In a nut shell, this is the gist of the argument regarding all anti trust laws.
Posted a while ago. Thank you, Lordbob75 for a respectful response. I'll endeavor to do the same.
Perhaps y'all want a dissertation? Read the arguments presented by the two AV providers who have already responded to MS's action regarding MSE.
According to everything I've read here, you might be the only one who does not know international anti-trust laws, what they mean and why they exist.
Read Logiearth's reply to you once more:
Microsoft does not automatically include MSE in Windows. Even if you have chosen automatic updates, WU does not install MSE, it doesn't even prompt during the update process if you'd like to install and use MSE.
An optional update in an optional update service. I can understand you bailing out, there's no way you could make this an anti trust issue, and you know it.
It's a bit risky to pretend to be smart. Sometimes your listeners aren't so ignorant and uneducated you'd thought.
Kari
It's not the current offering that is at issue, It's the potential offerings by MS regarding MSE that the AV companies are up in arms about.
By seeking definitions regarding what MS can and cannot do in this arena, they are trying to lay the groundwork for clarification of future MSE iterations and the manner in which it can be presented to the installed user base of Windows.
Thank you for presenting the implication that I am "pretending" to be smart, Kari.
There is no legal case for "potential" speculations. It is nothing but grasping at straws. This case would be shot down the moment it ever enters the courtroom if its based on "potential" speculation. Until any anti-trust laws are broken, there is no case. Speculating that there could be a potential anti-trust law broken in the future is not grounds for a case.
It will go no where. The court rooms are not for squabbles.
And as I said earlier, Microsoft already has a ballot screen. Users are more likely to see Security err Action Center's warning about not having an antivirus before then enable Microsoft Update, and actively select and install MSE. Action Center presents the user with an option to look for a program on the web. Which goes here: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ant...windows-7.aspx a random sorted list.
There's no point in arguing this whole thing.....it's a joke from the start.
There's no reason MS can't offer something. No one is holding a gun to people's heads.
Potential doesn't mean squat. That's like firing a person from a job today "just in case" he commits sexual harassment 2 years from now.
From what I understand MS got in trouble with IE because it came installed with Windows and could not be removed. In this case MSE does not come installed and you have to ask for it with TWO choices. First you have to turn on Microsoft Updates within Windows Updates in order for it to be offered and then you have to accept the install.
Here is the Microsoft Update selection which is turned off by default.
As you can see by the language you are asking for the information and it is not being forced to you.
Jim
Does anyone remember where I put my tinfoil hat?? This sounds like a bad case of sour grapes from a mediocre software company that is having a hard time giving their product away... International law is based on actual violations that are made, not on the potential to violate a specific law...Perhaps, but the intent is to lay the groundwork and the provisions under which MS can offer MSE in the future. It's a preemptive strike, if you will, by the AV providers and their arguments clearly are sculpted from anti trust law.
Quote
