by GIDEON GINRACHMANJINJa-VITUS, Alternate Reality News Service Economics Writer
Gideon Alice was driving his 2005 Ford Wildebeest down the highway while watching C-SPAN on the 25 inch flat screen television in his control panel. The soporific effect of a debate on corn subsidies to small flange manufacturers kept him from noticing that his up turn signal was flashing. This went on for over 10 miles, until Alice changed the channel to Die Hard IX: Dying Me Softly With His Song, noticed the flashing signal and turned it off.
A week later, the Ford Motor Company and Shakedown Brokerage served notice that it was suing him for $765,000.
Page 17 of Alice’s licensing agreement with Ford clearly states: “…powdered donuts, except Valvoline crullers, driving under the influence of exotic perfumes, aphrodisiacs, skin cleansers or shampoos, wearing thong underwear while sitting on the car’s lovely suede interiors, allowing right turn signal to flash for more than seven miles, showering while driving, playing billiards while driving, supporting the military coup in Honduras while driving, daydreaming, nightmaring, questioning the existence of a beneficent all-knowing god, allowing up turn signal to flash for more than four miles, removing all your clothes and…”
This paragraph ends on page 198 with the ominous conclusion: “…if the elephant is more than two months pregnant without the express written consent of the commissioner of major league baseball, licensee shall be considered in breach of contract and shall be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Sucker.”
“I can accept the lawsuit,” Alice commented, “but the taunting was a bit much.”
This is the latest in a series of lawsuits brought by corporations against individuals. Specific Mills, for example, sued a suburban Yellowstone Park woman who was seen eating Vamp Strawberri cereal with chocolate milk, a clear violation of the instructions at the bottom of the box. Panasonic sued a 14 year-old Milwaukee man for using his boombox in the privacy of his own home rather than on the street, a condition of its purchase. Brita sued famous Harvard law professor Henry Louis Gates for using one of their filters on his pet cat.
These and other companies seem to be following the template laid down by Rottenman School of Economics professor Carmella Hwang-Cheung in her book: Customer as Criminal: A New Approach to Economics.
Hwang-Cheung, an expert on macroeconomic voyeurism, begins her book with an analysis of economic trends, noting that the drive to lower wages to pre-Dark Ages levels leaves fewer and fewer consumers with money to spend. Her solution to this problem is to turn the traditional economic model on its head: instead of selling a large number of products with a low profit margin, sell a small number of products with a honking large profit margin.
But, how can a business ensure sales of large profit margin items? Hwang-Cheung, an internationally respected smarty-pants, recommends creating incomprehensible contracts that consumers sign upon purchase, then building surveillance technologies into your products (the Wildebeest, for instance, multiplies the number of turn signal flashes by the number of tire rotations per second to determine the distance you have your turn light on, then sends this information to a Blackberry in Ford’s Manassas, Saudi Arabia headquarters) to catch transgressions.
“Let’s face it,” Hwang-Cheung writes, “your customers are thieves who will steal value from you every chance they get. Why not use this to your advantage?”
“Besides,” Hwang-Cheung added 17 years later, “it worked for the recording industry, so why wouldn’t it work for you?”
So far, American courts have favoured corporations, using the time-honoured judicial principle of Gentlemen’s Rea Quarterly (almost literally: “Eh! A contract’s a contract. Whaddaya gonna do?”) However, only seven of the nine Supreme Court justices were appointed by Democratic Presidents, and only one more could tip the scales back in favour of consumers.
Isn’t there a risk, though, that potential customers, wary of being subject to curt action [EDITOR’S NOTE: Gideon, did you mean “court action?”], will simply stop buying things?
“Naah,” Hwang-Cheung, clearly anticipating this objection, wrote. “We love our shit. Sooner or later, the evolutionary imperative to buy something will overcome somebody, and BAM! – we’ve got them!”
Then Alice – remember Alice? This is a news article about Alice. Then, Alice worried about whether or not he could afford to fight Ford’s lawsuit. However, since the company’s settlement offer only knocked five cents off their asking price, he figured it wasn’t worth accepting. “Wow,” Alice asked, “who knew that the freedom of the road would end up costing so much?”