Conservatives Liberals Libertarians and the Art of Seeing and Believing

A fried of mine sent me the following bumper sticker:

Conservative: Seeing is Believing
Liberal: Believing is Seeing

Our reply went something like this:

The distinction between Seeing and Believing is an artificial one.

Belief, verily, is the Absence of Proof.
Not Everything we Believe is True.
Not Everything we See is Accurately Perceived.

As Ralph Waldo Emerson so accurately observed:

People only see what they are prepared to see.

Belief and Seeing are thus two sides of the same coin, toss it as you will.

To take a line from computer-speak:

The human doesn’t see things as they are, but as HE is. – Racter

Such is man’s attention to political issues that he neither sees nor believes that there is an invisible elephant. That is, unless of course, that elephant is standing on HIS own big toe.

Hence, people with no income do not complain about taxes. People with income do.

The Conservative “Sees” the Past. Usually, with an outdated pair of spectacles.

The Liberal “Sees” the Future. Usually, with a buggy beta-version of the newest sight improvement gizmo.

The Libertarian prefers to go blind throughout the world rather than accept the obvious.

The REALIST sees the world from the perspective of age, experience, necessity and wishfulness.

In other words, we live in an imperfect world. And thank goodness for that. It makes things ever so much more interesting.

How is the Economy Doing? One Way to Judge is to Check Out the Increasing Crowds at Discount Supermarkets : German Discounter ALDI Surges in the USA

When world leaders or Presidential candidates in the USA make statements about the state of the economy, who is telling the truth?

One way to judge how the economy is doing is to look at the clientele shopping at discount supermarkets. This Week in Germany points to the rising success of food discounters ALDI and Lidl throughout Europe:

Rising food costs surely explain much of the discounters’ success: As in America, the middle classes are trying to save money and are flocking to the cheaper stores to buy their groceries, which can cost some 30 to 50 percent less than at ordinary supermarkets.

But there is also an upcoming surge of ALDI in the United States, starting this fall in Florida, as written at Shopping Centers Today:

In August Aldi announced a major U.S. expansion, promising at least 20 new stores for the central Florida cities of Orlando and Tampa.

Supermarket News calls it the Florida Invasion, with 100 new stores planned in the US this year, and Texas next in 2010.

Doris Hajewski at JS Online pointed to the state of the US economy in connection with the new Aldi surge:

The low-profile, no-frills German grocery chain sees opportunity in the sagging U.S. economy, and Aldi is stepping up both its U.S. expansion plans and its profile.

One US Aldi shopper has described her shopping experience at Aldi this way:

I can honestly say, after that first shopping experience to my local Aldi grocery store, I changed the way I looked at grocery shopping forever. My husband and I left Aldi that day with a loaded shopping cart full of grocery items as well as an abundance of fresh fruits and vegetables. Our grocery receipt was almost half of the amount we would have normally spent for the same amount of groceries.

We can confirm that this is also true in Germany, where the current economic realities are the same as in the USA. As written by Carl Cronan:

“People are focused on saving money, and Aldi is perceived as good value,” observes Patrick Berman, senior director, retail brokerage with Cushman & Wakefield of Florida Inc. in Tampa.

David Behm, vice president of Aldi’s Florida division, based in Orlando is quoted as follows:

“Once people see the way we operate our stores and the success of our stores….” he says. “We’ve never pulled out of a single market in the United States.”

The United States Supreme Court under Chief Justice Roberts

Via the August 2008 edition of Law@Stanford, a monthly e-newsletter for alumni and friends of Stanford Law School, we were directed to an article by Jeffrey Rosen at the New Republic on the United States Supreme Court under Chief Justice Roberts, suggesting that Roberts is becoming more successful in getting a more united Supreme Court in terms of their decision-making.

Landmark Federal Circuit Decision holds that Open Source Copyrights are Legally Enforceable

Here is a great Federal Circuit decision on Copyrights in Open Source which the New Media & Technology Law Blog (Jeffrey D. Neuburger) describes as follows:

There are so few judicial opinions dealing with open source licenses that any single one is of great interest, but the pro-open source ruling of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Jacobsen v. Katzer, No. 2008-1001 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 13, 2008) easily goes to the top of the charts of this small category. This is a highly significant opinion that will greatly bolster the efforts of the open source community to control the use of open source software according to the terms set out in open source licenses.

