[free-sklyarov] Seattle Protest

[Klepht]

>>>>> "JAB" == Jeme A Brelin <jeme at brelin.net> writes:

    JAB> 2) I think Adobe is just protecting itself using the existing
    JAB> law and it is the law that needs revision

Just to counterpoint, here: Adobe has a weak technology which they
advertised as capable of solving a problem some computer scientists
say is theoretically insoluble.

When someone showed that, in fact, this was not the case, Adobe's
clients started backing off. What did Adobe do then? Did Adobe fess up
to the truth?  Did they try and improve their technology? Did they
rethink the problem and try to attack it another way?

No, they did not. They had the person who told the truth put in jail.
They used a technicality in an unjust law to file a complaint that led
to his arrest.

Some people would say that that's just business. Well, sure, that's
some kind of business. Ugly, immoral business. It's a shame on Adobe
that they resorted to these tactics.

No one should have to go to jail to bolster Adobe's sagging
profits. No one should have to go to jail because Adobe's eBook
software is a catastrophe. No one should go to jail because Adobe
can't keep its impossible promises to its customers.

It's wrong. The world should know that it's wrong.

~Klepht

-- 
klepht at eleutheria.org
http://www.eleutheria.org/