Innovation, Disruption, and Intellectual

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Innovation, Disruption, and Intellectual INSIGHTS FROM INSIDE THE TECH WORLD Innovation, Disruption, and Intellectual Property: A VIEW FROM SILICON VALLEY Ted Ullyot has been closely involved with major ventures and developments involving the technology industry in the United States. He is currently a partner at Andreessen Horowitz, a leading venture capital firm in Silicon Valley, where he directs the firm’s policy and regulatory affairs group. From 2008 to 2013, he was general counsel for Facebook, leading the process of the firm’s initial public offering. His previous positions include serving as chief of staff to the attorney general of the United States, deputy staff secretary to the president of the United States, and a law clerk to the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Ullyot delivered the annual Helen Wilson Nies Lecture in Intellectual Property at Marquette Law School on April 12, 2016. The following are lightly edited excerpts of his remarks. As a lawyer who has spent the last few years advising to ample venture capital . the relationship companies in Silicon Valley—and who has learned a lot (with its high tolerance and been surprised by a lot over that time—I thought for risk), free movement between intellectual it might be interesting for this audience of intellectual of labor and talent property law property (IP) law experts to hear a firsthand perspective (non-competes are not and today’s tech on how intellectual property law is viewed and is being enforceable in California), “disrupted” (as the phrase goes) out in the valley. maybe even California innovators is, as the The American technology sector, centered in weather and Napa Valley kids say these days, and around Silicon Valley, stands today as a wines. complicated. celebrated leader of innovation, disruption, As lawyers, we certainly and economic progress. It is home to also can be proud of the companies such as Apple and Google (the role that the rule of law number one and two companies in the has played in Silicon world by market cap); Facebook, which Valley’s innovation culture—and perhaps no aspect of recently passed Walmart to become number law more than American intellectual property law, whose 12, barely three years into life as a public fundamental purpose, after all, is to promote innovation. company; innovative startups such as Tesla, For this expert audience, it’s probably not Twitter, Pinterest, Airbnb, Uber, and Lyft. necessary to demonstrate the linkage between IP And that’s not to mention the long law and innovation. But just in case, starting with the list of older, more-established Constitution, in Article I, section 8, clause 8, Congress is technology companies such as assigned the power to “promote the Progress of Science Hewlett-Packard, Intel, eBay, and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and PayPal. and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Numerous factors have Writings and Discoveries.” So right from the outset, the been cited as contributing to stated purpose of patent and copyright law is to promote the valley’s success as a hub scientific and artistic progress—i.e., innovation. On of innovation. Among those trademark, the innovation link is perhaps less discussed frequently mentioned are and not as direct, but it’s still there. As the Supreme strong universities, access Court said (this was in Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Ted Ullyot Marquette Lawyer 33 INSIGHTS FROM INSIDE THE TECH WORLD Products Co. in 1995): “[T]he [trademark] law helps I’ll illustrate those points with some case studies assure a producer that it (and not an imitating and war stories from my time working as a lawyer and competitor) will reap the financial, reputation-related adviser in Silicon Valley. rewards associated with a desirable product.” Surely, therefore, IP law has played a critical and well- Some caveats appreciated role in tech innovation. But the relationship Before diving into those, a couple of caveats. between intellectual property law and today’s tech One is that my comments regarding IP law today are innovators is, as the kids say these days, complicated. focused primarily on the software sector, which is where And that’s what I want to focus on in my remarks. I’ve spent most of my career (at Facebook, at Andreessen Specifically, it’s Horowitz, and even way back at AOL-Time Warner). complicated in two ways. In areas outside the software sector—for example, . the widespread First: The prevailing hardware or biotech—we generally see more support for perception among view in Silicon Valley today patents and traditional IP rules. But as software becomes Silicon Valley is that IP law is prone to integrated into more and more products and more and being abused. To be sure, more facets of life—in the