Editor’s Note: TechCrunch columnist Semil Shah currently works at Votizen and is based in Palo Alto. You can follow him on Twitter @semil

If you feel there’s been too much hype about “big data” recently, check this out: the Chief Technology Officer of the United States of America — Todd Park — wants developers and entrepreneurs to build new products, services, and companies using free data provided by the federal government. In this brief discussion backstage at Disrupt, Park emphasizes that he, his team, and the President of the United States have all fully endorsed the idea that key datasets be made available to the public, and there have even been examples of entrepreneurs forming companies around free datasets, one that’s even hired over 70 employees. (For entrepreneurs interested in health data specifically, Park’s group is helping organize an entire symposium on the topic in early June in Washington DC; click here for more details.) For developers interested in big data sets, this brief discussion with Park would be quite relevant.

Some significant changes afoot at social and mobile games company Digital Chocolate: founder Trip Hawkins has stepped down as the CEO of the company. And we have also heard a report — yet to be confirmed directly by the company — that president Marc Metis has stepped up as interim CEO; and that Digital Chocolate has laid off up to 180 people across offices in India, San Mateo, Russia and elsewhere.

Hawkins’ news was made public by Trip himself in his company blog, where he notes that he is “transitioning into a consulting and advisory relationship with Digital Chocolate.” Without giving away much about the state of affairs at the company, the move, he writes, is being made as the company  is “narrowing its focus.”

“It made sense to get more streamlined,” he explains. Hawkins founded the company eight years ago.

Ironically, the news comes at the same time that Hawkins is marking the 30th anniversary of Electronic Arts, another gaming company that he founded: he incorporated that company on May 28, 1982. Before that he worked at Apple, which he joined in 1978, when it only had 25 employees.

Trip’s LinkedIn profile now notes his employment as “computer games professional” with CEO, Digital Chocolate, now as a past position.

Meanwhile, Marc Metis, who we have heard is now the interim CEO, still lists president of the company as his most current job on LinkedIn. He has been with Digital Chocolate since 2009 and has held other roles such as head of marketing.

Layoffs. Again, we have yet to get confirmation from Digital Chocolate on the 180-layoff figure — we have reached out and will update with any detail we receive — but our tipster says that the cuts are as follows: half the staffs of both the Bangalore and San Mateo offices; the closure of Digital Chocolate’s Mexicali office, an office in Armenia and Sandlot offices in Bothell, Washington, and St Petersburg. (Digital Chocolate bought Sandlot in August 2011.)

Digital Chocolate has had nearly $60 million in funding to date, with backers including Kleiner, Perkins, Caulfied and Byers; Sequoia; and Intel, among others. And in its eight years, it’s had a number of hits both in social gaming (eg Facebook) and in mobile, on iOS and other platforms.

But lately traffic has fallen. In social games, Zynga, ranked number-one, has 247 million MAUs, according to AppData. In comparison, Digital Chocolate ranks significantly lower, at number-61, with 6.3 million MAUs. Galaxy Life is Digital Chocolate’s most popular social game at the moment, with 1.7 million MAUs and 310k DAUs. Traffic for its games overall is falling, down 470,000 in the last seven days.

Editor's Note: This guest post is written by Kwindla Hultman Kramer, who is the CEO of Oblong Industries — the company known for developing the gestural interfaces in the film Minority Report. The company's current customers and partners include Boeing, SAP, GE, and others.

When I was a boy of 14, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be 21, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years

Mark Twain, ”Old Times on the Mississippi”
Atlantic Monthly, 1874

When I was a graduate student at the MIT Media Lab fifteen years ago, my research group went on a retreat every year with Famous Computer Scientists from Xerox PARC. I greatly admired these people and their work. But I was young and in a hurry to get where I thought I was going. And it sometimes seemed that every time us young folks talked about our research, or showed a demo, someone would say something like, “oh, that’s very nice, when we did that at PARC ….”

Fast forward to the present. For the last few years, every time I see a new piece of small, open, hackable, networked hardware, or a new reputation engine, or a generative art piece, or a product built around location tracking plus real-time information push, or — well, you get the idea — I have to bite my tongue and think of the PARC folks to keep myself from saying, “oh, that’s very nice, when we did that at the Media Lab ….”

All of which just proves that the wheel of history revolves. New work is always new, by definition, even if it’s not entirely new (which nothing can ever be).

That’s a long introduction to a short essay on programming tools. In particular, I’ve been intrigued by the online discussion recently around some very nice work on interactive development environments by Bret Victor and a related Kickstarter project — and now YCombinator company — called Light Table, by Chris Granger.

