Tony_W
join:2004-11-01
| reply to dandelion
Re: Symantec Files Suit Against Hotbar in Adware C
It certainly will be interesting to see how this one pans out, and I'm sure Symantec have the money to carry this through.
It looks as if Hotbar may be in for a hard time ahead as Sunbelt is on the verge of re-classifying them in their database even tho they have been issued with cease & desist orders. |
|
dandelion
Premium,MVM
join:2003-04-29
Germantown, TN
clubs: | reply to antdude
Re: Symantec Files Suit Against Hotbar in Adware Case
I'll be very interested in the outcome of this suit, and am glad to see Symantec filing it! |
|
Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
| reply to malware bad
Re: Symantec Files Suit Against Hotbar in Adware C
I agree with your reasoning and I thought your long post was the best post in this thread. No need to apologize. Why don't you join dslr/bbr? It's free. 
I still don't understand the need to have antispyware applications remove Hotbar. I had no trouble removing it, but that was a year or so ago and maybe it is harder now. I doubt that though as Alex Eckleberry says in his blog that it is removable from add/remove programs as Hotbar says themselves in their privacy policy. So what is Symantec all upset about? CounterSpy is upset because Hotbar accused them of calling their software "adware". Symantec says though that they are suing not because Hotbar told them to cease calling Hotbar adware but because they want the right to do what the user can already do: remove Hotbar. Ummm...does sound like Symantec is taking advantage of the situation for the purpose of profit primarily and also for the favorable publicity like this thread.
You are entirely correct that what is "adware" or "spyware" is entirely in the eye of the beholder and the emphasis should be on the courts affirming the user's right to remove from their property whatever they wish and to use tools offered to them for that purpose if they wish. Hotbar has more legal standing with users like myself who use the product but neuter it because we violate the Eula. 
--
Around 2005 a sudden spark will catalyze a Crisis mood. The very survival of the nation will seem to be at stake.Sometime before 2025, America will pass through a great gate in history. The risk and promise will be very high. The Fourth Turning Wm. Straus |
|
mers2
Premium,MVM
join:2004-03-20
USA
clubs:
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to malware bad
said by malware bad:
Sorry for the long prior post. What I was trying to express, was that I see this current action as much less of Symantec "trying to fight the good fight", as it is just a legal grab to ensure their "right to profit". That's all.
I might agree with you if I hadn't seen example after example of malware companies threatening/taking legal action against anti-spyware companies. Someone with money had to push back aggressively and that someone with money happens to be Symantec. For that they have my gratitude.
--
God put me on this Earth to accomplish a certain number of things. Right now, I am so far behind I will never die. |
|
malware bad
@verizon.net | reply to antdude
Sorry for the long prior post. What I was trying to express, was that I see this current action as much less of Symantec "trying to fight the good fight", as it is just a legal grab to ensure their "right to profit". That's all. |
|
malware bad
@verizon.net
| reply to mers2
said by "mers2":
The tactic the malware companies are using though is that anti-spyware companies have no right to label them as adware/malware/spyware. It really has nothing to do with customer choice or control over their PC.
Well, I guess I just see that as being the "wrong way round" - much like TigerDirect suing over Apple's release of their "Tiger" OS, and it bumping TigerDirect's Google search-engine results downward.
said by "mers2":
It has to do with labeling of software and the right of anti-spyware companies to include certain software in their definitions.
Again, what kind of substantive legal basis would those sorts of things even have? "Labels" are in the eye of the beholder. I guess they could concievably have some sort of tort under "unfair competition" - maligning one software company's "good name" by another. As far as including those uninstall definititions - at least technically speaking, the anti-spyware folks should be able to do what they want - it's their product, after all. Although they might not be able to label the other software as "spyware" in those definitions, if the courts decide that such a thing is indeed anti-competitive.
And as far as contractual issues that malware makers might have, with their end-users who have installed (unwittingly, in most cases) their software, and then chose to use a 3rd-party uninstall utility - I don't see how the tool-makers are directly liable there. Rather, I would think that the malware makers would have to legally sue the end-users for breach of contract in civil court. (Which would be all the more interesting, since those end-users might not even be aware that they had such software on their machine originally. At that point, the court might strike down the supposedly contractual terms of the EULA of the drive-by software, as it should be. And the malware makers would be left with nothing.. hopefully.
