GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
4 edits |  Symantec taking cowards way out
Symantec should have just stuck to their guns and continued to remove Hotbar as an adware product and waited to be sued if Hotbar had the guts to sue them. Instead they go to court and ASK the government to back them. In effect, passing the decision on to the court as to whether Hotbar is adware or not. Symantec knows Hotbar is adware. They just want to avoid being the one to make the decision.
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 |
|
cork1958
Cork
join:2000-02-26
Fruitport, MI
3 edits | 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. |
|
garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY
| reply to GOLFnSUN
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. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to GOLFnSUN
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. |
|
kaila
join:2000-10-11
Lincolnshire, IL
clubs:  | reply to GOLFnSUN
PR move or not, a court decision will put to rest every other anti-spyware companies fears of legal intimidation by Hotbar. |
|
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to Karl Bode
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 |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| 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 |
|
JPCass
join:2001-01-23
Denver, CO
| reply to GOLFnSUN
Re: Symantec taking cowards way out???
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. |
|
wriley
I'M Sick Of Fixing Your Computer.
Premium
join:2001-08-30
Edmonton, AB
clubs:
| reply to GOLFnSUN
Re: Symantec taking cowards way out
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. |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·T-Mobile US
1 edit | reply to GOLFnSUN
said by GOLFnSUN :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. |
|
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| 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 | 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. |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| reply to GOLFnSUN
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
·T-Mobile US
| 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. |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
1 edit | reply to wriley
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/ |
|
Rogue Wolf
Ate The Last Of The Pumpkin Pie
join:2003-08-12
Troy, NY
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to GOLFnSUN
said by GOLFnSUN :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 |
|
wriley
I'M Sick Of Fixing Your Computer.
Premium
join:2001-08-30
Edmonton, AB
clubs: | reply to GOLFnSUN
So by your own explanation this could well give spyware vendor PRECEDENT which says that other companies cannot remove spyware and adware. |
|
Damon85
Premium
join:2004-12-25
Louisville, KY
| reply to Jason Levine
"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. |
|
JPCass
join:2001-01-23
Denver, CO
| reply to wriley
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. |
|
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to wriley
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. |
|
