Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Appeals Court Sides With Microsoft On Java

michael posted more than 11 years ago | from the sweet-and-light dept.

Microsoft 517

burgburgburg writes "Reuters reports that the three-member federal appeals court in Virginia ruled today the U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz erred when he ordered Microsoft to include Java with the Windows operating system. Fortunately, Dell and HP, the top 2 PC makers, have already decided to ship Java on the PCs that they sell. Apple, Red Hat and Lindows have also agreed to include Sun's Java." The ruling is available.

cancel ×

517 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

actually, (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6305330)

i think Red Hat includes IBM's implementation, and Apple uses their own impl.

Re:actually, (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6305381)

Yes, but they are all based on Sun's Java.

GAY SEX IS NOW LEGAL IN THE USA (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6305395)

Great news for apple fans!

Re:actually, (4, Informative)

leifm (641850) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305525)

Yeah, I thought that was the case as well. Doesn't Apple have the only Java implementation that doesn't spawn a new VM for each new app? I can't remember what the terminology for it was.

Re:actually, (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6305534)

Not anymore. RedHat will now bundle Sun's Java implementation. I believe there's a link to this on Sun's website somewhere.
At my client's site, they had a symposium with the chief technologist from Sun, Brian Wilson, a couple of weeks ago and he announced the agreement between RH and Sun.

fp (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6305331)

I failed it

ship this (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6305332)

ship this fp to the TK fuckers.

TK (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6305353)

Trevor Kay [trevorkay.com] fukcers?

AWWWWWWWWW YEAH (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6305336)

As a Microsoft shareholder, I am proud both of this and the 470 Trillion dollar income added this morning.

As a LNUX shareholder, I am grateful that I have a backup if I run out of toilet paper.

Re:AWWWWWWWWW YEAH (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6305361)

That was 470 million moron.

You were only off by 469,999,530,000,000 though.

Re:AWWWWWWWWW YEAH (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6305404)

You're fucking stupid as shit. Learn the difference b/w a billion and a trillion you stupid peice of shit.

no penalty at all (-1, Flamebait)

oogoody (302342) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305340)

It's good to be an illegal monopolist.
Nothing happens to you and you clean up.

Hate to say I agree, but... (0, Flamebait)

donutz (195717) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305343)

Why should a company be forced to include a competitors product with their own?

Microsoft is definitely still awaiting its comeuppance, but the libertarian in me knows that more government and judicial bureaucracy isn't the way to get there.

Go Linux!

Re:Hate to say I agree, but... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6305398)

So far in history there is little evidence that anything BUT regulation will solve the problem of a single company getting too powerful.

Re:Hate to say I agree, but... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6305401)

The libertarian in you should also realize that unrestrained capitalism is functionally equivalent to communism. Instead of a top-down dictatorial system driven by government incompetence, we would live in a world of top-down dictatorship driven by corporate incompetence. Libertarians love to overlook the Enron's and the SCO lawsuits of the world, but the fact is in a world without well intended regulation of those who claim to be well intended, we might as well live in anarchy.

Re:Hate to say I agree, but... (-1, Flamebait)

donutz (195717) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305418)

Good point...how come you're too much of a wuss to put your name to it?

Re:Hate to say I agree, but... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6305482)

Damn, he pointed out the flaw in your argument. Time to pull out the name-calling strategy!

Re:Hate to say I agree, but... (0)

killmenow (184444) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305503)

Maybe she already moderated...Oh, wait. Girls don't read slashdot

Maybe HE already moderated.

Re:Hate to say I agree, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6305512)

People will think I'm ghey if they see my name on slashdot, so I post AC. Glad you liked my comment, though.

Re:Hate to say I agree, but... (-1, Redundant)

geekee (591277) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305555)

Wrong. A pure capitalist system guarantees an individual the freedom to trade freely with others. A corporation is NOT incompetent like a govt in running a business, since there is negative feedback that will put a company out of business if it does poorly. Communism is a system where the individual has no freedom to trade. A wealth is owned in common, and no amount of work guarantees anything more than the average amount of wealth. Corporations cannot be dictatorships under capitalism because the buyer always has the choice of taking his business elsewhere or boycotting an industry altogether.

Re:Hate to say I agree, but... (1)

Jad LaFields (607990) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305443)

At first I was* pleased to hear about this, for it would mean not having to download Java just to run all those neat Java applets all over the web. Then I thought of ways this sort of thinking ("include this because lot's of people use it") could be applied in ways I would not like...

