Java has plauged websites for too long anyway and ill be happy to see it crushed so that im not forced to deal with all of those lame a** java apps that are so prevelent on the web and free for little kiddies to slap on their bloated horrible websites.

"those lame a** java apps"
They're called applets... and you won't find too many of them still in use.

"free for little kiddies to slap on their bloated horrible websites."
Never fear... those little kiddies will instead slap together a lot of horrible Flash on their bloated horrible websites to bloat them to the max.

I have to agree witht he guy who said sun is slow, i have it installed currently because i have an application that requires it to be present on my system and i am very unhappy with the speed of it in ie6. I dont know if this is a microsoft issue or a sun issue but sun definately needs to do something about it because im sure ms wont, my best advice if you need to have sun on your system is to go into your ie config and disable it and enable vm untill sun does something about the speed issue.

"They would obviously charge the companies for it to be included. I personally think this would be the best option. Microsoft could "charge" themselves to cover themselves also."

Microsoft already offers that feature for other companies for free in Windows XP.

Whenever I try to run some applet with Sun it would freeze the browser for no reason, the Sun's Java is buggy! I admit it may be faster, but I just don't like it.

I would still prefer MS VM!!

A lot of people seem to be whining about "poor Microsoft" having to be forced into doing something. It's their company, they should be able to do what they want right? Their OS, they should be able to control what goes on it, right? The United States just doesn't appreciate the company, right?

Here is the deal, Microsoft has been ruled a monopoly. When you are a monopoly you get regulated (just like energy companies, phone companies, etc...) in order to try and make the monopoly the least volital on the market as possible. When you are a monopoly you have to play by different rules.

"When you are a monopoly you have to play by different rules."

Correct. And the issue in question here is whether or not Microsoft's choice to not include java support in the OS is a violation of the laws govening monopolies.

So far, no one (including Sun) has been able to point to any specific section of the law and say "that was violated". All Sun has been able to do it to throw out the scenario that if Microsoft doesn't include java, Sun might suffer so badly that IF judgement in this case is eventually found in their favor....they may be too badly damaged to recover. And that's a big IF.

Who cares if Microsoft is ordered to include. 95% of the people just download it anyways. I personally download the newest copy of java every week. Anyways, thats my two cents.

Very few people actually download Java, especially from Sun. Most of the people who run Java on Windows XP simply use the old VM that is available on Windows Update - because that is the one IE prompts you to install.

Who cares?

Well from the lawsuit, it seems Sun cares.

"I could understand if MS did something illegal"
You should be able to understand in that case...

"You should be able to understand in that case... "

Please enlighten us then. The matter in question that he was referring to was Microsoft not including any java support in the OS.

Since Microsoft, Sun, and the courts agreed to that as an option in their previous court settlement...and even specified that Microsoft HAD to remove all java support after a certain date (unless new agreements were reached).....I'd love to hear how MS removing java support was "illegal"

"Please enlighten us then. The matter in question that he was referring to was Microsoft not including any java support in the OS."

There are several aspects to this. First of all Microsoft did do something illegal when they modified Java (for good or bad is irrelevant here). They were subsequently taken to court and ordered to either carry Sun's JVM or none at all. None at all allowed then to carry their own for a period of 7 years. Microsoft chose the second option and WinXP was the first OS to come out without any JVM installed by default. This was later changed in SP1 I believe although users were urged to download Microsoft's JVM before that time through Windows Update.

Now Sun is suing Microsoft for taking the "wrong option" so to speak but using the fact they were found guilty of abusing their monopoly as ammo.

So the question to ask yourself is this... Would Sun be suing Microsoft for "taking the wrong option" had Microsoft not come out with .NET? I would say no given that originally they gave Microsoft the option of not including Java. This is only occuring because Sun believe they are at a disadvantage to Microsoft when Microsoft can easily flood 95% of the desktop market with .NET. This of course is illegal because when you're a monopoly you cannot use your monopoly in one market to help another one of your product's out.

What would be even more dishonest from Microsoft is if they decided to not include Java at all and pushed .NET to all it's clients via Windows Update as a "Critical Update" item! But you and I both know that they would never do that!

Do Sun have a case? That depends solely on their lawers abilities.... in a perfect world....

So to answer the original question.... Has Microsoft done anything wrong? Yes they have, they have abused their monopoly to push .NET not on it's own merits (which it would just fine if you ask me) but based on their desktop monopoly. Not having to include Java has worked out perfectly for them.

"First of all Microsoft did do something illegal when they modified Java (for good or bad is irrelevant here)."

Microsoft did not do anything illegal when it modified Java; they were only guilty of using the Java Compatible logo for a product that did not meet the requirements set out by Sun for use of that logo.

"They were subsequently taken to court and ordered to either carry Sun's JVM or none at all. None at all allowed then to carry their own for a period of 7 years."

No...; they settled out of court, and no; those were not the only options.

I believe the options can best be summed up as this:
Microsoft was allowed to carry their own JVM for a period of 7 years (and make security and bug patches as neccessary for 4 years), and unless they reach a new agreement regarding this during that time, Microsoft would then have to drop Java support after the 7 years, but Microsoft did not _have to_ support Java. Now if they did reach a new agreement then the terms of the new agreement would apply.

"First of all Microsoft did do something illegal when they modified Java (for good or bad is irrelevant here)."

Actually, they did not. They didn't even violate the terms of their contract with Sun when they modified Java.

They did, hoever, violate US trademark law and the contract with SUn when they continued to use the "Java compatible" logo on their new JVM. Had they left the logo off, they would have been 100% in compliance with their contract with Sun. (See Sun's web page for a copy of the contract)

"They were subsequently taken to court and ordered to either carry Sun's JVM or none at all. None at all allowed then to carry their own for a period of 7 years."

Sorry, but wrong. Go back and read the settlement agreement (also carried on Sun's web page) Nowhere in the agreement does it ever mention anything about Microsoft carring Sun's JVM. HAd Microsoft wanted to, they would have had to negotiate a new contract with Sun in order to be able to do so. What the court ordered in the settlement agreement was that Microsoft would continue to be licensed to carry ONLY the 1.1 version JVM until 2008 and that MS could modify it to fix major security holes until 2004. Further, they gave MS the option to stop including Java for any reason on 30 days notice, and for Sun to stop MS from including Java on 30 days notice if there was breach of the terms of the settlement.

The settlement did NOT offer the option to carry Sun's newer java code.....that was an option offered and rejected BEFORE the settlement. (and therefore not included in it) Read the agreement.

"This of course is illegal because when you're a monopoly you cannot use your monopoly in one market to help another one of your product's out."

And here's where we get into the meat of it and the main grey area.

Does Sun sell (charge money for) their JVM code? No.
Does MS sell (charge money for) their .NET client code? No.

What MS and Sun both sell are the development tools for their respective platforms.

Is MS including those development tools in Windows? No.

Antitrust laws do not apply directly with regard to the Sun JVM....because it's free to consumers. (See, for example, the comments on this topic from the US v. Microsoft case when Netscape was discussed. Had Netscape's browser been free all along, their product could not have been included as an example of "leveraged monopoly" and "illegal tying"....the fact that Netscape charged for it at the time was it's criteria for inclusion)

So what Sun will have to show (and this is where the trial will drag on) is that Microsoft illegally leveraged their monopoly in a way that has damaged the sales of a product that Sun charges money for.

This has not been decided yet.....all the judge has said so far is that he agrees there is the possibility of harm to Sun and that he will issue an injunction to try and prevent the possibility of future harm. No finding of harm has been made yet. (Though the judge has made commnets indicating that he thinks MS has indeed harmed Sun.....a very foolish thing for himto do before all of the evidence has been presented since it will probably be suffiecient evidence of partiality and bias to automatically throw any ruling he issues into review)

The other key point is what Sun is actually suing for. If you read the complaints/filings they are not suing in connection to what MS might do in the future...they are suing for what MS has already done in the past. (which leaves .NET out of the picture) So Sun needs to show that Microsoft's actions PREVIOUS to the filing have harmed Sun's sales of a product they charge money for. A prospect that could be difficult since Sun publicly claims (and uses in their advertisements) that half of all the software developers in the world use Java. It will be hard for Sun to show proof that Microsoft harmed their developer tools business when they still keep claiming (and using in their ads) that Java is "the most popular programming language/environment" in the world.

Just an assumption of mine, please don't laugh if it's wrong. I'd appreciate any opinion from acknowledgeable readers.

Sun made no concession on Java because it was sure that Java would be a huge success. And indeed, Java was really a 'Nobel class' invention in the IT world.

IBM, Oracle, BEA, etc. has contributed in adding value to the Java platform but no one has thought of cloning it. Big corporates adopted the technology and committed substantial investment on Java projects. Sun was confident that the Java platform could not be imitated. Even with the power of MS.

Sun was intransigent in sharing the Java technology. Sun didn't give MS any margin of maneuver in the Java game. MS was afraid to have their business killed by Java. Because the architecture of their development products lags behind the vision of Java. They had no choice other that creating/copying something similar.

Now .NET framework is out and MS said they bet their company on this. Sun reacts immediately by suing MS. Surprisingly, not about .NET but for not shipping Sun's JVM in XP.

Beside the reason or silliness of the $1 billion claim by Sun, I see that this is a sign that Sun recognizes the threat by .NET, showing that they underestimated MS. And worse yet, if .NET design is better, that would also reveal some of Java's shortcomings.

As a comsumer, I feel sorry because if the two giants had chosen to collaborate, I would have now the best of two worlds. Now I have to make a choice between 2 incompatible technologies.

hey you where right on everything except one thing...M$ has the power to determine what succeds or fails by denying access to Windows...Sun felt that by being denied access to Windows, M$ would beat them through unfair competition...that is why they sued...

"hey you where right on everything except one thing...M$ has the power to determine what succeds or fails by denying access to Windows..."

expect that Microsoft never denied Sun or Java "access to Windows"...ever.

"Sun felt that by being denied access to Windows, M$ would beat them through unfair competition...that is why they sued... "

1. Sun was not denied access to windows.
2. That is not what the lawsuit is about (read it and see, it's public information)

You can DL the latest Sun JVM and install it at any time. Same thing for Oracle ODBC drivers. The domain of success for Java is currently for server side, enterprise applications. Generally, the companies has enough resources to have a tech support team to install the JVM. I think they don't really care if the Sun JVM is shipped with Windows or not. Even if it was, let's say JVM 1.30 and now the company needs JVM 1.41, it still has to update all the computers.

Would Java be more successful if the JVM had been shipped with Windows? May be as there is not many Java based sharewares. Or may be not, because after all the users might not like them. I for once, don't like Java based games. Not because I'm afraid of installing the JVM, but because the game performance is awful (and I'm not really demanding b/c I don't play games often).

That is not to say that the 1st lawsuit which was settled, only allowed MS to ship an old version of the JVM.

IMHO, if Java is really a must have, everybody will rush into it even if it is not in Windows. People is smart enough to choose what they like. Look Google, eBay, Winamp, Kazaa, etc. They became successful by themselves without any artificial help.

"IMHO, if Java is really a must have, everybody will rush into it even if it is not in Windows. People is smart enough to choose what they like. Look Google, eBay, Winamp, Kazaa, etc. They became successful by themselves without any artificial help."

