On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 9:31 AM, David McSpadden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It is exactly like their backup software. It is not so much as > bundling. You don't have to use it.
I don't think that matters. Keep in mind that I'm not stating my own opinions on the way things *should* be in my ideal world. I'm analyzing past events and trying to extrapolate the future behavior of others. Whether I agree or disagree with what others do doesn't matter. Of course, my analysis could well be flawed; I readily admit my understanding is limited. Anyway, as I understand it, the legal argument would be that since MSFT is bundling their AV product with their OS, it puts their competitors at a disadvantage. Since MSFT is a monopoly, they're not allowed to do that. Or so the AV industry would claim. Beyond that, my understanding ends. I don't know how/why the courts decide on "competitive disadvantage" or "bundling". Ask a lawyer if you want the details. As I understand it, the "for free" argument is largely immaterial. Mostly because the courts recognize that nothing is ever really "free". I'm really starting to get out of my depth here, but looking at how past decisions have gone down, I think it would depend on several factors: (1) How MSFT conducts themselves in court. MSFT played games in US vs MSFT. That hurt their standing. (2) Any dirty laundry uncovered during the evidence phase. As a hypothetical example, MSFT internal email traffic saying they're out to hurt Symantec's cash flow because Backup Exec competes with MS DPM. (3) How prominent MSFT makes the AV. They got in trouble over MSIE because the icon was on the desktop, it was the default program, you couldn't uninstall it, and MSFT pressured computer vendors to prevent them from giving alternatives. If it's an optional download someone has to go and seek out, I'm guessing that would make a difference. -- Ben ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
