Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Sun Microsystems Your Rights Online

Force Microsoft to Carry Java? 83

Posted by timothy from the micromanagement dept.
tusixoh writes "In the case of Sun Microsystems anti-trust suit against Microsoft (who claims Sun just wants a free ride on their OS), U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz, who is hearing the case, has suggested that forcing them to include Sun's Java software in the Windows operating systems posed as an "attractive" solution. Microsoft had previously dropped Java when Windows XP was released, but reversed their decision and claimed they would start including Java in a Windows XP update until 2004. CNN has the article." Update: 12/04 04:57 GMT by T : Read below for a more complete summary of the Sun vs. Microsoft Java dispute.

torre writes "Well, there at it again. Sun has now begun its private litigation against Microsoft charging some pretty serious stuff. As we all know it has been widely reported that Sun looks to seek to force Microsoft bundle its java plug-in with their OS.

For a quick recap Sun sued Microsoft to stop shipping java since they had violated their licensing agreement. Sun won, got some money, and Microsoft got upto 7 years to continue shipping their outdated version. Microsoft recently decided that in XP they shouldn't ship their mangled version of java and Sun cried fowl demanding that they ship their plugin.

Now, what hasn't been reported in detail is the allegations that Sun has charged against Microsoft. In brief, they charge that
1) Microsoft has a monopoly in the OS, Web browser, and Office productivity markets
2) Is engaged in illegally tying

a. IE to windows
b. Their workgroup software to their OS
c. IIS to their workgroup server
d. .net to their OS's
e. Active directory to both OS and workgroup OS and to Exchange
f. Exchange server to Office
3) Entering into illegal exclusive deals
4) Unreasonably restrained trade
5) Infringement on copyright
6) Engaged in unfair competition

In their settlement they look for and I'll quote " Preliminary injunctions prior to trial requiring Microsoft to:

Distribute Sun's current, binary implementation of Java Plug-in as part of Windows XP and Internet Explorer.

Stop the unlicensed distribution of Microsoft's Virtual Machine Java through separate web downloads, instead of incorporating within Windows XP and Internet Explorer, in accordance with Jan. 23, 2001 settlement agreement.
The preliminary injunction hearing is scheduled for December 3 - 5, 2002 at the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in Baltimore, Maryland. Permanent injunction requiring Microsoft to:
Distribute Sun's current Java Plug-In

Stop unlicensed distribution of Sun's Java code
Disclose and license proprietary interfaces, protocols and formats.
Unbundle tied products like Internet Explorer, IIS, Active Directory, Exchange, Windows server and .NET framework"
All of this claiming that they've harmed java, the Java programming community and intimately Sun's shareholders. Now as the court battle begins its seems that sun has to prove that they are not looking unfair advantage. This seems to be a big issue as it would seem that they could achieve the same level of distribution by merely dropping four million with OEMs..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Force Microsoft to Carry Java? More

Force Microsoft to Carry Java?

Comments Filter:

  • Here's an idea.... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by reaper20 ( 23396 ) on Wednesday December 04, 2002 @12:51AM (#4807893) Homepage
    Don't allow them to distribute .NET and Java with Windows and let the market decide.
    • but what happens when Windows is based on .NET and "must" include it to work properly? I think microsoft would just go the IE route.. In other words, make it a 'core' part of their new OS and claim it can't be removed..... I can hear it now- 'longhorn an't done till java won't run...'

    • Bad idea (Score:2, Informative)

      by Utopia ( 149375 )
      Microsoft's Java implementation was the best java implementation at it time. Microsoft had the fastest java implementation and much more stable than Nestscape's version (the other java version I had developed for).
      In addtion before JBuilder, VJ++ was the best java development envoirnment. Symantec's Visual Cafe totally sucked in comparison.

      After Sun got Microsoft to stop shipping Java our client decided to scarp the java project we were working on.
      I wish Sun had never sued Microsoft in the first place. Microsoft would have had to forever ship java. So what if they Microsoft added some extensions like delegates and support for activex. The added funtionality was really an advantage. Sun should have assimlated these extentions into the Java standard. Instead java has not had any major language enchancements in the past 10 years. We are currently exploring .net and compared to java it really looks very appealing. I hope Sun doesn't succeed in stopping Microsoft from shipping the .Net runtime along with its OSs.
      • I agree, sometimes microsoft's "extensions" to java or anything else have some useful features. But the reason they aren't incorporated into any standard is that microsoft's additions are proprietary and closed in every sense of the words. Microsoft would never hand over their ties between java and active x to sun or anyone else. They want it to be something only offered by microsoft, for their OS, and only their OS. (Although based on your interests, somehow I suspect the windows world is all your interested in anyway.)

        • Re:Bad idea (Score:2, Insightful)

          by torre ( 620087 )
          I agree, sometimes microsoft's "extensions" to java or anything else have some useful features. But the reason they aren't incorporated into any standard is that microsoft's additions are proprietary and closed in every sense of the words.

          Here's the problem that your statments runs into... Microsoft's exentions to Java were put there was to allow programmers easy access to the Win32/Com components that underline windows. It was a combersome process to do that via Sun's own api's. So... the point is... anyone using the microsoft extensions were basically using built in features of the OS that were really hard to get at via the builtin interfaces... The fact is... once the settlement came in... those programmer just switched from using the microsoft easy access API to sun's more cumbersome one to access local system functionality or toughed it out. In the end... neither app was compatible with all versions of java.

          The real reason it happened was for power... Sun likes control just like Microsoft/Apple, etc etc etc.

          • anyone using the microsoft extensions were basically using built in features of the OS that were really hard to get at via the builtin interfaces...

            Which defeats Java's entire purpose and reason-for-existence.

            Cross-platform write-once-run-anywhere is what Java was build and designed for. If you want to write a program that will run on Windows boxes only, writing it in some bastardized Java seems a bit inefficient to say the least when many other Windows-only programming languages are readily available.
            • Cross-platform write-once-run-anywhere is what Java was build and designed for. If you want to write a program that will run on Windows boxes only, writing it in some bastardized Java seems a bit inefficient to say the least when many other Windows-only programming languages are readily available.

              I agree with what your saying.... but then there would be no need to have the JNI interface that comes with the official java that lets you use native features of any os...

              see... you miss what happened during the slow evelotion of Java... JNI has been described to me (as I have never had the need to use it, as extremely cumberson. What Microsoft did was to make a clean version of that interface that allowed transparent mapping of things like COM into java... Either way you needed to do this way back in the day when this was a really big issue as graphics/file access/print access had no real native API under Java. So, the big Java joke was that sun's slogan was totally off... eg.. write once run everywhere ... seeing that if you played with video for example you had to make custom JNI calls for every platform you intended your application to run.

              What microsoft was really guilty was giving Java and edge on windows and potentially creating a movent that Sun couldn't control, eg... All versions of java needed to have fast video support or the ability to do multilayering video with overlays... etc... defeating the goal of having one basic runtime that ran on everything. Sun has since moved away from that slightly by providing smaller more compact version of java to run on smaller devices (but pretty much basically the same)

      • Re:Bad idea (Score:3, Informative)

        by Golthar ( 162696 )
        Sun sued Microsoft because they were adding extensions to the language that can make Java on Windows incompatible with other platforms.
        Portability goes out the window (pun not intended) when you have to program for java (knowing that 95% of the applets will run the crippled MS VM)

        Sure, speed was superior (especialy for drawing code).
        I think Microsoft should stop being a baby, they signed for the Java code and that they would make an compliant VM.
        They didnt do that, so they had to stop.

        Im sure Sun wouldnt mind if they continue working on Java, as long as they follow the Java standard.
        Let them include it, it makes my life easier :-)
        • Sun sued Microsoft because they were adding extensions to the language that can make Java on Windows incompatible with other platforms.
          Portability goes out the window (pun not intended) when you have to program for java (knowing that 95% of the applets will run the crippled MS VM)

          That's a silly argument (Sun's, not yours). The fact was, you could write Java to run anywhere and not take advantage of the MS extensions, or you could use the extensions and use Java as a nice programming language for developing Win32 apps.

          But the thing is, it's easy enough to write platform-specific Java anyway. Simple example: if you assume that the scratch directory is always /tmp rather than doing the correct thing and checking the environment variable TMPDIR you have effectively written a Java program that only runs on Unix. Microsoft added functionality to the JVM, rather than taking it away. So long as all their extensions were in their own packages (like com.ms), they'd really done nothing that any other vendor hasn't. Oracle ship a bunch of Oracle-specific stuff with their JVM for example.

          Scott McNealy was spoiling for a fight and wanted to push Sun's NC/SunRay product range for corporate desktops. That meant pushing Microsoft off those same desktops. The whole lawsuit was contrived for this purpose.
          • The problem was MS proprietary extensions weren't added as such - they didn't use the mechanism built into Java for these things. The MS code looked like it was part of Java and not an add on, this broke their agreement with Sun.
      • "Instead java has not had any major language enchancements in the past 10 years."

        Um, Java isn't ten years old yet is it?

    • Re:Here's an idea.... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by torre ( 620087 )
      Don't allow them to distribute .NET and Java with Windows and let the market decide.

      Here's the problem with that statement. .NET is Microsoft's replacement for the dreaded Win32's and the DLL hell problem that has plagued them for years. It in itself is not a direct competitor to java as it aims to fix windows related problems. Longhorn (the next edition of windows) are to include a new API set based on .Net and begin the phase out of the win32s.

      If you don't believe me that .Net is not a direct competitor, just compare the two philosophies: Sun write once, run everywhere on anything, Microsoft: Runs Amazing on windows, and maybe if we have the time other places (eg, IE for Sun, Mac). Yes .Net works on other platforms but just count the number of platforms it runs on... (Hint 3, windows, Mac OS and BSD [microsoft.com]) and only one of them you have a legal license you use it for commercial stuff. There's work being done for the other Unix like mono, but none will really have the power of the full functionality set found in Microsoft's proprietary implementation, .Net as we know it. The free one just doesn't come with critical things like ASP, ADO, Winforms, etc. Without this fundamental functionality other projects like mono or Rotor don't even come close!. Oh... and did I mention that Rotor implementation doesn't include a GUI api?..

      It seem more to me that Sun is finding it more difficult to sell its Java vision (that being that everything would run it, from a mainframe down to a ring [sun.com]. If you don't believe me, just look at what they're trying to get out of their settlement.

      Unbundled tied products like Internet Explorer, IIS, Active Directory, Exchange, Windows server and .NET framework

      Removing Active Directory form of administration from the windows world is as fundamentally removing shell scripting and the telnet daemon from a unix box. They're both key ways of working with the platform and have nothing to do with java. If Sun wants more admins and end users to accept java, they should focus on making the end user experience the best instead of trying to throw stuff down your throat as they claim Microsoft does. They've gotten better but they've had a terrible history, I certainly had a hell of a time installing Java 1.x way back in the day because the instruction were far too cryptic, hell I even caught unix setup instruction in the win32 distrib man. If they want to woo the average man or admin they should embrace the platform their on and use what's there. An Intellimirror install that could be admin'd and easly distributed by Active Directory would go a lot father in helping than trying to cripple windows by removing something unrelated. It only shows that Sun is trying to be as anticompetitive as they are claiming Microsoft is by trying to cripple windows so that you don't have much of a choice but to switch.

      My philosophy is if your going to pick a fight and you can't beat them your way, beat them their way... that way the victory is soo much sweeter.

      But that's my 2 cents.

  • Microsoft will include Java on Windows XP at 2004, just in time where their .net/C# platform will be a masive standard and there is no place for Java on the M$ world...

    How good M$ deals are!!

  • I don't think this will be an issue if... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by GreyWolf3000 ( 468618 ) on Wednesday December 04, 2002 @01:07AM (#4807973) Journal
    ...developers continue using the Java platform. It is really a neat language, and the Java API makes it a great remote client environment.

    On the other hand, .NET builds upon the success of C and its derivatives, particularly C#, and allows developers to seamlessly integrate the Internet with their services. Truly a godsend.

    Here at work (a consulting firm), I co-admin about 30 NT boxes, and we're looking into both platforms for our new finance services, but right now .NET looks more appealing, as cross-platform support is more of a burden than a feature; we can afford to cut off a small minority in favor of delivering seamless, facilitated content to the bulk of our client base.

  • Really (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Konster ( 252488 ) on Wednesday December 04, 2002 @01:10AM (#4807992)
    This is stupid.

    If Sun wants Java to be automatically included with Windows, then they should have to pay for it.

    Now, if Sun were to do something bold like making Java a free bit of kit with no charge whatsoever to anyone from here until the universe dies out, then perhaps the courts can persuade Microsoft to include it at no charge and we can go on being happy with things.

    But if Sun wants to turn this into a $monopoly$ play whinerant so that they can secure their share of the market on the back of their competitor, screw em.

