<?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;walmart&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 29 Mar 2013 09:55:24 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Wal-Mart Wants Store Customers To Deliver Packages To Online Shoppers</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130328/16172422503/wal-mart-wants-store-customers-to-deliver-packages-to-online-shoppers.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130328/16172422503/wal-mart-wants-store-customers-to-deliver-packages-to-online-shoppers.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Having just seen cases where legacy players have felt <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130327/02594322476/taxi-limo-trade-group-hates-innovative-upstarts-labels-them-rogue-applications.shtml">threatened</a> by more innovative startups that take advantage of more distributed "peer-production" rather than top-down centralized systems of old, it's interesting to see a counter example.  Apparently, Wal-Mart is considering a plan in which it tries to get <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/28/us-retail-walmart-delivery-idUSBRE92R03820130328" target="_blank">in-store shoppers to help deliver packages to online buyers</a>.
<blockquote><i>
"I see a path to where this is crowd-sourced," Joel Anderson, chief executive of Walmart.com in the United States, said in a recent interview with Reuters.
<br /><br />
Wal-Mart has millions of customers visiting its stores each week. Some of these shoppers could tell the retailer where they live and sign up to drop off packages for online customers who live on their route back home, Anderson explained.
<br /><br />
Wal-Mart would offer a discount on the customers' shopping bill, effectively covering the cost of their gas in return for the delivery of packages, he added.
</i></blockquote>
The company admits that it's just brainstorming the idea at this point, but it's always interesting to see big established companies recognizing that others have been disrupting parts of their core business, and rather than freak out about it, try to take the disruption even further.  Of course, this might serve to disrupt <i>other</i> legacy providers, <a href="http://www.project-disco.org/competition/032813-walmart-goes-startup-retail-giant-plans-to-experiment-with-crowd-sourcing/" target="_blank">such as UPS and FedEx</a>.  Hopefully they won't freak out about it, but who wouldn't be surprised to start seeing stories raising moral panics about how "dangerous" this new plan will be since the drivers won't be wearing uniforms any more?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130328/16172422503/wal-mart-wants-store-customers-to-deliver-packages-to-online-shoppers.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130328/16172422503/wal-mart-wants-store-customers-to-deliver-packages-to-online-shoppers.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/innovation/articles/20130328/16172422503/wal-mart-wants-store-customers-to-deliver-packages-to-online-shoppers.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>leveraging-the-customer-base</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130328/16172422503</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 13 Sep 2012 14:34:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>University Of California Won't Give Up: Sues Facebook Over Already Rejected Patents</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120913/11135120376/university-california-wont-give-up-sues-facebook-over-already-rejected-patents.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120913/11135120376/university-california-wont-give-up-sues-facebook-over-already-rejected-patents.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've been writing about the patent troll Eolas for about a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/search.php?q=eolas+">decade</a> at this point.  It's a trolling operation connected to the University of California, and used to take some ridiculously broad patents and try to shake down companies who actually innovated and did incredibly obvious things on the internet.  Eolas' various lawsuits had gone back and forth over the years, and finally, earlier this year, a jury in East Texas (surprisingly) <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120209/15395117718/web-is-saved-east-texas-jury-says-eolas-patents-are-invalid.shtml">invalidated</a> some of the key patents.  
<br /><br />
This summer, the judge in the case <a href="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/patent-troll-takes-last-shot-at-owning-interactive-web-but-falls-short/" target="_blank">agreed</a> that the key patents were invalid.  Eolas had ridiculously tried to argue that the fact that some other companies had previously licensed the patents should have been shared with the jury to prove the "validity" of the patents.  Of course, that's ridiculous on its face as trolls often convince companies to license bogus patents because it's cheaper to settle and license than to fight a bad patent lawsuit (even if you win).  Of course, the judge blasted Eolas over this desire... because earlier in the case, Eolas had specifically argued that the jury shouldn't be allowed to know of Eolas' previous "business success or failure."  Basically, Eolas didn't want the jury to know it was a troll without any real business.  However, as the judge realized, Eolas can't hide that bit of info and then want the jury to have this <i>other</i> bit of info from its past.
