An interesting paradox in the technology world is that there is both a shortage and a surplus of engineers in the United States. Talk to those working at any Silicon Valley company, and they will tell you how hard it is to find qualified talent. But listen to the heart-wrenching stories of unemployed engineers, and you will realize that there are tens of thousands who can't get jobs. What gives?

The harsh reality is that in the tech world, companies prefer to hire young, inexperienced, engineers. And engineering is an “up or out” profession: you either move up the ladder or face unemployment. This is not something that tech executives publicly admit, because they fear being sued for age discrimination, but everyone knows that this is the way things are. Why would any company hire a computer programmer with the wrong skills for a salary of $150,000, when it can hire a fresh graduate—with no skills—for around $60,000?  Even if it spends a month training the younger worker, the company is still far ahead. The young understand new technologies better than the old do, and are like a clean slate: they will rapidly learn the latest coding methods and techniques, and they don't carry any "technology baggage".  As well, the older worker likely has a family and needs to leave by 6 pm, whereas the young can pull all-nighters.

At least, that's how the thinking goes in the tech industry.

Professors Clair Brown and Greg Linden, of the University of California, Berkeley, analyzed Bureau of Labor Statistics and census data for the semiconductor industry and found that salaries increased dramatically for engineers during their 30s but that these increases slowed after the age of 40. At greater ages still, salaries started dropping, dependent on the level of education. After 50, the mean salary of engineers was lower—by 17% for those with bachelors degrees, and by 14% for those with masters degrees and PhDs—than the salary of those younger than 50. Curiously, Brown and Linden also found that salary increases for holders of postgraduate degrees were always lower than increases for those with bachelor's degrees (in other words, even PhD degrees didn't provide long-term job protection). It's not much different in the software/internet industry. If anything, things in these fast-moving industries are much worse for older workers.

For tech startups, it usually boils down to cost: most can't even afford to pay $60K salaries, so they look for motivated, young software developers who will accept minimum wage in return for equity ownership and the opportunity to build their careers. Companies like Zoho can afford to pay market salaries, but find huge advantage in hiring young workers. In 2006, Zoho's CEO, Sridhar Vembu, initiated an experiment to hire 17-year-olds directly out of high school. He found that within two years, the work performance of these recruits was indistinguishable from that of their college-educated peers. Some ended up becoming superstar software developers.

Companies such as Microsoft say that they try to maintain a balance but that it isn't easy. An old friend, David Vaskevitch, who was Senior Vice-President and Chief Technical Officer at Microsoft, told me in 2008 that he believes that younger workers have more energy and are sometimes more creative. But there is a lot they don’t know and can’t know until they gain experience. So Microsoft aggressively recruits for fresh talent on university campuses and for highly experienced engineers from within the industry, one not at the expense of the other. David acknowledged that the vast majority of new Microsoft employees are young, but said that this is so because older workers tend to go into more senior jobs and there are fewer of those positions to begin with. It was all about hiring the best and brightest, he said; age and nationality are not important.

So whether we like it or not, it's a tough industry. I know that some techies will take offense at what I have to say, but here is my advice to those whose hair is beginning to grey:

1. Move up the ladder into management, architecture, or design; switch to sales or product management; or jump ship and become an entrepreneur (old guys have a huge advantage in the startup world). Build skills that are more valuable to your company, and take positions that can’t be filled by entry-level workers.
2. If you're going to stay in programming, realize that the deck is stacked against you. Even though you may be highly experienced and wise, employers aren't willing or able to pay an experienced worker twice or thrice what an entry-level worker earns. Save as much as you can when you're in your 30s and 40s and be prepared to earn less as you gain experience.
3. Keep your skills current. This means keeping up-to-date with the latest trends in computing, programming techniques, and languages, and adapting to change. To be writing code for a living when you're 50, you will need to be a rock-star developer and be able to out-code the new kids on the block.

My advice to managers is to consider the value of the experience that the techies bring. With age frequently come wisdom and abilities to follow direction, mentor, and lead. Older workers also tend to be more pragmatic and loyal, and to know the importance of being team players. And ego and arrogance usually fade with age. During my tech days, I hired several programmers who were over 50. They were the steadiest performers and stayed with me through the most difficult times.

Finally, I don't know of any university, including the ones I teach at, that tells its engineering students what to expect in the long term or how to manage their technical careers. Perhaps it is time to let students know what lies ahead.

Editor's note: Guest writer Vivek Wadhwa  is an entrepreneur turned academic. He is a Visiting Scholar at the School of Information at UC-Berkeley, Senior Research Associate at Harvard Law School and Director of Research at the Center for Entrepreneurship and Research Commercialization at Duke University. You can follow him on Twitter at @vwadhwaand find his research at www.wadhwa.com.

Editor’s note: The following guest post is by Ashkan Karbasfrooshan, the CEO of WatchMojo, a producer and distributor of premium video content. Follow him on Twitter @ashkan or @WatchMojo

Last week, Erick posted an article on TechCrunch titled "Industry Insiders Say Online Video Advertising Is Reaching A 'Frenzy Point.’” It was a surefire way to get online video entrepreneurs excited, right? Not so fast.

The article quoted two CEOs of large online video businesses—namely Keith Richman of Break Media and Jason Glickman of Tremor Media—whose basic argument was as follows:

It very well may just be the big ad networks and properties like Hulu that are seeing the vast majority of new ad dollars.

"If you are not in the top 10 on comScore you will have a tough time” notes Break CEO Keith Richman, "money goes to the guys who are big,"

That led Erick to summarize and wonder:

Video is definitely shaping up to be a large and growing business for the bigger players and ad networks, but will those advertising dollars trickle down to the smaller guys as well?

While one might think that the top 10 firms in a given industry will prevail, it's important to think of legendary General Electric CEO Jack Welch’s rule that a company should be either No. 1 or No. 2 in a particular industry, or else leave it completely.

Online video frequently draws comparisons to search, which today has become a two-horse race between Google and Microsoft. Considering that the high-profile and defunct Veoh was a perennial top-10 competitor in video, one wonders: is anything other than No. 1 or No. 2 in video really a winning a strategy?

It depends.

Size vs. Quality

Indeed, as with everything, size matters.  But seeing how history repeats itself, it's helpful to think of how the frenzy around large ad networks on the web fizzled and made room for something else: quality.

Increasingly, marketers have grown wary of focusing solely on size (as measured by reach).  A few years ago, marketers would pick up the phone and place one or two orders allowing them to reach 100 million uniques while paying rock-bottom CPMs.

Today, many are paying more attention to where the ad placements reside (and how the ad views are being counted).  This is why after the acquisitions of ad networks Right Media and Blue Lithium, the frenzy around online ad networks has waned a bit, and some ad networks (namely AdConion and Valueclick) have even begun to diversify to boost their offerings of quality (via content).