Bret’s stuff is great. And Light Table is great. If you’re anything like me, you want to use the tools these two people are building. Go contribute to the Kickstarter project right now.

The funny thing is, though, that we had pretty interesting versions of these tools twenty years ago. By the late 1980s, professional LISP and Smalltalk environments were more than a little like Light Table.

When I discovered Visual Age Smalltalk in 1996 I was blown away. Visual Age (and other Smalltalk tools) were built around snippets of code representing objects and methods. There were very few file operations. You could run your code and make live changes to the source, which were reflected in the running process.

There was no distinction between the development environment and the runtime. You could save out your working “image”. There were good tools for managing forks, versioning and merge — not just of source code, but of the full system image.

If you were writing a GUI application in Visual Age Smalltalk, all the elements on screen were interactively inspectable from inside the debugger. And all the system internals, including the virtual environment, the compiler and the debugger, were introspectible and hackable just by writing a little more Smalltalk code.

When I raved about this to my friends, some of whom had old SparcStations sitting in their coat closets running their home networks, they said, “oh yeah, that’s nice, when we built all that stuff into our LISP machines ten years ago at Symbolics ….”

So one question we might ask is why programming tools like this haven’t taken over, if we’ve had them for a long time and they are, indeed, generally better in objective or widely agreed upon ways?

I can think of a few possible reasons.

First, the requirement of a dynamic runtime to build these dynamic environments on top of is actually quite a big deal. Bret’s work is in JavaScript. Light Table targets JavaScript, Clojure, and Python.

These days, we have two classes of languages.

We use heavily engineered languages that are very, very static in their aesthetic and implementation choices. Truly interactive development environments are difficult to build for these C-family languages. And C-family languages have remained dominant until very recently, because they have both real advantages and “worse is better,” inertial advantages.

On the other hand, we have dynamic languages that, relatively speaking, are really just prototypes. Javascript and Ruby and Python are useful and interesting. But much of the work on the dynamic languages side of the fence seems to go into tweaking syntax, reinventing the wheel at the VM level, and community-based library development. All of which I’m actually a big fan of, but goodness, it does sort of make me pine for that 200-person (I’m guessing) crackerjack team working on VisualAge for ten years at IBM.

Maybe Google — in some ways the IBM of 2012 — will get us there again with JavaScript and V8. Then we’ll have a dynamic language stack that is fully engineered in the same sense that IBM Smalltalk and Symbolics LISP were.

Second, I think that the web-enabled explosion of programming and programmers has set back the development of software tooling just as it (temporarily) set back user interface design.

Again, I hasten to make clear that I think what the web hath wrought is wonderful, on balance. But there’s no free lunch, and for ten years most of the tech world turned its attention to building out a new global platform that could not, in its early days, support very much in the way of new user interfaces or sophisticated runtime architecture work.

The web has grown up, though. The capabilities of modern JavaScript frameworks attest to that, as does the low-level work on implementations like V8.

Third, screen real estate matters. The traditional “everything is a file” approach is wonderfully portable. You can build an environment for working with files even for a very small display. Heck, you can work with files if all you have is a line-mode terminal. But flexibly arranged code snippets and fully interactive graphical debuggers require a lot of pixels.

And there aren’t always enough pixels. I’m amazed at how often I visit Big Companies and see full-time programmers working at their desks on single, 15″ monitors. That’s an enormous missed opportunity to enable productivity.

Pixels have gotten really cheap, though, and come in more and more form factors. We actually could build, today, a development environment designed to make use of a laptop screen and a tablet screen, simultaneously. A MacBook Air and an iPad, used together, would give me more pixels than I had on my dual-monitor desktop back when I fired up Visual Age Smalltalk every day.

Finally, if we really want to get away from files and static representations of programs, maybe we want to get away from text altogether. There’s been lots of good academic work on graphical — as in, really, graphical — programming environments over the years. But that’s another entire conversation.

Here are a couple of good pages on LISP Machines, which really were the future before the future was quite possible to build. And, as far as I know, the closest anyone has ever gotten to creating a full dynamic environment for a C-language platform is Alexia Massalin’s Synthesis operating system. If you are a programmer of any kind, I’ll wager that Alexia’s dissertation will blow your mind.

So, let’s make the old tools new again. I want to use Light Table, and whatever Light Table catalyzes that we can’t yet imagine. But I do promise that when that new thing comes along, I’ll tell you we built an early version of it at the Media Lab at the tail end of the last century.

Editor’s note: Bill Ready is CEO of Braintree, an online and mobile payments provider.

