Friday, November 19, 2004
Censorship in your head
Be it a database server or an air purifier, do you have the legal right to publicly criticize a product you've purchased? The good news is, yes, you apparently still do. The bad news is that we can't be sure for how much longer.
We owe the good news to Consumers Union's success last week in getting a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) lawsuit by Sharper Image thrown out of court. Sharper Image had accused Consumers Union of product disparagement due to reviews it published in Consumer Reports of the Ionic Breeze Quadra air cleaner. Consumers Reports deemed the product "ineffective" and said it produces "almost no measurable reduction in airborne particles." Sharper Image argued that the reviews were flawed and unfair because Consumer Reports failed to take into account how "vastly different" its technology is from other air purifiers. Under California's anti-SLAPP law, a federal judge ruled there was no reasonable probability of Consumer Reports' statements being proved false and dismissed Sharper Image's case. (For more background on the case and similar lawsuits Consumers Union has had to fight off in the past, visit their www.consumersrighttoknow.org website.)
Reading over Sharper Image's arguments, though, I was struck by how similar what they were saying is to what we we've just been hearing from those who defend censorship clauses in software license agreements. (For a taste of the pros and cons on those, see the reader commentary on my recent "Getting the Facts on Microsoft Benchmarks" story.) Like the Microsofts and Oracles, Sharper Image was essentially claiming that only they can judge how, where, and by whom their technology can be assessed. Only we understand our technology, so anyone who criticizes our products is unfairly disparaging us.
We owe the good news to Consumers Union's success last week in getting a SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation) lawsuit by Sharper Image thrown out of court. Sharper Image had accused Consumers Union of product disparagement due to reviews it published in Consumer Reports of the Ionic Breeze Quadra air cleaner. Consumers Reports deemed the product "ineffective" and said it produces "almost no measurable reduction in airborne particles." Sharper Image argued that the reviews were flawed and unfair because Consumer Reports failed to take into account how "vastly different" its technology is from other air purifiers. Under California's anti-SLAPP law, a federal judge ruled there was no reasonable probability of Consumer Reports' statements being proved false and dismissed Sharper Image's case. (For more background on the case and similar lawsuits Consumers Union has had to fight off in the past, visit their www.consumersrighttoknow.org website.)
Reading over Sharper Image's arguments, though, I was struck by how similar what they were saying is to what we we've just been hearing from those who defend censorship clauses in software license agreements. (For a taste of the pros and cons on those, see the reader commentary on my recent "Getting the Facts on Microsoft Benchmarks" story.) Like the Microsofts and Oracles, Sharper Image was essentially claiming that only they can judge how, where, and by whom their technology can be assessed. Only we understand our technology, so anyone who criticizes our products is unfairly disparaging us.