Without a doubt, CEOs Glickman and Richman are right that size is a major consideration. But that doesn't mean that smaller or mid-sized video companies will fail, especially if they can play the quality card and leverage those who have size.

The Four Pillars of Online Video

In fact, while both men have built strong and valuable businesses, in their prognosis, they omit a major strategic consideration.  While online video companies tend to specialize in one of seven areas, ultimately they end up choosing one of four: Technology, Distribution, Advertising or Content.

While incomplete and not a definitive breakdown or categorization of where each company focuses on, the following table is useful to understand who is doing what in the online video space:

CONTENT DECA, DBG, Eqal, Fora.tv, Funny or Die, Generate, Howcast, Katalyst Media, Machinima, Mania TV, Next New Networks, Revision3, VideoJug, WatchMojo.	TECHNOLOGY Adobe, Apple, Avid, JumpCut, Sorensen, On2, blip.tv, Brightcove, Feedroom, Justin.tv, KIT Digital, Livestream/Mogulus, Ooyala, Maven, Permission TV, Qik, uStream, StudioNow, VMIX, Akamai, BitGravity, Edgecast, Grid Networks, Limelight Networks, Panther Express.
ADVERTISING Adap.tv, Auditude, Brightroll, Broadband Enterprises, Freewheel, Overlay.tv, Panache, Scanscout, Tidal TV, Tremor Media, Video Egg, Yume.	DISTRIBUTION 5Min, AOL, Break, DailyMotion, Hulu, Kaltura, MSN, Metacafe, Nabbr, Revver, Vimeo, Yahoo!, YouTube, Blinkx, Cast TV, Clicker, Clipblast, Dabble, Everyzing, Google, Mefeedia, Pixsy, Truveo.

While Technology, Distribution and Advertising firms have a binary, winner-takes-all, zero-sum outcome, Content firms can leverage others in those three segments.  Thinking back to Jack Welch's mantra, I'd argue that you have to be #1 or 2 in Technology, Distribution and Advertising (think of the search engine industry) but not necessarily so in Content (hence, the four TV networks, for example).

Enter YouTube

Of course, talking about all of this without mentioning the eight-hundred pound gorilla is foolish.

Today, YouTube retains 44% of the online video audience.  Its parent Google accounts for the lion's share—roughly 65% market share—of the search market, which in turn garners 40% of the online advertising pie. It then uses its $30 billion war chest to fund forays into new tech and media areas.

As a result of this major reality, companies who operate in the Technology, Distribution and Advertising spheres are handicapped because they are fighting for 56% of the total online video market (less, when you consider that the No. 2 player in the market, Hulu, is equally protective of its domain and doesn't let just any company operate in its sandbox).

In other words, without Google's blessing,

• a video Advertising or Technology firm's product cannot gain traction on YouTube;
• and a Distribution video company is competing head-on with the No. 1 and No. 2 search destinations online (with YouTube being the second largest search engine) and the No. 1 video site online.

One can cling to the fact that unless you're a Top 10 player according to comScore you're doomed, but I would argue that if you operate in Technology, Distribution or Advertising, unless you're name is Google or YouTube, you might not be spared, either.

An Uphill Battle

Meanwhile, Content companies can leverage YouTube's platform as they pose no threat to the GooTube machine.  They augment it by providing professional content for marketers to advertise alongside of within YouTube.  This being said, they are not completely immune either.  So long as Google doesn't break down individual content producers on YouTube for comScore and Nielsen reporting, most of the content producers will will face an uphill battle convincing marketers that they are worthy of their request for proposals (RFPs) and ad dollars.

So long as this is the reality, then indeed, Content companies are just as much at the mercy of GooTube as Technology, Distribution and Advertising firms are, albeit in a different way.

The Power of the Platform

A couple of years ago, VCs tripped over one another to fund Facebook-ecosystem start-ups.  Facebook itself launched the fbFund, but recently admitted that the fund was dead. Playing in Facebook’s sandbox was challenging at best and daunting at worst.

Yes, Zynga built a powerful company by leveraging Facebook, but diplomacy ran its course.  For every Zynga there are hundreds of companies whose fate turned of a dime.  Take, for example, Offerpal who laid staff off after Facebook threw itself into the arms of a competitor.  Countless others never even made it into the limelight to begin with. It wasn't just Facebook; Twitter and Foursquare have all been cast as the flavor du jour.

YouTube Remains the Biggest "Platform" of All, Maybe

One company that has been overlooked as a potential platform for other startups to build a business on remains YouTube, which Google acquired for $1.65 billion in 2006.

Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are fundamentally different: developers build apps on Facebook and Twitter's platform; content producers create videos and distribute them across YouTube – but conceptually, all three provide the backbone that helps monetize the creators' brainchild.

Why?  One word: Advertising

Video—which is what constitutes YouTube's DNA—is a natural canvas for advertising to flourish.  It's important to note that social networking (Twitter, Facebook or Foursquare's DNA) is the latest form of communication, and communication tools like email, instant messaging (and now tweeting) have rarely proven to be money makers in an ad-supported ecosystem.

Ironically, yet fittingly, the fact that Google owns YouTube has proven to be a larger hindrance to technology companies than media companies.  For media companies, YouTube absorbs expensive bandwidth costs and reduces marketing costs by providing a targeted and captive audience, leaving them only with the third major cost: content production itself.

As such, while it's true that size and reach are going to be a major hindrance for small and mid-sized video companies, regardless of whether they're in Content, Technology, Distribution or Advertising, I’d still rather be producing quality content. Whereas the Content firms (small, medium or large) can leverage the strengths of the other three to build valuable businesses, in Technology, Distribution and Advertising, unless you are No. 1 or No. 2, then you won’t have the gunpowder to stay in the game.

Photo credit: Flickr/Paulo Brandão.

One of the big problems with drug and prostitution transactions is that they tend to involve a lot of cash, and cash is hard to launder. Taking credit card payments has never been easier via Square, which lets anyone swipe credit cards with their iPhone.

Sure, it leaves one heck of a paper trail, but you have to wonder if at least a few of those person to person transactions aren’t being done via that sexy startup. I certainly have.

Founder Jack Dorsey has told me that exactly zero drug or prostitution transactions have been completed through Square. I believe he believes that, but I wonder how he really knows for sure.

Anyway, I came across this very funny spoof video by Chris OConnell that just dives right in to exactly what I’ve been saying. Says Chris: “So I got my blow, and I got my 19 year old hooker. Life couldn’t be much better thanks to Square.”

