PDA

View Full Version : RealNetworks Files Suit Against Microsoft


MacRumors
Dec 18, 2003, 10:08 PM
ZDNet reports (http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5129316.html) that RealNetworks filed suit against Microsoft on antitrust charges alleging that Microsoft "pursued a broad course of predatory conduct over a period of years...resulting in substantial lost revenue and business for RealNetworks."

The complaint is reminiscent of Microsoft's previous antitrust lawsuit which found that Microsoft abused its monopoly position and control of the operating system to unfairly promote its browser over competitors. Similarly, RealNetworks' lawsuit alleges a similar pattern with respect to digital media players.

Real's 64-page complaint accuses Microsoft of "tying" its Windows Media Player to its Windows operating system, shutting out competitors such as Real and instantly achieving "virtually universal distribution."

SiliconAddict
Dec 18, 2003, 10:11 PM
Here we go again! WOOT!

Ya know at this point companies are going to kill MS simply from suing them into the ground! A win here. A lost there. A couple wins over there.

pb1212580
Dec 18, 2003, 10:12 PM
Oh my!!! More suits for MS

SiliconAddict
Dec 18, 2003, 10:13 PM
Originally posted by pb1212580
Oh my!!! More suits for MS

Oh come on! Don't tell me you are surprised! ;)

itsbetteronamac
Dec 18, 2003, 10:17 PM
Well, all I can say to real networks is that you build a OS, and not tie in any of your own software. Just like apple incorperates quicktime into their OS, microsoft incorperates their software in to Windows. But, I will say that microsoft dose mac everything within windows revolve around windows media player. Also that it helps promote the WMA/WMP format which I fell should just go away.

york2600
Dec 18, 2003, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by SiliconAddict
Here we go again! WOOT!

Ya know at this point companies are going to kill MS simply from suing them into the ground! A win here. A lost there. A couple wins over there.


Somehow I doubt they could sue all of MS' billions out of them. It would be nice, but completely impossible.

pb1212580
Dec 18, 2003, 10:19 PM
I think it's getting ridiculous though...

I mean really, it's really not MS' fault for "gotten" chosen as THE os for PCs and grew so big... and they had to incorporate more functions such as web browsing, digital music player...
you can't sue them for expanding Windows, no?! Just cuz they are bigger...
write better apps to compete, Real!
or strike deals! work with apple! ;)
What's next? are they going to sue MS for their own implementation of the calculator? clock?

just my 2 cents...

I'm glad I am not Bill...nothing goes right with that company...or something. ;) no offence...

macfreek57
Dec 18, 2003, 10:19 PM
real networks screwed itself YEARS ago when it started making CRAPPY software and then charging for it
(** "With new, improved CRAP!" **)

DamnDJ
Dec 18, 2003, 10:23 PM
Back in the day I would have had more sympathy for RealNetworks, but since their track record over the past few years have nothing but garbage software, I really don't care one way or another.

Computer_Phreak
Dec 18, 2003, 10:25 PM
While the zealots cheer...

Apple has virtually the same thing with Quicktime on the mac side.

Also, I agree that its getting stupid sueing microsoft over this.. I mean, you can't uninstall IE, but WMP will go away if you want it to, and its not "integrated" into the OS.

ZildjianKX
Dec 18, 2003, 10:27 PM
I've used real player for years (shutter), its got to be the worst media player made. Go MS! :p

djcobb44
Dec 18, 2003, 10:28 PM
Real Player is only needed for streaming RealNetworks content over the internet. I use RealOne to watch BBC News and occasionally the local news, other than that, I have no other use for it. Unfortunately, everyone else is using Windows Media format in the place of what used to be Real's market. Even the BBC is was wanting to dump Real for WM. Why more people do not choose to use Quicktime is beyond me, but RealNetworks should have stayed more competitive with Windows Media and stopped adding more bloat to their Windows client.

macfreek57
Dec 18, 2003, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by Computer_Phreak
While the zealots cheer...

Apple has virtually the same thing with Quicktime on the mac side.

Also, I agree that its getting stupid sueing microsoft over this.. I mean, you can't uninstall IE, but WMP will go away if you want it to, and its not "integrated" into the OS.

agreed, but

why are you so critical-sounding of mac zealots on a mac rumors site?

arn
Dec 18, 2003, 10:46 PM
Originally posted by pb1212580
I think it's getting ridiculous though...

I mean really, it's really not MS' fault for "gotten" chosen as THE os for PCs and grew so big... and they had to incorporate more functions such as web browsing, digital music player...
you can't sue them for expanding Windows, no?!
just my 2 cents...


What is RealNetworks wanted to bundle RealPlayer with Dell Computers.... but Microsoft had in their contracts that Dell was not allowed to bundle any other Media Players with Windows or Microsoft would cancel their contract with Dell... leaving Dell with no OS to bundle.

Is that ok too?

I'm not saying it happened, but I think there were similar circumstances with browsers... but this is an example of the real abuse of power.

arn

Powerbook G5
Dec 18, 2003, 10:50 PM
I agree that Real needs to work on their own faults. Their customer service is terrible and their products leave a lot to be desired. I for one have been burnt by them when I ordered their premium player for my Windows system and then the key became corrupt and I was told I would have to pay a second time for something that really should have been free in the first place. Between WMP, Winamp, and now iTunes, there's already a good choice out there and if Real is losing money then perhaps they need to look at the real reason for it.

rjwill246
Dec 18, 2003, 10:51 PM
Originally posted by Computer_Phreak
While the zealots cheer...

Apple has virtually the same thing with Quicktime on the mac side.



Hello??!!! You do not need QT to make your Mac work.. of course, with it, your Mac will work better. Still, the comparisons are not the same and moreover, if you choose NEVER to use QT, but any other crap you want to put on your Mac, you can! And it will still work. MS is a scourge when it comes to freedom. (oh, and don't mention the iPod - to all who might- because that is not at the same level of compulsary proprietaty usage at the end of the day).
Mac supporters are not necessarily zealots, though many may be, and you know what? Thank goodness they are, otherwise we'd (that is 100% rather than 97%) would all be subjected to that major degradation of life known as Windows. Be glad that there are non-lemmings out there. They help to ease the banality and misery of MS imposed mediocrity!

ZildjianKX
Dec 18, 2003, 10:54 PM
Originally posted by rjwill246
Hello??!!! You do not need QT to make your Mac work.. of course, with it, your Mac will work better. Still, the comparisons are not the same and moreover, if you choose NEVER to use QT, but any other crap you want to put on your Mac, you can! And it will still work. MS is a scourge when it comes to freedom. (oh, and don't mention the iPod - to all who might- because that is not at the same level of compulsary proprietaty usage at the end of the day).
Mac supporters are not necessarily zealots, though many may be, and you know what? Thank goodness they are, otherwise we'd (that is 100% rather than 97%) would all be subjected to that major degradation of life known as Windows. Be glad that there are non-lemmings out there. They help to ease the banality and misery of MS imposed mediocrity!

Actually, I don't use Quicktime at all, besides catching the movie trailers from www.apple.com/trailers

Between VLC and MPlayer, quicktime doesn't seem very useful for my needs.

Powerbook G5
Dec 18, 2003, 10:54 PM
I believe that when people generally accuse others of being Mac Zealots, they are accusing them of being Apple lemmings.

Westside guy
Dec 18, 2003, 10:57 PM
This is the first time I've ever seen an article rated with zero negatives on this site! :D

Actually I agree with several of the posters here - I am no Microsoft fan, but when Real is involved...

- Real is the company that bundled Gator's spyware with their products.

- Real is the company that gave away a jukebox program that itself was a piece of spyware.

- Real is the company that gave my state Senator Maria Cantwell.

- Real is the one company that makes Microsoft look saintly by comparison.

Swift
Dec 18, 2003, 11:03 PM
The point is not that "QuickTime is integrated into the Mac OS," because it is. So is Safari, Webcore, Quartz, and any number of apps and facilities. But it's a snap to install Real, Windows Media 9 for Mac OS X, VLC, DiVX, ffmpeg, etc., and all kinds of other players, codecs and the like. Apple makes it easy, because they use MP4, which is an open standard, as well as many other well-known, understood formats. QuickTime Streaming Server is open. None of the smoke and haze of Windows Media 9.

Sayhey
Dec 18, 2003, 11:05 PM
What Apple does in the integration of its products is very different than the use of Microsoft's monopoly position to force other to use its products. If Apple was in the same position as Microsoft maybe some judge would rule that Apple is abusing its market share to give them dominance in other markets. However, that is not the real world. It is Microsoft that has a history of destroying better consumer products by virtue of there illegal business tactics. RealNetworks has a good case, but getting a timely and effective ruling is almost impossible in the current climate

balconycollapse
Dec 18, 2003, 11:18 PM
Real i believe made the mistake of not allowing everyday chaps to create content and stream it easily without paying a small fortune or fees to Real. Their technology has been trumped, but i'm glad to see them raising hell.

Sol
Dec 18, 2003, 11:19 PM
If RealNetworks does not like WMP's "virtually universal distribution" they should be more supportive of operating systems other than Windows. They have not been very supportive of the Mac OS in the past; all the Real Player updates have been cut-down versions of their Windows versions. Now Microsoft does not need them and neither does Apple. If Real gets crushed by Microsofts' "virtually universal distribution" then that would be a good ridance.

TomSmithMacEd
Dec 18, 2003, 11:23 PM
I'm going to have a simple, imature answer.

Real's products suck, but Microsoft is a huge monopoly. Hopefully the suit will go in Real's way and then Real won't get anywhere off of it, and Microsoft will still be a monopoly.

kidA
Dec 18, 2003, 11:24 PM
first of all, you couldn't sue MS into the ground. no one could and no hundreds of cases could. second of all, it's RealNetworks, people! they of the instrusive software that tries to take over all multimedia on your computer. not that i love MS or anything, but seriously, go away RealNetworks.

coolsoldier
Dec 18, 2003, 11:35 PM
Real at one time was streaming media, and they lost the same battle as Netscape -- they sat on their asses while everybody else caught up.

Real did the same thing. Five years ago I would never have used anything but RealPlayer to watch streaming video, and just avoided other sites. Today, WMP really does beat out RP and QT for streaming audio and video quality, and RealPlayer's not good for much else.

Apple lost the market for quicktime for static media, similarly, because for a couple years they sat on a crappy player for windows.

What it really comes down to is why. If Real can point to specific predatory business practices, I'll buy their sob story, but bundling a player with an OS is not a predatory business practice, and neither is using a proprietary codec.

I would love to see a better format than WM be adopted in the market, but the onset of DRM demands that one and only one player have virtually universal distribution, and I think Real probably knows this, and is just upset that it wasn't them.

SiliconAddict
Dec 18, 2003, 11:40 PM
Originally posted by kidA
first of all, you couldn't sue MS into the ground. no one could and no hundreds of cases could. second of all, it's RealNetworks, people! they of the instrusive software that tries to take over all multimedia on your computer. not that i love MS or anything, but seriously, go away RealNetworks.

True but you nibble at them enough and it's going to start to get sore. That anti-trust case a few years back could NOT have been very nice on the MS checkbook. And the various lawsuits, some of which don't make front page, have to eat away at some of their earnings. Sure its maybe 1/16th or something but every little bit helps. And you know what?
It's that billions in the bank is what is keeping MS afloat. Think about it. How many companies fling products out for free? MS does this all the time. How many companies can afford to try time and again in a market until they get it right and until they can wear down their competition. Palm comes to mind. Windows CE 1 sucked. Windows CE 2 sucked less. Pocket PC was good. Pocket PC 2002 was better. Pocket PC 2003 is the real deal and Pocket PC 2004's specs and such are expected to be great. Only Microsoft can pour gobs of cash into a project and make it work. Without that monopoly cash coffer they are nothing.


As far as Real. I stopped using their crap after V8. Real One is pure spyware. I actively scan our network for real player and go to the user giving them a nice 5 minute slap down explaining why to NOT install real one on company computers. (iTunes is another matter :)
It wasn't until very recently that Real's codec has become totally incompatible with RP8. And as such I'm done using real in any way shape or form.

With that being said I still consider Microsoft the worst of both worlds and frankly I see them pulling the same crap they did with the browser wars. You already are seeing this behavior by giving the Windows Media 9 Codec away for free. Sound familiar? Look at IE now. It's been free for how long? And now low and behold MS is going to only provide updates via OS revisions. (AKA You have to pay for a new browser.) Now lets fast forward a few years and imagine a world where WM9 or 10 codec is king. And they pull the same crap once again.
Thanks but I'm in Real's camp for this one all the way. The details, IMHO, are inconsequential. In this instance it's the end result that matters.

ITR 81
Dec 18, 2003, 11:44 PM
Eventually someone at the DOJ will get fed up with all these anti-trust cases and decide to break MS up.

Gates says Xp won't work without WMP. Also you can't delete it either out of Xp because I tried on our mil. computers because it wasn't needed. But we couldn't so we just left it.

To me that above is a abuse of power.
I can kill quicktime player and my OS will still run tomorrow. Kill WMP and Xp won't run according to Gates.

I call BS on MS!

Real may not be great and all but I support what they are doing.
I wouldn't be surprised if Real tries to get others on board with them to help seal a deal.

Eventually all these anti-trust cases will help kill MS money pot or shrink it quite abit. Couple months ago the EU started it's anti-trust case against MS. MS can't go two months straight without another anti-trust suit filed against them. And I believe this will keep happening until MS is split up like what happen to the Bells back in the days.

coolsoldier
Dec 19, 2003, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by ITR 81
I can kill quicktime player and my OS will still run tomorrow. Kill WMP and Xp won't run according to Gates.

Well Jobs may not have been as forthcoming about it, but have you ever tried to run the Mac OS without QuickTime? Hmm... What uses QuickTime?

--The Finder (Big, Really Important One)
--Preview (Kind of important)
--Mail
--iChat
--iTunes
--iMovie
--DVD Player

Basically, any software on the Mac OS that displays graphics or makes sound requires QuickTime to run. I remember putting the QT5 Public Beta on my mac a couple years ago. When it expired, the OS wouldn't even display a background pattern on the desktop, and going in to try to download the new one, none of the websites displayed any of the pictures.

So no, the mac os will not work w/o QuickTime.

Sayhey
Dec 19, 2003, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by coolsoldier
What it really comes down to is why. If Real can point to specific predatory business practices, I'll buy their sob story, but bundling a player with an OS is not a predatory business practice, and neither is using a proprietary codec.


It is a predatory business practice if you use your monopoly position in another market to force others to adopt your product. That is what Microsoft does every time they bundle products to their OS. No other OS has that position and can abuse its power like Microsoft has.

I would love to see WMA, RealPlayer, and QT formats available everywhere, but that is only a dream when one party has such an unfair advantage and illegally abuses it.

Powerbook G5
Dec 19, 2003, 12:23 AM
WMP may come bundled with Windows, but I don't see Microsoft making it impossible for its users to download QT or Real Player.

fazel
Dec 19, 2003, 12:29 AM
Very interesting to hear that much of os X runs throught quicktime. I have never used anything other than apple products, which could contribute to my lack on knowledge in regards to this information. I agree with much of what has been posted. Microsoft continues to dominate/minipulate through the use of their position in the market. You guys can correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the motivation for development of apps comes from very different directions. It seems that Microsoft reacts; they see the trends and then leverage their money/power to create software/apps that fill those voids. Apple, on the other hand, seems to try to create new markets or ways of implementing technology. Both companies want to make money, and in the end that is the bottem line. Real seems to be a man without a ship, if you will. The two big companies seem to be apple and microsoft, each with their own players. It seems that politics comes into play here. Regardless of what you think of the current or past administrations, it would be benificial (for apple) if an administration that supported development (or the little guy in general) was in power. Apple really needs that kind of interpretation of the law (I know that this relates much more to the judicial system in place, but this is related to the executive branch as well).

Sayhey
Dec 19, 2003, 12:43 AM
Originally posted by Powerbook G5
WMP may come bundled with Windows, but I don't see Microsoft making it impossible for its users to download QT or Real Player.

What's the old quote about Microsoft from the Lotus days? Something like "it's not done until Lotus breaks." Microsoft may be a little more subtle than that now days, but that's because it can afford to be. They don't have to make it impossible for other programs to work with its OS - only make sure they are not readily available (for most folks that means not possible to be bundled with the OS) and that Microsoft products have a programming advantage. For those that cry that Apple does some of the same things, again remember Apple is not in the same position as Microsoft and what is illegal for Microsoft is not necessarily so for Apple.

mainstreetmark
Dec 19, 2003, 12:44 AM
Originally posted by macfreek57
real networks screwed itself YEARS ago when it started making CRAPPY software and then charging for it
(** "With new, improved CRAP!" **)

I just evangelized about this tonight. During 1995/6, RealAudio was unstoppable. No one in the world could "hear" the audio they were downloading as they downloaded it. It was awesome.

Then, the Dot Com boom came along, and wrecked many a great idea. Money ruined RealAudio.

Now, their format brings a shudder to all who come across it. I can't remember a time in the last 2 years when a RA file played correctly on the first attempt.

Real, in my mind, was the first/largest casualty of the Boom, not from lack of money, but by excess of money.

Java
Dec 19, 2003, 01:26 AM
I am afraid this court case is going to go around in circles and it will eventually be thrown out or something.

It is not that I am an Apple Zealot, I just think that Apple makes great software that works really well. I love quicktime. Ya, I'll admit it. It is great. It is open sourced for codes from Qualcomm to Dolby. So you have tons of choices within the Quicktime environment. It is an open format.

With MS, you get MS. Plain and simple. There are no choices.

JFreak
Dec 19, 2003, 02:22 AM
the operating system (darwin) will run without quictime, but the software on top of that may still require it. you can boot your mac to unix shell (the operating system) and couldn't care less if there is or isn't a quictime component installed; but microsoft tries to expand their meaning of "operating system" to include everything you see when you first login to windows gui. so there's a difference between ms's and apple's marketing, and while the apple gui (mac osx) requires quictime for some operations, the operating system itself can still function without it. apple sells the gui and it's ok to include all erquired components with it (including the operating system). ms sells operating system and tries to bloat its gui with every piece of crap software they can think of.

now... if some software has a requirement of quictime (or anything else), it's not something you blame os or required components of - if you want to use itunes in windows, you will need quictime, and if you want to use windows media files in macintosh, you will need windows media player.

