
Legal fight over Quibi’s mobile technology gets ugly - ilamont
https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2020-03-10/lawsuit-could-delay-quibi-launch
======
et1337
What a great PR beat for Quibi. Makes it seem more like they're the next big
thing, if someone is going after their patents.

------
neonate
[https://archive.md/3wBuC](https://archive.md/3wBuC)

------
bsanr2
“These claims have absolutely no merit, and we will vigorously defend
ourselves against them in court,” Quibi said in a statement Monday. The
company declined to comment on Eko’s lawsuit.

I know that this is far from the first time I've seen it, but does anyone else
find it unnerving to see these statements be presented as coming directly from
the companies? As if there is an entity called Quibi that literally vocalized
that sentence, instead of it being presented by a lawyer representing Quibi.
How long ago did the absurdity of "corporate personhood" worm its way into our
very language?

~~~
wayoutthere
This kind of language is not remotely new. It makes sense too, as a statement
issued by a company in written form was likely authored by many people (who
may or may not individually share the views in the statement) for the benefit
of the company.

~~~
bsanr2
Which is fine. But no one cares to humor the notion of a link between the lack
of accountability for individuals within companies, when wrongdoing is
apparent, with the way we scrub individuals from company interaction with the
public? I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that the way we talk about
companies influences how we regard and treat them.

~~~
wayoutthere
We do the same for all groups of people, not just companies. And the
conventions aren't much different in other languages.

~~~
bsanr2
When we do, it's largely for the negative purposes of extending blame to all
within a group, not obfuscate or diffuse blame, as is the case here.

