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?
