Podcasts about patents

In this episode the hosts uncover a highly profitable niche manufacturing business in rural Virginia that produces patented thermal spray systems for aerospace and oilfield applications, sparking excitement over its recurring revenue, engineering moat, and massive growth potential.Business Listing – https://www.bizbuysell.com/business-opportunity/high-margin-industrial-equipment-manufacturer-70-gm-no-debt/2472503/Welcome to Acquisitions Anonymous – the #1 podcast for small business M&A. Every week, we break down businesses for sale and talk about buying, operating, and growing them.Looking to build a professional website in minutes? Try Wix: https://wix.pxf.io/c/6898629/3115214/25616?trafcat=templateHubSpot is the backbone for how businesses scale without chaos. Try them out here: https://go.try-hubspot.com/OeG9VrSubscribe for more episodes: https://www.youtube.com/@AcquisitionsAnonymousPodcast?sub_confirmation=1Subscribe to our Newsletter: https://www.acquanon.com/newsletter

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

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

Tony Palo of T1 Race Development and Injector Dynamics joins the show to break down what it takes to build and tune some of the most powerful GT-Rs and V10s on the planet, and why Injector Dynamics is at the top of the industry when it comes to data and performance. Take your build up a whole new level with 6XD Gearbox: https://6xdgearbox.com Code "Minnoxide5" for 5% off High Performance Academy: https://hpcdmy.co/Minnoxide Use code "MINNOX" for 55% off ANY course Use Code "MINVIP" for $300 of the MINVIP Package T uned By Shawn: https://www.tunedbyshawn.com Code "Minnoxide" for 5% off! Ship With Sure Thing Logistics: https://www.surethinglogistics.net MORE BIGGER Turbo T-Shirts:  https://www.minnoxide.com/products/more-bigger-t-shirt 0:00 - Intro 0:11 - T1 Race Development & Injector Dynamics 1:08 - What Makes ID Different, OEM Standards & The Bosch Partnership 8:12 - Break-In Process, Matching Injectors & Why It Matters 17:06 - What Keeps Tony Excited & Going All-In on Motec 22:04 - V10 Platform, First Builds & Big Projects 28:19 - Motec, DCT Racing Limitations 41:40 - Who Tony Respects & Key Industry Partnerships 45:30 - GT-R Engine Limits, Billet Blocks & 5 LITER VR38 1:09:29 - Tony's Personal Car, High Power Reliability & Transmissions 1:16:44 - Knockoffs, Patents & What's Hurting the Industry 1:18:45 - ID Origin Story, What Competitors Ignore and Making Products Better 1:33:49 - CNG Injectors, Fuel Filters, Injector Sizing & Staged Injection 1:44:17 - Other Projects and Boats.

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.

Can you trademark an idea? It's one of the most common — and costly — misunderstandings entrepreneurs make when building a business.In this deep dive, we unpack the real differences between trademarks, patents, copyrights, and trade secrets so business owners can stop guessing and start protecting their intellectual property strategically.Many founders assume that simply having an idea creates ownership rights. Unfortunately, intellectual property law doesn't work that way. A trademark protects your brand identity — things like names, logos, slogans, and recognizable symbols used in commerce. Patents protect inventions and processes. Copyrights protect creative works like articles, videos, podcasts, software code, and books. Trade secrets protect confidential systems and proprietary information.Understanding these distinctions matters far more than most startups realize.In today's business environment, intangible assets often become more valuable than physical products. Strong branding, original content, innovative systems, and proprietary strategies can all create competitive advantages — but only if they're protected correctly.This episode explores:✅ Why ideas alone usually aren't legally protected✅ The difference between trademarks and patents✅ How copyrights actually work✅ Why startups should care about intellectual property early✅ Common mistakes entrepreneurs make with branding✅ How large companies aggressively protect IP✅ Why execution matters more than ideas✅ The hidden risks of waiting too long to file protectionsWe also discuss famous intellectual property battles involving companies like Apple, Samsung, Starbucks, Disney, Nike, and Coca-Cola — all of which demonstrate how powerful intellectual property strategy can become in highly competitive industries.One of the biggest takeaways from this conversation is that intellectual property law is not simply about legal defense. It's about business strategy.The companies that win long term are often the ones that combine:Strong brandingClear differentiationConsistent customer trustStrategic innovationProper legal protectionIronically, many entrepreneurs spend more time worrying about “someone stealing their idea” than actually building a memorable brand or scalable business system.The reality is this:Ideas are common.Execution is rare.A startup with mediocre ideas but outstanding execution often outperforms businesses with brilliant ideas and weak operational strategy.This episode also addresses the emotional side of entrepreneurship. Founders naturally feel protective of ideas they've invested time, energy, and passion into. But understanding how the legal system actually views ideas can help entrepreneurs make smarter decisions about growth, marketing, branding, and product development.Whether you're launching a startup, building a personal brand, creating content, developing software, or scaling an established company, understanding intellectual property fundamentals is critical in today's marketplace.Because protecting your business properly is usually much cheaper than fighting legal battles later.And honestly, if your entire intellectual property strategy currently consists of “I emailed myself the idea once,” it may be time for an upgrade.To chat about this one-on-one, grab a free consult at strategymeeting.com

The following article of the Tech industry is: 'As Mexico Enters Top 10 in AI Patents, What Does It Mean?' by Jorge Mandujano, CEO, Beyond Technology. 

Interactive social media site Status announced Tuesday $17 million in combined seed and Series A funding, with investors including General Catalyst, YC, LightShed Ventures, and Abstract. Also, Stilta announced Tuesday a $10 million seed round led by Andreessen Horowitz. Other investors in the round include YC and operators from companies like OpenAI, Legora, and Lovable. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Send us Fan MailThis 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

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

In this episode of the Niche Pursuits podcast, Kevin Surace shares lessons from building companies across 30 industries, earning 95 patents, and working in AI since the 1990s. He explains how founders can spot problems people are willing to pay to solve, why timing matters, and what gives businesses lasting power today. Kevin also explains why more than 5,000 AI companies have been funded while only a small fraction may succeed, and how creators and business owners can work in an AI-first way. The interview gives concrete examples of product-market fit, positioning, market timing, and the mistakes that stall promising startups today.   Sponsor: Quiet LightGet a free, confidential valuation at https://quietlight.com/! Links & ResourcesLearn more about Kevin: https://www.kevinsurace.com/ Connect via LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ksurace/ Follow @kevinsurace on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/kevinsurace/ Follow him on X: https://x.com/kevinsurace Visit @kevin_surace's posts on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@kevin_surace Check out Kevin's Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/kevin.surace/ Watch @kskoolstuff on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@kskoolstuff Get 'The Joy-Success Cycle' book: https://www.joysuccesscycle.com/   Be sure to get more content like this in the Niche Pursuits Newsletter Right Here: https://www.nichepursuits.com/newsletter  Want a Faster and Easier Way to Build Internal Links?  Get $15 off Link Whisper with Discount Code "Podcast" on the Checkout Screen: https://www.nichepursuits.com/linkwhisper  Get SEO Consulting from the Niche Pursuits Podcast Host, Jared Bauman: https://www.nichepursuits.com/201creative 

⚡ AS FEATURED ON SHOW: X39, X49 + X₂O™ QUANTUM WATER  TECH⚡ The future of frequency wellness has arrived.

As Secretary of HHS, RFK Jr. has called out perilous warnings: from chem trails and deadly vaccines to poisoned tap water, toxic foods, harmful additives, and ultimately a toxic burden touching nearly every aspect of life, impacting hundreds of millions in America and billions worldwide, forcing a long-overdue conversation about health, accountability, and what comes next. What if humanity's greatest challenge, a planet burdened by toxins at nearly every turn, also becomes the catalyst for its greatest awakening into wellness, vitality, and conscious living? . Join host and Reiki Master Brad Wozny with global wellness leaders Jen Allen and Barbara Lippincott as they explore these urgent topics alongside patented, clinically studied American wellness technologies, including X39, X49, and the LifeWave X₂O Water Technology featuring 20 patents and remarkable innovations now turning heads worldwide. . In a toxic world searching for answers, this conversation offers what so many are longing for most: hope, possibility, and a deeper question millions are now beginning to ask… could the solution already be here, and if so, how might it help you and those you love live stronger, healthier, and more vibrantly? .

Episode 185.1: Guest Bill Hoyer, Data Centers, Nuclear Power, Philippines Bar Scene as a Marine, Mamasan's, NIL Patents, Shortbarrel Bees Knees Bourbon, and AI Rocket Design

Want a quick estimate of how much your business is worth? With our free valuation calculator, answer a few questions about your business, and you'll get an immediate estimate of the value of your business. You might be surprised by how much you can get for it: https://flippa.com/exit --
 In this episode of The Exit, we sit down with Victor Varnado, CEO of Supreme Robot, to unpack his unconventional journey from television producer to tech entrepreneur and IP dealmaker. Victor shares how a simple idea for a video game interface led to a patent, and ultimately, an IP exit opportunity. He walks through the realities of monetizing intellectual property, including how provisional patents work, why solving big problems matters more than effort, and what it actually takes to navigate negotiations, due diligence, and deal structures with major companies.

 We also dive into the lessons learned along the way, including the importance of contract protections, the power of warm introductions over cold outreach, and how to properly prepare your IP for sale. Beyond patents, Victor reveals one of the most overlooked opportunities in business today: newsletters. He breaks down his “hybrid newsletter” model, showing how combining products, audiences, and distribution can create scalable, recurring revenue. Whether you are building your first product, exploring an IP exit, or looking to own your audience, this episode offers a practical and forward-thinking playbook for entrepreneurs navigating the modern digital economy.

 
-- Victor Varnado is a legally blind, black albino, and neurodivergent creator, entrepreneur, and comedian who operates at the intersection of technology, comedy, and social change. A New Yorker cartoonist and award-winning comedian with appearances on Conan O'Brien and Jimmy Kimmel Live, he has also contributed writing to Marvel, Vice, and Salon. As founder of Supreme Robot, a studio focused on experimental media and storytelling, he recently completed his first major IP exit, selling a patent to a billion-dollar tech company. His commitment to accessibility has earned him a National Science Foundation grant, and he is the creator of Magic Bookifier and its AI-powered Writing Coach — a tool designed to guide first-time authors and educators through the writing process — as well as BrightWrite, developed in collaboration with Rising Tide Educators to bring accessible creative AI tools to neurodivergent students. With a combined network of roughly 25,000 fans and peers, Victor brings hard-won business insight, unexpected perspective, and an authentically underrepresented voice to everything he builds.  LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/victorvarnado/ 

Website - https://www.supremerobot.com/ 


 -- The Exit—Presented By Flippa: A 30-minute podcast featuring expert entrepreneurs who have been there and done it. The Exit talks to operators who have bought and sold a business. You'll learn how they did it, why they did it, and get exposure to the world of exits, a world occupied by a small few, but accessible to many. To listen to the podcast or get daily listing updates, click on flippa.com/the-exit-podcast/

⚡ AS FEATURED ON SHOW: X39, X49 + X₂O™ QUANTUM WATER  TECH⚡ The future of frequency wellness has arrived.

