Showing posts with label 101. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 101. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 1, 2017
Elearning Guild Webinar 101 Social Media in e Learning Ur Doin It Right
Elearning Guild Webinar 101 Social Media in e Learning Ur Doin It Right
Third webinar for the day. I m now attending the Elearning Guild webinar on Social Media in e-Learning: Ur Doin It Right
The speakers are:
Mark Oehlert, Defense Acquisition University
Koreen Olbrish,Tandem Learning
Heres the guilds intro to the session:
"Organizations looking for ways to capitalize on the potential of social media, and wanting to leverage it for learning, often dont know where to start, or how other companies have successfully incorporated social media for learning.
Participants in this session will learn how companies large and small have integrated social media into their e-Learning initiatives, and how that has changed the way people work and learn. Participants will get great case-study examples of successful social media integrations for learning. They will also gain exposure to the lessons learned from these integrations, and specific instructions on how to get started in their own organizations."
Mark is a well known social media and gaming expert in industry circles and Koreens blog about virtual worlds, games, simulations and everything about learning experiences is one that I follow regularly. I trust what these people say -- so this session should be worthwhile. Lets see what comes out.
Mark starts off with some stage setting/ intros - well I know you guys! You dont know me, but oh well! And damn, I get logged off! So what social media tools do people use?
- 54% Twitter
- 77% Facebook
- 3% Myspace
- 22% Delicious
- 14% Google Wave
- 14% Flickr
- 50% Youtube
- 3% Ning
So what are the big ideas?
- What we would do if we had a blank slate? - We seem to be really wrapped up in legacy issues of restrictions etc. We need to think about the problems were trying to solve, figure the right solution and then work backwards from there.
- Correctly estimating the impact of technology - our fascination for technology alone needs to be more pragmatic. So dropping the hype and opening our eyes to the transformative effect of technologies is a good step.
- We vs Me - Whats the dollar value of not letting social media in the organisation?
- Culture & Change Management: Its not about the technology its about culture, its about managing the change. You need to balance the fear, control and trust factors in the entire game.
- Transmission loss: How will we improve the efficiency of the organisation and also your own learning organisation?
- Think big. Start small. Move fast. -- Hmm not sure I agree with start small. Ask Andrew Mcafee.
Case Study #1: The Wind Turbine Company
The company wanted to create a performance support network for a dispersed population of turbine techies. So they used Yammer to create a secure network to share information in real-time. Now they save 3-5 million savings in terms of turbines staying up. So they reduced the Transmission Loss. Ah! Thats a good case study!Case Study #2: #Lrnchat
About 26% of the respondents in the survey havent participated in #lrnchat. Having been someone who kept track of all the #lrnchat tweets because I cant participate that early in the morning, I know #lrnchat can be really useful. I know its a really, really useful and a persistent communications channel. So at a really low cost, you now have a very powerful community that continuously collaborates usefully.Case Study #3 Tandem Learning
Tandem - Koreens company is a small organisation that needed to share and collaborate on multiple client projects with nationally dispersed employees. So they use multiple social media tools, Base Camp, Yammer, etc to allow visibility and access to relevant data and allow real-time client-focussed updates.Now their projects are trackable anywhere, anytime! Theyre able to share client requirements in real-time as well. Koreen, you should try Mingle! Ill be happy to give you a tour and youll never go back to Basecamp. Koreen also mentions Rypple as a way to get feedback from your peers. Im going to look this up - thanks Koreen! Someone mentioned this amazing visualisation tool for Twitter. Heres Marks map from the tool.
Case Study #4 Defense Acquisition University
Marks organisation - more than 10,000 people! So this thing does scale, as you can see. So the DAU is a large corporate university within Department of Defense. They needed to know new channels to reach their customer base and internal faculty. They have wikis, blogs, Yammer and several other platforms internally.As a consequence, internal micro blogging capability is being used by almost half of the staff/ faculty with no outreach at all. Content owners are bloggin and the community contributes to the knowledge base. The cool thing with tools like Yammer is that since people can use it for free you can go ahead and make the business case when it gains momentum. Thats where tools like Social Text and Cyn.in win because they have a free, low entry barrier start. I now understand the point about starting small - Mark isnt talking about creating walled gardens. Hes talking about starting with no ego and no huge fanfare.
Case Study #5 Boston College
Boston College is a traditional resident college was being pushed by student expectations to incorporate more 2.0 tools into the classroom experience to make things more engaging. Theyve deployed an enterprise class social media suite (SocialText!) and as an outcome they now have relevant news feeds, have the ability to extend classroom experiences beyond the class and engage with additional writing and learning experiences. The cool thing with social media is that the experience of education never has to stop. People can maintain connection with their universities, their classmates, future students, faculty even after their university experience is long over. The possibilities from here are immense. People can learn from each other by critiquing, helping each other.I love these case studies -- we havent quantified the value of this stuff too much, but this is great starting evidence for CLOs to sit up and take notice. Good stuff guys!
So the starting line is - Think big, start small, move fast. Mark I now understand. We need to get over the human issues - the IT issues are easier to solve. I agree - good webinar.
Available link for download
Friday, January 27, 2017
Endo v Actavis Court Adopts Magistrates Recommendation Finding Drug Method of Use Claims Facially Invalid Under 35 USC 101
Endo v Actavis Court Adopts Magistrates Recommendation Finding Drug Method of Use Claims Facially Invalid Under 35 USC 101
In a September 28, 2015 post I reported on Endo v. Actavis, wherein a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation from a magistrate judge in the District of Delaware recommending invalidation of a drug method of treatment patent for patent ineligibility on a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). The magistrate judge essentially found the claim to be highly analogous to method of treatment claims found to be patent ineligible by the Supreme Court in Mayo v. Prometheus, and in my post I explained why the decision was consistent with my long-standing concern that an expansive interpretation of the literal language of Mayothreatened the validity of drug method of use claims in general.
In a November 17, 2015, Order Adopting Report and Recommendation, the district court judge hearing the case adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation in its entirety and dismissed Endo’s Counts relating to infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,808,737 (the "737 patent"), finding the patent to be “facially invalid.”
The district court judge rejected several arguments made by Endo in support of patent eligibility of the claims.
Of particular significance to the patentability of method of use claims in general, Endo argued “that the Magistrate Judges reliance on the similarities between the 737 patents representative claim and the claim involved in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012), was in error because the claim at issue in Mayo did not require that anyone act upon or apply the method in a tangible way, while claim 1 of the 737 patent actually requires that the lower dose be administered.” As I mentioned in my previous post, many of us have held out hope that even post-Mayo a method of treatment claim that explicitly recites administration of the drug to a patient would remain patent eligible. The district court judge, however, agreed with the magistrate judge’s conclusion that “limitations at issue in Mayo do in fact mirror the analogous limitations of Claim 1 of the 737patent.”
The court considered the following side-by-side comparison of the language of the Mayo and Endo claims: "indicates a need to [increase/decrease] the amount of said drug subsequently administered to said subject"(Mayo) vs. "orally administering to said patient, in dependence on which creatinine clearance rate is found, a lower dosage of the dosage form to provide pain relief"(Endo), and concluded that the “slight difference in phrasing is immaterial, because neither formulation provides any sort of inventive concept."
The court further found Endo’s argument that the 737 patent does not claim a law of a nature, but rather"a new and useful process," to be “thoroughly unconvincing.” The district court found that Endo had essentially admitted in their briefing that the 737 patent claims a natural law as its invention based on the following statement by Endo: “[I]t is true that the claimed inventions relate to the unexpected discovery that the bioavailability of oxymorphone is increased in patients with renal impairment.”
This is troubling, because while the patent statute explicitly states that a “discovery” can be patented, this court apparently construes a patent owner’s use of the term “discovery” as an admission that the “discovery” is a natural phenomenon. If anything that can be discovered is a natural phenomenon, the availability of patent protection for innovation in the life sciences would appear to be extremely limited post-Mayo.
Endo made the policy argument “that the reasoning employed by the Magistrate Judges Report and Recommendation would in effect invalidate all pharmaceutical method-of treatment patents using an existing, well-known compound.” The district court responded that “this case is hardly the poster child for [such] a policy argument,” and speculated that patent protection would still be available for method of use claims are directed towards an invention embodying “creative steps or inventive leaps aside from the discovery of a natural law.”
But if the discovery that a chemical compound has therapeutic effect on a patient is to be considered a “natural law,” which appears to be the case under the rationale of this decision, how successful will a pharmaceutical company be in arguing that use of that chemical compound for its therapeutic effect constitutes a sufficient “inventive leap” to satisfy the new post-Mayo patent eligibility standard?
Available link for download
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)