Print - Adobe, Symantec Behind Complaints to EU About Vista

So now we know. According to a report in "The Wall Street Journal," Microsoft competitors Adobe Systems and Symantec are behind recent European Union (EU) investigations into Windows Vista. The two companies have lobbied EU regulators to prevent Microsoft from shipping free features in Vista that compete with products that these companies now sell to consumers.

It's too bad that both complaints are completely bogus. Adobe is complaining about Microsoft technology that offers part of the functionality of Adobe's powerful PDF format. What's different, apparently, is that Adobe charges customers to create PDF documents, whereas Microsoft's competing format, XML Paper Specification (XPS), is free. PDF is widely regarded as a de facto standard, thanks largely to Adobe's practice of giving away its Adobe Reader 7.0 software, which can display PDF documents but doesn't let you edit or create them.

Symantec's complaint is more tenuous. The company alleges that users should be able to replace Windows Security Center in Vista with third-party software, even though you can populate Security Center with links to third-party products and Microsoft is letting third parties brand Security Center with their own logos and icons. Symantec has also complained about a new security feature called Kernel PatchGuard that prevents software--malicious or otherwise--from altering the Windows kernel at runtime. In the past, security companies have been forced to patch the Windows kernel themselves to reverse kernel patches applied by malicious software. Such patches won't be possible in Vista, which should make the system more secure. However, Symantec wants the feature removed.

Microsoft's response to these complaints has been interesting. Earlier this year, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer wrote to the European Commissioner for Competition Neelie Kroes and asked whether she wanted Microsoft to remove XPS from Vista. Kroes never responded, though the EU has said publicly that "it is for Microsoft to decide how they package and sell Vista."

As for Symantec, Microsoft has been working with it and other security companies for years to ensure that they're up-to-date on the changes in Vista. I spoke with Stephen Tolouse at the Microsoft Security Response Center. He said that Microsoft is providing only a baseline of security in Vista: There's plenty of room for third-party products, as before. With Vista, information about third-party solutions, including Symantec's, is even available in Security Center.

Here's the thing. Back in the bad old days a decade ago, when Microsoft was busy integrating Microsoft Internet Explorer (IE) into Windows solely to harm the competition, one could easily make the case for anticompetitive behavior. There's room for debate about whether features such as Web browsers and IM applications need to be bundled and deeply integrated into an OS. Today, however, few could argue that improving the security of Windows is anything but a good idea. In fact, one might describe such changes as mandatory.

What Symantec--and, ultimately, Adobe--is really worried about is that its gravy train is about to end. With emerging electronic threats, Symantec and other security firms will have enough opportunities to keep busy and remain profitable. But everyone wins when Windows becomes more secure. As for Adobe, it's telling that this firm has yet to broadly ship a low-cost way to edit PDF files. If XPS simply lowers the price of entry into the PDF world, well, that too will benefit consumers.

In short, Microsoft's competitors are simply running to the friendly ear of antitrust regulators because they can do so easily and without cost. If these companies spent more time worrying about their customers, and less about an OS company that deserves to improve its products legally, none of this would have happened.

Longtime readers will remember how strongly I came down against Microsoft's IE bundling strategy. I still feel that those decisions were wrong and that they served as the foundation for a decade of security vulnerabilities and customer pain that we're still experiencing. Adobe's and Symantec's complaints, however, bear no relation at all to those of Netscape a decade ago. Today, Microsoft is doing the right thing for its customers. Frankly, it's about time.

Correction

Yesterday's WinInfo Daily Update included an unfortunate typo that I should have caught during editing. As published, the article "Low-Cost HD DVD Player, True 1080p Output for Xbox 360 Coming in November," noted that "the Xbox 360 still lacks an HDMI connection. (However, you can easily add an HDMI connection by using a new cable connection kit.)" This is incorrect. It should have read, "the Xbox 360 still lacks an HDMI connection. (However, you could conceivably add an HDMI connection by using a new cable connection kit, should one be made available.)" The point here is that there is no HDMI cable connection kit available for the Xbox 360, and Microsoft has not yet announced such a product. My apologies.

