Microsoft not required to offer Java now

[ibe98765]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/27/technolo...ogy/27SOFT.htmlMicrosoft Can Leave Java Out of Windows, Court RulesBy STEVE LOHR federal appeals court gave Microsoft a reprieve yesterday by sweeping aside a lower court injunction that ordered the company to distribute the Java software of its rival Sun Microsystems.Microsoft's victory was qualified, however. The three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va., upheld a second preliminary injunction by the lower court that told Microsoft to stop distributing its version of Java technology because it probably violated Sun's copyright on the software. The second opinion, legal experts said, suggests Sun has a fairly strong case in its private antitrust suit against Microsoft. The appeals court ruling means Microsoft will not be forced to include a competitor's technology in its Windows operating systems for personal computers. That removes a potential headache for the company and echoes the stance taken by the court overseeing the remedy phase of the government's antitrust suit against Microsoft. In that case, brought by the Justice Department and several states, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly rejected a proposal from some states that Microsoft be required to distribute Sun's Java.Yet the practical effect of yesterday's ruling on the computing marketplace — and Sun's lawsuit in general — is quite limited, industry analysts said.After the preliminary injunction was issued by Judge J. Frederick Motz of Federal District Court in Baltimore last December, Microsoft stopped distributing its version of the Java software, a practice that Sun said violated its copyright and license rights. So Microsoft is already complying with the other injunction that was upheld yesterday.Earlier this month, personal computer makers including Dell and Hewlett-Packard, the market leaders, announced they would load Sun's Java software on their machines. Sun says it expects most PC makers to license Java. So the Java technology is being distributed on personal computers without a court order."History and market forces have largely passed this case by," said Dwight B. Davis, an analyst at Summit Strategies, a research firm.There was barely a ripple of reaction on Wall Street to the appeals court ruling. Shares of Microsoft rose 49 cents, to $25.75. Sun fell 10 cents, to $4.79 a share.A Microsoft spokesman, Jim Desler, called the appeals court decision "a positive step" in what he said promises to be "a long legal process." No date has been set for a trial in the private antitrust case, but it is expected to be sometime in 2005.Sun applauded the court's ruling to uphold the injunction on the copyright and license issues. "We feel pretty darn good about our chances," said Lee Patch, Sun's vice president for legal affairs.Sun executives insist that its suit can still have an effect beyond the $1 billion in damages it is seeking from Microsoft. Java, they say, can be a force for greater competition and innovation in the PC software business. Sun's private suit against Microsoft was a follow-on case, filed after the 2001 ruling in the government antitrust case. In that landmark decision, a federal appeals court found Microsoft was a monopolist that repeatedly violated antitrust laws.Two companies, Netscape Communications and Sun, were the featured corporate victims in the narrative of that suit. Netscape's browser software and Sun's Java technology — software that runs on many different operating systems — posed a threat to Microsoft's PC operating system, the suit contended. Several tactics in Microsoft's campaign to thwart the Netscape-Sun challenge to Windows were illegal, the court ruled. Netscape's parent, AOL Time Warner, settled its private suit against Microsoft in May, receiving $750 million.Sun's argument for an injunction forcing Microsoft to carry Java focused on a developing market for software beyond the PC operating systems — a middleware layer for distributed computing, linking many machines, using Internet standards. The Microsoft initiative in this market is called .Net, which is closely tied to Windows. Several other companies including Sun and I.B.M. are building middleware using Java.Sun argued that unless Microsoft was forced to carry Java it would use its market power to give it an unfair advantage in the market for distributed middleware.Judge Motz agreed with Sun that there was a "serious danger" that Microsoft could use its power to "tip" the market to .Net and stifle Java. But in its 28-page ruling, the appeals court ruled yesterday that Judge Motz had been "unable to find immediate and irreparable harm" to an emerging market where Microsoft does not hold a dominant position.So, the appeals court decided, a must-carry injunction to give Java a helping hand was not justified.

[Guest LilBambi]

That's OK, you don't need Microsoft's JVM anyway ...I use SUN's and it works great. I disabled Microsoft's a long time ago.

[havnblast]

I doubt that this will be settled - expect it to go back to court again I am sure.

[littlebone]

That's OK, you don't need Microsoft's JVM anyway ...I use SUN's and it works great. I disabled Microsoft's a long time ago.

I don't think Sun is happy that one has to download their JVM (or an OEM has to install it extra). I think they wanted MS to distribute something that would make all Java apps work without having to do anything special.How many AOL users are going to know why a web app doesn't work correctly? (Is that politically correct?)

[Guest LilBambi]

I hear ya ... but Microsoft shouldn't have to spoonfeed other people's software either ... OEMs and AOL, et all, can get them just as easily and include them.

[Peachy]

But what's interesting is that Sun's initial lawsuit was started to stop Microsoft from distributing Microsoft's Java VM. At one point earlier this year, Microsoft decided to comply by just dropping the VM altogether. Then Sun launched a second lawsuit saying that Microsoft had to distribute Sun's Java code, the same one that gets installed when you install Netscape or Mozilla. So the net effect for Sun is that they shot themselves in the foot trying to force Microsoft to comply with it's wishes, because Microsoft now has no legal obligation to distribute Sun's Java.Whoops

[SonicDragon]

Thanks for the link!I had forgotten all about this case!

[DannySmurf]

But what's interesting is that Sun's initial lawsuit was started to stop Microsoft from distributing Microsoft's Java VM. At one point earlier this year, Microsoft decided to comply by just dropping the VM altogether. Then Sun launched a second lawsuit saying that Microsoft had to distribute Sun's Java code, the same one that gets installed when you install Netscape or Mozilla. So the net effect for Sun is that they shot themselves in the foot trying to force Microsoft to comply with it's wishes, because Microsoft now has no legal obligation to distribute Sun's Java.Whoops 

Well, they never did have a legal obligation to distribute Sun's Java. The original problem, IIRC, was that they were modifying their own Java too much to suit Sun. Apps compiled for Microsoft's VM were not completely compatible with other VMs... which was, actually, against the Java license.So Sun sued Microsoft to stop deploying the Microsoft VM... which was perfectly legitimate. But Microsoft never HAD to deploy Java in Windows at all. It was paying Sun for the right to distribute it; and they never had an obligation to continue that indefinitely. So, as you said, Microsoft complied by removing Java altogether. Sun, I think, figured (probably still does) that the fate of Java has some huge consequences for the Internet and the larger industry (not true, of course), and they just assumed that Microsoft would rush to include a compliant VM in Windows if it couldn't carry its own modified one. And I think the bigwigs at Sun were the only people in the universe that were surprised that Microsoft didn't.--Danny Smurf