Canada backed down. The apparent lesson the administration drew is that a big enough threat can make any foreign tax disappear. But if the U.S. treats tariff threats as a standing veto over other countries' tax policy, then every DST becomes a bilateral confrontation—France, Spain, Italy, the UK, one hostage negotiation after another—and it invites everyone else to adopt the same playbook the moment U.S. firms need something from them.So what I argue for instead is a binding, multilateral framework, and I lay out three pieces it would need. First, countries with DSTs agree to repeal them once a replacement is in place—the goal is to swap the ad hoc levies for something coherent, not stack a new rule on top of them. Second, market jurisdictions get, and help design, a predictable formula for their share of taxing rights over digital multinationals—something administrable and tied to a defensible theory of where digital profits are earned. And third, the U.S. keeps its powder dry: retaliation stays in reserve for countries that refuse the framework or discriminate against U.S. firms, applied with due process and proportionality, not as a one-size-fits-all tariff bazooka every time a foreign tax annoys Silicon Valley. Until we build that kind of system, the DST fight is just going to keep coming back.US Tariff Threat Is an Ill-Advised Digital Services Tax Reaction | Bloomberg Tax This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
Today, Jeff Harty and Gary Cox unpack how companies can build coordinated global intellectual property strategies that actually work in challenging markets worldwide. Gary shares how integrating prosecution, litigation, branding, and commercial IP agreements under one cohesive team can transform scattered filings into a powerful, enforceable portfolio. They also dive into the evolving patent enforcement landscape in Australia, including faster litigation times. If you're looking to protect valuable IP on a global stage, this conversation shows what it takes to move from theory to practical, on-the-ground results.In this episode, Jeff Harty and Gary Cox discuss: Developing a coordinated strategy for protecting inventions and trademarks in Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East.Brand protection, anti-counterfeiting, anti-piracy, and enforcement in challenging markets. Key distinctions and developments in patent enforcement proceedings in Australia.Key Takeaways: Multinationals are paying more and more attention to the intellectual property they can build, not only in branding, but also in patents.The innovation economy is ever-evolving and changing. It is being driven by politics and people as well as commerce. In Australia the courts are taking a far more proactive stance; they are pushing to move cases more quickly and cost-effectively through the system.“IP strategy isn't just one set of rights. It's patterns, it's trademarks, it's designs, it's trade secrets, it's copyright, and it's an ability to bring all those different rights together and to be able to deliver a package that protects the IP when it has been developed.” — Gary Cox About Gary Cox: Gary Cox started as an Examiner of Patents with the Australian Patent Office (now IP Australia). He then transferred to private practice to assist clients with the development and prosecution of patent applications.He is an intellectual property lawyer (solicitor and barrister), an Australian patent and trademarks attorney, and a New Zealand patent attorney.Gary acts predominantly in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, with his practice focusing primarily on strategic IP structuring and contentious IP actions. Much of that work is in the field of patent litigation (infringement and revocation actions) and oppositions in Australia. Gary also assists clients with freedom to operate and due diligence positions and opinions, and works with New Zealand litigators to deliver the same outcome for his clients in New Zealand.Connect with Gary Cox: Website: https://wrays.com.au/ Email: gary.cox@wrays.com.au LinkedIn: au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-cox/9/b21/88b Connect with Jeff Harty: Website: https://nyemaster.com/attorney-directory/jeffrey-d-harty/Email: jharty@nyemaster.comLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeff-harty-5a9a1643/
IP Fridays - your intellectual property podcast about trademarks, patents, designs and much more
My co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you the episode 176 of the IP Fridays Podcast. Today's interview guest is returning guest Franklin Graves, who is a senior counsel at Linkedin and teaching IP law at Emerson College. With my co-host Ken Suzan he is discussing how the law for creators has dramatically changed in the past years. Franklin Graves is expressing his personal views and not the views of Linkedin or Microsoft. He is talking about the paper “Upload Complete” before he joined Linkedin. Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/franklingraves/ Paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5271442 Website: https://creatoreconomylaw.com/ But before we jump into this interview, I have news for you! Richard Meade, a judge on the UK High Court and one of the most prominent figures in European patent law, was appointed Lord Justice of Appeal at the British Court of Appeal on June 12, 2026. Meade played a key role in numerous landmark British patent decisions, particularly in the area of standard-essential patents (SEPs) and FRAND licenses. In Insulet Corp. v. EOFlow Co., No. 2025-1807, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit completely overturned the original $452 million judgment (which had already been reduced by the District Court to $59.4 million) in favor of Insulet. In its decision of June 2, 2026, in the case of Fujifilm v. Kodak, the UPC Board of Appeal provided comprehensive clarifications regarding so-called “long-arm jurisdiction”—that is, the question of whether the UPC can also rule on national patent claims outside the UPC territory (such as in the United Kingdom). In 14 guiding principles, the judges established specific procedural rules for various categories of cases. There is no automatic UPC jurisdiction over national patent claims outside the UPC territory. The Munich Regional Court has issued an arrest warrant against the managing director of Polytech Health & Aesthetics GmbH because he is alleged to have continued to exploit the Brazilian company Silimed's patent for breast implants despite a preliminary injunction. A number of IT and automotive industry associations—which are among the most frequent users of Inter Partes Reviews (IPR) at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office—have filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court, urging the Court to grant Google's certiorari petition. An attorney for a Las Vegas performer has asked a California federal judge to temporarily prohibit Taylor Swift from using “The Life of a Showgirl” as a trademark while the trademark lawsuit is pending. Swift's attorney called the lawsuit baseless. And now let's hear Ken discuss creator law with Franklin! AI, Platform Law, and the Creator Economy: What Businesses Need to Know Now Franklin Graves has spent his entire career watching digital content move through systems that most people never see. He started in marketing at a major music label right out of law school, then represented individual creators on YouTube in a pro bono capacity, then moved to the platform side at Eventbrite, and today works as Senior Product Counsel at LinkedIn, where he focuses on AI, data, and the regulatory questions that come with both. His recently published law review article, Upload Complete: An Introduction to Creator Economy Law, is the first academic paper to address the creator economy as a distinct legal field. In a recent episode of the IP Fridays podcast, he spoke with host Kenneth Suzan about responsible AI development, platform regulation, and what it actually means to own your audience in a world where the rules keep changing overnight. From Content Creator to Platform Lawyer The through-line in Graves’ career is a genuine understanding of how content moves from an idea in someone’s head to an audience on a screen. That experience, he argues, is precisely what in-house counsel needs right now. Lawyers working on AI and product development cannot afford to sit at a distance from the technology they are advising on. They need to use the tools, experience them as a creator or end user would, and understand the nuances of how a product actually operates before it reaches the public. Understanding the product first is the precondition for everything else. That philosophy translates directly into how he approaches responsible AI implementation. The landscape of AI standards is crowded: NIST frameworks, the EU AI Act, sector-specific guidance, and a growing body of industry-adopted best practices. The challenge for in-house counsel is not knowing that these standards exist. It is making them actionable for the engineering and product teams they support. Abstract principles need to become concrete controls and workflows. Graves offers one practical shortcut: most companies already have open source software review processes that involve the right stakeholders, the right sign-off levels, and the right security checks. Layering the specifics of generative AI or large language models onto those existing processes is far more efficient than building something new from scratch. A Fragmented Regulatory World The geopolitical dimension of AI regulation is something Graves thinks about constantly in his role at LinkedIn. The EU AI Act, shifting US executive orders, and country-specific approaches to data privacy have created a regulatory environment that can change the rules of the game without warning. His analogy is instructive: creators have long understood what it means to build a community on a platform they do not own. An algorithm change, a policy update, or a government ban can wipe out years of audience-building overnight. Businesses deploying AI tools globally now face a structurally similar problem. The response, for creators and for platforms alike, is to build resilience rather than rely on stability that may not last. TikTok is the clearest recent example. When the platform faced the prospect of being shut down in the United States on national security