Podcasts about Rolf

Links For The Occult Rejectshttps://linktr.ee/theoccultrejectsOccult Research Institutehttps://www.occultresearchinstitute.org/Substackhttps://substack.com/@theoccultrejects?r=7auau0&utm_campaign=profile&utm_medium=profile-pageCash Apphttps://cash.app/$theoccultrejectsVenmo@TheOccultRejectsBuy Me A Coffeebuymeacoffee.com/TheOccultRejectsPatreonhttps://www.patreon.com/TheOccultRejectsBibliographyRepetition, Fluency, and BeliefBacon, Frederick T. “Credibility of Repeated Statements: Memory for Trivia.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory 5, no. 3 (1979): 241–252.Begg, Ian Maynard, Ann Anas, and Suzanne Farinacci. “Dissociation of Processes in Belief: Source Recollection, Statement Familiarity, and the Illusion of Truth.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 121, no. 4 (1992): 446–458.Dechêne, Alice, Christoph Stahl, Jochim Hansen, and Michaela Wänke. “The Truth About the Truth: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Truth Effect.” Personality and Social Psychology Review 14, no. 2 (2010): 238–257.Fazio, Lisa K., Nadia M. Brashier, B. Keith Payne, and Elizabeth J. Marsh. “Knowledge Does Not Protect Against Illusory Truth.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 144, no. 5 (2015): 993–1002.Hasher, Lynn, David Goldstein, and Thomas Toppino. “Frequency and the Conference of Referential Validity.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 16, no. 1 (1977): 107–112.Reber, Rolf, and Norbert Schwarz. “Effects of Perceptual Fluency on Judgments of Truth.” Consciousness and Cognition 8, no. 3 (1999): 338–342.Unkelbach, Christian. “Reversing the Truth Effect: Learning the Interpretation of Processing Fluency in Judgments of Truth.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 33, no. 1 (2007): 219–230.Zajonc, Robert B. “Attitudinal Effects of Mere Exposure.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 9, no. 2, part 2 (1968): 1–27.Memory, Spacing, and RetrievalCepeda, Nicholas J., Harold Pashler, Edward Vul, John T. Wixted, and Doug Rohrer. “Distributed Practice in Verbal Recall Tasks: A Review and Quantitative Synthesis.” Psychological Bulletin 132, no. 3 (2006): 354–380.Ebbinghaus, Hermann. Memory: A Contribution to Experimental Psychology. Translated by Henry A. Ruger and Clara E. Bussenius. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1913. Originally published 1885.Karpicke, Jeffrey D., and Henry L. Roediger III. “Repeated Retrieval During Learning Is the Key to Long-Term Retention.” Journal of Memory and Language 57, no. 2 (2007): 151–162.Roediger, Henry L. III, and Jeffrey D. Karpicke. “Test-Enhanced Learning: Taking Memory Tests Improves Long-Term Retention.” Psychological Science 17, no. 3 (2006): 249–255.Tulving, Endel, and Donald M. Thomson. “Encoding Specificity and Retrieval Processes in Episodic Memory.” Psychological Review 80, no. 5 (1973): 352–373.Whitehouse, Harvey. Modes of Religiosity: A Cognitive Theory of Religious Transmission. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 2004.Semantic Satiation and Verbal TransformationBalota, David A., and Sarah Black. “Semantic Satiation in Healthy Young and Older Adults.” Memory & Cognition 25, no. 2 (1997): 190–202.Jakobovits, Leon A. Effects of Repeated Stimulation on Cognitive Aspects of Behavior: Some Experiments on the Phenomenon of Semantic Satiation. PhD diss., McGill University, 1962.Kounios, John, et al. “On the Locus of the Semantic Satiation Effect: Evidence from Event-Related Brain Potentials.” Memory & Cognition 28, no. 8 (2000): 1366–1377.Pilotti, Maura, John S. Antrobus, and Monica Duff. “The Effect of Presemantic Acoustic Adaptation on Semantic ‘Satiation.'” Memory & Cognition 25, no. 3 (1997): 305–312.Ströberg, Kim, Lau M. Andersen, and Stefan Wiens. “Electrocortical N400 Effects of Semantic Satiation.” Frontiers in Psychology 8 (2017): 2117.Warren, Richard M. “Illusory Changes of Distinct Speech upon Repetition—The Verbal Transformation Effect.” British Journal of Psychology 52, no. 3 (1961): 249–258.Warren, Richard M. “Illusory Changes in Repeated Words: Differences between Young Adults and the Aged.” American Journal of Psychology 74, no. 4 (1961): 506–516.Speech, Song, and Musical RepetitionDeutsch, Diana. “The Speech-to-Song Illusion.” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 134, no. 5 (2013): 4241.Deutsch, Diana, Trevor Henthorn, and Rachael Lapidis. “Illusory Transformation from Speech to Song.” Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 129, no. 4 (2011): 2245–2252.Jakubowski, Kelly, Sebastian Finkel, Lauren Stewart, and Daniel Müllensiefen. “Dissecting an Earworm: Melodic Features and Song Popularity Predict Involuntary Musical Imagery.” Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts 11, no. 2 (2017): 122–135.Margulis, Elizabeth Hellmuth. On Repeat: How Music Plays the Mind. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.Marjieh, Raja, Pol van Rijn, Ilia Sucholutsky, Harin Lee, Thomas L. Griffiths, and Nori Jacoby. “A Rational Analysis of the Speech-to-Song Illusion.” Preprint, 2024.Vickhoff, Björn, Helge Malmgren, Rickard Åström, Gunnar Nyberg, Seth-Reino Ekström, Mathias Engwall, Johan Snygg, Michael Nilsson, and Rebecka Jörnsten. “Music Structure Determines Heart Rate Variability of Singers.” Frontiers in Psychology 4 (2013): 334.Breath, Vocalization, and Autonomic PhysiologyBernardi, Luciano, Peter Sleight, Gianfranco Bandinelli, Simone Cencetti, Lino Fattorini, Jacek Wdowczyc-Szulc, and Andrea Lagi. “Effect of Rosary Prayer and Yoga Mantras on Autonomic Cardiovascular Rhythms: Comparative Study.” BMJ 323, no. 7327 (2001): 1446–1449.Lehrer, Paul M., and Richard Gevirtz. “Heart Rate Variability Biofeedback: How and Why Does It Work?” Frontiers in Psychology 5 (2014): 756.Shaffer, Fred, and J. P. Ginsberg. “An Overview of Heart Rate Variability Metrics and Norms.” Frontiers in Public Health 5 (2017): 258.Zaccaro, Andrea, Andrea Piarulli, Marco Laurino, Erika Garbella, Danilo Menicucci, Bruno Neri, and Angelo Gemignani. “How Breath-Control Can Change Your Life: A Systematic Review on Psycho-Physiological Correlates of Slow Breathing.” Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 12 (2018): 353.Meditation, Chanting, and NeuroscienceFox, Kieran C. R., Matthew L. Dixon, Savannah Nijeboer, Manesh Girn, James L. Floman, Michael Lifshitz, Melissa Ellamil, Peter Sedlmeier, and Kalina Christoff. “Functional Neuroanatomy of Meditation: A Review and Meta-Analysis of 78 Functional Neuroimaging Investigations.” Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 65 (2016): 208–228.Kalyani, B. G., G. Venkatasubramanian, R. Arasappa, N. P. Rao, S. V. Kalmady, R. Behere, H. Rao, M. Vasudev, and B. N. Gangadhar. “Neurohemodynamic Correlates of ‘OM' Chanting: A Pilot Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study.” International Journal of Yoga 4, no. 1 (2011): 3–6.Travis, Fred, and Jonathan Shear. “Focused Attention, Open Monitoring and Automatic Self-Transcending: Categories to Organize Meditations from Vedic, Buddhist and Chinese Traditions.” Consciousness and Cognition 19, no. 4 (2010): 1110–1118.Ritual, Attention, and Embodied PracticeBell, Catherine. Ritual Theory, Ritual Practice. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.Hobson, Nicholas M., Juliana Schroeder, Jane L. Risen, Dimitris Xygalatas, and Michael Inzlicht. “The Psychology of Rituals: An Integrative Review and Process-Based Framework.” Personality and Social Psychology Review 22, no. 3 (2018): 260–284.McCauley, Robert N., and E. Thomas Lawson. Bringing Ritual to Mind: Psychological Foundations of Cultural Forms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.Rappaport, Roy A. Ritual and Religion in the Making of Humanity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.Xygalatas, Dimitris. Ritual: How Seemingly Senseless Acts Make Life Worth Living. New York: Little, Brown Spark, 2022.Also want to remind people about the website, if you're into reading we have tons of information by multiple contributors, and we got t-shirts up on the site if you're interested. Fun fact, the art is all based on the eyeball. 

Luister hier naar de heftige ervaringen van Thijs in Ibiza in Borrelpraat Extra. Nieuw bij Ziggo. Altijd alle Vriendenloterij Eredivisie op ESPN, standaard in elk Ziggo tv-pakket. Ontdek meer op ziggo.nl Die lijpe docu van die Amazone kinderen heet Los Niños Perdidos. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Ein klassischer Fall von "Gegensätze ziehen sich an" und fliegen sich dann irgendwann krachend um die Ohren. In unserer Hörernachricht bittet uns eine selbsternannte "Fitness-Pilates-Maus" um Hilfe. Während sie gerne philosophiert und gesunde Smoothies trinkt, liebt ihr Partner wilde Zockerabende, "alkoholische Exzesse" und gibt bei Problemen immer den anderen die Schuld. Aus der einstigen Romanze ist längst eine frustrierte Wohngemeinschaft geworden. Die entscheidende Frage: Kann eine so gegensätzliche Partnerschaft überhaupt noch funktionieren?In dieser Folge rücken Claudia und Rolf die (oft bequeme) Opferrolle in Beziehungen zurecht. Bevor wir den Partner als "Party-Tier" abwerten, sollten wir uns dringend fragen, warum wir uns damals eigentlich in genau diese Eigenschaften verliebt haben.Habt ihr noch einen Gedanken zu dem Thema oder liegt euch etwas ganz anderes auf der Seele? Dann meldet euch gerne unter podcast@psychohacks.de. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Atemtechniken und Kälteexposition sind längst mehr als ein Social-Media-Trend. Viele Menschen nutzen Breathwork und Eisbäder, um Stress besser zu bewältigen, ihre mentale Stärke zu trainieren und ihre Gesundheit zu fördern. Doch welche Effekte sind tatsächlich wissenschaftlich belegt und wo beginnt der Hype? In dieser Folge von Mission Gesundheit spreche ich mit Rolf Duda, Unternehmer, Biohacker, Gründer von PEAKWOLF und zertifizierter Wim-Hof-Instruktor. Nachdem wir in früheren Folgen bereits über die Grundlagen von Breathwork und Kälteanwendungen gesprochen haben, gehen wir diesmal einen Schritt weiter und werfen einen Blick auf die medizinischen und physiologischen Hintergründe.

