Sponsor's Message

In Australia it's the ACCC, here in New Zealand it's the Commerce Commission, and in the USA it's the FTC.

In recent years, Microsoft has fallen foul of such agencies in many countries after allegations that it is engaged in monopolistic (antitrust) and unfair business tactics in its quest for ever-higher profits.

I was somewhat surprised therefore, when last week's announcement that the software goliath was to purchase a leading antivirus company produced no comment from these agencies.

Right now you might be asking yourself -- why should Microsoft's entry into the anti-virus market be a matter for concern?

My response would be: because it's a clear case of double-dipping.

Let's face it -- if Microsoft's own "Trustworthy Computing" strategy was anything more than marketing and PR hype, we wouldn't need anti-virus software would we?

Nasties such as Code Red, Bugbear, Love Bug, and the myriad of other viruses and worms that have, in turn, swept through the world's Windows-based computers have only been able to do so because of lousy programming on Microsoft's part.

In buying an anti-virus software company, Microsoft is either admitting that they're not going to be able to write virus-proof software, or they're simply looking to cash in on the fact that their software is so bad.

Indeed, one might ask whether the acquisition of an antivirus software company might actually make it less attractive to produce a solid operating system and applications. After all, if Trustworthy Computing were to be a reality, that investment in an AV company would be money down the drain -- and we all know that Billy has an aversion to wasting money.

So, why aren't the FTC, ACCC, Commerce Commission, and their equivalents asking the hard questions?

Why aren't customers querying, in light of this acquisition, whether Microsoft is really committed to delivering solid, reliable, secure products?

Or perhaps I've got this all wrong.

Maybe Microsoft will be providing all its customers with free AV software as part of their purchase of any MS product. Maybe they're not intending to operate this new part of their empire as a profit centre, but will instead provide its services as compensation for the lacklustre security in Windows, Outlook and other bits of software?

Unfortunately for Microsoft, even doing this would create another problem -- they'd probably have a dozen or more other AV companies crying foul because shipping free anti-virus software with Windows would be an abuse of its virtual desktop monopoly.

It seems that Billy has backed himself into a corner here doesn't it?

If any Aardvark readers have an opinion on today's column or want to add something you're also invited to chip in and have your say in The Aardvark Forums or, if you prefer, you can contact me directly.

Contacting Aardvark
As always, readers are invited to submit their comments on material covered in this column. If you'd like your comments published here then please be sure to use this form and select For Publication.

Other media organisations seeking more information or republication rights are also invited to contact me.

Just add a couple of lines of JavaScript to your pages and you can get a free summary of Aardvark's daily commentary -- automatically updated each and every week-day.

Aardvark also makes a summary of this daily column available via XML using the RSS format. More details can be found here.

Contact me if you decide to use either of these feeds and have any problems.

Linking Policy
Want to link to this site? Check out Aardvark's Linking Policy.

Did you tell someone else about Aardvark today? If not then do it now!