Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    Professor's Avatar
    Professor is offline In Memoriam, 1963-2010
    Join Date
    April 2002
    Thanked 33 Times in 18 Posts

    Default Scumware wins Court Battle

    :fire: :fire: :fire:

    A federal judge said adware maker's pop-up advertising does not infringe on the trademarks and copyrights of Web site publishers, in the first legal ruling favoring desktop advertising companies in their fight with Web site operators.

    U.S. District Court Judge Gerald Bruce Lee released the opinion on Friday, two months after issuing a summary judgment in a case brought against WhenU by U-Haul. The moving company alleged WhenU violated its copyrights and trademarks by displaying pop-up advertisements when a user visited the U-Haul Web site. In his written opinion, Lee clearly sided with WhenU, which argued that Web surfers control their own computers and what appears on them.

    "While at first blush this detour in the user's Web search seems like a siphon-off of a business opportunity, the fact is that the computer user consented to this detour when the user downloaded WhenU's computer software from the Internet," Lee wrote.

    WhenU offers users a program called SaveNow that displays ads based on a user's browsing activity; in return users receive free software, such as music downloading programs or screensavers. Web site owners argue the ads are a violation of their trademarks and copyrights, also accusing the company of unfair business practices.

    Lee ruled that the pop-up ads do not violate a Web site publisher's trademark or copyright, since they appear in a separate window and are labeled as WhenU ads.

    Lee's summary judgment short-circuited the case at an early stage, just nine months after U-Haul filed it, and handed WhenU a key legal victory in establishing adware as a legitimate form of contextual advertising.

    "Clearly the ruling is incredibly important in the sense that the Internet will be a very different place as a comparative shopping medium," said Avi Naider, WhenU's chief executive. "We're at the tip of the iceberg with this type of technology."

    A U-Haul spokesman said the company was disappointed by the ruling and would evaluate its legal options.

    "U-Haul has long believed that unwanted pop-up ads such as those provided by WhenU are the scourge of the Internet for both businesses and consumers, and that Web site owners have the right to display their Web sites without having their sites hidden behind such invasive advertisements," said Tom Prefling, a company spokesman.

    The case marks the first time a judge has ruled that a desktop advertising company's business model is legal. A much-watched earlier case, brought against similar adware company Gator by a powerhouse group of publishers, including The New York Times and The Washington Post, ended with a settlement in February. The settlement's details were not disclosed, but it is commonly believed Gator agreed not to serve ads while users are on the publishers' sites.

    A number of cases remain against WhenU, including suits brought by TigerDirect, 1-800 CONTACTS, and Wells Fargo. Gator has cases pending against it from TigerDirect, UPS, Hertz, L.L. Bean, and

    While coming down on the side of adware companies' legal right to serve pop-up ads, Lee empathized with weary Internet users.

    "Alas, we computer users must endure pop-up advertising along with her ugly brother unsolicited bulk e-mail, spam, as a burden of using the Internet," he wrote.

    Naider said users had the right to decide for themselves whether to see pop-up advertisements, noting that 70 percent of the 100 million who have downloaded SaveNow have uninstalled it.

    "In order to remain on the desktop, you have to offer a value proposition," he said. "Our struggle is to increase the value proposition."

    The article appears here:

  2. #2
    croupier is offline Public Member
    Join Date
    December 1969
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts


    I've no idea about law, especialy not US law Is there to be an apeal? could future cases rule differently?

    If it is totaly legal to use context marketing (not scumware, it's legal now :LOL what would be the GPWA's view on future use of a perfectly legal advertising system?

    btw: I know this case may not make it totaly legal, but the question is theoretical on it becoming legal.

  3. #3
    WildBill is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    December 1969
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts


    The courts decision is not the law of the land. It can be viewed that way but there are higher courts if they want to pursue it. Just because that one judge decided for WhenU doesn't mean it will stand. Scumware is just that and I don't think it will withstand all the lawsuits against it.

  4. #4
    bigbcasinos's Avatar
    bigbcasinos is offline Private Member
    Join Date
    January 2003
    South Africa
    Thanked 52 Times in 24 Posts


    Almost invariably you will find that, if a case is lost on certain grounds (infringement of copyrights and trademarks in this case), then there will remain the means to purue a case on other grounds. I would have thought that the plaintiff should pursue a theft type issue because they advertise via the web but lose traffic due to this less than ethical form of popup advertising.

    The future certainly seems darker but, no doubt, some powerhouse will tackle this issue head on and hopefully stem the tide.
    Have a wonderful day

    Online Casinos (Big B Casinos)
    Casino Slots (Casino Slots Wizard)
    Online Slots (Slots Casinos)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts