Path: gmdzi!unido!mcsun!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!gnu.ai.mit.edu!rms From: r...@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Richard Stallman) Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Boycotts and fairness Message-ID: <9111162058.AA24432@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu> Date: 16 Nov 91 10:58:49 GMT Sender: dae...@cis.ohio-state.edu Distribution: gnu Organization: GNUs Not Usenet Lines: 79 I'm told that people have been arguing that it is somehow unfair to boycott Apple and Lotus without boycotting (nearly) the entire computer industry at the same time. I'd like to explain some philosophical errors in this line of reasoning. * This position presupposes that all the companies in the industry are equally bad--even though they have done a wide variety of different things. Since people may differ on just how bad a particular action may be, it is possible that a particular person might consider (for example) IBM and Apple to be equally bad. This disagreement is not an argument against my judgement of these actions, any more than it is an argument against the other person's judgement. The "unfairness" argument requires more than just disagreement with a particular evaluation of how bad certain actions are. It requries the claim that any distinction is necessarily wrong. Perhaps one can consistently believe that claim, but I don't think many of the readers actually do. Most of us do distinguish degrees of wrongdoing. In fact, the failure to make such a distinction is generally considered the mark of an extremist. As a practical matter, for those who want to solve a real-life problem, it is often wise to distinguish between offenses of different severity, and to pick a few of the worst offenders as targets to object to first. Clearly, the few companies that have actually sued are worse than the multitude who might perhaps do so. Clearly, those few who have look and feel lawsuits and patents are worse than the multitude who have only patents. So it seems to me that our boycott actually is pretty fair. * However, even if our boycott were completely unfair, there would be nothing wrong with that. The idea that our political actions should be "consistent" or "fair" in the first place is based on a misunderstanding--on the idea that the boycott is a punishment. Actually it is a weapon. Certainly, it should not be used against people who have done nothing to deserve it; otherwise it would be unethical. But there is no reason to use it "fairly" when various parties are all "deserving". To make an analogy, in World War II, the US did not attack the Axis forces on all fronts in every attack. Instead, the US army attacked wherever seemed advantageous. This was perhaps "unfair" to the particular Axis soldiers who were attacked on any given day, but as enemies they weren't entitled to fairness. Likewise, if many companies are more or less deserving of our condemnation, they have lost any claim to fair treatment. The most they can claim is that we should not treat them in a way that exceeds what their wrongs justify. The comparison of Apple, IBM, and so on with students who give wrong answers on a test is a good example with which to see why a boycott is not punishment. Punishments are inflicted by the strong on the weak. Boycotts are a weapon for the weak against the strong. Fairness is a requirement we place on the strong--not on the weak. For example, it makes sense to require the instructor to treat the students fairly, because the instructor has great power over the students. If the government were considering the look and feel prepetrators, then perhaps its power would exceed that of the companies. (Though I'm not sure of this!) If so, there would be good reason to require the government to be fair. However, we programmers and users can hardly be said to have this sort of power over IBM, Apple, or even Lotus. There is no obligation for the weak to treat strong aggressors "fairly" while trying to protect themselves. They have to fight in whatever way they can. There is room for a value judgement here, on which people may disagree. If you think that "unfair" behavior by the FSF is a more serious problem than menace from Apple *or* IBM, you are entitled to your opinion. But I hope most of you don't share that opinion, and will join me in using all the weapons that we can conveniently use.
Path: gmdzi!ieee.org!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!bronze! copper!huntley From: hunt...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Haydn Huntley) Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: Boycotts and fairness Message-ID: <1991Nov17.151222.21312@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> Date: 17 Nov 91 15:12:22 GMT References: <9111162058.AA24432@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu> Sender: n...@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (USENET News System) Distribution: gnu Organization: Indiana University Lines: 85 Nntp-Posting-Host: copper.ucs.indiana.edu In article <9111162058.AA24...@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu> r...@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Richard Stallman) writes: For the sake of brevity, I'll summarise a few of the things RMS wrote which I disagree with. 1) RMS says that the FSF is a small, weak organization, and Apple is a big, strong organization. He argues that only the strong can punish the weak, not vice-versa, therefore the FSF isn't 'punishing' Apple! I'm sorry, this line of reasoning doesn't hold water! To punish means to hurt someone. The FSF is capable of hurting others, just as Apple and Microsoft are. I wish that the FSF didn't have hurting and punishing other organizations as one of its main goals! 2) RMS says that, "Fairness is a requirement we place on the strong--not on the weak." He goes on to argue that the FSF doesn't need to be fair in deciding to punish different organizations. Again, I cannot agree with this. One should be fair and just! It does not matter who is in a position of strength, nor the details of how the different parties can hurt one another. In the past, I have argued that the FSF is unfair in punishing Apple, but not punishing other companies. Some of the other companies are Xerox (which sued Apple, but isn't usually mentioned on the boycott list), and AT&T which claims to own the concept of 'backing store' and which is threatening users of X Windows. Also, IBM, DEC, MIPS, Xerox and AT&T are filing algorithm patents as fast as they can, and algorithm patents are much more pernicious than user interface copyrights, yet the FSF does *nothing* to discourage these companies from patenting everything in sight! RMS, the FSF and LPF often say that the Apple v. Microsoft/HP suit is dangerous to everyone else in the industry, because if Apple wins, they will be able to create a monopoly on convenient user interfaces. I wish the above parties would read the summary of proceedings published on May 20, 1991 in the Daily Appellate Report of the Los Angeles Daily Journal. (If anyone would