I'm not a fan of frivolous lawsuits (hot coffee in the lap) because they generally take time away from lawsuits with real merit (asbestos, guns, cigarettes, etc). Most recently lawsuits have been lodged against Apple for the iPhone - One for the antenna issue and the other for the AT&T iPhone exclusivity. The first one is clearly an idiotic attempt at a money grab. Sure it's proven that holding the phone a certain way causes you to lose bars (I can't seem to reproduce this issue but others I know have) but so what? If you don't like the way your phone behaves, return the phone for a full refund. You haven't been damaged in any way that would require redress via a lawsuit. That would be like me buying a pepperoni pizza that didn't have enough pepperonis on it. I'd either suck it up or return it for another one that had enough pepperonis. If the pizza place couldn't deliver me a pizza with enough pepperonis on it because of a design flaw in their pizza making process, I'd just go but a pepperoni pizza from another place that could deliver me a pizza with the required number of pepperonis.

The second lawsuit is one that definitely will be beneficial should it prevail. Having the iPhone on multiple carriers will create more competition in the wireless marketplace forcing AT&T (and others) to compete more on price, service, etc. If nothing else, it'll mean that iPhone users will be dispersed across multiple networks so that the strain won't be on one network. To keep with the pizza analogy, this would be like if you could only order a pepperoni pizza from one place. Not to say that the quality of the pizza or the pizza place was bad but it's easy to see that if more places could offer that pepperoni pizza to their customers, this would benefit everyone in terms of more options, faster service, etc.

Dang... I'm hungry now.

It's strange how themes seem to emerge in our daily lives. The History Channel had a program about Sun Tzu's Art of War a few days ago (interesting if not a little campy with the graphics and re-enactments). Then a friend forwards this interesting article about junior girls basketball from the New Yorker. They both highlight a specific tenant of competition, be it sports or war. Always attack your enemies weaknesses and never engage them in the things they do exceptionally well.
 
Centrro is in a very large, very competitive market that is currently dominated by much larger players with much larger war chests. We'll never be able to out spend out competition but instead of spending $1.00 to make $1.10 (of course, multiply that by millions), we've decided to take the route of spending $1.00 to make $3.00 or, in some cases, $6.00. We do this by engaging in certain channels that our competitors either disregard or cannot efficiently play in. Over time, this efficiency will allow us to grow large enough to enter more mainstream channels but still carry over the learnings and processes from our best channels.
 
The other thing I found interesting about the New Yorker article was that instead of adapting and innovating, the Goliaths tend to force the Davids to play their game by their rules. How many times have we seen the music industry sue their way out of an issue? Now the movie industry is doing the same. Kudos to Redwood City girls basketball team and their coaches for thinking outside the box!