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."

Comments

Irony!

[crhylove]

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

Re:Irony!

[Crazyscottie]

Of course Symantec horse is biting the hand of the man that feeds it, but only because the horse knows that very soon (after a few more delays, I should say) the man won't need that horse anymore! This could be a lawsuit intended to delay the shipping of Vista.

More delays = Longer time until Microsoft's bundled security = More Symantec products sold

You get the picture.

if I were a technology company

[yagu]

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:

"These claims are unfounded because Microsoft actually purchased intellectual property rights for all elevant technologies from Veritas in 2004," the company said.

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!

Re:Interesting ploy

[ltwally]

Sounds an aweful lot like extortion to me. If they'd initiated this lawsuit a year ago, that'd have been one thing... but instead, they chose to take Microsoft to court as launch-day comes close.

"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."

Re:The enemy of your enemy not withstanding...

[somersault]

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..)

Re:No balls....

[marcello_dl]

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?