<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories about &quot;hp&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 Feb 2013 11:54:40 PST</pubDate>
<title>Chubby Checker Sues Two Companies For $500 Million Over Wang-Measuring App Downloaded 84 Times</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130214/10011321971/chubby-checker-sues-two-companies-500-million-over-wang-measuring-app-downloaded-84-times.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130214/10011321971/chubby-checker-sues-two-companies-500-million-over-wang-measuring-app-downloaded-84-times.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Here's a question that has been keeping me awake for the past several years: what would I call a smart phone application designed to approximate the size of my naughty parts? The answer, of course, is to call it the Chubby Checker, which is exactly <a href="http://www.appitalism.com/app/palm-webos/245057-the-chubby-checker-beta/">what a company did</a> some time ago. Apparently 1960's rock and <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2013/feb/14/chubby-checker-sues-hewlett-packard">roll legend Chubby Checker is so pissed off about it</a> that he wants approximately <i>all of the money</i> (by which he means a hell of a lot more money than) the app ever made. And, for some reason, he wants it from HP and Palm, who no longer offer the app at all due to the platform being completely dead, and who appear to have complied with his requests in every way. There's a joke about Palm being involved in a penis size app, but most of it is too vulgar for Techdirt's audience. Let's just say the punchline is "That's what I call two in the hand and one in the bush!" and get back to the story.
<blockquote>
<i>Checker's lawyers are seeking half a billion dollars for the "irreparable damage and harm" caused by the Chubby Checker, an app for Hewlett-Packard's Palm OS platform. "This lawsuit is about preserving the integrity and legacy of a man who has spent years working hard [editor's note: HA!] at his musical craft and has earned the position of one of the greatest musical entertainers of all time," explained lawyer Willie Gary.</i></blockquote>
Yes, according to Willie [editor's note: his name <i>had</i> to be Willie, didn't it?], an application from a company now extinct, released for a mobile platform also extinct, has caused irreparable harm to a rocker from the 60's. Okay, apologies for digging into this, but that's what the post requires. A chubby is a term for a man's wang. If you're going to check it out, chubby checker describes the app. Sorry, but that's the deal. And I want to know who, out of the grand total of <i>84 people</i> who downloaded this app, in any way thought about <i>The Twist</i>, or in any possible way thought that this app was endorsed by the 71 year old man born Earnest Evans. Because here's the thing: if you associated a penis and a song about a dance in which you twist into knots, you're a masochist <i>and</i> an idiot. And, frankly, the tarnishment aspect of their complaint is the <i>most</i> reasonable part of it all.<br />
<br />
That's because of their ridiculous request for $500 million for an app downloaded 84 times on a platform now defunct from a company also defunct. And <a href="https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/603548-ernest-evans-v-hp.html">their filing</a> is against HP and Palm, not the actual app developer, who actually took the app down in September of last year, the same month when that same filing shows Checker's lawyers first sent HP/Palm their cease and desist (filing embedded below). So, they took a dead app for a dead platform that almost <i>nobody downloaded</i> and injected all of it back into the public news realm, and Checker's/Evans'/Whoever's lawyers claim the <i>app</i> is the one causing harm to the brand?  It seems a hell of a lot more likely that <i>filing this ridiculous lawsuit</i> is going to cause harm to Checker's brand than anything HP or Palm did. Per <a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/story/famed-attorney-willie-gary-files-half-billion-dollar-lawsuit-on-behalf-of-music-legend-chubby-checker-against-hewlett-packard-and-palm-inc-for-copyright-infringement-2013-02-12">their own hilarious press release</a>:
<blockquote>
<i>The lawsuit alleges that the egregious and flagrant acts of Hewlett Packard and Palm, Inc., if not stopped immediately, will permit Defendants to enjoy profits to which they are not entitled.</i></blockquote>
Newsflash, guys, there is <i>no current way for HP and Palm to profit from this app</i>. This entire suit against them is <i>ridiculous</i>. If 3rd party sites are still offering it, go file spurious trademark lawsuits against them and then lose in court. HP did everything you asked and you're <i>still</i> suing them for an astounding $500 million, even though they didn't create the app or have anything to do with it. Meanwhile, you're making your client look like a chubby (get it?).<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130214/10011321971/chubby-checker-sues-two-companies-500-million-over-wang-measuring-app-downloaded-84-times.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130214/10011321971/chubby-checker-sues-two-companies-500-million-over-wang-measuring-app-downloaded-84-times.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130214/10011321971/chubby-checker-sues-two-companies-500-million-over-wang-measuring-app-downloaded-84-times.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>you-can't-make-this-stuff-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130214/10011321971</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2013 15:48:13 PST</pubDate>
<title>HP Wasn't Going To Let A Little Fraud Stand In The Way Of Acquiring Autonomy</title>
<dc:creator>Matt Levine / Dealbreaker</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130123/16180321770/hp-wasnt-going-to-let-little-fraud-stand-way-acquiring-autonomy.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130123/16180321770/hp-wasnt-going-to-let-little-fraud-stand-way-acquiring-autonomy.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <div style="text-align:center;padding:7px 7px 3px 7px;margin:0 0 7px 15px;border:2px solid #bbb;float:right;line-height:1.2;">
<i style="font-weight:bold;color:#666;font-size:90%;">Cross-posted from</i><br />
<a href="http://dealbreaker.com/2013/01/h-p-wasnt-going-to-let-a-little-fraud-stand-in-the-way-of-acquiring-autonomy/" target="_blank"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/vrrj9mY.png" width="120" title="Dealbreaker" style="margin:0;" /></a>
</div>
<p>There&#8217;s a lot going on in <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323635504578211743521976174.html?mod=WSJ_hps_LEFTTopStories">the recent <em>Wall Street Journal</em> story</a> about how Hewlett-Packard &#8220;missed a chance to back away&#8221; from its acquisition of Autonomy &#8211; which HP now <a href="http://dealbreaker.com/2012/11/hp-thinks-that-autonomy-extracted-a-bit-too-much-meaning-from-its-enterprise-data/">thinks did a lot of revenue recognition fraud</a> and on which it has taken zillions of dollars of writedowns &#8211; but this description of the board&#8217;s approval process for the deal is the only thing you really need to know:<sup><a name="call01" href="#fn01">1</a></sup></p>
<blockquote><p><i>HP directors and bankers calculated how much revenue Autonomy would have to add over 10 years to justify such a price. Autonomy&#8217;s trajectory alone wouldn&#8217;t get there. The deal required assuming more revenue growth as a result of the tie-up than HP usually assumed in acquisitions, said people familiar with the matter. But the directors believed they could make the numbers.</i></p></blockquote>
<p>Those calculations were done without knowledge of the alleged fraud but who cares? Here is, roughly, HP&#8217;s thought process:</p>
<ul>
<li>The price that Autonomy demands is X<sup><a name="call02" href="#fn02">2</a></sup></li>
<li>Autonomy&#8217;s DCF value is Y<sub>1</sub> based on expected revenue growth but no synergies</li>
<li>Y<sub>1</sub> &lt; X</li>
<li>Well but the DCF value is Y<sub>2</sub> with regular-to-aggressive synergies</li>
<li>Y<sub>2</sub> &lt; X</li>
<li>Well but &#8230; well we could make up another number Y<sub>3</sub></li>
<li>Y<sub>3</sub> &gt;= X</li>
<li>LOOKS GOOD.</li>
</ul>
<p>If you notice that current revenue numbers are made up, then that changes Y<sub>1</sub>, but Y<sub>1</sub> isn&#8217;t an input into Y<sub>3</sub> &#8211; the actual value that HP put on Autonomy &#8211; because that number was <i>also just made up</i>. <span id="more-96627"></span>&#8220;Synergies&#8221; was just a plug to get the equation to balance. The bankers&#8217; math in the board book to approve the deal was just there to be soothing &#8211; directors get twitchy<sup><a name="call03" href="#fn03">3</a></sup> if they can&#8217;t look at a football field slide while approving an acquisition &#8211; not to have an impact on the outcome. You can hypothesize that HP would have rejected the deal if it had known Autonomy&#8217;s true revenue situation, because then the valuation numbers wouldn&#8217;t work, but that is a silly hypothesis because even using fake<sup><a name="call04" href="#fn04">4</a></sup> revenues the valuation numbers didn&#8217;t work and it didn&#8217;t reject the deal.</p>
<p>That is too glib &#8211; off by a lot is worse than off by a little, and &#8220;oh you&#8217;re a massive fraud actually&#8221; is a great point to make in negotiating down the asking price &#8211; but I think it&#8217;s the right analysis. As <a href="http://www.theconglomerate.org/2013/01/dont-blame-hps-board-for-the-autonomy-deal.html?utm_source=feedburner&#038;utm_medium=feed&#038;utm_campaign=Feed%3A+theconglomerate%2Ffeed+%28Conglomerate%29">Usha Rodrigues writes</a>, &#8220;The die was cast on the Autonomy acquisition when the HP board picked Apotheker, a CEO &#8216;bent on a high impact acquisition.&#8217;&#8221; If you have a CEO who really wants to do a deal, and a deal he really wants to do, it&#8217;s hard to imagine that some accountant coming to him with some minor boring technical quibble like &#8220;all these revenues are fictitious&#8221; would cause any more trouble than &#8211; well, than some banker coming to him with some minor boring technical quibble like &#8220;the price you are paying is more than the discounted cash flow of this asset to you.&#8221; Shut up, nerds! We&#8217;re doing important CEO business here!</p>
<p>How should this make you feel about the <a href="http://dealbreaker.com/2012/05/spending-a-year-on-an-ma-bidding-war-is-apparently-overrated/">social value of M&#038;A</a>? Sort of same as you always felt? Some deals are good and some are bad, and CEOs tend to like making acquisitions because they are optimists and doing acquisitions makes them feel like big shots, and boards should try to shut down acquisitions that are bad for shareholders, but sometimes they don&#8217;t because <a href="http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2012/10/24/267829.htm">country clubs etc</a>. Everyone knew that already; this anecdotal confirmation is pleasing but, after all, just anecdotal. I&#8217;m sure HP&#8217;s current CEO would never do an acquisition that might destroy shareholder value.</p>
<p>How should it make you feel about Dragon Systems? Dragon, <a href="http://dealbreaker.com/2013/01/dragon-systems-shareholders-cant-see-the-bright-side-in-extremely-successful-ma-transaction-that-wiped-out-their-lifes-savings/">you&#8217;ll remember</a>, sold itself for stock to a company that turned out to be a giant fraud and whose stock turned out to be worthless; Dragon&#8217;s shareholders then went out and sued their ragtag team of junior investment bankers at Goldman for not noticing that the acquiror was a giant fraud. And one of those junior bankers testified that they did a &#8220;great job&#8221; for Dragon, insofar as &#8220;We guided them to a completed transaction.&#8221; This got them made fun of a lot, here and elsewhere, but you get the sense Apotheker would approve. Dragon&#8217;s, and HP&#8217;s, bankers saw themselves as service providers, providing a particular narrow service &#8211; roughly, transaction execution &#8211; and leaving other services (auditing, fraud detection) to other providers, or no one, as the case may be. It was clear &#8211; to the bankers, and HP, though perhaps not to Dragon &#8211; who was in charge of the deal, and it sure wasn&#8217;t the bankers.</p>
<p>One popular and reasonably promising path to medium-term success as an investment banker is to tell clients what they want to hear. This is good because then clients will find you pleasant to be around; it&#8217;s also good because what they want to hear is frequently &#8220;oh yeah you should totally do this transaction that involves paying investment banking fees.&#8221; So there&#8217;s a synergy there. CEOs, after all, tend to (1) want to do stuff, (2) want to do big stuff, and (3) have a high degree of confidence in their ability to make investing decisions. If those decisions are systematically biased toward destroying shareholder value &#8230; well, I mean, we just work here, y&#8217;know? </p>
<p>Also, the <i>Journal</i> <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323301104578255673892793406.html?KEYWORDS=share+buybacks">had an article</a> about the flood of <a href="http://dealbreaker.com/2011/10/mckinsey-says-companies-should-stop-overthinking-stuff-and-just-go-with-the-flow/">stock buybacks</a> analysts expect this year. </p>
<p><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323635504578211743521976174.html?mod=WSJ_hps_LEFTTopStories">Inside HP&#8217;s Missed Chance To Avoid a Disastrous Deal</a> [WSJ]</p>
<p><small><a name="fn01" href="#call01">1.</a> <i>Though you should read the rest because it is pretty entertaining? Like this is good:</i></small></p>
<blockquote><p><small>HP became aware that bloggers and some financial analysts had claimed in the past that Autonomy was aggressive in its accounting. HP asked Autonomy&#8217;s [CEO] Mr. Lynch about how his firm recognized revenue, receiving answers and documents that allayed concern, said HP General Counsel John Schultz.</small></p></blockquote>
<p><small><i>Bloggers! That happened right after the acquisition agreement was signed, as did this: &#8220;[HP board chairman Ray] Lane spoke to senior HP executives and found a near-universal view that their CEO wasn&#8217;t right for the job.&#8221; Imagine being a board chairman and sidling up to like the CFO and saying &#8220;hey, everything good with this Apotheker dude?&#8221; and the CFO saying &#8220;no he&#8217;s horrible you have to fire him.&#8221; And you&#8217;re like, hmm, that&#8217;s discouraging. And you check in with the COO and hear the same thing. And then you ask everyone and get &#8220;a near-universal view that their CEO wasn&#8217;t right for the job.&#8221; Never mind the big acquisition you just signed. &#8220;Gee, you know that information really would&#8217;ve been more useful to me <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120888/quotes">YESTERDAY</a>,&#8221; you might find yourself thinking.</i></small></p>
<p><small><a name="fn02" href="#call02">2.</a> <i>Which we&#8217;ll take as a given: it&#8217;s a 50% premium to market price, which &#8220;wasn&#8217;t unusual for a software deal.&#8221;</i></small></p>
<p><small><a name="fn03" href="#call03">3.</a> <i>For &#8220;twitchy&#8221; read &#8220;sued.&#8221; Imagine that the rest of this footnote discusses the negative effects of </i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Van_Gorkom">Smith v. Van Gorkom</a><i> on, like, life, and its positive effects on investment banking M&#038;A advisory revenues.</i></small></p>
<p><small><a name="fn04" href="#call04">4.</a> <i>This footnote runs the global &#8220;allegedly&#8221; macro. I have no idea. Lynch remains adamant that there was no monkey business at Autonomy.</i></small></p>
<b>Other posts from <a href="http://dealbreaker.com/" target="_blank">Dealbreaker</a>:</b>
<ul><li><a href="http://dealbreaker.com/2013/01/morgan-stanley-finalizes-its-entry-in-the-who-said-the-worst-things-about-its-own-products-competition/" target="_blank">Morgan Stanley Finalizes Its Entry In The &#8220;Who Said The Worst Things About Its Own Products?&#8221; Competition</a>
</li><li><a href="http://dealbreaker.com/2013/01/hedge-fund-manager-will-get-chance-to-fulfill-dream-of-spending-hundreds-of-millions-of-dollars-badly/" target="_blank">Hedge Fund Manager Will Get Chance to Fulfill Dream of Spending Hundreds of Millions of Dollars Badly</a>
</li><li><a href="http://dealbreaker.com/2013/01/bank-investors-push-for-change-via-strongly-worded-poll-responses/" target="_blank">Bank Investors Push For Change Via Strongly Worded Poll Responses </a>
</li></ul><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130123/16180321770/hp-wasnt-going-to-let-little-fraud-stand-way-acquiring-autonomy.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130123/16180321770/hp-wasnt-going-to-let-little-fraud-stand-way-acquiring-autonomy.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130123/16180321770/hp-wasnt-going-to-let-little-fraud-stand-way-acquiring-autonomy.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>what's-a-little-fraud</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130123/16180321770</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 10 Jul 2012 14:42:22 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Judge Rejects Key Universal Music Argument In Legal Fight With Grooveshark</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120710/14283519650/judge-rejects-key-universal-music-argument-legal-fight-with-grooveshark.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120710/14283519650/judge-rejects-key-universal-music-argument-legal-fight-with-grooveshark.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Two and a half years ago, Universal Music (UMG) <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100111/1230487706.shtml">sued Grooveshark</a> (or, really, its parent company Escape Media).  The case has had a few twists and turns since then, but the judge has issued a ruling (embedded below) that is pretty clear in suggesting that Universal Music's key argument -- the the DMCA does not apply to pre-1972 songs -- was a massive overreach, and the court will not accept it.  Separately, the court flat-out rejected UMG's attempts to have Grooveshark's counterclaims of tortious interference dismissed.  There's no way to look at this other than a pretty big win for Grooveshark and a big loss for Universal, though the case is far from over.