This show has been flagged as Clean by the host. -------------------- 01 Introduction This is a follow up to my 8 part series on nuclear power. In this episode I will answer questions posed by listeners in the comments to the series. I would like to start by thanking these people for taking the time to submit interesting questions. -------------------- Costs of Small Versus Large Reactors 02 brian-in-ohio asked two questions The first was for a cost comparison between large and small reactors. The second was for nuclear plant safety compared to conventional power plants. 03 Answer I think that any answer to the second question is going to be perceived by some people as politically controversial, so it's probably not a good topic for HPR to address. 04 The first question though about cost of small versus large reactors is an interesting one, although not one that is easy to give an answer to. I will restrict the answer to just grid scale electric power production and ignore use cases such as industrial process heat or power for remote mines and communities. 05 This question comes down to economies of scale versus economies of replication. Economies of scale centre around increased efficiencies of use of materials and labour when making something bigger. For example, the amount of steel used by a pipe increases linearly with its diameter, but the amount of fluid that it transports increases with the square. 06 Economies of replication come from increasing efficiencies which result from serial production. As you repeat the same design over and over again, you learn how to do things better and make fewer mistakes. 07 The exact same principles apply to shipbuilding. Indeed, a lot of the inspiration for Small Modular Reactors comes from the shipbuilding industry. If you build a series of identical ships, then each subsequent ship will cost less and be built faster. There are of course diminishing returns to this process, so the improvements are less with each additional unit and after a sufficient number of units the cost and time reductions level off. 08 However, this doesn't discount the benefits of economies of scale. What it does mean is that there are two ways of approaching the problem, and which way works in any given scenario depends on such conditions as how big the local electricity market is how fast the demand for electricity is growing, the ownership and financing structure of the electricity market, and the geography of the area, which may pose limits on the number of sites. 09 According to the finance people who have crunched the numbers, there are two sizes of reactor which make the most sense in the above context. These are 300 MW and 1000 MW. However, take those as very rough numbers rather than immutable laws of nature and other sizes may work as well. 10 The key point is that there are cases to be made for both small and large reactors, with the large reactor being several times the size of the small one. 11 An additional factor is that building only one reactor does not reap the benefits of efficiency of replication. You need to build a series of them on the same site. So if you are building a power plant, you don't build a power plant that has just one reactor unless you are in a small market which can only use that much power. Instead, you should build between 4 and 6 reactors in sequence next to one another. 12 If you are supply a large population with a growing demand for electricity, then 4 or 6 large 1000 MW reactors gains both economies of scale and economies of replication. If you are supplying a smaller population with slow growth in demand for electricity, then 4 or 6 300 MW reactors at least gets you economies of replication. 13 There is what could be viewed as an interesting example in terms of the above taking place just east of Toronto. There they are building four 300 MW SMRs on a site next to an existing nuclear power plant. 14 Here are the cost estimates from the Government of Ontario. All costs are in Canadian dollars. Unit 1 is $6.1 billion, plus $1.6 billion in costs which are shared by all four unit.s Unit 2 is $4.9 billion. Unit 3 is $4.2 billion. Unit 4 is $4.1 billion. 15 As you can see, building a series of reactors sequentially on the same site results in declining overall costs. They are very confident in these costs as they used data from a series of major nuclear power plant refurbishment projects in Ontario which have been coming in on time and on budget. 16 Construction began last year and the plant is expected to have a 65 year operating life. 17 However, the province of Ontario also has plans for expansion of electrical generation by about 15,000 MW by 2050 in order to meet net zero targets. 18 Given the heavy concentration of population in the Toronto region, and the very high cost and difficulty of building long distance transmission lines, and the limited number of sites which could host new power generation facilities of any sort, I suspect it is quite likely that subsequent reactors will be large 1,000 MW ones rather than SMRs. 19 The Wesleyville site (which is further east of Toronto) is tentatively scheduled for a 10,000 MW nuclear power plant. That would seem to make ten 1,000 MW reactors more likely than 34 300 MW reactors. 20 I don't have a comparable set of numbers for building large reactors to give an exact apples to apples comparison of costs. Different countries use different accounting and financing systems, and finance makes a huge difference to overall costs for nuclear power as operating costs are a relatively small share of the total. 21 Now to look at another side of this equation, the provinces of Saskatchewan and New Brunswick wish to replace their coal fired power plants with nuclear power plants. The populations of these provinces are too small to absorb a large new power plant into their grids, and studies assuming large reactors have foundered on this issue. 22 New Brunswick already have a nuclear power plant, but it was build in the days when reactors were much smaller. Both provinces however are very interested in small reactors, even individual ones, in order to replace the coal fired plants that are of similar size. 23 I think this covers the cost versus size issue. The more I look into it, the more it becomes apparent that there is no simple one size fits all answer but rather there are a series of trade-offs which must be taken in light of local circumstances. -------------------- MOX Fuel in the USA 24 The next question comes from mnw who asked about the use of MOX fuel in the USA. 25 mnw asked I am enjoying and look forward to the rest of the series. Do you think the US will ever wake up and start recycling its spent fuel? It seems like such a huge waste just to try and keep a small amount of fuel away from"the bad guys" or whatever they are imagining. Answer 26 My answer to this is as follows. I think I've addressed this in the original series, although not directly with respect to the US so I can provide some more detail on that aspect of it. 27 First though I will review what plutonium-uranium mixed oxide (MOX) fuel is. As mentioned in previous episodes, military grade plutonium is not the same as the plutonium which comes out of commercial power reactors. Just as military grade uranium requires nearly pure U-235 isotope, military grade plutonium requires nearly pure Pu-239 isotope. 28 What comes out of a commercial power reactor as spent fuel is not usable for weapons purposes as the proportion of Pu-239 is much too low. However, plutonium recovered from spent fuel can be used as fuel for nuclear reactors in place of uranium 235 when mixed with uranium 238 either left over from enrichment or extracted from spent fuel. This is what is known as MOX fuel. 29 To look at the US history of this however, here's the sequence of events. The US banned fuel reprocessing in 1976. However, this ban was repealed in 1981. 30 In 2005, the US began building a mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel plant at Savannah River in the state of South Carolina. However, this plant was not intended as a normal commercial operation and it was not intended to recycle commercial nuclear power plant fuel. It was instead intended to convert surplus military grade plutonium into commercial fuel in order to get rid of it as part of an arms control program. 31 The program was suspended in 2018. There were apparently many complex political issues involved in these on-again off-again decisions and I won't pretend to have the time or interest to explore all the details nor do I think most listeners would be interested in hearing abou them. 32 As of March 2026, the US are looking at reviving part of the Savannah River plant to produce limited amounts of fuel for testing of advanced reactors. The issue driving this is the shortage of uranium enriched to just below 20%. This fuel is used in certain types of small SMR. 33 The main commercial supplier of this material was a plant in Russia, but "certain events in Europe in recent years" shall we say, have resulted in that supply no longer being available to commercial operations in the US. MOX fuel based on surplus weapons grade plutonium is intended as a short term quick fix for that problem. 34 Another driving force is legal requirements following from domestic commitments for the US government to dispose of certain stockpiles of weapons grade plutonium from certain sites in the US where it is "temporarily" stored, and the solution to that is seen as burning it up in power reactors. 35 So the history is the US banned fuel reprocessing. Then a few years later they un-banned it. Then the US government started building a MOX plant which was intended to get rid of surplus weapons grade material by burning it up in power reactors. Then they decided they didn't want to do that. Then they decided they may want to make MOX fuel after all to replace supplies of special grades of fuel for experimental or prototype reactors. 36 What is missing from the above history is any actual interest from the US commercial nuclear industry in MOX fuel. The reason for this is, as mentioned in the previous episodes, uranium is so cheap and abundant that fuel made from fresh uranium is cheaper than MOX fuel. 37 Some countries such as France wish to recycle spent fuel to reduce their dependence upon imports. Recall that France's drive to build nuclear power plants was in response to the 1970s era energy crisis when oil imports from the Middle East were suddenly cut off. However, the US are not concerned about this issue and so do not make it national security policy as France did. 38 As a result, US commercial demand is for cheaper fuel made from fresh uranium rather than for MOX fuel. Until such time as fresh uranium greatly increases in price there is little economic incentive for the use of MOX fuel in the US. 39 However, there is another aspect to this. If you recall in previous episodes I described molten salt reactors which used dissolved uranium fuel. These reactors inherently reprocess fuel as part of their normal operation. They just do it as part of maintaining the molten salt chemistry at the correct values rather than doing it as a separate process. 40 If these types of reactors become widely used then they would be achieving the same thing as creating MOX fuel, but without an explicit separate step. 41 As a final footnote to the above, the US has almost exclusively use enriched uranium light water reactors. As mentioned in previous episodes, there are ways of recycling spent fuel from light water reactors which do not involve chemically reprocessing it to make MOX fuel. 42 Experiments have been done involving South Korea, China, and Canada which take spent fuel from light water reactors and repackage it to fit it into natural uranium heavy water reactors. What is used up or "spent" fuel for a light water reactor is high grade fuel to a natural uranium reactor. However, the US has, for whatever reason, never built commercial natural uranium reactors such as are used in a number of other countries around the world. 43 If they were to do so, then nuclear fuel could be used twice, once in a light water reactor, and again in a natural uranium reactor, all without having to turn it into MOX fuel in a separate reprocessing step. However, this particular alternative would likely face the same issue in the sense that fresh fuel would still be cheaper than reusing spent fuel. -------------------- A Variety of Questions from Clinton 44 Next we have a variety of questions from Clinton. Clinton asked I would like some commentary in the current situation, why has hinkley gone off the rails, the new american approach, the odd things done after fukushima, the new radiation rules in the states. 45 Question 1 why has hinkley gone off the rails, 46 Answer The question refers to cost overruns at the Hinkley Point nuclear power project in the UK. The UK government looked into this issue in a more general sense in 2025. They published a report on it titled Nuclear Regulatory Review 2025 Enabling nuclear delivery through regulatory reform John Fingleton There is a link to the report in the show notes. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/692080f75c394e481336ab89/nuclear-regulatory-review-2025.pdf 47 As the report is 162 pages long, I won't try to cover it all in this answer. I will however give a few simple examples. The report focuses on civilian nuclear power and the defence nuclear industry as well. However it also draws examples from outside the nuclear industry to show that the problem is not limited to nuclear. It shows that the same problems exist in the offshore wind industry, and in the HS2 High Speed Rail project. 48 In the view of the authors of the report, the essence of the problem seems to be a lack of any degree of proportionality in terms of mitigating negative effects from any project. Big nuclear projects make the headlines because they are inherently big projects, but as I have just mentioned, they affect things like wind power development and rail transport as well. 49 I will pick one example from Hinkley Point specifically. This is "Case Study: Hinkley Point C Fish Protection" A summary of this is that they spent £700 million of additional money on the cooling water intakes to protect an estimated 0.083 salmon per year, along with 0.028 sea trout, 6 river lamprey, 18 Allis shad, and somewhere between 100 and 528 twaite shad. The report points out that there are ways to protect far more fish for far less money by spending it in other areas, and gives some examples. Again, this problem is not limited to nuclear power, and they give similar examples connected with offshore wind development and HS2 High Speed Rail. 50 I would like to emphasize that I am not expressing an opinion on whether or not any of these decisions were good or bad ones or whether the money was well spent. I am just summarizing the report's explanation of why large projects of all sorts initiated and approved by the UK parliament were not turning out as initially expected. I will leave it up to people in the UK to decide whether or not they are satisfied with the current situation. 51 Question 2 the new american approach, 52 Answer The US have apparently announced changes to their regulatory system. I don't know enough about the subject to really judge the practical effects of regulation within the US. However, I have read and listened to many interviews of people from both the industry and the regulatory side of things who are from outside the US but are familiar with it. They generally contrast two different approaches to regulation. On the one hand there is the US approach, which they see as being more of a box ticking exercise than an in depth safety review. This makes it very hard to get a design other than a traditional PWR or BWR approved in the US. 53 It has the advantage from the regulator side of things though in that it reduces the amount of work required as it primarily requires just following a set of defined procedures. These people then contrast that approach with the one used in the UK and in Canada, both of which they see as being very similar to one another. In those two countries, regulators work with industry to review designs from basic principles rather than just seeing if it meets a pre-defined list of criteria. This is a results oriented system rather than a process oriented system as used in the US. 54 As a result of this, designers of new nuclear reactors are going to the UK and Canada first to go through preliminary review there, and only going to the US later. What designers are looking for is feedback on their design as they go along in order to align the design with what safety regulators see as being required from their standpoint. They want to go into a review process before the design is finalized so they can get guidance on how they should approach things rather than trying to add safety as additional features on top of a finished design. 55 It would take someone with deep familiarity with nuclear regulation systems to understand the practical effects of recent changes in US regulatory systems, but it is quite possible that people within the regulatory structure in the US have been taking the above on board and trying to adapt to current circumstances. However, I can only speculate on that. This is about the best answer that I can give. 56 Question 3 the odd things done after fukushima, 57 Answer This covers a lot of topics, some of which are probably political and so are not suited to HPR. I will try to list a few events however. As a brief summary if the Fukushima events go however, a historic scale earthquake and tsunami in Japan in 2011 caused huge loss of life and widespread damage. About 20,000 people were killed by the earthquake and tsunami. Three nuclear reactors based on 1960s era GE BWR designs were seriously damaged by hydrogen explosions caused by loss of power to backup generators when they were flooded by the tsunami. However, there were no radiation related deaths or cases of radiation sickness. 58 Following events in Japan was a general review of designs around the world, with various improvements made in some areas, particularly backup generators and hydrogen management. It seems to be conventional wisdom that the Fukushima event caused a number of countries to decide to phase out nuclear power. 59 However, when I tried to make a list of such countries for this episode I found things were not as is often heard. The countries which decided to get rid of nuclear power had largely started down that road at least a decade before then and generally for reasons unrelated to any specific events outside of their own country. In other cases they reversed that decision or are in the process of doing so. Japan itself has restarted many of their nuclear power plants and plant to replace decommissioned nuclear power plants with new ones, although many of the older and smaller ones were considered not economically worth upgrading at this point in their life to restart them. 60 The one possible exception to this may be Taiwan which decided to phase out nuclear power in 2016. However, I don't know enough about Taiwanese politics to state with any confidence that their decision in 2016 was based on anything related to events in Japan, or whether in fact they were a byproduct of other political changes within Taiwan and the shut down of nuclear plants happened to be carried along with those. Currently Taiwan get their electricity primarily from natural gas and coal. 61 Meanwhile across mainland Asia from Turkey to China, large numbers of nuclear power plants were built or are under construction. Taken together on a global scale, did anything really change after Fukushima, or did the countries which had already decided to close down their nuclear power plants simply continue to do so, and those countries who decided they wanted more of them continue to build them? That's a good question for which I don't think anyone has the perspective to answer at this point. 62 Another side of this which is hard to disentangle from it though is the increased use of natural gas for electric power generation which was happening at around the same time. Increased use of fracking in a number of countries, plus increased supplies from Russia and LNG from the Middle East and other places resulted in falls in natural gas prices in many places. Since combined cycle natural gas turbines form the main competitor to nuclear power, anything which improves the economics of natural gas will act to reduce demand for nuclear power. This makes it hard to decide to what degree the reduction in the number of reactors being built was due to the political effects of the earthquake and tsunami and to what degree it was due to cheaper natural gas through fracking and other means. I'll leave that question at that. 63 Question 4 the new radiation rules in the states. 64 Answer I'm not deeply familiar with US radiation rules, but I will attempt to answer the question. Apparently there are wide variety of different things being addressed, only some of which have any relevance to the nuclear power industry. One of these is an epidemiological study on the current exposure limits for workers in the nuclear industry. This study will take place over about 5 years. In the end it may not result in any changes. This is for a number of reasons. 65 One is that US exposure thresholds for workers are currently aligned with international standards. It would be difficult for the US industry to operate on a different basis than the rest of the world when supply chains are global and kit is designed to meet currently recognized standards. Another is that apparently the nuclear industry are not, so far as I can discern, asking for any changes to limits. They instead are looking for changes to how some of the details are being applied, such as for example the criteria for deciding when respirators are required in low risk environments. 66 Some point to recent changes in UK regulations as an example of what they are looking for. I will post a link to the new (November of 2025) UK regulations in the show notes. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/nuclear-industry-principles-to-guide-the-application-of-as-low-as-reasonably-practicable-alarp-and-best-available-techniques-bat/ways-of-working-principles-to-guide-the-application-of-alarp-and-bat-in-the-nuclear-industry-accessible-webpage This is about as much detail as I think I can comment on when it comes to this question, as I think it is a subject that requires a fair bit more practical knowledge of than I have in order to give a thorough and balanced answer. -------------------- 67 Question from Antoine Were/are the designs patented? Hi, Whiskeyjack. Nice ep. You said AGR, based on Magnox, was a nuclear reactor type that did not sell well outside the UK. I then started thinking if it were (is) possible to another countries to develop by themselves based on that project, or if it had (has) a commercial restriction for exploration of the technology. I have yet to listen to the following episodes (doing little by little) and may learn better on the choices, but I felt free to present the question by now... Thanks! 68 Answer This is a very good question because it offers the opportunity to talk about a number of interesting things that haven't been touched on yet. Let's cover a bit of background first. 69 A patent is a time limited right to exploit a defined bit of valuable technical knowledge. Patents were involved from the very earliest days of commercial nuclear power, and I will give an example of this later. A key point to keep in mind though is that the nuclear power field moves very slowly and it takes a long time for new knowledge to make it from the lab to commercial application. Patents will often expire before they reach the point where they can be used. 70 Contracts on the other hand are legally enforceable agreements between two parties. A contract may have a time limited life, but that is an arrangement between the parties. A commercial nuclear power plant is a very large and complex bit of kit and not easily copied in detail. It can be far more effective to cover designs under contracts and licenses than to rely on patents. If a country wished to build their own nuclear power plants rather than buying them from someone else, there are a large number of companies who have commercial designs they are willing to license to third parties for them to build themselves. Indeed a number of these companies base their business around licensing of designs or have other reasons for wishing to do so. 71 From a licensee perspective, it could take decades of work and hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars to take a design from first principle to the ready to build state, wheras licensing a design give you a proven design right away. As mentioned in previous episodes, there many types of reactor in the world. The selection of what sort of reactor a country decides to buy often depends more on commercial considerations revolving around licensing terms and conditions than it does with respect to any technical considerations. Here's an example which shows how South Korea decided to license a design, build it for themselves, and then export it to other countries. 72 KunMo Chung - Professor at the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, stated in an interview in 2019 that South Korea wanted to standardize on a single reactor technology in the early 1980s. They had reactors from multiple different vendors, but wanted to license an existing successful design to produce for themselves and for the export market. One of the major factors in deciding to standardize was to allow them to improve operator training by focusing on one design. Professor Chung stated that one of the key factors in selecting a design from ABB-Combustion Engineering was that he personally knew and had a good relationship with the Chief Technical Officer of ABB-Combustion Engineering going back to a time when Professor Chung had been studying and working in the USA. 73 On their side, ABB-Combustion Engineering were having financial problems and they needed a partner to help further develop their new PWR design. Also they stood to gain revenue from this partnership as well. Based on this relationship, the two sides came to a business agreement and South Korea began producing reactors based on this design, while also continuing to develop and improve it further. 74 Here's an example of a case where the developers of a promising technology decided that they had more to gain by not patenting their technology. Instead they decided to freely share their information in order to get other researchers elsewhere to help to advance the technology so that all could benefit from it. 75 In an interview Wacław Gudowski - Prof. Emeritus, Royal Institute of Technology KTH Stockholm stated that the Soviets and later the Russian were the leaders in lead-bismuth cooled reactors. These reactors use lead-bismuth liquid metal alloy as a coolant. In the 1990s the Russian institute working on commercializing this technology were working with Western partners on nuclear technology in general. They considered patenting this technology, but in the end decided to simply publish it openly. 76 Professor Gudowski had even smuggled $60,000 in cash into Russia to finance the patent application in order to get the Russian institute to publish their technology, but the money was not needed. They based this decision on the judgment that it would take 20 years of R&D before the technology was ready for the commercial market, so they wouldn't see a penny on any patents anyway. They were right on this, as it was another 20 years of R&D in Europe, Russia, China, and Korea before lead-bismuth technology was ready for commercial use. 77 It had already seen use in submarine reactors, but the commercial market demanded a more thoroughly developed technology to satisfy commercial needs. By deciding to not patent the technology, the original developers gained from shared R&D rather than chasing the illusary gains from patent licenses on technology that was not ready for the commercial market anyway. 78 I said that patents were involved in nuclear technology from the very earliest days, and I will now turn to that story. When I say the earliest days, I mean probably earlier than you are imaging. I am talking about before WWII. 79 First though I need to give some background information. France and Britain were working on nuclear weapons from the very earliest days of WWII. In Britain's case this was called Tube Alloys. Canada also was conducting nuclear experiments, including building an "atomic pile", but it's not clear if this had any clear practical goals or was done to understand the physics better. 80 If you read the Wikipedia version of history, it states that Tube Alloys was merged into the Manhattan Project. However, participants have stated in interviews that this was not the case, and the Quebec Agreement which supposedly merged them makes no such mention of any merger of the projects, just the setting up of a board to coordinate efforts between the three countries, that is the US, UK, and Canada. In fact the two projects didn't get along that well, and as we shall see below, a big part of that was disputes over patents. ### 81 The following is based on a paper written by Bertrand Goldschmidt, a French nuclear scientist. Two of his colleagues, Hans Halban and Lew Kowarski played a critical role in early nuclear research. Halban in particular was one of the greatest scientific names in nuclear fission. In March of 1939 Halban conducted an experiment showing that neutrons were emitted by the fissioning of uranium. 82 In April Joliot, Halban, Kowarski and Perrin had a pretty good idea of how to use nuclear fission to produce energy and to make an explosive device and decided to file patents on their invention. Each of the four would receive a 5% share of any benefits and the other 80% would go to the research instittute they worked at in Paris. I will now quote from Goldschmidt's paper. 83 The first two patents concerned energy production and were entitled "Device for energy production" and "Method for stabilizing a device for energy production." They roughly defined the principles of the main components of our present power reactors: moderator in heterogeneous or homogeneous arrangements, cooling fluid, control rods, protection shield. The third patent called "Method for perfecting explosive charges" was less brilliant from a foresight point of view though it proposed valid solutions for the trigger, the tamper, and the rapid obtainment of the critical assembly of a possible explosive device. Finally, nearly a year later, after Alfred Nier's experimental confirmation in March 1940 of Niels Bohr's theoretical prediction that uranium 235, the rare isotope of the mixture in natural uranium, was responsible for fission by slow neutrons, the French took out an additional patent on the advantage of using enriched uranium for the chain reaction. End of quote. 84 In May of 1940, the CNRS, the French research institute in Paris, negotiated an agreement with Belgian mining company Union Miniere, who were the world's biggest producer of uranium, at the time a byproduct of radium mining, about a partnership for the world wide exploitation of these patents. However the agreement was not finalized due to the ongoing events in the war. At the beginning of the war, the French government had approved the development of an energy generator - or a nuclear reactor as we would say today, with the intention of creating an engine for submarines. 85 With the fall of France, Halban and Kowarski travelled to the UK with their supply of heavy water where they were received by their UK counterparts, James Chadwick and John Cockroft. The British were already working on an atomic bomb. In the UK the two conducted an experiment showing that it was possible to create nuclear energy using natural uranium and heavy water. In 1941 the British nuclear project was reorganized and given the name Tube Alloys. In 1942 it was decided to move the work on a plutonium bomb to Canada, and Canada would pay for the project. A lab was set up in Montreal and Halban was put in charge of the project. 86 Halban had negotiated this arrangement by offering to arrange to have the French patents for world wide rights outside of France and the French empire transferred to the UK. In return the French team were to be given a key role in the British nuclear project. The author of the paper I am referencing, Bertrand Goldschmidt, was a section leader in Montreal and a colleague of Halban from France. The Montreal group cooperated with the American Manhattan Project and the two shared information and exchanged visits. 87 However, relations between the two began to break down, with a major cause of this being the Americans being unhappy about the French patents and Halban's arrangement to give the British world wide rights to them. The postwar commercial potential for nuclear power was seen to be huge, and this was a major bone of contention. The extensive participation of ICI (Imperial Chemical Industries) engineers in the Tube Alloys project was also objectionable to the Americans. Presumably this had something to do with potential for ICI being involved in future commercialization of the technology. The American Dupont company, a commercial rival of ICI, was also heavily involved in the American atomic bomb project. The eventual result of this was that the US cut off cooperation with the UK-Canada nuclear project. 88 Finally Halban was forced out of the project at the insistence of the Americans, and he was replaced by John Cockroft who moved to Montreal to take charge of the project. The Americans now restore limited cooperation. Kowarski was put in charge of building a heavy water moderated natural uranium reactor at a new site north of Ottawa at Chalk River. This reactor was turned on on the 5th of September, 1945, three days after Japan's surrender. So in what was supposedly a titanic war for survival, key allies were falling out with respect to their ultimate weapon over issues of patents covering post war commercialization. 89 With the end of the war, the nuclear weapons project in Montreal and Chalk River was wound up. Halban, Kowarski, and Goldschmidt returned to France and Cockroft to the UK where they all played senior roles in the nuclear programs of their respective countries. John Cockroft played an important role in the development of the Magnox reactors which Antoine asked about. The Chalk River Site remains as Canada's main nuclear research centre to this day, and Canada was to continue development of heavy water moderated natural uranium reactors. 90 The first commercial nuclear power plant was commissioned in the UK in 1956, roughly 17 years after the original French nuclear patents. At that time, UK patents had a term of 16 years. While I am not a patent lawyer, it would appear that these patents would likely have expired before nuclear power was ever commercialized. So to answer the question about patents, the first patents on nuclear energy date to before WWII started, and the very first two were about nuclear power plants and it was only the third one which covered nuclear weapons. -------------------- 91 Thanks to other listeners. A number of other listeners made comments saying they were really enjoying the series. I would like to thank the following for their kind words of encouragement. They helped make the work required to do this worthwhile. They are brian-in-ohio mnw Clinton Antoine bjb Kevin O'Brien Trey L'andrew Archer72 Jim DeVore If you have commented but I have forgotten your name, or if the show was recorded before I got a chance to read your comment, I would still like to thank you. 92 Conclusion I would like to thank all the listeners for their kind comments and insightful questions. I hope that I have answered these questions to the satisfaction of everyone. I look forward to hearing from all of you in future podcast episodes including those on other topics. -------------------- Proceedings of the 29th annual conference of the Canadian Nuclear Association and 10th annual conference of the Canadian Nuclear Society. V. 1-3 https://inis.iaea.org/records/m2s41-40917 This has a paper by Bertrand Goldschmidt about the work of the French scientists in Canada. -------------------- Provide feedback on this episode.

