  intellerSociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK | wringing hands with glee... ...excellent... | |
|
| | Oh Yea. Big money looks out for the little guy.
Hope Symantec has big enough ones to stick it out. | |
|
 |  cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:5
 ·Frontier FiOS
| Re: Oh Yea. Big money looks out for 1 and only 1 thing, itself. It's not out to benefit you or me. The corporate bigwigs looked at the situation and decided that it made more financial sense to go after one adware company, wait, make that advertising enhanced browsing experience company, and get a declaratory judgement. If they didn't, there would be a possibility that they could get sued by hundreds of small adware companies in order to remove them from their product. By making the preemptive strike so to speak, my guess is that some potential lawsuits could be put on the back burner waiting for the outcome. If it is favorable for Symantec, then it sets a precedent that wouldn't bode for future adware makers wanting to sue. However, there is still the remote possibility that it could go against Symantec which then has the opposite effect, opening the flood gate for lawsuits.
It has the potential to benefit you, me, Symantec, as well as the whole anti-adware industry, but don't think for a minute that Symantec is doing it for anything else but their bottom line.
--
"What gives them the right to come in and do this?" she said. - Lady complaining that she was getting FIOS in her backyard. | |
|
4 edits |  Symantec taking cowards way out
Symantec is not seeking damages as part of the suit. Symantec is petitioning for a declaratory judgment by the court affirming Symantec's assertion that certain Hotbar program files are indeed adware and can be treated as computer security risks.
"By asking the court for clarification on this issue in our favor, we hope to continue alerting our customers about the presence of these program files, protecting them against possible security risks," said Joy Cartun, senior director of legal affairs for Symantec. "Through this effort, we're trying to ensure that our customers have more control over the programs that run on their computers."
This is nothing but a PR move on Symantecs part. If they win the case they look like good guys. And if they lose, which is very possible, they can tell their customers it isn't their fault but the courts.
My Web Page
My Blog
Join Red Room Forum | |
|
|
3 edits | Re: Symantec taking cowards way out Exactamundo!!(?)
Haven't been a fan of Symantec/Norton for a long time, but GIVE 'EM HELL Symantec!! Hotbar has been one of the longest running, nastiest spywares around. | |
|
| | | By that logic, then no one should ever do anything about spyware except to continue removing it? What happens when spyware finally outruns the products that remove them?
It isn't like this is a brand new issue that went to court days after it appeared. This has been going on for some time, and maybe it is time to address this legally, once and for all. | |
|
| Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| 100% incorrect.
quote:
They just want to avoid being the one to make the decision.
No, they want to avoid an endless stream of court cases against fly-by night scumware operators.
The goal here is to set legal precedent for future cases showing detection and removal of these programs is legal. This aids Symantec's fight against all other adware vendors. In fact if they win, it aids all spyware removal companies.
It should bring some absolutes to a very muddy argument. | |
|
| | | | Re: Symantec taking cowards way out said by Karl Bode:100% incorrect. The goal here is to set legal precedent for future cases showing detection and removal of these programs is legal. This aids Symantec's fight against all other adware vendors. In fact if they win, it aids all spyware removal companies. It should bring some absolutes to a very muddy argument. And if they lose? Which is a 50-50 proposition. What does that do for the cause?
In any case, win or lose, IMO this case will have no lasting result on this battle at all. The adware delivering companies will just move out of the court's jurisdiction.
If this problem is ever to be resolved, the law needs to be changed making the companies advertising thru these adware software companies responsible. And I doubt the politicians will ever take this step.
P.S. LOL - 100% incorrect Karl?? I see you haven't lost your penchant for hyperbole.
--
My Web Page
My Blog
Join Red Room Forum | |
|
| | | Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: Symantec taking cowards way out It's not hyperbole. Your post was completely wrong. It's a great pre-emptive strike on Symantec's part, and one they should win.
quote:
In any case, win or lose, IMO this case will have no lasting result on this battle at all.
Apparently Spyware researchers Eric Howes and Ben Edelman, who spend the majority of their waking hours studying this subject, don't agree:
Don't believe me? Ask them:
»Symantec Files Suit Against Hotbar in Adware Case | |
|
| | |  kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
1 edit | said by fAcEtIOUs:said by Karl Bode:100% incorrect. The goal here is to set legal precedent for future cases showing detection and removal of these programs is legal. This aids Symantec's fight against all other adware vendors. In fact if they win, it aids all spyware removal companies. It should bring some absolutes to a very muddy argument. And if they lose? Which is a 50-50 proposition. What does that do for the cause? In any case, win or lose, IMO this case will have no lasting result on this battle at all. The adware delivering companies will just move out of the court's jurisdiction. If this problem is ever to be resolved, the law needs to be changed making the companies advertising thru these adware software companies responsible. And I doubt the politicians will ever take this step. P.S. LOL - 100% incorrect Karl?? I see you haven't lost your penchant for hyperbole. You're completely missing the point, pal.
