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

[jaggysnake57]

16 hours ago, zMeul said:

sure, whatever you say

Windows Defender is like a perforated condom

 

16 hours ago, zMeul said:

you are twisting my words

my problem is with goodbytes shilling and saying Windows Defender keeps users safe

whatever Kaspersky says is only PR to advance their suit and market position

nope he aint you pretty mush said that

 

and ive used windows defender for years and the only time ive ever gotten a virus is through my own fault and ignoring defender

[Master Disaster]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

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.   

You really think they're stupid enough to initiate a lawsuit based on a false claim?

 

What's the difference between all the things you listed and an Antivirus? The answer, MS don't have their own alternative already installed on your PC.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Master Disaster said:

You really think they're stupid enough to initiate a lawsuit based on a false claim?

 

What's the difference between all the things you listed and an Antivirus? The answer, MS don't have their own alternative already installed on your PC.

 

Yes.  Because in the EU the precedent has been set for this type of thing that they almost don't need proof to win. 

[Liltrekkie]

17 hours ago, zMeul said:

goodbytes shilling again .. who knew

Like you shill for Intel by shitting on AMD every second of every day? Talk about calling the kettle black there.

 

On topic, you'd think that they would be happy MS activates WD, even though it's literally a piece of garbage. This lawsuit won't go anywhere since the recent Randsomware attack. Cyber security, and the topic of MS's duty to protect it, will be the forefront of the discussion, and that discussion is already taking place, and has for some time. This lawsuit is bad PR for Kaspersky.

[Master Disaster]

11 minutes ago, mr moose said:

 

Yes.  Because in the EU the precedent has been set for this type of thing that they almost don't need proof to win. 

That's because the EU has actual consumer protection standards in place designed to make it a fair playing field for everyone in the game.

 

Also your talking BS and you know it, Kaspersky will have to prove their claims are true in a court of arbitration (The Hague) before any ruling is made.

 

I've already outlined exactly how MS are breaking EU law...

 

1) They're doing everything they can to prevent the user from seeing the expiration notification just so they can force enable SE which is anti competitive.

 

2) No one is ever given a choice about whether SE is enabled or not which is anti consumer.

 

Whether you agree or disagree with that is irrelevant, that's the law in the EU and MS have to abide by it if they're doing business here.

 

And why we're on the subject, I haven't had an update notification from GFE in months, it gets a yellow exclamation mark on its icon but the notifications now go to the action centre.

[mr moose]

57 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

That's because the EU has actual consumer protection standards in place designed to make it a fair playing field for everyone in the game.

 

Also your talking BS and you know it, Kaspersky will have to prove their claims are true in a court of arbitration (The Hague) before any ruling is made.

 

I've already outlined exactly how MS are breaking EU law...

 

1) They're doing everything they can to prevent the user from seeing the expiration notification just so they can force enable SE which is anti competitive.

 

2) No one is ever given a choice about whether SE is enabled or not which is anti consumer.

 

Whether you agree or disagree with that is irrelevant, that's the law in the EU and MS have to abide by it if they're doing business here.

 

And why we're on the subject, I haven't had an update notification from GFE in months, it gets a yellow exclamation mark on its icon but the notifications now go to the action centre.

consumer protection?  if that's what you want to call it, then by all means. Just don't go assuming  that becasue one company is taking another company to court that it means they have evidence.  All it means is their legal team has told them they have a chance at winning,  and that counsel is based as much on where you take them to court as it does why.

 

 

[LAwLz]

4 hours 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. 

Not sure what the person you were responding to was talking about, but web standards back in the days were largely ignored and Microsoft no doubt played a major role in making it that way.

 

There is a mode called "quirks mode", which is a mode used by browsers to render webpages as IE5 and older would render them (which is not at all like how web standards dictates they should be rendered).

So back in those days, if you wanted your website to look decent in IE then you had to follow the IE standards rather than the web standards.

Remember, we're talking about late 90's and early 00's.

Some estimate that about 95% of websites back in those days did not follow web standards, so what we had were icons like these everywhere:

Websites, amateur made or not, had to decide to some degree which browser it would support. If it rendered correctly in IE then it would not render the same in Netscape, and vice versa (depending on what tags were used, of course, some things rendered the same in both).

