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 really don't get this. Why is MSFT forced to include a piece of software written by their competitor into their Operating System ? I know that having a monopoly places restrictions on what you can and can't do, but I was not aware they can go THAT far.
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?
--sdem
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.
Nice. Java is a good concept. Slow, mind you, but good, since what runs on Windows (written in Java) will run on Linux will run on Mac OS X. It makes the OS world a better place.
I made a virtual machine in college. It is based on an LL1 type language and the language is compiled into an intermediate byte code, and then executed on a virtual machine that is platform specific. It's a little buggy, and it crashes the machine occasionally, (hey, I only had one semester in my compilers class to finish it!) Maybe I can force Microsoft to carry it....after all it is a competing technology.
-ted
Those posters who suggest that the courts getting involved might not be good have missed the point: MS is operating an (illegal) monopoly. 98% of the world's computer users are using their software. If MS don't like you, you get screwed, so the courts' intervention can only be a good thing. In a future world where we using all sorts of different OSes and relying on standards to interact then maybe court intervention might be problematic. But we aren't there and we aren't geoing to there for many, many, years to come.
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.
Seriously, considering the history of this trial, Sun should be able to integrate a ham sandwich with Microsoft's OS if they want to.
I do hope this is the beginning of a "death of a thousand paper cuts". Microsoft truely does deserves it. From the looks of it, there's already other lawsuits in line for early January.
*** Sigs are a stupid waste of bandwidth.
If this is a real number... or an exaggeration. The editors must really have a tough time of it sometimes, if they get this many articles. No wonder we get dupe posts etc.
/. in a day lately, if this many are actually posting submissions.
I've had a question submission in pending since last week, they're probably really busy (or, hopefully, saving mine for a slow day).
17,232 on a Microsoft court ruling... I wonder how many post when the next distro of brand-X linux comes out. Also wonder how many people are visiting
Also wonder if they chose the AC just so that the other 17,231 people didn't have a name to cry foul upon when theirs was not the chosen submission.
An anonymous reader was the 17,232th person to submit...
17,232th? What the hell? No, no, no... you see this is the reason that Microsoft didn't want java included in the first place... stupid syntactical errors like the above can be generated quite easily using java, but asp libraries prevent such mistakes, and would have genereated '17,232nd' as the proper response.
Well, unless of course a human wrote that... in which case, shame on you... proof read dang it!
But on a serious note (to help save my karma), putting aside that this is microsoft, and they are evil, doesn't imposing the will of SUN onto microsoft violate something? or at the very least lower them to the same level? Microsoft wasn't preventing java from running on their os, they simple did not BUNDLE a competing product. What the hell? I don't see the problem. What next? DVD manufacturers have to bundle competing (free) DVD player software with their drives? I think not! Although MS deserves it... as a whole, this is not the right thing to do.
---
Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
MS is being forced to carry and install software they don't want and won't use. They've been doing that to us for years, now let's see how much they like it!
Yes, but have they been ordered to make it work properly in Windows???
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
It's interesting to guess whether others are submitting a given story. I guess this was a no-brainer.
... until you get back to that monopoly abuse.
Coercion: the power to require Microsoft to include Java is the same that allows the gov't, or any successful antitrust plaintiff, to force them to do anything different. Because of their market power, which puts them on nearly every desktop in America, their default config has a lot of promotional influence. Up to now, that influence has entirely favored Microsoft, which sounds appropriate
Whether THIS particular coercion is a good idea, we'll see. Whether coercion is never the right thing, well that's much broader.
A partial analogy would be Microsoft owning the default Yellow Pages distributed to everyone's door and selecting who can be in it -- say, virtually everyone but "Sun." Now, anyone can go get one of the other free directories, but will they? Advantage: Microsoft.
Also, Java isn't exactly a competitor's product; it's also an attempt at an industry-wide open standard that Microsoft wants to subvert, dominate, and exploit. Hey, they already tried.
It's a difficult problem to set things right in the wake of antitrust problems. Market forces generally do a decent job of figuring these things out (the "invisible hand"). But when some clever party makes the market its own, and then abuses it, the rules have to change, and gov't regulation, or a breakup, are the most common remedies.
If you don't think MS should have been sued in the first place, you will not believe any of these rationales, and probably not that antitrust is necessary in the first place. Many think some market failures need correction, but not everyone.
This is more or less a good thing, but I don't like the precedent.
Why should Sun get special treatment? Does this mean that every Joe, Dick, and Harry, gets to include his platform independant runtime with windows?
And how is Java different from, say, Mozilla or Phoenix? It's simply another application that Microsoft is using its monopoly powers to crush.
With the conditions as they are, all Sun is doing is grabbing onto the coat-tails of Microsoft's monopoly. The only way this is good, is if Microsoft is Sun's only competitor. Otherwise you have just created a second monopoly where there was only one at first.
If this isn't overturned, get ready for about 1,000,000 lawsuits from software makers clambering to get their product included with Windows. Worst case, I can imagine a future where the government decides which software companies survive and which don't, all by deciding who gets to be included on the common platform.
Is it just me, or is this thread boiling over with ignorance?
.NET *cough*
This is *exactly* what MS did to Netscape a few years back, and a court found them guilty. They bundled their own technology and made it inconvienient to use competing products. *cough*
It seems to me that this judge is basically just upholding that ruling and *not* allowing MS to do the same thing to Sun.
std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
it's because there are no good precedents for the computer industry, especially as far as operating systems go. Where does the operating system and the programs/runtimes/etc. begin and end? where does an OS become unethical and/or abusive? where is the line that must be crossed before an operating system is. With the courts trying to prevent this abuse, the problem is that there is no good line. Due to the existing monopoly, there's no way to do anything that won't totally screw Microsoft unjustly that will make a real dent in their power to abuse their position. The best they can hope for is to preserve competition outside the operating system market itself, and to keep the path clear for Java and any of dozens of other things that aren't standard on Windows without allowing them to be negated by Microsoft products that clone them and won't allow the original to be even realized by the user, much less the original creator have any power over their creation. So, since the only true answer is making it all free as in beer (since otherwise, it'll always be a fight for profit rather than just credit), all we can do is pray that they don't screw too many things up with court precedents.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
Of course, in some people's eyes, Microsoft can do anything it wants because it is above the law and are therefore the corporate heros of a 'free society'. Under those circumstances, the only one who is 'free' is Microsoft and them alone.
"Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
--Tom Schulman
The Judge's opinion is available as a PDF obtained via the C|Net article.
Arbitrary conclusions fueled by non-facts
Yeah, that's basically what this is... it's an injunction. They'll hold a real trial to sort this out when they get a chance, but for the time being this will have to do.
A lot of posters have gone on about the pros and cons of this as a victory for sun. But remember, Sun will benefit very little from this. In the Java software space, they're nowhere. They don't sell the language. They have next to nothing to offer for development tools at a price. About all they get is bragging rights.
It's IBM who's probably tipping the bubbly right now. And, a lot of Java developers.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
Microsoft has been ordered by the court to ship Java with their OS(s) as a remedy for their past performance.
Remember: Microsoft contracted with Sun to ship untainted and current versions of Java with their OS products. Microsoft then corrupted their version of Java in order to make it no longer cross-platform compliant. Then they quit updating their version. The result was that many, who think that Microsoft keeps them up to date with the latest and best, came to regard Java as buggy, incompatible with other platforms, and out of date.