Ever heard about precedent cases? This is one of them.
PS: I, for one, certainly welcome this and if Symantec winbs this case - which I expect -, I'll buy two subscriptions from them immediately (desktop+laptop), in return for their great action. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Symantec taking cowards way out said by kamm:You're completely missing the point, pal. Ever heard about precedent cases? This is one of them. And you are swimming against the tide, pal. This lawsuit has almost no chance, even if Symantec wins, of ending the flood of ads by these adware companies.
--
My Web Page
My Blog
Join Red Room Forum | |
|
| | | | | kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY | Re: Symantec taking cowards way out The lawsuit has definitely a good chance, I don't know what are you talking about.
And you're quite wrong again: if they win, ad companies will be sued 'en masse' by all the antispy sw vendors. | |
|
| | | | | | | The flood of ads, no. The flood of lawsuits threatening anyone who dares call their products adware, spyware, or malware? Yes.
If Symantec wins this suit, then there will be legal precedent establishing that their definition of "adware" is an opinion that they are free to express. Once this is established, then any lawsuit threats can be countered with a fax of this ruling and a "go ahead and sue me" note. I really don't see Symantec losing this one.
--
-Jason Levine
http://www.jasons-toolbox.com/
http://www.PCQandA.com/
http://www.urateit.com/ | |
|
| | | | | | kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY | Re: Symantec taking cowards way out said by Jason Levine:The flood of ads, no. The flood of lawsuits threatening anyone who dares call their products adware, spyware, or malware? Yes. Correct and flood of counter-lawsuits by antispy sw vendors. 
If Symantec wins this suit, then there will be legal precedent establishing that their definition of "adware" is an opinion that they are free to express. Once this is established, then any lawsuit threats can be countered with a fax of this ruling and a "go ahead and sue me" note. I really don't see Symantec losing this one.
Completely agree. | |
|
| | | | | Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
1 edit | quote:
This lawsuit has almost no chance, even if Symantec wins, of ending the flood of ads by these adware companies.
Really, with all due respect, you should spam your blog less, and read more. You'll find nearly everyone who watches this sector thinks this is a landmark move.
If Symantec wins, a precedent is set that protects adware removal tools from having to dumb down their definition files, meaning better detection and removal.
Even if you want to keep pretending you understand this topic, I can't see why anyone would be against a Symantec legal victory. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: Symantec taking cowards way out said by Karl Bode: read the thread I linked to in our security forum. I can't see why anyone would be against a Symantec legal victory. I'll ignore your personal slams, but I have read the thread. And nowhere did I say I hope Symantec loses(brush up on YOUR reading skills). But I don't think Symantec will necessarily win and even if they do, will it help end this adware scourge.
--
My Web Page
My Blog
Join Red Room Forum | |
|
| | | | | | | Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| Re: Symantec taking cowards way out Not a personal "slam"; observation.
I've been watching you for a year grab the first spot in the comments section with a short blurb, then editing it later to make it just long enough your sig appears, so.....
But you're certainly welcome to your opinion the suit will do nothing, but I'm still not sure your opinion is based on any reasonable industry observations. | |
|
| | |  Rogue WolfAte Your Homework, And Framed The Dog
join:2003-08-12
Troy, NY | said by fAcEtIOUs:In any case, win or lose, IMO this case will have no lasting result on this battle at all. The adware delivering companies will just move out of the court's jurisdiction. If this problem is ever to be resolved, the law needs to be changed making the companies advertising thru these adware software companies responsible. And I doubt the politicians will ever take this step. I'm not certain you understand how the American legal system works. Precedent is one of the most powerful things in a court of law. And at any rate, this suit is likely less about stopping the adware companies themselves, and more about giving a legal shield to the ANTI-adware companies against constant frivolous threats of legal action. A company who has moved to another country to avoid legal action would have a much harder time initiating it against the likes of Symantec et al.
--
No matter how tempted I am with the prospect of unlimited power, I will not consume any energy field bigger than my head.
