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 : All About Sun Microsystems -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: rudedog who wrote (47779)	3/8/2002 1:54:13 PM
From: John F. Dowd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 64865

SUNW is panicked: SUNW sued to have them leave Java - now they have changed their tune and are suing to have them reinvolved in Java From Yahoo Board: SUNW's lawyers must not be happy with what they are sensing from Judge Kollar-Kotelly, why else file the suit right now? Oh, and Microsoft had good reason to drop a JVM from Windows, SUNW would only allow an older version to be included, and why would MSFT want the hassle of supporting old technology? http://news^.com.com/2100-1001-271758.html?legacy=cnet "Sun argued in the lawsuit that changes Microsoft made to the version of the JVM it used with Windows violated its Java licensing agreement. In its statement on Thursday, Microsoft once again argued that those changes benefit Windows users. "The Microsoft virtual machine has a long history of outperforming other virtual machines and offers the best real world compatibility of any virtual machine," the company asserted. "It is also the only virtual machine that offers an integrated applet browsing experience with Internet Explorer." The two companies settled the dispute in January, with Sun agreeing to let Microsoft continue using a 4-year-old JVM for seven years but prohibiting the software giant from using new versions of the software. "Rather than pursue a new licensing arrangement, Sun settled its lawsuit with Microsoft by offering a phase-out of Microsoft's Java implementation," Microsoft charged in its statement. "Sun was quick to pronounce the settlement a great victory." Citing a CNET News.com story on the settlement, Microsoft quoted Sun CEO Scott McNealy: "This is a victory for our licensees and consumers. The community wants one Java technology: one brand, one process and one great platform. We've accomplished that, and this agreement further protects the authenticity and value of Sun's Java technology." Microsoft further charged that "Sun got what they said they wanted: The termination of the existing Java license and an agreement that Microsoft would phase out its Java virtual machine." But in discussing the ads last week, Sun spokesman David Harrah said Microsoft's decision to pull the JVM from Internet Explorer 6--and thus Windows XP--shocked the company. "They asked us for the seven-year license to continue using (the JVM)," he emphasized. "We didn't expect this." In regard to the ads, Harrah said: "This is not a campaign. This is a single statement we wanted to get out." Microsoft made the decision to pull the JVM partly for fear Sun might take legal action against the company before Windows XP's launch. "Sun has proven they would rather compete through litigation," said Jim Cullinan, Windows XP lead product manager. "What if come Oct. 1, Sun decided to seek an injunction stopping Windows XP because they said we didn't keep the terms of the settlement?" By choosing to offer the JVM as a separate download, the company could provide the software to people who wanted it while not jeopardizing Windows XP's Oct. 25 launch date, Cullinan added."

To: rudedog who wrote (47779)	3/8/2002 1:58:03 PM
From: QwikSand	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 64865

BTW I happen to think that in the first case, the judge was right - MSFT could, and did, ignore the spirit of the decree while following the letter in what some called "malicious compliance", which is exactly what the judge feared. Dog, a few observations: a) If they ignored the first consent decree, as the judge feared, why won't they ignore the present one? b) I find the DOJ's 180 a little too extreme. Yes, the curren't DOJ's view (at least on the record) is that the MSFT deal, which allows MSFT to define all kinds of things in its sole discretion, is "the best they can get". Somehow I don't quite think the Clinton DOJ would have held the same view at this point in the proceedings. c) The earlier decree didn't follow litigation that Microsoft lost. The reason all these private suits are now enabled is because they followed litigation that Microsoft lost, not once but twice. While that advantageous position is somehow serving to put the brakes on the Dubya DOJ, it's at the same time empowering private plaintiffs. --QS