Thursday, May 29, 2014

FreedomPop "free" plan is a bit dishonest

I've recently been exploring the world of FreedomPop on behalf of a friend who is going through a really rough patch in his life. FreedomPop sells WiFi hotspot devices that supposedly get 500MB of data per month for free. The only thing to pay for is the device itself, which will set someone back about $50. It sounds awesome, but that's really all it is.

The old adage, "If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is" definitely applies here. This plan is marketed as 500MB of data per month for free "forever" (the 'forever' is implied). Even 3 years of use (i.e. until the lithium ion battery wears out) would be enough to help my friend out in a significant way. I was willing to play guinea pig for this interesting service because I also have some potential use for it.

So, I went and bought the device, which set me back a little over $50 (after tax). Then I waited. And waited. And waited. And waited some more. And pretty much forgot about it until it randomly showed up about a month and a half later. In addition, these devices are "refurbished", but who really cares about that as long as they work? At any rate, the extensive waiting is the first warning sign that something might be fishy here.

The device that arrives is a "Sprint (now Netgear) Overdrive Pro (3G/4G)" hotspot. The free plan claims to run only on 4G (you have to pay to get 3G), which is technically accurate. What FreedomPop fails to mention up front is that it only runs on 4G WiMAX and that the device has no support for 4G LTE. So you can be bathed in 4G LTE service all day long but the device will never connect to it. It's a tad misleading as users think they will be connecting to 4G regardless of the type of 4G service. Unless a user is intimately familiar with all of the various forms of 4G out there, it is unreasonable to expect them to understand the difference between 4G WiMAX, 4G LTE, and other 4G variants.

Additionally, the device has to be manually configured before it will function properly. This may be beyond the skill set of some users. The 3G PRL and 3G profile have to be updated via the admin before it will connect to 3G. Again, 3G isn't free but it will connect once the PRL and profile are updated. The first time I tried this, the device had fits and I had to perform a soft reset (hold the reset button for six seconds while it is powered on) and try again before it succeeded the second time. Also, firmware updates have to be applied via the admin before 4G WiMAX will function at optimal settings. That last part is tricky because it looks like a large batch of refurbished devices, including mine, were modified in a way that prevents updates from being applied to the device. It appears that someone intentionally changed the SKU of each device from SKU 1453010 to SKU 1453012. The device firmware checks the SKU and checksums of a new firmware before applying it. So multiple users are getting the message "The update cannot proceed. There is a SKU version mismatch." when they upload the latest firmware.

(It may(!) be possible to alter the SKU of the device via a configuration file import, but the importer appears to verify a checksum, so that creates a new problem since the configuration file can't simply be edited with a text editor. The "simple" solution to that problem is to find someone with a SKU 1453010 device and import their configuration, which should correct the problem and allow the firmware update to proceed. I am still working on this approach, so don't do anything here. I'm willing to brick my device at this point.)

Also, Sprint is terminating WiMAX service in 2015. Anyone on the free plan currently able to get 4G WiMAX service will suddenly have a paperweight unless they sign up and pay for 3G service. 3G still enjoys a wider adoption rate, but, as anyone who has used 3G knows, it is rather sluggish.

Basically this reads as:

Warehouse operator: "Oh man, we've got all these devices sitting around our warehouse and Sprint is going to make them basically useless in under a year. We need to move this inventory out right now."

Marketing director: "I know! We can just give users WiMAX for free but not tell them about it until they've received the device and try to use it. We'll just advertise it as a 'free service with 4G only' because people will love the idea of 'free 4G'. We'll get rid of the devices and make some money."

It's definitely a brilliant strategy for moving inventory that no one will want soon enough. In addition, the way it is being marketed also phrases it such that people can be misled to believing that they will also get 3G service for free, which they won't. It is a bit dishonest to do that to people. In particular, this plan is being advertised to people who are classified as "low income" as being a way to get free Internet access "everywhere" they go (the 'everywhere' is implied). If 4G WiMAX is readily available in the area, it might be a viable temporary solution for someone who has no Internet access. It is also potentially useful as a device for setting up a quick WiFi LAN between two WiFi enabled devices vs. messing around with ad-hoc networks. So it isn't really a scam, but the way it is marketed isn't completely honest either - being especially unfair to low income individuals and families who can't afford a $50 loss.