<br /><br />
Thus, for all intents and purposes it seemed that those two key patents -- <a href="http://www.google.com/patents?id=kKAZAAAAEBAJ&#038;printsec=frontcover&#038;dq=5,838,906" target="_blank">5,838,906</a> and <a href="http://www.google.com/patents?id=-gnJAAAAEBAJ&#038;printsec=frontcover&#038;dq=7,599,985" target="_blank">7,599,985</a> -- were effectively dead.
<br /><br />
So it was a bit of a surprise to find out that Eolas/University of California has now <a href="http://thenextweb.com/facebook/2012/09/13/university-california-sues-facebook-disney-wal-mart-interactive-technology-patents/" target="_blank">sued Facebook, Disney and Wal-mart over those same patents</a> (and a couple others).  Apparently, Cal and Eolas figure that if they just keep suing, maybe one of these times they'll win.
<br /><br />
What's really amazing is that this scorched earth, anti-innovation effort hasn't created more backlash for the University of California, and Berkeley in particular, given its proximity to Silicon Valley.  You'd think that alums of the University who work at the various innovative tech companies that keep getting sued would speak out against their alma mater.  It's pretty sad to see the University of California trying to set up a tollbooth on innovation by using such ridiculous patents.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120913/11135120376/university-california-wont-give-up-sues-facebook-over-already-rejected-patents.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120913/11135120376/university-california-wont-give-up-sues-facebook-over-already-rejected-patents.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120913/11135120376/university-california-wont-give-up-sues-facebook-over-already-rejected-patents.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>they-won't-give-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120913/11135120376</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jul 2012 18:32:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>The Internet Wins Again! Writer Gets Rapper Pitbull 'Exiled' To Alaskan Walmart</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120718/18350719751/internet-wins-again-writer-gets-rapper-pitbull-exiled-to-alaskan-walmart.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120718/18350719751/internet-wins-again-writer-gets-rapper-pitbull-exiled-to-alaskan-walmart.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p>Ah, the internet. Also: ah, social media. Powerful tools, which in the right hands, can turn <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20110515/23234814274/another-exception-jonathan-coulton-making-half-million-year-with-no-record-label.shtml" target="_blank">unknowns into legends</a> and overstepping entities into <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect" target="_blank">Wikipedia entries</a>. However, in the fumbling hands of mega-corporations, these same tools become about as unwieldy as a screwdriver being used to hammer in nails. By a bear. <br /><br /> When these tools are put to "use" in amateurish ways, there's always the chance that they will be re-purposed for the amusement of internet natives, who know <i>exactly</i> how to turn these primitive tools into weapons of mass destruction/hilarity. Anyone remember Time Magazines' ill-fated effort to crowdsource the Most Influential in the World? Long story short: thanks to a combination of Time Mag's incompetence and No One's Personal Army suddenly cohering into one man's personal army, <a href="http://musicmachinery.com/2009/04/27/moot-wins-time-inc-loses/" target="_blank">4chan's moot ended up topping the list of names</a>. <br /><br /> David Thorpe, writer for the Boston Phoenix and... wait for it... SomethingAwful, saw an opportunity too big to pass up when Wal-Mart announced (in conjunction with something called "Sheets Energy Strips") its plan to have Miami rapper Pitbull make a personal appearance at whichever Wal-Mart store could hoover up the most "Likes." <a href="http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/gossip/la-et-mg-pitbull-walmart-kodiak-alaska-20120718,0,7813511.story" target="_blank">Thorpe immediately mobilized his troops, (possibly with the help of Pitbull's Energy Strips) including other SomethingAwful contributors</a>, in order to send the man of the hour to the most remote Walmart location in the US.' 
