Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Invents Price-Gouging the Least Influential
theodp writes "In the world envisioned by Microsoft's just-published patent application for Social Marketing, monopolists will maximize revenue by charging prices inversely related to the perceived influence an individual has on others. Microsoft gives an example of a pricing model that charges different people $0, $5, $10, $20, or $25 for the identical item based on the influence the purchaser wields. A presentation describing the revenue optimization scheme earned one of the three inventors applause (MS-Research video), and the so-called 'influence and exploit' strategies were also featured at WWW 2008 (PDF). The invention jibes nicely with Bill Gates's pending patents for identifying influencers. Welcome to the brave new world of analytics."
Isn't this a business method patent?
Hey, works for me... Microsoft gave me a free copy of Windows 7 Ultimate 64 bit for hosting a Windows 7 party... I am influencial, I get free software!
I'd swear that's what the merchandise bags they give out at movie premieres are. The celebrities get stuff free, wield their influence over those susceptible to influencing who rush out and buy it. $0->$x.
"There are no facts, only interpretations." --Friedrich Nietzsche.
Yet another attempt by MSFT to influence Linux users. By charging them triple for the same product.
I can see this going over like a lead filled ballon. While costs for goods may rise and drive up prices, prices themselves have a way of going down with volume. Of course in a market (software) that doesn't produce physical products pricing is artificial anyways.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
take as a regular person (not a corporation) for me to be charged with some kind of "fill in the blank" conspiracy if I started keeping tabs on people like the corporations do.
Are we actually gonna be citizens in the next 50 years or just law abiding consumrzens with laws that put us into jail of we don't spend our money fast enough on new shiny things.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
I can't believe, that some pricing strategy is patentable. Is this a joke (I'm a layman in such matters)?
Approaches like this are pretty direct attacks on why free markets work. Almost all classical and neoclassical economic theory assume things like the existence of a supply/demand price curve, availability of pricing information, etc. If you have some nutty system where price curves aren't really defined beyond an individual level, prices aren't widely available, etc., all the usual pricing signals, resource allocation by the "invisible hand", etc., get a lot more muddled, and probably begin to break down.
Of course, that's certainly a reason I can see Microsoft wanting it: finding ways to profit other than "make a good product and compete fairly on the open market" is their modus operandi.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
You sir are a tool, and apparently happy to be one.
Let's all friend each other on Facebook...the entire /. community. We will all be considered exceptionally influential and will therefore be given free stuff.
So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?
[0004]The described implementations relate to social marketing. One technique identifies potential buyers of a product where the potential buyers belong to a social network. The technique determines a price to offer the product to individual potential buyers that considers both influence of the individual potential buyer within the social network and overall revenue from sales of the product to the potential buyers.
[0005]Another implementation identifies potential buyers of a product in a social network. The implementation arbitrarily selects a set of the potential buyers to offer the product at a relatively low price to influence the remaining potential buyers. The implementation also updates membership in the set by adding and removing individual potential buyers from the set until revenue from product sales to the social network is not increased by adding or removing an individual potential buyer from the set. The above listed examples are intended to provide a quick reference to aid the reader and are not intended to define the scope of the concepts described herein.
The rock stars get their guitars for free (Paul McCartney once commented:"When you're poor you cant' afford them and when you're rich they give them to you.) is the same thing.
Or how about paying celebrities to use your product.
Now the randomly selecting people part. What's wrong with that? So they're trying to accelerate the product to the tipping point.
This will hurt no one and this was just an "article" to have an excuse to bash Microsoft about something. *yawn*
It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
Wait a tic... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft If anti-trust doesnt cover this, we need to call our congress people right away.
Yet another attempt by MSFT to influence Linux users. By charging them triple for the same product.
I can see this going over like a lead filled ballon. While costs for goods may rise and drive up prices, prices themselves have a way of going down with volume. Of course in a market (software) that doesn't produce physical products pricing is artificial anyways.
And look at the picture ! It s NAZI Salute!
There you go, it's all part of Gates' plan to take over the World and crush Linux! I can tell!
