Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

HenryApe

[java] Merry Christmas Java developers! (Microsoft to ship Sun's Java)

Recommended Posts

As reported on slashdot, Microsoft has been ordered by a federal court to include Sun's implementation of Java in its operating system. Of course, we do not yet know what kind of direct consequences this ruling will have (if any), or if the will be upheld in the appeal's court, but the PR is a better Christmas present than we could ever have hoped for. Merry Christmas all Java developers! [edited by - HenryAPe on December 23, 2002 7:32:42 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is pretty stupid. Sun just seems like a whiney, spoiled kid who can''t get it''s way, so it goes crying to the courts.

Will other companies now start forcing Microsoft to ship their products along with Windows? Why don''t they have to ship ICQ with Windows? Why don''t they have to ship winamp? Or the Quicktime player? Or hundreds of other things which people seem capable of downloading themselves anyway?

Oh well, I guess it''s a good thing that Windows will come with Java again...

If I had my way, I''d have all of you shot!


codeka.com - Just click it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Dean Harding
This is pretty stupid. Sun just seems like a whiney, spoiled kid who can''t get it''s way, so it goes crying to the courts.

Will other companies now start forcing Microsoft to ship their products along with Windows? Why don''t they have to ship ICQ with Windows? Why don''t they have to ship winamp? Or the Quicktime player? Or hundreds of other things which people seem capable of downloading themselves anyway?

Oh well, I guess it''s a good thing that Windows will come with Java again...

If I had my way, I''d have all of you shot!


codeka.com - Just click it.


Im not really sure where I stand on this one, but if you want some fun go argue with the ., people, they''ll set you straight!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This ruling creates a bad precedent. How long do you think it will be before it used by other companies (and not just against Microsoft). People like Apple won''t be too happy when half a dozen companies start sueing (and winning because of the previous precedent) to have their buggy apps included in Mac OS/whatever (and Apple/whoever will be the ones getting tech support calls -$$$ and losing customer faith + thanks to faults in these 3rd party apps).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Ratman
go argue with the ., people

Was that intentional?




For those who believe in God, most of the big questions are answered. But for those of us who can''t readily accept the God formula, the big answers don''t remain stone- written. We adjust to new conditions and discoveries. We are pliable. Love need not be a command or faith a dictum. I am my own God. We are here to unlearn the teachings of the church, state, and our educational system. We are here to drink beer. We are here to kill war. We are here to laugh at the odds and live our lives so well that Death will tremble to take us -- Charles Bukowski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MS violated a contract they signed. How is seeking redress in court whiny? At least this will get everyone up to 1.4.1.

"... we should have such an empire for liberty as she has never surveyed since the creation ..."
Thomas Jefferson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
They signed a contract to bundle a competing product with Windows?


No, they agreed to bundle Java (their JVM) with Windows, but broke the contract by making it incompatible. It wasn''t a competing product at the time, it just became one once Microsoft decided to put together .NET and therefore needed to drive Sun out of the marketplace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think is good for the Java game developers.

I wouldnt mind if Java wasnt shipped with Windows...if only the lazy end users would download the VM (And if SUN for the love of God would make it smaller)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
This is pretty stupid. Sun just seems like a whiney, spoiled kid who can't get it's way, so it goes crying to the courts.

The only people who sound like whiny kids to me are the Microsoft apologists who cry everytime the company gets the least bit of punishment or negative publicity for the crimes it has been convicted of. I am glad the judge that handed out this ruling does not seem to be one of them.

quote:
How long do you think it will be before it used by other companies

I it is quite reare that a OS company breaches a contract with another company in order to ship a deliberately sabotaged version of the other company's product.

Forcing Microsoft to carry Sun's Java as compensation for abusing their monopoly powers and breaking their contract with Sun in order to sabotage Java is as just as a court ruling gets.

[edited by - HenryAPe on December 24, 2002 6:18:43 AM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What I fail to understand is why Sun feels that it is necessary to go to the courts to play the spoiled child because their product is losing out on market share.

1) Microsoft pulls the VM from XP a year(ish) ago (correct me if I''m wrong, but this was done at Sun''s request/objection, no?)
2) Lazy end-users fail to download Sun''s VM, thus Sun loses potential customers/exposure to customers
3) Sun notices the loss of revenue/consumer base, thus goes to the courts to have Microsoft reintegrate VM with the OS, thus reestablishing Sun''s exposure to customers

The bottom line is, customers (at least in this case) appear too lazy to explore alternatives to Microsoft''s VM (akin to their lack of effort for researching alternatives for Internet Explorer), thus Microsoft is made to suffer ... ???

I''m not a heavy advocate of either corporation, though I do get annoyed at the multitudes of MS-haters who seize any opportunity to wail on any news article that comes up villifying MS. If the end-user wants alternatives, it will seek them... otherwise, the company with the best products will eventually come out on top.

Survival of the fittest?



MatrixCubed
http://MatrixCubed.cjb.net

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
What I fail to understand is why Sun feels that it is necessary to go to the courts to play the spoiled child because their product is losing out on market share.


You think it is odd that a company sues when a crime is perpetrated against them that costs them money?

quote:
1) Microsoft pulls the VM from XP a year(ish) ago (correct me if I'm wrong, but this was done at Sun's request/objection, no?)

Microsoft could have kept shipping their VM for a few more years (to around 2007 I think) if they had wanted to.

quote:
3) Sun notices the loss of revenue/consumer base, thus goes to the courts to have Microsoft reintegrate VM with the OS, thus reestablishing Sun's exposure to customers


No, this case is not about getting Microsoft to integrate their sabotaged version of the VM. This case is about getting Microsoft to ship a real, Java-compatible VM (as Microsoft had first promised in their contract to Sun but then failed to do). This confusion that you experience between Sun's Java VM and Microsoft bastardized VM, that is not legally allowed to be called Java-compatible, clearly shows that the Java trademark has been hurt by Microsoft's illegal actions.

Maybe you would also whine if Coca-Cola sued one of its breweries that licensed the Coca-Cola brand and formula but filled its printed Coca-Cola cans with water. That's basicly what Microsoft did to Sun when they broke the license for Java.

quote:
The bottom line is, customers (at least in this case) appear too lazy to explore alternatives to Microsoft's VM (akin to their lack of effort for researching alternatives for Internet Explorer), thus Microsoft is made to suffer ... ???

No, the bottom line is that Microsoft commited crimes that cost another company money, directly and through publicity/market share losses, and now they are being forced to compensate that company.

Microsoft's abuse of monopoly powers is also a crime against consumers, but that is mainly another trial. This case ties in to the consumer case since the injunction is meant to increase competition, which is generally good for consumers. Or as the judge put it: "In the final analysis, the public interest in this case rests in assuring that free enterprise be genuinely free, untainted by the effects of antitrust violations,"

[edited by - HenryAPe on December 24, 2002 12:51:29 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by HenryApe
Microsoft to ship a real, Java-compatible VM (as Microsoft had first promised in their contract to Sun but then failed to do).

Evidence. Links. References. Anything?




For those who believe in God, most of the big questions are answered. But for those of us who can''t readily accept the God formula, the big answers don''t remain stone- written. We adjust to new conditions and discoveries. We are pliable. Love need not be a command or faith a dictum. I am my own God. We are here to unlearn the teachings of the church, state, and our educational system. We are here to drink beer. We are here to kill war. We are here to laugh at the odds and live our lives so well that Death will tremble to take us -- Charles Bukowski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's a link to an old settlement.

From the article
quote:

Microsoft's response to this issue was to license the technology from Sun in 1996, promising to deliver only compatible implementations of the technology. But Microsoft broke its promise, and began distributing incompatible implementations so that applications written to those implementations would run only on Windows.


Sun's terms of use of the Java trademark can be found here.

[edited by - NuffSaid on December 24, 2002 6:41:14 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Evidence. Links. References. Anything?

There are plenty of evidence and links about Microsoft's breach of contract with Sun and the previous lawsuit that Sun launched to get an immediate stop of Microsoft's dilution of the Java trademark. That's the one that ended in a settlement.

The part of my comment that you have marked should be read strictly in the context that Microsoft DID ship products branded with the Java trademark even though those products were not Java compatible, as Microsoft had promised that they would be in their contract with Sun.

