another victory for the capitalists...[irony]I am so happy[/irony]. MS got enough money to go to hundreds of courts of appeal, till all earlier negative rulings are overturned and the judges give up and decide in favour of MS's interests. The judicial system works... but only for those, who've got money

Sun's VM doesn't work well here...(700mhz Athlon 512K L2 Cache)...it's slow... for those folks that say "something wrong with your machine".. the Answer is no...I used Sun's VM for a month and didn't even go as good as MS VM...Now I had to Download the MS JVM thru a Website and my machine works the way it's suppose to.It's a good thing that SUN has an uninstaller.

Sun's VM for windows runs really slow, with common crashes and consumes insane amounts of ram. Microsoft's VM is designed much better and i'm glad i saved MS java installation file when it was available, so now i can keep receiving updates for it. It's simply because Sun cannot handle the competition that they are doing this. When Sun's windows VM runs as well as linux VM they won't have to file lawsuits against MS.

I would suggest that either you work for Microsoft, or there is something wrong with your system.

Sun Java is far better, more fully featured, faster and consumes LESS memory on my system.

Or perhaps you are a troll.

I don't agree with you that Suns Java is better, hell the people at Sun don't like how Java is themselfs. Each new release brakes something in the older one, there are bugs everywhere and it's slow as hell. The newest version that just came out fixs some 2400 bugs, who knows how many more there are in the damn thing.

I would suggest the java sucks

ok, does MS have the justice department in their pocket or what ??

this is like the 3rd time they've been "Let off"

Ms does things Their way & gets away with it.

I'm not sure if I understand this summary of the ruling. But it seems to say that, yes, Microsoft did violate the terms of its earlier deal with Sun but, no, Microsoft doesn't have to ship Java with its operating system.

If there was an infringement, that would seem to be solved by MS's decision to stop using Java entirely. Windows users can still add Java if they choose to. But hopefully this decision will undo Motz's stupid order forcing Microsoft to include somebody else's software whether they like it or not--and presumably pay Sun to do so.

Read the artical more closely.

Quote:
"The case will now return to the lower court for further proceedings under Motz unless Sun and Microsoft reach a settlement."

Can you say litigation?

I knew you could.

This will go on for quite some time.

I'm not sure if I understand this summary of the ruling. But it seems to say that, yes, Microsoft did violate the terms of its earlier deal with Sun but, no, Microsoft doesn't have to ship Java with its operating system.

If there was an infringement, that would seem to be solved by MS's decision to stop using Java entirely. Windows users can still add Java if they choose to. But hopefully this decision will undo Motz's stupid order forcing Microsoft to include somebody else's software whether they like it or not--and presumably pay Sun to do so.

The fact Micro$oft isn't violating the contract any more (and thus fragmenting Java), doesn't change the fact that they did.

So, lemme get this straight. "that would seem to be solved by MS's decision to stop using Java entirely"

What you seem to be saying is that it's ok now because they stopped using java, and that they shouldn't be punished because they stopped?

I think a good deal would be for Java to not be included with Windows, however, when you try to run a Java app w/o having a JRE installed, then it should pop-up a dialog saying, hey, you need to go download Sun's latest JRE, here's the link.

If Microsoft infringed Sun's copyright or otherwise misbehaved some years ago, then maybe they should be punished with an appropriate fine. But forcing them to put Java in their operating system for the rest of time makes no sense and doesn't serve their customers.

You can't rationally order somebody to use somebody else's software, especially when Sun was threatening only a little earlier not to let Microsoft use its software.

I have to agree with making it easier for users to download and install the JVM. I can't tell you how many times since XP came out that I've been asked about that. Now as far as java goes... it was great learning tool that taught me OOP but it is slow, inconsistent and lacks any decent dev env. C# is a breath of fresh air in these areas.

I can't believe that you are saying that it is somehow wrong that Microsoft stopped using Java...

Oh wait, you're a troll, I forgot.

