Good luck - many of these companies form the basis for the products you eat or use (Proctor & Gamble), rely on (General Electric), or need in an emergency (Medical Device Manufacturers Association). A boycott here won't have much effect because in practice it's almost impossible to avoid using or relying on the products or services offered by these companies.
Rather, you should focus your ire and spending practices on the congress people that agreed to leave the CBM out of the legislation. They care more about what you think or care about.
Or give your money to folks like the EFF that will use their lobbying power to counterweight these other folks.
>Rather, you should focus your ire and spending practices on the congress people that agreed to leave the CBM out of the legislation.
Or rather.. do both; do anything we can..
Boycoting the products its also a good idea.. a very good one.. if we can get a "anti-patent" conscious citizen the same way we do with the green conscience..
The companies will fall faster, less money to spend in lobbies.. so why not?
Looking through the list of P&G brands, I can say that I haven't bought anything from them in years, even when I lived in the US.
I do agree though that boycotting every company that engages in questionable behavior would be near impossible. It's better to change the system, but if in the meantime you can avoid giving money to the most heinous companies then why not?
Is there a such thing as a partial boycott, where you just use less of something or avoid some of a company's products but not others? Perhaps there's another word for it. Either way, this seems like it would be useful too (maybe even more so because it's more realistic for people to do).
The goal of any public pressure tactic is to force an organization to change its policy. Not to deny it revenue. If you're not doing the former, then all you're accomplishing with the latter is making yourself feel good about 'doing something'.
And how do you force it to change its policy simply by not buying its products? Why would a company, particularly a worldwide conglomerate, care whether you buy their products or not?
Most "equivalent generics" are in fact made by the same companies that make the major name brands, in the same factories; they cost less because lower marketing expenses.
If you buy store generic-equivalents, its quite likely your money is going to exactly the same major corporation as the name brand in pretty much the same quantity (after deducting that the part that the major corporation would be paying to marketing/advertising firms to market the name brand.)
So, while it saves you money, it may not be as effective a boycott technique as you think. Unless your boycott target is the advertising industry.
I might be wrong but I don't think that the problem is with those companies trying to help themselves. Like many, I think that politicians should not be allowed to accept bribes from companies and that it might just solve problems like this one.
The fact of the matter is that Procter and Gamble doesn't need to "bribe" any politicians to get favorable legislation. They just have to call up a Congressman and say: "hey, we have tens of thousands of workers in your state, it would be a shame if anything happened to them."
I think that you have a good point. But these "tiny" amounts could easily double/triple the politician's salaries (if the companies spend it in the right places, they don't need to bribe everybody).
I believe it's that the LLC "incorporation" is something generally used for small businesses, sole proprietorships, etc. The LLCs could likely be viewed as either patent troll companies or small companies built or paid to put their name behind legislation like this.
(I could be way off, but that's how I'm viewing them)
