Quote:
Originally Posted by madslug
I was thinking more about Phorm rather than BT. Phorm still have a few millions not spent.
I can just see a judge being somewhat confused by mention of malware and rootkits on PCs and then trying to get to grips with the technical differences experienced by a surfer whose every data packet is subjected to interception via DPI.
|
This is a crucial point - that unless we have enough money to properly defend ourselves then I wouldn't be so gung-ho about defamation.
Also from an educated reader's point of view we should be careful to lay out the facts as they are. Quoting press articles on anything contentious shifts the responsibility "blah said it could be described as spyware" then referring in the remaining piece as adware, as Madslud suggested.
BT are unlikely to defend Phorm's reputation for them - I believe Phorm took the PR chalice as part of it's early agreement with BT. Phorm is unlikely to hold back correcting something they believe is untrue - possibly Phorm's top brass are on a bit of a mission to get back at "the very few but vocal" anti-Phorm protestors!