Somewhere right now, a kid is kicking a ball in the street while a stadium across the world is holding its breath for a final-second win. We love sports because they create instant shared meaning, but the part most fans never see is the structure that makes those moments travel, repeat, and endure. For World IP Day 2026, we're celebrating “IP and sports” with a playful challenge that lands on a serious point: intellectual property is what helps sport scale.We break down the real sports business engine behind broadcasting rights, sponsorships, merchandising, and the rising value of sports data. Then we put the ideas to the test with “Who Wants To Own The Stadium,” a quick game that connects familiar examples to the core IP tools: patents, trademarks, copyright, licensing, and industrial design. Nike Flyknit shows how a patented invention can become a platform across product lines. The Nike swoosh shows how a trademark becomes trust, culture, and belonging. Madden NFL shows how copyright and licensing can turn a league into interactive entertainment. Air Jordan 1 shows how product design can become a collectible icon and a long-term asset.By the end, we tie everything together into a practical takeaway for founders, creators, lawyers, and curious fans: sports value is built on more than performance, and good IP strategy helps innovation travel, brands grow, and creators get rewarded. If you enjoy plain talk about intellectual property and sports law, subscribe, share the episode with your network, and leave us a review so more listeners can find Intangibilia.Send us Fan MailCheck out "Protection for the Inventive Mind" – available now on Amazon in print and Kindle formats.The views and opinions expressed (by the host and guest(s)) in this podcast are strictly their own and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the entities with which they may be affiliated. This podcast should in no way be construed as promoting or criticizing any particular government policy, institutional position, private interest or commercial entity. Any content provided is for informational and educational purposes only.

