| 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 |
 |
Microsoft fires back at Sun in Java case | |
|
||
| Time: 08:31 EST/13:31 GMT | News Source: CNET | Posted By: Bill Roach | ||
|
WASHINGTON--Microsoft went on the offensive Friday in the antitrust case brought against it by Sun Microsystems, accusing its bitter rival of violating California law through "unfair competition." In a court filing , the software giant asked a judge for attorney's fees and damages to cover what it characterized as Sun's unlawful violation of a settlement inked in an earlier lawsuit over the Java programming language. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 154 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:30:11 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 7390 (63.211.44.114) at 2/22/2003 1:08:09 PM |
| This thing will be in the court system until Java becomes irrelevent..wait didn't that happen already? |
| #2 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 2/22/2003 3:30:03 PM |
|
Microsoft has refused to port (its popular) Office (software) to competing platforms in order to illegally maintain its monopoly
Microsoft only ported Office to the Mac because it was just barely a profitable endeavor. With Apple's marketshare continuing to fall, I predict that Microsoft will stop offering Office for the Mac. At any rate... that's a thing called "business"... perhaps Sun has heard of it. |
| #3 By 8273 (4.47.64.29) at 2/22/2003 7:33:47 PM |
| #4: If Java is widely successful (I am a .NET developer, but I agree with you on this), then isn't SUN's complaints ill-founded? How can something that is so successful be hindered by Microsoft's supposed monopoly? Let's suppose that SUN went to the judge and said "Java is widely successful, but Microsoft is more a success than us so you should give us their money". What do you think that the judge should do? |
| #4 By 3653 (216.153.67.116) at 2/22/2003 7:50:44 PM |
| Blynk, he was referring to the client-side. And he was correct. |
| #5 By 7390 (63.211.44.114) at 2/22/2003 10:18:17 PM |
|
Blynk, you are correct in that Java does have some life on the server side. But even you must admit that the once hyped cure for all computer ills is not where everyong thought it would be. With .NET getting traction Java seems to be taking even more of a back seat. And if I am totally wrong then Sun has no case :) see #6 By SoylentGreen.
|
| #6 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 2/23/2003 2:36:31 AM |
|
To follow up on parker's post...
There were two companies that started from NCSA Mosaic. Spyglass was the official one, as they were given the charter to sell licensing to the Mosaic software. Netscape was founded by stealing the developers away from NCSA. Not even the good ones, mind you... But in so doing, they didn't pay Spyglass any licensing fees. Whereas Microsoft licensed the Mosaic code from Spyglass. Spyglass actually sued Netscape over this, and they settled out of court. |
| #7 By 12071 (203.217.17.60) at 2/23/2003 3:18:34 AM |
|
#10 and #11 ... how does that in any way invalidate what #9 said? This post was edited by chris_kabuki on Sunday, February 23, 2003 at 03:22. |
| #8 By 7390 (63.211.44.114) at 2/23/2003 9:14:38 AM |
|
#13 even you must admit that theirs points gives context and also provides the big picture. Some of their points I didn't know and make me smile seeing that MS is doing to them what they did to another company. But since MS is doing it to them it is not fair.
People like Digital try to portray MS as one thing will ignoring the facts of their competitors actions. These are the people that ignore stuff like Java not being ECMA. Sun digging through MS's garbage trying to find evidence, if MS had done that the world would have came to an end. I could go on and on but you the point. Wow, SodaJerk didn't commmet on this article yet. He must be at home reading Bill Gates' new book "Business @ the Speed of Thought: Succeeding in the Digital Economy" -and yes I am sure that he can read |
| #9 By 12071 (203.185.215.144) at 2/24/2003 2:51:26 AM |
|
#15 Netscape was free for academic and non-commerical purposes correct. But outside that realm you did have to pay for it (legally at least). However "that it was the originator of the first web browser" was not implied, the comment was "Netscape develops widget" not "Netscape develops first widget of it's kind". And the implication that IE won was due to "MS platform usage is widespread." and "MS deploys similar widget, but provides it for free.".
Even you must agree that is is quite difficult to compete with a market leader that gives away the very same product you are creating for free. Maybe you can't..... mind you that's not to say that IE wasn't better than Netscape, by version 4.0 it most definetely was. |
| #10 By 12071 (203.217.58.111) at 2/24/2003 10:25:04 AM |
|
#17 "You lower the price of your own product and/or innovate some more so that people would rather get your software."
That's fine..... You lower the cost...but how do you compete against free when the person giving it away for free is the market leader and has as huge a distribution channel as Windows is for instance? As for your other option, innovate or perhaps even expand, sure you could do that and you SHOULD do that in fact, something that Netscape as you pointed out did not do. But let's say you do innovate or expand into other markets and then that same market leader starts offering what you have innovated or created but for free? Not that easy no matter how great your application is - or how great it is until the market leader includes the same functionality as you but for free because they have the money to do that. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 154 Last | Next |
The time now is
8:30:11 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
