Free Technology Newsletters
» All 33 InfoWorld Newsletters
Technology & Business Daily
 
InfoWorld
 
   

Is Microsoft Violating the Gator EULA?

By Ed Foster, Section The Gripelog
Posted on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 01:37:49 PM PDT

A thought suddenly struck me yesterday when I was reading the press release for Microsoft's new Windows AntiSpyware product. If Microsoft's product is really going to clean up spyware effectively, how will it do so without violating the licensing agreement of Claria's Gator and other spyware/adware?


The we're-adware-not-spyware crowd like Claria are of course great supporters of the sanctity of end user license agreements, since the supposed acceptance of their EULAs by unwitting downloaders provides the basis for the claim that their adware is installed with "customer" consent. And an increasingly common provision in the adware EULAs is a prohibition against using third party software to remove the program. As spyware researcher Ben Edelman reported in November,, Claria's EULA only allows removal of Gator and related software through a cumbersome process using the Windows Add/Remove Programs menu. Removing it through the use of spyware detection programs, presumably including Microsoft's new offering, is a violation of the EULA.

And the Claria/Gator EULA isn't the only one that says this. The license agreement on DirectRevenue's website states that those who have been inflicted with it "agree that you will not initiate, permit, authorize or assist any third party or application to remove the Software from your computer, or disrupt its operation or the operation of any other user." DirectRevenue's EULA also claims the right to reinstall itself if any third party software removes it. (Among the myriad spyware-related lawsuits going on, by the way, DirectRevenue is being sued by fellow adware vendor Avenue Media over the DirectRevenue software's penchant for deleting other spyware from users' systems.)

So it seemed to me that this poses something of a quandary for Microsoft. After all, the software EULA as we know it today is basically a Microsoft invention, and no other company has been as big a supporter of UCITA and other legal efforts to make sneakwrap licenses completely binding. So Microsoft isn't going to want to go around violating any other company's EULA, not even those of companies of whom they might not completely approve.

On the other hand, an anti-spyware program that doesn't detect and remove things like Gator would certainly not be very useful. And, from the early reports I've seen about the Windows AntiSpyware beta, it does indeed detect and remove all the major threats. So does this mean Microsoft feels it can ignore what the Gator and other EULAs say? I asked Microsoft that question.

"Microsoft AntiSpyware enables customers to control what software installs and runs on their machines and Microsoft respects the end user license agreements for any third party products," a Microsoft spokesperson told me. "The Microsoft Windows AntiSpyware beta end user license agreement, which all users accept as part of the installation process, clearly indicates that the software will only remove or disable 'potentially unwanted software' as users instruct it, and advises them to read the license agreements for other software before authorizing removal."

For reference, the Microsoft spokesperson pointed out the relevant section of the Windows AntiSpyware beta EULA:

POTENTIALLY UNWANTED SOFTWARE. The software will search your computer for "spyware," "adware" and other potentially unwanted software ("Potentially Unwanted Software"). If it finds Potentially Unwanted Software, the software will ask you if you want to ignore, disable (quarantine) or remove it. The software will only remove or disable Potentially Unwanted Software as you instruct it. Removing or disabling the Potentially Unwanted Software may cause other software on your computer to stop working, and it may cause you to breach a license to use other software on your computer, if the other software installed the Potentially Unwanted Software on your computer as a condition of your use of the other software. You should read the license agreements for other software before authorizing the removal of any Potentially Unwanted Software. By using this software, it is possible that you will also remove or disable software that is not Potentially Unwanted Software. You are solely responsible for selecting which Potentially Unwanted Software the software removes or disables.

Silly me - I should have guessed. Of course, Microsoft isn't violating anyone else's EULA. It's you, the Windows AntiSpyware customer, who is solely responsible for violating your solemn contractual agreement with Claria, DirectRevenue, or whomever. You have a solemn contractual agreement with Microsoft that says so.

< Steaming About DRM | Apple As Big Brother >


Display: Sort:
Is Microsoft Violating the Gator EULA? | 40 comments (40 topical) | Post A Comment
Yes, but who cares?[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#1)
by Anonymous User on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 03:33:09 PM PDT

Your points are well taken, but....who really *cares* if they violate a Gator EULA? Are they going to come after you? <shudder>

[ Reply to This ]


Honor among theives ...[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#2)
by RocDoc on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 06:22:25 PM PDT

Ok, let me get this straight. An EULA for crapware I did not request and that installed itself in a way that is considered malfeasance in a court of law is going to hold me accountable for removing said crapware I did not authorize to install in the first place?

