Gator suing companies that call them spyware

[Thane@Cawdor.Net]

Read about it here:

http://news.com.com/2100-1032_3-5095051.html?tag=st_lh

[Joe Moore]

"Thane@Cawdor.Net" <Me@nospam.com> wrote:

>Read about it here:
>
>http://news.com.com/2100-1032_3-5095051.html?tag=st_lh

I want to know what companies are so desperate
that they would advertise using a sleazebag spyware
outfit like Gator.

I also want to know what companies not to patronize
before hell freezes over.

Anyone have a list of Gator's paying advertisers?

joemooreaterolsdotcom

[Joe Moore]

Joe Moore <munged@bad.example.com> wrote:

>"Thane@Cawdor.Net" <Me@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>Read about it here:
>>
>>http://news.com.com/2100-1032_3-5095051.html?tag=st_lh
>
>I want to know what companies are so desperate
>that they would advertise using a sleazebag spyware
>outfit like Gator.
>
>I also want to know what companies not to patronize
>before hell freezes over.
>
>Anyone have a list of Gator's paying advertisers?

Never mind. I found it.

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/...customers.html

Now we know how they can afford to sue their critics into submission.

joemooreaterolsdotcom

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:10:52 GMT, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, Joe Moore
<munged@bad.example.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Never mind. I found it.
>
>
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/...customers.html
>
[snip]

Thanks for that *very* handy Instant ****list.

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[Lance Delacroix]

On Thursday 23 October 2003 03:58 am, Thane@Cawdor.Net issued a fatwa thus:

> Read about it here:
>
> http://news.com.com/2100-1032_3-5095051.html?tag=st_lh


**** 'em. What poor sports. Imagine if I sued everyone who called me a
potty mouth.

[Kyle Thomas Pope]

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 18:34:38 +0300, Lance Delacroix
<lance_delacroix@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>On Thursday 23 October 2003 03:58 am, Thane@Cawdor.Net issued a fatwa thus:
>
>> Read about it here:
>>
>> http://news.com.com/2100-1032_3-5095051.html?tag=st_lh

Does this mean that they can sue the makers of the apps that remove it
from your system? Will Ad-Aware and Spybot be getting C&D orders from
Gator's attorneys?

-----
Kyle Pope

"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered!" - No. 6

Keeper of the Edit List -

(http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/columns/edit-list.php)


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[sli]

Kyle Thomas Pope wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Oct 2003 18:34:38 +0300, Lance Delacroix
> <lance_delacroix@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday 23 October 2003 03:58 am, Thane@Cawdor.Net issued a
>> fatwa thus:
>>
>>> Read about it here:
>>>
>>> http://news.com.com/2100-1032_3-5095051.html?tag=st_lh
>
> Does this mean that they can sue the makers of the apps that remove it
> from your system? Will Ad-Aware and Spybot be getting C&D orders from
> Gator's attorneys?
>
It's a risky business. Ad-Aware is already being sued by New.Net
http://www.pcsympathy.com/modules.ph...article&sid=74

[Tim Smith]

In article <vpfrh5tfl7j726@corp.supernews.com>, sli wrote:
> It's a risky business. Ad-Aware is already being sued by New.Net
> http://www.pcsympathy.com/modules.ph...article&sid=74

This isn't necessarily bad. Nearly every spyware removal tool I've looked
at removes some things that aren't spyware. A few lawsuits might make them
more careful in their research.

--
Evidence Eliminator is worthless. See evidence-eliminator-sucks.com
--Tim Smith

[Roy]

In article <v2Xlb.3414$I04.2766@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink. net>,
reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com says...

> Nearly every spyware removal tool I've looked
> at removes some things that aren't spyware.
>

But if you're wise enough, you only allow them to remove those things
you're sure you want removed, and can replace if you've made a mistake.

The ones I've used come with adequate warnings about this, but I suppose
too few people RTFM.

Cheers,

Roy

[sli]

Tim Smith wrote:
> In article <vpfrh5tfl7j726@corp.supernews.com>, sli wrote:
>> It's a risky business. Ad-Aware is already being sued by New.Net
>> http://www.pcsympathy.com/modules.ph...article&sid=74
>
> This isn't necessarily bad. Nearly every spyware removal tool I've
> looked at removes some things that aren't spyware. A few lawsuits
> might make them more careful in their research.
>
It is bad. Have you looked at new.net? Or Gator? The fact that they can
intimidate anti-spyware outfits with lawsuits and threats of lawsuits is not
a good thing.