The Social Network — a movie review from a market perspective

I enjoyed the movie “The Social Network” released last year. Two things stood out like shining stars:
1) Mark Zuckerberg’s perspective on what defines originality in the software market and the validity of ownership claims;
2) Shawn Parker’s perspective on how he beat the record industry.

Three guys at Harvard asked Zuckerberg to develop their social networking program which went on to become ConnectU. The originators of ConnectU sued him for copying. When Zuckerberg was accused of stealing the idea to create Facebook, his reflexive response was to make it known that his computer code for Facebook was completely different from the code of ConnectU. Thus, in his eyes, he did not copy nor did he steal. From his frame of reference, he is right. Personally, I do not think there is anything wrong with his frame of reference.

Zuckerberg is also portrayed as a copy-cat in the software for his FaceMash program which used his friend’s algorithm to rank the attractiveness of female students. Other than being a springboard for the development of FaceBook, FaceMash never went anywhere commercially. His friend Eduardo Saverin created an algorithm to rank chess players and he wrote it on a window with wax crayon on Zuckerberg’s window. Zuckerberg felt free to copy this algorithm because Saverin essentially tossed it into the public domain by leaving it for an extended period of time on display.

I make these observations to point out that the laws we chose for handling intellectual property disputes are arbitrary.

Shawn Parker created Napster and was sued by record companies. He was ordered to pay up by the courts he chose to declare bankruptcy instead. His acquaintances in the movie said he was delusional. To demonstrate his delusion, Parker says that he beat the record companies. The other characters gently reminded him that he lost against them. In an awesome cinematic twist, the presumed delusional Parker completes their sentence by clarifying that he only lost in court. He then asks them if any of them would be willing to buy Tower Records. We all know that the record industry is collapsing due to lack of retail sales. Parker beat the record industry in their own market.

The originality in these two young people in how they view markets and rightful competitive practices is refreshing. The door is opening wider.

Facebook is a Utility; Even if I Don’t Know What that Means

Do you want to read a really horrible blog post?  Danah Boyd has penned… well… something titled, Facebook is a utility; utilities get regulated.  Here, I’ll give you a little sample:

Thus far, in the world of privacy, when a company oversteps its hand…

What?  How do you overstep you overstep your hand, doing a crab walk?  Usually, I wouldn’t bring attention to such a massacred metaphor, but it’s a pretty good demonstration of the level of quality of the post.

So, what, you may ask, is the point of the post?  As far as I can tell, Ms. Boyd is claiming that Facebook is – and wants to be – a utility, and, consequently, it will get regulated.  She supports the argument by writing that Facebook is a utility, and utilities get regulated.  She further supports the claim by arguing that Facebook is a util… well, you get the picture.  From what I understand, the definition of utility is “something you use a lot and then gets regulated”.

(By the way, she doesn’t really say this is a bad thing.  She seems to generally dislike regulations, but she likes governments threatening regulations.)

In the comments, one reader brings up the idea of Facebook as a public good (which it isn’t, but almost is).  Here’s the thing about the post and this accompanying comment.  They talk about utilities and public goods.  As with many discussions of such topics, they keep using these words.  I do not think the words mean what they think they mean.

It’d be really nice if people who continuously talk about “public goods” would actually bother to learn what the term means.  It does not mean, “I’d like the government to pay for anything that I think is really imporant”.  Hell, if it does, then the complete series of The Wire is a public good.

I’ll expect my copy to arrive in the mail soon.

Leave Facebook alone; forget about your privacy

The typically lazy Canadian practice of demanding the iron fists of bureaucrats to settle our inter-personal problems is being passed on from one generation to the next. These absurd demands of the federal privacy commission to protect personal information from being mined by third-party applications are nonsense. We may as well blame Microsoft for every single phishing attack that occurs on the internet.

Oh, well. Poor Facebook. I guess they have to learn old adages the hard way. If you play with fire, you get burned and what goes around, comes around.

AFTERTHOUGHTS:

Commonly, we hear the refrain that with freedom comes more responsibility. In a pragmatic sense, that has to be true. Being free today is nothing like what it meant a generation ago. The information age is exploding rapidly and we are in an extra-ordinary transition where young people are learning a new concept of freedom. Occasionally, they learn this the hard way. It is impossible to police all of this nonsense.

It is sad that these University of Ottawa Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic students look at the internet — a technological advance that offers more freedom, educational opportunities and excitement that no other generation has ever imagined — as a media that must be controlled, limited or regulated by the police.

Limitations upon Facebook or any other entertainment media are unnecessary and it is most certainly unfair to expect the tax-payer to fund the arbitration of these frivolous disputes. If you do not like Facebook do not use it. If you want privacy, do not publish your personal information to the entire world.

It is impossible to police all of the nonsense on the internet. If we set a precedent of doing so, the work for the Privacy Commissioner will soon become endless and overwhelming to the point where we will need more bureaucrats than tax-paying income earners. I wonder whether anybody with clout will pass judgement upon this new development. This is most definitely a step backwards in civilization.

International Crisis: latest Facebook attack must be averted at all cost!

Everybody in the world must join forces to stop the recent Koobface virus.  This server-side polymorphic virus may threaten the stability of the human race. Legislators should bow down to whatever demands this social networking site makes. Bureaucrats from all levels of government should put all initiatives on hold to join hands in unified resolve. Police forces must put this threat at the top of their priority lists.

/end sarcasm>

Facebook lawsuit against Adam Guerbuez (from Montreal) is a waste of tax money and an abuse of the legal system

A San Jose court has awarded more than $800 million to Facebook in an anti-spam judgement against a guy called Adam Guerbuez from Montreal. This is the nonsense that Facebook’s senior corporate counsel had to say:

“We are very much intent on policing the site and making sure Facebook is not seen as a place for spammers to target,” O’Rourke said.

To which I say: “No, sir, you are NOT intent on policing the site. Rather, you are doing the opposite. You are intent on making the tax-payer police your site. You should be cutting out the spam yourself instead of wasting tax-payer’s money seeking court judgements. Clean up your own site!”

Spam should be treated like a technical problem. The operators of Facebook should prevent it and police it internally. Tax-payers who do not avail themselves of the entertainment of Facebook should not subsidize the business of solving Facebook’s problems filtering spam.