Symantec’s trade secret lawsuit against Microsoft is a sign of heightened competition between the two companies [ed. note: no, really?], but it’s not a declaration of war, analysts said. “The relationship has definitely shifted from collaboration to ‘coopetition’ and, in some cases, to outright competition.”
symantec should develop their own operating system so they don’t have to be crying all the time
Why ? They are an application provider. The are crying because they are having business taken away “unfairly” from them.
If the anti-virus etc is included, who is going to spend money buying a different one ?
This isn’t about anti-virus, but about Veritas. They bought Veritas (a company who made huges amounts of money charging large companies to do data backup) and apparently MS is using technology that was gained inappropriately. It’ll be interesting to see what happens. Since Balmer said that Vista would not be delayed by this, it means that MS will probably pay to get a license for the tech that they are using.
Since Balmer said that Vista would not be delayed by this, it means that MS will probably pay to get a license for the tech that they are using.
They’ll pay or just cut another *feature* and dump the new windows backup service. I mean hey whats one more feature ripped out? The OS is already a far cry from what was originally presented to the public.
Symantec claims MS is using the tech without a license and MS claims they sorted out that stuff already (read: before Symantec bought Veritas).
Who to believe? No clue. I’m not a fan of Symantec in general though. I have had too many problems emanating from their consumer products to trust them on anything.
If the anti-virus etc is included, who is going to spend money buying a different one ?
Hell, I’m amazed people pay for Symantec anyways. I won’t even use it when it’s included free. I’d almost prefer to let malware roam free on my system, it’s slightly less damaging and easier to remove than Symantec is.
Yes, I’m bitter.
Norton Antivirus. Ruin your system before the virus does.
Back in 1998 (or 99) I shortly had Norton something installed. But it made the system much more unstable so it got uninstalled in less than five minutes. Since then I’ve avoided Norton, and usually been sticking to lesser known (but better working) software solutions (security through obscurity).
And exactly what will they sell?
Symantec needs Windows in the worst way. Their only claim to fame is virus protection and spyware and neither of them work on MacOS or Solaris or Linux.
Beware symantec, you just took a banana out of the hand of the 800lb gorilla and he is not amused.
Actually in this case the 800lb gorilla took the banana from Symantec’s hand. Microsoft wasn’t in the anti-virus and anti-spyware business first.
My bad, I forgot about the whole veritas patent issue; however, I do think there is a lot of tension between the two companies because Symantec is in the AV business, and Microsoft is just starting to get involved there too. I think the threat of Microsoft moving in has existing AV companies ready to launch an antitrust case against Microsoft, and Microsoft knows this is a good possibility so they themselves have put on a poker face. If this is all going to lead to a big bang, I’m sure the veritas patent is going to become cannon fodder.
Microsoft wasn’t in the anti-virus and anti-spyware business first.
No but they created the need for the anti-spyware market with ActiveX and IE. Idiots.
I hope their going out of business is slow and painful and causes them to rethink all the years they’ve extorted customers and treated them horribly with bad “protection” software that never quite cuts it.
Go Microsoft, end Norton and McAfee forever please.
symantec should develop their own operating system
Sure, and who will use it? What will it run? How will it compete?
Most PC users will criticize anything which isn’t Windows because it won’t run the latest games or MS Office, and Linux folks will criticize it because it won’t be “free” (unless Symantec surprises me and releases an OS with source).
Such an OS will be rejected by both sides, and will find itself used by a few enthusiasts but nobody else. See BeOS for a good example of this.
A number of companies (IBM, Sun, Be) have tried to release their own OSes in the x86 space, and for the most part they’ve gone nowhere, at least in the long run (both OS/2 and BeOS had runs of sorts, but are nonfactors in today’s marketplace).
The only question is Microsoft will settle for how much ?
The only question is Microsoft will settle for how much ?
Any other day of the week and I’d call you a moron (truly I believe you are one) but for once you’ve posted something I have to agree with.
Symantec should be grateful to Microsoft for creating a multi-billion dollar industry around their own (purposeful?) incompetence.
Now, Microsoft in turn is just trying to cash out on it like Symantec.
Microsoft for should go down like the unholy flaming poo that they are in a Extortion and Racketeering case for this. Its quite obviously a conflict of interest for Microsoft to create flawed software and then turn around and sell “protection services” (bloody hell…they’re even calling it what the mob calls it!) to fix the problem they built into it.
It is not related to anti-virus nor security as such.
It is because Symantec believes Microsoft is using technology patented by Symantec (actually Veritas).
The old RTFA would’ve worked too…
I think Symantec is just trying to drum up anything it can to asail MS (not that they don’t deserve it, though is it a waste of tax dollars?…or Euros?…or $CURRENCY, depending on where they decide to start filing other suits).
“Microsoft for should go down like the unholy flaming poo that they are in a Extortion and Racketeering case for this. Its quite obviously a conflict of interest for Microsoft to create flawed software and then turn around and sell “protection services” (bloody hell…they’re even calling it what the mob calls it!) to fix the problem they built into it.”
So if a car company sells cars that do not come with locks on the doors or a keyed ignition, but included those things as options for so much money a month, would that be “Extortion and Racketeering”?
After all you are making it easier for criminals to break into it just so that you can sell your subscription for “protection services”.
The thing is nobody is making anybody use Windows. If they want to include antivirus software, who cares? If you think so badly of MS don’t use their product, end of story.
MS is treading on Symantec’s lawn by moving into the security market.
Symantec is mad so they are leveraging technology from their recent Verities acquisition to attack MS in court.
MS may be evil, but Symantec is still behaving like a 5 year old.
Two lame companies fighting each other.
Let ’em fight.
(In the meanwhile: I’ll make some coffee, buy some snacks, and watch them fight – just for the fun of it)
Two lame companies fighting each other.
I don’t use either personally nor send my money to feed their BMW and Caviar habits.
This is NOT an anti-virus, anti-spyware issue. This has to do with filesystem technology that Symantec aquired with their acquisition of Veritas. As far as Symantec losing out when vista is introduced.. do you seriously think that the whole malware thing is going to go away overnight? There are still tons of machines that aren’t running winxP. Some of the trash tech rags out ther have already recommended that corporations do not upgrade to Vista until it achieves SP1 status. Combine all this with the talk that Vista is nothing more than Xp gen 11 and i think symantec will be selling their anti malware products for some time..albeit with revenues doing a gradual decline. Also given Microsoft’s already stellar track record of producing bullet proof software(sarcasm) what will happen when that brilliant Russian hacker discovers a way to do an end around on Microsoft’s new virus proof flagship?
Symantec behavior is not strange at all, even with whom they feed them.
Symantec behavior with its customers is horrible too; If for example you forgot to update your Norton Internet Security subscription one day after it expires the whole package will disengage including the firewall and the antivirus software, they even do not consider the less harmful “no updates” approach, they stick with “no service” at all.
One time that happened to me and my computer became infested with viruses, I had XP SP1 which didn’t have the firewall to take over in this unfortunate event, So I lost precious time doing system recovery.
Edited 2006-05-23 08:28
The trash collector is suing the slob home owner for trying to clean up his yard. I have no love for Microsoft but what I detest more are companies that have enjoyed the bounty of the Microsoft monopoly suddenly turning righteously indignant.
In this case I am rooting for Microsoft. In fact I am looking forward to the day Microsoft will swallow up all the software and hardware companies that have assisted and promoted this monopoly.
Windows security sucks, big time. That’s great for Semantec business.
But wait, MS is trying to improve it’s image, and lessen it’s headaches, thus is providing it’s own AV products embedded with Windows (they’ll never make it as secure as *nix, unless they rebuild it on top of BSD or Solaris or something).
Say bye bye to Semantec’s (and McAfee’s) AV business. Unless, of course, MS’s AV offerings prove to suck (which could be the case). And we can all depend on Windows being a security nightmare.
It’s not a question of if there will be a need for AV protection on Windows, it’s a question who provides it, MS, or it’s ISV partners. Once MS decides it will be the provider out of the box, the ISV’ were just thrown in the garbage heap.
That’s what happens when you make deals with the devil – you get screwed in the end.
And this sort of thing happens with any ISV that partners too close to MS. Eventually, MS will move in on it’s business (a business that helped build MS’s business).
Sure, it’s easy to target the dominant desktop platform, and ignore cross platform solutions. But it sure as heck is very risky, when you’re talking about MS.
Say bye bye to Semantec’s (and McAfee’s) AV business.
There’s always room for somebody who can build a better mousetrap. I’m sure that Symantec can still find ways to add value to Windows security — even if MS improves its security.
Basically, this boils down to a dispute over what technology Veritas licensed to Microsoft before Symantec acquired Veritas. Symantec says that MS is using IP that it owns — Microsoft said it licensed the tech legally from Veritas. Frankly, anybody who claims to know which party is RIGHT at this point is full of CRAP. This lawsuit could very well be a shot across the bow by Symantec to intimidate (aka settle) with MS in order to prevent MS from encroaching on security market territory that Symantec feels belongs to it. No way to tell at this point.