Sun sued Microsoft for breach of contract for developing the corrupt version and then stopping updates. Microsoft retaliated by pulling Java completely.
Sun is suing Microsoft to live by the terms of the contract. The court has ordered Microsoft to do so as the legal process continues.
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.
Hey Dummy, that agreement was superceeded by an agreement that Microsoft could not include the latest and greatest versions of Java as part of a settlement, and that Microsoft was only allowed to distribute their older java runtime for a few more years. It never said they were required to carry anything, and Microsoft is currently obiding by that settlement.
www.atacomm.com - The Leader in VoIP Product Distributi
...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
They're an abusive monopoly. The rules are different for them due to the DAMAGE that such an entity can do to our economy. Even in the absence of any other agreement, Microsoft shouldn't get to profit from illegal activity that is contrary to fundemental American public policy ideals (IOW, the free market).
When Microsoft is no longer in a position to extort the likes of IBM to drop their own competitive product (OS/2), then Microsoft can freely abuse it's customers againt.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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
Comment removed based on user account deletion
From Reuters
:-/.
Sun contends Microsoft sabotaged its Java software in order to fend off a threat to its Windows monopoly. It has asked Motz to impose the "must-carry" Java provision to remedy Microsoft's antitrust violations.
They violated the law. This is their punishment. Please read the article
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/
What about IBM? They didn't sue. Sun did. To the victor goes the spoils.
Not that any of this really matters. It's only a prelimary injunction. Microsoft will appeal it, the wheels of the justice system will slowly grind on, and there still won't be a working Java bundled with shipping with Windows anytime soon.
Steven
i'd say that x86 processors are as much to blame for the spread of viruses than outlook, ie not at all. the real culrpits are the virus writers. don't blame the messenger.
The thing is, Microsoft has been shipping Java, but an old version. Combined with their monopoly, that effectively makes that version of Java the version that programmers must code to.
I'be been playing around with 1.4 on Windows and Linux, and for a lot of things, it is quite nice, actually. The JIT has dealt with the performance problems of the past. However, I can't actually use 1.4 for anything we put on the web, because of all those Microsoft JVM's out there.
And before anyone says to just have my users download 1.4 from Sun, that's 9 meg. 9 meg is too big for modem users. There is a strong negative correlation between download size and download completions, and 9 meg is way into the high failure territory.
Doesn't that give Sun an opportunity that would be unavailable to its competitors? Mandating that the monopoly-holder must include a product in its own product stifles competition even more. well, maybe not more, but just as much. they might as well be required to include everyone's programming language into Windows. I think we should tread lightly when we deal with this monopoly. Just because something might hurt microsoft or help one of its competitors, it is not guaranteed to be beneficial to the industry.
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
I usually don't say it that directly, but you are either trolling or misinformed.
Let's face it, they stole it from Apple.
I know, I know, it's a great handy dandy point used over and over by some people instead of solid arguments. Here's how it really happened: In the late 70s Xerox/PARC labs has some revolutionary ideas about creating *graphical* user interfaces: windows, icons, mouse pointer - things like that. Apple and Microsoft *both* visited PARC and took the technology with them to implement it, mind you, they were actually very close to one another at the time!
And I'm sure you agree that ideas like having a GUI should not be patented *at all* because there would be no Linux desktop then. Which takes me to another point:
Sheesh, even free projects like KDE [kde.org] and Gnome [gnome.org] have been able to come up with their own look and feel.
How is KDE different from Apple's GUI if Microsoft's is not? Let's face the truth here: *all* desktop environments use the same principles and look alike! And it's my personal opinion but I think KDE is actually leaning more toward MS style than Apple style.
And when does Apple get paid reparations for this theft of look and feel?
So if you think look and feel should be copyrighted/patentable even given the design makeover differences between MS and Apple: how much do you think ALL other desktop environments (like GNOME/KDE...) should pay to compensate Apple? This is getting nowhere.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not usually a MS advocate, quite the contrary. But this is sillyness born from misinformation. Let's keep with the hard facts and work with that. Anything else doesn't make sense.
...Sun's own Java VM is dog-slow in many ways. I've tried JVM 1.4.1 on Windows 98 and when it loads the first time and/or run any Java applets it takes a long time to run. It's better in Windows 2000 Pro and Windows XP, but I still think Sun needs to speed up their Java VM to better work with Windows 98 to Windows XP.
Now, if the judge's order specified any Java VM that meets Sun's compatibility tests, maybe Micosoft could use IBM's excellent Java implementation instead.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Maybe 5 years from now there will be 10 or more... We can only hope. Personally, I wish they'd just break Microsoft up already. They're using their profits leverage in the OS platform to fuel their mega-profit-loss XBox initiative to try and snuff out Sony and Nintendo by sheer loss of revenue hoping Sony and Nintendo just throw the towel in by not being able to compete with such profit losses. It's lame.
This might set a precedence on other areas that MS has decided to bundle in Windows...
.MSG extension everytime I close The Bat!. Isn't this, too, considered misuse of monopoly in one area to gain market leverage in another?
My case: In Windows XP Pro (possibly even in XP Corp) MS includes IIS in the default installation. Can other web server producers (eg. Apache) sue them for this? Why? Because it is pushing their own product within an OS that is not meant to be a web server in the first place. IANAL, but I would appreciate any comments from those with a firm understanding of US laws.
Another case: Since the release of Windows 2000, Outlook Express has been integrated so tightly in the Windows code that it is near impossible to remove it (from a typical user's standpoint, n00b?). I have installed The Bat! as my default email client, but OE always retakes files with
Mildly offtopic, I know, but I do hope that there are people out there who can give their views on this.
Welley Corporation - SLM Scammers
Very typical response from slashdot.
.NET runtime must supply Sun Java.......this is ass-backwards. .NET is a runtime enviroment (as is java of course).....if an application uses .NET at its core, for example Visual Studio .NET, they need to include the runtime. Seriously, why not say if it includes MFC you must include Borland OWL?!?
.NET runtime is ready for primetime in WinXP SR1.....includes .NET runtime and the only version of Java they have licensed, although the license is soon to expire.
.NET? Its a great platform, I develop both client side and server side.....and its being cloned by various open source projects. Sun shot themselves in the foot by requiring Microsoft to cancel their distribution of Java......infact, what Sun should have done was work with Microsoft and others for CROSS PLATFORM UI and multimedia libraries that WORKED well....Microsoft's customizations were designed for mainly UI elements.....so are Apples. Whereas .NET was built ground up for GUI applications as well as web applications, and is much more what developers like myself want to deal with.
.NET with Solaris and StarOffice, as they both include Java. (And MS has a BSD runtime now...for developers, not fully completed libraries yet).
ZDNews is claiming that all products from MS that include
That broad ranging declaration by the judge is key to getting this thrown out.
On to the next item......everyone claims MS shafted Java. Lets see:
1) MS signs Java agreement
2) MS produces better runtime
3) MS adds extensions for Windows only development, which are optional to developers depending on their target market (HINT: Apple has Cocoa extensions in Java......samething......they are optional)
4) Sun sues Microsoft
5) Sun offers settlement...terminate future licenses, puts a deadline on distributing the old java
6) Microsoft removes old Java well before deadline
7) Sun complains, puts large advertisements out showing disgruntlement with Microsoft
8) Microsoft decides
9) Sun cries fowl. Demands MS includes Sun's java because they limited MS's license to an old, obsolete version.
