Slashdot Mirror
RealNetworks Sues Microsoft Over Antitrust Issues
jamacdon writes "Yahoo! has an article about RealNetworks Inc. filing an antitrust suit against Microsoft, claiming that MS has violated antitrust laws. This claim appears to revolve around how PC makers are restricted from including competing media players. Very similiar to the Internet Explorer issue, but different content. Will the results be the same?"
Maybe, but the situations are different. Real Media is still very much alive, while Netscape was pretty much dead in the Windows world when the anti-trust lawsuit finally was decided.
Netscape had the perfect case against Microsoft: "we'll cut off their air supply." What came of that? MS was found guilty, but the govt. decided not to do anything about it. How do you go up against that?
If Real didn't make their player so goddamn intrusive when it comes to computer use, I'd be happy to support them on this. I cannot stand the fact that whenever I launch the RealOne player, it puts its advertisement programme into the background, and I have to kill it and remove it out of the registry to from stop it from starting up whenever I login.
Microsoft is in the wrong in this situation, but Real is worse by selling personal information, having a player that eats more than its fair share of needed memory, and including what may be spyware with its software. If this were Apple and Quicktime, I'd be more willing to go and support them on this.
I don't know but given the speed of our court system, Microsoft's vast resources and the inventible appeals, I'd say we'll find out in about 5 - 7 years.
But maybe Microsoft could be made to licence the Real codecs as part of an antitrust settlement instead of having the full blown RealPlayer installed ... i personally don't like RealPlayer itself but the RealAudio codec would come in handy for those sites that insist on only supporting real.
-= Technomancer =-
How are Real's formats any more proprietary than Microsoft's?
RealPlayer still competes with Windows Media Player over common formats like MPEG and MP3.
This lawsuit is crap. This is not like the browser wars where microsoft took on netscape and used it's power to crush them. Real player is just some bad proprietary format that people don't like. The audio was bad and the video was horrible. They never took off because no one distributed their formats because of choice. And I remember on old windows versions how microsoft included real player, but then since no one wants it anymore, no one cares that it's gone.
I'd like to see where they could come up with "billions of dollars of damages" on a free player. What, they were going to rake in billions from their expensive encoders and streaming software? Real's out because of divx, mpeg, and quicktime, not microsoft.
And how many times have people here gone through the task of removing the real player? I think of it as the original spyware, tough to kill. You couldn't pay me to put it on my computer.
Note I said *tried* to make it hard for us-it took a court order. You can remove access/shortcuts/etc. to it now, but the files remain. And WindowsUpdate will bug you about updates forever. And yes, Real sucks, but M$ is evil. And my enemy's enemy deserves a modicum of respect.
If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
How is this insightful? What exactly does the nature of Real media have to do with Microsoft's strong-arm tactics to exclude competing players using leverage of WinOS?
I dislike Real Player for many reasons, but the open/closed nature of their media has absolutely nothing to do with how it's distributed.
How do you know that for sure? Have you seen the OEM agreements?
Female Prison Rape in NY
Real has a case there, because Microsoft is using the same tried-and-true approach that made IE what it is today. And the fact that they make it almost impossible to remove WMP in XP will make the case that much more believable.
Real has done the same thing. They also have lousy history of abusing customer privacy. And it's nearly impossible to remove it from my system, which arrived with it pre-installed.
Do I get to sue them now too?
Coming soon - pyrogyra
I don't think even the most anti-MS zealot could make that claim with a straight face.
Real player sure works a lot better on my computer than Windows Media Player. In fact, it works an infinite percent better becuase WMP won't run at all.
Of course, I'm not using Windows.
Granted, that might look like zealotry, but that just shows ignorance to call it that. The fact of the matter is that one works (although, yes, it really is bad) and the other fails to do anything at all.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
In other words, Media Player has an unfair advantage because it ships with Windows. Well, duh. But now the government should protect RealPlayer because it is not installed with Windows?
Well, um, yes.