    Java itself is good. Net is, well, MS.

    Halo product anyone? Java would be good at this.

    • Re:Really (Score:3, Insightful)

      by GreyWolf3000 ( 468618 )
      The issue is that .NET will destroy Java.

      Developers will switch to .NET, since lusers won't have to download it, and installing Java is too much to ask, especially when competitors are offering something that works now.

      The controversy is that there are those who believe that Microsoft will use it's market share to kill off Java, and gain control over, and be the central conduit of, all interactive web-based activity. They tried to do this a few years ago with their "embrace and extend" campaign.

      You may agree or disagree that Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to do this, but if you care at all about either platforms, this is important.

      • Re:Really (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Konster ( 252488 ) on Wednesday December 04, 2002 @01:36AM (#4808075)
        I do agree that MS will use its marketshare to kill off Java.

        I do care about other platforms, Linux and MacOS whatever.

        I do not want to see Net vs Java like I've seen DirectX vs OpenGL.

        But, I don't want one ego company using lawyers as a tool for advancing their technology on the backs of a leader. I want that tech to carry its own weight, such as Java has done. But, I'm not blind to the fact that Sun will throw a Sabot into all of our gears 5 years from now when it is the standard.

        Perhaps they will, perhaps, they won't. Given Sun's rather sad propensity to not really give a hoot, I'd rather see Sun realeasing Java as a Halo Project for free to all and riding the waves of public acceptance and not paying dollars to the shore.

      • How much does Java matter on the desktop? Where are all those Java applets that would take over the web? Where are your Java-based office suites in wide use? Java is a backend technology, as is .Net and has the installed base advantage. Microsoft does not do well in invading areas where someone's already staked most of the claims, exceptions being Office suites (but do you remember how pitiful the first Windows versions of WP and 1-2-3 were?), web browsers (but MS didn't really start gaining market share until the 4.x generation, which, coincidentally was when Netscape became utter garbage in desperate need of major modifications (especially in the rendering engine)), and GUIs (where Apple seemed to have almost decided to fumble away a decade-plus head start while making every business blunder imaginable; no clones then clones after it was too late and they were doing more harm than good). Just as long as Sun and the others who have bet on Java don't put out crap products, they'll survive. Look at how Adobe has fended off Microsoft time and time again. Look at Autodesk. Hell, look at Macromedia.

        • Re:Really (Score:2, Insightful)

          by adamy ( 78406 )
          Actually, the points you bring up support Sun's argument. I am a Javaphile and on m,y last project I couldn't use Applets because the overhead of ensuring our customers had the correct Java installed was too high. It was not this way before: MS has made it nigh unto impossible to use Java applets for mass distribution.

          Sun has suport optimized Swing running on Solaris.Why is it so slow on Windows? They don't have the same access to the source.
      • The issue is that .NET will destroy Java

        I couldn't totally disagree more... .Net is tied to windows, just like COM+. So to give an analogy with your thread of though would be COM+ will take over everything else like RPC,CORBA, Web services, etc... even though its only available on windows...

        .Net is only a windows technology that will replace the win32's in time. The fact that it has similarities to java via the VM has cause soo much FUD its scary. It also doesn't help the Microsoft for the longest time kept a huge cloud of confusion around them as to what .Net is.

        Java doesn't have a great web presence on the client (there are numbers lying around the net that I couldn't find for this post). Its a fact that's been true for a long time. And for that matter, interactive stuff on the client hasn't been a big success for Microsoft either. Players like Real, Macromedia, and the like have a far greater penetration in that market then both Microsoft and Sun combined.

        The real stronghold of java tend to lie in business backends and middle stuff that sits between the servers and clients. This isn't going to change any time soon regardless of what .Net produces.

        The reason Sun is picking on .Net is that it wants more market share period and with microsoft finally heading in what seems to be the right direction they want to stomp it out at the start instead of having to deal with it later.

        Put a whole bunch of enthusiast you get innovation.. Put as whole bunch of mega corps you get ripoffs and lawsuits.

