But that was then, and this is now, and their current strategy for fighting this antitrust complaint, is... novel, let's say. Yes, let's go with novel.
From The Reg:
Redmond is currently being sued by security house Kaspersky Lab in the EU, Germany and Russia over alleged anti-competitive behaviour because it bundles the Windows Defender security suite into its latest operating system. Kaspersky (and others) claim Microsoft is up to its Internet Explorer shenanigans again, but that’s not so, said the operating system giant.
“Microsoft’s application compatibility teams found that roughly 95 per cent of Windows 10 PCs had an antivirus application installed that was already compatible with Windows 10 Creators Update,” said Rob Lefferts, director of security in the Windows and Devices group.
“For the small number of applications that still needed updating, we built a feature just for AV apps that would prompt the customer to install a new version of their AV app right after the update completed. To do this, we first temporarily disabled some parts of the AV software when the update began.”Basically, Kaspersky are complaining about Microsoft abusing their control of the Windows platform to disable competitors' software, violating EU rules about such things, and Microsoft's defense is that they do exactly this, but that it's OK, because security. Presenting their actions as a consumer protection move is pretty baller; it's also bullshit, because there's plenty of evidence just floating around that Microsoft can, and do, disable competing AV software for reasons other than compatibility issues.
If you're wondering what it looks that like, then wonder no longer! It looks like this:
So, Microsoft can use their control of Windows to (a) know when your AV subscription is due to expire, and (b) "helpfully" remind you a day or so ahead of time.... that they have a free AV solution already installed on your machine, which they'll just be switching you to, automatically, if you should be, I dunno, too busy, or something, to renew that. Because they have your back (wink, wink). Somehow, according to Microsoft, this is about software compatibility, even though compatibility issues with the 3rd part software are never once mentioned.
This genius legal strategy is the work of the same team who are defending against multiple class-action lawsuits using basically the same argument that cost Microsoft US$10,000 in small claims court. Redmond's anticonsumer, monopolistic practices seem so blatant here that I'm finding it hard to imagine the EU doing anything except ruling in Kaspersky's favour. There's a reason why Microsoft already have a not-dissimilar, €497 million antitrust ruling on record.
All of this comes even as Microsoft's data privacy practices still being assessed by EU regulators - most of their recent improvements in that area were done in response to regulatory pressure, and regulators were not sounding convinced that Redmond's concessions in that area went far enough. To be facing antitrust action, again, with the data privacy stuff still not resolved, and multiple class action lawsuits grinding their way to apparently inevitable losses... well, I'm not an expert, but it sure looks to me like Microsoft's leadership have been on the receiving end of some seriously awful legal advice.
Microsoft are now perpetually operating in a mode of trying to minimize eventual penalties, while doing as little as possible about their bad practices in the meantime, all while knowing that their arguments in defense of those practices are basically insufficient to win any case on its merits. And, as a yuge corporation with plenty of cash in reserve, they can probably afford to wage these legal battles of attrition for quite a while yet. Whether they can afford the long-term damage that they're doing to their reputation in the meantime, or the momentum gains they're missing while spending years mired in legal trouble, remains to be seen.