Straight from Information Week and read the rest there:

Open Source Copyrights Legally Enforceable, Appeals Court Rules

The federal appeals court said open source users that do not comply with the software’s strict licensing terms can be sued for copyright infringement — even if the software is free.

A federal appeals court has struck down a lower court ruling that found that open source copyrights may not be legally enforceable if they’re licensed under terms that are “intentionally broad.

Ruling on an appeal brought by software developer Robert Jacobsen, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said Wednesday that open source users that do not comply with the software’s strict licensing terms can, in fact, be sued for copyright infringement — even if the software is free.

In the opinion for the Federal Circuit, District Judge Hochberg stated simply and clearly:

“We consider here the ability of a copyright holder to dedicate certain work to free public use and yet enforce an “open source” copyright license to control the future distribution and modification of that work…..

Copyright holders who engage in open source licensing have the right to control the modification and distribution of copyrighted material.“

That takes care of that.

Read the rest at Information Week and at the New Media & Technology Law Blog.

Top 100 Most Prestigious Law Firms in the World According to

[This posting has been updated from a previous version.] has just published its annual list
of the Top 100 Most Prestigious Law Firms,
as determined by the associate survey.

Our former law firm, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, which, in our opinion, remains the top litigation, telecommunications and entertainment law firm in the country, remained at the same overall 13th spot – in the eyes of the surveyed law associates everywhere – that it held last year.

The rest of the Top 100 can be viewed at
Many may want to buy Vault Guides (we have copied the descriptions and links below from the site – see the originals with graphic here):

Vault Guide to the Top 100 Law Firms, 2009 Edition

Based on surveys of more than 18,000 associates at over 167 top law firms. It includes profiles of 167 of the nations’ top law firms compiled for jobseekers, as well as exclusive Vault rankings of the Top 100 Law firms, the Best 20 to Work For, the Best 20 Law Firms for Diversity, and regional, practice area, and quality of life rankings.

Get your guide now

Vault Top 100 Law Firm Survey Corporate Research Report, 2009 Edition

Get complete prestige rankings of firms by law school, location and practice area. See how your firm ranks against competitors at law schools, locations, and practice areas most important to your firm. Complete charts for salary, billable hours, bonus rate, and bonus policy with respect to billables, broken down by firm, location and department.

Get the research report now”

There are other Guides as well, such as these:

Vault Guide to the Top New York law firms:
Vault Guide to the Top Boston & Northeast Law Firms
Vault Guide to the Top Chicago & Midwest Law Firms

Vault Guide to the Top Washington, DC Law Firms
Vault Guide to the Top Southern California Law Firms

Vault Guide to the Top Northern California Law Firms

Other blogs posting on this topic:
Above the Law

The Million Dollar Blawg : Calculate the Value of Your Weblog with Dane Carlson’s Business Opportunities Blog Worth Calculator

Dane Carlson’s Business Opportunities Weblog has a blog valuation service – the Blog Worth Calculator – whereby you merely plug in the respective URL and it calculates the value of almost any blog based on “Data from Technorati and inspired by research from Tristan Louis. Photo CC by Cmiper.” The valuation is made on a “link to dollar ratio” based on Louis Tristan’s Doing the numbers on the AOL-WeblogsInc deal.

We now apply the Blog Worth Calculator to a specific selection of blogs on the Internet.

The Million Dollar Blawg
is a near tossup between the Volokh Conspiracy, valued (today) at $1,300,135.62
and the Lessig Blog, valued at $1,243,681.62.

The Wall Street Journal Online Law Blog is stretching toward the million threshold value at $885,763.26 while Balkinization trails at $732,208.38 followed by Instapundit at a value of $597,283.32.

