MS axes Unix anti-virus sales after bagging Sybari

Channel Register ^ | 22 Jun 2005 10:58 | John Leyden

[N3WBI3]

Dissapointing..

[N3WBI3]

one can always dream that if they are going to nix support for it they'll release it to the public domain via gpl or bsd so others can run with it..

[N3WBI3]

Tech ping..

[stormlead]

Coulda seen that one coming... good thing they didn't get their hands on Google. I remember a time when searching for "Linux" on MSN would come up with a document on migrating from Linux to Windows.

[ShadowAce]

[N3WBI3]

Yea, they made great products for samba server and when nimbda hit the service was well appreciated!

[Red Badger]

Sounds like monopoly.................

[xrp]

How is it a monopoly when there are alternatives available for free?

[dalight]

About 18 months ago Microsoft bought out the previous most serious Anti Virus/Anti Spam software for Linux called RAV AntiVirus and shut them down and turned away all of their customers. Looks like this is not an acquisition policy but an anticompetitive policy.

[antiRepublicrat]

I've always thought that such "abandonware" should get somewhat less copyright protection since the author obviously intends to make no more money off it or get any recognition for it, therefore eliminating the Constitution's incentive reasoning for granting copyrights in the first place. X years after the last development and/or availability in the marketplace it goes public domain.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

How is it a monopoly when there are alternatives available for free?

Uh well...uhm... because ...err...hmmm....Ralph Nader says so?

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

I've always thought that such "abandonware" should get somewhat less copyright protection since the author obviously intends to make no more money off it...

They did make money off it. They sold it to Microsoft.

[Michael Barnes]

I think in the digital domain, "X" amount of years goes by pretty quick and technologies change rapidly. So, even having 5 y/o code in the public domain, it could very well be considered old very quickly.

I understand your premise, but who is going to want to take 5 y/o code and try and update it?

Just my $0.02

[Question_Assumptions]

How is it a monopoly when there are alternatives available for free?

Rather than play games, I'll simply admit that Microsoft is not technically a monopoly. But I think the more important questions are, "Why is a monopoly bad?" and "Is Microsoft able to do the stuff that makes a monopoly bad?" And as a consumer, I could care less how rich Bill Gates gets but I certainly care if Microsoft stomps around like an 800 pound gorilla to make sure that I have fewer choices in the marketplace.

If Linux or Apple or whatever dies because of lack of customers or lack of interest, that's very different than Linux or Apple becomming unavailable because Microsoft did the business equivalent of shooting them in the forehead. I have no problem with Microsoft winning based on price and features. I have a big problem with Microsoft acting like a monopoly to make sure that I, as a consumer, have no choice but to use Microsoft or not use a computer.

[Utilizer]

I agree. In fact, I have several CDs in My possesion that I purchased over ten years ago with ungodly amounts of shareware on them, and recently have been re-examining some of those programs. I am interested in working with some of the programs to bring them more inline with some projects I am involved in and also allowing them to function more efficiently by recoding them for a more recent OS, but so far have not been able to locate any of the authors or companies that produced them.

What do I do next? How are they classified? Am I still bound by the 'Shareware' concept? Are they now simply 'Abandonware'? Can I work on them at all and perhaps use them in-house, or possibly re-market them?

A little help here, anyone?

[Utilizer]

...who is going to want to take 5 y/o code and try and update it?

See My #15...

[kenth]

Dang. I've gotta get to work on some competitive Unix apps and get Microsoft's attention.

[shempy]

Looks like this is not an acquisition policy but an anticompetitive policy.

Looks like a competitive policy to me. A part of any competition is keeping yourself in the lead once you are there. Of course it hurts the competition. Too bad, so sad. Nobody forced RAV to sell-out to Microsoft. The owners were free to sell their business to the highest bidder. That is a freedom I support.

[AFreeBird]

What do I do next? How are they classified? Am I still bound by the 'Shareware' concept? Are they now simply 'Abandonware'? Can I work on them at all and perhaps use them in-house, or possibly re-market them?

I would say that if you've excersized due diligence in trying to locate authors/companies but have come up short; then at the very least you should be able to work the code and bring it up to "modern" standards and use "in-house" without worry. Re-selling it might be another thing and only an attorney could tell you more about that.

[Tribune7]

Anti-virus products for Unix servers occupy a useful niche in the market not because there are many viruses that infect Unix platforms but because they help prevent these servers from hosting Windows malware.

Sounds like they are shooting themselves in the foot.