Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Charles Tutt who wrote (45913)	6/3/2000 12:40:00 AM
From: JC Jaros	Respond to of 74651

"perspective" --- Say mozek, that's not another word Microsoft has service marked is it? -JCJ

To: Charles Tutt who wrote (45913)	6/3/2000 1:15:00 AM
From: mozek	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74651

Charles, My post did not characterize Java as "marketing fluff". Please reread: Message 13821508 I maintain that the language you cite as inflammatory is true. I agree that the word "exhorbitant" could have been replaced by some quantitative data about Sun's workstation prices vs the PCs that replaced them with no loss of productivity, but please don't tell me that Java is open. In fact, Sun just quashed another multi-vendor effort to open up a system implemented in Java: zdnet.com I'll say it again. Sun has a 100% monopoly on Java. It's very nice of them to license it to others, but it doesn't make it open. Anyone who says Java is open or that Sun does not have a monopoly on it is either unaware of the truth or not fully honest. Do I believe Scott has misrepresented a great deal in recent years. Yes I do, and you are free to discount my views as others are free to believe. Am I a losing competitor? Since I don't speak for anyone but myself, you're probably mistakenly implying that Microsoft is a losing competitor. The game is not close to over, and I suspect that both the company I work for and Sun will be around for some time. As far as me, I'll be fine regardless. Regarding your statement of compliance vs. non-compliance. Microsoft's Java VM ran more real applets and applications than either Netscape's or Sun's. It passed many more of Sun's tests than Netscape's. The tests that it failed were an extremely small number and unlikely to cause any real world incompatibility by any stretch of reasonable imagination. The failure of these tests was reported to Microsoft in the form of a lawsuit, not notice as required in the license. Sun can hide behind "compliance" as their defense against Microsoft beating them soundly, but even Marc Andreesen himself said Microsoft was the only company really innovating in Java at the time. As far as Sun's right to control Java. As provided by their license agreements, they have the right to control their intellectual property, but you're basing the statement about Microsoft specifically on the hopes that they win their suit. Last I heard, Judge White disagreed with Sun's interpretation of a significant part of the license agreement and agreed with Microsoft. That's another one that is not yet over. Summary of most recent ruling against Sun in Microsoft's favor stating that Sun should have given Microsoft notice as required in the agreement before seeking legal remedy: microsoft.com more detail: microsoft.com Meat of second most recent ruling against Sun in Microsoft's favor stating that Sun, according to the court's interpretation of the agreement, did not perform their contractual responsibility to deliver supplemental classes which ran on Microsoft's VM: microsoft.com The truth is that Sun realized Microsoft was kicking their behind and felt that a law suit, regardless of its merit, was a way to buy some time and PR against their competition. It was a desperate move that has, so far, been partially effective. As far as convincing you, I suspect it's unlikely regardless, but I can at least hope to raise enough of a question that you will see for yourself at some point. Thanks, Mike