grounds, it triggered a broader conversation about platform dependence that had been building for years. Creators who had invested their entire business in one platform suddenly confronted the possibility that their audience could simply disappear. The lesson is not that platforms are bad. It is that concentration of any kind, whether it is your audience, your data pipeline, or your regulatory compliance strategy, creates fragility. What Is a Creator, Legally Speaking? One of the central contributions of Graves’ law review article is definitional. The terminology matters more than it might seem. When courts and regulators talk about creators without a shared understanding of what that word means, the resulting legal analysis tends to miss the mark. Graves draws a distinction between users who post content, creators who post with the intent to build an audience and eventually monetize it, and influencers, a subset of creators who are actively running a small business through their content. The difference is intent. A parent posting family photos on Facebook is a user. Someone building a subscription community around their professional expertise is running a business, and the legal framework that applies to them should reflect that. That distinction matters practically when it comes to liability. As more creators build their own platforms, whether through custom membership sites, open source tools like Ghost, or federated social networks, they take on obligations that previously fell to large platforms: content moderation policies, privacy notices, terms of service, and compliance with data regulations across multiple jurisdictions. A creator in Tennessee running a membership platform with subscribers in Germany is operating a global business, whether they think of themselves that way or not. Protecting Children Online: A Question Without a Clean Answer The tension between age verification and privacy is one of the more difficult problems in platform law right now. Australia, several European countries, and a growing number of US states have introduced or passed minimum age requirements for social media accounts. The technical challenge is real: verifying age online requires collecting identifying information, and collecting identifying information creates privacy risk, particularly for the young people the laws are designed to protect. Who should bear the responsibility for that verification is also unresolved. Is it the platform? The app store? The mobile operating system? Graves does not pretend there is a clean answer, but he points to the mobile layer as an underexplored option. The Apple App Store and Google Play Store already have significant leverage over which apps reach users on their devices. Whether that leverage should extend to age verification is a question that deserves more attention than it currently receives. The Right of Publicity in the Age of AI Voice cloning, digital replicas, and AI-generated synthetic media have pushed the right of publicity into territory that traditional IP law was not designed to cover. Trademark law, copyright law, and existing publicity rights each capture part of the problem but none of them covers it completely. The result, as Graves describes it, is a period of experimentation: lawyers filing trademarks on vocal sounds and phrases, states updating their publicity statutes to explicitly mention artificial intelligence, and entertainment unions negotiating over who controls a performance and any AI-generated iterations of it. Tennessee’s Elvis Act is a concrete example of the legislative response: the state updated its right of publicity law to include voice and to reference AI directly. Similar efforts are underway elsewhere. The underlying challenge is calibrating protection so that it gives creators and performers meaningful control over their likeness and voice without foreclosing the development of generative AI systems that depend on broad rights to process and learn from content. Somewhere between those two interests, a workable legal framework needs to emerge. The brand deal context may be where the issue becomes most immediately practical. When a brand partners with an influencer and the campaign involves generative AI in any form, the contract needs to address control explicitly. Who has final approval over how the influencer’s likeness or voice is used in AI-generated deliverables? What happens to those assets after the campaign ends? These are not hypothetical questions. They are contract drafting problems that any brand counsel or creator attorney should be addressing today. What Comes Next Graves is cautious about predictions, but his sense of direction is clear. The regulatory environment will continue to fragment before it converges. The right of publicity will be updated, imperfectly, in more jurisdictions. Creators will continue to move toward owning more of their infrastructure. And the lawyers who do this work best will be the ones who understand the technology well enough to translate it into practical, defensible decisions for the people they advise. Full Transcript: Ken Suzan: Thank you, Rolf. Our returning guest today is Franklin Graves. Franklin is the founder and editor of Creator