Intellectual property advocates can have a lucrative case in anti-gas-guzzlers campaign. “City Street” launched a campaign last August suggesting that every gallon of oil an American citizen consumes supports terrorism. The campaign had such calculations as “Fake I.D.: 1,500 gallons,” “Box cutters: 1 gallon,” and “Explosives: 600 gallons” and concluded “Where do terrorists get their money?” Surprisingly enough, the same sort of strategy had been used in the boycott campaign in the Arab world against American products, claiming that “a can of coke = A bullet”, a resurrection to the idea of boycott concentrating on SUV (Sport Utility vehicles), is a Detroit Project, which is lead by some Hollywood stars. Although the war on oil-guzzlers has its roots in the 70s when some Arab countries stopped their oil exports to countries who were seen as supportive of Israel which included the USA, it seems that although the campaign looks that some people are trying to make sense out of things, some other won’t mind at all to make dollars out of it too. Boycott is excessively twofold; It has two groups of action, two directions, and the boycotted “products” are of two types. In terms of the groups of action, it could be lead officially either by governments or by NGOs and social utilities that could extend to include personal attitudes. This means that boycott can be exercised locally, as when people boycott a bookstore that has objectionable materials, or it can be exercised locally as in the oil boycott incident in the 1970s. Boycott can operate on two directions; a group could stop its exports to a country or group, or it could refrain from receiving products. Boycotted Products can range from mundane junk food, to intellectual products that could be loaded with values. Boycott should not be looked at as a mere economic issue. Most boycott campaigns – especially when led by small or unvocal groups – never prosper. Nevertheless, boycott is vital, it’s one of human rights: if you don’t like, and you don’t have to terminate it because it has the right to exist, just ignore it. It is a declaration of protest that incorporates self-marketing, public-relationing, and most importantly proving the alternatives. Any boycott campaign is doomed to demise unless it moves from “nagging” about the status quo, and present substantial alternatives. Since boycott is a right, it should be based on the principle of equality. Anyone has the right exercise it since it’s a declaration of point of view. What is unfair about what is taking place is that anti-SUV was campaign is looked at as a legitimate declaration of protest – although not very free of the odour of business-oriented mentalities. While anti-USA products campaigns which are directed at protesting against the US foreign policy towards the Middle East is regarded as an anti-American sentiment declaration and has to be stopped. Boycott is a right, and to be able to practice it, you should be fair-minded and even-handed and let other practice it as well.