Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What we did when a patent troll asked for our help

lessannoyingcrm.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 102 posts

Re: What we did when a patent troll asked for our help

#61

Post by jarrett »

the_bear wrote: post #42
jarrett wrote: post #38

A lot of this discussion seems to boil down to several key issues: 1. Should you ever refuse service to someone because you disapprove of their lawful activities? 2. If so, where do you draw the line? 3. If so, how do you deal with the fact that you can only enforce the policy when a customer's activities are specifically brought to your attention? To answer #1, I'd make an analogy to the social responsibility rules…

I think this is a great summary, but it misses one key point. There's a big difference between refusing to buy a product from someone you find unethical and refusing to sell a product to someone you find unethical. The difference how this impacts all of the other potential buyers/sellers out there who are ethical. Google and Facebook ban people's accounts all the time for doing things they find disagreeable, and they…

If Google and Facebook have clear TOS terms forbidding the middle figure and pseudonyms, then I don't see anything wrong with them enforcing those guidelines. (Provided of course they don't ban people who they incorrectly deem to be in violation, which is a whole other can of worms.)

Likewise, if you have clear TOS terms regarding prohibited activities like patent trolling, then patent trolls should just refrain from signing up. I don't see what would cause the "state of fear" provided customers are clear on what the rules are.

Re: What we did when a patent troll asked for our help

#62

Post by eridius »

jeremyarussell wrote: post #59
eridius wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a really scary precedent to say that you can only use software if the software vendor's morals are compatible with your own morals. Thought experiment: If the guys running Less Annoying CRM are strong atheists (note: I have no idea what their religious beliefs are), and this post was about whether or not they'd provide support for a devoutly christian customer, what would the reaction be? Would you still think i…

Yes. Just don't complain when all the religious customers go away.

What if it's a physical storefront? Would you be ok with, say, an ice cream parlor run by christians that put up a sign saying atheists are not welcome?

Note, this actually happened, and people were outraged. http://freethinker.co.uk/2011/11/23/missouri-ice-cream-shop-...

Re: What we did when a patent troll asked for our help

#63

Post by monochromatic »

jeremyarussell wrote: post #60
monochromatic wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's really not a legal right that they have. They have the ability, or the power. But in order to exercise that power, they have to disregard the oath that they swear as jurors.

Right, hence the reason they do technically have that right, but don't expressly have that right.

Not really... it's not a right that they have. They have the ability to do it, but it's not a right that was ever granted to them, and they're breaking their oath when they do it.

I have the ability to sneak into my neighbor's house and steal his things. It's implicitly built into the system where I live next door to him, and he's not always home. But I sure don't have the right to do that.

Re: What we did when a patent troll asked for our help

#64

Post by jimworm »

If anybody was thinking of dismissing their decision off-hand, consider these:

    Pharmacists refusing to sell the morning-after pill
    Refusing to sell computer equipment to HFT firms
    Banning a child not vaccinated against polio from a swimming pool
    Cutting off the water supply to your local homeopathy practitioner
The world is full of petty tyrants. Tyranny of the majority via the law may not be ideal, but it might be the best we can hope for.

Re: What we did when a patent troll asked for our help

#66

Post by kkowalczyk »

mcherm wrote: post #28
aculver wrote: post #23

The content of the post was not at all what I expected. The funny thing about principles is they're easy to have when they're not being tested. For example: "'I really don’t want this guy’s money,' Tyler said at one point. We’re glad not to have it." That's a lot easier to say when the offer of money is no longer on the table. I'm not sure at what point that was actually said, but in the article it comes after giving…

> using the law of the land to justify going against your personal conscience I don't see it that way at all. Their personal consciences recoiled at providing support for a patent troll and they recoiled at imposing censorship based on the content of a client's messages. They had to reconcile these two opposing attacks of conscience.

Refusing a service to someone you don't like, for whatever reason, is not censorship, so there is no conflict of ethics.

The line is less clear when the company is in a position of great power (e.g. Google in search, Apple in smartphones) but it's clear that e.g. restaurant can have a dress code (which is frivolous) and refuse service if you don't comply with that dress code and an insignificant crm business can refuse you service for any reason whatsoever. It's not censorship because there's another restaurant just around the corner and another crm product a click away.

