
According to our recent poll, only 12% of respondents blame Walmart for the tragic death of a 34 year old employee in the Black Friday rush. But when it comes to lawsuits, money talks.
Naturally, the family of victim Jdimytai Damour is filing a wrongful death lawsuit against Walmart, the adjacent Green Acres Mall, the company that manages the property and the company in charge of security. In their view Wamart was "engaged in specific marketing and advertising techniques to specifically attract a large crowd and create an environment of frenzy and mayhem and was otherwise careless, reckless and negligent."
Despite his 6-5, 270 pound stature, Damour died of asphyxiation when trampled by the 2000+ shoppers that fled into the store that night. The amount that the family is suing for has not been disclosed, but I'm sure that they will get what they ask for. Not that money is much consolation mind you—especially when it appears that the shoppers involved will most likely get away scot free. [MSNBC Thanks Matt!]
patentpundit writes "On April 18, 2008, Apple Computer applied for a patent relating to an 'invention' that allows for showing advertisements within an operating system. The first named inventor on the patent application is none other than Steve Jobs. The patent application published and became available for public inspection on October 22, 2009. If implemented, the invention would make it possible for advertisements to be displayed on a variety of devices, including desktop computers, cell phones, PDAs, and more. In one alarming aspect, the device could be disabled while the advertisements run, thereby forcing users to let the advertisement run its course before the system would unlock and allow further use. In an even more invasive scenario, explained in the patent application, the user could be required to do something, such as click to continue, in order to verify that they are actively watching the advertisement and haven't simply walked away while the ad runs. Whether Apple would implement such an invention is unknown, but it is possible that they think there are others out there who might want to implement such invasive advertising. It is possible Apple wanted to get ahead of the curve and file this patent so that if any company is silly enough to engage in Big Brother advertising, then Apple will get a royalty. I sure hope this is not the future of advertising."Read more of this story at Slashdot.
No reason was given, but last month Apple bought a firm that offers a platform for distributing advertising to mobile devices.
BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Computer jargon, a "tick box" culture and unimaginative advertising are discouraging Internet users from learning how to protect themselves online.
CWmike writes "Advocacy group Consumer Watchdog called on the DOJ to launch a broad antitrust investigation into Google's search and advertising practices and consider a wide array of penalties, including possibly breaking the company up (pdf). The watchdog, along with a mobile entrepreneur and two lawyers representing Google rivals, called for an investigation focusing on a number of issues, including Google's marriage of search results to advertising and its book search service. '...We think all remedies should be on the table, including, we think, the possible breakup of the Internet giant,' said John Simpson of Consumer Watchdog. Adam Kovacevich, senior manager for global communications and public affairs at Google, discounted the criticisms, saying Consumer Watchdog has been 'relentlessly negative' about Google. The group recently questioned the reasons why Google stopped censoring search results in China, and criticized Google's privacy Dashboard as inadequate, Kovacevich said."Read more of this story at Slashdot.