Die, symantec, die. norton software is a piece of [deleted]. I'm using mcafee and will eventually move to onecare once the mcafee subscription expires.

If only Symantec would spend as much time and effort improving their software..................

MS owns the kernel. they should be allowed to protect it. If symantec wants to remain competitive then they should do so with their product and not tru the courts. Leaving users vulnerable just to maintain their business makes me want to remove their virus scanner right this second. in fact i will. I'm so switching. an AV company that lobbies for holes to remain open is not one I can trust...and neither should you.

Venue shopping is what they're doing. They know they'd get laughed out of court in the US so they go to the MS-hostile EU to get the brusselcrats to do their dirty work for them, for free. Maybe if somebody atarted a boycott of their products they'd quit trying to poison the well for the rest of us.

Someone please explain Americans' blanket hostility to all things European? In some ways the EU has gone to far, yes, but in other ways, the DOJ didn't go far enough. We don't give them anywhere near the amount of flak. As Paul mentions, MS actually was a ***** 10 years ago, and the DOJ didn't really do anything about it. It's a good thing for all of us that Gates is actually a nice guy, and chose to change his tune. But we would all be SOL if he wasn't quite as accommodating.

Die McAfee, Die!!!!! The latest version slowed several computers around here to a crawl. I uninstalled [it] and installed Windows One Care. Nice!

"Someone please explain Americans' blanket hostility to all things European?" Well, at least not for European cars. :-) I'm still saving up for an A4!!! "As Paul mentions, MS actually was a ***** 10 years ago, and the DOJ didn't really do anything about it." That's true. Then, MS would bundle stuff with Windows just to kill competition. Now they're very careful about all this so the EU should cut them some slack.

"The latest version slowed several computers around here to a crawl. I uninstalled that piece of shiit adn installed Windows One Care. Nice!" How about you just not waste time with antivirus like me and not install any. Windows doesn't need it. Hardware firewall and don't visit pr0n sites. The End. "Someone please explain Americans' blanket hostility to all things European?" Its not all europeans, just anyone who lives up to the stereotypes... its too close to hippie for me. That and the whole war hipocracy thing. United States gets the UN involved in one silly occupation and its "Oh America the tyrannt! How dare you get us involved in YOUR war!" Guess thats just back-pay support for WWI and WWII, you know... the ones where we stopped Europe from being referred to simply as Germany. UK and Germany are still A-OK though, respectful government, respectful procedures and whatnot. At least from the little exposure I get. But yeah, France, Spain, Italy, former soviets, balkans, Polland, etc. all their leaders seem to do in the world marketplace/politics is complain and whine about things.

"But yeah, France, Spain, Italy, former soviets, balkans, Polland, etc. all their leaders seem to do in the world marketplace/politics is complain and whine about things." Yeah... I can see now that there is no blanket hostility. ;)

"How about you just not waste time with antivirus like me and not install any. Windows doesn't need it. Hardware firewall and don't visit pr0n sites. The End." What I have been saying...

"That and the whole war hipocracy thing. United States gets the UN involved in one silly occupation and its 'Oh America the tyrannt! How dare you get us involved in YOUR war!'" That would be because America never bothered to ask the UN before invading the country in question. It was primarily a unilateral decision (or bilateral, if you count UK). It didn't work the way it was supposed to due to which the US needed the UN's assistance.

Why does Paul seem like a cat on the wall to me? (He is right about IE in the 90s and this case, though)

"How about you just not waste time with antivirus like me and not install any. Windows doesn't need it." LOL...[deleted].

"...America never bothered to ask the UN before invading the country in question." As a sovereign state, the United States doesn't need the permission of the United Nations to do anything it fees is in its national interest.

"As a sovereign state, the United States doesn't need the permission of the United Nations to do anything it fees is in its national interest." That was an arrogant remark on your part. It does. It's attacking ANOTHER country. Why stop Israel from decimating Palestine or Lebanon or Syria? Why stop India from attacking Pakistan? The UN exists for a cause. You can attack another country and when things go wrong ask the UN for help.