<blockquote>
<i>Enter Boston Phoenix writer David Thorpe, a man so put off by celebrity marketing stunts that he rallied Web troops to<a href="http://thephoenix.com/Boston/music/140925-ig-hurt-help-us-help-wal-mart-exile-pitbull-/" target="_blank">"Help us help Wal-Mart exile Pitbull to Alaska."</a></i> <br /> <i>"As of now, the Kodiak Walmart has over 22,000 new 'likes' on Facebook, putting it far ahead of any other Walmart in the nation - far ahead of Kodiak's actual population, in fact," Thorpe wrote.</i> <br /><br /> <i>By Pitbull's deadline, more than 70,000 users had liked the store, located on a southern isle of the Frontier State with a population of about 6,200.</i>
</blockquote>
To his credit, Pitbull has taken this all in stride, including tweeting about purchasing bear repellent and putting together a video explaining how he would "go anywhere for his fans." To top it all off, he invited Thorpe along for the promotional visit. <br /><br /> <div align="center"></div><br /> At this point, it looks as if Thorpe will have to pay his own way, <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/ap/2012-07-18/pitbull-heading-north-to-walmart-in-kodiak-alaska" target="_blank">but he intends on making the trip</a>.
<blockquote>
<i>In an email to The Associated Press, Thorpe said it's "very likely" he'll be in Kodiak. Thorpe said he had to "raise the funds to get to Kodiak on my own, since Pitbull's invitation doesn't include actually getting me there."</i> <br /><br /> <i>Thorpe said he doesn't really have anything against Pitbull, and instead saw this as a way "to disrupt a corporate social media campaign, since they really set themselves up for it."</i>
</blockquote>
Thorpe's only regret seems to be that Walmart will somehow spin his prank into a social media "win" for the company, something he deems to be "gross." And in a way, it is a win for Wal-Mart, albeit one it scored without lifting a finger. Thousands saw its Facebook pages and thousands more are watching Pitbull's promo spot. And now both Pitbull and Thorpe are off to a destination best known for being way the hell away from anything else... and being home to Walmart store #2711.</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120718/18350719751/internet-wins-again-writer-gets-rapper-pitbull-exiled-to-alaskan-walmart.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120718/18350719751/internet-wins-again-writer-gets-rapper-pitbull-exiled-to-alaskan-walmart.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120718/18350719751/internet-wins-again-writer-gets-rapper-pitbull-exiled-to-alaskan-walmart.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>because-what-could-possibly-go-wrong</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120718/18350719751</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 3 Nov 2011 23:34:47 PDT</pubDate>
<title>The Coming Fight Over Sales Tax For Online Retailers</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111103/02542816609/coming-fight-over-sales-tax-online-retailers.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111103/02542816609/coming-fight-over-sales-tax-online-retailers.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ For years, we've written about the back and forth in various attempts by states to force Amazon to collect sales tax for purchases in states where it doesn't have a presence (or, well, claims it doesn't have a presence).  Existing law says that states have no right to force out of state businesses to collect sales tax for transactions in states in which they have no presence.  This rule came out of questions concerning the requirements on catalog retailers, but easily carried over to online retailers.  For years, two main groups have been very upset about these rules: brick-and-mortar retailers and state governments.  The brick and mortar retailers, of course, don't like having to compete with retailers who don't have to charge sales tax, since it puts them at a disadvantage.  State governments hate it, of course, because they want more tax revenue anywhere they can find it (even if it harms their constituents).
<br /><br />
Of course, there are some good reasons for not forcing out-of-state retailers to collect sales tax in states where they have no presence.  There's the general question of the taxing authority of a state to reach cross borders to get a sales tax, for example.  Related to this is the massive <i>complication</i> in collecting such a tax.  There are so many different local tax rules, requiring any single entity to understand them all seems like a complete compliance nightmare. Separately, there's a question of the purpose behind such a tax.  Generally speaking, a sales tax is supposed to cover the public infrastructure that a retailer uses -- e.g., the streets and clean downtown area that make it easy for customers to come to the store.  But with the internet, the retailers aren't really getting the benefit of all of that, so why should they be taxed for it?  You can argue that they still get some of the benefits in the roads/infrastructure used to deliver the goods, but that seems like a much more limited benefit.  Finally, there's a more recent argument: we want to encourage growth in the internet sector, because it creates wonderful efficiencies and positive externalities that we should encourage.  The brick-and-mortar folks really hate that one.