like an ASCII copy, just email a request and I'll email it to you!) On about the third page it says: "Implicit in Judge Schwarzer's approach to the case is a rejection of Apple's fundamental contention that the 'total concept and feel' of the Macintosh graphic user interface is protectible expression." What the Judge is saying is that he doesn't believe user interface copyrights are valid. So what's the threat? In RMS's post, I think he misunderstood my arguments about the FSF's and LPF's boycott. My point is that I don't think that the FSF should boycott Apple or other companies. Punishing organizations shouldn't be the FSF's function. The FSF should create and distribute free software! I was arguing that the boycott seems unfair and should be dropped -- I certainly don't believe that all of the computer companies should be boycotted! I think that there is no *evidence* that Apple's suit with Microsoft is dangerous to the FSF's goal of creating a freely distributable version of Unix, which will probably have a nice user interface someday. If the FSF were going to boycott a company or group of companies, then the FSF should publish and disseminate an explanation of why it is boycotting those companies, and exactly what the FSF wants those companies to do to relieve the boycott. The argument, that the Apple v. Microsoft/HP suit is dangerous to the FSF GUI Unix seems to be based on hype, rather than on facts. This suit doesn't bear on the issue of user interface copyrights. So why are we punishing Apple? RMS, I've heard that you don't read this newsgroup, which seems unfortunate, because there has been alot of good information on this issue in the last few weeks. Lookup some of the postings by John Coolidge -- they raise some excellent questions! --Haydn -- ;; ***************************************************** ;; * Haydn Huntley hunt...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu * ;; * * ;; * Member of the League for Programming Freedom. * ;; * For more info, write to lea...@prep.ai.mit.edu * ;; *****************************************************
Path: gmdzi!ieee.org!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!agate!soda.berkeley.edu!adam From: a...@soda.berkeley.edu (Adam J Richter) Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: Boycotts and fairness Message-ID: <kieevjINNgpv@agate.berkeley.edu> Date: 18 Nov 91 04:05:07 GMT References: <9111162058.AA24432@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu> <1991Nov17.151222.21312@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> Distribution: gnu Organization: cc Lines: 26 NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu In article <1991Nov17.151222.21...@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> hunt...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Haydn Huntley) writes: >I wish the above parties would read the summary of proceedings >published on May 20, 1991 in the Daily Appellate Report of the Los >Angeles Daily Journal. (If anyone would like an ASCII copy, just >email a request and I'll email it to you!) On about the third page it >says: "Implicit in Judge Schwarzer's approach to the case is a >rejection of Apple's fundamental contention that the 'total concept >and feel' of the Macintosh graphic user interface is protectible >expression." As I have explained to you before, "total concept and feel" is not equal to "look and feel", which is not equal to "user interface copyright." The effect of that decision was merely that Apple's list of offending NewWave and MS-Windows features would be used to specify Apple's claims of infringement, rather than the more vague test for overall similarness in the "total concept and feel." To see this, read the paragraphs that precede the line that you quote from the LA Daily Journal. If you want to better understand terminology like "total concept and feel", so as to avoid making such gross misinterpretations in the future, read Pamela Sameulson's May 1989 _Communications of the ACM_ article. Pamela Samuelson is an intellectual property law professor (and attorney) at the University of Pittsburgh. Adam J. Richter a...@soda.berkeley.edu 409 Evelyn Avenue, Apt. 312 ....!ucbvax!soda!adam Albany, CA 94706 (510)528-3209
Path: gmdzi!ieee.org!sdd.hp.com!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!agate! soda.berkeley.edu!adam From: a...@soda.berkeley.edu (Adam J Richter) Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: Boycotts and fairness Message-ID: <kiekt4INNjab@agate.berkeley.edu> Date: 18 Nov 91 05:46:12 GMT References: <9111162058.AA24432@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu> <1991Nov17.151222.21312@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> Distribution: gnu Organization: cc Lines: 42 NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu In article <1991Nov17.151222.21...@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> hunt...@copper.ucs.indiana.edu (Haydn Huntley) writes: >In the past, I have argued that the FSF is unfair in punishing Apple, >but not punishing other companies. Some of the other companies are >Xerox (which sued Apple, but isn't usually mentioned on the boycott >list), and AT&T which claims to own the concept of 'backing store' and >which is threatening users of X Windows. Actually, the LPF is boycotting Xerox. As for AT&T, the LPF has not officially declared a boycott, but the LPF does ask that everyone who decides not to make some purchase from AT&T as a result of AT&T's legal threats send mail to lea...@prep.ai.mit.edu. In the mean time, AT&T has asked the patent office to reexamine their "backing store" patent. >Also, IBM, DEC, MIPS, Xerox >and AT&T are filing algorithm patents as fast as they can, and >algorithm patents are much more pernicious than user interface >copyrights, yet the FSF does *nothing* to discourage these companies >from patenting everything in sight! The LPF is opposed to software patents. In fact, one of our two position papers, _Against Software Patents_, is dedicated entirely to this subject. We've just finished a letter writing campaign in response to the 5/16/91 "Request for comments for the Advisory Commission on Patent Law Reform." It is my understanding that there will be an LPF contingent on hand to protest Rob Pike's talk at MIT a few days from now (according to message that I received about this event, Pike publicly advocates software patents). If the LPF were to target specific companies in some action against software patents, I suspect that we'd want to single out some of the worst offenders (such as companies that are trying to change the interpretation of the law to be more restrictive, as is the case with Lotus and Apple in UI copyrights). Because there are so many companies filing for software patents, and because some people claim that such activities need to be done for the purpose of defense from other patent infringement lawsuits, the worst offenders would be companies that do more than just file for patents. Adam J. Richter a...@soda.berkeley.edu 409 Evelyn Avenue, Apt. 312 ....!ucbvax!soda!adam Albany, CA 94706 (510)528-3209