The Top 100 Things I'd Do If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord | |
|
| | | cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:5 Reviews:
·Frontier FiOS
| said by fAcEtIOUs:And if they lose? Which is a 50-50 proposition. What does that do for the cause? Not really. Declaratory judgements, like the one filed here, are usually done after the company is reasonably sure that they are correct, but just want the extra weight of a judicial ruling to back it up officially. If the company was only 50/50 sure it was right, they likely wouldn't go after a declaratory judgement as it could just as easily go against them as it would be for them. If it went against them, and they continued on with their practices, additional punitive damages could be awarded in a later lawsuit as they couldn't say they didn't know they were in the wrong.
In this case, Symantec I think has correctly ascertained that they are in the clear, but they just want a judge to say so. Going this route is cheaper then a civil lawsuit filed by an adware company. Plus hopefully with a precedent, it stops further companies from going after Symantec. That what this does for their cause. The side effect is that it also has the likely potential to benefit not just them but the industry as well.
--
"What gives them the right to come in and do this?" she said. - Lady complaining that she was getting FIOS in her backyard. | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Symantec taking cowards way out Good point. Worst case scenario is the judge denies the declaratory judgement. This wouldn't mean that Symantec couldn't call Hotbar "adware." Instead, it would mean that a full blown court case would need to occur. In other words, the spyware vendors might get a slight boost from knowing that there actually was uncertainty in the law. They wouldn't get a 100% license to sue anti-spyware vendors though.
--
-Jason Levine
http://www.jasons-toolbox.com/
http://www.PCQandA.com/
http://www.urateit.com/ | |
|
| kaila
join:2000-10-11
Lincolnshire, IL | PR move or not, a court decision will put to rest every other anti-spyware companies fears of legal intimidation by Hotbar. | |
|
| JPCass
join:2001-01-23
Denver, CO | No, this seems to me like a sound move that should benefit everyone, based on the old principle that the best defense is a good offense.
Symantec has the deepest pockets, and presumably the best lawyers, so they are best suited to take on the ad-/spy-ware companies in court - and win. Assuming they win, it sets a precedent, and it will be much harder for those companies' lawyers to go around threatening anyone, particularly the smaller players in the business. | |
|
|  wrileyI'M Sick Of Fixing Your Computer.Premium
join:2001-08-30
Edmonton, AB | maybe the ruling will help consumers, but if the ruling goes the other way it will severly hurt. And will set a presedent for future cases against spyware removal companies. They should have just done it like counterspy and the other good removal companies. | |
|
| |
1 edit | Re: Symantec taking cowards way out If the ruling goes the other way, it might hurt a lot more than spyware removal companies. If you can't express an opinion that a piece of software is spyware, can you express an opinion that a piece of e-mail is spam? Can you express an opinion that a product is dangerous to use or perhaps even just a bad deal? Could Google express an opinion that Website A is a better match for your query than Website B?
The "spyware" label is the opinion of the developers as to the quality of the product. The users aren't forced to accept this opinion. In fact, all of the spyware removal programs I've used require the user to confirm each product removal. If Symantec argues that giving the application an adware or spyware rating is well within their rights of expressing an opinion, I don't see them losing.
EDIT: Ignore that. As cdru  pointed out, this is a declaratory judgement. Basically Symantec is asking the court to rule without a trial. If the judgement is denied, then all the spyware vendors gain is a full trial. If they win that trial, however, then my striked-out post might apply.
--
-Jason Levine
http://www.jasons-toolbox.com/
http://www.PCQandA.com/
http://www.urateit.com/ | |
|
| | | Damon85Premium
join:2004-12-25
Louisville, KY | Re: Symantec taking cowards way out "Spyware" as a label could be considered defamatory in regards to the spyware makers. I think we should just call all of it "I-don't-want-it-ware" (not "you-don't-want-it-ware") because that's definitely a personal opinion and can't be construed as defamatory. | |
|
| | | | kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY | Re: Symantec taking cowards way out said by Damon85:"Spyware" as a label could be considered defamatory in regards to the spyware makers. I think we should just call all of it "I-don't-want-it-ware" (not "you-don't-want-it-ware") because that's definitely a personal opinion and can't be construed as defamatory. Sure and we shouldn't call black for black but rather "not-so-white". | |
|
| | | | | | said by Damon85:"Spyware" as a label could be considered defamatory in regards to the spyware makers. I think we should just call all of it "I-don't-want-it-ware" (not "you-don't-want-it-ware") because that's definitely a personal opinion and can't be construed as defamatory. I don't think so. The term "spyware" is just a label which is applied to software once the anti-spyware vendor thinks that the application has met certain criteria. For example, phoning home with potentially sensitive data without asking for the user's permission first.
