Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Spyware Maker Sues Anti-Spyware Maker

Posted by Zonk on from the oh-the-hilarity dept.

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.'"

111 of 158 comments (clear)

  1. Pot Calling The Kettle Black... by Vexler · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is like Osama Bin Laden filing a federal lawsuit in Washington D.C. alleging that George W. Bush is interfering with Bin Laden's rights to advance the agenda of fundamentalist Islam and kill innocent Americans.

    1. Re:Pot Calling The Kettle Black... by Zeinfeld · · Score: 5, Funny

      "We would be interested to know what your client's attitude to damages would be if the nature of our reply were as follows : Fuck off"

      --
      Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
      Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    2. Re:Pot Calling The Kettle Black... by Frankie70 · · Score: 1, Insightful


      alleging that George W. Bush is interfering with Bin Laden's rights to advance the agenda of fundamentalist Islam


      Alleging is right. Because GWB isn't actually interfering now.
      GWB was, but only for a year or so after 9/11.

    3. Re:Pot Calling The Kettle Black... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Funny

      This is like Osama Bin Laden filing a federal lawsuit in Washington D.C. alleging that George W. Bush is interfering with Bin Laden's rights to advance the agenda of fundamentalist Islam and kill innocent Americans.

      Hmmm, good point. Quick! Patent that business method before Osama thinks of it!

    4. Re:Pot Calling The Kettle Black... by clyde_cadiddlehopper · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, it isn't. (dang, there goes my karma again.)

      --
      Obi-Wan: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were sudden
    5. Re:Pot Calling The Kettle Black... by palewook · · Score: 5, Funny

      or like punching your boss in the nose and getting fired for the punch. then suing your boss because he forced you to punch him because he was acting like a tool.

    6. Re:Pot Calling The Kettle Black... by Jerry+Beasters · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Funny how that happens, Karma goes down when you're wrong. Crazy, aint it?

    7. Re:Pot Calling The Kettle Black... by dpiven · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, that's if he filed in DC. He'd have much better chances if he filed in the Ninth Circuit.

    8. Re:Pot Calling The Kettle Black... by jb.hl.com · · Score: 4, Informative

      Reference, for the bad teeth impaired

      --
      By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
    9. Re:Pot Calling The Kettle Black... by Architect_sasyr · · Score: 1, Informative

      Karma tends to go down because since I became a karma whore with a +2 moderation the slashdot mod's got bitchy (and jealous) and mod me redundant and offtopic all of a sudden. They weren't doing that for any of my posts before being said karma whore.

      Anyway, well done to the spyware author... I'm sure Spyware walks a gray line, but I would draw attention to the Windows EULA (or others). For example, I only learnt the other day that when I tell windows NOT to update certain things Microsoft is informed of this just as much as when a download occurs. It is in the EULA and is thus perfectly acceptable, but I would consider it a form of spyware.

      --
      Me failed English...
      FreeBSD over Linux. If my comments seem odd, this may explain...
    10. Re:Pot Calling The Kettle Black... by ethicalBob · · Score: 1

      I think we need a version of Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_Law) for Osama...

      --
      Politics will sooner or later make fools of everybody... - Dick Armey
    11. Re:Pot Calling The Kettle Black... by macdaddy357 · · Score: 4, Funny

      And from beyond the grave, Hitler is bringing libel suits against anyone calling him a Nazi.

      --
      How ya like dat?
    12. Re:Pot Calling The Kettle Black... by HUADPE · · Score: 1, Informative

      Godwin's Law. This is about spyware, Hitler analogies are not appropriate.

      --
      This sig has not been evaluated by the FDA. It is not designed to diagnose, treat, prevent, or cure any disease.
    13. Re:Pot Calling The Kettle Black... by Old+Benjamin · · Score: 1

      Quiet. The Democrats might realize what they're doing!

      --
      "The quickest way to end a war is to lose it" -Orwell
    14. Re:Pot Calling The Kettle Black... by Khaed · · Score: 1

      Godwin's law generally implies there is some sort of debate going on, and doesn't really apply to a post made simply as a joke. He wasn't really using Nazis or Hitler to make any sort of argument.

      In other words, get over it, this is /.

    15. Re:Pot Calling The Kettle Black... by msuarezalvarez · · Score: 1

      The way some people here seem to be obsessed with bringing up Godwin's Law all the time ceases not to amaze me. Oftentimes, too, people that bring up the `law' show a misunderstanding of the nature of the law---which is, really, not much more than an observation---that puts them right beside those that `argue' against the theory of evolution by saying that it is `just' a theory. For example, it defies my imagination to see to what point is the poster mentioning Godwin's law in this context...

      Oh well.

    16. Re:Pot Calling The Kettle Black... by fugue · · Score: 1

      ...or vice versa...

      --
      "The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
    17. Re:Pot Calling The Kettle Black... by kalirion · · Score: 1

      No, you have it all wrong. You should sue the boss not for forcing you to punch him, but for the damage his face did to your fist.

  2. M$ should buy zango for 6 billion by Werrismys · · Score: 4, Funny

    that would show google.

