Guillaume Tena of Harvard is being threatened with the charms of a French jail cell for having written-up a list of flaws in a French anti-viral product three years ago.

Tegam International, which makes something called Viguard, called Tena a "terrorist" after he published his analysis of their product in March 2002 and a French court is apparently dumb enough to take the claim seriously.

Now, Tena's no angel. Tegam says he was once a virus writer himself, credited with (among other things) Happy99, the first e-mail virus. But, they admit, he went straight and is now on the side of the angels. (This assumes, of course, that there are angels at Harvard.)

UPDATE: Tena writes to say that reports he's a virus writer are false, that they were started by Tegem and picked up by the media without questioning it. "Cite a credible source if you have one," Tena writes. "This article is now on the web for eternity. Please do something about it."

I have no independent source, other than press reports, to indicate Tena has so much as a parking ticket to his name. Absent evidence, I shouldn't spread rumors, so this is being reposted with my apologies.

So why should angels (or Yalies) support him?

The reason I wrote about this in the first place is that the case threatens the very idea of independent research. Tena is being charged with violating copyright, which he had to do in order to test the product.

If the French court rules against Tena, it means that any company can stop any researcher from finding out what's wrong with any product by simply copyrighting it -- no matter where that researcher happens to work.

Let's hope the court finds this case indigestible. Just because the complainant is French and the defendant is not doesn't make the complainant right.