Force Microsoft to Carry Java?

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

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

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 Sun won, got some money, and Microsoft got upto 7 years to continue shipping their outdated version.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

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

a. IE to windows
b. Their workgroup software to their OS
c. IIS to their workgroup server
d. .net to their OS's
e. Active directory to both OS and workgroup OS and to Exchange
f. Exchange server to Office

3) Entering into illegal exclusive deals
4) Unreasonably restrained trade
5) Infringement on copyright
6) Engaged in unfair competition

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

Distribute Sun's current, binary implementation of Java Plug-in as part of Windows XP and Internet Explorer.
Stop the unlicensed distribution of Microsoft's Virtual Machine Java through separate web downloads, instead of incorporating within Windows XP and Internet Explorer, in accordance with Jan. 23, 2001 settlement agreement.

The preliminary injunction hearing is scheduled for December 3 - 5, 2002 at the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in Baltimore, Maryland. Permanent injunction requiring Microsoft to:

Distribute Sun's current Java Plug-In
Stop unlicensed distribution of Sun's Java code
Disclose and license proprietary interfaces, protocols and formats.
Unbundle tied products like Internet Explorer, IIS, Active Directory, Exchange, Windows server and .NET framework"

All of this claiming that they've harmed java, the Java programming community and intimately Sun's shareholders. Now as the court battle begins its seems that sun has to prove that they are not looking unfair advantage. This seems to be a big issue as it would seem that they could achieve the same level of distribution by merely dropping four million with OEMs..."

Comments

I don't think this will be an issue if...

[GreyWolf3000]

...developers continue using the Java platform. It is really a neat language, and the Java API makes it a great remote client environment.

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

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

Really

[Konster]

This is stupid.

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

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

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

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

Halo product anyone? Java would be good at this.

Re:Really

[GreyWolf3000]

The issue is that .NET will destroy Java.

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

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

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

Re:Really

[Konster]

I do agree that MS will use its marketshare to kill off Java.

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

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

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

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

Re:Really

[adamy]

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

Sun has suport optimized Swing running on Solaris.Why is it so slow on Windows? They don't have the same access to the source.

Let me get this straight...

[arb]

Sun didn't like Microsoft including their own version of the Java VM with their OS so Sun took MS to court to stop them doing so.

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

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

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

Re:Let me get this straight...

[Zelet]

The problem lies in that Microsoft supplied a "broken" JVM. Because of this Sun wanted MS to fix it to standard or to stop using it. MS stopped using Java completely. Now Sun wants MS to put a not broken JVM into Windows. Sun didn't change their mind, MS is just f*ing with the public and making it seem that way.

Re:On

[elmegil]

'cos you know, Sun isn't doing ANY R&D, they're just suing Microsoft in hopes that the money gained will hide the fact that they're not innovating.

Re:Here's an idea....

[torre]

Don't allow them to distribute .NET and Java with Windows and let the market decide.

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

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

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

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

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

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

But that's my 2 cents.

Re:Bad idea

[torre]

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

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

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

good for Sun, bad for Java...... beeblebrox

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

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

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

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

To SUNW: Focus or die.