Gator Forces Site To Remove 'Spyware' Label

lurker412 writes "CNet News is reporting that Gator has forced PC Pitstop to remove Web pages that call Gator's software 'spyware.' The correct term, according to Gator, is 'adware.' The article states: 'If we find anyone publicly calling us spyware, we correct it and take action if necessary,' said Scott Eagle, Gator's senior vice president of marketing. So be careful what you say in your comments..."

Comments

Notified?

[mishehu]

Some web pages try to install Gator/GAIN and notify you of it (which most windows users ignore, because that would require READING), but when you install programs like Kazaa and other "free programs", Gator/GAIN, PrecisionTime, Date Manager, $avenow, and a half dozen other spyware programs can be installed and you are NEVER informed of it. So, I will continue to call Gator "spyware", and if they'd like to sue me, I hope they can hope to squeeze water out of a rock. ;-)

Also, I hope Gator reads this, so they know how much we hate them. But maybe I should thank them for generating extra business for me to remove their program from clients' computers.

Re:alternative names....

[Tablizer]

How about "pestware" for the whole category if you don't want to put an asterisk or tons of legal disclaimers as a spyware removal company. Are they going to legally argue that their software is not pesky? That otta make a fun trial.

Sleazy Tactics (In my Opinion)

[Compulawyer]

Sayeth the article:

In an effort to improve its corporate reputation, adware company Gator has launched a legal offensive to divorce its name from the hated term "spyware"--and so far its strategy is paying off.

Ok - the basis for my opinion:

Gator's lawsuit is based on libel law. For a statement to be libelous, generally, it must meet the following requirements:

• Contain an statement of fact;
• Such statement of fact must be false;
• Such false statement of fact must be published (that is, transmitted to a party other than the speaker of the statement or the subject of the statement) in a fixed medium;
• Such statement must be intended to cause damage to the subject; and
• Such statement must actually cause damage.

Now, defenses to libel include:

• Truth; and
• Opinion.

Allegedly libelous statements are not actionable if they are mere statements of opinion. Statements that cause damage (no matter how much damage!) are not actionable if the statement is true. Now here's the sleazy part: Gator is taking it upon itself to provide a definition of "spyware," claiming its software does not meet that definition, and suing for libel. Implicit in the the claim is that the statement that Gator software is "spyware" is the claim that the label "spyware" is false because it does not meet the definition of the term that Gator provided.

Did you catch that? Your statement is false because it does not match the definition of the term that Gator likes. Never mind the possibility that the term was coined by others and may have a meaning that matches what the software actually does. Gator does not like the way a negative term is being applied to its software so it will try to change the definition of the term.

This tactic is often used in advertising. Perfect example is when telephone companies claim their rates are lower than rates of a competitor and in the fine print you find out that their definition of a competitor's rate is the rate that competitor charges at the crack of noon on the highest call volume day of the year to a point exactly opposite you on the planet with the CEO of the company personally connecting the call for you. I know my example exaggerates (maybe not that much!) but what the hell, it's an example.

Whether or not the law warrants this type of suit, I personally think it is a sleazy business tactic to try to improve your company's image by using lawsuits to silence critics. There are laws (anti-SLAPP laws - SLAPP stands for Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation) that are designed to let judges throw out libel suits designed to silence critics.

Last time I checked, the commonly accepted definition of "spyware" fit the Gator program perfectly. I understand it to be software that collects information about you (with or without your permission) in the background. If Gator doesn't like the way it's products are labeled or perceived, I think it should advertise or maybe change its business model, but definitely not sue to silence critics expressing their opinions.

Re:Me first

[TrombaMarina]

I spent 2.5 days last Christmas trying to remove all the crap that Gator and it's buddy the ad-downloader put on my in-laws system. The family that "agreed" to install this "legitimate" software had a difficult time understanding what it did even after I explained it to them several times. Their hard drive was full, and half of it was from adware that Gator downloaded. The system was so slow as to be almost unusable.

One person on our team of 6 tech support people at work was a full-time Gator uninstaller last year until we upgraded to virus protection which blocked it. That's how bad it was.

Gator may not be spying, but it is a malicious intruder, a trojan horse that pours out a malitia of bogus advertisement software under the guise of "helping" people by providing their personal information to any web page that asks for it (a pretty sobering thought by itself). I'd call it mal-ware after the word, "Malicious".

Like SCO, Gator masquerades as something that it's not - a legitimate company with a legitimate product. It is therefore very difficult to do anything about it legally. Somebody, somewhere is supporting this company. Maybe we can petition them to stop?