Crip Talk: As Crips Slide By

In a letter that is printed as a part of this story, lue Jeans Cable Strikes Back - Response to Monster Cable, the CEO of Blue Jeans Cable, Kurt Denke, provides an extremely effective response to Monster Cable’s claims of patent infringement.  Writing in a somewhat self-deprecating, at times belligerent, acerbic, but mostly sarcastic tone, Denke points out some of the most ridiculous excesses of the current patent system.

“Dear Monster Lawyers,” Denki begins

            “Let me begin by stating, without equivocation, that I have no interest whatsoever in infringing upon any intellectual property belonging to Monster Cable.  Indeed, the less my customers think my products resemble Monster’s, in form or in function, the better.”

…

While using the intellectual fervor and humor reminiscent of Pirate Bay, this letter debunks the vaguely-worded patent infringement and trademark claim put forward by Monster Cable.  I’ll let the letter speak for itself.  It does the topic more justice than I ever could.  It certainly helps that Denki practiced law prior to his current position.  But it makes me wonder why companies never appear to fight these frivolous claims and settle before the claims could be verified.  I am sure attorneys have a lot to do with that. 

Politicians–especially Republicans–are quite eager to reform the tort system.  They never want to look at the corporate structures. The problems that run rampant in the patent system alone costs corporations, and consumers in turn in the form of price increases, millions (if not billions) of dollars each year.

But the reform of the patent system whose sole, unstated  purpose arguably has become to collect fees so that the government can run its wars would take political courage.  It would also take “corporate leadership” to actually recognize the radical changes

that are needed.  Like the open source movement, a well-formed patent and trademark system would ultimately help businesses a great deal by removing the choke-hold of some of these large patent trolls.

In a story, Security Firm Sophos Calls WiFi Piggybacking ‘Stealing,’  Techdirt lampoons the security organization for attempting to skew its report to it’s own commercial means.  The question is, does it go far enough?

In a perfectly transparent attempt to characterize a public behavior by adding a moral judgment to a whole class of Americans, not only does this company manage to put its interests above those of its clients, but manages to look entirely idiotic by suggesting that any type of moral responsibility completely belongs to the people accessing internet by using open wireless signals.

From the wireless security point of view, the almost exclusive focus on the people accessing the "open" signal detracts from the real point of open wireless, the security of PC’s behind those open routers.  When this firm should have been focusing on suggesting that security might be better achieved by securing wireless networks with strong encription, it chooses to incinuate a whole lot of pointless, rubbish nonsense by marketing its name through a a ploy.

As all corporations’ primary mission seems to have become serving the needs of their pocketbooks rather than serving the genuine needs of their customers, this moral dictate does not come as a surprise.  It, however, does bring the large question of dictating behavior in focus.  By clearly dilliniating acceptable behavior, firms such as Sophos engage in subtle manipulation of their perceived authority–real or not–toward their commercial ends.  Google’s entry into China and Yahoo’s betrayal of Chinese descidents should provide perfect examples of how such firms are incapable of making moral judgment calls.  Yet, more and more, we give our whole lives and trust to these firms.  Where religion and public "norms" dictated behavior, now corporations take their place in the hierarchy of the public sphere.

While never having been a large fan of the process by which a sense of normality is established, the invluence of commercial realm becomeing a large part of such a process somehow disturbs me more.

P.S. I have own stock in both Google and Yahoo.  What does that really say about me?