Appeals Court Sides With Microsoft On Java 517
burgburgburg writes "Reuters reports that the three-member federal appeals court in Virginia ruled today the U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz erred when he ordered Microsoft to include Java with the Windows operating system.
Fortunately, Dell and HP, the top 2 PC makers, have already decided to ship Java on the PCs that they sell. Apple, Red Hat and Lindows have also agreed to include Sun's Java." The ruling is available.
MS (Score:5, Insightful)
However, they should not be allowed to continue carrying their own, proprietary version of java. Does the ruling say anything about that?
Yes, this makes sense (Score:3, Insightful)
It isn't Microsoft's job to promote Java, it's the job of Sun and the resellers (Dell, Gateway, HPaq, etc.) If MS wants to include Java, that's their perogative. However, they shouldn't be required to; any more than Red Hat should be required to distribute Realplayer (for example).
Makes sense.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't middleware more of a server issue nowadays anyway? And how hard is it to include a runtime with your software?
As long as it's there, and it works. (Score:2, Insightful)
Thing is, Microsoft should be forced not to put any barriers for Java to run properly in their OS.
Anticompetative behavior (Score:5, Insightful)
It's very exciting to see OEMs bundling a recent Java runtime with their new systems, especially Dell who is the largest OEM. Perhaps with this application developers can have a bit more freedom to code their applications in a manner which utilizes more recent features. There's no reason why everyone shouldn't be using the 1.4 JRE at this point in time.
Still... (Score:2, Insightful)
--
Getting too much pr0n? [porn-free.org]
Good news (Score:3, Insightful)
It would seriously protect against businesses having to rely on
Re:Yes, this makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
But the reason they were told to do this by the lower court was because of what Microsoft had tried to do with Java in the first place, which is splinter the market by shipping a version of Java that would only create programs that would only Windows systems.
MS (Score:2, Insightful)
That big a deal? (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm as against anti-trust as the next guy, but I can see why forcing MS to bundle Java (or, for contrast, a similar plugin e.g. Flash or Shockwave) is going too far.
Mainly, it would place an additional support burden on MS that's not really appropriate -- they'd have to keep up with versioning, deal with customers who are confused as to who services it, etc.
Anyone who's smart enough to distinguish it as belonging to Sun rather than MS should be smart enough to go find it on their own (these days; granted at the original time of the suit perhaps it wasn't nearly so straightforward), and it *is* free, after all.
Xentax
They're right, there should be no *legal* requirem (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm personally not going to go out of my way to recode everything so I have to make two seperate binaries, one for windows, and one for everyone else. The whole point of Java is that I shouldn't have to do that.
Re:Hate to say I agree, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yes, this makes sense (Score:3, Insightful)
True. But this means that the court should do something along the lines of squashing that version of Java, not promoting the "real" one.
WTF? (Score:2, Insightful)
Jumbo Java (Score:2, Insightful)
It's similar to the whole controversy over the 7 dirty words that you can't say on the radio or television. There was never a need to ban those words. There are two options; turn the channel, or turn it off. There is choice.
Moot point now, but Microsoft remains unpunished (Score:5, Insightful)
The real problem of all this is that Microsoft has walked away from the whole "let's release an incompatible version of Java", with only a "don't do that" slap on the wrist. The monopoly remains intact, and unpunished.
This should be a chilling reminder to anyone that does ANYTHING with Microsoft. If they're gonna screw you, don't expect them to be punished for it, no matter what happens.
Re:That big a deal? (Score:5, Insightful)
They could have avoided this by:
1. Including Sun's Java from the get-go; or
2. Not including a broken Java with the OS.
Re:Interesting company choices (Score:3, Insightful)
That's harsh. It's actually stating that everyone else is doing it without a court mandate, so Microsoft is bad.
Microsoft is bad. Very bad. But not because they don't want to include Sun's Java.
Re:even SCOTUS can be influenced (Score:2, Insightful)
If you had read the headline, the appeals court sided with M$. There is no reason for this to go any futher now.
I can't believe that it would even have to go to the appeals court. To force any company (even M$) to include someone else's propriatary code is foolish.
Why not just get General Motors to start putting Porsche engines in their cars. SSDD
Re:Yes, this makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree, only Sun has an obligation to promote Java. However, I thought that Microsoft signed a deal with Sun a while back to include JAVA with windows.
Over the years, it went something like this
1 - MS and Sun sign a deal to include Java in Windows.
2 - MS kinda created their own version of Java (or polluted Sun's version with MS-only type calls).
