What You Need to Do on LinkedIn, Even if You're Not Looking for a Job (Infographic)

When was the last time you revamped you LinkedIn profile? If you're like most people, probably the last time you applied for a job. However, your LinkedIn can be more than an online résumé—it can be a powerful career tool.
The infographic below, which features advice from self-proclaimed "LinkedIn Queen" Eve Mayer and social-marketing platform UberVU, offers tips on what LinkedIn users need to do to keep their profiles in shape. Check it out for advice on everything from how to choose a professional profile photo to how much time you spend maintaining your LinkedIn account each day.
 

Will the New Patent Law Kill the Garage Inventor and Startup?

What do Walt Disney Studios, Apple and Harley-Davidson all have in common?
They were all born in a garage.
The “garage inventor” has achieved iconic status on the American business landscape.
The image of a lone inventor toiling away late at night in his garage in the hope of discovering the next game-changing invention has become symbolic of American innovation and entrepreneurship. From Mattel toys and Yankee Candle to countless high-tech startups, the garage has been the laboratory and incubator for some of the world’s most recognizable brands and innovative ideas – so much so, that the Palo Alto, Calif., garage where Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard first began tinkering in 1938 has been officially designated as the “Birthplace of Silicon Valley.”
But the days of the garage inventor may soon be coming to an end – and with them, America’s status as the global leader in innovation. Recent changes in U.S. patent law have led to a steady erosion in the rights of the individual in favor of large and foreign corporations, putting today’s garage inventors at a distinct competitive disadvantage.

Related: Why Filing a Patent Just Got More Complicated For Startups

Unlike other patent systems around the world – which favor the rights of the corporation or the state over the individual inventor – the U.S. patent system was designed from the start to encourage the individual ingenuity that would help spark the growth of a new nation.

Recognizing that giving individuals exclusive rights to their inventions for a limited time would incentivize them to share their ideas, the Founding Fathers established the patent system in the U.S. Constitution. And for more than 200 years, this system – designed expressly to foster individual innovation and entrepreneurship – fueled America’s growth and prosperity.

In particular, the U.S.’s “first-to-invent” system was especially beneficial for both the individual inventor and small startups. Under first-to-invent, a garage inventor could secure a patent on an invention even if a large and well-financed corporation had already filed for a patent on the same invention – provided the individual could prove he invented it first. In this way, the first-to-invent system leveled the playing field for small inventors who lacked the staff, capital or other resources needed to pursue patent applications with the speed and agility of big business.

In 2011, however, at the behest of Congress and the president – and amid pressure from lobbyists representing large corporations tired of fighting patent-infringement lawsuits from garage inventors – the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office embarked on a campaign to “harmonize” U.S. patent law with patent systems around the world. “As innovators seek to tap into global markets, it is imperative that the international patent system provide consistent, cost-effective avenues to obtain reliable patent rights in multiple jurisdictions,” the USPTO website states.

Instead of helping other countries adopt the clearly successful elements of U.S. patent law, Congress took the opposite tack, choosing to dumb down U.S. law by aligning it with foreign patent systems, many of which are little more than registration systems that favor the interests of the state or company over the individual inventor.

The result was the America Invents Act. The most significant change in U.S. patent law in decades, the law replaced the first-to-invent system with the European Union’s “first-to-file” system, which awards a patent to the first person or company to file a patent application on an invention, regardless of who actually invented it first. It was a puzzling move, considering that the EU’s patent system is struggling financially due in part to its excessive regulations that favor big corporations over the individual inventor.

Since various aspects of the America Invents Act have been phased in over the past two years – with some provisions only taking effect in the past few months – it’s difficult to ascertain the immediate impact of this major policy shift away from America’s constitutional preference for the rights of the individual and toward a European system favoring the state and big business.

