|
Sun wins Java ruling
|
 |
November 17, 1998: 8:45 p.m. ET
Judge issues injunction, gives Microsoft 90 days to modify Win 98
|
NEW YORK (CNNfn) - A federal judge Tuesday delivered a crushing blow to Microsoft Corp. by granting Sun Microsystems Inc.'s request for a temporary injunction to block shipments of Windows 98 that contain incompatible versions of Sun's Java programming language.
U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Whyte gave Microsoft 90 days to modify its Windows 98 operating system and Internet Explorer 4.0 Web browser or pull them from the market. Current versions of the products are not affected by the ruling.
Java, Sun's technology that allows software developers to write applications that can run on a variety of operating systems, is considered a threat to Microsoft Windows dominance. Sun (SUNW), which licensed the Java code to Microsoft, had accused the company of breaching its contract to deliver Java-compatible products.
Specifically, Sun accused Microsoft of "polluting" Java for its own purposes, claiming Microsoft's version ran Java applications only under Windows. In May, Sun filed a request for an injunction in U.S. District Court in San Jose, Calif.
Ruling could affect antitrust lawsuit
Whyte's ruling bars the sale of Windows 98 and Internet Explorer 4.0 with Java technology beginning in 90 days unless Microsoft modifies the software to comply with Sun compatibility tests.
The decision could also have an effect on the government's landmark antitrust suit against Microsoft. Federal regulators maintain that when Microsoft identifies a product that could threaten its Windows monopoly, the company engages in behavior to eliminate that threat.
Whyte's decision centers around inclusion of the Java Native Interface (JNI), Sun's interface for writing Java programming code that can run across multiple operating systems. Under the injunction, Microsoft must include Sun's JNI in future versions of Windows 98 and IE 4.0.
Microsoft noted that the ruling does not require it to remove any of its programming enhancements from its version of Java, an arrangement Sun officials do not dispute.
"We have said all along that we encourage our licensees to innovate the Java platform," said Alan Baratz, JavaSoft president. "But it must be done in such a way that… passes Sun's compatibility tests."
Microsoft spokesman Jim Cullinan said the company will comply with the order while it reviews its options. He also blasted Sun's decision to pursue the lawsuit.
"We believe Sun's legal strategy is shortsighted because we believe it limits choice among software developers to get the best Java implementation," Cullinan said.
Microsoft also suggested it could abandon its support of Java altogether. Paul Maritz, Microsoft group vice president of the platform and applications group, said the company is not bound to offer Java support in any of its products.
"The option of not supporting Java is one that is open to us," he said.
Maritz also noted Microsoft doesn't believe the cost of complying with the order will have a "material impact on the company's financial performance."
In October 1997, Sun sued Microsoft for breaching its contractual obligation to deliver Java-compatible products. At the time, Sun said it was seeking damages of $35 million.
Microsoft-IBM war revisited
Separately, a longstanding war between technology giants reemerged in Microsoft's antitrust trial Tuesday as a government witness testified Microsoft's actions stifled IBM Corp.'s chances to compete in the computer operating system market.
John Soyring, IBM director of network computing services, said Microsoft's licensing terms with software developers makes it difficult for them to translate Windows applications to IBM's OS/2 operating system.
The government released Soyring's written direct testimony Tuesday afternoon.
Though IBM and many software reviewers considered OS/2 technically superior to Windows, the product has never been able to garner mass acceptance, in large part because software developers write applications only for Windows.
"Certain terms in Microsoft agreements make it more difficult to port applications developed for Windows to OS/2," Soyring said.
"Specifically, many of the agreements under which Microsoft licenses tools… to ISVs [independent software vendors] restrict use of the tools to developing for Windows. Thus, ISVs, who develop applications first for Windows because of its huge install base, may not be able to use the same tools to develop applications for OS/2."
The government hopes to illustrate that even a company with the size and clout of IBM cannot succeed in offering alternative operating systems because of Microsoft's allegedly anticompetitive practices.
Microsoft, however, said in a statement that it was IBM's own technological strategy that forced OS/2 to the margins of the software market.
"IBM focused on optimizing the performance of OS/2 with IBM's own hardware and software products, and gave short shrift to third-party developers," Microsoft said.
Gates: IBM 'rabid Java backers'
Before the government called Soyring as its next witness, lawyers released additional excerpts from Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates' videotaped deposition.
During questioning, lead Justice Department attorney David Boies grilled Gates on Microsoft's relationship with IBM. Boies concentrated on comments written by Gates in an Oct. 30, 1997 e-mail sent to other Microsoft executives in which Gates expressed his disapproval over IBM's endorsement of Sun's Java software.
In the message, Gates wrote: "Overall we will never have the same relationship with IBM that we have with Compaq, Dell and even HP (Hewlett Packard Co.) because of their software ambitions. I could deal with this just fine if they weren't such rabid Java backers."
Boies attempted to establish that Microsoft tried to control IBM's public support of Java because it didn't want a major PC company touting a rival technology. Gates, however, tried to put the scenario in a more benevolent light.
"Did you want IBM to lower their rhetoric on Java?" Boies asked.
"I actually explain in this message that I thought the rhetoric was actually hurting IBM itself, independent of Microsoft," Gates replied.
Boies later asked: "Let me put the question this way. In or about October of 1997, did you want to stop IBM from being what you refer to here as a rabid Java backer?"
"We thought some of the rabidness was hurting IBM as well as the industry as a whole," Gates said.
The trial is now in its fifth week and courtroom watchers expect the proceedings to extend for several months. Soyring's testimony will mark the first time two witnesses have taken the stand in the same week.
Bundling issue takes center stage
Microsoft lawyers Tuesday wrapped up cross examination of government witness Glenn Weadock after working to dispel his claims that Microsoft stifled competition in the browser market by bundling its Internet Explorer into its operating system.
In his written pretrial deposition, Weadock - president of consulting firm Independent Software Inc. - said he had found that many companies received little benefit from the integration, or "bundling," of Windows and Internet Explorer, and in fact they did not even understand why they had been marketed together.
"Organizations continue to view Internet Explorer (the browser) and Windows (the operating system) as distinct products," Weadock said.
"It is clear that the commingling of Internet Explorer and Windows provides few real-world benefits - and several significant real-world costs and risks - for corporate customers that do not standardize on Internet Explorer."
Furthermore, he concluded, "Microsoft's failure to provide a mechanism for disentangling Internet Explorer from Windows 98 may compel such customers to incur these costs and risks."
Microsoft lawyer Richard Pepperman challenged Weadock's conclusion, noting that some companies did derive benefit from the integration.
"Certainly there are some organizations that find the integration… appealing," Weadock replied. "My point is there are some that don't and they have no way to get rid of it."
The claim is central to the government's allegation that the software giant abused its predominant share of the operating systems market to threaten competing such companies as Internet browser maker Netscape Communications Corp. (NSCP).
Though the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled in June that browser bundling is legal so long as it benefits consumers, the government hopes to show that the anticompetitive effects outweigh any consumer advantages.
During redirect questioning, the government introduced portions of a videotaped deposition given by Boeing Co. (BA) executive Scott Vesey. In his testimony, Vesey said Boeing regards browsers as separate applications, directly contradicting Microsoft's claims that Web browsing functions are part of the operating system.
Government lawyers also used portions of depositions given by Packard Bell's John Kies and an April 1998 memo from Gateway Inc.'s (GTW) Jim Von Holle, both of whom said they would prefer to decide for themselves which browser they include in their computers rather than having that choice imposed by Microsoft.
Microsoft shares (MSFT) gained 3-1/16 to close at 111-7/8. IBM (IBM) shares closed at 158, off 1-3/8. 
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