**Boys and Girls, We're Back! Tyler from MORRFlate Returns – Tire Inflation Wars, Copycats, Patents & Off-Road Innovation** We're back with another awesome episode of the Jeep Talk Show! Tyler from MORRFlate joins us again for a raw, honest conversation about building a business in the off-road world, dealing with big-time copycats, patent battles, and why competition (the right kind) actually drives innovation. Tyler has been wheeling Toyotas all over California since he was a kid, lives close to the Rubicon Trail, runs NorCal 4x4 Rescue, co-hosts the Snail Trail 4x4 Podcast, and has poured serious support into trail advocacy. In this return visit (first one was back in September 2025), he opens up about getting threatened by a major player, the reality of enforcing patents, and how a $3M company competes against $45M giants with deep marketing pockets. We dive deep into: - How MORRFlate's 4-tire inflation/deflation system works (connects all four tires as one big air tank, equalizes pressure automatically, saves massive time on the trail) - The frustration of direct copies (even stealing the signature neon green color) - Why patents aren't the silver bullet everyone thinks - Airflow limitations of Schrader valves and future ideas to fix the bottleneck - Building a company from a garage condo to a team of 8+ with a warehouse in Sacramento - Lifetime warranties, obsessive quality control, and hiring fellow off-roaders - AI chatbots on the website, robots in manufacturing, and how AI is changing marketing and product design Tyler also shares his 30-second elevator pitch: MORRFlate makes airing up and down your tires super convenient so you can actually enjoy the trail instead of babysitting a compressor. If you've ever deflated for traction, fought with individual tire hoses, or dreamed of faster air-ups on your Jeep, Toyota, or any rig — this one's for you. **Timestamps:** 00:00:00 Show Opening 00:00:10 Misnaming Moore Flat 00:00:31 Tyler's Background & Sales 00:01:19 Previous Interview & Threats 00:02:06 Acquisition Threat & Patent Journey 00:03:08 Patent Approval & Copycats 00:04:01 Company Name Confidential 00:04:33 Patent Enforcement Costs 00:05:21 Competition and Innovation 00:06:35 Amazon Listings & Pricing 00:08:03 RealTruck Ownership Impact 00:09:12 Podcast Monetization Issues 00:09:41 Morfleet Product Overview 00:11:07 Tire Deflation Benefits 00:12:59 Airflow Limits of Valves 00:13:28 Air Tank Volume Calculations 00:14:43 Limited Tank Capacity Demo 00:15:46 Compressor Performance Insights 00:16:24 Personal Projects & Ideas 00:17:40 Upcoming Valve Projects 00:19:07 Valve Interior Flow Restriction 00:21:41 Heavy Equipment Valve Solutions 00:23:48 Apex Rapid Valve Review 00:24:15 Challenges with Large Tires 00:24:59 Passion for Problem Solving 00:29:04 Warehouse & Quality Control 00:34:48 Lifetime Warranty Strategy 00:37:02 Customer Focus Assurance 00:38:22 Employee Attitude Culture 00:39:50 Testing Competitor Gear 00:40:51 People-Centric Philosophy 00:43:28 Corporate vs Small Business 00:44:07 Politics and Truth 00:45:47 Vendor Conflict Over Copying 00:49:05 AI Chatbot Deployment 00:50:30 AI, Quality Control & Robotics 00:53:25 AI in Product Design 00:54:51 AI Impact on Jobs 00:57:45 Minimum Wage Debate 00:58:49 Digital Media & AI 01:02:40 Show Recap & Future 01:04:25 Closing Thanks 01:06:38 Final Thanks & Friendship 01:09:02 Interview Conclusion **Links:** - MORRFlate Official Site: https://morrflate.com/ (Check out the Quad hose kits, Air Hub, and play with their AI chatbot!) - Tyler on Instagram/X: @4x4ToyotaTyler - MORRFlate on Social: @morrflate - Snail Trail 4x4 Podcast: Search "Snail Trail 4x4" on your favorite platform (830+ episodes!) If you're out at Overland Expo, off-road events, or shopping on Amazon — look for the real neon green MORRFlate gear. Drop a comment: Have you tried a multi-tire inflation system? Would you buy from the original innovator or a cheaper copy? What's your biggest air-up/down frustration on the trail? Thanks for watching! Hit LIKE if you enjoyed the convo, SUBSCRIBE for more Jeep/off-road stories, and turn on notifications so you never miss an episode. Support trail advocacy and small off-road businesses — they keep the trails open and the innovation coming. #Jeep #OffRoad #MORRFlate #Toyota #Rubicon #TireInflation #Overlanding #4x4 Visit our website: https://jeeptalkshow.com/ Watch/Listen on Spotify https://jeeptalkshow.com/spotify Join our Discord Server: https://jeeptalkshow.com/discord Subscribe to our newsletter: https://jeeptakshow.com/newsletter Help Support the show via Patreon: https://jeeptalkshow.com/patreon

America Out Loud PULSE with Dr. Clayton J. Baker – Spraying tens of thousands of pounds of powdered polymers into a hurricane to turn it into Jell-O. Spraying huge quantities of toxic aluminum and thorium into the stratosphere in the name of cooling the planet. Proposing the use of unrefined, polluting jet fuel to fill the sky with sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acid...

Every public company's R&D number is a lie hiding in plain sight. Not because anyone falsified it. Because the number was never built to tell the truth. It was built to satisfy an accounting standard written in 1974. And for fifty years, boards, analysts, and CEOs have been making billion-dollar innovation decisions based on a number designed by accountants to solve a different problem entirely. Here's what makes this genuinely strange. The real number exists. The government has been collecting it from every major US company for decades. It would answer the question every innovation leader and investor actually needs answered. And it is locked away by federal law. Confidential. Never published. Never seen by the people who need it most. It's sitting in a federal database right now. And there's a way to estimate it for any public company, without asking anyone's permission. I know it exists because I spent years building it from the inside. Why the R&D Signal Was Blurry When I was running innovation at HP, we discovered this problem firsthand. We had a connection between R&D investment and gross margin that held up across decades of HP history. Better than anything Wall Street was using. But the signal was blurry. None of us could figure out why. The answer came from a question someone on the team asked almost as an aside. What if R&D isn't one thing? Research and Development Are Not the Same Thing Think about what actually lives inside a typical R&D budget. There's a team somewhere investigating whether a new approach could enable a capability that doesn't exist yet. No product defined. No spec written. Asking whether something is even possible. And there's a team building the next version of a product that ships in eighteen months. Spec locked. Timeline set. Engineering executing against a defined target. Both show up on the same line in the budget. Both get called R&D. Both count equally toward the number that gets reviewed every quarter. They are not the same thing. One is Research. The other is Development. Research is the work you do when you don't yet know what you're building. The output is understanding. New knowledge that might enable future products nobody has designed yet. You can't know exactly what you'll find. If you already knew, it wouldn't be research. Development is the work you do when you know exactly what you're building. The spec exists. The product is defined. The question isn't what to make. It's whether it can be made, on time, at cost, at quality. One creates the future. The other delivers the present. And for fifty years, every public company in America has been required to report them as one indistinguishable number. When we split the HP data along that line, Research on one side and Development on the other, the signal sharpened immediately. Research spend, measured against gross margin three to five years later, was a meaningfully stronger predictor than the combined number had ever been. The blur hadn't been in the gross margin data. It had been in the R&D number itself. Two fundamentally different things, averaged together, producing a number that looked precise and predicted almost nothing. But splitting R from D at the company level was only the beginning. The model was still lying to us. Just more quietly. Why Company-Level R&D Splits Still Mislead Even with the split, something was still soft. HP wasn't one business. It was dozens. Printers, PCs, servers, software, each running on different timelines, different technology cycles, different competitive dynamics. What if the R/D split meant something different depending on where it was applied? We pushed it to the product line level. Then further, to the platform level within product lines. Printers were the clearest example. HP's printer business wasn't one story. There were platforms built on established technology. Mature ink systems, proven print head chemistry, products that had been shipping for years. And there were platforms built on genuinely new core technology. New chemistry. New mechanisms. New approaches to fundamental problems that nobody had solved yet. Research investment by platform told a completely different story than Research investment by product category. The Research going into new technology platforms had a completely different relationship to future margin than Research going into mature platforms. Different time horizons. Different risk profiles. Different margin implications years down the road. Laptops told the same story. A traditional consumer laptop line and a high-performance portable workstation weren't the same investment. One was Development-heavy. Defined product, known market, engineering executing against spec. The other had genuine Research behind it. Unsolved thermal problems, new form factor constraints, and materials questions that hadn't been answered yet. When a single R&D assumption is applied across all of that, treating every dollar the same regardless of what it actually does, the signal disappears into the average. Peanut butter across the portfolio. The model only got honest when it got specific. Research by platform and Development by platform, matched against the margin performance of those specific platforms years later. Which platforms were building future margin? Which ones were running on margin that past Research had already bought? We could see it because we were inside the company. The question is whether anyone on the outside could ever see the same thing. The R&D Data the Government Collects and Won't Release Outside the internal budget process, everyone sees the same thing: a single line on the income statement. The US government recognized decades ago that the combined R&D number was analytically useless. So they built a system to collect the real one. The National Science Foundation runs a survey called the Business Enterprise Research and Development survey. The BERD survey. Every year, roughly 47,500 US companies are required to report their R&D spending broken into three categories: basic research, applied research, and experimental development. The split that every board and every investor needs to see. Mandatory. Collected. Verified. And then locked away. The firm-level data is confidential under federal law. The NSF publishes only industry-level aggregates. So every company fills out this survey and reports its real R/D split to the government. That data sits in a federal database. And the boards, investors, and analysts who need it most cannot access it. Researchers at Northwestern and Boston University were given rare access to that confidential data. What they found is striking. When companies face financial pressure and cut R&D, they don't cut Development. They cut Research. Almost entirely. Development barely moves. Every earnings squeeze. Every activist campaign. Every cost optimization program. Systematically targeting the one part of R&D that builds future margin. And because the combined number barely moves, nobody on the outside sees it happening. That's not a coincidence. That's the accounting standard doing exactly what it was designed to do: produce one clean number for the income statement. It was never asked to protect the future. How to Estimate the Research-to-Development Split Without Inside Access So what can actually be done without access to the locked data? More than most people realize. Step 1. Find the industry baseline. The aggregate BERD data is public at the sector level. Ask an AI tool for the Research-to-Development ratio for the relevant industry. That's the benchmark. Everything else gets measured against it. A company spending 8% of its R&D on Research in an industry where the average is 25% is telling you something the combined number never would. Step 2. Look at the gross margin trend compared to peers. Gross margin over time is the most honest external signal of Research health. A company with a declining margin relative to peers, while reporting flat or growing R&D spend, is almost certainly shifting the mix toward Development. The math works in the other direction, too. An AI tool can pull this comparison for any public company in minutes. This is exactly the signal that was invisible at HP until it was too late. Step 3. Look at patent trends compared to peers over time. Patents are an imperfect but useful directional indicator. Not because more patents always means more Research. It doesn't. But a sustained decline in patent output relative to peers, alongside flat R&D spend, suggests the investment is maintaining existing products rather than creating new knowledge. Combined with the gross margin trend, it starts to triangulate where the split actually sits. None of these three steps requires access to an internal budget. All of them can be done in an afternoon with public data and an AI tool. Together, they produce a working picture of the R/D split that the income statement was never designed to reveal. What the R&D Split Revealed at HP That No One Outside Could See When Hurd took over in 2005, HP was spending $3.5 billion on R&D. Roughly 4% of revenue. By 2009, his last full year as CEO, that had dropped to $2.8 billion. Revenue had grown significantly over that period, so the percentage had fallen further still, to under 2.5%. Both the dollar amount and the ratio were declining simultaneously while the company got larger. Wall Street tracked the combined number. The board reviewed it. Nobody raised a structural alarm. The Research component within that total was well below the industry average for comparable technology companies. Not slightly. Significantly. The margin consequences arrived years later. They always do. What Happens When the Definition of Research Doesn't Exist The R/D split gave us a real predictive signal. We ran with it. The conversations were sharper. But the team kept pulling on a thread that nobody expected. When we looked closely at what was actually being called Research, project by project and budget line by budget line, things that didn't feel the same kept appearing. Work aimed at fundamental discovery. Work aimed at solving a specific defined problem using entirely new methods. Both labeled Research. Up close, they behaved differently, predicted different things, and when budgets got tight, got treated very differently. So we went looking for the agreed definition. The official standard that would tell exactly where to draw the lines inside Research. It didn't exist. Not the way we needed it to. And without it, everything we'd built was sitting on sand. How do you build a predictive model on a definition that doesn't exist? That's the next episode. If this helped you see something you might have missed, subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts. On YouTube, hit subscribe and the bell so you don't miss the next episode. And if you want to go deeper every Monday, join us at Studio Notes — free, at philmckinney.com. Until next time. See the pattern. Make the call.  

Key Legal Documents for Your Startup Hello, this is Hall T. Martin with the Startup Funding Espresso -- your daily shot of startup funding and investing. There are several key legal documents every startup will use. Here's a list of those documents: Business Entity filing -- this establishes the legal entity of the business, such as a Delaware C Corp, an LLC, or other. Non-compete documents -- employees sign these to prevent competition with the company. Non-disclosure agreements -- the employees sign these to prevent them from sharing confidential information with others. Intellectual property assignment -- the employees turn over rights to all IP discovered while working with the company. Employment agreements – set forth the rules for working with the company as an employee. Patents/trademarks -- startups use these to protect their intellectual property. Contracts -- startups use these to set the rules of engagement with clients, suppliers, and partners. Terms of service -- this establishes the rules relating to the use of the firm's products and services. Capitalization table -- lists the owners of the entity with their number of shares and percent of ownership. Make sure you have these documents in order in your startup. Thank you for joining us for the Startup Funding Espresso where we help startups and investors connect for funding. Let's go startup something today. _______________________________________________________ For more episodes from Investor Connect, please visit the site at: http://investorconnect.org Check out our other podcasts here: https://investorconnect.org/ For Investors check out: https://tencapital.group/investor-landing/ For Startups check out: https://tencapital.group/company-landing/ For eGuides check out: https://tencapital.group/education/ For upcoming Events, check out https://tencapital.group/events/ For Feedback please contact info@tencapital.group Please follow, share, and leave a review. Music courtesy of Bensound.

A company can vanish from your pocket and still show up in court and that is not a metaphor. We take a hard look at the afterlife of innovation and the real business question behind it: can intellectual property outlive the company that created it, and if so, what legal structures make that possible?We trace six vivid case studies that turn “failed products” into ongoing value. BlackBerry shows how patent monetization and portfolio restructuring can create immediate liquidity while keeping a long royalty tail and upside participation. Nokia shows what happens when IP moves from consumer devices into network infrastructure, where standards essential patents and FRAND commitments can produce durable, recurring IP licensing revenue. Ericsson takes the same idea and makes it operational, using deals that shift ownership to specialist entities while retaining tiered revenue shares, aligning incentives and keeping the program disciplined.Then the tone gets sharper: Nortel reveals how bankruptcy restructuring can turn patents into the centerpiece of an estate, driving auctions and creditor recovery. Kodak demonstrates how timing, litigation risk, title clarity, and negotiation pressure can reshape patent portfolio valuation, even when the underlying innovation is strong. Technicolor closes the loop with a deal engineered like a financial instrument: cash up front, future revenue participation, and a license back to keep operating.If your business changed tomorrow, would your intellectual property still be creating value? Subscribe, share this with your team, and leave a review with the one IP strategy you want us to unpack next.Send us Fan MailCheck out "Protection for the Inventive Mind" – available now on Amazon in print and Kindle formats.The views and opinions expressed (by the host and guest(s)) in this podcast are strictly their own and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the entities with which they may be affiliated. This podcast should in no way be construed as promoting or criticizing any particular government policy, institutional position, private interest or commercial entity. Any content provided is for informational and educational purposes only.

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.

In this episode of The 20/20 Podcast, Dr. Harbir Sian sits down with MaryAnn Klassen—a respected voice in the industry with over 40 years of experience across contact lenses, retinal care, and dry eye innovation. At the center of this conversation is the development of the Meivertor, a device designed to simplify upper eyelid eversion and improve the efficiency of […]

Jeff and Christian welcome Jacob Dekker from Gamespot to the show for the first time to discuss Nintendo's Pokemon patent being revoked, rumors of a PS6 handheld, and a wildly difficult PSN trophy it took 13 years to finally achieve.The Playlist:Jacob: Pokemon Leaf Green, Pokopia, Pokemon Champions, Slay the Spire 2Christian: Marvel MaXimum CollectionJeff: Super Meat Boy 3D, Slay the Spire 2Parting Gifts!

