Microsoft Ordered to Carry Java 831
An anonymous reader was the 17,232th person to submit that "Microsoft has been ordered to include Sun's Java runtime in Windows. Coverage from AP (via Yahoo), Reuters (via news.com), and, let's say, the BBC."
I dont get this... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I dont get this... (Score:3, Informative)
I think what the decision means is that if MS is going to include Java in it's OS's they have to include the OFFICIAL Java from SUN and not the broken one they released.
I could have read it wrong tho
JVM Not Optional (Score:5, Insightful)
Sun is suing MS in a civil case, saying that Microsoft used their monopoly(1) on desktop operating systems to illegally compete with Sun's Java, in the form of a browser plugin. MS used their OS to hinder Sun by including an out-of-date and broken JVM version for many years, despite better software available (for free) from Sun.
The judge agreed that this was likely an illegal use of their monopoly(2). MS already attempted to say that browsers (and their plugins, which Java is in this case) are part of the operating system, but that was already rejected in the DOJ case. Because of this precedent, the case looks very strong for Sun, so...
As a preliminary injunction, the judge ruled that Microsoft has to include the latest version of the JVM from Sun, so that as the case is argued in court (no doubt over a period of years), further damage is avoided.
I don't read it that Microsoft can 'opt out' of carrying any sort of JVM, especially since that's already their tactic with WinXP.
-Zipwow
1: Monopoly, not illegal in itself. MS has argued that no monopoly exists. The DoJ case's findings of fact specifically described MS' hold on Desktop OS's as a monopoly.
2: Using a monopoly in one area to hinder competition in another is illegal, and is what Sun is complaining about. Using your desktop power to break into the web-plugin market (and hence the related server market) is what's illegal.
Re:JVM Not Optional (Score:2)
More details (Score:3, Informative)
Sun didn't take it then because it had lots of nasty strings (I think it would've allowed MS to break it 'for security' or some other odiously broad clause).
However, that offer is one thing that the judge cites to refute one of MS' defenses against this injuction: that the Sun JVM would introduce security problems. The judge basically said that if MS really believed that, they wouldn't have made the offer in the other case.
-Zipwow
Re:JVM Not Optional (Score:2)
In MS's favor? (Score:3, Insightful)
The remedy essentially costs MS nothing. They were going to be burning the CD's anyway. I am sure that there were a few extra bytes available on them.
It means that MS can skip trying to make a good JVM and put those resources elsewhere and nobody will have cause to complain.
If the JVM for Windows is buggy or slow it is Sun that catches the flak, not MS. Nobody can claim (as it is essentially was done in the suit) that MS is intentionally making the JVM bad because it is no longer Microsoft's JVM. On the other hand MS will no longer have to worry about having to jump through hoops when Sun ammends the Java Specification.
If then Microsoft makes their .NET clr run rings around Sun's JVM then it will be a matter of the products winning on their own merits, not a matter of MS putting more resources to one than the other. And frankly the odds are pretty good that MS could outprogram Sun. Dislike their business practices all you want but the programmers there are a fairly sharp bunch.
Re:I dont get this... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I dont get this... (Score:2)
There's a good reason for that... (Score:2)
Re:I dont get this... (Score:3, Informative)
What the court decided is that while they hold this trial, it's clear that if MSFT's Java is violating the deal, every day this would be allowed to continue would just make the situation worse. So, for the time being MSFT must distribute a Java VM that nobody disputes is true to the standard, Sun's own VM.
In the end, this could end up being the final solution... but it's not because the government is inflicting Java on MSFT. It's because MSFT agreed to put in a true version of Java and then tried to break the agreement, and the government is now trying to make MSFT take its medicine.
Re:I dont get this... (Score:2)
>written by their competitor into their Operating
>System ?
Because, Microsoft Windows is not just their operating system. It is the basis for a market and as such there are many other people involved than just Microsoft. If you own a market then you have more responsibilities than if you were just merely a player in a more open market.
Sun, who wants to participate in this market, is having to compete against the OWNER of the market. The OWNER of the market has an unfair advantage in that they can and will build thier competing offering right into the OS to crush Sun. Sun merely wishes to be a player - Microsoft owns the ball.
Get it?
Re:I dont get this... (Score:5, Informative)
1) Microsoft is a monopoly. This is legal as long as they don't abuse their position of power.
2) Turn back to the mid-90s. Netscape owns the browser market. In their attempt to crush Netscape, MS needs a competitive browser, i.e., one that supports Java. They sign a deal with Sun.
