Symantec sues Microsoft to halt Windows Vista development

“Symantec has asked a US court to order a halt to the development of Windows Vista, claiming that its rival is wrongfully incorporating Veritas storage technology into its OS. Symantec sued Microsoft on Thursday, seeking unspecified damages and asking the court to remove Symantec’s storage technology from a variety of Microsoft products, including Windows XP, Windows Server 2003 and the upcoming Vista and ‘Longhorn’ Windows Server products. ‘We’re asking them to remove the technology, because it belongs to us,’ a Symantec spokesman said. The dispute centres around an August 1996 agreement between the two companies that granted Microsoft the right to use Veritas Software’s volume-management technology in Windows product. Symantec purchased Veritas in a $10.2 billion acquisition that closed last year. Symantec claims that Microsoft misappropriated its technology and even tricked the US Patent and Trademark Office into granting Microsoft patents based on Symantec intellectual property,” Robert McMillan reports for Macworld UK.

Full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Halting the development of Vista needs a lawsuit? We thought that was an intrinsic attribute of “Vista development.” Anyway, Symantec is basically a parasite that’s very dependent of Windows’ inherent insecurity. Now that Mafiasoft has muscled in on their turf with an annual protection fee for Windows sufferers, Symantec probably sees the end of the line for the reciprocating gravy train known by the misnomer “Windows Security.” Why anyone would pay Mafiasoft to “secure” Windows is a good question, but Symantec is right to be worried. People buy Windows, they’ll buy Windows “security” subscriptions from Mafiasoft.

Before recently trying to butter up Mac users, Symantec tried to ratchet up FUD about Mac security and, because of that, we believe that Mac users should not purchase Symantec products. Otherwise, the spectacle of two horrid companies suing each other over an issue that’s basically nonexistent for Mac users cheers us greatly. One suggestion (although shareholders might not like it): before they shutter the doors for good, wouldn’t it be more productive if Symantec just sold the company and gave the money to charity rather than to the lawyers?

Advertisements:
Introducing the super-fast, blogging, podcasting, do-everything-out-of-the-box MacBook.  Starting at just $1099
Get the new iMac with Intel Core Duo for as low as $31 A MONTH with Free shipping!
Get the MacBook Pro with Intel Core Duo for as low as $47 A MONTH with Free Shipping!
Apple’s new Mac mini. Intel Core, up to 4 times faster. Starting at just $599. Free shipping.
iPod. 15,000 songs. 25,000 photos. 150 hours of video. The new iPod. 30GB and 60GB models start at just $299. Free shipping.
Connect iPod to your television set with the iPod AV Cable. Just $19.
iPod Radio Remote. Listen to FM radio on your iPod and control everything with a convenient wired remote. Just $49.

Related MacDailyNews articles:
Symantec CEO: We think more people ought to buy Apple Macs – May 15, 2006
a href=”http://www.macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/patched_in_mid_2005_by_apple_symantec_warns_inqtana_a_worm/”>Patched in mid-2005 by Apple, Symantec warns ‘Inqtana-A’ worm could be ‘beginning of a trend’ – February 20, 2006
Why pay Symantec for flawed ‘security’ app designed to protect Apple Macs from nonexistent threats? – December 27, 2005
‘Highly critical’ flaw in discovered in Symantec AntiVirus for Mac OS X – December 21, 2005
Why Symantec’s ‘scare tactics’ don’t worry Mac users – September 28, 2005
$500 bounty offered for proof of first Apple Mac OS X virus – September 27, 2005
Symantec details flaws in its antivirus software – March 30, 2005
Motley Fool writer: ‘I’d be surprised if Symantec ever sells a single product to a Mac user again’ – March 24, 2005
Symantec cries wolf with misplaced Mac OS X ‘security’ warning – March 23, 2005
Symantec’s Mac OS X claims dismissed as nonsense, FUD – March 22, 2005
Symantec warns about Mac OS X security threat – March 21, 2005

Mafiasoft: Microsoft to charge $50 per year for security service to protect Windows – February 07, 2006
Mafiasoft? Microsoft to ‘offer’ new subscription security protection racket – October 07, 2005
Sleazy Microsoft sells out anti-spyware Windows users, downgrades Claria Gator to ‘ignore’ – July 07, 2005
Mafiasoft? Microsoft to roll out anti-virus subscription protection racket – May 13, 2005

41 Comments

  1. I’ve always felt these types of lawsuits stifled innovation – but I am prone to cheer this lawsuit as Microsoft has been caught many times iwth its hand in someone else’s innovative cookie jar.

    On another note, wouldn’t it be hysterical if MS finally _finished_ Vista, but had to go re-write the FS portion to remove Veritas, thus causing further delays?

  2. we believe that Mac users should not purchase Symantec products

    And I beleive Mac users should not buy Microsoft, Symantec, Creative or Shirt Pocket products either.

    It’s just my opinion and I’m entitled to it.

  3. Actually, while I tend to agree with some Symantic bashing, the Veritas software line has nothing to do with Viruses. Veritas is a fairly well-known Volume Management system, used quite often to manage large amounts of hard disk storage on servers in the commercial world. If you had a Sun server with Disk Arrays on it, for instance, you probably used a version of Vertias’ Volume Manager at some time or another to partition, map out volumes, mirrors, striping, etc. It works very well.

    Although, based on how well the Veritas software works in the server environment, I’m very surpised to see that it may have been incorporated into Windows in any shape or form. Windows volume management is, well, generally laughable. Reliable? Honestly, I’ll cough oreos and milk out my nose if we keep this up.

  4. I don’t agree that Symantec is a parasite. When Symantec came on the scene, it did provide a good, valuable and needed service. Windows (and at a time, Macs) had problems with viruses. Apple fixed that problem with the advent of OS X, but Microsoft still has major issues, as we all know. Symantec is still a valuable tool for those forced to use Windows. I do agree with MDN’s take regarding Symantec trying to scare Mac users into buying a product they don’t need, and I see no problem with boycotting the company due to that tactic.

    Of note, Symantec is trying to move into other markets so that they are not reliant on the anti-virus incomes. Hence the purchase of Veritas. Microsoft is the real bad guy here, and I hope that this hits them hard!

  5. Is the issue that Microsoft was supposed to move Longhorn/Vista/Godot to a whole new file system unrelated to the Veritas technology, but discovered it didn’t work, went back to the Veritas technology they were already using but didn’t plan a license for, and then couldn’t come to terms with a greedy Symantec who want too exorbitant a price for a contract renewal?

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.