No, I think this is good business practice. And besides that, I think that everyone might be better off had Microsoft not decided to go into the "secure software" business.

First of all, whenever Microsoft offers a new service or utility for free as a standard option of its, admitedly, overpriced software, a series of companies that were addressing this field suddenly lose the reason for their existance, and a bunch of lawyers all around the world start suing Microsoft for monopolistic practices.

Second, the security model that people at Microsoft have on their minds, is an all-encompassing scheme addressing security both as an issue of unauthorized access to one's data, and as an attempt to fight degital media piracy. If Microsoft ships the next version of its OS with support for that security scheme which will be implemented in hardware, I'd rather pass on the option.

For most people, security is something that can be achieved even by using freeware programs. Yes, it might be better if this was incorporated in the OS, and of course security is the No. 1 issue for servers, but are we willing to lose yet another piece of our digital freedom by delegating responsibility for security to Microsoft?