Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system


Forgot your password?

Symantec Sues Microsoft, May Delay Vista 303

AuMatar writes "Symantec filed a lawsuit against Microsoft over patents on the volume management technology in Vista. They're seeking an injunction to stop Vista from being sold until the suit is completed. Given the recent Supreme Court ruling it should be interesting to see if the injunction is granted, since Symantec does produce software which uses the patent. If it is granted, expect MS to settle to prevent another Vista delay."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Symantec Sues Microsoft, May Delay Vista

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 18, 2006 @10:47PM (#15362784)
    So now they pay someone else to help them delay Vista. LOL how pathetic.......
  • Interesting ploy (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bblazer ( 757395 ) * on Thursday May 18, 2006 @10:47PM (#15362785) Homepage Journal
    What Symantec is doing is rather interesting. Either asking for an injunction is to truly stop MS from causing their business damage, or it is just a lever to get into MS's checkbook. Either way, it is going to be interesting to see how this one plays out. While Symantec is not the 600lb gorilla the MS is, it is certainly in the 300lb range.
    • by ltwally ( 313043 ) on Thursday May 18, 2006 @11:13PM (#15362953) Homepage Journal
      Sounds an aweful lot like extortion to me. If they'd initiated this lawsuit a year ago, that'd have been one thing... but instead, they chose to take Microsoft to court as launch-day comes close.

      "Pay us some money, or we'll drag out this court thing and screw over your launch date, and cost you a bunch of money anyways."

      • Re:Interesting ploy (Score:5, Interesting)

        by sdnoob ( 917382 ) on Thursday May 18, 2006 @11:36PM (#15363051)
        a. symantec's bottom line needs the influx of settlement cash

        b. they've got no chance in hell of finishing vista-compatible products in time, so they need another delay

        c. they actually have a case.
        • Re:Interesting ploy (Score:4, Interesting)

          by sumdumass ( 711423 ) on Thursday May 18, 2006 @11:54PM (#15363135) Journal
          d. Symantec has been in talks with microsoft for a while now and microsoft thought they could steam roll over them like they have been accused of doing to so many other companies in the past.

          E. all of the above.
          • your point "d" (Score:5, Interesting)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19, 2006 @02:15AM (#15363620)
            Hmm... Don't know if Microsoft has been in talks with Symantec, but as for steam rolling over them, I would very much say so (not saying it's necessarily a bad thing though):

            -They're going to offer an antivirus (in addition to their existing spyware removal software), making the use of SAV/NAV/NIS and such junk mostly pointless. [Not counting that most people seem to be moving to other AV apps lately like AVG and such - especially since NAV is getting harder to crack]

            -They're including a basic firewall out of the box (not the best, but NIS is crap, that'd be like downgrading, if someone wants a better firewall, they'll get something that's actually better)

            -Starting with Vista, they're replacing deployment tools, i.e. replacing RIS for WDS, but the interesting point here is XImage, which will likely replace ghost - the only symantec app that wasn't *total* crap yet (although lots of people have moved to/prefer acronis apps instead).

            What's left? Winfax? Nope. Already a basic fax client in windows (it sucks, but I can't say winfax is great either, and most people/businesses that still use faxes nowadays don't do it via PC either). Doubt they sell many licenses.

            Oh, PCAnywhere! Well, terminal services/citrix ICA is what everyone and their dog seems to be using these days (and apps like VNC/radmin). I haven't seen someone using it in a LONG time - definitely NOT mainstream either.

            What else? Partition magic? Bleh. Those who wanted it bought it while it was Powerquest's - and it doesn't even seem to be updated anymore (symantec's specialty seems to be driving products into the ground - like novell seemingly). Buggier than ever, sounds like everyone prefers acronis apps for this nowadays. ...and the list goes on. And their apps are getting a LOT more bothersome for their clients - especially the activation part. Someone I know bought NAV, only to discover it wouldn't let him activate it on 2 PCs or something (unlike the old version), and now it's not working anymore (plus pay for updates - getting too expensive, he moved to AVG too). And incredible bloat (NIS will bring a 2GHz PC to its knees), and countless bugs (we had tremendous problems with SAV at work, countless crashes, problems with office, you name it).

            The only thing they seem to have left that's worth buying is their new acquisition, veritas products. But I'm sure they'll manage to make them suck too, and drive them into the ground like everything else.

            It seems they're not improving anything, they'd be the LEAST innovative company I could think of, and their junk just keeps getting worse.

            Perhaps Veritas licenses alone can't keep the company afloat (unsurprisingly), and they're looking for a ne business model ala SCO (litigation, to prevent a new/better/more secure OS, or plain extorsion)

            I'm sad to see many companies and products having been crushed by Microsoft over the years (OS/2, Corel stuff, you name it), but if there's one company I won't miss, it definitely is Symantec.
            • Dude... (Score:4, Interesting)

              by Penguin Follower ( 576525 ) <TuxTheBurninator ... m ['mai' in gap]> on Friday May 19, 2006 @09:15AM (#15364840) Journal

              ... you are seriously forgetting about the most used symantec product in the corporate environment. Symantec Corporate Anti-virus. We use it, every company I support uses it (lots of companies). One client has over 7,000 machines running the client end of it, meanwhile there's all the domain controllers running the server end as well. Licenses... cha-ching cha-ching cha-ching! Unlike their comsumer level Norton AV, Symantec Corporate AV, in my experience, actually does it's job without being intrusive, AND it's nowhere near the resource hog that Norton AV is.

              Ghost isn't as big as it used to be, and the rest is junk as you mentioned. I just needed to add in the corporate AV... it's their one decent product. If Symantec goes under, I won't miss all the other products, but the corporate AV would be missed.

          • by Anonymous Coward
            I think perhaps the steamroller is on the other foot. Microsoft is incorporating features into its operating system that they have taken copious amounts of flak for not having over the years. When someone wants to flame their OS the first part that gets raked across the coals is security. With Vista they seem to want to step up and take responsibility for security by including a virus scanner. Isn't this something everyone has been saying they should have been doing all along?

            "We shouldn't have to buy 3
            • by somersault ( 912633 ) on Friday May 19, 2006 @06:35AM (#15364299) Homepage Journal
              The issue isn't that they are making Windows more secure, it's that they're infringing on a patent. And the other reply is correct - if they designed their OS with better security, and only let users who knew what they were doing mess about with installing apps etc, then there would be no need for antivirus. I was thinking that would stop your average schmoe from using a PC, but they'd soon learn how to use their PC properly if they discovered they couldnt install any applications without doing so. Some people shouldn't really use computers without doing a bit of reading, or getting a bit of tutoring from their friends. Just think of all the zombies out there under spammers' control, etc.. I have been using computers since I was 4 or so, and it's nice to just learn yourself, but these days (and I'm thinking especially in a business environment), people really need to be taught how to use computers. Windows isn't really interesting to use though, and doesn't give me the same feeling of control/security (even fun?) that other OSs I've used have done (Amiga OS, Mac OS, Linux..)
            • Microsoft is incorporating features into its operating system that they have taken copious amounts of flak for not having over the years.

              I don't think MS is being taken to task for not incorporating software like AV scanners, they're taking flak for making them so very necessary to begin with. /Analogy Alert

              MS is in the business of building foundations. The ground shifts, foundations crack, leak and become less stable. Many companies exist that provide pump systems to drain leakage, patches for fixing crack
          • oblig. (Score:3, Funny)

            by muellerr1 ( 868578 )
            f) Profit!
            • Re:oblig. (Score:3, Funny)

              by x2A ( 858210 )
                * Was that loud enough?

              With this volume management software they're talking about, everything's loud enough wooot!

        • A: Symantec has oodles of that's not an issue
          B: There's already a version Symantec Antivirus (and other products) already available for Vista

          C: Very likely
    • Sick of Lawsuits? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by JoshuaJarman ( 974909 ) on Friday May 19, 2006 @12:17AM (#15363227)
      While I don't doubt that Symantec has a valid point and that MS is using some of their IP without licensing it I have to ask...

      Am I the only person sick to death of all the lawsuits and patents?

      It seems like the world is getting more and more "locked down".
      There is less and less anyone can do without knowingly or unknowlingly trampling someone else's IP.
      To make matters worse there are Patent Trolls, locking up broad patents with the hopes of suing people to make money.
      Those who can't sue.