ITR 81
Dec 19, 2003, 02:29 AM
Originally posted by coolsoldier
Well Jobs may not have been as forthcoming about it, but have you ever tried to run the Mac OS without QuickTime? Hmm... What uses QuickTime?

--The Finder (Big, Really Important One)
--Preview (Kind of important)
--Mail
--iChat
--iTunes
--iMovie
--DVD Player

Basically, any software on the Mac OS that displays graphics or makes sound requires QuickTime to run. I remember putting the QT5 Public Beta on my mac a couple years ago. When it expired, the OS wouldn't even display a background pattern on the desktop, and going in to try to download the new one, none of the websites displayed any of the pictures.

So no, the mac os will not work w/o QuickTime.

I said QT player not quicktime the plugins and such. I'm actually typing this post without QT player installed. So apparently it can be done or I'm just special.

I'll be reinstalling it shortly because I use it quite abit.

sethypoo
Dec 19, 2003, 02:49 AM
Originally posted by ZildjianKX
I've used real player for years (shutter), its got to be the worst media player made. Go MS! :p

Ditto. MS needs to open up a bit, but Real reeks.

Sabenth
Dec 19, 2003, 03:05 AM
Money ms has lots of this apple has a fair bit of it. reall seems to have a few fair quid in its back pocket.....

ms develops (cough) products that work with its os (cough) as do apple look at iLife quick time dose what wmp dose. you dont need to use these players you can use god knows how many now..

nextweek iam going to lauch sabenth player
Sabenth choones
Sabenths choones store
Sabenth audio station (new pod killer)

ill be doing this knowing forewell that ms can crush me but still ill try


THE SABENTH STUFF IS A JOKE!! dont belive it till you see it

simX
Dec 19, 2003, 03:13 AM
Before everybody gets worked up about the integration bit, I think there needs to be a little clarification:

The issue is NOT about whether the products are integrated into the operating system. That is perfectly legal. Apple does it! As someone pointed out, QuickTime is pervasive throughout Mac OS X: you can't just rip out QuickTime and replace it with some other media framework and expect Finder previews to function correctly.

The issue IS about whether Microsoft abused its position as a virtual monopoly over computer operating systems to force others out of the market, by using integration as an excuse. As arn pointed out, Microsoft made exclusive deals with computer manufacturers that threatened the manufacturers' licenses to Windows if they bundled other applications with the operating system. In the original antitrust trial, it came to light that Microsoft threatened to cancel Microsoft Office for Mac if Apple didn't axe QuickTime (luckily Apple called Microsoft's bluff). Microsoft often even deliberately changed their operating system so that certain applications would not work correctly.

People often get this detail about the antitrust trial confused. But it's an important detail. It's not about the integration, it's about the illegal abuse of monopoly power with regards to that integration.

If RealNetworks believes that Microsoft abused its monopoly power, then it has every right to sue Microsoft for antitrust violations. In the original antitrust trial against Microsoft, the Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the ruling that Microsoft abused its monopoly power. They just struck down the sentence, which was to break up Microsoft. Given this fact, RealNetworks probably has a strong case, because much of the evidence from the original antitrust trial will likely relate to the suit that RealNetworks is filing against Microsoft.

tychay
Dec 19, 2003, 03:20 AM
Originally posted by itsbetteronamac
Well, all I can say to real networks is that you build a OS, and not tie in any of your own software. Just like apple incorperates quicktime into their OS, microsoft incorperates their software in to Windows.

And that is where you (and others) are wrong. When Apple bundles QuickTime with the Mac OS it is an allowed vertical integration. When Microsoft ties Windows Media it may be illegal if it is shown that they are using their monopoly power to creating vertical foreclosure. Why?

MONOPOLY

Look it up. You'll find the legal rules are different for monopoly. Why? Because they have the unfair market power. Things are unfair for them so the legal system acts to create some level playing field against.

Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. All the astroturfers in the world aren't going to change that fact because the appeals court accepted Judge Jackson's "finding of facts" even if they didn't accept his punishment. Note, neither IBM nor Intel nor Apple were ever found to be monopolies.

Yeah, I know this stink for MS. Next time, don't be a monopoly. (Or, when the US Justice Department sues you, comply with their terms or win your lawsuit, don't just go for "de facto" wins.)

A few points:

First, Microsoft has a lot of people suing them. I can't remember how many lawsuits they are under at any given time (it's a lot, this is just one more). I have no doubt they can handle this and their revenues are so large that they won't be sued out of existence any time soon.

Second, companies that sue are in danger of being consumed by their lawsuit (Digital Research, SCO, Stack, etc.). This is probably one reason Apple doesn't sue even though they have equal cause.

Third, this lawsuit does not have to be won. Moving in this direction acts like a signal to the European Union which is debating whether or not the bundling of Windows Media is a case of "tying" in violation. The European Union has much stricter rules against monopolists (In the US you have to prove the consumer got hurt, in the EU you just have to show it is anti-competitive). Right now Microsoft is playing chicken with the EU like they did with Apple in the past (how do you think Bill Gates got the license to make Windows for the PC in the first place? Why else do you think Apple isn't suing MS?). Somehow I doubt the EU is going to blink first, so I question MS's strategy.

Fourth, this lawsuit will definitely be made stronger when Microsoft comes out with their own iPod knock off and music store. How strong depends on how much MS thinks they can get away with.

Fifth, I don't like Real and their spyware either. But I think they have a strong case. People have gotten a lot more tech-savvy since 1998 and there is finally a well documented case (as in not settled out of court with the documentation shredded a la Stack, DR DOS, etc.) of Microsoft's tactics (legal, illegal, and otherwise).

simX
Dec 19, 2003, 03:26 AM
Originally posted by tychay
And that is where you are wrong. Apple can do bundling because it isn't a monopoly. When Microsoft does it it is tying and illegal because it allows vertical foreclosure. Why?

MONOPOLY

Look it up. You'll find the legal rules are different for monopoly. Why? Because they have the unfair market power to affect price and extract rents. Things are unfair for them so the legal system acts to create some level playing field against.