phrasing of Marc Andreessen, technologists today the potential for abuse is founder of our firm (and a Wisconsin native), as is that IP laws are a feature of any legal or “software is eating the world”—the perspective of the often more of regulatory scheme. But software community regarding intellectual property is when it comes to IP law, likely to become increasingly influential. an impediment it’s not simply that the The other caveat is that I’m humbled to be up here to progress and laws are being abused but giving the Nies Lecture, for I don’t consider myself innovation than an also, more specifically, an expert in intellectual property law. I didn’t even that the abuse ends up take an IP law class in law school, and before my enabler. hindering innovation. So going to Facebook, my practice was predominantly in whereas patent, copyright, administrative law, antitrust and litigation more generally, and trademark laws are and corporate governance. So to be clear—in case of any designed to promote conflict between what I say today and what Professors innovation, according to this view they’re being misused Boyden and Murray are teaching you—I strongly advise in a way and to an extent that discourages and defeats you to go with what they say. innovation. Suffice it to say the widespread perception But I do hope to offer today the perspective of among Silicon Valley technologists today is that IP someone who has spent extensive time over the past laws are often more of an impediment to progress and several years dealing with IP law as it’s being practiced innovation than an enabler. “on the front lines,” in an innovative and rapidly evolving Second: It’s not just their being prone to abuse that ends sector where legal doctrines and prevailing theories— up defeating the purpose of the IP laws. In addition, there’s and, especially, perceptions of market participants—can an emerging belief that the fundamental underpinning change dramatically in a matter of years. of American intellectual property law—to wit, the free- Forget the framed patents on the wall market concept that innovation is best achieved by giving inventors the incentive of an exclusive right to exploit and Twenty years ago, and maybe even as recently as 5 to profit from their inventions—is misplaced, or no longer 10 years ago, if you walked into the office of a successful operative. Instead, the increasingly popular view, certainly computer programmer at a prominent tech company, with respect to software and also with some hardware, you most likely would have seen, proudly displayed on is that technological advances are more likely to come her office wall, framed patent certificates from the U.S. through sharing and collaboration than via the exclusive- Patent and Trademark Office (PTO)—with the nice gold rights paradigm of traditional intellectual property law. seal and the red ribbon—attesting to patents that the Perhaps the best example of this is the rapid growth programmer had secured. in popularity of the open-source movement, in which Today, that picture is entirely different. software designs, and occasionally hardware, too, are To begin with, in today’s Silicon Valley, there are few shared widely and often for free. if any offices to walk into. Silicon Valley has embraced 34 Summer 2017 the “open desk environment,” first popularized by another patent-reform bill, H.R. 9, titled the Innovation Facebook, where not even Mark Zuckerberg has an Act. House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, the office. They don’t even have cubicles. Instead, employees primary sponsor, introduced the bill in 2013, saying, work out in the open. “Abusive patent litigation is a drag on our economy.” The But even were there some wall space, most computer perception of many in Congress remains that the patent engineers today would not think of hanging a patent laws are being abused in a way that hampers innovation. certificate on the wall. In contrast to the prevailing view Certainly that is the prevailing view in Silicon Valley. only a short few years ago, patents today are viewed In my time, there was perhaps no better illustration of with disdain by many programmers. this than when Yahoo sued our company (Facebook) for The attitude of modern software engineers is captured alleged patent infringement in early 2012—and how that well in this post from the blog of Mozilla Corporation. played out. (Mozilla produces the Firefox web browser and is a In February 2012, Facebook’s long-awaited initial public “free software community.”) In an April 2015 blog post, offering was imminent. We had just filed our Form S-1 with Mozilla’s general counsel wrote: the SEC, thereby publicly indicating our intent to go public, The threat posed by the growing pervasiveness of which we ended up doing in May of that year. overbroad and vague software patents is the But in late February, Yahoo made its move.
