By Francis Moran and Leo Valiquette

The Canadian university system costs about $25 billion a year. The total income for all Canadian universities from licensing their intellectual property is around $50 million. Subtract the cost of managing that IP and you’re left with a net income of only $15 million. Getting technology to market is clearly not a big income stream for the typical Canadian university.

Those numbers come from The Way Ahead, Meeting Canada’s Productivity Challenge, by , a professor at the University of Ottawa’s . While the book is a few years old, the overall trend illustrated by those numbers hasn’t changed. However, Brzustowski also quotes , who puts these numbers in their proper context. According to Doyle, the IP income to universities represents only 2.5 percent of the new sales generated by products based on it. Do that math and you arrive at $2 billion — $2 billion in annual sales for the Canadian economy. That isn’t an insignificant sum.

But this doesn’t mean that the emphasis must be on helping university researchers become better at commercialization to drive more economic activity from the campus. No. What they need is more help to become better researchers. As Brzustowski wrote:

“Commercialization requires expertise of a very different kind, and if we don’t have enough experts in the business of commercialization and managing innovation, than that’s the shortcoming on which to focus … commercialization is the preoccupation of every entrepreneur; it is the essential function of all industry; but it is only an afterthought for the relatively uncommon researcher who is concerned with it at all.”

A few weeks back we touched on some of the . That post provoked some enthusiastic response from several readers hip deep in the process, so much so that we thought it worth another look to explore in more depth the issues and challenges we face in commercializing university research.

Granted, the title of today’s post doesn’t get us off on the most positive footing, but we’ll start with the bad and the ugly and finish next week with the good.

Bayh-what?

When it comes to who retains ownership of IP born on the university campus, Canada is a dog’s breakfast of disparate policies. A few weeks back we spoke with . He attributed Waterloo’s growth as a tech hub in part due to the University of Waterloo’s progressive IP policies. Researchers retain ownership of their inventions, which has helped to attract world-class researchers to the area.

This, however, isn’t the norm in Canada. For , director of marketing and communications at , a key barrier to greater university commercialization is Canada’s lack of an equivalent to the U.S. Bayh–Dole, or Patent and Trademark Law Amendments, Act. In essence, Bayh-Dole allows researchers to maintain control of intellectual property they have created through government-funded research. In a Canadian context, that would obviously include research done under the auspices of a university.

“There’s no national strategy, no will at the federal level,” Valentine said.

Since researchers often struggle to understand what rights they have and must negotiate the terms and conditions for licensing their inventions, “what happens 80 percent of the time is nothing happens.” Researchers, being researchers and not entrepreneurs, don’t know how to develop a business plan, seek market validation or get in front of investors and “peal money out of them.” More often than not, their IP ends up gathering dust.

Picking winners

 a while back for any government-supported program to back winners and ditch losers.

The challenge, of course, is levering the expertise of private sector individuals who have the requisite business chops. , after having experienced firsthand how private industry and universities work to bring technology to market from the likes of Stanford, MIT and Santa Fe, sees crucial gaps in the commercialization chain for Canadian university IP.

“There just isn’t the experience here or the knowledge of how that networking works, to commercialize out of university,” he said.

Mayes is a founding partner of international business development firm Global Internet Group in the San Francisco Bay Area. He has also engaged with the B.C. tech community on several fronts, including founding solar energy company Sola Renewable Energy.

“We just don’t have the capital here to take on a world-scale global opportunity … the smart Canadian VC, if he has an idea, takes it to his larger partner in San Francisco and they invest together. But what unfortunately happens … is that they are obliged to move to California and the advantage to Canada is lost.”

Efforts are underway in B.C. to change that, with a coordinated effort between startup incubators, investors, universities and business schools, which we will talk about in more detail soon. However, such broad-based initiatives do create fresh challenges, which bring us back to the political complexities of actively choosing winners.

If a government agency mindset prevails, Mayes said, it will be counterproductive. There will be an obligation to help anybody who comes along. But if there is instead an emphasis on picking winners, “success will be breed success.”

“It’s about the efficient use of the capital,” he said.

Appetite for risk

 For , an aversion to risk is all too common among seed investors when it comes to banking on the commercial potential of university IP.

Kasapi is director at  and associate director of the University of British Columbia’s University-Industry Liaison Office. For him the challenges boil down to access to capital and building that pool of experienced, successful entrepreneurs who are willing to get involved and take university IP to market.

