Headlines from the Innovation Management Industry

  • Berlin’s Soft Power: leading by innovating (2/2)
    More and more people want to build a company in Berlin, and if it fails, well, it's OK. Let's discover two Berliner hot-spots which support innovation: Axel Springer Plug & Play and Ideas, and Berlin Partner Continue reading →
  • Innovate With Purpose – Idea Prioritization
    Ideation and idea management pack the front end of the New Product Development (NPD) funnel with a wealth of viable concepts. One of the toughest processes in innovation is idea prioritization. Idea prioritization is about how you invest your companyīs product development resources. Continue reading →
  • Innovate With Purpose – Idea Prioritization
    Ideation and idea management pack the front end of the New Product Development (NPD) funnel with a wealth of viable concepts. One of the toughest processes in innovation is idea prioritization. Idea prioritization is about how you invest your companyīs product development resources. Continue reading →
  • Would you like to see the new menu?
    We're proud to announce the introduction of a new set of menus on Innovation Excellence, designed to better highlight all of the different types of content that we publish (articles, videos, presentations, emails, and more), the innovation research offerings that we provide, and all of the informati...
  • Berlin’s Soft Power: leading by innovating (1/2)
    Everyone who visits Berlin can feel the cultural atmosphere and the creative spirit, which feed the German capital with an unrivaled soft power of innovation. Hub:raum, DT accelerator is definitely one of the places to visit for who's found of innovation. Continue reading →
  • Indiana Innovation – Attention from Salesforce and Beyond
    Last year's acquisition of Indianapolis' ExactTarget by Salesforce for $2.5 billion helped Indiana get national attention, credibility and capital as becoming a center for innovation. Continue reading →
  • Are we making progress in Open Innovation?
    I had an interesting session with a group of corporate innovators last week. The topic was open innovation and as we went through the key takeaways and reflections one of the participants stopped up and asked out loud: "The internal issues are the most important. Just as they were two years ago. Not...
  • Coming Soon – Top 50 Innovation Tweeters of 2014
    We're looking forward to kicking off one of our favorite summer activities here soon - pulling together a list of the top innovation personalities and information sharers on twitter. Next week we will be reaching out to see who you follow and for recommendations of people that we should investigate ...
  • Is Innovation Really Everyone’s Job?
    The danger of saying "weīre all innovators" is that it dilutes the role of the teams whose primary responsibility is innovation. Unless responsibility and accountability for innovation are clear, confusion and inefficiency will potentially inhibit the output; innovation is then in danger of becoming a diminished buzzword. Continue reading →
  • Innovation TV Part 2
    In a previous post I wrote about my company's use of EMC TV for the final stages of the innovation process. During that post I mentioned I would also share how internal ideators use the same medium to advance their own innovation initiatives. As promised, here are a full set of elevator pitch videos...
  • The Future of Wearable Tech
    PSFK brings you the Future of Wearable Tech report in collaboration with iQ by intel identifies 10 trends and three major themes that point to the evolving form and function of wearable devices and their influence on the way we live, work and socialize. In our Connected Intimacy theme, we explore ho...
  • Rise of Tech Innovation
    We came across this infographic that high highlights the rise of tech innovation, including one person's perspective on what the top five innovative & disruptive technologies area and who four of the most innovative companies are... Continue reading →
  • Be Fruitful and Multiply: The Multiplication Technique
    A common problem in photography is the occurrence of red-eye, like you see here. Redeye happens when the flash of a camera goes into the eyeball. But todayīs cameras have a clever and simple way to defeat redeye. They have a dual flash. Voila! No redeye. This innovation is a classic example of the multiplication technique. Continue reading →
  • Amazon Fire Phone: Full of Gimmicks, Lacking Basics
    posted on 7/23/2014 08:06 PM

    The phone offers innovations compared with Apple's iPhone and Samsung's Galaxy, but it also has battery and app issues.
  • Texas governor's startup fund is not all it seems
    posted on 7/24/2014 02:44 AM

    AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- Texas Gov. Rick Perry has distributed $205 million in taxpayer money to scores of technology startups using a pet program designed to bring high-paying jobs and innovation to the nation's second most-populous state....
  • Musician Whose Works Are At Center Of Copyright Lawsuit Against YouTube Star Slams Lawsuit And Copyright
    posted on 7/23/2014 01:01 PM