But these are mere valuation lightweights compared to popular political, technological or homespun mass media blogs such as these below (values are subject to change, day to day):

Business Opportunities Weblog – $2,832,297.18 (this amount conflicts with blog’s own widget)
Gawker – $3,929,762.94
Official Google Blog – $4,713,909.00
Seth Godin – $4,802,541.78
Gigazine (ギガジン) 携帯電話を無線LANルーター化してFONのアクセスポイントにできるソフトウェアが登場 – $5,516,120.34
Smashing Magazine – $5,686,046.88
Daily Kos – $5,757,178.92
ReadWriteWeb – $5,963,236.02
Mashable – $6,204,294.60
icanhascheezburger – $6,672,298.26
Ars Technica – $8,185,830.00
Lifehacker – $8,918,602.92
Tech Crunch – $12,785,701.92
Engadget – $11,516,616.00
and, the champion under all blogs,
The Huffington Post – $15,457,669.74

– at least we were unable to find any blog that was valued higher than that:
update, unless one values the worth of Bloglines – $27,878,678.82,
but that is not really a pure blog but rather a blog service)

– using the Blog Worth Calculator, we could not, however, get values for sites like e.g. Gizmodo, Boing Boing, NYT Caucus Blog)

More on this topic at Susan Gunelius, Have You Calculated Your Blog’s Worth?

Networking for the Legal Profession + Ways to Get Wild About Work, Increase Energy, Raise Kids & Improve the Environment, Reducing a Family Footprint

Building a Solo Practice has a posting titled Networking for Shy Lawyers, linking to 25 posts as compiled by the M.A.P. Maker on networking for shy people.

DO LOOK at both those websites.

Building a Solo Practice by Susan Cartier Liebel is very popular among solo practitioners

while M.A.P. Maker Curt Rosengren is a self-named Passion Catalyst

who has written a book aptly titled 101 Ways to Get Wild About Work
and links to blogs like Organicasm
which posts about things like
69 Natural Ways to Increase Your Energy

or (to improve family life after days in the office)
Go Green Early: 100 Tips, Resources, and Networks for Raising Kids the Environmentally-Friendly Way

or (to do your share to improve the environment)
Consumption Culture: 50 Easy Ways to Curtail Your Family’s Footprint

Our favorite in that last list is number 41,
which applies to nearly EVERYONE,
as a means to do a little bit against climate change:
Travel light:
Whenever possible,
walk or bike instead of taking your car.

Usefulness of Expert Witnesses in Trade Mark Disputes

All things in law and life are decided upon facts or evidence, at least what we view to be facts or evidence, or the absence of same.

Throughout our professional life, we have been very skeptical of “experts”, especially if this involves any of the humanities. In the physical sciences, an engineer’s motor is subject to testing. Either it runs or not. This is often not true for expert testimony in other less exact fields, however, where witnesses seek to exert their alleged “authority”, without any better proof for their opinions than those held by normal citizens.

In this regard, it is thus interesting to read Lady Justice Arden’s UK ruling in Judge says expert witnesses are rarely useful for trade mark disputes. As the ruling clearly demonstrates, it is all really rather a matter of opinion…but there are SOME facts.

Hat tip to

OK, this posting ends our experiment with Zemanta. Some interesting ideas, but not yet that useful to us in terms of links or the photo gallery provided.


Martha Neil at the ABA Journal News may have the “down under” solution in her posting today, When Expert Witnesses Disagree, ‘Hot-Tubbing’ is a Possible Solution, where she writes:

When expert witnesses have opposing views of the same evidence, even the judge can be daunted…. Australia, however, has successfully pursued a different path toward resolution: “hot-tubbing.” Putting the experts together and allowing them to question each other, rather than making their reports in isolation, can eliminate many disagreements. The Australian approach also accords with the established American system of allowing each side to present its own case.

Sounds good.


It is sometimes remarkable how some topics seem to surface concurrently on media. Adam Liptak at the The New York Times also has an article on expert witnesses, as his article In U.S., Partisan Expert Witnesses Frustrate Many targets the major weakness of the US expert witness system, which is that expert witnesses tend to take the side of the party who is paying them, leading to biased testimony on both sides of a legal case.

Again, we think that “hot tubbing” would also be a recommended solution for the problem we see in peer-reviewed academic journals especially in the humanities – but also in the physical sciences, which is that there is primarily a one-sided presentation of issues, rather than a balanced handling of important scientific questions.

Email Archiving and Hosting Outsourcing Solutions for Firms and Businesses in Compliance with Legislation : SEC CFTC Sarbanes Oxley NASD NYSE FRCP

Is your professional, firm or business email archiving in compliance with legislation in force? SEC? CFTC? Sarbanes-Oxley? NASD? NYSE? And what about the FRCP? And what about email hosting outsourcing?