Trust me, you’ll want to watch this:

A unique spin on the concept of co-working space, Sunfire Offices was started three months ago by ex- Google engineering manager Niniane Wang and and ex-Facebook engineering manager Yishan Wong. While there are plenty of other co-working spaces in downtown Mountain View, like Hacker Dojo and Plug In Play,Wong and Wang, not satisfied with the available options, decided to create a co-working space of their own.

They found an office space and got funding from a number of angel investors including Keith Rabois and Justin Calbeck, who completely sponsored Sunfire Offices, meaning that Wong and Wang were then able to offer space rent free to other startups and individuals working on personal projects, "Our goal was to build a co-working space focused on top-tier talent."
(They shied away from talking about a future business model.)

While it does incorporate incubator type qualities, the two emphasize that invite-only Sunfire Offices is not a incubator,"We're optimizing for the quality of people, since they're what really matter in a start-up,” says Wong. They wanted to "avoid the problem often associated with incubators: the theory that stronger startups don’t need an incubator so the startups that apply to incubators tend to be weaker ones, resulting in incubators naturally selecting for poorer startup performance."

Unlike most incubators, the only obligation at Sunfire is to attend a weekly mixer where one of the sponsors’ portfolio companies does a pitch or demo. This benefits Sunfire sponsors because they end up getting first look at potential companies and Sunfire residents because they get exposure to potential investors and recruiters.

Looking for “aggressively productive individuals” as residents, Wang emphasizes that applicant pedigree doesn't matter. But the the inevitable Google and Facebook connection is strong, "due to our backgrounds, we are able to source from a very high-quality pool – Niniane knows all the great early engineers at Google, and I know everyone from PayPal and Facebook."

Aside from free rent, office residents gain the being around intelligent people/environmental aspect of working at a giant company while still maintaining a small scale. "Working in coffee shops or at home can be very lonely and unmotivating," says Wang.

Wang also brings up the example of a Nextstop engineer who didn’t want to move to Facebook when Facebook acquired Nextstop — preferring to stay at a startup.

“We invited her to come work at Sunfire, during which time she worked on a small project of her own while talking with various companies associated with our sponsors and network. And just last week, she accepted a position at one of those companies as their first full-time engineer."

A visit to the offices reveals an amazing view and a lot of people hard at work on some secret and not so secret projects including YouTube co-founder Jared Karim, former astronaut and Google Manager Ed Lu, and co-founders of iTeleport Jahanzeb Sherwani and Vishal Kapur.

You can get an invitation to the Sunfire weekly mixer (and maybe even to Sunfire) by contacting office manager (and former Googler) Elaine Yu or tag along vicariously as they eat their way through Castro Street.

I promise this is my last word on the subject.

I had already promised myself, actually, that I wouldn't write any more about my decision to quit Facebook, Linkedin, Foursquare, Blippy, Yammer, Dopplr and every other social network other than Twitter. But then I added Twitter to the list – deleting my 10,000+ follower account and returning to more traditional blogging – and suddenly all (social media) hell broke loose.

For reasons I can't quite understand – it's not like I've quit food or oxygen – my inbox has since been flooded with emails. Some are just standard notes of congratulations for cutting the cord while others scream that I'm a Luddite who doesn't 'get' Twitter (by and large these are the same people who describe themselves as "social media ninja"s on their profiles: the modern day equivalent of those "My other car is the Batmobile" bumber stickers).

The majority of messages, though, are from people who are strongly considering following my lead, but are worried that their body or mind might not be able to cope with the shock.  How do I feel since quitting? Can I offer them any advice?

The semi-amusing thing is, this isn't the first time I've experienced this kind of email flood of congratulations, insults and pleas for guidance. It happened last October too: when I finally made the decision to quit drinking. Make of that what you will.

The difference is that, back in October, I completely understood the tsunami of mail. Millions of people struggle with alcohol addiction – and for those who do, it's a serious problem. Any advice or encouragement could be the difference between life and death. Certainly it was for me.

But giving up Twitter? Seriously? Are there really people who can't get out of bed in the morning without sending a 140 character update, just to stop their thumbs shaking from the night before? (The RT DTs?). Or addicts who surreptitiously tweet throughout the work day, from a phone hidden in their desk drawer, hoping that their workmates don't find out? People who are unable to stop at just one “OH:”, sending more and more before they blackout, ready to start the whole Bukowskian cycle again the next day?

Judging by my inbox, the answer is yes, there are.

But, unlike with drink, I don’t feel their pain. In fact, giving up Twitter (and the rest) has been a veritable walk in the park. I've barely suffered any withdrawal symptoms, I don't feel any sense of loss, and I've certainly not found it any harder to enjoy parties or talk to women without a phone in my hand (and I say that as someone who not long ago started dating a flight attendant after I tweeted about her on a plane. Seriously: I had a problem.)

I admit, though, it does feel odd. For more than two years I've been accustomed to sending half a dozen tweets a day, whenever something even vaguely notable happened. Lunch with a friend? Tweet. See someone nearly get hit by a car? Tweet. Think of a funny (ish) joke? Tweet. Fight with a friend or loved-one? Cryptic tweet. Like a Japanese tourist compulsively photographing everything he sees, it was almost as if something didn't really happen unless it was captured in 140 characters and shared with the world.

At a stroke, that's all changed. Now if I see someone nearly getting it by a car, my initial reaction is the same as before – "holy shit! someone just nearly got hit by a car!" – but that reaction remains inside my head. And yet, amazingly, even without my 140 character acts of vital citizen journalism the world has carried on turning. And what of jokes? Is my brain filling up with amusing observations and bons mots that, unless released, will cause it to haemorrhage? No. I just write them down in my notebook to be used later: an act which – and this did surprise me – gives me almost exactly the same satisfaction as sharing them with 10,000 followers.

The only downside, really, is the occasionally jarring sense that something is missing from my enjoyment of an experience. An involuntary twitch as I reach for my phone and realise I don’t do that any more. I imagine anyone who has quit smoking feels a similar way occasionally; particularly in postprandial or post-coital situations. But the feeling soon passes. Maybe I should start chewing gum?

As for the benefits: they've been both noticeable and persistent. For one thing I've rediscovered the joy of making notes, and then refining those notes – sharpening jokes and tweaking arguments, all using a pen and paper – prior to publication. I've also come to re-appreciate sharing thoughts with my actual friends – taking the time to email or text or IM someone who I actually know in the real world, to share something I think they alone would enjoy or appreciate. I've remembered what it feels like to laugh loudly at a joke without having to disrupt the flow of conversation for two minutes while I "overhear" it. I've become closer to my real friends, and more distant from total strangers. Which seems like the right direction for things to be moving in.

