Archived
A recent court ruling did not surprise me nor make me paranoid that it would turn into some broad-sweeping decision that would allow software manufacturers to block ANYTHING they wanted to, but if you read the article on www.wired.com, you might think that's just the case.
The article even clearly gives the conclusion that the court rules, "We conclude that a provider of access tools that filter, screen, allow, or disallow content that a provider or user considers obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or excessively violent, harassing or otherwise objectionable is protected from liability." The ruling (.pdf). If there is a fear of "abuse" to come out of this ruling, then we would need to redefine such terms as obscene, lewd, lascivious, and so on.
This article attempts, very poorly, to create a notion that by the very inclusion of blocking software manufacturers under the immunity umbrella is somehow going to open the door to those companies to block legitimate competition. If you read the quoted excerpt and the attached ruling .pdf above, you'll clearly see that is NOT the case.
This ruling's only shortfall is in the broad wording as to whom it shall immunize, rather than what it immunizes against. Kaspersky is clearly a blocker of content in it's own right and does a very good job of it, hence the lawsuit. In most any case, blocking software is configurable to allow pretty much anything to bypass it with pretty much anything they desire.
It is absurd to assume that the immunization of blocking software companies are given a green light to block anything they please. Though it is not impossible or even out of the question, blocking your competition that also does not fall into the "lewd, lascivious..." genre is obviously not handled within the scope of the immunity law nor this ruling.
