Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
| reply to GOLFnSUN
Re: Symantec taking cowards way out
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. |
|
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| 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 |
|
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. |
|
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 |
|
cdru
Go Colts
Premium,MVM
join:2003-05-14
Fort Wayne, IN
| reply to GOLFnSUN
said by GOLFnSUN :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. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
Host:
Road Runner
PC gaming GAMES
PC gaming Tech
1 edit | reply to GOLFnSUN
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. |
|
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| 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 |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02
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. |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| 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/ |
|
