Slashdot Mirror
Symantec Sues Microsoft, May Delay Vista
AuMatar writes "Symantec filed a lawsuit against Microsoft over patents on the volume management technology in Vista. They're seeking an injunction to stop Vista from being sold until the suit is completed. Given the recent Supreme Court ruling it should be interesting to see if the injunction is granted, since Symantec does produce software which uses the patent. If it is granted, expect MS to settle to prevent another Vista delay."
How many people think this is hillarious since windows is the only OS symantec can make a profit on, since it is the only one that performs poorly enough to NEED something like symantec?
Think about it, how many of us linux users are regularly downloading a virus cleaning program?
Symantec suing MS is like Karl Rove suing the republican party. It may be valid, but one would not exist without the other. That's just funny to me.
rhY
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
"Symantec alleges that "Microsoft has deliberately and surreptitiously misappropriated Symantec's valuable data-storage technologies, misled and thereby convinced the United States government to issue patents to Microsoft based on technologies invented by Symantec, attempted unsuccessfully to persuade Symantec to forgive Microsoft' s misdeeds under the guise of expanding a business relationship, and ultimately built portions of its next generation operating system on this house of cards."
2 words. holy shit.
When are they gonna learn?
Semantec and its technology is annoying. Microsoft and its technology is annoying. Both have insidious business tactics (lifetime subscription, or die?).
I have a hard time picking which of these two companies is telling the truth here. Okay, it's slashdot, I'll align (reluctantly) with Semantec. A paragraph from an article:
The courts will have to arbitrate, but I wonder that Microsoft went into that contract under a huge smoke screen, all smarmy and friendly -- Semantec probably thought they were getting a backstage pass, a partnership to be the virus, etc., technology provider with Microsoft for the long anticipated Vista.
Vista: (from definition 2., Merriam Webster): an extensive mental view (as over a stretch of time or a series of events)
Semantec probably saw themselves in some kind of mindshare with Microsoft. Not much of a "vista" now? Frankly, when you look at the scattered remains of former companies at the hands of Microsoft it seems a wonder any company would enter into partnerships with them (Citrix, Stacker (is that what it was called?, etc.).
If I were a technology company, I'd only take one of two paths: I'd either formulate a strategy such that when my products are mature and interesting enough to Microsoft, I'd sell the technology and company outright (hello Visio), or I'd absolutely refuse to work with them at all. Anything in between seems to be a kiss of betrayal.
Of course a company always has to consider the heavy price that might be paid by not cooperating at all with Microsoft. Remember Netscape? And Microsoft has demonstrated the price to pay for that kind of bullying ("Janet Reno can go to Hell.") is one they're willing to absorb.
Well, a rambling post, but no solution to the Microsoft juggernaut. Hang in there Google!
"Pay us some money, or we'll drag out this court thing and screw over your launch date, and cost you a bunch of money anyways."
/dev/random
Even more: You hate microsoft because you think they develop shitty software, but you want them to keep it that way and not to improve their products.
Given the sparse information in the article, it appears that you are correct in that it is not a patent issue, It is, apparently, also not a trade secret issue.
It is a contract (licensing) issue, and revolves around the terms of what is and what is not allowed under the terms of the contract.
Injunctive relief to stop the incorporation of the technology can only be sought at this time because Vista is not "released." Once Vista is publicly released, look for an amended Complaint seeking monetary damages also.
That probably would have been "+1 Insightful" about 10 years ago. At this point it's really "-1 Redundant."
"Well, I think there are experts who claim Linux violates our intellectual property. I'm not going to comment. But to the degree that that's the case, of course we owe it to our shareholders to have a strategy. And when there is something interesting to say, you'll be the first to hear it."
-- Steve Balmer on Linux and patents.
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
Wow, MS upgrades that intentionally target third party competition? That's sure never happened before...oh wait. QEMM anyone?
The Golden Age was in my youth, like it has always been. We absorb values from our surroundings as kids, and forever afterwards consider those values to define "normal", so any deviation from those rules make our subconscious scream "abnormal !". Since the surroundings we absorbed the values from matches them perfectly, and since our current environment most likely doesn't (the world isn't static, after all), our youth will always seem like a Golden Age to us. It doesn't hurt that children have no real responsibilities and can ask their parents for help, either.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
No, but in this case it soounds like Symantec are doing the right thing. They've had discussions and they've failed. The license doesn't allow Microsoft to do what they're doing.
