This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
From: https://digiday.com/media/cheat-sheet-guardian-rubicon-project-lawsuit/
The Guardian’s case:
“It is to be inferred that the concealment of the Defendant’s receipt of these secret commissions and their omission from the monthly earnings report must have been deliberate,” read the Guardian News & Media filing.
Rubicon Project’s defense: Rubicon Project filed a counterclaim in which it denies all liability. In its filing to the courts, the vendor claimed that although it did charge buyers an additional fee to its own service costs and didn’t pass that back to the Guardian, it was legally entitled to do so. Furthermore, Rubicon Project claimed:
False Information: "In May 2010, the company bought Site Scout, a malware detection company, although the company does itself place tracking cookies onto personal computers."
The part that I bolded is simply not true. My Internet security software regularly deletes tracking cookies from this company. It was happening so frequently that I decided to look into this company and found the article.
I have to keep blocking Rubicon for a couple weeks now because it keeps trying to steal some of my bandwidth. -- 112.207.201.175 ( talk) 22:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Isn't this page mere commercial advertising for a company? To what extent should Wikipedia be able to be used in such a way? Doesn't this page merely give credence to a company serving "advertising" on webpages as spam as a result of tracking interests - ie spying on the public? Dollist ( talk) 00:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
From: https://digiday.com/media/cheat-sheet-guardian-rubicon-project-lawsuit/
The Guardian’s case:
“It is to be inferred that the concealment of the Defendant’s receipt of these secret commissions and their omission from the monthly earnings report must have been deliberate,” read the Guardian News & Media filing.
Rubicon Project’s defense: Rubicon Project filed a counterclaim in which it denies all liability. In its filing to the courts, the vendor claimed that although it did charge buyers an additional fee to its own service costs and didn’t pass that back to the Guardian, it was legally entitled to do so. Furthermore, Rubicon Project claimed:
False Information: "In May 2010, the company bought Site Scout, a malware detection company, although the company does itself place tracking cookies onto personal computers."
The part that I bolded is simply not true. My Internet security software regularly deletes tracking cookies from this company. It was happening so frequently that I decided to look into this company and found the article.
I have to keep blocking Rubicon for a couple weeks now because it keeps trying to steal some of my bandwidth. -- 112.207.201.175 ( talk) 22:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Isn't this page mere commercial advertising for a company? To what extent should Wikipedia be able to be used in such a way? Doesn't this page merely give credence to a company serving "advertising" on webpages as spam as a result of tracking interests - ie spying on the public? Dollist ( talk) 00:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)