Today, Rescuecom issued a press release declaring victory in its litigation against Google. But it's an odd definition of "victory" given that Rescuecom has apparently voluntarily abandoned its 6 year litigation effort without any new concessions from Google. The dismissal notice.

This development reminds me a lot of the American Blinds v. Google denouement, where American Blinds also simply gave up and dropped its multi-year lawsuit without any concessions from Google. Note to future plaintiffs: if you're going to threaten Google's $20B/year cash cow, chances are pretty good that they have the resources to outlast you.

Why did Rescuecom give up? According to Rescuecom's press release, "Google has recently confirmed to Rescuecom that it has removed Rescuecom's trademark from its Keyword Suggestion Tool." That, plus the fact that Google blocks trademark references in ad copy, means that Rescuecom feels it has "obtained two of the three things we initially sought in our complaint against Google." And if two out of three is good enough for Meat Loaf, apparently it's good enough for Rescuecom. At minimum, having low standards makes it a lot easier to declare victory when you give up.

However, this explanation is pretty hollow. Although the press release treats Google's removal of Rescuecom from the keyword suggestion tool as a new development, it appears that Google made this change IN 2005. Wendy Davis reports:

[Rescuecom CEO] Milman says he only learned last week that Google had stopped suggesting Rescuecom as a keyword. "Who knows what would have happened if they had told us back in 2005 that they had taken our name out of their keyword tool?" he said.

Hmm...I think I know the answer to that question! Then again, if getting out of the keyword suggestion tool really was one of Rescuecom's Big Three objectives all along, maybe they might have asked Google about it in 2005...or 2006...or 2007...or, well, you get the point. Spin it however they want, it's hard for Rescuecom to look good while dropping a lawsuit based on a 5 year old fact.

Nevertheless, I'm interested in knowing more about this removal. Does Google have a way for trademark owners to "opt out" of having their trademarks in its keyword suggestion tool? I would expect that option to become very popular if it were well-known. If anyone has information about how trademark owners can make an election with Google, please share it.

Given the completely disingenuous nature of declaring victory based on getting out of the keyword suggestion tool, there may be a better--and more self-interested reason--for Rescuecom to give up. Rescuecom is defending a trademark lawsuit brought by Best Buy over Rescuecom's competitive AdWords purchases of the "geek squad" trademark. Rescuecom was caught in the duplicitous position of making plaintiff-side arguments against Google while making highly contradictory defense-side arguments against Best Buy. As a result, every positive step in its Google case had the potential to degrade its position in the Best Buy case. By abandoning the Google fight, Rescuecom avoids this difficult dilemma.

As an odd byproduct of this development, Google and Rescuecom are now aligned in advancing the arguments that competitive keyword advertising in AdWords is legitimate. Isn't there a passage in the Bible about the lion and the lamb lying down together?

The roster of pending AdWords cases (I most recently double-checked the status of these cases on February 20, 2010):

* Ezzo v. Google
* Rescuecom v. Google
* FPX v. Google
* John Beck Amazing Profits v. Google and the companion Google v. John Beck Amazing Profits
* Stratton Faxon v. Google (not initially a trademark case). Check the status.
* Soaring Helmet v. Bill Me
* Ascentive v. Google
* Jurin v. Google 1.0 (voluntarily dismissed), succeeded by Jurin v. Google 2.0
* Rosetta Stone v. Google
* Flowbee v. Google
* Parts Geek v. US Auto Parts
* Dazzlesmile v. Epic

Earlier, I posted a video asking which format you prefer our YouTube videos to be recorded in. Going a step further, I can't help but wonder what it is that will make the community one big happy bundle of joy. What do you want to see? What directions do envision our community taking?

For instance, if I post an article or video related to Apple, the Windows fans go ballistic. Likewise, whenever I posted something Windows-related, the Mac fanboys blow a gasket. It's like there's no happy medium these days. I cannot possibly make everyone happy all at once. I'm not even going to try!

However, I DO strongly believe that what we're doing is about the community, not just for the community. So I want to know what YOU think. What do you want to see more of in the coming months? What things can you live without? Leave a follow-up comment here, or drop me an email with your thoughts.