* I almost just wrote "At first I was afraid, I was petrified..." No shit. That's scary.

Re:Hate to say I agree, but... (1)

aridhol (112307) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305464)

Why should a company be forced to include a competitors product with their own?
Maybe we should ask Microsoft why they felt that IBM, who was working with Linux, should be required to ship Windows, a competing product, with their systems?

Re:Hate to say I agree, but... (1)

TrollBridge (550878) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305501)

Original question: Why should a company be forced by government to include a competitors product with their own?"

Your question: Why should IBM be forced by Microsoft to ship Windows, a competing product, with their systems?

Two COMPLETELY different issues. The first is done through law, where Microsoft doesn't have a choice in the matter, and the second is done through contract, where both parties agreed to the terms.

Re:Hate to say I agree, but... (1)

Rasputin (5106) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305543)

1) In a monopoly situation, there is no choice.
2) Contract law is enforced by the government.

So what? (1)

RatBastard (949) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305517)

What does that have to do with Java? Your argument has nothing tio do with the courts forcing MS to cary Sun's Java VM.

Re:Hate to say I agree, but... (1)

notque (636838) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305509)

Why should a company be forced to include a competitors product with their own?

Good question, here's one back.

Why should a company that sells an operating system package whatever programs they want onto it?

Furthermore.

Why should a company that sells an operating system package their programs onto it?

With their ISP on it.

Go to Best Buy/Frys/Compusa and find me a single computer with JUST windows on it.

It should be sold stand alone, and not bundled.

I still find software on my pc I didn't know that I had (read: paid for)

Re:Hate to say I agree, but... (1)

andy1307 (656570) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305523)

Why should a company be forced to include a competitors product with their own?

Because they signed a contract saying they would do so?

MS (5, Insightful)

jeffkjo1 (663413) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305346)

While I agree that MS has erred in the past, they shouldn't be forced to carry another company's product within their product.

However, they should not be allowed to continue carrying their own, proprietary version of java. Does the ruling say anything about that?

Re:MS (1)

i.r.id10t (595143) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305469)

They should be able include their own java - as long as they don't call it java, or use the same file names, etc. I suppose that being generous, I wouldn't mind to much if they called it a Java implementation.

Not having RTFA or being able to remember enough background, but shouldn't/didn't Sun sue them over the name and non-standard implementation?

Re:MS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6305531)

Do they, it's called .NET.

Re:MS (1)

notque (636838) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305533)

While I agree that MS has erred in the past, they shouldn't be forced to carry another company's product within their product.

However, they should not be allowed to continue carrying their own, proprietary version of java. Does the ruling say anything about that?


They've errored in the past. Multiple times.

The only answer is that they are an unfit company and should be disbanded.

(This would be the case if it wasn't for Market Share, Politicing, etc.)

They are in a position where they are above the rules.

Re:MS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6305556)

Remember, MS is a monopoly. The rules for monopolies are/should be different.

Yes, this makes sense (3, Insightful)

mhesseltine (541806) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305347)

It isn't Microsoft's job to promote Java, it's the job of Sun and the resellers (Dell, Gateway, HPaq, etc.) If MS wants to include Java, that's their perogative. However, they shouldn't be required to; any more than Red Hat should be required to distribute Realplayer (for example).

Re:Yes, this makes sense (4, Insightful)

deanj (519759) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305386)

Taken alone, that's true...however...

But the reason they were told to do this by the lower court was because of what Microsoft had tried to do with Java in the first place, which is splinter the market by shipping a version of Java that would only create programs that would only Windows systems.

Re:Yes, this makes sense (2, Insightful)

nettdata (88196) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305407)

But the reason they were told to do this by the lower court was because of what Microsoft had tried to do with Java in the first place, which is splinter the market by shipping a version of Java that would only create programs that would only Windows systems.

True. But this means that the court should do something along the lines of squashing that version of Java, not promoting the "real" one.

Re:Yes, this makes sense (3, Informative)

deanj (519759) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305506)

But that's what the lower court did!

At the time this was going on, Microsoft was still distributing their version. The courts response was, ship the compatible one instead.

The damage already done, Microsoft said "well, we won't ship any at all".

Fortunately, Dell and HP have already picked up the ball and will be distributing it anyway.

