The Electronic Frontier Foundation criticized the case, stating that it was "not to help fight off adware and spyware" but was rather intended to allow companies "to gain control over [a computer's desktop", where the legal principles being employed "would create a precedent that would enable trademark owners to dictate what could be open on your desktop when you visit their websites". At the time of the appeal, it filed an "amicus curiae" brief urging the Appeals Court to limit the reach of the "initial interest confusion" doctrine that had been applied by the District Court.