Linkster, I read about that case, and all I can think of is how poor a choice of legal arguements was made, trying to using copyright issues. More improtantly, I think that they failed to show how Gator (or When U) and similar products are loaded with disclosure that is NOT complete (Gator mostly as part of a thing called "world time" that keeps your PC clock set to the right time ). There is little or no direct disclosure at the time of download of the nature of the entire product, nor disclosure of their main revenue stream, which is the entire point of the product. Setting your clock is the last thing they care about.
That they pay to have their scumware included into downloads of other products, or pay advertising companies to start downloads without request means that many of the people who have gator on their systems didn't want it to start with, and were confused / forced / errored into installing it. The uninstall process is MANY TIMES MORE DIFFICULT THAN THE INSTALL.
All of these points serve to show that the download and installation of the product is less than voluntary, and as such, the end users have not consented to having these ads shown, and therefore are not being shown in good faith.
This judge was ignornant enough to put on record saying:
Quote:
|
"Alas, we computer users must endure pop-up advertising along with her ugly brother unsolicited bulk email, `spam,' as a burden of using the Internet," Mr. Lee wrote.
|
Freaking moron just made it easier and legal to spam, to blow a thousand popups and such because it is the burden of using the internet?
Apparently this was a tech case argued in front of a non-tech judge.
Alex