Will these Spore lawyers ever give it up?
![]()
So, it transpires that the same lawyers handling the lawsuit over SecuROM being in Spore are out to do the same thing over the Spore Creature Creator trial too. Although they have found another poor soul to use to foot the bill for when the case crumbles, the basic content of the lawsuit is a carbon copy of their other one. Right down to the same proven lies and unproven claims of SecuROM problems.
As with the Spore lawsuit, they once again claim that SecuROM is installed at the same time that Creature Creator trial is installed (read paragraph 13). What they fail to note, is that this simply is not the case. As with other EA titles, the SecuROM component is only installed if it is not already present on the user’s PC. Further, it is only installed when the game is first run and not during installation of the game itself. They still rely on the as yet, unproved claim that SecuROM installs to ring 0 of the kernel, while still failing to provide any credible supporting evidence to back this claim up and so forth. It really is for the most part an exact copy of their other lawsuit. I guess it makes sense though, they can get paid twice for one poorly done research job instead of wasting time actually trying to do their own meaningful research before running off with the plaintiff’s money.
The notable difference this time is that they no longer rely on the Amazon reviews. This time, they are relying on a forum post from guru3d.com which is providing a fix (supplied by SecuROM themselves) to solve a bug with Vista concerning an outdated version of a SecuROM dll file. There is no indication that that old version of the dll file is provided with any versions of Spore or the Creature Creator.
The lawyers then try some scaremongering tactics in paragraph 19 stating that:
By forcing a secret installation of SecuROM to the Ring 0 of the computer systems of plaintiff and the class, EA has rendered every single computer on which its SecuROM program is installed vulnerable to malicious attack. Because of the way the SecuROM program is written and installed, there exist simple exploits that can permit hackers and criminals to gain access or control of any user’s system on which SecuROM is installed. EA installed SecuROM directly to the computer’s Kernel. SecuROM is a vulnerable, ill-protected program …
Yet, they still provide nothing in the way of evidence for such claims. Not even a URL to a forum post! They also appear to be under the impression that SecuROM is EA’s program. It isn’t. It’s created by Sony DAC. They claim that SecuROM is poorly written, yet I doubt they have ever seen the code themselves, so how can they make any assumptions as to how it’s written? They claim that SecuROM can be exploited by hackers, when was the last time you heard of hackers exploiting SecuROM to gain access to someone’s PC? I certainly can’t remember ever seeing any such reports or claims. And Google certainly isn’t throwing up anything either, asides from patch notes and speculation.
Paragraphs 20 and 21 are also of some interest. They read as follows:
In addition, and also undisclosed to persons who downloaded the Spore Creature Creator Free Trial Edition computer game, the SecuROM program is designed to directly interfere with, and/or disable certain software functions. Specifically, SecuROM will disable certain programs that the designers of the SecuROM program believe that the computer users should not own, or possess, or operate on their computer, to wit:
Fantom CD emulator
Alcohol 120%
Nero Image Drive
Phantom CD
Clone CD
Ark Virtual Drive
Veritas DLA
Daemon Tools
AnyDVD
Process ExplorerProcess Explorer is a commonly used system monitoring and examination utility published by Microsoft which is used as the first step in debugging software or system problems. Nevertheless, EA, by virtue of its secret installation of SecuROM, has determined that it should have control over which programs a user may run or utilize on their computer, and so it designed SecuROM to prohibit the operation of this program, and others, if Spore Creature Creator Free trial Edition is open.
So once again, in paragraph 22, the lawyers have shown their lack of research skills and falsely claimed that SecuROM was coded and designed by EA. They also claim that Process Explorer cannot be used while the Creature Creator is open. This too is false and I provide an image below that clearly shows the Process Explorer running at the same time that Spore is running. The same is true for the Creature Creator – although I do not have that installed at the moment as it must be uninstalled before Spore proper can be installed. I can also attest to the fact that SecuROM does not stop Alcohol 120% from operating in any form. The lawyers are not just content with this false accusation however, they also further state in paragraph 22 that “This disabling occurs regardless of whether the Spore Creature Creator Free Trial Edition game is running or not.” If you are using the currently available version of Process Explorer, this is false. Completely and utterly false. Spore, in any of its forms, does refuse to load, if Process Explorer is running when you first attempt to run Spore. However, if you run the Process Explorer 1 to 2 seconds after you first start Spore, both will function perfectly and at the same time. If Spore is not running, Process Explorer is not affected in any form.
It’s sad to say, but these lawyers appear to be nothing more than cowboys. They obviously are trying to tackle a subject they know little about. I feel very sorry for the plaintiffs and the fact that they will most likely end up footing huge legal fees due to the incompetence of these lawyers. I advise them, and any other lawyer considering similar SecuROM focused lawsuits to actually do their research for once. Get a hold of the programs and experiment for yourself. Actually ensure that you know who authored the program you have a problem with. If you would like more advice, I’ll be happy to give it to you – at the same hourly charge you expect your clients to pay.
Thanks for reading!
Also worth reading:
Simply copy and paste the following to any site that supports HTML code.
<a href="http://bansama.com/b/spore/will-these-spore-lawyers-ever-give-it-up/">Will these Spore lawyers ever give it up?</a>


April 20th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
The Virtual Communications Device used by SecuROM Sits in Ring 0. That’s what’s in the lawsuit if you bothered to read it.
April 20th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
If you had actually read all of my comments on these lawsuits, you would find that I have covered this claim, and as yet found no verifiable proof of that claim. The nearest I found was a forum post making that claim without providing any proof for it. As with your comment, you too, have failed to provide the evidence of this claim that I would really love to see.
I suggest you read my other articles on these lawsuits to see that I accept that it may well install something to Ring 0, but without that all important indesputable evidence to back up the claim, that it is all it ever will be.
So if you can supply that evidence, go for it.
November 9th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
OK bansama, if you actually take the time to do YOUR research on the subject, you will find that the spore creators have allready been fined, for the crime of inserting securom in the spore installation, without informing the the consumer in any way, throughout the sale point and instalation process. (the same as simms and mass effect) this is no accusation it is now proven fact.
November 10th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
David, perhaps you should look at the original date that these articles were posted — not just the day or month, but the year as well; then perhaps you’d realise they were posted long before any potential rulings were made (and if such rulings have been made, then please, provide a link to them).
Now perhaps you’ll also stop spamming this site with pointless comment because you think your comments won’t be posted — due to time zone differences between here and the UK, your comments are not going to appear as quickly as you’d like. Also note that I can see when you are making different names yet still using the same IP address.
Such abuse of the comments system will not be tolerated in the future. Thank you.