Economy Law, a website and newsletter that educates creator economy professionals on the intersection of law and policy with the world of creators, brands, and platforms. Franklin also published the first law review article focused on the creator economy, Upload Complete, an introduction to creator economy law. He regularly appears across news and media outlets as a commentator and contributor with a focus on educating creators and raising awareness of all legal aspects of the creator economy. Franklin is based in Nashville, Tennessee. Ken Suzan: Franklin was invited to participate as one of the creators and creator economy professionals in the first ever White House creator economy conference. Franklin works full time as a product counsel at LinkedIn Corporation. As a member of the product and data team, he focuses on emerging issues in AI and data. Franklin previously held roles on the technology law group at HCA Healthcare, the commercial legal team at Eventbrite, and the business and legal affairs team at Naxos Music Group. Welcome back Franklin to the IP Fridays podcast. Franklin Graves: Thank you so much for having me. It is exciting to be back and reflecting over the last decade since I last joined and also the paper that I wrote that dives into this in more detail. So I really appreciate it. And yes, full disclosure, I currently work for LinkedIn, which is a subsidiary of Microsoft. I’m here in my personal capacity to talk about this, the paper I wrote before joining LinkedIn and all of that. So thank you so much for having me back. Ken Suzan: Excellent. So Franklin, since your last appearance on IP Fridays in 2017, your career has evolved significantly. You are now senior product counsel at LinkedIn focusing on AI and data. How has working inside a major tech platform changed your perspective on the legal frameworks governing digital content compared to when you were viewing it purely from the creator side? Franklin Graves: I appreciate that question because when I wrote the article, I did not work for LinkedIn. And I had been coming from a history in my career where I, right out of law school, worked for a record label like we talked about almost 10 years ago. And I was on the content creation side. I’ve represented a major distributor of classical music digitally at the time. And that was my first exposure to understanding how content was taken from the initial inception stage from creators and routed through all the various digital platforms that were at the time still evolving and even arguably still today continue to evolve. The early days of YouTube Music launching and then Apple Music launching, and then going through all the phases of high-res audio and everything that came after that. So that was an interesting perspective to start my career with. And then I went to Eventbrite, which is a ticketing platform, but was also focused on elevating event creators. They kind of took on that moniker of “Hey, we are event creators that we support.” And that was arguably my first exposure to the platform side, the tech platform side of it, because Eventbrite is a platform. And so then I evolved from there in my personal capacity, in a pro bono capacity representing individual creators across the YouTube space. And that’s what we talked about a little bit back when I first came on the podcast. Franklin Graves: Over the last decade, it’s been a chance to grow my own understanding of the creator economy. The terminology “creator economy” came around. And then now on the other side of it, having written the article and all that, and now being fully in-house at LinkedIn, I truly am experiencing a social media platform. LinkedIn is of course arguably way more than just the platform itself. There are so many different avenues to it, but it is a chance for me to understand what it is like working for a company that is operating the platform that people are distributing content on. There’s a user journey to content and all of that. So it’s definitely enhanced and given me a different perspective from a major tech platform side. And part of my role at LinkedIn is really heavily focused on understanding regulation and how that from an AI and data perspective impacts the company. And so I’ve been really leveling up my game over the last year and a half that I’ve been here, understanding mostly EU regulations, but also US regulations that are still in their infancy when it comes to AI. But really when it comes to privacy and data, those are pretty well established across the board. It’s been kind of a combination of what I learned at Eventbrite, because I went to Eventbrite when GDPR was going into effect. And so that was an eyes-wide-open moment of getting in the weeds with negotiating data processing agreements, understanding data transfers and cross-border data transfers and the like. So it’s been kind of an evolution as the laws and regulations have evolved. So has my career, so has my own understanding, so have the platforms’ responses to those laws and regulations. And I’m sure that probably resonates with a lot of your listeners who have also been growing their practice and their understanding as the laws and regulations in this realm have been evolving