Sun Files Suit Against Microsoft for Anti-Trust Violations

Herve writes "Sun Microsystems announced it has filed a private antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft Corporation. The suit, filed March 8, 2002 in the United States District Court in San Jose, CA., seeks remedies for the harm inflicted by Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior with respect to the Java[tm] platform and for damages resulting from Microsoft's illegal efforts to maintain and expand its monopoly power. In June 2001, the Federal Court of Appeals found Microsoft guilty of illegally abusing its monopoly power with respect to Sun and the Java platform. Sun's suit seeks to redress the competitive and economic harm caused by Microsoft's illegal acts."

Comments

yawn.

[llamalicious]

yet another MS lawsuit...
what took them so long?

Re:yawn.

[Derkec]

What took them so long? Going in to fight Microsoft in the courts isn't a fun thing to do. Sun has had experiance with this in the past. The legal costs will probably be large. It might also distract people from Sun's own message and product line. This is the sort of decision that has to be made with lots of care. I'd guess they had hope the courts would have smacked MS around a bit more, but decided they needed to step in since the administration has had the DOJ roll over and play dead.

Re:yawn.

[llamalicious]

That's the exact reason for my question though. It's been apparent for quite sometime that MS was going to be going around in circles with the DOJ and States, and nothing serious was going to be done. At least not without 10-20 more court dates for Microsoft.

You can bet your wallet Sun is going to be cautious about filing a suit against Bill (think countersuit) but it still seems delayed.
One does have to admire their use of current events to their advantage, in the current situation. They are basically positioning themselves as the saviour in the fight against the monopoly.

I say yawn, only because it seems every third story on /. is about a Microsoft involved lawsuit.

Re:yawn.

[Tin Weasil]

The parent comment is not a troll.

Re:yawn.

[ShadeARG]

> what took them so long?

Did you see the size of those PDFs?

• Complaint PDF (~7MB)
• Motion for Preliminary Injunction PDF (~3MB)

Re:yawn.

[llamalicious]

lol

Re:yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

How the FUCK does this get moded to funny? ANSWER: Microsoft plants posting and moding like the Borg they are.

Re:yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

like Microsoft, llamalicious is engaged in monopolistic mod point gathering practices.

Re:yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

I have java running on my windows desktop. Doesn't everybody?

Re:yawn.

[Anonymous Coward]

Llama - bend over and say "Ahhhhh"

Now, go play with your pet penguin.

Boys be Boys

[elzubeir]

I don't mean to troll here, but this is really getting boring. How long until we have all this settled once and for all, kind'a like w/ the Tobacco industry?

Re:Boys be Boys

[the Man in Black]

Given the government spearheaded antitrust suits of the past (Ma Bell springs to mind) I'd say about 5-10 years. At which point the decision, one way or the other, will no longer matter.

Re:Boys be Boys

[Anonymous Coward]

Jee, I'm sure they're sorry for not entertaining you enough.

Go enjoy your bread and circuses, and let people who care deal with buisness.

Re:Boys be Boys

[Lord Puppet]

Well, I for one do not find it boring. Microsoft has gotten away with crimes for which other corporations have been crucified. MS just played the politics better, betting big on a Bush victory.

I hope that the facts found in the government case will at least allow many other companies to successfully sue them now.

Re:Boys be Boys

[subgeek]

i agree this is going on too long. i agree that closure would be welcome.

but i don't think that the fact that Microsoft has been in court a long time make this subject cease to be important. i do think this is a hope that Microsoft has. The consumers will stop caring or forget that they've been screwed and spend even more money with Microsoft.

This isn't an isolated case; this is part of the way people think (it seems, especially here in America). People are so bombarded with information and so used to quick gratification that when something important takes a while, they just stop caring.

i'm not trying to say cases involving Microsoft should take their sweet time. i am saying it is important that people keep caring what happens. When people don't care if they get screwed, more bad things will certainly happen.

maybe you didn't mean to be a troll, but you did snag me. so it was successful.

Re:Boys be Boys

[Drizzten]

What crimes?

This is, as others below me have pointed out, another example of Microsoft's competitors taking the easy way out and ligitgating their way into success, rather than earning it and convincing a larger share of the public to buy their products. No matter how you frame it, the consumer has the ultimate choice in the matter...to buy or not to buy. If the majority of consumers cared about this, they'd change their buying habits.

Dismiss my opinions as you will, but please give this article some thought. Antitrust laws are unobjective and arbitrary, punishing successful companies for the "crime" of being better than their competitors.

Re:Boys be Boys

[rapid prototype]

No matter how you frame it, the consumer has the ultimate choice in the matter...to buy or not to buy. If the majority of consumers cared about this, they'd change their buying habits.

at the danger of being accused of being 'dismissive', and of feeding a troll..

have you even looked up the definition of a monopoly? exclusive ownership through legal privilege, command of supply, or concerted action. basically that means the monopolist has such leverage in the market, individuals no longer CAN choose an alternative. that is the point.

Antitrust laws are unobjective and arbitrary, punishing successful companies for the "crime" of being better than their competitors.

Far from it. It is fine if Microsoft is so much better than their competitors that they control most of the desktop operating system market. That is fine and good, a monopoly is not in and of itself an evil thing. But, if a monopoly uses that monopoly position to: (1) artificially inflate prices of a necessity (such as a desktop OS); (2) tie their products in other markets to their monopoly position in the desktop OS market (such as a web browser); or (3) use illegal 'blocking' means to prevent and/or stifle competition (such as agreements with computer vendors to bundle Windows and only Windows or pay the consequences).

note that i'm not trying to 'dismiss' you, just point out that maybe you don't realise that people do NOT have the choices you claim they do.

-rp

Re:Boys be Boys

[spyderbyte23]

Dismiss my opinions as you will, but please give this article some thought.

I am sure this was unintentional irony, but that article is illegible(microscopic fonts) in Netscape on a Macintosh. So I'd like to give the article some thought, but it appears that choosing an alternative platform is not an option.

Gosh, it's almost as though the Microsoft monopoly had a deleterious effect on consumers.

(Yes, I do know how to fix this. Just thought it should be pointed out.)

Re:Boys be Boys

[Lord Puppet]

I'm not dismissing your opinion, but the fact is that there are laws in the US (as in other economically advanced capitalist countries) that restrict how a monopoly may behave. Breaking these laws, ipso facto, is a crime.

You obviously disagree with the law. That's your perogative. It's still a crime to break the law, regardless of your opinion of the law.

Personally, I think it's an imperfect rule, but necessary to prevent any one company from crippling the economy with its huge hold on power.

Many consumers (I'm not one of them) consider it unfeasible not to use Microsoft's operating systems and office software, thus the stranglehold.

Re:Boys be Boys

[tb3]

To quote Billy Connelly, "Jesus Suffering Fuck!"

Did you look at any of the articles in the right pane? What a pile of bigoted, inflamatory nonsense! If you're going to cite a source, at least pick one with a semblance of credibilty.

Re:Boys be Boys

[ComputerSlicer23]

Just some food for thought, think historical perspective. Most monarchies are followed precisely because the original lines of leaders were followed because they were good for the masses. Sometimes they are good for a large force. Enventually the monarchies followed the old adage about absolute power. Microsoft is a great company. They have done great things. Anti-Monopolies are about eliminating Monarchies in business. People can't vote with there dollars. In order to try and get out from underneath a monarchy it generally takes a revolution which normally involves bloodshed. One doesn't just say they aren't going to follow the King/Queen and then King is no longer powerful. People won't associate with you, and your considered dangerous. It won't work. You need a huge movement of a lot of people.

With Microsoft, you can't just walk away from them. It doesn't work. Nobody will associate with you. Just try not using Microsoft and do business with a large set of people? I use Linux on my desktop. I use StarOffice. I don't have any MS products installed anywhere on any machines that are my personal workstations. However, I have to produce and interact with MS products all the time. Microsoft goes out of there way to make it hard not allow you to use 3rd party tools with there tools. They have just as much authority and power as a King in most IT departments. You can't just ignore microsoft and have them go away. There are too many people who believe. Monopolies are bad just like Monarchies are bad. After a while, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

On a side point, it isn't illegal to be a Monopoly (at least not in the US). You can be a monopoly all you want. What is illegal is that monopolies get absolute power in there area. When they start to abuse the authority they have that is when they get into trouble.

Ah, one last point, with Microsoft in a lot of ways there is no choice for the consumer. If the OEM signs up to pay for a windows license for all the machines they buy, I can't change that short of finding that out and buying from somebody else. The problem is MS use to line that deal up with all the OEM's for something like 60-90% of all computers sold in the USA. There is a reason people jokingly refer to it as the MS tax. You don't get many choices on sales tax either now do you?

Don't get me wrong. Microsoft has done a tremendous amount of good for the computing world. They have impowered literally 100's of millions of people in the world. Their original goals they had were incredibly good for society. I appreciate what they have done for me. I truly do.

However, I think in a lot of ways, I would appreciate it if they did things that allowed somebody besides microsoft to do good things. I'd like it if they would publish the API's so little guys can interact with the OS well. I would like it if they would publish specifications on how Office documents work, so somebody could write reliable filters so I can vote with my dollars and use another office program. I can't vote for that with my dollars. Its not possible. The government can make it happen.

If microsoft truely is the best at what they do, they have nothing to fear from publishing information on how to interact with the software. They have nothing to fear from allowing OEM's to bundle any software they want. If they are the best, people will vote with their dollars. If microsoft blew the doors off of all the other products, its what I'd use. Microsoft does a lot of things that don't involve being better for the consumer and that is how they are winning.

Yes I.E. is a better brower. Wasn't at the beginning but it is now. Media player wasn't better then Real Audio. Microsoft didn't/doesn't allow an OEM to bundle software that is better then theirs to be bundled onto the base install which is in fact bad for the consumer. Microsoft didn't compete and beat people in an open market. Instead they do things to make it hard if not impossible for another competitor to work as well as microsoft.

The crap they do with auto-executing extensions and other nonesense makes it much harder to use programs they don't want you to. They aren't beating people with better products. They are leveraging the control from the OS market to run people out of every other market there is. That is bad. It is bad for the consumer. They do make good products. But if MS doesn't fell like implementing a feature I want, or feels like telling me I must register all my products and have them phone home that is hard to do. It just like the phone company dictating that you can't use anybody's phone but theirs on a phone network. It isn't hard to produce a good phone, but it is a real bitch to laydown a nationwide network just to make a good phone and sell it. For similar reasoning it is bad for the OS makers to be able to make it nearly impossible for software to interact well with the desktop. It isn't economically sound to develop an entire OS because you can make a better windows widget. It'd be nice if I knew how to make a good widget that I wouldn't have to create an entire OS and all the supporting superstructure just so I could see my widget. It's bad for the consumer, if you can't see that, you don't want to.

Re:Boys be Boys

[erasmus_]

another example of Microsoft's competitors taking the easy way out and ligitgating their way into success,

Well, to be fair, Sun has already achieved plenty of success without the need for litigation. But at the same time, this is absolutely ridiculous. Everyone knows Sun hates Microsoft, and Microsoft is already taking so much damage from their federal case (please don't troll me on this, just look at how much it cost them and how much it affected the stock).

So, a biased company who is an arch competitor files suit against a company who is already responding to these allegations in a separate suit. This is frivolous. Worse yet, I'd call this harassment. I like Sun, but I don't like this move.

Re:Boys be Boys

[Anonymous Coward]

So how did anyone get to use Gnome or KDE? You need to follow simple logic.

PC Vendors wanted to sell boxes with the best possible margin. So they bought into MS preload aggreements.

PC Vendors did not feel that they could convince consumers to pay more for alternate installed OSes. This may have been because they felt Windows was 'good enough' or that the alternates were not sufficiently better to allow them to justify a higher price. Note this was a business decision based on their assessment of consumer buying behaviour.

Consumers chose to buy Intel machines with Windows preloaded. Why did they not choose the superior Apple machines? Because they had no choice? Don't be ridiculous.

...I am too tired to continue, but you get the idea...

Re:Boys be Boys

[Anonymous Coward]

You are foolish to think that this issue is so unimportant that it needs to be resolved quickly just so you don't hear about it anymore.

Re:Boys be Boys

[Reid]

I'm certainly not a lawyer, but I imagine this is common in antitrust cases. As has been pointed out elsewhere, federal antitrust suits are intended to restore competition and prevent future abuses. Private suits like Sun's are intended to seek damages (punitive and otherwise) for past criminal monopolist actions against the plaintiff. Now that MS is officially a monopoly, Sun can proceed. That's my understanding, at least....

Re:Boys be Boys

[erasmus_]

This sounds correct, but I still don't find myself feeling any sympathy for Sun. They're a competitor, and a strong one. First they sued so that Microsoft wouldn't include Java in the OS, and now they're suing because they didn't. MS tried with Java, and Sun thwarted them at every step (remember that MS started working with it even before Sun submitted it to standards bodies). So in XP, MS says forget this, we don't need the hassle this time around, and don't include it. And of course they're in trouble for it again.

I sure wish I had some Widget Software and could sue MS every time they released their OS without support for my Widgets. I mean, how dare they, they're putting me out of business here! Now every person who wants to use my Widgets has to download them for his or herself, which is costing me DAMAGES. That just doesn't seem right, does it? Please, dear Government, get this popular OS maker to include my Widgets and a link to my widgets.com site on their desktop.

Re:Boys be Boys

[jedidiah]

Control of the market is still control of the market. It doesn't matter if this control comes directly or through more "indirect" network effects. The fact that "being compatible" is critical in consumer computing is not a fact that can just be glossed over or used to discount Microsoft's control out of hand.

If you find yourself reaching to freeware to disprove Microsoft a monopoly, you are simply admitting that Microsoft is infact a monopoly.

"Simple logic" is simply lying.

KDE and GNOME exist outside of the market. They exist outside of the market due to the problems of competiting commercially against the "most compatible" player. No gratis-ware can be used to refute the existence of a monopoly. The fact that gratis-ware is the most likely competition against the market leader is infact a demonstration that the market leader enjoys a monopoly as defined by the Sherman Act.

Re:Boys be Boys

[jedidiah]

Sun has a different cause of action actually.

Also, if they feel that they are being harmed by Microsofts actions they have every right to file suit. Such suits are how accoutability is maintained. Also, they have reason to believe that the government will not do their duty in the current cases, despite a sustainted guilty verdict, due to polictics.

Criminals should not get away with subsquent offenses merely becuase an inneffective prosecution is already underway by an administration friendly to the sort of criminal in question.

Tolerance of Microsoft is just a tip of the Monopoly iceberg created by Reagan-Bush-Bush.

Gates was just too stupid to keep a low profile.

Re:Boys be Boys

[Reid]

MS tried with Java, and Sun thwarted them at every step

For someone who says he likes Sun, you're sure taking a pro-MS view of that whole mess. Neither side is angelic, but I can understand Sun suing MS over broken contracts and to prevent them from making bastardized versions of java. On the other hand, MS leaving java out of their products completely is fine by me.

Re:Boys be Boys

[erasmus_]

Criminals should not get away with subsquent offenses merely becuase an inneffective prosecution is already underway

Hmm, perhaps you have called of this little document called The Bill of Rights? They kind of added it to the Constitution after the fact, so you might have missed it. Let's see...

Amendment 5: Grand Jury indictment required to prosecute a person for a serious crime. No "double jeopardy" -- being tried twice for the same offense. Forcing a person to testify against himself or herself prohibited. No loss of life, liberty or property without due process.

I think the "no double jeopardy" part invalidates what you said. This isn't a subsequent offense Sun is discussing, it's still the same IE bundling crap (because we all know an operating system is only meant to open and close file handles and load VGA drivers, web browser functionality should not be included). Of course they're also tacking on the .NET accusation, b/c that's brand new, but this is still the same case that's been dragging on for years.

Re:Boys be Boys

[erasmus_]

Well, I'll stand by what I said. I do believe that Sun had a point about MS creating this bastardized version you mention, and they got what they wanted - MS stopped supporting it.

At the same time, while most on here will say that MS was doing it to get Java to fail, I understand why they did it. We all know native code is faster than interpreted. MS was getting comments from most Windows developers saying "What the hell is this? How am I supposed to use J++ instead of VB or C++ when the stuff it produces is so slow?" So they added a possibility of making it native.

Yes, they broke the cross-platform nature, but how about a wild example. I lease a car from a company, but instead of using it for driving, I take off the wheels and try to resell it as an exotic paperweight. I don't think any of my buyers would buy my paperweight if what they really wanted was a car - they'd go back to the original company. People programming J++ wanted fast native code, but liked Java syntax, and they were denied that.

Of course we can look to even more rehashing of this mess when MS adds J# support to the .NET Framework later this year. Which is once again meant to produce potentially native code using Java syntax, but I would put forward that there's really nothing wrong with that.

Re:Boys be Boys

[Sj0]

How about fraud, like when Bill Gates told IBM that he had an OS ready for the IBM XT when he didn't, so he went out and bought QDOS? How about purjury, a crime which they have admitted to, in the videos showing Windows 98 falling apart (supposedly without IE), where the tapes were just faked.

The reason for this antitrust suit is that the consumer doesn't have a choice. If the collective consciousness of the US were to decide that Microsoft were terrorists or something tomorrow, there wouldn't be a consumer-level OS waiting for them. MS killed them all. Now they have a huge market share, and they continue to use the same tactics to quash competition, and there are foolish naieve fools like yourself going "why? They commited no crime! Why are they being punished for being successful?"

Re:Boys be Boys

[Sj0]

KDE and GNOME exist outside of the market. They exist outside of the market due to the problems of competiting commercially against the "most compatible" player. No gratis-ware can be used to refute the existence of a monopoly. The fact that gratis-ware is the most likely competition against the market leader is infact a demonstration that the market leader enjoys a monopoly as defined by the Sherman Act.

I was suprised when I read this. It's not often an attitude shown on slashdot, but it is true. When it takes a completely free OS, with tons of completely free Applications, and free access to the source code of all these Applications, to get a tiny 1% market share, the market has failed miserably. I have tremendous respect for Linux and it's supporting projects, but it isn't a good example of how the market isn't being monopolized. BeOS, a commercial project which showed incredible potential, and had even met some of that potential(and I'm running it right now), on the other hand, is a good example of how it is monopolized.

Re:Boys be Boys

[Sj0]

First they sued so that Microsoft wouldn't include Java in the OS, and now they're suing because they didn't.

No, first they sued MS because MS was trying to pull and "embrace and extend" on their language. MS is famous for this tactic, of embracing a standard, then extending it to be a MS only standard. If they hadn't sued then, Java wouldn't exist in a form we'd recognise today.

Now, they sue MS for removing Java from their OS because it's obviously meant as a way to destroy Java. MS is trying to displace Java using their .Net architecture and C#. Once again, if they don't sue, Java will not exist in a form we can recognise in the future.

They became a strong competitor by staying under MSs radar. Now that they are one, it is only intervention by the US Government which keeps them from being taken out by MS.

I know in your little world of Linux, KDE, StarOffice, where you don't have to put food on the table, and MS isn't trying to destroy you at every turn, it's easy to say "oh, those competitors are just poor losers! They shouldn't try to sue anyone!". In the real world, when one company has a hugely unfair advantage over it's competitors, those competitors can't just lay down and say die. They must use whatever force, including the courts, to survive.

Re:Boys be Boys

[halfgoat]

If this is seeking damages it is probably a civi lsiut and not a criminal suit.

Look at the O.J. case; he was aquited in criminal court, but found guilty in civil court.

Your constitutional reference does not seem to apply unless this is a criminal suit, in which case sun would be looking for legal action against Microsoft instead of cash.

Re:Boys be Boys

[Drizzten]

First time I've been modded as "flamebait" and first time I've been called a troll. First times for everything, I suppose. =)

have you even looked up the definition of a monopoly?

Yes, I have. And Microsoft does not fit the definition. I can, right this very minute, go out and get any number of alternatives to their products for a wide variety of prices. The only thing stopping me is laziness and a lack of a reason to do so. Microsoft does not have "exclusive" ownership of the operating system, internet browser, or office suite markets. I do not dispute the 800 lb.-gorilla-effect Microsoft has on the some software markets. They earned most of that through creating products that consumers want and that other businesses support. The rest they earned through business-to-business deals that promoted their products more than other competitors could do. I do not believe they create the best products (not by a longshot, I despise Word), but they apparently have done many things right...just look at their dominance. Using exclusive contracts and binding OEMs to license argreements may sound odious, but those companies didn't have to sign them. They could have taken their business elsewhere. Why didn't they? Because more people use and want to use what Microsoft produces. It's a snowball effect and will continue to snowball until the market grows tired of what they offer or when a better alternative becomes palatable for consumers.

Far from it. (antitrust laws being unobjective)

The article I linked to spells it out much better than I can.

The "actions" that antitrust laws prohibit are vague, contradictory, undefined. For instance, antitrust laws prohibit companies from engaging in "restraint of trade." But what specific actions constitute "restraint of trade"? If, as is done repeatedly in the business world, a company signs an exclusive distribution agreement with another company, is that "restraint of trade" because now other potential competitors are excluded from that area of the market? Or if a company sells a computer to individual X, is that "restraint of trade" because competing computer companies can no longer sell X a computer since he has need for only one? No--the courts have declared to businessmen--only those "restraints" that are "unreasonable" are illegal. But which specific "restraints" are "unreasonable"? No definition is to be found in the law, so no company can know before it acts which actions are in law legal and which are not.

More paragraphs and examples are there for the curious to peruse. The point is, how do you define "unfair," "predatory pricing" and other unobjective antitrust terms in a free market where the goal of every company is to gain more customers than its competitors?

Re:Boys be Boys

[erasmus_]

Let me comment on some of what you said, from my "little world."

they hadn't sued then, Java wouldn't exist in a form we'd recognise today.

So, if they forked Java development, Sun's branch would have surely died? It might have definitely added confusion to the mix, but you don't see any scenario where native apps would continue running on Windows, and cross-platform apps would not use Windows native performance extensions? You make Java sound pretty weak by saying it would have died over this.

Once again, if they don't sue, Java will not exist in a form we can recognise in the future.

Well, gosh, things just keep getting worse, it sounds like. So the only thing keeping Java on the market is lawsuits, according to you? I'm hearing "If Sun doesn't keep suing, Java will die." Hmm, it's a pretty well established technology, let's give it some credit. I know it's easy to forget that market forces can allow technologies to survive or fail, why with daily lawsuits, but .NET and Java can coexist, although most likely not peacefully. If the only thing that allows Java to survive is to get MS to bundle it with Windows, then it doesn't deserve to survive (but of course this is not the case).

Actually, in rereading the last 2 paragraphs, I really can't tell if you're joking. If you are, I didn't mean to respond with sarcasm. If you weren't, well ... I'm glad MS isn't trying to destroy me in my little world of "Linux, KDE, StarOffice."

Re:Boys be Boys

[erasmus_]

I can already see the "but Microsoft is a criminal!" responses to your post, though not from me. You might have been right if the only thing Sun seeking is cash. But they're not - check out what they're seeking, including getting government to force MS to include Java with the OS, open up their source code, and "unbundle" .NET (which is like saying, please unbundle use of C++ and DirectX). If that's not "looking for legal action," I don't know what is.

Re:Boys be Boys

[TimTr]

No, first they sued MS because MS was trying to pull and "embrace and extend" on their language. MS is famous for this tactic, of embracing a standard, then extending it to be a MS only standard. If they hadn't sued then, Java wouldn't exist in a form we'd recognise today.

Now, they sue MS for removing Java from their OS because it's obviously meant as a way to destroy Java. MS is trying to displace Java using their .Net architecture and C#. Once again, if they don't sue, Java will not exist in a form we can recognise in the future.

Huh? So what should MS have done? Put the crappy old 1.1, non-complaint version of Java in XP? They have no Java2 license! Sounds like another lawsuit. I am not an MS fan, but geez, there is NOTHING they could have done that wouldn't have been construed as hurting Java. The fact that MS exists hurts Java. The best thing would have been if MS would have never done anything with Java, ignored it, and maybe Java wouldn't freaking exist at all.

Since when did the US start believing that if you were big enough it was your responsibility to spend your own money to sell your competitors products?

Re:Boys be Boys

[dhogaza]

That applies to crimes, not civil actions. In fact it says "crime" right there in your post.

This is why, for instance, OJ was the subject of a civil suit (which he lost) after being acquitted in criminal court.

Re:Boys be Boys

[Sj0]

Maybe I'm just too cynical in the market after seeing so many promising platforms taken out by MS. It does seem to me that the only way to survive in this marketplace after you've been targetted by MS.

Maybe I'm just getting old.

Re:Boys be Boys

[Sj0]

My point, all I'm saying, the reason I wrote all that junk, is that the state of the industry makes it a very fragile business, staying above water, these days in the tech industry. Whether or not my predictions are correct, they certainly have been proven accurate in the past with MSs other competitors(most of whom are long dead). Sure, it's easy to say that Java will survive, but in practice, something like this is often enough to put a competitor over the edge. It's foolish to be saying that sun shouldn't be suing, since they are among the oldest survivors of this fight.

Re:Boys be Boys

[elzubeir]

Okay this IS a troll (this message here).. the original was not, and I don't really understand the /. moderation system, but I don't like it. Legitimately asking when this will end and giving an analogy with the tobacco industry, I would give a score of at least 1 or 2.. but, hey.. what can you say?

Re:Boys be Boys

[donutello]

I was suprised when I read this. It's not often an attitude shown on slashdot, but it is true. When it takes a completely free OS, with tons of completely free Applications, and free access to the source code of all these Applications, to get a tiny 1% market share, the market has failed miserably

Or it could mean that Linux applications are a pile of horse-shit where the developers are too stupid to even go out and see what their users actually want in terms of usability...

Just a suggestion.

Take Lego for example. A lot of other companies have come up with their own block-like toys but to my experience they just do not approach the quality of Lego blocks. I, and several others, willingly pay more for Lego bricks than we do for the imitations. Is that a sign that the market has failed? I think not.

Re:Boys be Boys

[Anonymous Coward]

Antitrust laws are unobjective and arbitrary, punishing successful companies for the "crime" of being better than their competitors.

I reboot my Win98 box at least every day.

I reboot my Solaris box at least every year.

The only thing Microsoft is better at is jack-booted thuggery a la Tony Soprano with OEMs.

Sun is no angel, but at least their product works damn well.

Re:Boys be Boys

[Anonymous Coward]

Ayn-Randbot, begone!

Nobody thinks like you do, you freak.

Re:Boys be Boys

[notasheep]

KDE and GNOME don't exist outside of the market. They are distributed commercially on the shelves of computer and book stores everywhere - in the box with the rest of the Linux distribution.

Re:Boys be Boys

[jonblaze]

Correct, the concept of "double jeopardy" applies to criminal prosecutions; but, in civil actions, the concept of res judicata applies. In addition, Rule 13(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a party in a civil suit to raise all claims arising out of the occurrence or transaction that is the subject matter of the suit in the original pleadings. Otherwise such compulsory counterclaims are forever waived and cannot be tried anew.

In this case, it can be argued that Sun's (latest) cause of action didn't arise until Windows XP shipped, in which case Rule 13(a) obviously does not apply.

Of course, IANAL (yet) so the standard disclaimers apply.

Re:Boys be Boys

[Prior Restraint]

(please don't troll me on this, just look at how much it cost them and how much it affected the stock)

I'd just like to point out one little thing about the stock price. Although people who support MS will sometimes pull out the fact that the stock price has suffered ever since the original verdict, they often overlook the fact that none other than Steve Ballmer stated back in 1999 that their stock was overvalued.

Re:Boys be Boys

[buggered]

I can, right this very minute, go out and get any number of alternatives to their products for a wide variety of prices.

You are saying that you can go down to CompUSA, K-Mart, Wal-Mart, Ultimate Electronics, Sears or any other national retailer and buy a big name brand (IBM, HP, Compaq, etc.) desktop or laptop computer with "any number of alternatives" OS on it? I don't believe it at all! You must be shopping on some other planet. Excluding Apple, I have NEVER seen in ANY national retail store, ANY name brand PC with any OS except Windows. In fact I have asked several times if I could buy a PC without an OS on it and you can't even buy that. Until I can walk into Sears, K-Mart or Wal-Mart and buy a PC running Linux, BeOS, OS/2 or *BSD on it, Microsoft has a Monopoly.

Using exclusive contracts and binding OEMs to license argreements may sound odious, but those companies didn't have to sign them.

No, they could have chosen to go out of business instead.

They could have taken their business elsewhere.

Where else are they going to take their business? They can't sell enought PC's to stay in business, until there is a competitive OS that has enough users to sustain it. There aren't going to be enough users of an OS, until there are enough Apps for it. And there aren't going to be enough Apps for it until there are enough users to make it worthwhile for the developers.

The only way then for a competitor to Windows to break into the biz is to do what Be tried to do. Get a hardware manufacturer to put your OS on a machine alongside of Windows, until you have enough users for the developers to start making apps. Then once you've got the ball rolling and you have enough users THEN you have a viable alternative to Windows and the hardware manufacturers can tell Microsoft to stick their contracts.

But the thing is that all Microsoft had to do to maintain their monopoly was keep the hardware guys from ever putting another OS anywhere near a PC (as they did with Hitachi and Be). If you can enlighten us as to how Be could have (or any other alternative OS can) break into the market, I and many others would really like to hear it.

There is NO WAY you can convice me that there isn't a market out there for a competitor to Windows. Of all the people I know (most of them are in the computer business), I can count on one hand how many of them claim to like Windows. Wheras, I know a hundred or more who would drop Windows like a rock if they had a viable alternative. For an real good laugh (at Microsoft's expense) scope out the Operating System Sucks o' Rules Meter. That alone is enough to convince me that there is a market for an alternative to Windows, if somebody can stop Microsoft from continuing their monopoly maintaince tactics.

Finally, I want to say that choice is a *GOOD* thing. When there is no competition, there is no incentive to create a quality product. In fact it's quite the opposite, if there is no other choice they can keep selling you buggy version after buggy version because that's how they make money and you have NO other choice but to keep buying the upgrades. I firmly believe that if Microsoft didn't have *BSD and Linux breathing down their necks, Windows would be every bit as buggy and unreliable as it has been for years. (I'm talking about servers here.)

Personally, I think it's great that everybody is lining up to take a swipe at Microsoft. Bill and CO. have cheated their way to the top and they deserve every blow. I especially hope that Be gets a huge chunk of change from Microsoft, because it was truly a crime the way Bill & Co. deprived the world of an excellent computing platform.

Re:Boys be Boys

[Anonymous Coward]

What users want is to interoperate with the other users--almost all of whom are using proprietary apps like Office with poorly- to incorrectly-documented storage formats. No amount of volunteer labor is going to alleviate the risk of migrating, so those users are at the mercy of one company. That's the dark side of network effects, and it's why software not under the control of its users is unethical.

Re:Boys be Boys

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody thinks like you do, you freak.

Reality is not a popularity contest. If he's wrong, convince us--arguments from authority (of hoi polloi, no less) are useless.

Here's my argument: exclusive agreements (contract terms of the form "I agree not to trade with person X") accumulate to threaten the very existence of trade, eliminiate competition (the engine of progress), and should turn the stomach of anyone who has sworn not to live for another man.

Re:Boys be Boys

[Juln]

Or, it could mean that developers at MS have fuckin billions of dollars to play with and spend on paying each other to tweak office 2006, while Linux applications are put together for the love of computing and the need for a program. If you tihnk 'linux applications' are horse shit, that a generalization... and I don't think thats why they aren't widespread, please recall we're dealing against a convicted monopolist there... also, I bet anythign you have no familiarity with current linux productivity applications.

Acutally, the last example shows nothing. If the lego blocks are superior... thats your opinion.. and so you choose to pay extra for a brand name? Well, the tomatoes in the store brand can and the twice as expensive brand name are just the fucking same at my supermarket.

Re:Boys be Boys

[Sj0]

...And when linux, with it's faults, is Microsofts nearest competitor in the OS market, and, despite being completely free, is still hurting badly in market share, the market has failed.

Way to get an ignorant stab at linux there. Despite the fact that you obviously have no clue what I just said up there, good work. So what if I was talking about market forces and not Linux. Good work nonetheless. Maybe while you are bitching about Linux's terrible UI, you could check out the other OS I mentioned? BeOS blows Windows away in the UI department, especially in terms of consistency. It's just that ignorant folks like you assume that every alternate OS out there uses a 9x shell lookalike.

Re:Boys be Boys

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. That's true. And the consumer also has the choice of not buying food. However, they're fairly well screwed if all the food comes from one company.

No, I'm not saying computers are as vital as food, but they're already pretty damn vital and I can see them reaching the status of car and telephone combined in the next 15 years. You really want MS to be the only game in town then? Where's consumer choice with that?

...and more

[oakz]

...the suit is also seeking access to the APIs used by Microsoft software and the IE source code.
Would be interesting to see if there are "hidden interfaces" exposed in the Windows API.

Re:...and more

[Sabalon]

Hmmm...the IE source code. Isn't that just a wrapper around the HTML control? Gonna be pretty short source.

Same problem the DoJ had - lets focus on IE without realizing that the functionality is buried much deeper.

Re:...and more

[dup_account]

Just because code is buried in the OS instead of the application (like it should be) doesn't mean that it isn't part of the application. I beleive that you will also find Office code buried in the OS. Does that mean that Word is part of Windows? I believe that (currently) M$ still says it isn't.

Re:...and more

[dustman]

Check the mozilla source code for what's required for a browser... Even after you remove things that are more than just the browser (mail, news, etc), there is still quite a bit of work on top of an HTML renderer.

The net layer stuff for communication with servers, bookmarks, history, security, etc...

If the 'HTML component' does all of this, then I would argue its a part of IE.

PS: let's just consider the fact that everyone is already familiar with the 'mozilla bloat' jokes/comments and we don't need to rehash them :)

Re:...and more

[rabtech]

--quote--
...the suit is also seeking access to the APIs used by Microsoft software and the IE source code.
Would be interesting to see if there are "hidden interfaces" exposed in the Windows API.
--/quote--

1) IEXPLORE.EXE is just a few UI components with the core HTML browser control dropped onto the form. If you want the Windows HTML renderer, you'll have to dig a bit deeper.

2) Thousands of people already have the source code. This include Universities, developers, and large companies. I have access to the source code if I want it. I honestly don't see what the BFD this is; the source is already out there.

This is just another attempt for a loser to try and cash in. If you can't beat them at their own game, file suit.

I don't see anyone bemoaning Byan vines' loss of marketshare when Microsoft started shipping WFW/NT4. No one seems to miss Trumpet Winsock (or any of the other TCP/IP stacks you had to pay for) when Microsoft shipped TCP/IP standard on NT4/Win9x.

Yet when Microsoft beats Netscape into the ground by putting their browser to shame and making IE one of the best browsers in the world, everyone is up in arms.

:rolleyes:

Re:...and more

[linzeal]

Has anyone actually compiled and md5 summed the binaries of the source code given for comparison? How does anyone know that this is the real source code if it can not be verified openly?

Re:...and more

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with you, and my deep apologies that you were moderated as a `troll' by the naive introverted folks that control such score on Slashdot. If I had moderation points, you'd be granted score as "Insightful". Is it not true that Internet Explorer is infact a far better browser than Netscape? Yes. Microsoft just happens to own Windows, and they can include whatever product they develop into it if they want. I don't use Internet Explorer because it comes with Windows (earlier versions of Internet Explorer actually made me switch to Netscape, but the fact is-- I had the option. No window popped up and said "Wouldn't you prefer Internet Explorer? Internet Explorer is better!". It installed and worked perfectly. All I care for is the option. As soon as Internet Explorer expanded to become a superior product to Netscape, I used it. I could have just as easily downloaded and setup Netscape in ~1-3 minutes, but I preferred using Internet Explorer.

What is anti-competitive about having a superior product? There's a question for you.

Re:...and more

[kerrbear]

This is just another attempt for a loser to try and cash in. If you can't beat them at their own game, file suit.

Did you ever consider that maybe Sun, Oracle, HP, Apple, etc. don't wish to break the law in order to compete with Microsoft? Microsoft got where they are now by breaking the law. Their insistance that we don't believe we broke the law so it did not happen not withstanding.

Re:...and more

[geoswan]

Yet when Microsoft beats Netscape into the ground by putting their browser to shame and making IE one of the best browsers in the world, everyone is up in arms.

May I suggest that the shameful thing is that their browser didn't follow standards? In typical MS fashion they "extended" the standard. And they supplied HTML tools that generated non-standard pages too. Thus, with their market clout lots and lots of pages didn't work properly with browsers that did conform to standards.

To the naive user this made it look like all the conforming browsers were broken.

I'd call that shameful.

Yes, I know netscape retaliated in kind.

Re:...and more

[ferat]

To quote the dude, "Thats, like, your OPINION, man"

I personally find IE almost totally unusable. It's only redeeming feature in my eyes is the fact that almost everything under windows uses its internet settings so if I don't want things connecting without my permission, I just set IE's proxy to something useless and nothing can connect anymore.

You say IE is better than Netscape. I agree. I say it's worse than mozilla. Which of us is right? Both of us. You are entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine.

The courts found that M$ had used their windows monopoly illegally to kill netscape. People tend to use what's installed rather than get something else if its "good enough". IE was free and was good enough in the beginning, which killed the pay to play netscape. Granted, IE has become a rather decent browser of late.

I suppose the question becomes: If a rampaging horde burns villages and kills thousands to get someplace and then sets up something you like, does that make how they got there OK?

Re:...and more

[MisterBlister]

The point is..when did bundling things with the OS become a crime? Microsoft should be free to bundle whatever they want with their OS, if they believe it adds value for the customer (and a browser certainly does). Why should their ability to do this be cut off just because they have been very successful at selling their OS?

Sure, this bundling may have a negative impact on certain companies or potential companies, but hey that's life in a capitalist society, take it or leave it.

Nobody is likely to make any real money selling web servers for Linux, since most distros bundle Apache...Should web server makers sue based on that? Get a grip!

Re:...and more

[oakz]

the suit, and my comment, are not about Internet Explorer.
The bigger issue is the handling (or lack thereof...) by MS of java support in XP and IE.
The suit doesn't have anything to do with Netscape.

I think that the windows interfaces available to "higher-level Windows applications" (not just IE) would be more interesting to examine that IE source, which as you pointed out would probably not be of much worth.

Re:...and more

[Ent]

Netscape didnt follow standards either and tried to "enhance" the world by embrace/extend. Do you have any idea how long it takes to get things through a standards body? What would you do if customers called you up and said "We would like feature xyz added on top of this or we wont buy 200,000 copies of your product". Are you going to reply with "Well we could do that but you will need to wait for a year or two for the standard to be approved."

Yeah right.

Re:...and more

[B1ood]

--quote--
I don't see anyone bemoaning Byan vines' loss of marketshare when Microsoft started shipping WFW/NT4. No one seems to miss Trumpet Winsock (or any of the other TCP/IP stacks you had to pay for) when Microsoft shipped TCP/IP standard on NT4/Win9x.

Yet when Microsoft beats Netscape into the ground by putting their browser to shame and making IE one of the best browsers in the world, everyone is up in arms.
--/quote--

this is such a troll. netscape didn't sue ms for integrating its browser. they sued ms because they anticompetively ran them out of the market with illegal activities (remember the deal they cut with a vendor to *not* include ns on their oem's?). sun has already proved a similar thing, and now they're just trying to collect.

your point about tcp/ip is invalid because (as far as i know) ms didn't break the law when they included the stack. that was honestly a good business move and legal to boot. very unlike what they did with ns and sun.

Re:...and more

[paitre]

It's a crime due to Microsoft's monopoly control of the market.
They were perfectly ok to do things like this back when they had real competition in the OS realm. When they did THIS, there was no competition, and was strictly monopoly maintenance, and this is the conclusion of the courts (IMU).

*shrugs* like it or not, MS DID abuse its monopoly position WRT bundling IE, and commingling it's code into the OS.

Additionally, my company makes money selling/leasing linux webservers. In fact, we posted a profit last year. (we're not public, and I'm not divulging who I work for).
*heh*

Re:...and more

[weston]

I don't see anyone bemoaning Byan vines' loss of marketshare when Microsoft started shipping WFW/NT4. No one seems to miss Trumpet Winsock (or any of the other TCP/IP stacks you had to pay for) when Microsoft shipped TCP/IP standard on NT4/Win9x.
Yet when Microsoft beats Netscape into the ground by putting their browser to shame and making IE one of the best browsers in the world, everyone is up in arms.