“That’s not to say there isn’t money we can access for young companies,” he said. “In my view there is lots of money, but the difficulty is in getting it.”

U.S. capital is easier for his office to access than Canadian capital because early stage investors on this side of the border are “ultra-conservative.” Many who claim to be seed investors will ask ill-thought questions about revenue when the IP in question is still an idea on paper in the lab.

Compounding this is the challenge of finding those entrepreneurs who can take the IP to market and build a viable business around it. In other words, champions. It’s not just because the U.S. market is 10 times larger, there is also a “greater thrust of activity on a per capita basis.”

“In Vancouver, we’re OK for that, but there’s a big gap in other parts of Canada,” he said.

In an upcoming post, we’ll take a look at what is being done, what should be done and who needs to do it to address the gaps in Canada’s commercialization ecosystem for university IP.

This is the 27th article in a continuing series that examines the state of the ecosystem necessary to successfully bring technology to market. Based on dozens of interviews with entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, angel investors, business leaders, academics, tech-transfer experts and policy makers, this series looks at what is working and what can be improved in the go-to-market ecosystem in the United States, Canada and Britain. We invite your feedback.

9 nifty apps for the BlackBerry Bold 9900

Tags: , , , , ,



Bookmark php How startups can use social media to court angel investors

Posted by: vepemotevi at 08:52 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 592 words, total size 4 kb.

Hide Comments | Add Comment

September 15, 2011

Championship: Don’t count Ottawa out

Championship: Don’t count Ottawa out

By Francis Moran and Leo Valiquette

 is no stranger to the Ottawa startup community. The founder of software development and web consultancy  and social utility  fits the mould of . In addition to his regular involvement with various organizations and events around town that help nascent entrepreneurs get their technology to market, he hosts  and opens up Mercury Grove’s HQ as a co-working space.

A few weeks ago, Scott announced that he and a host of other stakeholders in the Ottawa technology community will launch this fall a new incubator and accelerator fund that will provide up to $25,000 in seed financing to eligible participants. Five to 10 startups will be accepted into the first intake of the four-month program, which will operate out of the Mercury Grove office.

The accelerator is taking its inspiration from similar initiatives, such as  in Montreal,  in Silicon Valley and . ( A few weeks back we got great insight into .) However, what makes this accelerator unique, according to Scott, is its “hyper local focus” in which participants must be located in this region.

We recently caught up with Scott to talk about why he is doing this, why Ottawa needs it and how the city once touted as Silicon Valley North has a lot more going for it than some might think.

What will you be doing with this new accelerator fund?

We’re creating a local accelerator fund where we’ll be providing mentorship, a strong network, seed funding and office space for eight to 10 startups per year. We’ll provide funding of up to $25,000 for startups in order to help them develop a  or prototype that can be taken to market. The program lasts four months.

Mercury Grove has already been active in supporting the startup community. What made you decide to take it to this next level?

There were a couple of different things. First, we wanted to formalize some of the things we were already doing within the city. Second, there’re a lot of talented entrepreneurs, post-entrepreneurs in this city and we really wanted to create a strong local network where they can support each other as well as up-and-coming talent. Ottawa’s got a heritage of bootstrapping web and mobile startups and we think if we can get the rest of the larger community involved we can accelerate that initial process in order to take companies to, if not profitability, then the next stage a lot faster.

How did you go about validating this idea to ensure it was needed and will work in the Ottawa market?

I think it’s important to note that this isn’t a zero sum game. The more people who are doing anything for entrepreneurs is a benefit. So this isn’t a question of other things not working or there not already being a strong community …

There’s a terrible perception that we are not creating great products or companies in Ottawa, which just isn’t true, but there are islands of entrepreneurs in lots of different areas … we are seeing a large appetite for entrepreneurship within the city and that’s evidenced by things like DemoCamp, Fresh Founders, Gen Y, the Ottawa Network and OCRI. So this isn’t a question of saying there’s latent or nascent opportunity, but that there’s lots of energy right now and with a focus in this space I think we can have a really successful accelerator program.

We’ve got TechStars and Y Combinator, which has been around for a long time, and a number of other accelerators in North America as well as Europe and … all have a model similar to the one we’re proposing. The key difference is that we’re focusing exclusively on the Ottawa market. What you see with a lot of accelerators is more of a university model, where people are choosing the university they want to go to for their accelerated training. What we can attest to is that Ottawa has a very strong software heritage, a lot of experience in building world-class businesses and software in this city …. in a smaller ecosystem we have a lot of the things that other cities just don’t have.