Microsoft is a convicted monopolist. All the astroturfers in the world aren't going to change that fact because the appeals court accepted Judge Jackson's "finding of facts" even if they didn't accept his punishment. Note, neither IBM and Intel were found to be monopolies.

Actually, that isn't quite right either.

Being a monopoly isn't a crime, and it's not why Microsoft is not allowed to integrate its software. The crime is using that monopoly position to force competitors out of other markets. It's a VERY important distinction: if Microsoft had not abused its monopoly position, Microsoft would have been allowed to bundle applications with its operating system as much as it wanted.

The government often actually supports monopolies. This is usually in regards to public services, like when dealing with roads (CalTrans) or the power grid (PG&E for us Californians). The monopoly part is only half of the antitrust equation. The other part is illegal abuse of that monopoly position. That's why Californians got pissed off at PG&E for jacking up prices (illegally), and why I get pissed off at Microsoft (because they often engage in illegal practices).

tychay
Dec 19, 2003, 03:33 AM
Originally posted by simX
Being a monopoly isn't a crime.

Where did I say that Microsoft being a monopoly is illegal?

BTW, Before reading your post I edited my post to not imply that Microsoft is directly engaged in "tying". The bundling of Windows Media with Windows is not a question, but Real has to prove that such bundling is "tying". (I have a personal view that it is.) Perhaps you had issue with some of my original wording.

Nowhere did I say that Microsoft being a monopoly was illegal. I just said that Apple can freely bundle because it has to proven they have an OS monopoly first. So using the "Apple bundles QuickTime" argument is wrong by any (legal, economic, or common sense) definition.

simX
Dec 19, 2003, 03:37 AM
Originally posted by tychay
Microsoft is a convicted monopolist.

That's where you said it -- Microsoft can be a convicted monopolist, but that doesn't mean that any remedies are necessary. I'm not trying to be picky or condescending here (so apologies if I come across that way), but I find that a lot of people are a bit misinformed about this case. Most of the first part of your post seems to point the finger at Microsoft simply for being a monopoly. It needs to be an illegal monopoly for actions to be taken, not just a monopoly. (In this case, though, the point is moot -- Microsoft WAS ruled as an illegal monopoly.)

tychay
Dec 19, 2003, 03:41 AM
Originally posted by simX
That's where you said it -- Microsoft can be a convicted monopolist.

I see where you're coming from and I know you have issue (If you read my posts again, you'll see that I have the same issues).

Call me ignorant, but I fail to see how "convicted monopolist" means "illegal". Perhaps, I should have said, "Microsoft is a legally-determined monopoly." I am not a lawyer so please pardon me if my terms aren't legally correct.

BTW, I think this is all just bad timing. If you notice, I wasn't responding to your post even though mine came in just after yours (I was responding to the posts on page one). If you read your post and then mine all the way through, you'll see saying the exact same things.

Must be a Bay Area thing...

simX
Dec 19, 2003, 03:50 AM
Originally posted by tychay
I see where you're coming from and I know you have issue (If you read my posts again, you'll see that I have the same issues).

Call me ignorant, but I fail to see how "convicted monopolist" means "illegal". Perhaps, I should have said, "Microsoft is a legally-determined monopoly." I am not a lawyer so please pardon me if my terms aren't legally correct.

I'm not calling you ignorant. I just want to make sure that everybody's clear on what the issue is here. Just so you know, I'm not a lawyer either.

The point I was trying to make was that "convicted monopolist" does NOT mean illegal. That's what I was trying to get at. Companies aren't really even brought to trial and convicted for being a monopoly -- they're brought to trial and convicted for being an illegal monopoly. There's a big difference. It seemed you were arguing that Microsoft was convicted for being a monopoly -- Judge Jackson's findings of fact said that Microsoft had abused its monopoly position, not simply that it was a monopoly.

It's no secret that Microsoft's a monopoly (well, almost one -- a true monopoly would have 100% of the market). Microsoft doesn't need to be brought to trial to see if it's a monopoly or not. It needs to be brought to trial to see if it gained that monopoly position illegally or if it illegally used its monopoly position to further its interests.

edesignuk
Dec 19, 2003, 03:58 AM
Real Player does blow. WMP9 is far better. I personally hope MS win this one.

Sir_Giggles
Dec 19, 2003, 04:15 AM
RealPlayer and Windows Media both blow. I hope they both slug it out until not one of them wins.

Quicktime rules!:D

HornetOSX
Dec 19, 2003, 04:28 AM
Not to add fuel to the fire



but you dont get convicted for doing legal things

you get convicted for doing illegal things

there for one can assume that if Microsoft is a convicted monopolist they did something illegal as a monopoly.

simX
Dec 19, 2003, 04:38 AM
Originally posted by HornetOSX
Not to add fuel to the fire



but you dont get convicted for doing legal things

you get convicted for doing illegal things

there for one can assume that if Microsoft is a convicted monopolist they did something illegal as a monopoly.

But the point is that one could construe the term "convicted monopolist" to mean that being a monopoly is illegal. And that's not true.

iChan
Dec 19, 2003, 04:46 AM
Originally posted by itsbetteronamac
Well, all I can say to real networks is that you build a OS, and not tie in any of your own software. Just like apple incorperates quicktime into their OS, microsoft incorperates their software in to Windows. But, I will say that microsoft dose mac everything within windows revolve around windows media player. Also that it helps promote the WMA/WMP format which I fell should just go away.

i read this 5 times and still have no idea what you are trying to say...

iChan
Dec 19, 2003, 04:54 AM
Originally posted by rjwill246
Hello??!!! You do not need QT to make your Mac work.. of course, with it, your Mac will work better. Still, the comparisons are not the same and moreover, if you choose NEVER to use QT, but any other crap you want to put on your Mac, you can! And it will still work. MS is a scourge when it comes to freedom. (oh, and don't mention the iPod - to all who might- because that is not at the same level of compulsary proprietaty usage at the end of the day).
Mac supporters are not necessarily zealots, though many may be, and you know what? Thank goodness they are, otherwise we'd (that is 100% rather than 97%) would all be subjected to that major degradation of life known as Windows. Be glad that there are non-lemmings out there. They help to ease the banality and misery of MS imposed mediocrity!

