Microsoft, RealNetworks Settle for $761 Million

[Corey]

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,122978,00.asp

I'm guessing Eric Darling's not doing any heel clicking over this one.

[eric_darling]

It's funny how things change quickly in the communications business. But I don't see how it affects me greatly one way or the other, really. I figured it would end up something like this, and there was nothing in there to be terrifically optimistic about anyway.

[Corey]

Hee. Well my take on it is that of Mr. Horse from the Ren and Stimpy show, "No sir I don't like it, I don't like it one bit..." As far as I'm concerned it's 100% badness for consumers and even worseness for developers.

I can't think of anything I'm clamoring for less than a new music service which combines Real Networks with Microsoft. That sounds just incredibly unappealing on every level.

[eric_darling]

I heard that.

[Corey]

The problem when they settle stuff like that too is that they make it more feasible for others to launch similar suits... Pretty soon that'll be part of a tech startup's business plan, i.e. setup, give away your technology for free until it gets some usage numbers, then price it too high and sue the largest company in your space for whatever profits you feel you should have made that year.

Real Networks invested less effort into improving their technology over the past decade than any technology company I can think of. That they should get rewarded for that is kooky but, like you say, everyone knew it would play out this way, so...

[Desmond]

The problem when they settle stuff like that too is that they make it more feasible for others to launch similar suits... P

Ahh, precedence. Darn involved-in-law-suit-people, they just all gotta be treated the same, don’t they!

[Corey]

Yeah well not so much the issue of precedence, which was set in this sort of case before, but more in the perception of the law firms who take these cases on contingency. That's the real issue. If the directors of a law firm perceive that they can profit from something then they are going to do that thing regardless of how it affects the consumer/industry... So the real danger is in "making it seem more feasible" to these people. Because there's *never* a lack of people who feel they've been wronged and, "wish to take action as long as it doesn't cost them a cent up front."

The additional danger of course is teaching young business people that this is a viable approach. If there's anyone who feels that Real Networks didn't do the exact same things they accuse MS of doing to the other players in their space, please raise your hand. And that's the point which is lost in the translation when impressionable people look upon this scenario. That point could be expanded upon greatly too, Real Networks has done a pretty complete job themselves of squelching competition in many markets over the years...

[Desmond]

Reading your last post made me move my head really fast. I think I have whiplash. Expect to hear from my attorney.

[Corey]

See?! See what I mean?!! Dang, now I'm not going to be able to afford that Tiffany dessert fork collection I've been saving toward for the past 17 years. Aahhh well, 'tis all in good fun, let me know where to send the cheque.

[Desmond]

It had better be certified, bub!

[Corey]

Deal!

Now onto more important things, your post made me realize what this world really lacks. A combination roller coaster and lunchette. You could get a donut and coffee, maybe some soup or a nice sandwich (depending if you had breakfast that day) *AND*, and this is the really exciting part, all while you are flying around a knot shaped loop at 100kmh in an oversized teacup. Normally I would expand upon this but I feel that this is *such* a strong idea that it requires *absolutely* no expansion, i.e. a "zero expansion" idea.

Line up some investors, I'll start screening architects.