Podcasts about Patent

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

In this episode, Chris McDowell, Chief Information Security Officer at Actabl, and Justin Call, Chief Legal Officer at Actabl, unpack the growing AI risk that many hotel leaders still underestimate. They explain how people across hospitality are already uploading confidential guest and operational data into public AI tools like ChatGPT and Claude, why privacy and compliance rules still apply once that data enters an LLM, and why AI adoption needs to be treated as a business risk decision, not just a productivity upgrade.Chris and Justin also break down what strong AI governance actually looks like inside a hotel organization, how technical guardrails matter more than policy documents alone, and why the quality and normalization of your data will determine whether AI delivers meaningful value at scale. The conversation also explores how hotel leaders should evaluate technology partners handling sensitive data, and why trust, security, and accountability are becoming core parts of the guest experience itself.Also see: Why Our Approach to Hotel Data Earned a Patent and Prepares Hotels for AI - Clark Brayton, Joseph McGroarty & Pritesh Patel, ActablActabl's patent announcementHotelData.com 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

How do companies legally compete against patented products without getting sued?That question sits at the center of some of the largest business battles in modern history.In this episode, we break down how businesses legally navigate around patents through design modifications, licensing agreements, engineering alternatives, patent litigation strategies, and competitive innovation.Many entrepreneurs mistakenly believe patents create permanent monopolies over ideas or industries. In reality, patents protect very specific invention claims — and businesses constantly search for legal ways to innovate around them.We explore:✅ What patents actually protect✅ What “designing around” a patent means✅ Why licensing agreements dominate major industries✅ How patent challenges work✅ Why patent expiration changes markets dramatically✅ Famous patent wars involving Apple, Samsung, Tesla, and pharmaceutical companies✅ The growing controversy around patent trolls✅ Why startups need intellectual property awareness earlyOne of the most important lessons in this discussion is understanding that patents are both legal tools and competitive business strategies.Large corporations build massive patent portfolios not only to protect innovation but also to negotiate leverage within industries. Startups increasingly face patent risks as technology markets become more crowded and competitive.The conversation also explores the ongoing debate surrounding modern patent systems.Supporters argue patents encourage innovation by rewarding inventors with temporary exclusivity and creating incentives for expensive research and development.Critics argue some companies weaponize patents to suppress smaller competitors and slow innovation.The balance between protecting inventors and encouraging competition remains one of the most complex issues in modern business law.We also discuss how industries like:Artificial intelligenceSoftwareAutomotive engineeringBiotechnologyPharmaceuticalsConsumer electronics…are heavily influenced by patent strategy and intellectual property disputes.For entrepreneurs, one of the biggest takeaways is this:Understanding intellectual property early is no longer optional.Patent mistakes can become extraordinarily expensive, especially once products scale publicly.At the same time, businesses that understand patent strategy often discover opportunities competitors miss entirely.Because modern innovation is not simply about inventing something first.It's about:✔️ Strategic differentiation✔️ Legal awareness✔️ Competitive positioning✔️ Long-term executionAnd honestly, somewhere right now, two engineers are probably arguing over whether changing one hinge technically avoids a billion-dollar lawsuit.

Have a great idea or invention? Discover how patents can help protect your intellectual property and build business value. In this episode, we discuss the fundamentals of patents, and what entrepreneurs need to know before sharing their innovations with the world.Whether you're launching a startup, developing a new product, or seeking investors, understanding patents can be a powerful competitive advantage.Jeff Holmanhttps://www.intellectualstrategies.com/https://www.linkedin.com/in/holman/My Men Richard/Richard Lesperance⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠richard.lesperance@gmail.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://linkedin.com/in/richardlesperance⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/@mymenrichard⁠

Téměř čtyři z deseti patentů, které vytvoří čeští vynálezci, vlastní zahraniční firmy. Vyplývá to z analýzy, kterou si nechala zpracovat Technologická agentura České republiky. Takzvaný patentový offshoring podle autorů studie ukazuje, že Česko sice dokáže vytvářet technologicky hodnotné inovace, často je ale neumí dlouhodobě udržet doma a ekonomicky využít.Všechny díly podcastu Zaostřeno můžete pohodlně poslouchat v mobilní aplikaci mujRozhlas pro Android a iOS nebo na webu mujRozhlas.cz.

Today, we dive into the Biblical Angel in UFO files, review government officials' statements, and the scary truth of what this could all mean… WELCOME TO Camp!

In this episode of the Post-Grant Podcast, Andy Zappia, Bryan Smith, and Ted Merkel explore a significant new director memo that changes how ex parte reexaminations are initiated at the Patent Office. They explain what ex parte reexam is, when and why it is used, and how new preorder patent owner submissions shape strategy for both requesters and patent owners. They also discuss how tightening IPR rules have driven more filers toward reexam, and when this new preorder procedure may or may not make a meaningful difference in whether a reexamination gets ordered. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Sun, 17 May 2026 08:15:00 +0000 https://jungeanleger.podigee.io/3118-sportwoche-otv-spitzentennis-podcast-neuer-2026er-punkterekord-unserer-top10-und-nico-hipfl-zeigt-sich-an-der-nebenfront 441d92bbcac037178e12c8d9c2c99c49 Woche 20 brachte einen weiteren Rekord im Punkte-Ranking, dafür sorgten Lilli Tagger und Lukas Neumayer. win2day-Spieler der Woche ist erstmals jemand von ausserhalb der Top1000. SportWoche ÖTV-Ö Top10 seit Jänner unverändert zusammengesetzt: Julia Grabher, Sinja Kraus, Anastasia Potapova und Lili Tagger (alphabetische Reihenfolge) bei den Damen sowie Sandro Kopp, Filip Misolic, Lukas Neumayer, Sebastian Ofner, Jurij Rodionov und Joel Schwärzler 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! 3118 full no Christian Drastil Comm. (Agentur für Investor Relations und Podcasts)

In this episode, Joe McGroarty, Clark Brayton, and Pritesh Patel of Actabl share why hotel data has been broken for decades, how their team built the patented normalization layer that fixes it, and why getting this right matters more in an AI-enabled world. You'll hear what's actually happening when revenue isn't easy to report on across your portfolio, the three questions to bring to your next tech partner meeting, and why context, not volume, is what makes AI answers trustworthy.Connect with the guests:Joseph "Joe" McGroarty on LinkedInClark Brayton on LinkedInPritesh Patel on LinkedInResources mentioned:Actabl's patent announcementHotelData.comProfitSword by ActablHotel EffectivenessAlice by ActablTranscendent by ActablThis episode is sponsored by Actabl. 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

Today, I'm talking with Tom Patterson, founder of Tommy John, the underwear brand that turned a frustrating problem into a 9-figure business. Tom started the company after getting tired of undershirts constantly coming untucked while working in medical sales. What began as a simple fix turned into one of the biggest direct-to-consumer apparel success stories of the last 15 years. In this conversation, we break down how Tommy John bootstrapped its way to over $100M in revenue before taking meaningful outside capital, why Howard Stern and Kevin Hart became game-changing growth channels, and what founders misunderstand about building premium consumer brands today. Tom also shares lessons on raising capital, balancing wholesale with direct-to-consumer, building a company with your spouse, and why experience can actually become a disadvantage in fast-changing markets.   Key Takeaways (01:27) Leveraging Howard Stern's Audience (03:08) Pioneering Podcast/Radio Marketing (04:25) Starting Tommy John with $100 and a Sketch (07:27) How Useful is a Patent? (11:12) Evolve and Innovate (13:49) AI's Future In Product Development (15:04) How to Defend Against Knockoffs  (18:01) Wholesale Vs DTC Margins Explained (21:33) Why Women Became 30% of Sales (26:26) How Tommy John Financed Growth (30:47) Kevin Hart's Unexpected Partnership (33:08) The Kobe Bryant Deal That Fell Apart (36:05) Selling A Minority Stake (38:20) Running A Business With Your Spouse (42:36) Experience Can Be Your Worst Enemy (44:38) Handing Off The CEO Role (46:53) Avoiding The Post-Exit Crisis (48:24) Lifestyle Businesses Are Changing (50:23) The Truth About Raising Venture Capital (52:06) Advice For New Entrepreneurs   Watch on YouTube: https://youtu.be/879q12wejtw     Let's Connect: Website | Instagram | YouTube | TikTok | Twitter | Facebook

Patents are often treated like business lottery tickets. Inventors dream about billion-dollar exits, licensing empires, and passive income streams that magically appear after receiving government approval paperwork. But the reality of patent value is far more complicated — and far more interesting.Some patents become worth millions or even billions of dollars. Others quietly expire with little commercial impact. So what actually determines whether intellectual property becomes a valuable strategic asset or simply an expensive framed document hanging in an office?This episode explores the business truth behind patent valuation and why commercialization matters far more than most entrepreneurs realize.We break down the core factors that influence patent value, including market demand, licensing opportunities, competitive advantage, enforceability, timing, and scalability. You'll learn why investors often care less about the patent itself and more about the business ecosystem surrounding the invention.We also discuss one of the biggest misconceptions in entrepreneurship: the belief that obtaining a patent automatically guarantees protection or financial success. In reality, patents are legal tools — and like any tool, their effectiveness depends on how strategically they are used.The conversation explores how major corporations use patents defensively and offensively, how startups leverage intellectual property during fundraising, and why some businesses intentionally build massive patent portfolios to influence competition.Historical examples from technology, pharmaceuticals, and manufacturing reveal how intellectual property has shaped entire industries. From Apple versus Samsung to billion-dollar drug patents, patent disputes have become central to modern business strategy.We also examine the darker side of patent systems, including litigation risks, patent trolling, rising legal costs, and the challenges small companies face when competing against corporations with enormous legal resources.Another major theme involves timing. Some inventions arrive before markets are ready. Others appear too late to establish meaningful competitive advantages. Understanding market readiness often matters just as much as technical innovation itself.For entrepreneurs, inventors, startup founders, and investors, this discussion provides practical insight into evaluating intellectual property realistically rather than emotionally.Because while patents can absolutely become valuable assets, they are rarely valuable in isolation.The businesses that generate the greatest returns are usually the ones that combine innovation with execution, commercialization strategy, customer demand, and operational discipline.This episode is especially relevant for technology companies, startups, medical innovators, software founders, and businesses exploring licensing opportunities or intellectual property growth strategies.Whether you are considering filing your first patent, evaluating acquisition opportunities, or trying to understand how intellectual property influences company valuation, this conversation offers a grounded and strategic perspective.By the end, you'll better understand why some patents become global business weapons while others quietly disappear into legal archives.And perhaps most importantly, you'll understand why intellectual property is ultimately about business strategy — not just legal paperwork.To chat about this one-on-one, grab a free consult at strategymeeting.com

What if the key to getting a criminal to confess was... a glowing, blinking skeleton in a dark room? Welcome back to WTF Wednesday, little skeletons! This week we're digging up one of our favorite weird-but-true stories that deserves a second listen.We kick things off in the roaring 1920s — a decade absolutely packed with infamous crimes. From the St. Valentine's Day Massacre and the unsolved Wall Street Bombing of 1920, to serial killer Albert Fish (aka the Brooklyn Vampire, the Gray Man) and the Black Sox scandal of 1921 — the '20s were wild.But the real star of today's episode? Helene Adelaide Shelby, a woman so fed up with retracted confessions that on August 16, 1927, she filed a patent for an "Apparatus for Obtaining Criminal Confessions and Photographically Recording Them." What was this apparatus, exactly? A small dark chamber. A hidden interrogator speaking through a megaphone. And a life-sized skeleton with glowing red blinking eyes designed to terrify suspects into confessing their deepest, darkest secrets.Yes. A crime skeleton. She patented a crime skeleton.Sadly, Helene's invention never made it off the drawing board — and the 1961 Supreme Court ruling on coerced confessions probably would have had something to say about it anyway. But we fully stan her energy.We wrap up the episode with 10 hilarious real cop stories pulled from Reddit — featuring horse semen, a stiletto heel where it absolutely should not be, a self-proclaimed "earth ninja," Chuck Norris, Big Macs, and the most relatable donut panic you'll ever hear.

