Microsoft to give away anti-virus
(BBC)

It appears we may yet see antitrust law suits filed by AV vendors.

You really have to wonder why Microsoft feels it is necessary to offer their AV products/services for free. Perhaps they are beginning to feel the economic pressure from selling an expensive OS? Consumers are beginning to understand that if they buy Microsoft they must also buy some AV protection. And all of that adds up. If AV does not have to cost money then maybe consumers will be more willing to pay Microsoft's high prices? No doubt that is part of the picture.

But, Microsoft does run the risk of being sued for antitrust violations by bundling or even offering for free products that are commonly sold by other companies. And yes, it has been determined that commingling code between the OS and IE was and is illegal. And, no doubt, the AV companies if they do sue will be sure to bring that up as part of their offensive.

However, AV products are different that user applications like browsers, media players and even networking technology. Running an AV program is not something that a end user wants to do or even gains any direct benefit from doing. Other than eliminating bad security problems, etc.

To be honest, Microsoft's OS should be as secure as Linux or Apple. But, it is not. So offering some form of additional protection or detection is called for. But, you still have to wonder why a free product is being proposed. Perhaps the need for AV is obvious but the free aspect is an economic response. Microsoft has to do something to compete with the greatly lower price of Linux. Namely it is free including AV protection. And, of course, Linux does not need AV protection even close to that required by Microsoft. Microsoft most likely does feel it needs to do something to stop making it look so expensive?

You can be sure that the lawyers for the major AV vendors have their eye on this move. And, I would not be surprised to find one or more law suits filed against Microsoft. But, there is a difference between bundling user applications and including AV functionality. Of course, it appears for the moment that the free AV services are available but not bundled. That is likely to change however.

Remember that the individuals most susceptible to viruses are the less savvy users. Those who only occasionally use a computer and are not fully qualified to control their own security. And, of course, many of those may not be buying good AV software anyway.

But, all of this aside, the AV vendors have their market and business to protect.

It is one thing for other ISV to offer free AV but it is another for Microsoft to do so.

And remember that at one time Netscape thought it was better off not suing Microsoft when Microsoft began its illegal practices directed at them. Instead they effectively went away selling off to AOL. And, AOL got $750 million or so from Microsoft so that Microsoft could continue its illegal practices. Illegal practices which continue to this day, namely commingling code between the OS and IE. The practice which is likely to continue despite Microsoft lying about not including IE with the OS in Europe. It appears to still be commingled and included, but just disabled unless the OEM can be manipulated to turn it back on. Which of course is precisely what they will do.

Is it possible that this action by Microsoft will cause additional action in the EU?

It is certainly possible, however, I believe most of the major AV vendors are US companies. So it is less likely they would chose to use the EU as their preferred forum for any legal action. They do have the US court decisions finding Microsoft illegally commingled browser code.

By the way, I read an article just this passed week (sorry I forgot the link) suggesting by way of a quote from a supposed lawyer that the US DOJ failed to prove their case against Microsoft. I found that comment disturbing. Either that idiot is not a lawyer at all or is perhaps intentionally trying to deceive the public by misrepresenting the outcome in the US DOJ v Microsoft antitrust case. Certainly the DOJ did not prove all of their claims. But, if you remember, the trial judge actually ordered Microsoft to be split up. That does not sound like a “failing to prove your case” at all. And, as I have to mention so many times again and again because the trade press is ignorant of reality, Microsoft was found to have violated the law by commingling the code between the OS and IE, appealed that decision to the US Supreme Court and had their appeal denied. The US Supreme Court did not even want to hear the arguments.

Illegal conduct continues by Microsoft to this day yet you see lawyers lying in public claiming that the DOJ “failed to prove their case”. Idiots. Or lawyers intent on misleading the public hoping to land Microsoft as a client?

It is true that some issues were remanded back to the trial court. But, the DOJ decided that it did not want to enforce antitrust laws against Microsoft so they just settled on what Microsoft could agree to. Credit goes to the EU today for not accepting what Microsoft suggests in regard to IE.

Of course, Microsoft is just lying when they claim through a blog that they will not include IE with the OS. All evidence suggests it is still included, just not enabled. But, Microsoft knows that fraud works. And there are enough fools out there that think if Microsoft claims not to include IE that somehow illegal acts are not be perpetrated against consumers. Microsoft does not need to force OEMs to bundle IE. It can simply manipulate them. The result being that consumers are still forced to not only buy IE technology (which appears to be the case even if not enabled) but also forced to buy the OS with IE fully enabled. That despite Microsoft public lie that it is excluding IE.

A lie by another name is just Microsoft's business plan. Screw and rape all the consumers you can with Microsoft technology even if you have to lie about it. Consumers are idiots after all. And you can bet Microsoft plans on claiming consumers took IE enabled because they liked it. And, that is the same as a rapist claiming the crime is okay because the victim enjoyed it.

What Microsoft is doing is also similar to a rapist telling the victim to calm down because no harm or rape is going to come to them while planning all the time to do exactly that.

Microsoft has not separated the code for IE and the OS. You want to bet on that? And, that means that rape is intended to continue even though Microsoft is choosing to lie about it. If need be it will get the OEMs to rape the consumers. And, then claim it is okay because the sex was good, right? After all we all know that the rape victim wanted it, right? That is Microsoft's business plan.