Kaspersky files an antitrust lawsuit to EU and Russia against Microsoft for keeping users safe with Windows Defender

[KE2012]

Hmm, not sure what I think about this. Personally, I think its nice windows provides its own anti-virus. I know of people who aren't tech savy enough to go out their way and get a good AV, so imo its a good thing. I would have issues though if windows defender stopped you installing other anti-virus (to be fair, it should with some of them, bloody viruses in their own right AVG, Mcafee cough cough). 

[Sauron]

This is true just as it was true about internet explorer. Microsoft uses its dominant position in the OS market to favour their other products over the competition. I'm not against having a default anti-virus or browser (even if they come directly from microsoft) but Windows Defender is embedded into windows as a part of the core system, just like IE used to be and got microsoft an antitrust violation fine for. You can't uninstall it and you have to go out of your way to even disable it permanently. Whether this actively damages Kaspersky's business is for them to prove, but I do believe this isn't groundless bs.

[Ryujin2003]

I can see where Kaspersky is coming from. It's not about Microsoft's AV protecting you, it's about Microsoft's injecting itself automatically, and nullifying additional revenue resources for Kaspersky. They cannot get people to renew if their renewal notice isn't displayed. I do give them (Kaspersky) Kudos, much less invasive Than McAfee and Norton..

 

Why does Kaspersky care? Unlike Norton and McAfee, I've never once seen Kaspersky on a preload from OEM. They don't get that revenue from HP and DELL because of that. Instead they rely on subscriptions. People who purchased a subscription if Kaspersky might want to keep it. So they should be alerted that Kaspersky is expired and their computer can be at risk. Microsoft is attempting to force itself into Kaspersky sales, even though MS doesn't get anything out of it. Norton doesn't care after the 6 month trial, they made money just from them being preloaded on your device. Profit by mass production volume.

 

People buy Kaspersky. It's not a preload, so Kaspersky is on a PC by choice. That's why Kaspersky is the only one complaining. MBAM is anti-malware, so it doesn't interfere with Microsoft's AV. Different purposes.

 

 

I personally used Kaspersky and MalwareBytes.

And I'm very satisfied with both of them.

 

I do have to say, this is much like a fresh version of W10, and Edge not letting you download Mozilla because "it may harm your PC". But let's you download Chrome no problem.... Thanks MS.

[GoodBytes]

1 minute ago, Ryujin2003 said:

I can see where Kaspersky is coming from. It's not about Microsoft's AV protecting you, it's about Microsoft's injecting itself automatically, and nullifying additional revenue resources for Kaspersky. They cannot get people to renew if their renewal notice isn't displayed. I do give them (Kaspersky) Kudos, much less invasive Than McAfee and Norton..

 

Why does Kaspersky care? Unlike Norton and McAfee, I've never once seen Kaspersky on a preload from OEM. They don't get that revenue from HP and DELL because of that. Instead they rely on subscriptions. People who purchased a subscription if Kaspersky might want to keep it. So they should be alerted that Kaspersky is expired and their computer can be at risk. Microsoft is attempting to force itself into Kaspersky sales, even though MS doesn't get anything out of it. Norton doesn't care after the 6 month trial, they made money just from them being preloaded on your device. Profit by mass production volume.

 

People buy Kaspersky. It's not a preload, so Kaspersky is on a PC by choice. That's why Kaspersky is the only one complaining. MBAM is anti-malware, so it doesn't interfere with Microsoft's AV. Different purposes.

 

 

I personally used Kaspersky and MalwareBytes.

And I'm very satisfied with both of them.

 

I do have to say, this is much like a fresh version of W10, and Edge not letting you download Mozilla because "it may harm your PC". But let's you download Chrome no problem.... Thanks MS.

Very well said.

[Jito463]

5 hours ago, pipnina said:

Back when this was a thing, Firefox, Opera, Chrome etc didn't exist. It was basically just Netscape. IE was the most used browser for like 5 years or more AFAIK

Not true.  Opera existed, it just wasn't very well known.  Opera has been around since '94.  In fact, they were among the first to use what they called MDI (Multi-document interface), which is essentially tabbed browsing.  Though MDI did provide more control than current generation tabs do.  I've used Opera for many, many years now (since v4 or 5, I even purchased licenses for v6 and v8, when they were still charging for it).  It's really too bad they gave up the Presto engine in favor becoming another Chrome clone.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Opera_web_browser

[Mira Yurizaki]

1 hour ago, Master Disaster said:

Yes but the AV is unable to send an actual notification to the user about the pending expiration, instead they're forced to use to action centre, something which most people don't know about and those that do don't care about. These are the very same notifications that MS DO use to tell users SE has been re-enabled.

