If you read the text on SlashDot linked to above you will see that we are not unreasonable, we just don't want our app that people have bought to be deleted without the owners permission or knowledge - as has happened with numerous "big" companies.
When contacting these "big" companies - including Symantec about the problem they simply refuse to reply - we initially tried to contact them all about 9 months ago in order to bring about some kind of cooperative agreement, with information about detecting out program as a commercial keylogger and about uninstalling our program safely (if the user decided to do so).
Our point is that commercial programs are different than trojans written by criminals. It is fair that they are pointed out by the anti-virus/trojan program, but not fair that they are automatically deleted. The user should be told that they are a commercial keylogger or similar and the default action should be to not delete. AVG by comparison deleted them without informing the user.
We are open about what ports are being used and we do not try to bypass firewalls or shutdown anti-virus programs. All are easily possible as you probably well know and we feel that comparing it to programs written by criminals is unfair.
We, as a company, are very easy to contact - if we had been contacted/replied to by the anti-virus companies (initially - before we had to put the download notice up) we would have told them how to safely uninstall the client program, and we would have also told them of a special flag - that if present would stop the client from installing again in the future. They would also have been given information that would have told the user WHO was attempting to spy on them! The condition would have been as above - that the user be informed that it was a commercial program and the default action would have been not to uninstall.
Sunbelt will soon be given this information in the hope that other companies will follow in the way they list the program (if detected).
You seem like an intelligent person, your comments are well made. I agree with them. But why didn't you read the original article and figure out for yourself that Slashdot have got it wrong and there is NO lawsuit? Pity to write all that for nothing.;)
"Oh, and apparently you weren't aware when you registered as a Slashdot user - that by posting to this blog, you abdicate all legal rights to sue anti-spyware companies. Oh, you weren't aware of that? I'm really sorry"
We are NOT trying to sue them - please read the posts.
I've been trying to get this Slashdot article amended - but nobody here is apparently listening - maybe you will have better luck.
Looks like you have a lot of supporters (based on the various death threaths we have had) and ideally we could come to some sort of compromise where antispy/antivirus software would tell the user that (if its a commercial program) that the "trojan" is a non-destructive commercial program. In return the commercial software could tell the anti-virus software house how to safely delete it and put a marker so it will not return.
In addition, the Court found the plaintiffs EULA, which prohibited resale, was binding on the defendants because 'The defendants.. expressly consented to the terms of the EULA and TOU by clicking "I Agree" and "Agree."' This runs counter to Softman v. Adobe. The difference in these rulings has yet to be resolved by a superior court
Retrocoder Limited has NOT threatened to sue Sunbelt - we are currently looking at what legal options we have to defend our product.
This is a copy of the text sent to Sunbelt:
"If you read the copyright agreement when you downloaded or ran our program you will see that Anti-spyware publishers/software houses are NOT allowed to download, run or examine the software in any way. By doing so you are breaking EU copyright law, this is a criminal offence. Please remove our program from your detection list or we will be forced to take action against you."
The action will be that we may be (in our opinion) forced to get the UK police authorities involved with Sunbelt over copyright theft. This is a criminal offence, not a civil one I believe.
Retrocoder Limited as the copyright holder, has the right to say who may or may not have its program. If someone has its program without permission, are they not guilty of a criminal offence?
For example, if you have a copy of Windows without MicroSofts permission, is this not a crime?
Below is a copy of the text sent to Joris Evers (who wrote the original article from it):
"As you can see, at the moment it is just a warning to them to stop blacklisting the program. Our program is not a "trojan" or "virus", it is used to keep a remote "eye" on your kids or employees. The user must have access to the users machine in order to install the client. Only the installer of the program can view the client machine. Our program does not attempt to bypass firewalls or other such protection.
This is very different from "trojans" and "viruses" - they replicate themselves and spread uncontrollably, you do not usually need direct access to the users machine. They often try to bypass firewalls in order to "reach" the internet.
Our problem is that companies like Sunbelt do not properly look at software before they blacklist it. They clearly ignored legally enforceable warnings that what they would be doing is not allowed by the copyright holder. This shows that either they do not examine programs properly or that they ignore copyright law. In order to add our product to their trojan/virus list they must have downloaded it and then examined it. Both of these actions are forbidden by the copyright notice.
A similar situation arose with Grisoft with the AVG product. We sent a similar warning letter out to them and they responded by removing our programs from their blacklist. This resolved the situation and no further action has been taken.
I will be consulting with our solicitor in the next few weeks about companies like Sunbelt, what civil/criminal laws have been broken, and how best to involve the UK Police authorities in action against them."
Slashdot Mirror
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=167981&thr eshold=1&commentsort=5&tid=123&mode=thread&cid=140 09674
If you read the text on SlashDot linked to above you will see that we are not unreasonable, we just don't want our app that people have bought to be deleted without the owners permission or knowledge - as has happened with numerous "big" companies.
When contacting these "big" companies - including Symantec about the problem they simply refuse to reply - we initially tried to contact them all about 9 months ago in order to bring about some kind of cooperative agreement, with information about detecting out program as a commercial keylogger and about uninstalling our program safely (if the user decided to do so).
Our point is that commercial programs are different than trojans written by criminals. It is fair that they are pointed out by the anti-virus/trojan program, but not fair that they are automatically deleted. The user should be told that they are a commercial keylogger or similar and the default action should be to not delete. AVG by comparison deleted them without informing the user.