Let the litigation begin!

RocDoc

[ Reply to This ]



Breaking Point[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#3)
by Anonymous User on Sat Jan 08, 2005 at 11:51:53 AM PDT

Okay. It's official: I've been pushed over the limit with this story. As far as my personal use of software, I no longer care about any EULA or what it allows or disallows at this point. F***K it. I believe at this point, not even a reasonably proficient attorney could be reasonably expected to keep up with all of the crap that would be involved in actually following all of the EULAs for the software(s) used on a typical personal computer. How the hell would a consumer? I'm tired of it all. I can't stand this mess. Not the EULAs or 'authentication' crap, etc.. What in the world is happening? -Chris wmax@linaeum.com

[ Reply to This ]


GPL[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#4)
by Anonymous User on Sat Jan 08, 2005 at 03:47:34 PM PDT

Then do what you can to support the folks publishing under the GPL. When the other folks creating these EULA's starve to death, maybe they will understand.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


What I want to know is ...[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#5)
by Anonymous User on Sat Jan 08, 2005 at 06:25:16 PM PDT

Will Microsoft cover any violations of anyone else's EULA with their Intellectual Property Indemnification program? And if not, why not? (Disclaimer - I actually have no use for AntiSpyware or the MS indemnification program, so my questions should be construed as being for entertainment purposes only.)

[ Reply to This ]


Why should they?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#17)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 12:30:40 PM PDT

Microsoft is only providing the tool. How you use (or misuse) the tool is your responsibility.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Precedent?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#23)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 01:21:31 PM PDT

In Ed's "Apple As A Big Brother" post, Apple is attempting to force publishers to verify that their information does not come from sources that violate confidentiality agreements. If Apple prevails, will that be a legal precedent that could be used against Microsoft for not assuring the violation of an EULA?

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Precedent[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#35)
by Anonymous User on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 08:52:05 AM PDT

Tell that to the folks who ***lost*** the DECSS court case. There are so many instances of the manufacturer of a product being sued when the "customer" harms himself or others by misuse of the product. Microsoft HAS to understand that their product WILL be used to defeat the EULAs of other companies and that makes them responsible for that act.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Who Cares?[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#6)
by wantobe on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 04:14:43 AM PDT

What is the reprecussion of violating Gator (or other spyware) EULAs? You aren't allowed to use the software anymore? Where do I sign?

Rob Miles
--
There are 10 kinds of people in the world; those who understand binary and those who don't.
[ Reply to This ]


Re: Who Cares?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#8)
by Ed Foster on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 12:05:44 PM PDT

Unfortunately, spyware EULAs do have real repercussions. They make it possible for Gator, WhenU, DirectRevenue, etc. to lay claim to the fiction that their software was installed with customer consent. And that's why they can continue to operate legally, and why whatever spyware law Congress eventually passes will probably not actually make a dent in the spyware problem. -- Ed

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


But then you violate the license..[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#9)
by sconeu on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 08:10:52 AM PDT

But by attempting to remove said spyware with a third-party remover (Spybot/AdAware/MS/etc...) violates the EULA of the spyware, so you are no longer allowed to use the spyware!

--
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the United States of America.
[ Parent | Reply to This ]



But then you violate the license...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#13)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 11:48:50 AM PDT

They could word the EULA so that any violation of the EULA results in forced continual use of their crapware while having "My Heart Will Go On" piped into your ears at excruciating levels for 24 hours a day...

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!![ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#30)
by sconeu on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 05:28:43 PM PDT

I believe that's illegal under several international treaties!

--
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the United States of America.
[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Nice signature[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#38)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jan 18, 2005 at 02:34:52 PM PDT

A bit off topic, perhaps, but I can't resist commenting on wantobe's signature. Haven't laughed this hard in a while.

I have another one for you (not my own), which I've always admired,

Hmmm.... %>/ Now I have my own Picasso!

Still doubled-over,
The first kind.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Great Acronym from Microsoft![ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#7)
by Anonymous User on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 08:39:19 AM PDT

Potentially Unwanted Software = PUS  (a clear sign of infection)

Seems pretty appropriate.


