3 ms·

I think presenting issues in this way is manipulative. Before I explain, I want to be clear that I truly do feel for this mother and her situation. I also think

I think presenting issues in this way is manipulative. Before I explain, I want to be clear that I truly do feel for this mother and her situation. I also think the patent system is irredeemably fucked to out it nicely. But if you're going to talk about real issues then you can't use stories like this to illustrate them because it's manipulative. Tugging on people's heart strings to push forward your philosophy/beliefs/ideas is a cheap ploy as old as time and it works because a story like this totally derails your ability to think rationally. I wasn't clear on if the author of this piece was simply telling her tale of how the patent system had a profoundly negative impact on her and her family's lives or if it was meant to push ideas about patent reform or both. As far as the author goes, it doesn't matter because it's irrelevant. I feel for her no matter what her motivations were. We all do I'm sure. What is relevant is why it was posted on HN and it's not hard to guess it was to start a discussion on patent reform. Now, I'm not stating a position for or against anything here (though I agree with the majority opinion here if you really want to know). What I am saying is that if you want to have a serious discussion about any issue you have to leave these emotional stories out of it because it's not fair and it's a cheap trick. People on both sides of any issue, yes, any issue, can come up with a heart wrenching story to get support. If you want to discuss and debate an issue then debate it on facts and merit. If you want to empathize with people on either side of an issue then you're also free to do that too. One thing you cannot do, however, is both at the same time. Again, I have to reiterate that I'm totally on this mother's side. I have to keep repeating that because that's what these stories do! They suspend logic, get people all emotional, and the next thing you know people are reacting to things out of pure emotion without thinking no matter how logical the person they react to is being. Using emotion to put forth ideas is a manipulation that aims to hinder or completely stop any real, substantive discussion.

arjunnarayan 14y ago
This is a cause we, as a group (i.e. majority of the hacker news readership) really support --- weakening the clusterfuck of a patent system we have today. So maybe you are uncomfortable watching these dark arts deployed, and maybe you have a point, but I, for one, welcome our Karl Rovian allies. At this point, it may be all that's left that can move the political process forward.
keithpeter 14y ago
"But if you're going to talk about real issues then you can't use stories like this to illustrate them because it's manipulative. " A child is using an assistive technology, but may face its loss at a cognitively critical time in her intellectual and social development. How is that not a 'real issue'? Perhaps my definition of a 'real issue' is different from yours.
- OlivierLi 14y ago
  It is a real issue. A human and personal issue. But it is not a systemic issue that represents the state of patent law. If for example the child's Ipad was taken away because it was found out to be stolen property it would have an equally negative effect on her development. It would still not be a call to arms to change legislation. Appeal to emotion is wrong in an adult debate. I feel very bad for the mother and I wish her and her daughter the best. But if the story was about a guy who lost his fortune to copycats and thus can't feed his handicapped daughter, it would be equally as sad and equally as manipulative from my point of view. That said I do believe the patent system needs a massive reform. I just appreciate honest and fair debates.
  - rwallace 14y ago
    > If for example the child's Ipad was taken away because it was found out to be stolen property it would have an equally negative effect on her development. No, it would not. In that scenario, her parents would have a straightforward recourse - go and buy her another iPad. The closest parallel would be a law that forbade her from using any portable computing device regardless of where it came from. And yes, that would be a call to arms to change legislation. Appeal to emotion is wrong in a technical debate. It is not automatically wrong in a moral debate. Emotion is where our sense of morals - of which the law is supposed to be an implementation - comes from in the first place.
    - Maascamp 14y ago
      I disagree. In this scenario her parents do have a straightforward recourse - go and buy her the physical device sold by the patent owners (who's interface is apparently almost exactly the same, hence the patent infringement claim). Now, you could argue that the patent isn't legit (it may not be) or that the dedicated device is prohibitively expensive (it may be), but both of those arguments are tangential to the point you were trying to refute.
wizzard 14y ago
I agree. This is a legal issue about 1) patent law, 2) Apple store policies. Whether your kid really needs the app or not is pretty irrelevant. I don't mean to sound heartless, but I think the emotional outpouring weakens the case for what you're hoping to achieve. The way it reads to me is "SfY is probably in the wrong here so I'm not going to defend them, but please just let everyone keep using this infringing software." My whole take is that a patent for a device that plays a sound when you push a button with a picture on it is a complete joke. Surely there is prior art.

arjunnarayan 14y ago

This is a cause we, as a group (i.e. majority of the hacker news readership) really support --- weakening the clusterfuck of a patent system we have today. So maybe you are uncomfortable watching these dark arts deployed, and maybe you have a point, but I, for one, welcome our Karl Rovian allies. At this point, it may be all that's left that can move the political process forward.

keithpeter 14y ago

"But if you're going to talk about real issues then you can't use stories like this to illustrate them because it's manipulative. " A child is using an assistive technology, but may face its loss at a cognitively critical time in her intellectual and social development. How is that not a 'real issue'? Perhaps my definition of a 'real issue' is different from yours.

OlivierLi 14y ago
It is a real issue. A human and personal issue. But it is not a systemic issue that represents the state of patent law. If for example the child's Ipad was taken away because it was found out to be stolen property it would have an equally negative effect on her development. It would still not be a call to arms to change legislation. Appeal to emotion is wrong in an adult debate. I feel very bad for the mother and I wish her and her daughter the best. But if the story was about a guy who lost his fortune to copycats and thus can't feed his handicapped daughter, it would be equally as sad and equally as manipulative from my point of view. That said I do believe the patent system needs a massive reform. I just appreciate honest and fair debates.
- rwallace 14y ago
  > If for example the child's Ipad was taken away because it was found out to be stolen property it would have an equally negative effect on her development. No, it would not. In that scenario, her parents would have a straightforward recourse - go and buy her another iPad. The closest parallel would be a law that forbade her from using any portable computing device regardless of where it came from. And yes, that would be a call to arms to change legislation. Appeal to emotion is wrong in a technical debate. It is not automatically wrong in a moral debate. Emotion is where our sense of morals - of which the law is supposed to be an implementation - comes from in the first place.
  - Maascamp 14y ago
    I disagree. In this scenario her parents do have a straightforward recourse - go and buy her the physical device sold by the patent owners (who's interface is apparently almost exactly the same, hence the patent infringement claim). Now, you could argue that the patent isn't legit (it may not be) or that the dedicated device is prohibitively expensive (it may be), but both of those arguments are tangential to the point you were trying to refute.

wizzard 14y ago

I agree. This is a legal issue about 1) patent law, 2) Apple store policies. Whether your kid really needs the app or not is pretty irrelevant. I don't mean to sound heartless, but I think the emotional outpouring weakens the case for what you're hoping to achieve. The way it reads to me is "SfY is probably in the wrong here so I'm not going to defend them, but please just let everyone keep using this infringing software." My whole take is that a patent for a device that plays a sound when you push a button with a picture on it is a complete joke. Surely there is prior art.