"I can't believe that you are saying that it is somehow wrong that Microsoft stopped using Java..."

I didn't say that it was wrong that they stopped. I think they should be punished for their past violation. I don't think that the judge was right to force them to carry it anyway, you would know that if you weren't only interested in attacking me.

"Oh wait, you're a troll, I forgot."

Your momma is a troll.

Leave the personal attacks at home, you know I'll win.

"What you seem to be saying is that it's ok now because they stopped using java, and that they shouldn't be punished because they stopped?"

Microsoft should NOT be punished for stopping using Java... they were told to not use their own, and as such, they quit using their own.

They should (and already have) been punished for infringing on the license.

They violated the settlement agreement, and they should be punished. That's the bottom line.

"What you seem to be saying is that it's ok now because they stopped using java, and that they shouldn't be punished because they stopped?"

Perhaps you would have understood if I had worded it differently.

Let me reword my comment so it is easier for you to comprehend.

"What you seem to be saying is that it's ok now because they have stopped using java, and that they shouldn't be punished for their past violation because they have stopped violating the agreement now?"

How did they violate the settlement agreement?

"Redmond was initially granted a stay of the decision last February after announcing plans to include Java in future service packs for Windows XP. However, the three-judge panel upheld a ruling that Microsoft violated a 2001 license agreement between the companies and infringed on Sun's Java copyrights. "

They've already been punished for this, via not being allowed to distribute their own version anymore.

"The case will now return to the lower court for further proceedings"

It's pretty ridiculous actually when you read the ruling itself:
http://pacer.ca4.uscourt...pinion.pdf/031116.P.pdf
(Section V ... pages 25-28)

The "violation" of the license agreement is that Microsoft allowed OEM's to choose whether or not to install the MSJVM on new PC's, that they allowed users to download and install the MSJVM if they wanted to, and that they included the MSJVM in Operating System Service Packs.

Apparently the court is supporting Sun's claim that the actual language of the settlement agreement allowing Microsoft to continue to use and ship the MSJVM with it's products meant that Microsoft could choose to ship those products with the MSJVM...or without it, but that no one else (including the user) could change that afterwards. In short, that the only allowed distribution channel was in the "as delivered" OS itself.

Considering the amount of screaming and complaining that Sun did when MS announced that XP would ship without Java support at all, it seems pretty ridiculous that their "license agreement violation" complaint is that MS relented and allowed those who wnted the MSJVM in XP to still have it. Had Microsoft included it in ALL copies of XP it would not have been a violation.....the violation is the fcat that MS gave someone other than themselves control over the choice - OEM's and users.

Note, however, that even this part was only a preliminary injunction. The actual trial has not taken place yet and no court has reached any verdict at all regarding whether or not Microsoft violated the 2001 agreement.....or whether Sun also did for that matter....since both Sun and Microsoft allege that the other violated the 2001 license agreement.

Correct, because this was not the verdict of a trial. The trial hasn't taken place yet. The "finding" that Microsoft violated the agreement was part of a preliminary injunction...the remedy for which was indeed spelled out as part of the injuction.

Since "preliminary injunctions" and "preliminary findings" are exactly that..."preliminary", we'll have to see what the actual rulings and verdicts are when the trial takes place.

Of course.

These were simply preliminary injuctions and preliminary findings.

The trial has to actually take place, finish, and return verdicts/rulings before any of it is final.

The matter of "how to punish" Microsoft for violating the license agreement will have to wait until there has been a verdict that Microsoft actually did so. There hasn't been one so far.

So far it's just a "preliminary finding" that Microsoft appears to have violated the agreement.....the punishment for which is the "preliminary injuction" restraining Microsoft from distributing the MSJVM through OEM or user controlled channels.

Well, it would be the bottom line if the court had ruled or reached a verdict that they violated the agreement. That's not what happened.

What happened is that a "preliminary finding" was issued supporting a request for a "preliminary injuction". The injuction is the remedy for now (until the trial is completed)

The punishment phase will have to wait until the trial is actually over and will depend on the final verdict(s).

