Slashdot Mirror
Spyware Maker Sues Anti-Spyware Maker
prostoalex writes "An 'online media company' Zango, which gained notoriety for redirecting adult affiliate traffic and the first ever MySpace worm, is now suing the anti-spyware vendor PC Tools, maker of an application called 'Spyware Doctor', for removing Zango applications off the consumers' PCs. 'According to a posting on a blog called Spamnotes.com, Zango is seeking at least $35 million in damages, alleging that Spyware Doctor removes Zango's software without warning users that it will be deleted. The lawsuit was filed Tuesday in King County Superior Court in Seattle, according to Spamnotes.com. Formerly known as 180solutions, Zango is trying to clean up its tarnished reputation. In November it paid $3 million to settle U.S. Federal Trade Commission charges that its software was being installed deceptively on PCs.'"
How the hell can a company that bases it's business on 'sneaky' software installs complain about 'sneaky' software removal. It isn't even sneaky at that, those people put anti-spyware software on their PC to recieve a desired result. In any event, the pot can't call the kettle black.
You're right, the problem is, that neither lawyers, not the legal system operates on common sense. And this is tragically obvious on new matters, such as online activity (in "legal time" the Internet is quite young, lawmakers aren't unfortunately as sharp or as fast as their IT counterparts).
I hate to mention this, but isn't there a provision of the DMCA that they can claim that removal tools violates? Circumvention or some such?
I'm not even remotely suggesting that I agree with the lawsuit, and I fervently hope they get countersued out of business. But I am suggesting that it's possible they have a real claim under the screwed up IP laws in this country. I wonder if this isn't one of those lawsuits that may ultimately end up with a desperately needed revision of those laws. It's really too much to hope for, I suppose.
(Although, on a side note, a little bit of me notes that they don't make unix os type products. Thus they do, sort of left handedly, support OS's I'm fond of.)
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
You could think the current situation exactly like that. There are dozens of anti spyware busting Zango but they are choosing a GOOGLE BUNDLED software to sue. Windows Defender is a hit, much more popular than Google one since it has "Microsoft" in it. I bet it doesn't suck that much and busts Zango too. Why not choose it?
It is like historical or current imperialists not fighting eachother but making small countries fight/hate eachother for their own good.
Lets hope Google or the small company making that software doesn't think a second about "settle".
Not happening. You can take control over what I can and cannot do on my machine over my dead body. It's not worth ending spam to end free speech and free software as well.
It'll not end anything, but raise the barrier. Always happens dude.
I think maybe it's time we took the spyware companies to court for using our cpu cycles without compensation.
California has had both managed care and tort reform for decades now, and there hasn't been a significant drop in the number of doctors working here, nor are doctors complaining about outrageous insurance fees. Not causative, but if managed care was doing what you say, we'd all be out of jobs by now. We certainly work for less money than in middle america, though.
Truth is that more malpractice cases are settled out of court now than before, because the insurance companies don't want to pay whatever a jury might think is just, and no hospital wants their reputation damaged publicly. There's more of a driver for this in areas w/o tort reform because the jury awards can be so much higher and, therefore, more publicized. Insurance companies, despite very rare cases with high damage awards (most of which seem to be dropped on appeal) use that to justify charging outrageous premiums to MDs. And, if they do settle out of court, that typically means the MD forever carries that blemish on their record and has to report that case everytime they apply for a license, job, etc. The insurance companies have done a good job of passing the buck on to everyone else but them.
They sue real people too.
Never sell your home to a lawyer.
I sold my condo to a lawyer 3 years ago. In January, the condo association issued an assessment to do some repairs. Guess, what? He is suing me, saying that I "should have known" and "should have told him".
Everything that comes out of his mouth is a lie, but he is doing most of the suit himself, costing him nothing, but it costs me an arm and a leg to defend myself. I have to pay $5/minute to respond.
Lawsuits are just extortion.
The hunter becomes the hunted. Companies like this are like a cancer driven by deception and immoral practices. Perhaps my opinions would be different if any of their products served the world any use, but with the questionable marketing they push upon innocent people, I am glad to see them taking damages, and I can only pray that they will not be reimbursed the money they would not have rightfully made.
What really has me wondering is this: Isn't spyware a subcategory of trojans and isn't distributing those effectively called hacking? I.e. illegal break and entry into a computer system or whatever it's called in US legal terms? I'm suprised a 'spyware company' would step so far out into the open let alone attract attention by sueing people/companies. What is stopping Homeland Security or any other of the new nazi-style US agencies (pardon the polemics) from raiding their offices and imprisoning everybody in site without trial for 'enemy combatant terrorist activities' or something.? I'd actually try to get something like that rolling if I lived in the US and some spyware company woukld start sueing me.
They sure have some guts.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Big mistake on Zango's part. Now comes discovery, a searching examination of Zango's business practices to answer the relevant question "Is Zango evil"?
But of course there are a few things to consider: first, even though Zango might be considered an advertising business, their methods of advertising are so damned unethical that they could probably be blamed for their own problems. Second, Google did not bundle anti-spyware software to attack Zango directly, so the idea of anti-competitiveness against Zango loses a bit of ground. Third and finally, the judge handling the lawsuit - especially coming from a company whose track record includes worm development - is probably going to handle Zango with extreme prejudice given their incident with the FCC.
Now that I'm done acting all official-like... Erhem... If a company wants to fight Google in court they sure as hell can try. I doubt they'll get far, though. The majority of us love Google, and even if you hate them you'll still side with them as the lesser of two evils.