Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Microsoft to Buy Anti-Virus Software Firm

Posted by Zonk on Tue Feb 08, 2005 07:35 PM
from the ms-adopts-anti-bug-tactics dept.
Microsoft Bug IT
thejuggler writes "Excite News is reporting that Microsoft is planning to buy Sybari Software Inc., which makes programs designed to protect business computer networks from viruses, worms and other threats. This is Microsoft's second purchase of an anti-virus company. The article states that Microsoft is thinking about charging for their anti-virus and anti-spyware software."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Microsoft to Buy Anti-Virus Software Firm 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Second Purchase (Score:5, Funny)

    by ackthpt (218170) * on Tuesday February 08 2005, @07:36PM (#11613444) Homepage Journal
    Evidently they wore out the first one...

    windows hungry! want more!

  • Nothing for you to see here (Score:5, Funny)

    by baryon351 (626717) on Tuesday February 08 2005, @07:37PM (#11613451)
    No Antitrust for you to see here, please move along.
    • This is vertical integration. They are purchasing software to make their product more complete.

      Antitrust would be involved if they purchased Apple, Sun, IBM or Red Hat, as they have Operating Systems.

      • Re:Nothing for you to see here (Score:5, Insightful)

        by bwalling (195998) on Tuesday February 08 2005, @07:53PM (#11613628) Homepage
        This is vertical integration. They are purchasing software to make their product more complete. Antitrust would be involved if they purchased Apple, Sun, IBM or Red Hat, as they have Operating Systems.

        Tell that to Real or Netscape.

          • Re:Nothing for you to see here (Score:4, Interesting)

            by Locutus (9039) on Tuesday February 08 2005, @08:46PM (#11614130)
            > It's like complaining about Antitrust because Microsoft bought Bungie.

            No, it's more like complaining about Antitrust if Microsoft could/did purchase Gimp and only produced a Windows version.

            Since Microsoft was found guilty of illegal use of its monopoly in operating systems against other operating systems, it should NOT be allowed to remove products from the market when they provide products for OTHER operating systems. IMHO.

            LoB

      • Re:Nothing for you to see here (Score:5, Informative)

        by interiot (50685) on Tuesday February 08 2005, @08:02PM (#11613732) Homepage
        Eh? Antitrust laws do not simply protect against monopolies/cartels, but instead protect against anything that intentionally restrains trade (as vague [cato.org] as that is). There are several solid pages on vertical integration/antitrust (one [fsu.edu], two [aw.com] ). Isn't payola [wikipedia.org] a clear case of vertical integration? If you can control the channels of production, it doesn't matter if you have lots of competitors who will sell at a lower price than you; the customer doesn't have access to their product.

  • Microsoft Business Plan (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 08 2005, @07:37PM (#11613457)
    1. Make bad software 2. Acquire and sell software to repair original bad software 3. PROFIT!!!

  • Wouldn't it be better? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Russ Nelson (33911) on Tuesday February 08 2005, @07:38PM (#11613462) Homepage
    Wouldn't it be better if Microsoft was to fix their bloody insecure software instead??
    -russ

    • Re:Wouldn't it be better? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Metteyya (790458) on Tuesday February 08 2005, @07:39PM (#11613478)
      You obviously haven't read the summary:
      The article states that Microsoft is thinking about charging for their anti-virus and anti-spyware software.

      • Re:Wouldn't it be better? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Russ Nelson (33911) on Tuesday February 08 2005, @07:59PM (#11613697) Homepage
        Well, the interesting thing here is that some people on the Free Software Business mailing list claim that the economic model for open source has a flaw. You get paid for selling support, right? But that means fixing bugs that you, yourself wrote. There's a clear conflict of interest there, right? You make mistakes and then you profit from them. And yet here's Microsoft doing the same thing. So while I agree that it's a flaw, it doesn't seem to be limited to open source software!
        -russ

        • Re:Wouldn't it be better? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by fireman sam (662213) on Tuesday February 08 2005, @08:13PM (#11613810) Homepage Journal
          The biggest difference is that with open source I can fix the bugs myself if I want to. With Microsoft software I cannot.

          Microsoft are not doing the same as the open source businesses(sp?). Microsoft sell you the product, sell you the support, sell you the fixes.
          • I want to fix bugs, but not knowing various implementations of C, where does that leave me?

          • Re:Wouldn't it be better? (Score:5, Insightful)

            by pipingguy (566974) on Tuesday February 08 2005, @10:11PM (#11614843) Homepage

            Sure, if you are a savvy computer person.

            What about the rest of us?

