Slashdot Mirror
Symantec Brings Complaint Against MS to EU
linumax writes "Symantec has made a complaint against Microsoft to EC anti-trust regulators over the software giant's entry into the security market. The "informal" complaint allows the Commission to consider whether or not an anti-trust case is merited. The Commission is the executive branch of the European Union (EU)." From the article: "The news comes on the day Microsoft announced plans to begin offering business users an integrated anti-virus and anti-spyware product called Microsoft Client Protection. A beta version of this product is expected to be released by year's end. The company is already offering some customers a beta version of its Windows OneCare consumer security software. At issue is Microsoft's plan to bundle its security software with Windows Vista, the next major version of the Windows operating system due next year."
And I the only one that thinks that MS offering anti virus software is very similar to the mafia offering 'protection'?
Microsoft has had a looooong-standing relationship with Symantec, going back to the days of the Norton Utilities (Peter Norton was a big pusher of MS products back in 1985/86). What makes this so funny is that slashdotters could have predicted this. How?
Because...Microsoft screws over EVERYBODY who has any business dealings with them.
Everybody
Why shouldn't the maker of the software secure their software?
If Microsoft got their act together and made it impossible for viruses to spread on Windows, and secured the OS totally against external threats, would Symantic have a case against them? Doesnt Symantic depend on a business model that could concievably be made redundant at any point in Microsofts development cycle?
I hate Microsoft just as much as the next guy but this doesn't make any sense. It's as if Firestone were to sue Ford for shipping cars with pre-installed wheels. Afterall you won't get very far in Windows without security.
Why should the consumer be forced to buy a product from a second supplier when the original supplier is willing to add that feature on for free?
Netbooks, they come with Linux or a $3 copy of Windows. Either way, Microsoft loses.
I'd feel a whole lot more sympathy towards Symantec if Norton Internet Security 2005 didn't depend on Internet Explorer.
I'm all for anti-trust laws, but I think this situation is a bit ridiculous -- the complaint is utterly without merit. Symantec and McAfee built their buisness models on Windows being a shoddy, insecure POS. Now, that Microsoft is tightening it down and including a virus scanner, and they are crying foul because it's going to put them out of buisness? I'm sorry, but that's the price they pay for being monolithic, for failing to diversify. Structural unemployment is a bitch.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Windows XP comes with an integrated firewall, which Norton SystemWorks replaces upon installation. Does an integrated virus scan propose some type of insurmountable difficulty for Symantec?
Any OS maker has the right - indeed, the responsibility - to secure their system. Integrating security mechanisms into Vista would be fine, not unlike adding iptables to the Linux kernel or requiring an admin password for all security-related operations in Mac OS X. So if Microsoft were to give this away as part of Vista, they could virtually kill Symantec and I would have no problem with it. After all, Symantec has made a killing on compensating for problems in Windows, and fixing those problems is far from bad business.
But if Microsoft intends to charge for their security products, it's a scam. They'd have a vested interest in building only basic security into their OS, because enterprises will otherwise have no reason to buy the security add-ons. I hope Symantec wins this not because Microsoft's entry into this market is wrong, but because they've done it entirely the wrong and corrupt way.
A key function of an OS is to regulate, allocate, and manage the hardware and software resources of the machine. Controlling which chunks of code/processes/threads have access to which other chunks of RAM/filesystem/IO seems core to both an OS and to controlling malware.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
This makes no sense to me on several levels. Who would trust MS to make anti-virus software when they're the ones who wrote the software that allowed the viruses in the first place? If MS knows about a virus that exploits a programming error, why don't they just fix the error? Who would trust a company that has a financial motive to write virus-prone code?
Welcome to the land of the free...pay toll ahead...no photography...please open your bag...
Not saying microsoft is the least bit innocent, but this is one of those cases that no matter what they do they are screwed.
A - Do nothing and get blamed for being insecure.
B - Do something, and get accused of illegal practices.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
So Symantec/Norton make a name for themselves peddling products designed to keep people safe from security problems in Windows. Between the Customer and Microsoft, Symantec is a third party offering protection. After all these years, Microsoft decides it has the capability/desire to protect customers themselves. I can see why Symantec would be pissed, but it was they who built their house on sand. They based their business model on the combination of unwitting users and Windows flaws, so it's only natural for their business to decrease as users become more informed and Windows becomes more secure. As has been said many times in the People vs. RIAA/MPAA threads around here, The Right To Profit is not guaranteed. Symantec gambled on a product line, and thus far has done very well. The odds are changing though, if Microsoft wants to start protecting people from themselves.
Heck, I remember running Microsoft AV in Windows 3.1/Dos 6.2 days, cleaning the Form virus off various floppy disks. (Don't Copy That Floppy anyone?)