You've been told surveillance technology keeps you safe, that racial gerrymandering protects minorities, and that Christianity is dying in America—all lies designed to keep you compliant while they build the control grid. Matt Shea exposes the smart dust tracking system with patent 666, the redistricting earthquake that will cost Democrats 14 seats because racial gerrymandering was their only path to power, the SPLC indictments revealing how the deep state weaponized "civil rights" groups against patriots, and why the UFO disclosure push is demonic deception that stops cold when you invoke the name of Jesus. ____________ VERITY METALS Convert your 401k or IRA into physical gold to protect your retirement from a volatile stock market and inflation. Your gold can be safely stored at a location of your choice, including your own business. CALL: 888-328-6703 https://converttogold.com ____________ FOLLOW US Website: https://patriotradio.us X: https://x.com/RepMattShea Instagram: https://instagram.com/patriotradious Facebook: https://facebook.com/patriotradious Telegram: https://t.me/patriotradious YouTube: https://youtube.com/@patriotradious Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/patriotradious Podcast: https://mattshea.podbean.com #live #patriotradious #news #truth #america  

In this episode of The CX Tipping Point Podcast, Martha Dorris spoke with Charles Thomas, the 2025 Customer Experience Trailblazer, whose leadership has transformed how the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office delivers digital services to the public. From launching the Trademarks program to leading USPTO's enterprise-wide customer experience strategy, Charles has championed a user-first approach that makes trademark protection and innovation more accessible for entrepreneurs, attorneys, and business owners nationwide.We discuss how customer journey mapping, usability testing, and strategic research helped USPTO surpass key satisfaction goals, achieving more than 80% customer satisfaction and trust scores across its digital services. Charles also shares insights from leading the development of Trademark Center, the modernized platform simplifying trademark applications for more than 500,000 users each year.Tune in to hear how human-centered design, thoughtful innovation, and a commitment to public service are helping reshape the future of government digital experiences.Thank you for listening to this episode of The CX Tipping Point Podcast! If you enjoyed it, please consider subscribing, rating, and leaving a review on your favorite podcast platform. Your support helps us reach more listeners!Stay Connected:Follow us on social media:LinkedIn: @DorrisConsultingInternationalTwitter: @DorrisConsultngFacebook: @DCInternationalResources Mentioned:Citizen Services Newsletter2024 Service to the Citizen Awards Nomination Form

Episode: 1569 Alkahest, the universal solvent.  Today, we look for the universal solvent.

In this episode, Keith sat down with Michael Fors, inventor and owner of the Liquid Jazz Experience, to explore how a simple ritual turned into a patented product.What started as a weekly wine night with friends evolved into something much bigger. Over time, Michael began to notice a small but consistent problem. Great wine often needed time to open up, but real moments do not wait.That observation led to an idea. And that idea eventually became Liquid Jazz, a decanter designed to bring wine to life in minutes.In this conversation, Michael shares:How a 26-year tradition became the foundation for a productThe moment of insight that came from watching ocean wavesWhat it really takes to turn an idea into a patentThe challenges of bringing a product to marketWhy not every idea should become a businessThis is a story about paying attention, solving real problems, and knowing when to take something seriously.Connect with Michael Fors: Website: https://liquidjazzexperience.com/pages/about Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/liquidjazzexperience/ Subscribe for more founder insights and hit the bell for notifications! Follow us on our channels for exclusive startup content and behind-the-scenes insights from interviews like this one. Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3cFpLXfYvcUsxvsT9MwyAD?si=f5a14e779777487d Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/liftoff-with-keith-newman/id1560219589 Substack: https://keithnewman.substack.com/ Newman Media Studios: https://newmanmediastudios.com/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/liftoffwithkeith For sponsorship inquiries, please contact: sponsorships@wherewithstudio.com#StartupStory #ProductInnovation #FounderJourney #Entrepreneurship #DesignThinking #ConsumerProduct #Innovation #BusinessStory

When Alice came down in 2014, much of the patent prosecution bar reacted with denial. Most practitioners hoped the USPTO, the Federal Circuit, or Congress would clean things up — and that adding some magic language to claims and specifications would eventually be enough.Eli Mazour and Ngai Zhang, separately, came to a different conclusion: there had to be a new, better way to obtain strong patents in the post-Alice world. They started comparing notes more than a decade ago, eventually converged on a shared approach, and now implement these strategies together at Foley & Lardner.On this episode of Clause 8, Eli and Ngai walk through what they actually do — their unique strategies for avoiding and overcoming Section 101 issues, why it's difficult for other attorneys to implement these strategies, and how they think their practice will be impacted in the age of AI.In this episode:* Why relying only on art unit prediction tools & wordsmithing is a losing strategy for § 101* Why claim 1 shouldn't be your broadest claim* How taking features out of independent claims helps advance prosecution - and how the strategy also leaves clients routinely surprised by how broad their issued claims end up* Examiner interviews as hostage negotiations: Ngai's framework based on Chris Voss's Never Split the Difference* Differing approaches that Ngai and Eli have on whether to push for an explicit on-the-record agreement before ending an interview* AI as a collaborator for patent drafting and prosecution* The importance of human interactions and communication for patent prosecution even in the age of AIWatch the full episode and read the companion post on Voice of IP: https://voiceofip.com/Subscribe to the Clause 8 YouTube channel for bonus content: https://www.youtube.com/@clause8

The MacVoices Live! panel reviews the latest on the evolving legal battle between Apple and Masimo, highlighting recent rulings favoring Apple while leaving key issues  like blood oxygen features and damages unresolved. Chuck Joiner, David Ginsburg, Web Bixby, Guy Serle, Jim Rea, Jeff Gamet, Marty Jencius, Brian Flanigan-Arthurs and Eric Bolden also explore whether AI-driven devices could challenge the iPhone, and how ecosystem lock-in, user habits, and app ecosystems figure into the equation.  MacVoices is supported by NordLayer. Secure your network & stay compliant with one toggle-ready platform. Get an exclusive offer: up to 22% off NordLayer yearly plans plus 10% on top with the coupon code: MACVOICES10 at NordLayer.com/macvoices. Try it risk-free—14-day money-back guarantee. Show Notes: Chapters: 0:00 Introduction to Apple–Masimo legal developments 0:12 Status of Apple Watch blood oxygen limitations 1:32 Legal implications and ongoing appeals 3:46 Trade Commission vs. court cases explained 5:19 Apple's position and potential damages 7:05 Patent dispute and financial stakes 10:15 Transition to AI and smartphone discussion 11:45 AI impact on iPhone relevance 12:27 OpenAI phone speculation and ecosystem lock-in 15:03 Market stability and barriers to entry 18:20 Privacy concerns and user behavior 19:49 Blackphone and niche security devices 23:07 iPhone battery issue anecdote and tips Links: The new iPhones have a problem turning back on after the battery runs out - 9to5Mac https://9to5mac.com/2026/04/26/iphone-turned-off-dead-how-to-turn-back-on/   Massimo's Apple Watch ban complaint dismissed by U.S. District Court https://appleinsider.com/articles/26/04/25/massimos-apple-watch-ban-complaint-dismissed-by-us-district-court   iPhone gets more important as every AI improves, Perplexity CEO says https://appleinsider.com/articles/26/04/23/iphone-gets-more-important-as-every-ai-improves-perplexity-ceo-says   The iPhone is ‘not getting disrupted' at all by AI, says Perplexity CEO - 9to5Mac https://9to5mac.com/2026/04/23/the-iphone-is-not-getting-disrupted-at-all-by-ai-says-perplexity-ceo/ Guests: Web Bixby has been in the insurance business for 40 years and has been an Apple user for longer than that.You can catch up with him on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn, but prefers Bluesky. Eric Bolden is into macOS, plants, sci-fi, food, and is a rural internet supporter. You can connect with him on Twitter, by email at embolden@mac.com, on Mastodon at @eabolden@techhub.social, on his blog, Trending At Work, and as co-host on The Vision ProFiles podcast. Brian Flanigan-Arthurs is an educator with a passion for providing results-driven, innovative learning strategies for all students, but particularly those who are at-risk. He is also a tech enthusiast who has a particular affinity for Apple since he first used the Apple IIGS as a student. You can contact Brian on twitter as @brian8944. He also recently opened a Mastodon account at @brian8944@mastodon.cloud. Jeff Gamet is a technology blogger, podcaster, author, and public speaker. Previously, he was The Mac Observer's Managing Editor, and the TextExpander Evangelist for Smile. He has presented at Macworld Expo, RSA Conference, several WordCamp events, along with many other conferences. You can find him on several podcasts such as The Mac Show, The Big Show, MacVoices, Mac OS Ken, This Week in iOS, and more. Jeff is easy to find on social media as @jgamet on Twitter and Instagram, jeffgamet on LinkedIn., @jgamet@mastodon.social on Mastodon, and on his YouTube Channel at YouTube.com/jgamet. David Ginsburg is the host of the weekly podcast In Touch With iOS where he discusses all things iOS, iPhone, iPad, Apple TV, Apple Watch, and related technologies. He is an IT professional supporting Mac, iOS and Windows users. Visit his YouTube channel at https://youtube.com/daveg65 and find and follow him on Twitter @daveg65 and on Mastodon at @daveg65@mastodon.cloud. Marty Jencius, Ph.D.,is a counselor educator and technology pioneer who has spent 30 years bringing emerging tech into his field — from founding one of the first professional listservs (CESNET-L) to podcasting, virtual reality, and now AI and AR. He is the founder of ThePodTalk.net, where he produces Vision ProFiles, The Old Mac Gang, A.I. Productivity Workflow, The Tech Savvy Professor, 15 Minute Bytes, The Neo Notebook, and Fade to Chat: Golden Age Cinema. He is also a regular panelist on MacVoices Live!, In Touch with iOS, and The Mac Show. Find him on Bluesky and Mastodon. Jim Rea built his own computer from scratch in 1975, started programming in 1977, and has been an independent Mac developer continuously since 1984. He is the founder of ProVUE Development, and the author of Panorama X, ProVUE's ultra fast RAM based database software for the macOS platform. He's been a speaker at MacTech, MacWorld Expo and other industry conferences. Follow Jim at provue.com and via @provuejim@techhub.social on Mastodon. Guy Serle, best known for being one of the co-hosts of the MyMac Podcast, sincerely apologizes for anything he has done or caused to have happened while in possession of dangerous podcasting equipment. He should know better but being a blonde from Florida means he's probably incapable of understanding the damage he has wrought. Guy is also the author of the novel, The Maltese Cube. You can follow his exploits on Twitter, catch him on Mac to the Future on Facebook, at @Macparrot@mastodon.social, and find everything at VertShark.com.   Support: Become a MacVoices Patron on Patreon      http://patreon.com/macvoices      Enjoy this episode? Make a one-time donation with PayPal Connect: Web:      http://macvoices.com Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/chuckjoiner      http://www.twitter.com/macvoices Mastodon:      https://mastodon.cloud/@chuckjoiner Facebook:      http://www.facebook.com/chuck.joiner MacVoices Page on Facebook:      http://www.facebook.com/macvoices/ MacVoices Group on Facebook:      http://www.facebook.com/groups/macvoice LinkedIn:      https://www.linkedin.com/in/chuckjoiner/ Instagram:      https://www.instagram.com/chuckjoiner/ Subscribe:      Audio in iTunes      Video in iTunes      Subscribe manually via iTunes or any podcatcher: Audio: http://www.macvoices.com/rss/macvoicesrss      Video: http://www.macvoices.com/rss/macvoicesvideorss

