Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Ordered to Carry Java
An anonymous reader was the 17,232th person to submit that "Microsoft has been ordered to include Sun's Java runtime in Windows. Coverage from AP (via Yahoo), Reuters (via news.com), and, let's say, the BBC."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Simple: By not including Java, Microsoft abuses its monopoly power to push ActiveX.
I'll tell you what unnecessary government intrusion is. Unnecessary government intrusion is the DMCA legislating away our right to think critically and speak freely. Unnecessary government intrusion is the "War on Terror", a war on a verb, mind you, which can only be won by injecting drugs into every American which prevents fear regardless of stimulus. Unncessary government intrusion is the Office of Total Information Awareness, a Poindexter-led database of our SSN cross indexed to our freaking chest X-rays to our cell phone locations.
No, this is not "unncessary government intrusion". This is just a court trying to restore our basic unalienable right to a software language that isn't owned by a giant corporation like Microsoft.
If guns kill people, then CmdrTaco's keyboard misspells words.
If Microsoft bundles its own add-ons into its OS, that's monopolistic and bad; but if Microsoft bundles someone else's add-ons into its OS, that's competitive and good?
So now instead of one gigantic corporation controlling what's on your computer, there will be two. Ah, so much better.
Not really, since Sun/Java was directly named in the findings of fact. The only other entity that might seek similar relief is Netscape. I wouldn't cry over the forced inclusion of that, either.
The judge isn't forcing Microsoft open to competition generally, he's remedying a situation in which a company was wronged in the past, and (successfully) claimed they were about to be wronged again. This pretty significantly limits the number of companies with a claim.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Did you miss the whole antitrust trial where Microsoft was found to be, not just a monopolist, but an abusive, predatory monopolist (and then upheld on appeal)? That's why they're being forced to include java: it's called punishment for past wrongs that are about to be repeated.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
First, I honestly feel bad for ya because you're going to suffer the "Slashdot Death by Disagreement" fate. I disagree with you, but that does not, in of itself, make your post bad. It should be moderated, IMO, merely by how it contributes to good discussion.
To answer, however, I think that the Reuters article covers that question well by quoting the judge:
"'It is an absolute certainty that unless a preliminary injunction is entered, Sun will have lost forever its right to compete, and the opportunity to prevail, in a market undistorted by its competitors' antitrust violations,' Motz wrote in his decision."
My
Limekiller
Here's how I understand it:
Sun is suing MS in a civil case, saying that Microsoft used their monopoly(1) on desktop operating systems to illegally compete with Sun's Java, in the form of a browser plugin. MS used their OS to hinder Sun by including an out-of-date and broken JVM version for many years, despite better software available (for free) from Sun.
The judge agreed that this was likely an illegal use of their monopoly(2). MS already attempted to say that browsers (and their plugins, which Java is in this case) are part of the operating system, but that was already rejected in the DOJ case. Because of this precedent, the case looks very strong for Sun, so...
As a preliminary injunction, the judge ruled that Microsoft has to include the latest version of the JVM from Sun, so that as the case is argued in court (no doubt over a period of years), further damage is avoided.
I don't read it that Microsoft can 'opt out' of carrying any sort of JVM, especially since that's already their tactic with WinXP.
-Zipwow
1: Monopoly, not illegal in itself. MS has argued that no monopoly exists. The DoJ case's findings of fact specifically described MS' hold on Desktop OS's as a monopoly.
2: Using a monopoly in one area to hinder competition in another is illegal, and is what Sun is complaining about. Using your desktop power to break into the web-plugin market (and hence the related server market) is what's illegal.
I don't know which is more depressing, that 2/3 didn't care enough to vote, or that 1/2 of those that did are crazy.
...why Microsoft is being required to carry a competitor's product.
.NET).
Microsoft is now competing with Java (with
Microsoft has a monopoly in a different market.
Using a monopoly position in one market to influence another is illegal.
Microsoft has been distributing an incompatible version of Java.
Monopolies are required by law to play by different rules.
"The cost of freedom is eternal vigilance." -Thomas Jefferson
a long time ago, a company named reynolds was the only producer/developer of aluminum. not only that, but they were going around the world buying up all thye bauxite mines they could find. the feds stepped in and the final decision forced them to set up a whole, new company, (ALuminum COmpany of America, or ALCOA), give them plant and equipment, AND had to forfeit to them some bauxite mines. one of the motivations for this was that aluminum was considered a necessary material, not just for war, but for manufacturing.
while i don't like government intrusion, there is a very important issue to consider. with its already established monopoly, and many abuses thereof, microsoft has gone way beyond the scope of normal business activity. this is not only a case of insuring competition, but prevents control of the market in a vital sector. economists from all sides, in particular free market champion milton friedman, argue that the role of government in the economy is to prevent monopolies and protect the market system. this doesn't pick winners and losers, just makes sure that the odds are even.
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I don't think this is going to last long for a variety of reasons. IANAL but, heck this is slashy
First a preliminary injunction is subject to a number of tests, Sun has to have a better than even chance of winning the case, refusing the injunction would have to cause more harm than granting it might and so on.