        • I don't necessarily disagree with you; my post wasn't a statement of my opinion, merely an assessment of why this is nows that matters. I believe there is a bit too much FUD about it; I believe that this article is a huge FUD mountain-from-molehill. But the original parent didn't appear to know why it was here (he later responded that he did in fact know what was going on).
      • My problem with this is that I believe Microsoft should be able to bundle whatever it wants to with it's software. Sun has no reason to expect MS to bundle another company's software in with it's operating system. "Back in the day (tm)", companies would pay other software vendors for a veritable site license so that they could bundle that company's software in with theirs. However, if they didn't want to, they could write it in house or just not include that software. This is exactly the wrong way of doing it.

        What's so wrong with the current development model? I've never physically installed the jdk on my machine, but I know I have a java VM running on there...it got installed when I needed it because the app in question popped a window up saying "We need java to run...do you want us to go out, download, and install this tiny vm for you?". I answered 'yes'. No big install process, I didn't have to go find the right version in a list of packages, just had to click yes (similar to the way that ActiveX is installed) and *BOOM!* I had a java vm.

        People shouldn't worry that .NET is going to win out because it comes bundled. Think about it, ActiveX comes bundled with Windows too...but it's version 2.0 (3.0?) when you install 98. Starcraft won't even run on that, it requires 5.0, which comes on the CD. Easy install, but it's still an install and nobody cares about that. .NET or Java will excel on their own merits, not whether or not MS is forced to bundle Java with Windows.

        --trb
    • I think they're both going to lose in a sense, but MS will fare better.

      Sun's control over Java will make Java less able to compete with ISO C#, which MS *won't* be able to control.

      MS may be able to prevent others from doing a complete clone of the entire .Net framework, but they can't stop people from doing their own ISO C# implementation. Such an implementation will be both free of royalties and free of license restrictions (such as Java's) that restrict the vendor from being able to customize the libraries for their own needs.

      Once it becomes clear how little control MS has over it, this should be irresistible to both commercial vendors and to OSS developers. MS ought to still do well, though, by having the most complete libraries, the best dev tools, the reputation as "the real thing", etc., so they'll do well.

      By releasing C# and at least some portion of .Net into the wild, MS has almost guaranteed that it will evolve into a formidable competitor to the domesticated Java.

      • ...releasing C# and at least some portion of .Net into the wild...

        This is exactly what Sun should have done to begin with. But, why the hell didn't they? Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt. Even so, MS is in a much better position to be giving away the farm than Sun is. Java represents too much of Sun's shirt to be just giving it away without a twinge.
    • If Sun wants Java to be automatically included with Windows, then they should have to pay for it.

      It depends. In absence of any other kind of mitigating factor, I'd agree with you. But Sun annd Microsoft in fact had an agreement.

      Sun's case appears to be this: Microsoft and Sun agreed to promote java; in return for granting MS the use of Sun's IP (trademarks at the very least), Sun's java platform gets the boost from Microsoft support. However, Microsoft used the rights granted under this agreement to create confusion and division in the adoption of java technology.

      Microsoft wants to say that the deal's off, and every player should simply take back his contribution to the deal and go home. However, there is an assymetry in this situation, because what MS brought to the table was market position and what Sun brought to the table was innovation. Innovations can be duplicated, which is in fact what MS has done with its ".net" initiative. So, under this interpretation, by entering into the agreement, and subsequently repudiating it, MS buys time to create its competitive product and consolidates its monopoly position, whereas Sun, deceived by Microsoft, loses its opportunity to compete on an equal basis.

      I have my doubts about this intepretation though. How could anybody beleive that MS would enter into an agreement in good faith, that would undermine its critical platform monopoly? Surely Sun must have anticipated this. Microsoft can just as credibly argue that Sun and MS entered both entered into the agreement for some short term marketing advantage and that there was no real intent on either side to form a long term relationship built around promoting java.

      I'm not sure anybody can make certain pronouncement about this situation, since it involves a host of issues from different expertise domains: software engineering, marketing, contract and anti-trust law. However it's clear to me it isn't an open and shut case of Sun wanting a free ride on Windows.

  • I'm hardly a pro-Microsoft, and I'm in fact a hardcore Java developer, but in my opinion the ruling would get out of control if it fell into the wrong hand.

    Sun's JVM/JDK is not free. Individual can download it freely but you need to pay for the royalty if you want to distrub it with your product. E.g. mobile vendor must pay SUN royalty for each unit sold which has jvm included, because it's almost impossible for their users to download one by themselves.

    If the ruling forced Microsoft to include SUN's Java in XP, Sun could charge whatever amount of royalty fee for each XP sold.