The MacVoices Live! panel reviews the latest on the evolving legal battle between Apple and Masimo, highlighting recent rulings favoring Apple while leaving key issues  like blood oxygen features and damages unresolved. Chuck Joiner, David Ginsburg, Web Bixby, Guy Serle, Jim Rea, Jeff Gamet, Marty Jencius, Brian Flanigan-Arthurs and Eric Bolden also explore whether AI-driven devices could challenge the iPhone, and how ecosystem lock-in, user habits, and app ecosystems figure into the equation.  MacVoices is supported by NordLayer. Secure your network & stay compliant with one toggle-ready platform. Get an exclusive offer: up to 22% off NordLayer yearly plans plus 10% on top with the coupon code: MACVOICES10 at NordLayer.com/macvoices. Try it risk-free—14-day money-back guarantee. Show Notes: Chapters: 0:00 Introduction to Apple–Masimo legal developments 0:12 Status of Apple Watch blood oxygen limitations 1:32 Legal implications and ongoing appeals 3:46 Trade Commission vs. court cases explained 5:19 Apple's position and potential damages 7:05 Patent dispute and financial stakes 10:15 Transition to AI and smartphone discussion 11:45 AI impact on iPhone relevance 12:27 OpenAI phone speculation and ecosystem lock-in 15:03 Market stability and barriers to entry 18:20 Privacy concerns and user behavior 19:49 Blackphone and niche security devices 23:07 iPhone battery issue anecdote and tips Links: The new iPhones have a problem turning back on after the battery runs out - 9to5Mac https://9to5mac.com/2026/04/26/iphone-turned-off-dead-how-to-turn-back-on/   Massimo's Apple Watch ban complaint dismissed by U.S. District Court https://appleinsider.com/articles/26/04/25/massimos-apple-watch-ban-complaint-dismissed-by-us-district-court   iPhone gets more important as every AI improves, Perplexity CEO says https://appleinsider.com/articles/26/04/23/iphone-gets-more-important-as-every-ai-improves-perplexity-ceo-says   The iPhone is 'not getting disrupted' at all by AI, says Perplexity CEO - 9to5Mac https://9to5mac.com/2026/04/23/the-iphone-is-not-getting-disrupted-at-all-by-ai-says-perplexity-ceo/ Guests: Web Bixby has been in the insurance business for 40 years and has been an Apple user for longer than that.You can catch up with him on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn, but prefers Bluesky. Eric Bolden is into macOS, plants, sci-fi, food, and is a rural internet supporter. You can connect with him on Twitter, by email at embolden@mac.com, on Mastodon at @eabolden@techhub.social, on his blog, Trending At Work, and as co-host on The Vision ProFiles podcast. Brian Flanigan-Arthurs is an educator with a passion for providing results-driven, innovative learning strategies for all students, but particularly those who are at-risk. He is also a tech enthusiast who has a particular affinity for Apple since he first used the Apple IIGS as a student. You can contact Brian on twitter as @brian8944. He also recently opened a Mastodon account at @brian8944@mastodon.cloud. Jeff Gamet is a technology blogger, podcaster, author, and public speaker. Previously, he was The Mac Observer's Managing Editor, and the TextExpander Evangelist for Smile. He has presented at Macworld Expo, RSA Conference, several WordCamp events, along with many other conferences. You can find him on several podcasts such as The Mac Show, The Big Show, MacVoices, Mac OS Ken, This Week in iOS, and more. Jeff is easy to find on social media as @jgamet on Twitter and Instagram, jeffgamet on LinkedIn., @jgamet@mastodon.social on Mastodon, and on his YouTube Channel at YouTube.com/jgamet. David Ginsburg is the host of the weekly podcast In Touch With iOS where he discusses all things iOS, iPhone, iPad, Apple TV, Apple Watch, and related technologies. He is an IT professional supporting Mac, iOS and Windows users. Visit his YouTube channel at https://youtube.com/daveg65 and find and follow him on Twitter @daveg65 and on Mastodon at @daveg65@mastodon.cloud. Marty Jencius, Ph.D.,is a counselor educator and technology pioneer who has spent 30 years bringing emerging tech into his field — from founding one of the first professional listservs (CESNET-L) to podcasting, virtual reality, and now AI and AR. He is the founder of ThePodTalk.net, where he produces Vision ProFiles, The Old Mac Gang, A.I. Productivity Workflow, The Tech Savvy Professor, 15 Minute Bytes, The Neo Notebook, and Fade to Chat: Golden Age Cinema. He is also a regular panelist on MacVoices Live!, In Touch with iOS, and The Mac Show. Find him on Bluesky and Mastodon. Jim Rea built his own computer from scratch in 1975, started programming in 1977, and has been an independent Mac developer continuously since 1984. He is the founder of ProVUE Development, and the author of Panorama X, ProVUE's ultra fast RAM based database software for the macOS platform. He's been a speaker at MacTech, MacWorld Expo and other industry conferences. Follow Jim at provue.com and via @provuejim@techhub.social on Mastodon. Guy Serle, best known for being one of the co-hosts of the MyMac Podcast, sincerely apologizes for anything he has done or caused to have happened while in possession of dangerous podcasting equipment. He should know better but being a blonde from Florida means he's probably incapable of understanding the damage he has wrought. Guy is also the author of the novel, The Maltese Cube. You can follow his exploits on Twitter, catch him on Mac to the Future on Facebook, at @Macparrot@mastodon.social, and find everything at VertShark.com.   Support:      Become a MacVoices Patron on Patreon      http://patreon.com/macvoices      Enjoy this episode? Make a one-time donation with PayPal Connect:      Web:      http://macvoices.com      Twitter:      http://www.twitter.com/chuckjoiner      http://www.twitter.com/macvoices      Mastodon:      https://mastodon.cloud/@chuckjoiner      Facebook:      http://www.facebook.com/chuck.joiner      MacVoices Page on Facebook:      http://www.facebook.com/macvoices/      MacVoices Group on Facebook:      http://www.facebook.com/groups/macvoice      LinkedIn:      https://www.linkedin.com/in/chuckjoiner/      Instagram:      https://www.instagram.com/chuckjoiner/ Subscribe:      Audio in iTunes      Video in iTunes      Subscribe manually via iTunes or any podcatcher:      Audio: http://www.macvoices.com/rss/macvoicesrss      Video: http://www.macvoices.com/rss/macvoicesvideorss

The Cosmic Crisp apple, originally developed at Washington State University, will continue to be exclusively grown in Washington state for another six years.

This week, attention turned to the ruling on the polio vaccine patent, which in the 1950s was linked to a disease that crippled hundreds of thousands of people each year. 702 Breakfast with Bongani Bingwa is broadcast on 702, a Johannesburg based talk radio station. Bongani makes sense of the news, interviews the key newsmakers of the day, and holds those in power to account on your behalf. The team bring you all you need to know to start your day Thank you for listening to a podcast from 702 Breakfast with Bongani Bingwa Listen live on Primedia+ weekdays from 06:00 and 09:00 (SA Time) to Breakfast with Bongani Bingwa broadcast on 702: https://buff.ly/gk3y0Kj For more from the show go to https://buff.ly/36edSLV or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/zEcM35T Subscribe to the 702 Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/v5mfetc Follow us on social media: 702 on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TalkRadio702 702 on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@talkradio702 702 on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/talkradio702/ 702 on X: https://x.com/Radio702 702 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@radio7See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

If you're an inventor or entrepreneur riding the high of securing a U.S. patent, this episode is your reality check—in the best possible way. Because while a U.S. patent is a powerful asset, it's also geographically limited. And in today's global economy, that limitation can become a major vulnerability if not addressed early.We dive into one of the most misunderstood aspects of intellectual property: international patent protection. Many inventors assume their rights extend automatically beyond U.S. borders. Unfortunately, that's not how the system works. Patent rights are territorial, meaning your protection only exists in the countries where you've actively filed and secured it.So what are your options? We break down the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), a system designed to simplify the process of seeking protection in multiple countries. The PCT doesn't grant you a “global patent,” but it does give you valuable time—typically up to 30 months—to evaluate where your invention should be protected.We also explore direct national filings, which involve submitting patent applications individually in each country of interest. While this approach can be more immediate, it often comes with higher costs and complexity due to varying legal requirements.Beyond the mechanics, we talk strategy. How do you decide which countries matter? Should you prioritize manufacturing hubs? Consumer markets? Competitor hotspots? The answer depends on your business model—and getting it wrong can be costly.We also tackle common pitfalls, like missing critical filing deadlines or over-investing in markets with little return. And we discuss enforcement challenges, because securing a patent is one thing—defending it in a foreign legal system is another.This episode is packed with insights to help you think beyond borders and approach your intellectual property like a global business asset.Whether you're just starting out or preparing to scale internationally, understanding how to protect your invention worldwide is essential.To chat about this one-on-one, grab a free consult at strategymeeting.com