So we are looking at more of a hyper-local model and saying you don’t have to leave Ottawa in order to get the same kinds of training and play on the world stage … so this is really a local play …

Entrepreneurs are not all born, they’re made and when you look at Silicon Valley, they’ve got an ecosystem that supports entrepreneurs, that supports entrepreneurship. People get excited about entrepreneurship and I think a lot of that success comes from that community. If we create that same kind of community here in Ottawa I think it can generate a lot more successes. It doesn’t mean that we have to be exporting our technology and our entrepreneurs.

I know you are not yet ready to name your partners, but can you tell me in general terms where the support for this is coming from?

We’ve got two different sides. From an involvement and making the program a success as far as operating it, finding the talent, supporting the talent, it’s strong with entrepreneurs and the service sector – people who are already actively involved in the community and they’re really excited to help ensure the program is successful.

From a financial standpoint, it’s a cross mix of large institutional, VC, angel, private and some government as well. That mix is important, not just for the funds to be successful, but for the investors; they want to see that it is not too strongly swayed in any one direction. The institutional and public want to see private investors and vice versa.

We’ll conclude next week with thoughts on why this kind of initiate benefits everyone involved, what are the key ingredients for it to be successful, and what roles various private and public sector stakeholders must play.

This is the 25th article in a continuing series that examines the state of the ecosystem necessary to successfully bring technology to market. Based on dozens of interviews with entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, angel investors, business leaders, academics, tech-transfer experts and policy makers, this series looks at what is working and what can be improved in the go-to-market ecosystem in the United States, Canada and Britain. We invite your feedback.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,



Sierra wireless aircard 885e expresscard hsupa retail packaging How startups can use social media to court angel investors

Posted by: vepemotevi at 07:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1098 words, total size 7 kb.

Hide Comments | Add Comment

September 14, 2011

Mobile devices & medical research — protecting personal health information

Mobile devices & medical research — protecting personal health information

By Dr. Ann Cavoukian

Nothing disappoints me more than news of yet another lost unencrypted USB key or laptop containing personal health information. Unequivocally, there have been far too many breaches of this kind, most of which could have easily been avoided by utilizing well-established privacy and security measures and building in Privacy by Design (‘PbD’)best practices.

Ann

 

The numbers are startling. In the U.S. over a 20-month period ending June 2011, there were 288 notable breaches impacting millions of Americans – with about a third involving mobile devices. Here in Ontario, there have been a number of high-profile breaches over the past two years impacting well over 100,000 people. 

 

Some of these breaches have been in the health research area, as researchers have become increasingly reliant on laptop computers, memory sticks and other mobile computing storage devices, to collect and store personal information.

 

Concerns over the privacy and security of personal health information used for research purposes should not undermine the resounding fact that health research is extremely important, and high quality research depends on the availability of high quality information.

 

concluded that health and biomedical research is an investment that can produce tangible benefits such as a healthier population, economic advantages through commercial development and direct cost savings to the health care system.

 

Some of the personal health information that is used for research purposes comes directly from individuals, but most of it is acquired indirectly from health care providers. However our personal health information is recorded and transported, whether on paper, a computer, or a USB key, sufficient safeguards must be in place to protect it from unauthorized collection, use and disclosure.

 

As highlighted in our new paper co-authored with the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario:  “,” many safeguards are quite simply common sense. First and foremost, whenever possible, the storage or transporting of personally-identifiable health information on mobile devices should be avoided altogether. If this is not possible, then the device should be protected with a strong password, ideally 14 characters combining letters, numbers and symbols.

 

As well, personal health information on mobile devices should always be encrypted — a process in which ordinary text or data is turned into an unintelligible stream of seemingly random symbols. Only authorized people should have access to the encrypted information, controlled by a digital key, such as a strong password (separate from the login password), or a separate hardware key such as a fingerprint key.

 

In Ontario, health information custodians, researchers and ethic boards all have legal obligations to ensure that safeguards are in place to protect personal health information that is collected, used or disclosed for research purposes.

 

This obligation should go a step further, by taking on a comprehensive and proactive approach to safeguarding our personal health information. Privacy by Design is the practice of embedding privacy directly into the design specifications of various technologies and business practices, to prevent privacy breaches before they occur, rather than prescribing remedial actions.

 

The research community should strive to ensure the principles of PbD are incorporated into the design and implementation of all research-related practices. Find out more on protecting personal health information on mobile devices at our .

