Open up your mind and say, ahh...

Look at this:

You see that LinkedIn will let me share with people within the system. What’s missing? Oh right: sharing with off-LinkedIn platforms.

But here’s the thing: if I share the stuff I like into Twitter or Facebook or my blog, then I’ll be adding LINKBACKS to LinkedIn, which will encourage traffic, enhance Google Juice, and better emulate that which made the web worth it.

By sharing only within LinkedIn, what’s that buying me?

Please don’t copy Facebook. Please share out into the wilder world. It’s more funnerer that way.

Mmiinn’s XTape is clear adhesive tape printed with trompe-l’œil hinges, to make it appear that your boxes are sealed with brass hardware. They ship next autumn.

XTape

(via Super Punch)

Alex Severinsky is a Soviet engineer and immigrant to the United States who once developed antitank-warfare instrumentation. In 1994, he patented a system for powering gas-electric hybrid automobiles. Toyota has been using his system since 1997 without permission or payment.

Until now.

Toyota Motor has settled a patent-infringement case that has dragged on for six years. The settlement, announced Monday, came the same day the U.S. International Trade Commission was to launch a hearing on Severinsky’s claims. Had the commission sided with the engineer, it could have barred Toyota from importing the Prius and other hybrids.

No one’s discussing the settlement, but Toyota insists it developed its Synergy Drive hybrid system independently of any work Severinsky had done. Severinsky, of course, sees things a bit differently.

This is his story.

The Beginning

“We [were] met by a high degree of cynicism from the automakers.” — Severinsky, to Auto Field Guide, on the industry reception to his technology in the pre-Prius era.

Severinsky, a professor of mechanical engineering at the University of Maryland, earned a master’s degree in electrical engineering from Kharkov College of Radioelectronics, in Kharkov, Ukraine, in 1967. Eight years later, he earned a doctorate in the same field from Moscow’s Institute for Precision Measurements in Radioelectronics and Physics. He emigrated, as a refugee, to the United States in 1978.

Alex J. Severinsky Photo: University of Maryland

Predictably, Severinsky’s interest in hybrid tech grew out of computing.

In the 1980s, Severinsky spent a great deal of time working on uninterruptible power supplies for computer systems. Patents for gasoline-electric vehicle technology had been awarded before, but the seamless management of drive torque — the subtle transition that makes a hybrid feel like a normal car and not an on-off switch — had long been limited by computing power and component costs.

After years of inquiry, and encouraged by the evolution of high-voltage power semiconductors (needed, as the Innovation Hall of Fame notes, to deliver “satisfactory energy efficiency and power for acceleration”), Severinsky founded Power Assisted Internal Combustion Engines in 1992.

On September 6, 1994, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted Severinsky a patent for his high-voltage method of powering gas-electric hybrid vehicles. He called it “Hyperdrive.” The filing followed years of work and research, and it represented an early version of the thinking that led to the drivetrain in most modern hybrid electric vehicles.

Inexpensive semiconductors, which became available in the late 1990s, allowed Severinsky to build a working vehicle prototype. In October, 1999, he demonstrated his technology in a Cadillac Coupe de Ville and pursued licensing agreements from automakers.

The Patents

Make no mistake: Toyota is a juggernaut. It has experienced some setbacks lately, but it dominates the market for consumer hybrid vehicles. It also protects its technology aggressively. According to an Australian study, Toyota has sought more than 4000 patents related to hybrid technology in the United States. That’s roughly 43 percent of all hybrid vehicle patents filed. More than 1,000 were claimed on the 2009 Prius alone.

Given the relatively narrow window provided by government regulations and public demand, many prominent manufacturers — Ford, for example — have opted to license Toyota’s technology rather than develop their own. It is simply cheaper and faster than going it alone. (Though Ford did develop the system in the 2010 Fusion Hybrid.)

It must be said that Severinsky’s patents are not for hybrid cars or hybrid systems in their entirety. Hybrid automobiles have been around almost as long as automobiles. Ferdinand Porsche built one in 1898, for example. Severinsky’s patents focus on a problem of implementation: The method by which torque from an electric motor is seamlessly blended with that of a gasoline engine. In a nutshell, his company owns the notion of back-and-forth cooperative management of an internal-combustion engine and an electric motor.

Put another way, he developed the digital integration of countless variables — engine speed, road speed, throttle position and air density, to name a few — that dictate how the electric and gasoline components interact moment to moment. The relevant patents can be found on Google:

U.S. Patent No. 5,343,970
U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347
U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634

Toyota says it developed Synergy Drive independently of any work Severinsky might have done.

The Fight

Severinsky took his claims to court, launching a six-year legal battle that ended Monday. Although the Prius contains technology that infringes upon Severinsky’s 1994 patent, Toyota maintained that its vehicles were the result of its own research and Synergy Drive was invented independently of any work Severinsky might have done.