3 - Sun sued MS to pull the MS version of Java
4 -then they sued to have the original Java (or latest version of Sun's Java) to be put back into windows.
5 - Now, so it seems, MS is legally able to backout on the original deal
does that sound about right (generally speaking)?
I have mixed feelings. (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, if they're gonna include something and call it Java, it should damned well BE Java.
-JDF
Keep Java Pure (Score:5, Insightful)
It's still about the antitrust remedy (Score:5, Insightful)
It was a light "slap on the wrist that doesnt really cost much of anything" penalty too.
Guilt without punishment, well, isn't going to hinder them from this sort of behavior in the future is it.
I guess there is always justice for those that can afford it.
Kremvax
No Suprise OEMs Bundle Java (Score:5, Insightful)
Why For M$ to include Java? Even playing field (Score:5, Insightful)
"Unless Sun is given a fair opportunity to compete in a market untainted by the effects of Microsoft's past antitrust violations, there is a serious risk that in the near future the market will tip in favor of [Microsoft]"
Motz reasoned that Microsoft had illegally used its monopoly position to do irreparable harm a competitor's product, and that Sun was exceedingly likely to win their suit. This temporary order was necessary to level the playing ground until that suit was carried out.
Basically, as in all Microsoft's legal troubles, their strategy is to draw out the cases indefinitely until they can leverage their desktop monopoly to the point of making the suit a moot point. Then, they can just settle out of court for chump change. Anyone heard of Netscape?
--Mid
Re:That big a deal? (Score:2, Insightful)
Depends on your definition of "free." Not everyone has the bandwidth to download a 20-megabyte JRE on a whim. And we need to consider the laziness factor which has helped MS do so well all these years: the average dumb user is always more inclined to use things that came with the computer.
So, the JRE is not free in terms of bandwidth (for which some people must pay), and it's not free in terms of time to download and install.
Re:even SCOTUS can be influenced (Score:3, Insightful)
IP -> real property comparisons are nearly always highly dishonest.
The cost to Microsoft to bundle something else into their Operating System is ZERO. This is one of the problems with Microsoft having a monpoly on OEM OS distribution. They can shove their crap on everyone's desk for free.
There's no compelling reason that other's can't come along for the ride. For every product that Microsoft bundles into the OS, every competitor should get their place as well.
Microsoft has been declared an abusive monopoly and this has held up on appeal. So normal rules no longer apply. Thus any "harmful precedent" is also narrowed in scope.
The Contrary View. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm going to take the contrarian view here. :).
It looks like alot of people here are of the view that the courts shouldn't force one company to bundle the product of another. Fair enough.
However, at this juncture, the courts might as well tell Microsoft that they can be anti-competitive all they want, as there will never be any real punishments for their actions. Microsoft has benifitted from the fragmentation of Java, through their distribution of an outdated, poorly functional version. And prior to that, they benifitted from their attempts to prevent Java from being a write-once, run-anywhere language.
At some point, justice has to incorporate the ideal of punishing organizations for their past bahaviour, in order to reduce the benifits of undertaking that behaviour, and in order to curb others from undertaking the same behaviour in the future.
If I were to go on a spree killing my enemies in society (not that I have any enemies... ;) ), the courts wouldn't haul me up and say "You are hereby enjoined from ever killing anybody ever again", and then setup a panel (that I get to select some of the members of) to make sure I don't. Instead, they'd take away my freedom to do whatever I want, and throw my sorry ass in jail.
You can't throw a whole company in jail, and in the MS case, nobody has directly died (I realize the extremity of my example :) ) due to MS's actions. But still, there has been zero accountability on their part up to this point. There has been nothing yet to aid the real victims of MS's anticompetitive acts, nor nothing that would really cause MS to want to avoid such acts in the future. Where is the justice in that for the companies who have had their intellictual property values eroded due to Microsoft's acts?
This was a chance for society to tell Microsoft (and other big computer software companies) that if they don't play fairly, there are consequences. Judge Mott gave a creative ruling that incorporated both punishment for past bad acts, while at the same time helping level and repair the playing field for Sun.
MS's come-uppance is long overdue. They've destroyed the value of new technologies from their competitors, and thus far, while techinically losing in the eyes of the courts, have gained from the experience. And you're not supposed to be able to gain when you violate the law -- but apparently MS has found that, in their industry, crime does pay.
Yaz.
A lot of antitrust ignorance (Score:5, Insightful)
Please note that the appellate court upheld the part of the injunction preventing Microsoft from shipping a non-compliant JRE.
