Win 8 Security Bundle An Antitrust Magnet

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Damn, not this crap again?

Microsoft could be saddled with antitrust lawsuits for bundling its Windows Defender security suite with the upcoming Windows 8 operating system (OS), as such an act may be considered an abuse of a dominant position within the industry, lawyers said.
Click to expand...

My opinion? Don't build your entire business around another company's product and you wont have this issue. What happens if Windows 8 ships without any need for security at all (heh, quit laughing...it could happen), is Microsoft going to be sued for putting Symantec, McAfee and everyone else out of business?
 
I'm not convinced that security products are something applicable to antitrust lawsuits.

Lemme sell you this car, but it has no door locks. Because I am required by law to give car door lock companies the opportunity to sell you their services.
 
So basically they may be sued for trying to secure their own product. This thing has gone so far past ridiculous that I don't even know where to start.
 
its a well known fact that only Apple is allowed to include everything for 'free' without it violating anti-trust laws.
 
Any security software vendor that is going to go legal on MS for trying to make a more secure product can kiss my ass.
 
I'm not a big MS fan, but I think this antitrust thing is stupid. They should be allowed to do whatever they want, it's their product. If they want to ship it with a bunch of FPS games, antivirus, office software etc, then why should they not be allowed to?
 
I noticed a few months ago that Symantec had already started posting things on their website about Windows 8 and how the security is not good enough. This lawsuit has been a long time in the making.
 
Steve said:
...What happens if Windows 8 ships without any need for security at all (heh, quit laughing...it could happen), is Microsoft going to be sued for putting Symantec, McAfee and everyone else out of business?
Click to expand...

Yes, yes they would.
 
Cobalt35 said:
So basically they may be sued for trying to secure their own product. This thing has gone so far past ridiculous that I don't even know where to start.
Click to expand...
+^This^+ For some, the idea that the creator of the OS would know how best to protect it is reassuring. Norton, McAfee, have been around for 15+ years and they still haven't eradicated the bugs.;) Maybe they need to get into some other line of business
 
Admittedly I am no fan of Microsoft. It is established fact that the Microsoft corporation is a convicted felon. It is my opinion that if the current Department of Justice was actually interested in prosecuting anti-trust charges against Microsoft they would find a large number of criminal violations and be able to prove those violations in court.

I don't think the security software inclusion is one those violations.

I think Microsoft has much larger problems on their hands than pissy anti-malicious software vendors. Such problems include but are not limited to:

  • The consumer reaction to Windows 8 UI which basically consists of What the *censored*?"
  • The inability to address the technological advances of the KDE Plasma Desktop Environment as of KDE-SC 4.6 over Windows 7.
  • The inability to address the technological advances of the KDE Software Complication including Plasma-Active and the Contour-workspace.
  • The inability for the management to make decisions that make sense: e.g. 8.5 billion for the Skype client list and the deal with Nokia.
  • The inability to sell existing Windows XP users on why they should upgrade to Windows 7, much less another version of Windows after Windows 7.
  • The inability to target where Android/Linux and IOS/Mach_BSD will be in software functionality by the time Windows 8 hits the market.
  • The inability to target where ARM and x86+ hardware will be when Windows 8 hits the market.

Accusations of anti-trust actions over bundled security software shouldn't even be on Microsoft's radar right about now.
 
and here you have farking apple sueing everyone and the authorities do not intervene.
 
Didn't take long for a nix user to come in and post a ridiculous and nonsensical manifesto..
 
Saist said:
Admittedly I am no fan of Microsoft. It is established fact that the Microsoft corporation is a convicted felon. It is my opinion that if the current Department of Justice was actually interested in prosecuting anti-trust charges against Microsoft they would find a large number of criminal violations and be able to prove those violations in court.

I don't think the security software inclusion is one those violations.

I think Microsoft has much larger problems on their hands than pissy anti-malicious software vendors. Such problems include but are not limited to:

  • The consumer reaction to Windows 8 UI which basically consists of What the *censored*?"
  • The inability to address the technological advances of the KDE Plasma Desktop Environment as of KDE-SC 4.6 over Windows 7.
  • The inability to address the technological advances of the KDE Software Complication including Plasma-Active and the Contour-workspace.
  • The inability for the management to make decisions that make sense: e.g. 8.5 billion for the Skype client list and the deal with Nokia.
  • The inability to sell existing Windows XP users on why they should upgrade to Windows 7, much less another version of Windows after Windows 7.
  • The inability to target where Android/Linux and IOS/Mach_BSD will be in software functionality by the time Windows 8 hits the market.
  • The inability to target where ARM and x86+ hardware will be when Windows 8 hits the market.

Accusations of anti-trust actions over bundled security software shouldn't even be on Microsoft's radar right about now.
Click to expand...

