Excludes any mention or advice on the Malwarebytes browser extension.Mac version missing certain features compared with its Windows counterpart.In his dissent from the majority, Ninth Circuit Judge Patrick Bumatay took a similar position: "By treating these terms as actionable statements of fact under the Lanham Act, our court sends a chilling message to cybersecurity companies – civil liability may now attach if a court later disagrees with your classification of a program as 'malware. "If each classification could similarly support weaponization in court by businesses unhappy with the classifications, then anti-threat software vendors will avoid the financial and legal risks by lowering their cybersecurity standards or exiting the industry," said Goldman. And by doing so, he argues, the court has made disputes about classifications more likely and has raised the costs and risks of making such classifications. Goldman said the majority's decision to treat the terms "malicious" and "threats" as simple true or false classifications doesn't fit with the way the security industry actually works. The Ninth Circuit has redefined the standards for what constitutes a statement of 'fact' Now, the Ninth Circuit has redefined the standards for what constitutes a statement of 'fact' as opposed to an opinion in a way that hurts businesses in the anti-threat software space and well beyond." Then, when the Supreme Court denied the appeal, Justice Thomas wrote a gratuitous error-riddled statement about Section 230 that spurred many regulators to pursue their censorship agendas. "The Ninth Circuit already damaged Section 230 by creating an exception to its coverage (for 'anticompetitive animus') that no one understands and has not benefited anyone.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |