Latenekultur

Was ist die Latenekultur und in welchem Zeitraum existierte sie?

Wo 2010/021528 PCT/US09/55582 are trying to achieve, we will achieve. So I think the people role in motivating and focusing and having a common culture I would say that alone makes up a huge number.[0490] 13. Professor Stephen Scott: Mr. Naidoo, in relation to VSNL and the two acquisitions, can you summarise the reasons for the acquisitions into two, three or four sentences? [0491] Mr. V. S. Naidoo: Yeah. We started off largely as an Indian centric company, meaning that our revenue of 98% responding to the Indian sub-continent, okay. The reason we shifted and the reason that, well, we made a huge commitment to the expansion into the submarine cable business to be very candid with you is, at the time we were a very small player on the global market. Right? And MTNL was I mean Tata Communications rather was in a market of less than 1% and this is a global market. So issues around branding, issues around market recognition, leveraging opportunities, I mean just partnering opportunities didn't exist. So we embarked on this strategy to basically pick up as much asset as we could across as many countries as we could.[04921 14. Professor Stephen Scott: You mentioned about situation when there was significant change in the cost of satellite capacity and the impact that had on the business. Did reliance in conclusion have any power or ability to influence that? [0493] Mr. V. S. Naidoo: Not at all. As a matter of fact that was one of our biggest issues, is that the bulk of our assets even up to today are still submarine cable assets, right. And when we initially looked at it from as a competitor, we always basically dismissed satellite on the basis of capacity and cost. I mean if you're a customer and you're Depending what your application is and speed and cost are important to you, it's always going to be satellite. Is offering huge amount of capacity here. And we always dismissed it purely from a cost point of view. And then to be caught in this instance where a technological innovation basically put us right on the back foot overnight, you know, very close to losing a couple of very strong but an example here would be the belly. I mean, that was one of the reasons why we felt, like picking up GlobeComm was a good idea in that GlobeComm as a direct gateway into the cable system and the cost involved in us building that out, right, it was going to be phenomenal. We didn't have any We couldn'. negotiate . i IFKo 2010/021528 PCT/U1S09/55582 pricing, it was owned by another party, and like I said, most of that traffic was moving away and moving to satellite. So from our point of view it just didn't make any sense.[0494] 15. Professor Stephen Scott: What are the major reasons for the success of the business, in your view? [0495] Mr. V. S. Naidoo: I mean, there's obviously no one single answer but there's a couple of things that I suppose standout, right. First, our business relationship with our partners, right, the customers foremost. Our ability to very quickly then, we had a very long heritage and relationship with a lot of our existing customers but then expanding that and putting a more global spin on that and being able to take those associations and basically leveraging that into...[0496] I look at the wholesale business, I look at the growth in our enterprise business. Wholesales are the backbone but then you start finding niches - entrepreneurs, business, the whole cable solution that gave us a leg up from that point and that's important, I think in this case that the person responsible for strategy conceives a strategy but doesn't drive it from a top down basis. There is engagement. So that was number 2.[0497] 16. Professor Stephen Scott: You mention about problem solving and can you mention within the business you were involved in how spontaneous problem solving was fostered the thinking of employees about problem solving? [0498] Mr. V. S. Naidoo: I will give you a very broad anecdote and then I'll answer it directly. Across the organisation we have obviously done various types of employee surveys, engagement surveys. I'll tell you our score across the group and across all the various units whether it was a call centre or whether it was strategy, whether it was technology, was in the 95th percentile. And, to have 95% of your people feeling engaged and feeling part of an organisation, that has to come on a certain basis.