It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
1. Become influential or join together with a group of influential friends.
2. Buy things very cheap.
3. Sell them at a higher price.
4. Profit
In fact, you could set up a brokerage business where you find people that have cheapest access to things, offer to buy from them at a slightly higher price than they pay, and sell at a higher price to groups that would have to pay even more. Lots of profit opportunities here.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Influence mapping scares me deeply. It completely devalues the entire concept of friendship, turning every relationship into a marketing channel, every person into a spambot zombie hoping for a discount from sellers or a better performance appraisal at work.
I would love to see the practice outlawed, but data mining is becoming so pervasive I don't know how you prove its even happening without catching differential pricing caught in the act.
Wow.. I'm sure the summery and title could possibly be more inflammatory and inaccurate, but damn if I can think of how.. You did get me reading and searching through the thing, and.. not sure where to start, but.. there is absolutely no mentioning of "monopolists" in the patent, and it is not about 'price gouging the least influential' (damn I'm impressed by that reversed spin) this is supposedly a system to more scientifically differentiate how you identify and use influentials for marketing purposes (like how many bloggers today receive free or discounted samples to talk about, or just general discounts on a brand/store). This sort of thing has only been going on since people starting selling things to each other.
This can't be legal, especially under any sane consumer protection laws. I really can't see them ever getting to try this, especially in the EU, where for anything Microsoft do, there's a team of lawyers waiting for the chance to fine them for it.
On the other hand though, sometimes I like to think that Microsoft go around patenting bad ideas to protect them, not for their own use, but to stop someone really malignant from using them in the real world. How on earth does one determine influence anyway?
I dreamed of Freud: What does this mean?
Some day Bill Gates will be nominated for Nobel prize for his great work of philanthropy, for sure.
If you receive a more preferable product for a good or service based on your social network status (or on your blog), you have to disclose that, according to the FTC.
You aren't allowed to get a better price based on your influence/following and fail to disclose it.
This type of pricing scheme is dangerous, and might land company executivies in jail, for the attempt to defraud less-influential people with higher pricing.
However, I expect this could backfire... some of the more influential people will certainly say what price they got.
You can't control this type of information. There will be a backlash / disillusionment when other people learn that they are getting a different price.
In fact, the "more influential person" may lose influence, when people discover that.
E.g. Getting the better price can have long-term social costs in how other people in your social network view you.
Good Advise vs. "Sell-out"
Now nobody else can do it. Can I have my $150 Photoshop now?
People will find ways to game this system, just like people gamed search engines with Google bombs.
If you think blog spam is bad right now, just you wait.
And someone just said yesterday that the privacy policy of Bing is better than the one for Google.
Looks like they have the next few revisions already in mind, with substantial changes.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
So now MS is patenting Game theory.
What netx, algebra ?
It's a common story about young entrepreneurs that give samples of their products to "popular" people to create demand. This is, ultimately, just that strategy writ large.
I used to run a motorcycle performance shop. You do this all the time. I would often cut deals on accessories / parts to customers I knew would show them off to their friends, talk on the internet, etc, etc. Those people (hopefully) then buy from you at your regular prices.
When you do it for club racers, it's called "sponsorship" ... but it's really the same thing. If you have a fast racer, you help him out based on his "influence" (wins races, is well liked, etc). Regardless if your assistance makes him go faster or not, the perception is: "Fast / winning guy goes to Shop X, I should also go to Shop X". They have influence over their "social network", which is other racers.
Seriously, I don't see how this is new or innovative.
I would assume that the open source movement has a mole within Microsoft, because this looks like a big win for open source software.
Maybe they've wrapping it in a new packing, but this doesn't seem very different from the way it's always been - you have those who pay full price, those who get rebates, those who get promotional copies for free and those you have to sponsor, that is to say pay just to use your product and it's all a sliding scale. Like a friend of mine, he's often organizing dinners and such and when he's there alone items will "disappear" off the bill. Why? Because he'll be bringing in a bunch of people who'll spend a lot of money. A colleague of mine used to be quite good at his sport, he's not good enough they'd sponsor him anymore but if he asks he'll always get a "special price" because there's a value to having a veteran walking around in that brand. This sort of stuff happens all the time, and it's been done a million different ways of referrer discounts up to and including MLM schemes where it doesn't just get cheaper there's money flowing out at the top. This just seem like a slightly more organized version.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
This is the most evil plan related to software that I think I've ever heard. Their plan is basically to prey on the weak. Are they going to patent stealing candy from children next?