It’s safe to say, however, that the new law will make it much easier for major international corporations to fend off patent-infringement lawsuits filed by garage inventors, who must now race to patent their inventions before a business behemoth gets wind of their development and beats them to it. That will require individual inventors and startups to devote more time and resources to securing legal and professional representation to protect their inventions and less time to what they do best: inventing the new products and technologies that have made America a global innovator. In this way, the patent-law changes may very well hamper innovation at a time when the U.S. economy needs all the innovation and entrepreneurship it can get to drive the nation’s recovery.

It’s also more than a little ironic that the biggest supporters of the America Invents Act included Apple, Microsoft and Google – all of which were founded by individual inventors in a garage. Whether future entrepreneurs will enjoy the same opportunities as Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Larry Page – without the patent system advantages that helped fuel their success – remains to be seen.

Fashion Trend for 2014: Country Couture on the Rise

Fashion

Cowpoke couture is back in the saddle again. A new generation of consumers is embracing western-style snap shirts, cowboy hats, boots and accessories, a trend inspired by the crossover success of bestselling country and Americana performers such as Taylor Swift, Blake Shelton, Mumford & Sons and The Lumineers, as well as prime-time TV hits like Nashville and Justified.

"Over the last two years, we've had an increase in sales, and we're getting a lot more new customers who've never been in our store before," says Richard Alcala, president of Alcala's Western Wear, a 41-year-old family-owned retailer in Chicago's trendy West Town neighborhood. "It seems to revolve around country music and concerts--when there's a big show coming into town, we see a big spike in sales."

Twenty-eight percent of U.S. music listeners cite country as their favorite genre, more than any other format, according to The NPD Group. The research firm credits country's cross-demographic appeal to its diversity and accessibility. And it's happening in major metropolitan markets: This year New York City welcomed Nash FM, the Big Apple's first country radio station in 17 years.

Steve Weil--president of Denver-based Rockmount Ranch Wear, the venerable western apparel manufacturer founded in 1946 by his grandfather Jack--credits the 1980 film Urban Cowboy for initially driving country music and apparel into mainstream popular culture. In fact, he maintains that the urban cowboy trend never really faded away, but the media simply shifted its attention.

"I disagree with the contention that this is a recent resurgence. This is classic fashion that has been in vogue for decades," Weil says. "What makes Rockmount different from other brands is that we're not trendy. We don't follow seasonal cycles that come and go. We make successful products that have extremely long life cycles. That's our secret to survival."

Weil says interest in western apparel is a lifestyle choice, not a fashion craze. "We're trying to bring out products that appeal to a wide range of people who like the idea of the West," he says. "I design for my friends. They're not cowboys--they're people from a variety of professions, from banking to retail to resort real estate."

Rockmount's adherence to traditional western style doesn't mean the company is stuck in the past. "As a small business, we're extremely agile--we work on new designs every day and bring out new products monthly, if not weekly," Weil says. "Rockmount is also known for bringing disparate things together in a new way. For example, the fabrics we use are not necessarily used by others in this category. Everything we do, we do with a distinct twist."

Most Rockmount apparel is manufactured domestically and shipped to retail partners at home and abroad. The "Made in the USA" imprimatur is essential to western wear's enduring consumer appeal, says Alcala, whose store stocks thousands of boots and hats from American companies. "Europeans appreciate it even more than we do," Alcala says. "When they see stuff not made in the USA, they ask for something made here. They know if they buy something made in the USA that it's still high quality."

Overseas visitors make up just part of Alcala's clientele--neighborhood hipsters are a constant, lured by the store's Crayola array of Levi's jeans, and celebrity customers like Robert Plant, Bill Murray, John Malkovich and Steven Tyler have walked through its doors as well. All come in search of something colorful, comfortable and unmistakably classic.

"We're not competing with Sears, Macy's and Nordstrom. We're not selling the same products they do. We have something more unique," Alcala says. "It's not just country music that people like. It's the lifestyle. Europeans come to our store because they want to take something back with them that's American. Western wear started here. It's 100 percent American."

This Mega Deal Means Carl's Jr. and Hardee's Are Now in the Same Family as Arby's, Auntie Anne's and Cinnabon

Call it a melding of food-court favorites.
Roark Capital Group, a private equity firm whose investments include Arby’s, Auntie Anne’s and Cinnabon, inked a deal Tuesday to acquire CKE Inc., the parent of Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s.
CKE is currently owned by Apollo Global Management, LLC, a private equity firm that also owns accessories retailer Claire’s, public gaming corporation Caesars Entertainment and Norwegian Cruise Line.
The deal values CKE somewhere between $1.65 and $1.75 billion, Reuters reports, citing people familiar with the matter. CKE and Roark have not revealed the financial terms of the deal.
“We’re looking forward to our long-term partnership with Roark Capital Group,” Andy Puxder, CKE’s CEO said in a statement. “Their proven track record of success and deep expertise in the restaurant and franchise sectors will be very beneficial as we continue to grow and expand CKE’s market-leading brands around the world.”
The transaction is expected to close in the fourth quarter of 2013.
CKE has 3,400 franchised or company-owned restaurants in 42 states and 29 countries and territories. CKE is Roark’s 14th restaurant investment, joining the ranks of Arby’s, Auntie Anne’s and Cinnabon.
With the investment, Roark’s franchise brand portfolio will encompass 27 companies that collectively have more than 15,000 locations across all 50 states and 68 countries. Roark’s total locations include nearly 13,000 franchise locations operated by 4,200 franchisees and 2,300 company-owned locations.

Will the New Patent Law Kill the Garage Inventor and Startup

What do Walt Disney Studios, Apple and Harley-Davidson all have in common?
They were all born in a garage.
The “garage inventor” has achieved iconic status on the American business landscape.
The image of a lone inventor toiling away late at night in his garage in the hope of discovering the next game-changing invention has become symbolic of American innovation and entrepreneurship. From Mattel toys and Yankee Candle to countless high-tech startups, the garage has been the laboratory and incubator for some of the world’s most recognizable brands and innovative ideas – so much so, that the Palo Alto, Calif., garage where Bill Hewlett and Dave Packard first began tinkering in 1938 has been officially designated as the “Birthplace of Silicon Valley.”
But the days of the garage inventor may soon be coming to an end – and with them, America’s status as the global leader in innovation. Recent changes in U.S. patent law have led to a steady erosion in the rights of the individual in favor of large and foreign corporations, putting today’s garage inventors at a distinct competitive disadvantage.
Unlike other patent systems around the world – which favor the rights of the corporation or the state over the individual inventor – the U.S. patent system was designed from the start to encourage the individual ingenuity that would help spark the growth of a new nation.
Recognizing that giving individuals exclusive rights to their inventions for a limited time would incentivize them to share their ideas, the Founding Fathers established the patent system in the U.S. Constitution. And for more than 200 years, this system – designed expressly to foster individual innovation and entrepreneurship – fueled America’s growth and prosperity.
In particular, the U.S.’s “first-to-invent” system was especially beneficial for both the individual inventor and small startups. Under first-to-invent, a garage inventor could secure a patent on an invention even if a large and well-financed corporation had already filed for a patent on the same invention – provided the individual could prove he invented it first. In this way, the first-to-invent system leveled the playing field for small inventors who lacked the staff, capital or other resources needed to pursue patent applications with the speed and agility of big business.
In 2011, however, at the behest of Congress and the president – and amid pressure from lobbyists representing large corporations tired of fighting patent-infringement lawsuits from garage inventors – the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office embarked on a campaign to “harmonize” U.S. patent law with patent systems around the world. “As innovators seek to tap into global markets, it is imperative that the international patent system provide consistent, cost-effective avenues to obtain reliable patent rights in multiple jurisdictions,” the USPTO website states.
Instead of helping other countries adopt the clearly successful elements of U.S. patent law, Congress took the opposite tack, choosing to dumb down U.S. law by aligning it with foreign patent systems, many of which are little more than registration systems that favor the interests of the state or company over the individual inventor.
The result was the America Invents Act. The most significant change in U.S. patent law in decades, the law replaced the first-to-invent system with the European Union’s “first-to-file” system, which awards a patent to the first person or company to file a patent application on an invention, regardless of who actually invented it first. It was a puzzling move, considering that the EU’s patent system is struggling financially due in part to its excessive regulations that favor big corporations over the individual inventor.
Since various aspects of the America Invents Act have been phased in over the past two years – with some provisions only taking effect in the past few months – it’s difficult to ascertain the immediate impact of this major policy shift away from America’s constitutional preference for the rights of the individual and toward a European system favoring the state and big business.
It’s safe to say, however, that the new law will make it much easier for major international corporations to fend off patent-infringement lawsuits filed by garage inventors, who must now race to patent their inventions before a business behemoth gets wind of their development and beats them to it. That will require individual inventors and startups to devote more time and resources to securing legal and professional representation to protect their inventions and less time to what they do best: inventing the new products and technologies that have made America a global innovator. In this way, the patent-law changes may very well hamper innovation at a time when the U.S. economy needs all the innovation and entrepreneurship it can get to drive the nation’s recovery.
It’s also more than a little ironic that the biggest supporters of the America Invents Act included Apple, Microsoft and Google – all of which were founded by individual inventors in a garage. Whether future entrepreneurs will enjoy the same opportunities as Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Larry Page – without the patent system advantages that helped fuel their success – remains to be seen.

