Judge orders Microsoft to ship Java in 120 days

Reuters | January 15, 2002 | Peter Kaplan

[HAL9000]

BALTIMORE, Jan 15 (Reuters) - A federal judge on Wednesday ordered Microsoft Corp. to begin shipping Sun Microsystems Inc.'s Java program within 120 days, after the companies fought over implementing a ruling he made last month.

U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz summoned lawyers for both sides in the private antitrust suit to a special hearing on their failure to agree on the exact terms of a preliminary injunction.

"I can't sit here hearing after hearing," said Motz. "I want this done in 120 days."

Motz ruled on Dec. 23 that Sun had a good chance of winning its antitrust case against Microsoft, and said he would grant a preliminary injunction forcing Microsoft to include Java in its Windows computer operating system.

He had ordered each side to draft a proposal detailing how to carry out the Java "must-carry" directive and then negotiate a compromise with each other.

Sun had complained in a court filing that Microsoft wanted to take up to a year before including the Java program in copies of Windows it sells.

Microsoft, which told Motz on Thursday that shipping Java with Windows was not a simple matter and could harm large corporate users of Windows, is almost certain to appeal -- a move the judge anticipated.

"If my order doesn't get stayed or reversed (on appeal) its going to get done," said Motz.

Sun's lawsuit charges Microsoft has tried to sabotage its Java software and plans to dominate the market with its .NET Web services software.

Sun, based in Santa Clara, California, claims Microsoft views Sun's Java software as a threat because it can run on a variety of operating systems, not just on Microsoft's Windows.

Among tactics cited in the lawsuit, Sun alleges Microsoft promoted an incompatible form of Java that worked best on Windows and, most recently, dropped it from Windows XP, which was introduced in 2001.

Motz has been assigned cases arising from the landmark government antitrust suit filed in 1998, including a private suit by AOL Time Warner and class actions suits on behalf of consumers.

Two states, Massachusetts and West Virginia, have appealed as too weak a settlement of the government case endorsed by U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar Kotelly in November.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in 2001, agreed that Microsoft had illegally maintained its monopoly in the Windows computer operating system but rejected breaking the company in two to prevent future violations.

[Support Free Republic]

We Salute Free Republic's Donors! Be one!
	Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD

[cmsgop]

Thanks for the news Hal!

[HAL9000]

Microsoft, which told Motz on Thursday that shipping Java with Windows was not a simple matter and could harm large corporate users of Windows, is almost certain to appeal -- a move the judge anticipated.

How can Java cause more harm to large corporate users than Windows already does?

[MonroeDNA]

By not "unharming" them.

Think of witholding treatment for cancer.

[The Obstinate Insomniac]

bump

[Cicero]

Whatever you think of Microsoft, Judge Motz is a real turkey. His decision is bound to be reversed. Or at least it would be if we didn't have so many rotten, unpredictable judges sitting at the bench.

[Revolting cat!]

By monopolizing the tracks the railroad company has invited the government to act as an advocate for the companies that want to ship goods on them. Or something like it. No judge is ordering Hewlett Packard to include anything with HP-UX. Or IBM with AIX. Or Sun with Solaris. Or even Apple with whatever clever name they call their operating system these daya (Star Trek Wars something?). We need more than one operating system running on all the desktops of the universe, end of story!

[Voltage]

So when the Java that is forced upon Microsoft opens windows for new virus infections, will that judge come to my house and restore my machine?

[Karsus]

Does microsoft come to you house to fix the virus infections that windows causes?

[Vince Ferrer]

I'm more on the Linux side of things, and I still think this is the dumbest ruling yet.

[js1138]

I'm at a bit of a disadvantaage here. Java code has always worked correctly for me in ie, but seldom in Netscape. I assume this is client-side Java under discussion here.

[Voltage]

Does microsoft come to you house to fix the virus infections that windows causes?

No, but why do I have to suffer additional vulnerability to satisfy some Judge who could not program himself out of a paper bag.

[billybudd]

Nah, Java's pretty secure about that stuff. There are other scarier things that Microsoft is implementing. But this ruling is just plain retarded. Look, Microsoft clearly has an OS/web strategy that it's going to pursue no matter what. Forcing them to support Java in a way that's not consistent with what they're trying to do will just muddle and crappify their products. Plus it seems Sun is schizophrenic about what it wants Microsoft to do. Implement Java! No, don't! Yes, do! Whatever. (Irrelevant, but I'm writing this on Linux, BTW.)

[ConsistentLibertarian]

"Judge Motz is a real turkey. His decision is bound to be reversed."

Tell me what reasons led you to that conclusion.

[ConsistentLibertarian]

"I [...] think this is the dumbest ruling yet."

How come?

[ConsistentLibertarian]

Conclusion: "this ruling is just plain retarded"

Premise: "[The ruling] will just muddle and crappify [Microsoft's] products."

Suppose we grant the premise. How do you get from there to the conclusion?

[Karsus]

Sun wants MSFT to impliment Java according to the spec/contract they signed.

[Vince Ferrer]

How come?

In the original Reno attempt to break up Microsoft, there was at least a plausible argument that Microsoft put other developers of application software at a disadvantage to its own application software, and should have been broken up into an operating system company and an applications company.

This, however, is just a judge creating a government favored language environment. If I recall, this lawsuit came about because Microsoft simply dropped Java from its base installation. It may be a good idea to include Java, especially for browser support, but I can't concieve of a government justification to require it. These court rulings have a lifespan far longer than IT fads. Microsoft will still be installing Java fifty years after no one cares anymore.

[motzman]

Never trust a Motz...