The latest In Touch With iOS with Dave he is joined by Jill McKinley, Eric Bolden, Marty Jencius, Vision Pro sparks debate with real-world medical breakthroughs and Hollywood use cases while critics call it "doomed." Meanwhile, MacBook Neo demand surges, Apple expands AI and iCloud features, and MacStock 2026 heats up with major announcements. The show notes are at InTouchwithiOS.com  Direct Link to Audio  Links to our Show Give us a review on Apple Podcasts! CLICK HERE we would really appreciate it! Click this link Buy me a Coffee to support the show we would really appreciate it. intouchwithios.com/coffee  Another way to support the show is to become a Patreon member patreon.com/intouchwithios Website: In Touch With iOS YouTube Channel In Touch with iOS Magazine on Flipboard Facebook Page BlueSky Mastodon X Instagram Threads Summary In Episode 420, Dave and the panel dive deep into the evolving Apple ecosystem, starting with the latest visionOS 26.5 beta and broader conversations around the future of Apple Vision Pro. Despite headlines suggesting Apple may be "giving up," the panel pushes back—highlighting real-world use cases in healthcare and filmmaking that suggest the opposite. A standout story includes Vision Pro being used in cataract surgery, enabling real-time collaboration and 3D visualization—showcasing its growing role in enterprise and medical environments. In parallel, Hollywood is embracing the device, with directors like Jon Favreau leveraging Vision Pro for immersive shot composition in virtual IMAX environments. The conversation shifts to Apple's broader ecosystem updates, including beta releases across iOS, macOS, and watchOS, which remain relatively quiet ahead of WWDC. Meanwhile, the MacBook Neo continues to generate buzz with strong demand and shipping delays, reinforcing its early success. AI continues to dominate discussion with tools like Perplexity's Comet browser, YouTube's conversational search experiments, and Google Photos' upcoming wardrobe AI feature. Apple also enhances iCloud with improved web-based search functionality—closing the gap with competitors. Additional topics include Apple Pay transit expansion, App Store subscription changes, MagSafe's uncertain future, and excitement around upcoming Apple TV+ content like Ted Lasso Season 4. The episode wraps with a preview of MacStock X, featuring appearances from industry voices including David Pogue and a special Ecamm Creator Camp. Topics and Links In Touch With Vision Pro this week.  visionOS 26.5 Beta 4 Release Notes Apple Has Given Up on the Vision Pro After M5 Refresh Flop Apple Vision Pro Used in World-First Cataract Surgery Latest 'Star Wars' movie cut unnecessary costs by using Apple Vision Pro Apple wins Patent for Bridge Emitters & Sensors to Keep AR Glasses Aligned Over Time Beta this week.  Apple Seeds Fourth iOS 26.5 and iPadOS 26.5 Betas to Developers Apple Releases Fourth watchOS 26.5, tvOS 26.5 and visionOS 26.5 Betas In Touch With Mac this week Fourth macOS Tahoe 26.5 Beta Now Available for Developers MacBook Neo Still Seeing Extended Delivery Estimates at Apple, But Amazon and Walmart Have Stock Other Topics Perplexity just gave its Comet AI browser an upgrade for iPad users with these features YouTube Tests AI-Powered 'Ask YouTube' Conversational Search Feature  iOS 26.4 adds convenient new iCloud feature, here's how to enable it  Google Photos to Get AI 'Wardrobe' Feature Apple Introduces App Store Monthly Subscriptions With 12-Month Commitmenth Apple May Reconsider MagSafe Future on Upcoming iPhones ProClip USA   News Apple Shares 'Ted Lasso' Season Four Streaming Date and Teaser Trailer Watch The Formula 1 Miami Grand Prix Live On Apple TV This Weekend Apple Q2 2026 Earnings Call: Date, Time, and What Could Move the Stock Apple Pay for Transit Now Works in These 12 U.S. Cities Announcements Macstock X is here celebrating its 10th anniversary ! Dave, Chuck, Jeff, Marty, and Jill are all speaking this year!. With Three Full Days of expert-led Presentations and Workshops, Macstock's sessions are crammed full of productivity-enhancing content. NEW this year is a partnership with sponsor Ecamm. Ecamm Creator Camp: Mac Edition on July 9, 2026 there are only 100 tickets available for the bundle. There are 2 passes available: Macstock weekend pass July 10,11,12, 2026 or the Macstock Ecamm Bundle starting July 9 (only 100 tickets available)  Come join us. Register HERE and use our offer code INTOUCH to save $50 Our Host Dave Ginsburg is an IT professional supporting Mac, iOS and Windows users and shares his wealth of knowledge of iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, Apple TV and related technologies. Visit the YouTube channel https://youtube.com/intouchwithios follow him on Mastodon @daveg65, , BlueSky @daveg65  and the show @intouchwithios   Our Regular Contributors Jeff Gamet is a podcaster, technology blogger, artist, and author. Previously, he was The Mac Observer's managing editor, and Smile's TextExpander Evangelist. You can find him on Mastadon @jgamet Pixelfed @jgamet@pixelfed.social and Bluesky @jgamet.bsky.social‬ Podcasts The Context Machine Podcast  Retro Rewatch Retro Rewatch His YouTube channel https://youtube.com/jgamet Marty Jencius, Ph.D., is a professor of counselor education at Kent State University, where he researches, writes, and trains about using technology in teaching and mental health practice. His podcasts include Vision Pro Files, The Tech Savvy Professor and Circular Firing Squad Podcast. Find him at jencius@mastodon.social  https://thepodtalk.net  Eric Bolden is into macOS, plants, sci-fi, food, and is a rural internet supporter. You can connect with him by email at eabolden@mac.com, on Mastodon at @eabolden@techhub.social, on his blog, Trending At Work, and as co-host on The Vision ProFiles podcast.   Jill McKinley works in enterprise software, server administration, and IT A lifelong tech enthusiast, she started her career with Windows but is now an avid Apple fan. Beyond technology, she shares her insights on nature, faith, and personal growth through her podcasts—Buzz Blossom & Squeak, Start with Small Steps, and The Bible in Small Steps. Watch her content on YouTube at @startwithsmallsteps and follow her on X @schmern. Find all her work at http://jillfromthenorthwoods.com  Chuck Joiner is the host of MacVoices and hosts video podcasts with influential members of the Apple community. Make sure to visit macvoices.com and subscribe to his podcast. You can follow him on Twitter @chuckjoiner and join his MacVoices Facebook group. Guy Serle is one of the hosts of the new The Gmen Show along with GazMaz and email GMenshow@icloud.com  @MacParrot and @VertShark on X  Vertshark on YouTube, Google Voice +1 Area code  703-828-4677

Crystal investigates an anomaly in Google search data that predicted neural interface technology disclosures by two years.What We Cover:• Georgia Tech's peer-reviewed hair follicle sensor research (published PNAS, April 2025)• Federal contract analysis: microneedle manufacturing scale-up 2020-2025• Google Trends investigation: “moving hair” search clustering with vestigial body part queries• Geographic analysis: Aarau, Switzerland and the Interneuron consortium• Supply chain documentation: 3M, Vaxxas, Vaxess government contracts• Patent landscape: neural interface applications of microneedle technology• Charles Lieber connection: injectable mesh electronics and the i-BRAIN timelineKey Sources:        •       Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences        •       US Patent Database        •       Federal procurement records (USAspending.gov)        •       Google Trends data analysis        •       Peer-reviewed neurotechnology literature#neurotechnology #supplychainanalysis #biomedicalengineering #searchtrends #microneedleresearch #georgatech #swissresearch #patentanalysis #governmentcontracts #datatechnology Reach out to share your story:moremorgellons.com

Les, Kurt, and Jason didn't forget about you because they took their fish oil pills, and they're here to talk about Hallmark's I'll be Seeing You! But first, Les talks about his epic birthday bash featuring celebrity appearances! Plus, Kurt recaps the Michael movie and Jason and Les are disappointed about the lack of Rebbie, Janet, and Randy (plus can we get a little justice for Tito?). And, Kurt has some Blac Chyna news you may have heard in an earlier episode. Then it's time to open up your tree poppers to take in I'll Be Seeing You starring Hallmark staple Tyler Hynes (can he get it? Vote on Threads @lifetimeofhallmarkpodcast) and two-time Tony award winner Christine Ebersol. This movie features a lot a lot of people getting into strangers' vans, but it's all part of the high-pressure super cutthroat world of patent law.    Bluesky: lifetimeofhallmark Facebook : lifetimeofhallmark Instagram : lifetimeofhallmarkpodcast Threads: lifetimeofhallmarkpodcast TikTok: lifetimeofhallmarkpod Theme song generously donated by purple-planet.com  

Patent attorney Austin , with 700+ US patents secured, reveals what kills patent rights before founders ever file. One social media post, one Kickstarter launch, one ChatGPT prompt could cost you everything. In this episode, Austin breaks down what makes an invention patentable, how patent pending status protects you while you monetize, and the real cost of filing. You'll also get his counterintuitive strategy for controlling your market once your patent is approved. Perfect for startup founders and product-based entrepreneurs ready to treat intellectual property as the business asset it truly is.

Czy można prowadzić razem dom, wychowywać trójkę dzieci i budować wspólny biznes i nadal mieć szczęśliwy związek? Ania i Maciej Cićkiewicz są razem 15 lat, po ślubie 13, prowadzą jedną z najbardziej znanych klinik stomatologicznych w Polsce, Cićkiewicz Clinic i zatrudniają ponad 40 osób. W tym odcinku rozkładamy na czynniki pierwsze ich przepis na partnerstwo, które nie pęka pod ciężarem codzienności.Rozmawiamy o tym, jak znaleźć „tę” osobę, po co robić szybką kalkulację, zanim postawisz na swoim, i dlaczego nie warto wciągać rodziny ani przyjaciół w konflikty w związku. Ania i Maciej opowiadają o tym, jak przetrwali specjalizację we Wrocławiu, pandemię, narodziny trójki dzieci i otwarcie kliniki w trakcie lockdownu. Zdradzają swoje konkretne patenty na bliskość, np. jeden dzień albo weekend w miesiącu tylko dla siebie, krótki city break na reset, obowiązkowy sport w tygodniu dla każdego z osobna.Porozmawiamy też szczerze o tym, czego kobiety nie powinny robić, wchodząc w związek, dlaczego mężczyzna musi wziąć na siebie część rodzicielstwa, jak wygląda rywalizacja w parze, która razem prowadzi firmę, i co odpowiedzieć, gdy ktoś mówi ci: „jesteś tylko żoną doktora”. Na koniec konkretne rady dla par, które myślą o wspólnym biznesie, i lista cech, które warto sprawdzić u partnera, zanim w niego zainwestujesz.To odcinek o tym, że dobry związek i dobry biznes rządzą się tymi samymi zasadami: rozmową, strategią, kompromisem i odrobiną chłodnej kalkulacji.Jeśli szukasz inspiracji, jak budować świadomy, partnerski związek, jak łączyć macierzyństwo z pracą zawodową albo jak prowadzić wspólny biznes z mężem lub żoną, ten odcinek jest dla Ciebie.

Five stories today — starting with the one every NIO investor needs to hear right now.A British Virgin Islands holding company called Charge Peak, which owns the patents of bankrupt Israeli startup Better Place, just sent NIO a cease-and-desist letter demanding $250 million — calculated as 2% of NIO's 2025 revenue. They're claiming NIO's battery swap network infringes three European patents.Here's why I'm not worried. This is not a lawsuit — it's a negotiating letter. Better Place went bankrupt in 2013. NIO was founded in 2014 and has been filing its own independent battery swap patents since 2017. NIO responded directly — their technology is "materially different" and developed through years of independent R&D. And the three patents cover European operations only — about 60 of NIO's 4,000 global swap stations.The timing is telling. This letter dropped the day before Beijing Auto Show with NIO stock up 95% in 12 months. That's not coincidence. That's a shakedown. Buy the dip if it comes.On the same day — NIO delivered its 100,000th third-generation ES8 in Beijing. 100,000 units above 300,000 yuan in a market where 56% of dealerships are losing money. William Li didn't pick that timing by accident.Israel and Lebanon extended their ceasefire three weeks after Trump personally joined the White House meeting. Three more weeks of breathing room for markets.Google dropped $750 million to help companies deploy AI faster — the real AI battleground is now implementation, not model building.And a startup called Noscroll launched an AI bot that does your doomscrolling for you. The irony for this channel writes itself.Beijing Auto Show media day is tomorrow. This channel covers everything.---

First, Joe asks-do you flag your email? Next, Jack brings us an amazing new & innovative product! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Your pipeline isn't broken; your buyers just don't trust you. Learn how today's AI chaos, attention metrics, and trust recession are derailing conversions and get a practical playbook to turn trust into your brand's winning edge!And don't forget! You can crush your marketing strategy with just a few minutes a week by signing up for the StrategyCast Newsletter. You'll receive weekly bursts of marketing tips, clips, resources, and a whole lot more. Visit https://strategycast.com/ for more details.==Let's Break It Down==05:27 Erosion of trust over time09:42 Rethinking marketing and customer trust10:29 Building team alignment16:27 Understanding your ideal customer profile19:13 Understanding audience challenges and solutions21:29 Using customer interviews to uncover truths25:41 Ethical marketing as an advantage28:54 Short term pressure on marketers32:12 Talking about NPS scores==Where You Can Find Us==Website: https://strategycast.com/Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/strategy_cast/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/strategycast==Leave a Review==Hey there, StrategyCast fans!If you've found our tips and tricks on marketing strategies helpful in growing your business, we'd be thrilled if you could take a moment to leave us a review on Apple Podcasts. Your feedback not only supports us but also helps others discover how they can elevate their business game!