      All this has lead me to question the presumptions behind both copyrights and patents.
      They were originally designed to spur innovation by protecting the people who invest their time and resources to research and develop new products or create original content.
      It *SEEMS* to me that both are now acheiving the oppsite goal and limiting and hurting innovation.

      While I don't think we can just get rid of either overnight, I think some careful consideration needs to go into reforming the laws to make sure that they serve their original purposes.

      Just some thoughts that this discussion brought up for me...Cheers.
      • by Anonymous Coward
        That probably would have been "+1 Insightful" about 10 years ago. At this point it's really "-1 Redundant."
      • Am I the only person sick to death of all the lawsuits and patents?

        Yes, and I think most of the major companies are also sick of it. Unfortunately it's turning into an arms race and just sitting around being a pacifist just means you get flattened by someone with a bigger pile of patents than you.

        It's impossible to write any software without infringing someone's patent and I've heard it used as a reason _not_ to open-source stuff. "We have no business reason to open-source this, but we'd like to for the b
  • by Hairball6494 ( 975716 ) on Thursday May 18, 2006 @10:47PM (#15362786) Journal
    ... I'm sure it will be time for MS to announce their next generation of OS. or maybe server. who likes using 3 year old server software???
  • Delayed?? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ritalin16 ( 867772 ) * on Thursday May 18, 2006 @10:49PM (#15362800)
    What? Vista might be delayed? I'm shocked.... SHOCKED!!
    • Maybe Vista won't see the light of day...
    • Actually, this could be a ruse... Symantec probly needs a few more years for their anti-virus products on Vista. And the built-in anti-spyware anti-malware stuff in Vista might break competing products with every Windows update...
    • Re:Delayed?? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by timeOday ( 582209 )
      No kidding. MS will probably be happy to accept a court-mandated delay of Longhorn just to give them an excuse for further delay. Like when Half-Life 2 was leaked and Valve said "aw, shucks, we were almost ready to release it, but now we'll have to push it back, just because of those darned hackers (whew!)"
  • Wait a second. What code are they using? Is there some sort of automated backup in Windows? I didn't think any work was being done on the FS, so it seems that the code they allegedly stole isn't deeply coupled with the OS, right?

    -- n
    • by siraim ( 473110 ) on Thursday May 18, 2006 @11:21PM (#15362981)
      Symantec purchased Veritas. Veritas wrote the volume manager (Disk Management in the mmc) that is used by Windows 2000 and later. If you check the registry, you'll find reference to the veritas volume manager.
    • by Random Data ( 538955 ) on Thursday May 18, 2006 @11:22PM (#15362987)
      Dynamic disks, shadow copy, etc. are all Veritas (now Symantec) products that MS licensed. Presumably MS are pushing something along these lines that'll interfere with Symantec's storage management market, so Symantec are getting nervous.

      TFA is light on details as to exactly what bits are violating an agreement, but given this stuff has been around since Windows 2000 it's fairly safe to say it's reasonably well embedded into the OS - lots of stuff depends on those hooks now.
  • Irony! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by crhylove ( 205956 ) <> on Thursday May 18, 2006 @10:49PM (#15362805) Homepage Journal
    How many people think this is hillarious since windows is the only OS symantec can make a profit on, since it is the only one that performs poorly enough to NEED something like symantec?

    Think about it, how many of us linux users are regularly downloading a virus cleaning program?

    Symantec suing MS is like Karl Rove suing the republican party. It may be valid, but one would not exist without the other. That's just funny to me.

    • Re:Irony! (Score:3, Informative)

      by WedgeTalon ( 823522 )
      I would completely disagree with that needing symantec bit. In fact, I find that XP systems run BETTER without their crap. Just slap on one of the free antivirus out there and remove any pre-installed crapware and you're good to go.
    • Unless an out of court settlement prohibits Microsoft from bundling its upcoming antispyware / antivirus software?
    • Thats funny because symantec started off with a virus detection program called SAM on the macintosh platform back in 91, it wasn't till they aquired Central point and Norton in 1994 did they started producing a virus program for the PC. Then apple's marketshare dwindled and sam was pulled in mid 90's. Those were the days. Though with the intel chips maybe we'll see apple hitting the 12% marketshare again.
    • Re:Irony! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Crazyscottie ( 947072 ) on Thursday May 18, 2006 @11:28PM (#15363014)
      Of course Symantec horse is biting the hand of the man that feeds it, but only because the horse knows that very soon (after a few more delays, I should say) the man won't need that horse anymore! This could be a lawsuit intended to delay the shipping of Vista.

