My memory on the Bundling of IE is not crystal clear, but there was a bit more than just "Bundling" at issue.
I seem to remember that Microsoft was claiming that IE could not be separated from the OS, and that the lawsuit included the fact that Microsoft would threaten vendors (Dell, HP, etc.) if they did not make IE the default browser. Maybe I'm not remembering correctly, but I do know it was more complicated that just bundling. If I were Microsoft, I would ship it with new versions of the OS, but disabled. I would have the current "No AntiVirus Installed" popup come up as it normally does, and recommend available antivirus solutions, just as it currently does. There, I would include the Microsoft solution. Yes, it's "bundled," but disabled until you choose to turn it on. Make it the customer's choice to use it. Personally, I think this is something Microsoft should have been doing for years, free or not. It is in their best interest to be just as safe and secure an OS as any other, and if they put their money where their mouth is, they can do it. Now, with a valid Antivirus avalible to all users of windows, perhaps the world will see a decline in viruses, spammers, botnets, and other malware. (Thank you, AVG and Avast, for starting the trend for free AV, but I just don't think you will have the same penetration as MS will.) --Matt Ross _____ From: Ben Scott [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To: NT System Admin Issues [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 07:11:05 -0800 Subject: Re: MS to give away AV/AS, discontinue OneCare in 2009 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/> ~ ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