[edited by - HenryAPe on December 24, 2002 7:40:36 PM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But nothing of this has anything to do with the matter - MS NEVER signed any contract in which they promised to ship a competing company''s products:
quote:

To protect developers and consumers who have already invested in Microsofts implementations of the Java technology, Sun has agreed to grant Microsoft a limited license to continue shipping essentially as is its currently shipping implementations of the outdated 1.1.4 version of the Java technology. Those products have already been modified to comply with injunctions secured by Sun in the litigation. The license covers only the products that already contain the Java technology, and lasts only for seven years.


They were ALLOWED to continue shipping the outdate JVM, a JVM which by Sun''s own admission was modified to comply with "injunctions secured by Sun in the litigation". Nowhere does it say that they were under a contractual bond to ship Sun''s JVM.
The case was settled then, and should have remained so. Unfortunately, Sun discovered that customers didn''t care enough to go download their (superior) JVM, and invoked the (idiotic) US legal system to get their way.



For those who believe in God, most of the big questions are answered. But for those of us who can''t readily accept the God formula, the big answers don''t remain stone- written. We adjust to new conditions and discoveries. We are pliable. Love need not be a command or faith a dictum. I am my own God. We are here to unlearn the teachings of the church, state, and our educational system. We are here to drink beer. We are here to kill war. We are here to laugh at the odds and live our lives so well that Death will tremble to take us -- Charles Bukowski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by HenryApe
The part of my comment that you have marked should be read strictly in the context that Microsoft DID ship products branded with the Java trademark even though those products were not Java compatible, as Microsoft had promised that they would be in their contract with Sun.

Irrelevant. That matter was settled. Apparently Sun changed their mind and decided to reneg the deal.



For those who believe in God, most of the big questions are answered. But for those of us who can''t readily accept the God formula, the big answers don''t remain stone- written. We adjust to new conditions and discoveries. We are pliable. Love need not be a command or faith a dictum. I am my own God. We are here to unlearn the teachings of the church, state, and our educational system. We are here to drink beer. We are here to kill war. We are here to laugh at the odds and live our lives so well that Death will tremble to take us -- Charles Bukowski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
They were ALLOWED to continue shipping the outdate JVM, a JVM which by Sun's own admission was modified to comply with "injunctions secured by Sun in the litigation". Nowhere does it say that they were under a contractual bond to ship Sun's JVM.

The case was settled then, and should have remained so. Unfortunately, Sun discovered that customers didn't care enough to go download their (superior) JVM, and invoked the (idiotic) US legal system to get their way.



This is a different case, as you would know if you took the time to read the linked articles before blessing us with your assertively-worded but nonetheless uninformed nonsense. Once it was determined that Microsoft did in fact break federal antitrust law, an unrelated *criminal law* Justice Department case than Sun's lawsuit for breach of contract, specific companies that were victimized by Microsoft's crimes can then pursue civil redress in court. For someone who is bright enough of a bulb to describe the legal system as "idiotic" should take a moment of their extremely valuable time to ensure that they aren't the ones who come out looking stupid when they open their mouth.

Edit: I'll save you some time and link the injunction directly -- http://www.mdd.uscourts.gov/Opinions152/Opinions/SunPI1202.pdf RTFM before you spout off your BS again.

[edited by - markuskidd on December 24, 2002 12:24:01 AM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Highlights and some things we already knew, but have been found true legally:

quote:

Because of the competitive threat Java presented, Microsoft devised and implemented a strategy to “wrest control of Java away from Sun” and to “turn Java into just the latest, best way to write Windows applications.” (Pl.’s Ex. 21, 4/14/97 Slivka email to Gates.) In order to preserve Java’s cross-platform functionality, Sun required in all of its license and distribution agreements (including the one with Microsoft) that a licensee’s implementation of the Java platform meet a test suite demonstrating that the implementation was compatible with the core Java platform. Though pretending to embrace the goal of compatibility, Microsoft intentionally took various steps to defeat that goal.



quote:

The purpose of the strategy devised and implemented by Microsoft was described in its internal documents. A November 1996 email stated: “[W]e should just quietly grow j++ [Microsoft’s
incompatible developer tools] share and assume that people will take more advantage of our classes without ever realizing they are building win32-only java apps.” FOF 394, 84 F. Supp. 2d at 107. Another document was even more succinct: “Kill cross-platform Java by grow[ing] the polluted Java market.” Microsoft, 253 F.3d at 76-77 (quoting Government Ex. 259).



quote:

Microsoft also entered into “First Wave Agreements” with
dozens of independent software vendors that “conditioned receipt of Windows technical information upon the ISVs’ agreement to promote Microsoft’s JVM [Java Virtual Machine] exclusively.” Id.
Finally, Microsoft successfully stopped Intel Corporation from cooperating with Sun and Netscape in the development of a cross-platform Java runtime environment by threatening not to distribute Intel technologies bundled with Windows and to support one of Intel’s competitors in connection with one of its products unless Intel ceased its support for Java. Id. at 77.



quote:

The “must-carry” remedy Sun proposes is designed to prevent Microsoft from obtaining future advantage from its past wrongs and to correct the distortion in the marketplace that its violations of the antitrust laws have caused.



quote:

I further find it is an absolute certainty that unless a preliminary injunction is entered, Sun will have lost forever its right to compete, and the opportunity to prevail, in a market undistorted by its competitor’s antitrust violations. Taken together, these facts are more than sufficient to constitute irreparable harm.



It is obvious from the findings presented in this document that this goes far beyond simple breach of the contract between Sun and Microsoft. This is about the monopoly that Microsoft abused to clear the path for .NET once they decided that they wanted to compete with Sun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
MS NEVER signed any contract in which they promised to ship a competing company's products ... Nowhere does it say that they were under a contractual bond to ship Sun's JVM.

When a criminal breaks the law, he does not need to have signed a contract where he agrees to go to jail or pay compensation to his victim in order to be sentenced to those punishments, and Microsoft did break the law.

Besides, Microsoft did promise that any Java-branded products they shipped would be Java compatible, and they did ship Java-branded products. They broke their promise when those products were not Java compatible.

quote:
The case was settled then, and should have remained so.


Well, that case was mainly about getting an immediate stop to Microsoft's dilution of the Java trademark, now it's time for Microsoft to pay up for the actual damage it has caused through its illegal actions, and as Markus pointed out, this also takes Microsoft's wider antitrust violations into account.

quote:
Unfortunately, Sun discovered that customers didn't care enough to go download their (superior) JVM, and invoked the (idiotic) US legal system to get their way.

I think this judge's comments on this are far more intelligent than anything you have posted so far. Here are a few highlights from the article in Wired:
"If .net proves itself to be a better product than Java, it should and will predominate in the market."

Motz wrote that if Microsoft's system was to remain dominant, "it should be because of .net's superior qualities, not because Microsoft leveraged its PC monopoly to create market conditions in which it is unfairly advantaged."


Worried that .Net won't be able to keep up without having Microsoft's desktop monopoly as its advantage?

[edited by - HenryAPe on December 25, 2002 4:14:22 AM]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
none of this would have been an issue if Java weren''t the ridiculous 11mb bloater that it is today... Sun still have only themselves to blame - they failed to get users to use their technology because it''s a pain in the arse.

Cas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
princec, there have been rumors that Microsoft has been altering XP in order to make it incompatible with the existing Java distrobutions... There is a quote on the first couple of pages of the judge''s decision from the Microsoft web admin who was in charge of placing the Java resources in their site... something like (paraphrased) ''they''d have to stumble across it in order to know it''s there.'' This was in regards to an add-on module for the MJVM needed to get RMI to work (though RMI is part of the basic distrobution). MS has been deliberately sobotaging Sun, and fortunately there is court-permissible evidence to proove it happened. A reduced download size would not have saved Sun once the biggest software company set their sights on Java...

Not that we still wouldn''t appreciate some help from the folks over there to modularize the JRE and give us incremental updating...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
quote:
Original post by Dean Harding
This is pretty stupid. Sun just seems like a whiney, spoiled kid who can''t get it''s way, so it goes crying to the courts.



''Stupid''?
''Seems like a whiney child''?
I think it speaks volumes for ''ignorance'' to try and simplify this issue into such an analogy.

Competition is a GOOD thing for consumers. And I think its common knowledge that MS has on many occasions done such unscrupulous things as ''fix'' its OS to ''break'' competitors technologies.

This ''crying to the courts'' as you so call it is actually based upon laws that were put into effect to protect people just like you and me(the consumer)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites