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

[mr moose]

12 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Yes

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

 

This is likely more about article 102 than 101

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.

I just discovered the EU is a cartel that breaks anti trust laws under 102 a, c and by extension to a lesser extent d.

 

 

[sof006]

9 hours ago, LAwLz said:

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.

I meant in the regard to this situation, the defender program isn't harming anyone. If it is somehow harming someone/something then obvious intervention is needed but from what I can see the Defender program isn't preventing anyone from installing and using a third party antivirus program by any means. Its just stepping in when it knows your computer is potentially at risk,

[Master Disaster]

1 hour ago, sof006 said:

I meant in the regard to this situation, the defender program isn't harming anyone. If it is somehow harming someone/something then obvious intervention is needed but from what I can see the Defender program isn't preventing anyone from installing and using a third party antivirus program by any means. Its just stepping in when it knows your computer is potentially at risk,

Nope, Microsoft is making it hard for 3rd party AV solutions to send important notifications to users and then force enabling Defender/SE without giving anybody a choice in the matter.

 

If the user was properly notified about the pending expiration they more than likely would have taken steps to prevent it before anything expired and who gave Microsoft permission to go around disabling and removing software from peoples PCs and replacing it with their own alternative?

[sof006]

55 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Nope, Microsoft is making it hard for 3rd party AV solutions to send important notifications to users and then force enabling Defender/SE without giving anybody a choice in the matter.

 

If the user was properly notified about the pending expiration they more than likely would have taken steps to prevent it before anything expired and who gave Microsoft permission to go around disabling and removing software from peoples PCs and replacing it with their own alternative?

But there is nothing wrong with the notification, it states very clearly. Your current anti virus protection has expired, to prevent any possible security risks we have swapped your protection to Windows Defender until you have renewed your license.

 

The statement is in the notification section of Windows (non obtrusive) but gives the user an alert of attention to look at it. I see nothing wrong with what Microsoft is doing. 

[Master Disaster]

31 minutes ago, sof006 said:

But there is nothing wrong with the notification, it states very clearly. Your current anti virus protection has expired, to prevent any possible security risks we have swapped your protection to Windows Defender until you have renewed your license.

 

The statement is in the notification section of Windows (non obtrusive) but gives the user an alert of attention to look at it. I see nothing wrong with what Microsoft is doing. 

Read the article, its not that notification that's the issue. Its the fact that Microsoft don't allow 3rd parties to send toast notifications about expiration until 3 days after your AV has expired. The first you know of it is an MS notification to tell you its expired and WD has been enabled.

 

As I said earlier, if your AV was allowed to tell you it was expiring then most users would fix it before it happens but MS don't allow them to. Instead they're stuck using the Action Centre to notify users while MS are using toasts to tell users they've enabled WD to help protect them.

 

Its almost a text book definition of anti competitive behavior.

[sof006]

30 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Read the article, its not that notification that's the issue. Its the fact that Microsoft don't allow 3rd parties to send toast notifications about expiration until 3 days after your AV has expired. The first you know of it is an MS notification to tell you its expired and WD has been enabled.

 

As I said earlier, if your AV was allowed to tell you it was expiring then most users would fix it before it happens but MS don't allow them to. Instead they're stuck using the Action Centre to notify users while MS are using toasts to tell users they've enabled WD to help protect them.

 

Its almost a text book definition of anti competitive behavior.

Fair enough but I see an easy enough solution to this. Send an email, I have a family member that uses Norton 360 and she receives an email notification alerting her that her subscription will expire soon. 

[captain_to_fire]

21 minutes ago, sof006 said:

Fair enough but I see an easy enough solution to this. Send an email, I have a family member that uses Norton 360 and she receives an email notification alerting her that her subscription will expire soon. 

That will work for some but not to everyone and here's why. An extremely busy businessman or employee who has at least 30,000 emails in their will most likely overlook that notification and even set an inbox filter to only receive the important stuff. 

[Master Disaster]

8 hours ago, leadeater said:

Yes

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

 

This is likely more about article 102 than 101

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.

I would disagree with that conclusion.

 

Did the EU stop MS from distributing Internet Explorer?

Did the EU stop Microsoft from distributing Windows Media Player?

Did the EU stop MS from including Internet Explorer with Windows?

 

The answer to all 3 is no they didn't, they simply forced Microsoft to give the consumer the choice about what software they use on their own computers and told them its not OK to include your own software and actively try to block users from using any form of alternative.

 

They concluded the IE was integral to Windows and therefore it was OK for MS to ship it.

 

They told MS that they had to create a separate SKU that didn't include WMP so users could choose which SKU to purchase.

 

The forced MS to create a "Browser Choice" application that on first boot told users that there are other alternative browsers available and gave them links to the relevant websites.

 

The EU have never forced Microsoft to not do anything, they've only ever mandated that they give consumers a choice in things, something that's heavily legislated in the EU and something that anybody doing business in the EU has to abide by.

 

Once again Microsoft think its OK to just disable a users AV and enable the MS alternative without giving the user a choice and while (it seems like) actively blocking third parties from giving users important information pertaining to their AV solution. The only reason they can possibly have to do the latter is to try and force enable WD on as many PCs as possible.

[leadeater]

9 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

-snip-

They forced Microsoft to remove internet explorer from being included in EU versions of Windows and instead include a mechanism to obtain a browser of your choice. Everyone else still has internet explorer included by default.

 

That is the EU forcing Microsoft to not include a feature as part of their own product. Yes Windows is an operating system and Internet Explorer is software but that doesn't change the fact that if Microsoft wants to include a browser as a core feature of the OS they should be allowed to.

 

What about Explorer itself? Should that get removed if people start making 3rd party file exploring applications?

 

I think you are missing the key point I was making, Microsoft owns everything about Windows it's their intellectual property. Microsoft has exclusive rights over everything about Windows and they are the ones allowing software developers to make software for their product, are we seriously going to equate the Windows software platform as equivalent to the international trade market?

[Master Disaster]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

They forced Microsoft to remove internet explorer from being included in EU versions of Windows and instead include a mechanism to obtain a browser of your choice. Everyone else still has internet explorer included by default.

 

That is the EU forcing Microsoft yo not include a feature as part of their own product. Yes Windows is an operating system and Internet Explorer is software but that doesn't change the fact that if Microsoft wants to include a browser as a core feature of the OS they should be allowed to.

 

What about Explorer itself? Should that get removed if people start making 3rd party file exploring applications?

 

I think you are missing the key point I was making, Microsoft owns everything about Windows it's their intellectual property. Microsoft has exclusive rights over everything about Windows and they are the ones allowing software developers to make software for their product, are we seriously going to equate the Windows software platform as equivalent to the international trade market place?

Except they didn't, in fact if you choose to install another browser using Microsofts "Browser Choice" app it actually opens the link in Internet Explorer, IE is installed as normal but if the user decides to choose another browser then alls that happens is the shortcuts to IE are removed from taskbar/desktop/quick launch, IE itself remains installed.

[LAwLz]

8 minutes ago, leadeater said:

They forced Microsoft to remove internet explorer from being included in EU versions of Windows and instead include a mechanism to obtain a browser of your choice. Everyone else still has internet explorer included by default.

This is not true. All versions of Windows still came with Internet Explorer. The "mechanism to obtain a browser of your choice" was in addition to Internet Explorer (which was always installed and available), not instead of Internet Explorer.

[leadeater]

4 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Except they didn't, in fact if you choose to install another browser using Microsofts "Browser Choice" app it actually opens the link in Internet Explorer, IE is installed as normal but if the user decides to choose another browser then alls that happens is the shortcuts to IE are removed from taskbar/desktop/quick launch, IE itself remains installed.

Interesting, I knew they were having issues removing IE since it was so embedded but I thought they managed to do it.

 

Anyway just be careful what you wish for and remember any legal rulings have lasting effects beyond the case that brings it up. I don't think going straight for legal action is the best way to handle things like this, Kaspersky could have talked to other AV vendors and brought a joint complaint to Microsoft directly first about notifications and see how that went. Maybe they did, don't know. 

[mach]

11 hours ago, sof006 said:

But there is nothing wrong with the notification, it states very clearly. Your current anti virus protection has expired, to prevent any possible security risks we have swapped your protection to Windows Defender until you have renewed your license.

 

The statement is in the notification section of Windows (non obtrusive) but gives the user an alert of attention to look at it. I see nothing wrong with what Microsoft is doing. 

Not everyone love to be pampered by Windows, no matter good intention or something. Users should be able to take full control on their own computers if they choose to. In this case the users have already chosen other antivirus over defender and it's sounds like a crime to remove and replace it without users' consent.

[Master Disaster]

5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Interesting, I knew they were having issues removing IE since it was so embedded but I thought they managed to do it.

 

Anyway just be careful what you wish for and remember any legal rulings have lasting effects beyond the case that brings it up. I don't think going straight for legal action is the best way to handle things like this, Kaspersky could have talked to other AV vendors and brought a joint complaint to Microsoft directly first about notifications and see how that went first. Maybe they did, don't know. 

This is going to sound very callous but well, I genuinely don't care. I've almost dropped Windows entirely these days. I use it exclusively for gaming and nothing more.

 

I'm going to hold my hands up and say I'm probably a little biased on this topic, I've grown very dismayed with Windows over the last 12 to 18 months. It just seems like our "personal" computers are not personal anymore, MS seem hellbent on removing the users choice and forcing people into doing things a certain way, their way.

 

I'm smart enough to be able to handle my own PC and I don't need anyone telling me what I can and can't do with it.

 

Just my opinion though, I've got nothing against anyone who chooses to run Windows.

[leadeater]

36 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

-snip-

I would consider going Windows free if I wasn't so reliant on staying up to play on it for my job. Many years ago I was running almost all my games through WineHQ and what ever that paid one was that I've forgotten the name of, games that used .Net were the biggest pain but they still worked.

 

Sort of on topic I'm surprised Mac didn't have to follow suit and have to include a browser picker rather than including Safari by default, I guess they get a free pass because Safari is crap  (not that IE isn't crap too).

[captain_to_fire]

2 minutes ago, leadeater said:

I guess they get a free pass because Safari is crap  (not that IE isn't crap too).

WebKit > EdgeHTML 

WebKit > Trident (used by IE) 

 

I beg to differ ?

[leadeater]

Just now, hey_yo_ said:

WebKit > EdgeHTML 

WebKit > Trident (used by IE) 

 

I beg to differ ?

Well I hate IE, Safari and Edge equally. Got nothing to do with their capabilities at displaying web pages or how they do it.

 

Edit:

Ok sorry, Safari on Windows I hate the most by farrrrrr.

[ARikozuM]

12 hours ago, Master Disaster said:

anti-competitive snip is anti-anti-trust?

Kaspersky will tell you that your trial or subscription is expiring well in advance, usually at the 2-, 1-week, and every day after -3 through the Action Center or pop-ups. 

 

While I would rather see this not go towards 3rd party favor, I can see how it could harm 3rd party developers, but it would harm any OS developers from attempting to add a new feature or product into their systems. 

[LAwLz]

1 hour ago, leadeater said:

Sort of on topic I'm surprised Mac didn't have to follow suit and have to include a browser picker rather than including Safari by default, I guess they get a free pass because Safari is crap  (not that IE isn't crap too).

That's the difference between having 5% marketshare, and 95% marketshare (or whatever the percentages were ~7 years ago when that was relevant).

 

 

 

1 hour ago, ARikozuM said:

Kaspersky will tell you that your trial or subscription is expiring well in advance, usually at the 2-, 1-week, and every day after -3 through the Action Center or pop-ups. 

 

While I would rather see this not go towards 3rd party favor, I can see how it could harm 3rd party developers, but it would harm any OS developers from attempting to add a new feature or product into their systems. 

The way I read the complaint (I have not read the entire one so please take this with a grain of salt), it's not about Microsoft adding a feature to enable Windows Defender.

It's about Microsoft removing the ability for anti-virus manufacturers to use their own notification system to inform users about the expiration date of their anti-virus, as well as some other things.

 

Here are the complains in a "short" bullet list (as short as I could make it, there is a lot to go through):

• Microsoft are resetting changes users themselves have made to their computer. The users chose to install Kaspersky, but Microsoft has created an automatic feature that turns third party anti-virus software off and turns on their own (which can not be disabled). Don't want to use an anti-virus software? Sorry but you can't. Want to use an expired anti-virus software? Sorry but you can't. Did you install a third party anti-virus because you do not want to use Windows Defender? Sorry but Windows defender will activate itself if you're not careful.
   
• Up until recently, Windows Defender (which you can not remove) would run in the background even if you had a third party anti-virus installed. So you would have two anti-virus software.
   
• Action center is worded in a way that deters users from installing third party anti-virus software. When you click install Kaspersky, Windows will interject and show a security warning saying that "you should only run programs that come from publishers you trust". It is implied that Kaspersky should not be trusted.
   
• Microsoft are blocking Kaspersky from using their own notification system to inform users that their license have expired. They are only allowed to push a notification out when 3 days have passed. So not only has Microsoft created a white list of anti-virus software to which the OS behaves differently, but they have also deliberately built in to Windows a function that blocks notifications from the anti-virus software, and that function has a timer in it. Someone at Microsoft sat down and went "we will deliberately block warnings about users anti-virus software subscriptions expiring. Let's make it so that the block is active for three days". In fact, Microsoft used to block the renewal notification 5 days before the license would expire as well, but they lifted that restriction.
   