Every day there is a new headline about mobile payments focused on using a mobile phone to pay at retail locations. Paypal, Google and other industry giants are racing to provide new in-store mobile payment solutions. Large merchants, such as Wal-mart and Target have contemplated their own mobile payment solutions.  The debate about whether NFC will be the preferred technology to enable mobile payments rages. However, despite all this press and efforts by industry giants, there is stunningly little traction to use a mobile device to pay at retail locations. This is largely because the solutions offered by industry giants thus far don't solve a meaningful problem in the daily lives of consumers or merchants. Few things in life are easier for consumers than swiping a credit card at checkout and in-store payment systems are as easy and ubiquitous as dial-tone for merchants.

However, There is a massive mobile commerce opportunity that is a severe pain point for both consumers and merchants, but large industry players are failing to meaningfully address it. That opportunity is e-commerce on the mobile device or m-commerce. M-commerce is ramping up, proving that consumers not only like to shop via their mobile device, but also will purchase. However, the numbers also show that there's significant room for improvement in the mobile device purchasing experience – mainly through optimizing the shopping and payment processes for consumers.

Online holiday shopping in 2011 showed substantial growth in mobile shopping activity, with both traffic and sales on mobile devices more than doubling their volume over the same period a year earlier, according to research from IBM. During the holiday shopping season, 14.6 percent of all online sessions on a retailer's site were initiated from a mobile device (up from 5.6 percent the year before), and sales from mobile devices reached 11 percent versus 5.5 percent in December 2010. Clearly, more consumers are becoming comfortable shopping and buying from retailer web sites using their smartphones.

But this volume of mobile shopping is far below the potential. Total time online via mobile device already exceeds the amount of time spent online via traditional desktops and laptops according to data from Flurry.  That's largely because the web browsing capabilities of mobile devices and mobile apps have improved dramatically over the last few years. If consumers spend more time browsing the web on their mobile devices than traditional devices, they'll ultimately end up shopping and purchasing more on those mobile devices as well. The mobile buying experience just needs to catch-up to where users are already. The opportunity now exists in making the mobile shopping experience as easy as possible for the consumer. This would increase sales and decrease the number of times a consumer gets frustrated with purchasing experiences that haven't been optimized for mobile and likely abandons the purchase.

Here are four immediately actionable items that e-commerce companies and payment providers can take today to improve mobile purchasing and capture the m-commerce opportunity:

1. One-click checkout: As exemplified by Amazon, nothing beats the one-click checkout experience for online shoppers. The more steps we put between the consumer and the final transaction, the more we risk them dropping off (which, many times means the consumer never returns). This opportunity is amplified on the mobile device where it is significantly more cumbersome to enter your credit card data. E-commerce providers should be using a card vault solution that enables one-click checkout for both online and mobile transactions.

2. Mobile security: Security is an issue whether you're shopping online using a laptop computer or a mobile phone. However, consumers are more likely to lose a mobile phone than a laptop or desktop and they are less likely to have password protected the phone than the laptop or desktop. Consumers need to know that if they lose their phone or it gets stolen, their credit card information is secure. Taking steps like encrypting credit card data directly on the device as soon as the user enters it or implementing a one-click checkout so that the user never has to enter credit card data on the device help to ensure that if a mobile device is lost or stolen, a fraudster can't gain access to their credit card data.

3. Speed of transaction: Speed really does matter, particularly in the limited bandwidth environment of the mobile device. If a retailer's process is not optimized for mobile, they are likely losing sales to a slow and painful experience consumers just don't have patience for today. Through benchmarking, we have found that just the payment process alone with many payment providers requires multiple round-trips between the mobile device and the payment provider's servers, some as many as sixteen, just to complete the payment transaction. Look for a payment process that makes a single, efficient round-trip to the server to complete the purchase. Otherwise, the consumer will likely be waiting a very long time for the transaction to complete or may even abandon after clicking purchase.

4. Websites that are fully optimized for the mobile shopping experience: If a consumer has to pan around, pinch and expand things in order to make a purchase, they're likely not going to do it. Without a site and shopping experience that's fully optimized for mobile, retailers risk losing the consumers who are shopping on their phones. When a user encounters a site that isn't mobile optimized, they are increasingly likely to go to other sites that have optimized for mobile since there are a rapidly growing number of sites that are catering to the mobile experience. A good mobile shopping experience is one that is fully optimized for the smaller screen, takes advantage of touch screen technology and also offers a fast checkout in as few steps as possible.

But won't mobile shopping cannibalize online shopping?