I guess my POV is this - any sort of absolute definition of the terms "spyware", "adware", etc., are actually not helpful. They could even be far more harmful, should they be codified into law, as then those companies that profit from their production, would know how far that they could go ("drawing the line"), and still be legally protected.
My take is that such labeling should be done primarily by the user, and that said user's right to control what software is installed onto their machine (their personal property), is their business. And other companies, should have the legal right to produce software tools to assist in that sort of thing. As well, other companies have the legitimate right to sell client-side advertising tools, or advertising-supported software, if they so choose.
I'm just afraid, that by attempting to force a legal definition of those terms, that one is likely going to mix the bad with the good, in a way that may not match what the end-user / PC-owner believes. IOW, *I* should be able to define what is "malware" on my machine - which software is a "weed" that I want removed - not the courts.
So while I don't think that it is right that "malware" producers are suing "legitimate" software companies, I also don't fully agree with what Symantec is doing here, because I believe that even if they are successful, the end results may still be unhelpful. Especially since they seem to be placing the wrong legal issues in focus. I mean - if they lose - can "review" sites (movie, product, other) be sued, by the producers of the things being reviewed, because they don't like the "label" that the reviewer attached to them? It doesn't make a lot of sense. However, a focus on the right of private property ownership, would do a lot to *natually* provide legal solutions to this problem, I think. (But you have to remember, Symantec is also a commercial software company that likewise benefits from screwing-over end-user customers with restrictive EULAs - so Symantec has a very real vested financial interest in NOT pursuing the "proper" solution, but in persuing a roundabout one, one designed to make them more money.)
(Heck, some people consider some of Symantec's utils to be "malware" in themselves, considering what they can do to a system in some cases, and how they often don't cleanly uninstall, necessitating alternative uninstallers / "cleaner" utils.) |
|
mers2
Premium,MVM
join:2004-03-20
USA
clubs:
·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to malware bad
said by malware bad:
Oh, don't get me wrong. I see the current problem, and I'm fully in support of Symantec (or others), choosing to be able to produce and sell software uninstall utilities (for 3rd-party software).
I was simply suggesting that a sane court, in recognizing the issues of personal property rights over the PC and its information contents, should summarily throw out lawsuits that the malware folks launch against the "anti-spyware" app people, more or less. At least as long as the removal software in question, only takes action on the behest of and under the authority of that property owner. IOW, it's just a tool - software don't uninstall "malware", people un-install malware (using software).
The tactic the malware companies are using though is that anti-spyware companies have no right to label them as adware/malware/spyware. It really has nothing to do with customer choice or control over their PC. It has to do with labeling of software and the right of anti-spyware companies to include certain software in their definitions. If anti-spyware companies lose this fight the customer is SOL as there won't be any tools to help them remove "unwanted software".
--
God put me on this Earth to accomplish a certain number of things. Right now, I am so far behind I will never die. |
|
malware bad
@verizon.net
| reply to mers2
said by "mers2":
These malware companies have been using legal cease and desist letters and lawsuits to bully anti-spyware companies into removing their products from the definitions. IMO Symantec's lawsuit is a needed legal step to protect the anti-spyware companies from legal harassment. With the malware companies going after the anti-spyware companies the customer is left out of the loop. Quite frankly, it's about time the anti-malware companies fought legal fire with fire.
Oh, don't get me wrong. I see the current problem, and I'm fully in support of Symantec (or others), choosing to be able to produce and sell software uninstall utilities (for 3rd-party software).
I was simply suggesting that a sane court, in recognizing the issues of personal property rights over the PC and its information contents, should summarily throw out lawsuits that the malware folks launch against the "anti-spyware" app people, more or less. At least as long as the removal software in question, only takes action on the behest of and under the authority of that property owner. IOW, it's just a tool - software don't uninstall "malware", people un-install malware (using software). |
|
mers2
Premium,MVM
join:2004-03-20
USA
clubs:
·AT&T U-Verse
| reply to lawsuits too many la
said by lawsuits too many la:
I guess what I'm suggesting is - it can *never* be given any sort of absolute definition - beauty (or lack thereof), is always in the eye of the beholder. The real issue here, should be one of property - the PC is the property of the owner, and the software that Symantec (or any other "anti-spyware" software maker) sells, is simply a tool to be used by the owner of that PC, under their authority.
