Historically Dumb Censorship: Wal-Mart's Refusal To Sell Jill Sobule's Album Due To Prozac Pill

from the promoting-drug-usage dept

Singer Jill Sobule recently discussed a story from back in 1997, when Wal-Mart refused to carry the album she released that year -- because of the cover art. I'll let Jill tell the story:

When I was about to release my 2nd Atlantic record, "Happy Town", I was alerted that Wal-Mart was refusing to carry the CD. They told the label that the broken capsule depicted on the cover was somehow celebrating illegal drug use. Never mind that the drug in question was Prozac (with the familiar mint green and Mercedes cream/yellow colors) but that Wal-Mart itself is one of the big dealers. What made it even more silly, was they thought the granules pouring out looked like cocaine. That never crossed my mind. It made me wonder what kind of hopped-up druggies Wal-Mart was employing.

I decided, rather than dismiss a whole segment of society that would probably not buy my record anyway, I would...wimp out. I replaced the capsule with a test tube -big deal. Somehow, this made them happy and the "cocaine" stayed.

The reason she brought this up now, is because the photo above is an exhibit at the Newseum in Washington DC, showing examples of "dumb censorship."

Filed Under: censorship, jill sobule
Companies: wal-mart

Why Have So Many Companies Settled Over Ridiculous Patent For 'Online Music Distribution'?

from the cheaper-to-settle dept

A company going by the name Sharing Sound LLC, which of course does not appear to do anything, got hold of some exceptionally broad and absolutely ridiculous patents on "distributing musical products by a website over the internet" (6,247,130 and 6,233,682). Go ahead and read the claims on both of those, and realize they were filed in 2000, well after online sales of digital goods was available (I should know, I worked for a company focused on selling software online through nearly identical means described in the patents -- in 1998).

Earlier this year, however, Sharing Sound sued a whole bunch of companies over these patents. Included was Apple, Microsoft, Napster, Rhapsody, BDE (Kazaa), Sony, Sony/Ericsson, Amazon, Netflix, Wal-Mart, Barnes & Noble and Gamestop. Late last week, the news came out that Apple had settled and paid up. Along with that, people noted that most of the other companies had already settled.

I defy anyone to explain how this patent is a valid patent. The folks at M-CAM broke down a whole bunch of prior art when the lawsuits were first filed. Anyone who was anywhere near the online web store world for digital content would look through the (very, very, very simple) claims in the patent and just laugh. There's no "invention" there at all. It's a joke.

So why did so many companies settle? The easy guess is that the settlement terms were simply less than going through with the lawsuit. Lawsuits are expensive, even over totally bogus patents. So it's often just easier and cheaper to pay up. Of course, now that gives Sharing Sound more ammo to say "look at all these big companies who settled" when they continue to go after lots of other companies. This is a perfect example of how bad patents still "win" lawsuits.

Filed Under: music distribution, patents
Companies: amazon, apple, barnes & noble, gamespot, microsoft, napster, netflix, rhapsody, sharing sound, sony, wal-mart

Wal-Mart, Target Trying To Block Redbox From Purchasing DVDs?

from the how-nice-of-them dept

We've described how some film studios are in a huge legal fight with Redbox over DVD rentals. While some studios have come to their senses and are happy to work with Redbox, others have been trying to pressure the company into giving it a cut of rental revenue and/or delaying when it rents newly-released movies. Those studios convinced the big distribution wholesalers to stop selling to Redbox (which seems like a pretty clear restraint of trade or antitrust issue), and in at least one case had convinced retailers not to sell to Redbox. Of course, there are ways around that as well, and we even suggested that Redbox could crowdsource its movie purchasing.

In fact, to get around the studio blocks, Redbox was apparently already purchasing 40% of its DVDs at retail locations like Target and Wal-Mart. But both retailers are now making that more difficult. They've put in place limits directly targeted at Redbox, saying they won't sell more than five DVDs at any one time to any buyer. Yes, here we have a customer willing to buy an awful lot of product -- at full retail price -- and these retailers won't let them? While they claim it's to make sure movies are available for other customers, given the earlier reports of studios specifically asking retailers to block Redbox from buying, it makes you wonder. What sort of company would tell willing customers they can't buy a product that is available and in stock?

Still, in the end I doubt those limits will be very effective. Redbox still could go with that crowdsourced concept, and get its subscribers to purchase five DVDs at a time in exchange for free rentals. Eventually, the industry is going to have to realize that fighting Redbox is a mistake.