How is this different than before, when apps needed go through Windows to post something to the notification tray? And what's stopping them from continuing on nagging you?

 

Also I have no reason to believe the Action Center is the only method of getting a notification out. Malwarebytes gives me notifications without going through the Action Center.

[pipnina]

6 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Not true.  Opera existed, it just wasn't very well known.  Opera has been around since '94.  In fact, they were among the first to use what they called MDI (Multi-document interface), which is essentially tabbed browsing.  Though MDI did provide more control than current generation tabs do.  I've used Opera for many, many years now (since v4 or 5, I even purchased licenses for v6 and v8, when they were still charging for it).  It's really too bad they gave up the Presto engine in favor becoming another Chrome clone.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Opera_web_browser

Well, my knowledge may not be completely accurate (I wasn't alive in '94, after all). But if Opera was a paid engine at the time, then I think my point kinda stands still.

 

Thanks for the info, tho.

[Jito463]

Just now, pipnina said:

 But if Opera was a paid engine at the time, then I think my point kinda stands still.

So was Netscape.  I remember buying Netscape Communicator Suite once for $89 at Best Buy, back in the 90's.  This was well before the advent of free browsers, unless you count IE, which was a major point of the lawsuit against MS and their bundling of IE with Windows.

[pipnina]

2 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

So was Netscape.  I remember buying Netscape Communicator Suite once for $89 at Best Buy, back in the 90's.  This was well before the advent of free browsers, unless you count IE, which was a major point of the lawsuit against MS and their bundling of IE with Windows.

That was the point of my original comment. Because the browsers at the time were all on paid licenses, IE being offered for free caused concerns.

[Jito463]

5 hours ago, Princess Cadence said:

ESET > Kaspersky

 

5 hours ago, Bouzoo said:

ESET > everything

Indeed.  I've used NOD32 for 11 years or more now.  It's the only thing I'll trust to protect my system, apart from myself.  I believe PBS (Paranoia Based Security, treating every unknown download/link as a potential danger) is the best first line of defense.  As a backup though, I rely on NOD32 to watch my back, proverbially speaking.

[LAwLz]

57 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

So was Netscape.  I remember buying Netscape Communicator Suite once for $89 at Best Buy, back in the 90's.  This was well before the advent of free browsers, unless you count IE, which was a major point of the lawsuit against MS and their bundling of IE with Windows.

41 minutes ago, pipnina said:

That was the point of my original comment. Because the browsers at the time were all on paid licenses, IE being offered for free caused concerns.

That was far from the only thing Microsoft did when it came to Internet Explorer vs Netscape though.

First of all, Internet Explorer was also a paid product. It was included in Microsoft Plus! which was sold separately (or included by some OEMs).

Secondly, they got into trouble because they did things such as deliberately modify the Windows APIs to make competing browsers worse and they also made threatened OEMs, and change contracts so that if someone like Dell wanted to sell a PC with Windows, they were not allowed to install or recommend any browser other than Internet Explorer.

 

That's why it was ruled that Microsoft were abusing their monopoly. Not necessarily because they were giving something away for free, but because they actively harmed competitors.

[mr moose]

32 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

That was far from the only thing Microsoft did when it came to Internet Explorer vs Netscape though.

First of all, Internet Explorer was also a paid product. It was included in Microsoft Plus! which was sold separately (or included by some OEMs).

Secondly, they got into trouble because they did things such as deliberately modify the Windows APIs to make competing browsers worse and they also made threatened OEMs, and change contracts so that if someone like Dell wanted to sell a PC with Windows, they were not allowed to install or recommend any browser other than Internet Explorer.

 

That's why it was ruled that Microsoft were abusing their monopoly. Not necessarily because they were giving something away for free, but because they actively harmed competitors.

 

That's not exactly  true,  what they did was have activeX interpreted differently in IE, therefore anything written specifically for IE could only be used by IE and obviously only in windows.

 

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0ahUKEwjKst70mKrUAhXJnZQKHR_3AhcQFgg4MAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fec.europa.eu%2Fcompetition%2Fpublications%2Fcpn%2F2010_1_12.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEzglA82uhUKnspK4_bzXqG1KSbMg&cad=rja

 

All it meant was that content written specifically for IE would not work outside IE.      Anything created without the IE activeX interpretation in mind would work on everything else just fine.    This does still happen today but not to a much lesser extent (I've heard some banks force their clients to use IE solely, but this I believe is more so they only have one browser interface to secure).

 

You could argue that using ActiveX to hamper IE competition would have been be a thing, but the EU findings weren't enforced anywhere else in the world and IE died a horrible death anyway.  This suggests it was mostly a futile effort on MS's part at world domination.   

 

 

 

[Drak3]

1 hour ago, M.Yurizaki said:

How is this different than before, when apps needed go through Windows to post something to the notification tray? And what's stopping them from continuing on nagging you?