too. Ken Suzan: Yes, indeed. Now let’s switch gears and talk about AI. You advise on AI and data daily. As platforms integrate generative AI tools into their tech stacks, what are the most critical best practices in-house counsel should be adopting right now to embed responsible AI principles into product development? Franklin Graves: So as an attorney, one of my key roles is to understand the technology. Even representing creators and working for creator platforms, that’s something I’m constantly trying to do: put myself in the shoes of being a creator. And I think I talked about this last time I was on, but I come from a background where I was working for a major label doing marketing, video editing, social media work. And I was creating content. I understood the whole life cycle from the inception point of an idea to execution and then to the final delivery and distribution of that content to an audience within a major music label. And so part of that is the same thing that I think attorneys, especially in-house, should be doing: using the tools that the product and engineering teams are either developing in-house or partnering with third parties to develop, or a combination of the two. Using them, understanding them, using them as a creator would, using them as an end user or a client or customer would. And making sure that if you understand the product and understand the nuances of how it operates, and being a part of the iterations of that internally before it fully ramps, that really gives you a chance to understand: okay, we have a lot of responsible AI principles and standards and protocols that are in existence right now, whether it’s NIST, whether it’s based on the EU AI Act or anything and everything in between. It’s understanding how to apply those and bring those into a product and an engineering environment in a way that is practical and actionable for the people that you’re supporting, the stakeholders you’re supporting. So I think one of the critical best practices is, number one, understand the product or features that you’re supporting. Franklin Graves: And then understand how you as an attorney can use your expertise and understanding of responsible AI practices, whether it’s a regulatory standard or an industry-adopted standard or a hybrid of the two, to leverage those and implement those, break those down and make them into actionable controls and processes and flows that work within your existing infrastructure. That’s a lot of high-level talk, but that’s the general idea. One concrete example we talk about frequently is with open source AI. If you’re working with a product team or an engineering team that is taking an off-the-shelf open source model and bringing that in-house, a lot of times companies have pre-existing open source processes that cover the use of open source software or code. Piggyback on that. That’s the easiest quick win for attorneys: leveraging your existing open source processes to just build on top of that the AI flavor and layering. It’s not very much that you have to do, but the underlying process of the key stakeholders that need to be involved in the review, whether it’s security, whether it’s executive sign-off if it gets to that point, even export control considerations should already be part of your existing open source software process. So layering in on those existing processes the specifics of generative AI or large language models that you’re trying to bring in is a great way to put this into practice. Ken Suzan: Now looking at the geopolitical landscape that we currently have, we have the EU AI Act setting strict standards and shifting US executive orders. How should platforms and brands prepare for this fragmented regulatory environment when deploying AI tools to a global user base? Franklin Graves: It’s a great question. It’s something that is still evolving, I think is fair to say. I would equate it, as I do in the paper that I wrote, to how creators and arguably brands don’t own the platforms that they’re building their communities on. That spawned this concept of de-platforming or going into building your own platform, a decentralized platform of sorts, and owning your community. That gives you that control and takes away the level of instability that can come for creators trying to build a business on a platform they don’t own, they don’t control when certain updates happen, when algorithms change, when tools and functionalities either become available or go away completely. So it’s very similar to what we’ve been experiencing in a regulatory environment where we have geopolitical complexities, for lack of a better term, that can overnight seemingly disrupt the way in which a platform or even a multinational brand is able to connect and reach an audience or continue to leverage the user base that they’ve built. I think TikTok is a great example of that, where it became a national security concern and suddenly it was facing an executive order that required it to be effectively disabled in the US or completely owned and operated by a US entity. All the mechanics and technicalities of whether it’s actually possible and still have a global platform with a global user base is a whole different