????整個(gè)事情的起因平淡無(wú)奇。有個(gè)叫諾亞?克拉維茨的人2006年加盟了移動(dòng)設(shè)備和應(yīng)用評(píng)測(cè)網(wǎng)站PhoneDog，然后使用工作Twitter賬戶發(fā)微博。由于克拉維茨對(duì)新產(chǎn)品和行業(yè)走勢(shì)的視角往往非常獨(dú)特，不久他就擁有了大量粉絲。

????這其實(shí)沒(méi)什么特別的。據(jù)紐約普士高法律事務(wù)所（Proskauer）公布的一份調(diào)查顯示，大多數(shù)公司（76%）現(xiàn)在至少聘用了一名甚至好幾名能玩轉(zhuǎn)社交媒體的高手，幫助他們?cè)诰W(wǎng)絡(luò)上做市場(chǎng)。其實(shí)當(dāng)克拉維茨加盟PhoneDog的時(shí)候，他已經(jīng)是硅谷的一位頗有名氣的科技評(píng)論者，影響力不可小覷。這件事情看起來(lái)很普通，會(huì)有什么不對(duì)勁的嗎？很顯然，后來(lái)的事實(shí)證明，問(wèn)題可不少。

????2010年末，克拉維茨離開(kāi)PhoneDog跳槽到另一家公司（他現(xiàn)在是科技新聞與評(píng)論網(wǎng)站TechnoBuffalo的高級(jí)編輯）。他只是稍事改了一下Twitter的用戶名，就帶走了PhoneDog的17,000名粉絲。因此去年7月PhoneDog一紙?jiān)V狀將克拉維茨告上了聯(lián)邦法庭，聲稱(chēng)克拉維茨帶走的這些粉絲實(shí)際上相當(dāng)于是PhoneDog的客戶名單，也是PhoneDog的公司資產(chǎn)。公司希望克拉維茨為此賠付34萬(wàn)美元，也就是每名粉絲每個(gè)月2.5美元，一共賠付18個(gè)月。PhoneDog起訴克拉維茨一案的聽(tīng)證會(huì)將于1月26日在舊金山舉行。

????眼下，情形變得越來(lái)越奇怪了。一般來(lái)說(shuō)雙方當(dāng)事人在法官表態(tài)之前不會(huì)對(duì)案件進(jìn)行評(píng)論，但這樁案子不是。圍繞著這個(gè)案子（除了上述案情外，克拉維茨聲稱(chēng)PhoneDog公司還欠他一筆合伙人報(bào)酬未付，此外還有一些說(shuō)不清道不明的問(wèn)題），雙方當(dāng)事人和許多自以為是的觀察人士們?cè)诰W(wǎng)絡(luò)上打起了口水仗，陣地從科技博客一直延伸到律師事務(wù)所的網(wǎng)站上。

????這些人吵得不可開(kāi)交是有原因的：?jiǎn)T工是企業(yè)社交媒體的實(shí)際使用者，企業(yè)則認(rèn)為它們才是這些溝通渠道的擁有者，這個(gè)問(wèn)題應(yīng)該如何界定目前并無(wú)定論，PhoneDog訴克拉維茨一案很有可能就此劃出一條法律界線。美國(guó)法院一直主張，依托公司良好的聲譽(yù)、利用公司資源積累起來(lái)的客戶名單屬于公司財(cái)產(chǎn)。但是微博上的粉絲、商務(wù)社交網(wǎng)絡(luò)LinkedIn上的聯(lián)系人或Facebook好友是不是也符合這一標(biāo)準(zhǔn)？

????普士高法律事務(wù)所勞工法部門(mén)負(fù)責(zé)人伊莉斯?布隆指出：“這中間存在著巨大的灰色地帶。”她認(rèn)為在最終塵埃落定前，還會(huì)出現(xiàn)更多類(lèi)似PhoneDog狀告克拉維茨這樣的官司。

????布隆表示：“由于社交媒體自身的特性，要想讓它有效果，就必須分享一定量的私人信息和觀點(diǎn)。老板當(dāng)然希望你能吸引大量粉絲，不過(guò)要實(shí)現(xiàn)這個(gè)目標(biāo)，除了要在社交媒體上傳遞公司信息之外，還得談?wù)撘幌聜€(gè)人的婚禮計(jì)劃，或是你喜歡哪家餐廳什么的。”

????這樣做也沒(méi)問(wèn)題，但有一個(gè)問(wèn)題在于：粉絲真正感興趣的是你的公司還是你本人？

????It all started routinely enough. Noah Kravitz signed on with mobile device and app review site PhoneDog in 2006, and began using a company Twitter account to keep techno-gadget enthusiasts au courant with his often quirky views on new products and industry trends.

????Nothing unusual there: Most companies -- 76%, says a survey by New York City-based powerhouse law firm Proskauer -- now employ at least one, and often several, social-media mavens to carry their marketing message into cyberspace. Moreover, when he joined PhoneDog, Kravitz was already a popular Silicon Valley technophile with plenty of influence. What could possibly go wrong? A whole lot, apparently.

????In late 2010, Kravitz left PhoneDog -- and, with just a slight change in his Twitter handle, took about 17,000 followers out the door with him. (He's now editor-at-large at tech news-and-reviews site TechnoBuffalo.) So PhoneDog filed a lawsuit against Kravitz last July in federal court, alleging that those followers are, in effect, a customer list and PhoneDog's property. The company wants Kravitz to cough up $340,000: $2.50 per follower per month for 18 months. A hearing in the case, PhoneDog LLC v. Kravitz, is scheduled for January 26 in San Francisco.

????It gets weirder. Remember when parties to a lawsuit used to decline to comment until after a judge had spoken? Forget that. This brawl (which also encompasses Kravitz's grievance over partnership money he says PhoneDog owes him, and a couple of other murky issues) has got both sides in the lawsuit -- and many opinionated observers -- fulminating online, from tech blogs to law firm web sites.

????For good reason: PhoneDog v. Kravitz will likely establish some legal boundary lines, which are currently quite hazy, between employees' personal use of social media and employers' claim on those channels of communication. Courts have long held that client lists, built up over time on a company's good name and using its resources, are company property. But do Twitter followers -- or LinkedIn contacts, or Facebook friends -- meet the same standard?

????"There is a huge gray area here," says Elise Bloom, co-chair of Proskauer's employment law practice. She expects many more lawsuits like the Phonedog case before the dust finally settles.

????"Because of the nature of social media, you have to share a certain amount of personal information and commentary in order to be effective," Bloom says. "Attracting lots of followers and keeping them, which of course is what your employer wants, means that, yes, mixed in with the corporate messages, you are going to talk about planning your wedding or what restaurants you like."

????Fine, but it does raise the question: Is it your employer your followers are really interested in, or is it you?