    More worse, SUN has exclusive right on the use of the word Java in the software products. If the ruling requires Microsoft to include 'Java' not 'Java-compatible', then Microsoft has to pay extra for the license to use the name 'Java' in their software.

    What if SUN decided to charge in total $100,000,000.00 for each XP sold? I would if I had the chance, heh. :)

    Unless, of course, the ruling including the maximum amount of royalty that SUN could charge.

    (In case that pissed pro-SUN, pro-java - Microsoft sux, XP sux, Java rox. Okay? :)

  • On (Score:2)

    by Konster ( 252488 )
    On second thought, let's abandon Sun. I dislike any company that relies upon its lawyers to do the R&D work.

    Can't innovate? Can't produce? No problem, we'll sue!

    Don't mod me down on this. This isn't a flame per se, it is my viewpoint on the current situation.

    I love genuine R&D work that is done by researchers, not lawyers. I love technology that works and works well for everyone.

    What I have is a distaste for is companies to burn valuable money on crap like endless ego litigation instead of making a product fly.

    Someday, like on Stardate 20192.7, Earth companies learned to share their intellectual wealth for the betterment of all, instead of paying the salaries of talking heads on a spring.

    Two weeks later, the Vulcans arrived.
    • Someday, like on Stardate 20192.7, Earth companies learned to share their intellectual wealth for the betterment of all, instead of paying the salaries of talking heads on a spring.

      Oh, man, you're kidding, right? Read your history. Any scheme that includes the phrase "for the betterment of all" is doomed to failure. Why? Because it depends on the assumption that people will act contrary to their own self-interest on a large scale. This will not happen. If I have an idea that gives me an advantage over you, I will not share that idea with you. I will, instead, exploit my advantage to the fullest extent that I can. The only way to prevent this is to outlaw it through force, and from about 1950 to about 1990 we saw how well that worked.

      The world is not an elementary school playground. There are no rules of fair play, and no teachers to run to if you feel like you've been slighted. Unfair advantage is the natural order of things, and to try to ignore that fact is foolish at best, and downright dangerous at worst.

      As a country, we believe that everybody is created equal. But starting at about six seconds post-partum, inequality and unfairness set in, and from that point on, it's dog-eat-dog.
      • My posts have a certain, "You have got to know me" about them.

        I write with a large amount of sometimes very subtle sarcasm in my posts. And I do mean subtle.

        Not that I expect everyone to see this, but the ones that do see it as funny.

        Once you get me, you get me, and you mod me up :).
        • Which parts of your post were intended to be sarcastic? Because, on my life, you sounded just like your average neo-hippie Slashdot idiot to me. If you were kidding, I'd like to know, so I can laugh and appreciate.

          • Re:On (Score:1)

            by Zarf ( 5735 )
            I don't know the guy but the "stardate" bit was a dead give-away to me that he wasn't serious. Without the "stardate" bit then he sounds like the neo-hippie Slashdotter... who is anything but average anywhere but on slashdot.

            ... moderating myself down one point because I'm off topic ...
    • Can't innovate? Can't produce? No problem, we'll sue!

      Java is an innovation, and a great tool. Microsoft doesn't like it because they don't have control over it, so they are going to use their monopoly to destroy it. Evil at its best.

    • Re:On (Score:4, Insightful)

      by elmegil ( 12001 ) on Wednesday December 04, 2002 @02:27AM (#4808263) Homepage Journal
      'cos you know, Sun isn't doing ANY [sun.com] R&D [sun.com], they're just suing Microsoft in hopes that the money gained will hide the fact that they're not innovating.
      • 'cos you know, Sun isn't doing ANY [sun.com] R&D [sun.com], they're just suing Microsoft in hopes that the money gained will hide the fact that they're not innovating.

        Big deal. In this case, there is no question, Sun is relying on litigation to further promote their product. If you want to argue about who does more research, it's well-known that Microsoft spends billions on research. You have to step up to one of the real giants like IBM before you'll find more pure research.

        http://research.microsoft.com [microsoft.com]

  • A bunch of babies in men's clothing crying about how they want to make money by sitting around and collecting money for unlimited resources.

    Intellectual property is what you keep to yourself. If you want to make money, turn some raw materials into some finished goods (preferably robots that do all the work for us, instead of robots that kill everyone but you and do the work for you).