discussion. But that’s an example of very similar considerations that are now not just a discussion point at the creator level or the individual brand level, but also in a much broader context at a platform level as well. Ken Suzan: Franklin, let’s now shift gears and talk about your article. In your recently published journal article, Upload Complete, which we will have linked in our show notes, you advocate for a shift in terminology from internet creator law, a term used during our first podcast almost a decade ago, to creator economy law. Why is this distinction important and how does it change the way legal practitioners should view the ecosystem of creators, brands, and platforms? Franklin Graves: Oh yes, this is part of the reason why I wanted to write the article: to lay this foundation of understanding. Because at the time I’d written the article, the term creator economy and creator had really not appeared but for maybe once in an actual court decision. And it was kind of focused on influencers and this concept, and it was just not getting it right. And so it was also, as you mentioned, when we first spoke I was even using the term internet creators. And I think that was something that was common at the time. The “internet” portion as a qualifier has since dropped off. And now for purposes of the creator economy, the term creators refers to individuals, it can be small businesses, which is what we’ve seen from a regulatory standpoint, how these small businesses are being impacted by regulations. But essentially creators in the article I pin in the context of intent. What is the intent behind the person or the small business that is posting content, trying to build a community and form a community in a virtual environment? And then that can even spill over into real physical world environments. And so the intent is kind of what I look at. Franklin Graves: And I have a chart in the article that has a diagram showcasing the overlap of what I refer to as “users generating content.” It’s a play on the concept of user-generated content, UGC. Users generating content is that large bucket of anyone posting on a platform of some kind. And within that large bucket, that large circle, are smaller subsets. You have creators, you have brands. Those are really the two buckets you can put people into. Otherwise it’s like your grandmother or your parents posting content on Facebook or Instagram, and those are everyday users of a platform. The distinction to get into that subcategory of being a creator more so has been analyzing the intent behind the posting. Are you posting content to build an audience, to build a community, to eventually have a chance to monetize the following that you’re bringing in or sell services or something like that? Brands are posting for that reason. Creators are maybe posting for that same reason. But even within the creator category, there’s a subcategory of influencers that are trying to sell something, that are trying to build more than just an awareness of who they are, their influence. They are trying to do brand deals, partnership deals, upsells and all that, and start an actual small business aside from just the content itself that they’re creating. So that’s kind of the distinctions that I make in the paper. And that’s why it’s important to understand and lay that foundation, that anyone can post content online, but the intent, the why behind their posting that content, really does ultimately matter, especially when you’re looking at it from a court case or from a regulatory standpoint. Ken Suzan: Now, Franklin, we’re seeing unprecedented geopolitical activity around platform ownership. For example, the US legislation targeting TikTok and Brazil’s recent temporary ban of X. How do these macro-level battles impact the day-to-day livelihood of creators? And how can they legally and operationally protect themselves? Franklin Graves: So the shift that we’re seeing, and I alluded to this earlier in our conversation, is this concept of Web 3. And that term may or may not be really popular anymore, but that’s essentially what we’re looking at: a shift into a federated, decentralized operation of a platform. So instead of one owner, one company, one entity owning and operating the platform, it’s decentralized. Anyone can start up a server, and it’s interoperable, meaning anyone can plug and play and connect to that larger network. And it creates this unified social network experience. Within each operating node of that network, there can be your own decisions around content moderation, your own decisions around the hosting providers you use, where you’re operating out of, the terms and conditions that apply to that. But the flip side is that instead of creators posting and sharing in a closed environment run and controlled by a singular entity, you’re now experiencing a peer-to-peer type operation where your experience can change based on which server, which node, which user you’re engaging with. You might have content that’s acceptable in one area but not acceptable in another, and maybe it just doesn’t even show up in that other area. Franklin Graves: But from a liability standpoint, as creators start to build their own networks and