Sun Files Suit Against Microsoft for Anti-Trust Violations 694
Herve writes "Sun Microsystems announced it has filed a private antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft Corporation. The suit, filed March 8, 2002 in the United States District Court in San Jose, CA., seeks remedies for the harm inflicted by Microsoft's anticompetitive behavior with respect to the Java[tm] platform and for damages resulting from Microsoft's illegal efforts to maintain and expand its monopoly power. In June 2001, the Federal Court of Appeals found Microsoft guilty of illegally abusing its monopoly power with respect to Sun and the Java platform. Sun's suit seeks to redress the competitive and economic harm caused by Microsoft's illegal acts."
Microsoft's Open Letter to Sun (Score:4, Informative)
An Open Letter Regarding Windows XP and Java Support
Sun Microsystems has invested a great deal of their marketing dollars and lobbying efforts in attacking our yet-to-be released Windows XP operating system, claiming that Microsoft has hurt Sun, the Java language and PC industry customers at large by not including the Microsoft virtual machine in Windows XP.
We feel it is important to outline for our customers the facts on this matter.
Sun Microsystems has taken every step possible to prevent Microsoft from shipping our award winning Java virtual machine. In fact, Sun resorted to litigation to stop Microsoft from shipping a high performance Java virtual machine that took optimal advantage of Windows. The settlement agreement provides for a termination of Microsoft's existing license with Sun and phase-out of the Microsoft VM, so Sun's professed surprise is mere spin. It should be noted that, since the settlement, a Federal Appeals Court has upheld Microsoft's development of a high-performance, well-integrated virtual machine for Windows as pro-competitive.
When Microsoft and Sun settled their litigation earlier this year, Sun was quick to pronounce the settlement a great victory. Sun's CEO said, "It's pretty simple: 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."1 Sun got what they said they wanted: the termination of the existing Java license with Microsoft, and an agreement that Microsoft would phase out its Java virtual machine.
Sun now professes surprise and unhappiness, and is complaining publicly. But as industry analysts such as Bob Sutherland of Technology Business Research point out: "Sun can't have it both ways. They don't want Microsoft to have monopolistic control, but at the same time they want them to control their Java. No matter what Microsoft does, Sun is going to try to demonize them."2
Perhaps most disturbing, Sun is being disingenuous about the impact on customers. Microsoft has taken several steps to make its Java implementation available to Windows XP customers while adhering to the settlement agreement and protecting Windows customers from any future litigation by Sun. While the Microsoft virtual machine is not on the Windows XP CD, it is still an integrated part of the product. Customers who upgrade to Windows XP from recent prior versions of Windows can easily and automatically take advantage of their existing Java virtual machine. Customers with new machines or who perform a clean installation of Windows XP will automatically be offered the choice to perform a one-time download of the virtual machine the first time they browse a Web page containing a Java applet. This download is then available for any subsequent applet a customer may encounter. Finally, Microsoft has made its virtual machine available to any PC manufacturer to ship with new Windows XP systems, to save customers even this one-time download.
At Microsoft we are proud of the Java virtual machine we created, and the value our customers see in it. It has a long history of high quality and superior performance. It is also the only Java virtual machine that offers an integrated applet browsing experience with Internet Explorer. And it offered customers a choice - just as Windows XP will enable customers to choose and run other third-party virtual machines.
Sun works hard to create an image of itself as a leader in openness and choice with Java. The notion that Java is "open" is simply incorrect - Sun's actions ensure this, as again clearly demonstrated when it submitted Java to an industry standards body and then reneged on the submission, not just once but twice. Contrast these actions with Microsoft, where we have submitted the underlying specifications for Microsoft
Sun's idea of choice is that you can have any language you want, as long as it is Sun's version of Java under Sun's control. By contrast, Microsoft
Sun has a multiple-personality disorder (Score:1, Informative)
So let me get this straight: Sun doesn't like what liberties Microsoft took within' bounds of the Java agreement, so they sued Microsoft to cease working on Java, hence Java disappears from the XP feature list. Now that XP ships, Sun complains that Microsoft won't act as a free distribution channel for them (versus, say, customers having the right to download the Java runtime if they really wanted, just as they do with Flash, Quicktime, Realmedia, etc.).
Is it not a bit ridiculous that Sun is complaining that Microsoft is a monopoly for NOT distributing Sun's software for them? Why does Sun earn the priviledge of having their software distributed for them? I just made BleeboLang and want it distributed by Microsoft goddamnit, put right there on the root of the XP disc! Oh, wait, Sun believes that they are special, and it is their right that everyone should be forced to have Sun's Java installed...Uh huh...
Blah. Sun should sue Linus for not including Java in the kernel.
What Sun Seeks (Score:2, Informative)
Sun is seeking remedies that include:
Preliminary injunctions prior to trial requiring Microsoft to:
Distribute Sun's current, binary implementation of Java Plug-in as part of Windows XP and Internet Explorer.
Stop the unlicensed distribution of Microsoft's Java Virtual Machine through separate web downloads, instead of incorporating within Windows XP and Internet Explorer, in accordance with Jan. 23, 2000 settlement agreement.
Permanent injunction requiring Microsoft to:
Disclose and license proprietary interfaces, protocols and formats.
Unbundle tied products like Internet Explorer, IIS and
Treble damages.
Attorneys' fees.
Re:...and more (Score:5, Informative)
Did you ever consider that maybe Sun, Oracle, HP, Apple, etc. don't wish to break the law in order to compete with Microsoft? Microsoft got where they are now by breaking the law. Their insistance that we don't believe we broke the law so it did not happen not withstanding.
Sun is No Different - A reformed Sun Biggot. (Score:1, Informative)
In reflection, it reminds me of a Zen Cohen that I heard about an old man who worshiped dragons. One day the Dragon God's met the man to thank him for a lifetime of worship. When the man saw them he died instantly. Why? Because when the man realized the reality of what he had fantasized about throughout his lifetime, it was too much for his heart to bear. Sun Microsystems was my dragon. When I went to Sun I believed that I was pitching in to help do my part in stopping the Microsoft Machine. Boy, was I disillusioned.
A reformed Sun Biggot.
Re:Why I stopped using IE (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Proprietary against proprietary... yawn! (Score:2, Informative)
if it appears microsoft's attempt to duplicate java is better, it's just because microsoft has been able to look at java and learn from what mistakes sun made.
sun was not able to learn from their mistakes when they were developing java because no one had ever made those mistakes before. sun cannot learn from their mistakes, go thorugh and fix their problems now becuase they do not have the resources. microsoft at this point has nearly all the resources-- people, cash, mindshare-- in the entire industry.
if sun had the kind of level of ability to develop things quickly and ability to psuh people into upgrading their products on a frequent basis that microsoft does -- things that are products of microsoft's monopoly power, not products of the worthiness of the intellectual holdings or products of either microsoft or sun -- i think it'ws safe to say that java would be something you could really call a success, as opposed to "oh, well it's a neat little platform for servlets, has some minor but omnipresent and hellishly obnoxious issues when you try to use it for anything else though".
i agree totally on the bit that this would be better if java had been an open-from-the-start technology; hell , i think all they need is the willingness and ability to *change* java *NOW* in serious ways. i'm hoping Parrot produces something interesting. it would be neat to have a public vm that actually lets your code cross languages elegantly, as opposed to java's "well, you have the specs to the vm, write a compiler for whatever language you like, you'll have to figure out how to bridge object systems yourself though" or
i suspect no real progress will take place in the way of the public usage of portable bytecode systems and standard object frameworks until both java and
i look at it this way, though: sun has done a hell of a lot with java with not a lot of resources. everyone who's used java in any capacity has probably been annoyed a decent amount for its shortcomings, but its shortcomings usually come down to "it isn't everything". maybe it was foolish for java to *try* to be everything, but i'll say this: they got a lot closer to being everything a lot faster than any other computing platform i'm aware of. i for one am impressed. i just wish it was better.
i dunno. all i want is a cross-platform object system that looks like [gnustep.org] nextstep [apple.com] that actually *works* crossplatformly, and a garbage collector.