If it had worked out (i.e. 4G LTE capable), this plan would be a game changer in the industry. It would force every telecom to finally lower their rates to sane levels. If you pay more than $10/month for unlimited text, talk, and data, then you are being ripped off and are paying too much for service.

Friday, May 09, 2014

Is Firefox 29.0 "ugly"? Then try this...

I run Windows 7 Ultimate, full Aero effects, and Firefox. The most recent update of Firefox to version 29.0 resulted in yet another redesign of the tabs. This redesign is very unfortunate because it makes the text completely unreadable. I have some very choice words for the Firefox developers about their general competence, but that's not what this post is about.

This post is for the average user that this garbage release was foisted upon. I've been running the fix for about a week now and, while not perfect, it is much better than not being able to read the text on my tabs at all.

Go here:

Click "Add to Firefox". Done.

That's the best theme I could find that balances readability, usability, and some semblance of elegance.

Saturday, May 03, 2014

Reinventing the office chair

My current office chair I use at home that I bought a decade ago for about $100 (it was on sale) is starting to fall apart. One would hope that innovation over a decade would result in improvements.

First off, the office chair you sit in probably looks like this:

If you are lucky to work for a really nice employer, you might get one of these:


You know what the ironic thing is? Neither of those chairs were designed to be sat in, yet they cost just as much as (if not more than) a decent chair. Those chairs exist due to some insane thought process that managers and executives get nicer chairs to sit in as a person moves up the corporate ladder. I'm sorry, but that's just cruel. If you are going to sit in a chair for 6-12 hours a day, then it had better be comfortable to sit in regardless of who you are. Sitting in the wrong chair for hours on end can and will result in regular headaches and/or migraines (I'm speaking from personal experience here).

So what constitutes a comfortable chair? Leather vs. cloth is usually the first thing people consider. I consider other things. For instance, when I wake up in the morning, I sit in my office chair and put my bare feet on the legs. If the legs of the chair were made of metal, I'd be really annoyed because metal tends to be colder than plastic. Fortunately, the legs of my current chair are made of plastic.

I also lean back in my chair and rest my head. I have what is known as a "high-back" office chair. I measured the back of my current chair as being 28" tall (starting from the inside). I can find fairly cheap chairs that come up to 27" tall. That one inch difference is night and day - I have to tilt my head back uncomfortably to reach the headrest on a 27" chair. To get a 28" back on a chair, I have to go to the "big and tall" section, which immediately adds $250 to the price tag (probably because of hydraulic systems that support heavy people, which I don't need). Unfortunately, the closest chair to my desired measurements that I can find has...metal legs...arg! My $100 decade-old chair beats a $350 chair that's made today. As you can imagine, this is incredibly frustrating AND a waste of my time. Time better spent developing software!

Alright, enough ranting. Onto my wonderfully innovative idea: The ability to craft your own modular office chair from compatible parts. I would love to be able to mix and match:

  • Seat
  • Back
  • Armrests
  • Hydraulic system
  • Legs
  • Rollers
I could buy each part individually and then put the whole thing together myself. I'd be able to put together a $175 office chair that meets all of my requirements in half an hour from a single shopping trip. This isn't rocket science and it is VERY silly that we don't have this yet.

Through my recent experience, I've come to the singular conclusion that one size does NOT fit all. We should all go to our local office supply stores and request that they start carrying modular office chair equipment.

Thursday, March 20, 2014

Why I run Adblock Plus and Ghostery...

A few topics came up on my radar recently that questioned whether or not AdBlock Plus is a security risk because several websites are now asking users to disable it for their website and claimed AdBlock Plus is a security risk. This got me thinking about why I really run both AdBlock Plus and Ghostery. I trust both plugins because they do their job VERY well, are generally trusted products by millions of people, and are open source software. However, the reason I run these tools is not the usual "ads are annoying" or "privacy is important" reasons that I see bandied about. I run them because NOT running these tools introduces security vulnerabilities and serious performance degradation into the web browser stack. Here are a few reasons as to why you should be running *at least* AdBlock Plus:

