Couldn't agree with you more Alex, I don't think it's like that at all!
 

It is in fact the other way around! Symantec and McAfee have put up a lawsuit against Microsoft for making Vista too secure. Basically, MS the "Live OneCare" was intended as part of Vista. MS protected a few parts of the kernel in order to prevent other programs to use them. MS claimed those sections were part of a system's vulnerability. Coincidentally some of these kernel sections are required for antivirus software to use. There are two sides here- malicious software acting as anti-virus software is a bad thing so the claim made by MS isn't that strange. The other side, it also keeps Symantec and McAfee out of the system.

Now, in sync with the Ford analogy: a third party company supplying airbags files a lawsuit agains Ford stating '#1 unfair advantage because no customer will buy their airbags as they come standard with the car' and '#2 keeping the wiring required for airbags a secret'. The result of the lawsuit: #1 Airbags are not allowed to come standard with cars, Ford must sell the airbags without destroying the existing market. #2 Ford has to supply their know-how to third parties.

Isn't is a bit odd that people always point in the direction of Microsoft? They intend to make a secure OS and get sued by companies that made a living out of security holes. They lose the lawsuit now the public is angry at them because 'they don't make a secure OS'. It's the people who buy the OS who gave them their current dominant position, not the other way around. Microsoft never forced anyone to use their operating system or suite of office products.

Note: I'm not a Microsoft-evangelist. I just get tired of the Microsoft bashing routine without solid facts.

btw. Tobold the charges were lead by European commitee for competition: "European antitrust regulators have warned Microsoft not to shut out rivals in the security software market as it builds more security into Vista." [reference] See also this Slashdot discussion.
 

Felsir, in fact I defended Microsoft of that episode, saying that Microsoft must be allowed to make their operating system safe and keeping the details to themselves.

But when I said that I assumed that Microsoft would improve the security of the operating system with no additional cost to the user. Selling both the disease and the cure isn't right. Why would Microsoft be interested in making Vista really safe, if they could leave open security holes intentionally, and then sell additional software to fix the hole?

Antispyware, antivirus, and firewall software is *not* software that people buy because they like running this stuff. It is software people buy to patch up a flawed product. If a company like Microsoft proves that it is able to patch this flawed product themselves, then why isn't the fix part of the original product, or some free "security upgrade"?
 

The point is, they can't sell the cure for free. It was ruled as unfair use of their market position, since Symantec and McAfee live from this service. The price for the security software had to be priced according to the market otherwise it would be part of the monopoly position lawsuit.
According to MS one of the reasons Vista isn't really safe now is because they are required to keep parts of the kernel 'open' because of this lawsuit. A bit like "You have to drill holes in this structure so others can plug parts into it." "Holes? That makes the structure less stable!" "Maybe, but at least is allows others to make their own parts for those holes."

btw. I am aware of your previous blogpost on this topic, my comment was mainly aimed at the other commenters in topic and to clarify a few things. To claim MS is dealing like this because it is an 'unreputable company' or to 'exploit their dominant position' sound like uninformed comments to me. Especially since MS never intended to handle it like this but was ruled by lawsuits to do so.