Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!usc!apple!agate!maypo.berkeley.edu!cotner
From: cotner@maypo.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Subject: Re: Boycott Lotus?
Keywords: pc
Message-ID: <1990Oct25.205021.27746@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 25 Oct 90 20:50:21 GMT
References: <2735@naucse.cse.nau.edu> <1990Oct23.233556.6104@agate.berkeley.edu> <1990Oct25.164317.27237@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 45

In article <1990Oct25.164317.27237@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca>
mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca (Marc Roussel) writes:
>
[seminal article deleted]
>
>In article <1990Oct23.233556.6104@agate.berkeley.edu> I write:
>>
>>I was wondering the same thing after reading an article about
>>the lawsuit today.  I know I would never buy a Lotus product now.
>
>I find these comments fascinating.  The implication seems to be that it
>wouldn't have mattered if Lotus had lost, but that they are bad guys
>because they won.

I would not now buy a Lotus product after reading of their *lawsuit*,
victory or not.  The original poster did refer to Lotus winning,
but I didn't mean to.


>                   Look, either it was wrong to take the matter to court
>in which case you should have called for a boycott when Lotus first
>sued, or there's nothing wrong at all in which case you should simply
>treat Lotus' victory as the outcome of a fair fight in a court of law.
>You can't have it both ways.

Although my decision not to buy Lotus products is independent of their
winning the lawsuit, I don't entirely agree with your argument.

You could very reasonably decide to avoid Lotus products in light of the
trial's outcome so that other companies won't attempt to use (what you
believe to be) unfair laws to restrict your choice as a consumer, even
though you might have decided this to be unnecessary had they lost.
Indeed, had Lotus lost, the likelihood of companies using this tactic
in the future to restrict competition would have been greatly diminished.
I believe this is what is meant by the phrase "voting with your feet,"
and I see no contradiction in it.


>
>				Marc R. Roussel
>                                mroussel@alchemy.chem.utoronto.ca


Carl Cotner
cotner@math.berkeley.edu