Headline FeedsE-Commerce Times Talkback
|
|
See Full Story
Continuing a trend it began almost two years ago, Microsoft said it has bought a privately held antivirus firm to help it beef up its arsenal of information security tools, this time focusing squarely on the enterprise. Microsoft said it would acquire East Northport, New York-based Sybari Software, which currently has some 10,000 business customers worldwide for its message filtering products. Terms of the purchase were not disclosed.
Re: Microsoft Buys Enterprise Security Firm
Posted by: freecode 2005-02-08 14:32:34 In reply to: Keith Regan
The unanswered question for and from Microsoft is how do they intend to fight Patent Infringment charges from Symantec and McAfee, given that both have the patent and a license to use the patent for AV technology considered so powerful that Symantec finally bought it for $337 Million? Trend Micro too, may find itself with the same issue with Microsoft (and possibly other AV vendors).
Also, as Microsoft used, in-house, nearly all of the AV Vendors' code, can't the vendors claim that they were duped into disclosing code, methodologies or techniques that Microsoft will now simply use to their own advantage, much as they did with Lotus 123, Word Perfect, Stacker, and others (ad infinitum)?
Also, how does Microsoft expect that this will be perceived as in the consumer's best interest, when they are perceived as needing the protection of the other security firms? Some people frankly believe that they are creating a problem to sell a product (not true) - but they are going to have to face that allegation.
Care to elaborate on those perceptions?
Also, as Microsoft used, in-house, nearly all of the AV Vendors' code, can't the vendors claim that they were duped into disclosing code, methodologies or techniques that Microsoft will now simply use to their own advantage, much as they did with Lotus 123, Word Perfect, Stacker, and others (ad infinitum)?
Also, how does Microsoft expect that this will be perceived as in the consumer's best interest, when they are perceived as needing the protection of the other security firms? Some people frankly believe that they are creating a problem to sell a product (not true) - but they are going to have to face that allegation.
Care to elaborate on those perceptions?