1) Ad server operators are notorious for running any ad, including ads that deploy malware. It is not uncommon for a hacker to use a stolen credit card to flight malware ads on an ad server platform. They send over their malicious creative and it runs without being analyzed. In some instances, the ad runs before payment even clears! If the flighted ad is placed on what is known as a "remnant ad provider", it can take 6 to 8 hours after discovery of the malware to get it taken offline. Meanwhile, the ad is being served up to all sorts of users around the world. This actually happens and it happens because there is no accountability in the ad server world and the people responsible are reactive instead of being proactive. AdBlock Plus (and, to some extent Ghostery) should be considered to be part of a comprehensive security solution beyond what your anti-virus software and hardware firewall solutions offer. This reason alone should be sufficient to immediately install AdBlock Plus (or equivalent) because, if the ad server can't serve anything in the first place, it can't deliver malware to your computer or other devices. These tools reduce the potential attack surface of the web browser.

2) Excessive web requests. Remnant ad servers are especially notorious for this. To request a single remnant ad position, the browser will generally contact an average of 15 different servers across the Internet. Each server request also requires talking to a local DNS server to get an IP address of the destination. If the local DNS server doesn't know the IP address of the target server (fairly common), it has to go and find out. DNS requests are fairly expensive. Throw 3 to 4 ads on a page and suddenly page load times skyrocket to at least 20 seconds per page. I've personally seen page load times in excess of 60 seconds on modern hardware. AdBlock Plus drops page load times to under 6 seconds in many cases by simply blocking the excessive web requests. Ad server operators don't know when to say "no" to money and constantly make exceptions. Therefore, they don't set rules on request depth and, even if they did, they would never stick to such rules because the drive for money outweighs common sense. I also use Ghostery more for the reason of excessive web requests than the "privacy" reasons that other people use Ghostery for - it shaves off another 1 to 3 seconds per page load with very few issues.

3) Those flighting ads also almost always do not know nor have the desire to know even very basic HTML. They will happily flight ads that output broken content onto the page, which then proceeds to destroy the layout of the page. Mismatched 'div's or other bad HTML code results in half of a page simply not loading or loading properly. It then takes up to several hours to diagnose the problem ad and then the ad finally gets taken down. Meanwhile, users suffer with an unusable website. A more stable website viewing experience is just one more reason to run AdBlock Plus.

4) Most ads are not compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Ads that flash, rapidly change colors, have wild patterns (e.g. optical illusions), or otherwise move on a screen can trigger seizures even in those who have never had a seizure before. These triggers are scientifically proven. Therefore, AdBlock Plus is also a lifesaving medical device and brings website operators into some semblance of compliance with ADA regulations. The only ads that are remotely ADA compliant are those that are static images with muted color combinations. But since you don't know nor can control what ads will be served to you, the only solution is to install AdBlock Plus.

5) Animated ads, especially Flash ads, also dramatically hurt browser performance. Moving DOM elements around on a page causes DOM thrashing (for lack of a better term) and redraw operations at the OS level - combined, they take a lot of CPU power to pull it off and frequently lag. Fortunately, some browser vendors are blocking Adobe Flash by default now, but authors of ad creative are just switching to a "Javascript plus images" method, which doesn't help much. The only solution to this problem is to block all ads until the industry wakes up and realizes that animated ads aren't just annoying, they hurt the performance of the user's web browser.

6) Ad server operators don't demand that all ad creative fit in with their website design. It doesn't seem to matter which ad, they all look ugly and destroy what would otherwise be an elegant website design. This stems from no review process prior to flighting any ad. A good review process will reject both ads and advertisers that refuse to meet a set of well-defined requirements that result in ads that look good in relation to the rest of the website. This lack of concern over the ad creative that users will see demonstrates that there is also a lack of concern over the website's users. If a website operator can't be bothered to properly care for their users by only flighting ads that have been through an extensive review process, then AdBlock Plus is a great way to send the message that the users want to be cared about to the website operator.

7) Third-party server dependencies hurt browser performance. If just one third-party server goes offline in an unusual way, pages that depend on the third-party will never finish loading. A lot of sites depend on the "DOM ready" event to fire to execute important changes to the page. If the browser is waiting on some third-party server to return content before continuing and that server hangs for 30+ seconds, I'll generally just leave and go elsewhere. I've seen both ad servers and analytics servers hang for extended periods of time. AdBlock Plus and Ghostery dramatically reduces the number of third-party dependencies, which speeds up page load times while simultaneously helping improve site uptime.

