joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
4 edits | This is asinine
To put it bluntly - Since Microsoft never agreed to Claria's EULA, Microsoft can't violate it. And there is no law saying Microsoft (or anyone else) can't make a program to remove the adware/spyware.
Whether or not someone using the spyware removal application violates the EULA they agreed to with Claria (even assuming it is enforcable) is not Microsoft's concern. Did the guy who wrote this article ever read anything about contract law? |
|
sabrex15
join:2002-09-12
Toney, AL | very well put. |
|
the W
@dslextreme.com
| reply to joebear29
That is true, but the person who agreed to install the "spyware" software in the first place would be violating the EULA by using Microsoft's removal software to rid themselves of the spyware. Of course we know that government agencies wont be busting down your door if you do so. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to joebear29
Foster notes that's Microsoft's stance:
quote:
Silly me - I should have guessed. Of course, Microsoft isn't violating anyone else's EULA. It's you, the Windows AntiSpyware customer, who is solely responsible for violating your solemn contractual agreement with Claria, DirectRevenue, or whomever. You have a solemn contractual agreement with Microsoft that says so.
Personally the EULA issue doesn't interest me.
What interests me is Microsoft facing a choice: Improve their security standing by sticking to their definitions of ad/spyware, or morphing those definitions like Aluria did at the behest of adware vendors, after being offered lucrative marketing deals..... |
|
joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| reply to the W
said by the W:
That is true, but the person who agreed to install the "spyware" software in the first place would be violating the EULA by using Microsoft's removal software to rid themselves of the spyware. Of course we know that government agencies wont be busting down your door if you do so. Of course they would. What does that have to do with Microsoft? |
|
joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode  :Foster notes that's Microsoft's stance: quote:
Silly me - I should have guessed. Of course, Microsoft isn't violating anyone else's EULA. It's you, the Windows AntiSpyware customer, who is solely responsible for violating your solemn contractual agreement with Claria, DirectRevenue, or whomever. You have a solemn contractual agreement with Microsoft that says so.
Personally the EULA issue doesn't interest me. What interests me is Microsoft facing a choice: Improve their security standing by sticking to their definitions of ad/spyware, or morphing those definitions like Aluria did at the behest of adware vendors, after being offered lucrative marketing deals..... Yeah, I read that bit. He still seems to think the only reason Microsoft is not violating Claria's EULA is because a sentence in Microsoft's EULA shifts that burden to the user, as opposed to the real reason, which is no one (not even Microsoft) can violate a contract they did not agree to.
But that silliness aside, I do agree the main issues is whether Microsoft can maintain the integrity of the spyware removal product. I agree with you, in that I doubt they can, even if they had the best intentions; Microsoft is simply too large and vulnerable to bad press and lawsuits that adware types can bring to bear if they feel their software is unfairly listed.
Spyware removal is a game for small businesses or non-profits, not corporate behemoths. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| They're Microsoft, they could do pretty much anything they like, but they won't.
Shame too, because it's a good shot for them to dig in their heels and establish themselves as serious about PC security.
Of course if they were serious about PC security they'd update non XP2 versions of IE, so I suppose that's a moot point.  |
|
GercekSeytan
Rockin' with Raki
Premium
join:2001-10-19
RoT
 ·TTNet
| reply to Karl Bode
Considering the size of Microsoft (financially or otherwise) and the relative pittance they might be offered by Claria, et al, versus the immediate and gleefully inflicted harm the company would receive from one and all, it seems highly unlikely they would cave in.
Much to lose, little to nothing to be gained.
--
"Be careful. Journalism is more addictive than crack cocaine. Your life can get out of balance." Dan Rather |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| quote:
Considering the size of Microsoft (financially or otherwise) and the relative pittance they might be offered by Claria, et al, versus the immediate and gleefully inflicted harm the company would receive from one and all, it seems highly unlikely they would cave in.
I don't know, Claria, WhenU, 180Solutions and their ilk are getting very wealthy - and in turn very powerful, very quickly. Full support of the direct Marketing Association too, who knows this is a mega-monster profit source over the next decade. |
|
GercekSeytan
Rockin' with Raki
Premium
join:2001-10-19
RoT
·TTNet
| I admit anything is possible. It just that I would think the folks at Redmond would realize that a significant part of what contributes to the MS bashing and keeps the folks in the Security Forum hopping is caused by these marketing-above-all lowlifes.