• What is Homeland Security monitoring now?
• Is it difficult for a printed book to keep your attention?
• Could a mobile phone series based around Windows 7 be a big hit for Microsoft?
• Hawaii has said YES to Google!
• What, exactly, is the appeal of so-called reality shows?
• Very soon, Apple will have sold their ten millionth song.
• Redwood trees are being threatened by a lack of fog.
• We definitely need a tax cut!
• Could Intel and Nokia be entering into the mobile phone fray?
• Where can you go online to listen to music, and read the lyrics at the same time?
• What 97 things should every programmer know?
• What will you look like with a 4G network?
• What could possibly be better than Google.
• New research reveals that burglers have changed their shopping lists dramatically.
• Even Barbie is a Geek!

Don't forget to stop by our software center to see what new deals we have for you today!

• <a rel='nofollow' href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1921573309/lockergnome Top Success Secrets and Best Practices: Twitter Experts Share The World's Greatest Tips</a></li></ul><ul class="related_post"><li><a href="http://chris.pirillo.com/how-do-you-defeat-jet-lag/" title="How Do You Defeat Jet Lag?">How Do You Defeat Jet Lag?</a></li><li><a href="http://chris.pirillo.com/edit-photos-online-for-free/" title="Edit Photos Online for Free">Edit Photos Online for Free</a></li><li><a href="http://chris.pirillo.com/stop-the-facebook-chain-message-madness/" title="Stop the Facebook Chain Message Madness!">Stop the Facebook Chain Message Madness!</a></li><li><a href="http://chris.pirillo.com/do-you-remember-your-first-tweetup/" title="Do You Remember Your First Tweetup?">Do You Remember Your First Tweetup?</a></li><li><a href="http://chris.pirillo.com/all-search-terms-should-be-treated-equally/" title="All Search Terms Should be Treated Equally">All Search Terms Should be Treated Equally</a></li><li><a href="http://chris.pirillo.com/see-ya-2009-hello-2010/" title="See Ya, 2009! Hello, 2010!">See Ya, 2009! Hello, 2010!</a></li><li><a href="http://chris.pirillo.com/twitter-bans-more-than-370-passwords/" title="Twitter Bans More Than 370 Passwords">Twitter Bans More Than 370 Passwords</a></li><li><a href="http://chris.pirillo.com/new-years-resolutions-with-a-twist/" title="New Year's Resolutions with a Twist">New Year's Resolutions with a Twist</a></li><li><a href="http://chris.pirillo.com/should-twitter-be-banned-at-conferences/" title="Should Twitter be Banned at Conferences?">Should Twitter be Banned at Conferences?</a></li><li><a href="http://chris.pirillo.com/living-life-to-the-fullest/" title="Living Life to the Fullest">Living Life to the Fullest</a></li></ul> <p><iframe src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~ah/f/lpj2a0s0b83fm727ahojoknhc4/300/250?ca=1&fh=280#http%3A%2F%2Fchris.pirillo.com%2Fwhat-tech-do-you-want%2F" width="100%" height="280" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0"></iframe></p>

I'm hesitant to use the term brand' since it is overused right now and a bit nebulous, especially when it comes to humans. I guess if your name was a brand then it would fit . . . but there thousands of brands with the same name, so maybe not.

Over the last few years with the rise of social everything online many people have arrived without the experience of the growing pains that made the market ready for these sites. With that, the newbies have arrived at the front gate to deliver gems on Facebook like, In hell right now, that would be work! Way to go genius. Don't get run over by the forklift you rode in on.

It has been my desire for years that there were be some licensing that has to happen before people could hop online and make the same mistakes that people were making a decade ago. An education center would be fitting like community annex night courses. Even cabbies gotta go to school.

I thought that since tomorrow is Thanksgiving and you might engage face to face with some people that aren't so savvy, that you could share some words of internet wisdom with them. It. Is. Your. Job. To save them. From. Themselves. Share these of course after you have helped them remove 30 GB of kitty photos from the desktop of their Windows Me eMachine. Okay?