Until all of these issues are addressed by the entire ad and SaaS industries, AdBlock Plus and Ghostery stay installed and active on my hardware.

Saturday, March 08, 2014

Writing software without copyright still needs a license

Let's say for a moment that you are writing some software that you want to release into the public domain. That is, you don't want to claim that you own a copyright on the software. This is very rare to see in the first place, but it does happen. Interestingly, Copyright Law doesn't do anything but protect others from copying and modifying your work. Neither public domain software nor copyright protected software protects the author from lawsuits from damages arising from use of the software. In other words, you still need a license to protect yourself from liability lawsuits.

Unfortunately, it seems like there aren't any OSI approved licenses for software authors that are prepackaged and ready for use with public domain software. The OSI actually doesn't have such a license because it believes it can't correctly define what Public Domain means to the author within the license itself. I disagree with that assessment.

Having researched numerous licenses over the years, I'm very comfortable with various licenses. The MIT license is, in my non-legal opinion (because I'm not a lawyer), the most liberal open source license that's as close the public domain without it actually being public domain. It basically says, "Hey, you can do whatever you want with this software just don't sue me if it causes harm. However, please note that I own the code and you have to include this license and my claim to copyright somewhere in your software." That last little bit is a sticking point if you don't WANT to claim copyright because you want it to be in the public domain.

Toward this end, here is my best attempt to satisfy the concerns of OSI regarding public domain with a modified MIT license:

Modified MIT License for Public Domain software

Public Domain or legal equivalent
Original authorship by [authors] (the "Authors") in [year]

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so.


The first line of the actual agreement ("Public Domain or legal equivalent") is intended to be treated as a title for the agreement, having legal impact wherever it applies (e.g. United States Copyright Law clearly defines what Public Domain means). If a locale has no such definition, the first line will most likely be overlooked and the second line ("Original authorship by [authors] (the "authors") in [year]") says who is the actual owner of the copyright (i.e. a legal fallback mechanism). "Original authorship" is a clever avoidance of the legally defined word "copyright" in many locales.

The first paragraph therefore will only technically apply to those locales where copyright law has no official definition of Public Domain. However, some or all of the terms may apply regardless. In essence, it clarifies the intentions of the author in regards to their hold on copyright. Should copyright still apply, attribution is included with the license to indicate who the claimants actually are. Obviously someone with intention to place their software into the Public Domain has no intention to ever claim ownership of their copyright in the first place. The definition of Public Domain is therefore clearly defined by the first paragraph. Whenever and wherever there may be doubt, define what you mean.

The second paragraph is the "covering your legal rear" paragraph. Of the two paragraphs, this is the most important one because it protects the authors from many types of lawsuits. However, wherever copyright law may still apply (and even those locales where it doesn't), the combination with the first paragraph adds extra protection by clearly specifying that the author allows the software to be used for any purpose, thus removing all legal liability (wherever legally allowed). I removed the words that referenced "copyright holders" since, by definition of public domain, there are no copyright holders. However, the use of '(the "Authors")' in the legal fallback mechanism used earlier means that the word 'AUTHORS' is tied to those who hold the copyright (if any). Even if copyright doesn't apply, the word 'AUTHORS' in that specific location protects the authors from legal liability for the software. This really wraps up the entire package, puts a fancy bow on it, and tells lawyers to go away.

It is my opinion that this license represents the closest to public domain that we as software developers can get legally worldwide while staying really far away from liability lawsuits.

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this license (the "License", to deal in the License without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the License, and to permit persons to whom the License is furnished to do so.


Hey, gotta cover my legal rear when writing licenses too. Interestingly, the license itself is a kind of circular reference.

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

Googlebot caught red-handed in Gmail's cookie jar...

Googlebot watches Gmail. I recently bought a new domain name and kept an active search window open for very specific keywords to make sure it didn't go live until I was ready for it to. The people who received the link to the domain are trustworthy to not blab about it (e.g. tweet, post, etc) until I'm ready.

That said, two days ago I sent a link to precisely one person with a Gmail account. This morning, Google search results returned positive for search discovery. Googlebot is definitively watching Gmail for references to new domains and the number of references passed around within Gmail might actually affect PageRank.

This shouldn't really surprise anyone, but it should be something to be aware of if you want to keep a product launch a secret. In my case, it doesn't really matter.

