RSSEU Concerned About Vista Security
By Nate Mook | Published September 12, 2006, 1:00 PM
The war of words between Microsoft and the EU continued Tuesday, with the European Commission warning that Windows Vista's built-in security features should not shut third party vendors out of the market.
The warning came after Microsoft made a public statement on the matter, telling reporters that the EU should not attempt to block the security features, as the move would only put customers at risk and delay Vista's launch in Europe. Microsoft has often used the press to put pressure on the EU Commission.
"We are concerned that [regulators] might require the removal of some of the security features we've demonstrated," Microsoft associate general counsel Erich Andersen said. "We want to launch Windows Vista in a fully lawful manner and we want to avoid regulatory decisions that could increase security risks for European consumers."
EU spokesman Jonathan Todd said the Commission understands Microsoft position, but noted it is up to the company "to accept and implement its responsibilities as a near monopolist to ensure full compliance" with European antitrust laws.
"Computer security depends on diversity and innovation in the field of security software, (and) such diversity and innovation could be at risk if Microsoft was allowed to foreclose the existing competition in the security software markets," explained Todd.
Back in March, the EU expressed concern regarding Vista's built-in Internet search functions and new document features. In July, the Commission sent Microsoft a detailed list of concerns regarding Vista, to which Microsoft replied at the end of August. The company says it is currently waiting a response to that reply, and last week warned that any request for product changes could delay Vista's launch.
Microsoft's Andersen added that," One of our principal concerns is that European consumers have access to the same new security features in Windows Vista as everyone else."
Microsoft has had a tumultuous relationship with the European Union after being found guilty of violating antitrust laws in March 2004. The Commission long accused the company of not complying with the ruling, while Microsoft has responded by publicly chiding regulators for ignoring key information.
The company was fined an additional 280.5 million euros in July for continuing non-compliance, and the Commission threatened to double that number if Microsoft did not get its act in gear.
so in future by os from america ther version
will be cheaper as well
Score: 0
|It's my PC not Microsoft's. If I want to tweek, patch, or replace any bit or part of the software on that machine no one should be allowed to stop me.
Score: 0
|It's Microsoft's OS, not yours. You just license it. You can go to Hell if you want to "tweak" it in any way shape or form that they do not allow in their license to you.
That is their right.
You have the right to use another OS on *your* PC if this is not good enough for you.
mmmkay?
MS cannot dictate what is on your machine, but they *can* and *will* dictate what is done with their OS. If ya don't like it, don't use it. There are other options.
[Edit: That may have been a bit harsh. Sorry. I have a cold. ;P]
Score: 0
|oh you have a cold that makes you grumpy too? damn must be the season.
Score: 0
|The EU would find something to whine about no matter what.
Score: 0
|Funny...
Microsoft creates a flawed OS.
A market springs up of products to band-aid those flaws.
Consumers whine that they need to buy 3rd party products to protect their OS.
Microsoft locks the kernel in Vista so that malware can no longer interact with it.
3rd Party developers realize their business is in jeapordy because they've dumbly founded their entire business on the flaws of a product they have *zero* control over. They cry foul claiming MS is blocking their access to the kernel for the sole reason of furthering products like OneCare and Defender.
Gov's hear this and cry "Monopoly!"
Microsoft is forced to unlock it's kernel so 3rd party developers (and malware) can once again interact with the kernel.
Consumers are *still* being s*** upon, but this time, it's by the Gov and 3rd party devs, not MS.
They built their businesses around flaws in a product they have no control over. What the hell did they expect would happen when the company that created this product focused on fixing, or at least cutting off access to those flaws?
What really scares me? They might actually get away with this. They might actually be able to keep MS from releasing a more secure and reliable OS because of their complete and uter lack of foresight.
Unbelievable...
Score: 0
|I have to agree with you on this one, though it gets very gray once you leave the "security" discussion and head towards search and new document features.
Score: 0
|OMG - perfect!
Score: 0
|The same logic extends there as well. They were chided over poor search tools, patch management, a stale office suite, limited groupware doc-sharing, limited media playing and library mgt, no built-in anti-virus or anti-malware, and yes, a crappy web browser.
So now they actually try to fix those things (desktop search, IE7, WSUS, SMS, Sharepoint, Office 2007, Vista, WMP11, etc.) and now they're evil because they're only doing it to kill off everyone else. So, the counter to this is that MS should NEVER be allowed to upgrade any product that might impact someone else's attempts to make a product better than their their current (crappy) offering?
Who is pointing a gun at anyone's head to buy Vista? Who? We are ALL free to buy/download/use whatever we want and can afford. If that last sentence were untrue, there wouldn't be Linux or OS/X at all.
Score: 0
|"they're only doing it to kill off everyone else"
All the evidence indicates that you have hit the nail on the head.
Everything was stagnant until competition came around again.
Score: 0
|Where is all this 'chiding' people are talking about? I never expected Windows to include anything but the most basic version of the tools I need, if it includes them at all. For the most part, I'd prefer to load my own: no WMP, no firewall, no 'Security Center', no IE, no OE, no junk stuff I won't use.
The people 'chiding' MS about including things they don't need still are - and the cries will only get louder. Or did you lot simply forget about these people to make a point on flawed logic?
Score: 0
|All I've ever expected is fair competition, and the ability to uninstall parts of the OS that I don't want or need.
Score: 0
|The tools and applications you use may not be the same as somebody who buys a packaged PC off the shelf. Also, not everybody out there knows how to pirate software. Or did you simply forget about these people and make a point on flawed logic?
Score: 0
|...
"Microsoft creates
a flawed OS"
...
Don't lose any sleep over this, PC_Fool.
3rd. Party developers will devise ways around
WinVista's locked kernal ...just like hackers
will !
Your favorite rodent has no problem at all with
Microsoft's security measures.
The ~real~ problem is that Microsoft adherents
(of which the PC Rat is one) are starting to
sound like Mac elitists.
...
The Computer Rodent
...
Score: 0
|never expected Windows to include anything but the most basic version of the tools I need, if it includes them at all.
Then you are in the minority. Most of the customer feedback MS gets revolves around *adding* features, not taking them away.
Score: 0
|Damn f'ed up reply system.
Score: 0
|The name's PC_Tool.
3rd. Party developers will devise ways around
WinVista's locked kernal ...just like hackers
will !
The *point*, dear Rat, is that such workarounds will be just those. They will not have the same efficacy of direct operability within the kernel.
he ~real~ problem is that Microsoft adherents
(of which the PC Rat is one)
BS. "Bro" Rat is one of the biggest MS trolls on this site. Just claiming you aren't doesn't make it so.
You do have my condolences on not being accepted to the new MS School. :)
Score: 0
|Nah. There's only one perfect being. I just do a damn good imitation. ;)
(It's a joke, you religious wing-nuts)
Score: 0
|um tell me if im wrong, but without windows none of those 3rd party developers would exist. they built their companies on a house of cards, now that it is falling down they whine about it. or to put it better, they built their companies to help hold up a house of cards, which will be able to hold up among its own power now, so they whine. on the other hand, it is microsofts os, so there is no LOGICAL reason they need to make it compatible with anything else.
Score: 0
|it may be all you want, but as its ms's os they can dictate if they want to do that or ot.
Score: 0
|what 3rd party apps cannot be used? how is MS blocking anyone out? I am using Vista and running Trend-Micro....last I checked that would be a 3rd party vendor...I think Windows Vista - Security edition will be next... only sold in Europe...again remember Windows XP N...it makes me laugh everytime I see that...
Score: 0
|didnt that sell like, only 3000 copies or so?
Score: 0
|My god, intelligent posts! I must be in the wrong place.
Score: 0
|Just wait awhile.
Score: 0
|Yeah, this is borderline ridiculous. First the governments (EU included I believe, but I could be wrong) wants Microsoft to make the operating system more secure, now they want Microsoft to make sure third parties can stay in business?
Microsoft is a profit-seeking corporation, if you want to stay in business innovate on TOP of Vista, don't try and make the operating system conform to your application, not everyone running Vista runs the same applications.
While I can sympathize with certain third party vendors, the bigger picture is that not everyone that will run Windows Vista will use a specific party product, it's absurd to compromise or cripple the security that this Windows release boasts will be revolutionary to secure third parties a profit. Who knows if after Vista becomes the standard attacks decrease significantly, something that has NOT happened yet regardless of third party "security suites" available.
Score: 0
|yeah, but think about if you were Ford Motor Co. and the Govt told you "you can't change the hood on your new truck model because Acme Hoods' after-market hood won't fit anymore" That's pretty much what's going on here.
Score: 0
|here's a better example:
lets say dodge is the only major car manufacturer in the world. there are others, but they only make up about 10% of the market.
now suppose dodge never put stereos in their vehicles, they left it up to the buyer as to whether they wanted tunes while they drive or not.
now because of this, a big market opened up for stereos that fit dodge vehicles.
after functioning like this for oh...about 15 years, dodge decides they want a peice of this stereo market and start only selling vehicles with their own custom stereos installed.
not only that, but they make it difficult to remove their stereo and install a different stereo made by one of the companies that exist for that purpose.
this to me, and obviously a lot of other people is anti-competative action.
I understand where the EU is coming from, even if i don't agree with all their actions.
Score: 0
|Actually the governemnt is saying something along the lines of " you cant change your model so that other hoods besides your own dont fit"
In any case its interesting to see a governemnt trying to control the people in this way. Yes it is a corporation, but it is by people.