[04991 Mr. V. S. Naidoos. is a credible (audible) that has existed right through the organisation and coming like I said to you directly from the top. Great emphasis on employee development, training and not just in comparison to what their job expectation is but certainly informing them about what the business requirements are, not just for their business units. Whether it was a HR strategy, whether it was a marketing or sales strategy, the point that I'm getting at is, it was critical for us to create this awareness across the whole business, kind ofATlIthMaA' slit '''"ii \'iii AllaW' -44 1 WM i 11/ 2010/021528 PCT/I JS/5558. to integrate everything into a bigger (inaudible). And the way to do that is basically to empower your people.[0500] 17. Professor Stephen Scott: Can you talk about an example of a problem that you feel was well solved that you thought spontaneous problem solving occurred and problems are able to solved as they arose rather than being a significant issue? [0501] Mr. V. S. Naidoo: Yeah. I mean for me the most classic example would have been the GlobeComm example. We went into that situation with a very fixed idea and if we were going to stick to our guns we would have left. Hands down we would have admitted defeat, right. It would have been impossible to whole idea initially was at take the cable. We had a couple of possible acquisition contenders in mind and GlobeComm wasn't certainly one of the forerunners in terms of what we wanted to do and who we wanted to talk to. And then we hit a brick wall, right. And then through some very creative and I think ingenuity, I mean, Dr. Raju had an idea coming out of one of the discussions with GlobeComm about leveraging, you know, using the unused capacity, right, as a springboard to actually create a new business opportunity that benefited both GlobeComm and us in the short or the medium to long term actually and addressed a short term issue for us.[05021 We created new market which was almost impossible given the constraints that we had, I mean from a cost point of view, the cost per...[05031 It was a very creative solution that came out that actually surpassed the idea we had originally, right. I think that's a classic example of giving people free rein, right. And I suppose you have to do that when your backs are against the wall, right, but certainly giving them the comfort, I suppose, to think beyond what would have been traditional locked down management structure, very strong, dictatorial kind of I wouldn't say approach but certainly a top down type of approach.'w1o 2010/021528 PCT/U9S09/55582 Claim 1. A method of managing an enterprise having a plurality of business entities, the method comprising: designating a common enterprise purpose that relates to the plurality of business entities; associating an enterprise value with each of the business entities, the enterprise value relating to a degree to which each one of the plurality of the business entities is perceived as contributing to the common enterprise purpose relative to a cost to the enterprise expended on behalf of each one of the plurality of business entities in order to derive the perceived contribution to the common enterprise purpose; associating, by a processor of a computing device, an enterprise factor with each of the business entities, the enterprise factor providing a comparison between the enterprise value attributed to each of the business entities and the enterprise value attributed to other ones of the business entities; analyzing the enterprise factor associated with each of the business entities, the analyzing comprising: comparing the enterprise factor associated with each one of the business entities to at least one of a threshold, the enterprise factor associated with another one of the business entities, and an average of enterprise factors associated with all of the business entities; and generating at least one alert signifying of the enterprise factor associated with at least one of the business entities is inconsistent with at least one of the threshold, the enterprise factor associated with another one of the business entities, and the average; and alerting at least one of the business entities in response to identifying the business entity as being inconsistent with at 10091 21 25 December 2013 TRIlE DataSourcejinlsldc:usersiNAT~ALT\AppDataiLocal\7'empiknotesE605E0\1. ŽJ, 2013 5E N Ateal Executivc SJmmar',- pdf. us 2010/021526 PCT,','IS09/55582 least one of the threshold, the enterprise factor associated with another one of the business entities, and the average. Claim 2. The method of claim 1, further comprising aggregating the enterprise factors associated with the business entities. Claim 3. The method of claim 1, further comprising adjusting the enterprise value associated with at least one of the business entities. Claim 4. The method of claim 1, further comprising adjusting an enterprise factor associated with at least one of the business entities. Claim 5. A system for managing an enterprise comprising: a storage device to store data associate with a common enterprise purpose that relates to a plurality of business entities; a processor of