Hate to be technical, actually, I love it. But in Windows Vista and 7, it often went through the Action Center and it was an extremely notification under the 'Security' subsection.

 

Although, I believe Windows 10 doesn't allow for the bullshit spam via its action center. A god send compared to AVG's spam that I've got to deal with on 7, that I've gotten with every other antivirus I've ever had.

[Jito463]

55 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

That was far from the only thing Microsoft did when it came to Internet Explorer vs Netscape though.

First of all, Internet Explorer was also a paid product. It was included in Microsoft Plus! which was sold separately (or included by some OEMs).

Secondly, they got into trouble because they did things such as deliberately modify the Windows APIs to make competing browsers worse and they also made threatened OEMs, and change contracts so that if someone like Dell wanted to sell a PC with Windows, they were not allowed to install or recommend any browser other than Internet Explorer.

 

That's why it was ruled that Microsoft were abusing their monopoly. Not necessarily because they were giving something away for free, but because they actively harmed competitors.

To be fair, it's been a loooooooooooooooooooong time since I've thought about it, heh.  If a few of the details escape me, that's truly no surprise.  I'm surprised if I can remember what happened last week. 

[LAwLz]

30 minutes ago, mr moose said:

That's not exactly  true,  what they did was have activeX interpreted differently in IE, therefore anything written specifically for IE could only be used by IE and obviously only in windows.

 

https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&ved=0ahUKEwjKst70mKrUAhXJnZQKHR_3AhcQFgg4MAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fec.europa.eu%2Fcompetition%2Fpublications%2Fcpn%2F2010_1_12.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEzglA82uhUKnspK4_bzXqG1KSbMg&cad=rja

 

All it meant was that content written specifically for IE would not work outside IE.      Anything created without the IE activeX interpretation in mind would work on everything else just fine.    This does still happen today but not to a much lesser extent (I've heard some banks force their clients to use IE solely, but this I believe is more so they only have one browser interface to secure).

 

You could argue that using ActiveX to hamper IE competition would have been be a thing, but the EU findings weren't enforced anywhere else in the world and IE died a horrible death anyway.  This suggests it was mostly a futile effort on MS's part at world domination.

That's not the same lawsuit I was talking about. That's the EU lawsuit against Microsoft in 2009.

The one I was talking about was the lawsuit in the US back in 2001, which had nothing to do with ActiveX.

 

What Microsoft was doing back in the Netscape days were changing and keeping APIs hidden for third party browsers. The lawsuit (which Microsoft lost) forced Microsoft to make the APIs public so that all browser manufacturers' could see and use them.

 

 

Sources:

Shaking Up The Microsoft Settlement by Eben Moglen (January 28, 2002)

The Microsoft Antitrust Case by Nicholas Economides (April 2, 2001) (Original source: New York Times, April 2, 2000

 

Some citations from these two articles:

Quote

Back on November 6, the Bush Administration made a settlement with Microsoft, apparently designed to compromise the long-running antitrust action brought by the Clinton Administration. The settlement contained numerous provisions seemingly designed to control Microsoft’s market conduct, including requirements that Microsoft make available information about its application program interfaces (APIs), in order to permit competitors to interoperate with Microsoft products.

Quote

Microsoft shall disclose to [relevant developers and other industry participants] for the sole purpose of interoperating with a Windows Operating System Product, ...the APIs and related Documentation that are used by Microsoft Middleware to interoperate with a Windows Operating System Product.

Quote

In the last week of March 2000, the New York Times published the terms of the Microsoft and DOJ negotiations conducted under Judge Posner’s supervision. The published information implied that DOJ and Microsoft were not far from an agreement, but that some States that were part of the litigation disagreed with the settlement terms. The terms of the final draft of the proposal of DOJ were:

[...]

4. Microsoft would be required to disclose the application interfaces (APIs) that link applications to Windows.

 

[mr moose]

17 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

That's not the same lawsuit I was talking about. That's the EU lawsuit against Microsoft in 2009.

The one I was talking about was the lawsuit in the US back in 2001, which had nothing to do with ActiveX.

 

What Microsoft was doing back in the Netscape days were changing and keeping APIs hidden for third party browsers. The lawsuit (which Microsoft lost) forced Microsoft to make the APIs public so that all browser manufacturers' could see and use them.

 

 

Sources:

Shaking Up The Microsoft Settlement by Eben Moglen (January 28, 2002)

The Microsoft Antitrust Case by Nicholas Economides (April 2, 2001) (Original source: New York Times, April 2, 2000

 

Some citations from these two articles:

 

My mistake.