Vineyard Wind sues GE Renewables to block a walkout over $300M in withheld payments and defective blades. Plus Ørsted posts a $262M quarterly loss and shakes up its board. Sign up now for Uptime Tech News, our weekly newsletter on all things wind technology. This episode is sponsored by Weather Guard Lightning Tech. Learn more about Weather Guard’s StrikeTape Wind Turbine LPS retrofit. Follow the show on YouTube, Linkedin and visit Weather Guard on the web. And subscribe to Rosemary’s “Engineering with Rosie” YouTube channel here. Have a question we can answer on the show? Email us! Uptime316 Matthew Stead: [00:00:00] The Uptime Wind Energy Podcast brought to you by Strike Tape, protecting thousands of wind turbines from lightning damage worldwide. Visit strike tape.com And now your hosts. Allen Hall: Welcome to the Uptime Wind Energy Podcast. I’m your host Allen Hall, and I’m here with Matthew Stead and Rosemary Barnes who are in Australia. Before we get too far into this episode, I would like to mention that the UK US relationship has been very tense recently, as you have seen in the, in the news articles and on television. But there was one good news piece that just happened, which is the band Oasis just got inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. So that is trying to mend those relationships, bring the UK and US back together. In at least a musical sense. So I know Rosemary was watching that closely as the votes were counted. But, [00:01:00] uh, everybody in the UK is super thrilled about it as they should be. And all us Oasis fans can’t wait for the induction ceremony. In fact, we’re planning to go to Cleveland. They’ll go watch it if we can. We shall see now onto more important information this week. Vineyard, wind and GE are not getting along. And if you have been paying attention for the last two years, you would’ve noticed that there’s been a couple of tense moments. Well, uh, that wind project is a little bit up in the air because vineyard wind has filed suit against GE renewables to stop the turbine maker from walking away after GE sent a termination notice. Over a $300 million ish, uh, disagreement in unpaid bills. At the center of this dispute are defective blades, of course, that, uh, broke off in 2024 and caused a number of problems, uh, for GE and vineyard Wind is particularly a delay in the [00:02:00] project and ge having to fix pull blades off of turbines that were already installed and I think they ended up sending those back to France. Reading the lawsuit, it seems like GE did not repair those blades. They replaced those blades because, uh, they may not have been able to repair them or maybe is the amount of time it’s gonna take to repair them. You can repair almost anything made out of. Composite. Uh, but this is a big problem because, uh, if GE does walk away and they’re talking about walking away from this project at the end of April, vineyard, wind believes that the turbines are not ready to be operated, and they don’t have a way to operate those turbines. They don’t have the knowledge or the people because the people belong to GE that need to make some of these turbines operate. Even there’s even some question about if all the turbines are operating at the required [00:03:00]handover requirements. This is unique because I don’t think I’ve ever seen a wind turbine manufacturer leave before a wind site is finished. It must have happened before, but. It does put both sides in quite a pinch. Right.  Rosemary Barnes: Can I just jump, jump back to, to something that you said, um, that you can repair almost anything when it comes to composites? I would say that that doesn’t necessarily apply if your design was insufficient in the first place. And I mean the design for manufacturing in this case, I think that the, like computer model design worked fine, but obviously it was not as easy to manufacture or as possible to manufacture. With the correct quality as what they expected. It can’t have been so simple to just, just repair. That’s, um, that’s what I want to say. Like it, it’s obvious to me that if it was possible to repair, that would’ve been much easier than what they’ve ended up with, which I think is pretty foreseeable. Or most [00:04:00] engineers would probably have foreseen that if you, you know, put blades out there that, um, don’t meet your. Standard, um, quality control acceptance criteria that, you know, the consequence of that would be that it would be more likely to fail. So yeah, I think you can repair nearly anything on a standard blade that is possible to make correctly. But if you’ve got big quality problems, then it’s not, it’s, it’s not easy and it’s possibly not possible to, you know, just get, um, just get onto that in repair.  Matthew Stead: I, I think you’re both right. Because it all comes down to economics. So I think Alan’s statement, you know, things can be repaired. It just comes back to economics, doesn’t it?  Rosemary Barnes: U usually, yes. And like for your average, like if you’ve got a wind farm and you’ve got a blade with a big, a big repair, or you know, like a big defect right on the main laminate, that’s gonna require, you know, like a huge repair, taking the blade down and keeping it down for, you know, like three months while you rebuild like 20 meters [00:05:00] of laminate. Yes, that would be technically possible, but you wouldn’t because it would be so expensive. So us usually, like in 99% of cases, that would be it. That it’s not actually impossible to repair. It’s just very hard. But, you know, in these really huge blades and, you know, um, bearing in mind that I don’t, I don’t know the specific quality problems that they face, but, you know, just from my knowledge of composites, you can say what the challenging areas would be, but you know, a really big blade is gonna have a really thick laminate and, um, composites don’t like to have really thick laminates. When they cure, it’s usually an, an exothermic reaction, puts off heat, you know, like the temperature is changing and um, it works fine for thin laminates, but when it’s really thick you can get hot spots and cold spots and maybe it’s hard to get the resin to go all the way through evenly. But you know, imagine if you’ve got a really thick laminate and there’s a chunk of it that just didn’t get any resin in it. How are you gonna repair that? Like, I wouldn’t say impossible. I’m sure if the fate of the human race depended on it, then you would, you would make it work. But it’s [00:06:00] certainly very close to impossible.  Matthew Stead: Economically, it does not make sense.  Rosemary Barnes: You would probably have to make a few inventions. Along the way to be able to make it work as well. I think,  Allen Hall: I think I should read part of, and I don’t like reading these lawsuits, but this is informative in a sense that it provides some relative background as to what Vineyard Wind is thinking in some of the contract details that are involved here. So in June 4th, 2021, this is directly from the lawsuit, uh, vineyard Wind entered into A TSA with GE renewables in which. GE Renewables agreed to design, manufacture supply, install commission, and test the wind turbine generators for the vineyard wind project at a contract price of more than $1.3 billion. There you go. On the same day as an integral part of the commercial agreement, the parties entered into an SMA, uh, by which GE renewables agreed to maintain and service that wind turbine [00:07:00]generators for the first five years. Of operations of the project and guarantee that all wind turbine generators will operate at a 97% of production availability. Uh, this guarantee is central, is a central component of the commercial viability of the Vineyard Wind Project. So I would say so, right. Uh, at present, all of the wind turbine generators on the project have been installed. However, the wind turbine generators are not yet fully operational and are. Able to reduce power at only levels well below those intended under the contracts fundamental to the project’s commitment to Massachusetts to achieve full commercial operation. The project requires repair, commissioning, and maintenance of GE renewables, 62 proprietary wind turbine generators, and their component parts work that only GE renewables knows how to perform. So it sounds like Vineyard Wind has a five-year contract that GE ISS gonna operate these [00:08:00] turbines, and if they leave in a couple of weeks, vineyard wind really doesn’t have a backup plan. They may have. Were planning on a plan five years down the road where they could operate ’em, but to operate those turbines immediately when they haven’t, at least as. Indicated here may not be fully commissioned to providing the right amount of availability. That’s a huge problem for Vineyard. Huge.  Rosemary Barnes: It’s interesting to me that they’ve decided to withhold some money that I think everyone agrees that they owe that money to ge. But then there’s a dispute because Vineyard when says that GE owes them money for some other stuff That sounds like GE disputes. Um, it’s like if you have a problem. With your landlord, they always tell you, don’t, don’t withhold rent, because then they can, you know, that’s, that’s their out of the contract. Right? So it seems weird, like it’s a relatively small amount compared to what vineyard wind is risking. So. It seems to me like, are they, is this a mistake from them? Are they giving ge an out from this contract that’s gonna be [00:09:00] really hard for them to meet? It might be that GE knows what it would cost to entirely fix the wind farm and have it producing the way that it should. But, you know, let’s say in a worst case scenario, that means remaking every single blade in the um, in the wind farm. At the, at the French factory, you know, like that could be your, your worst case scenario. GE knows that that’s gonna cost more than what they’re ever gonna pay over the five years of, um, you know, the, uh, of missing the availability guarantee. So then it is worth, for them, the cost effective thing to do is to just walk away and they’re kind of, the amount that they’ll have to pay is limited. If I’m thinking fairness, it’s so unfair that vineyard wind would be stuck with this wind farm that they can’t really get to do anything. But if I think about how I see these disputes work out in the smaller versions of them that I’ve seen, it seems like vineyard wind actually probably is the one more likely to come out with a bad outcome from the way that they’re [00:10:00] choosing to play this right. Uh, because they, they risk not being able to operate at all. And they have potentially, like, I’m not a lawyer, I don’t, I don’t know about, you know, how likely it is that the 300 million, that their withholding will be enough for GE to walk away with without having to pay anything for, um, you know, not operating, uh, correctly over the next five years. But, um, you know, it just seems like it’s not so much money compared to the billions that are at stake. To risk that they will be left unable to operate the wind farm at all. You know, it’s just, uh, I don’t know. It seems risky.  Allen Hall: Let’s start with the kickoff of what happened and what vineyard wind is alleging happened from these, their perspective on it. It does provide some insight into all the things we talked about on the podcast for the last two years. We, we saw bits and pieces of it. According to vineyard wind, uh, GE Renewable [00:11:00] claims that it is owed quote amounts due unquote for milestone payments is, is contrary in in language to the TSA, so the turbine supply agreement put simply vineyard wind owes nothing to GE renewables because the TSA turbine supply agreement allows vineyard wind to withhold amounts. The project engineer determines that GE Renewable owes vineyard wind from milestone payments otherwise due under the contract. So what they’re saying is GE owes is a bunch of money. Yes, we do owe GE renewables money, but it’s in Vineyard Wind’s favor. So why would they send GE money? Um, those set off amounts are substantial because GE renewables caused catastrophic injury to vineyard wind by installing 68 defective blades on 24. Wind turbine generators resulting in two years of delay and over a billion dollars of damages. In July, 2024, one of the GE renewable offshore blades collapsed and fell into the waters off Nantucket resuscitating a massive environmental cleanup and requiring a six month [00:12:00] construction hiatus during which GE Renewable performed a root cause analysis, concluding that 68 of the 72 GE renewable. Blades installed at the project, nearly all manufactured by GE Renewable in Gaspay Canada, and they say nearly all, not all, nearly all were also defected because they were inadequately bonded together, the original blades were so poorly made that they were beyond repair. Indeed, the federal government required GE renewable to remove all the blades and to replace all gas bay blades with others manufactured at a different facility in Sherbrook, France. So that’s really the kickoff to all of this disagreement was the quality issues from Gas Bay. Uh, vineyard Wind goes on to say that GE Renewables and, and their CEO, Scott Straza, basically admitted to, uh, a, a serious, um. Overlook or quality issue? Quality escape, something of the [00:13:00] sort, uh, in some of the statements, which I, I remember him talking about  Rosemary Barnes: allegedly, in your opinion. Allen Hall: Well, and Scott Streek did say it. In fact, here’s, here’s what Scott Streek did say. Streek, uh, acknowledged that the blade failure and said, quote, we have identified a material deviation or a manufacturing deviation. In one of our factories that through the inspection or quality assurance process we should have identified. Because of that, we’re going to use our existing data and reinspect all of the blades that we have made for offshore wind and for context in this factory in Gus Bay, Canada, where the material deviation existed. That’s a quote. What happens now,  Rosemary Barnes: obviously I’ve never worked on anything that’s, this is the biggest example of, um, a, you know, a blade quality problem, a serial issue probably that’s ever happened in the wind industry. I’ve never worked on something this big, but I have worked on probably half a dozen small, small versions that are quite similar. Um. To this, but just on a, you know, a much, much smaller scale. And I will say that it never [00:14:00] feels fair what the owner of the wind farm, like, what the outcome is, never feels fair to the owner of the wind farm. Like when you’ve got a serial defect in, um, in play it like, and everyone suffers. It costs, it’s gonna cost the, um, you know, the manufacturer a lot of money. But I think that proportionally it is. Affects the owners more in nearly every case. It’s just there are some contractual things that you don’t end up with outcomes that feel, feel fair to anybody that, um, you know, would take a casual look at it. So I don’t think that an outcome that feels fair is probably likely for, for vineyard wind. Um, and I guess it all just comes down to whether or not GE agree that they owe that 800 million or whatever the figure is. Um, or if a court finds that they owe it. Because surely the contract doesn’t say that Vineyard wins engineer at any time can just, or project manager can at any time decide [00:15:00] that, um, GE owes the money and so they don’t have to pay. That obviously wouldn’t be a very, um, nice contract for GE to sign. So there’s gotta be some more nuance to it other than. That our project manager says, you owe us money so we’re not paying. And then, you know, you have to continue. Like, I, it’s probably impossible for us to, without, um, you know, having access to all of, all of the documents and the legal degree to understand it. Probably, probably hard for us to Yeah. Come up with a, a reasonable conclusion.  Allen Hall: It does make you think, usually the progression is dispute. Whatever contractually is obligated in the beginning happens. And so if there’s someone who decides what pot of money goes where, that, that’s usually the first step. Second step is usually arbitration in the us. I’d be surprised if they haven’t gone through at least an attempt at arbitration. And then once arbitration breaks down, then you go into the courts, which is clearly where they’re at now you’re, you’re at the highest level that you can be in terms of legal proceedings to try to sort this matter out. And I’m sure both sides. Do not want to be in front of a [00:16:00] courtroom if they can avoid it. So there’s a much more to come about this. I, I think the other operators, uh, GEs this is, is this GEs only? Yeah. This is GEs only wind farm offshore in the us So this is it. But I would imagine that the other, uh, operators in offshore wind in the US or. Being very careful word through contracts and how this is proceeding.  Rosemary Barnes: That’s something else I think about this case is that it’s going to be like the GE are the ones who have more at stake in terms of reputational harm. I would’ve thought then. Um, so. Yeah, that’s obviously a consideration that they’ve, they’ve gotta have, it isn’t, regardless of where the facts are, it’s not a good look. Right. Um, to be seen, to be walking away from a wind farm. And it probably would make other people considering big expensive GE wind farms to be like, oh, you know, are we actually gonna get across the line with this? Or is there a risk that they just, you know, throw a tantrum towards the end and threaten to walk away and we have to renegotiate [00:17:00] everything. So, um, I guess that there’s a, yeah, there’s always just the perception. Is as important in a lot of ways to what the actual facts are.  Matthew Stead: The thing I find is, um, I mean this is largely a legal thing, isn’t it? You know, we, we’ve agreed that it’s, with the lawyers, it’s a largely a legal thing. The, the sort of topic that I’m interested in is, um, like the example of you buy a car, you know, you buy a Toyota, um, you expect to be able to maintain it. You expect to be able to run it and get a serviced by a Toyota, you don’t expect in the first year to take your Toyota to Ford and get them to fix it in the first year. The bigger issue is the turbine supplier agreement does not actually allow the turbine to be operated without the OEM, so no one knows. No one knows how to run it. So for me, it’s a massive industry challenge, access of data, access of how to run a turbine. If the OEM is no longer there, so I think hopefully [00:18:00] this can have rama bigger ramifications for the industry that operators and owners can actually run the assets they own.  Rosemary Barnes: Well, there are companies that will come in and pull out your control system of your, you know, your turbine. If it, you know, if you, um, if you don’t wanna work with them anymore or if the company went bankrupt, then there are companies that will rip it out and put a new one in. It’s not, not saying that that’s like an easy, cost effective thing to do and probably not gonna get the same, um, performance as, as you originally did. But that’s what happens if you are, um, you know, your turbine manufacturer goes bankrupt and they just don’t exist to support anymore. Sometimes people have to resort to literally pulling out the whole control system and starting again. Not easy. When it’s something as big and new as this one obviously  Matthew Stead: isn’t the better answer that when you buy something, you actually buy the information to actually run it. Rosemary Barnes: I don’t fully agree [00:19:00] though, because. It’s like, um, o often what you say, oh, you know, like this would be good. Like the one common thing is people say, oh, you know, like it’s planned obsolescence. People, engineers plan design things to fail so that you’ll need to replace them. And I think that that does, that does happen again in like consumer, consumer products. Like, um, yeah, like your, your battery isn’t really designed to last for 10 years in your, your phone the same way that it is in an electric car. Um, more than 10 years in the case of an electric car. Um. But it’s not. It’s not what happens in industrial scale equipment. You are mostly worried about getting the price point right. And if you want something to last longer, if you want something that anybody can come in and fix it easily, it costs more to engineer like that and usually like a a lot more. So it’s not just people like evil engineers or evil. Um. Evil management at these, at these companies.  Allen Hall: I already get to evil engineers. Rosemary Barnes: No, people think it is. People think it’s evil. Engineers like purposely designing bad products to [00:20:00] um, make money, which I actually do think that they do with consumer products. Some of the time. Um, but when it comes to like industrial equipment, I, I don’t think that that’s the main, the main thing that planned obsolescence is not, is not a major factor here. It’s about trying to get the price point competitive to make sales. And if you want to get better engineering, you, you will, you will pay for it.  Matthew Stead: I got a call with someone today that, which is on this topic. So, you know, we, we are a sensor company and, um, we pro we provide results, okay? So if we actually provided the raw data that we measure, it actually allows people, other people to reverse engineer our products. So we don’t generally provide the raw data, so we provide the end outcome. Because it means that people can’t copy what we do. It means we can actually charge a lower price. So actually there’s a lot of logic to, you know, having, you know, [00:21:00] all these ways of engineering a product to, you know, give a better outcome to the end customer. Allen Hall: I know Rosie doesn’t like Elon Musk, but this one of the things that Elon Musk did with Tesla at least, I don’t know about the other companies that he runs, but with Tesla, they went off and. Made patents, right? So they applied for a bunch of patents and received them and then just made them open use. And the reason they did that was so somebody couldn’t jump the patent line, create a patent about some car related electric thing, and prohibit Tesla from doing. And so Tesla has always had the need to create patents that cost them, I’m sure, a, a pretty penny, just so they can avoid. Patent conflicts and lawsuits going forward. And it’s sort of the same thing, right? That the evil engineer bit, that’s the evil engineer bit I, that I don’t like is that when you get these crazy patent things happening out there that are just there to collect money and not do any of the work,  Rosemary Barnes: and some of the patents are. Absolutely crazy. Like when you do a patent search and it’s like you’re [00:22:00] reading the language and like it sounds like they’ve just patented the concept of a wheel, you know? And then you’ve gotta try and figure out like what’s actually going on. Yeah. In  Matthew Stead: our world, someone has a patent around the Doppler shift. Allen Hall: How can you have a patent on Doppler shift? That’s crazy.  Matthew Stead: It’s fundamental physical. You know, there’s a shift in frequency of a sound, um,  Allen Hall: based on speed  Matthew Stead: and yes, sound comes from a blade and there’s a doppler shift.  Allen Hall: That’s real. I, I, I guess, uh, see, that’s, that’s, that’s the craziness of that. See, you should have thought about. The idiots that were gonna do that and then write a patent about Doppler shift.  Rosemary Barnes: It’s really annoying because it’s like, you know that it’s not gonna be, I mean, a lot of them you are like 99% sure it’s not gonna be possible for them to defend that if it gets challenged. But it’s like, to what extent do we trust that, you know? Um, so you still usually end up steering around it anyway, but it, it really gets in the way of elegant engineering solutions. All these. Bizaro patents that are out there like clogging up [00:23:00] the design landscape.  Allen Hall: That happened recently. Right? Rosa? You had and I were talking about a particular patent. I thought had it existed and it did at one point exist and I. Rosie said, I don’t, I don’t see it anymore. So I did some search on it. Yeah, it got pulled off. Uh, the list of valid patents. It was a lightning related thing.  Rosemary Barnes: And you were complaining that it was so obvious that they should never have been able to patent it, but yeah, and somebody obviously said, said something at some. I don’t think patents are not the best way to protect an idea anyway. Right? Like nobody, if you, if you’ve got a new technology idea and you’re relying on a patent to protect other people from copying it, it’s not the best idea. I do work with a lot of small inventors who are like, oh, I’ve got a patent application, and they think it means something, that it doesn’t. They think, oh, you know, patent was approved. That means it works. It means it’s a good idea. It doesn’t mean any of those things for like small, outside of big companies. I, I think it’s super rare that you would get more. You would get a positive return [00:24:00] on. On filing and maintaining a patent in all the countries that, um, are relevant  Allen Hall: as wind energy professionals, staying informed is crucial, and let’s face it difficult. That’s why the Uptime podcast recommends PES Wind Magazine. PES Wind offers a diverse range of in-depth articles and expert insights that dive into the most pressing issues facing our energy future. Whether you’re an industry veteran or new to wind, PES Wind has the high quality content you need. Don’t miss out. Visit PES wind.com today. Sted posted a net loss of 1.7 billion Danish groner, roughly $262 million for the third quarter, as the cost of battling us anti win policies continues to mount the CEO. Rasmus abo, uh, says the company is about. One year into a turnaround plan, uh, that’s set to [00:25:00] run through beginning of 2028, and that the medicine is starting to work. Uh, one major strategic change. Ted will enter partnerships on new projects far earlier, and so it will never again, uh, be forced into damaging late stage divestments The company maintained its full year EBITDA and, uh, guidance of, of, of. 24 to 27 billion Danish kroner. That’s a good bit of money. And the sale of a 50% stake in the horn, C3 to Apollo Global Management for a billion dollars is already under. Well, at least in progress, but there’s a lot more behind the scenes here. Sted had an basically an investor meeting and a shareholder meeting, and, uh, they have three new board members. They let go of, if I remember correctly, three board members that were [00:26:00] employees that they just, uh, had reductions in forces that happen to affect board members, which is very odd. Very, very odd in my. Humble opinion, having watched number of boards for a long time, usually don’t remove board members in that fashion, but there does seem to be a, a, a more emphasis on the board to help, uh, the CEO of stead get through some of these tumultuous times and maybe a little bit of concern about the, the, the way the board was constructed to get or sit back into profitability sooner rather than later. This is a big deal up in Denmark. Of course, stead is the power company for Denmark. This has implications worldwide, though, uh, what stead does everybody else follows. And the one thing that, uh, that was sort of in dispute before the shareholder meeting was EOR at one point, was. At least contemplating a board seat. And then right [00:27:00] before the meeting they backed off and said, no, it’s fine. We don’t want a board seat. Maybe they had some sense of what the changes were gonna be made to the board, so they felt better about it. But orsa is not out of the rough seas at the moment. There’s a couple more years of, of growing pains and learning some lessons that they wish they didn’t have to learn. I guess that’s the way I would look at it. What implications does this have on the greater offshore wind community? Is stead taking basically a step back and, and trying to focus. Herding offshore wind, or is it just other, another companies are gonna step into that, that space that Sted may have previously occupied? Matthew Stead: I think what you’re talking about, um, Alan, is, is all logical. I mean, you know, you can’t have everything. So, um, as in you can’t, you know, getting late to a project and expect it to go well, um, spreading risk is a good thing, you know, so the whole, you know, [00:28:00] doing it fast. Doing it cheap and doing it well. Um, you, you, you can’t have all of those things at once. So actually what they’re talking about, I think is entirely logical. Um, so yeah, I think if they can lead the way that way and, and you know, I’ve come from, um, some other industries like construction and they, they spread the risk across multiple. Organizations that know what they’re doing. So the idea of joint ventures where you get the best of both worlds makes complete sense to me. Allen Hall: Do they start making different decisions on projects based upon their financial stake at the moment? A And more importantly, when they start looking for offshore wind projects, are they likely to hook up with Vestas? Because I, I think that’s where this is all going.  Matthew Stead: Pick a horse.  Allen Hall: Yeah, they’re gonna pick a horse. I, I mean, that’s the best, best way to think about it. They’re gonna pick a horse and gonna stick with them. Instead of having, uh, a lot of options and playing one against the other, I could see alignment happening, uh, versus being the [00:29:00] one offshore, of course. And or instead being a big player. There is, is that the combo that’s gonna push the industry forward? Rosemary Barnes: Yeah, maybe. I mean, I think it’s more similar to what Chinese manufacturers are doing, a lot more vertical integration. You can, um, yeah, save, save a lot of money by doing that. It is. Uh, you know, not always ideal from other points of view. And it might be nice to have a, you know, a thriving technology ecosystem of, you know, different manufacturers competing with each other and, you know, making better products. So, um, yeah, I don’t know, uh, have sit on the fence on this one for what’s good. I do feel really bad for osted though, like in terms of the, the. Shocks that they’ve had over the last couple of years. I, I don’t think most people would’ve foreseen that it would be so risky to try and expand into the US like everybody. A few years ago, everybody thought that that was the next big profitable frontier in offshore wind. And [00:30:00] I don’t think that many people would’ve foreseen things going the way that they did.  Allen Hall: Is it the result of large industrial projects take time and that in that timeframe, five, 10 years, that the world changes so much? You can’t. Accurately predict what the outcome will be and or it just got caught up in it.  Rosemary Barnes: Yeah, I think that’s actually one of the themes you guys have read, um, how big things get Done Right by Ben. Um, that’s one of the things that he mentions that the quicker that you can do the execution phase of your project, like spend plenty of time planning it, but when you’re actually committed, work super fast because the longer that you’re working, the more your chance of a, a black swan. Um, a Black Swan event be, you know, a government that turns out to, you know, want to, you know, tear up contracts and you know, do all these other unprecedented stuff. You know, if you’ve got projects that take 10 or more years to build, then there’s just like a lot more risk of something like that happening. And I think that, um, you know, like in some ways that’s just one of the inherent weaknesses of [00:31:00] wind energy in general, but offshore wind especially is that it does actually take a long time to get through all of the things that you need to do to. Um, to complete a project. And so it’s just, yeah, a lot more chance for, you know, the government will change two or three times probably in, um, you know, during a project. How many wars can start, how many, you know, pandemics. Can there be you? Like, the longer that you’re going, you might think none of those things could be predicted and that can’t, but you can predict that those sorts of big things happen. And the longer that you, um, are exposed and the more of them that you’re probably gonna face. And I think that, yeah, like something like a solar farm is much quicker to roll out. Um, battery projects are much quicker to roll out. So it’s just like that, those are benefits of those technologies compared to wind. You just have to kind of accept that that’s one of the weaknesses of this, this industry that we’re in. Allen Hall: Is it a benefit to have solar because it can deploy very quickly, or, or is it just [00:32:00] smarter to have. More wind turbines of smaller megawatt outputs because you can manufacture ’em at scale quicker, and so the economies of scale don’t really matter so much. This is an argument we’ve been making for months now, that when you start selecting a single turbine, which doesn’t have any history, and it’s a big one, and it takes a long time to produce, you are really setting up yourself to fall into that window where something can go wrong. Versus just stamping out two or three megawatt turbines and going like crazy. It just seems so much less risky.  Rosemary Barnes: I think that I definitely agree with you for onshore and then for offshore. Probably also, like I don’t think it’s necessarily go for a smaller turbine. It’s just don’t go for the brand new one. Like that’s why I don’t understand how many people are like so obsessed with this, you know, small, small amount of improvement that they get from the very biggest. Turbine, but I don’t think that they realize the amount of technical risk. And I think that it gets, it’s getting [00:33:00] more and more like the, um, technology increment is getting more and more the bigger that we go. It’s not that like, oh, we’re learning how to do this, this, well, it’s, it’s the opposite that, you know, like every, um, increment up in size as an exponentially more like larger number of problems, technical problems that have to be solved. And, um, I think that, yeah, that’s. That’s something people don’t factor in. Allen Hall: Is it the gold rush problem where the miners were trying to hit that pocket of gold and spending all their time trying to find this gold, find this gold. In the meantime, a lot of them obviously broke, and the people that made money in the gold rush or the stores that sold the pickaxes, if you, you making a pickaxes, you have a customer page, you can just sell those things in. Levi’s, be the other one, right? So they’re selling genes of pickaxes to the miners. Guess who won in that battle, right? Levi’s.  Rosemary Barnes: But what’s the analogy with win two of the pickax manufacturers,  Allen Hall: the people that make the two megawatt machines? In my opinion, that’s gonna be who the pickaxes are because you don’t have to think about it. If [00:34:00] you can talk to operators of the United States today and you say, what turbine would you like to buy over again? And they will almost all tell you, GE one point fives. Almost all of them. And you go, yeah. Oh, okay. I understand it because it’s a machine. It’s pretty simple. But it does work. And it is, it is a true warhorse turbine. And some of the vested ones are the same. Simpson Siemens turbines are very similar, right? Uh, but in today’s world, when we’re talking about 15, 20 megawatt turbines, I just think, man, you gotta be careful doing that just because of the time it takes to develop it and produce it, and. Work at all the kinks? Uh, Rosemary, I think you’re right about that.  Rosemary Barnes: I think the issue is that, um, when you’re deciding whether to develop a project or not, it really depends a lot on what the spreadsheet tells you your return is going to be. And, um, you know, a bigger turbine with, uh, you know, like larger output over its lifetime, longer lifetime. Those are all gonna give you really good. Spreadsheet numbers, but what’s not in the spreadsheet [00:35:00] is, oh, you know, you’ve actually increased your risk of having to wait two years while they replace every single blade in this, um, in this wind farm. Oh, by the way, yeah, you’re gonna be dealing with, um, you know, twice as many repairs and your, um, downtime is not gonna be 2%, it’s gonna be 3.5% or, or something. You know, those, those sorts of things, I don’t think, uh, adequately captured in the, the spreadsheets whe say when you, whether you should or shouldn’t develop a new project.  Matthew Stead: So, so the evil engineering should be making decisions, not the evil lawyers.  Allen Hall: The financial people always make the decisions, right? The insurance companies make the decisions.  Rosemary Barnes: Don’t think there’s a lot of engineering into, um, input in the, the very first stages. But I also think that if you put in the reality, like most engineers, I think are a little bit pessimistic because our job is to see what problems exist at, you know, and then solve them ideally. Um, but at least part of it, like our brains are wired to look for problems, right? That’s, um, that’s a necessary part of the job, in my opinion. But if you were, you know, like pessimistic in your assumptions in the [00:36:00] spreadsheet, you would probably the majority of the time say, don’t make this project. The return is not very good. Allen Hall: Well, that would be a smart move, right? Yeah.  Rosemary Barnes: Yeah. So I don’t actually think you probably should have too many engineers in in involved.  Matthew Stead: Yeah. But what is the CEO incentivized by is the, yeah, so it, it comes back to, you know, what, what, what drives the project And it’s not just engineering.  Allen Hall: That wraps up another episode of the Uptime Wind Energy Podcast. If today’s discussion sparked any questions or ideas, we’d love to hear from you. Reach out to us on LinkedIn and don’t forget to subscribe. So if you never miss an episode and if you found value in today’s conversation, please leave us a review. It really helps. For Rosie and Matthew, I am Allen Hall and we’ll see you next week on the Uptime Wind Energy [00:37:00] Podcast.

