I can see why ISPs need to be able to control the traffic in their networks to a certain degree, but this is exactly why we need net neutrality laws. These guys are practically foaming at the mouth at the idea of being able to charge people more money in order to effectively use particular resources online. Scary stuff. The only restriction put on my line should be the amount of bandwidth I am paying for. As far as I’m concerned it’s the ISP’s responsibility to make sure they aren’t so over subscribed that they kill themselves.

My company is relatively small, but rapidly growing. We currently have 40 seats of Trend Office Scan, and couldn’t be happier with it. It is manageable, featureful, unobtrusive, and affordable. I’ve recommended your products to countless people. However, we may not be renewing it when our licenses are due for renewal in April. Why might that be?

Your company has opened a lawsuit against Barracuda networks claiming patent infringement, due to their redistribution and use of Clam AV within their network security products to do SMTP and FTP transfer virus scanning. I’ve researched the publicly available information on the lawsuit, including the patent which Trend claims is being violated. In my opinion this lawsuit is without merit, and frankly smacks of the “patent trolling” which is currently so common amongst IT organizations that are struggling to keep up with the changes of the industry. Specifically in this case, the democratization and commoditization of software due to the success of Open Source Software. Not only is there likely prior art for the “technology” in the patent, it is a patent that
should not have been awarded in the first place given the obvious nature of the “innovation” that it contains. In my opinion, the fact that other vendors have decided to settle other allegations leveled at them by Trend out of court is irrelevant. For companies the size of Symantec, absorbing the costs of settling on a licensing agreement is easier than fighting such allegations, regardless of their merit. For a company like Barracuda, this is likely not a feasible option. This is completely secondary to the already questionable nature of software patents in and of themselves.

I find this practice reprehensible, completely violating the spirit of the patent system. Rather than encouraging innovation, it stifles it. Rather than protecting the upstart inventor, it protects the incumbent corporations. It is a practice that I will do everything in my power to discourage. As someone who recommends, specifies, and purchases computer systems and software for my organization, and several other large organizations, part of that power is my power to not do business with companies who participate in such practices. Upon execution of this lawsuit, Trend Micro joined that shameful group of companies.

While I cannot guarantee that Trend Micro’s choice to pursue this lawsuit will make us change to another anti-virus and security vendor, I can guarantee that I will strongly recommend it. I have also begun to contact the people to whom I’ve recommended Trend products and rescind that recommendation. Regardless of the quality of the product, I will not do business with a company who so abuses the current flaws in intellectual property law if I have any other choice. In this case, I do.

I urge anyone reading this who is currently a Trend Micro customer to write a similar email or letter.