[aries1470]

11 hours ago, pipnina said:

Well, yeah. Google pushes Chrome on Android, even though I think Opera and Firefox (Mozzarella Fire Doggo) have versions for Android, but basically no-one uses them because you have to SEARCH for it, and you can't uninstall Chrome.

 

Back when this was a thing, Firefox, Opera, Chrome etc didn't exist. It was basically just Netscape. IE was the most used browser for like 5 years or more AFAIK

No, there were more browsers, Netscape being one of hte better ones. They were also FREE. What IE did was BREAK INTERNATIONAL HTML Standards, being installed in the system, your average NON - TECHNICAL Joe Blow, would not know, create WEBPAGES with the included software and those webpages would be incompatable with other web browsers that FOLLOWED the HTML standards.

There was also Opera... and a couple of other minor ones.

[mr moose]

3 hours ago, aries1470 said:

No, there were more browsers, Netscape being one of hte better ones. They were also FREE. What IE did was BREAK INTERNATIONAL HTML Standards, being installed in the system, your average NON - TECHNICAL Joe Blow, would not know, create WEBPAGES with the included software and those webpages would be incompatable with other web browsers that FOLLOWED the HTML standards.

There was also Opera... and a couple of other minor ones.

Can you rephrase that?  It sounds like you are saying IE is responsible for crashing netscape because home made websites where somehow coded to only work with IE.  I am sure you are aware that homemade websites by amateurs have had no measurable bearing on the feasibility of web browsers. 

[Master Disaster]

9 hours ago, M.Yurizaki said:

How is this different than before, when apps needed go through Windows to post something to the notification tray? And what's stopping them from continuing on nagging you?

 

Also I have no reason to believe the Action Center is the only method of getting a notification out. Malwarebytes gives me notifications without going through the Action Center.

From the article...

 

Quote

for three days after the expiry of a license for our security solution and the turning off of protection, we are forbidden – through our own notification system – from informing the user that it might be a good idea to extend the license so that protection could get back up and running. Instead of that, we’re obliged to use Microsoft’s own notification system – now called ‘Action Center’ – to which many users pay little attention.

 

[You_are_a_cunt]

I laughed too hard while reading this and my colleagues at work think I (finally) went mental.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Master Disaster said:

From the article...

 

 

It is possible that kapersky are just exaggerating for the sake of pushing their claim.    I get notifications all the time direct from AMD drivers (used to be nvidia drivers), malwarebytes, audio drivers and printer software (brother). So long as the program is running an active background process.   

[captain_to_fire]

10 hours ago, Ryujin2003 said:

I personally used Kaspersky and MalwareBytes.

Kaspersky saved my thesis defense back in college. 

10 hours ago, Ryujin2003 said:

I do have to say, this is much like a fresh version of W10, and Edge not letting you download Mozilla because "it may harm your PC". But let's you download Chrome no problem.... Thanks MS.

Kinda like when browsing a Microsoft website with third party browsers. 

 

To be fair, Google does similar when browsing a Google site with a non-Chrome browser.

[Jito463]

3 hours ago, aries1470 said:

No, there were more browsers, Netscape being one of hte better ones. They were also FREE. What IE did was BREAK INTERNATIONAL HTML Standards, being installed in the system, your average NON - TECHNICAL Joe Blow, would not know, create WEBPAGES with the included software and those webpages would be incompatable with other web browsers that FOLLOWED the HTML standards.

There was also Opera... and a couple of other minor ones.

Reminds me of the infamous "MSN.com on Opera" fiasco, where someone decided that if the browser referrer ID returned as Opera (possibly others, as well), it would literally make the website into gibberish.  Funny enough, Opera had the ability to mask it's ID, so all you had to do was set it so that it spoofed IE, and the site worked just fine again.

8 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Can you rephrase that?  It sounds like you are saying IE is responsible for crashing netscape because home made websites where somehow coded to only work with IE.  I am sure you are aware that homemade websites by amateurs have had no measurable bearing on the feasibility of web browsers. 

I believe the reference was to official MS sites and also sites which were created using their HTML WYSIWYG editor.

[SCHISCHKA]

so if Kapersky isnt making good money to employ Russian talent, what do you think that Russian talent will do?

Please keep the bear in the cage.

[mr moose]

48 minutes ago, Jito463 said:

Reminds me of the infamous "MSN.com on Opera" fiasco, where someone decided that if the browser referrer ID returned as Opera (possibly others, as well), it would literally make the website into gibberish.  Funny enough, Opera had the ability to mask it's ID, so all you had to do was set it so that it spoofed IE, and the site worked just fine again.

I believe the reference was to official MS sites and also sites which were created using their HTML WYSIWYG editor.

Hmmm, I highly doubt home made websites using wysiwyg creators (from any company) have the reach to effect browser feasibility.