<br /><br />
Anyway, for years there have been a series of fights and attempts to "deal" with this -- mostly pushed by the brick and mortar guys.  Amazon seems resolved to accept having to collect sales tax, but has pushed for rules to <i>simplify</i> such taxes across borders to avoid the compliance nightmare.  Unfortunately, it looks like the brick-and-mortar guys may be getting their wish with a <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20128803-281/republican-senators-push-for-internet-sales-taxes/" target="_blank">new bill that will make it easier for states to force out-of-state retailers to pay up</a>... and without many of the safeguards or requirements for simplified/standardized rules across states.  While Amazon has suggested it might be okay with this, it could be a <i>massive</i> pain for any smaller retailer.  In an age of micro-retailers -- think the musician selling products off his or her own website -- having to comply with every states' tax laws is going to be huge pain.
<br /><br />
Thankfully, it appears there's at least some opposition to this.  Senators Ron Wyden and Kelly Ayotte are trying to pre-empt the legislative effort, by getting a resolution through that would say that the Senate <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20129104-281/senators-rally-opposition-to-internet-sales-taxes/" target="_blank">won't pass "burdensome or unfair" taxes</a> on internet retailers.  The resolution points out that such out-of-state tax requirements could become a massive burden on smaller players, and given today's unemployment situation, it seems like the wrong time to put in place such taxes:
<blockquote><i>
Whereas any Federal legislation that would upset the free and fair Internet marketplace and allow State governments to impose new, onerous and burdensome sales tax-collecting schemes on out-of-State, Internet-enabled small businesses would adversely impact hundreds of thousands of jobs, reduce consumer choice, and impede the growth and development of interstate commerce; and
<br /><br />
Whereas at a time when national unemployment numbers are high and businesses across the country are struggling to keep their doors open, the Federal Government should promote pro-growth and pro-business policies instead of enacting legislation that extracts additional taxes from our Nation&rsquo;s Internet-enabled businesses
</i></blockquote>
For a while now, it's seemed like such taxes were going to be unavoidable, even as they could end up creating significant problems for small businesses and individuals who sell items directly.  Hopefully this small bit of opposition helps those on the other side think twice about the unintended consequences of a massive new tax regime for small businesses online.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111103/02542816609/coming-fight-over-sales-tax-online-retailers.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111103/02542816609/coming-fight-over-sales-tax-online-retailers.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111103/02542816609/coming-fight-over-sales-tax-online-retailers.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>congressional-battle</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111103/02542816609</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>Fri, 29 Apr 2011 01:07:28 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Replying To An Email Does Not Create A Contract (And Does Not Require Walmart Pay $600 Billion)</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110426/18151114049/replying-to-email-does-not-create-contract-does-not-require-walmart-pay-600-billion.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110426/18151114049/replying-to-email-does-not-create-contract-does-not-require-walmart-pay-600-billion.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ While this case involves one of the many ridiculous lawsuits filed by individuals demanding insane sums of money from companies for no good reasons, there are some good points in here (also, like many of these lawsuits, it involves a plaintiff who has <a href="http://dockets.justia.com/search?query=David++Stebbins&#038;state=arkansas" target="_blank">history of filing lawsuits</a>).  Apparently, a guy by the name of David Stebbins sued Walmart.  To understand the basis of the lawsuit, you have to understand that he sent various companies a link to a "contract" on his <a href="http://www.myspace.com/fayettevillesdavid/blog/540490442" target="_blank">MySpace page</a>, which he claims presents a binding contract (if you're particularly risk averse, you may want to avoid clicking on that link, though it's difficult to believe any such contract is valid).  Here are some snippets from the faux contract:
<blockquote><i>
My name is David Anthony Stebbins, and I live in Harrison, AR. I am sending a link to this webpage to various companies to put you on notice: If you contact me in any way, shape, or form, you hereby acknowledge that you have read, understand, and agree to be legally bound by the terms below.
<br /><br />
[...]
<br /><br />
      This will also take effect if I attempt to contact you, and, upon hearing my name, you do not cease communications with me on the spot.
<br /><br />
[...]
You hereby agree to allow me to use, distribute, and sell the rights to your name, physical likeness, and any intellectual property that you may own, throughout the universe, for no fee, for all eternity.<br /><br />

You hereby agree to not request, nor accept any offer for, any third party to remove any material that I use that you feel that you own the copyright to.<br /><br />
You hereby agree that, for now and for all eternity, in the event that I ask you a question, you must answer it promptly, accurately, and truthfully.<br /><br />
You hereby agree to never
<br /><br />
      Interrupt me when I am speaking, for all eternity.<br /><br />
      Hang up on me in any phone call, for all eternity.<br /><br />
      Block my attempts to communicate with you, for any reason, for all eternity.<br /><br />
      Ask me a question that I have previously answered, for all eternity.<br /><br />
      Demonstrate any rudeness, annoyance, or disrespect, however petty, against me, for all eternity.<br /><br />
      Accuse me of lying, or any variation thereof, for all eternity.

</i></blockquote>
It goes on along those lines.  Anyway, he sent the email to Walmart with the link to this contract.  Walmart customer care sent back a standard, boilerplate reply suggesting he contact a different department, which Stebbins used to claim the contract had been entered into (in combination with him also buying a gallon of milk -- don't ask).  He sent a letter to Walmart demanding arbitration to settle their "legal dispute."  When Walmart failed to agree to arbitration within 24-hours, he claims that he wins and should get $600 billion (with a b):
<blockquote><i>
"since Wal&ndash;Mart did not accept the arbitration invitation within twenty-four hours of receiving it, he automatically wins regardless of the merits of the case and is entitled to an award of six-hundred billion dollars." 
</i></blockquote>
Not surprisingly, <a href="http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2011/04/acknowledging_r.htm" target="_blank">the court isn't buying it</a>:
<blockquote><i>
Plaintiff maintains Wal&ndash;Mart accepted the contract by its &ldquo;act&rdquo; of replying to his e-mail....The e-mails from Plaintiff are self-serving documents that did not form the basis for any conduct or performance on Wal&ndash;Mart's part....In this case, Wal&ndash;Mart performed no act. It merely replied to two e-mails by directing the Plaintiff to the correct department. It performed no service and Plaintiff made no promise.
</i></blockquote>
Obviously, this particular case is something of a joke, but given how often people seek to claim that a contract has been entered into on dubious terms (such as replying to an email), perhaps a bit of reasonable caselaw comes out of this...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110426/18151114049/replying-to-email-does-not-create-contract-does-not-require-walmart-pay-600-billion.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110426/18151114049/replying-to-email-does-not-create-contract-does-not-require-walmart-pay-600-billion.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110426/18151114049/replying-to-email-does-not-create-contract-does-not-require-walmart-pay-600-billion.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>that's-not-how-the-law-works...</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110426/18151114049</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 18 Feb 2011 01:16:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Walmart Employees Fired For Disarming Gun-Toting Robber</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110214/16295313090/walmart-employees-fired-disarming-gun-toting-robber.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110214/16295313090/walmart-employees-fired-disarming-gun-toting-robber.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Walmart has pretty specific rules for how employees are supposed to deal with shoplifters, however, it does seem a bit bizarre that the company would go so far as to <a href="http://consumerist.com/2011/02/walmart-employees-fired-for-stopping-armed-robber.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&#038;utm_medium=twitter" target="_blank">fire some employees who disarmed a gun-toting thief</a>.  Obviously, the idea is that they don't want to encourage other employees to do the same thing, but does it really reach up to the level of firing the employees?  At some point you have to wonder if there's a middle ground that makes sense.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110214/16295313090/walmart-employees-fired-disarming-gun-toting-robber.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110214/16295313090/walmart-employees-fired-disarming-gun-toting-robber.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110214/16295313090/walmart-employees-fired-disarming-gun-toting-robber.