Feeds

Sun execs said Microsoft could change Java, claims Microsoft

And Microsoft seems to be making afair stab at proving Sun intended to kill it

  • alert
  • submit to reddit

High performance access to file storage

Previously sealed transcripts of the Sun-Microsoft court battle were released yesterday, revealing a ding-dong battle between the companies' lawyers over precisely which of the pair was hell-bent on ruling the world. This strikes The Register as a pity, as world domination is what the other case is about - this one's just about what the contract says. As far as that matter was concerned, the struggle (which took place on 10 September) seems to have tilted towards Microsoft. Sun emails produced by Microsoft showed that at least some Sun executives had read the contract and agreed with Microsoft's interpretation of it, concluding that Microsoft could design its own Java Native Interface (JNI), and there wasn't a damn thing Sun could do about it. Microsoft argues that the contract gives it full rights to modify or optimise Java for the Windows platform, and while the net effect of this might be, as Sun argues, to fragment Java and spoil Sun's dream of 'write once, run everywhere,' if the contract says its OK, spoiling Sun's plans is at best a matter for another court. Those Sun execs who agreed with Microsoft went quiet pretty fast though, because according to Microsoft Sun JavaSoft president Alan Baratz mailed them all and told them to stop reading the contract. So chalk up another point to Microsoft, and then try speculating like crazy. Baratz is the man who negotiated the contract from the Sun side, so should know what he meant the contract to say, if not quite what other people might think it says (it's up on the respective Web sites, folks, and frankly it beats us). Baratz also knows what Sun boss Scott McNealy thinks it ought to have said, and can surely expect little mercy if the court concludes contrariwise. Shadow-boxing for the DoJ The other stuff from the transcripts is rather more interesting, but unless the judge is going to take motivation into account, not totally relevant to this case. From Microsoft's point of view though it's probably providing valuable practice for the DoJ antitrust action, which is due to start in another two weeks, unless it gets delayed again. Again, Microsoft does better, but maybe because we've heard all about Microsoft's world domination plans before, whereas dope on Sun's is relatively fresh meat. Microsoft was claiming that Sun, in collusion with the Gang of Four (Microsoft calls "gang of four" to account for their actions), had devised Java as a strategy to kill Microsoft, and the company's attorney Karl Quackenbush cited an email from Sun exec David Spenhoff referring to "Sun's fundamental belief that it will be Java that kills Microsoft." Sun co-founder and noted guru Bill Joy also got in on the act, with Quackenbush describing a Joy document which included a diagram showing 'Wintel' being eliminated by 2000. This is promising territory for Microsoft, and if it's extended to the rest of the Gang of Four it could play well in the DoJ case. If we put ourselves in Scott McNealy's shoes a few years back, surveying the trends in the market, then what we'd see would be a Windows juggernaut. Sun had tried to stop it by various means in the past, but had failed. So in devising the Java strategy, Sun couldn't really help thinking in terms of breaking Microsoft's hold on the market, and these thoughts would inevitably extend to breaking Microsoft. If we then look at how the Java strategy is being executed, we see strong central (Sun) control over what the standard is, and we also see Sun owned and funded (and therefore controlled) initiatives spreading out in all directions. There are basically very few areas in the Java space where Sun does not have its own product, or planned product. So if it worked, Microsoft's attorneys will point out, Microsoft will be broken, and Sun will own the market. Tricky one to argue though - Microsoft could easily wind up proving that all tech companies are conniving, duplicitous schemers aiming to rule the world, and Judge Penfield Jackson might then break them all up. ® Click for more stories

High performance access to file storage

More from The Register

next story
Sorry London, Europe's top tech city is Munich
New 'Atlas of ICT Activity' finds innovation isn't happening at Silicon Roundabout
MtGox chief Karpelès refuses to come to US for g-men's grilling
Bitcoin baron says he needs another lawyer for FinCEN chat
Dropbox defends fantastically badly timed Condoleezza Rice appointment
'Nothing is going to change with Dr. Rice's appointment,' file sharer promises
Audio fans, prepare yourself for the Second Coming ... of Blu-ray
High Fidelity Pure Audio – is this what your ears have been waiting for?
Did a date calculation bug just cost hard-up Co-op Bank £110m?
And just when Brit banking org needs £400m to stay afloat
Zucker punched: Google gobbles Facebook-wooed Titan Aerospace
Up, up and away in my beautiful balloon flying broadband-bot
Apple DOMINATES the Valley, rakes in more profit than Google, HP, Intel, Cisco COMBINED
Cook & Co. also pay more taxes than those four worthies PLUS eBay and Oracle
prev story

Whitepapers

Securing web applications made simple and scalable
In this whitepaper learn how automated security testing can provide a simple and scalable way to protect your web applications.
Five 3D headsets to be won!
We were so impressed by the Durovis Dive headset we’ve asked the company to give some away to Reg readers.
HP ArcSight ESM solution helps Finansbank
Based on their experience using HP ArcSight Enterprise Security Manager for IT security operations, Finansbank moved to HP ArcSight ESM for fraud management.
The benefits of software based PBX
Why you should break free from your proprietary PBX and how to leverage your existing server hardware.
Mobile application security study
Download this report to see the alarming realities regarding the sheer number of applications vulnerable to attack, as well as the most common and easily addressable vulnerability errors.