I've heard merchants say that optimizing mobile hasn't been a priority for them in the past because they assume the consumer would just switch devices and fire up the laptop or desktop computer to complete their purchase. While this seems like a perfectly logical assumption, the evidence out there now doesn't back it up. Mobile browsing didn't surpass online browsing by cannibalizing online browsing.  Traditional online browsing is still growing, but mobile browsing eclipsed traditional browsing through the addition of significant additional browsing time by the user in spare moments away from their computers (we've all seen people walking down the street or in the store looking at their mobile device). Therefore, mobile presents added opportunity to make purchases. If you compared this to offline shopping, the mobile device presents an opportunity equivalent to having your storefront on every street corner that a user walks by, given the always-on, always-available nature of mobile browsing.

Chasing the real opportunity

So far, the mobile payments debate has revolved around solving a problem that doesn't really exist. There are few things in the life of a consumer easier than swiping a card at checkout. There are a number of  reasons we're not seeing major pickup in "use your phone as a credit card" technology, but one of the most significant is that we're forcing change where it's not yet needed.

Mobile shopping or m-commerce on the other hand is real and growing rapidly. In a 2011 survey by Pew Research, 25 percent of smartphone users in the U.S. said they do most of their online browsing on their phone. The real opportunity is in converting those browsers – who are growing by the day – into purchasers.

Editor's Note: Nir Eyal is the founder of two acquired startups and an advisor to several Bay Area companies and incubators. Nir blogs about the intersection of psychology, technology, and business at NirAndFar.com. Follow him on Twitter @nireyal.

If you're like me, you've had enough of the Facebook IPO story. For tech entrepreneurs struggling to build stuff, the cacophony of recent press is just more noise. That's why when my friend Andrew Chen posted an insightful analysis of Facebook user data, I was happy to get back to learning from what the company did right instead of debating what its bankers did wrong.

Chen calculated Facebook's historical ratio of daily active users (DAU) to monthly active users (MAU) and the stats are startling. Since March 2009, when the earliest data is available, approximately 50% of Facebook users logged in daily.

As other technology companies struggle to maintain DAU to MAU ratios of 5% or less, Facebook's numbers appear stratospherically high in comparison. But what is equally surprising is the consistency of that ratio over time. Despite periodic user revolts in reaction to changes in the site, the ratio remained strangely stable. In fact, the number has risen over the past year and is now hovering at 58% as of March of this year.

It's as if Zuckerberg has steered the company by this golden ratio. Which begs the question: is there some wisdom here regarding this ratio as a predictor of Internet success? Obviously, there are no guarantees and starting cutting edge tech companies will always be risky business. But, assuming you have a solid business model, there are good reasons to believe that if there is one metric to focus on while building your business, it's the percentage of users who come back daily as expressed by this ratio.

As I've written previously, I believe a mastery of the mechanics of habit design is increasingly deciding startup winners and losers. Not only because habits cement user behavior in an increasingly cluttered digital world, but because a high-engagement product is also a high-growth product. The two are one and the same. A high DAU to MAU ratio is a great indicator of the strength of user habits and, ceteris paribus, I'd bet on a business with the higher ratio over a competitor every time. Here's why:

More is More

When it comes to web and mobile startups, high DAU to MAU is more important than the size or growth rate of an entrenched competitor. Case in point, Facebook defeated much earlier competitors like MySpace and Friendster, both of which had healthy growth rates and millions of users by the time Facebook got started.

This is because of what I call the "more is more principle." High user engagement has an exponential effect on user growth. As David Skok points out on his blog, "The most important factor to increasing growth is not the Viral Coefficient, but the Viral Cycle Time." Viral Cycle time is the amount of time it takes to complete a viral loop and it has massive impact on user growth. "For example, after 20 days with a cycle time of two days, you will have 20,470 users," Skok writes. "But if you halved that cycle time to one day, you would have over 20 million users! It is logical that it would be better to have more cycles occur, but it is less obvious just how much better."

Having a greater proportion of DAUs dramatically increases Viral Cycle Time for two reasons. First, daily users initiate loops more often – think tagging a photo on Facebook. Second, more daily active users means more people to respond and react to each invitation. The cycle not only perpetuates; with high DAU to MAU, it accelerates.

One Way to Grow

Those who talk tech split into two dogmatic camps. Some prioritize growth and accept low engagement, while others believe a company needs to nail engagement before focusing on growth. I believe this is a false dichotomy. If you have only one or the other, congratulations, you've got squat.

Let's first take a look at user growth. Distribution, of course, is critically important and no company can survive without a sound customer acquisition strategy. Not only is growth essential but it is something engineer-driven companies love to work on. In fact, the title of "Growth Hacker" has recently become a badge of honor among Silicon Valley digerati. Tweaking viral coefficients and instantly seeing the results is intoxicating. It's startup feedback at its finest.

