“One party is better.”
Attributed to Joseph Stalin responding to Winston Churchill’s complaint of standing for election in a two party system.
I’m struggling with the Goldieblox timeline (thanks to Adland.tv).
1. Goldieblox posts video on YouTube with link to Intuit’s small business get a commercial in the Superbowl contest.
2. The video “went viral” with over a million views, which presumably spiked traffic to the Intuit contest site.
3. It became apparent that notwithstanding the awesomeness of Intuit’s prize, the billions poured into startup companies by Silicon Valley VC alone and the mixed reviews of Goldiblox actual products (made in China), Goldieblox was pulling ahead in terms of winning the “contest”.
4. The competitors included one locally hatched egg company, one natural dog treats company and a company that sold “dairy compost”. That’s right, they sold shit on the Internet. None of them had a groovy YouTube video to drive traffic to Intuit.
5. Some rather curious Twitter and blog accounts surfaced to attack critics of Goldieblox–some have suggested that the entire process was a bit suspect (as everyone knows, YouTube is quite gameable). Perhaps Goldieblox and the 3 bots? (h/t to @kidsleepy)
6. If the Goldieblox video had an infringing work in it, that pretty clearly would have violated the contest rules. Intuit might say that the infringing video wasn’t the submission in the content. Oh right, the infringing video just drove traffic to the Intuit contest! It just induced the public to vote on the Intuit submission. And what if Goldieblox won the contest and it was later proved that the video that powered their win was infringing in violation of the contest rules? Well, the Superbowl will have passed by then–too bad, Internet shit sellers. Oh, well, all better now. Glad we cleared that up.
7. And as one of the Goldiebots pointed out–a bot that had never emitted a lawlerly statement since its activation–the Goldieblox video wasn’t infringing at the time Goldieblox entered the contest because the court has yet to rule in the action brought by Goldieblox. And Goldieblox “won” so that’s that. Oh well, all better now. Glad we cleared that up.
8. But the $64,000 question–or in this case, the $4 million question (since that’s what the Superbowl ad was supposedly worth)–is why did Goldieblox bring the declaratory relief action in the first place? Was it because the pending case allowed Intuit to let Goldieblox enter and win the contest with the cover of the declaratory relief action? And if so was Intuit paying for the lawyers for Goldieblox? What control did Intuit have in the case? Did Intuit authorize Goldieblox to bring an action in federal court knowing that there was no justiciable controversy? Was that part of the plan?
The question is what did Intuit know and when did they know it?
But that still doesn’t explain who at Goldieblox had the bright idea to sue Rick Rubin!
The good news is Intuit is a material witness in the case so that subpoena should be coming just any day now. And the shredders at Intuit go hum, hum, hum. Good thing that Intuit’s brand is based on being trustworthy.
Stay tuned all you cats and kitties. It’s another inside job.