RealNetworks Files Suit Against Microsoft

[coolsoldier]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

quicktime

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]

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]

Re: sorry, but...

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]

start slinging mud…again

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]

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]

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]

Originally posted by ZildjianKX
I've used real player for years (shutter), its got to be the worst media player made. Go MS!

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

 

[Sabenth]

you go into bussiness to make what???

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Real Player does blow. WMP9 is far better. I personally hope MS win this one.

 

[Sir_Giggles]

RealPlayer and Windows Media both blow. I hope they both slug it out until not one of them wins.

Quicktime rules!

 

[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.

 

[simX]

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.