10) Judge grants sun's wish......for now.
This will be overturned. You can't sign an agreement which you wrote, which specifically states what you can and cannot do regarding terminating a license, and say hey, this didn't work out how we wanted.
And the fact is, most of the average users, including myself, don't run into client side java all that often........and the only ActiveX control I ever see is Flash.
On the client side Java is becoming irrelivent.....and I for one do not want to be forced to see the Java icon flashing me from my tray. This is not furthering choice what-so-ever. I think if this settlement would take effect, Microsoft should counter Sun needs to carry
www.atacomm.com - The Leader in VoIP Product Distributi
The BSA has just informed the US DoJ a letter saying they have three days to hand a list of all their computers, the software they are running and the licenses for the software. A spokesman for the BSA said "Of course this has nothing to do with the case against Microsoft, the law makers have to obey the law too. The normal patriotic courts in this beautifull country have nothing to fear, it's the ones which are against us we're after.".
bash$
Sure, the virus writers are the culprtis, but don't people who make a product that will go into a 'hostile' enviroment have the resposibility to make sure that there product can survive without propagating the problem?
If I was a general, and you came to me and said "There are 10,000 troops coming!" I would not kill you, however, if in the process you knowingly let them in, than I would probably kill you.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
But I don't want Java!
"Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
I'm still trying to figure out why Outlook Express is a required part of Internet Explorer!
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
"Apple and Microsoft *both* visited PARC and took the technology with them to implement it, mind you, they were actually very close to one another at the time!"
Actually, Apple paid(with stock) Xerox/PARC for the rights to the GUI, whereas MS did not pay Apple, who had the right before MS started writing "Windows".
Based on the fact that Apple paid for the rights to use a GUI, MS definatly should have paid Apple liscensing.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
That's right and there was a law suit and a settlement. I didn't say MS plays nice as a rule, but the whole thing was settled at the time. That and, MS actually gave Apple some developers to help roll out their OS at the time, so they worked pretty close together when the whole GUI thing was hot. Later, of course, MS decided to screw Apple over and do their own thing with GUIs, but at that point they really did it together - they couldn't do it alone.
The judge overstates the importance of the distribution channel. On the client this will change absolutely nothing, just as any inclusion of the .NET Framework would affect nothing.
Even if Microsoft had just shipped the Sun Java VM from the begining it would not have afforded Java any more success on the client than it got through Microsoft's VM, which was the fastest and most compatible around in spite of the few unimportant differences Sun sued over. Does anyone out there really think that ISVs will be more likely to write Java apps, or users more likely to use them, if MS is forced to ship Sun's VM?
On the server the idea that bundling will help is so dumb it doesn't deserve serious consideration.
This is not arbitrary. Both compulsory airbags and gun control are argued to have greater benefits than costs. That's not inconsistent or arbitrary, that's just a utilitarian argument.
So too shall the government legislate Microsoft out of existence
Ridiculous hyperbole. The chances of that happening are zero point zero percent.
Arbitrary conclusions
like yours, fueled by illogical arguments, are making you look like a troll.
Female Prison Rape in NY
Now my browser will crash even more often, until I remember (AGAIN) to disable Java.
sulli
RTFJ.
You see, Microsoft did not agree to distribute your pretty face, and then change it completely but still calling it "your pretty face". The result being that everyone recognizing Microsoft's "your pretty face" rather than your pretty face.
If they had, I am sure you would have had a case, and the courts would agree that Microsoft should undo their wrongdoing and re-instate your pretty face as the proper "your pretty face."
Because what Microsoft called "your pretty face" wasn't your pretty face in the first place, and that damaged you because people stopped recognizing you on the streed, you lost your job, girlfriend, home etc.
But your pretty face is still "your pretty face".
Clever signature text goes here.
While I can understand the judge's opinion that Java should be carried on every system that ships with .NET to avoid the anticompetitive practices here's what I don't get from the ruling:
.NET runtimes - they were a separate download! I don't see why a product that Microsoft *hasn't* bundled the .NET runtimes with should be required to have Java bundled.
My copies of IE and Windows XP did NOT ship with the
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
"The rules are different for them due to the DAMAGE that such an entity can do to our economy."
Ever think about how much damage would be done to the economy if MS suddenly folded? I'll give you a hint: It's not guaranteed the world would be a better place.
From PDF one can see, that Sun asks not for mere "put us on desktop" but to be carried on any product, containing .NET(page 10 of PDF) which (allthough not specificly listed) would include all Pocket PCs and Server products. While having Java pre-loaded on desktop versions is, of course, reasonable, having Sun's environment piggybacking on pocket pc is not. .NET (in terms of developers) is based on survey and projections from Evans Data ignores development tool availability and/or usability (in other words there's Visual Basic for Dummies, but I have not seen any IDE that would let a Dummy User to generate Java Application -- except for Macromedia FX).
:)
Arument about market tipping from Java to
Good things in this injunction for Microsoft are:
1. No more litigation. Once Sun supplied Microsoft with it's runtime environment it cannot sure Microsoft in regard of this matter (bye bye other lawsuit)
2. Microsoft will be able to blame problems on included Java platform and charge users extra to resolve them (if any).
3. Must carry does not mean "can't be removed". So it is possible that first question user will see after starting system will be "Would you like to remove Sun's Java Runtime environment, to save space and resources?" with button YES set as default
Hyperom.com
"Listen, if my Television was manufactured by NBC, they should not have the power to not carry CBS, ABC, PBS, etc. They should be forced to carry all stations, within reason, that fit the standards."
This is a dumb metaphor. If you demand everything be open to all companies like that, then you leave the door open for bigger companies to swoop in and steal business. Imagine what would happen if Disney started buying up the networks.
Think about it.
Though I agree with you in principle, I think your analogy is a bit off. Forcing MS to distribute Sun's Java is akin to requiring NBC to broadcast another network's signal.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Actually, it's not the idea that they can do anything they want because they are "above" the law: they should be able to do anything they want with THEIR PRODUCT, including the decision to not include other people's products. It really was summed up with the statement that someone whom I've forgotten said that it's like Coca-Cola being forced to include a Pepsi in every six pack.
Now, if MS bound themselves contractually to Sun and violated that contract, then they SHOULD be forced to obey that agreement. However, once that contract is fulfilled, they should be able to say "fuck you, McNealy" and not distribute Java by default.
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
"Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
--Tom Schulman
Uhh ... I don't think you understand.
Outlook is an application that must balance features likes scripting (which help sell the app) and security (which helps protect the user from viruses). Now Microsoft specifically chose to let the default Outlook support unsafe scripting so it appeared that it had a lot of capability -- this is also the most insecure setting as people are finding out.
Microsoft could have chosen to have scripting off by default and informed the user that they could turn scripting on, but that it might be a security risk. But hey, why burden the user with facts and information when you can divert the blame to someone else.
It worked on you, didn't it?
Oh and by the way, if your house has an insecure access door that is available to thieves will you: a) blame the thieves b) blame the architect c) blame your builder. The question is did you have a expectation that the product you purchased (house or OS) was defaulted to a reasonably secure setting?
