Who Freaken cares about this stuff?

Walter Lippman’s grave assessment of the mass media audience “… people whose vitality is exhausted, shut-in people, and people whose experience has comprehended no factor in the problem under discussion'', raises an interesting point regarding weather people make any connection to news without understanding how they fit into the story. Looking at our self nature, people understand when they self identify, and since most of our mass media messages are discussed and interpreted for us, a focus must be made to explain “why people” should care, not what news outlets think we should care about. This innocuous small article, regarding something as ephemeral and ghostly a topic as copyrights and patents (boring right?) presents the story as two titans of business, arming themselves with rich lawyers to do battle over very technical and academic patent issues. This framing leaves nothing for the reader to gain from, easily forgetting about what one just read a few minutes later. Why? No connection as to the “why I care”. Part of good journalism is to “activate the citizenry”, connect them to outlets of action, creating link between politics and the people. Nothing in this article teaches the reader that rules regarding copyright and patents are actually in our Constitution. No, not the Constitution of Nokia, but our actual founding documents. Our framers considered the protection of one’s own labor to be quintessential to a stable and great country. This article educates no one as to the powerful forces at hand, stealing one’s work. It is in this context that readers can understand and relate to why matters that may seem mundane are so very, very important. News services so eager to satisfy a faced paced, attention deficit viewer, simply skip past any type of grounded context as a starting point. I believe this to be not only a moral mistake but a business mistake as well. By doing a little extra work and providing researched historical context that allows the reader to self identify and understand “why” he may care, I believe credibility and interest would be built with that brand.

Patent Wars Begin as Apple, Nokia Square Off
ARTICLE DATE: 11.29.10
By Peter Pachal

This week Apple and Nokia are facing each other in a legal conflict over smartphone patents before the International Trade Commission, the first of several disputes over intellectual property that could redefine the smartphone market.

The current conflict began in October 2009 when Nokia sued Apple, alleging that the Cupertino-based company had infringed on 10 of its patents with the iPhone. Apple countersued in December 2009, upping the ante by saying Nokia was in violation of 13 of its patents.

If Nokia wins, Apple could lose the right to sell the iPhone in the U.S. If Apple wins, Nokia's devices could be shut out of the U.S. market altogether. The losing company could end up going to the other for licensing rights to continue marketing its devices.

Whoever takes this round, the Apple-Nokia dispute is just the beginning of a series of legal conflicts for Apple. Up next are disputes with Motorola and HTC; The hearing in the HTC case is scheduled for May, according the the ITC Web site.

Bloomberg reports that Apple has turned to several top technology lawyers to beef up its legal team in advance of the case. Bruce Sewell, Apple's general counsel, came aboard last year after 15 years at Intel. Another recruit is Noreen Krall, formerly of Sun Microsystems. For outside counsel, Apple will get advice from William Lee, who successfully represented Broadcom against Qualcomm, and Robert Krupka, who negotiated Apple's $100 million settlement with Creative Labs in 2005.
Copyright (c) 2010 Ziff Davis Inc. All Rights Reserved.