"A federal trial court in Chicago has ruled recently that the ancient legal doctrine of trespass to chattels (meaning trespass to personal property) applies to the interference caused to home computers by spyware."
" Sotelo v. Direct Revenue, the plaintiff filed a complaint against various defendants alleging that, without his consent, the defendants caused spyware to be downloaded onto his computer. In a nutshell, the plaintiff alleged that the spyware tracked his Internet use, invaded his privacy, and caused damage to his computer.The plaintiff alleged the following five causes of action: trespass to chattels, consumer fraud, unjust enrichment, negligence and computer tampering, and he sought monetary damages and injunctive relief prohibiting the offending conduct."
"What about the audio CD copy protection schemes that automatically install and run software in the customer's PC without notice or permission? From what I understand they use the auto-run feature on Windows to install new device drivers that cripple certain aspects of the computer, and on Macs simply lock up the drive requiring a visit to Apple service. They seem to fit the description of "trespass to chattels, consumer fraud, unjust enrichment, negligence and computer tampering" Would a ruling against spyware cover such protection schemes that surreptitiously install new device drivers or otherwise impact the functionality of the user's computer?" Hugh Crawford on Farber's IP list
This plus some insightful discussion about the lack of competition within the cell phone services sounds encouraging, and have you seen the nauseating anti free hotspot advertizing from Verizon? They only want 59.95 per month for their propriatory Wi Fi. That's worse than the T-Mobile fee for use of 802.11 in Starbucks.
Again my contention: information needs to be free and band width reduced to a commodity. Better still, lets all own our wide area network routers (the hardware wireless or fiber and software of the last mile) and share free access. The cost will then become capital expense and reside happily as an asset on our personal balance sheets. Remembering a phrase from the distant past, "up the phone company," they are a relic of the past, a leftover monopoly from the Industrial Age, an impedince to the Internet and the Information Age. They might be encouraged to compete with the Internet, but as soon as feasable seperated from it. One might be a cable company, a phone company, a cell phone company or an ISP, but in no case any two of the above. Long haul fiber may come to rest in the hands of the new gorillas such as Google, Yahoo, AOL and Microsoft. Media must be kept independent of the Internet. The Internet is afterall a library with free flow of information as in free speach, a reality which runs contrary to archaic copyright laws extended to protect another monopoly. Where is the FTC?
Anyway, a blow to spyware is a blow against the Dark Side.
" Sotelo v. Direct Revenue, the plaintiff filed a complaint against various defendants alleging that, without his consent, the defendants caused spyware to be downloaded onto his computer. In a nutshell, the plaintiff alleged that the spyware tracked his Internet use, invaded his privacy, and caused damage to his computer.The plaintiff alleged the following five causes of action: trespass to chattels, consumer fraud, unjust enrichment, negligence and computer tampering, and he sought monetary damages and injunctive relief prohibiting the offending conduct."
"What about the audio CD copy protection schemes that automatically install and run software in the customer's PC without notice or permission? From what I understand they use the auto-run feature on Windows to install new device drivers that cripple certain aspects of the computer, and on Macs simply lock up the drive requiring a visit to Apple service. They seem to fit the description of "trespass to chattels, consumer fraud, unjust enrichment, negligence and computer tampering" Would a ruling against spyware cover such protection schemes that surreptitiously install new device drivers or otherwise impact the functionality of the user's computer?" Hugh Crawford on Farber's IP list
This plus some insightful discussion about the lack of competition within the cell phone services sounds encouraging, and have you seen the nauseating anti free hotspot advertizing from Verizon? They only want 59.95 per month for their propriatory Wi Fi. That's worse than the T-Mobile fee for use of 802.11 in Starbucks.
Again my contention: information needs to be free and band width reduced to a commodity. Better still, lets all own our wide area network routers (the hardware wireless or fiber and software of the last mile) and share free access. The cost will then become capital expense and reside happily as an asset on our personal balance sheets. Remembering a phrase from the distant past, "up the phone company," they are a relic of the past, a leftover monopoly from the Industrial Age, an impedince to the Internet and the Information Age. They might be encouraged to compete with the Internet, but as soon as feasable seperated from it. One might be a cable company, a phone company, a cell phone company or an ISP, but in no case any two of the above. Long haul fiber may come to rest in the hands of the new gorillas such as Google, Yahoo, AOL and Microsoft. Media must be kept independent of the Internet. The Internet is afterall a library with free flow of information as in free speach, a reality which runs contrary to archaic copyright laws extended to protect another monopoly. Where is the FTC?
Anyway, a blow to spyware is a blow against the Dark Side.
Comments