14,952
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 40:
Line 40: − On 6 May 2003, New.net filed a federal lawsuit in the Central District Court of California against Lavasoft claiming it engaged in false advertising, unfair competition, trade libel, and tortious interference +
no edit summary
# New.net lost the suit
# New.net lost the suit
# Became the bad guy in a titillating news story with national coverage that scared the nation that it could happen to them
# Became the bad guy in a titillating news story with national coverage that scared the nation that it could happen to them
====Details====
====Details====
* On 6 May 2003, New.net filed a federal lawsuit in the Central District Court of California against Lavasoft claiming it engaged in false advertising, unfair competition, trade libel, and tortious interference
* November 4, 2003: The court stated: New.net brings this suit to protect its ability to surreptitiously download its New.net software by silencing a company whose computer program, at the request of the computer owner, calls attention to NewDotNet's presence on the user's hard drive.
* November 4, 2003: The court stated: New.net brings this suit to protect its ability to surreptitiously download its New.net software by silencing a company whose computer program, at the request of the computer owner, calls attention to NewDotNet's presence on the user's hard drive.
* May 20, 2004, New.net’s software, NewDotNet, was downloaded onto individual computers often without the owners’ knowledge or request. Sheehy conceded that New.net’s success depended “on its ability to distribute as many copies of the New.net Software as possible.” New.net realized this objective by surreptitiously bundling NewDotNet with other popular software programs. Lavasoft’s Ad-aware was purposefully downloaded to detect and remove programs like Newdotnet. New.net complained that the injuries caused by Ad-aware’s inclusion of NewDotNet in its database are actionable under both state and federal law. The Court denied New.net’s motion for a preliminary injunction to halt Lavasoft from including NewDotNet in its database as Lavasoft was engaging in First Amendment protected speech. Then Lavasoft moved to dismiss the claims in their entirety under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, which provides an expedited procedure for dismissing lawsuits designed to stifle speech on issues of public importance. The Court granted the motion, dismissing the claim with prejudice. <ref>https://www.casp.net/california-anti-slapp-first-amendment-law-resources/caselaw/slapp-cases-decided-by-u-s-district-courts/new-net-inc-v-lavasoft/</ref>
* May 20, 2004, New.net’s software, NewDotNet, was downloaded onto individual computers often without the owners’ knowledge or request. Sheehy conceded that New.net’s success depended “on its ability to distribute as many copies of the New.net Software as possible.” New.net realized this objective by surreptitiously bundling NewDotNet with other popular software programs. Lavasoft’s Ad-aware was purposefully downloaded to detect and remove programs like Newdotnet. New.net complained that the injuries caused by Ad-aware’s inclusion of NewDotNet in its database are actionable under both state and federal law. The Court denied New.net’s motion for a preliminary injunction to halt Lavasoft from including NewDotNet in its database as Lavasoft was engaging in First Amendment protected speech. Then Lavasoft moved to dismiss the claims in their entirety under California’s anti-SLAPP statute, which provides an expedited procedure for dismissing lawsuits designed to stifle speech on issues of public importance. The Court granted the motion, dismissing the claim with prejudice. <ref>https://www.casp.net/california-anti-slapp-first-amendment-law-resources/caselaw/slapp-cases-decided-by-u-s-district-courts/new-net-inc-v-lavasoft/</ref>