 

It really was a clusterfuck.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Not sure what the person you were responding to was talking about, but web standards back in the days were largely ignored and Microsoft no doubt played a major role in making it that way.

 

There is a mode called "quirks mode", which is a mode used by browsers to render webpages as IE5 and older would render them (which is not at all like how web standards dictates they should be rendered).

So back in those days, if you wanted your website to look decent in IE then you had to follow the IE standards rather than the web standards.

Remember, we're talking about late 90's and early 00's.

Some estimate that about 95% of websites back in those days did not follow web standards, so what we had were icons like these everywhere:

Websites, amateur made or not, had to decide to some degree which browser it would support. If it rendered correctly in IE then it would not render the same in Netscape, and vice versa (depending on what tags were used, of course, some things rendered the same in both).

 

It really was a clusterfuck.

 

I remember those days,  The person I was responding to had a somewhat ambiguous post (just a language thing), it sounded like he was blaming IE and specifically home made websites using wysiwyg for the demise of netscape.  

[Qwerty2323]

Why is no1 making complains about Mac Os?

And Tbh I as a user have options... Defender is crap, IE was crap, music player was good for ripping of cds only. But at least I had something to start of... I think I would feel scamed to get pc without ability to do anything...

Why not hackers dont sue firewall for ruining their bussiness...

[suicidalfranco]

1 hour ago, Qwerty2323 said:

Why is no1 making complains about Mac Os?

And Tbh I as a user have options... Defender is crap, IE was crap, music player was good for ripping of cds only. But at least I had something to start of... I think I would feel scamed to get pc without ability to do anything...

Why not hackers dont sue firewall for ruining their bussiness...

Cause MacOS is a decent OS damn good OS compared to Windows and doesn't partake in this kind, and many other kinds, of BSs like Windows does.

Spoiler

HOT

Spoiler

DMAN

Spoiler

SUN

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

[sof006]

I think they need to shove off and let Microsoft do what they want with their OS... They made it. 

[pipnina]

22 minutes ago, suicidalfranco said:

Cause MacOS is a decent OS damn good OS compared to Windows and doesn't partake in this kind, and many other kinds, of BSs like Windows does.

  Reveal hidden contents

HOT

  Reveal hidden contents

DMAN

  Reveal hidden contents

SUN

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

 

 

MacOS is a good OS. But damn do Apple like to push around developers. They are actually WORSE in some ways than Microsoft.

At least Microsoft allows Vulkan to exist on their platform... Instead of refusing to have anything to do with open standards and building an API which their system HAS to run. the only reason OpenGL still exists on MacOS is because of legacy applications. I'll give it props for the user experience and stability, though.

[LAwLz]

19 minutes ago, sof006 said:

I think they need to shove off and let Microsoft do what they want with their OS... They made it. 

We have anti-monopoly laws for a reason.

I am not saying this falls under monopoly-abuse (haven't looked into it enough, but the title of this thread is flat out wrong) but "just let them do whatever they want" would harm consumers and competitors tremendously.

Remember, Microsoft has done a lot of very evil things in the past. Blackmailing, spreading lies, deliberately harmed competitors, locked users into their products. They were only able to do these things because of their monopoly.

A monopoly gives you lots of power, and with great power comes great responsibilities (and thus, more legislation in order to prevent abuse).

If you want an extreme example, it's like saying "the world should shove off and let North Korea do what they want with their nuclear bombs... They made them". You are not allowed to harm others, even with something you made yourself.

 

Anti-monopoly laws are crucial to preserve a free market, which is very beneficial to us consumers.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, LAwLz said:

-snip-

All true but what if Microsoft wants to add Anti-Virus and Anti-Malware capabilities to the core of it's OS, now we are preventing developers from adding features to their own product because 3rd party programs exist due to a lack of a feature in the original software?

 

There isn't an easy answer to this question but do remember Windows is Microsoft's intellectual property and they are the ones that make it an open software platform for people to develop applications for, there is nothing stopping Microsoft making Windows 11 a completely closed platform for example.