• Windows has decided to uninstall Kaspersky after updates. This has happened to other programs too. Whenever you update Windows, it checks all your installed programs against a list of blacklisted programs. If a blacklisted program is detected, it gets automatically uninstalled and the user can not cancel it. For some reason, Kaspersky was added to that list in some update. So someone at Microsoft said "by the way, when we push out this update can we make it so that it also uninstalls Kaspersky? Great!".
   
• Microsoft has shortened the time given to developers for compatibility tests. They used to have a good amount of time to test their software for new versions of Windows, but recently Microsoft has shortened that time to a couple of weeks.
   
• Microsoft has put out a video on their youtube channel in which they ask viewers to "think about kicking out the independent antivirus".
   
• Microsoft employees are now instructed to tell users to uninstall third party anti-virus software, even when they are asking about a problem unrelated to anti-virus programs.

 

I know people think Microsoft should be allowed to do whatever they want with their platform, but seriously. Look at the things they are doing here. This is not Kaspersky being butthurt because "stop keeping users safe!". Microsoft are using very underhanded tactics here to push their own software in an unfair way. These changes only harms consumers as well as third party anti-virus makers.

When a company introduces changes that harms consumers and competitors, then something needs to be done. It's OK to make your own product better, but it's not OK to harm others. That's where legislation has to step in and protect people from abuse.

[ARikozuM]

3 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

snip

Well said. 

 

I understood all of those points, but I think Microsoft should be hit with a different... code or regulation?... rather than the anti-trust. It would set an example that would allow any developer to attack other software developers over something that, in my opinion, shouldn't happen. 

 

Imagine if Premiere started to attack Microsoft over Windows Movie Maker. It'd be the end of complex OS's everywhere. Pretty soon you'd have to pay for your Android to have a camera application since other companies are being shut out due to Samsung or similar's ability to maximize the software suite for the camera. 

[leadeater]

27 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Windows has decided to uninstall Kaspersky after updates. This has happened to other programs too. Whenever you update Windows, it checks all your installed programs against a list of blacklisted programs. If a blacklisted program is detected, it gets automatically uninstalled and the user can not cancel it. For some reason, Kaspersky was added to that list in some update. So someone at Microsoft said "by the way, when we push out this update can we make it so that it also uninstalls Kaspersky? Great!".

When they were talking about the Windows 10 upgrade process ( from 7/8 to 10) I kind of have to agree with Microsoft about uninstalling their custom drivers, when you are doing a major upgrade like that you have to. One thing that will kill an OS install is incorrect/unsupported drivers.

 

Kaspersky did point out that this should be made way more clear so you know it has happened. If you claim that the upgrade process keeps applications and files then any exceptions to that statement need to be said.

[LAwLz]

8 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

Imagine if Premiere started to attack Microsoft over Windows Movie Maker. It'd be the end of complex OS's everywhere. Pretty soon you'd have to pay for your Android to have a camera application since other companies are being shut out due to Samsung or similar's ability to maximize the software suite for the camera. 

Well, again, this is not just about having a competing product. Adobe would not be able to sue Microsoft just for having Movie Maker. If Microsoft started crippling Premier in several ways in order to push Movie Maker then they would have a case. 

It's only when you start actively harming consumers and competitors that it becomes a problem. 

 

 

8 hours ago, leadeater said:

When they were talking about the Windows 10 upgrade process ( from 7/8 to 10) I kind of have to agree with Microsoft about uninstalling their custom drivers, when you are doing a major upgrade like that you have to. One thing that will kill an OS install is incorrect/unsupported drivers.

 

Kaspersky did point out that this should be made way more clear so you know it has happened. If you claim that the upgrade process keeps applications and files then any exceptions to that statement need to be said.

I am pretty sure they were talking about Windows 10 to Windows 10 upgrades too, not just Windows 7 to Windows 10.

Microsoft has released updates for Windows 10 which automatically uninstall some software. I remember it quite well because GoodBytes called me a liar when it happened to me, then it started popping up on a bunch of news sites and it was confirmed to be true. He never apologized for that... 

[leadeater]

5 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I am pretty sure they were talking about Windows 10 to Windows 10 upgrades too, not just Windows 7 to Windows 10.

Microsoft has released updates for Windows 10 which automatically uninstall some software. I remember it quite well because GoodBytes called me a liar when it happened to me, then it started popping up on a bunch of news sites and it was confirmed to be true. He never apologized for that... 

The way it was worded sounded to me like they were talking about upgrading from something not Windows 10 to Windows 10, but yes those updates you are referring to are the build updates which is much more like an OS upgrade than the monthly update rollups. Under a Windows 10 build upgrade it would be very hard to justify removing drivers from fear of incompatibility.

