If Allerdyce has a record of dispensing uninformed advice why should we bother taking his/her advice now.

The product in question is "Veritas Volume manager" and they are pretty strong in the unix platform and most the revenues come from unix. So even if they loose all the windows marked in Volume manager, that would not effect the market share of Symentec's VM. Where as Symentec's Security products are loosing market, one of the reasons why they ventured into the unix market by merging with Veritas which already had a very big share of the unix market.

Wow, is there any company around dumber then this one? They could have been the #1 Antivirus, to this day. They had the household name, the reputation, etc. Oh well, if it wasn't so funny to watch their demise, it would be sad. Almost.

Symantec builds CRAP. This is not news. Companies whine because MS puts more and more functionality into the OS (at the request of users) thus destroying their niche markets. This is not news. Generally, MS does a better job in the end than the vendor complaining. Again, this is not news.

Put them all together and what do you get?

A Symantec lawsuit.

Cry me a river.

Oh, and I almost forgot: about three years ago, MS dumped Symantec's AV products for a competitor, NOD32. It's kind of hard to claims you're a MS "premium partner" when that happens. Then you have the Veritas debacle - some moron (who quit a week after the merger - that would be Symantec's CFO) didn't read the financials properly before pushing the "merger" button.

In short, Symantec is desperate.

'nuff said.

Symantec will have too much software to look after soon... they might have to start selling off bits... it is a pitty they ruined the name Nortons which back in the days refered to a fantastic product. Now its crappy bloatware and cripples computers rather than aiding them with any type of beneficial applicaion. Maybe they could make a Nortons benchmark utility they certainly know how to consume system resources.

Hell Symantec wake up $2.5B a year not enough Revenue? invest some money back into the proucts you aquire an cease ruining their once trusted names.

Let's be honest here...the real issue is Symantec's products are in the toilet and they are afraid because MS has finally woken up to the fact that they need to take responsibility for the security on their systems and Symantec is scared because they know their products suck and even a half-a** attempt by MS at security will be better than Symantec

I really don't get it!

"I'm used to Windows, I think I'll keep it"

...It doesn't make sence!

The things most people use a computer for, has almost no learning curve if they decided to switch to linux (kubuntu - or some other easy-to-use distro...)

If people were thinking straight, both Microsoft and Symantec would be out of business...

More and more universities are switching to linux platforms - That'll affect the businesses the students end up as a part of afterwards...!

I'll give Microsoft 5 years, max! - They're doomed!

How you come up that solution? Linux will never replace Windows. It will replaces Solaris however. I was shock when they came up with this idea years ago that Linux will replace Windows, when there are other *nix systems around. I am even more shock when Sun Microsystems came out and support it. End result? Microsoft Windows server and Linux gained more market shares, Sun lose market shares.

I'll give Microsoft 5 years, max! - They're doomed!

What god-forsaken fantasy world are you living in?

Linux will never be a desktop OS for the masses.

...and this coming from an avid Ubuntu fan.

Talk to me when there's one Distro, and it ships on 90% of the worlds computers.

Microsoft going out of business in 5 years!?!?

I've gotta send this to Jay Leno's "Headlines"!

Yup, I agree with PC_Tool. I also like Ubuntu as well as a couple of other linuxs but it being an OS for the mass is just a joke.

Hahaha, yeah.

Microsoft, in many aspects, is just beginning to grow. Their relatively new video gaming sector has a lot of growth potential. Their software in many ways does so as well.

Microsoft as a business is doing extremely well with what I believe was a 9 billion dollar earnings this past quarter. They're strong and are firmly in the spot of "top software company in the world"

Man, with Symantec suing Microsoft, and the shear number of SAV corporate installed clients, can you imagine what would happen if, say, Symantec delayed the release of a def that addresses a known zero-day MS product exploit? There's one out today involving ms-Word. Should be interesting to see who gets a def out first.

Billion dollar corporations, can't we all just... get along??!!

There is no way, even if MS put some classified government document and displayed it as the startup splash screen would anything get pulled from the market or delayed. It's just the kind the muscle MS has, the computer market is vital to the world in which we live, all aspects of the government knows this, im sure the court's computers are running MS for crying out loud. MS has made vista, essential due to the security enhancements and everything else. At least that is what they want you to believe.

Add another notch to the pay them off board, oh wait a new board is needed because there is no room.

Correcto! (well, u did restate everything I said, admittedly in a much flowery manner ;) )

HAHA, who seen this one coming. I just thought it would of been for something else. I am waiting for MS to integrate a free/jackedup antivirus. I wonder why they chose to include a antispyware but not that, I mean they are going to get sued anyway why not? It would be better then insulting the people by charging for an additional product to fix/secure another product. Oh wait I just answered my own question, doh.