* I don't mean Windows becoming more secure in the traditional sense of locking down, though XP SP2 is a big step up, I mean the manufacturer of the product (Microsoft) providing alternate means of protection without the need for 3rd party products.
Microsoft should be dedicating their resources in finding a cure, not a treatment. This presents a big conflict of interest for them, kinda like a coach betting against his own team.
Symantec sucked so much MS cock during the US antirust trial, how could they possibly be surprised getting a hair pulling facial topped off with a cock slap?
Since Microsoft does not have a decent security model for their OS's, they get infected.
Which is why you need to continuously update the virus signatures.Not many years ago there was a flood of "macro viruses" for Word and Excel. Then Microsoft made a very minor change and asked people if they wanted to run the enclosed macros
The correct approach is to fix the real problem.
The PROBLEM here is that when Microsoft starts shipping its own anti-virus/spyware app, the other companies will all die.
Which means that within a couple years, the ONLY commercial option you will have for anti-virus on Windows will be
Now, to see how much effort Microsoft will be putting into that
If Microsoft fixed the security flaws, then Symantic might go out of business because there is no longer a need for their product.
...or... cut development because it isn't bringing in money.
The problem is that by competing with Symantic, the product is still needed, but Symantic will go out of business and Microsoft will end up being the single source for commercial anti-virus software for their desktop monopoly.
Which means that Microsoft can start ratcheting up the pricing for this
Either way, the customers lose. Unless they switch to Linux/Mac.
If Microsoft does give this away, then the other anti-virus companies will go out of business.
Which will leave the anti-virus customers with two options:
#1. Use Microsoft's anti-virus software and hope that Microsoft doesn't start increasing the price/actually maintains it.
#2. Move to Linux/Macs.
You're mistaken in the believe that Microsoft is "tightening down" anything. Their products will still be as vulnerable, but now their customers won't have any other vendors for competing anti-virus apps.
...it may very well be game over for Symantec.
I'm not so sure. While it's true that Norton/Symantec Anti-Virus is one of Symantec's big packages, it's not the only software they sell. Their recent acquisition of PowerQuest gave them all that software, including Partition Magic. They have a very active Ghost division, a division that while it might not be quite as profitable as AV, likely makes a fair bit. They've also got several other products like spam/virus filtering. The lists of their Home, Small Business, and Enterprise products are pretty large. If Symantec did completely close down it's AV division, while it might hurt the company for a while and cause a number of jobs to be cut, they have plenty of other products available to keep on going, at least long enough to re-group and put their focus someplace else.
On another topic, these issues are interesting. It's not so much that Microsoft is trying to bully Symantec out of business as it seems they are really trying to improve the view most people have on the security of Windows. XP SP2 gave users a "free" firewall which has drastically cut down the spread of worms and the like. It only seems logical that the next logical step in securing an OS is to control and protect the content already on the system, namely with an Anti-Virus agent.
You could look at this as saying that the reason that Symantec and others were able to sell AV and firewalls in the first place was because Microsoft was deficient in OS security. Now that they're catching up with it, any specialized companies that took advantage of this niche are going to hurt unless they can focus on something else. "Diversified interests" applies to large companies just as it does to personal portfolios.
Yes, it sucks for these companies, but it's not the same thing as if Microsoft started offering Office free with Windows.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
The analogy might make SOME sense if Ford was a convicted monopoly and decided to start manufacturing the tires as well.
Linux is less "user friendly" if you define "user friendly" as "makes it easy to accidently install applications".
... whether the additional ease of accidentally installing a trojan (Windows) is offset by the ease of keeping them off your system (Linux).
On the other hand, if you define "user friendly" as "works and keeps away trojans" then Linux is more "user friendly" than Windows.
The question is
Will the average Linux user spend less time and effort keeping his/her system clean and functional than the average Windows user? Less time but more effort? Less effort but more time? I believe it will be less time and less effort to keep a Linux system clean. Less time and less effort should equate to a more "user friendly" system, eh?
Apart from you that is? :-D
How about you define "user friendly" as anything you want just to show that Linux is it?
The MS windows problem is that users often do not know about trojans and how to spot them. Linux just makes it harder to run things accidentally. That doesn't help if a user WANTS to open a trojan. The user friendly part would be helping users understand about trojans and the associated risks in a seamless manner.
By the way, I think you could define Linux as "user friendly" in many more reasonable ways - such as showing how it enables powerful actions to powerful users - things that might be very hard to do in MS Windows systems.
It is consistently the best-selling software in computer stores, and just thinking of the profit it generates from the continued subscription (which may be only part of the market but with a huge margin) should make any executive cream his pants. I agree they wouldn't let it go without a fight.