Ihr wollt auf dem Supermarktparkplatz einparken, seht eine freie Lücke und plötzlich baut sich jemand aggressiv vor euch auf und brüllt: "Du hast mir den Parkplatz geklaut!". Es sind Situationen, die uns in letzter Zeit leider immer häufiger begegnen. Die allgemeine Beißhemmung im öffentlichen Raum scheint deutlich gesunken zu sein – sei es im Freibad, in der Bahn oder auf der Straße. In dieser Folge von Psychohacks trotzen Claudia und Rolf nicht nur den Handwerkergeräuschen in Claudias Bad, sondern sprechen auch über ein hochaktuelles Thema: Die wachsende Aggressivität unserer Mitmenschen. Warum wir alle so dünnhäutig geworden sind und wie man richtig reagiert, wenn das Gegenüber offensichtlich die Nerven verliert.Habt ihr auch schon ähnliche Situationen erlebt oder seid völlig anderer Meinung? Dann schreibt uns gerne an podcast@psychohacks.de! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Kennt ihr das Gefühl? Der Alltag ist komplett durchgetaktet, jeder Handgriff sitzt und selbst kleine Lücken von fünf Minuten werden sofort genutzt, um noch schnell etwas abzuhaken. So geht es Sandra. Als alleinerziehende Mutter und mit zwei Jobs als Haushaltshilfe und Flugbegleiterin gleicht ihr Alltag einem perfekten (aber rasend schnellen) Uhrwerk. Das Problem: Ihr Gehirn findet immer neue Dinge, die erledigt werden müssen. Selbst wenn sie versucht, sich mal fünf Minuten hinzusetzen, bekommt sie sofort "Ameisen im Hintern".In dieser Folge sprechen Claudia und Rolf über die Schattenseiten des extremen Optimierungswahns. Warum fühlen wir uns nur noch wertvoll, wenn wir leisten oder anderen dienen? Und wieso ist der Drang zur ständigen Effizienzsteigerung oft nur eine kluge Tarnung, um sich nicht mit sich selbst und den eigenen Problemen beschäftigen zu müssen?Wir hoffen, diese Folge schenkt euch einen Moment zum Innehalten – ganz ohne den Drang, nebenbei noch etwas optimieren zu müssen. Habt ihr ein eigenes Thema, das euch keine Ruhe lässt? Dann schreibt uns an: podcast@psychohacks.de. Wir freuen uns über eure Nachrichten, Likes und Abos! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Der aktuelle OECD-Entwurf zur Überarbeitung von Kapitel VII der OECD-Verrechnungspreisleitlinien zu konzerninternen Dienstleistungen gibt vor, lediglich zu konkretisieren – geht inhaltlich aber deutlich weiter. In der neuesten Folge unseres PwC Deutschland Transfer Pricing Podcasts analysieren Benedikt Wenzel (Transfer Pricing Director, PwC) und Rolf Schreiber (Of Counsel Transfer Pricing, PwC) diesen Entwurf. Rolf zeigt aus seiner jahrzehntelangen Erfahrung in der Finanzverwaltung, welche Punkte positiv hervorzuheben sind und wo sich für die Praxis Fallstricke ergeben können. Was es mit dem „Horrorkatalog" auf sich hat, weshalb Rolf nach wie vor großes Verständnis für die Arbeit der Finanzverwaltung hat und trotzdem dafür plädiert, gerade bei der Frage der Beweislast unnachgiebig auf den deutschen Rechtsgrundsätzen zu beharren, hören Sie in diesem Podcast.

Ach, du grüne Neune! Es gibt so viele Sprichwörter rund um Zahlen, dass eine Sendung nicht ausreicht. Deshalb folgt nun die zweite Runde, geben Sie acht! Bei Hermine Kaiser ist der Experte für Sprichwörtliches, Rolf-Bernhard Essig zu Gast.

Kennt ihr diese Situation? Ihr steht in einer geselligen Runde mit Freunden und plötzlich fragt jemand: "Wollen wir nicht mal zusammen ein Wochenende in Berlin verbringen?". Ihr denkt vielleicht "Auf gar keinen Fall!", euer Partner denkt "Au ja!" – und ihr müsst vor versammeltem Publikum sofort eine Entscheidung treffen, ohne zu wissen, was der andere eigentlich will. In dieser Folge erklären Claudia und Rolf, wie ihr euch als Paar unter Zeit- und Publikumsdruck elegant abstimmt, ohne euch vor anderen in die Haare zu kriegen. Außerdem geht es darum, warum wir in Beziehungen so oft aneinander vorbeireden und wie ein kluges Tool aus der Berufswelt unsere Liebe retten kann.Fallen euch zu diesem Thema auch noch Punkte ein? Dann lasst es uns wissen und schreibt eure Nachrichten an: podcast@psychohacks.de! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Upptäckare, kolonister, riksbildare och köpmän i all ära, men det vi spontant associerar till när vi visualiserar vikingatiden är trots allt krigarna – såväl de lejda och edsvurna stridsmännen som stred för kejsare, kungar och furstar i hela Europa som de frilansande sjörövare och plundrare som gjorde Västeuropa osäkert mellan 700-talet och 1000-talet. Vad vet vi egentligen om dem?Ett stort problem är att vi ofta har valt att glömma de riktiga krigarna – de som uttryckligen nämns med namn i samtida annaler och runstenstexter – och istället minnas de sagohjältar som diktades ihop flera sekler senare. Vad händer om vi skalar bort det medeltida fiktionshöljet och söker efter historiskt belagda stridsmän? Under vilka perioder var de verksamma? Vilka strategier och taktiker använde de sig av när de gick till angrepp mot sina fiender? Hur mindes de efterlevande dem, när sorgebudet kom att de fallit i främmande land? Hur barbariska var de? Fanns det bärsärskar, alltså vilda krigare som drogade sig med flugsvamp och trodde att de var osårbara? Genom att ställa den här typen av frågor tvingas vi pränta ned besvärande frågetecken framför legendariska hjältar som Gånge-Rolf, samtidigt som vi möter fullt historiska men bortglömda hövdingar som Sibbe Foldarsson – den danske sjökungen vars död i Kalmarsund ännu ger ekon i Ölands kulturlandskap.I detta avsnitt av podden Harrisons dramatiska historia samtalar Dick Harrison, professor i historia vid Lunds universitet, och fackboksförfattaren Katarina Harrison Lindbergh om de verkligt blodiga sidorna av vikingatidens historia, om epokens krig och plundring.Bild: "Ein Wikingerüberfall", konstnärlig skildring av en vikingaräd. Oljemålning av Ferdinand Leeke (1901). Wikipedia, Public Domain. Klippning: Aron SchuurmanProducent: Urban Lindstedt Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Das plattdeutsche Volkstheater ist seine Leidenschaft, seine Liebe ist die Musik Richard Wagners: Rolf Petersen: immer auf Achse für die Kunst!

Vi er tilbake! I denne episoden prøver vi å oppsummere hva vi har gjort siden april. Du får også høre om det perfekte plagget for dere med sugemerker, Siri har gjort et morsomt kjøp som får Linn til å huske en gammel avtale. Og chatten avgjør Linns garderobe. Viktigst av alt; vi skal være med på strikkefestival!

In dieser Folge beleuchten Claudia und Rolf das ständige "Ich bin nie genug"-Gefühl und warum gut gemeinte, aber schnelle Ratschläge („Steh doch einfach eine Stunde früher auf!“) in Erschöpfungsphasen völlig deplatziert sind. Erfahrt in dieser Folge, wie wir lernen, das ständige Streben nach Optimierung und Projekten zu stoppen und uns in kleinen, stillen Momenten wieder mit uns selbst (oder schönen Erinnerungen) zu verbinden. Ihr habt auch ein Thema, das euch umtreibt? Dann schreibt uns an: podcast@psychohacks.de. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

To hear about a couple of new projects in Europe, Justin and Matt are joined by Markus Bucher, Sales Manager for Auviso, and Rolf Bauer, Region Manager for Daktronics. They talk about the latest Titlis Experience project in the heart of Switzerland and then Rolf dives into the details of The Whale project in Germany's Hamburg Central Station.   Links: Daktronics News Release: https://www.daktronics.com/news/daktronics-introduces-germany-to-the-whale-display-with-stroer-partnership   

Click to Subscribe: https://bit.ly/Youtube-Subscribe-SoapDirt Days of our Lives spoilers indicate that Leo Stark (Greg Rikaart) is frantic, suspecting that his best friend Gwen Rizczech (Emily O'Brien) may have been abducted by EJ DiMera (Dan Feuerriegel). Gwen had previously confided in Leo about possessing damning evidence against EJ, which would be released via a dead man's switch if something happens to her. In a thrilling plot twist, Gwen was abruptly snatched up after receiving confirmation of her purchase of Salem's hospital.  DOOL spoilers suggest that Leo, fearing the worst, teams up with Gabi Hernandez (Cherie Jimenez) to locate Gwen. Their investigation leads them to the belief that EJ is responsible for Gwen's disappearance, as he would benefit from Gwen not being able to take over the hospital. They also suspect that EJ might have orchestrated Gwen's abduction to avoid sharing the profits from Rolf's miracle serum.  Spoilers for Days of our Lives reveal that in a bid to pressure EJ into releasing Gwen, Leo threatens to expose EJ's illicit activities. Leo's bold move could potentially backfire, as EJ is well aware of Gwen's vindictive nature and her capacity to compile a revenge dossier against him.  More DOOL spoilers divulge that Melinda Trask (Tina Huang) may play a crucial role in this storyline. As Gwen's lawyer, Melinda may be holding onto Gwen's damaging evidence against EJ. Leo's desperate attempts to rescue Gwen and bring EJ to justice make for an engrossing storyline, with several characters, including Dimitri von Leuschner DiMera (Peter Porte), potentially getting entangled in the fallout. You are listening to Belynda from Soap Dirt. The most listened to soap opera podcaster. Visit our Days of our Lives section of Soap Dirt: https://soapdirt.com/category/days-of-our-lives/ Listen to our Podcasts: https://soapdirt.podbean.com/ And Check out our always up-to-date Days of our Lives Spoilers page at: https://soapdirt.com/days-of-our-lives-spoilers/ Check Out our Social Media... Twitter: https://twitter.com/SoapDirtTV Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SoapDirt Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/soapdirt/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@soapdirt Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/soapdirt/