Friday, February 21, 2014

"Dumb Starbucks" - dealing with Copyright, Trademark, Patent Infringement

Over the years, I've had a vested interest in Copyright, Trademark, and Patent Law. As a software developer, having that knowledge at your disposal can be an invaluable tool to avoiding legal issues. We are in the business of writing complex software products, any of which may infringe at any time. Before I begin though, I am not a lawyer and what follows, while good common sense, is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, find a good attorney. I recommend reading the actual laws surrounding Copyrights, Trademarks, and Patents by visiting the various official .gov websites for yourself, which link directly to and have copies of the relevant laws available. If you are a software developer in a country other than the United States, you should make yourself aware of your own country's intellectual property laws. I'm hoping that what I have to say here is just reiterating what you already know as a software developer. What follows is opinion mixed with generally good advice as I follow an ill-conceived idea that popped up on my radar.

Recently I learned about "Dumb Starbucks" from a friend and, immediately, the thought "probable Trademark Law violation" popped into my head and I raised my eyebrows in the "Oh really" fashion. This person proceeded to tell me that the person behind "Dumb Starbucks" was a comedian and that the comedian said "everything was legal". Because comedians are also apparently lawyers, judges, and juries. Oh wait, they aren't. Lawyers can provide legal advice, but only a court of law (with a jury of peers - depending on the case) can decide whether or not something is truly legal. However, it is best to steer really far away from the courtroom as possible. This comedian, who I personally don't think is all that funny (to each their own), apparently wants to visit a courtroom really badly.

I went and watched a few videos on YouTube related to "Dumb Starbucks", including the one where the comedian addresses the legal situation from their perspective. I also went and re-read everything I know on the relevant legal topics. Based on my understand of the laws and precedents set, there's a strong possibility that this infringes on multiple fronts. I wouldn't blame Starbucks Corp if they sued the comedian into oblivion. Here's why:

Let's pretend you are Starbucks for a moment. You have a set of intellectual property (IP) that you have spent time, money, effort, and energy to create. I then proceed to come along and make a business, no matter how well-intentioned, and call my clone of your intellectual property "dumb". The dictionary has the following to say about the word "dumb":


1. lacking intelligence or good judgment; stupid; dull-witted.
2. lacking the power of speech (offensive when applied to humans): a dumb animal.
3. temporarily unable to speak: dumb with astonishment.
4. refraining from any or much speech; silent.
5. made, done, etc., without speech.

Some or all of these things have now been attributed to your brand, your intellectual property, your stores, your employees, and possibly your customers. There is actually significant precedent in several court cases where the "parody" claim did not fly. A quick Google search turns up (hey, correct use of a Trademark, BTW! Trademarks are correctly used as an adjective before a common noun):

Overview of Trademark Law

Harvard Law school - one would hope that they can understand law, digest it, and then communicate it so that the average person doing cursory research can understand the basics. All four referenced "parody" cases mean that the holder of the mark found sufficient evidence to go to court over the claimed parody. Remember the rule of thumb: You don't want to be anywhere near a courtroom. This means that there was a failure on those with the parody defense to do advanced due diligence. While the above is a summary, I see somewhat of an additional pattern in the cases that Harvard Law school surprisingly seems to have missed. The two cases that were deemed infringing seem to be much more denigrating to the brand than the two that were not deemed infringing. Respectively, the two cases associating the brand with poop and illicit drugs were deemed infringing while the cases regarding semi-nudity and the briefly mentioned name of a character in a movie that's a comedy were not infringing. Hopefully you can see the difference. All of them ended up in court though - a place you don't want to be or unnecessarily risk being in.

The last case struck me as odd because it is widely known that the Muppets franchise is frequently equated to cheeky parody that has its humorous moments, so I went and looked up more information about the case. It looks like Hormel Foods Corp. was concerned about the potential reduced sales of their merchandise due to merchandise that The Jim Henson Company was planning to sell and not the name of the character in the movie itself. Articles on the topic seem to be rather misleading in this regard. The actual reason of potentially lost sales makes more sense than the reason of a character's name in a comedy. However, instead of filing suit and making themselves a public nuisance and embarrassing themselves later as an example on Harvard Law school's website, they should have either formed a business relationship so that they got a (significant) cut of the profits of the merchandise (hey, practically free money from a big brand name!) or sent a cease-and-desist and then recorded losses in the sales of their own merchandise so that they would have demonstrably hard numbers for filing suit later after a reasonable amount of time had passed. The way they filed suit just strikes me as being draconian in their approach to running a business. Don't get me wrong, they are totally entitled to running their business that way, but it will cause them to end up as an example on Harvard Law school's website - as long as they are cool with that, sure go ahead. But businesses should try to attempt to have good public relations.