Frankly, I don't want to get into this, but attacking Afghanistan was the right thing to do at that time because of the events that occurred in 2001. On the other hand, there was no evidence that Iraq had WMDs - the UN inspectors couldn't find any. There were no indications that Iraq was planning to attack the US or any other country. Most of the world was against it... ahh, forget it. This is not the right place to discuss it!

Somehow I *knew* Symantec was behind the EU's investigations into Windows Vista. When I fix other people's computers, and the complain that their computer is running *really* slow, 80% of the time uninstalling Norton Antivirus drastically speeds up their computer. I recommend OneCare to them and so far, 100% of them have switched. Symantec has some good features in their personal security products; unfortunately, the *bloat* in the products vastly outnumbers the features. Adobe - same thing. I am constantly frustrated when I open a .pdf off a website and the reader takes *forever* to load and display the .pdf. I should probably not bring this up, but has anyone noticed that our fav. troll has not posted lately? *Hopefully* he is gone for good, but I am not counting on it. He probably is at school or on vacation.

"How about you just not waste time with antivirus like me and not install any. Windows doesn't need it." I do hope you are joking. With the drive by installs done exploiting flaws in IE, you really don't need to do much of anything to get infected. However, an app like VirusScan *Enterprise*, and the buffer overflow protection would protect you from these even before the virus signatures were released. However, Norton is a total hog, and so is the consumer McAfee product. I would never use either of them. Both are as bloated as Steve Jobs ego.

"I should probably not bring this up, but has anyone noticed that our fav. troll has not posted lately? *Hopefully* he is gone for good, but I am not counting on it. He probably is at school or on vacation." I didn't want to jinx it either by saying it. It is amazing how much more civilized posts are now.

You're missing the points again. History shows how Microsoft operates. In many cases they slowly enter a market and then proceed to take it over completely. It's like putting frogs in a pot of water, they don't jump out if you heat it slowly. Therefore, step by step, one can boil a frog alive. MS is fully aware of this. Wake up Paul. You're about to be boiled.

a. The EU is just trying to punish MS for previous issues by trying to force them to change vista or maybe just trying to force them to not ship it. Whats to stop MS from just not selling in Europe? What would happen then? b. The UN is a worthless entity. There were numerous resolutions in which Iraq was to allow the inspectors access...they didn't...the UN voted to allow military force...the US followed through...whats the issue??? --tayme

Okay, I swear this is my last off topic post here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq The UN is worthless because the world's only superpower chooses to ignore it. I'm probably the only one here who believes that the war on Iraq was unnecessary and that it shouldn't be a reason to dislike Italy, France, etc.

"How about you just not waste time with antivirus like me and not install any. Windows doesn't need it. Hardware firewall and don't visit pr0n sites." It's not just those sites, you ever search using your favourite search engine for something and come across one of those domain placeholder sites that looks like a summary of search results?? Many of those are now using Javascript exploit trojans to reduce your security settings to nil, and then changing your HOSTS file to add in site-redirectors to spyware sites that install browser hijackers and other crapola. They're getting really sneaky now. Most antivirus software will protect you from those, although I agree that Norton has been a POS since 2000, McAfee WAS better, but the last two years hasn't, and IE7 doesn't seem to be open to those types of attacks (Firefox 1.5 is tho). I personally use OneCare for my regular install of Windows. I tested under a few Windows installations under Virtual PC, each with a different browser. You might like to know that Windows 2000 and 98/ME are ESPECIALLY prone to those attacks, even with all of the updates that Microsoft ever made for those O/S's, although they stopped making updates in 2002 for 98/ME and at the end of 2005 for Win2K. A quick way to test your system for malware is CA's older Pestscan. The website is now unlinked, but it can be found here: http://www3.ca.com/securityadvisor/pestscan It used to be on www.pestscan.com, but they changed it, and now it just gives you the PestPatrol trial download. Use the online one - it's much faster! I don't use that as a be-all-and-end-all of scanners, but it's a good indication if your antivirus & antispyware progs are detecting everything. There are one or two cases where it misdetects things tho - on my Acer laptop, one of the "Acer Empowering" plugins uses the same name as a piece of spyware, but looking at the DLL properties indicates the author is Acer and is safe.