Startup Entrepreneurs Have Confidence. Duh.

Pssst. Want to know a secret? Entrepreneurs are insanely confident.
Of all the data points released about the economy week after week, perhaps the least helpful nowadays is the Kauffman/LegalZoom Startup Confidence Index. With apologies in advance to the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation and online legal-advice company LegalZoom – both of which I have no doubt carry the best intentions and otherwise do good work – and, with an additional shout out to John Calvin, tracking startup confidence seems an exercise in predestination.
You will never, ever find a time when startup confidence, as measured by this survey, is not high. Ever. Startup owners are confident, so confident that, well, they started a company. One needn't waste human hours tallying numbers to express that.
Let's take a deeper dive into the numbers themselves, released this morning. Despite what the companies call “ceaseless uncertainties in Washington” and “mixed signals” on the economy, it turns out the confidence of owners of startups is at a new high of 86 percent.
Put aside that the “new high” isn't all that significant since the survey has only been tracking sentiment since the first quarter of last year. There are other, more significant problems with the survey and the results:
The life of the businesses surveyed is too short. In ordered to be surveyed, you had to have started a business within the past six months. This is the biggest problem with the data compiled: You are talking to people who felt optimistic enough about their own abilities to quit their jobs and start a business. It puts to mind what Reed Hastings said, that to be an entrepreneur “you have to feel like you can jump out of an airplane because you're confident that you'll catch a bird flying by.” Entrepreneurs may succeed or fail, but confidence never flags.
It asks the wrong question. The lead question is a simple one: “How confident are you that your business will be more profitable in the next 12 months than it is today?” Well, most businesses are not profitable in year one, let alone in the first six months. So, since you are asking people who are trying to turn losses into a viable business whether or not they think they will be more profitable, isn't the answer always “yes?” And, if not, does that matter? Many tech startups have multi-year business plans that call for many quarters in the red. That doesn't make them any less successful, particularly since they probably have raised a war chest of cash to burn.
The survey tracks respondents by age. According to the latest figures, 95 percent of 18-to-30-year-olds and 94 percent of 31-to-40-year-olds feel certain about near-term profitability. That the youngest group should feel more confident again shouldn't be a surprise, because they lack long-term experience in being able to judge consumer demand. There is some evidence that younger entrepreneurs are less successful than older ones.
It is not a predictor of future startup activity. One would think that entrepreneurial confidence would lead to a higher rate of startup creation among the younger demographic groups. In fact, it hasn't. Just look at Kauffman's own Index of Entrepreneurial Activity, which showed the share of startup activity by people between the ages of 20 and 34 fell from 34.8 percent in 1996 to 26.2 percent in 2012. At the same time, the share of companies started by people aged 55 to 64 rose from 14.3 percent to 23.4 percent. So, if confidence is higher among the younger entrepreneurs, why is the growth rate for new business creation so much higher among older entrepreneurs? Well, it is because the population is aging. It has little to do with changes in confidence.
It is reliant on LegalZoom's customers. This is an email survey sent only to those people who used LegalZoom products. LegalZoom has some fantastic tools for small businesses, allowing owners to save money on the reams of documents they need to file in starting or managing a business. But, as businesses grow, and the stakes get higher, businesses typically drop software for actual counsel (and curse incessantly over the concomitant billable hours). As a result, you are asking a very small subset of the overall entrepreneurial population – both in absolute terms and size of business – for opinions. Statistically and economically, that isn't a good enough sample off which to make any bolder a declaration than “LegalZoom customers agree...”
There is too much turnover in respondents. This is a quarterly survey of people within six months of starting their business. For those not good at math, that means that you are asking a lot of different people the same questions. Particularly when it comes to something as tough to measure as confidence, it is more helpful to hear how respondents' thinking evolves over time. Being a startup owner is great, but growing that business into a multinational, big-money enterprise is even better. That kind of experience is lost when you look at people's sentiment at just the starting line.
So, is looking at confidence a waste of time? Not at all. Consumer confidence is a nice way of judging potential sales. Looking at the customer – rather than your peers – has a bigger impact on business planning. And, even gauging sentiment among business owners is helpful when you are asking a wider range of questions to a bigger group of companies, as the National Federation of Independent Business does with its Small Business Optimism Index.
For its part, Kauffman, in a statement, says the report “helps illustrate the resilience of the American economy and the way in which new business creation constantly creates a new economic future, even as the surrounding economy appears stuck.”

Signs You Might Be a Terrible Leader (Yes, You)

As a business owner, leadership is more than just telling others what to do. Leadership is about the investment we make into others and the responsibilities we accept for being the voice and direction that others count on. Every great leader knows that his or her role comes with responsibility for those who follow him or her, and in ensuring they provide value in return for their loyalty.
Sometimes entrepreneurs -- either by nature or habit -- are bad leaders. Perhaps you lack the understanding of the social responsibilities that come with leading others. Or perhaps you've fallen into a routine and your leadership abilities have suffered for it.
Recognizing poor leadership is a vital skill to help you achieve greatness. Here are signs that you are a bad leader, exhibiting traits that you don't want to be following:
You make empty promises.
Poor leaders motivate those following them with false promises of promotions, success and a great tomorrow, but rarely deliver on those promises. Leaders who do this can be manipulative and often hold the goals and aspirations of their follower's hostage in order to get them to comply.
As a business owner you need to be aware of what effect this has on your staff. If you commit to something but don't follow through it can send the wrong message to your employees, who you are pushing to deliver the best results.
You fail to follow up.
Poor leaders tend to lack the understanding that their followers are counting on them to handle issues that they are not able to fix on their own. Leaders can forget to follow up on these issues as they might be of little importance to them. Months can go by with little or no change.
Following up is an important part of leadership as it is our ability to hold ourselves accountable. When you make a promise, not only is your word on the line, but so is your integrity, so follow up with a "yes it's completed" or "no, but here is when I commit to it being completed."
You're fearful of confrontation. 
Poor leaders often try to avoid confrontation, especially when involving performance. This is typically due to either a lack of knowledge on the topic at hand or an urge to be intentionally blind to the truth -- deciding to act unaware about a situation rather than dealing with it.
While business leaders want to drive results, they can be at a loss when they don't attain them through those who work for them. They often go around those tough conversations by trying to empower others to have them so that they don't have to.
As opposed to avoiding confrontation, focus on outlining exactly what is expected in every partnership or transaction you engage in. That way, when there is a discrepancy, it's easy to recognize.
You don't hold yourself accountable.
Nobody likes to be held accountable when things fail, especially poor leaders. They will often justify their need to hold others accountable rather than themselves. They don't self-reflect and improve.
Because confrontation scares them, poor leaders can also be hesitant to hold others accountable outside of talking about doing so. As a result, they end up talking in circles and shifting blame from person to person out of fear.
A simple way to keep yourself accountable is to eliminate the word "sorry" from your vocabulary. When acknowledging your broken agreement, acknowledge in a way that suggests that you realize you broke your word and will commit to a change in action as you move forward.
When you acknowledge that your word is your most important asset, "sorry" becomes an easy way out. Great leaders take ownership of what they say and do.