a computing device to associate an enterprise value with each of the business entities, the enterprise value relating to a degree to which each one of the plurality of the business entities is perceived as contributing to the common enterprise purpose relative to a cost to the enterprise expended on behalf of each one of the plurality of business entities in order to derive the perceived contribution to the common enterprise purpose;. the processor to associate an enterprise factor with each of the business entities, the enterprise factor providing a comparison between the enterprise value attributed to each of the business entities and the enterprise value attributed to other ones of the business entities; and TIE l, Dat 'lurce:irinsid,:lusersVrAT'ALTnAppI)ataLt (cal PCdclnlIpPn01 EsE605 IDdI 201 _10 00 0003AA (dn( \t, I\\cen ie rL cloI ir t().,ir L 'd.. LIST 200 0(75 2010/021528 PCT/'IS09/55582 wherein the processor is further to analyze the enterprise factor associated with each of the business entities to include comparing the enterprise factor associated with each one of the business entities to at least one of a threshold, the enterprise factor associated with another one of the business entities, and an average of enterprise factors associated with all of the business entities and to generate at least one alert signifying that the enterprise factor associated with at least one of the business entities is inconsistent with at least one of the threshold, the enterprise factor associated with another one of the business entities, and the average. Claim 6. The system of claim 5, wherein the processor is further to adjust the enterprise value associated with at least one of the business entities. Claim 7. The system of claim 5, wherein the processor is further to adjust the enterprise factor associated with at least one of the business entities. 22893/CHRISilI.DE698J90 12 2013 TITLE DataSourceMlnasidelc:users\\AT\ALT\,AppData\LAcal\Temnp\knotesF605W~2011 S FEGI \cMiive Session k{PAAdϼ\\ \ l)i\\IlIýc Sr mii,. pdf. __________________________________________________________ m.J 2010/021528 _____ PCT/'HuS09/55582 WO 2010/021528 PCT/US09/55582 Software Patent Claims Page 1 of 12 PATENT CLAIMS SOFTWARE PATENT CLAIMS PREAMBLE A set of claims in list form at the end of the specification, must particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter regarded as the invention. The claims serve to define the invention, establish the scope of the protection afforded by the patent, and put the public on notice as to what is and is not protected by the patent. E.g., a collection of claims that appears at the 35 end of a patent, in which the inventor must set out exactly .. -2- what his or her invention is (these claims can be difficult to draft because the inventor believe his or her invention is more valuable than it really is, or because he or she uses imprecise language). SURVIVING GENERAL ATTACKS ON SOFTWARE PATENT CLAIMS: Prior to February 2005, the Board of Patent Appeals & Interferences (BPAI) looked to see whether a claim as a whole: WO 2010/021528 PCT/US09/55582 Software Patent Claims Page 2 of 12 1) "clearly indicates that the invention is implemented in a computer"; or 2) "does not include any limitations that would clearly indicate that the invention is to be implemented in other than a computer or a computer network"; 3) is appropriate for the art to which it is directed. However. in February 2005, following the August 2004 decision of the Federal Circuit in In Re Nuijten, and the December 2007 decision of the Federal Circuit in In Re Comiskey, the USPTO Board of Patent Appeals & Interferences (BPAI) has consistently identified a claim as a process under 35 U.S.C. 101 if the claim includes: 1) an act, or a series of acts or steps; so, it is important when claiming a computer-related invention, that the applicant regard a computer not as the invention itself but as a machine that performs the functions dictated by software, logic, or code written into a computer readable medium that contains the steps of the process that is invented. WO 2010/021528 PCT/US09/55582 Software Patent Claims Page 3 of 12 TWO STEP TEST FOR SOFTWARE PATENTABILITY: 1) THE MACHINE-OR-TRANSFORMATION (MOT) TEST The USPTO uses several court decisions including the decision of Gottschalk v. Benson case at 409 U.S. 63(1972) to conclude that "programming a general purpose digital computer to perform the algorithm," including a highly complex and sophisticated algorithm, along with passing the general Turing test for human behavior, still does not satisfy the machine-or-transformation ( MOT ) test: "... the fact that the algorithms under consideration are complex, sophisticated, and intricate, and require difficult ... computer programming ... is without relevance. Inherently mental processes ... are unpatentable abstract ideas - mental steps - even when automated to reduce the burden on the user of what might otherwise be a tiresome task if performed mentally. Both computer software and AI methods are unpatentable subject matter under § 101." 