            One slightly tinfoilish concept is that there is plausible deniability (and we thought that was only for US presidents and stuff) when using commercial software. In other words, since it was paid-for, blame can be placed elsewhere so that everyone "gets off the hook".

            Given most users'/executives' level of knowledge about software and hardware, this is maybe an effective "out" for problems whose origins are probably elsewhere. After all, who has the patience/critical analysis ability to listen to/can comprehend stuff like the following:

            "Well, you see, at the specific time you saved the file, the cron job was interrupted due to an unscheduled backup caused by an errant RAM issue on the server. Not the server you actually were using, but because the upgraded version of the current database was not compatible with the..."
          • I'd rather be down the pub with my friends than fixing somebody else's bugs.

            If I'm at work it's going to piss my boss off if I have to fix somebody else's bug instead of doing the job that I'm paid to do.
        • You get paid for selling support, right? But that means fixing bugs that you, yourself wrote. There's a clear conflict of interest there, right?

          Except that:

          • support doesn't just mean fixing bugs, it can mean configuration, integration, and custom development;
          • I can be hired to support software I didn't write;
          • other people can be hired to support the software I wrote
    • why? they're seeing this HUGE market that makes money on the flaws of their products.

      it's sadly logical that they'd get more money if they got a cut of that market instead of eliminating it.....

      though.. msav.. nothing new.

      • Re:What?!?!?!? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by BurritoWarrior (90481) on Tuesday February 08 2005, @11:14PM (#11615278)
        I see. So I have a $1. I should give that dollar to Microsoft. Who takes 90 cents. Which then gives 10 cents to Bill as salary and stock. Who then takes 9 cents. Who then gives 1 cent to the poor.

        Or, I could still have the dollar and give it to the poor myself. Of course, I don't make the newspaper, as I only give in the hundreds, not the millions. Of course, there are also billions of "me"s and only one Bill Gates.

  • Well, of course. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Faust7 (314817) on Tuesday February 08 2005, @07:41PM (#11613503) Homepage
    The article states that Microsoft is thinking about charging for their anti-virus and anti-spyware software.

    I don't see how they couldn't, without risking further anti-trust-related accusations.
    • They are screwed either way. If they give it away for free, people will complain that microsoft is product dumping. If they charge, people will complain that they are making money on their software bugs.

      • yup, and all the while their intent is to also remove the advantages these products have running on Linux. Now MSFT has both GeCADs and Sybaris anntivirus software and both DID support Linux.

        Just like a halloween doc said that they would hire key open source developers, this is just a variation on that. They're purchasing products/companies which help enhance the usefulness of Linux in the enterprise. They did this to JAVA too.

        LoB

  • And in other news... (Score:5, Funny)

    by fiannaFailMan (702447) on Tuesday February 08 2005, @07:41PM (#11613504) Journal
    Manufacturer of spontaneously-combusting household furniture today announced that they would be charging customers for fire extinguishers.
      • That's a rather bad analogy unless you're implying that Microsoft are somehow responsible for writing and distributing viruses.

        Of course they are! ;-) Long gone are the days of a lone virus writer coding in assembler for bare hardware, occasionally assisted by INT 13. Now, having access to gigabytes of supporting DLLs and applications provided by Microsoft (s)he can achive so much more!

        Or do you think modern virus/worm/spyware writers re-implement TCP/IP stack (hmm, bad example, would put some blaim on U

  • What did they do with RAV? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Tandoori Haggis (662404) on Tuesday February 08 2005, @07:47PM (#11613569)
    "Bucharest, June 10, 2003 – GeCAD Software has announced a definitive agreement with Microsoft Corp., of Redmond, Wash., USA, by which Microsoft will acquire GeCAD’s antivirus technology. Microsoft has stated its intention to integrate GeCAD’s technology into products and services that will help secure customers."

    http://www.ravantivirus.com/

    RAV produced RAV AntiVirus Desktop for Linux [8.1.4]

    By all accounts it was a really good product. MS scuppered my plans to try it out >:(

    • It *was* a really good product. And they supported just about every combination of OS/mail transport agent you could want (in our case it was FreeBSD/Postfix). It's a shame Microsoft has apparently scuttled RAV.

  • Internet Explorer (Score:4, Insightful)

    by morcheeba (260908) on Tuesday February 08 2005, @07:48PM (#11613572) Journal
    I wonder how they can argue that IE has to be a fundamental part of the operating system that they give away*, but a virus scanner is an add-on? Controlling which programs run seems like it should be an OS fundamental.