The article is framed as some epic battle of ethics but all I get from it is that $10/month is deciding factor in their decisions. They don't want the money from patent trolls but they'll take it if given.

Re: What we did when a patent troll asked for our help

#67

Post by freehunter »

eridius wrote: post #53
jeremyarussell wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They would start trusting you on your principals, if they didn't agree and you lost a customer, then it's a customer that didn't line up with what you as a person line up with, and therefore you shouldn't be worried about them. Edit: Didn't really wrap up my final thought.

It's a really scary precedent to say that you can only use software if the software vendor's morals are compatible with your own morals. Thought experiment: If the guys running Less Annoying CRM are strong atheists (note: I have no idea what their religious beliefs are), and this post was about whether or not they'd provide support for a devoutly christian customer, what would the reaction be? Would you still think i…

Within the confines of this argument, it would depend on if the creators disagreed with the fundamental morals Christianity, or if they merely disagreed with the principles practiced by this specific branch of the religion. There can be a world of difference between The Church and a church, and that aside, it's illegal (in the US) to discriminate based on religion. It's not illegal to discriminate based on the actions of a group, religious or not.

Could you explicitly turn away all Christians? No. Could you turn away the Westboro Baptist Church? Yes. Morals are defined inside the law if you want to stay in business for very long.

Re: What we did when a patent troll asked for our help

#68

Post by nooneelse »

jarrett wrote: post #38

A lot of this discussion seems to boil down to several key issues: 1. Should you ever refuse service to someone because you disapprove of their lawful activities? 2. If so, where do you draw the line? 3. If so, how do you deal with the fact that you can only enforce the policy when a customer's activities are specifically brought to your attention? To answer #1, I'd make an analogy to the social responsibility rules…

> "I doubt anyone would say you should ignore reports of criminal activity just because some other crime goes unreported. So I think the same applies to these ethical restrictions."

Yeah, thinking you have to be able to catch/notice everything before you should try to catch/notice anything in the domain of ethics... is a more stark and literal case of making perfection an enemy of the good possible?

Try the thinking outside of the ethical/legal domains altogether... don't bother trying to learn to play an instrument, there is no way you can get every note right.

This is a rationalization for resignation, not sound practical reasoning.

Re: What we did when a patent troll asked for our help

#69

Post by kkowalczyk »

eridius wrote: post #53
jeremyarussell wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They would start trusting you on your principals, if they didn't agree and you lost a customer, then it's a customer that didn't line up with what you as a person line up with, and therefore you shouldn't be worried about them. Edit: Didn't really wrap up my final thought.

It's a really scary precedent to say that you can only use software if the software vendor's morals are compatible with your own morals. Thought experiment: If the guys running Less Annoying CRM are strong atheists (note: I have no idea what their religious beliefs are), and this post was about whether or not they'd provide support for a devoutly christian customer, what would the reaction be? Would you still think i…

As you've seen from the article, this is not "scary" in any way because most businesses will go for the money over compatibility with their moral views.

Also, advocating or even practicing exclusivity is not a precedent as it has been going on for centuries, in thousands of different forms.

Some of those most people disagree (e.g. there was a time a black man would not be served in many restaurants) and some of those people accept as completely valid (e.g. I'm sure there are many country clubs I'm not eligible to join).

Re: What we did when a patent troll asked for our help

#70

Post by jeremyarussell »

eridius wrote: post #62
jeremyarussell wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. Just don't complain when all the religious customers go away.

What if it's a physical storefront? Would you be ok with, say, an ice cream parlor run by christians that put up a sign saying atheists are not welcome? Note, this actually happened, and people were outraged. http://freethinker.co.uk/2011/11/23/missouri-ice-cream-shop-...

Again, yeah that would be fine with me, I'd go to a different ice cream parlor.

Another thing to consider, this guy that banned athiests, why not ban ALL other religions? Seems a bit hypocritical, but still, it's up to him.

(Yes I'm aware that religious discrimination is illegal.)

Post reply on HN