Not always. It's fairly obvious that if you can include your own programs in your OS which is run on 95% of the world's desktop computers... then that is an unfair advantage. Unless the OS increases in price equal to the new program being inserted. As a very simply example, if Microsoft suddenly came out with WinXP SE which included Money 2003 at no extra charge... how many people will "choose" to use Quicken for instance? Not many I'd guess, and if you're in the business of writing software then it would be easy marketing your product when Microsoft can just release the latest version for free to 95% of the desktop market.

Here is one question that no one asks? What happens if JAVA causes a Security hole in the OS who do you blame? Sun or Microsoft? Microsoft has invested Millions of dollars evaluating security holes and fixing everyone that they considered to be a serious violation. Buffer Overruns were the number one item to be fixed. Still some will show up. NO OS IS PERFECT. But the Java installed may open up the OS so more security problems will occur in the OS.
The court decision has Sun providing it near the end of the development phase of the OS to install it. How can Microsoft make certain no new security holes will show up with the latest version of JAVA.
Because Sun demands that their product be installed on the CD what features do you want to remove to make room for the Java Program. CD space is limited so you force something to be installed on the CD you have to sometimes remove something to make room for that product. SO who really is the winner. Not the consumer. Cutting features to make room for Competitor software which could open the OS to even bigger problems.
This is a worse case scenario. But could not a delay in the final version of Java for a specific OS prevent proper testing and verification to release the OS on time. So here a competitor can demand delays in releasing someone elses product. Think of the nightmare that will cause if a week before shipping the OS to be manufactor site that they change the JAVA to be used for shipping. I can't give you any promise that it will be tested at all. Lots of problems can arise from this scenario.
Is it not a wonderful country that the courts not the manufacture of a product determines what you can and cannot ship. Even more interesting is the judges that make this kind of decision always support what ever cases where the Company from their state gets the proper judgement. Plus in this case the Judge was giving ideas on how to sue Microsoft to the Sun Lawyers. To prepare them for their next case.
Whats next. The Court telling you what can be in a car. What brand of Radio to put into the car? What Brand of Paint can be used? What Brand of Carpet to be used in the car? Are these not determined by the manufacturer? Why does Microsoft have to be told what to be on their CD's?
Is this not another ploy to have someone else publisher their software to minimize their own costs of making a CD. Let Microsoft pay for it. It helps our bottom line.

In some ways yes. However I program in Java and its an ok language. Nothing too fancy about it. Except the fact thats its cross platform. Its an average SLOW (emphasis on SLOW) compiler. Java applets however are benefital to the web.

"What happens if JAVA causes a Security hole in the OS who do you blame? Sun or Microsoft?"

99.9% of the time it will be the fault of whoever wrote the JVM. If it happens to be MS JVM then MS, and if it's Sun's JVM then Sun.

"But the Java installed may open up the OS so more security problems will occur in the OS."

How is it going to do that? Java code runs inside a sandbox, there are no buffer overruns to worry about... unless the JVM is buggy. So security issues like this one:

http://www.zdnet.com.au/...0024985,20270880,00.htm

Have have little to do with Java and a lot more to do with the implementation of the JVM.

"How can Microsoft make certain no new security holes will show up with the latest version of JAVA."

They can't... just like they can't make certain no new security holes will show up with their latest application/patch/service pack/whatever.

"CD space is limited so you force something to be installed on the CD you have to sometimes remove something.."

Have you seen what's on a windows CD? There's definetely more than enough room to add a few more things without pushing the capacity of the CD. And if you really need to get rid of something... start with the video's and crap like that.

"But could not a delay in the final version of Java for a specific OS prevent proper testing and verification to release the OS on time."

How so? If a particular JVM is not ready because it hasn't been tested then ship with the older version and once the new one is ready have it available via Windows Update as a critical update if you like.... bit like what MS did with the .NET Framework. Don't be so damn dramatic about these things.

"Is it not a wonderful country that the courts not the manufacture of a product determines what you can and cannot ship."

True, I do not agree with a company having to ship a competitor's product... but if it has abused the competitor in the past, if it continues to do so whilst pushing their own product through a market they have a monopoly in... then it's not so clear anymore.

neither was Netscape..."...let's cut it's air supply..." by Bill Gates...obviously he knew what denial of access was...

"neither was Netscape"

Nope. They weren't.

And if you go back and read the court documents, no one ever claimed that they were denied access.

"99.9% of the time it will be the fault of whoever wrote the JVM. If it happens to be MS JVM then MS, and if it's Sun's JVM then Sun."

Which, if the injunction is not held/overturned, will present a unique situation. Microsoft is being ordered to include code in it's OS that it is not responsible for and has no control over.

Microsoft has included code from other companies in the past (Flash, etc.) but Microsoft agreed in advance to accept support responsibility for problems bugs in those pieces may cause in the OS.

If Microsoft is forced to ship Sun's JVM, then they are left with a situation where a claen, out of the box OS install is not necessarily 100% supportable because it includes code that Microsoft has no control over, has not certified, and does not support. An interesting situation.

"Have you seen what's on a windows CD? There's definetely more than enough room to add a few more things without pushing the capacity of the CD. And if you really need to get rid of something... start with the video's and crap like that."

Cmon, if you're gonna start removing worthless things to save space there's always IE.

newsflash momo! its not microsofts call. its a court call. its basically saying "MS does not have the authority to kill java on its own, the death of java must be slow and painfull because MS has such an incredible head start with its marketshare."

People who use java are going to hate me for this mostly because I dont know .NET and largely because I'm not a Java Guru but anytime I have run a java applet on my computer with the recent release of the "monopoly fix" for win2k which allowed me to pick java over the ms jvm has resulted in a 2-4 second stall as java starts up its environment before any of my web pages open in the browser can be executed. Between Shockwave and .NET it is my "opinion" that you have a much more flexible and easy to develop solution than if you were to use java. Not to say that java doesnt have its place but because of the amazing power of flash and the newly revamped .NET I think its going to have tons more support than what java can muster.

Pro MS
Anti Java

"newsflash momo! its not microsofts call. its a court call."

Not according to Sun it isn't. Sun specifically allowed Microsoft the option to stop including java support in Windows as part of their previous court settlement with Microsoft. In addition, even if Microsoft wanted to continue shipping Windows with java support in it, Sun madatea=ed a date beyond which they would NOT be allowed to no matter what.

So basically Sun and Microsoft both agreed that Microsoft shipping ANY java support in Windows was optional. They both specifically signed a court settlement saying so.

But now we have a judge who feels differently and feels that the two companies shoudl not be allowed to make their own choices in how they do business. So he says that he will issue an injunction on the matter, despite the fact that it violates sever other laws to do so. That, combined with his apparent willingness to make blatant anti-Microsoft comments during the proceedings....comments that show both partiality and bias...pretty much guarantee that whatever actions he orders will be overturned by the appelate count and either reversed or sent back to trial again. (Gee, you'd think he would have learned from watching ANOTHER judge make the exact same mistakes. Of course, that judge is now more famous and has several offers for book and TV deals after he leaves the bench.....so maybe it's a case of justice and the law be damned....do something controversial even if it's overturned so you can get rich later)

"Edit: should be "would NOT have had to do in 1996."

Doesn't matter.

Back then Microsoft was commited to Java and would have stuck with it if SUn had been willing to let Microsoft make the extensions and optimizations that their customers wanted.

Sun chose not to allow it, which was well within their rights.

So Microsoft had no choice...if they wanted to give their customers what they were demanding, it would have to be with something other than Java.

Sun chose to put themselves into a competition role, rather than a partnership one.

Wow. That's impressive.

For someone posting with the subject line "Let's get the story straight" I am amazed that you managed to get pretty much EVERY fact wrong.

For verification of the facts, look upo the court documents....but a pretty good summary is at http://java.sun.com/lawsuit/

Now let's look at all the places you were wrong:
1. "Microsoft sign a deal with Sun to include Java. Microsoft wasn't allow to alter or modify the Sun Java standard according to the agreement. An app that was designed to run on Java would run on any platform with Java installed."

Wrong. Microsoft licensed Java from sun for a substantial yearly fee. They WERE allowed to modify and extend Java all they wanted, but they were not allowed to put the "Java compatible" logo on it.

2. "Microsoft took the orignal Java and modified it so there were now two Java standards. Now apps written to run on Micrsoft Java might not run at all on Sun Java or very poorly."

Wrong. They added platform specific extensions and optimizations. The MS JVM would still run all other Java applications, and developers that used the Microsoft JVM had the option to either write slower platform independant code, or fast platform specific code. Platform-independant code generated on the MS JVM did not perfom any more poorly on Sun Java than the same code generated natively there.

3. "Sun sued to make Microsoft remove the Microsoft version of Java since it isn't the orignal Sun Java standard."

Wrong. Sun sued as a civil action under the Federal Trademark Act (the "Lanham Act") of July 5, 1946, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051 et seq. They sued for financvial damages and for removal of the "Java Compatible" logo and trademarks from Microsoft's JVM.

In the settlement of that lawsuit (It was completely settled) The following were agreed to:
1. Microsoft payed Sun 20 million dollars. (paragraph 5)
2. Microsoft was allowed, but not required, to continue to distribute the MS JVM until January 2, 2008 (paragraph 6)
3. Microsoft was allowed to modify the MS JVM in order to patch critical security hols, but only until January 2, 2004 (any critical security holes found after that could NOT be fixed by Microsoft) (paragraph 6)
4. Both Sun and Microsoft were allowed to do continuing development based ont he technology, so long as it did not specifically violate any patents held by the other. (paragraph 15)
5. The contract between Sun and Microsoft was formally cancelled and declared null and void. (paragraph 3)
6. Both Sun and Microsoft agreed to dismiss all litigation and hold one another free from liability in connction with Java in all areas except for specifc violation of the antitrust act. (paragraph 17)
7. Either party could terminate the license for Microsoft to continue distributing the MS JVM on 30 days notice. Microsoft could do so for any reason, Sun could do so only for if Microsoft failed to honor the agreement. (Paragraphs 12,13,14)

So not only did Sun *not* sue to remove the Microsoft version of Java like you claim, they specifcally licensed and allowed (but did not require) Microsoft to continue using it.

4. "Then Sun sued agian to get Microsoft to put back the orignal Sun Java standard as per there deal in 1996."

Wrong. First of all, the contract was legally voided in the settlement on January 23, 2001....so there was no longer ANY agreement by Microsoft promising to include Java.
Sun sued to recover monetary damages they claimed as a result of Microsoft's violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. That was all. (Read the filing yourself)

5. "Clearly Microsoft is in breech of contract."

Wrong. ROFL. This is my favorite line of yours. The contract was legally voided on Jan 23, 2001 as part of the settlement and both Sun and Microsoft voided all future claims related to that contract......so how exactly is Microsoft in volation of it? But please, show us exactly what contract they are in breach of?

6. "All this was so that Microsoft could delay long enough to see if Java would be successful and to develop there own cross platform .NET"

Wrong. Let's assume that you're going to ignore the fact that Microsoft was not only *not* required to continue with Java support, but that they were only allowed to ship it until 2008, and only allowed to fix critical security issues until 2004 (any security issues found after that could NOT be fix per the agreement with Sun)
Even taking that into account....show us *any* evidence to back yuour claims.....any at all.

7. "So now Java will have to battle .NET, something it would have had to do in 1996."