 

Anti-monopoly laws exist to make markets fair but is Windows really an open and free market? Being owned by a private company....

[mr moose]

9 minutes ago, leadeater said:

All true but what if Microsoft wants to add Anti-Virus and Anti-Malware capabilities to the core of it's OS, now we are preventing developers from adding features to their own product because 3rd party programs exist due to a lack of a feature in the original software?

 

There isn't an easy answer to this question but do remember Windows is Microsoft's intellectual property and they are the ones that make it an open software platform for people to develop applications for, there is nothing stopping Microsoft making Windows 11 a completely closed platform for example.

 

Anti-monopoly laws exist to make markets fair but is Windows really an open and free market? Being owned by a private company....

I think the problem lies in interpretation,  while alternatives exist to windows as an OS,  it can't legally be argued as a monopoly.  There is a difference between having an OS that works the best for most cases (90%) and being the only OS for every case.   While many European governments have made the change to Linux based OS's and some companies doing the same it is hard to argue a monopoly.

 

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monopolymarket.asp

[Lt.Speirs]

Oh man, that is brilliant.

[leadeater]

12 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I think the problem lies in interpretation,  while alternatives exist to windows as an OS,  it can't legally be argued as a monopoly.  There is a difference between having an OS that works the best for most cases (90%) and being the only OS for every case.   While many European governments have made the change to Linux based OS's and some companies doing the same it is hard to argue a monopoly.

 

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/monopolymarket.asp

What I was really getting at was specifically the Windows platform itself being a free market hence being itself subject to anti-monopoly laws.

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, leadeater said:

What I was really getting at was specifically the Windows platform itself being a free market hence being itself subject to anti-monopoly laws.

Still a platform with valid, usable competition, every computer needs an OS to run, not every computer needs windows to run.  

 

Although making this point, I still believe the EU has some very different ideas about what constitutes a monopoly.  

[leadeater]

20 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Still a platform with valid, usable competition, every computer needs an OS to run, not every computer needs windows to run.  

 

Although making this point, I still believe the EU has some very different ideas about what constitutes a monopoly.  

Yea but this is about Windows Defender made by Microsoft inbuilt in to it's own OS and 3rd party software. If we are going to say anti-monopoly is at play then we are starting to get in to a territory of dictating what developers are allowed to do with their own product which is hard to argue is a good thing.

 

"You can't develop that feature in to your product since X company is selling software to do that for your product"

 

It's not actually about whether or not there is an alternative to Windows as the argument by Kaspersky is Microsoft is breaking anti-trust laws which is broader than anti-monopoly.

 

Quote

These Acts, first, restrict the formation of cartels and prohibit other collusive practices regarded as being in restraint of trade. Second, they restrict the mergers and acquisitions of organizations that could substantially lessen competition. Third, they prohibit the creation of a monopoly and the abuse of monopoly power.[1]

 

Microsoft isn't a cartel so that doesn't apply, they however are acting in a way that is portrayed as a cartel. Collusion isn't at play either since who are they colluding with? Themselves?

Quote

A cartel is a group of formally independent producers whose goal is to increase their collective profits by means of price fixing, limiting supply, or other restrictive practices. Cartels typically control selling prices, but some are organized to control the prices of purchased inputs. Antitrust laws forbid cartels; however, they continue to exist nationally and internationally, openly and secretly, formally and informally. Note that a single entity that holds a monopoly by this definition cannot be a cartel, though it may be guilty of abusing said monopoly in other ways. Cartels usually occur in oligopolies, where there are a small number of sellers and usually involve homogeneous products. Bid rigging is a special type of cartel.

 

To be clear Microsoft is likely in the wrong here but it is rather hard to point specifically at a law they are breaking as most of us are not legal experts and don't know the ins and outs of anti-trust laws etc.

 

What I don't want to come out of this however is a precedent that can be used to restrict what the owners of intellectual property are allowed to do and develop said intellectual property.

[mach]

On 6/7/2017 at 1:18 AM, LAwLz said:

Just so that everyone knows, Kaspersky does raise some valid complaints and the title is really biased and misleading.