    A couple days ago, someone sent me the lawsuit that Ultra Records and Ultra International Music Publishing had filed against Michelle Phan, an incredibly successful "YouTube star" who has over six million subscribers to her YouTube channel where she shares makeup tips. Ultra, a label for artists like DeadMau5 and Kaskade, sued, claiming that Phan used at least 50 of the songs it holds a copyright on without a license. The reason it's both the record label and the publishing arm that's suing is that they're going after her for both reproduction and sync rights (you need a sync license if you use music with a video). Of course, it's also important to note that, these days, Ultra is effectively Sony Music under a "strategic alliance" in which Sony basically runs all of Ultra. Phan's spokesperson is apparently claiming that she had a license. Ultra insists she did not. Perhaps as interesting, rather than just claiming statutory damages of $150,000 (the maximum for willful), it leaves open the possibility of going after her for "actual damages." This almost never happens in a copyright lawsuit, in part because actual damages are nearly impossible to prove (often because there are none). However, Phan is apparently making a ton of money these days, so the company seems to be leaving open the possibility that it can score some of the "profits" from the video. Though, I imagine they'll have a hell of a time proving that the profits are due to the music, rather than the other parts of the video. Still, what makes this most interesting is that one of the musicians whose music is at the center of the case, Kaskade, has spoken out strongly in support of Phan, arguing that "copyright law is a dinosaur," that he supports Phan rather than his label and... that she has great taste in music. He also has highlighted that having folks like Phan promote his music helps people love that music (and buy it too): A bunch of sites have covered those tweets, but few looked at the fascinating Tumblr post that Kaskade did a month ago, in which he trashed today's copyright laws after a bunch of his music was taken down off of SoundCloud. He talks about doing a deal with the devil in signing with Ultra/Sony: When I signed with Ultra, I kissed goodbye forever the rights to own my music. They own it. And now Sony owns them. So now Sony owns my music. I knew that going in. Soundcloud is beholden to labels to keep copyright protected music (read: all music put out by a label, any label) off their site unless authorized by the label. Am I authorized to post my music? Yep. Does their soulless robot program know that? Not so much. So some stuff they pulled was mistakenly deleted, but some tracks were absolutely rule breakers. The mash ups. (Read about those little beauties in "Politicking of a Mash Up".) I post mash ups mainly because I donīt need to keep these things tucked under my pillow, pulling out my little Precious only to be played at gigs. You want to hear it? Grab it. Like it? Great. The end. But the labels, they arenīt feeling this approach so much. But then he digs in deep on how broken copyright law is, how scared old men running record labels are doing stupid things, and how it's all harming musicians: Thereīs always been this cagey group of old men who are scared to death of people taking their money. Back in the day, they were upset that the technology existed to record onto cassette tapes directly from the radio. "What! (Harumph!) Why will people buy music if they can just pull it out of the air?!" Yet, people still bought music. Because it was more accessible. Because more people were exposed. Because Mikey played it for Joey on the corner and then Joey had to have it. Itīs music, and we buy what we love. We canīt love music we havenīt heard. Innovation helps the music industry. The industry only needs to make the effort to keep up and adapt. Make no mistake: exposing as many people as possible to music - all music - is a good thing. Everyone wins. The artist, the audience, even the old guys who just want some more cash. The laws that are governing online music share sites were written at a time when our online and real-life landscapes were totally different. Our marching orders are coming from a place thatīs completely out of touch and irrelevant. They have these legal legs to stand on that empower them to make life kind of a pain-in-the-ass for people like me. And for many of you. Countless artists have launched their careers though mash ups, bootlegs, remixes and music sharing. These laws and page take-downs are cutting us down at the knees. And yo, musicians definitely need knees. And, from there, he notes that music sharing has been great for musicians by getting them more attention. And he argues that the labels should get with the program: We have moved beyond the exhausting notion that our greedy hands need to hold onto these tunes so tightly. The world just doesnīt work like that anymore. Iīd happily parse out the pieces of every song Iīve made for others to use. Remix that. Use that. Think you could do it better? Show me. Itīs laughable to assert that someone is losing money owed to them because Iīm promoting music that Iīve written and recorded. Having the means to expose music to the masses is a deft tool to breathe new life into and promote a song. Itīs the most compelling advertising, really. But itīs more than advertising. Itīs sharing. If a person likes one song, then you know whatīs likely to happen? Theyīll press the download arrow and own it for free. You wonīt believe what happens next! They become familiar with the artist, and seek out other material. Maybe they buy that. Maybe they talk about it online. Maybe they go to a show. Maybe they simply become a fan and tell a friend. Iīm cool with that. The labels should be too. Itīs exactly what theyīre trying to accomplish by funneling endless money for Facebook Likes, Twitter trending hashtags, and totally ridiculous impotent advertising campaigns. Let the people have the music. Or, to put it in language that makes more sense for the ones who can only speak dollar bill - Free the music, and your cash will follow. It's a great read. And yet, now his works are at the center of a massive lawsuit that could end up costing someone millions of dollars even as he speaks out against the lawsuit. And, of course, Ultra could have just made use of YouTube's ContentID tools to either monetize or silence or take down Phan's videos. But, instead, the company chose to sue. It's not hard to see why. With so many of these lawsuits it's the same thing: jealousy. They see Phan being successful -- and they stupidly believe that it's just because of the music. And so they want their cut. And the way to do that is to sue. Because these days, that's pretty much all the legacy music industry knows how to do. To file lawsuits that just anger pretty much everyone else -- including the very musicians they claim to "represent."Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
  • Federal Prosecutor Claims That Copyright Infringement 'Discourages Smart People From Doing Innovative Things'
    posted on 7/23/2014 08:22 AM