WRONG. First of all, .NET didn't exist in 1996, so how could Java have battled .NET back then? Microsoft stated that they wanted Java to include the option of platform specific externsions and optimizations. If Sun had agreed, Java would not have had to battle anything, Microsoft would have stuck with it. Sun refused. Since Sun was not willing to allow Microsoft to give customers what they wanted by using Java.....Microsoft had to develop an alternative. (which Sun expressly granted them the right to do in paragraph 15 of the settlement)

So please, check your facts next time before posting....you'll look less foolish.
(It's pretty bad when you make a post in which you attempt to list the "facts" up until now, but didn't bother to check ANY of them first)

Wendor - i'm glad you're around to dig up all the facts in these issues. I find myself shaking my head when i know people have facts incorrect or have misconceptions about things - but i'm way too lazy to go find out specifics (like looking at the United States Code, etc) to point it out. Thank you for doing that - you've shown me quite a number of things i didn't know either.

It's no big deal.

People have accused me of thinking that I know everything. Of course I don't. But I usually do know where to find it and am always willing to learn.

I've learned a lot about these various issues because questions have come up and I've gone out and researched the answers.

The "automatic stay" discussed int his thread is a great example. I was pretty sure that a stay was automatic on appeal in this type of case, but couldn't remember why (probably from a discussion with lawyer friends about similar cases in the past)

So when I started to write a post here that included mention that a stay of the injuction would be automatic, I called one of those friends and double checked....sure enough he confirmed that a stay was automatic.....and I went ahead and posted it.

Then a couple of different people challenged that and insisted that a stay was not automatic. That prompted me to find out "Why is a stay automatic", "Where does it actually say so". Search engines are a real blessing in these types of cases, and with less than an hour's research I had all the citations and info I needed. I made one more quick call to some lawyer friends to confirm that there wasn't something I was overlooking and I went ahead a posted the citations/links. (Notice that I did not ask them to research it for me...that would have been askign a bit much....but if I do the research, they're always happy to check my work and let me know if I missed something important)

I try to always check my facts before posting......and if they involve the law I try to check them AND run it past a lawyer first.

Probably more work than most people would want to put into it.....but I've always found researching things to be fun.

First Sun takes MS to court and makes them put an older version of JVM in, then they go back to court and say MS is using an old version of the JVM and would you please make them distribute our JVM with Windows. I really don't understand why people have a problem picking which JVM they want it is just a matter of going to Sun's site and downloading it.

Up until reading a lot of the comments below, I didn't realise how silly, sensitive and childish a lot of Americans could be.
It seems to me that they are blindly beating the U.S. drum simply through blind loyalty. While there is nothing wrong with being patriotic it must also be tempered with a little common sense and the abilty to question information which is dished out. Blind loyalty allowed Hitler to become leader of Germany, Sadam to lead Iraq and now whats happening in North Korea.
America should look at other countries who have tried to be the World's policeman and see how disatrous it turned out for them. Being the World's policeman, at the end of the day, succeeds in making nothing but more and more enemies, until the house of cards falls!
Some of the contributors really should move in to adult hood. Please understand that Microsoft have not succeeded in brainwashing the intelligent!

Does this ridiculous diatribe on international politics have ANYTHING to do with either Sun or Microsoft or the court case in question?

He also makes stupid (and inaccurate) claims...
Hitler and Saddam didn't rule their countries because their populations were full of dumb people that blindly followed their leaders - they just killed all the people that disagreed... (generalization in Germany, pretty accurate in Iraq - look at the election process)
Being the world's policemen, one would think, should make enemies only wiht the bad guys. One wonders why trying to help out makes enemies with "good guys" like he sort of implies (i may be wrong there...).
Us Americans could just as easily (if not moreso) go off on a diatribe about how ridiculously retarded foreigners are on their views about us... But we don't. So why the heck did this guy think he could post in a Sun/Microsoft debate about this? Ugh...

Microsoft deserves this ruling. They have used their Windows monopoly to bury most of their competitors, and this ruling is good to even the playing field.

Unfortunately, I am afraid of the precedent this lawsuit sets, more than anything else. What's going to stop Real, IBM, Oracle, etc... or anyone else with a good OR bad product from forcing Microsoft to include their apps?

I think this lawsuit is dangerous, but also fair at the same time. Microsoft needs their butts kicked, and this lawsuit does it. What will be interesting, assuming the appeals courts don't take any money, is the new direction .NOT will take. Microsoft may soon be porting it to Linux, and playing in the multi-OS game. I don't see how the inclusion of Java will hurt anything, it should make things significantly better. The precedent of the ruling, however, could make things very much worse.

NOTE: I can now see the pathetic Real Scheduler part of the native OS install **shivers**!! :)

"Microsoft deserves this ruling."

No, this is not a ruling that I'd support. IMHO, they deserve to be broken up and to have their OS taken away from them for their abusive behavior past and present.

"What will be interesting, assuming the appeals courts don't take any money, is the new direction .NOT will take. Microsoft may soon be porting it to Linux, and playing in the multi-OS game."

Uh, why do you think that multi-platform support for .NET will be affected in any way at all by this ruling? It was announced a long time ago and Microsoft has already turned siginificant portions of .NET over to independant intertnational standards bodies so that ANYONE can work on cross-platform .NET support.

All this over a Plug-in.

I always told you guys that .Not would never happen. M$ has attempted to extend .Not by placing components in Windows while denying others the right to compete. This Judge has finally told these bas****s to stop it. If Java has its flaws let it lose through competition, not by M$ denying them access to Windows. Remember, you may not use a monopoly position to leverage yourself to another. Java will work with Linux, Unix, Macs and now even Windows.

"Java will work with Linux, Unix, Macs and now even Windows."

And so can .NET

There is one key difference though......Microsoft has turned control of the underlyign architecture of .NET over to an independant international standards body.

Sun refused to do so and insisted that they, and only they, retain exclusive control of Java.

You're right there is a difference. Java CURRENTLY works with Unix, Linux, Macs and Windows... .NET CURRENTLY only really works with Windows and small parts work on Linux thanks to the Mono and dotGNU projects.

Finally, Microsoft has only submitted certain parts of .NET to the standards body. This really makes it as open as Java is with the JCP.

"Finally, Microsoft has only submitted certain parts of .NET to the standards body."

As opposed to Sun, who has refused to turn ANY of Java over to any independant international standards body.

"not by M$ denying them access to Windows."

Thats the dumbest comment i've heard in a long time
thats like saying Windows killed netscape cos it wasnt included with windows, you can still download sun java if you want, windows xp is shipping with no java at all
not microsofts, not Suns,
so when you come to a page that requires java, you have to download a version, which version is purely up to you

All Sun is, is just jealous of what MS has, because they want EXACTLY the same thing as MS, to dominate all desktops , to have their software on every single pc running.

i prefer Windows java anyway, runs alot faster
suns java just eats resources

hey guys wake up, smell the coffee...M$ needs to transfer itself from a software company into a .Not co...regardless of what you think, Linux/GNU will eventually kill M$...its only a matter of time before big company's go for the cheapest alternative that's just a step behind...that's how M$ made its money...what really pisses me off is that their claim to make Windows products better is to kill all competition...trust me, I know what Sun is capable of but there is nothing like M$...

An interesting opinion.....but do you have any facts to back it up?

What, besides religious fervor, makes you so certain that "Linux/GNU will eventually kill M$"???

I ask mainly because some of your other statements have been somewhat fallacious.

"M$ has attempted to extend .Not by placing components in Windows while denying others the right to compete." - Sun's Java engine was freely downloadable and usable by anone who wanted it. So Sun was not "denied the right to compete"

"If Java has its flaws let it lose through competition, not by M$ denying them access to Windows." - Sun and Java were never "denied access to Windows". You can (and probably have) download and install Sun's Java engine with noi probelms whatsoever.

"i prefer Windows java anyway, runs alot faster
suns java just eats resources"

Just incase you want to test out that FUD you just mentioned, go download 1.4 with the JIT compiler and let us know how apparently "slow" Java is. Please get with the times and stop spreading FUD about Java as if it hadn't changed since 1.1! That's as bad as the people who continually compare Linux to Windows 98!

"Just incase you want to test out that FUD you just mentioned, go download 1.4 with the JIT compiler and let us know how apparently "slow" Java is."

Ah, not a real comparison then since Sun has gotten court verdicts prventing Microsoft from updating their JVM to anything more recent than 1.1

In a head to head comparision between Sun's 1.1 and Microsoft's 1.1 there was no comparision. Sun's code was pathetically slow in comparison.

Since up until the original verdict Microsoft was able to consistently produce a JVM that radically outperformed Sun's.....I'll stick with the assumption that, had Sun not sued to prvent Microsoft from updating their JVM, Microsoft's JVM would still run circles around Sun's.

I'll also stick with the observable and testable fact that right now Microsoft's 1.1 JVM still runs faster than Sun's 1.4

1. $$$ is what will kill Windows, at some point people will realize that Windows is just to expensive to license - the software is expensive, the hardware requirements are gettting more expensive plus its infrastructure is also expensive - all that for an unsecured and generally unreliable software. Additionally corp people are realizing just what it feels to have ur nuts in a nutcracker i.e. Office licensing - and finally u r getting alot of crap u really don't want or even need! (My opinion is that by adding more they have made it worse!)

2. Just download Java? Why not be forced to download .Not? why leverage an exisiting monopology to create another? That's a no-no.

3. They were denied access, didn't u get the "this software is not compatible with Windows XP" error message when u tried to download it?

1. Perhaps. But history shows otherwise. Products that are successful are not usually the ones that cost the least or even the ones that are the "best". They are usually the ones that are marketed the best.

2. "Why not be forced to download .Not?" You already are. No Microsoft OS you can buy has .NET already built into it. If you want to use it you have to go and download it, just like with Java.

So that answers my question. Thanks.

You insistance that "Linux/GNU will eventually kill M$" is pure speculation and opinion. I was wondering if you had and facts to back your theory. (Since market history shows the exact opposite)

And when you throw point #2 (and #3 below) in, it also seems to indicate that you're very, very confused.

3. No. They were not denied access. Sun's JRE downloads and installs without any problem (the process is even automatic) on every Windows OS that Sun says it will. I've installed it on dozens of XP machines without ever seeing the error message you claim.

So I suspect that either you got very confused and tried to install the Mac or Solaris version by mistake.....or your system is horribly broken.

Try reading:
http://java.sun.com/getjava/manual.html
to start with.

So it looks like Sun was denied access to Windows....sort of. They were denied access to YOUR Windows machine BY YOU.

Your assumptions and extrapolations are just that. There's no point arguing about "what if's".

Wether Sun's 1.1 JVM was slow or not wasn't my original point. My point was that I am quite sick and tired of hearing the same re-hashed FUD come from people who in a lot of cases don't do a hell of a lot with java if anything at all. So, like I said before, if your of the opinion that java is slow, give 1.4 a go with the JIT compiler or to really shatter that opinion of yours use IBM's JVM and compiler. Then come back and make a valid opinion on the current version of Java not 1.1.

i guess they wanted to sue M$...lol...
hey what is the market share for Linux in servers? in desktop?
when LongHorn comes through with Palladium won't u require new hardware?
the error message was from M$, I checked my logs...
marketing can only do so much, especially when u begin to license products the way M$ is doing i.e. Office
finally...doesn't XP have .Not framwork already built in...please check

"the error message was from M$, I checked my logs..."
- Maybe it did, but that message should not show up for Sun's JRE for Windows if you got the proper download, and it does not show up on my system - so something is wrong with your system or your download.