The questions:
Did Microsoft violate the agreement?
Did Sun violate the agreement?
Did Sun suffer harm as a result?
Did Microsoft suffer harm as a result?
may or may not get answered completely since the focus is on whether or not Microsoft illegally harmed Sun and its Java product through abuse of its OS monopoly.

That question is also likely to be an uphill battle for Sun since it depends heavily on Sun's claims of "monopoly leveraging"...yet the Circuit Court specifcally stated "...the monopolly leveraging theory on which the district court [Motz] relied has not been recognized in this circuit nor has it received general acceptance" (Section IV ... p.22)

Teh Circuit Court in Section III (p.13-20) also raises some very valid questions regarding the fact that Sun is asking for relif for "future actions that may take place" and "future damages they might incur", but has very little to show for actual actions that have already taken place or actual damages that have occured.

Well, I would agree that it would be a good idea on setting up a dialog box for users to be able to download the Suns Java version....

As for Java speeds, applets are slower compared to C# since the .Net infrastructure is completely integrated into the operating system. However, I would have to disagree with you that java is just slow and that there isn't a decent dev environment. For one, JBuilder has been proven to be a decent environment. As for speed, that's questionable. Try making a java application and compiling it to an exe. If you still don't believe that its faster, try compiling it to a pure java native exe.

As for C#. It is a decent programming language and I do like it. In a few years, it'll probably be a match for java. Until then, I'll be using both programming languages.

>>

I have to agree with making it easier for users to download and install the JVM. I can't tell you how many times since XP came out that I've been asked about that. Now as far as java goes... it was great learning tool that taught me OOP but it is slow, inconsistent and lacks any decent dev env. C# is a breath of fresh air in these areas.

MS already settled with Sun over the initial copyright dispute. They paid Sun $20 million and entered an agreement with Sun that gave MS the right to distribute and patch security issues in their VM for 7 years. After 7 years, MS couldn't distribute or update their VM even for security issues. The agreement did not, however, require MS to distribute their VM or any JVM. It was left to MS to choose whether to continue or cease distribution of a JVM during that 7 year period.

MS chose to stop with Windows XP so they wouldn't have to worry about ripping it out after the 7 year period. After Sun's complaints about them not including it with XP, they decided to offer it on Windows Update so people could choose whether to install it.

Now Sun is saying that MS violated the agreement because they interpret the agreement terms as not allowing MS to distribute the MSJVM in any way other than with their product (the OS in this case). They couldn't give licensing rights to OEMs, etc., to distribute the MSJVM.

This case isn't really about the copyright infringement that was settled years ago, other than to use it as an example of MS' harm to Sun in order for Sun to tell the court it could happen again.

Sun has presented little more than supposition. They're currently trying to say that even though they weren't in the relevant market to be harmed by MS' monopoly, that they should still benefit because MS could hurt them in the future. No facts to back up their case, just supposition of what could happen.

WHO cares i used both for years.
MS got it right at least it works.
Sun Microsystem's Java technology never worked that good poor is more like it.
MS made it work where Sun Microsystem's Java technology wrecking balled it and could not get it right. For me Sun Microsystem's Java technology never stayed on my machine for more than a day at a time just for just a quick test to see if it worked yet Its that bad and still is.Thy need to side with the only one that works>MSVMlet MSVM grow>> :-)

I would only expect a response like that from a person who hasn't really actually stayed with Java that long.

It is true that the earlier versions of Java was poor, but that has changed. The current java versions are not only better, but run faster.

I'll also add that Sun's Java has been problematic on my Windows XP Pro installation. The MS version seems to work better for me.

As a followup, I installed the latest version of Sun's Java last night and found it once again was slower on my system than the MS version and it also caused problems with certain pages loading. Uninstalled it and my functionality returned. It just doesn't work very well on my Win XP Pro setup and worse than that, it doesn't work very well real slowly.