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

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.