A lot of people have missed why Sun was harmed in the first place. You mention the shipping of the defunct and broken MS JVM, but miss the real past harm: MS' illegal actions against Netscape.
Netscape, the then-dominant browser, also installed a Java VM with every installation. Its this inclusion that led to the MSJV in the first place. When MS illegally forced Netscape out of the market, they also harmed Java. Evidence that this is more than just a side effect is that Sun Microsystems is specifically mentioned in the DoJ findings.
Several points can be made here. Sun "lost Java" (not really, but close) in the open market because Microsoft violated the rules of that market. The idea that monopolies are legal, but using them to extend to other markets is a pretty basic tenet of free market economics. That Java still exists despite this 'foul play' from MS is a testimony to its strength.
Next, you say that suing about this "didn't do Netscape any good". There's two important things that Sun has that Netscape didn't. First, an injunction that remedies the problem during litigation, and more importantly: a new product, based on the harmed one, that is also a strong competitor.
J2EE is competing with
All in all, I think its pretty reasonable. This is a new market, and we as consumers deserve a product created by competition free of monopolistic influences.
-Zipwow
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.
No, it was Microsoft's bastardization of their Java VM that caused them to stop shipping the Java VM.
Microsoft's platform dependent extensions to their Java VM were against their contract with Sun, and when Microsoft was barred from spreading their bastardization, they said they wouldn't include ANY version of the Java VM and tried to claim it was all Sun's fault for upholding their contract to keep Java platform neutral. Apparently a lot of people bought the claim hook, line and sinker.
Microsoft's press releases sounded like Sun was barring them from shipping Java, when it was only Microsoft's bastardized version that was being barred!
Java is active code and active code has historically been subject to lots of security risks - including Java.
Compared to what??? I haven't seen such a clueless statement in a long time. Please go get yourself a book on Java's security model.
Microsoft can appeal this preliminary order, but they probably won't get it overturned. So 90 days from now, we should have a decent Java shipping with Windows.
IMHO, requiring MS to include a Java runtime (are they even required to pay for it?) is simply the wrong tactic. It won't keep MS from bastardizing Java with windoze-only extensions that the VB lusers will insist on (Java.NET, anyone?)
The right thing to do here was simply to make MS pay out a nine-figure judgement for damages.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Two interesting details, the first being that I think the payment to Sun from MS was $20M, and the second that at that time, MS offered to exactly what Sun just got the injunction for: shipping Sun's JVM.
Sun didn't take it then because it had lots of nasty strings (I think it would've allowed MS to break it 'for security' or some other odiously broad clause).
However, that offer is one thing that the judge cites to refute one of MS' defenses against this injuction: that the Sun JVM would introduce security problems. The judge basically said that if MS really believed that, they wouldn't have made the offer in the other case.
-Zipwow
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.
Microsoft announced plans that it was halting C# and .NET development. "Oh well, never mind" said Steve Balmer.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Ever think about how much damage would be done to the economy if MS suddenly folded?
Now come back to the real world. If there was any risk of Microsoft folding from any kind of marketplace pressures, the courts would not have found Microsoft to be a monopoly.
not really. as long as they don't fraudulently claim that it defends 100% against virus attacks then I don't see they've done anything wrong. it's like blaming the manufacturers of boxcutters for the 9/11 attacks.
"Now come back to the real world. If there was any risk of Microsoft folding from any kind of marketplace pressures, the courts would not have found Microsoft to be a monopoly."
Hardly conclusive. Lack of vulnerability due to economic pressures is not a requirement of a monopoly.
" I don't think the claim that sun are(sic)harmed holds water. It was their previous action that caused Microsoft to stop shipping the Java VM."
But that previous action to which you refer was actually a reaction to MS's "...extend, extinguish", which was an illegal violation of their aggreement.
besides, it' not like outlook is the only product that viruses writers use to spread their wares. the argument that it need special legal attention because it does so (allegedly) more than other products is fatuous and against the guiding principles of the judiciary.
Where's the value? Now I can run applets? This doesn't hurt MSFT - and has marginal benefit for Sun. MSFT can actually put added pressure on Sun now, to ensure that the Windows version of the JVM works perfectly with whatever features they put into Windows. Added cost for Sun. Additionally, how many Java-based applications do you actually install and run? The majority of the desktop application market is still MFC/Win32/COM/.NET. This is only a moral victory for Sun.
.NET. Not to mention the additional 6-12 months that MSFT will appeal and maneuver.
.NET (managers aren't programmers, they don't read Slashdot, and they don't give a damn about the politics of McNeely or RMS)
Not to mention that MSFT could probably engineer Windows/IE to run the JVM more slowly, and give the user a "Disable Java" option. Of course, it'd end up back in court - but how long? 2-3 years? Enough time to gain more ubiquity for
Best scenario for MS: they advertise the fact that they have Sun's Java, make it run slow, and put an imprint in the mind of managers everywhere that Java is slow. No matter what the financial costs would be (Bill and Steve: "Fine us for $300 million! Oh please, don't throw us in the briar patch! Oh no!") What matters is the decision that those very same managers make, when they're deciding between Java and
The best thing about a boolean is even if you are wrong, you are only off by a bit.
Nope -- at least not in the States.
:)
That's neither trademark nor copyright.
Hey, that was almost interesting, wasn't it?
I agree 100% with you. Because DELL is in the business of making money! Their "discounted" pricing schemes help them run that much leaner. That's why DELL is doing so much better financially than its competitors and its profit margins are so much higher.
Besides, as a DELL technician, I'm sure you didn't get phones ringing off the hook asking for Linux. I would venture to guess that most of the people that want to install other OS's on their machines fall into this category of build it yourself. Linux and other similar OS's are fantastic but are so far a niche market (for consumer PC sales). Hobbyists and enthusiasts will enjoy them while others probably will ask what the big deal is... "You mean I can't install my screensaver I've used for the last 3 years?"
In fact, most people I know that buy computers build their own and see some of the all-integrated component PC's that DELL (no offense), and Gateway, and HP-Compaq mainly sell as somewhat inferior and outdated to what they can build on their own (for less, in most cases). Or, in other cases, they own lots of components already and just upgraded a few pieces at a time (new Motherboard, CPU, and memory every few years (cause how often do you need to upgrade your CPU case, or CRT, or keyboard, or mouse, or printer, speakers, or CD drive? I'm not a gaming enthusiast and upgrading my MB, CPU, and memory typically gives the necessary extra punch to do the job) recycling the ones that don't need upgrading.
-Joe
If we're all god's children, what's so special about Jesus? - Jimmy Carr
With this ruling will this bring to the desktop a more unified Java VM. Developers can build applets using the latest technologies provided by the latest JVM.
Of course not. Applets suck.
(Just kidding, or am I?)
"It takes many nails to build a crib, but one screw to fill it."
I don't think this is true when it comes to software, especially middleware and operating systems. With software, compatibility is a critical issue. People buy the operating system that has all the software. Developers write software for the popular operating systems. We end up with networking externalities. The end result: monopolies form naturally in the software industry.
To change the natural formation of software monopolies, we would need to drastically change copyright and patent law (which themselves, are government granted monopolies).
you can't trick someone into killing for you and then expect to get away with it.