"marketing can only do so much, especially when u begin to license products the way M$ is doing i.e. Office"
- This I do agree with. MS software costs a lot! They may push it too far and make their software impossible to attain for some budgets.

"finally...doesn't XP have .Not framwork already built in...please check "
- No it does not! If you ever bothered to install anything that requires the .NET framework on XP without installing the framework first you would find out... e.g. Visual Studio .NET

"Wether Sun's 1.1 JVM was slow or not wasn't my original point."

Well it was mine. My point was that Microsoft had no choice but to make platform specific optimizations to overcome the pathetic speed thet platform independant Java was showing.

"My point was that I am quite sick and tired of hearing the same re-hashed FUD come from people who in a lot of cases don't do a hell of a lot with java if anything at all. So, like I said before, if your of the opinion that java is slow, give 1.4 a go with the JIT compiler or to really shatter that opinion of yours use IBM's JVM and compiler. Then come back and make a valid opinion on the current version of Java not 1.1."

Ok, done that and done that.

Java (both of the above) is still slow compared to almost any platfoprm specific solution. It always will be due to the very nature of the beast.

So yes, java is slow.

(Maybe not as slow as it used to be....but still too slow)

"when LongHorn comes through with Palladium won't u require new hardware?"

No.

"finally...doesn't XP have .Not framwork already built in...please check"

No. It does not.

"the error message was from M$, I checked my logs..."

And like I said, the two most likely causes are serious problems with your system or that you are trying to install the wrong version for the wrong OS. User error,not Microsoft, in both cases.

"hey what is the market share for Linux in servers?"

Extremely small.

"... in desktop?"

And yet even smaller.

Sun complains about Microsoft including Java, MS takes out java. Sun complains about Java not being included with MS operating systems, MS has to put back Java. Go US court system!

This is what I meant about silly Americans - their court system and the such. In case the person who wrote that reply do not understand paragraph structure - the topic sentence was "That judge has to be a simpleton". I did not say that Sun or Microsoft was silly in the paragraph; so toekneec67 - you go get it right.

You show your ignorance by NOT understanding the original
'problem' that M$ was COMPLETELY guilty of!

M$ modified, years ago the JVM that they offered for use on
their OS's such that the Java programs created using it
would NOT run on any other platform!

NOW, M$ must use a 'compliant' to Java standards JVM such
that a program written on a another OS can run on the
M$ OS!!

M$ BROKE the agreement first, as always, to better get
YOUR money!

Now do you understand the import of the court's ruling?!!

"NOW, M$ must use a 'compliant' to Java standards JVM such
that a program written on a another OS can run on the
M$ OS!!"

Any Java 1.1 program written on any other JVM will also run on MS' JVM. This was never the issue. The issue is what you mentioned in your earlier paragraph, that a Java 1.1 program writen to run on MS' JVM may or may not run on any other JVM depending on wether or not the developer used any of MS' extensions which were for windows only. If was perfectly easy to write code using J++ that would run on any JVM, you just had to avoid MS extensions.

"Now do you understand the import of the court's ruling?!!"

No, this is still something that I'm not sure about. The original agreement MS had with Sun, like you said, they broke, got sued and lost. The agreement was over and the punishment resulting from that case was a new agreement saying that MS couldn't make any further changes to their JVM and had to instead either include Sun's JVM OR not include any JVM, although they could keep their current one for 7 years. Corrt me here if I've missed anything or misrepresented anything.

To tht agreement, MS though fine, we're not going to include a JVM which at that time was far slower than theirs and one that they had no control over whatsoever. So they chose the option to not include java but support it for 7 years. This is why Windows XP originally came out with no JVM. Then they decided to include their JVM (for whatever reason) but this was still in their allowable 7 years based on the new agreement.

Now Sun has gone and sued MS and somehow MS has to include Sun's JVM (which was the option MS decided not to take in the 2nd argeement). This is what I don't understand.... the original point of MS 'breaking' the Java paradigm "Write Once, Run Anywhere" is irrelevant - that case had already been won by Sun.

"This is what I can't believe about Americans". What a stupid, simplistic and arrogant statement. You know nothing about the US legal system, you've seen none of the court breifs on this case and yet you form opinions with little to no knowledge.

"This is what's wrong with those who exist to simply try to detract from America".

Go read the breifs and when you're finished perhaps you'll have adequate information to form an opinion. Until you do so, please keep your anti-American bigotry to yourself.

Where did you get your quotes from? I did not write those things as an response to this article. In fact no one else did either - except for you in your "quotes". If those quotes are from another source and are supposed to prove your point then please enlighten us about their source.

FYI, I have freedom of expression and I can express my opinions about Americans all I want.

PS Regarding your request for me to "please keep [my] anti-American bigotry to [myself]" - you are saying that I am a bigot - HoLy_SpRt please note that "Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated."

The best thing microsoft can do is deliver a windows version without any JAVA support.

If I want FLASH or other software I have to download this.

If I want to use JAVA SUN has to deliver this as download in the internet and if they want money most users will not use java anymore.

M$ should also include a fully functioning operating
system, that does not crash randomly, and which you can
'kill' a runaway process when you need to kill it, NOT
when 'the moon is full and the OS feels like giving you
access to the runaway process'!!

XP is the best OS from M$ yet but there is NO reason to
put in a 4 digit year as the OS will NEVER be up long before
rebooting is necessary!!

4 digit year... do you know ANY os that will last 1000 years without having to be rebooted? Especially given that computers haven't been around 1000 years yet. Don't you think that hardware failure will cause the box to have to be rebooted? Whilst that isn't the OS fault, the point is that the box will still have to be rebooted.

My point about all of this. If you're having random crashes and constant reboots - stop using Windows 98, and unless you're running an enterprise server at home, I think XP will be just fine.

Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.x and up include the Flash plug-in. That is why something like 95% of desktops can run Flash. If Microsoft succeed in the rumoured takeover of Macromedia than it is certain that Flash will be become a core component for the Windows OS as Flash/Shockwave fixes a big hole in Microsoft technologies. If you contract in to the Windows platform then you contract in to Microsoft's way of doing things (read your last update EULA) including Flash and other client installation (or removal) as Microsoft sees fit. Microsoft's end user net vision is epitomised by msn8, .Net Platinum and the RIAA i.e. as a content delivery system / .Net terminal. Myself I like Flash a lot when it is correctly used and hope Macromedia stay independent - but feel it unlikely given their financial situation. Macromedia are also heavily involved with Java development. If the court decision stands then this I guess would continue post a MS takeover, otherwise not. Please check your facts before posting.

"The best thing microsoft can do is deliver a windows version without any JAVA support."

They did. It was called Windows XP.

Unfortunately, Sun doesn't want you to have that choice anymore.

But perhaps we have some insights into Sun's motives......

If things continue as they are now, anyone using Windows who wants Java support can go and download it from Sun for free. Sun gets no money, and has the costs of the web page and the download bandwidth. Pretty much the only revenue that Sun gets in connection to Java is from their "developer tools" division....which Sun has been quoted as saying represents only 1% to 1.5% of their revenue.

If Sun gets what they are asking for, consumers get no choice and are forced to take Java. But wait....there's more. Microsoft ifs forced to pay millions of dollars in fees to Sun for the "right" to distribute what Sun already makes available to consumers for free. And Sun has no distribution costs whatsoever....Microsoft shoulders the entire burden.

So maybe it's all about short term profit after all.....Sun getting a judge to order Microsoft to pay them millions of dollars for something that Sun was already giving away for free.

"If Microsoft succeed in the rumoured takeover of Macromedia than it is certain that Flash will be become a core component for the Windows OS as Flash/Shockwave fixes a big hole in Microsoft technologies."

Why? and What?

Why on earth would Microsoft want to make Flash a core OS component?

And exactly what do you see as this "big hole" in Microsoft technologies that Flash/Shockwave fixes?

Maybe I'm missing something, but considering the number of major corporations that function quite well with Windows (and even make heavy use of Web enabled apps/technologies) yet block Flash/Shockwave plugins in their system policies, I fail to see the "big hole" in the technologies.

My Windows XP has not crashed yet. But some software did and I agree that Microsoft ought to make it possible to stop runaway processes more often than once in a blue moon.

LMAO, JUSTICE.... serves M$ right justice for the daddy of Java Sun Microsystems. Made my year this news:)

Merry Christmas EVERYONE!

-Aitvo aka Fewt

Merry Christmas Everyone!
Have a great break!

Fewt?!?! When did you make a comeback? Welcome back, I look forward to disagreeing with you. :-) Happy Holidays!

uhhh

on December 24th, 2002 at 4:54PM ET

HAHA! ;-)

Microsoft and Sun are ran by people all over the world. Not just native born Americans. Are you stupid? Just because a headquarters is located here doesn't mean they only hire Americans. So if they have people from all nationalities working for them (all the way to management), then it's Stupid Humans :) Get it right :)

Incorrect statement....

There's not a person on the M$ board of directors that is not an American citizen. While I can't say this with certianty about Sun I'm confident that at least 80% of the board are Americans.
God I hate it when people try to make up facts to suit the way they wished the world was.

That judge has to be a simpleton; Sun is clearly plain greedy - they want to have their cake and eat it too. Microsoft is supposed to dump its JVM and still support Java? In case they did not notice - Windows XP SP1 has Java support! If they really want to ensure that the public gets their "latest and greatest" Java runtime then they should spend the money to do "public awareness" ads and mail CDs to people like AOL does. Poor Mr. Gates; he should move his headquarters somewhere else, and dump his money in banks overseas. The States clearly do not appreciate his bussiness.

Perhaps Sun didn't like the idea that M$ first bas****ized a cross platform language and then when M$ lost the patent infringement suit they decided to kill the language by dropping any support for it.

1. Microsoft wanted to destroy the cross-platform functionality.
2. When ordered by the courts to stop bas****izing Java they decided to kill it by dropping any support for it.
3. The courts determind that M$ once again used it's monopoly status in a predatory manner to effectively eliminate competition.

"1. Microsoft wanted to destroy the cross-platform functionality."

So you, and Sun, claim. Microsoft ont he other hand says that they wanted to take a cumbersone, impossibly slow product and add extensions and optimizations to it so that it would be both useful, and usably fast on Windows systems. The Microsoft JVM still ran ALL other Java code perfectly. At least until Sun added extensions that Microsoft was not alloed to include in the Microsoft JVM.... AT SUN'S REQUEST AND ENFORCED BY A COURT ORDER.

So the only party that EVER interfered with the ability of Windows platforms to run Java code....was Sun.

As for Java code developed on Microsoft's JVM, developers had the CHOICE of whether they wanted to write Java code that was cross platform compatible....or that would be Windows only.

Gee, are we seeing a common thread here?
Microsoft allows developers to choose for themselves whether to write platform specific or platform independant code. Sun wants to remove that right to choose and force all developers to write slower platform independant code following a set of "standards" that Sunb, and only Sun, has control over.

"2. When ordered by the courts to stop bas****izing Java they decided to kill it by dropping any support for it."

You mean the settlement agreement written and proposed by Sun that pevented Microsoft from including or using any of the new extensions that Sun made to Java? The one in which Sun proposed two choices? Pay Sun a crapload of money for the right to still include Java support....or stop including any Java support at all? The one proposed by Sun that SPECIFICALLY gave Microsoft the option to drop all Java support from the OS?

"3. The courts determind that M$ once again used it's monopoly status in a predatory manner to effectively eliminate competition."

ROFL. No. They haven't.