Der Schriftsteller Rolf Dieter Brinkmann war ein extrem fleißiger BriefeschreiberDer Wallstein Verlag startet eine kritische und kommentierte Edition seiner Korrespondenz(Hördauer ca. 9 Minuten)„Rolf Dieter Brinkmann, geboren am 16. April 1940 im oldenburgischen Vechta, gilt als einer der wichtigsten deutschsprachigen Lyriker der Nachkriegszeit. Sein literarisches Werk zeichnete sich durch eine innovative Bildsprache aus, in die er bewusst Elemente der Alltagssprache und der US-amerikanischen Popkultur übernahm. Außerdem integrierte er Elemente von Beat, Mode und visuellen Medien in sein Werk, um es unmittelbar erfahrbar zu gestalten. Sein bedeutendstes Werk, der Gedichtband Westwärts 1 & 2, der heute als Schlüsseltext der deutschen Literaturgeschichte gilt, erschien erst wenige Tage nach dem Tod des Autors bei einem tragischen Verkehrsunfall in London am 23. April 1975. Die darin versammelten Texte formulierten das Lebensgefühl einer jungen Generation …“Eine Rezension von Manfred OrlickDen Text der Rezension finden Sie hierKommen Sie doch einmal in unsere Live-Aufzeichnungen in München Technik: Jupp Stepprath, Sprecher: Matthias Pöhlmann, Realisation: Uwe Kullnick

Ein Pfarrer im Ruhestand, eine unruhige Nacht – und ein Radiomoment, der kein Zufall war. (Autor: Miri Langenbach)

Ein Pfarrer im Ruhestand, eine unruhige Nacht – und ein Radiomoment, der kein Zufall war. (Autor: Miri Langenbach)

Ein Pfarrer im Ruhestand, eine unruhige Nacht – und ein Radiomoment, der kein Zufall war. (Autor: Miri Langenbach)

Ein Pfarrer im Ruhestand, eine unruhige Nacht – und ein Radiomoment, der kein Zufall war. (Autor: Miri Langenbach)

Click to Subscribe: https://bit.ly/Youtube-Subscribe-SoapDirt Days of Our Lives spoilers indicate that Lexie Carver (Nikki Crawford), resurrected by Dr. Wilhelm Rolf (Richard Wharton) and EJ DiMera (Dan Feuerriegel), faces a dire situation after a shocking collapse. As Abe Carver's (James Reynolds) wife's health rapidly deteriorates, the residents of Salem are gripped by anticipation and fear. Meanwhile, Paulina Price (Jackee Harry), Abe's recent love interest, grapples with her guilt over keeping Lexie's resurrection a secret. DOOL spoilers reveal that Lexie's surprising return from the dead, orchestrated by EJ and Dr. Rolf, had stunned Salem, particularly her husband Abe and son Theo Carver (Tyler Joseph Andrews). Despite the joy of their reunion, Lexie's repeated collapses and deteriorating condition spell an ominous future. As her condition worsens, Lexie makes a heartfelt confession to Marlena Evans (Deidre Hall) about her impending death. Spoilers for Days of our Lives suggest a dramatic turn comes when Lexie collapses at the DiMera mansion, leaving EJ distraught. As her health rapidly declines, Lexie is faced with the difficult task of breaking the news to Abe and Theo. In an emotional scene, Lexie is rushed to the hospital where we see her in a frail state, surrounded by her loved ones. More DOOL spoilers hint that as the reality of Lexie's impending death sinks in, she makes a heartfelt request to Paulina. Wanting to ensure Abe's well-being, Lexie may ask Paulina to reconcile with Abe once she passes. Viewers are left anticipating whether Lexie will also give Abe her blessing to be with Paulina, setting the stage for an emotional and poignant storyline. The Soap Dirt podcast has made the Top 100 List for Apple Podcasts in the Entertainment News Category. Visit our Days of our Lives section of Soap Dirt: https://soapdirt.com/category/days-of-our-lives/ Listen to our Podcasts: https://soapdirt.podbean.com/ And Check out our always up-to-date Days of our Lives Spoilers page at: https://soapdirt.com/days-of-our-lives-spoilers/ Check Out our Social Media... Twitter: https://twitter.com/SoapDirtTV Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SoapDirt Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/soapdirt/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@soapdirt Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/soapdirt/

The name Bert Sproston might not ring a bell to many. But his heroics off the pitch are extraordinary. As we celebrate the 2026 World Cup, there isn't a better time to bring Bert's story to the fore than now. Sproston was a star defender for the English National Team when it paid Berlin a visit in 1938 for an exhibition game against the Germans. As expected, England won the game. But that's not what this story is about. While Sproston made his mark with teams such as Leeds United, Manchester City, and Totenham Hotspur (and a few other clubs as well), perhaps his biggest contribution in life is what he did for a Jewish teenager who approached him in Germany after the English had defeated the host team. Rolf Friedland asked Sproston for help ... to help him escape Berlin and Germany during this turbulent time when Hitler was in the process of building his concentration camps and carrying out atrocities beyond imagination. World War II was beckoning, and Friedland needed a way out. He approached Sproston and the English star obliged and helped Friedland escape Nazi Germany just a few months later. In this very unique episode of Sports' Forgotten Heroes, I discuss all of this with three very special guests, beginning with Jenny Leonard and Fiona Thomas, the sisters of John Leonard who recently had a new book published, "Escape From Berlin, England's Bert Sproston and The Football Refugee." Sadly, Leonard passed away prior to the book being published, but his two sisters carry on his legacy and know the story well. Also joining for this special podcast is Alan Freeman, Rolf's son (Rolf later changed his name to Ralph Freeman, and we discuss why during the podcast). Not only is this story about soccer and heroism, we touch upon the political firestorm surrounding this particular timeframe that included England's goal of not being pulled into the War, and their gesture of offering a salute to Hitler not going over as well as they had hoped.

Australian designer Henry Wilson on why perfection is not something he strives for. Then: Rolf Fehlbaum of Vitra on why fun and friendship make for better work. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Andy: Hey, Robert. Ah, I really wish I could come in to work today, but I'm super sick.Robert: I don't care, I don't care. Please come to work immediately.Andy: Okay, I'll try to come in even though I'm really sick with the...[standing in ocean]...Florida Flu!Robert: He just hung up on me mid-sentence.This week we're answering voicemails! We dive back into the inbox to hear from our amazing listeners from all over the world and answer their calls. We talk about all kinds of topics, including new music, pop tarts, Up Jenkins, Rolf, and a whole lot more. Then we close the episode with the return of listener-submitted trivia! Support our show and become a member of ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Scott's Tots⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ on Patreon! For only $5/month, Tots get ad-free episodes plus exclusive access to our monthly Mailbag episodes where we casually pick through every single message/question/comment we receive. We also have bonus series available to our Patrons, like our White Lotus Special, Party Down, Ted Lasso, Survivor content, and unreleased episodes of this show. Oh, and Tots get access to exclusive channels on our ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Discord⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In dieser Folge feuert Claudia ein letztes Mal Fragen von euch in Richtung Rolf. Freut euch auf spontane, ungeschönte und ehrliche Antworten – mit all der tollen Energie, die dieser Abend zu bieten hatte. Kennt ihr das? Da lobt uns der Partner für die ausgeräumte Spülmaschine, schiebt aber im selben Atemzug ein „… aber das Blumengießen hast du schon wieder vergessen“ hinterher. Warum dieses Wörtchen Aber jedes ehrliche Lob und jede ernst gemeinte Entschuldigung sofort in einen versteckten Vorwurf verwandelt, klären Rolf und Claudia.Ihr habt auch ein Thema, das euch auf der Seele brennt? Dann her damit an: podcast@psychohacks.de. Lasst uns außerdem gerne ein Like und ein Abo auf eurer Lieblingsplattform da!. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Dieses Thema kann man sich nur anfangs "an den Fingern abzählen", was leicht wie "1 und 1 zusammenzuzählen" ist, wenn man "bis drei zählen kann". Heute geht's im Ratsch mit Rolf-Bernhard Essig um sprichwörtliche Zahlen und ihre kuriosen Ursprünge. Er ist bei Erich Wartusch zu Gast.

 Host: Alex Cameron, Founder & CEO, Industrial Connect GroupGuest: Rolf Kuby, Director General, EurominesAn EV is not carbon free on the day it rolls off the line. A wind turbine has a footprint before it generates a single watt. The materials these things are built from carry emissions too, and right now, most climate policy either ignores that or assumes someone else in the value chain will sort it out. Rolf Kuby has spent 30 years doing public affairs in Brussels and five of them running Euromines, the European voice of the mining industry. He has a clear view of where the system is broken.In this episode, Rolf maps the gap between Europe's decarbonization ambitions and the raw material supply chains those ambitions depend on. From the world's first fossil-free mine already operating in Sweden, to the IEA's projection that net zero requires six times current output of critical minerals by 2050, this is a conversation about the part of the transition that doesn't make the headlines but makes everything else possible.Key TakeawaysWhy your clean technology has a dirtier footprint than you think. Rolf explains the life cycle accounting that most climate conversations skip, and why ignoring it means the decarbonization model Europe is building isn't one the rest of the world can copy.The scale of what we actually need to mine. The IEA numbers are stark. If you want to understand the supply-side maths behind net zero, this is the clearest five-minute version of it you'll find.Why cheap energy is the single biggest lever Europe isn't pulling. Energy costs, not policy ambition, are the binding constraint on industrial decarbonization - what would actually change if Europe got electricity prices under control?What the Critical Raw Materials Act can and can't do. The CRMA is Europe's first serious attempt at supply-side policy for critical minerals. Rolf explains where it helps, where the money still isn't following, and why the US IRA is moving faster.Why the value chain keeps passing the cost problem sideways. No single sector can absorb the cost of transformation alone, but the current system lets everyone try. What would a functioning value chain model actually require?The silo problem, and whether Brussels is close to solving it. Feed-in tariffs without grid investment. EV policy without battery supply chains. Rolf names the inconsistencies, and is honest about whether the systemic thinking is catching up.End with a slice of optimism based on emerging projects and collaborationsLinks: ·       Follow Alex Cameron on LinkedIn and find how to get involved with the membership and work of Decarb Connect·       Connect with Rolf Kuby, Director General of Euromines·       Join Alex and a network of hardtech investors and series B+ tech disruptors at Decarb TechInvest in Boston (September 2025)·       Sign up for our newsletter Want to learn more about Decarb Connect?We provide insights and introductions that derisk decision-making and support industrial leaders in deploying decarbonization and low carbon product strategy. Our global membership platform, events and facilitated introductions support commercial decarb planning and business models around the world. Our clients include the most energy-intensive industrials from cement, metals and mining, glass, ceramics, chemicals, O&G and many more along with technology disruptors, investors and advisors.  If you enjoyed this conversation, find out about our portfolio of events in US, Canada, UK and Europe – or explore our Decarbonisation Leaders Network (DLN), and learn why more than 200 members from the energy-intensive sectors have joined to share insights, meet partners who can accelerate their plans and why it's the most valuable network of its kind. 

My co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you the episode 176 of the IP Fridays Podcast. Today's interview guest is returning guest Franklin Graves, who is a senior counsel at Linkedin and teaching IP law at Emerson College. With my co-host Ken Suzan he is discussing how the law for creators has dramatically changed in the past years. Franklin Graves is expressing his personal views and not the views of Linkedin or Microsoft. He is talking about the paper “Upload Complete” before he joined Linkedin. Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/franklingraves/ Paper: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5271442 Website: https://creatoreconomylaw.com/ But before we jump into this interview, I have news for you! Richard Meade, a judge on the UK High Court and one of the most prominent figures in European patent law, was appointed Lord Justice of Appeal at the British Court of Appeal on June 12, 2026. Meade played a key role in numerous landmark British patent decisions, particularly in the area of standard-essential patents (SEPs) and FRAND licenses. In Insulet Corp. v. EOFlow Co., No. 2025-1807, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit completely overturned the original $452 million judgment (which had already been reduced by the District Court to $59.4 million) in favor of Insulet. In its decision of June 2, 2026, in the case of Fujifilm v. Kodak, the UPC Board of Appeal provided comprehensive clarifications regarding so-called “long-arm jurisdiction”—that is, the question of whether the UPC can also rule on national patent claims outside the UPC territory (such as in the United Kingdom). In 14 guiding principles, the judges established specific procedural rules for various categories of cases. There is no automatic UPC jurisdiction over national patent claims outside the UPC territory. The Munich Regional Court has issued an arrest warrant against the managing director of Polytech Health & Aesthetics GmbH because he is alleged to have continued to exploit the Brazilian company Silimed's patent for breast implants despite a preliminary injunction. A number of IT and automotive industry associations—which are among the most frequent users of Inter Partes Reviews (IPR) at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office—have filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court, urging the Court to grant Google's certiorari petition. An attorney for a Las Vegas performer has asked a California federal judge to temporarily prohibit Taylor Swift from using “The Life of a Showgirl” as a trademark while the trademark lawsuit is pending. Swift's attorney called the lawsuit baseless. And now let's hear Ken discuss creator law with Franklin! AI, Platform Law, and the Creator Economy: What Businesses Need to Know Now Franklin Graves has spent his entire career watching digital content move through systems that most people never see. He started in marketing at a major music label right out of law school, then represented individual creators on YouTube in a pro bono capacity, then moved to the platform side at Eventbrite, and today works as Senior Product Counsel at LinkedIn, where he focuses on AI, data, and the regulatory questions that come with both. His recently published law review article, Upload Complete: An Introduction to Creator Economy Law, is the first academic paper to address the creator economy as a distinct legal field. In a recent episode of the IP Fridays podcast, he spoke with host Kenneth Suzan about responsible AI development, platform regulation, and what it actually means to own your audience in a world where the rules keep changing overnight. From Content Creator to Platform Lawyer The through-line in Graves’ career is a genuine understanding of how content moves from an idea in someone’s head to an audience on a screen. That experience, he argues, is precisely what in-house counsel needs right now. Lawyers working on AI and product development cannot afford to sit at a distance from the technology they are advising on. They need to use the tools, experience them as a creator or end user would, and understand the nuances of how a product actually operates before it reaches the public. Understanding the product first is the precondition for everything else. That philosophy translates directly into how he approaches responsible AI implementation. The landscape of AI standards is crowded: NIST frameworks, the EU AI Act, sector-specific guidance, and a growing body of industry-adopted best practices. The challenge for in-house counsel is not knowing that these standards exist. It is making them actionable for the engineering and product teams they support. Abstract principles need to become concrete controls and workflows. Graves offers one practical shortcut: most companies already have open source software review processes that involve the right stakeholders, the right sign-off levels, and the right security checks. Layering the specifics of generative AI or large language models onto those existing processes is far more efficient than building something new from scratch. A Fragmented Regulatory World The geopolitical dimension of AI regulation is something Graves thinks about constantly in his role at LinkedIn. The EU AI Act, shifting US executive orders, and country-specific approaches to data privacy have created a regulatory environment that can change the rules of the game without warning. His analogy is instructive: creators have long understood what it means to build a community on a platform they do not own. An algorithm change, a policy update, or a government ban can wipe out years of audience-building overnight. Businesses deploying AI tools globally now face a structurally similar problem. The response, for creators and for platforms alike, is to build resilience rather than rely on stability that may not last. TikTok is the clearest recent example. When the platform faced the prospect of being shut down in the United States on national security grounds, it triggered a broader conversation about platform dependence that had been building for years. Creators who had invested their entire business in one platform suddenly confronted the possibility that their audience could simply disappear. The lesson is not that platforms are bad. It is that concentration of any kind, whether it is your audience, your data pipeline, or your regulatory compliance strategy, creates fragility. What Is a Creator, Legally Speaking? One of the central contributions of Graves’ law review article is definitional. The terminology matters more than it might seem. When courts and regulators talk about creators without a shared understanding of what that word means, the resulting legal analysis tends to miss the mark. Graves draws a distinction between users who post content, creators who post with the intent to build an audience and eventually monetize it, and influencers, a subset of creators who are actively running a small business through their content. The difference is intent. A parent posting family photos on Facebook is a user. Someone building a subscription community around their professional expertise is running a business, and the legal framework that applies to them should reflect that. That distinction matters practically when it comes to liability. As more creators build their own platforms, whether through custom membership sites, open source tools like Ghost, or federated social networks, they take on obligations that previously fell to large platforms: content moderation policies, privacy notices, terms of service, and compliance with data regulations across multiple jurisdictions. A creator in Tennessee running a membership platform with subscribers in Germany is operating a global business, whether they think of themselves that way or not. Protecting Children Online: A Question Without a Clean Answer The tension between age verification and privacy is one of the more difficult problems in platform law right now. Australia, several European countries, and a growing number of US states have introduced or passed minimum age requirements for social media accounts. The technical challenge is real: verifying age online requires collecting identifying information, and collecting identifying information creates privacy risk, particularly for the young people the laws are designed to protect. Who should bear the responsibility for that verification is also unresolved. Is it the platform? The app store? The mobile operating system? Graves does not pretend there is a clean answer, but he points to the mobile layer as an underexplored option. The Apple App Store and Google Play Store already have significant leverage over which apps reach users on their devices. Whether that leverage should extend to age verification is a question that deserves more attention than it currently receives. The Right of Publicity in the Age of AI Voice cloning, digital replicas, and AI-generated synthetic media have pushed the right of publicity into territory that traditional IP law was not designed to cover. Trademark law, copyright law, and existing publicity rights each capture part of the problem but none of them covers it completely. The result, as Graves describes it, is a period of experimentation: lawyers filing trademarks on vocal sounds and phrases, states updating their publicity statutes to explicitly mention artificial intelligence, and entertainment unions negotiating over who controls a performance and any AI-generated iterations of it. Tennessee’s Elvis Act is a concrete example of the legislative response: the state updated its right of publicity law to include voice and to reference AI directly. Similar efforts are underway elsewhere. The underlying challenge is calibrating protection so that it gives creators and performers meaningful control over their likeness and voice without foreclosing the development of generative AI systems that depend on broad rights to process and learn from content. Somewhere between those two interests, a workable legal framework needs to emerge. The brand deal context may be where the issue becomes most immediately practical. When a brand partners with an influencer and the campaign involves generative AI in any form, the contract needs to address control explicitly. Who has final approval over how the influencer’s likeness or voice is used in AI-generated deliverables? What happens to those assets after the campaign ends? These are not hypothetical questions. They are contract drafting problems that any brand counsel or creator attorney should be addressing today. What Comes Next Graves is cautious about predictions, but his sense of direction is clear. The regulatory environment will continue to fragment before it converges. The right of publicity will be updated, imperfectly, in more jurisdictions. Creators will continue to move toward owning more of their infrastructure. And the lawyers who do this work best will be the ones who understand the technology well enough to translate it into practical, defensible decisions for the people they advise. Full Transcript: Ken Suzan: Thank you, Rolf. Our returning guest today is Franklin Graves. Franklin is the founder and editor of Creator Economy Law, a website and newsletter that educates creator economy professionals on the intersection of law and policy with the world of creators, brands, and platforms. Franklin also published the first law review article focused on the creator economy, Upload Complete, an introduction to creator economy law. He regularly appears across news and media outlets as a commentator and contributor with a focus on educating creators and raising awareness of all legal aspects of the creator economy. Franklin is based in Nashville, Tennessee. Ken Suzan: Franklin was invited to participate as one of the creators and creator economy professionals in the first ever White House creator economy conference. Franklin works full time as a product counsel at LinkedIn Corporation. As a member of the product and data team, he focuses on emerging issues in AI and data. Franklin previously held roles on the technology law group at HCA Healthcare, the commercial legal team at Eventbrite, and the business and legal affairs team at Naxos Music Group. Welcome back Franklin to the IP Fridays podcast. Franklin Graves: Thank you so much for having me. It is exciting to be back and reflecting over the last decade since I last joined and also the paper that I wrote that dives into this in more detail. So I really appreciate it. And yes, full disclosure, I currently work for LinkedIn, which is a subsidiary of Microsoft. I’m here in my personal capacity to talk about this, the paper I wrote before joining LinkedIn and all of that. So thank you so much for having me back. Ken Suzan: Excellent. So Franklin, since your last appearance on IP Fridays in 2017, your career has evolved significantly. You are now senior product counsel at LinkedIn focusing on AI and data. How has working inside a major tech platform changed your perspective on the legal frameworks governing digital content compared to when you were viewing it purely from the creator side? Franklin Graves: I appreciate that question because when I wrote the article, I did not work for LinkedIn. And I had been coming from a history in my career where I, right out of law school, worked for a record label like we talked about almost 10 years ago. And I was on the content creation side. I’ve represented a major distributor of classical music digitally at the time. And that was my first exposure to understanding how content was taken from the initial inception stage from creators and routed through all the various digital platforms that were at the time still evolving and even arguably still today continue to evolve. The early days of YouTube Music launching and then Apple Music launching, and then going through all the phases of high-res audio and everything that came after that. So that was an interesting perspective to start my career with. And then I went to Eventbrite, which is a ticketing platform, but was also focused on elevating event creators. They kind of took on that moniker of “Hey, we are event creators that we support.” And that was arguably my first exposure to the platform side, the tech platform side of it, because Eventbrite is a platform. And so then I evolved from there in my personal capacity, in a pro bono capacity representing individual creators across the YouTube space. And that’s what we talked about a little bit back when I first came on the podcast. Franklin Graves: Over the last decade, it’s been a chance to grow my own understanding of the creator economy. The terminology “creator economy” came around. And then now on the other side of it, having written the article and all that, and now being fully in-house at LinkedIn, I truly am experiencing a social media platform. LinkedIn is of course arguably way more than just the platform itself. There are so many different avenues to it, but it is a chance for me to understand what it is like working for a company that is operating the platform that people are distributing content on. There’s a user journey to content and all of that. So it’s definitely enhanced and given me a different perspective from a major tech platform side. And part of my role at LinkedIn is really heavily focused on understanding regulation and how that from an AI and data perspective impacts the company. And so I’ve been really leveling up my game over the last year and a half that I’ve been here, understanding mostly EU regulations, but also US regulations that are still in their infancy when it comes to AI. But really when it comes to privacy and data, those are pretty well established across the board. It’s been kind of a combination of what I learned at Eventbrite, because I went to Eventbrite when GDPR was going into effect. And so that was an eyes-wide-open moment of getting in the weeds with negotiating data processing agreements, understanding data transfers and cross-border data transfers and the like. So it’s been kind of an evolution as the laws and regulations have evolved. So has my career, so has my own understanding, so have the platforms’ responses to those laws and regulations. And I’m sure that probably resonates with a lot of your listeners who have also been growing their practice and their understanding as the laws and regulations in this realm have been evolving too. Ken Suzan: Yes, indeed. Now let’s switch gears and talk about AI. You advise on AI and data daily. As platforms integrate generative AI tools into their tech stacks, what are the most critical best practices in-house counsel should be adopting right now to embed responsible AI principles into product development? Franklin Graves: So as an attorney, one of my key roles is to understand the technology. Even representing creators and working for creator platforms, that’s something I’m constantly trying to do: put myself in the shoes of being a creator. And I think I talked about this last time I was on, but I come from a background where I was working for a major label doing marketing, video editing, social media work. And I was creating content. I understood the whole life cycle from the inception point of an idea to execution and then to the final delivery and distribution of that content to an audience within a major music label. And so part of that is the same thing that I think attorneys, especially in-house, should be doing: using the tools that the product and engineering teams are either developing in-house or partnering with third parties to develop, or a combination of the two. Using