Faced with another private antitrust lawsuit, this time from digital media competitor Real Networks Inc., Microsoft Corp. late Thursday defended its position in the space. "There is vibrant competition in this marketplace and Real Networks' own reported growth shows that they have thrived on Windows and many other operating platforms," Microsoft said in a statement. As previously reported, Real Networks earlier in the day filed an antitrust case against Microsoft in federal court in San Jose, Calif., alleging that the Redmond, Wash., software giant illegally used its monopoly power to restrict competition and consumer choice in the digital-media space by forcing its Windows Media player on Windows users.

Seattle-based Real Networks, in a statement, accused Microsoft of "predatory action over a period of years by abusing its monopoly power, resulting in substantial lost revenue and business for Real Networks." Part of Real Networks' case is based on business conduct similar to what U.S. courts have declared illegal in other Microsoft antitrust cases, such as failure to disclose interface information and placing restrictions on PC manufacturers, said Bob Kimball, Real Networks vice president and general counsel, in the statement


Source:

http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,4149,1417878,00.asp

It's up to the consumer to decide which Media Player he or she is going to use. As a consumer I would say: I was NOT forced to use the Windows Media Player; I actually like it and that's WHY I use it. Jeez.

It is? Personally I wouldn't play with Microsoft the way Real Networks do here. I don't play with Windows Media Player either. My guess is that people use it as it comes with the OS. If we all had to go somewhere like download.com and find us a mediaplayer most would find other optionsmore appealing.
"Jeez." That part I can second. What are they fighting about? Publicity?

If this case resulted in a ruling against Microsoft, it would set a nasty precedent. If it is illegal for Microsoft to bundle several products into one package because its "abusing its monopoly", would it mean other developers won't be permitted to sell bundled software?

It seems that in these antitrust cases Microsoft has fundamental rights taken away from it, simply because of its size and success. If real networks were to win this case, it would go against the very principles of a democracy.

I don't mind bundled software. This is often a way to get a good of lot stuff for a not to horrifying price.
However, when software is sold bundled together I really want the option of being able to install the parts I'm interested in only. I hate it when, for example, a printer comes with new flashy drivers, you have to install the drivers of course and finally find your harddrive filled with a lot of extras, most often shit or crippled software. The same goes for soundcards, scanners, some ordinary software and above all Operating Systems.

EDIT: Having said that I'm not for "democrazy" when it comes to *my* computors. I want to be the allmighty dictator over my machines.