Eventually the whole OneCare productline will be integrated into Windows, but that will take 5-10 years... This will happen when MS gains grounds (profitability) in non-OS/Office markets and thus can go head-on against piracy. A billion Indians and Chinese will have much to do with it. MS will need to reduce its prices to be competitive in those rising markets, while protecting against piracy (use of TPM chips). MS will have a hard time explaining why they charge the Indians and Chinese $5/yr for unpiratable Windows+Office+OneCare while they charge $40/yr for exact same in the States...

Even if they lose, MS will just pay a few measly tens of millions of dollars and be done with it. They will also put a big red X on Symantec for the future and start suing them like crazy when Sym inevitably breaches future patents from the security business MS is building. THIS is not what will delay Vista.

BTW there is a concept in law where if a contract ends up being ambiguous ("disagreement results from a narrow reading of the original contract"), then the party who DID not write that section wins in interpreting the wording to their benefit. Obviously Sym were selling, so they are the ones who came up with the restrictions/terms.

Losing this suit will be the death blow to Symantec. F'kers deserve it for taking a perfectly perfect firewall (Sygate) and shooting it 'tween the eyes.

Symantec doesn't seem to realize, that without a Windows OS, there is no reason for their existence.

This comment is awesome!

True, without Windows there would be no viruses.

(flame on heh)

Nah, there'd be more Mac/Linux viruses.

I mean... those poor hackers need *something* to do, right?

Naah, they would be too busy recompiling their kernels or "tweaking" their desktops to worry with things like writing viruses. heh

That...or too busy just trying to get the damn thing to work.

If MS has anything going for it, it's that you don't need a BA in Comp.sci to play Solitaire on your friggin' computer. :P

anyone with 1/2 a brain can run linux :) sorry if you fall short of that

LOL

Anyone without a brain can run Windows or a Mac.

See what we are talking about here, most people don't have brains.

:-P

heh

ROFL Exactly.

Thanks, Jackass. That was both stupid, and unneccesary.

I run Ubuntu currently, and have been running various flavors of linux on at least one of my home systems for the last 10 years.

I don't fall short, but neither am I blinded by fanboyism.

..just because it can be run, doesn't mean it will...or even should.

Must you put the word (if you call it that) "heh" at the end of every single post? It just gets a little annoying after a while, dude.

heh

They need to let microsoft release vista, hackers will find many vulnerabilities, and symantec will get loaded picking up the pieces.

Again and again, if you mismanage a company, just sue some successful company for money.

Norton is crap.....
That's why they lost money and had to sue to get the lost money back from somewhere else!!

Symantec's just jealous...losing more money.
Too bad, Norton just slows down your computer!!

Microsoft Licensed the Volume Manager Technology from the Company that owned it (Veritas). Symantec bought Veritas (along with all obligations and rights). If that contract has not been superceded by another contract that displaced it then it is still in force as long as MS is using the technology. After all MS did not buy the technology (MS has trouble with this distinction historically). If this contract (or the superceding one) prevent MS from competing with Symantec's products then this would seem a very valid lawsuite. One thing is unclear at this point is whether that non-compete clause applied to products from another company that was not involved at that point but would later buy Veritas (symantec), or did they sign a new contract with that clause in it referring to Symantec's products. We will see I suppose. Oh and "reading narrowly" is what a lawyer accuses someone else of when they have a clause in a contract that they wish they could make go away but can't so they try to ignore it.

The timing seems suspect as it comes as Vista is set to make Symantec largeley irrelevant (or maybe more irrelevant depending on your viewpoint) but that in now way detracts from the merits of their case. I should say apparent merits as I have seen none of the contracts and probably would not be able to read half the words in them anyway.

I can't believe that MS did not see this one coming. Where they thinking that they could just lawyer this one away? Well maybe they can.

question I have is was the software licenses to microsoft for use oin the windows 2000 operating system? if that is how the contract was worded any other use would be a violation of said agreement

Symantec should sue Apple for making an OS that can't get virus. (so they say in their TV ads..)

Of course OS9.xx/OSX.xx can get viri. It's just that with such a small userbase it's not worth writing viri for Apple OS's. Some have been written, but what's the point.

IBM OS/2 Warp did this years ago, a virus proof os.. lol too bad it died due to mismanagement and mismarketing by ibm >.

"...the disagreement is unfounded as it results from a narrow reading of the original contract."

Unlikely. It would be easier to pass through the eye of a needle, than for Microsoft to win a lawsuit...should they? Veritas made the agreement with Microsoft, now Veritas is gone. So is Microsoft guilty of infringement for all new copies of Windows XP sold? Nah, doubt it. Acquiring a company means taking the good with the bad. Always has. This is why the HP-Compaq merger was devastating for HP. Compaq had some good stuff, but they had many debts HP did not know about before acquiring.