Recommended publications
  • Workshop on Venture Capital and Antitrust, February 12, 2020
    Venture Capital and Antitrust Transcript of Proceedings at the Public Workshop Held by the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice February 12, 2020 Paul Brest Hall Stanford University 555 Salvatierra Walk Stanford, CA 94305 Table of Contents Opening Remarks ......................................................................................................................... 1 Fireside Chat with Michael Moritz: Trends in VC Investment: How did we get here? ........ 5 Antitrust for VCs: A Discussion with Stanford Law Professor Doug Melamed ................... 14 Panel 1: What explains the Kill Zones? .................................................................................... 22 Afternoon Remarks .................................................................................................................... 40 Panel 2: Monetizing data ............................................................................................................ 42 Panel 3: Investing in platform-dominated markets ................................................................. 62 Roundtable: Is there a problem and what is the solution? ..................................................... 84 Closing Remarks ......................................................................................................................... 99 Public Workshop on Venture Capital and Antitrust, February 12, 2020 Opening Remarks • Makan Delrahim, Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of Justice MAKAN
    [Show full text]
  • FOIA) Document Clearinghouse in the World
    This document is made available through the declassification efforts and research of John Greenewald, Jr., creator of: The Black Vault The Black Vault is the largest online Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) document clearinghouse in the world. The research efforts here are responsible for the declassification of hundreds of thousands of pages released by the U.S. Government & Military. Discover the Truth at: http://www.theblackvault.com Received Received Request ID Requester Name Organization Closed Date Final Disposition Request Description Mode Date 17-F-0001 Greenewald, John The Black Vault PAL 10/3/2016 11/4/2016 Granted/Denied in Part I respectfully request a copy of records, electronic or otherwise, of all contracts past and present, that the DOD / OSD / JS has had with the British PR firm Bell Pottinger. Bell Pottinger Private (legally BPP Communications Ltd.; informally Bell Pottinger) is a British multinational public relations and marketing company headquartered in London, United Kingdom. 17-F-0002 Palma, Bethania - PAL 10/3/2016 11/4/2016 Other Reasons - No Records Contracts with Bell Pottinger for information operations and psychological operations. (Date Range for Record Search: From 01/01/2007 To 12/31/2011) 17-F-0003 Greenewald, John The Black Vault Mail 10/3/2016 1/13/2017 Other Reasons - Not a proper FOIA I respectfully request a copy of the Intellipedia category index page for the following category: request for some other reason Nuclear Weapons Glossary 17-F-0004 Jackson, Brian - Mail 10/3/2016 - - I request a copy of any available documents related to Army Intelligence's participation in an FBI counterintelligence source operation beginning in about 1959, per David Wise book, "Cassidy's Run," under the following code names: ZYRKSEEZ SHOCKER I am also interested in obtaining Army Intelligence documents authorizing, as well as policy documents guiding, the use of an Army source in an FBI operation.
    [Show full text]
  • November 15, 2011 Hon. Patrick Leahy, Chairman Hon. Chuck
    November 15, 2011 Hon. Patrick Leahy, Chairman Hon. Lamar Smith, Chairman Hon. Chuck Grassley, Ranking Hon. John Conyers Jr., Ranking Member Member Senate Judiciary Committee House Judiciary Committee 224 Dirksen Senate Office Building 2138 Rayburn House Office Building US Capitol US Capitol Washington, DC 20002 Washington, DC 20003 Dear Committee Chairmen, On behalf of the undersigned student and youth organizations, we are writing today to express our serious concerns about legislation being considered by the House and Senate in the name of fighting Internet piracy. We oppose, in their current forms, legislation approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee ( S. 968, the Protect IP Act) and legislation introduced by members of the House Judiciary Committee (HR 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act-SOPA) that, while pursuing the laudable goal of fighting Internet piracy, will curtail the legitimate free flow of information, hurt efforts to promote human rights, create undue censorship of legitimate websites and interfere with the growth of the Internet economy so important to our futures as young people. The Senate bill, while narrowed from earlier versions, contains many objectionable provisions including the DNS Internet blocking system that attacks the very foundation of the Internet address system and according to some will undermine security and the provision that specifically targets "Information Location Tools / Search Engines” that has the potential of crippling the gate ways to the Internet and its wealth of information by forcing the platforms we use to search for information to become censors rather than compasses. The House bill goes even further than its Senate counterpart by including an overly broad definition of an infringing website subject to immediate blocking.
    [Show full text]
  • "Gover Be Rnment Ma Efore the H Testim Chief of Am W Andated DN
    This statement was drafted in connection with a proposed hearing before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that would haave examined legislative proposals to block access to websites containing coopyright inffringing materials. The testimony was submitted to the Committee, but thhe hearing was postponed before the testimony could be entered in the record. Testimony of Michael W. Macleod-Ball Chief of Staff/First Amendment Counsel American Civil Liberties Union Washington Legislativve Office On "Government Mandated DNS Blocking and Search Takedowns - Will It End the Internet as We Know It? Before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform January 18, 2012 1 Chairman Issa, Ranking Member Cummings, and Members of the Committee: Thank you for holding this hearing and extending to the American Civil Liberties Union the privilege of offering testimony. We oppose current proposals to take down infringing online content through Domain Name Service (DNS) and/or search engine blocking because such mechanisms assuredly will also block lawful non-infringing content. Moreover, current proposals fall short procedurally by failing to provide notice of the takedown to the owners or producers of such lawful content and by failing to provide those parties any opportunity to participate in the proceedings relevant to the restriction. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a non-partisan advocacy organization having more than a half million members, countless additional activists and supporters, and 53 affiliates nationwide. We are dedicated to the principles of individual rights, equality, and justice as set forth in the U. S. Constitution. For more than 90 years since its founding, the ACLU has been America’s leading defender of First Amendment free speech principles.
