What does ctm stand for on facebook

This can facilitate your next visit and increase the usefulness of the site in your favor. Cookies play an important role. Without them, using the Web would be a much more frustrating experience.

Cookies are used for various purposes. We use them, for example, to count the number of visitors we receive on a page, to help you contact us and in general to try to provide an ever better service. Below is a brief explanation of which types of cookies can be used. This type of cookie allows the correct operation of certain sections of the Website. There are two categories: persistent and session:. They will therefore be always used and sent , unless the user does not modify the settings in his browser see paragraph below to the detriment of the functionality of the site itself.

Cookies in this category are used to collect information on the use of the site. This information allows anonymous statistical analysis.

Analytical cookies are sent from the site itself or from third-party domains. Facebook Ad Guidelines For Beginners. How to Run Facebook Ads for Clients.

How to Use Facebook Sponsored Messages. Written by Fara Rosenzweig December 12, Turn Instagram conversations into conversions! Get Started Free. Easier said than done, right?

All it takes is a little outside the box thinking and some creativity. Nerdify Nerdify is a platform that provides instant homework help to students and uses click-to-Messenger ads to start the conversation. Contact Sign In. Platform Agent Workspace Turn your agents into customer experience superheroes.

Bots Seamlessly integrate bots into the customer experience. Notify Drive customer acquisition throughout the customer lifecycle. Insights Compare apples-to-apples for smarter business decisions. Switchboard Enable bots and humans all within a single platform. Latest 09 Apr Messaging Channels 8 min read.

Written by Steve Davies. Customer engagement now happens beyond the contact center. The judge ruled "despite the absence of a physical address, Biscocho does have a means by which he can contact The Court in that case ruled "Service of process through all four means of service, two email and two social networking accounts ostensibly belonging to the defendant, comports with due process because it is reasonably calculated under the circumstances to provide defendant notice of this suit.

With technology evolving and becoming more intertwined in people's everyday lives, could social media become the most convenient way to effectuate service of process? If other judges accept this method of delivery, this trend may catch on around the United States, and even around the world. For the record, it's already been accepted in Canada, New Zealand, and before the English High Court under certain circumstances, and often coupled with other requirements such as publication in a newspaper or service via electronic mail.

RC: Thank you Ken for this really cool use of social media in legal proceedings. Now we will jump into the interview with Mark Lemley. RC: I am very excited to be on the phone with Mark Lemley today. So, first of all Mark, thank you very much for being on the program.

RC: So, what in your point of view are the most important take-aways from the Alice Decision rendered by the Supreme Court a couple of months ago?

ML: Well, I think that Alice does a couple of things that are very significant. The first thing that it does is it cements as the test for patentable subject matter the frame work that the Supreme Court set out in Mayo two years previously and I think a lot of patent lawyers had more than half persuaded themselves that Mayo was an aberration and it couldn't really be the right result and now it seems that it is not only confirmed when it comes to medical diagnostic patents, but it is the rule we apply across all areas and when you apply that rule, the Court says in Alice that if the claim is directed to an abstract idea, and all you do to that abstract idea is you implement it in a conventional way, such as by using standard computer hardware, that invention is not patentable subject matter.

I think that is quite significant because a large fraction of the software and business method patent claims that are being litigated in the United States today fit that description. We have taken a basic idea, a problem we want to solve, and rather than filing a patent claim that covers a particular algorithm or a particular solution to that problem, the claims are phrased in the form of any computer programs to achieve this result; programs to reach this particular outcome.

In the wake of Alice, we have now seen in the software and business method world fifteen lower court decisions. In thirteen of those lower court decisions the courts have invalidated the patents and in the other two they have said, "Well, procedurally it is too early to make this decision but come back later. That doesn't mean that I think all software is unpatentable, but it does mean that my guess would be that the majority of the software and business method patent claims that are being asserted in court today are going to be held invalid.

RC: Yes, and the USPTO recently, or actually right after the decision, issued a statement or kind of rules for their examiners for assessing these kinds of patents in the field of business methods and software and the rules seem to be very similar to the rules in Europe. In Europe, you first look at the claim and see which features are of technical nature and then use these to assess inventive step or, in the U. What is your point of view about this? If anything, I think as we see Alice being applied in the courts, the U.

The courts have been saying, "Well, if all you are using are standard pieces of computer hardware, even if you have programed them in a new way, your invention as a whole is not going to be patentable. RC: Right, for example, in Germany there was a case where a robot for placing welding spots in the car manufacturing industry to put cars together, the robot was known but the algorithm was changed and it was just a piece of software that made the robot make more precise welding spots.

I think if I applied the rules by the USPTO, that would really not be patentable because it was just a piece of software. What is your opinion? ML: So, I think that may be right. And one of the things that we need to figure out as the court decisions continue, are: What are the logical limits of Alice? I think if you take seriously what Alice says, we would say that was unpatentable because the robot hardware technology was well-known.

With that said, I do think that at some point when the courts confront inventions that really do look more like real technology, that they are going to start putting limits on the Alice principal because, if they don't, if you take it to its logical extreme, virtually nothing is going to be patentable because, you know, you can reduce a wide variety of claims to the basic idea and then say well I took this idea and I implemented it by using materials out there in the world. RC: Right.

So, another aspect that struck me is that a lot of the large companies in the U. Are these all worthless now, in your opinion?

Probably not, or do you think that the companies will enforce them, or not? Will they be write-offs, or not? What do you think?

Do you have any opinion about this? ML: I think there is going to be a much greater premium on how the claims are drafted. I think there are a number of what are just very broad business method patents out there or patents that are written without a lot of technology underlying them that are not going to be salvageable after Alice.

But I also think that there are a number of patents in which there is real advance in computer technology in software in a new algorithm and I am at least hopeful if the patent claims that are being asserted are directed to those algorithms are limited to those technical improvements that courts will find ways for them to survive.

So, I have argued in a paper last year that part of the problem that the court is trying to address is this problem of functional claiming; of trying to claim the problem that you solved, rather than the particular way in which you solved the problem.

So, I think we will see the growth of narrower, more specific claims that try to incorporate more clearly the new algorithms that people have developed, we may see more use of means plus function claim language, so, you know, I think all of the companies in the software world need to take a look at their portfolio and say, not only going forward, how am I drafting these claims, but do I have patents where some of the dependent claims may be more likely to survive than the independent claims.

Do I have a real technological invention here that I could go back and claim in a reissued proceeding for example. I think for the companies that are thinking of asserting patents, that becomes really important.

Now, I also think that in the Silicon Valley, a lot of the large patent owners are not companies who ever really planned to assert the patents but they have the patent portfolios primarily for defensive or trading purposes and they may not be as concerned about this.