Will Microsoft's antivirus move draw antitrust fire?
Microsoft's decision to offer free antivirus software puts rivals such as McAfee and Symantec in a tough position.
To be sure, those two--and other rivals--will be able to tout products that offer a broader range of features than Microsoft plans to deliver with "Morro" next year. At the same time, "nada" is a tough price to compete against.
That raises the question of whether those companies or others may look to antitrust regulators for help. We've put queries into those companies and also posed the antitrust question to Microsoft. I'll let you know what we hear back.
One thing in Microsoft's corner is the fact there are already free antivirus products on the market, such as AVG, though typically security vendors look to upsell consumers from low-cost or free products to higher-end ones.
Microsoft appears to be getting out of the paid security software business, at least on the consumer end. (Microsoft still plans to offer paid security products for businesses).
Also, Microsoft said it plans to deliver Morro as a free download rather than bundling it with the operating system--another move that could dampen some antitrust concerns.
It's unclear whether giving away software that others charge for will ultimately be enough to justify regulatory action. Although one antitrust lawyer predicts rival security firms will complain and that antitrust authorities will listen.
"Sure, there will be antitrust issues. They're just...daring the antitrust authorities to knock it off," said Daniel Wall of the San Francisco firm of Latham & Watkins. "This is an old issue, the notion of them giving away for free products that others sell and it is absolutely guaranteed to get the attention of the antitrust authorities in Europe, Korea, Japan, and other jurisdictions."
"They're incorrigible," Wall said of Microsoft.
Antitrust regulators in the U.S. have tended to focus on harm to consumers as opposed to competitors. Authorities in Europe and Korea have taken a broader view, taking action against Microsoft for actions deemed to hurt competitors, such as bundling its media player into Windows.
Both Europe and Korea have required Microsoft to offer versions of its operating system without certain components. In this case, though, Microsoft is not talking about distributing the antivirus code as part of Windows itself.
Representatives from Microsoft, Symantec, and McAfee were not immediately available to comment.
CNET News' Elinor Mills contributed to this report.
Update 4:45 p.m. PST: Here's what Microsoft had to say.
"We are focused on addressing the security needs of consumers," Amy Barzdukas, a senior director in Microsoft's Online Services and Windows Division, said in a statement. "We will, of course, continue to comply with any government rulings."
Update 6:25 p.m.: And we got comment from security firms McAfee and Sophos.
McAfee spokesman Joris Evers, asked if his company would raise an antitrust complaint over Microsoft's move, said: "It's too early to say anything about that."
Over at Sophos--which focuses on the enterprise market and so doesn't compete with Microsoft's consumer security products--Senior Technology Consultant Graham Cluley predicted antitrust issues would not arise.
"I am no expert on such things, but provided Microsoft does not bundle 'Morro' in with its operating system I would be surprised if there were antitrust issues," he said in an e-mail. "Anything which encourages more people to run antivirus has to be good news for all of us."
Asked if Microsoft would ever consider bundling the security features into Windows, Microsoft's Barzdukas said: "I can't foresee such a time."
During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft. E-mail Ina. 
/P
What Microsoft did was give away Explorer for free, driving Netscape Navigator from a 90% market share to - well, zero, now that it is obsolete. Same thing with other products. No wonder when Microsoft stirs, some people get nervous.
Plus, of course, Windows already comes with Defender.
Of course we have a great example of this exact phenomenon already, right? Linux has totally destroyed Windows' OS share...oh, wait.
You confuse Linux (which most folks still know nothing about) with OSX (which is a household name by now).
Please try to keep up, thx.
"it was meant to illustrate that Apple would destroy Windows' OS share almost overnight if it began giving away the software for free-"
Interesting notion. Flawed and based in fantasy, but interesting none the less.
The fact is the world is driven only by greed. Morals take a very far far back seat, like being in anther state back seat. If it isn't Microsoft or Apple screwing people it is AT&T, Walmart, etc. Until the world stops the greed and starts living like civilized people that want to ensure that all humans on this planet don't go with out the basics of life the world will keep slipping deeper in to hell.
Robert
Not bundling it with Windows makes this a non-issue. I hope none of my tax dollars get wasted "investigating" this. The open market will decide which product gets used.