...this is a preliminary injunction. This means for the time being, at least the duartion of the trial, Microsoft will be forced to comply with this ruling. However, they can always appeal this decision and the final judgement could always allow Microsoft drop Java in compliance with the ruling from a year or so ago where MS was ordered to pay Sun $20m and phase out Java from their OS over the next 7 years. The fact that MS dropped Java much earlier was not in violation of the agreement.
Microsoft has not been shipping an old version of Real Player of Quicktime. They have been shipping an old version of Java.
I see your point, that Microsoft is stunting Java's growth, but that's life. I don't think my tax dollars should be spent ensuring that Microsoft plays fair
It sounds like your beef is with antitrust law in general, rather than this particular application of it.
Microsoft is trying to "kill off" Java by making an inferior and incompatible alternative.
My snowboarding game for example, will not work on M$'s virtual machine while it works perfectly on every version of Java2 from Sun.
Should Micro$oft be able to include(and advertise) an orange with every copy of windows while calling it an apple?
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
1. Start -> Settings -> Control Panel -> Java Plug-In
2. Untick "Show Java in System Tray"
3. Click "Apply"
Voilà.
If you're using Sun Java, go to the Control Panel and run the "Java Plug-In" control. Change "Show console" to "Hide console" and click "Apply." Eccolò!
For much the same reason that, say, glibc is required for most Linux apps; once you have a better than 5 percent chance that multiple programs will use the same functionality, you put the buggers in a library. Then you expose the library. The fact that the libraries happen to come with a little wrapper executable not withstanding; like the man says, removing iexplore.exe doesn't remove the underlying guts anymore than removing ls removes the underlying filesystem.
And, yes, at this point, exposing app-level libs for common TCP/IP protocols makes sense. Has for years.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
Since you bring it up, nobody knows what would happen if M$ folded up. But I can tell you this much, before M$ came along companies were churning out revolutionary software and services, and M$ still haven't added much to the mix. On the way to buying everything in sight and vaporwareing their way to infamy they have certainly killed off some interesting products that came too close to their core interests. If you don't think that's true then you don't understand fully why they are being called on the carpet as a monopoly.
People think that rich companies are good for the economy. If Big Blue had killed the PC somehow would our economy be better now? IBM was rich, still is, so why not kill the PC? Or how about the Bell system. Got their asses kicked, and good thing. Otherwise do you seriously think your silly cell phone technology would have ever taken off? The Bell system was rich, but that didn't make for a great economy and fabulous options in personal communications. Did it.
You like M$, you can have them. You want to Be Like Bill, have at it. It's just money, it's not progress. Some of us still know the difference.
=^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
So what you are saying is that Dell is somehow bound to honour a contract because they signed it as a contractee of Microsoft? But, as a contractee, it's not a problem that Microsoft not honour contracts they sign?
Or are you saying that Dell really legally didn't need to honour their exclusivity contract? Actually, I'm sure that if Dell broke their contract with MS, they have an injunction filed against them, just like Microsoft has.
-BrentFrom the Judge's opinion:
"According to Sun, if Microsoft had not committed its anticompetitive acts directed toward thwarting the implementation of Java, current and compatible Java runtime environments would now be ubiquitous on PCs."
This is hilarious.
.... after you get out of kindergarten?
Author, Shell Scripting : Expert Re
When the product is the instrument of a monopoly yes. With any technology microsoft wants to put on the windows monopoly bandwagon they must also include competing products. That's the idea, they have a monopoly, they no longer have the right to use windows to push their products. Windows is an illegal monopoly and if used to push anything it must also be used to push that somethings competitors to promote fair competition. They've lost their right to promotion via windows through lying, cheating, stealing, and forcing it into a state where it has become an illegal monopoly.
I know this is Redundant, but everyone is missing the underlying point here. Sun and Microsoft had an agreement to put the Java platform on Windows. Sun did NOT sue to "force" their competing technology onto the Windows platform. Indeed, they actually sued to "force" Microsoft to keep up it's end of the agreement, nothing more. It would be like me contracting with someone to create a software product, being paid, then delivering something that only meets 10% of the specs. I can't really argue that the rest is "my own version" of the product, because that wasn't the agreement. Likewise, Microsoft has effectively created something that isn't even Java, so it's in violation of the contract they agreed to with Sun.
I would agree that if the court were stepping in and saying something like "you must include Open Office on Windows" that would be wrong. However, in this case, there was an agreement that Microsoft didn't live up to, and all the court has decided is that "yes, they must honor the agreement they made with Sun".
bad bad analogy, NBC should absolutely have that right, NBC is not an illegal monopoly and they have every right to put what they want on their product unless they have a contract with CBS, ABC, PBS, etc that binds them to show those programs. Not many would buy it, but they can do it. On the other hand, Microsoft is in a far different position than NBC would be in your scenerio. Microsoft has over a 95% monopoly in windows. An illegal 95% monopoly, they don't have the right to use it to promote anything, that would be leveraging the monopoly and illegal. The only time they could do so would be if they provided equal support, access, and pre-emptive installation of competitors products with the same ease of installation or if MS is preinstalled then the competitors products must be preinstalled. Normally a buisness would have every right to not include their competitors software in their OS. But the rules all change when the product is A) a monopoly and when MS is B) bound to include said product by terms of a contract.
...and Microsoft violated the terms of their contract with Sun by including a non-compliant Java in Windows. They also misused a Sun trademark and have sought to further break the original agreement by simply removing it altogether. But since there still is a contract in force, M$ is obligated to follow it.
The courts ruled in favor of Sun, and since that time, M$ has been trying ANYTHING they can to weasel out of the consequences, mostly by using their huge amounts of cash and monopoly power to push their own technologies.
Case closed, contingent upon appeals anyway.
In space, no one can hear you moo.
Um.. You know.. I'm not sure what you're getting at, but if you read my initial post above you'd see that I fully SUPPORT enforcement of contract law. However, most people don't even read the articles, I should be surprised if they actually read the comments, either. Don't worry, I've found myself guilty of the same offense. Contracts are legally binding. Of course, then there's EULA's and that whole mess....
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
Haven't there been some recent cases resulting in local cable monopolies being required to carry certain local stations?
"Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
Ah, I'm sorry. I misunderstood your comment. I though you were contrasting Dell's contract with Microsoft to Microsoft's contract with Sun. But you were really comparing them. I'm glad you corrected me that you support this injunction.
A lot of these comments are really bogus and it's getting late....
-BrentComment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
Unnecessary government intrusion is the "War on Terror", a war on a verb, mind you
Actually, "terror" is a noun. Nice troll, though.
By the way - you don't see Sun getting a free ride on Microsoft's OS because of a court decision as being "unnecessary government intrusion"?
Jythons an implementation of the high-level, dynamic, object-oriented language Python written in 100% Pure Java, and seamlessly integrated with the Java platform. It thus allows you to run Python on any Java platform.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Um right. Never mind that MS's era rushed millions of PCs into people's homes, they stifled innovation and other bs.
Face it, before Win95 PCs were not a mass market item. If MS hadn't have succeeded, niether would have quite a few companies in its wake. My comments have nothing to do with liking MS, rather I'm not interested in joining the "MS SUCKS!" club so I can be cool.
I misread your post. When I read 'marketplace pressures' I thought you meant events like 9-11. I'm sorry. I didn't sleep well last night.
Sun isn't very popular on the client because there is no consistency in the client-side VM. Gee, do you think Microsoft had anything to do with that?
