Slashdot Mirror
Spyware Maker Sues Detection Firm
Luigi30 writes "ZDnet reports that RetroCoder, makers of the SpyMon remote monitoring program, are suing Sunbelt Software, makers of ConterSpy, a spyware detector program, for detecting the SpyMon as spyware. According to the EULA, SpyMon can not be used in 'anti-spyware research,' and detecting it is therefore a violation of it. 'In order to add our product to their list, they must have downloaded it and then examined it. These actions are forbidden by the notice,' a RetroCoder spokesperson said."
The fact that someone actually is trying this, or the fact that I'm half-afraid it might work.
Let's all hope not.
To fight the war on terror, stop being afraid.
No, it isn't genious. It's only the crap you'd expect from an asshole...
Anyone remember those MOTD's on pirate-software FTP sites giving us a pseudo-legal-brief about President Clinton signing some law, and then "FBI AGENTS YOU CANNOT ENTER THIS SITE"?
Please help metamoderate.
This kind of thing is not likely to stand up in court. Spyware has been proven to be a malicious type of software that voilates one's privacy, therefore I would be shocked if the courts find in favor of the spyware maker. The spyware maker might have thought it was clever adding that clause in their EULA, but essentially what they've stipulated was people cannot investigate how their software works in order to prevent it's unwanted installation on to one's system. Not likely to stand up in court.
First: they almost admit in the EULA that is a spyware product. Who the fuck else would put such an idiot line in the EULA. Second: the antispyware company might have used some sort of heuristics. No install required. I would really like to see this go in court: isn't there a limit on the kind of shit people put in that EULA ?
Em. I don't get it. Who says the the company has to agree to the eula to look at it? If the spyware company declines the eula agreement they are not bound to it and as a result the proggy is not installed. How does that restrict they spyware company from analyzing the binaries present in the setup program? Decompress the archive and create a fingerprint done!
once the expected cost of defending themselves is greater than the cost of caving in, most businesses will cheerfully cave. In fact, for publicly traded companies you can make a decent case that it's their duty to do so.
Except that if a clause like this were upheld, all the spyware makers would start adding similar clauses in short order, and anti-spyware makers would be out of business. It shouldn't be too hard to explain this to shareholders.
You moderators might think that's Funny, but it's actually a very interesting point. If I can, basically, say "you're not allowed to come anywhere near my software" in the EULA as a spyware maker, why can't I say the same thing as an anti-spyware maker?
What's nice about this is that it works out no matter whether such a clause would be accepted: if it is accepted, then the spyware maker would have violated the anti-spyware product's EULA by looking at how it classifies the spyware. If it's not accepted, on the other hand, then the corresponding clause in the spyware's EULA would also not be accepted.
Myself, I think that such clauses aren't valid, but I also think that even if a court thinks they are, it'd be pretty impossible to actually get a case, as they could trivially be circumvented. For example, if I visit a friend and use their computer to do something in Photoshop, am I then bound by Photoshop's EULA? Of course not; I didn't buy the program, I didn't install it, I didn't agree to anything. My friend might be (or not), but I certainly am not. A spyware maker could do the same thing: just don't install the spyware yourself, but rather classify it after it infected someone else's computer. (On a side note, I doubt that most spyware actually presents a EULA to the user where he can clearly see what is going to happen, where he's given the opportunity to say "no, thanks" and where, if he does, the spyware will not be installed, anyway).
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
This is not my sandwich.
Since when did EULAs become meritorious in any way, shape, or form?
They've been stuck down as non-binding as many times as they've been upheld;
they often have clauses in them which are not only onerous, but downright illegal;
they do not have any form of traditional contractual agreement methods, wherein both parties have the ability (allowed by contract law) to modify the contract to their satisfaction;
and they represent the interests of one party to the exclusion of the rights of the other.
Tell me again why this sort of dispute should be allowed past the doors of any courtroom?