ONE judge (not "the courts") has stated that he will isue an initial injuction on this matter. He has made no rulings on the case or filed any judgements whatsoever.

Here's my problem with this whole scenario. The assumption is that MS damaged companies through it's practices. This allows any company that wants to to point at MS as the culprit to explain their problems. Netscape, SUN, ORACLE, IBM, et al hop on the bandwagon and try to blame all sorts of woes on MS's preditory business practices. My thought is that these companies did more damage to themselves than MS ever did.

Now that's not letting MS off the hook for their behavior, but we also need to hold the individual companies accountable for their own wrong doing.

For four almost 5 years now SUN has had an opportunity to move forward with Java, make partnerships, find distribution channels, etc. Most of these last few years they've been squabling with the community, the standards groups, and other companies that they should be partnering with. They knew in 98 that MS wasn't going to shell out the cash to ship a newer JVM and yet they did virtually nothing to rectify that problem. Every decision that MS has made over the past few years SUN has reacted to... poorly, slowly, and inaddequately. It's this constant reactionary business methodology that's getting SUN into trouble. Instead of REACTING they should be PROACTIVE, addressing problems as they foresee them not after they have occurred.

But as usual the 'justice' system comes to the rescue of any company willing to throw some lawyers into the mix to help generate some revenue. 10 billion dollars, that's one quarter of the wealth Gates has accumulated. Could MS really have done that much damage to SUN by not shipping a JVM.

Here's the other rub. Quite a few other companies pay MS for product placement within the OS, yet in this case SUN gets to reverse that and force MS to pay to ship their JVM. Should the judge force MS to put the product into the OS but then allow MS to charge SUN for the product placement? If this were allowed MS could nullify any licensing charges that SUN threw at them. How many other companies might go to court in order to charge MS for "licensing" their technology? AOL maybe (netscape, aim, aol, icq, winamp)?

STUPID STUPID STUPID...

That's ONE BILLION... NOT TEN, I misread. Ignore that part.

"My thought is that these companies did more damage to themselves than MS ever did.

Now that's not letting MS off the hook for their behavior, but we also need to hold the individual companies accountable for their own wrong doing."

I agree 100%.

That's the hardest part with these types of cases. Especially when it comes to determining what a fair awards and penalties are.

If a company that Microsoft used illegal tactics against fails.....how much of their failure is because of Microsoft and how much is because of other problems they had? (inferior product, mismanagement, poor marketing choices, etc.)

Basically, how much of the damage is Microsoft responsible for?

Company X (Sun, Netscape, etc.) calls "business experts" as witnesses to claim that they would have been THIS successful and made THAT amount of money if it weren't for Microsoft, and Microsoft calls their own "business experts" as witnesses to say that Company X had other problems and would only be THAT successful and have made THIS amoutn of money...or even have failed completely.

The judge has to decide which one to believe. A hard proposition since both are basically playing fortuneteller and both sides can shop around until they find a fortuneteller whose predictions are most favorable to them.

One solution I saw suggested once has some merits (has a lot of flaws too, but might be a start) is for the judge to not award all of the damages claimed for "loss of business"....but enough so that Company X can make a fair attempt to compete. Enough that they can be "as competitive as they were before Microsoft started harmign them illegally". Stop any current illegal practices that Microsoft is using against that company.

Then declare a "trial period". Let Company X start competing against Microsoft again. Assign independant monitors to verify that Microsoft is no longer harming them illegally and to oversee Company X's assets.

If Company X grows and is successful, then it is pretty clear that most of the harm was because of Microsoft and the judge should increase the award.

If Company X does poorly or begins to fail, then it is pretty clear that it was not Microsoft's fault and the judge should order Company X to repay some or all of the original award that was used to make them "as competitive as they were before Microsoft harmed them"

The independant monitor on Company X's assets is necessary to ensure that, if they start to fail, the process is stopped while they still have some assets to use to repay the award.

Does this involve the goverment becoming WAY more involved in business that I think they should? Yes. But trying to "relevel the playing field" as part of an antitrust penalty is as well. So if they're going to do it....at least do it in an equitable manner. Because the current solutions require a judge to decide "what might have been" and estimate how profitable (or not) Company X would have been had Microsoft not broken the law.

It's no different than if I was injured in an accident and sued the person at fault. If I can't work anymore it's not hard to show what my loss of income was and estimate what my earnigns would have been if it weren't for the accident. But in antitrust cases it isn't based on past on "pre-injury" earnings and figures. They're basing it on hypothetical market response and growth. Kind of like if I claimed "If it weren't for the accident I might have gone to the store and bought a lottery ticket and might have won millions of dollars, or I might have come up with a great invention and made millions of dollars". In a personal suit those kinds of scenarios would be laughed out of the courtroom. But in antitrust cases that's exactly what they deal with.....hypothetical scenarios of how Company X MIGHT have grown, and market share they MIGHT have gotten, and profits they MIGHT have made.

Would you mind naming some of those companies that pay M$ for placement in Windows?

At various times:

AOL
Compuserve
Executive Software
McAfee
Norton
and so on.....

Microsoft has been proved to be a monopoly in court. Under US Law it is not illegal to have a monopoly. It IS illegal to use a monopoly in one business to leverage another market. This exactly what Microsoft are trying to do - lverage a monopoly in desktop systems. Thus the judge is simply following the law. He has made an injunction that Microsoft ship Sun's JRE NOW because otherwise any court decision will be after the bad deed is done, bringing the law into disrepute as non effective. Again he is just following legal precedent - and upholding the US constitution! The chances of this decision being overturned are remote. Microsoft will flamflam and attempt delay and obfuscation but they will have to comply in the near future. Complying may be both painful and expensive. In order to fully comply the JRE 1.4.1 installation would not only have to install but also remove Microsoft's JVM 1.1, making J++ toast. Microsoft may well have to pull product in channel and remaster XP. They will either have to ship the current Sun JRE or negotiate a fresh contract to ship a compliant version of their own. Yes, it For the end users and ISVs it means some chance of true competiion has returned. Bravo !!!

This is so wrong.....

Sun sued Microsoft prior to have Microsoft's Java VM removed from the OS since Microsoft did not want to continue the current contract and pay for the licensing of Java from Sun. So Microsoft complied by removing the Java engine.
Now Sun is sueing again to have Microsoft put their Java in back in the OS. Basically forcing Microsoft to buy Sun's product and incorporate it in the OS. How wrong is that?

Basically Sun said either pay for it or take it out, so Microsoft opted to take it out. Now Sun relises with out the Java VM in the OS most people can not view Java based websites, including their own.

In 1998 SUN and MS had a settlement agreement effectively ending the lawsuit SUN brought against MS. The agreement stated that any past contracts in regards to Java between the two companies were terminated.

MS was dissallowed from using the Java compatible trademark. MS was ALLOWED to ship any existing products that used Java. This was allowed on a term of 7 years from the settlement date and in return for $20,000,000. MS was also given the OPTION of shipping new JVM products licensed from SUN as long as the new products met SUN's compatability testing.

Additionally as agreements often do, the agreement included a clause that SUN would not make anymore suits in related to this issue. Of course SUN's not suing DIRECTLY related to this issue but one can see that the new suit is really going against the spirit of that agreement.

MS decided against pursuing the new JVM option. Then with Java not really progressing on the client side MS decides to unbundle the outdated 1.1 JVM (4 years into the agreement). Remember carrying the JVM was not a requirement of the settlement, it was an option, allowed - not required.

"He has made an injunction that Microsoft ship Sun's JRE NOW because otherwise any court decision will be after the bad deed is done, bringing the law into disrepute as non effective."

Unfortunately, because he did not address the licensing fee Sun has stated they will charge Microsoft for this, his ruling itself violates and contradicts other US laws and is unenforcable (Microsoft is guaranteed by law an automatic stay of the order as soon as they file a motion to appeal)

"Again he is just following legal precedent - and upholding the US constitution!"

ROFL. Oh please, enlighten us.....show us the antitrust clauses in the Constitution.

Please, do yourself a favor. Go READ the US Constitution before you embarass yourself further (like fewt used to do all the time) by misstating or misquoting what important laws or documents state.

"The chances of this decision being overturned are remote."

Actually, since the judge failed to address licensing fees that Sun has stated they will charge Microsoft, it is almost 100% guaranteed to be overturned. The only two things that could save it would be Sun reversing their position on licensing fees or Microsoft choosing to not appeal it.

"Microsoft will flamflam and attempt delay and obfuscation but they will have to comply in the near future."

Nope. US law guarantees them an automatic stay of the order the minute they file their appeal.

"Yes, it For the end users and ISVs it means some chance of true competiion has returned. Bravo !!!"

Oh yeah....right. ROFL.
Why should consumers be left with a choice after all?
Right now consumers and end users can choose what they want:
1. Download and install Sun's java code.
2. Download and install Microsoft's JVM code.
3. Don't download and install either one.
4. Download and install the .NET framework and components.
5. Don't downlaod and install the .NET stuff.
Funny how your definition of "true competition" involves consumers being forced to take Sun's code. But hey, maybe that's what "true competition" means now. Screw choice, force consumers to take an inferior product whether they want it or not so that Sun doesn't have to deal with the repercussions of their own design flaws. (For most Windows users, the group affected by this ruling, .NET is a superior product to Java)

Yup. That's a pretty fair and accurate summary of the facts.

Many will argue (and they're probably right) that Sun violating the spirit of the settlement and suing Microsoft agian after agreeing that things were settled and no more suits would follow is no worse than Microsoft violating their agreements with Sun.

The key thing that still makes me laugh (and makes me sad that the judge actually fell for it) is that not including any form of Java whatsoever in the OS was one of the options that Sun offered to Microsoft.....and now they're complaining that Microsofty unfairly damaged them by doing so!

Basically Sun says "Do either A or B and we'll be happy with whichever one you pick" and then comes running back later saying "It's not fair that they chose B....make them choose A instead" If option B (not including Java at all in the OS) was so unfair to Sun and will cause them so much harm.....why did Sun specifically offer it as an option and say that it was acceptable to them in the settlement of the previous suit?

"4. Download and install the .NET framework and components.
5. Don't downlaod and install the .NET stuff."

I see you haven't installed any of Microsoft's latest software yet. All of the new stuff has .NET bolted to it, you don't have a choice but to live with it.

4 years ago Sun thought Java was about to rule the internet world. It was supposed to be cross platform compatible and run on those new-fangled "network appliances". Sun never thought Microsoft would take Option B (ie: Not using Java at all.) The object was to make MS stop modifying java for windows platforms. MS did the unexpected and that is really what Sun is suing for. Strange world.

" I see you haven't installed any of Microsoft's latest software yet. All of the new stuff has .NET bolted to it, you don't have a choice but to live with it."

Ah, but the OS does not.

Sure there are applications that require it and have it bundled with them, but that's no different than buying apps from Sun that require Sun Java support and have it bundled with them.

So yes, I still have the choice. If I don't want .NET I don't buy those MS apps. If I don't want Sun Java, I don't buy those Sun apps.

What the judge (and Sun) are asking for is to have consumer choice taken away. Sun's Java would be automatically installed as part of the OS whether consumers want it or not.

So basically (if I read your post correctly) Sun is suing Microsoft because:

1. Sun incorrectly predicted the demand for their own product.

2. Sun offered as a settlement option, a scenario that was unacceptable to them (despite the fact that they're the ones who wrote the settlement proposal)

So you are saying that Windows .NET won't have .NET bolted to it? LOL!