I doubt that a consistent client JVM would seriously degrade the security of a product that already has weekly security patch releases.
And last time I checked Sun still does more than twice as much business as Apple. But since they don't sell desk lamps to starfuckers they don't get the same kind of press.
I guess my point is, I would like to have a web browser on my system, and let's say that I use Internet Explorer on Windows for that (I don't, but that's beside the point...). Now let's also say that I would like to have an e-mail client on my system, but I specifically don't want Outlook Express (or anything with the word "Outlook" in it) on my system. Now the problem presents itself...
And actually, I wish that all of the 'functionality' that (only) Outlook Express exploits could be removed as well, to enhance system security. I agree with you that it's nice to have handy libraries to automate common tasks. But I don't want to have these ones, because one common task I don't want to automate is the macro virus.
So as long as glibc doesn't add that added, handy macro virus functionality, I should be fine. Windows users should still be careful, however.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Actually, the issue is that Microsoft was intentionally attempting to propagate a non-standard version of Java in order to kill it off. As emails from Microsoft state, their strategy was to:
The key issue is that Microsoft was deliberately trying to kill off Java using their OS monopoly to distribute a polluted version of Java and thereby fragment the Java market (as indicated by internal documents brought up in the court case.)
I think there's more to it too.
The agreement with Sun and MS was that all previous contracts in regard to Java were terminated. MS could no longer use the Java Compatible trademark. It was however allowed to continue to ship the existing Java technology developed prior to the agreement for a period of 7 years at the cost of 20 million dollars. SUN would allow for future licensing and distribution of Java technology (with additional charges/fees) on the provision that the end product meet SUN's compliancy criteria.
MS had a choice: continue to fund SUN, a competitor, with no forseeable return on investment. Help to popularize a competitors product line. Market against the companies own languages/api/development platforms. Be constantly accountable to a competitor. OR forget about it and pursue other more worthwhile goals that did have a return.
J++ development was basically dead. The developer community moved on. MS's revenue stream in regards to Java was in dissarray. It had a crap relationship with SUN and the constant lingering ANTITRUST threat (of which SUN was part of).
From a business perspective the safest route I can see is to dump JAVA (which was allowable per the agreement) and favor someone else or an internal product. Continue to ship the version on hand until the agreement runs out or it becomes so outdated as to be useless and eventually drop it all together.
Now from a business perspective on SUNs part I would see it this way. MS doesn't choose a the license option right away. The JVM it is shipping will become useless and discarded. I need to find a way to get the latest JVM into the peoples hands. Partner, partner, partner... hmmmmm... who could I partner with? How do I get the JVM out there without using MS? How do I solidify my market and revenue stream?
Four years later MS has a competing product. Java has moved very little on the client side and still has not found a reliable easy way or a good partner for getting Java into the consumers hands.
Is this MS's fault or simply poor business decisions on SUN's part?
"Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
Actually you have your history all confused.
It was ALCOA who had the monopoly, not on mines but on smelting process and technology. They knew how to produce aluminum cheaper than their competitors. After WWII the US government sold plants that ALCOA had helped build, but they prevented Alcoa from bidding, they ended up going to Reynolds and Kaiser for pennies on the dollar.
There was also a lot of political wrangling, Alcoa had their initial case overturned on appeal, but then they lost again. Alcoa is still fighting off anti-trust issues to this day, some 60 years later. Back in like '99 they were going to buy a can making plant from Reynolds but it was blocked by the DOJ.
Of all the various anti-trust cases in the past, the ALCOA one has the most parallels to the Microsoft case.
Restart IE not reboot.
Oops, right. I'm too used to MS software requiring a reboot when you change screen colours (exaggeration).
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Java has been on the market for nearly 9 years. It was hyped, lots of money went into it. Java ports of a lot of a lot of major applications were announced. None of these were released as a final version. Java has found a nieche on some servers, but hardly anyone uses it on the desktop.
Do we have to blame MS for that? Or is it remotely possible that Sun has screwed on the tech side?
After more than 8 years Java 1.4 sped up Java GUIs to a decent speed. But startup times and memory consumption are still horrible on the desktop (Sun failed to implement memory sharing). And there isn't a clean way to terminate threads from the outside.
Personally, I'm convinced that it's not MS that is to blame for the lack of popular applications that bundle a JRE.
Well, I hope this injunction (if it stands, which I doubt) satisfies Scott McNealy's ego because it won't help Java and it won't help Sun's bottom line.
The problem with crafting an invalid argument to fight MS is that a judge might believe it and give you a remedy that is equally flawed. Since MS is not at fault for Java's problems, making them carry Sun's version won't change anything.
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
Sorry, guy, but MS is not a criminal corporation, fucking or otherwise.
After reading the judges decision from the PDF helpfully linked elsewhere, I found what I was looking for - the judge does not just generically demand that any .Net implmentation must also ship with Java, but also that in particular IE must ship with the Java Plug-In and Windows Update must notify MS users of Java to make it availiable for install.
.Net (sorry for the buzzword bingo there), but that VM must pass tests from the JCP to insure the distrubited VM is valid (de-facto standard) java!!! (my own wording there). Repeat after me - the JCP defines what Java is, and sun does not control the JCP. Sorry for repeating that, but I thought it would be helpful as few seem to believe it and perhaps having a federal judge pointing it out to them will help. Responses arguing against this point will have to study the workings of the JCP and then provide specific examples of how sun "controls" the JCP or they will be ingored.
That is huge. If the Java plug-in really is everywhere, it might well help stamp out crappy java programs everywhere that are forced to run in the shadowland between IE's VM and all others. It means that with a modern Java VM everywhere, you really might be able to develop and distriibute a nice Java application for web distribution much easier. Corperate developers do not have to weigh the choice between a good UI and features with a lengthy plugin download vs. just making do with a very limited interface, either AWT or pure HTML/DHTML.
Although this has nothing to do with my main point, I really liked this quote from the judge:
If, as Microsoft asserts, the granting of preliminary relief is extraordinary, the short answer is that extraordinary circumstances require extraordinary remedies.
Another very interesting point the judge makes is that (and this is the exact wording from the descision):
"Sun has no control over the JCP"
All of you out there who keep claiming Sun controls Java ponder that. The injunction would have Sun provide MS a VM to ship along with
This is also a judge that knows what he is talking about, just reading the document he issued supporting the injunction provided a number of points that no poster here has managed to make in the course of 500+ comments, and also addressed a number of the arguments against the injunction that posters here have raised. After reading the PDF about 499 of the 500+ posts could probably be removed without any overall loss of content.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Actually, MS was the best thing that evey happened to Java. If MS had just ignored it, it would have died a long time ago.
On the other hand, Sun would probably have argued that MS was abusing their monopoly by not including Java.
Or if MS hadn't altered Java to make it work better with Windows, Sun would probably have complained that MS wasn't treating it as full-fledged language since it didn't work as well on Windows as VC++ or VB.
I think Sun's strategy was to fight with MS, even if it wasn't good for Sun's bottom line.
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.
They just implemented some specs differently: COM components were possible and some interfaces were developed using native code. (the things Sun does too in the JVM for Solaris). Sun dit sue, won, and in the end, MS was ordered by a settlement to stop producing an own JVM and they had a limit amount of time (7 years) to keep distributing the JVM they had. (which is still distributed). Sun wanted that, but figured out that in the end the settlement wasn't very positive for Sun so they sued again with this ruling as a result. Did Sun win? No. All they will achieve is more hate among MS developers towards everything that's ever touched by Sun. More and more developers who produce software for MS-related platforms (.net/win32) will turn their back agains Sun.
