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?"

Probably not...

[Anonymous Coward]

Real has their own problems with proprietary file formats. Won't have much effect.

Will the result be the same?

[ihummel]

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.

Forget It.

[timeOday]

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?

basicly

[lks_aus]

the more companies that take microsoft to court over anti-trust issues, the more people are going to sit up and notice that microsoft is exploiting the market in more ways then one.

forcing MS branded everything is just bad buisness

[djhankb]

Internet Explorer, Windows Media Player, MSN Messenger, "Microsoft Compressed Folders"

and I'm sure there's more.

But the respective competitors, Netscape/Mozilla, Quicktime, AIM/Yahoo/ICQ, and WinZip suffer directly because of this.

Take Apple for instance, with Aladdinsys's Stuffit Expander. Instead of making their own, they just licensed to include Stuffit with the OS, which has undoubtedly lead to that company with good buisness.

*sigh*

-Henry

God...

[AnimeFreak]

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.

Will the results be the same?

[Luscious868]

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.

Nice and vague

[NanoGator]

"In a conference call with reporters, Kimball said RealNetworks damages could exceed $1 billion measured in lost business stemming from Microsoft's actions. The suit also seeks injunctive relief to prevent "further illegal conduct" by Microsoft."

Lost revenue because Microsoft made an anti-trust move, or because Microsoft made a better product?

Re:RealPlayer?

[technomanceraus]

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.

Real one spyware.

[Nilisco]

My dislike of microsoft is easily outdone via real and their wonderful ad ridden software. Go microsoft!

Re:Probably not...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:same wine different bottle

[rokzy]

of course not, this is the same law but not the same violation.

once you get out of jail for murder you don't have a license to kill.

frivolous lawsuit

[Stevyn]

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.

Re:It might werk.

[irokitt]

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.

Re:It might werk.

[NanoGator]

"Real has a case there, because Microsoft is using the same tried-and-true approach that made IE what it is today."

You mean the tried-and-true approach of making a better product, then bundling it with Windows?

Maybe if WMP played Real's format I'd see the point of this case, but I can't help but feel like we're seeing a company frustrated because they're losing.

Parent is a troll.

[Anonymous Coward]

Real has their own problems with proprietary file formats. Won't have much effect.

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.

Microsoft suddenly everyone's positive cash flow?

[Shivetya]

Granted I would not wish Real Networks on anyone. Frankly I hope they lose, it looks like they realized their model sucks and are falling back on the SCO model of income by litigation.

Whats REAL going to claim in court? That their software is better than Windows Media? Get real, I don't think even the most anti-MS zealot could make that claim with a straight face. I spent half a day ridding my machines of Real Software, let alone trying to stop their damn spam afterward.

Oh, lest I forget, it is eveel Microsoft this time.

Fine, why not encourage these developers to develop for Linux instead? If their software is technically superior and wanted then this is the idea community for it.

Frankly I have little problem with incorporating common items into an OS... and a media player is a common item, let alone one has been in there for ages anyway.

Are we to establish two sets of rules? One for people who have lots of marketshare and one for those who don't? Do you see anyone crying over developers who lost out to Apple incorporating some of their great ideas into X?

Re:It might werk.

[greenrd]

After the Anti-trust suit, microsoft also does not insist that no other media be installed by OEM.

How do you know that for sure? Have you seen the OEM agreements?

Re:God...

[mmcguigan]

At least you can install RealOne. AFAIK, the last RealPlayer for Linux was RealPlayer8 not RealOne.

Now real.com assumes you are running MS Windows and gives all users a MS Windows executable. For a company so worried about Microsoft's monopoly power they sure aren't doing much to prevent Microsoft from maintaining monopoly status in the OS market.

Re:It might werk.

[spectecjr]

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?

Re:Will the result be the same?

[DunbarTheInept]

Micorosft didn't give it away gratis. It was part of the cost of Windows. It was no more "free" than, say, "WIN.EXE" is, or 'COMMAND.EXE', and so on. It's an app that is part of the OS's suite of standard Apps you can't entirely do without. It's not free - it's just that the cost is carried inside another product.

Re:It might werk.

[Mundocani]

I wonder the same thing of the other side -- what's the evidence that MS is still practicing this behavior? There's nothing in the article which substantiates Real's claim that MS is still doing exclusive OEM agreements. I'd like to see a quote from the OEM agreement or even an OEM representative saying that this is true. In fact it's pretty easy to read the complaints described by the article as historical: that MS *was* doing this in the past and therefore Real wants to get paid.