them, understanding them, using them as a creator would, using them as an end user or a client or customer would. And making sure that if you understand the product and understand the nuances of how it operates, and being a part of the iterations of that internally before it fully ramps, that really gives you a chance to understand: okay, we have a lot of responsible AI principles and standards and protocols that are in existence right now, whether it’s NIST, whether it’s based on the EU AI Act or anything and everything in between. It’s understanding how to apply those and bring those into a product and an engineering environment in a way that is practical and actionable for the people that you’re supporting, the stakeholders you’re supporting. So I think one of the critical best practices is, number one, understand the product or features that you’re supporting. Franklin Graves: And then understand how you as an attorney can use your expertise and understanding of responsible AI practices, whether it’s a regulatory standard or an industry-adopted standard or a hybrid of the two, to leverage those and implement those, break those down and make them into actionable controls and processes and flows that work within your existing infrastructure. That’s a lot of high-level talk, but that’s the general idea. One concrete example we talk about frequently is with open source AI. If you’re working with a product team or an engineering team that is taking an off-the-shelf open source model and bringing that in-house, a lot of times companies have pre-existing open source processes that cover the use of open source software or code. Piggyback on that. That’s the easiest quick win for attorneys: leveraging your existing open source processes to just build on top of that the AI flavor and layering. It’s not very much that you have to do, but the underlying process of the key stakeholders that need to be involved in the review, whether it’s security, whether it’s executive sign-off if it gets to that point, even export control considerations should already be part of your existing open source software process. So layering in on those existing processes the specifics of generative AI or large language models that you’re trying to bring in is a great way to put this into practice. Ken Suzan: Now looking at the geopolitical landscape that we currently have, we have the EU AI Act setting strict standards and shifting US executive orders. How should platforms and brands prepare for this fragmented regulatory environment when deploying AI tools to a global user base? Franklin Graves: It’s a great question. It’s something that is still evolving, I think is fair to say. I would equate it, as I do in the paper that I wrote, to how creators and arguably brands don’t own the platforms that they’re building their communities on. That spawned this concept of de-platforming or going into building your own platform, a decentralized platform of sorts, and owning your community. That gives you that control and takes away the level of instability that can come for creators trying to build a business on a platform they don’t own, they don’t control when certain updates happen, when algorithms change, when tools and functionalities either become available or go away completely. So it’s very similar to what we’ve been experiencing in a regulatory environment where we have geopolitical complexities, for lack of a better term, that can overnight seemingly disrupt the way in which a platform or even a multinational brand is able to connect and reach an audience or continue to leverage the user base that they’ve built. I think TikTok is a great example of that, where it became a national security concern and suddenly it was facing an executive order that required it to be effectively disabled in the US or completely owned and operated by a US entity. All the mechanics and technicalities of whether it’s actually possible and still have a global platform with a global user base is a whole different discussion. But that’s an example of very similar considerations that are now not just a discussion point at the creator level or the individual brand level, but also in a much broader context at a platform level as well. Ken Suzan: Franklin, let’s now shift gears and talk about your article. In your recently published journal article, Upload Complete, which we will have linked in our show notes, you advocate for a shift in terminology from internet creator law, a term used during our first podcast almost a decade ago, to creator economy law. Why is this distinction important and how does it change the way legal practitioners should view the ecosystem of creators, brands, and platforms? Franklin Graves: Oh yes, this is part of the reason why I wanted to write the article: to lay this foundation of understanding. Because at the time I’d written the article, the term creator economy and creator had really not appeared but for maybe once in an actual court decision. And it was kind of focused on influencers and this concept, and it was just not getting it right. And so it was also, as you mentioned, when we first spoke I was even using the term internet creators. And I think that was something that was common at the time. The “internet” portion as a qualifier has since dropped off. And now for purposes of the creator economy, the term creators refers to individuals, it can be small businesses, which is what we’ve seen from a regulatory standpoint, how these small businesses are being impacted by regulations. But essentially creators in the article I pin in the context of intent. What is the intent behind the person or the small business that is posting content, trying to build a community and form a community in a virtual environment? And then that can even spill over into real physical world environments. And so the intent is kind of what I look at. Franklin Graves: And I have a chart in the article that has a diagram showcasing the overlap of what I refer to as “users generating content.” It’s a play on the concept of user-generated content, UGC. Users generating content is that large bucket of anyone posting on a platform of some kind. And within that large bucket, that large circle, are smaller subsets. You have creators, you have brands. Those are really the two buckets you can put people into. Otherwise it’s like your grandmother or your parents posting content on Facebook or Instagram, and those are everyday users of a platform. The distinction to get into that subcategory of being a creator more so has been analyzing the intent behind the posting. Are you posting content to build an audience, to build a community, to eventually have a chance to monetize the following that you’re bringing in or sell services or something like that? Brands are posting for that reason. Creators are maybe posting for that same reason. But even within the creator category, there’s a subcategory of influencers that are trying to sell something, that are trying to build more than just an awareness of who they are, their influence. They are trying to do brand deals, partnership deals, upsells and all that, and start an actual small business aside from just the content itself that they’re creating. So that’s kind of the distinctions that I make in the paper. And that’s why it’s important to understand and lay that foundation, that anyone can post content online, but the intent, the why behind their posting that content, really does ultimately matter, especially when you’re looking at it from a court case or from a regulatory standpoint. Ken Suzan: Now, Franklin, we’re seeing unprecedented geopolitical activity around platform ownership. For example, the US legislation targeting TikTok and Brazil’s recent temporary ban of X. How do these macro-level battles impact the day-to-day livelihood of creators? And how can they legally and operationally protect themselves? Franklin Graves: So the shift that we’re seeing, and I alluded to this earlier in our conversation, is this concept of Web 3. And that term may or may not be really popular anymore, but that’s essentially what we’re looking at: a shift into a federated, decentralized operation of a platform. So instead of one owner, one company, one entity owning and operating the platform, it’s decentralized. Anyone can start up a server, and it’s interoperable, meaning anyone can plug and play and connect to that larger network. And it creates this unified social network experience. Within each operating node of that network, there can be your own decisions around content moderation, your own decisions around the hosting providers you use, where you’re operating out of, the terms and conditions that apply to that. But the flip side is that instead of creators posting and sharing in a closed environment run and controlled by a singular entity, you’re now experiencing a peer-to-peer type operation where your experience can change based on which server, which node, which user you’re engaging with. You might have content that’s acceptable in one area but not acceptable in another, and maybe it just doesn’t even show up in that other area. Franklin Graves: But from a liability standpoint, as creators start to build their own networks and communities, even outside of a concept like the fediverse, it’s even down to creators building their own communities through online courses, subscription membership-based platforms that they run on their own website. There’s open source software out there, even something called Ghost, where you have memberships. And that is a creator or a small business in the creator economy that is now taking on the obligations that would typically fall upon a platform. They need to take into consideration terms and conditions, privacy policies, legal aspects, and regulatory considerations for running a platform, especially in a global world. So it’s a lot of liability that then shifts over to those small businesses and even brands sometimes that are doing the same thing. Whether it is something as simple or complex as content moderation or all the way up to monetizing an audience, this new world where creators can spin up and run a platform all dovetails back to the concept of creators not feeling like they have control in reaching the audience and the community that they’re building on an individual platform. And so this really became more mainstream conversation with TikTok and the issues around it potentially being shut down in the US. That was kind of the mindset shift and eyes opening for many creators, especially within the influencer subset, of realizing: we need to make sure that we have a way to reach the audience we’ve built if the individual platform that we’ve committed to over the last year or three years or so is no longer available. We need a way to continue that relationship outside of that one platform controlling it. Ken Suzan: Franklin, we have a few minutes left and a number of topics. So I’m going to switch gears and talk about a few issues. First, a major emerging topic in your paper is the evolution of protecting kids online. With state-level age-gating laws like the CAADCA and the recent FTC updates to COPPA, how should platforms navigate the significant tension between strict age verification mandates and the privacy and First Amendment rights of their users? Franklin Graves: Man, that is a whole discussion to unravel. It is a consideration that we’re seeing happen again, going back to the geopolitical nature of everything. Countries like Australia and certain countries in Europe and now even individual states in the US are trying to look at ways, and some of them have already put into place minimum age requirements before you can even sign up for an account with a social media platform. One of the things I’d just highlight quickly here is that one of the tensions is around how you verify someone’s age online and still maintain the ability to be at least pseudonymous. How do you still have a level of privacy, autonomy, and protection when it comes to having to provide something like a driver’s license or have parental consent tied and connected to an account managed by a parent in a situation where maybe it’s not appropriate or not beneficial to the child in that manner? But then maybe there are counterbalancing factors that outweigh that. All of that comes down to the technicalities of how it’s actually implemented and maintaining the sense of openness and freedom that we’ve had on the internet to date. And then the other element there is, since a lot of the internet that we think of today is more so through mobile applications, is it something that the mobile operating system providers and app store providers should be thinking about? So whether that’s the Google Play Store or the Apple App Store, where does that initial age verification need to fall? Is it at the platform level? Is it the app store or mobile device management level or something else? Yeah, there’s a lot to discuss there. And a lot of the issues we’re seeing with how the internet is changing in terms of being able to browse a website without disclosing personal information that might not have been required before is largely stemming from a focus on protecting children online. Ken Suzan: It sounds like, Franklin, we could have another episode covering lots of issues connected with that one topic alone. Franklin Graves: I would absolutely agree with that. There’s a lot going on there. And again, it’s different across the world. And so I know you all have a global listener base. And so there’s a lot of nuances to that whole discussion too, that are worth exploring. Ken Suzan: Last question for today’s episode is regarding the right of publicity. With the explosion of AI-generated synthetic media, digital replicas, and voice cloning, the right of publicity is taking center stage. What are the biggest legal risks for brands partnering with influencers right now? And how can creators protect their most valuable asset, their likeness? Franklin Graves: That’s a great question. I think we’re seeing kind of a throwing-spaghetti-against-the-wall-to-see-what-sticks approach right now by a lot of different parties, whether it’s trademark attorneys, whether it’s general entertainment attorneys or whoever. For example, we’ve seen Taylor Swift filing trademarks to protect certain sounds of her voice and phrasing that she uses. It’s a difficult area because in the realm of generative AI with deep fakes and virtual avatars, that is where it gets tricky, because traditional IP laws are just not able to fully cover that spectrum. It’s a piecemeal approach, but even then it doesn’t fully cover it. So for example, I’m based in Tennessee and a couple of years ago we had the Elvis Act that updated our right of publicity law to add voice and to explicitly reference artificial intelligence. And so that’s the kind of effort we’re probably going to continue to see: efforts to develop some framework around protecting what is essentially a privacy right, in a manner that doesn’t restrict generative AI systems from continuing to develop and operate the way they’re operating now, while layering in those protections so that in the US at least a First Amendment right doesn’t necessarily get squashed, and those traditional well-recognized efforts to not overregulate a technology in its early stages are respected. Franklin Graves: And so I think a lot of what we’re seeing is just a need to update laws. The SAG-AFTRA debate and the strikes that happened around maintaining control of your performance and any iterations of that, or building upon that by a media company that might come later, it’s all on the table right now and still being discussed, still being worked out. I think in the short run, a lot of times if it’s in a brand deal, the key question is: if you are using generative AI to enhance in some way the final deliverable for the campaign, who has control over that? Who has final say and sign-off on how that likeness or that digital replica or that person’s voice is represented? And even outside of the brand space, we’ve seen actors like James Earl Jones signing over certain aspects like their voice and allowing it to continue to be used in these manners powered by generative AI as Darth Vader. And I think I saw something that Boy George was even starting up an AI company that allows musicians, the original recording artist, to rerecord new versions of their masters so that they don’t miss out on that revenue. It’s powered by generative AI, by taking their voice now, which is significantly different than it was back in the 80s, and using generative AI to make it sound closer to the original, but all based on their current performance. So I think it’s still an evolving area. And what’s interesting too is on the platform side, we’re seeing the early stages of platforms like Google starting to acknowledge and rely on the license grant contained in their terms of service for YouTube, which grants them broad rights to use the content to run their platform. So all that to be said, it’s still early stages. I’m very interested to see where we go from here in the future, especially from a global perspective as well. Ken Suzan: Franklin, I could spend hours talking to you about this. You’re such a knowledgeable person on these topics. Maybe in a few years, will we connect again and talk further on AI and all the things that are yet to be developed? Franklin Graves: Thank you. Yeah, it doesn’t have to be another decade. Maybe we can cut it to half a decade, given the pace at which technology is going now. Ken Suzan: Sounds good, Franklin. Thanks again for being on the IP Fridays podcast.

Zum 66. Mal ist Rolf-Bernhard Essig in "Habe die Ehre!" zu Gast. Passend zur magischen Zahl dreht sich dieses Mal alles um Zauber- und Magie-Redensarten. Da wird der Ratsch mit Tom Viewegh sozusagen "aus dem Hut gezaubert".

June 21, 2026Join hosts Tony Moore, Michael Mattes, Justin Hareld, and Araceli Aviles, as they recap episodes of Days of Our Lives from the week of June 15-19, 2026. This week on Dishin' Days, the side effects of Rolf's drug have people panicking, Gabi turns her Dimera inheritance into a financial windfall, Holly's problems compound, and Alex struggles with Joy's ultimatum.Be sure to follow us on all social media platforms:Facebook: DishinDaysShowInstagram: @dishindaysTwitter: dishindays

Click to Subscribe: https://bit.ly/Youtube-Subscribe-SoapDirt Days of our Lives predictions include Dr. Rolf's new miracle cure, Kristen's plot unravelling, and Stephanie Johnson's possible exit from her marriage.  DOOL predictions indicate that Kristen will be exposed by Johnny after revealing too much. The episode features a face-off between EJ and Kristen, with EJ accusing her of plotting to murder his son. This comes after Kristen and Sophia's failed murder attempt on Johnny, in a bid to avenge EJ. With Sophia presumed dead, Kristen's secret might be revealed when Johnny recalls the incident. Days of our Lives predictions show that Rolf thinks he has found a solution to Lexi's health crisis. The show hints at Lexi becoming Rolf's human guinea pig, testing a new version of a serum to keep her alive. However, given Lexi's deteriorating neurological condition and actress Nicky Crawford's looming exit, this hope may be short-lived. DOOL spoilers reveal that Brady and Sarah are on a mission to link two deaths to DeMa Pharmaceuticals. The duo suspects a tainted pill crisis after the mysterious death of free clinic patient Destiny. Their investigation could lead to EJ's past involvement in illegal drugs and his subsequent effort to silence Sarah. Days of our Lives spoilers show that Theo's may reconcile with Gabi. After a misunderstanding, Gabby accused Theo of disclosing her secret to Phillip. However, Theo might reconsider his stance after Phillip apologizes, possibly leading to a new spark between Theo and Gabby. More DOOL spoilers confirm that Stephanie is wrestling with guilt over her mishandling of a firearm that led to Joy's ultimatum. Stephanie might decide to step back from her marriage, allowing Alex to spend more time with his daughter, Kelsey. This could potentially pave the way for Joy to get closer to Alex. The Soap Dirt podcast made the Top 100 List for Apple Podcast's Entertainment News Category. Visit our Days of our Lives section of Soap Dirt: https://soapdirt.com/category/days-of-our-lives/ Listen to our Podcasts: https://soapdirt.podbean.com/ And Check out our always up-to-date Days of our Lives Spoilers page at: https://soapdirt.com/days-of-our-lives-spoilers/ Check Out our Social Media... Twitter: https://twitter.com/SoapDirtTV Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SoapDirt Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/soapdirt/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@soapdirt Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/soapdirt/

The official story has Lee Harvey Oswald firing three shots from a sixth-floor window, yet the witnesses on the stairs never saw him flee, the paraffin test on his cheek came back clean, and J. Edgar Hoover himself admitted the voice on the Oswald tape from Mexico City belonged to another man.EPISODE BLOG PAGE (includes sources): https://weirddarkness.com/ConspiracyInDallasREAD or DOWNLOAD the full transcript of this episode: https://weirddarkness.tiny.us/2p8hjttrFEATURED STORIES IN THIS EPISODE: Was there a conspiracy to murder President John F. Kennedy in Dealey Plaza in 1963? (Conspiracy In Dallas) *** A Weirdo family member tells of his own personal experience with what might've been a hell hound. (The Dog That Wasn't There) *** One island, one couple, one murder. We'll look at the strange life and death of Rolf Neslund. (The Rolf Neslund Murder) *** She was murdered in November of 1901. Her lover spent more than a dozen years in prison, proclaiming his innocence, before being pardoned by the governor. So why did he commit suicide soon after getting out of prison? We'll look at the strange murder of – and eventual haunting by - Nell Cropsey. (The Lingering Ghost of Nell Cropsey)CHAPTERS & TIME STAMPS (All Times Approximate)…00:00:00.000 = The Foreboding00:01:09.039 = Show Open00:02:46.404 = Conspiracy In Dallas00:20:59.391 = The Dog That Wasn't There ***00:22:36.375 = The Rolf Neslund Murder 00:31:41.043 = Lingering Ghost of Nell Cropsey ***00:40:08.752 = Show Close*** = Begins immediately after inserted ad breakLISTEN ON PODCAST APPS: Look for this podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, iHeart Radio, Amazon Music, Pandora, TuneIn Radio, and other podcast apps. Get a list of free listening apps here: https://weirddarkness.com/wdapps*No AI Voices Are Used In The Narration Of This Podcast*SOURCES and RESOURCES:
“Conspiracy In Dallas” posted at The Unredacted: http://bit.ly/weirddarkness2YVxMdq“The Dog That Wasn't There” by Weirdo family member Daniel Mulberry“The Rolf Neslund Murder” by Elizabeth Tilsa: http://bit.ly/weirddarkness2KywOAX“The Lingering Ghost of Nell Cropsey” by Troy Taylor: http://bit.ly/weirddarkness2UnJ2Rb(Over time links may become invalid, disappear, or have different content. I always make sure to give authors credit for the material I use whenever possible. If I somehow overlooked doing so for a story, or if a credit is incorrect, please let me know and I will rectify it in these show notes immediately. Some links included above may benefit me financially through qualifying purchases.)WeirdDarkness® is a registered trademark. Copyright ©2026, Weird Darkness.Originally aired: November 28, 2021Weird Darkness host Darren Marlar moves from the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas to a phantom black dog in the English county of Dorset, the murder and dismemberment of a retired sea captain on a quiet island in Washington's San Juan archipelago, and the 1901 killing of a young woman in Elizabeth City, North Carolina, whose spirit is said to still walk her family home.It opens in Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, where President John F. Kennedy was shot and the Warren Commission, headed by Judge Earl Warren, concluded in 1964 that ex-Marine Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots alone from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. Eyewitnesses undercut that account from the start: Arnold Rowland saw two men at the window minutes earlier, one holding a rifle and neither matching Oswald, while secretaries Victoria Adams and Sandra Styles and caretaker Jack Dougherty never saw Oswald flee down the only staircase he could have used. The episode dismantles Arlen Specter's single-bullet theory — the claim that Commission Exhibit 399 passed through Kennedy's neck and inflicted five separate wounds on Governor John Connally before turning up nearly pristine on a Parkland Hospital stretcher — a conclusion Connally and his wife Nellie both rejected and Abraham Zapruder's home film contradicts on timing. Oswald's negative paraffin test, his suspicious 1959 defection to the Soviet Union and fluent Russian, his leafleting against the Fair Play for Cuba Committee alongside FBI-linked investigator Guy Banister, and a Mexico City impersonation so plain that J. Edgar Hoover told President Lyndon Johnson the recorded voice and surveillance photograph did not match the man in custody all steer the evidence away from a lone gunman. The thread ends with Dallas nightclub owner Jack Ruby, whose out-of-state mob contacts spiked twenty-fivefold before he shot Oswald on live television and whose 1965 hint that the truth would never surface still shadows the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that remains the strongest piece against the accused.From there the tone turns to folklore and a listener's firsthand sighting of Black Shuck, the spectral black dog reported for centuries across Suffolk, Cambridgeshire, and East Anglia and long treated as an omen of coming disaster. Camping alone beside a medieval moat near Raoul Castle in East Dorset, he watched the dark shape of a large dog settle on the far embankment and stare back at him, then rise and dissolve into nothing as every nearby sound of wildlife cut out, leaving him zipped inside his tent until morning.Next comes the disappearance of Rolf Neslund, an 83-year-old retired sea captain who in 1978 drove a 550-foot freighter into the West Seattle Bridge before retreating into a drink-soaked marriage on Lopez Island in Washington's San Juan Islands. When Rolf vanished in August 1980, his wife Ruth insisted he had flown home to Norway, yet his prescriptions went unfilled, his American and Norwegian bank accounts went untouched, and no Christmas card reached his relatives that December. In 1982 Ruth's brother told police she had confessed that on August 8, 1980, a second brother held Rolf down while she shot him twice in the head, after which the body was dismembered in the bathtub, burned in a backyard barrel, and scattered on the manure pile. A search turned up replaced carpet over bloodstains, spatter on the ceiling, and a bloodstained .38-caliber Smith & Wesson hidden in Ruth's dresser, tying her to a killing that began as a fight over the roughly $80,000 she had quietly moved into an account bearing only her name; convicted in 1985 and sentenced to twenty years, she maintained her innocence until her death at seventy-three.The episode closes with nineteen-year-old Nell Cropsey, who walked onto the front porch of her family's Elizabeth City, North Carolina home with her suitor Jim Wilcox on the night of November 20, 1901, and was never seen alive again. Her body surfaced in the Pasquotank River on December 27, her death caused by a violent blow to the left temple, and Wilcox — the son of the local sheriff, known for a fierce temper — was convicted of second-degree murder and sentenced to thirty years before Governor Thomas Walter Bickett pardoned him in 1918. Once freed, Wilcox sought out newspaper editor W.O. Saunders to reveal something so startling that Saunders began planning a book, but Wilcox killed himself with a shotgun before he could tell it, Saunders died soon afterward in a car wreck, and whatever he knew went with them. More than a century on, the former Cropsey home still answers with lights that switch on and off, doors that open by themselves, faucets that run with no hand on the tap, and a pale young woman glimpsed crossing empty rooms and gazing from an upstairs window — recognized by more than one resident as Nell, her killing never truly solved.