The courtroom fight is best chronicled by the following timeline from Paice’s website. Yes, we fact-checked it. It reads like a court docket, so you’ll be forgiven for skimming it.

• June 8, 2004: Paice files suit against Toyota in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, claiming infringement of its hybrid vehicle technology patents.
• December 20, 2005: A jury says Toyota’s hybrids infringe two claims of patent 5,343,970. It awards Paice past damages of $4,269,950 based on U.S. sales of the Prius, Highlander and Lexus RX400h hybrids between June 2004 and November 2005. Toyota asks a judge to set aside the finding or grant a new trial.
• August 16, 2006: A federal judge rejects Toyota’s request and orders the company to pay Paice $25 for every Prius II, Highlander Hybrid and Lexus RX400h hybrid it builds for the life of patent 5,343,970.
• August 31, 2006: Toyota appeals the judgement. Paice asks the court to reconsider the $25 royalty, feeling it was too low.
• September 12, 2006: Paice is awarded U.S. Patent No. 7,104,347.
• May 8, 2007: Paice files a second lawsuit, alleging Toyota is willfully infringing patent 5,343,970. with regard to hybrids sold since the 2005 trial. (Specifically, the Camry, Lexus RX450h and Lexus HS 250h hybrids and the third-gen Prius.)
• July 3, 2007: Paice is awarded U.S. Patent No. 7,237,634 and amends its suit to claim Toyota is infringing on this patent.
• October 18, 2007: An appeals court rejects Toyota’s challenge to the 2005 jury verdict.
• April 17, 2009: A federal court determines a formula for computing royalties paid to Paice. It amounts to $98 per hybrid vehicle based on current vehicle prices.
• April 21, 2009: The U.S. Supreme Court denies Toyota’s petition seeking review of the liability finding on patent 5,343,970.
• May 15, 2009: Toyota appeals the ruling regarding ongoing royalties.
• September 3, 2009: Paice files a complaint with the International Trade Commission, alleging infringement of patent 5,343,970 by some Toyota models sold since the final judgment of the first suit in 2006.
• September 25, 2009: In the second lawsuit, the court stays the damages portion of the case with respect to Paice’s three hybrid patents pending the ITC investigation into infringement of patent 5,343,970.
• October 5, 2009: The trade commission votes to investigate whether Toyota infringes upon patent 5,343,970.

The Lexus RX400h was among the hybrids Toyota was ordered to pay royalties on.

The Decision

Paice announced on July 15 that it had reached an agreement with Ford — which licenses Toyota’s hybrid technology — to license Severinsky’s patent 5,343,970. The deal came four days before the trade commission was to investigate Paice’s infrigement claims against Toyota, an inquiry that could have resulted in barring Toyota from importing the Prius and other vehicles.

On Monday, Toyota agreed to settle the dispute. By doing so, it agreed to the dismissal of all pending lawsuits and appeals, effectively bringing the entire saga to a close. The terms were not disclosed, but Toyota and Paice, in separate statements, said:

The parties agree that, although certain Toyota vehicles have been found to be equivalent to a Paice patent, Toyota invented, designed and developed the Prius and Toyota’s hybrid technology independent of any inventions of Dr. Severinsky and Paice as part of Toyota’s long history of innovation.

Silverinsky, who left Paice in August, 2006, to become the CEO of a company exploring synthetic fuel, was more direct in his comments to Business Week.

“Finally people understand the merits of what I invented and give it the proper value,” he said. “Toyota is the leading technology company and finally appreciates the value of the invention.”

This story was written by Sam Smith and originally published by Jalopnik on July 21.

Photos: Toyota

On July 22nd 2010, Facebook officially announced that it had surpassed 500 million users around the world. This significant achievement represents a significant milestone for Zuckerberg and Co. as well as for social networking and more importantly for global societies overall.

To celebrate this achievement, Facebook released Facebook Stories, a new service to spotlight users stories from around the world and the impact Facebook has had on their lives.

In Mark Zuckerberg’s words, “We’re launching a new application called Facebook Stories where you can share your own story and read hundreds of others, categorized by themes and locations around the world.”

Highlights shared in Zuckerber’s blog post about the service include:

- Ben Saylor, a 17-year-old high school student, who turned to Facebook to organize a community effort to rebuild the Pioneer Playhouse, the oldest outdoor theater in Kentucky, after it was damaged by floods in May.

- Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who, during his time in office, would go jogging with 100 of his fans from Facebook.

- Holly Rose, a mother in Phoenix, who credits a friend’s status message telling women to check for breast cancer with her being diagnosed in time to treat the disease. She used Facebook for support during treatment and became a prevention advocate herself.

Facebook Around the World

Facebook is the leading social network in 111 out of 131 countries as recently analyzed by Vincenzo Cosenza.

If Facebook was a country, it would rank third, just behind the People’s Republic of China and India and roughly 190 million ahead of the United States, over 200 million greater than Indonesia, and 300 million greater than Brazil.