I think the point that was made was that WMP is no more integrated into the windows as QT is on MacOS X

Mattski
Dec 19, 2003, 06:04 AM
There could be a good chance that Real are clutching at straws here. Money doesn't last forever, particularly when you make software few people use.

A couple of years ago Real One was the big deal for them - it would be fair to speculate that not everything went to plan.

I don't know their bottom line, but it seems few people are overly happy with their product.

In any case, perhaps the Real kitty is a little light, and they may need law suit with precedents to fill it up and add a little value for shareholders.

Wonder Boy
Dec 19, 2003, 07:06 AM
Originally posted by pb1212580
write better apps to compete, Real!

i agree. realplayer stinks.

ThomasJefferson
Dec 19, 2003, 08:00 AM
When your enemies are fighting each other, its best not to disturb them.

Don't like Real (which has the threat potential of a gnat), don't like MS (obvious reasons).

'nuff said.

kirk26
Dec 19, 2003, 08:25 AM
Die RealNetworks Die.

Photorun
Dec 19, 2003, 09:00 AM
Originally posted by Powerbook G5
I believe that when people generally accuse others of being Mac Zealots, they are accusing them of being Apple lemmings.

Which if you think about it makes it all the more ridiculous. The real lemmings are the peecee weenies that, the majority of (and I know because I've talked to many at length) simply by a Windblows machine because "well everyone else buys them" or the masses of ignorant Americas (see dictionary for redundant) who think Macs only run graphics programs, wont work with the internet (not only heard that, overheard a ChumpUSA sales shmuck telling these old people in the Mac section this), etc. etc. etc. Mac Zealots tend to be smarter, made educated decisions to buy their machines. The true lemmings are jumping into the deep, dark, cold, and raw sewage filled water that is Microsloth.

AmigoMac
Dec 19, 2003, 10:06 AM
can run without QT Player, you don't need the app to run your mac, but I'm pretty sure you need the QT core, the layer between Darwin and the GUI, that's a different thing, but still darwin can live without the QT layer, I guess, the layer is the what lets you see the previews in Finder, play iTunes... etc... but I guess by MS, WMP is the whole thing, a mini program, a baby version which lets you preview the multimedia files in the OS, and the player is an adult version with a GUI and that's all... I have to say about that... ;) ... am I right?

Powerbook G5
Dec 19, 2003, 10:43 AM
Yeah, I believe that the QT codec is a part of the QE foundation, so it is very much integrated to the GUI of OS X.

rcblaze
Dec 19, 2003, 10:47 AM
Swift Said:
"The point is not that "QuickTime is integrated into the Mac OS," because it is. So is Safari, Webcore, Quartz, and any number of apps and facilities. But it's a snap to install Real, Windows Media 9 for Mac OS X, VLC, DiVX, ffmpeg, etc., and all kinds of other players, codecs and the like. Apple makes it easy, because they use MP4, which is an open standard, as well as many other well-known, understood formats. QuickTime Streaming Server is open. None of the smoke and haze of Windows Media 9."

Swift my man you are not a mac user are you?
Ok first things first, QuickTime is not integrated into the OS, why is this? Simple answer, itís a product that is designed to run under Aqua not UNIX. You can install it, remove it, what ever you want. You also have to understand the word integrated ďTo make into a whole by bringing all parts together; unify.Ē Now you donít need QuickTime to have you Mac run, QuickTime only allows you to view files that require QuickTime. You also made a BIG BIG BIG error by saying Safari in integrated, because it is 100% NOT. You want to know why? Because it was made way after OS X hit the field, it is an app that you can delete with NO affects on the OS what so ever. Sheesh people do research before you talk, good lord.

If I seem harsh thatís because I am, Iím sick and tired of People saying that Apple is just as bit as bad then Microsoft just not as BIG, you have got to be kidding. Apple for one used on OPEN Source OS for its platform, how much unlike MS can you get? I mean come on, I found things that are made just for UNIX or Linux that run under X11 just fine, can you do that on MS, HELL NO.
Keep in mind that I work on both Macintosh and MS computer systems, I know who is better in what and why. Just drives me nuts, windows weenies are all blinded.
Ok, no more, Iím going to get yelled by a lot of people about this so let the fun begin

ITR 81
Dec 19, 2003, 11:18 AM
The gripe is not having the WMP codec running in the background of Windows but del. the actual WMP player. Gates stated you can not do this or Xp will not work. I know I couldn't about 6 month ago.

Real may stink but WMP stinks worse.

Why do I have to compromise the OS just to del. a app. I want to replace with something else.

No one should be punished for del. a app. or being able to.

I think Gates once also said del. IE would mean Windows would stop working as well too..

billyboy
Dec 19, 2003, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by rcblaze
Swift Said:

You also made a BIG BIG BIG error by saying Safari in integrated, because it is 100% NOT. You want to know why? Because it was made way after OS X hit the field, it is an app that you can delete with NO affects on the OS what so ever. Sheesh people do research before you talk, good lord.



I just deleted Safari, so can you point out where I might find internet preferences now :(

Earendil
Dec 19, 2003, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by billyboy
I just deleted Safari, so can you point out where I might find internet preferences now :(

what might you need internet prefs for if you do not have a program to get on the internet? :D
IE's internet prefs are within IE, email prefs are within that program as well. what is the problem?

jettredmont
Dec 19, 2003, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by pb1212580
I think it's getting ridiculous though...

I mean really, it's really not MS' fault for "gotten" chosen as THE os for PCs and grew so big... and they had to incorporate more functions such as web browsing, digital music player...
you can't sue them for expanding Windows, no?! Just cuz they are bigger...
write better apps to compete, Real!
or strike deals! work with apple! ;)
What's next? are they going to sue MS for their own implementation of the calculator? clock?


According to US Antitrust laws (which are echoed in Europe and several other countries), with power comes responsibility.

Had there been a viable market for Calc and Clock implementations which Microsoft squashed AFTER gaining an OS monopoly, yes, Microsoft could be sued for including them in Windows. Given that there really isn't a market for such (although there are better-than-Windows' free/shareware implementations out and about), and that Microsoft hasn't aggressively moved to shut off competition in this area, there's no cause for suit there. Since these apps existed in their fundamental current state prior to Microsoft gaining a monopoly in the OS, they are allowed to remain as a part of the OS. The same may be said of Notepad and Paint and Solitaire.

