Quote:
Originally Posted by madslug
I assume that you are referring to the use of the word 'spyware'. An interesting point, considering that 121Media and Phorm have continued to deny any connection with spyware.
Taking that into consideration, perhaps the following amendments are in order:
"... 121Media was responsible for writing a piece of adware software (often packaged with free software or other downloads) which antivirus companies such as F-Secure classified as malicious Spyware.
....
Phorm's 'adware' technology may make you lose customers and revenue
....
The deep packet inspection system sold by Phorm to broadband suppliers sees everything on the web before it is sent to the person surfing your sites. So that the 'adware' technology can keep track of web surfers across the net, it forges a webwise cookie that it appears to come from your website when visited by the person surfing the web.
... "
Or, perhaps there is some other error which your long association with 121Media/Phorm has enabled you to spot? Please share your knowledge.
|
With regard to defamation Madslug, - I find it beyond the bounds of credibility that BT would bring a defamation case. They would be insane to do so.
In a court there are serious penalties for perjury.
In a court you can subpoena witnesses (directors and press officers) and force them to testify.
In a court you can't dodge questions.
In a court you cannot control the outcome.
Given the things I have read on various forums and blogs, that are far far more critical of BT than anything in the Open Letter to Businesses, I really don't think defamation would be an issue.
BT suing for defamation is about as likely as Jonathan Aitken or Jeffrey Archer doing so.
Generally to succeed in the courts, you need deep pockets and a very very clear conscience. BT certainly have deep pockets. But they seem reluctant to proceed with legal action.