    [Show full text]
  • CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE, Vol. 158, Pt
    January 23, 2012 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE, Vol. 158, Pt. 1 149 Senate. Senator KIRK is such a decent, Last week, the Congress did what the the U.S. companies that direct traffic, proc- caring, and thoughtful man, and all of American people called for instead of ess payments, serve advertisements and lo- us enjoy working with him in the Sen- what the Washington insiders wanted. cate information online to end their support for the site in question. Copyright and trade- ate on various kinds of bills. Godspeed, That is what I call real change. It was mark owners would be able to follow up Senator KIRK, for a healthy recovery. a grassroots victory for the history those court orders by seeking injunctions We are thinking of you tonight and you books, and, as one commentator said, against payment processors and advertising are in our prayers. I am very glad the now we are in unexplored territory. networks that do not comply. senior Senator from Illinois has re- Here is why. Eight million of 162 mil- Cutting off the financial lifeblood of com- flected the concerns of everybody from lion who visited Wikipedia took action panies dedicated to piracy and counter- feiting makes sense. A similar approach to his home State tonight. to influence their Member of Congress; illegal online gambling has shown that it is f 7 million Americans signed Google’s technically feasible for payment processors petition to block consideration of THE INTERNET to stop directing dollars from U.S. bettors to PIPA; hundreds of thousands of Ameri- gambling sites anywhere in the world.
    [Show full text]
  • One World LED, Pty, LTD
    A Request for Legislation Support of Australian Innovation: Submission to Hon. MP Ms. Nicolle Flint September 28, 2020 The Need for Legislation to Protect Australian Innovation A Report to Honourable MP Ms. Nicolle Flint By One World LED, Pty, LTD. September 30, 2020, Updated October 1, 2020 Adelaide, South Australia A Request for Legislation Support of Australian Innovation: Submission to Hon. MP Ms. Nicolle Flint September 28, 2020 Introduction This is One World LED's request for legislation to support the innovation in Australia. There is an urgent need to update the legislation in a highly competitive global technology environment in order to even the playing field for Australian inventors and innovation investors competing against global hi-tech conglomerates that enjoy the support of their respective governments with updated laws. Australia’s IP laws predate the global internet and modern worldwide web technologies and innovations and are of little or no value in protecting Australian innovation and inventors in the international setting. Following is a summary of the proposed legislation: 1. Australia Invents Act - Protect Australian Inventors and Investors. A. Supporting enforcement of IP rights in Australia against conglomerates. B. Supporting Investors claims in Australian courts against global infringement 2. Economic Support for Innovation in Australia - Removing Australian innovation barriers by: A. Government Tenders disqualifying conglomerates that violate Australian IP B. Government Tenders preference for Australian IP in the underlying products and services 3. Transparency in Government Contracts A. Full transparency with Government contracts – Open access to contract information for Australian innovative companies B. Prevention of costs subversion & add-ons - No allowance for hidden charges or overcharging the Australian government without a re-bid C.