Keep Your Promises and Other Must-Read Business Tips

A roundup of the best tips of the week from Entrepreneur.com.
Entrepreneurs are known for making grand statements and inspiring other people with their visions of what is possible. But it's one thing to be a visionary and another to be someone who makes empty promises. "Poor leaders motivate those following them with false promises of promotions, success and a great tomorrow, but rarely deliver on those promises," says marketing and business-development expert Lewis Howes.
If you catch yourself doing this, and especially if it's a habit, you need to reassess your leadership tactics. A manipulative leader will dangle the goals and aspirations of his employees like a carrot to get them to do what he wants. But eventually employees will get fed up and most likely find somewhere else to work. Even if you don't intend to be manipulative, says Howes, "if you commit to something but don't follow through, it can send the wrong message to your employees, who you are pushing to deliver the best results." More: Signs You Might Be a Terrible Leader (Yes, You)
Make your message as simple and efficient as possible.
Getting a potential customer or client to take action isn't easy, but it's easier if you communicate as efficiently as possible. "Don't presume the audience has any interest in what your message is," says Tom Haley, a creative director at Chicago-based Jellyvision Lab, a company that provides personalized multimedia content for its clients. While you may eat, sleep and breathe your business, your customers don't. Give them what they need to make their decision -- nothing less, nothing more. More: 5 Simple Ways to Get Your Customers to Listen to You
Think about the space your employees are in.
One element of keeping employees is providing an environment in which they will enjoy working. Peace, Love & Little Donuts, located in Pittsburgh, sets itself apart from other doughnut shops partly with its unusual flavors, such as maple-and-bacon, and partly by providing such an environment for its staff. The psychedelic décor and 1970s music fit with the shop's "Feed Your Inner Hippie" slogan and provide a fun atmosphere that its workers, many of whom are young college students, won't mind spending a shift in. More: Why Happy Employees Are Your Key to Successful Branding
Debrief yourself every Thursday.
It's all too easy to let your time dribble away in emails, small talk and other distractions rather than being productive. To stay on track, sit down and give yourself a debrief every week, preferably on Thursday. That means assessing how you have spent your time and how you have improved (or slackened) your focus and productivity over the past week. "Doing this kind of debrief on Thursday, instead of Friday gives you a sense of achievement from reviewing that week’s work, which provides extra energy to carry on before the weekend," says Jason Womack, the founder of The Womack Company, an Ojai, Calif.-based productivity-training firm. "This also gives you time to organize anything that needs to be done before you leave the office for the weekend." More: What You Can Do Today to Make Tomorrow More Productive
Make disciplinary conversations objective, not subjective.
When one of your employees is behaving unprofessionally -- perhaps making inappropriate jokes or dressing in a way that isn't suitable for the workplace -- it's obvious that you need to sit the employee down for a serious talk. But it's important not to rely on vague words, like "professionalism," that can be interpreted subjectively. Refer instead to your company guidelines. That will make the substance of the conversation objective rather than subjective, says Susan Strayer LaMotte, founder of exaqueo, a workplace consulting firm. If you don't already have clear company guidelines for workplace attire and behavior, now is the time to create some, so that your employees will know what is expected.