If only Microsoft spent half as much time on improving Windows as they spend on this "research".
Moderators, let's try that scheme here. Give this post 0, 5, 10, 20, or 25 points, based on the influence this author wields. I await your judgment.
I, for one, welcome the new opportunity to game the system. I mean pricing scheme.
Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
Interesting. It seems to me celebrities still get all sorts of things for free, and it hasn't lowered the price the least bit for us "common folk". The internet does absolutely NOTHING to force companies to sell a product for the same price to everyone. If you think that you've either never gotten a deal, or you're living in a hole.
Just look at what they're proposing. Those who INFLUENCE other people in a way that makes a product more valuable.. are desirable customers. So we discount them or give the product to them for free because it increases the value of the product on the whole. Let's look at two examples that are present in all places one might wish to look:
1. Advertising. Duh. Sports athletes, actors, models, and other such famous figures. We see them sporting things GIVEN to them by companies. Why? Because the trend is: "he/she has it, that's so cool, I want one too!" That's exactly what this system is.
2. Referral rewards. This one is particularly damning to this patent. Many companies allow people to refer other customers and as a reward they eventually get a kickback or free stuff. Why? BECAUSE THEY ARE HIGHLY INFLUENTIAL. And there you have it, this EXACT system, down to the letter. If you prove you're influential, we give you a discount or free things because we know you're likely to bring us more customers and as a result we can raise our prices.
This patent will almost certainly be shot down via prior art if those in charge of approving them have paid attention to marketing strategies for the past few decades.
Only 5000 more rep and I'll be exalted with the Microsoft faction! Discounts abound!
... Screw the geeks, dweebs, nerds, and awkward kids and adults, give it away free to the popular people...
Guess what, we are NOT the popular people out there.
Do you really want to subsidize them?
As to the celebrity thing, I don't much like it, they get paid lots of money, they can afford to buy their own freaking PS3, and the house to put it in, but that at least falls under advertising.
However, making it a form of industry wide pricing scheme, that has to be illegal.
(And if it isn't, it should be.)
"I'm sorry mam, according to the index, nobody really likes you, so we have to charge you 3 times as much for that."
an example of a pricing model that charges different people $0, $5, $10, $20, or $25 for the identical item based on the influence the purchaser wields.
This is just an observation, but when I hear things like "We got 80% off list price for technology X from our vendor" it makes me wonder what the real value of the product is. After reading this maybe the value of the product is really irrelevant and in our world of commerce it depends on how influential you are. If that is the case how can they patent how the world currently works?
-- Thou hast strayed far from the path of the Avatar.
FTFP: "The technique determines a price to offer the product to individual potential buyers that considers both influence of the individual potential buyer..."
Microsoft wants to pay its customers to astroturf for it. Where I come from that's called a kickback, bribe, or politics as usual.
for free stuff i use p2p, best marketing tool ever, apart from the sales graph
sincerely, the internet.
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Is that not the case? And. others already use the same or related structures - some for years. Oriental bazaars and traders have worked this way for centuries.
...or bribing the most influential?
Let's be blunt here, if one side ceases to play fair, I see no reason in not following.
So what's the requirement to be seen as "influential"? Having a shitload of friends on facebook? Great. Let's start a group dedicated to the sole purpose of having friends. People you don't know or don't care about, as long as you have a lot of friends you get crap cheaper? Works for me.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Microsoft is widely misunderstood. It is not primarily a software company. It is an abuse company that uses software to deliver abuse.
That's my opinion, and the opinion of millions of others, it seems.
Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer reportedly has little or no technical knowledge. Could someone with no technical knowledge make a high-tech company profitable without an abusive virtual monopoly?
Steve Ballmer, As Portrayed by 80 Blue Screens of Death
The internet is great for comparing prices and finding the cheapest offers. I have used that myself on occasion to get CDs below 10 euros or some electronic spare parts for a fraction of the price the official channels demand. And that is only about getting the same stuff cheaper. Finding alternatives from another brand is also easier when you can get all the information you need on the net.
Of course, the above covers only low priced stuff where most dealers won't bother with haggling because it would be too much work. For expensive stuff with a lot of visibility, the celebrities still have that advantage.
