I think the company is big enough for the two situations to be coincidental.

I don't know. In the USA, maybe more or less consumer protection; maybe more or less freedom. The status quo is known and personal responsibility is not that bad. It turns the issue into the matter of whether advertising is technically speech protected by the First Amendment. One can argue that since it can only be effectively employed by certain entities it is not. These free press entities have the freedom to report the news without fear of retribution. This does not mean that the press is obligated to publish all content directed at them. What would be the solution then? Not allowing merchants to publish any consumer generated content? I don't think it's possible to force a possibly international merchant to publish all viewpoints. Where is the line drawn? Would it except spamming, trolling, flamebaiting? How can you tell the difference between a troll and a legitimate negative review and who would be the one to do it?

Unless it's a house branded product.

They cover that in the TOS that nobody ever reads.

I have written many reviews of varying content and rating for a couple products on Overstock.com and whenever the review has a possibility of impacting sales negatively it is never posted. Not ethical but it's their prerogative as they are the ones publishing it. There is a conflict of interest but making this type of thing illegal would be a slippery slope. Just take it as a matter of course and get on with it.

Too bad the article is complete bullshit and "compatible with windows 7" has nothing to do with selling PCs; it's a peripheral certification.

It's because a lot of people fuck it up and try to get a warranty replacement rather than taking personal responsibility.

I have seen a lot less infections of this type on 64-bit Vista systems so it may be possible that some flaws are actually being closed (such as drivers requiring signatures, a pain for those of us trying to use certain free software but a boon for users prone to malware).

It's not that it's an unfree market, it's more of a natural monopoly. Free market is not the solution to all problems. You are free to write and promote a new OS and take over the market but you won't because it's hard. Antitrust law is fundamentally anti-free-market so you obviously understand that market freedom has to be limited because of the human nature to take advantage of freedom. Leveraging antitrust law on MS is not a bad idea but it is of course a lot more complicated than that. I'm not sure about your proposed result but I suppose it could be possible. Alternatively, if software patents weren't such a problem maybe ReactOS would become a reality faster and implement some of the changes you wish for as a real competitor.

Hopefully you are licensing it properly http://www.malwarebytes.org/corporate.php because the free license does not seem to cover using it in the way you are describing.

"1. Not to use this software for commercial use without proper licensing."

You should consider donating to the combofix developers as well if it's benefiting your company so much.

I like Antivirus 2011 more, although it seems to use a bit more of my internet connection all the time for updates.

Sadly, in the typical office this move would remove him from the employed group.

NOD32, Avira, and Avast are popular now, as well as Malwarebytes for the less destructive nasties.

I sometimes try to convince people of this but most are blinded by the draw of new technology. Color laser used to be reserved for the rich but now anyone can afford it and just having it makes them feel better. A lot of tech purchases are due to an effect like this. The emotional component should not be discounted; the choice is more than a logical one.

Some of the best windows support too, have you seen the quality of their drivers? Compared to Lexmark, HP, and Dell to name a few; It's wonderful.