I don't think the claim that sun are harmed holds water. It was their previous action that caused Microsoft to stop shipping the Java VM.
Microsoft have a very strong case that Sun suffers no harm if the status quo continues and that they would suffer substantial harm. Java is active code and active code has historically been subject to lots of security risks - including Java.
Secondly, I don't think that the judge's mention of Tonya Harding helps. The statements create an impression of bias. Equally the statements appear to go way beyond the issues that should be considered where a preliminary injunction are concerned and tend to indicate that the judge has formed a judgement before the hearing...
I don't have much sympathy for Sun here. It may be the US way for failing companies to go to the government or courts to try to win there what they failled to win in the market but it didn;t do Netscape any good. Scott is driving sun into the ground with his Microsoft obsession, the competition that will erase Sun completely comes from Linux and Apple. I am not an Apple fan but they are the worlds largest UNIX vendor by far, they have a solid O/S and if they can only get a powerful processor they can clean up the market for closed source Unix.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
If you signed a contract stating that you would give away competitors products, then you need to honor that contract.
Don't like it? Don't sign the contract.
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
The end user doesn't have to be bothered with installing the "monopolyware" solution themselves. Why should they be forced to execute an extra step themselves. Why even expect that they well be able to when everyone appears to claim that PC's must be built to cater to absolute morons.
Microsoft's middleware enjoys an ILLEGAL advantage. They are a conviceted Monopolist, this gives their competitors a right to the "fruits poisonous tree". In any area that Microsoft abuses it's OEM channel, Microsoft's competitors are entitled to the same "advantage".
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
> What's next? Should Microsoft be forced to include
> Mozilla with every copy of Windows? How about
> Linux? Should they have to include 1 copy of
> FreeBSD, Linux, BeOS and QNX with every sale of
> their Windows software?
Yes...these are nightmare scenarios...
> Now, don't get me wrong, I hate MS as much as
> the next guy in the open source community, but
> doesn't this open up a slippery slope? Where
> does it stop?
It stops when Microsoft stops being a predatory monopoly. It stops when there's competition in the computer industry again. The systems (Mozilla, the OSes) you mention, as well as Java, are at a competitive disadvantage not because of technical or corporate incompetence (generally) but because Microsoft, as has been upheld by the courts, illegally leverages its monopoly to crush competiton.
Microsoft makes some good stuff. It would make better stuff if it had to compete fairly. My industry, and the world's economy, would be helped by not allowing Microsoft's unlawful strangulation of technology's progress. So anything that helps competition's return helps me.
"Whatever happened to fair use?"
-- Duff-Man
you missed a few steps between 4 and 5.
namely the fact that microsoft did indeed lose the case and then tried to renegotiate with Sun to get a valid version of the JVM, sun said "F$%k you" basically and refused to license it"
Then when MS said, "Fine, we'll just take out our version as well." Sun sued to force them to include Java, even though it was Sun's own damned fault that MS wasn't including it in the first place! If Sun had actually been willing to renegotiate after their initial court victory there would have been no case.
I've seen a lot of comments here about how this is government intrusion and has no place in a free market.
That, dear friends, is complete bullshit.
People seem to equate "free market" with "freedom for companies to do whatever the hell they want." But it doesn't work that way. A free market is a market in which there are multiple companies all competing on the same level with the same rules. And it provides consumers with multiple choices so that they have the power to decide what's the best product to use.
The key point here is that if the product is a foundation for other products, such as telephone lines, cable service, computer hardware or computer software, you need to set some rules so that everyone has the chance to compete on the same level.
Think of it like a football game, where one team provides the playing field, the locker rooms and all the other assorted stuff that goes along with a normal game. The visiting team plays at a disadvantage because most of the fans are rooting for the home team, but they still play with the same rules, independent referees, the same size goal posts and end-zone. The home team doesn't get the ability to have things however they want it just because it's their field. There are rules, and they must be adhered to.
Remember, a free market economy's prime benefactor is the consumer, not the company. When companies become so large that they can influence the consumer's choices no matter what, you lose the benefits of free markets. That is why anti-trust laws were created and one of the reasons you need governments in the first place.
So, don't think that a free market economy needs no supervision. It needs lots of it, for the benefit of the consumer. In the end, everyone wins, not just one producer of products.
(BTW, on a completely different note, this is partly the same argument that can be made for affirmative action and programs like it, in order to create a level playing field so that everyone progresses and moves forward, rather than just a select group).
+1 Insightful, -1 Troll. What can I say, I'm an Insightful Troll.
Right on! Not only should Microsoft be forced to include Java, they should also include Python, Haskell and Tcl/Tk. Make them ship with Navigator AND Mozilla. But icons for both MSOffice and OpenOffice on the desktop. Heck, throw in a loopback distro of Linux while you're at it.
After all, if Sun cannot compete because Windows doesn't ship with Java, then neither can anyone else who doesn't have their software shipped with Windows.