      More delays = Longer time until Microsoft's bundled security = More Symantec products sold

      You get the picture.
      • Re:Irony! (Score:3, Informative)

        by sumdumass ( 711423 )
        Nah, it isn't about selling more symantec products. It is about making sure they get money from microsoft products being sold because they contain symantec ideas.

        Microsoft is the one that realy bit the hand. They attained an antivirus company and talked about giving it away with Vista. I'm not sure if thats still the idea but it would signal symantec that netscape syndrome could be happening there. Now if symantec can make Vista expensive enough because of licensing fees, they will generate the same amount
      • And whats even more funny is that Windows wouldnt exists without anti-virus!
    • Re:Irony! (Score:3, Informative)

      by saleenS281 ( 859657 )
      Funny, Symantec/Veritas Foundation Suite is deployed on at least one server in just about every major corporation in the world, and it's mainly aimed at *nix servers that are running FC. Turns out they are in fact making money off more than just MS, who'd a thunk?

      If I had a dollar for every RHEL/Oracle/Veritas DMP setup I had to troubleshoot I could've retired already and I've only been doing it for a year...
    • > Think about it, how many of us linux users are regularly downloading a virus cleaning program?

      Regulary : []

  • "Symantec alleges that "Microsoft has deliberately and surreptitiously misappropriated Symantec's valuable data-storage technologies, misled and thereby convinced the United States government to issue patents to Microsoft based on technologies invented by Symantec, attempted unsuccessfully to persuade Symantec to forgive Microsoft' s misdeeds under the guise of expanding a business relationship, and ultimately built portions of its next generation operating system on this house of cards."

    2 words. holy
    • Who? Symantec, that Microsoft has the full intent of taking over the world through any means necessary? Or Microsoft, That the world doesn't usually tolerate this crap for long... I don't know. Would be interesting to see how this pans out.
  • by creepynut ( 933825 ) * <teddy(slashdot)> on Thursday May 18, 2006 @10:51PM (#15362813) Homepage

    Microsoft announces another edition of Windows Vista; Windows Vista Forever.

    In celebration of it's release, ID Software and Microsoft are teaming up to release Duke Nukem Forever on the same day!

  • Well... (Score:3, Funny)

    by liangzai ( 837960 ) on Thursday May 18, 2006 @10:54PM (#15362832) Homepage
    This is clearly an instance of "democracy with American characteristics", involving lawyers to get somewhere.

    Anyway, M$ can't afford to stall the launch any further, which means the users will have to pay for Symantec's share.

    Hell, M$ might even start thinking more about security just to piss off Symantec. Or maybe put them out of business entirely, because they live like a parasite on M$.
    • You are missing the point that if they could do security, they would. They're not making horrid software on purpose -- this really is the best they can do. It's sad, really. There are ten new viruses a day. Millions of zombie bots wreak havoc on the internet. Botmaster spamkings brazenly demand ransom and shut down opponents with traffic storms. Absolutely no other OS from any source provides a fertile ground for this menace to grow. The only possible cure for this absurdity would be to ban Microsoft

      • It isn't so much that microsoft cannot put out a secure product or even patch security with other product they hold. It is that microsoft hasn't seen the need to yet.-

        You see, as long as companies like symantec are out there, Microsoft has an ace in the hole. It can push security off onto site admins and disclaim responsibility if an incedent occures. Now recently, the general public has described security as a bigger importance. They are puplicaly chastising microsoft for holes in software, bugs and glitch
    • (Twiddling fingers like Dr. EVIL)... FIFTY-FIVE ***BEELYUN*** DOLLARS!