 

The goal is to make privacy the default setting for our electronic health information systems — a win/win strategy which should help ensure that privacy breaches become a much rarer occurrence. I look forward to that day.

 

 

 

iPhone 5 coming October 7, reports say

Posted by: vepemotevi at 09:42 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 607 words, total size 6 kb.

Hide Comments | Add Comment

September 13, 2011

Championship: Back to school

Championship: Back to school

By Francis Moran and Leo Valiquette

A couple of moons ago, we talked about how . Too many schools fail to appreciate how Web 2.0 has democratized innovation for the Mark Zuckerbergs of the world and make the mistake of assuming it’s only engineers or physics students who can come up with the next billion-dollar idea.

These outdated perspectives are further aggravated by student and faculty cultures that take a dim view of capitalism, scorn profit as a motive, and emphasize formal theory over practical, hands-on projects.

However, there is no shortage of innovation that still comes out of the campus lab from faculty and students. The challenge is finding a path to market and providing these inventive minds with the resources they need for successful technology transfer. As Michael Atkin puts it, “Sometimes these things that are sitting there are great scientific advances, but they’ve got warts on them … they still need proof of concept.”

Over the past 20 years, Atkin has worked as an entrepreneur and startup executive in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries. He fits , often taking a leap of faith on a new discovery and investing his sweat equity to achieve proof of concept. These days, Atkin is working with and  to bring new drugs to market, as well as with two medical device companies to commercialize their wound dressing and imaging technologies. He shared with us his thoughts on what it takes to turn a scientific advance from the campus lab into a viable product in the hands of customers.

Is there a market pull?

For Atkin, it all begins with looking at the marketplace and indentifying unmet medical needs and challenges. If, for example, someone said they have a new and better treatment for hypertension, his response would be “existing treatments are cheap, effective and safe. How can you improve on that?”

“I ask myself, is there a real pull for this technology when it is ready for the market? Is this technique proprietary? Can I launch it and make money off it immediately or will generic manufacturers take the market?”

These are, of course, the same questions that must be asked of any technology looking for a market, medical or otherwise.

When it comes to finding that market pull,  points to  as a reference to distinguish innovations with a clear commercial potential from those which advance the state of knowledge but don’t have an immediate commercial opportunity.

In last week’s post, we featured Rimalovski’s thoughts on . He spent a decade helping big tech spin out their unused intellectual property into new ventures. These days, he heads up the  for , a seed-stage venture capital fund created to invest in startups built upon NYU technologies and intellectual property.

“You don’t have to compromise science to pursue entrepreneurship,” he said. In many respects they go hand in hand.” Both are looking to solve real problems in our society.

Atkin and Rimalovski both agree that engagement and collaboration is crucial to successful technology transfer from the university lab. The technical know-how of the engineers, technicians and researchers must be combined with the skills of external business people with the necessary leadership and entrepreneurial savvy.

It’s about building “more of that connective tissue” between academics, students and the venture community, Rimalovski said.

The founders must decide how active of a role they want to play in the company and build the team around that, Atkin added. While some academics are ready to become the CSO of a private enterprise, most are not.

“Somebody has to believe in the potential, and it usually helps if that person is not the founder because the founder always believes,” he said. “The trick is convincing other people … you need people prepared to see the spark of the idea and understand the critical experiments that are needed to prove this has real value and …. merit investment by third parties.”

Filling the innovation vacuum

In his work with medical device and drug developers, Atkin says big pharma is increasingly looking for partnerships with smaller players who can engage in the R&D to create innovative new compounds, work that is often too risky for a big company to undertake or that yields too small of a market opportunity. This is because the market has evolved in such a way that big pharma needs billion-dollar ideas to pay the bills, even though there may be plenty of untapped opportunities in niche markets where the revenue potential is only a few hundred million dollars.

According to Atkin, the industry is suffering from an “imagination deficit” that smaller, younger and more nimble companies are well-suited to address. However, these younger companies, even early-stage startups, must take advantage of the university setting to achieve robust proof of concept for promising discoveries that will secure the support of external investors and champions.

“You’ve got to believe in an idea enough to advance it when there is no support and generate enough supportive data to make it interesting,” Atkin said.

The opportunities that exist to help the big guys address their “imagination deficits” of course extend far beyond the drug and medical device industries. It all harkens back to the , which we touched on a couple of weeks ago.

