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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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;
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.
Here's a clue.
1) Microsoft is a monopoly. This is legal as long as they don't abuse their position of power.
2) Turn back to the mid-90s. Netscape owns the browser market. In their attempt to crush Netscape, MS needs a competitive browser, i.e., one that supports Java. They sign a deal with Sun.
3) By the late 90's Netscape is toast. MS says, man this platform-neutral stuff is bad news, Let's pull out the old "embrace and extend" technique and get the drone developers using our Java "enhancements."
4) Sun says, "Hey, we define Java, and that's not Java anymore. Meet us in court."
5) Judge determines MS is using the fact they own the desktop to attempt to kill Java (not to mention the fact that they never released a VM beyond 1.1). This is an abuse of monopoly power. This being the third time or so that MS has been convicted, the judge actually does something about it.
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
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.
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.
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'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
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.
What's next? Should Microsoft be forced to include Mozilla with every copy of Windows?
:)
In a word yes! That is if Microsoft shipped with Windows say a 5 year old version of Netscape and modified it only work for websites running IIS. (Not the best analogy but the best I could think of right now
This is what essentially Microsoft has done with its bastardized version of the Java VM. Microsoft's VM is an old version of 1.1 modified with it's extensions which enabled developers to lock themselves to the Windows platform. Now of course most developers learned this early on and avoided the lock-in, plus most of Java development is done on the server now, but Mircosoft continues to provide their old VM. This alone has pretty much killed off most client side Java.
I believe Sun made the first big mistake years ago by not providing the definitive Windows VM. You didn't see Macromedia giving Microsoft the right to implement Flash anyway they saw fit way back when.
I don't necessarily agree with this ruling either, I actually would have been happy if the ruling was to force Microsoft to eliminate their old VM from existence.
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)
This is inaccurate and very misleading. The MS JVM added keywords that were not part of Sun's Java, and which Visual J++ would use automatically, meaning that a developer might be writing what he thought was standard Java, when in fact non-standard, MS-only java would be produced. MS was ordered by a court to turn these off, making them an opt in, rather than an opt out. However, these keywords were still not part of the Java language as defined in the language spec. This leads to non-portable Java, and a Java different than the one Sun built and licenses.
Perhaps more important were the J/Direct extensions, which used special comments and the MS compiler to generate annotations the the class files, which the MS runtime used to link in native code, such as windows DLL's. THe problem is not that you could link in native, non-portable code, since standard JNI (Java Native Interface) provides a way for you to do this. THe problem was that the MS approach only worked with MS compilers and MS runtimes. Class files compiled in this manner would not work with Sun or IBM runtimes on Windows environments. Within the Java Virtual Machine specification, it is stated that the class annotations (which MS used) must not change the semantics of the class. In MS' JVM, the annotations would cause a certain behavior, while in the other JVM's, they would be ignored. Clearly, MS' use of the annotations violates the JVM specification.
MS had the option of taking an approach that obeyed the specifications. THere is at least one product that can analyze a DLL and produce the mapping code to make calls on that DLL, using standard Java mechanisms. With their billions in cash, surely they could have easily produced a product that used the same approach. Perhaps a clue came from evidence in the DOJ trial, in which a Microsoft engineer spoke of "blunting the cross-platform java market" by distributing a "polluted" java.
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.
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