;) but I'm sure I'm not alone in this. Sun's whining in court is starting to get pathetic and it definitely hurts the already bad image of IT/software development in general.
After I've read the ruling, I've removed all JVM's from my machines, disabled Java whereever I could. I'll never ever do business with Sun nor using sun-related techniques. And with Mono around the corner I don't have to either.
_THAT_'s the true 'win' Sun will get and of course I'm just a lonely geek behind a keyboard
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
Sun is #1 in UNIX sales , Sun sells a huge array of software, all of which runs on their hardware. I have to say you are completely wrong on this point unless you can point us to something besides your statement. Where do you get the %65 figure?
So the more mature technology can be squashed just by just playing the waiting game? I agree with the judge: Motz wrote that if Microsoft's system was to remain dominant, "it should be because of
So weird of an idea that it scared the crap out of MS, the whole make the OS irrelevant thing you may have missed. Hmmm.. I have seen Java applets and full applications on many sites. Please point us to something supporting your 'very few sites' contention. If you think that Flash is the main competitor for Java, then, well, your opinion weighs very little.
Most rabid MS supporters want to ignore that MS was found to be a monopoly in Jude Jackson's findings of fact. MS appealed the judges decision for break up based upon those findings of fact, but the FoF stand as does the monopoly declaration. That means that MS has a different set of rules they must adhere to now because of their dominance in several different markets.
Kindness is the language which the deaf can hear and the blind can see. - Mark Twain
There is already not a friendly atmosphere between .NET developers and Java developers when it comes to their technologies and this ruling will not be a startingpoint to open the minds and work together instead of against each other. I already moved away from sun 8 years ago and now I've decided throughout my company no-one should have java on their machines nor work with sun-related material. Why? Because I've had it with Sun. Totally. Java might be a nice platform, I don't care anymore. I also don't have to, .NET is also extremely nice and with Mono around the corner, my software will also run on Linux and other platforms Mono is ported to.
.NET today, but everyone on Windows was developing in Java for COM objects. Ah well...
I'm all for fair competition, but this ruling is insane. What's next? RealPlayer bundled with XP because it's crushed by the unfair competition of WMP, which is bundled with XP? Apple Quicktime too? I surely hope not! I mention these two allthough MS hasn't signed a contract whatsoever with Apple nor Real Networks about distributing them, because Sun has settled a lawsuit with MS years ago (1997) so that MS was forced to stop distributing the latest java and had the option to distribute java in the last known good state for 7 more years (but there wasn't an option which forced MS to do so for 7 more years). So legally: MS didn't had the obligation to distribute java, it was Sun's wish, well, what's the saying? "Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it" ?
If I may add: the first lawsuit of Sun against MS about Java truely hurted developers on windows: after the lawsuit they weren't able to develop COM objects running in native code using Java, but had to fall back to VB for ease of use or to C++ which requires more in depth knowledge of COM to produce COM objects. If Sun hadn't sued MS for that, I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have had
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
That's fascist! (At least in peacetime.) I wouldn't live there, personally.
Female Prison Rape in NY
Lots of people aren't included in Microsoft Windows distributions, and the ones that are presumably have committed to some serious contractual obligations. Why should Sun have it easier than everybody else?
The specific harm to Sun in this case is that Microsoft ships a broken version of Java, not that they fail to ship Sun's product for them.
If you don't think MS should have been sued in the first place, you will not believe any of these rationales, and probably not that antitrust is necessary in the first place.
Oh, I think Microsoft should have been sued, and I think there should be a remedy in this case and others. But the remedy is to require Microsoft to stop shipping their broken version of Java, not to force them to include Sun's. If Sun wants to get their version of Java into Windows, they can negotiate with Microsoft and computer manufacturers, and create compelling Java applications that end users will actually want to download.
In general, the best remedy for anti-trust problems is to create the conditions under which market forces can operate again. And that may mean breaking up the company or forcing it to unbundle its products. Forcing Microsoft to bundle Sun Java just replaces one company that forces software people with another company that forces software on people.
Then Microsoft should be required to unbundle their middleware. But forcing people to include Sun's middleware is not the right solution because it just increases the club of companies that can use coercion to get market share by one.
First of all, unlike IE, .NET really, really is not a separate solution. Microsoft is going to be basing almost its entire operating system on it. That's actually a reasonable thing for them to do. It's not a competitor with Java in that sense.
Second, Java is just another proprietary solution, one that happens to come from Sun. Why should Sun get special treatment?
Third, both Sun and Netscape's products were more hype than reality. Netscape's browser lost in the market because it increasingly sucked compared to IE: it was slow, buggy, and failed to be standards compliant. It wasn't until Mozilla that it became competitive again. And what Sun has been doing with Java isn't exactly pretty either: Java has become bloated, and Sun has failed to deliver on numerous important promises. I used to be a strong supporter of Java, but Sun has been lying and failing to deliver for so long that I just have to say: don't touch Java. And I also have to say: don't touch .NET--it's still shrouded in legal uncertainty.
The correct remedy is to require Microsoft to stop shipping their broken version of Java and to stop exclusive distribution arrangements with PC vendors. But, ultimately, to actually get Java pre-installed on end user PCs, it is still Sun's responsibility to do the hard work of negotiating with PC vendors and creating attractive distributions for end users.
In any case, it would have been entirely appropriate for the judge to order Microsoft to stop shipping MS "Java"--Microsoft was violating Sun's trademark and engaging in unfair business practices. But it was inappropriate for him to order Microsoft to ship Sun's software: Sun has to figure out how to do that just like other companies. And AOL shows that companies can successfully do that (AOL software is pretty much everywhere, despite the AOL/MSN competition).
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.
they are still on trial for their illegal monopoly, they are very much STILL an illegal monopoly.
I bet you wouldn't feel very good either if they agreed to use your face as the default Windows background and you were excited to become famous, only to find that they had photoshopped your face into something else. And everyone thought the Windows background was the real you.
Clever signature text goes here.
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.
There are a lot of posts in this thread that say, in effect, "nobody uses Java on the desktop, so who cares about this decision". Well, I'm a developer who uses Java on the desktop. Why? So that I can deliver cross-platform apps (Windows, Mac OS X, Linux, etc.) from the same codebase. So I can use Java Web Start to securely deliver those apps over the Internet. So that I can use a language that is (IMHO) better than C++. Sure there are a few things that I'd like to see improved in Java, but it's an excellent platform with some unique advantages. Unfortunately, Microsoft's smear campaign has been effective - many users erroneously think that Java is 'dead' or 'bad' or 'slow'.
Look, it's trying to think - Albert Rosenfield
Eeek, when I checked on this article this morning it said that there were exactly 666 comments. For those of you who wanted proof that anything associated with Microsoft is evil incarnate...
So the question is, why didn't Sun long ago make a bundling deal with AOL to include the latest JVM with those ubiquitous coasters? Frankly the two would be a perfect match. AOL gets to claim their disk comes with a free bonus OS upgrade, and through AOL Sun reaches exactly those clueless users who can't figure out how to get their hands on an up-to-date version of Java if they want it.