In a world of widely distributed knowledge, companies can’t afford to rely entirely on their own research, nor can they afford to let internal innovations sit idle. They have to open their doors to let innovation in and out. This creates a wealth of opportunity for university researchers as much as it does for nascent entrepreneurs and innovators in the private sector. But they of course must be willing to tap into those external resources that will help them beat a path to market.

This is the 24th article in a continuing series that examines the state of the ecosystem necessary to successfully bring technology to market. Based on dozens of interviews with entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, angel investors, business leaders, academics, tech-transfer experts and policy makers, this series looks at what is working and what can be improved in the go-to-market ecosystem in the United States, Canada and Britain. We invite your feedback.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,



Sony ericsson cmu 20 miniusb wall charger data cable Incubation: Whose job is it, anyway?

Posted by: vepemotevi at 07:22 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1060 words, total size 7 kb.

Hide Comments | Add Comment

September 10, 2011

Finally, some statistics on the impact of cybercrime in Canada!

Statistics o

n cybercrime and malware in Canada are few and far between.



Can’t figure out which Android phone to choose?

Posted by: vepemotevi at 02:02 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

Hide Comments | Add Comment

September 09, 2011

Will Ford’s Waterfront revamp endanger $1 B in tech projects?

Will Ford’s Waterfront revamp endanger $1 B in tech projects?

By Nestor E. Arellano 

Monorails, malls and Ferris wheels are getting all the press these days as numerous Torontonians choke on their mayor’s call for a revamp of the Toronto Waterfront project. 

Nestor Arellano

The for the Port Lands which encompasses three neighbourhoods (East Bayfront, West Don Lands and Lower Don Lands), south of the city along Lake Ontario’s shores, calls for a mixed-use neighbourhood, and naturalization of the mouth of the Don River, expansive green spaces and affordable housing. It is a vision geared towards the service and needs of the city’s residents. The plan is one that has been gone through lengthy consultation with residents and has hailed by numerous urban planners. 

On the other hand Mayor Rob Ford’s designs for the more than 174-hectares of lake front city lands focuses on attracting foreign investments for hotels, mega-malls, a monorail and a giant Ferris wheel. It’s a plan hatched by someone who prior to last year dismissed the waterfront development as a boondoggle. 

It’s a bad deal if you ask me. And if you run a tech-based company hoping to win a procurement contract with the lake front development, it could be bad news as well.

If the Ford proposal’s aim is to raise money from the sale of the Port Lands to fix holes in the mayor’s budget, it’s not going to be much of a cash grab. The sale of some of these lands may be a one-time source for funding things such as property tax freeze but it will not be enough to solve the city’s structural budget problems.

The new plan will also likely bring far less tax revenue and development charges than what the original Waterfront Toronto plan would bring.

Neighbourhoods covered by the Toronto Waterfront project

While Ford has complained that Waterfront Toronto is moving at snail’s pace, his plan could further delay projects for the area. Nearly a billion dollars has already been spent on soil remediation, infrastructure, planning, design and environmental assessments for the site. Ford’s scheme is so divergent from the original plan that it could necessitate a revised environmental assessment. Such a development would only add millions of dollars to cost of developing the waterfront and further delay and work in the area.

This would be unfortunate for many Canadian businesses hoping to snag a procurement contract with the water front development.

Planners hope to build some 12,000 residential units and more than 228,600 square meters of commercial space in the waterfront. The Waterfront Toronto’s iWaterfront Advisory Council, last year, estimated that this will create no less than 8,500 jobs in the clean tech and digital media space.

Planners estimate that as much as $32 billion would be spent on the entire project. About $1 billion of that will be according to the . The organization has been working hard to generate interest in the waterfront project among local information and communication technology (ICT) companies and SMBs. 

According to CATA, one of the project’s primary objectives is to introduce sustainable practices and green technology. 

Last year, the organization was very upbeat about the program. Will recent developments now endanger or delay these procurement prospects for local tech companies?

Nestor Arellano is a Senior Writer at ITBusiness.ca. Follow him on , connect with him on , read his blogs on , email nestor at and join the .

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,



Look who’s leading the way in low-cost broadband access

Posted by: vepemotevi at 12:32 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 596 words, total size 4 kb.

Hide Comments | Add Comment

September 08, 2011

Should your business buy a .XXX domain?

Should your business buy a .XXX domain?

By Tony Bradley

ICANN has begun accepting registrations on a limited basis for XXX domains. If you are in the adult entertainment business, or your site is related to adult endeavors, then buying a XXX domain is a no-brainer, but even businesses that offer more “traditional” goods and services may want to consider getting in line for a .

