> never given Microsoft license to do so
It's possible that they don't need it. There are fair use exemptions for reverse engineering and automated analysis. These may be the legal basis on which anti-malware research can be conducted.
It's possible that they don't need it. There are fair use exemptions for reverse engineering and automated analysis. These may be the legal basis on which anti-malware research can be conducted.
if microsoft copies an application from my computer without asking, then it did not legally acquire it.
malware is a different case. malware entered my computer with the permission of the malware creator. i didn't steal it from them, but it came to me willingly. hence i am allowed to analyze it, and i am allowed to delegate that task to someone else.
'You may sue the AV company for $1 million; users who suffered from your malware will civilly sue for $100 billion, and the government will charge you with crimes and put you away for a decade. Your move.'
There's this fascinating (to me, anyway) line between "viruses" (including worms, Trojans, and similar malware) that antivirus programs will tackle, and adware/spyware that they usually don't.
The difference between the two is whether it not there's a corporation publicly taking credit for the program and suing antivirus companies for defamation over calling it a "virus".
Adware/spyware is limited in distribution methods and payload types by the letter of the law, but otherwise the two classes are functionally identical.