3) By the late 90's Netscape is toast. MS says, man this platform-neutral stuff is bad news, Let's pull out the old "embrace and extend" technique and get the drone developers using our Java "enhancements."
4) Sun says, "Hey, we define Java, and that's not Java anymore. Meet us in court."
5) Judge determines MS is using the fact they own the desktop to attempt to kill Java (not to mention the fact that they never released a VM beyond 1.1). This is an abuse of monopoly power. This being the third time or so that MS has been convicted, the judge actually does something about it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I dont get this... (Score:3, Insightful)
namely the fact that microsoft did indeed lose the case and then tried to renegotiate with Sun to get a valid version of the JVM, sun said "F$%k you" basically and refused to license it"
Then when MS said, "Fine, we'll just take out our version as well." Sun sued to force them to include Java, even though it was Sun's own damned fault that MS wasn't including it in the first place! If Sun had actually been willing to renegotiate after their initial court victory there would have been no case.
Re:I dont get this... (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't like it? Don't sign the contract.
That's ludicrous (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, don't get me wrong, I hate MS as much as the next guy in the open source community, but doesn't this open up a slippery slope? Where does it stop?
Re:That's ludicrous (Score:5, Insightful)
The judge isn't forcing Microsoft open to competition generally, he's remedying a situation in which a company was wronged in the past, and (successfully) claimed they were about to be wronged again. This pretty significantly limits the number of companies with a claim.
Re:That's ludicrous (Score:5, Insightful)
To answer, however, I think that the Reuters article [com.com] covers that question well by quoting the judge:
"'It is an absolute certainty that unless a preliminary injunction is entered, Sun will have lost forever its right to compete, and the opportunity to prevail, in a market undistorted by its competitors' antitrust violations,' Motz wrote in his decision."
Re:That's ludicrous (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:That's ludicrous (Score:2)
If AOL/Netscape/Mozilla can prove harm? Abso-fuckin-lutely!
Re:That's ludicrous (Score:2)
They've got a free playground to do pretty much anything they like. Why not impose this upon them since they are a convicted monopoly.
Any "extension" or "middleware" or "bundleware" product that Microsoft provides as part of it's OEM OS distribution should be accompanied by products from any compeitor that chooses to ask.
Re:That's ludicrous (Score:5, Insightful)
> Mozilla with every copy of Windows? How about
> Linux? Should they have to include 1 copy of
> FreeBSD, Linux, BeOS and QNX with every sale of
> their Windows software?
Yes...these are nightmare scenarios...
> Now, don't get me wrong, I hate MS as much as
> the next guy in the open source community, but
> doesn't this open up a slippery slope? Where
> does it stop?
It stops when Microsoft stops being a predatory monopoly. It stops when there's competition in the computer industry again. The systems (Mozilla, the OSes) you mention, as well as Java, are at a competitive disadvantage not because of technical or corporate incompetence (generally) but because Microsoft, as has been upheld by the courts, illegally leverages its monopoly to crush competiton.
Microsoft makes some good stuff. It would make better stuff if it had to compete fairly. My industry, and the world's economy, would be helped by not allowing Microsoft's unlawful strangulation of technology's progress. So anything that helps competition's return helps me.
Re:That's ludicrous (Score:5, Interesting)
In a word yes! That is if Microsoft shipped with Windows say a 5 year old version of Netscape and modified it only work for websites running IIS. (Not the best analogy but the best I could think of right now
This is what essentially Microsoft has done with its bastardized version of the Java VM. Microsoft's VM is an old version of 1.1 modified with it's extensions which enabled developers to lock themselves to the Windows platform. Now of course most developers learned this early on and avoided the lock-in, plus most of Java development is done on the server now, but Mircosoft continues to provide their old VM. This alone has pretty much killed off most client side Java.
I believe Sun made the first big mistake years ago by not providing the definitive Windows VM. You didn't see Macromedia giving Microsoft the right to implement Flash anyway they saw fit way back when.
I don't necessarily agree with this ruling either, I actually would have been happy if the ruling was to force Microsoft to eliminate their old VM from existence.
Re:That's ludicrous (Score:3, Informative)
No... and wherever the courts say it stops.
When you are a monopoly, you no longer have total authority.
For instance, because utilities are monopolies, many areas have regulations that individuals can pipe their excess power into the grid and get paid the wholesale price for power...
Local telcos are forced to allow other DSL provides (or telephone service providers) to use their lines at wholesale costs.
