"Fair" based on what standard? You'll have to define "fair".It's not being used out of it's rules, I just personally think that regardless of the rules, the usage is not always fair.
You are calling it "intelligence" and intelligence is shared. Competitive AV vendors do collaborate on this; Eugene acknowledged that. How do we know that this isn't what's happening and VT is just one venue for it?My other opinion is that too many vendors take from other vendors, such as through detection theft based on VT intelligence (e.g. they see a new submission and add it just because another vendor detected it without checking it themselves)
Are they using it without license/permission? Otherwise, it's a testament to how good BD is--and providing BD more income and market-share--no point in reinventing the wheel if you can't make a better wheel.or use the same engines from the same vendor too much (e.g. too many products use the BD SDK and it's ridiculous now IMO).
Is there evidence to support this is happening?If you were Avast and had your engine on VirusTotal to help people identify threats when scanning new downloads at VirusTotal, how would you feel if a company was using VT for commercial uses alongside their own engine to use your intelligence without paying money to your own company?