One of the other things I've been asked – probably fifty times – if whether I expect to stick to my decision over the long-term or whether, like others who have tried to quit Twitter before me, I'll come crawling back in a few weeks.

My knee-jerk response is to scream "are you kidding me? I've been sober for 312 days. If I don't miss that shit, then I think I'll be fine without knowing what Guy Kawasaki thinks about the world." (SPOILER ALERT: nothing)

My more, uh, sober answer, though, is disturbingly similar to the one I give about returning to the sauce: I don't know if I’ll go back to it. Certainly my life is noticeably better without it, I have more time, I'm closer to my friends and I'm getting more work done. But who knows how I'll feel tomorrow?

The only thing I do know is that, in terms of things that are actually hard to live without, I'm far more likely to succumb to the craving for delicious, delicious beer before I surrender to the almost negligible desire to send another fucking tweet.

Yesterday, Facebook held a developer’s garage event at their headquarters in Palo Alto. To kick things off, CEO Mark Zuckerberg took the stage to talk a bit about the history of Facebook. Notably, he focused on Facebook Photos as being a key catalyst that led to everything the social network is today.

He noted that when they launched the product, they didn’t have all of the features that their competitors did. For example, they didn’t have high-resolution photos and you couldn’t print them. But one thing they did have was the social element — and this changed everything.

“Those features by themselves were more important than anything else combined,” Zuckerberg said of the social elements of Facebook Photos. He then dropped the competitor bomb. “The photo product that we have is maybe five or six times more used than every other product on the web — combined,” Zuckerberg stated.

Wow. Everyone knows Facebook Photos is huge, but if Zuckerberg’s stats are accurate, it’s becoming YouTube-level huge compared to their competitors. Of course, what he means by “used” isn’t entirely clear — do they just browse more, or upload more as well? Either way, it’s massive.

And it was clear from both Zuckerberg and CTO Bret Taylor’s talk at the event that photos to them was the harbinger of things that eventually came — and will still come.

Taylor noted that he had been “brainwashed by Silicon Valley” before he saw and understood the power of Facebook Photos (he was likely working at Google at the time). He had been thinking like an engineer about the best way to organize photos on the web. But he quickly realized that “the best possible organization of photos is around people,” Taylor said.

“There are ten other industries waiting to have this type of disruption,” Taylor said noting the travel industry, e-commerce, and music as a few of them. Earlier, Zuckerberg agreed. Because of the social element, “every single vertical will be transformed.“

While not the biggest Microsoft-related lawsuit news of the day, Microsoft just announced that it wants to take its patent infringement case against Canadian technology firm i4i to the highest level, seeking review by the US Supreme Court.

Last May, a federal court of appeals upheld the decision of a lower court that Microsoft had in fact infringed i4i’s XML patent (’449), by introducing Microsoft WORD in 2003 and continuing the XML editing capabilities through 2007. Microsoft was ordered to pay i4i $290 million dollars in fees and change the disputed version of Word.

i4i CEO Loudon Owen responded to Microsoft’s petition for a writ of certiorari, "This next step of filing a petition was anticipated — indeed, proclaimed for months by Microsoft. We continue to be confident that i4i will prevail.”

The Supreme Court has yet to decide whether it will review the case.

It’s no secret that social link sharing community Reddit isn’t singing the praises of its corporate parent Condé Nast, which acquired the company in 2006. Earlier today the two sparred over running ads in support of California’s Proposition 19, which would legalize marijuana in the state. And Reddit has previously written about the shortage of resources that Condé Nast is willing to provide.  Now Ben Huh, founder and CEO of the Cheezburger network, is offering to take Reddit off Condé’s hands.

In a letter published by The Daily What (a part of the Cheezburger network), Huh writes that he’s offered to buy Reddit before privately, and he’s now making it public. From the post:

Condé Nast, I'm publicly offering to buy Reddit.

Hi TDWers, I'm Ben Huh, and I run the Cheezburger Network (which includes The Daily What, if you were too Prop 19'd to notice). I have made this offer privately to a few people associated with Reddit, and I'll say it publicly now:

I believe that Reddit is one of the best communities I have seen on the Internet. I also believe that Reddit would benefit from more resources and less corporate interference. We can offer all of the above. And we'd love to buy Reddit and all those pesky troublesome users that we love so much.

Condé, we'll be waiting for a call.

Cheers,

Ben Huh.

Update: Reached for comment, Huh said that he’s “totally serious about buying Reddit” and that he thinks Reddit “would do better under a strange and weird start-up like us, rather than a corporate giant like Conde Nast.”

Today on their blog, URL shortening service Bit.ly unveiled a cute new feature: Clickabit. It’s a Twitter account that surfaces some of the “surprising and bizarre” links being shortened and shared across their network. But the feature also hints at something we’ve been talking about for a while: Bit.ly Now.

“We're currently hard at work on several systems that will expose some of the interesting data we're playing with. In the meantime, we'd like to introduce @clickabit,” Bit.ly writes in the post. They key part is obviously the first half. We’ve known for a while that Bit.ly has been planning some sort of service to expose the best links being shared across the web — kind of like Tweetmeme or Digg. But Bit.ly links are shared on email and Facebook too; it would be about more than Twitter.

Actually, Bit.ly Now has existed for sometime — on Twitter. But today, Bit.ly switched that account over to be the Clickabit one (the old tweets from 2009 when Bit.ly was using the account to surface popular Bit.ly links have been transfered over as well — and they have yet to change the bio from the Bit.ly Now one). They still control the @bitlynow account, and have switched the icon. The only tweet from the account now reads “Follow the puffer fish to @clickabit!“

It would seem that they’re finally preparing to do something more with this account. Something like a system to “expose some fo the interesting data we’ve playing with“, perhaps.

It’s an interesting time in the popular link surfacing space. Tweetmeme is in the process of morphing into something else following Twitter’s launch of their own tweet button. Meanwhile, Digg has just launched the latest version of their site (version 4), in an attempt to try and recapture the link sharing crown. Then of course there’s Facebook. That Like button is everywhere.

Inventor: Paul Allen
Filed: August 27, 2010
Abstract: A method for preventing innovation, specifically in the tech sector, by way of a dangerous misconception of what is patentable and a sadly overtaxed intellectual property regulatory system.
Summary of the Invention: During a period of change and invention, ideas may occur to a person, and a few possible ways of manifesting those ideas. By instantly submitting a patent request, the person can secure as their own property not only the methods they have actually invented, but all possible derivatives and independent creations resembling said methods. After waiting a suitable period of time, during which the entire landscape of the industry may change, the patent holder then can exchange these patents for riches, while simultaneously nullifying the gains of a decentralized, idea-powered economy.

Continue reading…

Some may get crushes on Hollywood stars. Some get crushes on blue, fictional Aliens. Sarah gets crushes on countries. And right now she is obsessed with Kenya. The closest she's been is Rwanda, but at Cape Town's Net Prophet conference last spring, several speakers made a compelling case for why Kenya– not South Africa–was the up-and-coming African tech hot spot to watch.

One of those making the argument was Stefan Magdalinski, well known in the UK as founder of Upmystreet.com and former CEO of Moo, but who last year who relocated to Africa to run Nairobi-based Mocality.

We decided—in part to shut Sarah up about Kenya—to invite Magdalinski to come on "Why Is This News?" and talk about why he left the cozy confines of London and whether the Kenya-hype is justified. [SPOILER ALERT: Sarah is planning a trip to Kenya.]

It looks like that Xerox IP isn’t the only thing Steve Jobs appropriated for Apple. Here he is in all his chubby 1997 glory, introducing the TBWA/Chiat Day produced “Think Different” campaign with an unattributed quote from poet Jack Kerouac, “People who think they are crazy enough to change the world, are the ones who actually do.”

What’s most jarring about this video is the chasm between what Jobs holds as Apple’s core values in 1997 and those of the patent hungry-monopoly that is the Apple of today. As one commenter pointed out:

“Think different… As long as we approve your application for download on the app store.”

Or, “Unless you’re Adobe.“

Via: Hacker News

Twitter has been open about its desire for advertising to be a pillar of its revenue strategy. The company has launched a number of experiments with advertising on the site, rolling out Promoted Tweets, which serves up ads based on keywords in Twitter search queries; and Promoted Trends. But Twitter cracked down on in-stream advertising on third-party clients; which was thought to be a direct attack on some of the Twitter ad networks in the space, such as 140 Proof, Ad.ly and others (it turned out that the new TOS didn’t kill these companies). However, now it looks like Twitter is actually partnering with Twitter ad networks to sell its inventory on Promoted Tweets.

We’ve learned that Twitter has ‘informally’ partnered with 140 Proof, a Twitter-based ad network that launched earlier this year, to allow the ad network to sell ad inventory for Promoted Tweets along side 140Proof’s own inventory. 140 Proof allows 3rd-party Twitter clients, like Echofon, Hootsuite and UberTwitter, to sell space on the network to advertisers.

140 Proof’s ad network differs slightly from its competitors because it promises highly targeted advertising. Twitter clients pass 140 Proof a user ID list (with no names) and the public information contained in a Twitter user’s profile. On the advertiser side, advertisers bid on ads to be directed toward users based on keywords in tweets, followers, as well as device, location and platform. 140 Proof's algorithms calculate a Twitterer's "persona" based on public tweets and who they follow and serves ads to users based on this data. So if many of my Tweets have the term "red wine" in them, 140 Proof would characterize me as an ideal target for a wine seller.

In terms of the Twitter-partnership, 140 Proof is now able to sell advertisers in placements on Twitter.com as well as third-party clients. For the Emmy awards taking place this coming weekend, 140 Proof has sold the event’s sponsor, car company Infiniti (Twitter handle: InfinityNews), ad space on its publishers as well as on Promoted Tweets. Manoogian says that his network has made similar buys for Microsoft’s Bing as well as for an undisclosed financial institution.

Manoogian pitches that this is the best of both worlds for advertisers, who can target specific audiences via 140 Proof’s network as well as reach general Twitter.com users via Promoted Tweets.

As we know Twitter has been making key hires for its sales and revenue teams, including News Corp’s Adam Bain and Google’s Brent Hill most recently. If Twitter is building out a sales team for ad purposes, this arrangement could be a temporary way to drive ad sales for its offerings.

On the other hand, this could be another channel through which Twitter will drive advertisers to its platform. The microblogging network could form similar partnerships with other ad networks (Manoogian tells me that he’s not aware of any other deals with competitors at this time) and open up a significant revenue sharing stream.

Although we have seen some of what Twitter has in store for advertising, we are still relatively in the dark when it comes to the network’s long term ad strategy. The deal could provide a glimpse into what the network could have in store for the future.

Here’s Twitter’s official statement:

Twitter continues to experiment with different forms of advertising, promotions and other commercial initiatives, optimizing for user value. The work we’re planning with 140 Proof is one of those experiments. The 140 Proof relationship is not a formal partnership, and we are not sharing revenue. That said, we’re always happy when companies help advertisers better use and understand the Twitter platform.

Photo Credit/Flickr/HoriaVarlin

When it comes to online video, there is YouTube and then there is everyone else. Increasingly, videos on the service are getting a million or more views and some stars (like that Bieber kid) are getting made. So just upload a video to YouTube and became the next big thing, right? Well, not exactly.

While there are an increasing number of massively huge videos on YouTube, there’s also just more videos in general. And despite what you may think, not all of them can be watched every second of the day by everyone on the planet. In fact, there are plenty of — and very likely more — videos on the service with very, very few views. And believe it or not, there are some with zero views. Thankfully, there is a Tumblr blog to highlights those.

0 views is an excellent collection of the best of the worst of YouTube — or, “the best of the bottom of the barrel”, as they put it. Here you’ll find 12 year olds walking around “vlogging” and putting pads inside of shoes. Or you’ll find “Get it granddaughter!" Or the dog drinking cola.

To be honest, the best part of this site is that if it weren’t for the name “0 Views,” I could easily be led to believe that each of these videos was a viral success rather than a video with zero views.

Also, thanks to this site, several of these videos are now getting thousands of views. Awesome.

Earlier today I reported on a class action lawsuit against Facebook which argued that when it comes to teenagers, the social network should not be able to use their name or likeness to promote either Facebook itself or on behalf of advertisers without parental consent. “If you don't like the law, change the law, John C. Torjesen, one of the lawyers bringing the suit, tells me. “But I think people like that law.”

There are two main ways he says Facebook is using the names and likenesses of minors for commercial endorsements. One is through search. If you search for a teenager on Google, supposedly you will find a link to their Facebook profile, which brings you to a landing page enticing you to sign up or sign into Facebook to get the full profile.

But Facebook says this is just not the way it works. A Facebook spokesperson provided the following screenshot at left (click to enlarge), which I will call Exhibit A. It shows the part of Facebook’s privacy policy stating that the names or shared items of anyone under 18 are blocked from public search. “This isn’t available if you are under 18,” its privacy policy states.

The Facebook spokesperson elaborates: “We believe this suit is completely without merit and we will fight it vigorously. The complaint misunderstands the law, it’s intent and the way Facebook works. For example, plaintiffs assert that minors are marketing Facebook through search engines but we do not allow minors to include their profiles in search engines.”