No, MS is not guilt-free of ALL wrongdoings, but if their crime is trying to make money, then the governemnt should just tell them they need to do charity work, maybe non-profit? But until then, MS is its own entity, and therefore should only have to adhere to the laws, not be abused by them, regardless of their market share and economic stregnth.
In the end it is a MS product, as long as they go about selling it legally, and manufacturing it legally, noone should be able to tell them what they can do with the product itself, since it is not illegal for one company to not suppport its competition ...
Latz, SB
Score: 0
|This is not anti-competative, it is merely competative.
Anti competative would be that if you change the stereo, you only get left audio chanel.
Making it hard to compete is being competative, making it so that the competition itself is crippled is anti-competative.
Microsoft is doing the former in this case, as no functionality in Vista will be reduced if a consumer chooses a third-party product. It will merely be hard for the third-party manufacturer to create the product, and harder for the user to use it. Its a simplpe cost-reward scenario. Is the cost of switching worth the reward for switching. If the third-party cmpanies can create such a reward, then the people will switch.
Lets Just hope this brings about better products and more innovatin, rather then a myriad of lawsuits and complaints.
Latz, SB
Score: 0
|Sexbarril:
Almost. It's more like Dodge starting installing an AM radio with headphones. But, they changed the wiring harness. The problem is the new harness, not the radio itself. It's not difficult to install a new radio, they just have to back to the drawing board for the new harness.
Look at Symantec, they almost messed their pants with the Microsoft Security Center and people still buy Norton products. *sigh*
Score: 0
|The only problem with your argument is that Microsoft has to follow different rules since they are a convicted monopolist.
Score: 0
|But you're making the widely-shared assumption that MS is only making changes, not improvements. And that the sole (even primary) reason is to eliminate synergistic products (Symantec, Real, Adobe/MM, IBM, all come to mind). In some cases, sure. But what you're implying is that they shouldn't be able to make any moves at all without a committee of committees approving each one? Isn't that Socialism?
MS is based in the US which, arguably, still relies on "free-market" economy and not overt controls over how businesses operate (yes, I'm fully aware of SOX and HIPAA). I still don't see how this prevents me from installing anything I want on top of Vista. Firefox, OpenOffice, whatever, they still work. Kinks occurred with each release. But guess what, kinks require fixes with Linux, UNIX and even OS/X with each "major" release. That's what "soft" in software means. It's not MS's job to babysit every single third party developer. They do a pretty good job of providing docs, tools, APIs, SDK's and so forth to help everyone along. If you don't see that, you're not looking very hard.
Now, if only MS could fire all their stupid marketing idiots and get back to product development and commonsense names.
Score: 0
|a company can't be a monopolist, they can be a monopoly, which they aren't.
Score: 0
|blah blah blah blah
On the central issue in the case, the district court ruled that Microsoft had successfully engaged in a series of anticompetitive acts to protect and maintain its personal computer (PC) operating system monopoly, in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. See Pet. App. A10; J.S. App. A3-A21. The court also ruled that Microsoft had attempted to monopolize the internet Web browser market, in violation of Section 2, and had tied its Web browser, Internet Explorer, to its Windows operating system, in violation of Section 1. See Pet. App. A10; J.S. App. A21-A33. The district court rejected the government's claim that Microsoft's exclusive dealing contracts violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act. See Pet. App. A10; J.S. App. A34-A39. To remedy the violations, the court ordered Microsoft to submit a plan to reorganize itself into two separate firms and to comply with transitional injunctive provisions. See Pet. App. A11; J.S. App. A253-A279.
Microsoft filed notices of appeal, and the court of appeals, sua sponte, ordered that any proceedings before it would be heard en banc. Pet. App. A11; J.S. App. A280-A283, A311-A312. The district court certified the case for direct appeal to this Court pursuant to the Expediting Act of 1903, as amended, 15 U.S.C. 29(b), and stayed its judgment pending completion of the appellate process. See Pet. App. A11; J.S. App. A284-A285. This Court declined to accept the appeal and remanded the case to the court of appeals for proceedings on the appeal. Microsoft Corp. v. United States, 530 U.S. 1301 (2000).1
2. After extensive briefing and two days of oral argument, the en banc court of appeals issued a unanimous and comprehensive decision affirming in part, reversing in part, and remanding in part for proceedings before a new district judge. Pet. App. A1-A139.
blah blah blah blah
The court of appeals affirmed the district court's central ruling that Microsoft violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act by engaging in an unlawful course of conduct to maintain its monopoly of the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems.
blah blah blah blah blah
The Court should strike the Petitions as unauthorized filings, or in the alternative deny them.
- http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f200600/200671.htm
"§ 2 Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2
Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty
Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. "
- http://www.usdoj.gov/atr...visionmanual/two.htm#a1
"Monopolist
A person, group or organization with a monopoly. In other words, an individual or company that controls all of the market for a particular good or service."