On the other hand, there's always hubris.
--
"Be careful. Journalism is more addictive than crack cocaine. Your life can get out of balance." Dan Rather |
|
underscore
join:2004-04-20
Fairfax, VA
| reply to joebear29
said by joebear29 : said by the W:
That is true, but the person who agreed to install the "spyware" software in the first place would be violating the EULA by using Microsoft's removal software to rid themselves of the spyware. Of course we know that government agencies wont be busting down your door if you do so. Of course they would. What does that have to do with Microsoft? How can I be violating an EULA that I never agreed to? Claria installs their software secretly. Using external software to remove another program just proves I never agreed to anything. |
|
Anonymous Coward Cau
@cybergnostic.com
| reply to the W
 Yes the gov would bust down your door. The corp that used the EULA would cry and complaine while passing the cash to the DOJ, next thing you know, you have some special elite squad kicking your door in. Best way around it all? Buy a Mac. Duh. No spyware.. yet. |
|
inteller
Sociopaths always win.
join:2003-12-08
Tulsa, OK | reply to the W
Claria's EULA isn't worth the paper its printed on. It would be like Ford telling me I can't take my car to a mechanic to work on the car they built and I agreed to buy. |
|
3SGTE
ST215W
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-23
there
clubs:
| said by inteller :Claria's EULA isn't worth the paper its printed on. It would be like Ford telling me I can't take my car to a mechanic to work on the car they built and I agreed to buy. Acutally you don't own the car....
--
The preceeding post may contain dry humor. Insert intelligent text here. |
|
T_Hoffman
join:2002-11-10
Clovis, CA | heard of cash? pay with cash and you own everything down to the bolts that hold the wheels on |
|
joebear29
join:2003-07-20
Alabaster, AL
| reply to underscore
said by underscore : said by joebear29 : said by the W:
That is true, but the person who agreed to install the "spyware" software in the first place would be violating the EULA by using Microsoft's removal software to rid themselves of the spyware. Of course we know that government agencies wont be busting down your door if you do so. Of course they would. What does that have to do with Microsoft? How can I be violating an EULA that I never agreed to? Claria installs their software secretly. Using external software to remove another program just proves I never agreed to anything. It is assumed (for the sake of this argument at least) that the agreement is enforceble and the user agreed to its terms. In the real world, both premises are likely false, but they are neccesary to even discuss whether Microsoft is violating the EULA. |
|
3SGTE
ST215W
Premium,MVM
join:2000-11-23
there
clubs: | reply to T_Hoffman
Heard of sarcasm? |
|
pcscdma
Chocobo Chocobo Random Battle
Premium
join:2004-01-14
Winterset, IA
clubs: | reply to joebear29
What would happen if my hard drive's Master File Table "accidentally" lost the references to notGator's software?
--
/sbin/shutdown -h now |
|
cork1958
Cork
join:2000-02-26
Fruitport, MI
·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Charter Pipeline
| reply to Karl Bode
said by Karl Bode :Foster notes that's Microsoft's stance: quote:
Silly me - I should have guessed. Of course, Microsoft isn't violating anyone else's EULA. It's you, the Windows AntiSpyware customer, who is solely responsible for violating your solemn contractual agreement with Claria, DirectRevenue, or whomever. You have a solemn contractual agreement with Microsoft that says so.
Personally the EULA issue doesn't interest me. What interests me is Microsoft facing a choice: Improve their security standing by sticking to their definitions of ad/spyware, or morphing those definitions like Aluria did at the behest of adware vendors, after being offered lucrative marketing deals..... Personally, the whole program doesn't interest me! I'll stick with Adaware, Spybot and Spywareblaster for the reasonbly very short time frames I DO use IE even.
--
Spread Opera, fastest browser on earth or Cyberspace! |
|
keith2468
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-03
Winnipeg, MB
| reply to joebear29
If you break an EULA that you agreed to, the other party to the agreement (the Vendor) can sue you for damages.
What damages do you think the courts would award Claria and require you to pay them?
If none, there is no penalty.
As far as MS goes, as noted, it didn't agree to the Claria install.
--
(Virus&Hijacking FAQ + Submit suspected malware + Backups FAQ + Security FAQ TOC) |
|
