Symantec Competing Unfairly Against Spybot?

frankbaird writes "Symantec has been claiming for months that the anti-spyware program Spybot-Search & Destroy corrupts Norton Ghost images. Spybot has tried to convince them this is a false positive. After having been ignored, and this is the second time Symantec has claimed a false positive against Spybot, the makers of Spybot have gone public. They claim that rather than compete fairly with quality products, Symantec is resorting to libel."

Comments

Well then, is it or isn't it?

[murderlegendre]

Symantec asserts that SpyBot is corrupting Norton Ghost images - well, is it, or isn't it?

I mean, this isn't like determining the existence of god is it? The image is either corrupt, or it is not. So which is it?

Anyone?

Re:Well then, is it or isn't it?

[DingerX]

"Corrupt" is perhaps not the right word. Imperfect. For all images and vestiges of God are imperfect with respect to the divine exemplar. One can reason back from the image to get some idea of God, but never the full thing.

I'm sorry, what was the question?

Oh yeah, well, TFA claims that there's no evidence whatsoever that it corrupts Norton Ghost images, and that Symantec has refused to provide any. So maybe it is like determining the existence of God: it could be the case that SpyBot is corrupting Norton Ghost images, but until someone posts some evidence, you'll have to take that on faith from Symantec.

or clever marketing.

[SuperBanana]

Another instance of market dominance

Or an example of really clever free press.

I can't help but think that no matter which way this goes, Spybot is the one clearly coming out ahead; they'll loose some enterprise business if they really are corrupting Ghost images, but otherwise, a lot of people will hear about 'em. If Symantec was engaged in libel, then there is a whole David vs. Golliath thing going on. If Spybot was making up the whole thing, everyone grumbles a bit, but a lot of people checked out their website and/or decided to give the software a try.

All of which will make proving damages in court rather...interesting :-)

Sbybot rocks and Symantec are whiney boys

[ayelvington]

One of the first things I do for any system in distress is REMOVE Symantec. Of course, it's a pain since they are like a plague. They infest the registry like lice and do not remove themselves when you run their deinstallation tool. Bottom line, they are big, but they hogs.

Sysmantec can whine, but no one who knows anything is listening or buying.

I donate to Spybot and promote McAfee.

ay

Re:Unsatisfactory Accusation

[luvirini]

Everything is possible, but if Symantec had reasonably good processes in place they should have been able to provide the orginal reasons and symptoms that caused them to write that knowledgebase article, however incomplete, along with "we will investigate this matter further"

Re:Unsatisfactory Accusation

[Strolls]

I'm not yet in Spybot's camp here. First of all, one week to investigate and respond to an issue is way too short for a company as large as Symantec.

They've already, presumably, done the investigation that leads them to this conclusion. Since they're not shy of listing Spybot as a virus, all they need to do is give a reason.

A week should be sufficient time to pop down to see the developers, ask them to look up in the version control system who added this detection rule and why, and to even chat with that particular programmer. This should give Symantec's representative plenty enough detail to provide a competent reply to Spybot, but for some reason they haven't done so.