I'm sorry Cheryl, but the facts do not seem to support your statements.
According to my layman's read, Sun claimed copyright and trademark infringement as detailed in the court documents, which are public record. Sun was successful in getting the court to order Microsoft to resolve the few issues that they found. Microsoft's immediate compliance, once they were notified, allowed them to continue using the Java trademark as originally specified in the agreement. In fact, the court recently ruled that by turning to the courts for remedy rather than providing notice to Microsoft as specified in the agreement, Sun did not comply with the agreement itself. The facts of the court case support my statements, are public record, and are available in the links I provided. Do you have any factual references whatsoever to back up your statements?
I have no doubt that if Sun actually complied with the agreement and simply notified Microsoft of the test failures, Microsoft would have fixed the issues as well. I also don't, for one minute, believe that Sun's action had anything to do with making Java better. I believe they wanted to hide the fact that they were unable to compete toe to toe with Microsoft's implementation.
Thanks,
Mike |