Common sense is not so common
Am I the only person sick to death of all the lawsuits and patents?
Yes, and I think most of the major companies are also sick of it. Unfortunately it's turning into an arms race and just sitting around being a pacifist just means you get flattened by someone with a bigger pile of patents than you.
It's impossible to write any software without infringing someone's patent and I've heard it used as a reason _not_ to open-source stuff. "We have no business reason to open-source this, but we'd like to for the benefit of the community. However, if we do someone will probably search it for something that looks similar to their patent and sue us." It's hard to argue against that kind of problem because it's true - let someone see your source in the current climate and you _do_ increase the risk of someone suing you, even though you haven't knowingly infringed anything.
What is needed is for the legislators to understand that it's not possible do do *anything* without infringing a patent and then maybe they will see that the whole system is terminally broken and needs to be fixed or completely scrapped.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
The issue isn't that they are making Windows more secure, it's that they're infringing on a patent. And the other reply is correct - if they designed their OS with better security, and only let users who knew what they were doing mess about with installing apps etc, then there would be no need for antivirus. I was thinking that would stop your average schmoe from using a PC, but they'd soon learn how to use their PC properly if they discovered they couldnt install any applications without doing so. Some people shouldn't really use computers without doing a bit of reading, or getting a bit of tutoring from their friends. Just think of all the zombies out there under spammers' control, etc.. I have been using computers since I was 4 or so, and it's nice to just learn yourself, but these days (and I'm thinking especially in a business environment), people really need to be taught how to use computers. Windows isn't really interesting to use though, and doesn't give me the same feeling of control/security (even fun?) that other OSs I've used have done (Amiga OS, Mac OS, Linux..)
which is totally what she said
This is so ironic. MS does a deal with Symantec for data-storage technologies, what ever that is, then cancels it and now Symantec is sueing them. If Symantec had any real technologies they would have devised a system for not getting 'viruses' same with Microsoft.
..
.. new legislation, increased enforcement [and ] industry self-regulation."
.. now that would be real innovation® (Microsoft Corp).
Meanwhile over on capitol hill
"Gates downplayed the idea of a technological fix to the spam problem. "There is no silver-bullet solution to the problem,"
No Mr. Gates, there is no Microsoft technological fix since it is Microsoft Windows that is the root cause of the problem. All those hacked Windows desktops awaiting use in the next phishing or DOS attack.
"Gates advocated
No Mr. Gates, making hacking a twenty year felony crime is not going to fix it either. What they should do is make it a twenty year felony offince to sell such a defective OS such as the one you produce.
"While trumpeting Microsoft's investment in antispam technology"
Why not make an OS that cannot be hijacked by the next spamking
davecb5620@gmail.com
Some insight in parent post, too. What is Symantecs management, as any other management, really after? Money. Would they get more money if Vista were released on time, and sold copies with Symantec IP on it, or if Vista were delayed and OSX/Linux gained momentum?
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
I suppose it would be too much trouble for Microsoft to just license the technology they needed instead of just taking it?
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be. - Douglas Adams
Did you consider that the threat to Symantec's business from Microsoft improving its security and releasing its own well integrated AV products at a very low cost might be so great that Symantec would find any way it could to lash out at them?
Microsoft is incorporating features into its operating system that they have taken copious amounts of flak for not having over the years.
/Analogy Alert
I don't think MS is being taken to task for not incorporating software like AV scanners, they're taking flak for making them so very necessary to begin with.
MS is in the business of building foundations. The ground shifts, foundations crack, leak and become less stable. Many companies exist that provide pump systems to drain leakage, patches for fixing cracks, anti-fungus/mildew companies, etc.
I don't want MS to get into any of those businesses and "bundle" it with the foundation. I want MS to focus on building a better foundation to begin with. Yes, bundling those services may seem beneficial at first, but then when you're making gobs of cash on those auxillary businesses, where's the incentive to make better foundations? What happens to the quality of service when those other businesses disappear?
So I take MS to task for not focusing more on its foundation, the OS, and including all the other stuff as a shortcut or bandage to fix a serious problem.