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.
actually, (Score:5, Informative)
Re:actually, (Score:2, Informative)
Re:actually, (Score:4, Informative)
Re:actually, (Score:3, Interesting)
I wish sun would jump on that bandwagon, I'm sick of a new 30 meg vm opening everytime i visit a webpage with a java applet. You'd think a virtual machine, much like a regular machine, could handle more than one program at a time.
Avoids VM conflicts (Score:3, Interesting)
Say you have an applet that uses a Singleton type object in the core VM. So, you're counting on this one instance and probably are setting values on it. (Oh, let's say the System.properties object as an example.) Now along comes another applet that wants to load in it's own set of properties to work with. Obviously you both expect things to remain the way they are and changes could be quite "inte
Re:actually, (Score:4, Informative)
Re:actually, (Score:4, Funny)
Efficient, I think is the term you are looking for, perhaps also see good, nice, cost-effective, and elegant. Now as an excersise to the reader I leave you the task of assigning some terms to Microsoft products... (grin)...
Re:actually, (Score:5, Informative)
However, Apple's vm is basically sun's VM with some enhancements. First of all there's the Java-Cocoa(Objc) bridge that lets a developer write a java backend with a Obj-C native Cocoa front end. Secondly, the feature you may have heard about that saves much time and reuses code is that the VM caches on disk the HotSpot compliation of the Java byte code. The way it works is that Java code is compiled to JAva byte code by the developer. The VM then compiles byte code to it's own internal representation for eventual compiliation to native code. This code is normally intrepreted, but when a section of code is 'hotspotted' it is then compiled to native code. Apple modified the vm to save the internal representation of the bytecode to disk and use this in the VM. This is automatically done for all core classes at install time and on the fly for other Java code.
Sun is supposedly looking into a way to extend it to other applications. Though only in client application does this make much difference because in server applications classes don't get loaded a lot. (except for JSPs but you really shouldn't be doing cpu intensive stuff in the JSP code, but in a library function)
Re:actually, (Score:5, Informative)
Additionally Apple provides, by default, installations of 1.3.1 and 1.4.1 in a fixed and standardized location, generally following the deployment style other the frameworks provided on the system. They are also updated automatically as needed via the normal Apple Software Update process, just like any other framework/application/etc...
They go out of their way to discourage application developers from installing their own JRE's, it is not needed, it wastes space, and actually could lead to compatibility issues (the JRE they install could be in compatible with the OS version installed, etc.)
Apple tests and maintains correct versions of their JREs for you, they are considered as part of the OS. This is very nice. Why should Java be different then any other OS framework?
I do find it funny that it is worded as saying that Apple has "also agreed to include Sun's Java". Apple goes out of their way to provide Java on Mac OS X, its Apple's JVM/etc. implementation not Sun's.
Re:actually, (Score:3, Informative)
At first they expected it in 1.4.2, but because the code is not stable yet, they haven't released a new date
Java chat on 1.4.2 [sun.com]
*snip*
Filip: Startup performance is better in this release, but you only achieve about 1.3.1 startup performance with 1.4.2. Is there going to be some work in the Tiger release to further speed up startup? Also, why is shared VM dropped from 1.4.2, and can we expect it in Tiger?
Ken Rus
Re:actually, (Score:5, Informative)
At my client's site, they had a symposium with the chief technologist from Sun, Brian Wilson, a couple of weeks ago and he announced the agreement between RH and Sun.
Re:actually, (Score:3, Funny)
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?
Re:MS (Score:2)
Not having RTFA or being able to remember enough background, but shouldn't/didn't Sun sue them over the name and non-standard implementation?
Re:MS (Score:2)
However, they should not be allowed to continue carrying their own, proprietary version of java. Does the ruling say anything about that?
They've errored in the past. Multiple times.
The only answer is that they are an unfit company and should be disbanded.
(This would be the case if it wasn't for Market Share, Politicing, etc.)
They are in a position where they are above the rules
Re:MS (Score:2, Informative)
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
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).
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.
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.
Re:Yes, this makes sense (Score:4, Informative)
At the time this was going on, Microsoft was still distributing their version. The courts response was, ship the compatible one instead.
