Miscellaneous > The Lounge
Whats with this protesting European Patenting Stuff?
Doctor V:
If protesting is not what we should to to stop this BS, then how should we? By just shutting up and voting like you seem to think? I really wish that would work, however, the elected politicians often do not know what the public wants, and really don't understand the issues they vote on. Industry representatives a.k.a. lobbists, the guys who might benefit from these patents and other crazy laws, meet with them and give them their side of the story and thats usually all they ever hear. The have to meet with these lobbists cause the industry finances their campaign. Now, if the politician sees on the news that thousands of people are on the streets and up in flames over this, it might, just might make them think twice before following with what is fed to the by the lobbists.
Protesting gets things done, usually they arn't violent, and even republicans protest sometimes.
billy_gates:
quote:Originally posted by Doctor V: Gentoo Lunatic:
Protesting gets things done, usually they arn't violent, and even republicans protest sometimes.
--- End quote ---
Since most protests are small... I guess one could assume they don't get violent. But the ones big enough to change people't mind about not making more money have a lot of people. And a lot of people in one area has a couple of problems. They can block traffic of some sort. They all do not listen to the leader of the protest (there are just too many) and eventually cops come and taunt them. and a very few of the people who do not truly believe in their cause can screw everything up very badly, by becoming violent.
And yes, republicans do protest sometimes.
You do make a good point. But I truly think that if your elected representatives don't represent you. Be more careful when you elect them. And then of course there is always the boycott type of thing (which is a more extreme version of the voting with your wallet thing) Just spread the word around europe not to purchase software covered under the patents law. Then if companies start seeing a loss in sales they WILL get rid of it.
suselinux:
The reason that this thread started is that we are fighting stereo types here.
The conservatives think that all liberals are hippies with no wealth, or wit. the surfs of modern america, they only belive in social development because they know that they will get something out of it because they are liberals and they must be poor.
The Liberals think that all conservatives are rich greedy people who only got were they are because they used the money passed down from the last generation. the only reason Consrvatives believe in corperate rights is because they are either share holders or owners of businesses who will gain something from it.
And they both believe that there can not be a common ground.
I am a Canadian Conservative, a member of the party no less. I believe that for the most part unions are a bad thing, but I also believe that obtuse patents based on the most miniscule of ideas is a bad thing.
Unlike Jeff my family dosen't drive british SUV's
my dad owned a triumph in the seventies and always had problems with the eletrical, so I grew up always hearing British cars bad electrics.
no offence Calum, Zardoz, anyone else
instaed My parents both drive newer Mazdas my mom a miata, my dad a truck some pick up thingy.
I had to buy myself a car so I own a Tercel, my parents bought my little brother a Cavalier.
we live the one of the most expensive areas in canada, The North shore of BC being the most expensive and whistler and crap.
My dad owns an industrial tooling company and is a partner an a plastics forming and fabricating company
so in an akward way im trying to say im no hippie, trying without bosting too much
I believe that protest is a good thing, you can change the world two ways, loud and bold yelling at the castle wall, or whispering many samll changes inside the castle.
YOU CAN NOT VOTE WITH YOUR WALLET
You, the single consumer mean nothing, you, the many consumers mean nothing, you, all of the consumers still mean nothing!............at least not to the RIAA
people stop buying CD's and start downloading because music is over priced and crappy, and comes with too many inhibitting copywrongs (sound related?)
so after we have voted against the RIAA with our wallets, they changed, because we voted and thats it right? Wrong Asshole! instead an American association leavies a tax on CDR's in the US AND Motherfucking Canada.
well we won the motherfucking battle there now didn't we, get any subpoenas in the mail latley?
voting with your wallet is a myth! two hundred thousand people not buying a mac is nothing compared to 50 thousand standing together screaming bloody murder in front of Apple HQ...
Apple is just an example, just came to mind for some reason. they should not be protested against.
OK so Liberal Protestors are not hippies, and conservative southern californian mac owners are not green eyed, empty headed, falsley educated, money hording, arogant....... prove it Jeff
Doctor V:
Protesting can also get the voters who elect these politicians to look into issues they would otherwise have never heard about. You ask average joe on the street what he thinks of software and business model patenting and he'll probably be very confused. He sees thousands protesting against it and he might think twice next time its his turn to vote.
Boycotting to stop software patents simply won't work.
Here's how a boycott works:
Corp A and corp B both sell product X. Corp A goes evil. Stop buying from corp A and buy from corp B instead. Corp A loses money and changes their ways.