But optimizing growth without engagement has its pitfalls. As Peter Thiel recently told his class at Stanford, the effectiveness of distribution channels tends to follow a power law. Just as businesses tend to have only one revenue stream, they also have only one good growth strategy – the effectiveness of which is 10x the results of other distribution channels. The problem with having only one real way to grow is that the method becomes obvious to others and is quickly copied. For example, in its early days, Facebook capitalized on users importing their email contact list to drive growth. But soon thereafter, so did everyone else.

But having competitors copy you is a high-class problem. It means something is working. Worse yet is discovering a fantastic viral loop that drives growth only to see engagement crater when users realize there’s little long-term value in the service. Ringtone businesses, sheep-throwing Facebook games circa 2008, and today’s social video sharing apps using questionable growth tactics, are just a few of the “leaky bucket” businesses that occur when distribution outpaces engagement.

When it comes to building a big business, clearly a good acquisition channel is mandatory, but not sufficient. Given the power law of user growth, you will likely only have one major way of acquiring customers and it won't be much of a secret. You'll need some other competitive advantage.

Engagement as Advantage

As opposed to distribution channels, the mechanics driving user engagement do not follow a power law. In fact, it is the nuances of user behavior that make the competition irrelevant, just as it did in the case of Facebook's early rivals.

Discovering non-obvious user needs and creating accompanying habits is accomplished through deep observation grounded in solid behavioral theory, followed by methodical trial and error. It takes time to create new habits and getting the user to act the way you'd hoped is accomplished by uncovering a thousand tiny insights into the user’s psyche. The process of uncovering latent needs is characterized by understanding more about users than they know about themselves.

The distribution strategy will always be obvious, but the behavioral insights are important secrets that can only be discovered through rigorous testing. Zynga had one obvious way to acquire users, namely Facebook ads. But the company has a cadre of behavioral insights it uses to craft addictive games. It collects terabytes of information daily to alter game dynamics to boost user engagement. Quora primarily drives users to its site through Google search traffic. But the conjecture about all the reasons why the service is so sticky spills over a long question thread. Instagram posted images to Twitter and Facebook to drive user acquisition, placing its growth strategy in plain sight. However, the founders, one of whom studied psychology as a Symbolic Systems major at Stanford, acquired a deep understanding of what makes users tick and click.

But why can't behavioral design be copied like a distribution strategy? Because competitors are not able to recognize and act upon these kinds of insights. You can know the competition's product feels better to use, but you won't know why. Engaging products gain their advantages by leveraging tiny improvements, which together create huge advantage. From the outside, you can't tell what's working and what isn't.

For example, the iPhone is objectively a better designed, more user-friendly, and ultimately more engaging product than the Android experience. But why? Nearly everyone, when given the choice between an Android interface and an iPhone, chooses the iPhone. There are plenty of good reasons to own an Android, but intuitive interface ain't one. Google knows this and yet they can't replicate Apple because they don't know the answer to "why?" You can't make decisions between seemingly identical interface choices unless you've walked the path of user behavior. Without this knowledge, copying the competition becomes a game of throwing darts at features.

Habit design requires a fundamentally different, though complementary skill set to growth hacking. Designing high-engagement products is an art which is increasingly becoming a science. The craft crosses the disciplines of psychology and design – both fields which are hard to learn in a short period of time. Unfortunately, designing habits often falls in the organisational abyss between the founders' vision and what is technically feasible.

But those companies able to habituate users quickly enjoy massive advantages. Not only does engagement drive growth for the reasons stated above, but users tend to shut out other, sometimes superior, solutions. In fact, business history is peppered with technically inferior products beating competitors because of the fierce loyalty of habituated users (I'm looking at you Apple addicts). Users only have time and brain cycles for a limited number of services. If a high proportion of users are using your service daily, they aren't using the competition's.

Can't Have One Without the Other

But focusing on engagement without growth is also a losing proposition. For one, virality is not something that can be bolted on to a product after it is in the wild. Distribution is not an afterthought and it needs to be built into the core of the experience. Either the company has a viral growth mechanic or it doesn't. So no matter how engaging your service is, it will remain niche unless there is a way to get it in front of new users en masse.

Creating a company with both high engagement and high growth requires a sound distribution engine fueled by active users. Both engagement and growth are essential to a company’s viability and by adhering to the tao of DAU and MAU, founders have an accurate point of focus to increase their odds of success.

Thank you to David King for reading early versions of this essay
Photo credit: Pink Sherbet Photography

Editor’s note: Leonid ("Lenny") Kravets is a patent attorney at Panitch, Schwarze, Belisario and Nadel, LLP in Philadelphia, PA. Lenny focuses his practice on patent prosecution and intellectual property transactions in computer-related technology areas. He specializes in developing IP strategy for young technology companies and blogs on this topic at StartupsIP. Follow Lenny on Twitter: @lkravets and @startupsIP.

