🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Aug13.235055.9417@uoft02.utoledo.edu> dsouth@uoft02.utoledo.edu (Dale Southard Jr.) writes:

>The Apple boycott fails to produce any hardships/lack of sales for Apple.
>In fact, the only people it inconveniences are the programmers (or at least
>those of use that are foolish enough to abide by GNU's boycott because we
>agree with the principle, if not the means).  It is important to remember
>that most of the Mac users/programmers (including some of my friends that
>work for Apple) see Apple inc. as a "great group of engineers ruined by a
>few MBAs".

This is true, but neither the potential for "hypocrisy" nor lack 
of efficacy in this _particular_ case really gets at the whole 
of the problem with boycotts as a tactic.

First, it is entirely reasonable to boycott even if the boycott 
is a lost cause.  The LPF is constituted as an organization
specifically opposed to user interface copyright and software
patents, therefore a boycott of Apple which is a flagrant 
offender is by definition justifiable.  

As for "hypocrisy", it's been pointed out (repeatedly, thanks!) that 
LPF uses its boycott as a strategic tactic, and that pointing to the
existence of other offenders (such as IBM and AT&T who hold software 
patents) does not necessarily make LPF "hypocritical" for choosing 
to boycott Apple and Lotus.

To paraphrase one person's explanation, consider the example of an
anti-"foo" organization that arbitrarily decides to protest in front 
of the offices of "foo, Inc.".  One hundred demonstrators outside one
company grabs headlines better than 10 each in front of 10 companies 
that practice "foo".)  Focussing on a single "bad guy" can be seen
as a tactic.

This may be good strategy for protests, but boycotts are different.

First, for a boycott to be taken seriously by outsiders, it is 
necessary to show that those participating in the boycott have
given up something of value in order to advance some higher
principle.  (When LPF announced its boycott of Lotus and Apple --
companies whose products are of little interest to its main 
constituency, the "unix community" -- the decision had all the 
resonance of an atheist organization announcing a boycott on prayer.)

The main problem with boycotts, however, is that they inevitably
tend to lead to debates about target selection.  Even if one is 
willing to argue that target selection is made arbitrarily for 
strategic reasons, the result is to shift focus away from principles.

If the objective is to convince the outside world that software
patents and user interface copyrights are a bad thing, why adopt
a tactic that leaves those who already agree with the principles
squabbling over which kettle is blackest when all are clearly dirty?

Boycotts also set a dangerous precedent.  It is simple and easy
to comply with a boycott on Apple:  few of us need to use Apple
hardware to do our jobs, and many unix-oriented people detest
their products anyway.  But what if the next offender turns out
to be AT&T, as it well might?

Finally, how exactly does a boycott end?   Do we require that 
Apple and Lotus publically renounce user interface copyrights,
when no such requirement is made of companies that aren't now
boycotted?  Was this even considered when the boycott was 
announced, I wonder?

In summary, I'm greatly disappointed when the events of the past 
week are described as "a victory for LPF", and further used as a
vindication of boycott as a tactic.

First of all, the ruling in Apple v. Microsoft was a victory of 
sorts, but the outcome of Lotus v. Borland was a clear defeat.

To overturn Lotus v. Borland, and more importantly to achieve
an unequivocal change in user interface law, the focus in future
needs to be on principles rather than personalities.  In my opinion,
boycotts are good at demonizing, but lousy at focusing debate on 
the real issues.
-- 
-- Bill Johnston (johnston@me.udel.edu)
-- 38 Chambers Street; Newark, DE 19711; (302)368-1949