Three Judges to Review Java Ruling on Thursday

Richard Finney writes " Reuter's Peter Kaplan is reporting that a three-judge panel in Richmond, Va. will hear arguments from Microsoft and Sun over whether it should uphold a Java 'must-carry' order imposed by a lower court judge in December. Here's a quick review of the issue: Microsoft signed an agreement with Sun on implementing Java. Microsoft implemented a non-compliant version ('embrace, extend, destroy' to their critics). Sun called them on it and as 'pushishment,' the courts said Microsoft had to carry the official Sun product for a while. Microsoft's lawyers seem to be on a winning streak lately and their spokesman Jim Dresler says the order is 'unprecedented, unnecessary and doesn't serve the public interest.' Some say this the deciding battle between Java and .NET. Too bad it's not being settled on the technical merits of both products."

Comments

Cross platform

[rf0]

Java was first put out to be a cross platform. The idea was so that I could compile my bytecode on one system and run it on another without having to worry about compatibility. However a M$ shipped something which was non-comlient then this all fell apart taking they are the dominant software maker on the desktop. However to be fair to them Sun had basically said Java2 is so broken that some bugs will never be fixed

Rus

Re:Cross platform

[kzeddy]

> However to be fair to them Sun had basically >said Java2 is so broken that some bugs will >never be fixed
What is broken about Java2?

Re:Cross platform

[sporty]

What about perl? or fortran?

I'm not trying to be a wise ass, but i remember seeing perl work on windows before java. But that's my memory.

Re:Cross platform

[gbjbaanb]

non-compliant menas (accoridng to Sun) 'better than ours'. Nothing MS did broke your java apps running on windows.

Sure they did add features, but you were quite free not to use them, or to use them and say 'my app only runs on windows'. Frankly, what's the problem there, you could write your app using JNI to integrate with some Windows-only component. It wouldn't be cross-platform anymore but would be still compliant.

If Sun had actually sent Java off to become a standard, instead of pretending to, and MS has broken the standard then they'd be the bad boys here, but as it stands, I don't think Sun has anything but legal cr*p on their side.

Re:Cross platform

[dup_account]

And then they froze the Java on their platform... Means you either had to code to 1.x or make the user download Java 2...

I think that "If Sun would just standardize java" agrument is horse s__t. The second they did that MS would be in there trying to bastardize the standard. After all, they signed a contract that said they would maintain the (Sun's published) standard, and then went and ignored it. So you think that they would not try to use a standard committee to their advantage and everyone else's dis-advantage. Or just ignore the standard some more.

I think that if Sun is really letting their community process work, this, to me is as good as a official standard.

Re:Cross platform

[gbjbaanb]

as I understood it, it was Sun that licenced only java 1.1 to MS, back in the early days. Then they refused to licence the later versions. Hence, MS had no choice - they couldn't legally develop or deploy the latest Java. Don't forget when MS had .NET and stopped bundling java, there was an outcry.

I think Sun thought they were striking a blow against MS, but just shot themselves in the foot.

Standards mean that there exists a minimum that is guaranteed to work. If a vendor wants to extend it, fine (some extensions make it back into later standards), and you're free to use those extensions or not, but the base is level with a standard. As things go today, without a standard, Sun can deprecate as much of your code as it wants.

Re:Cross platform

[usotsuki]

UCSD Pascal! And if you can't run it native, download Dapple ][ and run it on an Apple //e emulator.

Nothing new here, move along.

-uso.

This is a civil suit, not a technical suit.

[bmetzler]

And don't forget, no matter what happens to Java and .Net, civil suits have never been settled on technical notes.

-Brent

uhm

[Iamthefallen]

"Too bad it's not being settled on the technical merits of both products."

When was the last time anything was settled on technical merits and thereby gained widespread adoption? Zealots from both sides usually state their case and fanatically defend their position while the rest of us pick what we feel more comfortable with. Unbiased technical merit rarely gets attention, and even more rare is that it is the deciding factor when faced with a choice.

wouldn't this story have been more useful on thurs

[t]

after the ruling? Right now it's beyond useless and will surely fill up with the usual useless rants.

