IOBit Steals Malwarebytes' Intellectual Property

[Malware Removal Specialist]

Full Story: IOBit Steals Malwarebytes' Intellectual Property

Oh wow...that is serious...If I make a program and distribute it among my friends, yet my same program under a different name get's circulated, and I find out who "stole" it, would that be the same thing? (theft/fraud)

This is pure curiosity, even if it is criminal, I wouldn't charge my friends/classmates.

[Moderator]

I hope they turn the screws to them...this is not the 1st time IOBit has acted in this manner...

If the allegations are true, and the evidence seems compelling that they are, I hope IObits gets their act together.  They've made some good products.  It's a shame to see them in his predicament.

[Malware Removal Specialist]

They aren't making a very convincing argument. IOBit’s Denial of Theft Unconvincing

For those who missed the original topic that set all this into motion, which is now deleted, I just happened to be the one who replied to it.

I do however have a screencap of it thanks to the Bing Cache.

http://imagecows.net/out.php/i12840_FalsePositiveReportIObit.ComForums1257287570684.png

Oh wow...that is serious...If I make a program and distribute it among my friends, yet my same program under a different name get's circulated, and I find out who "stole" it, would that be the same thing? (theft/fraud)

This is pure curiosity, even if it is criminal, I wouldn't charge my friends/classmates.

I think you might feel differently about it if they were claiming it as their own intellectual property.

[Moderator]

I didn't care for any of their products i tested including Advanced System Care.

[Malware Removal Specialist]

IOBit 360 went from a buggy beta to a full release in a very short time. I was shocked how fast. I cut ties with that forum when that and rumors (now confirmed) of a toolbar were circulating.

I think I now know how it went from a buggy false positive finding beta to a final release so fast. They wanted it at a retail level ASAP. They succeeded. Now this.

So if they are using an updating definition list, why doesn't MB just set pieces of the stolen anti-virus' required files as viruses?

[Moderator]

So if they are using an updating definition list, why doesn't MB just set pieces of the stolen anti-virus' required files as viruses?

They have...as stated in the article they will not say what methods were used to track the copiers...

After finding additional evidence, Malwarebytes conducted a test and added fake definitions for a fake rogue application to its database of malware. Within two weeks, IObit was detecting the fake files and using "almost exactly" the fake names.

source: check this link

They have...as stated in the article they will not say what methods were used to track the copiers...

I mean like cripple the AV by quarentining parts of it.

[Moderator]

How would they put a crippled product out there ? ?

You're not making sense

I thin khe means, for Malwarebytes to detect parts of IOBit's software that uses the same database.

I thin khe means, for Malwarebytes to detect parts of IOBit's software that uses the same database.

Well I doubt IObit actually looks at every entry, so add a piece of IOBit's software as a virus and they'll probably update.

[Moderator]

Still makes no sense...
IOBit is using their code...if they release a crippled product to foil IOBit they would only hurt their own reputation.
Code from IOBit would only do what it's written to do...
How would including it in MAM code accomplish anything ? ?

In the database, like they added the fake virus, they should add another fake virus definition, except it should look for IOBit's code ibstead of a real virus.

[Moderator]

I give up...

In the database, like they added the fake virus, they should add another fake virus definition, except it should look for IOBit's code ibstead of a real virus.

they already do that...