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: mozek who wrote (12924)	12/3/1998 4:18:00 PM
From: Bearded One	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

I was unaware of the xBase ruling. I am aware of the evolution of programming languages. As for Microsoft's having licensed the right to alter Java to the extent that they did, there are three opinions on this matter-- your lawyers, Sun's lawyers, and the judge. But I will accept the possibility that Microsoft got screwed by the judge. Even given that possibility, however, do you see how Microsoft's altering the Java syntax might be perceived as an attempt to destroy the cross platform capability of Java? Consider the context-- emails back and forth about the danger of Java, about Java pollution, about wresting control from Sun, about pissing on JFC (maybe Gates can't understand a dependent clause in a sentence, but I can)-- why should we believe that Microsoft's alterations of Java were anything but the implementation of a policy spelled out in those emails? Here again is an example of why Gates' testimony sucks. You can make an argument that Microsoft has the right to implement that policy, but you can't make that argument unless you're willing to talk about your motivations honestly. Motivations are the heart of the case.