At any rate, let's get back to "Dumb Starbucks". First off, associating the word "dumb" with the mark is highly denigrating to the brand. Name-calling is never funny - if you called me "dumb" to my face, the conversation might degrade to something less than ideal. Putting that label on the brand in my mind moves it into the same territory as the aforementioned "poop and illicit drugs" cases. In addition, the parody attempt fails to actually say something culturally specific about the brand which the average person can pick out and say, "Oh yeah, that makes sense. Ha ha, that's funny." That seems to be the rough definition of the word "parody" in the context utilized and this attempt fails to meet that definition. Parody is best done as a loosely associated mention with lots of variations on the theme, not outright cloning of a mark and then slapping some minor modifications to it (in this instance, the word "dumb" all over the place). In addition, their claim of parody ironically has this against them:

Photo of a relevant document

The photo is loaded with poorly worded gems and is really all Starbucks Corp needs to take the "comedian" to court and sue him into oblivion over misuse and abuse of their intellectual property. The combination of "marketing purposes" with "not affiliated in any way with Starbucks Corporation" says this is a commercial venture of some sort meant to be in direct competition with the Starbucks brand. That alone puts them in hot water (har har). Second, I'm not aware of any such thing as "Parody Law". However, there are three sets of relevant laws to be concerned with in the United States with regards to intellectual property: Copyright, Trademark, and Patent Law. Within Copyright and Trademark Law, there exist clauses that roughly exclude "parody" via "fair use" but generally leave it up to the courts to decide what those words/phrases actually mean. It is up to a business or individual to bring suit to test the extent of those phrases. Fortunately, they are fairly well tested and defined by easily discoverable precedent. It would seem to me that the lawyers didn't do a good job of due diligence here. Again, you don't ever want to be anywhere near a courtroom.

Third, while they address on that piece of paper that their use of the word "dumb" is not out of "enmity", there is no indication of such anywhere else. This is especially true on the large sign with the modified logo(s) that the average person can see from the street as they drive by. Someone just driving by could confuse it with vandalism or an official marketing ploy by Starbucks Corp. and go inside thinking it was a real Starbucks franchise. I would anyway. If it were truly a parody, the sign would somehow attempt to indicate as such in the same or a larger font size to clearly distinguish that business from the original and official brand.

Finally, the document indicates eventual profits. This will provably cut into the Starbucks Corp. bottom line. In fact, it already has done precisely that by giving away coffee and thus drawing Starbucks customers away to this new, unaffiliated business.

If Starbucks Corp. also holds patents on specific processes for specific coffee preparation techniques, they also have reason for simultaneously filing for patent infringement. Due to the fact that most companies hold patents like nukes in a Cold War (i.e. they don't generally fire them), claiming patent infringement would just be a minor part of a larger suit that Starbucks Corp. might bring to bear against the comedian. It is generally accepted that patents are a legal minefield. Again, avoiding going to court is the best policy but also don't waste tons of time and money figuring out if something will infringe because there are a bunch of junk patents out there too that should never have been issued. My personal policy is to do due diligence but not worry too much - partly because of the whole "treble damages for conducting patent searches" aspect of Patent Law that needs to be removed from Patent Law because it effectively prevents proper searching of the USPTO database (i.e. damned if you don't, triple damned if you do).