As software patent litigation ramped up over the past few years, software patents have come under the microscope within the technical community. Many investors and technologists believe that software patents should be abolished all together, while others take the less extreme position that many software patents are obvious over known prior art (“prior art” being earlier publications that show a patent  is obvious or not new). Courts are increasingly cognizant of these criticisms.

Though it is unlikely that software patents are going away any time soon, as the recent summary judgment in eBay v PartsRiver (PartsRiver is now known as Kelora) demonstrates, courts are beginning to do a more thorough job of applying the obviousness standard to software patents.

Kelora claims to have the patent on faceted (parametric) search. The company is a hybrid between a practicing entity and a "patent troll" in that Kelora offers a search product, but has aggressively pursued a licensing and litigation strategy against a wide range of large and small Internet retailers. Though Kelora has not received as much attention from the press as some non-practicing entities such as Lodsys, the Kelora patents have posed a significant threat to the Internet retailing infrastructure. In Kelora's largest lawsuit, defendants include Internet giants such as Microsoft, EBay, Target, Amazon and NewEgg.

While the named defendants have chosen to fight Kelora, over the past few years, many others have taken licenses under the Kelora patents. Other smaller targets have decided to turn off their parametric search features to avoid being accused of infringement by Kelora. Many targets of Kelora's patents believe the patents to be invalid over prior art that goes back to as early as the 1960s.

Over the past few years, the Kelora defendants have mounted a significant effort to invalidate the Kelora patents, which were filed in the early 1990s. First, the patents were re-examined by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) over newly found prior art, but Kelora overcame the new rejections by amending the claims to perform the parametric search through a resubmission to a server. When the lawsuit was allowed to continue with the amended claims, the defendants argued that the resubmission component was obvious over the known prior art because client/server architecture was well-known by the early 1990s.

On May 21st, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment.  The court agreed with the defendants' position that a server resubmission was obvious in view of other client/server systems of that time. The inventors of the Kelora patent, who still own a stake in the company, argued that when they came up with their parametric search invention in the early 1990s, they did not know of the client/"web" server infrastructure. However, in granting the motion, the judge found that such client/server systems were well-known, and it did not matter that the inventors themselves did not know of such a system.

While Kelora will almost certainly appeal this decision to the Federal Circuit, this result is promising for opponents of software patents. The summary judgment shows that courts are becoming increasingly sophisticated in interpreting the claims of software patents, and in applying prior art under the obviousness standard. While the Kelora defendants already expended significant resources in this case, finding that the patents are obvious at the summary judgment stage of the case saved the defendants the significant cost of a full trial.

Courts (and the USPTO) doing a better job of applying prior art to the claims of software patents is the best news possible for those who hope for a more economical way of dealing with software patents within the current legal system.

The game is over. That game where they get to hire you for 40 years, pay you far less than you create, and then give you a gold watch, and then you get bored, you get depressed, and you die alone.

It wasn’t that fun of a game anyway.

When I had a corporate job I would wake up depressed. I couldn’t move out of bed. The sun would be coming in. A cat on the fire escape staring at me through the window. Even it was more excited to be alive than me. And, by the way, I had the best job in the world. I interviewed prostitutes for a living at three in the morning.

But they were going to kill me in my cubicle.

In 2009 I asked about 10 Fortune 500 CEOs, “did you just use this crisis as an excuse to fire all the people you were afraid to fire before.” Only one said “of course” instantly. The others had to drink more. But then it was admitted: you’re all dead weight and there’s no loyalty.

We’ve entered the “Choose Yourself” era. The era without middlemen. Without The Other telling you your bonus, your salary, your movie can be made, your book published, your company funded, your life validated. The era where you have to always be planning your escape. Where you create your platforms on twitter, facebook, quora, pinterest,  blogging, vlogging, itunes, and wherever else and every day you Create and you Innovate and you Sell for yourself. You Eat what you Kill. And your rewards are commensurate with how sharp your teeth are.

Most people need to begin planning their exit strategy RIGHT NOW:

So here's the 10 reasons you need to quit your job right now. And below that I have the methods for doing it.

1) Safety. In ancient history you would start as the shoeshine boy, move to the mailroom, impress someone with your go-get-it attitude, become an assistant account executive, move up the ranks, move horizontally to another company, get promoted again, move vertically, horizontally, zig zag across corporate America and eventually retire with your IRA savings. The myth was over in 2008. It never really existed but now we know it’s a myth. You were addicted to the stability. The white picket fence. Getting away from home for ten hours a day. I understand. But it was an addiction. And the fix is gone. Your job was never safe. And it’s less safe now than it was yesterday. A billion people in China need a job and they are gunning for your cubicle.