Sony's latest PS5 price hike, MTG's digital resurrection of Library of Alexandria, the critic–fan divide on the new Mario movie, a Sony patent aimed at nerfing cross‑platform players, Nintendo losing its “summoning” patent, how D&D supports mental health, and a retro review of Springer on Atari. This week on The Game Deflators, John and Ryan hit a rapid‑fire lineup of gaming news and retro goodness. They kick things off with Sony's newest PS5 price increase and what it signals for the console market. Then it's on to Magic: The Gathering, where Library of Alexandria is making a surprise appearance in MTG Arena — and the guys debate whether this is nostalgia done right or digital power creep. The duo also dives into the growing gap between critic reviews and fan reactions to the new Mario movie, followed by a look at a recent Sony patent that appears designed to nerf cross‑platform players based on input detection. Next, they unpack the U.S. Patent Office's decision to revoke Nintendo's “summoning” patent, a move that frees up game‑mechanic creativity across the industry. John and Ryan also explore how Dungeons & Dragons continues to support mental health through structured role‑play and community storytelling. Finally, the Inflation Deflation Game of the Week spotlights Springer for the Atari — a quirky platformer that gets the full Deflators treatment. Chapters: 00:00 Introduction and Overview of Topics 04:02 Game Pickups and Unboxing Dungeons & Dragons 05:35 Current Gaming Experiences and Upcoming Titles 10:27 Discussion on PS5 Price Increase 16:29 Sony's Dynamic Adjustments Patent 21:06 Critique of the New Mario Movie 28:34 Magic: The Gathering and Over-Saturation of Sets 32:51 The Power of Card Mechanics 39:09 Sustainability in Card Games 47:26 Therapeutic Role of Dungeons and Dragons 52:56 The Impact of Patents on Gaming 59:25 A Deep Dive into Springer Rabbit   Find us on TheGameDeflators.com   Twitter - www.twitter.com/GameDeflators Facebook - www.facebook.com/TheGameDeflators Instagram - www.instagram.com/thegamedeflators   The views and opinions expressed on this channel are solely those of the author. The content within these recordings are property of their respective Designers, Writers, Creators, Owners, Organizations, Companies and Producers. Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted. Permission for intro and outro music provided by Matthew Huffaker http://www.youtube.com/user/teknoaxe 2_25_18

**

Dr. Stephanie Rimka is a pioneering clinician who authored the book, "Receive: The Dance of Feminine Power." Learn more at https://drrimka.com EPISODE SUMMARY BELOW: 1. Vision for Treatment Islands Ambition to build residential centers on multiple islands Preference to remain near the United States and in jurisdictions allowing gun ownership 2. Challenges with International Patients and Systems Difficulties treating patients from Australia and Canada Systemic obstacles to providing care across borders 3. COVID-19 Era Reflections and Medical Discourse Early preparedness with peptide therapies and supportive protocols -- At the pandemic's onset, certain clinicians organized protocols incorporating peptides (e.g., thymosin alpha-1), nicotine, methylene blue, and adjuncts like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine to support immunity and nutrient delivery, leveraging prior peptide therapy experience. Belief that the pandemic response was misleading and coercive Censorship and platform restrictions -- Recounting bans and throttling on Instagram, TikTok, and Facebook, resorting to coded language (e.g., "cupcake") to avoid content moderation and experiencing extended live bans. 4. Social Media Enforcement and Pharmaceutical Influence Allegation of coordinated reporting by Eli Lilly -- Dr. Rimka says Instagram notified her that Eli Lilly reported her account, coinciding with actions against peers. She speculates that microdosing education threatened sales by reducing dosing volume. Selective enforcement and inconsistent standards -- Frustration is expressed over perceived preferential treatment of similar content by others and retroactive flagging of archived posts, reinforcing a sense of targeted suppression. 5. Regulatory Changes in Peptide Therapy Historical context and global research base Reclassification and access restrictions post-COVID -- Key peptides (e.g., TA1) became difficult to source after regulatory changes limiting compounding pharmacies. Clinicians turned to research-use-only and international sources, creating delays and uncertainty, which Rimka attributes to pharmaceutical efforts to limit widespread peptide use. Shift toward FDA approvals and evolving legal landscape 6. Regulatory Reclassification, Patents, and Natural Substances Peptides are naturally occurring and should not be restricted Pharma patents delivery systems/binders to capture markets 7. Pharma Influence and COVID-19 Coordination Claims Early warnings from contacts in China -- Dr. Rimka cites late-2019 warnings from contacts in Hong Kong/Shanghai who moved to Singapore and ceased WeChat communications, interpreted as signals of impending danger. Pharma's dominant role over government -- Assertions that pharma influences U.S. policy and suspect foul play in COVID-19's origins, drawing parallels to alleged bioweapon narratives involving Lyme disease and alpha-gal syndrome. 8. Intent Behind Global Response to COVID-19 Population control and compliance -- Mass vaccination and public health measures were designed to control and desensitize populations, testing compliance via mandates and social cues. Desensitization to tracking and bio-integrated technologies -- Warn of normalization of biometrics, implanted chips, and digital credentials, eroding autonomy and reshaping identity. 9. Vaccination Schedules, Immune Claims, and Endocrine Concerns Modern immunization schedules are excessive -- The interlocutors argue current infant vaccine schedules are unprecedentedly large compared to past generations. Rejection of autoimmune disease concept Vaccines and environmental endocrine disruptors -- Vaccine components and environmental chemicals (BPA, phthalates, microplastics) may influence sexuality and identity, citing animal studies and extrapolating to human exposures. 10. Nanotechnology, Frequencies, and Neurofeedback Potential for nano-chips/robots to alter physiology -- Dr. Rimka references public claims of nanotechnology capable of modulating cellular function and suggests undisclosed uses may exist, potentially via injections or environmental exposure. Brain manipulation and external frequency influences -- As a neurofeedback practitioner, Dr. Rimka describes modulating brain states via EEG-guided training and hypothesize that external infrastructures (e.g., 5G towers) could emit localized pulses affecting sleep, fatigue, and headaches. 11. Autism, Vaccine Injury, and Institutional Trust Correlation between vaccines and neurotoxicity -- The conversation frames vaccination as a high risk, referencing vaccine injury claims and the existence of a Vaccine Court, attributing neurotoxic effects to schedule components. CDC and FDA as misinformation sources 12. Personal Safety, Loss, and Public Pressure Denial of suicidality and acknowledgment of pressure -- Dr. Rimka confirms she is not suicidal, reflecting on past fears during heightened public controversy and the burden of advocacy when her child was young. Partner's death and suspected vaccine link Practitioner deaths and mentor loss -- A period of suspicious deaths among functional health practitioners, including her mentor, Dr. John Hicks, amplifying her sense of risk in the field. 13. Vaccine Lot Variability and Experimental Control Claims Variable vaccine lots and possible placebos -- Some vaccine lots may have been placebos, implying controlled experimentation and differential risk among recipients. 14. Peptides and Early Pandemic Protocols TA1, nicotine, methylene blue, ivermectin, and hydroxychloroquine -- Dr. Rimka details clinician-driven "stacking" strategies combining TA1 with nicotine and methylene blue, alongside ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, to enhance immune support, nutrient delivery, and reduce dosages during shortages. Public awareness of peptides was limited at the time. 15. Lyme Disease, Alpha-gal, and Non-Vaccine Strategies Lyme and alpha-gal as engineered threats -- Dr. Rimka characterizes Lyme disease as man-made with multiple vectors and views alpha-gal syndrome as unprecedented and possibly engineered, linking observed field anomalies to concerning patterns and anticipated vaccine rollouts. System optimization and aggressive post-bite protocols -- Recommended approaches include immune modulation, readiness with specific products, and rapid "killing and binding" after bites. CellCore Biosciences protocols spanning 10–12 months for chelation and pathogen elimination are endorsed, with guidance to work with trained clinicians. Electromagnetic devices and mitochondrial charge -- Bob Beck protocol devices (e.g., SOTA) and frequency-based tools to raise cellular/mitochondrial charge, positing cellular voltage as a fundamental determinant of recovery capacity. Practical toolkit -- Suggested on-hand items include DMSO, turpentine, ivermectin, silver, specific devices, peptides like TA1, and tinctures for Borrelia and Babesia, with an emphasis on early, aggressive intervention. 16. Public Communication, Professional Constraints, and Promotion Polarizing messaging and informed consent Tension between education and platform policy Credentials, partnerships, and book -- Dr. Rimka discusses her book, "Receive: The Dance of Feminine Power," emphasizing balanced masculine-feminine energies, honoring reception to reduce burnout, and reflections on motherhood and work. She also suggests a peptide stack (Klotho, Follistatin, Cell Factor).

In this episode, Jake Ward joins Duane Mancini to break down how startups should think about intellectual property from day one and why smart IP decisions directly impact fundability. Jake shares how Ward Law grew from a three-person boutique to a 35-person, multi-state virtual firm, and why their Midwest roots help deliver high-quality IP services at accessible rates for entrepreneurs. The conversation dives into where to start with patents, then shifts to trademarks and brand strategy and why selecting the right mark early, staying consistent, and timing registration can prevent costly rebrands later. They also tackle AI in legal work, exploring confidentiality concerns, “don't trust the robot” pitfalls, and how to use AI as a tool without letting it undermine strategy or enforceability.Jake Ward LinkedInWard Law Website Duane Mancini LinkedInProject Medtech WebsiteProject Medtech LinkedInThank you to our sponsors: Ward Law and JumpStart Inc.

Richard Gearhart and Elizabeth Gearhart, co-hosts of the Passage to Profit Show interview Tony award-winning Broadway producer Ken Davenport, Dominic Forth from Thought Leaders of America and The TV Bookers and Stacey Iltis and Kari Schroeter from Fly Dance Fitness®. Tony Award–winning Broadway producer Ken Davenport reveals how raising over $100 million for shows mirrors venture capital, why even the most talented teams can't guarantee success, and how audience demand ultimately decides every winner and flop. You'll learn how entrepreneurs can navigate uncertainty, bounce back from failure, think ahead of shifting markets, and use bold, unconventional marketing to stand out. Read more at: https://kendavenport.com/ Dominic Forth is the CEO of Thought Leaders of America and founder of The TV Bookers, companies built around one core promise: get founders, CEOs, and thought leaders featured on major national media — or it's free. His mission is simple but powerful: help experts stop chasing credibility and start owning authority. Read more at: https://www.thoughtleadersamerica.com/ and at: https://www.thetvbookers.com/ Stacey Iltis (CEO) and Kari Schroeter (COO) are the powerhouse duo behind Fly Dance Fitness®, a rapidly growing, female-founded dance fitness franchise built on the belief that fitness should feel like a celebration. Their mission transcends beyond just workouts — it's about creating an experience every time someone walks through the doors. Read more at: https://www.flydancefitness.com/ Whether you're a seasoned entrepreneur, startup founder, inventor, or small business owner, the Passage to Profit Show is a leading podcast for insights on entrepreneurship, innovation, intellectual property and business strategy. Hosted by Richard Gearhart and Elizabeth Gearhart, the show features industry leaders, investors, and founders who share real-world lessons on scaling companies, protecting ideas, building generational wealth, and navigating today's evolving business landscape. Visit https://passagetoprofitshow.com/ for the latest episodes, expert interviews, and resources designed to help you grow, protect, and profit from your ideas. Chapters (00:00:00) - Pushing Yourself to Profits(00:00:21) - Passage to Profit(00:01:32) - The One Decision That Changed the Direction of My Business(00:04:10) - What Was the Most Transformative Moment in Your Business?(00:06:16) - Sarasota Franchise: The Decision to Franchise(00:08:35) - What is the One Decision that Transformed Your Business?(00:09:57) - Broadway's Risky Investing(00:11:09) - What Makes a Broadway Show a Hit?(00:13:56) - In the Elevator With Joy Mangano(00:14:51) - Does a Successful Movie Make an Off-Broadway Musical?(00:17:39) - The New Yorkers: Broadway's Failure(00:19:07) - What Do Investors Look For In Broadway Investing?(00:20:27) - Have You Asked the Board For Input?(00:21:20) - In the Elevator With Tony Shalves(00:23:06) - Car Shield(00:24:11) - Better health insurance for you and your family(00:25:12) - Passing to Profit: Ken Davenport's Marketing Style(00:31:14) - Ken Deshaaney on His Legacy(00:33:12) - AI Use Cases for Business Owners Roundtable(00:34:10) - How We're Using AI in Our Business(00:39:00) - Debt Relief for Divorce and More(00:41:22) - Why Businesses Should Double Down on Innovation and Patents(00:44:03) - Dominic Forth(00:46:43) - The 3 Rules of a Great Story(00:50:03) - How to Overcome Fear During Acting(00:53:07) - How To Get Your Clients On TV(00:54:50) - Have Medical Contributors Got a Shot on National TV?(00:56:45) - Are Podcasts More persuasive than News?(00:57:49) - Podcast and Television(01:02:49) - Fly Dancer Fitness Franchise(01:06:29) - What Made It So Special For Our Class?(01:08:21) - The Dance Company:(01:10:52) - How Fly Dance Fitness Became A Franchise Company(01:15:16) - Ken Davenport(01:16:21) - Dominic Fourth(01:17:32) - Stacey Ultitz on Her Secret to Success(01:18:03) - Richard Gearhart and Carrie Schroeder

What does a career in STEM—science, technology, engineering and math—really look like today? It might mean managing thousands of employees at a federal agency, protecting breakthrough inventions through patents, or helping redesign the materials that power modern life. The common thread isn't a straight line. It's curiosity, adaptability and the willingness to say yes to new opportunities.   Host Mia Quinn sits down with Vaishali Udupa, Chief IP Counsel at Verizon and former Commissioner for Patents at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and Jennifer Ronk, a plastics and sustainability expert at Dow, to explore how the next generation can build meaningful careers in science, technology, and sustainability.    Together, they talk candidly about mentorship, overcoming challenges, embracing leadership, and why you don't need your entire future mapped out at 18. Along the way, they share candid stories about mentorship, leadership and resilience—and explain why curiosity and problem-solving are at the heart of every STEM career.   You'll also hear how patents and intellectual property fuel innovation and how emerging technologies like artificial intelligence (AI) are reshaping careers across science, engineering and manufacturing.  