[ Reply to This ]



pus[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#12)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 11:33:24 AM PDT

I darn sure don't want any pus seeping out of my machine. I'll go after it with whatever it takes, even Microsoft anti-spyware stuff, or Clearsil, or a clean cotton swab.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


I Concur[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#16)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 12:12:51 PM PDT

I also saw the acronym. I thought it pretty funny.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


breaking the eula[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#10)
by zaios on Mon Jan 10, 2005 at 08:43:09 AM PDT

Am I breaking the eula of Claria/Gator if I format my HDD?  (not having 'uninstalled' the software prior to wiping).  What if my HDD fails or I destroy an old HDD?

[ Reply to This ]


Spyware is never authorized.[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#11)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 11:07:58 AM PDT

If there is spyware on a computer, one of the following statements must be true: 1. The malware never prompted for permission. 2. The end user was misled into allowing it. 3. The end user is so lacking in intelegence that they cannot form a valid contract. Given that Microsoft likes to change EULA terms when you install a bugfix, I wouldn't shed a tear if one of the spyware producers went after them.

[ Reply to This ]


Isn't Windows XP itself spyware?[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#32)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 08:19:55 PM PDT

4. You have a non-corporate version of Windows XP installed on your computer.

So shouldn't the Microsoft spyware removal tool, if it functioned fully, remove Windows XP?

[ Parent | Reply to This ]



How stupid can it get?[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#14)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 11:49:37 AM PDT

Who sits in the back room and comes up with these EULAs anyway? Garbage software installs itself and dares any other software to uninstall it? You've got to be kidding me. This is so far beyond stupid that it's just hard to imagine that these people put this stuff in writing. Why don't these people go out there and work for a living like the rest of us? They are just barely above the hackers in my book. Would someone tell them to get over themselves?

[ Reply to This ]


No honor amongst thieves?[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#15)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 11:54:44 AM PDT

As much as it pains me, I agree with Microsoft's assertion that it is the user of their anti-spyware product that is violating the EULA of the spyware - because in that instance, Microsoft is not the one who agreed to the spyware's EULA, the user is. And of course, that whole argument and their beta EULA highlights just how ridiculous all of this has become... when the main issue should be why we have a legal system that even allows the possibility for any of these EULAs to be legally binding. (In contrast to the more sensible approach of the European courts which you have written about in the past.) HOWEVER... since the spirit of this all is essentially the software (and spyware) manufacturers continually stretching the limits of how finely they can split a legal hair... I think the question that should be posed to Microsoft is how they managed to succesfully develop and test their anti-spyware product without ever once installing any of those spy-ware products, and then successively (and illegally) uninstalling it in testing... Of course I wouldn't even suggest that MS reverse engineered any of the spy-ware code either, because that would most likely be illegal also by the terms of the spyware EULAs, wouldn't it? And violating one of those would be wrong...

[ Reply to This ]


Micro$oft to the Rescue[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#18)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 12:41:35 PM PDT

Simple solution if Micor$oft wants to make it's new tool REAL customer centric. Add an API to the add/remove facility that can be called by the adware/spyware/malware removal application. That way the EULA of these slugs is not violated.

[ Reply to This ]


That already exists...[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#19)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 12:53:57 PM PDT

The Add/Remove program stuff resides in the registry, with a well-documented interface. It's easy for a program to call it (our install stuff does that in some cases). The problem with that idea is that we don't know what dangerous side effects the crapware producers are putting into their uninstalls. One presumes that at a very least you have to answer 25 questions right -- "Are you sure you don't want our junk?", "Are you really sure you don't want our junk?", "Our junk is good for you, you must want it. Remove anyway?", etc.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Probably removes base application too[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#20)
by ajallen on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 12:57:33 PM PDT

The add/remove probably removes the base -- wanted application too. So no malware no program.
Against fools, the gods themselves contend in vain.
[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Tricky questions[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#26)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 01:29:00 PM PDT

Some of the spyware deinstallation processes also use trick phrasing: "We do wonderful things. Do you want to keep us?" "We're so great. Do you want to discontinue the uninstall?" Several of them have multiple questions, at least one of which requires a Yes and one a No to actually get them to do the deinstallation. And, of course, Gator is infamous for requiring you to be connected to the Internet to do the deinstallation, requiring a program to be downloaded. Yet using the deinstallation process often results in a cleaner removal than an antispyware program, so I still do use them when I can.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Makes Me Wonder[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#21)
by Jackstraw on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 01:11:35 PM PDT

It makes me wonder if Microsoft's Antispyware will remove the spyware it puts into its own programs. I would bet not. Alexa is a good example of spyware MS loads with IE6, Media Player has spyware and it is a sure bet there are many others. Maybe MS's antispyware will let them know when you violate their own EULA's. Great fun.