Think of any other monopoly, and there are similar circumstances. Monopolies are allowed to exist only if they serve the public good... They are not allowed to use their monopolies to challenge the competion as any other company could.
Mildly good news? (Score:2)
Battle of the EULAs! (Score:5, Funny)
taking bets (Score:2)
Too bad this broke stuff.
What are the odds this happens again?
It has just occurred to me that this sort of result is what you get to see with script kiddies and regular code.
script kiddie as a company policy. who would have thought?
An up to date version, or the crippled 1.1? (Score:2)
Microsoft's dropping Java with XP might almost have been a blessing -- most users would have downloaded it anyway, therefore getting an up to date version.
Re:An up to date version, or the crippled 1.1? (Score:5, Informative)
Nice. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nice. (Score:2)
Now if only they would reduce the memory footprint of things like Swing.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:How about my VM? (Score:2)
At that point, you can force MS to carry your VM.
Of course this is a good thing (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Of course this is a good thing (Score:4, Insightful)
After all, if Sun cannot compete because Windows doesn't ship with Java, then neither can anyone else who doesn't have their software shipped with Windows.
Hee, hee. Since Microsoft has been declared an illegal monopoly, they're fair game. Make them do whatever we want. Make them give away MSOffice for free! Make them give all of us a rebate whether or not we've even used their stuff! Make them replace their desktop with GNOME! They're evil so anything the government does to them is justified...
Duopoly? (Score:3, Insightful)
If Microsoft bundles its own add-ons into its OS, that's monopolistic and bad; but if Microsoft bundles someone else's add-ons into its OS, that's competitive and good?
So now instead of one gigantic corporation controlling what's on your computer, there will be two. Ah, so much better.
Re:Duopoly? (Score:4, Insightful)
And a ham sandwich, too!! (Score:2, Funny)
I do hope this is the beginning of a "death of a thousand paper cuts". Microsoft truely does deserves it. From the looks of it, there's already other lawsuits in line for early January.
I have the karma to burn (Score:5, Funny)
17,232th? What the hell? No, no, no... you see this is the reason that Microsoft didn't want java included in the first place... stupid syntactical errors like the above can be generated quite easily using java, but asp libraries prevent such mistakes, and would have genereated '17,232nd' as the proper response.
Well, unless of course a human wrote that... in which case, shame on you... proof read dang it!
But on a serious note (to help save my karma), putting aside that this is microsoft, and they are evil, doesn't imposing the will of SUN onto microsoft violate something? or at the very least lower them to the same level? Microsoft wasn't preventing java from running on their os, they simple did not BUNDLE a competing product. What the hell? I don't see the problem. What next? DVD manufacturers have to bundle competing (free) DVD player software with their drives? I think not! Although MS deserves it... as a whole, this is not the right thing to do.
hehe (Score:2, Insightful)
So? (Score:2)
Appropriate coercion? (Score:5, Interesting)
Coercion: the power to require Microsoft to include Java is the same that allows the gov't, or any successful antitrust plaintiff, to force them to do anything different. Because of their market power, which puts them on nearly every desktop in America, their default config has a lot of promotional influence. Up to now, that influence has entirely favored Microsoft, which sounds appropriate
Whether THIS particular coercion is a good idea, we'll see. Whether coercion is never the right thing, well that's much broader.
A partial analogy would be Microsoft owning the default Yellow Pages distributed to everyone's door and selecting who can be in it -- say, virtually everyone but "Sun." Now, anyone can go get one of the other free directories, but will they? Advantage: Microsoft.
Also, Java isn't exactly a competitor's product; it's also an attempt at an industry-wide open standard that Microsoft wants to subvert, dominate, and exploit. Hey, they already tried.
It's a difficult problem to set things right in the wake of antitrust problems. Market forces generally do a decent job of figuring these things out (the "invisible hand"). But when some clever party makes the market its own, and then abuses it, the rules have to change, and gov't regulation, or a breakup, are the most common remedies.
If you don't think MS should have been sued in the first place, you will not believe any of these rationales, and probably not that antitrust is necessary in the first place. Many think some market failures need correction, but not everyone.
Re:Appropriate coercion? (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft's middleware enjoys an ILLEGAL advantage. They are a conviceted Monopolist, this gives their competitors a right to the "fruits poisonous tree". In any area that Microsoft abuses it's OEM channel, Microsoft's competitors are entitled to the same "advantage".
Reservations on the Ruling (Score:2)
Why should Sun get special treatment? Does this mean that every Joe, Dick, and Harry, gets to include his platform independant runtime with windows?
