If there’s anything that a recent ear ache taught me, it’s that searching for answers on the Internet can be a trying task at times. The world is full of people – all of them doctors in their own mind – and the Internet is a wonderful representation of all their opinions. While we love this fact when it comes to political discourse and daily musings, health and medicine are a different game, which is why we’re sure to appreciate Google’s latest offering – medication listings in search results. Sponsor As Greg Sterling writes, Google first “began integrating structured health-related content at the top of search results” last year as a way to provide authoritative and reliable answers to health-related searches. That same functionality is expanding today to searches for both name brand and generic medications, with the result summarly linking to information as provided by the National Institutes of Health . The summary, which is offered at the top of the search results, offers a quick summary of the drug along with quick links to commonly-sought information such as side effects, precautions, dietary instructions and how to take it. According to Sterling, the feature is currently only available in the U.S. and Google declined to say whether or not it would expand to other countries. Discuss

Click here to read more

It’s been just over a week now since Apple failed to announce the cloud-based music service many of us hoped would replace

Click here to read more

When Twitter COO, Dick Costolo announced on Monday that they were making some changes to their terms of service for developers, prohibiting third-party networks from advertising in users’ streams, many in the tech industry initially reacted by saying that the move would spell the end of a number of startups who were providing exactly that service. Twitter claims it made this move in order to preserve the quality of the user experience on the platform. But how does this announcement impact others working in the Twitter ecosystem? Sponsor Despite some of the initial doomsday reactions about how the changing TOS would impact developers, a couple of prominent companies have since come forward saying that it’s “business as usual.” Those were the exact words, in fact, that Ad.ly CEO Arnie Gullov-Singh used in a blog post on the subject. And in an interview with Louis Gray, MyLikes CEO Bindu Reddy made a similar argument: her company’s service don’t violate the new TOS. Twitter API Lead Ryan Sarver admits , the language in the new TOS is “nuanced.” But whether or not this language is clarified, it remains to be seen if this change by Twitter, coming so close on the heels of their purchase of Tweetie and release of official Twitter mobile apps, will scare off either developers or investors. VC Mark Suster wrote on his blog today that he’s “not abandoning the ecosystem.” But Hunch co-founder Chris Dixon tweeted that he’d heard other investors saying that they would steer clear of Twitter. Whether it’s “erratic behavior” as Dixon contends or just “bad marketing” of policy changes as Suster thinks, it does seem like Twitter might have a hard time maintaining (or regaining) the trust of third-party developers. If you’re a startup working in the Twitter ecosystem, what are your thoughts on these developments? Discuss

Click here to read more

If you have been working in the startup industry, then you may already be well aware of what venture capitalist Brad Feld calls “a massive tax on and retardant of innovation” – software patent litigation. In his blog post this morning, Feld points to the circular court battles of companies like Apple, Nokia and HTC and the “ridiculous nature of software patents” as reason enough for all members of the startup community to take an interest in this topic. Sponsor “This explosion of litigation based on the patenting of software,” Feld writes, “cannot be brushed-off as large corporations doing what they do, as almost every start-up software company is at some point being shaken down by software patent holders. ” Feld says that, to this end, he is promoting the film Patent Absurdity , which looks at “how software patents broke the system” through interviews with members of the software community. The film is framed within a discussion of the Bilski case , a pending Supreme Court case that hinges on the idea of whether or not business methods are patent-eligible subject matter . From the film’s website: Patent Absurdity explores the case of software patents and the history of judicial activism that led to their rise, and the harm being done to software developers and the wider economy. The film is based on a series of interviews conducted during the Supreme Court’s review of in re Bilski — a case that could have profound implications for the patenting of software. The Court’s decision is due soon… The film argues that “we are all members of the software industry, because we use software every day” and that, while other industries also face problems in the realm of patents, “software is different in that there are also many small businesses, software projects without a direct commercial motivation, and even individual hobbyists.” The film is available for viewing on PatentAbsurdity.com , as well as available for download , and can be shared under the Creative Commons license . If you want to spread the word, Feld says that his friends at the End Software Patents campaign are making a list of people they feel should be made aware of issues with software patenting and are taking suggestions. Discuss

Click here to read more

There are several important documents you’ll want to have ready when you meet with potential investors. Your mission statement. Your founding team’s resume and responsibilities. A business plan. But most investors agree : they do not want to sign an NDA. While non-disclosure agreements are designed to protect your ideas, asking potential investors to sign an NDA is generally seen as unnecessary and unwise. Most VCs point to the following reasons for avoiding NDAs: Sponsor 1. Trust. Potential investors are not your competition, and asking them to sign an NDA is often interpreted as a sign you don’t trust them. As professional integrity is important to VCs, requiring an NDA is generally seen as a violation of business etiquette. 2. Legality. An NDA is a legally binding document, and as such, it’s something people will refuse to sign without having a lawyer review. Most investors are unwilling to accept the risk of litigation should they hear about a similar concept – and it isn’t a stretch to assume that investors are weighing multiple pitches with similar or related concepts. Furthermore, an NDA means the investor is restricted from mentioning you, your idea or your project. And chances are, as an entrepreneur, you do want your investors to talk about you. 3. Ideas. Good ideas are dime-a-dozen. As Andrew Warner argues , “Ideas are worthless. It’s your execution of those ideas that will be valuable. Besides, this idea that you’re so proud of now will probably change completely as you build your company.” There may be times in which you should require a non-disclosure agreement. As Anil Dash recently wrote on this subject, “Now, I’ve had clients ask for an NDA, which makes perfect sense, and I might ask contractors working for me to do the same. Or some big companies just have a boilerplate NDA that they throw in front of people as a matter of course. But for individual entrepreneurs who just have a good idea and big dreams, it’s easy to be misled into thinking that walking in the door with a fancy legal document makes you look professional or ‘serious’.” Whether or not you ever consider an NDA, it is advisable in the early stages of forming your business that you share your ideas and plans with people you trust. And if you are approaching someone as a potential investor, it’s important that relationship be build on credibility and integrity, not on a legal document. Discuss

Click here to read more