1. Don't use Facebook or MySpace or Twitter at work
2. Don't talk about your boss on the computer
3. Don't ever upload pictures of yourself or Mom drunk
4. Don't put pictures of grandma drunk on the internet
5. Don't take photos of anything naked and upload it
6. Don't threaten the bully from your 8th grade class on Facebook. We know he didn't deserve to succeed in life but he did. Let it go.
7. Don't contact anyone that you hooked up back in the day that Mom knows. That goes for you too Mom. Forget they exist and use your memories remember their sweet smell and freak moves.
8. Don't tell your neighbor that his spouse is cheating on Facebook. Just don't.
9. Don't type anything into your computer that would cause Santa to leave you a lump of coal
10. Don't evah, evah, evah upload a photo of your cat to the internet and caption it. You will never get hired for a job again especially if I am the head of HR

That's it. Now you can spend your Thanksgiving in peace after you lay down the law to your in-laws about Managing Yourself Online'. Cuz the internet is a job.

DISCLOSURE OF MATERIAL CONNECTION: http://cmp.ly/0

Managing Yourself Online: A Thanksgiving Guide is a post from: TechStartups.com

In Part 2 we discuss: how previously reticent search engines like Google and Yahoo have begun to participate in the Semantic Web in 2009, user interfaces for browsing and using data, what Tim Berners-Lee thinks of new computational engine Wolfram Alpha, how e-commerce vendors are moving into the Linked Data world, and finally how the Internet of Things intersects with the Semantic Web.

Sponsor

Semantic Web and Search Engines Like Google, Yahoo

RWW: You've been talking about the Semantic Web for many years now. Generally the view is that Semantic Web is great in theory, but we're still not seeing a large number of commercial web apps that use RDF (we've seen a number of scientific or academic ones). However we have begun to see some traction with RDFa (embedding RDF metadata into XHTML Web content), for example Google's Rich Snippets and Yahoo's SearchMonkey. Has the takeup of RDFa taken you by surprise?

TBL: Not really, but the takeup by the search engines is interesting. In a way I was happy to see that, it was a milestone for those things to come out of the search engines. The search engines had typically not been keen on the Semantic Web - maybe you could argue that their business is making order out of chaos, and they're actually happy with the chaos. And if you provide them with the order, they don't immediately see the use of it.

Also I think there was misunderstanding in the search engine industry that the Semantic Web meant metadata, and metadata meant keywords, and keywords don't work because people lie. Because traditionally in information retrieval systems, keywords haven't proven up to the task of finding stuff on the Web. One of the reasons is that people lie, the other is that they can't be bothered to enter keywords. So keywords have gotten a bad reputation, then metadata in general was tarred with this 'keywords don't work' brush. Because a lot of Semantic Web data included metadata, then people thought that with Semantic Web data -- again, that people will lie and won't have the time to produce it.

Google rich snippets example; image credit: Matt Cutts

Now I think there's a realization that when you're putting data online, that people are motivated NOT to lie. For example when your band is going to produce its next album, or when your band is going to play next downtown, you're motivated to put that information up there on the Semantic Web. There's an awful lot of cases when actually data is really important to people; and it's on the web anyway. So I think it's great that some of the search engine companies are starting to read RDFa.

Does this mean that they [search engines] will start to absorb the whole RDF data model? If they do, then they will be able to start pulling all of the linked data cloud in.

Will they know what to do with it? Because when it's data in a very organized form, I think some people have been misunderstanding the Semantic Web as being something that tries to make a better search engine - i.e. when you type something into a little box. But of course the great thing about the Semantic Web is that you can query it, you can ask a complicated query of the Semantic Web, like a SQL query (we call it a SPARQL query), and that's such a different thing to be able to do. It really doesn't compare to a search engine.

You've got search for text phrases on one side (which is a useful tool) and querying of the data on the other. I think that those things will connect together a lot.

So I think people will search using a search text engine, and find a webpage. On the front of the webpage they'll find a link to some data, then they'll browse with a data browser, then they'll find a pattern which is really interesting, then they'll make their data system go and find all the things which are like that pattern (which is actually doing a query, but they'll not realize it), then they'll be in data mode with tables and doing statistical analysis, and in that statistical analysis they'll find an interesting object which has a home page, and they'll click on that, and go to a homepage and be back on the Web again.

So the web of linked data and the web of documents actually connect in both directions, with links.

User Interfaces for Semantic Content

RWW: At the recent SemTech conference, Tom Tague of Thomson Reuters' Calais project suggested that user interfaces for semantic content are key in getting more take-up. With that in mind, I wonder if you've seen some great interfaces or designs for semantic applications in recent months - if so which ones and why did they impress you?

TBL: I think that whole area is very exciting at the moment. The only piece of hacking I've done over the past few years has been on a thing called the Tabulator [a data browser and editor], which is addressing exactly that. Partly because I wanted to be able to look at this data. And now there are lots of different ways that people need to be able to look at data. You need to be able to browse through it piece by piece, exploring the world of data. You need to be able to look for patterns of particular things that have happened. Because this is data, we need to be able to use all of the power that traditionally we've used for data. When I've pulled in my chosen data set, using a query, I want to be able to do [things like] maps, graphs, analysis, and statistical stuff.

W3C Tabulator, a data browser/editor; Image credit: wiwiss.fu-berlin.de

So when you talk about user interfaces for this, it's really very very broad. Yes I think it's important. There's also the distinction we can make between the generic interfaces and the specific interfaces.

There will always be specific interfaces; for example if you're looking at calendar data, there's nothing else like a calendar that understands weeks, months and years. If you're looking at a genome, it's good to have a genetics-specific user interface.

However you also need to be able to connect that data, through generic interfaces. So if my genome data was taken during an experiment which happened over a particular period, I need to be able to look at that in the calendar - so I can connect the genetics to the calendar.

So one of the things I hope to see is domain-specific things for various different domains, and the generic user interfaces. And hopefully the generic interfaces will be able to tie together all of the domains.

Next Page: Wolfram Alpha; e-Commerce and Linked Data

Wolfram Alpha and Natural Language Interfaces

RWW: An interesting new product that was launched this year was Wolfram|Alpha, a 'computational knowledge engine.' It's kind of a mix between Google (search) and Wikipedia (knowledge), and it's key attribute is that enables you to compute something. The founders think that 'computing' things on the fly is something we're going to see a lot of in future. What's your take on Wolfram|Alpha?

TBL: There are two parts to that sort of technology. One of them is a sort of stilted natural language interface. We've seen those sort of natural language queries for years. Boris Katz [from W3C] created a system called START [a software system designed to answer questions that are posed to it in natural language]. I think with the Semantic Web out there, those sorts of interfaces are going to become important, very valuable, because people will be able to ask more complicated things. The search engine has traditionally been limited to just a phrase, but some of the search engines are now starting to realize that if they put data behind them and have computation engines, then you can ask for things like 'what's this many pounds in dollars' and so on. So yes, those interfaces will become important.

Conversational interfaces have always been a really interesting avenue. We've had voice browser work in W3C, that has been an interesting alternative avenue. It's possible that as compute power goes up, we'll see a prolifieration of machines capable of doing voice. It'll move from the mainframe to being able to run on a laptop or your phone. As that happens, we'll get actual voice recognition and pattern natural language at the front end. That will perhaps be an important part of the Semantic Web.

We talked before about what a great challenge the Semantic Web is going to be from a user interface point of view. Conversational interfaces are going to be part of [solving] that. Of course it's also going to be really valuable to have compositional interfaces - for the visually impaired and so on.

Wolfram|Alpha is also a large curated database of data sets. Obviously I'm interested in the big data set which is out there, which is Linked Data. This everybody can connect to. I don't really know a lot about the internals of Wolfram|Alpha's data set. I don't know whether they're likely to put any of it out on the web as Linked Data - that might be an interesting addition. I imagine that quite a lot of it may have come from the web of Linked Data.

e-Commerce and Linked Data

RWW: There have been reports recently that both Google and Yahoo will be supporting the Good Relations ontology and linked data for e-commerce. Companies such as Best Buy are already putting out product information in RDFa. What would be your advice to e-commerce vendors right now, to help them transition to this world of structured data on the Web. The same question could be asked across many verticals, but e-commerce seems like one area which has some momentum right now. Would you advise them just to put out their data as Linked Data?

TBL: Yup! Certainly this year is the year to do it. I've been advising governments to do it and when you look at an enterprise, you find that a lot of the issues are the same. But when you put your data from government or enterprise out there, make sure you don't disturb existing ecosystems. Don't threaten those systems, because you've spent years building them up.

Maybe there's an analogy with when the Web first started and the first bookshops went online. They were more or less a flyer, saying 'hey we have a great bookshop at 23 Main St, come on down!'. Let's say that a person named Joe owned one of these early online bookshops. If somebody had suggested to Joe that he should put his catalog online, Joe would've felt that that was very proprietary data. And he'd be worried that other bookshops would see where he was weak, so they'd be able to advertise themselves as filling that niche he's weak in.

But when his competitors Fred and Albert put their catalogs online, then Joe can check which books people are browsing at Fred and Albert's websites. So Joe would [finally] be pursuaded to put his book catalog up online. But he doesn't put the prices... until Albert and/or Fred does. And even if catalog and pricing is up there, nobody puts their stock levels online. And there was a period of time when nobody [i.e. online booksellers] had their stock levels up. But people got fed up with ordering stuff that wasn't in stock. So the first book shop to actually tell you about stock levels suddenly was then unbelievably attractive to its customers.

So there's this syndrome of progressive competitive disclosure. This happens when people realize that if you're going to do business with somebody, if you're going to have your partners up and down the supply chain, really it's useful to check the data web - and life goes much more quickly and open.

Best Buy may be what starts the ball rolling [among e-commerce vendors]. Now if I want to look out for what [products are] available, I can write a program to see what there is. If somebody wants to compete with Best Buy, to my program they'll be invisible unless they can get their data up in RDF. Doesn't matter whether they use RDFa or RDF XML, as long as it maps in a standard fashion to the RDF model, then they will be visible.

Next Page: Internet of Things; Conclusion

The Internet of Things

RWW: I'm fascinated by how the Internet is becoming more and more integrated into the real world. For example the Internet of Things, where everyday objects become Internet connected via sensors. Have you been following this trend closely too, and if so what impact do you think this will have on the Web in say 5 years time?

TBL: It connects very much with Semantic Web [and] with linked data. With Linked Data you've got the ability to give a thing a URI. So I can give a URI to my phone, and I can say that's my phone in Linked Data. And also the company that made it can give a URI to the model of the phone. They can also put online all the specs of the phone, and then I can make a link to say my phone is an example of that product. So now any system which is dealing with me and has access to that data will be able to figure out the sorts of things I can do with my phone, which actually is really valuable. Especially if the phone breaks.

The Semantic Web has already given URIs to things, and to types of things. When the things themselves have an RFID chip in them, then I think it's a very exciting world. One can take that RFID chip, go to the Internet and find out the data about the thing. Whether we'll be able to do that, whether the manufacturers will be open enough to allow me to turn data about the identifier of the thing into data about the thing, is yet to be seen. But it's a very exciting idea.

Similarly, I'd like to be able to scan a barcode and get back nutritional information about what's in - for example - a can of food. But we don't have that yet. To get that sort of thing, which is very powerful, we need to build look-up systems, which allows you to translate an RFID code or a barcode into an HTTP address.

The Semantic Web is a web of things, conceptually. Tying an actual thing down to a part of the web is the last link - the last mile. Give the thing a notion of its own identity in the web.

Conclusion

The over-riding message in both Part 1 and 2 of our interview with Tim Berners-Lee, is for companies and organizations to make your data available online. Preferably as Linked Data, which uses a subset of Semantic Web technologies. But Berners-Lee noted in Part 1 of our interview that he'd even be happy with the data in CSV (comma separated values) format.

It's clear that we've seen a lot of progress in linked data already in 2009. In upcoming posts on ReadWriteWeb, we'll continue to track this trend and explain how you can contribute your organization's data.

The Scranton Times, LP v. Wilkes-Barre Publishing Co., 3:08-cv-02135-ARC (M.D. Pa. March 6, 2009)

Oh man, how bad is it in the newspaper business? Rather than investing in building new and sustainable business models and relationships with their subscribers, newspapers are like dinosaurs trying to eat each other while the temperature rises. However, instead of eating each other, the dinosaurs are suing each other, squandering their valuable capital on low-merit newspaper v. newspaper lawsuits, such as the GateHouse v. NYT lawsuit over the republication of headlines.

Today's lawsuit is even more scoffable. The Scranton Times is suing the Wilkes-Barre newspaper for republishing obituary notices in its Scranton edition that were initially published in the Scranton Times. But the Scranton Times has a problem--funeral homes typically write and submit the obituary notices, so the Scranton Times has no copyright interest in the notices. Undeterred, the Scranton Times sued the Wilkes-Barre paper for a bunch of junky unfair competition-style claims in Pennsylvania state court.

This ruling deals with the Wilkes-Barre defendant trying to remove the case to federal court by showing that there is a federal question of whether the junky claims are preempted by federal copyright law.

The most interesting discussion relates to the hot news misappropriation doctrine. I just discussed the doctrine last month in the AP v. All Headlines News case, where the SDNY said that the AP's hot news claim against an online aggregator/syndicator survived a motion to dismiss. I've seen some breathy law firm announcements that this ruling revitalized the hot news doctrine, but not so fast, guys. Here, the court says that the obituary notices fail to qualify as hot news, and therefore the misappropriation claim is preempted by copyright law.

In particular, the court says that obituary notices can qualify as time-sensitive information, such as timing of memorial services. Further, even though the newspaper doesn't write the obituary notices, the court says that the newspaper bore all of the costs of collecting and distributing the notices, and the rival paper free-rode on those investments. However, the court said that the Scranton Times had failed to show that the free-riding would threaten the Scranton Times' publication of obituary notices. Thus, the hot news claim failed.

The court looks at the copyright preemption of other junky unfair competition claims, holding that the unfair competition claim was really a reverse passing off claim, which was preempted, as was the tortious interference and unjust enrichment claims. Oddly, the court said that the conversion claim wasn't preempted by copyright law, even though the only "converted" assets would be copyrighted intangible material (the obituary notices).

So a few of the junky claims survive the copyright preemption analysis, but there isn't much hope for this lawsuit. Then again, unless the Scranton Times realizes that fighting a rear-guard action against its competition does nothing to improve its future business prospects in a market disintegrating around it, there isn't much hope for the paper either.

HT: Tom O'Toole

While retailers don't anticipate a widely profitable Black Friday, they're already rounding up the lawyers to threaten websites who publish pre-released sale prices for the day after Thanksgiving shopping stampede.

Consider Wal-Mart, which has already begun sending takedown noticesdemanding the online removal of their Black Friday ads. Wal-Mart and a host of other retailing concerns perform this act every year ahead of Black Friday.

Last year, Wal-Mart went even bigger, sending out letters warning websites not even to think about posting Black Friday advertisements ahead of schedule.

Wal-Mart is alleging copyright infringement and trade secret violations which aren't likely to stand up in court if they even get there. Wal-Mart is also demanding targeted websites to disclose "how you came into possession of the information."

Expect an onslaught of similar notices with less than two weeks until Turkey Day.

Hot nod: Techdirt.

Photo: djlicious

See Also:

• 10 Years Later, Misunderstood DMCA is the Law That Saved the Web
• YouTube to McCain: You Made Your DMCA Bed, Lie in It
• Guns N' Roses Uploader to Plead Guilty
• Retrial Date Set in RIAA v. Thomas
• Net Neutrality Advocates In Charge Of Obama Team Review of FCC
• Judge Rejects 'Making Available' Defense, Orders Teen File Sharer ...

Ah, lawyers. It's a love-hate relationship.

Just this week alone, I'm working with a literary attorney (publishing), an entertainment attorney (TV), and a corporate financing attorney (angel investments). All three are great.

Yesterday, though, I received the threatening letter below from Protocol Integrated Direct Marketing, whose call centers I recommend in the 4HWW. WTF?

Click to enlarge

But what did I say about Protocol specifically? Here it is, after an group intro where I indicate providers can also be compensated per-minute:

Protocol Marketing: One of classic sales-oriented call centers. I've used them for years.

I used them as a start-up CEO and felt the recommendation was valuable to readers. Blasphemer! Even if a correction were needed somewhere, the legal bitch slap isn't needed.

My response was simple: I called the lawyer and told him I would both have the mention removed and also announce the correction to readers (that's this blog post).

I suspect the CEO, Don Norsworthy, is not aware of this letter, as he would have no doubt approached it differently after recognizing a few things:

1. How you say something IS what you say.

Ever heard it's not just what you say, it's how you say it? I would go further: how you say something is what you say. A simple call or e-mail to Random House with we're getting too many calls for the wrong services; would you mind changing it to the following? would have sufficed. Have a normal human conversation and don't come off sounding like Robocop (video above).

But what if you need to be forceful? If someone's motives are clearly bad? I've dealt with this as well. First of all, if their actions are done with obvious malevolent-intent or law-breaking, you can be more forceful. Second, for those cases that fall in the middle, it's possible to be forceful and clear without being rude. For example:

It's come to our attention that [action your want them to cease in neutral terms]. I'm sure you are unaware, but this causes [negative consequences for you], which results in [other problems]. We thank you in advance for removing/stopping/correcting X as soon as possible [notice how less abrasive this is than 'immediately', but it achieves the same effect] and confirming when this has been done. Legal action is always a last resort, but if we do not receive confirmation within one business week, we'll be compelled to take appropriate next steps. Your fastest correction and confirmation is both important and appreciated.

2. It's counterproductive to threaten someone until you determine their incentives to refuse compliance.

In other words, what do I gain by refusing to remove them? Nothing. In fact, it's in my readers' best interest to make it accurate or remove it. Threatening me with Darth Vader-speak like compel compliance with [our] demand just pisses people off, and I could have still been a strong proponent of theirs. Too bad, so sad.

3. It's better to steer the golden goose rather than kill it.

If I'm sending them enough calls to inundate their phone lines (ironic in itself, since they're offering call center services), it would be in their best interest to just make the description more accurate, no? It's free advertising in a #1 NY Times bestseller to be published in 33 languages. How much advertising cost or cost-per-acquisition (CPA) does that save them if it's accurate? Knowing the revenue model and having worked with call centers, I'd guess hundreds of thousands of dollars at a minimum. To save what? A few thousand dollars in filtering out mom-and-pop callers at $.90 per minute? That's just penny-wise and pound-foolish.

4. Don't mistake symptoms with root problems, or confuse correlation with causation.

There are no income investment requirements that I can find listed anywhere on their call center site. It strikes me that their main problem relates to a system-wide issue with pre-qualification. The blurb in the 4HWW is just a symptom any successful PR or marketing that brings people to them will produce the same filtering bottleneck. Fixing the root cause instead of threatening the person who makes the root cause come to the surface.

If they have a problem with closer, Protocol might also consider removing the following from the second paragraph of their main call center page:

Whether you need a salesperson to close deals or specialized technical support services, Protocol's contact center services can help.

Confused? Me too.

5. If you threaten someone in a digital world, it might become what your prospective customers see first.

Principle one: Better not to threaten people whenever possible. Principle two: Google someone before you threaten them. If their PageRank and SEO beats yours, recognize that the public will see what they say first and foremost. Principle three: if someone is sending you business, and you threaten them because of a positive description (even containing inaccuracies), you are disincentivizing all partners, journalists, and customers from evangelizing for you if it becomes public. Given the new dynamics of personal branding in a digital age, being nice should be company policy, if not for cheap Google insurance.

Oh, and being rude sucks.

Be firm when necessary, but be nice whenever possible. Long-term, it doesn't pay to do otherwise.

In conclusion: Protocol, I'm sorry for endorsing you and reflecting my experience in a positive description. I was wrong and you are right. Readers, please pull out your Sharpie and strike Protocol from pg. 201.

Ah, lawyers. Use them wisely or the problem you create could be bigger than the one you solve.

Anyone have suggestions for good call centers that won't threaten me for recommending them?


To lighten the mood, a photo from the American Apparel factory, which I visited last Saturday. More pics here.

Tim Lee is an expert at the Techdirt Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Tim Lee and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

In fact, Mr. President, your initial pro-war arguments offer the best path toward understanding why the conflict has been such a disaster for U.S. interests and global security.

Following your lead, Iraq hawks argued that, in a post-9/11 world, we needed to take out rogue regimes lest they give nuclear or biological weapons to al-Qaeda-linked terrorist groups. But each time the United States tries to do so and fails to restore order, it incurs a high -- albeit unseen -- opportunity cost in the future. Falling short makes it harder to take out, threaten or pressure a dangerous regime next time around.

Foreign governments, of course, drew the obvious lesson from our debacle -- and from our choice of target. The United States invaded hapless Iraq, not nuclear-armed North Korea. To the real rogues, the fall of Baghdad was proof positive that it's more important than ever to acquire nuclear weapons -- and if the last superpower is bogged down in Iraq while its foes slink toward getting the bomb, so much the better. Iran, among others, has taken this lesson to heart. The ironic legacy of the war to end all proliferation will be more proliferation.

As a refreshing mint, check out the length of the y-axis on this graph comparing the cost of the war and the amount spent by the US govt on energy R&D. (thx, ivan)