Re:Yes, this makes sense (1)

IthnkImParanoid (410494) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305519)

But this means that the court should do something along the lines of squashing that version of Java, not promoting the "real" one.
I don't think the court should necessarily 'squash' Microsoft's java per se. We can't (and shoudln't) prevent Microsoft from writing their own JVM any more than we should stop them from writing their own browser. The (IMHO IANAL without RTFA) illegal step comes when they bundle it with their monopoly status operating system. The logical and fairest solution seems to be stopping MS from bundling their crap with their OS.

Too bad that won't happen.

Re:Yes, this makes sense (3, Interesting)

dnoyeb (547705) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305547)

Untrue because that version of java was self-squashed by definition. Recall that it purposely sucked.

The proper remedy is to make an attempt to force MS to provide Sun with what they illegally took away. Market opportunity.

Re:Yes, this makes sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6305388)

Hell yeah! Besides...everytime you promote that POS Java, baby Jesus cries.

Re:Yes, this makes sense (2, Informative)

jspectre (102549) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305410)

ok. i agree with you in part. but M$ can also make it hard to install java and hard to make it compatable with their browser and OS. can you say "hidden APIs" anyone? and just when sun figures it out there will be an update/patch that will change things around again.

Re:Yes, this makes sense (1)

mhesseltine (541806) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305485)

ok. i agree with you in part. but M$ can also make it hard to install java and hard to make it compatable with their browser and OS. can you say "hidden APIs" anyone? and just when sun figures it out there will be an update/patch that will change things around again.

Ok, yes, MS could make it difficult to install Sun Java. And yes, MS does have access to all the APIs for Windows. But, what stops Sun from making interaction with other Windows applications difficult? What stops Redhat from not serving pages to Windows machines? Nothing. If they want to do that, they certainly can. And while they may think it's a good idea, people in the know will see the problems and either complain about the lack of interoperability (sp?), or switch to another platform.

When it comes down to it, I'd love to see MS make Java a difficult install. Then see Sun inform every tech publication, Fortune magazine, WSJ, etc. about what MS is doing. That might change more people's perceptions about MS and make them willing to look at an alternative platform (Linux).

Re:Yes, this makes sense (1)

Trashman (3003) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305524)

can you say "hidden APIs" anyone? and just when sun figures it out there will be an update/patch that will change things around again.

You know, every time I hear this arguement, I always think, well, if MS's own products use the "hidden API" if they issue a patch, wouldn't that break their own apps? It makes me wonder if it's really true that there are hidden API's in windows.

Re:Yes, this makes sense (5, Insightful)

fritz1968 (569074) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305461)

It isn't Microsoft's job to promote Java...

I agree, only Sun has an obligation to promote Java. However, I thought that Microsoft signed a deal with Sun a while back to include JAVA with windows.

Over the years, it went something like this :
1 - MS and Sun sign a deal to include Java in Windows.
2 - MS kinda created their own version of Java (or polluted Sun's version with MS-only type calls).
3 - Sun sued MS to pull the MS version of Java
4 -then they sued to have the original Java (or latest version of Sun's Java) to be put back into windows.
5 - Now, so it seems, MS is legally able to backout on the original deal

does that sound about right (generally speaking)?

Re:Yes, this makes sense (1)

mhesseltine (541806) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305513)

Yes, that sounds right. However, if Sun didn't really lock down the contract with MS about what constituted "Java" then I really can't feel sorry for them.

With corporate America having legal departments bigger than most law firms, that kind of screw up is inexcusable.

Re:Yes, this makes sense (2, Interesting)

Surak (18578) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305491)

No, it's not. I agree mostly. But Microsoft also shouldn't be engaging in anticompetitive behaviour and violating their contract with Sun by including their own broken implentation of Java. If Windows isn't going to include a proper implementation of Java (whether that be Sun's or a version of Microsoft's that conforms to standards), then it shouldn't include one at all.

In related news.. (4, Funny)

L. VeGas (580015) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305350)

Three members of the federal appeals court have just purchased Ferraris.

Re:In related news.. (0, Offtopic)

inteller (599544) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305463)

In related news....a 1000 scorned slashdolts jumped off a bridge to their deaths all the while yealling the sky was falling.

Makes sense.... (5, Insightful)

lowe0 (136140) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305355)

Dell and HP are where I'd expect Sun to have to push Java - do an end-run around MS and deal with the OEMs. Now, if MS were preventing the OEMs from bundling Java, that would be different - but they're specifically barred from doing that anymore, and IMO rightly so.

Isn't middleware more of a server issue nowadays anyway? And how hard is it to include a runtime with your software?

Torn (1)

Voltronalpha (244088) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305358)

Part of me feels that it is a good thing that it wasn't upheld.... How can you force someone to add code, I think though you may not realize it it's better this precedent didn't get made.

Cue Sun complaints stage left (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6305359)

Sun hasn't openly cried in the last week, now they shall weep bitter tears!

Re:Cue Sun complaints stage left (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6305472)

And their tanks shall be smashing up against MS's walls!

As long as it's there, and it works. (2, Insightful)

GNUman (155139) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305360)

Well, as long as PC retailers can add the software their customers ask for without barriers from Microsoft. Microsoft can keep it out of their OS.

Thing is, Microsoft should be forced not to put any barriers for Java to run properly in their OS.

how sad (1)

classic66coupe (684338) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305365)

that is pathetic. I lose more faith in our legal system everyday.

Anticompetative behavior (4, Insightful)

ikewillis (586793) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305366)

By including an outdated and broken version of Java with Windows by default, Microsoft has effectively doomed Java on the desktop. This build has lead to a degree of fragmentation of the Java standard, has caused Java application developers to code their applications to support the lowest common denominator, the JRE bundled with Windows.

It's very exciting to see OEMs bundling a recent Java runtime with their new systems, especially Dell who is the largest OEM. Perhaps with this application developers can have a bit more freedom to code their applications in a manner which utilizes more recent features. There's no reason why everyone shouldn't be using the 1.4 JRE at this point in time.

Re:Anticompetative behavior (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6305390)

Not everyone; only people willing to settle for proprietary software should be using the Sun JRE.

Re:Anticompetative behavior (0, Flamebait)

gpinzone (531794) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305436)

No, Sun doomed Java by not giving users a darned good enough reason to use Java on the desktop. Flash, ActiveX plugins, and Server Side scripting are what people use instead of Java applets.

even SCOTUS can be influenced (-1, Flamebait)

peter303 (12292) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305369)

A federal appeals court is small potatoes compared to the Supremes. Remember Y2K where they halted the Florida recount and put in office the presidental candidate with the smaller popular vote. If SCOTUS can be swayed this easily, whats to stop one the world's most influential companies against an appeal court?

Re:even SCOTUS can be influenced (0, Offtopic)

Sabalon (1684) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305391)

This isn't the first time that the popular vote did not agree with the electoral college. Remember - us normal average citizens are too dumb to elect someone directly (see: Florida) so we have this other body to do so on our behalf.

Re:even SCOTUS can be influenced (0, Offtopic)

tcopeland (32225) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305422)

> they halted the Florida recount

The votes were recounted several times, with President Bush winning each recount.

Re:even SCOTUS can be influenced (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6305468)

No. The counts were halted for specific counties that had not completed the counts yet. Suprisingly the counties in question had an unofficial lead for Gore.

Re:even SCOTUS can be influenced (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6305423)

Even WITH a recount, Bush still would have won! Geez people, get on with life.

Re:even SCOTUS can be influenced (2, Insightful)

Anti Frozt (655515) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305449)

If you had read the headline, the appeals court sided with M$. There is no reason for this to go any futher now.

I can't believe that it would even have to go to the appeals court. To force any company (even M$) to include someone else's propriatary code is foolish.

Why not just get General Motors to start putting Porsche engines in their cars. SSDD

Re:even SCOTUS can be influenced (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6305508)

Why not just get General Motors to start putting Porsche engines in their cars.

That actually would be pretty cool.

Re:even SCOTUS can be influenced (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6305486)

>Remember Y2K where they halted the Florida recount and put in office the presidental candidate with the smaller popular vote

No, I don't remember that. I remember where the court resisted attempts to get involved in overriding a state's electoral process and the constitutional election process was upheld.

The candidate with the smaller popular vote won the presidency through the system of the electoral college. The system worked as designed. Subsequent recounts found that it wouldn't have made any difference anyway.

I didn't like the outcome either, but I don't attribute it to the court being unlawful or corrupt or anything like that.

Get over it already

Re:even SCOTUS can be influenced (1, Funny)

Jim_Hawkins (649847) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305537)

A federal appeals court is small potatoes compared to the Supremes.

Yeah...
BTW, how are Diana and her buddies doing now-a-days?

SIDE NOTE: You must be at least 40 years of age to appreciate this joke.

SIDE NOTE 2: You must also have a crummy sense of humor like I do to appreciate this joke. :-p

Interesting company choices (1, Funny)

TWX (665546) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305370)

"Apple, Red Hat and Lindows have also agreed to include Sun's Java."

That's like a couple of blue-collar labourers and a street bum giving their opinions on the G8 summit, right?

Re:Interesting company choices (2, Insightful)

notque (636838) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305448)

That's like a couple of blue-collar labourers and a street bum giving their opinions on the G8 summit, right?

That's harsh. It's actually stating that everyone else is doing it without a court mandate, so Microsoft is bad.

Microsoft is bad. Very bad. But not because they don't want to include Sun's Java.

Article text - in case of slashdotting (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6305372)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Thursday overturned a ruling that would have forced Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq:MSFT - news) to incorporate Sun Microsystems Inc (Nasdaq:SUNW - news)'s Java programming language in the Windows operating system.

The three-judge panel in Richmond, Virginia, said a lower court judge had erred by ordering Microsoft to carry its rival's software, a penalty the lower court judge said was necessary to make up for Microsoft's past misdeeds and CmdrTaco's hairy ass.

The lower court judge, U.S. District Judge J. Frederick "CowboyNeal" Motz, was assigned cases arising from the landmark government antitrust suit against Microsoft filed in 1998. He concluded in a Dec. 23 ruling that Sun had a good chance of winning its private case against Microsoft.

Still... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6305376)

...java has a much better market share than .net/ActiveX, and developers will continue using it. All the harm here is on Windows users, who will have to download a JRE.

--
Getting too much pr0n? [porn-free.org]

Re:Still... (-1)

kevx45 (654613) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305496)

who needs java or asp/.net, VB or anything that is proprietary. I have C, PHP, Python, Perl/CGI, MySQL and Linux to use instead. Who cares about market share when you have open source products to use instead. Microsoft is going to eventually go the way of the Conestoga wagon. It's just taking time is all.

Kevin "KevX45" Myrick
Wondering why people don't wake up and use Linux since 2001.

Good news (2, Insightful)

DarkBlackFox (643814) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305384)

At least now they are required to implement at least one non-Microsoft standard, which could come in handy considering they will no longer release Internet Explorer as a standalone product.

It would seriously protect against businesses having to rely on .NET and other proprietary MS languages (forcing OS upgrades to obtain the new required features), as well as keep alternate browsers a viable solution.

Re:Good news (1)

DarkBlackFox (643814) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305431)

Doh! I RTFA and realized the obvious.

That said, it's a ad thing, but what I said above would be a good thing.

MS (2, Insightful)

pnix (682520) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305387)

I may hate Microsoft, but I do side with them in this case. Forcing M$ to include Java is stupid, they can do whatever they want with their product. That would be like forcing Linux users to install Internet Explorer or something silly like that!

Re:MS (1)

classic66coupe (684338) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305462)

if that is the case, can they sell me a copy of windows 2003 without .NET ?

Re:MS (1)

andy1307 (656570) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305554)

MS wasn't just "forced to include java". It was forced to include java as a penalty for its misdeeds. Forcing a person to stay behind bars is bad. Forcing a person to stay behind bars is GOOD if said person did something unlawful.

That big a deal? (2, Insightful)

Xentax (201517) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305392)

This is about whether or not the Java Runtime should be bundled with Windows, right? If I'm off-base here, please enlighten me.

I'm as against anti-trust as the next guy, but I can see why forcing MS to bundle Java (or, for contrast, a similar plugin e.g. Flash or Shockwave) is going too far.

Mainly, it would place an additional support burden on MS that's not really appropriate -- they'd have to keep up with versioning, deal with customers who are confused as to who services it, etc.

Anyone who's smart enough to distinguish it as belonging to Sun rather than MS should be smart enough to go find it on their own (these days; granted at the original time of the suit perhaps it wasn't nearly so straightforward), and it *is* free, after all.

Xentax

Re:That big a deal? (5, Insightful)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305447)

This serves as restitution for bundling a broken version of Java whose purpose was to destroy the viability of Java. This was seen as illegal abuse of monopoly power.

They could have avoided this by:

1. Including Sun's Java from the get-go; or
2. Not including a broken Java with the OS.

Re:That big a deal? (1)

jankyPhil (317751) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305536)

Totally agree. Microsoft is once again bullying everyone around by including a bunk version of Java. If Microsoft can get all pissy for people distributing old versions of ms-dos and windows 1.1, then SUN should be able to cry when M$ decides to put out old JAVA stuff.

I think the judge should have forced M$ to

1. Stop bundling JAVA into the OS
2. Bundle UPDATED version of JAVA

M$ is being a dick, and dicks have to come down sometime, don't they? (at least mine does)

Good! (3, Interesting)

mhore (582354) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305397)

At the risk of being redundant, I've just got to say that I'd much rather have like, Sun's or IBM's Java package than Microsoft's.

Since Java is not Microsoft's product, it only makes sense that PC manufacturers should be the ones distributing it by default (if they see the need).

Mike.

They're right, there should be no *legal* requirem (4, Insightful)

numbski (515011) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305400)

They shouldn't be legally required to include it, but we should, as developers, code in such a way to JRE is the only way to go. If M$ wants to use their own Java Virtual Machine, fine, but we need to make sure that they have little choice but to make it compatible with the rest of the world.

I'm personally not going to go out of my way to recode everything so I have to make two seperate binaries, one for windows, and one for everyone else. The whole point of Java is that I shouldn't have to do that.

WTF? (2, Insightful)

OptimoosePrime (612749) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305417)

That doesn't make much sense:
would have forced Microsoft Corp. to incorporate Sun Microsystems Inc's Java programming language
Windows OS doesn't have anything to do with "Java programming language". So what if you have to download the Java SDK or JRE stuff? Windows can't get a beer out of the fridge for you after work either, but I don't hear people whining about that...yet.

Jumbo Java (2, Insightful)

spector30 (319592) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305421)

I say fix the whole lot at MS by not installing their software. Use Linux, use OS X. Anything but the effluence flowing from the filthy beast. Maybe if more people stopped complaining about MS and started doing something about it, with their pocket-books and wallets, the whole point here would be moot.

It's similar to the whole controversy over the 7 dirty words that you can't say on the radio or television. There was never a need to ban those words. There are two options; turn the channel, or turn it off. There is choice.

Um, okay. (1)

RatBastard (949) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305477)

Nice rant, but what the hell does it have to do with the story at hand?

Pork Tacos? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6305425)

I was thinking of having pork tacos for supper. Anyone ever tried such a thing?

Transcript of Microsoft's closing argument. (0, Redundant)

L. VeGas (580015) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305427)

In case it gets slashdotted.

MS: But I don't like Java in my Longhorn!

Moot point now, but Microsoft remains unpunished (5, Insightful)

deanj (519759) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305428)

Since the HP and Dell announcements, this is pretty much a moot point anyway.

The real problem of all this is that Microsoft has walked away from the whole "let's release an incompatible version of Java", with only a "don't do that" slap on the wrist. The monopoly remains intact, and unpunished.

This should be a chilling reminder to anyone that does ANYTHING with Microsoft. If they're gonna screw you, don't expect them to be punished for it, no matter what happens.

it doesnt matter anymore (3, Informative)

rexguo (555504) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305434)

Well Sun has finally figured that it's futile to force M$ to include Java with its OS and has done a great job convincing the major PC makers to include Java instead. With the new logo and new website www.java.com designed for the average joe, Sun has finally decided to do something about its branding, and making Java a household name. The Christina Aguilera (sp?) promo was a smart move in collaboration with Motorola, but I feel the handset design was a disappointment. Sun may have lost the desktop war forever, but its enterprise presence (J2EE) is strong despite .NET's aggression and its mobile presence (J2ME) is way-ahead of WinCE/Windows Mobile. Nokia's debut of the first MIDP2 phone (6600) is a great win at this year's JavaOne. With its share prices dropping ~92% in 3 years, it's now going to be make or break for Sun.

Re:it doesnt matter anymore (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6305520)

Is average Joe similar to the java standard runtime environment?

Challenge (2, Funny)

tomstdenis (446163) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305439)

Find 10 suits who know the diff between MS and SUN Java and I'll give you 100$ [subject to my approval]

Tom

Duh... (1, Funny)

essdodson (466448) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305459)

Come on Sun. Wake up, you're looking like SCO. Hey, so is your stock!