Key difference: It wasn't just the bundling that defeated Netscape. It wasn't just the quality of IE -- Netscape was very feature/quality competetive with IE through the 4.x times. The problem was Microsoft cutting off Netscapes "air supply" at the OEMs and ISPs. They robbed them of revenue and key screen real esatate. Netscape had the popularity and mindshare and good-enough product to keep these things -- if Microsoft hadn't put pressure on those organizations to ditch them. Microsoft knows that location, location, location (visibility and accesibility on the desktop) is key, and they've got zoning for downtown all locked up. Cross them and you don't get in.

It's possible Netscape would have slipped up and lost to IE eventually anyway, and we'd be in much the same state we are today. But they might have had the revenue and mindshare to keep going, better, faster, longer, and they may have even been able to more quickly smoothly transition to Mozilla/6.0. We'll never know. But we DO know Microsoft broke the law.

Trumpet Winsock and Banyan Vines are harder cases. Yeah, they got squeezed out by bundling. Was there the same kind of pressure on OEMs? Probably not. I don't recall ever getting a computer with either installed during the Win 3.1 and early Win95 era when they were prevalently used. There wasn't the same kind of political/financial pressure brought to bear, AFAIK.

In short: I don't mind Microsoft "Innovating" and adding features. I do mind their manipulating distribution channels and locking others out.

Re:...and more

[DCMonkey]

Considering how MS likes to reinvent the Windows UI through Office in regards to menus and toolbars, a case could be made that a good chunk of Office code _should_ be part of the OS.

There are some Office UI features I'd like to use without having to resort to hacks and third-party re-creations.

Re:...and more

[blowdart]

Who started the non-standard based HTML extensions?

Oh that's right. Netscape.

Re:...and more

[popular]

The HTML component exposes some navigation methods/properties/events, but that's about it. Using IE's browser control and Visual Basic, it would take approximately five minutes to build a GUI, upon which a fully functional web browser could be made. Think of the NeoPlanet browser, that now seems to be gone.

Re:...and more

[Zeinfeld]

Yes, I know netscape retaliated in kind.

Not true. Netscape started shipping non-standard extensions to HTML and HTTP in their very first browser. Netscape did not 'retaliate', it instigated the non-standard extensions fight before Microsoft shipped their first browser.

Netscape set out from the start to become the standards setter for the Web. The current W3C rules about submitting standards were written expressly to curtail Netscape's practice of launching a product and announcing that the new proprietary extensions they included would be proposed to the W3C for 'standardization'.

Microsoft soon realised that they did not need to play the same game. They could get what they wanted by simply bothering to show up at W3C meetings (which Netscape often failed to do).

Re:...and more

[blowdart]

Fucking slashcode stripped the tags, even though it was marked as text. Anyway, the examples of the first non-standard HTML? closely followed by

Re:...and more

[Anonymous Coward]

No one seems to miss Trumpet Winsock (or any of the other TCP/IP stacks you had to pay for) when Microsoft shipped TCP/IP standard on NT4/Win9x.

You don't think you're paying for their TCP/IP standard. You're paying for IE as well as Media Player. Just because they are included with the OS does not mean you haven't paid for it. Thats what these cases are all about. HELLO!!!!

Re:...and more

[GSloop]

If I make all the roads that the world drives on, should i also be able to control the traffic - ie the cars. If you drive on MY roads, you MUST only drive one of my cars.

See, you buy a license for GSloop roads, it's only $150/day, and the cars, gas, tires and everything else come for free.

Not only that, I can use my monopoly power to sell Cars/Tires/Gas/Oil cheaper than you - well, actually they're free - so you'll never be able to compete, and thus, either you won't try, or you'll go out of business.

The only way to break my monopoly is to go into Road manufacturing yourself. Except that building your own roads will require massive funds. If you complete a few roads, I'll just sell my road license cheaper where your roads are. All the people will choose to use my roads, and incidentally free cars/gas/tires etc. Since you can't make it, you go bankrupt. Future investors see this failure, and learn quickly - don't invest in the whole roads/cars/gas thing. GSloop Inc. will really screw your investment.

That's not a fair market. Never was, never is.

The OS is a commons. It's like telephone lines, electric lines etc. It makes the most sense to only have a few sets, rather than make everyone build theirs too. Plus the uniformity is good. That's all well and good, as long as the owner of the "Commons" manages the commons for the general good.

As soon as GTE/US West (commons owners) start competing for outside services, they start to manage the commons for their own good, not the good of the customer. Soon the customer has no choice, and then bad things start to happen.

The choice is clear. If you own a commons, you have an obligation to manage it for the good of all. If you want to give up your commons, you can then start to compete with others, and not be worried about the common good. BUT YOU CAN'T DO BOTH. That's just the law.

What disgusts me, is that MS wants protections afforded by your said "capitalist society" - namely copyright protection. But they only want part of the deal, and not all. When it comes to the rules for monopoly governace, well - Screw that...that's life in a capitalist society, take it or leave it.

MS can't choose one, but not the other. Get used to it. If you want the freedoms afforded here in our capitalist society, you also have to suffer some of the regulations that keep the system fair. Copyright/Private Ownership of Capital/Monopoly governance - They're all a package. Take one, I don't want to hear whining about the others.

Cheers!

Re:...and more

[rabidcow]

As soon as Internet Explorer expanded to become a superior product to Netscape, I used it. I could have just as easily downloaded and setup Netscape in ~1-3 minutes, but I preferred using Internet Explorer.

I think more accurately, people switched when IE became *comparable* to Netscape. It's easier to use what's already installed if it's just as good. (otherwise why waste those 1-3 minutes?)

Personally, I was too lazy to give IE a chance after its early sucky years. It was just easier to go and get Netscape than bother with trying IE. For new users, they'd have to go and download Netscape and *then* compare. I don't think so.

Re:...and more

[Anonymous Coward]

It wasn't just the quality of IE -- Netscape was very feature/quality competetive with IE through the 4.x times. The problem was Microsoft cutting off Netscapes "air supply" at the OEMs and ISPs.

Right on -- Furthermore, Microsoft started the "cut off the air supply" strategy with IE 3.0, which was not generally considered a superior product to Netscape's.

Re:...and more

[Jondor]

>PS: let's just consider the fact that everyone is
>already familiar with the 'mozilla bloat'
>jokes/comments and we don't need to rehash
>them :)

Mozilla bloaded? With IE i ask for a browser and I get a complete OS to go with it.. How's that for bloated..

Re:...and more

[bentini]

Interesting idea, but it's probably not worth it. Microsoft probably (hopefully) optimizes the source code so you couldn't compile it the same way.
As a more major issue, that wouldn't even make you safe. If you care to learn a LOT quickly, read the speech "Reflections on Trusting Trust" by Ken Thompson delivered as his Turing Award lecture. It shows why access to the source code isn't even enough to know what it is that you're dealing with.

Re:...and more

[Anonymous Coward]

here's the problem I have with one vendor (in this case MS) shutting out another vendor (in this case Sun/netscape/you choose). IT HAPPENS ALL THE FUCKING TIME AND NOBODY SAYS A DAMN THING ABOUT IT!

PIF - I worked for a store, a vendor would come in and find that we had placed their product higher/lower/beside a major competing product on the shelf. They would demand that we move the product. If we said we would not move the product they would threaten to withdraw that product and multiple other products of theirs from our shelves. In the end we almost always caved to the vendor for fear of losing a product that made significant revenue. This sounds almost identical to what MS did and yet I never remember the store I was working for suing a vendor or vendors suing each other for "anticompetative acts". Is it just the scale of the companies that makes it wrong, that would seem awful hypocritical - "It's okay if you kill someone if your short, but if you are tall we're throwing the book at you."

Re:...and more

[linzeal]

Interesting stuff

Re:...and more

[darkonc]

Hmmm...the IE source code. Isn't that just a wrapper around the HTML control? Gonna be pretty short source.

Not if it includes the source code for the Mac version... (I doubt that apple was willing to embed all that nasty code into their OS...).

Re:...and more

[gorilla]

Might be easier to look at the code for Galeon, as Galeon uses the Mozilla renderer, but with a different user interface. This makes it easy to see what is required for the UI portion.

Re:...and more

[RoyBoy]

Ok, well I know this is just trollbait, but I guess I'm a little bored today.

First of all, your PIF is completely off base. Even *you* clearly recignize that this practice of in-store favoritism is wrong: "In the end we almost always caved to the vendor for fear of losing a product that made significant revenue." So, just because you caved, doesn't make this practice *legal*.

As to the issue of scale, I think the truth is that your store never sued the vendors out of fear of losing potential revenue, and not because they didn't know this practice was wrong. Also, the store probably couln't have afforded a long, drawn out legal udnertaking against a (likely) much larger and better funded software vendor.

Finally, as far as the issue of vendors suing other vendors, in fact I'm almost positive that this kind of suit would have occured if you had advised the displaced vendors, and were willing to testify to that fact in court. But, once again, usually it's the smaller guy that get's bumped, and they can rarely afford the costs of litigation even when they're in the right.

'Nuff said.

Re:...and more

[darkonc]

Part of the reason why Netscape couldn't keep up to IE could be attributed to the fact the MS 'cut off their air supply'. Lack of income from their secondary income sources would have made it difficult to fund the level of development that MS was able to fund (on top of their ability to simply force Netscape out of the market via back-room politics and even threats).

If Microsoft had fought fairly we would have (at the very least) seen a LOT more development going into the browser space before it was sewn up. At the very least, this would have meant a better {,quality} product.

On the other hand, it's quite possible that Microsoft would NOT have been able to work their way, legally, past Netscape. In that case, we would have probably ended up with a better quality browser and some real choice in the market place.

Re:...and more

[Reid]

Microsoft should be free to bundle whatever they want with their OS, if they believe it adds value for the customer (and a browser certainly does).

Taking that logic to a bit of an extreme, bundling MS Money with Windows would add value, also. Do you see any problem with that? Releasing a Windows XP+ with that and bug fixes for an upgrade cost of $79 would probably reap more in profits than selling Money alone, plus it'd enhance their control of another important application area (deals with online banks, etc.). Bye-bye Quicken!

Re:...and more

[kaphka]

Just because code is buried in the OS instead of the application (like it should be) doesn't mean that it isn't part of the application. I beleive that you will also find Office code buried in the OS. Does that mean that Word is part of Windows? I believe that (currently) M$ still says it isn't.

The "real" IE is neither buried in the OS, nor part of the browser app. It's implemented as an object in the shdocvw.dll library. That is where it belongs, since many real applications besides IE use it extensively. Modularity and reusability is a CS 101 concept; if you know a reason why Microsoft "should be" doing it any differently, please let us know.

Re:...and more

[darkonc]

One thing to consider is that some of the stuff that they did would not have been feasable if they didn't have a monopoly already. Even the money that they put into developing IE came from the massive profits that they got from their windows/office monopoly.

It's kinda like the King of England in the 1760's saying

"If you don't like my rules, you can start your own country. --
Of course if you try to do that, I'll jail you for treason"

I think that one thing that somebody should ask for is that Microsoft release and freely license the formats and protocols for anything that they bundle with Windows/Office. That way people really could have an opportunity to compete with them on a fair basis...

If they want to produce something with secret formats, they'd have to develop and market it separately from their Windows/Office monopoly.

My intent is that whatever MS sells as a part of their monopoly, people would have the ability to develop an alternative -- at the same time, it wouldn't restrict them from competing fairly in a new market.

Re:...and more

[Dstrct0]

But there's a difference between bundling Apache (and giving the user the choice of installing it or not), and integrating your web-browser as a part of the OS.

IANAWU (I Am Not A Windows User), so I may be wrong, but last I remember you couldn't choose NOT to install Internet Explorer.

KDE comes bundled with RedHat, but it doesn't jump onto my HD and make itself the default GUI when I install (which is nice 'cause I like Gnome better anyway :). That's because it's BUNDLED, not INTEGRATED. IE is integrated into the OS, and that is the problem.

Re:...and more

[tps12]

It's kinda like the King of England in the 1760's saying "If you don't like my rules, you can start your own country. -- Of course if you try to do that, I'll jail you for treason"

It's exactly not like that. While it might seem to you a small difference, it's the same difference between me offering you a shirt for $5 and me pulling out a gun and taking $5 from your wallet. However many Windows-based computers there are in the world, you can never be forced to buy one. If there are no other operating systems in existence (and there are), it's not Microsoft's fault: it's the fault of everybody else, who's not making operating systems!

I think that one thing that somebody should ask for is that Microsoft release and freely license the formats and protocols for anything that they bundle with Windows/Office. That way people really could have an opportunity to compete with them on a fair basis...

"Ask for" meaning "sieze by force"? What you're talking about would level the playing field, but that doesn't make it fair. After all, if I play basketball against Michael Jordan, only I'm equipped with rocket shoes, it might level things out. But by no stretch of the imagination is it fair. Remember, what we supposedly believe in in this country is equal opportunity, not equal results. Start levelling things, and the whole modern economy disappears.

Re:...and more

[Anonymous Coward]

If RedHat wanted to make a version of Linux that integrated Netscape 6 (as in, wouldn't run without it or without most of it), it would be perfectly legal.

Now if RedHat went to their OEMs and made them sign off that they couldn't add Opera or whatever, then you'd have an exclusionary contract. Which would be a problem if RedHat had 90% marketshare. Get it?

Re:...and more

[mikolas]

Just because code is buried in the OS instead of the application (like it should be) doesn't mean that it isn't part of the application.

This is just a bunch of crap. The rendering capability is used all over the OS as well as the networking components and so on. You simply cannot remove the rendering controls without crippling the OS (well, you might be able to boot into console on W2K or XP).

You just might as well think TCP/IP stack should not be a part of the Unix kernel - instead each application should implement it over and over again. The way Microsoft has done it is actually efficient encapsulation leveraging COM(+) functionality.

Re:...and more

[Eric Damron]

And if the States get to look at Microsofts source code they could determine that.

Althought I doubt that it could be used in court because the reason for looking at the source code is to determine if IE can be removed.

Re:...and more

[mikolas]

Well, Microsoft only had a license for JDK 1.1.4 level stuff and even that license was already expiring. Why should they bundle Java with their OS? I do not see a single valid argument why they should do so as you can always get the Java support by downloading the VM from either Microsoft (1.1.x) or Sun (1.2.x). As technically oriented person, I see removing support for obsolete software better than bundling that stone-age VM (with Java standard in mind) with Windows.

Re:...and more

[Anonymous Coward]

So contracts happen to be illegal now I see. No company is required to bundle Windows on their machine, it's just wise to do so. When you sign a contract, you agree to the terms of that contract.

It's just like saying "Well I signed a dealership contract with Ford, and they say I can't sell Chevys, Ford is doing an illegal practice!"

Sun is being a little bitch, and practically forced MS to make "dirty java". The Java that MS would have to use is extremly archaic (which is why it was dropped from XP), then Sun bitched when MS dropped it.

If Redhat chose to integrate Netscape 6 into their OS, that's their right (although, probably illegal because of the GPL, but that's a different issue entirely), if you don't like it, you really don't have to use Redhat, now do you?

Re:...and more

[Anonymous Coward]

It's more like getting upset that the horse and buggy isn't supported anymore on today's highway LOL

Re:...and more

[jazman_777]

I suppose the question becomes: If a rampaging horde burns villages and kills thousands to get someplace and then sets up something you like, does that make how they got there OK?

The ends don't justify the means. My reading of history shows that people who use corrupt means to get to a noble end never get there. They are corrupted, and the noble end gets lost somewhere and is replaced by some corrupt end.

Re:...and more

[Ooblek]

MS didn't reinvent the UI with menus and toolbars in office. They subclassed the existing UI elements. Dundas actually does a good job of it. You get source with Dundas, as you do for MFC with Visual Studio. The Dundas stuff is pretty high-quality too; no hacks there.

Re:...and more

[Anonymous Coward]

think non-shared libraries. the way windows used to be, a program installed in 1 folder, much like that Office folder that the kid copied onto his iPod (OS X). then programs got bigger, and hard drives were still kinda small, so there was a needed move to shared libs. this is no longer necessary. plenty of space on hard drives now, even with mp3's and pr0n!

Re:...and more

[Anonymous Coward]

Many sorts of contracts are illegal, yes. It's rather pathetic that you didn't know that.

Re:...and more

[Ooblek]

How much more usable does a browser need to be other than to point at port 80 on a remote machine? The rampaging horde analogy is more than a bit of an embellishment. Things were going along fine with Sun and Microsoft until Sun decided they would rather have the monopoly than let Microsoft have it. Guess who won? If you make a product, you have to expect that the people who use it might have some other things they want to do with it other than your grand scheme. Sun decided theirs was best and they didn't want to diverge. So now if you want to use JSP/EJB, you have some choices....I wouldn't call it a buffet exactly since you have to research all the EJB containers and figure out which ones comply to the standard, which ones sort of comply, and which ones suck. At least when you get something from Microsoft, you know what to expect (be it good or bad).

Sun should have also done more to get all virtual machines to comply with each other, as well as to make it easier to get the virtual machine installed. It is kind of a pain at the moment to get the VM installed that works with Java 2 and is cross platform. The VMs also tend to do things differently on each platform, so it makes it hard to write stuff that you can expect to really run anywhere.

Re:...and more

[CharlieMark]

Oh really? Lets review this...

As soon as GTE/US West (commons owners) start competing for outside services, they start to manage the commons for their own good, not the good of the customer. Soon the customer has no choice, and then bad things start to happen

Your right, as soon as bad things happen, the users of the nasty commons owners will go to the other one. Yes, bad things happen to the abuser!
That is what is called compitition.

Re:...and more

[Cuthalion]

I don't know farther back than windows 3.1, but as early as that, a lot of apps shared DLLs. MacOS has always had the "everything for an app in its folder" philosophy, but I don't recall that ever being the case for Windows.

For something like a browser control, the arguments for code sharing are much stronger.

Adding 2 megs to every app that wants to render a web pages is dumb. The biggest problem with that is not total size on disk, but download time.

Upgradability. What happens in the unlikely event that a bug is uncovered in the relevant control? Do I need to download 15 patches from various vendors, all of whom got the patch from Microsoft, or can I just download it once from Microsoft directly? Let's say the bug is a severe security hole.. then which is better?

Consistency of user experience. Forcing vendors to distribute the browser control themselves encourages them to all use different ones - all of which will have slightly different UI semantics. If everything that does the same thing behaves the same, the system is easier to learn and to use.

Re:...and more

[pyite]

Yet, Apache uses that nice little TCP/IP stack that, shock, horror of horrors, is INTEGRATED in the kernel. And yes, KDE also is integrated with Konqueror, which happens to be the file browser as well as the internet browser. Gee, that sounds familiar. Personally I like it, keeps my browsing consistent. Kinda like how it's nice for IE to browse the internet and local directories.

Re:...and more

[zmooc]

Just because code is buried in the OS instead of the application (like it should be) doesn't mean that it isn't part of the application.

So you also think Mozilla should be copied into all browsers that are based on it instead of them just using a library that implements the functionality?

Re:...and more

[ThatComputerGuy]

You mean like secretOpenWindowButDontCrash(...

Re:...and more

[darkonc]

It's exactly not like that. While it might seem to you a small difference, it's the same difference between me offering you a shirt for $5 and me pulling out a gun and taking $5 from your wallet.

Not too far off. According to a friend of mine, it's illegal to sell a computer without an OS license. It's also very difficult to get an OEM deal with Microsoft that doesn't penalize you (either financially or administratively) for selling a box without one of THEIR Operating Systems in it.

The result is that (in the US) it's viciously difficult to get an Intel box from a large-volume seller that doesn't have Windows pre-loaded on it. More importantly, it's even harder to get a discount for doing that.

(It's quite different here in Vancouver, where I routinely see adds for boxes where Windows is an add-on option.).

The end result is that many Linux users are effectively forced to pay Microsoft for an OS that they have no intent of using. In other words, it's far closer to your over-the-top example than most people would think.

I think that one thing that somebody should ask for is that Microsoft release and freely license the formats and protocols for anything that they bundle with Windows/Office. That way people really could have an opportunity to compete with them on a fair basis...

"Ask for" meaning "sieze by force"? What you're talking about would level the playing field, but that doesn't make it fair. After all, if I play basketball against Michael Jordan, only I'm equipped with rocket shoes, it might level things out. But by no stretch of the imagination is it fair.

"Ask for", as in "apply in court as part of a lawsuit (DOJ, Sun, Be, etc.).

The current situation is more like I'm sent in to play aginst Michael Jordan on a minefield -- where he knows where all the mines are, and he has the ability to add more if I manage to find a path through them.
then I get to deal with the fact that I'm playing against Jordan.

Pretty fair hunh?

What I'm asking for is that he has to flag 3/4 of his mines.

Re:...and more

[atripp]

> I believe that (currently)M$ still says it isn't.

On the contrary, thoughout the trial, every MS employee has been careful to NOT exclude ANY software as potentially being part of the OS.
MS is clearly being careful not to hurt their cause if they ever decide they need to tie Office into the OS as they did with IE.

Re:...and more

[Mirus Nex]

That's well and good IF YOU HAVE A CHOICE. Want to see my choices for phone service? Lets see, I have not less than 10 choices, I'll list them here for you:

1) QWest
2) QWest
3) QWest
4) QWest
5) QWest
6) QWest
7) QWest
8) QWest
9) QWest
10) QWest

There's more but I forget their names. So yeah, I guess if choice number 1 doesn't work well for me I can always choose number 2 right?

How about cable? 10 choices there too, I'll only list 3 for brevety's sake:
1) Time/Warner
2) Time/Warner
3) Time/Warner

Yeah, I know what you're all saying, you wish you had as many choices as I do. Well, come live here in Minneapolis and you too can have these choices.

Fortunately, this is changing with other phone carriers coming to more areas but guess what...when you pay your bill choice number 1 gets most of the money cause they own the phone lines. The only way to boycott these companies is to not have a phone, yeah that sounds like an option...

Monopolism in a Capitalist society is just down right bad for the consumer...

Re:...and more

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't understand this point of not being able to buy a box without windows. I see ads in the paper all the time offering Boxes without an OS. And I live in the states.

As a matter of fact Walmart has started offering boxes without an OS.

So either your friend hasn't looked to hard or is only looking at Dell compaq and the like.

Of course I build my Own so that may be why I know about these things??

El

Re:...and more

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF!!!. Illegal to buy an OS without a license, that is pure poppycock.

I guess my employer is breaking the law big time then because we have bought over 5000 computers without an OS license.

I would think that it is not that it is against the law, but that it is against the license agreements that vendors sign with Microsoft. But that is a different story altogether.

Re:...and more

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to agree, I sit in the same situation in Ohio, I can choose to have ameritech or no phone at all. I can choose to have AOLTW(in my opinion far worse a monopoly then MS an ever be) for cable or no cable at all ( no DTV since dishes aren;t allowed in my neighborhood). But at least as a programmer I can make a few bucks off windows programming until MS decides to bundle the sorts of apps I write into the OS.

Re:...and more

[GSloop]

Gosh, you're a dope. You completely take what I said out of context, and ignore the complete argument.

If you manage a commons, you have certain obligations. If you don't want the power of running the commons, you're free to do as you want. If you want to manage the commons (monopoly) you must then manage for the common good.

Dope! By the way, are you related to GWB?

Cheers!

Re:...and more

[ackthpt]

We got new PCs at work about 6 mos. ago, with 512Meg RAM. I thought, wow, I should have a hard time filling that up, forgetting for a moment what OS we use at work. The funny thing is booting up and running the performance monitors and watching Windows fill that RAM up with just about everything, until it's about 50% full. Ok, so your M$ apps come up fast when you launch them, as opposed to how long it takes to load Netscape or any of the Adobe tools I use. You can tell who holds the reins on the OS, eh?

The ugly part is when I start loading in large amounts of data, rather than empty out all that unused code, it starts paging it. Beautiful. Way to manage memory. It's fun to load about 180Meg of data into memory, when you have 512Meg and then get messages that you now have insufficient memory to open new application windows.

Re:...and more

[ackthpt]

I like Microsoft's argument that without Explorer Windows would be unstable or wouldn't work.

...well, a few times at home and a few times at work, twice today actually, Explorer commited some act of sin and was terminated, then the BSoD faerie showed up and whacked everything with her wand. Hard to say which is unstable without what, Explorer or the OS.

Re:...and more

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for your wonderful example.
Most don't realize what is the definition of a monopoly which has broken the law.

Re:...and more

[rhizome]

Well gee, I'm certainly not going to pay $150 per day to drive on YOUR roads which are built upon OUR land. Thanks for the offer, though.

Re:...and more

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, the fun part is that we've seen what the "shared DLLs" philosophy got.

Namely, new DLLs getting overwritten by old DLLs during software installation. Or new DLLs being installed that don't work correctly with old software. Either way, voila, by doing the SIMPLE act of INSTALLING a program you FSCK up your system. THIS makes SENSE from a CS 101 persrpective?!

Starting with Win2K Microsoft makes copies of all the DLLs applications install, and refuses to let them install into the WinNT directory. Except Microsoft titles of course - MS knows what they're doing. (cough) Bullshit (cough)

Gosh, sounds an awful lot like they've realized their heads were up their asses in the first place.

Re:...and more

[Anonymous Coward]

Pfft. Sure those dishes aren't allowed.

Your local group of Hitler enthusiasts (aka homeowners association) cannot override a federal law that lets you have a satellite dish.

If you wish to push the issue, you will win. Close friends have done it, old coworkers now in other parts of the country have done it.

Tell them to piss off, remove a kickback (association gets/got $$$ from the cable company for their "choice"), and keep your right to choose.

Re:...and more

[Anonymous Coward]

Cool. Hope you don't intend to ride your little bicycle on the roads, that's $75/day.

Think you're going to go offroad? Oooh, look out for bears and tigers, they're everywhere. They find cyclists to be tasty treats.

And those incredible forests that surround our roads for hundreds of miles in every direction make trying to drive any vehicle offroad an exercise in futility.

Re:...and more

[Anonymous Coward]

Their secondary sources were many, including OEMs. I read somewhere that Compaq was about to install Navigator on their PCs before MS forced them not to.

Re:...and more

[Anonymous Coward]

Your right! Win98 = Win95 + IE + bug fixes.
So, if you bought Win98 you paid for IE (you just won't see it in your Windows Bill).

Re:...and more

[geoswan]

The parent post got moderated down, as off-topic, probably because linzeal has a signature about the troubles in the mid-east. But his or her main point, was a link to Ken Thompson's 1995 ACM lecture...

Perhaps someday...

[joshjs]

...the combined political payoffs of Microsoft's enemies will become greater than that of MS itself.

What a nice little thought.

Re:Perhaps someday...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's is 100% correct. That is where they dropped the ball. MS basically got sued in the first place because they did not give as much money to the politicians as Netscape, Sun, etc.

Now that MS is now in the game, MS will now sic the government on its competitors 10 times over.

MS is on top for one reason and one reason only. It is not because of "unfair business practices." It is because their competition is run by morons.

Re:Perhaps someday...

[WinPimp2K]

Nope, just not gonna happen.
The combined cashpiles of Microsoft's enemies do not come close to the size of Microsoft's cash pile. Although I do think MSFT needs a trip out behind the woodshed, it looks like the people who brought the gubmint into this fight as hired goons failed to consider what would happen when MSFT started hiring the same kind of goons.

Re:Perhaps someday...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't call Scot McNeely a moron.

Sure, he's a stupid hockey player, and his idea of a good management retreat is to slap around the puck on some ice. But I wouldn't call that moronic.

Remember, though, before you get to liking Scot and Sun, that he's one of those bullies, you remember the guy who slammed you and the other geeks up against the locker because you asked too many confusing questions in math class. In other words, he's the nerd's worst enemy.

Re:Perhaps someday...

[Anonymous Coward]

I can just imagine McNeely bodychecking Bill Joy and then dragging him into the Men's Room for a "swirily". It's competely believable that he wants to pound Bill Gates' nerdy little face.

Re:Perhaps someday...

[jedidiah]

Yeah, their competition was too "stupid" to lie, cheat, steal and blackmail their way to the top. Billy's secret of success was basically a willingness to do anything and say anything to get into bed with the current reigning Robber Baron.

The rest of Microsoft's so-called success is merely a side effect of that alliance.

The fact that the competition can remain alive despite the network effects in computing actually points to their competitors being SMARTER rather than dumber.

If dragging your feet for 11 YEARS and not developing a proper GUI is "smart" then I would rather buy from "morons".

why we're seeing these lawsuits....

[jeffy124]

Companies like Netscape and AOL and now Sun are just now all sueing MS simply because they have lost faith in the Justice Dept to hand down stiff penalties on Microsoft, so companies harmed by Microsoft are now seeking to send down their own penalties (as in most of these lawsuits will end in MS paying off the plaintiff).

Re:why we're seeing these lawsuits....

[dj28]

They're not doing it to hurt Microsoft, they are doing it to line their own pockets because Microsoft's monopoly status has been proven in court. It will be much easier for them to collect damages in this case.

Re:why we're seeing these lawsuits....

[dup_account]

Not only has the M$ monopoly been established, but also that the monopoly was used to hurt their competitors. The ecompetitors are now looking to receive back some of the money that they lost because of M$.

Re:why we're seeing these lawsuits....

[Sloppy]

Ray Noorda must be kicking himself for letting Caldera settle so soon, and at mere pennies on the dollar for just a couple hundred million. The DRDOS case was the most solid of all the anti-MS efforts; they could have really cleaned up.

Maybe Caldera stockholders can sue Caldera management. ;-)

Re:why we're seeing these lawsuits....

[styopa]

Actually, I think they are, or at least SUN is, doing this to hurt Microsoft. There is a very distinct hatred between the two companies and I think that SUN saw the ruling that Microsoft is a monopoly as a weakness to attack. SUN is going to very much enjoy poking MS in the eye. Anyway, their main goal is the opening of API's, proprietary formats, and forcing MS to include a Java plugin into IE, and force them to use a VM that is Java certified, they aren't going for money in the suit directly.

In the end they are trying to make money, of course. I think that this is more of a, if we weaken them they can encroach on MS's desktop monopoly, either with their own products or through the use of Linux. If they can get the API's and proprietary formats released to the public that allows for two things. First, other office productivity suites can open Microsoft formats with 100% effeciency. Second, it will help out groups like Wine, which would allow programs that only run on MS Windows to be transported to non-MS platforms. Either case, MS loses and weakens it stranglehold, and SUN can use this to leverage the sale of their servers.

Re:why we're seeing these lawsuits....

[Anonymous Coward]

The DR-DOS case also revolved around lots of ancient history (at least in Internet time). After 10 years or so, it's going to be very hard to dig up documents and find people that remember the details enough to testify.

You see this here all the time -- the anti-trust case was about events in 1996-7 (version 3 browsers), but people can't get over talking about the version 6 stuff because they have little capacity for historical thought.

Re:why we're seeing these lawsuits....

[Anonymous Coward]

We are seeing these lawsuits, because IBM and Linux are eating their lunch. They've gotta find a new revenue stream soon, or it's chapter 11 time.

Re:why we're seeing these lawsuits....

[Eric Damron]

But paying off the plaintiff isn't good enough if Microsoft doesn't stop doing the very things that allowed the plaintiff to win an award.

At least it won't be good enough unless the payoff is large enough to force Microsoft alter its behavior. As long as Microsoft benefits from its illegal behavior there is little incentive for them to stop.

Re:why we're seeing these lawsuits....

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you miss understand what the DoJ is supposed to do with it's vs it's competitors.

The DoJ is supposed to prove their an abusive monopoly and then provide a remedy for their bad behavior. "THEY REPRESENT PUBLIC INTEREST NOT COMPANIES!" The companies may have been hurt but the government is not a front for them to get damages.

Companies which are suing MS are not doing it to punish them. They need to prove that they were damaged by MS's behavior to get anything. The still have to prove that they were damaged by MS uncompetitive behavior.

Re:why we're seeing these lawsuits....

[Anonymous Coward]

My theory is that Sun is neither doing this to punish Microsoft, nor for the monetary award. I believe they will try to settle for non-monetary compensation, in the form of "MS will now ship a standard JVM with IE."

They could not force MS to do this before, in a lawsuit based on license violations -- they could only force MS to stop violating the license. Now, with the antitrust verdict against MS, they can use that finding to force MS to either pay damages or level the playing field by including a standard JVM.

Of course, if MS still refuses to settle by including the standard JVM, Sun will probably be happy to take the $$$ as a consolation prize -- thought that will likely mean going through with the trial.

Re:why we're seeing these lawsuits....

[geoswan]

Ray Noorda must be kicking himself for letting Caldera settle so soon, and at mere pennies on the dollar for just a couple hundred million. The DRDOS case was the most solid of all the anti-MS efforts; they could have really cleaned up.

Here is Andrew Shulman's summary of the Caldera versus Microsoft suit.

I too have speculated on why Noorda stopped short of delivering a more crushing blow, when he had the chance. It was a solid case.

You've suggested it was a mistake, or a failure of nerve. Let me suggest another possibility. Noorda too is a member of the billionaires club. Is it possible that Noorda's goal was to teach a younger, more aggressive, billionaire a lesson? Microsoft not only handed over hundreds of millions (the amount was not made public) of dollars, but Gates resigned the Presidency of Microsoft within days of the settlement. I've read speculation that Gates resignation was one of the conditions Noorda insisted on. I'd like to believe that it was.

Well, it's obvious

[ch-chuck]

that the DOJ has gotten 'orders' from higher-ups in the executive branch to "Let Msft Be free to Innovate" and get govt off the backs of big business.

Redundantly redundant

[Grumpman]

Not to be too picky (yes I know, too late) but linking to a page when the entire contents are in the article seems a little goofy.

Re:Redundantly redundant

[cybermage]

Atleast you know that they didn't make the story up. Noting the source is always a Good Thing (tm).

Microsoft's Open Letter to Sun

[telstar]

Here is the text of Microsoft's stance on the issue found here.

An Open Letter Regarding Windows XP and Java Support
Sun Microsystems has invested a great deal of their marketing dollars and lobbying efforts in attacking our yet-to-be released Windows XP operating system, claiming that Microsoft has hurt Sun, the Java language and PC industry customers at large by not including the Microsoft virtual machine in Windows XP.

We feel it is important to outline for our customers the facts on this matter.

Sun Microsystems has taken every step possible to prevent Microsoft from shipping our award winning Java virtual machine. In fact, Sun resorted to litigation to stop Microsoft from shipping a high performance Java virtual machine that took optimal advantage of Windows. The settlement agreement provides for a termination of Microsoft's existing license with Sun and phase-out of the Microsoft VM, so Sun's professed surprise is mere spin. It should be noted that, since the settlement, a Federal Appeals Court has upheld Microsoft's development of a high-performance, well-integrated virtual machine for Windows as pro-competitive.

When Microsoft and Sun settled their litigation earlier this year, Sun was quick to pronounce the settlement a great victory. Sun's CEO said, "It's pretty simple: This is a victory for our licensees and consumers. The community wants one Java technology: one brand, one process and one great platform. We've accomplished that, and this agreement further protects the authenticity and value of Sun's Java technology."1 Sun got what they said they wanted: the termination of the existing Java license with Microsoft, and an agreement that Microsoft would phase out its Java virtual machine.

Sun now professes surprise and unhappiness, and is complaining publicly. But as industry analysts such as Bob Sutherland of Technology Business Research point out: "Sun can't have it both ways. They don't want Microsoft to have monopolistic control, but at the same time they want them to control their Java. No matter what Microsoft does, Sun is going to try to demonize them."2

Perhaps most disturbing, Sun is being disingenuous about the impact on customers. Microsoft has taken several steps to make its Java implementation available to Windows XP customers while adhering to the settlement agreement and protecting Windows customers from any future litigation by Sun. While the Microsoft virtual machine is not on the Windows XP CD, it is still an integrated part of the product. Customers who upgrade to Windows XP from recent prior versions of Windows can easily and automatically take advantage of their existing Java virtual machine. Customers with new machines or who perform a clean installation of Windows XP will automatically be offered the choice to perform a one-time download of the virtual machine the first time they browse a Web page containing a Java applet. This download is then available for any subsequent applet a customer may encounter. Finally, Microsoft has made its virtual machine available to any PC manufacturer to ship with new Windows XP systems, to save customers even this one-time download.

At Microsoft we are proud of the Java virtual machine we created, and the value our customers see in it. It has a long history of high quality and superior performance. It is also the only Java virtual machine that offers an integrated applet browsing experience with Internet Explorer. And it offered customers a choice - just as Windows XP will enable customers to choose and run other third-party virtual machines.

Sun works hard to create an image of itself as a leader in openness and choice with Java. The notion that Java is "open" is simply incorrect - Sun's actions ensure this, as again clearly demonstrated when it submitted Java to an industry standards body and then reneged on the submission, not just once but twice. Contrast these actions with Microsoft, where we have submitted the underlying specifications for Microsoft .NET to ECMA and are following through on our commitment.

Sun's idea of choice is that you can have any language you want, as long as it is Sun's version of Java under Sun's control. By contrast, Microsoft .NET supports over 20 languages from Microsoft and third parties, and Java will also be supported as a full-fledged language for the .NET platform. We believe that is a better definition of choice.

Re:Microsoft's Open Letter to Sun

[dup_account]

M$ has actually done a pretty good job of manipulating the whole Java thing. They new initially that IE would ide unless they included Java. But, the couldn't help themslves, and had to add proprietary M$ extensions.

Then they jumped on the bandwagon of people trying to get Sun to release a standard for Java (and release control if it). But they weren't doing this because they felt that it would be good for consumers/customers. They wanted it standardized so that they could manipulate the statndard. Since Sun knew this, (and they don't have a monopoly) Sun had to do something to keep some control over Java so that M$ couldn't destroy it thru manipulation of the standard.

(M$ C# doesn't have they problem, so M$ "standardized it". When will the first M$ only exstension appear? Since M$ holds a monopoly and can create a new defacto standard if anyone else comes close to competing they aren't worried. I'd love to see someone like Sun propose a change to the "standard" just to see M$ either use it's weight to block it, ignore the new standard, or what ever.

Anyway, now M$ is trying to play all innocent and portray Sun as evil. But, in reality, M$ was successful in killing Java in the browser and are now trying to replace it with C#. Just trying to copy^h^h^h^hinnovate great technology.

Re:Microsoft's Open Letter to Sun

[essdodson]

Great informative post. I don't see why Microsoft is expected to ship with a java implementation. Why should they be required to do so?

Re:Microsoft's Open Letter to Sun

[2square]

Garbage from miscrosoft should be posted on the microsoft web site. Not here. The only solution that will work for users and the industry in the long run is to break up microsoft into 3 parts (OS, PC apps, consumer elctronics crap). How many more companies does microsoft need to trample by illegal means before the JD wakes up? It makes me ashsmed to be a registered republican.

Re:Microsoft's Open Letter to Sun

[Kamel Jockey]

I'm still convinced that Sun's whining is not necessarily the real reason XP doesn't ship with the the JVM. The way I see it, by not including the JVM, but including support for MS-only scripting technologies, they passively discourage third parties from implementing with Java. The reason is fairly straightforward, if you are John Q. User who just bought a computer with XP Home, and you go to a site which requires Java, are you going to wait 20 minutes for the JVM to download and install? Probably not, however, if you go to an alternative site which makes heavy use of MS technologies, you can just surf right on, and will likely bypass all Java-enabled sites entirely. If your website is e-commerce in any way, would you want to use a technology which puts obstacles between you and your customers' money.

Microsoft's warning that the page won't display correctly if the JVM is not downloaded is similar to the error messages people got when they ran Windows 3.x on top of DR-DOS. It puts FUD into the users and steers them away from non-MS technologies.

Re:Microsoft's Open Letter to Sun

[Anonymous Coward]

M$ C# doesn't have they problem, so M$ "standardized it". When will the first M$ only exstension appear?

Um, M$ already has M$-only extensions to C#. Namely the entire library. APIs, everything, copyrighted as proprietary by M$. The whole shebang.

Re:Microsoft's Open Letter to Sun

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha, holy SHIT! Are you embarrassed to be so off-topic, rambling, obsessive and just plain stupid?

Here's a little tip for you: go back and talk to your 4th grade teacher. She can help fill in those missing concepts like subject cohesion, supporting details, and a topic sentence. Oh yeah, and don't forget the correct use of acronyms. It's DoJ.

Re:Microsoft's Open Letter to Sun

[rsclient]

"...Sun Microsystems has taken every step possible to prevent Microsoft from shipping our award winning Java virtual machine."

Too bad the courts agreed with Sun: it wasn't a Java Virtual Machine, and they had no right to use the name. The whole of "Visual J++" is a creepy "not java at all" tool -- want to design a dialog box? Certainly -- using Microsoft components, not Java components. Want to make 100% pure Java? You can, but it's hard, and Microsoft doesn't make it easy at all.

Microsoft professes great disdain for anyone who ever uses the courts. Would they rather we keyed their cars?

Peter

Re:Microsoft's Open Letter to Sun

[electroniceric]

While I'm in grave risk of being modded as a troll, I have to agree with Microsoft here.

Their JVM is better than the other ones I've used, which are Kaffe and Sun's Java for Linux. I run Matlab 6, which compiled pure java. In spite of the better process protection protection et all on Linux, the Linux version spits out all kinds of java class errors, and is slow as the dickens, while on Windows 98 it runs much better (until Windows OS-rot sets in, of course). And I also have to agree that Sun is no paragon of openness, but the part about submitting .NET to ECMA is pure FUD.

Re:Microsoft's Open Letter to Sun

[Anonymous Coward]

Peter,

Was it not Sun responsiblity to release a updated JVM after winning the battle in the courts to prevent MS.

It was kind of interesting to see Sun complain after the fact. They got what they wanted, to prevent extentions (oh yeah they allow that in the j2ee realm, but MS can't do it) to the Java platform. Then don't back it up by supporting a new OS release.

Who is more at fault Sun or MS in that fact. MS is limited to a 1.1 version of the Platform while the platform itself has moved on to 1.3 by the time of the release of XP.

It is a shame that even by the time of that release that MS JVM is still faster than even the 1.4 Sun release. Unfortantly I don't like Java apps primarily because they have a look and feel that isn't consistant with the OS.

El.

Re:Microsoft's Open Letter to Sun

[rdominelli]

I dont see why sun is whining. They wanted MS to yank the JVM and they did. If they wanted MS to distribute the Sun JVM why didnt they push for that in the settlement?

MS is anticompetitive in many ways and should be punished but this is really ridiculous. They are adhering to the settlement that sun pushed for!

Re:Microsoft's Open Letter to Sun

[notasheep]

That's not a very strong argument. You are assuming that the information, voice and features the person is trying to find on the first site will be duplicated elsewhere with different technology.

Re:Microsoft's Open Letter to Sun

[Ozx]

Yup, Microsoft should steer their customers to use non-MS technologies...

Conform to our Java or else!
Ok, Java can fuck itself.
No! You will ship Java!
No, you will fuck yourself.
We'll make the Government make you!

Welcome to the People's State of Sun Microsystems, all your copper are belong to us.

Re:Microsoft's Open Letter to Sun

[Kamel Jockey]

You are assuming that the information, voice and features the person is trying to find on the first site will be duplicated elsewhere with different technology.

It does not have to be. Let's say the JVM had every single bell and whistle you could ever want and that the Microsoft "equivalent" had none of this. I am asserting that even in this extreme John Q. User, would still opt not to download the JVM simply because of the inconvenience involved, even if they would gain functionality.

Re:Microsoft's Open Letter to Sun

[Anonymous Coward]

They didn't want MS to yank the JVM, just to stop leaving out essential standard features (RMI) and adding proprietary features to standard packages and classes.

The previous suit was over their contract, which probably didn't oblige MS to ship anything. They're resorting to antitrust law now because the squatter in the President's office has decided to let them get away with anything.

Re:Microsoft's Open Letter to Sun

[Anonymous Coward]

When did Sun say Microsoft can't extend Java? They just can't omit standard features or disguise their extensions as belonging to the standard packages. Naturally under those conditions they didn't want to extend Java, because their entire goal was to make it as difficult as they possibly could for developers to create and users to run pure Java apps.

Re:Microsoft's Open Letter to Sun

[Anonymous Coward]

"User who just bought a computer with XP Home, and you go to a site which requires Java, are you going to wait 20 minutes for the JVM to download and install? Probably not, however, if you go to an alternative site which makes heavy use of MS technologies, you can just surf right on, and will likely bypass all Java-enabled sites entirely."

You've got the first part right, but the 2nd part doesn't follow. That is, what is the advantage to using Java Applets? Very few as far as I can tell. In fact, I suggest the Applet was doomed from the start, since there isn't anything compelling about Java applets.

Now servlets are a different matter, and to me, that is the proper way to build server side presentation and business logic.

To address your 2nd point, just be an Applet may suck, doesn't mean users will pick a MS alternative. Let me suggest people will go to web pages that load quickly, and don't require anything special.

Sun is like Hamlet...suing MS if they include Java and suing them if they don't include Java. I find their methods mostly annoying.

Haven't made it a secret..

[DCram]

"In June 2001, the Federal Court of Appeals found Microsoft guilty of illegally abusing its monopoly power with respect to Sun and the Java platform."

Since Java first came out and started being a contender MS has spit at, called names, developed nasty bugs in software, and thumbed it's node at Sun. I hope that Sun gets a large settlement from MS even though I realize this will never happen.

Break up the MS pig I say. OS, Software, Gaming systems, PDA.. How many cookie jars does the fat kid need on his counter-top.

I think I need a va-k from all of the MS lawsuits and such.

Re:Haven't made it a secret..

[Anonymous Coward]

That isn't quite accurate...

First of all, remember that Microsoft started life as a languages company... they KNOW languages.

When Java came on the scene, Microsoft produced the first JITC for Java, making it the fastest JVM on the planet. (The current Microsoft JVM, dated though it may be, is still tied for first place speed-wise with the IBM JVM, which is also dated). Microsoft's innovation in this area led to JITCs becoming standard... and yes, they WERE the first to do it and SUN was one of the LAST to do it. Considering one of the early complaints about Java was it's speed (or lack, thereof) I'd say that Microsoft, singlehandedly, did more FOR Java than against it.

Now, I'm EXTREMELY pro-Microsoft. I make my living coding in C/C++/Java using Microsoft technologies (MFC, COM, and probably in the future .NET) and SUN technologies (Java). However, I was glad when Microsoft lost the ability to modify the core libraries in Java because I believe that what they were doing was wrong and because I also believe that they could have accomplished the same ability to more easily interface Windows and Java using extension libraries rather than modifying the core libraries.

However... SUN sued microsoft to explicitly PREVENT them from shipping modified versions of Java. Microsoft complied with that.

Next, SUN sued because they claimed Microsoft was trying to kill Java by deliberately shipping a dated (1.0.4) version of the JVM. What else COULD they do? Their prior legal agreement prevented them from shipping a newer version.

Now SUN are suing because Microsoft has stopped shipping their older JVM entirely (it IS still available as a free download... as is SUN's JDK/JRE).

This is clearly a case of SUN not knowing what it wants. Microsoft has complied with each and every request SUN has made relating to Java. NOW they've decided that they want to force Microsoft to ship a SUN JVM in Microsoft's product.

What do you think would happen if Ford said that GM was selling too many trucks and tried to force them to sell each and every GM truck with a Ford engine? It wouldn't happen. Why should this be any different?

The other thing to consider is this... Java *IS* a failed technology. It's failed in it's chosen market not once but TWICE:

• Oak was designed for set-top boxes that never saw the light of day.
• The JDK was designed for client-side applications where it has failed miserably in the face of DHTML.

The one area in which Java has succeeded is the one area SUN didn't originally push it... server-side. Further, SUN's continued efforts to bring Java back to the client-side demonstrate a lack of insight and understanding of their market. Microsoft has always succeeded by letting a product find it's market, dominate that market and then leveraging that position to expand into other markets... that is what is called GOOD BUSINESS (and before any nimrod with a stiffy for open-source slags it off, domination and leveraging one's position in a market to expand into others has been a cornerstone of business for hundreds of years - Microsoft didn't invent it, but they sure as hell mastered it). In fact, this is precisely what SUN is trying to do by forcing Microsoft to ship one of their JVMs!

Server-side Java isn't going away any time soon. The problem for SUN, though, is that the average consumer has no interest in server-side technologies because by their very nature, they are client-side users! The average consumer is apathetic about Java being on their systems because by and large it makes absolutely no difference to them! Applets are simply not as widely used as SUN would like you to believe.

Now don't get me wrong; I absolutely LOVE Java. I use it every day for work and pleasure, I go to JavaONE, I've invested a great deal of time and money in becoming proficient in the language. but I also spend a great deal of time staying current with languages such as C, C++ and technologies such as MFC, COM, and .NET because they all have their place and *I* don't want to be a niche player.

Any technology will naturally find it's proper place. Java HAS found it's proper place and it's not sitting on PCs - it's sitting on the back-end. Microsoft has no need of Java on the server-side because they have their own technologies for that.

Actually, with emerging 'standards' such as UDDI, SOAP and WSDL, no one needs any particular language... or platform... or hardware. Now those three technologies have problems of their own but they are the first step in complete software/hardware agnosticism.

I work in very large-scale Enterprise applications, developing software for companies in the Fortune 500. 3 years ago, everything was C++/MFC/COM using technologies such as DCOM and CORBA on both the client and server side. Applets were used for thin-client solutions in a browser. Today, it's still C++/MFC/COM on the SERVER-SIDE but it's been joined by Java on the SERVER-SIDE and DHTML is the standard for CLIENT-SIDE UIs presented to the user. This is a continuing trend.

The fact is that neither Java nor Microsoft are going to win the client. That belongs to an as-yet non-existent technology probably based largely on DHTML and XML with next-generation versions of JSP/ASP supporting them on the back-end.

So why is SUN so insistent on claiming the client? Are they? Or are they simply trying to:

(a) grab any possible monies they can by continually manipulating Microsoft into a position where compliance with their request can lead to another lawsuit?

(b) trying to tie up Microsoft as long as possible in the courts?

(c) using the court system as an advertisement for Java?

(d) All of the above?

Re:Haven't made it a secret..

[Mark Pitman]

OS, Software, Gaming systems, PDA.. How many cookie jars does the fat kid need on his counter-top.

You're kidding, right? Look at the lines of business Sony Corp. of America is into. They make TVs, stereos, computers, PDAs, game consoles, motion pictures, DVDs, Music CDs, etc. Look at Nestle USA. Dog food, cat food, chocolate bars, coffee, frozen dinners, blah, blah, blah. All under different labels. I'm sure there are many other large companies that are very diversified. I just don't have the time or inclination to look them all up.

Re:Haven't made it a secret..

[Anonymous Coward]

...and MS made a Java VM which was and is better than Sun's own.

Fucking Sun. What have they EVER done for the consumer? Not shit. They need to fuck off.

Mostly a PR move?

[The Fun Guy]

I think this is a pre-emptive move on Sun's part to make sure that, even if the Justice Department drops its case, the word "Microsoft" will continue to be associated with "anti-trust lawsuit" in press coverage.

Busy, Busy Busy

[lowdozage]

Sigh...

Microsoft legal department must be really busy these days! :)

nice url

[panopticon]

how about

http://www.sun.com/sticksittomicrosoft/

Private lawsuits

[grendel's mom]

This is the only way Microsoft's illegal activities will be "reduced." MS *owns* far too many politicials. They have greased the goverment at every level. The DoJ is owned. Lawsuits filed by stong, private industry (Sun, Intel, Sony, etc) are the only effective way to break MS's illegal monopoly.

Re:Private lawsuits

[erasmus_]

Right, because "strong private industries" don't own any politicians. Microsoft is the only one. Man, that part where the MS-owned DOJ almost broke up the company was such a great fake show. And yes, I think Intel especially should sue them, I mean MS is putting Intel out of business with their MS Processor division. Please, next time, back up your facts.

They waited to see what M$FT's hand was.

[jaberwaki]

We all knew they were going to sue. Sun's lawyers just wanted to know what they were up against from a legal standpoint. Sun should be careful. Legal disclosure can harm both parties.

The redress includes

[linzeal]

Disclose and license proprietary interfaces, protocols and formats.
Unbundle tied products like Internet Explorer, IIS and .NET framework.

I think microsoft should be forced to release RFCs for anything proprietary that they use to extend their monopoly.

I for one would be so so so glad to see IIS go away permanently. Has microsoft even begun a next generation "secure" implementation of IIS yet?

Re:The redress includes

[Anonymous Coward]

First you yap about RFCs, then you bring up IIS: What's your problem with IIS? Apart from challenge/response authentication, there is nothing "proprietary" in it, and given that Apache is in the "monopoly" position in web serving your point is ridiculous anyways: I like IIS, and I certainly don't want it to "go away permanently" because a wanker like you doesn't.

Re:The redress includes

[linzeal]

Huh?

If it weren't proprietary, security issues that crop up again and again every six months with it may never have been the disasters they always are. Apache is not a monopoly as it is a volunteer based organization not charging for anything and accepting donations

You can like IIS all you wish but until microsoft commits itself to a more secure and hopefully open product it is not as trustworthy as many many alternatives.

Re:The redress includes

[ergo98]

So are you really advocating that all software should be forced to be open source? The prior post, and most others, seem to be talking about proprietary protocols, not closed-source programs.

If you are really saying that this should carry through to forcing all software to be open source then I think you may find some opposition. I dislike Microsoft's attempt to own protocols and standards (just as much as I hate when Sun does it), but I'd never advocate forced open sourcing.

Re:The redress includes

[linzeal]

No. I support the idea of having an open security policy though, I should have been more specific. In example: If microsoft were to actually respond to new or unique security concerns promptly and with open ears instead of shooting the messengers.

I almost like the idea of XP auto updating itself but for my exp with them breaking features. Something has to be done about the lax security by default on even their server platforms as I'm sure many of us had to pay for the bandwidth caused by the many worms that happen over and over again.

Re:The redress includes

[blowdart]

Disclose and license proprietary interfaces, protocols and formats. Unbundle tied products like Internet Explorer, IIS and .NET framework.

IE, well the HTML standards are open, they use the W3C DOM and do a better job of rendering than Netscape ever did (although Opera is still better)

IIS, follows the W3C HTTP standards, again hardly proprietary, digest challenge response/NT challenge is covered in RFC2617, only the integrated Windows authenication is proprietary.

.Net, follows SOAP and DISCO for object exposure, XML as a transport layer, and the C# and class libaries have been submitted to standarisation bodies. More than Sun ever did with Java.

Finally, when did following the RFCs make anything secure? BIND followed the RFCS for DNS, SendMail for SMTP and so on. Standards do not a secure product make

Re:The redress includes

[Anonymous Coward]

I still don't see you making the connection between Anti-Trust and Security. Is there a point to this other than just waltzing around some standard slashdot anti-MS rhetoric that we've read a million times before?

I would save it for the next "From yet-another-borg-security-home Dept." story -- probably later today or tomorrow.

Re:The redress includes

[Wolfier]

Yeah, that'd be very effective - in fact, if MS chooses to disclose all the security holes of IIS now, the Haxx0rz will be overwhelmed with so many holes they cannot choose which one to exploit.

Since it takes them so much time to even choose a hole to start with, the IIS servers would be very secure.

Disclaimer: the above is only my opinion!

Not all that private..

[atheos]

Stright from MSNBC,
Sun sues for 1 billion!
http://www.msnbc.com/news/721268.asp?0cm=c30

Re:Not all that private..

[eples]

I went to that MSNBC link, and IE crashed - no joke.

Re:Not all that private..

[rbeattie]

$1 billion, that's all? Hell, Microsoft has something like $36 billion cash in the bank right now... they should just write a check and get on with it. Hell, they could "settle" for $500 million and still not have it affect their bottom line.

If anything, this shows how much of a true monopoly Microsoft is...

-Russ

Re:Not all that private..

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoops! Time to make sure your patch levels and browser version are current! But you knew that.

Some more info from java.sun.com

[_PimpDaddy7_]

Some more info...
http://java.sun.com/lawsuit/

Re:Some more info from java.sun.com

[ddstreet]

That info is over a year old, the current lawsuit is brand new and involves M$'s monopolistic pratices, not unauthorized use of Java and the Java mark.

Cringley on Microsoft

[_typo]

For an opinion about this antitrust issue and Microsoft's behaviour check Cringley's column this week.

Re:Cringley on Microsoft

[daytrip00]

This week's column is pretty vacant. He says that Gates should be force out of the company. Of course, I guess he doesn't know anything about how Gates can do whatever he wants unless he is found Criminally liable.

Re:Cringley on Microsoft

[RazzleFrog]

There is a lot more than that wrong with the "article." He also suggests that the Government should buy Gates out - some $50B in stock in his estimate. That would make the government a very large % owner of Microsoft. Do you really think they would want to see Microsoft fail at that point? And if they just sold off all of that stock they would crash the market.

What's even worse is that he thinks removing Gates will actually fix anything. Gates may have got them to this point but that train has gathered enough steam that it doesn't need the engineer anymore.

Cringley continually shows that he knows nothing of what he speaks and just continues yapping because he likes to hear himself speak.

Re:Cringley on Microsoft

[_typo]

Agreed. Just thought more people would like a reference to it.

Re:Cringley on Microsoft

[Erris]

Gee, thanks PBS. I can't believe my tax dollars fund Mr. Cringley's bizare rant.

Mr. Cringley recomends that the US government further reward Bill Gates by purchasing all of Bill's M$ stock for about $50,000,000,000. Is it my imagination, of did a PBS spokeman just compete with Hollywood exaduration in suggesting that tax payers give up one half of Doctor Evil's "one hundred billion dollars" extrotion? Wow, you would think that old Bill was sitting on top of a nuclear device at the world's core rather than a maker of second rate, insecure, invasive software. I've ranted that M$ was aiming for regulated monopoly status and is just another piece of evidence that the government might like it.

No thanks, Mr. Cringley. I don't need M$ and I don't think it's worth the price you suggest. Microsoft deserves to be punished for it's bad business practices and lawsuits like this will do it. Software itself is something the government should stay out of.

Re:Cringley on Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Gates was already essentially demoted by the board of directors from CEO to "Chief Software Architect". (Check Wired's "The Truth" article for more information.) Of course, Ballmer ain't much better, but at least it seems he has a better understanding of IBM's history in the 70s and 80s.

I think that most people respect Gates' business sense, but particularlly with the Netscape case, he mades some criminally bad decisions. Microsoft had/has the resources to outengineer Netscape and would eventually have taken over as the standard web browser. However, that wasn't good enough for Gates, so he had to "cut off their airsupply" and get his marketshare Right Now, no matter how many bodies had to be buried in the process. Similar story with Java.

A good portion of MS current lawsuit troubles are the direct result of the Bill Gates Goes Insane period of MS's history in the early 90s. Unfortuntely he wasn't satisfied with a mere $1B in profit per quarter decided to go for complete world domination. The result probably is that MS will be operating under some very heavy financial and operational restrictions for the next couple decades.

Re:Cringley on Microsoft

[Ami Ganguli]

I don't think I buy into his proposed remedy, but he's right about Gates worrying less about the PC market and more about shifting his monopoly into new areas. He's changing Windows licensing to squeeze out more short-term revenue, while creating an opening for Linux in the long-term.

But I think Cringley underestimates the power of Microsoft's new enemies. AOL/TimeWarner, Sony, and Nokia are big, smart, and on to him. And the old enemies who are still standing (IBM, Oracle, and Sun) are just waiting for a sign of weakness.

Re:Cringley on Microsoft

[bob_clippy]

I've been surprised MS hasn't at least floated the idea of spinning off Office, a cash cow with declining strategic relevance which will eventually fall off a cliff in terms of revenues. That would take the heat off both MS and the government, allow the Feds to claim victory and make it impossible for competitors to claim that nothing was done about Microsoft's monopoly.

Cringley's article does a good job of explaining why that didn't happen. More hard nosed than Murdoch! Geez.

Re:Cringley on Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Good Lord!

BIZARRE
RECOMMENDS
OR
EXAGGERATION
EXTORTION
ITS

Another Slashdot regular with a 3rd-grade education. Go figure.

Re:Cringley on Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me mostly agree with what you're saying except for an important off-topic post:

There is no long-term future for expensive relational databases. Oracle better come up with something besides databases to sell, or I predict CA will buy them in about 5 years.

Finally

[ehiris]

Now the prosecution in the Microsoft anti-trust lawsuit has a tech partner.

Maybe the States will finally be able to build a strong case.

IE source code?

[Jburkholder]

I just heard the blurb mentioned on CNN and they also said something about Sun asking to see the source for IE for some reason (I only heard parts of it, was eating lunch and talking at the time this came on). The Sun press release doesn't have much detail. Anyone else hear this?

All well and good for Sun...

[Bollie]

...but how does this affect me? Does this mean that Joe can only get as much justice as Joe can afford?

Even if they win (doubtful, they will settle) what are they gonna get? Money, stocks, meaningless things. There's no way anyone except Sun (and/or Microsoft) will profit from this. Heck, MS might even be the winner here.

In all, hooray for Sun and hooray for anyone with money. Loads and loads of money. Ah well...

Re:All well and good for Sun...

[Derkec]

I don't think Sun is shooting for money. More likely they want to hurt MS. They are in a mindshare war between Java and .Net . If .Net prevails, we're talking very bad things. If .Net totally dies.. well Mr. Gates says he bet the company on it. The stakes are much much higher than Sun trying to collect some cash by piling on an extra lawsuit. They want to prevent MS from taking advantage of the gains they earned illegally. If MS hurt Netscape illegaly (and by association Java) and made major gains off that. Sun can seek to cripple those gains. We're talking IE to every App that could have been remade by a competitor as an Applet. Remember, Java over the browser had the potential to allow platform independant applications. In other words, applications which could undermine MS's big advantage (the desktop monopoly). MS killed this as a Java distribution platform when they illegally beat up Netscape. I could go own, but I think you get the point. Sun wants much, much more than a payoff.

Sounds like whining from Sun

[Sabalon]

Okay...we all know that there are some beefs with MS and their way of doing things. I can even see the Sun whining about the fragmentation of Java (not that Sun isn't doing that well enough on its own - Java 2 version 1.x - yeah that makes sense.)

But why oh why should MS have to include anything of Sun's in their OS? Okay...XP pulled out Java support. And now it really looks like Sun is complaining that the only way they can get Java everywhere is if MS is forced to include it.

Still sounds like whining to me.

Re:Sounds like whining from Sun

[Derkec]

No, Sun's arguement about Java in XP is that Java used to be distributed by Netscape. Netscape was illegaly killed by MS. This protected MS's monopoly against Java. In order to redress this, MS should have to carry Java. I haven't read Sun's docs, but I imagine it goes down something like that.

Re:Sounds like whining from Sun

[zangdesign]

I agree. Sun already sued them once, forced Microsoft to stop development on their own VM, and forced them to include Sun's version of the Java VM on distributed releases.

Now, they're suing to what? Undo the previous agreement? I thought they had already settled that issue.

Frankly, I think Microsoft might have a case for malicious prosecution in this instance.

Re:Sounds like whining from Sun

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree 100%, especially considering Java on the client side was/is a total flop. Sun is just a sore loser when it comes to developing consumer products. Not even a gratuitous flash into (with no skip button) is as bad as a waiting (and hoping) for an applet to load.

Re:Sounds like whining from Sun

[Anonymous Coward]

I get your sig (Porkins died). Thanks for the chuckle.

Re:Sounds like whining from Sun

[Anonymous Coward]

The point is any third party can come along and write software for an operating system. All the operating system manufacturers even encourage that, since it increases the value of the OS.

Now, Microsoft can put any PC OEM out of business by raising the cost of their Windows licensing (i.e., Dell, Gateway, the little guys -- all their desktop system business units can be put under immediately by Microsoft). That's because there is no choice of another operating system compatible with the data that Windows creates and talks, and the PC customers will move to the other OEMs that don't have to charge as much.

OEM's and Microsoft license software *all*the*time* from third parties to include with Windows/shipped systems, since it either increases the value of the system or they get some money out of it (fair enough). (If an OEM got paid from a third party to license a piece of software, and the customers didn't like it and the OEM lost money in the long run, then they'd stop, which is normal market action at work). So, that's a market free-for-all, as it should be, that will work to benefit customers and businesses.

If Microsoft percieves that one of those pieces of software might be a nascent threat to their Windows product, they can deal to get the OEM or their own MS Windows unit to not license that product, (or to license another competing product that is not as much of a threat -- same thing). That isn't wrong either, all companies do their best to protect their markets.

Microsoft will license any browser as long as it doesn't have middleware (even though the definition of a browser practically includes middleware now, so practically, they won't). What's wrong with middleware? Nothing. It can be extremely useful. It'd be nice if there was a market of middleware providers so that decent standards could emerge. So, Microsoft will not license Java because it's a threat to their system. That's fine, except they also won't allow anyone else (i.e., OEMs, i.e., just about the only other viable distribution channel) to license Java either. That's using their monopoly power to crush the competition to maintain their monopoly. The OEMs don't have a choice, so the consumer doesn't have a choice.

If an OEM wants to license Java (either they think it increases the value of their shipping product, or Sun pays them to), there has to be another competing OS (or platform) they could move to, otherwise MS will raise the price of their one Windows OS and put them out of business. I.e., OEM wants to license Java. Microsoft says no. In the first case, if there were another viable platform (middleware, OS, etc.) the OEM could reject Microsoft, get the other OS, *and* Java. In the second case where there is no alternative platform, Microsoft raises the license cost, puts the OEM out of business for using Java, or the OEM stays in business and doesn't use Java. Either way, Java, the threat to Microsoft's Windows OS, doesn't get used. Microsoft doesn't care if the OEM stays in business or not -- there are 1000's of OEMs ready to fill the gap.

So, Microsoft won't allow any OEM to distribute Java (or insert other middleware, or any Windows OS threat), which prevents other PC operating systems or platforms from developing that are viable replacements for Windows, which keeps OEMs from having the power to reject Microsoft and use another OS and installing Java. This kind of cycle is bad for customers and the majority of businesses which is why it was made illegal.

The problem is that a company who has a monopoly (monopolies aren't illegal), especially a tech one like this where compatibility makes it twice as hard to break into, has extra powers to prevent potential competitors from acheiving critical mass that those competitors don't have, not through any lack of talent and desire. It is illegal to use those extra powers.

The point is MS is using their monopoly to maintain their monopoly. That's illegal. OEMs don't care what OS is installed on their systems, as long as it provides more value to themselves or to the customer and therefore themselves. Windows, Linux, something else. As long as the customers are happy, they'll buy it, and the OEM is happy. It's totally cool (from a market perspective) for Windows to sit on all the desktops. It's equally cool if there was a 5-way split. There are plenty of markets where there is one dominant player which constitutes a monopoly. That's completely fair. It's not fair when that company uses that unique position and the extra powers that come with it to maintain that position. It'd be cool if there was %100 Windows usage on OEM systems and another operating platform came along and got %10, %20, %35, or %50 share. The OEMs don't care, as long as they have the oppurtunity to increase the value of their systems to help them sell more and the systems are selling. It's a problem when the company sitting in that 80-90-100 percent slot doesn't allow anything else to come along which may (or may not) increase the value of the systems to the customer and hence the OEM just because the monopoly doesn't want to have to invest in competing. Noone ever has a chance to find out if the new products are any good, and that's bad for the customer, the OEM, and those other systems.

There is a market for developing software to be distributed with the shipping platforms. Anyone can be a part of it -- write some useful software of any kind and deal with the OEM to get it distributed on their systems. Any one, or business, or kind of software can participate. That's a great market. However, Microsoft is using their monopoly position to destroy portions (pick off, sniper, etc.) of that market whenever a portion walks around that might threaten them. Why should those portions be subjected to Microsoft's monopoly power when the other's aren't?

Sun is seeking redress to get their system (Java) shipped where it would have been shipped before had Microsoft not arbitrarily decided to put OEMs out of business had they shipped it. That's not fair and is illegal considering those OEMs bundle all kinds of other software all the time.

I.e., Microsoft is selectively disabling competitors, which is only something they can do because they have a monopoly.

Re:Sounds like whining from Sun

[Sabalon]

I used to use Netscape religiously. Up til about IE 4.0. The reason I switched is because NS sucked.

No MS standing over my shoulder or anything. A decision based on better support of the HTML standards, namely CSS - too much stuff just didn't work right in Netscape.

Netscape killed itself by stagnating for far too long why trying to be all things to all people - e-mail, LDAP, Portal, etc... everything but a browser.

Re:Sounds like whining from Sun

[Jon_E]

actually their complaints are 15-fold (available off www.sun.com/lawsuit) but essentially boil down to:

-Violation of the Sherman Act (Sections 1 & 2)
-Violation of the Cartwright Act
-Unfair Competition
-Copyright Infringement

Not so much about Java but more about your limited choices for extending an operating system that controls competition on Intel based PCs using influence obtained through a monopoly. The complaint around Java is that Microsoft intentionally hindered development of a competitive product and used their influence to hinder distribution of the product while also violating their license agreement associated with the product.

Seems to me like a call to the carpet.

The first of many......

[CDWert]

Well, I am suprised to see Borland or Corel didnt lead this suit front.

Now that MS has been found GUILTY of anticompetitive practices the floodgate will probably open.

"Who have we harmed today ?"

To be honest any Joe,Dick or Harry, could sue them for harm if in some way they could show (by the finding of guilt) they have been directly harmed.

The really funny part is, well Ill be blunt, JAVA sucks IMHO, and in alot other peoples opinion too, To sue because MS has broken Java compatibility is like suing the vaccine companies for erradicating smallpox ......

Re:The first of many......

[Anonymous Coward]

i bet you're baseing your opinion of Java on an old version, say 1.0 or 1.1

Those versions were outdated years ago, try one of the later versions, say the 1.4 that was released a few weeks ago.

Also, Java as a language is far easier to deal with than C/C++ as one doesnt have to deal with memory allocation or pointers, and far better in terms of keeping apps secure and reliable. For example, that OpenSSH bug yesterday was the result of going outside an array indicies. A Java implementation would catch that error with an ArrayOutOfBoundsException. What other language does that?

Re:The first of many......

[Anonymous Coward]

I see MS as trying to eliminate languages that are non-platform specific. MS wants languages that
only work for them!!!

'bout freaking time

[the gnat]

Steve Case spent years whining about MS and trying to get the government to act. I've heard he's an Ayn Rand-style libertarian most of the time. It's good to see Sun actually trying to do something about the problem instead of pushing the DoJ to watch its back. I think parts of the federal antitrust suit were legitimate, but this type of thing may be better worked out between the companies themselves.

Re:'bout freaking time

[Anonymous Coward]

Steve Case is AOL, not Sun.

Re:'bout freaking time

[the gnat]

Steve Case is AOL, not Sun.

Oh, duh. Thanks. I meant Scott McNealy, who's nothing like Steve Case. Oops.

It's called an URL

[jaberwaki]

Don't waste my time. Quote the relevant and/or interesting parts of the letter then give the URL for those of us who want to read M$FT's latest pile of marketing *&$!.

Re:It's called an URL

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't realize people ventured off of the slashdot.org domain.

Re:It's called an URL

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay. I will excerpt the part of it that I liked:

The community wants one Java technology: one brand, one process and one great platform.

Remember, that's not Microsoft's message. That's Sun's message. They want a Java standard, but they want full control of it. They want there to only be their standard.

That's shockingly like what everybody accues Microsoft of all the time.

Is Sun just another enemy, about the same as Microsoft?

Re:It's called an URL

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps don't waste our time by posting flamebait comments. I don't see you contributing anything useful besides:

1) Bitching
2) Moaning

and in this corner ...

[Col. Panic]

Microsoft's version of the suit. I wonder how full the page would be if the URL was http://www.microsoft.com/lawsuit like at Sun's site.

Re:and in this corner ...

[Derkec]

That's the information for Sun's previous lawsuit against Microsoft not the current one.

And in other news...

[slow_flight]

pot calls kettle black.

Re:And in other news...

[Anonymous Coward]

to sufficiently karma whore... that should be:

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Re:And in other news...

[kanad]

In my part of India we have a more appropiate one -
Sive says to needle, "you got a hole in your ass".

This appears to be...

[Real World Stuff]

More Big-ass rich companies trying to sue other big-ass rich companies. Honestly, who will eventually burden the fees and costs accrued by all this litigation? I know who, me, the consumer. And I do not speak to software purchases directly, but to the industry downturn as a result of speculation and potential suit results.

This is not the Tea Pot Dome.

Just a couple pennies worth...

Treble damages...

[GSloop]

For all those of you just tuning in...

If Sun wins the suit, they stand to get treble damages, because MS has already been found guilty of abusing a monopoly.

Frankly, it's this type of stuff that's really going to put a serious drag on MS.

I do wish the JD and GWB would actually DO somthing about MS, but it appears that they won't. Hopefully the states will be able to continue. The reason I want this, is it seems, well unseemly, that Sun et. al. use this forum to get MS. Sure, MS deserves it, but it's not like Sun wouldn't be doing the same thing, should they be in MS's position.

It just seems better for the Gvmt to strike MS, and split the company. They should also levy massive fines, as the value of competing companies could have been very large - but instead they're bankrupt or playing the small time. (Think of DR-Dos, OS/2, Netscape, WordPerfect, Novell etc.)

Why do I think splitting the co is the right action? Well, that way the Gvmt doesn't have to be invloved in the day-to-day activites of the company. The problem now, is that what benefits MS's is often not what benefits the customers. It's better for MS to keep the client locked to Windows, and locked to Office, as well as all the other "tightly-integrated" MS apps - think tightly-insecure!

If the Office group were a separate company, then they wouldn't care who used office. Any copy sold was a buck in their pocket. So, port it anywhere it could sell decently. But right now, it's to their benefit (high stock-price, better profit sharing etc) to help sell Windows the OS. More Windows, more bucks. Don't sell office on other platforms that threaten Windows, because it cuts into your pay.

By breaking the company into smaller function specific pieces, we can align the best interest of the company with those of the consumer. Ala - a MARKET based solution - stemming from necessasary Gvmt intervention. That's the way it should be.

But, if our good old DOJ can't do it's job properly, I guess we'll just have to settle for a box or rats all biting each other to cut MS back to size. It's sure not pretty, but it'll probably help. I guess the guilty verdict is the the good thing to come out of this so far...

Cheers!

Re:Treble damages...

[Rombuu]

For all those of you just tuning in...

If Sun wins the suit, they stand to get treble damages, because MS has already been found guilty of abusing a monopoly.

Good point, but how the hell is Sun going to prove that they suffered any economic damage. I mean, they give away Java. Its not loike the are losing any revenues from Microsofts actions.

I can't see them getting a dime out of this... and 3 X 0 is a big fat 0.

Re:Treble damages...

[Xannor]

I used to think that splitting them would be as a good idea as well, but unless there was some deal between the two( or three) new miniMS's to allow the "free" sharing of code the whole business, OS/Apps/everythign would collapse. And since MAC is the only other viable destop solution for the masses, the PC market would actually collapse shorty there after. (Sure niches like linux woulse exist and the old software and hardware would be there but nothing new would happen for years.)

I think forcing microsoft to release all current source code prior to win2k (including prior NT) to public, and requireing thm to fully document any new API's and file formats as public RFCs for a few years is a better idea.

1) forcing the release of "old" code would not hurt XP as much since it would be a year before any "emulator" would be ready. Plus since MS touts Win2K and XP as rewrites there should be no complaints.

2) forcing the release of APIs and file formats would allow current alternative OS's to keep up software compatability until the industry stabilizes.

Course these are just my though, and I have a 512bit random number generator installed in my head.

Re:Treble damages...

[GSloop]

Why do they need code sharing?

It's not like the code for Office is really useful in the OS group - is it?!

If you mean information sharing, that's exactly the problem. They should have to share information between their groups (OS/Applications) the same as outside competitors.

Frankly, the PC OS/Apps market might just explode too. If you're in investor, why would you invest in the PC Apps space that MS might find interesting sometime soon. If they do, you might get bought, or MS might just decimate you. As an investor, that should make you nervous.

If MS wasn't such a massive gorilla, then there probably would be lots more innovation and investment in the PC OS and Applications space. I think that this could be a huge boon, both for innovation and for choice.

Perhaps you could explain yourself a bit better. I'm afraid that I'm misunderstanding you.

Cheers!

Re:Treble damages...

[Chagrin]

That's like asking why it would be wrong for Microsoft to stop distributing Internet Explorer. They give it away for free, so how would they suffer any economic damage?

Re:Treble damages...

[Jobe_br]

Sun sells a good many enterprise infrastructure related applications and services that are centered around the Java technology. I can imagine that they will explain to the courts that MS used its monopoly status and anti-competitive behavior to marginalize the value of these Java based services, development tools and enterprise components. There are some pretty hefty enterprise systems out there based on Java that come with an equally hefty price tag. If MS used its monopoly status to get more corporations to use a purely MS based solution (ASP, IIS, MS SQL, etc.) then Sun could argue extensive damages from lost business. This could extend into a variety of arenas including hardware, since Sun's custom enterprise solutions would certainly include their servers running Solaris. Once you get into the enterprise arena, if Sun can show that because of MS, it lost significantly large contracts (millions of $$, easily) and extrapolate from there, they could be looking at significant damages, if the court decides to award them.

Never mind the various factors that would be affected by the J++ fiasco.

Re:Treble damages...

[Skjellifetti]

It just seems better for the Gvmt to strike MS, and split the company. They should also levy massive fines...

MS stock is owned by a lot of mutual funds which are in turn held in a lot of 401k plans (your's, perhaps?). On balance I think you are right, but there will be some short term pain suffered by a lot of folks as a result. I suspect that this is part of the reason that the Republicans are reluctant to push a breakup.

My brother thinks MS should be broken into three new companies representing the major divisions in the company: Marketing, Sales, and Legal.

Re:Treble damages...

[Jobe_br]

Not to mention that having the Mac become a dominant player in the market would not be a bad thing by any stretch of the imagination. OS X appears to be quite secure, it even has much of Free/NetBSDs firewalling code in it, though apparently a GUI to configure it isn't available yet (look for it shortly, I imagine). It has an OSS base, its not Linux, but that's OK, too. Unless you're a hard core kernel junky, there's really nothing all too different between the open source BSDs and Linux (ignoring the license differences which again should only affect kernel junkies).

OS X is an amazingly feature-rich system to use, Apple's push to make their desktop systems the center of 'your digital world' isn't JUST marketing hype - I've been using iTunes and iPhoto pretty extensively and I must say, neither app is lacking in anything that I've needed yet. My Rio500 hooks up perfectly with iTunes and my Olympus C-2100 UltraZoom hooks up perfectly with iPhoto. My efforts with Linux+gphoto were less than successful, I'm afraid, never mind the not-so-nice interfaces built for gphoto.

Now, don't go flaming me right away. I love Linux - I have 4 PCs running some variant of Linux including my laptop which has been running Linux + VMware for the past 3 years. I just think as a desktop OS, OS X is very, very nice. Its stable (I've experienced exactly one kernel panic which I haven't been able to reproduce) and it has some kick-ass apps written for it already with more on the way.

With Office v.X out for OS X, why couldn't the consumer live w/o Windows? I prefer quicktime to windows media player, OS X plays nicer on heterogeneous corporate networks than Windows does and not to put too fine a point on it, OS X is a whole lot easier to learn and a good bit more difficult to screw up than Windows has ever been. System files are protected so without consciously entering a system level authorization, you can't muck anything up too bad. For Windows gluttons who love all the shareware they can grab from C|Net, there's just as much written for OS 9/X that you can download from the 'Mac' category. The quality is just as dubious, so you should feel right at home :). For Linux zealots who can't or don't WANT to leave KDE/GNOME/Windowmaker/Enlightenment/etc. - don't fret. It runs fine in OS X. When I first installed it, I got the latest beta for E to run without any hitches, no sweat. There are even window managers that integrate your X apps seamlessly with OS X apps - sweet!

I would truly like to see more Open Source folks jump on the OS X bandwagon. This is a great OS - don't abandon Linux by any means, but don't diss OS X - support Apple as you would support RedHat. They've got a great thing going here, I really believe that.

Re:Treble damages...

[shawnmelliott]

Appendix A: Glossary of terms used in this post

Ala - (1) Voila, (2) Shazam, (3) Poof
apps - (1) Applications
buck - (1) Dollar, (2) Male deer
DOJ - (1) See JD
DR-Dos - (1) Physician preferred form of Disk Operating System
Gvmt - (1) Government, See #2 under JD
GWB - (1) George W. Bush, (2) George W. Bush Jr, (3) See President of the USA
JD - (1) Justice Department, (2) See oxymoron
MS - (1)Microsoft, (2) Monopolistic Sovereignty
Netscape - (1) Slow version of Opera
Novell - (1) Unique company with a unique idea
Office - (1) Suite of tools for confusing newbies, (2) Location of business
OS/2 - (1) Cousin of OS/as well and OS/also
port - (1) Modify to work with another system or framework, (2) Side of a ship, (3) Resting place for ships at sea
Sun - (1) Sun Microsystem, (2) Creator of unbreakable database technology, (3) Celestial body at the center of our Solar System
Windows - (1) Closed source Operating System, (2) Transparent section of a wall to look through
WordPerfect - (1) Word processor with bad Grammatical checking e.g. Word Perfect

Re:Treble damages...

[cybermage]

treble == triple in this case, I assume, as damages sung at a high-pitch would make the court seem somewhat silly.

Re:Treble damages...

[GSloop]

Gosh, I DID use alot of funky terms huh?

Thanks, I really like your dictionary - have you thought about doing it for profit?

[Grin]

I do have a modification.

GWB - (1) George W. Bush, (2) George W. Bush Jr, (3) See President of the USA

(4) See - Clueless Dolt

Cheers!

Re:Treble damages...

[Anonymous Coward]

So who actually believes Java is effectively dead?

"Sun accused the software giant of "extensive anticompetitive conduct" that also forced other companies to distribute products that don't work with Java, effectively killing it."

On the desktop yes, but that was their own fault. On the server?

Re:Treble damages...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's nice, Mr. Apple Sales Rep, but some of us just don't like the Macintosh platform, just like some of us like Fords and some of us like Chevys. You're not going to convince the other to switch. It's a matter of preference.

I personally think the Mac user interface is anti-productive. A lack of a good explorer, mandatory use of the mouse for some things (Windows has 100% of it's functions accessible from the keyboard), software makers nervous to support the "other mouse button" for fear of those who only have one, poor native scroll support - these are all interface issues. The hardware is top-of-the-line but the OS is garbage. I suppose you could throw Linux on it, but I can also do that on an affordably priced PC.

Need I mention the SLOW performance of applications under OS X? Windows and Linux have usually been backward compatible. And I'm sure most of the developers here wouldn't touch Applescript. Haha!

I'm guessing someone could find a bunch of hacks and expensive third party addons (*cough* Dave) to fix its major problems, but it's difficult to develop for a platform that is crippled by default since most end-users don't install said hacks.

Christ, they just got decent Samba support with OS X. You couldn't natively connect to SMB shares before that. Live in the now!

Re:Treble damages...

[Kiwi]

Not to mention that having the Mac become a dominant player in the market would not be a bad thing by any stretch of the imagination.

Actually, if the Mac won in the 1980s, instead of the PC, we would be a lot worse off today. PC hardware was an open specification; the equivalent Macintoshes cost a lot more money. I don't find the idea of $10,000 desktop computers very appealing; a possible reality today if the Mac had won.

In addition, Linux support for the Macintosh came much later than Linux support for the PC, mainly because the low-level hardware specifications for the Macs were a well guarded secret for a long time. I do not think it is too much of a stretch that Linux would not have happened if the Macintosh had won.

Microsoft is an important step in the right direction compared to how things could have been. The hardware specifications are open; it is only the software that is closed and proprietary.

Linux, of course, is the next step: Keep both the hardware and the operating system open. I really wish the technology which became the open software standard was a little more cutting edge than 30-year-old UNIX; but it is far better than not having any open software standard at all.

- Sam - Sam

Re:Treble damages...

[Anonymous Coward]

OK Steve...

Re:Treble damages...

[erasmus_]

I think forcing microsoft to release all current source code prior to win2k (including prior NT) to public, and requireing thm to fully document any new API's and file formats as public RFCs for a few years is a better idea.

Yes, I think every popular company should be forced to release for free code they spent millions of dollars writing, and that millions of servers are still running. Not like they didn't use any of that code in XP, so what do they still need it for, right? Hmm, perhaps Sun could lead the way by giving away the source to all their old stuff? Please let me know where I can download this.

Hmm, but how about the fact that this open up an incredible amount of exploits, because it would reveal how NT handles security, user authentication, database replication, and everything else? I sure want my NT servers to replicate to a hacked BDC because of your suggestion. I also want remote users to get get admin rights on my box because they can now do remote registry connects doing undocumented API calls that are hidden for a reason. Or perhaps we shouldn't force open-source solutions on a company that has every right to be closed-source?

Re:Treble damages...

[blakestah]

It just seems better for the Gvmt to strike MS, and split the company.

There is no precedent for this, b/c no other company has ever been split in antitrust action except companies that merged (duPont and ICI and Hercules in chemical engineering, Ma Bell and Baby Bells, etc).

The appropriate action has to be close to the found infractions. The state's proposal comes closest, and you can tell by all the yelling and screaming coming from Redmond. Basically,
1) Force M$ to offer a stripped down pro-rated Windows, where the pro-rating relates to functionality lost
2) Force M$ to open all APIs used for middleware
3) Force M$ into flat rates for selling OEM licenses (bulk discounts are OK)

This basically strips M$ of any and all leverage wrt middleware on its platform, and this is the appropriate legal action. Splitting the company is only even in consideration if the monopoly abuse were used to protect the monopoly itself - it cannot be considered legally for leveraging the monopoly into new markets. For that infraction, chopping off the leverage is the appropriate response.

Re:Treble damages...

[GSloop]

The bells never merged. There was AT&T and that was it.

The "baby bells" came from the breakup of AT&T.

Standard Oil didn't merge with anyone. They bought or crushed all their competitors.

How about documenting the first statement?

Cheers!

Re:Treble damages...

[HiThere]

Splitting MS is the right answer. But not just in two. Split them into some large number of companies no one of which is any larger than Apple Computer. And give ALL of the pieces full rights to ALL of the intellectual property of the original corp. (Including the right to sell or release it.)

That would do some good. This splitting it into two or three parts is just turning the monopoly into a quite small oligopoly. That isn't much better than the original company, and can easily be much worse.

Re:Treble damages...

[Anonymous Coward]

"If the Office group were a separate company, then they wouldn't care who used office. Any copy sold was a buck in their pocket. So, port it anywhere it could sell decently. But right now, it's to their benefit (high stock-price, better profit sharing etc) to help sell Windows the OS. More Windows, more bucks. Don't sell office on other platforms that threaten Windows, because it cuts into your pay."

What makes you think a seperate company would port the application groups to different OSes?

How many other products out there come windows only yet their companies are not bound to the great beast?

Re:Treble damages...

[blakestah]

The bells never merged. There was AT&T and that was it.

Check this link

Standard Oil didn't merge with anyone. They bought or crushed all their competitors.

Right. They bought their competitors, or merged with them in the business sense. Check this link

Happy now ?

Re:Treble damages...

[GSloop]

So, Microsoft didn't buy anyone?

How about the Access DB. How about SQL server. That was a software cross license from Sybase.

I could go on and on.

Standard Oil didn't merge. They bought out much smaller companies that had no choice but to fold or sell.

How's that different than MS?

Cheers!

Re:Treble damages...

[GSloop]

Generally I don't respond to AC's,

You have a chicken and egg. Windows has the apps, so it gets the market share.

If there were more apps, Platform would get more users.

Hmmm...If Office were available for Platform X, there would be lots more people willing to consider the platform.

Thus, simply offering Office, for example, on Linux would all of a sudden make Linux for the desktop a real option. Suddenly, Linux for the desktop might get more serious attention, even from the MS Office group (i.e. They might do some development, just to jumpstart a new platform). Hey, if Linux (which is free) all of a sudden took off, there probably would be more profit for the Office group. (Total system costs are now $100 less than before, give $80 back, and you made an extra $20 - Plus it's cheaper too!)

The basic reason that most apps are windows only is because of chicken and egg. Also, I'd bet that if you develop for both platforms, MS isn't going to make life easy for you, esp if you're large enough to show on the radar screen. No advance SDK's etc.

Cheers!

Re:Treble damages...

[blakestah]

So, Microsoft didn't buy anyone?

That wasnt' the point. The antitrust abuses in Standard Oil and AT&T cases had to do with collusion at different levels of companies that used to be separate, but had merged.

But the point goes further. It is not mandated to break up a monopoly unless the antitrust abuse is used to maintain the monopoly. Instead, this case demonstrated the monopoly being used to leverage new markets. Therefore, the remedy should address the issue of Microsoft being able to leverage middleware, and the OS monopoly should not, and will not, be addressed.

As such, a legally appropriate and suitable remedy would be forcing the componentization of all Microsoft middleware, and forcing Microsoft to sell its OS and middleware separately. You can buy them together (at OEM level too), but it will cost more than just buying the stripped down version. Pay more for email, more for IE, more for the Media Player. There is no penalty from Microsoft for buying a packaged version with Eudora and Realplayer and Quicktime and Mozilla instead. This is the essence of the alternative states' proposal. It would free up the middleware market if it were enforced.

Re:Treble damages...

[Anonymous Coward]

" Sun sells a good many enterprise infrastructure related applications and services that are centered around the Java technology. "

No they don't. They sell Sun boxes, Solaris, and they develop Java. Other than that, its crap city over there.

That's Sun's weakness right now.

I'd like you to name 2 good "enterprise ... related applications" made by sun. Can't do it, can you. Because they don't exist.

Re:Treble damages...

[Jobe_br]

I'm not discussing what would have been had different things happened in the '80s. I'm talking about now and how things maybe should happen from here on out. Most importantly, I'm not addressing hardware as much as I'm addressing software. What's in the past is finished, the future has yet to be written.

Re:Treble damages...

[Jobe_br]

As an AC post, I should really not even bother responding, but for the benefit of the community, I will. I am far from an Apple sales rep, by any stretch of the imagination. Until about 2 yrs ago, when I started my own company, I pretty much dispised Macs. They had their place, sure, but give me my PC+Linux any day. It so happened that the company I co-founded was a design agency, so Macs soon became the norm and I accepted that. Then OS X came out and I began to love the Mac.

Now, to your points: (1) explorer; the OS X NeXTStep-style explorer is far more productive than Windows' explorer. You're just more used to one, that's all.

As for (2) mandatory use of the mouse - bullshit. The Mac has key combos for damn near everything, maybe you're talking a few years ago - I know I can switch between apps with command-tab, same as alt-tab on windows. I dare say the Mac probably even has MORE keyboard shortcuts by virtue of having three accelerator keys (ctrl/option/command), Windows only has two, to my knowledge (ctrl/alt).

(3) The 'other mouse button' has been supported for quite some time in MacOS - no support for the middle button, but Windows doesn't have that either - it seems to be a purely UNIX thing. In the Finder, right-click does the same as ctrl-left-click would do, pop up a context menu. OS X makes significant use of context menus so having a two button mouse (mine also scrolls) is very useful.

(4) Native scroll support - how 'bout, built-into carbon? OS 9 leaves much to be desired, depending primarily on custom drivers, but I can scroll just fine in almost all of my OS X carbonized apps, no problem.

And as for interface issues - I'll say this: Apple's interface designers are far and away better than Microsoft's *programmers*. Ever since its initial incarnation, Windows has smacked of no actual design talent being used in the interface and user experience design. Windows hasn't won users because its 'easy to use', 'intuitive to navigate' or anything of that nature. Why do you think companies are making millions selling 'video professor' courses on CD for how to use Windows 98, Microsoft Office, etc. - for the vast majority of people out there who don't find that Microsoft has succeeded in triumphing over 'interface issues'.

OS X beats any incarnation of Windows any day of the week and twice on Thursdays and as for Linux - not to start a flame war, but OS X's front-end is quite a bit more developed than KDE or GNOME is (yet). I'm not saying there isn't potential - I use both KDE AND GNOME on my Linux PCs, but OS X is certainly more refined and polished.

And what slow performance of applications under OS X might you be referring to? If you're talking about Classic - it runs with near native speeds, quite a feat, in my opinion. And Windows is anything but backwards compatible. Granted, some old PC apps still run in XP, but every upgrade of Windows breaks a ton of applications - ask any company that writes Windows applications. Hell, even many of Microsofts own applications don't run in more recent version of Windows!

I'll stop now, but its this kind of crap being toted around by morons thats just as bad as the FUD spread by Microsoft to its weenies.

Re:Treble damages...

[Jobe_br]

My point was simply that much of Sun's business model depends on Java. Be it via licensing, services, applications - whatever. The point was not if the quality of their applications was good. That's a personal preference and seeing as that I don't have much experience with their enterprise sweet of apps, I can't really say. You're more than entitled to your own opinion, though.

Re:Treble damages...

[Anonymous Coward]

Last I heard, MacOS still doesn't let you pick items out of the menu bar using the keyboard. Have they finally fixed that?

Re:Treble damages...

[Jobe_br]

You're talking about being able to 'Alt' and then using the arrow keys to navigate around the menus, right? If that's it, I don't believe that that type of functionality is available. At least, not to my knowledge. That, however, is an interface design decision, and to my knowledge, only KDE supports that in Linux, next to Windows (probably because KDE likes to mimic the Windows UI whenever possible). My Ximian GNOME installation does not appear to have that functionality.

Re:Treble damages...

[GSloop]

How about Office?

MS Bundled it with the OS, and went from like 60% market share to 95+%.

Then, notice, that MS no longer bundles Office with the OS... In fact, the cost of Office has gone up dramatically. It's cost is way above that of any of it's competitors. Like as much as 100% higher.

I don't think we're really talking about anything else. You and I may agree. I think the only way in which you'll actually acomplish a OS that isn't tied (financially/technically/otherwise) to some other app (Office/WMP/Java/Etc) is to hack them in half. It's clear that their respect of the law hasn't kept them from unlawful behavior in the past, and it's foolish to believe that they will all of a sudden start...

I fundamentally disagree with your assesment of the structure of AT&T and Standard Oil, but what I think we agree on, is this. - MS shouldn't be able to use the Monopoly of the OS to leverage into new areas. Where they have used this power, they should be punitivly punished.

Also, keeping middleware, is, in at least this case, an effort to maintain the monopoly. Java, clearly was seen as eventually replacing the OS. From MS's perspective, it wasn't middleware. It was middleware that could grow to replace the OS. or at least make the OS a commodity - it could be Windows or Mac or Unix or Linux etc.

How about exclusive licenses - for every system you sell, you must license Windows. You can't just choose to license it when the customer requests it. There are more examples too...

Anyhow, I think you're missing the boat to believe that the case only shows cases where MS used it's monopoly to extend into other markets. The evidence, and I believe the findings show both abuses.

Cheers!

Why I stopped using IE

[nesneros]

Microsoft pissed me off royally a while ago, in what I'm sure they would have called a "feature" but was probably, in reality, a way to counter Java somehow (even though this relates to JavaScript), or Netscape, or somebody. All it ended up doing for me was causing me unnecessary work.

Several years ago I was responsible for creating the website for my Dad's company. Just a small business thing, a source for information on their products, manuals, etc. After a while we started thinking that it would be great to have something that could help his customers choose which model best met their needs (a procedure my dad would spend 15 minutes on the phone to do), so I coded up what I considered a very nice little JavaScript program to do that. Worked great and without problems for about 2 years or so until the "latest and greatest" version of IE came out which "just happened" to have changed some of the JS commands around, and the program no longer worked for IE users. The day I discovered that probleam was the day I downloaded IEradicator and I haven't missed it since. And, coincidently, my dad sold his business and I didn't have to be bothered by that problem anymore.

Re:Why I stopped using IE

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't you a whiny little bitch!? Mommy! My code didn't work forever! Shut up you little bitch!

Re:Why I stopped using IE

[Anonymous Coward]

You are aware that Javascript and Java AREN'T the same thing aren't you? This article had nothing to do with JavaScript (which isn't even related to Sun, Java is Sun's baby)... know what you're writing about before you post.

Re:Why I stopped using IE

[donutello]

How does this crap get modded up?

All languages, as they evolve have certain functions and classes deprecated over time. Go look at the history of Java - there are tons of deprecated classes and interfaces.

RTFM, idiot.

Reason: Sun is losing market share and money.

[Anonymous Coward]

At yesterday's conference call, Sun admitted that its sales are falling below expected "linearity". In other words, Sun is having trouble in exceeding last quarter's revenue.

Sun is losing market share. Read " IBM claims win in bruising server battle" As Sun's finances continue to sink, Sun will increasingly pursue lawsuits to boost its finances.

As another sign of desperation, Sun recently announced that it, too, will sell Intel-based servers running Linux. To understand the level of desperation, we note that Sun has been touting itself as the SPARC-only shop for the last 15 years. Sun claimed that it would never resort to selling Intel-based servers.

C#

[javilon]

Could they stop MS shipping C# on the grounds that it is a java rip off?

Re:C#

[mcfiddish]

Could they stop MS shipping C# on the grounds that it is a java rip off?


I hope not. Linux is a UNIX rip off, isn't it?

I can't believe actually I'm defending the right of MS to "innovate".

Re:C#

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, and that'll be around the time that several companies sue Sun for their C++/Object Pascal ripoff.

Re:C#

[javilon]

Sorry, I'll reformulate the question:

Could they stop MS shipping C# on the grounds that it is a java rip off, and it is bundled with windows , and only run on windows (as of yet).

Basically it is the same strategy they followed against Netscape, with impressive results. Create a clone of the competitor's product, bundle and integrate it into windows.

If MS weren't a monopoly it wouldn't be a problem to me. but...

Also, I am not taking tha position that they shouldn't be allowed to ship C#. I just say that Sun could take it in that direction.

Re:C#

[beanerspace]

I think someone else made the comparison between Java and Object Pascal, so I won't go there, except to quote Hejlsberg.

"First of all, C# is not a Java clone. In the design of C#, we looked at a lot of languages. We looked at C++, we looked at Java, at Modula 2, C, and we looked at Smalltalk. There are just so many languages that have the same core ideas that we're interested in, such as deep object-orientation, object-simplification, and so on."

I guess the killer question is, is this lawsuit really a veiled threat because of the potential success C#, or because XP doesn't include the Java VM?

I for one cannot say. Both of these giants are vying for world domination, one through J2EE, the other through .NET. Which one will win, I can't say.

As a programmer, I just want tools that help me get the job done so I can go home and play with the kids at night.

As for the similarities and differences between C# & Java, I'll leave that up to smarter people than myself, including one lengthy article by Dare Obasanjo entitled "A Comparison of Microsft's C# Programming Language to Sun Microsystem's JAVA Programming Language.

.

Re:C#

[blowdart]

Could they stop MS shipping C# on the grounds that it is a java rip off, and it is bundled with windows , and only run on windows (as of yet).

It's not bundled with Windows. The runtime libraries must be installed first. Only XP Server will have them preinstalled, unless they rerelease the XP CDs. Hell, you have to pay for the development tools seperately. Hardly bunded.

Re:C#

[WetCat]

Actually, I am not a big fan of Microsoft, but here:

http://freshmeat.net/projects/pnet/ you can find C# for linux...

http://www.southern-storm.com.au/portable_net.html Why not?

Re:C#

[Zeinfeld]

Could they stop MS shipping C# on the grounds that it is a java rip off, and it is bundled with windows , and only run on windows (as of yet).

Then could AT&T stop Sun shipping Java because it is a C/C++ ripoff, or along the chain to BCPL, CPL, Algol 68, Algol 60?

My complaint about Sun and Java from the start has been that they have been entirely closed about the design and development of Java. Now it appears that they are trying to argue that Java somehow gives them a monopoly on the future development of all Algol like programming languages. That might be news to Tony Hoare who now works for Microsoft and was one of the main inventors of the original Algol.

Java is simply not that novel to allow such a claim. Most of the changes in Java simply fixed longstanding errors in the design of C that had been documented decades before. The main innovation in Java was to partially fix the broken inheritance scheme of C++.

Unfortunately Gosling and co did not go further and take advantage of any of the advances in CS that occurred since the mid 80s. No functional types, no concurrency model and no formal model.

C# is not .NET, it is only one of the programing languages supported by the .NET framework. In fact there are some 20 odd languages supported including languages like Perl and Rexx which were not even designed for compilation. Microsoft is also encouraging universities etc. who are designing languages to use the .NET framework. so people who are designing the next Eifel or Python don't need to spend their time writing code libraries, they can share the existing code. You get a development environment, debugger and the compiler back end for free.

Not entirely true

[jordan_a]

The press releases says:

Disclose and license proprietary interfaces, protocols and formats.

This doesn't include the actually source code for IE. It might include the .DOC format though, now that could be intresting

Re:Not entirely true

[Anonymous Coward]

If Microsoft does disclose the .DOC format, will they also include the recipe for making Word viruses?

Re:Not entirely true

[smaug195]

That's utter bullshit, they are asking microsoft to give SUN their IP? I am sorry, I am all for open source to an extent, but when a company makes a program, it has every right to keep whatever they want private, have special protocols, whatever.

Re:Not entirely true

[reddogcandy]

Microsoft publicly released the specification for the .DOC format a long time ago, beginning with Word 6.0 (the last 16-bit version) and updating it through Word 97. Microsoft didn't update it for the minor extensions in Word 2000 and 2002, and the old versions have since been pulled off the MSDN web site, but several sites still have it, such as http://www.btinternet.com/~shaheedhaque/generator_ wword8.htm. The authors of competing word processors have had this information for many years, but having the spec and being able to implement full rendering, editing, and output are two different things. It's a lot like when Netscape first released its source code. A lot of people who thought they would be making non-trivial modifications and churning out their own browsers within weeks or even months were stunned at the complexity and volume of code in a mature product.

Re:Not entirely true

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit, not when those secrets help them maintain and abuse a monopoly. The file format that word uses should be opened.

Re:Not entirely true

[Anonymous Coward]

True.

Until, of course, the company becomes a monopoly, then abuses their position to crush competition in other fields.

Then the rules change, because they must change.

I suggest hitting the history books and looking at how much "good" Standard Oiil did during it's monopoly.

Proprietary against proprietary... yawn!

[ondelette]

You can't really take sides. For several reasons:

On the one side:
1) MS has offered a decent VM from the start.
2) MS tried to screw people in adding uncompatible java calls (non-JNI) without labelling them properly. They were trying to break Java.

On the other side:
1) Sun VMs have taken a long time to match MS VMs in perfs.
3) Sun hasn't done much good in client-side support. Java applications are memory-hungry and just slow. Chances are that MS would have done better.

Hence, yes, Java has failed under Windows as a client application framework. Sun is to blame for that.

Microsoft did play hardball, but this was settled a long time ago.

Sun can't blame MS for Java's failures. Client-side Java failed under Linux too! Mozilla doesn't install Java by default!

This would be a lot more interesting if Java had been an open technology, not something controlled by Sun.

Re:Proprietary against proprietary... yawn!

[Anonymous Coward]

I just hope this whole issue shines a bright light on yet another reason why open source is superior to closed source. There is a hell of a lot less litigation in the open source world. Hell, the most we can come up with is two companies taking the same database and claiming ownership.... pfft.

Re:Proprietary against proprietary... yawn!

[Boomer2]

Sun VMs have taken a long time to match MS VMs in perfs.

It's amazing that Sun's (or any other non-M$) VM could approach the M$ VM perf considering the proprietary hooks and low-level tricks M$ used to get that kind of performance.

That's the basic sin of M$ that hurts the consumer: They ensure their monopoly of apps because they don't disclose the available APIs to get the best performance. They save those goodies only for themselves, then point fingers at how slow the other guy's app runs. NO KIDDING!! If I was able to pre-load all of my piece-of-junk apps so they open quickly then use tricks no one else can access to speed them up, I'd be doing well, too! No wonder that non-M$ apps stay slow...they only get the leftovers of the resources M$ apps hog!

Re:Proprietary against proprietary... yawn!

[Anonymous Coward]

and how does this hurt the consumer if MS gives
away the VM? it hurts other companies competing
with MS but not the consumer.

A company takes an existing product (Windows), adds another component (VM) that utilizes special
features and hooks and improves overall
performance, and then gives it to consumers for
free. how is that bad?

I hate Sun as much as
most people here seem to hate Microsoft, because
it is a whiny monopolist-wannabe who can't compete
with MS so it has to whine and sue it. Sun,
SPARCs, slowaris, java, they all suck. I refuse
to do any web development using java. (go zope
and python! :)

This is not to say I love Microsoft. I think
that as it resorts to more restrictive licenses like with XP and XP Office, the more people
will turn to open source os's and applications,
which is the way it should be.

Re:Proprietary against proprietary... yawn!

[mcc]

just think of it this way: java was (is) a first-generation technology. of course it's been a disappointment.

if it appears microsoft's attempt to duplicate java is better, it's just because microsoft has been able to look at java and learn from what mistakes sun made.

sun was not able to learn from their mistakes when they were developing java because no one had ever made those mistakes before. sun cannot learn from their mistakes, go thorugh and fix their problems now becuase they do not have the resources. microsoft at this point has nearly all the resources-- people, cash, mindshare-- in the entire industry.

if sun had the kind of level of ability to develop things quickly and ability to psuh people into upgrading their products on a frequent basis that microsoft does -- things that are products of microsoft's monopoly power, not products of the worthiness of the intellectual holdings or products of either microsoft or sun -- i think it'ws safe to say that java would be something you could really call a success, as opposed to "oh, well it's a neat little platform for servlets, has some minor but omnipresent and hellishly obnoxious issues when you try to use it for anything else though".

i agree totally on the bit that this would be better if java had been an open-from-the-start technology; hell , i think all they need is the willingness and ability to *change* java *NOW* in serious ways. i'm hoping Parrot produces something interesting. it would be neat to have a public vm that actually lets your code cross languages elegantly, as opposed to java's "well, you have the specs to the vm, write a compiler for whatever language you like, you'll have to figure out how to bridge object systems yourself though" or .NETs "it bridges between any language automatically! but you can only use languages that have been modified until they are just c# with syntactic sugar!". (is 'isomorphic' an insult?)

i suspect no real progress will take place in the way of the public usage of portable bytecode systems and standard object frameworks until both java and .NET lie in ruins. or until java is willing to face the issues with java at a deep-rooted level and do some serious rethinking and serious rewriting. or until the java standards board takes java away from sun and runs with it.

i look at it this way, though: sun has done a hell of a lot with java with not a lot of resources. everyone who's used java in any capacity has probably been annoyed a decent amount for its shortcomings, but its shortcomings usually come down to "it isn't everything". maybe it was foolish for java to *try* to be everything, but i'll say this: they got a lot closer to being everything a lot faster than any other computing platform i'm aware of. i for one am impressed. i just wish it was better.

i dunno. all i want is a cross-platform object system that looks like nextstep that actually *works* crossplatformly, and a garbage collector.

Re:Proprietary against proprietary... yawn!

[zzyzx]

This accusation gets hurled a lot, but I've never actually seen evidence for it. Is there a website or something that details this? I actually worked on the Office team for a while (just a contractor... and I was laid off in that screw the contractors round of firing so no love lost between us) and there was no evidence that the Office and Windows teams got along much better than Office and (say) Marketing. Maybe it changed by the time that I arrived, but it wasn't happening when I was there. What's the proof please?

Re:Proprietary against proprietary... yawn!

[SashaM]

MS has offered a decent VM from the start.

That is true, Microsoft VM is a very stable (unlike Netscape or Kaffe) Java 1.1 JVM. Another advantage is that it comes with windows - no need for the user to go and install it himself. Could this be considered yet another "bundling with the OS" problem? Would OEM's preinstall Sun's VM if Microsoft didn't provide one?

MS tried to screw people in adding uncompatible java calls (non-JNI) without labelling them properly. They were trying to break Java.

They were trying to break Java, but adding your own libraries is perfectly ok (Sun VMs come with their libraries, which you can use if you want, but of course you lose portability). The problem was that they added nonstandard methods to the standard Java libraries and fooled J++ developers into using them. This made their programs run only on windows.

Another "bad" thing they did was not support RMI or JNI in their JVM and claiming it was completely 1.1 compatible (compatibility with 1.1 requires both RMI and JNI to be implemented). This is what Sun sued them for.

Sun VMs have taken a long time to match MS VMs in perfs.

That is not true. Sun's 1.1 JVM has similar performance to Microsoft VM. The problem was that the 1.2 JVM was much slower on the client side because of Java2D, which significantly slowed rendering. In fact, even the latest (both Sun's and others') VMs are still slower on rendering than the 1.1 JVMs.

Sun hasn't done much good in client-side support. Java applications are memory-hungry and just slow.

Java is somewhat memory hungry, but fast enough for practically any client side application. What is true (and unfortunate) is that Java makes it all too easy to write slow code. If you know what you're doing, you can make Java code only marginally slower than equivalent C/C++ code. And since you only need "fast enough for the user not to notice" code on the client side (unlike "as fast as possible" on the server), Java is actually a very good platform for client side apps.

See a clean, fast Java client for chessclub.com I wrote at http://www.hightemplar.com/jin/. Ironically, I use Microsoft VM by default on windows :-)

Chances are that MS would have done better.

Given Microsoft's record in developing good languages, I find that statement amusing at the very least.

Re:Proprietary against proprietary... yawn!

[ClosedSource]

"The problem was that they added nonstandard methods to the standard Java libraries and fooled J++ developers into using them. This made their programs run only on windows."

I think the idea that J++ developers were fooled is a myth. I suspect most J++ developers that used MS's extensions knew exactly what they were doing. Anyone out there who developed an application in J++ and discovered to their surprise after it was finished that it only ran on Windows?

Re:Proprietary against proprietary... yawn!

[daeley]

Might have something to do with the open source world not having any money, either, but that's just MHO. ;)

Re:Proprietary against proprietary... yawn!

[Anonymous Coward]

Usually being sued implies that you have money. Open source is superior because everyone involved is broke?

Re:Proprietary against proprietary... yawn!

[Anonymous Coward]

Take a look at the Wine source. They have found a lot of function calls that MicroSoft never listed or documented. The Wine developers have to make guesses about the purpose and workings of each function and try to replicate its behavior.

Re:Proprietary against proprietary... yawn!

[SashaM]

Anyone out there who developed an application in J++ and discovered to their surprise after it was finished that it only ran on Windows?

You'd be surprised how many "newbie" to "average" level developers don't understand the difference between the standard Java libraries and the additional libraries that usually accompany the "big" IDEs (Visual Cafe, J++, JBuilder). They just think that whatever the class tree shows them, is there to be used. Java newsgroups, message boards and mailing lists are full of questions like "Why does this applet run in Visual Cafe but not in IE or Netscape?" with a stacktrace like:

java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: com.symantec.vc.SomeNonStandardUsefulClass

Re:Proprietary against proprietary... yawn!

[Anonymous Coward]

So the Office team doesn't have at least read-only access to the Windows source code, employee directories, and advanced knowledge of new APIs? They write Office just by poking around in MSDN?

Re:Proprietary against proprietary... yawn!

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone who worked with J++, I'll second that. The product was sold as a better way to develop Windows business apps, and that included web-glue through COM and MTS. We certainly knew exactly what we were doing.

This was before J2EE was even on the market, which put MS in the clear lead for n-tier stuff with Java. That's what freaked Sun out -- and suing Microsoft left them with the much maligned non-OO VB, and very successfully put J2EE in the lead, and forced MS to radically alter their strategy and come up with NET.

Re:Proprietary against proprietary... yawn!

[SashaM]

It's amazing that Sun's (or any other non-M$) VM could approach the M$ VM perf considering the proprietary hooks and low-level tricks M$ used to get that kind of performance.

Let's ignore for a moment the fact that Sun's 1.1 JVM had comparable performance with Microsoft's - how do you explain then that the JVMs Sun makes for Linux (open source, no hidden hooks or APIs) and Solaris (their own platform) aren't any faster? How do you explain the fact that IBM has consistently released JVMs that run faster than Sun's? How do you explain bugs like Integer division and modulo operations are 10 times slower on Hotspot?

Re:Proprietary against proprietary... yawn!

[(void*)]

Since MS locks up their code, you can never have your said proof. And so, this comment must live on as it is - a damaging remark that cannot be answered.

Open Source companies will never have to suffer such indignities.

Re:Proprietary against proprietary... yawn!

[spectecjr]

It's amazing that Sun's (or any other non-M$) VM could approach the M$ VM perf considering the proprietary hooks and low-level tricks M$ used to get that kind of performance.

You know what most of those proprietary hooks and low-level tricks are?

Not using fopen and malloc to handle all of your memory management and file i/o.

That's it. End of story.

Use VirtualAlloc for memory management, and you'll get better perf.
Use CreateFile with overlapped I/O or completion ports, and you'll get better perf.

Basically, Sun writes their code to be ported, and MS writes it directly to their platform. Portable code = sucky performance. Live with it -- don't blame Microsoft because Sun don't tune their code.

Simon

Re:Proprietary against proprietary... yawn!

[Anonymous Coward]

I can answer this one: because Sun and the open source community have a love for basic design principles, like

• proper division of responsibility between app, library, and kernel
• separation of interface and implementation.

Microsoft stands alone in its insistance that elegance-of-architecture should be ignored in favor of performance, profit, and product tying.

Re:Proprietary against proprietary... yawn!

[Anonymous Coward]

How about something like hitting Ctrl-Alt-Del. Check what's running. Explorer? Hmm, why is that? It's not open... Oh, maybe because if you preload it when you boot, it'll open faster.

Re:Proprietary against proprietary... yawn!

[Ozx]

Those people should clearly be developing software...

Much of Microsoft's extensions were good... They developed things that were useful and offered better performance... I could make the choice of using these (and making Java useful to me) or not (leaving it fairly useless for 90% of client tasks)...

Re:Proprietary against proprietary... yawn!

[J. Random Software]

If you turn on "active desktop", iexplore renders your desktop instead of explorer.

Re:Proprietary against proprietary... yawn!

[cb0y]

Wrong, its because people ARE using MS apis, ie MFC, if people coded direct WTL or win32 apis it would be fast.

IF there are good undocumented apis, any one can reverse engineer the trace/calls made by said app.

Re:Proprietary against proprietary... yawn!

[cb0y]

1. Yeah, use C++ new/delete not crappy malloc via 12 levels of apis.

2. fopen/fread doesnt matter if your not doing many fopens, and if all your freads read in 256Kb blocks.

Re:Proprietary against proprietary... yawn!

[spectecjr]

Yeah, use C++ new/delete not crappy malloc via 12 levels of apis

New and delete are most likely implemented in the same way as malloc and free in most systems; they'll both make the same calls under the hood. Using VirtualAlloc (or heck, even deserialized local heaps) WILL make a difference. Particularly for generational garbage collection because you can reuse the same slots over and over again, and optimize for that case.

fopen/fread doesnt matter if your not doing many fopens, and if all your freads read in 256Kb blocks

256Kb blocks are wasteful. Optimal size is a function of the paging architecture of the system. Make sure your reads are to page-aligned memory, and things will be much faster. This is, for example, one reason why memory mapped files are about 20 times faster than normal file IO on Windows.

It's all back to writing code to the OS, or writing portable code -- one is good for perf, the other is good for portability. And like most optimizations, you can get a lot by just profiling and optimizing on a case by case basis.

Simon

Re:Proprietary against proprietary... yawn!

[Anonymous Coward]

Could you really still make the choice when Microsoft was hiding their nonstandard crap in the java.* packages?

Re:Proprietary against proprietary... yawn!

[czei]

1) Sun VMs have taken a long time to match MS VMs in perfs.

That depends on how you define a "long time". Java came out in '95, and wasn't even taken seriously until '96. Non- Microsoft VMs overtook MS performance in late '97, (after the lawsuit) and haven't improved since.

The event you're talking about, a short period of time when the MS virtual machine was fastest, was FIVE YEARS AGO!

3) Sun hasn't done much good in client-side support. Java applications are memory-hungry and just slow. Chances are that MS would have done better.

I've been writing fast Java GUIs since '96, and am tired of people blaming slow programs on the language. Its possible to write Java GUIs that run on windows and are indistinguishable from MFC apps in either performance or look and feel. Customers can't tell the difference and don't care.

If the "proof" of performance seems to be you saw a slow application written in Java, then C++ is also slow, as I've seen slow applications written in that language too.

It's called citing your sources

[yerricde]

but linking to a page when the entire contents are in the article seems a little goofy.

It's called citing your sources. Otherwise, not only do you have zero credibility, but you're also plagiarizing the original article. (Plagiarism and copyright infringement are considered separate offences.)

Sun has a multiple-personality disorder

[Anonymous Coward]

So let me get this straight: Sun doesn't like what liberties Microsoft took within' bounds of the Java agreement, so they sued Microsoft to cease working on Java, hence Java disappears from the XP feature list. Now that XP ships, Sun complains that Microsoft won't act as a free distribution channel for them (versus, say, customers having the right to download the Java runtime if they really wanted, just as they do with Flash, Quicktime, Realmedia, etc.).

Is it not a bit ridiculous that Sun is complaining that Microsoft is a monopoly for NOT distributing Sun's software for them? Why does Sun earn the priviledge of having their software distributed for them? I just made BleeboLang and want it distributed by Microsoft goddamnit, put right there on the root of the XP disc! Oh, wait, Sun believes that they are special, and it is their right that everyone should be forced to have Sun's Java installed...Uh huh...

Blah. Sun should sue Linus for not including Java in the kernel.

Re:Sun has a multiple-personality disorder

[Anonymous Coward]

Naw.

Sun should sue Red Hat for not including Java in their distro.

Red Hat does?

Sun sure didn't help that along. For years Sun refused to release a JVM for Linux, or allow anybody else access to the source code to port one over.

Microsoft may be our enemy, but so is Sun.

Re:Sun has a multiple-personality disorder

[Jan Venema]

This has nothing to do with the previous lawsuit. This one is about anti-trust and how .NET will strengthen Microsoft's monopoly. The argument SUN makes is that Microsoft has been disrupting distribution of JAVA from day one. First by eliminating the distribution power provided by Netscape. Then creating an incompatible version and leaving out major parts (think RMI) rendering the platform handicaped. And finally removing the JAVA runtime from Windows alltogether. Putting in its place a new Runtime, .NET which is essentially the same thing.

Now here we have a monopolist that controls the distribution of technologies. It can make or break a technology regardless of its quality or current marketshare.

SUN is trying to prevent a situation where there is only one runtime to choose from.

I hope it works

[swagr]

In its suit, Sun is seeking preliminary injunctions requiring Microsoft to:

• 
  
• Distribute Sun's current binary implementation of the Java plug-in as part of Windows XP and Internet Explorer;
  
• Stop distribution of Microsoft's Java Virtual Machine through separate downloads.

Wow. It would be nice, but is there any way it could actually happen? We are talking Microsoft.

Re:I hope it works

[Boomer2]

It's possible; but it will take forever to reach a final judgement and order by the court after all of the appeals by M$.

That's the thing: Sun can't REALLY expect to get cash any time soon. M$ will appeal to the last. It will be another decade before it's all finished.

The only realistic thing M$ competitors can hope is to so bog down and drain M$ with scads of lawsuits that they either go bankrupt or give in like IBM did.

Keep piling on!!! They can pay off the politicians to back off; but they can't hide hundreds of private lawsuits.

See you at the final M$ bonfire when we spit on the desicated remains of microSHAFT. I only hope Billy G is still around and cares enough to feel the pain of watching his spoiled little child go away.

so to summarize...

[AdamBa]

First Sun sued to require Microsoft to remove Java from Windows, now they are suing to require Microsoft to put it back in?

Hmmf. The AOL lawsuit is going to result in Microsoft putting Netscape's management on trial to show that they caused Navigator to tank...and this trial is going to result in Microsoft putting Sun's management on trial to show that they caused Java to go astray.

Forget the XFL...NBC should sell tickets to the software industry.

- adam

Re:so to summarize...

[Tuzanor]

Sun sued Microsoft to remove the Windows only extentions from thier Virtual Machine (hence breaking the Java API. Its in the Java license that you can't do that). Microsoft just decided "to hell with you" and removed the whole Virtual machine. It was the same story with Microsoft J++.

Re:so to summarize...

[drteknikal]

You're correct, but I don't see how it is relevant. Sun said Microsoft had to remove the extensions or remove Java entirely. Microsoft removed Java entirely. Sun never anticipated that, and screwed themselves royally in the process. It was, however, an arrangement entirely within Sun's original demands, and completely acceptable to the court where Sun filed suit.

"Microsoft did us irreparable harm by agreeing to our demands. We will now sue Microsoft for complying with the terms we dictated to them."

Re:so to summarize...