You can still find teenager’s profiles and names turn up in search, but often that is because they lied about their age in Facebook. Torjesen would have to show this happening for a minor who Facebook knows to be a minor. So Exhibit A might help them there.

This does not, however, address those instances when a teenager “likes” an ad and that is shared in his or her stream, or ads targeted to people using other friends who are minors as endorsers (if that is even possible). Again Torjesen would have to show specific examples of ads like this and confirm that all the teenagers didn’t lie to Facebook about their age. That might be difficult to prove.

The one issue that might remain is when a teenager “likes” an ad, and that ad is linked to a Facebook page, and then it shows up in his or her friends’ streams that he liked that brand or product. Facebook has not answered my questions about whether or not that can happen, and my guess is that it can. But then we get back to my original question: how many teenagers actually like ads?

Last fall Zynga sued rival gaming developer Playdom (recently acquired by Disney) for an array of issues including misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and breach of the duty of loyalty.

In short Zynga accused Playdom of stealing its confidential ‘Zynga Playbook‘.

The case continues, but the drama has reached its peak. The court today held one former Zynga and Playdom employee, Raymond Holmes, in contempt and sentenced him to ten days in county jail and a $4,000 fine. Fortunately for Holmes, Judge Mark Pierce then suspended the sentence. That means Holmes won’t do the time unless he continues to, well, piss off Judge Pierce. The full order is embedded below.

What did Holmes do? Lots of things apparently: destruction of evidence on laptop, destruction of Mozy backup, failure to identify other storage devices with Zynga documents and the signing of two false court certificates. The court says Holmes admitted to his improper actions and apologized.

Worse still for Playdom is the last sentence of the court document. It says it’s “appropriate to impose a non rebutable evidentiary presumption in favor of Zynga regarding the meta data lost when Def Holmes erased his hard drive.”

Reggie Davis, General Counsel, Zynga says: “We are pleased that the Court treated destruction of stolen Zynga materials by a then-current Playdom employee, and violations of two court orders, with the seriousness they deserve.”

Earlier this year a court in Santa Clara dissolved the initial restraining order against Playdom issued a new preliminary injunction against Playdom finding that Zynga likely to prevail at trial on their trade secret theft claims, and (supposedly) stopping the release of several games scheduled to be released by Playdom.

Earlier today, Erick wrote about Windows Live Sync becoming Windows Live Mesh. Basically, it’s a service that allows people to sync files between PCs and with the cloud. As a product, it sounds great — as Erick says, there’s definitely a huge need for someone to do this right. But as usual with Microsoft, I have to ask: what on Earth is up with the branding?

Yes Microsoft needed to combine Live Sync and Live Mesh as they were similar products. But doesn’t “Sync” make a lot more sense than “Mesh”? What the hell is a mesh? I had to Google it.

I’m going to assume it’s in reference to “mesh networking” — from Wikipedia:

Mesh networking is a type of networking wherein each node in the network may act as an independent router, regardless of whether it is connected to another network or not.

Okay, fine. But this is a product Microsoft hopes consumers will use. Don’t we think “sync” makes a lot more sense than “mesh”? I simply can’t envision a future where a parent reminds a child to “mesh” something before leaving the house. But I can certainly see a parent reminding a child to “sync” something.

Okay, sure, it’s still fine if they use “sync” as a verb. But if Microsoft really hopes to drive usage among consumers they seriously need to rethink just about all of their branding.

Just recently, we’ve narrowly avoided a new mobile phone platform that was almost called “Windows Phone 7 Series.” To be honest, I’m still not sure if that was supposed to be the name of the OS or the phones themselves. I’m not sure Microsoft was clear on that either. Here’s what David Webster, the chief strategy officer of Microsoft’s central marketing group told TechFlash in April:

“Windows Phone is an OS, it’s not a phone. The idea was that we needed a handle to refer to the devices that ran Windows Phone 7 — the family, in essence. Now, in a lot of the coverage and a lot of the usage cases, that context, I think, got lost. People got to thinking that the software was Windows Phone 7 Series, when really that was just an effort to refer to the devices that would be running Windows Phone 7.”

Um, what? I mean, I get it. Sort of. Maybe.

Thankfully, Microsoft dropped the “Series” nonsense and now the whole thing is just “Windows Phone 7″. And that’s the name of the OS, I think. But it seems like the old moniker, Windows Mobile, was better suited for software. I understand that Microsoft wanted to break away from the swan-diving Windows Mobile platform, but then why keep the numerical reference? Windows Phone 7 follows Windows Mobile 6.

Again, the hope is that consumers will use these things. But Microsoft sure isn’t going to make it easy.

Anyway, let’s go back to Windows Live services for a second. I understand that with the majority of Microsoft business wrapped around Windows, they want to keep that branding intact. But increasingly, these services have nothing to do with actual windows — as in, desktop windows. I suppose it’s fine to tie it to the name of their OS — even though many feel the OS as we know it will begin to decline over the next decade — but wrapping in the whole “Live” element with “Windows” just makes the branding unseemly in a lot of cases.

Just check out this list. There are like 20-something of these various “Windows Live” services. My favorite is Windows Live SkyDrive. It sounds like a synth band from the 80s.

Then there are secondary services for feature phones like “Windows Live Calendar Mobile”, “Windows Live Home Mobile”, and “Windows Live SkyDrive Mobile”. You get the idea. Or do you?

Windows Live itself came about as Microsoft wanted to rebrand from MSN as the age of the Internet was in full swing. But arguably the key component of that, search, has already morphed a couple times away from being “Windows Live Search.” The artist formerly known as MSN Search became Live Search for a bit, before eventually giving way to Bing.

I don’t think it’s a complete coincidence that as soon as Microsoft dropped the whole “Windows Live” aspect of the name for search, the product started to take off. Sure, a lot (and maybe most) of that was marketing spend. But that’s kind of the point — it’s easier to market something called “Bing” rather than “Windows Live Search.” Or worse, just imagine if Microsoft had gone with “Windows Live Bing” — I’m sure it was discussed.

So if Microsoft really wanted to go with the whole “Mesh” branding, maybe it should just be “Mesh” and not “Windows Live Mesh.” Or at least just make it “Windows Mesh” or “Live Mesh” — why do we need all these words?

And why do we need “Live” at all? Live.com, which Microsoft owns, currently points to Hotmail. As the world’s most popular email service, “Hotmail” seems to work as a name. Of course, Microsoft has tried to rebrand it as “Windows Live Hotmail” for no apparent reason. And they also have “Windows Live Mail“, apparently.