- http://dictionary.refere...opolist&x=0&y=0
Have a nice day.
Score: 0
|Explain this non-sequitor please.
It seems you stated known facts for us so that we dont have to google them.
In which case i thank you.
Have a nice day.
Latz, SB
Score: 0
|"a company can't be a monopolist, they can be a monopoly, which they aren't."
English version: Microsoft *IS* a monopolist. ;-)
Score: 0
|I guess you're speaking the queen's english. I meant that a company with healthy competition can't possibly be a monopoly. I can't possibly make it any clearer. Also, OJ was acquitted of murder. The legal system in the United States doesn't mean squat to me.
Score: 0
|Maybe not in the country you live in, but that country is largly irrelevant in the grand scheme of the world economy.
:-P
Score: 0
|[edited]: posted in wrong area...
Score: 0
|You've take the dictionary.com definition out of context. In order for a monopolist to exist, they must have a monopoly. Dictionary.com's defintion of a monopoly:
"Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a commodity or service: “Monopoly frequently... arises from government support or from collusive agreements among individuals” (Milton Friedman)."
Since MS obviously doesn't have "exclusive control" over what OS you choose, they can't be considered to have a monopoly and thus can't be a monopolist.
Score: 0
|"they can't be considered to have a monopoly and thus can't be a monopolist."
Well, the law clearly says otherwise.
Thanks for the opinion.
Score: 0
|yet everyone else is allowed to have proprietary tech( apples drm, sony's umd media, hell i cant even fit a ford motor in my toyota, much less fit a glock 9mm clip into a beretta 9mm pistol.) except ms. i think that is more worthy of an antitrust case. it should be microsoft going against the eu for rigging the market.
Score: 0
|the point is without os manufacturers there would be not symantec, no real, no adobe. therefor the os manufacturers shouldnt need to dance to their tune, it should be the other way.
Score: 0
|does it now? well i guess since ford is the only one who makes ford trucks they must be sued also. maybe if you werent so ignorant then you would see that eh? just because the law found them guilty when they were being swayed to think that way by other companies.
Score: 0
|There are a plethora of other trucks you can purchase from other manufacturers.
Name more than 3 *COMMERCIAL* operating systems you can get on a *NEW* PC.
Most folks will have trouble naming ONE.
Score: 0
|yes because the law is always correct...cough...OJ...cough...
thanks for your opinion! :)
Score: 0
|Sorry, I posted facts. Feel free to disagree but the facts remain.
Score: 0
|but large number or not, there is still competition regardless, thus they are not a monopoly.
Score: 0
|Could you imagine if the government FORCED companies like GM, Ford, Daimler-Chrysler, Toyota, etc to make sure all aspects of their vehicles had to make it easily for customers to remove parts and install third-party parts? Not just dressing stuff, but things like engine blocks, drive train, fenders, upholstery, even ash trays?
I know that's possible, but is it FORCED on them? No. There are plenty of parts on vehicles which are only available from the manufacturer. Should you be forced to request vendor vs after-market parts when you're buying your new car? Why is it necessary to force other markets to conform to a different set of rules?
Score: 0
|Your analogy is well-argued, but flawed: For automobiles there is plenty of competition; for Desktop Operating Systems, Microsoft Windows enjoys overwhelming dominance over its rivals (OS/X and Linux).
The issue here is that Microsoft can effectively "lock out" third-party security products from Vista. The problem here is that Microsoft have their own (new) security products, so their actions could be seen to be taking undue advantage of their dominant position to stifle or even eliminate competing products, further increasing their dominance. The EU is quite right to be concerned, and I have to wonder what the FTC is doing.
Remember Netscape?
Score: 0
|"For automobiles there is plenty of competition; for Desktop Operating Systems, Microsoft Windows enjoys overwhelming dominance over its rivals (OS/X and Linux)."
Despite its dominance there is still competition.
"The issue here is that Microsoft can effectively "lock out" third-party security products from Vista. The problem here is that Microsoft have their own (new) security products, so their actions could be seen to be taking undue advantage of their dominant position to stifle or even eliminate competing products, further increasing their dominance."
To return the car analogy, should cars not come with radios/8track/casette/cd/mp3/etc players because they would be taking unfair advantage of their position as car manufacturers? For that matter, what about hub caps? They aren't necessary to the operation of the car. Maybe if Ford/GM/etc didn't include hub caps or radios my fictional hub cap and radio emporium would've suceeded. Then they go and change the size of the tires on me, sheesh.
"Remember Netscape?"
Yeah, I even spent the time to download it over dialup. I still liked plain IE better, even back then. I did like Netscape better than AOL corrupted IE though.
Score: 0
|apple enjoys market dominace with ipods, do they have to share their drm or even make their players work with third party drm makers? no didnt think so, remember how well that went over in france.
Score: 0
|