[Wikipedia] > It is possible to claim that something is being done "for the children" as support in a logical argument, or as a counterargument. But if used to avoid logical debate, it is a thought-terminating cliché. Doing something "for the children" is not a logical fallacy of itself. For example, it is reasonable to suggest and legislate to "add traffic lights next to schools so that children are safer from cars."
Giving an example in which a certain system is bad for individuals is not automatically a logical fallacy. In the article it is clearly not used as a thought-terminating cliché, but merely a way to (truthfully) show the downsides of patent legislation – and if nothing else convince the patent holders that pressing charges against an app that is so essential for many is not a good idea. They also explain in detail what they think is the problem with the current system.
Giving an example in which a certain system is bad for individuals is not automatically a logical fallacy. In the article it is clearly not used as a thought-terminating cliché, but merely a way to (truthfully) show the downsides of patent legislation – and if nothing else convince the patent holders that pressing charges against an app that is so essential for many is not a good idea. They also explain in detail what they think is the problem with the current system.