If we examine the breakdown of Facebook’s population, we’re presented with an interesting picture of worldwide adoption (source).

Top 15 Countries by Number of Users

1. United States – 125,881,220
2. United Kingdom – 26,543,600
3. Indonesia – 25,912,960
4. Turkey – 22,552,540
5. France – 18,942,220
6. Italy – 16,647,260
7. Canada – 15,497,900
8. Philippines – 15,284,460
9. Mexico – 12,978,440
10. Spain – 10,612,820
11. India – 10,547,240
12. Argentina – 10,452,040
13. Columbia – 10,226,920
14. Germany – 9,948,700
15. Australia – 9,151,280

To offer a bit of balance, at the end of the population list, Anguilla Facebook ambassadors rank at number 187 with 6,420 users.

When we examine worldwide Facebook activity however, we’re presented with a different picture. According to O’Reilly Research, Asia and Africa represent high growth regions.

O’Reilly also reports the age demographics of users in each country. The share of users age 18-25 is higher outside the U.S., but notice the representation of users of 35 and older.

The Human Network

Facebook’s mission is to help make the world more open and connected and indeed it is changing how people interact online. The “Facebook” stories shared through this new service highlight very human ways that social networking is changing people’s lives and I believe that is the bigger story here. Over time, I have borrowed Cisco’s tagline, “The Human Network” to demonstrate how digital social networks were contributing to a new era of society that transcends online and offline relationships and how we foster and interact with each.

The discussion as to whether or not Facebook is the largest social network in the world is no longer relevant. Facebook, along with other prominent and emerging networks such as Twitter, FourSquare, and hundreds of other networks, have forever changed the way individuals connect and share with one another, adapting cultures and customs, dissolving borders, and uniting disparate cultures. The world is indeed becoming a much smaller place.

From Dunbar’s Number to Social Graph Theory

Many experts continue to cite British anthropologist Robin Dunbar’s famous number of 150 (estimated). Dunbar’s number represents the maximum number of social relationships we as individuals can manage to a stable extent. If we look at Facebook data, the average person maintains a social graph of 130. However, I believe that we will eventually see a shift from relationships to relations as a result of social networking.

The average number will grow from 130 to at double over the next 1-2 years as individuals expand their social graph from those we know in first-degree relationships and those we care to know, second and third-degree relationships.

While we’ll still place greater emphasis on important offline and online relationships through active interaction, we will also consume, react to, and share thoughts, insights, and content with those individuals that move us intellectually and emotionally.

As a result, Facebook will eventually need to revisit its current friend limit of 5,000. For those individuals who hit that ceiling, their only option is to move from a profile to s a “brand” page. Doing so however, shifts the dynamics of the relationship and resulting interaction from a peer-to-peer or horizontal axis to a top-down or vertical grade of communication.

We will focus shifting attention on the sub-networks within our social graphs that separated by themes and context. These social “nicheworks” will result in higher engagement and participation as the core of these discussions, individuals are rewarded for their participation with intelligence, a platform to share their perspective as well as new requests for connection. Except to see Facebook create grouping functionality to draw lines between interaction within these nicheworks to ensure that we do not cross the streams within our main social graph.

By Brian Solis: www.briansolis.com

When the last UK Parliament rushed the Digital Economy Act into law without debate, hours before it dissolved for the election, it appointed Ofcom, the telcoms regulator, to work out the details. Specifically, it charged Ofcom with sorting out some high standards for what evidence a rightsholder would have to produce in order to finger an online infringer (the DEA gives these rightsholders the power to eventually disconnect entire families from the internet on the strength of these accusations).

Now Ofcom has abrogated its duty to the public and announced that the record and film industry can “self-regulate” their evidence-gathering procedures; in other words, anything that the MPA or BPI say counts as proof that you’ve violated copyright goes. Since these are the same companies that have mistakenly accused dead people, inanimate objects (laser printers), and people who don’t own computers of file-sharing, this doesn’t bode well.

What’s more, it’s not legal. The Open Rights Group and Consumer Focus have pointed out that the Digital Economy Act instructs Ofcom to come up with standards, not throw its hands up in the air and give the entertainment industry bullies the power to act as judge, jury and executioner.

Ofcom’s proposal denies us the ability to check whether the methods of collecting of the evidence are trustworthy. Instead, copyright holders and Internet Service Providers will just self-certify that everything’s ok. If they get it wrong, there’s no penalty.

The Act requires the evidential standards to be defined – but Ofcom are leaving this up the rights holders and ISPs to decide in the future. We ask, how is anyone meant to trust this code if we can’t see how the evidence is gathered or checked?

After all, only last week, we heard about people have been apparently wrongly sent accusations of downloading tracks by the Ministry of Sound. We know things go wrong, and that’s why the Act requires the evidential standards to be set out. What we need now is a new consultation on a new code, that is compliant with the Act.