<br /><br />
On the key point, Grooveshark has long argued that what it does is really no different than what YouTube does, in that it allows individuals to upload content, and if it receives a takedown notice, it proactively follows the DMCA's takedown process and removes that content.  Realizing that getting around the DMCA's safe harbors was a longshot, Universal Music instead reverted to a somewhat twisted argument, saying that pre-1972 sound recordings are not covered by the DMCA, and thus there are no safe harbor protections.  To understand why they'd make this argument, you can read up on the history of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100804/02405510490.shtml">pre-1972 copyrights for sound recordings</a> -- a huge mess that the US Copyright Office is still trying to figure out <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101031/13553011665/copyright-office-exploring-issue-over-pre-1972-sound-recordings-copyright.shtml">how to fix</a>.  But, the short version is that, currently, sound recordings from before 1972 are not technically under US <i>federal</i> copyright law, but various (and often crazy) state laws.  Since the DMCA refers to works under federal copyright law, Universal Music's arguments is that the DMCA doesn't apply, thus the safe harbors don't apply, and Grooveshark can't rely on its safe harbor compliance to avoid liability.
<br /><br />
If this argument sounds somewhat familiar, that's because it's the same one EMI tried to use against MP3Tunes, which <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111103/04442116611/emi-loses-yet-again-its-quixotic-war-with-michael-robertson-mp3tunes.shtml">failed spectacularly</a>.  The NY state court in this case appears to be well aware of that, citing the MP3Tunes case at length.
<blockquote><i>
An internet service provider which seeks to benefit from the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA is required, as a condition of receiving such protection, "expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity." .... Certainly the thrust of the DMCA is to relieve internet service providers of the initial need to ascertain the copyright status of the sound recordings that they make available, to place the burden of asserting copyright ownership on the owners of such copyrights, and to require the internet service providers to "take down" infringing material, upon receipt of a valid notice of infringement.  <b>There is no textual, or other reason, to think that Congress intended to limit that distribution of responsibilities to only post-1972 recordings.</b>
<br /><br />
Moreover, the phrase "copyright owners,".... is applicable to the owner of a common law copyright, no less than to the owner of a copyright under the Copyright Act.... 
</i></blockquote>
End result?  Sorry, UMG, but you can't just use this loophole to get around the clear and stated purpose of the DMCA's safe harbors.
<blockquote><i>
This Court is not attempting to extend the Copyright Act to pre-1972 Recordings, but, nonetheless, does find, based on the relevant language of the statutes and the analysis discuss above, that the safe harbor provision codified by section 512(c)(1) of the DMCA is applicable to Pre-1972 Recordings.
</i></blockquote>
That shoots a pretty big hole in UMG's case, as it's now going to have to show that Grooveshark's activities cause them to lose DMCA safe harbors, which is a much bigger hill to climb.
<br /><br />
Separately, UMG failed in trying to get various counterclaims dismissed.  The focus here was on claims that UMG contacted two companies -- HP and INgrooves -- to get them to back out of deals with Grooveshark.  There are a bunch of different arguments (most pretty technical) that UMG makes to assert that these counterclaims should be dismissed, but the court isn't buying most of them.  For each precedent UMG brings up, the court highlights that the facts are different here and UMG's reliance on particular caselaw "is misplaced."
<br /><br />
UMG had a couple of relatively minor victories: having one of the counterclaims dismissed (one having to do with antitrust activity, because Grooveshark only showed harm to itself, rather than competition in general) and also a rejection of an attempt to use Section 230 safe harbors, which explicitly carve out intellectual property.  Grooveshark/Escape Media tried a rather convoluted argument (sort of the reverse of UMG's pre-1972 DMCA argument, claiming that Section 230 safe harbors <i>could</i> apply to works covered under state copyright law).  The court rejects this as silly, but it's effectively meaningless since it still grants the DMCA's safe harbors (which, admittedly are not quite as strong as the Section 230 safe harbors, but this is definitely the more reasonable result).
<br /><br />
All in all, there's still a long way to go in this case, but today's ruling is clearly a pretty big loss for UMG and a win for Grooveshark.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120710/14283519650/judge-rejects-key-universal-music-argument-legal-fight-with-grooveshark.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120710/14283519650/judge-rejects-key-universal-music-argument-legal-fight-with-grooveshark.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120710/14283519650/judge-rejects-key-universal-music-argument-legal-fight-with-grooveshark.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>overreach...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120710/14283519650</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 23 Nov 2011 15:52:51 PST</pubDate>
<title>Cisco Calls Out HP For Suing Former Employees Who Leave HP To Work For Cisco</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111123/04093516885/cisco-calls-out-hp-suing-former-employees-who-leave-hp-to-work-cisco.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111123/04093516885/cisco-calls-out-hp-suing-former-employees-who-leave-hp-to-work-cisco.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've written, in great detail, about the research that shows that the ability for employees to switch jobs freely almost certainly <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071204/005038.shtml">contributed massively</a> to the huge success of Silicon Valley.  Multiple studies, looking at multiple different factors, have shown that a simple legal issue -- the fact that non-compete agreements are unenforceable in California -- was the <i>key</i> driving factor in Silicon Valley's success.  Sure, other things were important: good universities, investors, etc.  But other areas had that too.  What set Silicon Valley apart was the fact that employees switch jobs much more frequently.  
<br /><br />
As for <i>why</i> that has such a massive impact on innovation and economic growth, it has to do with the sharing of ideas.  While traditional economic theory might suggest companies are better off hoarding information on new products, that's not true in many cases.  Take, for example, an emerging market where multiple players are on the verge of key breakthroughs -- but the market won't really emerge until that breakthrough is complete.  What studies have found is that the more minds thinking about a problem and cross-pollinating ideas, the faster it is that the necessary breakthrough can happen.  Now, companies may not work directly together on solving the challenge, but when <i>employees shift regularly between companies</i> they act to pollinate the ideas from one organization to another, helping those organizations reach the breakthrough point sooner, creating those large new markets.  This isn't a bad thing.  Speeding up the process of innovation and creating large new markets is a non-zero sum game, so the fact that an employee leaves can actually help spur a huge market that the employee's former company can take advantage of too.  At the same time, it allows companies, who might be upset about losing certain employees, to similarly hire people away from other competitors.
<br /><br />
So, it always strikes me as a bit strange when companies get so worked up about an employee leaving to join a competitor -- especially in California.  However, Cisco General Counsel Mark Chandler is <a href="http://blogs.cisco.com/news/hp-sues-employees-for-leaving/" target="_blank">directly calling out HP for a series of lawsuits</a> against employees who left HP (a company clearly in turmoil) to go to Cisco.  Chandler highlights the fact that noncompetes are unenforceable in CA, but notes that (even though both companies are headquartered not far from each other in California), HP has used the fact that it has locations elsewhere to file lawsuits against former employees three times.  And the stories suggest that HP is really going overboard in these efforts:
<blockquote><i>
In the first of the three cases, HP was so persistent in the litigation and so threatening, that the individual, who had retired from HP months before even talking to Cisco, withdrew. There seemed to be little concern with the stress that a big company turning its legal guns on an individual can cause.  In another case, an employee who worked in HP&rsquo;s financial services group was sued to block her from working in Cisco&rsquo;s customer finance group, even though there was no argument whatsoever that relevant intellectual property at stake.  She persisted and HP relented.  In the most recent case, just last week, the employee, who&rsquo;d given HP over two decades of loyal service, had moved to California before starting work at Cisco.  He asked a California court to declare that he was protected by California law and that HP could therefore not enforce its non-compete.  A court hearing was scheduled in California, we notified HP and HP retained counsel.  Cisco also reached out to senior legal staff at HP to try lay out some voluntary steps to avoid further litigation and to give further reassurance that the employee wouldn&rsquo;t even inadvertently leverage any HP confidential information.
<br /><br />
HP&rsquo;s reply was to file an action in Texas against the employee and schedule an &ldquo;emergency&rdquo; hearing to try to enjoin the employ from working with Cisco, seeking to have a judge issue the injunction with no notice and no opportunity for the employee to be represented.  Fortunately, an eagle-eyed Texas lawyer working for the employee saw the filing appear on line and showed up in court.  Given that the matter was already in front of a California court, with HP fully represented, in a hearing scheduled for two hours later, the judge in Texas was not impressed by HP&rsquo;s effort to get her to act without a hearing.  She refused to proceed.  And the California judge issued an order allowing the employee to begin his new career at Cisco.
</i></blockquote>
There's no way to look at this and not wonder what is going on at HP.  The company is flailing.  It's been firing CEOs left and right -- and paying them ridiculous sums for failing in the process.  Why not just spend some of the money that's being wasted in these silly and damaging lawsuits to actually innovate?  In his post, Chandler also notes that HP has been on the other end of similar fights, which makes this even more bizarre.  He closes with a pledge that, no matter where they are, Cisco will not use litigation to stop employees from working elsewhere, and challenges HP to do the same:
<blockquote><i>
Cisco&rsquo;s promise to those looking to work in the networking industry is that no matter which of the fifty states you live in and work for Cisco, if you come to work for us we will apply California&rsquo;s rule in favor of employee mobility nationwide.  We know that employee retention is a matter of fair compensation and career opportunity, not litigation. And <b>we challenge HP, with new leadership deeply steeped in Silicon Valley&rsquo;s environment of mobility and opportunity, to step up and support employee freedom and stop suing employees just for leaving.</b>
</i></blockquote><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111123/04093516885/cisco-calls-out-hp-suing-former-employees-who-leave-hp-to-work-cisco.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111123/04093516885/cisco-calls-out-hp-suing-former-employees-who-leave-hp-to-work-cisco.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111123/04093516885/cisco-calls-out-hp-suing-former-employees-who-leave-hp-to-work-cisco.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>sullying-the-hp-brand</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111123/04093516885</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 14 Sep 2011 22:07:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Big Tech Companies Funding University Research Labs... Only If They Promise To Open Source The Results</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110913/03255415926/big-tech-companies-funding-university-research-labs-only-if-they-promise-to-open-source-results.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110913/03255415926/big-tech-companies-funding-university-research-labs-only-if-they-promise-to-open-source-results.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The state of universities and intellectual property is pretty messy these days.  Thanks to the screwed up <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100901/16073410866.shtml">Bayh-Dole</a> law, many universities feel (wrongly) compelled to patent the research that they produce.  This generally goes against their basic charters of sharing the knowledge that they create.  It's also not very profitable.  Only a small handful of universities have been able to make money off of patents.  Most have lost a ton of money, setting up expensive tech transfer offices that don't return a dime.
<br /><br />
However, in an interesting twist (pointed out by <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/glynmoody/statuses/113541301370232832" target="_blank">Glyn Moody</a>), it appears that a variety of big tech companies, including Intel, HP and IBM, are now <a href="http://www.innovationexcellence.com/blog/2011/09/12/intel-to-universities-no-patents-please-just-open-source/" target="_blank">funding research centers on the condition that they open source anything that comes out of them</a>.
<br /><br />
Think about that for a second.  These institutions of learning, who for decades have been built on education and sharing knowledge, want to lock up ideas.  And the private companies, who are more commonly associated with trying to lock up proprietary information, are encouraging greater openness and sharing.  That, alone, should show you just how screwed up our patent system is today.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110913/03255415926/big-tech-companies-funding-university-research-labs-only-if-they-promise-to-open-source-results.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110913/03255415926/big-tech-companies-funding-university-research-labs-only-if-they-promise-to-open-source-results.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110913/03255415926/big-tech-companies-funding-university-research-labs-only-if-they-promise-to-open-source-results.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>kinda-backwards</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110913/03255415926</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 1 Sep 2011 15:13:33 PDT</pubDate>
<title>HP Tablet Fire Sale Lets Us Put A Price On The Value Of A Strong Development Community</title>
<dc:creator>Derek Kerton</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110831/15471715757/hp-tablet-fire-sale-lets-us-put-price-value-strong-development-community.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110831/15471715757/hp-tablet-fire-sale-lets-us-put-price-value-strong-development-community.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <span class="Apple-style-span">A couple of weeks ago, HP made the significant decision to get out of the consumer hardware business, simultaneously shutting down their PC business and their mobile device business built around the WebOS purchase that <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100428/1625019227.shtml">came with Palm, Inc.</a> When they abruptly did so, HP also announced they would be clearing out the supply chain by offering their very capable, $500+ <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110303/03523013351/hp-rim-produce-similar-device-dont-freak-out.shtml">TouchPad tablet</a> for $100 (16GB models).
<br /><br />
What followed was a mad rush of purchasing, with people clamoring for a cheap, but powerful tablet. This is by no means a bad device: remember that the WebOS was critically acclaimed, and this tablet had a 9.7" screen, webcam for video chat, lightweight, 1.2GHz dual-core processor and more. These are flagship-grade tablet specs, and although we've learned that UX is more important than specs, good hardware is a definite plus. The biggest problem with the device was the lack of developer support for the ecosystem, so there are "thousands" of apps available according to HP, but not the 'hundreds of thousands' that work with the iPad.
<br /><br />
This fire sale has provided a fairly interesting experiment in the market clearing price for non-iPad tablets. The base iPad sells readily for $500, and is often sold out. This is the high-water mark for tablets, which no other has matched. Other vendors have built competitive hardware and tried to sell it in the same price range (Motorola Xoom, Samsung, Playbook) but were rewarded with lackluster sales. Some of those devices, on paper, are arguably <i>better </i>than the iPad, so the most likely reason Apple can extract a premium is the power of their App developer community. An iPad can do much more than a Xoom partly because of what Apple offers, but mostly because of the 'whole product' which includes 400,000+ apps.
<br /><br />
Device industry executives must stay up at night wondering how to price their tablet. The HP experiment will prove useful. Now we know that at $500, buyers walk away from the deal. But at $100, they literally rush the store like Walmart on Black Friday. This tells us that the correct price for a good tablet with weak developer support is between $100 and $500. That's a fairly wide range. I wish HP had set the price higher, to provide a better test. Unfortunately, whenever an OEM company sets the price, what we get is <i>their desired price</i>, but not the market value. For that...<i>we have eBay</i>. Many of the buyers at HP's firesale were just arbitrageurs looking to flip the tablet to make a quick buck, and those tablets quickly showed up on the auction site. <a href="http://www.ebay.com/csc/i.html?_nkw=touchpad+16&#038;_in_kw=1&#038;_ex_kw=&#038;_sacat=See-All-Categories&#038;_okw=touchpad+16&#038;_oexkw=&#038;_adv=1&#038;LH_Complete=1&#038;_udlo=&#038;_udhi=&#038;_samilow=&#038;_samihi=&#038;_sadis=200&#038;_fpos=Zip+code&#038;_fsct=&#038;LH_SALE_CURRENCY=0&#038;_sop=12&#038;_dmd=1&#038;_ipg=50">A look at eBay today reveals a high number of TouchPads</a> on offer, and sold for a market price of ~$250.<br /><br /> If the hardware alone is valued at about $250, how does iPad sell for $500? Well, we'll have to attribute some of the premium to the "cool, sexy" mystique of Apple products. But I wouldn't go too far with that. The Samsung Tab or HP TouchPad are both very slick looking products. A chunk of the premium has to be allocated to Apple's excellent and easy UX. The mass market doesn't want to geek out, they want easy products. But Honeycomb and WebOS aren't so far behind...<br /><br /> No, the dominant reason that iPad can sell out at $500 (even as sales have tipped well beyond the fanboi segment) is the value brought by apps. Apple is making cake because it has the biggest developer community coding around the OS, and the value of that community is currently worth something on the order of $200-250 per tablet. It's going to be tough for any other tablet to breach this market, where Apple already has the supply chain dialed in, the developer community, the innovation lead, and the brand. Android may progress bit by bit, but for now Tablets are Apple's private playground. Competition will heat up if Android tablet versions of the Nook and Kindle go to market around the $325 range (making their profit on books instead). Note that the TouchPad has an estimated $318 Bill of Materials (BoM).</span><span class="Apple-style-span"> In a few years, Moore's Law and steady Android progress will reduce the cost and app advantage iPad now enjoys.