[ Reply to This ]


MS's choice of "labels" for spyware.[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#22)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 01:19:29 PM PDT

Is it just me, or is the label "Potentially Unwanted Software" or PUS for short the perfect name for this class of software? Let's just mop it up, apply some disinfectant and get rid of that PUS ASAP!

[ Reply to This ]


Hahaha....[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#24)
by auctionhugh on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 01:24:13 PM PDT

...sheesh....

-----
Stop being frustrated with your Web site -
Have Kathleen help you!
She will give you great service and appreciate your business!
Professional, artistic, and EASY for you!
Kallen Web Design of Kalamazoo



[ Parent | Reply to This ]



Come and get me![ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#28)
by BigBird on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 02:34:06 PM PDT

We're all so paranoid about removing unwanted spyware. A dumb thought, but how would Gator (or whomever) know I removed it? Most legit software vendors agree to install adware programs to collect additional revenue, but I'd bet few "require" these spyware/adware to function properly.

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


I am past caring[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#25)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 01:28:43 PM PDT

I am to the point where I do not care what any of these crap software companies want to put in their EULAS. I will do what I want on any system that I own and will remove whatever any of my customers want removed from their systems. If they want to raise a fuss or sue, let them. I will throw myself on the mercy of the court and pray that I actually get a judge with at least a thread of common sense remaining. Maybe I could get the jerks who write this crap to meet me on an open field with pistols somewhere??? Sure would be easier.

[ Reply to This ]


Has anyone thought...[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#27)
by Duhhhh on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 02:09:59 PM PDT

...Of the wisdom to install any Micro$oft AntiSpyware product...Or Antivirus product published by them? Of course, if they bothered to spend the $$$ keeping their own house in order that they spent supporting and training the sufferring masses in the Third World they could have had people checking their code for exploitable bugs, buffer overruns and other stuff. Maybe if they even did a little more to secure their code in the first place rather rushing to market with a product that needed a bug fix on day of release (like XP), we wouldn't need to have antispyware or Antivirus products. I for one, will not trust a Microsoft product to detect and remove the stuff that their own business practices and buggy software allowed to happen in the first place. EULA's aside, we wouldn't be in this mess if the software publishers were engaging in fair business practices.

[ Reply to This ]


duh[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#29)
by wawadave on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 05:23:44 PM PDT

so if spyware makers elua says you cannot remove it it has to stay??? if a virus or trojin now comes with one the av companies cannot remove it ether??? ,
RFID Tags Spyware!
[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Microslop[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#31)
by Anonymous User on Tue Jan 11, 2005 at 06:00:46 PM PDT

I agree that if Microsoft was a bit more careful in their programming we would not need ANY virus protection, anti-spyware or other protections. What do you expect when Microsoft puts out junk, shrinkwraps it, then makes you agree to be bound by it sight unseen. Why should I pay big $$ for buggy, insecure software?

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


The Gator Terms are unenforcable[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#33)
by AlanK on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 06:14:02 AM PDT

There are limits to what terms are supportable in a license agreement. The courts would have a hard time supporting terms that violate the fundamental purpose of the license. The license agreement is fundamentally an element of the copyright laws, and a term that restricts how you can use your own computer that has no connection to the copytright is so far outside the scope of the law as to be unenforcable (IMO). The Gator terms are similar to the following fictional license terms on a music CD: "You may not eject or cause to be ejected this compact disk from any player in which it is inserted."

[ Reply to This ]


Right idea, wrong law[ Parent | Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#34)
by welkerdp on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 06:59:24 AM PDT

Isn't Microsoft actually violating the DMCA by making a tool to help you violate someone else's EULA?

[ Parent | Reply to This ]


Gator violated MS EULA?[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#36)
by Anonymous User on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM PDT

Didn't Gator violate Microsoft's EULA by reverse-engineering Windows in order to so effectively embed its spyware? And, more to the point, doesn't Microsoft have more money, lawyers and expert witnesses to litigate the issue?

[ Reply to This ]


What was the point of this article?[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#37)
by Anonymous User on Wed Jan 12, 2005 at 07:21:37 PM PDT

So as I read the article, I saw this:
If Microsoft's product is really going to clean up spyware effectively, how will it do so without violating the licensing agreement of Claria's Gator and other spyware/adware?
And my immediate answer was:

Gator's EULA with the end-user is IRRELEVANT to Microsoft's EULA.

And, what do you know, that's what the end of the article says.