And how is Java different from, say, Mozilla or Phoenix? It's simply another application that Microsoft is using its monopoly powers to crush.
With the conditions as they are, all Sun is doing is grabbing onto the coat-tails of Microsoft's monopoly. The only way this is good, is if Microsoft is Sun's only competitor. Otherwise you have just created a second monopoly where there was only one at first.
If this isn't overturned, get ready for about 1,000,000 lawsuits from software makers clambering to get their product included with Windows. Worst case, I can imagine a future where the government decides which software companies survive and which don't, all by deciding who gets to be included on the common platform.
Hello people? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is *exactly* what MS did to Netscape a few years back, and a court found them guilty. They bundled their own technology and made it inconvienient to use competing products. *cough*
It seems to me that this judge is basically just upholding that ruling and *not* allowing MS to do the same thing to Sun.
Re:Hello people? (Score:3, Interesting)
Read the Judge's Opinion (Score:5, Informative)
Keep it in perspective (Score:5, Interesting)
It's IBM who's probably tipping the bubbly right now. And, a lot of Java developers.
For those who don't understand or can't remember.. (Score:2, Informative)
Remember: Microsoft contracted with Sun to ship untainted and current versions of Java with their OS products. Microsoft then corrupted their version of Java in order to make it no longer cross-platform compliant. Then they quit updating their version. The result was that many, who think that Microsoft keeps them up to date with the latest and best, came to regard Java as buggy, incompatible with other platforms, and out of date.
Sun sued Microsoft for breach of contract for developing the corrupt version and then stopping updates. Microsoft retaliated by pulling Java completely.
Sun is suing Microsoft to live by the terms of the contract. The court has ordered Microsoft to do so as the legal process continues.
Re:For those who don't understand or can't remembe (Score:2)
For those that don't understand (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft is now competing with Java (with
Microsoft has a monopoly in a different market.
Using a monopoly position in one market to influence another is illegal.
Microsoft has been distributing an incompatible version of Java.
Monopolies are required by law to play by different rules.
Re:For those that don't understand (Score:2)
Re:For those that don't understand (Score:3, Insightful)
You sure can!
Just so long as you had a CONTRACT with microsoft about them distributing your text editor. And just so long as they VIOLATED that contract.
www.google.com/search?q=microsoft+sun+java+violat
The first step was to prevent Microsoft from distributing Java, the second step was to force them to distribute Java. Does that sound contradictory? It isn't.
The first step was to prevent microsoft from distributing a broken and incompatible version of Java in violation of the contract. The second step was to force them to include a correct and compatible version of Java. Like they agreed to do when they signed the contract.
-
Re:For those that don't understand (Score:2)
A little anti-trust history (Score:5, Insightful)
while i don't like government intrusion, there is a very important issue to consider. with its already established monopoly, and many abuses thereof, microsoft has gone way beyond the scope of normal business activity. this is not only a case of insuring competition, but prevents control of the market in a vital sector. economists from all sides, in particular free market champion milton friedman, argue that the role of government in the economy is to prevent monopolies and protect the market system. this doesn't pick winners and losers, just makes sure that the odds are even.
Everyone who wonders why MSFT has to do this (Score:2)
Sun contends Microsoft sabotaged its Java software in order to fend off a threat to its Windows monopoly. It has asked Motz to impose the "must-carry" Java provision to remedy Microsoft's antitrust violations.
They violated the law. This is their punishment. Please read the article
Is that reasonable? (Score:2)
Slow down... (Score:3, Interesting)
not good (Score:3, Insightful)
Beyond that, the failure for Sun to make Java ubiquitous on clients is simply poor marketing and technology on the part of Sun. AOL has managed to get their coasters into every household. If Sun really wanted to, they could do the same thing, and if Sun actually created some compelling Java apps (games, productivity apps, etc.), end users would even have some motivation to install it. But Sun is taking the easy way out by sueing Microsoft because they can't market themselves out of a paper bag and just don't have a product that's compelling to end users.
It's too bad that software that would be much worthier than Java for forced inclusion in Windows distributions neither has people as shameless as McNealy behind it, nor the legal staff and resources of Sun.
Free Market Economy (Score:5, Insightful)
That, dear friends, is complete bullshit.
People seem to equate "free market" with "freedom for companies to do whatever the hell they want." But it doesn't work that way. A free market is a market in which there are multiple companies all competing on the same level with the same rules. And it provides consumers with multiple choices so that they have the power to decide what's the best product to use.