GFI Software, a software company specializing in content and network security, messaging and compliance solutions for SMBs, at very competitive prices, has compiled various documents focusing on email archiving laws affecting businesses in the United States.

One such particular document by GFI is a short article on Email archiving in the US : The key laws that affect your business covering the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (SEC), the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) and the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE).

One of the products of GFI is the GFI MailArchiver, designed to comply with legislation covering email archiving, and we find that it can be downloaded on a trial basis at ZDNet. It claims to be the number one email archiver for SMBs.

ZDNet also has an interesting article on Email value management, referring to InBoxer, which has on its website several white papers on: FRCP IT Obligations for Email, Email Harassment, Email Retention, Email Archiving for Schools and Local Governments, and Discovery involving Email.

ZDNet also links to Arcmail, a higher-end and pricier solution, which also points to the need to comply with email archiving requirements of Sarbanes-Oxley, the new Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, HIPAA, the Freedom of Information Act and other regulations. lists not only GFI Software as an email archiver, but also refers to Symantec email archiving as also to FuseMail, the latter of which offers high quality email hosting outsourcing with e.g. sync clients for Outlook and Blackberry at a very reasonable price. See their blog posting about their New HTML Editor in Webmail v2.0.

That is not an exhaustive treatment of the subject, nor are we expressly recommending any of the email services linked above, but they are a good place to start for those in need.

Zemanta Pixie

Fair Use Reform in the Context of Overenforcement of Copyrights

This posting continues where some of our last postings at LawPundit left off, particularly concerning free speech and copyrights.

Solove’s blog, Concurring Opinions, just posted links to articles in the last issue of the Iowa Law Review, Volume 93, Issue 4 (June 2008), including Fair Use and Copyright Overenforcement by Thomas F. Cotter, Briggs and Morgan Professor of Law and Solly Robins Distinguished Research Fellow at the University of Minnesota Law School.

In the Abstract to the article, Cotter writes :

ABSTRACT: Economic analysis has long suggested that there are two distinct categories of cases in which the fair use defense, which permits the unauthorized reproduction and other use of copyrighted materials, should apply. First, fair use should apply when the transaction costs of negotiating with the copyright owner for permission to use exceed the private value of the use to the would-be user. Second, fair use should apply when the individual use is thought to generate some positive externality—such that the net social value of the use exceeds the value to the copyright owner of preventing the use—which in turn may exceed the value of the use to the individual user. Considerable anecdotal evidence, however, suggests that would-be users are often deterred from engaging in conduct that likely would fall within the ambit of fair use, due in part to concerns over incurring attorney’s fees and in part to the uncertainty and unpredictability of the fair use doctrine itself.

This Article presents a model of the private costs and benefits faced by would-be users of copyrighted materials in precisely those settings in which economic analysis suggests that the fair use doctrine should apply. The model demonstrates how, under current law, this balance of private costs and benefits may cause some users to forgo legitimate fair uses, particularly when those users are risk averse. It also suggests that, in cases in which fair use is justified by the presence of positive externalities flowing from the individual user’s use, the asymmetry between the individual user’s gain and the copyright owner’s loss may result in systematic copyright overenforcement. Put another way, the fair use doctrine suffers from an “appropriability” problem similar to that which is often cited as a justification for copyright protection itself. This Article then offers some observations on the likely effectiveness of six different types of fair use reforms.

Read Cotter’s full article here.

Anonymous Heinous Postings Directed at Two Female Yale Law School Students Lead to Revelation of Poster Identities : Free Speech Law in Need of Change

This posting follows on the heels of our previous posting about the closing of the Patry Copyright Blog.

One of our pet peeves on the Internet is anonymous posting. It is one of the main reasons that we do not allow comments to this blog – due to negative experience in doing so previously – because we do not have the time to filter out spam or comment garbage by anonymous posters.

Our experience is that anonymous posting is sadly often relied upon by a large number of cowardly people who would otherwise never post the same materials under their own identifiable name. Internet anonymity appears to give people a blank check to publish harmful materials of all kinds with impunity, especially comments about other people, but as we shall see in this case of two Yale Law students, anonymity is no guarantee against ultimate detection.