Today's MadTech Daily covers Meta announcing reduced reliance on third-party vendors as it expands its AI tools, Walmart securing two new patents for algorithmic pricing, and OpenAI planning a desktop superapp. 

Back at it with a special new episode of the “From the Fabricator” podcast.  This time out, a focused edition on the shower door side of the business with three of the best around.  Leading off, I visited with one of the best minds on the shower-door side, Danny Donahue of FHC.  Danny delivered a ton of straight-to-the-point insights and broke news on a very cool hydraulic hinge now available.  Good guy and an enjoyable talk.  Then I was fortunate to have the dynamic duo from the Shower Door Co-Op (and, of course, their own companies), Christina Elie and Shannon McKinney. If you are in the shower door world and not involved in the co-op, you are missing out on a major opportunity. This is an excellent organization that makes our space better in many ways.  So, take a look/listen, and while you'll hear it on the pod, you can check the Co Op out HERE.  Also, Shannon and Christina are top-shelf businesspeople who run impressive operations.  Both sets of guests are great for our industry, and if you know me, I love that.  Thank you for checking it out! This episode is brought to you by- FHC Frameless Hardware Co.When it comes to true innovation in frameless shower hardware, one company is leading the pack. While others reheat and repackage more of the same, FHC Frameless Hardware Company has the experience, track record, testing certification, awards, and more importantly, the PATENTS, to back said claims. They consistently deliver new products designed to make your shower installs faster, safer, and more profitable. Built by the glazing industry for the glazing industry, FHC has your back. Visit FHC-USA.com to see the difference between rhetoric and true innovation.From the Fabricator- #Glass and #Glazing hosted by Max Perilstein, Managing Partner of Sole Source Consultants.  Connect with Max on LinkedIn at https://www.linkedin.com/in/max-perilstein-409ba111/

Listen to a recap of the top stories of the day from 9to5Mac. 9to5Mac Daily is available on iTunes and Apple's Podcasts app, Stitcher, TuneIn, Google Play, or through our dedicated RSS feed for Overcast and other podcast players. Sponsored by Backblaze: Backup you can rely on. Save 20% with code 9to5daily. New episodes of 9to5Mac Daily are recorded every weekday. Subscribe to our podcast in Apple Podcast or your favorite podcast player to guarantee new episodes are delivered as soon as they're available. Stories discussed in this episode: ITC judge says Apple Watch's redesigned blood oxygen feature doesn't infringe Masimo patents Rumor: iPhone Fold may launch months after iPhone 18 Pro Bloomberg: Google begins testing dedicated Gemini app for Mac Apple says customers should 'update iOS to protect your iPhone from web attacks' Listen & Subscribe: Apple Podcasts Overcast RSS Spotify TuneIn Google Podcasts Subscribe to support Chance directly with 9to5Mac Daily Plus and unlock: Ad-free versions of every episode Bonus content Catch up on 9to5Mac Daily episodes! Share your thoughts! Drop us a line at happyhour@9to5mac.com. You can also rate us in Apple Podcasts or recommend us in Overcast to help more people discover the show.

What Did Really Happened Behind the Global Reset Narrative? Sacha Stone connects high finance, institutions, and psychological warfare into one unsettling picture—and argues the escape route is sovereignty plus new parallel systems. Watch the logic collide with modern reality. #governmentsecrets #consciousness #disclosure 03:10 Manufactured icons and narrative control 06:20 Vatican influence and cultural spellcraft 10:05 Biosphere weaponization claims 13:20 UFO talk and secret programs 16:10 Money offers and pressure tactics 19:05 This is a spiritual war 22:10 Ancient tech and coherence 25:05 The devil as a system 30:20 Addiction, power, and human shadow 35:10 Duality and the “middle line” 39:35 Building parallel financial systems 41:45 Crypto, treasury, and sovereignty 50:20 Future of humanity and awakening 60:10 Patents, suppression, and workaround paths 71:30 Exiting the matrix daily 78:40 Closing reflections Guest Speaker: Sacha Stone - https://sachastone.com/ Hosted by Joan of Angels / Dr. Joan Hangarter – www.joanofangels.com The Portal To Ascension platform is a resource for awakening to the truth of our existence while exploring the nature of reality and the cosmos. Our efforts are aimed at manifesting full disclosure of: • Humanity's ancient origins • The truth of the Extraterrestrial presence • The release of advanced technology • Transparency within business and global economic affairs • An understanding beyond our third dimensional perception Official website: https://portaltoascension.org/ Official Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/PortalToAscension/ Official Instagram Page: https://www.instagram.com/portaltoascension Official Twitter Page: https://twitter.com/p2ascension Official Telegram Chat Room: https://t.me/portaltoascension Join Our Rapidly Growing Mailing List: https://portaltoascension.org New Living Expo: https://NewLivingExpo.com Online Events: https://portaltoascension.org/upcoming-events/ Also Find Us On : Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3uolCCJknWQV9I3i07OZtC Apple Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/portal-to-ascension-radio/id1544194663

A baseball game is 90 feet between bases and a lifetime of stories in the box score, but the biggest action often happens off the field. We're looking at the invisible game that keeps baseball's culture and business running: intellectual property law. From broadcast rights to team branding, we connect the dots between trademarks, patents, copyright, and licensing, and we show how those tools can protect creativity without locking up the sport itself.We start with sports data and two court decisions that quietly shaped modern fandom. MLB v Motorola draws a hard line between a copyrighted broadcast and the unownable facts of the game, helping make live score apps and real time updates possible. Then CBC v MLBAM tackles fantasy baseball and the right of publicity, explaining why player names and statistics can be used as part of public sports conversation when there's no false endorsement. If you've ever checked a score on your phone or built a fantasy roster, these rulings helped set the rules of the road.From there we zoom out to the products and symbols fans carry everywhere. Trading cards reveal a stack of licensing layers, from player likeness rights to team trademarks to copyrighted photography. The Padres' Swinging Friar shows why mascots and logos are serious trademark assets, while Louisville Slugger highlights how patents reward the small design changes that can matter in performance. We also talk about baseball storytelling through film, including A League of Their Own, and how copyright and licensing can preserve cultural memory. Finally, we bring it into the sports betting era, where “official” data feeds become valuable through contracts and carefully built data systems.If you like sports law, sports business, or the way innovation spreads through culture, subscribe, share this with a friend who loves baseball, and leave a review so more listeners can find Intangibilia.Send us Fan MailCheck out "Protection for the Inventive Mind" – available now on Amazon in print and Kindle formats.The views and opinions expressed (by the host and guest(s)) in this podcast are strictly their own and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the entities with which they may be affiliated. This podcast should in no way be construed as promoting or criticizing any particular government policy, institutional position, private interest or commercial entity. Any content provided is for informational and educational purposes only.

I'm thrilled to share some great insights and stories from my latest Capitalist Culture® podcast episode. This week, we dive into the world of entrepreneurship, fitness innovation, leadership, and building enduring company culture with Sean Gagnon, CEO of The Abs Company.Here are the highlights you will not want to miss:Sean's Journey: From Student to Fitness Entrepreneur• From Curiosity to Creation: Sean's career began with a passion for performance and product development that eventually led him into entrepreneurship. • Turning Ideas into Reality: He believes many people have million-dollar ideas, but few understand how to actually bring them to market.The Birth of Breakthrough Fitness Products• The Ab Coaster Story: Sean and his partners licensed the concept from inventor Rob Nelson and successfully launched it in both the health club and television markets. • Solving Real Problems: The product stood out in a crowded fitness market by introducing a bottom-up abdominal movement unlike traditional machines. • Market Timing Matters: Even great ideas must align with market demand to succeed.Lessons From Product Launches• Wins and Losses: Not every product succeeds. One highly produced infomercial campaign failed despite a major investment. • Sales Tell the Truth: For entrepreneurs investing their own capital, the market ultimately decides which ideas survive.Intellectual Property and Entrepreneur Strategy• Patents Are Not Protection: Sean explains that patents are essentially the right to sue, not automatic protection. • Focus on Key Markets: Entrepreneurs often waste time and money chasing global patents instead of prioritizing the most important markets. • Outmarket the Competition: In many cases, strong branding and marketing outperform litigation.Global Fitness Trends• Strength Training Surge: Strength training is now outpacing cardio across many markets worldwide. • Simple Solutions Win: Fitness products that are intuitive and easy to understand tend to succeed globally. • American Influence: U.S. fitness innovation continues to shape global trends.Innovation in Equipment Design• The Tire Flip Trainer: Inspired by real gym experiences, this machine recreated the benefits of tire flipping while improving safety and saving space. • A New Deadlift Machine: Developed with a physical therapist to allow safer strength training with a selectorized weight system. • Prototype First: Sean's process remains simple: build prototypes, test them in gyms and trade shows, gather feedback, then refine.Leadership and Culture• Day One Mentality: Even after decades of success, Sean emphasizes discipline and operating like a startup. • Mission First, People Always, Winning Matters: A leadership principle he learned from his brother, a retired Army colonel. • Long Term Loyalty: Several employees have been with the company for more than twenty years, a reflection of a strong culture.Building a Winning Culture• Core Values Simplified: Sean reduced his company's core values to four memorable principles: gratitude, leadership, big things, and winning. • Culture Drives Performance: When the culture is strong, results follow naturally. • Leaders Must Let Go: Allowing team members to make mistakes is part of building a capable organization.Human Skills in the Age of AI• Technology Is Rising: AISend a textConnect with Kip on LinkedInhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/kipknippel/Watch Bite-Sized Clips on YouTubehttps://www.youtube.com/@capitalistculture/shorts

What if the goal isn't just to have a patent, but to surround an entire technology with so many patents that no one else can move without bumping into one? That's the idea behind patent thickets. In this episode, we unpack how large companies deliberately build dense webs of overlapping patents, why this strategy can be incredibly powerful, and how it affects startups, competitors, and innovation itself. If you've ever wondered why some technologies feel impossible to break into, this episode explains the quiet patent strategy that's often doing the blocking.   Connect with Adam Diament E-mail: adiament@nolanheimann.com   Website: https://www.nolanheimann.com/legal-team/adam-diament   Phone/Text: (424)281-0162   YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5cTADZzJfPoyQMjnW-rtRw Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/trademarkpatentlaw/   LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-diament-j-d-ph-d-180a005/   Amazon Book Page: https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B005SV2RZC/allbooks?ingress=0&visitId=831aff71-513b-4158-ad73-386ede491e93

Crypto analyst Chad Albert joins the program to provide an update on the ongoing SEC lawsuit against Reggie Middleton — a case with massive implications for the cryptocurrency industry.Middleton was one of the earliest and most significant innovators in the blockchain space, securing patents that are now foundational to the architecture used by many major cryptocurrencies. Yet despite his early contributions, he has been effectively barred from participating in the very industry his intellectual property helped shape.In this conversation, Chad breaks down the details of the SEC's case, why it matters beyond one individual, and how Middleton's patented technology is reportedly being utilized across the crypto ecosystem today. We also discuss the broader implications for innovation, regulatory power, and what this case reveals about how emerging industries can be shaped — or sidelined — through legal pressure. Chad further outlines the alleged misconduct and irregular practices that have surrounded the case over the years, raising serious questions about fairness, enforcement, and the future of independent innovators in highly regulated markets.You can learn more about the case at https://veridao.ioSee exclusives and more at https://SarahWestall.Substack.com

Most entrepreneurs think the future is “Ai tools.”That's only half the game.The other half is IP - because if you're creating anything valuable, you either protect it, productize it, or you'll watch someone else monetize it.In this episode, Dan Sullivan and I make a 19-year commitment to a “Free Zone” collaboration - and we break down how to build 10x–100x partnerships using Ai + patents + thinking tools, without getting distracted, diluted, or stolen from.You'll see how Dan turns concepts into protectable assets (with an insane patent cadence), and how I'm turning conversations into prototypes, tools, and marketing - fast.If you're a founder who's overwhelmed with ideas, half-finished Ai outputs, or “vendors” who don't actually collaborate… you need to watch this.In this episode, Dan and I break down:The Free Zone collaboration model (and why vendors don't count)How Multiplier + Simplifier partnerships create patentable outputDan's real IP engine: 78 patents issued, 75 pending, and the workflow behind itDefensive vs. offensive IP: copyright + trademark + patentsWhy the real bottleneck isn't your market—it's distraction, isolation, and personal-life ceilingsHow to turn “what you already do” into a tool, framework, and protected assetWhy the future belongs to entrepreneurs, not giant corporationsTIMESTAMPS:00:00 The 19-Year Commitment01:28 Why This Collaboration Became the Model03:10 AI + Patents + Free Zone: The Big Bet04:25 Dan's Patent Engine (78 issued, 75 pending)06:23 Staying Simple in an AI World09:57 Fast Filter Applied to Our Collaboration15:52 Defensive vs. Offensive IP18:13 “I Self-Medicated With Thinking Tools” (Dan's story)21:33 How Dan Spots Patents Everywhere27:08 The Real Problem: Isolation + Distractibility33:28 Mike's “$10M Opportunities” AI Tool38:52 “Hero To” Clarity + Real Numbers45:35 The Hidden Growth Ceiling: Lifestyle + Identity54:59 The Plan: 10x the Podcast Audience58:31 “Instant IP” for Every Episode01:01:44 Why AI Talent Leaves Big Companies01:05:36 Next Steps: Story → Animation Trailer01:07:18 Wrap Up: Build Bigger With People You LikePS – When you're ready, here's how I can help: Join me for the Ai Accelerator Workshop this March 25th - LIVE from Genius Network Headquarters - register here: www.AiAccelerator.com/LiveWant to discover your next big opportunity? Meet me for a Cup of Coffee at my Digital Cafe (this is where we can meet): www.MikeKoenigs.com/1kCoffeeReady to reinvent yourself, your business, and your brand, and create “Your Next Act”? Watch this.

