A New York court has ruled that Network Associates, a maker of popular antivirus and computer security software, may not require people who buy the software to get permission from the company before publishing reviews of its products. The decision, which the company has vowed to appeal, could carry a penalty in the millions of dollars, according to Ken Dreifach, chief of the Internet bureau of the office of the New York State attorney general, Eliot Spitzer.
Last spring, Mr. Spitzer sued Network Associates, which has its headquarters in Santa Clara, Calif., asserting that the company's software included an unenforceable clause that effectively violated consumers' free speech. The clause, which appeared on software products and the company's Web site, read: "The customer will not publish reviews of this product without prior consent from Network Associates Inc." In a decision the parties received late Thursday, Justice Marilyn Shafer of State Supreme Court in Manhattan ruled that the clause was deceptive and that it warranted a fine, which she wrote that she would determine in the future.
Mr. Dreifach said the decision had implications beyond Network Associates. "These types of clauses are not uncommon," he said. The decision "raises the issue of whether these types of clauses — whether they restrict use, resale or the right to criticize — are enforceable," he added. Indeed, other software makers, including Microsoft, have been criticized by product reviewers for including prohibitions in their users' licenses.
View: Article @ NYT
Last spring, Mr. Spitzer sued Network Associates, which has its headquarters in Santa Clara, Calif., asserting that the company's software included an unenforceable clause that effectively violated consumers' free speech. The clause, which appeared on software products and the company's Web site, read: "The customer will not publish reviews of this product without prior consent from Network Associates Inc." In a decision the parties received late Thursday, Justice Marilyn Shafer of State Supreme Court in Manhattan ruled that the clause was deceptive and that it warranted a fine, which she wrote that she would determine in the future.
Mr. Dreifach said the decision had implications beyond Network Associates. "These types of clauses are not uncommon," he said. The decision "raises the issue of whether these types of clauses — whether they restrict use, resale or the right to criticize — are enforceable," he added. Indeed, other software makers, including Microsoft, have been criticized by product reviewers for including prohibitions in their users' licenses.
View: Article @ NYT
in light of this court ruling, we can now reveal the results of a recent neowin review on some network associates software : it sucked. :D
Last edited by 4177 on 20 Jan 2003 - 06:21
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.