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
kers@hplb.hpl.hp.com (Chris Dollin) (06/05/91)
Fred Brehm comments on a message from Richard Stallman [*1]: [Fred quotes RMS] >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 says] Wow! You sure interpreted the quoted statement in an extreme way. That statement said nothing about balancing that duty with other duties. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Isn't that what it takes to be unstated? -- Regards, Kers. | "You're better off not dreaming of the things to come; Caravan: | Dreams are always ending far too soon."