🚀 go-pugleaf

(For the record, I am not a director of the LPF and can't speak in any
official capacity for the organization as a whole.  I'm just a volunteer.)

In article <1992Nov15.182219.2730@news.cs.indiana.edu> huntley@gable.cs.indiana.edu (Haydn Huntley) writes:
>The reason I decided not to renew my membership is that I was turned
>off by the LPF's anti-Apple attitude.  I can understand boycotting an
>organization as a protest against what they are doing, but hasn't the
>threatening part of the Apple vs. Microsoft/Hewlett-Packard suit been
>resolved already?  

No. 

Judge Walker threw out most of Apple's complaints against Microsoft and HP.
He cited concerns about overbroad monopoly as part of the reason.  This is
definitely a step in the right direction but it does not completely
eliminate the danger from Apple for several reasons:

* Not all of the lawsuit has been thrown out.  A few of Apple's claims
  still remain to be decided.

* Part of the reason most claims were rejected was that Microsoft had
  signed a contract with Apple, years ago.  In fact, the judge did not
  decide for certain that the features in Apple's list were
  uncopyrightable; he said that *either* they are uncopyrightable *or*
  Microsoft's license covers them.  Only another trial will tell us which
  one it is!

  Thus, if Apple were to sue someone else in the exact same way--someone
  who did not sign such a license with them years ago--it is not clear that
  the outcome would be the same.

* Apple is appealing the decision; we cannot regard any of it as final.


>When the LPF treats all companies reasonably fairly, then I will be able
>to support it whole-heartedly.  Originally, I was under the impression
>that the LPF was an organization which cared about principles, but I
>really don't understand how continuing to sell 'Fanged Apple' buttons is
>the best way to explain our cause (that is, that we are anti-algorithm
>patents, rather than against certain parts of the software industry).

   I agree with you that in general it's good to be consistent, but this
wouldn't help the LPF's case at all.  The end doesn't justify the means,
but if the means are not all that objectionable (in an ethical sense) and
the end is important enough, I'm personally willing to forego the ideal
means for more practical ones. 

   If the LPF urged a boycott on every company which had software patents
or interface copyrights, we would have far less support because it would
mean boycotting such a substantial fraction of the software industry.  If
people have to choose between boycotting most of the software industry (and
sacrificing their livelihood), or ignoring the boycott, they will obviously
do the latter.  The LPF would look silly urging a boycott against every
"evildoer" and getting completely ignored.  That won't help our case the
slightest bit.  But Apple is just one corporation, and a boycott against
them serves as an example to the rest of the industry.  The boycott is not
intended as a matter of principle; it's a political tactic.  That doesn't
mean we think what other companies are doing is necessarily any less
objectionable than Apple's legal actions.

   As far as the fanged apple buttons go, I think they are supposed to
serve primarily as a conversation piece.  When I give them to people I
explain to them what Apple is doing with regard to interface copyrights and
why interface copyrights are bad in general.  I also try to talk about
software patents.  Their aim is not solely to say "Apple is evil", though
they do happen serve as a symbol of the boycott on Apple as well.

   I'm sorry that you disagreboycott on Apple as well.

   I'm sorry that you disagree with the League's position on the Apple
boycott.  I guess all you can do in that case is decide what you think is
the "lesser of two evils", and base your actions on that decision.  The LPF
benefits by your membership; Apple (and other companies who disagree with
the LPF) benefit by your not joining.