Or is this really a war of marketing terms, such that Symantec wants the uncontested right to sell their software uninstallation toolset, as an "Anti-Spyware" product? IOW, truth in advertising and all of that?
Because to me, "spyware", or whatever you wish to call it, is much like the definition of a "weed" - simply put, "a plant out of place". There is no real inherent "weedness" property to plants, even trees and flowers can be considered "weeds" and plucked away if they start to grow in the wrong place in a user's garden. (Although there are some plants that are commonly considered to be "weeds", simply because they find themselves growing far and wide.)
I guess what I don't get is, Symantec is simply selling a set of gardening / lawncare tools for your "PC garden". Since when do "weeds" have a legal right to force themselves into YOUR garden. That's basically my point regarding private property ownership.
I guess this is about Symantec, seeking to be able to legitimately call their software a "weed-whacker", so to speak, rather than simply "a plant pruning tool"?
These malware companies have been using legal cease and desist letters and lawsuits to bully anti-spyware companies into removing their products from the definitions. IMO Symantec's lawsuit is a needed legal step to protect the anti-spyware companies from legal harassment. With the malware companies going after the anti-spyware companies the customer is left out of the loop. Quite frankly, it's about time the anti-malware companies fought legal fire with fire.
--
God put me on this Earth to accomplish a certain number of things. Right now, I am so far behind I will never die. |
|
lawsuits too many la
@verizon.net
| reply to jbob
said by "jbob":
The issue is not to protect the customer from lawsuits but to protect the anti-spyware developers. That is why they are asking for a ruling of just what spyware is.
I guess what I'm suggesting is - it can *never* be given any sort of absolute definition - beauty (or lack thereof), is always in the eye of the beholder. The real issue here, should be one of property - the PC is the property of the owner, and the software that Symantec (or any other "anti-spyware" software maker) sells, is simply a tool to be used by the owner of that PC, under their authority.
Or is this really a war of marketing terms, such that Symantec wants the uncontested right to sell their software uninstallation toolset, as an "Anti-Spyware" product? IOW, truth in advertising and all of that?
Because to me, "spyware", or whatever you wish to call it, is much like the definition of a "weed" - simply put, "a plant out of place". There is no real inherent "weedness" property to plants, even trees and flowers can be considered "weeds" and plucked away if they start to grow in the wrong place in a user's garden. (Although there are some plants that are commonly considered to be "weeds", simply because they find themselves growing far and wide.)
I guess what I don't get is, Symantec is simply selling a set of gardening / lawncare tools for your "PC garden". Since when do "weeds" have a legal right to force themselves into YOUR garden. That's basically my point regarding private property ownership.
said by "jbob":
This issue is that the makers of the anti-spyware are calling it spyware and the spyware developers do not like it.
Oh well. Nuisance lawsuits will always be with us, I guess. The courts should really severely penalize those that bring them though.
I guess this is about Symantec, seeking to be able to legitimately call their software a "weed-whacker", so to speak, rather than simply "a plant pruning tool"? |
|
K McAleavey
Premium
join:2003-11-12
Voorheesville, NY
| reply to jbob
Definitely preferable to the other end.
All these years later though, it never ceases to amuse me how timid major companies with real money are when a barrister rings their doorknocker. Meanwhile, us little mom and pops and our "country lawyers" have the answer that actually works. (grin)
--
Kevin McAleavey support@nsclean.com (Makers of BOClean anti-malware protection)»www.nsclean.com |
|
jbob
Reach Out and Touch Someone
Premium
join:2004-04-26
Little Rock, AR | reply to K McAleavey
Nothing better than straight from the horses mouth!  |
|
SnowyOne
Premium
join:2003-04-05
Kailua, HI
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·Clearwire Wireless
| reply to K McAleavey
said by K McAleavey  : ... And finally, because we don't make BOClean available to the "general public" as a "trial," that's one more nail in the coffin of any legal arguments against the way we do things. That one argument alone has got to make you a lot tougher of a target regarding any adverse litigation. As tough a business decision as it had to have been when it was made, it seems to have served multiple good purposes. |
|
K McAleavey
Premium
join:2003-11-12
Voorheesville, NY
| reply to jbob
Just to be clear on this (since Hotbar's lawyers came a'calling to our house too) ... the "Netbus" detect option was to NOT detect it if checked. By default (under the agreement) we would CONTINUE to detect and the "user" had to positively choose NOT to detect it in order for BOClean to ignore it. We offered "Hotbar" the same option. Never heard back.
This precedent is how we would handle ANY demand that we don't detect malware. We'd continue to detect by default, and if someone really wanted to keep it, they'd have to EXCLUDE it manually from detection. We've also protected that exclusion capability to ensure that someone else couldn't "volunteer" the exclusion for our customers. And finally, because we don't make BOClean available to the "general public" as a "trial," that's one more nail in the coffin of any legal arguments against the way we do things.
--
Kevin McAleavey support@nsclean.com (Makers of BOClean anti-malware protection)»www.nsclean.com |
|
jbob
Reach Out and Touch Someone
Premium
join:2004-04-26
Little Rock, AR
·Comcast
 ·AT&T Southwest
| reply to too many lawsuits
The issue is not to protect the customer from lawsuits but to protect the anti-spyware developers. That is why they are asking for a ruling of just what spyware is. Go read the recently posted history of BOClean. They had a lawsuit against them by some spyware developer and to avoid a lengthy costly court battle the makers decided to put some kind of option in the software that the customer had to specifically select to further delete the so called "Non Spyware!" Or something similar to that. The same reason that Spybot S & D has a few items not selcted by default perhaps. The users already have the ability to delete or not delete items found. This issue is that the makers of the anti-spyware are calling it spyware and the spyware developers do not like it. |
|
hpguru
Curb Your Dogma
Premium
join:2002-04-12
| reply to too many lawsuits
said by too many lawsuits:
I honestly don't understand this lawsuit - Symantec isn't suing for damages, and I'm not sure that they would have standing to do so in this case anyway. Is this a normal function of the court system, to hear suits requesting, essentially, a judicial definition of certain terms? And nothing more?
They are seeking to set a precedent. If successful this will help us all immeasurably.
--
Get hpHOSTS! Member ASAP
REMEMBER 1776! NEVER FORGET! |
|
jaa
Premium,MVM
join:2000-06-13
·Optimum Online
 ·Vonage
| reply to antdude
Re: Symantec Files Suit Against Hotbar in Adware Case
I just ordered a copy of NIS 2005 after reading this thread. I won't use it, but I'll give it way to someone. I just wanted to give some support to Symantec for having the balls to stand up to these guys.
--
NOTHING justifies terrorism. We don't negotiate with terrorists. Those that support terrorists are terrorists. |
|
too many lawsuits
@verizon.net
| reply to antdude
Re: Symantec Files Suit Against Hotbar in Adware C
I honestly don't understand this lawsuit - Symantec isn't suing for damages, and I'm not sure that they would have standing to do so in this case anyway. Is this a normal function of the court system, to hear suits requesting, essentially, a judicial definition of certain terms? And nothing more?
It all just seems a bit odd to me - shouldn't the owner of the PC, the end-user of the various software(s) in question - shouldn't *they* be the one with the power to decide what software does and doesn't get/stay installed onto their machine? After all, that PC is their private property, not the property of either Symantec, nor Hotbar.
I would think that a more powerful thing, would be for Symantec to offer legal indemnity to their customers, should their customers choose to use their software, to assist in the removal of other software on their machine. In that case, Hotbar might attempt to sue the end-user, and at that point Symantec could enter the case, legitimately I believe, and fight things from there. I would think that Symantec would have a much stronger position at that point, acting on behalf of the end-user, who was simply choosing to enforce their own software security policy over their computer, using Symantec's software as a tool to do so. |
|
Name Game
Premium
join:2002-07-07
North Myrtle Beach, SC
| reply to antdude
Re: Symantec Files Suit Against Hotbar in Adware Case
This is what hotbar can do today..
»Microsoft AntiSpyware & WhenU / Hotbar
»Re: Microsoft AntiSpyware & WhenU / Hotbar
--
Gladiator Security Forum »www.gladiator-antivirus.com/ Missing Kids »www.missingkids.com/ |
|
hpguru
Curb Your Dogma
Premium
join:2002-04-12 |  reply to Mele20
Re: Symantec Files Suit Against Hotbar in Adware C
Disgusting. |
|