Today's guest is Dr. King Chung from MGH Institute of Health Professions. She is an educator, a researcher, an inventor, and a humanitarian. Her areas of expertise are in amplification, calibration, and humanitarian audiology. Dr. Chung's research focuses on how to improve signal processing strategies of hearing aids and cochlear implants. Her research team is also working on developing a universal hearing aid app and calibration system to improve access to amplification and equipment, especially in low- to mid-income countries. Additionally, she is a humanitarian who has been leading students and audiologists to provide free hearing services for underserved and unserved populations around the world. Dr. Chung has 3 granted U.S. patents with two more pending. She was a Fulbright Scholar in Brazil in 2019 and a recipient of the Humanitarian Award from the American Academy of Audiology in 2020. Today, we are going to discuss Dr. Chung's project on developing a universal hearing aid/amplification app using methods disclosed in two complementary patents.

Austin Bonderer's two decades in patent law distill into one essential principle: inventions solve problems, and speed matters more than perfection. His childhood realization that wireless smoke detection was needed taught him that entrepreneurs typically fail by over-refining rather than under-launching. Most entrepreneurs miss that the U.S. grants a one-year grace period after disclosure while most countries destroy patent rights immediately upon disclosure, making the first to file system unforgiving. Austin's real value extends beyond legal mechanics to business philosophy. He integrates into clients' entire operations to identify opportunities they miss, rather than merely reacting to requests. He ruthlessly exposes common sabotage: public disclosures that destroy foreign patent rights, NDAs without consideration that provide zero enforceability, and invention promotion firms that exploit rather than serve inventors. What sets him apart is his insistence that IP protection isn't a luxury but a foundational business tool that determines whether your innovation creates your wealth or enriches faster-moving competitors. If you're building something worth protecting, Austin Bonderer's strategic approach transforms IP from a legal checkbox into competitive advantage. Visit his website to partner with someone who understands both the law and the entrepreneur's reality—someone who integrates into your business strategy to identify opportunities you'll miss alone and protect innovations before competitors do. Don't let your ideas become someone else's competitive advantage. For the accessible version of the podcast, go to our Ziotag gallery.We're happy you're here! Like the pod?Support the podcast and receive discounts from our sponsors: https://yourbrandamplified.codeadx.me/Leave a rating and review on your favorite platformFollow @yourbrandamplified on the socialsTalk to my digital avatar Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

So, is this the time to make battleships great again?I would be hard-pressed to think of a better guest to help us explore that question than returning guest, Rob Farley. A starting point for our conversation will be his article from December, The Trump-Class Battleship Summed Up In 1 Word.Show LinksThe Battleship Book, by Robert Farley'sPatterson School of Diplomacy and International CommerceLawyers, Guns, and Money Dr. Robert Farley's X ProfileDr. Robert Farley's Blue Sky ProfileMy thoughts on SLCM-NSummaryIn this episode, Dr. Robert Farley discusses the concept of battleships, their historical significance, and the strategic considerations for modern naval warfare. The conversation covers technological challenges, political implications, and future force structure planning.Chapters00:00: Introduction to the Battleship Debate02:31: Historical Context and Modern Relevance of Battleships07:44: Survivability and Modern Warfare Challenges13:11: The Role of Nuclear Capabilities in Battleships20:11: Political and Strategic Implications of Battleship Armament23:15: Technological Innovations and Future of Naval Warfare32:36: Design Philosophy and Size of Modern Warships39:32: Historical Lessons and Future Capabilities46:03: Political Implications of Naval Procurement52:30 Shipbuilding Challenges and Future DirectionsDr. Robert Farley has taught security and diplomacy courses at the Patterson School since 2005. He received his BS from the University of Oregon in 1997, and his Ph.D. from the University of Washington in 2004. In addition to the book of the moment, The Battleship Book (Wildside, 2016), Dr. Farley is the author of Grounded: The Case for Abolishing the United States Air Force (University Press of Kentucky, 2014), and Patents for Power: Intellectual Property Law and the Diffusion of Military Technology (University of Chicago, 2020). He has contributed extensively to a number of journals and magazines, including the National Interest, the Diplomat: APAC, World Politics Review, and the American Prospect. Dr. Farley is also a founder and senior editor of Lawyers, Guns and Money.

In this episode of the Crazy Wisdom podcast, host Stewart Alsop sits down with Markus Buehler, the McAfee Professor of Engineering at MIT, to explore how seemingly different systems—from proteins and music to knowledge structures and AI reasoning—share underlying patterns through hierarchy, self-organization, and scale-free networks. The conversation ranges from the limits of current AI interpolation versus true discovery (using the fire-to-fusion example), to the emergence of agent swarms and their non-linear effects, to practical questions about ontologies, knowledge graphs, and whether humans will remain necessary in the creative discovery process. Markus discusses his lab's work automating scientific discovery through AI agents that can generate hypotheses, run simulations, and even retrain themselves, while Stewart shares his own experiences building applications with AI coding agents and grapples with questions about intellectual property, material science constraints, and the future of human creativity in an AI-abundant world.Timestamps00:00 - Introduction to Marcus Buehler's work on knowledge graphs, structural grammar across proteins, music, and AI reasoning05:00 - Discussion of AI discovery versus interpolation, using fire and fusion as examples of fundamental versus incremental innovation10:00 - Language models as connective glue between agents, enabling communication despite imperfect outputs and canonical averaging15:00 - Embodiment and agency in AI systems, creating adversarial agents that challenge theories and expand world models20:00 - Emergent properties in materials and AI, comparing dislocations in metals to behaviors in agent swarms25:00 - Human role-playing and phase separation in society, parallels to composite materials and heterogeneity30:00 - Physical world challenges, atom-by-atom manufacturing at MIT.nano, limitations of lithography machines35:00 - Synthetic biology as alternative to nanotechnology, programming microorganisms for materials discovery40:00 - Intellectual property debates, commodification of AI models, control layers more valuable than model architecture45:00 - Automation of ontologies, agent self-testing, daughter's coding success at age 1150:00 - Graph theory for knowledge compression, neurosymbolic approaches combining symbolic and neural methods55:00 - Nonlinear acceleration in AI, emergence from accumulated innovations, restaurant owner embracing AI01:00:00 - Future generations possibly rejecting AI, democratization of knowledge, social media as real-time scientific discourseKey Insights1. Universal Patterns Across Disciplines: Seemingly different systems in nature—proteins, music, social networks, and knowledge itself—share fundamental structural patterns including hierarchy, self-organization, and scale-free networks. This commonality allows creative thinkers to draw insights across disciplines, applying principles from one domain to solve problems in another. As an engineer and materials scientist, Buehler has leveraged these isomorphisms to advance scientific understanding by mapping the "plumbing" of different systems onto each other, revealing hidden relationships that enable extrapolation beyond what's observable in any single domain.2. The Discovery Versus Interpolation Problem: Current AI systems, particularly large language models, excel at interpolation—recombining existing knowledge in new ways—but struggle with genuine discovery that requires fundamental rewiring of world models. Using the example of fire versus fusion, Buehler explains that an AI trained on combustion chemistry would propose bigger fires or new fuels, but couldn't conceive of fusion because that requires stepping back to more fundamental physics. True discovery demands the ability to recognize when existing theories have boundaries and to develop entirely new frameworks, something current AI architectures aren't designed to achieve due to their training objective of predicting the most likely outcome.3. The Role of Ontologies and Knowledge Graphs: While some AI researchers argue that ontologies are unnecessary because models form internal representations, Buehler advocates for explicit knowledge graphs as essential discovery tools. External ontologies provide sharp, analytical, symbolic representations that complement the fuzzy internal representations of neural networks. They enable verification of rare connections—like obscure papers that might hold key insights—which would be averaged away in standard AI training. This neurosymbolic approach combines the generalization capabilities of neural networks with the precision of formal knowledge structures, creating more powerful discovery systems.4. Emergent Properties and Agent Swarms: Just as materials science shows that collections of atoms exhibit properties impossible to predict from individual components, AI agent swarms demonstrate emergent behaviors beyond single models. When agents are incentivized not just to answer questions but to challenge each other adversarially, propose theories, and test hypotheses, they can spawn new copies of themselves and evolve understanding beyond their initial programming. This emergence isn't surprising from a materials science perspective—dislocations, grain boundaries, and other collective phenomena only appear at scale, fundamentally determining material behavior in ways unpredictable from studying just a few atoms.5. The Commoditization of Intelligence: The fundamental AI models themselves are becoming commodities, as evidenced by events like the Moldbug phenomenon where people built agents using various providers interchangeably. The real value is shifting from who has the smartest model to how models are orchestrated, integrated, and deployed. This parallels historical technology adoption patterns—just as we moved past debating who makes the best electricity to focusing on applications, AI is transitioning from a horse race over model capabilities to questions of infrastructure, energy, access speed, and agent coordination at the systems level.6. Human-AI Collaboration and Creative Control: Rather than wholesale replacement, AI enables humans to operate in an intensely creative space as orchestrators sampling from vast possibility spaces. Similar to how Buehler's 11-year-old daughter now builds sophisticated applications that would have required professional developers years ago, AI democratizes access to capabilities while humans retain the creative judgment about direction and meaning. The human role becomes curating emergence, finding rare connections, playing at the edges of knowledge, and exercising the kind of curiosity-driven exploration that AI systems lack without embodied stakes in their own survival and continuation.7. Technology as Evolutionary Inevitability: The development of AI represents not an unnatural threat but the next stage of human evolution—an extension of our innate drive to build models of ourselves and our world. From cave paintings to partial differential equations to artificial intelligence, humans continuously create increasingly sophisticated representations and tools. Attempting to stop this technological evolution is futile; instead, the focus should be on steering it ...

Patent attorney and former chemist Josh Goldberg joins me to unpack how intellectual property strategy determines whether innovation gets funded—or quietly dies.Most startup conversations focus on product, growth, and pitch decks. This episode focuses on what founders often ignore until it's too late: protection. Josh shares why he left drug formulation chemistry to go to law school, and how he now helps innovators—particularly in green tech and scientific industries—turn inventions into defensible assets.We walk through the uncomfortable reality that patents don't let you do anything. They let you stop others. That negative right, however, is often the very thing investors care about most.From first-to-file rules and accidental public disclosures to the difference between patents, trademarks, and copyrights, this episode breaks down how smart founders think about timing, leverage, and risk before litigation ever enters the picture.This isn't a conversation about legal theory.It's about strategic sequencing.Because innovation without protection doesn't attract capital. It attracts competition.TL;DR* In green tech and scientific startups, patents often are the product* Investors evaluate risk before they evaluate brilliance* Publishing before filing can permanently destroy international patent rights* The U.S. has a one-year grace period; most other countries do not* Patents protect inventions; trademarks protect brands; copyrights protect creative works* Litigation is expensive—early strategy prevents most of it* Founders need business planning as much as scientific expertise* IP strategy should be integrated into the business plan from day oneMemorable Lines* “Having a patent doesn't let you do something—it lets you stop someone else.”* “It's a race to the patent office.”* “If you don't know where you're going, wherever you wind up is going to be fine.”* “Innovation without protection makes funding harder, not easier.”* “The earlier I get involved, the fewer mistakes we have to untangle.”GuestJosh Goldberg — Patent attorney and former chemistIntellectual property strategist focused on green technology, scientific innovation, and helping startups build defensible patent portfolios before going to market.

Are patents the foundation of America's technological superiority? The answer is yes. But major changes at the U.S. Patent Office are reshaping how patents are challenged, defended, and protected. And these changes may impact innovation, products, prices and more - meaning that they may impact all of us.

