🚀 go-pugleaf

charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer) writes:

>In article <haney.688680761@moonshine>, haney@moonshine.llnl.gov
>(Scott W. Haney) writes:

>>  Oh come on. Apple's lawyers are using lawful means to represent their
>>company with regard to legal issues that are by no means obvious.
>>Terrorists represent their cause by unlawful means (often KILLING 
>>innocent people).  I really cannot understand why there is an argument
>>here. (Or have you seen John Sculley gunning down Windows developers
>>recently?)

>Just because it's legal doesn't make it right.  The Vietnam war was
>legal, but lots of people didn't put up with that either.

I agree.

>Apple is trying to destroy the usefulness of computers for the "rest
>of us" for their own benefit.  It's immoral.  It will be even more
>immoral if the court rules in their favor than if they lose.  When
>the law is wrong, some sort of citizen action is necessary to redress
>the problem.

  It seems that this is black and white issue to you.  Fine.  But can you 
understand that honest, well-intentioned people might not see things in such 
stark terms? I don't think "destroying the usefulness of computers for
the rest of us" is Apple's motive and I haven't decided whether Apple's
case is either morally or legally without merit. Accordingly, I see
equating Apple with a terrorist organization as inaccurate and insulting. 
This sort of emotional coupling evokes images from the Pan Am 103 bombing and 
the Rome Airport massacre and I think it stands in the way of an honest and 
civil discussion.
  As for your last point regarding the need for citizen action.  I totally
agree.  Working to modify laws that one views as immoral or incorrect is a 
good way to effect change in a positive manner (much more so than the request 
for "embarrassing questions, etc" that started this thread).

>By the way I don't see anything wrong with the notion that using the
>threat of a lawsuit can be "terroristic."  There are other ways to kill
>businesses and jobs besides using guns.

  I agree in principle. These SLAPP suits we've heard about would seem to
fall into this category: they are generally gratuitous and are designed to
impinge on people's first amendment rights by threatening finanical ruin.
However, Apple is pursuing a case against a decidedly "armed" opponent 
regarding a legal point that isn't black-and-white to everyone.  I think 
seeking a ruling in such a situation is not "terroristic".  You apparently 
disagree.  Fine.

>-- 
>Charles Geyer
>School of Statistics
>University of Minnesota
>charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott W. Haney        || Lawrence Livermore N'Lab || The above views are 
haney@random.llnl.gov || P.O. Box 808;  L-644     || mine and not neces-
(415) 423-6308        || Livermore, CA  94550     || sarily LLNL's.