"Symantec argues that Vista would compete with its products, which is a violation of the original agreement."

Symantec had the agreement from Veritas bestowed upon them, so does this mean that Symantec is substituted for every time the agreement mentions Veritas? I don't think so. 'Sides, what the HELL is Symantec doing with Norton GoBack? Are they not doing the same thing? Surprised they aren't sueing over One Care too. This is infuriating. When did open competition become "leeching" the competition?

"now Veritas is gone"

Veritas is not gone, business doesn't work that way. Well, technically there is a possibility for it to happen but Veritas would have had to do an sale that only moved the assets and payroll over to Symantic and then Veritas would fold. I've seen it happen (to avoid litigation) but I forget the proper term of the sale. This isn't the case with Veritas, it was a merger which means all liabilities and contracts merged with the company.

The original product was Roxio's GoBack. It's still works on a computer using the older windows operatinhg systems. Windows XP comes with Microsoft's System Restore which does the same thing.

Symantec bought the rights to GoBack a couple of years ago. It's looks like they just bought somebody else's headaches again. Too bad...

Symantec (and all the companies that have been eaten by Symantec, from Central Point o Binary Research to Partition Quest to VERITAS and on and on) have been working with Microsoft for ages. It's not that they had no clue that Microsoft plays rough. If you choose to deal with Microsoft, you better get an arrangement which satisfies you UP FRONT so that you don't have to worry about what they will do next year or the year after. Doh!

Do people even read the stories they comment on?

For those who keep saying, Why don't they just call them up before filing lawsuits

From the story

"While the two sides have attempted to settle out of court, they could not come to an agreement. Symantec is confident that it would win any court judgment."

Reading??

Nah...

Then we'd start doing things like posting relative comments...adn sticking to the topic...and such.

How boring would *that* be?

Symantec should be worried! Their Norton Anti-Virus Software has gone from the best anti-virus software, to the worst since 2001. Their software is nothing but system clutter and very annoting. I am a computer tech whom, at one time, recommended NAV to all my clients. After numberous complaints and problems, I now advise my clients to look elsewhere for protection. Norton Anti-Virus needs to get back to making a quality Anti-Virus product, and leave the clutter and cumbersome, system-intrusive junk to makers of spyware and viruses. Symantec's current versions of NAV are a waste of money!!

Symantec and Mcafee are both the worse antivirus' areound, they both use to be in competition for the best now their in competition for the worse. If people want a pay antivirus I tell them CA, otherwise I point them to Avast or AVG.

I hope MS wins this, Symantec dosent deserve to win. Plus if MS licensed the tech again in 2004 symantec is SOL. They aquired it in Dec 2004 so its quite likely MS did license it again in which Symantec has to go along with the agreement weather they like it or not.

"Symantec argues that Vista would compete with its products, which is a violation of the original agreement." That line sounds so childish. Oh we're going to have competition with MS WAAAAAAAAA!!! Just because you make crappy software doesn't mean MS can't compete with you.

I have to say that the Symantec Corporate A/V such as the current v10.1.xxx is excellent. Low system resources. Around 25MB exe file. Has built-in Adware/malware detection that blocks most of this content especially if you view dodgy sites or download from questionable sites. Pitty the home user doesn't have legitimite access to this simple but highly effective solution. The interface hasn't changed much since version 5.x which is great. The retail domestic version is all about eye candy the CE version isn't. It's about functionality and performance!
I have it also installed on an old Celeron running @ 525, and it doesn't tax that old system all that much. On a reasonably new system, I don't notice any slowdown.

Agreed! I'm a tech too. When I have to setup a new PC for a someone, if they have NAV I always install it last because it always brings the machine to it's knees. I've also had to remove Norton Internet Security from more machines than I can count to correct connectivity issues.

The Symantec corporate AV products went though a bad spurt aroud version 8.x, but they have gotten better with each release.

So there goes Microsoft again, trying to push someone out of business. Shows that they haven't actually changed their ways anyway. Look out world, here comes OS parity. I welcome it.

Haven't even read the article title, huh? I guess you just saw "Microsoft" and "sues" and kicked on the Hate(TM).

Troll.

Who even uses Symantecs bloated crap anymore. For over 3 years now I have recommended against Symantec beacuse of the bloatware it has become.

Symantec should just die quietly in a well

Symantec AV is still heavily used. Norton AV, however, is dying off. 2006 NAV is helping slow down the fall, but it is still bloated. SAV is almost as minimal as you can get (footprint, not functionality). I'd prefer Symantec AV over McAfee, Trend, or Panda any day of the week. Most places still haven't heard of NOD32 yet, but that's always my top choice.

Norton is gone--Symantec bought them out. The name remains sometimes only because it was so well-known at the time. You are referring to Coorporate edition versus Personal/Professional edition I believe.

What a bunch of CRY BABIES--Anything to get at the giant--Where would we be without Gates--Not as far as we are now!It seems like every company would like to take microsoft down--I see NO valid reason for the suite--the only thing Norton does is remove Viruses (Sometimes)

Where would we be without Gates? Well, we would be complaining about Apple Computer, since they would have been the ones to fill a historical Gates vacuum.

As for this lawsuit, I hope Simantec wins and it pushes the release of Vista back even further. If that happens, then Microsoft's OS market is doomed. We'll begin to see parity and people will have better choice. Instead of 95% of the world running onf Microsoft, the playing field will even out. But oh, that would be sooooo shameful, now wouldn't it?

Ok, try again. Microsoft would *not* die off. This would merely stiffle them a bit and delay them approximately 1 year in coding (possibly less, but I doubt it). Right now it would take more gusto than any current OS has to pull the rug out from under MS. Unix/Linux is without a doubt the most stable OS in existence. OS/2 and MacOS are right up there. Then there's MS. Why does MS stay on top of the marketplace? Because they sell legit student software for $5 a pop, stay in front of the coding/development trends to keep applications that everyone *needs*, sells them for their OS only (with the exclusion of MacOS), and then watches as all the colleges focus primarily on MS software training, bring up the college kiddies on MS so they take it to businesses with them, and then the businesses keep going on with MS. That's the nature of the game. Most businesses are still on Windows 2000, but many have s***ed to XP/2003. The business marketplace is almost always 2-3 years behind the trend, so this really won't hurt at all.

Not being a smartass here, but how would things even out? Can we say for sure that the x86 architecture would be where it is now without MS partially paving the way? Would Apple be in Intel's place as the "top" chipmaker? Just theoretical questions. A lot of people may not like MS or their practices or whatever, but they do have the OS that most everybody uses, security flaws, BSODs and all. The point is, just about everything runs on Windows. A lot of people like Linux, but the compatibility isn't there. A lot of people like Apple and their OS, but again, not a lot compatibility. They may have their own apps that equate to a lot of Windows apps, but it's really not quite the same. And we won't even go into the gaming aspect because there just aren't the same quality games for Apple. And personally, I don't think Apple sees their hardware and OS as a gaming platform.

I would like to see more competition for OS's, but for that to happen, software makers need to write their apps for each OS (Windows, Linux, Apple) to really create a choice for an OS. But if everyone's making everything for Windows, then you're pretty much stuck with Windows.

Another thing, Windows is practically a household name and Apple isn't quite there yet. They're close, but not quite there. And generally speaking, people don't like change. They like the comfort of familiarity even if Product B is far and away better than Product A, which they've been using for years. They don't want to have to learn anything new or different. I think in order to facilitate change, Product B would have to become more like Product A, but at least then they have a 50/50 chance of people switching. They'll either say "it's practically the same, I'll keep Product A" or "it's practically the same, so there's little or no learning curve, I'll give it a try".

Okay, sorry for the ramble.

Which colleges would you be talking about? I kinda felt like my school ingnored industry standard MS development in favor of open source/free/platform independence.

i tell you one thing it must be good for the lawyers these days. all the money they are getting for these stupid court cases

Yup...and the money comes from our tax dollars most of the time. We're the only fools who could ever afford to waste so much money on those bas****s...

...Okay, sorry. I'm just a little upset over everything today. (sigh) Must be Friday--

I love America! He looked at me funny, I'm going to sue him. One of the things I hate about living here.

I think that's assalt. Could be sexual harassment too depending on where he looked. :o

Only in America.

Why, just why? Why do companies insist on suing first, and let the lawyers do the talking?

Did Symantec call MS (NSA, sequestor the records for these 2 companies - LOL) and ask them for their compliance?

I doubt it. They saw it, got upset, and now they want something done about it, and get reimbursed for it.

Even if MS is wrong, Vista isn't even out yet.. It could easily be ammended by the final release of the product, no need to sue.

While the two sides have attempted to settle out of court, they could not come to an agreement.

It really does help if you read the article, man.

Symantec... Trying their hardest to stay relevant.

Yeah, those whining babies.. as someone else put it..

Mommy, they are hurting my bottom line!

while i do think all compaines need to keep a close eye on MS (dont care what they have done for us they are still a little s***y) this is really on the stupid side. I agree with what was said before as to why didnt Symantec just call up Billy Gates and ask "dude, whats up?"
you know what?
Symantec offends me so i think i need to sue them for damages.
1- thier stuff isnt the best
2- Thier firewall only means a extra 5 minutes for a hacker
3- They wasted plenty of my time cleaning up computers after they screw them up.
4- Where the hell is that guy on the cover with the glasses and the white s***? He ruled