Right. Sun's predictions of Java's success were based upon Microsoft's adoption of Java. It was a gamble they lost and now must sue to recover damages. Microsoft did hurt java by not including it. But is that anti-competitive? Should MS have to pay for Sun's assumptions?

Wasn't the .NET Framework flagged as a 'Critical Updates and Service Packs' item under Windows Update?

"Microsoft did hurt java by not including it. But is that anti-competitive? Should MS have to pay for Sun's assumptions?"

Very good questions. Sun didn't need MS support to get Java on the server side and it has flourished there. But for Java to be popular on the client-side it really needed the backing of Microsoft, having the support of the Mac and Linux population no matter how great is fairly insignificant to the number of Windows users. Now this isn't to say that Microsoft alone killed Java on the client-side, Sun didn't do a hell of a lot to help themselves there, but Microsoft did their best =)

Note that everyone re-writing their webpages and making everything a java applet when everyone was on a 28.8k modem didn't help it either =) It's a bit like those Flash pages you see these days. Not a page with SOME Flash on it...a page completely made up of FLASH!

It was not originally an issue of license fees. Please do not rewrite history. The original complaint was that M$ wrote code into Java that would not run on other operating systems. The entire idea of the Java language was cross-platform functionality. M$ doesn't like other platforms so they did what they thought they could to take care of the "problem" in Java.

M$ did the same thing over and over again with browser functions. Rather than stay within the standards that M$ helped to create, they broke their agreement with the standards committee to create proprietary browser code which assured crippled functionality in competing browsers.

This has been the M.O. of Microsoft for years. I'm honestly amazed that so many of you are blind to these tactics. You'd think you're all major stock holders in the company (for what it's worth, I live very, very close to M$ and own a fair amount of stock. Perhaps I live and work too close.)

But it it PART of the OS that you have no choice but to take? No.

"Please do not rewrite history."

Please take you own advice.

"The entire idea of the Java language was cross-platform functionality. M$ doesn't like other platforms so they did what they thought they could to take care of the "problem" in Java."

Not true. Microsoft took Java, a clunky, limited system that was unusably slow and both optimized it so that it would be at leats usable on Windows as well as extending it so that developers could do useful things with it.

Any developer who wanted to could still write 100% platform independant java code....Microsoft just gave them the option of writing fast code capable of doing more things as well.....they could still choose either.

I never said that it was forced on me or that it was part of the OS... Then again it hardly falls under 'Critical Updates and Service Packs'. But as Microsoft, you and I all know, the majority of users are likely to install everything listed in the 'critical' section - in fact, when you log onto Windows Update and you hit the scan button, it automatically has all the items in the 'Critical Updates and Service Packs' section selected for you. If would be then up to the user to go through and unselect the .NET Framework.

Why is Java clunky and limited?

"Why is Java clunky and limited?"

That's a good question.....ask Sun.

But seriously, at the time in question (up through Java 1.1) it had a number of problems.

1. Slow - The cross platform support requirement prevented the implementation of an OS specific optimizations. This made for a large number of complaints, on all platforms, of how slow Java was. Pretty much any and every OS specific alternative to Java ran circles around it when it came to speed. Microsoft addressed this limitation by allowing developers the choice of the original slower platform independant functions, or Windows platform specific functions that were several times faster. This, in itself, was not a breach of the contract between Sun and Microsoft. MS was allowed to make extensions to Java, even ones that broke "write once, run anywhere". What got MS into trouble (see relevant Sun V. Microsoft ruling) was that Microsoft continued to use the Sun logos and slogans to refer to the MS JVM despite the fact that it no longer met Sun's criteria for those.

2. Clunky - Java was often difficult for developers used to the Windoes architecture to adjust to. Sun chose, for obvious reasons, to not use "Windows-centric" terms, architectures, and concepts for Java. Unfortunately that meant that Sun was telling a significant percentage of developers out there "we don't care what's easier for you.....you should just change and learn to do it our way". Microsoft addressed this limitation by trying to rename and rearrage things to fit more into models the developers were already comfortable with. (Personally, I think MS did a piss-poor job on this area though.....something they've tried to rectify a bit with .NET.....if you want deleopers to user your stuff....then LISTEN to those developers)

3. Limited - Again, because of the cross platform requirements of Java, it included no functions or features unless they could be implemented and supported on ALL platforms. This meant that large numbers of functions and capabilities that developers were used to having access to on Windows platforms weren't available in Java. Microsoft addressed that limitation by exposing many Windows specific functions and features in the MS JVM. Once again, developers had total choice. They could choose to write platform independant code using the more limited set of functions....or platform specific code that takes advantage of the additional functions. Similar to the first point, this itself was not a violation of the Sun-Microsoft contract. But Microsoft continuing to call it Java, call it Sun certified, and use the Sun logos and slogans to refer to it was.

"That's a good question.....ask Sun."
If Sun had made that comment then I would have asked them, since you mentioned it, I figured you'd be the better person to talk to =)

"But seriously, at the time in question (up through Java 1.1) it had a number of problems."
And now? Seriously developers are using java 1.4 if not 1.4.1 not 1.1. So to comment on java being slow, clunky and limited all whilst you are commenting on 1.1 is akin to commenting that Windows is insecure/unsecure, crashes randomly and is limited (cannot handle 1 gig of ram for example) all whilst thinking about Windows 98. (Note that the limitation is for Win 98 before someone yells that they are running 2000 or XP with over 1 gig of ram!).

"1. Slow"
Optimized JVM's and JIT compilers have just about all but got rid of this. The only thing that can currently be described as slow in Java (from people who have actually USED it as opposed to just spreading FUD) is Swing. And as you mention this is because it tried to draw the widgets itself rather than using the windows widgets on windows, gtk or something similar on linux etc. I believe IBM is working on a toolkit like Swing but utilising native widgets for speed.

"2. Clunky"
Based on what you said... yes I agree that all those fantastic VB programmers would have had a hell of a time moving to Java. And as you mentioned, if you want to write applications that can be run on multiple platforms you cannot use "windows-centric" terms. Windows is not the be all and end all of OS. So no, you cannot listen to the Windows developers only if you want to have developers write for other OS, as those developers will have a conflicting set of requirements. Anyways this is a mute point as your saying that Java is clunky because Windows programmers were too lazy to learn anything new or outside the realm of windows. If they didn't do anything outside Windows there was no reason for them to use Java unless they liked the syntax or OO programming if they were writing in VB.

"3. Limited"
Yes, the whole point of Java is so that you can write applications that will run on multiple platforms. If you want to use DirectX and the Registry.... I'll take a good guess that you probably don't want your application to run on any other OS other than Windows! So no, based on the design of Java it's not limited, unless you also think that a Toaster is limited because you can't browse the internet on it.

With .NET, developers will now be able to use an almost identical syntax to Java and continue to write Windows-only code utilising Windows only functions.

"And now? Seriously developers are using java 1.4 if not 1.4.1 not 1.1"

Well, since the subject I was discussing was what Microsoft was given by Sun and how they improved it.....only 1.1 is relevant. 1.4 (and/or 1.4.1) would be relvant if Sun had not sued to prevent Microsoft from upgrading the MS JVM to anything newer than 1.1

"1. Slow - Optimized JVM's and JIT compilers have just about all but got rid of this."

Well, since once again we are referring to why Microsoft chose to extend Java originally.....the context was how it was back then.

But if you want to extend to today, I'm still game. Java is still slow......when compared to platform specific solutions. (which might have been MS JVM 1.4 if Sun hadn't sued.....but is .NET now instead)

Sun is still insisting that developers would rather write slower platform independant code rather than faster platform specific code. Microsoft says the reverse. So far, results seem to indicate that Microsoft guessed correctly.

I tend to agree with Microsoft in that area. After all, Windows machines ARE (whether Sun likes it or not) the VAST majority of the market out there. Going with "faster platform specific code" benefits 90% of my customers and will probably make a bigger impact on my bottom line than having "slower platform independant code" where all my customers suffer.....but I can also target that other 10%. (Which I can do with platform specific code as well, I just have to maintain additonal code bases)

As a businessman I have (and will continue to) gamble that it is in my best interest to maintain 3 separate code bases (Windows, Mac, Linux) allowing me to cover over 98% of the market...and use platform specific code to maximize performace on all 3 of them. In my opinion, it would be profession suicide to use platform-independant code that allows me to tartget that addtional 2%.....at the expense of being slower for ALL my customers.

"2. Clunky"
I won't quote big sections of what you said....because in an ideal world I would agree with all of it. But the market Sun is going for is the developer market. In an ideal world Sun would not have to cater to Windows developer's personal quirks. But in the real world, telling your prospective customers that the way they are used to doing things is stupid and that they should all start over from scratch with your product does *NOT* get you sales.

Microsoft was willing to cater to how the majority of their developer customers were used to working and wanted to work. Sun was not.

That means that again, Sun's Java solution was "clunky" compared to what Microsoft wa swilling to offer.

"3. Limited - Yes, the whole point of Java is so that you can write applications that will run on multiple platforms"

Great.....but if that isn't what the majority of developers want...then so what?

"If you want to use DirectX and the Registry.... I'll take a good guess that you probably don't want your application to run on any other OS other than Windows!"

Correct. By making my code fast, efficient, and robust on Windows I've now covered 90% of the market.

If I want the other 8% of the market, do I sacrifice speed, efficiency, and robustness by making my code platform independant? Or do I just add platform specific code for Mac and Linux?

Sun's solution (platform independant Java) would make sense for developers IF there were 10 or 20 major platforms out there and each had a 5% to 10% market share. At that point trying to maintain separate platform specific code bases would be a costly proposition.

But in the real world where (depending on whose numbers you use) you can cover 90% of the market with one code base and 98% with three code bases....Java just doesn't bring enough benefits to the table.

Where the developer market really embraced Java was not as a "platform independant environment" but as a "web enabled/delivered application environment". And in that arena, what Microsoft tried to do (JVM's with platform specific optimizations and extensions) runs cirles around Sun. I can take the same java app, make 3 versions using the apporiate platform specific optimizations, use the browser ID string (or other info) to determine which one to serve to each user/customer/etc. and end up head and shoulders beyond what Sun has to offer. Since Sun won't let them do it with Java.....Microsoft will do it with .NET

"With .NET, developers will now be able to use an almost identical syntax to Java and continue to write Windows-only code utilising Windows only functions."

EXACTLY!!!!! Andf that's why Sun is running so scared and suing to force MS to include Java in the OS etc......because Microsoft has come up with a solution that targets what the majority of the developers and ISV's have been asking for. Instead of trying to "educate them" and "make them work a better way" like Sun, Microsoft is willing to give the customers what they want....even if it's stupid. (Though in this case it appears that Microsoft's architectureis the smarter of the two)

So right now developers can use .NET and get all the benefits (speed, efficiency, robustness) that they got by choosing the MS JVM over Sun and will be able to cover 90% of the customers out there. As soon as .NET support is added to Mac and Linux (which MS is allowing and supporting....complete with Mac and Linux platform spoecific optimizations and extensions) then the developers can make fairly minor changes and have fast, efficient, robust applications for the other 8% of the market. Three code bases (which are only minor modifications off a common core) and covering 98% of the market.

Whereas Sun is offering 99% of the market right now with only one code base......but slower, less efficiently, and less robustly.

Just wanted to say that I'm enjoying this discussion a lot.