This week on Fright Flick FMK, I'm watching, reacting to, and rating the cult film Bad Boy Bubby. Bubby has spent thirty years trapped in the same small room, tricked and controlled by his mother. But when he finally escapes, he enters a modern world he doesn't understand — deranged, naive, confused, and completely unprepared for the chaos waiting outside. Written and directed by Rolf de Heer, and starring Nicholas Hope, Claire Benito, and Ralph Cotterill, this is the kind of movie that promises cult cinema madness, uncomfortable laughs, dark moments, and a whole lot of “what did I just watch?” I'll be sipping my whiskey

Dr. Carl, Rolf, Tron and Best Friend Dog run out of suspects and retrace their steps. https://freeleaguepublishing.com/games/vaesen/ https://www.patreon.com/bastardquest https://bastardquest.com/ https://linktr.ee/bastardquestpodcast https://www.norsefoundry.com/

Click to Subscribe: https://bit.ly/Youtube-Subscribe-SoapDirt Days of Our Lives spoilers for June 8-12, 2026 see Gwen Rizczech (Emily O'Brien) is set to pull a shocking move to get revenge, while Sarah Horton (Linsey Godfrey) experiences a steamy fantasy that leaves her stunned. EJ DiMera (Dan Feuerriegel) receives some unsettling news from Dr. Wilhelm Rolf (Richard Wharton), raising concerns for his sister Lexi Carver's (Renee Jones) health. Meanwhile, Sarah's conflicting feelings towards her ex, Xander Cook (Paul Telfer), are brought to light in a startling dream. DOOL spoilers indicate that Rafe Hernandez (Galen Gering) and Arianna "Ari" Grace Horton (Vico Escorcia) grill Gabi Hernandez (Cherie Jimenez) over her tumultuous split with Phillip Kiriakis (John-Paul Lavoisier). Roman Brady (Josh Taylor) and Kate Roberts (Lauren Koslow) rekindle their relationship, despite the looming secret about Kate's dealings with Johnny DiMera (Carson Boatman).  Spoilers for Days of our Lives reveal Brady Black (Eric Martsolf), Marlena Evans (Deidre Hall), and Belle Black (Martha Madison) remember John Black (Drake Hogestyn) on the anniversary of his death. As the week comes to a close, Abe Carver (James Reynolds) seeks support from his loved ones regarding his complicated situation with Paulina Price (Jackee Harry) and Lexi. More DOOL spoilers suggest tensions rise as EJ demands that Dr. Rolf find a cure for Lexi. Belle and Brady's curiosity about Stefano DiMera's (Joseph Mascolo) last game takes them to EJ. The drama continues to build as Gabby tries to reconcile with Phillip, and Stephanie Johnson's (Abigail Klein) return from China brings unexpected turmoil. This episode was hosted by Belynda Gates-Turner for Soap Dirt. Visit our Days of our Lives section of Soap Dirt: https://soapdirt.com/category/days-of-our-lives/ Listen to our Podcasts: https://soapdirt.podbean.com/ And Check out our always up-to-date Days of our Lives Spoilers page at: https://soapdirt.com/days-of-our-lives-spoilers/ Check Out our Social Media... Twitter: https://twitter.com/SoapDirtTV Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SoapDirt Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/soapdirt/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@soapdirt Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/soapdirt/

Click to Subscribe: https://bit.ly/Youtube-Subscribe-SoapDirt Days of our Lives predictions indicate that EJ DiMera (Dan Feuerriegel) demands that Dr. Wilhelm Rolf (Richard Wharton) save his sister Lexie Carver's (Nicky Crawford) life, again, when a potentially fatal experiment goes awry.  DOOL predictions hint that Sarah Horton (Linsey Godfrey) is torn between her feelings for Xander Cook (Paul Telfer) and another love interest, despite Xander's unwavering support in her most difficult times.  Days of our Lives spoilers show that Chanel Dupree (Raven Bowens) refuses cancer treatment to protect her unborn baby, leaving Johnny DiMera (Carson Boatman) distraught. In another storyline, Brady Black (Eric Martsolf) and Belle Black (Martha Madison) confront EJ about a missing pawn from a chess set, hinting at an unresolved mystery.  DOOL spoilers reveal that Lexie demands answers from EJ about her deteriorating health. Whether it's the suspense surrounding Lexie's health or the emotional turmoil of Sarah and Chanel. You are listening to Belynda from Soap Dirt. The most listened to podcast for soap operas. Visit our Days of our Lives section of Soap Dirt: https://soapdirt.com/category/days-of-our-lives/ Listen to our Podcasts: https://soapdirt.podbean.com/ And Check out our always up-to-date Days of our Lives Spoilers page at: https://soapdirt.com/days-of-our-lives-spoilers/ Check Out our Social Media... Twitter: https://twitter.com/SoapDirtTV Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SoapDirt Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/soapdirt/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@soapdirt Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/soapdirt/

[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.

Unsinn und Sinn - ein weites Feld. Weil es so viele Redewendungen dazu gibt, erklärt der BR Heimat-Experte für Sprichwörtliches, Rolf-Bernhard Essig, im Gespräch mit Bettina Ahne im zweiten Wissenswertes rund um Albernheiten.

Rolf Hoenger, Head de Roche Pharma Latam by Diario La república

Click to Subscribe: https://bit.ly/Youtube-Subscribe-SoapDirt Days of our Lives spoilers give a riveting turn of events as Dr. Lexi Carver (Renée Jones) makes an unexpected return from the dead. However, there's speculation that her miraculous resurrection, courtesy of Dr. Wilhelm Rolf's (Richard Wharton) experimental cure, may not last. Despite the joyous reunion with her son Theo Carver (Tyler Joseph Andrews) and husband Abe Carver (James Reynolds), Lexi's return might not yield the happy ending viewers are hoping for. DOOL rumors stem from the fact that Crawford was contracted for a six-month stint, and her scenes were filmed from April to September 2025. Given that "Days of our Lives" films nine to ten months ahead of air dates, this suggests that Lexi's character may have limited time on the show. The uncertainty around Lexi's fate raises questions about the efficacy of Dr. Rolf's serum and the miracle drug Versix. Days of our Lives spoilers recall that previous patients like Will Horton (Chandler Massey), who was brought back after dying at the hands of the Necktie Killer Ben Weston (Robert Scott Wilson), and Jack Deveraux (Matthew Ashford) have experienced post-resurrection amnesia. Stefan DiMera (Brandon Barash) even thought he was Jake for a while after being resurrected. Megan Hathaway (Miranda Wilson), however, returned without major complications, though she was quite unhinged beforehand. More DOOL speculation about Lexi's fate ranges from her getting recast, dying, or living happily ever after with her family. There's the possibility that Lexi and Abe decide to travel the world, much like Bo Brady (Peter Reckell) and Hope Brady (Kristian Alfonso) did after Bo's resurrection. However, a potential recurrence of Lexi's brain tumor could shatter her family's newfound happiness, leading to another heartbreaking loss, especially for Abe and Theo.  The Soap Dirt podcast has made the Top 100 List for Apple Podcasts in the Entertainment News Category. Visit our Days of our Lives section of Soap Dirt: https://soapdirt.com/category/days-of-our-lives/ Listen to our Podcasts: https://soapdirt.podbean.com/ And Check out our always up-to-date Days of our Lives Spoilers page at: https://soapdirt.com/days-of-our-lives-spoilers/ Check Out our Social Media... Twitter: https://twitter.com/SoapDirtTV Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SoapDirt Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.com/soapdirt/ TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@soapdirt Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/soapdirt/

Work with me

The Rolf family, including Aunt Elizabeth, rent a large country mansion for the summer, and care for an 85-year-old lady in the attic. What could go wrong?To download, right-click here and then click SaveJoin the Journey Into Patreon to get early Outfield Excursions episodes.Episode Art courtesy of Gino Moretto.To comment on this or any episode:Send comments and/or recordings to journeyintopodcat@gmail.comPost a comment on Facebook or on X

Rolf Jacobson is back — psalm scholar, dean at Luther Seminary, co-author of the Homebrewed Christianity Guide to the Old Testament, and one of my favorite people to argue theology with over a long dinner. His new book God Meets Us in Our Suffering is unlike anything else he's written, and unlike almost anything else I've read on the subject. It's the story of three close friends — Rolf, his brother Carl, and their friend Mike Pancoast — who all had cancer, went through it together, and wrote about it side by side by side. Rolf had bone cancer at fifteen, lost both legs, and has been in a wheelchair for forty-five years. Carl was diagnosed with leukemia in 2022, declared cancer free in 2024, then died months later when meningitis attacked his brain after the bone marrow transplant compromised his immune system. Mike had lymphoma. What the three of them discovered in writing the book — and what Rolf and I spent this conversation unpacking — is that they didn't know they were writing a book about the theology of the cross. They thought they were just telling their stories. They weren't. This is one of the most honest, funny, theologically rich conversations I've had on this podcast, and it's also one of the most personal. Rolf doesn't let suffering become an abstraction. It never was one for him. You can WATCH the conversation on YouTube Join our upcoming online class – THE FUTURE OF RELIGION Tripp and Ilia Delio are teaming up for a brand-new four-week online class, The Future of Religion — for everyone who's read the books, asked the questions, and realized the faith they inherited doesn't quite fit anymore. Together they'll trace religion's evolutionary arc and map what's emerging on the other side. Includes 4 video lectures, 4 live Q&As (replays available), and a community of fellow travelers. Donation-based, pay what you're able (including $0). Live sessions start this month — register at www.thefutureofreligion.com ⁠Theology Beer Camp 2026 — The God-Podcalypse — hits Kansas City October 8–10, exactly one month before the election⁠⁠. Thirty scholars (Ilia Delio, Cornel West, Diana Butler Bass, Gary Dorrien, and a stack more), thirty God-pods, four post-apocalyptic stages, and the community everyone keeps telling us is the real reason they come back. Come find your people at ⁠⁠⁠Theology Beer Camp ⁠⁠ This podcast is a ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Homebrewed Christianity ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠production. Follow ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠the Homebrewed Christianity⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Theology Nerd Throwdown⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, & ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠The Rise of Bonhoeffer⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ podcasts for more theological goodness for your earbuds. Join over 75,000 other people by joining our ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Substack - Process This!⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Get instant access to over 50 classes at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.TheologyClass.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Follow the podcast, drop a review⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠, send ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠feedback/questions⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ or become a ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠member of the HBC Community⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Bright on Buddhism - Episode 138 - What are the 3 mysteries in Shingon Buddhism? What are their significance? How ought we understand it?Resources: Arai, Yusei (1997). Koyasan Shingon Buddhism: A Handbook for Followers, Japan: Koyasan Shingon Mission, ISBN 4-9900581-1-9.Bowring, Richard (2008). The Religious Traditions of Japan: 500–1600. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.BDK (2015), Esoteric Texts, Bukkyō Dendō Kyōkai America Incorporated.Chandra, Lokesh (2003). The Esoteric Iconography of Japanese Mandalas, International Academy of Indian Culture and Aditya Prakashan, New Delhi, ISBN 81-86471-93-6Dreitlein, Eijo (2011). Shido Kegyo Shidai, Japan.Dreitlein, Eijo (2011). Beginner's Handbook for the Shido Kegyo of Chuin-ryu, Japan.Giebel, Rolf W.; Todaro, Dale A.; transl. (2004). Shingon Texts, Berkeley, Calif.: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research. ISBN 1886439249Giebel, Rolf, transl. (2006), The Vairocanābhisaṃbodhi Sutra, Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research, Berkeley, ISBN 978-1-886439-32-0Giebel, Rolf, transl. (2006). Two Esoteric Sutras: The Adamantine Pinnacle Sutra (T 18, no 865), The Susiddhikara Sutra (T 18, no 893), Berkeley: Numata Center for Buddhist Translation and Research. ISBN 1-886439-15-XHakeda, Yoshito S., transl. (1972). Kukai: Major Works, Translated, With an Account of His Life and a Study of His Thought, New York: Columbia University Press, ISBN 0-231-03627-2.Matsunaga, Daigan; and Matsunaga, Alicia (1974). Foundation of Japanese Buddhism, Vol. I: The Aristocratic Age. Buddhist Books International, Los Angeles und Tokio. ISBN 0-914910-25-6.Kiyota, Minoru (1978). Shingon Buddhism: Theory and Practice. Los Angeles/Tokyo: Buddhist Books International.Payne, Richard K. (2004). "Ritual Syntax and Cognitive Theory", Pacific World Journal, Third Series, No 6, 105–227.Toki, Hôryû; Kawamura, Seiichi, tr, (1899). "Si-do-in-dzou; gestes de l'officiant dans les cérémonies mystiques des sectes Tendaï et Singon", Paris, E. Leroux.Miyata, Taisen (1998). A Study of the Ritual Mudras in the Shingon Tradition and Their Symbolism.Maeda, Shuwa (2019). The Ritual Books of Four Preliminary Practices: Sambo-in Lineage Kenjin School, Japan.Orzech, Charles D; Sorensen, Henrik Hjort; Payne, Richard Karl (2011). Esoteric Buddhism and the tantras in East Asia. Leiden; Boston: Brill. doi:10.1163/ej.9789004184916.i-1200. ISBN 978-90-04-20401-0. OCLC 731667667._________________________________If you like our show and would like to support us, we encourage you to give your money or resources to a worthy cause. We can get through this. Our strongest weapon is solidarity. Stay strong and help where you can. Thank you.Do you have a question about Buddhism that you'd like us to discuss? Let us know by emailing us at Bright.On.Buddhism@gmail.com.Credits:Nick Bright: Script, Cover Art, Music, Voice of Hearer, Co-HostProven Paradox: Editing, mixing and mastering, social media, Voice of Hermit, Co-Host

This week on The Business of Watches, we're in Hölstein, Switzerland, near Basel, at the peach-rose colored headquarters of Oris to talk to Rolf Studer, the brand's Chief Executive Officer. One of the 50 largest Swiss brands by sales, Oris is a true independent, making mechanical watches at fair prices, conveying the brand's unique spirit.  Its history dates back to 1904, with boom times in the 1960s that were kick-started by the tireless legal and lobbying work of Dr. Rolf Portmann, an Oris executive (and honorary chairman today), whose efforts led to overturning the Swiss Watch Statute in 1966 that had prevented Oris and many other brands from using Swiss lever escapements in their watch movements. Some 60 years later, Oris is marking that milestone with its Star Edition, an updated version of the Star, the first Oris watch to use a Swiss lever escapement after the law was changed. Portmann and Ulrich Herzog (now the Chairman) went on to lead a management buyout of Oris in 1982, which solidified the company's position as an independent brand. Studer, who has been co-CEO since 2016 and was appointed CEO last month, discusses Oris' positioning and strategy in the current market, where the strong Swiss franc is challenging it and fellow watchmakers. Oris has responded with models that not only offer value to customers but also draw on its storied history and the unique community culture it has fostered. Studer makes the case for why crafted mechanical objects like a Swiss-made watch can deliver the satisfaction and joy that come only from a considered, well-made product, and for how Oris remains committed to making watches and operating in ways that continually express its considered, deeply held values. But first, Hodinkee editor TanTan Wang pops in to talk about Oris and give a brief debrief from Watches and Wonders, noting some of the highlights from the industry's biggest and most important gathering, including offerings from Chopard and Cartier.  Show Notes  1:45 Photo Report The Sights, Watches, And Style Of Watches & Wonders 2026  2:14 Business News: Watches And Wonders Attendance Climbs Despite Geo-Politics And Economic Challenges As Brands Make Case For Value  2:30 Cartier Celebrates 10 Editions of Privé With Six New Editions  3:42 Introducing: The Vacheron Constantin Overseas Dual Time Cardinal Points  3:49 Hands-On: The Chopard L.U.C 1860 In Aeruse Blue  4:43 Introducing: Parmigiani Fleurier Tonda PF Chronograph Mystérieux 'Mineral Blue' Reinvents The Central-Counter Chronograph  7:50 Introducing: Oris Star Edition Celebrates A Turning Point In The Brand's History  11:38 Introducing: The Oris Artelier Complication, A Dress Watch Redesigned For A New Generation  16:04 In-Depth: A Visit to Hölstein, The City That Oris Built   19:31 Waldenburg, Switzerland (Wikipedia)  22:19 The Swiss Watch Statute And Dr. Ralph Portmann (Oris)  34:18 Oris and independence with the Bullseye Big Crown Pointer Date(Instagram)   37:11 Prices, Volumes, And Passion: The Business Of Watches In 2025 And What To Expect In 2026  37:40 Oris Calibre 400  39:08 Swiss franc x USD   40:15 The Swiss - Artisans of Time (Swiss Confederation)  42:42 ASUAG (Wikipedia)  43:04 Oris History including ownership changes (Federation of the Swiss Watch Industry)  55:49 The Oris Yangtze Jiangtun Limited Edition

Cécile Huijnen bespreekt nieuwe releases met een panel van deskundigen en liefhebbers van klassieke muziek. Nieuwe opnamen van middeleeuws tot minimal, en natuurlijk ook 'De Vergelijking', waarin een nieuwe uitvoering de strijd aangaat met twee ‘concurrenten'. Vandaag in het panel: muziekjournalist Frederike Berntsen en dirigent Rolf Verbeek.

Send us Fan MailOctober 26, 2021Characters:  Oliver--eventually became VP of a big oil company.  Jenny--my great-grandmother.  Rolf--invented the milk carton.  Esther--my mother's mother (got sick in Mexico and returned to the US).  Rueben-- invented an oil pipeline brush.Sympathetic magic--the belief that like makes like.  E.g., eating long green beans lengthens lifespan.  Eating red food stimulates blood production.Notes about President Diaz (1880-1910).Causes of goatiness in goat's milk:  three fatty acids (caproic, capric, caprylic acids)Support the showWrite to me at  twneuhaus@gmail.comTo learn more, visit  http://www.projecthopeandfairness.org

"He had ulcerative colitis." We're diving into the tales of Atticus Sappington. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

On December 22, 1990, sisters Linae and Tricia Tiede were held hostage by two men when their family was spending Christmas at their Utah cabin. Their mother, father, and grandmother were shot and the two men planned to burn the house down. The sisters owe their survival to their heroic father, Rolf. This classic "48 Hours" episode last aired on 3/9/2013. Watch all-new episodes of “48 Hours” on Saturdays, and stream on demand on Paramount+. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices