I've criticized Microsoft for security problems and sometimes what I've considered dirty tricks or underhanded behavior, etc. but I've always been fair. Sun sued Microsoft for including Java in Windows/IE in the past, using the Java compatible logo and various other reasons - many of which didn't hold an ounce of water. Microsoft agreed to pay Sun $20 million, would only retain the license of an OLD version of the Java VM for 7 years, and could not include it in many new products, etc. Sun sued them for distributing via the Internet and with Windows/IE copies of the MS-Java VM based on an old Sun version from when MS first licensed it. So now, Sun gets what it wants with the settlement with MS, including $20 million dollars for a -free- VM product. So to comply with the settlement, MS drops Java from WinXP (but offers it free on Windows Update). Also, Sun is bragging that it offers its own Java VM free online now for Windows users. Anyone can download/install it if desired. So now Sun is suing MS for $1 billion because MS isn't including the Java VM with Windows XP. It seems to me that Sun complained MS was including it, then sued to get them to stop. MS finally agreed. Now Sun's profits are down and not many people have downloaded the Sun Java VM (because they don't want it apparently) - so now Sun wants to make free money off of MS's hard work again. If Sun was so great why aren't people downloading their VM (it's FREE after all!)? This lawsuit is just ridiculous on Sun's part. I have to support MS against Sun in this case.
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-855723.html
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,87944,00.asp
http://www.sun.com/smi/Press/sunflash/2001-01/sunflash.20010123.1.html
Laughable... that Sun thinks it can get away with this nonsense. Almost
everybody involved with the computer industry knows that Sun sued MS to stop
MS from spreading its Java VM (mostly based on Sun's old version of Java
which is what MS licensed). They reached the agreement of MS to have the
right to distribute builds based on that version for about 7 years, and
after that MS wouldn't anymore. Microsoft even had to pay $20 million to
Sun. That's a lot of money for a FREE Java VM, don't you think? Sounds to
me like Sun was using anticompetitive means to force Microsoft to pay undue
huge amounts of money. Hey - I don't have $20 million laying around, do
you? Especially not to pay for a FREE product. Microsoft meanwhile is
banned from using the official Java Compatible logo from Sun, and can only
ship VMs based on an old version of Java. Microsoft also had to modify it's
Java VM releases to be compatible with Sun's standards. Sun's PR page says
"Beyond that, Microsoft has no rights to distribute the Java technology, or
to otherwise use any of Suns intellectual property." This would include
including it with Windows XP, in my interpretation. So if MS were to
distribute it with WinXP perhaps Sun would sue them for that for violating
the settlement. Either way, Sun has a reason to sue MS, and MS gets
screwed. So Sun breaks its own agreement (that they pushed/sued for) and
now MS is being sued. Ridiculous. Sun should be sued for a lot of things.
Breach of contract, frivilous lawsuits, and much more - including
anticompetitive behavior. I have sometimes criticized Microsoft for their
actions, but in this case I feel Sun is clearly in the wrong and at fault.
Sun and Microsoft's Java Contract:
http://www.microsoft.com/PressPass/java/contract.asp (clearly shows, IMO,
that Sun is in the wrong). <<5.6 subsection b. Non-Assertion by SUN.
SUN agrees that it shall not commence any action against Licensee or its
licensees for infringement of the patent claims included in SUN's Patent
Rights which would be infringed by the making, use, sale, offer for sale, or
importation, during the Term, of the Java Reference Implementation, unless
Licensee's licensee makes a claim or commences any action against SUN or SUN
's licensee for infringement of the Intellectual Property Rights of Licensee
's licensee, where the infringement claim is based upon SUN's or SUN's
licensee's use of the Java Reference Implementation or a Derivative Work or
Independent Work thereof. >>
and
Section 10 a and b:
<<10.1 Limitation of Liability. Except for express undertakings to
indemnify under this Agreement:
a. Each party's liability to the other for claims relating to this
Agreement, whether for breach or in tort, shall be limited to the license
fees paid by Licensee for the Technology; and
b. IN NO EVENT WILL EITHER PARTY BE LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT,
INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN CONNECTION WITH OR
ARISING OUT OF THIS AGREEMENT (INCLUDING LOSS OF PROFITS, USE, DATA, OR
OTHER ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE), NO MATTER WHAT THEORY OF LIABILITY, EVEN IF THE
EXCLUSIVE REMEDIES PROVIDED FOR IN THIS AGREEMENT FAIL OF THEIR ESSENTIAL
PURPOSE AND EVEN IF EITHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OR
PROBABILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. FURTHER, LIABILITY FOR SUCH DAMAGE SHALL BE
EXCLUDED, EVEN IF THE EXCLUSIVE REMEDIES PROVIDED FOR IN THIS AGREEMENT FAIL
OF THEIR ESSENTIAL PURPOSE. The provisions of this Section 10.0 allocate the
risks under this Agreement between SUN and Licensee and the parties have
relied upon the limitations set forth herein in determining whether to enter
into this Agreement.>>>
I believe I speak for many of us when I say - Sun you can kiss ours!