So, why did Skype go to all this trouble? It seems that their main asset is the brand and ownership of the user database. So, why would it matter to them if a

So, why did Skype go to all this trouble? It seems that their main asset is the brand and ownership of the user database. So, why would it matter to them if alternative clients were built? It's not as if SIP-based services were not an alternative. Perhaps Skype went to all this trouble to achieve network effects? If it was easy to block Skype traffic, maybe it would not have become the "standard" it is today. The it-just-works feature was likely most critical to success, and that might only have been achieved through obfuscation. So, I get the network-level obfuscation, but I don't see a case for code obfuscation. Why should Skype care if it owns the client? It's not like they're pushing ads upon their users or otherwise marketing too heavily.