You raise good points, you defend them well, and you make me think about it. (and work damn hard at responses)

You and I don't see eye to eye on all of this and have very different ideas (apparently) about what the correct direction is for the future of software development......but it's fun discussing it with you.

FYI, my personal opinion of the "big picture" is that Microsoft should save the time, money, and publicity......not appeal the injunction......and go ahead and include Sun's Java support in all future OS's and service packs.

Because of the reasons I listed in my other reply to you.....I think that .NET will still be the overwhelming choice by developers over Java.

I still don't think that what Sun asked for is right.....I still maintain that the Judge is violating the law with the injuction and that it will be overturned easily......but the discussion with you has clarified for me that I do indeed think that Microsoft is on the right track and that it won't make any difference at all in the long run even if they gave Sun everything they've asked for right now. (Well, except the BILLION dollars of course)

Discussing this with you has made me think back to similar discussions I had with people back when VB first came out. There were so much better development tools out there and so many better ways to do things. I couldn't understand why anyone would voluntarily choose VB for development. And guess what? I was wrong about the future of VB. Microsoft gave developers what they wanted...even if it wasn't the "best" way to do it. VB was a huge financial success for them.

So having lived and learned a lot since then, this time I'm betting on "cater to what people want, even if it is stupid (and so is the customer)" over "try to educate the customer that what he wants is stupid (and so is he) and that there's a better way"

True.

But from the legal point of view (which is what the courts use) the consumer still has the choice whether to download and install .NET or not.

Wonder if it would be worth looking into the reverse of this whole thing. :-)

After all, Sun ships all of their OS's with Java support included.

Perhaps "in order to level the playing field" they should be required to include .NET support in their OS's once it has been ported over.

I was so embarassed (and still am) that when a company I used to work for decided to update their web page and separate it more cleanly into a public site and a private "customer only site".....they chose to do the public web site.....AS ONE GIANT FLASH APPLCIATION.

It got several awards from Macromedia.....but make me feel sick to look at it.

I'm still too embarassed to give out the URL.

Did I mention that by using Flash for the whole thing they got full platform independance.....but because of the way they implemented it the site could only be usably viewed at certain screen resolutions? They managed to make the page look exactly the same for everyone.....but anyone with less than 800x600 resolution couldn't use it at all.

The result? It looked "super cool" and all the top execs liked it......and hit count showed FEWER visitor than ever coming to the site or getting information about the company. (which, for example, you couldn't really print out hardcopy of anymore becuase instead of text the information was mostly transitory moving flowing graphics in Flash (and shockwave and firwaorks and.....etc.)

So....are there uses for Flash? I guess so (I personally hate it, but will grudgingly admit that there MAY be a few places where it's the best tool for the job)

And Java? I guess so too. It has it's uses and there are even people out there who want to use it for exactly the reasons that Sun thinks they should.....but is it the "be all, end all" answer? No. And I think that Sun is making a fatal mis-estimation of the market with regards to Java.

If there's one thing Microsoft knows....it's how to market and how to target a market. Had Sun listened and cooperated when Microsoft said "Java is great, but to be really marketable you need to add these things" then I don't think we ever would have heard of ".NET" as a serious architecture and MS would be pushing Java with every penny they have.

Would it have meant that Java was no longer exactly what Sun envisioned it as being? Yes. It would have evolved into something else. But Sun would be on top of the world and Java would be king....because it would have evolved into what the CUSTOMER wanted.....not what Sun wanted.

Sun had every right to say "no" to Microsoft and keep Java "pure"....keep it the way that THEY wanted it to be. But I'm afraid that in the long run, Sun is going to learn a hard lesson as they watch Java die.

The customer is ALWAYS right. He may be stupid. But he's still RIGHT.

You don't succeed in business by telling the customer that he is wrong (or stupid). Sun has done (and is still doing) both to developers.

I was talking about the consumer's point of view more than the legal point of view given that's what's important here. MS are marketing .NET to the consumer, this is an ideal way to get it installed on all the computers out there running windows - beats having to ask each user individually to go to a website and then download it and install it themselves.

But I like your idea of levelling the playing field. Microsoft should include Sun's latest JVM and in return Sun will include a copy of .NET (as soon as Microsoft write one) on their OS's =) That will keep a lot of people happy.

I won't reply to your comment below, not because it's not worth replying to but because you were talking about Java 1.1 whilst I was saying that yes whilst 1.1 was like that, 1.4 has fixed just about all of that.

My only real issue is with people continuing to call Java slow etc and not having used the latest version, like I mentioned that is equivalent to me saying Windows is s*** because I'm thinking of Win 98, whereas we know that Windows is s*** for lots of other reasons =p

As for .NET, I have nothing against it, I do infact have a copy of Visual Studio .NET and have written several small applications on it as a way of testing it out. I'm actually looking forward to writing some DirectX code this weekend with the SDK to DX9 being released.

Most of your comments mentioned percentages of the market you could capture by programming for Windows only. This of course is only applicable if you are writing client-side software but I'm sure you meant that. And you are perfectly correct in your statements which is kind of worrying in itself (not because you are right (although that is worrying) but because of what it means). Why would a student who isn't completely opposed to Microsoft and wants to become a developer choose to develop for any other platform other than Windows? The natural choice is Windows based on your immediate possible client-base. The choice then is language used.

And this is where we come to my stab at VB earlier. Not sure if this is know by people or not but VB was originally designed as a prototyping langauge. One where you can very quickly slap together a few screens, hit the database, whatever and have something to show the client and then re-write properly with a good design etc etc. This is where the problem began, because VB is a manager's favourite tool, why would a manager ask you to re-write something that you've already spent time putting together in VB?

So it's a favourite with kids/students and managers because it's easy to learn, the whole thing is GUI based, it writes 90% of the code for you and you don't really need to know anything about programming to use it. And that is really my whole problem with it! That's not to say that there aren't ANY good VB programmers, there just aren't a hell of a lot of them! And given that you can write some crappy application and then market it to 90% of the desktop market makes it popular to the extent that you can get some really highly paid jobs writing VB.

Has the end user benefited from all this crap VB code? All this slow, unstable, overbloated code? Take a look at download.com or cnet or anything like that.... there's gigs upon gigs of the crap ready to chew up your cpu usage, ram and hdd space! I personally don't think they have.

But as we all know the end user doesn't care about how the program was designed, how optimal/efficient the code is etc etc. The end user cares that the program does what they want it to do and that it doesn't take 'TOO LONG' to do it (TOO LONG being a different amount depending on who you ask). So that's why VB was a success. However supporting/maintaining old VB code, enhancing it etc is quite another thing.

So we end up with the majority of developers choosing (after all we can always make a case that they do have a choice) of programming for Windows in the language which will enable them to write an application as easily and quickly as possible. This is what MS hope to have achieved with .NET.

Where does this leave Sun in this case? (Just to try to stay on topic since I've already lost my train of thought). At the moment J2EE is growing very well on the server-side and there hasn't as much up take of .NET as MS would like or hoped for. However for Java to have any kind of presence on the client-side it really needs to be on Windows. Whilst I don't think MS should be forced to distribute Sun's JVM, Sun really needs to market Java better if they want to keep any hope of it staying alive on the client-side.

Yes, most of my comments were targeted for Java 1.1 because the main topic was the Sun v. Microsoft thing and Java 1.1 is when (and why) Microsoft split with Sun on what Java needed in order to be "better"

I'm afraid that I'm still sticking with my opinion of Java as being slow though. Yes it's much, much better than it used to be, but it will never be able (because of the nature of the beast) to be as fast as platform specific solutions.

My percentages (which were just examples to explain the concept, not meant to be exact numbers) were indeed referring to client side applications. Server side is a whole different story where the percentages are more favorable to Java.....but you can still capture almost all fo the market (I would say 95% or more) with only 3 or 4 code branches. So I still question if the benefits provided by one cross platform code base are a fair tradeoff for the reduced speed and feature set. Guess all we can do is wait and see which one (Sun or MS) guessed more correctly about what developers want.

Your VB observations are funny and I think mesh right in with the VB comments I made before. Is it the best development tool out there? Good grief, no. It may even be one of the worst. But is is one of the most successful? The most profitable? Are VB developers highly in demand? Paid well? (even if real developers think of them as one step below c***roaches)

I think it illustrates this whole developemnt tool battle pretty well. Microsoft never intended (apparently) VB to be a "serious" development tool. But when developers jumped all over it, Microsoft went with the old adage of "The customer is always right. He may be dumber than dirt....but he's RIGHT!" Microsoft coudl have told all those developers (customers) that they were wrong and refused to turn VB into a real product......and if they had, Borland would probably be on top of the developemnt tool market right now. But they didn't. They just shrugged and accepted the fact that an idiot's money is just as good as a wise man's.......and there's a lot more idiots out there than wise men.

I'm afraid than in the whole Java -vs- .NET thing, Sun is shooting themselves in the foot by refusing to compromise. They're confident that if they make the BEST product, customer will see the light and flock to them. Meanwhile Microsoft is raking in money by bending to the (often stupid) will of the consumer.

I admire what seem to be Sun's principles in this......but history does not paint a pretty picture for them.
Betamax was clearly superior to VHS
The Apple III was the "best" computer made at the time.
Linux is far superior in a lot of ways to Windows.
etc.

"Where does this leave Sun in this case?"

I agree on all of your points.....I'm just afraid that unless Sun wakes up and starts listening to what customers (even stupid ones) want instead of telling them what to want, they're going to work themselves right out of the picture.

Whatever you think of Sun or Microsoft, this judgment is poor law and will not stand.

You can't force a company to use and pay licensing fees for someone else's product.

Agreed.

This has been the weak spot in this whole proceeding.

If Sun was willing to (or had offered to) allow Microsoft to distribute the Sun JVM for free, there wouldn't be as much of a problem. (After all, end users can download it for free)

If Motz had dictated the terms of a Microsoft/Sun licensing fee and had made it a part of the "penalty" he was imposing, it might have been legally enforcable.

Unfortunately (for everyone) he did not. Sun has maintained all along that they will charge Microsoft a substantial fee to redistribute Sun's JVM. As a result, Motz has just ordered Microsoft to carry Sun's JVM...REGARDLESS of how much Sun chooses to charge Microsoft.

If Sun decides that the price to redistribute the Sun JVM is 1 billion dollars a year.....his order would still apply. This puts Motz's order into the "not legally enforcable" category and pretty much guarantees overturn or reversal on appeal.

If Sun is smart, they will immediatly reverse their position and anounce that they will NOT charge Microsoft any fees at all in connection with the redistribution agreement. If they did, there might be a slim chance of Microsoft not appealing or of the appelate court upholding the order.

Bad law, perhaps... but remember that were we practicing good law in this country, Microsoft would have been broken up as a result of antitrust laws.

This law will most definitely be reversed, but it is hardly the last we will hear about Sun vs. Microsoft. At the very least, I suspect a favorable ruling for Sun regarding any case brought up over the buggy JVM releases Microsoft puts out to defame Java and further .NET

"This puts Motz's order into the "not legally enforcable" category and pretty much guarantees overturn or reversal on appeal."

Damn man, you really do know how to talk out of your ass. I'd love to hear you tell more about how a judges ruling is not legally enforcable, this should be good! FYI, the Judges ruling is 100% enforcable until it's appealed.

The schedules/details have no been agreed. Microsoft can easily drag this out another year saying its not feasable to incorperate the JVM into current releases for whatever reason - probably long enough for the appeal to go through.