Filed Under: antitrust, dvds, rentals, restraint of trade
Companies: redbox, target, wal-mart

Again? Wal-Mart's Straight Talk 'Unlimited' Mobile Data Plan Actually Quite Limited

from the that's-not-straight-talk dept

And I thought the days of companies claiming "unlimited" data plans when they really were very very limited had died out after Verizon Wireless got fined and started backing away from claiming "unlimited" data for plans that were actually quite limited. However, with Walmart teaming up with TracFone to offer the misleadingly-named "Straight Talk" mobile phone service, some are noticing the return of very limited mobile data offers advertised as "unlimited." As is pointed out in that link, beyond simply being flat-out wrong and more than a bit deceiving, it's pretty ridiculous for a brand called "Straight Talk" to lie in its advertising, and hide the details in the very very fine print.

Filed Under: limited, straight talk, unlimited, wireless service
Companies: tracfone, wal-mart

Wal-Mart Abusing Trademark Law To Try To Shut Down Union Website

from the not-a-fan-of-free-speech-apparently dept

Over the years, we've seen a ton of lawsuits against so-called "gripes" sites: people who set up a site because they feel wronged by a company. Company lawyers will often try to bully such sites, and claim that they're a trademark violations, especially when they use a name like BigCompanySucks.com. The big companies almost always lose such lawsuits. That's because those sites are obviously not from the company itself and don't cause any sort of consumer "confusion" over who runs the sites. Earlier this year, we heard that lawyers were finally starting to recognize that suing gripes sites was not a good idea. First, you would almost certainly lose. But more importantly, you'd end up drawing a lot more attention to the gripes sites. However, it certainly looks like there are a bunch of folks who have not gotten the message. Soon after that article, we saw Goldman Sachs go after a gripes site, and the same story played out again. Lots more attention to the gripes site, and the all-powerful Goldman Sachs eventually forced to back down.

And yet, it keeps happening.

The latest such story takes place up in Canada, and rather than a traditional disgruntled customer or ex-employee, the gripes site in question is from a union.Michael Scott points us to the news that Wal-Mart is trying to shut down a union website using quite a creative interpretation of trademark law, to suggest it blocks out all sorts of stuff it does not:

They want the court to order the union:

• to refrain from using the names Wal-Mart or Walmart as a trademark alone, or with other indicia, in any form or format
• not to use the expressions "Walmart Workers Canada" or "Union for Walmart Workers" in any form or format
• not to use the expression "Get respect. Live better." or any other expression which constitutes a play on Wal-Mart's trademarked slogan "Save money. Live better"
• not to use photos or images of WalMart employees or people purporting to be such employees
• not to use an oval, circular or semi-circular design similar to the Spark Design that includes spokes or figures in association with trademark Walmart in any form or format
• to take down the website www.walmartworkerscanada.ca

Pretty much all of those requests seem like very questionable attempts to censor and silence organizing workers, rather than any legitimate attempt to protect trademarks against confusing use in commerce. And, of course, in doing so, all Wal-Mart is doing is drawing a lot more attention to these union claims... and to the fact that Wal-Mart appears to be acting like a big bully.

Filed Under: canada, trademark, unions
Companies: wal-mart

Chinese Company Sues American Retailers For Selling 'Knockoffs'

from the yes,-read-that-again dept

Jake points us to a story that (as Jake notes) makes you read the headline twice to make sure you got it right: Chinese Company Sues in U.S. to Block "Knockoff". It's not really "knockoffs" that they're suing over. It's a patent infringement claim from Changzhou Asian Endergonic Electronic Technology Co., which is upset that Best Buy, Wal-Mart and some other retailers are selling a competitors' dashboard mount that it claims is covered by its own patent.

Now, there are a bunch of points worth discussing here. First, apparently this is the first such case of a Chinese company (based in China) suing in the US over a patent infringement claim (a claim that really surprises me). Considering the long history of China copying (blatantly) American products and then reselling them, it's really quite fascinating to see a Chinese company now complain about the "reverse." Of course, as we've been highlighting recently, there's been a big push in China to build up a belief in patents. It seems this firm has already learned the basics of the American patent system: it's suing in Texas, of course!

The other odd thing about this case is filing the lawsuit against the retailers. The company is also suing the manufacturer (another Chinese company) which makes sense, but I've never understood why going after the retailer makes sense. Best Buy, Wal-Mart and others shouldn't need to investigate every product they sell to determine whether it violates someone else's patents. Let that be handled between vendors. Dragging the retailers into the lawsuit is just a waste of resources.

Filed Under: china, knockoffs, patents
Companies: best buy, changzhou asian endergonice electronic technology co., wal-mart

Why Does Wal-Mart Need A 3,379-Word Terms Of Use For Its Twitter Account?

from the someone-please-explain dept

Twitter only gives you 140-characters, of course, but what do you do if you're an old-school company that's been around for ages and is used to legalizing everything? Apparently, you create a 3,379-word terms of use for your Twitter account. Boing Boing points us to Wal-Mart's Twitter Terms of Use, which is really impressive if only in that if it were Twittered in 140-character increments it would take about 165 separate tweets. But, honestly, I can't figure out who this Terms of Use is directed at. It can't be those who read the various Twitter feeds from Wal-Mart employees, since most of them will never even come to this page at all (they're just following on Twitter, not on Wal-Mart's site). It's unlikely that it's for the Wal-Mart employees directly, as one assumes they don't need a public Terms of Use. So what's its purpose?

Filed Under: terms of use
Companies: twitter, wal-mart

Store Payment Info In Your Online Store? Watch Out For Patent Infringement Lawsuits

from the pay-now dept

Bill Squier alerts us to the news that a bunch of companies have been sued for daring to store consumer payment information and allow either stored value payments or one-click payments on their site. The article linked here focuses on Apple as a defendant, and notes 14 other companies were sued as well, but in researching this, I found that Joe Mullin actually wrote about another batch of companies (20 of them) that were sued back in April. The earlier lawsuit included Google, Wal-Mart, Bank of America, Capital One, JP Morgan Chase, Mastercard, Visa, Vivendi, Disney and Western Union among others. The more recent lawsuit has (as mentioned) Apple, Best Buy, Amazon, American Express, Barnes & Noble, Citigroup and eBay among others. So... basically any online e-commerce site, credit card company or big bank.

As for the patents in question, they're all a variation on a "method and apparatus for conducting electronic commerce transactions using electronic tokens." The specific patents are 7,376,621, 7,249,099, 7,328,189 and 7,177,838. Reading through the claims, this seems like an incredibly typical online system for storing payment info and seeing if the person can actually pay. Since the patent system defenders among our readers get quite upset whenever I say something seems "obvious" to me, let's flip this around. Can anyone explain how these concepts were not obvious at the time of filing?

Not surprisingly, the cases have been filed in Marshall, Texas... and as Joe Mullin figured out, the guy who is running "Actus" is a lawyer known for representing some infamous patent hoarding companies. He also discovered that the lawyer representing Actus in these lawsuits appears to share an office (or at least the same address) with the son (who is also a patent attorney) of the judge handling the case. At some point, do people start questioning whether or not there's a conflict of interest there?

Filed Under: patents, payment
Companies: actus, amazon, american express, apple, bank of america, barnes & noble, best buy, capital one, citigroup, disney, ebay, google, jp morgan, mastercard, visa, vivendi, wal-mart, western union

Campgrounds In Maine Can't Compete Against Free... So Want It Outlawed

from the ain't-that-great dept

Chris was the first of a few of you to send in the news of a proposed law in Maine that would outlaw the ability of any company to let RVs park overnight for free. The battle basically pits campgrounds, which charge fees, against Wal-Mart, which has always allowed RVs to park in their parking lots for free, recognizing that many who stay overnight in their parking lots will likely pick up supplies at Wal-Mart as well. There doesn't seem to be any actual rationale for the "no free overnight parking" law, other than that the campgrounds are upset that they're losing business. The whole thing seems rather silly, though. A Wal-Mart parking lot is hardly a scenic location. Are these campgrounds offering so little that they can't compete against a giant empty concrete parking lot? Of course, if this law does pass, the end result is pretty predictable. Rather than driving more RVs to campsites, RV owners may just start avoiding Maine altogether.

Filed Under: free, maine, rvs
Companies: wal-mart

Circuit City Liquidation Prices Still More Expensive Than Wal-Mart

from the liquidate-that dept

With Circuit City finally giving up the ghost last week and deciding to liquidate and close down its remaining stores, you might think there would be some decent bargains on electronics. Not necessarily. Consumerist points out that a local TV station checked out some of the prices and found that, in many cases, the liquidation prices were actually higher than buying the same items at Wal-Mart online. Apparently, the liquidation experts running the sales figure that as long as people think they're getting a steal of a bargain, they'll really believe they are.

Filed Under: liquidation
Companies: circuit city, wal-mart