The fact is, Sun could still obtain a final order that MS must bundle the Sun JRE with the Windows operating system. But this will only happen after a trial. The injunction here was issued at a preliminary stage of the judicial proceedings. But if you think forcing MS to ship the JRE at any point would be completely inappropriate and only market conditions should rule, you have a gross misunderstanding of antitrust laws and their purposes.
Microsoft has a monopoly in operating systems for the Intel platform. This is legal fact and Microsoft cannot walk into any court room and claim otherwise. It's been decided already. A monopoly means that market conditions cannot work. Even Adam Smith (you know, that guy who kind of invented capitalism) said that the market cannot work when there is a monopoly. Ensuring the market can still work in a monopoly is the purpose of antitrust laws.
Now that it is legally established MS has a monopoly, it completely changes how MS can do business in the market. In the case of the JRE, it means Microsoft cannot leverage their monopoly in the OS to obtain a monopoly in another area. You know, like they did with the browser!
What I expect would be a more likely outcome is that MS has to make a decision. If they want to bundle .NET, then they have to bundle a compliant JRE. Then the market truly would be deciding and it would not be a case of MS simply leveraging the OS monopoly into a new market.
All that said, the legal nuances are the important point to note from this decision. The appellate court was not saying MS would never have to include the Sun JRE. They were only saying that the legal burden of "irreparable harm" had not been met in order to obtain an injunction. That's why they vacated the order.
Re:Yes, this makes sense (Score:2, Insightful)
wrong? you must live in an ideal world (Score:5, Insightful)
Thankfully that is changing slowly, but 3 years ago it was almost that bad.
Re:Hate to say I agree, but... (Score:1, Insightful)
OMFG SUN JAVA IS FREE! (Score:2, Insightful)
most of these MS lawsuits are stupid
Re:Keep Java Pure (Score:2, Insightful)
What they did do was to put MS-specific extensions into their Java implementation, such as J/Direct. That meant that you could end up writing Java code that didn't run on any JVM. So what? Java was/is a cool language. Why should I as a developer be restricted by my programming language to a least-common denominator of functionality and performance if I'm only writing to one platform?
Re:I have mixed feelings. (Score:2, Insightful)
The license included that the JRE base classes may not be modified. And guess what did microsoft? The published a modified version.
Just or unjust?
The whole picture (Score:1, Insightful)
Hmmm...more "no teeth" responses for the monopoly (Score:2, Insightful)
Even more important (Score:5, Insightful)
In a way, shipping the "broken" java was doing Sun more harm than not shiping java at all, since it gave MS so many more opportunities to make java look bad.
Not "extended" Java -- "Replaced" Java (Score:2, Insightful)
The MS version not only added things (WFC, JDirect), but removed some things (JNI), and weren't truly compatible on others (RMI, if I recall correctly). It was this removal (among others) that violated the contracts and trademark agreements. Basically, MS was calling something Java without it meeting the agreements to have that name.
MS did not uphold their end of the contract, along with violating a trademark agreement. This is why there's such a big legal and technical mess.
Because they're Monopolists (Score:3, Insightful)
Because the original judge correctly recognized that a) Sun would probably win on the merits and b) waiting for the end of the trial would probably make the issues moot (see IE vs. Netscape), he ordered that Microsoft had to include Sun's version of Java with their OS.
But this particular appeals court tends to be very pro-business (especially businesses that have contributed heavily to the Republican party) and ignored the issues. And since what's good for Microsoft is good for our troops, siding with Sun would mean the terrorists had won.
Re:MS (Score:5, Insightful)
As part of the settlement MS was barred by Sun from shipping a newer version of Java or updating the current version. Microsoft actually had to go back to Sun to get permission to fix some bugs/ security holes in the old Java runtime.
Really, Sun is a victim of its own foolishness. Yeah, MS was selling a broken implementation, and yes they should have been stopped. But preventing MS from shipping any JRE they developed in house simply meant that they would basically ship nothing (as XP does not ship with Java, it must be downloaded- either MS's old Java or Sun's lastest JRE). Now that they stopped them they said "Hey, no one is using the new stuff on Windows!?!?"- well DUH! Most Windoz users have no idea about Java, no less who makes it or if they needed (heck most dont know about Flash)
I am sorry, I feel no pity for Sun here. They may not have started this fight or layed the foundation, but they certainly built upon it with the settlement they hammered out with MS on Java a long time ago.
