Wireless Testing: 1,2,3: Page 2 of 2

To its credit, Aruba exhibited some moderation in publicizing the test.
Yes, the company posted a link to it on its Web home page. But Aruba
didn't issue a press release, as many other companies might have done.
Still, Aruba should feel a little embarrassed by the report itself,
which is what it is. As for Airespace, while the company was certainly
justified in crying foul about Tolly's methods, its outrage rang a
little hollow. The company commissioned its own Tolly validation report
last year as a response to competitive sales pressure from Cisco, which
Airespace felt was misrepresenting its VoIP capabilities. When you
enlist Tolly to promote your product, you have to live with that
association.

The kicker to this story comes from New York Attorney General Elliot
Spitzer, arguably the country's leading governmental consumer advocate.
Last year, Spitzer's office won an injunction to prevent Network
Associates from selling its products with a "speech restriction" the
company included in its license agreements. The AG's office contested
the legality of a clause, which purported to prohibit users from
publishing "product reviews" or "benchmark tests" without Network
Associates' permission. While Airespace's contract language was not this
explicit, it would have been interesting to learn whether it would have
held up in court if Tolly had challenged it.

Dave Molta is Network Computing's senior technology editor. Write to him at [email protected]