Predictions

[edward.virtually@pob]

Here's a prediction: MS will not be required to carry Java. Here's another: .NET will obliterate Java in almost all environments in the US (the 95% of the market that uses Windows) in a year or less. The "battle" was over when Bush was "elected" and told the DoJ to let MS off the hook.

Re:Predictions

[sproketboy]

Naw. Fact is as long as IBM and Oracle support Java, it will be around and they'll keep supporting it because they don't want M$ encroaching on their turf (big systems). My 2 cents.

Define "Technical"

[4of12]

Too bad it's not being settled on the technical merits of both products."

Certainly there's money involved in the decision or else it wouldn't be in the courts.

But even a "technical" evaluation for complex software products involves many aspects which are subjective and depend on the users.

Exhibit A: Is Perl or Python better? The answer depends on the application and the reviewer. Likewise "Tastes great. Less filling."

Re:Define "Technical"

[edward.virtually@pob]

What's really too bad is that the issue isn't being settled on the moral merits. Microsoft agreed to support Java while the DoJ case regarding Netscape was still alive for the PR value: "see, we're playing nicely with a competitor" and hopefully distracting people from the near daily testimony about the illegal methods [1] it used to destroy Netscape -- how it really plays with competitors. Microsoft has since used every legal and disputedly illegal means to avoid honoring the Java agreement, becoming bolder in its methods as the DoJ case dies [2]. The judge in the Java case was quite certain of his findings [3] and the remedy he proposed was extremely lenient given the damage Microsoft's behavior had on the cross platform viability and hence success of Java. Microsoft should not be able to escape this token punishment by appealing it until it wins.

1. Jackson's Findings of Fact stands, only his remedy was overturned.
2. First came the incompatible extensions and IDEs, then conflicting implementations, and lastly not shipping a JVM at all now that the DoJ case is circling the drain.
3. Unlike Jackson, however, he kept his outrage in check. Doesn't seem to have made that much difference.

Re:Not Cross-Platform?

[nathanh]

Sun even thinks it's shit. [internalmemos.com] And, believe me, THEY'RE RIGHT!

There's a difference between a single employee of a large company and the official position from Sun.

If you want a good summary of problems with Java 1.x, I would check here [peterbecker.de] and here [jwz.org].

JWZ rants about everything. About all you can prove with a link to JWZ.org is that you've found someone with an opinion on everything.

Maybe Sun should spend a little more time making a JVM that works than forcing Microsoft to add MORE bloated shit to Windows.

Maybe Microsoft shouldn't have signed a contract that they had no intention of honouring.

A funny detail

[quintessent]

Microsoft and Sun originally settled for $25 million, the maximum allowed under the contract. As part of the agreement, Microsoft agreed to stop shipping its Java VM in within a few years.

XP was shipped, and Microsoft decided to fulfill its promise much earlier.

Sun got mad.

Re:Java VM

[edward.virtually@pob]

Gee, you mean a competitor's product that has to use the public interfaces to Windows performs poorly compared to Microsoft's version with private hooks into the operating system? Wow, never heard of that before. Of course, Microsoft's "Java" VM doesn't support _Java_, but you can't have everything.

Re:Java VM

[Henry V .009]

Yet another rabid open sourcenik making unfounded allegations. Hint: What matters isn't the philosophy of the programmers, it's the results. And Microsoft's results kick Java's ass here.

Re:Java VM

[edward.virtually@pob]

It's quite well documented. See the books "Undocumented DOS", "Undocumented Windows", as well as the findings of the anti-trust trial. See also this to know why it probably isn't quite as well documented as it used to be.

Re:Not Cross-Platform?

[deanj]

Agreed about JWZ...

The implementation of Java on Netscape when it came out was so slow and broken it was ridiculous. The appletviewer or HotJava ran programs faster than Netscape did.

Re:wouldn't this story have been more useful on th

[MeanMF]

I submitted an article yesterday that commented on the ruling, but it was rejected. Basically, Sun got their asses handed to them by at least one of the judges. Here's the article.

Re:wouldn't this story have been more useful on th

[MeanMF]

I submitted an article yesterday that commented on the ruling

Oops, not the ruling - the oral arguments! The ruling will come at a later date.