C - the footgun of programming languages
Famous people and/or well-connected people have been getting "gifts" from companies for ages. Some of the very first wheels were probably given to the chief with the big spear, while the guy in the cave next door had to give saber-tooth cat pelts in exchange.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
A pretty close one: having the option to disable slashdot ads based on user karma.
Consider the following: You've been tasked with junk-kicking the man business of a certain number of individuals. The parameters of your task are only concerned with the number of people junk-kicked; you decide which people's man business gets junk-kicked to meet your assigned quota. Are you going to junk-kick Vladamir Putin or Osama Bin Laden? How about Kim Jong-il? Tom Cruise? I would think not. That some of the aforementioned people might deserve a junk-kick in their man business matters not. They all have massive influence and could easily make you: disappear, die, rot in prison, or a level 5 Thetan.
The obvious targets for a junk-kick in the man business would be individuals with very little influence: Luxembourgians, educated American voters, Gary Coleman, The Jackson family sans Michael, and etc. These targets would have little recourse other than to accept a good junk-kick in the man business. In fact, some groups are repeatedly being junk-kicked in the man business (read: educated American Voters).
I think it's safe to say that a lack of influence == junk-kick in your man business.
Has the world gotten so twisted that we cannot create a place for kids to hang out online without a bunch of assholes trying to put them under a magnifying glass to sell them something? Why do people expect teenagers to be anything less than jaded when the whole of humanity does nothing but pander to them like objects and crowds them into little spaces.
HEY, TEACHERS! LEAVE THEM KIDS ALONE.
This is my sig.
this is exactly what the US Congress has been doing for years (Price-Gouging the Least Influential).
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Isn't this just graduated sponsorhip? I give this guy a free skateboard because he appears in lots of videos, I sell it at the normal price to this guy because he's rubbish on a board. It's not evil to give things cheaply or freely to people who will help you sell your stuff, it's payment in product for being a spokesperson. It's also certainly no more evil just because it's been automated/scripted either - that sounds a lot like a fearful reaction to scaling more than anything. I think if anything is an issue here it might be whether the right to patent the automation of sponsorship/pricing is too generalised.
Influentials, influentials, influentials!
One bad review posted to a web forum can have a huge effect. When multiplied by 1000, I would expect the consensus view would be that few people would buy a product - if they saw that many bad reviews or negative votes or a given product. These guys had better be very careful about who they decide is not influential, they could just find that there's a difference between how motivated individuals are to spread good news about a product and the lengths others will go to if they feel they've been hard done by.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
The Difficulty I have with this is that I am AC Anonymous Coward. And therefore have little to no influence. So I get charged the maximum allowable rate, which probably includes their margins for medical/dental/vacation/bribes etc. Now if I was to sign my name to it, I could perhaps be influential, but no I prefer the idea of anonymity so I get seriously gouged for it. But if I have a name, then I might get the regular rate which is supposedly discounted but really isn't, this is similar to Grocery Card thinking. What this sort of price fixing might help spur is identity theft, so I can get the better rate for items if not just get the item for free. You want to be anonymous you end up having to pay for it, but if you can leverage a known name/brand you can live the sweet life. Reminds me of Christopher Rocancourt, he got away with saying he was a Rockefeller for years.
The Microsoft Research page hosting the video has a typo ("How can a monoplist seller use social network effects to increase revenue earned?"), but the WWW2008 paper's got it right ("We assume that the seller is a monopolist and is interested in maximizing its revenue."). Perhaps Microsoft didn't want to be too restrictive with the patent. :-)
At least we can finally quantify and sell it the right way. Frankly, politicians and MBAs were always half-assed.
Every supremely dumb idea is just a new opportunity for arbitrage.
I scream. You scream. I assume that means we're both acquainted with the problem. We proceed.
Companies give their products to the people who are watched using them. Pay these people to use them, then charge consumers who aren't watched "full price". Nike, Head, Speedo, EVERYONE has been doing this for years.
Outrage prompts Amazon to Change Price-testing Policy: "Last week, Computerworld first reported that Amazon was conducting various price tests in its DVD store that could result in one consumer paying as much as $15 more for the same item as another consumer."
What's all the fuss about?
