The responses show that after Facebook, there really is no consensus answer. NetSuite, Linden Research, LinkedIn, AdMob, Digg, NanoSolar and Tesla received multiple nominations. Bebo, AdBrite and Aggregate Knowledge, companies I think are building fast growing, profitable businesses, each received a mention. One I didn't see in the response section yet that I think holds tremendous potential is TechMeme.
By targeting "developing technologies, platforms or business models with a strong strategic fit with NBC Universal" — then paying up to $15 million for each opportunity that passes muster — the General Electric Co. units are playing catch-up with other conglomerate-size strategics. Among existing entries are Time Warner Investments, which began life as the venture capital arm of America Online Inc.; Steamboat Ventures, which the Walt Disney Co. founded in 2000 but kept from investing until 2002; and Comcast Interactive Media, which the largest U.S. cable company set up in 2005 to, in its words, "develop compelling online interactive services."
None of those companies have made much of an impact with their venture funds, so there's plenty of room for the GE/NBCU vehicle to differentiate itself. Beth Comstock (pictured above), President of integrated media at NBCU, said the goal of the fund is to gain access to and influence cutting edge media technology.
The main question for all these media funds is what happens when times get tougher? Where do these venture funds rank on the list of corporate initiatives most likely to be eliminated as part of overall cost cuts? Instead of launching a fund during good times, it might make more sense to launch one during tough times when valuations and competition are lowest.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has issued 150 yoga-related copyrights, 134 patents on yoga accessories, and 2,315 yoga trademarks. There's big money in those pretzel twists and contortions - $3 billion a year in America alone. It's a mystery to most Indians that anybody can make that much money from the teaching of a knowledge that is not supposed to be bought or sold like sausages.The Indian government is not laughing. It has set up a task force that is cataloging traditional knowledge, including ayurvedic remedies and hundreds of yoga poses, to protect them from being pirated and copyrighted by foreign hucksters. The data will be translated from ancient Sanskrit and Tamil texts, stored digitally, and available in five international languages, so that patent offices in other countries can see that yoga didn't originate in a San Francisco commune.
It is worth noting that the people in the forefront of the patenting of traditional Indian wisdom are Indians, mostly overseas. We know a business opportunity when we see one and have exported generations of gurus skilled in peddling enlightenment for a buck. But as Indians, they ought to know that the very idea of patenting knowledge is a gross violation of the tradition of yoga.
Clearly, the Supreme Court read my patent rant. Okay, maybe not, but I'd like to claim that they did. As many of you know, I have a real issue with the entire patent litigation system. As many of you also know, Brad and I are huge proponents of invalidating software patents, in general. We feel that they stiffle innovation and are used mostly by unsavory folks trolling for dollars.
Today, the Supreme Court issued two important rulings. The first opinion deals with the concept of what is "obvious" under patent law. In a rare, rare situation, the court was unanimous. I haven't read the opinion (yet), but the news is reporting that they slapped down a federal appeals court that went too far in providing patent protection. Clearly the court is sending a message to the PTO office that it believes there are too many patents being granted.
In the second case, the Supremes endorsed US law that says US patents are not infringed upon if the products at issue are made and sold in other countries. In other words, foreign law pertains to goods sold in foreign countries.
It will be some time until we know how / if this actually affects our patent system as it stands today. For now, it's a step in the right direction.
We've mentioned stereolithography, or 3D printing, on these pages several times in the last few years and now the mainstream media seems to have got the bug too: the NYT has an article that reviews the current state of 3D printing and the prospects that maybe one day we'll be printing objects from our home. They say:
3D Systems, a pioneer in the field, plans to introduce a three-dimensional printer later this year that will sell for $9,900. “We think we can deliver systems for under $2,000 in three to five years,” said Abe Reichental, the company’s chief executive. “That will open a market of people who are not just engineers — collectors, hobbyists, interior decorators.”
Even at today’s prices, uses for 3-D printers are multiplying. Colleges and high schools are buying them for design classes. Dental labs are using them to shape crowns and bridges. Doctors print models from CT scans to help plan complex surgery. Architects are printing three-dimensional models of their designs. And the Army Corps of Engineers used the technology to build a topographical map of New Orleans to help plan reconstruction...
“You could go to Mattel.com, download Barbie, scan your Mom’s head, slap the head on Barbie and print it out,” suggests Joe Shenberger, the director of sales for Desktop Factory. “You could have a true custom one-off toy.”
Beam It Down From the Web, Scotty - New York Times PSFK Articles On 3D Printing
Posts
