3 ms·

There seems to be quite a bit of negativity in the thread about the Brewery's action. Some adorable holding up of the idea that it's unfair or unethical to viol

There seems to be quite a bit of negativity in the thread about the Brewery's action. Some adorable holding up of the idea that it's unfair or unethical to violate Starbuck's trademark and then flip the reaction to one's advantage. I think that's complete bullshit. I also think the fact that people have been conditioned to think that way is a big part of the reason why there's such an enormous and growing wealth and power divide in the world today. There aren't ethics in a vacuum, and (despite some pretty interesting legal decisions here in the US lately) Starbucks isn't a person. It isn't even a bunch of people. It's an emergent super-organism that coldly evaluates actions and their consequences against a consumer market. I promise you that if the consequence-computer told them they could name a coffee after some small brewery and turn a profit from the reaction (regardless of the law), they would do it. Of course they would! There are no ethics in a vacuum. Applying an ethical framework when dealing with an organization this large is silly and puts you at a disadvantage. There are laws and consequences. In this case, the C&D is a very affordable consequence and the small business owner leveraged the entire situation to his advantage. Good for him.

chaostheory 13y ago
It isn't "bullshit" to complain about something unethical. I feel that it's this type of thinking ("because I can and it's legal and it doesn't matter that it's wrong") that's the cause of a lot of the world's problems: from patent trolling lobbying for corporate welfare, to even more mundane stuff like spam and crapware from installers. When people start thinking that this is acceptable, it's not too far from thinking "because I can totally get away with it, there's nothing wrong with not doing it regardless of the ethics and legality" leading to even worse shit like selling fake food or dumping pollutants and waste into rivers.
- famousactress 13y ago
  I'm not arguing that ethics are bullshit. I'm arguing that they don't apply to your relationship with Starbucks because Starbucks is of a size and makeup that it's achieved a humanity index which approaches (if not reaches) zero. It's akin to applying an ethical framework to your relationship with a robot. I agree that "because I can" is causing enormous problems. The most damaging perpetrators of this are these corporate super-organisms (Starbucks being just one example) and sociopathic assholes (this includes patent trolls). In dealing with either of those entities (but not each-other!) we do the world a disservice holding ourselves to a one-sided ethical yardstick. Fuck ethics when dealing with them. Play by their rules.
  - chaostheory 13y ago
    Just because Starbucks is a large, profitable organization, it doesn't mean that it gives people a blank check for doing anything they want against Starbucks regardless of whether or not it's wrong. > The most damaging perpetrators of this are these corporate super-organisms That doesn't mean all corporations including Starbucks are the same. Over generalizing something doesn't help. Are you going to tell me that everyone belonging to a particular ethnic group is prone to stealing so we should just lock them all up at night? > In dealing with either of those entities (but not each-other!) we do the world a disservice holding ourselves to a one-sided ethical yardstick. When you start down this road, it'll be easier and easier to start breaking your own rules on when it's right time to do the right thing (or prevent yourself from being asshole at times).
    - famousactress 13y ago
      Your argument is circular because it assumes it's possible to do something "wrong" to Starbucks. I'm arguing that it's not possible because ethics don't actually exist in the relationship in the first place. Ethics are a social contract that Starbucks won't participate in. Any participation on your part is optional, and I believe silly. > That doesn't mean all corporations including Starbucks are the same. No, of course they're not all the same. But at some point they abandon humanity and are literally incapable of making an ethical choice independent of business value. Certainly the brewer or other small businesses are well below this index. There are people at those entities that are capable of making a ethical decision without regard to how it will affect the organization. Where organizations cross that line is fuzzy, but Starbucks is certainly past it. Also, I don't believe I'm generalizing at all. I certainly think the evaluation is case-by-case, but I'd certainly be quick to assume that any publicly traded company worth billions falls into this category. [Edit: Also, I didn't say it gives anyone a blank check. There are obviously legal consequences, and the law increasingly vastly favors entities like Starbucks, because money buys law in the US. In short: If you're the brewer in this story the scales are already tipped against you. Opting-in to the idea that you ought to treat Starbucks the way you ought to treat your next door neighbor doesn't help anyone but Starbucks.]
rmrfrmrf 13y ago
Change your apps name. Not that big of a deal. Steve Sent from my iPhone
jccc 13y ago
(Without necessarily disagreeing with your broader point...) I also think the fact that people have been conditioned to think that way is a big part of the reason why there's such an enormous and growing wealth and power divide in the world today. St. Charles is home to mega-churches and wealthy conservatives. The county went to Romney 60 percent to 39 in 2012. Here's Cottleville specifically compared with Missouri state averages: - Median household income above state average. - Median house value above state average. - Unemployed percentage below state average. - Black race population percentage below state average. - Foreign-born population percentage below state average. - Renting percentage significantly below state average. - Number of rooms per house above state average. http://www.city-data.com/city/Cottleville-Missouri.html http://www.city-data.com/city/Cottleville-Missouri.html The tone of this letter goes after the lawyer more than Starbucks. (I.e., "Please apply the enclosed $6.00 towards the legal fees Ms Owen Kramer received for her efforts in nabbing Exit 6 [...] We realize Mr Bucks probably paid her more than Exit 6 made last year.") Hating the lawyers is a bipartisan national pastime, but it is a special interest of people whose reasons for doing it might be at odds with yours. The bar is tiny, and Starbucks is huge. But before we get all 99%, we shouldn't assume this particular bar owner is arguing your case with his clever response to the C&D letter.
- famousactress 13y ago
  Whether the business owner has more disdain for Starbucks or Starbucks' lawyer doesn't seem like a particularly interesting distinction to me. I'm also not suggesting the letter-writer believes anything I'm saying here. I'll quickly concede that a vast minority of people agree with my take on this. The argument that I'm proposing is only that the business owner didn't act unethically in violating the trademark or in writing the letter... regardless of his motives.

chaostheory 13y ago

It isn't "bullshit" to complain about something unethical. I feel that it's this type of thinking ("because I can and it's legal and it doesn't matter that it's wrong") that's the cause of a lot of the world's problems: from patent trolling lobbying for corporate welfare, to even more mundane stuff like spam and crapware from installers. When people start thinking that this is acceptable, it's not too far from thinking "because I can totally get away with it, there's nothing wrong with not doing it regardless of the ethics and legality" leading to even worse shit like selling fake food or dumping pollutants and waste into rivers.

famousactress 13y ago
I'm not arguing that ethics are bullshit. I'm arguing that they don't apply to your relationship with Starbucks because Starbucks is of a size and makeup that it's achieved a humanity index which approaches (if not reaches) zero. It's akin to applying an ethical framework to your relationship with a robot. I agree that "because I can" is causing enormous problems. The most damaging perpetrators of this are these corporate super-organisms (Starbucks being just one example) and sociopathic assholes (this includes patent trolls). In dealing with either of those entities (but not each-other!) we do the world a disservice holding ourselves to a one-sided ethical yardstick. Fuck ethics when dealing with them. Play by their rules.
- chaostheory 13y ago
  Just because Starbucks is a large, profitable organization, it doesn't mean that it gives people a blank check for doing anything they want against Starbucks regardless of whether or not it's wrong. > The most damaging perpetrators of this are these corporate super-organisms That doesn't mean all corporations including Starbucks are the same. Over generalizing something doesn't help. Are you going to tell me that everyone belonging to a particular ethnic group is prone to stealing so we should just lock them all up at night? > In dealing with either of those entities (but not each-other!) we do the world a disservice holding ourselves to a one-sided ethical yardstick. When you start down this road, it'll be easier and easier to start breaking your own rules on when it's right time to do the right thing (or prevent yourself from being asshole at times).
  - famousactress 13y ago
    Your argument is circular because it assumes it's possible to do something "wrong" to Starbucks. I'm arguing that it's not possible because ethics don't actually exist in the relationship in the first place. Ethics are a social contract that Starbucks won't participate in. Any participation on your part is optional, and I believe silly. > That doesn't mean all corporations including Starbucks are the same. No, of course they're not all the same. But at some point they abandon humanity and are literally incapable of making an ethical choice independent of business value. Certainly the brewer or other small businesses are well below this index. There are people at those entities that are capable of making a ethical decision without regard to how it will affect the organization. Where organizations cross that line is fuzzy, but Starbucks is certainly past it. Also, I don't believe I'm generalizing at all. I certainly think the evaluation is case-by-case, but I'd certainly be quick to assume that any publicly traded company worth billions falls into this category. [Edit: Also, I didn't say it gives anyone a blank check. There are obviously legal consequences, and the law increasingly vastly favors entities like Starbucks, because money buys law in the US. In short: If you're the brewer in this story the scales are already tipped against you. Opting-in to the idea that you ought to treat Starbucks the way you ought to treat your next door neighbor doesn't help anyone but Starbucks.]

rmrfrmrf 13y ago

Change your apps name. Not that big of a deal. Steve Sent from my iPhone

jccc 13y ago

(Without necessarily disagreeing with your broader point...) I also think the fact that people have been conditioned to think that way is a big part of the reason why there's such an enormous and growing wealth and power divide in the world today. St. Charles is home to mega-churches and wealthy conservatives. The county went to Romney 60 percent to 39 in 2012. Here's Cottleville specifically compared with Missouri state averages: - Median household income above state average. - Median house value above state average. - Unemployed percentage below state average. - Black race population percentage below state average. - Foreign-born population percentage below state average. - Renting percentage significantly below state average. - Number of rooms per house above state average. http://www.city-data.com/city/Cottleville-Missouri.html http://www.city-data.com/city/Cottleville-Missouri.html The tone of this letter goes after the lawyer more than Starbucks. (I.e., "Please apply the enclosed $6.00 towards the legal fees Ms Owen Kramer received for her efforts in nabbing Exit 6 [...] We realize Mr Bucks probably paid her more than Exit 6 made last year.") Hating the lawyers is a bipartisan national pastime, but it is a special interest of people whose reasons for doing it might be at odds with yours. The bar is tiny, and Starbucks is huge. But before we get all 99%, we shouldn't assume this particular bar owner is arguing your case with his clever response to the C&D letter.

famousactress 13y ago
Whether the business owner has more disdain for Starbucks or Starbucks' lawyer doesn't seem like a particularly interesting distinction to me. I'm also not suggesting the letter-writer believes anything I'm saying here. I'll quickly concede that a vast minority of people agree with my take on this. The argument that I'm proposing is only that the business owner didn't act unethically in violating the trademark or in writing the letter... regardless of his motives.