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."
So now they pay someone else to help them delay Vista. LOL how pathetic.......
What Symantec is doing is rather interesting. Either asking for an injunction is to truly stop MS from causing their business damage, or it is just a lever to get into MS's checkbook. Either way, it is going to be interesting to see how this one plays out. While Symantec is not the 600lb gorilla the MS is, it is certainly in the 300lb range.
My
... I'm sure it will be time for MS to announce their next generation of OS. or maybe server. who likes using 3 year old server software???
I think people use 'Ubuntu' in their posts to sound cool.
What? Vista might be delayed? I'm shocked.... SHOCKED!!
In soviet Russia, Linux compiles YOU!
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?
Microsoft announces another edition of Windows Vista; Windows Vista Forever.
In celebration of it's release, ID Software and Microsoft are teaming up to release Duke Nukem Forever on the same day!
This is clearly an instance of "democracy with American characteristics", involving lawyers to get somewhere.
Anyway, M$ can't afford to stall the launch any further, which means the users will have to pay for Symantec's share.
Hell, M$ might even start thinking more about security just to piss off Symantec. Or maybe put them out of business entirely, because they live like a parasite on M$.
*Microsoft Board Room Exec's Shit guys, the date is coming closer and closer, and we have NOTHING. What the HELL are we going to do? *Board members think for a while* Hey, I have an idea! Let's get Symantec to sue us for something stupid, and create an injunction that stops our product from coming out, so that we don't have to delay it again, and can use someone as a scapegoat! ...
Excelent idea! Give this man a promotion, a Ferrari, and hell, tell the programmers to take the week off!
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!
Instead, Symantec is alleging that Microsoft stole trade secrets from them (this is the contractual violation part) incorporated them into Vista (hence the petition for injunction).
Patents come into the picture because Symantec is also alleging the Microsoft filed for patents on this technology, claiming to have invented it itself.
The recent Supreme Court decision has (almost) put an end to injunctions. Since the damages in patent cases are restricted to "actual" (meaning lost business profit) damages, it is hardly worth the bother.
Expect to see patent holders pretty much ignored by all large companies, from now on.
I will create a sig when innovation restarts in the U.S.
Symantec purchased Veritas. Veritas wrote the volume manager (Disk Management in the mmc) that is used by Windows 2000 and later. If you check the registry, you'll find reference to the veritas volume manager.
Dynamic disks, shadow copy, etc. are all Veritas (now Symantec) products that MS licensed. Presumably MS are pushing something along these lines that'll interfere with Symantec's storage management market, so Symantec are getting nervous.
TFA is light on details as to exactly what bits are violating an agreement, but given this stuff has been around since Windows 2000 it's fairly safe to say it's reasonably well embedded into the OS - lots of stuff depends on those hooks now.
23 May 2006.
Microsoft released its latest patch set today for all versions of it's Windows Operating systems.
24 May 2006.
Symantec Products Failing en-mass.
Reports are coming in from all over the world today that Symantecs software is failing on all versions of windows, Symantec cannot explain it, and microsoft are not commenting.
sigh...
Ah, that would explain those ancient Mayan predictions of something terrible happening to the human race in 2012.
I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
, May Delay Vista
Sigs are for Terrorists.
"If it is granted, expect MS to settle to prevent another Vista delay." Or, if they find yet another reason they should work more on Vista, expect them not to settle to cover their butts much like a certain company once did due to source code theft (A company and game I happen to have the greatest respect for).
In undeveloped countries, the consumer controls the market. In capitalist America, the market controls you.
Holy sh*t! All of the comments in this thread about Symantec being worried about Microsoft's anti-virus product!
You apparently have forgotten that Symantec now owns Veritas -- you know, the company that had probably the most-used volume management software out there? Need I remind you that Veritas Volume Manager has been a part of Windows for many years? Windows 2000 even had VxVM incorporated into it. When you have a 2000 or XP disk that is configured as "dynamic" instead of "basic", you're looking at a Veritas Volume Manager disk, not a straight NTFS/FAT32 disk.
