4 ms·

As much as I dislike class action law-suit trolling - I'll make an exception when it comes to multi-billion dollar companies installing spyware as part of thei

As much as I dislike class action law-suit trolling - I'll make an exception when it comes to multi-billion dollar companies installing spyware as part of their bloat-ware add-ons, particularly when it injects MitM attacks on the browsers SSL links, particularly when it does so in a way that jeopardizes the data confidentiality/integrity of individuals trying to use that computer. Ideally, the next time a laptop/desktop vendor is looking at the bloatware they are going to load onto a system, they'll do a cost-benefit analysis against the (potential) punitive damages associated with a lawsuit, and decide not to install the stuff. I'm willing to pay the extra $0.65 for the laptop (or whatever tiny amount the vendors are paid to include this crud) in order to avoid that sort of exposure, I suspect most consumers (these days) are as well.

skuhn 12y ago
I don't see this suit as trolling. There exists a large group of people who were sold a product which did not perform its primary function of "doing what its owner told it to do". It turns out that this was intentional on the part of the manufacturer. The nature of the problem is such that returning the product for a refund will not suffice, so the consumers should sue. The most effect way to handle a large body of plaintiffs against a single defendant is with a class action suit. Lenovo will inevitably settle or go to trial and be found guilty, there is no other possible outcome. I personally hope that this erases their profits from Superfish, and quite a bit more for the flagrant and willful violation of consumer trust.
- laumars 12y ago
  I think you may have misread the OP because you're tone is one of disagreement while your content is a near-reiteration of his post.
  - skuhn 12y ago
    I'm mainly responding to the first part: "As much as I dislike class action law-suit trolling", as in I don't like their methods but I like the results in this particular situation. I also don't see how I have simply re-iterated the same post, OP and I are looking at different angles of the same issue. Fundamentally I think we do agree: Lenovo did a shitty thing and should pay for it. I simply don't think there is anything wrong with the method or the result here. This is exactly what a class action lawsuit is intended for, there's no trolling about it.
    - laumars 12y ago
      > I'm mainly responding to the first part: "As much as I dislike class action law-suit trolling" Yeah I got that. My point was that first part was just setting himself up to explain why he thought this lawsuit was a good idea - which you were arguing as well. ie you're focusing on the wrong part of his post and thus arguing against his post while agreeing with the majority of it. > "I also don't see how I have simply re-iterated the same post, OP and I are looking at different angles of the same issue. Fundamentally I think we do agree: Lenovo did a shitty thing and should pay for it." Hence why I said "near-reiteration" rather than "simply reiterated". You still argued the same points and came to the same conclusion regardless of your differing starting point with regards to class action lawsuits. > I simply don't think there is anything wrong with the method or the result here. This is exactly what a class action lawsuit is intended for, there's no trolling about it. Again, nobody is suggesting otherwise. You're preaching to the converted. ;)
    - ghshephard 12y ago
      Yes - I understood where you were coming from. My original comment had a reference to patent trolling, which I felt just sidelined what I was trying to say. I completely agree with you - sometimes class action lawsuits are entirely appropriate - this is one of those cases. We'll leave it for another discussion as to when patent lawsuits are appropriate.
johnchristopher 12y ago
> Ideally, the next time a laptop/desktop vendor is looking at the bloatware they are going to load onto a system, they'll do a cost-benefit analysis against the (potential) punitive damages associated with a lawsuit, and decide not to install the stuff. Ideally they wouldn't do that cost-benefit analysis and just do the right moral thing to do.
- ashark 12y ago
  Companies will tend to make better moral choices in a world where consumers have the time, resources (physical/practical, and reserves of willpower), and desire to dig deeply in to all of the products and brands in their lives and make economic decisions based at least in part on the business practices they find there, day after day, with practically everything that they buy, not as the occasional rare half-assed boycott campaign that gets almost no buy-in. So, not our world. Here a poor moral compass is a competitive advantage, most of the time. Go around choosing morals over cold hard cash and pretty soon a competitor without your hang-ups will replace you.

skuhn 12y ago

I don't see this suit as trolling. There exists a large group of people who were sold a product which did not perform its primary function of "doing what its owner told it to do". It turns out that this was intentional on the part of the manufacturer. The nature of the problem is such that returning the product for a refund will not suffice, so the consumers should sue. The most effect way to handle a large body of plaintiffs against a single defendant is with a class action suit. Lenovo will inevitably settle or go to trial and be found guilty, there is no other possible outcome. I personally hope that this erases their profits from Superfish, and quite a bit more for the flagrant and willful violation of consumer trust.

laumars 12y ago
I think you may have misread the OP because you're tone is one of disagreement while your content is a near-reiteration of his post.
- skuhn 12y ago
  I'm mainly responding to the first part: "As much as I dislike class action law-suit trolling", as in I don't like their methods but I like the results in this particular situation. I also don't see how I have simply re-iterated the same post, OP and I are looking at different angles of the same issue. Fundamentally I think we do agree: Lenovo did a shitty thing and should pay for it. I simply don't think there is anything wrong with the method or the result here. This is exactly what a class action lawsuit is intended for, there's no trolling about it.
  - laumars 12y ago
    > I'm mainly responding to the first part: "As much as I dislike class action law-suit trolling" Yeah I got that. My point was that first part was just setting himself up to explain why he thought this lawsuit was a good idea - which you were arguing as well. ie you're focusing on the wrong part of his post and thus arguing against his post while agreeing with the majority of it. > "I also don't see how I have simply re-iterated the same post, OP and I are looking at different angles of the same issue. Fundamentally I think we do agree: Lenovo did a shitty thing and should pay for it." Hence why I said "near-reiteration" rather than "simply reiterated". You still argued the same points and came to the same conclusion regardless of your differing starting point with regards to class action lawsuits. > I simply don't think there is anything wrong with the method or the result here. This is exactly what a class action lawsuit is intended for, there's no trolling about it. Again, nobody is suggesting otherwise. You're preaching to the converted. ;)
  - ghshephard 12y ago
    Yes - I understood where you were coming from. My original comment had a reference to patent trolling, which I felt just sidelined what I was trying to say. I completely agree with you - sometimes class action lawsuits are entirely appropriate - this is one of those cases. We'll leave it for another discussion as to when patent lawsuits are appropriate.

johnchristopher 12y ago

> Ideally, the next time a laptop/desktop vendor is looking at the bloatware they are going to load onto a system, they'll do a cost-benefit analysis against the (potential) punitive damages associated with a lawsuit, and decide not to install the stuff. Ideally they wouldn't do that cost-benefit analysis and just do the right moral thing to do.

ashark 12y ago
Companies will tend to make better moral choices in a world where consumers have the time, resources (physical/practical, and reserves of willpower), and desire to dig deeply in to all of the products and brands in their lives and make economic decisions based at least in part on the business practices they find there, day after day, with practically everything that they buy, not as the occasional rare half-assed boycott campaign that gets almost no buy-in. So, not our world. Here a poor moral compass is a competitive advantage, most of the time. Go around choosing morals over cold hard cash and pretty soon a competitor without your hang-ups will replace you.