The damage already done, Microsoft said "well, we won't ship any at all".
Fortunately, Dell and HP have already picked up the ball and will be distributing it anyway.
Re:Yes, this makes sense (Score:4, Interesting)
The proper remedy is to make an attempt to force MS to provide Sun with what they illegally took away. Market opportunity.
Re:Yes, this makes sense (Score:2)
The court was doing something about squashing that version of java. The court forced MS to ship the real Java to undo the damage that MS did with thier fake windows only version of "java".
However, by now the damage should have been undone, and the market should have adapted, so this is a real big *yawn* story. Yeah, MS "won" this round, but the previous ruling did th
Re:Yes, this makes sense (Score:3, Informative)
Well, Sun had something to say about it as Microsoft was violating their license with Sun, IIRC.
amemded complaint [sun.com]
In order to obtain the right to make and distribute products incorporating Sun's JAVATM Technology, and to mark such products with Sun's JAVA Compatible trademark, defendant Microsoft entered into two written agreements with Sun in March 1996. Pursuant to one agreement, defendant Microsoft promised to incorporate Sun's
Re:Yes, this makes sense (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Yes, this makes sense (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Yes, this makes sense (Score:2)
Ok, yes, MS could make it difficult to install Sun Java. And yes, MS does have access to all the APIs for Windows. But, what stops Sun from making interaction with other Windows applications difficult? What stops Redhat from not serving pages
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)?
Re:Yes, this makes sense (Score:2)
Yes, that sounds right. However, if Sun didn't really lock down the contract with MS about what constituted "Java" then I really can't feel sorry for them.
With corporate America having legal departments bigger than most law firms, that kind of screw up is inexcusable.
Re:Yes, this makes sense (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yes, this makes sense (Score:3)
...
" Sun, which is seeking $1 billion in damages, charges Microsoft's acts against Java include polluting a version of the software and dropping it from Windows XP"
Its not MS's "job", but it could be their legal responsib
Re:Yes, this makes sense (Score:5, Interesting)
The "Insightful" moderation is simply sad.
This is more like you burning down my house, on purpose, and a judge says I'm allowed to live in your house until restitution is made by you, while my house is being rebuilt. Then, these other judges come along and say, "woe", that doesn't make any sense. Even though you burned down my house on purpose, you shouldn't be held responsible unless the on-going legal action says otherwise. In the mean time, I have to go live under a bridge while you and the judges all laugh at me.
This has nothing to do with marketing or product promotion. This has to do with holding Microsoft responsible for it's very illegal and harmful activities.
In related news.. (Score:4, Funny)
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.
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.
Re:Anticompetative behavior (Score:3, Interesting)
All the customer cares about is ease of use during the installation process. With InstallAnywhere virtually free (and I can't recall the name of the project that *is* actually free) - distributing your product is easy and transparent to the user.
Just to play games, let's assume that some
Re: java isn't just applets (Score:2)
It means using Java to write full applications.
Though I would argue that the reason Java isn't on the desktop is due to a history of poor performance. Those points may be less relevant now with 2ghz processors, but there is a lingering belief that Java is slow. (works great as a server development language, though)
Re: java isn't just applets (Score:2)
Java is also slow to start up the virtual machine, which makes it inefficient for programs you stop and restart frequently.
Re:Anticompetative behavior (Score:2)
In any event, its still kind of silly to say Sun doomed Java because it sucked when it was MS that made it suck.
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:Good news (Score:2)
That said, it's a ad thing, but what I said above would be a good thing.
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 eno
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: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
Re:That big a deal? (Score:3)
And as usual, MS is left to take a bow for screwing the consumer, smiling all the while!
Good! (Score:4, Interesting)
Since Java is not Microsoft's product, it only makes sense that PC manufacturers should be the ones distributing it by default (if they see the need).
Mike.
