Changes

* 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

* 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/ New.net v Lavasoft, SLAPP Cases, CASP.net] Accessed 07/27/2022</ref>  

* October 19, 2004, Julie Amero was substituting for a seventh-grade language class at Kelly Middle School in Norwich, Connecticut. She stepped out into the hallway for a moment, and when she returned, she found two students browsing a hairstyling site. The computer browser began continuously opening pop-ups with pornographic content.

* October 19, 2004, Julie Amero was substituting for a seventh-grade language class at Kelly Middle School in Norwich, Connecticut. She stepped out into the hallway for a moment, and when she returned, she found two students browsing a hairstyling site. The computer browser began continuously opening pop-ups with pornographic content.

* January 5, 2007, Amero was convicted in Norwich Superior Court on four counts of risk of injury to a minor or impairing the morals of a child. These felony charges carry a maximum prison sentence of 40 years.

* January 5, 2007, Amero was convicted in Norwich Superior Court on four counts of risk of injury to a minor or impairing the morals of a child. These felony charges carry a maximum prison sentence of 40 years.

* March 21, 2007, Sunbelt Software led the team of computer investigators in analyzing the school computer and concluded that Amero was innocent. They showed that on October 14, 2004, the adware program, NewDotNet, was installed on Julie Amero’s computer. The program suite “Free Offers from Freeze.com” was installed at the same time. NewDotNet was installed surreptitiously when Julie installed a Halloween screen saver. <ref>http://sunbeltblog.eckelberry.com/wp-content/ihs/alex/julieamerosummary.pdf Technical review of the Trial Testimony State of Connecticut vs. Julie Amero, Alex Eckelberry Glenn Dardick, Ph.D., Joel A. Folkerts, Alex Shipp, Eric Sites, Joe Stewart, Robin Stuart</ref>

* March 21, 2007, Sunbelt Software led the team of computer investigators in analyzing the school computer and concluded that Amero was innocent. They showed that on October 14, 2004, the adware program, NewDotNet, was installed on Julie Amero’s computer. The program suite “Free Offers from Freeze.com” was installed at the same time. NewDotNet was installed surreptitiously when Julie installed a Halloween screen saver. ref>[http://sunbeltblog.eckelberry.com/wp-content/ihs/alex/julieamerosummary.pdf Technical review of the Trial Testimony State of Connecticut vs. Julie Amero, Alex Eckelberry, Glenn Dardick, Joel A. Folkerts, Alex Shipp, Eric Sites, Joe Stewart, and Robin Stuart, Sunbelt Software Blog] Accessed 07/27/2022</ref>

* June 6, 2007, a New London superior court judge Hillary Strackbein, set aside that jury verdict, granting Amero a new trial. <ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20090116040313/http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9121218&intsrc=news_ts_head</ref>

* June 6, 2007, a New London superior court judge Hillary Strackbein, set aside that jury verdict, granting Amero a new trial. <ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20090116040313/http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9121218&intsrc=news_ts_head </ref>

* November 21, 2008, Julie Amero pleaded guilty to a single charge of disorderly conduct before Superior Court Judge Robert E. Young in Norwich., paying a US$100 charge and forfeiting her teaching credentials.

* November 21, 2008, Julie Amero pleaded guilty to a single charge of disorderly conduct before Superior Court Judge Robert E. Young in Norwich., paying a US$100 charge and forfeiting her teaching credentials.

====Outcomes====

====Outcomes====

* In the overturning of State v. Amero, New.net was revealed as the "real villain" as its software, NewDotNet, was irrevocably cast as [[spyware]], [[malware]], [[adware]], and the destroyer of lives with its pop-up porn ads.<ref>https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=%22newdotnet%22&btnG=</ref>

* In the overturning of State v. Amero, New.net was revealed as the "real villain" as its software, NewDotNet, was irrevocably cast as [[spyware]], [[malware]], [[adware]], and the destroyer of lives with its pop-up porn ads.<ref>https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C33&q=%22newdotnet%22&btnG=</ref>