Same here. I just ordered a Lenovo desktop 3 days ago for a family member. Seriously thinking about canceling the order now even though that machine should not be affected. I've been recommending Lenovo to lots of people, and I personally have a ThinkPad and a Yoga 2 Pro. I found the Superfish certificate on the Yoga this morning. This glib and dismissive statement is just adding insult to injury. As ambivalent as I am about lawsuits, I'm hoping Lenovo's management will get a class action right in its mendacious face.
You don't support lawsuits (all those pricks abusing the courts, extorting money from companies!)... right up until the hot second a company screws you, and then the courts are an appropriate recourse.
Maybe you could consider becoming a decent human being, learning some empathy, and realizing that perhaps other people have used the courts as recourse because they, too, were screwed by a company. Labeling lawsuits as an abuse of the court system or other laws is company defense 101.
Ok, I think you're assigning me to a camp in your head that I do not belong to. I'm not the corporation-loving, lawyer-hating, "tort-reforming" droid you're looking for. If you believe in the rule of law, which I do, then lawsuits are inevitable. There have been great lawsuits in history that have ensured freedom, ended injustice, and punished evil. But there have also been lawsuits used to bully, intimidate, and coerce. I assume you've heard of patent trolls? How about the SCO saga? How about the Scopes Monkey Trial? That's why I said I'm "ambivalent"[1] about them.
All of the above are a vast minority of lawsuits, and I read ambivalence as functionally equivalent to anti-tort. Again, you were ambivalent until your ox got gored.