I have mixed feelings. (3, Insightful)

foxtrot (14140) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305470)

On the one hand, if Microsoft doesn't want to sell their product with Sun's Java, I don't think they should have to.

On the other hand, if they're gonna include something and call it Java, it should damned well BE Java.

-JDF

Keep Java Pure (5, Insightful)

Cloudgatherer (216427) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305478)

As a programmer, I really like Java's "write once, run everywhere" motto (while it may not always work out that way in practice). From what I understand, did not have a fully compatible VM, so Sun develops one for download. While I don't think MS should be forced to ship Java, they should be disallowed from trying to hijack Java (hence they went out and made C#).

Uses of Java.. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6305480)

Client-side uses of Java that require Java to be preinstalled: 1. Crap Applets. 2+. ???? I'm confused..

fp (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6305492)

fp lunix fags!!

lowell i got a penis bird you open sores tards!1111!!!1!! roffels dewds,

im ghey bye

it's good to see (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6305498)

it's kind of refreshing to see that a lot of linux community kids are siding with microsoft on this one. makes us a little more reputible vs. always saying "microsoft is EVIL! linux roxors!"

btw. i lost my password and changed my e-mail address so i can's get it back, but i'm StrangeNewGround.

It's still about the antitrust remedy (5, Insightful)

kremvax (307366) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305526)

Even though it's hard to swallow having the government dictate the operating conditions of a company (and include / disavow specific portions and products ) it's important to remember that this is/was a *penalty* for serious antitrust/anticometitive behavior.

It was a light "slap on the wrist that doesnt really cost much of anything" penalty too.

Guilt without punishment, well, isn't going to hinder them from this sort of behavior in the future is it.

I guess there is always justice for those that can afford it.

Kremvax

No Suprise OEMs Bundle Java (5, Insightful)

MikeD83 (529104) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305527)

I think we can all say that Java is rampant on the Internet. For instance, most online gambling sites use Java user interfaces. The average Joe six pack thinks he got the shaft from his computer company when IE displays a broken icon when he tries to view Java content. Companies such as Dell are bundling Java so their customers won't think they have broken computers.

Why For M$ to include Java? Even playing field (5, Insightful)

MidKnight (19766) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305544)

Most folks here, thus far, are reading the incredibly thin article and thinking "Sounds right -- Microsoft shouldn't be forced to carry a competitor's product. Yea for the court system." The point that they're missing is that the lower court ordered Microsoft to carry Java as a temporary measure until the Sun -vs- Microsoft case was settled. To quote from Motz's original ruling:

  • "Unless Sun is given a fair opportunity to compete in a market untainted by the effects of Microsoft's past antitrust violations, there is a serious risk that in the near future the market will tip in favor of [Microsoft]"

Motz reasoned that Microsoft had illegally used its monopoly position to do irreparable harm a competitor's product, and that Sun was exceedingly likely to win their suit. This temporary order was necessary to level the playing ground until that suit was carried out.

Basically, as in all Microsoft's legal troubles, their strategy is to draw out the cases indefinitely until they can leverage their desktop monopoly to the point of making the suit a moot point. Then, they can just settle out of court for chump change. Anyone heard of Netscape?

--Mid

I think... (2, Interesting)

qorkfiend (550713) | more than 11 years ago | (#6305548)

the original ruling was meant to prevent Microsoft from deliberately breaking its JVM, defeating the cross-platform goal of Java and preventing large-scale Java development on Windows.

From the article...
"Jim Desler, a Microsoft spokesman, says the move relates to its January 2001 legal settlement with Sun, which Microsoft says bars it from making any changes to Sun's underlying Java programming code after next Jan. 2, 2004."
which makes the original ruling sort of redundant. Microsoft can't touch the code any more (unless Sun gives them permission, I suppose), so they can't break it.

I also enjoyed this:
"As a result, Mr. Desler said, Microsoft can't provide security updates to its virtual machine, leading to its decision to stop supporting the software, though it plans to help customers migrate to alternate solutions."
Since when has MS been overly concerned with security updates? Oh, and the "alternate solutions" - .Net.

service: AIM chatroom: slashdot j00 MUST JOIN! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6305550)

Yes! Slashdot now has a room on AOL Instant Messenger.

Join chat room "Slashdot" or use this AIM hyperlink: Click Here [nero-online.org] .
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>