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>no-good-deed</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110214/16295313090</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 8 Dec 2010 14:32:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Homeland Security Gets Walmart To Tell You To Inform On Your Neighbors</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101208/00341412177/homeland-security-gets-walmart-to-tell-you-to-inform-your-neighbors.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101208/00341412177/homeland-security-gets-walmart-to-tell-you-to-inform-your-neighbors.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Sometimes you just wonder what folks in our government are thinking half the time.  The latest is that Homeland Security, when it's not busy <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101130/00245312049/if-newly-seized-domains-were-purely-dedicated-to-infringement-why-was-kanye-west-using-one.shtml">seizing domains</a> of hip hop blogs, is apparently on a campaign to enlist shoppers at Walmarts in a somewhat creepy attempt to <a href="http://www.securitymanagement.com/news/walmart-partners-with-dhs-if-you-see-something-say-something-campaign-007950" target="_blank">get people to spy on their neighbors</a>.  The program is officially called "If You See Something, Say Something" which could be shortened to "Inform on Your Neighbors" if DHS is looking for efficiency.
<br /><br />
More bizarre is the Walmart tie-in.  As you check out, you'll see a video from Homeland Security boss Janet Napolitano reminding customers to watch and report any "suspicious activity."
<br /><br />
Does anyone in Homeland Security actually think this sort of thing is effective?  I think most people know perfectly well to report anything really suspicious that they see.  But seeing Janet Napolitano's talking head at Walmart checkouts telling people to keep an extra special eye out just feels <i>creepy</i> and Big Brother-ish.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101208/00341412177/homeland-security-gets-walmart-to-tell-you-to-inform-your-neighbors.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101208/00341412177/homeland-security-gets-walmart-to-tell-you-to-inform-your-neighbors.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101208/00341412177/homeland-security-gets-walmart-to-tell-you-to-inform-your-neighbors.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>are-they-serious?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101208/00341412177</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 28 Oct 2010 09:39:34 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Elastic Wristband Maker Sues Walmart For Copyright Infringement</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101027/01423411599/elastic-wristband-maker-sues-walmart-for-copyright-infringement.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101027/01423411599/elastic-wristband-maker-sues-walmart-for-copyright-infringement.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ You know those silly elastic wristbands that kids wear?  Yeah, well, apparently the company BCP Imports makes the (apparently?) popular brand of them called Silly Bandz, and has somehow <i>copyrighted</i> some aspect of the bands.
<center>
<img src="http://imgur.com/q2IBY.jpg"  width=250 />
</center>
Anyway, that company is now <a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202473974645&#038;slreturn=1&#038;hbxlogin=1" target="_blank">suing Walmart for selling elastic bands from a different company</a>, claiming that it's copyright infringement.  Specifically, they're upset that Walmart is selling elastic bands from a company, Crimzon Rose, that also makes them in similar shapes to Silly Bandz.  Beyond the copyright claim, they're also saying that the packaging is too similar.  Whatever happened to competition being legal and <i>good</i> for the economy?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101027/01423411599/elastic-wristband-maker-sues-walmart-for-copyright-infringement.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101027/01423411599/elastic-wristband-maker-sues-walmart-for-copyright-infringement.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101027/01423411599/elastic-wristband-maker-sues-walmart-for-copyright-infringement.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>elastic-wristbands?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101027/01423411599</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 30 Aug 2010 09:52:03 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Blockbuster Bankruptcy, Yet Again, Highlights How It's Not Easy To Just Copy The Disruptive Innovation</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100827/17512510807.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100827/17512510807.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Late last week, there were a ton of press reports about how Blockbuster was <a href="http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010/08/internet-fail-blockbuster-reportedly-plans-bankruptcy/" target="_blank">preparing to declare Chapter 11 bankruptcy in September</a>.  It's not shutting down, but just trying to restructure its debt, get out from under a bunch of store leases and try, try again.  That said, this is yet another example of the fallacy of the claim of many that if you have a good idea some big company will just come along, copy it, and be successful.  It also demonstrates the huge difference between idea and execution.