      (Picking themselves up from floor, ms lies again and chortles) THAT KIND OF MONEY DOESN'T EVEN EXIST!
  • Hmmm... (Score:4, Funny)

    by rushmeat ( 972949 ) on Thursday May 18, 2006 @10:57PM (#15362852)
    *Microsoft Board Room Exec's Shit guys, the date is coming closer and closer, and we have NOTHING. What the HELL are we going to do? *Board members think for a while* Hey, I have an idea! Let's get Symantec to sue us for something stupid, and create an injunction that stops our product from coming out, so that we don't have to delay it again, and can use someone as a scapegoat! ... Excelent idea! Give this man a promotion, a Ferrari, and hell, tell the programmers to take the week off!
    • I smell a Half-Life 2 code leak all over this. It seems just a little bit to convenient for MS to be handed such a neat excuse not to launch vista.

      Probably ain't true but still. This is MS we are talking about. If they can lie about something, they will.

  • by yagu ( 721525 ) * < minus cat> on Thursday May 18, 2006 @10:57PM (#15362854) Journal

    Semantec and its technology is annoying. Microsoft and its technology is annoying. Both have insidious business tactics (lifetime subscription, or die?).

    I have a hard time picking which of these two companies is telling the truth here. Okay, it's slashdot, I'll align (reluctantly) with Semantec. A paragraph from an article:

    "These claims are unfounded because Microsoft actually purchased intellectual property rights for all elevant technologies from Veritas in 2004," the company said.

    The courts will have to arbitrate, but I wonder that Microsoft went into that contract under a huge smoke screen, all smarmy and friendly -- Semantec probably thought they were getting a backstage pass, a partnership to be the virus, etc., technology provider with Microsoft for the long anticipated Vista.

    Vista: (from definition 2., Merriam Webster): an extensive mental view (as over a stretch of time or a series of events)

    Semantec probably saw themselves in some kind of mindshare with Microsoft. Not much of a "vista" now? Frankly, when you look at the scattered remains of former companies at the hands of Microsoft it seems a wonder any company would enter into partnerships with them (Citrix, Stacker (is that what it was called?, etc.).

    If I were a technology company, I'd only take one of two paths: I'd either formulate a strategy such that when my products are mature and interesting enough to Microsoft, I'd sell the technology and company outright (hello Visio), or I'd absolutely refuse to work with them at all. Anything in between seems to be a kiss of betrayal.

    Of course a company always has to consider the heavy price that might be paid by not cooperating at all with Microsoft. Remember Netscape? And Microsoft has demonstrated the price to pay for that kind of bullying ("Janet Reno can go to Hell.") is one they're willing to absorb.

    Well, a rambling post, but no solution to the Microsoft juggernaut. Hang in there Google!

    • Semantec probably saw themselves in some kind of mindshare with Microsoft. Not much of a "vista" now? Frankly, when you look at the scattered remains of former companies at the hands of Microsoft it seems a wonder any company would enter into partnerships with them (Citrix, Stacker (is that what it was called?, etc.).

      What astounds me is that anyone still partners with MS. They eat everybody that gets in bed with them.

    • Microsoft just steals all the employees.

      Example: compiler vendors
    • Ok - silly question... Wasn't Netscape one of the most wildly successful companies coming out of the 90s. I mean they created about 5B in shareholder wealth in just a few years before giving it back to the shareholders in the shape of an aquisition with AOL.

      Now they might have been able to grow larger - but they did set the natural price of a browser at 0, then complained when someone else matched their price. Once they lawyered up they started looking more like SCO than a tech company and fell out of r

      • ut they did set the natural price of a browser at 0, then complained when someone else matched their price.

        Wrong. Yes, Netscape gave their browser away for free to end-users, but they fully expected to be able to make a profit in the long run by selling enhanced versions to companies, offering services, and probably some advertising business. But they did not complain when Microsoft gave away Internet Explorer for free. They complained when Microsoft bundled Internet Explorer with Windows. And in the pro

  • Summary is wrong (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 18, 2006 @10:57PM (#15362856)
    The lawsuit has nothing to do with patent infringement.

    Instead, Symantec is alleging that Microsoft stole trade secrets from them (this is the contractual violation part) incorporated them into Vista (hence the petition for injunction).