Here's our problem:
Corp A and corp B both sell product X. Corp A patents product X. Corp B is sued, and goes out of business cause its now illegal for anyone but corp A to sell product B. Corp A can do whatever evil they want cause people either really want or outright need product X and will never be able to get it from anyone else. They'd like to boycott, but that would mean giving up product X completely, which might not be possible.
Now in this case we arn't even talking about a certian product, its going to be much more far reaching, it might be a way of selling things, or a couple lines of code that thousands of applications use. It could be just about anything. Yes, under this system Mcdonalds could have patented fast food, Dominoes could have patented pizza delivery, or even the idea of food delivery all together. Point is, boycotting is meaningless here. Its either stopped before it starts or we all suffer.
billy_gates:
suselinux:
My step dad had a triumph when he was growig up too. It had tons of little problems like that. And British cars do classicly have electrical problems. But the electrical system in the Rover is german... Bosch. We got ours the first year BWM owned Rover.
Just a funny coincidence I thought.
Although, your Mazda's are by no means Japanese. Ford has completely transformed them. They share almost all of the same parts. And are made in the US. (not that you wanted them to be japanese or anything, just saying)
quote:voting with your wallet is a myth! two hundred thousand people not buying a mac is nothing compared to 50 thousand standing together screaming bloody murder in front of Apple HQ...
Apple is just an example, just came to mind for some reason. they should not be protested against.
--- End quote ---
Correct. But 50,000 not buying a Mac will be even bigger. Apple can't afford to lose 50,000 customers. This will cause them to change. Cause them to fix the reason why you are not purchasing their product. I don't see how 50,000 people outside of apple HQ with signs saying "bad Apple," but they still have brand new powerbooks strapped to their shoulders would do anything. In fact Apple would be getting free publicity. The news would be all over it, and depending on the channel would tell it from different perspectives. Its like those people who didn't want to pay for .Mac. They signed a petition but still payed. It doesn't work that way. If a company is not to make money by doing what they are doing they will change. Because the sole purpose of a business is to make money... do you not agree?
Doctor V:
quote:Corp A and corp B both sell product X. Corp A patents product X. Corp B is sued, and goes out of business cause its now illegal for anyone but corp A to sell product B. Corp A can do whatever evil they want cause people either really want or outright need product X and will never be able to get it from anyone else. They'd like to boycott, but that would mean giving up product X completely, which might not be possible.
--- End quote ---
if you really believe in your cause you will stop using product X. During the civil rights movement. One of the first things they did was boycott the bus system. There was no corp b bus system. Only one. They stopped using it. It was a huge pain. They had to walk or bum rides from people. But they did it. And it will take at least 6 months for corp b to get sued out of existance. So you have some time.
I don't think there is a way to prove my points any further.
Businesses are created for one purpose... to make money. If people stop buying their product, the company will lose money. If there is a way for the company to remedy this, and make it so people will buy their product they will. There is only one exception. And that is if the company KNOWS, without a doubt, that holding onto whatever they have will in the future turn major profits. But they can't hold out forever.
I guarantee that if 100 million people stopped buying and using the Windows OS and told MS its because of their monopolistic behavior. That after several years of losing 100 million customers. They would fold and change their ways. Because making some money is better than making none and just closing your doors.
quote:Now in this case we arn't even talking about a certian product, its going to be much more far reaching, it might be a way of selling things, or a couple lines of code that thousands of applications use. It could be just about anything. Yes, under this system Mcdonalds could have patented fast food, Dominoes could have patented pizza delivery, or even the idea of food delivery all together. Point is, boycotting is meaningless here. Its either stopped before it starts or we all suffer.
--- End quote ---
Your right... boycotting is not the best way to get this patent thing not done. But if worst comes to worst and it does get put into effect. I am sure that if you stopped buying stuff from the company that was enforcing their patents and sueing others, and you told them that was why.. with a letter of some sort. You told them why you were not buying from them that they would stop. It would take a long time. They would have to think that you were never going to buy from them ever again. But eventually they would go out of business (from losing money) or give in.
Now if on the other hand 100 million people protest their Windows OS but still buy it. They will get negative publicity. But because of their monopoly the rest of the people would still buy the product, and even the protestors would buy the prodcut, cus according to suse they couldn't live without it. MS would not change. They have no reason too. They are still rakin in the Doh.
I think that is the best way I can explain it. The whole principle of voting with your wallet is based on the 100% absolute fact that all companies are designed to make money, and all patents, and patent systems are designed to make money. Remove the money, and they give in. Change their ways. They won't make as much money now. But its better than making no money.
[ September 06, 2003: Message edited by: jeffberg: Mac Capitalist ]
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version