Our view is that an identifiable person’s free speech should be protected (within the the normal Constitutional free speech limitations), but less so that of his or her alias. We see nothing in the US Constitution which protects free speech incognito or alter ego. The fact that (allegedly) Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers under the pseudonym Publius or that the Federalist Papers engendered anonymous comments from the Federal Farmer in rebuttal, does not mean that anonymity was thereby justified or sanctified as a core element of free speech in a democracy. Anonymous publishing yes, but vast free speech protection for that publishing, no.

Anonymous writing should of course be permitted in a free society, but the actual content which is expressed anonymously should be subject to greater judicial scrutiny and stricter legal standards because of its innate potential of inflicting harm, without the normal counterbalance of individual responsibility.

People post anonymously on the Internet because they think it gives them an advantage, otherwise they would post under their real names. By consequence, therefore, all those who are at the mercy of anonymous postings should not be left at a disadvantage in law or in fact, and must be granted countervailing power to protect THEIR rights as well.

To us, this means that anonymous postings which disparage another person or cultural group are to be treated as particularly heinous, because they are made in the expectation that legitimate rebuttal against an invisible opponent is much more difficult than an identified or identifiable foe. Indeed, the average citizen seldom has the means to track down invisible attackers who try to destroy another person’s or group’s reputation while at the same time not having to fear any negative consequences for themselves. This is the epitome of an unjust world.

Unfortunately, the US Supreme Court has thus far seen the anonymous free speech issue somewhat differently, focusing primarily on political speech, rather than on everyday speech, even though the latter is far more common and involves a different set of issues (see Anonymity at the EFF). As written in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections:

Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.

Our first impression upon reading that opinion by Justice Stevens is intellectual astonishment, giving way to dismay. Is that why violent demonstrators mummify their heads entirely so as to avoid identification, as they engage in senseless destruction and violence? The Supreme Court in that quotation is long on theory and short on reality.

First of all, as to the need for anonymous political speech in the USA, if a man or a woman is unable in American society to express his or her political opinions openly, without the fear of tyranny of the majority, then there is in fact no free political speech in American society, and it is a fata morgana. Free speech means free speech WITHOUT anonymity, dear Justices.

Secondly, what the Supreme Court writes about political dissent has no application to the ruin of individual reputations on the Internet by anonymous posters. Indeed, the much acclaimed right of political dissent as a justification for anonymous free speech is not a specific mark of democracy by any means. It is, quite the contrary, the principle means available for dissent in TYRANNICAL countries, not in democracies. People resort to anonymity in political speech – in many countries outside the USA – as a NECESSITY, because they can not speak openly.

The US Constitution envisioned that a citizen SHOULD BE free to speak his mind and express himself openly about politics in the context of democratic society, without fear of retaliation, if that speech is lawful. The reality of life, however, is that – for most people – you better learn to keep your mouth shut if you want to get ahead in life and be an accepted member of society – or, the tyranny of the majority will indeed be brought to bear upon you, anonymity or no.

But “political speech” is an entirely different issue from “everyday speech”.

Our view is that anonymous Internet postings involving everyday speech should be protected as free speech ONLY if there is a compelling and socially-supportable reason for anonymity in a particular case .

But such cases are in fact quite rare. Quite the contrary, the mass of anonymous posters uses anonymous aliases not to publish political dissent but rather as a coverup for their incognito and alter ego acts on the Internet. Indeed, they often publish that everyday speech in a manner that they would never dare to do under their own name. Here, in the case of everyday speech, the freedom of anonymity gives people the ability to act irresponsibly, without fear of detection and without being called to answer for their deeds. This is the opposite of democracy.

Everyday speech must thus be judged by different standards than political speech.

The running case of two libelled female Yale Law Students is a case in point, where heinous anonymous postings about them most certainly harmed them seriously during their period of law school education, and may also have harmed them in its aftermath. There is a curious posting at the Volokh Conspiracy about this case, which regrettably gets off on an obscure personal tangent, rather than concentrating on the important core issues.

As written cogently at Wired by Ryan Singel:

Ann Bartow, an associate professor at the University of South Carolina School of Law … believes the problem lies in technology outstripping the law and our cultural responses. George Washington University Law Professor Daniel Solove, who’s been thinking about the issue long enough to have written a book called The Future of Reputation, agrees. He says the law needs to change.

