phr@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Paul Rubin) (06/04/91)
From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu>
(I have asked phr to post this for me, because that is easier than
learning how to post netnews myself.)
Whether you or I agree with the policy, Hayes has a duty to its
owners to preserve its legal rights.
Every bad corporate citizen tries to justify its actions in this way.
This argument, if accepted as valid, is an all-purpose justification
for any kind of lawful but antisocial behavior.
Most people would not agree that corporations can never be blamed for
any lawful thing that they do. And unless you are willing to agree
with that, you must conclude by reductio ad absurdum that this general
line of reasoning is invalid. It is not an excuse for an obnoxious
action.
I think I can pinpoint the fallacy. The unstated premise in this
argument is that the "duty" to the owners is absolute and completely
overrides any other possible duties that an organization might have.
And that the responsibility to an employer is absolute and overrides
all of the obligations that an individual employee and citizen would
normally have. Acceptance of corporations as ways for their owners to
do business does not imply this additional premise.
Other corporations have found ways to cease other business practices
that are generally condemned--such as, trade with South Africa, and
cutting down rainforests. And corporations often simply give away
their money to charities. This shows that their duty to their owners
is much more flexible than they would sometimes have us believe.
It is very important to write an answer to the Patent Office request
for public comment. Each additional letter will help convey the
importance of this issue. The LPF position paper on software patent
may help you find arguments to use (ask league@prep.ai.mit.edu for a
copy if you don't have one). So will various articles published in
CACM during 1990.
However, you might as well also condemn Hayes, because that doesn't
take any work, and you've got nothing to lose. While public
condemnation does not always make companies stop doing lawful but
obnoxious things, it sometimes does. Even if it doesn't stop Hayes,
it might discourage someone else from taking after them.fwb@pollux.tmc.edu (Fred Brehm) (06/04/91)
[The news server claimed not to accept my previous reply because we don't get gnu.misc.discuss. Please accept my appologies if this gets posted twice.] >From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu> > > Whether you or I agree with the policy, Hayes has a duty to its > owners to preserve its legal rights. >... >I think I can pinpoint the fallacy. The unstated premise in this >argument is that the "duty" to the owners is absolute and completely >overrides any other possible duties that an organization might have. Wow! You sure interpreted the quoted statement in an extreme way. That statement said nothing about balancing that duty with other duties. -- Frederic W. Brehm Siemens Corporate Research Princeton, NJ fwb@demon.siemens.com -or- ...!princeton!siemens!demon!fwb