There also may be grounds for Copyright infringement, but such would be less likely to succeed than Trademark infringement. It is difficult to explain why I lean in this direction. Copyright protects against outright copying and some derivation of protected works but doesn't necessarily cover trademarks. The only thing that might be Copyright infringing here is the (ab)use of the official Starbucks logo - specifically, the image of the logo can be considered artwork, which is protected by Copyright Law. Copyright generally demands that derivative works be sufficiently different from original works to be considered not infringing. Where that line is varies, but I personally estimate 25% to 75% of the copyrighted content has to be different, which this doesn't really meet the minimum qualification. Exceptions in copyright are made for parody under the "fair use" clauses but, as I stated earlier, I don't see any actual parody taking place and "fair use" in terms of the rest of Copyright has traditionally been isolated to education-ish things. Parody comments on society and its norms - this merely slapped the word "dumb" on an existing logo and started a real business based on it. A more correct use of "fair use" is Wikipedia, which uses a lot of company logos protected under Copyright but claims their use falls under fair use as they are distinctly dedicated to disseminating impartial information about the company whose logo they are using in an encyclopaedic format. Wikipedia's use feels a little awkward but is more in line with both Copyright and Trademark Law and the general understanding of what fair use means and then I combine that with editors who care about correct usage and it leans more toward being legal than infringement, but it does walk the line. This is because I'm sure that if a company demanded removal of their logo from the Wikipedia article about their company, Wikipedia would probably comply and not fight it, but demanding as much would be rather silly since the logo only helps to reinforce the brand in conjunction with impartial facts about the company - for most companies, this just helps their image and market position. While this is my view, it is entirely likely a court of law will see an entirely different take and decide that the artwork modifications are sufficient enough to warrant a denial of a copyright infringement claim. This could go either way and only a court of law can decide. However, risking copyright infringement here is not a smart decision because it has a pretty good chance to land the business in court - again, a place that you nor I want to be and should generally avoid.

Also, according to what I've read, the business was shut down, not by a lawsuit, but by the California Health Department for not being properly licensed. Ouch. While semi-irrelevant, it could be used as part of the arguments of a lack of care for Starbucks customers and the brand itself. Perhaps it is a "parody" by saying that Starbucks franchises don't meet health codes and because of that, Starbucks Corp is therefore "dumb". Starbucks Corp could then counter with something to the effect of, "Furthermore, we hold all of our franchises to the highest standards of quality and require them to meet or exceed all local, state, and Federal regulations, whether they are health regulations or otherwise. Dumb Starbucks did not bother to apply for the appropriate business licenses to operate a coffee shop in the State of California, which further tarnishes the reputation of our organization through the implication that our franchises do not attempt to meet health codes or other laws. We have had to issue statements to counter the damage in public perception of our brand regarding our strict compliance with health regulations." (I'm pretty good at that, aren't I? A lot of programmers I've run into have randomly become lawyers when they grow tired of programming. Apparently, it's a natural progression of sorts. I can't ever see that happening - too much exciting and innovative software is just waiting to be written.)

The comedian should fire their attorneys for not making a recommendation against treading into this very dangerous legal territory. Good legal counsel will give good, sound legal advice, addressing the risks and weighing them against the benefits. The risks here are multiple lawsuits, no financial gain, and significant financial loss. The benefits are either no financial gain (most likely) or barely breaking even since setting up a new business is an expensive proposition. This was a financial lose-lose situation from the get-go, should have been identified as such, and promptly and summarily declared a bad idea and rejected.

Now to bring it home: Once again, as a software developer, you never want to be near a courtroom. It is a waste of your time - time better spent making new and innovative things instead of copying someone else and getting taken to court over it. When we develop software, we have to be careful but still willing to take risks after doing due diligence. If it looks like a logo might infringe, change it - no big deal. Verify the licenses of the third-party libraries being used. Run regular Google searches on terminology. When in doubt, don't. These are all pretty common sense things that are easy to deal with up front, avoid legal hassles later, and you can still work on a whole lot of great software development projects that are innovative and also interesting, fun, and/or exciting.

Also, if you have the attitude of "I'm just going to keep innovating" instead of "I'm going to copy these things that other people have made and make a profit", you'll be way ahead of most programmers and businesses. Lazy programmers and businesses copy, great programmers and businesses innovate. If you are constantly innovating, if you get sued over one product, it won't be the end of the world or your business since you'll have a dozen other products that don't infringe to fall back on. You'll simply just take the infringing software offline, apologize and explain the situation in a positive light to former customers, and move on to the next project. The tendency of potential infringement is fear, but with an attitude of innovation you'll never be affected by it. It is important to just be aware of the various aspects of intellectual property and having a healthy respect for existing brands, doing due diligence to avoid landing in court before developing the product, being hospitable if someone has a legitimate claim, but all the while hoping there aren't issues down the road because, beyond due diligence, hope is literally the best you can do in a world with over 6 billion people all with their own ideas.