Even the article itself (emphases mine) says:
Microsoft said in a statement that the suit "stems from a very narrow disagreement" over terms of a contract with Veritas to license volume management technology, which allows operating systems to handle large amounts of data.
Apparently, Symantec either thinks that Microsoft has misappropriated the technology that they use in Veritas Volume Manager and incorporated it into Vista without giving Symantec that they want or they're using this as an excuse for a money grab. Either way, this has nothing to do with Microsoft's anti-virus product.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
Does this mean that Windows will finally have a real volume manager? Oh the humanity! Are we finally done with primary and extended partitions, and dynamic volumes, and all that crap? Can we just do something as elegant as "vgextend vg00 /dev/sda2" or similar ARC path crap?
Holy cow, maybe Vista WONT suck.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
You are missing the point that if they could do security, they would. They're not making horrid software on purpose -- this really is the best they can do. It's sad, really. There are ten new viruses a day. Millions of zombie bots wreak havoc on the internet. Botmaster spamkings brazenly demand ransom and shut down opponents with traffic storms. Absolutely no other OS from any source provides a fertile ground for this menace to grow. The only possible cure for this absurdity would be to ban Microsoft products entirely.
If Microsoft products were not so easily exploited (or were banned from the 'net), the Internet would be a much more pleasant place for the common person.
So no, they're not able to make secure software for the purpose of putting Symantec out of business. If I had points today I would have modded you funny.
Whenever they ship XP SP3 (Vista) it will have inadequate security. The first security hole in IE is going to be a raging vector for spyware because the default firewall config doesn't block outbound connections. Naturally if spyware doesn't have to overcome a firewall to deliver its reports that's helpful to whom?
I'm in the trade, so dealing with this stuff is my bread and butter -- I've installed more of their product than anybody I know, but really this is truly pathetic. It saddens me to know that my fellow humans reason so poorly as to keep this vendor a monopoly.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
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.
So all my MP3's will play around the same volume with me having to fiddle with the speaker controls! Yessss!
Oh, wait. Nevermind.
Microsoft is in a position to place antivirus/spyware apps into their OS. Symantec makes ~50% of all revenue from NAV. This lawsuit isn't much more than corporate blackmail. Microsoft agrees to not bundle their AV, or otherwise completely screw NAV, and Symantec agrees not to tie up Vista in court.
http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/libra ry/symanteccomplaint.pdf
MS: "Ok, how much will it take to make you go away?"
SYM: (in DR EVIL vioce) "ONE BILLION DOLLARS!"
MS: "a billion?!"
SYM: "Well, ya see, we gotta pay out taxes..."
While I don't doubt that Symantec has a valid point and that MS is using some of their IP without licensing it I have to ask...
Am I the only person sick to death of all the lawsuits and patents?
It seems like the world is getting more and more "locked down".
There is less and less anyone can do without knowingly or unknowlingly trampling someone else's IP.
To make matters worse there are Patent Trolls, locking up broad patents with the hopes of suing people to make money.
Those who can't sue.
All this has lead me to question the presumptions behind both copyrights and patents.
They were originally designed to spur innovation by protecting the people who invest their time and resources to research and develop new products or create original content.
It *SEEMS* to me that both are now acheiving the oppsite goal and limiting and hurting innovation.
While I don't think we can just get rid of either overnight, I think some careful consideration needs to go into reforming the laws to make sure that they serve their original purposes.
Just some thoughts that this discussion brought up for me...Cheers.
You forgot all the new features they stole from apple and open source projets. There's real innovation there. Seriously, IE7 is better than IE6 even if it didn't go far enough. I'm concerned about vista and still excited there's going to be a new POS to support. The same old tech calls get boring.
Look at it this way, vista will catch up to apple and KDE/Gnome. That means apple, kde and gnome will have to innovate and get ahead again. It creates competition which benefits everyone. We get 5 years of new features before Microsoft customers and they get 5 years worth of ideas every 5 years. Plus aren't we all running out of new ways to hate XP? The jokes aren't funny anymore.
