Not that I wish to continue this as an argument but your retort is left with 2 flaws. 1) you appear to have highlighted breach of contract but fail to see the connection. That contract included licensing intellectual property related to java, and some of that ip would be patent licenses pertaining to the JVM. Furthermore Microsoft had patents of it own in this case that were the core of their argument that since they licensed Java and owned these other ip assets they were entitled to slam them together as they saw fit. Even though that was well beyond the scope of their Java license. So the assertion that patents were not involved would be ignorant to say the least. 2) Microsoft asked the judge upon ruling for clarification of Microsofts ability to develop similar systems and to establish to scope of Suns Java patents. The argument being that if they couldn't merge Java with these other elements could they build a Java-like system to fill that gap. And the judge indeed indicated that their prohibition on Java was just on Java and that they could develop something like it so long as they didn't infringe on Suns ip as they were now barred from using it.