    --
    'Once scientists, even the dim-witted social scientists, get muzzled, the Western Civilization is finished.' - oldhack
    1. Re:M$ should buy zango for 6 billion by Ilgaz · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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".

    2. Re:M$ should buy zango for 6 billion by solar_blitz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There are dozens of anti spyware busting Zango but they are choosing a GOOGLE BUNDLED software to sue.
      That makes perfect sense, if you think about it. Google is, after all, first and foremost in the advertising business. Zango is in this business, too, regardless of their legitimacy. Under current law, Google's bundling of software could be considered an anti-competitive act.

      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.
  3. What next? by PhireN · · Score: 1, Redundant

    What next, assassin sues police for preventing him doing his job?

    1. Re:What next? by Stewie241 · · Score: 1

      no... Microsoft sues Linux because the Linux installer uninstalls Vista.

  4. "tarnished reputation" ? by ThePromenader · · Score: 1

    "Zango is trying to clean up its tarnished reputation"

    ...but isn't Zango's reputation based on tarnish?

    --

    No, no sig. Really.

    ThePromenader
    1. Re:"tarnished reputation" ? by ThePromenader · · Score: 1

      "Zango is trying to clean up its tarnished reputation" /><br />
      rather... isn't tarnish Zango's very trade?

      --

      No, no sig. Really.

      ThePromenader
    2. Re:"tarnished reputation" ? by 2helix · · Score: 1

      absolutely

  5. Joking aside... by adona1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I dare say there will be a fair few jokes made along the lines of "that's like Jeffrey Dahmer suing young boys for being so delectable and tasty", but I think that misses the point that this issue highlights - that all lawyers should be put in a shuttle and sent directly into the centre of the sun.

    --
    Between the falling angel and the rising ape
    1. Re:Joking aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      what a waste of a perfectly good shuttle.

    2. Re:Joking aside... by jhylkema · · Score: 5, Informative

      Too expensive! A more fitting punishment would be to tie all trial lawyers to trees, upsidedown, and feed them ex-lax for a week. Then they would be covered in what they try to dish out to the rest of us!

      Start with John Edwards since the only thing he ever did "for" North Carolina with his malpractice suits is raise the cost of insurance to the point that there are now 10% fewer Doctors here than 15 years ago. This is the kind of slime that wants to be President?

      Okay, I'll bite.

      We hear an awful lot about the so-called "tort crisis" and that the "courts are overrun with frivolous lawsuits." These claims are nothing more than insurance industry propaganda. It's all in the name of getting so-called tort reform passed. This, from an industry whose entire raison d'etre is not to pay.

      Those of us in the business know that, in fact, the number of lawsuits, number of trials, and sizes of jury awards have actually been going down, not up. Using your medical malpractice example, the odds against a medical malpractice plaintiff winning at trial are three-to-one at best. The simple fact is, the medical profession has done a horrible job of policing itself and is mainly interested in protecting the "doctor lifestyle." No, friend, the reason there are so many fewer doctors is principally because managed care (an oxymoron if there ever was one) is driving them out of business.

    3. Re:Joking aside... by drmike0099 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    4. Re:Joking aside... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I did find this article:

      http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4200/is_20 070212/ai_n17222418

      but I still would like to find another source to confirm this.

    5. Re:Joking aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    6. Re:Joking aside... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Managed care is driving doctors away. It's driving them to specialize. General practice is becoming a babysitter role. The patient is stuck with what the managed care system will pay.

        If you like the current managed care system, you will LOVE the Hillary Clinton socialized medicine plan, in which it will be ILLEGAL to pay for your own doctor. It will be illegal to go to another country to get health care. You will be STUCK with what the government offers. If you have to wait 9 months for an MRI, and another 6 months for knee surgery, remember to have fun with those crutches.
       
      I especially like the chemotherapy stories. Picture a cancer patient, who has a very short window to start chemotherapy to knock it into remission, having to wait 6 months to a year to start treatment. By then, it's too late, and the government wastes $250,000 on chemotherapy that has no chance of success.

      That's the system that Hillary Clinton has been touting for almost 2 decades. That's what Edwards is going to support.
      If you think you like government bureaucracy now, you'll really love it when they're 100% in charge of your health care.
      You think dealing with the IRS is fun? Imagine calling your congressperson or senator to see if you can get a kidney transplant after 10 years of dialysis. Imagine going to the dentist and getting stainless steel crowns because that's all that's available. You won't be able to get white ceramic. You won't be able to get the more durable gold crowns. Stainless is it.

      And the legal system will eat up all of your time and money because you'll spend every available minute trying to fight the government to get what you would have in this current system.

      Actually, I'd like to see us go back to the old system, where everyone got their own insurance. The employer didn't "choose" for you. The employer didn't get to deduct the health care expense. I'd like to see the employees get the deduction. But there are too many lawyers, too many industry lobbyists, and too many politicians taking too much money from too many industries to turn the system around.