The vendor is free to call any application whatever it wants. If they wanted, they could call Microsoft Office spyware. However, anti-spyware vendors rely on their reputation. List too many false positives (or don't list enough real positives) and their reputation is damaged. This keeps anti-spyware companies from either 1) threatening to list an application unless the developer does something for the anti-spyware company or 2) taking compensation from the spyware company to remove a listing.
When either #1 or #2 happens, pressure from users/the security community forces the vendor to either recant or lose market share. (See »Lavasoft Responds ).
If you call "spyware" defamatory, then could the term "spam" be considered defamatory? Could spammers sue anti-spam companies for daring to label their messages as spam? (I know some have, but could they sue and actually have a leg to stand on?) Should anti-spam companies tag the unwanted e-mail as "you-don't-want-it-mail"?
--
-Jason Levine
http://www.jasons-toolbox.com/
http://www.PCQandA.com/
http://www.urateit.com/ | |
|
| | JPCass
join:2001-01-23
Denver, CO | Eventually this issue will get to court somehow, and any ruling will at least set an effective precedent for the attorneys who are now going around and threatening the smaller vendors. So it's better that a player with resources and good lawyers be the one to take it to court.
And if the ruling goes against them, then I'd hazard a guess that Symantec and other big corporate players will throw their weight around to push for a change in the underlying laws. | |
|
| wrileyI'M Sick Of Fixing Your Computer.Premium
join:2001-08-30
Edmonton, AB | So by your own explanation this could well give spyware vendor PRECEDENT which says that other companies cannot remove spyware and adware. | |
|
| | | | Re: Symantec taking cowards way out said by wriley:So by your own explanation this could well give spyware vendor PRECEDENT which says that other companies cannot remove spyware and adware. You are right. Most here assume Symantec will win. I am not so sure, especially on appeal, and especially from a court in So.California, where the Supreme Court overturns them consistently. | |
|
| | | | No, at most the court will deny the declaratory judgement. This means that it heads to full trial instead of giving Symantec (and other anti-spyware vendors) and automatic green light. Then the spyware vendors would have to fight (and win) against Symantec in court to establish a precedent in their favor.
--
-Jason Levine
http://www.jasons-toolbox.com/
http://www.PCQandA.com/
http://www.urateit.com/ | |
|
|  mers2Premium,MVM
join:2004-03-20
USA
kudos:8 | Thus far all legal maneuvers have been made by malware companies against anti-spyware companies. The little guys don't have enough money to do anything definitive about it aside from having attorneys write responses and refuse to immediately back down. Symantec is basically taking it right back to them in an aggresive manner that has been sorely needed.
--
God put me on this Earth to accomplish a certain number of things. Right now, I am so far behind I will never die. | |
|
intellerSociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK | too bad this isn't a communist country. The government could just outlaw spyware and like that it would be gone (or the people that continued making it would be) | |
|
|
See 6 replies to this post |
|
Reviews:
·AT&T U-Verse
 ·San Bruno Munici..
 ·AT&T Yahoo
| Adware and Spyware The only way to not get infected is to make sure the users don't install unknown junk and keep their systems updated. Computer users should learn computer security before they are even allowed on a comp... bleh
--
defcon888@gmail.com
proud user of sbc services
| |
|
| | | Re: Adware and Spyware said by Defcon888:The only way to not get infected is to make sure the users don't install unknown junk and keep their systems updated. I agree,however we know that will never happen.Not when users,think thats so cute it will talk to me.hmmm I got email wonder who it's from,LETS open it to see.! Sometimes experts here get infected,caused by a release of new malicious code,not encountered before. said by Defcon888:Computer users should learn computer security before they are even allowed on a comp... bleh I think first time PC users when purchasing a PC from (Insert brand here). Should include a free 1 hour lesson
stressing the dangers involved in having unprotected hex,on the web.Hell when I bought my first computer years ago.From a mom and pop shop.A free one hour lesson was given on how to user the features of the OS.Times have changed since then.
Mabe try this.? the store that is selling the PC.Set up a demo PC
for first time buyers who haven't been on the web yet,before the buyer takes the PC out the door.This part would be good.
Have no Av or firewall on it.When in fact it's not actually connected to the web.Sales person says open the browser,
and type in www.whatever.com then say wow hey,..etc were on the web.!!
Sales Person:This is cool,oh look I see we got email.!I wonder who it's from,Go ahead and open it.
PC USER: OK This is exciting.!
Then once opened.Pre-programed software.Causes the monitor
to go black with a rolling message in big letters.You have just opened email from some one you do not know.
Now you have a virus,trojan on your PC
as a result of doing so.Make it seem bad.!Then the
screen returns to normal...for say 30 seconds
Sales person:Lets try to continue.
At this point the software.Once the mouse is moved.
will no longer be under the users controll.
Sales person:Calmly instruct user.Lets try something else.
Buyer: I can't the mouse is moving on its own.
Sales Person: let go of the mouse.
The mouse opens my computer icon.open some folders.
until it finds: the named finicial records deletes it.
then open the one called user Identity.Does the same.
At this point.Another screen comes up.Saying this is ONLY a demonstration of what can and will happen.If you do not properly secure your PC.With a firewall and Anti Virus program that must be updated or checked for updates daily.
Sales person: Shows the person that they were not connected to the web in the first place...nah forget it
| |
|
|  Ryven
join:2003-11-26
Portland, OR | it's not always poor computing skills/lack of knowledge that causes the spread of these infinitely irritating programs. Sometimes it is a pop-up from a website that launches something that gets into your computer through your internet cache folder. Sometimes you are trying to find something that turned out to be quite the opposite of your intention & you end up with a lovely melting hard drive, so to speak. Even good computer users get stuck with these things. My complaint is that there should be some kind of mandate that would make them easier to remove. It shouldn't require special software to uninstall this crap, & the fact that it does, in my book, makes it a malicious program with no good intent, period. | |
|
| | |
| | Good Job It's about time Symantec did something to hotbar.I have seen it and it's very frustrating and time consuming to remove this program. | |
|
wrileyI'M Sick Of Fixing Your Computer.Premium
join:2001-08-30
Edmonton, AB | symantec should make desisions like a big boy. Counterspy and many other companys could deside on there own to remove it. Why is Symantec passing the buck onto the courts? | |
|
| | | Re: symantec should make desisions like a big boy. They're not passing the buck. They're looking for legal clarity. They don't want to operate in an environment where 20 fly-by-night spyware operators could threaten them with lawsuits every day. They want the courts to say that what they're doing is perfectly legal so those lawsuit-threatening spyware operators will be forced back under their rocks. This, in turn, will help the smaller spyware companies who might not have the legal funds that Symantec has.
--
-Jason Levine
http://www.jasons-toolbox.com/
http://www.PCQandA.com/
http://www.urateit.com/ | |
|
 IT GuyOw, My BallsPremium
join:2004-07-29
Las Cruces, NM
·Comcast
| Grow a pair Someone just needs to steam-roll their way through all these crapware vendors. Screw them if they make a claim saying that you are slandering their "products" name by classifying it as spy/ad/malware. Who's got the nutz to take them on? Surely people who would serve on the jury (if it came to that) have had some experience with and would sympathise with those who have been infected by these rogue programs. | |
|
| | | Misunderstanding of Legal Procedure I've read these posts with interest because they contain a lot of misinformation about the procedural aspects of this case. My comments are not on the merits of the case because I don't know enough about the parties' contentions. But a declaratory judgment action is a full-blown lawsuit. It requires the plaintiff to show that there is an actual controversy with the defendant and that it has a reasonable apprehension of being sued by the defendant. The DJ action allows the plaintiff to initiate the lawsuit to avoid the constant concern about being sued at some future time. It also allows the plaintiff to choose the court in which to file the action. There are occasions in which the court dismisses a DJ action because it determines that the plaintiff did not really have a reasonable apprehension of being sued. This can happen if the parties are still in negotiations.
Once the DJ action is filed, the defendant (in this case, Hotbar) can file a counterclaim alleging what it would have alleged if it had filed suit first. DJ actions proceed just like a normal lawsuit. If the parties cannot settle it, it will go to trial. It can end sooner without settlement if a party can succeed in convincing the court that no trial is necessary since the facts are not in genuine dispute and the judge can decide the merits of the case without a trial. This can happen in any lawsuit.
Regarding precedent, it's a very important concept in our legal system. However, it isn't always black and white. Law libraries are filled with cases in which an appellate court distinguished the facts of the case before it from other previous cases and arrived at a different result. Appellate courts can also decide that their rationale in previous cases was no longer correct and move in a new direction.
Anyway, Symantec's DJ action suggests that it had been in discussions with Hotbar before it filed suit and that it believed it had a reasonable apprehension of being sued by Hotbar. It just beat Hotbar to the punch. | |
|
|
|
