I applied for a Business Process Patent years ago because it appeared to be a way to protect a business model that larger, more aggressive competitors could co-opt. It wasn’t. I never knew why, and never got a straight answer from the patent attorneys I dealt with, but it was clear that large aggressive corporations could get business process patents and I could not.

Ten-plus years later, we see the USPTO revising how it awards such patents. We have discussions of how the changes might effect things like Google’s patent on PageRank. Man, if I ever needed a student of the law who could also explain things in the good English that we search people understand, I need one now.

They don’t pay me anything, and so I don’t participate. How much do they pay you?

I’m willing to accept discussions of how much value you get from LinkedIn, if that is what you prefer. I have little expectation that anyone can highlight much real value, although I am sure there will be a handful of “I made a connection that turned out to be worth millions to me” lottery stories and get-rich-quick dreams. in my cirlces (even extended circles), anyone I have ever asked has said pretty much the same thing - “I never saw any value from it“. Of course these days there are some who try and explain it as “it’s social media… you participate and then people know you and you get to be a guest blogger or interviewed on blogs, and your name becomes known… and well you’re part of the conversation… and well maybe you just don’t get social media eh?” I’d rather not go there but if I am forced to I stop when I get to the part about LinkedIn making a fortune and Social Media people working hard for other people for a living. I suppose there are some parallels to that awkward moment when your boss offers you a title instead of a raise. Anyway…

With LinkedIn now partnering with the New York Times, LinkedIn becomes a bigger competitor to search, and LinkedIn members become a more valuable commodity to be pimped by LinkedIn to advertisers and influence-peddlers like the NYT. Ka-ching.
When I am offered a cut, I’ll reconsider participating. In the mean time, if you want to know who my friends and associates are, who my vendors and clients are, what I studied in what school when, where I used to work and what I like to read, well, you’ll have to pony up for drinks, bribe my b.f.f., or hire a private dick, just like old skool.

I don’t have time for this, but I have time to blog it in case anyone else is noticing the same thing… it sure seems to me the new Starbucks WiFi from ATT/SBC is throttling usage at the gateway router. Open Firefox and right-click yourself a bunch of new tabs off your favorite news aggregation page, Techmeme, or your Feedreader, and watch as the connection chokes your throughput. Do it enough and you’ll have to log in again.

It was bad enough when Starbucks took the bait and switched to this new ATT/SBC service, probably drinking the we-can-do-better Kool Aide from the people who allegedly brought us illegal wiretapping. the same people who created a need for the Net Neutrality Movement.

Oh, and in case you’re wondering, I’m a paid subscriber. I pay Starbucks every month for unlimited use.

Starbucks shows promise for turning itself around, but I’m afraid the WiFi is really a deal breaker for the mobile consumers like me. I switched to wireless broadband but the groups I meet with still rely on working, accessible WiFi and that includes clients, realtors, and even (gasp) a health professional I met with recently regarding some SEO development work.

Loyalty aside, if the WiFi no-worky, nothing else matters much. If more local municipalities start requiring Starbucks to list the calories in their Banana Javachip Smoothies next to the prices, they’re going to wish they had done more to keep their caffeine-guzzling regulars in the corners. Maybe they can still save the day if they act aggressively and continue to document how much the ATT WiFi sucks, as I am doing here.

Related:
www.dslreports.com/shownews/ATT-Hints-That-UsageBased-Billing-Is-Coming-96276 , ww.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/07/07/tech-crtc.html