[Jason Dunn]

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20020207/D7HHCC280.html

Can you believe this? Talk about a muzzle for reviewers!

"Santa Clara, Calif.-based Network Associates Inc., placed restrictions on software diskettes and on its Web site, from which users download software, that explicitly prohibit customers from criticizing products, Spitzer said. Such restrictions, known as restrictive covenants, are illegal because they harm the public by censoring discussion of a product's flaws and defects, Spitzer contended. In one instance, Network Associates demanded a retraction of an unfavorable review published in the online and print magazine Network World, citing a clause on its Web site that prohibits product reviews without permission, the lawsuit alleged."

Hey McAfee, guess what? I tried your firewall product and it sucked. Come get me... ;-)

[Jason Dunn]

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20020207/D7HHCC280.html

Can you believe this? Talk about a muzzle for reviewers!

"Santa Clara, Calif.-based Network Associates Inc., placed restrictions on software diskettes and on its Web site, from which users download software, that explicitly prohibit customers from criticizing products, Spitzer said. Such restrictions, known as restrictive covenants, are illegal because they harm the public by censoring discussion of a product's flaws and defects, Spitzer contended. In one instance, Network Associates demanded a retraction of an unfavorable review published in the online and print magazine Network World, citing a clause on its Web site that prohibits product reviews without permission, the lawsuit alleged."

Hey McAfee, guess what? I tried your firewall product and it sucked. Come get me... ;-)

[James]

Originally Posted by Jason Dunn

Hey McAfee, guess what? I tried your firewall product and it sucked. Come get me... ;-)

Come get me too - not does it suck...it SUCKS! :twisted:

Hopefully, NY wins and vendors have to become responsible for what they put in their EULAs. Even better would be to have the whole concept of a software "license" to get tossed out. We need some decent rulings out of the courts regarding technology for a change.

[RLBogue]

I've never used or downloaded the products but I've heard that they sucked from a variety of "credible sources" of course as a journalist I'm unable to disclose those sources.

So my conclusion... They suck.

By the way, a long time ago in a land far away they were known by the antivirus vendors for their scare tactics... Looks like they've not changed their staff.

[Kre]

So now when people do a cross search for pages with `McAfee` and the word `sucks`, how many results do you think theyll find?

And by the way McAfee, way to make yourself a troll target.

How long will it take for someone to either post a `McAfee Sucks` webpage or hack their site? McAfee is just asking for trouble.

McAfee should know better than to try something like this. Theyre like any other business. Anytime you put out a product or service, youre open game, like everyone else. Either its good, its bad, or its crap, and people are going to know about it. Plain and simple. Ego wont get you anywhere.

Besides, I prefer Symantec anyway.

[James]

Microsoft should know better too, but they're EULAs try some really stupid stuff too. Actually, I think there are quite a few companies in this boat. Oracle used to (haven't checked lately) require some lengthy notice for any reviews involving transaction numbers they didn't provide.

I think until more lawsuits like NY vs McAfee occur, Marketing and Legal teams are gonna keep writing the crap we never read.