meneer
July 8th, 2005, 05:44 AM
I received this reply from Microsoft concerning the lower removal advise of the Claria detection by MS AntiSpyware. It looks a lot like the CA Pestpatrol dispute a few months ago. It doesn't address the purchase rumours, though...
-{ Quote: "The facts:
Microsoft received a vendor dispute from Claria in late January. They disputed how we classified a number of their products.
We reviewed those products against our criteria and policies. We determined that it was appropriate to continue to detect Claria’s products. To be consistent with our policies, we adjusted how certain products were classified.
In late March, these changes were communicated to Claria via our standard process, and the detection adjustments were published. The vendor dispute was closed.
The analysis of software is based on a single set of objective criteria, which is published on the Windows AntiSpyware web site. http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/spyware/software/isv/analysis.mspx.
Microsoft handled Claria’s vendor dispute the same way we handle all others. Absolutely no exceptions were made for Claria.
The decisions made about the classification of Claria’s software in March were in no way related to recent public speculation regarding Microsoft and Claria.
Windows AntiSpyware continues to notify the user when Claria software is found on a computer, and it offers the user the option to remove the software if desired.
The summary:
All software vendors are reviewed under the same objective criteria, detection policies, and analysis process.
We apply our criteria objective and fairly. We have well-defined processes and procedures for analyzing software, and we take software analysis very seriously.
We welcome continued feedback on the criteria, policies, and technology in Windows AntiSpyware (Beta), because this will help us to further enhance the offering.
There is a lack of consensus in the anti-spyware industry around objective criteria and policies. This is a key reason why we’re a founding member of the Anti-Spyware Coalition to help address key spyware issues, along with other technology companies, anti-spyware companies, and public policy groups. " }-
-{ Quote: "The facts:
Microsoft received a vendor dispute from Claria in late January. They disputed how we classified a number of their products.
We reviewed those products against our criteria and policies. We determined that it was appropriate to continue to detect Claria’s products. To be consistent with our policies, we adjusted how certain products were classified.
In late March, these changes were communicated to Claria via our standard process, and the detection adjustments were published. The vendor dispute was closed.
The analysis of software is based on a single set of objective criteria, which is published on the Windows AntiSpyware web site. http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/spyware/software/isv/analysis.mspx.
Microsoft handled Claria’s vendor dispute the same way we handle all others. Absolutely no exceptions were made for Claria.
The decisions made about the classification of Claria’s software in March were in no way related to recent public speculation regarding Microsoft and Claria.
Windows AntiSpyware continues to notify the user when Claria software is found on a computer, and it offers the user the option to remove the software if desired.
The summary:
All software vendors are reviewed under the same objective criteria, detection policies, and analysis process.
We apply our criteria objective and fairly. We have well-defined processes and procedures for analyzing software, and we take software analysis very seriously.
We welcome continued feedback on the criteria, policies, and technology in Windows AntiSpyware (Beta), because this will help us to further enhance the offering.
There is a lack of consensus in the anti-spyware industry around objective criteria and policies. This is a key reason why we’re a founding member of the Anti-Spyware Coalition to help address key spyware issues, along with other technology companies, anti-spyware companies, and public policy groups. " }-