• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Sun sues Microsoft for 1 Billion dollars.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.


<< MS has made a ton off of Sun's java platform. There is no doubt if you think about all the java MS uses. >>



"All the java MS uses." Please point out where MS uses Java. I'm having difficulty coming up w/ any.......
 


<< How do you make an *OS* incompatible with an *application*? >>



It wouldn't be the first time. There was an old MS-saying "Remember: DOS ain't done 'till Notes won't run!".
 


<< "All the java MS uses." Please point out where MS uses Java. I'm having difficulty coming up w/ any....... >>


Exactly what was going through my mind.

Hmm.. J++? What else?
 


<<

<< "All the java MS uses." Please point out where MS uses Java. I'm having difficulty coming up w/ any....... >>


Exactly what was going through my mind.

Hmm.. J++? What else? >>



J++? Isn't that the "MS-version" of Java that was against the license they got from Sun? Basically, MS altered their Java in such way that in only worked properly on MS-OS, going directly against Java's "Write once, run anywhere"-philosophy. And courts agreed that MS had broken the Java-license.
 


<< It wouldn't be the first time. There was an old MS-saying "Remember: DOS ain't done 'till Notes won't run!". >>



That's absurd. Incompatibility is a far cry from "intentionally injected code to prevent the execution of <said program>."

You expect every transition of Microsoft's product to be 100% compatible w/ ALL third-party applications? How is that possible? I suppose you're going to sue Intel for going to IA-64 when you figure out your 32-bit applications don't run properly?

 


<< J++? Isn't that the "MS-version" of Java that was against the license they got from Sun? Basically, MS altered their Java in such way that in only worked properly on MS-OS, going directly against Java's "Write once, run anywhere"-philosophy. And courts agreed that MS had broken the Java-license. >>



Yes, there were extensions added so that Java developers could take full advantage of all that Windows provides to you as a programmer w/o having to divert to say, JNI. "Extensions" to "standards" are not unusual as is exemplified by the extension from the C99 standard for almost every C compiler on the planet. The only difference here is, Sun is gluttonous, and C99 is an open standard.

 


<<

<< It wouldn't be the first time. There was an old MS-saying "Remember: DOS ain't done 'till Notes won't run!". >>



That's absurd. Incompatibility is a far cry from "intentionally injected code to prevent the execution of <said program>."

You expect every transition of Microsoft's product to be 100% compatible w/ ALL third-party applications? How is that possible? I suppose you're going to sue Intel for going to IA-64 when you figure out your 32-bit applications don't run properly? >>



There is a case that borders on this. Namely, the DR-DOS. Basically, DR-DOS was a competitor to MS-DOS. DR-DOS was superior in many ways to MS-DOS, and it had things like disk-compressor and memory-manager (you know, to maximise the amount of free base RAM) years before MS-DOS got 'em. In order to harm DR-DOS, MS deliberatly Modified Windows 3.1 in such way that it checked what version of DOS it was running on. If it was DR-DOS, it would display error-messages. The truth was that there was no reason why Windows wouldn't run on DR-DOS, MS just made sure that it wouldn't Caldera then sued MS over that issue, and MS settled out of court.
 


<< Yes, there were extensions added so that Java developers could take full advantage of all that Windows provides to you as a programmer w/o having to divert to say, JNI. "Extensions" to "standards" are not unusual as is exemplified by the extension from the C99 standard for almost every C compiler on the planet. The only difference here is, Sun is gluttonous, and C99 is an open standard. >>



But, in the end, the courts agreed that MS had violated the license. the fact was that software written with MS-java, only worked properly on MS-OS. And that was against the letter and spirit of the license.
 


<< There is a case that borders on this. Namely, the DR-DOS. Basically, DR-DOS was a competitor to MS-DOS. DR-DOS was superior in many ways to MS-DOS, and it had things like disk-compressor and memory-manager (you know, to maximise the amount of bree base RAM) years before MS-DOS got 'em. In order to harm DR-DOS, MS deliberatly Modified Windows 3.1 in such way that it checked what version of DOS it was running on. If it was DR-DOS, it would display error-messages. The truth was that there was no reason why Windows wouldn't run on DR-DOS, MS just made sure that it wouldn't Caldera then sued MS over that issue, and MS settled out of court. >>



I'm not entirely familiar w/ this, so I can't comment on it. Windows 3.x was an operating environment for MS-DOS. It was not an operating environment for all DOS-based platforms. There may have been architectural reasons as to why Windows 3.x would not run on DR-DOS. MS developed 3.x using MS-DOS as the platform, so why should they support DR-DOS? In those days operating environments were tightly coupled to the underlying platform. If you install a Linux distro, you don't go download a binary for another architecture and expect it to run do you? It's still "unix", but that doesn't mean that one company should (or can) support the execution of their work on competing platforms, and indeed, that isn't the case.
 


<< I'm not entirely familiar w/ this, so I can't comment on it. Windows 3.x was an operating environment for MS-DOS. It was not an operating environment for all DOS-based platforms. There may have been architectural reasons as to why Windows 3.x would not run on DR-DOS. >>



But there wasn't. DR-DOS was 100% compatible with MS-DOS. And to my knowledge, as the case progressed, it was found out that Win3.1 deliberatly checked the version of DOS it was running on. If it was DR-DOS, it would display error-messages.

