RSSSymantec Talking to EU About Microsoft
By Ed Oswald | Published October 10, 2005, 11:58 AM
Symantec last week said that it would complain to the European Union about Microsoft's planned security products for enterprise customers, press reports indicated.
According to Symantec, the company was "asked" by the EU to provide information on its role in the security industry, however the company said it had not yet filed a formal complaint.
The move could potentially set the stage for a new case against Microsoft, as the European Commission must now decide whether the allegations rise to the level of antitrust violations.
But despite talking to the EU, Symantec's relationship with Microsoft is still strong publicly. Last week, the two companies joined to share information about new virus threats and best practices, as well as beta release through the SecureIT Alliance.
Microsoft told BetaNews in an interview last Wednesday that it would not hide any Windows-related security information from its partners.
Speaking in February at the 2005 RSA Conference, Symantec CEO John Thompson brushed off concerns that Microsoft would enter the security business. "I don't plan to go to the Justice Department and whine about Microsoft's monopoly," he said. "I'd rather fight Microsoft in the marketplace, because I'm sure we'll whip them."
Last year, the EU fined Microsoft 497 million euros over violations surrounding the bundling of Windows Media Player and other anti-competitive behavior.
Please don't let anyone break out ricebowl.
Score: 0
|Who would want to use the bloat that Symantec puts out these days anyway?
Score: 0
|Mhmmm... so much for "free" enterprise. Seriously, what is MS supposed to do? They get ripped apart for not providing the security software, but if they do, they get sued to hell.
I'm not exactly an MS fan, but this is stupid.
Score: 0
|Amen!
Score: 0
|Agreed
Score: 0
|Although I prefer to use 3rd party security products, I don’t believe Microsoft should be prevented from developing their own. Obviously Symantec is upset that this will create direct competition with their products, but I believe this will be healthy. Hopefully this will motivate companies such as Symantec to improve their products.
The only way to see this as an attempt to monopolize the security software industry and justify an anti-trust case would be if Microsoft gives the software away, includes it in the OS, and pressures manufacturers to include it with OEM sales without any other options for consumers. However, I don’t believe this is the case as Microsoft has already stated that they intend to release this as a subscription service.
Score: 0
|" I am telling Mom", whines Symantec.
Score: 0
|Hmm, fitting.
MOM, Microsoft may be breaking the law again.
Sounds about right, huh?
Someone needs to babysit them obviously, they are a convicted monopoly.
Score: 0
|I have to disagree about this. I see nothing wrong with them creating and selling a program that does some of the things that Symantec's programs do. If Symantec would just make a good program then they wouldn't have a problem. The fact remains that Symantec is losing ground, because they let the quality slip and has nothing to do with Microsoft making a AV program. Symantec has been losing ground long before MS even put WOC in beta.
So, no, I don't think "Microsoft may be breaking the law again."
Score: 0
|I didn't say they were, I implied that they may be and that they needed to be looked in on over it.
It very well could be considered anti-trust if they gave the product away for free. This is the exact scenario that occurred with IE vs Netscape.
Score: 0
|Actually, with IE, the problem was that it was alleged people were 'forced' to buy IE because it was integrated into the OS, so now it is 'technically' given away to please the paper-pushers.
If they start out by giving away this security software, I don't see how anyone could get mad. It's pathetic really. "We won't let you give away your product!!! You evil people!"
Score: 0
|It started out though that both IE and Netscape were COTS products, they both carried a $40 (give or take) price tag, and were available at any retailer that carried software. If I remember correctly, the original complaint was brought on in part by Microsoft taking that off the shelf product and integrating it into the OS.
I don't disagree that they need to do something, nor do I think that they are out of line. They do however have to walk on egg shells due to the fact that they were ruled an illegal monopoly.
I just think that Symantec and the EU are just exercising the checks and balances system that is designed to prevent companies from eliminating competition. :-)
Score: 0
|"I just think that Symantec and the EU are just exercising the checks and balances system that is designed to prevent companies from eliminating competition. :-)"
It's possible, but I think it's more likely that Symantec is sweating losing their largely un-educated user-base. Hardly any average computer users know that they have options other than Norton.
Score: 0
|That is entirely possible. Unfortunately that checks and balances system can be abused by anyone with enough dollars to get attention.
Score: 0
|I see nothing wrong with them creating and selling a program either, as long as they don't include it with the OS. I'm sure we all would be surprised how many people would be using, firefox for example, if it were the only browser included with windows. At the same time, if a media player didn't come with windows, it might be harder for me to obtain a media player on the PC at work ;-)
Score: 0
|If they didn't include a browser, what would you download FF with?
Score: 0
|Great point. Before IE was included though everyone found ways. I remember picking up an ISP's installation disk at a local retailer with a free version of a browser on it.
Score: 0
|The EU needs a clue. Microsoft announced the **possibility** that they would included certain, basic functionality of Windows OneCare into Windows to provide protection for users. That's not even a final promise yet, though... only a proposed idea.
They announced an entirely separate corporate lineup of security products that won't even appear for at least a year. Not only that, but there's no guarantee of success for them... As much as I like Microsoft, they don't exactly have the reputation of King of Security.
Symantec's products are decent at the corporate level, and as John Thompson says, Symantec can whip Microsoft any day of the week in the corporate environment. SAV9 and SAV10 are excellent, and they have a high reputation in the industry.
Symantec should do themselves and the industry a favor by telling the EU to (I this is the right British phrase)... "bugger off".
Score: 0
|Whenever MS does anything new people get on their case for being a monopoly when they are really just enhancing their OS. Symantec sucks azz anyways.
Score: 0
|The only decent thing Symantec produces is Antivirus Corporate Edition, and Ghost. Everything else is junk.
Symantec needs this to happen so they will wake up and quit making bloated junk for the average consumer (Symantec Internet Security for example).
They could learn a thing or two from AVG!
Score: 0
|I like AVG too, but... their UI is ugly and they need to work on their detection/definitions. Not exactly the "best" product available.
Even so, I agree about Symantec... SAV and Ghost are the only products worth using anymore.
Score: 0
|Hahaha, Symantec is scared. Maybe they'll produce less crappy software and go back to actual software that does something, like the early/mid 90's.
Score: 0
|agreed. 90% of their software suxs. Vertias is quickly go that way ever since symantec bought them.
its a shame really, veritas used to be good backup software for medium size companies
Score: 0
|And what has changed? I havent seen much change in the way of the backup exec suite. It still works perfectly fine.
Score: 0
|Their software randomly crashed when my company was evaluating it, and their engineers took over a day to respond to any email - even on an outstanding case! With that kind of support and a faulty product, what do I need it for?
Score: 0
|