Just my $0.002
Java not the issue (Score:2, Insightful)
Rather than forcing MS to include Java in their OS, they should be prevented from including support for their apps and development environments in the basic OS. Thus Java and .net developers would both be required to ensure that the target Os supports their developed products.
Admittedly, this still leaves a loophole in that MS can supply .net with Office, it will provide a start in splitting the OS/App advantage that MS enjoys.
Re:Hate to say I agree, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's a punitive measure.
But even with Ascroft as AG the courts still presume innocence before a case is settled. Sun is not entitled to damages or any form of punishment until they prove their case. An injunction is strictly limited to preventing certain types of irreparable harm.
Sun's case for forcing Microsoft to carry Java is pretty ludicrous. They sued Microsoft to stop them carrying Java. Then they were surprised that Microsoft wanted nothing more to do with Java and in particular Sun's Java.
It is even more ludicrous when you look at where client side Java is these days. Client side java was getting nowhere when Microsoft was distributing it, in large part because the software Sun originally delivered was utter crap.
What Scott McNealy is up to is tring to find an excuse for the reason Sun is going down the toilet. The reason for that is not Microsoft, its Linux. Some companies are moving from expensive Sun boxes to WNT machines, but the flight from SPARC to Intel is making much deeper cuts in Sun's market share. Sun's problem is not Microsoft, its Dell, HP and IBM, each of which is taking deep bites out of Sun each quarter and saying yum yum yum, give me more.
Its a bit like blaming Bin Laden for the budget deficit. Bin Laden is a really bad guy, but 9/11 is not the cause of the Bush recession or the Bush deficit.
There's a much larger problem here than just Java (Score:5, Insightful)
If Microsoft suddenly started bundling Quicktime with Windows Media Player and suddenly forced users to manually download and install plug-ins to use file formats such as
Microsoft has pulled this BS time and time again. The law ought to be that if Microsoft ships with Windows Media Player pre-installed, that it must also pre-install all of its competitors too. If it ships with Internet Exploder pre-installed, it must ship with other browsers pre-installed too. Yeah this sounds kind of unreasonable, but there is a precedence. Remember how Windows 95 shipped with a bunch of shortcuts for other ISP's such as AOL?
Re:Hate to say I agree, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's why I'm disgusted with Republicans - they aren't acting like conservatives. They are anti-market and pro-business, and business has plenty of power vs. consumers as is.
Re:Hate to say I agree, but... (Score:1, Insightful)
Courtesy of http://www.m-w.com
Main Entry: anÂarÂchy
Pronunciation: 'a-n&r-kE, -"nÃr-
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler -- more at ARCH-
Date: 1539
1 a : absence of government b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order b : absence of order : DISORDER
Main Entry: chaÂos
Pronunciation: 'kA-"Ãs
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, from Greek -- more at GUM
Date: 15th century
1 obsolete : CHASM, ABYSS
2 a often capitalized : a state of things in which chance is supreme; especially : the confused unorganized state of primordial matter before the creation of distinct forms -- compare COSMOS b : the inherent unpredictability in the behavior of a natural system (as the atmosphere, boiling water, or the beating heart)
3 a : a state of utter confusion b : a confused mass or mixture
Yeah... until someone with a bigger gun comes along and kills you because they just want to because that's how he chooses to live as he pleases. Folks who talk about anarchy often only view it from their own perspective and fail to think about it from anyone else's perspective. Yes, you are free to live as you please in anarchy. But... so am I... and what pleases me may have a large impact on what pleases you - like my taking a gun and killing you simply because I feel like it... or I could come along and rape you or your wife/family if I could force myself on you... or I could simply walk into your house and take whatever you owned as mine and kill you or kick you out of your house... and there would be no consequences at all as long as my might kept me alive. And yes... I realize that someone else could do the same to me.
You assume that humans would behave in the utopian mode of anarchy. Look at some of the bad parts of NYC and LA. Where lawlessness exists, warlords and gangs form to enforce their own law. This is a fact of nature, not idealism.
Re:A lot of antitrust ignorance (Score:4, Insightful)
If I take the question literally, then the answer is easy: the court just issues the order.
However, you ask a question regarding a point I did not make. The sentence you quote was in reference to the appellate court's decision. What the appellate court says in the decision is that Sun could still win the case on the merits, at which time the trial judge could then issue an appropriate injunction.
But the biggest issue here is your complete lack of understanding about an important aspect. Microsoft has legally established a monopoly. Red Hat does not. Oracle does not. Real does not. That is why there is a difference here.
The whole anti-government intervention argument gets a little old, especially regarding antitrust. Essentially, the argument is that there should be no intervention and let the market work. As I stated, monopolies and the antitrust laws meant to address them is specifically because the market cannot work with a monopoly. This is not a new concept. This has been completely understood for over 100 years!
So your point is that there should be no government intervention (I will not even address the fact that this instant situation is a private company simply using a court's authority, not some statutory or regulatory intervention) and that, even when a monopoly in one market is used to obtain a monopoly in another then there is no redress. I think your point can be summed up that you not only disagree with antitrust laws and do not feel they should be enforced, you actually deny their existence.
What happened in the browser market? There is no redress possible. It's done. It's clear that MS used its OS monopoly to obtain a browser monopoly (if you want to argue this point, talk to the hand because it's a legally established fact that this happened). But was there a way to redress the browser situation? No, there was not. It was done. Finished. What were the consequences to Microsoft? None. So where is the deterrent against future similar behavior? It's like sending a thief who stole $20 million to prison for 10 years and letting him keep the money. Sign me up for that.
And the "... blah blah blah monopoly blah blah blah..." part is irrelevant if Sun wants a judge to force Microsoft to do something, as opposed to stop doing something.
Your final point is just plain wierd. A court order can be to force a party to either do something or stop doing something. It's not some relevant point that Sun was seeking the court to enforce affirmative behavior from Microsoft, so your attempt at distinguishing the two is moot.
Who pointed the gun first? (Score:3, Insightful)
The point now is that MS has been found guilty of gun waving and there should be some compensation/restitution. The Appeals Court decision (based on a prelim scan/read) is interesting in that they're saying Sun can't prove immediate harm but they can come back and ask for an injunction when/if they can. Motz's original order was based on the fact that there's no way except after the fact to go and point at the exact date when a market tip occurred. Seems to be a bit of a circular gotcha there.
Re:A lot of antitrust ignorance (Score:2, Insightful)
In this case, Sun argues that MS is using the OS monopoly to establish a new monopoly in middleware with .NET.
Legally obtained monopolies are legally fine. But there are restrictions on the behavior of a company holding a monopoly. That's what antitrust law is.
Re:Not "extended" Java -- "Replaced" Java (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Keep Java Pure (Score:5, Insightful)
If Microsoft had included those standard features of Java, there would not be so many complaints about their extensions. IMHO, the whole extension issue is a red herring. The real issue is the standard functionality that Microsoft -excluded- to kneecap otherwise portable Java code.
The only somewhat legit issue regarding MS extensions is the fact that they didn't make developers aware that generated code from their IDE used their Windows specific extensions and thus was not portable.
Re:wrong? you must live in an ideal world (Score:2, Insightful)
This is good for Java (Score:3, Insightful)
MS extensions excluded competition (Score:2, Insightful)
Answer: NONE
This does in include the fact that you could only use Internet Explorer to see the applet. Netscape, Opera, etc. on Windows would show a broken applet aswell.
Users would think that only IE works, and the rest of the browsers are broken.
Sun gave the world Java, and it was good. Sun license Java to Microsoft, and they INTENTIONALLY broke it!
Insightful my ass (Score:3, Insightful)
Capitalism/communism are economic systems. Dictatorships are political systems. You can have capitalist dictatorships, and you can have communist democracy.
Capitalists always defend their system of preference by associating it with freedom of opportunity, but it only works that way when you get started. Once the system is mature, the rich pretty much keep everyone else under control.
If you really wanted a free society, you'd want a democratic political system combined with a communistic economic system. You'd need a society that didn't glorify greed and materialism. If everyone recognised that having a comfortable level of prosperity was all they needed, and motivated people with respect and reputation rather than money, things would be fine.
Capitalism will NEVER lead to the end of poverty, hunger and scarcity. Why? Because those are the tools capitalists use to keep power, and they would lose their power if they were gone.
Re:wasn't the MS java "extended" java? (Score:2, Insightful)
instead they used a, incompatible , framework based on com(+)
Other companies, well apple, have included their, incompatible, stuff under com.apple namespace - no problem (and, of course, sun has their incompatible stuff under com.sun and ibm... etc etc)!
Microsoft had their own namespace (strangly enough com.ms, you would have thought they would use com.microsoft? well whatever) but instead choose to deliberatly make java bound to windows by making microsoft java developed programs (those that used microsofts "extended" java. namespace classes - many of them - unclear which at a casual glimpse at the api...) incompatible with original java.
Re:MS (Score:2, Insightful)