Over the years, Microsoft has often been embroiled in legal battles with its competitors over concerns of antitrust violations with regard to its dominant position in the desktop market. The latest of these complainants is Kaspersky Lab, the Russian cyber security and antivirus provider.
After filing for similar concerns with the Russian authorities last year, Kaspersky was met with some concessions by Microsoft but it seems the company didn't find them adequate, instead amping up the dispute by filing a complaint with the European Commission and the German Federal Cartel Office.
At the heart of Kaspersky's complaint is Microsoft's alleged removal of the company's software in favour of its own solution, Windows Defender. “Microsoft uses its dominant position in the computer operating system (OS) market to fiercely promote its own – inferior – security software (Windows Defender) at the expense of users’ previously self-chosen security solution,” according to CEO Eugene Kaspersky. He also took issue with the time window between receiving an RTM version of Windows from Microsoft and its subsequent release, which he claims has been reduced to an unacceptable couple of weeks in recent years.
Microsoft is, of course, adamant that it has done nothing wrong except to put the safety of its customers at the forefront, while still being compliant with all regulation. A Microsoft spokesperson issued the following statement on the matter:
Microsoft’s primary objective is to keep customers protected. We are confident that the security features of Windows 10 comply with competition laws. And we will answer any questions regulators may have.
The company also shifted some of the blame onto Kaspersky, pointing out that they had offered to meet with Kaspersky executives to discuss their concerns months ago but, so far, "that meeting has not yet taken place."
With the increasing threat of cyber attacks against its products, Microsoft has been shoring up its built-in security solutions to combat the problem, though where this has been at the expense of independent developers is yet to be seen.