Re:Microsoft suddenly everyone's positive cash flo

[DunbarTheInept]

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.

Why, YES! They're playing it out now.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

This is like a steel cage match between bin Laden and Hitler. Who the hell do I root for?

Is there a scenario where both can lose?

Yes.

They could take it to court.

B-)

Re:Will the result be the same?

[DunbarTheInept]

As an aside, did Microsoft ever charge Mac users for IE?

No, but that's an entirely different product. IE for Windows was never free. IE for Mac was. In fact, NOTHING Microsoft gives for free for Windows is actually really being given away gratis. From a wheres-the-money-going point of view, there is zero difference between bundling A with B and charging $X for the bundle, versus giving A away for free when it requires the non-gratis product B that costs $X. As long as the "free" product requires the purchase of a non-free associated product, it's cost is bundled in with it, and that's where the company is recouping the costs.

Re:RealPlayer lost because it is inferior

[Ironica]

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...

Re:Incompetent DOJ

[demachina]

I think you need to realize the DOJ is enforcing antitrust laws in accordance with the very pro big business bias of the chief executive for whom they work. Antitrust enforcement is a very political issue and it changes every time the politician in power changes.

It was no coincidence that the last Microsoft antitrust suit had its legs kicked out from under it by the DOJ as soon as Bush and Ashcroft took power. Microsoft is a sacred cow to the Bush administration and nothing is going to be done to hinder its business practices as long as they are in power.

So its unlikely Real is going to get any serious help from the DOJ and most probably will find the DOJ hostile to them. The Bush administatration has no qualms about monoplies because monopolies are extremely efficient businesses and they make some lucky people a lot of money.

Microsoft is one of a dwindling number of U.S. companies that generates a huge trade surplus with the rest of the world.

Microsoft is an integral part of the both the Dow and the Nasdaq so the Bush administration is going to strive to insure nothing happens that would adversely impact their stock price since it impacts the indexes everyone watches as a gauge of economic success in the U.S. As you recall Microsoft's stock price suffered when it appeared they might actually be punished for antitrust violations.

Having a U.S. company dominate an industry as essential as computing is very desirable for political, security and economic reasons.

The flip side of this is Linux is doing so well outside the U.S. because many nations and businesses have realized its not in their best interest to be at the mercy of Microsoft and the U.S. for such an essential part of their infrastructure.

Post dot com business 101

[interstellar_donkey]

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.

Re:NO I AM TIERD OF THIS...

[Daengbo]

I'm pretty sure that, if your electric company wants to raise prices, they have to seek approval before they do it. If they want to run broadband over those power lines, then they probably, again, have to seek approval. Monopolies are different, doncha know?

Re:forcing MS branded everything is just bad buisn

[autocracy]

My personal favorite: Network Protocols -> Microsoft -> TCP/IP. Ummm... no?

Re:Will the result be the same?

[Build6]

Netscape still failed to adapt in a way that would allow them to remain alive

But isn't the point being, that when your product is facing a zero-cost alternative being subsidised by alternative revenue sources you do not have, there IS no way to adapt that would allow survival?

What you pay for...

[supabeast!]

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.

Lawsuits, Lawsuits, Lawsuits!!

[stealth.c]

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.

Re:RealPlayer lost because it is inferior

[ssstraub]

Here's a suggestion for Real: Make a better player, and you'll gain market share the old-fashioned way. Through customers who WANT to use your software, not just because it's there.

If that was true then there would be no more IE users by about this time next year. They would have all switched to Mozilla Firebird or Opera.

You don't get it.

[jotaeleemeese]

A monopoly can not use its dominance to pedal more of his products.

How can thick heads like yours grasp that idea? What other evidence of top of software compression (Stacker), browser (Netscape), Java (broken JAva VM machine) and now this do you need before you stop tht most stupidiest of excuses: the market hath spoken. Well, yes, chose head or tail, my secret is that the coin I am throwing has only two heads. That is your choice.

MS should and is not free to put whatever they want in the OS because they are hurting other companies given their monopolistic position.

What is fair game in a competitive market is forbidden in a monopolistic one.

What do MS needs to do for you to grasp that most basic of concepts? Start bundling games that can compete with the likes of EA and threteaning the PC manufacturers if they include games from other comapnies in the bundles they normally give first buyers? Database software? Proper graphics software (bye bye Photoshop?). Who is next on their radar.

How far does MS has to go before people that can't recognize a monopoly if it hits them in the face stop defending those practices as fair market competition?