Microsoft’s decision to enter the spyware arena has not been without controversy. Those who blame Internet Explorer and Windows for the current spyware problem charge that the software giant is poised to charge for the misfortune they’ve allegedly caused. Currently, Microsoft is providing the beta AntiSpyware at no charge but it is not yet known whether they will charge for the final release version.
Others argue that security vulnerabilities within Microsoft products are proof that the company cannot be trusted to provide security and any security product they offer is bound to be inadequate. Still others claim that Microsoft is a favored target for penetration and compromise and that any security product they provide will also likely become a target. Humorously and assumedly coincidentally, Microsoft selected a picture of a target for the Microsoft AntiSpyware product’s splash screens and icons.
Microsoft faced similar accusations when they acquired RAV AntiVirus in June 2003. Plans for the eventual evolution of that product still remain under wraps.
Forced to change the labeling of some remote access Trojans turned divorceware in the past, antivirus vendors will undoubtedly be closely watching the reaction to the Microsoft AntiSpyware initiative. If vendors whose products are labeled spyware are able to successfully sue Microsoft for a reversal, this may send a signal to other security vendors to steer clear of the controversial detection. Conversely, if litigation happens to result in more clear cut definitions of what constitutes adware and spyware, this may in turn pave the way for other mainstream anti-spyware scanners.
Vendors who find their products flagged by Microsoft AntiSpyware may wish to view the Microsoft criteria for spyware designation and file a report at the Vendor dispute page should the designation prove to be erroneous.
In any event, Microsoft is in something of a damned if you do, damned if you don’t situation. By not tackling the spyware problem (perceived or otherwise) head-on, they risk continued migration away from the Internet Explorer browser and loss of consumer confidence. But by taking on the problem firsthand, they face accusations of exploitation if they do charge and complaints of unfair competition if they don’t.