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.'"

Pot Calling The Kettle Black...

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.

Re:Pot Calling The Kettle Black...

"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"

Re:Pot Calling The Kettle Black...

Reference, for the bad teeth impaired [wikipedia.org]

Re:Pot Calling The Kettle Black...

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!

Re:Pot Calling The Kettle Black...

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.

Re:Pot Calling The Kettle Black...

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

M$ should buy zango for 6 billion

that would show google.

Re:M$ should buy zango for 6 billion

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".

What next?

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

"tarnished reputation" ?

"Zango is trying to clean up its tarnished reputation"

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

Joking aside...

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.

Re:Joking aside...

what a waste of a perfectly good shuttle.

Re:Joking aside...

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.

Re:Joking aside...

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.

Re:Joking aside...

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.

Re:Joking aside...

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.

Yeah, ok.

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.

Re:Yeah, ok.

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).

Re:Yeah, ok.

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.

I hope Zango wins.

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.

It's like...

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?

Re:It's like...

"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!)

Wild west economics..

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.

why?

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.

A step in the wrong direction.

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.

my $.02

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.

It's just a filed lawsuit...

"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.

Screw 180 Even Unto The 10th Generation

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.")

Ummmm

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.)

Zango trying to build a reputation?

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

Shenanigans

I hereby declare Shenanigans on Zango - SHENANIGANS!!!

ROFL

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.

Spyware

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

Isn't spyware a subcategory of trojans?

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.

Or how about a charge of "Felony Stupid"

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!"

Obligatory ?

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

List = {Null}?

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

One thing I don't understand...

[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]

Now we have discovery

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"?

Good Wording.....

"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"?

What's next?

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.

you don't clean by buying a new rug

>>> "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

hard to decide

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.

turn and turn about

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...

Has it really gotten that bad

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).

Irony to the 10th power

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

Re:Zango a spyware company?

...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.

Re:Madness, I tells ya!

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.

Re:The law always favours the criminals

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.