[adamy]

No, Sun sued MS because they attempted to change the Java Virtual Machine so that it would only work with code produced by MS J++. That was the problem. THe reason why the mS employees are so proud of the code is they were able to optimize UI...but those optimizations requre code to be writton on and for Windows only. That was why the forced them to stop bundling. If they produced a compatble JVM setup, Sun would be ecstatic. Code written on Windows using MS tools would run on Solaris. This would support Sun's big ticket items (E10000 et alles) and take advantage to the MS ownership of the Desktop. That would damage NT/W2K/XP server sales and the MS attempt to move up the chain.

Also, well optimized Java code running on a well tuned JVM pushed out as a web application (Applet, Web Launch) would take market share away from MS only development platform code (VB/VC++) and allow people to write and distribute code easily around a big organization.

Unlike MS, Sun is a Hardware developer. Everything they do is to support sales of Sun Hardware. Why Java? So you can write code that Runs on the Sparc as easily as possible. Why Open Source Open Office, NetBeans, make the Gnt Tools run on Solaris? So people buy Sparc.

Personally, I think Sun made a mistake pulling the Solaris Source Code. If the advances made in Solaris ended up in the Sparc port of linux, more people could run Sun Hardware. But I digress...

Re:so to summarize...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why could more people run Sun Hardware if solaris source ended up in linux?

That makes no sense, first, solaris is optomized for Sparc, linux is not, no matter how much source is taken from solaris. Second, when you buy new or refurbished hardware from sun(This would be the only hardware _they_ sell), then you have to pay, and you get solaris. If you buy from Tauntung(sp?), then I don't think you need to purchase a solaris license, there are also various other places to buy sparcs with no OS.

So, no, linux would not sell new hardware for sun,
nice troll

Re:so to summarize...

[blowdart]

Sun sued MS because they attempted to change the Java Virtual Machine so that it would only work with code produced by MS J++.

No they didn't. Sun sued because MS added class libaries to hook into low level windows functions, and named the classes so they looked like part of the standard ones. J++ code could be written to run on any JVM, quite easily, by just avoiding using the MFC like interface library and the windows extensions.

Re:so to summarize...

[adamy]

Not a troll. It would just be another option. All I'm saying is it wouldn't hurt Sun's hardaware sales. Maybe your reasoning is right.

I think Sun is making thesame mistake Apple did, trying to controll both the Hardware and Software side of the Equasion. MS has shown that Controlling Software is effective. Intell has shown Controlling the Hardware is effective. I think Sun would be better off if they could get people to run a low level PC-like machine for cheap. It would make it easier to sell the Upgrade to higher level machines.

Yes, I realize Solaris is optimized for SPARC and linux isn't. But For non Java programs, making it so it runs on both Linux and Solaris is non trivial...It is the Unix fragmentation problem you've heard about all ove the place here. So supporting linux for the Sparc would push up the amount of Software that could be run on sparcs.

I have to admit I am of two minds about this, as I think Sun is probably making the right decision to focus on the Server. Linux again makes a decent alternative to windows for the desktop in this scenario as a simple X Server for running Programs off the server, Java or otherwise.

Who is the Bigger Troll, the Troll, or the Troll who follows him...

Re:so to summarize...

[Anonymous Coward]

hi,
The initial request to remove it was done because Microsoft was trying to break Java. Sun's move on this was a good one.

What Microsoft should have done as a good corporate citizen:
1. Sign an agreement with Sun, where Sun will continue to work on JVM for Microsoft platform and they(Microsoft) will include it in the distribution CD's.
With this, they(Microsoft) will save development cost and may earn a royalty from Sun for including the JVM in their porducts.

thanks...pathfnder

Innappropriate Demands

[slugfro]

It looks like Sun has a good mindset in that they have seen little change in Microsoft's tactics:

"While this suit is based on the past actions of Microsoft, Sun also believes that Microsoft's continuing practices in the marketplace represent a threat to lawful competition and the millions of developers who depend on the existence of an open software industry. This behavior manifests Microsoft's goal to use its monopoly position to turn the Internet into its proprietary platform. What is at stake here is the future of an open software industry and an open Internet," continued Morris.

However, the demands of Sun seem a little absurd.

In its suit, Sun is seeking preliminary injunctions requiring Microsoft to:

• Distribute Sun's current binary implementation of the Java plug-in as part of Windows XP and Internet Explorer;
• Stop distribution of Microsoft's Java Virtual Machine through separate downloads.

Demanding that Microsoft be required by law to distribute Sun's own product is absurd. If this demand is approved by a court it may set a dangerous precident where the courts have the power to dictate how a company is run. I definitally agree that Microsoft has abused their power and should be punished but this is surely a dangerous method of remedy.

Re:Innappropriate Demands

[Petersko]

"Sun Microsystems Inc. (SUNW) said Friday it was suing rival Microsoft (MSFT) for more than US$1 billion because the software giant made the Windows XP operating system incompatible with SunÕs Java programming language."
I have Windows XP. Just a few days ago I downloaded a new version of the Java Virtual Machine, one specifically for XP.

Sun and Oracle have turned into parodies of justice. I can't take them seriously anymore - can you?

Re:Innappropriate Demands

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes I can, next question.

Re:Innappropriate Demands

[C. Mattix]

I am currently developing a 100% Pure Java pruduct using Sun's Forte Community Edition, using JDK1.4 on Windows XP Pro. Guess what....it works fine.

Sun doesn't have a case. Didn't they sue MS eariler about using the MSJAVA SDK? Well. . they won. Now MS is saying. . "Fine, you don't want us to have Java, you win. We will not longer have Java (by default)." Now Sun is whineing again. You can't have it both ways.

What is next? Are they going to fobid the use of Kaffe? Or IBM's? What about Oracle's, that one isn't 100% compatible (try using JNI with it)?

Re:Innappropriate Demands

[Ankh]

People rarely get the full settlement they ask for in US lawsuits, so they have to set out by asking for at least twice what they thing they should get.

A fairer settlement might be to require that Microsoft remove the proprietary extensions, or make those a separate download or something.

But that's for others to decide.

--

Re:Innappropriate Demands

[Paul Lamere]

That's not absurd at all... companies, especially monopolies are required by law to do all sorts of things. For instance, my phone company, even though it offers DSL as a product, is required by law to allow other DSL providers to provide service as well.

Re:Innappropriate Demands

[slugfro]

Your example (the phone company), is actually a company being required to allow other companies to utilize the existing infrastructure to sell a service. I see your point but it is not directly related to Sun's demands. The Phone company is not required to bundle and sell third party DSL with normal phone service. That would be the correlation to the demand of Sun.

Re:Innappropriate Demands

[dagnabit]

Sun doesn't want M$ to ship a M$ JVM, because that's non-standard Java support and was the basis for the first lawsuit. Sun wants M$ to ship Sun's JVM, if they're going to ship _any_ JVM, because Sun's is the "legal" version...

Re:Innappropriate Demands

[ClosedSource]

"Sun wants M$ to ship Sun's JVM, if they're going to ship _any_ JVM, because Sun's is the "legal" version..."

Correct except for the phrase "if they're going to ship _any_ JVM". Sun doesn't want MS to have the option of not shipping a JVM.

Re:Innappropriate Demands

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, but you've got the wrong analogy too. Let's assume that the third party in question had invented DSL and all of the software and hardware necessary to implement it, and the phone company cloned that hardware and software and started selling PhoneCoDSL bundled with localservice while blocking the orginal inventor from the local loop. That's essentially what MSFT has done.

Re:Innappropriate Demands

[slugfro]

Let's assume that the third party in question had invented DSL and all of the software and hardware necessary to implement it...

What third party DSL provider invented DSL and all the software and hardware necessary to implement it? None? And even if that were true then only one company did it while the phone company is providing the capability to many third party DSL providers. This example is not quite the same.

And since Sun control Java, bad news for Java

[ondelette]

That's the problem with Java being proprietary. Java will slowly sink along with Sun.

Sad.

Oh! Well, we'll have mono by then!

Operating System requirements...

[Colz Grigor]

The Reuters article on this subject stated that Sun filed this suit primarily because Windows XP doesn't ship with any support for Java.

I'm curious, though. What legal rationale could Sun claim would require Microsoft to ship with support for their product?

If I developed my own virtual machine, could I sue Microsoft for not including support for it?

I'm not so inclined to say "Down with Microsoft" without the legal framework for it... someone enlighten me!

::Colz Grigor

Re:Operating System requirements...

[donglekey]

There is also the fact that they had included it before which I am sure makes a huge difference. So in essence they are not choosing to not include it, they are taking it out of windows, and the motivations behind that are very obvious.

Re:Operating System requirements...

[C. Mattix]

They were forced to take it out by a previous Sun lawsuit.

Re:Operating System requirements...

[JLester]

They are choosing not to include it because that was the terms of the settlement from the last Sun lawsuit. MS either had to remove their proprietary extensions or not include Java at all with Windows. They chose the latter and I can't say I blame them. It's like Sun is suing them to add something back that they demanded MS remove!

Jason

Re:Operating System requirements...

[Vancouverite]

Having read their complaint, the reasoning is interesting. Essentially, Sun claims that the injunction from their successful trial agains MS in regards to Java technology only allows distribution of their JVM in ways that and with products that it was previously distributed with.

Since MS is now distributing the JVM through an on-demand download, which they did not previously do, Sun claims that they are violating this piece of the injunction (which is, probably, technically correct). IOW, either distribute it like you used to (bundled with the OS/Browser), or don't do it at all (damaging the user experience when using the IE browser even more).

The rest of the complaint is also interesting - some strong points, some weak points (their IIS tying claim is probably the weakest one). Everyone should read it... the full complaint can be found here

Re:Operating System requirements...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they are asking them to put it in the way that they wanted it. Really I don't see this as any worse than MS using the law to force oems to include Windows all their machines or pay them for it anyway. Or did you think that MS wouldn't sue for piracy if Dell didn't pay up?

Wrong, but thanks for playing

[Anonymous Coward]

We are seeing these lawsuits because Netscape's AOL's and Sun's products are even shittier than MS's.

They realize that they cannot compete by coming up with better products. They will realize that cannot compete by out lawyering MS, either.

Now would be a good time to short SUNW.

Re:Wrong, but thanks for playing

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck you pal. I happen to like Sun's products and particularly Java. When's the last time a server app written in Java was vulnerable to a buffer overflow exploit? (Hint: Never, Java checks array indicies, C doesnt)

Re:Wrong, but thanks for playing

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the level of discourse on could expect from a Sun zealot (I didn't know there were any).

Since your livelyhood depends on Sun, I hope you enjoy Skid Row. I know I enjoy the money I made shorting SUNW stock.

Re:Wrong, but thanks for playing

[Anonymous Coward]

i also happen to like some of Microsoft's products too. Like Win2k. Very stable. Unlike Win98, I dont need to reset it every other day. Instead, the only time I've had to reset it was due to a power outage.

You, OTOH, seem to simply be an open source zealot that hates anything commercial. Go back into your hole and fantasy world.

Re:Wrong, but thanks for playing

[Anonymous Coward]

Java checks array indicies

So that's your reason to like Java? You should like Visual Basic then too!

Re:Wrong, but thanks for playing

[Anonymous Coward]

but you dont get cross-platformness with VB. Sure you can get cross-platform with C/C++, but not without a ton of extra work.

Re:Wrong, but thanks for playing

[Anonymous Coward]

Never said you did get "cross-platformness" with VB. He said Java checks array "indicies" (I think he really meant that it checks bounds) and I was just pointing out that if THAT is his reason for liking Java so much, there are other languages, like VB, which also do this. Mostly, I was being a smart ass. But thanks for taking me seriously.

Re:Wrong, but thanks for playing

[jedidiah]

Until there is a level playing field, your arguments are simply fantasies. One should expect a MUCH better product from a company that has money to burn.

Since Microsoft has an unfair advantage against AOL and Sun, employing lawyers to level the playing field is not at all unreasonable.

Sun still builds servers that puts anything that runs WinDOS to shame. You short SUNW at your own peril.

Re:Wrong, but thanks for playing

[Anonymous Coward]

Hahaha, Solaris shittier than NT? Please. Repeat after me: Microsoft is a monopoly. This has been proven in a court of law.

Damages sought after ..

[ShelfWare]

Sun's remedies include a "Permanent injunction requiring Microsoft to:

• Disclose and license proprietary interfaces, protocols and formats.
• Unbundle tied products like Internet Explorer, IIS and .NET framework."

It is amazing that the disclosure of proprietary interfaces, protocols, etc (Open Source) can be the single solution to Microsoft's violation of 7 (summary different anti-trust laws.

Re:Damages sought after ..

[erasmus_]

I also love the fact that Sun wants MS to:

1) Stop bundling .NET
2) Start bundling Java

Let's think about this for a second. Microsoft should make all their technology available only as a separate download, but Sun's technology should be integrated and available in Windows?

I could also understand the argument of unbundling IE, I guess you could have an OS without a browser (nowadays, we'd call that crippled software), but .NET Framework is a development technology. How do you unbundle that? Always make 2 versions of your programs, ones that use COM and ones that use .NET? This is absolute bollocks. Sun is scared of .NET and wants to use this lawsuit settlement as a chance to give Java a boost and set .NET to fail. Perhaps we can let the marketplace sort this out.

Re:Here is Sun's Response

[l33t j03]

While this response is all well and good, it isn't like Sun doesn't have a storied past. This is the company that tried to drive everyone away from Java by suing the hell out of everyone who used the word in any way in their product.

"Microsft's Java virtual machine is an obvious attempt to leverage their monopoly power to stifle a product that is at the core of Sun's business model..."

Absolutely ridiculous. While Sun is responsible for much of the initial work that went into Java, I can't imagine that it is the 'core of their business'. And I though the idea was that it was to be a universal language? MS is a big target, and Sun is just trying to grab a chunk of them for themselves.

Sun & MS tag team poor Java

[GCP]

MS's attitude was that there was no way they were going to allow Java to take over the Windows programming market in a way that might make Windows irrelevant underneath. They succeeded.

Sun's attitude was that there was no way they were going to allow Java to become "just a better way to write Windows apps." They succeeded.

As a result, Java is virtually irrelevant to Windows client app development, and since Windows is the vast majority of all "computer-scale" clients, Java is irrelevant for almost all client programming. Go team!

Re:Sun & MS tag team poor Java

[Richard_Davies]

SEARCH AND REPLACE:

MS's attitude was that there was no way they were going to allow Linux to take over the Windows programming market in a way that might make Windows irrelevant. They succeeded.

The Linux comminty's attitude was that there was no way they were going to allow Linux to become "just a better way to write Windows apps." They succeeded.

As a result, Linux is virtually irrelevant to Windows client app development, and since Windows is the vast majority of all "computer-scale" clients, Java is irrelevant for almost all client programming. Go team!

- Idea: Prehaps Java & Linux can help each other?

Re:Sun & MS tag team poor Java

[MacOSXHead]

You are incorrect. I am a consultant to a large genomics company. This company has used Java and Swing for some rather large, complex applications that are being used in the most visible way possible. The apps are both for raw data collection and very complex data analysis.

Using Java made it possible to develop these applications in a relatively short period of time. Java is very forgiving compared to C++. Development times are probably at least half of what they would have been if we had gone down the C++/MFC route.

In additions, Java provide a natural path to make your standalone client apps into integrated enterprise apps.

Java and particularly Swing are not perfect, but they are much better application level development tools than C++/MFC. And they are kinda sorta portable.

Java is only irrelevant if YOU choose another development platform.

Re:Sun & MS tag team poor Java

[Anonymous Coward]

AFAIK, RedHat doesn't go around to customers and recommend that they rewrite their Visual Basic/Visual C-based clients so that they run on Linux. But Sun did exactly that with Java, all while actively opposing any improvements to Java that would appeal to Windows developers.

But ultimately, client programming is a declining market and has been since good web toolkits (including ASP and Java) have become available. And Microsoft will probably dominate it until the end.

Class Action Suit

[Anonymous Coward]

I say we get everyone together who has ever had to perform support for a MS product and file a class action suit against MS for damages caused by emotional distress. We should also start saving the Excedrin and Tums receipts and have MS pay for them too.

Is this the smartest move ?

[beanerspace]

As a programmer, Sun and Microsoft matter to me only in that I need to be able to deliver products that are stable, fast and flexible.

Which is why much of my previous Java programming on Win32 platforms used the MSFT runtime versus Sun's. Yes, I was coding myself into an evil-empire box, but that's what the client wanted, despite my warnings.

One of the reasons I used the MSFT runtime was because it was fast-fast-fast, and it was much easier (at least for me) to instantiate windows, COM services, etc. than it was via straight-up J2EE.

If I were Sun, what I would have done was NOT sued them to remove it, and NOT sue them now to put it back in ... but rather I would say "we can sue you ... or you can teach us how to improve our runtime on Win32 as well as other operating systems."

Oh wait, I just snapped-back into reality .. I fofgot there are egos on both sides .. and much to be gained and lost financially and in terms of world domination.

Re:Is this the smartest move ?

[Anonymous Coward]

I assume when you say RUNTIME you actually mean Virtual Machine ?

Re:Is this the smartest move ?

[Anonymous Coward]

well aren't you something else

Reloading the page...

[equalize]

I keep reloading this page to see if I can get a Microsoft Banner Ad on here:)

(I've been waiting weeks for this!)

Re:Reloading the page...

[Anonymous Coward]

What? You haven't subscribed yet?

Dissolve MS Now!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's their fault you are a shitty coder!

Damn, those bastards!

two-faced

[drteknikal]

So, Sun sues Microsoft over making Windows-specific extensions to Java, and Microsoft eventually responds by removing Java from IE. Now Sun is suing MS for removing Java from IE.

I licensed your product. You didn't like the way I implemented it on my platform. So I removed it. Now you're not happy that I've removed it. Since when does a license that allows you to distribute something REQUIRE you to distribute something? If it's "all or nothing", and Microsoft chooses "nothing", where does Sun have a case?

This should be laughed out of court.

Re:two-faced

[tommck]

I completely agree...
The settlement for the previous lawsuit dictated that Microsoft is allowed to use JDK 1.1.4 (read: old as time) and nothing further.
That is the only version of Java that M$ is allowed to use.
Microsoft did not want to offer old technology to people, so they opted not to offer it at all.
Odds are that any Java technology that Microsoft is currently allowed to offer wouldn't be able to run any applets or applications written in the last couple of years. Thus, people would just have to go download a new JDK anyway!
What's the difference?

T

What Sun Seeks

[Zeinfeld]

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 Java Virtual Machine through separate web downloads, instead of incorporating within Windows XP and Internet Explorer, in accordance with Jan. 23, 2000 settlement agreement.

In other words seeks to undo in this Microsoft suit what it 'won' in its other Microsoft suit.

Last I heard there was no law that said that Sun could decide what Microsoft distributes with their O/S.

Essentially what Sun are demanding that the court do is to tie the distribution of Windows XP to a proprietary Sun product. Sun has consistently refused to allow other companies to extend Java in any way that Sun does not sanction. Meanwhile Sun are demanding that Microsoft be prevented from distributing their .NET CLI which competes against JVM.

Jackson's rulling is not going to be as much use to sun in the suit as many here think. Sun can bring it up at the trial, great, but Microsoft can also bring up the fact that Jackson was dismissed from the case and his 'findings of law' thrown out by the appeals court for gross procedural violations, apparent and actual bias. They can also quote from the Appeals court judges statement that the fact that Jackson describes something as a finding of fact does not make it a finding of fact.

All told I don't think that any sensible lawyer for the Plaintif would want to rely very heavily on the Jackson opinions. They are unlikely to have much weight with the judge and would be very likely to backfire in front of a jury. The appeals court rulings are much narrower.

Re:What Sun Seeks

[Shotgun]

Sun can bring it up at the trial, great, but Microsoft can also bring up the fact that Jackson was dismissed from the case and his 'findings of law' thrown out by the appeals court for gross procedural violations, apparent and actual bias. They can also quote from the Appeals court judges statement that the fact that Jackson describes something as a finding of fact does not make it a finding of fact.

(snicker)OK, troll. Calm down. 'findings of law'? where did you get that term? The fact is that the appeals court upheld Jackson's finding of 'facts', and just sent the sentencing back to the lower court for reconsideration. Try to get out and read a newpaper occasionally, dipshit.

Re:What Sun Seeks

[Zeinfeld]

(snicker)OK, troll. Calm down. 'findings of law'? where did you get that term? The fact is that the appeals court upheld Jackson's finding of 'facts', and just sent the sentencing back to the lower court for reconsideration. Try to get out and read a newpaper occasionally, dipshit.

From Jackson himself, his opinions were titled 'Findings of Fact' and 'Findings of Law'. It is curious that you choose to go to newspapers (the National Enquirer apparently) for your information. I read the court briefs.

The appeals court found that Jackson's conduct required the whole sentencing part of the case to be thrown out because of apparent and real bias. The Appeals court also noted that Jackson appeared to be attempting to put issues beyond review by the appelate court by labeling opinions as 'Findings of Fact'.

While Sun might attempt to use the appelate decision in their case it is unlikely to be very useful because most of it is trashing Jackson. The only fact that comes out of the appeals decision that would help Sun is the statement that Microsoft is a monopoly which Sun's lawyers probably would not anticipate much difficulty with. I don't recall any off the other findings by the appeals court being relevant to Sun.

The settlement between the DoJ and Microsoft explicitly states that other parties may not use the findings as binding evidence in other cases. The findings are in any case subject to further appeal as the case of the nine remaining states continues. In theory Microsoft could still take the case to the Supreme court and argue against the somewhat peculiar appeals court decision that Jackson was impartial up to the end of the evidence phase and biased in the penalty phase. The attempt to appeal was denied on the narrow grounds that the process in the lower courts was continuing.

Given the mauling that the apeals court gave to Jackson and his 'finding of fact' I don't think that they are likely to play a major role in the Sun case. I doubt that the new court is going to decide that there is no need for an evidentiary hearing as a result of the Jackson opinions. If Sun attempts to introduce the Jackson opinion as evidence, Microsoft will introduce the Appeals court finding that Jackson was guilty of willfull misconduct.

Netscape/AOL will probably find the Appeals court decision rather more useful because the issue of the browser tie was specifically examined. I doubt that Sun will find much of usef because of Jackson's misconduct and the fact that Jackson did not hear very much evidence that related to Java.

The reason that Microsoft got off is first Jackson is a fool and second the DoJ fought the wrong case. The browser case was very weak, Netscape themselves used zero pricing to kill Spyglass. There were much better issues to beat Microsoft up over, in particular the restrictive OEM contracts the appeals court appear to have mainly considered.

Re:Treble damages...??

[Anonymous Coward]

treble damages what is a treble?

Is it a distant cousin to the Tribble??

Sun... another frivolous lawsuit... *chuckle*

[Petersko]

From Canoe's site - "Sun Microsystems Inc. (SUNW) said Friday it was suing rival Microsoft (MSFT) for more than US$1 billion because the software giant made the Windows XP operating system incompatible with SunÕs Java programming language."

I have Windows XP. Just a few days ago I downloaded a new version of the Java Virtual Machine, one specifically for XP.

Sun and Oracle have turned into parodies of justice. I can't take them seriously anymore - can you?

Re:Treble damages...??

[GSloop]

Just mosey over to your dictionary.com

treble Pronunciation Key (trbl)
adj.
Triple: "treble reason for loving as well as working while it is day" (George Eliot).
Music. Relating to or having the highest part, voice, or range.
High-pitched; shrill.

Cheers! [Moron]

Eh, tell me when it's a class action suit

[Bluetick]

You know, if the DOJ won't protect consumer rights, I think we should do it ourselves. Allege Microsoft has illegally expanded it's monopoly into new fields, restricted access to competitors, and detrimentally abused the market as a whole with buggy and insecure software. I think a class action suit would do well.

Re:Eh, tell me when it's a class action suit

[zangdesign]

Actually, I'm considering suing Sun for forcing Microsoft to include a Java VM, when I don't want or need one.

The harm: excessive anxiety over the amount of diskspace taken up by Sun's VM and worry about compatibility issues.

The remedy: about $250 in real damages, and $500 million in mental anguish, lost time, depression etc.

The terms of this suit are way more reasonable than Sun's wishy-washy attitude on shipping their VM. The thing is available for download if you need it, and if you don't, then you don't have to download it.

This is the equivalent of suing every Linux release for not including Jahshaka (a Linux-based video editing/effects package).

It's stupid and it sucks.

Re:Eh, tell me when it's a class action suit

[Chris Johnson]

Hey, I already do that, but when they can go to my vendor and say "Kill quicktime- yes we want you to 'knife the baby', and by the way you need to kill that Cyberdog stuff and support only IE- here's a bunch of system extensions to build into your operating system to 'support' it... have them installed as default"... then trying to use another vendor is obviously not enough.

Engaged in copyright infringement

[jhines0042]

Engaged in copyright infringement (violation of 17 U.S.C. 501).

Wait, you mean someone at Microsoft downloaded an MP3?

::DUCKING::

Re:Engaged in copyright infringement

[Ilgaz]

No way! They all use windows media format aren't they?

ahem because its better than mp3 :-)

Wired

[Anonymous Coward]

Wired is also carrying the story.

I wonder for how much money?

[Anonymous Coward]

and I'll be we may never know.

The DOJ and these new lawsuits.

[Djeo]

No one is happy with the DOJ caving in the settlement talks. I know I'm not. But I've wondered for quite a while now if part of the reason they're not looking for any sanctions that mean anything because this Administration thinks enough damage has been done. Sure, the federal government isn't looking to get a pound of flesh from Microsoft, but since MS has been found to be an illegal monopoly all kinds of companies feel free to savage them with lawsuits. I think that the DOJ feels that this is enough.
What's that Seinfeld said? Oh yeah, "Unleash the hounds!"

What Sun Seeks

[sqlgeek]

From www.sun.com/lawsuit/summary.html

Sun is seeking remedies that include:

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 Java Virtual Machine through separate web downloads, instead of incorporating within Windows XP and Internet Explorer, in accordance with Jan. 23, 2000 settlement agreement.
Permanent injunction requiring Microsoft to:

Disclose and license proprietary interfaces, protocols and formats.
Unbundle tied products like Internet Explorer, IIS and .NET framework.

Treble damages.

Attorneys' fees.

Sun just wants a handout

[ektor]

On January 23, 2001 Microsoft and Sun settled on the lawsuit about Microsoft shipping non-standard versions of Java. Part of the settlement was the following: "Sun has agreed to grant Microsoft a limited license to continue to distribute its current version of the software, provided that all future versions of such products pass Sun's compatibility tests. This part of the agreement lasts seven years. Beyond that date, Microsoft can not distribute Java technology or use any of Sun's intellectual property."

Ok, so Microsoft can't distribute any Java after 2008. But Microsoft decided not to included the Java VM with Windows XP, kind of saying we don't need your stinking POS. Now, on this new lawsuit Sun asks among other things for: "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." Why don't they make up their fucking mind?

It seems to me Sun is just looking for some money to pad their lackluster balance sheet. If you think Sun is doing any of this for the good of the public you should stop watching the Teletubbies.

Re:Sun just wants a handout

[HiThere]

I'm sure Sun want's to get some more cash. Who doesn't. I don't find this as in any way indicating that their grievance isn't justified.

Yeah, Sun's no angel either. So? They've still been grossly injured by an illegal monopoly. I don't trust them, they're too hungry for power. But I trust them considerably more than I'll trust MS for at least a decade or two. (Do you *really* trust IBM? You shouldn't. They are temporary allies. This may change, but don't count on it, either way.)
.

Re:Sun just wants a handout

[Shiny Metal S.]

If you think Sun is doing any of this for the good of the public you should stop watching the Teletubbies.

This is obvious, Sun would probably act exacltly the same as Microsoft if they had the monopoly. I don't use Solaris for the same reason I don't use Windows. But we have to ask ourselves a question: whose victory would be better for the public now?

Re:Sun just wants a handout

[Kwil]

On January 23, 2001 Microsoft and Sun settled on the lawsuit about Microsoft shipping non-standard versions of Java. ... Microsoft decided not to included the Java VM with Windows XP, kind of saying we don't need your stinking POS. Now, on this new lawsuit Sun asks among other things for: "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." Why don't they make up their fucking mind?

There's no confusion here.. note the original settlement terms you provide:

Sun has agreed to grant Microsoft a limited license to continue to distribute its current version of the software, provided that all future versions of such products pass Sun's compatibility tests. [emphasis added]

Sun has always wanted Java distributed with MS-Windows. They just wanted a properly compatible version. When MS got told they had to play fair and couldn't use their usual embrace & extend strategy, they basically picked up their toys and went home.

Now Sun is saying that since they're the only game in town, they don't get to just pick up their toys and go home. They have a responsibility to the public/market to allow anybody to play.. but they still have to play fair.

Of course they're not doing it for the good of the community. Anybody who thinks that is daft. But it's not just a hand out either, it's redress for wrongs done.

Another way to think of it is like Sun has a net, but the big bully MS has been keeping Sun from getting to the public stream so that MS can market all the fish on their own. Now that MS has been recognized as being in the big bully position, Sun's wanting them to pay up for keeping them from fishing.

Re:Sun just wants a handout

[snorfbat]

No, Sun's lawsuit does not contradict the previous settlement at all.

The 2001 settlement allowed Microsoft to continue distributing its Java 1.1.4-compatible VM through 2008; the years-old VM that has some Microsoft-specific stuff in it.

Sun is now asking that Microsoft be forced to distribute the latest Java Plug-In, which reflects Java 1.3 and does not have any Microsoft-specific stuff.

There's no contradiction.

Re:Sun just wants a handout

[ektor]

Now Sun is saying that since they're the only game in town, they don't get to just pick up their toys and go home. They have a responsibility to the public/market to allow anybody to play.. but they still have to play fair.

Of course you can always go and download a Java VM and you can even download one from Microsoft (!). Isn't that fair enough? Sure, Microsoft has a monopoly on the desktop but using that as an excuse to ask them to bundle with the OS or browser each product they are competing with seems a tad excesive. If Sun gets its way, couldn't then Real Networks and AOL ask to get their products included with Windows XP?

Re:Sun just wants a handout

[Kwil]

Of course you can always go and download a Java VM and you can even download one from Microsoft (!). Isn't that fair enough?

That's what the case will likely be deciding. I imagine your argument is similar to the one that Microsoft will be using.

However, as the courts have already ruled that Microsoft has illegally made use of its monopoly to damage companies, MS will be arguing against precedent. Sun will likely point to Netscape to show how the illegal leveraging of the monopoly damaged that company, even though you could alway s freely download Netscape as well.

As an additional point, the Microsoft VM is really no longer compatible with modern Java, so the version that XP directs you to is, for all intents and purposes, broken. MS provides no way to find Sun's Java VM, and mom & pop user who aren't in tune with the computer industry really won't have any idea of where to get a working one, or for that matter even that there is a working one. Sun will no doubt be using this as proof that, rather than being rehabilitated, MS is still trying to use its monopoly to harm other companies.

If Sun gets its way, couldn't then Real Networks and AOL ask to get their products included with Windows XP?

I imagine that they could, and expect that they will. I'll go even further and suggest that Real might have a decent chance of winning (if Sun does) as Windows Media Player could be seen as a leveraged competitive product. I'm not so sure about AOL though - it's harder to prove you're being damaged when you've already got the lion's share.

Re:Sun just wants a handout

[MtViewGuy]

I'm surprised you haven't been modded down to Troll status and less for that remark. :-)

I think this case--especially now with the Bush Administration in charge--will be dumped out like yesterday's bath water because it violates the agreement signed back in early 2001 in regards to the settlement of the dispute in the first place. Sun is (IMHO) trying this because they know the US v. Microsoft case is about to come to an end, and Sun can't piggyback on that case.

Re:Sun just wants a handout

[Anonymous Coward]

you could always freely download Netscape as well

But they used to require payment to use it more than a month or two (except in education). Microsoft has deliberately the market for web browsers for no better reason than spite--even Opera has resorted to ad revenue, which we all know means they're about to go under.

Re:Sun just wants a handout

[Anonymous Coward]

Because as clever as Scott McNealy is, he just doesn't have the guns to go up against MS.

The only company that does is IBM, and they're playing a chinese waiting game.

Re:Sun just wants a handout

[Anonymous Coward]

"Sun is now asking that Microsoft be forced to distribute the latest Java Plug-In, which reflects Java 1.3 and does not have any Microsoft-specific stuff."

I think MS should agree to distribute it as long as Sun keeps their crappy bloatware unde 1M.

But Sun isn't exactly cutting edge when it comes to programming technology, so I'll be they can't do a JVM in under 13M.

Competition through litigation

[--daz--]

This is part of Scott's effort to turn around Sun Microsystems and prevent the rapidly increasing downhill slide that the company is experiencing. Apparently, Sun's largest source of revenue is from suing Microsoft. This latest $1Billion will help run Sun for another year or so until they figure out another reason to sue MS. Oh yeah, and they want MS to disclose all their own intellectual property becuase, as you know, Sun needs all this to continue to make their Java VM crash more frequently on Windows.

Re:Reason: Sun is losing market share and money.

[BlueQuark]

Well one good reason for Sun losing market share and money is there arrogant attitude! I work in a small Sun shop. The biggest Sun box we have is an older E4500 (4proc) ` They ignore us and make things very difficult for us. And the way they are putting together their configurations for machines is ridiculous. We wanted to evaluate a SunFire V880 and connect it with some EMC storage and Sun just gave us the run around. On top of it they are being fairly inflexible with their new SunFire configurations. We have had great response and cooperation from HP and EMC. (Unfortunately HP makes a lousy UNIX) As far as I'm concerned (despite really liking Solaris) I believe Sun is the M$FT of the UNIX world.

This is good...

[psyconaut]

This is good not just because Microsoft is a corporation that, in some ways, is sucking the living blood out of the software and (now) hardware industries...it's also good because we have laws for a reason and it's Sun's *right* to be able to file lawsuits like this. Even if Sun doesn't win, it's kind of like having your comments duly noted.

Sun isn't always right. Oracle isn't always right. But I'm sure glad that both of them are around and have the resources to send a warning shot across the bow of the S.S. Microsoft. Aren't you?...

Re:This is good...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Sun isn't always right. Oracle isn't always right. But I'm sure glad that both of them are around and have the resources to send a warning shot across the bow of the S.S. Microsoft. Aren't you?...

I'd sure as Hell prefer it if they'd file suit over something worthwhile; this Sun suit is worthless - Microsoft's under no obligation to ship a Sun product with a Microsoft OS, in spite of Sun's fond wishes.

Sun won the MS/Sun Java suit, and MS decided not to ship Java, as they were entitled to under the terms of the settlement. OOOOPS - Sun fucks up, then tries to litigate its way back to sanity.

Sorry, this isn't firing warning shots or any other useful action; this is Sun frantically backtracking due to foolish lawyering in the first lawsuit.

Not another msft story pleez.

[Anonymous Coward]

All stories on msft will have.
-50 comments on why msft is the evil empire and should be flogged/broken up etc.
-30 comments on how Linux/galeon/mozilla is an alternative to msft.
-20 comments on why Open source is the best thing since sliced bread and in the near future will cure cancer and the common cold.
-35 comments on how msft buys out the politicians.
-25 comments How all the big corporates are forms of evil

Sun should spend their money on building a better
alternative to that piece of crap called swing and applets. They wouldn't need to sue microsoft then.
No I am not a big microsoft fan but Sun is only creating a nuisance value here. Hope the case gets thrown out.

MS like OJ unfortunately...

[Rooktoven]

Only the civil courts will spank them.

Guilty Guilty Guilty!

[WillSeattle]

The fact is - Sun's right. And Microsoft knows it.

However, since justice belongs to the highest bidder in this crony capitalist country - I predict Microsoft will successfully defend themselves against these warranted charges.

Naturally, this will employ tons of lawyers - and since they're tech lawyers, this is probably Good For The West Coast.

-
[sorry about the prior post - hit the Enter key by mistake]
-

Re:Guilty Guilty Guilty!

[bilbobuggins]

Sun is NOT right.

Come on, they're sueing to force something to be put IN a product?

Not only is this ridiculous, but everywhere I look on /. everyone is yelling about how if you don't like something then 'do it yourself' which is exactly what ms DID w/ .NET CLI which is (gasp!) the correct thing to do.

As much as I hate to side w/ MS, I'm sorry but this lawsuit is retarded...

Re:Guilty Guilty Guilty!

[WillSeattle]

As much as I hate to side w/ MS, I'm sorry but this lawsuit is retarded...

Ah, but you fail to realize that the law is not about smart things. It's only about the law.

This is not about Java

[DaoudaW]

The lawsuit is not about java. Most of the complaints relate to workgroup servers, web-browsers and productivity suites.

Does anyone know what became of the DR-DOS/Novell/Caldera complaint that Microsoft illegally tied the OS to the window manager (GUI)? I remember running Win95 on top of DR-DOS even though Microsoft claimed the window manager and OS were inextricably linked.

Re:This is not about Java

[Anonymous Coward]

"Does anyone know what became of the DR-DOS/Novell/Caldera complaint that Microsoft illegally tied the OS to the window manager (GUI)?"

I checked on http://www.leagleeagle.org/caseno/pl?13578 and the judge ruled that DR-DOS was such crapware that the judge "I have to hold my nose when a machine boots with this piece of crap" and therefore ruled MS was actually doing the public a favor in getting rid of it.

Why do you think Novell tanked? They invested almost $2B US in DR-DOS, and they eventually had to give it away to a homeless many in NYC and give him a bottle thunderbird so he wouldn't puke when he picked up the package.

Great ... ten different versions of Windows

[pgrote]

This is what the future holds if the states lawsuit or Sun's are successful.

I remember when there were three different DOS versions (DR.DOS, IBM and Microsoft). There were slight differences in all three that caused issues.

Look at the Unix space back then and it was the same thing.

I don't want ten different versions of Windows.

Re:Great ... ten different versions of Windows

[Anonymous Coward]

>I remember when there were three different DOS versions (DR.DOS, IBM and Microsoft). There were slight differences in all three that caused issues.

Exactly! MS coded Windows so that other versions WOULD cause problems on purpose!

This is fair?

Re:Great ... ten different versions of Windows

[pgrote]

Not flamebait at all. I don't want to have a day when I go to buy software I have to look and see if it's HP Windows, Dell Windows, Sun Windows, etc.

Yes, I did forget Tandy DOS. Sorry :-)

As for being an MS Apologist and thowing up their same arguments ... I'm not. I just happen to like the fact the industry has been standardized. I know that's not a popular opinion, but I don't think it's flamebait at all.

And yes, what Microsoft did to DR DOS sucked. I remember finding out about that when I tried to install 3.1 in a compnay who solidly was using Novell products. Quite a shock.

Yes, Microsoft taught us the importance of O.S.

[ondelette]

Without Microsoft, I would probably still be naive and think it ok to base my life on proprietary software.

Re:Yes, Microsoft taught us the importance of O.S.

[spruce]

psst......IT IS

People have been doing it for years. Hell, don't tell Slashdot, but I'm doing it right now.

Actually to clarify, I'm not basing my life on proprietary software, just my computer usage.

Good Grief

[rabtech]

This is an even bigger crock then I had first imagined. Sun is claiming all kinds of ridiculous things.

First, they claim that Microsoft has effectively monopolized (through illegal actions) the OS market for Intel machines, the web browser market, and the Office suite market.

While they may have engaged in questionable activities regarding the OS, the web browser is a core part of the computing experience today, just like a graphical user interface, TCP/IP and network connectivity, etc (all of which were separately purchased products at one point in the x86 history.)

Sun is also claiming that they tried to monopolize (using illegal tactics) the workgroup server OS market. This one is absolutely silly and absurd. Until some recent blunders by Novell, Microsoft did have hefty competition. However, I doubt anyone can argue that there is anything which is better than Microsoft's solutions for the workgroup and small business market. Maybe some products that offer the same functionality (open source or not), but certainly nothing that is head-over-heels "better".

Next, Sun claims they illegally tied IE to the operating system. As noted above, web browsing is now an essential part of the PC expierence; it only follows naturally that it should be included as part of the OS.

Now, here is where Sun really flies off the deep end and displays the true motivation behind the suit, which is Larry's obession with trying to beat Bill Gates and his highly successful company.

Sun claims that Microsoft broke the law by illegally tying their client OSes to their Server OSes. (I.e. somehow they tied it up so that Windows XP Pro only works with Windows XP Server and that such a situation is illegal and unfair.)

That's funny... SAMBA and Novell seemed to get along just fine. What did Sun expect? should Microsoft have gone with the awful NFS and NIS forever, abandoning any notions of directory services? What about the impact that would have had on existing installations of SMB? Besides; as I mentioned above, SAMBA does fairly well.

I won't deny that Win2K Pro and WinXP Pro are "tied" into Microsoft's Active Directory and so on, but what else did they expect? There is nothing here that hurts consumers; just the opposite in fact. A Win2K server with all Win2K clients is an excellent network to administer with Active Directory and Group Policy objects. Once again, we have the issue of what is really essential? I would argue that this kind of functionality is in fact essential to Operating Systems in general.

Sun also claims that Microsoft has illegally tied IIS into its server OSes. This one strikes me as really odd, because IIS isn't installed by default, it is simply included on the CD. In fact, for NT 4.0, you had to get a separate CD or download to install it; it wasn't even part of the standard distribution.

I've saved the most absurd for last... they are claiming that Microsoft illegally tied the ".NET framework to its PC and workgroup operating systems." Hilarious. Simply hilarious. What I find funny is that Microsoft is developing the .NET runtime for *BSD if I remember correctly.

Of course they are probably just mad that Microsoft isn't shipping a Java runtime in Windows XP; well, what did they expect? They sued Microsoft (the maker of the world's best Java runtime at that point) and forced them to stop distributing their runtime with the OS or developing any new versions.

In doing so, they shot themselves in the foot. You cannot honestly ask any company to ship their competitor's product with their own. That is an absurd idea at best.

The bottom line is that this just seems like more sour grapes from Sun and a cheap attempt to try and cash in on the bandwagon. Sun has been milking political sources behind the scenes throughout this whole antitrust situation for their own benefit. What scares me the most though is the idea that they might be successful. I would dred to live in a world where Sun controlled the desktop and server.

If living in a Microsoft world is bad, then living in Sun's vision of the same world must be HELL.

Re:Good Grief

[Anonymous Coward]

Sun controls iPlanet (formerly the enterprise side of Netscape) who had had a directory server product on the market for a long time. It utterly blows away the MS "LanMan Domain" directory that it competed with in the old days.

Anyway, there's some evidence that MS changed the APIs with Windows 2000 specifically to break other directory service products. If I was a consumer who had purchased iPlanet Directory or NDS, I certainly would have been harmed by this.

Your argument is primarily a technical one -- that ActiveDirectory is good stuff. That's legally irrelevant, however. The fact is that the product was 5 years late, and Microsoft took certain steps to eliminate their competitors siginficant advantage in the marketplace, both technical and financial (I happen to know that MS paid a large bank to drop NDS and implement AD, and I doubt that was an isolated incident.)

And if you think .NET isn't tied to Windows, you don't know the first thing about it (check WinForms, ADO.NET, and ASP.NET). The BSD runtime will only be capable of Hello World type applications and will be useless for business apps.

Re:Good Grief

[kindbud]

...the web browser is a core part of the computing experience today...

Bullshit!

...just like a graphical user interface...

Bullshit!

Next, Sun claims they illegally tied IE to the operating system. As noted above, web browsing is now an essential part of the PC expierence; it only follows naturally that it should be included as part of the OS.

Bullshit!

Now, here is where Sun really flies off the deep end and displays the true motivation behind the suit, which is Larry's obession with trying to beat Bill Gates and his highly successful company.

Larry is CEO of Oracle. Scott is CEO of Sun. Are you always this moronic in public, or are you trying to entertain us?

Sun also claims that Microsoft has illegally tied IIS into its server OSes. This one strikes me as really odd, because IIS isn't installed by default, it is simply included on the CD.

That is false. IIS is selected for installation by default on Win2K, and on XP it is installed without even asking you whether you want it.

In fact, for NT 4.0, you had to get a separate CD or download to install it; it wasn't even part of the standard distribution.

NT 4.0 is no longer sold or supported by Microsoft.

You cannot honestly ask any company to ship their competitor's product with their own. That is an absurd idea at best.

Of course you can, when the company in question is a monopoly. The ILECs were (admittedly ineffectively and half-heartedly) forced to open up their monopoly infrastructure to competing service providers. Why should the monopoly OS be treated any differently? It shouldn't.

Re:Good Grief

[Kamel Jockey]

You cannot honestly ask any company to ship their competitor's product with their own. That is an absurd idea at best.

Of course you can, when the company in question is a monopoly. The ILECs were (admittedly ineffectively and half-heartedly) forced to open up their monopoly infrastructure to competing service providers.

And the same exact thing will happen to those competitiors if Microsoft is made to include their competitor's products in their own. Seriously, if Microsoft is going to include Netscape, Sun Java, etc., do you think they are going to ensure that they work correctly with the rest of Windows? Heck no. Just as the ILECs screwed over the CLECs... it is all the same.

Re:Good Grief

[cmkrnl]

Thats utter bollocks, Netscapes LDAP server was one of the shittiest bug ridden implementations of LDAP I ever had the misfortune to roll out and support.

Now fsck off and lie somewhere else AC.

Curmudgeon

Out of court settlements and private negotiations

[westfieldscientific]

I don't have specific URLs to cite to properly illustrate the details - apologies.

To the best of my knowledge, Borland settled out of court, and the $$$$ were sufficient to fund a substantial amount of Kylix development, as well as C++Builder and other Linux initatives.

I'm not aware of any formal Corel move toward litigation, but it is a fact that in the spring of 2001, M$ acquired a minority position in the ownership of Corel, at a cost of millions.

Corel Office 2000 for Linux was taken off the market in November 2001, and Corel didn't attend this year's Linucworldexpo at all.

This isn't the time and place to debate Java vs. php or Perl, say. In legal terms, Billy saw Java as a threat and did the goon number....and that's the legal issue behind this suit

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

This is not good.

[C. Mattix]

This is not good. How many people did sun lay off? How many salaries could have been paid by the legal fees that this will cost?

Why don't they just use their resources and make a product such that average Joe Bob Customer will want to download the 20+MB binary to install.

Or if they really want to, send out CDs of the Java Runtime Environment ala AOL. I'm sure that would be cheaper, and more effective.

Re:This is not good.

[codepunk]

You my man are a damned idiot, think about what you are saying. Why did Sun have to lay off all of those
java engineers? Because the pricks in Redmond are sapping the life out of the java platform.

Re:This is not good.

[C. Mattix]

Mmmm . . . . troll food.

Java is not about applets. MS has never tried to mess with server-side java. Just applets, and some desktop programs.

Oh. .and 80% or the people at Sun that were laid off were in the Solaris groups.

Re:This is not good.

[codepunk]

Yea MS has never tried to mess with java on the server by putting in com hooks and shit.

Nobody said shit about a damn applet...

Re:This is not good.

[C. Mattix]

Sun is saying this is about the applets, because that is all the is not shipped with Windows XP, the ability to run applets in IE by default.

Re:This is not good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you do us all a favor and PULL YOUR FUCKING HEAD OUT????

The engineers at Sun who were laid-off had ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY NOTHING to do with Java or any other product that M$ uses. It was the Solaris (read "UNIX Bastardization") Product Group.

Your ears are leaking a smelly, brown substance.

Please.

[Kibo]

They are hardly so high minded.

A little cynicism would do you good.

They are suing because Microsoft has deep pockets and that reason alone. In sun's case, they weren't harmed, they were helped. And only their bizzar temper-tantrums have hurt them with respect to Java.

But the fact, not the idea, that they are using court rooms as away to improve their bottom line and not a place to seek redress makes me want to vomit. Those are the types of people at sun. Amoral sophists. That's what they stand for. It's only a matter of time before that attitude permiates everything they do.

Re:Please.

[Carmody]

But the fact, not the idea, that they are using court rooms as away to improve their bottom line and not a place to seek redress makes me want to vomit. Those are the types of people at sun. Amoral sophists. That's what they stand for. It's only a matter of time before that attitude permiates everything they do

If Microsoft hasn't trademarked the term "amoral sophists" then they should. That attitude already permeates everything Microsoft does. When you do something they don't want you to do, they whine and sue. When they break the law, they complain about whiners and sue-ers. And all the time they feed a steady stream of money into the gullets of people who are able to make it easier for them to sue, and harder for them to be sued. And when they were finally caught in a court of law, their generous bribery was able to get people to say, "Well, they broke the law, but Jesus has forgiven them, why shouldn't we?" And then those who fought for leniency will go back to the American People and say that their opponents are "soft-on-crime."

Re:Please.

[Anonymous Coward]

you've prolly got his b4 but...
int god;

Re:Please.

[Batou]

Please mod parent up.

Amen.

You've hit the bullseye. While I'd love nothing more than to see Netscape, Sun, et al, pimpslap M$ into the poor house, I have a little trouble welling up any tears for poor Sun and how they've been victimized.

This suit is entirely motivated by profits, and being able to screw M$ in the process makes it all the sweeter to Mr McNealy and crew. The vultures^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hlawyers have been circling this for a while at the smell of fresh opportunity, and I have a hunch this lawsuit would have been pursued whether M$ was acttually held accountable for their actions or not (what a concept).

MOD PARENT +1 FUNNY -1 TROLL

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the insight.... isn't this the exact same argument that Microsoft themselves are using in court to try and maintain their monopoly power by keeping IE tied to the OS?

I'm sure you are aware of what I speak, or you wouldn't be copying MS arguments verbatum.

If you want to be an MS appologist that's fine, but couldn't you be a bit more creative?

Oh, and a side note: The java concept is write once, run anywhere, so having 10 bajillion versions of your favorite OS wouldn't matter (if they could manage to get the java support right instead of trying to screw it over and maintain power)....

Jerk.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Everyone just needs to leave Microsoft alone

[Anonymous Coward]

What everyone needs to do is just leave Microsoft alone. Microsoft is currently lynching itself slow but sure. There is not a single IS manager in our area that I know that is not waiting for sun to release star office. They have already lost the trust of the public. By leaving them alone they will
surely continue to tighten their own noose.

What about C#

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows XP doesn't include the .NET VM either. Maybe Microsoft can sue Microsoft.

Yeah, they did.

[Ho-Lee-Cow!]

You start by taking the current version, apply the patches for all the known holes, and then put it in a fancy new box and tell your sales force to lie, cheat, and steal to get it on every machine possible. Those who do not assimilate are destroyed.

Meaning, that the next 3 versions don't have a -prayer- of being secure.

Re:Yeah, they did.

[EnderWiggnz]

you forgot "rename and change the API to one of our technologies and call it 'new' - have we redone ActiveX lately? oh, thats COM.. er... dCOM... er ... COM+"

Why Sun is not in this possition

[Erris]

Sure, MS deserves it, but it's not like Sun wouldn't be doing the same thing, should they be in MS's position.

Hmmm, it's hard to imagine anyone being as rude as MicroShaft. Can you imagine that Sun is not in Microsoft's possition becuase they did not act like Microsoft? Ever heard of a BSA raid on Solaris software? No? That would be because Sun is not a member of BSA

Funny how people are saying that Sun is being abusive for asking for redress of wrongs that M$ has been found guilty of. The trial will be as short and sweet as Microsoft desires. In fact, they could settle out of court for their wrongs, but they won't. Microsoft brought themselves to this by refusing to co-operate with anyone. Java is a small piece of the damage Micorsoft has done to the world with their silly little tricks to break other people's software. Sun managed to survive Microsoft's abuse because they had their own hardware and platform. Other companies were not so lucky, and their employees lost their jobs while M$ pushed their inferior garbage on people. Sun will, we can be sure, put together some reasonable costs they suffered from Microsoft not living up to their word. It is right that Microsoft pay, but they won't. They are going to spend all sorts of money on defending their wrongs and then complain that all the lawsuits are bankrupting them.

Re:Why Sun is not in this possition

[GSloop]

Sorry, but Scott M, is just a plain jerk. His head is SO big, I'm waiting for it to explode.

In a corporation the stuff runs downhill.

BillG and ScottM are both power/ego freaks. Heck, if I meself had all my clients my the short and curlies, i'd probably do it too.

Sun/IBM/MS/Standard Oil - they're all the same. The only difference is that right now, Sun doesn't own you. They have to play nice. As soon as they do, (and this goes for more than just Sun, it goes for everyone) just kiss it goodbye.

If ANYONE has you by the short hairs, don't ever expect them to act nice - because eventually they won't. You rose colored view of Sun is just misplaced. Even the most saintly of us, would probably do the same as MS given the chance.

Cheers!

Re:Why Sun is not in this possition

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine THAT!

A CEO of a MAJOR corporation being SELF-IMPORTANT.

Maybe because the role IS important, and IMPORTANT roles DON'T get filled by POLITE NOTHINGS.

Re:Why Sun is not in this possition

[GSloop]

How about Lew Gerstner?

He wasn't a self important prick.
He took IBM from the brink of destruction to a powerful, restored to health IBM.

It is possible to be polite and self-deprecating, but still be effective. In fact, I think leaders who fulfil these attributes are BETTER leaders than those who are full of self importance.

Who would you rather work for. Who would you rather do business with?

Cheers!

Re:Why Sun is not in this possition

[elmegil]

BillG and ScottM are both power/ego freaks.

Name me one CEO that isn't.

New Business model...

[Anonymous Coward]

come up with a interesting utility for Windows(or Linux.) Watch Microsoft copy it. And sue them for $1e9.

Straight from the MS breakroom...

[Uttles]

Seriously, if you MS spies or whatever you call yourselves are going to come onto slashdot and post up pro MS drivel in the face of criticism, the least you an do is try to mask it a little bit. Good Lord. That entire post is possibly the most ignorant, Microsoft Certified Shit Comment I've ever read.

I realize that I should not attack your post with only insults, so I'll give an example, but only one since I don't have much time.

You cannot honestly ask any company to ship their competitor's product with their own. That is an absurd idea at best.

The problem is not that MS Windows doesn't come with Netscape or Java or any other competition. The problem is that Microsoft makes contracts with resellers that say if they're going to sell Microsoft Crap.X version of the OS then they have to include certain things, and they have to leave out certain things (like netscape and java.) Therefore, the illegal action is not leaving the competition off their CDs, but forcing the computer sellers to only have MS crap on their machines. That's mafia-esque and just as illegal.

Re:Straight from the MS breakroom...

[sheldon]

"The problem is not that MS Windows doesn't come with Netscape or Java or any other competition. "

No, pay attention...

The nine non-settling states were told by Sun to include a provision to force Microsoft to ship the Sun JVM with Windows. That's what is being referred to here.

The exclusive contracts business is part of the DOJ settlement.

Re:Straight from the MS breakroom...

[mydn]

Pepsico does the same thing. In my city hall (Sacramento), you can't buy a Coke since Pepsi has an exclusive license. In a government building, of all things :/ Exclusive licenses are very common and very much a part of today's business world. I'm not saying they are right or wrong, just that they exist. Microsoft is not doing anything unique...just better.

Re:Straight from the MS breakroom...

[zangdesign]

The non-settling states were TOLD by Sun, etc., etc.? I've been following this case and I don't remember ever seeing anything about that.

Could you provide a link to the relevant proof?

I don't doubt it, yet, but I'd like to see your evidence on that.

Re:Straight from the MS breakroom...

[Anonymous Coward]

Anti-Microsoft flamebait max-modded as Insightful, there's something you never see on Slashdot.

Re:Straight from the MS breakroom...

[(void*)]

This may be true, or it may not be. The point is, it is hardly an injustice, considering that MS makes exclusive, arbitrary deals with OEMS.

Think broadly. What exactly is MS guilty of, in the IE vs Netscape case? It is guilty of using exclusionary deals, leveraging their OS monopoly into a browser monopoly. Just like how MS attempted to leverage their OS monopoly to undermine the machine-independence of Java. And since Sun sued them on that, they've decided not to play.

Now think about that. MS effectively refuses to make JVMs for Windoze. And it uses the exclusive nature of the Windows OS to force Windows users to have the lessor option of NOT HAVING JAVA, but HAVING C# (soon) instead.

It is becuase the Windows OEM licensing is exclusionary that Sun cannot ask OEMs to bundle their Java. So if it was true, this is GOOD NEWS for windows customers.

Re:Straight from the MS breakroom...

[(void*)]

You are right. Exclusive licenses, by themselves, should not be used as the criteria to determine antitrust violations. But under specific circumstances, exclusionary licenses can be seen to have a anticompetitive effect.

Re:Straight from the MS breakroom...

[ClosedSource]

"Seriously, if you MS spies or whatever you call yourselves are going to come onto slashdot and post up pro MS drivel in the face of criticism, the least you an do is try to mask it a little bit."

It amazes me how some of the slashdot community flatter themselves by believing that MS gives a damn about what is posted here. Our opinions (pro and con) will no effect on MS's bottom line.

Re:Straight from the MS breakroom...

[sheldon]

Obviously you have not been following the case. The non-settling states have used the input of Oracle, Sun, AOL, etc. to formulate their suggested remedies. This fact was presented weeks ago by Microsoft.

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-833407.html

Re:Straight from the MS breakroom...

[sheldon]

"MS effectively refuses to make JVMs for Windoze. "

It's Windows, BTW. When you spell it as Windoze you show your intellect to be that of a 5 year old.

Oh, also Sun told Microsoft they can't make JVMs, this was not Microsoft's decision effectively or not.

Re:Straight from the MS breakroom...

[Anonymous Coward]

"That entire post is possibly the most ignorant, Microsoft Certified Shit Comment I've ever read."

I think its better than the typical pro-Linux crap that usually passes for critical thinking here on /.

Lets take an example.

Red Hat is the most unimaginative distro of linux. Its crap, and probably a lot of the guys who worked there have never worked on or developed a product that made money.

So they have this chip on their shoulders about "the good old days" and "the evil microsoft" that is as boring as a 23 year old can dish out.

And you just laugh at somebody like that because not only are they ignorant, but they parade that ignorance the way a transexual might parade their genitalia at an orgy.

Anyway, the point is, Microsoft or anybody shouldn't be forced to include a competitor's poor piece of crapware simply to save an american instituion like Sun. It would be like buying a BMW and find a steaming hot turd in the back seat made by the president of GM. "Why is there a piece of shit in my car" you'd ask. Because the government says we've got to prop up GM, so we must put turds from our competitor in the back seat.

Hope you "get" it now.

Re:Straight from the MS breakroom...

[(void*)]

Well, it is MS's decision to make a conforming JVM, or not to at all.

Re:Straight from the MS breakroom...

[zangdesign]

I missed that article. I was aware that the states were dealing with MS competitors, but had not read this as being "TOLD" to do something.

The implications of this are rather staggering in that MS may have a case to go after it's competitors once the DOJ case is concluded. If I were in charge of MS, I would requesting discovery on exactly how the states arrived at their requests for relief (and prepping contingency lawsuits against those states).

Sun Whines

[quakeaddict]

Umm...didn't Sun sign an agreement that stipulated that Microsoft would not license any new Java technology?

They are now suing because they want Java included?

Guys....I am a Microsft programmer, and we all know that programming in java is a dead end on Windows. It has been a dead end on Windows for the last 5 years.

This lawsuit will never change the attitude among Microsoft programmers....and that attitude is this. Sun sells hardware to make money. MS sells software. Who do you trust when it comes to software? A hardware?! manufacturer! Nope.

Steve

Re:Sun Whines

[RogueAngel7]

Sun makes hardware and software, or more specificly software standards and api's. and MS also makes hardware in the form of game devices, and formerly in a joint intel-Msft agreement, stuff like motherboards, firmware, Nic cards and so on.

Kinda blurs the line huh?

Personally i dont trust either one, let them both burn!

RA7
-

Re:Sun Whines

[Anonymous Coward]

Sun doesn't make software?

You've never heard of iPlanet.com? Ever heard of Solaris? Ever heard of StarOffice? Ever heard of NIS?

illegal abuse of monopoly power??

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the Sun article... I like the way how they say Microsoft is "guilty of illegally abusing its monopoly power." So does that mean there's a LEGAL way to use a monopoly??? =P

Re:illegal abuse of monopoly power??

[RogueAngel7]

Acording to current (US) monopoly laws, having a monopoply isn't grounds for legal action. it is only illegal when a monopoly is leveraged in a manor as to hurt the consumer. i.e. abuse of power and so on. If microsoft had gained a monopoly through building a better product and simply out competing the other companies in its field. no legal action could be taken.

RA7
-

What did MS do to Sun?

[weston]

You know, as I understand it, the basic problem with Microsoft is that they use their market power to lock other people out, rather than compete with them.

Netscape: Hey OEM! We have this product! It's great! It adds value to your system! We'll license it to you cheaply! Please bundle it!

OEM: OK! Sounds Good!

Microsoft: Hey OEM! We don't want you bundling this product. Stop it or else we'll yank your Windows license... or maybe you'll just lose your "discount".

OEM(1): Yikes! We'll stop... hey, that IE 3.x product looks OK.

OEM(2): I don't know, our customers really like Netscape... maybe we could display IE prominently and still include Netscape?

Microsoft: Well, the price of producing Windows _is_ going up.... but you are a good customer, maybe we can work something out.

So it's easy to see that at first, Microsoft didn't compete on quality or even simply bundle. They tried to lock Netscape out. To a great degree, they were succesful. Netscape lost licensing revenues and mindshare which might have been used to fund good development....

But I don't see how this happened with Sun. Does Sun have contracts with OEMs to distribute JVMs or class libraries? Did they try, and were locked out? Or is it that they distributed with Netscape, and were locked out? Or are they still whining about incompatibilities with Microsoft's own terrible Java?

I may not know the facts here, but I don't see how Sun is a victim in the same way that Netscape is, much as I think Microsoft's business practices are deplorable.

Re:What did MS do to Sun?

[(void*)]

Sun: This is what the Java language is. This is what a JVM must do.

MS: That looks good! Can we write our own JVM for that?

Sun: Fine. But it must meet our certification, the standards which we have submitted for review.

MS: OK. Here it is.

Sun: Hey, you didn't just implement the JVM. You made extensions for developers which work only on Windows.

MS: Yeah so? Does it not meet your standards?

Sun: It does, but if we sign-off on it, we are made to look like endorsing your extensions. Since we made Java to be platform-independent, we can't possibly sign off on that.

MS: Look everyone! Sun's trying to screw us, and play favorites.

Sun: Now that's not true - IBM made a perfectly conforming JVM and we don't have problems with that.

MS: This is rubbish. WE MUST HAVE THE FREEDOM TO INNOVATE JAVA!!!

Re:What did MS do to Sun?

[weston]

I see this... and that's what the trademark suit was all about (I can't remember if MS won or lost). I'm just not sure how this all fits in with the Anti-trust action...

Re:What did MS do to Sun?

[(void*)]

Because if MS refuses to offer their JVM for consumers, Sun should be free to do that with OEMs. I sure hope Windows users have an alternative to the CLR, and not have another choice limited simply because of a spat between Sun and MS.

Sure, Sun make not have the best motivates in suing. But they have a case!

Re:What did MS do to Sun?

[SashaM]

Or are they still whining about incompatibilities with Microsoft's own terrible Java?

From the press release:

In its complaint, Sun alleges that Microsoft has engaged in extensive anticompetitive conduct, including the following:

1. Fragmenting the Java platform;
2. Flooding the market with incompatible Java Runtime Environments;
3. Forcing other companies to distribute or use products that are incompatible with Java;
4. Significantly limiting Sun's distribution channels for the Java Runtime Environment;
5. Intentionally interfering with the development of Java-based applications for compatible runtimes;
6. Copyright infringement resulting from Microsoft's distribution of an unlicensed implementation of the Java Runtime Environment;
7. Intentional creation of incompatibilities between Microsoft software and competing technologies, thereby raising switching costs for consumers and reducing consumer choice.

So except for complaint No. 4, I'd say, yes they are :-)

Re:What did MS do to Sun?

[RandomPeon]

In addition to what's pointed out by others, MS promised (contractually) to deliver a fully functional Java VM. But the thing was broken in subtle and fatal ways that suggest some underhanded decisions. I did a little client-side java programming a year ago, and did the dev work on a Linux box. When I tested an app in Win98 and NT, I got a JVM error that one of the methods in the File class couldn't be found. This is like building an OS that's supposedly POSIX compliant, and just leaving out the stat(2) call. Needless to say, the only way to find which methods were unimplemented was to use them and then discover they don't exist.

Re:What did MS do to Sun?

[TimTr]

What I don't understand is how the Sun and Microsoft "settlement" that resulted in Microsoft freezing their JVM to a 1.1 version has now turned into Sun suing MS again, this time for monopoly behavior? I'm not an MS fan, but geez, its not like Sun is the wonder child (they could have opened Java a thousand times, but they still use its little standards to push the market where they want - like J2EE, JMS, and other standards.) Sun is doing with Java exactly what MS did with the OS, its just that Sun's primary goal is to make money off hardware where MS wanted to make it off Windows and most importantly Office (those were in my mind the most nasty deals - forcing OEMs to buy Office to get a good rate on Windows.)

That being said, isn't the reason that the JVM isn't shipping in XP because Sun told MS that they aren't allowed to make a Java2 compliant version anyway? As such MS has pretty much just figured that people would get it if they wanted it. Hardly seems sneaky. Why would Sun *want* MS to ship out a version of Java that Sun themselves says they dislike? As far as requiring MS to ship Sun's JVM, that is utter crap. I can see forcing MS to open source code, to break exclusivity contracts, etc - but forcing them to ship a competitors product?! Might as well become a communist society - don't make your products good, just make them, and complain they aren't on the Microsoft CD for the betterment of mankind! Lets all campaign for Apache and Perl on Windows CD's too - we've been monopoly-whacked! How do you get on the list of products that MS must ship? Oooh, that would be a nice congressional council or ruling for a judge...

Re:What did MS do to Sun?

[TimTr]

In my mind the only case that Sun has is that MS violated their Java license by making an incompatbile version. My understanding is that issue has long been resolved and that MS froze their Java version at 1.1 and can ship it for another year or so, then may ship no Java. They also had to remove the Java logo from everything. Microsoft is not obligated to ship out every product that might be useful to consumers, so how can Sun feel entitled to get their JVM on Windows XP?

Re:What did MS do to Sun?

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason java 2 is not shipping with XP is that MS does not want to supply a JVM that follows the standard.

MS wants to add ther own propriatory extensions which Sun does not tolerate.

Now Sun is suiing MS because MS are using the same tactict they used to prevent OEMs to pre-install Netscape and now are preventing the OEMs from pre-installing Suns JVM.

Sun just want an even playing field.

Re:What did MS do to Sun?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sun tolerates honest extensions. The license for their code just requires complete support for the standard packages without hiding extensions in them.

2 points people seem to have missed

[Mr. Storm]

1) Several folks say the previous Sun suit was to get Java off Windows. I beleive it was to force MS to follow the contract and keep the MS version 100% compatible with the established standards. When MS LOST that suit, they decided to pull all support. If Sun didn't want Java on windows they wouldn't have licensed it to them in the first place.
2) Did anyone consider that maybe the MS Java VM being faster than the Sun Java VM had something to do with MS not makeing their full APIs available for other companies to use? Just a thought.

Re:2 points people seem to have missed

[Anonymous Coward]

You're incredibly original with that second thought. Tell me, did you conceive your great ideas through divine inspiration, or through great study?

There is absolutely no reason why Microsoft should be forced to include Java with the OS.

Re:2 points people seem to have missed

[sethamin]

1) That's a good thought, but utterly incorrect. If you read the settlement, Sun did not push to get MS to follow the standard; they sued to get them to lose their license to distribute a JVM. They succeeded. MS was found guilt of copyright infringement. This IS what Sun wants, but they want THEIR JVM distributed in its place, which is pretty crybaby and ludicrous if you ask me. It's not their right to get their products distributed with Windows.

2) Another good thought, but also incorrect.

Re:2 points people seem to have missed

[KidSock]

2) Did anyone consider that maybe the MS Java VM being faster than the Sun Java VM had something to do with MS not makeing their full APIs available for other companies to use? Just a thought.

No. In the early days of VMs, MS's was indeed faster but a Java VM is an interpreter/compiler written in C so this has nothing to do with "APIs".

What they did do wrong is they deliberately left out things like Java Native Interface (JNI) and Remote Method Invocation (RMI) which are elemental to the Java language. When Sun cried "foul!" (and rightly so) MS just stonewalled the platform.

If MS had played nice and genuinely supported the Java platform Java would be a much bigger success than it is today. Just imagine how awesome it would be if there was a native Win32 GUI API. Of course it never happend so we're forced to putz along with the Swing library.

...for all the wrong reasons

[Anonymous Coward]

wook'n pa nub...

it seems like again and again, that companies are, like rabid animals, attacking Microsoft for personal reasons while the real issues of end users being continuously screwed are being overlooked and ignored. The really sad part is that (and this can definitely be witnessed on /. ) many people with such a seething baseless hatred for MS support this simply because it attacks MS. They are so blinded by their emotionally driven knee-jerk reactive behavior that they fail to understand how this will only hurt the end user (consumer) and if MS falls it will merely be replaced by another just like it (SUN) who refuses to play nicely with others and is more interested in lawyering and trickery (marketing and FUD) than producing quality products and providing adequate service (which of course includes gathering and incorporating requests/fixes of services).

Note that by baseless that I used above, I refer to the fact that many of these fools are blind sheep (by choice) that care little or nothing about the actual results of their support and action, but just want to 'strike out' against MS. This goes hand in hand with the self destructive nature of the 'protesting for protest's sake' mentality people that just jumped on the latest 'attack the man' bandwagon. Companies like AOL/TImewarner/etc/etc/etc and SUN will benefit while the end user whom is always named as the one being fought over, yet never is the one who benefits... this is much like the feudal wars of old.

Billion dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't looked into the whether what Sun is alleging makes and sense or not, but one thing I already like: I'm glad we're finally starting to see some suits that involve Real Money. Microsoft has cheated people out of so many billions of dollars, that it makes sense they start paying the ill-gotten gains back out, at the same relative scale.

The only thing really troubling is that consumers are the ones that were really gypped the most, but so far, just governments and megacorps have been doing the suing. I can't wait to see what the pricetag would be on a consumer class-action suit. It will be an order of magnitude higher than what we've seen up to now.

It's a shame that Microsoft hasn't been able to make any honest bucks since the early 1980s. That means that when all is over and done with, they will have no assets left at all. MS stock is worth $0.

Re:Out of court settlements and private negotiatio

[frank249]

Part of Microsoft's investment deal was Corel's agreeing to waive any future law suits. It may have saved them at the time but Sun's claim is peanuts compared to the damages Corel could have claimed due to Microsoft hijacking the Office suites market.

All may not be lost. Earlier this week news came out that the former antitrust chief under
New York AG, Stephen Houck, has joined the rebelling states' legal team, throwing Ballmer
and his legal eagles off balance. The NY AG's office was leading the
enquiry into the Office suites monopoly case until they shelved it to
concentrate in the still-lingering Netscape case.

The Office suite case files are there to be picked up again, and this
time MS has already been convicted of monopolist behaviour; it's just
the "remedy" that they're busy watering down, despite Enron hanging
over quite a few high-placed Republicans' heads.

If the Netscape case, as it would appear, gets sold down the river,
what are the chances that the angry states will try again using
heavier ammunition, such as WordPerfect Office? Or if Java is deemed worth billions
under a private antitrust case, what would the former main competitor
to Microsoft's profit center Office be worth?

Whatever rights Burney signed away in order to get that "life-saving
investment" from MS, surely those clauses can be annulled by any
fractionally competent lawyer. The second task would be get injunction
against MS-Office...

Of course someone would need to take over this company first, but
they'd get all the products, including the WPO, for practically
nothing! In this climate some high-profile law offices might even want
to take the private Office antitrust lawsuit on a commission basis. BTW Corel's market cap is a little over $250 mil while they have over $100 mil of cash. So for $150 investment someone could get a chance at a big settlement and the company/products would be a bonus. Anyone out there from IBM or AOL interested?

Ahhh... but this IS Microsoft's game

[A nonymous Coward]

If you can't beat them at their own game, file suit.

Seems to me Microsoft's game IS to not compete fairly, and resort to everything EXCEPT write superior products. Microsoft should be flattered.

I can see whats coming next.

[Suppafly]

Sierra game company will sue MS for illegally bundling solitaire with windows, claiming that their wonderful solitaire product just couldn't compete with the one shipped with nearly every version of MS Windows since the early 1980's. "People will generally use whats on the desktop as long as its good enough" By MS using their monopoly power to illegally integrate solitaire into their OS and restricting vendors from selling Seirra's product as an OEM, the downfall of sierra is eminant.

XP Cripples Java?

[Laven]

I've noticed this on one XP Home and one XP Professional computer, but whenever it runs a Sun Java 1.3.1_02 application like Mindterm or applets on a web page, the computer freezes for a few seconds when runs somewhat slowly thereafter. The exact same Java applications running on Windows 2000 with same JRE version is speedy and without this horrible lag. Could Microsft have deliberately crippled Windows XP with respect to Sun Java?

Re:XP Cripples Java?

[SteamedGeek]

Actually, there is a major difference in how Java (JRE) addresses the CE OS and how CE works with Java. Remember that CE is seriously stripped down, with a lot less overhead than a desktop OS (ANY desktop OS). It also has hooks built in directly to the OS to better run Java since alot of handheld apps are in one of three big language, one of which is Java. XP/2K on the other hand have no special hooks, and alot more overhead for hardware. I have noticed this too, but also on my 98SE box and my RedHat box... Java just doesn't perform very well honestly.

I think I see where this is going...

[eples]

After reading the ".NET Portion" of the complaint, it occured to me that Sun may be implying that the new CLR (MS's Common Language Runtime) is based on the MS Java VM that Sun originally sued to keep from being used. From Section 184 of the complaint document:

• 184. Microsoft's products in the middleware runtime market include Microsoft's implementation of the Java Runtime Environment and Microsoft's .NET Framework - the Common Language Runtime and .NET Framework classes. Sun competes in the market by offering its implementation of the Java Runtime Environment.

IANAL, but it looks as if they are alledging that Microsoft built the CLR off of their "illegal" Java VM. I have to say, it *was* the first thing that entered my mind when I heard how the CLR functioned. Proving that they are one and the same (with many many many additions and modifications along the way) could be the thrust of this whole lawsuit - carefully buried in item #184 all the way at the end of the document.

Re:I think I see where this is going...

[sheldon]

But who cares?

The only thing "illegal" about Microsoft's Java VM was that they included the Sun Java logo on it, when it didn't comply with Sun's specifications.

Re:I think I see where this is going...

[Anonymous Coward]

The only thing "illegal" about Microsoft's Java VM was that they included the Sun Java logo on it, when it didn't comply with Sun's specifications.

True, but once it was deemed illegal, certain remedies were put in place. Why it was initially illegal may not be as relevant as whether or not MS did what they were told. This becomes especially relevant in light of rulings legally establishing MS's abuse of power.

Re:I think I see where this is going...

[Oink.NET]

Sun may be implying that the new CLR (MS's Common Language Runtime) is based on the MS Java VM

As similar as they may seem, they have completely different origins. Read more here:

The origin of this new runtime environment lay in the little-noticed acquisition by Microsoft of Colusa Software in 1996. Co-founded by Steven Lucco, Colusa had released a product in 1995 called OmniVM based on research carried out by Lucco at Carnegie Mellon University. OmniVM was a virtual machine environment that offered two distinct advantages over early versions of Java. Firstly, by avoiding interpretation and using a virtual RISC architecture it provided near-native code execution performance. Secondly, it implemented robust 'application' isolation via a virtual memory manager. This made it a very safe environment for running 'legacy' and 'mobile' code. What caught Microsoft's eye was that, partly in order to support the porting of legacy code to the virtual environment, Colusa had produced both C/C++ and Visual Basic development environments.

And here:

On March 12th of 1996, Microsoft bought Colusa Software, the maker of Omniware and OmniVM. For several years, Microsoft has been quietly developing Colusa's universal virtual machine and waiting for the right time to deploy it.

And here:

Microsoft Research is developing a virtual machine, which it calls CVM, based on technology it acquired a couple of years back when it bought Colusa Software Inc. Colusa originally was building a run-time language similar to Visual Basic. But CVM goes beyond this; it will act as a virtual machine running on multiple platforms that can run programs written in C++, Visual Basic, Java and other languages.

How many MS law suits can you count?

[Richard_Davies]

Aside from the new Sun suit, the AOL suit and the two tracks of the Government case, don't forget that MS also has 100 consumer class actions and the European Commission is currently looking at MS and has the power to levy very large fines. Have a look at this article artcile last week from The Economist

Re:Reason: Sun is losing market share and money.

[Zeinfeld]

As another sign of desperation, Sun recently announced that it, too, will sell Intel-based servers running Linux. To understand the level of desperation, we note that Sun has been touting itself as the SPARC-only shop for the last 15 years. Sun claimed that it would never resort to selling Intel-based servers.

Which is the real joke here. Sun is crashing because of the competition from Linux, Microsoft is practically irrelevant to its market.

Sun grew fat during the Internet dotcom craze because there were lots of VCs out there throwing obscene amounts of money arround. The VCs would typically demand that their companies applied the latest, sexiest technologies - regardless of whether there was a point. Some friends of mine had to recode their system from Lisp to Java just to please their VC.

A lot of the startups were buying high end Sun gear because it pleased the VCs for whom Sun meant Java, meant 'sexy', meant a red hot IPO.

Today their are two factors that are causing trade to shift from Solaris to Linux. First Linux is now sexier than Java. If your VC demands buzword compliance then Linux is fine. Second companies no longer have unlimited amounts to spend on unnecessary hardware. A company like Google that uses low cost Linux/Intel boxes is thought of much better than one that blows money on Sun gear that costs much more.

Propietary UNIX is doomed. But Microsoft is not the reason, Linux is.

The only proprietary UNIX vendor I would put much faith in long term is Apple. They do have a major base of desktop software and they are the only folk in UNIXland who appear to understand what a user interface is. But even Apple may well end up having to jetison the quasi-proprietary kernel and moving to an open source core some day.

Sun's problems are not going to be solved even if they do force Microsoft to distribute Java. At this point .NET is rapidly becoming the hot issue for enterprise customers. While .NET has lots of hype features, the core advantage of .NET is it provides the means by which the WinTel market can transition from 32 bit x86 architecture to 64 bit Itanium.

A company can transition to using the .NET CLI with a simple re-compilation. The Java VM requires them to rewrite their application, it is a non-starter as an Itanium migration strategy.

Dont forget TANDY-DOS!

[RogueAngel7]

Ahhh...Tandy. There is a lame duck that never learned to fly.

RA7
-

Private, in this context, means "not by the gov't"

[Software]

In this case, "private" means only that a non-government entity is bringing the suit. It does not mean that the suit is supposed to be a secret. You can't keep a lawsuit like this secret (AFAIK, IANAL).

Fundamental Contradiction

[eyeball]

Isn't it a fundamental contradiction to say "this company hurt competition by being a monopoly?"

Re:Fundamental Contradiction

[Anonymous Coward]

No

Re: Hidden Interfaces

[eples]

I think they want to check to see if the CLR is based on the "illegal" Java VM they sued to have MS stop developing. I'd be surprised if the CLR and their JVM *didn't* share some code.

get back to work sun

[Anonymous Coward]

Rather than file stupid law suits, they should focus on building and improving their software and hardware.

Actually, they did.

[Anonymous Coward]

Posting anon for a reason.

Simplified re-cap? Correct me if i'm wrong.

[zerofoo]

I think this is what happened regarding Java support in XP:

MS: Look at our Java VM isn't it cool?

SUN: It's not compatible; make it compatible or cease and desist!

MS: OK, if those are the two options we cease and desist; we're pulling it out for the launch of XP.

SUN: Boo-hoo, they called our bluff...MS actually dropped support for the JAVA VM. What now?

SUN's legal department: I know what we can do! SUE, SUE, SUE!

***Editorial***

SUN threatened legal action MS because of a non-compliant VM, so MS removes the offending VM; now SUN is bitching that there is no JAVA support in XP!

Hey SUN T.F.B.! You are putting out the wrong fire! Linux is more a threat to your existence than MS is.
-ted

Re:Out of court settlements and private negotiatio

[Joe U]

Hijacking the office suite?

Back during the Windows 2 and 3 days, I remember WordPerfect and Lotus saying that the Windows platform was not important.

Then, after Word and Excel took off, it's important.

Irony? Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

"It is ironic that we spent three years in litigation with Sun over their attempt to stop us from shipping Java in Windows, and now they are complaining that we are not shipping it by default in Windows XP," said Jim Cullinan, Windows XP lead product manager."