  • Let me get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by arb ( 452787 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `absoma'> on Wednesday December 04, 2002 @01:54AM (#4808158) Homepage
    Sun didn't like Microsoft including their own version of the Java VM with their OS so Sun took MS to court to stop them doing so.

    Microsoft removed the JVM from their OS, as per Sun's demands.

    When a user goes to a web-site that uses Java, the user has to download a JVM.

    Now Sun is complaining that MS doesn't include a VM with their OS? Sun wants MS to distribute Sun's JVM with the OS? What about other vendors [bea.com] that produce JVMs?

    • Re:Let me get this straight... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Zelet ( 515452 ) on Wednesday December 04, 2002 @02:58AM (#4808389) Journal
      The problem lies in that Microsoft supplied a "broken" JVM. Because of this Sun wanted MS to fix it to standard or to stop using it. MS stopped using Java completely. Now Sun wants MS to put a not broken JVM into Windows. Sun didn't change their mind, MS is just f*ing with the public and making it seem that way.
      • Not really - first Sun wants MS to stop distributing a "broken" JVM. That is fine, and I support them in their efforts to a point. However, now they are crying because MS isn't distributing any JVM at all and want MS to distribute SUN's JVM, instead of a JVM.

        Sun have changed their cries from "your JVM is broken, stop distributing it" to "you stopped distributing a JVM you must include ours". Other companies have JVMs for Windows, why not include one of them? Why must it be Sun's implementation? Why not force MS to create a compliant, non-broken JVM?
      • The problem lies in that Microsoft supplied a "broken" JVM. Because of this Sun wanted MS to fix it to standard or to stop using it. MS stopped using Java completely. Now Sun wants MS to put a not broken JVM into Windows. Sun didn't change their mind, MS is just f*ing with the public and making it seem that way.

        I could be remembering it wrong, but I believe that the MS JVM wasn't broken, it just had "added features". It would properly display any proper Java, but there were commands and shortcuts that could be used in Java code that would only work on the MS JVM. Sun sued saying that the "extensions" were violating their license agreement. Sun won, got some money, and MS got the right to still ship their JVM. MS got sick of shipping their outdated JVM (and was looking forward to the future when they would be replacing it) and stopped shipping it. Nowhere does anything say that MS has a requirement to ship a JVM, in fact the one they have been shipping is still "broken" in Sun's eyes. Sun wanted MS to stop shipping a JVM they claimed was "broken", which they did. Case solved.
        • AFAIK, MS shipped a compliant JVM with extensions. Then Sun changed the compliance rules to make the MS JVM non compliant.

          Sun then sued MS insisting that MS had violated their contract and insisted that MS ship the Sun JVM.
        • The MS JVM wasn't compliant. It didn't include RMI or JNI, rather it had MS-developed, Windows-specific, incompatible versions of same. They also added JavaDoc doclets that actually had an effect on compiled code, therefore producing class files that were incompatible with compliant JVMs and in contravention of the JLS.

          Sun's position was that under the terms of their agreement, MS should ship a compliant JVM (including RMI and JNI) or terminate the agreement.
    • Actually it's the things sun is tacking on to this case that I like, if the world were a fair and proper place, microsoft would only be stopped from exploiting their monopoly. So that would mean they can make a jvm if they want to BUT they cannot add any extensions whatsoever, they must adhere 100% to the standard without so much as one byte of api difference. No "embrace and extend", in fact I think that would be a good start in general to preventing microsoft from exploiting their monopoly, any time they implement something that is supposed to be compatible with any standard, corporate or otherwise, they cannot extend or reduce that standard in any way shape or form.
      • Then Sun should be trying to get MS to create a JVM that complies with the standards rather than bitching about them not bundling any JVM at all. Sun wants MS to distribute Sun's JVM, which is what I am opposed to. They got their wish when they forced MS to stop bundling the "enhanced" (according to MS - not me, IMHO MS has no idea what a standard is they just pick and choose what bits they will implement) JVM which MS did. Now Sun is bitching about there being no JVM included in Windows. Let the damn users download Sun's JVM from Sun, or MS's version, or any other damn version they want. Don't make MS include one implementation over another - make them provide links at all the different JVMs available and let the users decide.
  • If you can't win the game, play a different game.

    Naturally, Sun can't win this game it's playing with Microsoft so they want to change the rules in their favor. They can't seem to win this current game so they want a new game. That's all any of these lawsuits are, attempts to change the game.

