Microsoft announced today it has settled a lawsuit against former "spam king" Scott Richter for $7 million.
Microsoft Corporation announced today it has reached a settlement with former self-proclaimed "spam king" Scott Richter and his Colorado company OptInRealBig, LLC, for some $7 million. The settlement is contingent on bankruptcy proceedings against the company being dismissed by a Denver court, but Microsoft says, after recovering its expenses from the case, it plans to re-invest all money from the settlement, including putting $5 million towards enhancing technical investigative support for law enforcement and $1 million to the state of New York, which also sued Richter in December, 2003.
In a joint statement issued by Microsoft and Richter, Richter denies all allegations, yet claims he has changed his company’s email practices due to the lawsuits filed against him by Microsoft and the New York Attorney General. "I am committed to sending email only to those who have requested it and to complying fully with all federal and state anti-spam laws,” said Richter.
Microsoft’s suit against OptInRealBig alleged the company violated Washington State’s and federal antispam laws by sending (and enabling others to send) mail which used forged and misleading subject lines, forged domain names and IP addresses, forged sender names, obscured transmission paths, and routed through compromised mail servers in 35 countries. Richter and his company will be required to submit to three years of oversight to ensure compliance with the settlement.
Showing 4 comments
RSSThe adware company you're referring to is Claria:
http://www.claria.com/
Microsoft is reportedly considering purchasing Claria for something in the $500 million range; Microsoft recently tweaked its antispyware tool to ignore Claria (and other) adware rather than quarantine it. I haven't verified these links, they're just from my stash:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/30/technology/30sof...
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/wsj/access/862702281.h...
Hope that helps --
My understanding is that Microsoft "downgraded" their assessment of the threat represented by Claria's adware in their anti-spyware product from "quarantine" to "ignore." It did the same for several other adware programs. The second link points to Microsoft's public statement on the topic:
http://www.spywarewarrior.com/elh/claria-detections.htm
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/spyware/software/claria_letter.mspx
>why would anyone use the Microsoft antSpyware software if its biased like that?
I can't speak for "anyone," and I'm not in a position to tell anybody what to do. My personal opinion is it all comes down to trust. When users install security programs of any nature - firewalls, anti-spyware, pop-up-blockers, etc. - those folks are making a decision that they believe they'll agree with the policy decisions implemented in those products.
Microsoft claims the criteria for its anti-spyware product are objective:
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/spyware/software/isv/analysis.mspx
According to these criteria, "displaying ads" is not considered much of a threat compared to software which monitors keystrokes, scopes out personal information, accesses remote items, or actively damages your software or data. Microsoft's anti-spyware product does currently identify Claria software and provide a mechanism for users to remove it.
However, I must leave our Gentle Readers to determine for themselves whether or not they agree with Microsoft's assessment of Claria's software. :)
I heard that Microsoft bought some adaware company named Clarius (spelling?). So why would they sue a spammer, but decide to support Adaware? Its like telling one Devil he is bad and the other you are friends.