 kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY | reply to Damon85
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". |
|
|
|
 cdruGo ColtsPremium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
kudos:5
 ·Frontier FiOS
| reply to fAcEtIOUs
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. |
|
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
1 edit | reply to fAcEtIOUs
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. |
|
| 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
| 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. |
|
| reply to cdru
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/ |
|
| reply to Damon85
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/ |
|
| reply to wriley
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 | reply to fAcEtIOUs
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. |
|