OSX has the same type of security issues as Windows; another fact that you can discover easily with your favorite search engine. No one exploits them because until recently, it was not worth it. Why shoot at a mouse when there is a mammoth standing next to it (caveman analogy)
If you want to post fiction, find another site to do it on.
Oh. I hear you already..."Why shoot at a mouse when there is a mammoth standing next to it (caveman analogy)"
Love it! I'll take better productivity over being more popular anyday.
Simply amazing that a MS must develop software for their software.
I have used Windows almost daily for the past 13 years and Macs occasionally. Despite the enormous amount of malware that exists on Windows, I have only been infected < 5 times, most recently by a social engineering attack via Messenger. I suspect that we both have low infection rates for the same reason, because we know the proper way to use our computer.
Sounds like you need to teach your teenager what you know; unusable in 3 days is pretty extreme. You would not send him/her out driving without training. Treat the internet the same way. You can get injured in any car, from Yugo to Mercedes if you do not know what you are doing. Same goes with your desktop OS and falling victim to malware. Learn how to use it and protect yourself; don't place a false sense of security in your car or your OS.
Another thing, if people were not productive on Windows, 90% of PC users would not buy them so that productivity claim does not carry much weight.
Perhaps you should stick with OS X because apparently you are an idiot when it comes to Windows. I've had XP since day one and in that time, I have only seen one of my boxes get hit with any sort of spyware, and it took all of 3 minutes to remove. I've never encountered a virus, never had any of the problems that Apple fanatics always hit on. Maybe next time you will do Windows Updates and tell your son to avoid the midget pr0n... and he might have a safer computer.
I'm running OS X, Ubuntu, XP and Vista 64 at home and never had a problem on any of my systems. The XP box runs 24x7 with an open port for ShoutCast and runs just as well now as the day I put it together. It's running ZoneAlarm, Firefox, Avast, Winamp and ShoutCast and it's been running for well over 3 years. So if you and your kid ruined a PC within 72 hours, it was either unprotected, unpatched and running old versions of IE... or you are full of BS!
the recipe is simple: DON'T GIVE YOUR TEENAGER ADMINISTRATOR PRIVILEGES ON THE COMPUTER. Keep admin password for yourself, make everybody else (including yourself) a simple Limited User. That worked for me since Windows 2000, with two teenagers.
Tsk. Tsk. Such animosity...
I was simply responding to "NewsReader's" comments about the multitude of OSX viruses. My experience only.
Why on earth should I be concerned about installing anti-virus software on a computer, when there is a platform which alleviates the necessity?
I am no MS fan, I buy what works for me, and the world does run on Windows.
I am one of those people that do run "FREE" antivirus, one supplied by my IP, and other on my old laptop (they free one from my IP is so blotted, to much RAM).
The MS antivirus will be looking at but I will give it a few months to prove itself as a worthy program.
I know I am pretty ignorant and uneducated on these matters, but I think it's the fact that Apple do lock down its hardware, OS and software that helps avoid any Antitrust issues, because they are not supplying anything to anyone else. They would be deemed as not unfairly preventing competition as they are a manufacturing entity unto themselves. That, along with a comparatively small market share of course.
Perhaps I think of it like a car manufacturer or similar industry. BMW don't have to licence out their engines, iDrive interface or any technological advancements with components on their cars. Things would be different if they did licence them out, or chose to supply other manufacturers. If they then tried to unethically force other manufacturers to use their components over someone else's, that would be deemed unfair to competitors. This would be seen as trying to lock competitors out of a market, rather than offering a different take on a product aimed at a common market.
If and when Apple ever open up their OS, then watch the restrictions and potential Antitust issues come flying in from all corners because of their business model. Bundling of decent software is one point Apple sells its product on, but with an open OS they would face the same issues MS faces, especially outside the US. Until that day though, perhaps buy Apple if want a BMW packaged with the most things you need (good but paying premium price), or Windows if you want a custom hot rod you can tune to your liking.
Oops.. I wrote a lot... mostly off topic! Quiet day at work :) Sorry about the rant.
It might be, but again may not be.
It might be because they are using their market position (Windows) to squeeze out competitors in a market that they do not have dominance in (A/V). See, nearly all A/V software out there is written for one platform - Windows. Most of the rest (e.g. ClamAV) is wrritten to scan for malware that affects Windows. Only a tiny handful of anti-malware is written for OSX, Linux, or the like - simply because on OSX and/or Linux, such software is considered (and at this time rightfully so) a waste of time, money, and system resources (unlike Windows, where A/V is a near-necessary tool for system survival on any public network).