    It won't work. If you play on Microsoft's game board at all you'll end up playing a version of their game that they will win. You need to take over the board. You need to shift the fundamentals of what an Operating System is and what Software is. No other strategy other than Open Source and GNU/Linux model* really does that. Change the game.

    It's a pity no one has figured out how to become filthy stinking rich at it yet. I mean, Linus should be one of the richest men in Tech... and ...he just isn't.

    * (nods to the BSDs too I'm talking about the OS model as a whole not a specific kernel)
    • If you play on Microsoft's game board at all you'll end up playing a version of their game that they will win. You need to take over the board. You need to shift the fundamentals of what an Operating System is and what Software is.

      Correct me if i'm wrong... but isn't that exactly what Microsoft does?.... eg.. OS needs internet... IE becomes part of OS... WIN32's are fundementally flawed and OS must include native high level networking functionality ala .Net. People work in a task based environment the OS should be task oriented... Longhorn(so it's been reported). A File System is the wrong way to store your files... Ala database file system (as been reported.).

      Linux plays the game very well on Microsoft's terms and its convinced some big names to stand behind it and it didn't need to sue to maintain its support. It only means that it can be done... Now wether ther're the motivation on Sun's part to do it's another. Like the Post points out... Sun could easily get what they're looking for just by dumping 4 million with OEMs... I'm pretty sure they're spending a lot more on legal right now.

      • I think we're talking about different games.

        Linux doesn't have a single company with office buildings and lawyers defending it. Linux is built from a community. I was thinking of that game.

        You get companies supporting linux and potentially making money. That's the kind of take-over-the-board move I was thinking of. Sun has definately tried it. Java is supposed to do something like that... but well...
  • to bundle Linux with Windows as well (since they say they 'respect' and 'love' Linux), this whole litigation would be headed in the right direction :).
  • /.
    Without a doubt MS should be required to bundle Sun's Java with the OS.
    This should dovetail without much trouble with the requirement to bundle other ISP's that was instituted back under the original Windows 3.1/95 lawsuits.

    In addition require MS to include a couple of alternate browsers.

  • good for Sun, bad for Java...... beeblebrox (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Sun came out with Java initially and hyped it for a while, but they are nowhere near the leaders in Java technology. The torch has been passed to IBM, who produces much more efficient and usable JVMs as well as compilers which are much much faster and are less stupid besides. IBM also puts out tons of other resources [ibm.com].

    Of course IBM has no loyalty to Java, Linux, or anything else they may promote in one of their products. But this can be an advantage compared to Sun, with McNealy at the helm, who can't do anything besides holler insults at Microsoft (this was funny once, but loses its appeal without anything substantive to back it up). Sun gets emotionally attached to one concept, brainwashes the whole company with it (I should know; I used to work there) and pushes it with lots of rhetoric and little common sense. Then they kill off the whole thing. JavaStation, Java Web Server, CDE, OpenWindows, etc. All the "latest and greatest" until Sun got bored, then killed it, abandoning all customers currently using it.

    Sun can't focus. Look at Apple. They have a tiny market share, and their products in many ways are not "best of breed". Slow Mach kernel based, slow Motorola PPC chips, bad DDR support, etc. But they survive in their niche with focus. Hardware and software package. A package you buy together is supported together. End of story. Their "digital hub" doohickey is a coherent goal.

    Look at Microsoft. Everything is geared to spreading their software. Microsoft software, although it is absolutely horrible at interfacing with standards, works almost acceptably interfacing with other Microsoft software. Common look+feel, intertangled file formats, all kinds of hooks to tie MS product to MS product, so if you use one, you generally end up using the rest. And marketing them as coherent, which is more important than actual functionality.

    Now look at Sun. Spread out all over the landscape. Sparc chips the future generation of which fall behind current Intel and AMD chips. Java (which they won't release for any other than their triad of chosen platforms, steal credit from the people who ported their software to Linux for them, and refuse to release specs to the Apache Group, of all the people not to annoy), StarOffice, Solaris, Linux, servers, thin clients, GNOME, iPlanet, etc. No idea which of these are McNealy's crazy whims and which will actually be supported and useful several years from now. And no marketing. Sun used to be in the news all the time; no more. The media got tired of McNealy's rants with nothing useful to back them up.

    To SUNW: Focus or die.

Slashdot Top Deals

Truly simple systems... require infinite testing. -- Norman Augustine

Close