The key point here is that if the product is a foundation for other products, such as telephone lines, cable service, computer hardware or computer software, you need to set some rules so that everyone has the chance to compete on the same level.
Think of it like a football game, where one team provides the playing field, the locker rooms and all the other assorted stuff that goes along with a normal game. The visiting team plays at a disadvantage because most of the fans are rooting for the home team, but they still play with the same rules, independent referees, the same size goal posts and end-zone. The home team doesn't get the ability to have things however they want it just because it's their field. There are rules, and they must be adhered to.
Remember, a free market economy's prime benefactor is the consumer, not the company. When companies become so large that they can influence the consumer's choices no matter what, you lose the benefits of free markets. That is why anti-trust laws were created and one of the reasons you need governments in the first place.
So, don't think that a free market economy needs no supervision. It needs lots of it, for the benefit of the consumer. In the end, everyone wins, not just one producer of products.
(BTW, on a completely different note, this is partly the same argument that can be made for affirmative action and programs like it, in order to create a level playing field so that everyone progresses and moves forward, rather than just a select group).
Go get them! (Score:3, Insightful)
They are still at their best shoddy practises. I say sue them into limbo for whatever stunt they pull. Microsoft have shown us time and time again that they themselves doesnt believe in their own offerings since they go to such great lenght to artificially stifle all and every sign of competition.
If Microsoft doesnt think their products is worth a rats ass, why should we?
Im totally "Anything But Microsoft" and my decision seems better and better each day.
Main point - IE must install Java Plugin (Score:5, Informative)
That is huge. If the Java plug-in really is everywhere, it might well help stamp out crappy java programs everywhere that are forced to run in the shadowland between IE's VM and all others. It means that with a modern Java VM everywhere, you really might be able to develop and distriibute a nice Java application for web distribution much easier. Corperate developers do not have to weigh the choice between a good UI and features with a lengthy plugin download vs. just making do with a very limited interface, either AWT or pure HTML/DHTML.
Although this has nothing to do with my main point, I really liked this quote from the judge:
If, as Microsoft asserts, the granting of preliminary relief is extraordinary, the short answer is that extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary remedies.
Another very interesting point the judge makes is that (and this is the exact wording from the descision):
"Sun has no control over the JCP"
All of you out there who keep claiming Sun controls Java ponder that. The injunction would have Sun provide MS a VM to ship along with
This is also a judge that knows what he is talking about, just reading the document he issued supporting the injunction provided a number of points that no poster here has managed to make in the course of 500+ comments, and also addressed a number of the arguments against the injunction that posters here have raised. After reading the PDF about 499 of the 500+ posts could probably be removed without any overall loss of content.
Re:Main point - IE must install Java Plugin (Score:3, Funny)
But what is the point exactly? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think the masses are buying Windows to write their own Java programs, are they? The main benefit to the average user to have the Sun JVM would be what? To run some ugly Java applet? Don't even get me started on Swing applications.
Regarding Netscape, I would argue that this was Netscape's downfall as well. (Everyone knows how big a piece of crap IE3 was, and everyone knows how big a piece of crap Netscape 4 was. Netscape 4 was Netscape's downfall. Coming out with a competent browser now isn't enough to break the multiyear stranglehold given to Microsoft by Netscape 4.) In the earlier days of the browser wars, people were smart enough to pick the browser that did a better job. Today? I don't know.
Let's be realistic - most users don't need or care about Sun's JVM at this point in time.
In the grand scheme of things, I think most end users have more need for the Macromedia Flash plugin than the Sun JVM. Of course, The Register [theregister.co.uk] has a story talking about Microsoft making a hostile bid for Macromedia.
Ultimately, forcing Microsoft to add Java to Windows accomplishes little, since Joe Average won't be impacted in any meaningful way. This is as empty a moral victory as Sun can possibly have. And for the users who actually use Java, it will probably end up being more of an inconvenience, as they'll be upgrading to a more recent version of the VM anyways.
And This Is Important How? (Score:3, Insightful)
The court orders Microsoft to do a lot of things.
MICROSOFT DOESN'T DO THEM!
The court doesn't follow thru with anything directed at Microsoft. There is no enforcement, no actual punishment.
You wouldn't raise your kids this way. You wouldn't tolerate this kind of behavior from your neighbors. You would expect/demand that the courts stand behind what they say in any other case.
But this is not what happens with Microsoft.
So some lawyers and a judge got their chests all fluffed up and announced that Microsoft will carry java.
