I do not expect the writer of some major destructive virus to file a lawsuit against an AV vendor, but where there is money people will try to scam and such laws might give them the tools they need. Just like some people scam insurances by faking accidents, I can think of different ways how a scammer can trick an AV in reverse engineering a virus without breaking the law themselves. Viruses are not illegal, they are just a piece of software. It is the releasing of the virus that breaks the law; so if a scammer writes such a fake viruses, finds out a honeypot of an AV vendor, submits the virus to that honeypot without ever releasing the virus in the wild and then tests the AV until it can detect his/her virus s/he can then sue that AV safely as the malware writer him/her would not have broken any laws. This all depends on how the Law is formulated obviously with any luck it will ensure that such events do not occur.

However, from the way ACTA is being pushed I fear the right people who understand these scenarios might end up not being consulted.

I’m one of those techy people who were elated by the said treaty when it was planned and drafted. But since ACTA was signed on October 1 last year, I have not seen any obvious benefit it gave to the Internet, much more to the general public.

YES – pirated copyrights is one of the World Wide Web’s biggest issues now – but this problem needs more than just ACTA. And if China and Russia will not join, it will take some time for ACTA to prove its worth.

The hackers are going to sue for copy right infringement or claim to be an injured party and file a complaint?