Clark Gable drove a custom built 1936 Duesenberg Speedster that likely cost him nothing more than the price of a fill-up.
The promotional price to the influential buyer is as old as dirt.
I cite as prior art every club that charged me a cover fee, while letting the cool, beautiful people skip the line and get in for free.
Last time I checked, that's what politicians do
Maybe I should just start a church and make believers be my friend on Facebook
Influential music producers get all the high end studio software for free, much like how influential artists get all their instruments for free, and influential sports-people get their equipment and clothing for free - in return for an endorsement. It's just sponsorship by another name, basically.
With Windows 7 release.
'Influential' people (loud online and offline how Vista sucked) and enthusiasts (basically same as first group) were given discounted versions of Windows 7 (win 7 parties, pre-release discounts, school discounts, etc.)
And they all took the bait, told the world how Win 7 is great... and guess what? You can't buy discounted version, you have to shell out $120 for cheapest upgrade. The student version offer is about to end as well, and family upgrade option 3-for-150 has been discontinued.
Sadly, it works, now everybody wants or considers Windows 7.
Packt Publishing (and probably other publishing houses) already do this by asking reviewers on famous product-related sites to review in exchange for a free copy.
Everything else, including Microsoft, is subject to free market competition.
They should be free to charge whatever the market will bare - which, in absence of government's alleged right to initiate aggression over copying 1's and 0's, would not be very much, but Microsoft could still make decent profits by bundling hardware, business contracts, services, certifications, etc.
Inner city grocery and rat-hole rent costs costs vs suburban super markets and low interest mortgages.
Who's influential? The rich.
Who's not? The poor.
In American capitalism, we are told that we can vote with our dollars to determine an organization's success or failure. Apparently, Microsoft feels that a poll tax is necessary.
Just as large corporations can use their money to exert disproportionate influence on the local or national political scene, now in marketing decisions the influence of a rich person will hold more weight than the 'common man' who makes up the majority of the market.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'd buy large quantities of their products at a low price and resell them for a small markup.
With the Internet, everyone has a voice. Everyone is not equal, but everyone has a voice. There are so many places, forums on sites like this being the best example, where people can express themselves that even if you are completely non-influential online in general terms, your voice can be heard by millions. Also someone who isn't influential can suddenly become influential. My website is not influential, it isn't intended to be, few people come to it unless they are after something in particular on there. However, if I put something on it, and Slashdot links to it, suddenly it is influential for that item. My voice went from meaning little to meaning lots.
So the problem you get is that if there is differential pricing going on, people will quickly find out. If it is something like you've been sending out discount codes to preferred customers that reduce the price, those codes will quickly be posted all over the Internet. If it is something like you give people a great deal via their account and tell them to tell their friends, well then quickly it becomes apparent that not everyone gets a great deal as they talk about it, and this will get posted on the net.
It is just the sort of thing I don't see working. There is so much content submitted by random people (like our comments), so many forums for expressing yourself, and the potential for a single post to become of major international note. You can't control that sort of thing.
Perhaps the Whuffie is not quite prior art, but it's pretty darn close. In any event, reading "Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom" should give anyone a good sense of why this is a bad idea.
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools The way to dusty death. --Will
This type of anti-competitive scam has been addressed by the law before; look up "pricing discrimination" or "redlining" for some background. The best possible result is that those with "influence" (read: money or power) buy cheap and can resell to the ESL crowd for slightly under their higher market price. Very handy little business opportunity and it transfers even more money to the pockets of those with "influence". A more likely result is that Mr. Important gets all he needs and Mr. Common Citizen can't get the product at all.
Microsoft operates by selling discs and boxes for hundreds of dollars. Their supply of product is essentially unlimited so they don't have to worry about the issues that businesses operating in the real world do. What they propose in this patent may be useful for their little piece of the market but it's bad in most cases.
I know this is evil because it's Microsoft, blah blah blah (yawn)... However it's interesting to note that Malcolm Gladwell postulated something similar in his book "The Tipping Point." In the book, he speaks extensively on the value of the influencers in our society.