<br /><br />
<a href="http://h20435.www2.hp.com/t5/The-Next-Bench-Blog/More-TouchPads-on-the-Way/ba-p/68749">HP will be emptying the supply chain</a> in a couple of weeks with the final production run of TouchPads. I wish they would bump up the price to see if the market would bear $318 direct from the manufacturer (ostensibly, a more desirable seller than eBay members), but it seems that they will keep the current fire sale price.</span><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110831/15471715757/hp-tablet-fire-sale-lets-us-put-price-value-strong-development-community.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110831/15471715757/hp-tablet-fire-sale-lets-us-put-price-value-strong-development-community.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110831/15471715757/hp-tablet-fire-sale-lets-us-put-price-value-strong-development-community.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>apple-and-orange-sales</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110831/15471715757</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 15 Jul 2011 15:02:44 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Intellectual Ventures Keeps On Suing</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110715/02312615102/intellectual-ventures-keeps-suing.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110715/02312615102/intellectual-ventures-keeps-suing.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ For years, Nathan Mhyrvold's Intellectual Ventures tried to avoid the "patent troll" label, in part by not filing any lawsuits.  Boy, has that changed.  A few months ago <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101208/11073712190/intellectual-ventures-files-its-first-lawsuits-giant-patent-troll-awakened.shtml">it filed its first three lawsuits</a>, against a bunch of tech companies, and now it's gone right back to court <a href="http://paidcontent.org/article/419-new-intellectual-ventures-suit-seeks-payment-from-chipmakers/" target="_blank">to sue a bunch more</a>, including Dell, HP, Asus, Acer, Best Buy and Wal-Mart.  Of course, it's all a big shakedown scheme.  To IV, you're either "with them" (which means <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100801/23085310445.shtml">holding your nose</a> and paying <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090630/0333575413.shtml">upwards of $100 million</a>  for a blanket license) or "against them" (which means they'll sue you).  It's not hard to see why many people seem to feel that this is all just a giant shakedown racket.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110715/02312615102/intellectual-ventures-keeps-suing.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110715/02312615102/intellectual-ventures-keeps-suing.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110715/02312615102/intellectual-ventures-keeps-suing.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>trolly-trolly-trolly-troll</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110715/02312615102</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 14 Mar 2011 21:05:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>HP And RIM Produce Similar Device... Don't Freak Out</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110303/03523013351/hp-rim-produce-similar-device-dont-freak-out.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110303/03523013351/hp-rim-produce-similar-device-dont-freak-out.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=churchhatestucker">ChurchHatesTucker</a> points us to a recent story about how RIM's Playbook tablet device and interface looks incredibly similar to HP's TouchPad tablet device interface (using WebOS), but rather than get all freaked out about "copying," the <a href="http://blog.laptopmag.com/hp-says-blackberry-playbook-result-of-fast-imitation-cycle-rim-responds" target="_blank">two companies seem to handle this maturely</a>, noting that it's just the nature of innovation.  HP's initial response more or less suggests that RIM copied HP, but uses it as an opportunity to position itself as a leader in the space, rather than a follower:
<blockquote><i>
From HP:
<br /><br />
"It's a fast innovation cycle and a fast imitation cycle in this market, so we just know that we have the creative engine here to continue to build on what we have, and we'll keep innovating, we'll keep honing and those guys hopefully will continue to see the value in it and keep following us by about a year."<br />
<br />
RIM (Blackberry) responds.<br />
<br />
"Well, when you&rsquo;re trying to optimize user experience that juggles multitasking, multiple apps open at once and on a small screen, you&rsquo;re going to get people landing on similar kinds of designs."
</i></blockquote>
Notice no legal threats.  No claims of intellectual property violations.  Some might claim this is a "non-story," but in an age when the <i>default</i> so often seems to break out the lawyers, cease-and-desists and threats (if not outright lawsuits), it's nice to see a response like this.  In some ways it's more of a story, since it seems so rare.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110303/03523013351/hp-rim-produce-similar-device-dont-freak-out.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110303/03523013351/hp-rim-produce-similar-device-dont-freak-out.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110303/03523013351/hp-rim-produce-similar-device-dont-freak-out.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>man-bites-dog?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110303/03523013351</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 28 Oct 2010 16:30:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Win A Trip To Napa For Your Team, Courtesy Of HP</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101028/00545311619/win-a-trip-to-napa-for-your-team-courtesy-of-hp.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101028/00545311619/win-a-trip-to-napa-for-your-team-courtesy-of-hp.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <div style="float:left;padding:0;margin:0;margin-right:5px;"><a href="http://bit.ly/tdhproi2"><img src="http://www.techdirt.com/images/logos/hp-logo.gif" /></a></div>
<i>This post is sponsored by HP, as a part of its <a href="http://www.hp.com/united-states/campaigns/reimagineroi/index.html" target="_blank">Reimagining ROI</a> campaign, but even so, it's still a pretty cool contest.</i>
<br><br>
As mentioned recently, over the past few months, we've been taking part, along with a bunch of other blogs, in a program by HP called <a href="http://www.hp.com/united-states/campaigns/reimagineroi/index.html" target="_blank">Reimagining ROI</a>.  Basically, HP has asked a bunch of blog writers to write up stories of "unexpected ROI" on things they've purchased.  This is a sponsored campaign (basically, HP paying us to write about our stories of "unexpected ROI," but no discussions of HP products or anything).  You can see a few of our posts at the following links:
<ul>
<li>My <a href="http://www.hp.com/united-states/campaigns/reimagineroi/index.html#/plug" target="_blank">experience with a portable power strip</a> helping me make friends at various airports and conferences.
<li>Our research director, Mike Ho's <a href="http://j.mp/9jOE7e">creative uses for dental floss</a>.
<li>Analyst Joyce Hung's <a href="http://www.hp.com/united-states/campaigns/reimagineroi/story-ball.html" target="_blank">surprising value in an exercise ball</a>.
</ul>
Anyway, as part of this program HP is running a contest that will send <a href="http://bit.ly/tdhproi2" target="_blank">you and five colleagues or friends for a huge five day trip to Napa</a> with a whole bunch of other stuff thrown in as well.  I have to say it's a really impressive prize.  In order to win, you have to submit your own story of "surprising" ROI, and the best stories can win the prizes (there are some other prizes beyond the big trip).
<center>
<!-- BANNER #1 -->
<div style="display:none">
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://thirdparty.fmpub.net/placement/361817?fleur_de_sel=[timestamp]"></script>
</div>
<!-- BANNER #1 --> 
</center><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101028/00545311619/win-a-trip-to-napa-for-your-team-courtesy-of-hp.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101028/00545311619/win-a-trip-to-napa-for-your-team-courtesy-of-hp.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101028/00545311619/win-a-trip-to-napa-for-your-team-courtesy-of-hp.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>reimagining-ROI</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101028/00545311619</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 14 Oct 2010 14:09:03 PDT</pubDate>
<title>HP Reimagining ROI Contest: Win A Trip To Napa</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101008/17340111345/hp-reimagining-roi-contest-win-a-trip-to-napa.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101008/17340111345/hp-reimagining-roi-contest-win-a-trip-to-napa.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <div style="float:left;padding:0;margin:0;margin-right:5px;"><a href="http://bit.ly/dtKtMV"><img src="http://www.techdirt.com/images/logos/hp-logo.gif" /></a></div>
<i>This post is sponsored by HP, as a part of its <a href="http://www.hp.com/united-states/campaigns/reimagineroi/index.html" target="_blank">Reimagining ROI</a> campaign.</i>
<br /><br />
Over the past few months, we've been taking part, along with a bunch of other blogs, in a campaign by HP called <a href="http://www.hp.com/united-states/campaigns/reimagineroi/index.html" target="_blank">Reimagining ROI</a>.  Basically, HP has asked a bunch of blog writers to write up stories of "unexpected ROI" on things they've purchased.  This is a sponsored campaign (basically, HP paying us to write about our stories of "unexpected ROI," but no discussions of HP products or anything).  You can see a few of our posts at the following links:
<ul>
<li>My <a href="http://www.hp.com/united-states/campaigns/reimagineroi/index.html#/plug" target="_blank">experience with a portable power strip</a> helping me make friends at various airports and conferences.
