Harvard Law Misses the Mark
I just noticed a brief discussion of our case over at JOLT Digest, the online blog that accompanies the Harvard Journal of Law and Technology. Andrew Ungberg posted his article to the blog very early on November 25, 2008. That would be the same day the Court issued its ruling denying the FTC’s request to extend the temporary restraining order (TRO) and the day after we appeared in court for the hearing on the preliminary injunction (PI).
He seems confused about when the hearing was held and, much more importantly, what the judge decided:
Following a hearing on November 17, Judge Gregory Presnell of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida upheld his November 6th decision to grant the Federal Trade Commission’s request for a temporary restraining order prohibiting the sale of CyberSpy Software’s RemoteSpy keylogger software.
Well, no, actually. The hearing was on the 24th, not the 17th. And Judge Presnell did not uphold his decision granting the FTC’s request for a TRO prohibiting the sale of RemoteSpy. On the contrary, he vacated the ban on selling RemoteSpy in his ruling the day after the hearing, which is why we are now selling the product again.
I think Mr. Ungberg is a first or second year law student, so we’ll cut him some slack. But I would like to see him post a correction. Even better, he can make it part of a follow-up, in which he discusses the merits of the case in light of the Court’s latest ruling. What say you, Mr. Ungberg?