Now... it might not be because it's not being enforced (e.g. it's not pre-bundled, although Windows Defender is, BTW) and it's sort of something they naturally should've done anyway (well, they should've written a halfway securable OS architecture, but I digress). Problem is, they should've done it before an entire industry arose from the act of keeping a typical Windows machine from becoming some script kiddie's b!tch.
Either way, no skin off my nose. It'll be fun to watch, though. :)
OSX has had many patches and updates since it's inception to fix serious security vulnerabilities, the fact that few of the attacks against those vulnerabilities has been able to survive and proliferate in the wild says more about OSX's true market penetration than it does about any inherent lack of vulnerability in OSX.
You mention that Microsoft should have written a more securable OS? Well, Apple didn't write a more securable OS, they took an OS already written by others (BSD), took a lot of other code from the open source community without returning anything, and added a tiny bit of eye-candy to it. And they still have to go back and issue security updates because the eye candy they add keeps creating vulnerabilities and instabilities! At least Microsoft writes or pays for the code for Windows. I wonder what OSX would be like if Apple programmers had actually written it instead of riding on the backs of the open source community?
"Well, Apple [...] took a lot of other code from the open source community without returning anything..."
http://www.apple.com/opensource/
...you were saying? Hate to break your argument, but they do give back - in spades. They even give you all of their development tools (Xcode) for free. The very core, Darwin, is 100% free and open source. They only built one proprietary bit - the GUI, Aqua. That said, X11 is right there on the page I listed.
(and to be honest, BSD is one hell of a secure base from which to build one's OS.)
The beauty of using OpenSource is that OSX is not this amorphous locked-down monstrosity of code that Windows is.
When Microsoft releases the source code to its core (without demanding a metric ton of money and NDAs first), then we'll talk. Until then, sorry... your argument doesn't fly very well.
/P
But here - let me put it in easy terms for you, Mark: You're trying to say that a modern Norwegian Cruise ship's architecture (OSX) is just as vulnerable and sinkable as the eras-old architecture of RMS Titanic (Windows). Sure, the modern cruise ship holds a lifeboat drill before each sailing, and sure it gets patched and updated now and again. OTOH, It has yet to sink, and nothing has yet to sink it. Its internal structure and operations are built specifically to make it very hard to sink - unlike the historical hubris and haphazard tech that --in spite of being the acme of its day-- RMS Titanic suffered under.
Get the picture now? :)
/P
"Only a tiny handful of anti-malware is written for OSX, Linux, or the like - simply because on OSX and/or Linux, such software is considered (and at this time rightfully so) a waste of time, money, and system resources (unlike Windows, where A/V is a near-necessary tool for system survival on any public network)."
In case you are curious, this is the sort of comment that earns you the reputation of being a troll. It's also very irresponsible for anyone in an system administrator role to believe this. It's the mark of an amateur or incompetent one if this is the case.
But you are right, it's no skin off your nose- you've got a bit too much brown now from another source.
But it can be sunk.
Now that we've cleared that up let's move on shall we? :)
Anti-trust? Give me a break... there is a whole industry dedicated to giving software away for free where there are paid alternatives. As long as it isn't bundled with Windows then the anti-trust people should keep their greasy hands off.
And kudos to MS for the move. Security should have been the focus the moment they decided to develop the NT kernel. Don't praise 'em often but this is a move in the right direction.
Norton and the others make bloated crapware..Just ask Leo LaPorte.
Windows Live One Care scanning tool works great. I use it just for fun but I never get any viruses anyways.
Viruses and spyware are caused by what we call PEBCAK. Problem Exists Between Computer And Keyboard. Four and a half years virus/spyware free on XP.
- by kheechun November 19, 2008 1:42 AM PST
- Indeed, the anti-virus software category shouldn't even have existed. In a way, antivirus softwares are same as spywares: they benefit from OS vulnerability.
- Reply to this comment
-
-
- by medezark November 19, 2008 5:07 AM PST
- I remember back in '98 - '99 there was an e-mail distribed virus that A: told the user they were infected, and B: told the user that the only anti-virus that could remove the infection was from a specific company. The virus had actually been written by one of their programmers. AV software should be intrinsic to the OS, IMHO.
-
-
(53 Comments)