Slashdot Mirror
Adware Related To Web Sites Ruled Legal
Cobb writes "The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that it is legal for adware programs to show you pop ups for knock-offs and rivals when you visit a companies website. 'In 1-800 Contacts's lawsuit against adware provider WhenU.com, the appeals court likened WhenU's ads to retail stores that place generic competitors next to brand-name products.'"
But it had an annoying pop-up, so I left without RTFA.
I notice that the case didn't address the legality of adware being installed without a user's full knowledge. I find it humorous, but I have an idea!
They can inform the user that adware is being installed with a pop-up! Everybody reads pop-ups!
Perfecting Discordia
www.stevenvansickle.com
I'm now about to visit the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and stick a big poster over their front door reading "For cut-price justice which is just as good, why don't you use the 3rd. U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals instead? Our charges are only half as high, but our court officials are just as supercilious and our judgements just as incomprehensible. Why don't you book your appeal with us to-day? American Express and bullion accepted.
And then I'm off to see how long I last parading up and down outside WalMart with a sandwich board advertising our local deli.
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
It is less the annoyance itself being legal than it is the content of the annoyance. Compare it to someone crapping on your doorstep. The court issue here was not whether it is legal to do so: it is more like whether it is legal to have undigested corn in the crap.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Pissing people off seems to generate sales. There's some very annoying phone ringtones at the moment, and part of the advertising seems to be noisy web ads.
In related news, the district court ruled that it is legal for the Mafia to use competing brands in their extortion efforts. A store owner complained that the local mafia was using Glock guns to threaten him when his store was selling Magnums. The store owner complained that it was not fair that his assailants were advertising competing products.
The judge stated that "It does not violate trademark law to use competing products during an extortion effort." He added that this ruling does not make extortion legal, it merely states that the brand names of the products is not relevant.