    Just about two years ago, we wrote about the DOJ seizing three websites that were allegedly set up to let people download cracked versions of fee-based Android apps. As in the past, we were somewhat troubled by the government's willingness to seize websites without any form of adversarial hearing. As far as we can tell, such actions clearly violate the First Amendment as per the ruling in Fort Wayne Books v. Indiana. Either way, two years later, the government has finally gotten around to indicting some of the folks behind the three sites: Appbucket, Applanet and SnappzMarket. It's entirely possible that those indicted did break the law, though the fact that in all three cases the feds first got some of the other participants to take a plea deal in which they supply evidence against the others and that most of them were only charged with one or two counts on things like "conspiracy to commit criminal copyright infringement" suggests a fairly weak case. This is a DOJ that we're used to seeing pile on dozens of charges. But, what caught my attention is the ridiculous rhetoric from the DOJ in announcing these indictments. The most bizarre and stupid line has to go to US Attorney Sally Quillian Yates of the Northern District of Georgia: "Copyright infringement discourages smart people from doing innovative things," said U.S. Attorney Yates. "This problem is especially acute when it comes to rapidly developing technologies, like apps for smart phones, and these defendants are now being held accountable for the intellectual property they stole." Note that this isn't just a random quote in an interview. This is the quote that Yates put in the press announcement, meaning that multiple people vetted this and thought it was appropriate. First off, I'm curious: which "smart people" have been "discouraged" from "doing innovative things" because of copyright infringement? Does Yates honestly believe that some brilliant app developer out there had an idea for an app and said... "nah, if I make that, people will just infringe, so screw it." There may be a reasonable argument that some developers may not make as much money as they otherwise might have -- and that leads to fewer resources to focus on development. But the idea that it scares people off from actually doing work is... simply not true. And even if the statement were true, is that really the yardstick we want to measure things by? Because I can also show plenty of cases where copyright infringement has actually encouraged smart people to do innovative things. The creation of important peer to peer technology was built on the back of the desire of some to infringe. The amount of creative and innovative work based on infringement is pretty damn high. If we're going to get into a pissing contest over whether infringement inspires or discourages innovation, US Attorney Yates is going to lose badly. Very badly. Also, what "intellectual property" did they "steal?" This is a US attorney, and as far as I can tell, none of the indictments involve anything relating to any statutes on theft. Furthermore, nothing seems to involve them taking the copyrights away from original owners. At most, it appears that these individuals set up sites for the sharing of infringing copies of apps. If you're talking about "theft" of "intellectual property" you kinda have to be talking about someone taking someone else's copyright (or patent or trademark), otherwise you're saying things that are simply inaccurate. Next up, we have "Special Agent in Charge J. Britt Johnson of the FBIīs Atlanta Field Office." "Todayīs federal indictments are the direct result of an extensive and thorough federal investigation into three groups of individuals aggressively engaged in and profiting from the theft of intellectual property," said Special Agent in Charge Johnson. "While copyright infringement is the direct theft of the hard work of others in the form of research and development expended, it can also negatively impact incentives for further or future development of those ideas or applications. The FBI will continue to provide significant investigative resources toward such groups engaged in such wholesale pirating or copyright violations as seen here." Copyright infringement is "the direct theft of the hard work of others." How do you "steal" the hard work of others? And where in the indictment is anything having to do with actual theft, rather than copyright infringement? It's troubling that the DOJ seems to have taken the copyright industry's bogus language of "theft" and "stealing" and falsely applied it to issues related to infringement. Even if these individuals broke the law, you'd hope that the DOJ would at least accurately portray the indictment and charges against the individuals, rather than making plainly ridiculous claims. The problem, though, is that this is what happens after a generation of entertainment industry execs spew misleading garbage about how infringement is "theft." A bunch of DOJ folks who don't understand intellectual property just act as if this is the same thing, even though it isn't even close.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
  • Supreme Court Ruling Over Mobile Phone Searches May Really Be The First 'Internet Of Things' Ruling
    posted on 7/22/2014 07:05 PM

    Advocates of digital privacy scored a major victory when the Supreme Court recently ruled that police need a warrant to search cellphones. In Riley v. California and United States v. Wurie, two cases that pivot on the legality of searching personal computing devices, what is becoming a tech-centric ...
Schedule A Demo415-814-1387Email Us