We are open about what ports are being used and we do not try to bypass firewalls or shutdown anti-virus programs. All are easily possible as you probably well know and we feel that comparing it to programs written by criminals is unfair.
We, as a company, are very easy to contact - if we had been contacted/replied to by the anti-virus companies (initially - before we had to put the download notice up) we would have told them how to safely uninstall the client program, and we would have also told them of a special flag - that if present would stop the client from installing again in the future. They would also have been given information that would have told the user WHO was attempting to spy on them! The condition would have been as above - that the user be informed that it was a commercial program and the default action would have been not to uninstall.
Sunbelt will soon be given this information in the hope that other companies will follow in the way they list the program (if detected).
You seem like an intelligent person, your comments are well made. I agree with them. But why didn't you read the original article and figure out for yourself that Slashdot have got it wrong and there is NO lawsuit? Pity to write all that for nothing. ;)
Please read the original article before writing such rubbish. Slashdot got it wrong - we are NOT suing them!!!
What is wrong with PayPal, with paypal customers know that we are not scamming them for credit card details.
btw - did you actually read the original article - we are not suing them - slashdot got it wrong!!!
"Oh, and apparently you weren't aware when you registered as a Slashdot user - that by posting to this blog, you abdicate all legal rights to sue anti-spyware companies. Oh, you weren't aware of that? I'm really sorry"
We are NOT trying to sue them - please read the posts.
Thanks for the clarification, I will get in touch with you via email in the next week or so about our side of the bargain.
At least we agree on something... ;)
I've been trying to get this Slashdot article amended - but nobody here is apparently listening - maybe you will have better luck.
Looks like you have a lot of supporters (based on the various death threaths we have had) and ideally we could come to some sort of compromise where antispy/antivirus software would tell the user that (if its a commercial program) that the "trojan" is a non-destructive commercial program. In return the commercial software could tell the anti-virus software house how to safely delete it and put a marker so it will not return.
What do you think?
Thankyou, at least one person who seems sensible.
We are not suing anyone. Please can someone at slashdot amend this article?
1. We make software that allows you to keep an eye on your children while they are on the internet.
2. Some anti-virus software blacklisted our software.
3. We state that they are not allowed to download our software in an attempt to stop them blacklisting us
4. They carry on doing so, ignoring our warning they they are expressly forbidden from downloading our software - it is our copyright.
5. They ignore our attempts to contact them
6. So we consider going to the police to stop them downloading our program without permission.
7. We get flamed by a load of people who don't seem to understand the situation!
Why are we sleazy?
first-sale doctrine: Softman v. Adobe
.. expressly consented to the terms of the EULA and TOU by clicking "I Agree" and "Agree."' This runs counter to Softman v. Adobe. The difference in these rulings has yet to be resolved by a superior court
In addition, the Court found the plaintiffs EULA, which prohibited resale, was binding on the defendants because 'The defendants
There is no lawsuit. Please read: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=167981&thr eshold=-1&commentsort=1&tid=123&tid=172&tid=17&mod e=thread&cid=14007013
THERE IS NO LAWSUIT!!!
What has this got to do with bad products?
EU is also short for Europe.
Retrocoder Limited has NOT threatened to sue Sunbelt - we are currently looking at what legal options we have to defend our product.
This is a copy of the text sent to Sunbelt:
"If you read the copyright agreement when you downloaded or ran our
program you will see that Anti-spyware publishers/software houses
are NOT allowed to download, run or examine the software in any
way. By doing so you are breaking EU copyright law, this is a criminal
offence. Please remove our program from your detection list or we will
be forced to take action against you."
The action will be that we may be (in our opinion) forced to get the UK police authorities involved with Sunbelt over copyright theft. This is a criminal offence, not a civil one I believe.
Retrocoder Limited as the copyright holder, has the right to say who may or may not have its program. If someone has its program without permission, are they not guilty of a criminal offence?
For example, if you have a copy of Windows without MicroSofts permission, is this not a crime?
Below is a copy of the text sent to Joris Evers (who wrote the original article from it):
"As you can see, at the moment it is just a warning to them to stop
blacklisting the program. Our program is not a "trojan" or "virus",
it is used to keep a remote "eye" on your kids or employees. The user
must have access to the users machine in order to install the client.
Only the installer of the program can view the client machine. Our
program does not attempt to bypass firewalls or other such protection.
This is very different from "trojans" and "viruses" - they replicate
themselves and spread uncontrollably, you do not usually need direct
access to the users machine. They often try to bypass firewalls in
order to "reach" the internet.
Our problem is that companies like Sunbelt do not properly look at
software before they blacklist it. They clearly ignored legally
enforceable warnings that what they would be doing is not allowed by
the copyright holder. This shows that either they do not examine
programs properly or that they ignore copyright law. In order to add
our product to their trojan/virus list they must have downloaded it
and then examined it. Both of these actions are forbidden by the
copyright notice.
A similar situation arose with Grisoft with the AVG product. We sent
a similar warning letter out to them and they responded by removing
our programs from their blacklist. This resolved the situation and no
further action has been taken.
I will be consulting with our solicitor in the next few weeks about
companies like Sunbelt, what civil/criminal laws have been broken, and
how best to involve the UK Police authorities in action against them."