Read more at: http://news.com.com/2100-1001-271453.html?legacy=c net

Almost inevitable

[motox]

Especially after the introduction of C# which given its syntax should have been called J# to say the least. It's a clear attempt to drive java developers to C# (especially since .NET framework continues is available in Visual Studio .NET for the "legacy" languages C++ and Visual Basic). Ofcourse as usual they also embedded 1000 excuses why C# and .NET is not like java but the real intentions is still pretty clear to me.

Re:Almost inevitable

[Vancouverite]

They can't call it J#... there is a J# that's part of Visual Studio.Net. In fact, J# is mentioned in the complaint, since Sun alleges that J# is in violation of the Java injunction in a couple of ways!

Re:Almost inevitable

[motox]

Are you talking about J++ or about J# . I can't find any J-sharp...

Re:Almost inevitable

[Vancouverite]

Actually, I'm referring to the complaint Sun posted, at page 54 (Physical page in .pdf file: 59), Section 193, where sun says:

"On October 10th, 2001, Microsoft released a beta version of a product called Visual J#.NET. [...] Although Visual J#.NET purports to provide support for writing programs in the Java language, Microsoft has changed the syntax of the Java language in a number of ways, ensuring that the source code written using Visual J#.NET will not be compatible with source code written following the public specification for the Java language"

Re:Almost inevitable

[Vancouverite]

A quick search of microsoft found this page which refers to Visual J#, so I'd say that this would be confirmed.

You're welcome to your MS paradise

[Glanz]

Funny, I have never lived in a MicroSLOP world bub!. I am quite tired of you defenders of slimy business practices, MS junkware, and "Open Source Cancer" eradicators. You are then quite welcome to your world where justice and morality do not apply. You remind me of a species of quisling, or a victim of the "loving the persecutor" syndrome, combined with kissassomaniac tendencies. I can understand you using MS products for lack of skill or courage, but I can't understand you defending them when any person with the least bit of moral integrity or sense of justice KNOWS that they are liars and cheats.

Just another lame company blaming Microsoft...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a joke. Fucking Sun has NEVER done anything beneficial for the end consumer. MS created a better JVM than sun. It's better and much faster.

MS has done more for the consumer than Sun, Oracle, and the rest of their enemies combined.

MS does not have a monopoly. Sure the courts ruled this, but this is just politics. Companies are free to use another OS and do not have to use one MS product if they choose. I worked at one such company that did just that, everything was Linux.

The DOJ trying to force MS to open up it's code and force MS to include other companies software is just downright WRONG.

Ballmer is right, if that happens, MS should just say fuck it and quit selling Windows.

If I were MS, I would pull all offices from States suing me. Ungrateful bastards.

Re:Good Grief - OK, astroturfer, I'll bite

[BurritoWarrior]

First, they claim that Microsoft has effectively monopolized (through illegal actions) the OS market for Intel machines, the web browser market, and the Office suite market.
Yeah, what a ridiculous claim. The fact that MS has found to be a monopoly which uses their monopoly to crush competition in other markets and LOST all their appeals somehow escapes you.

While they may have engaged in questionable activities regarding the OS,
They are NOT questionable, they are ILLEGAL, and have been proven so in a court of law.

the web browser is a core part of the computing experience today, just like a graphical user interface, TCP/IP and network connectivity, etc (all of which were separately purchased products at one point in the x86 history.)
Uh-huh, network connectivity and a full featured internet browser are equivalent. One is a protocol (layer 2/3 in the OSI model) the other is an application (layer 7).

Sun is also claiming that they tried to monopolize (using illegal tactics) the workgroup server OS market. This one is absolutely silly and absurd. Until some recent blunders by Novell, Microsoft did have hefty competition.
Yeah, and things like forcing Office (oh, 90+ %market share - another monopoly) workgroup intranet publishing to REQUIRE IIS which ONLY RUNS on a MS Server, that is just peachy with you, huh? That doesn't smack of abusing a monopoly in one area to force your way into another area. Should we delve into the relationship between W2K AD & W2K pro?

However, I doubt anyone can argue that there is anything which is better than Microsoft's solutions for the workgroup and small business market.
Of course! The reboot-a-week club and the endless security patches that define the ver MS solutions you describe are just WONDERFUL for business. The TCo of running MS crapware is ridiculous because you have to hire 483 trained reboot monkeys just to keep the crapware running.

Next, Sun claims they illegally tied IE to the operating system. As noted above, web browsing is now an essential part of the PC expierence; it only follows naturally that it should be included as part of the OS.
And one you can remove and replace with a competing product if you wish. Which you can't. THAT PLUS THE EXCLUSIONARY CONTRACTS IS THE ISSUE. Keep reapeating that until it sinks in.

Sun has been milking political sources behind the scenes throughout this whole antitrust situation for their own benefit.
Oh, and Microsoft's political contributions have remained entirely unchanged during said time period huh? What a bunch of drivel. MS has increased their political contributions on both sides of the aisle EXPONENTIALLY during this time.

What scares me the most though is the idea that they might be successful. I would dred to live in a world where Sun controlled the desktop and server.
Like most rational people, I dread to live in a world where ANY ONE COMPANY controlled both the desktop and the server.

How this guy's post isn't modded as a troll I will never know.

Fix the future, the past is too complicated.

[JMZero]

I agree.

The problem is, how do you quantify damage? How many OEM's wanted Java, but couldn't do it? How many other companies could have made money if not for the restrictive contracts? Who knows.

But we can fix the future. Somehow prevent MS from making the contracts, make them pay a fine (to taxpayers), and then who cares about what's bundled with Windows - because OEM's can bundle whatever the hell they want with Windows.

What would have happened if Sun had not licensed Java to MS, and had instead been going after the restrictive contracts from the beginning. Perhaps they would have convinced OEM's to include their Java VM with Window's machines.

But I don't think that's likely what would have happened.

.

Re:Fix the future, the past is too complicated.

[donutello]

God, is that an ignorant comment. Do you people even bother checking your facts before spewing crap on the boards here?

Go to Microsoft's java site. I'll quote a relevant statement:

While the Microsoft virtual machine is not on the Windows XP CD, it is still an integrated part of the product. Customers who upgrade to Windows XP from recent prior versions of Windows can easily and automatically take advantage of their existing Java virtual machine. Customers with new machines or who perform a clean installation of Windows XP will automatically be offered the choice to perform a one-time download of the virtual machine the first time they browse a Web page containing a Java applet. This download is then available for any subsequent applet a customer may encounter. Finally, Microsoft has made its virtual machine available to any PC manufacturer to ship with new Windows XP systems, to save customers even this one-time download.

OEMs are free to ship the JVM with PCs.

Re:Fix the future, the past is too complicated.

[JMZero]

I wasn't very clear in my post. It's my understanding that OEM's can include the MS VM, but cannot include one from Sun.

Of course, that understanding is the product of rumor, as I don't have access to MS OEM licensing.

.

Read the Complaint

[Vegetable Soup]

A lot of Sun's complaint now is aimed toward Microsoft's illegal monopoly of the web browser and operating system markets. This should be easier for Sun because the DOJ has already proven this claim. There is really nothing substantial in this specific lawsuit (there was in previous lawsuits, such as from last year) pertaining to Java.

I'm so confused...

[jocknerd]

The states and the DOJ are trying to get stuff taken out of Windows and now Sun is trying to get something put in Windows.

Sun is setting a precedent. I think I'll write a language with a runtime and sue Microsoft to include it in Windows.

java 1.i

[Anonymous Coward]

And Joe public is going to hunt down and install the last version of Java because...

...Joe has tonnes of free time to devote to installing a technology that he does not even understand or care about

...Joe "loves" surfing to sites with applets

The notion that any of this matters to the typical comuter user that just wants to surf the web, is very misguided

No, I'm still correct

[GCP]

Java is only irrelevant if YOU choose another development platform

My own choice of Eiffel or Scheme or any other niche player would have negligible effect on the mainstream market.

Java is a better language than C++ for *writing* client apps, but not for *running* them. Likewise for Swing vs. MFC. The developers love Java/Swing -- I sure do, and I've used them for a lot of personal projects. But the customers prefer the results of development in old icky C++/MFC. I simply couldn't sell a Java/Swing app on Windows against a C++/MFC app with equivalent features. Customers wouldn't buy mine.

Several big companies with lots of resources have attempted to switch to Java for significant apps such as browsers, word processors, etc. Virtually no successes in mainstream app dev, just in scattered in-house or niche apps -- the sort of things where VB has an edge over C++, and for similar reasons.

The good news is that C# on .Net may give us the best of both worlds: even more fun to work in than Java, yet feeling to the end users like an app written in C++. Unlike Sun, MS has no qualms about producing a "better way to write Windows apps."

The bad news is that that benefit may remain limited to the Windows platform (go Mono!), but with Windows accounting for >90% of clients, that isn't going to slow it down very much.

Yeah - it now runs in a deeper ring!

[BLKMGK]

Buffer overflows may have just become even easier to get Admin with. Certainly the server should be faster (cough). Frankly, I don't want to see IIS go away I just want to see it become more secure!

I'm dizzy from the circular logic

[GPFCharlie]

OK, first Sun and RealNetworks and everyone else was mad at Microsoft because they kept on bundling technology into Windows at the expense of competitors.

NOW Sun is suing MS because MS isn't including their particular little technology into Windows?

Stop the circle, I want to get off.

Really, where else does this go? Can any company sue MS because they decided to not include something in their OS? I don't see any complaints that you can't install Java on your own, so any enterprise company that wants a Java solution on MS platforms can do it, it's just not bundled.

This is a load of horse-shit IMHO. If you want to accuse MS of abusing its monopoly power by bundling technology in, then fine. But don't tell me that their competitors can dictate what non-MS technologies have to be included in an MS product! That's the exact opposite of a market system!

Re:I'm dizzy from the circular logic

[T3chnomonk]

Amen Brother. Sun looks like a bunch or sore losers to me - they should compete with technology instead of in the courts

The market's answer to monopoly power?

[swb]

It'd be too bad if suing a putatively abusive monopolist became the market's self-adjusting technique for dealing with monopolies -- just suing them to get a payoff which is enough to benefit you but doesn't correct the monopoly or actually punish them that much.

I mean, what kind of a lawsuit that paid out in cash could actually *harm* Microsoft? $1 billion? 5? 10? 100?

The meaning of treble damages

[Spoing]

Here's the meaning of treble dammages to Microsoft.

According to Microsoft's latest filings, they have about $38,229,000 USD in either cash or short term investments. Corrections appreciated, but to me that sounds like moderately liquid assets.

Let's say we forget about those additional assets awhile, and focus only on new profits. For the last four quarters ending in December 2001, they announced a total of $26.91 billion. This amount of profit is above the previous year by a minimum of 10% in each quarter.

So, let's say that Microsoft looses two major cases -- Netscape (AOL/TW) and Sun -- and that the courts have no patience or mercy and award $2 billion each for a total of $12 billion. Let's also say Microsoft makes no effort to fight the settlement, and they fork up the $12 billion in installment payments over a span of 12 months.

At the same rate as last year, keeping it at a modest 10% growth rate, MS's profit would have grown to around $29.60 billion or a little over $81 million a day.

That means that at Microsoft's current rate, they would hand over the profit from the first 148 days of 2002 -- ending just before June kicks in.

No doubt, that's a lot of ifs. Chances are any settlement will happen years from now, and will be much more modest. Also, this does not touch the short term investments and liquid assets -- only the new profits and only using the fictional example up till June.

Corrections, additional calculations welcome.

Re:The meaning of treble damages

[LoseNotLooseGuy]

So, let's say that Microsoft looses two major cases

While I completely agree that Microsoft wields far too much power, I don't believe they have the means to let loose or release any cases against them. On the other hand, they could potentially fail to win their cases. The word you were looking for is loses.

Congratulations! You have been participant #50 in my campaign to rid Slashdot of this error.

Not Quite

[MasterKayne]

SAMBA and Novell seemed to get along just fine

You need to look at this Novell TID to see just how well they "get along."

When using Windows Explorer from Windows XP Professional with the 4.82 or 4.83 client installed (IP-only and connected to a NetWare server) to copy files from one location to another location on the same server shows 100%-1000% performance decrease compared to Windows 2000 Professional copying the same files.

A cause of this symptom specific to the Windows XP platform has been identified by Microsoft, and is being addressed as a change in NTOSKRNL.EXE for Windows XP.

Both the hotfix and the Microsoft Knowledgebase article Q318043 are no longer available!

--

"True wisdom is less presuming than folly. The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance."

-- Akhenaton, a.k.a. Amenhotep IV (Egyptian king and my favorite pharaoh)

Java and Linux, so much unfulfilled promise

[harborpirate]

That was the idea, when Java first arrived on the scene..

Since Java was platform independent, you could write a Java application, and it would run the same no matter what was running underneath, be it Windows, Linux, or what have you. This meant that if a lot of truly useful software had been written in Java, Linux would start to become a seriously viable alternative, because it could run the the truly useful software just as easily as windows. As the first poster in this thread astutely observed, MS and Sun combined their powers to make sure Java would never be used as a serious application language.

MS saw the power of Java to make their platform, windows, irrelevant. They have moved to combat this by simply not supporting Java out of the box. Since most people won't bother to download Java on their own, they know that the chances Java will make any inroads are virtually nil.

Sun saw the power of Java to not only make their expensive, largely proprietary platform Solaris irrelevant; but also saw that Java might "get away", leaving them with nothing. That is, Sun feared that MS or some other company would take over Java by adding more useful base class files and writing a better compiler than Sun. Thus, they would end up being irrelevant both in the operating systems market and in the language they created in the first place.

In my opinion, Sun was justified by fearing Solaris would die (it still will, it'll just take longer), but totally paranoid in fearing they would lose control of Java. Most programmers did not want to use proprietary MS stuff when coding in Java because the more platforms your app runs on, the better. If they wanted to code stuff that would only work on windows, they would not have chosen Java in the first place. Regardless, they made the decision to prevent microsoft from producing Java compilers with proprietary stuff. This was the beginning of the end in terms of Java having any serious impact in the desktop application market, because microsoft refuses to create a Java compiler without the proprietary stuff.

Thus, the promise of Java has not been realized, and may never be. Java based technology is having an impact, but most of that is coming from JSP, a langage for writing web applications. Because it is Java based, will run on any server platform. But because most servers are some flavor of Unix anyway, I don't think this will really change the operating systems market in that sector.

Lets just hope the next company that comes out with an innovative, platform independent language isn't as greedy, shortsighted, monopolistic, and paranoid as Sun. At this point I'd like to see both MS and Sun made irrelevant. As events up to now have pointed out, they are clearly cut from the same cloth.

Re:Java and Linux, so much unfulfilled promise

[mcjulio]

If Java were the easiest, fastest way to accomplish a particular programming chore on the client, it would be king, JVM download or not. Does anyone remember how ICQ spread? Napster? None of these apps were held up the fact that someone had to first transfer bits.

Re:Java and Linux, so much unfulfilled promise

[elmegil]

Sun was justified by fearing Solaris would die (it still will, it'll just take longer)

Care to back this up with some real thoughtful explanation, instead of the imminent demise of Unix(tm) conspiracy theory that's been floating around for ages now?

Maybe you mean Linux, whose lead kernel developer has no interest in making his kernel scale to more than a handful of processors, is going to kill Solaris, which scales well over 64 procs? I hardly think so. Every tool has its use, and Solaris stands alone in its class at this point. Anyone who was previously a real competitor has folded or gotten Linux religion--a religion that makes no more sense than any of the others and just provides one more way for people to stick their fingers in their ears and go "la la la I'm right, you're all wrong."

Re:Java and Linux, so much unfulfilled promise

[harborpirate]

I'll try and give a few reasons for the eventual demise of Solaris in the following long winded spiel:

First off, I don't subscribe to the imminent demise of Unix conspiracy theory. Various flavors of Unix have a strong hold on the server market, and with good reason. I don't see this changing. What I do see changing is the market share of Suns Solaris platform.

Ever tried to install and run Solaris on PC hardware? Trust me, its painful. Now, I know what your going to say: a lot of servers don't run on PC hardware, so having a working install and running well on such hardware is irrelevant. Thats where I might begin to disagree with you.

In the next 5-10 years, I expect to see a serious movement towards _networked_ distributed computing in the server market. I know this is in use in some applications now, but I think we've only seen the tip of the iceberg. Distributed power + useful real world application (aka not Seti) = market bonanza. And with computing distributed among many machines in a network environment, I expect to see a movement gravitating towards the use of cheaper PC hardware over massive proprietary server machines.

Think about it: what sort of things are most servers doing now? Serving data, serving web pages, handling user accounts, backing up data, and maybe running some programs of some kind. Now, you're probably saying, its that last part that the big dedicated servers are all about. True, but consider this, what if each of the programs were running on its own PC server? Wouldn't that be the same as running on a small portion of a large servers CPU cycles? And if its not, then we're probably mostly out of Solaris's market anyway. Do we need that massive server if we can simply make a lot of little servers look like a big server to anyone who is using it? There is potential here to make data backups mostly irrelevant, since each PC server holds an overlapping piece of the total data, the loss of one or even a few machines doesn't matter. The emergence of IDE RAID makes this an even more distinct possiblity, because of protection at both the machine and the network levels. There is potential to scale properly and closely to a clients exact needs, causing a client to spend a lot less money on a computing platform. Finally, there is potential for maintainence costs go down, due to the lack of needing someone with special skills to handle specialized hardware. There are disadvantages, I won't deny that. However, I think when it is properly done, the advantages of this type of server environment will vastly outweight the disadvantages.

And as for that imminent demise of Unix thing, I think the future is rather bright, because I think it will be some flavor of Unix that brings this sort of technology to the masses. If I'm right, that flavor of Unix will not be Solaris.

Re:Out of court settlements and private negotiatio

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that MS and Ballmer needs any more lawsuits, but the Office Suite one is certainly one they could win, I think.

For the most part, MS Office rose to promience without any particular bundling or API dirty tricks. Prior to this Microsoft had virtually no application marketshare, except on the Mac because they bet early on GUI computing.

Meanwhile WordPerfect was insisting on writing Windows software in ASM and refusing to support the common APIs (shipping with their own print drivers and fonts, for example), and outright ignoring the Mac and OS/2 PM. The CEO was quoted saying something like "We only support Windows because some customers want it". The product was pretty much just horrible until Corel did a substantial rewrite a few years ago.

The only thing they might have is that MS's OS licences prevented Corel and Lotus from giving away their software as a free bundle-in. (IBM testified to this in the DOJ trial.) But, considering that a vast majority of Office Suites are purchased by corporate IT, it's questionable how much that really mattered.

YOU HAVE TO TELL THE TRUE... WE NEED OPTIONS...

[maguilar2k]

1... SUN NEVER REQUESTED MS TO REMOVE JAVA FROM IE, THEY JUST REQUESTED MS TO SHIP A STANDARD JVM... 2... MS WAS FOUND GUILTY OF ABUSING ITS MONOPOLY POWER AND USING IT (ILLEGALY) TO DESTROY JAVA, NETSCAPE AND OTHERS... 3... IF MS IS GUILTY... THEN SUN HAS **ALL** THE RIGHT BY LAW TO ASK FOR A COMPENSATION ($$$)... THEN, THEY CAN AND HAVE TO DO THAT. 4... MS CONTINUES ABUSING ITS MONOPOLY POWER... AND A GOOD OPTION TO LEVEL THE PLAY FIELD IS TO FORCE MS TO INCLUDE A STANDARD JVM... THEN, WE CAN SEE IF MS TECHNOLOGY IS BETTER BY ITS OWN MEANS THAN SUN'S TECHNOLOGY... JAVA WILL BE JUST ANOTHER OPTION... NOBODY IS GOING TO FORCE YOU TO USE JAVA... BUT IS GOOD -AT LEAST- TO HAVE OPTIONS... 5... SUN CAN **NOT** BUILD A MONOPOLY AROUND JAVA BECAUSE YOU CAN ALWAYS USE A JVM FROM ANOTHER COMPANY... IBM... OR EVEN FROM A COMPANY THAT IS NOT A SUNS LICENSEE... THEN ITS A GOOD REMEDY TO FORCE MS TO SHIP A STANDARD JVM.

Re:YOU HAVE TO TELL THE TRUE... WE NEED OPTIONS...

[ackthpt]

Option 1: A Shift-Lock key in the Off position.

The problem for Sun is that they got what they asked for, and had to be blinded by winning a suit against M$ for not seeing this coming.

It can still be argued, though, since many sites employ Java, that Microsoft is stripping consumers of a choice. By a round-about way, that does hurt Sun, but looks on the surface as the result of their own lack of attention.

Last, but not least, $1B? That's chump-change, M$ probably spends that much on their legal team each year, why so little?

Oh you're right...

[BLKMGK]

Those that are really serious about hacking Microsoft products need to see the source code in order to figure this out don't they? Let's just hide it away and keep building products based off of it - it'll be secure that way won't it?

Don't kid yourself. If you think that looking at the source code is all that it would take to force your servers to replicate with a hacked BDC then perhaps you shouldn't be running NT. Look at what the SAMBA group has done with regards to reversing NT's mechanisms, do you really think that someone else wouldn't be able to do that if there was only something obsfucated hiding the problems? Did the SAMBA group have access to soource? Nope! You've got the source for Linux available to you and everyone else yet for some reason the result hasn't been massive failures but rather betterment of the code.

Hiding problems isn't the way to secure a machine, you sure you don't maybe work for Microsoft? You certainly sound like you might. Microsoft would love nothing more than to keep their security issues out of the public eye. That will do nothing but drive exploits underground - not that he DMCA hasn't already contributed greatly to that very thing (sigh).

Re:Oh you're right...

[erasmus_]

No, I don't work for Microsoft. And I didn't say it would create vulnerabilities where there were none before (I knew someone would bring some up), but rather that this would introduce new ones, inevitably. Yes, I know Linux is all open and it gets better code - they're different models of developing software. Unless everyone is going to fix MS's code for them and submit it back to them, and we're all going to be recompiling our NT kernels every few weeks, opening up their source is a bad idea, especially for systems used in production and high security environments.

Classic

[Anonymous Coward]

Sun could have always come up with worthwhile products, though now they'll be remembered as the company who sued Microsoft; I'm sure they're hoping to turn a profit from this ... since they can't seem to any other way. If Java was so great, why has it diminished so much during the recession? Why is Micrsoft still burning bright? I bet you wish we had the old days of the Novell monopoly back. Or how about the overpriced Apple Machintoshes? Maybe you think Windows XP is nothing compared to Linux, but if that's the case ... why are people trying so damn hard to run Windows programs on it? Why are people trying to give it a GUI like Windows? Yeah, say Microsoft took their GUI from Apple who took took it from other places. But Microsoft made the usability aspect of a GUI it's prime focus. It's comforting to know I don't have to recompile the Kernel to add support for my PDA.

The Paradox of These Lawsuits

[ackthpt]

I do wish the JD and GWB would actually DO somthing about MS, but it appears that they won't.

For ages I've been hearing how the GOP wants to curb frivoless lawsuits, claiming they clog up the courts. Then along comes DoJ v. M$ and, rather than spank them hard, like they deserve, decide to give them a lame lecture and let them off with their ill-gotten lucre and the ability to commit further crimes.

What's left, is civil suits, by everyone in the industry. I'll argue that the conspiracy between the DoJ and M$ has left competitors no other choice. Hence the courts will be clogged with suit after suit, to bring M$ to reckoning.

Re:Reason: Sun is losing market share and money.

[bryanbrunton]

Man, you are smoking some good stuff. I don't know which of your fantasies is crazier:

(1) J2EE, which currently dominates the Enterprise software market, losing out anytime soon to .NET.

(2) Itanium rescuing itself from its current death spiral.

Why must M$....

[gatkinso]

...support Java in any way, shape, or form?

There is no logic to this.

OK - I can see not CHANGING Java... but they don't have to SUPPORT it.

I am no M$ fan - but Sun is acting stupid in this case.

Re:Why must M$....

[(void*)]

If MS does not want to support Java, then Sun should be entirely free to make deals with OEMs to include a version of their JVM on new computers.

Can OEMs indeed do this, without getting stiffed by MS? Why are those licensing deals trade-secrets?

Re:Why must M$....

[TimTr]

This is a great point - MS shouldn't be able to sign these "use me to the exclusion of others or paythe price" deals anymore - they are too big for those to be fair. This is how the gov't should control MS, not by turning them into every other company's free distribution channel via lawsuit.

OJ

[jamesmrankinjr]

OJ was set free by the criminal courts, but was found guilty and had to pay a large fine in civil court.

At least in the U.S. system, it's much harder to get a judgement in a criminal case than a civil one (probably rightly so). So where M$ is not being significantly punished (arguably rewarded) in criminal court, it may very well receive judgements against it in civil court, where the appeals court upholding their monopoly status does much of a prosecutor's work for her.

Best,
-jimbo

Re:OJ

[jeffy124]

ya know, i never thought of it that way. that's a very good analogy.

That would even be dumber...

[SteamedGeek]

Since Sun doesn't make or profit from a web browser and OS that competes in the same market segments.

Re:Microsoft makes a good Java VM...

[Yekrats]

...with a big freaking security hole in it! Thanks, Microsoft!

Really???

[SteamedGeek]

How in the hell have consumers been gyped? Because they didn't have RedHat waved in their face in the same manner? Well, on a very technical level, maybe, but in the end an *nix based OS is not for the consumer. Maybe they got gyped because Netscape wasn't installed on every Win98 and XP box... yeah, that's it. Did you use Ver6? Did you even use a version 4.xx anything and then compare it to IE 5? Dear lord, if you still think Nutscrap had a better product, you are sorely funked in the head. Only with 6.2 does Nutscrap have a viable product again. Real player... yeah, they didn't get to use real players crapola adware with it's awful streaming video and deplorable audio quality. That must be it then, right? AOHell! Eureka, they didn't get signed up to AOHell or have it waved in there face... yeah right. AOHell has the largest share of internet users... by and large. Man... alot of these companies, including Sun are lawsuit happy because they just can't compete. Yeah, MS is a Monopoly, but that in itself is NOT illegal. Yes, they have done some really bad things to OEM in terms of licensing to ensure they get on the PC and no one else does, for that they need to pay. Yes, MS has also bundled software, but that is their right and not anti-competitive as long as they didn't block access or functionality of the competitions products, which they didn't.

At least in my case M$'s Java removal has been bad

[eyefish]

To see how M$'s decision to remove Java from the desktop has definitelly cut people off from innovating, read on...

Today, if I dare release a new application to be made cross-platform (i.e.: Java), I'm forced to include the Virtual Machine runtime (which is several Megabytes, and requires instalion steps beyond most normal user's abilities), and this GREATLY reduces the appeal of my application versus a competing windows-only application, even when mine can do all the Windows app can, PLUS it can run unchanged on Mac, Unix, or Mainframe machine. This is more true today with 1Ghz machines that make the overhead of a VM practically negligible.

So here we have a more innovative product, and that can do the most good for the market, and yet it cannot succeed because Microsoft did not include an up-to-date VM.

You might ask now, "what do you mean that it can do 'the most good' to the market?". By that I mean for example, that if cross-platform applications proliferate, people would be less tied to the Wintel platform and be more likely to adopt more innovative alternatives (like Mac OS/X or Linux). Note that the #1 reason cited by people who use PCs, but like Macs, is "I wish I could use a Mac but the applications I need do not run there". This statement can easily be proven to be true by realizing that by and large the Mac user base is composed of media professionals, the reason being that the Media market (i.e.: Photoshop, ProTools, etc) is the only industry that to some extent has gone through the pain of making different versions of their products for Macs and PCs. This in itself is why a VM is good for the market: It reduces developer's costs to produce products for different platforms, and gives incentives to hardware makers to make better products not tied to one particular vendor (i.e.: Intel).

Standardization is good, because ironically (and fortunatelly) opens up the ground for competition by leveling the playing field.

Re:Reason: Sun is losing market share and money.

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of the startups were buying high end Sun gear because it pleased the VCs for whom Sun meant Java, meant 'sexy', meant a red hot IPO.

Actually, Sun had many backroom deals with the VC, largely because some of the capital was invested by Sun employees and partisans. This lead to a situation where Sun use was mandated in the startup, and often a Sun guy would even get to be on the board of directors. Cisco had similar dealings, and I imagine that MS did too.

Saying that everyone did it because it was "sexy" is pretty naieve. The fix was in.

Thank you...

[Brendan Byrd]

...for yet another plug for Galeon. Whenever Mozilla is mentioned, there's a guy in the distance who shouts Galeon every single time.

Re:Thank you...

[Anonymous Coward]

> ...for yet another plug for Galeon. Whenever Mozilla is mentioned, there's a guy in the distance who shouts Galeon every single time

use BSD!

The problem is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, so Microsoft's own JVM doesn't come on the Windows XP CD. It is provided to the OEMs to factory install, and if that doesn't happen, the user is prompted with a simple, "This site uses Java, do you want to download Java?" to which the JVM is automatically downloaded in the background.

Sun also provides their own JRE, which of course works better because they've been allowed to develop it over the past 3 years. It plugs into Internet Explorer 6.0 seemlessly. Why aren't they entering into contracts with OEMs to distribute it, or even with Microsoft? Why aren't they advertising it at all?

Sun doesn't care about Java. Sun just wants to be able to attach it's vacuum cleaner to Microsoft's coffers because it's fashionable.

Re:The problem is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why aren't they entering into contracts with OEMs to distribute it

Read the damn article. Microsoft won't let OEMs bundle the Sun JRE.

Who loses?

[Anonymous Coward]

me.

That's right, the poor fucker who bought this crappy software. Just wanted something that worked and helped my office.

I'd ask to excuse my launguage... but I'm the fucker who paid the money.

********* IF JAVA DOESN'T MATTER **********

[maguilar2k]

Why is MS getting all this problems trying to destroy something that doesn't matter?? Because Java can help to dwarf MS monopoly... Yes, it's true Java has problems... but it can be better... MS Windows was horrible until WIN 3.1... or even Windows 95... or to tell the truth... it's horrible until today... but getting better... I develop software on Java... I use Windows for development and Linux, Solaris and NT to deploy, and WORA (Write once run everywhere) works great for me... THAT'S WHY MS WANTS TO DESTROY JAVA... BECAUSE JAVA=O.S. ALTERNATIVES

Re:At least in my case M$'s Java removal has been

[TimTr]

Yes and by your logic the government should force all companies to run Java, dedicate resources to keep them up to snuff (um, there is no JDK 1.4 for the Mac either - you want to legislate Steve Jobs into hiring more developers to make it available?)

We all know why compatibility is important - not sure why it is the responsibility of MS to make every new portability initiative standard on Windows. Every scripting language should be installed on Windows too by your logic? What specifically about Java means IT should be the one that MS has to ship according to the courts? And who is supposed to fix the bugs when there are some because of the install? And should Sun stop porting it themselves or just sue Apple, Microsoft, etc until they have armies of developers keeping up with what Sun says is best for mankind? Geez...

Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

MS's attitude was to leverage the Java language to make it easier for people to develop applications for Windows.

Sun's attitude was that Java was a platform, not just a language.

Most people were more interested in Microsoft's attitude than in Sun's, and when the lawsuit came on Microsoft, Microsoft developed a better solution for Microsoft (they could integrate the new solution with COM, C++, VB, and Windows APIs), left a legacy path to upgrade, and let the consumer decide which was better. It is still too early to decide which is better, but C# has a lot to love if you're an enterprise and you stuck with VB or COM based development, as so many have done. Legacy is Microsoft's friend here.

Microsoft has a platform that they make money selling. Sun has a platform that they hope will level the playing field. The unfortunate short-sightedness is that the client side is where everyone wants to be, but where Microsoft is. Making a platform that can't integrate with Windows will not be as successful as making a platform which does.

Microsoft integrated Java with Windows, and Sun screamed, "this is my platform, you can't attach it to yours".

Also, a lot of people are claiming that Microsoft doesn't document their APIs. This is bullshit. Anyone who makes this claim has never written any software for Windows. Any company that claims that they need to look at the source to a Microsoft program is admitting that they can't find out what they need from integrating against it. Obviously, Sun doesn't get this part. IE is an activex control that has more registry code and wrapper code than source code.

When Nullsoft Winamp came out, there was this thing called the Winamp browser. Yeah, that's the IE Activex control. If a tiny company bought by AOL could figure out how to put IE in their app, don't you think a giant company like Sun could figure it out? It's not hard or undocumented...

Yesterday, I downloaded the Windows Platform SDK. It was >200MB, and it included a lot of documentation. Yes, it isn't cheap to buy the development tools like Visual C++ or Visual J++, but they don't suck either.

I programmed in Java for a long time, and it was a great experience, but in the end, the performance sucked, and I got tired of Sun playing API swap on me. Microsoft playing API extend is a lot better. At least they never cut you off. You might have to bloat your install if the feature isn't in the next version of Windows (as is the case for Java), but such is life.

People should deal with reality, not complain about the past. Microsoft is a strong company that has cutting edge products and huge resources. I wouldn't call their stuff innovative, but I would say that it gets the job done, and it is worth the price.

Attitude is the least of my worries. When getting the job done is priority #1, I pick the guy who gets the job done.

Now watch my post get a score of -1, troll.
Just the score that a seasoned software developer gets who develops on a Microsoft platform when posting to Slashdot that they aren't evil to me.

Oh, yeah, that and I used Java for several years, and ate up bullshit like: Sun good, Microsoft evil for years, before a job required development on Windows. Now I have seen that the technologies aren't so different, and from a get the job done perspective, nothing should be preventing you from getting the job done with either. Nothing except incompetance.

ILEGAL MONOPOLY... INTEL EXECS TESTIMONY

[maguilar2k]

Intel was doing some truly fantastic Java work with their optimized implementation of the Java Media Framework. They had participated in the development of the api's, and they had the first and best professional-grade implementation ready long before Sun was even fully prepared to release the spec. This work was seemingly killed in response to threats from Gates and Ballmer to top Intel management. I remember how rapidly Intel's stance reversed, and when I read the guy's testimony it all came clear. No doubt this was not the only episode of illegal monopoly maintenance that directly hurt Java developers. We'll all need to see what else comes to light in this new trial.

No, You are still incorrect.

[MacOSXHead]

The vast majority of applications written for client- based computing are not commercial appplications. Sure, Word or Photoshop would be better as a C/C++ application. The point is is that most applications are custom applications that need to be written to satisfy a particular business need rather than a general market space. Time to market is far more important than spectacular performance. Your C++/MFC app would have a time-to-market issue compared with my Java/Swing app.

Java is a fine environment for running applications if you are running a well written application. JBuilder is a prime example of a large complex application. And it runs on most platforms.

You seem fond of Windows technology - to each his own. Enjoy the embrace of Mr. Bill. I would rather be outside of the pack.

Important: THE BIG DIFFERENCE

[N8F8]

When comparing Sun to Microsoft.

Sun want's to be a monopolist (or at least a market leader).

Microsoft IS a monopolist.

So behaviour in one company can be considered being competitive. In another anti-competitive.

This has to stop.

[Otis_INF]

Sun is fighting MS now for several years, but not on the front of great software, but on the front of lawsuits and mudthrowing. Sun filed a complaint with the EU, Sun filed several lawsuits over Java (while other companies like HP were left untouched, while they committed the same 'crimes') against MS, it's a fanatic backer of the states that are still in the anti-trust case...

I don't know, but isnt't here a USA saying "Deeds do talk a hell of a lot louder than words" ? Sun: put your money where your mouth is and create kick ass software that knocks out MS and WILL win the majority of DEVELOPERS in this world. That's right, with this crap going on in courts, developers will not trust you for being 'THE company that is at the top BECAUSE the software is great'.

But perhaps it's just me...

Re:This has to stop.

[r7]

I know it's a waste of time replying to such empty Rhetoric, like most /. posts by paid for by M$.

>Sun is fighting MS now for several years, but not on the front of great softw

Java's not great software? StarOffice isn't? Solaris isn't? Looks like your definition of great software is limited to M$.

>Sun: put your money where your mo

That's exactly what they're doing, and in the best possible way. M$ monopoly is the worst
thing that ever happened to computer users. Just look at how it has stifled browser development, word processor development, and spreadsheet development. Look at the loss of security and privacy that M$ users are forced to endure. There's nothing Sun could do to address these issues that M$ couldn't leverage their monopoly and defeat.

The issue is anti-trust. The issue is a level playing field. The issue is an open markplace. Bravo to Sun for sticking to these basic goals and looking out for consumers where nobody else has.

Re:At least in my case M$'s Java removal has been

[eyefish]

I understand your arguments completely, mainly (1) why should M$ be forced to support any competing technology and (2) why Java?

The answer to (1) is that the Windows monopoly has extended so much that there is little room for competing technologies to gain any market share, regardless of how innovative those competing technologies are.

The answer to (2) is simply because so far it has been the most successful (by far) approach to universal computing. Note that had such technology been something else, I would have welcomed it instead Java; I used Java as an example because of its ubiquituousness.

You might argue that should everyone adopt Java what will happen is that we'll just be trading a monopoly (Microsoft) for another (SUN), but there's one crucial difference: ANY vendor can implement a clean-roon implementation of Java, and the architectural decisions of Java itself are not driven by SUN, but by a joint industry forum which was started long ago by Sun to address such an issue.

And where is the damage for sun?

[Otis_INF]

Tell me, HOW can a big-iron selling company, solely based on UNIX services, with a core business of selling solely hardware plus services on that hardware, get damaged when MS includes a browser in their OS?

Furthermore, HOW can MS hurt Sun by not including java into their browser, while Sun declared a settled lawsuit last year a 'victory' when that lawsuit was actually stating that MS should not create NEW versions of the JVM (so, on windows people could only use 1.1 applets, pretty crap) and should leave Java after 7 years ?

I won't even mention the native solaris thread code in the Sun JVM, so it cheats as much as the MS jvm did.

Re:And where is the damage for sun?

[MidKnight]

Did you even read the story? Or did you just impulsively press the 'Reply' button with a hope to see your name in lights? Sorry to be blunt, but please make a little effort before you post.

Here, I'll make one for you:

• Tell me, HOW can a big-iron selling company, solely based on UNIX services, with a core business of selling solely hardware plus services on that hardware, get damaged when MS includes a browser in their OS?

  The suit is less about the choice (or lack thereof) of a browser, and more about MS attempting to use their current monopoly in the desktop computer market to get a monopoly in other markets (Server OS's, Web Service Applications, et. al.). Ever heard of .NET? Hmm??

• Furthermore, HOW can MS hurt Sun by not including java into their browser, while Sun declared a settled lawsuit last year a 'victory' when that lawsuit was actually stating that MS should not create NEW versions of the JVM (so, on windows people could only use 1.1 applets, pretty crap) and should leave Java after 7 years ?

  Pretty crappy is right. Sun declared that lawsuit a victory because it stopped MS from writing illegal extensions of the Java language that would only run on Windows platforms. If MS had been allowed to do that, they would have used their desktop monopoly to effectively break one of Java's best features: platform independence. Microsoft plainly violated their Java licensing agreement, and Sun had to take them to court to prove that.

• I won't even mention the native solaris thread code in the Sun JVM, so it cheats as much as the MS jvm did.

  Um, yeah. Every modern VM uses native threading code... that isn't considered cheating. Have a look at IBM's VM -- its threading performance is even better than Sun's, yet I guarantee you won't see a Sun -vs- IBM suit over that. As I mentioned previously, that law suit was over MS's breach of the Java license.

For a decent summary of the suit, have a look at CNET's News.com coverage. The FAQ there covers the basics.

--Mid

Re:And where is the damage for sun?

[_avs_007]

Since when does a company _have_ to include some other company's stuff? Why does Windows _have_ to include a JVM at all? Since when does microsoft _HAVE_ to license a JVM so they can _include_ it in their OS???????

So if MS is going to have to license a JVM to inlclude, which JVM should they use? And I bet if they did do that, every _other_ manufacturer of JVMs will raise a stink that they are abusing their monopoly by using company x's JVM instead of company y's....

Re: Loses/Looses

[Virile Garbageman]

Ranks right up there with "noone." No one writes "noone" anymore.

Actually it's the other way around.

[Otis_INF]

With J++ 6, MS pushed Java as _THE_ language to write COM components in, which were then compiled to native code. Sun filed a lawsuit, J++ got castrated and MS pushed VB forward as the language of choice to write com components in (for n-tier apps), with all the drawbacks.