</li><li>Our research director, Mike Ho's <a href="http://www.hp.com/united-states/campaigns/reimagineroi/story-whiteboard.html" target="_blank">reliance on his whiteboard</a>
</li><li>Analyst Joyce Hung's <a href="http://www.hp.com/united-states/campaigns/reimagineroi/story-ball.html" target="_blank">surprising value in an exercise ball</a>.
</li></ul>
Anyway, as part of this campaign HP is asking others to submit their own stories of "surprising" ROI and the best story <a href="http://bit.ly/dtKtMV" target="_blank">can win a five day trip for <b>six people</b> to Napa</a> with a whole bunch of other stuff thrown in as well.  It's actually really quite an impressive haul that they're willing to hand out to the winners.  There are some other prizes too, for those who don't win the grand prize, so check it out.
<center>
<!-- BANNER #1 -->

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://thirdparty.fmpub.net/placement/361817?fleur_de_sel=[timestamp]"></script>

<!-- BANNER #1 --> 
</center><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101008/17340111345/hp-reimagining-roi-contest-win-a-trip-to-napa.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101008/17340111345/hp-reimagining-roi-contest-win-a-trip-to-napa.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101008/17340111345/hp-reimagining-roi-contest-win-a-trip-to-napa.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>reimagining-ROI</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101008/17340111345</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 7 Sep 2010 16:01:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Misguided Insult To Misguided Injury: HP Sues To Stop Mark Hurd From Taking New Job</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100907/14555610927.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100907/14555610927.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ The most credible explanation I've seen so far as to why HP fired Mark Hurd last month, even after it determined that he had not actually engaged in sexual harassment, was that the Mark Hurd <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/business/14nocera.html" target="_blank">help lead the investigation</a> into the board over the infamous <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060906/022246.shtml">pretexting scandal</a>, and that the whole story about the supposed harassment and fudged expense reports were just an excuse to get rid of a CEO the board didn't like -- even as he was performing tremendously well.
<br /><br />
If that explanation is actually true, it also helps explain the news that <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/07/AR2010090700832.html" target="_blank">HP is now going to sue Hurd for accepting his new job as President at Oracle</a>.  As HP's lawyers absolutely must know, California has a law that the courts have interpreted quite broadly, that says <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071204/005038.shtml">noncompete agreements are not enforceable</a>, because you cannot deny a person the right to earn a living.  HP is (weakly) trying to get around this by claiming the job shift would violate "confidentiality agreements" and trade secrets, but there's almost no chance a court buys that.  The lawsuit seems like a non-starter.  In fact, the only reason for filing the lawsuit really seems to be an absolute pest.  It's an incredibly childish move by a company that should know better.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100907/14555610927.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100907/14555610927.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100907/14555610927.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>what-a-waste</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100907/14555610927</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2010 03:22:32 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Lexmark, HP Using Patent Law To Try To Block Replacement Ink Cartridges From The Market</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100824/02553110751.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100824/02553110751.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Want to know why it would cost <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20040726/1015252.shtml">$5.9 <i>billion</i></a> to fill an Olympic-sized swimming pool with printer ink?  Perhaps look to our beloved US patent laws.  Five years ago, we pointed out that HP was claiming that refill ink cartridges for its printers <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050328/154211.shtml">violated its patents</a>, and that it was building up a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060829/1220237.shtml">team of scientists</a> not to invent anything new -- but to analyze the chemical makeup of competitor's ink to see if they could hit them with a patent infringement lawsuit.
<br /><br />
Every so often, we hear another bunch of claims from HP about ink refillers infringing on its patents, and just a few weeks ago, we heard that HP was <a href="http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1724893/hp-guns-printer-ink-competition" target="_blank">asking the US ITC to block the import</a> of refill ink cartridges from foreign competitors, claiming patent infringement.
<br /><br />
Not to be left out, it looks like HP competitor Lexmark is getting into the game as well, <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-31021_3-20014467-260.html?part=rss&#038;subj=news&#038;tag=2547-1_3-0-20" target="_blank">and has also asked the ITC to bar the import of ink refills from 24 companies</a>.  Lexmark is also suing those same companies in court, showing once again how the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080702/1117121576.shtml">ITC loophole</a> gives companies two bites at the same apple.
<br /><br />
Of course, it's fascinating to see Lexmark jump into the patent infringement game on ink refills.  After all, it famously tried <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050221/1133205_F.shtml">and failed</a> to use the DMCA and copyright law to stop ink refills.  It was right after that when HP started using patent claims, so it looks like it took a bit of time for Lexmark to get together a patent plan.
<br /><br />
Of course, would it be nice if, rather than relying on government granted monopolies to block perfectly legitimate competition, these companies actually competed in the marketplace?  Or is that too much to ask?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100824/02553110751.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100824/02553110751.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100824/02553110751.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>there-is-no-free-market-in-black-gold</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100824/02553110751</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 12:51:33 PDT</pubDate>
<title>First Post-Bilski Patent Appeals Ruling Rejects Software Patent</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100714/01330010204.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100714/01330010204.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Well, well, well.  Following the rather <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100628/0759029989.shtml">ridiculously vague</a> Bilski ruling, that doesn't actually say what the right test should be for whether or not business methods or software should be patentable, many people have been wondering what it really means.  While some of the justices have <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100701/16343110051.shtml">hinted</a> at the idea that most software really isn't patentable, that's not at all clear from the ruling.  Instead, the ruling suggests that the courts come up with a new test, and then the Supreme Court will tell them whether or not that new test is okay.  Many software patent system supporters have interpreted this to mean that software patents are perfectly okay.  But perhaps they shouldn't go that far just yet.
<br /><br />
Groklaw is pointing out that, in the first post-Bilski ruling by the Board of Patents Appeals and Interferences (BPAI), <a href="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100713173032257" target="_blank">a software patent application from HP has been rejected</a>, with the BPAI saying that "abstract software code" is not patentable, as per Bilski.  We've heard that plenty of people at the USPTO aren't fans of software patents themselves, so if they start ruling that most software is "abstract software code," things could get pretty interesting, pretty fast.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100714/01330010204.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100714/01330010204.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100714/01330010204.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>nonpatentable-abstractions</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100714/01330010204</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 29 Apr 2010 02:48:12 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Does HP Buying Palm Promise To Solve Any Problems?</title>
<dc:creator>Carlo Longino</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100428/1625019227.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100428/1625019227.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It's been rumored for several weeks now that Palm was up for sale, with a number of different companies supposedly taking a look at it, but news has come through now that <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704423504575212503407087936.html?mod=WSJ_Deals_LeadStory">HP has picked it up for $1.2 billion</a>. Palm's business has been running downhill for a few years now; its worldwide market share has fallen from 3.5 percent in 2005 to 1.5 percent in 2009 -- despite the <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20090604/1806535135.shtml">relatively warm welcome</a> its Pre device received. The Pre was the first Palm phone to run its latest operating system, WebOS, which was supposed to help the company compete in a revitalized and highly competitive marketplace against the likes of Android devices and the iPhone. But that hasn't yet happened. The Pre (and the following device, the Pixi) <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20091103/0345006779.shtml">hasn't grabbed</a> significant market share, which compounds Palm's other problem: lack of a strong developer community for WebOS. That is actually sort of ironic, given that an older incarnation of Palm was probably better than anybody in the mobile space at cultivating a huge and loyal developer community, back in the days of Palm OS. So if scale and a lack of developers are the two biggest problems holding Palm back, does the HP deal actually do anything to help solve them? Maybe that's looking at the situation the wrong way: perhaps the point of this isn't for HP to fix Palm, but for Palm to bring something more to the table for HP. Like <a href="http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/28/hp-palm-deal-webos/">1,500 patents</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100428/1625019227.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100428/1625019227.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100428/1625019227.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>hey-at-least-it-was-cheap</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100428/1625019227</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 6 Apr 2010 20:43:13 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Twitter Could Be A Good Predictor Of Box Office Sales</title>
<dc:creator>Dennis Yang</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100402/1618388853.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100402/1618388853.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Twitter is very useful for figuring out "what is happening right now." For example, Twitter has been used to figure out where an <a href="http://venturebeat.com/2008/07/29/socal-earthquake-a-powerful-reminder-of-twitters-potential/">earthquake</a> is happening.  But instead of what's happening now, can it also be useful for telling what will happen in the future?  Two researchers at HP Labs,  Sitaram Asur and Bernardo A. Huberman, postulate that <a href="http://www.fastcompany.com/1604125/twitter-predicts-box-office-sales-better-than-anything-else">Twitter can actually be used to predict future box office results for movies</a>.  By building a computer model around the tweets for 24 movies, they claimed were able to predict the opening weekend box office results with 97.3% accuracy.  An accuracy of around 97% seems unnaturally high, so I dug a little further into the actual <a href="http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/scl/papers/socialmedia/socialmedia.pdf">report</a> and found that both of these numbers were a result of combining each approach with the number of theaters associated with each release.  Without taking into account the number of theaters in the release, tweets alone were able to predict at 93%.  According to Asur, the correlation between theater counts alone and box office results is a paltry 39%.  Considering that theater counts are probably a good indication of how well a studio thinks a film is going to perform, it seems that Hollywood should take notice of these forecasts.
<br /><br />
The supposed gold-standard of box office predictions is Hollywood Stock Exchange, a prediction market.  The researchers found that HSX had a 96.5% accuracy (when also combined with number of theaters).  It's impressive that HSX gets a fair amount of accuracy despite it using "fake" currency.  HSX is currently <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i45T6trE0cVgYfUPc5adV8eK624wD9EQCHV80">awaiting</a> a ruling from the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission that will allow it to trade using real money.  When that happens, the accuracy of its prediction market should increase.  At that point it may be interesting to see how much more closely the two prediction systems compare, since the apparent edge that the Twitter algorithm has right now seems too small to be significant.
<br /><br />
In any case, with Twitter, since it's also a communications medium, tweets about a movie not only indicate interest, but also can ultimately <i>influence</i> a movie's sales at the box office.  However, this effect seems distinctly different than the traditional notion of "observer effect," since the act of measuring the interest in a movie can actually occur without directly participating in the Twitter conversation.  That said, if it becomes common practice to predict box office success by analyzing Twitter, the incentive to exploit this by spamming Twitter with tweets about an upcoming movie increases greatly.  After all, the many predictions that foretold that <em>Avatar</em> would break box office records certainly played a self-fulfilling part in its breaking of those box office records.  Furthermore, Tweets were taken for the 7 days before the weekend -- which means there would not be enough time to make any adjustment to any marketing (in the event of a dire prediction), and certainly not to production budgets, which have already been spent.
<br /><br />
So, while, in their report, Asur and Huberman conclude:
<blockquote>
While in this study we focused on the problem of predicting box office revenues of movies for the sake of having a clear metric of comparison with other methods, this method can be extended to a large panoply of topics, ranging from the future rating of products to agenda setting and election outcomes. At a deeper level, this work shows how social media expresses a collective wisdom which, when properly tapped, can yield an extremely powerful and accurate indicator of future outcomes.
</blockquote>
The simple fact is that there is still quite a chasm to cross before Twitter can be used practically for any type of prediction or forecasting activity.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100402/1618388853.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100402/1618388853.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100402/1618388853.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>crystal-ball</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100402/1618388853</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:56:26 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Can't Innovate? Litigate! 3Com Goes Patent Lawsuit Ballistic</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091013/1901346515.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091013/1901346515.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Remember back when 3Com was a big innovative company coming up with interesting new products?  What happened since then?  Well, as we've seen over and over again, once a company runs into trouble continuing to innovate, its last ditch effort to stay in business is to start suing everyone for patent infringement.  Step up to the plate, 3Com.  The company set up a subsidiary specifically for suing other companies for patent infringement and <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/newsletters/lans/2009/101209lan1.html?fsrc=netflash-rss" target="_new">just sued Acer, Apple, Asus, Dell, Fujitsu, Gateway, HP, Sony, and Toshiba</a>.  Oh, and take a guess where this "subsidiary" set up shop?  East Texas... of course.  All the better to file patent lawsuits apparently...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091013/1901346515.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091013/1901346515.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091013/1901346515.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>ghosts-of-companies-past</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091013/1901346515</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 2 Jun 2009 22:33:56 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Is HP Finally Just Targeting Ink Counterfeiters, and Not Legit Refillers?</title>
<dc:creator>Carlo Longino</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090602/1008105097.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090602/1008105097.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ HP has stepped up its efforts to <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/09_23/b4134044747987.htm?campaign_id=rss_tech">crack down on printer ink counterfeiters</a> -- and with good reason. While the company plays up that it's helping consumers by getting shoddy products off the market, it's more about protecting its business. In the past, HP's put pressure on retailers <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20070208/093532.shtml">not to carry</a> cheaper alternatives to its <a href="http://techdirt.com/articles/20041012/1139207.shtml">expensive</a> replacement ink cartridges, and it's tried to use <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050328/154211.shtml">patent suits</a> to shut down cartridge refillers. But with sales down across the board, HP is moving to try and recoup some of the $1 billion analysts allege it loses to fake ink every year. BusinessWeek says "For years, HP could afford to ignore the problem," because of booming sales. But apparently, it couldn't afford to try and use patent lawsuits, pressure on retailers and other shady tactics to try and crowd lower-priced alternative products out of the market. It's perfectly fine for HP to go after counterfeiters selling inferior products under its name, trying to defraud consumers. But let's hope that's all it's now doing, and it's given up on trying to force legitimate alternative products out of the market.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090602/1008105097.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090602/1008105097.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090602/1008105097.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>about-time</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090602/1008105097</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 1 Apr 2009 01:10:41 PDT</pubDate>
<title>HP Making It Easier For Anyone To Be A Paper Magazine Publisher</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090331/0234474321.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090331/0234474321.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Two years ago, we noted (with some surprise) that at least some top execs at HP seemed to actually be focused on trying to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070408/200522.shtml">move the company into the future</a> rather than clinging to the past, as is so common with many companies.  Of course, it's one thing to say that, and another to actually get there.  One of the elements discussed was recognizing that the traditional reasons why people print stuff might be going away, and the company needed to look elsewhere for revenue -- including coming up with <em>new</em> reasons why people might print stuff on paper.  So one of the projects that HP <a href="http://powazek.com/posts/984" target="_blank">has been working on</a> (and is trying to promote more now) is its MagCloud offering that <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/30/technology/internet/30mag.html?partner=rss&#038;emc=rss&#038;pagewanted=all" target="_new">makes it cheap and easy for just about anyone to become a <em>paper</em> magazine publisher</a>.  Basically, you set up whatever you want via PDF, upload it to MagCloud, and it costs $0.20/page, and you have a nice glossy magazine.  They'll even handle shipping copies off to your &quot;subscribers&quot; (and you can charge whatever you want for it). <br /><br /> While it might be worth wondering who wants to start a print magazine as so many things are going online, I could certainly see some uses for this on the margin -- including adding ways for primarily internet-only publications to add a <em>cheap</em> paper option as well.  The fact that it takes out some of the bigger costs (especially upfront costs) and logistics, it will be most interesting to see if people start coming up with entirely new and creative uses for such micro-press magazines.  I'm not convinced (at all) that this will actually succeed -- but I do find it interesting to see a big company like HP try to adapt to a rapidly changing market that undercuts the need for some of its core products.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090331/0234474321.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090331/0234474321.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090331/0234474321.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>encouraging-more-printing</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090331/0234474321</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 4 Sep 2008 18:08:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>HP And Walmart Get Rid Of Laptop Box; Buy The Computer And Get It In A Messenger Bag</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080904/0420312168.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080904/0420312168.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Having bought my fair share of laptops over the years, I've noticed that the packaging has gotten smaller.  I remember years ago buying a laptop and receiving a <i>huge</i> box with the actual laptop suspended in a styrofoam suspension system.  More recently, I've seen laptops coming in much smaller boxes.  However, Wal-Mart and HP have apparently decided to try <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=19&#038;entry_id=29852" target="_new">ditching most of the packaging altogether</a>, and letting you walk out with your new laptop in a messenger bag, rather than a box.  Yes, there are still boxes from when the machines are shipped from HP to Wal-Mart, but the company can now fit 3 laptops to a box, significantly reducing packaging <i>and</i> making life easier on customers in the long run.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080904/0420312168.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080904/0420312168.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080904/0420312168.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>about-time</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080904/0420312168</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:48:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Lexmark Trying To Help Users Print Less When They Print The Web</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080827/2236412118.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080827/2236412118.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Last year, HP announced a special button that could be put on blogs to let users <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070531/194226.shtml">more easily print</a> blog posts, without all the extraneous stuff on the website.  At the time, we didn't see the value at all, but plenty of folks responded in the comments that it seemed like a good idea.  It wasn't long before the folks at HP contacted us about trying the button out ourselves, so we put it on the page.  It gets some use, though not an overwhelming amount.  It appears that some people do actually print stuff out -- and they appreciate the simpler version.
