Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Software Your Rights Online

Spyware Maker Sues Anti-Spyware Maker 158

Posted by Zonk 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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Spyware Maker Sues Anti-Spyware Maker More

Spyware Maker Sues Anti-Spyware Maker

Comments Filter:

  • Pot Calling The Kettle Black... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Vexler ( 127353 ) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @07:22AM (#19190055) Journal
    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.

  • M$ should buy zango for 6 billion (Score:5, Funny)

    by Werrismys ( 764601 ) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @07:24AM (#19190061)
    that would show google.

    • Re:M$ should buy zango for 6 billion (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Ilgaz ( 86384 ) * on Saturday May 19, 2007 @08:26AM (#19190281) Homepage
      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".

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by solar_blitz ( 1088029 )

        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 met

  • What next? (Score:1, Redundant)

    by PhireN ( 916388 )
    What next, assassin sues police for preventing him doing his job?
  • "Zango is trying to clean up its tarnished reputation"

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

  • Joking aside... (Score:5, Funny)

    by adona1 ( 1078711 ) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @07:28AM (#19190077)
    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... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19, 2007 @07:31AM (#19190097)
      what a waste of a perfectly good shuttle.

    • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

      by BCW2 ( 168187 )
      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?

      • Re:Joking aside... (Score:5, Informative)

        by jhylkema ( 545853 ) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @08:08AM (#19190247)
        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... (Score:5, Interesting)

          by drmike0099 ( 625308 ) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @09:04AM (#19190447)
          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: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Nf1nk ( 443791 )

            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. Th

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by Nimey ( 114278 )
              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.
            • here in SLO-town I had an experience that that shows the opposite.

              There's only one flaw in your otherwise airtight case: Leckrone [world-airport-codes.com] is not in California.

          • 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.
            • 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 plai

              • 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.
          • 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 thi
        • I did find this article:

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

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

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward
          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.

        • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          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

        • Re:Joking aside... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by BCW2 ( 168187 ) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @12:04PM (#19191441) Journal
          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.
          • 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.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by BCW2 ( 168187 )
              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 se

        • Re:Joking aside... (Score:4, Insightful)

          by zippthorne ( 748122 ) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @01:00PM (#19191869) Journal
          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.
    • Now if we just include the telephone sanatizers and the hairdressers...
    • 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.

    • 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

      • 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.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by jZnat ( 793348 )
          Hmm, I know at least 2 of those 3 lawyers in real life, so who's the third one? :)
    • 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 ya

  • Yeah, ok. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ewhenn ( 647989 ) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @07:31AM (#19190091)
    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: (Score:1)

      by Luminus ( 34868 )
      "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.

    • Re:Yeah, ok. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by suv4x4 ( 956391 ) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @08:03AM (#19190231)
      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. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19, 2007 @08:06AM (#19190243)
      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.
    • On the internet, sneaky spyware sues YOU.
      Why do you think it's called "sneaky"?

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

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Ilgaz ( 86384 ) *
      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.

  • I hope Zango wins. (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 19, 2007 @07:31AM (#19190101)
    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.
  • 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... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by I confirm I'm not a ( 720413 ) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @10:05AM (#19190725) Journal
      "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!)
    • 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."

  • Wild west economics.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by suv4x4 ( 956391 ) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @07:57AM (#19190201)
    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.
    • 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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by suv4x4 ( 956391 )
        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.

    • 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 V

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by suv4x4 ( 956391 )
        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.
  • 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. (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    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.
  • 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
  • "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 cal

  • 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 (Score:5, Interesting)

    by phoenixwade ( 997892 ) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @08:21AM (#19190273)
    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? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Stevecrox ( 962208 ) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @08:32AM (#19190317) Journal
    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 (Score:2, Funny)

    by rgaginol ( 950787 )
    I hereby declare Shenanigans on Zango - SHENANIGANS!!!

  • ROFL (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Spy der Mann ( 805235 ) <.spydermann.slashdot. .at. .gmail.com.> on Saturday May 19, 2007 @08:56AM (#19190401) Homepage Journal
    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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by jamstar7 ( 694492 )

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

      And some of us are stranger than truth.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by TehZorroness ( 1104427 )
      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.

  • Spyware (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    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? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Qbertino ( 265505 ) <moiraNO@SPAMmodparlor.com> on Saturday May 19, 2007 @10:15AM (#19190769)
    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.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by cpghost ( 719344 )

      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?

  • 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!"
  • In soviet USA, spyware company sues YOU! Oh wait...
  • Can Zango provide a verifiable list of their "customers" who are actually complaining that it was removed?

  • One thing I don't understand... (Score:4, Informative)

    by spywhere ( 824072 ) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @12:01PM (#19191425)
    [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 (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Saturday May 19, 2007 @01:21PM (#19192031) Homepage

    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"?

  • "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, 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.
  • >>> "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

  • 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).

Slashdot Top Deals

Please go away.

Close