    (* re: IE vs. netscape browser wars and the monopoly verdict)

  • Build it and they will come... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by donnz (135658) on Tuesday February 08 2005, @07:48PM (#11613577) Homepage Journal
    Microsoft have certainly done a first class job in creating a demand for these services. Kudos.

  • They're not buying an AV engine, though (Score:5, Informative)

    by Caesar (9965) * on Tuesday February 08 2005, @07:48PM (#11613581) Homepage
    As we noted over at Ars [arstechnica.com], Sybari doesn't make an AV engine. Their main product allows customers to plug in AV engines developed by other companies, and in fact can support multiple engines at once.

    Of course, MS does have their own engine now, which they bought back in 2003.

  • Scifi (Score:5, Funny)

    by Deinesh (770292) on Tuesday February 08 2005, @07:51PM (#11613609)
    Kinda like a B grade Scifi movie, release a disease and charge money for the cure.

  • Only "thinking about" charging? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jd (1658) <[moc.oohay] [ta] [kapimi]> on Tuesday February 08 2005, @07:57PM (#11613668) Homepage Journal
    Well, they've almost four years before anyone is even remotely likely to take them to court for anti-trust/anti-competitive behaviour.


    I guess it comes down to this - can they bankrupt enough of the opposition, within the four years, to seize control of the market and prevent anyone else entering it?


    As for arguments that Microsoft should fix their software - nice try, but the lemon laws don't apply to software and there's nothing else that's likely to compell Microsoft to change. Unless someone would like to try talking the most conservative Congress in living memory into applying standards to software - are there any geeks rich enough, other than Bil Gates? - I don't see a single reason for Microsoft to change what has always been a profitable tactic - sell trash, then sell an even trashier "upgrade" for lots of money, and THEN convince the consumers that they have the better end of the deal.

  • RAV (Romainian Anti -Virus) (Score:4, Interesting)

    by PhYrE2k2 (806396) on Tuesday February 08 2005, @07:58PM (#11613683)
    Microsoft bought RAV some time ago- who made a fine Windows and Linux AV program. They also made RAV for most all of the UNIX mail programs such as qmail, courier, sendmail, postfix, etc.

    Was sad to see it go... apparently it was also to include its technology, but if you ask me, it was more to get it out of the antivirus mail server market.

    This is nothing new-- Microsoft buys anyone who has something to offer them or their competititors... yippie

    -M

  • Look on the bright side: (Score:5, Funny)

    by SunFan (845761) on Tuesday February 08 2005, @08:05PM (#11613752)

    At least Microsoft isn't getting into the condom business. "Introducing Microsoft Condom 3.0, now it actually prevents pregnancy!"

  • There could be patent issues (Score:5, Interesting)

    by e6003 (552415) on Tuesday February 08 2005, @08:30PM (#11613970) Homepage
    According to some very informative posts [yahoo.com] on the Yahoo SCOX stock board, Symantec has the rights to a very key patent in this area and McAfee has a perpetual, fully paid-up license to the said patent. Neither company would relish MSFT moving in on their nice little market and may well have solid legal grounding for setting $FELINE amongst $AVIANS.

  • Stupid for Microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)

    by erroneus (253617) on Tuesday February 08 2005, @11:02PM (#11615200) Homepage
    *IF* Microsoft were to become a big player in the anti-malware arena, it would add even more weight to the belief that Microsoft creates a bad product by design. Current percieved motivation for making inferior products:

    1. Create user desire to upgrade
    2. End of life for products meaning no more security updates, goto 1

    there will be a third -- to keep their antivirus business running.

    Microsoft is partly responsible for this problem and now they intend to profit from the problems (the millions of dollars lost in time wasted, the vast amounts of data, on and on) for which they are responsible? I think even pro-microsoft people would think badly of this move.

    But to buy businesses that utilize and support Linux? Highly anti-competitive and I'm surprised the DOJ isn't raising an eyebrow to this one.

  • I interviewed with this team... (Score:3, Informative)

    by benw1979 (779210) on Wednesday February 09 2005, @01:41AM (#11615931)
    I recently interviewed with this team, but did not sign any NDA's. The hiring managers were vague about the project, but intentionally gave me enough information to put together what they are doing.

    The team has been around for over a year, and is part of the Windows group. They will be offering some sort of subscription ($) based security service. I'm sure this acquisition and the acquisition of the anti-spyware technology are not unrelated.

    The team was placed in the Windows group in order to improve communication and turn around time with the developers. Hopefully this will mean faster resolutions and hotfixes to security issues.

    Also, there is apparently some client code that provides a "heartbeat" back to the Microsoft servers.

    I hope none of this information is sensitive... if it was I assume they would have had me sign the NDA.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.