Injunction reinsstated against MSFT in JAVA case
From the WSJ:
"In his ruling Monday, Judge Whyte found that Sun hadn't proved Microsoft had violated copyright laws. But he decided the injunction was warranted based on Sun's second claim -- that Microsoft's actions were unfair competition. The judge said Microsoft made "false statements" and "misrepresentations" suggesting its Java technology was endorsed by Sun and complies with that company's specifications.
"We are gratified that Judge Whyte reinstated the preliminary injunctive relief needed to redress this injury to competition," Sun's General Counsel, Michael Morris said in a written statement.
Microsoft spokesman Jim Cullinan said the ruling will "keep the status quo" because the company has been complying with the original injunction even while it was lifted. Microsoft is reviewing its legal options and awaiting the judge's final decision on pending summary judgments, Mr. Cullinan said.
In his first of two rulings, Judge Whyte denied Sun's motion to reinstate the injunction based on its allegation that Microsoft infringed on its copyrights. Rather, he said, the case concerns a contract dispute.
In his second ruling, Whyte reinstated the injunction, in part because "Microsoft's unparalleled market power and distribution channels relating to computer operating systems pose a significant risk that an incompatible and unauthorized version of the Java technology will become the de facto standard."
The judge, however, said there was no evidence that Microsoft was using its "economic power to unfairly force software developers" to buy its Java tools or use its development environment. Whyte also noted that Microsoft's development and distribution of Java language extensions alone doesn't appear to constitute an "unfair business practice."
Rather, the injunction is warranted, he wrote, because Microsoft's "false statements" and "misrepresentations" suggesting its Java technology is endorsed by Sun and complies with Sun's specifications harmed Sun and software developers.
"As we have said from the start of this case, Microsoft's misconduct with respect to Sun's Java technology has harmed competition, as well as those who use and rely on the Java technology," said Sun's Mr. Morris.
===================
What I find most interesting about this is the failure once again of the Federal Courts to protect copyright. What they are saying is that MSFT can modify Sun's JAVA source code. One of the arguments against breaking up Microsoft and forcing it to license its source code is that Microsoft would not be able to control its property --- it's copyrighted source code anymore. It's copyright would be worthless. ITs property would be taken away from it. As you can see here the Court gave no value to that argument instead ruling that unfair competition --- misrepresenting JAVA warranted the injunction.
I like the argument of "worthiness" better myself. What you do if you are a Federal Court judge is you look at the two parties and decide which has the most political and economic power and throw the case to them. Make up any reason you want in your legal decision and watch the smart legal minds scramble to decipher what the decision means. Hell if Congressmen can be cut in on IPOs why not Judges. |