From http://www.wikisummaries.org/The_Tipping_Point
Many trends are ushered into popularity by small groups of individuals that can be classified as Connectors, Mavens, and Salesmen. Connectors are individuals who have ties in many different realms and act as conduits between them, helping to engender connections, relationships, and "cross-fertilization" that otherwise might not have ever occurred. Mavens are people who have a strong compulsion to help other consumers by helping them make informed decisions. Salesmen are people whose unusual charisma allows them to be extremely persuasive in inducing others' buying decisions and behaviors. Gladwell identifies a number of examples of past trends and events that hinged on the influence and involvement of Connectors, Mavens, and Salesmen at key moments in their development.
This is hardly a new idea. Businesses have been giving special deals to their "local customers" (who do work-of-mouth advertising) forever. Take {some shop} ; they have great deals, and they have rip-off deals. If you know what a good deal looks like, you'll shop there and boast of the great deal you got at {some shop}. Your friends will wander in and fall for the $100 "setup fee" sales pitch. {some shop} will keep getting your sheep-y friends' business as long as you keep taking advantage of their bifurcated price scheme. So, we see it implemented in e-commerce too. What a shock!
Hunh.. thought I had already read this: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1476462&cid=30417776 So why do you no longer run the shop? Sounds like you liked it quite a bit.
in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
This might be legal if you sell the product directly, but if you sell it through a reseller/shop or whatever... You can't specify how the reseller should charge his costumers, I believe that's illegal, at least in Denmark, and likely the entire EU...
Am I wrong ?
Slashdot.org runs because partly because they take ad money from Microsoft.
When Microsoft starts to emulate Mafia Wars to entice people random-invite, I start getting worried
Isn't that some sort of pyramid scheme?
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
So why do you no longer run the shop? Sounds like you liked it quite a bit.
I missed the day in business 101 where they tell you never to go into business with friends. After 6 years it was ... time to go back to being a geek.
I don't regret it though, it was a great learning experience both in business and personal relations.
As for the double post ... it made sense to add the content to that conversation as it was relevant.
Well, I'd better get to work on my Whuffie.
- For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat
And that's why America sucks these days and is a laughing stock. The most visible fruits of the current system, as seen by the Internet-connected population, are:
- RIAA lawsuits for sharing of intangible rights (which was legal in analog era)... despite ability to build models that could benefit artists and consumers alike while allowing sharing.
- Monopolist software company created by world's richest man, patenting "price gouging of the least influential", despite having the resources to build new better software packages.
- Google CEO disavowing responsibility to protect user privacy.. despite being in a position to protect it strongly.
- First black U.S. President, having not accomplished anything yet, accepting the Nobel Peace Prize... despite being in a position to give a great example of character to blacks, whites, and all races alike.
Influential entities like the above which inhabit influential positions in the world, find it much more profitable to act cynically than to do the right thing. This is why the dollar gets torpedoed and the U.S. is losing relevancy.
These issues are all vulnerable to information sharing via the media, in particular Microsoft, which I think should be the test case since they deserve it.
- Purchasers should post what they paid for a product
- The purchaser then learns what segment Microsoft considers them to inhabit
- Lower ranked segment inhabitants are encouraged to post reviews and letters.
The intent being to invert the Microsoft cynical agenda (as exemplified in their ideal pricing structure) and force the monopolist to sell its product to the entire market at the minimum price for which it sells in any market segment worldwide.
They also should have the antimonopoly hearings reconvened and be fined for attempting to patent something which so clearly goes against the spirit of that ruling.
Finally I would like to say that I have decided to fine MS one user license worth myself, as I will not tell my nephew to buy MS Office.
> Microsoft Invents Price-Gouging the Least Influential
Coming soon assclown theodp invents summary proper sentence.
Those programs are only as good as their data collected and, as anybody here should understand, the SERIOUS way to fubar such a system isn't to refuse to participate, it's to feed it plenty of misleading information.
If you're opposed to such systems then you should sign up for as many as you can, ideally with fake names, and convince people around you to do the same. Then periodically swap your cards. When a night shopping single mother swaps with a person buying for an office and then back with another single mother, but this one on the other side of town, the affinity card system will be "building a user profile" and a pattern of shopping for that area filled with errors and misunderstandings.
So I say again, get every card you can. Then swap them as frequently as you can, was widely as you can, and as randomly as you can. And every person who does it undercuts the corporations trying to turn us into tidily harvested revenue nuggets.