If you think that actually means that Microsoft will include java....well, I've got some great real estate deals for you.
Wake up people!
Re:Unfair (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Unfair (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, in some people's eyes, Microsoft can do anything it wants because it is above the law and are therefore the corporate heros of a 'free society'. Under those circumstances, the only one who is 'free' is Microsoft and them alone.
Re:Unfair (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Unfair (Score:2)
When Microsoft is no longer in a position to extort the likes of IBM to drop their own competitive product (OS/2), then Microsoft can freely abuse it's customers againt.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Unfair (Score:3, Interesting)
People think that rich companies are good for the economy. If Big Blue had killed the PC somehow would our economy be better now? IBM was rich, still is, so why not kill the PC? Or how about the Bell system. Got their asses kicked, and good thing. Otherwise do you seriously think your silly cell phone technology would have ever taken off? The Bell system was rich, but that didn't make for a great economy and fabulous options in personal communications. Did it.
You like M$, you can have them. You want to Be Like Bill, have at it. It's just money, it's not progress. Some of us still know the difference.
Re:Unfair (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think this is going to last long for a variety of reasons. IANAL but, heck this is slashy
First a preliminary injunction is subject to a number of tests, Sun has to have a better than even chance of winning the case, refusing the injunction would have to cause more harm than granting it might and so on.
I don't think the claim that sun are harmed holds water. It was their previous action that caused Microsoft to stop shipping the Java VM.
Microsoft have a very strong case that Sun suffers no harm if the status quo continues and that they would suffer substantial harm. Java is active code and active code has historically been subject to lots of security risks - including Java.
Secondly, I don't think that the judge's mention of Tonya Harding helps. The statements create an impression of bias. Equally the statements appear to go way beyond the issues that should be considered where a preliminary injunction are concerned and tend to indicate that the judge has formed a judgement before the hearing...
I don't have much sympathy for Sun here. It may be the US way for failing companies to go to the government or courts to try to win there what they failled to win in the market but it didn;t do Netscape any good. Scott is driving sun into the ground with his Microsoft obsession, the competition that will erase Sun completely comes from Linux and Apple. I am not an Apple fan but they are the worlds largest UNIX vendor by far, they have a solid O/S and if they can only get a powerful processor they can clean up the market for closed source Unix.
A very fair remedy (Score:4, Informative)
A lot of people have missed why Sun was harmed in the first place. You mention the shipping of the defunct and broken MS JVM, but miss the real past harm: MS' illegal actions against Netscape.
Netscape, the then-dominant browser, also installed a Java VM with every installation. Its this inclusion that led to the MSJV in the first place. When MS illegally forced Netscape out of the market, they also harmed Java. Evidence that this is more than just a side effect is that Sun Microsystems is specifically mentioned in the DoJ findings.
Several points can be made here. Sun "lost Java" (not really, but close) in the open market because Microsoft violated the rules of that market. The idea that monopolies are legal, but using them to extend to other markets is a pretty basic tenet of free market economics. That Java still exists despite this 'foul play' from MS is a testimony to its strength.
Next, you say that suing about this "didn't do Netscape any good". There's two important things that Sun has that Netscape didn't. First, an injunction that remedies the problem during litigation, and more importantly: a new product, based on the harmed one, that is also a strong competitor.
J2EE is competing with
All in all, I think its pretty reasonable. This is a new market, and we as consumers deserve a product created by competition free of monopolistic influences.
-Zipwow
Injecting a little accuracy (Score:3, Interesting)
Sun is #1 in UNIX sales [com.com], Sun sells a huge array of software [sun.com], all of which runs on their hardware. I have to say you are completely wrong on this point unless you can point us to something besides your statement. Where do you get the %65 figure?
So the more mature technology can be squashed just by just playing the waiting game? I agree with the judge: Motz wrote that if Microsoft's system was to remain dominant, "it should be because of
So weird of an idea that it scared the crap out of MS, the whole make the OS irrelevant thing you may have missed. Hmmm.. I have seen Java applets and full applications on many sites. Please point us to something supporting your 'very few sites' contention. If you think that Flash is the main competitor for Java, then, well, your opinion weighs very little.
Most rabid MS supporters want to ignore that MS was found to be a monopoly [internetnews.com] in Jude Jackson's findings of fact. MS appealed the judges decision for break up based upon those findings of fact, but the FoF stand as does the monopoly declaration. That means that MS has a different set of rules they must adhere to now because of their dominance in several different markets.
Re:A very fair remedy (Score:4, Informative)
Client-side java was one of the most obvious harms of Microsoft's activities. In the judge's opinion, he/she repeatedly quotes Microsoft's own communications about its strengths, and its possibilities. Even now, ActiveX is not as fully featured (or anywhere near as secure) as a Java applet. And still, you can't be sure your java applet is going to run properly, because of Microsoft's earlier pollution. And, the judge concludes, that pollution also reduces the near-ubiquitousness that Java was achieving by being a part of all Nescape installations.
But that's not even the main point.
Why is it that as *soon* as
Apart from that, I think you discount the difference it makes for something to be part of the default installation. Honestly, with the outcome of IE vs Netscape, I don't see how you can miss how important that is.
The judge's position describes how having Java with the OS changes developers' approaches very well. And even were that not the case, the granting of this injunction certainly gives Sun the perception in the developers' minds that Sun is going to win this challenge, and win the right for Java to compete unfettered with
That's the only effect worth talking about. To further answer my earlier question about the rapid adoption (or at least interest) in
Lastly, if I had a dollar for every time I heard "They will survive for a year or so" about Sun, I'd have all my money back from the stock market. Lets talk about the law and the technologies, rather than ad hominem attacks on executives.
-Zipwow
Re:Unfair (Score:2)
The thing is, Microsoft has been shipping Java, but an old version. Combined with their monopoly, that effectively makes that version of Java the version that programmers must code to.
I'be been playing around with 1.4 on Windows and Linux, and for a lot of things, it is quite nice, actually. The JIT has dealt with the performance problems of the past. However, I can't actually use 1.4 for anything we put on the web, because of all those Microsoft JVM's out there.
And before anyone says to just have my users download 1.4 from Sun, that's 9 meg. 9 meg is too big for modem users. There is a strong negative correlation between download size and download completions, and 9 meg is way into the high failure territory.
Re:Unfair (Score:3, Insightful)
No, this is not "unncessary government intrusion". This is just a court trying to restore our basic unalienable right to a software language that isn't owned by a giant corporation like Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Unfair (Score:2)
Re:Unfair (Score:3, Insightful)
The only government intrusion in this case is the assurance that legal contracts aren't illegally broken, and if they are, providing a reasonable remedy.
Even a libertarian like me supports government serving justice in such a situation. This isn't a government intrusion situation - it's a justice situation.
Grow up.
Re:Unfair (Score:2)
Forcing Microsoft to carry another company's product for free seems like a pretty major violation of the free market. There should bed othing stopping them from bundling their own version, licensing Sun's, or trying to make ActiveX the new de facto standard.
People download Flash Player all the time, and that shows up on a LOT more websites than Java. What makes Sun so special?
Re:Unfair (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Unfair (Score:3, Insightful)
Most people take what you give em.
They don't install the OS - they take the one they got with the machine. This is why Microsoft OS is used by most machines.
They don't usually install such things like Java for themselves - they use the
They wont download and install Netscape if Microsoft tells them they MUST have Internet Explorer or the computer wont work. Why have two browsers?
They wont use an alternate OS for fear that they will be incompatible with Microsoft because everyone else they know uses Microsoft. (Pack mentality.) Microsoft is popular BECAUSE Microsoft is popular.
You may say unfair but it's a fact. Most people are sheep whether they like the moniker or not.
Re:Unfair (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Makes you wonder (Score:5, Funny)
I've had a question submission in pending since last week, they're probably really busy (or, hopefully, saving mine for a slow day).
17,232 on a Microsoft court ruling... I wonder how many post when the next distro of brand-X linux comes out. Also wonder how many people are visiting
Also wonder if they chose the AC just so that the other 17,231 people didn't have a name to cry foul upon when theirs was not the chosen submission.
Re:Makes you wonder (Score:2)
Nah, there's really only 12 people who read /. - the rest are just CmdrTaco pretending. Why else do you think 50 people post variations on the same comment in every story?
And the /. effect? They use voodoo - stick pins into a 386.
Re:Poor Java (Score:3, Funny)
Re:This is the logical extension (Score:2)
Yeah, that's basically what this is... it's an injunction. They'll hold a real trial to sort this out when they get a chance, but for the time being this will have to do.
Re:M$ has won.. (Score:2)
Re:What about other VMs? (Score:2)
Not that any of this really matters. It's only a prelimary injunction. Microsoft will appeal it, the wheels of the justice system will slowly grind on, and there still won't be a working Java bundled with shipping with Windows anytime soon.
Steven
Re:microsoft should be ordered... (Score:2)
Re:Ummm.....Slashdot is at it again (Score:5, Informative)
This is inaccurate and very misleading. The MS JVM added keywords that were not part of Sun's Java, and which Visual J++ would use automatically, meaning that a developer might be writing what he thought was standard Java, when in fact non-standard, MS-only java would be produced. MS was ordered by a court to turn these off, making them an opt in, rather than an opt out. However, these keywords were still not part of the Java language as defined in the language spec. This leads to non-portable Java, and a Java different than the one Sun built and licenses.
Perhaps more important were the J/Direct extensions, which used special comments and the MS compiler to generate annotations the the class files, which the MS runtime used to link in native code, such as windows DLL's. THe problem is not that you could link in native, non-portable code, since standard JNI (Java Native Interface) provides a way for you to do this. THe problem was that the MS approach only worked with MS compilers and MS runtimes. Class files compiled in this manner would not work with Sun or IBM runtimes on Windows environments. Within the Java Virtual Machine specification, it is stated that the class annotations (which MS used) must not change the semantics of the class. In MS' JVM, the annotations would cause a certain behavior, while in the other JVM's, they would be ignored. Clearly, MS' use of the annotations violates the JVM specification.
MS had the option of taking an approach that obeyed the specifications. THere is at least one product that can analyze a DLL and produce the mapping code to make calls on that DLL, using standard Java mechanisms. With their billions in cash, surely they could have easily produced a product that used the same approach. Perhaps a clue came from evidence in the DOJ trial, in which a Microsoft engineer spoke of "blunting the cross-platform java market" by distributing a "polluted" java.
Re:Ummm.....Slashdot is at it again (Score:5, Insightful)
The key point you leave out is that MS's extensions were in the same namespace as the core language, which is in violation of the spec, whereas none of the other extensions to java (such as Cocoa) did that. Why was such a thing put into the spec? Because the spec was written with platform portability as a goal and one step toward that goal was to make it blatantly obvious to the programmer which parts are standard and which are extensions, by using a naming convention that shows it.
9) Sun cries fowl. Demands MS includes Sun's java because they limited MS's license to an old, obsolete version.
Liar. MS was free to produce any modern version of JAVA they liked. What Sun told them they couldn't do was produce a non-compliant Java and call it "Java". MS had two possible ways to solve it: 1 - Fix their naming conventions to make their newer versions compliant, or 2 - go back to the older version from when it was still in compliance. MS chose to do #2, and then went on a smear campaign designed to make idiots believe this was the only option Sun allowed them to do and that this makes Java a language you should avoid because Sun is vindictive. Unfortunately idiots outnumber thinking poeple, so the smear campaign worked and now their big lie is believed in the IT community.
Re:Ummm.....Slashdot is at it again (Score:3, Interesting)
If you had a higher UID, I'd accuse you of being a Microsoft astroturfer...
all products from MS that include .NET runtime must supply Sun Java.......this is ass-backwards. .NET is a runtime enviroment (as is java of course).....if an application uses .NET at its core, for example Visual Studio .NET, they need to include the runtime
Are you being deliberately obtuse? Nobody is talking about applications - if MS wants to ship the .NET runtime with their O/S (future versions of XP, etc.) then they also have to ship the Java runtime.
MS adds extensions for Windows only development, which are optional to developers depending on their target market (HINT: Apple has Cocoa extensions in Java......samething......they are optional)
Another poster has pointed out how misleading this is. Java has a method that you can use to add extensions to the language - MS deliberaely chose not to use it, thus creating an incompatible Java implementation. This is not the "same thing" at all.
Microsoft should counter Sun needs to carry .NET with Solaris and StarOffice, as they both include Java. (And MS has a BSD runtime now...for developers, not fully completed libraries yet)
First, I don't see Microsoft shipping a .NET implementation for Solaris now or any time in the future. Second, even if they did, Sun is not a convicted monopolist, which means that they don't have to play by the same rules as MS. When will you MS apologists get this through your thick heads?
Re:Maybe they should be required to include Linux? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:microsoft is not a monopoly (Score:3, Insightful)
Furthermore, having a monopoly in and of itself is not illegal. But leveraging that monopoly to adversely affect your competitors -- as Microsoft did with using its OEM licenses -- is illegal.
Remember that the findings of fact in the antitrust case survived on appeal. The question is no longer whether Microsoft is a monopoly, or whether it was anticompetitive. The question is what should be done about it.