    Patents come into the picture because Symantec is also alleging the Microsoft filed for patents on this technology, claiming to have invented it itself.

    • Re:Summary is wrong (Score:5, Informative)

      by chef_raekwon ( 411401 ) on Thursday May 18, 2006 @11:57PM (#15363147) Homepage
      nicely put. I have read all the comments to this point, and no one seems to get the picture (except ofcourse, for this AC).

      Symantec is putting forth this lawsuit because it now owns Veritas. Veritas is the best volume management software available. It is light years ahead of any competition -- and if Microsoft steals these 'trade secrets', they have every right to go after them in court. I don't think we are seeing another SCO trying to slow the inevitable death...or a company trying to pimp its virus protection.
    • I used to wonder why companies would enter into partnership with MS given their history of stealing technology, customers and general backstabbing of anybody who comes within ten feet of them.

      Now I know. You can sue them once they steal their technology.

      It does take balls though. MS can afford to spend anybody under the table dragging the case through the court system. Hell if SCO can keep dragging IBM through the so called american justice system for three years without ever even concretely making an accus
  • by xkr ( 786629 ) on Thursday May 18, 2006 @11:03PM (#15362896)
    Symantec (plantiff) can only get an injunction, in the best of circumstances, AFTER MS has been determined by a trial court to be infringing. An average patent case now costs $13 million in legal expenses and takes 7 years. Then, assume about two more years for the injunction.

    The recent Supreme Court decision has (almost) put an end to injunctions. Since the damages in patent cases are restricted to "actual" (meaning lost business profit) damages, it is hardly worth the bother.

    Expect to see patent holders pretty much ignored by all large companies, from now on.

    • Since the damages in patent cases are restricted to "actual" (meaning lost business profit) damages, it is hardly worth the bother.

      Damages could be based on a projected loss of existing market share suffered by Symantec as a result of a competing, infringing product. The Supreme Court did NOT rule against injunctions (which can be imposed prior to the outcome of a trial). The Supreme Court ruled only that damages must be considered in the decision to grant an injunction. The decision makes it harder
  • by Aj ( 608 ) on Thursday May 18, 2006 @11:24PM (#15362998) Homepage
    23 May 2006.

    Microsoft released its latest patch set today for all versions of it's Windows Operating systems.

    24 May 2006.

    Symantec Products Failing en-mass.

    Reports are coming in from all over the world today that Symantecs software is failing on all versions of windows, Symantec cannot explain it, and microsoft are not commenting.

    • 23 May 2006. Microsoft released its latest patch set today for all versions of it's Windows Operating systems. 24 May 2006. Symantec Products Failing en-mass. Reports are coming in from all over the world today that Symantecs software is failing on all versions of windows, Symantec cannot explain it, and microsoft are not commenting. sigh...

      Wow, MS upgrades that intentionally target third party competition? That's sure never happened before...oh wait. QEMM anyone?

  • by oskard ( 715652 ) on Thursday May 18, 2006 @11:26PM (#15363011)
    , May Delay Vista
  • I disagree.... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ShyGuy91284 ( 701108 ) on Thursday May 18, 2006 @11:34PM (#15363040)
    "If it is granted, expect MS to settle to prevent another Vista delay." Or, if they find yet another reason they should work more on Vista, expect them not to settle to cover their butts much like a certain company once did due to source code theft (A company and game I happen to have the greatest respect for).
  • by WidescreenFreak ( 830043 ) on Thursday May 18, 2006 @11:35PM (#15363041) Homepage Journal
    Holy sh*t! All of the comments in this thread about Symantec being worried about Microsoft's anti-virus product!

    You apparently have forgotten that Symantec now owns Veritas -- you know, the company that had probably the most-used volume management software out there? Need I remind you that Veritas Volume Manager has been a part of Windows for many years? Windows 2000 even had VxVM incorporated into it. When you have a 2000 or XP disk that is configured as "dynamic" instead of "basic", you're looking at a Veritas Volume Manager disk, not a straight NTFS/FAT32 disk.

    Even the article itself (emphases mine) says:

    Microsoft said in a statement that the suit "stems from a very narrow disagreement" over terms of a contract with Veritas to license volume management technology, which allows operating systems to handle large amounts of data.