There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
Java really has no place in windows and it certainly sets a very dangerous precident IMHO. Windows is Windows, if I don't like it I can use Linux, or Solaris, or one of the other dozen operating systems.
While I appreciate the staggering power MS has because the vast majority of people have elected to use their platforms. I most certainly do not agree that the courts have the power to let other companies ride on that popularity.
This decision is nothing more than ordering McDonalds to put a burger king counter in all their restraunts, or requireing the NFL make room for MLB to play a game during halftime.
It's stupid and very illconsidered.
How is IBM's JVM better on Win32? VisualAge for Java isn't even up to JDK 1.3 yet, and their Developer Kit for Windows seems to still be in beta.
The report you cite does not mention either Apple or Linux. They are the two factors I identified as threatening Sun's position. Apple shipped more UNIX machine last quarter than all the other proprietarty suppliers combined.
So weird of an idea that it scared the crap out of MS, the whole make the ... yack yack
Self serving bullshit. Java died on the client because creating content as Java applets makes no sense. There are not that many Active X components either. Take out the flash component and the certificate enrollment plugin and you are left with a bunch of stock ticker applets.
Most rabid MS supporters want to ignore that MS was found to be a monopoly [internetnews.com] in Jude Jackson's findings of fact.
And rabid anti-Microsoft types completely ignore the fact that Jackson was found to have been biased by the appeals court who censured him for his conduct. They also stated that his 'findings of fact' contained many opinions that they are not bound by. So no, Jackson's findings of fact do not stand except in the most technical sense. The appeals court is certainly not going to reverse a lower court that rejects Jackson's opinions and has much more lattitude if it decides to reverse a court that depends on them without hearing evidence on an issue.
The monopoly finding by the appeals court does not rest on Jackson's opinion, they simply applied their own judgement to the evidence.
This whole Sun/Microsoft thing is a false dichotemy. You don't have to like the Democrats to loathe the Republicans. McNeally and Ellison are only upset at Microsoft for one reason alone and their complaints about Microsoft are largely projection.
Ellison is the guy whose company scammed $90 million out of the state of California and whose yatch cheated in the Americas cup by using a banned radar. OK so the other side was found to have cheated too, but a rational person says that both OneWorld and Oracle were cheating rather than saying that OneWorld cheated worse so anything Oracle did was OK.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Did you read what I said? He said taht sun does not control the JCP, a combination of an organization and a process. Not programming. I'm sure the judge knows less about programming than most of us, but about ownership and control of a process that is directly pertinent to a case he's overseeing, yes I'd say he knows that pretty well.
The fact are that the JCP stands outside of Sun. If Sun went away tomorrow (not likley) the JCP, and Java, would be just fine and continue on without a hitch.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Microsoft was distributing SUN's java under license; SUN sues Microsoft for shipping the "wrong" kind of java; Microsoft changes java; SUN sues Microsoft again for not shipping a "compliant java,"; Microsoft has enough and strips all SUN java products out of Windows; SUN sues again to force Microsoft to *ship* SUN's java with Windows (because Microsoft making SUN's java available on the Internet for anyone who wanted it to download was not enough for SUN), and another computer-illiterate judge decides to play it safe and rule against Microsoft (without, it seems, ever understanding the issues involved.)
The wonder of it all is what SUN thinks Microsoft's shipping of their little java engine will do for SUN...? That's what's I find baffling. Microsoft never stopped shipping SUN's java on its own in the first place--the company simply sickened of lawsuits from SUN objecting to the way Microsoft is run and managed. Who can blame them? I certainly don't. But the irony here is sweet: Scott McNealy believes so strongly in the strength of the Microsoft operating system that he would sue Microsoft just to make sure his little java virtual engine gets shipped with each and every copy. What's the deal? Does he think it makes Windows a better OS?
1) At least one company has solved this problem, with an automatic tool (The name of the tool is J-Integra, from Linar systems, www.linar.com). I believe it uses JNI, but does not require you to write any JNI.
2) With either approach, there has to be a linkup between the DLL and the Java code. MS' approach used an approach that hid everything in the JVM. Could they not have generated JNI code that did this instead? This approach does not necessarily have to make the developer deal directly with the JNI code (i.e. write it). And, it meets the language and JVM specifications, and would work with other Windows-based JVM's.
I suspect that such approaches did not meet MS' business objectives (to kill cross-platform java by promoting a polluted version of java).
A few moths back there was a story about NatWest (a UK bank) and their peculiar Java based online banking system. Someone tried to login using Mozilla with the latest official Sun JVM. They were presented with a message telling them they were using an incompatible JVM and they should use the proper M$ one as the one they were using 'lacked' important features.
Apart from the irony of the situation, this goes to shows the dangers of the actions of MS. Look at this way, MS adds ActiveX like features to Java, devlopers start using these features, users forced to use the MS JVM, a few years down the line MS suggests to developers "Why not switch from Java to ActiveX controls?, MS drops Java. As a result of this more users are locked in to MS systems as it will become a pain to have a Doze system on hand to access certain website or services.
The same thing happened with the browser wars and is still happening. MS may have pretty much killed off Netscape, but they will continue to add IE specific features to make it a pain for users of other OS's to access certain sites. How many sites fail to work in Linux? Quite a few, the more irritating it is for me to access popular sites the happier MS are.
I think Sun would be ecstatic if Microsoft offered a fully supported .Net framework for Solaris.
my original question still stands.
Gee, maybe for something like.. java web applets?
RNI code will probably never run with anything other than Microsoft's old VM on Win32 (which is already at the end of its life AFAIK), mostly because it constrains optimization opportunities much more severely (the lack of write barrier support was one problem that leaps to mind).
I think Microsoft's VM also omitted RMI in favor of DCOM or something, though eventually they at least made that available as a separate download.
You want your name to be connected with your face again, and you want them to correct their wrongdoing against you, because simply removing your face wasn't enough in the first place.
Perfectly acceptable and understandable.
Clever signature text goes here.
Go tell that to the folks at symbolics, the price points are even the same. Oh and symbolics had their best year the year before they went under.
There is no high end in the computer business, never has been. The high end suppliers have always been killed by competition from below. That is what happened to SGI, you can go to Frys today and buy a $400 video card with a rendering engine that is more than adequate for most professional uses so why pay $30K for an SGI workstation?
Furthermore -- Where the hell do you think OS/X came from? They yanked the OS right from FreeBSD and put it on the PPC architecture.
Actually OS/X is NextStep which is the MACH kernel plus the original BSD distribution. 4% of the desktops is a heck of a lot more machines than 30% of the high end servers. If the desktops are so irrelevant then why the paranoia about Microsoft?
I get irate about this stuff; obviously. It amazes me that somebody that can actually use a keyboard would swallow anything less than a "thrash MS to death" mentality.
You don't say. Perhaps you should try an anger management class or a 'how to flame coherently on slashdot' course.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Um, you are aware of the anti-competitive practices of Microsoft where they effectively banned vendors from offering other operating systems? Some choice: Windows or Windows.
let other companies ride on that popularity.
Funny, I seem to recall a certain Redmond, WA company that loves that other companies write software for their operating system and thus ensure its continued use.
It's stupid
Your misplaced allegories are. The choice between Burger King and McDonald's is real, the choice between Windows and other operating systems is not, because of secondary markets (read: software).
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion