| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Judge Steals Show in Sun-Microsoft Duel | |
|
||
| Time: 17:11 EST/22:11 GMT | News Source: eWeek | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
U.S. District Court Judge J. Frederick Motz stole the show during Tuesday morning's preliminary injunction hearing in the Sun Microsystems vs. Microsoft antitrust case here. The judge's questions to lawyers representing the two sides—Rusty Day of Day Casebeer Madrid & Batchelder, Sun's lead counsel, and David Talchan of Sullivan and Cromwell, for Microsoft—stood out during the opening statements. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 330 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:44:12 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 20 (24.243.41.64) at 12/3/2002 5:24:40 PM |
|
Day told the court that Sun will be irreparably harmed going forward unless the court grants Sun's sought-after preliminary injunction. He said that harm already has been demonstrated, and thus doesn't need to be shown.
Let me get this straight. Sun, one of the largest computer manufacturers in the world, one of the largest OS vendors in the world, Trademark owners of Java, one of the most widely used programming languages, has been irreparably harmed by the fact that MS, a competitor in all of Sun's markets, won't ship a competitor's (Sun's) product in their OSes. What about all the other software companies that don't ship their products in Windows? Sun has gone off the deep end here. Apparently they believe everyone, including the government and competitors, should go out their way at great personal cost to ensure that Sun stays in business. Meanwhile, Sun seems oblivious to the fact that they're loosing money and their products suck and they don't see to be interested in fixing the problem. Though, it appears MS can't get a fair trial because this Judge has already demonstrated his bias against MS: Right off the bat, Motz expressed "surprise by the vehemence" with which U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly had struck down a similar request to include Java with Windows -c |
| #2 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 12/3/2002 7:02:06 PM |
|
"What about all the other software companies that don't ship their products in Windows?"
daz, why not ask a stupider, more dumbed down question to make it perfectly apparent how extreme your own views are? Few other companies have a complaint (both in spirit and in the courts) against MS--so why not look at this as a unique situation? What other company had an agreement with MS that MS violated because they did see Java as a platform to nullify their monopoly? Oh, yeah, Netscape, but they do have their own case as well. Since Sun's products which are competitive to MS's are primarily OSes (server and workstation) how does this largely and solely benefit Sun to put a JVM on Windows OSes and servers? Doesn't that largely benefit BEA, IBM, and numerous other developers who have standardized on Java... probably even more so than Sun since they already have their existing licensing agreements and since it would only further promote Java as a standard which means IBM and others would have even more weight in the standardization of Java. Such actions would benefit the entire marketplace much more so than it would benefit the one competitor. Kevin, using words like "wonderfully elegant" makes a decision subjective? What planet are you from? He hasn't made a decision, we have few quotes, we have no idea what else he said, and we have no idea what is in his mind to address, or where the case is yet to go... but from two or three words you know that he has already made a subjective decision? Wow. I guess the reporter's choice of "mused" is irrelevant to you though? Or that the whole connective tissue of your quote is made up by the reporter and for all we know there was an hour of blather between the two quotes? Huh? Oh, I guess we know who has their minds made up already. |
| #3 By 1896 (208.61.156.174) at 12/3/2002 7:51:06 PM |
| Soda a serious judge would not make any comment about a subject is going to rule about. Unfortunately what we have here are more n more TV judges. This lack of professionality is unbelievable. |
| #4 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 12/3/2002 8:16:43 PM |
|
"Soda a serious judge would not make any comment about a subject is going to rule about." Have you ever seen a trial, Fritz? This is fully within court proceedings and has to happen, it happens all the time. A judge's job is not simply to sit there quietly unless he needs to make a ruling on a brief or objection. These quotes are all just tiny fragments. He says "Wonderfully elegent" ye, but he also says "although dramatic." For all we know, he said, "counsel for Sun believes this is the appropriate remedy. It has the potential to be wonderfully elegant, although dramatic and could have repercussions that go beyond the scope of these proceedings. We need to consider these factors carefully and both sides will need to present evidence that demonstrates their case to a factual certainty" for all we freakin know.
You and I and everyone else knows very little so before accusing the judge of being affected by TV judges how 'bout you take a look at your own tendencies to be manipulated by the media and them TV judges and your own presuppositions. |
| #5 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 12/3/2002 8:32:48 PM |
|
where's the need for education, macross? I'm rebutting the theory of premature bias by pointing out this is a biased media piece with fragmentary quotes.
First ruling? There was no ruling. It was a settlement of a civil suit not related to antitrust matters. This is a proposed remedy to an antitrust suit. There is no about face even if it is contrary to earlier results to earlier cases. |
| #6 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 12/3/2002 8:55:24 PM |
|
yeah, zook, so what? THe settlement was aimed to protect against the further disruption of the standard. This was important for Sun because otherwise Microsoft would have further manipulated the JVM and would have continued the court battle.
Sun protects the integrity of their standard. In the antitrust matter, they feel they were the target of predation and as a remedy they feel that the inclusion of the Java JVM will create the opportunity for anyone who chooses to use it to erode the monopoly that was illegally maintained. Where is the contradiction in that? MS licensed the Java to distribute a MS JVM. Their "extensions" were not improvements; they broke the functionality of Java. Sun sued them to stop doing this. They settled with MS to get it over with, and the conclusion of that was restricting MS's distribution to the older, compatible version of the JVM. Now, Sun in another matter sees that inclusion of the JVM can be a remedy to the antitrsut issue, and it would still carry the necessity to be truly Java-compatible. This in't saying yes you can, no you can't, yes you can. This is saying we would like to do business with you, but then you screwed it up so we have to stop you to protect our product, but along the way you broke federal competition rules and the remedy would be to force you to provide this potential alternative to your monopoly. I won't presume your views, but many posters here have a ridiculously distorted perception of the Sun/Microsoft Java history. Many of you simply have assanine logic at hand to protect your dearest MS and your views of them. I'm sure in respone we'll here some daz-esque logic like: the case is all about whether or not SUn gets to have its software distributed for free; since other software providers don't have their software shipped for free, Sun shouldn't have their software shipped for free. This ignores what the case is really about. Whether or not MS's tactics with regard to Java were anticompetitive and how to remedy these specific tactics in regards to Java. |
| #7 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 12/3/2002 9:15:35 PM |
|
"It does provide benifits to Sun." What exactly? As I said previously, it benefits application developers much more so than Sun.
"Sun shot themselves in the foot with the first agreement. They greatly harmed Java as a viable platform by eliminating its distribution on the most used computing platform in existance." No, no, no. They needed a solution to prevent further dilution of their products integrity. Allowing MS to continue to distribute their "J"VM wouldn't have continued to aid Java--it would have aided Java-bastard/J++/JOOL/COOL/whatever-the-F-you-want-to-call-pre-.Net-C#. "A wise Sun would have extended MS's license and addressed the technological concerns in the first settlement..." SETTLEMENT. Let's say it again: SETTLEMENT. How was Sun to get MS to agree to do the right thing? Huh? Both sides had to agree or Sun could have waited 7 years like the federal gov't did. They did the best thing available to them: stop the further disintegration of Java AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. Extended their license? What the hell for? MS was agreeing to it? Why should Sun have said even though you've compeletely flouted our agreement, you can keep using it? Like I said, some people here have some perverted views of what happened. |
| #8 By 3653 (65.190.70.73) at 12/3/2002 9:49:10 PM |
| Regardless of who wins this court case... Java is very much dead on the desktop. |
| #9 By 1643 (205.240.158.4) at 12/3/2002 9:51:17 PM |
|
#1 and #2, couldn't have said it better myself.
#5, so you're telling me in order to compete and get your products out so IBM (free Linux with 5 consultants at $225 an hour) and SUN (OK, let's sell everything to customers with huge markups and whine when MS brings a better and cheaper alternative) have use the courts to make there opinion be heard...it's called competition, no go compete and market your products an stop time and MY money on litigating in the courts. #12 Read my post #25 about "JAVA manipulation", which is pure baloney, so I don’t need to type it again: http://www.activewin.com/awin/comments.asp?HeadlineIndex=14311&Group=1 #13, that's exact right, and they whine to the courts that they didn't innovate fast enough. SUN had a 5 year lead on MS, and .NET is better faster, more agile, and easier to develop, and has open standards too!! ECMA on the CLI, so anyone can write a language that will map to it. SUN/JAVA...nope! #15, the courts shouldn't rule for one business technology should win, the FREE ECONOMY should. Developers are partial and biased to their training, so all these developers (are you a java developer?) who jumped on the wrong wagon with those television commercials: “Computer technology training will give you job paying lot’s of money with cool acronyms titles like JAVA, Web Master” …hmmmm, I want to be a master :) And now developers are pissed that they gave good money for training on inferior products. So now we should have MS put every copy of a competitors product on their OS that they rightfully and legally gained (but may have been too over competitive in maintaining, but that is another discussion). That is again manipulation of the courts to benefit one company and its partners/developers. Wake up SUN, you floundered in your strategy, prices, and innovation, now the free economy and consumers will deal with you!!! And if MS does the same, it will happen to them too…but they realize that they are not perfect, which is why persistence and innovation to the mass market. Remember "a computer on every desktop and in every home", MS's old slogan…they made reality by giving normal (not super geeks like us) the ability to do extraordinary things easily in a minimal time, CHEAPLY!!! (Pivot tables; pocket pc/tablet pc computers that do real stuff, not just a glorified schedulers; cheap business to business computing (aka BizTalk server); easy and powerful mail and collaboration; a integrated sign-sign on authentication scheme for your network called AD, powerful web server with very powerful server side potential with ASP.NET, and integration with all their products to make them easy to use, etc., etc.). Remember how much a WANG word processor cost? humor This post was edited by humor on Tuesday, December 03, 2002 at 21:53. |
| #10 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/3/2002 9:58:04 PM |
|
Let's be clear here. The issue was not that Microsoft broke the Java standard. The issue was that they provided hooks into Windows-functionality, that if used by a developer would not allow their program to run on other platforms. This would mean that it would have been up to the developer to determine the signifigance of that purpose. That is, do they want to be able to utilize COM transactions easily, or do they want to be cross-platform.
That was Sun's complaint. They didn't want Developers to have that choice because they knew cross-platform would lose out in favor of functionality. Sun basically doesn't know what they want and has been pretty much anti-developer since the start. |
| #11 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/3/2002 10:01:04 PM |
|
mooresa56 - Definately. What Java claimed it was going to become was never realized.
That vision was realized by Macromedia with Flash. |
| #12 By 3339 (67.116.253.163) at 12/3/2002 10:09:36 PM |
|
No, soda, let's be clear: the issue was Microsoft violated the Java license. What Microsoft was building tools for was not in compliance with the Java license. Inherent in the license was what you defend over and over and over again when it comes to Microsoft--determining the rules by which you can use their IP as granted by their license.
That's enough for simplicity, but if you want to take it further you're what do they want to be able to do: to utilize COM transactions easily, or do they want to be cross-platform? Let's keep it simple and parallel: only work on the Microsoft platform, or be cross-platform. That isn't a violation f the license but they further said that both sets of code: running for the Microsoft platform, and true Java cross-platform code was the same code, the same kind of code, and it's licensed name was Java. How much more fundamentally in tune with your own values do you need to make the case? |
| #13 By 1643 (205.240.158.4) at 12/3/2002 10:17:14 PM |
|
#21,
Well they never violated the license, but made extensions which Java which was legal in the license: "This dispute arises out of Sun’s claim that Microsoft’s products do not meet certain obligations under the parties’ 1996 Technology Licensing and Distribution Agreement, E.R. 217-43 (hereinafter "TLDA"), by which Sun licensed to Microsoft its JAVA™ Technology. The TLDA includes a broad license for Microsoft to: Make, use, import, reproduce, license, rent, lease, offer to sell, sell or otherwise distribute to end users as part of a Product or an upgrade to a Product, the Technology and Derivative Works thereof in binary form. Sun alleges that Microsoft breached compatibility obligations that are found in other provisions of the TLDA. The district court treated the case as one for copyright infringement, rather than breach of contract. Under the copyright infringement preliminary injunction standard, the district court enjoined Microsoft’s distribution of thousands of Microsoft’s present and future products without requiring Sun to demonstrate irreparable harm and based on an express discounting of the harm to Microsoft. Microsoft appeals the district court’s preliminary injunction order." Hmm, sounds like that was a Derivative Work to me…but SUN didn’t like it so it sued and MS settled because it didn’t want to waste its time with a technology it was going to trounce in the future. humor This post was edited by humor on Tuesday, December 03, 2002 at 22:19. |
| #14 By 3339 (67.116.253.163) at 12/3/2002 11:04:24 PM |
|
thanks, for the reply, zook, I started from the bottom, and have better things to do tonight...
Win32 is a platform in the same ways that Java is a platform. (is it? Win32 is only for Microsoft's platform, Java is for all.) Microsoft benefits (how?) when developers use Win32 and thusly Sun benefits when developers use Java (how? particularly, if developers are developing Java on Win32 for Win32 and other platforms, Sun benefits how?). Why? Because the bottom line is that controlling the platform (so Microsoft controls the Wintel platform?) is what all this legal wrangling is about. (yes, Microsoft's control.) Microsoft has the control of the #1 (and monopoly) platform, and Sun wants it. (Shipping the most recent Sun JVM for Microsoft on the Win platform gives Sun control of the Win platform? Wowweeee, wowwee. How does that work?) Nothing about competition. (Aren't almost all of the competitors supporting Java and/or Wintel and/or other platforms? Isn't Java a multi-platform platform? Huh, I thought competition factored in since you agree that Microsoft controls the #1 monopoly computer platform.) Nothing abut consumers. All about control. (Again the JVM gives Sun "CONTROL" of the Win32 platform? Really, what does Ballmer inject into you guys? Seriously. Do you think the JVM gives Sun the #1 platform and control of it, it? Control of the Win platform? What?) |
| #15 By 3339 (67.116.253.163) at 12/3/2002 11:05:04 PM |
|
Sun thought the SETTLEMENT was good for them. (Yes, their own predictions about the impact doesn't mean that Sun was able to compete in the market place, nor does it mean the events that were illegal and damaging hadn't preceded the relatively recent settlement.) They were wrong (So you agree that the settlement was further damaging to their ability to do business?) and it took them 18 months to realize it. (Realizing the crime too late--and it isn't too late--doesn't mean it didn't happen--you just said they were wrong, Microsoft had already cornered them, right?)
Yup, stop the disintegration and stop the integration (oo, you go poetisizing a la Johnny, Al, and the Reverend, I say, the Reverend Jesse, but what integration are you talking about--we are talking about the fork between Wintel only passed off as Java and cross platform) and stop lots of developers from using it (who stopped using it. I by no means meant the erosion of the market because there is tons of Java out there--tools, developers, code--I mean the disintegration of the standard, concept, and ideal by illegal means) and stop alot of positive press (positive press about Java? Or have you flipped sides all of a sudden? whatever?) and stop alot of progress. (Again? What progress is getting stopped when and where? Are you talking about how MS's violating the Java license stopped Java progress?) |
| #16 By 3339 (67.116.253.163) at 12/3/2002 11:05:34 PM |
|
If Sun wanted "pure" Java on the Windows platform then they should not have settled for that hostile agreement that did nothing to help Java adoption and everything to prevent it. In this world technology moves fast, and is rapidly surpassing Java as a viable solution platform. (Making a bad decision, one of a few to be chosen after being put in a position by the criminal actions of Microsoft, doesn't negate the criminal act and its consequnces. You have said over and over that MS has control of the Win platform, that they enabled creating Win-only code passed off as Java or cross platform Java, and that prevented Java from being a viable option.) In this world technology moves fast, and is rapidly surpassing Java as a viable solution platform. (Sun is just proposing that an option be included that neither threatens the viability of the Win platform nor does it degrade the performance of Wintel systems or code development that it thinks other players in the market might think is viable. Maybe you don't think so, but I would say that it is still vastly viable--I was talking to a Java programmer the other day, and he was like: what the hell do I care about performance, I'm still accessing hundreds of thousands of records instantly, everyone I know is using the same code and I'm doing mainframes, and it's the same code on the servers and workstations.)
(I would really like to know what benefits, specifically, it provides Sun? THey aren't the same as Microsoft's certainly, you have to see that. I can't think of one that other competitors in the market can't exploit better, equally, more so than Sun. Nor do I see how it puts any undo strain, pressure, cost, etc... on Microsoft.) |
| #17 By 1295 (63.27.17.221) at 12/3/2002 11:08:59 PM |
|
This just makes me laugh. How can SUN say that MS must include Java into their OS. The truth is nobody needs Java anymore (before all of you closet Java-Heads come out... think about the normal internet user). The only real reason the computing masses needed Java was for applets etc. on the internet. Now there is flash which took out Java's only real foothold on the normal user's computer. People don't download it because they don't need it. Sure if those who actually run Java Apps (pour out a little liquor for those folks) download the latest runtime and those who create web applications have the latest runtimes. But that is a VERY small percentage of Desktops compared to those who need flash. Flash IS a MUST if you are going to browse the Net... much like Java was a few years ago.
Sure it works "OK" for server enviroments. I wouldn't think its really "great" but some will argue that it is so lets just agree to disagree. Java is dying if not already Dead simply because there are no tools to develop with that are worth a flip (SunOne Etc... Yes I've used them and yes they suck), the RunTime is slow as hell that SUN makes for Windows, and last but not least the programming the language itself sucks as well. I'd rather write in C than f' with Java when building an App. Truth be told MS made java popular in their own way for Windows boxes. They had a fast JVM (Still a hellofa lot faster than Sun's) and some pretty decent tools for rolling out applications. SodaJerk will argue that MS violated their license agreement with SUN when they added the ability to have hooks into the OS and COM etc. But this really made the language more powerful. I'm not saying it was right but hey it was something good. MS then went on and actually did build something that will in the very near future be cross platform, and is already faster and more stable than Java. SUN is falling off the cliff and scratching its fingernails on the cliff face the whole way down. Its only a matter of time when the run out of available lawsuits and finally have to sit down in a board meeting and say... "Well we can't blame anybody else... maybe we need to look at ourselves and our products". SUN's failing in Java and the distribution in Java is nobody's fault but SUN's. Not MS. Hell SUN has everybody and their dog in the industry on their side and they still can't win! |
| #18 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 12/4/2002 1:28:33 AM |
|
Just a few statements.
Microsoft was not required to ship some previous version of their VM which was Java compatible. They still ship the same VM they shipped years ago. It is just as compatible or not compatible as it ever was. There never has been a VM from Microsoft any more compatible or than the current one. Microsoft's Java tools (Visual J++) never prevented a developer from compiling pure Java source code to pure Java byte code. In other words, J++ allowed you to write fully Sun compliant pure Java applications. Microsoft's VM is fully Java compatible with the exception of JNI (Java Native Interface) and the Java RPC (I think it was called RMI). Rather than JNI to access non Java libraries (usually the libraries JNI allows access to are native OS libraries), Microsoft provided J/Direct to access OS libraries. Further, J/Direct allowed OS and similar libraries (in other words COM based apps) to call into Java libraries. In place of RMI, Microsoft opted for DCOM which the OS already supported. I think I have those facts correct. Can anybody dispute them? Just seems that if we are going to argue about breech of contract and so forth, we should agree on a common set of facts first. |
| #19 By 1643 (205.240.158.3) at 12/4/2002 12:50:53 PM |
|
"You better be prepared to fight when you call out Goliath. Netscape forgot their slingshot and Sun brought a law book. It's like bringing a knife to a gun fight. "
LOL :) |
| #20 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 12/4/2002 2:12:01 PM |
|
baarod, I don't get where you're going; you sound like you agree with me. The benefits of providing a programming option benefits anyone who exploits it. Not Sun alone. It doesn't harm or impair MS's own platform. Sun is in the market of enterprise server systems and hardware. The goal of Java is to minimalize the impact of platform dominance by being platform agnostic. If Java has any impact at all it will not be isolated to the Solaris/Sun world--it won't beenfit the ONE products more than any other product, it won't benefit or effect Sun hardware sales because the ability to program Java for Windows doesn't change the value proposition of server hardware selection.
So where's the cat and mouse bit? Where is the attempt to cripple? Unduly advantage? What advantage does Sun get that others do not benefit from? Huh? |
| #21 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 12/4/2002 5:47:12 PM |
|
baarod, I'm right with you, I just don't get the point.
Are you claiming Sun is just trying to hurt MS? That they will only receive benefit? That including the JVM damages the Wintel platform? You are saying the original intention of Java was to weaken the power of the Wintel monopoly. Yes, I agree. This was done perfectly legally. Microsoft acted ilelgally to preserve it. There is no question concerning whether or not Sun ever did anything illegal by building Java is there? You admit that Java can benefit anyone, whoever chooses to use it. So where and what the hell is your point? You then degrade into this weird little critique of the Java technology, Sun and Apple's business practices, and Unix, and people buying "luxury" machines for the looks, and NUMA, and all this other blather? What does any of this have to do with the issue? Do you know what the issue is and what your point is because naming random unrelated bits of anything from all across the industry doesn't demonstrate anything and certainly doesn't make a point. |
| #22 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 12/5/2002 12:27:22 AM |
|
"I don't intend to educate you, only to shame you and show others how little you understand about..."
Well, if that isn't the most pompous, egotistical, self-righteous things I've heard today! After reading that, I think to myself, "Gee, what a prick!" |
| #23 By 1845 (12.254.162.111) at 12/5/2002 4:21:12 AM |
| Um, OK. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 330 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:44:12 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