Link Up w/The Morning Sickness Digitally All Over:Instagram: @hms_98_official, @bosskupd, @bretvesely, @dickToledoX/Twitter: @HMSon98, @DickToledo, @bretveselyFacebook: @HMSKUPDYouTube: @hmspodcast9320, @98kupdRequest/Call in/Wakeup Song line:(IN AZ) 602.585.9800More HMS: holmbergpodcast.com, 98kupd.comEmail: dtoledo@98kupd.com, bvesely@98kupd.com, bbogen@98kupd.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Link Up w/The Morning Sickness Digitally All Over:Instagram: @hms_98_official, @bosskupd, @bretvesely, @dickToledoX/Twitter: @HMSon98, @DickToledo, @bretveselyFacebook: @HMSKUPDYouTube: @hmspodcast9320, @98kupdRequest/Call in/Wakeup Song line:(IN AZ) 602.585.9800More HMS: holmbergpodcast.com, 98kupd.comEmail: dtoledo@98kupd.com, bvesely@98kupd.com, bbogen@98kupd.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Joe Pags goes off on a massive alleged $420 million AI scam involving a tech CEO, calling out the culture of theft and fraud. Then, the crew reacts to a wild new car patent out of China that has everyone laughing, plus a shocking moment as a bride is hit with black paint right before walking down the aisle. Then, former Green Beret and author Nick Freitas joins for a powerful conversation on masculinity, responsibility, and what it means to be a man today. From generational differences to culture and leadership, it's a no-nonsense, high-level discussion you don't want to miss.   Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Program notes:0:34 Chronotrope type and timing of exercise1:36 Sedentary adults and morning or evening type2:36 Acting as your own control3:10 Stenting for post thrombotic syndrome4:10 Severity lower with endovascular therapy5:10 Patent in 2/3 at six months6:10 Very diverse patient populations6:28 Estimating kidney function7:28 Currently underestimate compromise8:27 Deprescribing proton pump inhibitors9:27 Three different interventions10:27 Almost 15% achieved outcome in both patient and physician12:08 End