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Click On Picture To See Larger PictureThe [CB] system is being dismantled, Trump getting control of the oil will begin to bring prices down further, once Iran has regime change, it is game over for the [DS]/[CB] system. Gas prices will fall further when the US begins to drill. The [CB] debt is in violation of the constitution and most it will most likely be wiped out and the [CB] will cease to exist. The [DS] is panicking, from dictators, fake news and the D’s they are all panicking. The [DS] world is now coming to and end and it is being exposed and dismantled for the world to see. The [DS] is no longer in control, the patriots are. Trump and team sent a clear message, everything you are seeing is to return the power back to the people. Economy (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); https://twitter.com/KobeissiLetter/status/2007823029846372858?s=20 https://twitter.com/Geiger_Capital/status/2008196746653151644?s=20 https://twitter.com/echodatruth/status/2008056541627228502?s=20   to $1 TRILLION in Latin American precious metals, including Venezuelan supply. Let that sink in. An $8 BILLION state-of-the-art facility, jointly backed by Wall Street capital and the U.S. Department of Defense, now sits at the center of the supply chain. This isn't about invasion. This is about control, security, and price discovery. • Physical metals moving out of unstable regions • Refining brought back under U.S. oversight • Paper markets losing influence • Strategic metals secured for energy, defense, and AI When governments build first and explain later, it's not speculation, it's preparation. Silver isn't being hyped. It's being positioned. Know What You Hold.  https://twitter.com/profstonge/status/2008176575833948484?s=20  roads 4. Bankruptcy, counterfeiting, piracy laws 5. Patents and copyrights 6. Regulate commerce with foreign nations, between states, and with Native tribes 7. Declare war; maintain army, navy, and militia 8. Establish lower federal courts 9. Exercise authority over Washington, D.C. That means roughly 80% of federal spending is, in fact, illegal. Political/Rights https://twitter.com/FBIDirectorKash/status/2007937505296093357?s=20   (up 31%) enough to kill 130 million Americans -Nihilistic Violent Extremism arrests up 490% -Over 6,000 child victims located (up 22%) -Espionage arrests up 35% -Multiple successful surges including Summer Heat which had almost 9,000 arrests in just three months This FBI is saving lives, protecting innocent kids, and taking deadly drugs off our streets at levels not seen in decades. None of it would've been possible without Dan's leadership and support. And he paved the way for even better things to come. Thank you @dbongino .  https://twitter.com/PressSec/status/2008177002608779675?s=20 DOGE Geopolitical https://twitter.com/jsolomonReports/status/2007493457338605628?s=20 https://twitter.com/Leon4Congress/status/2007969020352647528?s=20  2020 indictments, $15 million bounty, and expanded sanctions In 2022, President Biden increased the then-$15 million bounty on Maduro to $25 million. 25million for anyone who can deliver Maduro to America. 2026 Trump executes the orders of Obama and Biden. Who is the joker, hero or villain? Obama , Biden or Trump https://twitter.com/amuse/status/2008198931985879499?s=20  to power. Why? https://twitter.com/robbystarbuck/status/2008061863565852729?s=20 https://twitter.com/mattvanswol/status/2007919000773353481?s=20   https://twitter.com/ElectionWiz/status/2008155905880453463?s=20 https://twitter.com/ColonelTowner/status/2007827528711590045?s=20  https://twitter.com/WallStreetMav/status/2008188125617569887?s=20   start taking back its deported gang members. https://twitter.com/ElectionWiz/status/2007988528677052517?s=20 https://twitter.com/DerrickEvans4WV/status/2008083325802696896?s=20 https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/2008032031876202758?s=20 https://twitter.com/ElectionWiz/status/2008176950427423164?s=20   Trump wants to make a deal with Mexico like he did with the Nigerian government. The cartels are going to be eradicate https://twitter.com/robbystarbuck/status/2007990748910682257?s=20   grandparents, etc. It's been a dream they prayed to witness. 3/4 of my grandparents didn't survive to see it. Attached are some photos of my Grandpa Julio “Papi” who's alive still and my deceased Grandma Martha in Cuba during better times as young love birds. Fidel Castro stole everything but their love and their lives. Same with my other grandparents Rafael and Ophelia and my Mom. They lost everything but their love and their lives. Now there's hope of a free Cuba for our long lost family there and hope of making past wrongs right once again. I'm with President Trump all the way. Cuba should be a rich, island paradise and it can be as a US territory. It's a strategic asset for our safety too as a base of operations to defend our homeland in the mainland US. There's no downside to toppling the communists who've only stayed in power by killing and jailing Cubans for decades. Now is the time. It can also serve as a helpful spot to run any US/Venezuela operations that benefits America instead of a narco pass through entity used by our enemies as a constant threat to American safety. Russia, China, Venezuela and many others have used Cuba to threaten us for long enough. It's time we take control and empower the Cuban people. No American blood needs to be spilled. This can be a massive win for the future of both Cuba and more importantly, for America. It's time for the evil of communism to die. https://twitter.com/AwakenedOutlaw/status/2007882386529542519?s=20 https://twitter.com/FaytuksNetwork/status/2008187454595969240?s=20   rials monthly ($7). https://twitter.com/AwakenedOutlaw/status/2007930486438682861?s=20 https://twitter.com/RyanSaavedra/status/2007978922458444265?s=20   longer had it. He did something and saw the consequences.” The message: Leave now. Ayatollah Khamenei plans to flee to Moscow if Iran unrest intensifies The republic's supreme leader has plotted an exit route out of Tehran should his forces fail to quell dissent, an intelligence report reveals https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/2008206247808700734?s=20 War/Peace Medical/False Flags [DS] Agenda https://twitter.com/remarks/status/2007947270910841313?s=20 https://twitter.com/EndWokeness/status/2008031475057439076?s=20   Weaver outline how homeowners will need to modify their view on their property ownership to reflect a new municipal perspective that considers all individually owned property to be part of a new collective property viewpoint as controlled by city government. “For centuries we really treated property as an individualized good and not a collective good, in transitioning into treating it as a collective good and towards the model of shared equity … it will mean that families, especially White families … are going to have a different relationship to property than the one that we currently have.” It is likely that Mayor Mamdani and Director Weaver are going to run into some stiff legal opposition as they try to reimagine a world where individuals are not allowed to own property.   https://twitter.com/AAGDhillon/status/2008207308950782417?s=20 https://twitter.com/amuse/status/2007866604139225514?s=20   briefings. After 9/11, New York's mayors kept the NYPD commissioner in a direct, daily intelligence loop. That model is now ending. Mamdani has removed the Commissioner Jessica Tisch direct line to his office, relegating police leadership to the same access level as garbage collection. The shift weakens situational awareness at the top & reflects a belief that Islamic terror threats no longer require mayoral focus. https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/2008183851802337656?s=20 https://twitter.com/wcdispatch/status/2008018760746078438?s=20     done, in my opinion, an even more dishonest and incompetent job. NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW! Mugshot Emerges of Deranged Man Accused in Vance Home Attack, VP Blasts Media for Publishing Home Images Authorities have released the mugshot of 26-year-old William DeFoor following his arrest for allegedly attempting to break into Vice President JD Vance’s Cincinnati home with a hammer.   The booking photo, posted by the Hamilton County Justice Center, also lists the charges DeFoor is facing, including vandalism, criminal trespass, criminal damaging or endangering, and obstructing official business. Cincinnati police and Secret Service agents responded swiftly to reports of the vandalism, arriving at the scene to detain the man without further incident. No one was injured, as Vance and his family had already left for Washington, D.C. at that time. https://twitter.com/JDVance/status/2008188525162721647?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2008188525162721647%7Ctwgr%5Ec29f78485445e314b120eda36408e134f4f5245a%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fredstate.com%2Frusty-weiss%2F2026%2F01%2F05%2Fmugshot-emerges-of-deranged-man-accused-in-vance-home-attack-vp-blasts-media-for-publishing-home-images-n2197767   already to DC. One request to the media: we try to protect our kids as much as possible from the realities of this life of public service. In that light, I am skeptical of the news value of plastering images of our home with holes in the windows. Source: redstate.com President Trump's Plan https://twitter.com/SecWar/status/2008189258528665898?s=20   is still accountable to military justice. And the Department of War — and the American people — expect justice. Therefore, in response to Senator Mark Kelly's seditious statements — and his pattern of reckless misconduct — the Department of War is taking administrative action against Captain Mark E. Kelly, USN (Ret). The department has initiated retirement grade determination proceedings under 10 U.S.C. § 1370(f), with reduction in his retired grade resulting in a corresponding reduction in retired pay. To ensure this action, the Secretary of War has also issued a formal Letter of Censure, which outlines the totality of Captain (for now) Kelly's reckless misconduct. This Censure is a necessary process step, and will be placed in Captain Kelly's official and permanent military personnel file. Captain Kelly has been provided notice of the basis for this action and has thirty days to submit a response. The retirement grade determination process directed by Secretary Hegseth will be completed within forty five days. Captain Kelly's status as a sitting United States Senator does not exempt him from accountability, and further violations could result in further action. These actions are based on Captain Kelly’s public statements from June through December 2025 in which he characterized lawful military operations as illegal and counseled members of the Armed Forces to refuse lawful orders. This conduct was seditious in nature and violated Articles 133 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to which Captain Kelly remains subject as a retired officer receiving pay. https://twitter.com/TonySeruga/status/2008201370458075286?s=20  energy, and corporatism, all are reliant on the narcos for dark funding. Just look at how they are treating Maduro? It’s like he is a rock star. Already with 5 ‘costume’ changes just today. Does Maduro look worried?  THE FIX IS IN? YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS UP: 92-Year-Old Clinton Judge Who Denied Trump's Hush-Money Removal to Federal Court and Blocked Venezuelan Gang Deportations Now Assigned to Preside Over Maduro Case in New York President Trump Shuts Down Fake News Reporter Trying to Pit Rubio and Vance Against Each Other (AUDIO)  Trump spoke to reporters aboard Air Force One as he headed back to the White House on Sunday evening after spending the Christmas holiday at Mar-a-Lago in South Florida. President Trump shut down a fake news reporter who was trying to create a wedge between Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.   A legacy media reporter tried to stir up a little trouble and President Trump promptly shut her down. “What you say that Marco Rubio has your ear more than the Vice President right now?” a reporter asked President Trump. Trump shut it down. “No! They both do. JD is very smart and doing a great job and so is Marco! I would say they're equal,” Trump said. The reporter continued, “It sounds like [Rubio] is the go to and you were just talking about Cuba and what could come next there.” AUDIO: Source: thegatewaypundit.com https://twitter.com/AwakenedOutlaw/status/2008092328867869069?s=20  a plea of some sort. In fact, that may well have been pre-negotiated thereby removing the judges ability to thwart the prosecution. These images support as much. https://twitter.com/Rasmussen_Poll/status/2007939030839701667?s=20   election systems currently in use here have been newly examined last year by Federal authorities and are apparently FULL of illegal CCP sourced items – While @DNIGabbard is still withholding her completed official report on this, her boss is now aggressively retweeting older descriptors of evidence against Dominion and our US Election Theft Syndicate in general. This is apparently the overture of what is to come – The Secret Dominion/Huawei Data Center in Belgrade, Serbia – that emphatically and officially did not exist – DID exist and was disabled by U.S. gov employees just days prior to the 2024 election. It has now been dismantled, which may disappoint former CIA Director John Brennan, who reportedly financed half of it from the CIA ‘Black Budget.’ The other half of the funding was from our dear friends in China. That’s right, the theft of The US Presidency and multiple other elections worldwide was co-financed by our own CIA – Top Venezuelan engineers who reportedly designed and executed multiple foreign based election frauds in America using Dominion and Smartmatic systems are in America under U.S. gov protection and have provided sworn testimony. They include an engineer who personally helped illegally install Joe Biden as President in 2020 – These engineers are also joined by General Hugo Carvjal, former Head of Venezuelan Intelligence, now in jail in New York (his cellmate is Diddy Combs) and he is cooperating with Fed authorities (see below) – Another Venezuelan General has now also joined General Carvjal in providing 1st person testimony – Official state and court adduced evidence of 2020 election fraud has been compiled for every one of the battleground states. Cowardice and corruption within the American judiciary has scuttled any real progress – Georgia corruption came into better focus last month as Fulton County admitted not following the law concerning over 300K ‘votes’ and then their most corrupt state judge agreed to unseal the 2020 ‘warehouse ballots,’ many of which are officially sworn to be likely counterfeit. What a sad crooked bunch – The DOJ is suing multiple states to require compliance with Federal election laws including HAVA – Georgia is among them – and @AAGDhillon is leading the charge – President Trump pardoned Tina Peters but corrupt Colorado officials refuse to release her from prison. Colorado wants to litigate her role as a Federal officer in their elections while her health declines due to their horrible conditions. Colorado officials are going to pay dearly – An American Armada, the likes of which hasn’t been assembled in this century, sits off the coast of U.S. Election Theft Central. They are resting up after the historic strike extraction of Maduro. They will not idle long. The President promises to clean out all the cartel del Soles thugs and return Venezuela to democratic self governance. A big job but essential to keeping America safe and its enemies out of our hemisphere and out of our elections.  https://twitter.com/WarClandestine/status/2007981628648206368?s=20   which gave hope to the low-morale Continental Army and boosted enlistment, and eventually led to victory. I think Trump and the US MIL were sending a message. Now is when we start winning the war against the Deep State. I think we have graduated into a new phase of the operation. https://twitter.com/WarClandestine/status/2007924998703366560?s=20   necessary for what comes later, when Trump invokes the Insurrection Act and sends US MIL to cities nationwide. If the US MIL are going to conduct mass arrests, the public will need to trust them and trust Trump. So for those asking why Trump is arresting Maduro before arresting treasonous actors in the US, I think there is method to the madness. The high-profile US arrests will likely be towards the end, after more of the public are fully bought in on the operation to dismantle the Deep State. Arresting people is the easy part. Convincing billions of people that high-profile individuals, including former heads of state, need to be arrested… that's the tricky part. https://twitter.com/RapidResponse47/status/2008033626294792665?s=20 https://twitter.com/USDOL/status/2007933111729021305?s=20 (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13499335648425062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7164-1323"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.customads.co/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");

Government Waste and Reform Musk discusses shocking inefficiencies in the U.S. federal government, such as: Excessive software licenses and media subscriptions (often double the number of employees). Duplicate credit cards and unexplained payments. Fraudulent NGO funding (e.g., billions allegedly misused). He emphasizes that the government is essentially run by computers and that reform requires direct access to payment systems and databases. DOGE Initiative A program Musk is involved in aimed at cutting waste and fraud. Targeting fraudulent entitlement payments and political corruption. Political Commentary Musk reflects on his shift from being celebrated by the political left (due to Tesla and SpaceX) to being vilified, attributing it to his efforts to expose waste and fraud. Mentions death threats and organized attacks against Tesla infrastructure, allegedly funded by left-wing organizations. AI and Robotics Predicts that within 10 years, AI will surpass human cognitive abilities. Foresees billions of humanoid robots and near-total automation of transportation. Warns of a 10% chance of AI-driven catastrophic scenarios within a decade. Space Exploration Discusses plans for Mars colonization: First human landing by 2029 (best case). Goal: a self-sustaining city on Mars within 20 years. Challenges: recreating Earth’s industrial base on Mars. Shares personal motivation rooted in expanding human consciousness and ensuring civilization’s survival. Personal Insights Talks about his work ethic (averages 6 hours of sleep, works almost constantly). Early struggles: living in an office, showering at YMCA during his first startup. Views on intellectual property: “Patents are for the weak”—prefers open innovation. Cultural References Lighthearted discussion about Star Wars vs. Star Trek, movies, and pop culture. Mentions his first video game (Blastar) and lifelong fascination with space. Please Hit Subscribe to this podcast Right Now. Also Please Subscribe to the 47 Morning Update with Ben Ferguson and The Ben Ferguson Show Podcast Wherever You get You're Podcasts. And don't forget to follow the show on Social Media so you never miss a moment! Thanks for Listening YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruz/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/verdictwithtedcruz X: https://x.com/tedcruz X: https://x.com/benfergusonshowYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@VerdictwithTedCruzSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.