Why? That seems like a fair question. The answer is simple: to protect your brand and reputation.
You would buy a XXX domain for the same reason you might buy the NET, US, INFO or other equivalent of your own primary domain–to ensure that your customers get to your site no matter what they type and just redirect all of the alternate domains to your primary website.

Funny story–once upon a time, if you wanted to shop online for some equipment from Dick’s Sporting Goods, you had to make sure you went to ‘dickssportinggoods.com’. Going to ‘dicks.com’ would reveal “equipment” of an entirely different nature. Apparently, Dick’s Sporting Goods eventually managed to acquire the ‘dicks.com’ domain, though, because now it redirects to the sporting goods website.

That example is a little beside the point, though, because it focuses on buying varying spellings and permutations of your primary domain to try and ensure that anyone who would just go online and start typing to try and find your business can basically stumble on it no matter what they type. For example, you can type ‘amzon.com’, ‘amszon.com’, or ‘amaxon.com’ and you will be redirected to Amazon every time because Amazon has acquired the domains for virtually every possible typo or misspelling imaginable.

Is there any real risk, though, for a domain like ? Whether we consider the possibility of a customer in search of the legitimate fishingluresandbaits site inadvertently visiting the XXX equivalent, or the possibility of an actual adult-oriented site choosing to set up shop at fishingluresandbaits.xxx–what are the odds, really?

Dick’s Sporting Goods is also a prime candidate for being first in line for a XXX domain. The name of the company is a double entendre in and of itself, and as the owner of ‘dicks.com’ the sporting goods chain should make an effort to ensure there is no sister site at ‘dicks.xxx’ that might be associated with the retailer in some way.

The flip side of that, though, is that nobody who is legitimately trying to find fishingluresandbaits.com or dickssportinggoods.com is going to accidentally type fishingluresandbaits.xxx or dicks.xxx. In other words, browsers default to COM domains if you just hit enter, and visiting a XXX domain–regardless of the domain name associated with it–requires intent.

Is it extortion? That is a bit extreme. It is unfortunate that some businesses may suffer some sort of reputation damage by association if an adult site with the same name sets up an XXX domain. But, the $100 a year or so that it costs to purchase the domain name and redirect it to your primary site is a small price to pay to protect your brand.

Tags: , , , , , , , ,



Lg mobile kg800 chocolate flex cable ITBusiness.ca readers demand Flash on iPad 2

Posted by: vepemotevi at 10:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 538 words, total size 4 kb.

Hide Comments | Add Comment

September 07, 2011

What Google’s Eric Schmidt thinks of other tech CEOs

When it came

to Apple’s recently departed CEO Steve Jobs, Schmidt wasn’t shy about giving compliments.



Privacy concerns with Google +

Posted by: vepemotevi at 08:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 30 words, total size 1 kb.

Hide Comments | Add Comment

September 06, 2011

Bigger not always better when it comes to smartphone screens

Larger scree

ns work well for media consumption, but durability may be compromised, say analysts.



Blackberry asy06610001 miniusb data charging cable In-flight entertainment might soon include iPads

Posted by: vepemotevi at 10:42 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 36 words, total size 1 kb.

Hide Comments | Add Comment

<< Page 1 of 2 >>

80kb generated in CPU 0.0426, elapsed 0.1239 seconds.
32 queries taking 0.1154 seconds, 108 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy

Recent Comments

Categories

• Example (0)

Archives

• March 2013 (11)
• February 2013 (42)
• January 2013 (50)
• December 2012 (30)
• November 2012 (25)
• October 2012 (17)
• September 2012 (18)
• August 2012 (20)
• July 2012 (22)
• June 2012 (21)
• May 2012 (21)
• April 2012 (19)
• March 2012 (23)
• February 2012 (22)
• January 2012 (25)
• December 2011 (19)
• November 2011 (26)
• October 2011 (23)
• September 2011 (23)
• August 2011 (35)
• July 2011 (5)
• April 2011 (9)
• March 2011 (31)
• February 2011 (17)
• January 2011 (15)
• December 2010 (16)
• November 2010 (18)
• October 2010 (7)
• September 2010 (32)
• August 2010 (13)
• July 2010 (19)

Blogroll

Sample link

Monthly Traffic

• Pages: 3867
• Files: 24
• Bytes: 19.1M
• CPU Time: 53.739s
• Queries: 101762

Content

• Posts: 674
• Comments: 0

Feeds