Besides, if you were to ask me about OS reliability today i'd tell you i've personally had better luck with Windows XP and Windows 2000 than any linux install i've ever had or Mac OS 10.2/10.4. Of course i tend to use redhat with ext* or reiser file systems too. Mac OS 10.3, FreeBSD and Solaris have all been more reliable than Windows though. Only hardware failures have killed them. That's just my experience and anything from the 9x tree i'd consider to be less reliable than any version of linux i've ever used including redhat 5. Ok, i take that back.. if the power doesn't go out, linux on 2.4 or 2.6 is more reliable than mac os 10.4.
MidnightBSD: The BSD for Everyone
it took ten years. Well I was actually there. Msft already had (and still does have) pretty good "volume management" software before they got in bed with Veritas. It was in the product since first release back in 1993. A couple of us were slated to work on improving what Msft already had. From a marketing perspective, being able to say that we had the software, Veritas Volume Management (VVM) that was the "gold" standard (from a marketeers point of view), was something that many thought we HAD to have. I really question whether this turned out to be true. I argued vehemently against this contract, which I read from cover to conver. Clearly I argued ineffectively. One of my arguments at the time, was that we would never be able to claim we were better than what was out there because it certainly wasn't in Veritas' interest to produce a better product for Msft, while they still had a bunch of other OEMS using customized VVM. It was a done deal with Msft though. I certainly got inklings that within serveral years there was at least ONE very senior executive who wondered aloud why the heck this contract got signed. Makes you wonder how many folks actually did read the contract. In my own case, I retired within a year of the contract being signed, and have been happily self-unemployed since.
"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.
And whats even more funny is that Windows wouldnt exists without anti-virus!
Hmm... Don't know if Microsoft has been in talks with Symantec, but as for steam rolling over them, I would very much say so (not saying it's necessarily a bad thing though):
...and the list goes on. And their apps are getting a LOT more bothersome for their clients - especially the activation part. Someone I know bought NAV, only to discover it wouldn't let him activate it on 2 PCs or something (unlike the old version), and now it's not working anymore (plus pay for updates - getting too expensive, he moved to AVG too). And incredible bloat (NIS will bring a 2GHz PC to its knees), and countless bugs (we had tremendous problems with SAV at work, countless crashes, problems with office, you name it).
-They're going to offer an antivirus (in addition to their existing spyware removal software), making the use of SAV/NAV/NIS and such junk mostly pointless. [Not counting that most people seem to be moving to other AV apps lately like AVG and such - especially since NAV is getting harder to crack]
-They're including a basic firewall out of the box (not the best, but NIS is crap, that'd be like downgrading, if someone wants a better firewall, they'll get something that's actually better)
-Starting with Vista, they're replacing deployment tools, i.e. replacing RIS for WDS, but the interesting point here is XImage, which will likely replace ghost - the only symantec app that wasn't *total* crap yet (although lots of people have moved to/prefer acronis apps instead).
What's left? Winfax? Nope. Already a basic fax client in windows (it sucks, but I can't say winfax is great either, and most people/businesses that still use faxes nowadays don't do it via PC either). Doubt they sell many licenses.
Oh, PCAnywhere! Well, terminal services/citrix ICA is what everyone and their dog seems to be using these days (and apps like VNC/radmin). I haven't seen someone using it in a LONG time - definitely NOT mainstream either.
What else? Partition magic? Bleh. Those who wanted it bought it while it was Powerquest's - and it doesn't even seem to be updated anymore (symantec's specialty seems to be driving products into the ground - like novell seemingly). Buggier than ever, sounds like everyone prefers acronis apps for this nowadays.
The only thing they seem to have left that's worth buying is their new acquisition, veritas products. But I'm sure they'll manage to make them suck too, and drive them into the ground like everything else.
It seems they're not improving anything, they'd be the LEAST innovative company I could think of, and their junk just keeps getting worse.
Perhaps Veritas licenses alone can't keep the company afloat (unsurprisingly), and they're looking for a ne business model ala SCO (litigation, to prevent a new/better/more secure OS, or plain extorsion)
I'm sad to see many companies and products having been crushed by Microsoft over the years (OS/2, Corel stuff, you name it), but if there's one company I won't miss, it definitely is Symantec.
Reminds me of stacker.
Though that worked out well for the primaries of stacker ($600 million settlement, or something like that), the company failed during litigation........
One wonders if Microsoft is trying to "phase out" Symantec in the same fashion. Obviously, they believe it is cheaper to litigate/settle than license or buyout.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
I think perhaps the steamroller is on the other foot. Microsoft is incorporating features into its operating system that they have taken copious amounts of flak for not having over the years. When someone wants to flame their OS the first part that gets raked across the coals is security. With Vista they seem to want to step up and take responsibility for security by including a virus scanner. Isn't this something everyone has been saying they should have been doing all along?
"We shouldn't have to buy 3rd party software to be able to use Windows! That just ain't right."
So they step up, granted they sure shuffled there feet getting there.
"M$ is steamrolling 3rd party software that we bitched about having to buy in the first place! That just ain't right."
I'd say Microsoft just can't win no matter what they do, but the opposite seems to be more the case in reality.
As for Symantec "talking" with Microsoft, what do they really have to say? "Hey Microsoft, please don't make your product better because we want to continue to profit off picking up the slack." That'd kinda be like the oil companies saying, "Hey car companies, please don't make your cars more fuel efficient because we want to continue...
oh nevermind
Holy sh*t! All of the comments in this thread about Symantec being worried about Microsoft's anti-virus product!
Technically, you may be right. Practically though, it'd be very difficult fo Symantec to challenge MS' anti-virus offering and succeed on merit. Many big-time legal battles are fought to achieve something other than stated in the suit... SCO vs IBM being a prime example.
Symantec would love it if MS continued to remain their biggest source of revenue. And for that, MS has to keep releasing virus-prone OSes forever. With MS changing tack with Vista, Symantec would definintely look to collect as much as possible, before going down.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Not just that, but Veritas also wrote a file system for NT. I suspect it is this that they are accusing Microsoft of pinching.
MS then distributed IE for free and never paid a penny to them.
i remember that MS recently did lose a lawsuit for this, but the damage was done
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
f) Profit!
steampunk web design
... you are seriously forgetting about the most used symantec product in the corporate environment. Symantec Corporate Anti-virus. We use it, every company I support uses it (lots of companies). One client has over 7,000 machines running the client end of it, meanwhile there's all the domain controllers running the server end as well. Licenses... cha-ching cha-ching cha-ching! Unlike their comsumer level Norton AV, Symantec Corporate AV, in my experience, actually does it's job without being intrusive, AND it's nowhere near the resource hog that Norton AV is.
Ghost isn't as big as it used to be, and the rest is junk as you mentioned. I just needed to add in the corporate AV... it's their one decent product. If Symantec goes under, I won't miss all the other products, but the corporate AV would be missed.
Here is the deal. I dont think that I am taking sides, but in a way, everytime im "fixing" a windows box, I wish with all my heart that MS had some kind of "security" or scanner that could detect or clean malware.
Vista is starting to have the workings of anti-malware/security right? (or its supposed to) and thats not a bad thing from the users perspective.
However, this is a bad thing for Symantec. Like the integrated browser "solving" the browser war, Vistas integrated features may make many portions of Symantec's software redundant. Yes, we want Windows to have some security, backup, spyware detections etc, (and even a virus scanner would be nice) but that would hurt companies who specialize in this! And, unfortuneate for semantic windows Vista will be the only OS of the near futre that would need a security/backup suite (ok maybe a few macs)
I think Symantec senses a possible "end is near" and is moving to head it off. Yes, i would like free builtin security tools but at what cost? Thousands of offshore outsourced jobs could be lost!