 

Quote

Another unpleasant problem our users have come up against is the mysterious disappearance of our security software when upgrading to Windows 10. It goes like this:

 

You’re updating your OS, and while doing so are informed assuredly that all your data and programs will remain intact and safe, there are no incompatible programs, and all is fine and dandy, so you just take it easy while your OS gets updated.

 

But then, in many cases, while the update is still ongoing – perhaps due to those same underhand tactics again – Windows decides that your existing security solution is, after all, incompatible with Windows 10, deletes its drivers (leaving a bunch of useless files (the solution won’t work without the drivers)), and in its place switches on its own solution.

https://blog.kaspersky.com/microsoft-european-trial/16976/

 

Edit:

If GPU drivers don't get removed during a Windows 10 build upgrade then I can't see why AV drivers would need to be.

[LAwLz]

16 minutes ago, leadeater said:

The way it was worded sounded to me like they were talking about upgrading from something not Windows 10 to Windows 10, but yes those updates you are referring to are the build updates which is much more like an OS upgrade than the monthly update rollups. Under a Windows 10 build upgrade it would be very hard to justify removing drivers from fear of incompatibility.

 

https://blog.kaspersky.com/microsoft-european-trial/16976/

 

Edit:

If GPU drivers don't get removed during a Windows 10 build upgrade then I can't see why AV drivers would need to be.

The reasons why I think they are talking about Windows 10 to Windows 10 updates are:

1) It has happened with other programs. For example the November update for Windows 10 deleted Speccy for me (as you can tell, I was not happy about it), and users also reported other programs being deleted.  In fact, Spybot was reported as one of the programs that automatically got removed, so I would not be surprised if some users had Kaspersky removed as well.

 

 

2) Right after talking about upgrades deleting Kaspersky, they go on to write this:

Quote

So, how do security solutions wind up on the list of incompatible programs in the first place? Of course, Microsoft has its own criteria of compatibility – and they’re identical for all antivirus products; all’s fair and square there.

 

The catch comes elsewhere: developers need to ensure compatibility of their antivirus with the final version (the so-called RTM – Release to Manufacturing) of each new update of Windows. And this final version can differ significantly from earlier versions.

 

Ideally, independent developers need two months after receiving the RTM to carry out all their fine-tuning before the release of the Windows update to the public. Earlier, Microsoft would give us the RTM version in good time, but of late this has been reduced to a couple of weeks before releasing to the public.

 

-snip-

 

Actually, a period much shorter than the customary one given to developers for ensuring compatibility also affects Microsoft itself negatively, plus its users – and not only those who use our products, but literally everyone. While studying new versions of the OS, our experts often find vulnerabilities and mistakes in them and inform Microsoft. And normally there’s time left for Microsoft’s own developers to deal with the discovered bugs before the release of the OS to the public. But if everyone’s in such a hurry, there’s no time for such a luxury.

 

Microsoft defends these new, shortened testing periods for independent developers by stating something like: ‘these aren’t the days of Windows XP, 7, 9… releases any more. No one has RTM versions these days; Apple hasn’t – either for macOS or iOS; and Google hasn’t for Android. We’ve simply got to keep up with the competition’. However, that’s not true: we still get finalized versions of operating systems that are ready for corresponding program development from both Apple and Google with plenty of time for adjustments. Moreover, their OSs aren’t as complex or multi-component as Windows.

That to me sounds like they are talking about 10 -> 10 updates, not 7 -> 10 updates.

[leadeater]

Just now, LAwLz said:

The reasons why I think they are talking about Windows 10 to Windows 10 updates are:

1) It has happened with other programs. For example the November update for Windows 10 deleted Speccy for me (as you can tell, I was not happy about it), and users also reported other programs being deleted.  In fact, Spybot was reported as one of the programs that automatically got removed, so I would not be surprised if some users had Kaspersky removed as well.

 

 

2) Right after talking about upgrades deleting Kaspersky, they go on to write this:

That to me sounds like they are talking about 10 -> 10 updates, not 7 -> 10 updates.

Yep sounds like it, the decrease in time is due to the higher release cadence than before. Another compounding issue sort of unrelated is once a build update is released I think you have 90 days to update before you're unsupported, I forget the time frame but it's ridiculous none the less. 

 

Personally I think Windows needs to get a bit more modular if they want to do these faster feature releases and lengthen the time between complete build updates that really are OS upgrades.

 

Also just because other OS makers are releasing on shorter time frames doesn't mean you have to, I don't see it as a plus and I'm sure many customers don't either. Who actually cares how fast a new OS came come out? To me it's more annoying than good.