Microsoft releases Windows Defender while rivals bicker ComputerWorld, Oct 06

Old news, I know, but it raises an interesting point:

I think it's reasonable to take issue with the fact that Microsoft supplies a substandard operating system, and then supplements it with an anti virus program.

But it's quite absurd that Symantec et al. are complaining at Microsoft for not releasing their code so that they can make proper anti virus programs.

I immediately thought that surely the best solution would be for Microsoft to program the virus protection into the kernel, surely this would make windows inherently more secure out-of-the box.

But would the antivirus crowd then complain about this? If the in-kernel AV was done well, it could surely put them out of business, or at least severely dent their profits.

So as I reach the end, this is more of a legal rant than one about Microsoft. If, hypothetically, MS decided to implement the Linux kernel into the next version of windows (pigs might fly), and suddenly it was far more secure and less prone to virii, would Symantec sue Microsoft under anticompetition laws?

More importantly, would they win?

So, it's one thing to say MS is bad for selling bad software then providing add-on fixes, but what about basing your entire business model on another company's deficiencies, and then taking them to court when they eventually shape up their act?

Yes. I know this isn't that relevant to the quoted article, nor is my argument based on factual sources. But it's an interesting thought, don't you think?