How The Use of Social Media Can lead to Mistrials
Tuesday, November 09, 2010
Do AV Software providers have an anti-trust case against Microsoft? 
Many anti-virus software companies are upset with Microsoft (MSFT). The Redmond-based behemoth recently distributed AV software through a Windows' update service. Starting 11/1, Microsoft began offering Security Essentials to PCs running Windows XP, Vista and Windows 7 that lacked antivirus software.
Trend Micro questioned Microsoft's decision to offer its Windows users free Security Essentials software through the operating system's patching and program update services. Trend Micro’s Carol Carpenter commented: "We're concerned that Microsoft may be using its OS-based market leverage to box out other choices. If that were to happen, it would not be good for consumers or the industry. "Commercializing Windows Update to distribute other software applications raises significant questions about unfair competition."
Panda Security was also quite verbal about Microsoft’s AV download. Luis Corrons, the director of Panda's research lab, lamented: "If [Microsoft's] objective is truly to protect users from malware, then why doesn't Microsoft allow [Security Essentials] to install in pirated copies of Windows? He went on to claim: "Microsoft should make a serious development effort to secure the OS from the ground up, and not limit the security tools currently available to its users." Sour grapes, anyone?
From a legal standpoint, does Trend Micro cum suis have a case against Microsoft? According to Hillard Sterling, a partner with the Chicago-based law firm of Freeborn & Peters, not really. "It would be a long shot at best. It would be difficult if not impossible to show any anticompetitive impact." In other words, they don’t have a (legal) leg to stand on.
Since the Microsoft download is optional, it does not form any barrier to competitors. As we all know (free) security products are available from a multitude of channels e.g., from websites offering free downloads, such as AVG and tucows or from media websites such as CNET.
Furthermore, Microsoft does not prevent other companies from getting their products onto PCs, nor does it prevent installation of other providers’ security software on new PCs.
As Sterling points out, having a competitive leverage is a far cry form posing an antitrust violation. As he quite correctly emphasized: “Antitrust laws are designed to protect consumers, not competitors." The Obama administration has been cautious about antitrust litigation, especially in the technology sector.
Also in the EU things are not that simple for the AV companies. As Microsoft knows too well, the European Community has aggressive antitrust regulators, but does not hinder competition.
The conclusion is that AV providers have to live with the uncomfortable truth that they cannot fight Microsoft on antitrust issue. May be providing a superior product is the way for AV providers to go?
Many anti-virus software companies are upset with Microsoft (MSFT). The Redmond-based behemoth recently distributed AV software through a Windows' update service. Starting 11/1, Microsoft began offering Security Essentials to PCs running Windows XP, Vista and Windows 7 that lacked antivirus software.
Trend Micro questioned Microsoft's decision to offer its Windows users free Security Essentials software through the operating system's patching and program update services. Trend Micro’s Carol Carpenter commented: "We're concerned that Microsoft may be using its OS-based market leverage to box out other choices. If that were to happen, it would not be good for consumers or the industry. "Commercializing Windows Update to distribute other software applications raises significant questions about unfair competition."
Panda Security was also quite verbal about Microsoft’s AV download. Luis Corrons, the director of Panda's research lab, lamented: "If [Microsoft's] objective is truly to protect users from malware, then why doesn't Microsoft allow [Security Essentials] to install in pirated copies of Windows? He went on to claim: "Microsoft should make a serious development effort to secure the OS from the ground up, and not limit the security tools currently available to its users." Sour grapes, anyone?
From a legal standpoint, does Trend Micro cum suis have a case against Microsoft? According to Hillard Sterling, a partner with the Chicago-based law firm of Freeborn & Peters, not really. "It would be a long shot at best. It would be difficult if not impossible to show any anticompetitive impact." In other words, they don’t have a (legal) leg to stand on.
Since the Microsoft download is optional, it does not form any barrier to competitors. As we all know (free) security products are available from a multitude of channels e.g., from websites offering free downloads, such as AVG and tucows or from media websites such as CNET.
Furthermore, Microsoft does not prevent other companies from getting their products onto PCs, nor does it prevent installation of other providers’ security software on new PCs.
As Sterling points out, having a competitive leverage is a far cry form posing an antitrust violation. As he quite correctly emphasized: “Antitrust laws are designed to protect consumers, not competitors." The Obama administration has been cautious about antitrust litigation, especially in the technology sector.
Also in the EU things are not that simple for the AV companies. As Microsoft knows too well, the European Community has aggressive antitrust regulators, but does not hinder competition.
The conclusion is that AV providers have to live with the uncomfortable truth that they cannot fight Microsoft on antitrust issue. May be providing a superior product is the way for AV providers to go?
Saturday, November 06, 2010
Lawyer sues Yellowbook for misspelling “justice”
Manuel de Castro, a Sioux Falls lawyer, is suing Yellowbook for a mistake in his advertisement in its phone book. De Castro ordered a half-page color ad with the headline “The Trial Lawyer Fighting For Your Justice”.
The lawyer was not amused when he found out that the published ad read "The Trial Lawyer Fighting For Your Justics". Furthermore, a hyperlink appearing under his name directs users to a defunct website.
Although Yellowbook never showed a copy of the ad before going into print, and also took responsibility for the mistake, they still want De Castro to pay in full. When he didn’t pay, the company threatened to take him to a collection agency.
To me, this doesn’t make any sense, since the amount ($6,780) is small for a company such as Yellowbooks, which is part of the Yellgroup. It also harms their brand, and therefore their business. Last but not least, it’s not wise to cross swords with lawyers – they thrive on lawsuits.
Mr. de Castro promptly sued Yellowbook, asking a jury to award him $6,780 for the ad, lawyer fees, and damages resulting from "humiliation and loss of business." As he explained: “All things being equal, when someone looks for a service in the phone book, they're going to choose the person that knows how to spell." Excellent point, confrere!
Yellowbook's PR person, Elizabeth Opacity of the PR company Weber Shandwick , gave the standard PR spin reaction: "the company doesn't comment on pending litigation". Yawn.
My (free) legal advice to Yellowbook: settle this issue quickly and discretely. In the mean time, Mr. de Castro, enjoy your free publicity courtesy of Yellowbook.
Manuel de Castro, a Sioux Falls lawyer, is suing Yellowbook for a mistake in his advertisement in its phone book. De Castro ordered a half-page color ad with the headline “The Trial Lawyer Fighting For Your Justice”.
The lawyer was not amused when he found out that the published ad read "The Trial Lawyer Fighting For Your Justics". Furthermore, a hyperlink appearing under his name directs users to a defunct website.
Although Yellowbook never showed a copy of the ad before going into print, and also took responsibility for the mistake, they still want De Castro to pay in full. When he didn’t pay, the company threatened to take him to a collection agency.
To me, this doesn’t make any sense, since the amount ($6,780) is small for a company such as Yellowbooks, which is part of the Yellgroup. It also harms their brand, and therefore their business. Last but not least, it’s not wise to cross swords with lawyers – they thrive on lawsuits.
Mr. de Castro promptly sued Yellowbook, asking a jury to award him $6,780 for the ad, lawyer fees, and damages resulting from "humiliation and loss of business." As he explained: “All things being equal, when someone looks for a service in the phone book, they're going to choose the person that knows how to spell." Excellent point, confrere!
Yellowbook's PR person, Elizabeth Opacity of the PR company Weber Shandwick , gave the standard PR spin reaction: "the company doesn't comment on pending litigation". Yawn.
My (free) legal advice to Yellowbook: settle this issue quickly and discretely. In the mean time, Mr. de Castro, enjoy your free publicity courtesy of Yellowbook.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)