I highly recommend reading the full article with an open mind.  

 

I agree that the title is very biased.

Blocking softwares from pushing their own notification, while Windows itself can freely slam me in the face with it's god damn fucking fullscreen notification telling me to update, is just hypocritical. 

On 6/7/2017 at 4:17 AM, GoodBytes said:

When your subscription expires, the A/V is disabled, It refuses to remove any viruses, until you pay.

I don't know how Kaspersky works but I believe my nod32 would still function to scan and clean after the license expires. It just won't update the virus database. That means I'm still protected from older viruses.

[captain_to_fire]

1 minute ago, mach said:

I don't know how Kaspersky works but I believe my nod32 would still function to scan and clean after the license expires. It just won't update the virus database. That means I'm still protected from older viruses.

It will stop working (including real time protection and updates) once trial period or subscription expires. I use Kaspersky because it worked well for me since 2011.

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, leadeater said:

Yea but this is about Windows Defender made by Microsoft inbuilt in to it's own OS and 3rd party software. If we are going to say anti-monopoly is at play then we are starting to get in to a territory of dictating what developers are allowed to do with their own product which is hard to argue is a good thing.

 

"You can't develop that feature in to your product since X company is selling software to do that for your product"

 

It's not actually about whether or not there is an alternative to Windows as the argument by Kaspersky is Microsoft is breaking anti-trust laws which is broader than anti-monopoly.

 

 

Microsoft isn't a cartel so that doesn't apply, they however are acting in a way that is portrayed as a cartel. Collusion isn't at play either since who are they colluding with? Themselves?

 

To be clear Microsoft is likely in the wrong here but it is rather hard to point specifically at a law they are breaking as most of us are not legal experts and don't know the ins and outs of anti-trust laws etc.

 

What I don't want to come out of this however is a precedent that can be used to restrict what the owners of intellectual property are allowed to do and develop said intellectual property.

What have cartels got to do with this? 

[leadeater]

5 minutes ago, mr moose said:

What have cartels got to do with this? 

Nothing other than it's stipulated in the Anti-trust laws, it's one of the laws that makes them illegal. Anti-trust covers a wide range of things so taking someone to court for breaking anti-trust laws allows you to argue an extremely wide range of issues.

 

Edit:

Not my wording I'm only using the wording in the law.

[mr moose]

45 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Nothing other than it's stipulated in the Anti-trust laws, it's one of the laws that makes them illegal. Anti-trust covers a wide range of things so taking someone to court for breaking anti-trust laws allows you to argue an extremely wide range of issues.

 

Edit:

Not my wording I'm only using the wording in the law.

EU law?

[leadeater]

30 minutes ago, mr moose said:

EU law?

Yes

Quote

European antitrust policy is developed from two central rules set out in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union:

 

First, Article 101 of the Treaty prohibits agreements between two or more independent market operators which restrict competition. This provision covers both horizontal agreements (between actual or potential competitors operating at the same level of the supply chain) and vertical agreements (between firms operating at different levels, i.e. agreement between a manufacturer and its distributor). Only limited exceptions are provided for in the general prohibition. The most flagrant example of illegal conduct infringing Article 101 is the creation of a cartel between competitors, which may involve price-fixing and/or market sharing.

Second, Article 102 of the Treaty prohibits firms that hold a dominant position on a given market to abuse that position, for example by charging unfair prices, by limiting production, or by refusing to innovate to the prejudice of consumers.

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/overview_en.html

 

This is likely more about article 102 than 101

Quote

Article 102

(ex Article 82 TEC)

Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the internal market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market in so far as it may affect trade between Member States.

Such abuse may, in particular, consist in:

(a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions;

(b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers;

(c) applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;

(d) making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/procedures_102_en.html

 

But 102 comes back to my actual point is Microsoft the owner of Windows and it's software ecosystem and the direct developer subject to this or not. Can the EU prevent Microsoft from implementing features in their operating system because a 3rd party has created software for the system Microsoft itself has created? History would say yes they can, I would say lets not set too many legal precedents for this kind of thing. We don't know when or how it could be used later on down the line.