I still find this THE missed oppertunity for Sun to win the Win32 developer for their camp. Sun didn't want MS to just use the LANGUAGE java and leave the PLATFORM java behind. Well Sun... big mistake, and after years of urinating MS in the face, it's finally over: .NET is here, and all that's left is the courtroom... or at least it seems that way.

Too bad... J++ was a great RAD tool for writing fast com components without the overhead of C++ and without the drawbacks of VB. :(

Re:Actually it's the other way around.

[Anonymous Coward]

Unportable code is bad for the industry and especially bad for Sun. Sure, they could have turned Java into a tepid OOPL for writing Windows-only code, but in what sense is that an "opportunity" for anyone other than the halfwits who want to write Windows-only code?

Sun should clone C#

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe Sun could cooperate with MS and 'extend' Java JVM to support C# byte code and MS 'extend' C# to include Java. MS already made their Java to C# converter, of course it's only good for Java 1.1. Make it possible to convert from C# to back Java as well, and share the libraries. Then the US computer industry wouldn't have to look like billionaire hillbillies Hatfield and McCoys duking it out with hundreds of lawyers attacking hundreds of lawyers. All this legal wrangling seems like another form of denial of service attack which mainly limits customers.

Re:Sun should clone C#

[Anonymous Coward]

Never happen. If Microsoft didn't plan to ensure the vast majority of CLR apps only run on Windows, they wouldn't have bothered to reinvent the JVM.

Sun whining

[Anonymous Coward]

So Sun are whining because Microsoft didn't bundle one of their creations in Windows XP?

Last year people were complaining because Microsoft bundled their browser+java.

Yawn.

Re:Reason: Sun is losing market share and money.

[Zeinfeld]

Man, you are smoking some good stuff. I don't know which of your fantasies is crazier: (1) J2EE, which currently dominates the Enterprise software market, losing out anytime soon to .NET. (2) Itanium rescuing itself from its current death spiral.

Letsee, I predicted the rise of the Web in 1992, that the Interactive TV model would fail 1993, that the established retailers would see off most of the etailers 1994, that the supermarket distribution model would kill Webvan et al, 1995. All of which was against the general consensus of the day.

The risk to J2EE is very real. Microsoft's CLI technology can run Java faster than any JVM. No amount of JVM tweakage can make up the difference, CLI is simply the intermediate stage of the standard C++ compiler and contains all the optimization info needed to make the highest performance code. Expect a rash of server adverts benchmarking a .NET server against J2EE.

Itanium is only having difficulty because there is diddly squat to run on the chip. Once Itanium can run everything that x86 can it will wipe the floor with the older architecture.

Re: Hidden Interfaces

[Slothrup]

I think they want to check to see if the CLR is based on the "illegal" Java VM they sued to have MS stop developing.

Microsoft wrote their own JVM, and therefore owns its source code. Sun didn't sue Microsoft because of theft -- they sued to protect their trademark. Even if the CLR could directly run JVM bytecode, Microsoft could legally redistribute it. They just wouldn't be able to use the name "Java" for it.

Sun is retarded.

[evilpaul13]

They sued when Java was included in Windows 98, and now they are suing that it isn't included in Windows XP?

They want to have their cake and eat it too?

Shaking head on this one!

[MtViewGuy]

I think the whole case is a silly one, considering that one of Microsoft's goals with .NET is that you can write .NET apps even with Java--and I mean the real Sun-certified Java.

Think about it: can you run Sun's own JDK's in Windows XP? Sure you can. Indeed, Sun's Java VM can be easily installed into Windows XP--and Sun even provides a web page to do so.

And the way that Sun tried to get ISO and ECMA certification for Java turned into a major joke, if I remember correctly. Javascript became popular because Netscape allowed it to become the open ECMA-262 standard.

You're confirming my point

[GCP]

You seem fond of Windows technology - to each his own. Enjoy the embrace of Mr. Bill. I would rather be outside of the pack.

Using Java/Swing for client-side apps is indeed outside the pack, which is my point. The pack tends to use C/C++ for widely used client apps and VB for large numbers of narrowly used (custom or niche) client apps. Java/Swing is anywhere from a minor player to virtually nonexistent, depending on how you choose to define popularity.

I regulary attend JavaOne, and even there the buzz around AWT or Swing-based apps faded years ago. Like most Java developers, I'm disappointed at how much of a flop it has been for client-side development. Using Swing as your preferred client-side technology is outside the pack, even among Java developers.

Re:You're confirming my point

[Malcontent]

I think java on the client is about to make a big comeback. Machines are faster now, the JVMs are faster too. Recently I downloaded jedit (jedit.org) and I have to say I just love it. It's the best windows editor I have used so far. I am amazed at how well it runs.

Don't count java on the client out yet.

Re:...and more ...You're right, you can't

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't choose not to install it, and you can't uninstall it either. At least I couldn't. I actually tried, and it took three days and Google searches from another computer (not using Netscape's search bar, happily) to figure out how to get up and running again.

If anyone knows a way to remove IE from Win98, I'd surely like to hear about it. When I tried, the whole house came tumbling down.

Re:At least in my case M$'s Java removal has been

[EnglishTim]

To be honest, that's what you get for using a proprietary language wholly owned by a particular company.

Java is not an open standard, which is why Sun was able to sue Microsoft over Microsoft's implementation, as they had licensed the technology.

It shouldn't be suprising now that MS wants to stick with its own homegrown alternative.

Hint to Sun: If you want people to pack your technology - it might be a good idea to to sue them.

Hmm: OSF to sell licenses????

[darkonc]

According to a friend of mine, it's illegal to sell a computer without an OS license. . . . . The result is that (in the US) it's viciously difficult to get an Intel box from a large-volume seller that doesn't have Windows pre-loaded on it.

Erg:
It just hit me: The OSF and/or Gnu should sell software licenses. Like: real licenses, with the hologram seals, serial numbers and everything... They chould shrink-wrap thim with a copy of the GPL and they should do all the administrative work of keeping track of them.

That's right -- Licenses to use free operating systems. The end-user would then be free to {,buy and} install the free OS of {his,her} choice.

{gnu,osf} could sell them to OEMs for $10 a piece. It would do two things:

• It would help pay for OSF work, and
• it would give people a well-documented way to get around the License-per-CPU MicroSoft tax.
• (I can't count.) It would also provide a way to more accurately gauge how many Gnu boxes were being shipped.

I can think of people who would buy a copy of the license just on principle.

their angle's java

[Purificator]

i don't think the suit is about money. sure, sun'd probably love money, but it sounds like the suit is sun trying to save java. the injunction they filed as part of the suit is asking the court to require microsoft to include java in windows and ie. it's not just about payback or damages or limiting microsoft's monopoly, it's about saving their major foot in the door of internet technology.

as far as why they waited, i imagine they prefered to let the doj and the states fight on their behalf until now. it's comparatively recently that it's been clear sun would see no rememdy from the doj/state action against microsoft.

Re:their angle's java

[martyn s]

It's not even about saving Java. The first time you come across something that requires java in Windows XP, you are presented with a dialog to download it, because MS would rather you download a new one than have you use Java from 3 years ago, which wouldn't work half the time.

Re:...and more ...You're right, you can't

[Anonymous Coward]

delete ie.exe:)

El

What?

[AndyMouse GoHard]

Sure, MS deserves it, but it's not like Sun wouldn't be doing the same thing, should they be in MS's position.

What? The reason Sun and other companies aren't in MS's position is because they didn't do the same thing. Get it? Microsoft has used illegal tactics to get where they are, and they continue to use them to stay there. Sun isn't using illegal tactics, hence they're not in MS's position.

Re:What?

[GSloop]

That's because SUN never had the opportunity!

Sun (and virtually anyone else, including me) probably would do what BillG has done, given the same opportunity.

If you think otherwise, either you're a whole lot more "sainted" than I am, or you haven't looked very deep.

Cheers!

Re:What?

[elmegil]

Sun (and virtually anyone else, including me) probably would do what BillG has done, given the same opportunity.

Let's see...

Sun has lots of licensing/partnership agreements with VAR's big & small. I don't recall ever hearing one of them that said "You can be a VAR for us, but you can't sell any other equipment by any other vendor, nor any other software that does the same stuff that we do." Let's see, VARs are selling Veritas Cluster Server, a direct competitor to Sun Cluster, all the bloody time. Do we spank them for doing this? Do we force them to stop selling our equipment? No.

Tell me again about opportunities and why Sun doesn't take them?

Re:What?

[GSloop]

Ahhh...but is Sun big enough to actually prevail with these practices?

See, I could threaten you (I'm a small guy) but the threats wouldn't have any credibility. But if I'm 6'8" and 350 Lbs, then the threats really take on a credible dimention.

Sure, possibly Sun could make this stick, but I doubt it.

I also notice you use "WE." I assume that means you're an employee of Sun...I would then assume that you're just a wee bit biased.

Now, please don't get me wrong - I've been a VERY sharp critic of MS, clear back to the late 80's. But my point is that given the opportunity, I believe that virtually everyone would take advantage of the situation.

But, hey, I'm probably stoned, and Sun is ready for translation to heaven, but I suspect not.

Cheers!

Re:What?

[elmegil]

Why yes, you are correct.

While Sun is no saintly place, I have to say overall we have a much stronger sense of ethics than I've ever seen evident in the behavior of Microsoft. Sun's no Mother Theresa, but we're not John Wayne Gacy either.

Re:What?

[GSloop]

Thanks for the reply. Perhaps my view of Sun is a bit skewed. - Though Scott M sure does appear to be as I said earlier - "a self important prick."

But perhaps you're right. I'd hope so. I do respect lots of what I see come from Sun, at least technically.

Hopefully should Sun get to the point that MS has, they will treat us better.

Cheers!

Re:What?

[elmegil]

Scott can be "a self-important prick" to the same extent that any CEO can be; which is to say I can't think of a single CEO that *doesn't* fit that description sometimes, especially in public. Some of them are more egregious about it than others (can you say Larry Ellison? :).

As far as it goes, the day we start acting like Microsoft is the day I leave, and I know a lot of fellow employees who feel the same.

Re:What?

[GSloop]

Perhaps you didn't see my earlier post.

How Lew Gerstner at IBM?

If he was a self-important prick, he certainly didn't let that image show to the outside world...

Just wondering what your reaction might be...

Thanks again,
Cheers!

It's clear now.

[AndyMouse GoHard]

Simon,

Great post. It's clear now and I have you to thank. You've really helped out alot of people with your little tutorial on programming.

Now, it's past your bedtime little troll.

Bill

Re:It's clear now.

[Anonymous Coward]

So what's the deal? Everything he said was on the mark.

My god this site sucks - anyone who isn't hard-core anti-Microsoft and walking around with a stiffy for open-source and linux is automatically a troll?

It's this kind of mentality that ensures open-source ends up where it belongs... the scrap heap. Keep it up, dick, you're doing all the work for us.

Re:It's clear now.

[spectecjr]

Great post. It's clear now and I have you to thank. You've really helped out alot of people with your little tutorial on programming.

Thanks. I hope so.

Now, it's past your bedtime little troll.

Oh you were being sarcastic. Well, gosh, I guess you got me good, huh?

I take it all back. Optimizing to the underlying architecture using standard (if you read Richter, or the Addison Wesley system books) is obviously not going to give you performance improvements. How silly of me for even thinking such a thing, or knowing such a thing because I've DONE it in my own apps.

Simon

Poking around MSDN

[Latent Heat]

The way Office blows chunks, it really looks like thats the case.

Go Carla!

[Anonymous Coward]

Kick their ass!

Now Sun? Who would've thought...

[PixellationStation]

Seems that any company nowadays is willing to try and climb into Microsoft's wallet.

Microsoft plants?

[jsimon12]

After reading through these replies I have seen a few that are striking similar in grammer, context and expression and also very very Pro-Microsoft. I won't name any names, but I wonder if there are some people on the take for Microsoft. It wouldn't be the first time they have used false tactics like this (can we say OS/2 and Linux, etc etc). Just upsets me that they have infiltrated Slashdot.

In my honest opinion I think Microsoft cheats, breaks the law and stifles technology for the sake of profit. The Justice Department has not really done anything other then give them a slap on the wrist so what are companies who want to play fairly left to do?

Sun's not so cool themselves

[BrockLanders]

It's only a matter of time before their hypocrisy catches up with them, too. . . http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=02/03/07/2 036238&mode=thread

Re:Reason: Sun is losing market share and money.

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously doubt that will be the Itanium that carries that forward. More than likely the McKinley or one of the later chips.

The primary reason that the Itanium Chip sales suck is that Intel basicly said a better version was coming out a year later.

Not to mention that there are billions of dollars of 32 bit legacy code that business have to look at supporting which the Itanium Runs very poorly.

It will be interesting to see what happens with the inferior x86-64 platform that runs 32 bit code as natively as 64 bit code. In comparison to the Epic platform which runs 32 bit code poorly.

Will business choose the former to protect the investment they have in 32bit code or the later and recode to 64bit platform to get the full benefits.

It will also be interesting to see the .net and j2ee battles over the next few years.

El

MS should sue Sun

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to see MS sue Sun and force them to include Netbios support in all Sun servers.

I'd like to see MS sue AOL and force them to carry other IM traffic.

I'd like to see MS sue Redhat, SuSe, Caldera, Debian, all the xBSD folks, and every other purveyor of free operating systems for their anticompetive and predatory practices in giving away their software for free and hurting the OS market.

But what I'd REALLY like to see is everyone stop crying like Scott Mealy-mouth and get back to making me some products that make my day easier.

STOP WHINING AND START CODING, YOU JACKASSES.

SUN Sucks

[Whardie Jones]

Microsoft doesn't have to support java. It's their product. If the users want java, then don't use XP plain and simple.

The Beginning of the End

[Mistah Blue]

I think this is the beginning of the end for Sun. That is a shame. They have great hardware and a great OS. However, they have lost focus (IMO).

Mr. McNealy is so bent on destroying Microsoft, that Sun is becoming another Microsoft. Sun thinks it can do it all: software, storage, you name it. What ever happened to doing one or two things brilliantly and being happy with it. Sun should stick to building systems and Solaris. However, they are getting ready to be stomped from two sides.

Scott, listen up, you aren't going to destroy Microsoft. They're bigger than you (and you aren't David). You had also better check six... IBM is about to send a missile up your tailpipe.

Re:The Beginning of the End

[Anonymous Coward]

That worked until a few companies proved you could prosper while doing everything badly, if you have the right connections to ensure your customers have to pay you even if they want to do business with someone else.

Re:Reason: Sun is losing market share and money.

[Mistah Blue]

Well said. Sun wants, no, demands you use a 100% Sun solution. In the past the only way to get support when using EMC storage and Sun Cluster, was to go to the VP of North American Sales. If you were a big enough customer, you'd get your approval, if not, tough.

I love Solaris and I like Sun hardware. I dislike Sun's attitude (and you hit it on the head). HP and IBM are going to run Sun over soon if Sun doesn't change it's ways. Soon might be a couple of quarters (esp. if their revenue stays weak).

Re:Cringley on Microsoft, Furthermore...

[lewkor]

The hundreds of lawsuits pending will serve as an actual penalty, far worse than any penalty that the DOJ would ever impose. These suits will hamper M$ more than even being broken up.

Re:Out of court settlements and private negotiatio

[Thing 1]

Of course someone would need to take over this company first, ...
Anyone out there from IBM or AOL interested?

Don't forget BeOS is currently at 10 cents a share. There's one week left before they delist, so if you want in on the settlement, start buying.

Yeah!

[Art Tatum]

CELEBRITY DEATHMATCH!

Sun sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

how funny. they cant compete with MS, so they have to make stupid lawsuits. if the leaders of Sun would put half as much energy into actually doing something other than having fits of Microsoft-inspired penis envy, perhaps they would make a technology that was actually relevant in the marketplace.

Java is as gone as the 90s. It was a good idea when it came out (it is essentially C++ anyway...), but is being replaced by newer and better ideas.

Sun is like Fred Flintstone trying to force Ford into making cars with stone wheels and foot power.

Also, I still dont know what is wrong with integrating a web browser into the OS. I mean, if every computer can benefit from using a browser, it seems like a no-brainer to put it in there. Having a choice of IE or Netscape seems like a choice of wheat or rye; I dont care, I just want a sandwich!

anyway, thats my .02

Rant...so much for my karma...

[DNAGuy]

Ok. So Microsoft is no bunch of angels. I think everyone can agree with that. But does Sun have to continue sucking? I mean, I hear far more about their lawsuits with Microsoft than their new technologies. Java is great, but a new language isn't going to save the world -- especially one with licensing easily as restrictive as Microsoft's. Thank you for listening. :)

STOP SHOUTING

[hendridm]

Are you a COBOL developer by day? Mixed case alphabet and carriage returns are always welcomed for easier reading.

Desktop Linux In A Nutshell

[Ilan Volow]

Newbies to GUI design making interfaces for newbies to linux. Until you have far less of the former, you'll never get much of the latter.

Re: Loses/Looses

[Lovejoy]

I would much rather ban apostrophe's for plural's altogether. Or noone should use apostrophe's at all or they would loose their life.

You can't have it both ways, you loonies (Sun)

[Anonymous Coward]

Sun, as a company, is retarded. First, they b*tch and moan that Java is included and that MS is messing with it, so MS removes it from XP and then Sun is happy... Later/now Sun is again unhappy that Java is *not* included and is suing because MS didn't include it. Christ on a crutch, these punks need to get their heads on straight.

Hey, Sun: you can't have it both ways, ya friggin' loonies!

Re:You can't have it both ways, you loonies (Sun)

[Anonymous Coward]

Java wasn't included. What was included was called "Java", but that was a lie.

Be careful what you ask for Scott!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey Scott, be careful what you ask for - you just might get it:

(from MSNBC http://www.msnbc.com/news/721268.asp?0cm=c30)
Last year, Sun settled a federal suit against Microsoft over the Redmond, Wash.-based company's creation of a Windows-only version of Java that was incompatible with other software. Microsoft paid Sun $20 million and agreed to no longer license from Sun any current or new versions of Java.

(from cnet http://news.com.com/2100-1001-251401.html?legacy=c net)
"It's pretty simple: This is a victory for our licensees and consumers," said Sun's chairman and CEO Scott McNealy. "The community wants one Java technology: one brand, one process, and one great platform. We've accomplished that, and this agreement further protects the authenticity and value of Sun's Java technology."

Your turn, sodajerk.

Scot Mcmoron

[Anonymous Coward]

Scot Mcmoron I like that. In my position where I work I have recomended against buying anything new from $un. We are retiring all our $un equipment and replacing it with cheaper intel and Windows systems. I wont support bad sports like Mcmoron anymore. I cant wait until this lawsuit gets thrown out of court.

I guess he's real upset with Bill Gates because he lost more money than Bill in the dot com crash not to mention in the last week.

Take care of your emplyees first!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Whooa!

Sun just had layoffs last year, and now they are paying their lawyers w/ big bucks. Instead of taking care of their employees, they are talking care of their lawyers. The priority of this company is backwards.

I guess they have saved enough money from the layoffs, and now they are after MS again.

Here's how to do it safely

[Anonymous Coward]

FIRST INSTALL A DIFFERENT BROWSER:
--I recommend opera [www.opera.com] or netscape.
--Make this the default browser

REMOVE FROM TASKBAR:
--right click the "e" icon, select Delete.

REMOVE FROM DESKTOP:
--right click the "e" icon, select Delete.

REMOVE FROM START MENU:
Click 'Start', click 'Programs'
--right click "Internet Explorer" [it has the "e" icon), select Delete.

PREVENT PROGRAMS FROM LAUNCHING I.E.:
find iexplore*.exe in the /windows or /winnt folder. Rename it to iexplorer1.exe

NOTE:
Some programs still rely on microsoft components to connect to web. For this reason I recommend that you don't try to manually erase files, it'll cause problems.

But Java's API's suck

[Tablizer]

(* I think java on the client is about to make a big comeback. *)

Java's API's stink too much for that. VB components are relatively self-contained compared to Java's API's, which tend to tie protocols together in weird ways in order to do the simplist things. You can't just plug in a few attributes/paradigms and then run it: Java pulls one thru the briar patch of coupled API's. It used to take what 4 protocols to write to a file? They reduced it since, but many others suffer the same design defect.

Such protocol coupling drove me crackers. VBX vendors know better. Sun wants to hook you into their tangled, API-coupled OS, otherwise known as "Java Libraries".

Re:But Java's API's suck

[Malcontent]

That's got to be one of the most incoherent posts I have ever read.

I wrote a simple server in under 50 lines of code. I wrote a mass mailer in about the same number of lines. And I didn't even pay for any components. BTW nobody sells VBXs anymore that was VB3 technology.

Re:But Java's API's suck

[Anonymous Coward]

Java's API's suck as compared to--what?--Visual Basic? LOLOL I can't even respond to that. My response has already been stamped on your forehead by yourself...

Re:But Java's API's suck

[Tablizer]

(* I wrote a simple server in under 50 lines of code. *)

But spent one day per line? I am arguing mostly about total programming effort, and not resulting lines-of-code.

(* I wrote a mass mailer in about the same number of lines. *)

I have also written a Spam-A-Tron using Xbase in about 50 lines of code. (I felt guilty about automating spam, but that was the biz at the time. Also, the Xbase called a command line IIRC to do that actual sending.)

(* BTW nobody sells VBXs anymore that was VB3 technology. *)

Sorry, I should have said "OCX" or something, but MS keeps changing the name every year or so based on their rapidly rotating buzzmarketing tactics and thus I lost track.

Re:But Java's API's suck

[Tablizer]

(* Java's API's suck as compared to--what?--Visual Basic? LOLOL I can't even respond to that. My response has already been stamped on your forehead by yourself... *)

Your criticism is not very specific here.

Note that I am talking about components *for* VB and not necessarily VB itself.

Also, I am not addressing quality here, but the *interface* design. I agree that VB-related stuff often has crappy quality. However, I find their interfaces usually much more plug-and-play than Java's. They generally don't drag me into a jillion other protocols that have very little to do with the task at hand.

The reason for this IMO is due to a focus on practical issues rather than zealotry/faddism and/or Sun's desire to slip on OS into every machine that requires fatter hardware (which is where Sun makes most its profits).

More info on this can be found at:

http://geocities.com/tablizer/miscoop.htm#blackb ox

Re:But Java's API's suck

[Malcontent]

"But spent one day per line? I am arguing mostly about total programming effort, and not resulting lines-of-code. "

What kind of a programmer spends one day per line? Usually the efficiency of a programming language is measured in lines of code.

"I have also written a Spam-A-Tron using Xbase in about 50 lines of code. (I felt guilty about automating spam, but that was the biz at the time. Also, the Xbase called a command line IIRC to do that actual sending.)"

Well duh! anybody can write it in 50 lines if they has an add on. I could do it in 50 if I had an OCX in VB too. The point is that this is all built into java.

"Sorry, I should have said "OCX" or something, but MS keeps changing the name every year or so based on their rapidly rotating buzzmarketing tactics and thus I lost track."

Well they have to do that to keep VB programmers forking over the dough. The poor suckers fall for it every time too!

Re:But Java's API's suck

[Tablizer]

(* What kind of a programmer spends one day per line? *)

Last time I tried to navigate Sun's speggetti API's, that is almost about what it took.

(* Usually the efficiency of a programming language is measured in lines of code. *)

That is often compared to judging the quality of art by how many brush-strokes it contains. I am not saying that it is a useless metric, but one that must be used in conjunction with many other metrics to get a fuller picture.

(* I could do it in 50 if I had an OCX in VB too. The point is that this is all built into java. *)

So one should live with or use crappy API's because they are free and/or built-in? Are you then arguing that using Java is cheaper and giving up any claim of being more programmer-friendly if the pocketbooks is ignored?

(* Well they have to do that to keep VB programmers forking over the dough. The poor suckers fall for it every time too! *)

There is some truth to that. However, the name change is often only just that: a name change. Whether old components will work with newer VB versions is a crap-shoot. The last time I checked, Sun was "deprecating" left and right also.

Re:But Java's API's suck

[Malcontent]

It's becoming obvious to me that you have no idea what you are talking about.

If you are unable to to use the JAVA API then fine. Apparently millions of other programmers are able to do just that without problems including me. This is a shortcoming with you and not the programming language.

Also there is a huge difference between "this call is depreciated" and this VBX that you paid 500 dollars for does not work at all. Again you don't seem to be able to tell the difference.

Re:But Java's API's suck

[Tablizer]

(* If you are unable to to use the JAVA API then fine. Apparently millions of other programmers are able to do just that without problems including me. This is a shortcoming with you and not the programming language. *)

Perhaps, but why is the OCX approach simple for me but the Java approach not? IOW, why am I allegedly brain-damaged under one but not the other? You have not explained the inconsistency.

Reminds me of, "Assembler is easy for those who 'get it'".

(* Also there is a huge difference between "this call is depreciated" and this VBX that you paid 500 dollars for ... *)

You are exaggerating. Most of the ones that I purchased or were involved in the purchase ran around 100 bucks. Besides, I can get many similar-to-Java API features using say Python libraries if the money is tight.

Is the choice being married to MS or married to Sun? They are both mud-crawling greedbags.

Re:But Java's API's suck

[Malcontent]

"Perhaps, but why is the OCX approach simple for me but the Java approach not? IOW, why am I allegedly brain-damaged under one but not the other? You have not explained the inconsistency."

I have no idea why you are not able to grasp java. Only you can answer that. Considering that there are millions of java developers all around the world it is obvious that the reason is not java itself. If people of different colors, races, languages, religions, cultures, and world views can grasp the fundementals of java then I'd say they are on to something. I am not saying you should be ashamed or anything it's just that you can't grasp it. I can't grasp baking a pie that does not make me dumb either. People are just wired differently.

"Is the choice being married to MS or married to Sun? They are both mud-crawling greedbags. "

Not true on both counts. First of all you can JVMs from IBM and MS not to mention open source ones. So no you are not married to sun. Secondly I'd say on the evil scale MS is much more evil then sun. At least sun has not been convicted in court twice. That's not to say that sun is "good" like mother theresa just not as evil. In a very real sense you are choosing the lesser of two evils. If you really want to be on the side of good you'd get a job programming in an open source language like python, perl, php, ruby etc. Open source is the good in this case.

Re:But Java's API's suck

[Tablizer]

(* Not true on both counts. First of all you can JVMs from IBM and MS not to mention open source ones. So no you are not married to sun. *)

That is because they don't have the market share to pull off a one-vendor language.

BTW, how come there is no open-source VB? I once heard of a project called something like "Arizona", but never found it.

(* People are just wired differently. *)

True, and whoever made Java's API's certainly is not wired like me.

(* That's not to say that sun is "good" like mother theresa just not as evil. In a very real sense you are choosing the lesser of two evils. *)

I think if they had a big enough market share, they would be. They show similar signs to MS's early days. True, the scaling is only personal speculation on my part.

Re:But Java's API's suck

[Malcontent]

"BTW, how come there is no open-source VB? I once heard of a project called something like "Arizona", but never found it."

Most likely this is due to several factors not the least of which are patents MS holds. And to be fair who would build VB from scratch? It makes no sense when you have perl, python, java, c#, delphi to clone VB. Even MS ditched VB in favor of C#. They introduced VB.NET which is nothing but a baby step to wean VB developers to C#.

There was a project one time called envelope or something but it didn't go anywhere.

Re:But Java's API's suck

[Tablizer]

(* Most likely this is due to several factors not the least of which are patents MS holds. *)

On a computer language? MS did *not* invent BASIC, nor most of the additions, which ALGOL probably gets credit for.

(* It makes no sense when you have perl, python, java, c#, delphi to clone VB *)

Yeah, but those have certain annoyances that some programmers don't like, like fricken semicolons. I haaaaaaaate those. Also "end-if" is more reader-friendly than "}". You know what is being ended. IOW, better self-documenting. And, some find other's Perl hard to read without years of practice. Language-for-life is not a realistic learning expectation. We have to be multi-lingual in most cases.

VB can also straddle between strong-typing and dynamic typing like very few other languages, and the "!" versus "." simplifies table field syntax.

VB indeed has historical baggage, but I have to say that it did some things right.

(* They introduced VB.NET which is nothing but a baby step to wean VB developers to C#. *)

That is because MS wants to kill Java by cloning it. It does *not* represent a love for C-clones. C# is a cannon, not a lover. They already killed just about everything else in the corporate world.

Re:I like this bit in particular

[thirdrock]

Sun Microsystems has taken every step possible to prevent Microsoft from shipping our award winning Java virtual machine. In fact, Sun resorted to litigation to stop Microsoft from shipping a high performance Java virtual machine that took optimal advantage of Windows.

This is a case of Microsoft spin doctors turning what is a flagrant breach of contract into a 'potayto / potahto' debate.
The MS JVM took 'optimal advantage' of Windows. In other words, it broke Java on every other platform.
But I sure the MS whores on Slashdot are going to whine 'So what, Windows rules, therefore everything else sux', or something intelligent like that.

Heres another good one.
At Microsoft we are proud of the Java virtual machine we created, and the value our customers see in it. It has a long history of high quality and superior performance. It is also the only Java virtual machine that offers an integrated applet browsing experience with Internet Explorer
So a criminal monopolist makes a proprietary browser, that takes the market through illegal monopolistic power, and then said criminal monopolist then boasts that only a JVM with extensions that breach contract with Sun, will run on it's proprietary browser.
Well shit, I guess it makes sense if you are some moronic loser PC owner who doesn't know the first thing about software, but to anyone with a tad of common sense, it's BULLSHIT.

The people here bashing Sun for actually pursuing some kind of justice against a criminal organisation should first think what thier defense of MS implies ... "I support a criminal organisation in their criminal activities therefore, by association, I am a __________"

Fill in the blank MS apologist assholes.

As if Java wasn't stuffed to start with

[xQx]

Yeah, an excellent one from the boys at sun. .. Looks like they've been hanging around union activists for too long.

A. Java was slow and horrid to start with, and made VB look like a well thought out language.
B. Sun *STILL* haven't got the idea about what giving software away really means (see StarOffice)

Now.. as for the lawsuit..

Am I reading this wrong, or are sun saying "stop bundleing IE with windows, give us the code, and while your at it.. the courts should MAKE microsoft bundle JAVA with windows... because .. ahh... it's anticompeditive if they dont."

Can I sue microsoft now, because my software "xQx's bloated, slow, runtime environment" never made the $3billion I thought it would, because Microsoft were anticompeditive by not bundleing it with their software??

Re:As if Java wasn't stuffed to start with

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I sue microsoft now, because my software "xQx's bloated, slow, runtime environment" never made the $3billion I thought it would, because Microsoft were anticompeditive by not bundleing it with their software??

You can if Microsoft prevented the OEMs from distributing your software also. OEMs are the -premier- distribution channel for software that far outclass anything else. I.e., any middleware (or software) that can distribute through the OEM has such an advantage over retail or download distributions such as to make those distributions channels negligible in comparison. Microsoft is in a position to put the OEMs out of business if they don't do what Microsoft says -- that's monopoly abuse and Microsoft is guilty of it. OEMs, businesses which are separate from Microsoft, can distribute anything they want as long as it doesn't threaten Microsoft. Why should your software be discriminated against based on Microsoft's wishes instead of its actual merits? Can any other company enforce that in this market? No. Could Microsoft do it if there were OSs that could actually compete on a data level with Windows? No. Since any piece of added software could be distributed by an OEM, and many pieces of added software are, but Microsoft can lock out *any* piece it doesn't want in there, in that market, exclusively for Microsoft's benefit, and to -everyone- else's detriment (i.e., no chance to even see if it's any good or not), you can sue.

I dare you to write some middleware and try and get a PC dekstop OEM to distribute it. Then I dare you to write some other piece of software and get the OEMs to distribute it. Easy. What's the difference? Why should all middleware providers be put out of business, before their products are even tried by the public? And downloads and retail don't count, because the people doing that don't number even close to the people getting "competing" software from the OEM. PC desktop software are a big market, there's no reason other businesses should be excluded from it. Microsoft won't let the OEMs distribute anything that -happens- to compete with Microsoft, even though they'll let them distribute anything else, and because Microsoft controls the only viable channel in a HUGE market, it's abuse of monopoly power, and it's illegal.

Too bad they have more money than anyone else, they can hire the best lawyers, lobbyists, and spin producers, and their victims are clueless business morons like Scott McNealy, as well as the public who technology working still scares a little.

You know what it looks like to me...

[BeerHunter]

A year or two ago, Microsoft didn't have a division of FUDmeisters browsing Slashdot and others trying (laughably) to defend their dubious business practices. I only drop in for a month or two once in a while, and it really looks like it's changed.

What he meant to say...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that McNealy acts like a turd as much as Gates.

From a (clueless) end user

[Ilgaz]

Hi,

I am an Opera user. It comes with Sun Java virtual machine to run Java apps.

One word. Its a mess. It even makes me sad that this great coded browser gets messed up with Java.

I am in a point that, I even change my regional settings to USA to run certain embedded apps on Opera. Won't be giving names but the applets not running well aren't coded by MS or any MS junkie companies.

Java 1.3.02 from Sun is designed for XP. Its the first Java plugin to be able to run under IE!.. Now count how many years it took for Sun to make it runnable. MS conspired them? Or they didn't bother to check ActiveX docs how to make it runnable?

While I guess many Yahoo users here, check what happens on Yahoo Chat, when you decide to use "non evil" companies (Sun) Java in IE 6? It doesn't simply work.

Try Yahoo chat on Opera... What happens? Logs on, cannot run.

They didn't bother to work with Yahoo or its chat software provider to make it work with chat.

Oh, support... Lets come to that point. The only support mentioned is java- feedback@sun.com or something! Yea, they invite ALL XP/Win2k/9x users to use their own "good", "innocent" virtual machine... For support? e- mail them :-) Geezus... Can't wait it from a crappy shareware developer even.

I was in some degree of madness that I even gone and registered to IBM Developers connection to get IBM JDK (NOT JRE, development kit it is, 70 MB!), well it didn't simply work.

Another funny fact. Sun uses Installshield 4.x to install Java! Even Installshield corp says "don't use it while distrobuting new apps, its not very compatible with Windows 2000 architecture" (add XP there)... One of the reasons its not running good. Imagine an installer that if you have 10GB+ of free space, it gets confused and asks you to free space!

You can'T imagine how much I want to laugh over this lawsuit sametime I get so mad/ angry when I remember the NIGHTMARE with Sun Java. uh, oh... I still have problems.

Any "ms hating", "open source loving" developers out there. Either learn how to code for MS NT based systems, make your app friendly with them (they run ms kernel, you code in MS visual C, HELLO?) or don't release it at all.

half of it.

[Ironfist_ironmined]

Half of the complaint goes extensively through Java's advantages over .NET, and mentions that little poll on ZD Net... or whatever

Re:Since when does a company have to include...

[maguilar2k]

Since that company destroyed the other company distribution channels using illegal means and abusing monopoly power... Java's main distribution channel was Netscape Navigator... and MS destroyed that channel bundling illegaly IE into Windows...

READ FIRST... then make an opinion...

[maguilar2k]

You can read Sun's claims below... for me it sounds like Sun's claims has merits and will prevail. http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/microsoft/sun/s unms030802mot.pdf

Re:Here is Sun's Response

[Juln]

Java isn't the core of their business monetarily, but it is everything for Sun as far as their ability to have leverage over and control the future of software.

Re:Since when does a company have to include...

[_avs_007]

And "bundling" IE with Windows damaged Java's distribution how? I use XP and Linux at work, yet I still use JDK 1.3.1. On the various computers in our lab, I have JVM's running from Sun, Borland, and IBM. Yet none of those computers have netscape, except for our 3 linux boxes.

If Windows did not have IE built in, how exactly are you going to "download" Netscape or a JVM? FTP? But windows shouldn't be "bundled" with FTP either right? So _HOW_ are you going to install it?

Re:Out of court settlements and private negotiatio

[frank249]

Better late than never. Here is the text of the agreement not to sue from Corel's 8K on sale of prefered shares to Microsoft:

4. Covenant Not to Sue .

Subject to the terms and conditions of this Section 4, Microsoft
covenants to Corel that neither Microsoft nor any of its Affiliates
shall sue Corel based on any claim that current or past versions of
Corel Office Professional or Corel WordPerfect Suite (and successor
Corel WordPerfect office productivity products) (collectively,
the "Covenanted Products") infringe Microsoft's U.S. Patents
5,510,980; 5,272,628; 5,287,514; and 5,437,036. This covenant is
personal to Corel and may not be assigned or otherwise transferred
(including without limitation by operation of law) without the prior
written consent of Microsoft, and any attempted assignment or other
transfer without such consent shall be void and of no force and
effect. All obligations of Microsoft and all rights of Corel under
this covenant shall continue until the last of the patents described
above expires, provided that all obligations of Microsoft and rights
of Corel under this covenant shall automatically terminate with
retroactive effect upon the occurrence of any of the following: (i)
any attempted assignment or other transfer of this covenant without
Microsoft's prior written approval, (ii) a Change in Control; (iii)
the commencement of any legal proceeding by Corel or any of its
Affiliates against Microsoft or any of its Affiliates alleging patent
infringement, antitrust violations or anti-competitive conduct; (iv)
breach by Corel of any material term of this Agreement; and (v) any
sale, assignment or transfer, directly or indirectly, of the
businesses and/or assets related to the production and sale of any of
the Covenanted Products. The foregoing covenant does not constitute a
patent license to Corel, and except as explicitly set forth above,
Microsoft does not, directly or by implication, estoppel or
otherwise, grant any other patent covenants or patent rights under
this Agreement. Further, the foregoing covenant does not constitute a
license under, or assignment of any interest in, any copyright or
other intellectual property of Microsoft.

5. Compromise and Release of Claims .

Corel and its Affiliates and predecessors in interest (to the extent
that Corel has a legal and/or contractual right to bind such
entities), in return for good and valuable consideration, the
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, hereby release and
discharge Microsoft and its Affiliates, and the present or former
officers, directors, employees, representatives, agents, trustees or
other legal representatives, successors and assigns of each of them,
of and from any and all claims, counterclaims, actions, causes of
actions, suits, rights, debts, obligations, damages, liabilities, and
demands that each of them ever had or has, in law or in equity, known
or unknown, from the beginning of the world through to the Effective
Date of this Agreement (the "Corel Claims"). Corel represents,
warrants, and acknowledges that it has not relied on any
representations of Microsoft in entering into this Section 5 or in
releasing and compromising the Corel Claims. Corel and Microsoft
further agree that this Release and the Covenant Not To Sue set forth
in Section 4 hereof, as well as the other terms of this Agreement,
are a compromise of the Corel Claims within the meaning of Federal
Rule of Evidence 408, and shall constitute full satisfaction of the
Corel Claims.

Until halfway through that post

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought you were talking about Sun :-)

And netscape never displayed html correctly

[Anonymous Coward]

For example my web page had image text image, which I wanted to align vertically; no version of netscape could manage that; it put the left image too high, almost as if some university student with no commercial experience had written the software all by himself, but then that describes all open source software (apart from GCC) anyway doesn't it?

He should have written it in a real language

[Anonymous Coward]

like COBOL. None of this java/javascript/vb shit that stops working after a year or so.

What you missed.

[AndyMouse GoHard]

What you missed was not "optimizing to the underlying architecture..." which by the way I'm sure they did. I have no quibble with that point.

No, to have really hit the mark you might have pointed out that Microsoft removed certain VM security/sanity checks. Like runtime type checking in certain circumstances. These unsafe shortcuts are where a substantial amount of performance increases were realized.

Now, I will apologize for being sarcastic. Your post appeared to me to be the standard "Microsoft achieved X by doing great engineering technique Y." You have to admit, alot of trolls use that one.

Bill

Re:I like this bit in particular

[2square]

I agree with you 100%. And for that I will no doubt be moded as a troll. What Fun!! LOL.

Noorda versus Gates

[geoswan]

I am following up my own post with a link to a biography of Noorda. He sounds like an interesting guy.

Re:Since when does a company have to include...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, you would pick up a phone and make a call to AOL, to have them ship you a version of AOL to install. Then two weeks later, call AOL on how to install AOL without crashing your computer...of course, AOL will tell, it's Microsoft's fault, and you should call MS. Then MS will ship you a IE on CD...and everything will be fine. You see, you really don't know the value of things, unless you suffer through it.

This way, you'll the value of your computer, because it took you 3 weeks to get your computer working. Now, if your computer works out of the box, you might not value your computer as much.

;-)