As for PDF and XPS, Microsoft ALREADY HAD a PDF-alternative. It's called MDI, and if you have Office XP or 2003, you already have support for it. Why don't they just stick with it??!? I use it all the time for documents based on templates but don't have the time, or don't feel like, printing them. As far as Microsoft is saying, XPS will require a printer driver, but MDI ALREADY DOES THAT!! Adobe isn't complaining about MDI, so why doesn't Microsoft just put that support in, instead of the headache of PDF or XPS?? Am I missing something here??? MDI works just fine, and if it ain't broke, why fix it?

"How about you just not waste time with antivirus like me and not install any. Windows doesn't need it. Hardware firewall and don't visit pr0n sites." I don't. Problem is it is easy to fat finger msncb.com instead of msnb.com. (For example)

Wah wah wah, poor Symantec... If they didn't have access to the kernel there wouldn't be any performance problems. MS is damned if they do or damned if they don't in the EU. It just amounts to govt-sponsored extortion kids - Bill will just pay off the EU after he is finished dragging his feet. Adobe doesn't care for competition - from the big guys anyway. You don't see them suing the little pdf-creator guys anyways. Sue/Pay/Go Away... Why can't we let the market decide?

shark: You are not the only one who thinks the war in Iraq was unnecessary. I think it's much more than that. I think it's flat out illegal. I think the world has every right to demand that George W. Bush be taken out back and shot in the head. I love my country; I wish my President were dead. I am an American.

Interesting how the pro-Windows guys are multi-lateral, and the pro-Windows guys are quite unilateral. Like sharky said, this really isn't the place to discuss it (even though I kind of brought it up...), but just to answer lotsa: After WW2, and the passage of the UN Charter (of which the U.S. is a signatory), it has been illegal for any state (ALL of which are sovereign) to invade any other, unless they are in imminent and demonstrable danger of being attacked OR the UN Security Council declares it to be valid. Neither occurred here, therefore the war in Iraq is illegal under international law. Oh, and to tayme: the UN never authorized force; there was a resolution that kind of authorized force in very limited circumstances, but it expired in 1998 anyway. Now back to Windows.... I'll keep my "off-topic" posts to the PC world in the future.

This is not about Symantec bloatware or Adobe defacto standards, it's about competition, a subtelty that seems to be lost on some people. The EU is attempting to do what the US DOJ should have done 10 years ago, namely try to encourage innovation by competition. Ask yourself, would you accept a situation where you had the choice of one brand of car or TV.

Mcc: "Would you accept a situation where you had the choice of one brand of car or TV?" That's a very good point. It's also why I don't understand people who blindly cheer Microsoft's entry into every new market. For example, if Microsoft's Zune does indeed turn out to be wildly popular and it displaces the iPod, we will then be in a world with yet another MS monopoly. Same thing if Windows Live Search displaces Google. We've seen what Microsoft does when it is unchallenged. It didn't upgrade Internet Explorer for YEARS until FireFox started knocking at the door. That's why I like the fact that Microsoft has Office and OS monopolies, Google has search nailed down, and Apple rules digital media. There's variety. If one company - even Apple - had unchallenged control of all these areas, we would very quickly stagnate in each of them. Thus, I think it's great that Apple has to keep the iPod ahead of the competition. Let me be clear: I do NOT want Apple to conquer every market - just like I don't want Microsoft to conquer every market. And I think it's good that the Zune will force Apple to innovate. I think it's good that OS X and Linux and FireFox force Microsoft to innovate. I think it's good that every tech company is currently battling for things like video downloads, ad revenue, and such. More than anything, I'm a fan of progress. And progress requires ALL the major players in an industry (and many times, the tiny players too.) On thing's for sure: no one ever made any progress by resting on their laurels.