I could go on and on and on but my head is spinning trying to make sure I’m getting these names right. There’s Microsoft Office Live and there’s Office Web Apps. Office Web Apps work on SkyDrive, I think — but I don’t know what that means. Microsoft Office Live contains both Office Live Workspace and Office Live Small Business. Don’t ask me what either does.

All I want to know is if I can hook up Microsoft Office Live with Office Web Apps using Windows Live Mesh, and then port everything to my Windows Phone 7 Series phone using my Windows Live SkyDrive account — or just my Windows Live ID?

In other words, will it sync?

Later this year, California residents will be voting on Proposition 19, a measure that would legalize marijuana in the state. And, given how much controversy revolves around the issue (think of the children!), we’re bound to see plenty of ads in the run-up to the November 2 election. Thing is, you won’t be seeing ads in favor of legalization on some of the web’s most popular sites, because their parent companies are afraid of being associated with a pro-marijuana stance.

The issue has come to a head over at Reddit, which reported to its users earlier today that its parent company Condé Nast would not allow it to accept paid ads in support of Prop. 19. Redditors predictably rebelled, voting up numerous stories in favor of the law (see screenshot below). And now, in a daring move, Reddit is fighting back too: it’s announced that it will begin running ads supporting Proposition 19, free of charge. Condé Nast was afraid of taking money in support of Prop. 19, so Reddit is making sure that doesn’t happen.

It’s a gutsy move. But Reddit would have faced a significant sustained backlash (and users perpetually upvoting Prop 19 stories on the site) if it bowed to Condé’s wishes. We’ve reached out to Reddit for more details and will update if we get any.

This isn’t the first time pro-marijuana ads have had issues with a popular social site. Earlier this week the Huffington Post reported that Facebook was barring ads in favor of legalization because the “image of a pot leaf is classified with all smoking products and therefore is not acceptable under our policies”. Update: This post previously said that Facebook was blocking ads in favor of Proposition 19, but the ads were for Just Say Now, an organization that’s in favor of broader legalization than just Prop 19.

StockTwits has built a business out of people tweeting their thoughts and actions around various public stocks. SecondMarket has built a business out of people interested in the buying and selling of various private stocks. It seems only natural to shove the two together. Which is exactly what they’re doing today with a new partnership.

As you may be aware, to send a tweet to StockTwits, you have to append the “$SYMBOL” syntax to your tweet. The same idea will now work with these private stocks that SecondMarket tracks. For example, if you’re interested in TechCrunch stock, you’d tweet your thoughts with “$TCRH” appended on to the tweet. For Facebook, you’d use “$FBOOK“. For Twitter, “$TWIT“. And so on.

When you do this, these tweets get pulled into the StockTwits system and you can see a stream of what people are saying about these stocks on individual pages there. SecondMarket then pulls in these curated tweets as well from StockTwits to supplement their own pages.

SecondMarket currently tracks about 500 private companies that aren’t yet public but have interest from outside investors in their stock. The company has made their own proprietary symbols for each of these, and those are the ones (as shown in the examples above) that StockTwits will be using. As more are made by SecondMarket, StockTwits will add them to their system.

SecondMarket has completed some $300 million worth of transactions involving these private stock sales. And there is currently over $30 billion in assets available on the market — thanks largely to companies like Facebook and Zynga which will undoubtedly go public sometime in the next few years. Those two companies and others — like Pandora, recently — have fueled the explosion in interest in these non-public tech stock markets. And StockTwits is smart to attach itself to this wave.

Get tweeting about that hot $TCRH stock.

The entire Internet (aka Facebook, Google, Apple AOL, Facebook, eBay, Netflix, Office Depot, OfficeMax, Staples, Yahoo, and YouTube) has just been served with a vague and vast patent violation suit from Microsoft’s co-founder Paul Allen. As patent suits are notoriously unpopular, the response from tech pundits has been apprehensive. Now the companies named are starting to punch back, a representative from Facebook told TechCrunch, “We believe this suit is completely without merit and we will fight it vigorously.”

A representative from Google also commented on the validity of the suit.

“This lawsuit against some of America’s most innovative companies reflects an unfortunate trend of people trying to compete in the courtroom instead of the marketplace. Innovation — not litigation — is the way to bring to market the kinds of products and services that benefit millions of people around the world.”

According to the WSJ, “Mr. Allen, a pioneer of computer software, didn’t develop any of the technology himself but owns the patents.”

In the suit, Interval Licensing LLC, a company owned by Allen, lists violations of four decade old patents (6,263,507, 6,034,652, 6,788,314, 6,757,682) that seem to cover basic operations of almost any Internet company including Google, Facebook and Microsoft — who unsurprisingly is not listed by Allen as a defendant — especially patent #657.  It also seems as though patents #657 and #314 are exactly the same.

• Patent #507 "Browser for Use in Navigating a Body of Information, With Particular Application to Browsing Information Represented By Audiovisual Data."
• Patent #657 "Attention Manager for Occupying the Peripheral Attention of a Person in the Vicinity of a Display Device."
• Patent #314 "Attention Manager for Occupying the Peripheral Attention of a Person in the Vicinity of a Display Device."
• Patent #682 "Alerting Users to Items of Current Interest."

“Defendant Facebook has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the '682 patent. Facebook is liable for infringing the '682 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making and using websites and associated hardware and software to provide alerts that information is of current interest to a user as claimed in the patent.”

“Defendant Google has infringed and continues to infringe one or more claims of the '682 patent. Google is liable for infringing the '682 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 271 by making and using websites and associated hardware and software to provide alerts that information is of current interest to a user as claimed in the patent.”

Earlier this month TechCrunch’s Vivek Wadha wrote about why patents in the technology industry are somewhat absurd.

“But in software these are just nuclear weapons in an arms race. They don't foster innovation, they inhibit it. That's because things change rapidly in this industry. Speed and technological obsolescence are the only protections that matter. Fledgling startups have to worry more about some big player or patent troll pulling out a big gun and bankrupting them with a frivolous lawsuit than they do about someone stealing their ideas.”

Paul Allen might have just provided us with the most extreme proof of Wadha’s argument yet.

Update: The WSJ’s Jennifer Valentino-DeVries has a closer look at the Interval Licensing patents, illustrated.

Image: jr11223344

Google has just bought TechCrunch50 startup Angstro according to a post on the company’s site. The company’s founder, entrepreneur Rohit Khare, has joined Google to work on the company’s social networking product Google Me, according to an L.A. Times report.

Angstro launched in 2008 as a newspaper for people in your professional network. The site skimmed through content across blogs, news sites, and a number of other sources to look for material that is related to the people you know and work with.

Last year, Angstro launched Knx.to, a real-time search engine capability and API that looks up most recent social information about any of your friends, from their LinkedIn profile to their Flickr account to their Facebook profile. It’s unclear if Knx.to was part of the acquisition.

Google has been ramping up its team for its Facebook competitor GoogleMe, most recently ‘acq-hiring’ Slide and the company’s founder Max Levchin. Google’s decision to hire Khare isn’t surprising. With Angtsro and Knx.to, Khare has developed an expertise in developing products that tap into your social graph.

When Microsoft launched Windows Live Sync in beta at the end of June, it merged it with its long-awaited Windows Live Mesh, but both still kept separate branding. The product will take on the Windows Live Mesh branding in the next couple of months. There are a few other changes coming too.

Right now Windows Live Sync, which is already being used by 240,000 people in beta, syncs files between PCs or between PCs and the cloud (mobile will be added later, but that is the ultimate vision). Syncing between PCs is unlimited, but syncing to the cloud up till now has been capped at 2 gigabytes per account. That will soon be increased to 5 gigabytes.

The average person in the beta is syncing only 240 megabytes of data to the cloud, but you can never have too much storage. Between PCs, however, they are syncing 675 files, or 1.2 gigabytes of data, on average. As soon as Microosft adds mobile into the equation, the amount of storage in the cloud will jump considerably, because nobody wants to keep big files on their phone if they can help it.

Windows Live Sync will also be upgraded to sync hidden files and do a better job showing which files are synced and which are syncing at any given time. And on Monday, in a related announcement, Microsoft will be making Hotmail emails, contacts, and calendars available to most mobile phones via Exchange Active Sync, which is a push technology (think IMAP, plus contacts and calendars).

Syncing files and media between devices is a big problem that has yet to be solved completely. Getting all your data on your mobile phone from the cloud will become especially important. But I am not sure the model of picking folders to sync really works. Sometimes you don’t know ahead of time what you will want to access, and you just want to be able to grab anything that is on your computer. Startups like Libox are taking this approach, and already offer a mobile solution, but not yet a cloud backup. Someone will get this right.

The busy green tech industry is teeming with companies focused on alternative energy. Some of the biggest new sources of energy they are trying to tap into include solar, wind, hydroelectric, geothermal, biomass and fuel cells. Most companies harnessing each power source are pursuing somewhat similar technologies – such as photovoltaic cells in solar, turbines in wind and hydroelectric – and then innovate from there.

There are also many companies, however, that also focus on green technology and alternative energy but in different ways. Here are five you may not have heard of that are worth keeping an eye on. They are developing new ways to capture and store energy, light up our world, and power our vehicles.

New Energy Technologies

New Energy Technologies has two interesting projects under development: Motion Power and Solar Window. Motion Power aims to harness lost inertia from braking cars at places like toll booths, drive-thrus and traffic lights. The company is backed by the stealthy Quercus Trust, a VC and investment firm that focuses primarily on green tech.

The technology sits on the road where drivers often brake. As a car passes over the device, it pushes down mechanical treadles, allowing the device to help slow down its momentum and harvest some of its kinetic energy in the process. The company calls this an “external regenerative brake” that can convert wasted energy that usually turns into brake heat into electricity that can be used to power road signs, street lights and emergency power storage systems.

According to the company’s calculations, capturing kinetic energy one time a day from the approximately 6,000,000 trucks and 250,000,000 cars on U.S. roads could produce enough electricity to power 250,000 homes.

New Energy Technologies is also experimenting with solar energy. Its Solar Window is being developed to spray ordinary glass with solar cells that can turn windows into small-scale energy producers. Many photovoltaic cells require metal to help conduct energy, but New Energy Technologies has developed a prototype that uses transparent compounds to serve the same function. Unlike most solar films, which require high temperatures to be applied, the spray can be used at room temperature.

Lilliputian Systems

Lilliputian Systems, as the name implies, is concerned with making big changes using tiny technology in consumer electronics such as phones and laptops. The company was born in MIT’s Microsystems Technology Lab and hopes to replace lithium-ion batteries with miniature fuel cells. The cells will be powered by butane and sit on a chip to power a device.

The device produces electricity by converting the butane into carbon monoxide and hydrogen. When the two are exposed to air and electrolytes, it turns into electricity, keeping your gadgets powered indefinitely. The process’ byproducts are water vapor and carbon dioxide. The company claims the fuel cells are safe, and has convinced the Federal Aviation Administration of this enough to approve the use of Lilliputian fuel cells on airplanes.

The company claims the generators will be six times more efficient than electronics that require a wall charger. Lilliputian is backed by more than $90 million from investors that include Atlas Ventures, Kleiner Perkins and Rockport Capital.

Beacon Power

Beacon Power is focused not on energy production, but on energy storage. Like Lilliputian, Beacon thinks it can do better than existing battery technologies, and uses flywheels to store energy for later use.

Flywheels are like mechanical batteries, turning electricity into kinetic energy that keeps a wheel spinning inside a vacuum chamber until the energy is needed again. When this happens, the flywheel spins more slowly and electricity flows back out of the device. The company claims its flywheel chambers can be used for years with minimal maintenance and, unlike batteries, their storage capacity remains stable over time.

The U.S. Department of Energy has funded Beacon several times and says the company’s flywheels are up to ten times faster at responding to grid frequency changes than energy sources powered by fossil fuels. The company recently began building a 20-megawatt capacity energy storage plant in Stephentown, NY.

Topanga Technologies

Topanga is working on developing high-efficiency lighting whose color quality, output and longevity are better than those of LEDs, halogens and fluorescents.

The company produces plasma lights in warm, cool and white temperatures, and aims to brighten the commercial sector, selling to cities, large companies and building managers. By Topanga’s estimates, most fixtures pay for themselves in savings within three years and require very little maintenance.

Each lamp has an estimated lifespan of about 50,000 hours, or about 10 years. This is equal to the lifespan of most LEDs, and significantly higher than CFLs’ 12,000-hour and halogen’s 3,000-hour lifespans.

These plasma lights can be dimmed down to 20% of their maximum brightness and can give off up to 130 lumens per watt. The company is backed by investors that include Khosla Ventures and Nth Power.

Xtreme Green

Xtreme Green makes electric sports vehicles, including motorcycles, scooters and ATVs, with snowmobiles, and electric watercraft like jet skis under development. The company also produces curb-jumping three-wheeled patrol vehicles and motorcycles for police forces.

Although the company is best known for its X Rider electric motorcycle, its recreational vehicle line makes it somewhat unique in the electric vehicle space.

As environmental concerns about emissions grow, more lakes and wildlife areas no longer permit gas engines on the water. Xtreme Green’s watercraft are usually permitted, however. The company’s Jetboard runs on lithium batteries that let you play on the water for nearly two hours.