communities, even outside of a concept like the fediverse, it’s even down to creators building their own communities through online courses, subscription membership-based platforms that they run on their own website. There’s open source software out there, even something called Ghost, where you have memberships. And that is a creator or a small business in the creator economy that is now taking on the obligations that would typically fall upon a platform. They need to take into consideration terms and conditions, privacy policies, legal aspects, and regulatory considerations for running a platform, especially in a global world. So it’s a lot of liability that then shifts over to those small businesses and even brands sometimes that are doing the same thing. Whether it is something as simple or complex as content moderation or all the way up to monetizing an audience, this new world where creators can spin up and run a platform all dovetails back to the concept of creators not feeling like they have control in reaching the audience and the community that they’re building on an individual platform. And so this really became more mainstream conversation with TikTok and the issues around it potentially being shut down in the US. That was kind of the mindset shift and eyes opening for many creators, especially within the influencer subset, of realizing: we need to make sure that we have a way to reach the audience we’ve built if the individual platform that we’ve committed to over the last year or three years or so is no longer available. We need a way to continue that relationship outside of that one platform controlling it. Ken Suzan: Franklin, we have a few minutes left and a number of topics. So I’m going to switch gears and talk about a few issues. First, a major emerging topic in your paper is the evolution of protecting kids online. With state-level age-gating laws like the CAADCA and the recent FTC updates to COPPA, how should platforms navigate the significant tension between strict age verification mandates and the privacy and First Amendment rights of their users? Franklin Graves: Man, that is a whole discussion to unravel. It is a consideration that we’re seeing happen again, going back to the geopolitical nature of everything. Countries like Australia and certain countries in Europe and now even individual states in the US are trying to look at ways, and some of them have already put into place minimum age requirements before you can even sign up for an account with a social media platform. One of the things I’d just highlight quickly here is that one of the tensions is around how you verify someone’s age online and still maintain the ability to be at least pseudonymous. How do you still have a level of privacy, autonomy, and protection when it comes to having to provide something like a driver’s license or have parental consent tied and connected to an account managed by a parent in a situation where maybe it’s not appropriate or not beneficial to the child in that manner? But then maybe there are counterbalancing factors that outweigh that. All of that comes down to the technicalities of how it’s actually implemented and maintaining the sense of openness and freedom that we’ve had on the internet to date. And then the other element there is, since a lot of the internet that we think of today is more so through mobile applications, is it something that the mobile operating system providers and app store providers should be thinking about? So whether that’s the Google Play Store or the Apple App Store, where does that initial age verification need to fall? Is it at the platform level? Is it the app store or mobile device management level or something else? Yeah, there’s a lot to discuss there. And a lot of the issues we’re seeing with how the internet is changing in terms of being able to browse a website without disclosing personal information that might not have been required before is largely stemming from a focus on protecting children online. Ken Suzan: It sounds like, Franklin, we could have another episode covering lots of issues connected with that one topic alone. Franklin Graves: I would absolutely agree with that. There’s a lot going on there. And again, it’s different across the world. And so I know you all have a global listener base. And so there’s a lot of nuances to that whole discussion too, that are worth exploring. Ken Suzan: Last question for today’s episode is regarding the right of publicity. With the explosion of AI-generated synthetic media, digital replicas, and voice cloning, the right of publicity is taking center stage. What are the biggest legal risks for brands partnering with influencers right now? And how can creators protect their most valuable asset, their likeness? Franklin Graves: That’s a great question. I think we’re seeing kind of a throwing-spaghetti-against-the-wall-to-see-what-sticks approach right now by a lot of different parties, whether it’s trademark attorneys, whether it’s general entertainment attorneys or whoever. For example, we’ve seen Taylor Swift filing trademarks to protect certain sounds of her voice and phrasing that she uses. It’s a difficult area because in the realm of generative AI with deep fakes and virtual avatars, that is where it gets tricky, because traditional IP laws are just not able to fully cover that spectrum. It’s a piecemeal approach, but even then it doesn’t fully cover it. So for example, I’m based in Tennessee and a couple of years ago we had the Elvis Act that updated our right of publicity law to add voice and to explicitly reference artificial intelligence. And so that’s the kind of effort we’re probably going to continue to see: efforts to develop some framework around protecting what is essentially a privacy right, in a manner that doesn’t restrict generative AI systems from continuing to develop and operate the way they’re operating now, while layering in those protections so that in the US at least a First Amendment right doesn’t necessarily get squashed, and those traditional well-recognized efforts to not overregulate a technology in its early stages are respected. Franklin Graves: And so I think a lot of what we’re seeing is just a need to update laws. The SAG-AFTRA debate and the strikes that happened around maintaining control of your performance and any iterations of that, or building upon that by a media company that might come later, it’s all on the table right now and still being discussed, still being worked out. I think in the short run, a lot of times if it’s in a brand deal, the key question is: if you are using generative AI to enhance in some way the final deliverable for the campaign, who has control over that? Who has final say and sign-off on how that likeness or that digital replica or that person’s voice is represented? And even outside of the brand space, we’ve seen actors like James Earl Jones signing over certain aspects like their voice and allowing it to continue to be used in these manners powered by generative AI as Darth Vader. And I think I saw something that Boy George was even starting up an AI company that allows musicians, the original recording artist, to rerecord new versions of their masters so that they don’t miss out on that revenue. It’s powered by generative AI, by taking their voice now, which is significantly different than it was back in the 80s, and using generative AI to make it sound closer to the original, but all based on their current performance. So I think it’s still an evolving area. And what’s interesting too is on the platform side, we’re seeing the early stages of platforms like Google starting to acknowledge and rely on the license grant contained in their terms of service for YouTube, which grants them broad rights to use the content to run their platform. So all that to be said, it’s still early stages. I’m very interested to see where we go from here in the future, especially from a global perspective as well. Ken Suzan: Franklin, I could spend hours talking to you about this. You’re such a knowledgeable person on these topics. Maybe in a few years, will we connect again and talk further on AI and all the things that are yet to be developed? Franklin Graves: Thank you. Yeah, it doesn’t have to be another decade. Maybe we can cut it to half a decade, given the pace at which technology is going now. Ken Suzan: Sounds good, Franklin. Thanks again for being on the IP Fridays podcast.
"Midlife is a perfect time for you to think about where you've been & where you want to go,” says Margie Lachman, PhD. Lachman is professor of psychology at Brandeis University and director of the Lifespan Lab. A leading expert on adult development and aging, Lachman is one of a small group of scholars who study midlife from a lifespan developmental perspective. Her honors include research awards from the American Psychological Association (APA) and the Gerontological Society of America. Lachman was a member of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Successful Midlife Development, which launched the landmark Midlife in the United States (MIDUS) study. She is a coinvestigator on MIDUS and several other projects exploring cognition, health, and well-being in midlife and later adulthood. 00:00 - Why midlife is actually prime time 04:37 - The hinge moment & the pivot point 08:08 - Looking back vs. looking ahead 11:16 - The midlife crisis myth, explained 14:24 - Stability, identity, & personality change 18:42 - Traits of people who thrive in midlife 22:55 - What to do in retirement 26:53 - No one wants to look older 29:00 - Emotional regulation gets better with age 31:20 - Resilience, optimism, and sense of control 35:52 - Giving vs receiving in midlife relationships 38:36 - The U-shaped happiness curve is overstated 41:32 - Cognitive peak in midlife 40:36 - How your mindset can be anti-inflammatory 44:30 - Exercise as a panacea for health Referenced in the episode: Buy Lachman's book here: For more about the MIDUS study, visit: https://midus.wisc.edu/ Patent holder study: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733322001500 We hope you enjoy this episode, and feel free to watch the full video on YouTube! Whether it's an article or podcast, we want to know what we can do to help here at mindbodygreen. Let us know at: podcast@mindbodygreen.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
© 2020-2026 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