I really hope the appeal does over throw this, else we're gonna start getting windows on about 10CD's like linux within a year or two. grr.

I don't agree with the ruling, however I don't agree with Wendor's assumption that Microsoft doesn't have to follow the ruling simply because Wendor doesn't agree with it.

"Damn man, you really do know how to talk out of your ass. I'd love to hear you tell more about how a judges ruling is not legally enforcable, this should be good! FYI, the Judges ruling is 100% enforcable until it's appealed."

Wrong. As soon as an appeal is filed, a stay order is issued preventing enforcement until appellate count has an opportunity to rule. (The 9th circuit court in this case I belive)

As for "enforcable", that's easy. If Microsoft refuses to comply, Motz would have to find them in contempt and order ome form of penalty (fines, stop work or closure orders, arrest warrants for Microsoft personnel, etc.) BY LAW any penalty he decalres as part of a comtempt order is automatically stayed as soon as a motion to appeal is filed with the circuit court.

As usual, you continue to show that you know absolutely nothing about the law fewt.

Not because I don't like it....because US law says that they don't have to.

Here, let's put it into terms you can understand:
The admins at Betanews issued a similar injunction ordering you to stop posting here. (they banned you) By the terms of the user agreement you accepted, you agreed to abide by that decision and not come back. You even publicly stated (several times) that if they chose to ban you, you would accept that decision and leave. Funny....you seem to keep creating new accounts and continuing to post here despite the fact that the mere creation of those accounts violates the agreement between you and Betanews.

So you see, you, just like Microsoft, can ignore the ruling.

The difference is that if Betanews chooses to enforce it, you have no recourse whatsoever. Microsoft, on the other hand, has a federal law guaranteeing an automatic stay of the judge's order.

"At the very least, I suspect a favorable ruling for Sun regarding any case brought up over the buggy JVM releases Microsoft puts out to defame Java and further .NET"

1. Microsoft's JVM was not "buggy". It ran everything that Sun's same revision did. It ALSO ran code that used proprietary MS extensions.

2. Those extensions were an attempt to make Java perform better and be more usable on Windows platforms (not attempts to defame Java etc.)

3. Sun can not sue Microsoft now or in the future over the fact that MS extended Java and boke the "write once run anywhere" model. They have already done so and the case has already been settled.

Check your facts.

So you've got an inside track into the thinking of M$ corporate decisions? Please check YOUR facts.

You know the saying "Talk is cheap. Actions speak volumes"?

Look at the consistant pattern of M$ actions over the last 15 years. The pattern is extremely consistant and clear.

1. If it's a competative threat than:
a. buy it out or;
b. give away our version of the product to drive the opponent into bankrupcy or;
c. license the product so that we can mutate it to only run on our platform or;
d: force our customers to sign exclusionary contracts so that the competition cannot gain a foothold, resulting in the competition either going bankrupt or not having adequate R&D monies to keep up woth our efforts.

The pattern is unmistakable. M$ has done more to stifle choice, competition and technology than any comapny in world history.

Why would you imagine they spend millions every year to crush linux? If they are all about fair play and competition shouldn't linux fail or prevail on it's own merits?

Incorrect:

A stay is not automatic.

To say the 9th circuit court has the case is not a good thing for M$. The 9th circuit is overturned more than any other circuit court in the country.

There is no automatic stay. Where are you dreaming this up at?

M$ must request a stay and the court must weigh on the merit of the M$ request for a stay. There's nothing automatic about it.

"So you've got an inside track into the thinking of M$ corporate decisions? Please check YOUR facts."

Ok, let's check my facts:

#1 above is an absolute proven historical fact. The Microsoft JVM ran every bit of code that the same revision of the Sun environment did.

#2 above can also be shown by pure facts. The Microsoft JVM ran significantly faster then the Sun environment did and allowed delevopers access to many more functions than Sun's did. This did make Java better and more usable on Windows platforms. If Microsoft had intended to destroy Java, why would they have made it better? If they intended to destroy cross platform support, then why did they leave developers the CHOICE of whether to write slower platform independant code following Sun's guidelines or faster platform specific code following Microsoft's?

#3 is also established fact. Read the settlement agreement from the previous Sun v. Microsoft suit.

You present no facts, only theories.

For example: "Why would you imagine they spend millions every year to crush linux?"

Perhaps you have some facts showing this? Show us the millions of dallars spent and either statements by Microsoft that the money was "to crush linux" or some proof that the money was not for anything else.

Until then, you're the one throwing your opinions around and insisting that they are true. I'm quoting verifiable facts.

Truns out that it's in the 4th curcuit, not the 9th (I said I wans't sure which jurisdiction ti was in) and check your legal facts....a stay is automatic. (though unneccesary as he won't even issue the injunction until next month....when he does, Microsoft gets an automatic stay as soon as they file an appeal)

"There is no automatic stay."

Yes. There is.

"Where are you dreaming this up at?"

No dream involved. It's called the United States Code. (Commonly referred to as US federal law)
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/
as well as the "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:"
(same site)

Start with "28 U.S.C. - Judiciary and Judicial Procedure" and "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Rule 62"

"M$ must request a stay and the court must weigh on the merit of the M$ request for a stay. There's nothing automatic about it."

ROFL. Stop watching law on TV and learn some. Go to the Cornell site and read. Better yet, they have a topical index as well. Start with "injunction", "appeal", and "automatic stay".

"A stay is not automatic."

Yes. It is.

Look it up.

"U.S.C. Title 28" and "Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Rule 62"
(Cornell's law library is online and a good source for both of those)

The Microsoft JVM 1.1 and the J++ Pro language development SDK were very buggy, like all Microsoft products. Evenso the MS JVM was far better than the appalling JVM shipped by Netscape (then browser market leader.) The Netscape JVM probably did a lot of damage to Java early on, but it did help Flash as an alternative brwoser plugin LOL. MS eventually got Visual Studio sorted out by SP5 (!) but to this day you cannot install J++ Pro AFTER Visual Studio Enterprise, it must be installed first. J++ (now sold off by MS) was pretty cool and gave a RAD alternative with near C++ spead and none of the utter horror of VB6. The COM and DCOM components that MS made support for in their JVM have had endless updates for bugfixes and security issues. As has the JVM 1.1 itself - a major security bug is included in the current round of MS Updates !!! The original JVM was cluncky on the desktop but the advent of Swing and much faster machines has fixed that. These days a Java desktop applet can look exactly the same as any other XP desktop app, the major difference being that is is likely to be far smaller and not leak memory like an elephant with the squats.Signed Java apps are FAR less likely to do your system damage than JScript or ActiveX. MS recently issued an advisory re ActiveX "do not trust Microsoft Corporation". The judge has ordered a TEMPORARY injunction that the up to date JRE be shipped with XP pending the full resolution and verdict pertaining to the case - which may be 2 years away. Without the injunction the case is a waste of time. There is a general assumption in Anglo-Saxon law that the law is not to be trifled with e.g. through meaningless cases. Outside of the US this is enforced with vigor - e.g. in the UK the loser of a civil case pays the costs of both sides and vexatious appelants can (and are) barred from bringing cases to court (which would fix RIAA and the patent terrorists in the UK pdq). Those who think the injunction (not final verdict) will be struck down on appeal should bone up on US Monopoly law and past decisions in similar circumstances. Microsoft are hoist by their own petard, or rather a passle of lawyers. Tough. Live by the gun, die by the gun.

Yes you are correct. The most recent example is the treatment that Microsoft meted out to SENDO relating to mobile phone technology. Sendo were first adopted as a "preferred business partner" and once MS had the technology presented with a contract they could only refuse. Not a lot different to Sun really. The case is now before the courts.

#1 is not true. The Java specification required Remote Method Invocation (RMI) and Java Native Invocation (JNI), neither of which Microsoft's VM implemented; instead, they opted to create their own platform-specific libraries, which, regardless of your feelings about platform-specific versus platform-independent code, is against the license.

#2 is strictly true, but they didn't give Java developers any incentive to choose to write platform-independent code. Everything in J++ was designed to make it hard to write platform-independent code because the tool consistently suggested platform-specific code.

Neither of these, of course, makes much sense, because why would anyone use Java to write platform-specific code? The changes were deliberately designed to keep people from writing platform-independent code, which would gradually lead them to look at Microsoft's platform-dependent languages VC++ and VB.

"The Microsoft JVM 1.1 and the J++ Pro language development SDK were very buggy, like all Microsoft products."

Sorry, perhaps I should have been more clear.

When I said that "Microsoft's JVM was not buggy." I was not trying to say that it had no bugs at all. I was referring to it in the context used by ATMAvatar where he referred to "...the buggy JVM releases Microsoft puts out to defame Java and further .NET"

He implied that Microsoft was making the product "buggy" intentionally because of other nefarious motives. (Specifically he listed "to defame Java and further .NET")

His use of "buggy" carried the implication of "intentionally buggy". I intended the same context in my response, but looking back at it, I failed to make it particularly clear.

My apologies.

Let me rephrase:
Microsoft's JVM was not "intentionally buggy".

The case is not "before the courts".....it has barely been filed.

And since no facts have been disclosed yet, the only information is the story given to the media by Sendo and their lawyers.

But hey, why would you want to wait for facts when you can instead jump in with unproven (and so far unsupported) allegations made by someone trying to get money from Microsoft?

"#1 is not true."

Yes. It is.

"The Java specification required Remote Method Invocation (RMI) and Java Native Invocation (JNI), neither of which Microsoft's VM implemented; instead, they opted to create their own platform-specific libraries, which, regardless of your feelings about platform-specific versus platform-independent code, is against the license."

Sorry, but you are wrong.

Sun themselves certified that Microsoft's JVM met ALL of their requirements regarding it's ability to run Java code developed elsewhere. They testified to this fact in court on numerous occasions.

So I think I'll take Sun's sworn testimony on whether or not it met their specifications and requirements over your opinion.

Sorry, hit "Post" too soon.

"#2 is strictly true, but they didn't give Java developers any incentive to choose to write platform-independent code."

Why should they have to give developers "incentive" to do so? According to Sun the benefits of platform independant code were so obvious that every developer out there should never want anything else. The very suggestion that Microsoft should give develoipers "incentive" to do so pretty much says that Sun guessed wrong about what developers want and that perhaps many of Java's troubles are not because of sabatoge by Microsoft, but because Sun misjudged the market.

"Everything in J++ was designed to make it hard to write platform-independent code because the tool consistently suggested platform-specific code."

ROFL. Didn't use it much did you? Writing platform independant code with it was no problem at all.

"Neither of these, of course, makes much sense, because why would anyone use Java to write platform-specific code?"

Because it was faster, more robust, and far more capable than platform-independant Java code was.

Your position on this seem to rely on the assumption that developers WANT to write platform independant code. Sun repeatedly touts the benefits of such and tries to make logical arguments why developers should want to do so.

Developers on the other hand (just like consumers) keep surprising Sun and everyone else by showing that what they want is far different than what Sun says they "should want".

Sun says developers should not have the choice. Sun says they should ONLY be able to write platform independant code. Microsoft gave them the choice of platform independant or platform specific code. History shows quite well which one developers chose.

"The changes were deliberately designed to keep people from writing platform-independent code, which would gradually lead them to look at Microsoft's platform-dependent languages VC++ and VB. "

Pure speculation on your part. Got any facts to back it up?

Is windows public property now?
or has Motz just demonstrated that he’s not the best product out there?