Arthur Wong and Andy Wang break down Johnson & Johnson's (JNJ) strong quarterly results and raised full‑year guidance despite a muted stock reaction. They explain how the company is navigating the Stelara patent cliff by shifting patients to next‑generation therapies, with oncology emerging as a key growth driver. The discussion also weighs ongoing talc litigation risk against JNJ's strong balance sheet and ability to continue investing heavily in R&D.======== Schwab Network ========Empowering every investor and trader, every market day.Options involve risks and are not suitable for all investors. Before trading, read the Options Disclosure Document. http://bit.ly/2v9tH6DSubscribe to the Market Minute newsletter - https://schwabnetwork.com/subscribeDownload the iOS app - https://apps.apple.com/us/app/schwab-network/id1460719185Download the Amazon Fire Tv App - https://www.amazon.com/TD-Ameritrade-Network/dp/B07KRD76C7Watch on Sling - https://watch.sling.com/1/asset/191928615bd8d47686f94682aefaa007/watchWatch on Vizio - https://www.vizio.com/en/watchfreeplus-exploreWatch on DistroTV - https://www.distro.tv/live/schwab-network/Follow us on X – https://twitter.com/schwabnetworkFollow us on Facebook – https://www.facebook.com/schwabnetworkFollow us on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/company/schwab-network/About Schwab Network - https://schwabnetwork.com/about

AI isn't coming… it's already here, and it's already reshaping how we work and build wealth. Nicole's prediction: the winners of the next decade will be the techno-optimists, the people who learn to leverage AI to make more money, scale their time, and outsource distractions. Today, Nicole is partnering with Eva Cicinyte to show you exactly how. Eva is the founder of GNOMI, an AI news agent designed to help people understand what matters in real time. Eva and Nicole break down why traditional news is broken beyond repair, how AI might actually be our best weapon against deepfakes, and why Eva built a feature that gives everyday investors access to the kind of real-time market intelligence that used to be reserved for Wall Street pros. Then, Eva and Nicole get raw about what it really takes to build a company while building a family. Eva reveals why she kept her pregnancy a secret and shares the story of the conference call she refused to hang up, even as she went intp labor. Try GNOMI and start with Finance Mode Check out Nicole's financial literacy course The Money School  Find a Financial Advisor or Financial Coach from Nicole's company Private Wealth Collective Watch video clips from the pod on Money Rehab's Instagram and Nicole Lapin's Instagram Here's what Nicole covers with Eva:  00:00 Are You Ready for Some Money Rehab?  01:10 Why Traditional News is Broken  03:35 How Eva Turned an Unconventional Background Into a Superpower  10:00 The GNOMI Origin Story  13:42 Why Every Founder Should Vibe Code  15:02 GNOMI vs. ChatGPT: What's the Actual Difference?  20:15 Real-Time Financial News You Can Use  30:20 When You Need a Patent and What They Actually Cost  34:08 Raising Millions From One Investor  37:15 Will AI Kill Traditional News?  38:00 The Pregnancy She Kept Private  47:33 Raising Daughters in an AI World  52:30 Women in AI  54:18 The Future of News 55:00 Eva's Tip You Can Take Straight to the Bank

Gangrene, Gas Coolers & Back Pain: CO₂ Rack Chaos, Bitzer Secrets, and a Venturi “Ejector” TowerTwo exhausted hosts swap war stories from nonstop construction and CO₂ remodels: one is forced back to Pennsylvania after his father's death to handle the estate, a rejected body donation due to gangrene, and unexpected cremation costs, while the other throws out his back wrestling a 24-foot coffin case packed with ice and fights sticking three-way drain valves dumping water. With no guest, they riff on training Kroger techs, calibration and control quirks on older Microthermal/Advancer CO₂ stores, and a little-known Bitzer service-valve center plate that directs suction gas toward the head or the windings—impacting cooling, floodback tolerance, and motor protector trips. They also compare BAC performance to others and dig into a Mack gas cooler using a Venturi setup to circulate water without a pump, plus delays, shorted case glass heaters, and general startup chaos.