2) Home. Everyone thinks they need a safe job so they can save up to buy a home and also qualify for a mortgage. Mortgage lenders at the banks like people who are like them – other people locked in cubicle prison.  They want to see an income statement. A tax return. A credit check. A stability check. A note from your therapist. Everything that proves you are a reliable human just like them. Well now you don't need to worry about that. Here's why you should never own a home in the first place. Save yourself the stress.

3) College. Everyone thinks they need to save up to send their kids to college. Depending on how many kids you have and where you want them to go to college it could cost millions. Well now you don’t need to send your kids to college. So you don't need to stress about that money anymore.

4) Your boss. Most people don't like their boss. Its like any relationship. Most of the time you get into a relationship for the wrong reasons. You were too young. You didn’t know what you wanted. You really loved the other girl but she rejected you. Eventually you're unhappy. And if you don't get out, you become miserable and scarred for life. That’s why 1 in 2 marriages end in divorce. That’s why you need to quit your job.

5) Your coworkers. Look around. Are these the people you were meant to spend the rest of your life with. You will spend more time with them then you will spend with your children.

6) Fear. We have such a high unemployment rate, people are afraid if they leave the job they are miserable at, they won't be able to get a job. This is true if you just walk into your boss's office and pee on his desk and get fired.  But its not true if you prepare well. note that we’ve just had 26 consecutive months in a row of private sector job growth. Much of that is people working at one or two-person companies (i.e. “startups”).  More on that in a bit.

7) The Work. Most people don't like the work they do. They spend 4 years going to college, another few years in graduate school, and then they think they have to use that law degree, business degree, architecture degree and then guess what? They hate it. They made a bad decision when they were 18. They chose “LAW”. Or “ECON”. But they don't want to admit it. They feel guilty. They are in debt. A trillion dollars in debt backed by the US government. No problem. Read on.

8) Bad things happen. You start to get depressed and you don’t know why. You start to feel like your life didn’t add up to what it should’ve. SOMETHING WENT WRONG. You start to physically ache. You get nervous about bonuses, promotions, who gave credit to who? You play politics (an ugly game), you fantasize about selling diet pills (Tim Ferris did it!), adults yell at you for irrational reasons, you have sex with another girl at work. Now work is like one big sexually transmitted disease.  And it gets worse and worse. You don't want to look back at your life and say, "man, those were the worst 45 years of my life." That wouldn't feel good.

9) The economy is about to boom.  I don't care if you believe this or not. Stop reading the newspaper so much. The newspapers are trying to scare you. Bernanke just printed up a trillion dollars and airlifted it onto the US economy. Who is going to scoop that up. You in your cubicle? Think again. And just what is a “Greece”? Is it that tiny country with the economy the size of Rhode Island that other countries have been supporting since Augustus paid all their bills in 20 BC? Just what are they?

10) Your job has clamped your creativity. You do the same thing every day. You want to be jolted, refreshed, rejuvenated.

Note: I will grant some people love their jobs. This is not for them but the 90% who don't.

But, you say: you still need to support yourself, you still need to support your family, you can't just walk into your boss's office and quit.

Good point. You need to prepare. Its like training for the Olympics if you feel now is the time to move on from your job. You need to be physically ready, emotionally (don't quit your job and get divorced on the same day for instance), mentally (get your idea muscle in shape) and spirituall all ready.

The posts that will help you quit your job. To quit, at least follow the ideas in the first post:

-          How to be the Luckiest Man Alive in 4 Easy Steps

-          What to do if you were Fired Today

-          The 100 Rules for Being an Entrepreneur

In the above link, it's not about starting a business. It's about finding what your frontier is, how to explore it, how to test the waters and move beyond it. I'm not saying I can do this. I've hit my boundary so many times and bounced off that I have six broken noses to show for it.

Some notes on this post:

Note #0: Why is this on techcrunch? Because all people want to know that they have a choice. That they can eat what they kill. That in the “Choose Yourself” era it’s ok to make the leap into the unknown, in the abyss, do your startup, save the world, deliver value, invent, create, make money, and have fun. You don’t have to do what is expected of you.

Note #1: I get a lot of criticisms from anonymous people in the message boards. Claudia begs me, "Don't look at the message boards unless you talk to me first." Because she knows I'm an addict. I tell her 'ok' but I know I'm going to look. Because that's what addicts do. I’m not selling anything. If you want any of my books and can’t afford then write me and I’ll send for free. I’m not pushing any agenda. I have nothing to gain by you quitting your job.