bkjones, you make some good points and I too like the competition. However, with the case of Symantec, kernel protection is only something Microsoft can do. Similarly, Apple would be the only ones who could add kernel protection to OS X. This is a technical requirement which has yet to be gotten around. Purely from a technical consideration, if Windows opens the kernel for Anti-virus software, it open the kernel for viruses. Now this doesn't mean that you can't have anti-virus software; it just means you can't have it operate at the kernel level. On the issue of replacing the security center, there are a lot of issues and possibilities here. 1) Is replacing the security center akin to replacing the Start Menu? If so then it seems unreasonable to let them replace it. 2) Applications should have some control how they are presented. Is Microsoft signaling out security software in order to promote OneCare? Will this hurt competition long term? ----- Ultimately I feel that the OS must control the entry points into the various applications and services. It is also up to the OS to determine what qualitifies as the specific plugin points. Windows, Apple, Linux, Palm, Commodore... every OS has controlled how code is run on it. This is just another example of that behavior. I think, as developers, we've become spoiled by the total expandability and customizabilitiy of OSes like Windows, OS X and *Nix. But OSes define the frameworks on which we create software. And they must be allowed to do so.

"I wish my President were dead. I am an American." ??????? I disagree with Bush on a number of issues, but I fail to see how one can call himself an American and yet want to see his leader killed/shot in the head/etc. for differences in political views. In some middle-eastern countries, statements like that could be construed as treason. Back on topic... I too am a fan of competition. If one company had a "true" monopoly in a market, there would be no incentive to innovate. The iPod has had virtually no competition, so their latest incarnations of the iPod are lacking. They also feel they can charge *more* for the same equipment b/c no one else is competing with them on their level. The Zune will encourage more innovation and price reduction on the part of *both* companies. With that said, the charges being brought against MS by Symantec and Adobe are utterly *ludicrous.* Bundling IE was one thing, securing parts of Windows is another. In a perfect world, with a perfect Windows, Symantec would not exist. Symantec survives b/c of flaws in Windows. One could say it is rather like a parasite. The Adobe case is hardly better. A *free* format that has some of the same qualities of .pdf hardly qualifies as anti-trust violations.

NateB2: It's plain and simple. I think Bush is guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. He and his administration lied to the American people and started a war. I do not believe he had faulty intelligence. Saddam is currently being tried for killing thousands of kurds. I hold Bush equally responsible for every death the Iraq war has caused. The only difference is that Bush can spin the media in his favor while Saddam cannot. On topic: If Microsoft decides to make kernel-level actions unavailable to 3rd party anti-virus companies, then it must also make those actions unavailable to OneCare. Otherwise, Microsoft would be leveraging the fact that it MAKES Windows to gain an advantage in the Anti-Virus market. I agree that kernel-level tasks should be off-limits. But if MS makes them that way for 3rd parties, it must abide by that standard as well. That's the "level playing field" concept. And I still think it's ludicrously funny that Microsoft is now in the business of plugging the holes in Microsoft products. The result is that Microsoft now has a DISincentive to make Windows products perfectly secure. If they did, they'd lose money from the OneCare division. Basically, it's the principle: "Don't build the product too well or the customer will never have to replace it" just updated for the digital age. What's next? Are they going to start charging you for monthly updates? $9.99 for critical ones, $4.99 for non-critical?

"I love my country; I wish my President (sic) were dead. I am an American." Why did you go to the trouble of using a semi-colon, and yet use "were" instead of "was"? "Don't build the product too well or the customer will never have to replace it" I've heard Mac OS X is built pretty well from people here, yet Apple keeps releasing new versions and people keep buying them. Perhaps products become obsolete, or better products come along. Apple didn't design Mac OS Classic with security in mind, and Microsoft didn't originally design Windows that way either (And they surely didn't with their command-line DOSes). Times change, and what people want changes. Captcha: TXUHMJ

