Jedi Mind Tricks

I'm fascinated by lawsuits like these, particularly because they are paving a new road in intellectual property law.

Spyware's general purpose is to provide targeted advertising to consumers and to capture Web site statistics for advertisers. When somebody tracks you, as an individual, rather than in an anonymous group, is it spying? Most of us with a brain say yes. But as we all know, when lawyers get involved, their Jedi mind tricks make reality fuzzy and legal nuances legitimate. This fuzzy reality gave momentum to the idea that RIAA members could hack personal computers of consumers without any law enforcement evolvement.

It will be argued that Spyware is harmless and that consumers with it on their computers agreed to have it installed. The mind tricks start there. "Legally" the consumer "agreed" to have the "useful" software installed since it's only installed with "permission" (those are called sneer quotes, so read them with the appropriate inflection). The judges and jury will be confused and start to see that maybe the companies who make the software are really well-intentioned. If the glove doesn't fit, acquit; the DNA evidence isn't accurate. These are not the droids you're looking for. That's what lawyers do.

In the case of spyware, the reality the lawyers want to create is that spyware is useful and everybody needs it. The real, "A" is "A" reality is that nobody wants spyware except companies selling advertising. It's not useful, it's freaking annoying.

Here's how I would go against the spyware lawyers. I would challenge them to a light sabre duel. When that didn't work I would use my own Jedi mind trick and subpoena the PCs and laptops from the spyware company and their own attorneys and then see how many use pop-up blocking software, Adaware, and Spybot. That would be a reality check.

Popularity: 1% [?]