Gangrene, Gas Coolers & Back Pain: CO₂ Rack Chaos, Bitzer Secrets, and a Venturi “Ejector” TowerTwo exhausted hosts swap war stories from nonstop construction and CO₂ remodels: one is forced back to Pennsylvania after his father's death to handle the estate, a rejected body donation due to gangrene, and unexpected cremation costs, while the other throws out his back wrestling a 24-foot coffin case packed with ice and fights sticking three-way drain valves dumping water. With no guest, they riff on training Kroger techs, calibration and control quirks on older Microthermal/Advancer CO₂ stores, and a little-known Bitzer service-valve center plate that directs suction gas toward the head or the windings—impacting cooling, floodback tolerance, and motor protector trips. They also compare BAC performance to others and dig into a Mack gas cooler using a Venturi setup to circulate water without a pump, plus delays, shorted case glass heaters, and general startup chaos.

The patent landscape in 2026 looks nothing like it did just a year ago. Sweeping changes at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office throughout 2025 have reshaped how patents are challenged and enforced, dramatically elevating their strategic importance.In this episode of BakerHosts, Jason Hoffman explores the Great Patent Pivot, a fundamental shift that has made post‑grant challenges harder to access while strengthening the tools available to patent owners. Jason walks through the forces driving this change and explains what it means for patent owners, accused infringers, and businesses navigating patent risk today.

Is anything in the patent world ever really free?That question anchors a new Clause 8 conversation between host Eli Mazour and Professor Kristen Osenga, a University of Richmond law professor and one of the leading academic voices on standard essential patents.At the center of the discussion is the rise of so-called “royalty-free” technology standards. Osenga's point is straightforward: “free” often comes with strings attached — particularly for smaller innovators that may be required to cross-license valuable patent rights or accept terms they may later regret.Her main example is the Alliance for Open Media, the tech consortium behind a “royalty-free” video compression standard. The pitch sounds simple: use the standard without paying royalties. But, as Osenga explains, the real question is what companies may be giving up in return — and whether they fully understand the long-term cost of joining.She offers a simple analogy: a store gives away free croissants to get customers in the door. Customers build habits around it. Then one day the sign changes. In Osenga's view, the same risk exists here. Companies can build products and business models around terms that may not remain as favorable as they first appeared.From there, the discussion broadens into the wider ecosystem of royalty-free standards, cross-licensing organizations, defensive patent pledges, and emerging AI-related IP initiatives. What is driving these arrangements? Collaboration? Public relations? Strategic control? And what, exactly, should companies think through before signing on?As Osenga puts it: “Follow the money … where are these groups making their money? Because it's probably coming from some other part of their business model.”The episode also covers:* what the pattern of withdrawals from major cross-licensing organizations reveals about how these arrangements play out over time* SEP policy whiplash across US administrations, the Standard Essential Royalties Act (SERA), and where things stand now* the EU's proposed SEP framework, and why it stalled* the litigation funding debate, including why Osenga founded The Inventors Defense Alliance* the Tillis-Schiff letter to ANSI, China's push to shape global standards bodies, and the implications for US innovation leadership* why Osenga believes the RESTORE Act is critical to preserving US innovation leadershipIt is a conversation worth sharing with anyone focused on licensing, standards, or innovation policy.

In this episode, we review the high-yield topic of ⁠⁠Patent Ductus Arteriosus (PDA)⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ from the Cardiovascular section at ⁠⁠⁠⁠Medbullets.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Follow⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Medbullets⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ on social media:Facebook: www.facebook.com/medbulletsInstagram: www.instagram.com/medbulletsofficialTwitter: www.twitter.com/medbulletsLinkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/company/medbullets

Send us Fan MailMost inventors I run into patent too early and don't take advantage of their patent pending time to test their product on the market.This episode is brought to you by QuickPatents LLC. Looking for the IWM trusted patent solution? Look no further! https://www.quickpatents.com/Access the exclusive Discord through the Patreon below for just $6/Month! ⬇️https://patreon.com/InventWithMe?utm_...  IWM Engineer; Lance at https://www.freelancedesigns.ca/Try TorkStrap at 15% off with exclusive code: IWMhttps://torkstrap.com/The Invent With Me Podcast⬇️Spotifyhttps://open.spotify.com/show/2YAZqvv...⬇️Applehttps://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...The Invent With Me Podcast, where each week we help aspiring inventors and product creators to turn their innovative ideas into reality.  Join us on youtube to have the ultimate show experience!  www.youtube.com/@inventwithme

Send us Fan MailIn this episode...--> The USPTO has rejected Nintendo's controversial "summon character and let it fight" Pokémon patent, after it was heavily criticized by IP lawyers last year.--> Sony has announced price increases for PS5, PS5 Pro, and PlayStation Portal, blaming “continued pressures in the global economic landscape.”--> Microsoft has confirmed that its new Xbox boss scrapped the controversial “This is an Xbox” ad campaign as part of brand reset.--> A new Star Fox game and a Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time remake are among numerous unannounced Nintendo games reportedly headed to Switch 2 this year.--> Also: Top 3 New Releases, Gaming History 101Help support ShrfSnax (a.k.a. Brandon) in his fight against cancer: https://gofund.me/5d7c63a15We love our sponsors! Please help us support those who support us!- Check out the Retro Game Club Podcast at linktr.ee/retrogameclub- Connect with CafeBTW at linktr.ee/cafebtw- Get creative with Pixel Pond production company at pixelpondllc.com- Visit Absolutely the Best Podcast: A Work in Progress at linktr.ee/absolutelythebest**Use this link to get a $20 credit when you upgrade to a paid podcast hosting plan on Buzzsprout! buzzsprout.com/?referrer_id=1884378**Get 15% off gaming chairs at blacklyte.com/Gamersweekpodcast using code GWP26!Hosts: donniegretro, retrogamebrews, wrytersviewOpening theme: "Gamers Week Theme" by Akseli TakanenPatron theme: "Chiptune Boss" by donniegretroClosing theme: "Gamers Week Full-Length Theme" by Akseli TakanenSupport the show

Are you building something the market actually wants, or just getting excited about a smart idea? In this episode of Founder Talk, Alex Sheridan sits down with Elina Conley, Founder of Azenity Consulting and a patent-holding innovator who helps companies turn promising ideas into real commercial opportunities. What starts as a conversation about AI agents quickly becomes a deeper founder discussion about go-to-market strategy, product-market fit, disciplined experimentation, and how to know what is actually worth building.The conversation also turns into a live workshop where Alex puts his own business model on the table, and Elina pushes on the assumptions behind relationship-driven growth, positioning, customer value, and conversion. It is a real founder conversation about how businesses grow, where go-to-market often breaks down, and what founders miss when they confuse activity with traction.Key takeaways:00:00:00 Introduction00:02:20 How should founders evaluate a new AI or automation tool without derailing the business?Answer: Elina recommends starting with a small, controlled experiment and measuring whether the tool improves performance without breaking what already works.00:08:40 What are AI agents in practical terms for founders?Answer: She describes them as tireless assistants that follow specific instructions, automate repeatable tasks, and still require human oversight.00:17:45 How can founders keep AI useful when project context gets too large over time?Answer: Her solution is a canonical project summary that captures the true state of the work and can be reused as context later.00:29:10 What is the first step in any go-to-market strategy?Answer: Before building channels or messaging, founders need to validate that the product solves a real customer problem.00:50:45 What is the real business value of a relationship-driven podcast?Answer: Alex argues it creates easier access to ideal clients, accelerates trust, and opens the door to deeper follow-on conversations.00:55:25 How do founders grow consistently without constant ups and downs?Answer: Elina says sustainable growth comes from validating pain points, delivering solutions profitably, and choosing disciplined innovation over random expansion.00:59:25 What are the main ways an established company can keep growing?Answer: She outlines three paths: continuous improvement, white-space innovation, and growth through acquisition or licensing.Watch the full episode and subscribe for more authentic, no-fluff founder interviews.

Check out our Patreon for a daily Lawrence Select™ Meme: https://www.patreon.com/insidegamesYTJoin the Inside Games notification Discord server for alerts when we publish new videos: http://discord.gg/ArvphbMPFJHosted by:Lawrence: http://twitch.tv/sirlarr | Bruce: http://twitch.tv/brucegreene Edited by: Shooklyn: https://linktr.ee/ShooklynSources --https://gamesfray.com/u-s-patent-examiner-rejects-nintendos-summon-subcharacter-and-let-it-fight-in-1-of-2-modes-patent-as-obvious-non-final-ruling/https://www.videogameschronicle.com/news/palworld-dev-says-it-will-fight-nintendo-lawsuit-to-ensure-indies-arent-discouraged-from-pursuing-ideas/https://www.pocketpair.jp/en/news/regarding-the-lawsuit-changes-to-palworld-and-the-future/https://gamesfray.com/last-week-nintendo-and-the-pokemon-company-received-a-u-s-patent-on-summoning-a-character-and-letting-it-fight-another/https://x.com/IP_Arashida/status/1985971124862402576

Babylist is selling $500M a year to parents… and its NYC store has an influencer studio.Walmart's making all of its price tags digital… Surge Pricing in Aisle 6?Larry Fink wants social security to invest in stocks… because risk is the only option.Plus, the most viral makeup is $400… and must be serenaded by kelp music.$WMT $BLK $SPY Buy tickets to The IPO Tour (our In-Person Offering) TODAYNew York, NY (4/8): https://www.ticketmaster.com/event/0000637AE43ED0C2Los Angeles, CA (6/3): SOLD OUTGet your TBOY Yeti Doll gift here: https://tboypod.com/shop/product/economic-support-yeti-doll NEWSLETTER:https://tboypod.com/newsletter OUR 2ND SHOW:Want more business storytelling from us? Check our weekly deepdive show, The Best Idea Yet: The untold origin story of the products you're obsessed with. Listen for free to The Best Idea Yet: https://wondery.com/links/the-best-idea-yet/NEW LISTENERSFill out our 2 minute survey: https://qualtricsxm88y5r986q.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_dp1FDYiJgt6lHy6GET ON THE POD: Submit a shoutout or fact: https://tboypod.com/shoutouts SOCIALS:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/tboypod TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@tboypodYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@tboypod Linkedin (Nick): https://www.linkedin.com/in/nicolas-martell/Linkedin (Jack): https://www.linkedin.com/in/jack-crivici-kramer/Anything else: https://tboypod.com/ About Us: The daily pop-biz news show making today's top stories your business. Formerly known as Robinhood Snacks, The Best One Yet is hosted by Jack Crivici-Kramer & Nick Martell. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.