Re:Microsoft Uses Trademark Law to Disrupt Trickbot Botnet
by Nextgrid on Monday October 12, 2020 @12:12PM
(#24755955)
To be clear, I am absolutely not arguing that malware authors should get impunity - we have other laws such as the CFAA that should be used to punish this activity.
I am also not saying that software developers should automatically be liable for bugs or security vulnerabilities in their products.
My concern is that such a precedent would then allow software developers to sue on brand damage grounds even in non-malicious cases such as merely documenting an exploit or publishing a proof of concept (designed to test the vulnerability on your own infrastructure), in which case even "mens rea" would not apply since technically documentation/PoC code is intended to let others know about the vulnerability (so they can protect themselves, but that does technically damage the brand, although rightfully in this case).
Re:Microsoft Uses Trademark Law to Disrupt Trickbot Botnet
by kenjackson on Monday October 12, 2020 @01:34PM
(#24756969)
I'd expect this to be narrowly interpreted. I don't think any precedent would extend the ways you suggest.
I think both can be true. Even if you think Microsoft should be held legally culpable for making vulnerable software, I don't think that should be a "get out of jail free" card for someone exploiting it.
I therefore don't see how agreeing that Microsoft is being harmed by malware authors could possibly result in a legal precedent exonerating them from legal liability over vulnerable software. Courts consider what is presented to them and their rulings tend to be narrow.