bdkjones: I could present a case for the other side just as well. Just because you "believe" Bush is responsible for war crimes against humanity does not make him responsible. How do you know Bush lied? Do you have secret classified info. that shows Bush telling his staff to lie to the American people? All this talk of lies, war crimes, etc. is purely *speculation.* If you can point me to a transcript of a meeting between Bush and his aides that demonstrates that he lied, then I will move to your side. Until that, we should take the position: "Innocent until proven guilty," *not* "guilty until proven innocent." BTW, I believe Bush and Rumsfeld made some missteps in Iraq, but I don't think they should be assassinated. To sum it up: show me some clear, hard facts to back up your statements (i.e. transcripts, video, audio) and I will reassess my position. Until then, I will be giving Bush the benefit of the doubt. Final question: Where in the US are the mass graves, where Bush and his "cronies" are performing genocide? Where are the plastic shredders that are used to shred people Bush does not agree with? Where are the torture chambers where people are physically maimed for life(i.e. hands/feet/arms cut off, eyeballs gouged out, etc. Waterboarding doesn't count.)? On-topic: " then it must also make those actions unavailable to OneCare. " I agree with you there. If MS has OneCare use undocumented API's, then that would be a strong anti-trust violation. "Captcha: TXUHMJ" ??? What is so significant about those letters?

"What is so significant about those letters?" Because the letters make words, and words make lists: Mutt, Hut, Jut, Tux. There are zero letters left (LVLs), and four words in our list. T is the most common, followed by U. We look for two letters, since the original captcha contained 6 letters, but we could only make four words out of them. We call these two letters MVLs (Most Valuable Letters). T occurs 5 times, U 4, so we subtract that to get 1. The solution is T (we can avoid the MVL - LVL step, since there are no LVLs), the MVL. The MVL doesn't really have any significance. Letters do since they make words. Words have significance based on their usage context and grouping within a phrase or sentence. Sentences are made of words, and paragraphs are made of Lorem Ispum Lorem Ispum Lorem Ispum Lorem Ispum Lorem Ispum Lorem Ispum... CAPTCHA: EUYKIZ

I too feel that Bush should have his legs wrapped in rope and attached to the back of a truck, and dragged several miles on a winding dirt road naked at speeds of 60 MPH (and it should be televised so schoolchildren can watch in glee as the treasonist imperialist war criminal dies a bloody, merciless death). Being a Muslim in George Bush's America is worse than being a Jew in Nazi Germany. When George isn't busy burning Korans, Selling US assets to Israel, controlling Fox News, planning the Next 9/11, and bombing abortion clinics, he spends his free time dumping anti-freeze, sharks with frickin' laser beams, and oil into water supplies, shootin' up them people that'r gays, and laughing at and molesting poor black, native-american, and hispanic children. If you'll excuse me, the government is going to cause another HAARPicane soon, so I need to hide and buy more tin-foil. Captcha: OMIQXT

I find it very saddening that people think it is absolutely fine to perform atrocious acts on a person as punishment for their atrocious acts. Have any of you death-wishers stopped to think that maybe Bush was in the same situation as you? That he saw things so horrible he wanted to punish people responsible with this war? I'm not saying this is right, because its not; only that by making comments like, "I too feel that Bush should have his legs wrapped in rope and attached to the back of a truck, and dragged several miles on a winding dirt road naked at speeds of 60 MPH (and it should be televised so schoolchildren can watch in glee as the treasonist imperialist war criminal dies a bloody, merciless death)." "I wish my President were dead. I am an American." Are advocating Bush's position for this war. You yourselves are qualifying a revenge-based war. All of you should be ashamed of yourselves, but you're not. Revenge is the main reason for war, and all of you "feel" that oh its soo horrible and how dare our leaders do this, then you spout what you would do to the leaders. And I'm not a foxfanboi, but I do belive that blathering on and on about conspiracy and lynching leaders is pointless. OK, 9/11 is fishy as heck, the war is horrible, but look at you. What are you doing to fix all this? Not a thing. Whining about it, you want someone to listen to you? You want someone to believe you? Why? So you can feel vindicated, or just so you can feel good about yourself? Maybe you need to stop and think; if all this is true, why would Bush do it? How could he possibly get away with it? Oh wait, I know why, because all people like you would do is complain and moan about it instead of doing something. Congratulations, you have all invented Political EMO. I hope you're happy.