On Thu, 12 Sep 2002 05:44:35 -0500,
Erik Funkenbusch <er...@visi.com> wrote:
>David Mohring wrote:
>>> They could also solve it by not shipping Java at all.
>>> And by the way, Sun's offer is disingenuous. If Sun wants MS to
>>> distribute Sun's product, Sun should pay MS to do so.
>> You might as well ask, why does Microsoft ship with Macromedia's
>> FLASH viewer? Because Microsoft came to a legal arrangement with
>> Macromedia to ship flash with Internet Explorer.
>Or, more likely, Macromedia paid MS to include it.
Payment is a non-issue since, it still represents a legal contract
what would you expect Macromedia to do if Microsoft breached that
>> McNealy and Sun acted in good faith when they licensed the source
>> code to their JVM to Microsoft, it was clearly stated that Microsoft
>> JVMs and Visual Java Toolset was to remain fully compatable with
>> Sun's own - Bill Gates and CO Screwed them.
>Are you aware that Sun withheld the Java 1.1 test suite from MS? It was
>impossible for MS to test their JVM against Sun's test suite prior to its
>release because Sun deliberately withheld it, clearly hoping that this would
>improve the odds that MS violated the test suite.
Microsoft was well in breach of the contract with Sun before that
Microsoft released, as part of Internet Explorer, a "Java" which
flunked the specific test suite specified in its contract with
Sun. A "Java" based on Sun's design - but modified so that
programs written in real Java, as designed by Sun, would
malfunction under "Microsoft Java", while programs written for
"Microsoft Java" would not run correctly under Sun's original
design. This in direct abrogation of the terms of the license
Microsoft had signed to use Sun's property. This is very
similar behavour to what Microsoft used against DR-DOS.
Note that, until the October 1997 release of Internet Explorer,
Microsoft's modifications of Java caused a bug which could be
used, either by malicious website material or inadvertently, to
destroy files on the user's hard disk by over-writing them with
garbage. This bug was completely silent and ran easily in the
background as soon as a web page finished loading, without the
user ever suspecting a thing until it was too late. See
the Internet Explorer File Corruption Bug page from the people
who discovered it.
History repeats, 2002 ...
+Jouko Pynnonen, a researcher at Online Solutions, said that,
+although the vulnerabilities were found in the Java environment,
+"they do not seem to originate from the original Sun Microsystems
+code, but in the modifications or additions made by Microsoft". He
+confirmed that, during testing, Sun's Java plug-in showed no known
Lets have a look at the announcement from Sun on why they brought
+October 7, 1997 -- Alan Baratz, president of the JavaSoft business
+unit of Sun Microsystems:
+Good morning everyone. As you know if you've seen our press
+release this morning, we have filed a lawsuit against Microsoft in
+a United States District Court today. We have taken this action
+because we believe it is necessary to preserve the value of the
+Java technology and the value that the Java brand represents to an
+For the past more than six months, Microsoft, one of our 117
+licensees of the Java technology, has publicly disputed its
+obligation to abide by the contract requiring it to implement the
+full Java Developer Kit 1.1. That dispute reached beyond the
+"spirit" of the law and into the "letter" of the law last Tuesday,
+when Microsoft began shipping a final version of Internet Explorer
+4.0. By not shipping the complete JDK 1.1 in the final version of
+IE 4.0, Microsoft has deliberately breached its contractual
+Now, you might ask why we weren't able to settle this issue with
+Microsoft out of court. The fact is, we worked very diligently
+over the past six months to resolve these issues. We have offered
+numerous solutions. Each time we came close to an agreement,
+Microsoft went in another direction.
+What became abundantly clear in our negotiations is that Microsoft
+has no intention of honoring the contract. They have stated so
+publicly and have proven this based on their actions. Rather than
+comply with its obligations under the contract, what Microsoft has
+done is embarked on a deliberate course of conduct to fragment the
+interfaces to Java, to break cross- platform compatibility and to
+deliver a technology which some might think is Java but only works
+on Microsoft products.
+As a result, we have filed suit today citing Microsoft with
+trademark infringement, false advertising, breach of contract and
+unfair competition. We are seeking an injunction against
+Microsoft, preventing them from using the Java Compatible logo,
+from issuing misleading statements proclaiming to be fully
+compatible with JDK 1.1, from delivering anything but fully
+compatible Java technology implementations and seeking damages for
+their efforts to undermine the value of Java and the Java brand.
+But let me be clear, our goal is to get Microsoft back into
+Now let me give you a bit of background.
+As I said, we have spent more than six months in discussion with
+Microsoft over its statements of intent not to remain compatible
+with Java. The contract specifically requires that by the time
+they ship a finished product that uses Java, they must be fully
+compatible. Microsoft has steadfastly and very publicly refused to
+ship two key pieces of the Java platform, the JDK. The first of
+these is JNI, a virtual machine interface for invoking native
+programming code. And the second is RMI which stands for remote
+method invocation which enables programs written in the Java
+programming environment to communicate between different computers.
+Without these key interfaces, Microsoft is unable to pass the Java
+Compatible test suites that they are contractually obligated to
+pass as a part of the contract. Immediately after downloading IE
+4.0 last Tuesday we began testing it for compatibility. Those
+tests concluded this past weekend, and as you would expect the
+These deliberate violations, especially in conjunction with
+Microsoft's concerted PR and marketing campaigns to "FUD" the Java
+technology, would be egregious enough. But what we have found in
+our testing of Microsoft's implementation of Java is far, far worse.
+Microsoft deceptively altered key class libraries to Java and then
+inserted this altered version in their "SDK" development kit.
+Developers who invoke these Java classes will believe they are
+writing cross-platform Java applications, when in fact they will
+be writing Windows. Java developers using the altered portions of
+the SDK will find those applications run only on Internet Explorer
+While doing this, Microsoft has publicly stated on its web site
+and elsewhere that the SDK and Internet Explorer are fully
+compatible with JDK 1.1.
+Now I would expect Microsoft to say that they have no obligation
+to do what we contend they must do as a part of the contract. But
+the fact is they have exactly that obligation.
+Microsoft will also likely claim that all they were attempting to
+do in changing the libraries was to make Java run well on Windows.
+First, we encourage all our licensees to incorporate Java on their
+platforms. But they must clearly delineate between Java and their
+platform. There can be no confusion. My second point is that all
+licensees are also encouraged to offer improvements to the APIs
+and class libraries. This is done as a part of the Java community,
+however, not unilaterally and not secretly. Suggestions for
+changes within the Java API may be offered for incorporation
+within the core platform. This is a well established process which
+the entire Java community uses. Microsoft, of course, knows this
+They also know that by causing confusion in the market, they have
+a better chance of impeding or co-opting Java. We will not stand
+by and let that happen.
And the lawsuit carries on today ...
Sun Files Suit Against Microsoft for Anti-Trust Violations
+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
>This is documented in the trial proceedings:
>5.21 The TLDA provides that Sun must deliver Test Suites to Microsoft.
>Pursuant to sections 1.13, 1.15, 2.6(a)(ii) and section 2.6(b)(ii), Sun is
>to deliver to Microsoft Test Suites that are publicly available. Publicly
>available Test Suites are the only Test Suites that can be used to determine
>the rights of the parties under the TLDA. Among other things, this provision
>protects Microsoft from any attempt by Sun to impose secret requirements on
>Microsoft. Sun has never delivered any publicly available Test Suites to
>Microsoft. At no time has Sun tested any Microsoft Product with a publicly
>available Test Suite. Without having ever made a proper test and knowing the
>public would be unable to judge for itself because of Sun's willful breaches
>of contract, Sun made false public statements
read more »