You're wrong on every count except that anti-trust over Microsoft securing their own product is ridiculous.

In order:

1) You can use a desktop setup still with Windows 8, and the Metro UI is going to be great for touch devices.
2) KDE Plasma Desktop? I think I can count on zero fingers who cares that I know in real life or online. Linux doesn't run virtually anything I use, and Windows works incredibly well.
3) Again, who cares? The desktop could be a space shuttle made for the masses, and no one would care, because it doesn't run most anything for desktop users, is a gigantic learning curve for non-tech people, and there's no need to switch. The functionality just isn't there underneath.
4) Who are you to call on those acquisitions? I'm going to hazard a guess here MicroSoft knows more about their needs for business advancement than you.
5) There have always been people who were extremely slow to upgrade, if they ever did. That hasn't changed today. I remember troubleshooting people on DOS when Win3.1 was around... Win95 when XP was around... and today, XP when Win7 is around. What do the habits of a minority of computer users even matter to you on that?
6) Proof? Sounds like a baseless accusation... and Android is not meant to be a desktop replacement.
7) Proof? It can and will be able to run on ARM.

Un-be-lievable, you are.
 
Im going to laugh my ass off when the EU tries to sue MS for including an apps store in Windows, and them MS points out "you let Apple do it". Hell, they already sued because MS included *GASP* IE? Ugh.
 
At least with American anti-trust law there also has to be some harm to consumers. That's practically impossible in this case.
 
Yeah, next they shouldn't be allowed to bundle a browser with Windows. Yes yes, we all hate IE, but the fact of the matter is they shouldn't be barred from giving their customers basic usage out of the box.

Maybe next we should ban Explorer and force people to install third party Windows Managers. Or force Microsoft to not include a Firewall so you have to pick the software. Or not include a default defragging program and picking people to force their own as well. Where does it stop?

Besides, MSE is better than any AV program that McAfee, Symantec, AVG, et all have put out in the last fucking decade, so unless they produce a better product I'll stick with what Microsoft is putting out.
 
Bundling Security Essentials is about as anti-monopoly as bundling internet explorers with windows.

Microsoft Windows repetation is damaged every time Apple hammers them with "It isn't secure"

But posting a free easy to use security suite for free, Microsoft is acting in their own best interest to protect their reputation. (And it's a pretty darn good one too.) Although I do back it up with Malware Anti-Bytes, and once a month a full scan of Spybot search & destroy. (Lesser known security vendors are harder for viruses to target and disable)

Security essentials lacks corporate level protection however. So it's meant to be a small home office solution. So the big overbloated big boys (Symantic Norton whoever) can $$$ the heck out of corporate environments.
 
i want to sue nokia for making their dumbphones unbreakable, they put me out of business as a case designer/seller!
 
DigitalGriffin said:
Bundling Security Essentials is about as anti-monopoly as bundling internet explorers with windows.

Microsoft Windows repetation is damaged every time Apple hammers them with "It isn't secure"

But posting a free easy to use security suite for free, Microsoft is acting in their own best interest to protect their reputation. (And it's a pretty darn good one too.) Although I do back it up with Malware Anti-Bytes, and once a month a full scan of Spybot search & destroy. (Lesser known security vendors are harder for viruses to target and disable)

Security essentials lacks corporate level protection however. So it's meant to be a small home office solution. So the big overbloated big boys (Symantic Norton whoever) can $$$ the heck out of corporate environments.
Click to expand...

That's what Microsoft Forefront Client Security is for
 
I can understand the anti-trust issue with Internet Explorer, and somewhat with Media Player; but having a secure environment* out of the box is in a good thing. Microsoft can (and maybe should) include an anti-virus choice on first run, and with the 'important action' flag. Bonus points if the Microsoft anti-virus is kept up to date with windows update, even if not enabled, and enables by default when another product is uninstalled.

* Let's pretend anti-virus = secure environment.
 
Imagine the money independent auto repair shops lost out on when the dealer did warranty work on my car. OUTLAW WARRANTIES!
 
I think the DOJ should look into the big anti-virus players like Symantec and McAfee and the rest. They clearly have a conflict of interest: they only exist in the presence of malware and the threat of malware infection. If MS can make their OS less vulnerable to malware infection this takes profits directly out of their coffers. If virus-writing scum and their script kiddie minions stopped deploying malware, these companies would go out of business. So how can you even trust them? Their motivation is for you to remain fearful enough about infection that you will pay them an annual fee for "protection." Sounds like any other racket to me.
 
to those who use the car analogy, I'm not sure if it works. Car parts are from various manufacturers. You have JVC or Bose for your radio and speakers, Wesco for your seatbelts, AC Delco for your spark plugs and filters, and so on. Car manufacturers don't make everything on their own. They license other brands into their design.