Media is a different story: not only was there a pre-existing market for media players prior to Microsoft including even the basic Windows Media Player in Windows, there was a strong market for media formats, including media encoders, before Microsoft used their Windows monopoly as leverage into that market.

To be clear: it is NOT illegal to have a monopoly. It is NOT illegal to tie two products (an OS and a media player, for example) together. It is NOT illegal to leverage a competitive advantage in one market to gain advantage in another market. It IS] illegal to leverage a monopoly in one market to gain advantage in another market.

From basic economic principles, had Microsoft not obtained monopolistic sway in the Windows market, bundling Windows Media Player with Windows and excluding other players from integrating would have been a competitive disadvantage in the OS market; Microsoft would be trading a relative advantage in one market for a disadvantage in another market, which is completely legal and logical. Given the monopoly status of Windows, that "disadvantage" is meaningless, and the usual checks and balances of a free economic system tend to break down. That is why antitrust laws exist: to keep the general marketplace safe from cancerous growths of companies leveraging monopoly power in one market to gain a monopoly in another area and so on.

The side effect of this is that, by design, once one obtains a monopoly in a market, it is hard to maintain that monopoly through successive "generations" of that market. An Oil monopoly could not be leveraged to an Electricity monopoly. A Rail monopoly could not be leveraged to an Automotive monopoly. This is by design. Likewise, a "Desktop Operating System Monopoly" should not necessarily be able to be leveraged into a "Digital Hub Monopoly" (although Microsoft is succeeding in doing so).

It is, in other words, NOT Microsoft's "right" to include whatever a next-generation OS might include in their OS.

Nevertheless, Microsoft has $45B in the bank thanks to its hard-won OS monopoly ("hard-won" perhaps being too strong a phrase ...) That is the reward for successful competition. A perpetual monopoly is neither guaranteed nor preferred in a free-market economy.


I'm glad I am not Bill...nothing goes right with that company...or something. ;) no offence...

Yes, it's hard being a monopoly. Ask the Rockefellers. Yet, somehow, I don't think Bill is crying too hard before kissing his $45B good night.

IMHO, Real is a despicable company. I can't in good conscience root for them. Here's hoping this lawsuit gets really expensive and puts Real out of business and makes Microsoft change its operating practices. The world would be a better place ... :) On the other hand, Microsoft has already shown that it ownz this Justice Department, so I doubt Microsoft will be forced to change practices at all any time this or next year ...

beg_ne
Dec 19, 2003, 12:13 PM
I think alot of discussion so far misses the real major point of this suit.

I don't think it's so much about the applications but the media. And so far most people are just looking at it from an application standpoint(i.e. WMP sucks less than RealOne so Go MS! or vice versa)

The bigger picture IMO is the battle for the media format itself. And should things go as well for MS as they did in the browser wars we as Mac users(and Linux users too) could be in for a pretty bad time.

If we use MS's actions against Netscape as a roadmap we can see where they are trying to go with WMP and WMA/WMV.

First they release a product to compete with an already established player in the field. And in the case of both Netscape and Real both were commercial in some respect. MS of course releases what they have for free, not out of the kindness out of their heart, but to cut profits from the other guy.

Along with this first step they usually introduce their own proprietary formats. In WMP's case WMA and WMV which is fine, they can make their own codec. In IE's case they bastardized html so if you write to IE it wont work/suck on competing browsers, which ISN'T fine.

Once they've fired the first shot and started to take some marketshare they will start to grow their product. Making it 'not suck' in most cases and bring it up to what their competition actually has, as they do this they start building hooks into the OS to get it ready for phase 2.

The next step, phase 2, they integrate the program into the OS. They've already started to get the more 'technical savvy' people with step 1, now they can get all the casual people who don't know/are too lazy to go out and download and install 3rd party software. With integration they can 'cheat' by writing in their own special API's and other hidden tweaks to make their program basically look and feel faster, many times sabotaging their competition in additions with core OS 'enhancements'.

During this step they also start to threaten OEM's not to include their competitions software; to keep the casual user from ever even having the option to see what the competition has.

By this time they've got a large chunk of the userbase converted to their software. In the case of WMP they can goto content providers and say, 'Look we have 95% of the market, we even support other platforms, and hey we're opening up WM', so why don't you dump Real, etc. and switch to WM.


"So what!" I hear the naysayers say, "We can play WM content on our Macs too, and who cares about Linux", Well all I have to say to that is take a look at what MS did to IE. Once Apple's safari started to come into the limelight they cut IE loose in the blink of an eye.

MS may be trying to appear to by playing nice by making WM an open standard...under the complete and total control of MS however. Don't be so comfortable that IF WM actually becomes a standard MS won't just yank the rug out from under us once they've got the content providers under their thumb.

MS can just make up some lame excuse about how the next big release of windows has security or functionality features in it that no other OS has and therefore WM12 will only be available to windows users. So everyone will either be forced to upgrade to the new version of windows, or if unfortunate enough to use a Mac, switch to PC.

irobot2003
Dec 19, 2003, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by billyboy
I just deleted Safari, so can you point out where I might find internet preferences now :(

Ahh, I was wondering why Apple moved that to Safari in Panther, it just became clear... hehe.

Although, it would seem the only thing you lose is being able to set the default browser explicitly. No?

billyboy
Dec 19, 2003, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by irobot2003


Although, it would seem the only thing you lose is being able to set the default browser explicitly. No?

As you say, it is no biggie really, but I was just illustrating (albeit hopelessly) that Apple have made a stealthy first step that could possibly be part of a long term plan towards tying a free browser app directly into OS X - a la Microsoft. But as Apple arent a monopoly and never will be, they can be as mischievous or creative as they like and only answer to the discerning customer, whereas MS have to play by different rules.

Apparently some hard core users are dragging internet preferences across from Jaguar into Panther in disgust at the change in the system! Come the revolution...

sparks9
Dec 19, 2003, 02:12 PM
What has this to do with mac rumors?

Westside guy
Dec 19, 2003, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by Earendil
what might you need internet prefs for if you do not have a program to get on the internet? :D
IE's internet prefs are within IE, email prefs are within that program as well. what is the problem?

