• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

I just noticed Bleeping computer is being sued!

It was only a matter of time before malware companies begin suing anti-malware sites. Excerpt from overview of the rogue software:
Newer versions of SpyHunter install it's own "Compact OS" and uses Grub4Dos loader 3 to execute on boot up. The user no longer sees the normal Windows boot menu but instead sees the GRUB menu. In some cases this has caused the computer to go into a continuous loop or experience other issues when attempting to boot. 4,
Click to expand...
We should collectively be suing the SpyHunter company for harming the internet.
 
I stumbled across this a few months ago. I made a comment on that very page under the same username I use here. I'm very familiar with Spyhunter. I remove it from computers all the time that are infected with it, and that's really basically what this is. A malware company suing an anti-malware company. I really hope the court case will set some sort of precedent for the Freedom of the Press.
 
let me guess:

they did a review of spyhunter that was not favourable to them.

in their EULA they have a clause that forbids any bad reviews.

I am sure this is going to go far. freedom of speech and all.

they probably are just expecting a settlement not a full court hearing.
 
They're trying to make it look like bleeping computers has a vested interest in disparaging their rogue software because malwarebytes contributes to the cause. The glaring difference is that MBAM doesn't suck and has never engaged in deceptive behavior. I only hope the public also frowns upon suing someone for telling the truth.
 
Squeetard said:
Here is a copy of the complaint:
http://www.enigmasoftware.com/legal/enigma-software-vs-bleepingcomputer-complaint.pdf
Click to expand...


4. One of the products Bleeping promotes -- and a product it receives commissions
for selling -- is sold by Malwarebytes, an ESG competitor.
5. Bleeping does not receive and has never received commissions from ESG.
6. Thus, Bleeping has a direct financial interest in driving traffic and sales to
Malwarebytes and driving traffic and sales away from ESG.
7. To further that interest, Bleeping has intentionally disparaged ESG and its
products while simultaneously recommending that its “novice” forum members use
Malwarebytes programs for which it admittedly is paid a commission.
Click to expand...

What a load!
 
Update...
http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/ann...g-their-motion-to-dismiss-the-enigma-lawsuit/

I wanted to give a quick update on the lawsuit filed by Enigma Software Group against Bleeping Computer, LLC. On July 8th 2016, we received a very thorough 51 page opinion & order from the Judge regarding our Motion to Dismiss. Unfortunately, due to the very high standards required when deciding if a claim should be dismissed, only 1 out of 4 of Enigma's claims were dismissed. In summary, the libel claims, libel per se, and Lanham act claims are allowed to continue, while the Trade Libel/Commercial Disparagement claim was dismissed.
...
...
Update 7/22/16 2:50PM EST: ​Eric Goldman, one of the country's leading experts in the fields of Internet Law and Intellectual Property appears to agrees with our position. You can read his analysis of the order here: Message Board Operator May Be Liable For Moderator’s Content–Enigma v. Bleeping. http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archive...-for-moderators-content-enigma-v-bleeping.htm
Click to expand...
 
This is ridiculous. The lawsuit system really needs a HUGE overhaul to prevent this kind of stuff. It seems lawsuits these days are simply a way to attack competition.
 
This stinks to high heaven.
In a fair world they would be sued into oblivion and have to pay both lawyers.
The very software writers that create malware are suing because someone is pointing it out. This is one of the ultimate scams. Create malware to steal money and sue whoever says or allows people to say it's malware. What rats!
I suggest posting everywhere what scum (NOT SCUMMVM !) these people are so that their latest action backfires on them with the ferocity they deserve.

Jim
 
Last edited:
John Connor said:
What a load!
Click to expand...

Looks like all points are factual actually.

You can't have an unbiased site if you are being paid from a competitor of the reviewed product. It's just not possible.