    Apparently, Symantec either thinks that Microsoft has misappropriated the technology that they use in Veritas Volume Manager and incorporated it into Vista without giving Symantec that they want or they're using this as an excuse for a money grab. Either way, this has nothing to do with Microsoft's anti-virus product.
  • by Gothmolly ( 148874 ) on Thursday May 18, 2006 @11:36PM (#15363053)
    Does this mean that Windows will finally have a real volume manager? Oh the humanity! Are we finally done with primary and extended partitions, and dynamic volumes, and all that crap? Can we just do something as elegant as "vgextend vg00 /dev/sda2" or similar ARC path crap?

    Holy cow, maybe Vista WONT suck.
  • If it is granted, expect MS to settle to prevent another Vista delay.

    But only after the delay because it would be all Symantec's fault, every bit of it, nothing whatever to do with slipping schedules.

    So says Oz the great and terrible.

  • by TheDormouse ( 614641 ) on Thursday May 18, 2006 @11:40PM (#15363075)

    So all my MP3's will play around the same volume with me having to fiddle with the speaker controls! Yessss!

    Oh, wait. Nevermind.

  • Whew!!! Thanks for small favors. Now that Symantec is suing Microsoft, they're able to use the lawsuit as an excuse for delaying the launch of VISTA for a few more months.

    How much cash is Billy going to "settle" for so that they can hold back the launch of the biggest piece of vapor in history?
  • No, not really. (Score:4, Informative)

    by Telastyn ( 206146 ) on Friday May 19, 2006 @12:05AM (#15363180)
    Microsoft is in a position to place antivirus/spyware apps into their OS. Symantec makes ~50% of all revenue from NAV. This lawsuit isn't much more than corporate blackmail. Microsoft agrees to not bundle their AV, or otherwise completely screw NAV, and Symantec agrees not to tie up Vista in court.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19, 2006 @12:13AM (#15363207)
    MS: "Ok, how much will it take to make you go away?"


    MS: "a billion?!"

    SYM: "Well, ya see, we gotta pay out taxes..."
  • Did MS pay Symantec to lauch this suit? They should have! MS has delayed Vista to h3ll and gone. Now they need an outside cause to take the blame.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 19, 2006 @01:32AM (#15363480)
    it took ten years. Well I was actually there. Msft already had (and still does have) pretty good "volume management" software before they got in bed with Veritas. It was in the product since first release back in 1993. A couple of us were slated to work on improving what Msft already had. From a marketing perspective, being able to say that we had the software, Veritas Volume Management (VVM) that was the "gold" standard (from a marketeers point of view), was something that many thought we HAD to have. I really question whether this turned out to be true. I argued vehemently against this contract, which I read from cover to conver. Clearly I argued ineffectively. One of my arguments at the time, was that we would never be able to claim we were better than what was out there because it certainly wasn't in Veritas' interest to produce a better product for Msft, while they still had a bunch of other OEMS using customized VVM. It was a done deal with Msft though. I certainly got inklings that within serveral years there was at least ONE very senior executive who wondered aloud why the heck this contract got signed. Makes you wonder how many folks actually did read the contract. In my own case, I retired within a year of the contract being signed, and have been happily self-unemployed since.
  • by merc ( 115854 ) <> on Friday May 19, 2006 @01:54AM (#15363544) Homepage
    "Well, I think there are experts who claim Linux violates our intellectual property. I'm not going to comment. But to the degree that that's the case, of course we owe it to our shareholders to have a strategy. And when there is something interesting to say, you'll be the first to hear it."

    -- Steve Balmer on Linux and patents.
  • remember shiva? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by lon3st4r ( 973469 ) on Friday May 19, 2006 @06:35AM (#15364303)
    this is not the first time MS has been accused of such underhanded tactics. back in the ol' times when IE was just out, MS had licensed Shiva Corp.'s TCP/IP stack/dialer for IE. The agreement was on a royalty basis as a certain percentage of the sales income.

    MS then distributed IE for free and never paid a penny to them.

    i remember that MS recently did lose a lawsuit for this, but the damage was done

Perfection is acheived only on the point of collapse. - C. N. Parkinson