This wouldn't be an issue if Windows wasn't such a huge percentage of the market. But what anti-trust consists of is using market leverage against competitors in a manner that they can't compete with.
Fact is, MS would be able to happily carry on with behavior like this if Linux and MacOS grabbed a bunch of market share. Give them each, say, 20%, and bundling non-OS-related products with Windows is no longer an antitrust issue. But as long as the market is such that you have a hard time getting around having Windows, then it is unfair competition for MS to bundle other products with it.
And you're right, that Real needs to improve their quality, or winning the suit still won't improve their sales... but back when Netscape was still better than IE, I knew a lot of people who liked NS better but "didn't bother" because they already had IE. Then Netscape couldn't sell anything anymore, and then they started to suck.
Hm, maybe Real can convince a judge that *they* didn't suck until MS did this to them. It's conceivable... a long time ago I used RealPlayer without making a mess of my computer...
Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
These days, now that we've learned that the gee wiz of having something to do with computers isn't enough to spell success, there are a few very simple rules for doing business that I wish companies would learn.
1. Don't piss off your customers
2. Your product, perceived or otherwise, has to be better then your competitors.
Real follows neither of these rules, and this lawsuit appears to be nothing more then a last ditch effort to gain capital. It is a reality that if a company has no other business model then to offer an inferior product and expect customers to either pay for it or suffer egregious violations of their privacy, when they are a few mouse clicks away from something better that is free, that company will fail. It's just common sense.
Normally a company run with such a bad business model would die away without notice, but Real has entrenched itself on the server end with its proprietary format. They have this because they were one of the first (if not the first) to show up with streaming audio back in the day.
I can remember responding with amazement the first time I got streaming real audio. They were the first through the door and got the brand reconciliation, bringing organizations like NPR with them with this new technology. And they squandered it away. It's sad, but it's the real world (excuse the pun).
Unless Real can come up with a technology that bests the free alternatives in quality and does so without being intrusive to the users privacy or computer system, they will die, lawsuit or otherwise.
The Internet is generally stupid
Does it really seem realistic to expect Microsoft to not include a media player with Windows? Mac OS has come with Quicktime forever, and now includes iTunes. All of the Linux distros have come with a suite of multimedia applications for years. If anything, Windows Media Player shows that there IS competition out there, and that Microsoft is having to add new features to keep up. Tough shit for Real if that means having another competitor to help choke those last few death rattles out of Real's crap products.
Further, Windows Media Player is just an evolution and consolidation of the various CD/Wav/Video playing tools MS has been adding in including since the Windows 3.1 days, updated with newer codecs and a better UI. Windows is not cheap, and adding newer, better features is necessary for Microsoft to continue adding customers. Real never bitched back when the Windows multimedia stuff was a few different programs under "entertainment," and for them to say that Microsoft is violating antitrust laws now for providing something that consumers got used to a long time ago is just a load of crap.
Of course, I guess when you're running a company that's trying to make money selling that shitty RealOne player, you'll do anything to get the stock price up.
EULAs; Contracts; Restrictions; DMCA; DRM; Spyware
Sneaky WMP agreements; unfixed IE insecurities; Outlook worms; No December Patches
IE Antitrust; European Commission; SCO; Now this.
All of the above have been helped along by the idea of proprietary software. Ever since I came home for Christmas to a house full of Windows machines, I have been inundated with examples of how cumbersome, expensive, restrictive, frustrating and downright ANNOYING proprietary software can be. Why do people put up with this?!
Real's suit against Microsoft is among these examples. MS wants a closed, system where All The World is a Windows PC, and RealNetworks needs to make money with its proprietary media player. And because megacorporations are often without conscience, Real has no recourse but to sue these monopolists!
The longer I watch the Industry, the more proprietary software strikes me as the runaway train fueled by the residual billionaires of IT's infancy. The computer industry has been riddled all its life with IP infringement lawsuits. Open-Source can serve as the step to maturity that gets us out of that ludicrous, litigous business model.