Here's the gist:

Microsoft has NO RESPONSBILITY to enforce Gator's EULA.

If I sign a contract with Bob to help him move next Thursday, and Joe gives me a ride out of town on Thursday, Joe hasn't violated any contract. I have.

Maybe the end-user is violating their Gator-EULA by using Microsoft's tool to uninstall Gator. That assumes Gator's EULA is legal. But that is in no way, no shape, no form, no how, Microsoft's problem.

[ Reply to This ]



WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW EULA[ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#46)
by Anonymous User on Fri Feb 11, 2005 at 12:00:24 PM PDT

Hi it does not show up in ad an remove, is a the best malwares removal, tool that they come up with,does not need updates, all antivirus programs need updates, is invisible and most of all you need to check mark EULAS.To sign EULAS is very relevant it goes in granting authority to microsoft to install spywares adwares to collect information about you with third party porposes, clearly say that they are selling to you the licence to use the computer what you call our computer never been ours http://www.cybersource.com.au/cyber/about/comparing_the_gpl_to_eula.pdf could be that this address wont work.Wonder why? so in google search you type " A comparison of GPL and the Microsoft EULA" without the quotation marks then you read it. I have a page but is not showing http://realcommunication.blogspot.com The Eulas that you sign and desapier is one that have relevance most to, Mcfee, Symantics, because my idea which I cannot sell because is in my head is that they and others will be exterminated. I in a very naive way I call last month to Microsoft regarding a system within windows that allows you to run windows in a mode were you do not recieve virus, spywares, they phoned me email me and after silence, not even thanks. But there is much to develop in their side,rushing to do things have allways been their characteristic they allways been lucky, but that speak only as how they are, events that happen because of rushing nobody can forsighted no matter how much money you have. Maybe they know already I give them the right do so when I was so exaited seting up my new computer . Who will read that contract, full of legal terminology, so I just check mark. I guess riping of others people whithout their knowledge is the american way . I just am not use to it. I can share with you my idea step by step , place you in a better envairoment,is like running an apple, then you tell others I get the "reward" of sharing my idea with others. They will be happy and for sure they will say thanks.sowervidal@shaw.ca Ruben RUBEN VIDAL

[ Reply to This ]


metoprolol [ Reply to This ] (none / 0) (#59)
by Anonymous User on Wed Sep 20, 2006 at 10:03:59 AM PDT

<h1>woodchuck.tractor ingrate:Crandall franking presidential chauffeur!Armata.Pius? </h1>

[ Reply to This ]


Is Microsoft Violating the Gator EULA? | 40 comments (40 topical) | Post A Comment
Display: Sort:
Recent Entries
A few things
15 comments

Thank you
19 comments

Ed Foster: 1949-2008
80 comments

Dell notebook turns into a Bad Buy
15 comments

Of Apple, Psystar users, and copyright
12 comments

The suspicious death of XP support
38 comments

More The Gripelog...

Submit a gripe
About the Author
Email Ed Foster

Help Ed and his readers build these projects:
The Gripewiki
The EULA Library

Login
Make a new account
Username:
Password:

Live Gripes
Has AOL Changed Their Ways?
52 comments

A Nestle SweeTarts Conspiracy
205 comments

AT&T Kills "Bad" Username
211 comments

DESPERATE! AOL HAS TAKEN OVER MY COMPUTER
285 comments

parkingticket.com SCAM on refunds
195 comments

Don't let Net Enforcers Ruin Your Day.
108 comments

More Live Gripes...

Sign up for my newsletter

To have my column automatically e-mailed to you, submit your email address in the form below. Of course, I will not turn your address over to any other party or send you any unrequested e-mail.

Infoworld Blogs

Recomended Sites
The AFFECT Coalition
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Electronic Privacy Information Center
Free Software Foundation
HearUsNow.org
Public Knowledge
StopBadware.org

Jeff Angus
Ben Edelman
Dan Gillmor
Bob Lewis
Brian Livingston
Freedom to Tinker
Lawmeme
PC World's Techlog
SunBeltSoftware Blog
Troubleshootsers.com

Rss Feeds
How this works
 Top News 
 Columnists 
 Tech Watch 
 Test Center Reviews 
 Applications 
 App Development 
 E-Business Solutions & Strategies 
 End-user Hardware 
 Networking 
 Operating Systems 
 Platforms 
 Security 
 Standards & Protocols 
 Storage 
 Telecommunications 
 Wireless 
 Web Services 

 

create account | faq | search