Note #2: Sometimes people criticize the "list" format in these posts. "10 reasons" for this. "10 reasons" for that. About 20% of my posts are lists. Not so much. Read "Happiness this Second”  for a recent non-list post. And Charlton Heston clearly didn't mind lists when he came down from Mt. Sinai with "The 10 Commandments", the very first blog post. 3500 years later and still getting clicks.

I don't mind when people critique me when they've lost, quit, or have been fired from as many jobs as I have. Or lost a home. Tried to raise two kids with almost nothing. Been as desperately unhappy as sometimes I've been. This doesn't qualify me for anything, of course. Maybe it disqualifies me. Who cares?  A lot of people have had much worse than me. And I've been very blessed as well. I’ve been able to come back.

Sometimes  you can build back up. And sometimes you just think, "How the hell did this happen to me again".  My goal in these posts is to help people maybe think for a split second they can reduce some stress in their lives, they don't have to go through what I went through, they can throw themselves into experience and still come back alive, and at the end of the day, they can use some of these ideas to live a better and more fulfilling life. I've had that experience and I like to write about it.

Later tonight I'm going to give my two daughters, ten and thirteen years old, two choices and ONLY two choices. Either they watch "Star Wars" with me or they watch "Schindler's List". And if they don't like either choice then maybe I'll just sit by the TV with some ice cream and watch all by myself.

The legend goes something like this: as a child, Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey’s father would relentlessly hound him to “Get better”, so Jack eventually banned the phrase from being tweeted. Go ahead and try it, the tweet won’t go through. But the legend? It’s a hoax.

See, way back when, Twitter wasn’t a popular smart phone app, it was a way to publish up to 140 characters to the Internet via text message. To let people follow and unfollow each other, change their bio, and more straight from SMS, Twitter created a list of commands that when sent wouldn’t be tweeted, but would trigger actions instead.

So now when you tweet  ”get better”, “get [any single word]“, and several other phrases Twitter interprets them as SMS commands.

If you want more to try, there’s “Fav [username]” to favorite someone’s last tweet, and “Suggest” to receive recommendations of who to follow. Some of the commands still work from the web interface and smartphone apps. You can follow someone by tweeting “follow joshconstine” or just “f [username without the @]“. Others like the mysterious “get” command that spawned the rumor on StackExchange Skeptics which was busted by user DMI, don’t work outside of SMS.

There’s also no evidence Dorsey’s father ever told him to “get better” or aggressively pushed him to succeed. In fact, Mr. Dorsey senior sounds like a very cool dad who ran a pizza restaurant that inspired Jack’s entrepreneurship, and helped Jack ”build a model of a mass spectrometer out of Legos, ball bearings, and magnets when he was 11″ according to Fast Company.

That doesn’t mean the Twitter co-founder and Square CEO doesn’t want you to “get better”, though. When Jack won an award for encouraging others to start their own business, he told the crowd "Don't just expect the unexpected—BE the unexpected."

[Illustration by Wes Duvall for Fast Company]

California-based watch maker Devon made a name for themselves a few years ago when they released the Tread 1. The modern looking electro-mechanical timepiece dazzled people with its tread-based system to indicate the time. It was large, highly unorthodox for a high-end timepieces, and a little crazy. A full review of the Devon Tread 1 is here.

Now Devon has released images of an upcoming Steampunk version of the Tread 1. It started as a concept but due to customer demand they will build them. The Steampunk Tread 1 is the retro-futuristic rethink of the standard Tread 1. The case will likely be made with pieces of bronze and oxidized steel. Rivets and lots of exposed screws complete the steampunk look.

No word on price but expect to pay over $20,000 for this bauble.

The Gillmor Gang — Robert Scoble, Keith Teare, Kevin Marks, John Taschek, and Steve Gillmor — explodes in opinions about Facebook IPO, Facebook privacy or lack of it, Facebook acquisition frenzy-to-be, and more Facebook, Facebook, Facebook. Surprisingly, this one goes on for a record-breaking hour and thirty-nine minutes, proving once again that size doesn’t matter. Except in electronic condoms.

Also discussed; Why G-Tar didn’t win the Techcrunch Disrupt grand prize, why Kevin Marks’ Target knockoff doesn’t come close, and why Keith Teare is a venture communist. No animals or Wall Street traders were harmed in the making of this film. As John Taschek implied, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet. Did I mention we talked about Facebook.

@stevegillmor, @scobleizer, @kteare, @kevinmarks, @jtaschek

Produced and directed by Tina Chase Gillmor @tinagillmor