      We elect politicians solely on their ability to tell fiction on their campaign platforms, and then "spin the story" when they can't producte.
      So why do people believe people like John Edwards and Hillary Clinton? Because most people are stupid, and they believe. They repeatedly believe that what politicians say will come true. And it won't. For 40 or 50 years, politicians have been telling us that welfare will help poor people. We have more poor people than ever. JOBS and WORK help poor people. They earn money, they earn self esteem, and they teach their kids the same. Instead, politicians GIVE away tax money, telling the poor that they deserve this money. The left has 50 million people PAID to sit at home and eat cheesy poofs, drink beer, smoke crack, and vote Democrat... they're so ingrained in the welfare system that they can NEVER get out. Let's just hope that the illegal immigrants keep working, and don't end up on the liberal democrats' "government programs". What a waste. Throwing money at a problem and thinking that it helps. Those people need far more than money.

    7. Re:Joking aside... by Nf1nk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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,

      You say that but, here in SLO-town I had an experience that that shows the opposite. My wife and I needed an OB-GYN and there was only one doc in town that was taking new patients. The other docs just said no, we don't have the time. We had a similar experience when we went looking for a dermatologist, most of them had two month waits just to see a doc. This isn't for one covered by a plan this is for cash on the barrel head. There may not be fewer docs in California but there are not any new docs showing up to match the increase in population.
      --
      I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
    8. Re:Joking aside... by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Sounds like you should pick up and move, friend. We're getting more and more Californians here in the Midwest for that reason and because it's cheaper to live here.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    9. Re:Joking aside... by BCW2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you don't think frivolous lawsuits are out of control, by a lawnmower and look at the manual that comes with it. If you just take all the items about actual operation and maintenance you will have about 6 pages. The other 10 - 20 pages of safety warnings are the result of lawsuits! This was demonstrated in a mangement class in 93 by the Prof that bought one over the summer. He found one where a moron sued a mower company because they didn't specificly warn him not to pick it up while running to trim a hedge, and won!

      Need more on why Edwards is unfit? When he was elected to the Senate in 98 he never served as a true Senator, he thought he got elected Presidential candidate and missed over half the votes of his 6 year term. He will lose any election in NC, Primary or General. We know about this "champion of the poor" that lives in a 6 million dollar home with enough space in the barn (due to a remodel that is almost finished) to house a secret service detail. Overconfidant? I hope so!

      Trial lawyers are the only group that I trust less than politicians.

      --
      Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
    10. Re:Joking aside... by zippthorne · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of course it's down. It's down because Edwards is out of that business and busy running for president. He's the classic smooth-talking lawyer of little substance that takes on big-money cases and ignores anything else, regardless of merit.

      There are probably some good lawyers in the medical field, trying to get justice for patients that have been truly wronged. Edwards wasn't one of 'em. He was the guy channeling fetal testimony for the multi-million dollar lawsuit based on crank science.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    11. Re:Joking aside... by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1

      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
      The problem is that even if you win it can cost nearly as much to defend yourself as to roll over and pay up. Add that to the contingency fees system and there's a big incentive to 'play the lottery' - the plaintiff has nothing to lose and could win big time.
      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    12. Re:Joking aside... by jhylkema · · Score: 1

      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.

      My point was that managed care is squeezing doctors a lot harder than the so-called lawsuit crisis is.

      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.

      Not necessarily. From what I've seen having worked in the legal field, med mal cases are often defended vigorously, usually by guys with American flags pins on their lapels who truly believe that any lawsuit against a doctor has no merit.

      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.

      In fact, the reason for the high premiums is the insurance companies' losing gambles in the stock market. You are correct that they have been able to pass the buck onto everybody except themselves.

      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.

      I say this: When the National Practitioner Data Bank is made publically accessible, then we can talk about so-called tort reform. The fact that it isn't is further proof that the industry is out to protect its own, not the public. The idea that I can't check the record of someone into whose hands I am placing my very life is a travesty.

      Ultimately, the problem will only be solved when the U.S. is led, kicking and screaming, down the path towards some kind of national health care system, like every civilized nation on this planet has done. It's high time that the profit motive is taken out of medicine and doctors can get back to being doctors.

    13. Re:Joking aside... by jhylkema · · Score: 1

      The problem is that even if you win it can cost nearly as much to defend yourself as to roll over and pay up. Add that to the contingency fees system and there's a big incentive to 'play the lottery' - the plaintiff has nothing to lose and could win big time.

      Wrong. The plaintiff has a lot to lose, and so do his attorneys. Increasingly, the defense costs are being viewed merely as costs of doing business, so defendants are much more likely to fight than settle.

      In order to pursue a "med mal" claim, the plaintiff and/or his attorneys must front the money for expert witnesses. In other words, the wronged person has to pay another doctor $500 or so an hour to put together a report, be deposed and, if the case goes to trial, testify. This is fraught with peril as the defendants will bring what is called a Daubert motion to have the expert disqualified. If they succeed, as they often do, then the case is dismissed on summary judgment. That means the plaintiff loses without even getting to the courthouse door. Of course, he and his attorneys are now on the hook for some very large bills for their experts.

      By contrast, the doctor and his insurer have practically unlimited resources to hire their own experts who will say that the plaintiff and his experts are full of shit. And there is a large contingent of doctors who don't practice, but make their living testifying as "experts" on behalf of insurance companies. Gee . . . I Just Wonder what they're going to say about the plaintiff and his case. (I'm inclined to refer to those kinds of experts as "whores" or at least "paid shills," but that would be unseemly, wouldn't it?) And let's not forget that about 5% of the doctors commit roughly 60% of the malpractice.

