Just a point of clarification: I don't think Starbuck's policy isn't *intended* to address corporate espionage, I think that it's not *effective* at doing so, and to address it as such is a waste of patron/protestor's time. AS far as the issue of public space vs. trespassing law is concerned, there are conflicting precedents: I would say that the Utah case that found that free speech rules held precedence in shared spaces in the Mall speaks to this issue (but I'm not a lawyer, and cheerfully admit I could be wrong). THe point is that there's no natural reason why property takes precedent over protest, and there's no reason why people shouldn't take back some of that precedence. If Starbucks policy is the point they want to make that stand, so be it.

It kind of breaks my brain to think of how copyright applies inside a Starbucks. They can't copyright things like store layout--which is somewhat different in every store, anyway-- or their colors. Of course, the Starbucks logo is a trademark (out of which all the useful lessons have already been drawn by New World) and individual artworks inside are likely copyrighted, but what else I can't even think of. Which may make their desire to precent puicture taking a little more understandable, actually, because a person can put together a pretty good simulacra of a Starbucks using only uncopyrightable elements (as some chains have). In any case, the fact that most of the coffee chains are fairly indistinguishable supports my assertion that preventing interior photography isn't really doing anything but antagonizing customers. And if a large enough number of people make that point, and back it up with money spent at New Order, Peet's, or (please) their locally-owned independent, I think Starbucks will prove pretty malleable on this point. And if not, I hope we can find creative ways to use their newly vacated spaces in our urban centers and suburban strips.