4. One of the products Bleeping promotes -- and a product it receives commissions for selling -- is sold by Malwarebytes, an ESG competitor.
(TRUE)
5. Bleeping does not receive and has never received commissions from ESG.
(TRUE)
6. Thus, Bleeping has a direct financial interest in driving traffic and sales to Malwarebytes and driving traffic and sales away from ESG.
(Easily arguably TRUE)
7. To further that interest, Bleeping has intentionally disparaged ESG and its products while simultaneously recommending that its “novice” forum members use Malwarebytes programs for which it admittedly is paid a commission.
(Possibly true to parts, Definitely true to parts)
 
1. How does Bleepingcomputer promote Malwarebytes, or anything else?

2. As to commission, how are you aware of their internal financial dealings?

3. Why doesn't Enigma software (is that ESG?) donate to Bleepingcomputer to support the free hosting of the anti-malware programs that work?

Jim
 
xgsound said:
1. How does Bleepingcomputer promote Malwarebytes, or anything else?

2. As to commission, how are you aware of their internal financial dealings?

3. Why doesn't Enigma software (is that ESG?) donate to Bleepingcomputer to support the free hosting of the anti-malware programs that work?

Jim
Click to expand...

1. They recommend it when they tell of ways to combat malware. They have numerous user guides and have partnered with OVR (Online Virus Removal) who uses MBAM as a means of removing malware. Those are a couple ways they promote it and discuss it in their forums.

2. It's been said that they are an affiliate or partner with MBAM. When asked about it on several forums/threads, they never address the question. I am going by what was posted on their forum where someone said they were making money through banners and advertising of the MBAM software. Unfortunately, work firewall blocks me from getting there now so I will concede this point to you since I cannot back it up.

3. That question has no bearing in this discussion of the points that were listed and you would have to ask them directly.

I don't have a dog in this fight but to say that bleepingcomputer.com provides bias free reporting of competing antivirus and anti malware software while promoting their own is very very difficult to swallow and is not true. There will be bias when there is financial gain to be made, regardless of how good or bad the software is. I use MBAM on my computers and love it, but lets call a spade a spade.
 
Last edited:
Banners and advertising is not commission which is what you used to say there is bias.

I did not say or insinuate bias free reporting. I said free hosting of programs that work by Bleepingcomputer.
We all have biases, so of course their removal guides use what they think will work and forum commenters say what they think. That is much like you and I are doing right here.

I don't exactly have a dog in this hunt either other than I have found that Bleepingcomputer is currently one of the best and most trustworthy sites to check for free malware removal products that work and similar advice. If they made any money from anyone up until now, I'm not aware of it.

If there is a better site I am not aware of that either. That is what is so disgusting about the lawsuit.

Jim
 
slag said:
Looks like all points are factual actually.

...

6. Thus, Bleeping has a direct financial interest in driving traffic and sales to Malwarebytes and driving traffic and sales away from ESG.
...
Click to expand...
Sh***y software and practices drives sales away from ESG. ESG can't win because its software causes more problems and is not reliable even as a second opinion scanner not to mention it needs to be purchased to remove anything, the classic definition of rogue anti malware. So this malicious little outfit seeks to handicap the game. At least HitmanPro, another competing software from SurfRight and is frequently recommended because it actually works, will at least remove malware in a 30 day trial.

This makes the most sense:

The purpose of this lawsuit is not to win its claim. Its purpose is to have a chilling effect on any venue/website that would allow a negative review of this company. The desired effect here is to stop negative reviews of this company across the web for fear of facing a lawsuit, regardless of its merits.

Defending against lawsuits, frivolous or otherwise, is expensive and time consuming. The courts are being used more frequently in this fashion by corporations that have the necessary resources to silence critics; they become blunt instruments that threaten would-be defendants with the messy business of a being sued.

In short, the effect is the same whether this company wins or loses. It's analogous to a mob hit, the effect of which is to send a message more than anything else. Isn't our justice system wonderful?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
PliotronX said:
They're trying to make it look like bleeping computers has a vested interest in disparaging their rogue software because malwarebytes contributes to the cause.
Click to expand...
Yup insane.... ANYTHING FOR $$$$$$$$$$$$ THESE DAYS!!!!!!

Anything!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top