      This risk is so great that many lawyers won't take med mal cases. But no, we're supposed to believe the doctor's union and the insurance industry. Makes perfect sense to me.

    14. Re:Joking aside... by wakdjunkaga · · Score: 1

      My favorite disclaimer is from a Swedish chainsaw maker: "Warning, do not attempt to stop chain with your hands or genitals."

    15. Re:Joking aside... by ChaoticLimbs · · Score: 1

      Yeah, all lawyers should be removed. Sure, because companies and individuals are so completely reasonable when you attempt negotiations with them without lawyers.
      I'll give you an example of a typical consumer/corporation negotiation on something as simple as defective product or something like that:

      {consumer} Hey, (company name), I got some defective (stuff) from you and I wanted to know where to return it for a full refund.

      {Company rep} I have a policy against refunding money. I'm not liable, yada yada.

      {consumer} Are you sure? My state's law provides that all defective goods be replaced or refunded. Your product is designed to be defective, so I don't want another, I want my money back so I can buy one from someone else.

      {Company rep} Well, we don't do that, regardless.

      24 hours later...

      {consumer} Well, I talked to my attorney and we've got a letter to you and to a judge asking for a case in small claims regarding the refund.

      {Company rep} Oh all right, we'll give your money back, I don't know why you people always have to get lawyers involved, geez.

      Many people are completely selfish and unreasonable, or even downright dishonest. Without lawyers, you can't get them to play nice, even if you're asking for a completely reasonable thing, like asking that a network router actually route packets instead of catching fire and routing zero packets. You look up on the net and thousands have had the exact same problem with that company's routers. So you call them up and say you're in your warranty period, you know the dang thing is irreparably broken in design, and you want your money back. An honest businessman who finds he's sold defective and non functioning goods knows that he has no choice but to give the money back or somehow fix the problem so it's GONE. Here's a hint: The XBOX 360 has had repeated problems with disk read/write, and overheating. They're OK (not excellent) on warranty, but if you're experiencing your third read/write error a day after warranty ends with someone like (CENSORED OTHER COMPANY HERE), you are screwed. ((hint- they're in China and their initials are M_I, and they make crap.))

    16. Re:Joking aside... by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1

      Wrong. The plaintiff has a lot to lose, and so do his attorneys.
      Let me know how many times a year a losing plaintiff is forced to pay defence costs.
      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    17. Re:Joking aside... by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      here in SLO-town I had an experience that that shows the opposite.

      There's only one flaw in your otherwise airtight case: Leckrone is not in California.

      --
      https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
  6. Yeah, ok. by ewhenn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Yeah, ok. by Luminus · · Score: 1

      "According to the FTC, consumers have unwittingly downloaded Zango's software more than 70 million times, and as a result, have been subjected to more than 6.9 billion pop-up ads between 2002 and 2005."

      They should sue our wits for the other 700 million times we didn't download the software.

    2. Re:Yeah, ok. by suv4x4 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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).

    3. Re:Yeah, ok. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is the problem with well-meaning regulations.

      Spyware was bad and evil because it installed itself without consent. No notice! No agreement!

      So, those things were made illegal--now you have to get consent to install things.

      The problem here is that consent and notice are not terribly strong protections. Hey, read that EULA! This person acknowledged and agreed to install this software. And they were notified (probably confusingly) that it was along for the ride.

      Most modern adware just barely follows the rules. Technically, they comply, but they're still mostly installed by people who don't understand what they're getting and don't want it.

      But since they're "legal," they can claim "we're not malware! We comply with all regulations. We provide a service people apparently want and consented to. It's removing us that's the violation." And, by the letter of the law, they're right.

    4. Re:Yeah, ok. by superphreak · · Score: 1

      On the internet, sneaky spyware sues YOU.
      Why do you think it's called "sneaky"?

      (Well, I thought it was worth a shot anyway)

      --
      Evolution is a state-sponsored, state-protected religion.
    5. Re:Yeah, ok. by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      Imagine hearing "Anti spyware company counter sues Zango for 35 BILLION dollars for their allegations" and Google gives an army of lawyers to anti spyware company.

      Why not? We would be free of patent trolls, large company suers for at least a year.

    6. Re:Yeah, ok. by Cederic · · Score: 1

      We provide a service people apparently want and consented to. It's removing us that's the violation." And, by the letter of the law, they're right. People running the software that removed them are exercising their rights and gave consent to the software doing the removal.

      Or would you like to argue that an EULA stating "You may never remove this software from your system" should be legally binding?

    7. Re:Yeah, ok. by GigsVT · · Score: 1

      You are right, it's the same as Philip Morris begging the FDA to regulate tobacco. Regulation is legitimization. The more regulation you create, the more sleezy crap you condone. (not that I think tobacco industry is sleezy, but it's a good example)

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  7. I hope Zango wins. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Zango has been providing innovative and useful software that helps users learn about quality products while simultaneously using their computer for other tasks, saving the user valuable time. It was very wrong of Spyware Doctor to not warn the user. I hope Zango wins. Anyhow, I'm off to go look for more smilies and mouse cursors to complement my Bonzai Buddy.

  8. It's like... by Mortimer82 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I know I used to force myself upon you, repeatedly, with no remorse, but I was thinking seeing as I have asked that you allow me to, and that I have changed my name now, you may voluntarily sleep with me?

    1. Re:It's like... by I+confirm+I'm+not+a · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "I know I used to force myself upon you, repeatedly, with no remorse, but I was thinking seeing as I have asked that you allow me to, and that I have changed my name now, you may voluntarily sleep with me?"

      ...and if you say no, I'll accuse you of rape. Yeah, it's sickening. Surely if I run an app that removes "software", I'm consenting to removing the software it removes? If I use, say, Spyware Doctor to remove, say, Zango, it's no different from using, say, Windows Explorer to remove, say, Firefox, surely? Should the Mozilla Foundation sue Microsoft? (It's a rhetorical question! Honest!)

      --
      This is where the serious fun begins.
    2. Re:It's like... by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      Add to that:

      "I also see that you've gotten yourself a new guard dog, and it'll probably bite my testicles off if I don't leave your house immediately. Just know that if it does, I'll sue the breeder."

  9. Wild west economics.. by suv4x4 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For the same reason censorship and copyright enforcement is hard on the Internet, apparently killing spam, scam, phishing and spyware companies is quite much harder than their "real life" equivalents.

    (Internet spanning the whole globe, while the laws aren't, decentralization, anonymity, vague and undetermined terminology and legal status of various online activities etc.)

    You gotta know though, this is all going on because the Internet is so young. If the beaurocrats in the various countries get their act together, in 30-40 years such abnormalities as a spyware distirbutor suing antispyware distributor will be for all practical purposes, impossible. But it will also mean we may need to fill a bunch of forms and go through a series of expensive tests before publishing software and sites on the Internet.

    The signs of this are already coming from Microsoft where you need to signs your exe files for "authenticity", and "comspulsory" game rating requirement of Vista, and the more expensive "trustworthy" certificates initiative that the major browser makers are engaged into.

    1. Re:Wild west economics.. by Watson+Ladd · · Score: 1

      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.

      --
      Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
    2. Re:Wild west economics.. by suv4x4 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:Wild west economics.. by jmac1492 · · Score: 1

      The signs of this are already coming from Microsoft where you need to signs your exe files for "authenticity", Requiring signed exe files? As in, Microsoft has to approve of every executable file in existance? There's not enough programmers in the world to check every line of code (including custom buisness applications that are used by only one company for a very specific purpose) and make sure it meets "Microsoft Standards." Seriously I think you're confusing this with signed drivers, which are being used to create a different problem than the one you're posting about.

      and "comspulsory" game rating requirement of Vista, ESRB ratings aren't required for games in Vista. Vista will play unrated games. It's possible to make a game that isn't run from the Games Browser. It's also possible to make a game with no rating. Sure, you'll get a warning that the game is unrated, and may be asked for a password before you can play it. You can turn off the password check if you're the adult who owns the computer, or you can leave it on so you can play unrated games but your kids can't. Then the games will run for you but not someone without the password. That's hardly compulsory.
      --
      Jenny's got a new number! 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    4. Re:Wild west economics.. by suv4x4 · · Score: 1

      Requiring signed exe files? As in, Microsoft has to approve of every executable file in existance?

      The signature verifies the source company of the exe file. Since SP2, if an exe isn't signed, you get a warning before you can run this file.

      Do your own research.

  10. why? by jpellino · · Score: 1

    because suing all the individual users who actually pressed "scan" would be far too low a cost:benefit.

    oh, wait - next week we'll see a patent for the reverse-class-action-suit.

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  11. A step in the wrong direction. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    If the company is trying to improve their image, this is not the way to go about it. In fact it makes them look even more evil than before.

  12. my $.02 by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    I have no pity for Zango whatsoever. I am sure you remember the days of trying to remove Zango through the "supported uninstaller." Uninstalling Zango often left a corrupt registry, files still on the hard drive, and/or didn't actually remove anything. I hope Zango looses this one very badly and attorneys fees and court costs force them to reconsider stupidity. Unscrupulous marketing schemes like Zango and it's former name deserve nothing. Only on the internet can the "criminal" sue the "good guy" and win. The whole thing is positively laughable.

  13. It's just a filed lawsuit... by iknownuttin · · Score: 1
    "Zango has exhibited numerous bad behaviors over the past few years," said long-time Zango critic Ben Edelman, an assistant professor at Harvard Business School. "I'd be interested to learn what specific descriptions Zango believes were false; in my view, most negative assessments of Zango have strong basis in fact."

    This lawsuit will be out on it's ass in no time - just look at what the experts say!

    Zango now bills itself as an online media company whose products are critical to the Internet.

    And I can call myself the Queen of England all I want, but it doesn't make it so.

    I think with history that this company has shown they're a goner. Oh, and it's a common practice by companies that get a bad reputation, whether with the Better Business Bureau, State, or whomever, to go and change their name. And then under the new name; business as usual until they get another bad reputation.

    --
    I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
  14. Screw 180 Even Unto The 10th Generation by Toad-san · · Score: 1

    They'll NEVER be able to repair all the damage they've already done to uncountable numbers of systems. Puking maggots, may they rot in hell!

    Changing their name isn't going to help either. Zango? Ptui, I _speet_ on Zango!

    (yeah, I know, "Now tell us how you _really_ feel.")

  15. Ummmm by phoenixwade · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  16. Re:Joking aside... (obigilatory) by DavidWeight · · Score: 1, Funny

    Now if we just include the telephone sanatizers and the hairdressers...

  17. Zango trying to build a reputation? by Stevecrox · · Score: 5, Informative

    Recently I has the misfortune to come accross Zango (was looking for a video codec) I'm running a Vista PC so Zango refused to install and yet windows defender still picked up the three applications it installed on my system. These three programs were left on ther system after Zango had informed me it can't install. Spybot identified two of the applications as Adware and the final as Malware.

    When your programs isntallation puts three unwanted applications on a PC even when it fails to install causing a owner to install a Anti-virus package because their concerned with what else it might have put on there then your company doesn't have a reputation worth anything and if Spybot, Microsoft and every AV/Anti-Spyware company wants to black list you power to them.

    Oh this was yesterday afternoon and while I don't keep A/V software running I'm very pro firewalls

  18. Only on the Internet? by MahariBalzitch · · Score: 1

    I can't tell you how many times I've heard about a burglar suing the homeowner because he hurt himself in the process of robbing the home and won the lawsuit.

    --
    Kickass Cheap Web Hosting
  19. Shenanigans by rgaginol · · Score: 2, Funny

    I hereby declare Shenanigans on Zango - SHENANIGANS!!!

  20. ROFL by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 4, Insightful

    alleging that Spyware Doctor removes Zango's software without warning users that it will be deleted.

    What about Zango's spyware installing itself WITHOUT WARNING USERS that it will be installed?

    Truth is stranger than fiction, that's for sure.

    1. Re:ROFL by jamstar7 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Truth is stranger than fiction, that's for sure.

      And some of us are stranger than truth.

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    2. Re:ROFL by TehZorroness · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

  21. Spyware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I think maybe it's time we took the spyware companies to court for using our cpu cycles without compensation.

  22. Sorry, shameless freedom plug by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 1

    The other point that this issue highlights is that if you don't control your property (computer, in this case) people will jump in and mess it up.

    Think about it while you're getting those TCP modules hooked up.

    --
    My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
  23. Re:Zango a spyware company? by ChameleonDave · · Score: 5, Informative

    ...Zango is in [the] right, and Spyware Doctor should at least [give] notice [of] what it is doing to its users.

    Spyware Doctor does give notice of what it does: it removes software that its developers judge to be spyware. If the user opines that the tool comes up with too many false positives, then they may uninstall it at any time and use any of several other tools out there.

    If you believe that there has been a false positive here, then write to the developers to suggest they change it. But don't support frivolous lawsuits.

  24. Isn't spyware a subcategory of trojans? by Qbertino · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Isn't spyware a subcategory of trojans? by StarReaver · · Score: 1

      But a large number of spyware infectees do give consent to the spyware without realizing it (such as legalese in the EULA). It's just like signing a contract without reading it. It isn't illegal "breaking and entering" into a computer because the person agreed to it. Now, I'm not very familiar with this company, nor am I familiar with law, so correct me if I'm wrong here.

    2. Re:Isn't spyware a subcategory of trojans? by cpghost · · Score: 1

      What is stopping Homeland Security [...] from raiding their offices and imprisoning everybody in site without trial for 'enemy combatant terrorist activities' or something.?

      Who would then provide them with the passwords to access spyware's backdoors?

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
  25. Or how about a charge of "Felony Stupid" by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 1

    We need judges with the gumption to say "Contempt of court for bringing such an egregiously frivolous case! Ninety days in jail! And double that for your slimy no-good excuse for a lawyer!"

  26. Quis corriget ipsos correctores? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Sigh. These grammatical debates get quite tiresome--especially when someone wants to change what is correct to something incorrect.

    "Choose" is the present-tense form, in both the indicative and the subjunctive.
    "Chose" is the past-tense form of the same verb.

    This is not a case of using one verb where a similar verb is correct (as in the confusion between loose and lose). This is a matter of tense. The question "Why not choose it?" is a present-time construction.

    Please choose to be careful.

    1. Re:Quis corriget ipsos correctores? by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1

      WHOSH!!!!

      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    2. Re:Quis corriget ipsos correctores? by ElderKorean · · Score: 1

      These grammar debates do help some products along.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammar_nazi/

      I've found that Wikipedia entries are fairly good in their usage of grammar.
      I suppose that the errors get noticed fairly quickly and corrected without too much fanfare.

  27. Obligatory ? by Romwell · · Score: 1

    In soviet USA, spyware company sues YOU! Oh wait...

  28. List = {Null}? by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Funny

    Can Zango provide a verifiable list of their "customers" who are actually complaining that it was removed?

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  29. Re:Zango a spyware company? by Firethorn · · Score: 1

    I'd feel a lot more sympathy for them if they could come up with one non-shill who actually wanted the Zango software installed.

    --
    I don't read AC A human right
  30. One thing I don't understand... by spywhere · · Score: 3, Informative

    [just kidding]
    Zango has infested millions of PCs and caused tens of millions of dollars worth of damages...
    Zango is an actual company that has offices here in the USA...
    Zango's offices are presumably flammable...
    Why is Zango still causing problems?
    [/just kidding]

  31. I just couldn't resist this one by spywhere · · Score: 1

    they don't make unix os type products

    There aren't enough people using "unix os type products..."
    and those who are usually don't have any money anyway.




    (sorry, just kidding...)

  32. Now we have discovery by Animats · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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"?

  33. Good Wording..... by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

    "Formerly known as 180solutions, Zango is trying to clean up its tarnished reputation."

    Hmmmmm.....

    "Clean up its tarnished reputation" or "sweep all the dirt under the rug and hope Lady Justice doesn't find it"?

    --
    Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
  34. What's next? by phalse+phace · · Score: 1

    What's next, virus/trojan/worm writers suing anti-virus software companies because their software removes said program(s) without warning users that it will be deleted?

    Besides, isn't it already inferred that the anti-spyware program will remove whatever spyware it finds? I mean, that's why people install anti-spyware programs to begin with, so that it will remove whatever spyware it finds. That's what it is designed to do.

  35. Kettle Calling The Hovercraft Black... by Tatarize · · Score: 1

    >>This is like Osama Bin Laden filing a federal lawsuit in Washington D.C. alleging that George W. Bush is interfering with Bin Laden's rights to advance the agenda of fundamentalist Islam and kill innocent Americans.

    If 180 Solutions was suing Microsoft for making their jobs so damned easy, that would be a proper analogy.

    The advance of fundamentalist Islam has been set into overdrive. And there are suddenly thousands of American within arms reach and thousands dead. You don't sue a gift horse. I would recommend Al Capone suing the Untouchables or some, at least, apt metaphor. Some of us Slashdotters have paid attention to the news in the last four years.

    --

    It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
  36. you don't clean by buying a new rug by pbhj · · Score: 1

    >>> "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."

    Well they may be trying to clean their reputation but shouldn't they do that by either exonerating themselves in court or by admitting their "sins" and repenting (not doing it again). Paying someone off so they don't get found out doesn't sound to me like cleaning up their reputation.

    FUD

  37. hard to decide by alanshot · · Score: 1

    I am finding myself torn...

    Which is lower on the food chain, in greater need to be extinguished like a bad case of herpes? Trial Lawyers or spyware/adware/virus writers?

    Its getting pretty hard to decide these days. Especially THESE particular lawyers. "OK, so your product is installed surreptitiously, yet TECHNICALLY legal since you did inform them that you are installing it (even tho I as a lawyer have a hard time understanding the language in which you phrased it). Now you want me to sue somebody that is removing your product after the consumer was clearly told what was being done? Uh.... OK, I'll take the case."

    Makes me want to take a shower even thinking of these guys.

    1. Re:hard to decide by mr_matticus · · Score: 1

      It's not our job in the industry to be society's moral police. A client comes to us with a case and a checkbook. The task at hand is simply whether or not that client's complaint can be made into a legal case.

      Doctors don't refuse to operate on criminals, restaurants serve food to whiny jerks, the Gap sells pants to anyone who walks in the store with money. Unless the client is requesting to do something illegal, they're going to find a lawyer who will take it. It is no different from any other profession. You can find a scummy doctor to write you prescriptions for painkillers, you can find liquor stores that don't check ID, you can find gun shops carrying weapons that have no conceivable legal use. But if you think these are the rules, rather than the exceptions, you're sorely mistaken.

      This company has a legal right to make whatever complaint it wants. Most law firms are for-profit enterprises. Taking bizarre cases only increases the profile of the firm, which in turn generates more money. It's not pretty, but it's business. Most attorneys don't have the freedom to choose their clients all the time. And all good attorneys are capable of defending a case they personally disagree with.

      Being an asshole isn't illegal (if it were, Slashdot would be 90% smaller), and until it becomes so, they have every right to make their legal complaints. Their money is as good as anyone's, and they have the same right to use the legal system as you do. "Trial lawyers" wouldn't have cases if people weren't asses to begin with--it takes a client to initiate a complaint. A lawyer is nothing more or less than hired help.

    2. Re:hard to decide by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1

      Taking bizarre cases only increases the profile of the firm, which in turn generates more money.
      That can be solved by charging defence costs to the plaintiff if the case is found to baseless, frivolous or speculative.
      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    3. Re:hard to decide by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      Especially THESE particular lawyers. "OK, so your product is installed surreptitiously, yet TECHNICALLY legal since you did inform them that you are installing it (even tho I as a lawyer have a hard time understanding the language in which you phrased it). Now you want me to sue somebody that is removing your product after the consumer was clearly told what was being done? Uh.... OK, I'll take the case."

      Even a Goddamn werewolf is entitled to legal counsel.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    4. Re:hard to decide by alanshot · · Score: 1

      True. its called Tort Reform. Since many of the lawmakers once were trial lawyers (and presumably would return to the profession when they leave office), and they trial lawyer lobbists are VERY powerful, its getting nowhere fast. They are too afraid of people actually being afraid of losing and not suing at the drop of a hat.

      Of course thats expected... next thing you know, we'll be shocked and amazed that they voted themselves another pay raise. huh... whodathunkit?

        I want a job where I can set my own pay rate on a whim, regardless of my performance with no REAL repurcussions as long as I didnt go too hog wild. If the real world were like that, I could raise my pay and the board of directors wouldnt do jack crap about it. out of the 10, I'd say 6 would have no clue I even existed, 1 wouldnt care, 5 would complain amongst themselves, and only one of the five would even TRY to get me fired. The rest wouldnt take the time to vote, so I'd stay.

      The only REAL winners in any lawsuit are the lawyers.

  38. Yes, get rid of all the lawyers by Infonaut · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think that misses the point that this issue highlights - that all lawyers should be put in a shuttle and sent directly into the centre of the sun.

    Because of course, the actual companies involved had nothing to do with filing the lawsuits. Everyone knows that without lawyers, there would be no conflict between individuals or between companies.

    Also, lawyers have never done anything useful. If they hadn't gotten involved, we'd still be able to keep minorities from voting, and companies would be able to pollute with abandon. I long for the good old days, when all disputes were settled with spears and clubs.

    --
    Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
    1. Re:Yes, get rid of all the lawyers by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      Also, lawyers have never done anything useful. If they hadn't gotten involved, we'd still be able to keep minorities from voting, and companies would be able to pollute with abandon. I long for the good old days, when all disputes were settled with spears and clubs.

      You're absolutely right... We have to remember that it's the few rotten million that spoil it for the other 3.
    2. Re:Yes, get rid of all the lawyers by jZnat · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I know at least 2 of those 3 lawyers in real life, so who's the third one? :)

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
  39. Why doctors' insurance premiums are so high by jhylkema · · Score: 1

    The image versus the reality.

  40. Re:Only in the US of A? by grolschie · · Score: 1

    I can't tell you how many times I've heard about a burglar suing the homeowner because he hurt himself in the process of robbing the home and won the lawsuit.

    I think he actually meant "Only in the US of A".
  41. I've often said by tkrotchko · · Score: 1

    I've often said that lawyer should not be allowed to run for, or hold public office. It's a conflict of interest.

    If non-lawyers had to write the laws, things would be much different. And I mean that in a good way.

    --
    You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
    1. Re:I've often said by BCW2 · · Score: 1

      Absolutely, the wording of the laws written today just guarantee perpetual employment for lawyers to translate that crap into English. Lawyers elected to office just turn it into a jobs program for their peers. All laws should be written using a 12th grade dictionary, any word not in that book causes an automatic veto. That way most people can understand the law without needing a lawyer. Fat chance that will ever happen.

      It's pretty sad when the best law in the last thirty years that is understandable and seems to work is the Do Not Call List!

      --
      Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
  42. turn and turn about by meadcd · · Score: 1

    if zango is going to complain about a silent removal from its symbiote, perhaps in fairness a statement like the following:

    "Hi, i'm zango, i'm a piece of spyware and i'm just going to go ahead and load myself on your PC and i really don't give a dingo's kidney what you might happen to think about that. also, please ignore the impending additional charges to your credit card, viewable on next month's statement"

    should be shown when zango attacks in the first place...

  43. Has it really gotten that bad by sjames · · Score: 1

    I know that we've come to the point that many products don't do most of the things they promise to do, but is it really to the point that running a program for it's stated purpose isn't notice enough that it will perform that function?

    Face it Zango, you produce malware and a user running software to kill malware is already quite aware that your crap will be removed (and they're happy to see it go).

  44. Re:Madness, I tells ya! by rtb61 · · Score: 1
    It really depends upon you initial installation of the anti spyware program and whether or no you want to be notified of every program detection and removal, and approve them individually or you just accept the analysis of the program and allow it to remove software that it deems to be questionable with out extra notification.

    Realistically the only person who can complain is the owner of the computers in question, if the program removed software they wanted to keep. In this claim, the persons computer is not a public space, it is a private space ie. if the spyware software was attempting to eliminate the zango program from a public space like the Internet zango might have an argument but as they are only removing the offending software from a private space with the explicit approval of the owner to remove any software the program deems appropriate based upon the owner to installing the anti spyware software and accepting the software licensing conditions.

    Hmm, besides how would Zango know, where they running the software to protect their computers from their own product or were the trying to reverse engineer the program so they could alter their own program to prevent removal against the end users wishes.

    --
    Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
  45. Re:The law always favours the criminals by GigsVT · · Score: 1

    Yeah, because causing someone to be racked with needless intense physical pain is exactly the same as spyware. A physical addiction is more than a "craving", it causes you to become very sick if you stop suddenly. It can even kill you.

    --
    I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
  46. Irony to the 10th power by DJ_Maiko · · Score: 1

    Everyone's already said what I felt but I LOL'ed.

    --
    Live as if you were to die tomorrow. Learn as if you were to live forever. -Mahatma Ghandi