<br /><br />
Now, it appears that HP printer rival Lexmark is taking that idea much further by <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/tech/products/gear/2008-08-27-2008-08-27-lessprinting_N.htm?csp=34" target="_new">making it easier for users to eliminate a bunch of the junk on websites</a> before printing them out -- so you only print out the stuff you really want.  Unlike the HP initiative, this doesn't require the companies hosting the content to do anything, it takes care of it on the client side.  Given the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20041012/1139207.shtml">insane costs</a> of ink, it's no surprise that printer companies have been a bit slow to adopt solutions that get people to use less ink -- but it's good to see them finally starting to recognize that it's probably for the best.  Giving your customers reasons to like you, rather than hate you, tends to be a good long-term business strategy.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080827/2236412118.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080827/2236412118.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080827/2236412118.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>makes-sense</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080827/2236412118</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jul 2008 19:29:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>More Companies Using Experimental Economists</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080710/0346301636.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080710/0346301636.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ While it's true that it's difficult to find economists who agree with each other, that doesn't mean (as some would like you to believe) that economics is useless.  The basic principles behind economics are pretty sound.  The issues generally come up in how people interpret putting specific situations into economic models.  That's because there are so many variables in real world economics, it's nearly impossible to model them all.  So, the different opinions coming from different economists tend to be based on what sorts of variables they throw into models, and how they weight them.  The truth is, however, that there's plenty of good things to be learned from the various models and experiments done by economists in various fields to try to narrow down those variables and perfect those models.
<br /><br />
And, of course, those models can be quite practical.  So it's great to see <a href="http://www.wired.com/techbiz/it/news/2008/07/portfolio_0709" target="_new">more and more companies (especially in the tech world) hiring experimental economists</a> and putting them to work to start making more economically sound decision making, rather than seat-of-the-pants decisions on ways to adapt new business models, products and pricing.  While there will still be plenty of mistakes, there will be a much better overall understanding of what works and why.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080710/0346301636.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080710/0346301636.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080710/0346301636.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>a-step-forward</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080710/0346301636</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:32:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Tech Companies Team Up To Buy Up Patents To Keep Them Away From Others</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080630/0253021549.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080630/0253021549.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Google, Verizon, HP, Cisco and some others are apparently <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9980343-7.html?part=rss&#038;subj=news&#038;tag=2547-1_3-0-20" target="_new">teaming up to put money towards buying patents</a> to keep them out of the hands of patent hoarders who would turn around and sue them.  This isn't a new concept, and has been tried before -- and it didn't help much.  The problem is that many of the worst patent suits aren't from "known" patents, but someone claiming a patent on some minor feature that everyone thought was obvious.  Also, this type of action only <i>encourages</i> more bad patent activities by adding another buyer to the market.  Now, questionable patent holders will recognize that they can also just sell to this patent pool, rather than selling to some patent hoarding firm.  This is one of those ideas that sounds good on paper, but will have little to no effect on slowing down or stopping bad patent lawsuits, and may actually encourage more of that activity.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080630/0253021549.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080630/0253021549.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080630/0253021549.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>this-won't-help</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080630/0253021549</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jan 2008 09:21:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Smartphones Patented... Just About Everyone Sued 1 Minute After Patent Issued</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080124/16382062.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080124/16382062.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ This past Tuesday, the US Patent and Trademark Office issued a patent on <a href="http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&#038;Sect2=HITOFF&#038;p=1&#038;u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&#038;r=1&#038;f=G&#038;l=50&#038;co1=AND&#038;d=PTXT&#038;s1=7,321,783&#038;OS=7,321,783&#038;RS=7,321,783">"a mobile entertainment and communication device."</a>  Reading the patent, you realize it describes the quite common smartphone.  It's a patent for a mobile phone with removable storage, an internet connection, a camera and the ability to download audio or video files.  The patent holding firm who has the rights to this patent wasted no time at all.  At 12:01am Tuesday morning, it <a href="http://trolltracker.blogspot.com/2008/01/minerva-v-rim-another-case-opened-too.html" target="_new">filed three separate lawsuits against just about everyone you can think of</a>, including Apple, Nokia, RIM, Sprint, AT&#038;T, HP, Motorola, Helio, HTC, Sony Ericsson, UTStarcomm, Samsung and a bunch of others.  Amusingly, the company actually first filed the lawsuits on Monday, but realized it was jumping the gun and pulled them, only to refile just past the stroke of midnight.
<br /><br />
As the link above explains, the patent itself is based on a bunch of <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050823/1816248.shtml">continuation filings</a>, which are commonly used by patent holders who want broad patents to cover the latest technologies well after they've already come about in the market.  It would seem like the concept itself, merely combining a bunch of things that people were already talking about, should never have been granted based on the Supreme Court's recent KSR <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070430/100114.shtml">ruling</a> that merely combining existing concepts doesn't deserve a patent.  Also, as noted in the comments to the link above, it would appear that there's a fair amount of <a href="http://www.medsch.wisc.edu/~gaston/NetComputer/b34818.htm">prior art</a>.  In fact, Apple even sent over some prior art concerning the patent just before it was originally supposed to be issued last summer -- but somehow patent holder's lawyers talked their way around it.  In the meantime, it looks like we've got yet another case of an overly broad and obvious patent being used against a huge number of firms.  I'm sure that's exactly what Thomas Jefferson expected when he created our patent system.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080124/16382062.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080124/16382062.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080124/16382062.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>wasting-no-time</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080124/16382062</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 19 Dec 2007 10:24:49 PST</pubDate>
<title>Staples, HP Sued For Not Selling HP Compatible Ink</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071219/010006.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071219/010006.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Back in February, we talked about how HP was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070208/093532.shtml">pressuring retailers</a> not to stock generic brand inkjet printer ink cartridge refills, though it appeared that Staples was the only company who agreed to the deal.  This wasn't surprising -- as the margins on printer ink for companies like HP are astronomical, and the company has been doing everything it can possibly think of to stop anyone from selling competitive ink, including filing bogus <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060621/2259218.shtml">patent lawsuits</a>.  It took some time, but someone is now trying to <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssConsumerGoodsAndRetailNews/idUSN1742395920071217">file a class action lawsuit against HP for the deal it made with Staples</a>, who is also included.  The lawsuit claims that the deal is an antitrust violation, but that seems like a huge stretch.  While we agree that it's somewhat sleazy, it's hard to see how this is a serious antitrust violation.  There are plenty of places, online and off, where you can buy offbrand ink cartridges (or have existing cartridges refilled).  If Staples wants to cede all that business to others, that's its (bad) decision.  However, no one is forcing people to shop at Staples, and customers should do a little research before realizing that there are much better options than what Staples is stocking on its shelves.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071219/010006.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071219/010006.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20071219/010006.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>antitrust?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20071219/010006</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:19:03 PDT</pubDate>
<title>For Now, Big PC Makers May Benefit From Lower Costs</title>
<dc:creator>Joseph Weisenthal</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070813/111945.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070813/111945.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Commoditization is always a threat to PC manufacturers like HP and Dell, although by most accounts <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060509/1154222.shtml">HP has done a better job of differentiating its products</a> than the competition.  But there's also an upside to commodization for these companies: cheaper components.  A new research note from a Wall Street analyst argues that both HP and Dell will realize meaningful benefits from cheaper components <a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=5930">when they report their coming quarterly earnings</a>.  In addition to lower DRAM and LCD prices, the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070615/061227.shtml">ongoing price war</a> between Intel and AMD will prove particularly beneficial.  Whether these companies are actually taking advantage of these savings or whether they've been forced to completely pass them on to consumers depends on the market dynamics.  Between Dell and HP, they may have enough of a grip on the market to avoid an all-out price war themselves, but such a situation can only be temporary as they'll be forced to cut their own prices eventually.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070813/111945.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070813/111945.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070813/111945.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>fleeting-profits</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20070813/111945</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>