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:They're right, there should be no *legal* requi (Score:2)
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
Um, okay. (Score:2)
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.
it doesnt matter anymore (Score:3, Informative)
Re:it doesnt matter anymore (Score:2, Funny)
Ugh! I feel so dirty as a Java developer. Time to switch to
Challenge (Score:2, Funny)
Tom
Duh... (Score:2, Funny)
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
Re:I have mixed feelings. (Score:4, Interesting)
The other cases in the past were about MS shipping broken versions of the JRE that actually caused Java more harm than good. SUN had an agreement with MS a long time ago to let them continue shipping theing JRE because MS clients were reliant on their JRE at the time (but that didn't change because MS didn't give them any incentive to change until
When you combine these two arguements, the logical arguement is to A) prevent MS from shipping
This scares MS a lot, which is why they wanted to mutilate it from the start. If they have control of the VM, they can always make it preform better on their OS and hardware. SUN hasn't taken advantage of Java like this (thus Java on Solaris is horrible compared to windows).
Basically, this ruling is saying that it is OK for MS to ship products with their operating systems without including 3rd party competing products. It's a complete reversal of the Netscape issue that lead to a government investigation and almost a break up of the MS company. What was wrong before the monopoly investigation (or before Bush took office, your choice) is now just fair trade.
Keep Java Pure (Score:5, 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.
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
I think... (Score:2, Interesting)
From the article...
which makes the original ruling sort of redundant. Microsoft can't touch the code
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.
wasn't the MS java "extended" java? (Score:4, Informative)
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: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.
Excellent (Score:2, Interesting)
IMO, Java is extremely slow and very much open to exploits, to the point that I fee
OMFG SUN JAVA IS FREE! (Score:2, Insightful)
most of these MS lawsuits are stupid
If I understood the original idea correctly... (Score:5, Interesting)
On the basis of all these points, it would be a perfectly normal, natural, sane reaction to say "hey, you can't do that!". The Libertarian view of zero (or near-zero) Government only works if one person doesn't have absolute 100% control over the desktop, the OS, the hardware (they tell Intel what to build!), the API, 95-98% of the consumers, and enough money to buy out dissenters if they somehow survive all of this.
When someone has absolute control of 5 markets and has declared intent to obtain monopoly over 5 more (portable code, wireless, TV, servers and ISPs), fair competition doesn't exist. Competition in any sense does not exist.
Should Microsoft actually acquire monopoly status in all ten industries, then Microsoft will be the only voice you will ever hear. Dissent could only be expressed via a Microsoft product and, as such, be eliminated.
Think about this, for a moment. Microsoft has violated anti-trust laws, been found guilty, continued to violate those same laws, and the States that haven't settled yet are (despite having enough evidence to fight on) unable to do so. Why? Because you can't fight City Hall - when it's a partly-owned subsiduary of a corporate giant.
We need to remember that this is NOT a typical case. The precedent is unlikely to reoccur even once in the next 300 years. There has never been a power in the US this absolute. This isn't about Us VS Them, or Govt VS People. This is about whether the Right To Choose ANYTHING AT ALL will still exist when 2010 comes round.
The use of a monopoly in one area to create a monopoly in another is illegal. The use of FIVE monopolies to slowly engulf the entire field of technology should be no more acceptable. It's not as if it's any better!
People have tried protests. They've tried civil disobedience, even. However, Microsoft aren't a threat to human life, so you can't really call out the National Guard. Libertarians would have us believe that guns can protect our rights. But no gun in the world will protect you against a corporate entity that spans the globe, the minds of people, and even the fabric of our lives.
There's nothing we can do to stop the rot. The only people who can are the judiciary, because that is what the judiciary is there for. To stop evil that cannot otherwise be touched. To act as a last-ditch defence against things that can escape or evade every other protection we, as individuals, can place in front of us.
We HAVE to rely on the legal system, because the legal system is the only thing we have left to rely on.
Whizzle. Fizzle. Bang. (Score:5, Interesting)
Corporations have become world-wide economies in and of themselves; of the 150 largest economies in the world, 97 are multinational corporations! Their influence upon important governments world-wide is steadily growing as they amass tremendous amounts of wealth and influence. Governments fear cracking down on them for fear of economic and political repercussions. In the last 30 years, new supranational authorities have emerged worldwide; big global players that carry tremendous capacity for power. Microsoft, though off to a poor and late start in this arena, is one of them.
A software producer can write whatever it wants into its operating system and it is perfectly legal. Though it sounds dreadful, Microsoft advertising its own services in Windows is a huge mistake on the part of the corporation - it will turn large number of people off. That's part of the reason all the
It is easy to criticize Microsoft. Keep in mind that Windows is a standard, something desperately needed in a world with hundreds of different programming languages, operating systems, and a plethora of different types of hardware and (OMG!) media storage out there. Take Sony for instance. Sony uses Stick Media not because it is better, but because it is non-standard and they can charge mucho dinero for it. They could have easily conformed to a standard media with a dozen other companies if it economically beneficial. Granted, everyone is conforming to Microsoftâ(TM)s standards, but itâ(TM)s better than another long-standing war of software standards such as that between IBM-Compatibles and Apple Computers. Even Linux doesnâ(TM)t even conform to a set of unified standards (though United Linux will theoretically change that).
Microsoft needs reform. It will be difficult to force it to do so, as it has a tremendous amount of influence. Ideally, a global standard operating system needs to be developed. We need a U.N. resolution.
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:There's a much larger problem here than just Ja (Score:3, Interesting)
You'd also get the Linux effect. Install most distributions these days and the menus are littered with duplicate programs. Two FTP programs, two browsers, three MP3 players. It's a nightmare for the consumer. They just want one, not a whole bunch. Most consumers (and I'm saying "most" here, not necessarily the people reading this) want the OS provi
DC Circuit Court (Score:3, Informative)
A better strategy is to sue in a court under the juristiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth has repeatedly shown technical know-how and a willingness to embrace and extend technology, though certainly not in the Microsoft sense. The bottom line is, don't sue if it's obvious you're going to lose from the start.
MS must undo the damage it has done to Java (Score:3, Interesting)
Java is Sun's contribution to computing, and it is on par with Xerox's GUI and Mouse, Apples multimedia in a desktop and Microsoft's Office.
Millions of developers want to take the next step with Java, but Microsoft is intentionally hold them back from over 90% of users and trying to push it's C# language to further isolate all competitors (Linux, BSD, Solaris, AIX, ONX, MacOS, etc.) from the market.
The sooner this situation is rectified the better!
This is good for Java (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hate to say I agree, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hate to say I agree, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
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 combi
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:2)
The point is that this is not true of monopolies, hence the anti-trust laws. Our maybe you think T. Roosevelt (Republican, by the way) and friends were hallucinating?
-- Brian
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:3, Interesting)
Re:Hate to say I agree, but... (Score:2)
Re:Hate to say I agree, but... (Score:2)
Your question: Why should IBM be forced by Microsoft to ship Windows, a competing product, with their systems?
Two COMPLETELY different issues. The first is done through law, where Microsoft doesn't have a choice in the matter, and the second is done through contract, where both parties agreed to the terms.
So what? (Score:2)
Re:Hate to say I agree, but... (Score:3, Redundant)
MS didn't use the govt. to do this. They merely negotiated a contract. Sun on the other hand, thinks it right to get the govt. to point a gun at a competitor to get what they want. There's a big difference.
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 n
Re:Hate to say I agree, but... (Score:2)
Good question, here's one back.
Why should a company that sells an operating system package whatever programs they want onto it?
Furthermore.
Why should a company that sells an operating system package their programs onto it?
With their ISP on it.
Go to Best Buy/Frys/Compusa and find me a single computer with JUST windows on it.
It should be sold stand alone, and not bundled.
I still find software on my pc I didn't know that I
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 business
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
Re:Hate to say I agree, but... (Score:3)
A proper punitive measure would be for Microsoft to have to stop shipping their incompatible VM (which they have done), and a cash settlement of some sort (maybe a lump sum, plus a percentage of Visual J++ profits?).
Bundling a competitor's product forceably provides an unfair advantage for that competitor (Sun in this case). What if there was another company that made a Java Virtual Machine that was also harmed by Microsoft's acts? (Okay, there isn't, but let's suppose the
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: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 p