Hee, hee. Since Microsoft has been declared an illegal monopoly, they're fair game. Make them do whatever we want. Make them give away MSOffice for free! Make them give all of us a rebate whether or not we've even used their stuff! Make them replace their desktop with GNOME! They're evil so anything the government does to them is justified...
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Read the article, or the verdict. Microsoft and Sun had a pre-existing contract and Microsoft broke it. Since Redhat has not ever entered any contractual relationship with Microsoft, nobody will be forcing Microsoft to bundle Redhat.
The key point you leave out is that MS's extensions were in the same namespace as the core language, which is in violation of the spec, whereas none of the other extensions to java (such as Cocoa) did that. Why was such a thing put into the spec? Because the spec was written with platform portability as a goal and one step toward that goal was to make it blatantly obvious to the programmer which parts are standard and which are extensions, by using a naming convention that shows it.
9) Sun cries fowl. Demands MS includes Sun's java because they limited MS's license to an old, obsolete version.
Liar. MS was free to produce any modern version of JAVA they liked. What Sun told them they couldn't do was produce a non-compliant Java and call it "Java". MS had two possible ways to solve it: 1 - Fix their naming conventions to make their newer versions compliant, or 2 - go back to the older version from when it was still in compliance. MS chose to do #2, and then went on a smear campaign designed to make idiots believe this was the only option Sun allowed them to do and that this makes Java a language you should avoid because Sun is vindictive. Unfortunately idiots outnumber thinking poeple, so the smear campaign worked and now their big lie is believed in the IT community.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
The remedy essentially costs MS nothing. They were going to be burning the CD's anyway. I am sure that there were a few extra bytes available on them.
It means that MS can skip trying to make a good JVM and put those resources elsewhere and nobody will have cause to complain.
If the JVM for Windows is buggy or slow it is Sun that catches the flak, not MS. Nobody can claim (as it is essentially was done in the suit) that MS is intentionally making the JVM bad because it is no longer Microsoft's JVM. On the other hand MS will no longer have to worry about having to jump through hoops when Sun ammends the Java Specification.
If then Microsoft makes their .NET clr run rings around Sun's JVM then it will be a matter of the products winning on their own merits, not a matter of MS putting more resources to one than the other. And frankly the odds are pretty good that MS could outprogram Sun. Dislike their business practices all you want but the programmers there are a fairly sharp bunch.
This: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/59/28677.html
They are still at their best shoddy practises. I say sue them into limbo for whatever stunt they pull. Microsoft have shown us time and time again that they themselves doesnt believe in their own offerings since they go to such great lenght to artificially stifle all and every sign of competition.
If Microsoft doesnt think their products is worth a rats ass, why should we?
Im totally "Anything But Microsoft" and my decision seems better and better each day.
HTTP/1.1 400
I'm not siding with Microsoft per se, but what is the point of including the Sun JVM with Windows?
I don't think the masses are buying Windows to write their own Java programs, are they? The main benefit to the average user to have the Sun JVM would be what? To run some ugly Java applet? Don't even get me started on Swing applications.
Regarding Netscape, I would argue that this was Netscape's downfall as well. (Everyone knows how big a piece of crap IE3 was, and everyone knows how big a piece of crap Netscape 4 was. Netscape 4 was Netscape's downfall. Coming out with a competent browser now isn't enough to break the multiyear stranglehold given to Microsoft by Netscape 4.) In the earlier days of the browser wars, people were smart enough to pick the browser that did a better job. Today? I don't know.
Let's be realistic - most users don't need or care about Sun's JVM at this point in time.
In the grand scheme of things, I think most end users have more need for the Macromedia Flash plugin than the Sun JVM. Of course, The Register has a story talking about Microsoft making a hostile bid for Macromedia.
Ultimately, forcing Microsoft to add Java to Windows accomplishes little, since Joe Average won't be impacted in any meaningful way. This is as empty a moral victory as Sun can possibly have. And for the users who actually use Java, it will probably end up being more of an inconvenience, as they'll be upgrading to a more recent version of the VM anyways.
In a story about any other company I could see this being an important story. And I could discussing it on /.
The court orders Microsoft to do a lot of things.
MICROSOFT DOESN'T DO THEM!
The court doesn't follow thru with anything directed at Microsoft. There is no enforcement, no actual punishment.
You wouldn't raise your kids this way. You wouldn't tolerate this kind of behavior from your neighbors. You would expect/demand that the courts stand behind what they say in any other case.
But this is not what happens with Microsoft.
So some lawyers and a judge got their chests all fluffed up and announced that Microsoft will carry java.
If you think that actually means that Microsoft will include java....well, I've got some great real estate deals for you.
Wake up people!
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
Furthermore, having a monopoly in and of itself is not illegal. But leveraging that monopoly to adversely affect your competitors -- as Microsoft did with using its OEM licenses -- is illegal.
Remember that the findings of fact in the antitrust case survived on appeal. The question is no longer whether Microsoft is a monopoly, or whether it was anticompetitive. The question is what should be done about it.