First, this particular discussion probably should go in a different thread. Having said that...

I use Mozilla Firebird as my browser, and Mozilla Thunderbird as my e-mail client. But let's say I currently had IE as my default browser. If I were to delete Safari and Mail.app, I would not have a way to switch the default away from IE in the future.

simX
Dec 19, 2003, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by rcblaze
Swift my man you are not a mac user are you?
Ok first things first, QuickTime is not integrated into the OS, why is this? Simple answer, itís a product that is designed to run under Aqua not UNIX. You can install it, remove it, what ever you want. You also have to understand the word integrated ďTo make into a whole by bringing all parts together; unify.Ē Now you donít need QuickTime to have you Mac run, QuickTime only allows you to view files that require QuickTime. You also made a BIG BIG BIG error by saying Safari in integrated, because it is 100% NOT. You want to know why? Because it was made way after OS X hit the field, it is an app that you can delete with NO affects on the OS what so ever. Sheesh people do research before you talk, good lord.

If I seem harsh thatís because I am, Iím sick and tired of People saying that Apple is just as bit as bad then Microsoft just not as BIG, you have got to be kidding. Apple for one used on OPEN Source OS for its platform, how much unlike MS can you get? I mean come on, I found things that are made just for UNIX or Linux that run under X11 just fine, can you do that on MS, HELL NO.
Keep in mind that I work on both Macintosh and MS computer systems, I know who is better in what and why. Just drives me nuts, windows weenies are all blinded.
Ok, no more, Iím going to get yelled by a lot of people about this so let the fun begin

*sigh* Yes, QuickTime and Safari are integrated into Mac OS X.

Even though you delete the QT player, the QuickTime player framework is still there, and many third-party applications can use it in order to display images in their applications. If you took QuickTime out of the Mac OS, you wouldn't be able to view pictures on the internet in Safari, you wouldn't be able to listen to any music or sound through your computer, and you probably wouldn't even be able to boot, because so much graphical stuff in Mac OS X is based on QuickTime.

Sure, you can delete the app QuickTime Player, but that's not the same thing as deleting QuickTime itself. There are a bunch of other files that compose QuickTime and you just can't rip it out of Mac OS X. Bottom line: QuickTime is integrated into Mac OS X just like Windows Media Player is integrated into Windows.

Safari is very much integrated into Mac OS X, too. While you can delete the app, the WebKit framework still resides on your computer. If you've noticed, many applications are starting to take advantage of this framework (for example, Acquisition or NetNewsWire, or even Apple's own apps like Mail). So, sure, you can still delete Safari, but its core framework still exists, and if you delete that, some of your other apps will stop working. You can't just replace the WebKit framework with something else and expect all your apps to function correctly. It just doesn't work like that.

You wanna test this theory out? OK, you be the guinea pig. Go to the folder /System/Library/Frameworks , and delete the whole folder called "QuickTime.framework". Then restart, and tell us how your operating system runs.

Or for Safari. If you're on Panther (Safari is not integrated as much into Jaguar), delete the file called "WebKit.framework" in the folder /System/Library/Frameworks , and then restart and tell us how Mail or NetNewsWire or Acquisition functions. They won't. So that means Safari is integrated into Mac OS X.

If you don't have the guts to test out whether you can just delete the QT or WebKit frameworks, then you don't have the right to go posting about whether QuickTime or Safari are not integrated into Mac OS X, because clearly they are.

zamyatin
Dec 19, 2003, 10:08 PM
Originally posted by itsbetteronamac
Well, all I can say to real networks is that you build a OS, and not tie in any of your own software. Just like apple incorperates quicktime into their OS, microsoft incorperates their software in to Windows...

The real crux of MS' misbehavior is not that they tie WMP to Windows or work to have it preinstalled by OEMs. The problem is that MS uses its market power with OEMs to force them to bundle MS software and not bundle other companies' software on Windows PCs that the OEMs ship. There are legal means to get OEMs to bundle MS (or anybody's) software with their default installations - like AOL, which would pay the OEMs a small bonus for installing AOL on the machines. MS' problem is that it tends to use threats, such as withholding a license to install Windows, to ensure that OEMs comply with its wishes.

Code101
Dec 20, 2003, 12:57 AM
The fact is that Windows belongs to Microsoft. When it comes down to it, Microsoft can build anything they want into windows. Apple can build anything they want into OS-X. Real and Netscape can't tell Microsoft or Apple how to build their OS. If Real wants their product to do well they will have to make a better product than WMP.

What's next? Will they tell FreeBSD and Linux not to include Gnome? Come on!

I had Real on my machine but I removed it as of today. I will never use Real again. I hope the same thing that happened to Netscape will happen to Real.

Code101
Dec 20, 2003, 01:00 AM
Originally posted by zamyatin
The real crux of MS' misbehavior is not that they tie WMP to Windows or work to have it preinstalled by OEMs. The problem is that MS uses its market power with OEMs to force them to bundle MS software and not bundle other companies' software on Windows PCs that the OEMs ship. There are legal means to get OEMs to bundle MS (or anybody's) software with their default installations - like AOL, which would pay the OEMs a small bonus for installing AOL on the machines. MS' problem is that it tends to use threats, such as withholding a license to install Windows, to ensure that OEMs comply with its wishes.

I agree with you on this point. MS needs to shape up on this end of it.

Real should just shut up and go away. They sound like a bunch of Babies.

topicolo
Dec 20, 2003, 01:37 AM
Out of all of the companies in existence, the only one I hate more than M$ is Real. Go M$! (I can't believe I said that). I hope real goes out of business. They're never getting me to install their player on my mac or pc. Maybe M$ is beating them in the video player wars because everyone hates Real more than m$.

Sayhey
Dec 20, 2003, 07:51 PM
Before everyone jumps all over Real, what do you want to bet that Apple joins in on the lawsuit?

MacCoaster
Dec 20, 2003, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by rcblaze
I mean come on, I found things that are made just for UNIX or Linux that run under X11 just fine, can you do that on MS, HELL NO.
Yep. I can. X11 works on Windows. I've got it installed. WindowMaker as the window manager. Got a few apps compiled for it, works fine for me.