Re:Proprietary against proprietary... yawn! (Score:2, Informative)
MS has offered a decent VM from the start.
That is true, Microsoft VM is a very stable (unlike Netscape or Kaffe) Java 1.1 JVM. Another advantage is that it comes with windows - no need for the user to go and install it himself. Could this be considered yet another "bundling with the OS" problem? Would OEM's preinstall Sun's VM if Microsoft didn't provide one?
MS tried to screw people in adding uncompatible java calls (non-JNI) without labelling them properly. They were trying to break Java.
They were trying to break Java, but adding your own libraries is perfectly ok (Sun VMs come with their libraries, which you can use if you want, but of course you lose portability). The problem was that they added nonstandard methods to the standard Java libraries and fooled J++ developers into using them. This made their programs run only on windows.
Another "bad" thing they did was not support RMI or JNI in their JVM and claiming it was completely 1.1 compatible (compatibility with 1.1 requires both RMI and JNI to be implemented). This is what Sun sued them for.
Sun VMs have taken a long time to match MS VMs in perfs.
That is not true. Sun's 1.1 JVM has similar performance to Microsoft VM. The problem was that the 1.2 JVM was much slower on the client side because of Java2D, which significantly slowed rendering. In fact, even the latest (both Sun's and others') VMs are still slower on rendering than the 1.1 JVMs.
Sun hasn't done much good in client-side support. Java applications are memory-hungry and just slow.
Java is somewhat memory hungry, but fast enough for practically any client side application. What is true (and unfortunate) is that Java makes it all too easy to write slow code. If you know what you're doing, you can make Java code only marginally slower than equivalent C/C++ code. And since you only need "fast enough for the user not to notice" code on the client side (unlike "as fast as possible" on the server), Java is actually a very good platform for client side apps.
See a clean, fast Java client for chessclub.com I wrote at http://www.hightemplar.com/jin/ [hightemplar.com]. Ironically, I use Microsoft VM by default on windows :-)
Chances are that MS would have done better.
Given Microsoft's record in developing good languages, I find that statement amusing at the very least.
Re:Good Grief (Score:2, Informative)
Bullshit! [98lite.net]
Bullshit! [98lite.net]
Next, Sun claims they illegally tied IE to the operating system. As noted above, web browsing is now an essential part of the PC expierence; it only follows naturally that it should be included as part of the OS.
Bullshit! [98lite.net]
Now, here is where Sun really flies off the deep end and displays the true motivation behind the suit, which is Larry's obession with trying to beat Bill Gates and his highly successful company.
Larry is CEO of Oracle. Scott is CEO of Sun. Are you always this moronic in public, or are you trying to entertain us?
Sun also claims that Microsoft has illegally tied IIS into its server OSes. This one strikes me as really odd, because IIS isn't installed by default, it is simply included on the CD.
That is false. IIS is selected for installation by default on Win2K, and on XP it is installed without even asking you whether you want it.
In fact, for NT 4.0, you had to get a separate CD or download to install it; it wasn't even part of the standard distribution.
NT 4.0 is no longer sold or supported by Microsoft.
You cannot honestly ask any company to ship their competitor's product with their own. That is an absurd idea at best.
Of course you can, when the company in question is a monopoly. The ILECs were (admittedly ineffectively and half-heartedly) forced to open up their monopoly infrastructure to competing service providers. Why should the monopoly OS be treated any differently? It shouldn't.
Re:Almost inevitable (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Good Grief - OK, astroturfer, I'll bite (Score:2, Informative)
Yeah, what a ridiculous claim. The fact that MS has found to be a monopoly which uses their monopoly to crush competition in other markets and LOST all their appeals somehow escapes you.
While they may have engaged in questionable activities regarding the OS,
They are NOT questionable, they are ILLEGAL, and have been proven so in a court of law.
the web browser is a core part of the computing experience today, just like a graphical user interface, TCP/IP and network connectivity, etc (all of which were separately purchased products at one point in the x86 history.)
Uh-huh, network connectivity and a full featured internet browser are equivalent. One is a protocol (layer 2/3 in the OSI model) the other is an application (layer 7).
Sun is also claiming that they tried to monopolize (using illegal tactics) the workgroup server OS market. This one is absolutely silly and absurd. Until some recent blunders by Novell, Microsoft did have hefty competition.
Yeah, and things like forcing Office (oh, 90+ %market share - another monopoly) workgroup intranet publishing to REQUIRE IIS which ONLY RUNS on a MS Server, that is just peachy with you, huh? That doesn't smack of abusing a monopoly in one area to force your way into another area. Should we delve into the relationship between W2K AD & W2K pro?
However, I doubt anyone can argue that there is anything which is better than Microsoft's solutions for the workgroup and small business market.
Of course! The reboot-a-week club and the endless security patches that define the ver MS solutions you describe are just WONDERFUL for business. The TCo of running MS crapware is ridiculous because you have to hire 483 trained reboot monkeys just to keep the crapware running.
Next, Sun claims they illegally tied IE to the operating system. As noted above, web browsing is now an essential part of the PC expierence; it only follows naturally that it should be included as part of the OS.
And one you can remove and replace with a competing product if you wish. Which you can't. THAT PLUS THE EXCLUSIONARY CONTRACTS IS THE ISSUE. Keep reapeating that until it sinks in.
Sun has been milking political sources behind the scenes throughout this whole antitrust situation for their own benefit.
Oh, and Microsoft's political contributions have remained entirely unchanged during said time period huh? What a bunch of drivel. MS has increased their political contributions on both sides of the aisle EXPONENTIALLY during this time.
What scares me the most though is the idea that they might be successful. I would dred to live in a world where Sun controlled the desktop and server.
Like most rational people, I dread to live in a world where ANY ONE COMPANY controlled both the desktop and the server.
How this guy's post isn't modded as a troll I will never know.
The meaning of treble damages (Score:3, Informative)
According to Microsoft's latest filings [microsoft.com], they have about $38,229,000 USD in either cash or short term investments. Corrections appreciated, but to me that sounds like moderately liquid assets.
Let's say we forget about those additional assets awhile, and focus only on new profits. For the last four quarters ending in December 2001, they announced a total of $26.91 billion. This amount of profit is above the previous year by a minimum of 10% in each quarter.
So, let's say that Microsoft looses two major cases -- Netscape (AOL/TW) and Sun -- and that the courts have no patience or mercy and award $2 billion each for a total of $12 billion. Let's also say Microsoft makes no effort to fight the settlement, and they fork up the $12 billion in installment payments over a span of 12 months.
At the same rate as last year, keeping it at a modest 10% growth rate, MS's profit would have grown to around $29.60 billion or a little over $81 million a day.
That means that at Microsoft's current rate, they would hand over the profit from the first 148 days of 2002 -- ending just before June kicks in.
No doubt, that's a lot of ifs. Chances are any settlement will happen years from now, and will be much more modest. Also, this does not touch the short term investments and liquid assets -- only the new profits and only using the fictional example up till June.
Corrections, additional calculations welcome.
Re:...and more (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What did MS do to Sun? (Score:3, Informative)
Re: Hidden Interfaces (Score:3, Informative)
Microsoft wrote their own JVM, and therefore owns its source code. Sun didn't sue Microsoft because of theft -- they sued to protect their trademark. Even if the CLR could directly run JVM bytecode, Microsoft could legally redistribute it. They just wouldn't be able to use the name "Java" for it.
Re:Not entirely true (Score:2, Informative)