“The internet isn’t a radical-free zone where you can hurt people. But on the other hand, we can’t have everyone rushing to the court, because the court is a blunt tool,” Solove says. “We need something to help shape norms — there needs to be some kind of push back against the notion that the internet is a place where you can say what you want and screw the consequences. That’s not what free speech is about. [emphasis and links added by LawPundit]

Amen, Professor Solove, Amen.

Mobile Phone Functionality Added to LawPundit (in the USA only)

Using MoFuse (Mobile Fusion) we have “mobilized” LawPundit so that our postings can be received by mobile phones, also iPhone (thus far, however, only in the USA). Mobile phone users in America can now view the mobile phone version of LawPundit by entering their MOBILE phone number in the appropriate box in the left column of this blog and sending it off. Here is what the mobile phone version of Lawpundit can look like:

William Patry Copyright Blog Gone With the Wind

Here today, gone tomorrow.

William Patry is closing down his copyright blog, the Patry Copyright Blog, for reasons expressed in his posting End of the Blog, which we summarize and comment below:

1. False identification of the Patry Copyright Blog with Google, plus crazies among the commenters. Patry writes:

[When] I moved from private practice to Google I put a disclaimer to the effect that the views in the blog (as in the past) were strictly mine….

When other blogs or news stories refer to the blog, the inevitable opening sentence now is: “William Patry, Google’s Senior Copyright Counsel said,” or “Google’s top copyright lawyer said… .” There is nothing I can do to stop this false implication that I am speaking on Google’s behalf. …

On top of this there are the crazies, whom it is impossible to reason with, who do not have a life of their own and so insist on ruining the lives of others, and preferably as many as possible. I asked myself last week after having to deal with the craziest of the crazies yet, “why subject yourself to this?” I could come up with no reason why I should: My grandfather chose to be a psychiatrist, but I chose a different professional path, one that doesn’t obligate me to put up with such nonsense.“

2. The Depressing State of Copyright Law

Patry writes that he is a centrist but that the depressing development of copyright law makes him appear much too negative through his dissenting postings. Patry writes:

[I]n my view, and that of my cherished brother Sir Hugh Laddie, we are well past the healthy dose stage and into the serious illness stage. Much like the U.S. economy, things are getting worse, not better. Copyright law has abandoned its reason for being: to encourage learning and the creation of new works. Instead, its principal functions now are to preserve existing failed business models, to suppress new business models and technologies, and to obtain, if possible, enormous windfall profits….

Of course, we understand Patry’s complaints completely.

One of the reasons that we do not permit comments to LawPundit is because (based on experience) we simply do not have the time or inclination to go through postings to remove spam and improper anonymous comments. Patry has allowed comments to his blog up to now. Rather than closing down the blog, perhaps it is time to remove the comment function or seek the services of a “comment filtering” program or service.

As far as Patry’s affiliation with Google is concerned, it is a fact of life that our perceived identity in the public sphere, rightly or wrongly, is very much a function of our professional affiliation(s). Patry is not alone in this. A high academic or corporate legal position grants many benefits, but it also exerts its pound of flesh. You have to be able to take the good with the bad.

That not only copyright law, but also patent and trademark law, have gone far off the rightly charted course is one of the persistent recurring themes of LawPundit. The best (and probably only) way to move patent, trademark and copyright law in the right direction again is by strong, persistent, and vocal dissent.

This can be seen in the case of Europe, where the Proposed directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions was rejected in the year 2005 by the European Parliament, largely due to strong, persistent, vocal dissent:

The proposal catalyzed a campaign by diverse opponents of software patents, who took the opportunity afforded by the introduction of the proposal to argue that software patents are neither economically desirable nor mandated by international law. The FFII and the EuroLinux Alliance played key roles in coordinating this lobbying campaign, which drew support from some free software and open source programmers, some academics, some small business groups, and some proprietary software developers. Many of these organisations expressed concern over what they saw as abuses of the software patent system in the USA, and argued that although some software patents might be beneficial, the net effect of the Commission’s proposals would be to suppress innovation and dampen legitimate competition.

“So we beat on, boats against the current….”
The Great Gatsby, F. Scott Fitzgerald