Is Boycotting Blackmail?

[Phi for All]

There seems to be a few that want to nitpick the word I chose to describe the intent to use coercion to get Wal-Mart to drop their claim to their money.

Absolutely not. That's why I started a whole new thread. I agreed with you that Walmart, in that situation, was probably not a good target for boycott. I'm merely trying to get a consensus because I don't agree with you that all boycotting is blackmail.

 

 

 

Just to be clear, I'm considering starting some sort of web-based citizen / consumer advocacy group, and boycotting could be a part of that group. doG convinced me in another thread that Walmart wasn't a good target for boycotting but not because I felt it was blackmailing them.

[doG]

I'm merely trying to get a consensus because I don't agree with you that all boycotting is blackmail.

 

And again I'll say that boycotting itself is not blackmail, it's the threat of blackmail, or any other consequences, that if the victim does not do what the blackmailer wants then they will suffer the consequence. That's what I'm saying is blackmail. If they are threatened with any particular action that will cost them something, their reputation or their money or anything else of value, in order to coerce an extortion of money from them that is rightfully theirs, then it is blackmail.

[swansont]

One is using coercion to force an unfavorable breach of contract. What's the point for them to enter such contracts at all if the public is just going to force them to surrender their contractual rights anyhow?

 

What breach of contract?

 

If I tell Kary May Kosmetics that I (and others) won't use their products until they stop testing them on unicorns, what contract is potentially being breached?

[Phi for All]

And again I'll say that boycotting itself is not blackmail, it's the threat of blackmail, or any other consequences, that if the victim does not do what the blackmailer wants then they will suffer the consequence. That's what I'm saying is blackmail. If they are threatened with any particular action that will cost them something, their reputation or their money or anything else of value, in order to coerce an extortion of money from them that is rightfully theirs, then it is blackmail.

Let's see how you feel about a particular instance, doG. Right now, through a subsidiary company, Chevron is sitting on a patent for NiMH battery technology that could give us a completely electric car practically overnight, improving on GM's EV-1 technology with a large format NiMH battery that would give it well over 100 miles on a charge. Chevron will only allow the large format NiMH technology to be used on gas / electric hybrids and refuses to sell to anyone building a completely electric car.

 

I feel this is wrong, a violation of the spirit of the US Patent Office. If I can get my advocacy group to boycott Chevron's products and services until they stop suppressing technology which makes us dependent on them and on foreign oil purchases, would that be blackmail by your definition? Chevron is legally sitting on this technology but in this instance their suppression of one market to preserve their current market is helping to feed terrorism and give economic stimulus to questionable governments.

 

If I boycott them for this reason is it blackmail?

[doG]

I feel this is wrong, a violation of the spirit of the US Patent Office. If I can get my advocacy group to boycott Chevron's products and services until they stop suppressing technology which makes us dependent on them and on foreign oil purchases, would that be blackmail by your definition?

 

Yes, it could be described as blackmail since it is their patent to do with as they please. That doesn't mean that boycotting them shouldn't be allowed though and I answered as such in your poll. Like YT pointed out earlier, its voting with your feet.

 

It is nothing new for companies to buy and hold patents to prevent products that would benefit society as a whole but be detrimental to that company's profits. I suspect the oil companies probably own most of the patents on the most efficient carburetor designs to insure the maximum demand for their products and this hinders progress for society as a whole.

 

This is still quite a different situation than the one with Wal-Mart so it is a strawman relative to that debate.

 

What breach of contract?

 

The contract the Shanks signed with Wal-Mart...

[Phi for All]

This is still quite a different situation than the one with Wal-Mart so it is a strawman relative to that debate.

Gaaaah! Whole new thread, remember?! That. Debate. Over.

 

 

 

 

This leads me to an interesting conclusion. What if boycotting those who are suppressing technology to prop up their current markets was the aim of my advocacy group? It really burns me up that some smart scientist comes up with new technology and it gets bought by someone who sits on it to keep it from hurting sales of old technology. That's not what patents should be about.

[doG]

This leads me to an interesting conclusion. What if boycotting those who are suppressing technology to prop up their current markets was the aim of my advocacy group? It really burns me up that some smart scientist comes up with new technology and it gets bought by someone who sits on it to keep it from hurting sales of old technology. That's not what patents should be about.

 

I've had a similar experience. When I was younger I thought about using tertiary instead of binary to get more data on magnetic media by using 3 states N, S and no charge. I did some experiments with an old tape drive and the concept looked promising. I looked up a patent attorney and he said he could do a patent search for around $400 so I went for it. He found that the technology had been patented by 3 guys about 4 years earlier. To this day I've never seen it used so I can only imagine they got the patent to keep others from using the technology.

[Aeternus]

I disagree that boycotting is blackmail as far as the strictly defined meaning of the word goes and especially not in the spirit of the word as it is used, but I can certainly see where the argument is coming from.

 

Personally, however, I've never seen anything wrong with blackmail, except in the situation where the blackmail revolves around some other illegal act (as then blackmail being illegal makes sense as it makes it less likely the act will be hidden, although I imagine withholding evidence is illegal anyway?).

 

As far as I see it, someone does something questionable, you offer them the chance to keep said questionable act secret by offering some benefit to you. If they say no, then you do what you would have otherwise done and make that questionable act public. Making the questionable act public is not illegal, keeping it a secret without an offer is not illegal, so I do not understand why adding some condition into the mix all of a sudden makes it illegal, although I suppose one could make the same argument about prostitution and sex, but then again, I don't believe that should be illegal either. I guess, it comes down to the "a society where everyone is blackmailing each other tends to be bad and lead to worse acts" but I'm not sure I'm convinced.

[Mr Skeptic]

Not blackmail. For one thing, it is closer to extortion, but still a little different from that (as it is done for moral reasons rather than profit).

 

Also, it should be allowed at least if done by consumers. In theory, the free market is supposed to have perfect information knowledge. However, that is impossible. A boycott calls attention to aspects of a company that "should" have been known by everyone, and if it was known, the company would have suffered a sharp drop in business due to personal consumer choice. So in a sense, a boycott balances the imperfect information nature of the market.

 

However, if a competitor or for-profit group is organizing boycotts, that would be immoral and probably illegal.

[Phi for All]

In theory, the free market is supposed to have perfect information knowledge. However, that is impossible. A boycott calls attention to aspects of a company that "should" have been known by everyone, and if it was known, the company would have suffered a sharp drop in business due to personal consumer choice. So in a sense, a boycott balances the imperfect information nature of the market.

This is a great point. Part of my concern are the stories we never hear, and possibly because some of these immense corporations also happen to own parts of the media. Spin is such an art form these days that we'd probably never know if they were suppressing stories about suppressing technology.