I love the term Gates pointed out to IBM (Those Rabid Java Backers). IBM is proud of it! MSFT is looking so hard at defeating Sun when its IBM that is Java's biggest advocate of Java!
The evil enemies of MSFT are starting to overtake MSFT. The wheels are starting to fall of the MSFt wagon.
This Sun win over MSFT is going to hit home to several investors that MSFT can actually lose the case against the DOJ as well. I think many investors have blindly believed that MSFT can't possibly lose. The Sun news has burst many of their bubbles. Lets see what the MSFT stock does tomorrow with this Sun Win....
Sun wins Java ruling
Judge issues injunction, gives Microsoft 90 days to modify Win 98
Special report: U.S. vs. Microsoft
November 17, 1998: 8:45 p.m. ET
NEW YORK (CNNfn) - A federal judge
Tuesday delivered a crushing blow to Microsoft
Corp. by granting Sun Microsystems Inc.'s
request for a temporary injunction to block
shipments of Windows 98 that contain
incompatible versions of Sun's Java programming
language.
U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Whyte gave
Microsoft 90 days to modify its Windows 98
operating system and Internet Explorer 4.0 Web
browser or pull them from the market. Current
versions of the products are not affected by the
ruling.
Java, Sun's technology that allows software
developers to write applications that can run on a
variety of operating systems, is considered a
threat to Microsoft Windows dominance. Sun
(SUNW), which licensed the Java code to
Microsoft, had accused the company of
breaching its contract to deliver Java-compatible
products.
Specifically, Sun accused Microsoft of
"polluting" Java for its own purposes, claiming
Microsoft's version ran Java applications only
under Windows. In May, Sun filed a request for
an injunction in U.S. District Court in San Jose,
Calif.
Ruling could affect antitrust lawsuit
Whyte's ruling bars the sale of Windows 98
and Internet Explorer 4.0 with Java technology
beginning in 90 days unless Microsoft modifies
the software to comply with Sun compatibility
tests.
The decision could also have an effect on the
government's landmark antitrust suit against
Microsoft. Federal regulators maintain that when
Microsoft identifies a product that could threaten
its Windows monopoly, the company engages in
behavior to eliminate that threat.
Whyte's decision centers around inclusion of
the Java Native Interface (JNI), Sun's interface
for writing Java programming code that can run
across multiple operating systems. Under the
injunction, Microsoft must include Sun's JNI in
future versions of Windows 98 and IE 4.0.
Microsoft noted that the ruling does not
require it to remove any of its programming
enhancements from its version of Java, an
arrangement Sun officials do not dispute.
"We have said all along that we encourage our
licensees to innovate the Java platform," said Alan
Baratz, JavaSoft president. "But it must be done
in such a way that… passes Sun's compatibility
tests."
Microsoft spokesman Jim Cullinan said the
company will comply with the order while it
reviews its options. He also blasted Sun's
decision to pursue the lawsuit.
"We believe Sun's legal strategy is shortsighted
because we believe it limits choice among
software developers to get the best Java
implementation," Cullinan said.
Microsoft also suggested it could abandon its
support of Java altogether. Paul Maritz, Microsoft
group vice president of the platform and
applications group, said the company is not
bound to offer Java support in any of its products.
"The option of not supporting Java is one that
is open to us," he said.
Maritz also noted Microsoft doesn't believe
the cost of complying with the order will have a
"material impact on the company's financial
performance."
In October 1997, Sun sued Microsoft for
breaching its contractual obligation to deliver
Java-compatible products. At the time, Sun said it
was seeking damages of $35 million.
Microsoft-IBM war revisited
Separately, a longstanding war between
technology giants reemerged in Microsoft's
antitrust trial Tuesday as a government witness
testified Microsoft's actions stifled IBM Corp.'s
chances to compete in the computer operating
system market.
John Soyring, IBM director of network
computing services, said Microsoft's licensing
terms with software developers makes it difficult
for them to translate Windows applications to
IBM's OS/2 operating system.
The government released Soyring's written
direct testimony Tuesday afternoon.
Though IBM and many software reviewers
considered OS/2 technically superior to
Windows, the product has never been able to
garner mass acceptance, in large part because
software developers write applications only for
Windows.
"Certain terms in Microsoft agreements make
it more difficult to port applications developed for
Windows to OS/2," Soyring said.
"Specifically, many of the agreements under
which Microsoft licenses tools… to ISVs
[independent software vendors] restrict use of the
tools to developing for Windows. Thus, ISVs,
who develop applications first for Windows
because of its huge install base, may not be able
to use the same tools to develop applications for
OS/2."
The government hopes to illustrate that even a
company with the size and clout of IBM cannot
succeed in offering alternative operating systems
because of Microsoft's allegedly anticompetitive
practices.
Microsoft, however, said in a statement that it
was IBM's own technological strategy that forced
OS/2 to the margins of the software market.
"IBM focused on optimizing the performance
of OS/2 with IBM's own hardware and software
products, and gave short shrift to third-party
developers," Microsoft said.
Gates: IBM 'rabid Java backers'
Before the government called Soyring as its
next witness, lawyers released additional excerpts
from Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates' videotaped
deposition.
During questioning, lead Justice Department
attorney David Boies grilled Gates on Microsoft's
relationship with IBM. Boies concentrated on
comments written by Gates in an Oct. 30, 1997
e-mail sent to other Microsoft executives in which
Gates expressed his disapproval over IBM's
endorsement of Sun's Java software.
In the message, Gates wrote: "Overall we will
never have the same relationship with IBM that
we have with Compaq, Dell and even HP
(Hewlett Packard Co.) because of their software
ambitions. I could deal with this just fine if they
weren't such rabid Java backers."
Boies attempted to establish that Microsoft
tried to control IBM's public support of Java
because it didn't want a major PC company
touting a rival technology. Gates, however, tried
to put the scenario in a more benevolent light.
"Did you want IBM to lower their rhetoric on
Java?" Boies asked.
"I actually explain in this message that I thought
the rhetoric was actually hurting IBM itself,
independent of Microsoft," Gates replied.
Boies later asked: "Let me put the question this
way. In or about October of 1997, did you want
to stop IBM from being what you refer to here as
a rabid Java backer?"
"We thought some of the rabidness was
hurting IBM as well as the industry as a whole,"
Gates said.
The trial is now in its fifth week and courtroom
watchers expect the proceedings to extend for
several months. Soyring's testimony will mark the
first time two witnesses have taken the stand in
the same week.
Bundling issue takes center stage
Microsoft lawyers Tuesday wrapped up cross
examination of government witness Glenn
Weadock after working to dispel his claims that
Microsoft stifled competition in the browser
market by bundling its Internet Explorer into its
operating system.
In his written pretrial deposition, Weadock -
president of consulting firm Independent Software
Inc. - said he had found that many companies
received little benefit from the integration, or
"bundling," of Windows and Internet Explorer,
and in fact they did not even understand why they
had been marketed together.
"Organizations continue to view Internet
Explorer (the browser) and Windows (the
operating system) as distinct products," Weadock
said.
"It is clear that the commingling of Internet
Explorer and Windows provides few real-world
benefits - and several significant real-world costs
and risks - for corporate customers that do not
standardize on Internet Explorer."
Furthermore, he concluded, "Microsoft's
failure to provide a mechanism for disentangling
Internet Explorer from Windows 98 may compel
such customers to incur these costs and risks."
Microsoft lawyer Richard Pepperman
challenged Weadock's conclusion, noting that
some companies did derive benefit from the
integration.
"Certainly there are some organizations that
find the integration… appealing," Weadock
replied. "My point is there are some that don't
and they have no way to get rid of it."
The claim is central to the government's
allegation that the software giant abused its
predominant share of the operating systems
market to threaten competing such companies as
Internet browser maker Netscape
Communications Corp. (NSCP).
Though the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in
June that browser bundling is legal so long as it
benefits consumers, the government hopes to
show that the anticompetitive effects outweigh any
consumer advantages.
During redirect questioning, the government
introduced portions of a videotaped deposition
given by Boeing Co. (BA) executive Scott Vesey.
In his testimony, Vesey said Boeing regards
browsers as separate applications, directly
contradicting Microsoft's claims that Web
browsing functions are part of the operating
system.
Government lawyers also used portions of
depositions given by Packard Bell's John Kies
and an April 1998 memo from Gateway Inc.'s
(GTW) Jim Von Holle, both of whom said they
would prefer to decide for themselves which
browser they include in their computers rather
than having that choice imposed by Microsoft.
Microsoft shares (MSFT) gained 3-1/16 to
close at 111-7/8. IBM (IBM) shares closed at
158, off 1-3/8.
Toy |