2) THE ABSTRACT IDEA TEST The applicants are advised to carefully draft their claims and review to be sure that the subject matter of each WO 2010/021528 PCT/US09/55582 Software Patent Claims Page 4 of 12 claim falls within the four categories of patentable subject matter: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. SOFTWARE AND METHOD CLAIM EXAMPLES EXAMPLE 1. SOFTWARE & METHOD CLAIMS FOR CHILDREN'S EDUCATIONAL TESTING IN COMPLIANCE WITH METHOD OF HOMESCHOOLING INVENTION: Claim 1. A method of computer implemented home-schooling a child, the method comprising: providing by a computing device, educational activity to a child located at a home of the child; confirming an identity of the child; generating by a computing device, an electronic test in response to the educational activity; and storing a result of the educational testing confirming the identity of the child. 10 WO 2010/021528 PCT/US09/55582 Software Patent Claims Page 5 of 12 Claim 2. The method according to claim 1, the confirming further comprising: comparing a picture of the child to deferentially classify the child; and retrieving from a data storage location a log of archive educational activities to classify the child for relevant electronic testing. 11 WO 2010/021528 PCT/US09/55582 Software Patent Claims Page 6 of 12 EXAMPLE II: SOFTWARE & METHOD CLAIMS FOR ENTERPRISE RESOURCE ALLOCATION IN COMPLIANCE WITH NEW INVENTION TIED TO MACHINE IMPLEMENTATION Calvin Olson, an enterprise resource planning software expert, and Bernadeta Kowalska, a software developer, invented ProClaimer software that, among other things, organizes dynamic resource allocation for all current and future employees, contractors, and part time workers using a unique enterprise purpose algorithm. The process defined by claims 1-7, below, focuses on the invention and is tied to machine implementation: Claim 1. A method of managing an enterprise having a plurality of business entities, the method comprising: designating a common enterprise purpose that relates to the plurality of business entities; providing dynamic resource allocation for a part time worker; 12 WO 2010/021528 PCT/US09/55582 Software Patent Claims Page 7 of 12 associating an enterprise value with each of the business entities, the enterprise value relating to a degree to which each one of the plurality of the business entities is perceived as contributing to the common enterprise purpose relative to a cost to the enterprise expended on behalf of each one of the plurality of business entities in order to derive the perceived contribution to the common enterprise purpose; associating by a processor of a computing device, an enterprise factor with each of the business entities, the enterprise factor providing a comparison between the enterprise value attributed to each of the business entities and the enterprise value attributed to other ones of the business entities; analyzing the enterprise factor associated with each of the business entities, the analyzing comprising: comparing the enterprise factor associated with each one of the business entities to at least one of a threshold, the enterprise factor associated with another one of the business entities, and an average of enterprise factors associated with all of the business entities; 13 WO 2010/021528 PCT/US09/55582 Software Patent Claims Page 8 of 12 generating at least one alert signifying that the enterprise factor associated with at least one of the business entities is inconsistent with at least one of the threshold, the enterprise factor associated with another one of the business entities, and the average; and alerting at least one of the business entities in response to identifying the business entity as being inconsistent with at least one of the threshold, the enterprise factor associated with another one of the business entities, and the average. Claim 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the enterprise factor represents anticipated future resource needs that include enterprise purpose metadata for selecting: ranking positions combinations of supply chain inventories. Claim 3. The method of claim 1, further comprising aggregating the enterprise factors associated with the business entities. Claim 4. The method of claim 1, further comprising adjusting the enterprise value associated with at least one

Welche Rolle spielte die Latenekultur in der Entwicklung Europas?

Welche Bedeutung hatte die Metallverarbeitung in der Latenekultur?

Wie haben sich Kunst und Handwerk in der Latenekultur entwickelt?