Paul Graham's response is two things... disappointing and misleading.
What makes his response disappointing is that this is a great, old debate. Cloudant is developing potentially breakthrough technology ("Our founders first devised our open-source platform BigCouch while at MIT, working on Large Hadron Collider experiments generating millions of data points per second from the collision of atomic particles") to perform complex tasks ("the analysis & identification of new traits & genomic combinations in agricultural crops"). When have important technologies been developed for less than warm and fuzzy purposes? Without the Manhattan Project and the development of the atomic bomb, we wouldn't have modern forms of cancer treatment. GPS was developed to give more precision to submarine-launched ballistic missiles. There are other examples of equal importance. Is it right? Is it worth it? Whatever the answer - it deserves a thoughtful response.
What makes his response misleading is that he conflates the levels of involvement in the client/customer's work.
Apple computers, Chevy cars and Clorox cleaning supplies - are all mass produced goods. They are not custom products for specific clients for a specific purpose. It appears Cloudant is doing this for Monsanto... therefore, the purpose matters. The press release states that Cloudant has been "working with" Monsanto "for a few weeks" on "the partnership". Furthermore, Cloudant's custom work is mission-critical to Monsanto's business: "We’re not powering the CMS of some administrative division or a minor part of their website. Cloudant’s BigCouch will be the core, for both storage and analysis of a new, company-wide platform powering a fundamental aspect of a Fortune 500 business: the analysis & identification of new traits & genomic combinations in agricultural crops". This isn't the same company/customer relationship as buying Clorox. The purpose of developing genetically modified agricultural crops and hormones is central to the relationship between Cloudant and Monsanto. Again, the purpose matters.
Paul Graham says: "If the rule is, if x sells something to Monsanto, fuck x, then what you’re saying is fuck the entire corporate world". Maybe that's right. When the American people decided they didn't agree with the Apartheid regime of the South African government, the Congress and Republican-controlled Senate passed the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 and they stopped selling to them. I'm not saying what Monsanto is doing is apartheid - I'm saying that if you disagree with somebody, not selling to them has been an effective responsive.
Unfortunately for those that disagree with the development of genetically modified agricultural crops and hormones, there's not much that can really be done beyond not buying these goods unless there's government action that limits interactions with these companies. But if you disagree, then you can do as Paul Graham suggests in his essay "The Patent Pledge": "Now there's something any individual can do about this problem, without waiting for the government: ask companies where they stand."
Paul Graham is a really smart guy who has helped a lot of great startups, but that doesn't mean he's always right. He responded to a really incendiary post attacking a company he's trying to help succeed with a response that wasn't as carefully considered as it might have been.
If the original post had been of the form "It's a shame they're working with Monsanto because", then I expect he would either not have replied, or would have made a more measured response, but with a similar substance: when you have a startup that you're serious about growing, you sell to whoever you have to in order to keep the business moving forward. I'm not sure whether I entirely agree with that sentiment, but it's not that surprising for a pragmatic, fairly apolitical libertarian.
There are only two things that are disappointing at all: that he seemed like he was trying to slam the door on the debate, and that he disagrees with you. The former happened because he made a cranky response, while the latter can only be disappointing if you naturally expect someone as smart and likable as pg to agree with you on things like that.
I would say that this warrants taking a deep breath and relaxing first, then responding calmly and carefully.
What makes his response disappointing is that this is a great, old debate. Cloudant is developing potentially breakthrough technology ("Our founders first devised our open-source platform BigCouch while at MIT, working on Large Hadron Collider experiments generating millions of data points per second from the collision of atomic particles") to perform complex tasks ("the analysis & identification of new traits & genomic combinations in agricultural crops"). When have important technologies been developed for less than warm and fuzzy purposes? Without the Manhattan Project and the development of the atomic bomb, we wouldn't have modern forms of cancer treatment. GPS was developed to give more precision to submarine-launched ballistic missiles. There are other examples of equal importance. Is it right? Is it worth it? Whatever the answer - it deserves a thoughtful response.
What makes his response misleading is that he conflates the levels of involvement in the client/customer's work.
Apple computers, Chevy cars and Clorox cleaning supplies - are all mass produced goods. They are not custom products for specific clients for a specific purpose. It appears Cloudant is doing this for Monsanto... therefore, the purpose matters. The press release states that Cloudant has been "working with" Monsanto "for a few weeks" on "the partnership". Furthermore, Cloudant's custom work is mission-critical to Monsanto's business: "We’re not powering the CMS of some administrative division or a minor part of their website. Cloudant’s BigCouch will be the core, for both storage and analysis of a new, company-wide platform powering a fundamental aspect of a Fortune 500 business: the analysis & identification of new traits & genomic combinations in agricultural crops". This isn't the same company/customer relationship as buying Clorox. The purpose of developing genetically modified agricultural crops and hormones is central to the relationship between Cloudant and Monsanto. Again, the purpose matters.
Paul Graham says: "If the rule is, if x sells something to Monsanto, fuck x, then what you’re saying is fuck the entire corporate world". Maybe that's right. When the American people decided they didn't agree with the Apartheid regime of the South African government, the Congress and Republican-controlled Senate passed the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986 and they stopped selling to them. I'm not saying what Monsanto is doing is apartheid - I'm saying that if you disagree with somebody, not selling to them has been an effective responsive.
Unfortunately for those that disagree with the development of genetically modified agricultural crops and hormones, there's not much that can really be done beyond not buying these goods unless there's government action that limits interactions with these companies. But if you disagree, then you can do as Paul Graham suggests in his essay "The Patent Pledge": "Now there's something any individual can do about this problem, without waiting for the government: ask companies where they stand."