    [Show full text]
  • Farm Foundation
    How VCs discover and fund innovation PRESENTATION | PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL Eight Rules of Venture Capital PRESENTATION | PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL 2 Ta b l e of Contents Rule #1 }Deal flow is everything.~ Marc Andreessen, Founder of Andreessen Horowitz PRESENTATION | PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL 3 Rule #2 success is rare PRESENTATION | PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL Rule #2: Success is rare Journey of 1,000 companies Seed Round • Raise $250k - $7m Seed • Sell 15% - 40% of company Assume • 1,000 Companies Funded CB-Insights PRESENTATION | PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL Rule #2: Success is rare Journey of 1,000 companies Series A • $2m - $15m Seed • Sell 20% - 40% of Series A startup Success Funnel q 46% Raise Series A q✓14% Exit (1x– 3x) ✗q 40% Fail to raise CB-Insights PRESENTATION | PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL Rule #2: Success is rare Journey of 1,000 companies Series B • $5m - $300m Seed • Sell 15% - 30% of Series A startup Series B Success Funnel q 28% Raise Series B q✓7% Exit (1x– 3x) ✗q 11% Fail to raise CB-Insights PRESENTATION | PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL Rule #2: Success is rare Journey of 1,000 companies Series C • $10m - $500m Seed • Sell 10% - 25% of Series A startup Series B Series C Success Funnel q 14% Raise Series C q✓5% Exit ✗q 9% Fail to raise CB-Insights PRESENTATION | PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL Rule #2: Success is rare Journey of 1,000 companies Series D • $10m - $1 billion+ Seed • Sell 5% - 20% of startup Series A Series B Series C Success Funnel q 6% Raise Series D Series D q✓2% Exit ✗q 7% Fail to raise
    [Show full text]
  • Fighting Online Piracy Or Stifling Free Speech
    Center for Ethical Organizational Cultures Auburn University http://harbert.auburn.edu Hollywood v. Silicon Valley Fighting Online Piracy or Stifling Free S peech? ISSUE: Will more effective laws enforcing copyright infringement on the Internet halt innovation and undermine free speech? On January 18, 2012, some of the world’s most popular Internet sites staged a protest against two proposed laws being considered by the United States Congress: the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect IP Act (PIPA). Over 115,000 websites participated including Google, Craigslist, and Wikipedia. Wikipedia was temporarily unavailable during the day, while Google blacked out its logo. Opponents stated that the passage of PIPA and SOPA would prevent innovation and act as a detriment to the right for free expression on the Internet. On the other hand, proponents of the laws, including the CBS Corporation, argued that current laws meant to protect intellectual property are ineffective when it comes to the Internet. While the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) provides the right to remove unauthorized content from websites, proponents claim the law does not go far enough in preventing infringement of intellectual property. This issue is especially pronounced overseas, where it is even harder to pursue copyright infringement. SOPA and PIPA intended to stop online piracy by using methods such as blocking violating sites from their U.S.- based funding, payment processors, search engine appearances, and web browser visibility. Platforms and websites that contain unauthorized content can be targeted and would have to remove content or links. One way to achieve these goals would include altering the DNS system, an important part of the Internet.
    [Show full text]
  • Holding Social Network Executives Accountable for Breaches in Data Privacy Protection Lital Helman
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Brooklyn Law School: BrooklynWorks Brooklyn Law Review Volume 84 | Issue 2 Article 5 1-1-2019 Pay For (Privacy) Performance: Holding Social Network Executives Accountable for Breaches in Data Privacy Protection Lital Helman Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr Part of the Privacy Law Commons Recommended Citation Lital Helman, Pay For (Privacy) Performance: Holding Social Network Executives Accountable for Breaches in Data Privacy Protection, 84 Brook. L. Rev. (2019). Available at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/blr/vol84/iss2/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Brooklyn Law Review by an authorized editor of BrooklynWorks. Pay for (Privacy) Performance HOLDING SOCIAL NETWORK EXECUTIVES ACCOUNTABLE FOR BREACHES IN DATA PRIVACY PROTECTION Lital Helman† INTRODUCTION Over the past decade and a half, social networking online has grown exponentially, attracting a multitude of users and drawing an increasing volume of online activity.1 Throughout † Senior Lecturer of Law, Ono Academic College, Israel. The author would like to thank Sharon Hannes for insights regarding the field of executive compensation and for help in harnessing this field to tackle contemporary privacy challenges. The author also thanks Gideon Parchomovsky, Joel Reidenberg, James Grimmelman, Colleen Chien, Eric Goldman, Helen Nissenbaum, Michael Birnhak, Malte Zieovitz, Miriam Bitton, Sasha Romanovsky, Heather West, Anneleis Mores, Jos Floor, Stephen Deadman, and Guy Pessach, as well as the participants of the New York University Intellectual Property Faculty Workshop, the New York University Privacy Research Group workshop, the 2015 Amsterdam Privacy Conference, the Data Transparency Lab at the MIT Media Lab, and the 2017 Santa Clara University Works In Progress Workshop for helpful comments.
    [Show full text]
  • In Fight Over Piracy Bills, New Economy Rises Against Old
    In Fight Over Piracy Bills, New Economy Rises Against Old By JONATHAN WEISMAN Published: January 18, 2012 WASHINGTON — When the powerful world of old media mobilized to win passage of an online antipiracy bill, it marshaled the reliable giants of K Street — the United States Chamber of Commerce, the Recording Industry Association of America and, of course, the motion picture lobby, with its new chairman, former Senator Christopher J. Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat and an insider’s insider. Yet on Wednesday this formidable old guard was forced to make way for the new as Web powerhouses backed by Internet activists rallied opposition to the legislation through Internet blackouts and cascading criticism, sending an unmistakable message to lawmakers grappling with new media issues: Don’t mess with the Internet. As a result, the legislative battle over two once-obscure bills to combat the piracy of American movies, music, books and writing on the World Wide Web may prove to be a turning point for the way business is done in Washington. It represented a moment when the new economy rose up against the old. “I think it is an important moment in the Capitol,” said Representative Zoe Lofgren, Democrat of California and an important opponent of the legislation. “Too often, legislation is about competing business interests. This is way beyond that. This is individual citizens rising up.” It appeared by Wednesday evening that Congress would follow Bank of America, Netflix and Verizon as the latest institution to change course in the face of a netizen revolt. Legislation that just weeks ago had overwhelming bipartisan support and had provoked little scrutiny generated a grass-roots coalition on the left and the right.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record—Senate S8632
    S8632 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE December 15, 2011 itself into a lighter, more modular, and The Airborne Laser effort is to be son, retired from the Air Force, during what more deployable fighting force. Origi- canceled. The fantastic story of the period of time did he serve as an advisor, nally and erroneously executed under a VH–71 new Presidential Helicopter Re- consultant or mentor, or in any other simi- lar capacity, to the Air Force? type of contract more fitting for small- placement Program was canceled only 2. Describe, with specificity, General Rob- er programs, the FCS was supposed to after it became more expensive than a ertson’s duties, responsibilities and activi- develop 18 manned and unmanned full-size 747. ties while serving in the foregoing capacity ground systems, including sensors, ro- What can we do? during this period. bots, UAVs, and vehicles, all connected I know it is time for us to get on with 3. Identify, with specificity, what project(s) by a complicated mobile electronic the Defense authorization bill. General Robertson served on in the foregoing network. When work began on this pro- We need to have transparency. We capacity, including but not limited to, as a gram in 2000, the Army estimated that mentor. need to have accountability. We have 4. Describe, with specificity, what relation- the first combat units would be to use competition to encourage indus- ship these projects had with any program or equipped by 2011 and that all the try to produce desired outcomes and process in which Boeing had a direct or indi- Army’s ground combat formations better incentivize the acquisition rect interest.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Media Is Bullshit
    SOCIAL MEDIA IS BULLSHIT 053-50475_ch00_4P.indd i 7/14/12 6:37 AM 053-50475_ch00_4P.indd ii 7/14/12 6:37 AM 053-50475_ch00_4P.indd iii 7/14/12 6:37 AM social media is bullshit. Copyright © 2012 by Earth’s Temporary Solu- tion, LLC. For information, address St. Martin’s Press, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10011. www .stmartins .com Design by Steven Seighman ISBN 978- 1- 250- 00295- 2 (hardcover) ISBN 978-1-250-01750-5 (e-book) First Edition: September 2012 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 053-50475_ch00_4P.indd iv 7/14/12 6:37 AM To Amanda: I think you said it best, “If only we had known sooner, we would have done nothing diff erent.” 053-50475_ch00_4P.indd v 7/14/12 6:37 AM 053-50475_ch00_4P.indd vi 7/14/12 6:37 AM CONTENTS AN INTRODUCTION: BULLSHIT 101 One: Our Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Web site 3 Two: Astonishing Tales of Mediocrity 6 Three: “I Wrote This Book for Pepsi” 10 Four: Social Media Is Bullshit 15 PART I: SOCIAL MEDIA IS BULLSHIT Five: There Is Nothing New Under the Sun . or on the Web 21 Six: Shovels and Sharecroppers 28 Seven: Yeah, That’s the Ticket! 33 Eight: And Now You Know . the Rest of the Story 43 Nine: The Asshole- Based Economy 54 053-50475_ch00_4P.indd vii 7/14/12 6:37 AM Ten: There’s No Such Thing as an Infl uencer 63 Eleven: Analyze This 74 PART II: MEET THE PEOPLE BEHIND THE BULLSHIT Twelve: Maybe “Social Media” Doesn’t Work So Well for Corporations, Either? 83 Thirteen: Kia and Facebook Sitting in a Tree .
    [Show full text]