<br /><br />
Netflix had a good idea and executed well on it.  But for years everyone thought it was only a matter of time until the company got destroyed, because all these bigger (at the time) companies were just going to copy Netflix and win.  First it was Wal-Mart.  The retail giant started a service that seemed <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20021015/0952210_F.shtml">almost identical</a> to Netflix way back in 2002.  Everyone thought there was no way an upstart like Netflix could compete with the likes of Wal-Mart.  Fast forward two and a half years and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050519/0945229.shtml">Netflix took over Wal-Mart's online DVD rental business</a>, because Wal-Mart's offering couldn't compete.
<br /><br />
In between those events, in late 2004, Amazon <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20041014/1859217_F.shtml">stepped into the market</a> (oddly, Netflix itself broke the news), by starting a Netflix-clone in the UK, though everyone expected them to bring it to the US as well.  Even those who thought Wal-Mart didn't have the digital know-how to compete with Netflix figured that Amazon had a strong likelihood of success given its e-commerce success.  Jump forward to 2008 and Amazon, which never brought the offering stateside, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080204/222954174.shtml">dumped the DVD rental business</a> in Europe.
<br /><br />
And, of course, there was Blockbuster.  It came out with a Netflix-like offer around the same time that Wal-Mart did, and while it held on for much longer, it was just never able to build up the same sort of userbase that Netflix did, and now the company is going to declare bankruptcy and try to restructure once again.
<br /><br />
It's really a fascinating case study.  If you just looked at the simplistic analysis of "oh no, big company will crush small innovative company," you had to imagine that at least one of these firms would destroy Netflix along the way.  Wal-Mart is a retailing giant, and even if it didn't have the digital chops, it had more money and distribution process efficiencies than Netflix could ever dream about.  Amazon similarly had cash and distribution scale, along with that digital knowhow.  And then Blockbuster had the relationships with Hollywood and a massively powerful brand name when it came to rentals.
<br /><br />
But none of them were able to execute in this market nearly as well as Netflix, which really did focus on making the consumer experience top notch from very early on.  None of this means that the small company <i>always</i> beats the incumbent.  Certainly some big companies are able to step in and crush upstarts.  But it's not nearly as easy as some people make it out to be.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100827/17512510807.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100827/17512510807.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100827/17512510807.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>and-there-we-go-again</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100827/17512510807</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 10:47:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Once Again, Walmart Stops People From Printing Family Photos Due To Copyright Law Claims</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091119/0237527002.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091119/0237527002.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It's been many <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20050607/1945250_F.shtml">years</a> since we first wrote about how stores like Walmart were dealing with ridiculous copyright laws by telling employees to simply not allow the printing of "professional-looking" photos, just in case they were covered by someone else's copyright.  Last year, a story popped up about a Walmart employee <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080813/0402251963.shtml">not letting</a> a family print their own old family photos for this reason.  It looks like we've got yet another such story.   <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/profile.php?u=greenbird">greenbird</a> was the first of a few of you to send in this story about <A href="http://consumerist.com/5407746/walmart-wont-let-family-print-photos-of-dead-relative-for-funeral" target="_blank">Walmart (yet again) not allowing the printing of family photos</a> (this time for a funeral, which makes it that much more tragic), with copyright used as the reason.  Once again, the employee made some dumb statements, such as saying "copyright is forever."
<br><br>
But, just like last time, I have to say that we shouldn't blame the Walmart employee, who is just trying to protect her job, and lives in a world where copyright maximalists constantly push this sort of message.  It's not her fault, it's the fault of current copyright law, which makes such things seems reasonable, and the ongoing effort by lobbyists and politicians to only push copyright law further in that direction.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091119/0237527002.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091119/0237527002.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091119/0237527002.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>a-real-winner</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20091119/0237527002</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>