Microsoft used to do the same thing for Windows - Citrix for terminal server ICA, Symantec for defragmenting hard drives. I'm not sure why they can't simply scout a proficient security company like NOD32 for Windows 8 security to satisfy anti-trust scrutiny. By using NOD32, Microsoft could tell Symantec to take a hike because they're not making their own.
 
Why does this sort of remind me of when all the antivirus companies cried "Vista locks us out of the kernel so we're irrelevant now" and got MS to open it up to them (likely making the OS more insecure)?
Maybe a bit different, but I get that same sort of feeling about this.
 
I want to sue the government. Because it comes pre-installed with full of Idiots, and it doesn't let me uninstall them.
 
I don't get this. It's their OS. They can put anything they want in it. If you don't like it, find another revenue generator.
 
Azhar said:
to those who use the car analogy, I'm not sure if it works. Car parts are from various manufacturers. You have JVC or Bose for your radio and speakers, Wesco for your seatbelts, AC Delco for your spark plugs and filters, and so on. Car manufacturers don't make everything on their own. They license other brands into their design.

Microsoft used to do the same thing for Windows - Citrix for terminal server ICA, Symantec for defragmenting hard drives. I'm not sure why they can't simply scout a proficient security company like NOD32 for Windows 8 security to satisfy anti-trust scrutiny. By using NOD32, Microsoft could tell Symantec to take a hike because they're not making their own.
Click to expand...

That's because auto manufacturer's know they can't make every part and so they sub out that work to other OEM's who can.
 
Antivirus companies are afraid of losing that $60 or what ever they charge a year for antivirus updates.

And I agree with what others said offering built in antivirus is a very good thing.
 
I bet the Trumpet Winsock guys wish they had held on just a little bit longer... CHA-CHING!
 
MDboyz said:
I want to sue the government. Because it comes pre-installed with full of Idiots, and it doesn't let me uninstall them.
Click to expand...

You can uninstall every four or six years. But we keep re-installing hoping that will speed up the system.

See, the problem is we think those clowns are a reliable a good old WIndows XP. If only.
 
McG2k1 said:
its a well known fact that only Apple is allowed to include everything for 'free' without it violating anti-trust laws.
Click to expand...

Of course any of those applications can be removed completely, at any time. Usually as easily as dragging the application to the trash and emptying it, in Mac OS X. Apple isn't integrated them into the OS (like Explorer was!) with no way to remove them, which was one of the major things Microsoft got in trouble for!
 
timta2 said:
Of course any of those applications can be removed completely, at any time. Usually as easily as dragging the application to the trash and emptying it, in Mac OS X. Apple isn't integrated them into the OS (like Explorer was!) with no way to remove them, which was one of the major things Microsoft got in trouble for!
Click to expand...

Also Apple isn't 90% or whatever of the PC industry, so they aren't in a near monopolistic position like MS, so the can't stifle competition (it's a different story in the mobile device market).

Shipping an OS without some kind of robust malware protection in 2012 is like shipping a car without seatbelts and air-bags, basically ridiculous and irresponsible.

At this point I think the third party anti-malware providers are pretty close to jumping the shark, from synergistic to parasitic, if they haven't already.
 
SonicTron said:
I'm not convinced that security products are something applicable to antitrust lawsuits.

Lemme sell you this car, but it has no door locks. Because I am required by law to give car door lock companies the opportunity to sell you their services.
Click to expand...

Knight_of_BAAWA said:
Or sell it without factory tires. Or a factory radio. Or seats. Or steering wheel.
Click to expand...

Although I do understand where you guys are going at and I don't mean to crash the party but....

The locks aren't made by car companies to begin with as well as the factory radios, seats, or wheels.

A lot of car companies has outsourced their audio equipment decades ago to pioneer, alpine, or some other company. Of course 95% of these cars are equipped with low tier stuff that can't touch real aftermarket stuff.

Since when have we seen "Ford tires" or "Nissian tires"? Never because they don't make it. It is pretty common to see car companies switch tires on a newer year car even if it is the same generation.

There is a handful of cars out there with their seats made by companies like Brembo. Although Brembo makes high end bucket seats they also make some OEM stuff. I know the 8th gen Honda Civic Si has some comfty bucket seats made mostly by Brembo. I think the STi seats is made by Brembo as well.

Car locks I am not too sure really.
 
Also same goes for Rims.

Pretty much almost all OEM rims are outsourced. Very few are made by the car companies themselves but usually I find them on more expensive cars, or upgrades.
 
McG2k1 said:
its a well known fact that only Apple is allowed to include everything for 'free' without it violating anti-trust laws.
Click to expand...

What? ..You don't get a damn thing for free from apple.

Maybe that's the answer...MS should put it on their own hardware and overprice the hell out of it. ...or then maybe apple would sue them...lose lose I guess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top