Kinda like:

If (DOS == DR-DOS)
Then
Display.error.messages

Sorry, I ain't no programmer 😱



<< MS developed 3.x using MS-DOS as the platform, so why should they support DR-DOS? >>



No, they are not required to support it, but they are not allowed to deliberatly sabotage it either. That's what they did, that's why they were sued and that's why MS settled.



<< In those days operating environments were tightly coupled to the underlying platform. If you install a Linux distro, you don't go download a binary for another architecture and expect it to run do you? >>



Of course it wouldn't work out of the box, but that doesn't mean that other UNIX-manufacturers deliberatly try to sabotage Linux.



<< It's still "unix", >>



Linux is not UNIX. It's UNIX-like, but it's not UNIX. Some call complete Linux-OS GNU/Linux. "GNU" Stands for "GNU's Not Unix". But I digress.



<< but that doesn't mean that one company should (or can) support the execution of their work on competing platforms, and indeed, that isn't the case. >>



Nobody is forcing MS to support DR-DOS. The case was about deliberate sabotaging of competing product.
 


<< But there wasn't. DR-DOS was 100% compatible with MS-DOS. And to my knowledge, as the case progressed, it was found out that Win3.1 deliberatly checked the version of DOS it was running on. If it was DR-DOS, it would display error-messages. >>



Perhaps, but again, do most applications not do this? I know that many of my applications won't run unless I have *all* the dependencies on the host machine (correct versions, etc.). For Windows 3.x, MS-DOS was one of those dependencies. I know it's a different scenario, but "compatible with DOS" != "DOS."



<< Linux is not UNIX. It's UNIX-like, but it's not UNIX. Some call complete Linux-OS GNU/Linux. "GNU" Stands for "GNU's Not Unix". But I digress. >>



Sorry, I was thinking "posix."

I think the article that the OP linked pretty much says it all -- here.

 


<< The case was about deliberate sabotaging of competing product. >>



Oh, you mean how companies will use proprietary designs (hardware interfaces, protocols, etc.) so as to eliminate the potential for integrating with a competing product? Gee, that doesn't happen often 🙂

Many (most?) manufacturers design something proprietary for the direct purpose of eliminating the potential for competitive openness. Why is Microsoft the most salient practicioner?

[edit]Spelling[/edit]
 
1 Billion Dollars - Dr.Evil

lol

It's not like they can't dish out the money. that's chump change for bill gates
 
Bill Gates whips out a billion dollars from his back pocket.

"Here you go."

Pauses, takes out another twenty.

"Have lunch on me."

Smiles and walks away.

😉🙂
 
Microsoft may as well give up now.

They are already being sued by AOL, Be and Sun, and scores of lawsuits will be forthcoming in the next few months.

This is because Microsoft has been found to have maintained an illegal anticompetitive monopoly by two separate and independent courts. This is a finding of fact, not a legal decision, and therefore cannot be appealed.

Given this incontestible finding of fact, anyone who has a legitimate claim of damage by Microsoft can file a lawsuit and extract tons of cash. Microsoft is really deep down in the hole right now, and it's only going to sink in deeper.
 


<< Oh, you mean how companies will use proprietary designs (hardware interfaces, protocols, etc.) so as to eliminate the potential for integrating with a competing product? Gee, that doesn't happen often 🙂

Many (most?) manufacturers design something proprietary for the direct purpose of eliminating the potential for competitive openness. Why is Microsoft the most salient practicioner?

[edit]Spelling[/edit] >>



MS get's paid extra attention in cases like that because they are a monopoly. Monopolies, while not illegal as such, are not allowed to do things that non-monopolies can do. And it's not like companies try to sabotage their competitors all the time. Ati video-cards work just fine on nForce-based MoBo's for example. In DR-DOS MS saw a competitor to their dominance, and they killed it using methods that were immoral at best. And it seems that MS knew that they would lose the case in court since they settled it.
 
Heh. MS has $10-20billion in cash, as well as around $30-40billion in short term investments... They ain't going anywherre.

AOL is sueing because their share prices have gone done drastically. Sun really doesnt have a case either. MS settled with the US Government and 9 states. The other states won't get what they want. MS can afford to settle lawsuits, it infact does it quite often, because its cheaper than going to court. If MS settles with Sun, Sun will get $250,000,000-500,000,000 tops, same with AOL. Niether has a solid case against MS, but MS will settle because going to court costs way to much money, even if they win.
 


<< 'Sides, might help if we knew anything about the case first (and $ 1 000 000 000 isn't all that much to MS) >>



So what? $100 isn't going to end my life if someone demands it from me, but as far as I'm concerned, they can go straight to hell and burn for all I care. It's MY cash, I worked for it, and they want it. In the immortal words of...uh...someone famous, "FUSK OFF!":|
 
Scott McNeely, Steve Jobs and Larry Ellison , you couldn't fit all three of them in the same room due to the size of their Ego's.
 
MSNBC
from the above article....
"Last year, Sun settled a federal lawsuit against Microsoft over the Redmond, Wash.-based company?s creation of a Windows-only version of Java that was incompatible with other software. Microsoft paid Sun $20 million and agreed to no longer license any current or new versions of Java."

also in that SAME article...
"In its lawsuit, filed in federal court in San Jose, Sun asked that Microsoft be forced to distribute Sun?s latest version of Java with Windows XP and the Internet Explorer browser."


That is just plain wrong.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top